Classics and the Western Canon discussion

What is a myth? How (if at all) does it differ from legends, fables, and stories?

The OED defines a myth as:
a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.
It adds the comment that “Myth is strictly distinguished from allegory and legend by some scholars, but in general use it is often used interchangeably with these terms.”

Elizabeth Vandiver, in her Teaching Company course on “Classical Mythology,” gives as her working definition “myths are traditional stories a society tells itself that encode or represent the world-view, beliefs, principles, and often fears of that society.”

For me, what distinguishes myths from stories is that stories can be told purely for amusement or entertainment; myths, I believe, always have a deeper meaning. It will be our task here, if people agree with me, to look at what those deeper meanings were.

It is, by the way, perhaps interesting to note that while the culture which emerged from the European influx into North America has stories and legends, I do not believe that we have any myths in the pure sense of that term. I would welcome anybody suggesting that I'm wrong and proposing what they think are myths for this culture.

Patrice wrote: "I think myth is the word that we use for a religion that we don't believe in."

Interesting. There is truth in that, I think, but aren't there also myths which aren't part of religion? We may encounter some in Ovid. But I do agree that the two are often -- I would even say very often -- closely linked.

Patrice wrote: "I think myth is the word that we use for a religion that we don't believe in."

So do you think that a Buddhist would consider the Bible to be myth?

Everyman wrote: "What is a myth? How (if at all) does it differ from legends, fables, and stories?
"

The word "myth" comes from the Greek word for "story," so ancient peoples probably didn't make that distinction. At some point myth was distinguished from "truth," and that's where the trouble started...

Patrice wrote: "Would George Washington chopping down the cherry tree be a "myth" that is not religious? Assuming it never happened. "

I would consider it more a legend, personally, since it purportedly happened to a person who actually lived only a few hundred years ago. Enough time to have morphed into myth?

Everyman wrote: "What is a myth? How (if at all) does it differ from legends, fables, and stories?

This is a topic of great interest to me. My favorite definition of "myth," and I forget who said it, is "a story that we believe." By this definition we have many myths today. For example, one would be the Big Bang story of the creation of the universe.

Joseph Campbell taught that myth is an arrangement of symbols that has the function of ordering our experience and understanding of the world, our society, and ourselves. He thought that our dominant myth in the West is that of the Waste Land: a collective and personal loss of contact with divinity either within or without. The other part of the myth is the Holy Grail: that which will redeem us.

Paul wrote: "Everyman wrote: "What is a myth? How (if at all) does it differ from legends, fables, and stories?

This is a topic of great interest to me. My favorite definition of "myth," and I forget who sai..."

Paul, a very interesting comment, and equally interesting words from Campbell.

But if myth is "a story that we believe", what exactly does "story" mean?

Of course everything we believe is not a myth. Which of the things we believe are "stories", and thus "myths", by this definition?

Ted wrote: "But if myth is "a story that we believe", what exactly does "story" mean?"

Thanks, Ted, and yes, good question. I'm a storyteller myself, so the question has special meaning for me. For this purpose, how about something like: "an account of events told to make a point." For every story is told for some purpose, no? The Big Bang theory is an etiological myth: told to explain the way things are today.

Everyman: I posted something on "Why myth?" before I saw this discussion thread. I guess I really don't understand the reason for the two discussions since I would think the what is myth must be answered before the why. I guess I'm really wondering if the two threads will become so closely intertwined that following a discussion may be difficult. Maybe I need to better understand the difference between the two threads.

Two interesting definitions:
Patrice @2 - a religion that we don't believe in
Paul @8 - a story that we believe

Patrice is supported by none else than Robert Graves (religious stories "so foreign to a student's experience that he cannot believe them to be true"), when he explains why the Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology excludes Christian stories. So the definition depends on our individual beliefs? Or a religion's narrative changes into mythology only when the number of believers sinks under some critical threshold? That's not very satisfying.

Actually, the problem is not so much the content of the word mythology, but its negative connotations. Many Christians may not believe all stories in the Bible to be true in a historical sense, but they would still hesitate to call them mythology. My 1973 Larousse has a summary of 'Moslem myths' that we might drop today. Still, that does not change the fact that there are comparable stories in Greek and the monotheist religions.

Paul offers a much wider - figurative - definition that also has its merits (though I think it should be: a story some believe, but not we - and the Big Bang theory is certainly not a myth to me, being a true believer!). However, in the context of Ovid the religious background seems important, so I suggest we stick with Patrice. Assuming there are no adherents of the Hellenic or Roman creeds amongst us. And leaving the question how important that religious background really was open for the time being.

By the way, I (myself) was thinking of mythology as a religion's narrative - a body of traditional stories (generally) meant to answer 'unanswerable' questions. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditi...

Elizabeth wrote: "Everyman: I posted something on "Why myth?" before I saw this discussion thread. I guess I really don't understand the reason for the two discussions since I would think the what is myth must be ..."

It may have been a mistake, but I posted them separately mostly to follow the Teaching Company course on Classical Mythology by Elizabeth Vandiver. She separated the "what is" and the "why" into two separate lectures. Certainly they are inter-related, but I think they are also somewhat different. But if the threads get too intertwined, I can shut one down and limit the discussion to just one.

Patrice wrote: "We don't call the Greek and Roman myths Greek and Roman religion. Maybe we should?"

They are certainly intertwined with the religion, but the religion is so much more than the myths. In fact, I believe that the myths are a fairly minor aspect of the religion, which is more focused on the celebrations, the rituals and sacrifices, the prophecies and omens, the worship, particularly in Roman religion, of the home gods and goddesses -- most Roman homes had a shrine in the home. So while myth talks mostly about the nature and actions of the gods, there is so much more to their religion.

Patrice wrote: "So do you think they believed these stories literally? Or is that too a difficult a question? I don't know if I could answer that question for Jews and Christians today. What percentage believe..."

Yes, it's pretty much an individual thing, or perhaps more a class thing in ancient and medieval times. I, personally, take the Bible literally except for things that are obviously meant to be allegory.

Everyman wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Everyman: I posted something on "Why myth?" before I saw this discussion thread. I guess I really don't understand the reason for the two discussions since I would think the wha..."

Indeed, the seperation of the what and why questions in two threads doesn't seem an obvious choice. The background however is that the traditional and the 'comparative' approach don't mix well - so they are treated seperately by Vandiver and others.

In Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_m...) you will find the subject matter of the first thread in par. 2 (Greek and Roman conceptions of myth) and that of the second in par 3 (Modern Interpretations).

On the interesting topic of myth vs. truth, S. H. Hooke, in the introduction to his excellent little book Middle Eastern Mythology, has this to say:

"Myth is a product of human imagination arising out of a definite situation and intended to do something. Hence the right question to ask about the myth is not, 'Is it true?' but 'What is it intended to do?'"

He goes on to say:

"Using the notion of function as a criterion, it is possible to distinguish the following types of myth:
- the ritual myth
- the myth of origin
- the cult myth
- the prestige myth
- the eschatological myth"

To me it makes sense to apply the word myth to any story that purports to explain some aspect of the world, and to leave the question of its truth up to the hearer. If the explanation works for you, the myth becomes yours, and you may call it "truth."

Paul wrote: "On the interesting topic of myth vs. truth, S. H. Hooke, in the introduction to his excellent little book Middle Eastern Mythology, has this to say:

"Myth is a product of human imagination arising..."

I find this is all very interesting. There is one problem with using "myth" in this manner, however ... others not part of a discussion like we are having can very easily take your meaning in the wrong way.

If you state in normal conversation "The theory of evolution is a myth", your companions are going to assume you don't believe the theory to be true; they aren't going to assume that you simply mean, it's an attempt to explain some aspect of reality.

So one needs to be careful I think.

Patrice wrote: "Picasso once said that "art is a lie that tells the truth". I'm not sure I believe that but it seems to apply, ;-)"

Nice.

Ted and Patrice raise an excellent point, which is that the term "myth" has (and has for some time had, the OED gives citations back to 1849) the secondary meaning of false, not true, imaginary, generally said without any redeeming aspect, as for example with George Eliot wrote in a letter "Of course many silly myths are already afloat about me, in addition to the truth, which of itself would be thought matter for scandal."

What is perhaps interesting is that stories or beings believed to be mythical sometimes turn out to be literally true, as for example Troy was sometimes believed to be a mythical place, like Camelot.

Everyman wrote: "Ted and Patrice raise an excellent point, which is that the term "myth" has (and has for some time had, the OED gives citations back to 1849) the secondary meaning of false, not true, imaginary, ge..."

That's a good point, Eman. A similar comment could be made, for example, about the Viking voyages to North America pre-Columbus, or indeed of much of the ancient history of the Americas, which is now being uncovered steadily in the last few decades. (Not quite the same thing I guess, since we knew so little about this that there weren't any well-formed "myths" at all about it.)

Ted wrote: "Paul wrote: "On the interesting topic of myth vs. truth, S. H. Hooke, in the introduction to his excellent little book ..."

Every hypothesis is a myth and is true if it works for you? Ted, it seems to me this belongs to the "Why myth" discours. As I said: two worlds that don't mix well.

No, for me no myths without deities. But if that condition is satisfied I am fully prepared to accept it even if it has no meaning at all. I love a good story for its own sake.

Everyman wrote: "What is a myth? How (if at all) does it differ from legends, fables, and stories?

The OED defines a myth as:
a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embo..."

Here is my attempt to answer the question.

Myth – Definition
Merriman Webster’s Deluxe Dictionary, Tenth Collegiate Edition
Myth, noun, Greek, mythos
1a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon; b: parable or allegory.
2a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society (seduced by the American myth of individualism; b: an unfounded or false notion;
3. a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence;
4. The whole body of myths

If the dictionary is used to define a myth, then it seems to me that a myth has certain elements: 1) it takes time for the myth to form and become a myth; 2) a large number of people within a culture use the myth to explain a practice or belief; 3) the myth is about a person or thing that is imaginary or unverifiable.

Once a person or thing is proven by some scientific means then it becomes a truth and is not longer a myth. However, since many things become truth or are proven after the death of the believer in the myth, that myth remains as such when read within the context of the life of the believer.

Legends may be very close to myths, but possibly they are different because legends don't seem to have a divine quality to them. King Arthur comes to mind as a legend. Fables, I think, have a moral lesson attached to them, whereas myths may or may not. Stories are just that, tales told for the purpose of entertaining and possibly teaching; however, stories can be read, heard, and enjoyed in the present, but myths, it would seem, must have a historical aspect to them, so they are not created in the present.

Elizabeth wrote: "1a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon;"

That's an interesting definition because it includes the "ostensibly historical" aspect which many other definitions do not have.

I have a bit of trouble with that, though, because I have to keep in mind that these myths were originally developed by people who could hardly have believed implicitly in their historical accuracy, or at least could hardly have based them on what we would consider reliable historical evidence. Did the original creator(s) (the myth probably developed over time, but somebody added each element) have a basis in historical fact for Cupid shooting arrows at Apollo and Daphne which caused the one to lust and the other to abhor? Did he/she/they have a basis in historical fact for Daphne's hands turning into laurel branches and her skin turning into bark?

But once the myths were developed and told and retold, I think they did gradually, at least for many, gain the status of historical in some sense.

It's an interesting definition, raising an interesting question: thanks for posting it.

Everyman wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "1a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon;"

Th..."

Eman, your examples made me laugh out loud, thanks.

Elizabeth wrote: "Everyman wrote: "What is a myth? How (if at all) does it differ from legends, fables, and stories?

The OED defines a myth as:
a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or f..."

Fun to compare and contrast with M-W unabridged online: (view spoiler)[

myth noun
\ˈmith\
Inflected form(s): -s

1: a story that is usually of unknown origin and at least partially traditional, that ostensibly relates historical events usually of such character as to serve to explain some practice, belief, institution, or natural phenomenon, and that is especially associated with religious rites and beliefs —compare euhemerism, fable, folktale

2 a: a story invented as a veiled explanation of a truth : parable, allegory; especially : one of Plato's philosophical allegories b: the theme or plot of a mythical tale occurring in forms differing only in detail

3: a person or thing existing only in imagination or whose actuality is not verifiable: such as a: a belief given uncritical acceptance by the members of a group especially in support of existing or traditional practices and institutions

[a myth of racial superiority used to justify discrimination]

b : a belief or concept that embodies a visionary ideal (as of some future utopian state or condition)

[the Marxian-fostered myth of a classless society]

4 : mythical matter : the whole body of myths

[features distinguishing modern fiction from myth]

Origin of MYTH

Greek mythos tale, speech, myth; perhaps akin to Gothic maudjan to remind, Old Irish smuainim I think, Old Slavic myslĭ thought, Lithuanian maũsti to desire ardently

First Known Use: 1830 (sense 1)
Related to MYTH

Synonyms
fable, legend, mythos

Antonyms
truth, verity

Related Words
allegory, parable; fabrication, fantasy (also phantasy), fiction, figment, invention; narrative, saga, story, tale, yarn

more
Synonym Discussion: legend, saga: myth varies considerably in its denotation and connotation depending on the persuasion of the user. Often the word is used to designate a story, usually fanciful and imaginative, that explains a natural phenomenon or a social practice, institution, or belief

[the old myth, imported hazily from the East, which represented the cat-moon devouring the gray mice of twilight — Agnes Repplier]

It is also used to designate a story, belief, or notion commonly held to be true but utterly without factual basis

[the doubts that women have about themselves are man-made, and most women are so enslaved to the myths of their own inferiority they are unable to see the truth for the myth — M.F.A.Montagu]

The word may be used with wide comprehensiveness in general writing or with narrow exclusiveness and specificity in more limited use

[myths may be subdivided into such classifications as origin myths, ritual myths, incidents involving the lives of the gods, stories of culture heroes, trickster tales, journeys to the other world, human and animal marriages, adaptations of old world myths, and retellings of biblical stories — L.J.Davidson]

[myths are said to be expressions or objectifications of “collective wishes” which are personified in the “leader” who is endowed by a given society with powers of social magic to fulfill the collective wishes — A.L.Kroeber]

legend is likewise used with latitude: it is likely to indicate a story, incident, or notion often fanciful, fabulous, or incredible, attached to a particular person or place

[the medieval legends of the saints]

[the wrecking of the Palatine which, according to legend, did not sink but rose flaming into the sky — Fred Zimmer]

[the violent deaths of several slaves quartered in them gave rise to a legend that this part of the house is haunted — American Guide Series: Maryland]

saga may refer to a long, continued, heroic story that is action-packed but not especially romantic, that deals with a person or group, and that is historical or legendary or both

[the Saga of Burnt Njal]

[the building of the railroad in the Northwest was one of the great sagas of man's enterprise — Meridel Le Sueur]

“Myth.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. 2013.. Web. 20 Jun. 2013.

(hide spoiler)]

Everyman wrote: I have a bit of trouble with that, though, because I have to keep in mind that these myths were originally developed by people who could hardly have believed implicitly in their historical accuracy, or at least could hardly have based them on what we would consider reliable historical evidence. Did the original creator(s) (the myth probably developed over time, but somebody added each element) have a basis in historical fact for Cupid shooting arrows at Apollo and Daphne which caused the one to lust and the other to abhor? Did he/she/they have a basis in historical fact for Daphne's hands turning into laurel branches and her skin turning into bark?

So would that be the difference between myth and legend? Myth starts as something that has no basis in historical fact and grows with the telling into something almost historical. Legend starts out with factual events and grows with the telling into something more myth like. (I don't know if I expressed that thought especially well.)

Eliza wrote: "Everyman wrote: I have a bit of trouble with that, though, because I have to keep in mind that these myths were originally developed by people who could hardly have believed implicitly in their his..."

Eliza, this sounds like a nice distinction that I would vote for, but I don't believe the word "legend" is used in this way.

My dictionary simply defines it as an unverified story handed down from the past. It probably has been used in the way you suggest on occasion, but as with many of these words they have enough different meanings and senses that it's impossible to pin them with one meaning that we find useful.

While words are amenable to specific meanings in arcane contexts, they have an uncanny ability to be like the characters in Ovid's tales and to morph and shape shift over time and place -- and usage. (Who does not delight in the skillful author who uses irony or paradox or parody to invert meaning?)

Lily wrote: "While words are amenable to specific meanings in arcane contexts, they have an uncanny ability to be like the characters in Ovid's tales and to morph and shape shift over time and place -- and usag..."

Where's the "Like" button for comments? I like.

Eliza wrote: "So would that be the difference between myth and legend? Myth starts as something that has no basis in historical fact and grows with the telling into something almost historical. Legend starts out with factual events and grows with the telling into something more myth like. (I don't know if I expressed that thought especially well.)
"

Hmmm. I think either one could start with some historical fact -- to the extent that the flood stories are considered myths they probably had a historical basis, and when we get to Book 2 I'm going to propose a possible historical basis for one of the events there (but no spoilers -- you'll have to wait!).

But I think your thought arises because I worded my original post badly. When I said "these myths were originally developed by people who could hardly have believed implicitly in their historical accuracy," I should have limited that to certain aspects of them. Taking the Daphne and Apollo myth, the pursuit by a lust-filled male of a reluctant virgin is hardly unhistorical, and it's even possible for the virgin to have hidden herself in a grove or even a hollow tree so to an imaginative onlooker it could have seemed that she morphed into a tree. It's the addition of having a god generating the lust and resistance by shooting the parties with arrows, and the growing of hands into branches and skin into bark, that could hardly be viewed as historical.

Some myths may indeed have been created out of whole cloth, but I'm more inclined to think that most of them started with some observation or event and then turned a-historical as the myth developed.

But on reflection, it's possible that the myths were indeed believed to have been historical even by those who created them, as I think many of those who heard them centuries later did believe them to be literally true. (I started saying just "true," but true in the context of myth is such an interesting word; can a myth be both factually false and psychologically true? I would probably argue yes.)

Ted wrote: "Lily wrote: "While words are amenable to specific meanings in arcane contexts, they have an uncanny ability to be like the characters in Ovid's tales and to morph and shape shift over time and plac...
Where's the "Like" button for comments? I like.
"

Me too.

Just to stir the pot a bit more, I thought I'd share some words by Joseph Campbell. This extract is from chapter 1 of The Hero With a Thousand Faces, published in 1949:

"Throughout the inhabited world, in all times and under every circumstance, the myths of man have flourished; and they have been the living inspiration of whatever else may have appeared out of the activities of the human body and mind. Myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. Religions, philosophies, arts, the social forms of primitive and historic man, prime discoveries in science and technology, the very dreams that blister sleep, boil up from the basic, magic ring of myth." [slightly compressed]

On the next page he adds:

"[T]he symbols of mythology are not manufactured; they cannot be ordered, invented, or permanently suppressed. They are spontaneous productions of the psyche, and each bears within it, undamaged, the germ power of its source."

His view of myth transcends the ideas of truth and falsity, which are categories of our waking, conscious mind. Myth is more allied to the world of dreams, which arise from a deeper, unknown source. Are our dreams "true"?

Paul wrote: "Just to stir the pot a bit more, I thought I'd share some words by Joseph Campbell."

Nice choices. I sometimes think Campbell goes overboard, but he certainly has ideas worth thinking about.

Love that question whether our dreams are "true." Doesn't the answer depend almost entirely on how we define true?

Everyman wrote: "Doesn't the answer depend almost entirely on how we define true?"

Yes, no doubt. But in the tradition of the Great Books (or anyway in the set of the Great Books), Truth is one of the Great Ideas, meaning that its nature is not resolved; it remains controversial. As I recall, Jesus poses the question to Pilate: What is truth?

But looking at the Campbell quote again, I see that he defines myth in a way that is metaphorical but also open-ended and maybe therefore fitting:

"the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation"

I think of a volcano spewing lava that cools and hardens into specific forms. The forms are distinct and individual, but, while they suggest their source, they in no way deplete it or limit it, or give any hint of what its next manifestation will be.

This is a fascinating discussion. For me, myth has always involved deities and the supernatural. As for whether that only counts for distant or past religions, I think it depends on your standpoint. As a (respectful) atheist, the God of the monotheists is, for me, as much a myth as Zeus or Shiva. I consider Jesus Christ to be almost certainly a real historical figure - there exists a reasonable amount of scientific and historical proof - and, for example, the story of Adam and Eve, I consider as legend since it's a story, but about people, not gods.

Paul wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Doesn't the answer depend almost entirely on how we define true?"

Yes, no doubt. But in the tradition of the Great Books (or anyway in the set of the Great Books), Truth is one of..."

I have to correct you here, Paul ;-)
It was Pilate, not Jesus, who posed the question "What is truth?" and Tim Rice (librettist of JC Superstar) takes it even further and adds "is mine the same as yours?" Quite the philosopher!

Earlier in the discussion it was questioned whether the Greeks and Romans really believed in their myths. From the little I have read, I understand that religion and especially ritual were very important to the ancients, although many were non-practising and treated the gods' doings as traditional stories.

The Romans especially are also people who constantly adapted their own gods and myths, absorbing deities from other cultures which came to Rome and blending their own into the cultures of lands they conquered. I cannot think of an example of a Roman being persecuted for not being sufficiently religious in the manner of, say, the Inquisition.

On a much lighter note, it amuses me how the words legend and myth are used in today's language. The phrase "Messi is a living legend" has now become simply "he's a legend" and, in the UK anyway, in place of expressions such as "thanks for helping, you're a star!" it's cool to say "You're a legend!".

In Spain the youth and, worrying, increasingly more serious people, use the adjective mítico (mythical) for practically everything. "How was the party?" "Oh, it was mythical!". "Do you like my bike? I got it second hand from my cousin." "It's mythical!" Etc etc etc.

Thanks, Patrice!

I studied to university level (French, German, Italian and History) but most of my knowledge of the Romans comes from later-life reading. At primary school, though, I think absolutely everybody did Egyptians, Romans, Vikings, Knights and Castles (!) and Victorians - and I don't think this has changed much.

You're absolutely right about Spartacus et al, but though they had bouts of fierce persecutions of other religions (especially the monotheists, which they just couldn't get their heads around) I think I'm right in saying that the Romans rarely actually went after their own as the inquisition did.

If you want to find out more about the Romans, my first serious contact was via Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire by Jérôme Carcopino. It's probably a bit outdated now, having been written in 1941. There's also Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic (my edition is subtitled "The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic") by Tom Holland which is a really excellent narrative history essentially tracing the takeover of Caesar, but with a lot of information on the way they lived then. Very readable.

Well, the Biblical Paul was a Roman citizen, as were many of the Christians persecuted under Nero. But, the Romans did have a reputation for toleration and assimilation of other religions so long as allegiance to the emperor was clear. Much of this was later than Ovid, of course, who is reputed to have lived until ~17/18AD. Roman history has many periods.

Patrice wrote: "Pip wrote: "Thanks, Patrice!

I studied to university level (French, German, Italian and History) but most of my knowledge of the Romans comes from later-life reading. At primary school, though, I..."

I think it's natural that you start with your own history and then, hopefully, ,broaden out. Tthe Romans, Normans, Vikings etc all shaped our country so that is probably why they have such a high profile in our primary history education. Actually, at my primary school I remember spending a term doing "The Americans" which was quite unusual. We learned about the Pilgrim Fathers, the Boston Tea Party, Concorde to Lexington, the Wild West and how to make hamburgers! Secondary school was mostly Euro-centric, and it wasn't until I got to university that I really got to know more world history.

Knowing the French education system, I imagine your husband also studied a rather large amount of philosophy - but probably only the French philosophers ;-)

Patrice wrote: "I think polygomous religions are usually more tolerant of other religions. But... Rome was pretty brutal at times. Spartacus, Ben Hur, Masada, lol
"

Actually, Rome was quite tolerant of other religions and as they conquered new peoples they often added a few of those gods to their own pantheon.

They were in many ways a brutal people, but they were also the most civilized civilization for over a thousand years, with such advances as in-floor heating, running hot and cold water, of course their famous roads and aqueducts, indoor plumbing, and other niceties not seen again until the late Medieval period, if then.

Everyman wrote: "It is, by the way, perhaps interesting to note that while the culture which emerged from the European influx into North America has stories and legends, I do not believe that we have any myths in the pure sense of that term. I would welcome anybody suggesting that I'm wrong and proposing what they think are myths for this culture."

Check out: http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/...

The site provides a list of American folklore, myths and legends (Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed, John Henry, and many others) and provides the following definitions:
"A myth is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people. The purpose of myths is to account for the origins of something, explain aspects of the natural world, or delineate the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. A legend is a traditional tale handed down from earlier times and believed to have an historical basis."

I suspect a problem in accepting modern stories as myths for any modern culture, no matter how traditional they have become, is that they do not comfortably satisfy the expectation of being typically ancient.

David wrote: "I suspect a problem in accepting modern stories as myths for any modern culture, no matter how traditional they have become, is that they do not comfortably satisfy the expectation of being typically ancient. "

True. The other aspect of it is that usually we can find some sort of written record of how the legend developed. Paul Bunyan, for example, may have originated in an oral tradition, but it was written down, according to Wikipedia, as early as 1906, and then (sadly) was fairly quickly appropriated for advertising use. That is hardly the classic formation process for a traditional myth!

Everyman wrote: "...fairly quickly appropriated for advertising use. That is hardly the classic formation process for a traditional myth! ..."

Yes, we don't believe those ancient Greek urns, oft used as awards in competition, might have been advertisements for their contents! [g]

Everyman wrote: "but it was written down, according to Wikipedia, as early as 1906, and then (sadly) was fairly quickly appropriated for advertising use. That is hardly the classic formation process for a traditional myth!"

We must keep in mind that Ovid wrote the myths of his day down too, and if not used for advertising in the modern sense, definitely for posterity, self-promotion and gain. At the end of his poem, Ovid even predicts his own immortality through the fame of his work proving that some hoped to capitalize and profit on even these myths.

Re: the "lost in time" angle: I believe one of Tolkien's main motivations for writing his stories was to create a whole body of mythology for England which he felt was sadly lacking, compared to the Scandinavian myths and sagas for example. He was writing them as late as the mid sixties, and elves, dwarves and orcs have very rapidly become part of our mythological culture, even before the Peter Jackson films came out.

I would like to point out that the discussion should be about what the word would have meant TO OVID to properly understand his work. The definition that would be closest to that is the one Everyman posted by Elizabeth Vandiver: “myths are traditional stories a society tells itself that encode or represent the world-view, beliefs, principles, and often fears of that society.”

In the ancient world μῦθος(mythos) and λόγος(logos) had the same meaning, namely, "word, speech, story, narrative". If we examine the greek literature we would come across examples like this one:

"τί τοι τάδε μυθολογεύω;" (Hom. Od. 12, 450)

We could translate it as "What else should I tell you?". μυθολογεύω (this is the verb for the word "Mythology") here means "To tell word by word; to narrate" but it does not entail that the narration is false. Similarly, the difference between μῦθος and λόγος does not entail it either and the contrast between the two words was the origin of the narration or the argument. While λόγος implied a rational knowledge as the foundation of the argument, μῦθος meant that it was part of the traditional knowledge passed on from generation to generation (tradition was very importan to the romans and much of their literature references the mores maiorum).

Finally, the word "legend" comes from legenda which is the latin gerundive of the verb lego and we could translate it as "worthy of being read".

Lucas wrote: "I would like to point out that the discussion should be about what the word would have meant TO OVID to properly understand his work. ..."

Very interesting and useful post, and you're right to bring the focus back to Ovid's use of the term.

Though I don't mind people also looking at what myth means to us today (but myth in the Ovidian sense, not in the contemporary "it just means a lie" sense.)

So legends are read, not told?

And myths are really history?

Actually they were not so different. To read back then means "to read out loud", in this sense "to read" is "to tell", someone always reads to someone else. We have testimonies of silent lecture as early as the 5th century but it was an extraordinary practice: Saint Augustine writes in his Confessions that he was astonished when he saw Saint Ambrose reading while not uttering a word.

I guess we could consider myths as history and, again, this has nothing to do with it being false or not believable (though, some other associations could be made of some passages of Herodotus, like when he writes about the men who lived in the moon...)but with HOW the heroes where made. The ancient hero was such when he reached κλέος (kléos) which is the kind of renown or glory that comes from "being heard about" and it is etymologically related to Κλειώ (Clio), the Muse of History.

Patrice wrote: "Please stay with us! We need you! ;-)
"

I wish I could. I will be working steadily until the end of August in some papers I have to submit. The fact that I cannot follow the discussion is killing me! I'll try to at least say 'hi' every now and then though.

Patrice wrote: "I bought the book...it's good!"

Glad you're enjoying it!