Methodology of Reading Myth
A Greek myth is founded on the oral transmission of ideas which during the historical period were written down as a narrative, and thereafter may have undergone further considerable development in textual redactions. The result is a material datum from which we infer history.
(1) The first principle, then, is to eschew entirely the disrespectful attitude to myth that enables a scholar to disregard all myth as “lying fables”, and hence not as evidence of history. The principle here is the same as that adopted by any researcher who is prepared to take mythology seriously. For example, Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, writes: “… it has become clear that myths are structured by schemata, such as ‘erotic abduction,’ which are themselves structured by, and express, the realities, beliefs and ideologies of the society which produced them.” (Reading a Myth.) What she calls a “schemata” I call a “mythologem”.
(2) By analogy with archaeology, a given myth has been deposited through a series of stages, or redactions, some of which occurred during the oral stage and others during the written stage. For the written stages, the sequence of redactions may in some cases be established—for example, the redactions of the Egyptian Book of the Dead can be inferred from their written records on the tomb walls. I call each redaction a layer. In the case of oral tradition, the layers of a myth must be inferred from the earliest written statement we have from it; so, the work of interpretation becomes a problem of deduction and evaluation, somewhat akin to investigative police-work. Myths are also grouped by tradition as belonging to mythological characters—for example, Dionysus, Heracles—and to places—for example, Sparta, Athens. Hence, the mythology of, say, Heracles, may also be regarded as a mythological site; and the larger the mythological personage, the bigger the site. By the first principle, every myth must also involve real people from the first; for nothing can be laid down in the psychological sphere without a corresponding material event, and vice-versa.
(3) During the historical evolution of a myth there are many layers but working backwards we discern in these layers a more fundamental element, which is a narrative symbol. I call this fundamental unit a mythologem. (The term mytheme has also been used in literary analysis—introduced by Levi Strauss.) A mythologem is a narrative element in which two motifs (ideas, images, symbols, icons, emblems) are linked by a temporal relation: first one motif, then the other. Thus, mythologems can be further deconstructed into motifs. But I take the mythologem to be fundamental, because myth implies a narrative. For example, the motif (image) of Perseus carrying a sword, followed by the motif (image) of Perseus holding the head of the decapitated Gorgon. The most fundamental unit of all links just two motifs (ideas) in a sequence, but this can be iterated into relations of three, four or more motifs. A single image may imply a mythologem (pictorial narrative): for example, the image of a Gorgon’s head, without body, implies that it was previously severed from its body. Thus, plastic records, art, may also express a mythologem. Human imagination also has a history, and imagination is tied to symbolic, mythological thought. This justifies us in regarding pictorial images as “icons”; that is, symbolic statements of mythologems, and vastly extends the available evidence to include all imagery whatsoever. For this reason, it is essential in the work to classify all imagery by place and date so far as possible, and to correlate these elements with elements from the oral tradition. Icons (pictorial, plastic) may also go through multiple redactions, and among these redactions we reach a stage which may be called “forgetting the past”, where the icon is used freely by an artist, and yet the artist has no conscious knowledge of its origin.
(1) The first principle, then, is to eschew entirely the disrespectful attitude to myth that enables a scholar to disregard all myth as “lying fables”, and hence not as evidence of history. The principle here is the same as that adopted by any researcher who is prepared to take mythology seriously. For example, Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, writes: “… it has become clear that myths are structured by schemata, such as ‘erotic abduction,’ which are themselves structured by, and express, the realities, beliefs and ideologies of the society which produced them.” (Reading a Myth.) What she calls a “schemata” I call a “mythologem”.
(2) By analogy with archaeology, a given myth has been deposited through a series of stages, or redactions, some of which occurred during the oral stage and others during the written stage. For the written stages, the sequence of redactions may in some cases be established—for example, the redactions of the Egyptian Book of the Dead can be inferred from their written records on the tomb walls. I call each redaction a layer. In the case of oral tradition, the layers of a myth must be inferred from the earliest written statement we have from it; so, the work of interpretation becomes a problem of deduction and evaluation, somewhat akin to investigative police-work. Myths are also grouped by tradition as belonging to mythological characters—for example, Dionysus, Heracles—and to places—for example, Sparta, Athens. Hence, the mythology of, say, Heracles, may also be regarded as a mythological site; and the larger the mythological personage, the bigger the site. By the first principle, every myth must also involve real people from the first; for nothing can be laid down in the psychological sphere without a corresponding material event, and vice-versa.
(3) During the historical evolution of a myth there are many layers but working backwards we discern in these layers a more fundamental element, which is a narrative symbol. I call this fundamental unit a mythologem. (The term mytheme has also been used in literary analysis—introduced by Levi Strauss.) A mythologem is a narrative element in which two motifs (ideas, images, symbols, icons, emblems) are linked by a temporal relation: first one motif, then the other. Thus, mythologems can be further deconstructed into motifs. But I take the mythologem to be fundamental, because myth implies a narrative. For example, the motif (image) of Perseus carrying a sword, followed by the motif (image) of Perseus holding the head of the decapitated Gorgon. The most fundamental unit of all links just two motifs (ideas) in a sequence, but this can be iterated into relations of three, four or more motifs. A single image may imply a mythologem (pictorial narrative): for example, the image of a Gorgon’s head, without body, implies that it was previously severed from its body. Thus, plastic records, art, may also express a mythologem. Human imagination also has a history, and imagination is tied to symbolic, mythological thought. This justifies us in regarding pictorial images as “icons”; that is, symbolic statements of mythologems, and vastly extends the available evidence to include all imagery whatsoever. For this reason, it is essential in the work to classify all imagery by place and date so far as possible, and to correlate these elements with elements from the oral tradition. Icons (pictorial, plastic) may also go through multiple redactions, and among these redactions we reach a stage which may be called “forgetting the past”, where the icon is used freely by an artist, and yet the artist has no conscious knowledge of its origin.
The “Auxerre Goddess”
Probably Cretan, c.630
Probably Cretan, c.630
By 630 woman as goddess continues to be represented with a frontal display of bare breasts, but she presents a demure aspect that is not known in Minoan culture.
(4) We follow a methodology analogous to the comparative method used in linguistics to reconstruct elements of languages such as proto-Indo-European. For example, and pertinent to mythology, from the structural similarity between the Greek, Zeus, the Latin Iou and the Vedic Dyaus, we infer a common origin, and reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European word Dyeus. By the same process, where two variant myths contain mythologems bearing the same internal relations, we infer that they have a common cultural source in another mythologem in which their variance did not exist. For example, Perseus saves Andromeda from Cetus is structurally similar to the mythologem Heracles rescues Hesione from the sea monster (kitos); therefore, we infer a common mythologem—the rescue of the maiden mythologem—from which both are derived. A common cultural experience is attested by the structural similarity between the two mythologems, in which we see only variance as to mythological characters. Another instance of this concerns the abduction mythologem. Hades abducts Persephone is structurally identical to Selene (the Moon) abducts Endymion; from this we infer that the original mythologem is that of the abduction by the Moon Goddess of the Dionysus as the Boy-God. (We infer the original form by correlation with Minoan imagery, in which the Goddess is dominant. We cannot postulate a period of primitive patriarchy; it is simply not attested.) The abduction mythologem is arguably the fundamental mythologem of Greek religion. We also see it structurally expressed in Theseus abducts Helen (to Aphidna in Attica) and Paris (also called Alexander) abducts Helen (to Troy or Ilium). Since the abduction of the hero by the Goddess is the more primitive structure, we infer that the form Paris abducts Helen is an inversion of the earlier form in which Helen (the Moon Goddess) abducts the hero. We see a form Alexandra (f, “she who wards off men” or “defender of men”) abducts X, where X = the hero; we note that in Laconia there was a joint tomb of Cassandra (Alexandra) and Agamemnon; Cassandra’s alternative name is Alexandra as the “sister” of Paris, also called Alexander; hence we have as the primitive form Cassandra (Alexandra) abducts Agamemnon (Alexander); Cassandra may derive from “she who shines” (the Moon) and “man”, and may mean “she who entangles men”—I suggest it is a figurative expression of “she who abducts man”; Persephone, a doublet of Cassandra/Alexandra/Helen may mean “bringer of destruction”; the mythologem does point to the destruction of the hero, since he is abducted to the underworld, that is, dies. The resurrection motif also found in fundamental connection with the abduction mythologem is suppressed. The entire vegetation cycle is: The Moon (Goddess) abducts the hero (to the underworld); he returns (from the underworld); or the hero, beloved of the Goddess, dies and is reborn. Study of Greek mythology in comparison with Greek iconography indicates that the abduction mythologem is older than the rescue of the maiden mythologem. Since we expect to see a correlation between the appearance of a mythologem and historical events, this relative dating is very important evidence as to the evolution of Greek (or any) religion. The appearance of a new mythologem points to a cultural event of seismic importance, but “new” mythologems are connected to past ones. For example, the rescue of the maiden mythologem has structural similarity to the resurrection mythologem as in Goddess “rescues” hero is structurally similar to Hero rescues heroine. In the mythologem of the rescue of the maiden, what is rescued is not so much vegetable life, but society; through the salvation of the maiden, society is reborn as a one living by the rule of law, as opposed to the arbitrary rule of the monster. This points to a late stage in the history of the Dark Age, for an age when society has been rescued from the monster is no longer dark. This correlates with the material record of iconography in pottery and the plastic arts. Hence, although at some time the rescue of the maiden mythologem was projected backwards onto a mythological time predating the Trojan War, we must not suppose that this corresponds to real events; the historical, material events correlated with the psychological and spiritual events are not bound to follow the apparent order in mythology. Perseus belongs to the Dark Age, and not the Minoan-Mycenaean Age, but the abduction-resurrection mythologem is older than both. The history of religion is revealed through the history of mythologems.
The Peplos Kore
Acropolis, c.530
Acropolis, c.530
The sexuality of the goddess, now represented as the maiden, is prominent, yet subdued. The original sculpture has lost its left arm, and is here reconstructed holding an acorn as a symbol of fertility and hope after a similar symbol in the Meranda Kore of the same period (550—530).
(5) The human mind has two forms of memory and correspondingly two forms of reasoning: (i) the iconic memory of images and thinking through images; and (ii) the semantic memory of (abstract) meanings and thinking through them. Of these two forms of memory and reasoning, the iconic is the older, and we may associate iconic reasoning with the epoch of primitive materialism, and semantic-abstract reasoning with the epoch of Ionian consciousness; hence, also, the shift from iconic to semantic reasoning is another feature we may expect to see (and do see) in the period of proto-Ionian consciousness, from the inception of the Dark Age (c.1200) until Thales, (c.600). In earlier epochs, men and women tended to think in images rather than meanings; hence, their life-experiences were recorded as such. Hence, mythology, which arises as primitive iconic imagery is reworked by semantic reasoning, and thereby turned into narrative. By way of example, how would a person who thinks primarily in images, record the events surrounding the Berlin crisis of 1961, when the Soviet Union demanded that Western military forces be withdrawn from West Berlin? Something like this? The god Sounio was offended by King Germania and sent a huge monster from the East. The oracle was consulted and to appease the monster the sacrifice of the daughter of King Germania, the maiden Berlina, was demanded by the monster. Jo-fo-ke-ne-da built a wall to defend the maiden. The goddess of the air, Athana-Urania, gave him a pair of winged sandals. He flew over the Maiden and showed the monster the Head of the Gorgon Nuclear. The monster cowered and returned to the terrible East from whence it came. But Sounio remained wrathful. In interpreting mythology, we wish to reverse this process and infer from imagery to semantic meanings. That this is possible is essential to the methodology. However, reversing the process is not easy, and the task must be approached with caution.
(6) It is a principle that the grades of meaning between possible, probable and certain are respected. All reasoning in history is probabilistic—“absolute certainty” in the Cartesian sense or otherwise is never obtained. If the term “certain” is used of a proposition, it means something like “approximates to certainty”, and indicates that in the attitude of this author, the evidence weighs in its favour. Because certainty is never obtained, reasoning in history, as elsewhere, is also dialectical—that is, for every thesis there is an anti-thesis
(7) Since our work is based upon an oral tradition, then if a mythologem is assigned, for example, to the Minoan-Mycenaean period, there must be a credible path of transmission. The disruption of the Bronze Age Collapse poses difficulties for tracing myth into the pre-collapse stage. We need to postulate some centres of transmission. That this can be achieved is credible. Of the major centres that were destroyed, Mycenae survived in reduced form until c.1130, and even thereafter. During this cultural period, known as Late Helladic IIIC, pottery with figurative representations continued in a stylistically debased form; hence, this iconography allows us to see into the eye of the storm, which is remarkable. Athens was not destroyed altogether, and though much reduced in size and influence, it may be taken as a major survival centre for Mycenaean culture. Legend records that refugees from Achaia and Messina (Pylos notably) flooded into Athens, and this is credible; these refugees would have brought with them stories of their traditions, as well as stories about the collapse itself, which by means of iconic coding was encapsulated as myth. I think, also, we see evidence that Athens was a centre of refugees from the collapse of the Hittite Empire; though this is speculative, I suggest that some Hittite experience is expressed in Greek mythology, as well as Lydian and Lycian experience. In any given region only one site is required for continuity to be preserved; thus, for example, in the devastated region of Arcadia, archaeology indicates that the site of the later Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea remained in use throughout the Dark Age. It is of course significant that this site is associated with the Goddess. Oral tradition is preserved, and thinking in pictures facilitates this, as it is easier and more reliable to recall a sequence of images than a sequence of words; verse and rhythmic structures assist the transmission of oral poetry, but we don’t really have any definite evidence that the Mycenaeans had any.
(6) It is a principle that the grades of meaning between possible, probable and certain are respected. All reasoning in history is probabilistic—“absolute certainty” in the Cartesian sense or otherwise is never obtained. If the term “certain” is used of a proposition, it means something like “approximates to certainty”, and indicates that in the attitude of this author, the evidence weighs in its favour. Because certainty is never obtained, reasoning in history, as elsewhere, is also dialectical—that is, for every thesis there is an anti-thesis
(7) Since our work is based upon an oral tradition, then if a mythologem is assigned, for example, to the Minoan-Mycenaean period, there must be a credible path of transmission. The disruption of the Bronze Age Collapse poses difficulties for tracing myth into the pre-collapse stage. We need to postulate some centres of transmission. That this can be achieved is credible. Of the major centres that were destroyed, Mycenae survived in reduced form until c.1130, and even thereafter. During this cultural period, known as Late Helladic IIIC, pottery with figurative representations continued in a stylistically debased form; hence, this iconography allows us to see into the eye of the storm, which is remarkable. Athens was not destroyed altogether, and though much reduced in size and influence, it may be taken as a major survival centre for Mycenaean culture. Legend records that refugees from Achaia and Messina (Pylos notably) flooded into Athens, and this is credible; these refugees would have brought with them stories of their traditions, as well as stories about the collapse itself, which by means of iconic coding was encapsulated as myth. I think, also, we see evidence that Athens was a centre of refugees from the collapse of the Hittite Empire; though this is speculative, I suggest that some Hittite experience is expressed in Greek mythology, as well as Lydian and Lycian experience. In any given region only one site is required for continuity to be preserved; thus, for example, in the devastated region of Arcadia, archaeology indicates that the site of the later Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea remained in use throughout the Dark Age. It is of course significant that this site is associated with the Goddess. Oral tradition is preserved, and thinking in pictures facilitates this, as it is easier and more reliable to recall a sequence of images than a sequence of words; verse and rhythmic structures assist the transmission of oral poetry, but we don’t really have any definite evidence that the Mycenaeans had any.
Figure 17. Kouros
Meranda, c.530
Meranda, c.530
The kouroi represent the triumph of unabashed masculinism over matriarchy.
(8) The identification of a contradiction in a mythological account, or speculation as to the construction of part of a myth, is not a reason for rejecting the whole tradition. To be specific: the construction of genealogies for gods and heroes is evidently a relatively late development in Greek religion. Such genealogies may also be motivated by later politics. For example, the genealogical descent of the Dorian kings, the Heracleids, from Heracles is very probably a fabrication of a late period—from the time of Pindar onwards (c.500). But none of this invalidates the methodology presented here: the mythologems of more archaic character are not accounted for by this observation. Therefore, it is an abuse of logic to argue: because the genealogies are late fabrications from c.500 onwards, then all myth is a late fabrication.
(9) Another point concerns continuity of persona as a structural element of human reality. The Egyptian Story of Sinuhe (c.1800) and the Sumerian/Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh (c.2100) reveal how remarkably like modern fiction these works are, though, upon analysis, they can be shown to be composed within the cognition of primitive materialism. The “self-awareness” of an individual from the Late Neolithic or Bronze Age would not seem to be very different from that of the modern. But we should not be confused or hoodwinked into concluding that because these people appear to be like us, that their religious reality was the same. They did not have our secularisation, and they were primitive materialists through-and-through.
(10) In our deductions we must permit a species of “fuzzy logic”. Historians are rightly concerned with “absolute chronology”, but social history is more concerned with trends. That is the kind of history that we may expect from analysis of mythologems.
(9) Another point concerns continuity of persona as a structural element of human reality. The Egyptian Story of Sinuhe (c.1800) and the Sumerian/Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh (c.2100) reveal how remarkably like modern fiction these works are, though, upon analysis, they can be shown to be composed within the cognition of primitive materialism. The “self-awareness” of an individual from the Late Neolithic or Bronze Age would not seem to be very different from that of the modern. But we should not be confused or hoodwinked into concluding that because these people appear to be like us, that their religious reality was the same. They did not have our secularisation, and they were primitive materialists through-and-through.
(10) In our deductions we must permit a species of “fuzzy logic”. Historians are rightly concerned with “absolute chronology”, but social history is more concerned with trends. That is the kind of history that we may expect from analysis of mythologems.
Left: The Goddess
Illustration of an ivory figure from the Dipylon cemetery, Athens. c.730.
Illustration of an ivory figure from the Dipylon cemetery, Athens. c.730.
As late as 730 the Goddess continues to be represented with unabashed nudity.