Brown 1

Jenna Brown

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2

21 February 2018

Greek Mythology: A Fight

Everything we read is categorized into a genre of literature, but how do these differ from

one another? Each genre has a specific goal, style of writing, audience, and form that separates it

from the rest. Academic writing is one of these genres, yet it can be further organized by its field

of study. The Classics department, and by association Greek Mythology, created literary

methods based on the needs of the field. The methods that strengthen argumentation of scholarly

articles are, citations which provide clear, concise evidence and interpretative analysis that

defends the logic of their claims. Scholars use these devices due to the field's inability to

physically test claims, and limited sources of literature to provide evidence. In a world where

everything is accepted only due to scientific or testable ideas, these Greek Mythology articles

break the mold and turn to the importance toward the writer and their beliefs.

At first glance into any Greek Mythology scholarly article, readers may notice the excess

number of citations. However, citations form essential evidence and are feature that connects the

articles to a broader network of scholarship (Nesbit). One type of citation is direct quotations

from mythological texts. These quotes allow an author to express particular lines of text without

trying to restate, and most likely muddle, the meaning. Usually a short quotation is given and

then followed by reasoning for why it is relevant to the argument. This creates a concise

expression of what the evidence is supporting. These direct quotations tend to have more weight

as evidence since the author’s personal bias cannot contaminate the evidence. Additionally,
 Brown 2

specific lines provide multiple meanings that cannot be expressed through paraphrasing due to

the poetic nature of the literature. For example, if the author references dialogue from an oracle,

a woman who tells ambiguous prophecies, any change in the wording can modify the original

meaning. This use of citations is important in a field with limited sources, and where the only

evidence is the literature.

One could argue that the weight placed upon one piece of evidence causes the deduction

of larger, more general claims to be misdirected. This drawback is stated by Olga Faccani,

Teaching Assistant, when asked about the lack of scientific evidence in Greek Mythology, “The

fragmentary nature and partial number of the ancient texts that we possess call for caution

whenever we want to assume something from one text alone…” Therefore, it is crucial that many

pieces must be referenced at once and cross-analyzed so that a generalization can be made from a

collective standpoint. This acts as a consolidated piece of evidence that can be used in the

author’s argument. Whichever way the author chooses, the trustworthiness of the evidence is

sustained, and therefore the argument’s base is stable to build claims upon.

Sometimes authors utilize the significance of literature as evidence by mentioning the

title. De Luce argues the importance of Roman mythology by stating, “In fact, the three most

frequently used mythology handbooks-Morford and Lenardon's Classical Mythology, Powell's

Classical Myth, and Harris and Platzner's Classical Mythology: Images and Insights-do include

chapters on Roman stories” (202). She uses the superior reputation of the books to further her

argument and transpose that reputation onto her own work. Scholars use of this heavily rests on

the assertion that readers will recognize these titles. However, since the audience of scholarly

articles are other scholars this device a succinct way to support an argument. Likewise, an author

can demonstrate their knowledge and gain credibility using this specialized vocabulary.
 Brown 3

Often, Classical scholars rely on articles by colleagues to provide facts and

interpretations in areas of study that are not their expertise (Faccani). For example, if a scholar

wants to prove a myth is real, they could reference an archaeologist's findings at a dig site. Due

to its literary focus, this is the only way that Greek Mythology gains scientific evidence for

arguments. This interdisciplinary approach in Classics department articles creates an

interconnected web of scholars, which is confirmed by Nesbit, “Most everybody who is anybody

either already has the email addresses they need or can easily get them.” The dependence on

other scholars creates a community that encourages new discoveries, claims, and articles. More

importantly, it removes reliance on speculation but rather allows for authors to have testable,

scientific facts to bolster their argument.

Scholars also use colleagues’ articles to state opposing viewpoints, and express areas of

the argument that seem to be lacking. When presenting the importance of her article on Roman

Mythology, De Luce writes, “[other scholars] might subscribe to H. J. Rose's attitude when he

asserts that ‘Romulus and Remus are not genuine mythology’” (202). This quote is the beginning

of a statement of an opposing opinion that is presented in a previous paper, and in this way the

author’s article is setup to argue against this claim. Using this technique allows for the opposing

viewpoint to be clearly stated, and then addressed, by dissecting the opinion mentioned in the

quotation. Additionally, the opposition between the opinions is clear by the scholar’s use of a

“me vs. him” tactic. This is important in a field where there are often many interpretations of a

single point. The argument presented by the author is in turn bolstered by rebutting against the

potential holes in their argument as well as describing what it does not support.

In a field that so heavily rests upon personal interpretations of literature by the reader, it

would be expected that this would translate to the scholarly articles of the field. Be that as it may,
 Brown 4

in Greek Mythology articles, “[personal interpretation] is essential. The challenge is to back up

that interpretation with solid argument and evidence” (Nesbit). In this way, the articles produced

are kept objective due to the need for solid evidence to back up the claim. Scholars get around

this dilemma by stating definitions of lexicon in their own words. For example, De Luce states,

“I understand mythology to be a traditional story that explains that which cannot be explained in

any other way” (202). Hereafter in the article, this is the accepted definition for mythology. By

stating definitions in their own words, the scholars express their ideas through the definition, yet

the argument is kept objective in reference to the definition. Therefore, personal definitions can

differ greatly between scholars, yet the author’s argument cannot be challenged since it follows

the article’s logic.

Some may argue that the use of “I” statements within the articles is evident of a

subjective approach. For example, the use of “I want to urge...” (De Luce, 202) at the start of a

paragraph makes it seem like personal beliefs may get in the way of the evidence. However, this

is how claims of a paper are stated since they are inherently opinionated in nature. While

admittedly it is informal in an academic article, the frequent use of personal interpretation in

many parts of Greek Mythology studies begs for its use to be appropriate within the field. These

“I” statements not only illustrate the significance of the work to the author, but encourage the

creation of rebuttal articles. This in turn causes scholars to write more competently because the

article’s ultimate failure or success is connected to their beliefs.

With so many interpretive matters within the field of Greek Mythology, some structure is

essential in organizing the arguments. Faccani states, “...Scholars normally would have to side

with one line of interpretation when writing their own articles, and are expected to explain the

reasons why they choose one line of interpretation over the other(s).” When myths are analyzed
 Brown 5

and the opinion of the reader causes different conclusions to be drawn about one text use of this

is most evident. The author must then argue, not only for his/her claim, but for his/her own

interpretation’s standing within the community of scholars. Examples are evident within articles

where authors are directly opposed to one another, “Rose declares that this story is not

‘mythology’; I could not disagree more” (De Luce, 203). The juxtaposition of opinion forces

constant fights for relevancy, and thus creates a safety net disallowing absurd claims to be made

without evidence or logic producing superior work within the field.

Argumentation techniques used within Greek Mythology articles are specialized to its

unique nature as a literary based field where arguments are dependent on personal interpretation.

With limited sources, citations carry more weight as evidence than other fields. However,

sources must be cross-referenced when a general statement is formed. A reliance on other

disciplines for scientific evidence causes the genre to be highly influenced by the larger scholarly

community. Argumentation within the field forces claims to be exceedingly solid, in both

evidence and logic, or be jeopardy of harsh reviews. The use of definitions to get around

problems of subjectivity also keeps authors out of jeopardy. Nevertheless, effective

argumentation using citations, and the influences of opposition creates a vibrant community that

promotes Greek Mythology articles to break the mold of a science based society, and turn to the

importance toward an author’s ideas.

 Brown 6

Works Cited

De Luce, Judith. “Roman Myth.” The Classical World, vol. 98, no. 2, 2005, pp. 202–205.

JSTOR, doi:10.2307/4352931.

Faccani, Ogla. “Re: Questions regarding Greek Myth Scholarly Articles” Received by Jenna

Brown. 9 Feb. 2018. Email Interview.

Nesbit, Dylan. “Re: Questions regarding Greek Myth Scholarly Articles” Received by Jenna

Brown. 13 Feb. 2018. Email Interview.