Greek Myths and the Uses of Myths

Author(s): F. Carter Philips

Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 74, No. 2 (Dec., 1978 - Jan., 1979), pp. 155-166
Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296798 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 21:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE FORUM editor: RICHARD T. SCANLAN

GREEK MYTHS AND THE USES OF MYTHS'

Greek or classical mythology is extremely popular at the moment, and

indeed it has neverbeen unpopular.But, in these troubledtimes when the study
of languagesis in a state of decline, many teachersare now turningto it at least
partlyas a means of recruitingenough studentsto sustaintheirpositions, a by
no means monstrumhorrendumwhen one considersthe values inherentin the
subject. Unfortunately,however, almost every Latin teacherat the secondary
level who can obtaincopies of EdithHamilton's text then feels readyto offer a
course in mythology;andteachersat the undergraduatelevel arenot necessarily
more knowledgeable,even thoughthey arelikely to use slightly more sophisti-
cated texts.
At the same time, classical mythology is a subjectthatcan be approachedin
any numberof different ways, almost all of them interestingand potentially
legitimate; and teachers without formal preparationcan indeed offer worth-
while courses from a variety of approaches,whetherin elementaryor secon-
dary schools or at a higher level. Nevertheless, those of us who teach mythol-
ogy need to strengthenour theoreticalfoundationsand be careful to teach the
subject as best we can, no matter what our approach, in the light of the
knowledge now available. Too many mythology courses arenow being taught
with little advance over the knowledge of Bulfinch-an approachwhich is
rather like trying to teach chemistry from a text written before the Curies
discovered radium. Even our slow learnersdeserve better than that.
The studyof the Greekmythsis important,a significantpartof the patrimony
thateducationshould provide a student. These myths provide the single most
importantkey for unlockingthe rich treasuresof the Europeantraditionand its
descendants;although poets and artists have occasionally created their own
privatesymbols, they have again and againfound thatthe classical worldalone
provides the vitality and universality that their works demand. Myths in
general, whether the Greek ones or those of other cultures, can offer an
introductionto a significantmode of humanthinkingthat is deeply embedded
within the minds of us all. When other means of tackling man's deepest
questions fail, myths propercan again provide answersto those mighty ques-
tions about the natureof man and of the universe and about the role of man
within that universe. Scientists and social scientists try to approach such
questionsrationally;but one suspectsthatrationalitycan accountfor only a part

'Earlierversionsof this paperwere deliveredin October1976 to the TennesseeForeign

LanguageTeaching Association and in March 1977 to the Mid-SouthConferenceof Independent
tomycolleaguesat
Schools.I amgratefulforthecriticismof personsatbothmeetingsandindebted
VanderbiltUniversity for their penetratingreading and discussion.

155

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
156 DECEMBER-JANUARY
of theanswer,2andin anycasesuchexplanations
arealwaystentative,subject
to furtherverificationand unableto providecompletely emotionallysatisfying
answers to the questions. Plato, the greatest of all philosophers, found it
necessaryto createmyths when rationallanguagefailed him. Those who avoid
mythical modes of expression do so only by reducing correspondinglytheir
concept of the natureof man and the universe. On a much less serious level,
traditionalliteratureoffers a rich store of entertainmentthat speaks to a great
variety of man's needs. A studentstudyingthe Greek myths is being given a
valuablekey towardunderstandingthe many facets of humanexperience. No
single course can open all the doors that are accessible with that key, but it is
enough to have pointed the way.
Greekmythologyis a subjectfraughtwith problems,andthe largestproblem
is that no one has yet satisfactorilydefined myth, in spite of a multiplicityof
printeddefinitions. (Mythologyis thusbothan excellent placeto teachstudents
not to believe all thatthey read and a nightmareto the teacherwho is tryingto
teach something that cannot be defined.) In his invaluable and sane Pelican
Book TheNatureof GreekMyths (Harmondsworth1974), G. S. Kirksuggests
thatwe mightapproachthe problemfrompopularnotionsaboutmyths-we all
know, generallyspeaking,a mythwhen we see one-an interestingsuggestion,
although he is certainly aware of its limitations.3 We need to accept the
handicap that the lack of a definitive description causes and to caution our
students carefully to regard any printeddefinition as a myth itself (if I may
indulge myself in a popularuse of the word). We need to remember,too, that
the Greekmythsarein any case differentfrom the mythsthathave been studied
by anthropologistsand others in many societies, partlybecause they include
both mythsproper (a useful termfor singling out the divine and cosmogonical
storiesthatusuallycomprisethe mythologiesof peoples otherthanthe Greeks)
and variousothertypes of folk literatureand partlybecause they are preserved
for us at a level of culture which is higher than that of other mythopoeic
societies. Too often we see texts giving definitions largely applicableonly to
cosmological and divine myths before expending the majorityof their pages
paraphrasingstories from other types of folk literaturethat do not belong to
myths properat all.
Kirkultimatelyconcludes(p. 27) thatthe only safe definitionof mythnow is
"traditionaltale," a suggestionbasedupon soundreasoningbut one too vague
to provideenoughhelp in a field wherecontentis as importantas form. A more
helpful approachmay be to do as H. J. Rose does when he offers rather
satisfactory(or at least not unsatisfactory)definitions for myths proper, saga,
and miirchen, the three major types of traditionaltales for the Greeks.4 To
2". . . it is a propertyof your rationalist," said H. J. Rose (on p. 20 of the work cited in n. 8
below), "that he is unable to understandany type of mind other than his own."
3See Ch. 1, "Problemsof Definition," as well as the threefollowing theoreticalchapters.Kirk's
devastatingcomment on the state of affairs is worth repeatingin full: "In short, it would not be
unfairto say thatthe natureof mythsis still, in spiteof the millions of printedwordsdevoted to it, a
confused topic. The stateof Greekmyths, in particular,is only betterin so faras classical scholars
and the generalliterarypublic have been contentto let most of the theoreticaldiscussion wash over
their heads, concentratingmeanwhile either on new contributionsto the paraphraseindustry,
sometimes with pictures, or on specialized researchinto literaryvariants" (p. 17).
4Pp. 12-14 of A Handbookof Greek Mythology, 6th ed. (New York 1959).

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL 157
define mythsproperas "the resultof the workingof naive imaginationuponthe
facts of experience" or saga as "legends which deal with historicalevents" or
miirchenas (I paraphrase)a simple story aiming at amusement,accountingfor
the cause of nothing, recordingno historicalor semi-historicalevent, and not
necessarily fitting the hearers'notions of probabilityis to give at least general
guidelines about the types of stories that will be found grouped together as
Greekmythology. Impreciseguidelinesthey may be, butthey will indicatethe
rough direction that the path will take. If not asked to function as beds for
Procrustes, they may be helpful.
A second problemfor Greekmythology stems from the fact thatmyths are a
branchof folk literatureand thusbelong to the traditionaltales thatarepartof a
society and not to literaryinventionsthat springfrom a self-conscious author.
Folk literatureis oral, it belongs outside the inflexible medium of the printed
word, and its stories act in a mannerreminiscentof kaleidoscopes. They are
never exactly the same twice, andtheirdetails andemphasesconstantlychange
in subtle ways across the years as they move from teller to teller across
geographicalandpolitical boundaries. This is not the place to discourseon the
natureof folk literature,but we need to be remindedthatmythsarepartof a type
of "literature" that is completely different from literatureas we normally
conceive it, because it exists apartfrom the frozen printedpage.
This fact being true, we are shocked into a reminderthat we really do not
possess any myths (or any othertype of folk literature)fromthe ancientGreeks
at all; what we have arevarioususes of the myths withinliteratureandart.5It is
that fact that helps to make the Greek myths so differentfrom other peoples'
myths and, indeed, so superior in some ways to them. But it is crucial to
distinguishbetween the myths themselves thatonce existed (of thatthereis no
doubt) and their uses by various authors from Homer and Hesiod onward.
Sophocles' OedipusRex is not a myth-it is a tragedythatuses myth; and the
difference, however subtle it may seem, is crucial to studentsof Greek myth.
As classicists, our deepest interests lie in the literaryuses of the pre-literate
popularmyths and folk tales (which can in any case probablynever be directly
known), but we must not lose sight of the fact thatthe one is dependenton the
other. If we do, we may lose completely the point that an individualauthoris
trying to make.
As I have worked with the Greek myths I have tried to identify some of the
stages that are involved in the history of the myths and their uses. I offer the
following tentativeoutlinewith a realizationthatit is by no meansthe final word
on the subject. The first stage that we must mention is the mythopoeicperiod
when the Greek myths were genuinely alive as part of the oral, popular
tradition. This period was clearly, as Kirk has shown, generally over before
Homer and Hesiod and may have been over for some time. Although know-
ledge remains inadequate, it seems safe enough to suggest that the myths
belong to the Bronze Age; but furtherinvestigationmay suggest that they are
even older thanthat. Much of the heroic materialclearly belongs to the Bronze

5In what follows I shall, largely to avoid cumbersomeness, confine myself to literatureonly.
What I have to say about literatureis generally applicable to art as well.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158 DECEMBER-JANUARY

Age, althoughits motifs and themes may be far, far older of course. In any
case, by the time we can see any Greek myths, they have left their traditional
oral uses. If classicists were to use the word myth as it is used by an-
thropologistsstudyingmost cultures, we would limit it to this first stage. The
other stages that I mention really belong to a study of the uses of the myths,
although we will no doubt continue to use the simpler label. The confusion
which results will be less if we rememberthat we use the word in the two
differing ways.
The second stage (the first thatwe can see) is the long one when the Greeks
themselves self-consciously used their myths for all sorts of purposesin their
literature;andit is this subjectthatwe normallycall "Greekmythology," even
though the term would properlyapply to the former period by analogy with
other peoples. From Homer and Hesiod, throughthe Archaic Age, into the
greatperiod of Attic drama,and on into the Hellenistic Age, the Greek myths
again andagainprovedtheirvitalityto inspire, as well as to adaptto new social
and literarycircumstancesand needs. What is unfortunateaboutour study of
this subjectis that we confuse myth and literatureand end up doing justice to
neither. Too many textbooks turn out to be dreary, mindless paraphrasesof
glorious Greek literature(in the deadly mannerof those outline study guides
that keep students from confronting, say, the genius of Homer directly) or
snippets of various authorspasted together to form a continuous whole that
never existed for the Greeks. Occasional texts do try to give longer Greek
passages, but they generally forget to make explicit that such literaryuses of
myths should not normallybe confused with the myths themselves. When we
use texts thatworkfromGreekliteraryuses of the myths(and some of themare
both excellent and indispensable), we need to remindourselves from time to
time that the Electra of Greek myth is not the Electra of Aeschylus or of
Sophocles or of Euripides. We also need to rememberthat any detail which
cannotbe independentlydocumentedmay well have been createdby the author
in question and thus not really be a part of the folk traditionat all.
The third stage which I distinguish is that of Italian or Latin uses of the
myths, a studyof considerableinterest,althoughit often gets submergedin our
minds as if there were no difference from the Greek uses or as if they were
identical. But Ovid is not Greek, nor is Vergil or Plautusor Livy. Italianuses
and versions of the Greek myths speak to Italiansocial and literaryneeds and
ought not be buriedwithin Greek uses, and Latin literaryreflections of native
Italian traditionsalso deserve more careful and separatetreatmentthan they
usually receive. It is a shame that so many of our texts sometimes find
themselvesunableto sortout the GreeksandRomansin referenceto the myths,
a problem to which we shall return.
The last stage thatI will distinguishis thatof later, post-classicaluses of the
earlier mythical material;and it is quite clear that this entire later tradition
(which could be divided into any number of sections) makes little if any
distinctionbetween myth and literature,between Hesiod and Ovid, although
Ovid often seems to serve as the only source of importance.It is partlybecause
we are heirs to this last stage that we have failed to see the three earlier and
differentones on which it is founded. And this latterlong stage stretchingfrom
late antiquitythroughthe MiddleAges andRenaissanceandthroughto ourown

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THECLASSICAL
JOURNAL 159
century should not be scorned in importance. The post-classical uses of the
myths aresignificantfor the developmentof westernculture,andthe old Greek
names continue to show a vitality characteristicof no other body of myths or
folk literature.Indeed, twentieth-centuryauthorshave sometimesbeen able to
give the charactersa life thatthey hadnot hadfor centuries. The traditionshows
no signs of dying, and whereverwe look along its lengthy spanwe see matters
of interest.
A thirdproblemthatcomplicatesunderstandingoursubjectis thatwhatis not
myth can in effect become so for the tradition.Homer, for example, is not folk
literature, in spite of the oral tradition to which he belongs. He is a fully
sophisticatedpoet whose poems are a remarkablycomplex blend of tradition
andnovelty. Moreover,neitherthe Iliad northe Odysseyis "myth," although
both containnumerouspassing referencesto myths andfolk tales and can often
serve as a mine of mythical information. But textbooks of mythology that
expend many pages retelling the plots of the two epics are, strictly speaking,
simply giving paraphrasesof great literature,even thoughpartsof both poems
belong to traditionalliterature.However, all later Greek and Roman culture
acted towardHomer as if his poems were myths, so that they became what I
call, for want of a betterphrase,pseudo-mythicalsources."This is not myth or
folk literaturein the technical sense, but it has functioned for later western
civilization as if it were;andhence we arejustified, if we arecarefulaboutwhat
we aredoing, in keeping Homerwithin the sphereof mythology. Therewas an
Agamemnonoutside the largely literarytradition,but most of what Homer or
Aeschylus says about him is wholly fabricatedby the poet, a literaryuse of
mythicalmaterial. If we would look at real folk heroes relativelyuntaintedby
such thick overlays of literaturethatthe characterof populartraditionbecomes
hidden, we should look at such figures as Heracles, Perseus, Bellerophon,
Jason, or Meleager-although we must still be careful about our ancient
sources.
The question of sources is especially perplexing. Before we look at a few
examples of what individualpoets can do to the folk traditions,let me make
some general observations. We have long assumed that earlier sources are
more likely to be free of literaryoverlay thanlaterones; and we now know that
the vast bulk of Greek mythology belongs to the Bronze Age and hence to a
periodfromwhich we do not have and are not likely to receive literarysources.
The usual approachto the problem has been that of H.J. Rose:

It may, however, be mentioned that our sources in Greek are firstly the
poets, of all dates from Homer and Hesiod down; and of these, especially
those up to and including the great Attic dramatistsof the fifth century
B.C. Next in importance to these are the Alexandrianpoets, such as
Kallimachos,from the fourthcenturyonwards, who often give us curious
informationnot to be had elsewhere, but who must be used with caution,
as they often of set purpose confine themselves to very out-of-the-way

"H.J. Rose uses the termpseudo-mythologysomewhatdifferently,to referto Italiantransforma-

tions of Greek myths and to native Italian traditions.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160 DECEMBER-JANUARY
stories,notformingpartof whatmaybecalledthenormal of
mythology
Greece;moreover, not
they infrequently the
re-shape legendsor invent
new ones, to suit theirown purposes,a fault, fromthe modem
mythologist'spointof view, of whichthe olderwritersalso areguilty.
Nextcometheearlierhistoricalwriters,suchasPherekydes, whounfortu-
nately are known to us in and
only fragments excerpts.... Finally,a
great dealis dueto themythologicalhandbooks, forthesecontainmuchof
the learningof the Alexandrian critics,althoughin an epitomizedform.
Of these,one of thebestis the so-calledApollodoros,whosework(first
centuryA.D.?) containsmuchgood old material.Withthese may be
reckoned the scholiasts . . . . As regardsthe Latins, even their earliest
poetsdrawupontheAlexandrians, andmayforourpurposesbecountedas
lateGreekauthors.Hereagain,notablyin thecaseof Ovid,the writers'
own fancyis the sourceof not a little.7

Before discussingthe problemswith Rose's approach,one ought to pay

respectsto thisexceedinglywise scholarwhooftensawthedifficultiesclearly,
eventhoughhe didnotyet alwaysknowhowto dealwiththem.His statement
aboutthe Alexandrians and Ovid remainspreciselycorrect,even thoughit
needsto be appliedto the olderpoetsas well."
But our approachto the ancientsourcesneeds revising,and we should
probablybegin-in spiteof thedifficulties-withtheonlyancientauthorswho
canbe trustednotto invent,the scholiaststo variouspoetsandthe writersof
handbooks (especiallyApollodorus,althoughHyginuscanbe of value).A full
studyremainsto beundertaken, butApollodorus'Librarydeservesfargreater
respect thanit has oftenbeen givenandseems,whenit canbe checked,usually
to useearlyandreliablesources.It is, moreover,ouronlyrelativelycomplete
ancienthandbookandin manywaysis superiorto anymodernimitators.The
scholiasts,too, as inaccessibleas theyusuallyare,normallyseemquitetrust-
worthy.
Thesecondrankamongsourcesshouldgenerallybe thepre-classical Greek
poets, although they (especiallyStesichorus)can sometimes be seen creating
new materialthatdoes not belongto the folk tradition.Butoutsidehis main
plotsHomeroffersa wealthof traditional material(by no meansalwaysin the
complete form in which he knew it) that
doesnotseemto be invention.Hesiod
doesinventfromtimeto timebutremainsa goodsourceformuchmaterial,and
Pindaris anotherstorehouseof myth. I am currentlyworkingon Archaic
knowledgeof theGreekmyths,andwe mayeventuallybe ina positionto know
whattheArchaicpoetsinventforthelatertradition andwhattheytransmit from
the genuinefolk traditions.We must alwaysrememberthatargumentsex
silentioareforonceinapplicable.Homer,forexample,didnotknowthatlater
generations wouldwanthimto havewrittena completehandbook of themyths

70p. cit (supra,no. 4) 15-16.

81 should mention that Rose's Modern Methods in Classical Mythology (St. Andrews 1930)
remains a brilliant exposition of problems and can still be consulted with great profit. His
discussions of the relation of the Greek myths to religion, history, and folklore is an excellent
example of his wisdom in such matters.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THECLASSICAL
JOURNAL 161
that he knew; and we may, I think, assume that he knew about the brandof
Meleager, to pick a single example, and simply chose to ignoreit in his account
of thathero's death. Nor should we expect any informationaboutHeracles in
poems aboutthe wrathof Achilles duringthe TrojanWaror aboutthe returnof
Odysseus to Ithaca. Nestor was the single Homeric characteralive when
Heracles was living, and Homer gives us a great deal more informationabout
that hero than we have any right to expect.
The thirdrankfor ancient sources should probablybe variousprose authors
of different ages who can generally be relied upon to have transmittedfolk
traditionsas they had received them-such authors as Herodotus, Diodorus
Siculus, Strabo,and Pausanias. Although we might wish theirmythicalinfor-
mation to be arrangedin a more systematic form, we can rejoice in what they
have preservedfor us.
Most other ancientpoets and authorsare likely to be ill-suited to serving as
sources for the traditionalGreek myths, and we should always be suspicious
thatany informationpreservedby them alone may have been inventedby them
for a particularliterarypurpose and is thus not to be counted part of the folk
tradition.But any of these writerscan, of course, seize the imaginationof later
generationsand thus become the pseudo-mythicalsource for all later literary
tradition.It is Sophocles' magnificentOedipus, not the popularone, who is the
fountainheadof all latertradition;and Ovid providedus a whole host of vivid
characterswhose popular versions were of little importance. Such authors
should by no means be removed from the study of the western tradition,but
they should be put firmly into their properplaces in that tradition-and they
should not be used withoutcorroborationelsewhere for the populartraditions.
It was Sophocles, after all, and not "the Greeks" who created the great
Oedipus out of rathermeager material;and he deserves full credit.
Let us turn now to examples of the uses of the Greek myths in Greek and
Roman times, beginning with Oedipus, perhapsthe best example of a literary
treatmentthatis radicallydifferentfrom the myth andof a sophisticatedliterary
version thatbecomes the pseudo-mythfor all latertradition.Perhapsthis is the
place to state that the term pseudo-mythshould not be taken as derogatory:it
indicatesonly thatwhereasthe latertraditiontreatssuch a story as a myth, it is
not from the technical standpointa myth at all.
We know little of the story of Oedipus before Sophocles' treatmentin the
threeThebanplays, althoughwe can see a few tracesto show thatmany details
were quite different from those that Sophocles evidently created. But the
importantrole thatOedipusandAntigoneand the otherfiguresof the storyhave
played in later traditionstems almost exclusively from Sophocles alone. The
genuine myth was a relatively unimportantone to the Greeks, although well
enough known; and what Sophocles created has functionedas the "myth"'-
technically, what I am calling pseudo-myth, since it does not belong to folk
literatureat all-for all its many uses since the fifth century B.C. Without
Sophocles, Oedipus would have remained an interesting but lesser figure
known largely from handbook accounts and numerous other scattered (and
often useless) references.
Before Sophocles' use of Oedipus, the only significantliteraryappearances
of the hero are in Homer, althoughthereareenough references(such as Pindar,

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162 DECEMBER-JANUARY
01.2.35-42) to show thathis was a familiarname. Hesiod (Op. 162-163) does
referto a warat Thebesthatdestroysmanyheroes "for the sake of the flocks of
Oedipus," but Homerdiscusses Oedipus in just enough detail that we suspect
that he did not know such importantlater details as the self-blinding, the
immediate self-imposed exile, and the death at Colonus, all of which are
probablySophocleanor Attic inventions, as may well be Antigone's burialof
Polyneices and the death of her fiance Haemon. Even the four children of
Jocasta and Oedipus may be fifth-centuryinventions, they having previously
been Oedipus'childrenby Euryganeia(Paus. 9.5.10 = Oedipodeia, Fr. 1). In
Odyssey 11.271-280, Odysseus sees Epicaste(a name close enough to Jocasta
that they may well be mere variants)and, as he later relates,

"I saw the motherof Oedipodes, fair Epicaste, who wroughta monstrous
deed in ignoranceof mind, in thatshe weddedher own son, and he, when
he had slain his own father, wedded her, and straightwaythe gods made
these things known among men. Howbeit he abode as lord of the Cad-
meansin lovely Thebe, sufferingwoes throughthe banefulcounsels of the
gods, but she went down to the house of Hades, the strong warder. She
madefast a noose on high from a lofty beam, overpoweredby her sorrow,
but for him she left behindwoes full many, even all thatthe Avengers of a
motherbring to pass." (trans. A.T. Murray,Loeb Classical Library.)

The oblique reference in Iliad 23.676-680 is shorterbut concordant:

So spakehe, andthey all becamehushedin silence. Euryalusalone uprose

to face him, a godlike man, son of king Mecisteus, son of Talaus, who on a
time had come to Thebes for the burialof Oedipus, when he had fallen,
and there had worsted all the sons of Cadmus. (trans. A. T. Murray.)

Pausanias'comment on these passages (cited supra) is illuminating:

When Laius was king and marriedto locasta, an oracle came from
Delphi that, if locasta bore a child, Laius would meet his deathat his son's
hands. WhereuponOedipuswas exposed, who was fatedwhenhe grew up
to kill his father;he also marriedhis mother. But I do not thinkthathe had
childrenby her; my witness is Homer, who says in the Odyssey ... [he
here quotes 11.271 ff.]. How could they have "made it known forth-
with," if Epicastehad bornefour childrento Oedipus? But the motherof
these childrenwas Euryganeia,daughterof Hyperphas.Among the proofs
of this are the words of the authorof the poem called the Oedipodia;and
moreover,Onasiaspainteda pictureat Plataeaof Euryganeiabowed with
grief becauseof the fight betweenherchildren. (9.5.10-11, trans.W.H.S.
Jones, Loeb Classical Library.)
Much of the story of Oedipusis clearly a partof the ancientfolk tradition-
the oracle given to Laius, the exposure and subsequentdiscovery of Oedipus,
and the patricide, as well as the riddle of the Sphinx and the incestuous
marriage;but a numberof strikingincidentsare surely laterinventionand thus
pseudo-mythicalin a way that the earlierdetails are not. But the Greeks very

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE CLASSICALJOURNAL 163

quickly seized upon these details (as in Euripides' Phoenissae) and thus
followed the Sophoclean tradition. A more detailed discussion, however,
belongs to literarycriticism ratherthan to mythology (cf. OCD2, s.vv. An-
tigone and Oedipus).
Anothersplendidexample of myths and theiruses is Helen. Throughoutthe
Iliad andthe OdysseyHomerplaces herfirmly at Troyduringthe war, andthere
is no reasonto assume thatthe ancientfolk traditionwas any different. Literary
creation steps in with the sixth-centurypoet Stesichorus, who wrote a poem
following the standardaccountbut speakingdisparaginglyof Helen's willing-
ness to abandonher husband. Having thereafterbeen struckblind, he wrote a
second poem denying that Helen was ever at Troy and placing the blame on
Homer. He regainedhis sight, and literaryhistory gained a new pseudo-myth
(that did not ever completely oust the Homeric account). Stesichorus'inven-
tion had Helen takenfrom Pariswhen they reachedEgypt, whereshe remained
in the safekeepingof the Egyptiansuntil Menelauscould retrieveher at the end
of the war. Helen, if it was she who was responsible for the two miracles,
evidently failed to notice that her virtue remained rathertarnishedeven in
Stesichorus' new version, since she had still voluntarilyabandonedMenelaus
for Paris, even though she was no longer the latter's spouse in Troy for ten
years.
It is Euripides who again alters the literary history of Helen and finally
purifies her reputationcompletely in his romantic Helen. In his plot Helen
never leaves Spartawith Parisandis neverunfaithfulto Menelaus. By giving to
Helen a motif that was ancient though not previously attachedto her-she is
transportedto Egypt by Hermes, while Paris returns to Troy with only a
phantom-the poet can preservehercomplete maritalfidelity. WhenMenelaus
reaches Egypt after the war, the phantom vanishes; and Euripides paints a
tender reunion of husbandand wife after long separation.
Herodotus, we may note in leaving Helen, did not realize the nature of
Stesichorus'inventionand triedto considerthe two versions criticallyin order
to ascertainthe "true" one (2.113-116). He made the mistake, undoubtedly
with the encouragementof the Egyptianpriestswho functionedas his guides, of
deciding that the Egyptian version was the historically correct one and that
Homer had intentionallyignoredit because of its unsuitabilityfor epic poetry.
The Romans, of course, continuedto use the Greekmythsjust as the Greeks
had done; andI will end my discussion of literaryuses with one furtherwordof
caution aboutOvid. His narrativebrilliancehas given him a remarkablepower
over his posterity, and the difficulties of trackingdown sources and varying
versions have helped us to forget that he is not a good handbook. It is worth
repeatingthatOvid shouldneverbe used as the sourcefor a Greekmythwithout
independent,Greekconfirmation.9Ovid is normallyused as the sourcefor our
standardaccountsof Arachne, althoughthere is some reasonto believe thathe

9So beguilingis Ovid thatRose could not resistretellingin eitherof his books on Greekmythsthe
story of Baucis and Philemon, a folk tale that Ovid evidently met in Phrygiaand retold in Met.
8.618-724. Thereis no reasonwhy the Greekscould not have known a versionof the tale; we have
no evidence that they did.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164 DECEMBER-JANUARY
reversedthe traditionalversion in which Athenaalways won the contest-as is
properfor a deity in competitionwith a mortal-and gave the prizeto Arachne,
a reversalthatcompletely changes the natureof the punishment. Althoughwe
know no Greek versions of the tale, the Greek name Arachne (= spider)
suggests thatit is a Greekmyth. But by consideringOvid's accountas the usual
one, we fail to see what he was trying to do to the characterof his Minerva.
One other Ovidian tale will suffice, that of Ceyx and Alcyone (Met.
11.410-795), a story no longer well known but one told at such length that its
importanceto Ovid is certain. In the Greek version (Apollod. 1.7.4) their
transformationsinto birdswere a punishmentfor impiety, since in theirmarital
bliss they consideredthemselves the happiestof spouses and thus superiorto
Hera and Zeus, by whose names they addressedeach other. As in the story of
Niobe, the impiety was crucial to the tale. Ovid dramaticallytransformsthe
tale into one of his very few thatreveal a beautifulmutuallove, thwartedin this
case by an accidentaland violent stormthatdrownsCeyx. The metamorphoses
areused not as anypunishmentbuta miraculousmeansof reunitingthe husband
and wife in spite of everythingin orderto confirm the beauty and strengthof
theirlove. Thereis no impietyat all, norany hatredfromJupiter(who is absent)
or Juno(who actuallytriesto help Alcyone). By forgetting,or notknowing, the
traditionalversion thatOvid reworkedwe lose the point of his transformation.
We would do well, if we would appreciateOvid, to tryto recapturethe tradition
that he knew. By so doing, we might liberate the Greek myths from the
shackles that later traditioncan impose.
Whatdoes all this mean for our understandingof Greekor classical mythol-
ogy? It does not meanthatwe should cease to studythe subjectfrom any of the
various approachesthat we now use. It does mean that we should all learn as
much as we can about the subject, try to be precise in discussing its various
aspects, andattemptto keep abreastof new developments. We mustremember
that our body of myths, no matterwhat its precise limits may be, is different
from the mythsof any people who can be studiedby anthropologists.Those of
us who tryto approachmythsas embodimentsin traditionalsocieties of the best
wisdom known to that culture must remember that we cannot see that
mythopoeicstagefor the Greeksexcept dimly andthatcomparativestudieswill
be of limited, though sometimes great, value.
I am well awarethatmost of us who teachmythology(andmost texts as well)
focus on the Greekmyths as used duringmy second andthirdperiods, those of
the Greeks and Romans;and what I have writtenthroughoutthis essay some-
times seems disparagingof such a liaison. I do not intendfor thatto be the case:
I would ask only thatthe two partsof the traditionbe approachedwith attention
to the natureof each. In a complete studyone should consider(not necessarily
in this order)what the primitivenatureof a given myth was (with a note if that
cannot be recovered) and the significant Greek and Latin uses of it, with
attentionto notablealterationsandadditions. One could thengo on to studythe
post-classicallife of the myth. If one were to emphasizepost-classicaluses of
the myths, it wouldbe necessaryto referonly to whatevermythor pseudo-myth
functioned as the poet's source. A study of Bernini's use of Daphne, for
example, need refer only to the pseudo-mythin Ovid, whereas a study of the

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THECLASSICAL
JOURNAL 165
classical myth would need to consider the natureof the Daphne-mythfor the
Greeks as well as Ovid's adaptationof it.
The chief role of our subject in academic curriculais likely to remain one
focusing upon my second, third, and fourth stages, a largely continuous
traditionwhere boundaries are both artificial and helpful, as propertylines
generallyare. The magnitudeof the materialmeansthatin any given semestera
teachermustbe highly selective and concentrateupon a limitedrangeof topics;
and the possibilities are enormous-only Greek uses, both Greek and Roman
uses (the common approach,even though methodology needs updating), or
post-classical uses (where again, one would have to be selective in a limited
amount of time). Most of us try to touch upon several topics, both for their
varyingintrinsicinterestsandas a meansof demonstratingthe catholicityof the
Greek myths. A course entitled "Greek mythology" is certainlyjustified in
considering later Roman or other uses, although they ought not be labeled
Greek(Rose'sHandbookhasa saneapproach to thedifferencesin spiteof the
difficultiesthatI mentionedearlier),anda coursein "classicalmythology"
wouldseemdeficientwithoutsomereferencesto mattersspecificallyGreek.10
It mightbe helpful,althoughtheoldtermmythologywill probablycontinue
to be appliedto both,if we couldtryto distinguishbetweenmythsproperand
thevariousothertypesof folkliterature thattheancientGreekshavehandedon
to us. We neednot be insistent,but studentswill be relievedto realizethat
cosmogonicalmythsexistedon a level of seriousnessdifferentfromthatof
marchenor even fromthatof heroicstories. And the real cosmogonicand
theogonicmythswereof ever-lessening importance to theGreeksfromatleast
the eighthcenturyB.C. on, as philosophers andtheirprecursors soughtmore
satisfactory explanationsforthenatureof theuniversethan thosethat hadsuited
the BronzeAge. It wouldbe usefulagainif we wereto remindourselvesthat
therelationbetweenmythandreligionis complicated.Toomanyof us seemto
thinkthatthetwo aresynonymousforthe Greeks(Xenophanes andPlatohad
the sameproblem),butthe mythsin actualityonly occasionallytouchupon
religiouspracticesandbeliefsof the classicalperiodandusuallyseemto have
beendevelopedto explainthecomplexreligiousevolutionof theBronzeAge.
The storiesof the manyillegitimateaffairsof Zeus(especiallyas Ovidtells
them)havelittleor nothingto do with the worshipof Zeus."1
Comparative mythologyis goingto continueto pose a problemfor classi-
cists, sincetheprimarymythopoeicstageis one thatwe cannotknowdirectly;
butit oughtto remainanimportant partof college-levelcourses(andatleasta
few reasonablygood texts now exist for the secondarylevel), if only, as

10SeeR. J. Schork, "Basic MythologyCourses: Two Suggestions," CJ 72 (1976-77) 144-150,

for some sensible suggestions for organizing a course thematically.
"This is not the place to develop the topic further. The best account, although told from the
standpointof religionratherthanmythology, of the meaningof the mythsfor the divinities, remains
thatof W.K.C. Guthriein TheGreeksand TheirGods (Boston 1955, orig. 1950), especially Ch. II,
"The Divine Family." Rose's Modern Methods in Classical Mythology (supra, n. 8) is also
helpful.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166 DECEMBER-JANUARY
Peradotto suggests,12to correctourculturalbiastowardtheGreeks.We shall
have to rememberthatsuch studiesare aimedtowardunderstanding a lost
period forthe Greeks and thatourlater sources must be handledwithcare. Itis
frustrating to haveso littlegenuineGreekmaterialfor comparative purposes,
but suchan approachstill containsmanyrewards.
All thetextsnowin existenceneedatleastsomecorrectionandsomea final
burial;but I doubtthat one need despairif burdenedwith a Bulfinchor
Hamilton,althoughI suspectthat learningmythology-like chemistry-is
easierwitha soundtext. The teachercan providenecessarycorrectionsand
changesof emphasisas needed,andmistakesnotcorrectedthissemesterwill
waitquietlyuntillater.I shudderto considerthe qualityof my firstcoursein
mythology,althoughthe studentsweregenerallyappreciative of my efforts.
Thequalityhasimproveddramatically in severalstagessincethen,butanother
decadeof teachingmayagainmakemy currenteffortsseemnaive.Fortunate-
ly, Greekmythology,with its manyclassicalandpost-classicaltransforma-
tions,hasalwaysbeena fascinating field;andexcitingdevelopments onseveral
differentfrontsshouldcontinueto makeit so for sometime.
F. CARTERPHILIPS
VanderbiltUniversity

12P. 17 in JohnPeradotto,Classical Mythology:AnAnnotatedBibliographicalSurvey(Urbana,

Ill. 1973), an inexpensive booklet thatno studentof the subjectcan dispense with. His contribu-
tions to the study of classical mythology ought not be undervalued.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions