Studies of Myth
Mythology has attracted scholars in many fields. Some have studied myths with the aid of materials from history, archaeology, anthropology, and other disciplines. Others have found in myths materials of use in their respective fields:

Myth and Language.
Because myth is a narrative, many attempts to understand it have focused on its linguistic structure. In one approach, the meaning of myth is sought in the history and structure of the language itself. The most famous proponent of myth as an example of the historical development of language is Friedrich Max Müller (1823-1900), a German scholar who spent most of his academic life in England, and whose major studies dealt with the religion and myths of India. Müller believed that in the Vedic texts of ancient India the gods and their actions do not represent real beings or events; rather, they are products of a confusion of human language, of an attempt, through sensual and visual images, to give expression to natural phenomena (such as thunder or the sea).

Of more recent vintage is the structural linguistic model, which builds on the work of the linguists Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), a Swiss, and Roman Jakobson (1896-1982), a Russian-American, and the American folklorist Stith Thompson (1885-1976). Structural linguists concentrate on the total meaning of language as an internal logical system. In particular they examine the relation between two levels of language: the words and content that are actually spoken; and the underlying systematic structure - the grammar, syntax, and other rules of the language.

The most important student of myth from this perspective has been the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss. For him myth represented a special case of linguistic usage, a third level beyond surface narrative and underlying structure. In myth he discovered certain clusters of relationships that, although expressed in the narrative and dramatic content, obey the systematic order of the language's structure. He contended that the same logical form is at work in all languages and cultures, in scientific works and tribal myths alike. See Semantics.

Myth and Knowledge.
Theories stating that myth constitutes a form and way of knowledge are as old as the interpretation of myth itself. The overlapping of mythic and rational modes was confronted by the classical Greek philosophers; it can also be observed in the insistence of Origen, a 3d-century church father, that the Christian revelation of God in Jesus could best be understood in mythic terms.

In formulations of the relationship between myth and knowledge, two major orientations recur. In the first, myth is examined as an intellectual and logical concern. In the second, myth is studied in its imaginative, intuitive meaning - either as a mode of perception distinguishable from rational, logical kinds of knowledge, or as one that preceded rational knowledge in human intellectual evolution.

One of the fathers of British anthropology, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, thought that myth in archaic cultures was based on a psychological delusion and a mistaken logical inference - on a confusion of subjective and objective reality, of the real and the ideal. Tylor believed that myth, although illogical, had moral value. R. R. Marett (1866-1943), a later British anthropologist, felt that myth arose from the emotional responses that people in archaic cultures make to their environment. In his view, they respond in rhythmic gestures that develop into dance and ritual, with narrative myth forming the oral part of the communal rites.

The French linguist Maurice Leenhardt (1878-1954) explained myth primarily as an expression of the living experience of the community. Leenhardt, who spent a great part of his life among the Melanesians, observed that the Melanesians responded passively to the nonhuman realities of their environment. They did not seek to dominate the environment conceptually or technologically, but attempted to adapt to and come to terms with its powers and forces. He coined the term cosmographic for this attitude and traced the myths of the Melanesians to their cosmographic experience of the world.

Marett referred to his theory as preanimism, to distinguish it from that of Tylor, who had called his own theory animism. Marett located the meaning of myth at an intellectual stage prior to the emergence of rational consciousness. The French philosopher Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (1857- 1939) further developed the notion of prelogical mentality as an explanation of myth. Lévy-Bruhl held that people in archaic cultures experience the world without benefit of logical categories, that they gain their knowledge of the world through mystical participation in reality, and that this knowledge is expressed in myths.

The 19th-century Scottish scholar Andrew Lang and the German anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt (1868-1954) both noted in ethnographic literature the frequent presence of a high god, a deity who created the world and then distanced himself from it. They saw a distinction in the myths between this kind of deity and the other deities and spirits. They reasoned that this concept of a creator came from metaphysical and intellectual contemplation and not from an evolution of thought from prelogical to rational. In their formulation, myths simultaneously encompass both the rational-logical and the intuitive.

A definitive, comprehensive view of myth as simultaneously rational-logical and intuitive-imaginative was set forth by the Romanian-born historian of religions Mircea Eliade (1907-86). In Eliade's interpretation, the myth reveals a primitive ontology - an explanation of the nature of being. The myth, by means of symbols, expresses knowledge that is complete and coherent; although myths may over the centuries become trivialized and debased, people can use them to return to the beginning of time and rediscover and reexperience their own nature. To the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, myth, as expressed in symbols, is necessary for serious appraisal of the origins, processes, and depths of human thought.

Myth and Society.
Philosophical and speculative understanding of myth, such as that of the Italian philosopher Giovanni Battista Vico, raised the question of the interrelationship of myth and society. In his Scienza nuova (New Science, 1725; final ed., 1744) Vico set forth a four-stage theory of the development of myth and religion in Greece. The first stage expressed the divinization of nature: Thunder and the heavens become Zeus, the sea becomes Poseidon. In the second stage, gods related to the domestication and domination of nature appear: Hephaestus, god of fire, Demeter, goddess of grain. In the third stage, the gods embody civil institutions and parties: Hera, for example, is the institution of marriage. The fourth stage is expressed by the total humanization of the gods, as found in Homer.

The French sociologist Émile Durkheim, in examining the relation of myth to society, drew on data from Australian aboriginal cultures. Durkheim rejected the notion that myth arises out of extraordinary manifestations of nature. Nature to him was a model of regularity and thus is predictable and is the ordinary. He concluded that myths arise in the human response to social existence. They express the way society represents humanity and the world, and they constitute a moral system and a cosmology as well as a history. Myths and the rituals stemming from them sustain and renew these moral and other beliefs, keeping them from being forgotten, and they strengthen people in their social natures.

The Polish-born British anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski refined this sociological conception of myth. For Malinowski, myth fulfills in archaic and tribal societies an indispensable function: It expresses, enhances, and codifies belief. It safeguards and enforces morality and contains practical rules for the guidance of the individuals in these cultures.

The acceptance of the sociological meaning of myth is universal among anthropologists. This acceptance does not imply, however, that myth is understood to be a function of human society. Rather, myth and society coexist; the sociopolitical order can be seen as an inexact reflection of the social or cosmic order found in myths, and the myths give legitimacy to the order of society.

The British anthropologist Sir James Frazer, in The Golden Bough (1890), first suggested the relation of myth to ritual. His theory was extended to explain the meaning of myth in literate societies. The Dutch-born Henri Frankfort (1897-1954), the American Theodor Gaster (1906-92), and the Danish-American Thorkild Jacobsen (1904-93) applied anthropological insights to understand the religion and society of the cultures of the ancient Middle East, the sites of some of the earliest agricultural societies in human history. Jacobsen pointed out that the imaginative mythical perception of plants was the practical and philosophical basis for the domestication of plant life, and that agriculture itself became part of a perception both of cosmic order and of the structure of society.

Gaster held that certain myths and rites have as their function the replenishment of life and vitality. Such myths and rites in agricultural societies are so generalized in their relation to the cosmic and societal order that religious and mythical meaning is given to the entire culture.

The French linguist Georges Dumézil (1898-1986), who made extensive investigation of Indo-European myth in Indian, Greek, Roman, German, Scandinavian, and other cultures, discerned a common cosmosociological structure in these myths. He found in every form of Indo-European myth a tripartite structure, with a priest or ruler at the top of a hierarchy, warriors in the middle, and farmers, herdsmen, and craftsmen at the base. These classes are correlated with cosmic deities; and in the narrative form of the epic the interrelationships, antagonisms, and conflicts among these three classes are dramatized. Dumézil does not claim that all Indo-European societies possess this social structure empirically, but rather that this structure operates as an archetypal language for the statement of ideal meanings within Indo-European cultures.

The German philosopher Ernst Cassirer refined the concepts of the intellectual-logical and the intuitive-imaginative aspects of myth in his discussion of the meanings of myth and of the social group. He allied himself with those who say that myth arises from the emotions. He stressed, however, that myth is not identical with the emotion from which it arises, but that it is the expression - the objectification - of the emotion. In this expression or objectification, the identity and basic values of the group are given an absolute meaning. Cassirer believed that myth and mythic modes of thinking form a deep substratum in the scientific, technological cultures of the West.

Myth and Psychology.
In myth, depth psychologists found material to delineate the structure, order, and dynamics of both the psychic life of individuals and the collective unconscious of society. Sigmund Freud utilized themes from older mythological structures to exemplify the conflicts and dynamics of the unconscious psychic life (in, for example, his Oedipus and Electra complexes). Carl Jung, in his psychological interpretations of the large body of myths that have been collected from cultures throughout the world, saw evidence for the existence of a collective unconscious shared by all. He developed a theory of archetypes - patterns of great impact, at once emotions and ideas - that are expressed in behavior and images (see also Psychology). Both Jung and Freud viewed dreams as expressions of the structure and dynamic of the life of the unconscious. The dream, they pointed out, in many of its particulars resembles the narrative of myth in cultures in which myth still expresses the totality of life.

Géza Róheim (1891-1953), a Hungarian anthropologist, applied Freudian theory in interpreting archaic myths and religion and, more generally, in explaining the development of human culture. The most comprehensive study of myths from the perspective of depth psychology, however, was made by the American scholar Joseph Campbell (1904-87). In The Masks of God (4 vol., 1959-67) he combined insights from depth psychology (primarily Jungian), theories of historical diffusion, and linguistic analysis to formulate - from the perspective of the dynamics that are found in mythical forms of expression - a general theory of the origin, development, and unity of all human cultures.

An article from Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia. © 2007 World Almanac Education Group. A WRC Media Company. All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted by written agreement, uses of the work inconsistent with U.S. and applicable foreign copyright and related laws are prohibited.

© 2007 Lucasfilm Ltd. & TM. All Rights Reserved. Used under authorization.