Vizzer wrote:

One wonders just how many other popular myths are actually much more recent in their development than might be believed.

All the good ones, I would say. Or at least all the ones which retain relevance in our minds. Either their content or their interpretation requires constant tweaking to retain that quality, and often both.

The supposed conversation dramatised in the clip above is interesting, and very astutely avoids anachronisms despite the difference of views expressed. Whether it is absolutely accurate or not is another matter, but it makes perfect sense that two men with their background and in their time would have paid deference to Christian myth beyond that which it necessarily merits. Lewis of course would have done so, but Tolkien too - despite being in the business of constructing fantastic and independent alternatives - would have felt obliged to cede superiority to that particular cycle in discourse, whatever he privately thought. When discussing the "power" of myth that is one such power that cannot be ignored - the ability for a currently prevalent myth to supersede private thoughts where it matters, at the point of expression. The same two men, with the same attitudes today, would probably have conducted quite a different conversation. Not because their private views would have changed or evolved, but simply because the power exercised by one particular myth has abated in the interim in their society.

Nordmann, on Dirk's Exodus thread - which I seem to have killed - wrote:

I hope you don't think I was attempting to denigrate the mythological import of Exodus, or indeed the importance of any mythological trope that has ever held a long and venerable place in humanity's effort  to transcend the purely experiential in ascertaining its purpose and worth.

No, I don't, and I did more or less apologise to you for giving the impression I did, but the thread died anyway. No time or inclination for further discussion, I suppose? That's everyone's default position these days. What a terrible shame, beacause this thread, which tried to look at the "power of myth", is, like so many of Res His' old threads, a cracking discussion. I have just read this one through again with great regret. Regret? Yes - sadness even, for what - three years on - has been lost. What an admission! We all had such interesting ideas a few years ago - ideas which were expressed with vigour, enthusiasm and real erudition. What on earth happened? Have religion and Brexit really poisoned everything? Would seem so.

Myth and Jungian archetypes in the Bible (and elsewhere) -  are these simply discredited and out-of-date ideas, or a genuine understanding of the power of myth which is relevant  to us all today, ideas which we ignore or discard at our peril? Now that could provoke an interesting discussion - or could have done in happier times. And Exodus - the Great Journey - who do the Wanderers represent, and what is the final destination?  What did Jung think about that? Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit. Don't know the Greek, but I believe Jung pinched that idea from the Delphic oracle (like you do).

PS And how is the myth of Exodus taken up in the New Testament, if at all?

Temperance,

I went through the whole thread as you and you are right in your statement. I prepared something this evening in reply to this thread and in addition to the Exodus thread, but now seeing arriving midnight...

But adding first because that don't need that much "thinking"
My sources for the "religion" lesson, 16 years old (for  the baccalauréat in France, secondary humaniora here) and one had to be carefull with that lesson, while it was a "main course" and one had to have 50% of his points for it , while for chemistry for example and geography one needed only one third of the points...
And I found the pictures of the exact books we had to buy for this lesson:

           


Kind regards from Paul.

I can't remember everything I have typed here since I joined (autumn 2013 I think - I was looking for like minds who were as fed up of The White Queen TV show as I was).  I was travelling on a train some years ago (it was when I was still working in London so it has to be at least 9 years ago) and got talking to the people round me.  One young man was coming back from a religious conference.  He was sincere though I think he was somewhat "evangelical".  Anyway, I know he was shocked when I said I was Christian but that I didn't believe that everything (especially in the Old Testament) was literally true, that there was some folk lore and myth bound up there.  I also shocked a Jehovah's Witness lady I knew when I said I didn't think Job was a real person.  She said she'd thought she'd heard everything but I was the first person who said Job wasn't a real person.  Well, I suppose I can't be 100% certain - perhaps all those thousands of years ago there was somebody who went through hardship and sadnesses though I imagine if so the tale may have been varied in the telling.

I've said before I do like a sword and sandal story. In the last decade we had a couple of TV versions of the King Arthur myth - Merlin on BBC for the kiddiwinks (well family friendly) which I liked despite some plot holes and Camelot for adults (read ruder and nuder) which I loathed - well I only managed to watch two episodes.  In both versions the actresses playing Morgana had dodgy accents - in Merlin the actress was Irish and you could tell and in Camelot the actress was French and you could tell.

Sorry if I'm bringing the tone of the thread down from erudite to not so erudite.

I guess myths have always been changed and developed to fit the time when they were retold.  I like Game of Thrones and the A Song of Ice and Fire novels on which they are based but they are (at least partially) derivative.  I don't want to spoil but the show is so well known now (and finishing very soon) so I'll mention that part of the intrigue involves a twin brother and sister who are lovers secretly.   I suspect the writer may have had Siegmund and Siegelinde from Die Walkure* in mind (and I don't necessarily condemn an author for being inspired by other works as long as he/she puts his/her stamp of originality on his/her own offerings) and I believe there were Asian tales of twin incest though I don't have any great knowledge of them.

Temperance and LiR,

LiR I want first and for all to post a reply to Temperance as I have nearly promised it yesterday. And I have to "think" a lot about it, as I am discussing among two erudites as a Temperance and a nordmann...

Temperance I want to start with the end of our discussion on the Exodus thread:
"Temperance, I think! I even there understood what you meant, as such utterly briljant stories and dramas are in my opinion timeless and stay in the actuality as they in a "mensentaal" ( a language on the human level) "plain language?" explain what are the real values of humanity and as such appeal to our nowadays mentality, motives and needs, perhaps because these real values of humanity are indeed timeless."

But in the meantime I learned a lot about the "old testament". For instance, as I was seeking for the "real values" of humanity in the "Ten Commandments. Something we had to learn by "heart?" (I see now that it is the same as in Dutch: uit het hoofd leren, and as in French: apprendre par coeur) five years old (still in the "maternité" maternity?)
https://nl.wikisource.org/wiki/De_tien_geboden_van_God
And in English
https://www.topmarks.co.uk/judaism/the-ten-commandments
And yes I found the values that perhaps started with the dawn of humanity, while the evolution of the homo erectus, as they more and more living together in communities, learned to act together for the better of the group and as such evoluted to a kind of behaviour to make that cooperation workable and at the end it was transmitted orally and later when writing was available via rules to make sure that the basic values of that society were used as a kind of laws.

But then I learned from the following article of Ludwig Kostro from a Polish university
[A presentation of the author can be found in Episteme N. 2]
Department for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science
University of Gdansk, ul. Bielanska 5
80-952 Gdansk, Poland
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/episteme/epi6/ep6-kostr.htm
I learned for the first time in my life that there was a cult Decalogue and an ethical Decalogue
From the article:

"It is quite surprising for many people that besides the ethical Decalogue there is another one, i.e. the cult Decalogue, older than the ethical one, which forbids to 'cook a young goat in its mother's milk'. It is even more surprising that according to one of biblical traditions, it was the cult Decalogue with the above mentioned prohibition inscribed on the stone tablets, not the ethical one, commanding to 'honour your father and mother' and including prohibitions 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal.' This fact is rather unknown to general public. However, all the biblical dictionaries mention the two kinds of Decalogue present in the Pentateuch, at the same pointing exact spots where their different versions can be found. It is enough to look it up in the smallest dictionary, i.e. ABC of the Old Testament [3] to find it is true."
We can differentiate the 'ethical Decalogue' (Ex. 20; Deut. 5) from the 'cult one' (Ex. 34; Deut. 23). There are different opinions as far as their origins are concerned. Some of the Old Testament scholars (particularly older and more orthodox - L.K.) refer the 'ethical Decalogue' to Moses, whereas the others (younger and more contemporary - L. K.) treat it as a younger piece of work, dating it back to the Babylonian captivity [3, p. 21].
It should be added that the Babylonian captivity refers to the years 597 - 538 BC, so the 'ethical Decalogue' might have been created as late as in the 6^th century BC, i.e. seven centuries after Moses had lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Some find it hard to believe because in the cultural space influenced by the Judaistic, Christian and Moslem religions, the ethical Decalogue constitutes the basic canon of morality. The followers of the three religions were brought up under conviction that the ten ethical Commandments were received by Moses from God himself (in the 13^th century BC). The results of the research, however, seem to be undeniable and absolute, and they are accepted by numerous believing biblicists."

Temperance as you will read in the Cult Decalogue it is a Jealous God and the Israëli have to eradicate all the other religions, which try to penetrate in the Israëlian religion.
The Abrahamic religions seems to be based on the Ethical Decalogue and as such I will look more to the ethical values from the Ethical Decalogue to compare them with the timeless values of humanity. Values that I suppose you are also looking for?

Will further discuss in an addendum as this becomes already long and as midnight is nearing that will be for tomorrow.

Kind regards to both from Paul.

Hi LiR and Paul,

Thank you for responding to my sad little missive.

Re erudition:

Paul wrote:

 And I have to "think" a lot about it, as I am discussing among two erudites as a Temperance and a nordmann...

You are trying to be kind, I know, Paul, but that did make me wriggle a bit. I know I'm not in the same league as the Boss: I play for Yeovil Town, these days, not Manchester City. But I did beat the team from Bideford last year.

I'm not so much interested in the 10 Commandments - the rules that underpin Western moral and civic duty - as in the whole story of Exodus: the drama of it all and the superb characters; and why, like all good drama, it - and they - continue to fascinate.  Moses as the Hero archetype and the Pharoah as the Villain. (Someone once compared Moses to Batman!) The writers of the Gospel presented Jesus as the New Moses. Here's a link to a Guardian review of the Karen Armstrong (great historian of religious ideas and a woman whose writing I think Tim respects) book about mythology: The Short History of Myth. I've no time to write much at the moment, so forgive me if I just quote a big chunk from the article which I thought was excellent.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/dec/17/featuresreviews.guardianreview10


Words are tricky enough. Words that hold within them huge and ancient ideas are even harder to grasp. Words that describe enigmatic ideas first expressed in carvings or cave paintings from the Palaeolithic become downright slippery. A myth, says Karen Armstrong "is an event that - in some sense - happened once, but which also happens all the time". This is not quite the definition of the Shorter Oxford, which says that a myth - a word first used in English only in 1830 - begins a "purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions or events ... "

But such a difference would be a neat illustration of what Armstrong sees as the long battle of mythos and logos. Logos, she says, must correspond to facts, while mythos is yoked to transformative ritual. Mythos and logos coexisted uneasily long before the Greeks gave them names, but scientific logos and myth became incompatible some time in the past 400 years, much to humanity's disadvantage. Myth gave structure and meaning to ancient life, whereas logos could only offer modern medicine, hygiene, labour-saving technologies and better transport. Under assault from Western rationalism, mythical ways of thought crumbled, and gave way to "a numbing despair, a creeping mental paralysis, a sense of impotence and rage ... "

In response to the transcontinental anomie that arrived with Western science, Protestant reformers began to take the myth out of Christian ritual: after Martin Luther, the Eucharist became "only" a symbol of Christ's body and Christ's sacrificial death became "simply a memorial of a bygone event." By the time Nietzsche had got around to proclaiming that God was dead, he was speaking the truth, in a sense. "Without myth, cult, ritual and ethical living, a sense of the sacred dies," says Armstrong. Without the discipline of mythical thinking and practice, it was difficult for many to avoid despair. The dark epiphanies of the 20th century can be blamed on "the absence of a viable mythology" that could help us face the unspeakable.


PS I remember from somewhere that Katherine Parr once told Henry VIII that he was "our new Moses, leading us out from the bondage of Rome". Clever woman - Henry loved the comparison.

In haste.

Temp.

In haste too...

Temperance wrote:

PS I remember from somewhere that Katherine Parr once told Henry VIII that he was "our new Moses, leading us out from the bondage of Rome". Clever woman - Henry loved the comparison.

It's in Catherine's 'The Lamentation of a Sinner' and she actually makes it a more personal attack on the Pope (or rather the "Bishop of Rome" as she insists on calling him) in that she describes Henry as "our Moses [who] hath delivered us out of the captivity and bondage of Pharaoh", ie the Pope (Paul III when she was writing). In terms of the enduring power of the Exodus myth she clearly understood that the evil oppressive tyranny that the people are escaping from cannot be just a vague concept, but for full impact has to be clearly identified with a specific personification or figure of hate, be that Pharoah, the Pope, or more recently say, Adolf Hitler.

Oh well done, MM - Lilacs and Lamentations - two superb Tudor goals in a week: you obviously play for Liverpool. (I am very, very jealous!   )

Seriously - excellent and relevant post to give the full and accurate quote. Nice irony though that she was praising Henry, who was up there with the best of the tyrants!

Must dash, but will try to set you up for a third goal later.

Temperance wrote:

 
I'm not so much interested in the 10 Commandments - the rules that underpin Western moral and civic duty - as in the whole story of Exodus: the drama of it all and the superb characters; and why, like all good drama, it - and they - continue to fascinate.  Moses as the Hero archetype and the Pharoah as the Villain. (Someone once compared Moses to Batman!) The writers of the Gospel presented Jesus as the New Moses. Here's a link to a Guardian review of the Karen Armstrong (great historian of religious ideas and a woman whose writing I think Tim respects) book about mythology: The Short History of Myth. I've no time to write much at the moment, so forgive me if I just quote a big chunk from the article which I thought was excellent.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/dec/17/featuresreviews.guardianreview10


Words are tricky enough. Words that hold within them huge and ancient ideas are even harder to grasp. Words that describe enigmatic ideas first expressed in carvings or cave paintings from the Palaeolithic become downright slippery. A myth, says Karen Armstrong "is an event that - in some sense - happened once, but which also happens all the time". This is not quite the definition of the Shorter Oxford, which says that a myth - a word first used in English only in 1830 - begins a "purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions or events ... "

But such a difference would be a neat illustration of what Armstrong sees as the long battle of mythos and logos. Logos, she says, must correspond to facts, while mythos is yoked to transformative ritual. Mythos and logos coexisted uneasily long before the Greeks gave them names, but scientific logos and myth became incompatible some time in the past 400 years, much to humanity's disadvantage. Myth gave structure and meaning to ancient life, whereas logos could only offer modern medicine, hygiene, labour-saving technologies and better transport. Under assault from Western rationalism, mythical ways of thought crumbled, and gave way to "a numbing despair, a creeping mental paralysis, a sense of impotence and rage ... "

In response to the transcontinental anomie that arrived with Western science, Protestant reformers began to take the myth out of Christian ritual: after Martin Luther, the Eucharist became "only" a symbol of Christ's body and Christ's sacrificial death became "simply a memorial of a bygone event." By the time Nietzsche had got around to proclaiming that God was dead, he was speaking the truth, in a sense. "Without myth, cult, ritual and ethical living, a sense of the sacred dies," says Armstrong. Without the discipline of mythical thinking and practice, it was difficult for many to avoid despair. The dark epiphanies of the 20th century can be blamed on "the absence of a viable mythology" that could help us face the unspeakable..

Temperance,

as I understand now that you are focusing on the myths I will let my Bible research and the great values of the world community today as presented in the universal declaration of human rights of the Unesco
http://www.unesco.org/education/information/50y/nfsunesco/doc/hum-rights.htm
And there are thirty articles instead of the ten of Mozes
And as I did the research about the great values in the several religions I wanted to post something but see now that a lot are links to other "churches" who want to push such views...and as you look to the "about us"...
But in my humble opinion most religions seem to have a comparable ethical set that seems to be universal and that perhaps is there as an evolution of an earlier common human approach?

I have the whole evening looked to what a myth is as I wanted to use it as a base for a narration of how the present day ethical values came into being, but I see now that because of the definition of myth, how extended you may take it, it is not possible to do, while I don't accept supernatural influence.
But myths can be great as to teach to people not understanding yet how the natural world "works", how it came into existence or how a nation originated as for instance a Romulus and Remus and the "wolvin" (female wolf) and comparing with that I found the Mozes myth and het "rieten mandje" (little wicker basket?) much more inventive.
Just to say Temperance, and perhaps you will blame me for that, that I see it indeed as myths to compare as I said when I read 10 years old the old testament strips from the local library together with the then new Tintin strips from Hergé both from the Casterman editions of Tournai. And I read them with the same affinity as they both were unreal as Tintin throughout the several albums did things that couldn't be...but it were both always good stories that I read without pauze...
Perhaps I am along the years got "blasé" by reading all those novels during my life, at sixteen even a three a week. Nowadays if I have time, but I have always to do something others, I read only a novel if it is well written and historical accurate for the main events and persons...

I feel to disagree with Armstrong, where she says:
"Myth gave structure and meaning to ancient life, whereas logos could only offer modern medicine, hygiene, labour-saving technologies and better transport. Under assault from Western rationalism, mythical ways of thought crumbled, and gave way to "a numbing despair, a creeping mental paralysis, a sense of impotence and rage ... "


What despair, what mental paralysis, what sense of impotence and rage?
I find a great satisfaction when I read in a scientific monthly how future problems can be tackled and how humanity more and more is aware what drives them and how one can remediate to upcoming flaws...searching in the mind and brain why we act as we act...I am really enthusiastic if I see how far the human mind came up to now and hoping for a further evolution that brings even more...

"The dark epiphanies of the 20th century can be blamed on "the absence of a viable mythology" that could help us face the unspeakable.."

It were just those myths of the Nazi era, especially the Nazi myths and the myths of the Utopian Socialism that have to be blamed for the dark epiphanies of the 20th century. And every rational person could easely from beforehand see that they were unrealistic and myths...but seemingly is the common man still receptive for such narrations as for instance the "roman national" the mythical magic of the origin of the existence of the nation making the other nations the ennemy or the myth that all individuals want to work for the common good without compensation for the individual, who works more or is smarter in the service of that community...

OOPS already over midnight...

Kind regards from Paul.

Paul wrote:

...most religions seem to have a comparable ethical set that seems to be universal and that perhaps is there as an evolution of an earlier common human approach?

Yes, that's what Jung looks at in his theory of the "collective unconscious" - similar ideas, symbols, archetypes crop up in all societies and religions.

It's a glorious spring morning here, in a little paradise part of England - but, lucky as I am, I see the evidence of despair and nihilism all around every time I watch the news, read of the crime figures and of the misery of young people who apparently have it all, but who are more depressed and unhappy than ever before. Happiness is not a warm Smartphone - as so many of them are now realising. I've gone beyond the "supernatural" - whatever that ever meant - it is all about what Jung called the Self - an extremely confusing term he used, which is not to be confused with the ego and is , I believe, what our favourite Roman pagan emperor called "the god within my breast". Jesus understood that too - my latest theory is that Jesus was a Jungian before Jung - other great ancient thinkers too. But I haven't had my porridge yet and it's far too early for all this; also I am very busy here, so all this possible nonsense from me will have to wait.

In great haste as my porridge cooks.

Temp.

Temperance,

"but, lucky as I am, I see the evidence of despair and nihilism all around every time I watch the news, read of the crime figures and of the misery of young people who apparently have it all, but who are more depressed and unhappy than ever before. Happiness is not a warm Smartphone - as so many of them are now realising. I've gone beyond the "supernatural" - whatever that ever meant - it is all about what Jung called the Self - an extremely confusing term he used, which is not to be confused with the ego and is , I believe, what our favourite Roman pagan emperor called "the god within my breast". "

Temperance, I have first "done" the easier stuff, before I started with the philosophical one (at least I think "philosophical" nordmann correct me if I am wrong). And I have yet prepared a bit in mind a reply, but as usual already nearing midnight overhere, it is too late to edit it in "plain" English.
A fore taste
I read these days in the paper about the "burn out"s ever increasing the last years leading to long absences of the work. A professor has now found that treating them as a trauma after an accident led to half a shorter time to return to work. An interesting detail from the data: the percentage of absence for burn out, was more than double in big entreprises, than in small familial ones with much lesser personal...

See you tomorrow.

Kind regards from Paul.

Temperance,

excuses again...the whole evening busy with the so-called 12th century renaissance and Peter Abelard sparked by Abelard's thread Abelard and Héloise. Not so much with the love affair and the emasculating of Abelard (in any case they don't do that anymore nowadays and you see it is not all bad and depressing in these days and as you see those Ecclesiastics of that time were as bad as the sultans with their eunuchs of the Islamic counterpart)
Not easy stuff if you read the essays from academici...at the end I will more searching in philosophy and religion than you and nordmann together

Perhaps you will be also interested in the thread as that aspect of the 12 century relies indeed to religion, philosophy and free and logical thinking and leads perhaps to humanism. Abelard a forerunner of humanism? No myths anymore?

Kind regards from Paul.

The failure to agree on an exact definition of "myth" that satisfies both the driest academic and the most die-hard religious evangelist has always hampered discussion of the subject by almost everyone situated at all points of semantic preference within these polar extremes.

Armstrong's deductions are predicated on a definition of myth with which quite a few people would disagree, including myself. It apparently makes semantic sense on face value when viewed within the narrow parameters of a western, Judaeo-Christian perspective, but even then it still fails in many ways, even within that specific context, to adequately differentiate for example between much-loved legend and myth (both of which can neatly package some very fundamental philosophical, existential and metaphysical issues for consideration), sometimes arbitrarily swapping the phrases as almost interchangeable, especially when the subject under scrutiny is lore that delivers elements of the above and some variance of importance is being placed on these by the interlocutors to the discussion being conducted.

Dictionaries don't help much either - about the best differentiation that they make within their standard definitions is to elevate myth above legend based on a perceived "importance" of its conveyed message or meaning, such as when a legend or group of legends purport to "explain" a society's origin, in which case the package can be described as "myth". The very title of this thread employs this semantic ambiguity, for example, though this inherent vagueness didn't preclude correct assumption of its composer's intended meaning by those who subsequently participated - which of course is completely understandable and expected, even while it highlights the principal difficulty with "myth" as a term. It is a fertile and worthy topic of discussion right up to the point where it requires to be accurately defined, at which point its fractured semantic application tends to hinder further discussion rather than foster it. The interlocutors involved quickly find themselves at different and irreconcilable semantic points of perspective on the topic they set out to discuss, and about which they embarked on that discussion in apparent full agreement regarding meaning at the outset.

Umbert Eco used a well known (in western civilization) example to illustrate the semantic dilemma involved when choosing "myth", "legend" or simply "story" to apply to a received narrative which - again by definition - is assumed to be partly, mostly or even entirely fictional (the bit that semantically is common to all three terms). The academic and theologian might even agree, he suggested, that in the case of the New Testament then the body of work in its entirety can be interpreted as promulgation of myth (several myths in fact) which rivals any comparable mythical cycle in presenting all the elements expected in such a package - a pantheon, a self-contained and properly sustained internal "logic", a moral and philosophical thread of equal consistency to the logic employed to phrase it, an origin explanation as well as a hinted explanation of ultimate destination, and all the other stuff that the best and most enduring myths tend to include.

Within this myth we find, again as expected, quite a few legends presented. These are the self-contained anecdotal elements to be found within mythical cycles in which one is most likely to find the most coherently formed narrative sub-texts, which also tend to include the overtly supernatural elements, the rather obvious fictional constructions, the most pseudo-historical claims, and all those components that smack of pure invention - the area in fact where dictionary definitions let themselves down semantically by failing to ascribe this quality solely to the legendary aspect of myth and instead opt to tar the whole package with this brush. This failure to be specific, Eco argues, in fact does these individual narratives a huge disservice in terms of the art with which they have been constructed. As elements often more durable than the myths in which they once prominently figured (Homer's treatment of demigods within the Greek cycle through beautifully crafted stories still read and enjoyed to this day, long after their original mythical import has long been discounted or forgotten) they should be singled out and lauded for their invention, and the myth constructed around them rightly appreciated as drawing validity from their presence and craft, not in any way inventively contributing to them at all. Legend is the true celebration of human imagination, not myth, which simply constructs logistical and interpretative patterns from this legendary input, however relevant or believed in that myth might ever be.

And then, within the legends and dotted throughout the myth in other locations (such as the actual historical stuff where that too has been included in the package), we find the "stories". In Eco's example of the New Testament then Jesus's parables are a valid case in point - stories within legends within myth.

Eco then turns the whole thing on its head and asks where, semantically, the true mythology is to be found in this context. He argues that the inclusion of the parables, and their obvious power and point, ends up being almost the whole core and purpose of the myth, and that all the other "higher" elements, at least in the case of the Christian myth, can almost be classed as mere window dressing designed to emphasise this extremely important mythological core. The surrounding mythical context lends these stories validity, but in fact in very real ways the myth itself derives as much if not more validity from the presence of the parables. Without these apparently subordinate elements, in fact, the whole mythical edifice is in danger of collapsing - its logic, its relevance and its appeal all standing to suffer greatly from their omission, even if the legends remain otherwise intact. What is especially lost is the invitation to invest in the myth at all, the "hook" whereby investors can be recruited, as well as the "glue" that then holds the whole thing together in terms of relevance to, and enthusiastic subscription by those who have invested - be it an investment of credibility, appreciation, philosophical or theological accord, or any such combination of personal interaction with the myth which will encourage its continuation socially (the most important aspect to myth which elevates it to then be worthy of description ultimately as a "myth cycle" at all).

He of course then went on to find other examples, such as within Greek mythology (which he understood to be very much "alive" when one approaches myth semantically), myth and its purpose as understood by people in Papua New Guinea, and even within what he called "the American Myth" which, in the late 20th century, then looked poised to become the most prevalent myth globally that the world had ever seen, at least when viewed impartially and with as much semantic neutrality as language allows. However in every case, he argued, that which allowed them all to be described as myths (and especially myths in which so many people invested that their endurance was assured) rested deep within their core - the very bits that semantically we are encouraged to dismiss as mere "stories" that just happen to have been packaged at a low level within the cycle, but which in fact contain the most applicable and honest elements that can be readily assimilated and understood by those who invest in their mythical context, and which also contain the most practical human relevance over the longest period.

For me this is not only a benign and intelligent interpretation of what myth can be said to be, but it also would allow commentators like Armstrong as cited above to avoid the pit-falls inherent in confusing legend with myth, the component from the package, the actual value of each component, and then erroneously interpreting society obviously moving from one generally invested mythological cycle to another as abandonment of the first (and ascribing social woes to this quite natural and inevitable process). In fact what human history has tended to prove is that myth breeds myth and that it always evolves in a manner which allows it to retain its core relevance to those who invest in it. She, as a Christian, might bemoan the redesign and restructuring of the particular mythical structure in which she herself invests, but she is failing then to appreciate - as Eco suggested - that the essence of the myth was always in its basest detail and it is these elements that are in fact the most durable too. The very process whereby they became adopted within the Christian cycle, many coming themselves from a myriad external mythical precursors, some very ancient indeed, also guarantees their re-employment in other cycles as these too evolve into being, future popularity, and subsequent replacement themselves. More or less what Jung also said, though personally I prefer Eco's perspective - he had no theological or philosophical axe to grind and simply approached the subject semantically. The historical process behind myth, and even how it works, seems to make just so much more sense that way than any amount of philosophers, theologians, and indeed many historians, have managed between them to achieve.

nordmann,

thank you very much for this insightful essay. And I think that you here goes to the fundamentals of the question. I read it already, but have to digest it first before I can put some "directed" questions about the content.

And where is Temperance now? Now that it becomes more and more interesting...

Temperance...

Kind regards to both from Paul

nordmann,

I think now to understand fully what you meant. I see now the several levels: the myth, the legend, the story (parable?). And indeed you convinced me of the worth of the parable, the glue to the construction of the myths, if I understood you well.
And I got stuck this evening in length to seek for a comparison of the parable with the Homeric simile (I first found no sites on google while I put the literal translation from Dutch: "homeric comparison")
And yes as you said, not easely to define "myth" and "legend"
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Legend_vs_Myth

And Parable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable


And as said, stuck in the search for common elements between Homeric simile and parables...
https://pennyspoetry.fandom.com/wiki/Metaphor
At least as I understand it they are both metaphors?
From the article:
A metaphor is a literary figure of speech that uses an image, story or tangible thing to represent a less tangible thing or some intangible quality or idea; e.g., "Her eyes were glistening jewels". Metaphor may also be used for any rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance. In this broader sense, antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy and simile would all be considered types of metaphor. Aristotle used both this sense and the regular, current sense above.^[3] An extended metaphor is called a conceit.

That's it for today.

Kind regards from Paul.

I am relating points that Umberto Eco made in an essay many years ago, several of which are pertinent when the subject of "myth" crops up for historical debate. I agree with most of them, but please don't mistake them as my own points - I'm not that clever!

Eco's main point was to do with the inadequacy of language when deliberate obfuscation is traditionally applied to any term. Religious discourse teems with such deliberate vagueness (think "faith", "belief", and indeed "myth", for example). This obfuscation renders intelligent discussion in which these terms might have been useful almost impossible - within a conversation, and sometimes even within a single sentence, the theologian will gladly hop from one contradictory semantic inflection to another while using the same term - when it suits them (as it often does) then they regard the less semantic accuracy within their discourse the better.

Eco, on the other hand, was something of a "semantic miner" - if he encountered language rendered semantically redundant through such obfuscation he simply dug deeper within the context, in the knowledge that ultimately all expressions, no matter how obfuscatory or seemingly meaningless, still only made sense as expressions at all if somewhere deep down there existed a bedrock of semantic meaning, even one never referenced or intended to be employed by the person delivering the expression at all. (He would have really enjoyed Trump - the man does nothing else)

It was in this context that he examined myth. As a mining exercise undertaken to find that semantic bedrock upon which the use of any word - even deliberately meaninglessly - must surely rest, one only has to examine the language employed around each level of the excavation. In that way, if one takes myth, legend, and then mere "story" as three typical descending component levels of myth, then one finds the most obfuscation at the top level, some in the middle, and surprisingly little at the so-called lowest level. A semantic investigator places most value on the least ambiguous, and in fact so too do people generally anyway when we wish to communicate, interpret, or simply assimilate received information.

So, avoiding the New Testament example (where the above analysis can most obviously be seen to apply in relation to Christian myth), and looking at Homer instead, then it doesn't take much effort to find the same pattern, even if the whole purpose and structure of the respective myths and myth cycles are considerably different.

For a start, the function of legend in the Greek cycle is of a very different nature than that which applies in the New Testament (or many canon scripture collections underpinning overtly religious institutions of thought). For a start, Homer himself is a legend in the Greek context, and in this dual role of legendary figure and narrator of stories, plays a much more dynamic part in the myth's construction than, for example, the "four evangelists" may be said to enjoy in the Christian cycle. Both are examples of people with obscure and probably of meretricious historical pedigree whose principal function is to compose and relay further legend within the cycle. However Homer's similarity with his Christian counterparts pretty much ends there; a demigod himself within traditions that made him the son of a nymph mother and a father who in fact was a river in human form, Homer's inclusion becomes a blatant signal to those investing in the myth of which he is a component to understand that he and his narration are to be regarded as legend. Quasi-historical detail abounds in both Homer's and the Christian evangelists' narrations, but in Homer's case it is entirely up to the audience whether they wish to interpret these as historical fact or not, the "truths" to be found in them lie deeper again within the narration - for example within the Iliad it is to be found in the juxtaposition of the archetypal characters who populate it, each one with a unique and prominent human trait, and therefore each interaction between these characters heavily replete with implied meaning for the audience - not just as a "ripping yarn" but as a genuine and accessible insight of some importance into their own experience and behaviour.

So the bottom layer, just as with Jesus's parables, suddenly for the semantic now becomes the most fertile ground for exactitude of meaning in the vocabulary used. Whatever the allegorical content, the use of simile, or any other literary and rhetorical device that may or may not be present, it is the clear and unambiguous transmission of these little interactions, sub-plots, incidents and events that not only underpins the legend in which they are contained as a whole, but also are actually the most crucial elements upon which the entire mythical cycle itself ultimately depends. A similar exercise can be undertaken with almost every aspect to Greek myth of which we are aware - Homeric in origin or not. The "devil is in the detail", just as it is with the New Testament - for all St Paul's polemics and advice, for example, the fundamental nature and purpose of the Christian myth in which we are invited to invest lies fundamentally in the apparently incidental content presented as "stories" told by Jesus, or even some apparently minor incidents within the same character's sketchy biographical detail included in the legend. Very few of these are open to interpretation beyond that intended by their composers, and yet so much of the gigantic mythical context that has been erected around them, for all its semantic obfuscation and proven endurance and adaptability, simply could never have been erected or remained durable without this semantic bedrock at its core.

This, Eco said, is therefore where one should always look first when discussing any "myth" - and in fact if one starts at that point then one can better appreciate the legend, and ultimately see (and often dismiss) the so-called "myth" for what it is - an arbitrarily applied envelope which mendaciously "borrows" meaning from these core elements while apparently relegating them in significance. However it does this so that the envelope itself retains communicability and appeal, even while this mendacity actually robs the communication of much of its honest purpose and content. So in the end we still owe myth a debt of gratitude too in that it helps preserve these very important elements within it, elements which - despite their mendacious envelopes - tend to survive from one myth to another as time goes on, as does the semantic accuracy and honesty of their own content.

nordmann,

thank you again for another more extended explication of what you meant or what Umberto Eco meant.
http://www.umbertoeco.com/en/umberto-eco-biography.html


As I ended that late in the night yesterday, as with metaphor, parable, analogy, metonymy and all that, I am a bit confused with an analogy between the "homeric comparison (simile)" and the "parable", which seems to be a metaphor with a moral (ethic?) lesson
From the wiki: " Parables express an abstract argument by means of using a concrete narrative which is easily understood. "

And it was that what I wanted to explain to Temperance, in all those myths, but after the exchange with you, I will say: in all those parables, there are basic values that are inherited from the dawn of humanity, when people started to live in communities and needed for their social relationship some basic rules, that needed to be respected for the survival of the group, rules that in the further history were confirmed? (I wanted to say: "in wetten gegoten" (cast into laws)) in laws...and these abstract values were during history made more understandable to the common people by "parables", indeed as you said the "semanitc bedrocks" of these thoughts.

And I suppose that it is there that I will ever differ of meaning with Temperance, although we say basically the same, but she, from a point of view of an interfering God (I suppose...Temperance correct me if I am wrong) and I deducing it from human evolution...and I think that will be the question with Tim of Aclea too. Tim?

Kind regards to the three of you from Paul.

Thank you nordmann for sharing your knowledge.  I don't know that I will be absorb everything nordmann has shared straightaway and may have to read the post(s) again when I have more spare time.

I mentioned on another thread that I looked on Wikipedia for information about the Danish Limfjord which Nielsen had mentioned.  Before humankind had the scientific knowledge available nowadays (though I'm sure there are still discoveries to be made) and therefore made up stories to explain the unexplainable and the tale to explain the existence of the Limfjord involved a giant pig "Limgrim" which tunnelled underground and excavated a passage to the sea.  Omitting some of the myth from Wikipedia the unfortunate pig was sentenced to be broken on the wheel, one of several very unpleasant punishments from times past.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limfjord

I've mentioned before that the adverts I get on my computer sometimes reflect items from my search history and because of looking something up about a myth I had an advertisement appear for a DVD of a BBC4 (radio) broadcast of a dramatisation of Neil's Gaiman's version of Norse Mythology.  The time when the play was on the iplayer is past now sadly - though knowing the BBC it will probably be repeated at some time.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

Thank you nordmann for sharing your knowledge.  I don't know that I will be absorb everything nordmann has shared straightaway and may have to read the post(s) again when I have more spare time.

I mentioned on another thread that I looked on Wikipedia for information about the Danish Limfjord which Nielsen had mentioned.  Before humankind had the scientific knowledge available nowadays (though I'm sure there are still discoveries to be made) and therefore made up stories to explain the unexplainable and the tale to explain the existence of the Limfjord involved a giant pig "Limgrim" which tunnelled underground and excavated a passage to the sea.  Omitting some of the myth from Wikipedia the unfortunate pig was sentenced to be broken on the wheel, one of several very unpleasant punishments from times past.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limfjord

I've mentioned before that the adverts I get on my computer sometimes reflect items from my search history and because of looking something up about a myth I had an advertisement appear for a DVD of a BBC4 (radio) broadcast of a dramatisation of Neil's Gaiman's version of Norse Mythology.  The time when the play was on the iplayer is past now sadly - though knowing the BBC it will probably be repeated at some time.

Lady,

"Before humankind had the scientific knowledge available nowadays (though I'm sure there are still discoveries to be made) and therefore made up stories to explain the unexplainable "

It was just this that I wanted to explain this evening as the start to the myth forming and indeed religion. A manner of the primitive man to explain matters that they didn't understand, as the upcoming sun each day, what was after death, the phenomena of lightning and thunder,
the seasons and so many others.

I vowed in the BBC time to not take part in discussions about religion and philosphy...and see already the whole evening again reading about the stuff...

Most titles were from Jstor and one has to do an introduction via a university...and I can do it but it is a long way via the former university of the grandson and I do it only if it is really worthwile in my opinion to do all that work via passwords and all...
I really prefer the serious stuff that is available on the net for free   And what if they close the access to the internet in your country...as perhaps in Russia or China in the future...I will make an apart thread about it...


I started among others to read this book:
Source:
https://www.cocc.edu/
Homo Sapiens, A Problematic Species; An Essay in Philosophical Anthropology.
Especially Chapter I. The psychology of mythical thought.
https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Sapiens-Problematic-Species-Philosophical/dp/0761865195



nordmann, the google shortener don't work anymore. Have you another method to shorten this long URL, but if you click on the link here it still works...


And even a Richard Dawkins see an evolutionary benefit of religion   Temperance and Priscilla!
The book chapter I on page 4.

Lady, I let it to the more competent nordmann, to comment it about myths and religion..and if Temperance somewhere...

Kind regards from Paul.

I've had a thought about myths being powerful but in a different way.  Google Doodle brought up the fact that today is Omar Khayam's 971st birthday (sounds like something out of Tolkien a bit there!!)*.  I knew about Omar Khayam before of course but mostly in the context of the 1001 Nights which was based on Persian and Indian folk tales to some extent I believe, though while I don't know any Persian languages I will take it on trust that Omar Khayam had a gift for poetry.  Reading about him today I see he was also a mathematician and astronomer** but that part of his skill set doesn't seem to be referenced so much, at least in the UK.  I wonder if that was because of the power of the myths of the 1001 Nights.  I'm sure there was reference to Omar Khayam before somewhere on this website so maybe the more scientific side of his abilities was mentioned previously and I never noticed it.

* I've never been able to "get into" The Lord of the Rings the way some friends and members of my family were able to.  I found the bit about someone's "eleventy-first" birthday a bit irritating (though I think possibly The Hobbit was originally for the benefit of Mr Tolkein's children so 81st birthday is an expression that children might use).  ** I was always more interested in English than I was in Maths so it could be that I picked up on the aspects of Omar Khayam's skill set that interested me of course.

I appreciate all that has been said above and, of course, acknowledge the brilliance of nordmann's précis of the ideas of that master, Umberto Eco. That said, where does all this search for an adequate definition of our terms get us? Should we not rather look at the power of myths (see thread titile) - and their relevance - in our lives today, rather than tie ourselves up in knots about all those clever semantics?

I've been thinking (and driving myself mad as usual) this week about what Nietzsche had to say in The Birth of Tragedy about  the great myth of Apollo v. Dionysus. Where did the myth (or living reality, according to your point of view) of Jesus of Nazareth fit into Nietzsche's thinking  about the two sons of Zeus? I think it did, but I'm still trying to work out how.  My brain keeps shorting out. Did Christ represent a balance between the two? Were the Christian Hellenized mythmakers reworking the earlier, possibly more powerful myths? Would Nietzsche , dying as he did claiming he was "the crucified", have agreed with Swinburne - "Vicisti, Galilæe"?

It was precisely to help avoid unnecessary tangles and knots that I offered the "semantic" distinctions between myth, legend, and stories. I offer it again, in light of your post above.

To talk about the "power of myth" (as opposed to the "power of myths" - I am sure you appreciate the difference and why we have all had to simply hope we are on the same page as Islanddawn in her chosen title for the thread), one is not only obliged to define "myth" at least to a degree with which the conversation can proceed without too many superfluous knots, but also acknowledge to an extent that "power of myth" requires to be compared to "power of legend", and even the potential "power of good stories", with a view to determining if, in fact, there is any appreciable difference in such "power" at all, even if one has semantically honed its different narrative sources into generally agreed distinct types.

Leaving aside that Apollo versus (?) Dionysus represents one facet of the particular myth cycle from which they arrived in our modern culture, the absence of such disparity of nature and character derived from the obvious invitation to juxtapose them is itself also addressed by other elements from within the same cycle - Athena being the embodiment of both military courage, empathy and wisdom, being a case in point, acting as she does in several legends (not myths) therefore as a great unifier of what mortals might perceive as conflicting natures and characters.

This, and other such very important strands of Greek mythology when viewed in its entirety, is what separates a true "myth cycle" from myth engendered for a purpose, and I would suggest it is unfair to select only one - admittedly fascinating - feature of that cycle to compare to anything emanating from engendered myth. As Eco implied, if one starts at the so-called "upper levels" to fashion points of common ground between myths, then one has probably missed the point - both of comparison and of myth. Instead examine the detail of the narrative in as far as one can, or at least try to start there before working "upwards". We are lucky we can do this with Athena thanks to her important role in the Iliad, but thereafter we are confined to glimpses of what must have once been a universe of detail related to her character, nature, and her motives, back when she and the myth cycle in which she played such a prominent part was the one in which people generally invested and who fed that myth with lore now long forgotten. We have even less a handle on Apollo's detail, and practically none concerning Dionysus given his function within the myth as we now understand from its remnants as an object of devotion rather than a motivated actor in legend. He may have had much more lore and anecdotal narrative related to his presence in the cycle at one time - we are not in a position to know anymore, alas.

Nietzsche's juxtaposition of Apollo and Dionysus wasn't his own, and as a philosophical concept developed later than him. He simply cited an idea that was already prevalent in German culture, and in fact for Nietzsche their importance as a symbol wasn't so much to do with their intriguing differences in nature while yet stimulating artistic expression and endeavour, but that together they stimulated the "best" examples of literary pursuit and that this near perfection had then been slowly but surely destroyed with the advent of rational thought (he blamed Socrates, which goes to show how much he knew about Socrates!). Long after Nietzsche was dead, and long after his mental health was deemed not to be so relevant anymore, it became fashionable to rope him in to a lot of half-baked "philosophical" and "religious" intellectual inquiry (to give it its polite term), though I came early to the conclusion myself that his value in this regard relates more to his own peculiar obfuscation of semantic meaning than to any clarity he brought to bear on anything. I read Nietzsche in much the same way I read Joyce - mildly interested in the linguistic contortions but ultimately unimpressed by where they deliver either the author or his supposed point when all is said and done (eventually).

I wouldn't lose any sleep over any failure to shoe-horn Nietzsche into any interpretation of any myth. He fits in very quickly and smoothly at first, a sure sign of obfuscation in play, but then refuses as an interpolation to have much further value in the exercise, a sure sign of obfuscation at work.

And it does help when you are trying to be clever to check your spelling. I had had several glasses of wine with my Sunday lunch yesterday, hence my getting Dionysus' name wrong. But I don't suppose he'd mind too much.

My message was not thought through, and I wish I hadn't posted it. At least I didn't mention James Joyce. But, that said, the question posed about Apollo and Dionysus was genuine, and I think relevant to our lives today: the rational, the masculine, the logical  v. the irrational, the feminine, the emotional -  and our need to balance the two. But that's probably simplistic crap too.

nordmann wrote:

 I wouldn't lose any sleep over any failure to shoe-horn Nietzsche into any interpretation of any myth. He fits in very quickly and smoothly at first, a sure sign of obfuscation in play, but then refuses as an interpolation to have much further value in the exercise, a sure sign of obfuscation at work.

Was I trying to shoe-horn Nietzsche, the adolescent's favourite philosopher, into the interpretation? How horribly embarrassing, especially as, if I am honest, I really haven't a clue about what he was on about. Was going to ask a question about the relevance to our lives of the Orestes myth, but perhaps best not. Paul, you see why I disappear?

Gardening leave definitely seems a wiser option. But Orestes and the subject of personal responsibilty is interesting.

PS Nothing like a judicious bit of obfuscation now and again - works a treat to dismay the opposition.

Dear Temperance,

"Was going to ask a question about the relevance to our lives of the Orestes myth, but perhaps best not. Paul, you why I disappear?"

before I leave for the morning, apart from Orestes myths and all that stuff, we had that many other thought echanges on these boards, that it is everytime worthwhile that you push us to further thinking...and remain...oops again to that damned next week discussion after the European polls...

And yes you said it yourself: "Als de wijn is in de man, de wijsheid is in de kan" (as the wine is in the (wo)man, the wisdom is in the jug). I found as translation: "When wine is in, wit is out"...

Kind regards from Paul.

Paul wrote:

 And yes you said it yourself: "Als de wijn is in de man, de wijsheid is in de kan" (as the wine is in the (wo)man, the wisdom is in the jug). I found as translation: "When wine is in, wit is out"...

On the contrary, I'm usually very witty after wine - it's just I can't spell when under the influence. But in vino veritas and all that. Wonder what old Dionysius Dionysus would say, with Apollo looking sternly on?


Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table...

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And René Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

PS On a serious note, I was actually mulling over the idea of Dionysus as a Suffering God like Jesus of Nazareth, and Apollo as a symbol of "the Law" - and of the words: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Temp wrote:

Was going to ask a question about the relevance to our lives of the Orestes myth, but perhaps best not.

Why not? Of all the characters in Greek myth Orestes is probably one of the best examples of someone who features in a pivotal role in almost as many myths as he does legends, and in fact serves as a great example also therefore of how the two terms are quite different and shouldn't be used interchangeably when discussing the narratives we've inherited.

If we take the four best known versions of the legend in a sort of chronological order, and concentrate only on the extra material added over time, we can easily see how much Orestes not only ended up in several myths, but also some with very direct relevance to modern life (as you also obviously have suspected he might), and some in fact which, as myths, are as alive and kicking today as they were thousands of years ago.

1. Homer's version - Legend: Orestes is not judged morally in the story, and there is no comment regarding how much thought or motive beyond pure vengeance he employs when he murders his mother and her lover for their own murder of his father, the king. Like a lot of Homer's stories they hinge for narrative effect on a sequence of events that slowly and accretionally accumulate in importance, so that by the end seemingly trivial details mentioned earlier assume retrospectively a huge role in events later. These culminate, in Homer's version, in the death of Clytemnestra, and Orestes has as much real importance in the story as the sword he used to slay his mother. He's an agent of her demise, for what it's worth an honourable agent (or at least forgivable), but a mere agent all the same. However the historical point of Homer's story (and it was presented as history) was that the death of Clytemnestra marked the end of an era, an old regime in which women played an inordinately powerful role (Helen is treated the same way by Homer), and the finality of Orestes's action is not just in ending his own mother's life but also putting a final nail in the by now ancient era of women of power, a notion that Homer's audience by and large would have associated with an almost mythical past anyway. Myth: Several myths addressed this one particular topic in the Greek cycle, but by far one best serviced by legend which also survived several evolutionary stages was the one of ancient matriarchies that this legend also supported, providing as it does an origin story for the extremely strictly organised patriarchal society which the myth's subscribers then inhabited. Most especially it offers a semi-explanatory back-story for the end of such matriarchal, non-vicarious power, and as one of the earliest myths in this part of the cycle it obviously first evolved at a time when memories or knowledge of a once powerful matriarchal society still existed sufficiently to require some explanation for how, when and why it had ended (matriarchal influence, power and social practice lasted a little longer within Spartan areas, for example, and though Orestes was essentially an Athenian story the myth it underpinned was one to be rigorously promoted, probably even more than in Athens, by the emergent patriarchal officialdom in that area). Modern feminists, for example, have much to appreciate and consider in the evolution, popularity and promulgation of this myth, and how and why it still has relevance within society today.

2. Pindar and Sophocles's variation: Legend: Motive abounds in this version of the legend. Orestes, badly treated as a child by his mother, is then "groomed" by his sister Electra to go back to Athens and exact his revenge for his father, the king's, murder. Myth: This is one of the earliest and most blatant examples of the myth of the woman operating best when operating inscrutably in the background, the man in this case portrayed as mere putty in his sister's hands. We all know this myth - we buy into it every time we cite a powerful woman whose social status and power is derived from her association with men of that rank, and can rattle off umpteen historical examples with that common theme. Even modern feminists are divided over what this myth prosecutes most strongly - the one that women are innately cleverer than men (which they see as a fact of which they approve), or the one in which women are denied full recognition for this cleverness and risk therefore being interpreted solely and dismissed as "cunning" or "conniving" when exercising power despite these social restraints on their role (which they also see as a fact but one of which they heartily disapprove). Actual fact, as usual when discussing myth, is quite diverse and rarely fits either aspect of the myth at all neatly, but the myth is very much still regarded as relevant to modern experience and quite necessary to promulgate, if only to exercise women's thoughts about their own social status and excite natural opposition to the realities the myth purports to exemplify.

3. Aeschylus's version: Legend: This version of the story is all about consequence (Orestes's "punishment" after the matricide), and almost as an epilogue at its conclusion then contains one of the most important stories ever plucked out of common lore and handed over to posterity - the divine Athena's intervention in a tale that contains so many - almost throw-away - features in terms of the narrative that have fed several hugely important myths, some of which, even as we speak, aren't yet finished acquiring relevance and content as they continue to evolve. These are represented most by two crucial elements of the story, the process by which Orestes's "crime", "guilt" and "punishment" are to be determined, and then how even Athena, for all her divine authority, has to back down when this is decided. Myth: Where to start? Social justice, criminal justice (even a 12 man jury features!), Habeus Corpus, restrictions on and the superfluousness of religious "authority" within a well run democracy, the power of reason and evidence over "divine" command - all these modern myths or elements of modern myth crop up in the story's denouement. Most especially it is probably the first time in any myth cycle from anywhere in the world (that we know of) where a god is overruled by a majority vote of mere mortals and must bow to their decision, and all this within a system of justice that she herself had devised through her own limitless, almost omniscient, divine wisdom. The implications of this for modern life are obvious - we subscribe in the west to almost every single myth this version of the legend threw up and, in very real terms in all of these myths, it is we who are Orestes.

4. Euripides's version: Legend: Pretty much the same as Sophocles's and Aeschylus's but it contains a crucial extra chapter at the end in which Orestes, after his "acquittal/punishment" (even at the time the story could be interpreted either way - a glorious distinction between justice as dispensed socially and that which applies personally, the meaning of "guilt" having therefore two totally exclusive applications), ends up in a bit of a bind while in self-imposed exile. Another sister is involved in this one, Iphigenia, whose role is to intervene when Orestes welcomes an impending death sentence imposed on him by the locals (he is innocent of any crime in that land but carries the guilt of his matricide with him, etc etc). Iphigenia however, through reason, argument and a lot of sibling love, persuades him to go back to Athens - not to assume power, or even to invite more punishment for his old crime, but simply to make peace with himself, which he does. An interesting side-story in this version is Pylades, his lover, who undergoes the same sequence of events by his side and ends up part of a trio who all return to Athens together - a buddy group of Iphigenia, Orestes, and his homosexual lover (all mutually sharing a type of love not predicated on mere procreation but of a much more exalted kind - indulged in for its own sake with no thought of reward). Pylades's unconditional love for Orestes, just like Iphigenia's, therefore forms an important part of Orestes's healing process in which the ultimate "victory" for Orestes isn't military or political glory, but simply a return to "normality" and peace with himself. Myth: Several myths have incorporated this story or variations thereof. Glibly we could include all those in which "blood is thicker than water" feature prominently, but more important is the definition of "success" the story incorporates, how it is arrived at, and (crucially for a Greek legend) the absolute absence of divine intervention in the sequence or requirement for it at all. This, as you can imagine, is one of the later versions of the Orestes legend. By then myth, if it was to retain relevance in society (as it always must), had to include unconditional love and ideas of personal salvation as strong themes to be prosecuted. Myth exists, and survives, only when it meets a current social demand for a "back story" and justification for prevalent mores, so you can read what you like into this version's role in the evolution of Christianity - but I'd wager whatever you presuppose wouldn't be too far from the truth historically.

I'm doing Orestes something of a disservice in fact by leaving out so much more myth present in or derived from some of the exquisite little details contained within many of these legends - Pylades's affectionate (and at times homoerotic) devotion to Orestes, especially when he is at his absolutely lowest ebb - deranged, unkempt, murderously vindictive and unkind to Pylades in his madness, foaming at the mouth, and seemingly irretrievably suicidal - is summed up in one sentence in Lucian's version. No mention of any hurt, despair or anguish on Pylades's part (though he must have undergone all three emotions) but instead simply "did he wipe away the spittle, tended his frame, and sheltered him with a fine well-woven robe". The myth of the NHS, or at least the one in which we used to believe, starts right there!

nordmann, I can understand that our Temperance is a bit overwhelmed, when she read your message as reaction on just her simple sentence. Although I agree the on the first sight simple words or sentences need many times nearly half a book to explain it to the core. I read it all word for word to try to understand it all and I think that I needed more than half an hour, but "chapeau" as always to explain it in all its facets.

Kind regards from Paul.

Dear Temperance,

Paul wrote:
And yes you said it yourself: "Als de wijn is in de man, de wijsheid is in de kan" (as the wine is in the (wo)man, the wisdom is in the jug). I found as translation: "When wine is in, wit is out"...
Temperance wrote:
"But in vino veritas and all that."

PS: Temperance, it is not nitpicking, but for "in vino veritas" we have: "een dronkaard spreekt de waarheid" (a drunkard (speaks?) says the truth)
PPS: Temperance I miss the last days your whatever, witty or not, input.

Kind regards from Paul.

An alternative version I'm familiar with is "The drunken man speaks the sober man's thoughts"

Sorry to be the one who brings something less erudite to the board but the film Wonder Woman had a bit of fun (I think) with the "Mons Angel" (or Angels) myth (or was that a hoax).  Who'd have thought it was Wonder Woman (absolute hokum of course but to me at least the film was enjoyable hokum).  

Foei Lady, (they translate this Dutch word from our Northern neighbours in the dictionary by "naughty, naughty" although I find that it not covers entirely the Dutch word...Dirk?),

such a sacred legend and you make nearly  a playstation game of it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_of_Mons
In that I much more prefer the Joan of Arc legend...
I saw once together with the partner, I think an American film about Jeanne d'Arc on TV (I don't think it was a British one, because it had in my opinion all the "American" characteristics), but I was so disappointed about the film, because until then it was more or less a decent historic film, and suddenly at the end they started the "heavenly" music and the "heavenly" shine and the Christian "saintly" stereotype , that I angerly got to the other room to not see it any further...
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/articles/the-truth-about-joan-of-arc-the-teenage-girl-who-commanded-the-french-army/
https://theculturetrip.com/authors/jade-cuttle/

Kind regards from Paul.

Was that the film starring Jean Seberg?  She had a somewhat sad story.  She championed civil rights in America - or at least treating people who are nowadays called "African Americans" as decently as one treated white people.  She had a baby who died and a campaign was put around that the child was not her husband's but that of a black activist.  She had the child buried in a glass coffin to prove that it was white.  She suffered from mental health problems for most of her life (would she have had these without the smear campaign - I don't know?).  JS did ultimately commit suicide after many attempts. I'll provide a link to the store about the baby (in the middle column of the linked web page).  https://theresalduncan.typepad.com/witostaircase/2005/11/the_glass_coffi.html

Paul,
 your :

"Foei Lady, (they translate this Dutch word from our Northern neighbours in the dictionary by "naughty, naughty" although I find that it not covers entirely the Dutch word...Dirk?),

In this case I think correct translation of the word "Foei"  into English would be "Shame"


Dirk

Thankyou, Dirk and Paul, for explaining the Dutch, "foei" ...

I did, well sort-of, already understand it, but not entirely. My Flemish Belgian friend, Rita - who was a nurse at the military hospital where my partner did his military service and with whom I still keep in contact - was always saying "foei, feoi Nouka!" when she found discarded bones under the furniture, chewed socks, or shredded newspapers around the house: Nouka was of course the pet dog. At the time, although I did get the gist of the emotion, I never completely understood these accusatory outbursts ... until now. And in defence of Rita's parenting and pet-owning skills; she had just just been abandoned by her husband and so left to care for two teenage girls, a boy a few years younger, and the dog ... and I seem to remember there was a cat too.

I tried to find a link to copy but no luck (well I found truncated links but they usually default to the home page of a website I find.  There is (or was) an archaic English word "Fi" or "Fie" - sometimes in a phrase like "Fie upon thee" which has a meaning a bit like the "tut-tut" sound.  I think "Fie" crops up in Shakespeare's works.  Whether "Fie" is related to "Foei" or just a coincidence I have no idea.

Dirk Marinus wrote:

Paul,
 your :

"Foei Lady, (they translate this Dutch word from our Northern neighbours in the dictionary by "naughty, naughty" although I find that it not covers entirely the Dutch word...Dirk?),

In this case I think correct translation of the word "Foei"  into English would be "Shame"


Dirk

Dirk,

thank you so much for the right translation.

Kind regards from Paul.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

I tried to find a link to copy but no luck (well I found truncated links but they usually default to the home page of a website I find.  There is (or was) an archaic English word "Fi" or "Fie" - sometimes in a phrase like "Fie upon thee" which has a meaning a bit like the "tut-tut" sound.  I think "Fie" crops up in Shakespeare's works.  Whether "Fie" is related to "Foei" or just a coincidence I have no idea.

Lady,

I found it as derived from Latin:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fi#Latin

Bah, it is disgusting...

Kind regards from Paul.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

Was that the film starring Jean Seberg?  She had a somewhat sad story.  She championed civil rights in America - or at least treating people who are nowadays called "African Americans" as decently as one treated white people.  She had a baby who died and a campaign was put around that the child was not her husband's but that of a black activist.  She had the child buried in a glass coffin to prove that it was white.  She suffered from mental health problems for most of her life (would she have had these without the smear campaign - I don't know?).  JS did ultimately commit suicide after many attempts. I'll provide a link to the store about the baby (in the middle column of the linked web page).  https://theresalduncan.typepad.com/witostaircase/2005/11/the_glass_coffi.html

 
Lady, 

a belated thank you for the mentioning and the story of Jean Seberg.
The same evening I did some research for your question. and no it was not the Seberg film. Neither as I first thought "The Messenger". You don't believe it but I found the whole film I suppose in Czechian. But at the end not that holy end as I had seen it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151137/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhnnXvE8e-Y
But at the end I think it was the Canadian mini serie also of 1999. I couldn't see the end, but I think I recognized the young guy who played for the French King and think that it was there that I saw the "holy end" that I that much detested...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0178145/

Kind regards from Paul.

I just looked on Wikipedia to see if the Hamlet of the eponymous Shakespeare (or should that be Master Wobbleweapon?) play was a real person.  Wiki says "The story of Shakespeare's Hamlet was derived from the legend of Amleth, preserved by 13th-century chronicler Saxo Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum, as subsequently retold by the 16th-century scholar François de Belleforest."  So he was a legendary figure.  Some members of the board likely knew that already.  Lightening the tone somewhat, with the new "live action" er CGI version of The Lion King due to be shown in cinemas soon, I read that someone had said the story of The Lion King was a loose reworking of the Hamlet story, though of course Simba has a happier ending than Hamlet.  I also read something to the effect that Disney might have borrowed the Lion King story from an anime* featuring a white lion with a character called Kimba.  It's not wholly identical but there do seem to be similarities.  There is something about it on Wikipedia under "Kimba - The White Lion" (I can't copy over the link for some reason).  There have been reworking of Shakespeare stories (or existing tales which the playwright took and made his own) for a long time of course.  I think the Macbeth story has been taken and reworked with Japanese and Indian backgrounds.
 
 
The recently finished Game of Thrones took some elements from mythology.  Without spoiling anything in case anyone ever decides to give the show a whirl there is a pair of incestuous twins and although I am no opera expert I couldn't help thinking of Wagner's work and Siegfried being born of the union between Siegmund and Sieglinde.  The story of incestuous twins arises in a number of legends in different parts of the world but I don't want to mention them all here.


*I'm not very familiar with anime but my understanding is that it's an oriental form of cartoon.

I lost a post - which I think was my own fault rather than any glitches with Res His website.  I'm a softie where sword and sorcery dramas are concerned so had watched a fairly new show "The Witcher" based on some Polish books (which in turn take inspiration from European - especially Slavic - folklore).  It was "fantasy lite" but I found it entertaining.  Before the show (and independent of the show) there were some computer games about characters from the books).  I did a bit of delving into some of the myths and while that particular myth didn't turn up in the show I came across the myth of the wild hunt (not yet anyway - there is at least one more series being made).  The wild hunt legend it seems is about wraiths on horseback hunting the living - which made me think of the cowboy song "Ghost Riders in the Sky" - but according to Wikipedia I'm not the first person to make that connection.  Anyway, I don't need much excuse for a bit of Marty Robbins.   [url=(Ghost) Riders in the Sky: A Cowboy Legend - Wikipedia](Ghost) Riders in the Sky: A Cowboy Legend - Wikipedia[/url]

Thanks LiR for the song.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(Ghost)_Riders_in_the_Sky:_A_Cowboy_Legend

Remembers for me: the cowboy films in the cinema from the Fifties.
Those were the times of the cowboy film. Had a quick search on the internet and see only in the period of 1950 to 1954:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Western_films_1950%E2%80%9354

I saw perhaps a fourty of them and all in Ostend cinemas of that time.
I remember:
Broken Arrow
David Crockett
Rio Grande
Last of the Comanches
Apache
Perhaps also: Calamity Jane.
High Noon I only saw much later.
But in my opinion that were not the normal cowboy films that we saw, it can be that they were the B films and still in black and white, but so was it...

But the film that I best remember, equal to "Broken Arrow"
was:
"The big Country"
and perhaps as it was with Gregory Peck, my favourite of my childhood , above James Stewart, John Wayne, Charlton Heston and Gary Cooper...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Country
And if you want you can see it in hd on movie clip 1 to 10 (and they are for the moment all available on the internet)
Look under videos under "the big country"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iltOTKedsM0

Kind regards from Paul.

Paul,

what about " How the West was won" ?

I did prefer the TV series over the actual film.



Dirk

PaulRyckier wrote:

But the film that I best remember, equal to "Broken Arrow"
was:
"The big Country"
and perhaps as it was with Gregory Peck, my favourite of my childhood , above James Stewart, John Wayne, Charlton Heston and Gary Cooper...

The real star though of The Big Country was Jerome Moross' iconic soundtrack. The same goes for the Elmer Bernstein's score for The Magnificent Seven from 2 years later. When it comes to the mythologising of the Old West, then Hollywood's composers have perhaps had a greater impact than any actor or director when it comes to the emoting of nostalgia in the hearts and minds of the public.

A false nostalgia for things that never actually occurred is one of the rawest symptoms of myth. In cases where this nostalgia seeps into the construction of national or communal identity it never ends well for those involved.

I felt that any nostalgia expressed regarding the westerns was nostalgia about having liked such films in the past, nordmann.  Actually in as far as a little girl is capable of having a "crush" as a prepubescent child I had a "celebrity crush" on John Wayne of all people.  It waned somewhat as I grew older and became more aware and there were too many films where he spanked his female co-star (often but not exclusively Maureen O'Hara) - I know it was only make-believe but still.  I did like "The Magnificent Seven" which I saw at about 12 - there was a TV series in the 2000s I think rather loosely based on the film and of course the film was itself based on the Japanese "The Seven Samurai".  I don't think having watched "Shogun" in the 1980s makes me an expert on Japanese history (or folklore) so I don't know how much the Japanese film was based on fact and how much on imagination and/or legend.  "Broken Arrow" was a film I liked too.  I haven't seen many (if any) recent westerns though I saw "The Wild Bunch" on TV - but that was shot in 1969 though I saw it much later than that.

There was a TV show about the modern American west called "Longmire" that I liked.  I didn't see all the episodes but it did acknowledge that Native Americans were human beings - some good, some bad  instead of always being the baddies.

Vizzer wrote:

The real star though of The Big Country was Jerome Moross' iconic soundtrack. The same goes for the Elmer Bernstein's score for The Magnificent Seven from 2 years later. When it comes to the mythologising of the Old West, then Hollywood's composers have perhaps had a greater impact than any actor or director when it comes to the emoting of nostalgia in the hearts and minds of the public.

Yes you are right Vizzer:



and


  
Kind regards, Paul.

nordmann wrote:

A false nostalgia for things that never actually occurred is one of the rawest symptoms of myth. In cases where this nostalgia seeps into the construction of national or communal identity it never ends well for those involved.

 
nordmann, as I see it and I think that LiR has the same opinion, just harmless amusement, as indeed the Robin Hood films. At least in my opinion and from my experience of the last seventy years. And I have the impression that that is the opinion of LiR too.

Perhaps some Trumpist Republicans in the US...? And in Germany and in France (I haven't seen recent films) the cowboys are dubbed in German and in French...and I don't see that a German speaking cowboy is so convincing as the American version...I read that the German dubbing of the English (at least in my time) had to be in such a way that the lips pronouncing English had to be the same as pronouncing the German words...not an easy task if you ask me...and that says perhaps something about German mentality...? OOPS that was German bashing now ...

Kind regards, Paul.

nordmann wrote:

A false nostalgia for things that never actually occurred is one of the rawest symptoms of myth. In cases where this nostalgia seeps into the construction of national or communal identity it never ends well for those involved.

It could be said that all nostalgia is false and reflects more on the response of the individual to the present than anything else. The myth of the American West is a case in point and, to be fair to the Americans, there is ample evidence to suggest that the Western genre of films was actually more popular outside of North America than within it. One need only think of the ‘Spaghetti Western’ films etc to appreciate this. The Magnificent Seven, for instance, had a much bigger following in Europe (especially in the Eastern Bloc) than in the U.S.A. This would point to a sort of ‘double nostalgia’ removed both in terms of time and space – i.e. both historically and geographically - from those enjoying the myth. In which case one wonders if the word ‘nostalgia’ is even the right one here.

In the interests of fairness I suppose it should be mentioned that there have been comedy westerns.  I can think of Blazing Saddles which I liked though there have been others.  

Not relating to a comedy - maybe my 12 year old self was soppy but I was really pleased when Chico turned round at the end of The Magnificent Seven to go back to the village girl.

When I thought about the "wild hunt" and "Ghost Riders in the Sky" I was thinking of the phenomenon of myths travelling from one part of the world to another.  I had wondered if the song "Ghost Riders in the Sky" had come about because it had been inspired by tales from settlers to the USA who came from Poland or other parts of Eastern Europe but it may have been pure co-incidence.

From time to time I have dipped into some videos by a YouTuber called Jerry Skinner (NOT Springer).  He makes short videos about old time film stars but also about American history.  They are a convenient length for me to practise my shorthand - this is one about visiting the grave of the Native American chief, Geronimo.  

A few years ago there was a dramatisation of (part of) Neil Gaiman's book American Gods.  It took the idea of man making gods in his image and likeness (should I say humankind making gods in his/her image and likeness nowadays) flipping the catechism saying on its head. It was a cross between a ski-fi and a fantasy story (or so it seemed to me).   It took the idea of various immigrants to the USA bringing their gods with them but as new gods (Technology, the World, Media) took over the old gods were in danger of dying off.  I watched the first season and liked it but haven't seen the second season (not deliberately just never got round to it).  The show runners haven't renewed the contract for the actor who played Anansi for whatever reason.  His name is Orlando Jones - I was impressed with his first appearance on a slave ship where he incites a mutiny by revealing to the slaves what their future in America would be.  

LadyinRetirement wrote:

In the interests of fairness I suppose it should be mentioned that there have been comedy westerns.  I can think of Blazing Saddles which I liked though there have been others.  

Not relating to a comedy - maybe my 12 year old self was soppy but I was really pleased when Chico turned round at the end of The Magnificent Seven to go back to the village girl.

When I thought about the "wild hunt" and "Ghost Riders in the Sky" I was thinking of the phenomenon of myths travelling from one part of the world to another.  I had wondered if the song "Ghost Riders in the Sky" had come about because it had been inspired by tales from settlers to the USA who came from Poland or other parts of Eastern Europe but it may have been pure co-incidence.

And at the other end of the cinematic spectrum there are even arthouse Westerns such as Dead Man from 1995 starring Johnny Depp. The oldest known Western is believed to be a short film called Kidnapping By Indians:

Kidnapping By Indians

Made in Blackburn, Lancashire in 1899 it shows the genre’s popularity (and even origin) outside of North America. And neither are Western-type myths restricted to that continent. 1906 saw the world’s first feature-length film called The Story of the Kelly Gang filmed in Victoria, Australia and depicting the exploits of Ned Kelly etc only 26 years earlier. This gives a nod to Paul’s point about the popularity of Robin Hood type characters in popular mythology. Staying with the Antipodes, 1983 saw the making of Geoff Murphy's film Utu which is set during the New Zealand wars of the 1860s. It was described in the press at the time as a 'Kiwi western'. I don't know how historically accurate it is but it's a brilliant film for sheer entertainment value.

There are quite a few Eastern European links to the genre LiR. Take Res Historica’s very own Tumbleweed Suite for example. The tumbleweed (Salsola kali) is a native of the Russian and Kazakh steppes, seeds of which were transported to North America in the 19th Century. Needless to say that the tumbleweed would later become an iconic staple of Westerns almost uniquely identified with that part of the world and eclipsing its Eurasian origins.