Religion Wiki


34,279pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page Talk0
See also: List of mythologies and World mythologies at-a-glance

The term mythology can refer to either the study of myths or a body of myths.[1] For example, comparative mythology is the study of connections between myths from different cultures,[2] whereas Greek mythology is the body of myths from ancient Greece. The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[3][4] however, the academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on its truth or falsity.[4][5] In the study of folklore, a myth is a symbolic narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[5][6][7] Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[7][8][9] In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.[10]

Nature of myths

Typical characteristics

The main characters in myths are usually gods or supernatural heroes.[11][12][13] As sacred stories, myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and closely linked to religion.[11] In the society in which it is told, a myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past.[11][12][14][15] In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative—(1) "true stories", or myths, and (2) "false stories", or fables.[16] Myths generally take place in a primordial age, when the world had not yet achieved its current form.[11] They explain how the world gained its current form[5][6][7][17] and how customs, institutions, and taboos were established.[11][17]

Related concepts

Closely related to myth are legend and folktale. Myths, legends, and folktales are different types of traditional story.[18] Unlike myths, folktales can take place at any time and any place, and they are not considered true or sacred events by the societies that tell them.[11] Like myths, legends are stories that are traditionally considered true; however, they are set in a more recent time, when the world was much as it is today.[11] Also, legends generally feature humans as their main characters, whereas myths generally focus on superhuman characters.[11]

The distinction between myth, legend, and folktale is meant simply as a useful tool for grouping traditional stories.[19] In many cultures, it is hard to draw a sharp line between myths and legends.[20] Instead of dividing their traditional stories into myths, legends, and folktales, some cultures divide them into two categories — one that roughly corresponds to folktales, and one that combines myths and legends.[21] Even myths and folktales are not completely distinct: a story may be considered true — and therefore a myth — in one society, but considered fictional — and therefore a folktale — in another society.[22][23] In fact, when a myth loses its status as part of a religious system, it often takes on traits more typical of folktales, with its formerly divine characters reinterpreted as human heroes, giants, or fairies.[12]

Myth, legend, and folktale are only a few of the categories of traditional stories. Other categories include anecdotes and some kinds of jokes.[19] Traditional stories, in turn, are only one category within folklore, which also includes items such as gestures, costumes, and music.[23]

Origins of myth


One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.[24][25] According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborated upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gained the status of gods.[24][25] For example, one might argue that the myth of the wind-god Aeolus evolved from a historical account of a king who taught his people to use sails and interpret the winds.[24] Herodotus ( 5th century BC ) and Prodicus made claims of this kind.[25] This theory is named "euhemerism" after the novelist Euhemerus (c.320 BC), who suggested that the Greek gods developed from legends about human beings.[25][26]


Some theories propose that myths began as allegories. According to one theory, myths began as allegories for natural phenomena: Apollo represents fire, Poseidon represents water, and so on.[25] According to another theory, myths began as allegories for philosophical or spiritual concepts: Athena represents wise judgment, Aphrodite represents desire, etc.[25] The 19th century Sanskritist Max Müller supported an allegorical theory of myth. He believed that myths began as allegorical descriptions of nature, but gradually came to be interpreted literally: for example, a poetic description of the sea as "raging" was eventually taken literally, and the sea was then thought of as a raging god.[27]


Some thinkers believe that myths resulted from the personification of inanimate objects and forces. According to these thinkers, the ancients worshipped natural phenomena such as fire and air, gradually coming to describe them as gods.[28] For example, according to the theory of mythopoeic thought, the ancients tended to view things as persons, not as mere objects;[29] thus, they described natural events as acts of personal gods, thus giving rise to myths.[30]

The myth-ritual theory

According to the myth-ritual theory, the existence of myth is tied to ritual.[31] In its most extreme form, this theory claims that myths arose to explain rituals.[32] This claim was first put forward by the Biblical scholar William Robertson Smith.[33] According to Smith, people begin performing rituals for some reason that is not related to myth; later, after they have forgotten the original reason for a ritual, they try to account for the ritual by inventing a myth and claiming that the ritual commemorates the events described in that myth.[34] The anthropologist James Frazer had a similar theory. Frazer believed that primitive man starts out with a belief in magical laws; later, when man begins to lose faith in magic, he invents myths about gods and claims that his formerly magical rituals are religious rituals intended to appease the gods.[35]

Functions of myth

One of the foremost functions of myth is to establish models for behavior.[36][37] The figures described in myth are often the result of circumstances which may have a moral interpretation. They are worthy role models of human beings because they embody certain combinations of human and animal traits. For example, the Centaur is part man, part beast. The upper body, being human is a symbol of rationality. The lower body, being of a horse is a symbol of animal instinct. The Centaur thus represents the uniquely human psychological challenge of animal instinct in relation to the rational mind. This example shows that myths are not only valuable due to cultural assumption (or 'spirituality'), but because they portray a set of symbols which can be interpreted morally. It is not necessary to introduce divine experience to explain these symbols, since a symbol is by definition a depiction of an idea in physical form. (bird = power, horse = beast, tree = knowledge).

Prior to the modern age experience of life is embedded in religion or in cosmology (story-telling), and not separate from it. This is because in pre-modern cultures, religion was not an "experience to enter into", but a way in which life was organized around story telling and was thus present in all aspects of life.[38].

In post-modern cultures, myths may provide what is called a "religious experience". This function of myth is to detach oneself from the present and return to the mythical age, thereby bringing oneself closer to the divine.[14][37][39]In fact, in some cases, a society will reenact a myth in an attempt to reproduce the conditions of the mythical age: for example, it will reenact the healing performed by a god at the beginning of time in order to heal someone in the present.[40]. One of the reasons modern culture explores "religious experience" is because it is not the job of science to define human morality, therefore a religious experience is an attempt to connect with a perceived moral-past, which is in contrast with the technological present.[41]

In the function of myth, it is important to distinguish between mythology itself, and the concept of a mythical era. Claude Levi-Strauss shows that mythology may be derived, like science, as a natural outcome of the relationship between conscious human beings and nature. Cultures create mythological beings in order to explain human behavior. For example, a person who acts maliciously may be described as like a snake. Over time, this becomes a myth of a snake-man. The idea of a mythical era, however, is a modern construct which is not real in any sense, because it is not possible to a specific time in the past or present when human myths did not exist. [42]

Mythological beings are still being created today. One modern myth, Frankenstein [43], is an abominable, part-human creature resulting from a scientist who has lost touch with any moral sense. Another modern myth is the android, a machine which resembles a human in ever other way, but does not actually exist in reality. However, one of the primary reasons they are considered in science fiction, now, is because they represent the idea of a rational machine attempting to be human. Both examples, although they do not exist, introduce moral questions which are useful to humans.

The study of mythology: a historical overview

Historically, the important approaches to the study of mythology have been those of Vico, Schelling, Schiller, Jung, Freud, Lévy-Bruhl, Lévi-Strauss, Frye, the Soviet school, and the Myth and Ritual School.[44]

This section describes trends in the interpretation of mythology in general. For interpretations of specific similarities and parallels between the myths of different cultures,

Pre-modern theories

The critical interpretation of myth goes back as far as the Presocratics.[45] Euhemerus was one of the most important pre-modern mythologists. He interpreted myths as accounts of actual historical events, distorted over many retellings. This view of myths and their origin is criticised by Plato in the Phaedrus (229d), in which Socrates says that this approach is the province of one who is “vehemently curious and laborious, and not entirely happy . . .” The Platonists generally had a more profound and comprehensive view of the subject: Sallustius,[46] for example, divides myths into five categories – theological, physical (or concerning natural laws), animastic (or concerning soul), material and mixed. This last being those myths which show the interaction between two or more of the previous categories and which, he says, are particularly used in initiations.

Although Plato famously condemned poetic myth when discussing the education of the young in the Republic – primarily on the grounds that there was a danger that the young and uneducated might take the stories of gods and heroes literally – nevertheless he constantly refers to myths of all kinds throughout his writings. As Platonism developed in the phases commonly called ‘middle Platonism’ and ‘neoplatonism’, so such writers as Plutarch, Porphyry, Proclus, Olympiodorus and Damascius wrote explicitly about the symbolic interpretation of traditional and Orphic myths.[47]

Varro distinguished three aspects of theology, besides political (social) and natural (physical) approaches to the divine allowing for a mythical theology.

Interest in polytheistic mythology revived in the Renaissance, with early works on mythography appearing in the 16th century, such as the Theologia mythologica (1532).

19th-century theories

The first scholarly theories of myth appeared during the second half of the 19th century.[45] In general, these 19th-century theories framed myth as a failed or obsolete mode of thought, often by interpreting myth as the primitive counterpart of modern science.[48]

For example, E. B. Tylor interpreted myth as an attempt at a literal explanation for natural phenomena: unable to conceive of impersonal natural laws, early man tried to explain natural phenomena by attributing souls to inanimate objects, giving rise to animism.[49] According to Tylor, human thought evolves through various stages, starting with mythological ideas and gradually progressing to scientific ideas. Not all scholars — not even all 19th century scholars — have agreed with this view. For example, Lucien Lévy-Bruhl claimed that "the primitive mentality is a condition of the human mind, and not a stage in its historical development."[50]

Max Müller called myth a "disease of language". He speculated that myths arose due to the lack of abstract nouns and neuter gender in ancient languages: anthropomorphic figures of speech, necessary in such languages, were eventually taken literally, leading to the idea that natural phenomena were conscious beings, gods.[51]

The anthropologist James Frazer saw myths as a misinterpretation of magical rituals, which were themselves based on a mistaken idea of natural law.[52] According to Frazer, man begins with an unfounded belief in impersonal magical laws. When he realizes that his applications of these laws does not work, he gives up his belief in natural law, in favor of a belief in personal gods controlling nature — thus giving rise to religious myths. Meanwhile, man continues practicing formerly magical rituals through force of habit, reinterpreting them as reenactments of mythical events. Finally, Frazer contends, man realizes that nature does follow natural laws, but now he discovers their true nature through science. Here, again, science makes myth obsolete: as Frazer puts it, man progresses "from magic through religion to science".[35]

By pitting mythical thought against modern scientific thought, such theories implied that modern man must abandon myth.[53]

20th-century theories

Many 20th-century theories of myth rejected the 19th-century theories' opposition of myth and science. In general, "twentieth-century theories have tended to see myth as almost anything but an outdated counterpart to science […] Consequently, moderns are not obliged to abandon myth for science."[53]

Swiss psychologist Carl Jung (1873-1961) and his followers tried to understand the psychology behind world myths. Jung argued that all humans share certain innate unconscious psychological forces, which he called archetypes. Jung believed that the similarities between the myths from different cultures reveals the existence of these universal archetypes.[54]

Following Jung, Joseph Campbell believed that insights about one’s psychology, gained from reading myths, can be beneficially applied to one’s own life.[55]

Like Jung and Campbell, Claude Lévi-Strauss believed that myths reflect patterns in the mind. However, he saw those patterns more as fixed mental structures — specifically, pairs of oppositions (for example raw vs cooked, nature vs culture) — than as unconscious feelings or urges.[56]

In his appendix to Myths, Dreams and Mysteries, and in The Myth of the Eternal Return, Mircea Eliade attributed modern man’s anxieties to his rejection of myths and the sense of the sacred.

Mythopoeia is a term coined by J. R. R. Tolkien for the conscious attempt to create fiction styled like myths. In the 1950s, Roland Barthes published a series of essays examining modern myths and the process of their creation in his book Mythologies.

Comparative mythology

Comparative mythology is the systematic comparison of myths from different cultures.[2] It seeks to discover underlying themes that are common to the myths of multiple cultures.[2] In some cases, comparative mythologists use the similarities between different mythologies to argue that those mythologies have a common source. This common source may be a common source of inspiration (e.g. a certain natural phenomenon that inspired similar myths in different cultures) or a common "protomythology" that diverged into the various mythologies we see today.[2]

Nineteenth-century interpretations of myth were often highly comparative, seeking a common origin for all myths.[57] However, modern-day scholars tend to be more suspicious of comparative approaches, avoiding overly general or universal statements about mythology.[58] One exception to this modern trend is Joseph Campbell's book The Hero With a Thousand Faces, which claims that all hero myths follow the same underlying pattern. This theory of a "monomyth" is out of favor with the mainstream study of mythology.[58]

See also


  1. Kirk, p. 8; "myth", Encyclopædia Britannica
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Littleton, p. 32
  3. Armstrong, p. 7
  4. 4.0 4.1 Eliade, Myth and Reality, p. 1
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Dundes, Introduction, p. 1
  6. 6.0 6.1 Dundes, "Binary", p. 45
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Dundes, "Madness", p. 147
  8. Doty, p. 11-12
  9. Segal, p. 5
  10. Kirk, "Defining", p. 57; Kirk, Myth, p. 74; Simpson, p. 3
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 Bascom, p. 9
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 "myths", A Dictionary of English Folklore
  13. O'Flaherty, p.19: "I think it can be well argued as a matter of principle that, just as 'biography is about chaps', so mythology is about gods."
  14. 14.0 14.1 Eliade, Myths, Dreams and Mysteries, p. 23
  15. Pettazzoni, p. 102
  16. Eliade, Myth and Reality, p. 10-11; Pettazzoni, p. 99-101
  17. 17.0 17.1 Eliade, Myth and Reality, p. 6
  18. Bascom, p. 7
  19. 19.0 19.1 Bascom, p. 10
  20. Kirk, Myth, p. 22, 32; Kirk, "Defining", p. 55
  21. Bascom, p. 17
  22. Bascom, p. 13
  23. 23.0 23.1 Doty, p. 114
  24. 24.0 24.1 24.2 Bulfinch, p. 194
  25. 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 Honko, p. 45
  26. "Euhemerism", The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions
  27. Segal, p. 20
  28. Bulfinch, p. 195
  29. Frankfort, p. 4
  30. Frankfort, p. 15
  31. Segal, p. 61
  32. Graf, p. 40
  33. Meletinsky pp.19-20
  34. Segal, p. 63
  35. 35.0 35.1 Frazer, p. 711
  36. Eliade, Myth and Reality, p. 8
  37. 37.0 37.1 Honko, p. 51
  38. Lila Abu-Lughod, Imagining Nature: Practices of Cosmology and Identity
  39. Eliade, Myth and Reality, p. 19
  40. Honko, p. 49
  41. Roland Barthes, Mythologies
  42. Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind
  44. Guy Lanoue, Foreword to Meletinsky, p.viii
  45. 45.0 45.1 Segal, p. 1
  46. On the Gods and the World, ch. 5, See Collected Writings on the Gods and the World, The Prometheus Trust, Frome, 1995
  47. Perhaps the most extended passage of philosophic interpretation of myth is to be found in the fifth and sixth essays of Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic (to be found in The Works of Plato I, trans. Thomas Taylor, The Prometheus Trust, Frome, 1996); Porphyry’s analysis of the Homeric Cave of the Nymphs is another important work in this area (Select Works of Porphyry, Thomas Taylor The Prometheus Trust, Frome, 1994). See the external links below for a full English translation.
  48. Segal, pp. 3-4
  49. Segal, p. 4
  50. Mâche (1992). Music, Myth and Nature, or The Dolphins of Arion. pp. 8. 
  51. Segal, p.20
  52. Segal, p.67-68
  53. 53.0 53.1 Segal, p. 3
  54. Boeree
  55. For example, Campbell claimed that mythology's primary function is "that of eliciting and supporting a sense of awe before the mystery of being" (Campbell, p. 519), and that mythology also serves "to initiate the individual into the order of realities of his own psyche" (Campbell, p. 521).
  56. Segal, p. 113
  57. Leonard
  58. 58.0 58.1 Northup, p. 8


  • Armstrong, Karen. "A Short History of Myth". Knopf Canada, 2006.
  • Bascom, William. "The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives". 'Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 5-29.
  • Bulfinch, Thomas. Bulfinch's Mythology. Whitefish: Kessinger, 2004.
  • Doty, William. Myth: A Handbook. Westport: Greenwood, 2004.
  • Dundes, Alan. "Binary Opposition in Myth: The Propp/Levi-Strauss Debate in Retrospect". Western Folklore 56 (Winter, 1997): 39-50.
  • Dundes, Alan. Introduction. Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 1-3.
  • Dunes, Alan. "Madness in Method Plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth". Myth and Method. Ed. Laurie Patton and Wendy Doniger. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1996.
  • Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. Trans. Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
  • Eliade, Mircea. Myths, Dreams and Mysteries. Trans. Philip Mairet. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.
  • "Euhemerism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. UC - Berkeley Library. 20 March 2009 .
  • Fabiani, Paolo "The Philosophy of the Imagination in Vico and Malebranche". F.U.P. (Florence UP), English edition 2009. PDF
  • Frankfort, Henri, et al. The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1977.
  • Frazer, James. The Golden Bough. New York: Macmillan, 1922.
  • Graf, Fritz. Greek Mythology. Trans. Thomas Marier. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
  • Honko, Lauri. "The Problem of Defining Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 41-52.
  • Kirk, G.S. Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. Berkeley: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
  • Kirk, G.S. "On Defining Myths". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 53-61.
  • Leonard, Scott. "The History of Mythology: Part I". Scott A. Leonard's Home Page. August 2007.Youngstown State University, 17 November 2009
  • Littleton, Covington. The New Comparative Mythology: An Anthropological Assessment of the Theories of Georges Dumezil. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
  • Meletinsky, Elea. The Poetics of Myth. Trans. Guy Lanoue and Alexandre Sadetsky. New York: Routledge, 2000.
  • "myth." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 21 March 2009
  • "myths". A Dictionary of English Folklore. Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. UC - Berkeley Library. 20 March 2009
  • Northup, Lesley. "Myth-Placed Priorities: Religion and the Study of Myth". Religious Studies Review 32.1(2006): 5-10.
  • O'Flaherty, Wendy. Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook. London: Penguin, 1975.
  • Pettazzoni, Raffaele. "The Truth of Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 98-109.
  • Segal, Robert. Myth: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004.
  • Simpson, Michael. Introduction. Apollodorus. Gods and Heroes of the Greeks. Trans. Michael Simpson. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1976. 1-9.

Further reading

  • Stefan Arvidsson, Aryan Idols. Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, University of Chicago Press, 2006. ISBN0-226-02860-7
  • Roland Barthes, Mythologies (1957)
  • Kees W. Bolle, The Freedom of Man in Myth. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968.
  • Richard Buxton. The Complete World of Greek Mythology. London: Thames & Hudson, 2004.
  • E. Csapo, Theories of Mythology (2005)
  • Edith Hamilton, Mythology (1998)
  • Graves, Robert. "Introduction." New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. Trans. Richard Aldington and Delano Ames. London: Hamlyn, 1968. v-viii.
  • Joseph Campbell
    • The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton University Press, 1949.
    • Flight of the Wild Gander: Explorations in the Mythological Dimension: Select Essays 1944-1968 New World Library, 3rd ed. (2002), ISBN 978-1-57731-210-9.
  • Mircea Eliade
    • Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. Princeton University Press, 1954.
    • The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Trans. Willard R. Trask. NY: Harper & Row, 1961.
  • Louis Herbert Gray [ed.], The Mythology of All Races, in 12 vols., 1916.
  • Lucien Lévy-Bruhl
    • Mental Functions in Primitive Societies (1910)
    • Primitive Mentality (1922)
    • The Soul of the Primitive (1928)
    • The Supernatural and the Nature of the Primitive Mind (1931)
    • Primitive Mythology (1935)
    • The Mystic Experience and Primitive Symbolism (1938)
  • Charles H. Long, Alpha: The Myths of Creation. George Braziller, 1963.
  • O'Flaherty, Wendy. Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook. London: Penguin, 1975.
  • Barry B. Powell, Classical Myth, 5th edition, Prentice-Hall.
  • Santillana and Von Dechend (1969, 1992 re-issue). Hamlet's Mill: An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge And Its Transmission Through Myth, Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-87923-215-3.
  • Walker, Steven F. and Segal, Robert A., Jung and the Jungians on Myth: An Introduction, Theorists of Myth, Routledge (1996), ISBN 978-0-8153-2259-7.
  • Zong, In-Sob. Folk Tales from Korea. 3rd ed. Elizabeth: Hollym, 1989.

External links

This page uses content from the English Wikipedia. The original article was at Mythology. The list of authors can be seen in the page history.

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki