Approaches to the study of myth and mythology
- Key People:
- John William Waterhouse
- Related Topics:
- Keret Epic
- Euhemerism
- Myth and Ritual School
- monster
- folk tale
- On the Web:
- International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences - Myths in Humanities (PDF) (June 16, 2025)
The importance of studying myth to provide a key to a human society is a matter of historical record. In the middle of the 19th century, for instance, a newly appointed British governor of New Zealand, Sir George Grey, was confronted by the problem of how to come to terms with the Maori, who were hostile to the British. He learned their language, but that proved insufficient for an understanding of the way in which they reasoned and argued. In order to be able to conduct negotiations satisfactorily, he found it necessary to study the Maori’s mythology, to which they made frequent reference. Other government officials and Christian missionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries made similar efforts to understand the mythologies of nations or peoples so as to facilitate communication. Such studies were more than a means to an end, whether efficient administration or conversion. They amounted to the discovery that myths present a model or charter for human behavior and that the world of myth provides guidance for crucial elements in human existence—war and peace, life and death, truth and falsehood, good and evil. In addition to such practically motivated attempts to understand myth, theorists and scholars from many disciplines have interested themselves in the study of the subject. A close study of myth has developed in the West, especially since the 18th century. Much of its material has come from the study of the Greek and Roman classics, from which it has also derived some of its methods of interpretation.
The growth of philosophy in ancient Greece furthered allegorical interpretations of myth—i.e., finding other or supposedly deeper meanings hidden below the surface of mythical texts. Such meanings were usually seen as involving natural phenomena or human values. Related to this was a tendency toward rationalism, especially when those who studied myths employed false etymologies. Rationalism in this context connotes the scrutiny of myths in such a way as to make sense of the statements contained in them without taking literally their references to gods, monsters, or the supernatural. Thus, the ancient writer Palaiphatos interpreted the story of Europa (carried off to Crete on the back of a handsome bull, which was actually Zeus in disguise) as that of a woman abducted by a Cretan called Tauros, the Greek word for bull; and Scylla, the bestial and cannibalistic creature who attacked Odysseus’s ship according to Homer’s Odyssey, was by the same process of rationalizing interpreted as simply the name of a pirate ship. Of special and long-lasting influence in the history of the interpretation of myth was Euhemerism (named after Euhemerus, a Greek writer who flourished about 300 bce), according to which certain gods were originally great people venerated because of their benefactions to humankind.
The early Church Fathers adopted an attitude of modified Euhemerism, according to which Classical mythology was to be explained in terms of mere humans who had been raised to superhuman, demonic status because of their deeds. By this means, Christians were able to incorporate myths from the culturally authoritative pagan past into a Christian framework while defusing their religious significance—the gods became ordinary humans. The Middle Ages did not develop new theoretical perspectives on myth, nor, despite some elaborate works of historical and etymological erudition, did the Renaissance. In both periods, interpretations in terms of allegory and Euhemerism tended to predominate.
In early 18th-century Italy, Giambattista Vico, a thinker now considered the forerunner of all writers on ethnology, or the study of culture in human societies, built on traditional scholarship—especially in law and philosophy—to make the first clear case for the role of the creative imagination of human beings in the formation of distinct myths at successive cultural stages. His work, which was most notably expressed in his Scienza nuova (1725; The New Science of Giambattista Vico), had no influence in his own century. Instead, the notion that pagan myths were distortions of the biblical revelation (first expressed in the Renaissance) continued to find favour. Nevertheless, Enlightenment philosophy, reports from voyages of discovery, and missionary reports (especially the Jesuits’ accounts of North American Indians) contributed to scholarship and fostered greater objectivity. Bernhard Le Bovier de Fontenelle, a French scholar, compared Greek and American Indian myths and suggested that there was a universal human predisposition toward mythology. In De l’origine des fables (1724; “On the Origin of Fables”) he attributed the absurdities (as he saw them) of myths to the fact that the stories grew up among an earlier human society. About 1800 the Romantics’ growing fascination with language, the postulation of an Indo-European language family, the study of Sanskrit, and the growth of comparative studies, especially in history and philology, were all part of a trend that included the study of myth.
The relevance of Indo-European studies to an understanding of Greek and Roman mythology was carried to an extreme in the work of Friedrich Max Müller, a German scholar who moved to Britain and undertook important research on comparative linguistics. In his view, expressed in such works as Comparative Mythology (1856), the mythology of the original Indo-European peoples had consisted of allegorical stories about the workings of nature, in particular such features as the sky, the sun, and the dawn. In the course of time, though, these original meanings had been lost (through, in Müller’s notorious phrasing, a “disease of language”), so that the myths no longer told in a “rationally intelligible” way of phenomena in the natural world but instead appeared to describe the “irrational” activities of gods, heroes, nymphs, and others. For instance, one Greek myth related the pursuit of the nymph Daphne by the god Phoebus Apollo. Since—in Müller’s interpretation of the evidence of comparative linguistics—“Daphne” originally meant “dawn,” and “Phoibos” meant “morning sun,” the original story was rationally intelligible as “the dawn is put to flight by the morning sun.” One of the problems with this view is, of course, that it fails to account for the fact that the Greeks continued to tell this and similar stories long after their supposed meanings had been forgotten; and they did so, moreover, in the manifest belief that the stories referred, not to nature, but precisely to gods, heroes, and other mythical beings.
Interest in myth was greatly stimulated in Germany by Friedrich von Schelling’s philosophy of mythology, which argued that myth was a form of expression, characteristic of a particular stage in human development, through which humans imagine the Absolute (for Schelling an all-embracing unity in which all differences are reconciled). Scholarly interest in myth continued into the 20th century. Many scholars adopted a psychological approach because of interest aroused by the theories of Sigmund Freud. Subsequently, new approaches in sociology and anthropology continued to encourage the study of myth.
Allegorical
An example of an allegorical interpretation would be that given by an ancient commentator for the Iliad, book 20, verse 67. Referring to an episode in which the gods fight each other, the commentator cites critics who have explained the hostilities between the gods allegorically as an opposition between elements—dry against wet, hot against cold, light against heavy. Thus, the gods Apollo, Helios, and Hephaestus represent fire, and the god Poseidon and the river Scamander represent water. Similarly, the goddess Athena is interpreted as wisdom/sense, the god Ares as the absence of that quality, the goddess Aphrodite as desire, and the god Hermes as reason. An allegorical interpretation of a myth could be said to posit a one-to-one correspondence between mythical “clothing” and the ideas being so clothed. This approach tends to limit the meaning of a myth, whereas that meaning may in reality be multiple, operating on several levels.
Romantic
In the late 18th century artists and intellectuals came increasingly to emphasize the role of the emotions in human life and, correspondingly, to play down the importance of reason (which had been regarded as supremely important by thinkers of the Enlightenment). Those involved in the new movement were known as Romantics. The Romantic movement had profound implications for the study of myth. Myths—both the stories from Greek and Roman antiquity and contemporary folktales—were regarded by the Romantics as repositories of experience far more vital and powerful than those obtainable from what was felt to be the artificial art and poetry of the aristocratic civilization of contemporary Europe.
This new attitude is illustrated in a work of the German critic and philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder entitled “Auszug aus einem Briefwechsel über Ossian und die Lieder alter Völker” (1773; “Extract from a Correspondence on Ossian and the Songs of Ancient Peoples”). Ossian is the name of an Irish warrior-poet whose Gaelic songs were supposedly translated and presented to the world by James Macpherson in the 1760s. Although largely the work of Macpherson himself, these songs made a colossal impact when they were published. Herder believed that the more “savage,” that is, the more “alive” and “freedom-loving” a people (ein Volk) was, the more alive and free its songs would be. In opposition to the culture of the educated, Herder exalted the Kultur des Volkes (“culture of the people”). In 1769 Herder abandoned his job as a schoolteacher and took a boat from Riga, on the Baltic, to Nantes, on the Atlantic coast of France. In Journal meiner Reise im Jahre 1769 (1769; Journal of My Travels in the Year 1769), a description of the experience, he wrote:
In everything [on board ship] there is experience to illuminate the original era of the myths. Then [i.e., in antiquity] every man, ignorant of nature, listened for signs and had to listen for them.…Then, Jupiter’s lightning was terrifying—as indeed it is [i.e., now] on the Ocean.…There are a thousand new and more natural explanations of mythology…if one reads, say, Orpheus, Homer, Pindar…on board ship.
In other words, for Herder ancient myths were the natural expressions of the concerns that would have confronted the ancients; and those concerns were the very ones that, according to Herder, still confronted the Volk—e.g., ordinary sailors—in Herder’s own day.
Comparative
Since the Romantic movement, all study of myth has been comparative, although comparative attempts were made earlier. The prevalence of the comparative approach has meant that since the 19th century even the most specialized studies have made generalizations about more than one tradition or at the very least have had to take comparative works by others into account. Indeed, for there to be any philosophical inquiry into the nature and function of myth at all, there must exist a body of data about myths across a range of societies. Such data would not exist without a comparative approach.
Folkloric
The classic folklore approach is that of Wilhelm Mannhardt, a German scholar, who attempted to collect data on the “lower mythology,” which he considered to be more or less homogeneous in ancient and popular peasant traditions and basic to all formation of myth. Mannhardt saw sufficient analogies and similarities between the ancient and modern data to permit use of the latter in interpreting the former. Like Herder, he saw the source of mythology in the traditions passed on among the Volk. He collected information not only about popular stories but also about popular customs. He interpreted ancient Greek rituals by relating them to customs of the agricultural peoples of northern Europe, proposing this link in his book Antike Wald- und Feldkulte (1877; “Ancient Wood and Field Cults”). Other people who examined myth from the folklore standpoint included Sir James Frazer, the British anthropologist, the brothers Grimm (Jacob, who influenced Mannhardt, and Wilhelm), who are well-known for their collections of folklore, and Stith Thompson, who is notable for his classification of folk literature, particularly his massive Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (1955). The Grimms shared Herder’s passion for the poetry and stories of the Volk. Their importance stems in part from the academic diligence and meticulousness that they brought to the recording and study of popular tradition. In addition to their collection of Märchen (“tales”), they published volumes of Deutsche Sagen (“German Legends”). These were tales that purported to record actual events and that were ostensibly set in a specific place and period, as opposed to the “once-upon-a-time-in-the-forest” setting characteristic of the Märchen. Collecting and classifying mythological themes have remained the principal activities of the folklore approach.
Functionalist
One of the leading exponents of the functionalist approach to myth was the French sociologist Marcel Mauss, who used the phrase “total social facts” in reference to religious symbols and myths and their irreducibility in terms of other functions. In his Essai sur le don (1925; The Gift), Mauss referred to a system of gift giving to be found in traditional, preindustrial societies. Observing that there was a mass of complex data on the subject, Mauss continued: in these “early” societies, social phenomena
are not discrete; each phenomenon contains all the threads of which the social fabric is composed. In these total social phenomena, as we propose to call them, all kinds of institutions find simultaneous expression: religious, legal, moral, and economic.
In his introduction to the English edition Edward Evans-Pritchard commented on that passage:
“Total” is the key word of the Essay. The exchanges of archaic societies which he examines are total social movements or activities. They are at the same time economic, juridical, moral, aesthetic, religious, mythological…phenomena.…Their meaning can therefore only be grasped if they are viewed as a complex concrete reality.
Functionalism is primarily associated with the anthropologists Bronisław Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, however. Both ask not what the origin of any given social behavior may be but how it contributes to maintaining the system of which it is a part. In this view, in all types of society, every aspect of life—every custom, belief, or idea—makes its own special contribution to the continued effective working of the whole society. Functionalism has had a wide appeal to anthropologists in Britain and the United States, especially as an interpretation of myth as integrated with other aspects of society and as supporting existing social relationships.
Structuralist
Structuralist approaches to myth are based on the analogy of myth to language. Just as a language is composed of significant oppositions (e.g., between phonemes, the constituent sounds of the language), so myths are formed out of significant oppositions between certain terms and categories. Structuralist analysis aims at uncovering what it sees as the logic of myth. It is argued that supposedly primitive thought is logically consistent but that the terms of this logic are not those with which modern Western culture is familiar. Instead they are terms related to items of the everyday world in which the “primitive” culture exists. This logic is usually based on empirical categories (e.g., raw/cooked, upstream/downstream, bush/village) or empirical objects (e.g., buffalo, river, gold, eagle). Some structuralists, such as the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, have emphasized the presence of the same logical patterns in myths throughout the world.
In earlier anthropology, “primitive mentality” was characterized by the inability to make distinctions, by a sense of “mystic participation” or identity between human beings, the cosmos, and all other beings. Beginning with complex kinship systems and later exploring other taxonomies, structuralists argue to the opposite conclusion: the supposedly primitive human beings are, if anything, obsessed with the making of distinctions; their taxonomies reveal a complexity and sophistication that rival those of modern humanity.
Formalist
In contrast to the structuralists’ search for the underlying structure of myths, the 20th-century Russian folklorist Vladimir Propp investigated folktales by dividing the surface of their narratives into a number of basic elements. These elements correspond to different types of action that, in Propp’s analysis, always occur in the same sequence. Examples of the types of action isolated by Propp are “An interdiction is addressed to the hero”; “The interdiction is violated”; “The false hero or villain is exposed”; and “The hero is married and ascends the throne.”
An important development of Propp’s approach was made in the late 20th century by the German historian of religion Walter Burkert. Burkert detected certain recurrent patterns in the actions described in Greek myths, and he related these patterns (and their counterparts in Greek ritual) to basic biologic or cultural “programs of action.” An example of this relation is given in Burkert’s Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (1979). Burkert shows how certain Greek myths have a recurring pattern that he calls “the girl’s tragedy.” According to this pattern, a girl first leaves home; after a period of seclusion, she is raped by a god; there follows a time of tribulation, during which she is threatened by parents or relatives; eventually, having given birth to a baby boy, the girl is rescued, and the boy’s glorious future is assured. The reason for the frequency and persistence of this pattern is, in Burkert’s view, the fact that it reflects a basic biologic sequence or “program of action”; puberty, defloration, pregnancy, delivery. Another pattern Burkert explains in a similar way is found in myths about the driving out of the scapegoat. This pattern, Burkert argues, stems from a real situation that must often have occurred in early human or primate history; a group of humans, or a group of apes, when pursued by carnivores, were able to save themselves through the sacrifice of one member of the group. The persistence of these patterns through time is explained, according to Burkert, by the fact that they are grounded in basic human needs—above all, the need to survive.
