for further zeception, 0 a particular writen (asin the example just given. Clag uger senses—that of Homer by Flavian ep ©. CE), for exam e beginning, Further, as in the “Catalogue of Ships’ handbook of Greek myth. Itis nota ly Greek myth, especially beginners, d0 #0 through all of Greck and Roman literature and abstract a Greek mythol graphical tradition ‘and encyclopedias, b ge Gragcae or Thesaurus istic period is also a turning can? A severely reductive answer bemerus of Sci (rd c. BCE). He held thatthe gods of| Grgin human persons and that mythical events were at bottom (ff. ‘was to have a shorter life. Change in m accelerate in the nineteenth century. Pimi SE elec flaps eee Bilis, necessary to use the pluFaPand to speak of approaches toThe Reception of Greek Myth Jorpr PAMras Reception and Myth ion of this book did not include a chapter on the reception) -cades following its publication, the theory revolution impact on all fields of cluding Classics seduced reception as one of the mi a two-way process, backward in which the present and past are in dialogue with each: will entail serious consequences for the understa stantive notion of the object myth— The researc nal decades of founded. According to The Reception of Grek Meh ins of “myth” to the Enlightenm of religion, civil ‘etymological sense of “science of m ‘ancient Greece, there would not have been a mythology in ther. Again according to Ds mythology as a scientific study of ‘ught to be reckoned an accepted t ize in myth an autonomous form48 Approaches to Greek Myth ‘The Reception ofGresk Myth 47 the present.” This catalogue is presented as the organic fesiodic Theogony. It starts in a firs Kkey episode in the history of the recept spread of a new technology: alphabe 588-94 [Samuel Bi be precis ae ty to store human memory, many (On the other hand, in Book 18, Hephaestus addresses the goddess Thetis i Ys many these words: ae indeed an august and honored goddess who has come here; she i 1e when was suffering from the heavy fall which Uhad blic and from the mythical traditions that the logogra- ling has opened a gap, forever impassable, between the fl heritage, which will generate many oppo! id Feception. In this conte logical characters, but P : anny HS sPeaks thus: I write the fo or the stories (Abyo] ofthe Greeks are, as they seem, le (FGrit1F 1 fz. 1 Fowles)proaches to Greek Myth ry —regardles f the various names tinction from the term historiography was possible nodate his hoyos, “written st ‘of myth, This process is often reintegrate myth into the sphere of logos. Indeed, ifthe terms pos (muthos), éyoe (logos) oF Exo¢ (epos) appeared in archaic epic tobe used interchangeably to describe what the poet sang, sophical discourse with the “pre-Socratics” and, above all swith the logograp! fifth century B. detachmer can take sever tories of Phereeydes of Athens seem to mea new case. Like the other he adopts a genealog he surviving fragments duced the origin of a place name (or ethnonym) by showing th a character of heroic mythology: vapoc), from whom the city is called Tain- acon [4q" ob Taivapov xaheirai] and also the cape and the harbor. (FGrEi 3 F 39 = fr. 39 Fowler) ‘connection of myth with place name, we can perceive the will to make clear the truth ofthe story, in that the author refers toa concrete geographical considered as heterogeneous, a ridge between two worlds?” ‘of etiological explanation (of Eratosthenes of Cyrene, for ex Ba ernie sprints the mph inorder accom nyth and phenomenal time, prese athor does not need any grammatical element to mark a het je Gods) and temps des hommes ) clear, as Pierre Vidal Naquet held, except that what the for which he Through the parent-child generations of off- fe—or, pethaps we should say, that bind—the the colonizer ofthe Chersonese in the mi {lacuna in the in whose archonship the PanathenaeaApproaches to Greek Myth ‘The Reception ofGreek Myth 51 was founded; from him Miltiades, who settled the Chersonesus. (PGr#f 3 F 2 seen, are older, itis certain that the extraordinary number of books stacked in = fe.2 Fowler) raties such as the Museum of Alexandria prompted new ways of ha cessing information, As Christian Jacob has shown, these a be much more complex than they seem. They include processe m, extraction, decontextualization, and redist I ie: dsnssof making we of-™ Tae reading and consulting of this erature of lists—manuals that crystallize data of different f format that might remind one of a modern hypertext—is not necessarily Tinear and sequential but may take discontinuous or open forms. xem seeks to go beyond the Jat autonomous cycles that cover , Returns of the Heroes) —to display a general diverse and heterogeneous ), are incorporated ina fixed and homogeneous system. Genealogy becomes an intellectual pattern that imprints coherence onto the traditional mythical material. eS Ee en Sg va lp coe ce how : maces Jewestems to combine the linearity of the story with the family trees and the succession that : place nthe sy), nl in Freya 1e gene ical scheme imposes. A discontinuity of the narrative logic, here ‘example, the mythical Ste es a aie th the subject in the catasterismic appendix a simple sentence. i statement does not depend on any Hesiodic shaping of the patrimony. In short, our investigation into the logogra phers’ reception of myth has shown that nt only were they already in possession ‘HoioSéc enor Avxdovos Ovyarépa év Apwabia oiktiy ENéoBaL... 6 Bui vy ovyyéverav aby éfehero al v tlc Borpoic abr EOnxev: (Era Inustalso be considered the inventors: cf mythology understood as an organized Cat. 1 Pamias) collection of myths, a system. The founding of the Library of Alexandria marks the beginni epoch. The work on myth that goes on istic period (331-323 BCE) —exe says that this person, the daughter of Lycaon, lived in Arcadia, was + Zeus, because of his kinship wit hher and placed her ‘osthenes has another way to indi- plots—seems to have as its main purpose scholarly consultation. This cum i epee ats eee athe product, Hellenistic mythography, would be, in the words of Albert Henrichs, hhandmaiden of mythology” Although the first collections of myths, as we have52 Approaches to Greek Myth The Reception of Greek Myth 53 for example, provides the reason for the presence in the starry sky of causes of phenomena, a ypic cal tale about a ie canenaa collections, produce 18 for ng, will become, from the imperial period into the Middle Ages, the main ofthe reception and trans ck myth, Ovid occupies a spec in this process n his Metamorphoses it seems cftar athe used vario ind the presence of stars in the sky.” In short, the catasterism is a type of discourse that opposes a story of the past to a descri ‘As he extends the episodes of a tradi episode foreign to of the present the Library of Alexandi arrived at a conscious conversion into to the present the principate of Augustus—based on lopedie conception of the mythological tradi ible ofthe pagans” ions of myths conceived as independent intended for a wide audience (whose most ambitious represe bulae of Hyginus and the aforementioned Library of pseudo-Apol lige bulk of mythographical tradition, both Greek and Latin, was remodeled hew book format and absorbed into the comments a the great tS It is the codex, emerging between the second and fourth centuries C.E., technological breakthrough, by which the book as papyrus roll will be gressively replaced. The old monographs, manuals, and commentaries (such svpara of Alexandrian grammarians) on the great poets (Homer, Pindar, agedians, but also the Hellenistic poets Apollonius of Rhodes, Theocritus, bd Lycophron) will be reorganized and converted into the marginal notes, or ella, that occupy the margins of medieval manuscript ‘The so-called Mythographus Homericu ‘mary model for countless ‘mythology. Thai ing characte! ff mythical characters and references to now missing sources, the which can obscure ogical arangem the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, oft at far from paraph genealogical poem, the a ombines different and disparate sources yeh, sehich has no longer serves the propaganda of the Greek cites or ofthe aristocratic families who asserted their mythical an example of this phe-‘The Reception of Grek Myth 54 Approaches toGreek Myth ‘nomenon. Originally a collection of mythological stories designed to accompany ‘culated as a separate book from the scholia of medieval manuscripts of wthas come to mythological ancient heritage, fatally deformed wit and by rupture of the tradition. The truth is that some ent myths are simply the result of textual corruption or alteration. A good ‘would be the god Demogorgon, converted by Boccaccio into the an- oF ofthe divine genealogies. The origins of this figure seem to go back to a seading in the manuscripts of (Demogorgon for the Platonic demiourgos + innovations, as Ernst Curtius suggested, arose terpretation ofancient documentsand might be considered deforma- East o in the Latin West, the mythographical commedtaries on the poets are the means of conservation of much of the Greco-Roman mythological patrimony. : ‘myth conveys a truth, deep an ‘The commentaries on Virgil (by Servius), on Status (by Lactantius), on Horace, imagery In this way, myth is saved by phi ‘on Persius, and on Lucan stand out bby which the most In the third century, as in the example of the Scholia to Germanicus, Latin is tal truths.” becoming the language in which Greek mythology is transmitted. Knowledge of ism (after Euhemerus of Sicily, 3rd c. B.C.E., one of the first ancient Greek begins to die out in the Roman Empire, disappearing first in the tobe translated into Se provinces, Already in the fourth century C.E., Greek ceases to be the language were in realty and in origin human persons, whose deeds, with the of the liturgy in the Western church and is replaced by Latin. Hilary of ‘and the eroding of the transmission, were altered to the point of and Ambrose of Milan write the first Latin hymns in this century. Augustine to gods, Euhemerism experienced an extraordinary revival describes how painful it was for him in his school days in North Africa to study sts and the church fathers, who used it to attack pagan polythe Greek grammar, and he never became proficient in this language. He had to rely Christin apologists transmitted euhemerism tothe Middle Ages, but, on translations of the Greek Christian authors.” With the barbarian invasions of Jean Seznec, the character of this tradition changed radically. The Italy and the removal of the last Roman emperor (476 C.E.), the school system ‘the gods ceased to be a weapon against pagan polytheism and a collapsed, and the study of Greek came to an end. From the fifth century onward orn and, instead, paradoxically granted protection and the right of ceven the Latin writers who exhibited a good knowledge of Greek texts may not tended up conferring the title of nobility onthe pagan gods" Turned convention, these gods posed no threat. Their worship was have read them in the original. For about a thousand years, no one in Western Eu stead Greek texts.’ Knowledge of ancient Greek of these operations of “rationalization” can be seen in the inter which, especially through the Venetians, had extensive contacts with the Greek: tayo eres by Fulgentus sth. speaking Byzantine empire. Medieval mythography is usually described as a mere line of transmission einvhich Perseus slays Medusa:56 Approaches to Greek Myth ‘Theocnidus antiquitatum historiographus refert Forcumm regem fuisse, qui tres fiias locupletes derelinguit. Quarum Medusa maior quae fuerat locuples reg- rnogue colendo fructificandoque ampliauerat—unde et Gorgo dicta est quasi _georgigo; nam Grece georgi agricultores dicuntur. [Theoenidus, a historiographer of reports that Forcus was who had three wealthy da creased her wealth by cul she was also called Gorgo as if georggo, for in Greek farmers are called georgi.] Mediusa increased her wealth through agriculture, earning herself the name Gor gon, modeled on the Greek yeopyéc, “farmer” which in the transliterated plural Hos ergo terrores Perseus adiuuante Minerua, id est uirtus ad ‘uuante sapientia, interfect [(The Greeks) called them the three Gorgons, thats, three kinds of terror, The ror is indeed that which .. ..Thus Perseus with the help of Minerva, ‘manliness aided by wisdom, destroyed these terrors Scholars have emphasized the crucial importance of the Mythologiae of Ful- _gentius asa bridge Tor the transmission of mythographical knowledge irom ani nity to the Middle Ages.” the fourteenth century the so-called Fulgentius ‘Metaforals of John Ridewall pretends to be an updated adaptation of Fulgentius. ‘The chapters on mythology in the encyclopedic Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville (7th c.) and De uniuerso of Hrabamus Maurus (9th c.), as well as in the textbooks. called Mythographus Vaticanus Primus (gth c.), Secundus, and Tertius (both of un: xe based on the work of Fulgentius.® Euhemerist tradition cat be clearly perceived in the influential chapter of Isidore's De dis gentium (Etym. ose whom the pagans claim to be gods are revealed once to have beet 10s pagani asserunt deos,olim homines produntur fuisse”) In the con= tinuators of Isidore, such as Ado of Vienna (oth c.) or Peter Comestor (12th €-) 1¢ footprint of euhemerism, Ado affirms (Chronicon in aetates se dlivisum, PL 12335): and design. For a reader, a poe ‘The Reception of Greek Myth 57 is Israel in A2gypto, Prometheus fuisse scri- , quem figunt fabulae de Tuto formasse homines. Tunc etiam fratres elus is est astrologus habitus: Mercuriusque nepos Atlantis multarum tus, et ob hoc post mortem uano errore in deos translatus ‘in many arts and for this reason after his death by vain error tothe gods.] lers who contributed to the transfer of ancient myth are two ofthe wus Capella (both 4th-sth c.), whose }oughout the Middle Ages. As mentioned above, howe' imentaries, allegories, or mythographi {in their structure followed the o the Metamorphoses study of medieval and Renaissance reception of myth, it would ‘overestimate the importance of the intermediary versus the origi- ‘ancient poets continued to be read in their original language but ited, utilized, and studied through intermediary sources of different was often much easier ‘anslation, a version reduced, adapted, or amplified with new ex a paraphrase, or an emblematic edition—interpretations of ‘naturally could incorporate, as already mentioned, meanings that 6 origi of the circulation of the Metamorphoses are rather modest from P19 1100, an Ovidian revival can be perceived in monastic founda- n Germany from the end of the eleventh century and especially,158 Approaches to Greek Myth in France in the twelfth century, where the province of Orléanais is one of its rain focuses. Changes in social and economic conditions and the increasing secularization of medieval Christian culture created a more open climate for the reception of mythological poetry. Around 1180, Arnulf of Orléans wrote two commentaries on the work of Ovid, which initiated a series of works, of moralis- tictendency, whose allegorical reading ofthe Metamorphoses continued wel to as Frank Coulson recalls, the so-cal Vulgate Commen- to mythographical manuals current in the Mi pher, This moralizing al the dealings of some clever merchants who benefit from luct returning home. Beginning at the p ‘guards the fleece, the author explains: jutatus est in sopitum herbarua uiribus intellgitur quod res etiam uenditis mercibus prauis pro boni ‘optinet aureum vellus lason et redit in patriam, id est mercatores mul ‘ad propria reuertunt sleep by the power of herbs is un: derstood (to mean) that the more cunning sort of merchant also deceives by selling bad wares for good. Thus Jason obtains the golden fleece and returns tohis fatherlan that is, merchants, having mult themselves rich, return from other regions to their own. ‘Other commentaries on and adaptations of the Metamorphoses are the Integu- ohn of Garland (13th c.), the allegorical commentary and the Moralia super Ovidii Metamorphoses of Robert rmenta Ovid, in ve of Giovanni del Vieg legories of the Ovidius moral would form the basis of the volume La Bible des true summa ofa tradition, is an excellent ‘Ages, such as Fulgentius, the Vatican Mythographers, Hyginus (cf. above), or the so-called Digby mythogra- which Medea drugs the dragon that of versified adaptation, seventy-two thousand verses in fifteen books, of paraphrases with moralizing explanation of the Metamorphoses, from other sources the Renaissance will paraphrasing adaptation and commentary take paths The medieval commentary is transmitted in either of two ways. he kind of gloss called catena, in which the gloss is transmitted separately hhence the term catena—consisting ofthe osses around the commented text. and fourteenth centuries and is found ‘really based on any substantial increase In Taythographical knowledge. at, one will have to wait until the sixteenth century, with the rediscovery editions of ancient mythographical authors. Renaissance manuals like “Conti, Cartari, or Giraldi (cf. below) make use of them. I is the first author in Western Europe who seems to have direct access et faithful follower of the commentators, Boccacci of interpretation of myth.” Thus, for example, ets allegorically the petrifaction of the enemies of Perseus with the Gorgonis tacitosillosreddi stones by showing them the he rendered them, over- f cture of his mythographical material, eeaccio departs from the earlier tradition. Now genealogy provides the orga-Go Approaches 10 Greek Myth ‘The Receptim of Greek Myth 61 nizing and unifying principle for the mythical pantheon." Moreover, tM etymologies”; “Conti professes himself a philosopher, and takes is a hermeneutics in itself, as the family tree gives meaning to the reconstruction. more Profound interpretation of the fables"; and Cartari, who ‘ofancient knowledge about the origins.” But perhaps the principal model forthe der to be accessible to poets and artists, “is essenti >main a fundamental vehicle for the wonders, with Rachel Darmon, what common element unites sphers (to whom must be added the German Georg Pictor a mythologica of 4532) and, especially, what is the peculiarity of known as mythography, if we compare it with other forms a carmen perpetuum, “continuous Song” ‘the work of Boccaccio is the first encyclo~ claim to be comprehensive Nevertheless, ike Ovid, whose work culminates in the Augustan present, the Geelogia emphasizes a historic break with the past, an intimation of the Renaissance, and between myth and the modern reader that precludes dialogue rspective is oriented rather tovatd the on of knowledge of the theogotY and phy—scholarly works such as lexica, antiquarian treatises, rative religion.® With its blurred boundaries, the category of cosmogony of fe knowledge. Their logics not narrative but seeks to invest ‘Moreover, 7 > significant that the humanist mythographical treatises, until n tion of the Work of Conti, do not usually present themselves es as mythology byt rather as treatises on the gods. Moreover, in their approach to the barbarian and especially Eastern gods (these trea- traordinary Prominence to Egypt and in their ale ines in subsequent centuries wll compartment From the time of. ea) Humanism, aa fruit, Scholars now have the . His emphasis, however, on firsteditionsofancient authors (and, by 1581, practically the entire Greco-Roman Interpretation of pagananys could pechaps be equally motivated by literature that we know has come to light).” They also have more reliable philo- inwhich he lived, which included the Wars of Rel logical tools and a knowledge, or at least a notion, of the Greek language: Written. eens? Reformation, in the mid-sixteenth century, three Ttalian Renaissance manuals will leave their sted on the straight ar mark on the later European mythographical tradition: De deis gentium waria et ‘multiplex historia (of Lilio Giraldi, 1548), Imagini colla sposizione de In the work of Conti, notably, over four hundred names are cited, with quota- Tions, which inchide mythographical variants found in various texts, including Byzantine scholia—amounting to more than four thousand, a huge inctease in itnone of the things that have been said so far seemed to be worthy to be the volume ofthis kind of information.” ited to poster ; and more useful un Each ofthe three mythographers has his distinctive characteristics, To borrow lying opinion. But what isi? Seeing that it was said that Medusa was the the words of Jean Seznec, “Giraldi, the learned philologist, concentrates uponee 62 Approaches to Greek Myth ‘most beautiful ofall women, what prevents her being regarded as pleasure or lust? For such isthe strength ofthe pleasures th ship ofthe gods, all mankind, mission, all utility, this reason, seeing that men are made useless for other this said they used to be turned the warning to flee from lus for us. Modern Period: Enlightenment and Romanticism The modern reception of Greek mythology i characterized by the epochal fracture of atwo-thousand-year-old tradition ofallegorization. Fe tives ofthe allego without being aware of 1609), when he offers his reading ofthe myth oF Perseus and Medusa, he remains strictly in the traditional mode (“The fable seems to have been composed with war"). The deadly Gorgon, Medusa, successfully, To do so requires speed £ As Barbara C, Garmer demonstrated, Bacon is, in effect, indebted to the preceding mythographical tradition and specifically to Conti.** Inthe short preface to The Wisdom ofthe Ancients, however, when explaining the reasons that ontinue allegorizing the old stories, Bacon says thatthe old parables ly "asa device for shadowing and concealing the meaning” but, para thod of making it understood." This paradox, which assumes se wisdom of the ancients, seems to harbor future develop- the pristine i ‘ments in the concept of myth, namely, in Vico. To the extent that myths reveal “sacted relics and light airs breathing out of better times," even the old poets like Homer or Hesiod did not come to understand the allegorical expressions that they conveyed in poetic format.** Although the study of mythology underwent no substantive change before the ‘eighteenth century, and the reception of Greek myth continued to impose the filter of allegory, the world did change” It expanded with the findings ofthe ex ica, who placed within reach ofthe Europeans acolos- customs, and stories ofthe “savages.” The chronicles and isionaries, and traders often evoke similarities to ancient plorers in America and. sal collection ofr reports of travelers, ere "poets who spoke in poet ‘The Reception of Grek Myth s a result, will be discredited. The comparison is irresistl ences “au sauvage, & TTroquois caché sous lécorce du Grec” he Lroquois hidden under the outward appearance of the Greek") ‘conformity between the fables of the Americans and those of “In a context animated by the Quarrel of the Ancients and the that Greek mythology is a collection of absurdit {vin the name of reason, morality, and religion.” ofthe allegorical method, since in the eyes of the myths cannot hide veiled truths about the physical or moral interpretive tradition approaches its decomposition, without, a new paradigm" And paradoxically, i is inthis climate of born from the errors of the human mind, Giambat- 75) recognizes in mythology the first science con that the creatures of the Vico anticipates the Ro- ion of imagination, while at the same time he refuses to follow enlightened rejection of myth.* Persisting into the historical period, “because of those poetic characters [1 t discoveries concerning antiquit mental abstraction of a sen of what they represent, becau: ties.” In other words, imag lly separate, so myth expresses a unity between the human being ani ‘understandable, then, that Vico is considered a forerunner of the64 Approaches to Greek myth romantic concept of symbol, His ideas are so far removed from his contempo- gina according to whom myth is tautegoric: legorical explans though not mentioned by name, Vico also exerted a strong influence on a. ‘major figure in the modern scholarly reception of myth: Christian Gottlob Heyne (a729-1812)."" Professor of Greek at Gattingen, Heyne has been considered the first scholar of antiquity to demonstrate the possibilities of ahistorical anthroy ogy of ancient Greece from a com, fh modern “primitive" Heyne is best known for his popularizing ofthe term mythus to define the obj of study, thus replacing the word fabula, which carried negative connot the fictional and the false. usage acquires a foundational character. me can say, the scholarly study of mythology was born, a study conscious of its proper object." A major contribu th of pri thought of the former is expressed by me: ss oF symb ns of the mythological activi plexity in the face of the incomprehensible phenomena that surrounded ther wwe lack any document study of mythology, which: their local and national con In the context of Roma were, from the end of the ei Heyne was popularizing the notion of myth as an expres mankind and as a discourse on myth: symbol to allegory. The result is the disrepute and centhronement of the symbol. Intran ‘The Reception of Greek Myth 65 ‘of Romantic myth (for example, for Creuzer) is, likewise, wesbetween the symbol and myth as 3. Greek mythology as a whole is considered a single he act of intuitive perception with the discourse ofa nan contribution to the Romantic construction of myth 2” poetic existence esthetic dimension. To Goethe, for example, the appropriation of the emotion that conf€¥TFom observation of the work of art, which hs from their temporal dimension to become present age. Before the mask of Medusa in the Palazzo Ronda- shape of face, beyond einer hohe! that he re between, in wundersames Werk, das, den Zwwiespalt zwischen Tod und Leben, 2 und Wollust ausdriickend, einen unnennbaren Reiz ... ber literature needs myths. In the center of ancient poetry there was my- literature of the present suffers from its absence. Hence the need for iythologie,” a new mythology.” In another fundamental text on myth the Romantic theorists, the he’ id alles Wesentliche, worin die moderne Dichtkunst sich in die Worte zusammenfassen: Wir haben ke- what mythology was for the an- the modern pe nt, can be summed up in the words: We have no myt165 Approaches toGreck Myth ‘The Reception ofGreck Myth 67 Perhaps the Romantic reception of myth acquires its fullest profile with Fried. + Sonnenheld das winterliche Dunkel beleimpft, so vertilgt er auch die rich Creuzer and his Sym ‘Mythologie der alten Valker (810-22). en der Siimpfe und die Scheusale der Wiste. Da gewinnt er die An- following the path of Sche 7 “unl erzeugt mit ihr einen neuen Sonnensohn Perses." Diese [sc deallegorische Dart if, ode los einen allgemeinen Beg- he sun hero battles the winter darkness, so he also destroys the spawn of jene sc, die symbolische nst his correspondent, Gottfried Hermann stands firm on the terrain of, ‘Opposed to symbolic and mystical interpretation of archaic epic and, ‘of Greek mythology, Hermann conceives of it asthe scientific study is approach revolves around two axes, ‘who gives allegory restored vigor, the pet ‘of concepts) i the origin of Greek mythology. Second, without yet hav- inguistics or the Indo-European ata crucial time in the history ofthe reception of myth. To the extent that sspondents take Heyne as a point of reference, whom we place at the ‘of the modern science of myth, in a way, a foun- Mythology is the battleground on speculation and historical-critical science face each ‘the Romantic reception of myth and for its hi and philologic originally published in 1818, between Friedrich ‘reuzer, whose aversion to the “concept” cism is the exchange of lett. Creuzer and Gottiried cess to myth i through vision and feeling "* On Creuzer's assump. tion that the entire mythical and scientific Greek heritage comes from the East wwe can approach the s tal way of being he final defeat of Napoleon, the academic study of antiqui ts basic structure. The est ionalization of clas- logy in the new univers ‘the model of Greek culture in the emerging German ident 1 method and the longing for scientific respect in which we seem to hear the proclamat Especially evocative is the sym! cighteenth century, the emphasis was on celestial bodies rather than on ferti ly adaptation of the Eastern Mithra) isa solar hero, And in the battle with the Gorgon, Creuzer sees a struggle of sunlight against darkness and in favor of the generative forces of Totes, it must cease to ask what myths can mean to us and focus resolutely nature: they meant tothe Greeks.Approaches to Greek Myth divorce will be consummated between the scientific approach to myth by academic professionals and its popularization by writers and artists, who lay the role of mediating between the ancient myths and the religious or aesthetic meanings they can take in our time.” Popularizing mythography will also assume, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, forms such as dictionar- ies or manuals or retellings—very often disdained by specialists." Moreover, ly historical claim to science of myth can help explain a paradoxical phenomenon: why the Hellenists took up again the two old methods of myth: analysis, whose origins lie in ancient Greece, that appeared to be already over— gory of nature and euhemerism.™ Indeed, the assumption about the personi- fication of natural phenomena as developed by Gottfried Hermann has become, in the hands of Friedrich Max Miller (1823-1900), a complete allegory of na ture, Starting from etymological interpretation—although this time comparative and based on recent advances in Indo-European linguistics—the exponents of the naturalist-comparative school in the second half of the nineteenth century seek the key to understanding of myth in atmospheric phenomena (The Indo- European approach has continued up to the present and is represented in this volume by Joseph Falaky Nagy, in chapter 4.) The project of George W. Cox is Indo-European, or Aryan, as he called it, myths to a story about the sun. said of hero Perseus that from the dawn-goddess, Athene, he receives the mirror into which he is to gaze when he draws his sword to smite the mortal Gorgon, the fiend of dark- ness. and like the sun, he may veil himself in clouds when he wishes not to be seen, But he cannot reach the Gorgon’s den. hhome of the Graiai [Gray Women], the land ofthe gloaming (One of the legacies of Romanticism was the emergence of nature, which now appears to be at the origin of all myths. In a context of growing urbanization, the interpretation of myths through nature becomes a fascinating attraction, as reflected, for example in the largest encyclopedic dictionary of Greek mythology, the Ausfihliches Lexikon der griechischen und rémischen Mythologie (1884-1937) of Withelm Heinrich Roscher: {As for the new “euhemerism” it has its main representative in Karl Otfried Mller (1797-1840), for whom myths are primarily “narrations in which the deeds and destinies of individual personages are recorded,” belonging to a period before the history of Greece." Perceived as tribal legends, myths may, to the ‘The Reception of Greek Mych 69 jeminiscence ofa distant past, provide valuable x, every period a specific form of the myth, ion that Mill tical conditions, we may, perhaps, see a concern fo ‘numerous separate states and a desire for unification." When he {interpretation of the myth of the Argive Perseus, for example, he unavoidable condition isto identify “what circumstances, relations, itions of the ancient Argives, gave rise to the mythus, or coéperated in has narrative (In this respect, the legacy of their studies of folklore, they established the notion of myth as a distinct from the folktale.) According sreek myth in the twentieth century is characterized terest in myths as coherent nat ‘The decade of the 18905 ce of two of the theoretical schools that would dominate the the ritual theory (discussed by H. S. Versnel in chapter 2) (discussed by Robert Segal in chapter 8).* To these must be tude Calame in chapter myth means narrative will not be apparent to the neoromantic and alist trend, which assumes the central Romantic claim that myth the twentieth century study of Greek myth has mn ofits components, Thus, snces between the dominant schools, Hellenists “have approached narrative as a cohesive and organized whole composed of constitu its overall structure and which are designed toApproaches to Greek Myth «©, Forthe allegorical interpretation of Greek myth in medieval and Renaissance liter ture, see Brumble 2007, with extensive bibliographical discussion under "Further Read. ing” (419-23) 1am most grateful to Lowell Edmunds for hs criticism and queries. His translation, as ambiguity ofthe term mology Sch “bouquet of flowers, anthology”) notion of myth asa collective expression of the The Reception ofGreck Mych 71 fs, before ‘myth’ was distinguished from ‘his: jon remained throughout the rest of antiquity and s back to the primordial sacrifice of Prometheus (Hes. Th, is are Cuartero 2010 and 2012; Papathomopoulos 2010. general, for the relationship between the Greek past and ic, see Swain 1996, 65-100.Approaches to Greek Myth tythographus Homericus in Pagts 2007. 41. Cf Possanza 2004. The poem of Aratus was translated into or adapted to Latin at e name ofthe mother of Myemidon, Euy medieval codex into Corymosa in Boceacis (Atvarez and Iglesias 2001, 230-31. For Epyteopus, ee Alvarez ca. 875-1075, according to the Mychographus Vaticanus Secundus, translate “c'est non seulement commenter Ie loses dja élaborées autour di 55. On the “renaissance” of the twelfth century, see Reynolds and Wilson 1991, 0-14 56. For editions of Arnulf of Orléans, see Ghisalberti 1932; Gura 2010. ‘The Reception of Greek Myth 73 7, As many as twenty-two manuscripts ofthis commen- and notonly in France and Italy. Same ‘commentary with which Dante read ‘On Bersuire, see Smalley 1960, 2 ‘Quidiana moraliter expla Quidius moraizatus (Moss 1982, 23; Guthmiller 1997 tick 2002, 279, For the differen sources (amongst them the Herero Ovid 2001, 216-17. .querere, quod possis ex fonte ‘example, Boccaccio (Genealogia deorum 4.14) attributes to Ovid, by con- sd Pomona—a iyginus, 535; pseudo-Apollodo the date of Cons work the dave of st, accepted by some scholars, i now see Ford 1998, 243-45. esias and Alvarez 1998, 97‘method of interpretation of myth lippo Beroaldo and Raffaele Regio (Guthmller 2008, itorum of 564 (Reusch 1886, 275): "In Ouidit Meta. ‘enarrationesallegoricae uel tropologicae” 5-16. CE, Ogden 2008, 134 698. 1829], 151 (December 1786), 546 (April 1788). CE Fornaro . For a broader perspective on the German Sehnsucht for a mythology, see Wil- liamson 2004. inus to the Romantics Brentano and Gérres (Fomaro 2008, ‘univocal i the allegory and ‘upon participation in scholarship to include nota _yorw.qfounis.t/rontend/nodefs33. “Mythologie” In Kurt Ranke, ed, Enzykloplide des Morchens: Hand- h zur historschen und verglechenden Ereahlfrschung, vol. 9, cols. 1073-86. the goddess Athena proposed by Rose ‘which seems the reductio ad absurdum of the physical-llegorical theory" On the Apo 2004, “Mythos und Mythologie” In Reinhard Brandt and Steffen and the Mars of Roscher as solar deities, see Versnel 1993, 289-92. “Mythos und Mythologie, 9-22. “on "A Brief History ofthe Study of Greek Mythology” In Ken Dowden 10 Greok Mythology, 527-47. Malden, MA. a npn on land 534 The relationship between myth and sen (chapter) n Lorna 1985 (ceprinted many times). Stil an eds, 3-25. Mal smyth as ideology. For myth as ideoh al ichte der Moderne.” lar mythographers of the les: Leur place dans lighes?” Keros 4 1988. Le nozze di Cadio e Armonia Milan, thography in the Roman World. Oxford. Fi : ier Galois héciqucs,chronoages Alga, Minerva. 2006. La mltografa come género de a prosa helena cuesones r “ ion des myths In Dante Ager and Stzanne Sid, ed, eva? Hob 9-3. nt ele Ag leto, chistoriador» y «anitigrafom” Florllib 23: 23-4. WORKS CITED Paul, and Dominic Machado. 2010. “Video Games and Classical Antiquity” erica. 2008. Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance. Leiden and E 2010, “The Catena Commentary and Its Renaissance Progeny” Manu “Myth and Allegory in the Vulgate Commentary of Ovid Metamorpho: presented at Formes, usages et visées des pratiques mythographiques de 4a Renaissance, séme Colloque du réseau Polymnia, Fondation Hardt is, and Douglas Heath, eds, The Works of Francis Fires Unpublished 1g, Robert 1687-764. London, ib.“Ovid's Metamorphoses in the School Tradition of France,Approaches to Grock Myth ‘Manuscript Traditions, Manuscript Settings." In James G. Clark Frank Coulson, and Kathryn L. MeKis +» Ovid inthe Middle Ages, 48-Ba, Cambridge. Cox, George W. 1882 ithology ofthe Aryan Nations. New and rev. ed. London, mmbolile und Mythologie de alten Volker, besonders der olgia. A cura di Friedrich Creu- 2et, Briefe tiber Homer und Hesiodus vorziglich ber die Theagonte, Heidelberg, 1818. (Csapo, Eric. 2005, Theorles of Mythology. Malden, MA. Preudo-Apol-lodor: Biblioteca, Vo. 1 (Book 1). Barcelona. ity and Poetry” In Philip Har. «The Cambridge Companion 0 Ovid, 264-87. Cambridge. Quaderni del Dipartimento di flologi logna) 14: 23-32. 12006, Oedipus. London and New York. |, Lewis R. 1896. The Cults ofthe Greek States. Vol. I. Oxford. Fletcher, Kristopher. 2008, “Systematic Genealogies in Apollodor Exclusion of Rome from Greek Myth” Cant 27: 59-91 Such as Ovid's Metamorphoses.” In Richard I. Hunter ed., Hesiod Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstruct The Reception of Greck Myth Ths” In M. Korenjak and K. Tochterle, eds. Pontes I Al ‘agung zur Rezeption der Maslschen Anite, 28-42. Inns- {Greci senza lumi: Lantropologia della Grecia antica in Christian Gottlob 11812) e nel saa tempo Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschafen in logich- Historische Klasse 5: 109-95. Greet Mythography: I Texts. Oxford and New York. i@and Literacy” In Nino Luragh, ed, The Historians Craftin the 5. Oxford. espositore delle «Metamorfosin”IlGiomnale Dantesco 1981. Mythos und Poese: Zum Mythesbegrifin Aularang und Frhromantk tz 19932. "Die Entstehung des Mythosbegrifs bel Christian Gottlob Heyne’” In af ei, Mythos in mythenloer Gesellschaft: Das Paradeigmia Roms, 284~94. Stutt- Leipzig, Greek Mythology: An Introduction. Translated by Thomas Maier, and London. 32. “La génése de la notion de mythe-” In Juan Antonio Lopes Pérez, ed, Mitos ra griegaarcaicayclsica, 15. Madi. 1955, The Greck Myths. London. i, Frangoise. 2008. “Mythologia, Genealogia,Archaiologia: Fonction paléntologique aphie™ Kernos 19: 201-14 AT, 2010, "Arritical Edition and Study of Arnulf of Orléans Philological Com- 0 Ovid's Metamorphoses" Diss. Ohio State University.Approaches to Greek Myth ler, Bodo. 1986, Studien zur anton Mythologie n de 195]. “Concezioni del mito antico intorno al 15001” In Mit, poesia, Hubert Cancik, and Helmuth Sehag srtog, Frangois. 1990. Marie-Madele pologie et société 177-88. Pris. Heinze, Theodor. 2006. “Mythography: Introduction the Present.” In Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schnel cols, 464, 467-71. Leiden and Boston. 187. "Three Approaches to Greek Mythography." In Jan Bremmer, ed Judet de La Combe, Piere, 1995, "La querel «debat en Allemagne et en France au début d nationale 4: 55-67. Kovacs, George, and C. W. Marshal, eds. 2011, lasts and Comics. Oxford, ‘The Reception of Grek Myth 8 bert, 1989. Homer the Theologian: NeoplatonistAllegorical Reading and the pic Tradition. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, “The Structural Study of Myth.” Journal of American Folkore Hpoio. “Francis Bacon, Allegory and the Uses of Myth.” Review of English 360-80. se. 1999. Theorisng Myth: Narrative, Ieolgy, and Scholarship. Chicago and *Retheorizing Myth.” In Synnove des Bouvrie, ed, Myth and Symbol. Sym- from the first International Sympo- 7, 1998, 215-32. Bergen, fal Receptions in Chile 16: 508-22. ‘George, and Robert Scott. 1996 [1843]. Greek English Lexicon. With plement. Oxford. ‘Madeleine. 1989, “Panthéon et discours mythologique: Le cas Apollo: tation of Myth: Vico "New Science” Cambridge. ception. In Craig W. Kallendorf, ed., A Companion to the ‘Malden, MA. 167. Pragmenta Hesiodea. Oxford terlere oder mythologische Dichtungen der Alten. 7 Ovid in Renaissance France: A Survey ofthe Latin Ei rance before 1600. Londot |W. 997. “One Hundred Years of Fractiousness: lopment of Greek Thought, 25-47. Oxtord. esad: The Shield; Catalogue of Women; Other Fragments. Locb Classical bridge, MA. nm gegen Creuzer aber Mythologie” In K. Sier and F. Wackener- Gotfried Hermann (3772-3848). 165-79. Tubingen. {844 [1825]. Introduction toa Scientife System of Mythology: Translated by London. 2008. Perseus. London and New York o7."Mythographus Homericus: Estud i ediié comentada” Diss. Univer. de Barcelona. 1989, Prudentus on the Marys. Oxford. 8, Manolis, 2010. Ano\ASBupov BipiofKn/Apolodor Bibliotheca post mWagnerum recgnita Athens, 004. New Age and Neopagan Religions in America, New York. 2004. Translating the Heavens: Aratus, Germanicus, andthe Poetics of |New York.82 Approaches toGreck Myth Franz H. 1886. Die Indices lirorum prohibitorum des sechzehnten Jahhundery _gesammelt und herausgegeben. Tubingen, Reynolds, Leighton D, and Nigel G. Wilson. 1991. Seribes and Scholars: A Guide to ‘Transmission of Gree and Latin Literature. rd ed. Oxford, ly A. 2010, Preaching the Memory of Virtue and Vice: Memory, Images, reaching in the Late Middle Ages. Turnhout, Beli Rogers, Bret M., and Benjamin Stevens, 2012, “Classical Rec sical Receptions Journal 4: 127-47. de la mythologie grecque. Pa sin Science Fiction’ 1856. Einleitung in die Philosophie der Mythologie (Sammalici bthelung.Erser Band). and Augsburg, jesprich aber die Poesie." In Wolfietrich Rasch, ed che Schrfen, 473-529. Munich, ineffable, Aniconie God Demogorgon.” ICT 19: Jean. 1989. Le reméde danse mal: Cri ion de Vartifie a ge de Lumires. Pais, Sent 4]. Myth and Society in An 1993. “Apollo and Mars in Myth ae ed, 289-334. Leiden, Vico, Giambatista, 1990 The Reception ofGreck Myth 83 World. Translated by Andrew Szegedy-Maszak, Foreword by Bernard Knox. éécriturerhétorique des Métamorpho- BS. 004. The Longing for Myth i Geman. Chicago. fod Titans, and Monsters ace, ad Religion in Bathe meary Mytography In Sara Eigen and Mark Larimore es, The Ger of ove347-65, Aan, NY. a listory of Scholia” CQ 17: 244-56. iczing Rhetoric of Bodybuilding” Aion