on history of myth analysis

The history of mythology as the study of myth helps inform our own mythology today by lending us various theories, perspectives, and tools with which we can dissect the onion-like layers of myth. Upon examining the mythologies of individual mythographers through history, the model of myth as an onion becomes especially important as it reminds us that myth is multifaceted. Without this reminder, it is all too easy to fall into the trap of simplifying or reducing myth until it can no longer offer us anything more than what we already set out to seek.


Consider Volk mythology and the quest for an Ur-myth. Awash in a zeitgeist of nationalism and colonialism, many 19th century scholars of comparative mythology sought stories of pure and glorious origins for their people in order to justify nationhood and dominion. By confining oneself with such initial expectations, such a mythographer becomes limited to uncovering only one layer of the myth onion: whichever layer serves the purpose of their ideology. Leonard and McClure (7) offer a historical example of such single-minded mythographers: “European scholars hoped also to name the “Ur-people” and the true location of Eden (the Ur-place), thus bringin the prestige and presumed political power of being God’s ‘firstborn’ to their respective nations.


Agendas aside, one common thread tying mythologies such as the Ur-myth, the monomyth, or Eliade’s sacred-profane binary is the drive, conscious or otherwise, for theory to impose simplicity on otherwise complex subject matter. While simplicity isn’t necessarily something to shirk, our examination of a panoply of theories rather than just one allows us to capably cope with the complexity of myth, with each theory offering a way in to unique layer of the myth onion. Furthermore, in ironic effect, the creation of simple explanations for complex subjects mirrors some mythographers’ conceptions of myth makers themselves. For example, Euhemerists regard myths as (4) “imaginative explanations of historical events because [the ancients] did not have access to better forms of knowledge.” In this way, we see myth and mythology mirroring each other, perhaps because both are simultaneously studies of and products of the human condition.


Ultimately, any study concerns asking and answering questions. The history of mythology informs us that, regarding myth, questions are manifold. One scholar might study three questions, as Segal does according to Leonard and McClure (13), asking of myth, “what is its subject matters, what is its origin, and what is its function?” But many more remain available. Through the common codes of structuralism, we may ask, “Why is this keyword so common in myths from this cultural context?” Through Jungian psychology, we may ask, “What mythic archetype does this character represent?” Through a synthesis of psychology and Campbell’s monomyth, we may even ask, “What common urges in the subconscious make the ‘threshold of adventure’ so prevalent in both myth and modern media?” Just as Campbell’s hero may have a thousand faces, we may have a thousand questions.