Anyone else out there is really into Classical Greek or other mythology? If so, me too!!!! Especially anything to do with Trojan War. And what do you think about the whole Greek vs Roman thing. Is there such a thing as Roman myth or is it all plagiarism?
Sure, the Romans adpoated a whole load of things to their own ends but they do have some of their own mythology such as the founding origin with the wolf supposedly suckling Romulus and Remus.
But my mythology interest is mostly with the Celts
Anyone else out there is really into Classical Greek or other mythology? If so, me too!!!! Especially anything to do with Trojan War. And what do you think about the whole Greek vs Roman thing. Is there such a thing as Roman myth or is it all plagiarism?
"Plagiarism" is not usually applicable to mythography. The idea of "original ownership" of a religious idea is a modern invention. It simply did not apply in earlier times. Likewise, there are issues of horizontal adoption vs. vertical transmission. Consider Zeus vs. Jupiter: Who "plagiarized" whom when both actually are each culture's interpretation of *Dyēus ph2tr?
Arthur was most probably a Briton who served udner Romans who rose to command and became leader shortly after the Romans witdrew for god frm Britain.
As for Britain having no mytholgy what tolkien missed was that the inhabitants were predominantly Celts for a long time. It's still quite Celtic it's Scotland an Wales.
Yes, I like the older Celtic stuff too such As Finn McCumhail and Cu Chulainn.
As for deities and religious ides, every religion seems to borrow. *shrug*
Dogface, you make a good argument. I stand corrected. It was not the best choice of words. I remember having this debate once in class, and it turned out quite interesting. Everyone who is interested in such topics always seems to have a view. I think the transference of gods from Greek to Roman comes primarily from the assigning of the names of various "numini" (Roman animistic deities) to their Greek counterparts, in much the same way as the Greeks believed that the Egyptian god Amon Ra was a "version" of Zeus.
This form of syncretism was typical of the Greco-Roman culture. The Romans ran with the idea in ways even the Greeks didn't do. It was how they incorporated other religions into their own state religion. As far as Rome was concerned, after all, there was no difference between government and religion. Each was a "branch" of the same thing. Therefore, it only made sense that as many gods as possible had to be incorporated into the current structure, either by identifying them with Roman deities or just adopting them, wholesale.
Although, having said that, those few myths belonging specifically to Rome (ie -- those actually set in Rome) do tend to be suspiciously linear. But perhaps that has more to do with the limited number of city-states (like the Greek poleis) in Italy at the time.
Why does something have to be "actually set in Rome" to belong to Roman culture but something can be within any part of the entire Hellenic world to belong to Greek culture? Is that a valid set of standards? Would it not be better to look at the entire Italic or Italo-Etruscan cultural area as the standard instead of constrasting a single city to all of Achaea?
Arthur was most probably a Briton who served udner Romans who rose to command and became leader shortly after the Romans witdrew for god frm Britain.
As for Britain having no mytholgy what tolkien missed was that the inhabitants were predominantly Celts for a long time. It's still quite Celtic it's Scotland an Wales.
Tolkein didn't miss that at all. What you have missed is that Tolkein certainly knew about the Ossian Cycle. Had he gone hog-wild incorporating Celtic (theme) elements into his own work, he would merely have been repeating MacPherson. Before you bash Tolkein for "missing" something, make sure that you're not ignorant of what Tolkein and his contemporaries certainly knew about. The Ossian Cycle pretty much was the start of the whole "Celtic Craze" of the Victorian and Edwardian eras, so Tolkein would have been very familiar with its influence. When he developed Middle Earth, any heavy "Celtic" flavor work would have been seen as a knockoff of the Ossian Cycle.
Instead, Tolkein wished to bring light upon a far less well-known and far more neglected portion of British cultural history--its Northwest Germanic mythological heritage. Unfortunately, Tolkein's interpretation was too good. It took on a life of its own and the source material still moulders, forgotten, unappreciated, and buried under more glamorous competitors, like the far-too-often strip-mined Arthurian, "Celtic", and pseudo-Celtic material.
Do you suppose, though, that the principal story of the Italian's descent and origins -- that many of them came from Trojan refugees who were led by Aeneas -- if in some measure true, could partially explain the influence of Achaean / Hellenic tradition upon their culture? (I am not stating an opinion here, merely posing the question, perhaps.)
[/quote]
Doubtful. From what I've read, it all works the other way around. In an effort to tie themselves more closely with an ancient glory and rationalize enmity with the Greeks, Romans siezed upon a minor Homeric character and back-claimed him as a Founder figure.
And then the same people then turn to Beowulf as one of Tolkein's major sources. Which seems like a wee discrepancy to me if they're trying to argue a lack of Anglo-Saxon tradition.
The argument is that there has been no continuity of tradition to the present day. The Germanic mythological tradition was and is dead in Britain, and Tolkein could not revive it. It's a corpse, not a living thing.
I also heard another theory, which was that Arthur possibly started off as an early Celtic deity, which is one reason why no-one took his name for such a long time afterwards.
Arthur is likely to be from *Rtos, which means "bear". "ap Uther" can mean either "son of Uther" or "the fierce", so "Arthur ap Uther" could be "Arthur, son of Uther" or "Fierce Bear". Speculation beyond this is would be speculation.
"Doubtful. From what I've read, it all works the other way around. In an effort to tie themselves more closely with an ancient glory and rationalize enmity with the Greeks, Romans siezed upon a minor Homeric character and back-claimed him as a Founder figure."
... And then invented the lineage to tie Aeneas to Romulus and Remus, and thus to certain major aristocratic families, including the Caesars. (Augustus used supposed descent from Aeneas -- Venus' son to lend "legitimacy" to his claim.) Although, all told, it is not uncommon to use imagined genealogy in this way.
Every Irish sept has a genealogy all the way back to Eden. It simultaneously has a genealogy all the way back to the Tuatha de Danaan, Fir Bolg, and/or Fomorians.
Something interesting I noticed...
I bought a book on World Mythology (Arthur Cotterell's Encyclopaedia of World Mythology) and it's generally very comprehensive. But I noticed there was nothing on Bible stories. Hmmmm.... Wonder why.
Marketing. Listing Jewish and/or Christian Scripture in mythology in an English-language mass-market work would be as stupid a marketing gaffe as would be a country singer bad-mouthing a conservative President from Texas.
I won't bash Tolkien. The man was far more gifted than in literary understanding than I'll ever be. As for stip mined Celtic material, yes, I have to say, the amount of pseudo stuff out there is amazing (in a how did that get into print sort of way.
The thing with Arthur seems to be that he can capture the British imagination in a way Beowulf can't seemt to.
I have to completely agree with your later comments on marketing and mythology gaffes. (I reference what happened to The Dixie Chicks).
This is what I recall. It may be faulty. Please feel free to come up with the correct articles anyone.
The dixie chicks once said that they were ashamed that the incumbent president was from the same State as them. Basically they were ashamed of Texas electing him. Their music sales plummeted and tyhey couldn't find air time. They also got a lot of flak in the press I believe.
Question: What happened to the Dixie Chicks?
Actually, I would have to disagree with some of the above comments. If your implication is that including Judeo-Christian "scripture" would cheapen it somehow, I disagree. (If not, perhaps I misread your meaning and so apologise)
Not my meaning at all. Including Scriptural works as mythology would be a horrible marketing gaffe--too many people would reject the work without even bothering to read it, thust making it unprofitable.
This is what I recall. It may be faulty. Please feel free to come up with the correct articles anyone.
The dixie chicks once said that they were ashamed that the incumbent president was from the same State as them. Basically they were ashamed of Texas electing him. Their music sales plummeted and tyhey couldn't find air time. They also got a lot of flak in the press I believe.
And the reason that it was such a monumentally STUPID thing for them to do is that they are in the "Country" genre. The Country fanbase is vehemently patriotic and very well known as such. Were they in "rock" or "pop", nobody would have even blinked.
Hmmm... Actually an interesting post-script is that I just found another mythology book which does include scripture. (Mostly Old Testament).
But it makes perfect sense to include, because many of the same themes are present, and several of the stories barely differ from their antecedents.
It might make "sense" from a scholarly perspective, but it would be a marketing disaster in the USA--unless the book were otherwise so boring that nobody would have heard of it in the first place.
I've always had a strong interest in mythology and ancient spirituality. Carl Jung saw myths from a psychological perspective in terms of Archetypes and symbols (I tend to see mythology in a similar way).
I find Greek mythology particularly good, the ideas, imagery and subtle use of language. I also like Aboriginal 'dreamtime myths' because of the way they link to the landscape, 'following the tracks on the ancestors'. Celtic and Norse mythology are also interesting as they seem to have their origins in shamanism. I'm interested the way shamanic communities and animists relate to the natural world.