Keuka College - Kiondaga Yearbook (Keuka Park, NY)

Page 6 text:

4 THE COLLEGE RECORD. different schools of thought have been formed. But the ten- dency has been for each theory or system of interpretation to be carried to such an extreme as to be considered absurd by the succeeding generation of interpreters. And in some cases the interpretation was regarded as meaningless as the uninter- preted myth itself. Many, in different ages, have considered the gods and heroes of Mythology as forces of nature personified, and the mythical narratives as poetical descriptions of physical phenomea. Ac- cording to this interpretation myths are allegories of nature. The gods are winds, storms, rain, fire and other natural forces. The stories are poetic descriptions of the havocs of wind, fire and other such powers. This was a favorite mode of explana- tion among Stoic philosophers. Modern scholars are inclined to discard the allegorical theory as based on false principles. Nevertheless they recognize that some myths give satisfactory evidence of belonging to this type. Another school of interpretation, which arose a few centuries before Christ, considered myths to be statements of historic fact under the guise of metaphors and moral allegories. Gods are explained as glorified men. Thus Zeus was the king of Crete ; Hera and Meda were queens ; Hercules was a human warrior. Even modern critics admit that there is an historic background to myths ; but that historic fact is not the pri- mary element in them, and that it is not a satisfactory explan- ation for them is generally admitted. Eminent mythologists of more recent times have directed their investigations toward discovering the origin and primi- tive meaning of classic myths. But the general trend of such investigations has been toward trying to satisfy an intellectual questioning merely, and, to some, the results are only partially satisfactory. Modem scholarship has brought forth two systems of inter- pretation. The one is matured by philologists ; the other, by anthropologists. The one results from the study of language; tli other, from the study of man and human thought. The field of comparative mythology furnishes the clue to in- terpretation for the anthropological school. When myths, legends and folklore of all nations arc collected and compared

Page 5 text:

CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OE MYTHOLOGY. Alice A. Mendenhall. HP HE province usually chosen by writers on Mythology is its ■ relation to literature and art. The purpose of such writers has generally been directed in two channels : First, to give such an account of mythical material as will enable readers of classical literature, both ancient and modern, to understand the numerous allusions therein ; second, to lead the students to appreciate the great influence which Mythology has had upon literature and art of all ages. This province has been well chosen and wisely defined, and, in the main, has met the de- mands of the day. But the time has come when this disposition of Mythology fails to satisfy. That mythical and legendary stories have been an unfailing source of inspiration for poet and artist of all times cannot be questioned. That there must be some reason for this fact ought to be admitted with equal candor. That there is in myths something more than superstitious ideas of savage tribes, something more even than harmless, fanciful picturings of the race mind in its infancy is coming to be recognized by many. Surely there must be in them some germ of truth, some vital principle to enable them to endure and to exert so strong an influence. Just what the reason is for the remarkable place of myths in the world of literature and art, what aspect of truth and what principles they illustrate, have not yet been satisfactorily formulated. If this should be done the science of Interpretation will have rendered a valuable ser- vice to human thought. Yet it is probable that the very nature and purpose of mythical material make it unreasonable to expect that such principles of teaching would be generally accepted. As soon as the literal truth of myths and legends began to be questioned some interpretation was demanded. In all periods of history, since doubt began to be felt concerning them as literal statements of fact, effort has been made to ex- plain their significance. Different theories have been proposed,

Page 7 text:

THE COLLEGE RECORD. 0 it is readily seen that this material is very similar in many re- spects. They differ in details as nations and tribes differ in temperament, but in essential points they are much the same. From this fact the anthropologists claim that the myths of different nations resemble each other because they are formed to meet the same needs out of the same materials. This simi- larity exists, they argue, because the different peoples passed through the same intellectual conditions. They indicate a stage of development belonging to all savage tribes — the stage in which the savage considers himself akin to beasts ; beasts, plants, inanimate objects, sun, moon, and star, are to him not only animate beings, but even persons with inclinations similar to his own. Elements in mythology which we consider irrational and even displeasing to a refined taste, according to this school of interpretation, seemed perfectly rational and natural to the savage mind in that state of development. The tales of transformation, which make up a great part of mythic lore, they interpret as an indication of the totemistic belief in descent from beasts. Another phase of belief among the anthropologists is called the theory of Survival. Their argument is stated thus: Beliefs and stories as well as practices tend to survive long after their original meaning has been lost. Instead of reject- ing these myths as absurd and immoral tales, the anthropolo- gists refer them to a period when the people's conception of the gods was much below the standard of later times, a period, moreover, when many of these myths had a different meaning from that attributed to them by later Greek writers. There is much in this system of interpretation to commend itself. Yet from it we must conclude that myths and legends of ancient times are of no particular value except from an his- toric point of view. They give us an idea of the grand progress man has made from savagery. They explain charac- teristics of the race mind and denote stages through which the race mind has passed. This understanding enlarges our view of life and ought to give a more tender touch to our sympathies. Although this explanation is good, and may fully satisfy the distinctly intellectual type of mind concerning the origin of myths, yet it fails to satisfy in regard to their primitive mean-