Myth Theorized; Robert A. Segal - Equinox Publishing

Robert A. Segal [+–]

University of Aberdeen

Robert A. Segal is Sixth Century Chair in Religious Studies at the University of Aberdeen, Honorary Professor at the University of Essex, and Professorial Research Fellow at the University of Vienna.

This collection of essays is about theories of myth. The theories come from both the social sciences—psychology, sociology, and anthropology–and the humanities—philosophy, religious studies, and literature. Theories seek to answer three main questions: what is the origin, what is the function, and what is the subject matter of myth?

Chapter one contrasts E. B. Tylor’s quintessentially nineteenth-century of myth– that myth serves to explain events in the physical world–to Hans Blumenberg’s equally quintessentially twentieth-century one–that myth serves to do anything but explain events in the physical world. Chapter two contrasts F. Max Müller’s theory of myth to that of Tylor. Where Tylor sees myth as an aspect of religion, at least of primitive religion, Müller pits myth against religion. Chapter three presents J. G. Frazer’s interpretation of Adonis as the god of vegetation or vegetation itself. Chapter four presents Frazer’s interpretation of Osiris, one of his other main Mediterranean gods.

Chapter five compares the theories of two of the most popular writers on myth: Frazer and Joseph Campbell. Frazer epitomizes the nineteenth-century view of myth: that myth is merely primitive. Campbell epitomizes the twentieth-century view of myth: that myth is panhuman. Chapter six argues that Campbell, despite the commonly applied characterization, is almost anything but a disciple of C. G. Jung’s.

Chapter seven asks whether Mircea Eliade’s theory actually allows for modern myths, even in light of his fundamental claim that all humans have and must have myth. Chapter eight considers Eliade on the compatibility of myth with science. Chapter nine sums up the book Twentieth Century Mythologies (2006) by Daniel Dubuisson. He praises Georges Dumézil and Claude Lévi-Strauss as rigorous thinkers and disparages Eliade as a fascist rather than a scholar.

Chapter ten presents the array of views on the relationship between myth and literature. The key theorist of myth here is Frazer. He himself does not apply his theory to literature, but many others do. Chapter eleven compares various theorists on the nature of hell and heaven. Chapter twelve asks whether heroes of myth must be male. For some theorists of myth, the answer is yes. For others, no.

Chapter thirteen considers the concept, developed by Jung and the physicist Wolfgang Pauli, of synchronicity, or a noncausal relationship between humans and the external world. The fourteenth and final chapter offers a virtual summary of the book. It presents the varying positions of theorists on the relationship among four categories: myth, science, religion, and philosophy. Each theory is applied to the myth of Noah (Genesis 6-9).

Prelims

Acknowledgements ix-x

Introduction

Introduction [+–] 1-9

Introduces the topics and theories covered in the book and summarizes the chapters.

Chapter 1

From Nineteenth- to Twentieth-Century Theorizing about Myth in Britain and Germany: Tylor versus Blumenberg [+–] 10-32

n chapter one I contrast Tylor’s quintessentially nineteenth-century of myth–that myth serves to explain events in the physical world–to Blumenberg’s equally quintessentially twentieth-century one–that myth serves to do anything but explain events in the physical world. Blumenberg attacks two kinds of theories: the rationalist one, as represented by Tylor, and the romantic one, as represented by Campbell, who himself is unnamed. Blumenberg takes an extreme view: that myth not merely no longer serves to explain the world but never did. Rather, myth has always served to alleviate anxiety about the arbitrariness of the world. Where science is about the world itself, myth, as also for Bultmann and Jonas and Camus, is about the human experience of the world. In this chapter the theories of both Tylor and Blumenberg are strongly criticized.

Chapter 2

Max Müller on Religion and Myth [+–] 33-44

In chapter two I contrast Müller’s theory of myth to the theory of Tylor and also the theories of Jung and Lang. Where Tylor sees myth as an aspect of religion, at least of primitive religion, Müller pits myth against religion. For hm, earliest religion has no myths, which arise only from a confusion in the use of seeming names for natural forces, such as the sun. The sun becomes not a mere name but a personality, the characteristics of whom need to be explained–by myth. Where Tylor insistently reads myth and religion literally, Müller reads religion symbolically–till the confusion. The original object of worship is not a physical phenomenon, such as the sun. Rather, it is an immaterial and impersonal Infinite. Where for Tylor myth and religion originate and function to explain physical events like the rising and setting of the sun, for Müller religion originates and functions to express the experience of the Infinite.

Chapter 3

Frazer on Adonis [+–] 45-54

In chapter three I present Frazer’s theory of Adonis, who for Frazer is not a human being but either the god of vegetation or vegetation itself. Frazer sees Adonis as one of the key Mediterranean gods of vegetation. The others are Attis, Osiris, and Dionysus. Frazer applies his theory to all three of his pre-scientific stages of culture: magic, religion, and above all magic and religion combined. In the first stage, that of magic, there are no gods, only impersonal laws of nature. In the second stage, that of religion, gods are hypothesized to explain all physical events, not just the growth of crops. Through sacrifice and obedience gods are beseeched to provide necessities, above all food. There is no magic, which has been abandoned as an erroneous explanation of events. But eventually religion, while easily explained away as simply the refusal of the gods to grant requests for food, is itself abandoned, at least as the whole of a stage. It is replaced by a third stage, which brings back magic and combines it with religion to constitute “myth ritualism.” In one version of myth ritualism the king, who is merely human, plays the role of the god of vegetation in a formal ritual. In the other version the king is himself divine and likewise participates in a formal ritual. In this chapter I apply Frazer’s theory of all three pre-scientific stages of culture to the case of Adonis. In a footnote I refer to an essay of mine in which I compare Frazer on Adonis with Marcel Detienne and C. G. Jung on Adonis.

Chapter 4

Frazer on Osiris [+–] 55-62

In chapter four I present Frazer’s interpretation of just one of his four main Mediterranean gods: Osiris. On the one hand Frazer treats all four examples as gods from the start, even if in their myths they by no means are. Frazer does not treat them as cases of euhemerism, or the transformation of an exceptional king into a god, either at death or even during life. On the other hand Frazer treats the case of Osiris as that of euhemerism. He offers scant evidence for euhemerism in Osiris. Yet Osiris does fit euhemerism more closely than do Frazer’s other three Mediterranean gods of vegetation. For Frazer, Osiris parallels Jesus, who is prototypically euhemeristic.

Chapter 5

Frazer and Campbell on Myth: Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Approaches [+–] 63-69

In chapter five I compare the theories of two of the most popular writers on myth: Frazer and Campbell. Frazer epitomizes the nineteenth-century view of myth: that myth is a primitive, pre-scientific account of the physical world, the function of which is not merely to explain the world but, even more, to control it, above all by providing food. Myth is succeeded by science and is incompatible with it. Myth and science are not akin to horses and cars: once science arises, one cannot still have myth. Myth is false, and science is true. By contrast to Frazer, Campbell epitomizes the twentieth-century view of myth: that myth is panhuman rather than merely primitive; that myth is not merely possible for moderns but even indispensable; that myth functions not to explain but to express; and that myth functions to express the mystical oneness between the immaterial and the material, between the soul and the body, and between the divine and the human. Where for Frazer myth is part of religion, for Campbell myth is separable from religion and survives the demise of religion by science. Myth as well as science is true. There can be secular myths. Where Frazer reads myth literally, at least usually, Campbell reads myth symbolically. Where for Frazer myth is about the physical world, for Campbell myth is about humans–specifically, about the human mind. At the same time Campbell parallels the human mind to the cosmos itself.

Chapter 6

Campbell’s Non-Jungian Approach to Myth [+–] 70-77

In chapter six I argue that Campbell, despite the commonly applied characterization, is almost anything but a Jungian–and even in his Hero with a Thousand Faces, his most Jungian book. Where Jung attributes myth to the unconscious, Campbell sometimes does so but other times attributes it to consciousness. Where for Jung the goal is the development of consciousness beyond the unconscious, for Campbell, at least in Hero, the goal is the return to primordial unconsciousness. Where Jung opposes diffusionism, Campbell sometimes adopts it. Later, Campbell attributes myth to ethological mechanisms. Where for Jung myth is not indispensable for psychological success, for Campbell it is. Where for Jung myth is not sufficient for psychological health, for Campbell it is. Where Jung usually confines himself to psychology, Campbell, at least in Hero, interprets myth not only psychologically but also metaphysically. Jung interprets myths variedly from myth to myth. In most of all Hero Campbell interprets myths almost identically. Yet in above all The Masks of God he interprets myths differently, culture by culture.

Chapter 7

Are There Modern Myths for Eliade? [+–] 78-85

In chapter seven I ask whether Eliade’s theory actually allows for modern myths, even in light of Eliade’s fundamental claim that moderns, just like all other humans, have and must have myth. I maintain that by his own criteria, modern myths fail to qualify as myths. They take place in the present or the future as often as in the past. If myths do take place in the past, reading or enacting them does not quite carry one back to the time of the myth. The characters in modern myths are humans rather than gods. To be present at the time and place of a modern myth is not to experience divinity. The characters are not usually models to be emulated. They do not always or even often establish a custom, a law, or an institution that continues to exist. Antithetically to Eliade stand Tylor and Frazer, for whom there are no modern myths. For them, modern myths” would be a contradiction in terms. Also contrary to Eliade stand Jung and Campbell, both of whom allow for wholly secular myths and so who do not, like Eliade, seek religiosity in modern myths.

Chapter 8

Eliade on Myth and Science [+–] 86-96

In chapter eight I consider Eliade on myth and science. In contrast to nineteenth-century theorists like Tylor and Frazer, Eliade, together with Malinowski, maintains that myth and science are compatible–not because their subject matter is other than the physical world, as for Bultmann, Jonas, Camus, Freud, and Jung, but even when their subject is the physical world, as it often is. For Malinowski, myth covers physical woes, such as flooding and illness, that science, at least for primitive peoples, is too rudimentary to cope with. Myth explains those woes by tracing them back to events from long ago, but it cannot remedy them. It espouses resigned acceptance. Eliade, by contrast, does not seek to reconcile myth with science. For him, the fact that, especially, moderns have both means that they must be compatible. But how so? He does not even try to explain. He is left with two, purportedly compatible, kinds of explanations of the origin of physical phenomena, one mythic and one scientific. He is similarly left with two, purportedly compatible, kinds of explanations of social phenomena, such as race. One is mythic, the other social scientific. At the same time Eliade proposes functions that go far beyond that of science. Most important, myth, when read or heard or acted out, magically returns one to the time of the myth and thereby enables one to experience the gods in the myth.

Chapter 9

Dubuisson on Twentieth-Century Theorists of Myth: Foreword to Daniel Dubuisson, Twentieth Century Mythologies: Dumézil, Lévi-Strauss, Eliade [+–] 97-102

In chapter nine I sum up the book Twentieth Century Mythologies: Dumézil, Lévi-Strauss, Eliade (2006) by Daniel Dubuisson. It was originally published in French in 1993. Dubuisson might have considered other theorists as well, but two of them, Freud and Jung, he does not even deem worthy of the term. Strikingly, he pits Dumézil and Lévi-Strauss against Eliade. He praises Dumézil and Lévi-Strauss as rigorous thinkers. He disparages Eliade as a fascist rather than a scholar. Where, for Dubuisson, Dumézil and Lévi-Strauss were open enough to change their minds, Eliade never was. He simply put his ideology in seemingly ethereal, apolitical terms. I consider whether, chronology aside, his three qualify as, in my terms, twentieth-century thinkers.

Chapter 10

Myth and Literature [+–] 103-116

In chapter ten I present the array of views on the relationship between myth and literature. One relationship is the tracing of mythic themes in literature. The themes come above all from pagan, not biblical, mythology. Another relationship is the origin of literature from myth. The key theorist of myth here is Frazer. He himself does not apply his theory to literature, but many others do. They apply to specific myths his linkage of myth to ritual, or of story to action. Frazer, as noted, offers two distinct versions of what is called “myth ritualism.” It is his second version which is applied most often. Among the myth-ritualists discussed here are Jane Harrison, Gilbert Murray, F. M. Cornford, Jessie Weston, Francis Fergusson, Stanley Edgar Hyman, Northrop Frye, and René Girard, who himself, to be sure, sets myth against literature. Among theorists of myth, Tylor and Frazer downplay myth as story. For them, myth is a scientific-like explanation of external events that merely takes the form of a story. By contrast, Hans Blumenberg sees myth as a story and not as an explanation. The theorists who have offered plots, or patterns, for myth as story have focused on hero myths: Johann Georg von Hahn, Vladimir Propp, Otto Rank, Joseph Campbell, and Lord Raglan. Rank, Campbell, and Raglan present their patterns as applications of theories: Freud’s, Jung’s, and Frazer’s.

Chapter 11

Hell and Paradise for Milton and Others [+–] 117-125

In chapter eleven I compare various theorists on the nature of hell and heaven. In the myth of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3) paradise means the garden. There is no hell. There is only life outside the garden, to which Adam and Eve are forever condemned. If one uses the favorite terms of Durkheim and Eliade, the sacred is both spatial and temporal. Sacred space is the garden. Profane space is the rest of earth. Sacred time is the time of life in the garden. Profane time is time after eviction from the garden. For Durkheim, the sacred is the group. The profane is the individual. The sacred is both spatial–the group, whenever it gathers–and temporal–the times when the group gather. For Eliade as well, the sacred is both spatial–the location of altars, churches, and other sacred spaces–and temporal–the times, always in the past, when the gods resided on earth. For William Robertson Smith, the sacred means space above all. For primitive and ancient peoples, it was a physical location. Later it became, and remains, spiritualized and so can exist anywhere. For John Milton, uniquely, the sacred is at once physical and mental. For him, the garden, the world outside it, and hell are to be seen as at once physical and psychological: a place both “out there” and in one’s head. For Freud and Jung alike, the outer world is psychologized: it refers to states of mind, which are wrongly projected onto the outer world. For D. W. Winnicott, the world of myth, which I compare with the world of play for him, is neither inner nor outer but in between.

Chapter 12

Must Mythic Heroes Be Male? [+–] 126-137

In chapter twelve I ask whether heroes of myth must be male. I go through each of the main theories of hero myths. Certainly the theories that deem heroes kings–for example, Frazer’s–are obliged to make heroes male. Frazer’s four chief gods of vegetation are male, though he does note the generic Mother Goddess of vegetation. But so, seemingly, does Campbell, whose heroes can come from any class. Whether he is in fact committed to male heroes, especially when his first example is of the Princess and the Frog, is debatable. On the one hand he gives many examples of female heroes, beginning with his first example in his Hero with a Thousand Faces. On the other hand heroism in the second of his three stages in Hero seems to require a male hero, and this despite the female cases he names! In his early, Freudian Myth of the Birth of the Hero Rank’s hero, who can be an aristocrat and not necessarily a king, is always male. But once Rank breaks with Freud, the subject ceases to be the relationship between son and father and becomes that between either son or daughter and the mother. Heroes can therefore be of either gender. Raglan, who equates the hero with the king, clearly limits himself to male heroes. Some scholars have tried to explain Campbell’s heroes to include females. Others have done the same with even Raglan’s heroes.

Chapter 13

Does Synchronicity Bring Myth Back to the World? [+–] 138-145

In chapter thirteen I consider the concept, developed by Jung and the physicist Wolfgang Pauli, of a noncausal relationship between humans and the external world. According to this notion, what is going on in our unconscious matches but not causes what is going on in the outer world. Synchronicity is not the projection of dreams or fantasies or archetypes onto the world. Synchronicity is, rather, the sheer parallel between our unconscious beliefs and the world. It is coincidence, but it is more than coincidence. The question I ask is whether synchronicity thereby brings myth back to the outer world. I review the differing relationships between humans and the world espoused by theorists of the last two centuries. Where all prior theories assume that myth means the causing of events in the world by a personal god, in synchronicity there is no god and no causality. What part myth thereby plays is discussed.

Chapter 14

The Bible as Myth, Science, Religion, and Philosophy [+–] 146-170

In the fourteenth and final chapter I present the varying positions of theorists on the relationship among four categories: myth, science, religion, and philosophy. I first list the three main positions on myth and science: myth as true science, myth as modern science, and myth as primitive science. I then go theorist by theorist on myth and religion and myth on philosophy as well as on myth and science. I discuss Tylor, Frazer, Lévy-Bruhl, Malinowski, Lévi-Strauss, Popper, Radin, Cassirer, the Frankforts, Cornford, Bultmann, and Jonas. I apply each theory to the myth of Noah (Genesis 6-9).

End Matter

Notes 171-175

Bibliography 176-184

Index 185-187

Reviews

No other scholar in the study of religion has so single-mindedly devoted himself to the study of myth, and especially theories of myth, as Aberdeen University’s Professor Robert Segal. Author of three other widely-read books on myth, Segal here directs his attention to the theories and the theorists, rather than to myths themselves. A lifetime of such dedication to the study of myth bears fruit here in an accessible and useful collection of essays laying out the structure of a nearly complete list of theories of myth. Anyone seeking guidance, at whatever level, to theories of myth would be well-advised to consult Segal’s oeuvre, especially the present work, Myth Theorized.

A highly-regarded teacher and lecturer, Segal shows his readers why students flock to his courses. His pellucid treatments of often complex and elusive theorizing about myth are models of responsible pedagogy. But, not only will readers find the keys for understanding the classic theories of myth here, they will also be treated to Segal’s posing of a series of particularly engaging questions: Why must mythic heroes always seem to have to be male? Is Joseph Campbell really as Jungian as he is commonly thought to be? Does the great theorist of purportedly archaic myths, Mircea Eliade, believe that myths have vanished from the modern world? Can the Bible even be treated as myth?
Ivan Strenski, Distinguished Professor (Emeritus), Religious Studies, University of California, Riverside

Myth Theorized yet another example of Segal’s mastery of theories of myth. Rather than dealing with individual myths, Segal examines several theorists from the nineteenth century onwards and their attempts to account for the origin, function, and subject-matter of myth as a category. Following his extremely successful Myth: A Short Introduction (2nd ed, 2015), as well as two other collections of his numerous essays on the topic, Myth Theorized brings together fourteen essays, some appearing for the first time, that demonstrate the need to continue studying what myth is and how we may account for it. For anyone interested in the study of myth, this is a must read.
Nickolas P. Roubekas, editor-in-chief NUMEN: International Review for the History of Religions and Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, University of Vienna

A wide-ranging collection of essays from a comparativist perspective on myth theory and myth theorists, written with insight and clarity by one of the world’s foremost mythologists.
William Hansen, Professor Emeritus of Classical Studies and Folklore, Indiana University, Bloomington

In this third collection on myth by one of the deans of Myth Studies in the Anglophone world, Robert Segal continues his succinct, lucid, and analytic criticism of the major theoreticians of myth. In nine chapters treating the theories of Tylor, Muller, Frazer, Dumézil, Lévi-Strauss, Eliade Campbell, Blumenberg, and Dubuisson and in five chapters, offering his own substantive application to the theories of myth according to the themes of play, gender, synchronicity, rational explanation, and the purported conflict between science and myth, Segal continues to demonstrate his magisterial command of the field. This book is a must read for scholars and graduate students in Religious Studies.
Dr. Thomas Ryba, Director of Religious Studies, Purdue University

As this concluding book in an impressive trilogy reveals, Robert Segal’s patient and clear explications of the major theories have generated criteria that we all can apply to our lingering hero worship of the founder of a particular school. Professor Segal asks us to test such received ideas about the subject against the extent of their actual explanatory force. The cumulative effect of his incisive inquiries is to revitalize a critical engagement with myth studies by the present generation of readers and scholars.
John Beebe, author of Integrity in Depth

Segal’s Myth Theorized makes a substantial contribution to the field of myth studies, showcasing a broad range of authors, disciplines and ideas. The book engages with pivotal myth theorists spanning the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, delves into crucial themes within myth theory, such as hero myths, and grapples with complicated concepts that often intertwine, like the connections between myth and magic, ritual and myth, and myth and the unconscious. Furthermore, it confronts the key challenges that myth has encountered over time, such as its inter-actions with science and its role as literature. What is particularly noteworthy is the consistent analysis of all these subjects from an interdisciplinary lens. This broad and holistic approach offers readers a comprehensive exploration of the topics under scrutiny. The outcome is a remarkably erudite work, replete with references and ideas, yet accessible in its wording, making it approachable even to those not well-versed in myth theory.
Another crucial contribution lies in the author’s adeptness at creating a cohesive map of connections and similarities across theorists and historical periods. This method consistently unifies Segal’s exploration of myth, providing a comparative study of a broad spectrum of myth theories. Beyond simply presenting the fundamental principles of each theory, he conducts thorough evaluations of them, rigorously subjecting them to critique. He acutely discerns differences and seeks out common threads, shedding light on overlooked aspects and providing nuanced explanations of both parallels and differences. This comparatist approach significantly enriches the study of myth theories, leading me to believe that this book will become a definitive reference in the field of myth studies for years to come.
Amaltea, Journal of Myth Criticism

Segal’s latest volume is a welcome addition to the field of Religious Studies, the study of myth, and adds to the author’s already robust and impressive body of work. By clearly and eruditely compiling a truly impressive range of essays, each dealing with key concepts and thoughts related to the study of myth, a variety of audiences should find this book to be a useful and rewarding work for continued consultation and conversation.
Religion

.

Books and Journals in Humanities, Social Science and Performing Arts

Myth Theorized

Robert A. Segal [+–]

University of Aberdeen

Table of Contents

Reviews

Related Journal

Related Interest

Search Equinox

Subjects