The mythology of Greece and Rome, presented with special reference to its influence on literature

Front matter

Sh ne eee We eee wast) iy rt) aie Lek : sis cease at aad Pirie i) PSU Shee a eR a eee ey

Lee chal elie’

Se ence in ie vaya i oe hers ede ara os ag Aa iG

Preface

For more than two thousand years Greek Mythology has been the subject of systematic treatises, but even so old and familiar a subject may demand an occasional restatement, either to meet the needs of a new generation of readers, or to incorporate the results of further investigation.

During the last twenty years “Roscher’s Lexikon der griechischen und rémischen Mythologie has been appearing slowly, and with articles more and more carefully written ; many important articles on mythological subjects are found in the earlier volumes of Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopddte der klassischen Altertumswissenschajt; and the first volume of the new edition of Preller’s Griechische Mythologie, prepared by Robert, has been published. To this last volume, which should be the basis for all future work in this line, I wish to express my special indebtedness. The nature of the present book has prevented me from acknowledging in detail the suggestions I have received from these and other recent contributions to the subject. In general the influence of more or less recent investigations will be found (1) in the point of view outlined in the Introduction, (2) in the increased attention to the nature of each god as it appears in myth, and (3) in the systematic use of the remains of ancient art to interpret mythology.

The references to literature are intended merely to illustrate the wide-reaching influence of Greek myths first on the Latin poets and, mainly through the Latin poets, on vi

Vill PREFACE later writers. The teacher will be able to supplement indefinitely what is here given by way of suggestion. In selecting the references I have availed myself of the material in Gayley’s Classic Myths, though I am much more indebted to a list of poems illustrating Greek mythology by Mr. Edward C. Guild (Bowdoin College Library Bulletin, No. 1), to supplement the material I have myself collected. References to Greek literature have ordinarily been omitted in accordance with my intention to point out the influence of these myths on later literature.

_ In spelling Greek names I have tried to follow ordinary English usage, except that where e7 instead of 7 is permitted in English, I have adopted the variant which is nearer to the Greek. The epithets of the Greek gods are and must remain foreign words; as it would only be confusing to try to anglicize them, they have been simply transliterated.

The original plan of the present volume is due to Professor John Henry Wright of Harvard University. It was our intention to carry on the work together and to point out the influence of Greek and Roman mythology on later art as well as on later literature. Owing to pressure of other work Professor Wright was unable to treat the influence of classic myths as it is seen in art, and it has proved necessary to omit this portion of the plan. Further, Professor Wright’s absence from the country has made it impossible for him to read the proof, or no doubt various slips would have been corrected before the book was published. In the preparation of the work, however, I have had the benefit of Professor Wright’s constant encouragement and helpful advice, and 1 gladly take this opportunity to express to him my gratitude for his assistance..

ARTHUR FAIRBANKS.

Ann Arson, Micuigan.

Table Of Contents

PAGE INTRODUCTION . : ; i 5 ; , : 2 : : yall PART I—MYTHS OF THE GODS Cuaprer I.—Tur Gops1n Homer. i : : ‘ 30 Cuaprer I1.—THE BEGINNINGS OF THE Wane : . 64 CHaprer I11.—Zeus-Jupirer; Heras-Juno; isan sc Meer . 88 Cuaprer [V.—Leto; Aprotto; Arremis-D1ana : , . 119 Cuaprer V.—Gops or THE HarrH, THE WATER, AND THE sre » LA Cuaprer VI.—Gops or VEGETABLE AND AnimaL Lire: DEMETER AND PERSEPHONE, Dionysus, HerMEs, PAN . see liill Cuaprer VII.—Govs or Human Lire: Apnropitr, Arges, HE- PHASTUS, ETC. ; 2 : : . 205 CuapterR VIII.—HADES AND THE ee OF eons 3 : : 225 Cuaprer 1X.—Roman Diviniries Not ALREADY TREATED . . 246 PART I] —MYTHS OF HEROES Cuaprer X.—Myrus or LocaAL HEROES. : c : : OW, 1. Myrus or ARGOS . : , ; : : : : eon im. Myrus or CorINTH . : : . 268 mrt. Myrus or ARCADIA, Ries AND P Mascene ; : 273 iv. Myrus or THEBES . j : 3 ; : ; F mS y. Myrus or CRETE . ? : ’ : : : : . 294 vi. Myrus or ATTICA . : P ; 3 : ; ; 502 vu. Myrus or AVToLia . : é : : : : . 309 CHAPTER XI.—HERACLES AND Pecancs ‘ ; ‘ ‘ . . 314 1. HERACLES : : ; : ; : : : j . 314 i. THESEUS . : : : j 88 Cuaprer XII.—THE Koen fearon : . ; . o47 Cuaprer XIII.—Tue Lecenp or Troy. : é j 4 . 359 INDEX . . 395 . 409

GENEALOGICAL ayes ES

ABBREVIATIONS

Introduction

WHILE one may understand allusions to classical myths by the persistent use of a classical dictionary, it is hardly possible to learn their beauty or significance in such piecemeal fashion. In taking up the study of mythology more systematically it is well to ask some preliminary questions. What isa myth? Why are classical myths deemed worthy of study, and other equally large groups of myths left to the antiquary and the anthropologist? What is the relation of the myth to other forms of social expression? We may even ask, How do myths arise, and what are the laws of their development? for such development is not difficult to trace. How are classical myths to be studied? What are the materials at our disposal? And what is to be the final aim of the student? Such are some of the questions to be treated in this introduction.

1. Definition of Myths.—To begin with the simplest and most fundamental question of all, What is a myth? It is plain that mythology does not include all the popular lore created by the imagination to the delight of peoples who do not yet have a proper literature, nor is it essentially a form of theological expression for primitive peoples. Is the myth the same as the allegory? The following definition may serve to indicate the object to be studied:

Myths are stories oj the acts of superhuman beings, often improbable to us, but believed to be true by those who related them. 1

The narrative form is essential. While myths deal with the gods, they are not expressions of worship (prayers or psalms) nor statements of belief (creeds). Even when they describe the gods, they do it indirectly, in connection with some story of their acts. So when they deal with the constantly recurring processes of nature, the description aims to be a narrative of what happened once in the mythical past. According to Hesiod, Day is the child of Night; that is, the ever repeated birth of the new day becomes the experience of divine beings in the early history of the world. Rivers derive their waters from the sky and ultimately from the ocean; in myth they are the children once begotten by Oceanus. The bear was held in reverence by the worshipers of Artemis; in myth this connection with the goddess finds expression in a narrative of the transformation of one of the attendants of Artemis into a bear. Thus in treating the objects of religion as well as in treating the processes of nature, the narrative form is essential to myth. The content of the myth may be religious, or scientific, or historical; it is a myth only when it is put into the form of a story to interest and amuse. °

Though many of these narratives deal with facts of nature, the figures in them are all persons, ordinarily superhuman persons. Modern study of the religion, the philosophy, the science, as well as the mythology of primitive peoples starts with the so-called doctrine of animism. The world is not a conglomeration of carefully balanced forces; rather it is instinct with life. Not by a metaphor of language but by a metaphor of experience, sun and stars, rivers and lakes, even stones, are regarded as alive. This is the simplest interpretation of the world, this naive idealism, which treats every physical fact as the act of a personal will. So the child treats his toy as though it could understand his words and answer his affection; so the man in a moment of anger may strike a chair against which he has stumbled, as Xerxes lashed the Hellespont for destroying his bridge. Not yet having developed the power of abstraction, primitive peoples treat physical processes as due to personal will, so that the attempt to describe them inevitably becomes a narrative of the acts of personal beings.

Fig. 1.—Mertrorr FROM THE TEMPLE OF Zeus av OtympIA (about 450 B.C.).

Atlas offers the apples of the Hesperides to Heracles, who is supporting the heavens with the help of Athena.

In the myth-making period the Greeks were quite in this stage of civilization, nor did they ever entirely outgrow it. Acheloiis (the river) is a passionate lover; Taygete (the mountain above Sparta), a nymph in the train of Artemis; the sun, Helios, is a charioteer driving across the sky; the power which holds the sky above the earth is a giant, Atlas, who never tires. Thus the world is treated as if it consisted entirely of living beings, and the explanation of nature becomes the source of countless myths.

That the characters in myth are superhuman, at least in some particular, seems a necessary supposition in order to account for an interest in the story. The direct statement of an evident fact would not be a myth. Only when it is referred to some being other than human, or when some such personality is brought into the narrative, does it receive this name. The distinction would not have been recognized in the myth-making period. Looking back, however, we can distinguish partially between direct and “mythical” statements; and we see that in the rise of the latter there were operative certain definite forces, which are no longer acting to-day.

Finally the myths, in spite of many irrational, even absurd elements, were believed to be true so long as they continued to be genuine myths. It is often possible to distinguish the element of fact and the element of fiction. That myths should in a measure correspond to recognized facts, is perhaps necessary in order that they may be considered true. They are located in regions quite familiar to the original hearers. They reproduce the characters of the people who tell them, as Odysseus represents one type of Greek in his shrewdness and in his persistent endurance. Something of historical fact may be detected in the story of the Trojan wars. A true scientific observation underlies the myth of the Vale of Tempe, the myth which ex: plains the worship of Zeus Pelorios there by an incident connected with the rending apart of Ossa and Olympus.* These facts are assumed as the setting of myth: they remain incidental and in the background; still they are none the less necessary for the credibility of myths.

* Atheneus, XIV, 639 E.

Between fact and fiction the myth draws no line, since all is told as fact and believed as fact. It belongs to the very nature of myth, however, that it is the product of an imagination in no wise trammeled by actual experience. In contrast with the philosophical reflective poetry of India, these Greek myths are the naive expression of fancy, peopling the world with beings often weird, superior to man, but in a way his fellows. The absurdity of the story was no obstacle to its belief. Cronus swallowing his children and disgorging them alive, Medusa’s head that turned men to stone, the birth of Pegasus when this head was severed from its body, the existence of Sphinxes, Chimeras, and Scyllas—these were as real as Zeus the father of gods and men. How these stories could have arisen is a question that will demand some explanation. The reality of this mythical world, however, was reconciled with the “world of everyday life by means of a very simple expedient—by reterring it to an earlier age. Whatever the actual age of a myth, it was referred to the period ending with the Trojan war—a period of which nothing could be demonstrated false, for it was “by hypothesis” different from the world of actual experience.

The myth as thus defined differs in several particulars from the allegory and the fable. An allegory is a narrative of imaginary events, constructed by men who have discovered some truth and desire to teach it to others. This ~ mode of expression is chosen either to teach where the truth ° cannot be demonstrated, or because the truth will make a deeper impression than if it were taught directly. The parable is thus a sort of allegory. The fable also is a narrative that is constructed with a purpose, and not regarded by the narrator as a statement of facts. Its primary aim is to amuse; when it is instructive, the point is made through humor. The myth differs from both these other | narratives of imaginary events (1) in that it is not cona structed by any one person, but rather grows under many hands; (2) in that it is not intended to serve any ulterior purpose; and (3) in that, so long as it preserves its own life, it is believed to be actually true. As soon as the myth was taken from the people into literature, its truth became a secondary matter. It remained a myth in the proper sense of the term only when narrator and hearer alike accepted it as fact.

2. On the Study of Classical Mythology.—(a) The most important reason for the study of classical myths is the influence they have exerted on literature and art. For the anthropologist the myths of savage peoples are peculiarly interesting. Indirectly they express a people’s observations on its own life and culture; directly they constitute all the history, philosophy, and science that such peoples possess. The myths of more highly civilized peoples, such as the early inhabitants of Peru and Mexico, have this same interest in perhaps higher degree. They are, however, entirely without influence on any phase of our own civilization. Because Indo-Germanic peoples are more closely related to us, the myths of India and of the Slavic and Germanic races are more deserving of attention. Some of these have found their way into modern literature, although their influence is relatively small. On the other hand the classical myths—that is, the myths of Greece and Rome— exercise a constant, perhaps an increasing, influence on our

‘literature and art. The original reason for this was the unusually rich mythology of Greece. Greek poetry drew more largely from mythology than from any other one source. The Roman poets, finding practically no mythology of their own, continued to use the material brought into their literature by Greek poetry, only changing the names to a Roman form. With the revival of learning, classical poetry and classical mythology again came into vogue. In spite of all reactions from classical models the

INTRODUCTION i nature of this mythology has made it a permanent influential factor in all modern literature. A current starting from Greece, slightly modified in passing through Rome, receiving some side streams from northern Europe, it has remained essentially Greek. The inspiration our poets have drawn from this source is not merely general. Themes from mythology are chosen for their poems, and allusions to its characters increase the range of their imagery. The reader of Goethe or Shakespeare no less than the reader of Dante or Racine is supposed to know the world of Greek mythology as he knows the world of nature and of human life.

(b) For the student of Greek civilization mythology offers an important source of information. Nowhere else can he become acquainted with certain phases of early society. No other one source is so important for the study of Greek religion. While the ight which myths throw on the beginnings of science and philosophy is indirect and sometimes confusing, it cannot be neglected. Nor can the history of Greece be written without the intelligent study of myths.

| (c) Greek mythology is of permanent value because it is ‘the product of an imagination as finely cultivated as it is \highly developed. If any one thing is characteristic of the Greek people as contrasted with other peoples, it is the part which imagination plays in their civilization. We still read Greek poetry, we study the orations of Demosthenes, we admire the art of Praxiteles, not because the Greeks were scientific or logical or practical, but because of the power and truth of their imagination. Freedom of the imagination, even in the case of the greatest artists, has certain limits which are set by the nature of the material used. Although the stone seems a perfect medium of expression for the sculptor, still the very principles by which he succeeds mean that certain limitations are set, within which his imagination must work. Myths differ from other expressions of the imagination in that they are the product of the people as a whole and, further, in that there is no limit set to check the free working of the mind. We study them because here the most striking characteristic of the Greek people appears untrammeled by anything except the sense of fitness and beauty. And we may expect them still to be a storehouse for poets and artists, until some other people develops an imagination as strong, as free, and as perfect as that of the early Greeks.

3. Theories as to the Origin and Interpretation of Myths. —In ancient as in modern times the interpretation of myths has been no simple problem.* As soon as their literal truth was questioned some explanation was felt to be necessary; nor does the explanation seem an easy matter when one considers the irrational, often absurd forms assumed by the ideal element in myths. If they were purely fantastic they might have been accepted as such, but they dealt with familiar facts and had always been accepted as true. It is this combination of the true and real with the fantastic accepted as true which made an explanation necessary.

Lb (a) Myths as Allegorics of Natwre.—Ge = the earth, Helios = the sun, Selene = the moon, Boreas = the northeast wind, Jupiter Pluvius is the giver of rain, Alpheius is a river, and Arethusa a spring. Starting with such transparent personifications, a long line of interpreters have explained the gods as natural forces, and the myths as physical phenomena. Socrates t says: “I might have a rational explanation that Oreithyia was playing with Pharmacia, when a northern gust carried her over the neighboring rocks; and this being the manner of her death she is said to have been carried off by Boreas.” According

* A full discussion of this topic is found in O. Gruppe, Die Griechische Culte und Mythen, I. Kap. i. t Plato, Phedrus, 229C, Jowett.

INTRODUCTION | y to Epicharmus * “the gods are the winds, water, earth, ° sun, fire, the stars’”—a favorite method of interpretation in the Stoic school. Cronus is explained as equivalent to Chronus (time); he swallows his children, for time brings forth each day as a new child, and consumes his own offspring. The myth of Io becomes an allegory when the wanderings of Io are explained as meaning the irregular course of the moon in the heavens; while Argus of the hundred eyes is the starry heaven watching the moon. Noel Contit finds some such subtle meaning in each myth he treats; Dupuist derives a whole system of astronomy from the classic myths ; eee Boreas carries off Oreithyia, who holds out her hand is the method in farewell to Herse (i. e., the dew). abandoned by

modern writers. Reville § explains the myth of Actzon destroyed by the dogs of Artemis, as the shadow of a rock (that is, Acteeon) falling on a river which reflects the rays of the moon (Artemis). In the dog days such a rock is

Fic. 2.—ATHENIAN VASE ParntINe (fifth century B.C.).

* Stobeeus, 91, 29. + Mythologia (1584). t L’origine de tous les cultes (1731). § Prolégoménes de Vhistoire des religions, p. 150.

deprived of its life and verdure by the heat; mythically speaking, it is slain by the dogs! The ingenuity of Sir G, W. Cox suffices to reduce the myths of Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Phaéthon, Aphrodite, Heracles, Perseus, Theseus, Cidipus, etc., to accounts of the passage of the sun across the heavens.

The danger of such facile ingenuity is well stated by . Francis Bacon in the preface to a work * which illustrates the very error he condemns. “Nor does it escape my notice what an inconstant thing myths are, so that they may be pulled and twisted this way and that; and of how little worth is the excellent wit and discourse that supplies excellent meanings never intended by the original authors.’ It would be a sufficient objection to the use of this method that the results obtained by it are in many instances absolutely capricious. Further, those who use it proceed on a false assumption, the assumption that some truth is intentionally hidden behind the allegorical form. There is not the slightest evidence that the Greek myths in general were such allegories used by wise men or priests to teach truths that could not otherwise be expressed. Strange stories, like the story of Cronus, are to be explained on an entirely different principle.t

While it is impossible to lay too much stress on the fact that we are dealing with myths proper, not with allegories, it is not always easy to draw a line between allegory and

* De saprentia veterum (1609).

{ Cf. Tylor (Primitive Culture, I, 277, 278), who points out that the story of Perseus might be an allegory of trade (Labor =Perseus, freeing profit Andromeda, who is chained and about to be devoured by Capital) just as well as the allegory of war which Bacon expounds.

{ “In the soul of man the gods arise. It is not only an error, but a vicious error, to seek them in the external world, to make Apollo a dead ball of fire in the sky.”—Von Wilamowitz- Moellendorf, Isyllos, 97, note, |

INTRODUCTION li the “nature-poetry”’ of myth. It is possible that the story of Io was in part a poetic statement of the moon’s wanderings. Certainly the first efforts to describe and explain natural phenomena took the form of myth. The processes of nature were treated as expressions of voluntary activity, so that the description of these processes necessarily assumed soe form of narratives about superhuman beings. The motive of such tales was that curiosity which ultimately . became the motive of science, even though the line of activity to which it gave rise was*determined wholly by the imagination. Childish as were many of the results, foundations were being laid for a genuine science.*

In a word, the allegorical explanation of myths is to be discarded as false because it assumes some hidden meaning _to explain what is grotesque or irrational. But the fact

‘remains that animism lies at the basis of myth-making, and that some, not all, myths are the poetic statement of .

processes in nature.

—(b) Myths as History: Euhemerism.—While the allegorical explanation of myths has special reference to the ideal and irrational elements in them, the historical explanation takes account of the element of fact. It derives its name from the Cyrenaic philosopher Euhemerus (b. 316 B.C.), who wrote a treatise on the gods, in which he explained them as glorified men. Hera and Medea were once human queens; Zeus was a king in Crete where his grave could still be seen; Heracles was a warrior whose prowess was equaled only by his desire to overthrow the enemies of society. It was the same principle which led

* “There is nothing surprising in the fact that.some myths show wonderful ingenuity or even philosophic depth. . . . When the human spirit is working spontaneously, it is philosophical in the same sense that the bee is a mathematician in the construction of its cells, or the beaver an architect in building its house.’”—Reville, Prolégoménes de Vhistoire des religions, p. 158.

Herodotus to explain the story of Cyrus’s childhood by making the bitch who suckled him a herdsman’s wife with the name Spaka=Kyno (that is, “bitch ”’). This theory has been revived by Christian writers * who find in the gods of Greece Old-Testament characters, modified by their new environment. So Gladstone explains Athena as the Wisdom of the Book of Proverbs, Apollo as an impersonation of the expected Redeemer, the Titans as rebellious angels, while the three sons of Cronus reflect the Jewish idea of the Trinity.| When Herbert Spencer teaches that the dead were first feared, then worshiped, then made the subject of story, he also reduces mythology to a perverted form of history.

That there is an historic background to myth has been abundantly proved by all recent critics. The analysis of the myth of Cyrene { proves it an interesting example of _ history under a thin veil of story. Every myth reflects ‘the social and political circumstances of the people among whom it originated. At the same time the imaginative element in myths must be given its full rights. The absurd, the miraculous, the fanciful in these myths are not history, nor can any alchemy make them history. It has been well said that the historic cases of men who have been deified can be explained only by a previous belief in gods: the men are deified to exalt them to the rank of gods already existing. That the Cretans pointed out

+ The same line of thought appears in the works of Banier (La mythologie et les fables expliquées par Vhistoire, 1737), Sainte-Croix, and in the Classical Dictionary of Lempriére. According to the latter (cf. Livy, I, 4, 7) Romulus and Remus were suckled by a woman named Lupa, so that the story of the she-wolf would be history misunderstood.

t K. O. Miiller, Prolegomena, 142 f.; Studniczka, Kyrene, 39 f. See also p. 127 herein.

the grave of Zeus is a fact easily understood in its proper connection.*

Myths are due to the poetic instinct far more than to historic interest. Without questioning the ‘historic background of myth we may safely say that it is not the primary element in myths, nor does it serve as an important clew in explaining them.

(c) Mythology and Language.—A third explanation of myths is essentially modern, though there are some traces of it in antiquity. The Greeks laid stress on the importance of names as denoting character; Max Miller, followed by some scholars on the Continent, undertook to explain belief in the gods and myths about the gods as due to a necessary error in the development of language. Nomina numina is the watchword of this school. In general terms they hold that what we have called the fanciful or irrational element of myths is due to a mistake of the social mind, and that the error is one which we may trace to its roots.

The theory of Max Miller was proposed when enthusiasm for the comparative study of languages was at its height. The relation of the different Indo-European languages had been proved, the comparative method had yielded some results as to the early history of these peoples; naturally it was proposed to transfer this method to the study of religion and mythology. At once was perceived the truth of the equation, Dyaus pitar=Zeus (pater) = Jupiter=Tiu. ... Of the many similar equations that have been proposed, scarcely one has commanded general assent. Although the study of religious ritual has derived some aid from this method, it has proved all but useless for mythology.

Max Miiller went further than the proposal to use the

* Infra, Chapter III, §2. We know now that Indo-European peoples worshiped a Zeus before they had ever seen the island of Crete.

comparative method in the study of classical mythology. He attempted the bold task of explaining exactly how particular myths assumed the forms in which we find them. His principle, which he has called a “disease of language,” may be stated briefly as follows: The simple descriptions of physical phenomena were inevitably misunderstood by those who repeated them; the gender of natural objects made them seem alive, and statements of fact necessarily were soon understood as stories of persons.* ‘“ Full sunlight follows the dawn” became “The Sun follows—that is, pursues—the Dawn (a maiden).” This explains the Greek myth that Apollo (the sun) pursues Daphne (= Dahan4 = Ahan4é=“dawn”’). Inasmuch as wood burns, we are told, the name “daphne” (burning) was applied to the laurel tree; then the double use of the word (Daphne pursued by Apollo, and daphne=laurel tree) was explained by the metamorphosis of the nymph Daphne into a laurel tree— and the myth was complete. With much greater show of probability the transformation of stones thrown by Deucalion and Pyrrhat is explained by the similarity of the Greek words Ados and Aads.

Without denying the influence of language on myths, we must still discredit theories in which capricious interpretation plays so large a part.

y (dad) The Theory of Survival.—The most important ad. vance in the understanding of myths during recent years is the contribution of anthropology. The thesis has been fully established that beliefs and stories, as well as practices, tend to survive long after their original meaning has been lost. Instead of rejecting absurd and immoral tales of the gods, as did Pindar and Plato, we refer them to a period when-perhaps the gods did not come up to a later standard of morality, a period moreover when many of these myths