Breakfast with Pandora

The appeal of vampires

By way of elegant blogger Rebecca Clay Haynes, this question: "What accounts for the enduring appeal of vampires?"

She asked this question on her Facebook page, and, among several comments, attracted this Iron John-style assessment:

 The more divorced we get from our primal, pagan, animal, dark, shadow side, the more "civilized", the more "in our head", "out of touch with our bodies", "sexually repressed", etc., etc., the more appealing is the mythology of an external, evil, amoral, blood-sucking, primal being drawn to us, to enter us, fang first.

This may have been true from about 1946 to about 1963, but I don't think anyone can argue that we are out of touch with our bodies or sexually repressed today. We are among the most puritanical and yet sexualized societies ever to hit the earth. You can't escape sexual imagery, language, politics, or anything else sexual if you are in any way a consumer of popular culture. I'm pretty sure we are in touch with our primal-- selfish, fearful, pleasure-seeking, survival-oriented-- selves. We have never not been, some folks' mid-twentieth century desire to the contrary notwithstanding.

I am an interpreter of particular stories in particular contexts, and for this phenomenon I very much consider the target audience.

For the Twilight series of books which is currently holding the attention mostly of young girls and women-- and some of their mothers-- the appeal has nothing to do with vampires, and everything to do with the classic (American?) female desire for the bad boy. Here also you get the double whammy of a bad boy, Edward, who is actually chivalrous and honorable, which is a lethal (so to speak) combination for romantically-inclined girls and women.

But there is also the component of blood. For adolescent girls who are just getting familiar with the reality that blood will be in their lives on a monthly basis-- and that there will be a relationship between that and sexuality and childbearing-- I could see an erotic fascination with vampires.

In the trailer for New Moon, for example, the central scene is the one in which the heroine Bella cuts her finger, and a vampire goes crazy over the droplets of blood that come out. I have the impression that many girls would appreciate a story in which men are more attracted than repulsed when women bleed.

In this context, the title "New Moon" makes complete sense. 

As to the more universal appeal of vampires-- I don't know that there is one. Many international stories are mirrors, reflecting back the tensions and ambiguities with which an individual or culture dominantly identifies. I did a quick search of scholarly literature and found, for example, that the original Dracula by Bram Stoker may have addressed the colonial British fear of interracial marriage. 

BTW, I have not seen New Moon yet, though one man at least has. The two young ladies in my life did so on opening weekend, and both pronounced it good. When I asked my thirteen-year old if she liked Taylor Lautner, the werewolf character with the bare chest, she clammed up. Nary a smile. "Your silence speaks volumes," Dad said. Later on she allowed as to how he might have been somewhat attractive. She always did want a dog around the house.

Your questions: The economy and ancient Greece

Had a question from a longtime reader who is always thoughtful. It's multi-part and probably should be answered by a Ph.D. dissertation, but my take on one part is worth sharing now.

Photo: Zeus loves a good grill-out.

The question, in a nutshell, is this: is Greek Mythology and philosophy propaganda for keeping the rich in power? Or are they honest expressions of all Greeks, slave to aristocrat?

This interests me because of the constant dialogue we have today with the purposes of our modern mythology, especially now with the relentless need to push new content (propaganda?) through as many conduits as possible.

First, on philosophy. This was a newfangled pursuit in ancient Greece that was undertaken by rich men for rich men, and though Socrates showed that philosophy could be disruptive politically, it wasn't promoted to a large group of people the way myth was. So it is sort of in a different category.

As to mythology, the question has taken me up short a bit, because I have romantically seen Greek Mythology as an organic outgrowth of the expression of an entire people, and have never seen it as promoting a rich man's agenda.

Why do I have this feeling that mythology was stubbornly democratic? I'm reminded of a passage from the poet Hesiod, who lived when Greek Mythology was becoming strongly rooted in the Greek mind.

You barons also, cannot even you understand for yourselves
How justice works? For the immortals are close to us, they mingle
With men, and are aware of those who by crooked decisions
Break other men, and care nothing for what the gods think of it.
Upon the prospering earth there are thirty thousand immortal
Spirits, who keep watch for Zeus and all that men do.
They have an eye on decrees given and on hard dealings,
And invisible in their dark mist they hover on the whole earth.
Justice [Themis] herself is a young maiden. She is Zeus' daughter,
And seemly, and repsected by all the gods of Olympus.
When any man uses force on her by false impeachment
She goes and sits at the feet of Zeus Kronion, her father,
And cries out on the wicked purpose of men, so that her people
Must pay for the profligacy of their rulers, who for their own greedy purposes
Twist the courses of justice aslant by false proclamations.
Beware, you barons, of such spirits. Straighten your decisions
You eaters of bribes. Banish from your minds the twisting of justice.

Hesiod, Works and Days, translated by Richmond Lattimore (pages 47, 49)

Hesiod is famous for being a bit grouchy and going on rants, but he was also one of the most influential poets we know of for the development of Greek Mythology.

The "barons" are the rich oligarchies (small number of powerful, interrelated clans) in individual cities before the advent of democracy, and it's clear that Hesiod at least thought they ought to be doing a much better job on fairness. He uses mythology and religion to show that the cosmic order is predicated on the powerful not taking too much power. In a fun innovation over the idea that Zeus sees all because he is the presider over the sky, Hesiod introduces some spy cam helpers-- thirty thousand of them-- which would make sense to the Greeks, highly animistic people as they were.

There is a lot more here, but let this taste suffice for the moment. Further reading on this subject: the highly democratic use of mythology in Greek tragedy. Start with Antigone, (I recommend the much-improved Perseus interface-- kudos to the Tufts Classics Department) which is multi-layered, but has on the surface a wonderful critique of concentrating power in one ruler.

And as for today? I'm listening closely to Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT who is advocating for the breakup of the big banks, in the fashion of the trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt at the beginning of the last century.

Beware, you barons.

Your questions: the essence of ancient Greek culture

A friend's son, who is writing a novel in the fantasy genre, is creating a group of people who, he says, he wants to be like the ancient Greeks.

His questions include: 

What do you think are the most important elements of Greek culture? In other words what would you say would be a must-have for a Greek-based civilization?

What do you know about daily life in Greek villages? How were villages laied out, what did homes look like?

Long answers could follow!

Photo: High, rocky place in Athens known as the Acropolis.

First, the answer to the second question, which isn't too difficult.

Ancient Greeks tended to live in walled cities and commute to their fields. The cities were often based around high, rocky places that were defendable if the city walls weren't enough. People lived in houses close to each other, often with common walls; with separate sleeping quarters for women and men, and a common area with a hearth fire. More info on the Greek house here.

Now, to the first question.

The short answer has traditionally run like this:

The most important elements of Greek culture are: democracy, logic, a good defensive military, respect for the arts (especially theater, sculpture and painting), fierce independence, innovation, individualism.

All of which is symbolized by the logical and sophisticated divinities Apollo and Athena.

This is what you'd get in a book from the early twentieth century such as Edith Hamilton's Mythology:

That is the miracle of Greek mythology-- a humanized world, men freed from the paralyzing fear of an omnipotent Unknown. The terrifying incomprehensibilities which were worshipped elsewhere, and the fearsome spirits with which earth, air, and sea swarmed, were banned from Greece. It may seem odd to say that the men who made the myths disliked the irrational and had a love for facts, but it is true, no matter how wildly fantastical the stories are.  

Lately, scholars have been emphasizing the Greeks' less noble points, such as their oppression of women, ownership of slaves, and imperialist tendencies.

Also, their love of the irrational.

Two parallel viewpoints. It's almost like that Star Trek episode with a bearded Mr. Spock in a parallel universe.

What to do?

This is where it's fun that the questioner is writing a novel rather than history. You can pick and choose what you want. You can make your Greek-like race more logical and democratic, or more irrational and imperialist, or something in between.

My opinion? I don't think it would be Greece if there wasn't a really strong emphasis on family, with the father as the leader-- known in ancient Greek as the kurios. This motivated everything the Greeks did and stood for. The emphasis on Zeus as the "father of gods and men" and the guarantor of civilization indicates to me that the Greeks really valued a strong father- (note: not man-) rule, also known as patriarchy.

Funny thing about that is that it's not exclusively Greek. There were lots of cultures that were patriarchies, and still are.

Still.

Photo: Bouboulina, modern female Greek hero.

The fact of patriarchy in Greece doesn't mean no one else except the father ever had any power, but everyone else had to get their power either through or alongside the father. 

Thanks for your question, and happy writing!

Your questions: Mythology sites on the 'Net

Prompted by a question from Iulia, a few words on mythology websites on the Internet.

You'd think that on a blog dedicated to mythology, among other things, I would do website reviews and be more interested in what other folks are doing with myth.

Just the opposite. I find most of what I see on the Web to be poor or cribbed from some source such as Robert Graves. I don't like to call attention to or link to these sites.

Also, having studied the stories in depth, I am always leery when people attempt to digest them into lists and diagrams. There are many variants in details of name, story, and genealogy. Digesting gives the impression that myth is simple.

So there's my snob jerk answer. On to something more useful to readers.

Iulia mentioned Encyclopedia Mythica, which is an ambitious project of putting lots of material on the Web from many different sources with many different authors.

The utility of this site depends on the reliability of the authors, similar to Wikipedia. If articles get editing from experts, then it can be very useful. But things that are free often have that same value. The best thing to do is go to a library and get a book that costs money.

One of the "featured articles" on this website is "Greek Creation Myths." Here is the first paragraph.

In the beginning, Chaos, an amorphous, gaping void encompassing the entire universe, and surrounded by an unending stream of water ruled by the god Oceanus, was the domain of a goddess named Eurynome, which means "far-ruling" or "wide-wandering".

This is an article you shouldn't trust. There are no sources for this paragraph; no "according to Hesiod" or "In the Orphic version of creation." I don't recognize the source for this information.

Some red flags:

• No one knows what Chaos was in Greek Mythology. The best guess is a "void," but whether anyone in ancient Greece felt it encompassed the entire universe is anyone's guess.
• If Chaos encompasses the "entire" universe, then it cannot be surrounded by an "unending" stream of water.
• In the classical conception, Oceanus was the river that encircled the earth; thus, he didn't rule over it as much as was it. But in Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, Oceanus appears as a character, so one can think of him both as the river and the one who rules over it. This is an unusual concept that bears explaining to readers.
• Chaos as the domain of Eurynome, and the rest of the material (not quoted) concerning her, is an obscure reference, the source of which I cannot identify.

Wherever it comes from, this creation myth is not at all mainstream, and the author needs to let her readers know this.

A student coming to this article, happening upon this opening paragraph, might well be led into thinking that this is what the Greeks believed. Maybe they did, but there is plenty of evidence that argues the contrary.

[Let the flames begin]

I think the best thing for an Internet site to do is give primary sources, and let peer-reviewed, academically sound books do the intepretation.

That's why I like the pictures on the site Theoi Greek Mythology. There is text, too, but I have not read that much of it. The guy that does it has his head screwed on straight, though, I do venture to say.

Also, Carlos Parada's site gives a large number of bare-bones stories and variants, with lots of Renaissance images. The problem with this one is pop-ups. If you don't have a pop-up blocker it can be annoying.

The Classics Pages is old and large and established and I also recommend it.

As for my interpretations: I am a specialist with a Ph.D. and have taught mythology for going on 20 years, but take everything I say with a grain of salt. My main source is the two volumes of Early Greek Myth by Timothy Gantz, an invaluable resource.

Mythology is a highly personal subject with a myriad of right answers. I hope to point out in BwP that some right answers are more right than others.

Good luck to me.

Your Questions: Why Latin?

This question comes courtesy of Loafing Cactus of Cactus Juice, who wonders what I would say if I were given the opportunity to boost the Latin language in a book such as Harry Mount's Carpe Diem.

Carpe Diem purports to "teach" the Latin language with a few chapters of desultory instruction and a lot of padding with boring anecdotes. It is by a journalist who once tutored Latin at Oxford, and it is a best-seller in England.

I wish Mr. Mount were a real Latin teacher. He may have done a better job.

And what about me? What do I like about Latin? Well, here are my 500 words.

First: I don't particular like the people who spoke Latin: the ancient Romans. If you've seen the HBO cable TV series Rome you might know what I mean. The Romans were, on the whole, sadistic glory hounds who hated Greeks and never felt they could live up to them culturally. Romans lack the charm and harmlessness of modern Italians; they are more like mafiosi. To give you a snapshot: they invented crucifixion.

I have a much greater affinity for the Greeks, but I would venture to say that ancient Greek is an order of magnitude more difficult to learn than is Latin. So, there are exponentially fewer jobs teaching Greek than Latin.

The Romans have many redeeming features, however, chief among them their language, which I adore. It is not how beautiful it sounds (it's ugly, as languages go) nor how noble the sentiments one finds written in Latin that I adore-- though the poetry can be pretty fantastic.

I adore the precision.

I am a sloppy person, overall. I never follow recipes. I forget appointments. I am messy. You should see my office.

But in Latin, I can be a stickler. Because once you have learned even a little Latin, you begin to see the exactness of the meaning that an author wishes to express.

This is excellent discipline for adolescents, by the way. A small minority of them are compulsive about exactness, and these are the ones who constantly ask the question whether the following two sentences mean the same thing:

Tomorrow, we are going to the store to buy bread and milk.
We are going to the store tomorrow to buy bread and milk.

(Answer: yes)

The majority of adolescents are whirling about in a cyclone of chaos, their bodies and minds betraying them daily and sometimes hourly with new, unexpected reactions caused by hormones and other environmental factors, including parents.

Adolescents purport to want freedom from restraints such as Latin Grammar. "Why can't we translate it this way?" they wail. But in fact, Latin provides an anchor of stability in a storm of raging gland secretions.

No matter how bad a day you've had, how many of your friends have tweaked you, how many teachers have told you you have failed life, the following sentence will always mean the same thing:

Puer puellam amat.

Boys loves girl.

In fact, it will mean the same thing if you say

Puellam amat puer.

And if you say

Amat puellam puer.

And if you say

Puer amat puellam.

That is because meaning in Latin comes not primarily from the word order, but from the little endings on the words.

The -er on puer always means the boy is doing the doing.

The -am on puellam always means the girl is getting done to.

The -t on amat always means that a he, a she, or an it is doing the doing.

This is bedrock. You can't change it.

Of course, there are exceptions, piles and piles of them. Which leads to the second thing I adore about Latin, which is judgment.

Sometimes one is given a sentence where the meaning in English is not apparent right away. The endings, which give so much comfort in simpler sentences, can seem to deceive, because sometimes endings have two or more possible meanings.

Translation, in other words, is not always cut and dried.

You have to think <he said, tapping his temple>.

As in this example:

Reges puellae rosas dant.

Here, the word puellae can have three meanings: "of girl," "to/for girl," and "girls doing the doing." The -ae ending was attractive to the Romans and they liked using it as much as possible.

How to make the choice?

Look at the other words in the sentence.

Reges means "kings doing the doing," or "kings getting done to."
Rosas means "roses getting done to."
Dant means "they give."

Clearly, "they give roses" is the core of the sentence. But who is giving them to whom?

Either the girls or the kings could be giving the roses. But if the girls give the roses, we are left with nonsense. "The girls give roses kings." And I don't know what roses kings are

But if we say it is the kings giving the roses, then we can choose another meaning for puellae, and one which makes good sense: "Kings give roses to girl." Sure. If you're giving roses, you should give them to someone. And as indicated above, -ae can mean "to/for" something.

There are a thousand levels of rising complexity in Latin. And it is great mental discipline to try to solve the puzzle. I think they should have, in addition to sudoku, a Latin translation puzzle on the comics page every day. I think life would be much better because of it.

Latin is one of the only subjects in school where you're really using your head to solve a problem that has a right answer. Mathematics is the most famous of those few subjects, and someday I would like to write a book on the similarity-- and differences-- of Latin and Math.

But as Math is restricted to right answers, while Latin can also express poetry, which has thousands of right answers, I judge Latin superior to Math.

Just think-- a way of being exactly right and being poetically right, in the same package. Fascinating.

PS There is a new book popularizing Latin called Latein ist tot, es lebe Latein (Latin is dead, Long live Latin!) which, has been very favorably reviewed but is unfortunately written in German. Now's the time I need my German translation friend to go in with me on a project!

Your Questions: Leonidas or Achilles? - II

In a previous post, there was a question of who could beat whom in battle--  Leonidas, the Spartan general who lead the 300 against the Persians at Thermopylae, or Achilles, the grand hero of the Trojan War.

The answer is contained in the Iliad, Book V, line 359, a sentiment that was generally shared by Greeks, as was most everything that Homer wrote.

This passage comes from the aristeia of the son of Tydeus, Diomedes, or his  "fifteen minutes of fame," where Homer concentrates on his great strength and military prowess.

But Tydeus' son
Levered up in one hand a slab of stone
Much too large for two men to lift--
As men are now--lifted it and smashed it
Into Aeneas' hip, where the thigh-bone turns
In the socket that medics call the cup.

(translation Lombardo, click below and left to buy)

Homer is trying to get across that the men of the Heroic Age-- that is, those of a distant past, not Homer's own-- were much stronger than the people of his own day. And there are other examples of this same idea in other parts of the Iliad.

The poet Hesiod, who probably wrote the Works and Days at about the same time as Homer was working, also lamented the inferiority of the present age as compared to the Age of Heroes.

So Leonidas, the best of his age, would never be able to beat Achilles, the best of the heroes' age.

(But as to Gerard Butler and Brad Pitt, the actors who play Leonidas and Achilles in movies, respectively: in the newspaper today George Clooney is quoted as saying that Brad Pitt is "tiny." So Butler's Leonidas probably would have no problem with Pitt's Achilles.)

Your questions: Athena, "Dear grey eyes"

This post comes at the request of Alex, who wonders why the goddess Athena can be so popular today, but can seem to have an "evil" streak, especially in Homer.

A huge question. Here is a shortish answer.

Illustration: Athena on a modern Greek postage stamp.

Nearly all Greek divinities have what might be called a good side and a bad side. Some good sides are more pronounced than others. I've always wondered why this is so, but I suspect that the Greeks, being realistic folk, understood that life itself is full of good and bad, and their divinities, who embodied their attitude towards life, had to reflect those two sides.

People today emphasize Athena's good side, because it is very attractive, and they ignore her bad side, because it is easy to sweep under the rug.

The little quotation in the title comes from a book I respect, The Goddess by Christine Downing. In a highly personal way, Downing, an educated layperson, gives her take on what each goddess of Greek Mythology means to her. Athena, to teenage-hero Downing, was

...self-confident and courageous, clear-eyed and strong, intelligent and accomplished, judicious and fair.

The good side. Athena is an inventor and a patron of civilization, mistress of military strategy, weaving, statecraft, and the economically valuable olive.

Dear Grey Eyes indeed.

But when Downing was married, her opinion of Athena changed:

Athene now seemed too cool and distant, too suspicious of the emotional and sensual, too extroverted and ambitious-- too "heady," in a word.

Downing is even being a little generous here. Athena can be cruel. Consider in the Iliad, when the hero Hector is in a one-on-one combat with the great Achilles. Hector doesn't want to die, so he is running from Achilles. Athena takes on the guise of Deiphobus, Hector's brother, and tells Hector she will stand with him against Achilles. Hector believes her, turns around, and faces Achilles. Then Athena disappears, and Hector is left at Achilles' mercy. The Trojan family man-- a wonderful guy, in my opinion-- doesn't have a chance.

We might also be reminded of Athena's behavior toward Arachne, who suffered punishment from the goddess even though-- according to the Roman poet Ovid-- her story-weaving was better than Athena's.

And Athena, though a female and concerned with such things as weaving, does not take the woman's part. She was born only from Zeus' head, not from a mother, and (in her own words) "I praise the man in all things."

The Odyssey, which is the one work from Greek mythology still read in schools today, cements Athena's good side. Here, she helps and roots for the hero Odysseus. She's the one who springs him from prison at the beginning, marooned as he is on the goddess Calypso's island. Throughout, she helps Odysseus get through his troubles, such as when she prompts the teenage hero, princess Nausicaa, to save him after he has washed up on her kingdom's shores.

She helps Odysseus' son, Telemachus, taking the form of Mentor, from which we get the same word for a beloved teacher and guide. She also inspires Penelope, Odysseus' wife.

At the end of the poem she makes sure Odysseus gets back safely to his home, Ithaca, and stays concealed until he can take revenge on the suitors who have dishonored his home.

This is what a goddess is supposed to be, isn't it? An inspirer, a helper, a rescuer, someone better than the rest of us. Something like a guardian angel, even a Super Mom.

Yet even in the Odyssey, as Odysseus slaughters the best men of Ithaca left behind because too young for the Trojan war, we see her cruelty in allowing such bloodshed, when a guardian angel might put a stop to everything and give us a happily ever after, "both-and" ending.

There is something unyielding and unmerciful in Athena. She doesn't tolerate slip-ups. Hector was a hero, but he lost his nerve. He had to be punished. The suitors were potential heroes, but something didn't click inside them. Instead of building up their own households and getting glory in war, they ruined another man's. They had to be punished.

Some of this has to do with being Zeus' daughter, and not having a mother. There is something that feels incomplete and inhuman in Athena, even though she seems so present and helpful. The Greeks knew that family was all-important. Having nurturing females in the household was taken for granted: if not a mother, then an aunt, or a grandmother. The Greeks may have felt that Athena got her cruel streak from this lack of identification with a nurturing older female.

Photo: Athena's house, the Parthenon, being lovingly restored in Athens, 2007.

And Athena may also be a reflection of the Greeks' attitude towards civilization: if you want society to keep going, you just have to follow rules. There are no exceptions. If you slip up, boom. No mercy.

But of course Athena was not the last word on civilization. Dionysus, god of wine, drunkenness, confusion of categories and temporary chaos, was also considered to be extremely important for the maintenance of a sane society. You can read about that here.

Athena is "Dear Grey Eyes" to me, as she is to Downing. I have great affection for her. But I am glad I don't have to come up to her standards. I think I would end up on the business end of her spear.

Your questions: Leonidas or Achilles?

My son was talking to a buddy at school who is deeply into the movie 300, and he (the buddy) contended that Leonidas the Spartan could kick tail on Achilles, the hero of the Iliad.

I'm assuming that the young man is not referring to Gerard Butler, who plays Leonidas in 300, as being able to kick the tail of Brad Pitt, who plays Achilles in Troy. Though that would be an interesting question, too.

What do you think?

My take to follow, with citations, chapter and verse.

Your Questions: Have you seen this god?

Had an email from a fan of the TV show Supernatural, which apparently has some devoted followers. Before the email I knew nothing about the show, and even now what I know comes from here and here.

But the fan had a great question about an "amulet of protection" which Dean, one of the principal characters, wears. You see to your left a photo of the amulet in question, which hangs from a leather thong.

Speculation online-- from what I read-- has centered on either Egyptian or Mesopotamian origins. I commend all the sleuths who have been researching Near Eastern bull men. The Hittite (Bronze Age Near Eastern) Bull Men Hurri and Sherri were in my dissertation, and are known to about 16 other people worldwide. Go, Hurri and Sherri!

But the amulet is not from Egypt or Mesopotamia. To be from the Tigris-Euphrates area, the figure would have to be heavily bearded. And Egyptian divinities do not have bull horns.

As near as I can figure, this amulet is inspired by images of Baal-Hadad, the (Bronze and Iron Age) Syrian storm god whose attribute is a bull. The photos below somewhat make my case, although I believe that the amulet itself comes from a modern artist's interpretation of ancient artifacts, rather than being a faithful copy of an actual amulet.

Come to the conclusions that you will concerning the meaning, symbolism and implications of this piece. I know it will be confusing to some that a demon-hunter might wear the symbol of a pagan god around his neck. Or maybe it explains some things. We'll see if my interpretation seems convincing.

One other possibility-- the Syrian war-god and god of plague Reshep, who also had an Egyptian incarnation, was very similar in attributes to Baal and had antelope horns on his headdress. The antelope was a native of the upper Euphrates, now modern Syria. There is an attractive Egyptian statue of Reshep that is unfortunately not on line.

Reshep is often identified with the Greek god Apollo, and does not have the negative connotations that Baal has in the Judeo-Christian world.

Photo left: Storm god relief from Ugarit (Ras-Shamra, Syria, Bronze Age). Note the helmet and horns. If you have access to a library or to the JSTOR online research resource, see Near Eastern Archeology 63.4 (2000), 216-219 for some spectacular photos of Ugaritic Bronze Age finds in the Louvre.

Photo next to it: Bronze Baal figurine now in the Louvre, no horns.

It is interesting to me that all the north-eastern Mediterranean cultures, including the Greek, had storm gods identified with a bull. Zeus even brought the Canaanite girl Europa from the Near East to Greece, swimming there in the guise of a bull with her on his back. What a ride that must have been.

Happy researching, all.

Why do storytellers tell?

During a meeting with a person in the publishing industry today (it was informational, unfortunately, not about an impending contract), a question arose: why do mythmakers make myths?

The publishing industry person opined that authors such as Homer wrote what they wrote because the old morals had declined and they needed to be reiterated.

I said that wasn't quite it, but when I tried to answer why, I fell on my face. A fairly long time ago when I taught Classical Mythology regularly in a college classroom, I discussed a related question: what is the purpose of myth? What does it do for us and to us?

But the question of what personally was going on in the heads of those who created and transmitted the stories-- that's something a little different.

And, in a way, unknowable.

I find it likely, however, that storytellers tell because they believe the story is true and therefore worthy of dissemination.

The most ancient of authors in the Greek tradition, Homer and Hesiod, wrote with the inspiration of the Muses, and Hesiod himself wrote at the command of the Muses. Their famous words to him:

You shepherds of the wilderness, poor fools,
nothing but bellies,
we know how to say many false things,
that seem like true sayings,
but we also know how to speak the truth
when we wish to.

(all translations Lattimore)

The implication is that Hesiod's poem-to-come, the Theogony-- concerning the generation and genalogy of the gods-- is true.

They go on to give Hesiod a "staff of strong growing/olive shoot, a wonderful thing;" and they "breathed a voice" into him and "power to sing the story of things of the future, and things past." The olive tree, most valuable resource to Greek civilization, is an apt symbol of Hesiod's power to tell.

Then the Muses tell Hesiod

to sing the race
of the blessed gods everlasting,
but always to put themselves
at the beginning and end of my singing.

Here it appears that the Muses are interested in something millions of Internet users are also craving: fame, glory, reputation, to "go viral."

So there seem to be two motivations in Hesiod's mind: first, that the story to be told is worthy of being told, and that in telling it, he will make the Muses known and become known himself.

So at least in Hesiod's case, the motivation for telling a story is personal, and similar to the motivation storytellers have today.

Within the idea of "true" and "worthy" there are a thousand levels and nuances, including my acquaintance's idea that a message must be gotten across in order to improve folk. This is the job of the prophet and the satirist.

Also there is the idea of entertainment, of which Hesiod sings a little later on. It is the Muses who

bring forgetfulness of sorrows,
and rest from anxieties.

For me the idea of knowing, making known, and being known also has a utility beyond the message itself. Whatever is said, it is an attempt to pull together individuals into a group-- to point to the importance of community.

It is traditionally said that mythology tells a culture "who it is, where it has come from, where it is going." This is another way of saying that good stories bond us. Storytellers seem to want to be at the center of those bonds-- and a little lifted up.