The Greek Myths
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:28 am
Have just purchased the Penguin Deluxe Classics edition of this work by Robert Graves and have to say that I am mightily impressed with the level of scholarship that clearly went into it's writing. Graves gives precise renditions of each myth, including the varients thereof and the sources from which they are derived. He then gives what I believe to be his own interpretation of the historical events for which the myth might be seen as allegorical. The result is that rather than just having the myths thrown at you one after another, you are given a break in which to absorb the story, think about it and learn a bit of history to boot.
One thing upon which I am slightly perplexed is Graves interpretation of the myths in terms of his belief that early pre-hellenic Greece was matriarchal and matrilinear in terms of it's sovereignty - a refection of the often hierarchical superiority of female deity's in terms of their worship by the people. Graves see's kingship as a relative late comer in the mythological framework and his interpretations tend to reflect this. He countered criticism of his approach with the slightly condescending observation that most classically trained scholars did not have the poetic and literary background that he was able to bring to the table, and thus could not be expected to be able to see the deeper allegories and nuances of meaning hidden within the myths.
My question is, to what extent is Graves analysis of the myths given academic credence today, and is there any historical evidence to support his matrilinear thesis by classics scholars of the present day. (I have to confess a bias here - I really like the idea that the myths are a vehicle by which knowledge of deep historical events are carried into the present via the oral tradition and find it much more satisfying than the Jungian approach of viewing them as simple (inverted commas here perhaps) upwellings from the subconscious made manifest in the form of vocalised tale-telling.)
One thing upon which I am slightly perplexed is Graves interpretation of the myths in terms of his belief that early pre-hellenic Greece was matriarchal and matrilinear in terms of it's sovereignty - a refection of the often hierarchical superiority of female deity's in terms of their worship by the people. Graves see's kingship as a relative late comer in the mythological framework and his interpretations tend to reflect this. He countered criticism of his approach with the slightly condescending observation that most classically trained scholars did not have the poetic and literary background that he was able to bring to the table, and thus could not be expected to be able to see the deeper allegories and nuances of meaning hidden within the myths.
My question is, to what extent is Graves analysis of the myths given academic credence today, and is there any historical evidence to support his matrilinear thesis by classics scholars of the present day. (I have to confess a bias here - I really like the idea that the myths are a vehicle by which knowledge of deep historical events are carried into the present via the oral tradition and find it much more satisfying than the Jungian approach of viewing them as simple (inverted commas here perhaps) upwellings from the subconscious made manifest in the form of vocalised tale-telling.)