A modern Pagan perspectivePosts RSS Comments RSS

The Ongoing Importance of Myth

In a bold and ground-breaking move, Canongate Books has started publishing an ongoing series of classic myths being retold by modern authors. The initial simultaneous launch of the first three titles (in more than 30 countries around the world) features Margaret Atwood telling the story of Penelope the wife of Odysseus, Jeanette Winterson retelling the myth of Atlas and Hercules, and Karen Armstrong writing an original long essay on the history of myth.

“In our scientific culture, we often have rather simplistic notions of the divine. In the ancient world, the ‘gods’ were rarely regarded as supernatural beings with discrete personalities, living a totally separate metaphysical existence. Mythology was not about theology, in the modern sense, but about human experience. People thought that gods, humans, animals and nature were inextricably bound up together, subject to the same laws, and composed of the same divine substance. There was initially no ontological gulf between the world of the gods and the world of men and women. When people spoke of the divine, they were usually talking about an aspect of the mundane. The very existence of the gods was inseparable from that of a storm, a sea, a river, or from those powerful human emotions – love, rage or sexual passion – that seemed momentarily to lift men and women onto a different plane of existence so that they saw the world with new eyes.”Karen Armstrong, A Short History of Myth

Upcoming volumes include the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur by Russian author Victor Pelevin, and the Biblical story of Samson and Delilah by Israeli author David Grossman. One hundred writers have been approached to write an edition in the series.

Why re-tell the old myths with these contemporary authors? Guardian reviewer Peter Conrad explains how every era re-makes the myths to talk about their own experiences.

“The stories about the loves and quarrels of the gods and their descent to earth cry out to be reinterpreted. A new significance is added every time; these fallible, all too human deities – who seemed lushly carnal in the Renaissance, chastely neoclassical in the 18th century, infectiously depraved in the 1890s – inhabit a perpetual present, which makes them our contemporaries. The babble of options does not matter: a myth, as Levi-Strauss declared, is the sum total of all possible versions.”

Canongate publisher Jamie Byng in the Sunday Herald explains why he has undertaken this vast (Herculean you might say) mythic project which is expected to not complete until 2038.

“…the most common presumption about myths is that they are not true. The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that a myth is “a purely fictitious narrative” and that something mythic has “no foundation in fact”. But this seems to miss the very point of myth; and to overstate the value of fact. In a letter to his brother, John Keats introduced the wonderful concept of “negative capability”. We, said the poet, are “capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason”. But this “irritable reaching after fact and reason” seems to define one aspect of the contemporary world’s political and social anxieties. Today, our culture seems more detached from the idea of myth than it has ever been. Part of the problem is that myth has been discredited. Our obsession with fact and reason, a consequence of the scientific revolution, has allowed us to dismiss myth because it is not rooted in verifiable certainty. In doing so, we ignore the extent to which myth deals in emotional, rather than literal, truths.”

For those of us who grew up loving the ancient myths and tales (back before I ever knew that being a modern Pagan was an option) this series of books looks to be a rare treat. Ancient myth still resonates today in our modern world, and I’m happy to hear that a new generation of writers is taking up the challenge.

2 responses so far

  • Anonymous

    There are several points in Karen Armstrong’s characterization of pagan religions that I do not think pagans ought to accept, and that I am frankly surprised to see reproduced here without question and with apparent approval. The idea that the pagan Gods were not historically conceived as discrete individuals or as distinct from natural phenomena is not one advanced by friends of paganism, even if there are some contemporary pagans who might accept this picture and even find it edifying. Armstrong would make of pagan religion something archaic and exotic without a place in the contemporary world, part of, and inseparable from, a pre-scientific, “enchanted” worldview, when paganism was and is so much more than this. It is one thing to point out the differences between pagan religions and the Abrahamic faiths, in the area of tolerance, for example, but it is quite another thing to claim that pagan religions, in effect, lack Gods as such. And yet that is just what she is saying. This picture of pagan religion is just a way to ensure that pagan religions not be seen to compete with the Abrahamic faiths on their own territory, and even if it is presented in a superficially friendly — but clearly patronizing — manner, this picture nevertheless derives immediately from the Christian perspective on pagan religions as primitive and materialistic, worshipping blind forces of nature and thus offering no salvation. Also typical of the Christian image of paganism is that pagan religions always contained much material their own adherents neither took seriously, understood, nor were prepared to defend. Some modern pagans perhaps reflexively identify with notions of divinities as “immanent” rather than “transcendent”, either because they think that to conceive of divinity as in any way transcendent denigrates nature, or because they think that transcendence implies monotheism. They should not be so quick to take the bait that is being offered them. Were pagans to accept Armstrong’s picture, their religions would be reduced to an empty shell, the myths to mere stories, the identities of the Gods and the national pantheons liquidated. Accepting the stereotype foisted upon us of a “nature religion”, we would willingly abandon any claim to credit for, or any stake in, civilization after the Bronze Age. I, for one, am not prepared to do that. Pagans invented urbanism, art, writing, philosophy and theology, why on earth should we abandon them to strangers?Edward Butler

  • Jason Pitzl-Waters

    Edward,I was making no judgement on Armstrong’s essay at all. I was simply including a quote from her own forward. I don’t agree with everything she says. But I do admire the scope of the project she is involved in. Perhaps that is why you felt I was giving her statements the official Wildhunt “seal of approval”.Anyone who knows of Armstrong’s background as a former nun would know that her worldview of Paganism would be colored by that past. I consider my gods very much “real”, but I’m not going to judge the entirety of the essay until I have the chance to read it and draw my own conclusions.Thanks for commenting.