No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
Of the whole field of religious studies, one area of consistent interest and activity has been the study of myth; and if any one area has represented the wide variety of approaches scholars of religion have utilized, it is this one. Students of language and literature (e.g. F. Max Müller and J. Campbell), psychology (e.g. S. Freud and C. Jung), sociology (e.g. E. Durkheim and P. Berger), social anthropology (e.g. B. Malinowski, V. Turner and C. Levi-Strauss) as well as religion (e.g. M. Eliade and G. La Rue) have all offered interpretations of myth. An investigation of these various approaches to understanding myth seems to point to the conclusion that the history of the study of myth is a history of reductionism. That is, the heritage transmitted to scholars who would attempt to understand the nature and function of myth within a single discipline is one which most often limits the essential nature or function of myth to that discipline's underlying assumptions alone. Hence, myth is usually linked either to the social or the psychological dimension of human experience exclusively. However, even those theories of myth which combine social and psychological methods and assumptions have usually resulted in truncated conclusions which give pause to those of us who seek their application.
page 369 note 1 This essay represents an expansion and defence of a thesis I originally suggested in a paper entitled ‘Current approaches to interpreting myth’ delivered at the American Academy of Religion's Annual Meeting, 30 December 1977, in San Francisco, California.
page 370 note 1 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Swain, J. W. (New York: The Free Press, 1965), p. 221.Google Scholar
page 370 note 2 Ibid. p. 420.
page 370 note 3 Magic, Science and Religion (New York: Doubleday, 1954), p. 96.Google Scholar
page 370 note 4 Ibid. p.144.
page 370 note 5 Ibid pp. 143–4.
page 370 note 6 L'idéologie tripartie des Indo-européens (Brussels: Latomus, 1958).Google Scholar
page 371 note 1 A related notion to myth being ‘primitive’ thinking is the assumption that it is the product of fantasy (i.e. non-rational speculating or musing). For example, see O'Flaherty's, Wendy ‘Inside and Outside the Mouth of God: The Boundary between Myth and Reality,’ DAEDALUS 109, 2 (Spring 1980), pp. 93–125.Google Scholar
page 371 note 2 For example, see Frankfort's, Henri ‘Myth and Reality’ in Before Philosophy (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1949).Google Scholar
page 371 note 3 ‘The Structural Study of Myth’, in Structural Anthropology, trans. Jacobson, C. and Schoepf, B. G. (New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1967), p. 226.Google Scholar
page 371 note 4 Ibid. p. 227.
page 372 note 1 The Future of an Illusion, trans. Robson-Scott, W. D. (New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1964), p. 45.Google Scholar
page 372 note 2 The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, trans. Hull, R. F. C. (2nd ednPrinceton: Princeton University Press, 1968).Google Scholar
page 372 note 3 See especially Campbell's, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (New York: Meridian Books, 1956)Google Scholar and Eliade's, Patterns in Comparative Religion, trans. Sheed, R. (New York: Meridian Books, 1963).Google Scholar
page 373 note 1 journal of Asian Studies, XXI, 3 (May 1972), 699–700.Google Scholar
page 373 note 2 Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Siva (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 2.Google Scholar
page 373 note 3 For a full translation of this myth see O'Flaherty, Wendy, Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit (Hardmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1975), pp. 141–9Google Scholar; and for her analysis see Asceticism and Eroticism…, pp. 172–209.Google Scholar
page 373 note 4 Asceticism and Eroticism…, p. 203.Google Scholar
page 374 note 1 The Siva Purāna, ed. Shastri, J. L., vol. III (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1970), Śatarudrasamhitā 34. 13–39Google Scholar, PP. 1219–21.
page 374 note 2 Asceticism and Eroticism…, p. 26.Google Scholar
page 374 note 3 ‘The Fire Arms of Śiva: Oral Transmission ofConcepts in South Indian Śaiva Bhakti’, Ohio journal of Religious Studies, 3: 1 (March 1975), pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
page 374 note 4 The Śiva Purāna, vol I, Vidyeśvarasamhitā 6 and 7, pp. 52–7.Google Scholar
page 375 note 1 Ramanujan, A. K., Speaking of Śiva Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973), pp. 1955 and 175–87.Google Scholar
page 375 note 2 The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), p. 9.Google Scholar
page 376 note 1 Percy Cohen argued for the importance of myth as narrative in his essay ‘Theories of Myth”, Man: The journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (Sept. 1969), pp. 337–53.Google Scholar
page 376 note 2 For example, see Ricoeur's, ‘The Symbol Gives Rise to Thought’, in Ways of Understanding Religion, ed. Capps, W. H. (New York: Macmillan, 1972).Google Scholar