Mythic Proportions

It occurred to me, after my last post, that some may misunderstand my views on mythology, so I thought that I should take a little time to expand on them more thoroughly. To begin with, I have nothing whatsoever against mythology. It can be enlightening, an important aspect of the life of a devotee of any spiritual path. As a matter of fact, it is actually an essential component of it. And I say this not only as regards the actual ritual practices that are part and parcel, the inner workings of any cult or religion, thought this is certainly true, it is actually an indispensable means of understanding and achieving communion with the deities by means of ritual conscouness (though certainly not the only such means).

My problem with mythology is, in fact, the point that it is not used as effectively as it should be. Most people tend to take myths at for the most part their face value, without trying to look beyond the outer surface presentation down into what is actually the kernal of truth it contains, that deeper meaning wrapped in symbolism. That is pretty much akin to judging a person solely by the clothing he or whe wears. It may tell you a little about them. It may in some cases even tell you quite a lot about them. But it’s not the entire story. For that, you need to look beyond the outer appearrance, by looking deeper inward.

Some mythologies, in fact, served the people in the time in which they were developed well, but have little meaning for us today. But that is because they haven’t evolved with the times. And in order for them to remain relevant, that is essential, and inescapably so. I am currently at work on a revision of the myth of the birth of Athene, which I intend to one day publish as part of a collectionof such retellings. This too, as has been pointed out to me, can be dangerous.

One recent example of a self-serving retelling that was pointed out to me by a friend that I communicate with prvately on a somewhat regular basis, is the recent change in the personality of the Goddess Artemis. This deity is of course the pure and chaste virgin Goddess of the Hunt, and in Classical Hellenic art was generally depicted with a bow. She was one of the Twelve Olympians, one of those Goddesses who were of paramount importance among the anciet Greeks. She had many attributes, and possibly chief among these was her status as the Patron Goddess of hunters, and of the hunt itself.

She was invoked for other reasons as well. She was the patron Goddess of several cities, was a Goddess of fertility, and was invoked to insure ease of childbith. But mainly she is remembered as that Goddess whom hunters invoked to insure a successful hunt.

But for some odd reason that I have never been able to wrap my mind around, she is invoked by a good many mainly eclectic Wiccans these days, a great many of whom are vegetarians, and vegans. These are staunchly environmental types. I am too, but I am talking here about extremists,some of whom might even make the folks at Greenpeace look like Neo-Cons. These are the type of environmentalists who are outraged at any encroachment of mankind upon nature, however slight or even unnavoidable, and decry with a passion the killing of any animals. And this extends from the slaughter of farm animals to the hunting of wild animals, not only for sport, but for food as well.

To them, the Lady Artemis has suddenly evolved into “the gentle protectress of animals”. WHAT?!!!! Yes, it’s true, now if this isn’t an evolution, there is no such thing. This is off the charts. For one thing, yes, Artemis is the protectress of animals, and of the environment in general. Unfortunately, a great part of that protection comes in strengtening the herd by means of thinning it out. The art and science of responsible hunting therefore isn’t an abomination to her, in fact, it can be viewed as a sacred act. It is actually aiding in the process, which without that aid would be even more bloody, torturous, and ultimatley catastrophic. Most hunters when killing their prey aim at precision, in a clean, fast, and relatively merciful kill. Even the slaughtering of livestock, as heartwrenching, and to the animal terrifying, as this can be-and the methodology here should definitely be improved-even this is a vast improvement over what would normally be the fate of these animals were they allowed to roam free as many of these radicals would hold that “nature intended”. In the wild, natures way of thinning out the herd usually involves the old being left behind to be ultimatley torn to pieces by predatory animals. Or even worse, to die a long drawn out death of starvation and thirst as they are, before death, gnawed away at by insects and rodents.

So no, Artemis is not “gentle”, by any stretch of the imagination. She is, in fact, quite feral. And for any group to develop a mythology that asserts otherwise is not true mythology. It is wishful thinking. It is self-serving aggrandizement on an arrogant scale.

Still, mythologies, again, do have to evolve to fit the times in order to be and remain relevant to them. But you have to be true to the basic nature of the God or the Goddess involved or they are meaningless, and in fact all the more irrelevant, even to a degree deceptive. That is why you have to exercise a degree of caution when reworking these myths. I think of it more as a prospect not of changing the myths, but of expounding on them explaining them more fully than an ancient adherent might have been capable of. The beautiful thing about the ancient Hellenic myths are, to a point they contain the seeds for growth and evoltuion within their own paradigms.

Furthermore, I am really not talking about anything new here. Even ancient socieities reworked their own myths. They themselves evolved and expanded on their ancient myths. The conquering Achaeans, the Dorians and others who infiltrated ancient Greece and eventually gave rise to the Hellenic civilization that we know as Classical Greece, did this themselves with the myths and folklores of the preceding Mychaenaeans, who likely themselves did the same with myths borrowed from the earlier Minoans.

Nor do you even have to study the ancient past to see an on-going modern day example, in the mythology of the Hindus of India. I am thinking here specifically of the myth of the elephant headed God, Ganesh. According to present day Hindu mythology, Ganesh was the son of Shiva, The Desroyer. One day while Shiva was out, Ganesh’s mother decided to take a bath, and cautioned her son Ganesh to guard the house from intruders. He dutifully stood watch at he door, and when Shiva returned home early, he did not recognize him, and so refused him entrance into his own home. In a rage, Shiva sliced off the head of Ganesh. Seenig what he had done, he determined to bring ganesh back to life and supply him with a new head. Coming upon the first animal he saw-an elephant, of course-he took off the unfortunate creatures head, and attached it to the body of Ganesh.

Anybody should be able to discern what is going on here. In fact, I would submit that Ganesh was seen as always having had the head of an elephant, to his devotees this was nothing unusual. It was symbolic of the power of this particular God. This was a common attribute of deities in ancient Egypt, less so in India, but Ganesh is one of these examples. But somewhere along the way, as times progressed, people started to question this remarkable oddity. Why did Ganesh have the head of an elephant? Perhaps the worship of Ganesh preceded the arrival of what came to be the predominant population on the continent, who needed something in the way of an explanantion, and so invented one.

Whatever the case, this rather fanciful explanation I hold to be a relatively recent innovaton. An evolution of the myth, if you will, and not a very good one at that, in my opinion. The earlier devotees of this particular deity obviously viewed the elephant as sacred, a divine manifestation of the God. The latter day observers, whether native or foreign, had to have an explanation.

At any rate, the point is that all things must change, must grow and evolve, in order to remain relevant. And this is equally true of mythology, maybe more so. But you have to proceed, again, while being true ot the natue of the Deity in question, and while keeping the faith with the spirit of the original myth in question. Otherwise, you are just making shit up. And that is something I do not ever intend to do.

As for those who might take exception to my thoughts on this matter, I will address the two of you.

To the “Fluffy Bunnies”-It’s not all peaches and cream, no matter how much you might wish that were the case.

And, to the “Recons” - No, I am not going to go to hell for violating the ancient myths. Since you believe so strongly in the inviolability of the ancient myths, you DO believe in hell, don’t you? Yeah, that’s what I thought.