Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I've finally got round to reading "The Hero".

A few remarks.

Raglan starts out with an analysis, with examples, of the problems of using legendary material as a historical source. This is on the whole good, better than I expected, though IMO somewhat over-sceptical.

Raglan then puts forward his analysis of the possible options for ancient narratives. (I'm being more explicitly analytical than Raglan is.) There are formally four possibilities. A recorded narrative is based on a/ recent history b/ ancient history c/ recent non-historical invention d/ ancient non-historical invention. Raglan argues that b/ does not happen, ancient historical events are not remembered in oral tradition for centuries and then finally recorded. Raglan claims on ideological grounds that c/ hardly ever happens, only a few elite geniuses even really invent anything. Therefore, for Raglan, recorded narratives are either based on recent history or are adaptations of a mythic pattern, going back to the ancient river valley civilizations of the Middle East, about Frazerian ritually sacrificed kings.

Raglan regards a/ and d/ as having such different qualities as to be easily distinguished. Although sometimes a narrative of type a/ may attract material of type d/; this is uncommon and either the mythic material remains clearly distinct from the genuine history, or the history largely disappears leaving a mythic narrative using the names of real people. Raglan prepares a list of 22 characteristics, with examples, indicating that we are in the presence of a mythic narrative not history.

This list is based on the story of Oedipus as told by the Athenian dramatists, modified by reference to other ancient narratives. Most of the elements on the list have an inner logic. They are about a boy born to be King whom the current rulers, his relations, seek to kill. He survives and grows up in foreign parts before returning, showing himself worthy of the kingdom, killing the king, and reigning in his place. However his guilt incurred by killing his kin in order to achieve the kingship mean that he must face exile and death and an ambiguous but basically positive posthumous reputation. (Raglan rejected the Freudian interpretation of this stuff, others may feel differently.) Some specific elements on the list seem problematic. I don't think that the hero prescribing laws is any indication that we are dealing with a mythic rather than an historical narrative. Death at the top of a hill only works using very questionable criteria for scoring and is the characteristic that I most suspect to have been added by Raglan to increase Jesus' score.

Raglan concludes his work by an argument for the origin and transmission of his mythic narrative in ritual drama such as the Athenian stage. Given that his list is so much influenced by the Oedipus story in Athenian tragedy, this seems more likely to be true for his specific narrative than for mythic narratives in general.

My first problem with Raglan is that I don't accept his idea of a central mythic narrative, immensely influential but based not in fundamental facts about human needs psychology and aspirations, but in hypothetical (IMO improbable) events in the middle eastern river valleys thousands of years ago. However his mythic pattern could be valid without Raglan's explanation. However, without Raglan's theoretical model a high score on his list provides no way of distinguishing between a historical character (like Alexander the Great) who has been mythicized, and a non-historical character such as Theseus.

When applied to the life of Jesus a particular problem is that the parallels to Raglan's list are particularly strong in passages such as the birth narrative in Matthew, I don't think that for example Jesus in Mark is a plausible Raglan mythic hero.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for the summary, Andrew. With regard to what you pick out as Raglan's c/, would he allow Mormonism to be an instance, based on recent, non-historical invention?

ficino wrote:Thanks for the summary, Andrew. With regard to what you pick out as Raglan's c/, would he allow Mormonism to be an instance, based on recent, non-historical invention?

I think that Raglan would have regarded Mormonism to be a rehash of material in the Bible and other ancient sources falsely presented as a new revelation.

To clarify a general point, Raglan is quite happy with people rehashing old material with new characters and settings, in the way that Virgil rewrote Homer. What he does not accept is material that is genuinely new but based on imagination not experience.

Andrew Criddle

Heaven's Gate?

ficino wrote:Heaven's Gate?

I suspect that the proliferation of 'new age' groups such as Heaven's Gate in the modern west, would be difficult to explain within Raglan's world view.

Andrew Criddle

Raglan also explains how to differentiate a historical from a mythical character quite independently of their "score". Theoretically, then, it is quite possible for one to score 22 points and still be historical. But in that case (and in every case of a historical person) the following remarks by Raglan apply:

It is possible that some of the heroes were real persons, whose actions were recorded, but whose real careers became for some reason swamped by myth. I shall discuss in the next chapter the attribution of mythical features to historical characters, but that is another matter, since in the case of these historical characters it is their historic deeds that are important, and the myths mere excrescence. Alexander’s alleged miraculous birth does not affect our view of the Battle of Arbela. But if we subtract the myths from the heroes with whom I have dealt, little or nothing remains. Miracles and mythical incidents are all we are told of them, or at least all that is of any interest. What would the story of Perseus be without the Gorgon’s head or that of Bellerophon without his winged steed? Very little, and even Moses would be much less interesting without his magic rod. It may be suggested that King Alfred is less interesting without the cakes, but though such foolish stories may amuse the unlettered, they are a nuisance to serious students of the life and times of this great ruler. Would anyone, however, venture to say that the story of Medusa is a nuisance to students of the life and times of Perseus? Of course this story, and the dragon-slaying, make up the life of Perseus; apart from these and his mother’s brazen tower there is nothing to distinguish him from a score of heroes. The difference between the story of a historical character and that of a hero of tradition is that in the former case we may find myths or fables loosely and as a rule unsuitably tacked on to a record of well-attested fact, while in the latter the story consists of some striking miracles against a background of typical myth.

So far has the process [of indiscriminately linking information from different types of sources] gone that we find eminent writers describing as “historical,” characters for whose existence there is no historical evidence at all. If, however, we take any really historical person, and make a clear distinction between what history tells us of him and tradition tells us, we shall find that tradition, far from being supplementary to history, is totally unconnected with it, and that the hero of history and the hero of tradition are really two quite different persons, though they may bear the same name.
Lord Raglan was writing for readers familiar with both the real history and the Shakespeare play of Henry V.

I have dealt at length with Prince Henry and Falstaff because the myths are familiar and the facts readily accessible, but a study of any hero to whose name myths have become attached would show the clear-cut line that separates the historical hero from his mythical namesake. “From the researchers of Bédier upon the epic personages of William of Orange, Girard de Rousillon, Ogier de Dane, Raoul de Cambrai, Roland, and many other worthies, it emerges that they do not correspond in any way with what historical documents teach us of their alleged real prototypes.”

neilgodfrey wrote:Raglan also explains how to differentiate a historical from a mythical character quite independently of their "score". Theoretically, then, it is quite possible for one to score 22 points and still be historical. But in that case (and in every case of a historical person) the following remarks by Raglan apply:

It is possible that some of the heroes were real persons, whose actions were recorded, but whose real careers became for some reason swamped by myth. I shall discuss in the next chapter the attribution of mythical features to historical characters, but that is another matter, since in the case of these historical characters it is their historic deeds that are important, and the myths mere excrescence. Alexander’s alleged miraculous birth does not affect our view of the Battle of Arbela. But if we subtract the myths from the heroes with whom I have dealt, little or nothing remains. Miracles and mythical incidents are all we are told of them, or at least all that is of any interest. What would the story of Perseus be without the Gorgon’s head or that of Bellerophon without his winged steed? Very little, and even Moses would be much less interesting without his magic rod. It may be suggested that King Alfred is less interesting without the cakes, but though such foolish stories may amuse the unlettered, they are a nuisance to serious students of the life and times of this great ruler. Would anyone, however, venture to say that the story of Medusa is a nuisance to students of the life and times of Perseus? Of course this story, and the dragon-slaying, make up the life of Perseus; apart from these and his mother’s brazen tower there is nothing to distinguish him from a score of heroes. The difference between the story of a historical character and that of a hero of tradition is that in the former case we may find myths or fables loosely and as a rule unsuitably tacked on to a record of well-attested fact, while in the latter the story consists of some striking miracles against a background of typical myth.

So far has the process [of indiscriminately linking information from different types of sources] gone that we find eminent writers describing as “historical,” characters for whose existence there is no historical evidence at all. If, however, we take any really historical person, and make a clear distinction between what history tells us of him and tradition tells us, we shall find that tradition, far from being supplementary to history, is totally unconnected with it, and that the hero of history and the hero of tradition are really two quite different persons, though they may bear the same name.
Lord Raglan was writing for readers familiar with both the real history and the Shakespeare play of Henry V.

I have dealt at length with Prince Henry and Falstaff because the myths are familiar and the facts readily accessible, but a study of any hero to whose name myths have become attached would show the clear-cut line that separates the historical hero from his mythical namesake. “From the researchers of Bédier upon the epic personages of William of Orange, Girard de Rousillon, Ogier de Dane, Raoul de Cambrai, Roland, and many other worthies, it emerges that they do not correspond in any way with what historical documents teach us of their alleged real prototypes.”

This is my problem with Raglan on Henry V and Falstaff.

Raglan introduces an ingenious mythical interpretation of the Henry Falstaff relationship which is both IMO intrinsically implausible and requires Falstaff (or a Falstaff equivalent like Oldcastle) to have been part of the original non-historical legend of the dissolute youth of Henry V.

However this mythical (or archtypal) pattern seems to have been a creation of Elizabethan dramatists, it is not part of the early tradition of Henry's dissolute youth (as e.g. in Holinshed).

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: This is my problem with Raglan on Henry V and Falstaff.

Raglan introduces an ingenious mythical interpretation of the Henry Falstaff relationship which is both IMO intrinsically implausible and requires Falstaff (or a Falstaff equivalent like Oldcastle) to have been part of the original non-historical legend of the dissolute youth of Henry V.

However this mythical (or archtypal) pattern seems to have been a creation of Elizabethan dramatists, it is not part of the early tradition of Henry's dissolute youth (as e.g. in Holinshed).

Andrew Criddle

Why not try another case study? The Henry V details may have been familiar enough to the audience of his day but they are not to me. I was thinking of Alexander as known in history compared with the Alexander of the fourth century(?) Romance.

neilgodfrey wrote:
Why not try another case study? The Henry V details may have been familiar enough to the audience of his day but they are not to me. I was thinking of Alexander as known in history compared with the Alexander of the fourth century(?) Romance.

The Alexander romance is clearly largely fantasy based on the spectacular career of a real person.

The part that seems mythical in Raglan's sense is the idea that Alexander is secretly the son of Nectanebo last Pharaoh of Egypt and that he (Alexander) kills Nectanebo.

In general, Raglan's ideas seem more applicable to birth stories than to legendary lives taken as a whole.

Andrew Criddle

Might one not as soon say that the story of Jesus is largely fantasy based on the spectacular career of a real person? (I am sure some critical scholars who do not question the historicity of Jesus would also agree.)

I suspect, moreover, that there would be relatively very few birth stories extant of real historical persons to be compared with mythical tales of their births. So I would think that the relevance of the classification applies to more than just the birth stories.