Jayhawker Soule

As noted, this was taken from the Biblical Criticism and Archaeology Forum. In first reading it, I was uncomfortable with what I (perhaps incorrectly) saw as the relativism inherent in the McNeill quote, i.e., one man's history is another man's myth (as if "history" or "myth" is in the eye of the beholder). At the same time, I'd be hard pressed to offer definitions of myth, folklore, tradition, and history with any great degree of confidence. I'd appreciate your input.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I really hate it when I click the 'quote' icon instead of the 'edit' icon.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

John Page

My working definitions are:

History = the facts of past events as established by some prime source record (notes taken at the time, fossils etc.)
Tradition = social convention.
Folklore = history without prime source records.
Myth = Allegorical tale, may be completely fictional or involve folklore and/or history.

I would entirely agree that because we are subjective beasts, historiography (the philosophy of history) includes both the science and art of analysis based on incomplete information. In turn this subjectivity opens up the field of revisionist history, essentially distorting real history into myth through lies, omissions, miscontruing cause and effect etc.

Hope my words and meaning are precise.

Cheers.

David Bowden

(I always hit the "back" button on my browser when that happens to me, and it doesn't post; it just reloads the thread, and then I click on 'edit'. Will that work on your browser?)

McNeil, at least from the excerpt, seems to forget that history is not just subjective storytelling using more technical vocabulary - it is trying very hard to integrate scientific methodology, and to be as careful as it can be in representing the past with utmost integrity. Myths do not cite sources for possible review of their version of the story; good historians do, and they give reasons if they disagree with one another, reasons which can be examined by anyone. Etc.

I'm sure a professional historian might be dismayed at McNeil's words here, perhaps in a way analogous to biologists or philosophers of science facing the claims of creationists that evolution is "just a theory." The technical apparatus is far more developed and reliable for history than McNeil lets on.

John Page's working definitions work fine for me, although I have one minor hangup: I do not know if allegory is a necessary element in mythology. Sometimes myth doesn't allegorize, although it always seems to convey some sort of truth, especially moral truth. I'm just not sure 'allegorical' accurately describes some myths - but I guess it depends on how you interpret them.

J. R. R. Tolkien lays out this position someplace... maybe in his "Tree and Leaf" essay, or in "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics." I'm sure Joseph Campbell would say something about myths being archetypal tales, but unfortunately I don't have access to either of these authors' works at the moment, so... I'll defer to anyone with stronger authority than my sleep-deprived memory. I'm fumbling for words at this point; after some sleep I'll come back and clear up the mess I've made of my point here.

Anyway, to reiterate: I feel that McNeil is being disingenuous, and I think John's definitions distinguish between these four things quite well. And now I'm going to go to bed thinking about Hamilton and Bulfinch...

-Wanderer