Encyclopedia of Greek and Roman Mythology

561 Pages·2010·7.52 MB·English

encyclopedia of
G re e k
an d roman
mytholoGy
Luke Roman
and Monica Roman
Encyclopedia of Greek and Roman Mythology
Copyright © 2010 by Luke Roman and Monica Roman
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information
storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information
contact:
Facts On File, Inc.
An imprint of Infobase Publishing
132 West 31st Street
New York NY 10001
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Roman, Luke.
Encyclopedia of Greek and Roman mythology / Luke Roman and Monica Roman.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8160-7242-2 (hc : alk. paper) 1. Mythology, Classical—Encyclopedias. I. Roman,
Monica. II. Title. III. Title: Greek and Roman mythology.
BL715.R65 2009
292.1'303—dc22
2009001235
Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities for
businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our Special Sales Department
in New York at [phone] or [phone].
You can find Facts On File on the World Wide Web at http://www.factsonfile.com
Excerpts included herewith have been reprinted by permission of the copyright holders; the
author has made every effort to contact copyright holders. The publishers will be glad to rectify,
in future editions, any errors or omissions brought to their notice.
Text design by Erika K. Arroyo
Composition by Hermitage Publishing Services
Cover printed by Art Print, Taylor, Pa.
Book printed and bound by Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing Group, York, Pa.
Date printed: January, 2010
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
This book is printed on acid-free paper and contains 30 percent postconsumer recycled content.
Contents
6
IntroductIon
v
A-to-Z EntrIEs
1
sElEctEd BIBlIogrAphy
525
IndEx
531

IntroduCtIon
6
This reference work is designed to provide myth comes, had various meanings, including
concise summaries of the major figures of “speech,” “story,” and, later, “myth” or “fable.”
classical mythology, and, at the same time, In modern English, the term myth often implies
synopses and discussions of major works of a belief that is demonstrably false yet has none-
Greek and Roman literature from the eighth theless achieved widespread credence. Maga-
century b.c.e. through the second century zines and newspapers contrast myths with the
c.e. While there are many reference works true facts gleaned from scientific study. In the
on classical mythology, the distinctive fea- ancient world, by contrast, there was no strict,
ture of this encyclopedia is the inclusion of consistently applied division between mythic
extensive discussion of classical authors and knowledge and rationally discovered truth.
literary works to enable the study of ancient Ancient philosophers and historians in some
mythology in the light of ancient literature. In instances challenge the authority of myth as a
addition, we have selectively documented the fundamental source of knowledge, but they do
representation of the classical myths in visual not wholly reject it.
art, ranging from ancient statues to famous For the archaic Greek poets Homer and
paintings of the Renaissance and later eras. Hesiod (ca. eighth/seventh century b.c.e.), the
Myths were not narrated solely in verbal form, traditional stories constitute divinely inspired
and the artistic representations often surprise knowledge. The historian Herodotus (fifth
us by emphasizing scenes or dimensions of a century b.c.e.) never suggests that there is any-
story less prominent or even omitted in tex- thing inherently false in traditional stories or
tual versions. The underlying aim of this book myths; nor does he imply that there is any bet-
is to enable the student to appreciate ancient ter basis for understanding history. The Athe-
myth in the light of ancient literature and fine nian historian Thucydides (fifth century b.c.e.)
art, rather than presenting myth as a fossilized does claim that he has methods for bringing
set of stories abstracted from the multiple greater accuracy to the study of history yet
contexts of their telling. refers to Homer’s Iliad in measuring the scale
of past wars as a basis of comparison for the
Mythology and Literature in the Peloponnesian War. There was no clear divid-
Greek and Roman World ing line between history and myth; indeed, it is
At the most basic level, myths are simply stories. not clear that the ancients had a clearly defined
The Greek word mythos, from which our word category corresponding to our “myth.” Rather,

i Introduction
there were inherited stories, above all the sto- philosophically informed myths in the name of
ries of the poets, and these stories were some- an antitraditionalist form of knowledge.
times questionable and sometimes contained The uses of myth inevitably change across
an element of truth. different periods and contexts, but charac-
It was never the case that the ancients terizing the nature of such change is not a
simply believed their myths with dogmatic straightforward undertaking. It is potentially
insistence. The divinely inspired Hesiod knew misleading, for example, to suppose that classi-
that the Muses mixed truth with falsehood. Yet cal authors’ attitude toward and use of mythol-
the classical writers frequently refer to myths ogy became more sophisticated over time.
as a source of knowledge of the past, and they There never was a phase of natural, unself-
almost never categorically equate myth with conscious mythmaking, despite the romantic
falsehood. Ovid’s Metamorphoses (ca. 8 c.e.), tendency to posit one. Homeric epic itself rep-
arguably the most sophisticated treatment of resents an immensely sophisticated narrative
myth surviving from the ancient world, traces undertaking based on the skilled manipulation
a series of transformations from the dawn of of mythological traditions.
creation down to the apotheosis of Julius Cae- Yet while mythographical self-conscious-
sar. Mythical figures such as Heracles, Midas, ness, narrative sophistication, and awareness of
and Orpheus, Roman founder-figures such multiple, diverging mythic traditions appear to
as Aeneas and Romulus, and the emerging have been present in the earliest extant poetry,
mythology of the Roman imperial family all later centuries did contribute at least one cru-
form part of a continuous narrative fabric. In cial factor to the dissemination and reworking
Ovid’s poem, the new myths of imperial power of myth: the institution of the library. The
are not obviously or fundamentally different most famous library of the ancient world was
from the age-old stories of gods and heroes. the great library at Alexandria, Egypt, built and
Philosophers mounted the most radical developed under the Ptolemies in the third
opposition to the authority of the traditional and second centuries b.c.e. The Ptolemies
stories. In classical Greece, the poets, and above patronized eminent writer/scholars, some of
all Homer, were still considered the prime whom served as head librarians and worked
sources of knowledge. Homer offered not only on creating canonical texts of Greek literature
precious insight into the past but also knowl- (see Voyage of the Argonauts and Callimachus).
edge of the gods, religion, warfare, and proper This immense focus on literature forms part
conduct in all areas of life. It is therefore not of a complex awareness of Greek culture in the
surprising that Plato, as he strove to define a wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great
new kind of knowledge called philosophy, chal- and subsequent division of the conquered
lenged the authority of poetry and the poets’ territories among Greek ruling elites. Some
stories. Even so, Plato does not forgo mythic scholars have employed the term “diaspora” to
modes of exposition altogether. Some of the describe this sustained engagement with Greek
more famous passages in Plato, such as the culture in locations geographically removed
story of Er in the Republic, assume a mythic for- from the original Greek city-states. The proj-
mat. Plato is not so much banishing myth from ect of sustaining Greekness amid non-Greek
the realm of rational discourse as inventing a native populations thus becomes inextricably
new style of philosophical mythmaking. The related to the poet/scholar’s erudition and the
Roman poet Lucretius (first century b.c.e.), production of canonical texts, which in turn
a follower of the Greek philosopher Epicu- furnish material for further erudite poetic cre-
rus, continues the philosophical tradition of ations enriched with a dense fabric of literary
reworking inherited myths and fashioning new allusions.
Introduction ii
Mythology in this period thus became an Achilles on the island of Scyros while disguised
object of study and literary display, as well as as a girl, or the identity of Hecuba’s mother. Yet
a key repository of Greekness. Mythography as the example of Tiberius also illustrates, too
emerges as an area of study in its own right: much Greekness could be seen in Rome as a bad
Scholars, gifted with a vast library, are able to thing, despite the fact that Romans assimilated
sift and compare different versions of myths Greek culture throughout their history in vora-
and record them in texts of their own. One cious and sometimes brilliant fashion. A further
key arena of mythographical knowledge is the layer of complexity arises in the question of
writing of scholia, or commentaries on classic Roman myths and gods. The Romans had their
works, which require, among other forms of own gods, rites, and, to a certain extent, their
attention, mythological elucidation. The post- own traditional stories. The Roman gods are
classical period also saw the rise of new rational- popularly viewed as simply the “equivalent” of
izing interpretations of mythology such as the Greek gods. Yet Roman gods such as Jupiter
work of Euhemerus (fourth century b.c.e.), who and Juno enjoyed their own independent exis-
saw the stories of the gods as being originally tence and cult as Italic deities. Over time, they
developed out of the deeds of great men. It were aligned with the Greek gods and merged
was not modern scholars, then, who first devel- on the mythological plane. This book does not
oped methodologies for the interpretation of offer separate entries on Zeus and Jupiter, since
myth but the ancients themselves. Rationalizing in mythology they are best viewed together,
approaches, however, did not constitute a rejec- yet it is important to remember the process of
tion of myth per se, so much as a new mode of syncretization, not simply the outcome of their
engagement with the inherited stories. (apparent) common origin.
The increasingly cosmopolitan liter- Whether or not there can be said to be
ary exploitation and perpetuation of myths a distinctly Roman mythology is a matter
deriving from the Greek city-states continued of contention. There is little evidence for a
throughout the Roman period, above all in the narrative fabric of myths comparable to and
period of the Second Sophistic. Lucian (second autonomous of Greek mythology. The Roman
century c.e.) drew on mythic figures and situ- myths that do exist—or, as they are often
ations with erudite humor in his dialogues and called, legends—concern quasi-historical fig-
satirical sketches. Athenaeus (second/third cen- ures, beginning with Romulus and including
tury c.e.), in his Deipnosophistae (Philosophers at the great figures that people Livy’s history,
dinner), describes a series of banquets at which such as Camillus and Coriolanus. Yet this series
learned topics were discussed, including litera- of legends concerning the deeds of great men
ture and mythology. Lucian was from Samosata is clearly not quite the same thing as Greek
in Syria, while Athenaeus hailed from Nau- mythology, with its stress on the supernatural
cratis in Egypt. Greek culture by this period and the interactions of men, gods, heroes,
was a thoroughly cosmopolitan and diasporic and monsters. Ultimately, the Romans come
phenomenon. Throughout the Roman period, to integrate their own legendary history with
mythology formed part of the body of knowl- the myths of the Greek city-states. Bridging
edge that conferred the status of an educated figures, such as Aeneas, Heracles, Diomedes,
person in the broader Mediterranean world. Hippolytus, Evander, and Orestes, who, in
One of the locations where Greek mythol- some myths, travel from the Greek or Trojan
ogy flourished was, of course, Rome. The world to Italy, and in some cases found cities,
emperor Tiberius, while in retreat on the island are particularly salient examples of such inte-
of Rhodes, enjoyed discussing abstruse mytho- gration. The resultant fusion is called “classical
logical questions, such as the name assumed by mythology” by modern textbooks.
iii Introduction
Greek culture was the prestige culture for of course, that Roman interests were not being
the Romans, and in assimilating it, the Romans served. Catullus’s mythological poetry con-
were deliberately adding cultural prestige to fronts questions of social disintegration and
their already established military and politi- compromised virility in late republican Rome,
cal supremacy. Greek culture was present at while Virgil’s Aeneid traces the hero Aeneas
Rome from the beginning not least because to Italy and, through this legendary narrative,
there were significant Greek communities in ponders the immense contemporary task of
Italy, especially southern Italy. Rome’s first repairing a damaged society.
writers, such as Ennius, came from a bi- or Aeneas was a figure of special significance
even trilingual background and were fluent in in the Augustan period, since Julius Caesar
Greek language and culture. The incorporation traced his ancestry back to Aeneas via the
of Greek culture in Roman society began in hero’s son Ascanius/Iulus, and thus ultimately
earnest, however, in the late third and second to the goddess Venus. Greek mythology, as
centuries b.c.e., when Rome was reaching the Ovid elegantly demonstrates in the closing
definitive stage of military supremacy with books of his Metamorphoses, is adapted to serve
the defeat of its major rival, Carthage. The Rome’s conversion of men into gods during
first known works of Roman literature adapt the emergence of imperial government. Other
the major Greek genres: tragedy, comedy, and social uses of mythology were less tied to the
epic. Yet even in this early period, adaptation prestige of a single family. Greek mythol-
of Greek literature served distinctively Roman ogy formed part of the idiom of educated
ends, such as the commemoration of military speech (as demonstrated magnificently by
victory and the deeds of eminent men. Trimalchio’s bungling of mythology in Petro-
The processes of Hellenization accelerate nius’s Satyricon) and supplied rhetoricians and
in the first century b.c.e., as Rome continues schoolboys with stock examples (exempla)
to absorb the cultural riches of the cities it with which to adorn their arguments. Such
conquered, and as the stakes of intra-elite developments might seem to provide sup-
competition intensify in the dangerous politi- port for the old view that the Romans were
cal environment of the late republic. The artificial and political, whereas the Greeks dis-
generation of poets that flourished around the played a richly imaginative, almost childlike
middle of the first century b.c.e. marks a major genius. The notion of the originality of the
watershed: Catullus and his contemporaries Greeks versus the artificial imitations of the
espouse the erudite poetics of the Alexandrians, Romans still persists despite being an evident
explicitly following in the path of Callimachus relic of romantic thought. The Romans were
and Apollonius. This pattern equally defines deliberate, calculating, consciously imitative,
the early works of Virgil and becomes the and at times politically pragmatic in their
dominant paradigm among the Augustan poets. adaptation of Greek mythology and literature,
Mythology is key in these developments: one but this does not mean that they lacked genius
need only cite Virgil’s Aeneid, Ovid’s Metamor- and originality in their adaptation; nor is it
phoses, Horace’s odes, and the love elegies of true that the Greeks were free of deliberation,
Propertius. The Augustans, like Catullus, work self-consciousness, artifice, and social and
on the Alexandrian model: They treat mythol- political motives in creating, adapting, and
ogy with a sophisticated erudition fueled by an disseminating their own myths. The Greeks
emerging book trade and Rome’s first public deserve full credit for creating their myths, yet
libraries. The intensified Greekness of Roman it is undeniable that some of the best versions
poetry of the first century b.c.e. does not mean, of Greek mythology are Roman.
Introduction ix
Studying Mythology Today ingly, there is no single, fundamental meaning;
In studying classical mythology, we need to rather, the story’s meaning changes depending
consider not only the Greeks and Romans who on the interests and emphases of its teller. A
made the myths but also our own role as read- major tendency of the modern discipline of
ers and interpreters. How do we determine the mythology is to extract an independent set of
meaning of a given myth? This question is as myths from the literary texts and visual images
old as the myths themselves: As we have already that narrate them. On this conception, an
mentioned, the ancients derived various mean- original, true story, or ur-story, underlies the
ings from their myths and applied different numerous (imperfect, biased, partial) tellings.
schemes of interpretation. The last two cen- The search for an ur-narrative is irresistible,
turies, however, have seen an unusually fertile not least because it suggests the promise of a
range of approaches to the interpretation of fundamental set of stories that a society tells
mythology. The main ones are enumerated in to itself as a collectivity. Myths are sometimes
university-level courses and textbooks: ritual- described as the shared dreams of a culture that
ist, structuralist, psychoanalytic, sociological. reveal a society’s underlying desires, anxieties,
In each instance, the interpreter attempts to and contradictions. Mythology, in this reading,
understand the deeper meaning of the myth for furnishes a key for unlocking the secrets of the
those who tell it. In the sociological approach, collective unconscious. Sigmund Freud’s use of
for example, mythology is read as a “charter” the Oedipus myth is a remarkable instance of
for a society’s beliefs, a blueprint of social atti- such an ambition. Yet this type of reading can-
tudes and codes. While all these approaches not do justice to the diversity and richness of
have served to stimulate inquiry into classi- the ancient literary texts and the mutability of
cal mythology and have enabled important the myths themselves.
insights, they are all equally hampered by a
About This Book
questionable premise. Modern methodologies
of mythological interpretation have in com- If one accepts, as we do, the Ovidian view of
mon the notion that there is an underlying myth as a body of stories in constant flux, it
narrative that encodes a deeper meaning—a is necessary to abandon the hope for a stable,
distillation of that society’s psychic impulses, transparent set of communal stories that pro-
social beliefs, systems of meaning, or ritual duce a unified meaning. Abandoning such
practices. In short, modern interpretations of hope, however, is far from dispiriting. One is
mythology tend to assume the existence of a left with the rich diversity of texts and images
stable set of stories that affirm social concepts. that re-create the myths in their constantly
Modern approaches for the most part—there shifting forms. We have accordingly designed
are some exceptions—posit a stable entity des- our reference book so as best to do justice to
ignated as the myth, which exists independently the diversity of mythic narrative in literary and
of its individual manifestations and whose fun- visual media. Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and
damental meaning can be elicited through the textbooks on mythology are, in fact, especially
correct mode of interpretation. prone to editing out the diversity of classical
Myths, however, undergo constant meta- myth and thereby effacing the importance of
morphosis from telling to telling, as Ovid’s the different tellings. There is an understand-
great poem demonstrates. There is no such able tendency in any reference work to cre-
thing as the myth, since each author or visual ate the impression of factual consistency—in
artist tells the story in a different way and this instance, the impression that the classical
emphasizes different aspects of it. Accord- myths are stable narratives easily susceptible