Trish's Reviews > Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes

Hm. I declared August "History Month" and read, amongst various others, Bulfinch's Mythology of which I was quite disappointed. In my research of his work and how it came to be I found a reference to this book by Edith Hamilton, who superseded Mr. Bulfinch in most classrooms. Thus I read this book in an attempt to find a better written encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I did not succeed.
To clarify: this book IS better written than the one by Mr. Bulfinch. One reason is that Edith Hamilton was a scholar.

She was born in Dresden in 1867 but grew up in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, where she also got her BA and MA degrees for which she won the Mary E. Garrett European Fellowship. Her father had begun teaching her Latin, then French, German, and Greek when she was only 7 years old which probably was a factor in her interests later and her great scholarly success. In 1895 she moved back to Germany with her sister to study humanities and classics at the university of Munich (the then centre of classical studies). Edith Hamilton and her sister were among the first women to audit classes (her sister published an autobiography detailing their life in Germany even). Originally, her plan had been to earn a doctoral degree (definitely not easy at the time) but then she was persuaded to return to the US to become head of the recently opened Bryn Mawr Preparatory School for Girls in Baltimore. She never completed her doctoral degree but she did become an "inspiring and respected head of the school for twenty six years" (bringing new ideas to an old system).
Only after retiring did she start to write books, which explains why this book was published only when she was 62!

As she has said herself in some interviews, her passion was for the Greeks which definitely shows in this book and is my main criticism. This book is advertised as a source on mythology in general, but it isn't. The main body of work is about the Greeks, added to by Roman mythology (which mostly is adapted Greek mythology if we're being honest). Almost as an afterthought, she included only 20 pages of Norse mythology. Nothing else is mentioned!

The Greek parts are written very well and the author's passion for the subject is clear throughout. Moreover, she has a very clear structure (missing a few myths nevertheless *sigh*). All her knowledge came from classic literature; she has never been to Greece, and never participated in archaeology. Of course that isn't necessary in order to produce a good book but it shows that her views (although she was a scholar) were influenced and limited by the sources she read.

While I was pleased to see that Hamilton had included the Volsunga saga in the chapter about Norse mythology (in many books it is replaced by the Nibelungenlied which was penned much later), she dismissed the saga by saying that the story is so well-known thanks to the Nibelungenlied that the original can be told briefly and THAT is an absolute no-go for me.

It's almost as bad as Bulfinch telling the readers which myths are Christian enough to be included and which had to be shortened/changed for his "genteel" readers. It is precisely the original stories I want to be told about or at least I want a thorough comparison!

Moreover, the one thing I expect at the very least from an encyclopedia of mythology is a good overview. Such an overview MUST include immensely important classics like the Gilgamesh epos! However, this book does not. Other cultures aren't even referenced. If she had titled her book correctly, I really wouldn't mind. It's a nice book about the very much related mythology of the Greeks and the Romans. However, I really need to point this out again: this is supposed to be a comprehensive work of mythology as a whole!

Sorry, but this was just as disappointing as Mr. Bulfinch's cuts and changes to myths which accounts for the low rating (if there was a half-star rating system here, it would get more than Bulfinch's Mythology but as it is ... alas). It is a shame since the writing style was much more engaging but it wouldn't be right to rate it any higher.