David's Reviews > Mythology

This is the second in a series of six reviews focusing on books about Greek mythology. The books included in this comparative evaluation are:

Bulfinch's Mythology (Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2004)
Mythology by Edith Hamilton (originally published in 1942; Back Bay Books edition of 1998)
The Greek Myths by Robert Graves (Penguin Books combined edition, 1992)
Gods and Heroes of Ancient Greece by Gustav Schwab (Pantheon Books, copyright 1946)
Don't Know Much About Mythology by Kenneth C. Davis (Harper Collins, 2005)
Myths of the Ancient Greeks by Richard P. Martin (New American Library, 2003)

Goodreads is not really set up to handle comparative reviews smoothly, so the discussion is split across the six book reviews. Thus, I've tried to evaluate each book on its own particular merits, and also give some idea of how it stacks up relative to the others. I based the comparative evaluation on three main general criteria - readability, accuracy, and scope (breadth and depth of coverage); I also looked at how each book handled two particular examples -- the life of Hercules and the story of Philomela and Procne. More details about the comparison can be found in the introduction to the first review:

Bulfinch evaluation

One of the problems in this whole undertaking is that some of the books on the list are acknowledged to be "classics", which makes it harder to review them objectively. You end up second-guessing yourself - maybe the classic status is causing you to be unduly deferential. Or maybe you're overcompensating by being too mean.

One thing became clear to me as I read these books. Although the myths remain unchanged, the way that we think about them has evolved considerably over the last 150 years. This is one reason why the bowdlerized myths presented to us by Bulfinch, in which each story is rendered moribund by being stripped of all reference to sex, violence, or any hint of unpleasantness, are so unsatisfactory to a 21st century reader.

Fortunately, Edith Hamilton is no prude. Her enthusiasm for the stories in "Mythology" is evident throughout the book. At times, she comes across as a woman on a mission - her conviction about the importance of these myths in Western culture is so passionate that she is determined to spread the message to a broader audience. She is scrupulous about identifying her source materials (on this point Bulfinch is, sadly, more dilettante than scholar). She knows how to structure a narrative. Her prose is clear and reasonably accessible - slightly dated, but largely unburdened by archaic language or academic jargon. "Mythology" even comes with a bunch of nifty illustrations, done by someone with the improbable name of Steele Savage (with a great fondness for winged horses, apparently). Though her first book wasn't published until she was in her sixties, her work achieved great popular success. Book-of-the-Month Club selection in 1957, honorary citizenship of Athens, a highly laudatory obit in the New York Times when she finally died at age 95 - what's not to love?

To sum up the points in its favor: Hamilton does well on the three basic criteria (accessibility, credibility, extent of coverage) the writing is clear, she is commendably rigorous about sourcing, and there are no glaring gaps in the extent of coverage. Both of my "test myths" were covered well; the story of Procne and Philomela particularly so. The family trees for the major Gods and important families of mortals are a really useful feature.

I wish that I liked "Mythology" better. But I have no great love for this book. That 3rd star was given only because I felt obliged to acknowledge her superiority to Bulfinch. But, for me, the book has an inescapable "Reader's Digest" feel to it. Yeah, the writing is clear. It's adequate, but never more than that - it never takes off, even in those obvious places where you think it must. I know this is an unfair comparison, but earlier in the month I had been reading Oscar Wilde's stories for children, as well as some of Kipling's poetry, and I kept waiting for Hamilton to dazzle me, even just a little bit. But she never did. And those nifty illustrations? Cheesy beyond belief. It's not just the over-representation of winged steeds, there's also way too much use of the threatening dark thundercloud effect, and the human figures are invariably depicted as shrieking heavenward as they shake their evidently double-jointed limbs in panic.

Finally, it should be noted that Hamilton's retelling of the Greek myths is based solely on her study of the classical literature - she had never been to Greece, and had no archaeological experience. Examination of myth from an anthropological or psychological perspective is also absent. There is about a page of rambling prose in the introduction in which the words "myth", "religion" and "Nature" appear together prominently, but no coherent thesis is advanced.

Sometimes Hamilton is opinionated to a fault:

"Intelligence did not figure largely in anything he did and was often conspicuously absent." (about Hercules)
"The terrifying irrational has no place in classical mythology. Magic ... is almost nonexistent. Ghosts never appear on earth in any Greek story."

I don't really mind if she disses Hercules, but her gratuitous dissing of my boy Ovid really didn't win her any points.

All in all, reading "Mythology" was not as much fun as I had expected. I'm not sure that it deserves to be considered a true classic.