Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Theories of Mythology Laurel Bowman (bio) Eric Csapo. Theories of Mythology Blackwell. xiv, 338. US $32.95 In preparation for teaching an upper-year undergraduate class on myth and theory this year, I read several recent introductions to theories of myth. Eric Csapo's Theories of Mythology was streets ahead of the rest. It is lively, literate, erudite, and well versed in the theories it treats. It particularly excels in placing the theories in their historical, cultural, and intellectual context, which allows Csapo to trace not only the chronological development of theories of myth, but the cultural and intellectual forces impelling and directing that development. Csapo demonstrates throughout the ability not only to describe but to apply theory in flexible and innovative ways. His last chapter, 'Ideology,' demonstrates the fusion of mythical, cultural, and literary theory in the late twentieth century, arising from their common basis in (and reaction to) structuralist thought. Csapo apologizes, in the preface, for being unable to read Vladimir Propp in the original Russian; every other theorist he has read in the original languages. I forgive him Propp, and frankly stand in awe. Certainly reading the theorists in the original languages is essential, to avoid the biases introduced by translation; and equally certainly, not all those writing on theory have done it. Csapo's solid grounding in the original texts, both theoretical and mythical, makes his writing at once authoritative and engaged. Nothing here is second-hand. Csapo begins with a discussion of the definition of 'myth,' in which he demonstrates that our definitions of the term 'myth,' which are the basis for any theoretical interpretation, are themselves inextricably linked to the theoretical assumptions they condition. His chapter on comparative approaches revitalizes the elsewhere often monotonous discussion of the principal theories of myth arising from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, by showing their relationship to each other and to the intellectual currents of the time. He gives priority to the discovery of the Indo-European language group, and to the development of comparative anthropology and the necessity of producing a model for cultural [End Page 365] development that acknowledged without apparent prejudice the differences between cultures, while continuing to give the culture of the British Victorian male intelligentsia first priority. His discussion of Freud is a close and careful reading of Freud's use of myth and its association with his techniques of interpretation of dreams. The discussion of ritualist approaches begins very usefully with Émile Durkheim on religion, and only then moves to Jane Harrison and Walter Burkert. The final chapters on structuralism and ideology are a tour de force, useful reading for any student of literary theory. Throughout the book, Csapo is careful to draw out the hidden assumptions of each school of thought, and the consequent shortcomings of each approach. Csapo does not discuss Jungian interpretation with myth, or the enormously popular 'Hero's Journey' model, loosely based on Jung, which was developed by Joseph Campbell. Campbell's work is not properly speaking a method of mythical interpretation and would have been out of place in Csapo's book, but I would have liked to hear what Csapo had to say about Jung. Csapo also does not discuss feminist readings of myth, except to mention them very briefly as a subcategory of Marxism. I would have liked to see a lengthier treatment of that approach. But the most thorough book can't cover everything, and what Csapo has done is lucid, illuminating, refreshing, and extremely informative. I recommend it to anyone looking for an intellectually engaging overview of theories of interpretation of myth. Laurel Bowman Laurel Bowman, Department of Greek and Roman Studies, University of Victoria Copyright © 2007 University of Toronto Press Incorporated
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,039 | 0,013 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».