1. Myth as a "traditional tale": in what sense "traditional"?

• not a tale handed down verbatim from generation to generation
• very few of the details of a given mythic story seem to be "traditional" in this sense, and it is often difficult to define what is basic to a tale (e.g. Oedipus: even his wife-mother's name is not stable in the "tradition")
• what seems to be traditional are not then the details of the stories but the mythic world itself, that established universe of known gods and heroes with more or less established identities and relationships and modes of interaction
• important to make a sharp, clear distinction between any particular poetic telling of a tale and the mythic universe that lies behind all of these stories
• many people have, with reason, seen a link between this mythic universe and the world of dreams, in particular, or fantasy, in general
• within this mythic universe, the presence of divinity is not essential (though very frequent), but a sense of that other world, a world of old and beyond our contemporary experience, is essential: it is essential that myth be localized in a time either when there were only gods, or in a time when there were many heroes, and when gods did commonly interact with men: the mythic world is a world before our present-day world, different from the present world in the casual interaction and direct interference of divinity (recall that heroes, too, were worshipped for their [divine] power)
• perhaps essential then, I would argue, is a link between the mythic world and the "spiritual" ideas in the culture (whether by spiritual one means what is divine or what is moral); the fact that in the Greek tradition the Greek poet "makes" the myth under inspiration of the goddess, the Muse, like a seer speaking under the inspiration of the god Apollo, seems to support this idea: myth, in the Greek tradition, is closely allied with the strange riddling wisdom, difficult-for-mortals-to-comprehend that comes from the gods and those close to the gods

2. Some essentials of Myth: mythic world, multiplicity, multivalence

• When we look at myth itself, it is perhaps a mistake to focus too closely on the elements of myth (such as whether the presence of gods and heroes is essential): for what seems more essential is the way myth functions.
• Mythic world: First, myth assumes this other "traditional" mythic world-- that surely is essential. What is distinctive about the Greek myths is the unusually well-developed sense of system in this mythic world: the idea of the goddess, of the hero, etc.
• Multiplicity: Secondly, though, in the telling of the mythic tale one expects variation: variation is not, that is, a happenstance of disagreement among experts, but is, I think, fundamental : it is a function of the mythic enterprise that differentiates itself from the enterprise of writing history, or science
• Multivalence: Thirdly, the myth itself, whether one considers the single telling of a single mythmaker, or the multiple variants of the various mythmakers, by nautre has a variety of possible meaning, many interpretations. This is not due to the failure of the "scientific scholar" to apprehend the real truth about myth: rather it is the very nature of the beast: myths are supposed to have a variety of meanings, meanings that interlock with the person internalizing the myth, specific therefore to the person, to the culture, to the time: it is fundamental that there are many truths operative in the same myth

3. Myth as the "thing spoken"-- Myth and Semiotics: Myth as a language system, and the construction of complex meaning

• In many respects, myth is like any other fantasy story, whether folktale or modern novel: a story that involves you in that side of your humanness. Note that novels have multivalence; folktales have both multivalence and multiplicity.
• But there is something different too about myth, something that seems localized in the "mythic world" itself, but for which these other elements (multiplicity & multivalence) remain fundamental.
• In looking at the essentials of myth, and particularly when looking at the elements of the mythic universe (Artemis; or "motifs"; or "archetypes") one is struck by the similarities to language: for language too has elements (words, syntax) which a societal group infuses with specific meaning by convention, but whose constitution has a strong tendency towards constant development and variation (multiplicity) and ambiguity (multivalence)
• what is different, of course, is that the elements of myth (Artemis, Odysseus, "motifs", "archetypes") are exceedingly complex
• Perhaps a useful analogy is the critical importance of technical terminology in all disciplines (from Classics to Computers) in facilitating -- or even allowing! -- communication of truly sophisticated thoughts on the subject. Mastery of the technical vocabulary allows discussion of highly complex matters in real time
• Similarly, I think, mythology allows us to explore highly complex fantasies in a structured, systematic fashion. The rich complexity of the mythic system allows us to exlore with this mode of story telling a ready made set of complex associations -- premade, and --importantly! -- readily comprehensible to the rest of the community
• Like a technical language, socially constructed and reconfirming: this is part of what we do as a speech community that shares this common language
• Like technical language, there can be a great variety of subject matter, from origin of the universe to the construction of gender roles in the society to religious rituals and divine powers
• Unlike language proper, the elements are very complex, indeed symbolic: thus mythic complex can be constructed using iconography: the conjunction of, say, Athena and Oedipus can be a complex statement of meaning aside from any specific verbal story or plot
• Thus allegorical interpretations really ARE reductionist: for they reduce the complexity of the mythic elements to tell a simple story
• Note: not a teleological development from mythopoetic to logical thinking: the interest in myth construction and interpretation is NOT a characteristic of primitive man, but a char. of mankind. Use of stories is an essential part of human thought: even historians and scientists tell "stories" to put together meaningful constructions from data. And mythic stories, in particular, do seem also basic to mankind: our dream world is an important part of us as people.
• Such a view of myth, finally, allows us to answer, at least in part, our initial question: why do we care about these old stories of the ancient Greeks? Perhaps then: because (1) we share as humans an interest in being able to use complex story elements as a mode of highly sophisticated expression: only traditional story elements can be shared, thus they remain of interest to us even after the development of the modern novel and film; (2) the Greek myths happen to be unusual, in that they are a highly systematized and developed set of complex story elements within a well-defined mythic world, and one that has a continuous tradition, through continental Europe and Britain, into our own culture.
• Greek myth: a fully developed mythic system with an unusually rich set of associations. This richness of the Greek mythic world sparks our continuing interest in figures like Artemis and Dionysus and Odysseus and, yes, the house of Oedipus. We use this complex set of figures as a way of talking and "thinking" about spiritual matters (all societal constructs) such as divine power, moral codes of behavior, etc., to talk, that is, about the side of life which is not logical, not historical, not scientific, but important and importantly human for all that.