(September 9, 2019 at 9:41 pm)Belaqua Wrote: Maybe it would make sense to give an example of an ancient text on non-literal interpretation of myths. This is pretty clear evidence that ancient people were comfortable with non-literal readings.
This is from the Phaedrus, in Wakefield's translation. The title character asks Socrates about a mythical event that was supposed to have happened locally. Then he asks if Socrates believes the myth. Socrates points out that the "experts" don't read it literally -- they give it a euhemerist reading. But then says he doesn't even care whether it's true or not; he reads myths as a way to know more about himself. This was written in about 370 BC.
Quote:Phaedrus: Tell me, Socrates, isn’t this or hereabouts the
place from where Boreas is said to have abducted Oreithuia
from the Ilissus?
Socrates: Yes, that’s how the story goes, anyway.
Phaedrus: Well, wasn’t it from here? At any rate, the water
has a pleasant, clean, clear appearance––just right for girls to
play beside.
Socrates: No, this isn’t the place. It’s about two or three
stades* downstream, where one crosses to go towards Agra.*
There’s an altar of Boreas somewhere there.
Phaedrus: I’ve not really noticed it. But tell me, Socrates, by
Zeus:* do you think this story is true?
Socrates: It wouldn’t be odd for me to doubt it as the
experts do. I might give a clever explanation of it, and say
that a gust of wind from the north pushed her from the
nearby rocks while she was playing with Pharmaceia, and
although this caused her death she was said to have been
abducted by Boreas––either from here or from the Areopad
gus,* since there’s another version of the story, that she was
abducted from there, not here. Basically, Phaedrus, although
I find these kinds of interpretations fascinating, they are the
work of someone who is too clever for his own good. He has
to work hard and is rather unfortunate, if only because he
next has to correct the way Centaurs look, and then the
Chimaera, and then there pours down on him a horde of
similar creatures, like the Gorgon and Pegasus and counte
less other extraordinary beasts with all kinds of monstrous
natures.*† If anyone has doubts about these creatures and
wants to use a rough-and-ready kind of ingenuity to force
each of them to conform with probability, he’ll need a lot of
spare time. As for me, I never have time to spend on these
things, and there’s a good reason for this, my friend: I am
still incapable of obeying the Delphic inscription and knowing
myself.* It strikes me as absurd to look into matters that
have nothing to do with me as long as I’m still ignorant in
this respect, so I ignore all these matters and go along with
the traditional views about them. As I said just now, I
investigate myself rather than these things, to see whether I
am in fact a creature of more complexity and savagery
than Typhon, or something tamer and more simple, with a
naturally divine and non-Typhonic nature. But anyway, my
friend, if I may interrupt our conversation, isn’t this the tree
you were taking us to?
Phaedrus: Yes, this is the one.
Socrates: By Hera, what a lovely secluded spot!
The much later "experts" doubted that the accounts literally happened. This doesn't mean the myths weren't originally meant to be taken literally.
