Mythology

Sorry man, epos*;)

>There isn't that much primary source mythology.

There's rather a lot. Homer, Hesiod (esp. Theogony), the Homeric Hymns, Pindar, the tragedians (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides), Apollonius, some poems of Theocritus and the Theocritean corpus, Callimachus; just to enumerate some Greek sources of mythology: Roman literature is also a major source of Greek myth. And of course the brief references to myths in writers who are not primarily mythological, like Plato and the historians, and the comedians, and lyric poets. And ancient astronomy and astrology are closely related, so such sources do a lot with myth. See, for example, Robin Hard's Oxford collection in Eratosthenes and Hyginus: Constellation Myths, with Aratus’s ‘Phaenomena’.

Apollodorus is very useful because while he follows Homer and other canonical authors for the stories they tell, he covers myths not reflected in extant primary sources, and also refers to alternative versions, and sometimes tells us who used them. If one is going to read one handbook, I'd choose his, in a good, modern, preferably annotated, edition like JG Frazer (Loeb, 2 volumes; available online), Robin Hard (Oxford), or R Scott Smith and Stephen M Trzaskoma (Hackett).

>The myths were source material for the Greeks, just like "the Greeks" are source material for us. That's why you're supposed to read the myths first.

How do you propose anyone "read the myths"?

If you read Hamilton, or pretty much any modern manual of mythology (HJ Rose, Robert Graves, Morford and Lenardon, etc.), you are getting summaries or compilations based on the extant Greek mythological texts. Some also incorporate the artistic evidence (Timothy Gantz, Early Greek Myth, and TH Carpenter, Art and Myth in Ancient Greece are excellent on this). Even the ancient handbooks like Apollodorus are themselves based on earlier literature - they have independent value mainly because they use and cite versions of myths not otherwise attested.

You might still get something from the more sophisticated secondary works on mythology, because they will mention more obscure sources, and alternative versions for you to compare to those you've read. But well annotated versions of the main primary texts will also tell you something of this.

Yeah that's what I basically figured. I studied all the texts I mentioned in OP at university, so I figure I got enough good analysis in writing essays and going to lectures and talking with friends to render the chapters in Hamilton's book unnecessary. Thanks for the helpful comment.

>reads the classics in uni
>asks lit if he should read Hamilton

How did you pass?

I've been considering reading The Illiad, Odyssey, and Aeneid. Are they really worth it? Did you feel like you truly gained something from it, or is it more just for the accomplishment of reading it for you?

Hamilton is a classic of sorts; however, if you're interested in the mythology itself, with your background, you'd do better to continue reading the primary sources, or get references that will point you to the sources you haven't read for stories you're interested in. Gantz will do that (on steroids), as will a good Apollodorus, or a properly referenced dictionary of classical mythology (I have used Edward Tripp's Collins one, for example). Graves has references, but is not always reliable.

Another important but non-obvious Greek source of references to myth that I forgot to mention is Pausanias, a Greek author of the later Roman period, who wrote a travel book covering much of the Greek world, and mentioning the artworks and monuments on display, as well as associated myth and tradition. Apart from the Loeb, Peter Levi's useful translation in Penguin was out of print for a time, but seems to be back. It's in two volumes, one for Central and one for Southern Greece.

OP might not have read those works in a classics programme.

I enjoyed them in a few ways really. A well done translation can stand on its own, getting insight into the respective cultures is always fascinating, and they are such a universal touchstone for so much of Western literature that you're enjoyment of other works will increase if you have a reasonable working knowledge of the Homeric epics.

That is more or less the perspective I had, when I first started considering them as well. It sounds worth it then. Thank you.

It's not worth your time, don't read it

Apollodorus' The Library of Greek Mythology is fantastic and has wonderful explanatory notes. Would recommend.

Just read them. They are not that long or difficult and they are enjoyable.

Yes; I'd say they're worth it both on their own merits, and because of their influence on numerous writers (and other artists) over such a long time.

You can of course get the basic plots from summaries and handbooks; however - even in translation - reading the originals will give you a depth and breadth (mythological, cultural, and literary), scale, and (in good versions) style that you won't otherwise experience. It's also an extension of the average reader's experience, because very long narrative poetry is not something that moderns have often done with much success, or at all (and where they have, the classical models of course tend to be important).

Did you like Edith Hamilton ? i'm read soon

No, there's no point to it. It's just a summary of the stuff you've already read, save for ovid and heisod but still you could just read them in the original. Hamilton contributes absolutely nothing besides compiling.

Reading Homer is like getting a mind-meld with a culture from approx 750BC. If that idea appeals to you then that is reason enough.

The English translations are not very dense, with the exception of the version in Elizabethan verse.

Get it anyway, it has cool illustrations and also a bit on Rome and Norse myth.

Wow yeah as soon as I started reading your post I realized how wrong I was about the lack of primary source mythological content. IMO it's kind of a subtle and seemingly forgettable topic because it's really just the germ of ideas which were more thoroughly explored later (Homer, Plato, Greek drama). For example I remember almost nothing specific about Hesiod's Theogony, but that's not to say it's not worth reading.

You mentioned Pausanias in a later post; have you read him? I've never heard him mentioned on Veeky Forums, and since I haven't read him yet, I'm not sure what to expect. I plan to get that 2 volume Penguin edition you mentioned once I wrap up a few more Roman historians.