The Modern Construction of Myth

The Modern Construction of Myth. By Andrew Von Hendy. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. Pp. xvii + 386, acknowledgments, introduction, notes, bibliography, index. $39.95 cloth) This is a large, sophisticated study of currents in theory of myth from the eighteenth century onward, bringing together works from a number of disciplines and reminding the reader how broad-spread academic interest in myth is (spanning literature, social sciences, classics, philosophy, and semiotics, among others). Although Von Hendy's work is a gangling thing, it will reward those who persist-especially, perhaps, scholars who are versed in some strands of myth theory but not others. Because the syntheses offered are so abstract, it will likely be less useful as an introduction to myth theory. The body of the work deals with four concepts of myth (each actually a tangle of strands held together by a dominant impetus); in briefest terms these are the romantic (myth as a realm of timeless, transcendental values), the ideological (myth as a widespread lie), the constitutive (myth as a necessary but fictive foundational belief), and the folkloristic (myth as a genre dealing with collective concerns in small-scale, oral societies). The four foci work effectively for laying a base as well as for exploring connections with recent figures who are difficult to classify (e.g., Roland Barthes, Leszek Kolakowski, Hans Blumenberg). At his best moments Von Hendy is full of subtle, synthetic insights about inheritances and intersections among myth theorists, although some long stretches are mainly summaries of books by mythologists (e.g., the treatment of Erich Neumann). Considering its level of abstraction, the work remains generally intelligible. Exceptions occur in the treatment of the romantics and neo-romantics such as Cassirer. Von Hendy's writing seems to shift, chameleon-like, to emulate the particular thinker he is discussing at a given moment. While this is an interesting and at times helpful trait, in the context of the (shall we say) luminescent vagueness of the romantics and neo-romantics it gives rise to moments of second-order luminescent vagueness. Von Hendy's is an "intellectual history" which rarely steps outside the world of ideas to directly consider issues of social and political context-this despite the fact that Von Hendy seems to relish the sociopolitical contextualizing brought to the study of myth by the folkloristic mythologists. While some will regard the lack of contextualizing as a major flaw, it might also be seen as self-imposed limitation-one whose motivation in this case I applaud. Specifically, Von Hendy is responding to what he sees as a lack of historical self-knowledge among myth theorists. …