Final Draft - Preview Matter - Florida State University

metaphor that could be used by man to explain himself. The collective unconscious may lead
man to seek out powers greater than himself and to create gods, but I do not wholly agree with
the creation of universal archetypes since the meaning of symbols varies from place to place or
changes over time in the same location.
Rice appropriates Jung’s theory of archetypes and goes on to state that “The archetypes
are, at one level, the source of the multitude of gods and goddesses which humans have invented,
either to provide comfort or to effect control.” 78 Archetypes are useful but can be somewhat
problematic when followed too strictly. Similarity in symbols and ideas can be noted without the
creation of as complex a system as universal and inherited archetypes, and one is also forced to
determine how far the recognition of basic human concerns takes us for the study of
mythology. 79 A second point to consider when dealing with archetypes and animal symbolism is
that an animal might be used to symbolize a deity or demon, but surely not every ancient culture
will see all of the same qualities in the particular animal. These vary according to what is
important to each society and the way that the animal interacts with the environment. When
discussing the Minotaur, Rice attempts to refute Jung’s interpretation of the Minotaur as the
attempt of the Greeks to overcome man’s animal nature. 80 Instead, Rice sees the Minotaur as the
embodiment of Jung’s “Shadow” 81 and an expression of man’s animal nature, an issue that still
plagues modern scholars. One can see man coming to grips with his animal side in works such
as Midgley’s Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature. 82 We can only approximate the
meaning that the Greeks, Etruscans, or Romans would have attached to a particular symbol,
though, and we must be careful not to superimpose a modern viewpoint over the views of the
ancients.
In the pursuit of making sense of animal symbolism, Lévi-Strauss’s structural approach
to myth also must be dealt with for it has influenced scholars such as W. Burkert and G.S. Kirk.
Kirk sums up Lévi-Strauss’ position nicely.
78 Rice 1998, 34.
79 Kirk 1974, 78.
80 Rice 1998, 262.
81 Segal (1998, 79) presents a collection of Jung’s work dealing with mythology in which the Shadow archetype is
defined by Jung as the “dangerous aspect of the unrecognized dark half of the personality.”
82 There are also a great many cultures in which the differentiation between man and beast is not as clearly defined
as one might assume. Cultures that possess shamanistic beliefs in which animals are thought of as having their own
form of consciousness and perceptions are less likely to draw a firm line between man and animal. De Castro (1998,
469-88) demonstrates this concept of “perspectivism.”
20