Where Myth and History Meet - The King Must Die

Being a big fan of mythology and the ancient world in general it was only a matter of time before I ran into the name Mary Renault. She is famous for her historical fiction based around the life and times of Alexander the Great. I was at the library looking for some ancient Greek flavored stories and ran into her work. I ended up choosing "The King Must Die" which promised an interesting take on the tale of Theseus and the Minotaur.

Now, normally when someone drains the magic from mythology I end up disliking the results. The recent take on "The Illiad" in Wolfgang Peterson's "Troy" annoyed me to no end. But what Renault did in "The King Must Die" was much more interesting and reasoned out. She placed the story far back in the ancient timetable, around 1500 BCE. During this time the Minoan civilization ruled much of Aegean Sea. Renault places the story so that the Minoans demand sacrifice, not for a horrible monster, but for their deadly ceremony of bull leaping. This holy event requires the skills of nimble young women and man to dance around and over a charging bull. Those that are killed are done for the glory of the Earth Mother and Poseidon. This makes a certain amount of sense, and work with the myth of the Minotaur. The king, Minos also appears, but in this case Minos is a title, like Pharaoh. And all the kings of Crete are called Minos. Minotaur, or Minos' Bull is more of a nickname for the crown prince of Crete in this story, but his appearance at the end in the ceremonial bull mask makes him appear like the mythological monster we all know and love.

Aside from those historical elements, Renault works in all kinds of other ideas. Especially important is the power of Goddess worship in the ancient world. The Mother Goddess and her worshipers are in direct conflict with those who worship the Sky God. The melding that we are familiar with in Classical mythology hasn't occurred yet. The main difference between the two religions is the fact that Mother Goddess demands a yearly sacrifice of the King. If the King is not sacrificed than the harvest will fail and all manner of bad luck will occur. Those who worship the Sky God do not sacrifice their kings, but still commit blood offerings (usually animals) to the gods. Kings are held in much higher esteem. This conflict features heavily in the story, driving events in obvious and subtle ways.

The theme of the book is sacrifice. No matter what happens to characters in the story, some sacrifice must be made. If it is not, there are consequences, some of the deadly. Theseus sees his life as a King in terms of both a steward of his people (like Sky God) and a necessary sacrifice if needed (like the Mother Goddess demands). He is a fusion of these beliefs and it serves him well in his journey. However who and what he must sacrifice often dictate his choices.

Renault not only juggles these themes and ideas, but also keeps the story entertaining. As familiar as I was with the myth of Theseus, I was fascinated by the way she fused Minoan and Mycenean culture into the story. She also brings life to the mythological hero, giving him a personality that we can relate to and that works within the story. It's a great read, with plenty of conflict as well as thought provoking themes.

Have you ever read "The King Must Die"? What did you think of it? What do you think of approaching a mythological story but stripping it of the fantastic elements?

His Stories - The Histories

I'm a fan of history, even when I was a kid. The more ancient the history the better. I am fascinated with the early civilizations that thrived on our world when the ideas of civilization was new. In particular, I've always been interested in the ancient Greek civilization from it's early Minoan empire and up to the crumbling of Alexander's realm. I stumbled upon Herodotus, a man who is often credited with being the father of history in the western world. Of course there are plenty of people who also call Herodotus the father of lies - so it really depends on who you talk to.

Herodotus decided to tell the story of the Greek world and it's surrounding neighbors (mostly Persia and Egypt) from the birth of these civilizations and up to the final epic battle of the Greeks against the Persians (for those of you who are not history nerds, this includes the battles captured in the film "300") I didn't know what to expect, since Herodotus lived around 490-420 BC or so, and this book was obviously a translation, what would it be like?

It was nothing I ever expected in a history book. It was part travelogue, part history, part folk tale collection, part myth, part political analysis, part patriotic war story. Herodotus weaves all these things together, constantly adding new elements. It starts out as a analysis of why Europe (represented by the Greeks) and Asia (represented by the Persians) are destined to battle, and why it's essentially pointless. This theme seems to carry over in surprising ways throughout the history. Even when he takes a side chapter to explore Egyptian history and folklore, the theme of destiny and war appears time and again.

The basic impression I got was that Herodotus was not obsessed with facts. He wanted to tell a good story, with a theme and base it around true events, people and places. He gets away with this because much of his facts are really stories told to him by another person. He often starts a section with "The Egyptians say that..." and then will follow it up with "But the Greeks think that..." and end with "I lean toward the Egyptian tale, because it makes the most sense." So you get the outlandish stories of gold digging ants with the more mundane stories of vast gold mines in the rocky wastes of northern Asia.

In a way Herodotus was really the father of Historical Fiction. But in his day, a history was more story than fact - and it was acceptable. Each historian would put their own stamp on the history and even the perspective would change things. When Herodotus was writing the Greeks were fighting among themselves in the beginnings of what we would consider a civil war. In "The Histories" Herodotus stresses that the union of the bickering city-states is what helped the Greeks repel the Persians on two separate occasions. Later the Roman writer, Plutarch would write some less than flattering things about Herodotus and contradict much of what the earlier author said.

But things don't change. Perspective still frames history books: as they say, the winners write them. So it's difficult to say what is really true in history - it's all a story after all. However I think more histories should include amazing stories of gold digging ants and dog headed people - it would make things much more interesting.

Do you think History is defined by perspective? Do you think that Herodotus' style of history writing is too bias and crazy to be taken seriously? Do you have a favorite history or author who captures the feel of a time period well? Does all this talk about history make you feel dusty and sleepy?