The question of whether the Greeks believed their myths has been much discussed and, with certain notable exceptions, must be answered in the affirmative. Even in situations where the Greeks were skeptical, it seems that they were more likely to throw out an offending detail and keep the kernel of the story than to throw out the entire story. Given the level of credulity the Greeks afforded their myths, it is often more interesting and more fruitful to ask in what contexts and to what ends the Greeks used their myths and how they dealt with the apparent contradictions found among the various stories that we now refer to collectively as Greek myth.

Lee Patterson explores one particular context for myth-telling—inter-state diplomacy—in his Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece. Within this context Patterson focuses on "the construction and articulation of identity by means of a putative ancestor, to whom a community might turn for an account of its origins, its relationship with other communities, and its place in the panhellenic world (or some region within it)" (11-12). From one perspective, given the extent to which some of these myths were seemingly manipulated, it is remarkable that those who utilized these myths were successful in their diplomatic endeavors at all. From another perspective, however, the ability of myth to maintain its authority despite retelling and modification is one of the defining features of myth. These diplomats, then, are not just users of myth but are authentic myth-tellers, telling inherently authoritative traditional tales in ways that suit their particular ends.

Patterson’s first two chapters lay the foundation for what becomes an examination of particular case studies in kinship diplomacy in the later chapters. Perhaps most important for Patterson's purposes is his discussion of the level of belief afforded these stories. For the Greeks, heroic myth was, in essence, early history. Because of this, their fundamental veracity was seldom questioned. Elements of the stories could be questioned, revised, or eliminated, but the whole story would not be discarded. The myth of the Return of the Heracleidae and the treatment of the remains of Theseus and Orestes demonstrate how particular myths could be treated as historical and also be manipulated by different groups for the construction of identity and political gain.

Over the course of the next three chapters, Patterson examines a number of examples of kinship diplomacy found in ancient literature, some more familiar than others. The first two chapters are organized around the goals of kinship diplomacy, either to construct alliances and secure aid or to justify conquest and territorial possession. In the last of these three chapters, Patterson examines how Alexander utilized kinship myth, at first pragmatically with newly conquered cities and later to further magnify his claims to divinity. Although the bulk of the discussion in these chapters focuses on the details of the kinship relationships and whether such claims were ever actually made, the upshot of these chapters is a clear demonstration of the way kinship myth could be used in the real world—whether to explain a historical event, to influence the demos within the political realm, or to construct a particular identity in relation to another group. And these uses, Patterson points out, would not have seemed peculiar to the audience. Perhaps nowhere is this more clear than in the discussion of Jonathan Maccabeus's claim of kinship to the Spartans through Abraham in I Maccabees. As Patterson points out, Jonathan subverts the pervasive Greek tendency to create a shared identity through a Greek hero by linking the Jews with the Spartans through Abraham and not a Greek hero. The striking use of the patriarch allows Jonathan to emphasize the distinctiveness of the Jewish people. If claims of a shared mythical ancestor were not common in diplomatic contexts, Jonathan's claim would have had little rhetorical effect.

In chapters 6 and 7 Patterson faces a completely different challenge from that faced in the previous three chapters. In these chapters, Patterson moves from literary examples to instances of kinship diplomacy found in the epigraphic record. While it may be argued that the literary examples of kinship diplomacy never actually took place (as Patterson argues Xerxes never appealed to Argos based on their shared ancestry with Perseus, 46-53), we can assume that the attempts at kinship diplomacy recorded in inscriptions did occur. The challenge Patterson faces with these inscriptions is that the mythological basis for kinship is seldom explained within the inscription. In only a few inscriptions, such as SEG XXXVIII.1476, which Patterson discusses in chapter 6, we are left to try to reconstruct the mythological ties that bound the two parties in the kinship alliance. Unlike the panhellenic myths that were the focus of the earlier chapters, however, these myths represent local myths; therefore, these kinship myths did not necessarily require extensive narrative within the inscription for the parties to understand how they were connected. The particular variant, or variants, of the myth would have been familiar to the two parties. What is more, the chances that a particular variant of a myth is recorded in extant literature become more slight as we deal with smaller and less influential communities. For the historian, classicist, or folklorist trying to understand the bases of these alliances, however, the silence about the variants relied upon is deafening. Patterson spends the bulk of chapters 6 and 7 demonstrating how we might go about unraveling the possible variants at work in these diplomatic missions. As chapter 7 demonstrates, Pausanias, as one who recorded many of these variant traditions, is a great help in reconstructing these claims to kinship, but even the use of Pausanias does not guarantee that we have discovered the one version of the myth which the parties to the kinship diplomacy relied upon. Nevertheless, the arguments Patterson puts forth for his particular reconstructions are well-researched and compelling.

Even if we may never be certain about the version of the kinship myth a particular instance of diplomacy relied upon, Patterson’s work in this book is no idle project. Patterson’s careful consideration of how kinship diplomacy worked and of the possible variants of myths that two groups relied upon will be of great use to ancient historians, classicists, and folklorists alike. Folklorists in particular will benefit from Patterson’s examination of the way one particular tradition was used, manipulated, and in some instances invented. The book as a whole is well organized and coherent, but particular chapters and sections could also be read on their own. And because Patterson’s writing is clear, his argumentation is cogent, and he does not shy away from summarizing an argument or laying out the direction his argument will take, particular sections could easily be integrated into undergraduate courses with success.

--------

[Review length: 1118 words • Review posted on November 7, 2017]