On saving mythic criticism—A Reply to Rowland

This essay critically examines the definition of myth put forth by Rowland in this issue, and considers implications of his approach for critical method. It is argued that Rowland's reformulation of myth is a narrow and conservative one that imposes its own mythic worldview of functional empiricism on the conceptualization of myth, and encourages a sterile form of criticism that reduces the interpreter to a passive recorder of events.