Derivative. Uncreative. “Copied.” In the past, scholars were quick to dismiss Roman mythical production in favor of the kaleidoscope of Greek myth. In their eyes, Greeks were artists; Romans were lawyers and politicians, whose gifts to the world lay in constitutions, not legends. Since Greek myth was clearly superior to Roman cultural production, Romans adopted these foreign tales as their own. More recently, scholars have questioned those assertions, and suggested that Rome “creatively adapted” Greek myth from a variety of sources.
You may wonder whether there's a difference between “adaptation” and “adoption.” After all, isn't taking bits and pieces from several sources still derivative and unoriginal? The problem lies in equating these concepts. Many modern works are “derivative” or “adaptations,” including famous classics. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, which some of you might have read in school, is an adaptation of Plutarch's biography of the same man. Yet few people deny that Shakespeare was creative!
It might help to think of a few modern examples. The book and movie Bridget Jones’ Diary is a contemporary adaptation of the nineteenth-century novel Pride and Prejudice. Its author, Helen Fielding, has admitted that the basic characters and plot are based on Austen's novel – but there are still substantial differences in character and how the story is told (BBC 2013). In Austen's novel, for example, the plot unfolds from an omniscient third-person perspective (that is, the narrator is the novelist herself, who offers commentary on her creation from a distant and all-knowing perspective). But Bridget Jones tells her own story in Fielding's novel, using a series of diary entries to describe her search for Mr. Right. Another difference can be found in relationships of secondary characters to the protagonist. Austen's protagonist, Elizabeth Bennet, is a relatively elite woman whose closest confidante is her sister (although Elizabeth's neighbor Charlotte is also a close friend). Bridget, in contrast, has no siblings; she shares her travails with her friends. Bridget also works for a living, and has a much wider social circle in London than Elizabeth in her small town. Although it is possible to list other differences between the two novels, this selection should give a sense of how it is possible to change a narrative creatively. Similarly, when Italian authors retell a mythic plot that is known from an earlier Greek source, they creatively adapt it to fit their own cultural context. We saw examples of such adaptation in chapter 2. Aeneas begins as a Homeric hero, but in Roman hands he establishes important religious and cultural norms. Aeneas began the custom of sacrificing with a veiled head (2.4.5, 6.3.5), and almost every author mentions that he carried the Laresor Penates, domestic gods that were worshipped in every Roman household.
Not all adaptations are based on the full original plot. The popular movie Frozen was originally based on The Snow Queen, a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen. The Andersen original has a long and involved plot, unlike the relatively simple story of the Disney movie. It is a love story between two neighbors (a boy and a girl) that unfolds over several years. The boy is kidnapped by the Snow Queen, and the girl goes on a quest to find him. There is a strong religious component to the story, and it is ultimately a quest narrative. While the Snow Queen is important, she is not the main character. In contrast, the movie Frozen centers on the “snow queen”: Elsa, the girl whose magical powers act as a curse because she can't control them. She runs away from home to avoid harming her family or kingdom. There is still a quest narrative, as Elsa's younger sister Anna tries to lure her back to the kingdom. But it is a story about familial bonds, rather than romantic love, and religion is absent from the plot. The movie's creators chose to focus on a small subsection of the Andersen tale (the idea of a “snow queen” and a quest to return a beloved childhood companion) and elaborated it into a full-length plot. We can see a similar type of adaptation in the many Italian versions of nostoi (2.2–2.5, 6.1–6.3).
Perhaps the best example of adapting source material to a new culture is found on the small screen. The TV series “The Office” started in the UK, but has been produced in the US and several countries around the world (including France, Germany, and Canada). Although the basic plot of the series is the same – it's a sitcom about working in an office – there are differences in plot and characterization designed to match the office culture of the country in which it is produced. The industry changes (in the UK, a paper company; in Germany, insurance brokers). The cast of characters changes (in Germany and Canada, there are no accountants; the US version features more employee turnover than other iterations of the series). Through these different versions, viewers can see a basic concept being adapted to different cultural norms (similar to “the labors of Hercules”: 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 6.2). This process of adaptation makes each version of the TV show its own entity – in fact, the UK version flopped in France, while the French adaptation was a hit (Schillinger 2006). Similarly, Roman myths might have points of contact with Greek myths, but they are altered enough to make them worth study in their own right.
You may have noticed as you read the chapters in this book that “myth” wasn't its own genre in antiquity. Greeks and Romans used myths as a framework for understanding the world around them. The city and the world at large could be mapped out through mythic heroes; common customs had their roots in mythic adventures; even individual behaviors could be traced back to mythic ancestors. Understanding Rome's myths is a way to better understanding Roman literature, history, and culture. You now have the tools to do that.