The Myths of the Glauci

The myths of three famous Glauci whose story patterns mirror one another in some remarkable details have long suggested a common origin as the likely solution to their points of coincidence. However, the elements common to each of these myths are not functional equivalents and, perhaps more importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that the three Glauci were conflated in antiquity. Modern attempts to reconcile the thematic similarities as confabulations of a single Urmythos are conjectural and depend upon misinterpretations of the ancient evidence. On the other hand, typological analysis of the myths of each of the Glauci – (1) of Anthedon, (2) of Potniae, and (3) the son of Minos – conclusively demonstrates the independent conception and purpose of each of the myths, contrary to the arguments advanced in studies such as Persson (1942) and Deforge (1983). To the extent that such similarities as the magic plant, death/initiation, and acquisition of prophetic powers are operationally significant within the myths and point toward the possibility of diachronic divergence, one must nevertheless prove that they are attributes which are exclusive to the pattern of the Glaucus myths and that their independent functions within our extant versions of these myths is due to confusion that arose at specific points in time over the course of their transmission. Yet the story elements in question are ubiquitous in the myths of Greece and the Near East. To date, the best effort at demonstrating confusion within the ancient tradition (Deichgräber 1974) depends entirely upon the author’s own incorrect reconstruction of fr. 36.b.9 Radt = 449 Mette: in this instance, the author argues that Aeschylus, in his Glaucus Potniaeus, transferred onto Glaucus of Potniae a peculiar attribute of Glaucus of Anthedon, namely the latter’s transformation into a merman. But by exposing the misinterpretation of the Aeschylean fragments, there remains no further ground for proposing that the myths were merely confused in the course of their reception. We must therefore consider the independent ways in which the ancient sources have interpreted the myths and the broader significance of their constituent themes and motifs within the context of Greek culture.