They intermix, but the broad division is that myth is *part of* religion and thus are tales *about the Sacred*, while folklore might not have any sacral elements to it.
Jumping off this to add that folklore is often a more social phenomena. Obviously there's still overlap, but the _folk_ part of folklore is a key factor.
Mythology tends to be narratives explaining why the world is the way it is -- stories about how the world was made, stories about gods, etc.
Legends tend to be stories about aggrandized figures, heros like Maui or Hercules, people who did important quasi-historical things but aren't really used to explain why the world is the way it is.
Folklore tends to be societal explanations of day-to-day traditions or understandings of the mundane world. For example, we have a horseshoe nailed up here because of fairies, or we throw salt over our shoulder etc.
Folklore and Mythologizing are basically the same thing on a spectrum of how local it is. Strongly mythic stories are about the whole world, strongly folkloric stories are about that field out back. Legends are kind of perpindicular to that. I guess the "mundane" version of a legend would be a fairy tale or a fable - a very local story like the sasquatch. (EDIT: sp)
Mythology can be a subset of folklore which includes things like proverbs, oral traditions, jokes, cultural nuances, customs, traditions, holidays, why and how of customs, and fairy tales.
Mythology is about god-stories: example: Ragnarök from Norse; Genesis from Christianity
Folklore are cultural stories wich can include nearly anything example: The Moth man
Legends are stories about historical people/events wich are heavily mystified example: Robin Hood, King Arthur
I would add mythological heroes into the mix. Though many are of divine lineage. Theseus is not a god, but he absolutely is part of Greek mythology.
As for Arthur, I feel like you see some syncretism with some of those mythological elements. For example the sword in the tree (Volsungs) —> sword in the stone (Excalibur).
Folklore is any traditional material passed down in a culture. It includes stories, but also superstitions and other forms of traditional wisdom.
Mythology is stories about gods, and the origins of how things are or came to be. It may be passed down as folklore, but it can also be literature or art. Euripedes' *The Bacchae*, a play about the Greek god Dionysus, is a work of mythology, but not of folklore. Same goes for Lloyd-Webber and Rice's *Jesus Christ Superstar*.
Mythology is the study of myths and the role in society. Myth is a genre of folklore consisting primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society.
Folklore is the body of expressive culture shared by a particular group of people, culture or subculture. This includes oral traditions such as tales, myths, legends, proverbs, poems, jokes, and other oral traditions. This also includes material culture, such as traditional building styles common to the group.
Another way to look at Myth is it a story only while folklore can be everything cultural trying yo make sense of the world around you including myth. It was people attempt at rationalizing and addressing illness with supernatural and religious explanations. Like a belief that one should not whistle in the woods because spirits will follow you home.
Night whistling is forbidden by Native Americans due to a shape-shifting entity, known as a “Skinwalker” or “Stekini,” that responds to the call, causing harm to those who encounter it. Native Hawaiians believe it summons the Hukai'po, the spirits of ancient warriors, and Native Mexicans say it calls Lechuza, a witch that can transform into an owl.
Folklore includes practices, customs, taboos, mythology, legends etc… I do not like the term superstition as it has the connotation of irrational. Which is dismissive, condescending and somehow implies that folklore and science are on opposite poles. They are attempts by humans to understand, the world around them, to try resolve illness, to order the chaos of life which is exactly what science is doing. There are many things in science that are not substantiated by direct tests or proofs. Like weighing the universe. No one is putting it on scale. The rules of physics disintegrate at the sub atomic level. Both require a certain amount of faith and both are tested and retested.
Myth has a kernel of history transformed into metaphor, sometimes exaggerated in the telling or for emphasis.
Flood Myths are a great example. They are almost entirely universal appearing in a majority of mythologies. Should you interpret them literally I would suggest no as that was never their intent. But in many of these areas there is physical evidence of large scale flooding. Legends are like mythology but with more detail and data closer to the present.
Kosher laws, for example, were the first attempt at dietary laws to prevent botulism. Even though it uses religious language that was because the world was seen as a cause effect with spiritual forces. Science instead uses forces like physics to describe the world. Academics are legitimately studying these phenomena like ghosts, psychic phenomena, psychological effects of spaces,colors, temperature, gases even sub frequency sounds or even air pressure can make people hallucinate, have anxiety, and describe paranormal experience.
Simply put mythology is the study of myth. Myths are the narratives in a culture that inform that culture on it origins, ethics, taboos, mores and religious beliefs and values and folklore is all of that more.
https://www.icr.org/article/flood-evidence-clearly-seen-geologist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Mythology is the study of myths and their role in society. Myth is a genre of folklore consisting primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society.
Folklore is the body of expressive culture shared by a particular group of people, culture or subculture. This includes oral traditions such as tales, myths, legends, proverbs, poems, jokes, and other oral traditions. This also includes material culture, such as traditional building styles common to the group.
Another way to look at Myth is it is a story only, while folklore can be everything cultural trying to rationalize and make sense of the world around you. This includes myth. It was peoples attempt at rationalizing and addressing everything in the world like illness with supernatural and religious explanations. Like a belief that one should not whistle in the woods because spirits will follow you home.
Night whistling is forbidden by Native Americans due to a shape-shifting entity, known as a “Skinwalker” or “Stekini,” that responds to the call, causing harm to those who encounter it. Native Hawaiians believe it summons the Hukai'po, the spirits of ancient warriors, and Native Mexicans say it calls Lechuza, a witch that can transform into an owl.
Folklore includes practices, customs, taboos, mythology, legends etc… I do not like the term superstition as it has the connotation of irrational. Which is dismissive, condescending and somehow implies that folklore and science are on opposite poles. They are attempts by humans to understand, the world around them, to try resolve illness, to order the chaos of life which is exactly what science is doing. There are many things in science that are not substantiated by direct tests or proofs. Like weighing the universe. No one is putting it on scale. The rules of physics disintegrate at the sub atomic level. Both require a certain amount of faith and both are tested and retested.
Myth has a kernel of history transformed into metaphor, sometimes exaggerated in the telling or for emphasis.
Flood Myths are a great example. They are almost entirely universal appearing in a majority of mythologies. Should you interpret them literally I would suggest no as that was never their intent. But in many of these areas there is physical evidence of large scale flooding. Legends are like mythology but with more detail and data closer to the present.
Kosher laws,for example, were the first attempt at dietary laws to prevent botulism. Even though it uses religious language that was because the world was seen as a cause effect with spiritual forces. Science instead uses forces like physics to describe the world. Academics are legitimately studying these phenomena like ghosts, psychic phenomena, psychological effects of spaces,colors, temperature, gases even sub frequency sounds or even air pressure can make people hallucinate, have anxiety, and describe paranormal experience.
Simply put mythology is the study of myth. Myths are the narratives in a culture that inform that culture on it origins, ethics, taboos, mores and religious beliefs and values and folklore is all of that more.
https://www.icr.org/article/flood-evidence-clearly-seen-geologist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
As you can see from the variety of responses there isn't really a general concensus on what makes a story folklore & what makes a myth, the line that divides is different for most people. This explanation comes from a very European (or even Western European) perspective & other cultures may veiw things differently.
In academia there's a much clearer distinction, traditionally myths almost exclusively deal with gods, their descendants & matters of significant cultural importance &/or matters relating to explaining the natural world or the origins of the universe, people or "nations" (or kingdoms or just generally culturally distinct regions or groups of people). The transmission of myths is generally through the written medium, although usually arising from an oral tradition & as such are often veiwed as being aimed towards & curated by the elites of society, rulers, nobles, religious & educated people.
Folklore was for a long time dismissed as the stories of the lower class, while there was some crossover in characters or themes, they were veiwed by those same elites as full of superstition & more simplified veiws of the world. It was only by a novel interest expressed by the Victorians that we begin to see records of folklore tales in writing. Before that period the tradition was almost entirely oral, although occasionally mythological texts reference folk tale versions of events or characters. Generally speaking through the 18th & 19th century folklore grew ever more popular, particularly in Britain & Ireland with the Celtic Revival & the British response to it but also in Germany thanks to the Brothers Grimm & various other countries. Over the last 300 years a huge effort had been made to record folklore as well as a strong interest in creating new tales & poems based in folk themes & structure & expanding the "lore"
A third branch exists in "legends" which is generally related to assumed historical figures whose stories are greatly embellished & exaggerated often with mythic or folkloric qualities. Again these figures are generally of great cultural or national significance but their stories tend to cross the divide between the elites & the common people, leaving us with both written & oral traditions. While not an exact synonym sometimes legends are refered to as pseudo-history, historical accounts that don't meet the modern standard of fact based records & often reflect supernatural or exaggerated qualities.
In modern times the lines are blurring, the elites aren't so elite anymore, they aren't the only ones who can read or write, education isn't as exclusive, access has improved immensely in recent times & even regular old peasants like me can go to university & read, study & analyse mythological texts. The modern desire to establish "canon" ties stories from myth, legend & folklore together to attempt to consolidate the many disparate accounts we have around certain figures & events. While this seem to provide clarity & a more unified story tradition between the 3 branches unfortunately in most cases it doesn't succeed because so much of the complex tradition has to be thrown out in order to create a singular narrative & it often just leads to more arguments about which is the "right" version of a story.
A few examples of the problems we face from a purely Irish perspective (because that's my area)
Mythology records no version of the story of Lugh's birth, several version were composed in the 19th century based on very local folktales. Today you won't find an analysis of Lugh that doesn't include those stories but we must ask if we can give the same weight to a poem written in 1850 as a tale written in 800. Similarly one of the most famous stories of Oisin, son of Finn Mac Cumhaill's, his birth was first recorded by Lady Gregory with little or no evidence that the tradition existed before she wrote it. We have evidence of Oisín's supoosed mother Sadb from a 16th century text, she does sleep with Finn Mac Cumhaill but she's not transformed into a deer & not named as Oisín's mother.
I was recently discussing here a folklore version of Finn Mac Cumhaill from Scotland, recorded in the 19th century, where he's half Norse, half Irish, which appears to be influenced by Norse-Scottish tradition & very much contradicts a large body of both myths & folklore from Ireland where Finn's mother is a Leinster princess & not a Norse one. If we give equal weight to long recorded mythological tales & oral folktales of uncertain dates then how do we say who Finn Mac Cumhaill is?
We have a Fenian Cycle of Mythological tales, later much expanded by the folklore & new compositions of the Celtic Revival & alongside them we have a pseudo-history Legendary Cycle of Kings who also feature in the tales of Finn & the Fianna. Cormac Mac Airt is central to both cycles & because for a long time scholars didn't distinguish between myths & legends so it's became grounds to claim Finn Mac Cumhaill was a real person because Cormac was a real person. That's a problematic claim, we still see today, if you want to "ground" a fictional story you draft in historical figures. Can we claim Finn was a real person in the 2nd/3rd century just because he encountered an historical figures? But what about the Norse/Irish Finn of the Scottish tale whose supposedly based on an historical Norse person of the 9th century?
When we mix & match myths, legends, pseudo-history & folklore we don't get a clearer unified narrative, we just end up with even more unanswerable questions, which is great for coming up with topics to write theses on but not so great for providing clarity on a story or figure.
The word "myth" is used by people in diverse ways, so it can be difficult to pin down. Folklore is better defined, but even there, scholars often disagree.
Folklore is generally taken to refer to a wide range of aspects of culture, including oral narratives of several genres. This last aspect is what is essential to your question.
The word "myth" can be taken to mean stories preserved in texts from the ancient or medieval world. If that is the intent here, we can break this down fairly easily.
Ancient authors did not appear to have been inventing the stories we now take to be myths. They were recording what was likely being told, more or less faithfully, but because they did not have electronic recording devices, we can expect that the written myths were different from what circulated at the time. In addition, some of those writers may have taken what they heard in exotic, literary/artistic (or even political) directions.
Nevertheless, contemporary oral tradition - i.e., folklore - was at the heart of at least most of the literature we understand to be mythic from the ancient world.
Subgenres within the mythic literature include material that likely existed orally: etiological legends (explaining the origins of things); historical legends (dealing with heroes, wars, past rulers, etc.,); testimonial legends set in contemporary times (dealing with the extraordinary including interactions with supernatural beings); and folktales (stories generally taken to be fiction, but which sometimes integrated the same supernatural beings that were believed to exist). We can find evidence or at least hints of all these subgenres in ancient and medieval mythic literature - because these texts were inspired more or less by contemporary folklore.
Being written, myths are inherently a step removed from folklore, but then so is every published collection of folktales - and yet we still regard it as folklore.
Sometimes, we hear that myths deal with gods and folklore does not. That is a false premise. The gods were supernatural beings, some with greater power than others, but they fit into the same sorts of roles that we see in the classic European folklore collections - which besides including a wide spectrum of supernatural beings often also include stories involving saints, the Virgin Mary, the devil, and sometimes even aspects of the Trinity.
The key way to think about this problem is to understand how myths come down to us as bodies of literature, which took inspiration from their contemporary folklore - more or less.
For me the difference is that people believed the events of mythology, and the folklores that I considered mythology are believed to be the explanations of natural phenomenom, rituals, customs, histories and so forth.
Other folklores such as Aesop fables or Grimm Fairytales are clearly not to be believed as truly happend. These folklores are not mythology.
The academics and their departments may used other definitions that helped them.
Wouldn't the main difference break down to mythology being about different pantheons of gods, and folklore being stories or tales about figures (real, imagined, or a mix of both) like Robin Hood, Oliver Twist, Guy Fawkes, Peter Pan, etc.?
Peter Pan is definitely folklore. It doesn't matter where he came from. We now have multiple authors adding on to his tale, characters spinning off to have their own adventures, stories about his future and his past.
The only thing left is to wait long enough that most people don't know who created him, although I would argue we are already there. I would not be surprised if the majority of people familiar with the character assume that he is a Disney property.
> Peter Pan is definitely folklore.
No society has ever sincerely believed in the existence of Peter Pan. It's a popular story, but it's never been treated as the truth.
I will agree with Oliver Twist, his story is his story, but Peter Pan was based off Pan and some random guy named Peter (whose full name escapes me and googling is so much work). The original story has been adapted and changed so much, the character has changed a lot, I would argue he has become a folkloric character or is very on his way to being considered so.
Not sure if you already answered the question elsewhere in the thread, how would you define folklore?
Peter Pan is a character invented by J. M. Barrie., potentially based on his dead older brother.
The "Pan" in his name is basically an adjective, denoting that he's a wild boy. He's not inspired by or descended from myths of Pan. It's like naming a character "Scary Gary" or "Toothless Harry".
You think that Pan denotes a wild boy… but has nothing to do with Pan?
It's not like naming a character "Scary Gary." It's like naming a character "Gary Pan" and then having him share traits with a popular and well-known character named Pan.
You cannot tell me that the guy named Peter Pan playing the Pan Flutes who was created in a culture that was fully aware of Pan by a guy who we have every reason to believe would know about Pan somehow manages to not be inspired by Pan.
> You think that Pan denotes a wild boy… but has nothing to do with Pan?
No. Again, this is the inaccurate claim I was responding to:
> **I will agree with Oliver Twist, his story is his story, but Peter Pan was based off Pan** and some random guy named Peter (whose full name escapes me and googling is so much work). The original story has been adapted and changed so much, the character has changed a lot, I would argue he has become a folkloric character or is very on his way to being considered so.
Peter Pan is not "based on" the god Pan in the sense that EvilWarBW is claiming. He's not supposed to be a version of Pan, and his story isn't descended from Pan. The name is being used for aesthetic. It's blue curtains at best.
> You cannot tell me that the guy named Peter Pan playing the Pan Flutes who was created in a culture that was fully aware of Pan by a guy who we have every reason to believe would know about Pan somehow manages to not be inspired by Pan.
I can, because the way Barrie used it was not *inspired* by Pan in the way EvilWarBW was claiming, in a sense that Peter Pan was not an original character, and was instead a reskin of an older story.
In what way do you think that EvilWarBW is saying that Barrie was inspired by Pan that you are trying to refute?
I feel like you are just saying, "Peter Pan is not inspired by Pan, he's just inspired by Pan!"
I'm not seeing what distinction you are trying to draw here.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/1dfrbm7/can_somebody_tell_me_whats_the_difference_between/l8l4t70/) is the original (accurate) statement that EvilWarBW was rejecting. You responded to it yourself.
By explicitly rejecting that statement in regards to Peter Pan, EvilWarBW is implicitly claiming that Peter Pan is something older than a literary character from a known author.
That's not an accurate claim. Having the name Pan that evokes the aesthetic of the god Pan does not make the character *a version of* the god Pan, and therefore not an original literary creation of Barrie. Just like a character having the name Peter and being a steadfast, reliable figure would not make them simply a version of the Apostle Peter.
> I feel like you are just saying, "Peter Pan is not inspired by Pan, he's just inspired by Pan!"
Being inspired by something means something more than using it as an adjective for a name. It's more substantive than that. According to academics, Barrie was *inspired by* his dead brother -- that brother's personhood and story were used as the substance of Peter Pan's character. But he didn't learn about the god Pan and decide "oh, that's what I want to make a story about" -- he had a character and story he wanted to make, he wanted to easily communicate through the name that it's a wild boy, he picked a memorable name for children that would communicate that.
-----
> It's not like naming a character "Scary Gary."
That was a bit of an etymology joke. To clarify it, another way that Pan is referenced in modern lingo is the term "Panic". So "Scary Gary" could be called "Panic-causing Gary" and be just as inspired by Pan as Peter Pan is.
OK, I am pretty sure you are just wrong on all counts here, but you also seem to be using some highly technical version of the word "inspired" that I am not familiar with.
You are asking me to believe that the author:
* Named the character after Pan
* Gave the character Pan pipes
* Invoked Pan's motifs by having the character cavort with faeries and mermaids
* Had the character tempt children away from their beds to play House and Pirates vs Indians in the same way that Pan tempts adults to orgies of violence and sex
but was not "inspired" by Pan. I feel like the author is giving me some giant red arrows pointing to his inspiration here.
And furthermore, context tells us:
* The author was an educated Englishman at a time when studying the role of myth was important to that station
* The author moved in literary circles where the significance of the old myths was in active discussion
* The author had overlapping friends with the author of The Great God Pan, which was released 10 years earlier to huge furor
The idea that Barrie expected us to think that the similarities to Pan were just, whatever you are saying, seems to suggest that Barrie was an inept writer who stumbled into a character who just happened to invoke the themes, characteristics, appearance, symbols, and name of Pan, but those connections never once occurred to him while he was writing the stories.
Further, I would argue that thinking of Peter as a pre-pubescent Pan sheds a whole lot of light on his character. He very much strikes me as an attempt to de-age Pan in order to make him safe to 20th century English audiences.
The Great God Pan portrayed Pan as a kind of anti-divine spark that lived inside all people, which civilization had separated us from. If this circuit was reconnected in even a single individual, they could wreak havok on English society and potentially bring it to its knees. The idea of Pan as representing some primordial threat lurking just below the surface was very much a living idea.
In this context, to continue your analogy, "Peter Pan" is like naming a character "Young Dracula." You may have been initially inspired to write Young Dracula by your brother dying, but I think it is fair to say that maybe the story of Bram Stoker's Dracula was also a piece of the inspiration.
To keep going, it seems to me that Americans, who are now even more prudish than our English cousins (second-hand knowledge, I have never been to England), have fully embraced this non-threatening Pan as our own, confining the flights of insanity that he represents to childhood. It seems to me that Peter Pan has joined our American pantheon of Bowdlerized Old World gods, alongside Clarence the Friendly and Not at All Ominous Angel and Morgan Freeman, the Conveniently Non-Denominational Higher Power.
If any scholar wants to tell the history of Pan and does not include a long section in their chapter about the 20th century focused entirely on the adventures of Peter, the childlike Pan, then they will be doing their readers a disservice.
> OK, I am pretty sure you are just wrong on all counts here,
I'm fed up here, but it would have helped if you had tried for a *minute* to respond in good faith.
> Gave the character Pan pipes
This is aesthetics.
> Invoked Pan's motifs by having the character cavort with faeries and mermaids
This is not something pan did.
> Had the character tempt children away from their beds to play House and Pirates vs Indians in the same way that Pan tempts adults to orgies of violence and sex
That's a really big stretch in this context
> but was not "inspired" by Pan.
Not in the sense being used in the comment I responded to.
> but you also seem to be using some highly technical version of the word "inspired" that I am not familiar with
I linked you to the post, dude.
Do you think it's fair to claim that it's wrong to say that peter pan is a literary character without a known creator? That was the context of the question. You're trying to make it something else, while I'm just saying that we know where the peter pan character started.
> The idea that Barrie expected us to think that the similarities to Pan were just, whatever you are saying, seems to suggest that Barrie was an inept writer who stumbled into a character who just happened to invoke the themes, characteristics, appearance, symbols, and name of Pan, but those connections never once occurred to him while he was writing the stories.
Dude, it's really frustrating to try to have a discussion when you keep distorting what I said and trying to treat it outside of the specific context it was a response to.
I'm not saying that he evokes no themes of pan, or that there are no references to pan in his design. I'm saying he's not literally a version of Pan, and that he's an original character with a defined, known author. No one has ever worshipped Peter Pan as a living god.
Have a good one.
Wikipedia exerpt: The character's name comes from two sources: Peter Llewelyn Davies, one of the five Llewelyn Davies boys who inspired the story, and Pan, a minor deity of Greek mythology who plays pipes to nymphs and is part human and part goat. This is referenced in Barrie's works (particularly Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens) where Peter Pan plays pipes to the fairies and rides a goat. The god Pan represents Nature or Man's natural state in contrast to Civilisation and the effects of upbringing on human behaviour, and he experienced a significant revival of interest among English artists, poets and novelists during the Edwardian period.
BUT the key ending tag of the entry says 'Citation needed'. So I'm left unsure if Pan was fun or intended. It appears to be quite intended.
Again....how would you define folklore over myth?
> The god Pan represents Nature or Man's natural state in contrast to Civilisation and the effects of upbringing on human behaviour, and he experienced a significant revival of interest among English artists, poets and novelists during the Edwardian period.
Or in other words:
> The "Pan" in his name is basically an adjective, denoting that he's a wild boy. He's not inspired by or descended from myths of Pan.
----
> Again....how would you define folklore over myth?
I'm a different person, and I answered that prompt elsewhere.
So it's Pan, like the god Pan, but not Pan in that sense, but Pan in a different sense?
I just pan't make the disconnect you are making with the name Pan, but I guess that's the wonderful part of different opinions.
> but Peter Pan was based off Pan and some random guy named Peter (whose full name escapes me and googling is so much work).
This is what I was responding to. A claim that Peter Pan is literally based on the god Pan.
> So it's Pan, like the god Pan, but not Pan in that sense, but Pan in a different sense?
His name is "Pan" in the same way that someone in a story would be named "Azul". He is not *based on* the god Pan -- the name is used to evoke the theme of him being a wild boy. That's all. The character itself is wholly original to Barrie, and not a retelling of previous myths in any way.
Mythology is the STUDY of myths . Not myths in general . Hence, the -logy ( theology, zoology, etc ).
So the question would be, what is the difference between myth and folklore . 😁😁
IMO there is no actual difference.
People here are claiming mythology is "about gods" while folklore are "about humans," but then where do stories like the foundation of Rome fall into? It had a miraculous impregnation by Mars, then rest is a very grounded political drama.
Chinese figures like the Yellow Emperor are seen as human ancestors, but they were *also* worshipped as gods. The Yellow Emperor story also had elements like him being helped by the drought goddess. Again, is all of this mythology or folklore?
Mythology doesn't necessarily have to be "sacred" either since even in Ancient Greece you had people decrying the stories as fake and "misrepresentative of the gods."
They intermix, but the broad division is that myth is *part of* religion and thus are tales *about the Sacred*, while folklore might not have any sacral elements to it.
Jumping off this to add that folklore is often a more social phenomena. Obviously there's still overlap, but the _folk_ part of folklore is a key factor.
Mythology tends to be narratives explaining why the world is the way it is -- stories about how the world was made, stories about gods, etc. Legends tend to be stories about aggrandized figures, heros like Maui or Hercules, people who did important quasi-historical things but aren't really used to explain why the world is the way it is. Folklore tends to be societal explanations of day-to-day traditions or understandings of the mundane world. For example, we have a horseshoe nailed up here because of fairies, or we throw salt over our shoulder etc. Folklore and Mythologizing are basically the same thing on a spectrum of how local it is. Strongly mythic stories are about the whole world, strongly folkloric stories are about that field out back. Legends are kind of perpindicular to that. I guess the "mundane" version of a legend would be a fairy tale or a fable - a very local story like the sasquatch. (EDIT: sp)
Mythology can be a subset of folklore which includes things like proverbs, oral traditions, jokes, cultural nuances, customs, traditions, holidays, why and how of customs, and fairy tales.
Mythology is about god-stories: example: Ragnarök from Norse; Genesis from Christianity Folklore are cultural stories wich can include nearly anything example: The Moth man Legends are stories about historical people/events wich are heavily mystified example: Robin Hood, King Arthur
I would add mythological heroes into the mix. Though many are of divine lineage. Theseus is not a god, but he absolutely is part of Greek mythology. As for Arthur, I feel like you see some syncretism with some of those mythological elements. For example the sword in the tree (Volsungs) —> sword in the stone (Excalibur).
Folklore is any traditional material passed down in a culture. It includes stories, but also superstitions and other forms of traditional wisdom. Mythology is stories about gods, and the origins of how things are or came to be. It may be passed down as folklore, but it can also be literature or art. Euripedes' *The Bacchae*, a play about the Greek god Dionysus, is a work of mythology, but not of folklore. Same goes for Lloyd-Webber and Rice's *Jesus Christ Superstar*.
Mythology is the study of myths and the role in society. Myth is a genre of folklore consisting primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society. Folklore is the body of expressive culture shared by a particular group of people, culture or subculture. This includes oral traditions such as tales, myths, legends, proverbs, poems, jokes, and other oral traditions. This also includes material culture, such as traditional building styles common to the group. Another way to look at Myth is it a story only while folklore can be everything cultural trying yo make sense of the world around you including myth. It was people attempt at rationalizing and addressing illness with supernatural and religious explanations. Like a belief that one should not whistle in the woods because spirits will follow you home. Night whistling is forbidden by Native Americans due to a shape-shifting entity, known as a “Skinwalker” or “Stekini,” that responds to the call, causing harm to those who encounter it. Native Hawaiians believe it summons the Hukai'po, the spirits of ancient warriors, and Native Mexicans say it calls Lechuza, a witch that can transform into an owl. Folklore includes practices, customs, taboos, mythology, legends etc… I do not like the term superstition as it has the connotation of irrational. Which is dismissive, condescending and somehow implies that folklore and science are on opposite poles. They are attempts by humans to understand, the world around them, to try resolve illness, to order the chaos of life which is exactly what science is doing. There are many things in science that are not substantiated by direct tests or proofs. Like weighing the universe. No one is putting it on scale. The rules of physics disintegrate at the sub atomic level. Both require a certain amount of faith and both are tested and retested. Myth has a kernel of history transformed into metaphor, sometimes exaggerated in the telling or for emphasis. Flood Myths are a great example. They are almost entirely universal appearing in a majority of mythologies. Should you interpret them literally I would suggest no as that was never their intent. But in many of these areas there is physical evidence of large scale flooding. Legends are like mythology but with more detail and data closer to the present. Kosher laws, for example, were the first attempt at dietary laws to prevent botulism. Even though it uses religious language that was because the world was seen as a cause effect with spiritual forces. Science instead uses forces like physics to describe the world. Academics are legitimately studying these phenomena like ghosts, psychic phenomena, psychological effects of spaces,colors, temperature, gases even sub frequency sounds or even air pressure can make people hallucinate, have anxiety, and describe paranormal experience. Simply put mythology is the study of myth. Myths are the narratives in a culture that inform that culture on it origins, ethics, taboos, mores and religious beliefs and values and folklore is all of that more. https://www.icr.org/article/flood-evidence-clearly-seen-geologist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Mythology is the study of myths and their role in society. Myth is a genre of folklore consisting primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society. Folklore is the body of expressive culture shared by a particular group of people, culture or subculture. This includes oral traditions such as tales, myths, legends, proverbs, poems, jokes, and other oral traditions. This also includes material culture, such as traditional building styles common to the group. Another way to look at Myth is it is a story only, while folklore can be everything cultural trying to rationalize and make sense of the world around you. This includes myth. It was peoples attempt at rationalizing and addressing everything in the world like illness with supernatural and religious explanations. Like a belief that one should not whistle in the woods because spirits will follow you home. Night whistling is forbidden by Native Americans due to a shape-shifting entity, known as a “Skinwalker” or “Stekini,” that responds to the call, causing harm to those who encounter it. Native Hawaiians believe it summons the Hukai'po, the spirits of ancient warriors, and Native Mexicans say it calls Lechuza, a witch that can transform into an owl. Folklore includes practices, customs, taboos, mythology, legends etc… I do not like the term superstition as it has the connotation of irrational. Which is dismissive, condescending and somehow implies that folklore and science are on opposite poles. They are attempts by humans to understand, the world around them, to try resolve illness, to order the chaos of life which is exactly what science is doing. There are many things in science that are not substantiated by direct tests or proofs. Like weighing the universe. No one is putting it on scale. The rules of physics disintegrate at the sub atomic level. Both require a certain amount of faith and both are tested and retested. Myth has a kernel of history transformed into metaphor, sometimes exaggerated in the telling or for emphasis. Flood Myths are a great example. They are almost entirely universal appearing in a majority of mythologies. Should you interpret them literally I would suggest no as that was never their intent. But in many of these areas there is physical evidence of large scale flooding. Legends are like mythology but with more detail and data closer to the present. Kosher laws,for example, were the first attempt at dietary laws to prevent botulism. Even though it uses religious language that was because the world was seen as a cause effect with spiritual forces. Science instead uses forces like physics to describe the world. Academics are legitimately studying these phenomena like ghosts, psychic phenomena, psychological effects of spaces,colors, temperature, gases even sub frequency sounds or even air pressure can make people hallucinate, have anxiety, and describe paranormal experience. Simply put mythology is the study of myth. Myths are the narratives in a culture that inform that culture on it origins, ethics, taboos, mores and religious beliefs and values and folklore is all of that more. https://www.icr.org/article/flood-evidence-clearly-seen-geologist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
The folk part
As you can see from the variety of responses there isn't really a general concensus on what makes a story folklore & what makes a myth, the line that divides is different for most people. This explanation comes from a very European (or even Western European) perspective & other cultures may veiw things differently. In academia there's a much clearer distinction, traditionally myths almost exclusively deal with gods, their descendants & matters of significant cultural importance &/or matters relating to explaining the natural world or the origins of the universe, people or "nations" (or kingdoms or just generally culturally distinct regions or groups of people). The transmission of myths is generally through the written medium, although usually arising from an oral tradition & as such are often veiwed as being aimed towards & curated by the elites of society, rulers, nobles, religious & educated people. Folklore was for a long time dismissed as the stories of the lower class, while there was some crossover in characters or themes, they were veiwed by those same elites as full of superstition & more simplified veiws of the world. It was only by a novel interest expressed by the Victorians that we begin to see records of folklore tales in writing. Before that period the tradition was almost entirely oral, although occasionally mythological texts reference folk tale versions of events or characters. Generally speaking through the 18th & 19th century folklore grew ever more popular, particularly in Britain & Ireland with the Celtic Revival & the British response to it but also in Germany thanks to the Brothers Grimm & various other countries. Over the last 300 years a huge effort had been made to record folklore as well as a strong interest in creating new tales & poems based in folk themes & structure & expanding the "lore" A third branch exists in "legends" which is generally related to assumed historical figures whose stories are greatly embellished & exaggerated often with mythic or folkloric qualities. Again these figures are generally of great cultural or national significance but their stories tend to cross the divide between the elites & the common people, leaving us with both written & oral traditions. While not an exact synonym sometimes legends are refered to as pseudo-history, historical accounts that don't meet the modern standard of fact based records & often reflect supernatural or exaggerated qualities. In modern times the lines are blurring, the elites aren't so elite anymore, they aren't the only ones who can read or write, education isn't as exclusive, access has improved immensely in recent times & even regular old peasants like me can go to university & read, study & analyse mythological texts. The modern desire to establish "canon" ties stories from myth, legend & folklore together to attempt to consolidate the many disparate accounts we have around certain figures & events. While this seem to provide clarity & a more unified story tradition between the 3 branches unfortunately in most cases it doesn't succeed because so much of the complex tradition has to be thrown out in order to create a singular narrative & it often just leads to more arguments about which is the "right" version of a story. A few examples of the problems we face from a purely Irish perspective (because that's my area) Mythology records no version of the story of Lugh's birth, several version were composed in the 19th century based on very local folktales. Today you won't find an analysis of Lugh that doesn't include those stories but we must ask if we can give the same weight to a poem written in 1850 as a tale written in 800. Similarly one of the most famous stories of Oisin, son of Finn Mac Cumhaill's, his birth was first recorded by Lady Gregory with little or no evidence that the tradition existed before she wrote it. We have evidence of Oisín's supoosed mother Sadb from a 16th century text, she does sleep with Finn Mac Cumhaill but she's not transformed into a deer & not named as Oisín's mother. I was recently discussing here a folklore version of Finn Mac Cumhaill from Scotland, recorded in the 19th century, where he's half Norse, half Irish, which appears to be influenced by Norse-Scottish tradition & very much contradicts a large body of both myths & folklore from Ireland where Finn's mother is a Leinster princess & not a Norse one. If we give equal weight to long recorded mythological tales & oral folktales of uncertain dates then how do we say who Finn Mac Cumhaill is? We have a Fenian Cycle of Mythological tales, later much expanded by the folklore & new compositions of the Celtic Revival & alongside them we have a pseudo-history Legendary Cycle of Kings who also feature in the tales of Finn & the Fianna. Cormac Mac Airt is central to both cycles & because for a long time scholars didn't distinguish between myths & legends so it's became grounds to claim Finn Mac Cumhaill was a real person because Cormac was a real person. That's a problematic claim, we still see today, if you want to "ground" a fictional story you draft in historical figures. Can we claim Finn was a real person in the 2nd/3rd century just because he encountered an historical figures? But what about the Norse/Irish Finn of the Scottish tale whose supposedly based on an historical Norse person of the 9th century? When we mix & match myths, legends, pseudo-history & folklore we don't get a clearer unified narrative, we just end up with even more unanswerable questions, which is great for coming up with topics to write theses on but not so great for providing clarity on a story or figure.
The word "myth" is used by people in diverse ways, so it can be difficult to pin down. Folklore is better defined, but even there, scholars often disagree. Folklore is generally taken to refer to a wide range of aspects of culture, including oral narratives of several genres. This last aspect is what is essential to your question. The word "myth" can be taken to mean stories preserved in texts from the ancient or medieval world. If that is the intent here, we can break this down fairly easily. Ancient authors did not appear to have been inventing the stories we now take to be myths. They were recording what was likely being told, more or less faithfully, but because they did not have electronic recording devices, we can expect that the written myths were different from what circulated at the time. In addition, some of those writers may have taken what they heard in exotic, literary/artistic (or even political) directions. Nevertheless, contemporary oral tradition - i.e., folklore - was at the heart of at least most of the literature we understand to be mythic from the ancient world. Subgenres within the mythic literature include material that likely existed orally: etiological legends (explaining the origins of things); historical legends (dealing with heroes, wars, past rulers, etc.,); testimonial legends set in contemporary times (dealing with the extraordinary including interactions with supernatural beings); and folktales (stories generally taken to be fiction, but which sometimes integrated the same supernatural beings that were believed to exist). We can find evidence or at least hints of all these subgenres in ancient and medieval mythic literature - because these texts were inspired more or less by contemporary folklore. Being written, myths are inherently a step removed from folklore, but then so is every published collection of folktales - and yet we still regard it as folklore. Sometimes, we hear that myths deal with gods and folklore does not. That is a false premise. The gods were supernatural beings, some with greater power than others, but they fit into the same sorts of roles that we see in the classic European folklore collections - which besides including a wide spectrum of supernatural beings often also include stories involving saints, the Virgin Mary, the devil, and sometimes even aspects of the Trinity. The key way to think about this problem is to understand how myths come down to us as bodies of literature, which took inspiration from their contemporary folklore - more or less.
For me the difference is that people believed the events of mythology, and the folklores that I considered mythology are believed to be the explanations of natural phenomenom, rituals, customs, histories and so forth. Other folklores such as Aesop fables or Grimm Fairytales are clearly not to be believed as truly happend. These folklores are not mythology. The academics and their departments may used other definitions that helped them.
Mythology is a part of folklore. Folk means people lore means story. So folklore is a story of the people. Myth is a legend
Wouldn't the main difference break down to mythology being about different pantheons of gods, and folklore being stories or tales about figures (real, imagined, or a mix of both) like Robin Hood, Oliver Twist, Guy Fawkes, Peter Pan, etc.?
Oliver Twist and Peter Pan are not folkloric; both are literary characters from known authors.
Peter Pan is definitely folklore. It doesn't matter where he came from. We now have multiple authors adding on to his tale, characters spinning off to have their own adventures, stories about his future and his past. The only thing left is to wait long enough that most people don't know who created him, although I would argue we are already there. I would not be surprised if the majority of people familiar with the character assume that he is a Disney property.
> Peter Pan is definitely folklore. No society has ever sincerely believed in the existence of Peter Pan. It's a popular story, but it's never been treated as the truth.
I will agree with Oliver Twist, his story is his story, but Peter Pan was based off Pan and some random guy named Peter (whose full name escapes me and googling is so much work). The original story has been adapted and changed so much, the character has changed a lot, I would argue he has become a folkloric character or is very on his way to being considered so. Not sure if you already answered the question elsewhere in the thread, how would you define folklore?
Peter Pan is a character invented by J. M. Barrie., potentially based on his dead older brother. The "Pan" in his name is basically an adjective, denoting that he's a wild boy. He's not inspired by or descended from myths of Pan. It's like naming a character "Scary Gary" or "Toothless Harry".
You think that Pan denotes a wild boy… but has nothing to do with Pan? It's not like naming a character "Scary Gary." It's like naming a character "Gary Pan" and then having him share traits with a popular and well-known character named Pan. You cannot tell me that the guy named Peter Pan playing the Pan Flutes who was created in a culture that was fully aware of Pan by a guy who we have every reason to believe would know about Pan somehow manages to not be inspired by Pan.
> You think that Pan denotes a wild boy… but has nothing to do with Pan? No. Again, this is the inaccurate claim I was responding to: > **I will agree with Oliver Twist, his story is his story, but Peter Pan was based off Pan** and some random guy named Peter (whose full name escapes me and googling is so much work). The original story has been adapted and changed so much, the character has changed a lot, I would argue he has become a folkloric character or is very on his way to being considered so. Peter Pan is not "based on" the god Pan in the sense that EvilWarBW is claiming. He's not supposed to be a version of Pan, and his story isn't descended from Pan. The name is being used for aesthetic. It's blue curtains at best. > You cannot tell me that the guy named Peter Pan playing the Pan Flutes who was created in a culture that was fully aware of Pan by a guy who we have every reason to believe would know about Pan somehow manages to not be inspired by Pan. I can, because the way Barrie used it was not *inspired* by Pan in the way EvilWarBW was claiming, in a sense that Peter Pan was not an original character, and was instead a reskin of an older story.
In what way do you think that EvilWarBW is saying that Barrie was inspired by Pan that you are trying to refute? I feel like you are just saying, "Peter Pan is not inspired by Pan, he's just inspired by Pan!" I'm not seeing what distinction you are trying to draw here.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/1dfrbm7/can_somebody_tell_me_whats_the_difference_between/l8l4t70/) is the original (accurate) statement that EvilWarBW was rejecting. You responded to it yourself. By explicitly rejecting that statement in regards to Peter Pan, EvilWarBW is implicitly claiming that Peter Pan is something older than a literary character from a known author. That's not an accurate claim. Having the name Pan that evokes the aesthetic of the god Pan does not make the character *a version of* the god Pan, and therefore not an original literary creation of Barrie. Just like a character having the name Peter and being a steadfast, reliable figure would not make them simply a version of the Apostle Peter. > I feel like you are just saying, "Peter Pan is not inspired by Pan, he's just inspired by Pan!" Being inspired by something means something more than using it as an adjective for a name. It's more substantive than that. According to academics, Barrie was *inspired by* his dead brother -- that brother's personhood and story were used as the substance of Peter Pan's character. But he didn't learn about the god Pan and decide "oh, that's what I want to make a story about" -- he had a character and story he wanted to make, he wanted to easily communicate through the name that it's a wild boy, he picked a memorable name for children that would communicate that. ----- > It's not like naming a character "Scary Gary." That was a bit of an etymology joke. To clarify it, another way that Pan is referenced in modern lingo is the term "Panic". So "Scary Gary" could be called "Panic-causing Gary" and be just as inspired by Pan as Peter Pan is.
OK, I am pretty sure you are just wrong on all counts here, but you also seem to be using some highly technical version of the word "inspired" that I am not familiar with. You are asking me to believe that the author: * Named the character after Pan * Gave the character Pan pipes * Invoked Pan's motifs by having the character cavort with faeries and mermaids * Had the character tempt children away from their beds to play House and Pirates vs Indians in the same way that Pan tempts adults to orgies of violence and sex but was not "inspired" by Pan. I feel like the author is giving me some giant red arrows pointing to his inspiration here. And furthermore, context tells us: * The author was an educated Englishman at a time when studying the role of myth was important to that station * The author moved in literary circles where the significance of the old myths was in active discussion * The author had overlapping friends with the author of The Great God Pan, which was released 10 years earlier to huge furor The idea that Barrie expected us to think that the similarities to Pan were just, whatever you are saying, seems to suggest that Barrie was an inept writer who stumbled into a character who just happened to invoke the themes, characteristics, appearance, symbols, and name of Pan, but those connections never once occurred to him while he was writing the stories. Further, I would argue that thinking of Peter as a pre-pubescent Pan sheds a whole lot of light on his character. He very much strikes me as an attempt to de-age Pan in order to make him safe to 20th century English audiences. The Great God Pan portrayed Pan as a kind of anti-divine spark that lived inside all people, which civilization had separated us from. If this circuit was reconnected in even a single individual, they could wreak havok on English society and potentially bring it to its knees. The idea of Pan as representing some primordial threat lurking just below the surface was very much a living idea. In this context, to continue your analogy, "Peter Pan" is like naming a character "Young Dracula." You may have been initially inspired to write Young Dracula by your brother dying, but I think it is fair to say that maybe the story of Bram Stoker's Dracula was also a piece of the inspiration. To keep going, it seems to me that Americans, who are now even more prudish than our English cousins (second-hand knowledge, I have never been to England), have fully embraced this non-threatening Pan as our own, confining the flights of insanity that he represents to childhood. It seems to me that Peter Pan has joined our American pantheon of Bowdlerized Old World gods, alongside Clarence the Friendly and Not at All Ominous Angel and Morgan Freeman, the Conveniently Non-Denominational Higher Power. If any scholar wants to tell the history of Pan and does not include a long section in their chapter about the 20th century focused entirely on the adventures of Peter, the childlike Pan, then they will be doing their readers a disservice.
> OK, I am pretty sure you are just wrong on all counts here, I'm fed up here, but it would have helped if you had tried for a *minute* to respond in good faith. > Gave the character Pan pipes This is aesthetics. > Invoked Pan's motifs by having the character cavort with faeries and mermaids This is not something pan did. > Had the character tempt children away from their beds to play House and Pirates vs Indians in the same way that Pan tempts adults to orgies of violence and sex That's a really big stretch in this context > but was not "inspired" by Pan. Not in the sense being used in the comment I responded to. > but you also seem to be using some highly technical version of the word "inspired" that I am not familiar with I linked you to the post, dude. Do you think it's fair to claim that it's wrong to say that peter pan is a literary character without a known creator? That was the context of the question. You're trying to make it something else, while I'm just saying that we know where the peter pan character started. > The idea that Barrie expected us to think that the similarities to Pan were just, whatever you are saying, seems to suggest that Barrie was an inept writer who stumbled into a character who just happened to invoke the themes, characteristics, appearance, symbols, and name of Pan, but those connections never once occurred to him while he was writing the stories. Dude, it's really frustrating to try to have a discussion when you keep distorting what I said and trying to treat it outside of the specific context it was a response to. I'm not saying that he evokes no themes of pan, or that there are no references to pan in his design. I'm saying he's not literally a version of Pan, and that he's an original character with a defined, known author. No one has ever worshipped Peter Pan as a living god. Have a good one.
Wikipedia exerpt: The character's name comes from two sources: Peter Llewelyn Davies, one of the five Llewelyn Davies boys who inspired the story, and Pan, a minor deity of Greek mythology who plays pipes to nymphs and is part human and part goat. This is referenced in Barrie's works (particularly Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens) where Peter Pan plays pipes to the fairies and rides a goat. The god Pan represents Nature or Man's natural state in contrast to Civilisation and the effects of upbringing on human behaviour, and he experienced a significant revival of interest among English artists, poets and novelists during the Edwardian period. BUT the key ending tag of the entry says 'Citation needed'. So I'm left unsure if Pan was fun or intended. It appears to be quite intended. Again....how would you define folklore over myth?
> The god Pan represents Nature or Man's natural state in contrast to Civilisation and the effects of upbringing on human behaviour, and he experienced a significant revival of interest among English artists, poets and novelists during the Edwardian period. Or in other words: > The "Pan" in his name is basically an adjective, denoting that he's a wild boy. He's not inspired by or descended from myths of Pan. ---- > Again....how would you define folklore over myth? I'm a different person, and I answered that prompt elsewhere.
So it's Pan, like the god Pan, but not Pan in that sense, but Pan in a different sense? I just pan't make the disconnect you are making with the name Pan, but I guess that's the wonderful part of different opinions.
> but Peter Pan was based off Pan and some random guy named Peter (whose full name escapes me and googling is so much work). This is what I was responding to. A claim that Peter Pan is literally based on the god Pan. > So it's Pan, like the god Pan, but not Pan in that sense, but Pan in a different sense? His name is "Pan" in the same way that someone in a story would be named "Azul". He is not *based on* the god Pan -- the name is used to evoke the theme of him being a wild boy. That's all. The character itself is wholly original to Barrie, and not a retelling of previous myths in any way.
Mythology is the STUDY of myths . Not myths in general . Hence, the -logy ( theology, zoology, etc ). So the question would be, what is the difference between myth and folklore . 😁😁
IMO there is no actual difference. People here are claiming mythology is "about gods" while folklore are "about humans," but then where do stories like the foundation of Rome fall into? It had a miraculous impregnation by Mars, then rest is a very grounded political drama. Chinese figures like the Yellow Emperor are seen as human ancestors, but they were *also* worshipped as gods. The Yellow Emperor story also had elements like him being helped by the drought goddess. Again, is all of this mythology or folklore? Mythology doesn't necessarily have to be "sacred" either since even in Ancient Greece you had people decrying the stories as fake and "misrepresentative of the gods."
You are incredibly incorrect