Detienne's book is a wonderfull and thought provoking book.
he presents a structuralist analysis of the myth of Adonis.
It is very hard to provide convincing structuralist interpretations to myths and it seems that in structuralism
the journey is at least as important as the end result
(see most of the work of Levi Strauss). However, in this case Detienne's analysis is rather compeling and provides the reader with amazing insights into greek thought about food, perfumes,
sex and all the other good things in life. If you wish to read just one structuralist work to get a feeling for this
fascinating and highly non trivial mode of analysis of human thought, I would recommend this book

This book is actually three essays. Each essay is split into several subject matters and thus becomes a neat secondary source for any student of the subject at hand.
The first, by Jean Bottero, is superbly crafted for the general reader who wishes to learn more about, as he says: "History begins at Sumer". The language does not, unlike Clarisse Herrenschmidt's second essay, presuppose a detailed knowledge of the subject at hand. Bottero outlines his premise that Mesopotamian culture is a direct descendant of Semite (Akkadian mainly) acculturation of Sumerian culture. He argues that writing evolved as a mnemotechnical device beginning with ideograms and pictograms. He gives a pellucid explanation of the definition of religion, stating it presupposes a belief in the 'sacred' or 'supernatural'. I.e. a higher order that manifests itself in two ways: Either through religiosity - a reverence or love for the order, or centrifrugally - a fear of the order. What is particularly good about Bottero's writing is he makes statements and then spends some time explaining clearly what the terms of his statement mean. For example, many scholars would state the Mesopotamian religion was not historical and leave it at that. Bottero gives a concise and very understandable definition of the term.
The second, by Clarisse Herrenschmidt, far more than Bottero, presupposes knowledge of the subject at hand. Therefore, it is slightly less accessible to the general reader. Given her essay is the longest of the three this is a shame. Nevertheless, Herrenschmidt opens, spending considerable time explaining why proto-Elamic is untranslatable and then tends to run away like any excellent scholar into the intricacies of language and its development from the consonant alphabet to the Greek vowel-using alphabet of eighth century Athens, to the detriment of the general reader who will invariably get lost along the way in the tricky twists and turns of intellectual theorizing. Aside from that, the essay has a long discussion the development of consonants and states that an alphabet is ruled by the rule - one sign = one sound. Not entirely sure I agree with that, as the english alphabet has many variances of sound on its letters. Anyhow, there is an excellent brief history of the technical evolution of writing and its links to social recognition. Herrenschmidt basically states that, in a barbaric society, (which she never really defines) speech = power. From here Herrenschmidt goes on to major discussion on the Mazdean Avesta and from there to Greek. She ends by saying Greek was the language of culture, Aramaic the vernacular, and Hebrew that of the sacred corpus. The concluding section places far too much emphasis on the Greek dropping of the aspirated 'h' in eta c.403 B.C; for example, in the statement: "They thus prohibited the privatization of breath through writing, because speech was for everyone and that included the gods." What exactly does that mean? So, Herrenschmidt's essay is for the advanced student of ancient writing, not the general reader, particularly given its immense 'mathematical' and 'analytical' approach to the subject.
The third, by Jean Pierre Vermont, is much akin to Bottero's in style and, therefore, far more accessible than Herrenschmidt. The main thrust is to discover the origins of the Greek world given the 4 centuries of literary darkness after the collapse of Mycenae around the 12th century B.C to the appearance of the Greek hegemony in the 9th century B.C. He indicates that Greece moved from a society of the oral to the written and that its religion was governed by two facts: a polis with its own tutelary god and the general pantheon 'managed' from centers such as Delphi. Vermont places (rightly so) much emphasis on the introduction of prose in the 6th century B.C. and its subsequent consequences in that it meant philosophical discourses moved from the realm of the intellectual - much in the same way Herrenschmidt states that Persian cuniform was retained because its complexity gave individuals power over the whole with sacred texts - to the common people. Hesiod's Theogony is heavily drawn on by Vermont to demonstrate his thesis that the evolution in Greek writing was tied to a shift in social power. What becomes more interesting is the realization that the form of writing was influenced by a maturing need for catography. Vermont moves on to a discussion on the polis and the invention of the political and democracy. There is a good two page opener on the definition of the very word 'democracy' and the section ends up being somewhat semantical as it proceeds from there. Inevitably, as any serious scholar must do, Vermont dives briefly in to the Laws of Solon and thence into Homer.
To conclude, any student of ancient writing, reasoning and religion must read these essays. They are precise, clear and extremely good at their given niches. The general reader will find it very informative and Bottero and Vermont can be read by anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the ancient history. Herrenschmidt might become too involved with detailed knowledge of her subject matter.

This book consists of three long essays by different authors, one of whom is Bottero. The book is more technical than Bottero's Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, and if you're thinking of reading this book, I would recommend you probably read the latter work first before tackling this volume. It might also be a good idea to read a brief history of the ancient Sumerians and Akkadians to get at least a basic grounding in the history and something of a historical context, since, as I said, this book is significantly more technical, and perhaps, a little dry as a result, but it's still an impressive piece of scholarship and well worth reading.

Bottero's Everyday Life is also written by a team of authors, with Bottero writing several of the chapters. It's quite readable, as well as extremely interesting, and has chapters on Love and Sex in Ancient Mesopotamia, Religion, the Law, Food and Cuisine, Women's Rights, etc.

Overall, this work is a valuable contribution to scholarship in the area with much good information and some important theoretical discussions on the nature of thought and culture in ancient Mesopotamia.

Another welcomed translation of the French scholar, Jean-Pierre Vernant. Building on his previous book "Origens of Greek Thought", Vernant expands to look at Greek society more fully. Overall there is a lack of primary evidence and refernces however that weaken his intriguing suggestions. Not for the non-specialist.

If the title has meaning for you, then you know where this review is headed, if not it would be wise to learn a bit about various "schools of thought" that have developed in academia, especially in the area of Classics and History. A classic, this work attempts to find the origins of Greek thought through the reconstuction of mythology and religion -- there is, by the way, a difference between these. Vernant's work always shows new insights and new avenues but he is so tied to the structionalist concepts that I believe he makes some assumptions without ample proof. While it may be difficult to find all the answers when dealing with dead civilizations, it does not mean that we have to abandon the attempt to find evidence and discover the realities. A must read for anyone interested in myth theory or Greek thought so you are aware of all the ideas which have come before.

This slim book reduces Greek mythology to its barest essentials. Vernant starts with the creation stories; skims through the "clash of the titans," Prometheus and Pandora, the Trojan War, Odysseus, Dionysus, Oedipus; and ends quite abruptly with Perseus and Medusa--all in 180 sparse pages. Along the way, the author strips these stories of all their depth, drama, and momentum. Entire battle scenes and plot twists are reduced to single sentences. His effort to make Greek mythology simple is unforgivably simplistic; all the excitement is thoroughly excised. Vernant has managed to achieve something I would have thought impossible: he has made Greek mythology dreadfully boring.

It's never really quite clear for whom this book was written. Much of the writing (or at least its translation) reads like excerpts from an elementary school primer. Instead of proper transitional devices, sentences repeatedly begin with "So." "So now the war of the gods is over." "And so they sail on, the fleet much reduced." "So then: Athena and Hermes help the boy with the feat he must accomplish." One-dimensional answers follow condescending questions: "How does Prometheus do it? The way it is routinely done in Greek sacrifice." "Who is Helen? She is herself the fruit of the gods' intrusions into the human world." "What does the ingenious captain do? He has got himself some beeswax." Why does Vernant write like this? I haven't a clue.

Although Vernant came up with the idea for this book when he told Greek myths as bedtime stories to his grandson, this book can't possibly be intended for children or even adolescents: these skeletal stories would enchant no one, and there isn't enough background for those unfamiliar with Greek myths to make any sense of what remains. Furthermore, I can't imagine that children would understand his reference to "a 1968-style rebellion on Olympus" or that they would care how Professor Louis Gernet sees Dionysus as "the figure of the other" or how Marcel Detienne views him as "an epidemic god." At the same time, older readers looking for new insights into Greek mythology will surely be disappointed; Vernant's analysis never dips below the surface. On Pandora: "Woman combines the vileness of human life together with its divine aspect." On Achilles: "In the full flesh of combat, of youth, the manly strengths of bravura and energy and youthful grace intact will thus never know the decrepitude of old age." On Oedipus: "In any city where there are women and men, there is a necessary opposition and a necessary entanglement of combat and marriage." (As opposed to those many cities where there are only women or only men?)

The final insult to the reader is the book's 20-page appendix, which lists a motley assortment of Greek gods and heroes. The entries nearly always omit the importance of each character to the mythical tradition and focus overwhelmingly on family relations (which would more clearly and succintly served by a genealogical chart). Thus, Echion is "one of the five Spartoi; husband of Agave, father of Pentheus." Agave is "daughter of Cadmus and mother of Pentheus." Pentheus is "grandson of Cadmus on his mother's, Agave's side, and son of Echion." Are you dizzy yet?

In sum, readers interested in an introduction to Greek mythology would profit far more from Thomas Bulfinch's "The Age of Fable," Edith Hamilton's "Mythology," or, as a reference work, Robert Graves's "The Greek Myths."

What the previous reviewer seems to have misunderstood is Vernant's point: that this is a book of stories to be told to one's children. Thus, a dialogue naturally begins when the child asks a question like "who is that?" Vernant presupposes only one thing: that the adult who is reading the story will fill in the details regarding the Greek myths as he or she wishes, or is asked questions about. He presupposes that the adult is already familiar with the myths, and is introducing them for the first time to his or her child. A parent obviously cannot read Bullfinch's Mythology to a child, it would be ludicrous, and so Vernant has produced a book that can be read to children for the first time, and one which relies on the parent's knowledge to fill in whatever elements that he or she desires to, or is asked to say more about. In short, it is a book for children that presupposes that the adult knows his or her Greek mythology, and secondly, that a dialogue can ensue (as always happens when we read to our children) in which the parent can tell more than what is contained in the book. There is no other book for children like it when it comes to introducing them to the world of Greek mythology. That it presumes that the parent reading it knows more than the child does and more than what is in the book should not come as a shock. What Vernant accomplishes here for the first time is to give children access to what are otherwise very complicated stories, and to let us fill in the gaps as they come up.