15,526
回編集
差分
ナビゲーションに移動
検索に移動
20世紀には、アッシリア学というよりユング分析の伝統に根ざした、あまり学術的でない神話の解釈が数多く生まれた。20世紀には、アッシリア学というよりユング分析の伝統に根ざした、あまり学術的でない神話の解釈が数多く生まれた。また、ギリシャ神話のペルセポネ拉致事件と比較する著者もいる<ref>Dobson, 1992</ref>。
A number of less scholarly interpretations of the myth arose through the 20th century, many of them rooted in the tradition of [[Jungian]] analysis rather than [[assyriology]]. Some authors draw comparisons to [[Persephone#Abduction myth|the Greek myth of the abduction of Persephone]] as well.{{sfn|Dobson|1992}}
→その他の解釈
=== その他の解釈 ===
Monica Otterrmann performed a feminist interpretation of the myth, questioning its interpretation as related to the cycle of nature,{{sfn|Brandão|2019|p=71}} claiming that the narratives represent that Inanna's powers were being restricted by the Mesopotamian patriarchy, due to the fact that, according to her, the region was not conducive to fertility.{{Sfn|Brandão|2019|p=72}} Brandão questions this idea in part, for although Inanna's power is at stake in the Sumerian text, in the Akkadian text the goddess' relationship to fertility and fertilization is at stake. Furthermore, in the Sumerian text Inanna's power is not limited by a man, but by another equally powerful goddess, Ereskigal.{{sfn|Brandão|2019|p=72}}
