Before I begin a further examination of metis and nommo, I want to speak on myths and mythology, for both of these rhetorical devices have their origins in mythology. This discussion shows how from mythical beginnings rhetorical devices have come to be used “in accord with codes of perception that [they do] not control” (de Certeau (1974/1984).

The ninth??? edition of A Handbook to Literature (Holman and Harmon, 2003???) states that a myth is “[a]n anonymous story that presents supernatural episodes as a means of interpreting natural events” (306). More importantly, “myth in its traditional sense is an anonymous, nonliterary, essentially religious formulation of the cosmic view of a people who approach its formulations not as representations of truth but as truth itself” (306). Barthes (1957/1972) argues that “mythology can only have an historical foundation, for myth is a type of speech chosen by history: it cannot possibly evolve from the ‘nature’ of things” (110). The definition of myth from A Handbook to Literature relates to its practical historical foundation, whereas Barthes’s version of mythology finds the spurious foundation of habitual customs disturbing.

De Certeau (1974/1984) discusses how “pedestrian practices” (102) of everyday life are generated from an unconscious or dream state. When the dream becomes manifest through discourse, the verbalization leads to a practice through doing. Later de Certeau argues that“the text has a meaning only through its readers; it changes along with them; it is ordered in accord with codes of perception that it does not control” (170). By examining de Certeau’s everyday practices through this textual framework, their historical foundation becomes detached, leaving a mythological beginning, which becomes interpreted as “not as representations of truth but as truth itself” (Holman and Harmon, p. 306). This detachment of the text’s historical foundation can be seen in the evolution of the rhetorical devices of the Greek-based metis and the African-based nommo.