There are many expressions which, though simple in themselves, must
forever remain beyond the grasp of human comprehension. Eternity, that
which has neither end nor beginning, baffles the most profound human
thought. It is impossible to think of a point beyond which there is
absolutely nothing, or to imagine the passing of a million years
without bringing us one day or one minute nearer to their close.
Suppose that one could fix upon the terminal point, we would still
fancy something beyond that, and then some period still more remote
would present itself, and so on _ad infinitum_.
The same insurmountable difficulty confronts us when we seek to
imagine a First Cause. God was the beginning, and yet it seems to our
finite minds, that something must have brought Him into existence,
and we conclude that back again of that creating Power must have been
another originating cause, and perhaps still another, and so on
without limitation.
And yet we know that there must have been a period when everything was
void, or, in other words, when there was nothing. In the awful
grandeur of that loneliness, desolation, and chaos, God we know,
however, existed and called the universe into being. All that we, in
our present finite condition, can ever comprehend of that stupendous
birth is contained in the opening of the first chapter of Genesis.
That is the story of the creation as told by God Himself to His chosen
people, the Hebrews, they alone being selected from the nations then
existing upon the earth to receive the wonderful revelation.
Every people, no matter how degraded and sunken in barbarism, has some
perception, some explanation of, and a more or less well-grounded
belief in, a First Cause. Far back among the mists of antiquity, at
the remotest beginnings of the shadowy centuries, sits enthroned a
Being, who in His infinite might and power brought mankind, the
universe, and all animate and inanimate things into existence, and who
rewards those of His children who do His will, and punishes those who
disobey His commands. That will, as interpreted by believers, is as
various in its application to the conduct of man as are the standards
of right and wrong among the civilized and even among the barbarous
nations of to-day. What is virtue with one is vice with the other, as
beauty and ugliness of form or feature, being relative terms, are
opposites with many different peoples.
Since the Greeks and Romans were not among those who received the
divine story of creation, they were forced to devise a theory to
explain their own existence and account for the origin of all things.
The foundation of this theory lay in the marvelous phenomena of nature
around them. The growth of the mighty tree from the tiny seed, the
bursting bud and blossom, the changing hues and the fragrance of
flowers, the alternation of day and night, the flash of the
rock-rending lightning, the rage of the tempest, the flow of the
rivers; the towering mountains, the lovely valleys; dew, rain, the
clouds, and the ever-shifting panorama on every hand; the majestic
sweep of the blazing worlds through space--all these pointed
unerringly to a First Cause, which originally launched them into
being, and maintains the constant order of things and the miraculous
procession of the planets and the orderly succession of the seasons in
obedience to laws that know no change.
To the Greeks and Romans, there was a time more remote than history
gives us any account of, when there was neither land nor water, and
when the earth and all things within and upon it were "without form
and void." Over that misty, nebulous mixing and mingling brooded the
god Chaos, who shared his throne with Nox, the goddess of night. From
this union the innumerable myths gradually sprang up and developed,
which in their own imaginative though often grotesque way explained
the various phases of creation. These finally became crystallized into
a literature, or mythology, which has since been the inspiration alike
of romancers and poets.
The most learned of mythologists differ in their analysis of the
multitude of myths that have descended to us. Their varying analyses,
however, may be separated into two distinct classes or divisions, each
of which has its own adherents and supporters.
The first school is that of the philologists, and the second that of
the anthropologists, or comparative mythologists.
Philology relates to the study of language, especially when treated in
a philosophical manner. This school maintains that the myths had their
origin in a "disease of the language, as the pearl is a result of a
disease of the oyster." The key, therefore, to all mythologies, they
say, is found in language. The names originally applied to the gods
generally referred to the phenomena of the clouds, winds, rain,
sunshine, etc. Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, the great languages of
antiquity, they demonstrate, had their foundation in a single source
which is still older. As further proof of their position, they point
to the similarity in the most ordinary words in the various languages
of the same family, and show that they have undergone few or very
trifling changes.
The greatest authority among the philologists claims that during the
"first period" there was a tribe in Central Asia, whose language
consisted of one-syllable words, which contained the germs of the
Turanian, Aryan, and Semitic tongues. This age is termed the Rhematic
period, and was succeeded by the Nomadic or Agglutinative age, during
which the language gradually "received, once for all, that peculiar
impress of their formative system which we still find in all the
dialects and national idioms comprised under the name of Aryan or
Semitic," which includes over three thousand dialects.
The same authority follows the Agglutinative period with one
"represented everywhere by the same characteristic features, called
the Mythological, or Mythopoeic age."
As the name implies, this last-mentioned period saw the evolution and
development of mythic lore. As do the American Indians of to-day, so
primitive man, in his crude way, explained the operation of physical
laws by giving to inanimate objects like passions and sentiments with
himself. When the tempest rages, and the crashing lightning splinters
the mountain oak, the Indian says that the Great Spirit is angry. When
nature becomes serene and calm, the Great Spirit is pleased. The
malign forces around him, which work ill to the warrior, are, they
say, the direct doings of an evil spirit. Even the heavenly bodies are
personified, and "poetry has so far kept alive in our minds the old
animative theory of nature, that it is no great effort in us to fancy
the waterspout a huge giant or sea-monster, and to depict, in what we
call appropriate metaphor, its march across the field of ocean."
Since the names of the Greek heroes and gods show a general
correspondence with the Sanskrit appellations of physical things, it
is comparatively easy to understand many of the first fancies and
reflections of the earliest men who ever lived. It is the argument of
the philologists that these fancies and reflections settled into
definite shape in that far-away period when most of the nations, now
spread to the remotest corners of the earth, dwelt together and used a
common language. Following the gradual scattering of this single,
unified people, the language became sensitive to the change, many
words not only losing their original meaning, but, in some instances,
acquiring an opposite significance. Other words, again, in the course
of time were utterly lost. "As long as such personified beings as the
Heaven or the Sun are consciously talked of in mythic language, the
meaning of their legends is open to no question, and the action
ascribed to them will, as a rule, be natural and appropriate." The
time came, however, when these names were considered simply as
applying to heroes or deities, and amid the jumble and confusion of
the succeeding ages it became well-nigh impossible to trace the myths
back to their original source and meaning. Such is a brief outline of
the myth interpretations, as made by the philologists.
Anthropology may be defined as the study of man, considered in his
entire nature. In explaining mythology, the anthropologists say that
"it is man, it is human thought and human language combined, which
naturally and necessarily produced the strange conglomerate of ancient
fable." Instead, therefore, of seeking the source of myths in
language, the second class find it in the "condition of thought
through which all races have passed."
The argument of the anthropologists is that while all nations have
come from one parent-stock, as is claimed also by the philologists,
yet the various peoples, in their primitive or savage state, have
passed through a like low intellectual condition and growth. The
folk-lore of all countries shows that the savages consider themselves
of the same nature as beasts, and regard "even plants, inanimate
objects, and the most abstract phenomena as persons with human parts
and passions." Every religion antedating Christianity has inculcated
the worship of idols, which usually take the form of beasts, and it
will be noted in the study of myths that the gods often assume the
forms of birds and animals. If it were in our power mentally to become
savages for a time, so as to look upon nature and our surroundings as
do the Blackfeet Indians, or the Patagonians, or the South Africans,
it would be a long step toward making clear this particular phase of
the question.
From what has been stated, however, the young student will gain an
idea of the meaning of the word "myth," which may be termed a story
whose origin can never be known with certainty. To most people it has
the same significance as a fable, legendary tale, or fanciful
falsehood. A collection of myths belonging to a particular age or
people is "a mythology," and the branch of inquiry which classifies
and interprets them bears the same name.
E. S. E.
November 1st, 1895.