CHAPTER I

AN INTRODUCTION TO MYTHOLOGY

By

LEWIS SPENCE

FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF

GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

AUTHOR OF

"THE MYTHS OF MEXICO AND PERU" "THE CIVILIZATION OF ANCIENT MEXICO"

"THE POPOL VUH" "A DICTIONARY OF MYTHOLOGY" "A DICTIONARY OF

NON-CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY" ETC. ETC.

NEW YORK

MOFFAT YARD AND COMPANY

1921

PREFACE

This volume is an outline of the principles of mythology, chiefly

with reference to its more modern developments. Hand in hand with the

sister sciences of folklore and comparative religion, it has advanced

so rapidly within the last twenty years and altered so greatly from its

ancient aspect that it seems an entirely new science. Thirty years ago,

if a student of myth had been asked who Janus was, he would probably

have replied: "A Roman god of origins." To-day he might see in him a

development of the 'kirn-baby.' So does the study of collected facts

and analogies enable us to make broad generalizations. Quite recently,

for example, Dr Rendel Harris advanced the theory that Aphrodite was

originally a mandrake, while Professor Elliot Smith contends that her

'larval form' was that of the cowrie-shell. Apollo, according to some

writers, was originally an apple, Bacchus a sprig of ivy, and Zeus

himself a flint-stone fetish.

With such metamorphoses of the elder gods a rather long-suffering

public has become somewhat ruefully acquainted. But with the value of

the new scientific machinery which has discovered these analogies,

which has laid bare the true nature of myth, they are not so intimate.

The purpose of this book is to provide them with a review of mythic

science from its beginnings down to the latest guesses of contemporary

authorities. This plan may appear too ambitious, in the present chaotic

condition of the science, but a real necessity exists for some such

elementary study in order to cast light into the popular darkness on

the subject.

The two great drawbacks of mythology are lack of accepted definitions

and of an historical and philosophical review of the subject on popular

lines to co-ordinate the results of research. No science can expand

without definition, and the definitions here offered have been accepted

by most authorities as good working rules, so that, having won the

approval of the ablest and most experienced specialists of the day,

they may be regarded as an important help to the study of mythology. A

useful series of definitions was brought forward with the countenance

of the Folklore Society, but the mesh of most of these was far too

wide. Seemingly prepared during personal consultation, they suffered in

consequence, and the general result was surprisingly inadequate. How

different it has been when written opinions have taken the place of

verbal discussion may be observed by anyone who cares to compare them

with the present series.

The author would note here that he desires to illustrate his theories

as far as possible by myths which have come under his own notice and

have been collected by himself, not wishing to have directed against

him the usual criticism of the mere collector of _Märchen_, who appears

to regard the theoretical writer on mythic science as an arm-chair

plagiarist. But he has also used as examples many myths which appear

in the several volumes of this series, and is further obliged to the

published writings and personal correspondence of the late Mr Andrew

Lang, Sir James Frazer, Dr Marett, Mr Sidney Hartland, the late Sir

George Laurence Gomme, Professor G. Elliot Smith, and many others. He

has to thank Messrs Longmans, Green and Co. for courteous permission

to quote from Lang's essay "The Ghastly Priest" in his _Magic and

Religion._

Lastly, he would plead for a kindly consideration of his own system of

mythological elucidation--the eclectic, embracing all he thinks best in

other systems, whereas it is the bane of most writers upon mythology

and allied subjects that the pride of some one theory is strong in

them. If it be asked how one is to be certain of selecting the best

from each system, the answer is that one must walk in these caverns by

the light of one's own common sense.

It is hoped that the comparative tables will be found of use to

students. Much care has been taken in compiling them, but it is not

claimed that they are in any way exhaustive.

L.S.

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTORY

II THE PROGRESS OF MYTHIC SCIENCE

III THE EVOLUTION OF THE GODS

IV THE VARIOUS TYPES OF DEITY

V THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF MYTH

VI THE MAKING OF THE WORLD AND OF MAN (COSMOGONY)

VII PARADISE AND THE PLACE OF PUNISHMENT

VIII FOLKLORE AND MYTH

IX RITUAL AND MYTH

X THE WRITTEN SOURCES OF MYTH

XI THE GREAT MYTHIC SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD

INDEX

AN INTRODUCTION TO MYTHOLOGY

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

The function of mythology is the investigation and explanation of myths

or tales relating to the early religious and scientific experiences

of mankind. It throws light upon the material, methods, and progress

of primitive religion and science, for many myths are an attempt to

explain physical as well as religious phenomena.

Myth is one of the great objects of the science of 'tradition' (Lat.

'that which is handed down'), the others, with which myth is only too

frequently confounded, being folklore and legend. It is hoped that

the following list of definitions will prove of value to students of

the subject, as it is certainly the most precise and embracive yet

advanced.[1]

DEFINITIONS

Myth, folk-tale, and legend may be generally defined as traditional

forms of narrative. That is, all are embraced within the term

'tradition.'

_Myth_. A myth is an account of the deeds of a god or supernatural

being, usually expressed in terms of primitive thought. It is an

attempt to explain the relations of man to the universe, and it has

for those who recount it a predominantly religious value; or it may

have arisen to 'explain' the existence of some social organization, a

custom, or the peculiarities of an environment.

_Mythology_. Mythology as a term implies (_a_) the mythic system of any

race; (_b_) the investigation of myth.

_Folklore_. Folklore means the study of survivals of early custom,

belief, narrative, and art.

_Folk-tale_. A primitive tale (_a_) of mythical origin; (_b_) of purely

narrative or æsthetic value.

_Legend_. A story, generally of real places, often (though not

necessarily) of real persons, handed down by 'tradition.'

MYTHOLOGY AND FOLKLORE CONTRASTED

Mythology is the study of a primitive or early form of religion while

it was a living faith.

Folklore is the study of primitive religion and customs still

practised.[2]

Some authorities regard folklore and mythology as almost

interchangeable words; others look upon myth as the groundwork of

folklore; but for purposes of study we shall be wise if we regard as

fundamental myth any tale in which a god or demigod figures which

explains the making of the world, or the origin of some primitive

custom among the peoples of antiquity or the backward races to-day,

while folklore may denote the study of _fragments_ or _survivals_ of

old belief or custom found among uneducated or semi-educated people

in civilized countries. Thus it is correct to speak of the folklore

of England, Germany, or Italy, applying the word to the surviving

superstitions and fragments of older faiths to be found in these modern

countries among the uncultured classes; but to speak of the folklore

of African, Australian, or American savages when we are dealing with

the living religious beliefs of these people is highly incorrect. True,

fragments of older belief are frequently discovered among primitive

people, but the expression should not be used to designate their living

religious beliefs.[3]

It will now be clear that in the present volume our concern is with the

science of myth alone--that is, with religious beliefs and conjectures

as to the nature of things of primitive, ancient, or barbarous peoples,

and _not_ with modern religious science, philosophy, or theology.

The questions touched upon in this introductory chapter will be more

fully outlined later on, and are here presented in order to familiarize

the reader with the general subject-matter of the science before

entering upon more detailed discussion.

MYTH AND RELIGION

The sciences of mythology and comparative religion overlap at many

points, but comparative religion is a branch of religious science or

philosophy, whereas mythology deals with mere myths, or, under the

more antiquated designation of 'comparative mythology,' compares the

myths of different races. In myths too, however, we hear of the birth

and nature of gods, the creation of the earth, and the primitive

'reason' for certain ritual acts. As these matters are also discussed

by comparative religion or religious science, mythology and comparative

religion often contemplate the same phenomenon at the same time.

Mythology is therefore a part of religious science. This leads us to

our next heading:

WHAT IS RELIGION?

The attempt to define religion has exercised the philosophic mind

through centuries, and never more so than at the present time, although

it is now generally recognized that all purely scientific attempts to

determine it are doomed to failure, as its origin and nature must be

sought conjecturally through psychology. Dr E.B. Tylor proposed as a

'minimum definition' for religion "the belief in spiritual beings"; but

this does not embrace ritual, which Robertson Smith thought[4] of first

consequence in primitive religion, dogma and myth being secondary.[5]

Sir J.G. Frazer considers religion "a propitiation or conciliation

of powers superior to man,"[6] a definition not always appropriate.

Crawley (in his _Tree of Life_, p. 209) defines the religious object

as "the sacred," a very obscure definition. Herbert Spencer derived

all religion from the worship of the dead. Max Müller considered

that "Religion consists in the perception of the infinite under such

manifestations as are able to influence the moral character of man."

The fact is that our present knowledge of the human mind does not

permit us to make any final definition of the word 'religion,'[7]

The study of myths, then, is assisted by comparative religion, while

myths in their turn often explain gods,[8] men, and the universe, and

customs and organizations of society. Many of them, indeed, are early

efforts at a reconciliation of the tales of gods and heroes with the

religious sentiment, which recognized in these beings objects for

worship and respect.[9]

THE 'SAVAGE' ELEMENT IN MYTH

But these tales remained full of irrational and savage notions, a

legacy from primitive ancestors. They chimed ill with later religious

sentiment, which was shocked and puzzled by them, and priests and poets

attempted to explain them away. Thus, among the Greeks, Theagenes of

Rhegium (_c_.520 B.C.) considered the tale of the battle of the gods

'unbecoming,' and represented it as an allegorical account of the war

of the elements. The Egyptians, according to Plutarch, puzzled by the

circumstance that so many of their gods were pictured in animal form,

invented as an explanation the tale that in a moment of danger the gods

concealed themselves in the bodies of animals. As peoples grew more

civilized they attempted to cleanse their national or tribal myths

from the coarse and barbarous tone which savage predecessors had given

them, and many of the myths of the higher civilizations of antiquity,

as they have come down to us to-day, have obviously passed through one

or more stages of refinement and revision at the hands of some priest,

poet, or philosopher anxious to free his race from its supposed coarse

and savage pristine history.[10]

A PERUVIAN PRIEST-MYTH

A good example of how older myths are accounted for by a modern

priesthood[11] is the story of Pacari Tampu, the 'House of the Dawn,'

a legend of the Collas, a Peruvian tribe. From the caverns of Pacari

Tampu issued four brothers and a sister. The eldest ascended a mountain

and cast stones to all the cardinal points of the compass to signify

that he had taken possession of the land. The other three were envious

of him, and the youngest succeeded in inducing him to enter a cave,

whereupon the youngest brother closed the mouth of the cave with a

great stone and imprisoned the eldest there for ever. On pretence of

seeking his lost brother he then persuaded the second to ascend a high

mountain, from which he cast him, and, as he fell, by dint of magic

art changed him into a stone. The third brother, scenting treachery,

fled. The first brother would appear to symbolize the oldest known

Peruvian religion, that of the thunder-god Pachacamac, the second that

of an intermediate fetishism or stone-worship, the third the cult of

Viracocha, the water-god, while the fourth seems to be the more modern

sun-worship, which in the end triumphed officially over all, as is

proved by the name of the youngest brother, 'Pirrhua Manca' ('Son of

the Sun ').

MADNESS OR MENTAL CHILDHOOD?

Max Müller seriously suggested that the "savage and irrational" element

in myth arose out of a "period of temporary madness through which the

human mind had to pass." "Was it," he asks, "a madness identically

the same in the south of India and the north of Iceland?" The state

of mind, the mental attitude, was and is, of course, very much the

same among savages or barbarians from Cape Horn to Novaia Zemlia; but

no 'madness' is mingled with the mental equipment of primitive man,

although he is irrational. What Professor Müller mistook for 'madness'

was the child-like propensity of the savage or barbarian, or even the

uncultured person, to delusion, ignorance, and distortion of facts and

experiences. The imbecility of savage theories and stones is due to a

scanty stock of acquired ideas and lack of experience in wielding the

higher powers of reason. In short, savage or primitive man, although

highly observant, explains such facts as come within his range of view

by employing imagination rather than reason.[12] He is in a condition

of mental childhood, when imagination is very much more powerful than

reason. Thus he imagines that all other physical entities in nature

are, like himself, gifted with powers of speech, volition, and thought.

This is called 'animism'--_i.e._ the bestowal of a soul (Lat _anima_)

upon all objects.[13] The winds and the waters speak and obviously

travel; the trees are articulate; the lower animals he regards as his

equals. He does not bring reason, as we understand it, to bear upon his

experience. The 'wonders' in these tales are no marvels to him; the

brutalities of savage life recounted in them, the barbarian atmosphere

and colour, are his everyday experiences.[14] He hands the tale on; but

his descendants fail to comprehend its meaning and aim; its almost

animal savagery repels them, and at length more advanced generations,

shocked at what seems to them blasphemous nonsense, discard it

altogether, or so cleanse and refine it as not infrequently to render

its original meaning entirely undiscoverable.

SAVAGERY IN GREEK MYTH

As an example of how the savage element displays itself in the mythic

tales of such a refined and poetically gifted people as the Greeks, the

myth of the birth of Zeus may be instanced. When Cronus had displaced

Uranus, the first monarch of Olympus, he took to wife Rhea, one of

the Titan race. Gæa, his mother, however, prophesied that as he had

overthrown Uranus, he himself would be overthrown by one of his own

children. So uneasy did he become in consequence of this prediction

that whenever a child was born to him he tore it from its mother's arms

and swallowed it whole. Five children did he swallow in this manner,

greatly to the grief of Rhea, who, lamenting to Gæa the loss of her

offspring, was advised by her next time she had a child to take a stone

and wrap it in swaddling-clothes and give it to Cronus to swallow as

if it were the infant, at the same time carefully concealing the real

child in some secluded place until it reached maturity. This Rhea did,

and Cronus duly swallowed the stone she gave him, imagining it to be

one of his own children and therefore his possible future destroyer.

But Rhea hid the child in a cave in the island of Crete, where the goat

Amalthea nourished him with her milk. There were placed in the infant's

vicinity armed men, who, whenever he cried, performed a war-dance,

clashing their spears and shields to drown his wailing; and so within a

year the boy grew to full manhood. At length Gæa gave Cronus a draught

which made him vomit up the stone he had swallowed, together with the

five children previously devoured--two gods and three goddesses. These

young gods made war upon the elder deities, and after a ten years'

struggle were victorious over them, banishing them to the dismal region

of Tartarus.

In this myth the savage element is strikingly apparent. Through the

mists of allegory we seem to discern (1) the replacement of one tribal

head by another; (2) the prediction of the tribal prophetess or crone;

(3) a condition of cannibalism; (4) a reminiscence of fetishistic

stone-worship in a stone being mistaken for a young god; (5) the

nurture of a child by a goat, perhaps a primitive form of nursing;

(6) a war-dance by armed savages; (7) the younger men of the tribe

banishing the older men to a less desirable spot; (8) the primitive

right of the youngest son to succeed the father.

Now we find numerous myths similar to this in all quarters of the

world. "Bushmen tell of _Kwai Hemm_, the devourer, who swallows

that great god, the mantis insect, and disgorges him alive with all

the other persons and animals engulphed in the course of a long and

voracious career. The moon in Australia, while he lived on earth, was

very greedy, and swallowed the eagle-god, whom he had to disgorge.

Mr Im Thurn found similar tales among the Indians of Guiana. The

swallowing and disgorging of Heracles by the monster that was to

slay Hesione is well known. Scotch peasants tell of the same feats,

but localize the myth on the banks of the Ken in Galloway. Basutos',

Eskimos', Zulus', and European fairy-tales all possess this incident,

the swallowing of many persons by a being from whose maw they return

alive and in good case."[15]

Many circumstances of myth go to illustrate its primitive and barbaric

origin. The tales of gods who masquerade as animals are probably

reminiscent of a time when they were worshipped in animal form.[16]

The Greek mysteries, which were merely acted myths, conserved the

savage rite of daubing the initiate with clay, a practice common among

African, Australian, South American, and Papuan uncivilized peoples.

They also retained from primitive times the use of the 'bull-roarer,'

two flattened pieces of wood attached to a string, which on being swung

produces a mysterious humming noise, a device employed by many savage

folk to keep away women and the profane from the performance of their

rites and ceremonies. Early man, engaged in ceaseless strife, regarded

his gods as in constant conflict with giants or with each other. They

abduct each other's wives, they are cowardly, gluttonous, immoral, and

given to magic, just as is savage man himself.

SAVAGERY IN THE VEDAS AND BRAHMANAS

Although the Vedas of India are 'sacred' works, principally

repositories of devotional hymns, they bear traces of this barbarism

which permeates all mythology. We find the deities in their pages

comporting themselves as one might expect the lowest savages to do,

although the whole religious sentiment of the work is opposed to these

acts. The later Brahmanas, treatises on the intricacies of ritual

compiled by a priestly caste of fairly exalted character, also teem

with myths in which barbaric thought is encountered. Their pages,

indeed, are the meeting-place of savagery and semi-civilization. In

one myth the mother of Indra is a cow, Indra being represented as a

drunkard who intoxicates himself with _soma_, and as a murderer who

actually kills a priest. These circumstances in his myth are relics

of an age when he was, although a god, regarded as man-like, and a

savage man at that. This is due to the religious instinct called

'anthropomorphism.'

Nearly all the Greek peoples worshipped stones, some named after the

gods[17]--a relic of fetishism--and their later religion kept much of

savage practice. Homer speaks of Athene as 'owl-eyed.' Was she once

worshipped as an owl? The deities in the _Iliad_ are extraordinarily

human, not to say barbarous, in their propensities, and have a knack of

transforming themselves into animal shapes when pursued or pursuing,

loving or hating. They reflect the Greek idea of Homer's day, yet they

are even older.

MYTH AND EARLY SCIENCE

Enough has been said to illustrate the existence of the savage element

in primitive myth. Not only do later myths account for the religious

element in the more primitive examples, but they explain, or attempt

to explain, primitive scientific notions as well.[18]

The desire to know the 'reason why' early creates a thirst for

knowledge, an intellectual appetite. "When the attention of a man

in the myth-making stage of intellect is drawn to any phenomenon or

custom which has to him no obvious reason, he invents and tells a story

to account for it."[19] The character of most primitive myths amply

justifies this statement. They are mostly explanations of intellectual

difficulties, answers to such questions as, What is the origin of or

reason for this or that phenomenon or custom? How came the world and

man to be formed as they are? In what manner were the heavenly bodies

so placed and directed in their courses? Why is the lily white, the

robin's breast splashed with red? How came into force this sacrificial

custom, this especial ritualistic attitude, the detail of this rite?

The early replies to these questions partake not only of the nature of

myth, but of science--primitive science, but science nevertheless--for

one of the first functions of science is to enlighten man concerning

the nature of the objects and forces by which he finds himself

surrounded, and their causes and effects. These replies are none the

less scientific because they take the shape of stones. Their very

existence proves that the above questions, to clear up which they were

invented, were asked. They cannot be accounted for without the previous

existence of these questions. Mythology is the savage's science,

his manner of explaining the universe in which he lives and moves.

Says Lang: "They frame their stories generally in harmony with their

general theory of things, by what may be called 'savage metaphysics.'"

Of course they did not think on the lines of a well-informed modern

scholar. Müller remarks in an illuminating passage:

"Early man not only did not think as we think, but did not think as we

suppose he ought to have thought."

One of the chief differences between the outlook of the primitive

savage and that of civilized man is the great extension in the mind of

the former of the theory of personality, an outlook we have already

called 'animism,' Everything possesses a 'soul,' or at any rate

will-power, in the judgment of the savage. But not only are sun, sky,

river, lightning, beast, tree, persons among primitive or backward

peoples; they are savage persons.

ANIMISM: A FOSSIL FAITH

Research and travel combine to prove that earliest man and the lowest

savages cannot be found without myths, which, as we have seen, are

both religion and science. The first recognized stage in man's mental

experience is animism, so that the earliest myths must have been

'animistic.'[20] Roughly, animism is the belief that everything has a

soul or at least a personality, but no race has yet been discovered

possessing purely animistic beliefs. Even the lowest races we know

have developed these considerably, and so we are only acquainted with

animism in its pure form theoretically,[21] as a phase of religious

experience through which man must at one time have passed. It is, in

fact, a fossil faith. But just as fossil animals and plants have their

living representatives to-day, so do ideas and conceptions representing

this petrified form of religion and science still flourish in our

present-day superstitions and our present-day faiths.

Animistic myths naturally show primitive ideas regarding the soul.

Animism will be dealt with more fully hereafter, but in this

introductory sketch we will cite one or two examples of animistic myth

to illustrate what was, so far as we know, the earliest type of myth.

Stories are found telling of journeys to the spirit land, of talking

animals, of men metamorphosed into animals and trees, and these are

all animistic or originate in animistic belief.[22] Modern folk-tales

containing such stories possess a very great antiquity, or are merely

very old myths partly obscured by a veneer of modernity. Spirit stories

which have obviously a primitive setting or atmosphere are almost

certainly animistic. Thus tales which describe the soul as a bird

or a bee, flitting about when the body is asleep, are either direct

relics of an animistic age, or have been inspired by earlier animistic

stories handed down from that age. The tales of spirit journeys to the

Otherworld, the provision of implements, weapons, shoes, and so forth,

placed in the grave to assist the soul in its progress to the Land of

Shadows, invariably point to an animistic stage of belief--the belief

in a separable 'soul,' in an entity entirely different and apart from

the 'tenement of clay' that has perished.

PRE-ANIMISTIC RELIGION

There are not wanting authorities of discernment who believe that

even this early phase was not the primitive phase in the religious

experience of man. Of these the most clear-sighted and perspicuous in

argument is Dr Marett, reader in anthropology at Oxford University.

In a pregnant chapter-preface in his highly suggestive book, _The

Threshold of Religion,_ Dr Marett says: "Psychologically, religion

requires more than thought, namely, feeling and will as well; and

may manifest itself on its emotional side, even when ideation is

vague. The question, then, is, whether apart from ideas of spirit,

ghost, soul, and the like, and before such ideas have become dominant

factors in the constituent experience, a rudimentary religion can

exist. It will suffice to prove that supernaturalism, the attitude

of mind dictated by awe of the mysterious, which provides religion

with its raw material, may exist apart from animism, and, further,

may provide a basis on which an animistic doctrine is subsequently

constructed. Objects towards which awe is felt may be termed powers."

He proceeds to say that startling manifestations of nature may be

treated as 'powers' without any assumption of spiritual intervention,

that certain Australian supreme beings appear to have evolved from

the bull-roarer,[23] and that the dead inspire awe. This he calls

'supernaturalism,' and regards it as a phase preceding animism.

FETISHISM

Very closely allied to and coexistent with animism, and not to be very

clearly distinguished from it, is fetishism. This word is derived from

the Portuguese _feitiço_, a charm, 'something made by art,' and is

applied to any object, large or small, natural or artificial, regarded

as possessing consciousness, volition, and supernatural qualities,

especially magic power.[24]

Briefly and roughly, the fetish is an object which the savage all over

the world, in Africa, Asia, America, Australia, and, anciently, in

Europe, believes to be inhabited by a spirit or supernatural being.

Trees, water, stones, are in the 'animistic' phase considered as the

homes of such spirits, which, the savage thinks, are often forced

to quit their dwelling-places because they are under the spell or

potent enchantment of a more powerful being. The fetish may be a

bone, a stone, a bundle of feathers, a fossil, a necklace of shells,

or any object of peculiar shape or appearance. Into this object

the medicine-man may lure the wandering or banished spirit, which

henceforth becomes his servant; or, again, the spirit may of its own

will take up its residence there. It is not clear whether, once in

residence or imprisonment, the spirit can quit the fetish, but specific

instances would point to the belief that it could do so if permitted by

its 'master'[25]

We must discriminate sharply between a fetish-spirit and a god,

although the fetish may develop into a godling or god. The basic

difference between the fetish and the god is that whereas the god is

the patron and is invoked by prayer, the fetish is a spirit subservient

to an individual owner or tribe, and if it would gain the state of

godhead it must do so by long or marvellous service as a luck-bringer.

Offerings may be made to a fetish; it may even be invoked by prayer or

spell; but on the other hand it may be severely castigated if it fail

to respond to its owner's desires. Instances of the castigation of gods

proper are of rare occurrence, and could scarcely happen when a deity

was in the full flush of godhead, unless, indeed, the assault were

directed by an alien hand.[26]

We have seen that the ancient Greeks had in their temples stones

representing 'nameless gods' who seem to have been of fetish origin.

Thus a fetish may almost seem an idol, and the line of demarcation

between the great fetish and the idol is slender, the great fetish

being a link between the smaller fetish and the complete god.

Myths showing fetishistic belief are few and obscure, but the writer

recently unearthed, in the fishing village of Newhaven, near Edinburgh,

one which is a good example of the survival of a fetish myth and of the

rise of a fetish to godhead.

FROM FETISH TO THUNDER-GOD

Perusing an old book entitled _Tales and Traditions of Leith,_ the

writer read of one Brounger, "an old fisherman who at one time resided

at Newhaven, and who, when unable to go to sea himself, used to ask his

neighbours for a few oysters or fish on their return from fishing,"

and curse those churlish enough to refuse. The curse was invariably

effective, so that in the end the fishing community became anxious to

propitiate an individual whose spoken word carried such weight, and

regarded his demands in the light of an established claim. According

to tradition, Brounger passed away, but his name remained a 'thing

to conjure with'--literally. For a Newhaven fisherman to be told

"Brounger's in your head-sheets" meant that the speaker cast on his

vessel and all who sailed therein an evil spell, only to be broken by

making the boat describe a circle in the water three separate times.

The student of myth will regard this 'old fisherman' with an eye of

professional suspicion. Why should the mariners of Newhaven fear and

mistrust the mere mention of one who in days more or less distant

levied a petty toll of oysters or flounders from their fathers? He will

find the scent grow hot when he is informed (and this is the point)

that Brounger was 'a flint, and the son of a flint.' For the flint is

the fetishistic emblem of the thunder-god, and Brounger was a deity of

the storm.

Among many peoples the flint-stone symbolizes thunder, for from the

flint comes fire. In America, for example, Tohil, who gave the Kiches

of Central America fire, was represented by a flint-stone. Such a

stone in the beginning of things fell from Heaven to earth, and broke

into a myriad pieces, from each of which sprang a god--an ancient

Mexican legend which shadows forth the subjection of all things to him

who gathers the clouds together in thunder. This is the germ of the

adoration of fetish stones as emblems of the fertilizing rains. The

rain-charms of the Navaho Indians are hung round stones supposed to

fall from the clouds when it thunders. With the Algonquin Indians a

certain rain-god has a body of flint which, broken, is changed into

fruitful vines. The blood of Tawiscara, another Indian deity, turns to

flint as it falls from his wounds. Hathor, the sky-goddess of Egypt,

was the 'Lady of Turquoise,' as was the Mexican water-goddess. Is not

the 'elf-arrow' (the flint arrow-head) a 'thunderbolt' to peasants of

all countries, Britain not excepted? So we begin to see why Brounger

was a 'flint,' and the 'son of a flint.' In days when the first

Teutonic fishermen settled on the coast of Midlothian they brought with

them a thunder-god, the root of whose name may perhaps be found in the

old Gothic word _brinnan_, to burn; hence Brünger, 'the burner,' 'the

devastator,' 'the wielder of lightnings,' worshipped in the flint and

placated by gifts from that sea-harvest which he had power to give or

to withhold.

From the Hebridean Isle of Fladdahuan comes a similar story. On the

altar of the chapel of that isle, says Martin in his _Western Isles_,

lay a round bluish stone, always moist. Wind-bound fishermen walked

sunways round the chapel and then poured water on the stone, whereupon

a powerful breeze was sure to spring up. Solemn oaths were also sworn

upon the stone. A similar stone was possessed by the Isle of Arran,

kept in the custody of a woman (the hereditary priestess of its cult?),

and "wrapped up in fair linen cloth." In Inniskea, an island off the

Irish coast, a stone wrapped up in flannel is brought out at certain

periods to be adored by the inhabitants. It is kept in a private

dwelling, and is called in the Irish Neevougi. It is prayed to in

times of sickness and is requested to send wrecks upon the coast.[27]

All this is within the ritual of rain-making, but Brounger, though

a thunder- and rain-god, was requested _not_ to visit his folk with

tempest for the reason that their business lay in the furrows made by

the keel and not in those of the plough.

One certain proof that Brounger was a supernatural being exists in a

folk-poem to be found in the above-mentioned work on Leith traditions.

A wedding ceremony is in progress, when Brounger glares through the

window at the merrymakers. At once a cry arises that he must be

placated. Sings one fisherman:

"Let ilka body gie 'm a corse [copper piece],

And Jock may gie him twa,

An' the chiel will sune hae in his maut [drink],

Syne he'll forget it a'.

And when he's at the land o' Nod,

To make the matter tight,

I'll score the loon aboon the breath,

An' syne we'll be a' richt."

To "score" a wizard (or witch) "aboon the breath," and thus procure

some of his blood, rendered the possessors of it immune from the

malice of the sorcerer. So we see that Brounger was at least no mere

'Longshoreman Billy,' earning a livelihood by terrorizing his brother

salts, but ranked in some measure with the supernatural host. It is

just possible, indeed, that he may possess a common origin with the

Russian Perunu or Peroun, whose name also signified 'striker' or

'lightning-wielder.'

TOTEMISM

Totemism is a phase of religion frequently encountered in myth. Briefly

and crudely defined (and any brief definition of it must essentially be

crude), the totem is an animal, plant, or inanimate object connected

traditionally with a certain social group which takes its name from

the totem or uses it as a symbol. The persons composing this 'group'

suppose themselves to be descended from the totem animal or plant, or

to be related to it. There is a magico-religious bond between the totem

animal and themselves, and the totem may not be eaten by the members of

the community of which it is the patron unless in a ceremonial manner

and at stated seasons.

Examples of the totem in myth are, as has been said, frequent. In the

Roman myth of Jupiter and Leda, for instance, we encounter Jupiter

in the form of a swan; many of the Egyptian animal-headed gods are

totemic; certain swine-gods of the ancient Britons were of the same

class; and we know that some of our ancestors would not eat geese, just

as certain Red Indians will not eat beaver or racoon, because these

animals represented, or represent, the beast-patron of their tribe.

About the beginning of the eighteenth century certain French

missionaries--among them the Jesuit Lafitau--were struck with the

importance of totemism in the religious and social life of the North

American Indians. Lafitau saw more clearly than any of his colleagues

the nature of this peculiar socio-religious condition, and was even led

to apply what he saw among the Iroquois Indians to the interpretation

of the Greek Chimæra! During the first part of the nineteenth century

the facts concerning totemism began to reach Great Britain from

missionaries and travellers in every part of the globe. Moreover,

allusions to what were undoubtedly totemic conceptions could be traced

in the authors of antiquity--Diodorus, Herodotus, Pausanias, Ælian,

etc. In 1869 McLennan pointed out that many totemic customs and beliefs

survived in various civilizations, ancient and modern. About 1885

Frazer and Robertson Smith approached the subject with a larger body of

facts. Later, Tylor, Spencer, Lubbock, Lang, Jevons, Cook, and Grant

Allen threw themselves into the study of this remarkable phase of

socio-religious life.

POLYTHEISM

In this introduction we are dealing with the various divisions, more

or less arbitrary, made by students of myth and comparative religion,

and will not here attempt any description of the processes by which

spirits of the animistic, fetishistic, and totemic types evolve into

perfected deities. In a condition of polytheism we encounter the gods

fully evolved, and often arranged in a hierarchy closely resembling the

social polity of the tribe or people from whose religious imagination

it has sprung.

Polytheism--a multiplicity of gods--is a condition arrived at by more

than one route. Several great and powerful deities may shed a number

of attributes and variants which themselves become personalized into

gods. Egyptian mythology teems with examples of this, as almost all its

principal gods absorbed or gave birth to several others in this manner.

For example, from Horus was evolved Horus the Elder, Horus the Younger,

Heru-an-Mut (a local god worshipped at Edfu), Heru-Khenti-Khat (a

god with a crocodile's head), the Horus of Khnemu ('Horus of the Two

Horizons,' or the Harmachis of the Greeks, a form of Ra, the sun-god),

Heru-Behudeti (who prevailed in the southern heavens at midday), and

so forth. Gods belonging to certain towns or religious centres were

collected and grouped, perhaps by priestly influence, into a pantheon

in order of their importance.

Among semi-civilized people, then, the activities of the greater

gods are constantly being enriched by new functions. Dialectical

misunderstandings led to descriptive terms which brought about a change

in divine names. The fortunes of kingdoms or royal races, migration

and conquest, the contact of race with race through trade and travel,

the adoption of foreign deities, all served to modify and expand the

pantheons of the ancient world.

MONOTHEISM

Monotheism--the worship of one god--may emerge from polytheism in

more ways than one. A certain god by dint of a miracle, because he

is the deity of a conquering race, because of the enterprise of his

priests, or by absorbing lesser gods, becomes the most powerful and

popular deity in a state or neighbourhood. Or he may be the god of

the reigning dynasty, a circumstance sufficient to secure for him at

least a fashionable recognition so long as that dynasty survives. We

usually find that such gods have vested in them the right to pardon

sin, and they are indeed the founts of righteousness in virtue of their

all-sufficing nature. But, apart from all the above considerations, the

rise of moral feeling and a higher standard of conduct, order, and life

were connected with the communal rise of monotheistic worship and the

more exalted religious outlook it brings.

THE NATURE OF MYTHIC LAW

Tylor has stated that myth displays a regularity of development which

cannot be accounted for by motiveless fancy and must be attributed

to laws of growth. These laws, as has been seen, are practically

universal in their application. But besides those forces which bring

the myth into being--those demands of primitive man for explanation and

intellectual satisfaction--there are other factors which begin to work

upon myth at birth, and do not cease to act upon it, in succession,

until perhaps it loses its earlier characteristics.

Thus we first find, going to work by analogy with certain contemporary

savage examples and by induction, the purely animistic myth. As we have

seen, this bestows personality and will-power upon inanimate objects,

glorifies animals, and is practically without religious significance.

Such a myth is found among the Chinook Indians of the north-west coast

of America in the adventures of Blue Jay, a bird with human attributes

who travels to the country of the Supernatural People and succeeds in

defeating them in climbing, diving, whale-spearing, and archery. As

we possess it, the myth has undoubtedly been influenced by successive

waves of advancing native thought, but no sophistication by European

influence is discernible. The impudence and effrontery of the Blue Jay

bird led to its adoption as the central figure in many a tale, and,

later, as the hero of the universal story of the 'Harrying of Hell,'

in which a supernatural being traverses the country of the dead and

brings defeat and disgrace upon its inhabitants in order to show the

savage mind that it was possible to conquer death and Hell. Thus we

have emanating from an animistic idea (1) the bird as person (in the

myth a 'person' is spoken of as splitting wood with his beak); (2)

the bird as tale-hero; (3) the bird as vanquisher of death and Hell.

Further elaborations of the myth, had social and tribal circumstances

permitted of its growth, might well have shown us Blue Jay as the

winged god, the principle of 'evil,' or perhaps in an even more exalted

mythic capacity. Had the Chinooks remained undiscovered in their own

environment and been capable of the evolution of a literature, who

shall say to what heights of sanctity the conception of Blue Jay might

not have risen?

FROM BIRD-TO MAN-GOD

Lest the reader unaccustomed to the developments of mythic law think

such a statement exaggerated, he shall be shown the valuable 'test of

recurrence,' frequently employed by the rational experimentalist in

myth, a test which, conversely, is his undoing if his conclusions are

ill founded. The myth of the Aztec war-god Uitzilopochtli is similar

to that of Blue Jay. It recounts how Uitzilopochtli, guided by a bird,

led the Aztecs from the Underworld (?) country of Aztlan to the valley

of Mexico by means of a peculiar call. Later he appears in Mexican myth

in the full panoply of the national god of war, the most important

figure, save one, in the Aztec pantheon. To him human sacrifice was

rendered, and the greatest temple in the land was erected. His cult

boasted an exclusive high priest, and in all respects he was regarded

as the national god of the Aztec race. Yet he never resigned certain

of his bird-like characteristics--a circumstance from which he derived

his name, signifying 'Humming-bird Wizard,' and denoting that he was a

bird before he took human shape.[28] Paste images of him were eaten at

certain festivals by way of a communion rite.

The personalized bird is to be met with not only in American myth, but

in European and Asiatic story as well. The Romano-Greek winged Mercury

was originally almost certainly such a figure as Blue Jay. Like the

Chinook god, he was sprightly, vivid, fond of practical joking, and

a notorious thief. Picus, the Latin war-god, was a woodpecker, whose

picture adorned the banners of his devotees. The god, in human form,

wore a woodpecker on his head. Instead of becoming a national deity

like Uitzilopochtli, Blue Jay might, in the hands of a people of equal

imaginative capacity to the Greeks, have evolved into a mere messenger

of the gods, or under the more sober influences of Judaism have become

a cherub or an archangel--such are the diversities of racial character

and its effect upon religious development.

Myth is hedged round and protected from change by the spirit of

sanctity, but it may fall a prey to the religious spirit when more

fully evolved, for what is sanctity to one age is often blasphemy

to its successor, and that which appears worthy of retention to

religious conservatives and priests at one period may well be regarded

as an abomination by their official descendants. Thus we find the

philosophers of Greece almost to a man attempting to purge the myths

of their race from the grossness of barbaric ideas; we note, too, the

strivings of the Egyptian and Babylonian priests to combine rival

myths and to bring older religious story into line with more modern

theological ideas--in a word, to modify the traditional myths of the

race so that the old scientific and religious explanations of the

universe--the myths--took quite a new shape.

THE CAUSES OF MYTHIC CHANGE

The question then arises, What are the true causes of mythic change? If

the conclusions previously presented be correct, these are:

(1) The evolution, growth, and advance of theological ideas. Thus

a myth acceptable in 'animistic' times might not prove so under a

monotheistic or even polytheistic _régime_. The myth which would apply

to a bird- or animal- or tree-god might not be applicable to a man-like

deity.

(2) The growth and development of the idea of the sacred and of

ethical ideas. The barbarities and abominations of early totemic and

other animistic myth, apart altogether from shocking the religious

sensibilities of people in later ages shocked their moral feelings

as well, and this resulted in more or less drastic changes, which,

however, do not altogether disguise the original story.

(3) Adventitious circumstances, such as racial feeling and

idiosyncrasy, the deliberate or accidental fusion of two or more myths

by a priesthood or by force of popular belief or acquiescence.

(4) The circumstances in which myth survives the religion or living

faith with which it was originally connected. Thus on the official

demise of a religion it may continue to be celebrated secretly, and

this secret celebration may degenerate into magic and its myths change

into folk-tale.

It follows from these premises that practically all myth is of extreme

antiquity,[29] and once a myth becomes established it may, for many

reasons, undergo considerable alteration by successive generations.

Its character of an early human 'explanation' of the universe is lost

in the passage of generations, and it comes to require explanation.

Thus it is understood, more or less correctly, in later times to

refer to a genuine historical occurrence, or as an allegory upon

natural phenomena, as it is unlikely that the upholders of a religion

with fixed tenets would deliberately manufacture myths, however they

might purify or combine those with which their theological system

was connected. The difficulty in popular acceptance of a newly

forged religious story, the manifest impiety of the proceeding and

its necessary character, are all too apparent. Apparent, too, is the

sufficiency of the mere alteration or 'editing' of myths to account for

such minor theological differences as arose, even under a polytheistic

_régime_ of the least advanced type. With very few exceptions, the

polytheistic systems of antiquity contained so many added and alien

deities that slight alteration would suffice for the full adoption of

the new-comer into the pantheon. This process must not be mistaken for

religious laxity, as the alien god was almost invariably identified

with one or other of the national deities, and the myth would merely be

altered so far as necessary.

THE 'EDITING' OF MYTH

Instances occur in which myths of exceedingly ancient origin have

received a wholesale 'editing' at the hands of later scribes. One of

the most striking instances of such a process is that of the Babylonian

creation myth, which recounts the famous combat between the god

Bel-Merodach and Tiawath, the terrible dragon of the abyss. In the myth

in question the ancient Accadian concept of the fathomless deep and the

Babylonian idea of the abyss, respectively entitled Apsu and Tiawath,

are represented as husband and wife, an example of mythic amalgamation

common enough. But from an attribute of Tiawath is formed a third god,

named Mummu, who is described as the son of the two original deities.

In such an innovation we can assuredly trace the hand of the later

mythographer, who, with less skill and greater levity than is usual,

has ventured to evolve an entire trinity from one concept--that of

the primeval abyss. Thus from the Babylonian and Accadian concept of

'the deep,' essentially one, has arisen an entire trinity of evil. A

further addition is made to this infernal band in the shape of Kingu,

whom Tiawath calls her 'only husband'; but as he enters the mythic

field Apsu and Mummu leave it, and are heard of no more in the course

of the tale. It may be that at this point the story was taken up by

a new scribe, who did not approve of the action of his predecessor

in describing the hostile trinity, originally one conception, as

three separate deities--but that is merely conjecture. The Babylonian

cosmogony as we possess it is presented in purely epical form, and it

is practically certain that in this shape it differed greatly from the

originally accepted myth upon the same subject. Indeed, the inclusion

in it of later gods proves it to be a good example of myth which has

undergone transformation more than once.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MYTH

It has been said that the chief divisions of myth correspond to

the chief problems which the universe presents to the curiosity of

untutored man. Thus we find that most myths will fall under such

heads as the origin of the world, the origin of man, the origin of

the arts of life, star myths, sun and moon myths, myths of death,

myths of fire-stealing, hero myths (including tales of the adventures

of demigods), myths regarding taboo, beast myths, myths of journeys

through the Underworld or Otherworld, myths to account for customs or

rites, and other less important varieties.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF MYTH

This is a good place to discuss the vexed question whether all myths

have sprung from one common centre, or whether each one is the

spontaneous creation of man's brain in separate parts of the world.

Both theories possess a measure of truth, for certain tales have

undoubtedly been widely disseminated, some of them being altered by

foreign influence, while certain others are obviously of spontaneous

growth. Examples of widely disseminated stories are readily

encountered. The solar hero, who as son of the sun comes to earth to

instruct men in the arts of life, and after a strenuous mundane career

returns to his father's bright kingdom, is common to Greeks, Celts,

Teutons, and Red Indians. Flood myths, again, are as widely spread as

any variety of tale.

Those who uphold the theory of the origin of myth in one centre and

its wide dissemination have not so far explained fully how myths

became so widespread. Of course the purchase or capture of slaves,

intermarriage with alien women, intercourse with alien peoples, trade

and commerce, may account for many similarities,[30] but the question

yet awaits reply, "Can myths 'drift' across many thousands of miles of

sea-water?" The complete isolation of Australia throughout the ages,

and the similar situation of America, two continents which possess, as

a late distinguished student of myth was wont to say, "the whole bag

of tricks" of mythology as found elsewhere, show that the answer is

not a simple one. In any case, if there be any genealogical connexion

between the myths of the Old World and the New, the myths of Asia and

Australia, it must be of extreme antiquity, dating from before the

remote geological period when all communication was cut off between

America, Australia, and the rest of the globe. That may not have

been so very long ago, comparatively speaking, for America, but for

Australia it must have been "at a time so remote as to permit of no

traditions. No record, no folk-tales, as in the case of the Maoris of

New Zealand, are preserved by the Australians ... nothing, as A. W.

Howitt points out, that can be twisted into referring even indirectly

to their first arrival."[31]

Dr Klaatsch of Heidelberg says that the Australians are "a generalized,

not a specialized, type of humanity--that is to say, they are a very

primitive people, with more of the common undeveloped characteristics

of man, and less of the qualities of the specialized races of

civilization." It is likely, however, that they are closely related to

the Dravidians of the Indian Deccan, and that they are not so low in

the scale as Klaatsch believes. Even so, the very distant date at which

they arrived in the Australian continent precludes the likelihood of

their carrying with them any form of religious belief that was not of

an even more archaic character than those we are studying.[32]

Flood myths possess an almost world-wide similarity. We find the

story of the man and woman who escape the universal deluge in a

cunningly contrived boat or chest in Greece, Assyria, Palestine,

Mexico, and other countries. In such stories we have good examples of

myths apparently disseminated from one original tale or event; but

that resemblances between myths are no criterion of a common origin

is proved by widespread examples in which circumstances of time and

geography forbid all possibility of borrowing. The belief that once the

soul had partaken of the food of the Underworld it might not return to

earth is common to ancient Greeks, Finns, and Red Indians, and if any

original conception gave rise to the notion in these widely separated

countries it must be sought in an altogether archaic and prehistoric

era.

SOPHISTICATED MYTHS

Myths generally become altered or 'sophisticated' by contact with a

higher civilization than that of the people which originally developed

them. The myth of Joskeha and Tawiscara given on p. 191 is a notable

instance in this connexion. Some barbarous mythic systems have become

coloured by Biblical narrative, but it is not safe to conclude so

because of a surface resemblance. The rule holds good, generally

speaking, that myths found current among primitive people and having

marked ethical characteristics in which 'good' and 'evil' are sharply

contrasted almost certainly show sophistication by the agents of a

superior civilization. But if the rule were to be ruthlessly adhered to

it would not admit the evolution of religious belief or the heightening

of the ethical standard among the lower races, who must pass through

such phases of development as those through which our fathers passed,

with this exception, of course, that the process is quickened in their

case by contact with races possessing a much higher standard of general

culture.

By a process of interaction all mythic systems of uncivilized peoples

are probably at the present day highly sophisticated, so that to

encounter a truly spontaneous myth uncoloured by alien belief or

priestly conception is probably impossible. At the same time it is

a characteristic of myth and folk-tale that no matter how greatly

cultural surroundings alter them they tend to keep the basic elements

of which they were originally compounded. We all know that matters

of fact as they pass from one individual to another become greatly

distorted. Strangely enough, this is not the case with myth and

folk-tale. The reason is hard to discover, but the fact is certain.

The writer has observed among children a prompt indignation at the

'mis-telling' of a traditional tale. Once the terms of a story become

fixed he will be bold who will attempt to alter them when recounting

them to children or savages. In short, where the circumstances of a

story are well authenticated a barrier exists against the tendency,

shown in gossip, to adorn the original plot, to add or subtract from

it. This appears to be due to a strong conservative instinct in the

childish and savage mind.

"To generalize," said Blake, "is to be an idiot," but to generalize is

one of the functions of science. In a general sense, then, the more

simple and archaic the characteristics of a myth, and the more it

reflects an early state of society, the greater the antiquity it is

naturally likely to possess. The more 'literary,' the more embellished

it is by the graces of art, and the more cunning it displays in the

business of story-telling, the later it will be. Many myths have, of

course, been built up by slow degrees only, the myth of Osiris being

an admirable example. It grew with the importance of the god himself,

who perhaps from a mere local spirit came to be the great deity of the

dead.

Proof of the authenticity of myth--that is, the proof by which it

is known as the genuine aboriginal product of a primitive folk--is

obtained by what Tylor has called "the test of recurrence." That is, if

we discover a tale possessing the same elements in several different

parts of the world "we cannot set down the coincidence to chance or

fraud." This is practically a 'law,' and is one of the most valuable

conclusions which has as yet enriched mythological science.

An outline--and merely an outline--of the principal questions with

which students of myth are at present chiefly concerned has now been

furnished. These, as has been said, will be amplified in succeeding

chapters, the purpose of this introduction having been served if the

reader is enabled by its perusal to follow intelligently the subsequent

examination, on a more extensive scale, of the subjects indicated.

[1] In order that the beginner in mythic science may be enabled to

comprehend its scope with some degree of precision, the writer has

framed definitions as closely approaching accuracy as the present state

of knowledge and research will permit, and has obtained the advice and

assistance of most of the leading authorities. The method adopted was

as follows. A table of definitions was placed before each authority,

and he was invited to comment upon it. Such comments and criticisms

on certain portions of the definitions either displaced the original

material or were incorporated with it, first of all being reduced to a

brevity suitable to explanatory phraseology. The result was the above

list of definitions.

In the _Handbook of Folklore_, Appendix A, a number of definitions

bearing upon mythology are provided, drawn up at a conference

representing the editors of the _Handbook_ and others. Several of them

bear the sign of over-caution. For example, we read on p. 300; "Myth, a

story told to account for something." Although sufficiently wide, the

phrase is sadly lacking in definiteness, and might equally apply to an

effort of mendacity!

[2] "Definitions and rules are needed. No student can attack so immense

a subject without the aid of such necessary machinery, and it is

because the attempt has been so often made ill-equipped in this respect

that the science of folklore has suffered so much and has remained so

long unrecognized." (Gomme, _Folklore as an Historical Science_, p.

127.) Some high authorities with whom the writer communicated appear

to consider the formulation of definitions as a 'waste of time'! This

attitude in the case of the leaders of any other science would surely

be considered as retrograde.

[3] In truth, 'folklore' is a most unfortunate denomination, as the

science it designates has greatly outgrown the name. Neither 'folklore'

nor 'mythology' is capable of defining the study of the religion,

fiction, usages, laws, and general mental equipment of savages and

primitive people. By far the best term is 'tradition,' and the one

barrier to its use seems to be its simplicity.

[4] _Religion of the Semites_ pp. 18 sqq.

[5] Gomme, quoting and following Robertson Smith, believes that

"mythology was no essential part of ancient religion, for it had no

sacred sanction and no binding force on the worshippers." Why then

the insistence by most priesthoods on the absorption of myths by

their neophytes? Why their 'renovation' of myths? Myths were early

efforts at a reconciliation of the tales of gods with the religious

sentiment; ritual, as Gomme admits, was merely the outward expression

of tradition. On p. 141 of the same work (_Folklore as an Historical

Science_) he speaks of "those who believe in the truth of the myth,"

of its "sacred character," of "traditions which have become sacred."

On p. 149 he speaks of myth as "revered," and told in "the hushed

sanctity of a great wonder." Yet he believes that it had "no binding

force"! On p. 150 he writes of the preservation of primitive myth "for

_religious_ purposes." Robertson Smith's reasoning was, of course,

based on pure theory and upon limited as opposed to universal examples

of the connexion of myth with religion, of which it is an integral

part. The wonder is that this circumstance was not patently visible to

the distinguished folklorist who comments upon and accepts his dictum.

[6] _The Golden Bough_(2nd ed.), vol. i, p. 63.

[7] My own 'minimum' definition of religion is, "The result of man's

attitude to the unknown."

[8] Dr Marett, in a letter to the author dated November 30, 1914,

states that he "thinks it a mistake to state by way of definition

that myths are ætiological" (explanatory), on the ground that

explanation is not a fundamental of myth and that a theory is thereby

involved. Says Gomme: "Every tradition ... myth or story contains two

perfectly independent elements--the fact upon which it is founded and

the interpretation of the fact which its founders have attempted."

(_Folklore as an Historical Science_, p. 10.)

[9] As regards the relation of myth to history, Gomme has happily said

that myth "must not be identified with history. This claim is based

upon two facts, the presence of myth in the shape of the folk-tale

[which he believes to be a late form of myth] and the preservation of

much mythic tradition beyond the stage of thought to which it properly

belongs by becoming attached to an historical event or series of

events, or to an historical personage, and in this way carrying on

its life into historic periods and among historic peoples. The first

position has resulted in a wholesale appropriation of the folk-tale

to the cause of the mythologists; the second position has hitherto

resulted either in a disastrous appropriation of the entire tradition

to mythology or in a still more disastrous rejection both of the

tradition and the historical event round which it clusters." (_Folklore

as an Historical Science_, p. 128.)

[10] "The myth is not dependent upon the text in which it appears

for the first time. That text as we have it was not written down by

contemporary or nearly contemporary authority. Before it had become a

written document it had lived long as oral tradition." (Gomme, _op.

cit_., p. 125.)

[11] When myth is 'renovated,' cleansed, cast into literary form, or in

any way subjected to alteration, it is known as 'secondary' myth--that

is, it exists in a secondary state.

[12] "In this class of tradition we are in touch with the struggles of

the earliest ancestors of man to learn about the unknown." (Gomme, _op.

cit.,_ p. 130.)

[13] "All the knowledge they possess is that based upon their own

material senses, and therefore when they apply that knowledge to

subjects outside their own personality they deal with them in terms of

their own personality." (Gomme, _op. cit.,_ p. 132.)

[14] Some modern writers believe animism to be a relatively late

manifestation in the religious history of mankind. It seems to me

to occur spontaneously wherever and whenever the mind of man is

discovered in a condition sufficiently primitive to receive it, and

as it is the original mental characteristic of all children, whether

savage or civilized, I fail to recognize its significance as a later

demonstration of human thought.

[15] Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_ (4th ed.), vol. i, p. 295.

[16] See remarks on totemism, p. 28.

[17] Gill, _Myths and Songs from the South Pacific_, p. 60.

[18] "Primitive science was also primitive belief." (Gomme, _op.

cit.,_ p. 140.) Again (p. 132): "Where savages ask themselves, as they

certainly do ask themselves, whence the sky, whence the winds, the sun,

moon, stars, sea, rivers, mountains, and other natural objects, they

reply in terms of good logic applied to deficient knowledge." Again (p.

130): "Our own research in the realms of the unknown we dignify by the

name and glories of science. The research of our remote ancestors was

of like kind.... It was primitive science."

[19] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, vol. i, p. 369.

[20] Animism has been defined by Dr Tylor as "the doctrine of spiritual

beings, including human souls"; but the term is often extended to

include _animatism_, "the doctrine that the great part if not the whole

of the inanimate kingdom as well as all animated beings are endowed

with reason, intelligence, and volition, identical with that of man."

[21] "We have no opportunity of observing historically man's

development from blank unbelief into even the minimum or most

rudimentary form of belief. We can only theorise and make more or less

plausible conjectures as to the first rudiments of human faith in God

and in spiritual beings. We find no race whose mind as to faith is a

_tabula rasa_." (Lang, _The Making of Religion_, p. 53.)

[22] Tylor supposes animism to have arisen from "two groups of

biological problems present to the mind of early man:

"(1) What is it makes the difference between a living body and a dead

one, what causes waking, sleep, trance, disease, and death?

"(2) What are those human shapes which appear in dreams and visions?"

(_Primitive Culture_, vol. i, p. 428.)

[23] See p. 19.

[24] The term 'fetishism' has been objected to upon the ground that "it

has been used in so many different and contradictory senses that it

is very likely to be misunderstood.... Even the word _fetish_ should

only be used in its historic sense, to describe a limited class of

magical objects in West Africa." (_Handbook of Folklore,_ p. 298.) This

objection is scarcely a practical one, and to eliminate a word which

has rendered excellent service to anthropology and has been adopted

by students in all parts of the world to designate a definite class

of religious objects and the especial description of the cult which

clusters round them savours of pedantic caprice, while no equivalent is

tendered for the word it is proposed to abolish.

[25] The _jinn_ inhabiting Aladdin's lamp and ring appear to have been

fetishistic spirits of this type.

[26] Well-known instances of assault upon gods are: the overthrow of

the discredited Russian god, Peroun, by his disillusioned worshippers;

the profanation of Balder's grove by Frithjof (_Frithjof Saga_); the

destruction of the idols of the Mexican gods, Uitzilopochtli and

Tlaloc, by the Spanish conquerors. Other instances could be cited,

nearly all acts of insanity, rashness, or hostility, rarely of

disappointment.

[27] See Gomme, _Ethnology in Folklore_, for several notable instances

of stone-worship of this description.

[28] The author has shown that Uitzilopochtli was originally the agave

plant, and that the humming-bird, which nests therein, was regarded as

the spirit animating that plant (see _Discovery_ for June 1920).

[29] As will be shown farther on, the author believes that the majority

of mythic plots possess an animistic basis.

[30] The school originated by Professor Elliot Smith has much to

recommend it; but its hypotheses need further elucidation, a greater

amount of evidence to buttress them, and--it is spoken in all

friendliness--it lacks a spirit of tolerant and serious consideration

for the views of its opponents; all of which it will gain in good time.

[31] Channing Arnold in article "Australia," _Ency. Brit._, (11th ed.)

[32] It would be very unjust to Professor Elliot Smith and his school,

however, if it were not stated that they possess many good arguments

against this, for which see the publications issued by the University

of Manchester.