{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45048/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45048","id":"gutenberg_45048","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45048","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Mythology"],"text":"AN INTRODUCTION TO MYTHOLOGY\n\nBy\n\nLEWIS SPENCE\n\nFELLOW OF THE ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF\n\nGREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND\n\nAUTHOR OF\n\n\"THE MYTHS OF MEXICO AND PERU\" \"THE CIVILIZATION OF ANCIENT MEXICO\"\n\"THE POPOL VUH\" \"A DICTIONARY OF MYTHOLOGY\" \"A DICTIONARY OF\nNON-CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY\" ETC. ETC.\n\nNEW YORK\n\nMOFFAT YARD AND COMPANY\n\n1921\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThis volume is an outline of the principles of mythology, chiefly\nwith reference to its more modern developments. Hand in hand with the\nsister sciences of folklore and comparative religion, it has advanced\nso rapidly within the last twenty years and altered so greatly from its\nancient aspect that it seems an entirely new science. Thirty years ago,\nif a student of myth had been asked who Janus was, he would probably\nhave replied: \"A Roman god of origins.\" To-day he might see in him a\ndevelopment of the 'kirn-baby.' So does the study of collected facts\nand analogies enable us to make broad generalizations. Quite recently,\nfor example, Dr Rendel Harris advanced the theory that Aphrodite was\noriginally a mandrake, while Professor Elliot Smith contends that her\n'larval form' was that of the cowrie-shell. Apollo, according to some\nwriters, was originally an apple, Bacchus a sprig of ivy, and Zeus\nhimself a flint-stone fetish.\n\nWith such metamorphoses of the elder gods a rather long-suffering\npublic has become somewhat ruefully acquainted. But with the value of\nthe new scientific machinery which has discovered these analogies,\nwhich has laid bare the true nature of myth, they are not so intimate.\nThe purpose of this book is to provide them with a review of mythic\nscience from its beginnings down to the latest guesses of contemporary\nauthorities. This plan may appear too ambitious, in the present chaotic\ncondition of the science, but a real necessity exists for some such\nelementary study in order to cast light into the popular darkness on\nthe subject.\n\nThe two great drawbacks of mythology are lack of accepted definitions\nand of an historical and philosophical review of the subject on popular\nlines to co-ordinate the results of research. No science can expand\nwithout definition, and the definitions here offered have been accepted\nby most authorities as good working rules, so that, having won the\napproval of the ablest and most experienced specialists of the day,\nthey may be regarded as an important help to the study of mythology. A\nuseful series of definitions was brought forward with the countenance\nof the Folklore Society, but the mesh of most of these was far too\nwide. Seemingly prepared during personal consultation, they suffered in\nconsequence, and the general result was surprisingly inadequate. How\ndifferent it has been when written opinions have taken the place of\nverbal discussion may be observed by anyone who cares to compare them\nwith the present series.\n\nThe author would note here that he desires to illustrate his theories\nas far as possible by myths which have come under his own notice and\nhave been collected by himself, not wishing to have directed against\nhim the usual criticism of the mere collector of _M\u00e4rchen_, who appears\nto regard the theoretical writer on mythic science as an arm-chair\nplagiarist. But he has also used as examples many myths which appear\nin the several volumes of this series, and is further obliged to the\npublished writings and personal correspondence of the late Mr Andrew\nLang, Sir James Frazer, Dr Marett, Mr Sidney Hartland, the late Sir\nGeorge Laurence Gomme, Professor G. Elliot Smith, and many others. He\nhas to thank Messrs Longmans, Green and Co. for courteous permission\nto quote from Lang's essay \"The Ghastly Priest\" in his _Magic and\nReligion._\n\nLastly, he would plead for a kindly consideration of his own system of\nmythological elucidation--the eclectic, embracing all he thinks best in\nother systems, whereas it is the bane of most writers upon mythology\nand allied subjects that the pride of some one theory is strong in\nthem. If it be asked how one is to be certain of selecting the best\nfrom each system, the answer is that one must walk in these caverns by\nthe light of one's own common sense.\n\nIt is hoped that the comparative tables will be found of use to\nstudents. Much care has been taken in compiling them, but it is not\nclaimed that they are in any way exhaustive.\n\nL.S.\n\n\n\n        CONTENTS\n\n    I INTRODUCTORY\n   II THE PROGRESS OF MYTHIC SCIENCE\n  III THE EVOLUTION OF THE GODS\n   IV THE VARIOUS TYPES OF DEITY\n    V THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF MYTH\n   VI THE MAKING OF THE WORLD AND OF MAN (COSMOGONY)\n  VII PARADISE AND THE PLACE OF PUNISHMENT\n VIII FOLKLORE AND MYTH\n   IX RITUAL AND MYTH\n    X THE WRITTEN SOURCES OF MYTH\n   XI THE GREAT MYTHIC SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD\n\n        INDEX\n\n\n\nAN INTRODUCTION TO MYTHOLOGY\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\nThe function of mythology is the investigation and explanation of myths\nor tales relating to the early religious and scientific experiences\nof mankind. It throws light upon the material, methods, and progress\nof primitive religion and science, for many myths are an attempt to\nexplain physical as well as religious phenomena.\n\nMyth is one of the great objects of the science of 'tradition' (Lat.\n'that which is handed down'), the others, with which myth is only too\nfrequently confounded, being folklore and legend. It is hoped that\nthe following list of definitions will prove of value to students of\nthe subject, as it is certainly the most precise and embracive yet\nadvanced.[1]\n\nDEFINITIONS\n\nMyth, folk-tale, and legend may be generally defined as traditional\nforms of narrative. That is, all are embraced within the term\n'tradition.'\n\n_Myth_. A myth is an account of the deeds of a god or supernatural\nbeing, usually expressed in terms of primitive thought. It is an\nattempt to explain the relations of man to the universe, and it has\nfor those who recount it a predominantly religious value; or it may\nhave arisen to 'explain' the existence of some social organization, a\ncustom, or the peculiarities of an environment.\n\n_Mythology_. Mythology as a term implies (_a_) the mythic system of any\nrace; (_b_) the investigation of myth.\n\n_Folklore_. Folklore means the study of survivals of early custom,\nbelief, narrative, and art.\n\n_Folk-tale_. A primitive tale (_a_) of mythical origin; (_b_) of purely\nnarrative or \u00e6sthetic value.\n\n_Legend_. A story, generally of real places, often (though not\nnecessarily) of real persons, handed down by 'tradition.'\n\nMYTHOLOGY AND FOLKLORE CONTRASTED\n\nMythology is the study of a primitive or early form of religion while\nit was a living faith.\n\nFolklore is the study of primitive religion and customs still\npractised.[2]\n\nSome authorities regard folklore and mythology as almost\ninterchangeable words; others look upon myth as the groundwork of\nfolklore; but for purposes of study we shall be wise if we regard as\nfundamental myth any tale in which a god or demigod figures which\nexplains the making of the world, or the origin of some primitive\ncustom among the peoples of antiquity or the backward races to-day,\nwhile folklore may denote the study of _fragments_ or _survivals_ of\nold belief or custom found among uneducated or semi-educated people\nin civilized countries. Thus it is correct to speak of the folklore\nof England, Germany, or Italy, applying the word to the surviving\nsuperstitions and fragments of older faiths to be found in these modern\ncountries among the uncultured classes; but to speak of the folklore\nof African, Australian, or American savages when we are dealing with\nthe living religious beliefs of these people is highly incorrect. True,\nfragments of older belief are frequently discovered among primitive\npeople, but the expression should not be used to designate their living\nreligious beliefs.[3]\n\nIt will now be clear that in the present volume our concern is with the\nscience of myth alone--that is, with religious beliefs and conjectures\nas to the nature of things of primitive, ancient, or barbarous peoples,\nand _not_ with modern religious science, philosophy, or theology.\n\nThe questions touched upon in this introductory chapter will be more\nfully outlined later on, and are here presented in order to familiarize\nthe reader with the general subject-matter of the science before\nentering upon more detailed discussion.\n\nMYTH AND RELIGION\n\nThe sciences of mythology and comparative religion overlap at many\npoints, but comparative religion is a branch of religious science or\nphilosophy, whereas mythology deals with mere myths, or, under the\nmore antiquated designation of 'comparative mythology,' compares the\nmyths of different races. In myths too, however, we hear of the birth\nand nature of gods, the creation of the earth, and the primitive\n'reason' for certain ritual acts. As these matters are also discussed\nby comparative religion or religious science, mythology and comparative\nreligion often contemplate the same phenomenon at the same time.\nMythology is therefore a part of religious science. This leads us to\nour next heading:\n\nWHAT IS RELIGION?\n\nThe attempt to define religion has exercised the philosophic mind\nthrough centuries, and never more so than at the present time, although\nit is now generally recognized that all purely scientific attempts to\ndetermine it are doomed to failure, as its origin and nature must be\nsought conjecturally through psychology. Dr E.B. Tylor proposed as a\n'minimum definition' for religion \"the belief in spiritual beings\"; but\nthis does not embrace ritual, which Robertson Smith thought[4] of first\nconsequence in primitive religion, dogma and myth being secondary.[5]\nSir J.G. Frazer considers religion \"a propitiation or conciliation\nof powers superior to man,\"[6] a definition not always appropriate.\nCrawley (in his _Tree of Life_, p. 209) defines the religious object\nas \"the sacred,\" a very obscure definition. Herbert Spencer derived\nall religion from the worship of the dead. Max M\u00fcller considered\nthat \"Religion consists in the perception of the infinite under such\nmanifestations as are able to influence the moral character of man.\"\nThe fact is that our present knowledge of the human mind does not\npermit us to make any final definition of the word 'religion,'[7]\n\nThe study of myths, then, is assisted by comparative religion, while\nmyths in their turn often explain gods,[8] men, and the universe, and\ncustoms and organizations of society. Many of them, indeed, are early\nefforts at a reconciliation of the tales of gods and heroes with the\nreligious sentiment, which recognized in these beings objects for\nworship and respect.[9]\n\nTHE 'SAVAGE' ELEMENT IN MYTH\n\nBut these tales remained full of irrational and savage notions, a\nlegacy from primitive ancestors. They chimed ill with later religious\nsentiment, which was shocked and puzzled by them, and priests and poets\nattempted to explain them away. Thus, among the Greeks, Theagenes of\nRhegium (_c_.520 B.C.) considered the tale of the battle of the gods\n'unbecoming,' and represented it as an allegorical account of the war\nof the elements. The Egyptians, according to Plutarch, puzzled by the\ncircumstance that so many of their gods were pictured in animal form,\ninvented as an explanation the tale that in a moment of danger the gods\nconcealed themselves in the bodies of animals. As peoples grew more\ncivilized they attempted to cleanse their national or tribal myths\nfrom the coarse and barbarous tone which savage predecessors had given\nthem, and many of the myths of the higher civilizations of antiquity,\nas they have come down to us to-day, have obviously passed through one\nor more stages of refinement and revision at the hands of some priest,\npoet, or philosopher anxious to free his race from its supposed coarse\nand savage pristine history.[10]\n\nA PERUVIAN PRIEST-MYTH\n\nA good example of how older myths are accounted for by a modern\npriesthood[11] is the story of Pacari Tampu, the 'House of the Dawn,'\na legend of the Collas, a Peruvian tribe. From the caverns of Pacari\nTampu issued four brothers and a sister. The eldest ascended a mountain\nand cast stones to all the cardinal points of the compass to signify\nthat he had taken possession of the land. The other three were envious\nof him, and the youngest succeeded in inducing him to enter a cave,\nwhereupon the youngest brother closed the mouth of the cave with a\ngreat stone and imprisoned the eldest there for ever. On pretence of\nseeking his lost brother he then persuaded the second to ascend a high\nmountain, from which he cast him, and, as he fell, by dint of magic\nart changed him into a stone. The third brother, scenting treachery,\nfled. The first brother would appear to symbolize the oldest known\nPeruvian religion, that of the thunder-god Pachacamac, the second that\nof an intermediate fetishism or stone-worship, the third the cult of\nViracocha, the water-god, while the fourth seems to be the more modern\nsun-worship, which in the end triumphed officially over all, as is\nproved by the name of the youngest brother, 'Pirrhua Manca' ('Son of\nthe Sun ').\n\nMADNESS OR MENTAL CHILDHOOD?\n\nMax M\u00fcller seriously suggested that the \"savage and irrational\" element\nin myth arose out of a \"period of temporary madness through which the\nhuman mind had to pass.\" \"Was it,\" he asks, \"a madness identically\nthe same in the south of India and the north of Iceland?\" The state\nof mind, the mental attitude, was and is, of course, very much the\nsame among savages or barbarians from Cape Horn to Novaia Zemlia; but\nno 'madness' is mingled with the mental equipment of primitive man,\nalthough he is irrational. What Professor M\u00fcller mistook for 'madness'\nwas the child-like propensity of the savage or barbarian, or even the\nuncultured person, to delusion, ignorance, and distortion of facts and\nexperiences. The imbecility of savage theories and stones is due to a\nscanty stock of acquired ideas and lack of experience in wielding the\nhigher powers of reason. In short, savage or primitive man, although\nhighly observant, explains such facts as come within his range of view\nby employing imagination rather than reason.[12] He is in a condition\nof mental childhood, when imagination is very much more powerful than\nreason. Thus he imagines that all other physical entities in nature\nare, like himself, gifted with powers of speech, volition, and thought.\nThis is called 'animism'--_i.e._ the bestowal of a soul (Lat _anima_)\nupon all objects.[13] The winds and the waters speak and obviously\ntravel; the trees are articulate; the lower animals he regards as his\nequals. He does not bring reason, as we understand it, to bear upon his\nexperience. The 'wonders' in these tales are no marvels to him; the\nbrutalities of savage life recounted in them, the barbarian atmosphere\nand colour, are his everyday experiences.[14] He hands the tale on; but\nhis descendants fail to comprehend its meaning and aim; its almost\nanimal savagery repels them, and at length more advanced generations,\nshocked at what seems to them blasphemous nonsense, discard it\naltogether, or so cleanse and refine it as not infrequently to render\nits original meaning entirely undiscoverable.\n\nSAVAGERY IN GREEK MYTH\n\nAs an example of how the savage element displays itself in the mythic\ntales of such a refined and poetically gifted people as the Greeks, the\nmyth of the birth of Zeus may be instanced. When Cronus had displaced\nUranus, the first monarch of Olympus, he took to wife Rhea, one of\nthe Titan race. G\u00e6a, his mother, however, prophesied that as he had\noverthrown Uranus, he himself would be overthrown by one of his own\nchildren. So uneasy did he become in consequence of this prediction\nthat whenever a child was born to him he tore it from its mother's arms\nand swallowed it whole. Five children did he swallow in this manner,\ngreatly to the grief of Rhea, who, lamenting to G\u00e6a the loss of her\noffspring, was advised by her next time she had a child to take a stone\nand wrap it in swaddling-clothes and give it to Cronus to swallow as\nif it were the infant, at the same time carefully concealing the real\nchild in some secluded place until it reached maturity. This Rhea did,\nand Cronus duly swallowed the stone she gave him, imagining it to be\none of his own children and therefore his possible future destroyer.\nBut Rhea hid the child in a cave in the island of Crete, where the goat\nAmalthea nourished him with her milk. There were placed in the infant's\nvicinity armed men, who, whenever he cried, performed a war-dance,\nclashing their spears and shields to drown his wailing; and so within a\nyear the boy grew to full manhood. At length G\u00e6a gave Cronus a draught\nwhich made him vomit up the stone he had swallowed, together with the\nfive children previously devoured--two gods and three goddesses. These\nyoung gods made war upon the elder deities, and after a ten years'\nstruggle were victorious over them, banishing them to the dismal region\nof Tartarus.\n\nIn this myth the savage element is strikingly apparent. Through the\nmists of allegory we seem to discern (1) the replacement of one tribal\nhead by another; (2) the prediction of the tribal prophetess or crone;\n(3) a condition of cannibalism; (4) a reminiscence of fetishistic\nstone-worship in a stone being mistaken for a young god; (5) the\nnurture of a child by a goat, perhaps a primitive form of nursing;\n(6) a war-dance by armed savages; (7) the younger men of the tribe\nbanishing the older men to a less desirable spot; (8) the primitive\nright of the youngest son to succeed the father.\n\nNow we find numerous myths similar to this in all quarters of the\nworld. \"Bushmen tell of _Kwai Hemm_, the devourer, who swallows\nthat great god, the mantis insect, and disgorges him alive with all\nthe other persons and animals engulphed in the course of a long and\nvoracious career. The moon in Australia, while he lived on earth, was\nvery greedy, and swallowed the eagle-god, whom he had to disgorge.\nMr Im Thurn found similar tales among the Indians of Guiana. The\nswallowing and disgorging of Heracles by the monster that was to\nslay Hesione is well known. Scotch peasants tell of the same feats,\nbut localize the myth on the banks of the Ken in Galloway. Basutos',\nEskimos', Zulus', and European fairy-tales all possess this incident,\nthe swallowing of many persons by a being from whose maw they return\nalive and in good case.\"[15]\n\nMany circumstances of myth go to illustrate its primitive and barbaric\norigin. The tales of gods who masquerade as animals are probably\nreminiscent of a time when they were worshipped in animal form.[16]\nThe Greek mysteries, which were merely acted myths, conserved the\nsavage rite of daubing the initiate with clay, a practice common among\nAfrican, Australian, South American, and Papuan uncivilized peoples.\nThey also retained from primitive times the use of the 'bull-roarer,'\ntwo flattened pieces of wood attached to a string, which on being swung\nproduces a mysterious humming noise, a device employed by many savage\nfolk to keep away women and the profane from the performance of their\nrites and ceremonies. Early man, engaged in ceaseless strife, regarded\nhis gods as in constant conflict with giants or with each other. They\nabduct each other's wives, they are cowardly, gluttonous, immoral, and\ngiven to magic, just as is savage man himself.\n\nSAVAGERY IN THE VEDAS AND BRAHMANAS\n\nAlthough the Vedas of India are 'sacred' works, principally\nrepositories of devotional hymns, they bear traces of this barbarism\nwhich permeates all mythology. We find the deities in their pages\ncomporting themselves as one might expect the lowest savages to do,\nalthough the whole religious sentiment of the work is opposed to these\nacts. The later Brahmanas, treatises on the intricacies of ritual\ncompiled by a priestly caste of fairly exalted character, also teem\nwith myths in which barbaric thought is encountered. Their pages,\nindeed, are the meeting-place of savagery and semi-civilization. In\none myth the mother of Indra is a cow, Indra being represented as a\ndrunkard who intoxicates himself with _soma_, and as a murderer who\nactually kills a priest. These circumstances in his myth are relics\nof an age when he was, although a god, regarded as man-like, and a\nsavage man at that. This is due to the religious instinct called\n'anthropomorphism.'\n\nNearly all the Greek peoples worshipped stones, some named after the\ngods[17]--a relic of fetishism--and their later religion kept much of\nsavage practice. Homer speaks of Athene as 'owl-eyed.' Was she once\nworshipped as an owl? The deities in the _Iliad_ are extraordinarily\nhuman, not to say barbarous, in their propensities, and have a knack of\ntransforming themselves into animal shapes when pursued or pursuing,\nloving or hating. They reflect the Greek idea of Homer's day, yet they\nare even older.\n\nMYTH AND EARLY SCIENCE\n\nEnough has been said to illustrate the existence of the savage element\nin primitive myth. Not only do later myths account for the religious\nelement in the more primitive examples, but they explain, or attempt\nto explain, primitive scientific notions as well.[18]\n\nThe desire to know the 'reason why' early creates a thirst for\nknowledge, an intellectual appetite. \"When the attention of a man\nin the myth-making stage of intellect is drawn to any phenomenon or\ncustom which has to him no obvious reason, he invents and tells a story\nto account for it.\"[19] The character of most primitive myths amply\njustifies this statement. They are mostly explanations of intellectual\ndifficulties, answers to such questions as, What is the origin of or\nreason for this or that phenomenon or custom? How came the world and\nman to be formed as they are? In what manner were the heavenly bodies\nso placed and directed in their courses? Why is the lily white, the\nrobin's breast splashed with red? How came into force this sacrificial\ncustom, this especial ritualistic attitude, the detail of this rite?\nThe early replies to these questions partake not only of the nature of\nmyth, but of science--primitive science, but science nevertheless--for\none of the first functions of science is to enlighten man concerning\nthe nature of the objects and forces by which he finds himself\nsurrounded, and their causes and effects. These replies are none the\nless scientific because they take the shape of stones. Their very\nexistence proves that the above questions, to clear up which they were\ninvented, were asked. They cannot be accounted for without the previous\nexistence of these questions. Mythology is the savage's science,\nhis manner of explaining the universe in which he lives and moves.\nSays Lang: \"They frame their stories generally in harmony with their\ngeneral theory of things, by what may be called 'savage metaphysics.'\"\nOf course they did not think on the lines of a well-informed modern\nscholar. M\u00fcller remarks in an illuminating passage:\n\n\"Early man not only did not think as we think, but did not think as we\nsuppose he ought to have thought.\"\n\nOne of the chief differences between the outlook of the primitive\nsavage and that of civilized man is the great extension in the mind of\nthe former of the theory of personality, an outlook we have already\ncalled 'animism,' Everything possesses a 'soul,' or at any rate\nwill-power, in the judgment of the savage. But not only are sun, sky,\nriver, lightning, beast, tree, persons among primitive or backward\npeoples; they are savage persons.\n\nANIMISM: A FOSSIL FAITH\n\nResearch and travel combine to prove that earliest man and the lowest\nsavages cannot be found without myths, which, as we have seen, are\nboth religion and science. The first recognized stage in man's mental\nexperience is animism, so that the earliest myths must have been\n'animistic.'[20] Roughly, animism is the belief that everything has a\nsoul or at least a personality, but no race has yet been discovered\npossessing purely animistic beliefs. Even the lowest races we know\nhave developed these considerably, and so we are only acquainted with\nanimism in its pure form theoretically,[21] as a phase of religious\nexperience through which man must at one time have passed. It is, in\nfact, a fossil faith. But just as fossil animals and plants have their\nliving representatives to-day, so do ideas and conceptions representing\nthis petrified form of religion and science still flourish in our\npresent-day superstitions and our present-day faiths.\n\nAnimistic myths naturally show primitive ideas regarding the soul.\nAnimism will be dealt with more fully hereafter, but in this\nintroductory sketch we will cite one or two examples of animistic myth\nto illustrate what was, so far as we know, the earliest type of myth.\nStories are found telling of journeys to the spirit land, of talking\nanimals, of men metamorphosed into animals and trees, and these are\nall animistic or originate in animistic belief.[22] Modern folk-tales\ncontaining such stories possess a very great antiquity, or are merely\nvery old myths partly obscured by a veneer of modernity. Spirit stories\nwhich have obviously a primitive setting or atmosphere are almost\ncertainly animistic. Thus tales which describe the soul as a bird\nor a bee, flitting about when the body is asleep, are either direct\nrelics of an animistic age, or have been inspired by earlier animistic\nstories handed down from that age. The tales of spirit journeys to the\nOtherworld, the provision of implements, weapons, shoes, and so forth,\nplaced in the grave to assist the soul in its progress to the Land of\nShadows, invariably point to an animistic stage of belief--the belief\nin a separable 'soul,' in an entity entirely different and apart from\nthe 'tenement of clay' that has perished.\n\nPRE-ANIMISTIC RELIGION\n\nThere are not wanting authorities of discernment who believe that\neven this early phase was not the primitive phase in the religious\nexperience of man. Of these the most clear-sighted and perspicuous in\nargument is Dr Marett, reader in anthropology at Oxford University.\nIn a pregnant chapter-preface in his highly suggestive book, _The\nThreshold of Religion,_ Dr Marett says: \"Psychologically, religion\nrequires more than thought, namely, feeling and will as well; and\nmay manifest itself on its emotional side, even when ideation is\nvague. The question, then, is, whether apart from ideas of spirit,\nghost, soul, and the like, and before such ideas have become dominant\nfactors in the constituent experience, a rudimentary religion can\nexist. It will suffice to prove that supernaturalism, the attitude\nof mind dictated by awe of the mysterious, which provides religion\nwith its raw material, may exist apart from animism, and, further,\nmay provide a basis on which an animistic doctrine is subsequently\nconstructed. Objects towards which awe is felt may be termed powers.\"\nHe proceeds to say that startling manifestations of nature may be\ntreated as 'powers' without any assumption of spiritual intervention,\nthat certain Australian supreme beings appear to have evolved from\nthe bull-roarer,[23] and that the dead inspire awe. This he calls\n'supernaturalism,' and regards it as a phase preceding animism.\n\nFETISHISM\n\nVery closely allied to and coexistent with animism, and not to be very\nclearly distinguished from it, is fetishism. This word is derived from\nthe Portuguese _feiti\u00e7o_, a charm, 'something made by art,' and is\napplied to any object, large or small, natural or artificial, regarded\nas possessing consciousness, volition, and supernatural qualities,\nespecially magic power.[24]\n\nBriefly and roughly, the fetish is an object which the savage all over\nthe world, in Africa, Asia, America, Australia, and, anciently, in\nEurope, believes to be inhabited by a spirit or supernatural being.\nTrees, water, stones, are in the 'animistic' phase considered as the\nhomes of such spirits, which, the savage thinks, are often forced\nto quit their dwelling-places because they are under the spell or\npotent enchantment of a more powerful being. The fetish may be a\nbone, a stone, a bundle of feathers, a fossil, a necklace of shells,\nor any object of peculiar shape or appearance. Into this object\nthe medicine-man may lure the wandering or banished spirit, which\nhenceforth becomes his servant; or, again, the spirit may of its own\nwill take up its residence there. It is not clear whether, once in\nresidence or imprisonment, the spirit can quit the fetish, but specific\ninstances would point to the belief that it could do so if permitted by\nits 'master'[25]\n\nWe must discriminate sharply between a fetish-spirit and a god,\nalthough the fetish may develop into a godling or god. The basic\ndifference between the fetish and the god is that whereas the god is\nthe patron and is invoked by prayer, the fetish is a spirit subservient\nto an individual owner or tribe, and if it would gain the state of\ngodhead it must do so by long or marvellous service as a luck-bringer.\nOfferings may be made to a fetish; it may even be invoked by prayer or\nspell; but on the other hand it may be severely castigated if it fail\nto respond to its owner's desires. Instances of the castigation of gods\nproper are of rare occurrence, and could scarcely happen when a deity\nwas in the full flush of godhead, unless, indeed, the assault were\ndirected by an alien hand.[26]\n\nWe have seen that the ancient Greeks had in their temples stones\nrepresenting 'nameless gods' who seem to have been of fetish origin.\nThus a fetish may almost seem an idol, and the line of demarcation\nbetween the great fetish and the idol is slender, the great fetish\nbeing a link between the smaller fetish and the complete god.\n\nMyths showing fetishistic belief are few and obscure, but the writer\nrecently unearthed, in the fishing village of Newhaven, near Edinburgh,\none which is a good example of the survival of a fetish myth and of the\nrise of a fetish to godhead.\n\n\nFROM FETISH TO THUNDER-GOD\n\nPerusing an old book entitled _Tales and Traditions of Leith,_ the\nwriter read of one Brounger, \"an old fisherman who at one time resided\nat Newhaven, and who, when unable to go to sea himself, used to ask his\nneighbours for a few oysters or fish on their return from fishing,\"\nand curse those churlish enough to refuse. The curse was invariably\neffective, so that in the end the fishing community became anxious to\npropitiate an individual whose spoken word carried such weight, and\nregarded his demands in the light of an established claim. According\nto tradition, Brounger passed away, but his name remained a 'thing\nto conjure with'--literally. For a Newhaven fisherman to be told\n\"Brounger's in your head-sheets\" meant that the speaker cast on his\nvessel and all who sailed therein an evil spell, only to be broken by\nmaking the boat describe a circle in the water three separate times.\n\nThe student of myth will regard this 'old fisherman' with an eye of\nprofessional suspicion. Why should the mariners of Newhaven fear and\nmistrust the mere mention of one who in days more or less distant\nlevied a petty toll of oysters or flounders from their fathers? He will\nfind the scent grow hot when he is informed (and this is the point)\nthat Brounger was 'a flint, and the son of a flint.' For the flint is\nthe fetishistic emblem of the thunder-god, and Brounger was a deity of\nthe storm.\n\nAmong many peoples the flint-stone symbolizes thunder, for from the\nflint comes fire. In America, for example, Tohil, who gave the Kiches\nof Central America fire, was represented by a flint-stone. Such a\nstone in the beginning of things fell from Heaven to earth, and broke\ninto a myriad pieces, from each of which sprang a god--an ancient\nMexican legend which shadows forth the subjection of all things to him\nwho gathers the clouds together in thunder. This is the germ of the\nadoration of fetish stones as emblems of the fertilizing rains. The\nrain-charms of the Navaho Indians are hung round stones supposed to\nfall from the clouds when it thunders. With the Algonquin Indians a\ncertain rain-god has a body of flint which, broken, is changed into\nfruitful vines. The blood of Tawiscara, another Indian deity, turns to\nflint as it falls from his wounds. Hathor, the sky-goddess of Egypt,\nwas the 'Lady of Turquoise,' as was the Mexican water-goddess. Is not\nthe 'elf-arrow' (the flint arrow-head) a 'thunderbolt' to peasants of\nall countries, Britain not excepted? So we begin to see why Brounger\nwas a 'flint,' and the 'son of a flint.' In days when the first\nTeutonic fishermen settled on the coast of Midlothian they brought with\nthem a thunder-god, the root of whose name may perhaps be found in the\nold Gothic word _brinnan_, to burn; hence Br\u00fcnger, 'the burner,' 'the\ndevastator,' 'the wielder of lightnings,' worshipped in the flint and\nplacated by gifts from that sea-harvest which he had power to give or\nto withhold.\n\nFrom the Hebridean Isle of Fladdahuan comes a similar story. On the\naltar of the chapel of that isle, says Martin in his _Western Isles_,\nlay a round bluish stone, always moist. Wind-bound fishermen walked\nsunways round the chapel and then poured water on the stone, whereupon\na powerful breeze was sure to spring up. Solemn oaths were also sworn\nupon the stone. A similar stone was possessed by the Isle of Arran,\nkept in the custody of a woman (the hereditary priestess of its cult?),\nand \"wrapped up in fair linen cloth.\" In Inniskea, an island off the\nIrish coast, a stone wrapped up in flannel is brought out at certain\nperiods to be adored by the inhabitants. It is kept in a private\ndwelling, and is called in the Irish Neevougi. It is prayed to in\ntimes of sickness and is requested to send wrecks upon the coast.[27]\nAll this is within the ritual of rain-making, but Brounger, though\na thunder- and rain-god, was requested _not_ to visit his folk with\ntempest for the reason that their business lay in the furrows made by\nthe keel and not in those of the plough.\n\nOne certain proof that Brounger was a supernatural being exists in a\nfolk-poem to be found in the above-mentioned work on Leith traditions.\nA wedding ceremony is in progress, when Brounger glares through the\nwindow at the merrymakers. At once a cry arises that he must be\nplacated. Sings one fisherman:\n\n     \"Let ilka body gie 'm a corse [copper piece],\n     And Jock may gie him twa,\n     An' the chiel will sune hae in his maut [drink],\n     Syne he'll forget it a'.\n     And when he's at the land o' Nod,\n     To make the matter tight,\n     I'll score the loon aboon the breath,\n     An' syne we'll be a' richt.\"\n\nTo \"score\" a wizard (or witch) \"aboon the breath,\" and thus procure\nsome of his blood, rendered the possessors of it immune from the\nmalice of the sorcerer. So we see that Brounger was at least no mere\n'Longshoreman Billy,' earning a livelihood by terrorizing his brother\nsalts, but ranked in some measure with the supernatural host. It is\njust possible, indeed, that he may possess a common origin with the\nRussian Perunu or Peroun, whose name also signified 'striker' or\n'lightning-wielder.'\n\nTOTEMISM\n\nTotemism is a phase of religion frequently encountered in myth. Briefly\nand crudely defined (and any brief definition of it must essentially be\ncrude), the totem is an animal, plant, or inanimate object connected\ntraditionally with a certain social group which takes its name from\nthe totem or uses it as a symbol. The persons composing this 'group'\nsuppose themselves to be descended from the totem animal or plant, or\nto be related to it. There is a magico-religious bond between the totem\nanimal and themselves, and the totem may not be eaten by the members of\nthe community of which it is the patron unless in a ceremonial manner\nand at stated seasons.\n\nExamples of the totem in myth are, as has been said, frequent. In the\nRoman myth of Jupiter and Leda, for instance, we encounter Jupiter\nin the form of a swan; many of the Egyptian animal-headed gods are\ntotemic; certain swine-gods of the ancient Britons were of the same\nclass; and we know that some of our ancestors would not eat geese, just\nas certain Red Indians will not eat beaver or racoon, because these\nanimals represented, or represent, the beast-patron of their tribe.\n\nAbout the beginning of the eighteenth century certain French\nmissionaries--among them the Jesuit Lafitau--were struck with the\nimportance of totemism in the religious and social life of the North\nAmerican Indians. Lafitau saw more clearly than any of his colleagues\nthe nature of this peculiar socio-religious condition, and was even led\nto apply what he saw among the Iroquois Indians to the interpretation\nof the Greek Chim\u00e6ra! During the first part of the nineteenth century\nthe facts concerning totemism began to reach Great Britain from\nmissionaries and travellers in every part of the globe. Moreover,\nallusions to what were undoubtedly totemic conceptions could be traced\nin the authors of antiquity--Diodorus, Herodotus, Pausanias, \u00c6lian,\netc. In 1869 McLennan pointed out that many totemic customs and beliefs\nsurvived in various civilizations, ancient and modern. About 1885\nFrazer and Robertson Smith approached the subject with a larger body of\nfacts. Later, Tylor, Spencer, Lubbock, Lang, Jevons, Cook, and Grant\nAllen threw themselves into the study of this remarkable phase of\nsocio-religious life.\n\nPOLYTHEISM\n\nIn this introduction we are dealing with the various divisions, more\nor less arbitrary, made by students of myth and comparative religion,\nand will not here attempt any description of the processes by which\nspirits of the animistic, fetishistic, and totemic types evolve into\nperfected deities. In a condition of polytheism we encounter the gods\nfully evolved, and often arranged in a hierarchy closely resembling the\nsocial polity of the tribe or people from whose religious imagination\nit has sprung.\n\nPolytheism--a multiplicity of gods--is a condition arrived at by more\nthan one route. Several great and powerful deities may shed a number\nof attributes and variants which themselves become personalized into\ngods. Egyptian mythology teems with examples of this, as almost all its\nprincipal gods absorbed or gave birth to several others in this manner.\nFor example, from Horus was evolved Horus the Elder, Horus the Younger,\nHeru-an-Mut (a local god worshipped at Edfu), Heru-Khenti-Khat (a\ngod with a crocodile's head), the Horus of Khnemu ('Horus of the Two\nHorizons,' or the Harmachis of the Greeks, a form of Ra, the sun-god),\nHeru-Behudeti (who prevailed in the southern heavens at midday), and\nso forth. Gods belonging to certain towns or religious centres were\ncollected and grouped, perhaps by priestly influence, into a pantheon\nin order of their importance.\n\nAmong semi-civilized people, then, the activities of the greater\ngods are constantly being enriched by new functions. Dialectical\nmisunderstandings led to descriptive terms which brought about a change\nin divine names. The fortunes of kingdoms or royal races, migration\nand conquest, the contact of race with race through trade and travel,\nthe adoption of foreign deities, all served to modify and expand the\npantheons of the ancient world.\n\nMONOTHEISM\n\nMonotheism--the worship of one god--may emerge from polytheism in\nmore ways than one. A certain god by dint of a miracle, because he\nis the deity of a conquering race, because of the enterprise of his\npriests, or by absorbing lesser gods, becomes the most powerful and\npopular deity in a state or neighbourhood. Or he may be the god of\nthe reigning dynasty, a circumstance sufficient to secure for him at\nleast a fashionable recognition so long as that dynasty survives. We\nusually find that such gods have vested in them the right to pardon\nsin, and they are indeed the founts of righteousness in virtue of their\nall-sufficing nature. But, apart from all the above considerations, the\nrise of moral feeling and a higher standard of conduct, order, and life\nwere connected with the communal rise of monotheistic worship and the\nmore exalted religious outlook it brings.\n\nTHE NATURE OF MYTHIC LAW\n\nTylor has stated that myth displays a regularity of development which\ncannot be accounted for by motiveless fancy and must be attributed\nto laws of growth. These laws, as has been seen, are practically\nuniversal in their application. But besides those forces which bring\nthe myth into being--those demands of primitive man for explanation and\nintellectual satisfaction--there are other factors which begin to work\nupon myth at birth, and do not cease to act upon it, in succession,\nuntil perhaps it loses its earlier characteristics.\n\nThus we first find, going to work by analogy with certain contemporary\nsavage examples and by induction, the purely animistic myth. As we have\nseen, this bestows personality and will-power upon inanimate objects,\nglorifies animals, and is practically without religious significance.\nSuch a myth is found among the Chinook Indians of the north-west coast\nof America in the adventures of Blue Jay, a bird with human attributes\nwho travels to the country of the Supernatural People and succeeds in\ndefeating them in climbing, diving, whale-spearing, and archery. As\nwe possess it, the myth has undoubtedly been influenced by successive\nwaves of advancing native thought, but no sophistication by European\ninfluence is discernible. The impudence and effrontery of the Blue Jay\nbird led to its adoption as the central figure in many a tale, and,\nlater, as the hero of the universal story of the 'Harrying of Hell,'\nin which a supernatural being traverses the country of the dead and\nbrings defeat and disgrace upon its inhabitants in order to show the\nsavage mind that it was possible to conquer death and Hell. Thus we\nhave emanating from an animistic idea (1) the bird as person (in the\nmyth a 'person' is spoken of as splitting wood with his beak); (2)\nthe bird as tale-hero; (3) the bird as vanquisher of death and Hell.\nFurther elaborations of the myth, had social and tribal circumstances\npermitted of its growth, might well have shown us Blue Jay as the\nwinged god, the principle of 'evil,' or perhaps in an even more exalted\nmythic capacity. Had the Chinooks remained undiscovered in their own\nenvironment and been capable of the evolution of a literature, who\nshall say to what heights of sanctity the conception of Blue Jay might\nnot have risen?\n\nFROM BIRD-TO MAN-GOD\n\nLest the reader unaccustomed to the developments of mythic law think\nsuch a statement exaggerated, he shall be shown the valuable 'test of\nrecurrence,' frequently employed by the rational experimentalist in\nmyth, a test which, conversely, is his undoing if his conclusions are\nill founded. The myth of the Aztec war-god Uitzilopochtli is similar\nto that of Blue Jay. It recounts how Uitzilopochtli, guided by a bird,\nled the Aztecs from the Underworld (?) country of Aztlan to the valley\nof Mexico by means of a peculiar call. Later he appears in Mexican myth\nin the full panoply of the national god of war, the most important\nfigure, save one, in the Aztec pantheon. To him human sacrifice was\nrendered, and the greatest temple in the land was erected. His cult\nboasted an exclusive high priest, and in all respects he was regarded\nas the national god of the Aztec race. Yet he never resigned certain\nof his bird-like characteristics--a circumstance from which he derived\nhis name, signifying 'Humming-bird Wizard,' and denoting that he was a\nbird before he took human shape.[28] Paste images of him were eaten at\ncertain festivals by way of a communion rite.\n\nThe personalized bird is to be met with not only in American myth, but\nin European and Asiatic story as well. The Romano-Greek winged Mercury\nwas originally almost certainly such a figure as Blue Jay. Like the\nChinook god, he was sprightly, vivid, fond of practical joking, and\na notorious thief. Picus, the Latin war-god, was a woodpecker, whose\npicture adorned the banners of his devotees. The god, in human form,\nwore a woodpecker on his head. Instead of becoming a national deity\nlike Uitzilopochtli, Blue Jay might, in the hands of a people of equal\nimaginative capacity to the Greeks, have evolved into a mere messenger\nof the gods, or under the more sober influences of Judaism have become\na cherub or an archangel--such are the diversities of racial character\nand its effect upon religious development.\n\nMyth is hedged round and protected from change by the spirit of\nsanctity, but it may fall a prey to the religious spirit when more\nfully evolved, for what is sanctity to one age is often blasphemy\nto its successor, and that which appears worthy of retention to\nreligious conservatives and priests at one period may well be regarded\nas an abomination by their official descendants. Thus we find the\nphilosophers of Greece almost to a man attempting to purge the myths\nof their race from the grossness of barbaric ideas; we note, too, the\nstrivings of the Egyptian and Babylonian priests to combine rival\nmyths and to bring older religious story into line with more modern\ntheological ideas--in a word, to modify the traditional myths of the\nrace so that the old scientific and religious explanations of the\nuniverse--the myths--took quite a new shape.\n\nTHE CAUSES OF MYTHIC CHANGE\n\nThe question then arises, What are the true causes of mythic change? If\nthe conclusions previously presented be correct, these are:\n\n(1) The evolution, growth, and advance of theological ideas. Thus\na myth acceptable in 'animistic' times might not prove so under a\nmonotheistic or even polytheistic _r\u00e9gime_. The myth which would apply\nto a bird- or animal- or tree-god might not be applicable to a man-like\ndeity.\n\n(2) The growth and development of the idea of the sacred and of\nethical ideas. The barbarities and abominations of early totemic and\nother animistic myth, apart altogether from shocking the religious\nsensibilities of people in later ages shocked their moral feelings\nas well, and this resulted in more or less drastic changes, which,\nhowever, do not altogether disguise the original story.\n\n(3) Adventitious circumstances, such as racial feeling and\nidiosyncrasy, the deliberate or accidental fusion of two or more myths\nby a priesthood or by force of popular belief or acquiescence.\n\n(4) The circumstances in which myth survives the religion or living\nfaith with which it was originally connected. Thus on the official\ndemise of a religion it may continue to be celebrated secretly, and\nthis secret celebration may degenerate into magic and its myths change\ninto folk-tale.\n\nIt follows from these premises that practically all myth is of extreme\nantiquity,[29] and once a myth becomes established it may, for many\nreasons, undergo considerable alteration by successive generations.\nIts character of an early human 'explanation' of the universe is lost\nin the passage of generations, and it comes to require explanation.\nThus it is understood, more or less correctly, in later times to\nrefer to a genuine historical occurrence, or as an allegory upon\nnatural phenomena, as it is unlikely that the upholders of a religion\nwith fixed tenets would deliberately manufacture myths, however they\nmight purify or combine those with which their theological system\nwas connected. The difficulty in popular acceptance of a newly\nforged religious story, the manifest impiety of the proceeding and\nits necessary character, are all too apparent. Apparent, too, is the\nsufficiency of the mere alteration or 'editing' of myths to account for\nsuch minor theological differences as arose, even under a polytheistic\n_r\u00e9gime_ of the least advanced type. With very few exceptions, the\npolytheistic systems of antiquity contained so many added and alien\ndeities that slight alteration would suffice for the full adoption of\nthe new-comer into the pantheon. This process must not be mistaken for\nreligious laxity, as the alien god was almost invariably identified\nwith one or other of the national deities, and the myth would merely be\naltered so far as necessary.\n\nTHE 'EDITING' OF MYTH\n\nInstances occur in which myths of exceedingly ancient origin have\nreceived a wholesale 'editing' at the hands of later scribes. One of\nthe most striking instances of such a process is that of the Babylonian\ncreation myth, which recounts the famous combat between the god\nBel-Merodach and Tiawath, the terrible dragon of the abyss. In the myth\nin question the ancient Accadian concept of the fathomless deep and the\nBabylonian idea of the abyss, respectively entitled Apsu and Tiawath,\nare represented as husband and wife, an example of mythic amalgamation\ncommon enough. But from an attribute of Tiawath is formed a third god,\nnamed Mummu, who is described as the son of the two original deities.\nIn such an innovation we can assuredly trace the hand of the later\nmythographer, who, with less skill and greater levity than is usual,\nhas ventured to evolve an entire trinity from one concept--that of\nthe primeval abyss. Thus from the Babylonian and Accadian concept of\n'the deep,' essentially one, has arisen an entire trinity of evil. A\nfurther addition is made to this infernal band in the shape of Kingu,\nwhom Tiawath calls her 'only husband'; but as he enters the mythic\nfield Apsu and Mummu leave it, and are heard of no more in the course\nof the tale. It may be that at this point the story was taken up by\na new scribe, who did not approve of the action of his predecessor\nin describing the hostile trinity, originally one conception, as\nthree separate deities--but that is merely conjecture. The Babylonian\ncosmogony as we possess it is presented in purely epical form, and it\nis practically certain that in this shape it differed greatly from the\noriginally accepted myth upon the same subject. Indeed, the inclusion\nin it of later gods proves it to be a good example of myth which has\nundergone transformation more than once.\n\nTHE CLASSIFICATION OF MYTH\n\nIt has been said that the chief divisions of myth correspond to\nthe chief problems which the universe presents to the curiosity of\nuntutored man. Thus we find that most myths will fall under such\nheads as the origin of the world, the origin of man, the origin of\nthe arts of life, star myths, sun and moon myths, myths of death,\nmyths of fire-stealing, hero myths (including tales of the adventures\nof demigods), myths regarding taboo, beast myths, myths of journeys\nthrough the Underworld or Otherworld, myths to account for customs or\nrites, and other less important varieties.\n\nTHE DISTRIBUTION OF MYTH\n\nThis is a good place to discuss the vexed question whether all myths\nhave sprung from one common centre, or whether each one is the\nspontaneous creation of man's brain in separate parts of the world.\n\nBoth theories possess a measure of truth, for certain tales have\nundoubtedly been widely disseminated, some of them being altered by\nforeign influence, while certain others are obviously of spontaneous\ngrowth. Examples of widely disseminated stories are readily\nencountered. The solar hero, who as son of the sun comes to earth to\ninstruct men in the arts of life, and after a strenuous mundane career\nreturns to his father's bright kingdom, is common to Greeks, Celts,\nTeutons, and Red Indians. Flood myths, again, are as widely spread as\nany variety of tale.\n\nThose who uphold the theory of the origin of myth in one centre and\nits wide dissemination have not so far explained fully how myths\nbecame so widespread. Of course the purchase or capture of slaves,\nintermarriage with alien women, intercourse with alien peoples, trade\nand commerce, may account for many similarities,[30] but the question\nyet awaits reply, \"Can myths 'drift' across many thousands of miles of\nsea-water?\" The complete isolation of Australia throughout the ages,\nand the similar situation of America, two continents which possess, as\na late distinguished student of myth was wont to say, \"the whole bag\nof tricks\" of mythology as found elsewhere, show that the answer is\nnot a simple one. In any case, if there be any genealogical connexion\nbetween the myths of the Old World and the New, the myths of Asia and\nAustralia, it must be of extreme antiquity, dating from before the\nremote geological period when all communication was cut off between\nAmerica, Australia, and the rest of the globe. That may not have\nbeen so very long ago, comparatively speaking, for America, but for\nAustralia it must have been \"at a time so remote as to permit of no\ntraditions. No record, no folk-tales, as in the case of the Maoris of\nNew Zealand, are preserved by the Australians ... nothing, as A. W.\nHowitt points out, that can be twisted into referring even indirectly\nto their first arrival.\"[31]\n\nDr Klaatsch of Heidelberg says that the Australians are \"a generalized,\nnot a specialized, type of humanity--that is to say, they are a very\nprimitive people, with more of the common undeveloped characteristics\nof man, and less of the qualities of the specialized races of\ncivilization.\" It is likely, however, that they are closely related to\nthe Dravidians of the Indian Deccan, and that they are not so low in\nthe scale as Klaatsch believes. Even so, the very distant date at which\nthey arrived in the Australian continent precludes the likelihood of\ntheir carrying with them any form of religious belief that was not of\nan even more archaic character than those we are studying.[32]\n\nFlood myths possess an almost world-wide similarity. We find the\nstory of the man and woman who escape the universal deluge in a\ncunningly contrived boat or chest in Greece, Assyria, Palestine,\nMexico, and other countries. In such stories we have good examples of\nmyths apparently disseminated from one original tale or event; but\nthat resemblances between myths are no criterion of a common origin\nis proved by widespread examples in which circumstances of time and\ngeography forbid all possibility of borrowing. The belief that once the\nsoul had partaken of the food of the Underworld it might not return to\nearth is common to ancient Greeks, Finns, and Red Indians, and if any\noriginal conception gave rise to the notion in these widely separated\ncountries it must be sought in an altogether archaic and prehistoric\nera.\n\nSOPHISTICATED MYTHS\n\nMyths generally become altered or 'sophisticated' by contact with a\nhigher civilization than that of the people which originally developed\nthem. The myth of Joskeha and Tawiscara given on p. 191 is a notable\ninstance in this connexion. Some barbarous mythic systems have become\ncoloured by Biblical narrative, but it is not safe to conclude so\nbecause of a surface resemblance. The rule holds good, generally\nspeaking, that myths found current among primitive people and having\nmarked ethical characteristics in which 'good' and 'evil' are sharply\ncontrasted almost certainly show sophistication by the agents of a\nsuperior civilization. But if the rule were to be ruthlessly adhered to\nit would not admit the evolution of religious belief or the heightening\nof the ethical standard among the lower races, who must pass through\nsuch phases of development as those through which our fathers passed,\nwith this exception, of course, that the process is quickened in their\ncase by contact with races possessing a much higher standard of general\nculture.\n\nBy a process of interaction all mythic systems of uncivilized peoples\nare probably at the present day highly sophisticated, so that to\nencounter a truly spontaneous myth uncoloured by alien belief or\npriestly conception is probably impossible. At the same time it is\na characteristic of myth and folk-tale that no matter how greatly\ncultural surroundings alter them they tend to keep the basic elements\nof which they were originally compounded. We all know that matters\nof fact as they pass from one individual to another become greatly\ndistorted. Strangely enough, this is not the case with myth and\nfolk-tale. The reason is hard to discover, but the fact is certain.\nThe writer has observed among children a prompt indignation at the\n'mis-telling' of a traditional tale. Once the terms of a story become\nfixed he will be bold who will attempt to alter them when recounting\nthem to children or savages. In short, where the circumstances of a\nstory are well authenticated a barrier exists against the tendency,\nshown in gossip, to adorn the original plot, to add or subtract from\nit. This appears to be due to a strong conservative instinct in the\nchildish and savage mind.\n\n\"To generalize,\" said Blake, \"is to be an idiot,\" but to generalize is\none of the functions of science. In a general sense, then, the more\nsimple and archaic the characteristics of a myth, and the more it\nreflects an early state of society, the greater the antiquity it is\nnaturally likely to possess. The more 'literary,' the more embellished\nit is by the graces of art, and the more cunning it displays in the\nbusiness of story-telling, the later it will be. Many myths have, of\ncourse, been built up by slow degrees only, the myth of Osiris being\nan admirable example. It grew with the importance of the god himself,\nwho perhaps from a mere local spirit came to be the great deity of the\ndead.\n\nProof of the authenticity of myth--that is, the proof by which it\nis known as the genuine aboriginal product of a primitive folk--is\nobtained by what Tylor has called \"the test of recurrence.\" That is, if\nwe discover a tale possessing the same elements in several different\nparts of the world \"we cannot set down the coincidence to chance or\nfraud.\" This is practically a 'law,' and is one of the most valuable\nconclusions which has as yet enriched mythological science.\n\nAn outline--and merely an outline--of the principal questions with\nwhich students of myth are at present chiefly concerned has now been\nfurnished. These, as has been said, will be amplified in succeeding\nchapters, the purpose of this introduction having been served if the\nreader is enabled by its perusal to follow intelligently the subsequent\nexamination, on a more extensive scale, of the subjects indicated.\n\n\n[1] In order that the beginner in mythic science may be enabled to\ncomprehend its scope with some degree of precision, the writer has\nframed definitions as closely approaching accuracy as the present state\nof knowledge and research will permit, and has obtained the advice and\nassistance of most of the leading authorities. The method adopted was\nas follows. A table of definitions was placed before each authority,\nand he was invited to comment upon it. Such comments and criticisms\non certain portions of the definitions either displaced the original\nmaterial or were incorporated with it, first of all being reduced to a\nbrevity suitable to explanatory phraseology. The result was the above\nlist of definitions.\n\nIn the _Handbook of Folklore_, Appendix A, a number of definitions\nbearing upon mythology are provided, drawn up at a conference\nrepresenting the editors of the _Handbook_ and others. Several of them\nbear the sign of over-caution. For example, we read on p. 300; \"Myth, a\nstory told to account for something.\" Although sufficiently wide, the\nphrase is sadly lacking in definiteness, and might equally apply to an\neffort of mendacity!\n\n[2] \"Definitions and rules are needed. No student can attack so immense\na subject without the aid of such necessary machinery, and it is\nbecause the attempt has been so often made ill-equipped in this respect\nthat the science of folklore has suffered so much and has remained so\nlong unrecognized.\" (Gomme, _Folklore as an Historical Science_, p.\n127.) Some high authorities with whom the writer communicated appear\nto consider the formulation of definitions as a 'waste of time'! This\nattitude in the case of the leaders of any other science would surely\nbe considered as retrograde.\n\n[3] In truth, 'folklore' is a most unfortunate denomination, as the\nscience it designates has greatly outgrown the name. Neither 'folklore'\nnor 'mythology' is capable of defining the study of the religion,\nfiction, usages, laws, and general mental equipment of savages and\nprimitive people. By far the best term is 'tradition,' and the one\nbarrier to its use seems to be its simplicity.\n\n[4] _Religion of the Semites_ pp. 18 sqq.\n\n[5] Gomme, quoting and following Robertson Smith, believes that\n\"mythology was no essential part of ancient religion, for it had no\nsacred sanction and no binding force on the worshippers.\" Why then\nthe insistence by most priesthoods on the absorption of myths by\ntheir neophytes? Why their 'renovation' of myths? Myths were early\nefforts at a reconciliation of the tales of gods with the religious\nsentiment; ritual, as Gomme admits, was merely the outward expression\nof tradition. On p. 141 of the same work (_Folklore as an Historical\nScience_) he speaks of \"those who believe in the truth of the myth,\"\nof its \"sacred character,\" of \"traditions which have become sacred.\"\nOn p. 149 he speaks of myth as \"revered,\" and told in \"the hushed\nsanctity of a great wonder.\" Yet he believes that it had \"no binding\nforce\"! On p. 150 he writes of the preservation of primitive myth \"for\n_religious_ purposes.\" Robertson Smith's reasoning was, of course,\nbased on pure theory and upon limited as opposed to universal examples\nof the connexion of myth with religion, of which it is an integral\npart. The wonder is that this circumstance was not patently visible to\nthe distinguished folklorist who comments upon and accepts his dictum.\n\n[6] _The Golden Bough_(2nd ed.), vol. i, p. 63.\n\n[7] My own 'minimum' definition of religion is, \"The result of man's\nattitude to the unknown.\"\n\n[8] Dr Marett, in a letter to the author dated November 30, 1914,\nstates that he \"thinks it a mistake to state by way of definition\nthat myths are \u00e6tiological\" (explanatory), on the ground that\nexplanation is not a fundamental of myth and that a theory is thereby\ninvolved. Says Gomme: \"Every tradition ... myth or story contains two\nperfectly independent elements--the fact upon which it is founded and\nthe interpretation of the fact which its founders have attempted.\"\n(_Folklore as an Historical Science_, p. 10.)\n\n[9] As regards the relation of myth to history, Gomme has happily said\nthat myth \"must not be identified with history. This claim is based\nupon two facts, the presence of myth in the shape of the folk-tale\n[which he believes to be a late form of myth] and the preservation of\nmuch mythic tradition beyond the stage of thought to which it properly\nbelongs by becoming attached to an historical event or series of\nevents, or to an historical personage, and in this way carrying on\nits life into historic periods and among historic peoples. The first\nposition has resulted in a wholesale appropriation of the folk-tale\nto the cause of the mythologists; the second position has hitherto\nresulted either in a disastrous appropriation of the entire tradition\nto mythology or in a still more disastrous rejection both of the\ntradition and the historical event round which it clusters.\" (_Folklore\nas an Historical Science_, p. 128.)\n\n[10] \"The myth is not dependent upon the text in which it appears\nfor the first time. That text as we have it was not written down by\ncontemporary or nearly contemporary authority. Before it had become a\nwritten document it had lived long as oral tradition.\" (Gomme, _op.\ncit_., p. 125.)\n\n[11] When myth is 'renovated,' cleansed, cast into literary form, or in\nany way subjected to alteration, it is known as 'secondary' myth--that\nis, it exists in a secondary state.\n\n[12] \"In this class of tradition we are in touch with the struggles of\nthe earliest ancestors of man to learn about the unknown.\" (Gomme, _op.\ncit.,_ p. 130.)\n\n[13] \"All the knowledge they possess is that based upon their own\nmaterial senses, and therefore when they apply that knowledge to\nsubjects outside their own personality they deal with them in terms of\ntheir own personality.\" (Gomme, _op. cit.,_ p. 132.)\n\n[14] Some modern writers believe animism to be a relatively late\nmanifestation in the religious history of mankind. It seems to me\nto occur spontaneously wherever and whenever the mind of man is\ndiscovered in a condition sufficiently primitive to receive it, and\nas it is the original mental characteristic of all children, whether\nsavage or civilized, I fail to recognize its significance as a later\ndemonstration of human thought.\n\n[15] Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_ (4th ed.), vol. i, p. 295.\n\n[16] See remarks on totemism, p. 28.\n\n[17] Gill, _Myths and Songs from the South Pacific_, p. 60.\n\n[18] \"Primitive science was also primitive belief.\" (Gomme, _op.\ncit.,_ p. 140.) Again (p. 132): \"Where savages ask themselves, as they\ncertainly do ask themselves, whence the sky, whence the winds, the sun,\nmoon, stars, sea, rivers, mountains, and other natural objects, they\nreply in terms of good logic applied to deficient knowledge.\" Again (p.\n130): \"Our own research in the realms of the unknown we dignify by the\nname and glories of science. The research of our remote ancestors was\nof like kind.... It was primitive science.\"\n\n[19] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, vol. i, p. 369.\n\n[20] Animism has been defined by Dr Tylor as \"the doctrine of spiritual\nbeings, including human souls\"; but the term is often extended to\ninclude _animatism_, \"the doctrine that the great part if not the whole\nof the inanimate kingdom as well as all animated beings are endowed\nwith reason, intelligence, and volition, identical with that of man.\"\n\n[21] \"We have no opportunity of observing historically man's\ndevelopment from blank unbelief into even the minimum or most\nrudimentary form of belief. We can only theorise and make more or less\nplausible conjectures as to the first rudiments of human faith in God\nand in spiritual beings. We find no race whose mind as to faith is a\n_tabula rasa_.\" (Lang, _The Making of Religion_, p. 53.)\n\n[22] Tylor supposes animism to have arisen from \"two groups of\nbiological problems present to the mind of early man:\n\n\"(1) What is it makes the difference between a living body and a dead\none, what causes waking, sleep, trance, disease, and death?\n\n\"(2) What are those human shapes which appear in dreams and visions?\"\n(_Primitive Culture_, vol. i, p. 428.)\n\n[23] See p. 19.\n\n[24] The term 'fetishism' has been objected to upon the ground that \"it\nhas been used in so many different and contradictory senses that it\nis very likely to be misunderstood.... Even the word _fetish_ should\nonly be used in its historic sense, to describe a limited class of\nmagical objects in West Africa.\" (_Handbook of Folklore,_ p. 298.) This\nobjection is scarcely a practical one, and to eliminate a word which\nhas rendered excellent service to anthropology and has been adopted\nby students in all parts of the world to designate a definite class\nof religious objects and the especial description of the cult which\nclusters round them savours of pedantic caprice, while no equivalent is\ntendered for the word it is proposed to abolish.\n\n[25] The _jinn_ inhabiting Aladdin's lamp and ring appear to have been\nfetishistic spirits of this type.\n\n[26] Well-known instances of assault upon gods are: the overthrow of\nthe discredited Russian god, Peroun, by his disillusioned worshippers;\nthe profanation of Balder's grove by Frithjof (_Frithjof Saga_); the\ndestruction of the idols of the Mexican gods, Uitzilopochtli and\nTlaloc, by the Spanish conquerors. Other instances could be cited,\nnearly all acts of insanity, rashness, or hostility, rarely of\ndisappointment.\n\n[27] See Gomme, _Ethnology in Folklore_, for several notable instances\nof stone-worship of this description.\n\n[28] The author has shown that Uitzilopochtli was originally the agave\nplant, and that the humming-bird, which nests therein, was regarded as\nthe spirit animating that plant (see _Discovery_ for June 1920).\n\n[29] As will be shown farther on, the author believes that the majority\nof mythic plots possess an animistic basis.\n\n[30] The school originated by Professor Elliot Smith has much to\nrecommend it; but its hypotheses need further elucidation, a greater\namount of evidence to buttress them, and--it is spoken in all\nfriendliness--it lacks a spirit of tolerant and serious consideration\nfor the views of its opponents; all of which it will gain in good time.\n\n[31] Channing Arnold in article \"Australia,\" _Ency. Brit._, (11th ed.)\n\n[32] It would be very unjust to Professor Elliot Smith and his school,\nhowever, if it were not stated that they possess many good arguments\nagainst this, for which see the publications issued by the University\nof Manchester.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE PROGRESS OF MYTHIC SCIENCE\n\n\nMany are the hypotheses and systems advanced to account for the origin\nand existence of myth. It will greatly assist our comprehension of\nthese and our ability to discern those most worthy of consideration if\nwe examine them chronologically as well as critically. If we begin our\nreview with the gropings of the first far-off thinkers who attempted\nan analysis of myth, and put to themselves the question \"What is myth,\nits origin and its meaning?\" and advance through the centuries until\nwe encounter present-day theories, then we should be well equipped to\npursue our course without fear of the pitfalls encountered by early\nwriters on tradition, or, let us hope, of falling into the grave errors\ninevitable when mythological data were less plentiful than at the\npresent time.\n\nIt must be clearly understood that this sketch does not deal with\nthe _makers_ or restorers of myth, but with the views and notions of\ncritics who have sought to discover its nature and meaning. Again, we\nwould remind the reader that we are not dealing with religious science,\nbut with such mythological notions as have come down to us from early\ntimes to the present.[1]\n\nThe first critic of myth was Xenophanes of Colophon (_fl._ 540-500\nB.C.), an Ionian exile in Sicily, afterward living at Elea, in\nSouthern Italy. He supported himself by travelling from place to\nplace and reciting his own poems. The important part of his writings\nfor us is that in which he attacks the polytheism prevalent in his\nday. Xenophanes did not accept the mythical idea of man-like deities\nthen current. \"There is one God, greatest among gods and men,\" he\nwrites, \"neither in shape nor in thought like unto mortals ... yet men\nimagine gods to be born and to have raiment and voice and body, like\nthemselves.... Even so oxen, lions, and horses, if they had hands to\ngrave images, would fashion gods after their own shapes and make them\nbodies like to their own.\" Again he says: \"The rainbow, which men call\nIris,[2] is a cloud.\" Xenophanes appears by his writings to have taken\nup the position of a theologian protesting not against polytheism,\nbut against the idea that the gods possessed human appearance and\nattributes. Besides the one great god he seems to have recognized a\nplurality of minor divinities who govern portions of the universe. He\nstigmatized anthropomorphic myths as \"the fables of men of old.\"\n\nTheagenes of Rhegium was the founder of a very popular system of\nmythology. He pleaded for an allegorical rather than a literal reading\nof myth. For example, as we have already mentioned, he considered the\nbattle of the gods 'unbecoming,' and attempted to show that in reality\nit was an allegorical rendering of the war of the elements. According\nto his view, Heph\u00e6stus and Apollo personified fire; Hera, wife of Zeus,\nwas air; Poseidon, the sea-god, represented water; Artemis was the\nmoon, and so on. Other gods, he attempted to show by an examination of\ntheir names, were personifications of moral or intellectual qualities.\n\nPherecydes of Syros (_fl_. sixth century B.C.) wrote a treatise, in\nwhich myth, allegory, and science were blended, on nature and the gods.\nHe contended that the elements of fire, air, and water sprang from\nCronus, the principle of time, and that from these elements later gods\nemerged. Zeus is called the 'principle of life,' so that we have in\nPherecydes' interpretation of myth a pseudo-scientific idea that time\nwas the originator of the elements, from which in turn the gods had\ntheir being--a very daring hypothesis for the sixth century B.C.!\n\nHecat\u00e6us of Miletus (_c_. 550-476 B.C.) was probably the first critic\nto distinguish myth from historic fact Socrates (_c_. 471-399 B.C.)\nattempted to show that the nature of divine beings could be discovered\nby an analysis of their names. Prodicus (born _c_. 465 B.C.) is\nnoteworthy for the 'modern' character of his outlook. First of all,\nhe says, arose such great powers as benefit mankind (for example, the\nNile), then deified men, who rendered services to humanity.\n\nPherecydes of Leros (_fl. c_. 454 B.C.) modified the myths of Greece\nin order to adjust them to popular belief, so that it is scarcely\ncorrect to class him as a critic of myth. Ephorus (_c_. 400-330 B.C.)\ntreated myths as historical episodes. \"By straining after this fancied\nhistory he was prevented from searching into the genuine import of the\nlegends.\"[3]\n\nEUHEMERUS\n\nThe system of Euhemerus (fourth century B.C.), who lived under King\nCassander of Macedonia, deserves more than passing mention. Like\nEphorus, he considered that myth is history in disguise. The gods\nwere men, and mists of time and later phantasy had so magnified and\ndistorted their figures as to make them appear divine. In short, they\nwere great men deified by later generations. The dead are magnified\ninto gods in many countries, so Euhemerus' theory possesses a good\ndeal of truth, but every god was not once a man, nor have all gods\nbeen evolved from the worship of the dead. The truth is that the\nmyths of many gods have passed through a phase and have been coloured\nby an environment in which ancestor-worship has prevailed. Graves\nof gods are shown in many lands, and probably portions of legends\nrelating to real men have been attracted into the myths of certain\ngods. Euhemerus' system of interpretation is known as 'euhemerism,'\nand was adopted by Vossius, the Abb\u00e9 Banier, Huet Bishop of Avranches,\nClavier, Sainte-Croix, Rochette, Hoffman, and to some extent by Herbert\nSpencer. Ennius popularized his system in ancient Rome. Leclerc, one\nof Euhemerus' later disciples, actually proposed the theory that Greek\nmythology consisted of the diaries of old merchantmen and seamen!\n\nSome Stoics and Platonists, such as Plutarch, endeavoured to render\nmyths more intelligible by explaining them 'pragmatically,' and this\nsystem too saw in the gods of Greece kings or merely men. Another\nsystem, the 'Psychic,' believed myth to be explanatory of the various\nstages through which the soul must pass. Other Stoics, again, saw\nin myths reference to natural phenomena. Thus the first school, the\n'Pragmatic,' would see in the figure of Pallas Athene a transfigured\nmortal queen; the second, the 'Psychic,' would explain her as the\n'understanding,' and the third, the 'Stoic,' as the thicker air between\nmoon and earth.\n\nDriven to the wall by Christianity, the remaining believers in\nGreek myth attempted to justify it by the allegorical system of\ninterpretation. The early Christian fathers like St Augustine (A.D.\n354-430) applauded the system of Euhemerus, in which they beheld the\nabhorred mythology abandoned by one himself a pagan. Porphyry (A.D.\n233-304), however, considered that there might be a moral meaning\nin myth, and others thought it possible that it concealed a germ of\nreligious truth.\n\nMEDIEVAL MYTHOLOGY\n\nThe Middle Ages produced no criticism of myth worthy of attention.\nPopular belief in medieval times regarded the gods and goddesses of\nantiquity as of diabolic origin, or at least as 'pagans' who had been\nrelegated to Hell on the advent of Christianity. This view was, of\ncourse, sedulously supported by the priesthood, as may be seen in the\nmedieval legend of Tannh\u00e4user. Prior to the Renaissance period, with\nits revival of classical studies, the gods of Greece and Rome were\nfrequently confused or identified with other pagan deities and even\nwith religious leaders like Mohammed, as, for instance, in the phrase\n'Mahound and Termagent,' which alludes to the pairing of Mohammed and\nTyr, or Tyr Magus, a Scandinavian divinity. In _The King of Tars_, an\nEnglish romance, probably of the fourteenth century, we read how the\nSultan of Damascus destroyed his idols, \"with sterne strokes and with\ngrete, on Jovyn and Plotoun, on Astrot and sire Jovyn.\" Here Roman and\nSemitic deities are mingled in \"hideous ruin,\" like the wicked angels\nof Milton, whose poem, by the way, encouraged a later belief that the\nArch-fiend and his associates were no other than the gods of the elder\nfaiths, Beelzebub, Belial, and, among others,\n\nOsiris, Isis, Orus and their train.\n\nAn old Scots piece, entitled _Sir John Rowll's Cursings_ dating perhaps\nfrom the last quarter of the fifteenth century, and in all probability\nwritten by a priest of Corstorphine, near Edinburgh, contains several\ninteresting allusions which show the condition of mythological\nknowledge at that day. It is directed against certain persons who have\nrifled the priest's poultry-yard. Sir John is powerful in anathema, and\nhis thunders must have caused trepidation among the more superstitious\nof his parishioners, but the only lines of his rhymed 'Billingsgate'\napposite here are those containing the names of demons, because these\nshow us how the mythic characters of antiquity were regarded in his\ntime. He says that the pilferers of his hen-roosts will be hanged and\ngiven to the fiend, and continues:\n\n     ... and Cerberus thair banis sall knaw\n    For thair dispyt of the Kirkis law,\n    Gog and Magog and grym Garog,\n    The Devill of hell the theif Harog,\n    Sym Skynar and St Garnega,\n    Julius appostata,\n    Prince Pluto and quene Cokatrice,\n    Devetinus the devill that maid the dyce,\n    Cokadame and Semiamis,\n    Fyremouth and Tutivillus,\n    And Browny als that can play kow[4]\n    Behind the claith wt mony mow.[5]\n    All this about the beir salbe[6]\n    Singand ane dolorous dergie.\n\nLet us try to identify some of these figures. We may pass over\nCerberus, and Gog Magog, who has by this date evidently resolved\nhimself into two separate individuals. In Harog we probably see that\n'Old Harry' who is so frequently apostrophized, perhaps a variant\nof the Norse god Odin. In Sym Skynar we may have Skrymir, the Norse\ngiant in whose glove Thor found shelter from an earthquake, and who\nsadly fooled him and his companions. Skrymir was, of course, one of\nthe J\u00f6tunn, or Norse Titans, and probably one of the powers of winter;\nand he may have received the popular name of 'Sym' in the same manner\nas we speak of 'Jack' Frost. Julius the Apostate, Pluto, and the\nCokatrice are easily identified. Semiamis is, of course, Semiramis,\nand it was quite possible that the Babylonian queen bulked in the\npopular imagination as an Eastern goddess, fit companion for Mahound or\nMohammed.\n\nEIGHTEENTH-CENTURY MYTHOLOGERS\n\nThe study of myth can hardly be considered scientific in our modern\nsense until nearly the end of the eighteenth century. During the\nseventeenth century and the early portion of the eighteenth works were\npublished from time to time which professed to give an outline of the\nmyths of Greece and Rome, but in these the critical spirit was almost\nentirely absent. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) leaned to the allegorical\ninterpretation of myth. Thus, Narcissus was self-love, Dionysus\npassion, and the Sphinx science. Natalis Comes (_d_. 1582) saw in myth\nallegories of natural and moral philosophy. The first writer to strike\nupon the true line of interpretation was De Brosses (1709-1777), who in\n1760 published a work, _Du culte des dieux f\u00e9tiches, ou parall\u00e8le de\nl'ancienne religion de l'\u00c9gypte avec la religion actuelle de Nigritie_.\nDe Brosses showed that animal-worship in ancient Egypt was a survival\nof practices such as existed among modern savages. Lafitau (in 1724)\nalso pointed out the savage element surviving in Greek myth, for which\nhe found many parallels in his experience as a Jesuit missionary among\nthe Indians of North America. But all writers on myth were not so\nrational as these. Thus the Abb\u00e9 Banier in his _La mythologie et les\nfables expliqu\u00e9es par l'histoire_ (Paris, 1738) traced (as the title of\nthe book indicates) all myths to an historical basis.\n\nBryant (1715-1804) in 1774 published _A New System, or an Analysis of\nAncient Mythology_, in which he traced all mythologies to Biblical\nsources. Thomas Taylor (1758-1835) in his translation of Pausanias\nregarded all myth as allegory.\n\nFriedrich Schelling (1775-1854) was the first to see a connexion\nbetween the formation of myth and national development. Without\npossessing the orderly and logical mind so necessary to the student\nof tradition, he was able to seize spasmodically upon truths or facts\nwhich strongly buttressed his theory. Creuzer in his _Symbolik und\nMythologie_ (Leipzig, 1810-1812) laid stress on the religious character\nof myth. According to his view, myth is of the nature of religious\nteaching, proceeding from an original revelation, and carefully handed\ndown in symbolic form by priestly schools. This secret wisdom passed\nfrom the Orient to Greece and became the kernel of all myths, which\ntherefore contain the wisdom of antiquity in an allegorical form. To\nunriddle this is the task of the mythologist, who can only succeed in\ndoing so by intuition. The mythologist is, like the poet, born not\nmade, according to Creuzer.\n\nAlthough the symbolic method is nowadays as dead as the dodo, and in\nany case could only apply to very late myths which were the work of\npoets or philosophers, it still holds good that the elucidation of\nmyth is not a matter of pure mental induction, but that it frequently\nresults from intuition; and who can doubt, with the brilliant examples\nof Lang, Gomme, Marett, Saussaye, Hubert and Mauss, Reinach, Rendel\nHarris, and Elliot Smith before them, the proud assertion that great\nstudents of tradition _are_ \"born not made\"?\n\nWith K.O. M\u00fcller's (1797-1840) _Prolegomena zu einer wissensch\u00e4ftlicher\nMythologie_ (1825; Eng. trans, by Leitch, 1844) the truly scientific\ntreatment of myth begins. He saw clearly that the true laws underlying\nthe confusion of mythic science as he found it were not to be\napproached by one but by many ways. The explanation of a myth, he said,\nmust be the explanation of its origin. A knowledge of the popular life\nof antiquity he regarded as indispensable, and he drew a distinction\nbetween the actual, original myth and the myth as sophisticated by\npoets and philosophers. Mythic materials, he argued, must be resolved\ninto their original elements. His dicta are landmarks, almost laws--if\nthe term 'law' may be applied to a science where at present all is\nrather nebulous.\n\nTHE PHILOLOGICAL SCHOOL\n\nThe comparative study of language did much to reawaken both interest\nand industry in the study of myth, and the philological method of\nexplaining mythic phenomena arose. This system has been called\n'comparative mythology.' The appellation is scarcely correct from a\nscientific standpoint, as, strictly speaking, the term 'comparative\nmythology' implies the comparison of the details of one myth with those\nof another, in an attempt to prove the universality of the nature of\nmyth, or by 'the test of recurrence' to show that widely distributed\nmyths are related, and that fragments found only in one 'fit' the\nother. This comparative mythology implied the comparison of mythic\nnames in various Indo-European languages with a view to showing that\nwhat was dark and seemingly inexplicable in one language might be made\nclear by comparison with the known mythic appellations in another\nlanguage.[7]\n\nThe leader of this school, the history of which is important for the\nproper comprehension of the evolution of mythic science, was Professor\nMax M\u00fcller[8] (1823-1900), who, coming from Germany to Oxford at\nthe age of twenty-three to undertake the translation of the ancient\nreligious books of India on behalf of the East India Company, rapidly\nmade a position for himself in English scientific circles by his sound\nscholarship, indefatigable energy, and wide general culture. The deep\nstudy of comparative philology led him to apply its results to myth.\nHe regarded language as a necessary condition of thought, not its\narbitrary expression, and considered that words, therefore, contain the\nkey to thoughts. If language is determined by thought, thought is also\ndetermined by language. Mythology, according to M\u00fcller, is properly a\nform of thought so essentially determined by language that it may be\ndescribed as 'a disease of language.' Its origin must be looked for\nin a stage of human development in which intuition or instinct almost\npredominates, while abstract thought is unknown. Thus mythical terms\nprecede mythical thought, and the peculiarities of language which lead\nto the formation of myth are the gender of words, polyonymy (numerous\nmeanings attached to one word), synonymy (the possession of similar\nmeanings by two or more words), poetical metaphor, and so forth. But\nthe entire M\u00fcllerian conception of mythic science must not be taken\nas being contained only in the expression that myth is a 'disease of\nlanguage.' Myth, according to M\u00fcller, is to be comprehended principally\nthrough language, but not through language only. By reference to\nlanguage many but not _all_ mythic phenomena may be understood. Just as\ncertain rash disciples of Darwin did much to stultify their leader's\nevolutionary theory by their applications of it, in the same manner\nsome of M\u00fcller's followers so distorted and exaggerated his views on\nmyth as to hamper him greatly.\n\nM\u00fcller was not the first to apply the methods of comparative philology\nto myth, but he was by far the most distinguished exponent of the\nsystem. Before him G. Herman and others attempted to explain myths by\netymology, but they restricted their efforts to the Greek language\nonly. It was not until the researches of Franz Bopp[9] (1791-1867) and\nothers laid the foundations of the science of comparative philology\nthat the way was clear for the study of myth on a linguistic basis.\nThese studies succeeded in establishing the relationship of the\n'Indo-Germanic' languages, and, working with these proven facts behind\nhim, M\u00fcller boldly applied them to mythic phenomena. For example, he\nbrought forward a comparative formula of the name of Zeus or Jupiter\nwhich he stated thus:\n\n    Diaush-Pitar = Zeus Pater = Jupiter = Tyr.\n\nThus, according to him, the name Diaush-Pitar in Sanskrit was\nequivalent to Zeus Pater in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Tyr in old\nTeutonic.[10] This etymological result is sufficiently scientific in\ncharacter for acceptance by even a severe critic of the system. But\nscarcely had M\u00fcller's method acquired vogue--and its recognition was\nof the widest--than a small army of critics arose whose determined\nopposition had to be reckoned with. Many of their objections, it is now\nclear, were due to misunderstandings. Wherever they lit upon a paradox\nor were enabled to confuse the issue by any ambiguity or slackness in\nM\u00fcller's phraseology, they too often took more than a full advantage\nof the chance to score. Indeed, so unsparing was the criticism to\nwhich his conclusions were subjected, and so great was his irritation\nthereat, that at length he accused certain of his adversaries of an\nattempt to traduce his moral character by charging him with mendacity.\n\nM\u00dcLLER'S CONTEMPORARY CRITICS\n\nBut if his critics were unfair, they had legitimate grounds for a\ncertain opposition to his system. Many of his propositions, as well as\nthose of his followers, were doubtful; the method was often pushed to\nextremes which just escaped being ludicrous; and the somewhat ponderous\nerudition behind it seemed only to heighten the absurdity of some of\nits conclusions, although the charm and usual clarity of M\u00fcller's\nliterary style were not to be denied. The combat waxed fierce, and\nboth sides brought up all their forces. Linguistic science, it was\nsaid, is an uncertain medium for determining the substance and nature\nof thought. The linguistic and etymological methods had been discarded\nby philosophy, only to make an unwelcome reappearance in mythology.\nThe original meaning of a word is often totally at variance with its\nlater use. Again, similar mythic conceptions are found with totally\ndifferent names, and divergent ones with the same names. These were\nserious objections, but they do not destroy the strictly verifiable\nconclusions of the philological school. At present the school is in\nthe deepest discredit; indeed, it may be said to possess scarcely a\nsingle follower; but that its methods are applicable to certain classes\nof mythic phenomena no mythologist of experience would deny.\n\nM\u00dcLLERIAN INTERPRETATIONS\n\nExamples which illustrate the M\u00fcllerian interpretation or\nmisinterpretation of myth are his treatment of the tale of Cephalus,\nAurora (Eos), and Procris. Cephalus was the sun, the son of Herse,\nthe dew; therefore he represented the sun rising over dewy fields.\nEos, as the word implies, is the dawn. Procris comes from a Sanskrit\nroot _park_, meaning to sprinkle, and is also the dew; therefore it\nis the equivalent of Herse, the meaning of which may be found in a\nSanskrit root _vrish_, 'to sprinkle.' The myth is then interpreted:\nCephalus loves Procris--that is, the sun kisses the morning dew; Eos\nloves Cephalus--that is, the dawn loves the sun. Procris is faithless,\nbut her new lover turns out to be the sun in another guise--that is,\nthe dewdrops reflect the sun in manifold colours. Procris is slain\nby Cephalus--that is, the dew is absorbed by the sun. Thus natural\nphenomena lurk behind the names of gods and heroes.\n\nThe philological school had its internal divisions also. Its arbitrary\ninterpretations made for schism, and there was considerable diversity\nof opinion regarding myths and mythic personages. Two sub-schools\narose, the solar and the meteorological. The first, headed by M\u00fcller\nhimself, \"saw sun-gods everywhere,\" in myth, folklore, and legend.\nPerhaps its most zealous disciple was the Rev. Sir George William Cox\n(1827-1902), author of _The Mythology of the Aryan Nations_ (1870) and\n_An Introduction to Mythology and Folklore_ (1881), two works of great\nerudition and charm, powerfully advocating the universality of the\nsun myth and based upon a truly scientific investigation of a large\nnumber of myths and tales. Cox did not insist upon the philological\ninterpretation of myths so much as on their solar character, and he is\n\"fully aware of the dangers involved in attempts to explain Teutonic,\nor Greek, or Latin, or Scandinavian myths solely from Aryan sources.\"\nHe also admits the existence of nature myths other than solar, but to\nhis mind most of those which are not solar are stellar or nebular.\n\nThe founders of the meteorological school saw in all myths the\nphenomena of the thunder and lightning. Dragons and similar monsters\nguard treasures and fair maidens in a celestial stronghold till the\narrival of the hero-god, who slays the monsters and rescues the maiden.\nThus, said they, the dark and threatening thunder-clouds imprison the\nlight of heaven until the coming of the god, who dissipates them. The\nchief supporters of this theory were Kuhn (1812-1881) and Darmesteter\n(1849-1894). Laestrin too attempted to interpret myths from nebular\nphenomena which he had observed on the Alps.[11]\n\nFew perfectly certain results were achieved by the philological\nschool. Of convincing certainty at the first blush, a more searching\nexamination reveals difficulties, and shows that the theories do not\nfit the myth with any degree of exactitude; but philology has rendered\nand will render real service to mythology, and this young mythologists\nwould do well to bear in mind.[12]\n\nTHE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCHOOL\n\nBut the final blow to the pretensions of the philological method as a\n'universal solvent' of mythic problems was dealt by the anthropological\nschool of mythologists. This school accounts for the \"wild and\nsenseless\" element in myth by replying that such \"wild and senseless\"\nconceptions can occur only in a savage and primitive state of society,\nand that therefore when such elements are found in the myths of\ncivilized and cultured peoples they must necessarily be a legacy from\na savage past--survivals of savage belief. But ere we proceed further\nin our investigation of the work of the anthropological school, let\nus see by what arguments it finally divested the philologists of all\nauthority in the sphere of mythology.\n\nIt held, then, that Max M\u00fcller's system was a result of the discovery\nof the basic unity of the Aryan languages, and was founded on an\nanalysis of these languages, but it showed that precisely similar myths\nexist among Eskimos, Red Indians, South Sea Islanders, Maoris, Bushmen,\nand other savage races. \"The facts being identical, an identical\nexplanation should be sought; and as the languages in which the myths\nexist are essentially different, an explanation founded upon the Aryan\nlanguage is likely to prove too narrow.\"[13] Again, although we may\ndiscover the original meaning of a god's name, it does not assist us\nto understand the myths connected with him, for a striking figure in\nmyth collects around it many age-old stories and mythic incidents which\nhave originally no connexion whatsoever with it, just as barnacles are\ncollected by a vessel in harbour. \"Therefore, though we may ascertain\nthat Zeus means 'sky,' and Agni 'fire,' we cannot assert with Max\nM\u00fcller that all the myths about Agni and Zeus were originally told of\nfire and sky. When these gods became popular they would inevitably\ninherit any current exploits of earlier heroes or gods.\"[14] So that\nif these were credited to them it would be erroneously. Names derived\nfrom natural phenomena too, such as sky, clouds, dawn, and sun, are\nhabitually assigned by savage peoples to living persons. Thus a tale\ntold of a real man or woman bearing one of these names might easily\nbecome mingled or confused with myths about the real sky, cloud,\nsun, dawn, etc. For such reasons the philological analysis of names\nis bound to be uncertain in its results. Moreover, when primitive or\nsavage people think of natural phenomena and celestial bodies, they\nhave no such ideas in their minds concerning them as have civilized\npeople. They usually think of them as human beings with like passions\nto themselves--in fact, in an 'animistic' way. M\u00fcller held that it was\ngender-terminations that led later ages to the belief that natural\nphenomena possessed personalities, whereas the anthropological school\nretorted that _au contraire_ \"gender-terminations were survivals from\nan early stage of thought in which personal characteristics, including\nsex, had been attributed to all phenomena.\" This stage of thought is\nto be observed among savages and young children, who habitually regard\ninanimate objects as alive.\n\nMANNHARDT\n\nThe defection of Mannhardt, who had long been a pillar of the\nphilological school, was a further blow to its failing prestige. In a\nwork published shortly before his death (_Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_,\n1877) he explains the growth of his views, and states that \"the assured\ngains\" of the philological school \"shrink into very few divine names\nsuch as Dyaus = Zeus = Tuis; Parjany = Perkunas; Bhaga = Bug; Varuna =\nUranus, etc.\" Many of the other equations of divine names he regards as\nmere _jeux d'esprit_. \"To the principle of Max M\u00fcller,\" he says, \"I can\nonly assign a very limited value, if any value at all\" (_op. cit_., p.\n20). And again: \"Taken all in all, I consider the greater part of the\nresults hitherto obtained in the field of Indo-Germanic comparative\nmythology to be, as yet, a failure, premature or incomplete, my own\nefforts in _German Myths_ (1858) included.\" In an essay on Demeter\npublished somewhat later he further insisted upon the weakness of the\nphilological method. Moreover, he disapproved of finding celestial\nphenomena in myths of terrestrial happenings. To this standpoint he was\nbrought by his own experience of how easy (and fatal) it is to become\nthe victim of a 'mythological habit'--that is, the interpretation of\nmyths by one method and by that alone. Writing to his friend M\u00fcllenhoff\nin 1876, he said that he had become uneasy \"at the extent which sun\nmyths threaten to assume in my comparisons.\" Mannhardt was a wise man\nand an honest one. He saw clearly that there is no universal solvent\nfor myth, no single philosopher's stone by which it may be made to\nyield its secrets, no royal road to its elucidation.\n\nAt the same time he adhered to the truth that \"a portion of\nthe older myths arose from nature poetry which is no longer\ndirectly intelligible to us, but has to be interpreted by means of\nanalogies.... Of these nature myths, some have reference to the life\nand circumstances of the sun.\" As Lang has said of him:[15] \"Like\nevery sensible person, he knew that there are numerous real, obvious,\nconfessed solar myths _not_ derived from a disease of language. These\narise from (1) the impulse to account for the doings of the sun by\ntelling a story about him as if he were a person; (2) from the natural\npoetry of the human mind. What we think they are _not_ shown to arise\nfrom is forgetfulness of meanings of old words, which, _ex hypothesi,_\nhave become proper names.\" And again: \"It is a popular delusion that\nthe anthropological mythologists deny the existence of solar myths, or\nof nature myths in general. These are extremely common. What we demur\nto is the explanation of divine and heroic myths at large as solar\nor elemental, when the original sense has been lost by the ancient\nnarrators, and when the elemental explanation rests on conjectural\nand conflicting etymologies and interpretations of old proper\nnames--Athene, Hera, Artemis, and the rest.\"\n\nMannhardt's method was more that of the folklorist than the\nphilologist. He closely examined peasant custom and rite in the hope\nof discovering survivals of paganism. Indeed, his work may be said to\nbe the foundation upon which Sir James George Frazer (whose work will\nbe fully reviewed later) built his imposing edifices of research, _The\nGolden Bough_ and other works.\n\nTHE ANTHROPOLOGICAL POSITION\n\nThe anthropological creed might, broadly, be stated as follows, with,\nof course, small divergences caused by internal division:\n\n(1) The savage and irrational element in 'civilized' myth is composed\nof primitive survivals in more civilized times.\n\n(2) The comparison of civilized with savage myth--that is, of later\nwith earlier myth--frequently throws light upon the character of the\nlatter.\n\n(3) The comparison of similar myths among widely divergent peoples\nfrequently illuminates their primitive character and meaning.\n\nBroadly speaking, too, the anthropological school accepts such views\nas have been laid down in the introductory chapter concerning animism,\nfetishism, and totemism; and when we come to deal with authorities who\ndiverge in any way from these views we shall show how they differ.\n\nSIR E. B. TYLOR\n\nSir E. B. Tylor, the virtual founder of the anthropological school,\nin his _Researches into the Early History of Mankind_ (1865) and\n_Primitive Culture_ (1871), first laid down the anthropological\nposition with clearness and accuracy.\n\nIn a statement which appeared in his epoch-making work, _Primitive\nCulture_, Tylor briefly reviews the conceptions of the early\ncommentators regarding myth, and shows how necessary breadth of\nknowledge and handling is for mythological work. The scientific\ninterpretation of myth is strengthened and assisted by the comparison\nof examples. There are groups of myths, and the greater the number\nwhich can be grouped together, the more evidence is provided for the\nformation of a true science of mythology. Few and simple are the\nprinciples which underlie a solid system of interpretation. \"The\ntreatment of similar myths from different regions, by arranging them\nin large compared groups, makes it possible to trace in mythology\nthe operation of imaginative processes recurring with the evident\nregularity of mental law; and thus stories of which a single instance\nwould have been a mere isolated curiosity take their place among\nwell-marked and consistent structures of the human mind. Evidence like\nthis will again and again drive us to admit that even as 'truth is\nstranger than fiction,' so myth may be more uniform than history.\"[16]\n\nThe work is limited to the consideration of well-authenticated mythic\nideas of almost universal occurrence. \"The general thesis maintained is\nthat myth arose in the savage condition prevalent in remote ages among\nthe whole human race, that it remains comparatively unchanged among\nthe modern rude tribes who have departed least from these primitive\nconditions, while even higher and later grades of civilisation, partly\nby retaining its actual principles, and partly by carrying on its\ninherited results in the form of ancestral tradition, have continued it\nnot merely in toleration but in honour.\"[17]\n\nIMPORTANCE OF SAVAGE MYTH\n\nThe evolutionary character of myth necessitates that its study should\nbe commenced among races of low culture. \"If savage races, as the\nnearest modern representatives of primeval culture, show in the most\ndistinct and unchanged state the rudimentary mythic conceptions\nthence to be traced onward in the course of civilisation, then it is\nreasonable for students to begin, so far as may be, at the beginning.\nSavage mythology may be taken as a basis, and then the myths of more\ncivilised races may be displayed as compositions sprung from like\norigin, though more advanced in art. This mode of treatment proves\nsatisfactory through almost all the branches of the enquiry, and\neminently so in investigating those most beautiful of poetic fictions\nto which may be given the title of Nature Myths.\"[18]\n\nThe nature of personalism in myth is debated, as is the share of\nlanguage in its formation, and here it will be seen that Tylor has not\nthe extreme hostility of certain of his followers to the M\u00fcllerian\ndoctrine. He says: \"Language, no doubt, has had a great share in the\nformation of myth. The mere fact of its individualising in words such\nnotions as winter and summer, cold and heat, war and peace, vice and\nvirtue, gives the myth-maker the means of imagining these thoughts\nas personal beings. Language not only acts in thorough unison with\nthe imagination whose product it expresses, but it goes on producing\nof itself, and thus, by the side of the mythic conceptions in which\nlanguage has followed imagination, we have others in which language\nhas led, and imagination has followed in the track. These two actions\ncoincide too closely for their effects to be thoroughly separated,\nbut they should be distinguished as far as possible. For myself, I\nam disposed to think (differing here in some measure from Professor\nMax M\u00fcller's view of the subject) that the mythology of the lower\nraces rests especially on a basis of real and sensible analogy, and\nthat the great expansion of verbal metaphor into myth belongs to more\nadvanced periods of civilisation. In a word, I take material myth to\nbe the primary, and verbal myth to be the secondary, formation. But\nwhether this opinion be historically sound or not, the difference\nin nature between myth founded on fact and myth founded on word is\nsufficiently manifest. The want of reality in verbal metaphor cannot\nbe effectually hidden by the utmost stretch of imagination. In spite\nof this essential weakness, however, the habit of realising everything\nthat words can describe is one which has grown and flourished in the\nworld. Descriptive names become personal, the notion of personality\nstretches to take in even the most abstract notions to which a name\nmay be applied, and realised name, epithet, and metaphor pass into\ninterminable mythic growths by the process which Max M\u00fcller has so\naptly characterised as 'a disease of language.' It would be difficult\nindeed to define the exact thought lying at the root of every mythic\nconception, but in easy cases the course of formation can be quite well\nfollowed.\"[19]\n\nThe student of myth must possess the ability to transport himself into\nthe imaginative atmosphere of the untutored mind. The inspection of\n'nature mythology' helps to show that much myth is related to natural\nphenomena. \"In interpreting heroic legend as based on nature-myth,\"\nsays Tylor, \"circumstantial analogy must be very cautiously appealed\nto, and at any rate, there is need of evidence more cogent than\nvague likenesses between human and cosmic life. Now such evidence is\nforthcoming at its strongest in a crowd of myths, whose open meaning\nit would be wanton incredulity to doubt, so little do they disguise,\nin name or sense, the familiar aspects of nature which they figure as\nscenes of personal life. Even where the tellers of legend may have\naltered or forgotten its earlier mythic meaning, there are often\nsufficient grounds for an attempt to restore it. In spite of change\nand corruption, myths are slow to lose all consciousness of their\nfirst origin.\"[20] And \"the etymology of names, moreover, is at once\nthe guide and safeguard of the mythologist [p. 321]. There was no\ndisputing the obvious fact that Helios (Sol) was the sun, and Selene\nthe moon.\" He examines groups of myths \"produced from that craving to\nknow causes and reasons which ever besets mankind\" (p. 392). Allegory\nis then treated of. It \"cannot maintain the large place often claimed\nfor it [p. 408], yet it cannot be passed over by the mythologist. A\nnumber of fanciful myths are of the nature of allegory, as that of\nPandora in Hesiod, or Herakles choosing between the paths of pleasure\nand virtue.\" In concluding his chapters on myth, Tylor remarks in a\npassage of profound insight: \"The investigation of these intricate and\ndevious operations has brought ever more and more broadly into view\ntwo principles of mythologie science. The first is that legend, when\nclassified on a sufficient scale, displays a regularity of development\nwhich the notion of motiveless fancy quite fails to account for, and\nwhich must be attributed to laws of formation whereby every story, old\nand new, has arisen from its definite origin and sufficient cause. So\nuniform indeed is such development that it becomes possible to treat\nmyth as an organic product of mankind at large, in which individual,\nnational, and even racial distinctions stand subordinate to universal\nqualities of the human mind. The second principle concerns the relation\nof myth to history. It is true that the search for mutilated and\nmystified traditions of real events, which formed so main a part of\nold mythological researches, seems to grow more hopeless the further\nthe study of legend extends.... Yet unconsciously, and as it were in\nspite of themselves, the shapers and transmitters of poetic legend have\npreserved for us masses of sound historical evidence.\"[21]\n\nTYLOR'S ANIMISTIC THEORY\n\nThe widely accepted theory of animism which has already been described\n(p. 22) was promulgated by Tylor in this work. Man, he thinks, first\nattained to the idea of spirit by reflection on various experiences\nsuch as sleep, dreams, trances, shadows, hallucinations, breath, and\ndeath, and by degrees extended the conception of soul or ghost until\nhe peopled all nature with spirits. From among these spirits one is\nfinally supreme, if the process of evolution is continued. This theory\ndiscounts the early connexion between religion and ethics, and Tylor\nbelieved that primitive man had no notion of religion or ethics.\n\nJOHN FERGUSON McLENNAN\n\nJohn Ferguson McLennan (1827-1881), author of _Primitive Marriage_\n(1865) and _Studies in Ancient History_ (1876), threw much light upon\nthe origin and rise of the family and, incidentally, of totemism.\nAlthough he treats the subject from a sociological point of view, his\nwork is of great value to students of myth because of its illustrations\nof totemism. His principal writings on totemism first appeared in the\n_Fortnightly Review_ of 1869-1870.\n\nHERBERT SPENCER\n\nHerbert Spencer (1820-1903) explained his system of mythology in\n_Principles of Sociology_. The mental condition of man when he animates\nand personifies all phenomena is accounted for by degeneration, as\nin Spencer's view it is not primary but the result of misconception.\nLanguage is only one cause of this misconception: statements which had\noriginally a different significance are, he thinks, misinterpreted, as\nare names of human beings, so that primitive races are gradually led\nto a belief in personalized phenomena. The defect in early speech, the\n\"lack of words free from implication of vitality,\" is one of the causes\nwhich favour personalization. But in making this statement he appears\nto overlook the circumstance that such words as \"imply vitality\" do\nso because they reflect the thought of the men who use them before\nmisconception can arise through their prolonged use. In any case, the\nmisconstructions of language which he believes to have brought about\nthe idea of personality are in his system \"different in kind\" from\nthose of the philological school, \"and the erroneous course of thought\nis opposite in direction.\" He believes the names of human beings in\nearly society to be derived from incidents of the moment, the period\nof the day, or the condition of the weather. In certain tribes we\ndiscover persons named Dawn, Dark Cloud, Sun, etc. Spencer thinks that\nif a story exists concerning people so named, in process of time it\nwill be transferred to the object or event, which will thereby become\npersonalized. It is clear, however, that few such stories could be\napposite, and that their occurrence would be rare.\n\nTraditions of persons coming from the neighbourhood of some mountain\nor river may grow into belief in actual birth from it. For example,\nshould tradition state that a man's parents came \"from the rising\nsun,\" he will believe himself a descendant of the luminary, which thus\nbecomes personalized. Holding as he does that ancestor-worship is the\nfirst form of religion, and that persons with such names as Sun, Wind,\nor Cloud may be thus worshipped, Spencer believed that nature myths\nare a kind of worship of ancestors. Implicit belief in the statements\nof forefathers is a further cause of personalizing. He explains the\nidea of descent from beast ancestors by the ancestor of the stock or\ntribe possessing an animal name, such as Wolf, Tiger, and so forth,\nand being confounded by his descendants with a real wolf or tiger.\nSpencer never saw that ancestral memory in savages is extremely short\nand rarely survives more than three generations. Nor is the savage at\na loss to understand the custom of bestowing animal or nature names\nupon persons. He calls his own child Dawn or Wolf, and therefore he\nis not tempted to believe that his ancestor was really a tiger or the\ndawn. The animal descent almost invariably comes through the female\nline, and the mother's totem-kin name is adopted, yet savages do not\nworship their ancestresses. The theory, as Lang has said, requires \"as\na necessary condition a singular amount of memory on the one hand and\nof forgetfulness on the other.\"\n\nWILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH\n\nOne of the first and most remarkable upholders of the anthropological\nschool was William Robertson Smith (1846-1894) a professor of Hebrew\nin the Free Church College, Aberdeen. The heterodox character of an\nencyclop\u00e6dia article on the Bible led to his prosecution for heresy,\nof which charge, however, he was acquitted. But a further article upon\n\"Hebrew Language and Literature\" in the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_\n(1880) led to his removal from the professoriate of the college.\nIn 1881 he assisted Professor Baynes in editing the _Encyclop\u00e6dia\nBritannica_, and in 1887 succeeded him as editor-in-chief. He was\nappointed Lord Almoner's Professor of Arabic at Cambridge in 1883, and\nAdams Professor of Arabic in 1889.\n\nRobertson Smith's most remarkable work--that to which every modern\nstudent of comparative religion owes so much--is his celebrated\n_Religion of the Semites_, originally delivered as a series of lectures\nat Aberdeen in the three years from October 1888 to October 1891.\n\nIt is of course only this author's views on mythology that we have here\nto take into account.\n\nRobertson Smith points out that in all ancient religious systems\nmythology takes the place of dogma. The sacred lore of a race assumes\nthe form of stories about the gods, and these tales offer the sole\nexplanation of religious precept and ritual act, but as myth had\nno sacred sanction and no binding force on the worshippers, it was\nnot an essential part of religion. Myths \"connected with individual\nsanctuaries and ceremonies were merely part of the apparatus of the\nworship; they served to excite the fancy and sustain the interest of\nthe worshipper; but he was often offered a choice of several accounts\nof the same thing, and, provided that he fulfilled the ritual with\naccuracy, no one cared what he believed about its origin. Belief in\na certain series of myths was neither obligatory as a part of true\nreligion, nor was it supposed that, by believing, a man acquired\nreligious merit and conciliated the favour of the gods. What was\nobligatory or meritorious was the exact performance of certain sacred\nacts prescribed by religious tradition. This being so, it follows that\nmythology ought not to take the prominent place that is too often\nassigned to it in the scientific study of ancient faiths.\"\n\nRobertson Smith thought that in almost every case the myth was derived\nfrom the ritual, not the ritual from the myth. Ritual was fixed, and\nmyth was variable. The one was obligatory, the other at the discretion\nof the worshipper. \"Now by far the largest part of the myths of antique\nreligions is connected with the ritual of particular shrines, or with\nthe religious observances of particular tribes and districts. In all\nsuch cases it is probable, in most cases it is certain, that the myth\nis merely the explanation of a religious usage; and ordinarily it is\nsuch an explanation as could not have arisen till the original sense\nof the usage had more or less fallen into oblivion. As a rule the myth\nis no explanation of the origin of the ritual to any one who does not\nbelieve it to be a narrative of real occurrences, and the boldest\nmythologist will not believe that. But if it be not true, the myth\nitself requires to be explained, and every principle of philosophy and\ncommon sense demands that the explanation be sought, not in arbitrary\nallegorical theories, but in the actual facts of ritual or religious\ncustom to which the myth attaches. The conclusion is that in the study\nof ancient religions we must begin, not with myth, but with ritual and\ntraditional usage.\"\n\nMyths which do not merely explain traditional practices, but \"exhibit\nthe beginnings of larger religious speculation,\" Robertson Smith also\nregards as secondary in character. They may be primitive philosophy\nor political attempts to unite religious groups, originally distinct,\nor perhaps due to the play of epic imagination. In the later stages\nof ancient religions mythology became increasingly important. \"Myth\ninterpreted by the aid of allegory became the favourite means of\ninfusing a new significance into ancient forms. But the theories thus\ndeveloped are the falsest of false guides as to the original meaning\nof the old religions. On the other hand, the ancient myths, taken in\ntheir natural sense, without allegorical gloss, are plainly of great\nimportance as testimonies to the views of the nature of the gods that\nwere prevalent when they were formed.\"\n\nIn the third lecture or chapter the author propounds the theory of\nanimism in much the same terms as Tylor, and, speaking generally, the\nremainder of the work is occupied with considerations regarding the\nreligious life of the Semitic peoples, their holy places, their ritual\nand sacrifice.\n\nTHEOBIOGRAPHY\n\nRobertson Smith is undoubtedly correct in his statement that myth takes\nthe place of dogma in primitive religion--that \"the sacred lore of\npriests and people ... assumes the form of stories about the gods.\" But\nhaving thus connected theobiography[22] with religion and the religious\nspirit, it is difficult to discover why he denies a religious character\nto myth. \"These stories,\" he says (p. 17), \"afford the only explanation\nthat is offered of the precepts of religion and the prescribed rules of\nritual.\" If that be the case, surely the group of myths which detail\nthe deeds of the chief deities is of prime importance to religion.\nThe 'story' of a religion is its most precious asset. It is from the\n'story' of their faith that the majority of people receive their ideas\nconcerning it. What would Mohammedanism be without the story of the\nProphet? What Buddhism without the tale of Gautama? What Christianity\nwithout the life of Christ? And if the argument applies to the higher\nforms of religion, it may surely be applied, and more so, to primitive\nfaiths. Among savage or barbarous peoples the myth, the body of tales\nwhich circles round the gods, is universal tribal property. It takes\nthe place of written scripture, it infuses all poetry and epic, it is\nrepresented in sacred drama, it is recited by the neophytes for the\npriesthood, it underlies the most sacred mysteries. The contention\nthat myth was \"no essential part of ancient religion\" is based upon a\nfundamental misconception of the spoken or written story of the gods.\nIn the present writer's view myth is a most important element of\nprimitive religion; for whereas ritual often impresses an alien people\nas magical and therefore inimical, and is not so readily borrowed,\nthe wide transmission of myth proves that it not only impresses the\nimagination of the races among whom it has origin, but that it is able\nto take hold of neighbouring and even distant peoples as well.\n\nAkin to the first error is Robertson Smith's further fallacy that\nritual is prior in origin to myth in primitive religion. \"It may be\naffirmed with confidence,\" he says, \"that the myth was derived from the\nritual, not the ritual from the myth.\" Therefore the savage sacrifices\nwith much involved ceremonial to something concerning which he knows\nand has invented nothing!\n\nTHE CONSERVATISM OF CHILDHOOD\n\nThat myth is sacred may be seen, if our conclusions are correct, in a\nfact already employed to explain the fixed and unchangeable character\nof the folk-tale. Children, it is observed, listening to a traditional\nstory do not approve of any alteration in its plot or circumstances. Is\nthis dislike--one might almost say horror--of alteration in folk-tale\na legacy of the religious dread of any attempt to tamper with the\ntales of the gods? If so, such a sentiment would only be likely to\narise in an environment where the idea of the sacred had already made\nconsiderable headway.\n\nThis argument does not claim an ethical character for myth, nor for\nritual or the other elements of religion, which did not originally know\nof or possess any ethical spirit, but had to acquire it painfully. The\nargument that belief in myth was not \"obligatory as a part of true\nreligion\" is futile. It was not obligatory because it was natural and\ngeneral. That one could not acquire religious merit by knowing it is\nalso untrue. Intimate acquaintance with the religious story is in many\ncivilized modern communities (Mohammedans, Hindus, British rural folk)\nthe measure of piety, and among savages and the peoples of antiquity\n(Egyptians, Greeks, Australians, etc.) the religious story is the\nnucleus of the most sacred mysteries of the faith.\n\nCORNELIUS PETRUS TIELE\n\nCornelius Petrus Tiele (1830-1902), a professor of the history of\nreligions at Leyden, although claimed as an ally by Max M\u00fcller, was\nmuch more inclined toward fellowship with the anthropological school.\nIn his _Revue de l'Histoire des Religions_ (1876, trans. 1878, xii,\n250) he says: \"I am an ally, much more than an adversary, of the new\nschool, whether styled ethnological or anthropological. It is true that\nall the ideas advanced by its partisans are not so new as they seem.\nSome of us--I mean among those who, without being vassals of the old\nschool, were formed by it--had not only remarked already the defects\nof the reigning method, but had perceived the direction in which\nresearches should be made; they had even begun to say so. This does\nnot prevent the young school from enjoying the great merit of having\nfirst formulated with precision, and with the energy of conviction,\nthat which had hitherto been but imperfectly pointed out. If henceforth\nmythological science marches with a firmer foot, and loses much of its\nhypothetical character, it will in part owe this to the stimulus of the\nnew school.\"\n\nAgain he says (_op. cit_., p. 253): \"If I were reduced to choose\nbetween this method and that of comparative philology, I would prefer\nthe former without the slightest hesitation. This method alone\nenables us to explain the fact, such a frequent cause of surprise,\nthat the Greeks, like the Germans, ... could attribute to their gods\nall manner of cruel, cowardly, and dissolute actions. This method\nalone reveals the cause of all the strange metamorphoses of gods into\nanimals, plants, and even stones.... In fact, this method teaches\nus to recognize in all these oddities the survivals of an age of\nbarbarism long over-past, but lingering into later times, under the\nform of religious legends, the most persistent of all traditions.\n... This method, then, can alone help us to account for the genesis\nof myths, because it devotes itself to studying them in their rudest\nand most primitive shape.\" At the same time, Tiele thought that the\nanthropological method \"cannot answer all the questions which the\nscience of mythology must solve, or at least must study.\" He also\nstates that the anthropological school is \"not entirely wrong\" in\nclaiming him as an ally, and goes on to say: \"But I must protest in the\nname of mythological science, and of the exactness as necessary to her\nas to any of the other sciences, against a method which only glides\nover questions of the first importance and which to most questions can\nonly reply, with a smile, _C'est chercher raison o\u00f9 il n'y en a pas_.\"\n\nTiele also considered the anthropological school \"too exclusive,\" and\nthought that it might have ignorant camp-followers. In the latter fear\nhe was justified, as writers who saw totems and fetishes everywhere\nwere at that time rife; and there are not wanting popular writers of\nthe present day just as extravagant, who, while highly enthusiastic\nover the achievements of the school, only dimly appreciate the\nanthropological standpoint.\n\nANDREW LANG\n\nPerhaps the greatest binding force, and certainly the greatest\npopularity, was given to the anthropological school by Andrew Lang\n(1844-1913), whose works _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_ (1887), _Modern\nMythology_ (1897), and _The Making of Religion_ (1898), contain\noriginality, great dialectic ability, and keen insight. Waxing\nautobiographical in the second work, Lang wrote concerning his own\nposition: \"Like other inquiring under-graduates in the sixties, I read\nsuch works on mythology as Mr Max M\u00fcller had then given to the world;\nI read them with interest, but without conviction. The argument, the\nlogic, seemed to evade one; it was purely, with me, a question of\nlogic, for I was of course prepared to accept all of Mr Max M\u00fcller's\ndicta on questions of etymologies. Even now I never venture to impugn\nthem, only, as I observe that other scholars very frequently differ,\n_toto c\u0153lo_, from him and from each other in essential questions,\nI preserve a just balance of doubt; I wait till these gentlemen shall\nbe at one among themselves. After taking my degree in 1868, I had\nleisure to read a good deal of mythology in the legends of all races,\nand found my distrust of Mr Max M\u00fcller's reasoning increase upon me.\nThe main cause was that whereas Mr Max M\u00fcller explained Greek myths\nby etymologies of words in the Aryan languages, chiefly Greek, Latin,\nSlavonic, and Sanskrit, I kept finding myths very closely resembling\nthose of Greece among Red Indians, Kaffirs, Eskimo, Samoyeds,\nKamilaroi, Maoris, and Cahrocs. Now if Aryan myths arose from a\n'disease' of Aryan languages, it certainly did seem an odd thing that\nmyths so similar to these abounded where non-Aryan languages alone\nprevailed. Did a kind of linguistic measles affect all tongues alike,\nfrom Sanskrit to Choctaw, and everywhere produce the same ugly scars\nin religion and myth? The ugly scars were the problem! A civilised\nfancy is not puzzled for a moment by a beautiful beneficent Sun-god, or\neven by his beholding the daughters of men that they are fair. But a\ncivilised fancy _is_ puzzled when the beautiful Sun-god makes love in\nthe shape of a dog. To me, and indeed to Mr Max M\u00fcller, the ugly scars\nwere the problem.\"\n\nLang's first work on myth, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, after briefly\nreviewing the various systems of mythic interpretation prior to and\ncurrent in his time, lays stress upon the difference between religion\nand myth, in which he sees two distinct human moods, the one sacred,\nthe other wholly frivolous in origin. This conflict is present in all\nreligions. The two moods, we are told (p. 5), are conspicuous even\nin Christianity, in prayers, hymns, and \"the dim religious light\" of\ncathedrals on the one hand, and on the other in the buffoonery of\nmiracle plays and the uncouth blasphemies of folk-tales. Backward\npeoples too make a distinction between their religion and their\nmythology. The 'wild' element of mythic story is then explained as a\nsurvival from the savage state, the mental condition of savages is\ndescribed in its bearing upon primitive fiction, and its outstanding\ntypes are outlined, as are some of the world's chief mythic\nsystems--all to illustrate the anthropological standpoint of the\nauthor. Incidentally is developed the 'All-Father' theory, which will\nbe dealt with later.\n\n'ERRATIC FANCY' IN MYTH\n\nIn this work we have, perhaps, the most valuable statement of the\nanthropological case extant, but in it Lang insists too much upon\na fundamental difference between myth and religion. He says (_loc.\ncit_.): \"For the present we can only say that the religious conception\nuprises from the human intellect in one mood, that of earnest\ncontemplation and submission: while the mythical ideas uprise from\nanother mood, that of playful and erratic fancy.\" Absurd and unholy\nstories of the gods are common, but all myths are not of this kind,\nand many were and are employed as ritual by various peoples, who\nrecite them frequently as the histories of the gods they worship.\nAgain, Lang's contention that myth is not 'religious' would seem to\nbe defeated by his own just argument that myth containing 'wild'\nelements dates from primitive times. He accounts for its 'wildness'\nby its primitiveness; it was blasphemous because savage. But although\nblasphemous to the civilized man, it may not be so to the uncultured\nbarbarian, and to him may be even religious. Elsewhere Lang cites\nAustralian myth to prove that one tale is told to \"unimportant\npersons,\" such as women and boys, another to the initiated.[23] The\nfirst is of the nature of myth, the second religious in character.\nWe can discern a measure of truth in what he advocates, but a hard\nand fast line cannot be drawn between myth and religion, as no one\ncan say where myth ends and religion begins. They overlap; and when\nwe read of the pranks of the Greek Zeus or the Chinook Blue Jay we\nmay say to ourselves: \"Thus the gods figure in the imagination of the\nsavage, in whom the religious sense is faint. Once myth emerges from\nthe animistic, totemistic, and barbarous state it rises in character.\"\nBut--and this is important--there still cling to it the age-long tales\nof the gods as savages, barbaric, bloodthirsty, absurd, in no way to be\ncleansed or 'edited' or rendered 'decent,' They are regarded by men as\nsacred because they are old.\n\nThe arguments against Lang's conception of myth as the ribald brother\nof religion are as follows: (1) The majority of ancient myths are\nnot absurd, obscene, or blasphemous in essence, as is proved by\nthe circumstances of their invention. (2) Other myths which appear\nblasphemous to the civilized mind do not necessarily seem so to the\nsavage mind. The strange sense of humour peculiar to savages is not\ntaken into consideration by Lang, nor that most of the absurdities and\nobscenities arise from totemic sources _and are therefore necessarily\nanimal in their characteristics_, (3) The preservation and recital of\nmyths by priests proves their sacred character.[24]\n\nTherefore, although a difference exists between myth and dogma, it\nis one of degree only, not of kind. In all ages the ribald mind has\nconcocted scandalous stories concerning the gods, but most primitive\nmyth is not to be classed as 'ribald,' as a careful perusal of it will\nshow.\n\nLANG'S GENERAL THESIS\n\nLang states his general thesis clearly on p. 8. He says: \"Before going\nfurther, it is desirable to set forth what our aim is, and to what\nextent we are seeking an interpretation of mythology. It is not our\npurpose to explain every detail of every ancient legend, either as a\ndistorted historical fact or as the result of this or that confusion of\nthought caused by forgetfulness of the meanings of language, or in any\nother way; nay, we must constantly protest against the excursions of\ntoo venturesome ingenuity. Myth is so ancient, so complex, so full of\nelements, that it is vain labour to seek a cause for every phenomenon.\nWe are chiefly occupied with the quest for an historical condition of\nthe human intellect to which the element in myths, regarded by us as\nirrational, shall seem rational enough. If we can prove that such a\nstate of mind widely exists among men, and has existed, that state of\nmind may be provisionally considered as the fount and _origin_ of the\nmyths which have always perplexed men in a reasonable modern mental\ncondition.\"\n\nThe irrational element in myth, to which we have already given some\nconsideration, is then discussed by Lang, and as our manner of dealing\nwith it is founded upon his, it is unnecessary to recapitulate his\narguments. It must be remarked, however, that he lays down (vol. i,\np. 22) the conclusion that \"All interpretations of myth have been\nformed in accordance with the ideas prevalent in the time of the\ninterpreters.\" He states that his theory naturally attaches itself\nto the general system of evolution, and through it we are enabled\nto examine myth as \"a thing of gradual development and of slow and\nmanifold modifications.\" Thus we find that much of ancient myth is\na thing of great complexity, composed of the savage 'explanation,'\nthe civilized and poetic modification thereof, and the later popular\nidea of the original tale. \"A critical study of these three stages\nin myth is in accordance with the recognised practice of science.\nIndeed, the whole system is only an application to this particular\nprovince, mythology, of the method by which the development either of\norganisms or of human institutions is traced. As the anomalies and\napparently useless and accidental features in the human or in other\nanimal organisms may be explained as stunted or rudimentary survivals\nof organs useful in a previous stage of life, so the anomalous and\nirrational myths of civilised races may be explained as survivals of\nstories which, in an earlier state of thought and knowledge, seemed\nnatural enough. The persistence of the myths is accounted for by the\nwell-known conservatism of the religious sentiment--a conservatism\nnoticed even by Eusebius.\"\n\nDIFFUSION OF IDENTICAL MYTHS\n\nThe diffusion of identical myths, Lang argues, is due to the universal\nprevalence of similar mental habits and ideas at one time or another,\nbut he admits that this argument may be pressed too far, and that it\nwill \"scarcely account for the world-wide distribution of long and\nintricate mythical _plots_.\" The diffusion of mythic fiction would, in\nthe judgment of the present writer, justify the opinion that in many\ninstances borrowing and transmission take place; but all cases should\nbe examined on their individual merits.\n\nLang proceeds to examine the mental condition of savages, in accordance\nwith the views in our introductory chapter, and with special reference\nto totemism and magic. The animistic hypothesis is examined. His\nchapters relating to cosmogony may be passed over as containing no very\noriginal criticism. The author's 'All-Father' theory, as outlined in\nour notice of his book _The Making of Religion_, is set forth, and the\nremainder of that work is occupied with a description of the greater\nmythological systems of the world, regarding some of which he was not\nsufficiently well informed to speak with authority.[25]\n\n\"MODERN MYTHOLOGY\"\n\nIn _Modern Mythology_(1897) Lang shows why the anthropological school\nin England was obliged to challenge Professor Max M\u00fcller. After\npointing out the inconveniences of M\u00fcller's method in controversy,\nthe author proves that Tiele leans more in the direction of his\nschool than to that of M\u00fcller. He then reviews Mannhardt's position,\nwhich he shows to be also anti-M\u00fcllerian. He touches upon M\u00fcller's\nmisunderstandings regarding totemism and reviews \"the value of\nanthropological evidence.\" He points out that the past of savages must\nhave been \"a very long past,\" and insists upon the value of Tylor's\n\"test of undesigned coincidence in testimony\" (the famous 'test of\nrecurrence') as a criterion of the value of myth. \"The philological\nmethod in anthropology\" is discussed. Says Lang: \"Given Dr Hahn's book\non Hottentot manners and religion: the anthropologist compares the\nHottentot rites, beliefs, social habits, and general ideas with those\nof other races known to him, savage or civilised. A Hottentot custom,\nwhich has a meaning among Hottentots, may exist where its meaning is\nlost, among Greeks or other 'Aryans.' A story of a Hottentot god, quite\na natural sort of tale for a Hottentot to tell, may be told about a\ngod in Greece, where it is contrary to the Greek spirit. We infer that\nthe Greeks perhaps inherited it from savage ancestors, or borrowed it\nfrom savages. This is the method, and if we can also get a scholar to\nanalyse the _names_ of Hottentot gods, we are all the luckier--that\nis, if his processes and inferences are _logical._ May we not decide\non the _logic_ of scholars? But, just as Mr Max M\u00fcller points out\nto us the dangers attending our evidence, we point out to him the\ndangers attending his method. In Dr Hahn's book, the doctor analyses\nthe meaning of the names Tsuni-Goam and other names, discovers their\noriginal sense, and from that sense explains the myths about Hottentot\ndivine beings. Here we anthropologists first ask Mr Max M\u00fcller, before\naccepting Dr Hahn's etymologies, to listen to other scholars about the\nperils and difficulties of the philological analysis of divine names\neven in Aryan languages. I have already quoted his 'defender' Dr Tiele.\n'The philological method is inadequate and misleading, when it is a\nquestion of (1) discovering the origin of a myth, or (2) the physical\nexplanation of the oldest myths, or (3) of accounting for the rude and\nobscene element in the divine legends of civilised races.' To the two\nformer purposes Dr Hahn applies the philological method in the case of\nTsuni-Goam. Other scholars agree with Dr Tiele. Mannhardt, as we said,\nheld that Mr Max M\u00fcller's favourite etymological 'equations' (Sarameya\n= Hermeias; Saranyu = Demeter Erinnys; Kentauros = Gandharvas, and\nothers) would not stand criticism. 'The method in its practical working\nshows a lack of the historical sense,' said Mannhardt. Curtius--a\nscholar, as Mr Max M\u00fcller declares--says, 'It is especially difficult\nto conjecture the meaning of proper names, and above all of local and\nmythical names,' I do not see that it is easier when these names are\nnot Greek, but Hottentot, or Algonquin!\"\n\nThen follows a review of the contending methods of the philological\nand anthropological schools in the explanation of various myths and\nritualistic customs, and the method of the latter school is clearly\nvindicated.\n\nLANG'S ANTI-ANIMISTIC HYPOTHESIS\n\nThe thesis of the first portion of Lang's _The Making of Religion_\n(London, 1898) is that the abnormal phenomena believed in by savages\nand later civilized peoples assisted them to evolve the idea of\ngodhead. Lang holds that \"the savage beliefs, however erroneous,\nhowever darkened by fraud and fancy, repose on a basis of real\nobservation of actual phenomena.\" With such a contention, however\ningenious, anthropology can scarcely concern itself, as our knowledge\nof the supernatural is by no means sufficient to permit us to apply it\nto anthropology.\n\nThe arguments put forward in the second part of the book are: (1)\n\"That the conception of a separable surviving soul of a dead man was\nnot only not essential to the savage's idea of his supreme god ... but\nwould have been wholly inconsistent with that conception.\" (2) That the\noriginal idea of god among primitive peoples was not animistic and did\nnot evolve from the idea of the existence of spirit, but came first\nin order of evolution and was that of a \"magnified non-natural man\"\n(anthropomorphic and monotheistic). \"He existed before death came into\nthe world and he still exists.\" Moreover, such cults contained ethical\nand moral ideas not usually discovered in 'animistic' religions. Lang\nillustrates this theory by examples taken from Australian, Fuegian,\nAndamanese, Zulu, and other races of low culture.\n\nAs regards the first part of his contention, whatever may have been\nthe case with primitive man (concerning whose religious ideas we can\nonly theorize), it does not hold good of savages of the present day,\nwhen animistic ideas are universally in the transition state. The\nsecond argument is very much open to criticism, because the religious\nideas of the races alluded to by Lang as monotheistic may have been\nmodified by the theology of missionaries, Christian or Mohammedan.\nThis criticism Lang himself held not to be justified by facts, and\nthere are grounds for believing that his theory possesses a certain\namount of truth. Before, however, it can be discussed in its entirety,\nthe religious ideas of the peoples to which he alludes and those of\nother races similarly environed will require to be much more fully\nand rigorously examined and a much larger body of data collected.\nIf Lang's conclusions could be justified, they would revolutionize\nthe whole study of comparative religion. It would perhaps mean that\nsuch gods as Yahweh in Israel and Tezcatlipoca in Mexico, instead of\nbeing gradually evolved from lower spiritual forms, were survivals of\nvery early conceptions of non-spiritual forms of deity. But Lang's\ndata show that the early monotheistic, or the 'All-Father' idea, as\nhe calls it, disappears because of the adoption of animistic ideas.\nYahweh and Tezcatlipoca, we know, flourished side by side with and in\nan atmosphere of animism. It would be strange if the Hebrews, a branch\nof a race typically polytheistic (and therefore animistic), had not\nat one time been given to a similar worship, and everything seems to\nprove that they were originally polytheistic. If Yahweh was, as Lang\nsuggested, an original 'All-Father,' it is strange that Noldeke should\nhave been able to trace his name through the form _Shaddai_ to _Shedi_\n('my demon') a name sufficiently animistic. This would appear to be a\ntest of Lang's theory, but the question, as he stated, \"can only be\nsettled by specialists.\" He was right. He himself failed entirely to\nrealize the weight and abundance of the evidence for early polytheism\nand animism among the Israelites. Again, when in Mexico we observe\nthe rise of Tezcatlipoca from the obsidian stone, we must repeat that\nfurther special study alone can throw light on the question. Lang\ncalled his examination of the subject \"a 'sketch'--not an exhaustive\nsurvey,\" but the thoughtful student of comparative religion will admit\nthat it is a sketch raising questions of the greatest import to the\nscience he explores.[26]\n\nSIR JAMES GEORGE FRAZER\n\nOne of the greatest modern names in primitive religious science is that\nof Sir James George Frazer, the world-famous author of _The Golden\nBough_. Founded to some extent upon the principles of Mannhardt, Sir\nJ.G. Frazer's mythological studies relate chiefly to vegetation and the\ndeities connected therewith. Indeed, it has been said that he has seen\ngods of vegetation everywhere, just as the M\u00fcller school saw sun-gods\neverywhere.\n\nPerhaps the most acute criticism upon Sir J.G. Frazer's great work is\nto be found in Lang's _Magic and Religion_, in the essay \"The Ghastly\nPriest.\" The first critical paragraph of this makes amusing reading:\n\"Still, the new school of mythology does work the vegetable element in\nmythology hard; nearly as hard as the solar element used to be worked.\nAphrodite, as the female mate of Adonis, gets mixed up with plant life.\nSo does Attis with Cybele, so does Balder, so does Death, so does\nDionysus with undoubted propriety; so does Eabani, so does Gilgamesh,\nso does Haman, so does Hera, so does Iasion with Demeter, so does Isis,\nso does Jack-in-the-Green, so does Kupalo, so do Linus and Lityerses,\nso does Mamurius Veturius, so does Merodach or Marduk (if he represents\nEabani or Gilgamesh), so does Mars, so does Osiris, so, I think, does\nSemiramis, so does Tammuz, so does Virbius, so does Zeus, probably; so\ndoes a great multitude of cattle, cats, horses, bulls, goats, cocks,\nwith plenty of other beasts. The solar mythologists did not spare\nheroes like Achilles; they too were the sun. But the vegetable school,\nthe Covent Garden school of mythologists, mixes up real human beings\nwith vegetation.\"\n\nFRAZER'S MAIN CONTENTION\n\nFrazer's main contention is that the priest of the sanctuary of\nDiana Nemorensis, near the modern Nemi, in Italy (a priest who was\ninvariably a murderer, and who only held office until another murderer\ndispossessed and slew him, after plucking a bough from the tree\nunder which he sheltered), has numerous parallels in other, ancient\nand modern, barbarian priesthoods. He says: \"If we can show that a\nbarbarous custom, like that of the priesthood of Nemi, has existed\nelsewhere; if we can detect the motives which led to its institution;\nif we can prove that these motives have operated widely, perhaps\nuniversally, in human society, producing in varied circumstances a\nvariety of institutions specifically different but generally alike;\nif we can show, lastly, that these very motives, with some of their\nderivative institutions, were actually at work in classical antiquity;\nthen we may fairly infer that at a remoter age the same motives gave\nbirth to the priesthood of Nemi. Such an inference, in default of\ndirect evidence as to how the priesthood did actually arise, can never\namount to demonstration. But it will be more or less probable according\nto the degree of completeness with which it fulfils the conditions\nindicated above. The object of this book is, by meeting these\nconditions, to offer a fairly probable explanation of the priesthood of\nNemi.\"\n\nAccording to Frazer, too, the priest of Nemi was of a class regarded\nas divine. He says (vol. i, p. 231): \"Thus the cult of the Arician\ngrove was essentially that of a tree-spirit or sylvan deity. But our\nexamination of European folk-custom demonstrated that a tree-spirit\nis frequently represented by a living person, who is regarded as an\nembodiment of the tree-spirit and possessed of its fertilising powers;\nand our previous survey of primitive belief proved that this conception\nof a god incarnate in a living man is common among rude races, Further,\nwe have seen that the living person who is believed to embody in\nhimself the tree-spirit is often called a king, in which respect,\nagain, he strictly represents the tree-spirit. For the sacred cedar\nof the Gilgit tribes is called, as we have seen, 'the Dreadful King';\nand the chief forest god of the Finns, by name Tapio, represented as\nan old man with a brown beard, a high hat of fir-cones, and a coat of\ntree-moss, was styled the Wood King, Lord of the Woodland, Golden King\nof the Wood. May not then the King of the Wood in the Arician grove\nhave been, like the King of May, the Leaf King, the Grass King, and\nthe like, an incarnation of the tree-spirit or spirit of vegetation?\nHis title, his sacred office, and his residence in the grove all point\nto this conclusion, which is confirmed by his relation to the Golden\nBough. For since the King of the Wood could only be assailed by him who\nhad plucked the Golden Bough, his life was safe from assault so long\nas the bough, or the tree on which it grew, remained uninjured. In a\nsense, therefore, his life was bound up with that of the tree; and thus\nto some extent he stood to the tree in the same relation in which the\nincorporate or immanent tree-spirit stands to it.\"\n\nLANG'S CRITICISM OF FRAZER'S THESIS\n\nBut Lang controverts these premises. He does not regard the priest of\nthe Arician grove as a likely representative of a god of vegetation.\n\"First,\" he says (I quote at length because of the importance of the\npassage), \"let us ask what we know about this ghastly priest. Let us\nbegin with the evidence of Virgil, in the Sixth Book of the _\u00c6neid_\n(line 136 and so onwards). Virgil says nothing about the ghastly\npriest, or, in this place, about Diana, or the grove near Aricia.\nVirgil, indeed, tells us much about a bough of a tree, a golden branch,\nbut as to the singular priest, nothing. But some four hundred years\nafter Virgil's date (say A.D. 370), a commentator on Virgil, Servius,\ntried to illustrate the passage cited from the _\u00c6neid_. He obviously\nknows nothing about Virgil's mystic golden bough, but he tells us that,\nin his own time, 'public opinion' (_publica opinio_) placed the habitat\nof Virgil's bough in the grove haunted by the ghastly priest, near\nAricia. It is, in fact, not known whether Virgil invented his bough,\nwith its extraordinary attributes, or took it from his rich store of\nantiquarian learning. It may have been a folklore belief, like _Le\nRameau d'Or_ of Madame d'Aulnoy's fairy-tale. Virgil's bough, as we\nshall see, has one folklore attribute in common with a mystic sword in\nthe Arthurian cycle of romances, and in the _Volsunga Saga_. I think\nthat Mr Frazer has failed to comment on this point. If I might hazard a\nguess as to Virgil's branch, it is that, of old, suppliants approached\ngods or kings with boughs in their hands. He who would approach\nProserpine carried, in Virgil, a bough of pure gold, which only the\nfavoured and predestined suppliant could obtain, as shall be shown.\n\n\"In the four centuries between Virgil and Servius the meaning and\nsource of Virgil's branch of gold were forgotten. But people, and\nServius himself, knew of another bough, near Aricia, and located\n(conjecturally?) Virgil's branch of gold in that district. Servius,\nthen, in his commentary on the _\u00c6neid,_ after the manner of annotators\nin all ages, talks much about the boughs of a certain tree in a certain\ngrove, concerning which Virgil makes no remark. Virgil, as we shall\nsee, was writing about a golden branch of very peculiar character.\nKnowing, like the public opinion of his age, something about quite\nother branches, and nothing about Virgil's branch, Servius tells us\nthat, in the grove of Diana at Aricia, there grew a tree from which\nit was unlawful (_non licebat_) to break a bough. If any fugitive\nslave, however, could break a branch from this tree, he might fight\nthe priest, taking his office if successful. In the opinion of Servius\nthe temple was founded by Orestes, to the barbaric Diana of the\nChersonese, whence he had fled after a homicide. _That_ Diana received\nhuman sacrifices of all strangers who landed on her coasts. The rite of\nhuman sacrifice was, in Italy, commuted, Servius thinks, for the duel\nbetween the priest and the fugitive slave, Orestes having himself been\na fugitive. The process is, first a Greek wanderer on a barbarous coast\nis in danger of being offered, as all outlanders were offered, to the\nlocal goddess. This rite was a form of _xenelasia_, an anti-immigrant\nstatute. Compare China, the Transvaal, the agitation against pauper\nimmigrants. Having escaped being sacrificed, and having killed the\nking in an unfriendly land, Orestes flies to Italy and appeases the\ncruel Diana by erecting her fane at Aricia. But, instead of sacrificing\nimmigrants, he, or his successors, establishes a duel between the\npriest and any other fugitive slave. Servius then, not observing this,\ngoes off into an allegorising interpretation of Virgil's branch, as\nworthless as all such interpretations always are.\n\n\"The story about Orestes appears to myself to be a late '\u00e6tiological\nmyth,' a story invented to explain the slaying of the slayer--which it\ndoes not do; in short, it is an hypothesis. The priesthood is open not\nto men flying the blood feud like Orestes, but only to runaway slaves.\nThe custom introduced by Orestes was the sacrifice of outlanders, not\nof priests. The story has a _doublette_ in Pausanias. According to\nPausanias, Hippolytus was raised from the dead, and, in hatred of his\nfather, and being a fugitive, he went and reigned at the Arician grove\nof the goddess.\n\nTHE GHASTLY PRIEST\n\n\"For these reasons, apparently, Statius calls the Arician grove\n_profugis regibus aptum_, a sanctuary of exiled princes, Orestes and\nHippolytus. From Suetonius we learn that the ghastly priest was styled\n_Rex Nemorensis_ King of the Wood, and that the envious Caligula,\nthinking the priest had held office long enough, set another athlete to\nkill him. The title of 'king,' borne by a priest, suggests, of course,\nthe sacrificial king at Rome. Also Mr Frazer adduces African kings of\nfire and water, credited with miraculous powers over the elements.\nThey kill nobody and nobody kills them. Then we have Jack-in-the-Green\n= May-tree = the Spirit of Vegetation--the May _King_ and the _Queen_\nof the May. 'These titles,' as Mannhardt observes, 'imply that the\nspirit incorporate in vegetation is a ruler, whose creative power\nextends far and wide.' Possibly so. Now, the King of the Wood, the\nghastly priest, lived in the grove of Diana, who (among other things)\nhas the attributes of a tree-spirit. 'May not, then, the King of the\nWood, in the Arician grove, have been, like the King of the May ...\nan incarnation of the tree-spirit, or spirit of vegetation?' Given a\nfemale tree-spirit, we should rather expect a _Queen_ of the Wood; and\nwe assuredly do not expect a priest of Diana to represent the supreme\nAryan god, nay to incarnate him. But this Mr Frazer thinks probable.\nAgain, 'since the King of the Wood could only be assailed by him who\nhad plucked the Golden Bough, his life was safe from assault so long as\nthe bough, or the tree on which it grew, remained uninjured.'\n\n\nWHAT IS THE 'GOLDEN BOUGH'?\n\n\"Here we remark the nimbleness of Mr Frazer's method. In vol. i, 4,\nhe had said: 'Tradition averred that the fatal branch' (in the grove\nnear Aricia) 'was that golden bough which, at the Sibyl's bidding,\n\u00c6neas plucked before he assayed the perilous journey to the world of\nthe dead.' But I have tried to show that, according to Servius, this\nidentification of two absolutely distinct boughs, neither similar nor\nsimilarly situated, was the conjecture of 'public opinion' in an age\ndivided from Virgil's date by four hundred years.\n\n\"In the space between vol. i, 4, and i, 231, the averment of tradition,\nas Mr Frazer calls it, the inference of the curious, as I suppose, to\nthe effect that Virgil's golden branch and the Arician branch were\nidentical, has become matter of fact for Mr Frazer. 'Since the King\nof the Wood could only be assailed by him who had plucked the Golden\nBough,' he says; with what follows.\n\n\"But who has told us anything about the breaking, by a fugitive slave,\nnear Aricia, of a _golden_ bough? Nobody, as far as I am aware, has\nmentioned the circumstance. After an interval of four hundred years,\nthe golden bough of Virgil is only brought by Servius into connection\nwith the wood at Aricia, because Servius, and the public opinion of\nhis age, knew about a branch there, and did not know anything about\nVirgil's branch of gold.\n\n\"_That_ branch is a safe passport to Hades. It is sacred, not to a\ntree-spirit named Diana, but to Infernal Juno, or Proserpine. It cannot\nbe broken by a fugitive slave, or anybody else; no, nor can it be cut\nwith edge of iron. None but he whom the Fates call can break it. It\nyields at a touch of the predestined man, and another golden branch\ngrows instantly in its place.\n\n        \"Primo avolso non deficit alter\n     Aureus....\n     ... Ipse volens facilisque sequetur,\n     Si te fata vocant.\n\n\"Virgil's bough thus answers to the magical sword set in a stone in\nthe Arthurian legends, in a tree-trunk in the _Volsunga Saga_, as\nMr H.S.C. Everard reminds me. All the knights may tug vainly at the\nsword, but you can draw it lightly, _si te fata vacant_, if you are the\npredestined king, if you are Arthur or Sigmund. When \u00c6neas bears _this_\nbough, Charon recognises the old familiar passport. Other living men,\nin the strength of this talisman, have already entered the land of the\ndead.\n\n                  \"Ille admirans venerabile donum\n     Fatalis virg\u00e6, longo post tempore visum.\n\n\"I have collected all these extraordinary attributes of Virgil's bough\n(in origin, a suppliant's bough, perhaps), because, as far as I notice,\nMr Frazer lays no stress on the many peculiarities which differentiate\nVirgil's bough from any casual branch of the tree at Aricia, and\nconnect it with the mystic sword. The 'general reader' (who seldom\nknows Latin) needs, I think, to be told precisely what Virgil's bough\nwas. Nothing can be more unlike a branch, any accessible branch, of\nthe Arician tree, than is Virgil's golden bough. It does not grow at\nAricia. It is golden. It is not connected with a tree-spirit, but is\ndear to Proserpine. (I easily see, of course, that Proserpine may be\nidentified with a tree-spirit.) Virgil's branch is not to be plucked by\nfugitive slaves. It is not a challenge, but a talismanic passport to\nHades, recognised by Charon, who has not seen a specimen for ever so\nlong. It is instantly succeeded, if plucked, by another branch of gold,\nwhich the Arician twig is not. So I really do not understand how Mr\nFrazer can identify Virgil's golden bough with an ordinary branch of a\ntree at Aricia, which anybody could break, though only runaway slaves,\nstrongly built, had an interest in so doing.\"[27]\n\nFARNELL'S CRITICISM OF \"THE GOLDEN BOUGH\"\n\n_The Golden Bough_ is an exhaustive repository of mythic and\nanthropological fact. It has been criticized[28] as leaning too much\nto the side of the 'stratification' theory--that is, the belief in the\nexistence of certain fixed religious conditions at different epochs of\nman's experience and the labelling of these by such names as 'animism,'\n'totemism,' and the like. At least,\n\n      Thus says the _Quarterly,_ So savage and Tartarly.\n\n      The present writer cannot subscribe to such criticism. It\n      should be plain that in the earliest times the animistic\n      and pre-animistic types of religious experience must\n      have held single and undisputed sway among the whole of\n      mankind. 'Totemism' and 'fetishism' are merely animism\n      in another form, and in effect there are only two great\n      types of primitive religious belief, the animistic and the\n      polytheistic, the latter differing from the former merely\n      because animism, or personalization of all phenomena,\n      animal or vegetable, developed into anthropomorphism,\n      which saw man's nature in the gods. It is admitted that\n      the lesser stages of animism overlap each other in\n      numerous instances, but one outstanding type gives shape\n      to most systems of belief capable of classification,\n      lesser types serving only to throw the one great one\n      into relief. Thus Greek religion was unquestionably an\n      anthropomorphic polytheism; the Mexican a polytheism\n      with survivals of totemism and fetishism; and so on. But\n      although the great central type permits us to give a\n      broad classification to any religion, it is the lesser\n      attributes which help us to pigeon-hole it properly.\n      Thus we might class the majority of American religions\n      as polytheisms newly emerged or emerging from animistic\n      influences; but such a general definition would be\n      imperfect because the combination of the bird-and-serpent\n      myth has provided America with many outstanding divine\n      forms in some measure different from gods evolved\n      elsewhere. Monotheism is a religious condition so rare\n      that it may be altogether discounted in classifying\n      primitive religion. These conclusions hedge between the\n      Frazerian view that religious experience is capable of\n      more or less concrete classification, and the bewildering,\n      chaotic opinion that classification should be entirely\n      discountenanced in religious science. While we may\n      hesitate to speak with Sir James Frazer of such hard and\n      fast periods as an \"age of magic\" or an \"age of religion,\"\n      we can subscribe to \"anthropomorphism superimposed upon\n      a previous theriomorphism or theriolatry,\" a description\n      at which Sir James Frazer's reviewer cavils. He would\n      doubtless tell us that many religious types coexisted in\n      that age. Quite so; but were they as distinctive, as\n      widespread, and as illustrative of prevailing conditions\n      in such-and-such a region at such-and-such a period as the\n      above?\n\nTHE 'ADJACENT' METHOD\n\nSir James Frazer is further accused of employing the universal\ncomparative method at the expense of the 'adjacent' method, the method\nwhich studies the religion of a certain people in its own sphere. It\nis often pretended nowadays that more merit accrues to the pursuit\nof this form of anthropological science than to the comparative\nmethod. We do not deny that a very considerable degree of training,\nexperience, and erudition is required to achieve success in it, but the\nassumption that it in any way approaches in magnitude the task which\nthe comparative student proposes to himself is absurd. The greatest\nmythological studies are comparative in character. True, many works on\nparticular mythologies are of outstanding excellence and charm; but\nstudents of comparative religion still await a work dealing with an\nisolated mythology of the calibre of _The Golden Bough_, mistaken as\nare many of its premises, Payne's _New World called America_, or Lang's\n_Myth, Ritual, and Religion,_ unless it be, perhaps, Robertson Smith's\n_Religion of the Semites._\n\nIt is, further, scarcely criticism to label Sir James Frazer's great\nwork 'second-hand.' In works dealing with comparative mythology the\nfacts collated must of necessity be gleaned from the writings of\nothers. This cry is surely unsuitable to mythological debate!\n\nThe criticism that Sir James Frazer is unable to pursue to their\nlogical ends the problems he proposes to himself is better founded, as\nis the charge of discursiveness. It is true, too, that he possesses\nthe faculty of seeing resemblances but not differences when dealing\nwith analogies, and that, consequently, he lumps too many diverse facts\ntogether. Lastly he is tacitly charged with perversion of evidence![29]\n\nHis definition of magic will be dealt with elsewhere.\n\n_The Golden Bough_ has served the passing and the present generations\nof mythologists and folklorists well as a great compendium of mythic\nand anthropological fact. From its far-flung influence none can escape.\nIt is a body of learning to which the searcher must return again and\nyet again.\n\nE.J. PAYNE\n\nEdward John Payne, in his _History of the New World called America_,\na work of surprising erudition too little known, applied the\nanthropological conception of myth to the mythologies of Mexico and\nPeru, but although his reading on these subjects was wide and his\ntreatment marked by care and insight, he does not appear to have been\nclosely acquainted with the _pinturas_ or manuscript remains of the\nMexican peoples, a knowledge of which is essential to all students\nof the subject. Instead of specializing upon any one department of\nAmerican aboriginal civilization, he took the whole of it for his\nprovince and applied the anthropological method to all the conditions\nof American life, social, linguistic, agricultural, and religious; and\nhe produced a work truly monumental in spirit, not surpassed by any\nkindred effort of his generation, in spite of the defect mentioned\nabove.\n\nSALOMON REINACH\n\nSalomon Reinach has done good service to the science of comparative\nreligion in France. After a distinguished arch\u00e6ological career he\ninterested himself in the study of religious science. In 1905 he began\nhis _Cultes, mythes, et religions_[30] and in 1909 he published a\ngeneral sketch of the history of religions under the title _Orpheus_.\nIn his preface to _Cultes, mythes, et religions_ M. Reinach makes\nsome lively and amusing remarks concerning the ignorance in France of\nlater developments of religious science. Speaking of new theories,\nhe says: \"As a matter of fact, I do not exactly know who made the\ndiscoveries. The names of Tylor, McLennan, Lang, Smith, Frazer, and\nJevons suggest themselves; but the one thing certain is that it was\nnot myself. Mine has been a lowlier part--to grasp the ideas of my\nbetters, and to diffuse them as widely as I might, first in my lectures\nat the \u00c9cole du Louvre, then in the Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions, and\nagain in many popular and scientific reviews. In France, when I began\nmy excursions into these fields, the whole subject was so absolutely\na sealed book that M. Charles Richet had to ask me to explain the\nword _totemism_, before I dealt with that group of phenomena in the\n_Revue Scientifique_. At the Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions in 1900 the\nonly members who did not doubt my sanity when I read some lucubrations\non the Biblical taboos and the totemism of the Celts were MM. Maspero\nand Hamy. The German scholars whom I saw about the same time, Mommsen\namong the rest, had never heard of a totem.[31] The taboos and totems\nof the Bible, a question underlying those alimentary interdictions\nwhich ignorance regards as hygienic precepts, brought the Jewish\ntheologians into the lists. One of them dealt faithfully with me as\nan anti-Semite, an epithet already hurled at me by my distinguished\nfriend Victor B\u00e9rard, because I had ventured to impugn, in the pages of\nthe _Mirage Oriental,_ the antiquity and omnipresence of Ph\u0153nician\ncommerce. To-day the voice of ignorance is a little less heard in the\nland. Thanks to the diffusion of the English works which have inspired\nme, thanks to the labours of the lamented Marillier and the editors\nof the _Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_--thanks perhaps, in some degree, to my\nown missionary efforts, which, with the ardour of the neophyte, I have\ncarried into the very precincts of the popular universities--those\nwho once kicked most obstinately against the pricks now acknowledge\nthat the system of anthropological exegesis is 'the fashion,' and that\n'something may be said for' totems and taboos.\"\n\nDR F. B. JEVONS\n\nDr F. B. Jevons in his _Introduction to the History of Religion_ avows\nhimself a disciple of Lang so far as his views upon myth are concerned.\nHe too believes that the religious feeling in myth is conspicuously\nabsent, but that the consideration of myth cannot be excluded from\nthe history of religion. He says (p. 250): \"Myths are not like psalms\nor hymns, lyrical expressions of religious emotion; they are not like\ncreeds or dogmas, statements of things which must be believed: they\nare narratives. They are not history, they are tales told about gods\nand heroes, and they all have two characteristics: on the one hand,\nthey are to us obviously or demonstrably untrue and often irrational;\non the other hand, they were to their first audience so reasonable\nas to appear truths which were self-evident.\" Some myths, he thinks,\n\"explain nothing and point no moral; they are tales told for the sake\nof telling and repeated for the pleasure of hearing, like fairy-tales.\"\nWhat, then, he asks, is the difference between myths that 'explain'\nphenomena and those which obviously do not? He considers that totems\naroused curiosity and necessitated explanations, and that when the\nbeliefs were dead and forgotten the stories invented to account\nfor them would appear no longer as reasons or explanations, but as\nstatements of facts which occurred 'once upon a time.' These stories\nwere often appropriated to the wrong persons, and we have also yet to\nlearn why they were grouped together, a point Dr Jevons considers as\nof first-rate importance, because \"they would not have survived if\nthey had not been combined together. We cannot suppose that they were\nfirst dissevered from the beliefs on which they originally depended for\ntheir existence, and then were subsequently combined so as to obtain\na renewed existence, because they would probably have perished in\nthe interval. We must therefore suppose that they were combined into\ntales ere yet the beliefs or institutions which gave them their first\nlease of life had perished. This means that the various parts of one\ninstitution, for instance, must have had each its separate explanation,\nand that these explanations were combined into one whole, the unity\nof which corresponded to the unity of the institution,\" (P. 254.)\nThese contentions are confirmed, Jevons thinks, by certain ceremonies\nobviously representing the details of certain myths. \"They afford\ninstances of myths which from the beginning were tales and not merely\nsingle incidents; a single rite might consist of a series of acts, each\nof which demanded its own explanation; and the unity of the rite might\nproduce a unity of interest and action in the resulting myth.\" (P.\n254.) Stories designed to explain phenomena would provide a groundwork\nfor a rich embroidery of incidents. The person who could remember these\nand could tell them effectively would not have to seek an audience,\nand semi-consciously he might substitute for part of the story an\nanalogous incident.[32] \"Tales with a permanent human interest would\neasily spread beyond the limits of the original audience.\" Myth is not\nreligion; it is not the source of religion, it is \"one of the spheres\nof human activity in which religion may manifest itself, one of the\ndepartments of human reason which religion may penetrate, suffuse, and\ninspire.\" The religious consciousness rejected the repugnant elements\nof myth, and perhaps the whole primitive hypothesis upon which myth\nwas based. \"The result would be twofold: the imagination would be more\nand more excluded from the region of speculation which produced the\nordinary myths of early peoples; and more and more restricted to the\npath of religious meditation.\" (P. 266.) These are all conclusions\nwhich we cannot admit. Myth is not any less religious in character\nbecause associated with an early instead of a later form of religion,\nor because it was discarded in later times! In an important passage Dr\nJevons declares with a great deal of truth that: \"The extraordinary\nnotion that mythology is religion is the outcome of the erroneous and\nmisleading practice of reading modern ideas into ancient religions.\nIt is but one form of the fallacy that mythology was to the antique\nreligions what dogma is to the modern--with the superadded fallacy\nthat dogma is the source, instead of the expression, of religious\nconviction. Mythology is primitive science, primitive philosophy, an\nimportant constituent of primitive history, the source of primitive\npoetry, but it is not primitive religion. It is not necessarily or\nusually even religious. It is not the proper or even the ordinary\nvehicle for the expression of the religious spirit.\" Where the\nsensitiveness of the religious spirit \"was great only those pieces of\nprimitive science survived which were capable of being informed\" by it.\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE OF MYTH\n\nJevons' conception of the nature of myth, however, does not take into\nconsideration that at least one class of myth--that which deals with\nthe gods--has probably more influence upon the popular acceptance and\nspread of religious ideas of a primitive type than either dogma or\nritual. Those myths which furnish accounts of the deeds and adventures\nof the gods are as much religion as are ritual or dogma. No religion\ncan exist without an explanation of a god or the gods, their nature,\ntheir attitude toward men, and their divine environment; and such an\nexplanation was myth. Although savage and primitive, myths furnished\na suitable account of the gods to their primitive worshippers, whose\nhabits they almost certainly reflected.\n\nDR R. R. MARETT\n\nDr R. R. Marett, in an admirable and suggestive volume, _The Threshold\nof Religion_ (1909), has, as we already know, distinguished between\nanimism and the forms which preceded it. Regarding mythology proper\nand its \"quality of religiousness,\" and speaking in connexion with\nreligious observances, he says: \"Meanwhile, whatever view be taken of\nthe parts respectively played by animism, mythology, animatism, or\nwhat not, in investing these observances with meaning and colour, my\nmain point is that the quality of religiousness attaches to them far\nless in virtue of any one of these ideal constructions, than in virtue\nof that basic feeling of awe which drives a man, ere he can think or\ntheorize upon it, into personal relations with the supernatural.\"\n\nRegarding 'explanatory' myths, Dr Marett says (p. 149): \"What the\nlearned know as '\u00e6tiological myths' and juvenile readers of Mr Kipling\nas 'Just So Stories' undoubtedly tend to arise in connection with\nhuman institutions no less than in connection with the rest of the\nmore perplexing or amazing facts and circumstances of life. It is the\n'nature of man' (as it is of the child, the father of the man) to ask\n'Why?' and further to accept any answer as more satisfactory than none\nat all. Again, it is sound method in dealing with myth as associated\nwith ritual at the stage of rudimentary religion to assume that for the\nmost part it is the ritual that generates the myth, and not the myth\nthe ritual.\"[33]\n\nTHE EUROPEAN 'SKY-GOD'\n\nProfessor A.B. Cook of Cambridge has collected a wealth of material to\nprove the existence throughout the length and breadth of Europe of a\nsky-god worshipped by both Celt and Teuton; but he elevates this cult\ninto something resembling a state mythology, and we have no record of\nany such state religion. Early Celtic and Teutonic religions must have\nbeen incipient only, and far from possessing any such organization and\nunity.\n\nTHE GRIMMS\n\nHaving concluded our review of the ideas and hypotheses of the great\nmythologists proper, we will glance at what has been said by the\ngreat students of folklore. Jakob Ludwig Karl Grimm (1785-1863) along\nwith his brother Wilhelm Karl (1786-1859) published in 1816-1818\n_Deutsche Sagen_, an analysis and criticism of the old German epic\ntraditions, and in 1812-1815 _Kinder- und Hausm\u00e4rchen_. Their first\nvolume of the Eddaic songs of Iceland saw the light in 1815, and the\n_Deutsche Mythologie_ in 1835. The last-named work traces the myths of\nGermany from a period as remote as is permitted by the evidence down\nto the time when they became merged in popular tradition. Folklore is\nindebted to the Grimms, who originally discerned its importance, but\nthey did not in any way connect the stories themselves with custom\nor superstition. They were inimical to the allegorical method and\ndecidedly trended toward the later position of Mannhardt and his school.\n\nSIR G. L. GOMME\n\nFew names are more distinguished in folklore than that of the late\nSir George Laurence Gomme. His standpoint on myth is to be found in\nhis able and liberal-minded treatise upon _Folklore as an Historical\nScience_, on p. 101 of which he says: \"They [the mythologists]\nhave entirely denied or ignored all history contained in the folk-tale,\nand they have proceeded on the assumption, the bald assumption not\naccompanied by any kind of proof, that the folk-tale contains nothing\nbut the remnants of a once prevalent system of mythology.... It is not,\nhowever, upon the mistakes of other inquirers that the mythologists\nmay rest a good claim for their own view. The _Historia Britonum_ of\nGeoffrey of Monmouth disposes of neither the myths nor the history of\nthe Celts. It shows myth in its secondary position, in the handling of\nthose who would make it all history, just as now there are scholars who\nwould make it all myth. In front of the legends attaching to persons\nand places is the history of these persons and places. Behind these\nlegends lies the domain of the unattached and primitive folk-tale.\"\n\nThere should not be much doubt concerning which tales are of the nature\nof myth and those which enshrine historic fact. Does the tale bear a\nstrong resemblance in more than one of its circumstances to any other\ntradition or group of traditions? If so, it should be a comparatively\nsimple matter to judge to which group it belongs, although the student\nrequires to be constantly on his guard. The transition from fact or\nsurmise to myth, myth to pseudo-history, or from history to myth, and\nthen perhaps to history again; from legend to history, from history\nto legend, or from folk-tale to history--these metamorphoses must\nbe searched for diligently. Our 'test of recurrence' is not always\nsufficient, for occasionally myth will be seen to group with folklore\nand legend and _vice versa._\n\nOn p. 125 of his admirable book Sir George says: \"The traditional\nnarrative, the myth, the folk-tale, or the legend, is not dependent\nupon the text in which it appears for the first time. That text as we\nhave it was not written down by contemporary or nearly contemporary\nauthority. Before it had become a written document it had lived long as\noral tradition. In some cases the written document is itself centuries\nold, the record of some early chronicler or early writer who did not\nmake the record for tradition's sake. In other cases the written\ndocument is quite modern, the record of a professed lover of tradition.\nThis unequal method of recording tradition is the main source of the\ndifficulty in the way of those who cannot accept tradition as a record\nof fact. In all cases the test of its value and the interpretation of\nits testimony are matters which need special study and examination\nbefore the exact value of each tradition is capable of being\ndetermined. The date when and the circumstances in which a tradition is\nfirst reduced to literary form are important factors in the evidence\nas to the credibility of the particular form in which the tradition is\npreserved; but they are not all the factors, nor do they of themselves\nafford better evidence when they are comparatively ancient than forms\nof much later date and of circumstances far different. It cannot be\ntoo often impressed upon the student of tradition that the tradition\nitself affords the chief if not the only sure evidence of its age, its\norigin, and its meaning; for the preservation of tradition is due to\nsuch varied influences that the mere fact of preservation or the method\nor particular date of preservation cannot be relied upon to give the\nnecessary authority for the authenticity of the tradition. Tradition\ncan never assume the position of written history, because it does not\nowe its origin, but only its preservation, to writing.\"\n\nDealing with the relations of myth to history, Sir George says (p.\n128): \"Because mythic tradition has been found to include many\ntraditions which of late years have been claimed to belong to a\ndefinitely historical race of people, it must not be identified with\nhistory. This claim is based upon two facts, the presence of myth\nin the shape of the folk-tale and the preservation of much mythic\ntradition beyond the stage of thought to which it properly belongs by\nbecoming attached to an historical event or series of events, or to\nan historical personage, and in this way carrying on its life into\nhistoric periods and among historic peoples. The first position has\nresulted in an appropriation of the folk-tale to the cause of the\nmythologists; the second position has hitherto resulted either in a\ndisastrous appropriation of the entire tradition to mythology, or\nin a still more disastrous rejection both of the tradition and the\nhistorical event round which it clusters. Historians doubting the myth\ndoubt too the history; mythologists doubting the history reject the\nmyth from all consideration, and in this way much is lost to history\nwhich properly belongs to it, and something is lost to myth.\"\n\nSir George subscribes to Robertson Smith's statement that \"Mythology\nwas no essential part of ancient religion, for it had no sacred\nsanction and no binding force on the worshippers.\" Yet on the next page\n(p. 148) he says: \"Myths constitute a part of the _serious life_ of the\npeople.\" He also speaks of myth (p. 149) as being told \"in the hushed\nsanctity of a great wonder,\" of primitive myth being \"preserved in a\nspecial manner and for _religious purposes\"_ (p. 150), and (on the same\npage) he alludes to its \"sacredness.\" Yet it had \"no sacred sanction\nand no binding force \"!\n\nMR SIDNEY HARTLAND\n\nMr Sidney Hartland in his _Science of Fairy Tales_ (1890) has applied\n\"the principles and methods which guide investigators into popular\ntraditions to a few of the most remarkable stories embodying the fairy\nsuperstitions of the Celtic and Teutonic peoples.\" The unity of human\nimagination is pleaded for. \"Man's imagination,\" writes Mr Hartland,\n\"like every other known power, works by fixed laws, the existence and\noperation of which it is possible to trace; and it works upon the same\nmaterial--the external universe, the mental and moral constitution of\nman, and his social relations. Hence diverse as may seem at first sight\nthe results among the cultured Europeans and the debased Hottentots,\nthe philosophical Hindoos and the Red Indians of the Far West, they\npresent, on a close examination, features absolutely identical.... The\nincidents [of story-plots] ... are not merely alike; they are often\nindistinguishable.\" Further, the anthropological standpoint is upheld.\nIn _The Legend of Perseus_ (1894-1896) the author has attempted to show\n\"the dependence of the folk-tale upon custom and superstition, and to\ndetermine the place of origin of one world-famous tale.\"\n\nDR RENDEL HARRIS\n\nDr Rendel Harris of Manchester has in several works propounded\nmythological views of startling novelty, with a wealth of illustration\nand argument which do credit alike to his scholarship and his\ndidactical skill. In his latest work, _The Ascent of Olympus_, which\nit is incumbent upon all students of myth to study, he explains the\ncults of Dionysus, Apollo, Artemis, and Aphrodite. In Dr Harris's view\nthe cults of these gods are respectively cults of the ivy, the apple,\nthe mugwort, and the mandrake, of which plants the deities in question\nwere personifications. Early Greek religion is thus evolved from the\nwitch-doctor's garden, and, _a fortiori_, Olympus itself is a later\ndevelopment of the _hortus siccus_ of the medicine-man. I will not\nattempt to advance any criticism of Dr Harris's thesis in this place,\nas I freely confess that his iconoclastic conclusions stun me. He\ntriumphs in argument, and I live in fear and trembling that in his next\nbook he may prove that Heph\u00e6stus was evolved from a tenpenny nail, or\nPoseidon from a lobster, As he is strong, let us beg him to be merciful\nalso, for if he further depreciates our old mythological stock, those\nof us who are professional mythologists will be forced to dispose of it\nand begin life over again as his apprentices.\n\nAs proof of his masterly presentment of the astounding conclusions he\nhas advanced, I quote the following summing-up from his _Ascent of\nOlympus_ (p. 57):\n\n\"Let us refresh our memory as to the method we pursued and the results\nwhich we obtained in the case of the cults of Dionysos and Apollo.\nIt will be remembered that we started from the sanctity of the oak\nas the animistic repository of the thunder, and in that sense the\ndwelling-place of Zeus; it was assumed that the oak was taboo and all\nthat belonged to it; that the woodpecker who nested in it or hammered\nat its bark was none other than Zeus himself, and it may turn out\nthat Athena, who sprang from the head of the thunder-oak, was the owl\nthat lived in one of its hollows. Even the bees who lived underneath\nits bark were almost divine animals, and had duties to perform to\nZeus himself. The question having been raised as to the sanctity of\nthe creepers upon the oak, it was easy to show that the ivy (with\nthe smilax and the vine) was a sacred plant, and that it was the\noriginal cult-symbol of Dionysos, who thus appeared as a lesser Zeus\nprojected from the ivy, just as Zeus himself, in one point of view,\nwas a projection from the oak. Dionysos, whose thunder-birth could be\nestablished by the well-known Greek tradition concerning Semele and\nZeus, was the ivy on the oak, and after that became an ivy fire-stick\nin the ritual for the making of fire. From Dionysos to Apollo was the\nnext step: it was suggested in the first instance by the remarkable\nconfraternity of the two gods in question. They were shown to exchange\ntitles, to share sanctuaries, and to have remarkable cult-parallelisms,\nsuch as the chewing of the sacred laurel by the Pythian priestess,\nand the chewing of the sacred ivy by the M\u00e6nads: and since it was\ndiscovered that the Delphic laurel was a surrogate for a previously\nexisting oak, it was natural to inquire whether in any way Apollo, as\nwell as Dionysos, was linked to the life of Zeus through the life of\nthe oak. The inquiry was very fruitful in results: the undoubted solar\nelements in the Apolline cult were shown to be capable of explanation\nby an identification of Apollo with the mistletoe, and it was found\nthat Apollo was actually worshipped at one centre in Rhodes as the\nMistletoe Apollo, just as Dionysos was worshipped as the Ivy Dionysos\nat Acharnai. Further inquiry led to the conclusion that the sanctity of\nthe oak had been transferred by the mistletoe from the oak to the apple\ntree, and that the cult betrayed a close connection between the god and\nthe apple-tree, as, for instance, in the bestowal of sacred apples from\nthe god's own garden upon the winners of the Pythian games. In this\nway it came to be seen that Apollo was really the mistletoe upon the\napple-tree for the greater part of the development of the cult, just as\nDionysos was the ivy, not detached as some had imagined, but actually\nupon the oak-tree. It was next discovered that the garden at Delphi\nwas a reproduction of another Apolline garden in the far north, among\nthe Hyperboreans, the garden to which Boreas had carried off Orithyia,\nand to which (or to another adjacent garden) at a later date the sons\nof Asklepios were transferred for the purpose of medical training....\nApollo came from the North as a medicine-man, a herbalist, and brought\nhis simples with him. His character of a god of healing was due, in the\nfirst instance, to the fact that the mistletoe, which he represented,\nwas the All-heal of antiquity.... An attempt was then made to show that\nthe very name of Apollo was in its early form Apellon, a loan-word\nfrom the North, disguising in the thinnest way his connection with the\napple-tree. The apple had come into Greece from the North, perhaps\nfrom Teutonic peoples, just as it appears to have come into Western\nItaly from either Teutons or Celts, giving its name in the one case to\nthe great god of healing, and in the other to the city of Abella in\nCampania, through the Celtic word _Aball_.\"\n\nPROFESSOR ELLIOT SMITH\n\nProfessor George Elliot Smith, of University College, London,\nhas brought to the problems of arch\u00e6ology a mental freshness and\noriginality of outlook that have placed him in the front rank of\nthe science in a surprisingly short space of time. He is the chief\nsupporter of the theory that by slow degrees the civilization of\nancient Egypt spread itself over the habitable globe, even to far\nAmerica. His sledge-hammer logic and array of excellent if rather\nlimited illustrations are capable of daunting the most doughty\nopponent. In his recent book, _The Evolution of the Dragon_, he\nprobes as deeply into the basic mysteries of mythology as Dr Rendel\nHarris, of whose work he says: \"Our genial friend has been cultivating\nhis garden on the slopes of Olympus, and has been plucking the rich\nfruits of his ripe scholarship and nimble wit. At the same time, with\nrougher implements and cruder methods, I have been burrowing in the\ndepths of the earth, trying to recover information concerning the\nhabits and thoughts of mankind many centuries before Dionysus and\nApollo and Artemis and Aphrodite were dreamt of. In the course of\nthese subterranean gropings no one was more surprised than I was to\ndiscover that I was getting entangled in the roots of the same plants\nwhose golden fruit Dr Rendel Harris was gathering from his Olympian\nheights. But the contrast in our respective points of view was perhaps\nresponsible for the different appearance the growths assumed. To drop\nthe metaphor, while he was searching for the origins of the deities a\nfew centuries before the Christian era began, I was finding their more\nor less larval forms flourishing more than twenty centuries before the\ncommencement of his story. For the gods and goddesses of his narrative\nwere only the thinly disguised representatives of much more ancient\ndeities decked out in the sumptuous habiliments of Greek culture.\"\n\n_The Evolution of the Dragon_ contains three essays, \"Incense and\nLibations,\" \"Dragons and Rain-gods,\" and \"The Birth of Aphrodite,\" all\nof which are of the first importance to students of mythic science,\nas illustrating the possibility of tracing evolved divine figures to\ntheir primitive forms. The first essay begins with Professor Smith's\nwell-known hypothesis that the reasons for the adoption of custom\nare not \"simple and obvious,\" and are not inspired by reason, but\nby tradition. Man is not an inventive animal, and two independent\ninventions of any custom, story, or article of utility are improbable.\nThe part played by the ancient Egyptians in the development of certain\narts and beliefs was a paramount one. The necessity for obtaining wood,\nspices, and gums for the mummification of the dead forced them to make\nlong voyages; and consequently they became the missionary carriers of\nthe religious customs and ideas they had evolved at home, disseminating\nthese throughout the Mediterranean world. Professor Smith then traces\nthe early idea of godhead to the apotheosized ruler or king, whose\nposthumous benevolence rendered the land fertile. He believes that\nanimism received its definite form in Egypt, where it was fostered by\nthe art of mummification, and spread thence broadcast. The development\nof animism was enormously complex. It received its first great impetus\nfrom an early Egyptian king who believed that he could restore the\nbreath of life to the dead by means of the magic wand. Then the burning\nof incense before a body or statue was intended to convey to it the\nwarmth, the sweat, and the colours of life. Mummification, indeed,\n\"laid the foundation of the ideas which subsequently were built up\ninto a theory of the soul: in fact, it was intimately connected with\nthe birth of all those ideals and aspirations which are now included\nin the conception of religious belief and ritual.\" The development\nof animism, too, brought the supernatural idea of the properties and\nfunctions of water, an idea which had previously sprung up in connexion\nwith agriculture, into a more definite form. It was a factor in the\ndevelopment of the paraphernalia of the gods and of current popular\nbelief, of the temple and its ritual, and led to a definite formulation\nof the conception of deities.\n\nThe second essay, \"Dragons and Rain-gods,\" is the longest of the three.\nThe dragon legend, says Professor Smith, is the history of the search\nfor the elixir of life. \"The original dragon was a beneficent creature,\nthe personification of water, and was identified with kings and gods.\"\n\"The dragon myth, however, did not really begin to develop until an\nageing king refused to be slain, and called upon the Great Mother as\nthe giver of life to rejuvenate him. Her only elixir was human blood;\nand to obtain it she was compelled to make a human sacrifice. Her\nmurderous act led to her being compared and ultimately identified\nwith a man-slaying lioness or a cobra. The story of the slaying of\nthe dragon is a much-distorted rumour of this incident; and in the\nprocess of elaboration the incidents were subjected to every kind of\ninterpretation, and also confusion with the legendary account of the\nconflict between Horus and Set.\" Thus the Great Mother became confused\nwith Horus as the avenger of the god, and legendary complications\ncaused Horus to be regarded as her son. But the infamy of her deeds of\ndestruction seems to have led to her being further confused with the\nrebellious followers of Set. \"Thus an evil dragon emerged from this\nblend of the attributes of the Great Mother and Set.\"\n\nIt seems to me that this theory is much too complicated and multiplies\ndifficulties, as will be seen if we ponder for a moment the history of\nthe Mother-goddess in Mexico. In Mexican myth the earth is represented\nas a monster, Cipactli, the pictures of which suggest a crocodile, a\nswordfish, or a dragon, probably a dragon, that great earth-monster\ncommon to the mythologies of many races and most conveniently called\nthe 'earth-dragon,' The sign 'Cipactli' became the first in the\ncalendar, and with it are connected the creative deities and the\nEarth-Mother or Great Mother. Circumstances exist which lend colour\nto the idea that, as in other countries, the Mexican Mother was at\none time regarded as forming the earth, the soil. At the terrible and\npicturesque festival of the Xalaquia ('She who is clothed with the\nsoil') a sacrificed virgin enriched and recruited with her blood the\nframe of the worn-out goddess, who had been, says Seler, \"merged in\nthe popular imagination with the all-nourisher, the all-begetter, the\nearth.\" Perhaps the best evidence that the Earth-Mother was evolved\nfrom the earth-dragon is the colossal stone figure which once towered\nabove the entrance to the temple of Uitzilopochtli in Mexico and is\nnow housed in the museum of that city. In this figure, as in a similar\nthough less massive statue from Tehuacan, the characteristics of\nthe Cipactli animal are reproduced in a wealth of scale, claw, and\ntusk. The direct descent of the Great Mother from the earth-animal,\nthe personification of the earth-beast as a divine being, explains\nher savage wantonness and spares us the necessity for the elaborate\ngenealogy with which Professor Elliot Smith so ably dowers her. He\ncannot allege that Egypt had no earth-dragon, because Apep is alluded\nto in the _Book of Overthrowing Apep_ as a crocodile and a serpent, and\nthat he was developed from the earth-beast seems fairly clear. He might\nalso say that the Mexican myth was a distorted echo of the Egyptian.\nBut the evolutionary process is too apparent in Mexican art to permit\nof such an hypothesis.\n\nThe last paper, \"The Birth of Aphrodite,\" traces that goddess, not to\nthe mandrake, as Dr Harris does, but to the cowrie-shell. The cowrie\nwas an amulet employed to increase the fertility of women, and in time\ncame to be personified in statuettes. Hence arose the idea of a Great\nMother, a giver of health, life, and good luck. \"These beliefs,\" says\nthe Professor, \"had taken shape long before any definite ideas had been\nformulated as to the physiology of animal reproduction, and before\nagriculture was practised.\" It is impossible to quote more from the\nwork of this most suggestive and stimulating of all modern writers on\nmythology, and I can only here warn my readers against the unwisdom of\nleaving his essays unread.\n\nThe great ability with which Professor Elliot Smith presents his\nthesis is as obvious as the probability of most of his ideas, but it\nseems to me that he regards them too much as proven facts, and that he\nfails to recognize the insecurity of hypotheses based upon the present\ninadequate data of early religious manifestations. These essays are\nthe outcome of a brilliant mind impatient of the lumbering slowness of\nthe mythological machine, and they show a kind of prophetic gift which\npierces beyond proof, and may be accepted as infallible, if uncanny,\nor rejected as over-adventurous. For my part, I feel that Professor\nSmith is right in by far the greater number of his beliefs, but I\ncan scarcely admit that he supplies me with sufficient proof. Rather\nwould I say that his book affects me as a work of genuine theoretical\ninspiration and insight, and not as a cold catalogue of established\nfacts. Professor Smith is the Galileo of mythology--a science which\nhas brought forth many personalities of ponderous erudition, but few\ngeniuses. This does not mean that he is illogical, or that his papers\nare not prepared with adequate and even meticulous care. It means that\nhe is looking out of a casement through which he alone has the right of\nvision, and, seeing things so plainly as he does, he expects those who\ndo not possess similar gifts to participate in his clairvoyance. His\nproofs, if few, are always apposite. The reviewer might wish that each\nof the essays occupied three portly volumes instead of a demy octavo\nbook of 234 pages, and included a much larger number of confirmatory\nillustrations.\n\nRECAPITULATION\n\nThe space allotted to this chapter would be greatly exceeded if we\nalluded to the numerous collectors of myth who have enriched the\nscience with their labours. So far we have limited ourselves to the\nwork of the great theorists, and we will now recapitulate their ideas,\nand draw therefrom our conclusions, accepting only what we believe to\nbe correct and 'safe,' and adding our own inferences and deductions.\nSummarized, these ideas are as follows:\n\n(1) The anthropological school showed that the identity between Aryan\nand savage myth could not be explained upon a linguistic basis.\n\n(2) Tylor laid stress upon the value of the comparison of myth and\nthe 'test of recurrence.' He did not entirely discount philological\nevidence, but denied the large place claimed for allegory.\n\n(3) He showed that myth displayed a regularity of development not to be\naccounted for by motiveless fancy, but by laws of formation.\n\n(4) The promulgation of the animistic hypothesis by Tylor is a landmark\nin mythic science.\n\n(5) Robertson Smith showed that myth takes the place of dogma in\nprimitive religions.\n\n(6) Lang demonstrated the unsoundness of the 'disease of language'\ntheory.\n\nHe laid stress on the irrational element in myth;\n\nIndicated the complexity of mythic development; Showed how the\nevolutionary theory may be applied to myth;\n\nPointed out that the persistence of myth was accounted for by religious\nconservatism;\n\nLaid it down that the occurrence of identical myths may be accounted\nfor by the universal prevalence of similar mental habits (this,\nhowever, will not account for long and intricate plots).\n\n(7) Jevons points out the reflection of myth by ritual.\n\n(8) The present writer believes:\n\n      (i) That myth is for the most part sacred in character,\n\n      (ii) That it is prior in origin to ritual and is not\n      derived from it, except in a secondary sense,\n\n      (iii) That mythic conditions are capable of a more or less\n      exact classification.\n\nHaving indicated our own attitude toward myth, we will now proceed to\nexamine the manner in which the idea of the gods was evolved.\n\n\n\n[1] It follows that neither is this a sketch of the history of the\nscience of folklore. The Greeks of Pausanias' day may have possessed\nthe elements of a folklore. He flourished before the State recognition\nof Christianity, but Greek myth in his day was breaking down. In any\ncase, such questions are foreign to our inquiry, which deals with myth\nas defined by us and with that alone. The great students of folklore\nare alluded to in this sketch for what they have written on myth, and\nfor nothing else. The present condition of the science demands explicit\nstatement in this respect, and this must be our excuse in making it.\n\n[2] Iris, daughter of Thaumas and the ocean nymph Electra, was the\npersonification of the rainbow and messenger of the Greek gods,\nespecially of Zeus and Hera.\n\n[3] M\u00fcller, _A Scientific System of Mythology,_ 1838.\n\n[4] Cow. A 'shelly-coat cow' was, in Scots parlance, a bogy. It is\nthought that the shells on such an animal are a reminiscence of the\nscale armour of the vikings, whose memory was a terror to the Scottish\npeasantry. To 'cow' is, of course, much the same as to 'bully.'\n\n[5] Grimace.\n\n[6] That is, \"These shall surround the bier.\"\n\n[7] Thus, according to M\u00fcller, the name Athene, unintelligible in its\nGreek form, at once becomes explicable when compared with the Sanskrit\nAhana, 'the dawn.'\n\n[8] His views will be found stated in _Selected Essays_ and _Lectures\nupon Language._\n\n[9] See his _Comparative Grammar_, English translation by Eastwick (3rd\ned.), 1862.\n\n[10] See \"The Lesson of Jupiter,\" _Nineteenth Century_ for October\n1885: \"To understand the origin and meaning of the names of the Greek\ngods and to enter into the original intention of the fables told of\neach, we must take into account the collateral evidence supplied by\nLatin, German, Sanskrit, and Zend philology.\" See also _Lectures on\nLanguage_,2nd ser., p. 406.\n\n[11] See his _Nebelsagen_ (1879) and _Das R\u00e4thsel der Sphinx_ (1889).\n\n[12] Apart from its philological efforts, the work of M\u00fcller his\ndisciples is of permanent value, and his critics undoubtedly did a\ndisservice to mythological science when they condemned it root and\nbranch. The training of no student of mythology can be complete if\nit lacks a consideration of M\u00fcller's works, which, of course, must\nbe perused in the light of the comparative failure of his linguistic\nhypotheses.\n\n\n[13] Lang in _Ency. Brit._, (11th ed.), art. \"Mythology.\"\n\n[14] _Ibid._\n\n[15] _Modern Mythology_, pp. 55, 63.\n\n[16] _Primitive Culture_(London, 1871), p. 282.\n\n[17] _Primitive Culture_(London, 1871), pp. 283, 284.\n\n[18] _Ibid._, p. 284.\n\n[19] _Primitive Culture_ (London, 1871), p. 320.\n\n[20] _Primitive Culture_(London, 1871), p. 320.\n\n[21] _Ibid._, pp. 415, 416.\n\n[22] This appears to the author a suitable term for those bodies of\nmyth which deal exclusively with the lives and adventures of the gods,\nand differ therefore so strikingly from all other classes of myth.\n\n[23] It seems to me that a small proportion only of myth as we know it\ncan owe its origin to the intention of the males to conceal matters\nfrom the women and boys. Most written myth is certainly the work of\npriesthoods, and as it often accompanies ritual, the immobile character\nof the latter is a guarantee of its genuineness. Again, it frequently\nappears as pseudo-history, and could therefore scarcely be designed to\nscreen anything more esoteric. The myths enacted in Hellenic mystery\nplays do not appear to have differed much in plot from the stories of\npopular acceptance, and the same may be said concerning those American\nmyths which are danced out in the secrecy of male mystic societies.\n\n[24] Extensive correspondence with students of myth has helped to\nconvince me of the partial breakdown of Lang's argument.\n\n[25] For example, on America, like Frazer, he bungles sadly, and seems\nto have betaken himself for information to the wrong authority in\nalmost every instance, and especially when he desires to illustrate an\nargument.\n\n[26] Lang's 'All-Father' deities forcibly suggest evolution from\nthe old 'sky-god,' if, indeed, they were not that deity without\nmuch alteration. The 'Sky-Father' in opposition, or at least\nin contradistinction, to the 'Earth-Mother' was merely the sky\npersonalized as a 'magnified non-natural man.' Let us enumerate his\nattributes, given by Lang in the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica:_\n\n(1) His home is in the sky.\n\n(2) He is the maker of things.\n\n(3) Mankind are his disobedient progeny, whom he casts out of heaven.\n\nThis specification can allude to no type other than sky-gods, which\nare wholly 'animistic' in origin. If Lang had chanced to think of this\nresemblance himself, he would probably have been the first to admit the\ncorrectness of such a statement. His _The Making of Religion_ bears\nproof of its obviousness on every page. The 'All-Father' idea certainly\nevolves from the personalization of the sky. He quotes the Zu\u00f1i Indian\ngod Awonawilona as an 'All-Father'; Awonawilona is a Sky-Father pure\nand simple, as his myth shows; and practically all his other examples\nmay be traced back in the same manner.\n\n[27] _Magic and Religion_, pp. 207 _sqq._\n\n[28] See review by Lewis Farnell in the _Quarterly Review_ for April\n1915.\n\n[29] The implication is frivolous and crude. I observe, as a specialist\nin Mexican mythology, that Sir James habitually and most unfortunately\nmakes use of the wrong authorities to substantiate his claims when\ndealing with this province of tradition; but that a scholar of his\nstanding would descend to such depths there is not a shadow of\nproof. The science of tradition at the present time is in much the\nsame state as was that of chemistry in the hands of the medieval\nalchemists--_i.e._, a large degree of experiment must enter into its\ncomposition--and where all are beginners who dare cast the first stone,\nespecially if it be against a man who has rendered such services to\nmythology and folklore as must be remembered with gratitude and even\naffection by all the workers in our common vineyard? Has he not taught\nus\n\n\"To hope, till hope creates From its own wreck the thing it\ncontemplates\"?\n\nI differ from him in many points _toto c\u0153lo_; but is not endeavour the\nmost precious thing in a new science? May we not say in mythology as in\nliterature, _Fax mentis incendium gloria_? The very circumstance that a\nman carries such a torch as is borne by Sir James entitles him to our\nhighest esteem, even if, as in my own case, we only partially agree\nwith his notions, or almost wholly dissent from them, as Mr Farnell\nseems to do.\n\n[30] English translation by Elizabeth Frost, London, 1912.\n\n[31] This deals an effective blow to more than one Teutonic claim to\npriority in this field.\n\n[32] We have shown above that the conservatism of the savage, like that\nof the child, would not permit this.\n\n[33] It must of course be clear to the 'meanest intelligence' that it\nis quite possible for myths to be created to explain ritual, but such\nmyths must, almost of necessity; be late in origin and can only arise\nwhen the original myth which gave rise to the ritualistic practice has\nbeen lost. For what reason, it may be asked, is ritual invented and\noriginated? Surely it presupposes a divine being, and if it does, it\ncreates a myth; unless, of course, ritual was originally a magical act,\nan attempt to use some occult force, such as _mana_. One can understand\nthat in the latter circumstances a myth may ultimately arise from\nritual, otherwise I am unable to comprehend the contention, so often\nmade in works dealing with mythology, that ritual is prior to myth.\nNor do I consider magical ritual 'religious' but pseudo-scientific in\nnature, as magic is invariably pseudo-scientific and not religious at\nall.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF THE GODS\n\n\nThe evolution of the idea of godhead in the mind of man is in its later\nstages inalienably associated with the conception of spirit.[1]\n\nAs we have seen (pp. 58-59), Tylor considers that man first attained\nthe idea of spirit by reflection on experiences such as sleep, dreams,\ntrances, shadows, hallucinations, breath, and death, and by degrees\nextended this conception of soul or ghost until he peopled all nature\nwith spirits, from among which one supreme being was finally raised\nabove all.\n\nAn outline of the animistic conception has been provided in the\nintroductory chapter. Here it is only necessary to apply it to the\nevolution of deity. The opinion of Marett, that in an early stage of\nhuman development pre-animistic 'powers' exist which do not partake\nof the nature of spirit, does not require to be restated, as it has\nbut little bearing upon the question directly before us; and we will\nadvance to that stage in human mental development when spirit has\nbecome fully recognized. The conception of simple personalization\ncould not have lasted long at any epoch, as it would sooner or later\nbe brought into contact with the idea of the separable soul. Thus if\ngods were regarded as 'magnified non-natural men' (the very phrase\n'non-natural' is against the personalization idea), or physical objects\nor natural phenomena were worshipped or placated because of their\npeculiarities, the idea of spirit would undoubtedly infuse and alter\nthese beliefs at a very early stage in their career. Thus no deity\ncould well escape becoming spiritualized. Why should this be so? Why\nshould spiritualization be necessary to deity? The point is important.\nIf we admit that certain physical objects were worshipped because of\ntheir peculiarities, if we believe that the earth and sky, for example,\nwere personalized and conceived as without spiritual attributes in the\nbeginning, that only _what was seen_ was worshipped, how comes it that\namong the most primitive races the god, as apart from his idol, is\ninvisible--that is, spiritual? The idol may, of course, be a relic of\nthe period when only what was beheld was worshipped, but that period\nmust indeed have been brief, when one takes into consideration the\nprobable early junction of the ideas of spirit and deity.\n\nIDEA OF SPIRIT CONCEIVED EARLY\n\nThe conception of spirit must have been an early idea, contemporary,\none would imagine, with the dawn of reason. Man, claiming for himself\nthe possession of spirit, could scarcely deny it to a superior power,\nand if the fear of godhead agitated him when beheld in the convulsions\nof nature, as in the thunder-storm or earthquake, how much more\nwould the half-heard mutterings of the _unseen_ agencies dwelling in\nthe whistling winds and darkling woods cause terror in his breast?\nRegarding the physical agencies he knew the worst, and could learn how\nto avoid or mitigate their terrors, but what chance had he against\nthose agencies he could not perceive, and how much greater must have\nbeen his fear of them? Thus was born that dread of the invisible, the\nunseen, which even to-day chills the human heart and plays havoc with\nhuman imagination.\n\nThe idea of the separable soul thus evolved from visions and dreams and\napplied to godhead might assist in the making of several varying forms\nof deity, as in fetishism, totemism, or the worship of the dead--if,\nindeed, it did not originate in this latter form. The application of\nspirit to deity perhaps found its first illustration in the worship of\nancestors--a low form of evolution in the line of godhead, as few gods\nevolved from ancestors survive more than several generations, and few\nof the great departmental deities of the higher early religions display\nsigns of having evolved from ancestors. Moreover, where such signs are\npresent they are of doubtful value. The religion of China is perhaps\nthe only great example of the continuity of the worship of ancestors.\nBut it is important to note that this form of deity _may_ have been\nthat to which the idea of spirit was first applied.\n\nFetishism forms an important link in the evolution of the mere\nanimistic spirit into the god. Before examining the manner in which a\nfetish originates and rises to godhead, let us see exactly what class\nof spirit is supposed to inhabit it.\n\nTHE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FETISH\n\nThe fetish is pre-eminently a personal familiar--that is, a spirit\nwhich for certain reasons (the desire for shelter and food, or because\na powerful spell has been laid upon it) becomes attached to a human\nbeing. It is acquired by a person or a family for luck, and in return\nrequires a certain amount of worship or respect, sacrifice, and\nfeasting. It may receive good or evil treatment according as it behaves\nto its votaries. It is by no means a tutelar deity, since it may be\nbought or sold, loaned or inherited. It generally has its home in\nsome object, preferably of a peculiar shape or character, inhabiting\na figure shaped in human or animal form, a stone, bone, necklace of\nfingers, a carved or painted stick, a curious fossil, a stuffed skin,\nthe dried hand of an enemy--in short, anything that fancy or caprice\nmay dictate.\n\nThe manner of making a fetish is almost universally the same. Says Mr\nDavenport Adams of the Samoyede image-makers[2]: \"The bleak and lonely\nisland of Waigatz is still, as in the days of the Dutch adventurer,\nBarentz, supposed to be the residence of the chief of these minor\ndivinities. There a block of stone, pointed at the summit, bears a\ncertain resemblance to a human head, having been wrought into this\nlikeness by a freak of nature. The Samoyede image-makers have taken\nit for their model, and multiplied it in wood and stone; and the idols\nthus easily manufactured they call _sjadaei_, because they wear a human\n(or semi-human) countenance (_sja_). They attire them in reindeer\nskins, and embellish them with innumerable coloured rags. In addition\nto the _sjadaei_, they adopt as idols any curiously contorted tree or\nirregularly shapen stone; and the household idol (_Hahe_) they carry\nabout with them, carefully wrapped up, in a sledge reserved for the\npurpose, the _hahengan_. One of the said Penates is supposed to be the\nguardian of wedded happiness, another of the fishery, a third of the\nhealth of his worshippers, a fourth of their herds of reindeer. When\nhis services are needed, the _Hahe_ is removed from its resting-place,\nand erected in the tent or on the pasture-ground, in the wood, or\non the river's bank. Then his mouth is smeared with oil or blood,\nand before him is set a dish of fish or flesh, in return for which\nrepast it is expected that he will use his power on behalf of his\nentertainers. When his aid is no longer needed, he is returned to the\n_hahengan_.\"\n\nPAYNE ON THE FETISH\n\nMr Payne in his _History of the New World called America_ has an\nadmirable passage about the fetish. He says: \"The spirits, then, whom\nthe savage believes to share the world with him, are considered to be\nsubstantial beings, consisting of flesh and blood like man himself; and\nlike him nourished by food and drink. They are therefore not immortal:\nlike man, they are liable to death by violence or starvation. They are\nalso subject to that alternation of want and abundance which occupies\nso large a space in human experience. In this circumstance, coupled\nwith the fact that some of these spirits are conceived as injurious\nor evil, others as benevolent or good, we have the key of primitive\ntheology. Man seeks to keep the good or benevolent spirits alive,\nto satisfy their wants, and to give them pleasure, in the hope of\ninteresting them by this means in the success of his own enterprises:\nand for this purpose he provides them with food and drink. Hunting\npeoples, who have no gods, occasionally sacrifice food to the\nspirits, in order to obtain success in the chase: thus the Veddah of\nCeylon place on the ground offerings of blood and burnt flesh for\nthe Vedde-Yakko (spirit of the chase), promising further offerings\nof the same kind when the game is caught If the spirit accepts these\nofferings, he is understood to appear to them in dreams, telling them\nwhere to hunt. Some low agricultural and cattle-keeping tribes, who\nhave not attained the conception of gods, place pieces of manioc-root\nand ears of maize on branches of trees, to propitiate the spirits.\nThese sacrifices of the Veddah illustrate in its simplest form the\nprinciple which lies at the root of all. The spirits for whom they are\nintended are beings of animal nature, chiefly differing from other\nanimals in that they are naturally invisible, but have the power of\nassuming various forms, and of moving swiftly through the air from\nplace to place. Air, perhaps, rather than earth, is conceived to be\ntheir proper element: it is at any rate certain that food-offerings,\nin order to reach them, must be committed to the air. There are only\ntwo methods of doing this, libation and combustion: the former adapted\nto liquids, the latter to solids. Liquids are poured on the ground,\non a stone, or into a bowl or other receptacle, and pass into the\nair by simple evaporation. Solids are burnt, and pass into the air\nin the form of smoke. In offering to the spirits food in the form of\nblood, the Veddah follows the universal logic of primitive savagery.\nMan once consumed his game warm and raw. Fatigued with the chase,\nemaciated perhaps by previous fasting, the savage slays his victim,\ndrinks of the hot blood, feels himself at once invigorated, and makes\nhis meal upon its flesh at leisure. The rest of the blood, spilled on\nthe ground, quickly dries up. The savage, who has but one solution for\nmost physical phenomena, concludes that the spirits have drunk it.\nBlood, therefore, is their natural food. In this, repugnant as it is\nto modern prejudices, the savage sees nothing revolting or unnatural.\nBlood, which is in truth only the material of flesh, is to him a\nperfectly natural food; scarcely less so, perhaps, than milk, which is\nnothing but blood filtered through a gland. Henceforth, a part of the\nblood of all animals that man slays, wild or domestic, will be poured\nout for the spirits, or for the gods who succeed them. Ultimately,\nwhen man abandons the practice, once universal, of feeding on blood,\nall the blood of a slaughtered animal is poured out as the share of\nthe invisible powers. Sometimes, in a later stage, when sacrifice is\nmore fully developed, clotted blood is collected when the carcase\nis cold, and wrapped in a cloth; this is placed in a basket and\nsuspended in the air. Such was the practice of the advanced Indians of\nNicaragua, between the lake and the ocean, emigrants from Mexico, when\nsacrificing, after the chase, to the _teomazat_ and _teotoste_, or gods\nof the deer and rabbit respectively. It is equally in accordance with\nprimitive logic to offer to the spirits a portion of the flesh. The\ninvisible powers must have their share of all that man delights in: at\na later period offerings are made them of fermented liquors, narcotics,\nperfumes, and the material of clothing and ornaments. From the solid\nparts of the slain animal those are selected which are most easily\nvolatilised. A portion of the fat, ultimately all the fat which adheres\nto the internal organs of the slain animal, is therefore burnt, and\nreaches the nostrils of the spirits in the form of a grateful savour.\nAt a later period, when man depends for flesh food on domesticated\nanimals, such offerings are reserved for gods of the first rank: and\nhence in Peru the chief deities, who alone were thus honoured, obtained\nthe distinctive name of _huira-cocha_ (fat sacrifices).\"\n\nTHE 'SUCCESSFUL' FETISH\n\nSuch fetishes as are 'successful'--that is, such of them as survive the\ntest of domestic use and prove luck-bringers--may by their miraculous\nacts or the power and policy of their immediate devotees become gods.\nBut it must be borne in mind that a fetish-object is the place of\nimprisonment or residence, manufactured by human agency, of a spirit\nwhich has concluded a bargain with its devotees to act for their mutual\nbenefit. Only a series of marvels of a protective or fortune-making\nnature can raise it to the rank of godhead, or, as has been said, the\npolicy of its owners, who thus constitute themselves its priesthood.\nSays Mr Payne: \"Before the gods are thus permanently established they\nhave usually passed through a period of probation. Only the fittest\nsurvive: if the god proves useless for the purpose for which he exists,\nwhether of securing success in the chase, abundant crops, or fortune\nin war, he is forthwith abandoned. Where game and fish abound, and\nagriculture remains in its rudiments, the gods are chiefly required\nto render assistance in hunting, fishing, and war, though some are\nemployed to secure success in cultivation. Such was the condition of\nthe tribes throughout the vast region of the Amazon river who had\ngods for each of these purposes. On an expedition of war one of the\nwar-gods was placed in the prow of the boat; on a fishing expedition\nthis place was occupied by a god holding a fish. When out of use the\ngods were stowed away in baskets; in case these expeditions proved\nunsuccessful the gods were thrown aside and replaced by others. But\nthose which survive the test of experience are cherished in families\nas possessions of the highest value. These are the _t'raphim_ of the\nHebrews, the _penates_ of the Latins, the _cconopa_ of the Peruvians:\nwords in each case meaning precisely the 'nourishers' or 'food-givers'\nof the household. According to the Biblical narrative, the daughter\nof an Aram\u00e6an sheikh considered herself entitled to take with her\nsome of these family gods when she crossed the Euphrates with her\nHebrew husband: an incident which recalls the Turcoman legend of\nSekedschet, whose Chinese wife brought household gods with her as\npart of her dowry. These gods, it is clear, were regarded as mere\nchattels, existing for the benefit of their owners: in Bokhara, indeed,\nthey were commonly bought and sold at markets or fairs. So long as\nman worshipped only these merely factitious gods, this essential\ninstability obviously prevented his religious ideas from gaining force\nand permanence: qualities which first appear when he begins to worship\nthe distinguished dead, and only become conspicuous when he adopts as\nobjects of veneration the permanent objects and forces of nature.\"\n\nTOTEMS AS GODS\n\nA totem spirit achieves godhead in much the same way as the fetish.\nThat the totem develops into the god is abundantly proven by the\nanimal likenesses and attributes of many deities in lands widely\nseparated. The animal-headed gods of Egypt, the bovine deities of\nAssyria, the animal gods of many pantheons are, very many of them,\ntotemic in origin. These frequently attained a human semblance at\na later stage of their history, but in many instances the original\ntotem animal or a portion of its insignia remained. Thus the Grecian\nPallas Athene was attended by an owl; Apollo was accompanied by a\nmouse ('Apollo Smintheus'); the Mexican god of war, Uitzilopochtli,\nwas frequently disguised in a cloak made of humming-birds' feathers;\nand Prometheus must have possessed wings to enable him to steal the\nfire from heaven. Many gods, as Lang says, exhibit traces of \"fur and\nfeather,\" but all of these are not necessarily totemic. Where the act\nof devouring the deity symbolically by means of the substitution of an\nanimal or man for the eponym or god is indulged in at certain stated\nintervals, the origin of the god so communed with is totemic, and this\nfact often serves to determine the nature of a deity.\n\nSays Salomon Reinach (_Cultes, mythes, et religions_, p. 7): \"The\ndistribution of the clan totems among the tribal and national gods was\nnot the work of a day: it must have been conditioned by a whole mass\nof circumstances--alliances, wars, local amalgamations--the clue to\nwhich is obviously lost forever. One factor of the first importance\nseems to have been the ritual of sacrifice; which, like all rituals,\nis eminently conservative. Take the case of a clan owning the bull as\nits totem, and sacrificing it at intervals. In time the era of personal\ndeities is ushered in; the bull is converted into an attribute of the\nchief god, and offered up to him in sacrifice: yet there lingers a more\nor less distinct recollection of the victim's own divinity.\"\n\nIt has been well said that man cannot realize the gods _as_ gods\nuntil he becomes aware of his own humanity. Before that they must\nappear to him as what Marett calls 'powers.' That is where animism\nwith its branches, totemism and fetishism, may be distinguished from\nthe religions of the higher cultus, the polytheisms which possess\ndefinite pantheons, and the monotheisms. It is noticeable that in\nearly myth _animals often take the place of gods_, a sure sign that\nthe race which regarded the animal as occupying the place of a creator\nor hero had not yet 'found itself' as human, had not yet realized the\nenormous nature of the gulf which separates animal and human nature,\nwas yet totally in the dark regarding the great things of which man was\ncapable, his marvellous adaptability and wondrous destiny. When man\nrealizes his superiority, then the totem-gods take on his own image,\nretaining only the symbols or insignia of the beast, or perhaps part\nof their ancient animal appearance. Thus the Egyptian sun-goddess,\nBast, from being represented in early times as a cat pure and simple,\nwas later figured as a woman having a cat's head. Uitzilopochtli, the\nAztec war-god, evolved from humming-bird shape to man-like similitude,\nretaining, however, the colibri-feather cloak. The Mayan maize-spirit,\nwhen he attained god-like proportions, was represented as a young\nman wearing on his head-dress the graceful waving plumes of the\nmaize-plant. These instances are illustrative of the different manner\nin which various peoples free their minds of the old beast-god ideas\nhanded down for untold generations. Thus the strongly conservative\nEgyptians, probably because of fusion with other races, adopt the\nanthropomorphic form, but still retain the animal appearance in its\nmost significant item--the head; the symbol-loving Aztecs preserve the\nhumming-bird's feathers on their war-god's dress, while the still more\nanthropomorphic Greeks content themselves with placing the animal image\nbeside the man-like god, instead of in any way amalgamating the two\nconceptions.\n\nANCESTOR-WORSHIP\n\nThe process of manufacturing a god from a dead man, although at first\nsight apparently less involved than that of the evolution of a deity\nthrough fetishistic or totemic media, is found on close examination to\nbe even more complex. Among many primitive races, and some that are not\nprimitive, it is the bounden duty of the dead man's son to see that\nhis _manes_, his spirit, wants for nothing. Even as he cherished his\nson during the first years of the infant's life, so his heir is now\nbound by all he holds sacred to cherish his ghost and guard it against\nhunger, thirst, and cold. Woe betide the unfilial wretch who neglected\nthe tomb of his father! Among the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Chinese\nsuch a dereliction of duty was regarded with the utmost abhorrence.\nDreadful was the lot of the uncared-for dead. Says the Gilgamesh epic,\nthe greatest literary product of ancient Babylonia:\n\n     The man whose spirit has none to care for it--\n     Thou and I have often seen such an one--\n     The dregs of the vessel, the leavings of the feast,\n     And that which is cast out upon the street are his food.\n\nGreat care was bestowed by Egyptian sons upon the _post-mortem_\nwelfare of their parents, and the most solemn duty of a Chinaman is\nthat of tending the spirits of his dead forefathers. This attention\nin course of time evolves into a very deep reverence, which greatly\nexalts the dead in the estimation of their descendants. In India and\nelsewhere critical observers have watched the progress of the evolution\ninto godhead of innumerable dead men. A holy ascetic dies, famous\nthroughout the neighbourhood for his piety and the rigour of his life.\nMiracles occur at his shrine. His surviving relatives foster the cult\nof his fame. His human \"personality becomes misty, his origin grows\nmysterious, his career takes a legendary hue, his birth and death\nwere both supernatural; in the next generation the names of the elder\ngods get introduced into the story, and so the marvellous tradition\nworks itself into a myth, until nothing but a personal incarnation can\naccount for such a series of prodigies. The man was an avatar of Vishnu\nor Siva; his supreme apotheosis is now complete, and the Brahmins feel\nwarranted in providing for him a niche in the orthodox pantheon.\"[3]\n\nThis, of course, is an instance where the memory of his sanctity\nhelps to turn a man into a god. No such idea enters into the earliest\nancestor-worship. Among primitive savages the dead man would be\nworshipped because of the memory of his personal might when alive, the\nnumber of his clansmen and adherents, and for similar reasons. But\n'human' gods, ancestors and others, seldom reach any great altitude of\ndeity.\n\nTHE COMPACT WITH THE GODS\n\nAt a very early epoch in the relations of man with the gods we\nfind him entering into a tacit understanding which develops into a\nwell-recognized pact. Even when the gods are in the fetish state we\nfind the hunter smearing blood upon their mouths and imploring their\nassistance in return. It is a case, as the old proverb says, of 'Ka\nme, ka thee.' Man undoubtedly possesses an instinctive belief in the\nexistence of a superior being or beings. He may twist this fundamental\nbelief into any shape he pleases, but basically it remains the same.\nThis belief in gods is not in itself religion. Inalienably possessing\nthe idea of the existence of deity, and shaping it as his intelligence\npermits, man has yet to make religion, which consists in the worship\nand cult of supernatural beings, for his comfort, uplifting, assurance,\nand help. Man says to himself, \"If He be with us who shall be against\nus?\" and with the god for him feels secure against every adversary.\n\nThe 'comfort' derived from faith, of which all must have greater or\nless experience, the assurance that man is watched over, guided,\nand tended by a being to whom he is an object of solicitude, was\nprobably experienced at a much earlier stage of human history than is\ngenerally admitted, but the bargain, the compact by which both man\nand god dwell together to mutual advantage, is obviously antecedent\nto these feelings, and is dictated by calculation as opposed to pure\nlove. \"Feed us, send us plenteous game, O Divine One, and we shall in\nturn maintain thee with sacrifice.\" Such is the compact. A similar\nbargain is made when man quits his hunter's life and begins to live an\nagricultural existence; nor does the nature of the pabulum offered to\nthe gods differ with the adoption of an agricultural existence. Blood\nis the food of the gods when man sacrifices to them in his capacity\nof hunter, and continues to be so when he adopts cereals, although\ninstances do occur of cereal and vegetable sacrifices. Vegetarian gods\nare few, and the majority of savages favour the cult of Abel, not\nthat of the brother who angered Yahweh by the agricultural nature\nof his sacrifices. The most complete instance on record of a compact\nin which a markedly agricultural community rigidly maintained the\nblood-sacrifice to the gods is that of ancient Mexico, where thousands\nof prisoners of war were annually immolated, and where an annual strife\nbetween the states of Mexico and Tlaxcala was upheld for the purpose of\nfurnishing the altars of one or other with human victims.\n\nTHE CORN-SPIRIT AS GOD\n\nThese considerations lead to the question: In what manner are the\ngods of the agricultural community evolved? Does the corn-spirit,\nthe genius of the wheat or maize, triumph over and banish the older\nanimistic deities of the chase? These certainly sink into a secondary\nposition, although some gods of totemic origin continue to flourish,\ndespite their new agricultural surroundings, and even survive and hold\nhigh positions in the pantheon, perhaps altered by later political and\nabstract ideas out of all semblance to their original condition. Old\ntribal gods, too, may become agricultural.\n\nIn what manner, then, does the triumphant corn-spirit evolve into the\ngod? And, firstly, what is the nature of a corn-spirit? In animistic\nbelief everything natural possesses life and so, probably, 'soul,'\n'ghost,' or 'spirit,' the corn-plant no less than any other object.\nRepresentations of corn-and maize-gods almost invariably show them as\nsymbolically decorated with the plant they were supposed to inhabit.\nThe genius, spirit, or informing soul of the grain would in an\nagricultural community attain such prime importance that within a short\ntime it would undoubtedly receive divine honours.\n\nFROM CORN-SPIRIT TO GOD\n\nThe corn-spirit was capable of attaining a high rank of godhead, as we\nmay see from the myth of the Egyptian god Osiris. Osiris was the first\nto instruct men how to plant the corn-seed, and his annual festival\nbegan with the tillage of the soil. In one of the chambers dedicated to\nhim in the great temple of Isis at Phil\u00e6 his dead body is represented\nwith stalks of corn springing from it. These are being watered by a\npriest, and the accompanying inscription reads that this is \"Osiris of\nthe mysteries who springs from the returning waters\" (of the Nile).\nSurely such a painting can only illustrate Osiris as a corn-deity.\nAnd were not, according to legend, his mangled remains scattered up\nand down the land of Egypt?--perhaps a mythical way of expressing the\nsowing or winnowing of the grain, an interpretation supported by the\ntale that Isis placed the severed limbs of Osiris on a corn-sieve.\n\nGranted, then, that Osiris was a corn-spirit in one of his\nmanifestations, we have now to judge from his tale how far it is\npossible for the corn-spirit to evolve in the line of godhead--to\nwhat altitude of deity it is possible for him to soar and what divine\nhonours he is capable of reaching.\n\nAt an early stage of Egyptian history we find Osiris the deity of an\nagricultural religion, plainly the god of a grain-growing people. His\ncult persisted through all the exigencies and changes of Egyptian\ntheology and occupied a prominent place in the affections of the\npeople, who, although they acknowledged the worship of Ra and Amen\nat various epochs, continued faithful to Osiris. His worship by\nreason of its antiquity and popularity triumphed in the end over more\naristocratic and perhaps alien forms. But the early conception of\nOsiris as the spirit of the corn-plant and afterward as a guardian\ndeity of agriculture, although maintained in essence, was greatly\nmodified and overshadowed by the attributes which were bestowed upon\nhim at a later period. Thus, like Persephone and other corn-deities,\nhe was regarded as a god of the Underworld, or place of the dead, and\nconsequently as judge of the departed. In his history we observe the\nprocess of evolution from an animistic spirit inhabiting the corn-plant\nto a god embodying divine justice, and holding in his hands both reward\nand punishment.\n\nA great deal has been written concerning the supposed non-ethical\nand non-moral character of mythological figures. In early times it\nis probable that the gods were no less savage and immoral than their\nworshippers; but when we encounter well-known deities for the first\ntime in the pages of classical authors, we have little difficulty in\ndiscovering that although the attributes of savagery still cling to\nthem, they are also informed by a spirit of justice and wisdom, if\nnot of mercy or compassion. Such qualities, indeed, as man desired in\nthe gods, he endowed them with. Again, the existence of collegiate\nor monastic institutions in such countries as Egypt, India, Mexico,\nand Babylonia did much to foster contemplation and piety, and greatly\nassisted the evolution of the ethical spirit. When we first meet\nwith Osiris, Ra, Thoth, Ptah, and other Egyptian gods, they are the\nrepositories of justice and wisdom, if not of love and compassion.\nThe same holds good of many Hindu deities, notably of Brahma. The\nGreek gods were, perhaps, unfortunate in the circumstance that the age\nof their first literary presentment preceded that of their ethical\nevolution. Accounts of the Spanish conquerors of Mexico lead us to\nbelieve that at least one Mexican deity, Tezcatlipoca, possessed\na sense of justice, and that another, Tlazolteotl, forgave sin;\nand the traditions of many modern savage peoples are not without\ngod-like figures whose ethical standpoint is superior to that of their\nworshippers.\n\nWith the material now to our hand it is important that we fully employ\nevery possible rational method of interpretation. The folly of adopting\none key to open all mythological doors has been illustrated by the\nfate of such systems as attempted to interpret the nature of the gods\nby theories of a 'disease of language' or the solar nature of all\ndeities. The 'vegetable' school, as Lang dubbed it, possesses almost\nas many pitfalls for the unwary. Let no method, linguistic, solar,\nanthropological, dominate our conclusions, but let none be absent from\nour counsels.\n\n\n[1] The general theory of this work, though, as already stated,\neclectic, is, so far as its opinions upon the evolution of the idea of\nspirit or soul is concerned, in sympathy with the animistic hypothesis\nof Tylor, an hypothesis subjected to a certain amount of criticism from\nthe younger generation of students of comparative religion. But as\nthese students have not yet erected a worthy rival explanation of the\nevolution of godhead, and as what they have accomplished is of the most\nfragmentary nature, we will refrain from reviewing their work, and will\ncontent ourselves with an examination of the animistic idea, bringing\nto bear upon it only such criticism as seems really necessary.\n\n[2] _Curiosities of Superstition_, pp. 155, 156.\n\n[3] A. C. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, p. 19 (London, 1907).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE VARIOUS TYPES OF DEITY\n\n\nThere are certain objections against giving 'departmental' names, such\nas 'god of fire,' 'god of wine,' to deities, but in certain stages of\nreligious evolution these 'departmental deities' are found--gods of\nfire, water, earth, and air, hunting, thunder-deities connected with\nvarious crafts and even with certain qualities. It is, however, only in\nthe higher stages of polytheism that such deities are finally stamped\nwith the 'departmental' character.[1]\n\nAs has already been pointed out, there is more than one explanation\nof such gods. Fault has been found with the division of deities into\nagricultural and non-agricultural, but there is no doubt whatever\nthat the change from nomadic to agricultural life and the consequent\naltered conditions gave birth to a completely new set of religious\nideas. In the nomadic or hunting stage of existence, when man depends\nfor subsistence upon the flesh of animals and such wild fruits as\nhe can procure, he regards with veneration the supernatural beings\nhe thinks help or hinder him in the chase. Thus among certain North\nAmerican Indian tribes the barbarian hunter has a fetish shaped like\na mountain-lion. After making it an offering, he places its carven\nnostrils to his own, believing that by so doing he inhales its courage.\nHe then breathes out deeply, in order to spread the breath of the\nanimal over a wide area and paralyse all the game in the neighbourhood.\nOn slaying a deer he cuts out the liver and smears the blood thereof\non the mouth of the fetish as a reward. Finally he prays to the Great\nDeer, the mythical or magnified ancestor of the animal killed, not to\nseek vengeance against him for having taken the life of one of his\nchildren.\n\nThis is a picture of the utilitarian side of a savage hunter's\nreligion, and it is a representative one. Thus we see with what simple\nreligious elements the hunter has to do, and yet what an involved\nritual these primitive ideas may bring in their train. He recognizes\nother supernatural beings than his own personal and tribal fetishes,\nthe eponymous heads of the beast clans. For example, he fears and\nattempts to placate the being whom he deems to cause the thunder and\nlightning. Later he sees in this god a great hunter, the patron of his\nown craft of the chase, launching the fiery shaft from heaven.\n\nThe wind and the sun may appear to him to possess personality and\neven deity, as they symbolize the breath and heat of life; but he can\nscarcely adore them with the same fervour as that of the husbandman,\nwho depends entirely for his sustenance on the good will of sun and\nwind.\n\nThe transition from the nomadic or hunting state to the agricultural\nmay or may not be abrupt. It may depend on slow evolution or on the\nunion of a hunting with an agricultural people, but whatever the cause\nof the adoption of more settled habits of existence, the gods of the\nchase do not all at once disappear into the background. Many of them\nhold their own until a later stage of polytheism is reached, and not\na few supernatural forms of a primitive 'departmental' or 'animistic'\ntype have achieved high rank in more than one later pantheon. Thus, as\nhas already been shown, the Mexican Uitzilopochtli and the Latin Picus\nwere evolved from bird totems which had led their respective tribesmen\nto battle in the days of old.\n\nBut the great measure of difference between the religions of nomadic\nand agricultural peoples is the compact which each makes with its gods.\nAdoration in the animistic stage is caused either by a sense of fear,\nby the indefinable feeling for the sacred, or because something is\nhoped for from the deity placated or worshipped. The contract between\nthe hunter and the fetish which guides his actions with its advice or\nmagic is of a low material type. He can scarcely have an agreement\nwith a thunder-god or any such being, but with the gods which preside\nover vegetable growths the husbandman makes a very definite contract.\nAn unpropitious season brings home to him the risk attending an\nagricultural existence, famine staring him in the face. Remembering the\nmanner in which he placated the deities of his nomadic existence--by\nsacrifice--he proceeds by a like process[2] to placate the new deities\nupon whose good-will the growth of his crops depends. The earth may be\nweary after bearing so much grain; therefore it must be drenched with\nblood in order that it may recover from the strain. The clouds may be\nabsent, so that the corn becomes scorched and withered; therefore a\ntithe of human life must be given to the water--in other words, victims\nmust be drowned. The ever-present sun must be kept in good humour, for\nwithout his light and heat the grain would not germinate and human life\nwould be destroyed; therefore the steam of blood must arise to fill his\nnostrils. The contract is clear though unwritten: \"Continue to feed us,\nO gods, and we shall feed you.\"\n\nThus the strictly departmental type of deity arises. At first he is\na mere corn-spirit, maize-spirit, earth-spirit, water-, thunder-,\nsun-spirit, or what not--sun, water, grain, or earth personified--but\nas generations pass his fame grows and attracts wider reverence. His\nattributes become numerous, his ritual more involved; and the wondrous\nsentiment of the sacred surrounds him with a mystic veil. Ethical\nideas become attached to his worship; he is regarded as a fount of\nrighteousness; and, from being non-moral and non-human, he comes to\npossess a sanctified human character as well as more than human powers.\nLet us examine a few 'departmental' types of godhead with the object of\ntracing them back to their original forms, if possible.\n\nTHE SUN-GOD\n\nIt will be well if we commence our inquiry with deities which are\nobviously of elemental origin.\n\nOne of the first to attract our attention is naturally the sun\nhimself. In all times and in most climates the great luminary has been\nregarded as the source of life. In nearly all the higher mythologies\nhe occupies a distinguished place, if not the principal seat, in the\npantheon. In the later stages of his godhead, also, his attributes\nthemselves are deified; but it is in his early career as a god that we\nmust first deal with him here.\n\nIn the earliest animistic conception of the sun he is regarded as\nhaving life and volition at least equal, if not superior, to man. His\ncharacter among a primitive people may be gauged from the utterance\nof the Peruvian monarch who cast doubts upon his godhead and told the\nsolar priesthood that so far from possessing the attributes of deity,\nthe sun was compelled by some force superior to himself to make the\nsame journey daily over a fixed path. That this had not occurred to the\nsolar worshippers of Peru shows that they gave no scientific interest,\nbut merely a devout observation, to the luminary, and that, without\nbestowing any theological thought on the matter, they had merely\nadopted the old animistic idea of the sun as a living thing, little\nmore or less.\n\nWhen we come to examine later phases of sun-worship (and these cast\nlight upon early solar religious ideas) we may discern that the\noriginal animistic idea of the sun as a living thing has evolved into,\nor given way before, a more purely anthropomorphic idea. This is a\npoint of the first importance. Many writers on mythology appear to\nbe under the impression that in later polytheistic times the sun was\nregarded itself as a personified god, and in some cases it may be so,\nbut the idea was by no means universal, and it would seem that the\nsun-god was regarded more as a dweller in the house of the sun than as\nthe sun himself.\n\nSimilarly the supernatural beings known as culture-heroes come to earth\nfor a season, introduce the arts of civilization to men, and return\nonce more to their bright abode, usually in a westerly direction.\nSuch is the Greek Apollo, whereas another Greek god, Helios, is the\nsun himself. Apollo represents the dusk-dispelling, civilizing agency\nof the orb of day, and with his golden arrows slays the Python, the\nserpent of night. In Egyptian mythology the sun is a boat in which\nseveral deities daily take ship to cross the heavens. Behind these\nanthropomorphic conceptions, however, lurked the older animistic idea,\nfor we find that the Egyptians speak of the sun, the luminary itself,\nas _the_ god, and that the Mexicans call it _the_ teotl, the deity _par\nexcellence_. Thus the animistic and anthropomorphic systems were in\ncertain mythologies kept distinct. In others the animistic idea of the\nsun--that is, the sun itself, personified--remained to the end, as in\nthe case of the Babylonian Merodach or the Japanese Ama-terasu. It is\nnecessary, however, that the mythologist should distinguish between the\nanthropomorphic 'man of the sun' and the merely animistic concept of\nthe sun-god.\n\nHaving thus distinguished between earlier and later types of the sun as\ndeity, let us attempt to discover first his attributes as a god, and\nsecondly if any definite and universal type of myth attaches to him. A\ngeneration ago mythologists were prone to \"see sun-gods everywhere,\"\nas Mannhardt expressed it; but since that time the pendulum has swung\ntoo far in the other direction. Abundant criticism has been launched\nagainst the 'solar' theory, but it is not always pertinent and in many\ncases it is merely futile. The theory suffered from the philological\nschool with which it was unfortunately bound up, and neither critics\nnor readers seem to be able to judge it on its mythological merits\nalone. In our inquiries as to the attributes and mythical character of\nthe sun-god we shall find that the one will cast light on the other,\nfor as his almost universal myth becomes revealed to us his attributes\nwill gradually unfold themselves. In disentangling solar myths, too, we\nmust be careful to lift the veil of allegory often cast over them later.\n\nA rough synopsis of the groundwork of solar myth might be given as\nfollows. After the sun has risen from the mysterious darkness, and\nafter he has forsaken his first love, the dawn, he pursues his course,\ngaining access of strength as he proceeds in his bark or fiery chariot\nuntil, having passed the zenith, he gradually declines in strength, and\non the verge o the western heavens encounters the monster night, who\nfights with and devours him. He must then traverse the Underworld, with\nall its dangers and horrors, until he succeeds in emerging once more at\nthe gates of morning.\n\nLet us take a typical myth of this description, from which we may\nbe able to gauge the universality of the sun legend. Apollo was the\noffspring of Zeus and Leto, the sky and the darkness. The name of\nhis mother, denoting the oblivion of night, reappears in 'Lethe,'\nthe gloomy river of the Underworld, and in 'Latmos,' the 'Land of\nShadows.' In the Ionian hymn which recounts the circumstances of his\nbirth we read that Leto, when about to become his mother, could find\nno resting-place until she came to Delos. In that little stony island\nalone could she find repose, and so poor was it that she dreaded that\nher son, the great being about to be born, would spurn it into the\nsea. When Apollo was born the earth rejoiced and Delos became covered\nwith flowers; but he was weak and helpless until Thetis touched his\nlips with the drink and food of the gods, when his swaddling-clothes,\nthe white mists, fell off, and, seizing his lyre, he sang the praises\nof Zeus. His sojourn in Delos was short, and a second hymn tells us\nof his westward wanderings, of how he journeyed from land to land,\nalways, however, returning to his native Delos. As soon as he cast from\nhimself his swaddling-clothes, the white mists, he seized his quiver,\nthe universal symbol of the sun-god, and, thus armed, went forth on his\nwestward journey, until he came to the fountain of Telphussa, where he\ndesired to remain, but Telphussa urged him to seek the more favoured\nland of Krisa. He then betook himself to Parnassus, where the two\nsupernatural builders, Trophonius and Agamedes, raised a palace for\nhim. It is at this point that he is confronted with the dragon which\nall sun-heroes meet and overcome.\n\nThus we see that Apollo is born of a mother whose name is darkness,\nthat he casts from him the mists which enshroud him, and soars in the\nheight of his glory over Parnassus, latterly overcoming the Python.[3]\n\nA story with a similar groundwork is that of Beowulf in our earliest\nEnglish saga. Betaking himself to the court of King Hrothgar of\nJutland, whose realm was being devastated by the monster Grendel, he\nsucceeded in slaying him, but later had to dive to the bottom of the\nsea to encounter Grendel's mother. Years afterward he fights with and\nconquers a dragon who guards a treasure, but in the combat is poisoned\nby its fangs. Beowulf came to land in the traditional sun-boat as a\nchild. The Saxons called their harvest month _Beo_ or _Bewod,_ and\nGrendel is, of course, the water-provider. The later dragon typifies\nthe continued contest between the sun-god and darkness, and the\ntreasure it guards is, of course, the gold of the setting sun, or\nperhaps the elixir of life.\n\nSimilar stories are told regarding Indra, Cadmus, Horus, and lesser\nsun heroes, such as Hercules, Perseus, Bellerophon, Sigurd, Siegfried,\nand Rustem. The sun myth too has found its way into folklore. A good\nexample is the folk-tale of King Arthur, which shows how in all ages\nthe sun story has been interwoven with tales of local and even national\nheroes. A great obscurity rests upon Arthur's birth, but at manhood\nhe springs into almost instant prominence and is hailed as rightful\nmonarch of Britain. He slays not one dragon but several. He possesses\nthe magic sword which all solar heroes wield. He kills his thousands\nand tens of thousands, and finally, when placed _hors de combat_, like\nother solar heroes, at Camelot, does not perish, but is wafted in a\nmagical boat to the island of Avalon in the western sea. The sun myth\nhas also attached itself to the stories of many of Arthur's knights,\nespecially to that of Sir Tristram. May it not be that even the Round\nTable symbolizes the sun?\n\nTHUNDER-GODS\n\nAs a class, the deities usually called thunder-gods present a\npeculiarly involved mythological problem, as they almost invariably\npossess agricultural or military significance. The animistic conception\nof the thunder is instanced in such myths as those of the tribes of the\nAndes, who imagine the thunder to reside on the summit of a mountain,\nsurrounded by clouds, through the canopy of which the fire-red limbs\nof the personified storm-spirits can ever and anon be seen. Other\ntribes symbolize the thunder as a bird, the flapping of whose pinions\ncauses the reverberation of the storm, and this conception is found\namong primitive peoples both in the American and Australian continents.\nIn passing it may be profitable to compare such a myth with the Greek\ntale of Prometheus, the Titan who stole fire from Heaven for human use.\nRegarding the original bird form of Prometheus there can be little\ndoubt. Other forms of the myth, in America, Australia, and elsewhere,\ntell of a hero who in bird form stole the celestial fire, and it is\nobvious that to reach Heaven Prometheus must have been provided with\nthe means of flight. There appears to be a distinct connexion between\nthe fire-stealing myth and that of the thunder-bird. These animistic\nconceptions of the thunder prepared the way for an anthropomorphic\npresentation of the deity who wielded the bolts of Heaven, or launched\nthe lightning spear; and if we examine the attributes of certain\nthunder-gods in the state of transition between the animal and the\nhuman form, we shall find that they retain evidences of their bird-like\norigin. Thus Uitzilopochtli, the great lightning-and war-god of the\nAztecs, bears a name signifying that in primitive Aztec legend he was\nregarded as a bird pure and simple. Going farther afield in America, we\nfind that Yetl, the thunder-god of the Thlinkeets, borrowed the wings\nof a supernatural crane, with which he flew about, as did Odin and Sin\nin Scandinavian and Haida in Indian myth. In Vancouver the thunder\nis represented by a bird, Tootah. The Hindu thunder-god, Indra, not\nonly steals the heavenly liquor, as do many bird-gods, but in order\nto procure it he takes the shape of a quail. In other mythologies, in\nthose of Greece and Scandinavia, for example, Zeus and Thor, who wield\nthe thunder, have become too greatly humanized, if such a term may be\nemployed, to display any original bird-like characteristics, if they\never possessed them. In passing it may be well to note briefly the\napparatus of the thunder-god, the machinery by which he creates the\nnoise of thunder. As has been said, the thunder-bird among the North\nAmerican Indians effects this by the beating of his wings. Another\nAmerican thunder-god causes the noise by beating a sheet of metal.\nThe thunder of Thor is produced either by the blows of his mighty\nhammer or the rumbling of the wheels of his chariot drawn by goats. The\nreverberation of Jupiter's thunder proceeds from bolts forged for him\nby the Titans in the bowels of Mount Etna.\n\nAn important attribute which we may observe here is the thunder-god's\nlightning spear or arrow. This is the attribute of the Greek Apollo,\nof at least half a dozen American thunder-deities, of Indra, and of\nthe Egyptian goddess Neith. En-lil, the thunder-god of Babylonia, was\nalso a god of war. As patron of the chase and war, the thunder-god\nis often represented with a spear or bow and arrow, as, for example,\nthe Mexican god Mixcoatl, who is supposed to range far and wide in\nsearch of game. Often, too, the lightning flash is symbolized by the\nserpent; Uitzilopochtli's robe was interwoven with serpents, and he\npossessed a drum of serpent's skin, while 'Mixcoatl,' just cited,\nsignifies 'Cloud-serpent.' Besides symbolizing the lightning flash,\nthe serpent in its connexion with the thunder-god may typify the rain\nwhich invariably accompanies thunder; and because of his character as a\nfertilizing agent and bearer of the rain which causes vegetable growth,\nthe thunder-god is at times regarded as a deity of agriculture, even\nin his character of war-god. The Roman Mars so appears in the song of\nthe Arval brethren, a sect whose duty it was to guard crops and herds,\nand as Mars Sylvanus he was invoked by the Roman farmer in the yearly\nlustration of his land. The Mexican Uitzilopochtli, too, was regarded\nas a patron of agriculture.\n\nAs we have seen in the myth of Brounger, the thunder-god might be\nconnected in some manner with flint, from the circumstance that fire is\ncapable of being struck from that mineral.\n\nA word is necessary upon the connexion of the thunder-god with rain and\nwith water generally. There are, of course, water-gods who have nothing\nwhatever to do with thunder, but a good many thunder-gods possess power\nover not only the rain but the winds as well. Especially is this the\ncase in America.\n\nMARINE DEITIES\n\nAnother striking example of the manner in which deities become\ndepartmental is the sea-god or goddess. As the corn-god presided over\nthe harvest of the land, so does the sea-god preside over the harvest\nof the waste of waters. Later, when men build ships and go down to the\nsea in them, the powers and functions of these marine deities become\ngreatly magnified. The circumstance that sea-gods or goddesses are\nalmost invariably represented as having a fish's tail is accounted\nfor in the same manner as the possession of animal characteristics by\ncertain land deities is explained--that is, just as gods derived from\neponymous or totemistic animals are sometimes represented as men with\nanimal heads or animal attributes, so deities which were once eponymous\nfish are represented partly in anthropomorphic, partly in piscine form.\n\nThe following are instances of this. The coast Peruvians before the\nSpanish Conquest regarded the sea in much the same manner as many\nprimitive peoples regard the land--that is, as a nourishing mother.\nIndeed they called it Mama-cocha, or Mother Sea, because it yielded\nthe fish which formed so large a part of their subsistence. The whale\nwas a general object of worship all along that coast, and the skate,\nsea-dog, dory, crab, and sardine, especially the last, were worshipped.\nIt was not the individuals of those finny tribes which the Peruvian\nIndian adored, but the original eponymous fish which engendered all\nthe others of the same species, and sent them periodically into the\nocean, according to the season of each, to be food for man. All over\nNorth and South America the belief held good that animals, birds, and\nfish have eponymous counterparts who act as kings, chiefs, or even gods\nto the others of their species.[4] In course of time such fish-gods\nbecame anthropomorphic. In Peru, again, we find in connexion with the\nworship of the fish-bearing lake Tuncapata the adoration of an idol\ncalled Copacahuana, carven out of a bluish-green stone (obviously\nthe symbol for water) and having the body of a fish, surmounted by\na rude human head. She was venerated as the giver of the fish with\nwhich the lake abounded. To come to classical examples, Poseidon and\nNeptune were usually represented as half man, half fish, bearded and\ngrasping a trident. Oannes or Ea, the sea-god of Babylonia, is also\nfigured as a man with a fish's tail, below which human feet peep out.\nLike many corn-gods or gods of the harvest, he was also a culture-god,\nand, according to Berosus, taught the natives of the Babylonian shore\nthe arts of life. Thus, as the corn-plant itself, as we shall see,\nis capable of evolving into a god, so was the fish--so intimate and\ncomplete is the connexion between religious conceptions and the food\nsupply. In one representation of a deity executed as a bas-relief on\nthe walls of Nimrud, and on a signet from Nineveh, we notice that the\nhead and shoulders of the deity are covered by the skin of a fish,\nremnant of his piscine origin, just as many anthropomorphic gods, once\nanimal in form, have the skins of their animal prototypes cast about\nthe upper parts of their statues.\n\nIt was probably not until men took to the sea that the god of the\nwaters developed to the full his protective or destructive tendencies.\nThus the raising or allaying of storms, the granting of favourable\nwinds and prosperous voyages, would naturally vest in the sea-god,\nonce navigation became general. His relation to the other gods would\nthen become a mere matter of mythic rearrangement and a niche would be\nfound for him in the pantheon. As the sun-god or wind-god was supreme\nin the sky, so was he supreme in the waters; nor did his dominion stop\nwith the sea alone, but every estuary, lake, river, or even brook, was\nbeneath his sway and peopled by his subjects.\n\nLUNAR GODS\n\nThe deity who presides over the moon is in most pantheons full of\nmythological interest. Primitive ideas of the luminary regarded it\nas equally the cause of vegetable growth with the sun; the work\nwhich was accomplished by the sun through the day was, argued early\nman, continued by the moon at night. All primitive time-reckoning\nwas calculated on a lunar basis, and as time-reckoning among savages\nassumes the character of science, this would assist in bestowing\nupon the spirit which presided over the moon a certain reputation for\nwisdom. Primary lunar spirits are not as a rule very high in the scale\nof god-like evolution.\n\nAs the moon is associated with the dampness and dews of night, an\nancient and widespread belief connects her with water. Thus in folklore\nshe is universally associated with rain; but she has also an evil\nreputation as the distributer of miasmatic fogs and exhalations,\nbecause these more generally make their appearance during the hours of\nher reign. The Mexicans invariably confounded the words _citatli_, the\nmoon, and _atl,_ water. As representing water, the universal mother,\nthe moon was regarded as the patroness of fertility. She is also often\nthe goddess of love, ruling over the hours of night, generally sacred\nto courtship. With some of the more primitive peoples she is the mother\nof ghosts and all such nocturnal abominations.\n\nHer connexion with wisdom has been touched upon. This is perhaps best\ninstanced in the Egyptian moon-god Thoth, who, probably because he was\nsupposed to keep the records of the Nile inundations, supposed to be\nunder the influence of the moon, was also regarded as god of writing,\nand therefore, by inference, as god of wisdom. Diana, or Artemis, the\nchaste huntress of the Greeks and Romans, is, like many moon-goddesses,\na patron of human fertility and love. But she is more; as one of the\nancient moon-goddesses, and therefore connected with the old lunar\ncalendar, she was a deity of the harvest. Her character as a huntress\nis a little obscure. Some water-goddesses, like the Egyptian Neith,\npossess the lightning arrow, symbolical of the thunder-cloud from\nwhence the lightning issues; and it may be that Artemis possessed the\nbow and arrow simply because she was sister of Apollo, and, by analogy,\nif the sun-god possessed these weapons, so must his sister, the\nmoon-goddess. Again, it may be that she possessed them as a goddess of\ndeath. It is strange to find a lunar goddess connected with the chase,\nthat _r\u00f4le_ being nearly always filled by the thunder- or wind-god.[5]\n\nAGRICULTURAL DEITIES\n\nWe have seen how a compact for their mutual weal arose between men and\nthe gods when an agricultural elementary basis had been arrived at; but\nere the evolution of departmental deities of agriculture, and of the\nvarious grains and plants cultivated, these appear to possess separate\nguardian spirits. In dealing with the great class of corn-spirits Sir\nJames Frazer distinguished between the spirit and the god as follows.\nHe says:\n\n\"As distinguished from gods, spirits are restricted in their operations\nto definite departments of nature. Their names are general, not\nproper; their attributes are generic rather than individual. In other\nwords, there is an indefinite number of spirits of each class, and the\nindividuals of a class are all much alike, they have no definitely\nmarked individuality, no accepted traditions are current as to their\norigin, life, adventures, and character. On the other hand, gods, as\ndistinguished from spirits, are not restricted to definite departments\nof nature. It is true that there is generally some one department\nover which they preside as their special province, but they are\nnot rigorously confined to it. They can exert their power for good\nor evil in many other spheres of life. Again, they bear individual\nor proper names, such as Ceres, Proserpine, Bacchus, and their\nindividual characters and histories are fixed by current myths and the\nrepresentations of art.\"\n\nThe corn-spirit, so characteristic of early agricultural life, is still\nto be found in present-day folklore. The researches of Mannhardt and\nSir James Frazer have supplied numerous illustrations of the manner in\nwhich a sheaf at harvest-time is connected with certain rites, more\nor less similar in all countries, associated with the corn-spirit\nor corn-mother. Thus it was thought in primitive days that a spirit\nresided in or watched over the growing grain. In time this animistic\nconception gave way to the idea of a departmental god of agriculture.\n\nStrangely enough the agricultural departmental deity does not\nrepresent the same generally uniform characteristics as do other\ndepartmental gods, for example, gods of the sun or gods of the sea.\nA likeness exists between the myths of Demeter in Greece, Osiris in\nEgypt, and Ishtar in Babylonia, and it is probable that these three\nmyths had a common origin; but there is no likeness between the\nperson or attributes of the three gods alluded to. The establishment\nof agriculture may be--indeed, often is--part of the earthly\naccomplishment of a culture-god. Thus Apollo was guardian of the crops\nand even of the herds, and during the mythical reign of Quetzalcoatl in\nMexico the ears of maize were so heavy that one might scarce be carried\nby a strong man. Agricultural gods too frequently have a connexion\nwith the Underworld, for seed grows to fruition there. Thus among the\nGreeks, Persephone, the wife of Aides or Hades, was unquestionably\nsymbolic of the corn sleeping in winter and coming to fruition in the\nwarm months.\n\nTHE CORN-SPIRIT AND ITS ABODE\n\nThe mother of Persephone, or Kore, was Demeter--_i.e.,_ 'corn-mother,'\nPersephone was carried off and wed by Hades, king of the dead, was\nsought for in his dark country by her mother, and was restored, with\nthe proviso that she must spend so many months every year underground\nwith her husband. Many circumstances in the myth of Osiris point to\nthe same corn-spirit origin. The wanderings of Isis in search of her\ndismembered husband Osiris throughout the length and breadth of Egypt,\nthe passing of the son of the King of Byblos through the magic flame,\nas well as other incidents, well illustrate the similarity.\n\nWhy do Demeter and Isis wander up and down, the one seeking for her\ndaughter, the other for her husband? Persephone and Osiris in one of\nhis many forms--probably his original form--both represent the sown\nseed of the wheat, lying dormant for so long, but later resurrected\nand recovered. Who or what then are Demeter and Isis? It is one of the\ntenets of animism that the animistic spirit must, as spiritualists\nwould say, 'materialize' in some natural object, and the wandering\nspirit may thus be enticed by the sorcery of the shaman into the\nfetish object. When the corn is cut down, whither does the corn-spirit\nbetake itself? It must of necessity become a wanderer on the face of\nthe earth until once more the corn sprouts to give it house-room. If\nour conclusions are correct, the myths of Demeter and Isis are late and\nelaborated versions of an early animistic belief that the corn-spirit\nwas driven from its shelter until the green shoots attracted it\nonce more. The myth is most surely an animistic one, and perhaps\none of the oldest myths in the world. Demeter and Isis are deified\ncorn-spirits seeking the corn (Persephone and Osiris) for the purpose\nof rematerializing it. Persephone and Osiris represent the corn-seed as\nwell as the corn-spirit, as is obvious from their sojourn underground.\n\nFIRE-GODS\n\nFire-gods are usually associated with the sun, but later achieve a\ncertain domestic and mechanical significance. Undoubtedly fire with\nits movement and appearance of life would be regarded in animistic\ntimes as informed by spirit. In later times there is a departmental\ngod of fire who is often an artificer in metals. This idea could not,\nof course, have arisen before the discovery of the uses of metals, so\nthat departmental deities of this type must be of comparatively recent\norigin.\n\nIn India the great god of fire was Agni, who ruled not only over the\nlightning and other fires of Heaven, but over those of earth as well.\nHe is occasionally confounded with Indra and Varuna, but in the earlier\nhymns he is the fire which men prize as an indispensable boon. He bears\nup sacrifices from men to the gods under the dark canopy of the smoke\nwhich arises from the sacred fires below. He is occasionally credited\nwith the wisdom of the sun-god himself. He is 'black-backed' and\n'many-limbed'; like the serpent, he is laid hold of with difficulty; he\nis the regulator of sacrifices, and is regarded as the guide of souls\nin the unseen world.\n\nAmong the Greeks, Heph\u00e6stus was regarded as the youngest of the gods.\nHe was a lame and ugly dwarf, the son of Zeus and Hera, who was so\ndispleased with his appearance that she wished to cast him out\nof Olympus. He took her part in a quarrel with Zeus, however, and\nthereupon the king of Heaven cast him from the heights to the island of\nLemnos, where he fell maimed and wounded. He was the great artificer\nof the gods, an incomparable worker in metal. He raised the shining\npalaces of Olympus, forged the marvellous armour of Achilles, and\nmade the necklace of Harmonia. Strangely enough, in Norse myth and\nEnglish legend, Regin, the smith of the _Volsunga Saga_, and Wieland\nthe Smith are stunted, lame, or limping, and forge arms for heroes,\nas did Heph\u00e6stus for Achilles. In his Latin shape of Vulcan Heph\u00e6stus\nis pre-eminently a god of fire, the conception becoming associated\nwith volcanic districts, especially with Mount Etna in Sicily, where,\nwith the Cyclops for his assistants, he laboured in the bowels of the\nvolcano.\n\nAmong the Scandinavian peoples, Loki appears to be the god of fire.\nHe also is limping and misshapen, but one does not espy in him the\nmechanical ability of the Greek god. He sides now with the gods, now\nwith the giants, thus typifying the twofold nature of fire as a friend\nand an enemy. He was probably grafted on to an older fire-demon.\n\nIn ancient Mexico Xiuhtecutli, the fire-god, was known as Huehueteotl,\neldest of the gods, not youngest, as in Greece and India. His body was\nflame-coloured, and his face black and surmounted by a head-dress of\ngreen feathers. A yellow serpent sprawling across his back typified\nthe serpentine nature of fire. He was also the god of the domestic\nhearth, and on rising in the morning all Mexican families offered him\nan oblation of food and drink.\n\nFrom the examples given above it will be seen that although in one\ninstance, that of Heph\u00e6stus, the possession of the thunderbolt is\nassumed, most fire-gods are truly departmental in character, and do\nnot appear to have any connexion with the lightning. They arise from\na purely animistic conception of fire, and later become personified.\nOccasionally we find them, as in the case of Agni, and Yibil, the\nBabylonian fire-god, partially absorbed by, or having the attributes\nof, the sun-god.\n\nWIND-GODS\n\nAlthough gods of the winds appear in nearly all mythological systems,\nin many instances they are neither more nor less than representatives\nof tempest or gentle breeze. In some mythologies, as in that of Egypt,\nthey occupy a subordinate position, whereas in others the wind, usually\nas the tempest, is one of the attributes of the supreme god of the\npantheon. Odin is undoubtedly in one of his aspects a god of storm and\nin later folklore figures as the 'Wild Huntsman.' In Mexico, too, the\ngreat god Tezcatlipoca was also known as Yoalli Ehecatl, or 'Lord of\nthe Night Wind.' In some mythologies, as in those of India and Greece,\nevery aspect of the wind, whether in gale or breeze, is personified and\ndeified. Of course it is easy to see that wind, like fire, with its\nmovement and utterance, either gentle or boisterous, would lend itself\nto primitive animistic interpretation. It would seem a very living\nthing indeed to early man, and was identified with the source of life\nitself.\n\nIn the Vedas of the Hindus we find Veyu personified in the gentler\nmovements of the air, answering in this respect to the Latin Favonius\nor the Greek Pan. The more violent forces of the wind in Hindu myth are\nrepresented by the Maruts, who overturn trees and uproot forests, roar\nlike lions, and shake the mountains. The rain is their raiment, and\nthey are swift as Thor. When the tempest rages, the wayfarer may hear\nthe cracking of their whips as they pass overhead. But their onslaught\nover and their purpose accomplished, they resume the shape of new-born\nbabes. They are the crushers or grinders, the children of Rudra, father\nof the winds, who is also the deceiver, the master-thief; this last\nattribute possibly symbolizing the shifting nature of wind.\n\nIn Greek myth we have the gentle or intermittent wind in Pan, who\nbreathes melody through his reed pipes. As the lover of Pitys, the\nnymph of the pine-tree, he aroused the jealousy of Boreas, the rude\nnorth wind, who hurled the maiden from a rock, and changed her into the\ntree which bears her name. Boreas is the son of the night and the dawn,\nand is usually figured in Greek myth as dwelling in the north. In the\n_Odyssey_ all the winds are placed by Zeus under the charge of \u00c6olus,\nto whom is entrusted the power of rousing or quelling them at will.\nThe more vigorous wind from the west was known as Zephyros, husband of\nPodarge, the white-footed wind who drives before her the snow-white\nvapours.\n\nThe fury of the storm occasionally furnishes the conception of a god of\nwar, as in the case of the Greek Ares. Tezcatlipoca in Mexico, too, was\ncalled 'the Slayer.'\n\nEARTH-GODS\n\nThe earth was personalized by early man, who regarded it as the parent\nof all things dwelling thereon. A union is often conceived of between\nthe Sky-Father and the Earth-Mother; and myths from centres as far\napart as Egypt and New Zealand tell how these primeval parents were\nseparated. No mere fetishism would suffice for the primeval idea of\nthe earth-Early man seems to have regarded it as his mother, just as\nthe late Mr Andrew Lang insisted that the primeval conception of a\nheavenly father who dwelt in the sky was prior to animistic belief\nor, at any rate, came before the polytheistic stage. As previously\nsuggested, the primitive All-Father of Mr Lang may have been no other\nthan the primitive sky-god. In a striking passage in his _Introduction\nto Mythology and Folklore_ Sir George Cox says: \"It may seem almost\na paradox to say that the thought of the earth as a producer and\nrestorer would be more likely to lead men on to the thought of a power\ntranscending nature, or the forces which we see at work in the outward\nworld, than the impressions made on the human mind by the phenomena of\nthe daily or nightly heavens; but on further thought we can scarcely\nfail to see that the continuance of life on the earth, the unceasing\nrestlessness, the perpetual change which is going on upon its surface,\nthe sensitiveness of all vegetable and animal substances to the\ninfluences which act upon them from without, must inevitably lead men\non to something more like a scheme of philosophy than any which could\nbe furnished by mere phrases describing the phenomena of the day or the\nyear.\"\n\nThe Earth-Mother, then, would be practically universal. We should\nexpect to find her everywhere, and indeed we do. In the Vedic hymns the\nearth is the bride of Dyaus; in Greece she was known as G\u00e6a. Bacchus or\nDionysus is certainly a deity with an earth connexion. In Mexico more\nthan one god was connected with the earth--for example, Tepeyollotl,\nusually worshipped in a cavern, and a god of earthquakes. The name\nsignifies 'Heart of the Mountain' and evidently has a seismic meaning.\nIn the worship of Centeotl, the maize-god, there was a ceremony called\nthe Niticapoloa, or 'Tasting of the Soil,' consisting in raising a\nlittle earth on one finger to the mouth and eating it, thus achieving\ncommunion with the earth-god. The Spanish conquerors left it on record\nthat the soil was in reality tasted, and not merely placed to the lips.\nLike the Babylonians, the Aztecs sometimes painted the Earth-Mother as\na woman with countless breasts; the Peruvians called her Mama Allpa,\n'Mother Earth,' and the Caribs addressed her as Mama Nono, 'the Good\nMother from whom all things come.' In the dialect of the Algonquin\nIndians the word for 'earth' is derived from the same root as those\nfor 'mother' and 'father,' but the Western Algonquin tribes call her\nNokomis, 'My grandmother.' The Passes of Brazil believed that the\nearth was a great creature, that the rivers and streams were its\nblood-vessels, and that it circled round the sun, turning first one\nand then the other of its sides toward that luminary in order to keep\nitself warm--not a bad guess for the early scientist to make! In some\nparts of Europe we find the small progeny of the dwarfs connected with\nthe cult of earth.\n\nThese teeming animistic spirits are not confined to Europe, however. An\nearth-goddess in German tradition is the benignant Holda, who preserves\nthe life of the winter-bound world under a mantle of snow.\n\nA group of interesting earth-deities were known to Latin Italy. Ops, a\ngoddess of wealth and fertility, the wife of Saturnus, corresponded to\nthe Greek Rhea. The Latin genii were also closely akin to the dryads\nand hamadryads of the Greeks, who inhabited groves and trees. Pilumnus\nand Picumnus too were worshipped as rural deities, but they seem to\nhave had a more agricultural than terrestrial significance, Pomona was\nthe Latin goddess of fruit-trees and their fruits, and Fauna and Faunus\nwere also rural deities. The satyrs in Greece were cognate types.\n\nBefore agriculture proper with its especial pantheon was evolved\nthe forces of fertility may have received a considerable amount of\nadoration and were probably in some measure connected with the spirit\nof earth. Rites innumerable were carried out to secure the revival of\nvegetation in spring, most of them having for object the rejuvenation\nof nature. In some instances trees, and in others human beings, were\nsacrificed. Such gods, for example, as Adonis, who was worshipped in\nWestern Asia, Osiris, and Attys represented the decay and revival of\nvegetation. Much of their ritual is still performed by the peasantry of\nall parts of Europe, and has been collected by the labours of Mannhardt\nand Sir James Frazer. It may be interesting to give here an account of\nsuch an observance which came beneath the writer's own notice.\n\nTHE BURRY MAN\n\nAt South Queensferry, near Edinburgh, a strange annual ceremony took\nplace, the chief actor in which was known locally as 'the Burry Man,'\nIt was supposed to commemorate the passage of Malcolm Canmore and Queen\nMargaret to and from Edinburgh and Dunfermline, but this is local\nsurmise and nothing more. It can be traced back at least to the period\nof the last battle of Falkirk, for an old woman of eighty, whose mother\nwas thirteen years of age at the date of that battle (1746), stated\nthat the observance had been unaltered from that time till her own\nold age. It took place on the day preceding the annual fair, usually\nabout the second week in August, and was long upheld by the boys of\nQueensferry. On the day preceding the fair the Burry Man, always a\nstout fellow or a robust lad, was dressed in loosely fitting flannels,\nand his face, arms, and legs thickly covered with burrs. He carried\ntwo staves at arm's-length, and these, as well as his hands, were\nbeautifully adorned with flowers. Thus accoutred, he was led from door\nto door by two attendants, who assisted him in upholding his arms by\ngrasping the staves. As each successive door was reached a shout was\nraised and the inhabitants came out to bestow greetings and money on\nthe Burry Man, the amount collected being equally divided and spent at\nthe fair by the youths who kept up the custom. On some occasions two\npersons were thus selected and led in procession from door to door--the\none being styled the 'King' and the other the 'Queen,' it is thought\nin allusion to the passage of the royal couple through the borough. It\nused to be a popular belief that when this quaint custom was abandoned\nmisfortune would befall the town.\n\nNow what did the Burry Man represent? The custom was certainly a relic\nof a most ancient festival. The Burry Man of South Queensferry was as\nelsewhere the representation in human form of a tree- or plant-spirit,\nfor these often are represented in anthropomorphic or man-like shape\nin folk festival. In Bohemia on the fourth Sunday in Lent the girls\nof the villages go into a wood, cut down a young tree, fasten to it a\npuppet dressed in white clothes to look like a woman, and with this\nfigure go from house to house collecting gratuities and singing that\nthey bring summer into the village, summer being represented as the\nspirit of vegetation, returning or reviving. At Thann in Alsace a\ngirl called the 'Little May Rose,' dressed in white, carries a small\nmay-tree covered with garlands and ribbons, and she and her companions\ncollect gifts from door to door, singing as they go. In Lithuania the\nlads of the village choose the prettiest girl, swathe her in birch\nbranches, and dress her as the May. In Brie, in the \u00cele de France, a\nlad is wrapped in leaves and is called 'Father May.' In the Frankenwald\nmountains, in Northern Bavaria, on the 2nd of May a man is enveloped\nin straw from head to foot to personify a sheaf, and in this guise he\ndances round a tree erected before the local tavern, after which he is\nled in procession through the streets, which are adorned with sprigs of\nbirch. In Thuringia as soon as the trees begin to grow green in spring\nthe children choose one of their playmates, around whom they twine\nleaves till only his shoes peep out from the greenery. Two of them\nlead him about so that he may not stumble or fall, and they address\nhim as the 'Little Leaf Man.' In Carinthia on St George's Day a young\nfellow called 'Green George' is clad from head to foot in green birch\nbranches. In England, too, a good example of these leaf-clad mummers\nis 'Jack-in-the-Green,' who walks enshrouded in a framework of wicker\ncovered with holly and ivy and surmounted by flowers and ribbons. Many\nother examples could be given.\n\nThe Burry Man, like these, is a representation of the spirit of\nvegetation, the festival of which has survived in South Queensferry\nfrom early times, just as it has elsewhere.\n\n\n[1] Of course 'departmental' gods may possess many attributes, some of\nthese entirely foreign to their character-in-chief, and drafted upon\nit by the circumstances of myth, politics, or amalgamation with other\nforms.\n\n[2] Of course these deities may have an animistic origin; indeed, they\ncertainly do have, so that the idea of sacrifice will not seem novel.\n\n[3] As I have shown elsewhere (p. 95), Professor Rendel Harris has\nbrought a good deal of proof in favour of a hypothesis that Apollo was\nthe god of an apple cult; but it was not as such that he was known to\nthe later Greeks, whatever he may have been originally--an instance, if\nsuch were needed, that the solar story finds its way into the myths of\ngods of all types.\n\n[4] The study of these eponymous animal-gods will one day certainly\nthrow a flood of light upon the obscure question of the origin of\ntotemism.\n\n[5] See the illuminating remarks of Professor Rendel Harris upon this\ngoddess in his _Ascent of Olympus_, pp. 56 _sqq._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE VARIOUS CLASSES OF MYTH\n\n\nMyths can to a large extent be classified, and most important myths may\nbe grouped under one of the following heads:\n\n    Creation myths (creation of the earth and man).\n    Myths of the origin of man.\n    Flood myths.\n    Myths of a place of reward.\n    Myths of a place of punishment.\n    Sun myths.\n    Moon myths.\n    Hero myths.\n    Beast myths.\n    Myths to account for customs or rites.\n    Myths of journeys or adventures through the Underworld\n      or place of the dead.\n    Myths regarding the birth of gods.\n    Fire myths.\n    Star myths.\n    Myths of death.\n    Food of the dead formula.\n    Myths regarding taboo.\n    'Dismemberment' myths (in which a god is dismembered).\n    Dualistic myths (the good god fighting the bad).\n    Myths of the origin of the arts of life.\n    Soul myths.\n\nThe first five classes are treated in this volume, in separate chapters\nor otherwise, according to their importance. Sun myths have already\nbeen dealt with individually, as have culture-hero or hero myths,[1]\nmoon myths, beast myths, ritual myths, and birth of gods myths, which\nleaves for discussion in this chapter fire myths, star myths, myths\nof death, myths regarding taboo, 'dismemberment' myths, and dualistic\nmyths.\n\nFIRE MYTHS\n\nFire myths are of two descriptions: those which relate to the\ndestruction of the world by fire and those which tell how fire was\nstolen from heaven by a demigod, hero, or supernatural bird or other\nanimal. Of the first class it is surprising what a large proportion\ncome from the American continent. In the Old World we have the Jewish\nidea of a universal conflagration of the 'last day' (not unknown to the\nchildhood of the present generation), the Norse belief that fire should\nend the heavens and the earth, and (according to Seneca) the Roman\nidea that some such fate would ultimately overtake the world of men\nand things; but it is to America that we must go for really striking\nand picturesque myths of the destruction of the earth by fire in whole\nor part. Thus the Arawaks of Guiana tell of a dreadful scourging by\nfire sent upon them by the Great Spirit Aimon Kondi, from which the\nsurvivors escaped by taking refuge in underground caverns. Monan,\nthe creator of the Brazilian Indians, vexed with mankind, resolved\nto destroy the world by fire, and would have succeeded had not Irin\nMag\u00e9, a crafty wizard, extinguished the flames by a heavy rain-storm.\nThe Aztecs at the end of each cycle of fifty-two years dwelt in dread\nlest the period for the destruction of the earth by fire had at last\narrived, and the Peruvians believed that following an eclipse the world\nwould be wrapped in devouring flames. In North America the Algonquin\nIndians believe that at the last day Michabo will stamp his foot upon\nthe earth, and lo! flames will spring up and devour it. A similar\nbelief was held by the Pueblo Indians and the ancient Maya of Central\nAmerica.\n\nFIRE-STEALING MYTHS\n\nAnother class of fire myth is that in which a supernatural being,\nusually a bird, steals fire from Heaven and brings it to earth for the\nbenefit of mankind. The best-known example of this type of myth is that\nwhich recounts how Prometheus brought fire from Olympus in a hollow\ncane or tube. As has been shown elsewhere in this volume, the myth is\nalmost universal, and the reader is referred to the comparative table\nat the end of this chapter.\n\nSTAR MYTHS\n\nThe numerous star myths, the general character of which is of fairly\nuniform type throughout the world, deal less with single stars than\nwith groups of stars. Where Heaven is the original theatre of creation\nand the ancestor-land to which the spirits of the forefathers return,\nas stars, the constellations are, so to speak, the illustration of\nthe cosmogonic legend, the images of objects, animals, persons, which\nappear therein. Other constellations are formed by their readily\nperceived similarity to objects and persons, and a myth is invented\nin explanation. These things are brought into connexion with one\nanother and woven into a narrative, in which one idea gives rise to\nothers. The conception and meaning of such pictures is naturally very\nvaried among individual races, but on the other hand very similar\nwhere the characteristic forms and groupings of the constellations\nmust suggest the same or related ideas to independent observers. The\nconstellations which belong to this class are, for example, Orion,\nthe Cross, the Pleiades, the Great Bear, and the Milky Way. Ideas\nof the Pleiades as heaps of grain, swarms of small animals, birds,\nbees, kids, or groups of people playing, are universal. But nowhere\nis the star myth so original or striking as in South America, and as\nthe constellation legends of that sub-continent are but little known,\nwe shall furnish the reader with some account of them in preference\nto the more hackneyed star tales of Europe and Asia. The Pleiades\nare thus wheat among the Bakairi, dwarf-parrots among the Moxos and\nKarayas, bee-swarms among the Tupi, and other tribes. Only among the\nMakusi in the south is a parallel to be found to the widely spread\nNorth American myth which supposes the Pleiades to be children carried\noff to Heaven while playing in a dance. The Southern Cross is very\nvariously treated. The idea of its being the tracks of an emu seems to\nbe limited to South America, but is very widespread there, for example,\namong the Bororos and Karayas, inhabitants of the steppe districts. As\nthe four outstanding stars of the Cross lie in the Milky Way, one may\nidentify the four-eyed jaguar which in the Yurakare myth escapes the\nvengeance of the hero Tin, and, calling upon the moon, is raised to\nHeaven. The Milky Way, as the most prominent appearance in the darkened\nheavens at night, receives universal attention, but has given rise to\nthe most diverse traditions. Like the Bushmen and other Africans, the\nBororos and Karayas believe that the Milky Way is an ash-track. This,\nas well as the guanaco track of the Patagonians, resembles the 'Path\nof the Gods' of the Romans, the bird-track of the Esthonians, and the\n'Jacob's ladder' of the medieval church, while the Milky Way seems to\nbe considered as a path of souls by some of the Bolivian nations. Its\nconception as a stream or lake has not been definitely traced in South\nAmerica. On the other hand, it appears that its peculiar branching\nformation caused it to be likened to a tree, and this belief finds\nexpression in the Arawak legend of the world-tree of Akawiro, which\nbore not only all known fruits and plants, but also all organic beings.\nAmong the central Caribs of the Bakairi it is a hollow tree-stem,\nsuch as is used among them as a drum, its roots spreading southward\nand apart from each other. In its neighbourhood the first acts of the\nmythical twin-heroes Keri and Kame were performed, and among the Caribs\neven to this day are co be seen living animals which originally issued\nfrom its trunk.\n\nThe distinctly circumscribed, sharply defined shape of Orion is\ncompared by the Indian with familiar objects of a rhomboidal form, or\nsimilar shaped animals. The Bakairi see in this constellation a dried\nstack of manioc, the Karayas a beetle, the Ipurinas a turtle, and\nso on. In myths he appears first in connexion with the neighbouring\nstar-groups of the Pleiades and Hyades (Aldebaran). He then becomes\namong the Indians a mighty hunter who follows a female, our Pleiades,\nas Orion in the Greek legends pursues the daughters of Pleion, with\nwhom he had fallen in love, until they are changed by Zeus into a swarm\nof doves. So in the legend of the Caribs of Guiana the hunter Seriko\ngoes after his faithless wife Wailya, whom the Tapir (Hyades group) had\ntaken away from him.\n\nThe wifely relationship of the Pleiades with the Indian Orion is also\nmet with under the sign of Seuci (Tupi), Ceiguce (Amazonia), though it\ncannot be said that the idea can solely be ascribed to the Tupi. The\nmyth tells how a girl of the kindred Uaupe race (Tariana or Temiana)\nflees her village in order to escape from the local marriage customs\nand enters the house of a Yacami chief who takes her to wife. She\nbrings forth two eggs, from which a boy and girl are hatched, both\nornamented with stars. The girl, decked with seven stars, is Seuci;\nthe boy, Pinon, is girdled with a star-serpent, and perhaps Orion's\nbelt. The children return home with their mother, where the boy secures\nrecognition by the performance of prodigies, such as the slinging of\ngiant stones.\n\nMYTHS OF DEATH AND TABOO\n\nMyths of death are obviously \u00e6tiological--that is, manufactured _ad\nhoc_, to account for death, usually regarded by primitive peoples as\nan unnatural event, due to magic or the breaking of a taboo or the\nneglect of some ritual act. Thus death was let loose upon the world by\nthe breaking of the taboo or prohibition which had been placed upon\nthe opening of Pandora's box. The apple myth of Adam and Eve bears\nsimilar evidences of the idea of taboo. An Australian myth recounts how\na woman approaches a forbidden tree and thus meets her doom. Several\nmyths relate how death came into the world through the agency of\nNight--obviously a connexion of mortality with the phenomenon of sleep.\nThus a Polynesian myth tells how Mani tried to pass through Night, but\na little bird sang and awakened the night-monster, who ate Mani up. In\nSouthern India it is believed that \"the death-snake bites while God\nsleeps.\" A Central African story tells that when sleep was unknown in\nthe world a woman offered to teach a man how to sleep. She held her\nvictim's nostrils so hard that he could not breathe, but died.\n\nTaboo myths of importance are not so numerous as might be supposed.\nPerhaps the chief is the tale of Cupid and Psyche. In its later form\nthe bride was forbidden to look upon her husband, but her curiosity\novercame her fear and she beheld his face, with dire results. This myth\nis, of course, a legacy from an age when for various reasons it was\ntaboo for a woman to see her husband for some time after her marriage,\njust as it is to-day among certain African peoples, the 'reasons' being\nto neutralize the dangers supposed to be attendant upon the matrimonial\nstate. Akin to this is the name-taboo, found in the story of Lohengrin,\nwhose bride is not permitted to ask the name and rank of her lord and\nmaster, the reason being that the real name, like the soul, is part\nof one's personality and that it is dangerous for any other person to\nknow it, a pseudo-name being commonly employed among many savage races.\nThus, if the names of certain evilly disposed supernatural beings are\nknown and pronounced their power disappears, as in the well-known\nstories of Tom-tit-tot and Rumplestiltskin.\n\nTHE DISMEMBERMENT MYTH\n\nIt has been thought that such dismemberment myths as those of Osiris,\nDionysus, and Demeter, the Algonquin Lox, and the Polynesian Tangoroa\nhave their origin in a primitive custom, the dismemberment of a human\nvictim, who was buried in the corn-fields and supposed to renew his\nlife in the harvest following his burial. It is considered that such a\npractice gave birth to the myth of Osiris in Egypt and became symbolic\nof resurrection. The practice is probably connected in some manner with\nthe almost universal savage custom of preserving the bones of the dead\nfor the owner, who at some future period will desire to claim them.\n\nDUALISM\n\nDualism is the belief in opposing good and evil deities, and is found\nin connexion (1) with such peoples as have advanced far on the path of\ntheological thought and progress, (2) with races whose original beliefs\nhave been sophisticated by those of more civilized peoples. A good\nexample of the first is the widely known Persian myth of Ormuzd and\nAhriman. The second class is well illustrated by the myth of Joskeha\nand Tawiscara, already alluded to in dealing with sophisticated myths.\n\nCOMPARATIVE TABLES OF MYTHS\n\nThe following tables have been compiled for the purpose of bringing\ntogether the most important types of myth and indicating their\ngeographical incidence. It is not pretended that these are in any way\nexhaustive, but much care has been taken in their compilation and it is\nhoped that they will assist the student of myth as a ready reference to\nparallels.\n\n      BIRTH OF GODS MYTHS\n\n      _Greeks_.\n\n      Zeus, Poseidon, Pluto, Hera, Demeter, and Hestia, children\n      of Cronus. All but Zeus were swallowed by their father\n      when infants and all disgorged by him at one time full\n      grown.\n\n      Perseus, son of Zeus and Dana\u00eb.\n\n      The Dioscuri (Zeus visits their mother Leda as a swan).\n\n      _Vedas_.\n\n      Agni, both son and father of the gods--son of Heaven and\n      earth--begotten by the sky, the clouds, and the dawn--born\n      among men, in Heaven and in the waters.\n\n      _Algonquins_. Manibozho, born of a virgin.\n\n      _Hurons_. Joskeha, born of a virgin.\n\n      _Mexicans_. Quetzalcoatl, born of a virgin; Uitzilopochtli\n      (ball of feathers falls from heaven into his mother's\n      breast).\n\n      _Peruvians_. Viracocha, born of a virgin.\n\n      _Thlinkeets_ (N.W. America). Yetl's mother by advice of\n      friendly dolphin swallows pebble and sea-water.\n\n      _Uap\u00e8s_ (Brazil). Jurapari (his mother drinks fermented\n      liquor).\n\n\n      BEAST MYTHS. Beasts and birds are credited with divine or\n      semi-divine attributes.\n\n      _Greeks_.\n\n      Io as a cow chased into Egypt by gad-fly sent by Hera.\n      Amphitryon chases the Cadmean fox with the Athenian dog.\n      Bellerophon slays the Chim\u00e6ra with the help of Pegasus.\n      The Centaurs.\n\n      _Caribs_ (Antilles). The ibis.\n\n      _Chinooks_ (Colombia River). Blue Jay.\n\n      _Aschochimi Indians_ (California). The coyote.\n\n      _Thlinkeet Indians_. Yetl the raven.\n\n      _Australians_. Pund-jel the eagle-hawk.\n\n      _Ahts Indians_ (Vancouver Island). Tootah, the\n      thunder-bird, universal mother.\n\n      _Banks Islanders_. Marawa the spider.\n\n      _Tinneh or D\u00e9n\u00e9 Indians_ (Hare-skins). Miraculous dog is\n      creator.\n\n\n      DUALISTIC MYTHS (the good god combating the bad god). This\n      idea is very general, being found practically all over\n      the world. The creator of all good things is constantly\n      thwarted by the evil spirit or principle, who, for every\n      good and beautiful thing that the beneficent god makes,\n      produces a corresponding evil.\n\n      _Egyptians_.\n\n      Osiris and Set or Apep. Ra (light and goodness) and Apep\n      (darkness and evil).\n\n      _Babylonians_. Merodach and Tiawath.\n\n      _Persians_. Ormuzd and Ahriman.\n\n      _Greeks_.\n\n      Zeus and Typhon.\n      Apollo and Python.\n      Perseus and the Gorgon.\n\n      _Teutons_ (Scandinavia).\n\n      Thor and Loki.\n      Sigurd and Fafnir.\n\n      _Hindus_. Indra and Ahi or Vritra.\n\n      _Hottentots_. Gaunab (bad) and Tsui-Goab (good).\n\n      _Algonquin Indians_.\n\n      Michabo or Manibozho and the prince of serpents.\n      Great Manitou, whose heart is the sun, made men.\n      His wife, the moon, brought disease and death to the race.\n      Glooskap and Malsum.\n\n      _Huron Indians_. Joskeha and Tawiscara.\n\n      _Incas_ (Peru). Piguer\u00e3o (day) and Apocatequil (night).\n\n      _Iroquois Indians_. Enigorio and Enigohatgea (Good Mind\n      and Bad Mind).\n\n      _Thlinkeet Indians_. Yetl and Khanukh.\n\n      _Tupi-Guarani_ (Brazil). Aricoute (darkness) and Tamandare\n      (light).\n\n      _Australians_. Pund-jel, the eagle-hawk (good) and the\n      Crow (bad).\n\n      _Pentecost Islanders_. Tagar (good) and Suque (bad).\n\n      _Banks Islanders_. Qat and Tangaro Lologong (the Fool).\n\n\n      DISMEMBERMENT MYTHS. In which a god or demigod is torn\n      to pieces and the parts widely scattered and afterward\n      collected.\n\n      _Egyptians_. Osiris and Isis.\n\n      _Greeks_.\n\n      Orpheus and Eurydice.\n      Dionysus and Demeter.\n      Medea and Pelias.\n\n      _Finns_ (_Kalevala_ epic). Lemminkainen and his mother.\n\n      _Rumanians_. Frounse Werdye and Holy Mother Sunday.\n\n      _Russians_. Morevna and Koshchei.\n\n      _Bushmen_. Moon cut down by sun; piece left grows.\n\n      _Antis Indians_ (Brazil). See Spence, _Dictionary of\n      Non-Classical Mythology_, p. 43.\n\n      _Algonquins_. The demon Lox.\n\n      _Caribs_. Story of their ancestor.\n\n      _Dindje_. Crow killed by the Navigator.\n\n      _Pawnee Indians_. Pa-hu-ka-tawa.\n\n      _Zu\u00f1i Indians_. Woman beloved by the sun becomes the\n      mother of twins.\n\n      _Madagascar_. Ibonia, joiner together and life-giver.\n\n      _Polynesians_. Tangaroa and Mani.\n\n\n      CREATION MYTHS. In these there is nearly always a vast\n      world of waters, over which broods the creative agency,\n      who by a spoken word, force of thought (will-power), or by\n      sheer physical labour creates the earth, or, more often,\n      raises it from the midst of the watery abyss.\n\n      _Babylonians_. Bel or Merodach forms Heaven and earth from\n      the two halves of the body of Tiawath.\n\n      _Persians_. Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda), father and creator.\n\n      _Greeks_. Uranus (Heaven-Father) and G\u00e6a (Earth-Mother)\n      beget all things.\n\n      _Teutons_ (Scandinavia). Ginnungagap, the gulf existent.\n      World made from body of the giant Ymir.\n\n      _Finns (Kalevala_ epic). Eagle hatches the land.\n\n      _Hindus_. Brahma, in his avatar as the boar, raised the\n      earth on his tusks from out the waters and then began his\n      work of creating.\n\n      _Japanese_. Izanagi and Izanami (creative pair).\n\n      _Bushmen_. Cagn (the praying mantis) created the world.\n\n      _Zulus_. Unkulunkulu (the great ancestor-creator).\n\n      _Ahts Indians_ (Vancouver Island). Quawteaht was the\n      'framer of all things.'\n\n      _Algonquin Indians_. Michabo or Manibozho, the Great Hare,\n      creates all things.\n\n      _Arawaks_ (Guiana). Aluberi (from Alin 'He who makes').\n\n      _Athapascan Indians_. Yetl, the omnipotent raven,\n      descended to the ocean from Heaven, and the earth rose.\n\n      _Incas_ (Peru). Ataguju is creator of all things.\n\n      _Iroquois Indians_. Divine woman falls on turtle (earth).\n\n      _Mexicans_. Tonacatecutli breathes and divides the waters\n      of the heavens and earth.\n\n      _Navaho Indians_. Ahsonnatli 'the Turquoise Hermaphrodite'\n      creates Heaven and earth.\n\n      _Oregon Indians_. Coyote is creator.\n\n      _Peruvians_. Mama-cocha (the whale), 'Mother Sea,' was the\n      mother of mankind.\n\n      _Pawnees_. Ti-ra-wa or A-ti-us (Atius Tirawa) is creator.\n\n      _Papagos Indians_ (Gulf of California). Coyote or\n      prairie-wolf acts as creator.\n\n      _Kiche Indians_. Nothing but the sea and sky, stillness\n      and darkness. Nothing but the Maker and Moulder, the\n      Hurler, the Bird-serpent. Under sea, covered with green\n      feathers, slept the mothers and the fathers. Hurakan\n      passes over the abyss, calls \"Earth,\" and land appears.\n\n      _Tacullies_ (British Columbia). Say earth is mud spat out\n      of mouth of a pre-existing musk-rat.\n\n      _Tinneh or D\u00e9n\u00e9 Indians_. The dog is creator.\n\n      _Tzentals_ (Chiapas). Alaghom or Iztat Ix, she who brings\n      forth Mind--the mother of Wisdom--creatrix of the mental\n      or immaterial part of nature.\n\n      _Zu\u00f1i Indians_ (New Mexico). Awonawilona creates the world.\n\n      (See chapter on cosmogony.)\n\n\n      MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN. These are closely allied to\n      the creation myths. Man is usually made out of clay or the\n      'dust of the earth' by a supernatural being, who sometimes\n      moistens the clay with his or her own blood or sweat, and\n      imparts to it 'the breath of life.' There is sometimes a\n      prior creation of wooden men, who are found wanting.\n\n      _Greeks_. Prometheus makes man and woman, Deucalion and\n      Pyrrha.\n\n      _Hindus_. Brahma or Prajapati makes man.\n\n      _American Indians_ (generally). Man is evolved from\n      coyotes, beavers, apes, or issued from caves.\n\n      _Aztecs_. After the destruction of the world Xolotl\n      descends to Mictlan and brings a bone of the perished\n      race. The gods sprinkle this with blood and from it emerge\n      the progenitors of the present race.\n\n      _Hurons_. Joskeha makes men.\n\n      _Karaya Indians_ (Brazil). Kaboi led their ancestors from\n      the Underworld.\n\n      _Peruvians_. Apocatequil digs up men from the Underworld\n      with a golden spade.\n\n      _Kiches_ (Central America). The gods in council create\n      man. At first they make wooden men, the remainder of whom\n      turn into monkeys. They then create the present race from\n      yellow and white maize.\n\n      _Zu\u00f1i Indians_. Janauluha leads men from the Underworld to\n      the world of day.\n\n      _Bushmen_. Men came out of a cave.\n\n      _Zulus_. Men came out of beds of reeds.\n\n      _Australians_. Pund-jel makes two men from clay, one with\n      straight and one with curly hair (bark). He dances round\n      them and breathes life into them.\n\n      _Australians_ (Dyiere). Men came out of wattle-gum tree.\n\n      _Maoris_ (New Zealand). Tiki makes man of clay.\n\n      _Polynesians_ (Mangaians). The woman of the abyss makes\n      man by tearing from her right side a piece of flesh, which\n      becomes Vatea, father of gods and men.\n\n      _Melanesians_. Qat makes man.\n\n\n      MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF HEROES\n\n      _Babylonians_. Story of Sargon.\n\n      _Hebrews_. Story of Moses.\n\n      _Greeks_.\n\n      Perseus, son of Dana\u00eb. His father Zeus descended in a\n      shower of golden rain.\n\n      Heracles, son of Zeus, who deceives the mother of Heracles\n      by pretending to be Amphitryon, her absent husband.\n\n      _Romans_. Story of Romulus.\n\n      _Celts_. Sagas and romances of Arthur, Merlin, and Beowulf.\n\n      _Indians_. Saga of Rama, in _Ramayana_.\n\n      _Mexicans_. Uitzilopochtli, myth of his birth.\n\n      _Kiches_. Hun-Apu and Xbalanque in the _Popol Vuh_.\n\n      _Peruvians_. Ataguju, the creator, begets Guamansuri, who\n      seduces a woman, who gives birth to two eggs. From these\n      emerged Apocatequil and Piguer\u00e3o. Apocatequil was prince\n      of evil and the most respected hero of the Peruvians.\n\n      (See also Culture Myths for other examples.)\n\n      MYTHS OF FIRE-STEALING. In which a supernatural\n      being--usually a bird--steals fire from Heaven and brings\n      it to earth for the benefit of mankind.\n\n      _Greeks_. Prometheus.\n\n      _Vedas_. Matarisvan.\n\n      _Bretons_. Golden-crested wren.\n\n      _Normandy Peasantry_. The wren.\n\n      _Ahts Indians_ (Vancouver Island). Quawteaht.\n\n      _Athapascan Indians_ (N.W. America). Yetl the raven.\n\n      _Cahrocs and Navaho Indians_. The coyote.\n\n      _Murri Tribe_ (Gippsland, Australia). Man who became a\n      bird.\n\n      _Thlinkeets_ (N.W. America). Yetl the raven.\n\n      _New Zealanders_. Mani.\n\n      _Andaman Islanders_. A bird.\n\n\n      CULTURE MYTHS. MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE ARTS OF LIFE.\n      A god or culture-hero teaches man the useful arts. The\n      outstanding figures in such myths are:\n\n      _Egyptians_. Osiris.\n      _Babylonians_. Oannes.\n      _Greeks_. Prometheus, Bacchus, Cadmus.\n      _Celts_ (Irish). Nuada of the Silver Hand.\n      _Teutons_ (Scandinavia). Wieland the Smith.\n      _Japanese_. Okikurimi.\n      _Bushmen_ (South Africa). Cagn.\n      _Zulus_. Unkulunkulu.\n      _Algonquins_. Michabo or Manibozho.\n      _Antis Indians_ (Brazil). Son of Ul\u00e9.\n      _Arawaks_. Kamu.\n      _Carayas_. Kaboi.\n      _Caribs_. Tamu (grandfather).\n      _Cherokees_. Wasi.\n      _Chiapas_. Votan.\n      _Hurons_. Joskeha.\n      _Maya_ (Yucatan). Itzamna, Kukulcan.\n      _Mexicans_. Quetzalcoatl.\n      _Orinoco Tribes_. Amalivaca.\n      _Paraguayans_. Zum\u00e9.\n      _Peruvians_. Manco Ccapac; Viracocha arises from the depths\n      of Lake Titicaca on a civilizing mission.\n      _Toltecs_. Hueymactzin.\n      _Australians_. Pund-jel.\n      _Melanesians_. Qat.\n\n      TABOO MYTHS. Myths which relate the existence of, origin\n      of, and necessity for certain taboos or forbidden things.\n\n      _Hebrews_. Adam, Eve, and the eating of the apple.\n      _Greeks_.\n\n      The myth of Cupid and Psyche.\n      Act\u00e6on turned into a stag for observing Artemis when\n      bathing.\n\n      _Teutons_ (Scandinavia). Lohengrin and Elsa (name taboo).\n\n      _Ningphos_ (Bengal). Think they became mortal by bathing\n      in tabooed water.\n\n      _Australians_. Death introduced by woman going to tabooed\n      tree.\n\n\n      MYTHS OF DEATH. To account for death, regarded by some\n      savage races as unnatural. Usually some custom or taboo is\n      supposed to have been broken, or some ritual neglected or\n      mismanaged, and death has followed. The reasons given by\n      the different races are as follows:\n\n      _Greeks_. Death comes from lifting cover off Pandora's box.\n\n      _Hindus_. Yama is pioneer to the Otherworld.\n\n      _Southern India_. Death (snake) bites men while God\n      sleeps. God makes dog drive away snake; thus dogs howl at\n      approach of death.\n\n      _Ningphos_ (Bengal). Think they became mortal through\n      bathing in tabooed water.\n\n      _Bushmen_. The mother of the little hare is dead. The moon\n      strikes the hare on its lip, splitting it in two, and\n      tells it that its mother is really dead and will not live\n      again as the moon does.\n\n      _Hottentots_. The moon sends the hare to men to tell them\n      that they will live again as he (the moon) does, but the\n      hare forgets the message and tells men that they will\n      surely die, for which mistake the moon burns a hole in his\n      lip.\n\n      _Namaquas_. The hare and the moon's mother.\n\n      _Central Africans_. Sleep unknown; woman offers to teach\n      man how to sleep; holds his nostrils; man never wakes;\n      dying made easy.\n\n      _Hurons_. At\u00e6nsic (the moon) destroys the living,\n\n      _Australians_. Woman goes near a forbidden tree.\n\n      _New Zealand_. Mani was not properly baptized.\n\n      _Fiji Islanders_. The moon desired that men should die and\n      live again like herself, but the rat opposed this, and so\n      men die as rats do.\n\n      _Polynesians_. Mani tries to pass through Night, a little\n      bird sings, night awakes, snaps up Mani, and \"so men die.\"\n\n      _Banks Islanders_. Qat, Mate, Panoi, and Tangaro the Fool.\n      Tangaro the Fool is set to watch the path taken by Death,\n      that men may avoid it, but makes the mistake of pointing\n      to men the path to Hades as that of the path of the upper\n      world. So men have, perforce, to follow this road to Panoi\n      and the dead.\n\n      _Pentecost Islanders_. Tagar makes man die for live days\n      only and live again, but Suque causes them to die for ever.\n\n      _Solomon Islanders_. Koevari resumes cast-off skin.\n\n\n      SOUL MYTHS, (1) In which the idea is found that a person's\n      life, heart, or soul may be separated from him as a\n      life-token or life-index, and that so long as this is kept\n      safe or remains concealed, its owner is immortal. (2)\n      Other myths dealing with the passage of the soul to the\n      Otherworld.\n\n      _Egyptians_. Story of the two brothers.\n\n      _Hebrews_. Samson and Delilah.\n\n      _Greeks_.\n\n      Meleager and the firebrand.\n      Misus, King of Megara, and his purple hair.\n      Souls ferried across the Styx by Charon.\n\n      _Romans_. Silvia and the son of Mars.\n\n      _Yorkshiremen_. 'Brig o'Dread, nae braider than a thread.'\n\n      _Mohammedans_. Reach Paradise across bridge composed of a\n      single hair.\n\n      _Cingalese_. Story of Thossakin, King of Ceylon, who kept\n      his soul in a box when he went to war with Rama.\n\n      _Ainu_ (Japan). The 'inao.'\n\n      _Tinneh or D\u00e9n\u00e9 Indians_. Etwa-eke and his stone hatchet.\n\n      _Malays_. Tree-trunk across boiling lake to 'Island of\n      Fruits.'\n\n      _Eskimos_. Kujanguak and his life-lock (hair).\n\n      _Universal_. Belief in birth-trees.\n\n\n      FIRE MYTHS. In which the world is destroyed by fire.\n\n      _Romans_. Seneca (see _Natur. Questiones_, iii, cap. 27).\n\n      _Hebrews_. Bible belief.\n\n      _Teutons_ (Scandinavia). The \"V\u00f6lusp\u00e1\": \"The sun shall\n      grow dark, the land sink in the waters, the bright stars\n      be quenched, and high flames climb Heaven itself.\"\n\n      _Algonquins_. Michabo will stamp his foot, flames will\n      devour the earth and only a chosen few (probably one pair)\n      be left to re-people the new earth.\n\n      _Arawaks_ (Guiana and N. Brazil). Aimon Kondi.\n\n      _Aztecs_. Extinguished every fire on last night of each\n      cycle of fifty-two years. Then priests made new fire by\n      friction. If this failed the end of the world had come.\n\n      _Maya_. World to be destroyed by ravening fire and the\n      gods with it.\n\n      _Peruvians_. Amantas taught that some day an eclipse would\n      veil the sun for ever, and earth, moon, and stars be\n      wrapped in devouring flame.\n\n      _Tupi-Guarani_ (Brazil). Monan, Irin Mag\u00e9.\n\n\n      FLOOD MYTHS. A great deluge in which Heaven or the earth\n      or both Heaven and earth are submerged in water and all\n      living things drowned with the exception of one individual\n      or family favoured by the god or gods.\n\n      _Egyptians_. Tem, Temu, Atem, Atmu.\n\n      _Babylonians_. Ut-Napishtim, the Babylonian Noah.\n\n      _Hebrews_. Noah.\n\n      _Persians_. Yima.\n\n      _Greeks_. Deucalion and Pyrrha.\n\n      _Teutons_ (Scandinavia). Bergelmir and Ymir.\n\n      _Hindus_. Manu, son of the sun-god Vivasvat.\n\n      _Ahts Indians_ (Vancouver Island). Wispohahp.\n\n      _Algonquin Indians_. Michabo or Manibozho.\n\n      _Antis Indians_ (Brazil). Yurukares.\n\n      _Arawaks_. Sigu, Marerewana.\n\n      _Aschochimi Indians_ (California). Coyote.\n\n      _Caribs_ (Antilles). The ibis.\n\n      _Hare Indians_. Kunyan 'the intelligent,'\n\n      _Mexicans_. Atonatiuh (the Water-Sun) descends upon the\n      earth.\n\n      _Muyscas_ (Bogota). Chia or Chin, the moon, floods earth\n      out of spite.\n\n      _Peruvians_. Re-creation after deluge at Tiahuanaco.\n\n      _Tupi-Guarani_ (Brazil), Monan, Irin Mag\u00e9.\n\n\n      MYTHS OF A PLACE OF REWARD (the celestial garden of God).\n\n  _Country or Race_            _Place of Reward_\n  Egyptians                         Aalu\n  Persians                          Alburz\n  Greeks                            The Elysian Fields\n  Romans                            The Fortunate Isles\n  Celts                             The Otherworld beyond or beneath\n                                    the sea. Tir-nan-og, Avalon, etc.\n  _Teutons_ (Scandinavia)      Valhalla\n  _Vedas_                      Agni (or Pushan) conducts the souls\n                                      to the abodes of bliss\n  _Buddhists_                  Nirvana\n  _American Indians_           Happy hunting grounds\n  (generally)\n  _Aztecs_                     Tlalocan 'the east, the terrestrial\n                                      Paradise.' Tamoanchan, in the west\n  _Caribs_                     Braves feast in happy islands served\n                                      by Arawak slaves\n  _Tonga Islanders_            Island Paradise of Bolotu\n\n      MYTHS OF A PLACE OF PUNISHMENT\n\n  _Country or Race_       Name of place of      Name of presiding\n                                  punishment         Deity  or Deities\n\n  _Egyptians_               Amenti               Osiris\n  _Babylonians_             Sheol or Aralu       Allatu or Nergal\n  _Greeks_                  Tartarus, Hades      Pluto and Persephone\n  _Celts_                   Annwn\n  _Teutons_ (Scandinavia)   Hel                  Hel\n  _Ladaks_ (Tibet border)   Bad men become\n                                  marmots\n  _Japanese_                Land of Yomi         Eruma-o\n  _Caribs_                  'Bad' men (i.e.\n                                 cowards) become\n                                 slaves to Arawaks\n                                 in barren land\n                                 beyond the mountains\n  _Gallinomero,_            'Bad' men become\n  _Californian Indians_          coyotes\n  _Guatemalans_ (Kiches)    Xibalba              Hun-Came and\n                                                        Vucub-Came\n  _Mexicans_                Mictlan              Mictlantecutli and\n                                                        Mictecaciuatl\n  _Peruvians_                                    \u00c7upay\n\n      MYTHS OF JOURNEYS OR ADVENTURES THROUGH THE UNDERWORLD OR\n      PLACE OF THE DEAD\n\n      _Egyptians._ Osiris.\n\n      _Babylonians_. Descent of Ishtar through the Underworld.\n\n      _Greeks_.\n\n      Orpheus and Eurydice.\n      Persephone and Pluto.\n      Psyche.\n      The punishment of the Danaides.\n      Alcestis is allowed to return from the Underworld.\n      Bacchus brings his mother Semele from the Underworld\n      to Olympus.\n\n      _Medieval Britain_. The Harrying of Hell.\n\n      _Japanese_. Izanagi descends into Hades in search of his\n      wife Izanami.\n\n      _Chinooks_ (N.W. America). Blue Jay in the Supernatural\n      Country.\n\n      _Kiches of Guatemala_. Adventures of Hun-Apu and Xbalanque\n      in the _Popol Vuh_.\n\n      FOOD OF THE DEAD FORMULA. An individual 'dies' or is\n      kidnapped, proceeds to the Otherworld, and, having\n      partaken of the food there, is unable to return to earth.\n\n      _Babylonians_. Adapa loses his chance of becoming immortal\n      by refusing the food and drink of life offered him by Anu,\n      as he feared it was the food of the dead of which he had\n      been warned by his father Ea.\n\n      _Greeks_. Persephone.\n\n      _Finns_. In the _Kalevala_.\n\n      _Chinooks_ (North American Indians, N.W. coast). Found in\n      shamanistic practice.\n\n\n      SUN MYTHS. The principal figures in sun myths are the\n      following:\n\n      _Egyptians_. Ra and Horus.\n      _Accadians_. Amar-utuki or Amar-uduk.\n      _Babylonians_. Merodach and Shamash.\n      _Greeks_. Apollo (Helios) and Phaethon.\n      _Celts_. Lug.\n      _Hindus_, Agni.\n      _Aztecs_. Piltzintecutli.\n\n      MOON MYTHS. These are closely associated with flood myths.\n      In many of the Indian myths deluges are said to have been\n      caused by the moon falling on the earth. She is nearly\n      always held to be the goddess of water, dampness, dews,\n      rain, and fogs. Moon and water are both mythical mothers\n      of the human race.\n\n      _Egyptians_. Isis. All maladies were traced to her anger.\n      _Babylonians_. Sin, the moon-god.\n      _Greeks_. Selene.\n      _Romans_. Diana or Luna.\n      _Algonguins_. Moon, night, death, cold, sleep, and water (same word).\n      _Aztecs_. Constantly confounded Citatli and Atl (moon and\n      water). Painted moon two colours--beneficent dispenser of\n      harvests and offspring, goddess of night, dampness, cold,\n      ague, miasma, and sleep; the twin of Death. Also known\n      as Metztli, Yohualticitl, or Teciztecatl.\n      _Brazilian Indians_. Mothers shield infants from rays which\n      are said to cause sickness.\n      _Hidatsa_. Midi is both moon and water.\n      _Hurons_. At\u00e6nsic is the moon (also water).\n      _Muyscas_. Chia the moon floods earth out of spite,\n      _Peruvians_. Mama Quilla,\n      _Bushmen_. Sun cuts moon down by degrees, but leaves a piece\n      from which a new complete moon grows, and so on.\n\n      STAR MYTHS. In both primitive and later myths the stars\n      are metamorphosed men, women, or beasts; in some cases\n      ancestors, in others gods. The belief that the good at\n      death become stars is very widely spread.\n\n      _Egyptians_. Plutarch was shown Isis and Osiris in the sky.\n      _Babylonians_. Many gods are represented by stars. Babylonian\n      astrology favoured the evolution of gods into planets.\n      _Greeks_. The Pleiades are young girls.\n      Castor and Pollux are young men.\n      _Hindus_. Prajapati and his daughter become constellations.\n      _Bushmen_. Metamorphosed men.\n      _American_ (Chinook Indians, N.W. Coast). Aqas Xenas Xena.\n      _Indians_ (North American). Ursa Major is a bear.\n      _Mexicans_. Quetzalcoatl becomes a planet--our Venus.\n      _Peruvians_. Beasts, anthropomorphic gods, and stars are\n      confounded together.\n      _Eskimos_. Regard stars as ancestors.\n      **_Australians_. The Pleiades are young girls.**\n\n      South American star myths have not been added to this list\n      as full reference has been made to them in the text.\n\n\n      MYTHS TO ACCOUNT FOR CUSTOMS OR RITES (\u00e6tiological myths),\n      such as the general belief that water is the mother of all\n      things. This accounts for sacred fountains, lakes, and\n      rivers, baptism, etc. A few examples only can be given.\n\n      _Greeks_. Myth of Dionysus and Pentheus, to explain\n      festival of the former. See Euripides, _The Bacch\u00e6_.\n\n      _A-Kikuyus_ (Bantu tribe, E. Africa). To explain sacrifices\n      to Ngai (rain-god).\n\n      _Todas_ (Southern India). To explain why the sacred\n      dairyman sacrifices calf to Notirzi.\n\n      _Blackfeet Indians_. To explain sun-dance.\n\n      _Pawnee Indians_. To explain skull-dance, buffalo-dance,\n      bear-dance (dramatized myths).\n\n      _Wiradthuri tribes_ (Australia). Dhuramoolun and the\n      bull-roarer.\n\n      _Almost universal_. Belief in ghosts accounts for funeral\n      rites to prevent ghosts' return.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE MAKING OF THE WORLD AND OF MAN (COSMOGONY)\n\n\nThe efforts of man to account for his existence and that of the\nworld in which he lives--in a word, for the origin of Heaven and\nearth and all that is in them--are among the most deeply interesting\nmanifestations of human mental activity and progress. To his\nspeculations the science of comparative mythology has given the name\ncosmogony (Greek _cosmos_, 'world,' and _gignesthai,_ 'to be born'), of\nwhich the best literal translation is 'world-birth.'\n\nBefore speculating upon the reason for the similarity between\ncosmogonic myths in all parts of the globe, or how far they have been\ncoloured one by another or sophisticated by modern culture, we shall\nfind it profitable to study the chief creation tales themselves, so\nthat when we come to discuss their likeness or unlikeness we shall be\nwell furnished with examples in support of the views we adopt. This\ncourse is wise in the study of tradition; for unless the student is\nwell furnished and abundantly fortified with 'instances,' he will never\nthoroughly apprehend the greater issues of traditional science, never\nfully grasp its spirit.\n\nSome one has said that quotations are \"ready armour, offensive and\ndefensive,\" and the simile might well be employed of 'instances' in\nfolklore and mythology, where the ability to cite copious parallels is\nof the highest assistance in argument.\n\nWith this in view, then, we shall look at the most important of\nthose tales which relate to the creation of the world and man before\nanalysing them.\n\nINDIAN CREATION STORIES\n\nIndia furnishes manifold ideas concerning the origin of the universe\nand man. At the first, says the _Rig-Veda_, there was neither\nnon-entity nor entity, and all was water wrapped in gloom. \"Then\ndesire (Karma) arose in it, which was the primal germ of mind ...\nthe bond between entity and non-entity.\" The following hymn from the\n_Rig-Veda_,[1] the vigorous translation of which is by the late Dr\nMuir, gives some account of the process:\n\n    There was neither aught nor naught, nor air, nor sky beyond.\n    What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?\n    Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change of night and day.\n    The One breathed calmly, self-sustained; naught else beyond it lay.\n\n    Gloom, hid in gloom, existed first--one sea, eluding view.\n    That One, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervour grew.\n    Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,\n    Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find.\n\n    The kindling ray that shot across the dark and drear abyss--\n    Was it beneath? or high aloft? What bard can answer this?\n    There fecundating powers were found, and mighty forces strove--\n    A self-supporting mass beneath, and energy above.\n\n    Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation rose?\n    No gods had then been born--who then can e'er the truth disclose?\n    Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no--\n    Its lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show.\n\nThis hymn is among the earliest speculations of the Hindus regarding\ncosmogonic phenomena, and its pious conclusion did not satisfy the\ncravings of future still more inquisitive generations. In the _Purusha\nSakta_ of the _Rig-Veda_, admittedly of considerably later origin than\nthe above composition, the following creation myth is found:\n\n\"Purusha has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. On\nevery side enveloping the earth, he overpassed (it) by a space of\nten fingers. Purusha himself is this whole (universe), whatever has\nbeen and whatever shall be. He is also lord of immortality, since\n(or when) by food he expands. All existences are a quarter of him,\nand three-fourths of him are that which is immortal in the sky. With\nthree-quarters Purusha mounted upward. A quarter of him was again\nproduced here. From him was born Viraj; and from Viraj, Purusha.\nWhen the gods performed a sacrifice, with Purusha as the oblation,\nthe spring was its butter, the summer its fuel, and the autumn its\n(accompanying) offering. From that universal sacrifice sprang the Rich\nand Saman verses, the metres and the Yajush; from it sprang horses\nand all animals with two rows of teeth, kine, goats, and sheep. When\n(the gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cut him up?\nThe Brahman was his mouth, the Rajanya was made his arms, the being\n(called) Vaisya was his thighs, and the Sudra sprang from his feet. The\nmorn sprang from his soul (manas), the sun from his eye, Indra and Agni\nfrom his mouth, and Vaya from his breath. From his navel arose the air,\nfrom his head the sky, from his feet the earth, from his ear the (four)\nquarters; in this manner (the gods) formed the worlds.\"\n\nNow follows an extract from the _Satapatha Brahmana,_ which gives the\nwords used at the creation: \"(Uttering) 'bhuh', Prajapati generated\nthis earth. (Uttering) 'bhuvah,' he generated the air; and (uttering)\n'svah,' he generated the sky. This universe is co-extensive with\nthese worlds. Saying bhuh,' Prajapati generated the Brahman; (saying)\n'bhuvah,' he generated the Kshattra; (and saying) 'svah,' he generated\nthe Vis. All this world is as much as the Brahman, Kshattra, and Vis.\n(Saying) 'bhuh,' Prajapati generated himself; (saying) 'bhuvah,' he\ngenerated offspring: (saying) 'svah,' he generated animals. This world\nis so much as self, offspring, and animals.\"\n\nThe _Taittiriya Brahmana_ says, \"This entire (universe) has been\ncreated by Brahma,\" and gives an account of the creation of the Asuras,\nPitris (or fathers), and gods. \"Prajapati desired 'May I propagate.' He\npractised austerity. His breath became alive. With that breath (asu)\nhe created Asuras. Having created the Asuras, he regarded himself as a\nfather. After that he created the fathers (pitris). That constitutes\nthe fatherhood of the fathers. Having created the fathers, he\nreflected. After that he created men. That constitutes the manhood of\nmen. He who knows the manhood of men becomes intelligent. To him, when\nhe was creating men, day appeared in the heavens. After that he created\nthe gods.\"\n\nThe _Satapatha Brahmana_ relates the creation of men and animals.\n\"Prajapati was formerly this (universe) only. He desired: 'Let me\ncreate food, and be propagated.' He formed animals from his breaths,\na man from his soul, a horse from his eye, a bull from his breath, a\nsheep from his ear, a goat from his voice. Since he formed animals from\nhis breaths, therefore men say: 'The breaths are animals,' The soul is\nthe first of breaths. Since he formed a man from his soul, therefore\nthey say: 'Man is the first of the animals and the strongest.' The soul\nis all the breaths; for all the breaths depend upon the soul. Since he\nformed man from his soul, therefore they say: 'Man is all the animals';\nfor all these are man's.\"\n\nIn another passage this Brahmana gives quite a different account.\nPurusha, as the soul of the universe, was alone. Hence \"he did not\nenjoy happiness. He desired a second. He caused this same self to fall\nasunder into two parts. Thence arose a husband and wife. From them men\nwere born. She reflected: 'How does he, after having produced me from\nhimself, cohabit with me? Ah! let me disappear!' She became a cow, and\nthe other a bull; from them kine were produced. The one became a mare,\nthe other a stallion; the one a she-ass, the other a male-ass. From\nthem the class of animals with undivided hoofs was produced. The one\nbecame a she-goat, the other a he-goat; the one an ewe, the other a\nram. From them goats and sheep were produced. In this manner pairs of\nall creatures whatsoever, down to ants, were created.\"\n\nThe Puranas are very minute and specific as regards the facts of\ncreation. Indeed the first book of the _Vishnu Purana_ is largely taken\nup with accounts of the cosmogonic process. According to this venerable\nscript Brahma first existed in the form of Purusha (spirit) and Kalu\n(time). \"Next proceeded two other forms, the discreet and indiscreet;\nand Kala (time) was the last. These four--Pradhana (primary or crude\nmatter), Purusha (spirit), Vyakta (visible substance), and Kala\n(time)--in their due proportions, are the causes of the production of\nthe phenomena of creation, preservation, and destruction. The supreme\nBrahma, the supreme soul, the substance of the world, the lord of all\ncreatures, the universal soul, the supreme ruler Hari (Vishnu), of his\nown will having entered into matter and spirit, agitated the mutable\nand immutable principles, the season of creation having arrived, in the\nsame manner as fragrance affects the mind from its proximity merely,\nand not from any immediate operation upon mind itself; so the supreme\ninfluenced the elements of creation.\"\n\nAfter giving an account of the creation, or rather the evolution\nof the elements, the _Vishnu Purana_ goes on to say: \"Then (the\nelements) ether, air, light, water, and earth, severally united with\nthe properties of sound, and the rest existed as distinguishable\naccording to their qualities as soothing, terrific, or stupefying; but\npossessing various energies, and being unconnected, they could not\nwithout combination create living beings, not having blended with each\nother. Having combined, therefore, with one another, they assumed,\nthrough their mutual association, the character of one mass of entire\nunity; and from the direction of spirit, with the acquiescence of the\nindiscrete principle, intellect, and the rest, to the gross elements\ninclusive, formed an egg, which gradually expanded like a bubble of\nwater. This vast egg, compounded of the elements, and resting on the\nwaters, was the excellent natural abode of Vishnu in the form of\nBrahma; and there Vishnu, the lord of the universe, whose essence is\ninscrutable, assumed a perceptible form, and even he himself abided in\nit in the character of Brahma. Its womb, vast as the mountain Meru,\nwas composed of the mountains; and the mighty oceans were the waters\nthat filled its cavity. In that egg were the continents and seas and\nmountains, the planets and divisions of the universe, the gods, the\ndemons, and mankind.\n\n\"Affecting then the quality of activity, Hari the lord of all, himself\nbecoming Brahma, engaged in the creation of the universe. Vishnu,\nwith the quality of goodness and of immeasurable power, preserves\ncreated things through successive ages, until the close of the period\ntermed a Kalpa; when the same mighty deity, invested with the quality\nof darkness, assumes the awful form of Rudra, and swallows up the\nuniverse. Having thus devoured all things, and converted the world\ninto one vast ocean, the supreme reposes upon his mighty serpent couch\namidst the deep: he awakes after a season, and again, as Brahma,\nbecomes the author of creation.\"\n\nEGYPTIAN CREATION MYTHS\n\nTurning to ancient Egypt, that dark ocean of myth and mystery, we find\nin papyrus 10,188, housed in the British Museum, an account of the\norigin of things written for a priest of Panopolis, called Nes-Amsu,\nabout the year 312 B.C. This papyrus contains many things, chiefly\nof magical import, but its interest for us is that it introduces two\nvarying accounts of the Egyptian idea of the creation, both of which\nare a little vague and obscure. In the first, the god Neb-er-tcher,\na form of Ra the sun-god, tells how, through his godlike might, all\nthings came into being. Taking upon himself the shape of Khepera, the\ndeity symbolizing creation, he made himself and other \"new things,\" in\nfact, a whole world, \"out of his mouth.\" The place where he performed\nthis feat was the watery abyss of Nu, from which certain considerations\nlead us to suppose he took his _materials_. Says Khepera:\n\n\"I found no place there (in Nu) whereon I could stand. I worked a charm\nupon my own heart. I laid a foundation in Maa. I made every form. I was\none by myself, I had not emitted from myself the god Shu, I had not\nspit out from myself the goddess Tefnut. There was no other being who\nworked with me.\"\n\nThus Khepera alone was creator; nor did he have any solid surface to\nstand upon during the performance of his creative act. To remove the\ndifficulty he worked a charm upon, or made a foundation in, his own\nheart--that is, by some magical act he found a foothold in the abyss\nwhile he produced all things. \"There came into being multitudes of\nthings from the things of what was produced\"--that is, the objects\nwhich had emanated from Khepera continued the work of creation of their\nown accord. Khepera then produced the god and goddess Shu and Tefnut.\nMen and women then appeared from his tears. The sun was manufactured\nfrom an eye of the god, as was the moon. Plants and creeping things\nbegan to grow and move on the surface of the earth, so that they cannot\nhave been included in the original 'things' created by the god. Finally\nShu and Tefnut produced the pantheon of the elder gods, and these\ndeities multiplied offspring in the earth.\n\nOSIRIS AS CREATOR\n\nThe second version of the creation myth which the papyrus contains\nmakes Osiris take the place of Khepera, or Neb-er-tcher. He is\ndescribed as the _pautet pautti_, or the very essence of primeval\nmatter, and the source of all created things. Osiris utters his own\nname as a word of power, and \"forthwith came into being under the form\nof things which were created.\" Like Neb-er-tcher, he took the form of\nKhepera as proper to the act of creation. \"I came into being,\" he says,\n\"from primeval matter, and I appeared under the form of multitudes of\nthings from the beginning. Nothing existed at that time, and it was I\nwho made whatsoever was made. I was alone, and there was no other being\nwho worked with me in that place. I made all the forms under which I\nappeared by means of the god-soul which I raised up out of Nu, out of\na state of inertness.\" Thus we here have the 'god-soul' existent in a\nquiescent condition in the watery abyss of Nu, awaiting the magic call\nof Osiris. The next point in which the second account differs from the\nfirst is the making of man, made, it states, after the reptiles and\ncreeping things.\n\nThus in these Egyptian creation myths we have a primeval watery mass\npeopled by a self-begotten and self-existent god who, uttering his own\nname as a spell, straightway came into existence, then awakened the\nslumbering soul of the abyss into activity, and by the utterance of\nmagic words created a place or foundation upon which he could stand.\nHaving done this, he proceeded to the creation of other gods, the\nlight, human beings, vegetation, and creeping things. Of birds, beasts,\nand stars we find nothing in the myth, which is one of the earliest\nEgyptian conceptions of the creation of the world and of mankind.[2]\n\nBut as new races entered Egypt as immigrants or conquerors, other myths\ndescriptive of the creation process arose and flourished side by side.\nThere was, for example, that of Ptah, a potter, pictured in the ancient\ndrawings as shaping the world-egg, the 'cosmic egg,' upon his wheel. He\nis said, in connexion with Khnemu, to have carried out the active work\nof creation at the command of Thoth. Khnemu was also regarded as the\npersonification of creative force, who formed the cosmic egg from the\nNile mud and shaped man on his potter's wheel; and there were others,\nall more or less akin.\n\nEGYPTIAN IDEAS REGARDING THE SKY\n\nThe earlier Egyptians regarded the sky as a flat metal plate or slab,\neach end of which rested upon a mountain, the mountain of sunrise,\nBakhau, and the mountain of sunset, Manu. In the late Pyramid texts the\nsky is rectangular, each corner resting upon a pillar. In still later\ntimes those four pillars were looked upon as the sceptres of the gods\nwho presided over the four quarters of heaven. At a comparatively late\ndate the idea arose that the sky required support in the centre as well\nas at its angles, and the god who acted as central prop was called Heh.\nIn another myth the heavens were shaped like a man's head, with the sun\nand moon for eyes, and hair supporting the sky.\n\nAnother Egyptian idea of the sky is that the goddess Nut, who\npersonified the upper regions, formed the vault of the heavens by\narching her body over the earth and resting her weight upon her hands\nand feet. Sometimes the god Shu stands beneath, as if to support her.\nOver her body are scattered the stars. She was alluded to as 'the Lady\nof Heaven,' and is uniformly painted blue in imitation of the sky she\nrepresented.\n\nTHE BABYLONIAN ACCOUNTS OF CREATION\n\nThe principal version of the Babylonian account of creation is\npreserved in the 'Seven Tablets of Creation' now in the British\nMuseum, and originally part of the library of Assurbanipal at\nNineveh. In this epic we find two primeval deities, Apsu and Tiawath,\npersonifications of the great abyss, and their son, Mummu. The gods are\ncreated, Anu, En-lil, and Ea, but their 'ways' are displeasing to Apsu\nand Tiawath, who rebel. The original male deities speedily succumb to\nthe power of the new gods. Tiawath creates a host of grisly monsters\nand carries on unrelenting war against the enemy, but in terrific\ncombat with Marduk or Merodach she is annihilated. She is cut in twain,\nand from one half of her body Merodach forms the heavens. He divides\nthe upper waters from the lower, makes dwellings for the gods, creates\nthe sun, moon, and stars, and ordains their courses. At this juncture\na portion of the account (Tablet V) is missing, but in the next slab\nMerodach is said to have been decapitated, and with his own blood and\nbone to have made man. Berosus, a priest of Merodach, who lived in\nthe third century B.C., wrote a Greek history of Babylonia, which has\nbeen lost, but is known in part from quotations by classical writers.\nIn this work he recounted the above myth, with some variation in the\nnames, and the additional statement that half of Tiawath's body formed\nthe earth.[3]\n\nTiawath, like the Egyptian Nut, personified the primeval abyss; in\nfact, the name signifies the sea, Apsu, the name of her spouse, meaning\nthe deep. The sea was to the Semitic mind symbolical of chaos and\ntrouble, as witness the Scriptural promise, \"and there shall be no more\nsea.\" The strange monsters framed by the goddess of the abyss to combat\nthe gods of light are perhaps associated with the teeming gigantic life\nthe Semites believed the sea capable of propagating, one well-known\nexample of which is the 'whale' or 'great fish' of Jonah.\n\nCHINESE WORLD-MAKING\n\nChinese myth furnishes a fairly clear account of creation. During\ncountless scores of ages \"nothing\" condensed into unity, and the\nMighty Atom was formed. In the course of further ages the atom became\ndivided into the male and female principles, and the universe came into\nbeing. But a more simple explanation was necessary for the uninitiated,\nwho were told that the two original elements became four, from the\nco-operation of which sprang a deity called P'an Ku, whose function\nit was to supply the constituents of the universe, His eyes became\nthe sun and moon, his breath the wind, his hair trees and vegetation,\nhis flesh the earth, his sweat rain, and the worms which sprang from\nhis decomposing body were men. The god Tien or Shang-ti is generally\nregarded as the First Cause in Chinese myth; but although he may have\ninspired the creation of the universe, he does not appear to have taken\nany hand in its actual manufacture.\n\nTHE HEBREW CREATION STORY\n\nThe Biblical story of creation is a very complete cosmogony, having\naffinities with that of Babylon. We are told in Genesis i, 6, 7, 14, 15\nthat God divided the primeval waters into two parts by an intervening\n'firmament' or platform, where he placed the heavenly bodies. This\ndivision has some likeness to the Babylonian account of the cleaving\nof the carcass of Tiawath into two parts, one of which kept the upper\nwaters from coming down. The words _te hom_, rendered in the English\nBible 'the deep,' closely resemble the name Tiawath, 'the sea,'\nHere, then, we seem to possess irrefragable philological evidence of\nearly Babylonian influence upon Hebrew belief. Verse 2 of Genesis i\nalso mentions the earth-matter out of which the earth and all its\nproducts were to appear. This is called _tohu_ and _bohu_, 'devoid of\nliving things,' and so would appear to equate with \"the lands\" that\n\"altogether were sea\" of Babylonian cosmogony. The creation of light\nwhich appears in Genesis is not found in the Babylonian account, but\nthe Babylonian creator, Merodach, is a god of light. In brief, the\nHebrew account of the successive stages of creation corresponds so\nclosely to that of Babylon that it is obvious one has been influenced\nby the other--naturally the younger by the elder.\n\nJAPANESE ORIGINS\n\nIn the beginning, according to Japanese myth, Heaven and earth were\nnot separated and the In and Yo (the male and female principles) not\ndivided. The _Nihongi_ states that these male and female principles\nformed a chaotic mass like an egg which was of obscurely defined limits\nand contained germs. This egg quickened with life, the clearer part\nbecame Heaven, while the more ponderable portion settled down as the\nterrestrial sphere, like the floating of a fish sporting on the surface\nof the waters. An object like a reed-shoot appeared between Heaven and\nearth, and as suddenly became transformed into a god, Kuni-toko-tachi.\nOther divine beings were born, but those responsible for most of \"this\nsorry scheme of things entire\" were Izanagi (Male who invites) and\nIzanami (Female who invites), concerning whom a very charming and\noriginal myth was told.\n\nThey stood on the floating bridge of Heaven and peered downward into\nthe abyss below, asking each other what might exist so far below.\nPuzzled, yet determined to probe the mystery of nothingness beneath\nthem, they thrust a jewel-spear downward, and touched the ocean.\nDrawing the spear upward, some water dripped from it, coagulated, and\nbecame an island, upon which the god and goddess set foot. Desiring\neach other is husband and wife, although they were brother and sister,\nthey set up a pillar on the island, and by walking round it lost\ntheir relationship. Izanagi walked round one way and Izanami the\nother, exclaiming when they met: \"Delightful! I have met with a lovely\nmaiden,\" and \"I have met with a lovely youth.\" They espoused each\nother, and Izanami gave birth to islands, seas, rivers, herbs, and\ntrees, and having produced the Great-Eight-Island Country was desirous\nof bringing forth a living being who would be head of the Universe. In\ndue season Ama-terasu, the sun-goddess, was born, and the moon-god,\nTsuki-yumi. After the birth of the fire-god, however, Izanami suffered\nso greatly that she betook herself to the land of Yomi or Hades and was\nsubsequently disowned by her husband.\n\nIRANIAN COSMOGONY\n\nThe Iranian account of creation states that Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda), the\ncreator and good agency, fixed the duration of the world at twelve\nthousand years. He created the spiritual world during the first\nthousand of these. Ahriman, the principle of evil, did not know of his\nexistence until he espied the beams of light which emanated from his\nglorious presence, but when he discovered it he commenced to plot evil.\nDuring the next three thousand years Ormuzd created the world, the sun,\nmoon, and stars, plants, animals, and man. But Ahriman instituted a\nmalevolent counter-creation, and for every desirable thing Ormuzd made\nAhriman produced something evil, so that he became the creator of all\nnoxious plants and beasts of prey, diseases, and death. For a third\nthree thousand years a bitter strife was waged between the deities, but\nwith the birth of Zarathushtra or Zoroaster, a better day dawned for\nthe forces of good. The first animal created by Ormuzd was an ox, which\nwas assailed by the plagues and diseases of Ahriman and died; but from\nits members sprang every description of cereal and plant, and two other\noxen. Ormuzd took of his sweat, and uttering words of power produced\nthe man Gayomart. He was also slain by Ahriman, but his seed having\nfertilized in the earth, twins Mashya and Mashyana sprang up, at first\nin the form of shrubs, and were the progenitors of humanity.\n\nTHE CELTIC IDEA OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN\n\nThe Celtic idea of creation as exhibited in the Welsh work _Barddas_\nprovided for two primary existences, God and Cythrawl, standing\nrespectively for life and death. Cythrawl has his abode in Annwn, the\nAbyss of Chaos. In the beginning naught was but God and Annwn. God\npronounced his ineffable name, and Manred, the primal substance of\nthe Universe, was formed. Manred was composed of thousands of teeming\natoms, in each of which God was present, and each was a part of God.\nThey were arranged in concentric circles representing the totality\nof being, and the innermost, the first on which life gets a footing\non emerging from Annwn, is Abred. This is the stage of struggle and\nevolution, the contest of life with Cythrawl. The second is Gwynfyd,\nthe Circle of Purity, in which life triumphs, and the last is Ceugant,\ninhabited by God alone, with whom, presumably, it is merged.\n\nNORSE COSMOGONY\n\nThe Scandinavian conception of creation bears, strangely enough, some\ngeneral resemblance to those of ancient China and India (Purusha\nvariant). In the beginning yawned the great abyss of Ginnungagap and\nnaught beside, save that it was flanked on the north by the dreary\nrealm of Niflheim, a region of cold and mist, and on the south by\nMuspelheim, a region of fire. Flowing from Niflheim, the rivers called\nElivagar froze, and the ice formed upon them was covered with congealed\nvapour. The hot air from Muspelheim beating upon the ice melted it,\nand the drops of moisture so formed took life and became a giant\ncalled Ymir, the progenitor of a race of gigantic beings. From the cow\nAudhumla, formed at the same time, Ymir was nourished by four streams\nof milk. For sustenance she licked the stones covered with brine and\nmoisture; and on the first day she licked there appeared a single hair,\non the second day a head, on the third an entire being, beautiful and\nglorious to look upon, Buri, the grandfather of Odin. Ymir, while\nasleep, engendered the race of giants from the sweat of his body, but\nthe grandchildren of Buri slew him, and all his progeny were drowned\nin his blood, except Bergelmir and his wife, who saved themselves in a\nboat His body was then cast into Ginnungagap, and from his blood were\ncreated the sea and waters, from his flesh the solid earth, from his\nbones the mountains, from his skull the dome of the sky, from his brain\nthe clouds, and from his eyebrows Midgard, the dwelling of the race\nof men. Odin, Vili, and Ve are then spoken of (in a myth apparently\na variant) as raising the disk of the earth out of the waters. Later\nOdin and his brothers find a couple of inanimate figures fashioned by\nthe dwarfs out of trees, and endowed them with the breath of life and\nunderstanding, calling them Askr and Embla. These were the first human\nbeings.\n\nMEXICAN BEGINNINGS\n\nIn the Mexico of the Aztecs the sun was held to be the cause of all\nmaterial force, and the gods the holders of the fluctuating fortunes\nof man. The sun, like man himself, was considered dependent upon food\nand drink; and according to Aztec cosmology several suns had perished\nthrough lack of provision, as had older races of men. The original sun\nhad no other nourishment than the water it absorbed from the earth,\nand was thus nothing but a semi-liquid mass, designated Atonatiuh,\nthe 'Water-Sun.' It was supposed to have absorbed enormous quantities\nduring the course of centuries, and ultimately discharged the whole\nover the world, causing a complete destruction of animal and vegetable\nlife. The Water-Sun was sometimes identified with Tlaloc, the god of\nmoisture, but this is a comparatively recent addition to the popular\naccount. The general destruction of terrestrial life by elementary\nphysical forces was accompanied in Mexican belief by myths of other\ngreat catastrophes wrought by earthquake, wind-storms, or fire, and a\ntale of the collapse of the vault of heaven itself.[4] These holocausts\nwere traced to some defect in the sun. Other accounts relate that\nthe gods Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, and Xiuhtecutli each attempted\nthe _r\u00f4le_ of the god of day without success. At length it became\nevident that a special god must be created for the express purpose\nof fulfilling the functions of the office, so the existing sun was\nbrought into being. However the Mexican myths may vary according to\nthe method by which the creation of the sun was achieved authorities\nagree on these points of Aztec belief. The luminary was an animal which\nwas originally a man, but, by the action of fire, became transformed,\nand received the intense vitality necessary for the performance of\nhis functions from the blood of the gods, voluntarily shed for that\npurpose. The gods met at Teotihuacan in order to make a sun. They\nkindled a mighty fire, and signified to the worshippers that whosoever\nshould first leap into it should become the new sun personified. One\nof them sacrificed himself by doing so; and arose as the sun from the\nmidst of the fire, but was unable to ascend into the sky for lack of\nstrength. In order to give him the necessary motive force the gods\nresolved to sacrifice themselves in the usual Mexican manner, by having\ntheir hearts torn out. This was done by the god Xolotl, who had in this\nway created man, and now performed the act of sacrifice upon himself.\nThe sun then ascended the sky.[5] According to another tradition,\nthe creation of man was subsequent to that of the sun. Men were only\ncreated to be the food of the luminary, and were ordered to fight and\nslay one another so that the sun might be supplied with food. The Mayas\nof Yucatan increased the previous number of suns by one. Two solar\nepochs terminated by devastating plagues known as the 'sudden deaths.'\nSo swift and mortal were the pests engendered by solar failure that\nvultures dwelt in the houses of the cities, and devoured the bodies\nof their former owners. The third epoch closed with a hurricane or\ninundation known as _hun yecil,_ 'the inundation of the trees,' as all\nthe forests were swept away.\n\nThe Kiches of Guatemala had a very complete creation story, which may\nbe studied in the _Popol Vuh,_ their sacred book. To begin with, there\nonly existed the vast waste of primeval waters, in which slept \"the\nOld Ones covered with Green Feathers,\" the father-and mother-deities,\nXpiyacoc and Xmucane. Then came Hurakan the mighty, \"he who hurls\nbelow,\" a Kiche variant of the Aztec deity Tezcatlipoca. He commanded\nlight to be and the solid earth, by his spoken word. The gods in\ncouncil created animals. They carved mannikins out of wood, but these\nwere intractable and disobedient, so the gods resolved to destroy them.\nThey sent a deluge upon the world, and the mannikins were drowned.\nThe posterity of the few who were saved are the monkeys. After the\ncatastrophe the earth-god Vukub-Cakix (Macaw) and his progeny gave more\ntrouble to the gods, but were ultimately destroyed. Hurakan latterly\ncreated four perfect men from yellow and white maize, and supplied\nthem with wives, after which the sun was created, and the cosmological\nscheme was complete.[6]\n\nCREATION IN ANCIENT PERU\n\nThe Incan Peruvians held that all things emanated from Pachacamac,\nthe universal spirit, from whom proceeded the spirits of the animals\nor plants produced by the earth. The earth itself they designated\nPachacamama, or 'Earth-Mother'. Thus we have two distinct conceptions\nwelded together--a general spirit of living things coalesced with\nthe originally totally distinct Creator. The idea of a Great Spirit,\na former and shaper, though not necessarily a Creator, is almost\nuniversal throughout America, but it must sooner or later occur to the\nbarbarian mind that the making of living beings requires something more\nthan matter: they must receive the breath of life. A true Creator the\nPeruvians found in Pachacamac, an anthropomorphic deity representing\nthe creative mind. The conception of Pachacamac as a ruler and director\nof the universe belongs to a later period of Incan rule, when a shrine\nwas built to him in the new aspect by Apu-Ccapac-Inca Pachacutic,\nat the north angle of Cuzco. The Peruvians declared that all things\nwere made by the word of the spirit, by the mere exercise of will,\nor thought. In the prayers to the Creator, and in other fragments of\naboriginal rite which have survived, we read, for example: \"Let a man\nbe: let a woman be,\" and such expressions as \"the creative word.\"\nOccasionally the sun acts as a species of demiurge. For example, it is\nhe who creates the city of Cuzco, and sends to earth the three eggs of\ngold, of silver, and of copper, from which issue the Curacos and their\nwives and the Mitayocs and their wives. Tiahuanaco was the theatre\nof the new creation of man which followed upon the Deluge. In that\ndistrict the Creator made man of clay, and separated him into nations,\nmaking one for each nation, and painting the dresses that each was to\nwear, besides giving national songs, languages, seeds suitable to the\nsoil of each, and food. Then he gave life and soul to each one, and\nordered that they should pass under the earth. Thence each national\ntype came up in the place to which he ordered it to go. This myth\nagain is obviously an attempt to harmonize two conflicting creation\nstories, an original one of genesis from caves, and the later one of\nthe creation in Tiahuanaco. We also find local creation myths in some\nof the Peruvian valleys. For example, Pachacamac, in the coast valley\nof Irma, was not considered the creator of the sun, but a descendant of\nit. Of the first human pair created by him the man perished of hunger,\nbut the woman maintained herself upon roots. The sun took pity upon her\nand gave her a son, whom Pachacamac slew and buried, but from his teeth\nthere grew maize, from his ribs the long white roots of the manioc, and\nfrom his flesh pumpkins and esculent plants.\n\nAMERICAN INDIAN CREATION MYTHS\n\nIn the preface to his _Creation Myths of Primitive America_ Mr\nJeremiah Curtin says:\n\n\"The creation myths of America form a complete system: they give a\ndetailed and circumstantial account of the origin of this world and of\nall things and creatures contained in it. In the course of the various\nnarratives which compose this myth system an earlier world is described\nto us, with an order of existence and a method of conduct on which the\nlife of primitive man in America was patterned.\n\n\"That earlier world had two periods of duration--one of complete and\nperfect harmony; another of violence, collision, and conflict. The\nresult and outcome of the second period was the creation of all that is\nanimated on earth except man. Man, in the American scheme of creation,\nstands apart and separate; he is quite alone, peculiar, and special.\nAbove all, he belongs to this continent. The white man was unknown to\nAmerican myth-makers, as were also men of every other race and of every\nregion outside of the Western Hemisphere.\n\n\"Described briefly and by an Indian, the American myth system is as\nfollows: 'There was a world before this one in which we are living at\npresent; that was the world of the first people, who were different\nfrom us altogether. Those people were very numerous, so numerous that\nif a count could be made of all the stars in the sky, all the feathers\non birds, all the hairs and fur on animals, all the hairs of our own\nheads, they would not be so numerous as the first people.'\n\n\"These people lived very long in peace, in concord, in harmony, in\nhappiness. No man knows, no man can tell, how long they lived in\nthat way. At last the minds of all except a very small number were\nchanged; they fell into conflict--one offended another consciously\nor unconsciously, one injured another with or without intention,\none wanted some special thing, another wanted that very thing also.\nConflict set in, and because of this came a time of activity and\nstruggle, to which there was no end or stop till the great majority of\nthe first people--that is, all except a small number--were turned into\nthe various kinds of living creatures that are on earth now or have\never been on earth, except man--that is, all kinds of beasts, birds,\nreptiles, fish, worms, and insects, as well as trees, plants, grasses,\nrocks, and some mountains; they were turned into everything that we see\non the earth or in the sky.\n\n\"The small number of the former people who did not quarrel, those great\nfirst people of the old time who remained of one mind and harmonious,\n'left the earth, sailed away westward, passed that line where the sky\ncomes down to the earth and touches it, sailed to places beyond; stayed\nthere or withdrew to upper regions and lived in them happily, lived in\nagreement, live so to-day, and will live in the same way hereafter.'\n\n\"The American system, as we see, begins with an unknown, great,\nindefinite number of uncreated beings--in other words, of self-existent\npersonages or divinities. Those divinities were everything at first;\nthere was nothing except them, nothing aside from them, nothing beyond\nthem. They existed unchanged through untold periods, or rather through\na duration which would be periods were there a measure by which to\ndivide it. They lived side by side in perfect concord, in the repose\nof a primeval chaos of quiescent mind which presents a most remarkable\nanalogy with the attenuated, quiescent, undifferentiated matter which,\naccording to the nebular hypothesis, filled all points of space in the\nphysical universe before the first impulse of motion was given to it.\n\n\"At last this long period is ended, there is mental difference among\nmost of the first people, character is evolved and has become evident;\nrivalries, collisions, and conflicts begin.\n\n\"The American creation myths, as far as we know them, form simply a\nseries of accounts of the conflicts, happenings, and various methods\nby which the first world was changed into the world now existing. This\nchange was effected in various ways. In the myths of certain tribes or\nnations, it is mainly by struggles between hostile personages. One god\nof great power and character overcomes a vast number of opponents, and\nchanges each into some beast, bird, plant, or insect; but always the\nresultant beast or other creature corresponds in some power of mind or\nin some leading quality of character with the god from whose position\nit has fallen. In certain single cases opponents are closely matched,\nthey are nearly equal in combat; the struggle between them is long,\nuncertain, and difficult. At last, when one side is triumphant, the\nvictor says, I Hereafter you shall be nothing but a----'; and he tells\nwhat the vanquished is to be. But at this point the vanquished turns\non the victor and sends his retort like a Parthian arrow, 'You shall\nbe nothing but a----'; and he declares what his enemy is to be. The\nmetamorphosis takes place immediately on both sides, and each departs\nin the form which the enemy seemed to impose, but which really belonged\nto him....\n\n\"With the transformation of the last of the first people or divinities,\nwhich was finished only when the Indians or some sign of them appeared\nin every remote nook and corner in which a remnant of the first\npeople had taken refuge, the present order of things is established\ncompletely. There are now in the world individualities of three\ndistinct sets and orders. First, that small number of the first people\nwhose minds had never changed, those gods who withdrew and who live in\ntheir original integrity and harmony, who retired to places outside\nthe sky or above it; second, the great majority of the gods, who have\nbecome everything in the present world save and except only Indians.\nThis cycle finished, there is a new point of departure, and we meet a\nsecond group of myths concerning the existent world as it is now with\nits happenings--myths containing accounts of conflicts which are ever\nrecurrent, which began before all the first people were metamorphosed,\nconflicts which are going on at present and which will go on forever;\nstruggles between light and darkness, heat and cold, summer and winter,\nstruggles between winds that blow in opposite directions--in fact,\naccounts of various phenomena and processes which attract the attention\nof savage men more than others because savage men are living face to\nface with them always.\n\n\"This second group contains a large number of myths, many of them\nexceedingly beautiful and, so far as they are known, highly pleasing to\ncultivated people. Unfortunately few of these myths have been given to\nthe world yet, for the sole and simple reason that comparatively few\nhave been collected from the Indians.\"\n\nMany and diverse indeed are the tales regarding creation current among\nthe red men of America; but, notwithstanding their variety, they\npossess a fundamental likeness to each other whether they hail from\nthe pampas of Argentina or the region of the Great Lakes. Among the\nNorth American Indian myths we find the animal creator strongly in\nevidence. Thus among the Algonquin Indians we have the Creator Michabo\nor Manibozho, the Great Hare, who through philological confusion\n(the likeness of the words for 'light' and 'rabbit') has changed his\noriginal status of sun-god for that of an animal deity. While hunting\nhe observed his dogs disappear in the waters of a mighty lake. He\nhimself entered the waters, which suddenly overflowed and submerged\n'the world.' The god dispatched a raven to discover a piece of earth,\nbut it returned. Another was equally unlucky, whereupon Manibozho sent\nout a musk-rat, which returned with a sufficiency of earth to recreate\nthe terrestrial sphere. Marrying the musk-rat, he peopled the world.\n\nARAWAKS\n\nThe Arawak family, inhabiting the Guianas, Northern Brazil, and part\nof Columbia, believe that in the beginning the animals were created by\nMakonaima, the great spirit, whom no man has seen.[7] They had at that\ntime the power of speech, and Sigu, the son of Makonaima, was placed\nto rule over them. Makonaima created a marvellous tree, each branch\nof which produced a different kind of fruit The agouti discovered it\nfirst, and, coming daily to the tree, ate his fill without apprising\nthe other animals. Sigu, suspecting him, ordered the woodpecker to keep\nhim in sight, but the bird failed to detect him, and he was ultimately\nconvicted by the rat. The tree was now open to all, and the animals\nwere about to consume the fruits _in toto_ when Sigu determined to cut\ndown the tree and extend it over the whole earth by planting every seed\nand slip which it would furnish. To this end he employed the birds and\nbeasts, all of which assisted willingly, except Iwarrika, the monkey,\nwho thwarted the labours of the others. The stump of the tree was\ndiscovered to be full of water containing the fry of every description\nof fresh-water fish. The water beginning to flow, Sigu covered the\ntree-stump with a closely woven basket, but the monkey removed this\nand precipitated a terrible flood. Sigu then led the animals to an\neminence where some high cocorite palms grew, and these he made the\nbirds and climbing animals ascend. Those which could not climb and\nwere not amphibious he placed in a cave, and closed and sealed it with\nwax. He then ascended the cocorite palm himself. During the terrible\nperiod of darkness and storm which followed Sigu dropped the seeds of\nthe cocorite into the water beneath to judge by the sound of its depth.\nWhen at length he heard them strike the soft earth he knew that the\nperiod of flood had passed. The Macusis believe that the only person\nwho survived the deluge re-peopled the earth by converting stones into\nhuman beings, as did Deucalion and Pyrrha. The Tamanacs say that one\nman and one woman were saved by taking refuge on the lofty mountains\nof Tamanucu, and that they threw over their heads the fruits of the\nMauritius palm, from the kernels of which sprang men and women. The\nWarrau tribe of the Arawaks possessed the following legend of their\nown origin and that of the Caribs. The Warraus originally dwelt in a\npleasant region above the sky, where there were neither wicked men\nnor noxious animals. Okonorote, a young hunter, having wandered far\nin pursuit of a beautiful bird, espied it and discharged an arrow\nwhich missed its mark and disappeared. While searching for his arrow\nhe found a hole through which it had fallen, and on looking through it\ndescried the lower world. He made a rope by which he descended with\nhis tribe, a corpulent woman, as in several of the North American\nmyths, remaining fixed in the aperture, and filling it up. In answer\nto the people's cries for water the Great Spirit created the Essiquibo\nriver. Later, Korobona, a Warrau maiden, produced the first Carib--a\nterrible warrior, who slew many Warraus. The Paressi tribe of the\nArawaks believed that the neglect of certain customs was the origin of\nmisfortune in the world. They also related that Maiso, a stone woman,\nproduced all living beings and all rivers. Even the domestic animals\nand iron tools of the whites were borne by this original mother.\n\nThe Arawaks of Guiana had a myth that Aimon Kondi, the Great Spirit,\nscourged the world with fire, from which the survivors sought refuge\nin underground caverns. A great flood followed, and Marerewana and\nhis followers saved themselves in a canoe. Still another Arawak myth\nrelates that the Creator, having completed the cosmic scheme, seated\nhimself in a great silk-cotton tree by a river side and cut off pieces\nof its bark, which he cast all around. Those which reached the water\nbecame fish, those which touched the air birds, those which alighted\nupon the earth animals and men.\n\nThe Athapascan Indians of North-west America believe the creator of the\nworld to be Yetl, the bird from whose wings came thunder. The plane of\nearth arose from the waters as Yetl brooded thereon. The Athapascans\ntrace their descent from Yetl, who, they believe, saved their ancestors\nfrom the flood and, like Prometheus, brought them fire from Heaven.\n\nIROQUOIS INDIANS\n\nThe Iroquois tribes believe that their female ancestress fell from\nHeaven into the waste of primeval waters; but the dry land bubbled up\nunder her feet and quickly grew to the size of a continent. Several of\nthese tribes, however, are of opinion that some amphibious animals,\nsuch as the otter, beaver, and musk-rat, noticed her fall, and\nhastened to break it by shovelling up earth from the mud beneath the\nwaters. Indeed, the Indians of this family were wont to point to the\nmountain so raised near the falls of the Oswego river.\n\nCALIFORNIAN INDIANS\n\nAlthough there are no less than twenty-one different linguistic\ndivisions in California, the similarity of their myths is remarkable.\nThe Maidu have a most intricate creation myth of Kodoyanpe, the\nCreator, and the Coyote, who discovered the world and rendered it\nhabitable for men. The first human beings were small wooden images like\nthose in the _Popol Vuh,_ but these mannikins were no more tractable\nthan were those of Guatemala, and were at last changed into animals.\nKodoyanpe, the Beneficent, perceived that Coyote was bent upon evil\ncourses, and conceived the idea of his destruction. In this he was\naided by a being called the Conqueror, destroyer of many monsters and\nevil things which would have menaced the life of man still unborn;\nbut at length Kodoyanpe was defeated by Coyote and fled eastward, as\ndid Quetzalcoatl in Mexican myth. The Indians then sprang from the\nplaces where the mannikins of the first creation had been buried. Other\nversions of the myth tell of a primeval waste of waters upon which\nKodoyanpe and Coyote dropped in a canoe. \"Let this surf become sand!\"\ncried Coyote, and it became sand.\n\nThe Achomawi, neighbours to the Maidu, state that the Creator\noriginally emerged from a small cloud, and that Coyote sprang from\na fog. The Aschochimi of California had a flood myth of the total\ndestruction of humanity; but by planting the feathers of divers birds\nthe Coyote grew a new crop of men of various tribes.\n\nMr W. Barbrook Grubb in his recent book on the Lengua Indians of South\nAmerica describes their creation myth as follows:\n\n\"Their whole mythology is founded upon their idea of the Creation,\nof which we know only the bare outlines. The Creator of all things,\nspiritual and material, is symbolized by a beetle. It seems that the\nIndian idea is that the material universe was first made. The Creator,\nin the guise of the beetle, then sent forth from its hole in the earth\na race of powerful beings--according to many in an embodied state--who\nfor a time appear to have ruled the universe.\n\n\"Afterwards the beetle formed man and woman from the clay which it\nthrew up from its hole. These were sent forth on the earth, joined\ntogether like the Siamese twins. They met with persecution from their\npowerful predecessors, and accordingly appealed to the creating beetle\nto free them from their disadvantageous formation. He therefore\nseparated them, and gave them power to propagate their species, so that\nthey might become numerous enough to withstand their enemies. It then\nappears that some time after this, or at this time, the powerful beings\nfirst created became disembodied, as they never appear again in the\ntradition of the Indians in material form. The beetle then ceased to\ntake any active part or interest in the governance of the world, but\ncommitted its fortunes to these two races, which have been antagonistic\never since.\n\n\"It is rather remarkable, when we consider that they have no written\nrecords, and no system of carefully transmitted tradition, that they\nshould retain a belief in an original Creator, in the immortality of\nthe soul, and in the existence of these powerful and numerous evil\npersonifications which they call _kilyikhama_.\n\n\"That the Indian should regard the beetle as the symbol of creative\npower is, perhaps, the most remarkable feature in their mythology, for\nit closely resembles the Egyptian Scarab\u00e6us and the ideas associated\nwith it.\"\n\nUNDERWORLD ORIGINS\n\nSome American myths recount the manner in which mankind originally\nemerged from the earth. Thus the Caddoan family (Pawnees, Wichitu,\netc.) believed that they came from the Underworld. Atius Tirawa, their\ncreative agency, was omnipotent and invincible, dwelt in the upper air,\nand guided the constellations. A similar myth is that of the Mandan\nSioux, who suppose that the progenitors of their 'nation' lived in a\nsubterranean village near a vast lake. A grape-vine penetrated the\nearth, and clambering up this several of them gained the upper world.\n\nCARIB CREATION MYTH\n\nThe ancient Caribs of the Antilles, now extinct, regarded the earth,\nwhich they designated Mama Nono, as \"the good mother, from which all\nthings come.\" They believed that their original founder created the\nrace by sowing the soil with stones, or with the fruit of the Mauritius\npalm, which sprouted forth into men and women (M\u00fcller, _Amerikanische\nUrreligionen_). The Bakairi Caribs possess a belief akin to that of\nthe Zu\u00f1i Indians of New Mexico regarding the coming together of the\nSky-Father and the Earth-Mother, originally in opposition to one\nanother, communicating, then touching, and at last moving away from one\nanother until they exchanged places. In the legends of the Bakairi,\nthe mystical twin heroes Keri and Kame brought the first animals from\nthe hollow trunk of a tree, which they connect with the Milky Way.\nThe Caribs possess the same myth as the Arawaks regarding the efforts\nof the primitive culture-hero to gauge the depths of the volume of\nwater which enshrouded the earth. Another Carib deluge myth related\nthat excessive rains brought about a great flood, and that humanity\nwas saved by the ibis, which had scooped up so much earth with its\nbeak that hills could be formed from the heap. The Bakairi believe\nthat the sun and moon were in the beginning aimlessly carried about\nby two birds, until at last Keri and Kame seized them by cunning, and\nmade them proceed in a regular course. They aver that the luminaries\nare concealed by certain animals--lizards, birds, and spiders--which\nswallow the sun at night and the moon by day, disgorging them in the\nmorning and evening respectively. Others believe that the moon is\nobscured at night by a shaman taking the form of a bird, and covering\nits disk with his wings. The Pleiades the Bakairi believe to be\nparakeets. In Orion they see a dried stick of manioc.\n\nTUPI-GUARANI CREATION MYTH\n\nA twofold destruction befell the original Tupi-Guarani people of\nBrazil. According to the myth, Monan the Creator, vexed with mankind,\nattempted to destroy the world by fire; but one Irin Mag\u00e9 a magician of\nmight, extinguished the conflagration by a heavy rain-storm. This in\nturn caused the rivers and lakes to overflow. When the flood subsided,\na quarrel between the hero-brothers Tamandare and Aricoute precipitated\nanother deluge, for the former stamped his foot so deeply into the\nground that a flood of water issued therefrom, and the two brothers\nand their families were forced to take refuge in trees. The Mundruku\ntribe possesses a myth that a god Raini formed the world by placing it\nin the shape of a flat stone upon the head of another demiurge. Some\nother Tupi tribes believe in an interchange of Heaven and earth, as\ndo the Zu\u00f1i Indians, while the Mundruku hero, Karu, creates mountains\nby blowing feathers about. The River Chaco Indians, cognate to the\nGuarani, believe that the universe was created by a gigantic beetle.\nAfter having made the plains, mountains, and forests, it scraped a hole\nin the ground and entered the earth. From this hole numerous living\nbeings issued and covered the face of the earth. These beings after\ndeath became evil spirits, and constantly torment mankind. From the\nparticles of soil thrown up by its excoriations the beetle constructed\na man and woman, the progenitors of all human kind. Subsequently other\nevil spirits came from the hole, and attempted to overthrow the man and\nwoman. The beetle gave power to the human beings to resist, but then\nwithdrew, taking no further interest in their fate. An early traveller,\nHans Staden, writing in 1550 of the Tupi-Guarani tribes, states their\nbelief in the destruction of their ancestors by a powerful supernatural\nbeing, Maire, in an inundation from which but a few were saved by\nclimbing trees and hiding in caves. The same authority gives the names\nof three brothers, Krimen, Hermitten, and Coem, from whom these tribes\nclaimed descent. The southern tribes speak of four brothers, two of\nthem called Tupi and Guarani respectively, and parents of the racial\ndivisions designated after them. Among the northern Tupi proper a very\ndefinite cosmogony is discovered. Toru-shom-pek, the sun, is their\nprinciple of good, and Toru-guenket, the moon, the power of evil. The\nlatter is supposed to fall periodically and destroy the earth, and\nfrom her emanate all baneful influences, such as thunder-storms and\nfloods. Tupi cosmology rests primarily upon the idea that all created\nthings possess a maker or 'mother' who is solely responsible for the\nscheme of creation, no male influence being traceable. There are three\nother superior deities, who made the various natural families and are\ngenerally known among the Tupi tribes as Guaracy, the sun, creator\nof all animals, Jacy, the moon, creator of plant-life, and Peruda or\nRuda, the god of generation, who promotes the reproduction of human\nbeings. Each of these has a number of demiurges under him, served\nby numerous spirits who protect every individual animal, plant, and\nperson. But Tupi cosmology varies with locality, and this accounts for\nthe conflicting notices of its several investigators. Like the Arawaks,\nthe Tupi believe in Tupan, who alone of his four brothers survived the\ndeluge, but he does not appear as a creative agency. The conception\nof natural phenomena among the Tupi-Guarani tribes is no less curious\nthan their theories of creation. They believe the Pleiades to be a\nswarm of celestial bees. The Bororos Indians and other tribes believe\nthe Southern Cross to be the track of an emu, and the Milky Way an\nash-track.\n\nA TUPI-GUARANI LEGEND\n\nDuring their voyage of exploration along the Rio Maraca, a tributary\non the right bank of the Amazon, the mightiest river of the world, the\nleaders of the Croatian Scientific Mission in South America heard from\nnative lips an interesting creation legend concerning the brothers Tupi\nand Guarani, the first forefathers of the tribes speaking the sister\ntongues called after them. This legend freely translated, runs as\nfollows:\n\nTupi was once proceeding on a great journey to Par\u00e1, with his bow and\narrow in his hands, and his inseparable companion, the wise parrot\nMait\u00e1, on his shoulders. His younger brother Guarani followed in\nhis track with the evil purpose of stealing Mait\u00e1, because Fortune\n(Toryba) had decreed that the possessor of this bird should have his\ndaughter, the beautiful maiden Maric\u00e1 ('fine leaf'), as his wife.\n\nMait\u00e1, endowed with all magic wisdom, was a unique bird. He spoke with\nhis companion, knew exactly the spots in the primeval forest where game\nand fruits were to be found, and likewise kept watch and gave warning\nof the approach and the number of enemies. Tupi, although aware of the\nevil intentions of his younger brother, went cheerily and carelessly\non his way, the magic bird shielding him against all surprise. The\nsteps of the two brothers were to bring them to the banks of the Par\u00e1.\nGuarani, fitly known as 'the patient one,' did not fret. Maric\u00e1, the\namiable daughter of Toryba, had long been in love with the younger of\nthe brothers; their hearts had long been united in the primeval forest,\nwhere the world had often been forgotten in sweet kisses and embraces.\n\n\"Wait three days for me!\" said the maiden, \"I will bring you Mait\u00e1 or\nbe the prisoner of Tupi.\"\n\nIn the meantime Tupi reached the banks of the Par\u00e1 and lay fast asleep\nunder the shade of a great banana-tree (Pacobahyba).\n\n\"Awake, comrade!\" cried Mait\u00e1. \"The enemy is yet far distant, but the\ntreacherous Maric\u00e1 is in sight.\"\n\nHastily the warrior sprang up, and became aware of a mocking titter\nfrom the neighbouring bushes.\n\n\"Do not fear to come nearer, Maric\u00e1, my love. I will marry you, and you\nshall become the mother of my children,\"\n\n\"Thou liest, Tupi!\" answered the girl. \"Give me thy bird and I will\nbelieve it!\"\n\nThe eyes of the charming wood-nymph flashed alluringly upon the youth;\nhe could not resist their magic and ordered the parrot to fly to the\nshoulder of his new companion; but the wise bird had no intention of\nfurthering the false designs of the maiden, and did not move from the\nspot.\n\nTupi angrily repeated his order and made as if to strike the\ninattentive bird. Then Mait\u00e1 flew to the very top of a slender palm,\nwhile the fleet-footed maiden endeavoured to disappear into the depths\nof the forest.\n\nTupi was by no means willing to lose the beauty, and set out after\nher with swinging strides, but in vain. Laughing heartily, the active\nlittle maid clambered up a thousand-year-old giant tree and would not\nbe caught.\n\nAs if grown out of the earth Guarani suddenly appeared between them.\nThe game of hide-and-seek came to an end, the rivals measured each\nother with glances of hatred, fell upon and grappled with one another.\nLike a squirrel the lovely Maric\u00e1 climbed up a palm and seated herself\nbeside the fugitive magic bird Mait\u00e1. Both desired to witness this\nunworthy fight between the twin brothers.\n\nThe day-star set, the moon arose, but the brothers did not move from\nthe spot. They gripped each other fast, bloody sweat dripped from their\nbrows, and their fiercely sparkling eyes declared that one of them must\nhave no place on earth. The parrot screeched, and Maric\u00e1 wept, for\nGuarani's strength seemed to be leaving him.\n\n\"Be gracious, mighty Tupan!\" pleaded the daughter of Fate to the father\nof mankind. Tupan, the almighty, heard the maiden's prayer and ordered\nthe bride of the Wind to separate the brothers. Forthwith the Flood\n(Pororoca) rose in storm amidst peals of thunder; uncanny crashings and\nrumblings broke the stillness of the primeval forest, the earth shook,\nand all the elements seemed to have broken loose. Trees and palms were\noverthrown, and fell into the foam-covered waves of the giant river.\nThe parrot was lost in the skies, while Maric\u00e1 was carried off by the\nwind and came to herself in her mother's hut. The terrified wrestlers\nceased their struggle and looked in surprise at each other.\n\nIn the hope of catching Maric\u00e1, Tupi sprang upon a floating tree-trunk\nand entrusted his fate to the will of the waters, finally anchoring his\nship of life to the opposite bank. There he settled down and became\nthe ancestor of numerous Indian peoples, the Pitiguaras, Tupinambas,\nTabajaras, Cahetes, Tupiniquias, and many others.\n\nGuarani returned southward and founded the Guayanas, Carijos, Tapes,\nand many other generations of warlike Indian races.\n\nTHE RELATIONSHIP OF COSMOGONIES\n\nWe have now summarized the chief creation myths, and the question\narises, How far have these influenced each other? The further question,\nCan they be traced to a common original account or accounts? we do not\nput, as it appears to us quite as futile as those 'researches' into the\n'original language' of mankind.\n\nAlthough not in any way denying the circulation of myth and its\ndissemination, we do not think that the theory of complete and\nwholesale borrowing from advanced races by savage peoples is confirmed\nby actual research. There are, it is admitted, well-authenticated\nexamples of the colouring of savage myth by civilized cosmogonies;\nbut these examples are easily distinguished by the practised student\nof myth, as they lack the fundamentals of barbarian myth--simplicity,\n'savagery,' in short, that aboriginal artlessness and primitiveness\nwhich mark all early and unsophisticated religious thought. Unlike\nprimitive myths, they possess the idea of the creation of something\nfrom nothing (that is, they do not describe re-creation instead of\ncreation). Of creation myths exhibiting cultured influence there are\nvery few, and when one creation tale resembles another a great deal\nof proof should be forthcoming before it is inferred that one has\nsophisticated the other or that both proceed from a common story.[8]\n\nHow absurd it is to credit all or most barbarian theology with an alien\norigin is seen from the _Popol Vuh_, already quoted, an aboriginal\ncomposition of the Kiche Indians of Guatemala. This work was written\nby a Christianized native of Guatemala some time in the seventeenth\ncentury, and was copied (in the Kiche language, in which it was\noriginally written) by a Dominican friar, Francisco Ximenez, who added\na Spanish translation and _scholia_. The Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de Bourbourg,\na profound student of American arch\u00e6ology and languages,[9] deplored,\nin a letter to the Duc de Valmy,[10] the supposed loss of the _Popol\nVuh_ which he was aware had been made use of early in the nineteenth\ncentury by a certain Don Felix Cabrera. Dr C. Scherzer, an Austrian\nscholar, thus made aware of its value, paid a visit to the republic of\nGuatemala in 1854 or 1855, and was successful in tracing the missing\nmanuscript in the library of the University of San Carlos in the city\nof Guatemala. It was afterward ascertained that its scholiast, Ximenez,\nhad deposited it in the library of his convent at Chichicastenango,\nwhence it passed to the San Carlos library in 1830. Scherzer made a\ncopy of the Spanish translation of the manuscript, which he published\nat Vienna in 1856 under the title of _Las Historias del origen de los\nIndios de Guatemala, par el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenez_. The Abb\u00e9\nBrasseur also took a copy of the original, which he published at Paris\nin 1861, with the title _Vuh Popol: Le livre sacr\u00e9 des Quiches, et les\nmythes de l'antiquit\u00e9 americaine_. In this work the Kiche original and\nthe Abb\u00e9's French translation are set forth side by side. Unfortunately\nboth the Spanish and the French translations leave much to be desired\nin accuracy, and the notes which accompany them are misleading. The\nname '_Popol Vuh_' signifies 'Record of the Community,' and its\nliteral translation is 'Book of the Mat,' from the Kiche words _pop_\nor _popol_, a mat or rug of woven leaves on which the entire family\nsat, and _vuh_ or _uuh,_ paper or book, from _uoch_, to write. The\n_Popol Vuh_ is an example of a world-wide _genre_--a type of annals\nof which the first portion is pure mythology, shading off into pure\nhistory, evolving from the hero-myths of saga to the recital of the\ndeeds of authentic personages. It may, in fact, be classed with the\n_Heimskringla_ of Snorri, the Danish History of Saxo Grammaticus, the\nChinese History in the Five Books, the Japanese _Nihongi_, and its\nfourth book somewhat resembles the Pictish Chronicle. The cosmogony\nof the _Popol Vuh_ exhibits no signs of Christian influence, and even\nif it did, it would be quite erroneous to infer that such influence\nwas direct--that is, that the original compiler deliberately infused\ninto the narrative what he knew of Hebrew cosmogony. The resemblance\nbetween the first few chapters of the _Popol Vuh_ and the creation\nmyth in Genesis is slight and fortuitous. There are no precise points\nof contact, and the supposed resemblance has been drawn by writers\nonly superficially acquainted with Kiche myth and wholly ignorant of\nits spirit and the processes which developed it. It is by no means\ndifficult to prove the genuine American character of the _Popol Vuh_.\nA perusal should suffice. Macpherson, in his preface to the first\nedition of the poems of Ossian, says an \"ingenious gentleman\" before\nreading those poems imagined that out of modesty he had ascribed them\nto an ancient writer, but after reading them said they abounded too\nmuch in ideas only belonging to an early state of society to be the\nwork of a modern poet. We need not trouble about the authorship of the\npoems of Ossian; but the ingenious gentleman could have said the same\nthing with justice of the _Popol Vuh_. To anyone who has given it a\ncareful examination it must be abundantly evident that it has passed\nthrough several stages of development; that it is of aboriginal origin;\nand that it has not been influenced by European thought in any manner\nwhatsoever. The fact that it was composed in the Kiche tongue is almost\nsufficient proof of its genuine American character. The scholarship of\nthe nineteenth century was unequal to the adequate translation of the\n_Popol Vuh_; the twentieth century has as yet shown no signs of being\nable to accomplish the task; and if modern scholarship is unable to\ntranslate the work, the eighteenth century was unable to create it. No\nEuropean of that time was sufficiently versed in Kiche theology and\nhistory to compose in faultless Kiche such a work as the _Popol Vuh_,\nbreathing as it does in every line an intimate and natural acquaintance\nwith the antiquities of Guatemala.\n\nFrom these considerations it will be clear that the Hebrew cosmogony\nhas neither coloured nor veneered the account of creation in the\n_Popol Vuh_, nor have its transcribers destroyed the veritable\naboriginal thought which lies beneath. The account of the making of\nman, for example, is totally different in Genesis and in the Kiche\nproduction. \"Giants in those days\" appear in both, but in the first\nthey are merely alluded to, whereas in the second a very full account\nis provided of their destruction. The star and sun myths of the two\naccounts have no resemblance, and the sole likeness is in the opening\nscene,[11] where the vast abyss in which the original deity or deities\nsleep is pictured. Its resemblance to other American cosmogonies\nhas been amply proved; and to credit the whole, as has been done,\nto Christian influence _alone_ is characteristic of the period in\nwhich the criticism was promulgated--a period of superficial learning\nand cheap generalization like that of certain present-day critics\nand ultra-popular writers on mythology and folklore, and improperly\nequipped persons at all times.[12]\n\nWe do not desire, as we have already said, to deny the existence of\nborrowed or sophisticated cosmogonies, but these are of late origin,\neasily perceived, and as a rule merely veil a primitive or much earlier\noriginal. The following instance, alluded to by the late Professor\nBrinton, well serves to illustrate the point in question. He says:\n\n\"Very soon after coming in contact with the whites, the Indians caught\nthe notion of a bad and good spirit, pitted one against the other in\neternal warfare, and engrafted it on their ancient traditions. Writers\nanxious to discover Jewish or Christian analogies forcibly construed\nmyths to suit their pet theories, and for indolent observers it was\nconvenient to catalogue their gods in antithetical classes. In Mexican\nand Peruvian mythology this is so plainly false that historians no\nlonger insist upon it, but as a popular error it still holds its ground\nwith reference to the more barbarous and less known tribes. Perhaps\nno myth has been so often quoted in its confirmation as that of the\nancient Iroquois, which narrates the conflict between the first two\nbrothers of our race. It is of undoubted native origin and venerable\nantiquity. The version given by the Tuscarora chief Cusic in 1825\nrelates that in the beginning of things there were two brothers,\nEnigorio and Enigohatgea, names literally meaning the Good Mind and\nthe Bad Mind. (Or more exactly, the Beautiful Spirit, the Ugly Spirit\nIn Onondaga the radicals are _onigonra_, spirit; _hio_, beautiful;\n_ahetken_, ugly.) The former went about the world furnishing it with\ngentle streams, fertile plains, and plenteous fruits, while the latter\nmaliciously followed him, creating rapids, thorns, and deserts. At\nlength the Good Mind turned upon his brother in anger, and crushed him\ninto the earth. He sank out of sight in its depths, but not to perish,\nfor in the dark realms of the Underworld he still lives, receiving\nthe souls of the dead, and being the author of all evil. Now when\nwe compare this with the version of the same legend given by Father\nBrebeuf, missionary to the Hurons in 1636, we find its whole complexion\naltered; the moral dualism vanishes; the names Good Mind and Bad Mind\ndo not appear; it is the struggle of Ioskeha, the White one, with his\nbrother Tawiscara, the Dark one, and we at once perceive that Christian\ninfluence in the course of two centuries had given the tale a meaning\nforeign to its original intent.\"[13]\n\nNo student of myth of any experience would for a moment accept the\nfirst-mentioned tale as solely of aboriginal origin. Its ethical trend\nwould make this at least doubtful. It would not be correct to say that\nan ethical spirit never enters into the religious tales of savages,\nbut it should certainly be regarded with suspicion until it is proved\nto be aboriginal. It is not surprising to find it in the tales of\nEgyptians, Hebrews, Peruvians, and people of considerable culture;\nbut to encounter it in the stories of Africans, American Indians, and\nsavages who have been long in contact with Europeans should at once\narouse suspicion. Never let us neglect, however, the matter which lies\nbeneath the cultural veneer. The Uap\u00e8s Indians of Brazil include both\nJurupari and the Christian hierarchy in their pantheon. We know that\nthe latter are new-comers there; but let us not neglect Jurupari! We\nknow that Roman belief sophisticated Gallic religious practice; but is\nthat to say that it submerged it?\n\nIn order to show exactly where the most notable creation myths impinge\nupon each other and exhibit resemblances, the following tables have\nbeen drawn up, which indicate this at a glance. It will be seen\nthat most of those which bear resemblances are situated in regions\nexcessively remote--an argument in favour of those who believe that the\nreligious evolution of man has followed similar lines in all parts of\nthe habitable globe.\n\n\n      CONCLUSIONS\n\n      The idea of a primeval abyss is common to Egypt,\n      Babylonia, India, Scandinavia, the Celts, some North\n      American Indians.\n\n      The original god (or gods) finds himself in this abyss in\n      the myths of Egypt, Babylonia, India, the Hebrews, the\n      Maya-Kiches.\n\n      The original god (or gods) broods over the face of the\n      waters in Hebrew, Polynesian, North American Indian, and\n      Maya-Kiche myth.\n\n      The universe is manufactured from the corpse of a primeval\n      being in the myths of Babylonia, China, Scandinavia,\n      Hindus (Purusha).\n\n      Life or matter is created by the spoken word of the\n      original god in the myths of Egypt, the Hebrews, the\n      Celts, the Maya-Kiches.\n\n      The idea of the cosmic egg appears in the myths of Egypt,\n      India, Japan, Peru.\n\n      Man emanates: from the tears of a god (Egypt), from the\n      blood and bones of a god (Babylonia), from clay (the\n      Hebrews and North American Indians), from worms (China),\n      from wooden images or trees (Scandinavia, Maya-Kiches,\n      Iran), from the sweat of a god or giant (Iran and\n      Scandinavia), from the union of a god and an animal (some\n      North American Indians).\n\n      The eyes of a god or demiurge become the sun and moon in\n      the cosmogonies of Egypt, China, Scandinavia (?).\n\n      The piece of earth from which the new world is constructed\n      is fished out of the waters of the deluge by an animal\n      in some North American Indian myths, and perhaps in the\n      original form of the Hebrew myth.\n\n\n      PRINCIPAL CREATION MYTHS SUMMARIZED\n\n      EGYPT\n\n      (1) A god finding himself in a primeval abyss, where he\n      has been since the beginning of time, utters his name.\n      This act causes him to 'live.'\n\n      (2) He next creates, by a magical act, a foundation upon\n      which to stand, probably the earth.\n\n      (3) From his mouth he brings objects which reproduce\n      themselves.\n\n      (4) He creates two other deities, male and female, who in\n      turn propagate other gods.\n\n      (5) Vegetation and creeping things are formed on the earth.\n\n      (6) Man is then created from the tears which fall from the\n      original deity.\n\n      BABYLONIA\n\n      (1) Primeval deities dwell in an abyss.\n\n      (2) New gods arrive (?) and quarrel with them.\n\n      (3) Two of the primeval deities are slain, but the third,\n      a female, creates monsters and gives battle to the\n      new-comers, and is annihilated.\n\n      (4) The new gods create the earth and firmament from her\n      corpse.\n\n      (5) Their champion is decapitated, and from his blood and\n      bones springs the race of mankind.\n\n      CHINESE\n\n      (1) From nothingness an atom is formed.\n\n      (2) In the course of ages it splits into a male and female\n      principle which again split in two.\n\n      (3) From the co-operation of these four elements springs a\n      being whose body is broken up into the constituents of a\n      universe, and the worms from its decomposing corpse become\n      men.\n\n      SCANDINAVIAN\n\n      (1) There exists a yawning abyss, bordered on one side\n      by a realm of mist and cold, on the other by a region of\n      fire.\n\n      (2) A giant is brought into being through the melting of\n      the congealing vapour in the place of cold by a spark of\n      fire from the region of Muspelheim.\n\n      (3) This being becomes the progenitor of a race of giants.\n\n      (4) He has a cow which, by licking a brine-covered rock,\n      produces the father of the gods.\n\n      (5) These gods slay the giant and all his progeny save\n      two, and manufacture the earth from his corpse.\n\n      (6) Alternatively the gods lift the earth out of the\n      primeval waters.\n\n      (7) The dwarfs fashion two figures out of trees, and the\n      gods give them life and understanding.\n\n      CELTS\n\n      (1) Two principles, creative and destructive, are alluded\n      to.\n\n      (2) The latter dwells in an abyss.\n\n      (3) Atomic life originates through the spoken words of the\n      creative principle.\n\n      (4) Man passes from the abyss to the earth-circle.\n\n      JAPANESE\n\n      (1) Male and female elements separate from the original\n      atom.\n\n      (2) These form an ovoid body containing germs from which\n      heaven and earth are formed.\n\n      (3) A species of reed-shoot appears between them and is\n      transformed into a god.\n\n      (4) Divine beings are born, two of whom unite and give\n      birth to islands, seas, rivers, herbs, and trees, and the\n      celestial bodies.\n\n\n[1] _Original Sanscrit Texts_, London, 1868, vol. v, p. 356.\n\n[2] See Budge, _The Gods of Egypt_ (1904).\n\n[3] See King, _Seven Tablets of Creation_(1902); and _Babylonian\nReligion and Mythology_ (1899).\n\n[4] Gomara, _Conquista de Mejico_, chap. ccxv (Madrid, 1749).\n\n[5] Mendieta, _Hist. Eccl. Ind_., lib. i, chap. 2 (Mexico, 1870).\n\n[6] See my _The Popol Vuh_, pp. 9-26 (London, 1908).\n\n[7] W. H. Brett, _Indian Tribes of Guiana_, p. 378 _et seq._(1865).\n\n[8] This question has been dealt with at greater length elsewhere (see\np. 158).\n\n[9] His euhemeristic interpretations of the Mexican myths are as\nworthless as the materials he unearthed are priceless.\n\n[10] Mexico, October 15, 1850.\n\n[11] This has, in fact, quite as strong a resemblance to the\ncosmological account in the _Satapatha Brahmana_ in some details.\n\n[12] A disquieting circumstance attending such ignorant criticism is\nthat those who criticize appear in many instances to be quite unable\nto apprehend the substantial difficulties in the way of barbarian\nborrowings. Thus a reviewer in a weekly journal of standing actually\ninferred that certain North American Indian myths presented by the\nauthor had been sophisticated by Greek and classical tales. However\nwell the theory of borrowing may explain things, and although borrowing\ndoes at times occur, the difficulties in this especial instance are\noverwhelming. They were quite unappreciated, however, by the reviewer,\nwhose experience of myth was, of course, obviously limited. Students of\nmyth would do well to bear the point of virtual impossibility in mind,\nas it is of constant occurrence, and one regarding which no fixed or\ndefinite rules or laws can possibly obtain.\n\n[13] _Myths of the New World_ by Professor D. G. Brinton (Philadelphia,\n1905).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nPARADISE AND THE PLACE OF PUNISHMENT\n\n\nA place of reward and a place of punishment are ineradicably associated\nwith mythology. The idea that the human soul must betake itself to a\nrealm of brightness and bliss, where it will ever bask in the smile of\nthe gods it has adored upon earth, or be tormented by beings--still\ngod-like--in an atmosphere of suffering or torture, appears to be\ncommon to most mythological systems of an advanced type. Thus Egyptian,\nIndian, Babylonian, Hebrew, and Mexican mythology all possess a place\nof bliss and a region of sorrow. In Greek, Roman, Scandinavian, and\nCeltic myth, however, we have merely a Hades, an Otherworld, a place of\nthe dead. Would it be true to say that it is only among those peoples\nin whom the moral standpoint is high that the places of reward and\npunishment are conceived, instead of the mere place of the dead, the\nabode of shadows? If so, the Aztec who delighted in human sacrifice\nwas upon a higher ethical level than the cultivated Greek. Again,\nthe myths of races of low civilization sometimes refer to a place of\nreward, although more often their abode of the dead is merely a shadowy\nextension of their mortal existence.\n\nLet us examine the outstanding myths of civilized antiquity, then\ntheir savage counterparts, ere we decide how far mankind owes its\nconception of Heaven and Hell to ethical promptings. This is one of\nthe junctures where religious science is not to be distinguished from\nthe science of mythology, for both explain the origin of ideas dealing\nwith the next world, or attempt to place them in their proper sequence\nof evolution. But it must be borne in mind that the science of myth is\nnot concerned with the purely religious aspect of the abode of the\ndead, whatever form it takes, but with its 'geography,' scenery, and\nsupernatural inhabitants only. If it asks \"How far have the myths of a\nplace of punishment and reward been affected by ethical promptings?\"\nit is merely for the sake of the myths, not for any concern with these\npromptings.\n\nTHE TEUTONIC REALM OF WOE\n\nThe Teutonic peoples believed that the dead passed to the realm of Hel\n(our 'Hell'), daughter of Loki. The word Hel appears to be derived from\na root which means 'to conceal' (old Teutonic 'Halja,' the Coverer-up\nor Hider), and signified both the realm of the dead and the goddess\nwho presided over it. But it is probably a later development of the\nmyth, perhaps sophisticated by Christian influences, that makes Hel\na place of punishment. In Hel's later habitation we find \"Hunger\nher table, starvation her knife, delay and slowness her servants,\nprecipice her threshold, care her bed.\" The realm of this dark goddess,\nthe Proserpine of the North, was not originally associated with the\nidea of punishment, but was pictured rather as a delectable region.\nThither fared Balder when slain, and on his arrival 'Eljudnir,' the\nhigh hall of Hel, was bravely decorated, while foaming horns of mead\nwere prepared for his reception. In later days, when the conception\nof Valhalla, the warriors' Paradise, was popularly accepted, Hel\nbecame the residence after death of those who had not perished by\nthe sword, who had died a 'straw' death. The Teutonic defunct, then,\nwere divided in death according to the manner of their dying, as in\nancient Mexico, where dead warriors went to the palace of the sun-god\nand those who died of dropsy or were struck by lightning betook them\nto the luscious and fertile Paradise of Tlaloc the water-god, while\nthe common herd were swallowed pell-mell by the capacious death-cavern\nof Mictlantecutli, lord of Mictlan or 'Hades.' The Teutonic goddess\nHel (or 'Hela' in its Latinized form) was, according to Meyer and\nMogk, more closely related to the demonic class of beings than to the\ngods proper. This is sometimes the case with the infernal powers, and\nexamples occur where they are scarcely more than mere demons; but most\ncommonly the rulers of the Underworld rank as gods proper. Again, they\nare often the deities of a subject, conquered, or outcast race. This\nquestion will receive further treatment at the end of this chapter.\n\nHel, as has been said, was the child of Loki and the giantess\nAngurboda; and a shadowy Teutonic All-Father (a 'god behind the gods,'\nwho recalls Mr Lang's Australian and Andaman original monotheistic\nfigures), fearful of the innate and abounding evil in her, cast her\ninto Niflheim and gave her power over the nine worlds of Helheim,\nwhere she housed the dead. Hel was a place of gloom and dreariness,\nbut within it was a grove inhabited by sinless beings destined to\nre-people the world. It is possible to discern in the myth of Hel as we\nknow it a later sophistication of the original, most probably due, as\nwe have said, to Christian influence. Early Teutonic ideas concerning\nthe dead were by no means well defined. We read of the souls of the\ndeparted accompanying the Wild Huntsman (no other than Odin) on his\nweird nightly chase. Other tales describe them as dwelling with Odin\nin the hills, or, indeed, beneath them. This last is a very much more\nwidespread Teutonic tradition than is generally credited. Charlemagne\nsleeps in the Odenberg, Frederick Barbarossa in the Kyffh\u00e4user, and,\nall unknown to the writer until the day before penning these words,\nKing Arthur was once thought to slumber beneath the lion-like mass of\nArthur's Seat on the outskirts of Edinburgh.\n\nVALHALLA, THE WARRIORS' HEAVEN\n\nValhalla, the hall of Odin, where Teutonic warriors fallen in battle\ndwelt ever with the god in feast and fray, was the warriors' Paradise,\nand was built round the trunk of a tree Laeradhr. On its leaves browsed\nthe stag Eikthyrmir and the goat Heidbrun, from whose udders flowed\ninexhaustible streams of mead to quench the thirst of the heroes. Its\nportals were five hundred and forty in number, and were capable of\nadmitting eight hundred warriors at a time. Its roof was made of the\nshields of the mighty dead, its leaves of their spear-shafts, and round\nthe walls glittered their swords and mail, while on the western wall\nhung a stuffed wolf surmounted by an eagle. At some distance from the\nhall was the forest Glasir, the trees of which bore golden foliage,\nencircled by a sacred wall. The champions or 'Einherjar' went forth to\ncombat each other every day, returning to feast on boar and mead.\n\nNow it is obvious that this myth is a comparatively late conception\ncreated by a military aristocracy. A similar phenomenon is to be\nobserved, as has been said, in ancient Mexico, where the military\ncaste supplied the altars of the war-god with sacrificial victims,\nand maintained the food-compact between the people and their deities.\nAs you will remember, if the gods perished for lack of sustenance\n(human blood) they could not bless the harvests, and the people would\nalso die. The future reward of a valiant Mexican warrior was the\ncontinuous company of the sun-god. Now we find that at one time human\nsacrifice was rendered to Odin. Prisoners of war were sacrificed to\nhim, precisely as they were to the Mexican war-god Uitzilopochtli by\n_stabbing_ (see Chadwick, _Cult of Othin_), and sometimes the 'blood\neagle' was carved on their backs. King Domalde of Sweden and a certain\nKing Olaf were sacrificed to Odin in order that he might be induced to\nput an end to a famine. Thus early Scandinavia resembles Mexico. By\nsuch instances does the science of comparative religion triumphantly\nassert its value. Thus the myth of Valhalla appears to have had the\nsame genesis as the myth of the reception of dead Mexican warriors into\nthe sun-god's train.\n\nTHE OLYMPUS OF OLD EGYPT\n\nBut scanty information is to be gleaned concerning the abode of the\ngods of Egypt. In the Pyramid texts of King Pepi I we read that the\nwhole universe was divided into three portions, Heaven, earth, and the\nUnderworld or 'Duat,' each with its own gods. Besides the gods, Heaven\ncontained other classes of beings, the Shesu-Heru or Shemsu-Heru, a\nname which may, perhaps, be translated 'Followers of Horus.' They were\nthose who attended upon Horus, his satellites, and on occasion his\ndefenders, obviously followers of the sun, the hosts of the sun-god,\nresembling in nature the 'pages' of the Mexican Quetzalcoatl, the\nKnights of King Arthur of the Round Table (also perhaps the sun[1]),\nor the dead warriors who caroused with Norse Odin in Valhalla. Indeed,\nwe find them assisting Horus in his war against the powers of darkness\nexactly as the dead warriors help Odin. These powers are alluded to in\nthe texts of Pepi I as if they were of very considerable importance in\nthe Egyptian heavenly economy. Pepi placates them and they purify him\nand recite the 'Chapter of those who rise up' on his behalf. Another\nclass of heavenly beings is the Ashemu, whose characteristics are\nunknown. The Henmemet or Hamemet were either those who have been or\nwere to become human beings. A text of Hatshepset seems to ascribe\nmortal attributes to them, as it employs the determinative signs which\nstand for human beings, and a passage in a hymn to Amen-Ra edited by\nGr\u00e9paut shows that the Egyptians believed them to live on grain. Of\nother beings, the Set, the Afa, and the Utennu, we only know the name.\nThe souls of righteous men also dwelt In Heaven.\n\nThe Egyptian Heaven, so far as we can glean, realized the idea of\nParacelsus, 'as above, so below'; for it was the macrocosm of the\nearth's microcosm, the greater world above, which was mirrored in the\nearth below, one being the complement of the other. The denizens of\nthe Egyptian Olympus were the 'Great,' the 'Little,' and the other\ncompanies of gods; the different classes of beings already alluded\nto; and the souls of men, or their 'shadows,' 'doubles,' 'souls,'\n'spirits,' 'powers,' 'hearts,' or 'spiritual bodies.' The denizens of\nHeaven directed the course of the celestial bodies, overlooked the\naffairs of mortals, and accompanied the greater gods in their progress\nthrough the heavens. Constant prayers and hymns of praise arose to Ra,\nthe king and chief of Heaven. The gods were nourished on celestial food\nwhich came from the Eye of Horus--that is, they subsisted upon the\nbeams of light which emanated from the sun. In a text of Pepi I we read\nof a 'plant of life' which the gods subsisted on, and it apparently\ngrew near the great lake Sekhet-hetep, on the banks of which the gods\nusually reclined. The just who abode with the gods were apparelled in\nsimilar manner to them; but they also wore white linen garments, and\nwere shod with white sandals.\n\nFrom the Pyramid texts of Unas we glean some further information\nconcerning the celestial sphere. It is called Aaru (perhaps 'the\nPlace of Reeds'), or, in another part of the text, Sekhet-Aaru, and\nwas divided into a number of districts, the names of which may be\ntranslated 'the Field of Offerings,' 'the Field of Peace,' and 'the\nField of Grasshoppers.' It was watered by extensive lakes, where Ra\nbathed and the dead purified themselves before beginning their heavenly\nexistence. Originally Aaru was thought to be located in the sky, but\nthere is evidence that it could be entered from certain places in\nthe Delta, called Pe-Tep and Tettu. The vignettes of Sekhet-Aaru in\nthe Theban recension of the _Book of the Dead_ indicate that it was\nplaced in the north of Egypt. It seems to have been composed of good\nagricultural country bearing heavy crops, a pleasant and well-watered\nland where the justified soul might rest from the labours of earth,\nsecure in an eternity of bucolic delights. This, be it noted, was the\nParadise of the cult of Osiris, a worship anciently connected with\nthe land and the tillers thereof. There is little or no ground for\nits being confounded, as it certainly appears to have been confounded\nat a later period, with the Heaven of Ra. The myth of the Paradise\nof Ra, with its choirs of chanting spirits and its different classes\nof supernatural beings, bears traces of ecclesiastical elaboration,\nwhereas the Paradise of the Osirian cult is the Otherworld of a race\npurely agricultural--the cult of the peasant as opposed to that of the\ndweller in towns.\n\nTHE DUAT\n\nIt was probably only in later times that the 'Duat' was regarded as\na place of punishment. Originally it seems to have been merely the\nplace through which the dead sun-god Ra passed, after his setting or\ndeath each evening, on his journey to the east, where once again he\nmight rise. The Duat was peopled by the powers of night and darkness,\nthe natural enemies of the sun. At a later period these powers were\nconfounded with the damned--that is, they met with the fate generally\naccorded to the deities of gloom and chaos at the hands of more distant\ngenerations. There was no Hell proper for 'lost souls' in the Egyptian\nreligious economy; but a region existed at the end of the Duat where\ninfernal goddesses presided over pits of fire, slaying, beheading,\nand dismembering the enemies of Ra, and burning the remains. Once\nthe god had quitted this region, however, the fires went out and his\nenemies were granted a period of rest until he reappeared on the\nfollowing night. As these beings appeared in Egyptian pictorial art\nwith human forms, the idea gradually took shape that they represented\nthe souls of the damned. Dr Budge very shrewdly says: \"The souls of the\ndamned could have done nothing to hinder the progress of Ra, and the\nEgyptians never imagined that they did, but it is possible that in late\ndynastic times certain schools of theological thought in Egypt, being\ndissatisfied with and unconvinced of the accuracy of the theory of the\nannihilation of the wicked, assigned to evil souls dwelling-places with\nthe personifications of the powers of nature already mentioned.\"[2] The\ndescription of the Duat is hard to fit to any known mythic locality,\nbut it is usually employed in the texts as a name for a place of the\ndead--a Hades, not a place of retribution.\n\nASSYRIA'S 'LAND OF NO RETURN'\n\nThe Hades of Assyria is a vast expanse of emptiness and gloom, from\nwhich, as we learn from a mythological poem on the descent of Ishtar,\n\"there is no return.\" Mud and dust feed its population, darkness\nis their heritage, it is a house with no exit. A keeper guards the\nentrance and exacts homage to Allatu, the queen, from all who enter the\ngate. A spell is then cast over the ill-fated new-comer and he is led\nthrough seven successive gates and stripped of all earthly possessions.\nIn the end he is bereft even of the power of speech.\n\nAllatu and her chiefs enjoy thrones of gold adorned with precious\nstones, as though to mark emphatically the difference between\nthemselves and the culprits. Allatu may recompense or condemn,\naccording to the needs of the cases that come before her, and has the\npower, for instance, to strike an offender with disease of the body, or\nto consign him to prison.\n\nThe Assyrian Hades was separated from the land of the living by a river\nof Death. It had no substance, shape, or atmosphere, but was filled\nwith chilling cold and melancholy gloom. It boasted a department of\njudgment, like the Hebrew Sheol, which in later years became further\ndeveloped, and marks a most important variation in the evolution of the\nidea of a place of punishment. The journey to this hall of judgment was\nfull of dangers and horrors of every description, through which the\ndeceased must pass.\n\nThe Babylonian Hades resembles the medieval Hell inasmuch as the\ndisembodied souls wander about in search of escape. Allatu, with her\ndivining rod, ruled her dominion with relentless power; and being the\ngoddess of death and barrenness, she lived in constant dread of Ea, the\ngod of wisdom, _who_ could alone cancel the spells of the Underworld\nand cause men to live again.\n\nThe idea of personifying the stars and planets, so that besides\nappearing in the sky they presided on the earth in living bodies, is\nexemplified in the later Babylonian mythology. This astral system had\nthe outstanding feature that occurrences on earth closely corresponded\nto the movements in Heaven. The gods and goddesses had seats assigned\nto them in the heavens while their spirits pervaded the earth. Shamash\nand Sin, the two greatest deities, represented the sun and moon, and\nwere followed by the other planetary gods. Anu became the greatest of\nthe gods and assumed supreme command of the heavens.\n\nThe Babylonians pictured a region in Hades for the reception of\nrighteous souls. Into this region those who after judgment appeared\nto merit recompense gained admission. Under a peaceful silver sky\nancient prophets, crowned in triumph, sat amid pleasant fields. A\nclear stream rippled past and quenched the thirst of the seers from\nyear's end to year's end. This was the water of life, belonging to\nIshtar, and endowing her with the power to return to earth. From this\nregion spirits passed into a firmament above, consisting of the earthly\nsphere in addition to the heavenly. It had windows from which the rain\ndescended, and a flight of steps leading from the zenith to the earth.\n\nTHE HEBREW HELL\n\nThe Jewish place of punishment was Gehenna, where corporal as well\nas spiritual torment was meted out to the wicked. In later Jewish\neschatology, it was the place of eternal punishment for the Gentile\nraces, apostate Jews being retained there in a description of purgatory\nuntil, their sin atoned for, they could pass to Paradise. Sheol, on the\nother hand, was perhaps a more purely Hebrew conception than Gehenna,\nwhich probably had its origin in the old Accadian Gi-umuna. Sheol\nis the common abode of just and unjust alike after death, and life\nthere was shadowy and unsubstantial as in the Greek Hades, It is well\ndescribed in Isaiah xiv, 9-11:\n\n\"Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it\nstirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it\nhath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.\n\n\"All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as\nwe? art thou become like unto us?\n\n\"Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the\nworm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.\"[3]\n\nAfter the captivity, and consequently under Babylonian influences,\nSheol became a region principally devoted to punishment, with Gehenna\nas the place of especial torment and abasement. The Talmud describes\nthis place of woe as follows: \"Ordinary transgressors of Israel,\nwhose merits preponderate, though they descend into Hell, do not feel\nthe effects of the flames, and rise at once. Some who sin with their\nbodies, such as those who put their neighbours to shame publicly and\nwho neglect the phylacteries, etc., are annihilated after twelve\nmonths' endurance of hell-fire. Adulterers, though they sin with their\nbodies, ascend to happiness at the end of the same period. Christians,\ninformers, and those who systematically despise the words of the\nRabbis are consigned to eternal punishment. Of course, all may escape\npunishment altogether by repentance in this life.\"\n\nNo departmental god rules in this dreary realm, Sheol being directly\nunder the eye of Yahweh; for, according to Job xxvi, 6, Sheol and\ndestruction are naked before Him, and being omnipresent He is also in\nSheol. Sheol was silent as the grave, its inhabitants raising not a\nmurmur; neither in their grief could they work to praise God. It had\ngates and bars, alluded to in the Song of Solomon as \"jealous\" and\n\"cruel as the grave.\"\n\nThe Talmud obviously borrows from Persian doctrine; or it might be\nmore correct to say that both conceptions spring from a common source.\nIn Psalms xxxvi, 8, and xlvi, 4, a river of life is alluded to which\nmakes glad the abode of the Elohim or gods. Says the anonymous author\nof _Bible Folklore:_ In the discourse of Josephus to the Greeks on\nHades we find the opinions of the more liberal Pharisees clearly set\nforth about the Christian era. He believes in a Hades of temporary\npunishment, and an Elysium of light called Abraham's bosom. The Messiah\nLogos (as at Alexandria) is, according to the Jewish historian, to\nbe the judge who will condemn the wicked to a lake of fire already\nprepared, but as yet not used for torture, and will reward the\nrighteous in the heavenly kingdom. The wicked are to resume their old\nbodies unchanged, but the righteous will obtain pure and immortal forms\nfashioned from their old bodies which have been sowed in the ground.\nThe simile of the corn sown as seed, and springing up with a glorified\nbody, is used by Josephus as by St Paul, and it was evidently a widely\nknown parable, which occurs also in the Talmud, for Rabbi Meir is said\nto have told Cleopatra that as a grain of wheat buried naked springs\nforth with many clothes so will the righteous also....\n\n\"In the future happy age, says Josephus, after the judgment of the\nwicked, there will be inhabitants of Heaven and of earth, but no more\nbirth, no wild animals, no storms, no darkness or change. Man will be\nable to walk across the sea, and to ascend into Heaven; he will never\ngrow old or die, but continue to enjoy a material or semi-material\nexistence in his spiritual body....\n\n\"In the Mishnah the world to come is mentioned as the heritage of\n'all Israel,' but the wicked, the Sadducee, the Epicurean, readers\nof foreign books, and sorcerers, together with certain historic\npersonages, are excluded. Some of these are to be slain by plague in\nthe world to come, and some are to be scattered. Thus the doctrine\nof immortality in the Mishnah is confined to the future resurrection\nof pious Israelites. In Daniel also a partial resurrection only\nis foretold to follow a judgment day. The Sibyl believes that the\nrighteous will live again on earth, but the wicked will remain in\nGehenna. The Book of Enoch is full of the same doctrine. A sealed\nvolume is to be opened in the last day, and the good will be selected\nand become angels, but Azazel and his hosts will be judged, and cast\ninto a lake of fire. A great fire is also to burn up the present Heaven\nand earth according to the Sibyl, and a new creation will emerge from\nthe ashes.\n\n\"Such, then, was the development of Jewish eschatology as compared with\nthat of Egypt, Assyria, and Persia. At first an 'eternal house' beneath\nthe earth is imagined to hold for ever the shades of good and evil\nin appropriate habitations. Gradually the expectation of a return to\nearthly life grows up, and the idea of spiritual and immortal bodies.\nThese are, however, reserved for the elect few, and the wicked are\ncondemned either to a second death or to eternal torment in their\nformer bodies in a Hell of flame, where, according to Isaiah, a fiery\nworm gnaws upon them.\"\n\nTHE HELLENIC PLACE OF THE DEAD\n\nThe Greek place of punishment embraces three abstract regions, Hades,\nTartarus, and Elysium. Spirits leaving the earth entered 'the Unseen,'\npassing, according to their worth, into one of these three abodes.\n\nAccording to one writer, Oceanus, greatest of rivers, rolled between\nthe place of perfect happiness on its southern banks and the realms of\neternal darkness on its western, where fog and gloom encircled a place\nof everlasting punishment. This stream had no mouth and no source, and\ndid not mingle with the sea which, according to Homer, it enclosed.\nEarlier than this, Plato described a still more gloomy region. He\nspeaks of the plain of Lethe (situated near the two springs of Lethe\nand Mnemosyne, which represented oblivion and memory), whose waters\ngive forgetfulness.\n\nIn the _Iliad_, again, the place of Oceanus is usurped by the Styx,\nwhich wound its course seven times round the world of the dead.\n\nThose who had been taught the divination of the mysteries of infernal\nlife could find guidance as to the future engraved on a gold plate in a\ntomb in Petelia at the oracle of Trophonius; and this tomb came to be\nregarded as one of the entrances to Hell.\n\nThe supreme sovereign of the infernal regions was Pluto, brother of\nZeus and Poseidon, and a willing accomplice in deposing Cronus, their\nfather, and sharing his kingdom. Pluto, spouse of Persephone, whom we\nhave mentioned before, ruled with merciless severity, striking terror\nto the hearts of his subjects. He possessed a helmet which rendered him\ninvisible, and he was feared by the gods as well as by the dead. He was\nassisted by a tribunal of judges, the chief being \u00c6acus, son of Zeus\nand \u00c6gina (appointed to this trust in the Underworld because of his\njust dealings with men in his kingdom above), Minos, and Rhadamanthus.\nElysium and Tartarus were two late offshoots of the region of Hades.\nIn the _Odyssey_, the souls who were utterly worthless fell into the\n'deep bottomless pit' of Tartarus, while those who merited reward\npassed into the pleasant land of Elysium. In the most ancient Greek\nmythology, however, Hades was a region for all the dead, good and bad,\na land of shadow and dim suggestion.\n\nTHE ELYSIAN FIELDS\n\nThe Elysian fields appear in some descriptions as a fertile plain at\nthe utmost ends of the earth, washed by the waters of Oceanus, and\nruled over by the god Rhadamanthus, a fair-haired deity who exercises\na benevolent sway over his perfect kingdom. The balmy air, mingled\nwith the perfume of sweet-scented blossoms, is tempered by zephyrs and\nwhispering winds. It is never too hot nor too cold. Snow and storm have\nno place in this delectable country. In Hesiod, in addition to this\ndescription, Elysium is said to be ruled over by Cronus, the father\nof Rhadamanthus, the latter sharing his sovereignty and administering\njudgment. Heroes who never died, but were transferred from the realms\nabove without pain, were the principal subjects of Elysium.\n\nA later theory describes Elysium as a part of the Underworld.\n\nTHE SLAVONIC PLACE OF THE DEAD\n\nIt is testified by Cosmos of Prague and other early writers that the\npagan Slavs believed in the continuance of life after death, and\nnaturally therefore in an abode of the dead; but it is probable that\nthis region was not a place of reward or punishment till the influence\nof foreign ideas made it so. The abode of the dead was called by the\npre-Christian Slavs _peklo, raj_, or _nav_, which some authorities have\nendeavoured to collate with the Greek _naus_, the Latin _navis_; and\ncolour is lent to this connexion by the ancient Slav custom of burying\ntheir dead in boats, wherein the soul travelled to its abiding-place.\nMore probably, however, _nav_ is from the root _ny_ which expresses\nthe idea of death (thus _navi_, the dead, _unaviti_, to kill). The\nhistorian Dlugosz identifies a god Nya, ruler of the Underworld and\nthe souls of the dead, with Pluto; and another possibility is that the\nword _nav_ still lingers in the Little Russian _mavka_ or _navka_, a\nspecies of elf or nymph, believed to be the spirit of an unbaptized\nchild.\n\nIt is most likely that the terms _raj_ and _peklo_ were formerly\nsynonymous with _nav_--that is, designated a Hades where life continued\nmuch the same as on the earth; but in later times _raj_ came to signify\nthe Elysian fields, _peklo_ Tartarus. Both words occur prior to the\nintroduction of Christianity, although Christianity modified their use.\nThe derivation of _raj_ cannot be traced with any certainty. It appears\nelsewhere as _vuirei,_ said to be connected with the Elysian _vireta_\nof Virgil. It is generally pictured as an island far out in the sea, a\nplace of eternal sunshine and happiness, where dwell the souls not only\nof the dead, but of those who have not yet been born. Here also are the\nbirds that in autumn take flight from the earth-world, and the seeds\nof the flowers that have perished; types of all things that vanish\nfrom the earth in winter are here preserved, to be restored to the\nwaiting world in spring-time. The mystic isle of Buy\u00e1n is one variant\nof the _raj_. Its name is probably derived from an adjective signifying\n'burning,' 'ardent,' or 'fruitful,' and the isle itself is connected\nwith the idea of the sun, of warmth, intense light, and fruitfulness.\nBuy\u00e1n is the resting-place of the white stone Alatnir, a potent magical\ninstrument frequently mentioned in spells and charms. Like everything\nelse connected with Buy\u00e1n, Alatnir is of burning, dazzling brilliance.\n\n_Peklo_ also was associated with the idea of heat, possessing\naffinities with the verb _pech_, to parch; but whereas _raj_ came\nto signify Paradise, _peklo_, under the influence of Christian\nideas, became identified later with the infernal regions, a place of\npunishment for the wicked dead. In modern folklore we find mention of\na subterranean place of the dead called _Ad_, inhabited by demons who\ntorment the souls of evil-doers; the corresponding Heaven (of the \"Jack\nand the Beanstalk\" kind) is equally vague and indeterminate; and both\nhave been so evidently influenced by Christian conceptions that they\nreveal but little of their pagan ancestry.\n\nThe _nav_ of the ancients was reached by various ways. Sometimes,\nas has been indicated, the soul had to traverse a wide sea in the\nboat-shaped coffin provided by relatives left on earth. Sometimes,\nagain, the journey was accomplished on foot, when a pair of boots was\nprovided; or the soul might have to climb a mountain of iron or glass,\nand for this the parings of its mortal nails were laid in the coffin.\nThe road leading to the celestial regions was generally the Milky Way,\nthough sometimes the rainbow was trodden by the dead. In either case\npopular imagination pictured the _nav_ a long distance away.\n\nTHE CELTIC OTHERWORLD\n\nBesides a belief in a land of the dead, the Celts had an Otherworld\nto which favoured mortals might penetrate. This region possessed\nmany names--Mag Mor, the Great Plain; Tir n' Aill, the Otherworld;\nTir-nan-og, the Land of Youth, the Shining Land; and so forth. It is\nalso called in Celtic myth the Isle of the Men of Falga, Falga being\nan old name for the Isle of Man, which was connected with the god\nManannan, lord of the under-seas.\n\nThis Celtic Elysium was sometimes beyond the seas, sometimes under the\nseas, or it might be situated in the hollow hills; and sometimes it\nwas the abode of the _Sidhe_ or elder gods. It is alluded to in the\nVoyage of Bran, in the Cuchulainn cycle, and in the tale of Laegaire\nmac Crimthainn. In Celtic myth it was clearly distinguished from the\nsubterranean place of the dead; it was a blessed region which only a\nfavoured few might hope to reach during life. The subterranean home of\nthe earth-gods is sometimes a place of the dead, because Celtic myth is\npredominantly agricultural.\n\nThe Otherworld, shrouded by mist, was upon the same plane as the\nterrestrial, or sometimes co-extensive with it. There dwelt the\ngods and other supernatural beings. It had some resemblance to the\nMohammedan Paradise in its purely material delights, yet was not\nwithout its spiritual aspect. It conferred oblivion for a term of years\non those who visited it, like that later Land of Faerie where long\nforgetfulness awaits the wight who wanders in its enchanted glades. The\nCeltic Elysium is the first step in the evolution of a Heaven.\n\nThe gods connected with it were Manannan and Lug, the sun-god, probably\nbecause it lay in the western sea.\n\nSome think that the Celtic Elysium was coloured by Christian story, but\nsuch a very sensuous Paradise possesses little of the character of a\nChristian Heaven.\n\nTHE HEAVEN OF ANCIENT MEXICO\n\nVarious destinations awaited the dead in ancient Mexico. Warriors slain\nin battle repaired to the sun, where they dwelt in bliss with the\ndeity who presided over that luminary; and sacrificed captives also\nfared thither. These followed the sun in his course, crying aloud and\nbeating upon their shields. \"It is also said,\" writes old Sahagun in\nhis _History of the Affairs of New Spain_,[4] \"that in this heaven are\ntrees and forests of diverse sorts. The offerings which the living of\nthis world make to the dead duly arrive at their destination, and are\nreceived in this heaven. After four years of sojourn in that place the\nsouls of the dead are changed into diverse species of birds, having\nrich plumage of the most brilliant colours,\"[5] These were known as\n_tzinzonme_ ('little bird which flies from flower to flower'), and they\nflitted from blossom to blossom on earth as well as in Heaven, sucking\nthe rich fragrance from the tropical blooms of the deep valleys of\nAnahuac.\n\nTlalocan, an even more material Paradise, was that of the water-god or\ndeity of moisture, Tlaloc. Sahagun calls this a \"terrestrial Paradise\"\n\"where they feign that there is surfeit of pleasure and refreshment,\nvoid for a space of torment.\" In that delectable region there is\nplenteousness of green maize, of calabashes, pepper, tomatoes, and\nharicots, and it is filled with variegated blossoms. There dwell\nthe god Tlaloc and his followers. The persons who gain admittance\nare those slain by lightning or thunderbolt, the leprous, and the\ndropsical--those whose deaths have in any way been caused _through the\nagency of water_--for Tlaloc is god of that element; and existence\nthere is perpetual. The Paradise of Tlaloc was situated in the\nmountains, in a climate of eternal summer.\n\nTHE AZTEC ABODE OF THE DEAD\n\nThe Hades of the Aztec race was Mictlan, presided over by\nMictlantecutli (Lord of Mictlan) and his spouse (Mictecaciuatl). The\nsouls of the defunct who fared thither were those who died of disease,\nchiefs, great personages, or humbler folk. On the day of death the\npriest harangued the deceased, telling him that he was about to fare\nto a region \"where there is neither light nor window,\" but all was\nshadow--a veritable land of chiaroscuro, reached by a route swarming\nwith grisly inimical forms. On arrival at the dreary court of Mictlan\nthe defunct offered gifts to its lord--coloured paper, perfumes, and\ntorches, mantles and other apparel, provided before cremation. It was a\nfour years' journey to the first of the nine Hells of Mictlan, over a\ndeep and wide river, on whose shores dwelt the dogs providently buried\nwith the dead and employed to carry them across the stream.\n\nAbove the nine Hells of Mictlan were thirteen Heavens, the first\ncontaining planets, the second the Tzitzimime, or demons, the third the\nCentzon Mimizcoa, or four hundred stars of the Northern Hemisphere.\nThe fourth was inhabited by birds, the fifth by fire-snakes (perhaps\ncomets); the sixth was the home of the winds; the seventh harboured\ndust; and in the eighth dwelt gods. The remainder were placed at the\ndisposal of the high primal and creative gods, Tonacatecutli and his\nspouse Tonacaciuatl, whose particular home was in the thirteenth and\nhighest Heaven.\n\nTHE RED MAN'S AFTER-LIFE\n\nThe red men of North and South America knew no place of future reward\nor punishment. They regarded the future life merely as a shadowy\nextension of this--more wonderful, more supernatural, perhaps more\ndesirable because of its material delights, but still of the earth\nearthy. The land of the sun was for them the land of future bliss.\n\n\"Where the sun lives,\" they informed the earliest foreign visitors,\nwere the villages of the deceased, and the Milky Way which nightly\nspans the arch of Heaven was, in their opinion, the road thither, and\nwas called the path of souls (_le chemin des \u00e2mes_). To _Hueyu ku_,\nthe mansion of the sun, said the Caribs, the soul passes when death\novertakes the body. To the warm South-west, whence blows the wind which\nbrings the sunny days and the ripening corn, said the New England\nnatives to Roger Williams, will all souls go.\n\n\"Our knowledge is scanty of the doctrines taught by the Incas\nconcerning the soul, but this much we do know, that they looked to the\nsun, their recognised lord and protector, as he who would care for them\nat death, and admit them to his palaces. There--not indeed, exquisite\njoys--but a life of unruffled placidity, void of labour, vacant of\nstrong emotions, a sort of material Nirvana, awaited them.\"[6]\n\nFrom Peru to the coast of Brazil, the savage millions who inhabited\nthat great stretch of watered forest pointed to the west, to the region\nbeyond the mountains or the blessed abode of their ancestors, where in\na continual state of intoxication they whiled away the hours of bliss.\nThe people of the Pampas and Patagonia considered the sky to be the\nhome of the dead, where they dwelt as stars. During the night they\npatrol the sky, but at sunrise flock around the great luminary and are\nbitten by his beams.\n\nThe Hurons, Iroquois, Chippeway, Algonquins, and Dakotas all told of a\ndeep and swift stream that the soul must cross, bridged either by an\nenormous snake, a slender tree, or by some other precarious means, such\nas a stone canoe.\n\nIn old Peru, \u00c7upay, the shadow, ruled a land of shades in the centre of\nthe earth. To him went all souls not destined to be the companions of\nthe sun. But, like nearly all savage Hells, this was merely a 'place\nof the dead' and not a place of retribution. Xibalba, the Hades of\nthe Kiches of Guatemala, was a grisly Underworld ruled by a veritable\nsecret society having-rules of initiation. The name is derived from\na root meaning 'to fear,' from which also comes the Maya term for\n'phantom' or 'ghost,' and this derivation shows it to have been a\nplace of the dead. In the _Popol Vuh_, the sacred and traditional book\nof the Kiches, we find nothing to indicate that Xibalba was a place\nof punishment. Those who entered it had to undergo tests analogous\nto those which a Red Indian must endure upon his initiation into any\nof the numerous esoteric societies still to be found among American\nbarbarians; but torment is otherwise absent. The scenery of Xibalba is\nvaried. It is gloomy, with a river of blood, a stream full of gourds,\nplantations of calabashes, courts for the ball-game, in which its\nlords are very expert, and stone buildings. It is ruled by grim lords,\nOne-Death and Seven-Deaths. It is stated in the _Popol Vuh_ that these\nwere more 'devils' than gods. \"In the old times they did not have much\npower. They were but avengers and opposers of men, and, in truth, they\nwere not regarded as gods.\"\n\nTHE CHINOOKS\n\nThe Chinooks believe that after death the spirit of the deceased drinks\nat a large hole in the ground, after which it shrinks and passes on\nto the country of the ghosts, where it is fed with spirit food. After\ndrinking of the water and partaking of the fare of spirit-land, the\nsoul becomes the irrevocable property of the dead, and may not return\nto earth. But every person is possessed of two spirits, a greater\nand a lesser, and during sickness it is this lesser soul which is\nspirited away by the denizens of ghost-land. The Navahos have a similar\nbelief. They assert that in the personal soul there is none of the\nvital force which animates the body, nor any of the mental power,\nbut a third entity, a sort of spiritual body (like the _ka_ of the\nancient Egyptians), which may leave its owner and become lost, much to\nhis danger and discomfort. Among the Mexicans a similar spirit-body\n('tonal') was recognized, much the same in character, indeed, as the\n'astral body' of modern spiritualism. Among them, as with the Maya of\nYucatan, it came into existence with the name, and for this reason the\npersonal name was sacred and rarely uttered. It was regarded as part of\nthe individuality, and through it the ego might be injured. This belief\nis general among the aboriginal peoples of both Americas.\n\nIn the country of the ghosts we see a striking analogy to the old\nclassical idea of Hades. It is a place of windless, soundless\nhalf-dusk, inhabited by shadows who shrink from tumult of any\ndescription, and pass a sort of shadowy extension of earthly life. It\nis to be sharply distinguished from the country of the 'Supernatural\nPeople,' who lead a much more satisfying existence.\n\nThere are other and still more mysterious regions in the sky, recorded\nin the Amerindian myth of Aqas Xenas Xena. It tells how a boy who has\nslain his mother mounts to the celestial sphere by a chain fastened to\nthe end of an arrow. He first meets the Darkness, and is then accosted\nby the evening star, who asks if he has seen his game, and explains\nthat he is hunting men. He reaches the house of the evening star, and\nfinds his sons and daughter at home counting over the game-bag of the\nday--dead folk. The daughter is the moon. The same thing occurs in\nthe house of the morning star, whose daughter is the sun. The sons of\nthe one star are at war with those of the other. He marries the moon,\nand has children united in the middle. He returns to earth with his\nwife and progeny, whom Blue Jay separates, and they die, returning\nto the Sky with their mother and becoming the 'sun-dogs.' In this\nday and night myth we recognize the widespread belief in celestial\nregions where man exists not after death, a belief common to nearly all\nAmerican mythologies.\n\nThere is a similar myth relating to the sun, which is kept in the hut\nof an old woman dwelling in the skies. From her an adventurous hero\nobtains a blanket to render him immune. The myth was probably invented\nto explain sunstroke.\n\nIn his work on the Lengua Indians of South America Mr W. B. Grubb gives\nthis account of their beliefs:\n\n\"The unseen world in its relation to man is naturally much more clearly\ndefined by the Indian. He holds that the _aphangak_ or departed souls\nof men in the shade world (_pischischi,_ shadows) merely continue their\npresent life, only of course in a disembodied state. The souls of the\ndeparted are supposed, in the ethereal state, to correspond exactly\nin form and characteristics with the bodies they have left. A tall\nman and a short man remain tall and short as spirits; a deformed man\nremains deformed. A kindly-natured man continues so in shade-land. A\nwitch-doctor, or a great chief, feared and respected in the body, is\nfeared and respected in the spirit-world. Those who were related in\nthis world associate with each other in the next. Departed spirits\ncontinue the same tribal and clan life as when in the body. The spirit\nof a child remains a child and does not develop, and for this reason is\nnot feared. Infanticide is not regarded as murder in the same degree\nas the murder of an adult. No punishment follows the murderer of an\ninfant, nor is its murder attended by the ordinary superstitious fears.\nA murderer--that is, according to the Indian idea, a man who kills one\nof his own tribe--is not only executed for the crime, but his body is\nburnt, and the ashes scattered to the four winds. The Indian believes\nthat after such treatment his spirit cannot take human form, and\nremains in the after-world shapeless and unrecognizable, and therefore\nunable to mingle with its kindred spirits, or to enjoy such social\nintercourse as exists.\n\n\"The _aphangak_ is supposed to hunt, travel, garden, and carry on more\nor less his old life, but of course in spirit form, and pursuing only\nspiritual essences. The spirits of the dead appear to take no interest\nin the living, nor, beyond causing uncanny feelings when supposed to\nbe hovering about, do they seem in the least to influence those left\nbehind. Their very names are not mentioned, and every effort is made by\nthe living to forget them....\n\n\"Speaking generally, three ideas seem to prevail regarding the future\nabode of the soul. The lower type of Indian holds that the _aphangak_\ncontinues to wander disconsolately about the country in company with\nits kindred spirits, while the more intelligent are of opinion that it\nmoves over to the west, to the cities of the dead, already referred\nto in dealing with their origin. A few, however, hold a view similar\nto that prevailing among the Southern tribes--namely, that the dead\ninhabit a world beneath the earth.\n\n\"The lower creation, with the exception of fish and serpents, are\nsupposed to share immortality with men. Birds, cattle, and the\ncarnivora, especially of the leading types, figure largely in their\nbeliefs of the shade-world, as also the dog, jaguar, horse, ostrich,\nand the thunder-bird.\"\n\nAFRICAN IDEAS OF THE FUTURE LIFE\n\nAmong African savages generally the life of the dead is merely an\nextension of earth-life. In the Kimbunda district of South-west Africa\nthe dead dwell in a region called Kalunga, where they have plenty of\nprovisions and an abundance of female servitors. They engage in the\ndance and the chase for pastime. In Kalunga the sun shines when it is\nnight in the world of mortals. The Basutos believe in an Otherworld of\ngreen valleys, where the dead own herds of hornless and speckled cattle\nfrom which they can draw sustenance. Others of the same people believe\nthat the dead wander about in silent reserve, with no feelings of joy\nor sorrow to agitate them or disturb what seems to be a condition of\nnescience. There is no moral retribution. The West Africans do not seem\nto believe in a 'land of heart's desire.' The Dahomans hold that in the\nOtherworld social status will be unchanged. Thus the king will retain\nhis sovereignty and the slave his serfdom 'for ever.' He also credits\nthe existence of another land beyond the grave, 'Ku-to-men' or Dead\nMan's Land, a place of ghosts and shadows. Turning southward again, the\nZulus think that after death their souls proceed to the land of the\nAbapansi or underground folk.\n\nBORNEO\n\nIn Borneo the Idaan race have a Heaven which is to be seen. Indeed,\nit is situated on the summit of Mount Kina Balu, on whose peak no\nnative guide would pass the night. There the adventurous traveller is\nshown the moss on which the spirits feed, and the hoof-prints of their\nghostly herds of buffalo. The Sajera of West Java possess another such\nHeaven on the summit of Tunung Danka. It took Mr Jonathan Rigg ten\nyears to discover this fact among a population outwardly professing\nMohammedanism.[7] The Fijians consider that Bolotu, the island of\nthe gods, lies in the ocean north-west of Tonga. It is extensive\nand is replete with everything which can make for an existence of\nphysical satisfaction. Like the Norsemen, they believe that the swine\nslaughtered in their Paradise will reappear when again required for the\nfeast. The Samoan Otherworld is a mere shadowy replica of this.\n\nCONCLUSIONS\n\nFrom these data several considerations of importance arise. We see that\namong the classical religions of antiquity--the Egyptian, Babylonian,\nHebrew, for example--the idea of judgment, retribution, and reward\narose in connexion with their places of bliss and punishment. On the\nother hand, we find in the myths of the Teutons, Mexicans, and people\nin the barbaric stages generally that a place of bliss is reserved, in\nmost cases, for the warrior, while those who die a 'straw death' are\ndeemed unfit to enter the Valhalla of the brave. Still further down\nin the scale of civilization we see that Africans, American Indians,\nFijians, and other people in a state of savagery more or less, regard\nthe future dwelling-place of the soul as a pale reflex of the world in\nwhich they have been accustomed to dwell--sometimes with mitigating\ncircumstances and improved surroundings. Thus the savage hunts,\ngorges himself, and wallows in happy intoxication; the more advanced\nbarbarian comports himself as a warrior and feasts homerically; while\nthe civilized man must be judged ere he can betake himself to an\nimmortal destination of bliss or torture. Only in the higher reaches\nof civilization does any idea of judgment, retribution, or reward, as\ndistinguished from mere sensuous pleasure, enter into the future life.\n\nThere is one strange exception to this rule, and that is Greece. This\nis probably because Greek ethics was nurtured more upon philosophic\nthan religious ideals. We find the exact opposite of the philosophic\nethics of Hellas in the drastic religious morality of the Semitic race.\nThe idea of judgment is seen only in early Greek myth.\n\nBut the most important question for us, discussing the manufacture\nand evolution of myth, is: How far have ethical promptings influenced\nmythic conceptions of a place of future reward or punishment?\n\nThey have influenced it very powerfully. Let us regard these beliefs\nin the line of their evolution. In primitive (_i.e_., savage)\ncivilization we find a mere home of the dead, like that of the peoples\nof the north-west coast of America, the Samoans, or the peoples of\nWestern Africa. The dead there may be kings or medicine-men, warriors\nor slaves, as in the mortal life, but there is no ruler, no Pluto or\nSatan. Later, in the barbaric stage, we find monarchs or arch-devils,\nsuch as Mictlantecutli of Mexico, \u00c7upay of Peru, or Hel of Scandinavia.\nThese, however, are merely there from a supposed necessity for a\nheadship, or because they chance to be corn-spirits like the Greek\nPersephone; for agricultural spirits usually reside in the earth.\nIndeed the myth of Persephone well illustrates the adaptation of a\ncorn-spirit to the lordship (or ladyship) of Hades, and probably\nrepresents a fusion of myths in which that of the corn-spirit was\ngrafted on to the already accepted lord of the place of the dead.\nThe daughter of the chief of Xibalba, the Kiche Hell, is also a\ncorn-spirit, as witness her gathering of a basket of maize where no\nmaize had grown before; and even Osiris, great god of the Egyptian\ndead, was primarily connected with the 'agricultural interest.'\n\nIt is only in the higher stages of religion, when ethical significance\nhas become a _fait accompli_, that we find the god of the Otherworld\nmetamorphosed into a judge who disposes of the souls of men according\nto their deserts. Thus we find that ethical ideas strongly affect the\nmythic character of the lords of the Otherworld, and may alter them\nfrom mere presiding demons into god-like arbiters of the fate of the\nsoul. Further, the introduction, evolution, or acceptance of ethical\nideas may entirely alter the scenery and geography of the Hades myth,\nand from a nebulous environment of ghostly savagery the place of the\ndead may on the one hand blossom into a sensuous Paradise or flash into\nflame as Gehenna.\n\nHEAVEN AND THE SKY\n\nThe manner in which Heaven, the place of bliss, came to be associated\nwith the sky and the region of woe with the Underworld is worthy of\nbrief consideration. We have seen that many various peoples--Celts,\nIndians, Fijians--believed their Paradise, their 'land of heart's\ndesire,' to be in the west, where sinks the dying sun. To the mind\nof primitive man the sun was the source of all good, the nourisher,\nthe giver of light; and no bliss greater than that of accompanying\nhim in his course through the heavens could be imagined. Man beheld\nhim sink and die in the waves of ocean or behind the peaks of the\ngreat mountains, and, comparing this with the death of his own kind,\nconcluded that the luminary betook himself to rest in some region\nbeyond the verge of sea or sierra. \"If the souls of the dead follow the\nsun it must be to such a region,\" he would argue: so would arise the\nconcept of a Tir-nan-og, a sun-Paradise beyond the world's rim.[8]\n\nNot thus did all religious philosophers of old time reason--not thus\nthe mythographers of Babylon, for example, those astrologer-priests who\nwatched from tower and temple the wheelings of the white host of stars\nwhich silvered the skies above the city of Bel. These had identified\nthe various gods in their pantheon with the stars and heavenly bodies.\nOnce this had been done it is easy to understand how the gods were\nconceived as dwelling in the sky. Races who believed in a Paradise\nbeyond the setting sun did not place their great divinities in the\nsky. The Celtic gods lived in their sunset Elysium; the deities of the\nSamoan tale dwell in an island Paradise. Roughly, peoples dwelling near\nthe western sea (Celts, West Africans, North-west American Indians,\netc.) locate their Paradise beneath the rim of ocean; peoples dwelling\nat the foot of mountain ranges (Greeks, Javanese, etc.) believe the\nOtherworld to be situated on their summits; while peoples dwelling\nin plains or deserts (Plains Indians, Babylonians, certain Egyptian\ncastes, etc.) place their Heaven in the sky among the constellations.\n\nHADES AND THE UNDERWORLD\n\nOn the other hand, the Otherworld becomes the Underworld, because of\nthe subterranean burial of the dead. Under the earth is the home of\nthe dead, and there rest their shades or spirits. The Greeks believed\nHades to be situated only twelve feet beneath the surface of the soil.\nAgain, the practice of burial in caverns may have assisted this belief.\nThe scenery of the Otherworld, from Homer to Dante, is decidedly\ncavernous. The lords of Hell are frequently the gods of a conquered or\nsubject race, relegated to the Underworld by the policy or contempt of\nthe conquerors. Thus the Irish Tuatha de Danann, who dwell underground,\nwere once the chief gods of Ireland, and were displaced by an incoming\npeople; and we can trace in the gigantic figure of Osiris the primeval\ngod of an agricultural people placed over the popular world of the\nEgyptian dead, partly perhaps by the deliberate policy of the priests\nof Ra, partly by reason of his status as a corn-god, and developing\ninto the great ruler of the realm of the dead.\n\n\n[1] See above, p. 122.\n\n[2] _The Gods of the Egyptians_, vol. i, pp. 264-265.\n\n[3] The writer does not recall having read this passage until a few\nweeks ago, yet in a volume of verse published in 1913 he included some\nstanzas the two last of which offer such a striking resemblance to the\nBiblical verses just quoted that he ventures to print them here as\nan example of the manner in which the imagination of men may run on\nsimilar lines, although centuries of time separate them:\n\n    THE DEAD\n\n    Do ye hearken, ye dead, with your faces so nobly quiet,\n    Do ye list to the lays that are sung, and the lusts that are said,\n    Do ye wot of the frenzies, the fears, the desires, and the riot,\n                  Do ye hearken, ye dead?\n\n    \"O'er our lips and our hearts are the sods and the cerements spread,\n    But we hearken the harps and the whispers, the songs that ye sigh at,\n    All your manifold furies and fears do we list in our bed.\n\n    \"We would rise, we would rise to partake of your doom and your diet,\n    But on lips and on eyes the worms and the vampires have fed,\n    We can kiss, we can smile not--awaiting eternity's fiat.\n                  We hearken, we dead!\"\n\n[4] Appendix to Book III, chap. iii.\n\n[5] I quote from my own manuscript translation of Sagahun.\n\n[6] Brinton, _Myths of the New World._\n\n[7] _Journal of the Indian Archipelago_, vol. iv, p. 119.\n\n[8] Compare the recently coined (?) war phrase or idiom 'gone west.'\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nFOLKLORE AND MYTH\n\n\nFolk-tale, and indeed folklore of every description, is worthy of\nstudy by the student of myth; for not only will he often find that\nthe principles which govern it are identical with those of myth, but\nhe will glean much knowledge of methods from those who work this\nneighbouring row in the vineyard of tradition.\n\nSome people regard mythology as merely a branch of wider study of\nfolklore, but in the definitions in the first the chapter of this\nwork we called the former \"the study of a primitive or early form of\nreligion while it was a living faith,\" and folklore \"the study of\nprimitive religion and customs still practised.\" Let us now examine the\nwritings of the great authorities on folklore and see what they have to\nsay upon this interesting subject.\n\nSir George Gomme, in his _Folklore as an Historical Science_ (p. 148),\nsays: \"The folk-tale is secondary to the myth. It is the primitive\nmyth dislodged from its primitive place. It has become a part of the\nlife of the people independently of its primary form and object and\nin a different sense. The mythic or historic fact has been obscured,\nor has been displaced from the life of the people. But the myth lives\non through the affections of the people for the traditions of their\nolder life. They love to tell the story which their ancestors revered\nas myth, even though it has lost its oldest and most impressive\nsignificance. The artistic setting of it, born of the years through\nwhich it has lived, fashioned by the minds which have handed it down\nand embellished it through the generations, has helped its life. It\nhas become the fairy tale or the nursery tale. It is told to grown-up\npeople, not as belief, but as what was once believed; it is told to\nchildren, not to men; to lovers of romance, not to worshippers of the\nunknown; it is told by mothers and nurses, not by philosophers or\npriestesses; in the gathering ground of home life, or in the nursery,\nnot in the hushed sanctity of a great wonder.\"\n\nComing down to hard-and-fast definition, Sir George Gomme says: \"The\nmyth belongs to the most primitive stages of human thought, and is the\nrecognisable explanation of some natural phenomenon, some forgotten or\nunknown object of human origin, or some event of lasting influence; the\nfolk-tale is a survival preserved amidst culture-surroundings of a more\nadvanced stage, and deals with events and ideas of primitive times in\nterms of the experience or of episodes in the lives of unnamed human\nbeings; the legend belongs to an historical personage, locality, or\nevent. These are new definitions, and are suggested in order to give\nsome sort of exactness to the terms in use. All these terms--myth,\nfolk-tale, and legend--are now used indiscriminately with no particular\ndefiniteness. The possession of three such distinct terms forms an\nasset which should be put to its full use, and this cannot be done\nuntil we agree upon a definite meaning for each.\"\n\nDean Macculloch in his valuable _Childhood of Fiction_ (p. 432) says:\n\"The mythological school represented by the writings of De Gubernatis,\nCox, Max M\u00fcller, and others, have found the origin of folk-tales in\nthe myths of the Aryan race. Folk-tales are the detritus of such Aryan\nmyths, when the meaning of the myths themselves was long forgotten. The\nwhole theory falls to the ground when it is discovered that exactly\nsimilar stories are told by non-Aryan races, and that the incidents\nof such stories are easily explainable by actual customs and ideas\nof savages and primitive folk everywhere. On the other hand, many\nfolk-tales have originated as myths explanatory of existing customs,\nor by way of explaining phenomena which seemed to depend on these\ncustoms, and when the customs fell into desuetude the myths remained\nas folk-tales. The incidents of existing folk-tales, again, have\nfrequently been embodied in mythologies--Greek, Celtic, Japanese.\nThus there is throughout an intimate connection between mythology and\nfolk-tales, though not of the kind which De Gubernatis and others\nimagined.\" Again: \"Folk-tales have a vital connection with myth and\nsaga, though the connection is far from that insisted on by Max M\u00fcller\nand the mythological school. Still another link of connection may be\nperceived in many European _M\u00e4rchen_, where the gods and mythic figures\nof an earlier faith have been metamorphosed into ogres, witches,\nand fairies, and where the dimly-remembered customs of that earlier\nreligion have supplied incidents for the story inventor of a later age.\"\n\nIn a note to his _Mythology and Folklore_ (p. 7) Sir George Cox\nfurnishes the philological view of the relation of mythology to\nfolklore: \"It is, perhaps, open to doubt whether the terms mythology\nand folklore are likely to retain permanently their present relative\nmeanings. Neither term is altogether satisfactory; but the distinction\nbetween tales susceptible of philological analysis and those which are\nnot must nevertheless be carefully maintained, as indispensable to\nany scientific treatment of the subject. In his introduction to _The\nScience of Language_ Mr Sayce admits 'that it is often difficult to\ndraw the line between folklore and mythology, to define exactly where\nthe one ends and the other begins, and there are many instances in\nwhich the two terms overlap one another.'\"\n\nIt is demonstrable that the author of the term folklore, the late Mr\nW. J. Thorns (1803-1885), deputy librarian of the House of Lords and\nfounder and editor of _Notes and Queries,_ did not intend it to include\nmythology. He said that he intended it to designate \"that department\nof the study of antiquities and arch\u00e6ology which embraces everything\nrelating to ancient observances and customs, to the notions, beliefs,\ntraditions, superstitions, and prejudices of the common people.\" It\nwill be remarked that this definition does not include \"the study of a\nprimitive or early religion _while it was a living faith_.\"\n\nBut the study of folklore is, as has been said, greatly capable of\nassisting the student of myth. A Roman sword or a Saxon cup exhumed\nafter many centuries are no less the blade once wielded by a Roman,\nor the vessel from which the Saxon imbibed, solely because centuries\nhave elapsed since they were in use by their original owners, nor do\nthey fail to yield us information concerning the lives and habits of\nthose to whom they belonged. In the same manner a story or custom long\nembedded in the earth of superstition is no less capable of throwing\nlight upon ancient religion and thus upon ancient myth. Many folk-tales\nare merely 'broken-down' myths, but by no means _all_ folk-tales are\nso, as numbers were invented for purposes of amusement and partake of\nthe character of fiction.\n\nAs an instance of the manner in which folk-belief can influence true\nmyth we have only to look at the tales of the Knights of the Round\nTable. Arthur, Merlin, and many of the lesser figures of the galaxy\nof Camelot are in reality British Celtic deities metamorphosed into\nmedieval knights. A similar instance, perhaps of added interest because\nof its novelty, has recently come under the notice of the writer.\n\nTHE LEGEND OF ST TRIDUANA\n\nThe story of St Triduana and her healing well, situated at Restalrig,\nnear Edinburgh, is a tale of the kind the student of myth delights to\nencounter; for what may appear to the uninitiated to be an ordinary\nsaintly legend is, he readily sees, a fragment of true myth.\n\nThe story of the sainted lady who, in her latter days, dwelt at\nRestalrig, or Lestalryk, is in the grand style, and combines the\npoignant pathos of Euripidean tragedy with the fanaticism of mistaken\nreligious zeal. The glorious virgin Triduana of Colosse, we are told,\narrived in Scotland from Achaia, in Greece, with the holy St Regulus,\nor Rule, the traditional founder of St Andrews, at some date between\nA.D. 237 and the eighth century. This mission was evidently that\nentrusted to bring the relics of St Andrew to Scotland and charged with\nthe plantation of the Christian faith in that country. The lady found\na retreat at Rescobie, in Forfarshire, where she dwelt in great piety;\nbut her Grecian beauty proved a snare for the susceptibilities of the\nPictish king Nectanivan or Nechtan, who became hotly enamoured of her.\nFlying before his zealous wooing, she came to Dunfallandy in Athol,\nwhere his emissaries speedily discovered her. Perturbed and seemingly\nincredulous that a monarch should rate her charms so highly, Triduana\nasked of the King's messengers what so great a prince desired of her,\na poor virgin dedicated to God. The reply was couched in terms which\nbetray the Celt, and we are left with the firm conviction that he who\nvouchsafed it was none other than the King's _seanachaidh_ or bard.\n\"He desireth,\" said that person, \"the most excellent beauty of thine\neyes, which if he obtain not he will surely die.\" Triduana's retort was\ntypical of the Christian martyr, and we are left wondering whether she\nwas possessed with a fanaticism which surpassed her sense of humour, or\nof a grim penchant for the ridiculous which transcended all fanaticism.\n\"What he seeketh he shall surely have,\" she exclaimed, and thereupon\nshe plucked out her eyes, skewered them on a thorn, and handed them\nto the King's messengers with the words: \"Take that which your prince\ndesireth.\" Later she betook herself to Restalrig, where she pursued the\nlife religious until her death.\n\nThroughout the Middle Ages the shrine and well of St Triduana were\nfamous for the cure of blindness, and to it came pilgrims from all\nparts of Scotland and the north of England. Sir David Lyndsay makes two\nallusions to it. Devotees thronged to St Tredwell, he says, \"to mend\ntheir eine,\" and again he states in his curious inventory of saints in\n_The Monarchie_:\n\n    Sanct Tredwall, als, thare may be sene\n    Quhilk on ane prick hes baith her ene.\n\nAt Rescobie, her first place of sojourn in Scotland, each September\nbrought round a St Trodlin's Fair.\n\nAuthorities are divided as to the exact site of St Triduana's Well.\nIndeed, much confusion attaches to the subject. A well dedicated\nto St Margaret, and roofed by a structure obviously copied from or\ncopied by the chapter-house hard by Restalrig Church, stood for many\ngenerations on a site now covered by the locomotive works of the North\nBritish Railway Company. (Its groined roof now shelters _another_ St\nMargaret's Well in the King's Park.) This well I do not believe to\nhave been, as is generally stated, that of St Triduana, afterward known\nas St Margaret's. I incline to the belief that the building known as\nthe 'chapter-house,' close to Restalrig Church, and almost certainly\na chapel of St Triduana, sheltered the original well. This building\nwas erected at the close of the fifteenth century, and was probably\nthe second or third so raised over the miraculous well to which came\nthe stricken from all over broad Scotland. It is a notable fact that\nsince the restoration of this chapter-house modern engineering skill\nhas proved unequal to the task of stemming the flow of water, which\nconstantly remains at the same level here. Was not this, then, the\nancient bath-house of the shrine of St Trid, down whose steps groped\nthe sightless in hope of the precious boon of light?\n\nWhat is the mythical kernel to this saintly tale?\n\nFirstly, be it noted, St Triduana does not figure in the Roman calendar.\n\nSecondly, such wells as hers are by no means uncommon in Britain.\nWell-worship is still to be traced in the Celtic or semi-Celtic\nportions of the country--Wales, Lancashire, and Scotland. In Teutonic\nSouthern England, although many wells are still known as 'holy,' no\ntrace of any reason for regarding them as such remains; but a fully\ndeveloped ritual is still observed in drawing from many wells in Wales.\nThus at St Tegla's Well, near Wrexham, coppers are cast into the water,\nthe well is thrice perambulated, and a cock left as an offering by the\npatient who suffers from epilepsy. Semi-Celtic Shropshire, too, is rich\nin wells which cure sore eyes, and Miss C. S. Burne of that county, in\n_Shropshire Folklore_, suggests that the legend in the Scandinavian\nprose Edda of Odin giving his eye in return for a draught of water\nfrom the wisdom-giving well of Mimir might perhaps account for it. I\nmyself had arrived at the same conclusion before perusing Miss Burne's\nwork, and I further think that the theory is strengthened by Odin being\na sun-god; the round 'eye' of the sun pierces the depths of the dark\nwater in which it is reflected. Indeed I advanced some such explanation\nin the article \"Mimir\" in my _Dictionary of Mythology_, published in\n1910.\n\nWe know that after the introduction of Christianity into ancient\nGaul those well-spirits in which Celtic imagination delighted were\nfrequently metamorphosed into saints, and that the teeming Gallic\npantheon added many a name to the calendar of Rome. May not the same\nbe true of our Restalrig saint? The name is obviously Latinized. It\nappears as 'Triduana' in a charter of James IV, but to the people she\nwas St Trid, and we have seen that Rescobie folk called her Trodlin--an\naffectionate diminutive. We probably have in Trid-well a spot where\nthe mystic rites of some Celtic goddess of the spring were celebrated.\nWas not the 'Young Tamlane' of Carterhaugh, near Selkirk, such a\nwell-spirit or deity?\n\n    There's nane that goes by Carterhaugh\n    But maun leave him a wad\n\nor pledge. Also he was \"a wee, wee man.\" The portion of the ballad\nthat makes him a mortal kidnapped by fairies is only a clumsy late\nexplanation of the older myth of well-sprite or god, obviously lurking\nbeneath. Is Triduana the old British goddess Keridwen who possessed\nthe mystic cauldron Amen, conferring inspiration (or clear sight) on\nwhoever drank of its waters?\n\nAnother good example of myth run to seed in folk-tale is the fairly\nwidespread story of the musician who ventures to explore an underground\npassage, and never returns. The mythological pedigree of this tale\nis very clear indeed; but it seems better in the interests of the\nreader (having first reasoned from effect to cause) to reverse the\nusual method of folklore for once and argue from known cause to\neffect. Starting, then, with such myths as those of Orpheus, Ishtar,\nand others, in which the object is to demonstrate how death may be\nvanquished and the dead restored, we find the plot turned to the uses\nof folklore, the heroes entering upon a quest in the Underworld of\nFairyland or the abode of a dishonoured goddess, rather than in the\nsad shades of Hades. Thus Ogier the Dane essays the Land of Faerie,\nand Tannh\u00e4user enters the Hill of Venus or Holda--the H\u00f6rselberg--as\nThomas the Rhymer enters the Hill of Ercildoune. Is there a formula?\nCan we reduce the general circumstances to a least common denominator\nsomething like this?\n\nAn adventurous person, usually a musician or maker of poetry, ventures\nunderground (1) in myth to recover a beloved one from the clutches of\ndeath, (2) in folklore to gain the love of the Queen of Faerie, or some\ndiscredited goddess who takes her place.\n\nBut we have not yet plumbed the depths of mythic degeneration. From the\nallurements of Fairyland we descend still farther to the more dusty\nshadows of the underground passage. Very numerous are the local tales\nwhich tell of these. Thus in Edinburgh a piper accompanied by his dog\n(for so were the dead ever accompanied in primitive times) dares the\ndangers of an underground passage from the cliff-perched Castle to\nHolyrood Palace. The sound of his pipes guides those who follow his\nprogress standing in the streets above, but at a certain point the\nmusic ceases and the piper never returns.\n\nA SCOTTISH FAUST\n\nIn this volume it has been the policy of the author to give where\npossible examples which have come within his own personal notice,\nthus avoiding such as have done service again and again in works on\nmyth and folklore; but to show how a folk-tale of universal fame and\ninterest may become localized we will repeat one of these here. The\nFaust legend, based upon the pact with Satan, has many variants; but\nsurely it is surprising to a degree to discover it as a local story in\na Scottish lowland community.\n\nPersons who sell themselves to the Devil are met with in the popular\nfiction of all European countries; but the legend of the 'Warlock\nLaird' of Leith, or its _d\u00e9nouement_ at least, so closely resembles the\nFaust story that we can hardly help ascribing a common origin to them.\n\nIn that part of Leith once known as the Lees quarter resided a person\nknown as the Warlock Laird. His house was dissimilar from those which\nsurrounded it, for although the portion which served as a dwelling was\nonly one story in height, from the back of it rose a tall, circular\ntower about fifty feet high, enriched with curious little turrets and\nlit with many strange windows. For what purpose the tower had been\nerected is not known, and although it had been built for many years\nwhen Gordon first took up residence in the cottage attached to it, it\nwas locally understood that he had erected it for the convenience of\nprivate consultations with the enemy of mankind. In popular romance a\nmagician usually does business in a tower; _ergo_, a magician must have\na tower; or is it necessary that every tower should have its magician?\nHowever that may be, Gordon, not a native, and well past middle age\nwhen he came to reside in Leith, specially selected this house as most\nsuitable to his requirements, whatever those requirements were.\n\nHe gave out that he had spent many years at sea. When he first came\nhis resources were slender, and he was glad to accept the situation of\na labourer in a cooper's yard for a very small weekly stipend. When\nhe had been for some months in this employment, he requested leave of\nabsence for a week. On his return at the termination of that period it\nwas remarked that he appeared to be better off than before: he looked\nsleeker, wore good clothes, and had money to spend; but he continued\nhis work, and matters took their normal course until, a year later,\nhe asked for another holiday. At the expiry of this vacation a still\nmore marked change was visible in his circumstances: he purchased a\nruinous old house and gave more for it than was considered fair value.\nSuspicion began to be aroused among his neighbours. He spent his money\nfreely, and this in itself may have suggested that he must have come by\nit lightly. It was even whispered that he had been a pirate, and that\nhe was drawing gold from some hidden hoard as necessity arose. Once\nmore he demanded a holiday, and his request was granted as usual, but\nthis time he was not permitted to go away without a watch being set\nupon his movements. Those who had resolved to observe his actions while\non holiday were rather disappointed, as on the first day of his leave\nhe remained at home all the time. But on the following day he took ship\nfor Kirkcaldy, on the sands of which he landed without any suspicions\nthat he was being watched by a person, disguised as an elderly woman,\nsitting next him in the boat.\n\nWhen Gordon landed he made straight for an inn, where he ordered a\ncopious supply of liquor. After a brief exit he returned with half a\ndozen boatmen dressed in their best, and commenced a drinking-bout\nwhich lasted until two o'clock next morning. For two successive days\nafter this he loafed about the town and the shore, chatting with\nthe boatmen, much to the annoyance of the person who was engaged to\nwatch his movements. Two days only remained now, and on the morning\nof the sixth day of his holiday he was seen to embark in a ferryman's\nboat, in which he proceeded down the Firth alone. His follower found\nsome difficulty in hiring a craft, and by the time he had procured\none Gordon's little vessel was concealed behind the huge bulk of\nInchkeith. The boatman who hired out the vessel to the spy insisted on\naccompanying him, and he had perforce to assent to this. After they\nhad passed Inchkeith, Gordon's boat was seen far in advance and close\ninshore on the Midlothian side of the river. On the right, near North\nBerwick, Gordon steered his craft inside of the rocky islet known as\nthe Lamb, nearly opposite to where the picturesque village of Dirleton\nnow stands. Here the Leith man shipped his oars, and gazing ahead\nfancied that he saw two gigantic figures moving to and fro, busily\nengaged in digging. At this point the boatman refused to approach any\nfarther, rowed his passenger back, and landed him at Prestonpans,\nwhence he made his way home.\n\nGordon returned as usual, but on the very same day he gave a week's\nnotice of his intention to leave his situation. At the end of that time\nit was rumoured that he had bought up nearly the entire buildings on\none side of the Broad Wynd, and it was this gigantic investment which\ngave rise to the story that he must have sold himself to the Devil.\nHe was now known and addressed as 'Laird' Gordon, visited his tenants\nin turn, and when they announced their intention of giving up their\nhouses \"because they disliked becoming tenants of the Deil,\" he passed\nno comment upon their resolution. But there was not much house-room\nin Leith in those days, and one by one the objectors returned; but\nthey never succeeded in getting an interview with Gordon, for when\nthey called upon him he was either deeply engaged or had just left the\nhouse. As term-time drew nigh frantic endeavours were made to see him,\nbut he could never be found alone: a tall dark man of authoritative\nmien always accompanied him. This personage was silent unless directly\nappealed to, but he seemed to control the Warlock Laird's every\nmovement. On one occasion Gordon summoned all the tenants together,\nand, entering alone the room where they were met, he desired such of\nthem as were in earnest in their applications to stand on their heads\nand strike their feet against the wall. This they very naturally\nrefused to do, whereupon his sombre-looking companion appeared, and\nat once every man found himself standing on his head and kicking his\nheels in the air. Those who wished to retain their houses were allowed\nto do so, but were subjected to many annoyances by Gordon and his\nfamiliar, who paid them visits at all manner of unreasonable hours. On\none occasion they were brought together into one house and compelled\nto dance until they fell down through sheer exhaustion. Those who had\noccupied new dwellings were so persecuted and tormented that they\nwere glad to return to the Broad Wynd in order to free themselves\nof annoyance. But one day these cantrips ceased, and for many weeks\nnothing was seen of the Warlock Laird. When the day came round to\ncall upon him and disburse rents, the tenants went in a body to the\nYard-heads. A strange-looking man opened the door of Gordon's house at\ntheir summons and they were ushered into an apartment where they did\nnot remain long before they heard piercing shrieks of agony mingled\nwith prayers for mercy proceeding from the room directly overhead. They\nwere about to leave the house, when the door of the room they were in\nwas dashed open and Gordon rushed into their midst, closely pursued by\nhis fiendish companion. He earnestly besought their protection, but\nthey were so paralysed with fear as to be incapable of assisting him\nin any way. The dark and sinister-looking being who had companioned\nhim so long threw himself on the trembling wretch and dragged him\nforcibly into the passage outside. A great slamming of doors and\nclanking of chains followed: then a terrible explosion shook the house\nfrom cellar to garret. Terrified beyond expression, Gordon's tenants\nmade what haste they could to escape from so dangerous a locality, and\non reaching the doorway they discovered that the tower connected with\nthe house had been hurled to earth and that a strong sulphurous odour\nhung about its ruins. Some of them even asserted that as they crossed\nthe threshold the ground in front of the house opened and they saw\nGordon descending through it, accompanied by his mysterious companion.\nNevermore was Anthony Gordon seen in the streets of the port, and his\nhouse remained a shunned and dreaded spot until time laid the cottage\nin ruins beside the prostrate tower.\n\nSome twenty years afterward a beggar unacquainted with the local\ntraditions was taking shelter among the ruins of the Warlock's house\nwhen he stumbled upon a small iron-bound chest, in which were the\ntitles of the properties in Broad Wynd. With these he immediately\nabsconded, and returning some six months afterward posed as the\nWarlock's heir and assumed possession of the property; but a curse\nseemed to rest upon it. The tale says that the dreadful visions by\nwhich he was haunted drove him to seek refuge in intoxication, although\nthe converse is more probably true! He drank heavily, and was found\ndead one morning with his throat cut. So, in this very commonplace\nmanner, the legend ends. The date of it cannot be ascertained, but\nit is probable that it may be placed somewhere about the end of the\nseventeenth or the beginning of the eighteenth century.\n\nThe manner in which the legend ends bears a strong resemblance to at\nleast one version of the Faust story--that given by Wierus or Wier, the\ngreat demonologist, who in his _De pr\u00e6stigiis d\u00e6monum_ (Basel, 1563)\ntells how Faust was found with his neck wrung after the house had been\nshaken by a terrific din. Some students who occupied a chamber near\nby said that between twelve and one o'clock at midnight there blew a\nmighty storm of wind against the house as though it would have shaken\nthe foundations out of their place. The students, alarmed, leapt from\ntheir beds, and then they became aware of a hissing in the hall as of\nthousands of snakes and adders. With that the hall door flew open and\nDr Faustus rushed out, crying, \"Murder, murder!\" but after a little\nthey heard him no more. Next day they found his mangled remains in the\nhall where the Devil had destroyed him.\n\nThere can be very little doubt that the Leith legend was based, in part\nat least, upon the German one. The story of Faust was commonly known in\nBritain by the end of the sixteenth century, and so had plenty of time\nto take on local colour and evolve under local superstition into the\nshape in which it is here given.\n\nTHE 'COMPLEMENTARY' PROCESS\n\nOne process in use among folklorists is of interest to students of\nmyth because of its application to mythic material. This process I\nwill call the 'complementary' process for want of a better name. It\nconsists in building up or restoring a ritual act or tale from a\nnumber of fragmentary examples, perhaps scattered all over the world.\nFor example, if we find a certain custom in England and an analogous\ncustom in India plus some ritual circumstance which the English custom\ndoes not possess, we are justified in believing that the English\ncustom once included it. Or if we find a certain tale in Africa, we\nmay discover another closely resembling it in Ireland and possessing\nfeatures which explain some break in the African story. The comparative\nand complementary methods are necessary to both folklorists and\nmythologists, because an isolated instance is of little use in the\nstudy of either science. These must be restored to association with all\nthe known examples of their kind, and the earliest and most complete\nform may thus be discovered.\n\nSir George Gomme in his _Folklore as an Historical Science_ (p. 171)\nsays that a \"restored and complete example is in a position to be\ncompared either with similar survivals in other countries on the same\nlevel of culture, or within the same ethnological or political sphere\nof influence, or with living customs, rites, or beliefs of peoples\nof a more backward state of culture or in a savage state of culture.\nComparison of this kind is of value. Comparison of a less technical or\ncomprehensive kind may be of value in the hands of a great master; but\nit is often not only valueless but mischievous in the hands of less\nexperienced writers, who think that comparison is justified wherever\nsimilarity is discovered.\"\n\nOne of the common grounds of folklore and myth is that where religious\nelements obviously enter into folk-belief and custom. These may furnish\nus with new knowledge of a god or a cult. For example, many fragments\nof the old religion of Central America still linger in the folklore of\nthe Indians of Guatemala; the witch-lore of Italy is full of obscure\nallusions to the classical deities of Rome; and the folklore of the\nArabs of Egypt here and there touches hands with the ancient religion\nof that country. In Scotland such examples are frequent. That of the\nthunder-god Brounger has already been alluded to. It is on record that\nthe fishermen of Newhaven, which Brounger haunted, have an almost\nequal dislike to hearing the name of a certain Johnny Boag or Boggie,\nand that they have been known to stay from sea because this name had\nbeen mentioned in their hearing while on the way to the boats. The\nSlavonic word for god is _b\u00f4g_--a word which has run through a number\nof modifications, but has finished with us Britons as 'bogy,' or\n'bogle,' and 'bugbear' (compare Welsh _brog_, a goblin). At the fishing\non the Cromarty Firth a salmon must never be spoken of. If it were, the\nwhole crew would start, grasp the nearest iron thowel, and fervently\nexclaim, \"Cauld iron, cauld iron!\" in order to avert the omen. Thus the\nname was taboo, and it looks as if it were of the class of 'names of\npower' which may not be spoken. Certain 'hidden' names of the Egyptian\ndeities also must not be spoken, or dire consequences would ensue. \"If\none of them is uttered on the bank of the river the torrent is set\nfree.\"[1] It appears then as if 'Salmon' was the appellation of an\nancient fish-totem whose name was taboo. Iron is of course the terror\nof all 'tricksy sprites,' and the theory has been advanced that the\nprehistoric bronze-users, in whom some see the fairies of folklore,\ndetested and feared the metal employed by the conquering iron-users,\nseeing in their trenchant blades, against which the bronze leaf-shaped\nfalchion would shiver into pieces, the evidence of a magic power. \"In\nthe North of Ireland an iron poker laid across the table kept away the\nfairies till the child was baptized,\"[2] and the efficacy of iron in\nwarding off fairy attacks is notorious all over the Highlands.\n\nAnother name which is taboo in the Highlands is that of the minister. I\nam at a loss to assign a reason for this, unless as the 'descendant' of\nthe pagan priest he was regarded as 'magical.' More understandable is\nthe terror when such words as cat, pig, dog, and hare were mentioned;\nand of this class the salmon name-taboo may be a member. The first\ntwo of the above words should be pronounced 'Theebet' and 'Sandy.' To\nallude to any animal at sea is unlucky. From Campbell (_op. cit_., p.\n239) we learn that among the Highlanders when in a boat at sea \"it\nis forbidden to call things by the names by which they were known on\nland.\" Thus a boat-hook should not be called _croman_ in Gaelic, but\n_a chliob_; a knife not _sgian_ but _a ghair_ (the sharp one); a fox,\nthe 'red dog'; and a seal, the 'bald beast.' Even places seen from the\nsea undergo a change of appellation when the speaker is afloat. It is\nevident that these precautions were originally adopted from a desire\nnot to incur the displeasure of powerful supernatural beings. Thus\nwhen certain tribes of North American Indians periodically sacrifice\nan eagle, the totem of their tribe, they strive to avert the vengeance\nof the bird by saying to each other: \"A snow-bird has been slain.\"\nThe supernatural power must be hoodwinked at all costs. What could be\nthe character of a supernatural power who must be deceived in this\nway? Although Christianity had a firm grip enough on land, was it a\nnegligible quantity when afloat? It is from such examples as these\nthat folklore may assist the mythologist who gropes for the principles\nof ancient mythic ideas. The student of the mythic system of any race\nshould apply himself with the utmost earnestness to the study of the\nfolklore of its modern representatives.\n\nTHE MAGIC OF ITALY\n\nAs showing how ancient myth may be embedded in modern folklore, the\ndiscoveries of the late Charles Godfrey Leland have an importance it\nwould be difficult to over-estimate. In his preface to his _Aradia, the\nGospel of the Witches of Italy_, he says:\n\n\"There are in Italy great numbers of _strege_, fortune-tellers or\nwitches, who divine by cards, perform strange ceremonies in which\nspirits are supposed to be invoked, make and sell amulets, and, in\nfact, comport themselves generally as their reputed kind are wont to\ndo, be they Black Voodoos in America or sorceresses anywhere.\n\n\"But the Italian _strega_ or sorceress is in certain respects a\ndifferent character from these. In most cases she comes of a family in\nwhich her calling or art has been practised for many generations. I\nhave no doubt that there are instances in which the ancestry remounts\nto medi\u00e6val, Roman, or it may be Etruscan times. The result has\nnaturally been the accumulation in such families of much tradition.\nBut in Northern Italy, as its literature indicates, though there has\nbeen some slight gathering of fairy tales and popular superstitions\nby scholars, there has never existed the least interest as regarded\nthe strange lore of the witches, nor any suspicion that it embraced an\nincredible quantity of old Roman minor myths and legends, such as Ovid\nhas recorded, but of which much escaped him and all other Latin writers.\n\n\"This ignorance was greatly aided by the wizards and witches\nthemselves, in making a profound secret of all their traditions, urged\nthereto by fear of the priests. In fact, the latter all unconsciously\nactually contributed immensely to the preservation of such lore,\nsince the charm of the forbidden is very great, and witchcraft, like\nthe truffle, grows best and has its raciest flavour when most deeply\nhidden. However this may be, both priest and wizard are vanishing now\nwith incredible rapidity.\n\n\"However, they die slowly, and even yet there are old people in the\nRomagna of the North who know the Etruscan names of the Twelve Gods,\nand invocations to Bacchus, Jupiter, and Venus, Mercury, and the Lares\nor ancestral spirits, and in the cities are women who prepare strange\namulets, over which they mutter spells, all known in the old Roman\ntime, and who can astonish even the learned by their legends of Latin\ngods, mingled with lore which may be found in Cato or Theocritus. With\none of these I became intimately acquainted in 1886, and have ever\nsince employed her specially to collect among her sisters of the hidden\nspell in many places all the traditions of the olden time known to\nthem. It is true that I have drawn from other sources, but this woman\nby long practice has perfectly learned what few understand, or just\nwhat I want, and how to extract it from those of her kind.\n\n\"For brief explanation I may say that witchcraft is known to its\nvotaries as _la vecchia religione_, or the old religion, of which\nDiana is the Goddess, her daughter _Aradia_ (or Herodias) the female\nMessiah, and that this little work sets forth how the latter was born,\ncame down to earth, established witches and witchcraft, and then\nreturned to Heaven. With it are given the ceremonies and invocations or\nincantations to be addressed to Diana and Aradia, the exorcism of Cain,\nand the spells of the holy-stone, rue, and verbena, constituting, as\nthe text declares, the regular church-service, so to speak, which is to\nbe chanted or pronounced at the witch-meetings. There are also included\nthe very curious incantations or benedictions of the honey, meal, and\nsalt, or cakes of the witch-supper, which is curiously classical, and\nevidently a relic of the Roman Mysteries.\"\n\n\n[1] _Magical Papyrus_ (Harris) 7, I _et seq._\n\n[2] Campbell's _Superstitions of the Scottish Highlands_, p. 152.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nRITUAL AND MYTH\n\n\nRitual is worship organized, the detail and circumstance of adoration.\nThe study of ritual is one of the branches of the science of\ncomparative religion, but much light is often cast upon myth by its\nconsideration, and here we have to discuss it only in its relationship\nto myth.\n\nThis almost resolves itself into an argument upon the vexed question\nwhether myth is a product of ritual or not. As this question has been\nalready fully discussed (pp. 62-64), there is no necessity to renew it\nhere; but it possesses a pendent question. When the original reason\nfor a certain ritual became forgotten and lost, a myth might arise\nto account for it. Such a myth would, of course, be 'secondary' in\nits nature, and is, properly speaking, more of the nature of folklore\nthan myth. Ritual thus arises from an original myth and gives birth to\nsecondary myth or folklore.\n\nIt is not essential that ritual should originate in a definite\noriginal myth--a concrete story having _dramatis person\u00e6_, plot, and\ncounterplot. The savage may conceive a deity without endowing it with\nany characteristics. \"The sun-being lives up there,\" says the savage,\nor \"I fear the wind. I will placate him.\" The only myth created is:\n\"The supernatural wind-being lives on the earth.\" All the same this\nstatement is myth; it is primitive theobiography.\n\nMarett thinks that primitive religion was something \"to be danced\nout.\" The religious dance of the savage is both myth and ritual; it\ncombines myth, tale, and worship. Many myths were and are acted in\ndance, especially among the aborigines of Australia and America.\nThe Eleusinian mysteries of Greece were almost certainly relics of\nmythic dances such as Red Indians and Black-fellows still participate\nin. We have then a meeting-place for myth and ritual in the tribal\ndance, which at the same time as it represents the adventures of the\ngods chants their praises in psalm and hymn (that is, in ritual) and\nperforms the mystic movements that are the most ancient ritual. Dance\nitself may be purely ritualistic rather than explanatory. When David\n\"danced before the Lord\" he did not 'dance out' a myth. He danced\nritualistically, with ritual movements--probably traditional and\nunchangeable--to suit the cadence of his chant or psalm. It is such\nritual movements that mechanics unconsciously employ when at work. The\nblacksmith when he strikes the anvil with his hammer in the intervals\nof shaping the shoe he holds between the tongs does not do so because\nhe _requires_ to. The blows are needless and he gives them because\nall other craftsmen give them; but they were not always unmeaning.\nOnce, perchance, they filled in the lapses of a song (like that of Joe\nGargery in _Great Expectations_), or perhaps he thought they rounded\noff the music his hammer made on the hot iron he shaped on his stithy.\nNow they are merely part of the _ritual_ of his craft and he is\n'forced' by the immemorial usage of his 'mystery' to employ them, just\nas we all employ certain stereotyped expressions, for custom's sake.\n\nLack of originality is the disease of ritual. Dullness, pomposity, or\nmock piety are the pillars of its falling house. Why does Stiggins\nstate that a certain prayer-meeting will take place \"D.V.\"? Because\nother Stigginses do so, following a habit started in the dim past by\nsome prudent man. Why do some golfers cut such fantastic capers while\n'addressing'? Because other conceited golfers do the same, having\noriginally seen it done with effect. It is part of the ritual of later\npeople to do these things, nor can they tear themselves away from them\nnor appreciate their absurdity--and man is, above all, an imitative and\nmost unoriginal animal!\n\nRitual, then, enters as much into life as into religion, and secondary\nmyths may arise concerning craft rituals, just as they do about\nreligious ones.\n\nTraces of early ritual in later folk-belief are by no means rare. Such\ntraces were to be found in the old Scottish festival of Bealltainn\nwhich was held on May Day. Of course the pious medieval folk who\nsecured the continuity of the rite did not know that they were\ncelebrating a pagan festival, for the Church, following its age-long\npolicy of propitiating the heathen, tactfully confounded it with the\nfestival of the Rood, the True Cross discovered by the Empress Helena.\nAt Edinburgh and Peebles Bealltainn was held in medieval times on the\n3rd of May, the feast day of the Rood, instead of on the first of the\nmonth, as at Perth and elsewhere, and the old custom or ritual would\nunquestionably be superimposed upon the Christian practice of the day.\nIt is notable that two of the Rood churches in Scotland--Holyrood Abbey\nand Peebles--were reared where the Celtic rite of Bealltainn had been\nunusually popular--raised, as it were, to confound and supersede the\nfestival. The rite of Bealltainn survived until a generation or two\nago, and circumstantial accounts have been bequeathed to us concerning\nit. Says the parish minister of Callander, writing upon the festival:\n\"In the Parish of Callander, upon the first day of May, all the boys\nin the town or hamlet meet on the moors. They cut a table on the\ngreen sod, of a round shape, to hold the whole company. They kindle\nthe fire, and dress a repast of eggs and milk in the consistence of a\ncustard. They knead a cake of oatmeal, which is baked at the fire upon\na stone. After the custard is eaten up, they divide the cake into as\nmany portions, and as similar as possible, as there are persons in the\ncompany. They blacken one of these portions with charcoal until it is\nperfectly black. They put all the bits of cake into a bonnet. Every\none blindfolded draws a portion--he who holds the bonnet is entitled\nto the last. Who draws the black bit is the devoted person to be\nsacrificed to Baal, whose favour they mean to implore in rendering the\nyear productive of substance for man and beast. There is little doubt\nof these human sacrifices being once offered in the country, but the\nyouth who has got the black bit must leap through the flame of the fire\nthree times.\"\n\nIn the preceding generations men, not boys, were the celebrants. Thus\nritual droops into the hands of the very young, the despised, or the\nvery old. The strong desert it, but the weak pitifully conserve it. \"In\nthe Parish of Logierait,\" says Napier, \"Beltane is celebrated by the\nshepherds and cowherds in the following manner. They assemble in the\nfields and dress a dinner of milk and eggs. This dish they eat with\na sort of cake baked for the occasion, having small lumps or nipples\nraised all over its surface. These knobs are not eaten, but broken off,\nand given as offerings to the different supposed powers or influences\nthat protect or destroy their flocks, to the one as a thank-offering,\nto the other as a peace-offering.\"\n\nPennant, in his _Tour through Scotland_, thus described the Bealltainn\nobservances as they were practised at the end of last century. \"The\nherds of every village hold their Beltane (a rural sacrifice). They\ncut a square trench in the ground, leaving the turf in the middle.\nOn that they make a fire of wood, on which they dress a large caudle\nof eggs, oatmeal, butter, and milk, and bring besides these plenty\nof beer and whiskey. Each of the company must contribute something\ntowards the feast. The rites begin by pouring a little of the caudle\nupon the ground, by way of a libation. Every one then takes a cake\nof oatmeal, on which are raised nine square knobs, each dedicated to\nsome particular being who is supposed to preserve their herds, or to\nsome animal the destroyer of them. Each person then turns his face\nto the fire, breaks off a knob, and, flinging it over his shoulder,\nsays--'This I give to thee,' naming the being whom he thanks,\n'preserver of my sheep,' etc.; or to the destroyer, 'This I give to\nthee (O fox or eagle), spare my lambs,' etc. When this ceremony is over\nthey all dine on the caudle.\"\n\nWe thus see that Bealltainn was the survival of the sacrifice of a\nhuman being to certain animistic spirits, the preservers of the flocks\nand herds of the celebrants. Later, cattle must have taken the place of\nthe human victim. Jamieson remarks, quoting O'Brien: \"_Ignis Bei Dei\nAseatica ea lineheil_, or May-day, so called from large fires which\nthe Druids were used to light on the summits of the highest hills,\ninto which they drove four-footed beasts, using certain ceremonies to\nexpiate for the sins of the people. The Pagan ceremony of lighting\nthese fires in honour of the Asiatic god Belus gave its name to the\nentire month of May, which to this day is called _Me-na-bealtine_,\nin the Irish, _Dor Keating_.\" He says again, speaking of these fires\nof Baal, that the cattle were driven through them and not sacrificed,\nthe chief design being to avert contagious disorders from them for the\nyear. And quoting from an ancient glossary, O'Brien says: \"The Druids\nlighted two solemn fires every year, and drove all four-footed beasts\nthrough them, in order to preserve them from contagious distempers\nduring the current year.\"\n\nBealltainn was perhaps an adaptation of one of the names of Bil\u00e9, a\nCeltic god of death and the Underworld, one of the Danann or gods\nimported from Gaul. Thus we may find in the festival the celebration\nof a propitiatory festival to the god of death and all his devastating\ncrew, the tempest, the fox, the eagle--the pantheon of destroyers, whom\nit was hoped to placate and soften into protective agencies.\n\nThe collection of dew is a notable circumstance in the May Day\nfestival. It is alluded to by Ferguson, who sings in the ancient metre\nwhich Scotland took from France:\n\n    On May day in a fairy ring\n    We've seen them round St Anthon's spring\n      Frae grass the caller dew to wring\n          To wet their een\n      And water clear as crystal spring\n          To synd them clean.\n\nFirst-of-May dew preserved the skin from wrinkles and freckles, and\ngave a glow of youth. Dew collected on the morning of the first day\nof May is supposed to confer witchcraft on the gatherer, and protect\nagainst an evil eye. To be seen in a field at daybreak that morning\nrendered the person seen an object of fear--perhaps as a witch or\nwizard.\n\nTHE RITES OF DIONYSUS\n\nThe manner in which a complicated secondary myth may result from ritual\nis well exemplified by that which sprang from the rites of Dionysus\ncelebrated at Thebes. A branch or some other symbol of vegetation was\ncarried through the cultivated fields in the neighbourhood of the city\nby a man disguised as a woman. A human image was then attached to the\ntop of a tree-trunk, which was raised from the ground by ropes and\nheld upright. The tree-spirit is then supposed to animate the trunk.\nThen, as happened in Mexico at the feast of Uitzilopochtli, the image\nattached to the tree was stoned and its fragments were scrambled and\nfought for. The woman who secured the head hastened to nail it to the\ntemple or principal house of the community.\n\nThe late explanation of these doings, the origin of which became\nentirely lost, was that, as whatever was done must redound to the\nhonour of Dionysus, the being represented on the top of the tree-trunk\nwas inimical to him. The women, perhaps, supposed themselves to be\nenacting the part of bacchantes crazed with wine. As Roscher and Jevons\nhave shown, this late story is the framework of the myth of Pentheus\nas given in the _Bacch\u00e6_ of Euripides, Pentheus, a monarch, refuses to\npermit the introduction of the worship of Dionysus, who bereaves him\nof his senses and, having dressed him in woman's garments, leads him\nthrough his own town as a laughing-stock. The women of Thebes, led by\nAgave, the mother of Pentheus, accept Dionysus and become m\u00e6nads or\nbacchantes. To enable Pentheus to see their worship, Dionysus bends\ndown a pine-tree, places him on the top and then lets it go. He is then\nattacked by Agave and the other bacchantes, who tear him limb from limb\nand set his head on the front of his own palace.\n\nWhatever the significance of this rite--and it would seem to have its\norigin in priapic and bacchic worship--we cannot fail to observe how\nfar too explanatory and how little ingenious the foregoing tale appears\nwhen adapted to it. As Falstaff says of his own excuse: \"It will not\nfadge,\" It is lame and awkward. Pentheus could have beheld the rites of\nthe bacchantes without the pine-tree being lowered for his convenience;\nand had he been bereft of his senses, he would probably have joined in\nthe bacchic rout instead of tamely witnessing it. The circumstances\npoint to the real myth behind the ritual being connected with the\nsecret priapic and seasonal rites of a feminine cult--for women have\ntheir secret cults as well as men, as has been proved of late by the\nwonderful and valuable discoveries of Mrs D. Aumary Talbot among the\nCongo peoples--discoveries which seem destined to throw much light upon\na most interesting department of comparative religion.\n\nThe student must then be upon his guard against secondary\ninterpretations of ritual, which in most cases can only have reference\nto an early type of myth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE WRITTEN SOURCES OF MYTH\n\n\nAmong the most important sources of our knowledge of myth are ancient\nbooks, which, purporting only to set down the annals of a people,\ncontain numerous important passages concerning the mythology of\nthe race whose deeds they celebrate, the adventures of divine or\nsemi-divine beings, whose godhead we can discern shining beneath the\narmour of the mortal hero. Such books are the _Iliad_ of Homer, the\nJapanese _Nihongi_, the _Popol Vuh_ of the Kiches of Central America,\nthe _Ramayana_ of the Hindus, and the _Wallum-Olum_ of the Lenap\u00e9\nIndians. Among the pages of these and of similar works where myth\nshades into history, we will now search for the pure mythic gold,\nrefining it from the dross which surrounds it, and making an attempt\nto restore it to its pristine condition. In perusing these ancient\nwritings we shall find that although many of the myths which they\nconserve have undoubtedly changed their original shape, others have as\ncertainly retained it, as well as their ancient simplicity of matter\nand spirit.\n\nTHE SOURCES OF EGYPTIAN MYTH\n\nThe more we learn of Egyptian myth the more we realize how little we\nknew concerning it until recently, and how very much more remains to\nbe discovered. We now know a good deal about the various Egyptian\ndeities and their attributes, from the careful study of Greek and Latin\nwriters, by induction, and from the Pyramid and other hieroglyphic\ntexts; but it is strange how comparatively few Egyptian myths have\ncome down to us. Of the many papyri taken from temple and sarcophagus\nonly a small proportion deals with what may be called literature,\nand of this only a small part treats of myth. Perhaps the most\noutstanding contribution to Egyptian myth is that of Plutarch, who\nin his _Osiride et Iside_ tells us practically all we know of Osiris\nand Isis. Plutarch's information was second-hand at the best, and\nhis version of the myth contains many grievous errors; but it is our\none and only guide for the main body of the story, and we must be\nthankful for it. One of the great repositories of Egyptian ritual,\nthe _Book of the Dead_[1] is of great indirect value to mythology.\nIt treats of the manner in which the soul of the deceased Egyptian\nshould comport itself in the Otherworld, and also relates the voyage\nof Ra-Osiris through the realms of night, mentioning numerous deities\nand spirits who accompany him in his progress. Of this book there were\nthree recensions or versions, the Heliopolitan, the Theban, and the\nSa\u00efte. The first-mentioned was edited by the priests of the college of\nOn, or Heliopolis, and was based on manuscripts which were probably\nancient even in that far-away time. The pyramids of Unas, Teta, and\nPepi contain the original texts of this recension. Chapters were added\nfrom time to time between the VIth and XIth Dynasties. The favourite\nversion of the _Book of the Dead_ from the XVIIIth to the XXIInd\nDynasty was the Theban recension, and the Sa\u00efte must be still later, by\nits arrangement. As has been said, the _Book of the Deadhas_ greatly\nassisted students of Egyptian myth. Not only does it describe many of\nthe gods and supernatural beings who inhabit the Underworld, but it\npaints vivid pictures of the scenery of that gloomy region. It was\nnecessary that the dead Egyptian should know the name of every door,\ndoor-keeper, watcher, and questioner in the abode of the dead, and\nthose names greatly assist in discovering the exact character of the\nmultitude of beings who inhabited the regions ruled over by Osiris.\n\nSeveral papyri provide us with mythological items, notably the\nWestcar Papyrus, written about 1800 B.C., now in the Berlin Museum.\nThe beginning and the end are wanting, yet sufficient remains to\nshow the trend of the whole. Among the several tales it contains is\nthe \"Prophecy of Dedi,\" which recounts the birth of the sons of Ra.\nIn the history of Setne and his son Se-Osiris, too, we get several\nmythological glimpses, especially valuable being the vision of Amenti,\nthe abode of the dead, vouchsafed to the child Se-Osiris. From a secret\nplace in the mountains of Memphis he led his father to seven great\nhalls (filled with people of all conditions), symbolic of Amenti.\nThese various halls or circles remind us of the abode of the damned in\nDante's 'Malebolge.' In the sixth hall the gods of Amenti held council,\nand in the seventh sat the god Osiris, with Thoth and Anubis. A\njudgment scene is described, corresponding to that in the _Book of the\nDead_; and parallels such as these provide that 'test of recurrence'\ninsisted upon by Tylor, and the first tenet in the creed of all good\nmythologists--not, of course, that this recurrence suitably illustrates\nTylor's law--_i.e._, that if mythological phenomena on which a certain\ntheory is based 'recur' in a far distant place the correctness of that\ntheory is proved. Here similar facts only 'recur' concerning the same\nsubject in the accounts of different contemporary writers; but these\naccounts are therefore almost certain to mirror the current belief on\nthat subject, unless, of course, internal evidence reveals that one\nwriter has slavishly copied from the other.\n\nTHE TWO BROTHERS\n\nThe \"Story of the Two Brothers\" contained in the D'Orbiney Papyrus,\nbought in Italy and acquired by the British Museum in 1857, provides\nus with a story of great significance to the students of myth and\ncomparative religion. It will be found in the volume of this series\nwhich deals with Egyptian mythology, and it is only necessary to state\nin this place that there were two brothers, Anapou and Bitou, that\nAnapou's wife sought Bitou's life, and that Bitou had to flee. After\nmeeting the nine gods and receiving the 'Daughter of the gods' for his\nwife, it was intimated to him by the Seven Hathors that he should die\nby the sword. He confided to his wife that he had placed his heart, or\nlife,[2] on the summit of an acacia-tree, and that whoever discovered\nit there would have to meet him in combat. It came to the ears of\nPharaoh that Bitou had a beautiful wife, and he sent armed men to kill\nhim, but Bitou slew them all. Pharaoh then enticed the girl away.\nShe told him her husband's secret, and he cut down the acacia-tree,\nwhereupon Bitou expired. His brother, opening the tree, discovered\ntherein a berry, which he placed in cold water, and Bitou was restored\nto life. He then took the shape of a sacred Apis bull, which was\nled before Pharaoh. The animal entered the harem and addressed his\nformer wife, telling her who he was. She put pressure upon the King to\nslaughter it, and when this was done, two big drops of blood fell from\nthe animal's neck and became two great trees, one at either side of\nPharaoh's portal. Sacrifices were offered to these, and Pharaoh with\nhis wife, or rather Bitou's wife, was carried in his chair of state to\nsit under the wonderful trees. But the tree under which Bitou's wife\nwas seated whispered its secret to her, and at her desire the trees\nwere cut down. As this was being done a chip flew into her mouth. In\ndue time she had a son, who was none other than Bitou himself; he\nsucceeded the Pharaoh and put his faithless wife to death.\n\nThis tale is a blend of several well-known mythologic and folklore\nelements, the chief of which it may be observed are the slaughter of\nthe bull and the felling of the trees. These incidents show that part\nof the story at least was originally made to explain the origin of tree\nand animal worship. At the time it was reduced to writing this tale was\nprobably about four thousand years old, so that it had had every chance\nto attract to itself other floating incidents, such as the way in which\nthe wickedness of the faithless wife was brought to naught.\n\nTHE GILGAMESH EPIC\n\nAn important place in the mythic lore of the Orient falls to the great\nChaldean poem known as the Gilgamesh epic, a copy of which, inscribed\non fragmentary clay tablets, is still extant in the British Museum.\nThis copy was made at the instance of Assurbanipal (Sardanapalus), King\nof Assyria, in the seventh century before our era, and was housed in\nthat monarch's famous library at Nineveh. Ere the century in which\nthey were deposited there closed the tablets were buried beneath the\nruins of the city, to be recovered only in modern times through the\nresearches of Sir A. H. Layard and others. The epic, written by the\nNinevite scribes on twelve tablets, tells the adventures of a mythical\nor semi-mythical hero called Gilgamesh, and is of the nature of a solar\ncycle, comprising a number of more or less distinct and complete myths\nwoven into a connected narrative. Some of its episodes are known to be\nof high antiquity, dating at the latest from some two thousand years\nbefore the time of Assurbanipal.\n\nIt is possible that there is an historical basis for the character of\nGilgamesh, whose name is thought to be of Elamite or Kassite origin.\nIt happens by no means infrequently that a real national hero becomes\nthe nucleus of various legends of gods and supernatural beings, and it\nis therefore not improbable that Gilgamesh was at one time that prince\nof Erech which the epic represents him to be. Mythologically, he is\nthe type of the sun-god (as a brief scrutiny of the poem will show),\nhis adventures typifying the course of the solar luminary through the\nheavens and into the Underworld. Eabani, the mythical type of primitive\nman, with whom Gilgamesh is associated as friend and fellow-adventurer,\nalso presents solar characteristics. It is not, however, sun legends\nalone which have found their way into the epic. The myth of Eabani and\nUkhut in the Ist tablet approximates to the story of Adam and Eve;\nthere is mention of the seasonal myth of Tammuz and Ishtar in the VIth\ntablet; most important of all, in the XIth tablet appears the famous\nBabylonian story of the deluge, forming in itself a complete and\nseparate narrative, connected with the rest of the epic only by the\nmost mechanical of literary devices.\n\nThe opening of the poem is rather obscure. A fragment exists which\nseems to be its earliest lines, a sort of prologue indicating the\nbenefits accruing to those who read the epic. Another fragment thought\nto belong to this work is about a grievous siege of the city of Erech;\nbut as no mention of Gilgamesh appears, it is doubtful whether the\nfragment really forms a part of the poem. When Gilgamesh is first\nintroduced in the mutilated text it is as the semi-divine king of\nErech, a tyrannous monarch whose people groan beneath the weight\nof his oppression. There is nothing to indicate how he reached the\nthrone, whether he was a native prince or a conqueror. Like the sun he\ntypifies, his birth is shrouded in mystery. His mother, Rimat-belit,\nis a priestess of the cult of Shamash; it is not from her that he has\nreceived his strain of divinity. His father, strangely enough, is not\nonce mentioned, and we are left to conjecture that he was the offspring\nof a god, probably of the sun-god himself, whose worshipper and\n_prot\u00e9g\u00e9_ he is.\n\nThe people of Erech at length rebel against his cruel treatment,\ncalling on the gods to create a hero to subdue him. The divine beings\nhearkened, and the goddess Aruru made Eabani, the wild man, from\na piece of clay. Eabani haunts the mountains and desolate places,\nherding with the gazelles as one of them, and it is in this condition\nthat Tsaidu, the hunter, finds him, whether by accident or design\nis not clear. Tsaidu, after trying in vain to capture him, returns\nwith news of him to Gilgamesh, who, evidently guessing that the wild\nman was intended by the gods for his downfall, dispatches Tsaidu\nonce more in search of him. This time the huntsman is accompanied by\nthe temple-woman Ukhut, whose snares Gilgamesh trusts will be more\neffective than those of Tsaidu. Like Adam in the Garden of Eden, the\nwild man falls before the wiles of a woman, and is led in triumph to\nErech, with whose monarch he establishes a close friendship, thus in a\nmeasure thwarting the designs of the gods.\n\nIn the IInd tablet we find Eabani somewhat dissatisfied with his\nposition at Erech, and lamenting his lost freedom; but the god Shamash\nappears to him in a dream and induces him to remain. The two heroes,\nGilgamesh and Eabani, project an expedition against Khumbaba, the\nmonster who guards the forest of cedars, and in the IIIrd tablet they\nobtain the patronage of Shamash for their undertaking, through the good\noffices of Rimat-belit.\n\nThe fearsome aspect of Khumbaba (identified by some writers with an\nElamite dynasty which flourished more than two thousand years before\nour era) is portrayed in the IVth tablet, while the Vth relates the\nepisode of the heroes' approach to the forest of cedars. The portion\nof the text dealing with the combat is no longer extant, but we gather\nthat the monster is overcome and slain. The encounter with Khumbaba\nappears to be symbolical of the conflict between light and darkness.\n\nThe VIth tablet embodies a myth of different character, representing,\nperhaps, the wooing of the sun-god, the god of the spring-time, by\nIshtar, the patron deity of fertility and of the renewal of vegetation\non the earth. Returning from his expedition to the forest of cedars,\nGilgamesh lays aside his armour and stained garments and robes himself\nwith becoming state. The goddess Ishtar, beholding him, loves him,\nand desires him for her bridegroom. \"Come, Gilgamesh,\" she says, \"and\nbe thou my bridegroom! I am thy vine, thou art its bond; be thou my\nhusband, and I will be thy wife,\" and so on, with many fair promises\nand inducements. But Gilgamesh will have none of her proffered favours.\nIn a speech replete with mythic allusions he taunts her with her\ntreatment of former lovers--of Tammuz the bridegroom of her youth, of\nAlala the eagle, of a \"lion perfect in might\" and a \"horse glorious in\nbattle,\" of the shepherd Tabulu and the gardener Isullanu. To all these\nhas she meted out cruel tortures; \"and yet,\" says Gilgamesh, \"thou\nlovest me that thou mayest make me as they are.\" Ishtar in mingled\nrage and shame appeals to her father Anu to send a great bull against\nthe hero, and Anu at length consents to do so. However, Gilgamesh and\nEabani succeed in slaying the divine animal, while Eabani still further\nincenses the goddess by his contemptuous treatment of her. After the\noverthrow of the celestial bull the heroes return to Erech. Up to this\npoint their victorious career has not received a single check; but just\nas the sun when he reaches the zenith begins to decline in strength, so\nthe might of the two heroes begins to wane after the middle of the epic.\n\nIn the VIIth tablet the death of Eabani is foretold to him in a vision.\nThe temple maiden Ukhut (cursed by him in his first bitterness at\nthe loss of freedom, and now dead) appears to him, and in a passage\nbeginning, \"Come, descend with me to the house of darkness, the\nabode of Irkalla,\" describes the gloomy and wretched aspect of the\nNetherworld. Soon afterward Eabani becomes ill, no doubt through the\nmalignance of the goddess Ishtar. This tablet and the following, which\nrecounts the death of Eabani, are in a very mutilated condition.\n\nThe IXth tablet opens with the lament of Gilgamesh for his deceased\nfriend. \"Must I die like Eabani?\" asks the hero, and a great dread\ncomes upon him, so that he resolves to go to the abode of his\nancestor, Ut-Napishtim, the Babylonian Noah, who has been admitted\ninto the pantheon, and, he trusts, will unveil for him the secret of\nimmortality. It must be remembered that on this journey thitherward\nGilgamesh, in his mythical character of sun-god, is travelling downward\nfrom the zenith. In due course he reaches the Mountain of the Sunset,\nlying on the western horizon, and when he has passed its portals,\nguarded by scorpion-men, he passes through a region of darkness which\ntakes him twenty-four hours to traverse.\n\nThe Xth tablet brings him to the seashore, and here he meets with\nSabitu, goddess of the sea, who directs him to Ut-Napishtim's ferryman,\nArad-Ea. After some persuasion the ferryman consents to row him across\nthe waters of death to the abode of his ancestor. Arrived at the\nfarther shore, the hero (who has meanwhile contracted a sore disease)\nremains sitting in the boat till Ut-Napishtim comes down to the strand.\nThe survivor of the flood is greatly surprised to see that a mortal man\nhas crossed the dark sea in safety, and he demands to know his errand.\nGilgamesh makes known the object of his quest (to learn the secret of\nperpetual life), whereupon the listener on the shore looks grave, and\npoints out to him that death is the common lot of all men.\n\nTo explain how he himself obtained immortality and deification,\nUt-Napishtim relates the Babylonian version of the ubiquitous\nflood-story, which occupies the first portion of the XIth tablet. The\nflood was decreed, according to this version, by the gods who dwelt in\nthe ancient city of Shurip-pak. \"Their hearts prompted the great gods\nto send a deluge,\" says Ut-Napishtim naively, and no other cause is\nassigned for the disaster. Ut-Napishtim was evidently a favourite with\nEa, lord of the deep; he instructed him in a vision how to build a ship\nin which he and his household might escape. To allay the suspicions of\nthe populace he had to give as the reason for his preparations that\nhe was hated by Bel and was therefore disposed to quit the realms of\nthat deity and repair to the domains of Ea. The building, launching,\nand loading of the ship occupied seven days, and at eventide on the\nseventh Ut-Napishtim with his family and household entered the ship,\nand the torrential rains then commenced. For a season all was storm\nand chaos, so that even the gods were afraid. On the seventh day the\ntempest ceased, and finally the ship came to rest on Mount Nitsir. To\ndiscover whether the waters were abating this Babylonian Noah sent out\na dove, then a swallow, but both returned to the ship; after a space\nhe sent out a raven, and the raven drew near, \"wading and croaking,\"\nbut did not come back. Then Ut-Napishtim and all his household came\nout and offered a libation and burnt incense on the mountain-peak. The\ngods descended and hovered round him, and the lady of the gods swore by\nher necklace of lapis lazuli (an amulet) that she would not forget the\ndays of the deluge. Bel, who seems to have been the prime mover in the\ndestruction of mankind, was wroth when he discovered the survivors, but\nat length, on the intervention of the other gods, he decided to raise\nUt-Napishtim and his wife to the status of divinities and admit them to\nthe council of the gods. After this, the pair were taken away and made\nto dwell at 'the mouth of the rivers.'\n\nHis recital ended, Ut-Napishtim undertook to cure Gilgamesh of his\ndisease, and for that purpose directed him to a magic spring of\nhealing virtue. The hero, once more strong and healthy, returned\nto his ancestor's dwelling and again demanded the secret of life.\nUt-Napishtim, though he had previously pointed out the hopelessness of\nthe quest, now told Gilgamesh how he might obtain the plant of life,\nand with Arad-Ea for his pilot the hero set out. He was successful\nin finding the magic plant, but ere he could make use of it a\nserpent-monster stole it from him, and with his quest still unfulfilled\nhe was obliged to return to Erech.\n\nThe mythological significance of this tablet is, of course, that the\nsun-god can never attain immortality, he must 'die' inevitably at\neventide, cross the waters of death, and sojourn until morning in the\nUnderworld. Just as Gilgamesh is healed and restored to Erech, so is\nthe sun restored to the world at dawn, his quest still unsatisfied, for\nhe must 'perish' again when night comes round.\n\nThe XIIth and last tablet concerns the return of Eabani's ghost\n(_utukka_) from the Underworld. Gilgamesh still mourns for his friend,\nand begs the gods to restore him to life. At length Ea hearkens and\nintercedes with Nergal, god of the Netherworld, who consents to release\nthe spirit for a little while. The passage containing Gilgamesh's\ninterview with the ghost is of interest as setting forth the Babylonian\ndoctrine of care for the dead. Eabani describes the conditions of life\nin the Underworld, showing that the dead who are properly buried and\nreceive offerings are comparatively comfortable, while those who are\nuncared for dwell in squalor and wretchedness.\n\nWe must not overlook the important astrological aspect of the Gilgamesh\nepic. It is generally thought that the division of the epic into\ntwelve tablets implies a connexion with the zodiac, though it is\nalso suggested that the association is an artificial one conceived\nby the Ninevite scribes who copied the poem. However this may be,\nit is obvious that the epic abounds in astrological allusions. Thus\nthe sign Virgo would be represented by the wooing of Ishtar in the\nVIth tablet; Taurus by the combat with the celestial bull; Scorpio by\nthe meeting with the scorpion-men at the Mountain of the Sunset, and\nalso by the traversing of the region of darkness, since the scorpion\ntypified darkness, and the sign Scorpio was frequently used both as\nthe seventh and eighth signs of the zodiac. Capricornus, represented\nas a fish-tailed goat, may be depicted by the encounter with Sabitu,\ngoddess of the sea. The deluge story inserted in the XIth tablet comes\nunder the sign of Aquarius, the water-bearer; while Pisces, the twelfth\nsign, typical of the after-life, corresponds with the ghost-scene in\nthe XIIth tablet. As has been said, Gilgamesh and Eabani were both\nof them forms of the sun-god; it is therefore not impossible that\nthey were the mythological equivalents of the sign Gemini, the twins,\nitself connected with two types of the solar deity. The astrological\nor zodiacal element in the epic grew in importance with the advance of\nastrology in Babylonia.\n\nHINDU MYTHICAL LITERATURE: THE VEDAS\n\nThe generic term _Veda_ ('knowledge') is applied to a collection\nof ancient Hindu writings forming the Brahmanical scriptures. The\n_Veda_ comprised a group of four distinct collections of sacred\nliterature--namely, the _Rig-veda_, or book of hymns, the _Sama-veda_,\nor book of chants, the _Yajur-veda_, or book of prayers, and the\n_Atharva-veda_, or book of the Atharvans--each of these composed\nof a _Samhita_ (a collection of sacred sayings forming the veda\nproper), to which are appended three other classes of writings,\nsomewhat less authoritative and divine--the _Brahmanas_ (prose\nwritings), the _Aranyakas_, dealing with the more esoteric rites,\nand the _Upanishads_, of a rationalistic and speculative nature.\nThe _Rig-veda_, the work of early Aryan settlers in India, is the\noldest and most important of the four, and is believed to be of high\nantiquity. It is written in a dialect older than classical Sanskrit.\nThe _Sama-veda_ and _Yajur-veda_ are largely composed of borrowings\nfrom the _Rig-veda,_ resemblances to which are also apparent in the\n_Atharva-veda,_ though the significance of the latter is less religious\nand more magical.\n\nWith the religious and moral teachings of the Vedas we have here no\nconcern; but the lore of the ancient gods which still lingers in\nthem is of great mythological interest, and reveals to some extent\nthe workings of Indian religious thought in the early Aryan period.\nThe foundation of the early Hindu religion as it is set forth in the\nVedic literature was, apparently, a simple animistic cult, wherefrom\nwas gradually evolved a pantheon of deities for the most part\nanthropomorphic. The natural world was divided, conveniently enough,\ninto three spheres, the earth, the air, and the sky, each of which had\nits presiding deity with his divine court. Thus arose a constantly\nchanging triad of supreme deities--changing, at all events, in\nname--and in time the partly monotheistic idea of a spiritual essence\nor universal soul pervading and animating all things, even the gods\nthemselves.\n\nDespite the lofty moral sentiments of the Vedas, and their spiritual\ncharacter, we may discern in them traces of barbarism. This is less\nevident in the Vedic hymns, or Samhitas, than in the prose Brahmanas:\nmany of the myths, complete and fragmentary, in which these latter\nabound, present a distinctly savage element of irrationality and\nstupidity.\n\nTHE \"RAMAYANA\" AND \"MAHABHARATA\"\n\nThe _Ramayana_ treats of the traditions of two great races, the Kosalas\nand the Videhas, who dwelt in Northern India between the twelfth and\ntenth centuries B.C. It is not in these families that our interest\ncentres, but in the numerous mythological allusions which enrich\nthe work. It is, of course, chiefly a hero-tale, but, unlike the\n_Nibelungenlied_, for example, it abounds in direct allusions to the\ngods and their various attributes; and this it is that makes it so\ninteresting to the mythologist. Here is a short catalogue of gods from\nthe fifth book of the _Ramayana_ to illustrate its usefulness as a\nmythological guide. The principal attributes of the various deities are\ndescribed in a phrase:\n\n    _Brahma_ and the flaming _Agni, Vishnu_ lord of heavenly light,\n    _Indra_ and benign _Vivasvat_ ruler of the azure height,\n\n    _Soma_ and the radiant _Bhaga_, and _Kuvera_ lord of gold,\n    And _Vidhatri_ great Creator worshipped by the saints of old,\n\n    _Vayu_ breath of living creature, _Yama_ monarch of the dead,\n    And _Varuna_ with his fetters which the trembling sinners dread,\n\n    Holy spirit of _Gayatri_, goddess of the morning prayer,\n    _Vasus_ and the hooded _Nagas_, golden-winged _Garuda_ fair,\n\n    _Kartikeya_ heavenly leader strong to conquer and to bless,\n    _Dharma_ god of human duty and of human  righteousness.\n\nThe adventures of the hero Rama in search of his wife Sita and her\neventual discovery, form the principal incidents; and although the\nwork rings with the clash of battle, it yet possesses infinite wisdom,\nrelated in the words of holy hermits and sage priests.\n\nThe _Mahabharata_, or 'great poem of the Bharatas,' most wonderful\nof all Eastern epics, tells of a great war fought some thirteen or\nfourteen centuries before our era; but the main historical theme\nhas been largely obscured by the medley of mythical, legendary, and\nreligious lore which with the passing of centuries has gradually\nswelled the epic to more than a hundred thousand couplets. Originating,\npossibly, some centuries before the Christian era, the poem is believed\nto have been cast in its present form as early as A.D. 200.\n\nLike the _Ramayana_, the _Mahabharata_ is rich in mythic matter--in\nmyths, legends, and hero-tales more or less completely fused with\nthe central narrative. Thus it contains one version of the Indian\ndeluge story, and the Greeks are known to have identified certain\nof its characters with the beings of their own mythology. The chief\nreligious tendency of the poem in its existing shape is toward the\ncult of Krishna, who plays a leading part in its development. It has\nbeen suggested that the Krishna stratum was superimposed on an earlier\nBuddhist groundwork at a time when the worship of Vishnu (regarded as\nbeing incarnate in Krishna) was in ascendancy.\n\nTHE \"ILIAD\" AND \"ODYSSEY\"\n\nMuch obscurity enfolds the origin of those famous Greek epics, the\n_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, whereof the authorship is traditionally assigned\nto Homer. Beyond the fact of their undoubted antiquity nothing is\nknown of their early history save what may be gleaned from internal\nevidence; it is not even certain that they are both from the same pen.\nMuch of the matter they contain is extremely ancient, and authorities\nare generally agreed that they must have been cast in epic form at\nlatest before the ninth century B.C. The literary beauty and power of\nthese noble works need not be dwelt upon here, but both the _Iliad_ and\n_Odyssey_ are rich in mythological matter, and it is this which calls\nfor our attention. Gods and men mingle freely in both narratives.\n\nThus we learn that in Homeric times the gods were definitely\npersonalized and anthropomorphic; yet not to such an extent as to lose\ntheriomorphic traits which indicate their origin. They could, for\ninstance, assume animal shape at will, even Athene herself, who has\nbut few savage elements in her nature, becoming a bird on occasion.\nApollo, too, and Dionysus, and other deities possess this faculty of\nmetamorphosis as an inheritance from a more barbarous age.\n\nThe Homeric myths, in whatever form they reached the Greek poet (or\npoets) known to us as Homer, are singularly free from the grosser\nelements which appear in the Hesiodic tales of the gods. Zeus and\nHera, Apollo and Artemis, all the gods whose classic lineaments were\nfixed for all time by the pen of Homer, are portrayed by him in noble\nand beautiful aspect, with only here and there a reminiscence of some\nprimitive _chronique scandaleuse_, or a trace of that barbaric element\nof irrationality characteristic of myth in its primitive stages.\n\nZeus was, of course, the supreme deity of the Homeric pantheon, and is\nrepresented as a just and pitiful god, a father to his people and an\navenger of the wrongs of the weak. To him is paid genuine religious\nveneration, and submission to his supreme and righteous will is\nobviously one of the first duties of man. Round him are grouped the\nother gods and goddesses, likewise anthropomorphic and rational beings.\nThe divine government consists of a simple monarchic state, probably\ndrawn up on the model of the Greek government of the period. Between\ngods and mortals a general spirit of friendliness and confidence\nexists, giving to the religion of the Homeric period a pleasant and\nspontaneous character not always evident in later times.\n\nIt is notable that both the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ were unhesitatingly\nascribed to Homer until the eve of the Christian era, when certain\nGreek writers advanced the thesis that the epics were the work of\ndifferent authors. Thus was commenced a controversy which has never\nbeen entirely settled. It was urged, again, that the _Iliad_ was\ncomposed of numerous short folk-poems taken from oral tradition and\nwoven by the poet into a connected narrative; but this theory in\nturn has been examined and found lacking, for the literary unity and\ncoherence of the poem, failing only in a few minor instances, stamps\nit as an original work. This, of course, does not imply that myth has\nbeen excluded from the main structure of the poem, for, as has been\nshown, it has not. It has likewise been brought forward, as proof of\nthe separate authorship of the epics, that various deities appear in\na different aspect in the _Odyssey_ from that which they wear in the\n_Iliad_, but this in all probability is due rather to the exigencies of\ncomposition than to a different author.\n\nThese great epics are of the widest mythological importance,\ndetermining, as they do, as much as the Hesiodic poems, the character\nand status of the Greek divinities. And still more surely than Hesiod\ndoes Homer mark the transition from the barbarous or semi-barbarous\nmythical period to the full splendour of the classic age. For many\ncenturies the works of the ancient poet formed the scriptures of the\nGreek religion, the very foundation-stone of the mythological \"glory\nthat was Greece.\"\n\nJAPANESE MYTHIC LITERATURE\n\nJapan is rich in mythic literature, perhaps the most valuable of its\nmythic books being the _Kojiki_, or \"Record of Ancient Matters.\"\nThe traditions embraced in it are said to have been recited by a\ncourt lady, Hiyeda No Ra Rae, endowed with an extraordinary memory,\nand commanded by the Emperor Temmu, who flourished at the end of\nthe seventh century A.D., to absorb all the mythical and historical\nmaterials she could and then to dictate them to a scribe. But the\nemperor died before he could give final instructions concerning the\nscheme, and for twenty-five years Hiyeda carried these mythic annals\nin her brain, patiently awaiting the day when Temmu's successor could\nfurnish her with a scribe. At length the Empress Gemmyo took the\nmatter up in A.D. 712, and gave her as helper the scribe Yesumaro.\nThe _Kojiki_ is written in archaic Japanese, and describes the\ndivine origin of the Japanese race and the story of creation given\nelsewhere in this book, before it goes on to treat of the annals\nof early sovereigns. The _Nihongi_, or \"Chronicles of Japan,\" is\nwritten in the classical or Chinese style, and goes over much the same\nground as the _Kojiki_, the songs of which it occasionally alters\nslightly, supplementing here and omitting there, but it is by no means\nso Japanese in character. It is, however, much more valuable as a\nrepository of myth and history. The mythology of these books is, of\ncourse, Shintoism. The principal gods and heroes and their adventures,\ndivine and terrestrial, are described, and one of the chief tales\nrecounts the quarrel of the sun-goddess with her brother Susa-no-o. The\nsun-goddess, Ama-terasu, is, of course, an important figure in these\nmythic annals, as from her sprang the line of the mikados. The great\ncycle of myths collected in these annals is known as the \"Period of the\nGods,\" and may be compared with the divine cycles of the Celts, or the\n_Popol Vuh_.\n\nTHE EDDAS\n\nThe Teutons of the North do not appear to have possessed any very\nancient written records of their mythology. The Prose, or Younger, Edda\nis a miscellaneous group of writings collected by Snorri Sturlason\n(1178-1241), who completed the work about 1222. The name 'Edda' does\nnot appear to have been originally bestowed upon it by its author,\nand Scandinavian scholars find some difficulty in explaining it. It\nwas, it is thought, composed by different hands between the years\n1140 and 1160. It is divided into four parts, with a preface, which,\nafter the fashion of that period, purports to furnish the reader\nwith a history of human affairs from the beginning. The second part,\n\"Gylfaginning,\" or \"The Delusion of Gylfi,\" is a valuable compendium\nof early Scandinavian myth. It deals, in the first place, with the\nadventures of the mythical king Gylfi and the giantess Gelfion, the\nmanner of creation of the island of Zealand, and the invasion of\nSweden by the \u00c6sir or divine beings, captained by Odin. The third\npart, the \"Bragar\u00e6thur,\" or \"Sayings of Bragi,\" contains mythical\npoems attributed to Bragi, the god of poetry. The remainder of the\nYounger Edda deals with the poetic art, and therefore does not fall to\nbe described here. Sturlason's collection is fortified by another work\ncalled the _Ynglinga Saga_, which describes how the hero-gods of the\nScandinavian race advanced from the Black Sea northward through Russia\nand westward through Esthonia, overrunning the south of Scandinavia\nand founding kingdoms there. Of this work three important manuscripts\nare still extant, the Wurm Manuscript, the Codex Regius, and, most\nimportant of all, the Upsala Codex, probably written about the year\n1300.\n\nThe Elder Edda, or the Poetic Edda, discovered by Bishop Sveinsson in\n1643, was attributed by him to S\u00e6mund Sigfusson, a royal Norwegian who\nflourished in Iceland from about 1055 to 1132. He was mistaken, for the\nfragmentary poems it contains are probably rather earlier. They deal\nwith the myths of early Scandinavian civilization, and are composed in\na simple and archaic form of Icelandic. Who composed them we do not\nknow, but they were almost certainly collected from oral tradition. The\nmost important and interesting of these ancient poems is the \"V\u00f6lusp\u00e1\"\nor prophecy of the V\u00f6lva, or Sybil, who from her lofty seat addresses\nOdin, singing of the primeval times before even the gods were created,\nof the origin of the J\u00f6tunn of men and dwarfs, and of the last dreadful\ndoom in the 'twilight of the gods' at Ragnor\u00f6k. The whole composition\nis intensely mystical in both atmosphere and wording, shows knowledge\nof a cosmology different from that of later Scandinavian times, and is\non the whole extremely difficult to understand. Next we have \"H\u00e1vam\u00e1l\"\n(\"Lesson of the High One\"), a collection of saws and proverbs,\ncontaining a series of stories told by Odin to his own discomfiture.\nThis is true matter of mythology, and is the sort of material which\nstrengthens the theory of Lang and others that myth possesses no\nreligious significance, that it is exoteric to religion, the truth,\nof course, being that the above is only one type of myth--the\nsecular as opposed to the sacred. The cosmogony and chronology of\nthe Scandinavian religion are set forth in the \"Vafpr\u00fathnism\u00e1l,\" or\n\"Lesson of Vafpr\u00fathnir,\" a giant who is visited by Odin in disguise\nand catechized by him. Many burlesque stories of the gods are also\ntold in \"The Journey of Skirnir,\" \"The Lay of Hoarbeard,\" and \"The\nBrewing of \u00c6gir.\" In the \"Song of Thrym\" we are told how a giant of\nthat name stole the hammer of Thor, refusing to restore it unless the\ngoddess Freya was given him to wife, and how Thor, dressed in female\ngarments, took her place, slew the giant, and recovered his hammer. A\nmyth which recounts how the caste system arose in Scandinavia is met\nwith in \"R\u00edgsm\u00e1l,\" which tells how the god Hemisdal, taking the human\nname of Rig, bestowed the power of procreation on the two dwarfs Ai and\nEdda, who became the parents of the race of thralls or bondsmen. A like\ngift he bestowed on Afi and Ama, who became the parents of the caste\nof churls. He himself brought up Jarl, the first freeman, instructing\nhim in the arts of war and wisdom. The rest of the Poetic Edda is\nconcerned with pseudo-history, and, among other things, with the long\nand important series of lays relating to the two heroic families of the\nVolsungs and the Nibelungs. These, however, are not so much myth as\nhero-story. The principal manuscript of the Poetic Edda is the Codex\nRegius in the royal library at Copenhagen, written on forty-five leaves\nof vellum, probably between 1260 and 1280.\n\nTHE \"MABINOGION\"\n\nThe name _Mabinogion_ is given to a collection of Welsh tales of much\nmythological interest.[3] The ancient Britons called a man qualified\nfor bardic honours a _mabinog_, or graduate, and the traditional\nlore which he had to learn by rote was called _mabinogi_ (plural,\n_mabinogion_). Only a few of these tales are _mabinogion_ in the\nstrict sense of the word, and these are the tales of Pwyll, Branwen,\nManawyddan, and Math. Certain Arthurian tales are also included in the\nwork, but with these we will not deal here. The veritable _Mabinogion_\nundoubtedly contain Welsh-Celtic myth. We find in them that process\nthrough which divine beings degenerate into demigods or hero-gods,\nthereby bridging the gulf between mythology and romance. The manuscript\noriginal dates from the fourteenth century, but the tales are of the\nperiod between the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This is not to say,\nhowever, that they originated then, as elements in many of them may\nbe traced back to dim primeval days. It is only possible to elucidate\nthese fragments of bardic literature by the help of the Welsh _Triads_\nand the analogies of early Irish literature. Thus in the Irish Tuatha\nde Danann we find the counterparts of the Children of Don, also divine.\nSo also with others of the characters in the _Mabinogion_; Manawyddan\nmab Llyr is a variant of Manannan mac Lir, lord of the Irish Hades,\nwhile Govannon may be equated with the Irish smith Goibniu. Several\ntheories have been advanced to account for the resemblance between\nthe Welsh and Irish tales. One asserts that the _mabinogi_ tales were\nlearned by the Welsh Celts from the earlier Gaelic population of Wales,\nwhile another, equally well supported, suggests that the Irish were\nthe borrowers. This last theory is rendered untenable by the fact that\nthe _Mabinogion_ has no affinities with the predominant Ulster cycle\nof the ninth century (in which the tales are alleged to have been\nborrowed), but rather with the older cycle of the Tuatha de Danann,\nregarded even in the tenth century as of old mythological origin. A\nthird and more probable explanation is that both Welsh and Irish tales\nbelong to a period when those branches of the Celtic family were as yet\nunseparated. Similarities of detail may of course result from later\nborrowings, but these belong to a different category.\n\nAs literature the tales of the _Mabinogion_ far surpass any\ncontemporary productions, whether English, French, or German. Their\nimaginative glamour leaves them without a rival in the literary annals\nof any period.\n\nSOURCES OF MEXICAN MYTH\n\nThe principal sources of Mexican myth are the writings and observations\nof the Spanish _Conquistadores_ in the train of the conquering Cort\u00e9z\nand his immediate successors in the country. The most important\ndocument for the study of Mexican mythology is the work of Father\nBernardino Sahagun, a monk who flourished in Mexico in the sixteenth\ncentury.\n\nHis great work, the _History of the Affairs of New Spain_ (as Mexico\nwas then called), is the result of years of close study of the people\nand their folklore. Not content to take at second-hand mythological or\nother details reported to him, he submitted them to a committee of old\nand experienced Mexicans, thoroughly acquainted with the antiquities\nof their country. After this committee had approved of the inclusion\nof the item in his manuscript, Sahagun consulted still other native\nauthorities, so that his book remains our chief and most reliable\nsource of information upon Mexican myth. Even so, the account he gives\nus of the various deities, their characteristics and attributes, is\nvery brief and not a little disappointing in its lack of detail,\noccupying as it does only about forty pages of print. The second book\ndeals with calendars and festivals, and in this he supplements in some\ndegree the information regarding the divine beings treated of in the\nfirst book. The third book is the most valuable to us, for it provides\nus with a number of myths relating to the Mexican gods. It acquaints us\nwith the circumstances of the birth of Uitzilopochtli, of the manner\nin which Ouetzalcoatl, god of the Toltecs, was half lured, half driven\nfrom the land by Tezcatlipoca, of how the inhabitants of Tollan, the\ncity of the Toltecs, were decimated by the malign necromancy of the\nsame deity working on behalf of less civilized tribes. The remaining\nbooks are occupied with the astrology and customs of the Mexicans.\n\nTorquemada, a later priest, wrote a similar work which, however,\nwas based upon the matter contained in Sahagun's treatise, still in\nmanuscript when the former wrote.\n\nA magnificent example of an aboriginal work teeming with mythical\nallusions is the _Popol Vuh_, or \"Collection of Written Leaves,\" of\nthe Kiche Indians of Guatemala, already alluded to in the chapter on\ncosmogony. The history of the discovery of the _Popol Vuh_ has already\nbeen related, and it only remains to furnish some account of its\ncontents. It embraces the creation story of that people, the tale of\nthe downfall of the earth-giants, the wanderings of the Kiche race, the\nadventures of certain hero-gods in the Underworld, and Kiche history\nup to a fairly late date. It is divided into four books, the first of\nwhich is the story of the creation and what occurred shortly after.\nThe universe was dark and in a chaotic condition when the god Hurakan,\nthe 'Heart of Heaven,' passed over the abyss, and called out \"Earth!\"\nAt the word the solid land appeared. Hurakan then summoned the other\ngods to consultation regarding their future course of action, among\nthem Gucumatz and the mother- and father-gods, primeval deities who are\nalso called 'the Serpents covered with Green Feathers.' The council\nof deities agreed that animals should be created, and this was done.\nThey next resolved to make man, and fashioned certain mannikins out of\nwood; but these failed to pay them reverence, and in great wrath the\ngods sent a mighty flood accompanied by a resinous rain upon them. The\nwretched mannikins, taken unawares, were overwhelmed and nearly all\ndestroyed; only a few succeeded in getting away, and their descendants\nto-day, we are told, are the little monkeys which infest the forests.\n\nAfter this unlucky experiment the gods turned their attention to\nanother denizen of the earth, called Vukub-Cakix, a name to be\ntranslated 'the great Macaw.' He seems to have been a primitive sun-\nor moon-god, but he offended the pantheon of Heaven by his overweening\npride, which at last became so offensive to the gods that they resolved\nto destroy him. He had indeed a person to be proud of, for his teeth\nwere of emerald and he shone resplendent with gold and silver. He had\ntwo sons, Zipacna and Cabrakan, who were earth-giants like the Titans\nof Greek myth. Like their father, they aroused the enmity of the gods,\nwho dispatched to earth the heavenly brothers Hun-Apu and Xbalanque to\nbring about the downfall of these blasphemous boasters.\n\nVukub-Cakix noticed them alight in the tapal-tree, which he regarded as\nhis own especial property. They began to pluck its fruit, and this so\nirritated him that he was about to attack them when Hun-Apu discharged\na dart from a blowpipe at him, striking him in the mouth and causing\nhim to topple to the earth from the tree into which he had climbed. He\nsucceeded, however, in tearing off Hun-Apu's arm, which he hung over\nhis fire at home. This use of 'sympathetic magic,' of course, caused\nthe hero-god great pain, so in order to recover the arm he begged the\nassistance of two magicians, probably the father- and mother-gods.\nThese disguised themselves as physicians, and pretending that they\ndesired to cure Vukub-Cakix, extracted his teeth. With the teeth his\npower departed from him and he died. The giant's wife had been basting\nHun-Apu's arm at the fire, but seizing it the hero-god gave it to the\nmagicians, who replaced it upon his shoulder. Zipacna and Cabrakan, who\npersonified the earthquake, were next reduced. Four hundred young men\n(the stars) requested Zipacna to dig the foundations of a new house for\nthem, intending to bury him alive while occupied in the task; but when\nthey had erected their dwelling above him he reared his mighty bulk\nbeneath it and shot them into Heaven, where they have since remained.\nZipacna, however, tumbling down a ravine, was killed by Hun-Apu and\nXbalanque by having a mountain thrown upon him. Cabrakan was next\ndestroyed, partly by poison and partly by overstraining himself by\nthrowing mountains at the instigation of the heavenly brothers.\n\nThe father- and mother-gods had two sons, Hunhun-Apu and Vukub-Hunapu,\nwho were much devoted to the game of ball, the national pastime of\nthe peoples of Mexico and Central America. The noise they made while\nplaying attracted the attention of the lords of the Underworld, who\nsent them a challenge to a game. The challenge was accepted, and\nHunhun-Apu and his brother took their way to the grim territory\nof Xibalba, where they were received by its rulers Hun-Came and\nVukub-Came. It would seem from what follows that the condition of\naffairs in Xibalba closely resembled those of some of the secret\nsocieties still in vogue among the Indians all over North America.\nThe brothers were subjected to numerous tests, at all of which they\nfailed, and they were then sacrificed by having their hearts torn out.\nHunhun-Apu's head was placed among the branches of a tree from which\ncalabashes sprouted in such a manner that the gory trophy could not\nbe distinguished from the fruit. Although the inhabitants of Xibalba\nwere forbidden to approach the tree, Xquiq, daughter of one of its\nhigh officials, did so. By magical influence Hunhun-Apu became the\nfather of her children, and when her father discovered her disgrace she\nwas given up to the owls, the messengers of Xibalba, to be slain. She\nbribed them, and succeeded in escaping to the earth, where she sought\nout the dwelling of Xmucane, mother of Hunhun-Apu, and gave birth to\nHun-Apu and Xbalanque, who overthrew Vukub-Cakix. These children were\npersecuted by two other sons of Hunhun-Apu, also living with their\ngrandmother, but by magic they turned their tormentors into monkeys,\nand thus rid themselves of them. By the aid of a rat they discovered a\nset of implements for the ball game which had belonged to their father\nand uncle, and they engaged in the pastime. The lords of Xibalba,\nhearing them at play, once more sent a challenge, which was again\naccepted. But, more astute than their forbears, ere they reached the\nconfines of Xibalba, Hun-Apu created from a hair on his leg a small\ninsect called Xan. This, preceding the brothers, found the lords of\nXibalba sitting among a number of wooden figures. It bit them, and\nwhen they spoke to one another concerning the insect's onslaught, the\nbrothers discovered their names. When Hun-Apu and Xbalanque arrived\nthey were thus enabled to salute each of the Xibalbans by his name, and\nthey passed all the other tests successfully. They were shut up for\nthe night in the House of Gloom with certain torches which they must\nkeep alight all night, but they affixed red feathers to the torches,\nand thus cheated the Xibalbans. In the House of Bats, Camazotz, the\nchief of the bats, cut off the head of Hun-Apu, but a friendly tortoise\npassing by affixed itself to the body in place of the head. Xbalanque\nthen played ball with the Xibalbans, and hit the ball close to the\nring, whereupon a rabbit concealed near it leaped out and ran away. The\nXibalbans, taking it for the ball, pursued it, and Xbalanque, observing\nHun-Apu's head suspended in the ball court, hung up the tortoise in its\nplace, and affixed Hun-Apu's head to his body and resuscitated him.\nThe hero-gods then sacrificed themselves, but returned after a space\nof five days. Disguised as magicians, they performed many miracles,\nresurrecting people, burning houses and restoring them again, and so\nforth. Hun-Came and Vukub-Came considered the resurrection trick so\nclever that they desired to have it performed upon themselves. The\nheroes sacrificed them, but did not revive them. This completed the\nsubjugation of Xibalba, the people being reduced to a subservient\ncondition. The aristocratic privilege of the ball game was withdrawn\nfrom them, and they were doomed to keep bees and make pots and perform\nsuchlike ignoble work. _Post-mortem_ honours were paid to Hunhun-Apu\nand Vukub-Hunapu, who became the sun and moon respectively, while the\nfour hundred youths slain by Zipacna remained in Heaven as the stars.\n\nThe _Popol Vuh_ further relates the mythical history of the Kiche\ntribes. Four men, Balam-quitze, Balam-agab, Mahucutah, and Iqibalam,\nwere created by the gods, and the first three were the ancestors of\nthe three Kiche divisions, Cavek-, Nihaib-, and Ahau-Kiches, the\nfourth being without descendants. These were not alone in the world,\nas the Yaqui, or Mexicans, also existed, and other cognate tribes\ndwelt to the east. The ancestors of the Kiches had been formed too\nperfectly by the gods, who, alarmed at their omniscience, cast a veil\nover their intellects. Wives were created for them, but they dwelt\nin darkness, without sunlight or the comforts of religion. Setting\nout on a wandering life, they came to Tulan-Zuiva, where each tribe\nreceived a special god to itself. The want of fire was felt, and the\ngod Tohil, a thunder-deity, struck his flint-shod feet together and\nproduced it as required. The other tribes requested the Kiches to\ngive them fire, but a bat messenger from Xibalba advised them against\nacquiescence unless the recipients should consent to be united with\ntheir god \"beneath their girdles and beneath their armpits.\" All agreed\nexcept the Kakchiquel, whose bat-god purloined the seeds of fire. The\nriddle-like condition portended that the tribes which consented should\ngive up their hearts for sacrifice. A general migration followed, the\nKiches as well as other tribes journeying to Guatemala, where on a\nmountain-side they sat down to await the dawn. The morning star swam\ninto view, followed by the great luminary of day, and at sight of it\nthe tribal gods were turned into stone. The original Kiche ancestors\ntoo withdrew in hermit-like seclusion from mankind, being seen only at\nintervals in the wild places in converse with the gods. Human sacrifice\nwas instituted, and wars with neighbouring peoples began to be waged.\nA great attack was made upon the Kiches, who dwelt in a settlement on\nthe mountains surrounded by a stockade, the object evidently being to\ncapture the Kiche gods; but the attack was repulsed with great loss to\nthe invaders. The death day of the first Kiche men was now at hand,\nand calling the people together they sang the song with which they had\nfirst greeted the rising of the new-found sun. They then vanished,\nleaving behind them a bundle which was afterward known as the 'majesty\nenveloped,' and was probably of the same type as the medicine bundles\nof the North American Indians.\n\nFrom this point the _Popol Vuh_ begins to shade into history. The sons\nof the first men, desirous of wielding the power possessed by their\nfathers, set out on a pilgrimage to the east, to obtain the insignia\nof royalty. The Kiches became more civilized, stone-built cities were\nraised, and a definite political existence arose. A policy of conquest\nwas embarked upon, and many of the neighbouring tribes were conquered\nand subjected to Kiche rule. What follows probably contains but little\nof the matter of myth, and we may conclude that for the most part it is\ntraditional history.\n\nAs has been said, it would be difficult to over-estimate the importance\nto mythology in general, and to American myth in particular, of such\na document as the _Popol Vuh_. When we can be sure of its aboriginal\ncharacter, and that is not seldom, American myth has the greatest\nimportance because of its isolated nature. When we first encounter it,\nit is untouched by European or Asiatic myth, and this makes it of the\ngreatest value for comparison. If we can parallel an old-world myth\nwith a well-authenticated American example, then we have proved the\nuniversal nature of the principles of mythic evolution. Everything\nrelating to the _Popol Vuh_ proves to the hilt its genuine aboriginal\ncharacter; and this being so, it is of the greatest assistance to\nmythologists. Unfortunately, no adequate translation exists. The Kiche\nlanguage in which it was written is most difficult, and for the\npresent we have to rely on the Spanish version of Ximenez and the\nFrench translation of the original by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de Bourbourg.\nHowever, more than one translation is either meditated or in course\nof completion; and there is an abridgement in English by the present\nwriter. An English translation of the whole appeared in an American\nmagazine entitled _The Word_ during 1906 and 1907, from the pen of\nDr Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, but whether from the Spanish or original\nKiche, I do not know. It is, moreover, couched in Scriptural language,\nand such a treatment assists the vulgar error that the _Popol Vuh_ is\nmerely a native travesty of portions of the Old Testament.\n\nAMERICAN INDIAN MYTHIC WRITINGS\n\nThe red man of North America also has his epics. Charles Godfrey\nLeland, in the introduction to his book _Kuloskap_ [or Glooscap] _the\nMaster_, says: \"Very few persons are aware that there has perished\nor is rapidly perishing among the Red Indians of North America far\nmore poetry than was ever written by all the white inhabitants, and\nthat this native verse is often of a very high order, for the Indian\nsagas, or legends, or traditions, were in fact all songs.... After I\nhad published my legends, however, I was made aware by Louis Mitchell,\na Passamaquoddy Indian, who had been in the Legislature of Maine, and\nhad collected and written out for me, with strictest literalness, a\ngreat number of manuscripts, that there were in existence certain\nnarratives and poems quite different in kind from anything which I\npossessed. Among the former was a history of the Passamaquoddy tribe,\nillustrated with numerous designs of the Birch-bark school of art,\nwhich I transferred to my friend the late Dr D. G. Brinton as its\nmost appropriate possessor. Three of the poems Mitchell wrote out for\nme in exact, though often quite ungrammatical language, which was so\nclose to the original that the metres betrayed themselves throughout.\nI regret that, though I had certainly acquired some knowledge of\n'Indian,' it was, as a Passamaquoddy friend one day amiably observed,\n'only baby Injun now, grow bigger some day like Mikumwess s'posin'\nyou want to,' in reference to a small goblin who is believed to have\nthe power of increasing his stature at will. However, I with great\ncare put the Mitchell Anglo-Algonkin into English metre, having been\nimpressed, while at the work, with the exquisitely naive and fresh\ncharacter of the original, which, while it often reminded me of Norse\npoetry, in many passages had strictly a life and beauty of its own.\"\nLeland tells how he began to correspond on the subject with Professor\nJ. Dyneley Prince of Columbia University, translator of the celebrated\nAlgonquin _Wampum Record_, recited annually in bygone days at the\ncouncil of the tribes. He continues: \"Few indeed and far between are\nthose who ever suspected till of late years that every hill and dale\nin New England had its romantic legend, its beautiful poem, or its\nmarvellous myth--the latter equal in conception and form to those of\nthe Edda--or that a vast collection of these traditions still survives\nin perfect preservation among the few remaining Indians of New England\nand the North-east Coast, or the _Wabano_. This assertion is, I trust,\nverified by what is given in the Micmac tales by the late Rev. S.\nRand, the collection made by Miss Abbey Alger, of Boston, and my own\n_Algonquin Legends of New England_, which I, _sit venia_, may mention\nwas the first to appear of the series. And I venture to say from the\ndeepest conviction that it will be no small occasion of astonishment\nand chagrin, a hundred years hence, when the last Algonkin Indian of\nthe _Wabano_ shall have passed away, that so few among our literary\nor cultured folk cared enough to collect this connected aboriginal\nliterature.\"\n\nThe lore of the New England Indians centres chiefly round the figure\nof Kuloskap, or Glooscap, as good an example of Matthew Arnold's\n'magnified non-natural man,' so beloved of Lang, as can well be\nimagined. A detailed account of this being and his adventures will be\nfound in the volume of this series which deals with the North American\nIndians. His brother Malsum the Wolf probably typifies the power of\nevil. In the myths collected by Messrs Leland and Prince we first\nread of the birth of Glooscap and the death of Malsum the Wolf, his\ntwin brother. Malsum, having slain his mother, desired also to slay\nGlooscap, but a supernatural power guarded him, and Malsum's attempts\nwere frustrated. He asked Glooscap several times what would slay him,\nbut Glooscap invariably told him a falsehood, until at length, sitting\nby a stream, Glooscap muttered that a rush would cause his death.\nThe beaver, hearing this, acquainted Malsum of the fact and asked as\na reward to be provided with wings; but the Evil One, amused at his\nrequest, insulted him so outrageously that at last he betook himself\nto Glooscap, who, plucking a fern, sought Malsum, and having found him\nsmote him with it so that he fell dead.\n\nThe creation of man and the animals is then sung of. First were born\nthe fairies of the forest, the elves, the little men who dwelt in rocks\n(the red man's equivalent for elves and gnomes), the small animistic\nspirits which swarm through nature, lending her life and animation and\nfilling up her crevices. Then Glooscap took his bow and arrows and\nshot at an ash-tree. From the hole made by the arrow men came forth,\nthe first of the human kind. Then Glooscap created animals. At first\nhe made them of colossal size, but seeing that they were too strong he\nmade them smaller and weaker in order that man might be able to hunt\nthem. In the beginning the beaver was the enemy of Glooscap, having on\none occasion disobeyed the Master by drinking from a stream which was\ntaboo. The god tore up a rock and hurled it at him from a distance of\nmany leagues, but the beaver dodged it and ran into a mountain, where\nhe has remained unto this day.\n\nThe third part of the epic of Glooscap tells how at one time the\nrattlesnakes were Indians. When the great flood was coming Glooscap\ngave them fair warning of it, but they answered that they did not care,\nand mocked him, shaking their rattles, which were made of turtle-shell\ncontaining small pebbles. The rain began to fall, the thunder roared,\nand the lightning flashed, but still the rattlesnakes jeered. Glooscap\nhad not the heart to drown them, but he changed them all to serpent\nform. Glooscap then named the animals and found that man was the lord\nof all. He was extremely kind to the creatures he had made. To begin\nwith all was in darkness, so that men could not even see to slay their\nenemies. But Glooscap brought light into the world, and taught mankind\nthe arts of life, the noble art of hunting, how to build huts and\ncanoes, how to net the salmon and to make weapons. He showed to men the\nhidden virtues of plants and roots and blossoms, taught them the names\nof the stars, and acted throughout as a beneficent father to them.\n\nBy and by Glooscap withdrew himself from the haunts of men, yet he did\nnot quit the earth for many years, but dwelt in a remote and almost\ninaccessible place. And he made it known to men that whoever should\nfind him might have one wish granted, whatever that wish might be. For\nthis reason many Indians sought his abode, though the way was long and\narduous, and not all who set out reached their destination. Some of the\nwishers were wise and some foolish. The foolish wishers, or those who\ndisobeyed the Master, found that the fulfilment of their wishes brought\nthem no good, but the gifts which the wise ones received were generous\nin the extreme. This befell three Indians who visited the abode of\nGlooscap. One was a simple, honest Indian, who desired to excel in\nthe chase. Another was a vain youth who wished to win the hearts of\nmany maidens. The third was a buffoon whose only care was to create\nlaughter; he therefore desired the power to utter an unusual cry, known\nto sorcerers in old time, which gladdened the hearts of all who heard\nit. The first received a magic pipe which would attract all animals\nto his nets, and the fulfilment of his wish brought him wealth and\ncontent. The second received a bag, tightly tied, which he was warned\nnot to open till he reached home. Curiosity overcame him, however, and\non the homeward journey he opened the bag, wherefrom issued a host of\nwitches in the form of beautiful women, who strangled him with their\nembraces. The third received a magic root, and Glooscap warned him\nnot to eat it till he reached his dwelling. He likewise disobeyed the\ncommand, and found himself gifted with the power to utter the magic\ncry; but, to his discomfiture, he could not always restrain it. The\npeople of the town, at first delighted with the sound, soon tired of\nit, and avoided him who uttered it. This so preyed upon his mind that\nhe betook himself to the woods and committed suicide.\n\nThe fourth portion of the epic contains Glooscap's adventures with\nthe beasts--the loons, beaver, serpent, turtle, frog, and eagle.\nVery curious are the tales which describe the origin of the turtle,\nGlooscap's uncle, or relate how that crafty being endeavoured to\noverthrow the Master and make himself lord over beasts and men; and\nthose that paint in picturesque language the binding of the Great\nEagle, the Bird-who-blows-the-winds. Many of these stories are\nlegendary, and purport to explain the existence of certain islands,\nstreams, and other geographical features, as well as the physical\nstructure and peculiarities of various animals. Thus the blowing of a\nwhale is ingeniously explained by the fact that Glooscap at one time\ngave the animal a pipe and tobacco; it is smoking!\n\nThe fifth part of the epic treats mainly of the god's encounter with\nwitches and sorcerers, and of his final departure from the earth.\nToward the close of the poem a beautiful nature myth recounts how\nGlooscap found the Summer. Long years ago the deity travelled northward\ntill he came to the lodge of the giant Winter. He entered and sat\ndown, and his host told him tales of enchantment which cast him into\na death-like sleep. Six months elapsed ere he awoke and proceeded\nhomeward. With every step the air grew warmer, the earth greener and\nmore beautiful. At length he came to a shady dell, where fairies were\ndancing joyfully, and, seizing their queen, whose name was Summer,\nhe hid her in his bosom. Then he retraced his steps northward. The\ngiant Winter still sat in his lodge, and at the coming of Glooscap he\ndetermined to throw the deity into a sleep that would last for ever;\nbut this time the hidden presence of Summer spoiled the enchantments;\ntears of melting ice ran down the cheeks of the giant, and soon both he\nand his dwelling were changed to water, while signs of returning life\nand vegetation were everywhere apparent. Once more Glooscap turned his\nface southward, but the summer-elf he left behind him in the northern\ncountry.\n\nFinally Glooscap abandoned the world, because of the evil that was in\nit. For long years he bore with the sinful ways of man, for whom he\nhad cleared the land of evil demons and monsters, but at length his\npatience was exhausted. He made a great farewell feast, and afterward\nsailed away in his great canoe. And now he dwells in a splendid\nwigwam, continually making arrows. When the lodge is full of them he\nwill make war on all mankind, and the world will pass away.\n\nMYTH IN ENGLISH POETRY\n\nHow have the written myths we have just reviewed reflected upon the\nliterature of our own race? Poetry and mythology are connected by an\nindissoluble bond. By mythology phenomena are endowed by the barbarian\nmind with all the attributes of life and reason. The process is clearly\na poetical one, and by it the savage intelligence is brought very near\nto nature. Poetry, in some of its earliest and perhaps purest forms,\nis the direct outcome of a series of natural impressions on the mind;\nand both poetry and mythology are thus emanations from nature. In a\nbarbarian state of society the one great theme of poetry is the story\nof the divine beings who sway the destinies of humankind. Thus the\nodes of Pindar, the epics of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ of Homer, the\nsagas of the early Norsemen, the _Nihongi_ of Japan, the tribal lays\nof the American Indians, all celebrate the triumphs, loves, wars, and\ndestinies of the gods of these several peoples.\n\nIt has often been thought peculiar that mythology should have continued\nto be the theme of poetry many centuries after the faiths of Greece\nand Rome had become extinct. This was because at the period of the\nRenaissance, or rebirth of learning and art, in the later Middle Ages,\nit became the fashion for literary men to model their writings upon the\nclassical authors of antiquity. This custom was nowhere more powerful\nthan in France, whence it was borrowed by English authors, who began to\nmake large use of classical and mythological allusions in the wondrous\nera of letters known as the Elizabethan. Thus we find the works of\nMarlowe, Fletcher, Shakespeare, Massinger, Ford, full of allusions to\nthe principal figures of Latin and Greek mythology. From that period,\nindeed, down to our own day the beautiful and heroic myths of Greece\nhave been the subject upon which many English poets have exercised\ntheir art; and those of them who have not woven tales around these\nexquisite fables have made plenteous use of them in the illustration\nand ornamentation of more homely themes. The works of all our great\npoets abound in allusions co the central figures of Greek mythology.\nSpenser, Milton, Dryden, Shelley, Byron, Keats have all embodied in\ntheir verse, or frequently allude to, the immortal tales of Hellas;\nand, advancing more nearly to our own time, Tennyson, Morris, and\nSwinburne, as well as many minor singers, have written of the deeds and\nloves and deaths of the mighty heroes around whom the ancient epics ebb\nand flow.\n\nThe following paragraphs describe the manner in which the myths of\nancient Greece and Rome have been made use of by English poets, so that\nthe reader may be enabled to regard the myth in the light of poetry and\nthe poem in the light of mythology. Thus a double and mutual light may\nbe cast upon both myth and song. Let us take as an example Shelley's\n_Prometheus Unbound_. Whoso knows the poem but not the myth from which\nit took its origin is robbed of much pleasure in reading the sublime\nverse, the ecstatic measures and magical lyrics with their constant\nallusions to the greater mythological characters. Who, for example,\nare lone and Panthea? What is the nature of Demogorgon? For what crime\nagainst Jupiter is Prometheus, the Titan,\n\n    Nailed to this wall of eagle-baffling mountain,\n    Black, wintry, dead, unmeasured?\n\nUnless these allusions are understood, much of the beauty of such a\nwork is absolutely lost. Let us see, then, how some of our greatest\nsingers have regarded the denizens of Olympus and the mortals whose\ndestinies they swayed.\n\nEre yet Jupiter seized on the lordship of Heaven and earth, Ophion and\nEurynome ruled in Olympus. They were dethroned by Saturn and Rhea, who\nin turn were hurled from power by Zeus, or Jupiter, and Juno. Keats\ndraws a touching picture of the old, forsaken god Saturn, left to\nmeditations of a lost empire:\n\n    Deep in the shady sadness of a vale\n    Far sunken from the healthy breath of morn,\n    Far from the fiery noon, and eve's one star,\n    Sat grey-haired Saturn, quiet as a stone,\n    Still as the silence round about his lair;\n    Forest on forest hung about his head,\n    Like cloud on cloud. No stir of air was there,\n    Not so much life as on a summer's day\n    Robs not one light seed from the feather'd grass,\n    But where the dead leaf fell, there did it rest.\n    A stream went voiceless by, still deaden'd move\n    By reason of his fallen divinity,\n    Spreading a shade.\n\nA marvellous picture of shattered power! The grey quiet of the\nsoundless vale, the unnatural stillness of leaf, and the noiseless\nstream, symbolize the inertia of the divinity who was once creative.\n\nIn the catalogue of gods in the first book of _Paradise Lost,_ Milton\nsummarizes the usurpation of the heavenly sceptre first by Saturn and\nthen by Jupiter in four telling lines:\n\n                      Titan, Heaven's first born,\n    With his enormous brood, and birthright seized\n    By younger Saturn, he from mightier Jove,\n    His own and Rhea's son like measure found;\n    So Jove usurping reigned.\n\nAn effective picture of the vanquished and fallen Titans is also drawn\nby Keats, who says of them:\n\n    Scarce images of life, one here, one there,\n    Lay vast and edgeways; like a dismal cirque\n    Of Druid stones, upon a forlorn moor.\n\nThe simile of the giant and fallen forms to the lightning-shattered\nmonoliths of some deserted Druid circle is magnificent. Such passages\nshow how great are the themes which bring forth those stupendous\nimages, the mightiest offspring of imagination. A great poet might sing\nof the things of to-day throughout a lifetime, and yet never so thrill\nthe imagination as with the dead things which have the glamour of ages\nupon them.\n\nJupiter, as we know, was in the habit of abducting mortals from the\nearth, and transferring those who were very beautiful to the bright\nclime of Olympus. For this reason he seized upon the shepherd lad\nGanymede, whom he made cup-bearer to the gods, and Asteria, the mother\nof Hecate, one of the infernal deities. To effect these captures he\nusually took the shape of an eagle. Spenser in _The Faerie Queene_ says\nof him:\n\n    Twice was he seen in soaring Eagle's shape,\n    And with wide wings to beat the buxom air:\n    Once, when he with Asterie did scape;\n    Again, when as the Trojan boy so fair\n    He snatched from Ida bill, and with him bare:\n    Wondrous delight it was there to behold\n    How the rude Shepherds after him did stare.\n    Trembling through fear lest down he fallen should,\n    And often to him calling to take surer hold.[4]\n\nSpenser has another beautiful passage upon one of the captures made by\nJupiter:\n\n    Behold how goodly my fair love does lie,\n    In proud humility!\n    Like unto Maia, when as Jove her took\n    In Tempe, lying on the flowery grass,\n    'Twixt sleep and wake, after she weary was\n    With bathing in the Acidalian brook.\n\nIn the second book of _Paradise Lost_ Milton makes Sin spring from the\nhead of Satan, and it is reasonably conjectured that when he composed\nit he must have had in mind the myth of the marvellous birth of the\ngoddess of wisdom, Pallas Athene. It is Sin who addresses the fallen\narchangel:\n\n    All on a sudden miserable pain\n    Surprised thee, dim thine eyes and dizzy swum\n    In darkness, while thy head flames thick and fast\n    Threw forth, till on the left side opening wide,\n    Likest to thee in shape and countenance bright,\n    Then shining heavenly fair, a goddess armed\n    Out of thy head I sprung.\n\nin times of peace Minerva assisted mankind in the manual crafts, and\nshe also presided over the fortunes of war. She possessed a shield\ncalled the _\u00e6gis_, bearing the severed head of a monster named the\nGorgon, which possessed the magical property of changing into stone\nanyone who beheld it. Milton renders her more spiritually formidable\nby conceiving that her purity and chastity, not the horrid head of the\nGorgon, froze the hearts of evil-doers into terror:\n\n    What was that snaky-headed Gorgon shield\n    That wise Minerva wore, unconquered virgin,\n    Wherewith she freez'd her foes to congeal'd stone,\n    But rigid looks of chaste austerity,\n    And noble grace that dash'd brute violence\n    With sudden adoration and blank awe?[5]\n\nShelley has a wonderful and not often quoted poem on this Gorgon head,\ntorn from the body of the monster Medusa to front the _\u00e6gis_ of the\ngoddess of divine wisdom:\n\n    It lieth, gazing on the midnight sky,\n    Upon the cloudy mountain peak supine;\n    Below, far lands are seen tremblingly;\n    Its horror and its beauty are divine.\n    Upon its lips and eyelids seem to lit\n    Loveliness like a shadow, from which shine,\n    Fiery and lurid, struggling underneath,\n    The agonies of anguish and of death.\n\n    Yet it is less the horror than the grace\n    Which turns the gazer's spirit into stone,\n    Whereon the lineaments of that dead face\n    Are graven, till the characters be grown\n    Into itself, and thought no more can trace;\n    'Tis the melodious hues of beauty thrown\n    Athwart the darkness and the glare of pain,\n    Which humanise and harmonise the strain.\n\nVulcan, or Heph\u00e6stus, was the god of fire, both in its forms of lurid\nconflagration and the more kindly glow of the domestic hearth, and his\nstory is occasionally sung by our British poets. He was a craftsman\nof marvellous excellence in all the arts, and made the thunderbolts\nwielded by Jupiter. He was also the husband of Venus. His mother Juno\nhaving quarrelled with the King of Heaven, Vulcan took her part and\nwas cast from Olympus by his enraged sire. He took an entire day to\nfall to earth, and at last alighted in the island of Lemnos:\n\n                                 From morn\n    To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve,\n    A summer's day, and with the setting sun\n    Dropped from the zenith like a falling star\n    On Lemnos, th' \u00c6gean isle.[6]\n\nIn his amusing \"Execration upon Vulcan,\" which was occasioned by the\nfire which destroyed his library and manuscripts, Ben Jonson alludes to\nVulcan as the \"lame lord of fire,\" and continues:\n\n    'Twas Jupiter that hurled thee headlong down,\n    And Mars that gave thee a lanthorn for a crown.\n    Was it because thou wert of old denied,\n    By Jove, to have Minerva for thy bride;\n    That since, thou tak'st all envious care and pain\n    To ruin every issue of the brain?\n\nVenus, goddess of love, has ever been a theme of delight to poets. She\nwas the daughter of Jupiter, but is sometimes referred to as springing\nfrom the foam of the sea, as, for example, in the enchanting lines of\nSwinburne's \"Hymn to Proserpine\":\n\n    White rose of the rose-white water, a silver splendour, a flame.\n\nLord de Tabley also refers to the foam-birth of Venus in the following\nstanza:\n\n    Uranian Aphrodite, fair,\n    From ripples of the ocean spray;\n    Sweet as the sea-blooms in thy hair\n    Rosed with the blush of early day,\n    O hear us from thy temple steep\n    Where Eryx crowns the Dorian deep.\n\nThe attributes and symbols of Venus are neatly described by Ben Jonson\nin his masque of _Loves Triumph through Callipolis_. Venus is supposed\nto say:\n\n    Here, here I present am,\n    Both in my girdle and my flame;\n    Wherein are woven all the powers\n    The Graces gave me, or the Hours,\n    My nurses once, with all the arts\n    Of gaining and of holding hearts.\n\n\n[1] The title of which has also been translated _The Book of the Coming\nForth in Day._\n\n[2] This movable 'life' or heart is known to students of tradition as\nthe 'life-index.' This is a common incident in medieval romance.\n\n[3] These were translated into English by Lady Charlotte Guest, and\npublished in 1849. Eleven of them are taken from the _Red Book of\nHergest_, a fourteenth-century manuscript in the library of Jesus\nCollege, Oxford. The tale of Taliesin is included with these, but is\ntaken from a much later manuscript.\n\n[4] Book III, canto xi, 34.\n\n[5] _Comus_.\n\n[6] Milton, _Paradise Lost_, Book I.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE GREAT MYTHIC SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD\n\n\nIt is now time to review briefly the great mythic systems of the\nworld and to examine and analyse as far as practicable their nature\nand outstanding figures. This _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ is added here merely for\ncompleteness, because exhaustive works dealing with the several\nmythological systems alluded to in these pages are included in this\nseries, and to these the student can refer.\n\nGR\u00c6CO-ROMAN MYTH\n\nStarting with the mythic system practically common to Greece and Rome\nas that with which our readers are likely to be most familiar, we find\na mythology a good deal more human than divine; although it would be\nuntrue to say that it possessed no divine characteristics. However, we\nare not in this chapter dealing with the cults or religions underlying\nthe mythologies we treat of, but _with the mythologies themselves_,\nor, as we have elsewhere named it, the theobiography, the gods, their\nlives and histories. What status did the gods of Greece occupy in the\nminds of those who believed in them? This, of course, differed with\nthe centuries, but there is pretty good evidence that as they grew\nmore enlightened the Hellenic people paid less and less reverence to\nOlympus, until at last it became almost a byword among them.\n\nIn Greece more than in any other country religion and mythology were\ntwo things separate and distinct. In Homer, the Greek gods, headed by\nZeus, dwelt in a condition of society very much akin to that of mortals\nin the Homeric Age. Their government appears to have been modelled upon\nthe social polities of the various Hellenic city-states; and when\nrepublics became the fashion, the gods, partaking of the older order of\naffairs, fell somewhat into disrepute, just as the elder dynasties of\nCronus and Uranus, who represented the tribal system of government, had\ngiven place to Zeus when a monarchical system came into vogue.\n\nZEUS--JUPITER\n\nZeus, the head of the Greek pantheon, was supposed to dwell on the\nsummit of Mount Olympus, where he disposed of the affairs both of the\ngods and of men. He was probably originally a sky-god, symbolizing the\nbright, clear expanse of the heavens, being later, like many other\nsky-gods, anthropomorphized. The many stories told of his amorous\nadventures in animal form are obviously totemic and fetishistic\nlegacies which as a great mythical figure he would undoubtedly attract\nto himself. As a sky-god he wields the thunder and lightning, conquers\nthe Titans, and overcomes G\u00e6a, probably the original Earth-Mother--just\nas in Babylonian myth Merodach conquered Tiawath. He had several\nspouses, the chief of whom was Hera. He was by no means a creative\ndeity, but he won a wide popularity, and through this and other causes\nhe came to be head of the pantheon, composed of other gods as well as\nof his parents, children, brothers, sisters, or wives. Lang points out\nthat he may well have begun as a kindly supreme being, and his mythic\ncharacter may have been ultimately swamped by the accumulation around\nhis name of myths concerning older deities. The corresponding Roman god\nis Jupiter.\n\nAPOLLO\n\nApollo in tradition is usually a solar deity, but also a civilizer\nor culture-hero, and his functions and attributes are manifold. He\nsuperintends the measurement of time, protects herds and flocks, and\nis a patron of music and poetry. He has a very active solar connexion\nwhen, for example, he slays with his golden arrows the Python, the\nserpent of night or winter. His oracle at Delphi was the most famous in\nGreece, and his priestesses were famed as prophetesses. He was usually\nportrayed as a young and handsome man crowned with laurel and holding a\nlyre in his hand. There is little doubt that many different and perhaps\ncontradictory myths went to the making of the personality and character\nof Apollo, and he has decidedly totemic connexions, as, for example,\nthe dolphin, the wolf, and the mouse; and perhaps with lizards, hawks,\nswans, ravens, and crows. Like Zeus, he attracted to himself the\nlegends of a great many lesser divinities of the same type.\n\nHERMES--MERCURY\n\nHermes, called by the Romans Mercury, was the son of Zeus and the\nmessenger of the gods. Quick-witted, ready-tongued, and thievish, he is\nthe traditional patron of lightfingered, sharp people, who can charm\nthe senses of others as well as the money out of their pockets.\n\nHEPH\u00c6STUS--VULCAN\n\nHeph\u00e6stus or Vulcan was the god of fire, and the great artist among\nthe gods. It was he who constructed the shining palaces of Olympus,\nthe marvellous armour of Achilles, and the necklace of Harmonia. He\nalso invented the thunderbolt. As a later type of deity, he is the\nsmith or artificer deified, probably evolved from an older fire-god or\nthunder-god.\n\nHERA--JUNO\n\nAmong the goddesses of the Greek pantheon Hera, the Juno of the Romans,\nwas paramount because of her status as wife and sister of Zeus. She is\nthe divine prototype of the wife and mother and the special patroness\nof marriage.\n\nATHENE--MINERVA\n\nPallas Athene, the Minerva of the Romans, is another composite\ndeity. She seems to have been a queen of the air or a storm-goddess,\nand probably became a war-goddess through her possession of the\nlightning-spear. In peace she was looked upon as a patroness of useful\ncrafts and even of abstract wisdom. She is often depicted with the owl\nand the serpent, both emblems of wisdom. It is unusual to discover\na war-or storm-deity posing as the patron of learning, and the exact\nmanner in which Athene attained to the latter position is extremely\nobscure.\n\nAPHRODITE--VENUS\n\nAphrodite or Venus, the goddess of love and beauty, was probably a\ndeity of Asiatic origin, and her birth from the sea-foam and home in\nCyprus, where her cult was very strong, confirm the identification of\nher myth with that of Ashtaroth or Astarte.\n\n\nEGYPTIAN MYTH\n\nA good deal has been said in this volume about the mythology of Egypt,\nand in especial Osiris, Thoth, and Ptah have already been considered,\nso that we may say more here of some other important gods of the Nile\ncountry. The reader is reminded that no definite Egyptian pantheon ever\nexisted, for as dynasties rose and fell, and as the various priestly\ncolleges throughout the land came into favour in turn, the deities\nwhose cults they represented rose and fell in popularity--that is, at\nno time was there a fixed divine hierarchy like that of Greece.\n\nRA\n\nRa, the great god of the sun, figured as the head of a hawk, voyaged\ndaily across the heavenly expanse in his bark. For many dynasties he\nwas regarded as the greatest of all the gods of Egypt. He is by no\nmeans an intricate mythological figure, and it is plain that he is\nneither more nor less than a personification of the sun.\n\nANUBIS\n\nAnubis, the jackal, or dog-headed protector of the dead, presides over\nthe process of embalming. He seems to have evolved from the dog who\namong many primitive people accompanies the deceased in the journey to\nthe Otherworld.\n\nHORUS\n\nHorus, the son of Osiris and Isis, was a sun-god with many shapes, some\nperhaps local, but most of which typified the various stages of the\nsun's journey--its rising, its midday strength, its evening decline. He\nwas the eternal enemy of Set, the night-god, a deity of darkness with\nwhom he waged constant combat. From being a god of night and darkness\npure and simple, Set came to be regarded as a deity of evil, and was\nplaced in dualistic opposition to Horus, Ra, or Osiris, who thus\nsymbolize moral good, the emblem of which is light.\n\nISIS\n\nAmong the most important Egyptian goddesses is Isis, sister and wife\nof Osiris, probably, like her husband, connected with the corn-plant,\nalthough there are also indications that she is a wind-goddess.\nShe is the great corn-mother of Egypt, perhaps only because of her\nconnexion with Osiris, and she has the wings of a wind deity, restoring\nOsiris to life by fanning him with them. She is a great traveller,\nand unceasingly moans and sobs. At times she shrieks so loudly as to\nfrighten children to death. She typifies not only the dreaded blast,\nbut the revivifying power of the spring wind wailing and sobbing over\nthe grave of the sleeping grain.\n\nNephthys, her sister, is the female counterpart of Set and the\npersonification of darkness. As such she is also a funerary goddess.\n\n\nBABYLONIAN MYTH\n\nAs with Egyptian religion, the faith of the Babylonians and Assyrians\nvaried with dynasties, for it depended upon the rise to power of a\ncertain city or province, whose god then became temporarily supreme.\nThus we find Merodach regarded as the chief god in Babylonia, while\nfarther north in Assyria Asshur held sway, and Merodach had a fairly\nlong line of predecessors whose powers and dignities he had taken\nover. Indeed, we find that he actually appropriated their myths. For\nexample, in the creation myth cited in our chapter on cosmogony,\nMerodach is the hero-god who succeeded in slaying Tiawath, the monster\nof the abyss; but in an older version of the story her slayer is the\ngod En-lil, whose place Merodach usurped later. Round the figure of\nMerodach, alluded to as the Bel, the Babylonian title for the highest\ndivinity, are grouped the other deities in descending degrees of\nimportance, for, as in the worldly State, the king of the gods was\nsurrounded by officials of diverse rank.\n\nMERODACH\n\nMerodach, chief god of Babylon, possessed a solar significance; but\nit may be improper to connect him in any manner with the sun in its\nseasonal stages. He is, in fact, more the lord of light than of the sun\nin any special aspect. Although there is evidence that he was regarded\nas the spring sun, this was probably a secondary or derived conception\nof him, like that which made him a god of battle.\n\nEA\n\nEa was the Babylonian Neptune. He was figured as half man, half\nfish, and was a great culture-hero and the lord of wisdom, probably\nbecause of the depths whence he emanated, symbolic of the profundity\nof knowledge. He came every day to the city of Eridu to instruct its\ninhabitants in the arts of life, and he was the inventor of writing,\ngeometry, and law.\n\nBEL\n\nBel, called the 'older Bel' to distinguish him from Bel-Merodach, was\nalso called Mul-lil or En-lil. He was a god of the Underworld and may\nhave been relegated thence, like many other deities, on the coming to\npower of Merodach.\n\n    Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven\n\nseems to have been the thought of other ancient divinities than\nMilton's Satan.\n\nThe Babylonians themselves seemed rather doubtful as to the exact\nstatus of this god.\n\nNirig was a favourite deity in Assyria, and is called in inscriptions\n'god of war.'\n\nAnu was the father of the great gods. He may at one time have been the\nsupreme being of the Babylonian religion, and his cult is of extreme\nantiquity.\n\nNusku was the messenger of the gods and without him the King of Heaven\ncould not pass judgment upon anything. He seems to have personified\nflame or light.\n\nShamash was the sun in a different sense from Merodach, and he seems\nalso to have been looked upon as the great judge of the universe,\nprobably because the sun is able to direct his beams into the darkest\nplaces. He it was who gave the famous code of laws into the hands of\nKing Hammurabi--according to the 'sun-god tablet' in the British Museum.\n\nISHTAR\n\nIshtar, the Queen of Heaven, was the great mother-goddess and sexual\ngoddess of Babylon, and among the Assyrians appears to have been looked\nupon as a goddess of battle. She was identified with the planet Venus,\nand her cult was associated with that of Tammuz. Her descent into\nthe Underworld stamps her as a corn-mother, like the Greek Demeter,\nthe reappearance of whose daughter Persephone clothes the earth with\nfertility.\n\nAllatu was the goddess of the Babylonian Otherworld. Nergal assisted\nher, and he was also a god of conflict, disease, and pestilence,\nsymbolizing the misery and destruction which accompanies warfare.\n\nSin was the moon-god, and, probably from his connexion with the\ncalendar, was called 'lord of wisdom.' His worship was surrounded by\nmuch mystery, and a beautiful and touching prayer in the library of\nAssurbanipal describes him as being \"full of love like the far-off\nheaven and the broad ocean.\"\n\nASSHUR\n\nAsshur, the head of the Assyrian pantheon, had attained to the position\nof chief god in it because his city of Asshur was the capital of\nAssyria. At the same time his worship was even more strongly national\nthan that of Merodach in Babylonia. He was the sun personalized, and\nhe was probably identical in most respects with Merodach. He was, in\nfact, the national god of Assyria grafted on to a Babylonian myth.\n\n\nHINDU MYTH\n\nAccording to one of the oldest commentators on the Vedas, three\nprincipal deities were known to the Hindus in Vedic times--Agni,\nVayu or Indra, and Surya. Agni appears to personify three forms of\nfire--sun, lightning, and sacrificial fire, Indra was a god of the sky\nor firmament, twin brother of Agni and king of the gods. Surya was\nthe sun himself. These three formed a triad. In later Vedic times the\nnumber of the gods was increased to thirty-three, but behind all these\nare two more ancient gods of the father and mother type--Dyaus (equated\nwith the Greek Zeus and an abstract deity of the sky), and Prithivi,\nthe Earth-Mother. Mitra was perhaps identical with the Persian Mithra\nand seems to have ruled over day, while Varuna his companion, also\na sky-god, combined the divine attributes of the other gods. He was\nthe possessor of law and wisdom and ordered all earthly and heavenly\nphenomena. Indra also appears to have been a god of the firmament, but,\nin another sense, he was a god of storm and battle; while Soma has been\nwell described as \"the Indian Bacchus.\"\n\nThe gods of the later ages of Hinduism naturally differ considerably\nfrom those of the Vedic period, as might well be expected, considering\nthe time between the two epochs. It is true that the _Ramayana_ and the\n_Mahabharata_ still keep the _personnel_ the old pantheon, but whatever\nwas animistic in the gods in Vedic times became in the later Puranic\nperiod (named after the written Puranas or traditional myths) wholly\nanthropomorphic. Moreover, a definite attempt to arrange a pantheon is\ndiscernible. Eight of the principal gods are revealed as guardians of\nthe universe, each having rule over a definite domain. Some of them\nhave even changed their character entirely. For example, we now find\nVaruna a god of water; Indra has all the characteristics of a great\nearthly chief who has dealings with terrestrial monarchs and who may\nbe defeated by them in battle. In Hanuman, the monkey king, we perhaps\nfind a representative of the aboriginal tribes of Southern India.\n\nBRAHMA\n\nMore important than all these is Brahma. Only a few hymns of the\nVedas appear to deal with him as the one divine, self-existent, and\nomnipresent being, but in the later Puranic literature we find him\ndescribed as an abstract supreme spirit. With Brahma Hinduism reached\nits greatest heights of mystical and metaphysical thought. Such\nquestions are asked in the _Vishnu Purana_, for example, as: How can a\ncreative agency be attributed to Brahma, who, as an abstract spirit,\nis without qualities, illimitable, and free from imperfection? The\nanswer is that the essential properties of existent things are objects\nof observation, of which no fore-knowledge is attainable, and the\ninnumerable phenomena are manifestations of Brahma, as inseparable\nparts of his essence as heat from fire. Again, this Purana says:\n\"There are two states of this Brahma--one with, and one without shape;\none perishable, one imperishable; which are inherent in all beings.\nThe imperishable is the supreme being; the perishable is all the\nworld. The blaze of fire burning in one spot diffuses light and heat\naround; so the world is nothing more than the manifested energy of the\nsupreme Brahma; and inasmuch as the light and heat are stronger or\nfeebler as we are near to the fire or far off from it, so the energy\nof the supreme is more or less intense in the beings that are less or\nmore remote from him. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva are the most powerful\nenergies of God; next to them are the inferior deities; then the\nattendant spirits; then men; then animals, birds, insects, vegetables;\neach becoming more and more feeble as they are farther from their\nprimitive source.\"\n\nThe _Vishnu Purana_ gives the following derivation of the word Brahma:\nIt \"is derived from the root _vriha_ (to increase) because it is\ninfinite (spirit), and because it is the cause by which the Vedas (and\nall things) are developed.\" Then follows this hymn to Brahma: \"Glory\nto Brahma, who is addressed by that mystic word (_Om_) associated\neternally with the triple universe (earth, sky, and heaven), and who is\none with the four Vedas. Glory to Brahma, who alike in the destruction\nand renovation of the world is called the great and mysterious\ncause of the intellectual principle; who is without limit in time or\nspace, and exempt from diminution and decay.... He is the invisible,\nimperishable Brahma; varying in form, invariable in substance; the\nchief principle, self-engendered; who is said to illuminate the caverns\nof the heart, who is indivisible, radiant, undecaying, multiform. To\nthat supreme Brahma be for ever adoration.\"\n\nBrahma had his mythological side as Brahm\u0101, apparently a development\nspecially intended for his employment in myth. There he appears as\nthe Creator of the world, born from a golden egg which floated on\nthe waters at the beginning. He went through many avatars or bodily\nchanges, and is thus the active manifestation of the First Cause,\nBrahma. He was connected with two other gods, Vishnu and Siva.\n\nVishnu is the preserver, as Brahm\u0101 is the creator, and he is closely\nassociated with Indra, whom he assisted to combat the powers of evil.\nHe it was who rendered the universe habitable for man, \"made the\natmosphere wide and stretched out the world.\" He is a sort of demiurge\npatrolling the earth and may have evolved from the idea that the\nsun was a great watchful eye ever looking down to inspect what was\noccurring on the world below, as do several other deities.\n\nSiva, a development of a Vedic storm-god Rudra, was regarded as a\ndestroyer or regenerator. He is a god of reproduction and restoration,\nbut he has a dark side to his character, and has given rise to one of\nthe most revolting cults of any religion. Durga is a goddess of war and\ndestruction and the wife of Siva. She is also known as Kali, and, like\nher husband, is placated by dreadful rites. Ganesa, the son of Siva, is\nan elephant-headed god of wisdom and of good luck. He is also a patron\nof learning and literature. He rather resembles the Egyptian Thoth.\n\nA host of lesser deities follow these, notably the Gandharvas, who in\nVedic times constituted the body-guard of Soma, but in Puranic days\nbecame heavenly minstrels, plying their art at the Court of Indra. The\nApsaras are the houris of Indra's court. Indian epics contain many\nnotices of numerous demigods, and the planets are also deified.\n\nIt may be said that in later times the fervour of Hindu worship has\nconcentrated itself round the two figures of Vishnu and Siva, who from\nunimportant Vedic beginnings have evolved into deities of the first\nimportance. There is a certain rivalry between them, but they are also\ncomplementary, being the beneficent and evil aspects of the divine\nspirit. It would seem as if dualism and monotheism had almost met here\nto form a third condition of godhead.\n\nNew gods of inferior kind have arisen in India and a small pantheon has\nbeen apportioned to each of them, but they do not require description\nhere.\n\n\nTEUTONIC MYTH\n\nThe mythology of the Teutonic peoples has a strong likeness to those of\nthe other Aryan races, notably the Greeks, Romans, and Celts. At the\nhead is Odin or Wotan, who in many respects resembles Zeus or Jupiter.\nHe is a divine legislator, cunning in Runic lore, and the creator of\nmankind. His worshippers pictured him as a one-eyed man of venerable\naspect clad in a wide-brimmed hat and voluminous cloak, and travelling\nthrough the world to observe the doings of men. With his brothers\nVili and Ve he raised the earth out of the waters of chaos. His name\nof 'All-Father' shows the exact position he held in the minds of\nScandinavian and Germanic folk. His wife, Freya, is much akin to Juno\nor Hera. She was the matron and housewife deified and the patroness of\nmarriage.\n\nLOKI\n\nThe malevolent deity was represented by Loki, perhaps originally a\nfire-god, and ever at the elbow of Odin offering him evil counsel. Loki\nis one of the most interesting figures in any mythology. He is both\nfriend and foe to the \u00c6sir or divine beings and seems to have reduced\nto a fine art the policy of running with the hare and hunting with the\nhounds. We find him assisting at the making of humanity and we also\ndiscover him acting as steersman to the ship that brings the forces of\nevil to combat with the gods on the last great day of reckoning. At\ntimes he would employ his natural cunning on behalf of the gods, at\nother times use it for their ignominious defeat. Protean in character,\nhe could assume any shape he chose at will. He has been alluded to as\nthe great riddle of Teutonic mythology, but it may be that this riddle\nrepresents fire in its beneficent and maleficent aspects. Indeed, the\nname Logi is given elsewhere to a certain fire-demon, and this almost\nclinches the matter. His many evil deeds were at last punished by his\nbeing chained to a rock like Prometheus, while over his head hung a\nserpent whose venom fell upon his face. The fact that Prometheus, also\na fire-god, met the same fate is one of those baffling resemblances\nwhich occasionally confront the student of myth, and set him on a\nlifetime's search for the connexion between the stories. The great\ndanger is that such a seeker may become enamoured of some fantastic\nsolution. Frequently a possible solution leaps into consciousness\nwith all the rapidity of an inspiration; but there are true and false\ninspirations, and the difficulty is to distinguish between them. They\nshould be ruthlessly subjected to a melting and remelting process in\nthe crucible of comparison until only the pure gold remains. Had this\nscientific process been rigorously adopted by all mythologists, the\nscientific value of the study would have been enormously enhanced and\nit would possess greater uniformity; for although magnificent work\nhas been achieved, far too much loose thinking has been indulged in,\nand at the present time we are reduced to groping for standards and\ndefinitions in a manner quite extraordinary.\n\nTHOR\n\nThor, the god of thunder and lightning, possesses a hammer which\nsymbolizes the thunder, as the spear or arrow of some other gods\ntypifies the lightning. The hammer sometimes symbolizes the\nworld-shaping god, the creative divinity, but perhaps not in regard to\nThor. His red beard is probably symptomatic of the lightning, like the\nred limbs of some American thunder-gods. He is the foe of the J\u00f6tunn\nor giants, and he bulked very largely indeed in the myths of the\nNorsemen. At the same time, like most thunder-gods who bring in their\ntrain the fructifying winds and rains, Thor presided over the crops\nand was thus the friend of peasants. Indeed his wife, Sif, is usually\nportrayed as a peasant woman of the Scandinavian type. He is the patron\nof countrymen, slow of speech and wit, if quick to strike with his\nhammer Mjolnir.\n\n\nCELTIC MYTH\n\nThe mythology of the Celts shows an early connexion with that of\nthe Teutons on the one hand and the Gr\u00e6co-Roman races on the other.\nPerhaps originally all possessed a common mythology, which altered\nupon their geographical separation. The priestly caste placed many of\nthe old myths upon a definite literary footing, but these again were\nmanufactured into pseudo-history by Geoffrey of Monmouth and kindred\nwriters, so that it is often impossible to discover their original\nsignificance except by analogy. Animistic myths, however, survived the\nestablishment of anthropomorphic gods among the Celts. Agricultural\nand seasonal deities were in the ascendant, as became an agricultural\npeople, but not to the exclusion of totemic influences. Later,\nculture-gods of music, poetry, and the manual arts sprang up or were\ndeveloped from existing deities. In the Gaulish pantheon, concerning\nwhich we have little information, we find C\u00e6sar equating no less than\nsixteen local gods with the Roman Mercury, many with Apollo (among chem\nBorvo, Belenos, and Grannos), while with Mars other writers equate\nCamulos, Teutates, Albiorix, and Caturix, probably tribal war-gods.\nWith Minerva was compared the horse-goddess Epona, while Berecyntia, a\ngoddess of Autun, is compared by Gregory of Tours with the Italian Bona\nDea. Inscriptions make Aeracura the equivalent of Dispater. Turning to\nIreland, we possess later and therefore more satisfactory data, based\non mythic tales of a far earlier date. These stories speak of immigrant\nraces named the Tuatha de Danann (children of the goddess Danu), the\nFomorians, the Firbolgs, and Milesians, of whom the first two classes\nare divine. Among these warring elements the Fomorians are a race of\nTitans. Balor, one of their leaders, is a personification of the evil\neye; nothing could live beneath his glance. Bres seems to have been\na deity of growth--a vegetation-god. Dea Domnann was a species of\nCeltic Tiawath (Babylonian goddess of the abyss). Tethra was lord of\nthe Underworld. _N\u00e9t_ was a war-god. These were all gods of an early\naboriginal race, and in later Irish myth are regarded as uncouth giant\nmonsters.\n\nTHE CHILDREN OF DANU\n\nDanu, mother of the race, was considered as a daughter of Dagda. She\nseems to have been an Earth-Mother.\n\nThe Tuatha de Danann, or Tribe of the Goddess Danu, have many congeners\nin British myth, and their worship appears to have been brought from\nGaul or Britain. They were conquered by the Milesians and, retiring to\nthe Underworld, appear to have taken the place of fairies, for they\nare later called _sidhe_ or 'fairy folk.' Dagda (the 'good hand' or\n'good god'), father of Danu, played the spring season into being with\nhis harp. He fed the whole earth out of an immense pot or cauldron\ncalled Undry, the symbol of plenty. His was the perfection of knowledge\nand understanding. He is undoubtedly the great Celtic god of growth,\nand was probably originally a sun-deity, as his harp and his wisdom\nshow, \u00c6ngus, his son, who supplanted him, resembled him. Nuada of the\nSilver Hand is a culture-hero and a cunning craftsman. He has a British\nequivalent, Llud Llaw Ereint, the 'silver-handed,' and both, like all\nculture-heroes, were connected with the sun and with growth. Manannan\nis a sea-god, and the Isle of Man may perhaps have taken its name from\nhim when it was regarded as an Elysium. He is the same as the British\nManawyddan. Lug (Welsh _Lieu_) is a craftsman and inventor of many\narts, and is frequently alluded to as 'Lug of the Long Arm'; whence\nsome authorities have seen in him a solar god, as the beams or arms of\nthe sun reach from heaven to earth.\n\nOgma is master of poetry and the supposed inventor of the 'ogham'\nscript, which is said to be called after him. His eloquence excited the\ngods to valour in battle. Diancecht ('swift in power') was a god of the\nhealing art. Goibniu, a god of smith-craft and magic, manufactured\narms for the gods and brewed ale for them. Brigit was a goddess of\npoetry and wisdom, and, like the Greek Pallas Athene, may have been at\none time the goddess of a cult especially female. The Morrigan, Naman,\nand Macha are war-goddesses of sanguinary character.\n\n\nBRITISH GODS\n\nAmong purely British gods, Bran, son of Llyr, the sea-god, presided\nover minstrelsy, and may have been a god of the fertile Underworld or\nthe realm of the dead, the Celtic Elysium. Gwydion, also a bard, is a\ndiviner as well, and, like the Greek Proteus, is expert at changing\nhis form. Amaethon appears to have been an agricultural deity, and the\nname seems to be connected with _amaeth_, the Welsh for 'plough-man.'\nHe is credited with bringing certain domestic animals from the Land of\nthe Gods to the World of Men, and this suggests totemism. Arianrhod,\nwife and sister of Gwydion, is perhaps an earth-goddess, but her\nsignificance is obscure. Bil\u00e9 is probably a sun-god, and is equated\nwith Apollo. Keridwen is a goddess dwelling in an under-water Elysium.\nShe is described as a goddess of inspiration and poetry, and possesses\na cauldron which is the source of all inspiration. Her son Avaggdu was\ncursed with hideousness, so his mother resolved to boil the cauldron of\ninspiration to compensate him for his ugliness. Gwion Bach, requested\nto watch it until it boils, steals the gift of inspiration for himself.\nHe flees, and is pursued by Keridwen, but changes into various shapes.\nShe follows his example, and at length in the form of a hen she\nswallows him as a grain of wheat. She later gives birth to him, throws\nhim into the sea, and he becomes the bard Taliesin, famous for his\npoetic fire, the gift of the cauldron of inspiration.\n\n\nMEXICAN MYTHOLOGY\n\nThe mythologies of America are chiefly of interest because they\nillustrate and supplement the faiths of the Old World, and this is\nespecially the case with the mythology of Mexico, which represents\na phase of religious evolution considerably more advanced than the\nbeliefs of the red man of the North American plains or the barbarians\nof the South American continent. In ancient Mexico we have one of\nthe only three American mythological systems which attained anything\nlike religious cohesion, or exemplified the higher reaches of\nethical religious thought. The religion of ancient Mexico has been\nclassified as a religion of the lower cultus, but the folly of such a\nclassification is extreme, and it has, of course, emanated from persons\nwho have made no especial study of the mythology of Mexico. To range it\nwith such religions as those of the aborigines of Australia or those of\nsome African tribes is incorrect, as a brief account of it will prove\nto the reader.\n\nWhen the Spaniards finally conquered Mexico the more intelligent among\nthem, although for the most part military men and priests, began to\ninterest themselves in the antiquities and religion of the people they\nhad conquered. The accounts they have left of the Aztec faith are,\nof course, unscientific, but we can gather a great deal from them by\nanalogy and comparison with Old World faiths. We find that the Aztec\npopulation of Mexico worshipped gods who, if they did not form a\npantheon or hierarchy, had each a more or less distinct sphere of his\nown. One of these, Tezcatlipoca, has been called the Jupiter of the\nAztec pantheon, and seems to deserve this name.\n\nBernal Diaz, one of the Spanish conquerors, describes this god as\nhaving the face of a bear, and this error has been handed down from\ngeneration to generation of writers on Mexican mythology, is repeated\nin books of reference, and is generally accepted because of its\nantiquity. As I have shown elsewhere (_Edinburgh Review_ for October\n1920), Tezcatlipoca was probably a development of the obsidian stone,\nwhich was employed for the purpose of making both sacrificial knives\nand polished mirrors in which future events were supposed to be viewed.\nThis stone, too, was regarded as capable of raising wind or tempests.\nTezcatlipoca was supposed to rush through the highways at night, and\nin this connexion he probably symbolized the night wind, but from\nanalogy with other North American Indian gods of a like character it\nis most probable that in later times he came to be thought of as a\npersonification of the breath of life. The wind is usually regarded\nas the giver of breath and the source of immediate life. One of\nTezcatlipoca's names was Yoalli Ehecatl, or Night Wind, and this leads\nus to suspect that he was the giver of all life. In many mythologies\nthe name of the chief deity is derived from the same root as the word\n'wind,' and in others the words 'soul' and 'breath' have a common\norigin. Thus the Hebrew word _ruah_ is equivalent to both wind and\nspirit, as is the name of the Egyptian god Kneph. Strangely enough,\nhowever, Tezcatlipoca was also regarded as a death-dealer, and some of\nthe prayers addressed to him are pitiful in their tone of entreaty that\nhe will refrain from slaying his devotees. The probable reason for this\nis that his worship, however it became so, was so extremely popular\nas almost to eclipse most other Mexican deities, and owing to this\npopularity his idea achieved such an enormous significance in the Aztec\nmind that he began to be regarded as a god of fate and fortune with\npower to ban or bless as he saw fit, and therefore to be sedulously\nplacated by prayer and sacrifice.\n\nTHE AZTEC WAR-GOD[1]\n\nNext to him in importance, but scarcely less in the popular estimation,\nwas Uitzilopochtli, tutelar deity of the Aztec people and god of war.\nLegends told how he led the Aztec tribes from their home of origin into\nthe valley of Mexico in the shape of a humming-bird. He was represented\nas wearing a garment of humming-bird's feathers, and his face and limbs\nwere painted black and yellow. Enormous sacrifices of human beings were\nmade at stated intervals to this god, whose great _teocalli_ or pyramid\ntemple in the city of Mexico was literally a human shambles, where\nprisoners of war were immolated on his altar; but he also appears,\nlike some other war-gods, to have an agricultural significance. His\nmother was the goddess of flowers, and he himself was associated with\nthe summer and its abundance of crops and fruit. This was because of\nhis possession of the war-spear or dart, which with the Aztecs as\nwith many another people symbolized the lightning and therefore the\nthunder-cloud with its fructifying rain.\n\nBut the real rain-god, or rather the god of moisture, of the Aztecs\nwas Tlaloc, upon whose co-operation the success of the crops depended.\nHe dwelt in the mountains which surround the Mexican valley, and he is\nrepresented in sculpture in a semi-recumbent position, with the upper\npart of the body raised upon the elbows and the knees half drawn up,\nto enable him to hold the vase in which the sacred grain was kept.\nThe _tlaloque_ or rain-spirits were regarded as his progeny, and he\nmanifested himself in three ways, by the flash, the thunder, and the\nthunderbolt. His dwelling, Tlalocan, was a fruitful and abounding\nParadise where those who were drowned, struck by lightning, or who had\ndied of dropsy were certain to go. In the native paintings part of his\nface is of a dark colour, probably to represent the thunder-cloud,\nNumerous children were sacrificed to him annually, and if they wept it\nwas regarded as a happy omen for a rainy season.\n\nOne of the most important and picturesque Aztec deities was\nQuetzalcoatl, probably a god of the pre-Aztec inhabitants of Mexico,\nthe Toltecs. The name signifies 'feathered serpent', and the myths tell\nhow he played the part of culture-hero in Mexico, teaching the people\nthe arts and sciences; but by the cunning of Tezcatlipoca he was driven\nfrom the land, and, embarked upon a raft of serpents, he floated away\nto the East, the land of sunrise, where dwelt his father, the sun. A\nnumber of authorities have seen in Quetzalcoatl a god of the air, and\neven a moon-deity. He is obviously the trade wind, which carries the\nrain, and is driven from the country by Tezcatlipoca, the anti-trade\nwind.\n\nA regular group of gods presided over the food supply and agriculture\nof Mexico: Xilonen and Chicomecohuatl were maize-goddesses, and\nCenteotl, a god, also presided to some extent over the maize. The\nearth-goddess Toci or Teteoinnan was regarded as the progenitrix or\nmother of the gods. Sun-worship was extremely popular in Mexico, and\nthe sun was regarded as the god _par excellence_. Moreover, he was the\ndeity of warriors to whom he granted victory in battle that they might\nsupply him with food.\n\n\nCHINOOK MYTH\n\nThe Chinook Indians of the north-west coast of America possess a\nreligious system of great interest to the student of myth, and we\nmust deal with it at some length. The Chinooks were divided into two\nlinguistic groups with numerous dialectic differences--Lower Chinook\n(comprising Chinook proper and the Clatsop), and Upper Chinook\n(comprising the rest of the tribe). The Lower Chinook dialects are\nnow practically extinct; of persons of pure Chinook blood only about\nthree hundred now exist. Upper Chinook is still spoken by considerable\nnumbers, but the mixture of blood on the Indian Reservation, where they\ndwell, has been so great that the majority using the dialect are not\nreally Chinooks.\n\n\nZOOTHEISM\n\nThe stage of religious evolution to which the beliefs of the Chinooks\nbelong is 'zootheism,' where no line of demarcation exists between man\nand beast, and all phenomena are explained in the mythic history of\nzoomorphic personages who can hardly be described as gods. The original\ntotemic nature of these beings it would be difficult to gainsay, but\nthey occupy a position between the totem and the god proper--a rank\nwhich has been the lot of many evolving deities.\n\nAllied with these beliefs we find shamanistic medico-religious\npractices invoking assistance for the sick.\n\nTheir mythological figures fall into four classes: (1) supernatural\nbeings of a zoomorphic type, with many of the attributes of deity; (2)\nguardian spirits; (3) evil spirits; (4) culture-heroes.\n\nThe first class includes the Coyote, Blue Jay, Robin, Skunk, and\nPanther, etc. As has been said, there is little doubt that such beings\nwere originally totems of various Chinookan clans, although these clans\nare without special tribal names, being simply designated as 'those\ndwelling at such and such a place.' They may, however, have lost their\ntribal names--a common occurrence when tribes become sedentary--while\nretaining their totemistic concepts.\n\nItalapas, the Coyote, is one of the Chinook gods of the first class,\nand may be regarded as the head of the pantheon. Nearly equal to him\nin importance is Blue Jay, who figures in nearly every myth of Chinook\norigin; but whereas Italapas the Coyote assisted Ikanam, the Creator,\nin the making of men, and taught them various arts, Blue Jay's mission\nis obviously dissension; and he well typifies the bird from which he\ntakes his name, and probably his totem derivation. He figures as a\nmischievous tale-bearer, braggart, and cunning schemer, and resembles\nLoki of Scandinavian mythology.\n\nHis origin is touched upon in a myth of the journey of the Thunderer\nthrough the country of the Supernatural People, where, with Blue Jay's\nhelp, the Thunderer and his son-in-law obtain possession of the bows\nand targets of the inhabitants. They engage in a shooting-match and win\nat first by using their own targets, but when the Supernatural People\nsuspect craft, they agree to the substitution of shining Supernatural\ntargets for their own, and lose; and, as they had staked their own\npersons in the match, they fall into the power of the Supernatural\nbeings, who wreak vengeance upon Blue Jay by metamorphosing him into\nthe bird whose name he bears. \"Blue Jay shall be your name and you\nshall sing 'Watsetsetset-setse,' and it shall be a bad omen.\"\n\nThere is a trilogy of myths concerning Blue Jay and his sister Ioi.\nIoi begs him to take a wife to share her labour, and Blue Jay takes\nthe corpse of a chief's daughter from her grave and carries her to the\nland of the Supernatural People, who restore her to life. The chief,\nher father, discovers the circumstance, and demands Blue Jay's hair in\npayment for his daughter, but Blue Jay changes himself into his bird\nshape and flies away--an incident which suggests his frequent adoption\nof human as well as bird form. When he flees, his wife expires again.\nThe ghosts then buy Ioi, Blue Jay's sister, for a wife, and Blue Jay\ngoes in search of her. Arriving in the country of the ghosts, he finds\nhis sister surrounded by heaps of bones, to which she alludes as her\nrelations by marriage. The ghosts take human shape occasionally, but\nupon being spoken to by Blue Jay become mere heaps of bones again. He\ntakes a mischievous delight in reducing them to this condition, and\nin tormenting them in every possible manner, especially by mixing the\nvarious heaps of bones, so that, upon materializing, the ghosts find\nthemselves with the wrong heads, legs, and arms, In fact the whole myth\nis obviously one which recounts the 'Harrying of Hell,' so common in\nsavage and barbarian myth, and probably invented to reassure the savage\nas to the terrors of the next world, and to instruct him in the best\nmethods of foiling its evil inhabitants. We find the same atmosphere\nin the myth of the descent into Xibalba of Hun-Apu and Xbalanque in\nthe _Popol Vuh_ of the Kiche of Guatemala, hero-gods who outwit and\nridicule the lords of Hell.\n\nSkasa-it (Robin) is Blue Jay's elder brother, and his principal\noccupation is making sententious comments on the mischievous acts of\nhis relative. The Skunk, Panther, Raven, and Crow are similar figures.\nThat most of these were anthropomorphic in shape--probably having\nanimals' or birds' heads upon men's bodies--is proved not only by the\nprotean facility with which they change their shapes, but by a passage\nin the myth of Anektcxolemix, mentioning \"a person who came to the fire\nwith a very sharp beak, and began to cut meat\"; and another 'person'\nsplits logs for firewood with his beak. Such ideas are notoriously\nincomprehensible to those unfamiliar with the distorted appearance of\nNature--due to an intense familiarity with and nearness to her--in the\nsavage mind.\n\nEvil spirits are many and various. The most terrible appears to be\nthe insatiable Glutton, who devours everything in a house, and when\nthe meat supply comes to an end kills and eats the occupants. In the\nmyth of Okulam he pursues five brothers, after eating all their meat,\nand devours them one by one, except the youngest, who escapes by the\ngood offices of the Thunderer, Ikenuwakcom, a being of the nature of a\nthunder-god, and marries his daughter.\n\nBesides being reckoned as deities of zoomorphic or sometimes\nanthropomorphic type, Blue Jay, Italapas, and the others may be\nregarded as hero-gods or culture-heroes, although not always prompted\nby the highest motives in their activities. They are markedly\negotistical, every action being dictated by a desire to prove superior\nin force and cunning to the foe. To overcome difficulties by craft is\nthe delight of the savage, and those gods who are most skilled in such\nmethods he honours most. In the myths of Blue Jay and his sister Ioi,\nBlue Jay repeatedly scores against his adversaries, but in the end he\nis punished himself, and it is difficult to say whether or not the\nworld was any the wiser or better for his efforts. The idea of good\naccomplished is a purely relative one in the savage mind, and cannot be\nappreciated to any extent by uncivilized persons.\n\nThe shamans of the Chinooks were a medico-religious fraternity,\nthe members of which worked individually, as a general rule, but\nsometimes in concert. Their methods were much the same as those of the\nmedicine-men of other Indian tribes in a similar state of belief, but\nwere differentiated from them by various thaumaturgical practices which\nthey made use of in their medical duties. These were usually undertaken\nby three shamans acting in concert for the purpose of rescuing the\n'astral body' of a sick patient from the Land of Spirits. The three\nshamans who undertook the search for the sick man's spiritual body\nthrew themselves into a state of clairvoyance; their souls, temporarily\ndetached from their bodies, then followed the spiritual track of the\nsick man's soul. The soul of the shaman with a strong guardian spirit\nwas placed first, the next in degree last, and that of the priest with\nthe weakest guardian spirit in the middle. When the trail of the sick\nman's soul foreshadowed danger or the proximity of any supernatural\nevil, the soul of the foremost shaman sang a magical chant to ward it\noff; and if a danger approached from behind, the shaman in the rear did\nlikewise. The soul was usually thought to be reached about the time\nof the rising of the morning star. If possible, it was laid hands on\nand brought back, after a sojourn of one or perhaps two nights in the\nregions of the supernatural. The shamans next replaced the soul in the\nbody of their patient, who forthwith recovered. Should the soul of a\nsick person take the trail to the left, the pursuing shamans would say,\n\"He will die\"; whereas, if it took a trail toward the right, they would\nsay, \"We shall cure him.\"\n\nWhen the spirits of the shamans reached the well in the Land of the\nGhosts where the shades of the departed drink, their first care was to\nascertain if the soul of him they sought had drunk of these waters;\nhad it done so, all hope of cure was past. If they laid hold of a soul\nthat had drunk of the water, it shrank as they neared home, so that it\nwould not fill the sick man's body, and he died. The same superstition\napplied to the spirit eating ghostly food. Did the sick man's soul\neat on the astral plain, then was he doomed indeed. In this belief\nwe have a Greek parallel: Persephone, the daughter of Demeter, the\ncorn-mother, might not return to earth permanently, because Pluto had\ngiven her to eat of the seed of a pomegranate. The taboo regarding the\neating of the food of the dead is almost universal. We find it in the\nFinnish _Kalevala_, where Wa\u00efnamo\u00efmen, visiting Tuonela, the place of\nthe dead, refuses to drink, and in Japanese and Melanesian myth-cycles.\nLikewise, if the spirit enters the house of the ghosts, it cannot\nreturn to earth. These beliefs apply not only to human beings, but also\nto animals, and even to inanimate objects. For example, if the astral\ncounterpart of a horse or a canoe be seen in ghost-land, unless they\nare rescued from thence by the shaman they are doomed.\n\n\nCHOCTAW MYTH\n\nAnother interesting North American mythology is that of the Choctaw\nIndians, formerly occupying Middle and South Mississippi from Tombigbee\nRiver to the borders of Dallas County, Georgia. The Choctaw religion\nis almost unique among the North American Indian religions, as it is\na union of animism and sun-worship, or, more correctly speaking, the\ntwo systems may be observed side by side among this and allied peoples\nof the Muskhogean stock. They have a supreme being whom they designate\nYuba Paik, 'Our Father Above'; but whether this conception arose from\ncontact with missionaries or is genuinely aboriginal it is impossible\nto say. The term may be collective, like the Hebrew _Elohim_ or the\nLatin _Superi,_ and may include all the powers of the air. It is\nperhaps more likely that it evolved from the word for sky, as did Zeus,\nthe Nottoway Qui-oki, the Iroquois Garonhia, and the ancient Powhatan\nOki. This supposition is strengthened by the cognate Greek expression,\nsignifying 'He who lives in the sky.' As usual among North American\nIndian tribes, the Choctaws confound the sun with fire; at least they\nrefer to fire as Shahli miko,'the greater chief,' and speak of it as\nHashe ittiapa, 'He who accompanies the sun and the sun him.' On going\nto war they call for assistance from both sun and fire, but, except\nas fire, they do not address the sun, nor does he stand in any other\nrelation to their religious thought. He is not personified, as, for\nexample, among the Peruvians, or worshipped as the supreme symbol of\nfire. In American religions, generally speaking, what appears on the\nsurface to be sun-worship pure and simple usually resolves itself, upon\ncloser examination, into the worship of light and fire. Indeed the\ncognate Natchez word for 'sun' is derived from that for 'fire,' and the\nsun is referred to as 'the great fire.' The expression 'sun-worship'\nmust, then, be understood to imply an adoration of all fire, symbolized\nby the sun.\n\nThe Muskhogean tribes, according to tradition, were originally banded\nin one common confederacy, and unanimously located their earliest\nancestry near an artificial eminence in the Valley of the Big Black\nRiver in the Natchez country, whence they believed they had emerged.\nGregg states[2] that they described this to him and another traveller,\nand calls it \"an elevation of earth, about half a mile square, and\nfifteen or twenty feet high. From its north-east corner a wall of\nequal height extends for nearly half a mile to the high land.\"[3] This\neminence they designated Nunne Chaha, or Nunne Hamgeh, 'the High Hill,'\nor 'the Bending Hill,' known to the Muskhogees as Rvne em mekko, or\n'King of Mountains.' This looks as if the Choctaws alluded to some of\nthose immense artificial mounds so common in the Mississippi valley.\nWhen De Soto passed through the Gulf State country in 1540-41, the\ntribes inhabiting it--Creeks, Choctaws, etc.--were still using, and\nprobably constructing, mounds; and from this it is inferred that\nthey and no others were the famous 'Mound-builders' of American\narch\u00e6ology--a theory now adopted by the officials of the U.S. Bureau\nof Ethnology and the majority of modern Americanists. Wilson, writing\nin 1875, considerably before the modern theory of the 'Mound-builders'\ngained general credence, states that \"analogies to these structures\nhave been traced in the works of Indian tribes formerly in occupation\nof Carolina and Georgia. They were accustomed to erect a circular\nterrace or platform on which their council-house stood. In front\nof this a quadrangular area was enclosed with earthen embankments,\nwithin which public games were played and captives tortured.... Upon\nthe circular platform it is also affirmed that the sacred fire was\nmaintained by the Creek Indians as part of their most cherished rites\nas worshippers of the sun.\"[4] He adds that, although the evidence does\nnot seem very clear, analogies point \"to the possibility of some of\nthe Indian tribes having perpetuated on a greatly inferior scale some\nmaimed rites borrowed from their civilized precursors.\"\n\nSeveral proved analogies between the worship of the 'Mound-builders'\nand the Indians exist: for example, there is unmistakable evidence\nthat one of the sacred altars of 'Mound City' was specially devoted to\nnicotian rites and offerings. The discarded stones, also, found in the\nmound country are the same as those used by the Muskhogean people in\nthe name of _chunkey_, which has probably a solar significance.\n\nLike the other Muskhogean tribes, the Choctaws believed that before\nthe Creation a great body of water alone was visible. Two pigeons flew\nto and fro over its waves, and at last espied a blade of grass rising\nabove the surface. Dry land gradually followed, and the islands and\nmainland took their present shapes. In the centre of the hill Nunne\nChaha, already mentioned, was a cave, the house of the Master of Breath\n(Esaugetuh Emissee). There he took clay, and fashioned the first men;\nand, as at that period the waters covered the earth, he raised a great\nwall to dry them on. When the soft mud had hardened into flesh and\nbone, he directed the waters to their present places, and gave the dry\nland to the men he had made. The fact that the Choctaws were divided\ninto eight clans has been cited by Brinton[5] in confirmation of the\nview that the myth of their origin was akin to those American legends\nwhich give to the majority of the Indian tribes a descent from four\nor eight brothers who emanated from a cave. Such a myth was in vogue\namong the Tupi-Guarani of Brazil, the Muyscas of Bogota, the Nahua of\nMexico, and many other tribes. They possessed an ancient tradition\nthat the present world will be consumed by a general conflagration,\nafter which it will be made a much more pleasant place than it now\nis, and that then the spirits of the dead will return to the bones in\nthe bone-mound, become covered with flesh, and once more occupy their\nancient territory.\n\nThe Choctaws believe that after death those \"who have behaved well\" are\ntaken under the care of Esaugetuh Emissee ('Master of Breath') and well\nlooked after; that those who have behaved ill are left \"to shift for\nthemselves\"; and that there is no further punishment. They also believe\nthat when they die the spirit flies westward \"as the sun goes,\" and\nthere joins its family and friends \"who went before it.\" They do not\nbelieve in a place of punishment, or in any infernal power.\n\nAlthough the sun appears to have been their chief deity, the Choctaws\nconceived Esaugetuh Emissee, or the 'Master of Breath,' as the creative\nagency, at least where man was concerned, so that he may have acted as\na demiurge. This deity has many counterparts in American mythologies,\nand appears to be the personification of the wind, the name being\nonomatopoetic. The deification of the wind as soul or breath is common\nto many mythologies.\n\nWe see a totemic significance in the fact that the alligator was\nworshipped, or at least venerated, by the coast and river tribes of the\nMuskhogeans, and never by any chance destroyed by them. The myth of\nthe horned serpent was also in vogue among them, and was practically\nidentical with that told by the Cherokees to Lieutenant Timberlake; and\nthe charm which they presented to their young men when they set out on\nthe war-path was composed of the bones of the panther and the horn of\nthe fabulous horned snake.\n\nThis snake dwelt in the waters, and the old people went to the shore\nand sang sacred songs to it. It rose a little out of the water; the\nmagic chant was repeated, and it then showed its horns. They cut off\nthe horns, and, when occasion necessitated, placed a fragment of them\nin their 'war-physic,' to ward off the arrows of enemies.\n\nThe priests of the Choctaws, as is usual among Indian tribes, were\nmedicine-men and diviners. The office of high priest, or 'Great Beloved\nMan,' as he was called, was kept in one family, passing from father\nto eldest son. The junior priests are described as dressed in white\nrobes and carrying on their head or arm a great owl-skin stuffed\nvery ingeniously, as a symbol of wisdom and divination. They were\ndistinguished from the rest of the tribe by their taciturnity, grave\nand solemn countenance, and dignified carriage, and went about the\nsettlements singing to themselves in a low, almost inaudible voice.\nThey possessed an apparently esoteric language, which examination\nby competent scholars has proved to be merely a modification of the\nordinary speech. It contains some words unknown in the idiom of daily\nlife, but they are archaisms, or borrowed from other peoples, along\nwith the ceremonies or myths to which they refer.\n\n\nARAUCANIAN MYTH\n\nOne of the best examples of a South American religion is that of the\nAraucanian Indians of Chile. Early accounts credit them with a fairly\nexalted theogony, with a supreme being, the author of all things,\ncalled Pillan--a name derived from _pulli_ or _pilli_, 'the soul,'\nand signifying Supreme Essence. Pillan is, according to the Austrian\nmissionary Dobrizhoffer,[6] their word for thunder. They also called\nhim Guenu-pillan, 'the Spirit of Heaven,' and Annolu, 'the Infinite,'\nbesides many other lesser names. The native tribal life was but a\nmicrocosm of his celestial existence; everything was modelled upon the\nheavenly polity of Pillan, who was called, in his aspect of Supreme\nRuler, Toquichen, or 'the Great Chief' of the invisible world. He had\nhis _apo-ulmenes_ and his _ulmenes_, or greater and lesser sub-chiefs,\nlike the chief of any prairie confederacy; and to them he entrusted the\nadministration of his affairs of lesser importance.\n\nIn Pillan it is easy to trace a mythological conception widely\nprevalent among the indigenous American peoples. He is unquestionably\na thunder-god, similar to such deities as the Hurakan of the Kiches\nof Guatemala, the Tlaloc of the Mexicans, and the Con or Cun, the\nthunder-god of the Collao of Peru. The gathering of clouds round great\nmountain peaks like those of the Andes, and the resultant phenomena\nof thunder and lightning, kindle in the savage mind the idea that the\nsummits of these mountains are the dwelling-place of some powerful\nsupernatural being, who manifests his presence by the agencies of fire\nand terrifying sound. Supernatural beings of this kind are usually\ndescribed by the Indians as red in colour, having neither arms nor\nlegs, but moving with incredible swiftness, difficult of approach\nbecause of their irascibility, but generous to those who succeed in\ngaining their favour. They are in general placated by libations of\nnative spirit poured into the pools below the snow-line, and in case\nof drought are roused from inactivity by the sympathetic magic of\n'rain-making,' in which the magician or priest sprinkles water from a\ngourd over the thirsty soil.\n\nThe _apo-ulmenes_, or greater deities, subservient to Pillan are\nseveral in number. The chief is Epunamun, or god of war, whose name\nis apparently of Peruvian origin. He may have been a type adopted\nfrom the Incan sun-idol Punchau Inca, or the 'Sun-Inca,' depicted\nas a warrior armed with darts. There can be little doubt that the\nmythology of the Araucanians, as opposed to their mere demon-worship,\nwas highly coloured by, if not altogether adopted from, that of their\nPeruvian neighbours, the Aymara. And when we find that this Peruvian\nsun-idol was originally brought to the Incan court by a chief of the\nCollao who worshipped Cun (adored by the Araucanians under the name\nof Pillan), it would seem as though Epunamun, with his Peruvian name\nand probable likeness to Punchau, was also of northern origin, or\nhad been adopted by the Araucanians from the Aymara. Other inferior\ndeities were Meulen, a benevolent protector of the human race; and the\nGuecubu, a malignant being, author of all evil, also known as Algue\nor Aka-Kanet--at least, the similarity between him and the deities or\ndemons bearing these names is strong, although Aka-Kanet, throned in\nthe Pleiades, sends fruits and flowers to the earth, and is called\n'Grandfather.' As M\u00fcller remarks: \"Dualism is not very striking among\nthese tribes\"; and again: \"The good gods do more evil than good.\"[7]\nMolina, who lived among the Araucanians for many years, says, speaking\nof Guecubu: \"From hence it appears that the doctrine of two adverse\nprinciples, improperly called Manicheism, is very extensive, or, in\nother words, is found to be established among almost all the barbarous\nnatives of both continents.\"[8] He goes on to compare the Guecubu\nwith the Persian Ahriman, and states that, according to the general\nopinion of the Araucanians, he is the cause of all the misfortunes\nthat occur. If a horse tires, it is because the Guecubu has ridden\nhim. If the earth trembles, it is because the Guecubu has given it a\nshock; nor does anyone die who is not suffocated by the Guecubu. The\nname is spelt 'Huecuvu' by Falkner in his _Description of Patagonia_,\nand is translated as 'the wanderer without,' an evil demon, hostile\nto humanity, who lurks outside the encampment or on the outskirts of\nany human habitation for the express purpose of working malignant\nmischief upon unwary tribesmen--a very familiar figure to the student\nof anthropology and folklore.\n\nIt is not clear to which of their gods the Araucanians gave the credit\nfor the creation of all things, and it is probable that they imagined\nthat one or other of the totemic beings from whom they were supposed\nto be descended had fashioned the universe. They had, however, a very\nclear tradition of a deluge, from which they were saved by a great hill\ncalled Theg-Theg, 'the Thunderer,' with three peaks, and possessing\nthe property of moving upon the waters. Whenever an earthquake\nthreatens they fly to any hill shaped like the traditional Theg-Theg,\nbelieving that it will save them in this cataclysm as it did in the\nlast, and that its only inconvenience is that it approaches too near\nthe sun. To avoid being scorched, says Molina, they always kept ready\nwooden bowls to act as parasols.\n\nThe _ulmenes_ or lesser spirits of the celestial hierarchy of the\nAraucanians, are the _gen_ ('lords'), who have the charge of created\nthings, and who, with the benevolent Meulen, attempt to stem the power\nof the Guecubu. They are of both sexes, the females being designated\n_amei-malghen_, or spiritual nymphs, who are pure and lead an existence\nof chastity, propagation being unknown in the Araucanian spiritual\nworld. These beings, especially the females, perform for men the\noffices of familiar spirits, and all Araucanians believe that they\nhave one of these minor deities or angels in their service. \"_Nien cat\ngni amehi-malghen_\" (\"I still keep my guardian spirit\") is a common\nexpression when they succeed in any undertaking. These minor deities\nremind us forcibly of the totemic familiars who are adopted by the\nmembers of many North American Indian tribes at puberty, and appear\nto them in dreams and hypnotic trances to warn them concerning future\nevents; and it is probable that the _gen_ and _amei-malghen_ are the\nremnants of a totemic system.\n\nThe likeness between things spiritual and things material is carried\nstill further by the Araucanians; for, as their earthly _ulmenes_\nhave no right to impose any contribution or service upon the common\npeople, so they deny to supernatural beings worship or gifts. Thus\nno outward homage is ordinarily paid to them. There is probably no\nparallel to this lack of worship in the case of a people possessing\nclearly defined religious ideas and conceptions of supernatural beings.\n\"They possess neither temples nor idols, nor are they in the habit of\noffering any sacrifice except in some severe calamity, or on concluding\na peace.\"[9] Upon such occasions the offerings were usually animals\nand tobacco, the latter being burned as incense and supposed to be\npeculiarly agreeable to their gods. This custom recalls that of the\nNorth American Indian peoples, with whom the Araucanians exhibit some\npoints of resemblance in the ceremonial use of tobacco, such as blowing\nthe smoke to the four cardinal points, as a sacrifice to the god of\nthe elements, probably Pillan. On urgent occasions only were these\nsacrificial rites employed, omen Pillan and Meulen chiefly were adored\nand implored to assist their people. The absolute indifference of the\nAraucanians to mere ritual was well exemplified by the manner in which\nthey ignored the elaborate ritualistic practices of the early Roman\nCatholic missionaries, although they displayed no hostility to the new\ncreed, but tolerated its institution throughout their territories.\n\nAlthough the Araucanians did not practise any rites, they were not\nbehind other American aboriginal peoples in superstition. They were\nfirm believers in divination, and paid marked attention to favourable\nor unfavourable omens. Appearances in dreams, the songs and flight of\nbirds, and all the usual machinery of augury were pressed into the\nservice of their priests or diviners; and the savage who dreaded naught\non the field of battle would tremble violently at the mere sight of an\nowl.\n\nThe priests, or rather diviners, were called by the Araucanians\n_gligua_ or _dugol_, and were subdivided into _guenguenu, genpugnu_,\nand _genpiru_, meaning respectively 'masters of the heavens,' 'of\nepidemics,' and 'of insects or worms.' There was also a sect called\n_calcu_, or 'sorcerers,' who dwelt in caves and were served by\n_ivunches_, or 'man-animals,' to whom they taught their terrible arts.\nThe Araucanians believed that these wizards had the power to transform\nthemselves at night into nocturnal birds, to fly through the air, and\nto shoot invisible arrows at their enemies, besides indulging in the\nmalicious mischief with which folklore credits the wizards of all\ncountries. Their priests proper they believed to possess numerous\nfamiliars who were attached to them after death. Thus they resemble the\n'magicians' of the Middle Ages. These priests were celibate, and led an\nexistence apart from the tribe, in some communities being garbed as\nwomen. The tales told of their magical prowess lead us to believe that\nthey were either natural epileptics or ecstatics, or excited themselves\nby drugs. The Araucanians also held that the knowledge of their real\npersonal names gave dangerous magic power over them.\n\nThey firmly believed in the immortality of the soul. They held that the\ncomposition of man was twofold--the _anca_, or corruptible body, and\nthe _am_ or _pulli_, the soul, which they believed to be _ancanolu_\n('incorporeal'), and _mugcalu_ ('eternal' or 'existing for ever'). So\nthoroughly a matter of everyday allusion had these distinctions become\nthat they frequently made use of the word _anca_ in a metaphorical\nsense, to denote a part, the half, or the subject of anything. They\ndiffered about details of life after death. All held that after death\nthey would go west, beyond the sea--a conception of the soul's flight\nheld by many other American tribes. The west, the 'grave' of the sun,\nwas supposed also to be the goal of man in the evening of his days--a\nplace where the tired soul might find rest.\n\n\"The old notion among us,\" said an old chief, \"is that, when we die,\nthe spirit goes the way the sun goes, to the west, and there joins\nits family and friends who went before it.\"[10] The country to which\nthe Araucanians believed their dead went was called Gulcheman, 'the\ndwelling of the men beyond the mountains.' The general conception\nof this Otherworld was that it was divided into two parts, one\npleasant, and filled with everything that is delightful, the abode\nof the good; and the other desolate and in want of everything, the\nhabitation of the wicked. Some of the Araucanians held, however,\nthat all indiscriminately enjoyed eternal pleasures, saying that\nearthly behaviour had no effect upon the immortal state. The amount of\nspirituality in their belief is shown by their funerary practices.\n\nThe relatives of the deceased person seated themselves round his\nbody and wept for a long time, afterward exposing it for a space\nupon a raised bier, called _pilluay_, where it remained during the\nnight. During this time they watched over and 'waked' it, eating and\ndrinking with those who came to console them. This meeting was called\n_curicahuin_, or the 'black entertainment,' as black was the symbolical\ncolour of mourning with them. About the second or third day the body\nwas laid to rest in the _eltum_, or family burying-ground. The _eltum_\nwas usually situated in a wood or on a hill, and the procession to it\nwas preceded by two young men on horseback, riding full speed. The bier\nwas carried by the nearest relatives of the deceased, and surrounded by\nwomen who mourned and wept during the entire ceremony. On arrival at\nthe _eltum_ the corpse was laid on the ground and surrounded by arms\nin the case of a man, or by feminine implements in that of a woman.\nProvisions, _chica_ (native spirit), wine, and sometimes even a dead\nhorse were placed beside the deceased to serve him in the Otherworld.\nThe Pehuenches believed that the Otherworld was cold, and so sought to\nwarm the corpse with fire, after which they bound it to a horse, placed\nthe bridle in its hand, killed the steed, and buried both together in\nthe grave. The relatives and friends of the dead man then wished him\na prosperous journey, and covered the body with a pyramid or cairn of\nstones, over which they poured large quantities of _chica_.\n\nAfter they had departed, an old woman called Tempuleague came to the\ngrave in the shape of a whale, and transported the soul of the deceased\nto the Otherworld. Probably the Araucanians of the Chilean coast were\nacquainted with the spermaceti, or southern variety of whale, and\nregarded it as the only method of locomotion for a spirit across the\ngreat waters, or it is probable that they borrowed the conception from\nthe Peruvians of the coast, who regarded the sea as the most powerful\namong the gods, and called it Mama-cocha or 'Mother Sea.' The whale was\na general object of worship all along the Peruvian coast, while each\nof the Peruvian coastal districts worshipped the particular species of\nfish that was taken there in the greatest abundance. This fish-worship\nwas not mere superstition, and it was very elaborate, the fish-ancestor\nof each variety or 'tribe' of fish holding a special place in the\nheavens in the form of a constellation. The Collao tribes to the south,\non the shores of Lake Titicaca, some fifty miles or so from the\nChilean frontier, also worshipped a fish-god; so that in all likelihood\nthe fish-goddess of the Araucanians was originally borrowed from\nthe Collao, who were probably ethnologically akin to the Araucanian\ntribes. This theory is confirmed by the nature of the fish-deity\nworshipped by the Collao; its name was Copacahuana, 'valuable stone to\nbe looked upon,' the idol being carved from a bluish-green stone, with\nthe body of a fish surmounted by a rude human head. This deity, like\nTempuleague, was female.\n\nThe deceased, however, must pay a toll to another old woman, of\nmalicious character, for permission to pass a narrow strait on the\nroad; otherwise she would deprive him of an eye.\n\nThe life after death was very similar to earthly existence, but without\nfatigue or satiety. Husbands had the same wives as on earth, but had no\nchildren, as the Otherworld was inhabited by the spirits of the dead\nalone.\n\nCertain vestiges of sun- and moon-worship were known among some tribes,\nwho called the sun Anti, and the moon Kayan; but recognition of these\nluminaries as deities was intermittent and probably seasonal.\n\n\n[1] See p. 32.\n\n[2] _Commerce of the Prairies_, vol. ii, p. 235.\n\n[3] Heart, _Trans. Am. Phil. Soc._, vol. iii, p. 216.\n\n[4] _Prehistoric Man_, vol. i, p. 276 (London, 1876).\n\n[5] _Myths of the New World_, p. 101 (1896).\n\n[6] _Abipones_, vol. ii, p. 101 (London, 1822).\n\n[7] _Amer. Urreligionen_, pp. 265, 272 (Basel, 1855).\n\n[8] _History of Chile_, vol. ii, p. 85 (1809).\n\n[9] Molina, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 87.\n\n[10] Hawkins, _Sketch of the Creek Country_, p. 80 (Savannah, 1848).\n\n\n\n\n    INDEX\n\n    A\n\n    ABALL, Celtic term for apple, 95\n    Abella, city of Campania, 95\n    Accadian concept of the abyss, 34-35; sun myth, 155\n    Adjacent method in mythology, the, 83\n    Adonis represents revival of vegetation, 135\n    Aeracura, Celtic deity, 294\n    \u00c6acus, son of Zeus and \u00c6gina, 206\n    _\u00c6neid_, Servius's commentary on the, 78\n    \u00c6ngus, Irish deity, 295\n    \u00c6olus, Greek wind-god, 133\n    \u00c6tiological (explanatory) myth, 15 _n_.; story of Orestes an, 79;\n       Jevons on, 86-87; Marett on, 89\n    African myth, Lang on, 71; ideas of future life, 216\n    After-life, ideas of, 195 _et seq._\n    Agamedes, builder of Apollo's palace, 121\n    Agave, mother of Pentheus, 243\n    Agni, Hindu fire-god, 52, 130, 131, 256, 259; birth of, 160\n    Agricultural gods, 113, 128-129\n    Ahriman, Persian evil principle, 169; Molina on, 310\n    Ahts Indians, beast myth of, 145; creation myth of, 147;\n       fire-stealing myth of, 149; flood myth of, 153\n    Ai and Edda, dwarfs in Norse myth, 262\n    Aimon Kondi, deity of Arawak Indians, 139, 179\n    Ainu (Japan), soul myth of, 152\n    A-Kikuyus, myth to account for customs and rites of, 157\n    Alatnir, Slavonic magical instrument, 208\n    Albiorix, Celtic (Gaulish) deity, 204\n    Algonquin Indians, belief in destruction by fire, 139; myth of birth\n       of gods of, 144; dualistic myths of, 145; dismemberment myth of, 146;\n       creation myth of, 147, 177; culture myth of, 150; fire myth of, 152;\n       belief in after-life of, 212\n    _Algonquin Legends of New England_, Leland's, 271\n    Allatu, Queen of Assyrian Hades, 201-202, 288\n    'All-Father,' gods and sky-gods; 74 _n_.; Lang's theory\n       of the, 67-71, 73-74\n    Alligator as totem of Muskhogean Indians, 307\n    Ama-terasu, Japanese sun-goddess, 120, 168, 260\n    Amaethon, British deity, 296\n    _Amei-malghen_, guardian spirits of Araucanian Indians, 311\n    Amen, Egyptian god, 114\n    America, anthropological theories applied to myth of, by Payne, 84;\n       mound-building in, 305-306; sun-worship in, 305. _See also_\n       Brazil, Mexico, South America, _etc._\n    American Indians, North, myths of, 31; flint-gods of, 26 _et seq._;\n       fire myths of, 139; myth of origin of man of, 143; place of reward of,\n       153; star myth of, 156; creation myths of, 174-186; ideas of\n       after-life among, 211-215; mythic writings of, 270\n    Ancestor-worship, 104, 110-112\n    Andaman Islanders, fire-stealing myth of, 149\n    Andes, thunder-gods of, 122-123\n    Animal worship in Egypt, 45\n    Animatism, definition of, 22 _n._\n    Animism, definitions, 17, 22, 52; Tylor on origin of, 23 _n_.; place\n       in mythic development, 31; Tylor's theory regarding, 58-59; causes of,\n       according to Spencer, 59-60; Lang's criticism upon theory of, 72-73;\n       universal nature of early, 82; and the supernatural idea of water, 97;\n       definite form of, developed in Egypt, 97; origin of, Elliot Smith's\n       theory of the, 97; distinction between, and polytheism, 109; animistic\n       conception of thunder, 122; and corn myth, 129-130\n    Animistic myth, classes of, 23\n    Anthropological school of mythology 51; its criticism of M\u00fcller's\n       theories, 52-53; recognizes gender-termination as survival\n       from animistic stage, 53; its position, 54-55; Tiele on, 65-66;\n       'ignorant camp-followers' of, 66\n    Anthropomorphism, 20, 110, 119, 125 _et seq._\n    Anti, Araucanian sun-deity, 315\n    _Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, Mannhardt's, 53\n    Antis Indians, dismemberment myth of, 146; culture myth of, 150;\n       flood myth of, 153\n    Anu, Babylonian deity, 166, 251, 288\n    Anubis, Egyptian god, 285\n    Apep, night-serpent in Egyptian myth, 99\n    Aphrodite, mandrake cult of, 93; description of, 285\n    Apollo, as fire, 41; apple cult of, 93, 94-95; as mistletoe, 95;\n       origin of, 95; as sun-god, 119; solar myth of, 121; as wielder\n       of lightning spear, 124, 127; as guardian of crops, 129; Homer\n       on, 258; described, 283-284; Celtic gods equated with, 294;\n       Bil\u00e9 equated with, 296\n    _Apo-ulmenes_, 309-310\n    Apple-trees, cult of, 95\n    Apsaras, Hindu nymphs, 291\n    Apsu, Babylonian monster, 34, 166, 296\n    Aqas Xenas Xena, American Indian myth of, 214\n    _Aradia, the Gospel of the Witches of Italy_, Leland's, 236\n    Araucanian (Chilean) Indians, 308 _et seq._; Peruvian\n       influence upon myth of, 309-310; deluge myth of, 310-311;\n       lack of worship among, 311; castes of priests among, 312;\n       beliefs regarding the soul among, 313; place of the dead\n       according to, 313; funeral practices of, 313-314\n    Arawaks of Guiana, fire myth of, 139, 152; legend of world-tree\n       among, 141; culture myth of, 150; flood myth of, 153; creation\n       myth of, 177-179\n    Arianrhod, British deity, 296\n    Arician grove, cult of, 76; priest of, as incarnation of\n       tree-spirit, 77. See also _Golden Bough_\n    Aricoute, Tupi-Guarani hero, 183\n    Arran, sacred stone of, 27\n    Artemis, as moon, 41; mugwort cult of, 93; as moon-goddess, 127;\n       Homer on, 258\n    Arthur, King, as sun-hero, 122; his Round Table as the sun, 122\n    Aruru, creatrix of Eabani in the Gilgamesh epic, 250\n    _Ascent of Olympus, The_, Harris's, 93\n    Aschochimi Indians, beast myth of, 145; flood myth of, 153\n    Ashtaroth, or Astarte, compared with Venus, 285\n    Askr and Embla, Norse Adam and Eve, 170\n    Asshur, Assyrian god, 286; described, 288\n    Assyrian Hades, 201-203\n    Astrology and myth, 202\n    Athapascan Indians, creation myth of, 147, 179;\n       fire-stealing myth of, 149\n    Athene, Homer on, 20, 258; the name, 47 _n._; as owl, 94;\n       described, 284-285\n    Atius Tirawa, Caddoan creative deity, 181\n    Attys, vegetation god, 135\n    Augustine, St, on myth, 43\n    Aurora, Greek divinity, 50\n    Australia, early isolation of, 36-37\n    Australians (aboriginal), myth of moon of, 19; Lang on, 68; beast\n       myth of, 145; dualistic myth, of, 146; myth of origin of man of,\n       148; culture myth of, 150; taboo myth of, 150; death myth of,\n       151; star myth of, 156\n    Avaggdu, British deity, 296\n    Aztecs, war-god of, 32, 298; fire myth of, 152; myth of place of\n       reward of, 154; sun myth of, 155; moon myth of, 156; abode\n       of dead of, 211; deities of, 299.\n    _See also_ Mexicans\n\n    B\n\n    BAAL, Bealltainn sacrifice believed to be to, 240\n    Babylonians, creation myth of, 34-35, 146, 165-166, 173; dualistic\n       myth of, 145; culture myth of, 149; deluge myth of, 153;\n       place of punishment of, 154; myth of journey through\n       Underworld of, 154; food of the dead myth of, 155;\n       sun myth of, 155; moon myth of, 155; star myth of, 156,\n       252-253; general description of myths of, 286\n    Bacchus, connected with the earth, 134; Leland on invocation to, 237\n    Bacon, Francis, his interpretation of myth, 45\n    Bakairi Indians, star myth of, 140; and Orion, 141; creation-myth of, 182\n    Balder, his journey to Hel, 196\n    Balor, Celtic god, 294-295\n    Banier, Abb\u00e9, historical treatment of myth, 45\n    Bast, Egyptian goddess, 110\n    Bat-god of Kakchiquel steals seeds of fire, 268\n    Bealltainn, Scottish festival of, 240 _et seq._\n    Beast myths, table of, 144\n    Beelzebub, Syrian deity, 44\n    Beetle as creative agency in Egypt and South America, 181, 183\n    Bel in Gilgamesh epic, 253\n    Belenos, Celtic (Gaulish) deity, 294\n    Belial, 44\n    Bellerophon, Hellenic sun-hero, 122\n    Bel-Merodach, Babylonian god, 34; description of, 287-288\n    Belus, supposititious connexion of, with Bealltainn festival, 241-242\n    Beowulf, myth of, 121-122\n    Berecyntia, goddess of Autun, 294\n    Bhaga, Indian deity, 256\n    Biblical narrative, how it colours myth, 37\n    Biblical creation story, 167\n    Bil\u00e9, British god, 242, 296\n    Bird myths, 31-32\n    Birth of gods myths, table of, 144\n    Blood, natural food of spirits, 106\n    Blue Jay, god of Chinook Indians, myths of, 31-32, 68, 301-302\n    Boag, Johnny, legend of, 234\n    Boat-language of Scottish fishers, 235\n    Bohemian festival, return of summer, 136\n    _Book of the Dead_, 246\n    Boreas, Harris on, 95; as wind in Greek myth, 133\n    Bornean ideas of after-life, 216-217\n    Bororo Indians and Milky Way, 141\n    Borvo, Celtic (Gaulish) god, 294\n    \"Bragar\u00e6thur,\" the, a portion of the Edda, 260\n    Brahma, Hindu deity, 115, 256, 290-291; as creator, 160, 162;\n       his mythological side, 291\n    Brahmanas, savagery in, 20\n    Bran, British deity, 296\n    Brasseur de Bourbourg, Abb\u00e9, French translator of _Popol Vuh,_\n    187-188, 290\n    Brazilian Indians, earth myth of, 134; fire myth of, 139; moon\n       myth of, 156\n    Bres, Celtic god, 295\n    Bretons, fire-stealing myth of, 149\n    \"Brewing of _\u00c6gir_, The,\" Norse myth, 262\n    Brigit, Irish goddess, 296\n    Brinton, Professor D. G., his _Myths of the New World_, 190-191;\n       mentioned by Leland, 270\n    Britain, totems in, 28\n    British gods, 296 _et seq._\n    Brounger, myth of, 26; folk-song on, 27 _et seq._\n    Browny, a goblin, 44\n    Bryant, Jacob, his _Analysis of Ancient Mythology_, 46\n    Buddhists, place of reward of, 153\n    Bull-roarer, 19; gods evolved from, 24\n    Buri, Norse primeval deity, 170\n    Burnt-offerings to spirits, 106-107\n    Burry Man, the, 135-137\n    Bushmen, myth of Kwai Hemm among, 19; dismemberment myth\n       among, 146; creation myth of, 147; myth of origin of man of,\n       148; culture myth of, 150; death myth of, 151; star myth\n       of, 156; moon myth of, 156\n    Buy\u00e1n, isle of, 208\n\n    C\n\n    CABRAKAN, earth-giant in Kiche myth, 265 _et seq._\n    Cadmus, Greek solar hero, 122\n    Cahrocs, fire-stealing myth of, 149\n    Californian Indian creation myths, 180\n    Camulos, Celtic (Gaulish) tribal god, 294\n    Carayas Indians, culture myth of, 150\n    Caribs (Bakairi), their name for Earth-Mother, 134; name for\n       Milky Way, 141; (of Guiana) star myth of, 142; (Antillean)\n       beast myth of, 145; dismemberment myth of, 146; culture myth\n       of, 150; flood myth of, 153; place of reward of, 154; place\n       of punishment of, 154; creation myths of, 182\n    Castor and Pollux, their human form, 156\n    Caturix, Gaulish war-god, 294\n    Celtic myth of origin of heroes, 149; culture myth, 150; place\n       of reward, 153; place of punishment, 154; adventures in\n       Underworld, 155; sun myth, 155; creation myth, 169, 194;\n       Otherworld, 209-210; mythic system described generally, 294\n       _et seq._\n    Centeotl, Mexican maize-god, 134\n    Central Africans, death myth of, 151\n    Centzon Mimizcoa, Mexican name for the star-spirits, 211\n    Cephalus as sun, 50\n    Cerberus, dog guardian of Latin Hades, 44\n    Ceremonies representing details of myths, 87\n    Cherokee Indians, culture myth of, 150\n    Chiapas Indians, culture myth of, 150\n    Chicomecohuatl, Mexican maize-goddess, 299\n    Childhood, conservatism of, 64\n    _Childhood of Fiction_, Macculloch's, 222\n    Chinese creation myth, 166-167, 193\n    Chinook Indians, myths of, 31, 300-304; beast myth of, 145; myth of\n       journey through Underworld of, 155; food of the dead myth of, 155;\n       idea of after-life among, 213-214; mythic system of, 300-304\n    Chippeway Indian belief in after-life, 212\n    Choctaw Indians, myths of, 304; creation myth of, 306-307;\n      Paradise of, 307; priests of, 308\n    Cingalese, soul myth of, 152\n    Cipactli animal in Mexican myth, 98\n    Classification of myth, 138 _et seq._\n    Codex Regius, MS. of the Edda, 261-262\n    Coem, hero of Tupi-Guarani Indians, 183\n    Comes, Natalis, his interpretation of myth, 45\n    Compact with gods, 112-113, 117-118\n    Comparative mythology, 47\n    Comparative religion, 13\n    Comparative tables of myths, 144-157\n    Complementary process in folklore, 233\n    Con or Cun, thunder-god of the Collao of Peru, 309, 310\n    Conservatism of childhood, 64\n    Cook, Professor A. B., 89\n    Copacahuana, fish-goddess of Peruvians, 125-126, 315\n    Corn-sheaf, rites connected with, 128\n    Corn-spirit, 113-114; distinction between, and god, 128;\n       abode of, 129-130; as ruler of Underworld, 218\n    Cosmic egg in Japanese myth, 168\n    Cosmogony generally, _see_ Chapter VI, pp. 158 _et seq.; also_\n       Creation myths\n    Cosmogonies, relationship of, 187-193\n    'Covent Garden' school of mythology, 75\n    Cox, Rev. Sir G. W., advocates universality of the sun myth, 50;\n       on relationship of mythology to folklore, 223\n    Coyote, evil principle in Maidu\n    Indian creation myth, 180\n    Creation myths generally, _see_ Chapter VI, pp. 158 _et seq_.;\n       Babylonian, 34-35, 165-166; table of, 146-147; Egyptian, 163-165;\n       Chinese, 166-167; Jewish, 167; Japanese, 168; Iranian, 169;\n       Celtic, 169;  Norse, 170; Mexican, 171-172; Peruvian, 173; American\n       Indian, 174-186;  South American, 177-179; relationship of, 187-193;\n       conclusions on, 192-194; of the Choctaw Indians, 306-307\n    _Creation Myths of Primitive America_, Curtin's, 174\n    Creuzer, on religious nature of myth, 46\n    Cronus, and savage element in Greek myth, 18; as principle of time, 41;\n       deposed by his sons, 206; shares sovereignty of Elysium with\n       Rhadamanthus, 207\n    _Cult of Othin_, Chadwick's, 198\n    _Cultes, mythes, et religions_, Reinach's, 85, 109\n    Culture-heroes, 119\n    Culture myths, 149-150\n    \u00c7upay, Peruvian lord of the dead, 212, 218\n    Cupid and Psyche, myth of, 143\n    Curtin, Jeremiah, his _Creation Myths of Primitive America_\n       quoted, 174-177\n    Custom, reasons for its adoption inspired by tradition, 96\n    Customs or rites, myths of, classified, 157\n    Cythrawl, Celtic evil principle, 169-170\n\n    D\n\n    DAGDA, Irish deity, 295\n    Dakota Indians, soul myth of, 212\n    Dancing and myth, 238-239\n    Danu, Celtic goddess, 295\n    Darmesteter and meteorological myths, 51\n    Dea Domnann, Celtic goddess, 295\n    Dead, the, as gods, 42\n    Death, myths of, 142, 150-151\n    De Brosses, his explanation of myth, 45\n    Delphi, Apolline garden at, 95\n    Deluge myth, 36-37; classified, 153; Babylonian, 252-253;\n       Araucanian, 310-311\n    Demeter, myth of, 129-130, 288, 304\n    D\u00e9n\u00e9 Indians--_see_ Tinneh\n    Departmental gods, 116, 117, 118\n    _De pr\u00e6stigiis d\u00e6monum_, Wierus's, 232\n    Deucalion, 178\n    _Deutsche Mythologie_, 90\n    _Deutsche Sagen_, Brothers Grimm's, 90\n    Devetinus, a devil, 44\n    Dharma, Indian god of duty, 256\n    Diana, temple of, 78, 79; as moon-goddess, 127; Leland on, as\n       goddess of old religion, 237\n    Diana Nemorensis, priest of, 75\n    Diancecht, Irish deity, 295\n    _Dictionary of Mythology_, Spence's, 226\n    Dindje Indians, dismemberment myth of, 146\n    Dionysus, ivy cult of, 93, 94-95; and dismemberment myth, 143;\n       the rites of, 242 _et seq._; Homer on, 258\n    Dismemberment myths, 143; table of, 146\n    Distribution of myths, 70\n    Dragon, earth-, Great Mother evolved from, 98\n    Dragon legend, Elliot Smith on, 97-98\n    Dualism, 143-144\n    Dualistic myths, table of, 145-146; in Tupi mythology, 184\n    Duat, Egyptian Hades, 200-201\n    _Du culte des dieux f\u00e9tiches, ou parall\u00e8le de l'ancienne religion de\n       l'\u00c9gypte avec la religion actuelle de Nigritie_, De Brosses's, 45\n    Durga, Hindu goddess, 291\n    Dyaus, Hindu Vedic deity, 289\n\n    E\n\n    EA, Babylonian deity, 126, 287; creation of, 166; in myth of\n       Ut-Napishtim, 253, 254\n    Eabani, type of primitive man in Gilgamesh epic, 250 _et seq._\n    Earth-gods, 133-135\n    Earth-Mother, 133; evolved from earth-dragon, 98\n    Eclectic system in mythology, rationality of, 115\n    Eddas, the, 260-262; the Younger or Prose, 260; the Elder or Poetic, 261\n    Editing of myth, Peruvian example of, 16; Babylonian instance of, 34-35\n    Egg, cosmic, in Indian myth, 162; in Egyptian myth, 165\n    Egyptians, Plutarch on gods of, 15; animal-worship of, 45; dualistic\n       myth of, 145; dismemberment myth among, 146; culture myth of, 149;\n       soul myth of, 152; flood myth of, 153; place of reward of, 153;\n       place of punishment of, 154, 200-201; myth of journey through\n       Underworld of, 154; sun myth of, 155; moon myth of, 155; star myth\n       of, 156; creation myths of, 163-165, 193; Paradise of, 198-200;\n       mythic writings of, 245-248; general description of myths of, 285-286\n    Elf-arrow, 27\n    Elixir of life, and dragon, 97; as human blood, 97\n    Elysium, 206-207\n    Enigohatgea (Bad Mind), in Iroquois myth, 191\n    Enigorio (Good Mind), in Iroquois myth, 191\n    En-lil, Babylonian thunder-god, 124; creation of, 166, 287\n    Eos, as dawn, 50\n    Epona, Celtic (Gaulish) horse-goddess, 294\n    Eponymous animals, 125\n    Epunamun, Araucanian deity, 309-310\n    Esaugetuh Emissee, Choctaw creative deity, 306-307\n    Eskimos, soul myth of, 152; star myth of, 156\n    Ethical influences upon myth, 217-218\n    Euhemerus, his system, 42\n    Evolution of gods, 102 _et seq._; associated with conception of\n       spirit, 102-104\n    _Evolution of the Dragon, The_, Elliot Smith's, 96\n    \"Execration upon Vulcan,\" Jonson's, 280\n\n    F\n\n    _Faerie Queene_, mythological references in Spenser's, 278\n    Farnell, Lewis, his criticism of _The Golden Bough_, 81-83\n    Father May, May Day character in Brie, 136\n    Fauna, Latin rural deity, 135\n    Faunus, Latin rural deity, 135\n    Faust, Scottish, 228-233\n    Fetish, definition of, 24 _et seq._; difference between god\n       and, 25; development of, 104-108; air the element of, 106-107;\n       work of, 108; sale of, 108; religious ideas connected with,\n       lack force and permanence, 108; hunting, 116-117; sacrifice to, 116\n    Fetishism, in Greece, 20; nature of, 24 _et seq._; and evolution\n       of idea of god, 104, 107\n    Fiji Islanders, death myth of, 151\n    Finns, forest-god of, 76; dismemberment myth among, 146; creation myth\n       of, 147; food of the dead myth of, 155\n    Fire-gods, 130-131\n    Fire myths, 139; preponderance of American examples in, 139;\n       classification of, 152; myths of fire-stealing, 140, 149\n    Fire-stick, 94\n    Fisher beliefs of Scotland, 234\n    Fish-gods of America, 314-315\n    Fladdahuan (Hebrides), sacred stone in, 27\n    Flint-gods, 26\n    Flood myths, 36, 37; classified, 153; Babylonian, 252-253;\n       Araucanian, 310-311\n    Folklore, definition of, _12 et seq_.; and myth, 221 _et\n       seq._; complementary process in, 233\n    _Folklore as an Historical Science,_ Gomme's, 14 _n_.,\n       15 _n_., 90, 221, 233\n    Folk-tale, definition of, 12; appropriated by mythologists, 92;\n       and history, 92; dependence of, upon custom and superstition, 93\n    Fomorians, mythical Irish race of Titans, 294\n    Food of the dead, 37; myths of, classified, 155; the eating of, 304\n    Frazer, Sir J. G., definition of religion, 14; his _Golden Bough_,75;\n       his method founded on that of Mannhardt, 75; his thesis, 75-77;\n       criticism of, by Lang, 77-81\n    Freya, Teutonic goddess, 262, 292\n    Funeral practices of the Araucanian Indians, 313-314; of Pehuenche\n       Indians, 314\n\n    G\n\n    _G\u00c6A_, Greek earth-goddess, 18, 134, 283\n    Gallinomero (Californian) Indians, place of punishment of, 154\n    Gandharvas, Hindu deities, 291\n    Ganesa, Hindu god, 291\n    Garnega, St, in _Sir John Rowll's Cursing_, 44\n    Garog, in _Sir John Rowll's Cursing,_ 44\n    Garonhia, Iroquois Indian deity, 305\n    Garuda, Hindu deity, 256\n    Gaul, gods of, 294\n    Gayatri, Hindu deity, 256\n    Gayomart, Persian Adam, 169\n    Gehenna, Hebrew Hell, 203-206\n    Gelfion, in Scandinavian myth, 260\n    Gender-terminations, effect of, in beliefs regarding natural\n       phenomena, 52; anthropological school regards, as early survivals, 53\n    _German Myths_, Mannhardt's, 53\n    Germany, myths of, 90\n    _Ghastly Priest, The_, Lang's essay on, 75-81\n    Gilgamesh epic, 248-255; astrological aspect of, 254-255\n    Glooskap, central figure of New England Indian legends, 270 _et seq._\n    God, idea of, not animistic, 72; conception of soul not essential to\n       idea of, 72; original idea of, as 'magnified non-natural man,' 73-74;\n       idea of, developed from deified king, 97\n    Gods, in animal shape, 19; dialectical misunderstandings alter\n       nomenclature of, 30; grouping of, into a pantheon, 30; alien,\n       identified with national, 34; as elements, 41-42; developed\n       from the dead, 42; graves of, 42; names of, no guide to their\n       nature, 52; of vegetation, 75; totems attached to, 109; compact\n       with the, 112-113; of the chase, later secondary position of, 113;\n       agricultural, 113, 129; departmental, 116, 117, 118; of the sea, 125;\n       idea of, as dwelling in the sky, 219\n    _Gods of Egypt, The_, Budge's, 165 _n._\n    Gog, in _Sir John Rowll's Cursing_, 44\n    Goibnin, Celtic smith-god, 263, 295-296\n    Golden bough of myth situated in the Arician grove, 76; Virgil\n       on, 77-78; Servius on, 77-78;\n    Virgil's idea of, equated by Lang with mystic sword of romance, 77, 81;\n       human sacrifice and, 78, Proserpine and, 78; temple of, 78; what is\n       the? 80-81\n    _Golden Bough, The_, Frazer's, 75 _et seq._; criticism of,\n       by Lewis Farnell, 81\n    Gomme, Sir G. Laurence, on traditional narrative, 91; his standpoint,\n       90-92; on folklore and myth, 221-222; on restoration of myth, 233-234\n    Gorgon's head, Shelley's poem on, 279\n    Govannon, Celtic smith-god, 263.\n       _See also_ Goibniu\n    Gr\u00e6co-Roman myth, 282-285\n    Grannos, Celtic (Gaulish) god, 294\n    Great Mother, cowrie-shell as, 99\n    Greeks, mysteries of, 19; early religion of, 93; myth of birth _of_\n       gods of, 144; beast myth among, 144-145; dualistic myth of, 145;\n       dismemberment myth of, 146; creation myth of, 146; origin of man myth\n       among, 148; myth of origin of heroes among, 149; fire-stealing myth\n       of, 149; culture myth of, 150; taboo myth of, 150; death myth of, 151;\n       soul myth of, 152; flood myth of, 153; place of reward of, 153; place\n       of punishment of, 154, 206-207; myth of journey through Underworld\n       of, 154; food of the dead myth among, 155; sun myth of, 155; moon\n       myth of, 156; star myth of, 156; myth to account for rites among, 157;\n       ideas of Elysian fields among, 207\n    Green George, St George's Day character in Carinthia, 136\n    Grimm, J. L. K., 90\n    Grimm, W. K., 90\n    Grubb, W. Barbrook, on Lengua Indian creation myth, 180-181\n    Guaracy, Tupi Indian sun-god, 184\n    Guatemalans, place of punishment of, 154\n    Gucumatz in Kiche _Popol Vuh_, 265\n    Guecubu, demon of Araucanians of Chile, 310\n    Gulcheman, Araucanian Indian place of the dead, 313\n    Gwion Bach, British god, 296\n    Gwydion, British deity, 296\n    Gylfi in Scandinavian myth, 260\n\n    H\n\n    HADES, Greek, 206-207\n    _Hahe_, Samoyede fetish, 105\n    Haida, American Indian thunder-god, 123\n    Hanuman, monkey king in Hindu myth, 289\n    Hare or Hare-skin Indians--_see_ Tinneh\n    Harog, Teutonic god or spirit, 45\n    Harris, Dr Rendel, his view on myth, 93-95; Elliot Smith on views of, 96\n    'Harrying of Hell,' myth of, 31\n    Hartland, Sidney, his theories, 92-93\n    Hathor, Egyptian goddess, 27\n    \"H\u00e1vam\u00e1l\" Norse mythological hook, 261\n    Heaven, idea of, 195 _et seq._; localized in the sky, 218-219\n    Hebrews, myth of origin of heroes of, 149; taboo myth of, 150;\n       soul myth of, 152; fire myth of, 152; flood myth of, 153; creation\n       myth of, 167; place of punishment of, 203-206\n    Hecat\u00e6us of Miletus, his interpretation of myth, 42\n    Hecate, infernal goddess, 278\n    Heh, Egyptian sky-god, 165\n    Hel, the Teutonic Hades, 196-197\n    Hel, Teutonic goddess of death, 196, 197, 218\n    Hell, idea of, 195 _et seq._; localized as beneath the\n       earth, 219-220. _See also_ Places of punishment\n    Heph\u00e6stus, as fire, 41, 130-131, 284\n    Hera, Greek deity, as air, 41; mother of Heph\u00e6stus, 130;\n    Homer on, 258; wife of Zeus, 283; described, 284\n    Herman, G., explains myth by etymology, 48\n    Hermes, Greek deity, 284\n    Hermitten, Brazilian Indian hero-god, 183\n    Hero myths, classified, 149. _See also_ Culture myths\n    Herse, Greek deity, as the dew, 50\n    Hindus, dualistic myths of, 145; creation myths of, 147; myth of\n       origin of man among, 148; myths of origin of heroes among, 149;\n       death myth of, 151; flood myth of, 153; sun myth of, 155; star\n       myth of, 156, 159-160; gods of, 20, 289 _et seq._; mythical\n       literature of 255 _et seq._\n    History, its relation to myth, 15 _n._, 42, 58, 92\n    _History of the Affairs of New Spain_, Sahagun's, 210, 264\n    _History of the New World called America_, Payne's, 83, 84, 105\n    Hiyeda No Ra Rae, reciter of Japanese myth and history, 259\n    Homeric period, religion of, 258\n    Horus, Egyptian god, 29-30, 122, 198-199; confused with Great\n       Mother, 98; described, 286\n    Hottentot beliefs, 71; dualistic myths, 145; death myth, 151\n    Hun-Apu, Kiche god, adventures of, in _Popol Vuh_,265 _et seq._;\n       overcomes giants, 266, 302\n    Hunhun-Apu and Vukub-Hunapu, adventures of, in _Popol Vuh_, 266\n       _et seq._\n    Hunting gods, 116-117\n    Hurakan, Kiche creative god, 172, 309; in _Popol Vuh_, 265\n    Huron Indians, myth of the birth of gods among, 144; dualistic\n       myth of, 145; myth of the origin of man of, 148; culture myth\n       of, 150; death myth of, 151; moon myth of, 156; belief in\n       after-life of, 212\n    \"Hymn to Proserpine,\" Swinburne's, mythical references in, 280\n\n    I\n\n    IKANAM, Chinook creator, 301\n    Ikenuwakcom, Indian thunder-god, 302\n    _Iliad_, the, 20, 257-259\n    Imagination, theory of the universal resemblance of human, 93\n    Incas (Peru), dualistic myth of, 145; creation myth of, 147\n    Indians of Nicaragua, their mode of sacrifice, 107\n    Indra, Hindu god, myth of, 20; as a quail, 123; birth of, 160;\n       mentioned, 130, 256, 289, 291\n    Inniskea, Irish island, sacred stone of, 27\n    Inspiration, value of, in mythic elucidation, 293\n    _Introduction to Mythology and Folklore,_ Cox's, 50, 133\n    _Introduction to the History of Religion,_ Jevons', 86\n    Ioi, sister of Blue Jay, in Chinook myth, 301\n    Ipurina Indians, their belief about Orion, 141\n    Iranian creation myth, 169\n    Irin Mag\u00e9 deity of Tupi-Guarani Indians, 139, 183\n    Iris, Xenophanes on, 41\n    Irish gods, 294 _et seq._; myths, 295 _et seq._\n    Iron, spirits' dread of, 234-235\n    Iroquois Indians, dualistic myth of, 146; creation myth\n       of, 147, 179-180; myth of the Two Brothers of, 191;\n       belief in after-life of, 212\n    Ishtar and Tammuz, myth of, 251; described, 288\n    Isis, Egyptian goddess, 129-130, 246, 286\n    Italapas, coyote-god of the Chinook Indians, 301, 303\n    Italy, modern magic in, 236-237\n    Ivy, as sacred plant, 94-95\n    Izanagi, Japanese creative god, 168\n    Izanami, Japanese creative goddess, 168\n\n    J\n\n    JACK-IN-THE-GREEN, 137\n    Jacy, Tupi Indian moon-god, 184\n    Japanese, creation myth of, 147, 168, 194; culture myth of, 150;\n       place of punishment of, 154; adventures in Underworld of, 155;\n       mythic literature, 259-260\n    Jevons, Dr F. B., on myths, 86; his _Introduction to the History of_\n       _Religion_, 86\n    Joskeha (White One), Huron Indian deity, 37, 191\n    J\u00f6tunn, Norse giants alluded to in the \"V\u00f6lusp\u00e1,\" 261, 293\n    \"Journey of Skirnir, The,\" Norse mythic book, 261\n    Juno, 80; as mother of Vulcan, 279\n    Jupiter, myth of, as swan, 28; equated with Zeus and Tyr, 48;\n       as thunder-deity, 124; Leland on invocation to, 237; in Shelley's\n       _Prometheus Unbound_, 276; in Milton's _Paradise Lost_, 277;\n       Spenser on, 278\n    Jurupari, Brazilian Indian deity, 192\n\n    K\n\n    KALI, Hindu goddess, variant of Durga, 291\n    Kame, Carib Indian hero-god, 182\n    Karaya Indians, star myth of, 140; their myth about Milky Way, 141;\n       their myth about Orion, 141\n    Karma, Hindu deity, 159\n    Kartikeya, Hindu god, 256\n    Karu, hero-god of the Mundruku Indians, 183\n    Keri, hero-god of Bakairi (Carib) Indians, 182\n    Keridwen, British goddess, 227, 296\n    Khepera, Egyptian creative deity, 163; Osiris takes form of, 164\n    Khnemu, creative acts of, 165\n    Kiche Indians (Guatemala), creation myth of, 147, 172, 264-265; their\n       myth of origin of man, 148; their myth of origin of heroes, 149,\n       265-268; Underworld of, 212; mythical history of, 268 _et seq._\n    _Kinder- und Hausm\u00e4rchen_, Brothers Grimm's, 90\n    King, as tree-spirit, 76\n    _King of Tars, The_, English romance, mythical references in, 43\n    Kingu, Babylonian monster, 35\n    Klaatsch, Dr, on Australians, 37\n    Kneph, Egyptian god, 298\n    Kodoyanpe, Maidu Indian creation myth of, 180\n    _Kojiki_, Japanese mythic book, 259\n    Krimen, Tupi-Guarai Indian hero, 183\n    Krishna, Hindu deity, cult of, 257\n    Kuhn, and meteorological myths, 51\n    Kuni-toko-tachi, Japanese god, 168\n    Kuvera, Hindu deity, 256\n\n    L\n\n    LADAKS of Tibet, place of punishment of, 154\n    Laestrin, his interpretation of myths from nebular phenomena, 51\n    Lafitau, his interpretation of Indian totems, 29; indicates savage\n       element in myth, 45\n    Lang, Andrew, on solar myth, 54; on Spencer's theories, 60; works\n       of, 66 _et seq._; his position, 66; distrust of M\u00fcller's\n       conclusions, 66; on 'disease of language,' 67; on the sacred and\n       frivolous in religion, 67; his conception of myth, arguments\n       against, 69; his general thesis, 69; his theory attached to\n       evolutionary systems, 70; his three stages of myth, 70; his\n       _Modern Mythology_,71-72; his anti-animistic hypothesis, 72-73;\n       his _Making of Religion_, 72-74; his 'All-Father' theory and\n       sky-gods, 74 _n_.; his criticism of Frazer's _Golden\n       Bough_, 75-77\n    Language and formation of myth, 56\n    Lares, the, 237\n    Latin earth-gods, 134\n    Laurel as sacred plant, 94\n    \"Lay of Hoarbeard,\" Norse mythic book, 261-262\n    Leda, Roman goddess, 28\n    Legend, definition of, 12; Gomme's definition of, 90\n    _Legend of Perseus, The_, Hartland's, 93\n    Leland, C. G., his _Aradia_, 236-237; his _Kuloshap the\n       Master_, 270-271\n    Lengua Indians of South America, creation myth of, 180-181; ideas\n       of the after-life among, 214-215\n    Leto, mother of Apollo, as darkness, 121\n    Life-index, the, 247 _n._\n    Lightning spear, the, 124\n    Lithuanian May Day festival, 136\n    Little May Rose, Alsatian May Day character, 136\n    Little Leaf Man, Thuringian May Day character, 136\n    Llud Llaw Ereint, British deity, 295\n    Loki, Scandinavian deity, 131, 292-293; as fire-god, 293\n    Lox, Algonquin deity, 143\n    Lug, Irish god, 295\n    Lunar gods, 126-127; their qualities, 127; connexion with water, 127\n\n    M\n\n    _Mabinogion_, Welsh mythical book, 262\n    Macculloch, Dean, on folk-tale and myth, 222-223\n    Macha, Irish war-goddess, 296\n    McLennan, J. F., his writings on totemism, 59\n    Madagascar, dismemberment myth of natives of, 146\n    _Magic and Religion_, Lang's, 75\n    Magic, in modern Italy, 236-237\n    _Mahabharata_, the, 257\n    Maire, Tupi-Guarani deity, 183\n    Maize-gods of Mexico, 299\n    _Making of Religion, The_, Lang's, 66, 71, 72\n    Makonaima, Arawak creative god, 177-178\n    Malays, soul myth of, 152\n    Malsum the Wolf in North American Indian legend, 271-272\n    Mama Allpa, Peruvian earth-goddess, 134\n    Mama-cocha ('Mother Sea'), Peruvian goddess, 125, 314\n    Mama Nono, Carib Earth-Mother, 134, 182\n    Man, primitive, irrationality of, 17; his thirst for knowledge, 21;\n       'magnified non-natural,' regarded as earliest type of god by\n       Lang, 73-74; imagination of, 93; not an inventive animal, 96;\n       myths of origin of, classified, 148; creation of, _see_\n       Chapter VI, 158 _et seq._\n    Manannan mac Lir, lord of Irish Hades, 263, 295\n    Manawyddan, British deity, 263, 295\n    Mandan Sioux Indians, creation myth of, 182\n    Mani, Polynesian god, myth of, 142\n    Mannhardt, his defection from the philological school, 53; his\n       method, 54; Frazer's method founded on that of, 75; on vegetation\n       spirits, 79\n    Maoris, their myth of original man, 148\n    Marett, Dr R. R., on myth as non-explanatory, 15 _n_.; on\n       pre-animistic beliefs, 23 _et seq._; his _Threshold of\n       Religion_, 88; on the 'religious' in animism and mythology, 88;\n       on etiological myths, 89\n    Marine deities, 125\n    Maya, belief in destruction by fire among, 139; culture myth of, 150;\n       fire myth of, 152\n    Mars, as agricultural god, 124\n    May-time ceremonies in Scotland, 248 _et seq._\n    Medico-religious practice, 300\n    Medieval mythology, 43\n    Melanesians, their myth of origin of man, 148; culture myth of, 150\n    Mercury, Roman deity, 32, 237, 294\n    Merodach, Babylonian god, 167, 283, 288-289; as sun-god, 120;\n       defeats Tiawath, 166; described, 286-287\n    Metaphysics, savage, 21\n    Meteorological school of mythology, 51\n    Meulen, god of Araucanian Indians of Chile, 310, 312\n    Mexicans, myths of birth of gods of, 144; creation myth of, 147;\n       myth of the origin of heroes of, 149; culture myth of, 150; flood\n       myth of, 153; place of punishment of, 154; star myth of, 156.\n       _See also_ Aztecs\n    Mexican myth, flint-gods in, 26 _et seq._; of Uitzilopochtli, 32;\n       creation myths, 171-172; Heaven, 210-211; Hades, 211; sources\n       of, 263-270; mythology described, 296 _et seq._\n    Mexico, Payne on mythology of, 84; Mother-goddess in, 98;\n       blood-sacrifice in, 113\n    Michabo, Algonquin Indian creative god, 139, 177\n    Mictecaciuatl, wife of Mictlantecutli, 211\n    Mictlantecutli, lord of the Mexican Hades, 196, 211, 218 Milky Way,\n       in South American myth, 141; as Slavonic path to Heaven, 209; as\n       American Indian route to Paradise, 211-212\n    Milton, mythology of, 44\n    Minerva, 278; Ben Jonson mentions, 280; described, 284\n    Minos, 206\n    Mithra, Persian deity, 289\n    Mitra, Hindu deity, 289\n    Mixcoatl, Mexican god, 124\n    Mjolnir, hammer of Thor, 294\n    _Modern Mythology_, Lang's, 66, 71\n    Mohammed confused with gods, 43\n    Mohammedans, soul myth of, 152\n    Monan, deity of Tupi-Guarani Indians, attempts destruction of\n       world, 139, 183\n    Monotheism, causes of, 30\n    Moon-gods, 126-127; their qualities, 127; connexion with water, 127;\n       goddess, her connexion with fertility, 127; with love, 127;\n       myths classified, 155-156\n    Morrigan, Irish war-goddess, 296\n    Mother-goddess in Mexico, 98\n    Mound-building in America, 305-306\n    Moxos Indians, star myth of, 140\n    M\u00fcller, K. O., his view of mythic science, 46\n    M\u00fcller, Professor Max, definition of religion, 14; on character of\n       early thought, 21 _et seq._; his interpretation of myth, 47\n       _et seq._; 50-51; applied methods of comparative philology\n       to myth, 48; described myth as 'a disease of language,' 48; his\n       critics, 4950; opposed by anthropological school, 52; his theory\n       of effect of gender-terminations upon beliefs regarding natural\n       phenomena, 52; Mannhardt on his theory, 53\n    Mummification, theory of soul developed from, 79\n    Mummu, Babylonian monster, 34-35, 166\n    Mundruku Indians, creation myth of, 183\n    Murri tribe, fire-stealing myth of, 149\n    Muskhogean Indians, traditions of, 305\n    Muyscas Indians, flood myth of, 153; moon myth of, 156\n    Mysteries, Greek, 19\n    Myth, definitions of, 11, 12 _et seq._, 87; regarded by some as\n       religious in character, 13, 20, 63, 88; its inter-relation with\n       comparative religion, 14 _et seq_.; elements of, 15 _n._;\n       its relations with history, 15 _n.,_ 34, 42, 58, 90-91, 92;\n       savage and irrational element in, 15, 16, 18 _et seq_.,\n       45, 65, 67, 69-90; editing of, 16, 18, 33-35; and early science, 20;\n       invention of, 21; development of, 30-31, 58; and spirit of sanctity,\n       32-33; fusion in, 33; purgation of, 33; explanation of, lost, 34;\n       antiquity of, 33-34; causes of its change, 33-34; classification\n       of, 35 _et seq._; distribution of, 35-36; theory of origin of,\n       in one centre, 36; fixity of, 38, 55-56; authenticity of, 39;\n       Christian fathers on, 43; 'psychic' explanation of, 43; scientific\n       treatment of, 46; its comprehension through language, 48, _and\n       see_ M\u00fcller; as natural phenomena, 43; 'pragmatical' explanation\n       of, 43; M\u00fcller's interpretation of, 50; personalism in, 56; among\n       races of low culture, 56; and natural phenomena, 57; names in, 57-58;\n       its regularity of development, 58; regarded by some as non-religious\n       in character, 61, 68, 87, 92; and ritual, 61, 64, 89, 238; as\n       primitive philosophy, 62; interpreted by allegory, renders ancient\n       forms significant, 62; non-ethical nature of, 64; difference between,\n       and religion, 68; early, not essentially absurd or blasphemous, 69;\n       difference between dogma and, one of degree only, 69; arguments\n       against Lang's conception of, 69; Lang's three stages of, 70;\n       interpretations of, in accordance with contemporary ideas, 70;\n       complexity of, 70; comparison of savage with 'civilized,' 71;\n       stratification theory of, 81-82; survival of, due to grouping, 86;\n       secondary, 90, 238; in early, animals take place of gods, 109; solar,\n       its groundwork, 120; various classes of, 138; and folklore, connexion\n       between, 234; written  sources of, 245 _et seq._; in English\n       poetry, 275-281\n    _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, Lang's, 66, 67, 83\n    Mythic law, nature of, 30-31; resolution of materials of, into\n       their original elements, 47; recapitulation of progress of science\n       of, 100-101\n    'Mythological habit' (interpretation of myth by one method), denounced\n       by Mannhardt, 53\n    _Mythologie et les fables expliqu\u00e9es par l'histoire, La_, Abb\u00e9\n       Banier's, 45\n    Mythology, function of, 11; and folklore contrasted, 12 _et seq._;\n       definition of, 12 _et seq._; chronological sketch of, 40 _et\n       seq._; in the eighteenth century, 45; symbolic method applied\n       to, 46; comparative, 47; comparative philology and, 47 _et seq._;\n       philological school of, 47-51; described by M\u00fcller as 'a disease\n       of language,' 48; anthropological school of, 51; meteorological\n       school of, 51; Spencer's system of, 59-60; takes the place of\n       dogma in early religion, 61; exactitude essential to study of, 65;\n       'Covent Garden' school of, 75; theory of non-religious nature of, 88;\n       growth of moral and ethical characteristics in, 114-115\n    _Mythology and Folklore_, Cox's, 223\n    _Mythology of the Aryan Nations,_ Cox's, 50\n    Myths, what they explain, 15; \u00e6tiological or explanatory, 21, 58, 89;\n       animistic, 31; bird, 31-32; creation, 34-35; connexion between\n       Old and New World, 36; deluge or flood, 56; resemblance between, not\n       necessarily borrowed, 37; borrowing of, 37, 189-192; characteristics\n       of primitive, 37-38; sophisticated, 37-38; method of gauging antiquity\n       of, 38; process of interaction of, 38; thunder and lightning, 51;\n       nature poetry in, 53-54; _solar_, 36; Lang on, 54; Tylor's\n       general thesis regarding, 55; secondary, 62, 90, 238; diffusion of\n       identical, 70; distribution of plots of, 70; dissemination of, 70, 97;\n       details of, represented in ceremonies, 87; comparative tables\n       of, 144-157\n\n    N\n\n    NAGAS, Hindu mythical beings, 256\n    Naman, Irish war-goddess, 296\n    Namaquas, death myth of, 151\n    Names, in myth, 57-58; Spencer's theory of, 60; Lang on philological\n       analysis of, 71\n    Narcissus, 45\n    Natural phenomena in myth, 43, 57\n    Navaho Indians, creation myth of, 147; fire-stealing myth of, 149;\n       after-life of, 213\n    Neevougi, sacred stone of Inniskea, 27\n    Neith, Egyptian goddess, 127\n    Nemi, priest of, 76\n    Neptune, 126\n    Nergal, Babylonian god of Netherworld, 254, 288\n    N\u00e9t, Celtic war-god, 295\n    Newhaven, myth of Brounger current in, 26\n    _New System, or an Analysis of Ancient Mythology_, Bryant's, 46\n    New Zealanders, fire-stealing myth of, 149; myth of death among, 151\n    Nibelungs, the, 262\n    Niflheim, 170, 197\n    _Nihongi_, Japanese mythic book, 168, 260\n    Ningphos (Bengal), taboo myth of, 150; death myth of, 151\n    Nirig, Assyrian war-god, 287\n    Nokomis, Algonquin Indian Earth-Mother, 134\n    Normandy peasantry, fire-stealing myth of, 149\n    Nuada of the Silver Hand, Irish deity, 295\n    Nusku, Babylonian god, 288\n    Nut, Egyptian sky-goddess, 165\n    Nya, ruler of Slavonic Underworld,\n\n    O\n\n    OAK, 'animistic repository of thunder,' 94\n    Odin, Norse god, 45; as thunder-bird, 123; as wind-god, 132;\n       in creation myth, 170; as Wild Huntsman, 197; sacrifices his\n       eye for draught of water, 226; leads \u00c6sir migration, 260;\n       in the Eddas, 261; described, 292\n    _Odyssey_, the, 257-259\n    Ogma, Irish deity, 295\n    Oki, Powhatan deity, 305\n    Okulam, Chinook myth, 302\n    Old Harry, spirit, 45\n    Ops, Latin goddess of fertility or wealth, 134\n    Oregon Indians, creation myth of,\n    Orestes, his myth etiological, 79\n    Orinoco tribe, culture myth of, 150\n    Orion, different conceptions of, 140; constellations of, in South\n       American myth, 141-142; Bakairi idea of, 182\n    Orithyia, 95\n    Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda), Persian creative deity, 169\n    _Orpheus_, Reinach's, 85\n    _Osiride et Iside_, Plutarch's, 246\n    Osiris, 135, 218, 220, 246, 285; myth of, built up, 39;\n       as corn-spirit, 113-114, 129-130; his development, 113-114;\n       and dismemberment myth, 143; as Creator, 164\n    Otherworld, Celtic, 209-210\n\n    P\n\n    PACARI TAMPU, Peruvian myth of, 16\n    Pachacamac, Peruvian thunder-god, 16, 173-174\n    Pallas Athene, 20; according to Pragmatic, Psychic, and Stoic\n       schools, 43; referred to by Milton, 278; Brigit compared with, 296\n    Pampas Indians, belief in after-life, 212\n    Pan, myth of, 132\n    P'an Ku, Chinese creative deity, 167\n    Pantheons, causes which modified, 30\n    Papagos Indians, creation myth of, 147\n    Paradise, 195 _et seq._\n    Paraguayans, culture myth of, 150\n    Passes of Brazil, belief about earth of, 134\n    Patagonians, belief in after-life, 212\n    Pawnee Indians, dismemberment myth of, 146; creation myth of, 147;\n       myth to account for customs or rites of, 157\n    Payne, E. J., his _History of the New World called America_, 84\n    Pehuenche Indians of South America, 314; whale-goddess of, 314\n    Pentecost Islanders, dualistic myth of, 146; death myth of, 151\n    Pentheus, legend of, 243\n    \"Period of the Gods,\" a cycle of Japanese myths, 260\n    Peroun, Slavonic god, 28\n    Persephone, 114; myth of, 129-130, 206, 288, 304\n    Persians, dualistic myth of, 145; creation myth of, 146; flood\n       myth of, 153; place of reward of, 153\n    Personality, theory of--_see_ Animism\n    Peruda, Tupi god of generation, 184\n    Peruvian Indians, their name for Earth-Mother, 134; belief in\n       destruction by fire among, 139; myth of birth of gods among, 144;\n       creation myth of, 147; their myth of origin of man, 148; their\n       myth of origin of heroes, 149; culture myth of, 150; fire myth\n       of, 152; flood myth of, 153; place of punishment of, 154; moon\n       myth of, 156; star myth of, 156\n    Peruvian myth, 16, 84; sun-god in, 119; Mama-cocha ('Mother Sea')\n       in, 125, 314; Copacahuana (idol) in, 125; creation myth, 173-174;\n       Paradise and Hell in, 212\n    Pherecydes of Leros, his adjustment of myth to popular belief, 42\n    Pherecydes of Syros, his treatise on myth, 41-42\n    Philological school, the, 47-51; its sub-schools, 50; method of,\n       criticized by Lang, 71\n    Picumnus, 134\n    Picus, Latin deity, 32, 117\n    Pillan, Araucanian deity, 308-309, 312\n    Pilumnus, Latin rural deity, 134\n    Pirrhua Manca, Peruvian sun-god, 16\n    Place of punishment, 195 _et seq._; myths of, classified, 154\n    Place of reward, 195 _et seq._; myths of, classified, 153-154\n    Plant cults, 93\n    Pleiades, different conceptions of, 140, 141, 142, 156; Bakairi idea\n       of, 182; Tupi-Guarani idea of, 184\n    Plutarch, on Egyptian animal deities, 15; his pragmatical explanation\n       of myth, 43; his writings on Egyptian myth, 246\n    Pluto, ruler of Greek Hades, 45, 206, 218\n    Podarge, white-footed wind, 133\n    Poetry, English, myth in, 275-281\n    Polynesians, dismemberment myth of, 146; myth of origin of man of, 148;\n       death myth of, 151 olyonymy, factor in formation of myth, 48\n    Polytheism, definition of, 29; strange gods readily adopted in a\n       state of, 34\n    Pomona, Latin goddess of fruit-trees, 135\n    _Popol Vuh_, Kiche mythic book, 172, 187, 190; not influenced\n       by Biblical ideas, 188-189; material of, 264; creation story\n       in, 264-265; importance of, 269; English translation of, in\n       _The Word_ by Guthrie, 270\n    Porphyry on myth, 43\n    Poseidon, Greek sea-god, 41, 126; as brother of Pluto, 206\n    'Powers,' Marett's definition of, 24\n    Prajapati, Indian creative deity, 160-161\n    _Prehistoric Man_, Wilson's, 306 _n._\n    Priests, Araucanian, 312\n    _Primitive Culture_, Tylor's, 55-58\n    _Primitive Marriage_, McLennan's, 59\n    Prince, Professor, 271\n    _Principles of Sociology_, Spencer's, 59\n    Prithivi, Hindu Earth-Mother, 289\n    Procris, as dew, 50\n    Prodicus, his interpretation of myth, 42\n    _Prolegomena zit einer wissensch\u00e4ftlicher\n    Mythologie_, M\u00fcller's, 46\n    Prometheus, bird-form of, 123; as fire-stealer, 140; compared with\n       Loki, 293\n    _Prometheus Unbound_, Shelley's poem, 276\n    Proserpine and golden bough, 78, 80, 81\n    Proteus, Gwydion compared with, 296\n    Ptah, Egyptian creative god, 115, 165, 285\n    Pueblo Indians, belief in destruction by fire, 139\n    Punchau Inca, Inca sun-god, 309\n    Purusha, Indian deity, 159-160\n    Pyrrha, 178\n\n    Q\n\n    QUEENSFERRY (Scotland), ceremony of Burry Man at, 135-137\n    Quetzalcoatl, as agricultural god, 129; in creation myth, 171; as\n       Mexican wind-god, 264-299\n    Qui-oki, Nottoway god, 305\n\n\n\n    R\n\n    RA, Egyptian solar deity, 114, 115; as creator in form of Khepera, 163;\n    chief of Egyptian heaven, 199; described, 285\n    Ragnor\u00f6k, Norse day of doom, 261\n    Raini, Mundruku creator, 183\n    _Ramayana_, the, Hindu epic, 256 _et seq._\n    Rama, 256\n    Reinach, Salomon, his works, 84-85, 109\n    Religion, definitions of, 14; pre-animistic, 23; sacred and frivolous\n       in, 67; difference between myth and, 68; primitive, two great types\n       of, 82\n    _Religion of the Semites_, Robertson Smith's, 61, 83\n    Religious sentiment, survival of, 70\n    _Researches into the Early History of Mankind_, Tylor's, 55\n    _Revue de l'histoire des religions,_ Tiele's, 65\n    _Rex Nemorensis_ (King of the Wood), 79\n    Rhadamanthus, one of the tribunal of the Greek Underworld, 206;\n       ruler of Elysian Fields, 207\n    Rhea, wife of Cronus, 18, 134, 276, 277\n    \"R\u00edgsm\u00e1l,\" Norse mythic book, 262\n    _Rig-Veda_, Indian sacred book, creation myth in, 159-160\n    Rites, myths of, classified, 157\n    Ritual, and myth, 89, 238 _et seq.;_ movements, 239;\n       in folk-belief, 239-240\n    River Chaco Indians of South America, creation myth of, 183\n    Romans, their myth of origin of heroes, 149; soul myth of, 152;\n       fire myth of, 152; place of reward of, 153; moon myth of, 156\n    Round Table, King Arthur's, as the sun, 122\n    Rudra, Hindu deity, 132, 291; swallows universe, 163\n    Rumanians, dismemberment myth of, 146\n    Russians, dismemberment myth of, 146\n    Rustem, as sun-hero, 122\n\n    S\n\n    SABITU, Assyrian sea-goddess, 252, 254\n    Sacred, idea of the, 33; sacred stones, 27\n    Sahagun, Father Bernardino, Spanish historian of Mexico, 263-264\n    Samoyede fetishes, 104-105\n    _Satapatha Brahmana_, Hindu sacred book, creation myth\n       in, 160 _et seq._\n    Saturn, Milton on, 277; Keats on, 276-277\n    Savage and civilized myths compared, 71-72\n    Savage and irrational element in myth, 15, 16, 45, 51; Tiele\n       on, 65; Lang on, 67\n    Scandinavian creation myth, 170, 193-194\n    Schelling, Friedrich, on myth and national development, 46\n    Science, early, and myth, 20 _et seq._\n    _Science of Fairy Tales_, Hartland's, 92\n    _Science of Language_, Sayce's, 223\n    Scotland, Faust legend variant in, 228-233; fisher beliefs of, 234;\n       boat-language of fishers of, 235; taboo of animal names in, 235;\n       May-time ceremonies in, 240 _et seq._\n    Sea-gods, 125\n    Secondary myth, 90; frequently arises out of ritual, 238\n    Serpent, horned, in American myth, 307\n    Servius, his allegorical interpretation of the golden bough, 78\n    _Shaddai_, or _Shedi_ ('my demon'), early form of Yahweh, 74\n    Shamans, of Chinooks, 303-304\n    Shamash, Babylonian god, 250, 288\n    Sheol, Hebrew Hades, 203-204\n    Shesu-Heru, 198\n    Shintoism in the _Kojiki_ and _Nihongi,_ 260\n    _Shropshire Folklore_, Burne's, 226\n    Shu, Egyptian god, 165; birth of, 163\n    _Sidhe_ (fairy folk) in Irish myth, 295\n    Siegfried, 122\n    Sif, Norse goddess, wife of Thor, 294\n    Sigfusson, S\u00e6mund, Norse historian, 261\n    Sigu, deity of Arawak Indians,\n    Sigurd, as sun-hero, 122\n    Sin, Scandinavian deity, 123\n    Sin, Babylonian moon-god, 288\n    _Sir John Rowll's Cursing_, mythological allusions in, 44-45\n    Sita, Hindu goddess, 256\n    Siva, Hindu deity, 291\n    Skasa-it (Robin) in myths of Chinook Indians, 302\n    Skrymir, Norse giant, 45\n    Sky, Egyptian ideas regarding, 165\n    Sky-god, and Lang's 'All-Father' deities, 74 _n_.; European, 89;\n       Sky-Father, 133\n    Slavonic place of the dead, 207-209\n    Smith, Professor G. Elliot, theories of, 36-37. 95-100\n    Smith, William Robertson, his theories regarding myth, 61-64;\n       on the non-religious character of myth, 61\n    Snorri Sturlason, Norse mythologist, 260\n    Socrates, on the analysis of divine names, 42\n    Solar myth, 36; Lang on, 54; its groundwork, 120-122\n    'Solar' theory, its mythological merits, 120\n    Solomon Islanders, death myth of, 151\n    Soma, 256, 291\n    \"Song of Thrym, The,\" Norse mythic book, 262\n    Soul, early beliefs about, 22 _et seq.;_ conception of, 59;\n       conception of, not essential to idea of god, 72; myths of,\n       classified, 151-152; search for, among the Chinooks, 303-304;\n       belief regarding, among Araucanian Indians, 313\n    South America, star myths of, 140-142; creation myths of, 177-179\n    Southern Cross (constellation), in South American myth, 141;\n       different conceptions of, 184\n    Southern Indians, death myth of, 151\n    Spencer, Herbert, his definition of religion, 14; his system of\n       mythology, 59; refutation of his theories by Lang, 60\n    Spirit, Tylor on, 59, 102; idea of, 102-104; distinction between,\n       and god, 128; idea of, connected with wind or breath, 298\n    Staden, Hans, on Tupi-Guarani beliefs, 183\n    Star myths, 140-142; classified, 156\n    Stars, personification of, 202\n    Stratification of myth, theory of, 81-82\n    _Studies in Ancient History_, McLennan's, 59\n    Subterranean passage, legend of, 227-228\n    Sun-gods, 118-122; in Peru, 119; later phases of, 119; in Egyptian\n       mythology, 119-120; animistic and anthropomorphic ideas of, 120;\n       myths classified, 155; worship in Mexico, 299-300; in America, 305\n    Supernaturalism, Marett's definition of, 24\n    Surya, Hindu deity, 289\n    Susa-no-o, Japanese deity, 260\n    Sym Skynar, 45\n    _Symbolik und Mythologie_, Creuzer's, 46\n    Synonymy, factor in formation of myth, 48\n\n\n    T\n\n    TABOO, myths of, 143; myths of, classified, 150; of animal names\n       in Scotland, 235\n    Tacullies, creation myth of, 147\n    _Taittiriya Brahmana_, Hindu sacred book, creation myth in, 160-161\n    Tales, children and 'mis-telling' of, 38\n    Taliesin, ancient British bard, 296\n    Talmud, the, 204\n    Tamandare, Tupi-Guarani hero, 183\n    Tammuz, Babylonian deity, 251, 288\n    Tangoroa, in Polynesian dismemberment myth, 143\n    Tapio, forest-god of Finns, 76\n    Tartarus, region in the Greek Hades, 206\n    Tawiscara, (Dark One), Huron evil deity, 27, 37, 191\n    Taylor, Thomas, his translation of Pausanias, 46\n    Tefnut, Egyptian goddess, 163; birth of, 164\n    Tempuleague, whale-goddess of the Pehuenche Indians, 314\n    Tepeyollotl, Mexican god, 134\n    Termagent or Tyr, Scandinavian deity, 43\n    Test of recurrence in myth, 32, 47, 91; definition of, 39; Lang on, 71\n    Tethra, lord of Celtic Underworld, 295\n    Teutates, 294\n    Teutonic mythology described, 292 _et seq._\n    Teutons, dualistic myth of, 145; creation myth of, 147; culture myth\n        of, 150; taboo myth of, 150; fire myth of, 152; flood myth of, 153;\n        place of reward of, 153; place of punishment of, 154; creation\n        stories among, 170; realm of woe of, 196; Valhalla of, 197; mythic\n        writings of, 260-262\n    Texts, comparative lateness of most traditional, 91\n    Tezcatlipoca, Mexican deity, 74, 115, 133, 171, 264; as Lord of Night\n    Wind, 132, 297-298\n    Theagenes of Rhegium, 15; his criticism of myth, 41\n    Theobiography, or life-history of gods, 63\n    Thetis supplies Apollo with divine food, 121\n    Thlinkeet Indians, thunder-god of, 123; myth of birth of god of, 144;\n       beast myth of, 145; dualistic myth of, 146; fire-stealing myth\n       of, 149\n    Thoms, W. J., his definition of folklore, 223\n    Thor, Norse deity, 123, 124, 262, 293-294\n    Thoth, Egyptian deity, 115, 127, 285; commands creation, 165\n    _Threshold of Religion_, Marett's, 23, 88\n    Thunder and lightning, myths of, 51\n    Thunder-gods, 122-124; Andean ideas of, 122; as birds, 123-124;\n       their lightning spears, 123; connected with flint, 124;\n       with rain, 124\n    Thunderer, supernatural being of Chinook Indians, 301\n    Tiawath, Babylonian monster, 34-35, 166, 167, 283, 287\n    Tiele, Cornelius Petrus, his position, 65; on barbarous survivals, 65;\n       on the anthropological school, 65-66\n    Tien or Shang-ti, Chinese creative deity, 167\n    Time, reckoning of, anciently regarded as a science, 126-127\n    Tinneh or D\u00e9n\u00e9 Indians (Hare-skins), beast myths of, 145; creation\n       myth of, 147; soul myth of, 152; flood myth of, 153\n    Titans, Keats on, 277\n    Tlaloc, Mexican water-god, 171, 299, 309; as ruler of terrestrial\n       Paradise, 196, 210\n    Tlazolteotl, Mexican goddess, 115\n    Tobacco, ceremonial use of, among American tribes, 312\n    Toci, Mexican Earth-Mother, 299\n    Todas Indians, myth to account for custom or rites of, 157\n    Tohil, deity of Kiche Indians, 26, 268\n    Tollan, ancient Mexican city, 264\n    Toltecs, culture myth of, 150\n    Tonacaciuatl, Aztec creative goddess, 211\n    Tonacatecutli, Aztec creative deity, 211\n    Tonga Islanders, place of reward of, 154\n    Tootah, thunder-bird of Vancouver Islanders, 123\n    Torquemada, writer on Mexican myth, 264\n    Toru-guenket, Tupi moon and principle of evil, 184\n    Toru-shom-pek, Tupi sun and principle of good, 184\n    Totemism, definitions of, 28-29; German ignorance of, 85\n    Totems, British, 28; examples of, in myth, 28; allusion to, in\n       antiquity, 29; Lafitau's interpretation of, 29; Jevons on, 86;\n       development of, into gods, 108-110; animal attributes of, 109;\n       distribution of, among tribal gods, 109; manner of determining, 109;\n       causes which tend to humanize, 110; various methods of fusion of,\n       with the god, 110\n    Tradition, definition of, 11; use of the term, 13 _n_.; comparative\n       lateness of written, 91; unequal method of recording, 91;\n       interpretation of its testimony, 91; evidence of age in, 91;\n       metamorphoses of, 91\n    Transition from hunting to agricultural religion, 117\n    _Tree of Life_, Crawley's, 14\n    Tree-spirit, in cult of Arician grove, 76; represented by\n       living person, 76\n    Triduana, St, legend of, 224-227\n    Trophonius, 121, 206\n    Tsuki-yumi, Japanese moon-god, 168\n    Tuatha de Danann (Children of Danu), Celtic deities, 220, 263, 294, 295\n       _et seq._\n    Tuonela, Finnish place of dead, 304\n    Tupi-Guarani Indians, star myth of, 141; dualistic myth of, 146; fire\n       myth of, 152; flood myth of, 153; creation myth of, 183-186\n    Tutivillus, a fiend, 44\n    Two Brothers, Egyptian story of, 247-248\n    Tylor, Sir E. B., definition of religion, 14; his general thesis, 55-56;\n       on language and formation of myth, 56-57; his animistic theory, 58-59\n    Tyr, Norse deity equated with Jupiter and Zeus, 48\n    Tzentals, creation myth of, 147\n    Tzitzimime, Aztec demons, 211\n\n    U\n\n    UAP\u00c8S of Brazil, birth of gods myth of, 144, 191-192\n    Uitzilopochtli, Mexican deity, 32, 264, 298-299; evolved from\n       humming-bird, 32 _n_., 110; evolved  from bird totem, 117;\n       as lightning, 123; serpent symbols of, 124; sacrifices to, 198\n    _Ulmenes_, lesser spirits of Araucanian Indians, 311\n    Underworld, myths of, classified, 154-155; man originates in, in\n       American myth, 181-182\n    Undry, cauldron of Dagda, a Celtic deity, 295\n    Unseen, fear of, 103\n    Upsala Codex, the, of Younger Edda, 261\n    Uranus, first monarch of Olympus, 18, 53, 283\n    Ut-Napishtim, myth of, 252-253\n\n    V\n\n    \"VAFPR\u00daTHNISM\u00c5L,\" the, Norse mythic book, 261\n    Valhalla, Norse Heaven, 197-198\n    Varuna, Hindu god, 53, 130, 256, 289\n    Vasus, 256\n    Vayu, Hindu deity, 256, 289\n    Vedas, Hindu sacred books, 255-256; savagery in, 20\n    Veddah of Ceylon, fetishism among,106\n    Vedde-Yakko, Cingalese fetish of chase, 106\n    Vedic Hindus, wind-god of, 132; myth of birth of gods of, 144;\n       fire-stealing myth of, 149; myth of place of reward of, 153\n    Vegetation spirits, 79; rites, 135-137\n    Venus, 237; as wife of Vulcan, 279; allusions to, in poetry of\n       Swinburne, Lord de Tabley, and Ben Jonson, 280-281; associated\n       with Ishtar, 288\n    Vidhatri, Hindu god, 256\n    Vine, sacred, 94-95\n    Viracocha, Peruvian water-god, 16\n    Virgil on the golden bough, 77-78\n    Vishnu, Hindu deity, 256, 257, 290, 291\n    _Vishnu Purana_, Hindu sacred book, creation myth in, 161-163\n    Vivasvat, 256\n    Volsungs, Teutonic mythical family, 262\n    \"V\u00f6lusp\u00e1,\" the, Norse mythical book, 261\n    Vukub-Cakix, 'the great Macaw' in Kiche myth, 172, 265 _et seq._\n    Vulcan or Heph\u00e6stus, as god of fire, 131; referred to by Milton and\n       Ben Jonson, 297\n\n    W\n\n    WA\u00cfNAMO\u00cfNEN, Finnish deity, 304\n    _Wallum-Olum_, mythic book of Lenap\u00e9 Indians, 245\n    _Wampum Record_, Algonquin book translated by Prince, 271\n    Water, its connexion with moon, 127\n    Wells, holy, 226\n    Welsh Celts, mythic book of, 262-263\n    West, as place of the dead, 219 and 313\n    Westcar Papyrus, 246-247\n    _Western Isles_, Martin's, 27\n    Wind connected with spirit or life 298; gods of, 132-133\n    Wiradthuri tribes, 157\n    Wizard, 'scoring' a, 28\n    Women's rites, 243-244\n    World, creation of, _see_ Chapter VI, 158 _et seq._\n    Wurm manuscript, of Younger Edda, 261\n\n    X\n\n    XBALANQUE, hero-god of Kiche Indians, 265 _et seq._\n    Xenophanes of Colophon, his criticism of myth, 40-41\n    Xibalba, Hades of Kiches of Guatemala, 212-213, 266 _et seq._;\n       ruled by secret society, 212-213\n    Xilonen, Mexican maize-goddess, 299\n    Ximenez, translator of _Popol Vuh_ into Spanish, 187, 270\n    Xiuhtecutli, Mexican fire-god, 131, 171\n    Xmucane, 172\n    Xolotl, Mexican god, 172\n    Xpiyacoc, Kiche primeval deity, 172\n\n    Y\n\n    YAHWEH, god of Hebrews, early form of, 74, 201-202\n    Yama, 256\n    Yesumaro, transcriber of Japanese myth, 259\n    Yetl, thunder-bird (Athapascan), 123, 179\n    Yibil, Babylonian fire-god, 131\n    Ymir, Norse earth-giant, 170\n    _Ynglinga Saga_, the, Norse mythic book, 261\n    Yorkshire, soul myth in, 152\n    Yuba Paik, deity of Choctaw Indians, 304\n    Yurakare Indians, star myth of, 141\n\n    Z\n\n    ZEALAND, creation of island of, 260\n    Zephyrs, as west wind, 133\n    Zeus, Greek deity, birth of, 18; as principle of life, 41;\n       equation of, with Jupiter and Tyr, 48; philological\n       school and his name, 48, 53, 289; as woodpecker, 94;\n       oak the dwelling-place of, 94; father of Apollo, as the\n       sky, 121, 305; father of Heph\u00e6stus, 130; casts him from\n       Olympus, 131; transforms the Pleiades into doves, 142;\n       brother of Pluto, 206; as portrayed by Homer, 258;\n       described, 283\n    Zipacna, earth-giant in Kiche myth, 265 _et seq._\n    Zootheism, 300,\n    Zulus, creation myth of, 147; myth of origin of man of, 148;\n       culture myth of, 150\n    Zu\u00f1i Indiana, dismemberment myth of, 146; creation myths\n       of, 147, 183; myth of origin of man of, 148","title":"An Introduction to Mythology","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":117069}