{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_66192/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_66192","id":"gutenberg_66192","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/66192","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Heroes","Mythology -- Psychological aspects","Psychology, Pathological"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\nObvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations\nin hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other\nspelling and punctuation remains unchanged.\n\nFootnote 20 is referenced twice several pages apart in the text.\n\nItalics are represented thus _italic_.\n\nThe cover was prepared by the transcriber and is placed in the public\ndomain.\n\n\n\n\n                 NERVOUS AND MENTAL DISEASE MONOGRAPH\n                            SERIES, NO. 18\n\n\n                   The Myth of the Birth of the Hero\n\n              A Psychological Interpretation of Mythology\n\n\n                                  BY\n                             DR. OTTO RANK\n                               of Vienna\n\n\n                       Authorized Translation by\n                DRS. F. ROBBINS and SMITH ELY JELLIFFE\n\n\n                               NEW YORK\n\n               THE JOURNAL OF NERVOUS AND MENTAL DISEASE\n                          PUBLISHING COMPANY\n\n                                 1914\n\n\n\n\n              NERVOUS AND MENTAL DISEASE MONOGRAPH SERIES\n\n                               Edited by\n\n               Drs. SMITH ELY JELLIFFE and WM. A. WHITE\n\n                            Numbers Issued\n\n\n1. Outlines of Psychiatry. (4th Edition) $3.00.\n  By Dr. William A. White.\n\n2. Studies in Paranoia.\n  By Drs. N. Gierlich and M. Friedman.\n\n3. The Psychology of Dementia Praecox. (Out of Print.)\n  By Dr. C. G Jung.\n\n4. Selected Papers on Hysteria and other Psychoneuroses.\n  (2d Edition.) $2.50. By Prof. Sigmund Freud.\n\n5. The Wassermann Serum Diagnosis in Psychiatry. $2.00.\n  By Dr. Felix Plaut.\n\n6. Epidemic Poliomyelitis. New York, 1907. (Out of Print.)\n\n7. Three Contributions to Sexual Theory. $2.00.\n  By Prof. Sigmund Freud.\n\n8. Mental Mechanisms. $2.00.      By Dr. Wm. A. White.\n\n9. Studies in Psychiatry. $2.00.\n  New York Psychiatrical Society.\n\n10. Handbook of Mental Examination Methods. $2.00.\n  By Shepherd Ivory Franz.\n\n11. The Theory of Schizophrenic Negativism. $0.60.\n  By Professor E. Bleuler.\n\n12. Cerebellar Functions. $3.00.\n  By Dr. Andr\u00e9-Thomas.\n\n13. History of Prison Psychoses. $1.25.\n  By Drs. P. Nitsche and K. Wilmanns.\n\n14. General Paresis. $3.00.      By Prof. E. Kraepelin.\n\n15. Dreams and Myths. $1.00.       By Dr. Karl Abraham.\n\n16. Poliomyelitis. $3.00.              Dr. I. Wickmann.\n\n17. Freud\u2019s Theories of the Neuroses. $2.00.\n  Dr. E. Hitschmann.\n\n18. The Myth of the Birth of the Hero. $1.00.\n  Dr. Otto Rank.\n\n\n                          Copyright, 1914, by\n               THE JOURNAL OF NERVOUS AND MENTAL DISEASE\n                     PUBLISHING COMPANY, NEW YORK\n\n                               PRESS OF\n                     THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY\n                            LANCASTER, PA.\n\n\n\n\n                          TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n  Introduction                                                         1\n\n  Sargon                                                              12\n\n  Moses                                                               13\n\n  Karna                                                               15\n\n  \u0152dipus                                                              18\n\n  Paris                                                               20\n\n  Telephos                                                            21\n\n  Perseus                                                             22\n\n  Gilgamos                                                            23\n\n  Kyros                                                               24\n\n  Tristan                                                             38\n\n  Romulus                                                             40\n\n  Hercules                                                            44\n\n  Jesus                                                               47\n\n  Siegfried                                                           53\n\n  Lohengrin                                                           55\n\n  Index                                                               95\n\n\n\n\n                   THE MYTH OF THE BIRTH OF THE HERO\n\n             [A PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF MYTHOLOGY]\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe prominent civilized nations, such as the Babylonians, Egyptians,\nHebrews, and Hindoos, the inhabitants of Iran and of Persia, the\nGreeks and the Romans as well as the Teutons and others, all began at\nan early stage to glorify their heroes, mythical princes and kings,\nfounders of religions, dynasties, empires or cities, in brief their\nnational heroes, in a number of poetic tales and legends. The history\nof the birth and of the early life of these personalities came to\nbe especially invested with fantastic features, which in different\nnations even though widely separated by space and entirely independent\nof each other present a baffling similarity, or in part a literal\ncorrespondence. Many investigators have long been impressed with this\nfact, and one of the chief problems of mythical research still consists\nin the elucidation of the reason for the extensive analogies in the\nfundamental outlines of mythical tales, which are rendered still more\nenigmatical by the unanimity in certain details, and their reappearance\nin most of the mythical groupings.[1]\n\nThe mythological theories, aiming at the explanation of these\nremarkable phenomena, are, in a general way, as follows:\n\n(1) The \u201cIdea of the People,\u201d propounded by Adolf Bastian[2] [1868].\nThis theory assumes the existence of _elementary thoughts_, so that\nthe unanimity of the myths is a necessary sequence of the uniform\ndisposition of the human mind, and the manner of its manifestation,\nwhich within certain limits is identical at all times and in all\nplaces. This interpretation was urgently advocated by Adolf Bauer[3]\n[1882], as accounting for the wide distribution of the hero myths.\n\n(2) The explanation by original community, first applied by Th. Benfey\n[Pantschatantra, 1859] to the widely distributed parallel forms of\nfolklore and fairy tales. Originating in a favorable locality [India]\nthese tales were first accepted by the primarily related [namely the\nIndo-Germanic] peoples, then continued to grow while retaining the\ncommon primary traits, and ultimately radiated over the entire earth.\nThis mode of explanation was first adapted to the wide distribution of\nthe hero myths by Rudolf Schubert[4] [1890].\n\n(3) The modern theory of migration, or borrowing, according to which\nthe individual myths originate from definite peoples [especially the\nBabylonians], and are accepted by other peoples through oral tradition\n[commerce and traffic], or through literary influences.[5]\n\nThe modern theory of migration and borrowing can be readily shown to\nbe merely a modification of Benfey\u2019s theory, necessitated by newly\ndiscovered and irreconcilable material. The profound and extensive\nresearch of modern investigations has shown that not India, but rather\nBabylonia, may be regarded as the first home of the myths. Moreover\nthe mythic tales presumably did not radiate from a single point, but\ntravelled over and across the entire inhabited globe. This brings into\nprominence the idea of the interdependence of mythical structures, an\nidea which was generalized by Braun[6] [1864], as the basic law of\nthe nature of the human mind: Nothing new is ever discovered as long\nas it is possible to copy. The theory of the elementary thoughts, so\nstrenuously advocated by Bauer over a quarter of a century ago, is\nunconditionally declined by the most recent investigators [Winckler,[7]\nStucken], who maintain the migration and purloining theory.\n\nThere is really no such sharp contrast between the various theories,\nand their advocates, for the theory of the elementary thoughts does\nnot interfere with the claims of the primary common possessions and\nthe migration. Furthermore, the ultimate problem is not whence and\nhow the material reached a certain people; but the question is,\n_where did it come from to begin with?_ All these theories would only\nexplain the variability and distribution, but not the origin of the\nmyths. Even Schubert, the most inveterate opponent of Bauer\u2019s view,\nacknowledges this truth, by stating that all these manifold sagas date\nback to a single very ancient prototype. But he is unable to tell us\nanything of the origin of this prototype. Bauer likewise inclines to\nthis mediating[8] view and points out repeatedly that in spite of\nthe multiple origin of independent tales, it is necessary to concede\na most extensive and ramified purloining, as well as an original\ncommunity of the concepts, in related peoples. The same conciliatory\nattitude is maintained by Lessmann, in a recent publication[9] [1908],\nin which he rejects the assumption of the elementary thoughts, but\nadmits that primary relationship and purloining do not exclude one\nanother. As pointed out by Wundt, it must be kept in mind, however,\nthat the appropriation of mythical contents always represents at the\nsame time an independent mythical construction; because only that can\nbe permanently retained which corresponds to the purloiner\u2019s stage of\nmythological ideation. The faint recollections of preceding narratives\nwould hardly suffice for the re-figuration of the same material,\nwithout the persistent presence of the underlying motives; but\nprecisely for this reason, such motives may produce new contents, which\nagree in their fundamental motives, also in the absence of similar\nassociations. (V\u00f6lker-Psychologie, II Vol., 3 Part, 1909).\n\nLeaving aside for the present the enquiry as to the mode of\ndistribution of these myths, the origin of the hero myth in general\nis now to be investigated, fully anticipating that migration,\nor borrowing, will prove to be directly and fairly positively\ndemonstrable, in a number of the cases. When this is not feasible,\nother view points will have to be conceded, at least for the present,\nrather than barricade the way to further progress by the somewhat\nunscientific attitude of Winckler,[10] who says: When human beings and\nproducts, exactly corresponding to each other, are found at remote\nparts of the earth, we must conclude that they have wandered thither;\nwhether we have knowledge of the how or when makes no difference in\nthe assumption of the fact itself. Even granting the migration of\nall myths, the provenance of the first myth would still have to be\nexplained.[11]\n\nInvestigations along these lines will necessarily help to provide a\ndeeper insight into the contents of the myths. Nearly all authors who\nhave hitherto been engaged upon the interpretation of the myths of\nthe birth of heroes find therein a personification of the processes\nof nature, following the dominant mode of natural mythological\ninterpretation. The new born hero is the young sun rising from the\nwaters, first confronted by lowering clouds, but finally triumphing\nover all obstacles [Brodbeck, Zoroaster, Leipzig, 1893, p. 138].\nThe taking of all natural, chiefly the atmospheric phenomena into\nconsideration, as was done by the first representatives of this method\nof myth interpretation;[12] or the regarding of the myths in a more\nrestricted sense, as astral myths [Stucken, Winckler and others]\u2014is\nnot so essentially distinct, as the followers of each individual\ndirection believe to be the case. Nor does it seem to be an essential\nprogress when the purely solar interpretation as advocated especially\nby Frobenius[13] was no longer accepted and the view was held that\nall myths were originally lunar myths, as done by G. H\u00fcsing, in his\n\u201cContributions to the Kyros Myth\u201d [Berlin, 1906], following out the\nsuggestion of Siecke, who [1908][14] claims this view as the only\nlegitimate obvious interpretation also for the birth myths of the\nheroes, and it is beginning to gain popularity.[15]\n\nThe interpretation of the myths themselves will be taken up in\ndetail later on, and all detailed critical comments on the above\nmode of explanation are here refrained from. Although significant,\nand undoubtedly in part correct, the astral theory is not altogether\nsatisfactory and fails to afford an insight into the motives of myth\nformation. The objection may be raised that the tracing to astronomical\nprocesses does not fully represent the content of these myths, and that\nmuch clearer and simpler relations might be established through another\nmode of interpretation. The much abused theory of elementary thoughts\nindicates a practically neglected aspect of mythological research. At\nthe beginning as well as at the end of his contribution, Bauer points\nout how much more natural and probable it would be to seek the reason\nfor the general unanimity of these myths in very general traits of\nthe human psyche, than in a primary community or in migration. This\nassumption appears to be more justifiable as such general movements of\nthe human mind are also expressed in still other forms, and in other\ndomains, where they can be demonstrated as unanimous.\n\nConcerning the character of these general movements of the human mind,\nthe psychological study of the essential contents of these myths might\nhelp to reveal the source from which has uniformly flowed at all times,\nand in all places, an identical content of the myths. Such a derivation\nof an essential constituent, from a common human source, has already\nbeen successfully attempted with one of these legendary motives. Freud,\nin his \u201cDream Interpretation,\u201d[16] reveals the connection of the \u0152dipus\nfable [where \u0152dipus is told by the oracle that he will kill his father\nand marry his mother, as he unwittingly does later on] with the two\ntypical dreams of the father\u2019s death, and of sexual intercourse with\nthe mother, dreams which are dreamed by many now living. Of King \u0152dipus\nhe says that \u201chis fate stirs us only because it might have been our\nown fate; because the oracle has cursed us prior to our birth, as it\ndid him. All of us, perhaps, were doomed to direct the first sexual\nemotion towards the mother, the first hatred and aggressive desire\nagainst the father; our dreams convince us of this truth. King \u0152dipus,\nwho has murdered his father Laios, and married his mother Iokaste, is\nmerely the wish fulfilment of our childhood.\u201d[17] The manifestation\nof the intimate relation between dream and myth,\u2014not only in regard\nto the contents, but also as to the form and motor forces of this and\nmany other, more particularly pathological psyche structures,\u2014entirely\njustifies the interpretation of the myth as a dream of the masses of\nthe people, which I have recently shown elsewhere (\u201cDer K\u00fcnstler,\u201d\n1907). At the same time, the transference of the method, and in part\nalso of the results, of Freud\u2019s technique of dream interpretation\nto the myths would seem to be justifiable, as was defended and\nillustrated in an example, by Abraham, in his paper on \u201cDreams and\nMyths\u201d [1909].[18] The intimate relations between dream and myth find\nfurther confirmation in the following circle of myths, with frequent\nopportunity for reasoning from analogy.\n\nThe hostile attitude of the most modern mythological tendency [chiefly\nrepresented by the Society for Comparative Mythological Research]\nagainst all attempts at establishing a relation between dream and\nmyth[19] is for the most part the outcome of the restriction of the\nparallelization to the so-called nightmares [Alptr\u00e4ume], as attempted\nin Laistner\u2019s notable book, \u201cThe Riddle of the Sphinx,\u201d 1889, and\nalso of ignorance of the relevant teachings of Freud. The latter\nhelp us not only to understand the dreams themselves, but also show\ntheir symbolism and close relationship with all psychic phenomena in\ngeneral, especially with the day dreams or phantasies, with artistic\ncreativeness, and with certain disturbances of the normal psychic\nfunction. A common share in all these productions belongs to a single\npsychic function, the human imagination. It is to this imaginative\nfaculty\u2014of humanity at large rather than individual\u2014that the modern\nmyth theory is obliged to concede a high rank, perhaps the first, for\nthe ultimate origin of all myths. The interpretation of the myths in\nthe astral sense, or more accurately speaking as \u201calmanac tales,\u201d\ngives rise to the query, according to Lessmann,\u2014in view of a creative\nimagination of humanity,\u2014if the first germ for the origin of such\ntales is to be sought precisely in the processes in the heavens;[20]\nor if, on the contrary, readymade tales of an entirely different\n[but presumably psychic] origin were only subsequently transferred\nto the heavenly bodies. Ehrenreich (General Mythology, 1910, p. 104)\nmakes a more positive admission: The mythologic evolution certainly\nbegins on a terrestrian soil, in so far as experiences must first be\ngathered in the immediate surroundings before they can be projected\ninto the heavenly universe. And Wundt tells us (loc. cit., p. 282)\nthat the theory of the evolution of mythology according to which it\nfirst originates in the heavens whence at a later period it descends\nto earth, is not only contradictory to the history of the myth,\nwhich is unaware of such a migration, but is likewise contradictory\nto the psychology of myth-formation which must repudiate this\ntranslocation as internally impossible. We are also convinced that the\nmyths,[21] originally at least, are structures of the human faculty\nof imagination, which at some time were projected for certain reasons\nupon the heavens,[22] and may be secondarily transferred to the\nheavenly bodies, with their enigmatical phenomena. The significance of\nthe unmistakeable traces which this transference has imprinted upon\nthe myths, as the fixed figures, and so forth, must by no means be\nunderrated, although the origin of these figures was possibly psychic\nin character, and they were subsequently made the basis of the almanac\nand firmament calculations, precisely on account of this significance.\n\nIn a general way it would seem as if those investigators who make use\nof an exclusively natural mythological mode of interpretation, in any\nsense, were unable, in their endeavor to discover the original sense\nof the mythical tales, to get entirely away from a psychological\nprocess, such as must be assumed likewise for the creators of the\nmyths.[23] The motive is identical, and led to the same course in the\nmyth creators as well as in the myth interpretorsIt is most na\u00efvely\nuttered by one of the founders and champions of comparative myth\ninvestigation, and of the natural mythological mode of interpretation,\nfor Max M\u00fcller points out in his \u201cEssays\u201d [1869][20] that this\nprocedure not only invests meaningless legends with a significance and\nbeauty of their own, but it helps to remove some of the most revolting\nfeatures of classical mythology, and to elucidate their true meaning.\nThis revolt, the reason for which is readily understood, naturally\nprevents the mythologist from assuming that such motives as incest\nwith the mother, sister or daughter; murder of father, grandfather\nor brother could be based upon universal phantasies, which according\nto Freud\u2019s teachings have their source in the infantile psyche, with\nits peculiar interpretation of the external world and its denizens.\nThis revolt is therefore only the reaction of the dimly sensed painful\nrecognition of the actuality of these relations; and this reaction\nimpels the interpreters of the myths, for their own subconscious\nrehabilitation, and that of all mankind, to credit these motives\nwith an entirely different meaning from their original significance.\nThe same internal repudiation prevents the myth-creating people from\nbelieving in the possibility of such revolting thoughts, and this\ndefence probably was the first reason for the projecting of these\nrelations to the firmament. The psychological pacifying through such\na rehabilitation, by projection upon external and remote objects, can\nstill be realized, up to a certain degree, by a glance at one of these\ninterpretations, for instance that of the objectionable \u0152dipus fable,\nas given by a representative of the natural mythological mode of\ninterpretation. \u0152dipus, who kills his father, marries his mother, and\ndies old and blind, is the solar hero who murders his procreator, the\ndarkness; shares his couch with the mother, the gloaming, from whose\nlap, the dawn, he has been born, and dies blinded, as the setting sun\n[Goldziher, 1876].[24]\n\nIt is intelligible that a similar interpretation is more soothing\nto the mind than the revelation of the fact that incest and murder\nimpulses against the nearest relatives are found in the phantasies of\nmost people, as remnants of the infantile ideation. But this is not\na scientific argument, and revolt of this kind, although it may not\nalways be equally conscious, is altogether out of place, in view of\nexisting facts. One must either become reconciled to these indecencies,\nprovided they are felt to be such, or one must abandon the study of\npsychological phenomena. It is evident that human beings, even in the\nearliest times, and with a most na\u00efve imagination, never saw incest and\nparricide in the firmament on high,[25] but it is far more probable\nthat these ideas are derived from another source, presumably human.\nIn what way they came to reach the sky, and what modifications or\nadditions they received in the process, are questions of a secondary\ncharacter, which cannot be settled until the psychic origin of the\nmyths in general has been established.\n\nAt any rate, besides the astral conception, the claims of the part\nplayed by the psychic life must be credited with the same rights for\nmyth formation, and this plea will be amply vindicated by the results\nof our method of interpretation. With this object we shall first take\nup the legendary material on which such a psychological interpretation\nis to be attempted for the first time on a large scale; selecting from\nthe mass[26] of these chiefly biographical hero myths those which are\nthe best known, and some which are especially characteristic. These\nmyths will be given in abbreviated form as far as relevant for this\ninvestigation, with statements concerning the provenance. Attention\nwill be called to the most important, constantly recurrent motives by a\ndifference in print.\n\n\n\n\n                                SARGON\n\n\nProbably the oldest transmitted hero myth in our possession is derived\nfrom the period of the foundation of Babylon (about 2800 B.C.),\nand concerns the birth history of its founder, Sargon the First.\nThe literal translation of the report\u2014which according to the mode\nof rendering appears to be an original inscription by King Sargon\nhimself\u2014is as follows:[27]\n\n\u201cSargon, the mighty king, King of Agade, am I. _My mother was a\nvestal, my father I knew not_, while my father\u2019s brother dwelt in the\nmountains. In my city Azupirani, which is situated on the bank of the\nEuphrates, my mother, the vestal, bore me. _In a hidden place she\nbrought me forth. She laid me in a vessel made of reeds_, closed my\ndoor with pitch, and _dropped me down into the river_, which did not\ndrown me. The river carried me to Akki, the water carrier. Akki the\nwater carrier lifted me up in the kindness of his heart, Akki the water\ncarrier raised me as his own son, Akki the water carrier made of me his\ngardener. In my work as a gardener I was beloved by Istar, I became the\nking, and for 45 years I held kingly sway.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                                 MOSES\n\n\nThe biblical birth history of Moses, which is told in Exodus, chapter\n2, presents the greatest similarity to the Sargon legend, even an\nalmost literal correspondence of individual traits.[28] Already the\nfirst chapter (22) relates that Pharaoh commanded his people to throw\ninto the water all sons which were born to Hebrews, while the daughters\nwere permitted to live; the reason for this order being referred to\nthe overfertility of the Israelites. The second chapter continues as\nfollows:\n\n\u201cAnd there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter\nof Levi[29]. And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw\nhim that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she\ncould no longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and\ndaubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she\nlaid it in the flags by the river\u2019s brink. And his sister stood afar\noff to wit what would be done to him. And the daughter of Pharaoh came\ndown to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the\nriver\u2019s side and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her\nmaid to fetch it. And when she opened it, she saw the child, and behold\nthe babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, this is one\nof the Hebrews\u2019 children. Then said his sister to Pharaoh\u2019s daughter,\nShall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may\nnurse the child for thee? And Pharaoh\u2019s daughter said to her, Go. And\nthe maid went and called the child\u2019s mother. And Pharaoh\u2019s daughter\nsaid unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will\ngive thee wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it. And the\nchild grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh\u2019s daughter, and he became\nher son. And she called his name Moses:[30] and she said, Because I\ndrew him out of the water.\u201d\n\nThis account is ornamented by Rabbi mythology through an account of\nthe events preceding Moses\u2019 birth. In the sixtieth year after Joseph\u2019s\ndeath, the reigning Pharaoh saw in his dream an old man, who held a\npair of scales, all the inhabitants of Egypt lay on one side, with\nonly a sucking lamb on the other, but nevertheless this outweighed all\nthe Egyptians. The startled king at once consulted the wise men and\nastrologers, who declared the dream to mean that a son would be born to\nthe Israelites, who would destroy all Egypt. The king was frightened,\nand at once ordered the death of all newborn children of the Israelites\nin the entire country. On account of this tyrannical order, the Levite\nAmram, who lived in Goshen, meant to separate from his wife Jocabed, so\nas not to foredoom to certain death the children conceived from him.\nBut this resolution was opposed later on by his daughter Miriam, who\nforetold with prophetic assurance that precisely the child suggested\nin the king\u2019s dream would come forth from her mother\u2019s womb, and would\nbecome the liberator of his people.[31]\n\nAmram therefore rejoined his wife, from whom he had been separated for\nthree years. At the end of three months, she conceived, and later\non bore a boy at whose birth the entire house was illuminated by an\nextraordinary luminous radiance, suggesting the truth of the prophecy.\n(After Bergel, \u201cMythology of the Hebrews,\u201d Leipzig, 1882.)\n\nSimilar accounts are given of the birth of the ancestor of the Hebrew\nnation, Abraham. He was a son of Therach\u2014Nimrod\u2019s captain\u2014and Amtelai.\nPrior to his birth, it was revealed to King Nimrod, from the stars,\nthat the coming child would overthrow the thrones of powerful princes,\nand take possession of their lands. King Nimrod means to have the child\nkilled immediately after its birth. But when the boy is requested from\nTherach, he says: Truly a son was born to me, but he has died. He then\ndelivers a strange child, concealing his own son in a cave underneath\nthe ground, where God permits him to suck milk from a finger of the\nright hand. In this cave, Abraham is said to have remained until the\nthird (according to others the tenth) year of his life. (Compare Beer,\n\u201cThe Life of Abraham,\u201d according to the interpretation of Jewish\ntraditions, Leipzig, 1859, and Aug. W\u00fcnsche, \u201cFrom Israel\u2019s Temples of\nLearning,\u201d Leipzig, 1907.) Also in the next generation, in the story\nof _Isaac_, appear the same mythical motives. Prior to his birth King\nAbimelech is warned by a _dream_ not to touch Sarah, as this would\ncause woe to betide him. After a long period of barrenness, she finally\nbears her son, who (in later life, in this report) after having been\ndestined to be _sacrificed by his own father_ (foster-father) Abraham,\nis ultimately _rescued_ by God. But Abraham casts out his own son\nIshmael, with Hagar, the boy\u2019s mother (Genesis 20, 6. See also Bergel,\nloc. cit.).\n\n\n\n\n                                 KARNA\n\n\nA close relationship with the Sargon legend is also shown in certain\nfeatures of the ancient Hindu epic[32] Mah\u00e2bh\u00e1r\u00e0ta, of the birth of the\nhero Karna. The contents of the legend are briefly rendered by Lassen\n(\u201cIndische Altertumskunde,\u201d I, p. 63).[33]\n\nThe princess Pritha, also known as Kunti, bore as a virgin the boy\nKarna, whose father was the sun god Surya. The young Karna was born\nwith the golden ear ornaments of his father and with an unbreakable\ncoat of mail. The mother in her distress concealed and exposed the\nboy. In the adaptation of the myth by A. Holtzmann,[34] verse 1458\nreads: \u201cThen my nurse and I made a large basket of rushes, placed a lid\nthereon, and lined it with wax; into this basket I laid the boy and\ncarried him down to the river Acva.\u201d Floating on the waves, the basket\nreaches the river Ganga and travels as far as the city of Campa. \u201cThere\nwas passing along the bank of the river, the charioteer, the noble\nfriend of Dhrtarastra, and with him was Radha, his beautiful and pious\nspouse. She was wrapt in deep sorrow, because no son had been given to\nher. On the river she saw the basket, which the waves carried close to\nher on the shore; she showed it to Azirath, who went and drew it forth\nfrom the waves.\u201d The two take care of the boy and raise him as their\nown child.\n\nKunti later on marries King Pandu, who is forced to refrain from\nconjugal intercourse by the curse that he is to die in the arms of his\nspouse. But Kunti bears three sons, again through divine conception,\none of the children being born in the cave of a wolf. One day Pandu\ndies in the embrace of his second wife. The sons grow up, and at a\ntournament which they arrange, Karna appears to measure his strength\nagainst the best fighter, Arjuna, the son of Kunti. Arjuna scoffingly\nrefuses to fight the charioteer\u2019s son. In order to make him a worthy\nopponent, one of those present anoints him as king. Meanwhile Kunti\nhas recognized Karna as her son, by the divine mark, and prays him to\ndesist from the contest with his brother, revealing to him the secret\nof his birth. But he considers her revelation as a fantastic tale, and\ninsists implacably upon satisfaction. He falls in the combat, struck by\nArjuna\u2019s arrow. (Compare the detailed account in Lefmann\u2019s \u201cHistory of\nAncient India,\u201d Berlin, 1890, p. 181, et seq.)\n\nA striking resemblance of the entire structure with the Karna legend is\npresented by the birth history of Ion, the ancestor of the Ionians, of\nwhom a relatively late tradition states the following:[35]\n\nApollo, in the grotto of the rock of the Athenian Acropolis, procreated\na son with Kreusa, the daughter of Erechtheus. In this grotto the\nboy was also born, and exposed; the mother leaves the child behind\nin a woven basket, in the hope that Apollo will not leave his son to\nperish. On Apollo\u2019s request, Hermes carries the child the same night to\nDelphi, where the priestess finds him on the threshold of the temple\nin the morning. She brings the boy up, and when he has grown into a\nyouth makes him a servant of the temple. Erechtheus later on gave his\ndaughter Kreusa in marriage to the immigrated Xuthos. As the marriage\nlong remained childless, they addressed the Delphian oracle, praying to\nbe blessed with progeny. The god reveals to Xuthos that the first to\nmeet him on leaving the sanctuary is his son. He hastens outside and\nmeets the youth, whom he joyfully greets as his own son, giving him\nthe name Ion, which means \u201cWalker.\u201d Kreusa refuses to accept the youth\nas her son; her attempt to poison him fails, and the infuriated people\nturn against her. Ion is about to attack her, but Apollo, who did\nnot wish the son to kill his own mother, enlightened the mind of the\npriestess so that she understood the connection. By means of the basket\nin which the newborn child had lain, Kreusa recognizes him as her son,\nand reveals to him the secret of his birth.\n\n\n\n\n                                \u0152DIPUS\n\nThe parents of \u0152dipus, King Laios and his queen, Jocaste, lived for a\nlong time in childless wedlock. Laios, who is longing for an heir, asks\nthe Delphic Apollo for advice. The oracle answers that he may have a\nson if he so desires; but fate has ordained that his own son will kill\nhim. Fearing the fulfilment of the oracle, Laios refrains from conjugal\nrelations, but being intoxicated one day, he nevertheless procreates a\nson, whom he causes to be exposed in the river Kithairon, barely three\ndays after his birth. In order to be quite sure that the child will\nperish, Laios orders his ankles to be pierced. According to the account\nof Sophocles, which is not the oldest, however, the shepherd who has\nbeen intrusted with the exposure, surrenders the boy to a shepherd of\nKing Polybos, of Corinth, at whose court he is brought up, according\nto the universal statement. Others say that the boy was exposed in a\nbox on the sea, and was taken from the water by Perib\u00f6a, the wife of\nKing Polybos, as she was rinsing her clothes by the shore.[36] Polybos\nbrought him up as his own son.\n\n\u0152dipus, on hearing accidentally that he is a foundling, asks the\nDelphian oracle for his own parents, but receives the prophecy that\nhe will kill his father and marry his mother. In the belief that this\nprophecy refers to his foster parents, he flees from Corinth to Thebes,\nbut on the way unwittingly kills his father Laios. By solving a riddle,\nhe frees the City from the plague of the Sphinx, a man-devouring\nmonster, and in reward is given the hand of Jocaste, his mother, as\nwell as the throne of his father. The revelation of these horrors,\nand the subsequent misfortune of \u0152dipus, were a favorite subject for\nspectacular display among the Greek tragedians.\n\nAn entire series of Christian legends have been elaborated on the\npattern of the \u0152dipus myth,[37] and the summarized contents of the\nJudas legend may serve as a paradigm of this group. Before his birth,\nhis mother Cyboread, is warned by a dream that she will bear a wicked\nson, to the ruin of all his people. The parents expose the boy in a box\non the sea. The waves cast the child ashore on the Isle of Scariot,\nwhere the childless queen finds him, and brings him up as her son.\nLater on, the royal couple have a son of their own, and the foundling,\nwho feels himself slighted, kills his foster brother. As a fugitive\nfrom the country, he takes service at the court of Pilate, who made\na confidant of him and placed him above his entire household. In a\nfight, Judas kills a neighbor, without knowing that he is his father.\nThe widow of the murdered man, namely his own mother, then becomes his\nwife. After the revelation of these horrors, he repents and seeks the\nSaviour, who receives him among his apostles. His betrayal of Jesus is\nknown from the Gospel.\n\nThe legend of St. Gregory on the Stone\u2014the subject of the narrative of\nHartmann von Aue\u2014represents a more complicated type of this mythical\ncycle. Gregory, the child of the incestuous union of royal lovers,\nis exposed by his mother in a box on the sea, saved and raised by\nfishermen, and is then educated in a convent for the church. But he\nprefers the life of a knight, is victorious in combats, and in reward\nis given the hand of the princess, his mother. After the discovery of\nthe incest, Gregory does penance for seventeen years, on a rock in the\nmidst of the sea, and he is finally made the Pope, at the command of\nGod. (Compare Cholevicas, \u201cHistory of German Poetry, According to the\nAntique Elements.\u201d)\n\nA very similar legend is the Iranese legend of King D\u00e2r\u00e2b, told by\nKing Firdusi in the Book of Kings, and rendered by Spiegel (Eranische\nAltertumskunde, II, 584). The last Kir\u00e2nian Behmen nominated as his\nsuccessor his daughter and simultaneous wife Hum\u00e2i; so that his son\nS\u00e2s\u00e2n was grieved and withdrew into solitude. A short time after the\ndeath of her husband, Hum\u00e2i gave birth to a son, whom she resolved to\nexpose. He was placed in a box, which was put into the Euphrates, and\ndrifted down stream, until it was held up by a stone, which had been\nplaced in the water by a tanner. The box with the child was found by\nhim, and he carried the boy to his wife, who had recently lost her own\nchild. The couple agreed to raise the foundling, and as the boy grew\nup, he soon became so strong that the other children were unable to\nresist him. He did not care for the work of his father, but learned to\nbe a warrior. His foster mother was forced by him to reveal the secret\nof his origin, and he joined the army which Hum\u00e2i was then sending out\nto fight the king of R\u00fbm. Her attention being called to him by his\nbravery, Hum\u00e2i readily recognized him as her son, and named him her\nsuccessor.\n\n\n\n\n                                 PARIS\n\nApollodorus relates of the birth of Paris: King Priamos had with\nhis wife Hekabe a son, named Hektor. When Hekabe was about to bear\nanother child, _she dreamed_ that she brought forth a burning log of\nwood, which set fire to the entire city. Priamos asked the advice of\nAisakos, who was his son with his first wife Arisbe, and an expert in\nthe interpretation of dreams. Aisakos declared that the child would\nbring trouble upon the city, and advised that it be exposed. Priamos\ngave the little boy to a slave, who carried him to the top of Mount\nIda; this man\u2019s name was Agelaos. _The child was nursed during five\ndays by a she-bear._ When Agelaos found that he was still alive, he\npicked him up, and carried him home to raise him. He named the boy\nParis; but after the child had grown into a strong and handsome youth,\nhe was called Alexandros, because he fought the robbers and protected\nthe flocks. Before long he discovered his parents. How this came about\nis told by Hyginus, according to whose report the infant is _found by\nshepherds_. One day messengers, sent by Priamos, come to these herders\nto fetch a bull which is to serve as the prize for the victor in the\ncombats arranged in commemoration of Paris. They selected a bull which\nParis valued so highly that he followed the men who led the beast away,\nassisted in the combats, and won the prize. This aroused the anger\nof his brother Deiphobos, who threatened him with his sword, but his\nsister Kassandra recognized him as her brother, and Priamos joyfully\nreceived him as his son. The misfortune which Paris later on brought\nto his family and his native city, through the abduction of Helena,\nis well known from Homer\u2019s poems, as well as their predecessors and\nsuccessors, their _prologue_ and _epilogue_.\n\nA certain resemblance with the story of the birth of Paris is presented\nby the poem of Zal, in Firdusi\u2019s Persian hero-myths (translated by\nSchack). The first son is born to Sam, king of Sistan, by one of\nhis consorts. Because he had white hair, _his mother concealed the\nbirth_. But the nurse reveals the birth of his son to the king. Sam\nis disappointed, and commands that the child be exposed. The servants\ncarry it on the top of Mount Alburs, where it is raised by the Somurgh,\na powerful bird. The full grown youth is seen by a travelling caravan,\nwhose members speak of him \u201cas whose nurse a bird is sufficient.\u201d King\nSam once _sees his son in a dream_, and sallies forth to seek the\nexposed child. He is unable to reach the summit of the elevated rock\nwhere he finally espies the youth. But the Somurgh bears his son down\nto him, he receives him joyfully and nominates him as his successor.\n\n\n\n\n                               TELEPHOS\n\nAleos, King of Tegea, was informed by the _oracle_ that his sons would\nperish through a descendant of his daughter. He therefore made his\ndaughter Auge a priestess of the goddess Athene, and threatened her\nwith death should she mate with a man. But when Herakles dwelt as a\nguest in the sanctuary of Athene, on his expedition against Augias, he\nsaw the maiden, and when intoxicated he raped her. When Aleos became\naware of her pregnancy, he delivered her to Nauplios, a rough sailor,\nwith the command to throw her into the sea. But on the way she gave\nbirth to Telephos, on Mount Parthenios, and Nauplios, unmindful of the\norders he had received, carried both her and the child to Mysia, where\nhe delivered them to King Teuthras.\n\nAccording to another version, Auge secretly brought forth as a\npriestess, but kept the child hidden in the temple. When Aleos\ndiscovered the sacrilege, he caused the child to be exposed in the\nParthenian mountains,[38] Nauplios was instructed to sell the mother in\nforeign lands, or to kill her. She was delivered by him into the hands\nof Teuthras.\n\nAccording to the current tradition, _Auge exposes the newborn child_\nand escapes to Mysia, where the childless King Teuthras adopts her as\nhis daughter. The boy, however, is nursed by a doe, and is found by\nshepherds who take him to King Korythos. The king brings him up as his\nson. When Telephos has grown into a youth he betakes himself to Mysia,\non the advice of the oracle, to seek his mother. He frees Teuthras,\nwho is in danger from his enemies, and in reward receives the hand of\nthe supposed daughter of the king, namely his own mother Auge. But\nshe refuses to submit to Telephos, and when he in his ire is about\nto pierce the disobedient one with his sword, she calls on her lover\nHerakles in her distress, and Telephos thus recognizes his mother.\nAfter the death of Teuthras he becomes king of Mysia.\n\n\n\n\n                                PERSEUS\n\nAkrisios, the king of Argos, had already reached an advanced age\nwithout having male progeny. As he desired a son, he consulted the\nDelphian oracle, but this warned him against male descendants, and\ninformed him that his daughter Danae would bear a son through whose\nhand he would perish. In order to prevent this, his daughter was locked\nup by him in an iron chamber, which he caused to be carefully guarded.\nBut Zeus penetrated through the roof, in the guise of a golden rain,\nand Danae became the mother of a boy.[39] One day Akrisios heard the\nvoice of young Perseus in his daughter\u2019s room, and in this way learned\nthat she had given birth to a child. _He killed the nurse_, but carried\nhis daughter with her son to the domestic altar of Zeus, to have an\noath taken on the true father\u2019s name. But he refuses to believe his\ndaughter\u2019s statement that Zeus is the father, and _he encloses her with\nthe child in a box,[40] which is cast into the sea_. The box is carried\nby the waves to the coast of Seriphos, where _Diktys, a fisherman_,\nusually called a brother of King Polydektes, _saves mother and child\nby drawing them out of the sea with his nets_. Diktys leads the two\ninto his house and keeps them as his relations. Polydektes, however,\nbecomes enamoured of the beautiful mother, and _as Perseus was in his\nway, he tried to remove him_ by sending him forth to fetch the head\nof the Gorgon Medusa. But against the king\u2019s anticipations Perseus\naccomplishes this difficult task, and a number of heroic deeds besides.\nIn throwing the discos, at play, he accidentally kills his grandfather,\nas foretold by the oracle. He becomes the king of Argos, then of\nTiryath, and the builder of Mykene.[41]\n\n\n\n\n                               GILGAMOS\n\nAelian, who lived about 200 A.D, relates in his \u201cAnimal Stories\u201d the\nhistory of _a boy who was saved by an eagle_.[42]\n\n\u201cAnimals have a characteristic fondness for man. An eagle is known to\nhave nourished a child. I shall tell the entire story, in proof of my\nassertion. When Senechoros reigned over the Babylonians, the Chaldean\nfortune-tellers foretold that the son of the king\u2019s daughter would\ntake the kingdom from his grandfather; this verdict was a prophecy of\nthe Chaldeans. The king was afraid of this prophecy, and humorously\nspeaking, he became a second Akrisius for his daughter, over whom\nhe watched with the greatest severity. But his daughter, fate being\nwiser than the Babylonian, conceived secretly from an inconspicuous\nman. For fear of the king, the guardians threw the child down from the\nAkropolis, where the royal daughter was imprisoned. The eagle, with his\nkeen eyes, saw the boy\u2019s fall, and before the child struck the earth,\nhe caught it on his back, bore it into a garden, and set it down with\ngreat care. When the overseer of the place saw the beautiful boy he was\npleased with him and raised him. The boy received the name Gilgamos,\nand became the king of Babylonia. If anyone regards this as a fable,\nI have nothing to say, although I have investigated the matter to the\nbest of my ability. Also from Achaemenes, the Persian, from whom the\nnobility of the Persians is derived, I learn that he was the pupil of\nan eagle.\u201d[43]\n\n\n\n\n                                 KYROS\n\nThe myth of Kyros, which the majority of investigators place in the\ncenter of this entire mythical circle, without entirely sufficient\ngrounds, it would appear\u2014has been transmitted to us in several\nversions. According to the report of Herodotus (about 450 B.C.), who\nstates (I, 95) that among four renderings known to him, he selected the\nleast \u201cglorifying\u201d version, the story of the birth and youth of Kyros\nis as follows, I, 107 et seq.[44].\n\nRoyal sway over the Medes was held, after Kyaxares, by his son\nAstyages, who had a daughter named Mandane. Once he saw, in a dream,\nso much water passing from her as to fill an entire city, and inundate\nall Asia. He related his dream to the dream interpreters among the\nmagicians, and was in great fear after they had explained it all to\nhim. When Mandane had grown up, he gave her in marriage, not to a\nMede, his equal in birth, but to a Persian, by name of Kambyses. This\nman came of a good family and led a quiet life. The King considered\nhim of lower rank than a middle class Mede. After Mandane had become\nthe wife of Kambyses, Astyages saw another dream vision in the first\nyear. He dreamed that a vine grew from his daughter\u2019s lap, and this\nvine overshadowed all Asia. After he had again related this vision to\nthe dream interpreters, he sent for his daughter, who was with child,\nand after her arrival from Persia, he watched her, because he meant\nto kill her offspring. For the dream interpreters among the magicians\nhad prophesied to him that his daughter\u2019s son would become king in his\nplace. In order to avert this fate, he waited until Kyros was born, and\nthen sent for Harpagos, who was his relative and his greatest confidant\namong the Medes, and whom he had placed over all his affairs. Him he\naddressed as follows: \u201cMy dear Harpagos, I shall charge thee with an\nerrand which thou must conscientiously perform. But do not deceive me,\nand let no other man attend to it, for all might not go well with thee.\nTake this boy, whom Mandane has brought forth, carry him home, and\nkill him. Afterwards thou canst bury him, how and in whatsoever manner\nthou desirest.\u201d But Harpagos made answer: \u201cGreat King, never hast thou\nfound thy servant disobedient, and also in future I shall beware not to\nsin before thee. If such is thy will, it behooves me to carry it out\nfaithfully.\u201d When Harpagos had thus spoken, and the little boy with all\nhis ornaments had been delivered into his hands, for death, he went\nhome weeping. On his arrival he told his wife all that Astyages had\nsaid to him. But she inquired, \u201cWhat art thou about to do?\u201d He made\nreply: \u201cI shall not obey Astyages, even if he raved and stormed ten\ntimes worse than he is doing. I shall not do as he wills, and consent\nto such a murder. I have a number of reasons: in the first place, the\nboy is my blood relative; then, Astyages is old, and he has no male\nheir. Should he die, and the kingdom go to his daughter, whose son he\nbids me kill at present, would I not run the greatest danger? But the\nboy must die, for the sake of my safety. However, one of Astyages\u2019 men\nis to be his murderer, not one of mine.\u201d\n\nHaving thus spoken, he at once despatched a messenger to one of the\nking\u2019s cattle herders, by name Mithradates, who, as he happened to\nknow, was keeping his herd in a very suitable mountain pasturage, full\nof wild animals. The herder\u2019s wife was also a slave of Astyages\u2019, by\nname Kyno in Greek, or Spako (a bitch) in the Medean language. When the\nherder hurriedly arrived, on the command of Harpagos, the latter said\nto him: \u201cAstyages bids thee take this boy and expose him in the wildest\nmountains, that he may perish as promptly as may be, and the King has\nordered me to say to thee: If thou doest not kill the boy, but let him\nlive, in whatever way, thou art to die a most disgraceful death. And\nI am charged to see to it that the boy is really exposed.\u201d When the\nherder had listened to this, he took the boy, went home, and arrived\nin his cottage. His wife was with child, and was in labor the entire\nday, and it happened that she was just bringing forth, when the herder\nhad gone to the city. They were greatly worried about each other. But\nwhen he had returned and the woman saw him again so unexpectedly, she\nasked in the first place why Harpagos had sent for him so hurriedly.\nBut he said: \u201cMy dear wife, would that I had never seen what I have\nseen and heard in the city, and what has happened to our masters. The\nhouse of Harpagos was full of cries and laments. This startled me, but\nI entered, and soon after I had entered, I saw a small boy lying before\nme, who struggled and cried and was dressed in fine garments and gold.\nWhen Harpagos saw me, he bid me quickly take the boy, and expose him in\nthe wildest spot of the mountains. He said Astyages had ordered this,\nand added awful threats if I failed to do so. I took the child and went\naway with it, thinking that it belonged to one of the servants, for it\ndid not occur to me whence it had come. But on the way, I learned the\nentire story from the servant who led me from the city, and placed the\nboy in my hands. He is the son of Mandane, daughter of Astyages, and\nKambyses the son of Kyros; and Astyages has ordered his death. Behold,\nhere is the boy.\u201d\n\nHaving thus spoken, the herder uncovered the child and showed it to\nher, and when the woman saw that he was a fine strong child, she wept,\nand fell at her husband\u2019s feet, and implored him not to expose it. But\nhe said he could not do otherwise, for Harpagos would send servants to\nsee if this had been done; he would have to die a disgraceful death\nunless he did so. Then she said again: \u201cIf I have failed to move thee,\ndo as follows, so that they may see an exposed child: I have brought\nforth a dead child; take it and expose it, but the son of the daughter\nof Astyages we will raise as our own child. In this way, thou wilt not\nbe found a disobedient servant, nor will we fare ill ourselves. Our\nstillborn child will be given a kingly burial, and the living child\u2019s\nlife will be preserved.\u201d The herder did as his wife had begged and\nadvised him to do. He placed his own dead boy in a basket, dressed him\nin all the finery of the other, and exposed him on the most desert\nmountain. Three days later he announced to Harpagos that he was now\nenabled to show the boy\u2019s cadaver. Harpagos sent his most faithful body\nguardians, and ordered the burial of the cattle herder\u2019s son. The other\nboy, however, who was known later on as Kyros, was brought up by the\nherder\u2019s wife. They did not call him Kyros, but gave him another name.\n\nWhen the boy was twelve years old the truth was revealed, through the\nfollowing accident. He was playing on the road, with other boys of his\nown age, in the village where the cattle were kept. The boys played\n\u201cKing,\u201d and elected the supposed son of the cattle herder.[45] But\nhe commanded some to build houses, others to carry lances; one he\nmade the king\u2019s watchman, the other was charged with the bearing of\nmessages; briefly, each received his appointed task. One of the boy\u2019s\nplaymates, however, was the son of Artembares, a respected man among\nthe Medes, and when he did not do as Kyros ordained, the latter made\nthe other boys seize him. The boys obeyed, and Kyros chastised him with\nsevere blows. After they let him go, he became furiously angry, as if\nhe had been treated improperly. He ran into the city and complained to\nhis father of what Kyros had done to him. He did not mention the name\nof Kyros for he was not yet called so, but said the cattle herder\u2019s\nson. Artembares went wrathfully with his son to Astyages, complained of\nthe disgraceful treatment, and spoke thus: \u201cGreat king, we suffer such\noutrageous treatment from thy servant, the herder\u2019s son,\u201d and he showed\nhim his own son\u2019s shoulders. When Astyages heard and saw this, he\nwished to vindicate the boy for the sake of Artembares, and he sent for\nthe cattle herder with his son. When both were present, Astyages looked\nat Kyros and said: \u201cThou, a lowly man\u2019s son, hast had the effrontery\nto treat so disgracefully the son of a man whom I greatly honor!\u201d But\nhe made answer: \u201cLord, he has only received his due. For the boys in\nthe village, he being among them, were at play, and made me their king,\nbelieving me to be the best adapted thereto. And the other boys did as\nthey were told, but he was disobedient, and did not mind me at all. For\nthis he has received his reward. If I have deserved punishment, here I\nam at your service.\u201d\n\nWhen the boy spoke in this way, Astyages knew him at once. For the\nfeatures of the face appeared to him as his own, and the answer was\nthat of a highborn youth; furthermore, it seemed to him that the time\nof the exposure agreed with the boy\u2019s age. This smote his heart, and he\nremained speechless for a while. Hardly had he regained control over\nhimself, when he spoke to get rid of Artembares, so as to be able to\nquestion the cattle herder without witnesses. \u201cMy dear Artembares,\u201d\nhe said, \u201cI shall take care that neither thou nor thy son shall have\ncause for complaint.\u201d Thus he dismissed Artembares. Kyros, however, was\nled into the palace by the servants, on the command of Astyages, and\nthe cattle herder had to stay behind. When he was all alone with him\nAstyages questioned him whence he had obtained the boy, and who had\ngiven the child into his hands. But the herder said that he was his own\nson, and that the woman who had borne him was living with him. Astyages\nremarked that he was very unwise, to look out for most cruel tortures,\nand he beckoned the sword bearers to take hold of him. As he was being\nled to torture, the herder confessed the whole story, from beginning to\nend, the entire truth, finally beginning to beg and implore forgiveness\nand pardon. Meanwhile Astyages was not so incensed against the herder,\nwho had revealed to him the truth, as against Harpagos; he ordered\nthe sword bearers to summon him, and when Harpagos stood before him,\nAstyages asked him as follows: \u201cMy dear Harpagos, in what fashion hast\nthou taken the life of my daughter\u2019s son, whom I once delivered over to\nthee?\u201d Seeing the cattle herder standing near, Harpagos did not resort\nto untruthfulness, for fear that he would be refuted at once, and so he\nproceeded to tell the truth. Astyages concealed the anger which he had\naroused in him, and first told him what he had learned from the herder;\nthen he mentioned that the boy was still living, and that everything\nhad turned out all right. He said that he had greatly regretted what he\nhad done to the child, and that his daughter\u2019s reproaches had pierced\nhis soul. \u201cBut as everything has ended so well, send thy son to greet\nthe newcomer, and then come to eat with me, for I am ready to prepare a\nfeast in honor of the Gods who have brought all this about.\u201d\n\nWhen Harpagos heard this, he prostrated himself on the ground before\nthe king, and praised himself for his error having turned out well,\nand for being invited to the king\u2019s table, in commemoration of a happy\nevent. So he went home, and when he arrived there, he at once sent\noff his only son, a boy of about thirteen years, telling him to go to\nAstyages, and to do as he was bid. Then Harpagos joyfully told his wife\nwhat had befallen him. But Astyages butchered the son of Harpagos when\nhe came, cut him to pieces, and roasted the flesh in part; another\nportion of the flesh was cooked, and when everything was prepared he\nkept it in readiness. When the hour of the meal had come, Harpagos\nand the other guests arrived. A table with sheep\u2019s meat was arranged\nin front of Astyages and the others, but Harpagos was served with his\nown son\u2019s flesh, without the head, and without the choppings of hands\nand feet, but with everything else. These parts were kept hidden in a\nbasket. When Harpagos seemed to have taken his fill, Astyages asked him\nif the meat had tasted good to him, and when Harpagos answered that he\nhad enjoyed it, the servants, who had been ordered to do so, brought\nin his own son\u2019s covered head, with the hands and feet, stepped up to\nHarpagos, and told him to uncover and take what he desired. Harpagos\ndid so, uncovered the basket, and saw the remnants of his son. When he\nsaw this, he did not give way to his horror, but controlled himself.\nAstyages then asked him if he knew of what game he had eaten; and he\nreplied that he knew it very well, and that whatever the king did was\nwell done. Thus he spoke, took the flesh that remained, and went home\nwith it, where he probably meant to bury it together.\n\nThis was the revenge of Astyages upon Harpagos. Concerning Kyros, he\ntook counsel, and summoned the same magicians who had explained his\ndream, then he asked them how they had at one time interpreted his\nvision in a dream. But they said that the boy must become a king, if he\nremained alive, and did not die prematurely. Astyages made reply: \u201cThe\nboy is alive, and is here, and as he was staying in the country, the\nboys of the village elected him for their king. But he did everything\nlike the real kings, for he ordained to himself as the master, sword\nbearers, gate keepers, messengers, and everything. How do you mean to\ninterpret this?\u201d The magicians made reply: \u201cIf the boy is alive, and\nhas been made king without the help of anyone, thou canst be at ease\nso far as he is concerned, and be of good cheer, for he will not again\nbe made a king. Already several prophecies of ours have applied to\ninsignificant trifles, and what rests upon dreams is apt to be vain.\u201d\nAstyages made reply: \u201cYe sorcerers, I am entirely of your opinion that\nthe dream has been fulfilled when the boy was king in name, and that\nI have nothing more to fear from him. Yet counsel me carefully as to\nwhat is safest for my house and for yourselves.\u201d Then the magicians\nsaid: \u201cSend the boy away, that he may get out of thy sight, send him\nto the land of the Persians, to his parents.\u201d When Astyages had heard\nthis, he was greatly pleased. He sent for Kyros, and said to him: \u201cMy\nson, I have wronged thee greatly, misled by a deceitful dream, but\nthy good fortune has saved thee. Now go cheerfully to the land of\nthe Persians; I shall give thee safe conduct. There wilt thou find a\nvery different father, and a very different mother than the herders,\nMithradates and his wife.\u201d Thus spake Astyages, and Kyros was sent\naway. When he arrived in the house of Kambyses, his parents received\nhim with great joy when they learned who he was, for they believed him\nto have perished at that time, and they desired to know how he had been\npreserved. He told them that he had believed himself to be the son\nof the cattle herder, but had learned everything on the way from the\ncompanions whom Astyages had sent with him. He related that the cattle\nherder\u2019s wife had saved him, and praised her throughout. The bitch\n(Spako) played the principal part in his conversation. The parents took\nhold of this name, so that the preservation of the child might appear\nstill more wonderful, and thus was laid the foundation of the myth that\nthe exposed Kyros was nursed by a bitch.\n\nLater on, Kyros, on the instigation of Harpagos, stirred up the\nPersians against the Medes. War was declared, and Kyros, at the head\nof the Persians, conquered the Medes in battle. Astyages was taken a\nprisoner alive, but Kyros did not harm him, but kept him with him until\nhis end. Herodotus\u2019s report concludes with the words: \u201cBut from that\ntime on the Persians and Kyros reigned over Asia. Thus was Kyros born\nand raised, and made a king.\u201d\n\nThe report of Pompeius Trogus is preserved only in the extract by\nJustinus.[46] Astyages had a daughter but no male heir. In his dream he\nsaw a vine grow forth from her lap, the sprouts of which overshadowed\nall Asia. The dream interpreters declared that the vision signified the\nmagnitude of his grandson, whom his daughter was to bear; but also his\nown loss of his dominions. In order to banish this dread, Astyages gave\nhis daughter in marriage neither to a prominent man, nor to a Mede, so\nthat his grandson\u2019s mind might not be uplifted by the paternal estate\nbesides the maternal; but he married her to Kambyses, a middle-class\nman from the then unknown people of the Persians. But this was not\nenough to banish the fears of Astyages, and he summoned his pregnant\ndaughter, in order to have her infant destroyed before his eyes. When a\nboy had been born, he gave him to Harpagos, his friend and confidant,\nto kill him. For fear that the daughter of Astyages would take revenge\nupon him for the death of her boy, when she came to reign after her\nfather\u2019s death, he delivered the boy to the king\u2019s herder for exposure.\nAt the same time when Kyros was born, a son happened to be born also\nto the herder. When his wife learned that the king\u2019s child had been\nexposed, she urgently prayed for it to be brought to her, that she\nmight look at it. Moved by her entreaties, the herder returned to the\nwoods. There he found a bitch standing beside the child, giving it her\nteats, and keeping the beasts and birds away from it. At this aspect he\nwas filled with the same compassion as the bitch; so that he picked\nup the boy and carried him home, the bitch following him in great\ndistress. When his wife took the boy in her arms, he smiled at her as\nif he already knew her; and as he was very strong, and ingratiated\nhimself with her by his pleasant smile, she voluntarily begged the\nherder to (expose her own child instead and)[47] permit her to raise\nthe boy; be it that she was interested in his welfare, or that she\nplaced her hopes on him. Thus the two boys had to exchange fates; one\nwas raised in place of the herder\u2019s child, while the other was exposed\ninstead of the grandson of the king.\n\nThe sequel of this apparently more primitive report agrees essentially\nwith the relation of Herodotus.\n\nAn altogether different version of the Kyros myth is extant in the\nreport of a contemporary of Herodotus, Ktesias, the original of\nwhich has been lost, but is replaced by a fragment of Nikolaos of\nDamaskos.[48] This fragment from Nikolaos summarizes the narrative\nof Ktesias, which comprised more than an entire book in his Persian\nhistory. Astyages is said to have been the worthiest king of the\nMedes, after Abakes. Under his rule occurred the great transmutation\nthrough which the rulership passed from the Medes to the Persians,\nthrough the following cause: The Medes had a law that a poor man who\nwent to a rich man for his support, and surrendered himself to him,\nhad to be fed and clothed and kept like a slave by the rich man, or in\ncase the latter refused to do so, the poor man was at liberty to go\nelsewhere. In this way a boy by name of Kyros, a Mard by birth, came to\nthe king\u2019s servant who was at the head of the palace sweepers. Kyros\nwas the son of Atradates, whose poverty made him live as a robber,\nand whose wife, Argoste, Kyros\u2019 mother, made her living by tending\nthe goats. Kyros surrendered himself for the sake of his daily bread,\nand helped to clean the palace. As he was diligent, the foreman gave\nhim better clothing, and advanced him from the outside sweepers to\nthose who cleaned the interior of the king\u2019s palace, placing him under\ntheir superintendent. This man was severe, however, and often whipped\nKyros. He left him and went to the lamp-lighter, who liked Kyros,\nand approached him to the king, by placing him among the royal torch\nbearers. As Kyros distinguished himself also in his new position, he\ncame to Artembares, who was at the head of the cup bearers, and himself\npresented the cup to the king. Artembares gladly accepted Kyros, and\nbade him pour the wine for the guests at the king\u2019s table. Not long\nafterwards, Astyages noticed the dexterity and nimbleness of Kyros\u2019\nservice, and his graceful presentation of the wine cup, so that he\nasked of Artembares whence this youth had come who was so skillful a\ncup bearer. \u201cO Lord,\u201d spake he, \u201cthis boy is thy slave, of Persian\nparentage, from the tribe of the Mards, who has surrendered himself to\nme to make a living.\u201d Artembares was old, and once on being attacked\nby a fever, he prayed the king to let him stay at home until he had\nrecovered. \u201cIn my stead, the youth whom thou hast praised will pour the\nwine, and if he should please thee, the king, as a cup bearer, _I, who\nam an eunuch, will adopt him as my son_.\u201d Astyages consented, but the\nother confided in many ways in Kyros _as in a son_. Kyros thus stood\nat the king\u2019s side, and poured his wine by day and by night, showing\ngreat ability and cleverness. Astyages conferred upon him the income of\nArtembares, as if he had been his son, adding many presents, and Kyros\nbecame a great man whose name was heard everywhere.\n\nAstyages had a very noble and beautiful daughter,[49] whom he gave to\nthe Mede Spitamas, adding all Media as her dowry. Then Kyros sent for\nhis father and mother, in the land of the Medes, and they rejoiced\nin the good fortune of their son, and _his mother told him the dream\nwhich she had at the time that she was bearing him_, while asleep in\nthe sanctuary as she was tending the goats. _So much water passed away\nfrom her that it became as a large stream, inundating all Asia, and\nflowing as far as the sea_. When the father heard this, he ordered the\ndream to be placed before the Chaldeans in Babylon. Kyros summoned\nthe wisest among them, and communicated the dream to him. He declared\nthat the dream foretold great good fortune to Kyros, and _the highest\ndignity in Asia_; but Astyages must not learn of it, \u201cfor else he\nwould disgracefully kill thee, as well as myself the interpreter,\u201d\nsaid the Babylonian. They swore to each other to tell no one of this\ngreat and incomparable vision. _Kyros later on rose to still higher\ndignities, created his father a Satrap of Persia, and raised his mother\nto the highest rank and possessions among the Persian women._ But when\nthe Babylonian was killed soon afterwards by Oebares, the confidant\nof Kyros, his wife betrayed the fateful dream to the king, when she\nlearned of Kyros\u2019 expedition to Persia, which he had undertaken in\npreparation of the revolt. The king sent his horsemen after Kyros, with\nthe command to deliver him dead or alive. But Kyros escaped them by a\nruse. Finally a combat took place, terminating in the defeat of the\nMedes. Kyros also conquered Egbatana, and here the daughter of Astyages\nand her husband Spitamas, with their two sons, were taken prisoners.\nBut Astyages himself could not be found, for Amytis and Spitamas had\nconcealed him in the palace, under the rafters of the roof. Kyros then\nordered that Amytis, her husband, and the children should be tortured\nuntil they revealed the hiding place of Astyages, but he came out\nvoluntarily, that his relatives might not be tortured on his account.\n_Kyros commanded the execution of Spitamas_, because he had lied in\naffirming to be in ignorance of Astyages\u2019 hiding place; _but Amytis\nbecame the wife of Kyros. He removed the fetters of Astyages_, with\nwhich Oebares had bound him, _honored him as a father_, and made him a\nSatrap of the Barkanians.\n\nA great similarity to Herodotus\u2019 version of the Kyros myth is found in\nthe early history of the Iranese royal hero, Kaikhosrav, as related by\n_Firdusi_, in the S\u00e2h-n\u00e2me. This myth is most extensively rendered by\nSpiegel (Eranische Altertumskunde, I, 581 et seq.). During the warfare\nof King Kaikaus of Baktria and Iran, against King Afr\u00e2si\u00e2b of Turan,\n_Kaikaus fell out with his son, Si\u00e2vaksh_, who applied to Afr\u00e2si\u00e2b\nfor protection and assistance. He was kindly received by Afr\u00e2si\u00e2b,\nwho gave him his daughter Feringis to wife, on the persuasion of his\nWesir, Pir\u00e2n, _although he had received the prophecy that the son to be\nborn of this union would bring great misfortune upon him_. Garsevaz,\nthe king\u2019s brother, and a near relative of Si\u00e2vaksh, calumniates the\nson-in-law, and Afr\u00e2si\u00e2b leads an army against him. _Before the birth\nof his son, Si\u00e2vaksh is warned by a dream, which foretold destruction\nand death to himself, but royalty to his offspring._ He therefore flies\nfrom Afr\u00e2si\u00e2b, but is taken prisoner and killed, on the command of the\nS\u00e2h. His wife, who is pregnant, is saved by Pir\u00e2n from the hands of the\nmurderers. On condition of announcing at once the delivery of Feringis\nto the king, Pir\u00e2n is granted permission to keep her in his house. The\nshade of the murdered Si\u00e2vaksh once comes to him in a dream, and tells\nhim that an avenger has been born, and Pir\u00e2n actually finds in the\nroom of Feringis a newborn boy, whom he names Kaikhosrav. Afr\u00e2si\u00e2b no\nlonger insisted upon the killing of the boy, but he ordered Pir\u00e2n _to\nsurrender the child with a nurse to the herders, who were to raise him\nin ignorance of his origin_. But his royal descent is promptly revealed\nin his courage and his demeanor; and as Pir\u00e2n takes the boy back into\nhis home, Afr\u00e2si\u00e2b becomes distrustful, and orders the boy to be led\nbefore him. Instructed by Pir\u00e2n, Kaikhosvrav plays the fool,[50] and\nreassured as to his harmlessness, the S\u00e2h dismisses him to his mother,\nFeringis. Finally, Kaikhosvrav is crowned as king by his grandfather,\nKaikaus. After prolonged, complicated, and tedious combats, Afr\u00e2si\u00e2b is\nat last taken prisoner, with divine assistance. Kaikhosvrav strikes his\nhead off, and also causes Garsivaz to be decapitated.\n\nA certain resemblance, although more remote, to the preceding saga,\nis presented by the Iranese myth of Feridun, as told by Firdusi in\nhis \u201cPersian Hero-Myths\u201d (translated by Schack). _Zoh\u00e2k,[51] the king\nof Iran, once sees in a dream three men of royal tribe._ Two of them\nare bent with age, but between them is a _younger man_ who holds a\nclub, with a bull\u2019s head, in his right hand; this man steps up to him,\nand _fells him with his club to the ground_. The dream interpreters\ndeclared to the king that the young hero who will dethrone him is\nFeridun, a scion of the tribe of Dschemschid. Zoh\u00e2k at once sets out\nto look for the tracks of his dreaded enemy. Feridun is the son of\nAbtin, a grandson of Dschemschid. His father hides from the pursuit\nof the tyrant, but he is seized and killed. Feridun himself, a boy of\ntender age, _is saved by his mother Fir\u00e2nek, who escapes with him and\nentrusts him to the care of the guardian of a distant forest. Here he\nis suckled by the cow Purm\u00e2je._ For three years he remains in this\nplace, but then his mother no longer believes him safe, and she carries\nhim to a hermit on the mountain Alburs. Soon afterwards Zoh\u00e2k comes to\nthe forest, and kills the guardian as well as the cow.\n\nWhen Feridun was sixteen years old, he came down from Mount Alburs,\nlearned of his origin through his mother, and swore to avenge the death\nof his father and of his nurse. On the expedition against Zoh\u00e2k he is\naccompanied by his two older brothers, Purm\u00e2je and Kay\u00e2nuseh. He orders\na club to be forged for his use, and ornaments it with the bull\u2019s head,\nin memory of his foster mother the cow. With this club he smites Zoh\u00e2k,\nas foretold by the dream.\n\n\n\n\n                                TRISTAN\n\nThe argument of the Feridun story is pursued in the Tristan saga, as\nrelated in the epic poem by Gottfried of Strassburg. This is especially\nevident in the prologue of the Tristan-saga, which is repeated later\non in the adventures of the hero himself (duplication). Riwalin, king\nin the land of the Parmenians, in an expedition to the court of Marke,\nking of Kurnewal and England, had become acquainted with the latter\u2019s\nbeautiful sister, Blancheflure, and his heart was aflame with love for\nher. While assisting Marke in a campaign, Riwalin was mortally wounded\nand was carried to Tintajole. Blancheflure, _disguised as a beggar\nmaid_, hastened to his sick bed, and her devoted love saved the king\u2019s\nlife. She fled with her lover to his native land (obstacles) and was\nthere proclaimed as his consort. But Morgan attacked Riwalin\u2019s country,\nfor the sake of Blancheflure, whom the king entrusted to his _faithful\nretainer_ Rual, because she was carrying a child. Rual placed the queen\nfor safekeeping in the castle of Kaneel. Here _she gave birth to a\nson and died, while her husband fell in the battle against Morgan. In\norder to protect the king\u2019s offspring from Morgan\u2019s pursuits_, Rual\nspread the rumor that the infant had been born dead. The boy was\nnamed Tristan, because he had been conceived and born in sorrow. Under\nthe care of his _foster-parents_, Tristan grew up, equally straight\nin body and mind, until his fourteenth year, when he was kidnapped\nby Norwegian merchants, who put him ashore in Kurnewal, because they\nfeared the wrath of the gods. Here the boy was found by the _soldiers\nof King Marke_, who was so well pleased with the brave and handsome\nyouth that he promptly made him his master of the chase (career), and\nheld him in great affection. Meanwhile, faithful Rual had set forth\nto seek his abducted foster son, whom he found at last in Kurnewal,\nwhere Rual had come begging his way. Rual _revealed Tristan\u2019s descent_\nto the king, who was delighted to see in him the son of his beloved\nsister, and raised him to the rank of a knight. In order to _avenge his\nfather_, Tristan proceeded with Rual to Parmenia, vanquished Morgan,\nthe usurper, and gave the country to Rual as a liege, while he himself\nreturned to his uncle Marke. (After Chop: Erl\u00e4uterungen zu Wagner\u2019s\nTristan, Reclam Bibl.)\n\nThe actual Tristan saga goes on with a repetition of the principal\nthemes. In the service of Marke, Tristan kills Morald, the bridegroom\nof Isolde, and being wounded unto death, he is saved by Isolde. He\nasks her hand in marriage, for his uncle Marke, fulfils the condition\nof killing a dragon, and she follows him reluctantly to Kurnewal,\nwhere they travel by ship. On the journey they partake unwittingly\nof the disastrous love potion, which binds them together in frenzied\npassion. They betray the king, Marke, and on the wedding night Isolde\u2019s\nfaithful serving maid, Brang\u00e4ne, represents the queen, and sacrifices\nher virginity to the king. Next follows the banishment of Tristan,\nhis several attempts to regain his beloved, although he had meanwhile\nmarried Isolde Whitehand, who resembled her. At last he is again\nwounded unto death, and Isolde arrives too late to save him.[52]\n\nA plainer version of the Tristan-saga, in the sense of the\ncharacteristic features of the myth of the birth of the hero, is found\nin the fairy tale, \u201cThe True Bride,\u201d quoted by Riklin (\u201cWunscherf\u00fcllung\nund Symbolik im M\u00e4rchen,\u201d p. 56)[53] from Rittershaus\u2019 collection of\nfairy tales (XXVII, p. 113). A royal pair have no children. The king\nhaving threatened to kill his wife, unless she bears a child by the\ntime of his return from his sea-voyage, she is brought to him during\nhis journey, by his zealous maid-servant, as the fairest of three\npromenading ladies, and he takes her into his tent without recognizing\nher.[54] She returns home without having been discovered, gives birth\nto a daughter, Isol, and dies. Isol later on finds a most beautiful\nlittle boy in a box by the seaside, whose name is Tristram, and she\nraises him to become engaged to him. The subsequent story, which\ncontains the motive of the true bride, is noteworthy for present\npurposes only in as far as here again occur the draught of oblivion,\nand two Isoldes. The king\u2019s second wife gives a potion to Tristram,\nwhich causes him to forget the fair Isol entirely, so that he wishes to\nmarry the black Isota. Ultimately he discovers the deception, however,\nand becomes united with Isol.\n\n\n\n\n                               ROMULUS.\n\nThe original version of the story of Romulus and Remus, as told by the\nmost ancient Roman annalist, Fabius Pictor, is rendered as follows by\nMommsen.[55] \u201c_The twins_ borne by Ilia, daughter of the preceding\nking Numitor, _from the embrace of the war god Mars were condemned by\nKing Amulius, the present ruler of Alba, to be cast into the river_.\nThe king\u2019s servants took the children and carried them from Alba as\nfar as the Tiber on the Palatine Hill; but when they tried to descend\nthe hill to the river, to carry out the command, they found that the\nriver had risen, and they were unable to reach its bed. The tub with\nthe children was therefore thrust by them into the shallow water at the\nshore. _It floated_ for a while; _but the water promptly receded_, and\n_knocking against a stone, the tub capsized_, and the screaming infants\nwere upset into the river mud. _They were heard by a she-wolf who had\njust brought forth and had her udders full of milk; she came and gave\nher teats to the boys, to nurse them_, and as they were drinking she\nlicked them clean with her tongue. Above them flew a woodpecker, which\nguarded the children, and also carried food to them. The father was\nproviding for his sons: for the wolf and the woodpecker are animals\nconsecrated to father Mars. This was seen by one of the royal herdsmen,\nwho was driving his pigs back to the pasture from which the water had\nreceded. Startled by the spectacle, he summoned his mates, who found\nthe she-wolf attending like a mother to the children, and the children\ntreated her as their mother. The men made a loud noise to scare the\nanimal away; but the wolf was not afraid; she left the children, but\nnot from fear; slowly, without heeding the herdsmen, she disappeared\ninto the wilderness of the forest, at the holy site of Faunus, where\nthe water gushes from a gully of the mountain. Meanwhile the men picked\nup the boys and carried them to the chief swineherd of the king,\nFaustulus, for they believed that the gods did not wish the children\nto perish. _But the wife of Faustulus had just given birth to a dead\nchild, and was full of sorrow. Her husband gave her the twins, and she\nnursed them; the couple raised the children, and named them Romulus\nand Remus._ After Rome had been founded, later on, King Romulus built\nhimself a house not far from the place where his tub had stood. The\ngully in which the she-wolf had disappeared has been known since\nthat time as the Wolf\u2019s Gully, the Lupercal. The image in ore of the\nshe-wolf with the twins[56] was subsequently erected at this spot,\nand the she-wolf herself, the Lupa, was worshipped by the Romans as a\ndivinity.\n\nThe Romulus saga later on underwent manifold transmutations,\nmutilations, additions, and interpretations.[57] It is best known in\nthe form transmitted by Livy (I, 3 et seq.), where we learn something\nabout the antecedents and subsequent fate of the twins.\n\nKing Proca bequeaths the royal dignity to his first born son Numitor.\nBut his _younger brother, Amulius, pushes him from the throne_, and\nbecomes king himself. So that no scion from Numitor\u2019s family may arise,\nas the avenger, he kills the male descendants of his brother. _Rea\nSilvia, the daughter, he elects as a vestal, and thus deprives her of\nthe hope of progeny, through perpetual virginity_ as enjoined upon her\nunder the semblance of a most honorable distinction. But the vestal\nmaiden was overcome by violence, and having _brought forth twins_, she\nnamed _Mars_ as the _father of her illegitimate offspring_, be it from\nconviction, or because a god appeared more creditable to her as the\nperpetrator of the crime.\n\nThe narrative of the exposure in the Tiber goes on as follows: The saga\nrelates that the floating tub, in which the boys had been exposed,\nwas left on dry land by the receding waters, and that a thirsty wolf,\nattracted from the neighbouring mountains by the children\u2019s cries,\noffered them her teats. The boys are said to have been found by the\nchief royal herder, supposedly named Faustulus, who took them to the\nhomestead of his wife, Larentia, where they were raised. Some believe\nthat Larentia was called Lupa, a she-wolf, by the herders, because she\noffered her body, and that this was the origin of the wonderful saga.\n\nGrown to manhood, the youths Romulus and Remus protect the herds\nagainst the attacks of wild animals and robbers. One day Remus is taken\nprisoner by the robbers, who accuse him of having stolen Numitor\u2019s\nflocks. But Numitor, to whom he is surrendered for punishment, was\ntouched by his tender age, and when he learned of the twin brothers,\nhe suspected that they might be his exposed grandsons. While he was\nanxiously pondering the resemblance with the features of his daughter,\nand the boy\u2019s age as corresponding to the time of the exposure,\nFaustulus arrived with Romulus, and a conspiracy was hatched, when\nthe descent of the boys had been learned from the herders. The youths\narmed themselves for vengeance, while Numitor took up weapons to\ndefend his claim to the throne he had usurped. After _Amulius had been\nassassinated_, Numitor was re-instituted as the ruler, and the youths\nresolved to found a city in the region where they had been exposed and\nbrought up. A furious dispute arose upon the question which brother was\nto be the ruler of the newly erected city, for neither twin was favored\nby the right of primogeniture, and the outcome of the bird oracle was\nequally doubtful. The saga relates that Remus jumped over the new wall,\nto deride his twin, and _Romulus became so much enraged that he slew\nhis brother_. Romulus then usurped the sole mastery, and the city was\nnamed Rome after him.\n\nThe Roman tale of Romulus and Remus has a close counterpart in the\nGreek myth of a city foundation by the twin brothers Amphion and\nZethos, who were the first to found the site of Thebes of the Seven\nGates. The enormous rocks which Zethos brought from the mountains were\njoined by the music drawn from Amphion\u2019s lute strings to form the walls\nwhich became so famous later on. Amphion and Zethos passed as _the\nchildren of Zeus and Antiope_, daughter of King Nykteus. She escaped\nby flight from the punishment of her father, who died of grief; on\nhis death bed he implored _his brother and successor on the throne,\nLykos_, to punish the wrongdoing of Antiope. Meantime she had married\nEpopeus, the king of Sikyon, who was killed by Lykos. Antiope was led\naway by him in fetters. She gave birth to twin sons in the Kithairon,\nwhere she left them. A shepherd raised the boys and called them Amphion\nand Zethos. Later on, Antiope succeeded in escaping from the torments\nof Lykos and his wife, Dirke. She accidentally sought shelter in the\nKithairon, with the twin brothers, now grown up. The shepherd reveals\nto the youths the fact that Antiope is their mother. Thereupon they\ncruelly kill Dirke, and deprive Lykos of the rulership.\n\nThe remaining twin sagas,[58] which are extremely numerous, cannot\nbe discussed in detail in this connection. Possibly they represent\na complication of the birth myth by another very ancient and widely\ndistributed myth complex, that of the hostile brothers, the detailed\ndiscussion of which belongs elsewhere. The apparently late and\nsecondary character of the twin type in the birth myths justifies\nthe separation of this part of mythology from the present theme. As\nregards the Romulus saga, Mommsen[59] renders it highly probable that\nit originally told only of Romulus, while the figure of Remus was added\nsubsequently, and somewhat disjointedly, when it became desirable to\ninvest the consulate with a solemnity founded on the old tradition.\n\n\n\n\n                             HERCULES[60]\n\nAfter the loss of his numerous sons, Elektryon betroths his daughter,\nAlkmene, to Amphitryon, the son of his brother, Alk\u00e4os. However,\nAmphitryon, through an unfortunate accident, causes the death of\nElektryon, and escapes to Thebes with his affianced bride. He has not\nenjoyed her love, for she has solemnly pledged him not to touch her\nuntil he has avenged her brothers on the Thebans. An expedition is\ntherefore started by him, from Thebes, and he conquers the king of the\nhostile people, Pterelaos, with all the islands. As he is returning to\nThebes, Zeus in the form of Amphitryon[61] betakes himself to Alkmene,\nto whom he presents a golden goblet as evidence of victory. He rests\nwith the beauteous maiden during three nights, according to the later\npoets, holding back the sun one day. In the same night, Amphitryon\narrives, exultant in his victory and aflame with love. In the fulness\nof time, the fruit of the divine and the human embrace[62] is brought\nforth and Zeus announces to the gods his son, as the most powerful\nruler of the future. But his jealous spouse, Hera, knows how to obtain\nfrom him the pernicious oath, that the first-born grandson of Perseus\nis to be the ruler of all the other descendants of Perseus. Hera\nhurries to Mykene, to deliver the wife of the third Perside, Sthenelos,\nof the seven months child, Eurystheus. At the same time she hinders\nand endangers the confinement of Alkmene, through all sorts of wicked\nsorcery, precisely as at the birth of the god of light, Apollo. Alkmene\nfinally gives birth to Herakles and Iphikles, the latter in no way\nthe former\u2019s equal in courage or in strength, but destined to become\nthe father of his faithful friend, Iolaos.[63] In this way Eurystheus\nbecame the king in Mykene, in the land of the Argivians, in conformity\nwith the oath of Zeus, and the after born Herakles was his subject.\n\nThe old legend related the raising of Herakles on the strength giving\nwaters of the Dirke, the nourishment of all Theban children. Later on,\nhowever, another version arose. Fearing the jealousy of Hera, Alkmene\n_exposed the child which she had borne_ in a place which for a long\ntime after was known as the field of Herakles. About this time, Athene\narrived, in company with Hera. She marvelled at the beautiful form\nof the child, and persuaded Hera to put him to her breast. But the\nboy took the breast with far greater strength than his age seemed to\nwarrant; Hera felt pains and angrily flung the child to the ground.\nAthene, however, carried him to the neighboring city and _took him\nto Queen Alkmene, whose maternity was unknown to her, as a poor\nfoundling, whom she begged her to raise for the sake of charity_.\nThis peculiar accident is truly remarkable! The child\u2019s own mother\nallows him to perish, disregarding the duty of maternal love, and the\nstepmother who is filled with natural hatred against the child, saves\nher enemy without knowing it (after Diodor, IV, 9; German translation\nby Wurm, Stuttgart, 1831). Herakles had drawn only a few drops from\nHera\u2019s breast, but the divine milk was sufficient to endow him with\nimmortality. An attempt on Hera\u2019s part to kill the boy, asleep in his\ncradle, by means of two serpents, proved a failure, for the child\nawakened and crushed the beasts with a single pressure of his hands.\nAs a boy, Herakles one day killed his tutor, Linos, being incensed\nabout an unjust chastisement. Amphitryon, fearing the wildness of\nthe youth, sends him to tend his ox-herds in the mountains, with the\nherders, among whom he is said by some to have been raised entirely,\nlike Amphion and Zethos, Kyros and Romulus. Here he lives from the\nhunt, in the freedom of nature (Preller, II, 123).\n\nThe myth of Herakles suggests in certain features the Indian saga of\nthe hero _Krishna_, who like many heroes escapes a general infanticide,\nand is then brought up by a herder\u2019s wife, Iasodha. A wicked she-demon\nappears, who has been sent by King Kansa to kill the boy. She takes the\npost of wet nurse in the home, but is recognized by Krishna, who bites\nher so severely in suckling (like Hera, when nursing Herakles, whom\nshe also means to destroy), that she dies. (The early history of the\npastoral god Krishna is related in the so-called Kariwamsa.)\n\n\n\n\n                                 Jesus\n\nThe Gospel according to Luke (1, 26 to 35) relates the prophecy of the\nbirth of Jesus, as follows:\n\n\u201cAnd in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city\nof Galilee named Nazareth, to _a virgin espoused to a man whose name\nwas Joseph_, of the house of David; and the virgin\u2019s name was Mary.\nAnd the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail! thou that art highly\nfavored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women! And when\nshe saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what\nmanner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear\nnot, Mary; for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, _thou shalt\nconceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and call his name Jesus.\nHe shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest_: and the\nLord God shalt give unto him the throne of his father David. And he\nshall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there\nshall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be,\n_seeing I know not a man_? And the angel answered and said unto her,\nthe Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall\novershadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of\nthee _shall he called the Son of God_.\u201d\n\nThis report is supplemented by the Gospel according to Matthew[64] (1,\n18 to 25), in the narrative of the birth and childhood of Jesus: \u201cNow\nthe birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: when as his mother Mary\nwas espoused to Joseph, before they came together, _she was found with\nchild of the Holy Ghost_. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man,\nand not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her\naway privily. But, while he thought on these things, behold the _angel\nof the Lord appeared to him in a dream_, saying, Joseph, thou son of\nDavid, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is\nconceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son,\nand thou shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from\ntheir sins. (Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was\nspoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be\nwith child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name\nEmmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us.) Then Joseph, being\nraised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and\ntook unto him his wife. _And knew her not, till she had brought forth\nher first born son_; and he called his name Jesus.\u201d\n\nHere we interpolate the detailed account of the birth of Jesus, from\nthe Gospel of Luke (2, 4 to 20): \u201cAnd Joseph also went up from Galilee,\nout of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called\nBethlehem (because he was of the house and lineage of David), to be\ntaxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so\nit was that while they were there, the days were accomplished that\nshe should be delivered. And _she brought forth her first born son,\nand wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger_;[65]\nbecause there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the\nsame country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their\nflocks by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the\nglory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid.\nAnd the angel said unto them, Fear not; for behold I bring you good\ntidings of great joy which shall be to all people. For unto you is born\nthis day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.\nAnd this shall be a sign unto you, ye shall find the babe wrapped in\nswaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the\nangel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory\nto God in the Highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And\nit came to pass as the angels were gone away from them into heaven,\nthe shepherds said one to another, let us now go even unto Bethlehem\nand see this thing which has come to pass, which the Lord has made\nknown unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and\nthe babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it they made known\nabroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all\nthey that heard wondered at those things which were told them by the\nshepherds. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her\nheart. And the shepherds returned glorifying and praising God for all\nthe things which they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.\u201d\n\nWe now continue the account after Matthew, in the second chapter:\n\u201cNow when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod\nthe king, behold, there came _wise men from the East_ to Jerusalem,\nsaying, _Where is he that was born King of the Jews_, for we have seen\nhis star in the east, and have come to worship him. When _Herod the\nking_ had heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with\nhim. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the\npeople together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And\nthey said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by\nthe prophet, And thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda, art not the least\namong the princes of Juda, for out of thee shall come a governor which\nshall rule my people Israel.\n\nThen Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them\ndiligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem,\nand said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye\nhave found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him\nalso. When they had heard the king they departed; and lo the star,\nwhich they saw in the east, went before them till it came and stood\nover where the young child was.\n\nWhen they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And\nwhen they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary\nhis mother, and fell down and worshipped him: and when they had opened\ntheir treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense,\nand myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream, that they should not\nreturn to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.\nAnd when they were departed, behold, _the angel of the Lord appeared\nto Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his\nmother and flee into Egypt_, and be thou there until I bring thee\nword: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he\narose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed\ninto Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod; that it might be\nfulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of\nEgypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked\nof the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and _slew all the\nchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from\ntwo years old and under_, according to the time which he had diligently\nenquired of the wise men. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of\nthe Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying arise and take\nthe young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: _for\nthey are dead which sought the young child\u2019s life_. And he arose and\ntook the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.\nBut when he heard Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his\nfather Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding being warned\nof God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee. And he\ncame and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled\nwhich was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.\u201d[66]\n\nSimilar birth legends to those of Jesus have also been transmitted of\nother \u201cfounders of religions\u201d; such as Zoroaster, who is said to have\nlived about the year 1000 before Christ. His mother Dughda dreams,\n_in the sixth month of her pregnancy_, that the wicked and the good\nspirits are fighting for the embryonic Zoroaster; a monster tears the\nfuture Zoroaster from the mother\u2019s womb, but a light god fights the\nmonster with his horn of light, re-encloses the embryo in the mother\u2019s\nwomb, blows upon Dughda, and she became pregnant. On awakening, she\nhurries in her fear to a wise dream interpreter, who is unable to\nexplain the wonderful dream before the end of three days: The child,\nwhich she is carrying, is destined to become a man of great importance;\nthe dark cloud and the mountain of light signify, that she and her\nson will at first have to undergo numerous trials, through tyrants\nand other enemies, but at last they will overcome all perils. Dughda\nat once returns to her home, and informs Pourushacpa, her husband, of\neverything that has happened. Immediately after his birth, the boy\nwas seen to laugh: this was the first miracle through which he drew\nattention to himself. _The magicians announce the birth of the child\nas a portent of disaster to the prince of the realm_, Dur\u00e2nsar\u00fbn, who\nbetakes himself without delay to the dwelling of Pourushacpa, in order\nto stab the child. But his hand falls paralyzed, and he must leave with\nhis errand undone. This was the second miracle. Soon after, the wicked\ndemons steal the child from his mother and carry him into the desert,\nin order to kill him; but Dughda finds the unharmed child, calmly\nsleeping. This is the third miracle. Later on, Zoroaster was to be\ntrampled upon, in a narrow passage way, by a herd of oxen, by command\nof the king.[67] But the largest of the cattle took the child between\nhis feet, and preserved it from harm. This was the fourth miracle. The\nfifth is merely a repetition of the preceding. What the cattle had\nrefused to do, was to be accomplished by horses. But again the child\nwas protected by a horse from the hoofs of the other horses. Dur\u00e2nsur\u00fbn\nthereupon had the cubs in a wolf\u2019s den killed during the absence of\nthe old wolves, and Zoroaster was laid down in their place. But a god\nclosed the jaws of the furious wolves, so that they could not harm\nthe child. Two divine cows arrived instead and presented their udders\nto the child, giving it to drink. This was the sixth miracle, through\nwhich Zoroaster\u2019s life was preserved. (Compare Spiegel\u2019s Eranische\nAltertumskunde, I, pp. 688 et seq., also Brodbeck, Zoroaster, Leipzig,\n1893.)\n\nRelated traits are also encountered in the history of Buddha, whose\nlife is referred to the sixth century before Christ; such as the\nlong sterility of the parents, the dream, the birth of the boy under\nthe open sky, the death of the mother and her substitution by a\nfoster-mother, the announcing of the birth to the ruler of the realm;\nlater on the losing of the boy in the temple (as in the history of\nJesus; compare Luke 2, 40-52).\n\n\n\n\n                               SIEGFRIED\n\nThe old Norse _Thidreksaga_, as registered about the year 1250 by an\nIcelander, according to oral traditions and ancient songs, relates\nthe history of the birth and youth of Siegfried, as follows:[68] King\nSigmund of Tarlungaland, on his return from an expedition, banishes his\nwife Sisibe, the daughter of King Nidung of Hispania, who is _accused_\nby Count Hartvin, whose advances she has spurned, of having had\n_illicit relations with a menial_. The king\u2019s counsellors advise him\nto mutilate instead of kill the innocent queen, and Hartvin is ordered\nto cut out her tongue in the forest, so as to bring it to the king as\na pledge. His companion, Count Hermann, opposes the execution of the\ncruel command, and proposes to present the tongue of a dog to the king.\nWhile the two men are engaged in a violent quarrel, _Sisibe gives birth\nto a remarkably beautiful boy; she then took a glass vessel, and after\nhaving wrapped the boy in linens, she placed him in the glass vessel,\nwhich she_ carefully closed again and placed beside her (Rassmann).\nCount Hartvin was conquered in the fight, and in falling kicked the\nglass vessel, _so that it fell into the river_. When the queen saw this\nshe swooned, and died soon afterwards. Hermann went home, told the\nking everything, and was banished from the country. The _glass vessel\nmeantime drifted down stream to the sea_, and it was not long before\nthe tide turned. _Then the vessel floated on to a rocky cliff_, and the\nwater ran off so that the place where the vessel was perfectly dry. The\nboy inside had grown somewhat, and when the vessel struck the rock, it\nbroke, and the child began to cry. [Rassmann] The boy\u2019s wailing was\nheard _by a doe_, which seized him with her lips, and carried him to\nher litter, _where she nursed him together with her young_. After the\nchild had lived twelve months in the den of the doe, he had grown to\nthe height and strength of other boys four years of age. One day he ran\ninto the forest, where dwelt the wise and skilfull _smith, Mimir who\nhad lived for nine years in childless wedlock_. He saw the boy, who\nwas followed by the faithful doe, took him to his home, _and resolved\nto bring him up as his own son_. He gave him the name of Siegfried. In\nMimir\u2019s home, Siegfried soon attained an enormous stature and strength,\nbut his wilfulness caused Mimir _to get rid of him_. He sent the youth\ninto the forest, where it had been arranged that the dragon Regin,\nMimir\u2019s brother, was to kill him. But Siegfried conquers the dragon,\nand kills Mimir. He then proceeds to Brynhild, who names his parents to\nhim.\n\nSimilarly to the early history of Siegfried, an Austrasiatic saga\ntells of the birth and youth of _Wolfdietrich_.[69] His mother is\nlikewise accused of _unfaithfulness_, and intercourse with the devil,\nby a vassal whom she has repulsed, and who speaks evil of her to the\nreturning king, Hugdietrich of Constantinople.[70]\n\n_The king surrenders the child to the faithful Berchtung, who is to\nkill it, but exposes it instead, in the forest, near the water_, in\nthe hope that it will fall in of its own accord and thus find its\ndeath. But the frolicking child remains unhurt, and even _the wild\nanimals_, lions, bears, wolves, which come at night to the water, _do\nnot harm it_. The astonished Berchtung resolves to save the boy, and he\n_surrenders him to a game keeper_ who, together with his wife, raises\nhim and names him Wolfdietrich.[71]\n\nThe following later hero epics may still be quoted in this connection.\nIn the thirteenth century, the saga of _Horn_, the son of Aluf, who\nafter having been exposed on the sea, finally reaches the court of\nKing Hunlaf, and after numerous adventures wins the king\u2019s daughter,\nRimhilt, for his wife. Furthermore, a detail suggestive of Siegfried,\nfrom the saga of the skilfull smith _Wieland_, who, after avenging his\nfoully murdered father, floats down the river Weser, artfully enclosed\nin the trunk of a tree, and loaded with the tools and treasures of\nhis teachers. Finally the _Arthur_ legend contains the commingling of\ndivine and human paternity, the exposure and the early life with a\nlowly man.\n\n\n\n\n                               LOHENGRIN\n\nThe widely distributed group of sagas which have been woven around the\nmythic knight with the swan (the old French Chevalier au cigne) can be\ntraced back to very ancient Keltic traditions. The following is the\nversion which has been made familiar by Wagner\u2019s dramatisation of this\ntheme. The story of Lohengrin, the knight with the swan, as transmitted\nby the medieval German epic [modernized by Junghaus, Reclam] and\nbriefly rendered by the Grimm brothers, in their \u201cGerman Sagas\u201d (Part\nII, Berlin, 1818, p. 306) under the title: Lohengrin in Brabant.\n\nThe Duke of Brabant and Limburg died, without leaving other heirs than\na young daughter, Els, or Elsam by name; her he recommended on his\ndeath bed to one of his retainers, Friedrich von Telramund. Friedrich,\nthe intrepid warrior, became emboldened to demand the youthful duchess\u2019\nhand and lands, under the false claim that she had promised to marry\nhim. She steadfastly refused to do so. Friedrich complained to Emperor\nHeinrich, surnamed the Vogler, and the verdict was that she must defend\nherself against him, through some hero, in a so called divine judgment,\nin which God would accord the victory to the innocent, and defeat the\nguilty. As none were ready to take her part, the young duchess prayed\nardently to God, to save her; and far away in distant Montsalvatsch,\nin the Council of the Grail, the sound of the bell was heard, showing\nthat there was some one in urgent need of help. The Grail therefore\nresolved to despatch as a rescuer, Lohengrin the son of Parsifal. Just\nas he was about to place his foot in the stirrup _a swan came floating\ndown the water drawing a skiff behind him_. As soon as Lohengrin set\neyes upon the swan, he exclaimed: \u201cTake the steed back to the manger, I\nshall follow this bird wherever he may lead me.\u201d Having faith in God\u2019s\nomnipotence he took no food with him in the skiff. After they had been\nafloat on the sea five days, the swan dipped his bill in the water,\ncaught a fish, ate one half of it, and gave the other half to the\nprince to eat. _Thus the knight was fed by the swan._\n\nMeanwhile Elsa had summoned her chieftains and retainers to a meeting\nin Antwerp. Precisely on the day of the assembly, a swan was sighted\nswimming up stream (river Schelde) and drawing behind him a skiff, in\nwhich Lohengrin lay asleep on his shield. The swan promptly came to\nland at the shore, and the prince was joyfully welcomed. Hardly had\nhis helmet, shield and sword been taken from the skiff, when the swan\nat once swam away again. Lohengrin heard of the wrong which had been\ndone to the duchess, and willingly consented to become her champion.\nElsa then summoned all her relatives and subjects. The place was\nprepared in Mayence, where Lohengrin and Friedrich were to fight in\nthe emperor\u2019s presence. The hero of the Grail defeated Friedrich, who\nconfessed having lied to the duchess, and was executed with the axe.\nElsa was alloted to Lohengrin, they having long been lovers; but he\nsecretly _insisted upon her avoiding all questions as to his ancestry,\nor whence he had come_, saying that otherwise he would have to leave\nher instantaneously and she would never see him again.\n\nFor some time, the couple lived in peace and happiness. Lohengrin was\na wise and mighty ruler over his land, and also served his emperor\nwell in his expeditions against the Huns and the heathen. But it came\nto pass that one day in throwing the javelin he unhorsed the Duke\nof Cleve, so that the latter broke an arm. The Duchess of Cleve was\nangry, and spoke out amongst the women, saying: \u201cLohengrin may be\nbrave enough, and he seems to be a good Christian; what a pity that\nhis nobility is not of much account _for no one knows whence he has\ncome floating to this land_.\u201d These words pierced the heart of the\nDuchess of Brabant, and she changed color with emotion. At night, when\nher spouse was holding her in his arms, she wept, and he said \u201cWhat\nis the matter, Elsa, my own?\u201d She made answer, \u201cthe Duchess of Cleve\nhas caused me sore pain.\u201d Lohengrin was silent and asked no more. The\nsecond night, the same came to pass. But in the third night, Elsa\ncould no longer retain herself, and she spoke: \u201cLord, do not chide\nme! _I wish to know, for our children\u2019s sake, whence you were born_;\nfor my heart tells me that you are of high rank.\u201d When the day broke,\nLohengrin declared in public whence he had come, that Parsifal was his\nfather, and God had sent him from the Grail. He then asked for his\ntwo children, which the duchess had borne him, kissed them, told them\nto take good care of his horn and sword which he would leave behind,\nand said: \u201cNow, I must be gone.\u201d To the duchess he left a little\nring which his mother had given him. Then the swan, his friend, came\nswimming swiftly, with the skiff behind him; the prince stepped in and\ncrossed the water, back to the service of the Grail. Elsa sank down in\na faint. The empress resolved _to keep the younger boy Lohengrin, for\nhis father\u2019s sake, and to bring him up as her own child_. But the widow\nwept and mourned[72] the rest of her life for her beloved spouse, who\nnever came back to her.\n\nOn inverting the Lohengrin saga in such a way that the end is placed\nfirst,\u2014on the basis of the rearrangement, or even transmutation of\nmotives, not uncommonly found in myths,\u2014we find the type of saga\nwith which we have now become familiar: The infant Lohengrin, who is\nidentical with his father of the same name, _floats in a vessel upon\nthe sea and is carried ashore by a swan. The empress adopts him as her\nson, and he becomes a valorous hero._ Having married a noble maiden of\nthe land, he forbids her to enquire as to his origin. When the command\nis broken he is obliged to reveal his miraculous descent and divine\nmission, after which the swan carries him back in his skiff to the\nGrail.\n\nOther versions of the saga of the Knight with the Swan have retained\nthis original arrangement of the motives, although they appear\ncommingled with elements of fairy tales. The saga of the Knight with\nthe Swan, as related in the Flemish People\u2019s Book (Deutsche Sagen,\nI, 29), contains in the beginning the history of the birth of seven\nchildren,[73] borne by Beatrix, the wife of King Oriant of Flanders.\nThe wicked mother of the absent king, Matabruna, orders that the\nchildren be killed, and the queen be given seven puppy dogs in their\nstead. But the servant contents himself with the exposure of the\nchildren, who are found by a hermit, named Helias, and are nourished by\na goat until they are grown. Beatrix is thrown into a dungeon. Later\non Matabruna learns that the children have been saved and her repeated\ncommand to kill them causes the hunter, who has been charged with the\nmurder, to bring her as a sign of apparent obedience to her behest, the\nsilver neck chains which the children wore already at the time of their\nbirth. One of the boys, named Helias, after his foster father, alone\nkeeps his chain, and is thereby saved from the fate of his brothers,\nwho are transformed into swans, as soon as their chains are removed.\nMatabruna volunteers to prove the relations of the queen with the dog,\nand upon her instigation, Beatrix is to be killed, unless a champion\narises to defend her. In her need, she prays to God, who sends her\nson Helias as a rescuer. The brothers are also saved by means of the\nother chains, except one, whose chain has already been melted down.\nKing Oriant now transfers the rulership to his son Helias, who causes\nthe wicked Matabruna to be burned. One day, Helias sees his brother,\nthe swan, drawing a skiff on the lake surrounding the castle. This\nhe regards as a heavenly sign, he arms himself and mounts the skiff.\nThe swan takes him through rivers and lakes to the place where God\nhas ordained him to go. Next follows the liberation of an innocently\naccused duchess, in analogy with the Lohengrin saga; and his marriage\nto her daughter Clarissa, who is forbidden to ask for her husband\u2019s\nancestry. In the seventh year of their marriage she disobeys and puts\nthe question, after which Helias returns home in the swan\u2019s skiff.\nFinally, his lost brother swan is likewise released.\n\nThe characteristic features of the Lohengrin saga,\u2014that the divine\nhero disappears again in the same mysterious fashion in which he has\narrived; also the transference of mythical motives from the life\nof the older hero, bearing the same name, to a younger one, a very\nuniversal process in myth-formation, are likewise embodied in the\nAnglian-Longobard saga of Sc\u00ebaf, which is mentioned in the introduction\nto the Beowulf-Song, the oldest German epic, preserved in the\nAnglo-Saxon tongue (translated by H. v. Wolzogen, Reclam). The father\nof old Beowulf received his name, Scild Sc\u00e9fing (meaning the son of\nSc\u00ebaf), because as a very young boy, he was cast ashore as a stranger,\nasleep in a boat on a sheaf of grain (Anglo-saxon, sc\u00e9af). The waves of\nthe sea carried him to the coast of the country which he was destined\nto defend. The inhabitants welcomed him as a miracle, raised him, and\nlater on made him their king, as an emissary of God. (Compare Grimm,\nGerman Mythology, I, p. 306; III, p. 391, and H. Leo: Beowulf, Halle,\n1839.) What is told of the ancestor of the royal house, Scaf,[74] or\nSc\u00ebaf, appears in the Beowulf song transferred to his son, Sc\u00ebafing\nScild, according to the unanimous statement of Grimm (see above), and\nLeo (p. 24): His dead body is exposed at his behest, surrounded by\nkingly splendor, upon a ship without a crew, which is sent out into\nthe sea. Thus he vanishes in the same mysterious manner in which his\nfather arrived ashore; this trait being accounted for, in analogy with\nthe Lohengrin saga, by the mythical identity of father and son.\n\nA cursory review of these variegated hero myths forcibly brings out\na series of uniformly common features, with a typical ground work,\nfrom which a standard saga, as it were, may be constructed. This\nschedule corresponds approximately to the ideal human skeleton which is\nconstantly seen, with minor deviations, on transillumination of figures\nwhich outwardly differ from one another. The individual traits of the\nseveral myths, and especially apparently crude variations from the\nprototype, can only be entirely elucidated by the myth-interpretation.\nThe standard saga itself may be formulated according to the following\nscheme:\n\nThe hero is the child of most distinguished parents; usually the son\nof a king. His origin is preceded by difficulties, such as continence,\nor prolonged barrenness, or secret intercourse of the parents, due to\nexternal prohibition or obstacles. During the pregnancy, or antedating\nthe same, there is a prophecy, in form of a dream or oracle, cautioning\nagainst his birth, and usually threatening danger to the father, or his\nrepresentative. As a rule, he is surrendered to the water, in a box. He\nis then saved by animals, or by lowly people (shepherds) and is suckled\nby a female animal, or by a humble woman. After he has grown up, he\nfinds his distinguished parents, in a highly versatile fashion; takes\nhis revenge on his father, on the one hand, is acknowledged on the\nother, and finally achieves rank and honors.[75]\n\nThe normal relations of the hero towards his father and his mother\nregularly appearing impaired in all these myths, as shown by the\nschedule, there is reason to assume that something in the nature of\nthe hero must account for such a disturbance, and motives of this\nkind are not very difficult to discover. It is readily understood\u2014and\nmay be noted in the modern epigones of the heroic age\u2014that for the\nhero who is exposed to envy, jealousy and calumny to a much higher\ndegree than all others, the descent from his parents often becomes\nthe source of the greatest distress and embarrassment. The old saying\nthat \u201cA prophet is not without honor save in his own country and in\nhis father\u2019s house,\u201d has no other meaning but this, that he whose\nparents, brothers and sisters, or playmates, are known to us, is not\nso readily conceded to be a prophet (Gospel of St. Mark, VI, 4). There\nseems to be a certain necessity for the prophet to deny his parents;\nalso, the well-known opera of Meyerbeer is based upon the avowal that\nthe prophetic hero is allowed, in favor of his mission, to abandon and\nrepudiate even his tenderly beloved mother.\n\nA number of difficulties arise, however, as we proceed to a deeper\nenquiry into the motives which oblige the hero to sever his\nfamily relations. Numerous investigators have emphasized that the\nunderstanding of myth formation requires our going back to their\nultimate source, namely the individual faculty of imagination.[76] The\nfact has also been pointed out that this imaginative faculty is found\nin its active and unchecked exuberance only in childhood. Therefore,\nthe imaginative life of the child should first be studied, in order\nto facilitate the understanding of the far more complex and also more\nhandicapped mythical and artistic imagination in general.\n\nMeanwhile the investigation of the juvenile faculty of imagination\nhas hardly commenced, instead of being sufficiently advanced to\npermit the utilization of the findings for the explanation of the\nmore complicated psychic activities. The reason for this imperfect\nunderstanding of the psychic life of the child is referable to the lack\nof a suitable instrument, as well as of a reliable avenue, leading\ninto the intricacies of this very delicate and rather inaccessible\ndomain. These juvenile emotions can by no means be studied in the\nnormal human adult, and it may actually be charged, in view of certain\npsychic disturbances, that the normal psychic integrity of normal\nsubjects consists precisely in their having overcome and forgotten\ntheir childish vagaries and imaginations: so that the way has become\nblocked. In children, on the other hand, empirical observation (which\nas a rule must remain merely superficial) fails in the investigation\nof psychic processes, because we are not as yet enabled to trace all\nmanifestations correctly to their motive forces: so that we are lacking\nthe instrument. There is a certain class of persons, the so-called\npsychoneurotics, shown by the teachings of Freud to have remained\nchildren, in a sense, although otherwise appearing grown up. These\npsychoneurotics may be said not to have given up their juvenile psychic\nlife, which on the contrary, in the course of maturity, has become\nstrengthened and fixed, instead of modified. In psychoneurotics, the\nemotions of the child are preserved and exaggerated, thus becoming\ncapable of pathological effects, in which these humble emotions appear\nbroadened and enormously magnified. The fancies of neurotics are,\nas it were, the uniformly exaggerated reproductions of the childish\nimaginings. This would point the way to a solution of the problem.\nUnfortunately, however, the access is still much more difficult\nto establish in these cases than to the child mind. There is only\none known instrument which makes this road practicable, namely the\npsychoanalytic method, which has been developed through the work of\nFreud. Constant handling of this instrument will clear the observer\u2019s\nvision to such a degree that he will be enabled to discover the\nidentical motive forces, only in delicately shaded manifestations, also\nin the psychic life of those who do not become neurotics later on.\n\nProfessor Freud had the amiability to place at the author\u2019s disposal\nhis highly appreciated experience with the psychology of the neuroses;\nand on this material are based the following comments, on the\nimaginative faculty of the child as well as the neurotic.\n\nThe detachment of the growing individual from the authority of\nthe parents is one of the most necessary, but also one of the most\npainful achievements of evolution. It is absolutely necessary for\nthis detachment to take place, and it may be assumed that all normal\ngrown individuals have accomplished it to a certain extent. Social\nprogress is essentially based upon this opposition between the two\ngenerations. On the other hand, there exists a class of neurotics\nwhose condition indicates that they have failed to solve this very\nproblem. For the young child, the parents are in the first place\nthe sole authority, and the source of all faith. To resemble them,\n_i.e._, the progenitor of the same sex; to grow up like father or\nmother, this is the most intense and portentous wish of the child\u2019s\nearly years. Progressive intellectual development naturally brings it\nabout that the child gradually becomes acquainted with the category\nto which the parents belong. Other parents become known to the child,\nwho compares these with his own, and thereby becomes justified in\ndoubting the incomparability and uniqueness with which he had invested\nthem. Trifling occurrences in the life of the child, which induce a\nmood of dissatisfaction, lead up to a criticism of the parents, and\nthe gathering conviction that other parents are preferable in certain\nways, is utilized for this attitude of the child towards the parents.\nFrom the psychology of the neuroses, we have learned that very intense\nemotions of sexual rivalry are also involved in this connection.\nThe causative factor evidently is the feeling of being neglected.\nOpportunities arise only too frequently when the child is neglected,\nor at least feels himself neglected, when he misses the entire love\nof the parents, or at least regrets having to share the same with the\nother children of the family. The feeling that one\u2019s own inclinations\nare not entirely reciprocated seeks its relief in the idea,\u2014often\nconsciously remembered from very early years,\u2014of being a step-child,\nor an adopted child. Many persons who have not become neurotics, very\nfrequently remember occasions of this kind, when the hostile behavior\nof the parents was interpreted and reciprocated by them in this\nfashion, usually under the influence of story books. The influence\nof sex is already evident, in so far as the boy shows a far greater\ntendency to harbor hostile feelings against his father than his mother,\nwith a much stronger inclination to emancipate himself from the father\nthan from the mother. The imaginative faculty of girls is possibly\nmuch less active in this respect. These consciously remembered psychic\nemotions of the years of childhood supply the factor which permits the\ninterpretation of the myth. What is not often consciously remembered,\nbut can almost invariably be demonstrated through psychoanalysis, is\nthe next stage in the development of this incipient alienation from\nthe parents, which may be designated by the term _Family Romance\nof Neurotics_. The essence of neurosis, and of all higher mental\nqualifications, comprises a special activity of the imagination which\nis primarily manifested in the play of the child, and which from about\nthe period preceding puberty takes hold of the theme of the family\nrelations. A characteristic example of this special imaginative faculty\nis represented by the familiar _day dreams_,[77] which are continued\nuntil long after puberty. Accurate observation of these day dreams\nshows that they serve for the fulfilment of wishes, for the righting\nof life, and that they have two essential objects, one erotic, the\nother of an ambitious nature (usually with the erotic factor concealed\ntherein). About the time in question the child\u2019s imagination is engaged\nupon the task of getting rid of the parents, who are now despised and\nare as a rule to be supplanted by others of a higher social rank. The\nchild utilizes an accidental coincidence of actual happenings (meetings\nwith the lord of the manor, or the proprietor of the estate, in the\ncountry; with the reigning prince, in the city. In the United States\nwith some great statesman, millionaire). Accidental occurrences of\nthis kind arouse the child\u2019s envy, and this finds its expression in\nfancy fabrics which replace the two parents by others of a higher rank.\nThe technical elaboration of these two imaginings, which of course by\nthis time have become conscious, depends upon the child\u2019s adroitness,\nand also upon the material at his disposal. It likewise enters into\nconsideration, if these fancies are elaborated with more or less claim\nto plausibility. This stage is reached at a time when the child is\nstill lacking all knowledge of the sexual conditions of descent. With\nthe added knowledge of the manifold sexual relations of father and\nmother; with the child\u2019s realization of the fact that the father is\nalways uncertain, whereas the mother is very certain\u2014the family romance\nundergoes a peculiar restriction; it is satisfied with ennobling the\nfather, while the descent from the mother is no longer questioned,\nbut accepted as an unalterable fact. This second (or sexual) stage\nof the family romance is moreover supported by another motive, which\ndid not exist in the first (or asexual) stage. Knowledge of sexual\nmatters gives rise to the tendency of picturing erotic situations and\nrelations, impelled by the pleasurable emotion of placing the mother,\nor the subject of the greatest sexual curiosity, in the situation of\nsecret unfaithfulness and clandestine love affairs. In this way the\nprimary or asexual fantasies are raised to the standard of the improved\nlater understanding.\n\nThe motive of revenge and retaliation, which was originally to the\nfront, is again evident. These neurotic children are mostly those who\nwere punished by the parents, to break them of bad sexual habits, and\nthey take their revenge upon their parents by their imaginings. The\nyounger children of a family are particularly inclined to deprive\ntheir predecessors of their advantage by fables of this kind (exactly\nas in the intrigues of history). Frequently they do not hesitate in\ncrediting the mother with as many love affairs as there are rivals. An\ninteresting variation of this family romance restores the legitimacy\nof the plotting hero himself, while the other children are disposed\nof in this way as illegitimate. The family romance may be governed\nbesides by a special interest, all sorts of inclinations being met by\nits adaptability and variegated character. The little romancer gets rid\nin this fashion for example of the kinship of a sister, who may have\nattracted him sexually.\n\nThose who turn aside with horror from this corruption of the child\nmind, or perhaps actually contest the possibility of such matters,\nshould note that all these apparently hostile imaginings have not such\na very bad significance after all, and that the original affection\nof the child for his parents is still preserved under their thin\ndisguise. The faithlessness and ingratitude on the part of the child\nare only apparent, for on investigating in detail the most common of\nthese romantic fancies, namely the substitution of both parents, or\nof the father alone, by more exalted personages\u2014the discovery will\nbe made that these new and highborn parents are invested throughout\nwith the qualities which are derived from real memories of the true\nlowly parents, so that the child does not actually remove his father\nbut exalts him. _The entire endeavor to replace the real father by a\nmore distinguished one is merely the expression of the child\u2019s longing\nfor the vanished happy time, when his father still appeared to be the\nstrongest and greatest man, and the mother seemed the dearest and most\nbeautiful woman._ The child turns away from the father, as he now\nknows him, to the father in whom he believed in his earlier years, his\nimagination being in truth only the expression of regret for this happy\ntime having passed away. _Thus the overvaluation of the earliest years\nof childhood again claims its own in these fancies._[78] An interesting\ncontribution to this subject is furnished by the study of the dreams.\nDream-interpretation teaches that even in later years, in the dreams\nof the emperor or the empress, these princely persons stand for the\nfather and the mother.[79] Thus the infantile overvaluation of the\nparents is still preserved in the dream of the normal adult.\n\nAs we proceed to fit the above features into our scheme, we feel\njustified in analogizing the ego of the child with the hero of the\nmyth, in view of the unanimous tendency of family romances and hero\nmyths; keeping in mind that the myth throughout reveals an endeavor to\nget rid of the parents, and that the same wish arises in the phantasies\nof the individual child at the time when it is trying to establish its\npersonal independence. The ego of the child behaves in this respect\nlike the hero of the myth, and as a matter of fact, the hero should\nalways be interpreted merely as a collective ego, which is equipped\nwith all the excellences. In a similar manner, the hero in personal\npoetic fiction, usually represents the poet himself, or at least one\nside of his character.\n\nSummarizing the essentials of the hero myth, we find the descent from\nnoble parents, the exposure in a river, and in a box, and the raising\nby lowly parents; followed in the further evolution of the story by\nthe hero\u2019s return to his first parents, with or without punishment\nmeted out to them. It is very evident that the two parent couples of\nthe myth correspond to the real and the imaginary parent couple of the\nromantic phantasy. Closer inspection reveals the psychological identity\nof the humble and the noble parents, precisely as in the infantile and\nneurotic phantasies.\n\nIn conformity with the overvaluation of the parents in early childhood,\nthe myth begins with the noble parents, exactly like the romantic\nphantasy, whereas in reality adults soon adapt themselves to the\nactual conditions. Thus the phantasy of the family romance is simply\nrealized in the myth, with a bold reversal to the actual conditions.\nThe hostility of the father, and the resulting exposure, accentuate the\nmotive which has caused the ego to indulge in the entire fiction. The\nfictitious romance is the excuse, as it were, for the hostile feelings\nwhich the child harbors against his father, and which in this fiction\nare projected against the father. The exposure in the myth, therefore,\nis equivalent to the repudiation or non-recognition in the romantic\nphantasy. The child simply gets rid of the father in the neurotic\nromance, while in the myth the father endeavors to lose the child.\nRescue and revenge are the natural terminations, as demanded by the\nessence of the phantasy.\n\nIn order to establish the full value of this parallelization, as just\nsketched in its general outlines, it must enable us to interpret\ncertain constantly recurring details of the myth which seem to require\na special explanation. This demand would seem to acquire special\nimportance in view of the fact that no satisfactory explanation\nof these details is forthcoming in the writings of even the most\nenthusiastic astral mythologists, or natural philosophers. Such details\nare represented by the regular occurrence of dreams (or oracles), and\nby the mode of exposure in a box and in the water. These motives do not\nat first glance seem to permit a psychologic derivation. Fortunately\nthe study of dream-symbolisms permits the elucidation of these elements\nof the hero-myth. The utilization of the same material in the dreams\nof healthy persons and neurotics[80] indicates that the exposure in\nthe water signifies no more and no less than the _symbolic expression\nof birth_. The children come out of the \u201cwater.\u201d[81] The basket,\nbox or receptacle[82] simply means the container, the womb; so that\nthe exposure directly signifies the process of birth, although it is\nrepresented by its opposite.\n\nThose who object to this representation by opposites should\nremember how often the dream works with the same mechanism (compare\n\u201cTraumdeutung,\u201d II edition, p. 238). A confirmation of this\ninterpretation of the exposure, as taken from the common human\nsymbolism, is furnished by the material itself, in the dream dreamt by\nthe grandfather (or still more convincingly by the mother herself)[83]\nin the Ktesian version of Kyros before his birth; in this dream, so\nmuch water flows from the lap of the expectant mother as to inundate\nall Asia, like an enormous ocean.[84] It is remarkable that in\nboth cases the Chaldeans correctly interpreted these water dreams\nas birth-dreams. In all probability, these dreams themselves are\nconstructed out of the knowledge of a very ancient and universally\nunderstood symbolism, with a dim foresight of the relations and\nconnections which are appreciated and presented in Freud\u2019s teachings.\nThere he says (\u201cTraumdeutung,\u201d 2d edition, p. 199) in referring to a\ndream in which the dreamer hurls herself in the dark water of a lake:\nDreams of this sort are birth-dreams, and their interpretation is\naccomplished by reversing the fact as communicated in the manifest\ndream; namely, instead of hurling oneself into the water, it means\nemerging from the water, _i.e._, to be born.[85] The justice of this\ninterpretation, which renders the water-dream equivalent to the\nexposure, is again confirmed by the fact that precisely in the Kyros\nsaga, which contains the water-dream, the motive of the exposure in the\nwater is lacking, while only the basket, which does not occur in the\ndream, plays a part in the exposure.\n\nIn this interpretation of the exposure as the birth, we must not let\nourselves be disturbed by the discrepancy in the succession of the\nindividual elements of the symbolized materialization, with the real\nbirth process. This chronological rearrangement or even reversal\nhas been explained by Freud as due to the general manner in which\nrecollections are elaborated into phantasies; the same material\nreappears in the phantasies, but in an entirely novel arrangement, and\nno attention whatsoever is paid to the natural sequence of the acts.[86]\n\nBesides this chronological reversal, the reversal of the contents\nrequires special explanation. The first reason for the representation\nof the birth by its opposite,\u2014the life threatening exposure in the\nwater, is the accentuation of the parental hostility towards the future\nhero.[87] The creative influence of this tendency to represent the\nparents as the first and most powerful opponents of the hero will be\nappreciated, when it is kept in mind that the entire family-romance\nin general owes its origin to the feeling of being neglected, namely\nthe assumed hostility of the parents. In the myth, this hostility\ngoes so far that the parents refuse to let the child be born, which\nis precisely the reason of the hero\u2019s lament, moreover, the myth\nplainly reveals the desire to enforce his materialization even against\nthe will of the parents. The vital peril which is thus concealed in\nthe representation of birth through exposure, actually exists in the\nprocess of birth itself. The overcoming of all these obstacles also\nexpresses the idea that the future hero has actually overcome the\ngreatest difficulties by virtue of his birth, for he has victoriously\nthwarted all attempts to prevent it.[88] Or another interpretation\nmay be admitted, according to which the youthful hero, foreseeing\nhis destiny to taste more than his share of the bitterness of life,\ndeplores in pessimistic mood the inimical act which has called him\nto earth. He accuses the parents, as it were, for having exposed him\nto the struggle of life, for having allowed him to be born.[89] The\nrefusal to let the son be born, which belongs especially to the father,\nis frequently concealed by the contrast motive, the wish for a child\n(as in \u0152dipus, Perseus and others), while the hostile attitude towards\nthe future successor on the throne and in the kingdom is projected to\nthe outside, namely it is attributed to an oracular verdict, which is\nthereby revealed as the substitute of the ominous dream, or better, as\nthe equivalent of its interpretation.\n\nFrom another point of view, however, the family romance shows that the\nphantasies of the child, although apparently estranging the parents,\nhave nought else to say concerning them besides their confirmation as\nthe real parents. The exposure myth, translated with the assistance of\nsymbolism, likewise contains nothing but the assurance: this is my\nmother, who has borne me at the command of the father. But on account\nof the tendency of the myth, and the resulting transference of the\nhostile attitude, from the child to the parents, this assurance of\nthe real parentage can only be expressed as the repudiation of such\nparentage.\n\nOn closer inspection, it is noteworthy in the first place that the\nhostile attitude of the hero towards his parents concerns especially\nthe father. Usually, as in the myth of \u0152dipus, Paris, and others, the\nroyal father receives a prophecy of some disaster, threatening him\nthrough the expected son; then it is the father who causes the exposure\nof the boy and who pursues and menaces him in all sorts of ways after\nhis unlooked-for rescue, but finally succumbs to his son, according to\nthe prophecy. In order to understand this trait, which at first may\nappear somewhat startling, it is not necessary to explore the heavens\nfor some process into which this trait might be laboriously fitted.\nLooking with open eyes and unprejudiced minds at the relations between\nparents and children, or between brothers such as these exist in\nreality[90]\u2014a certain tension is frequently, if not regularly revealed\nbetween father and son, or still more distinctly a competition between\nbrothers; although this tension may not be obvious and permanent, it is\nlurking in the sphere of the unconscious, as it were, with periodical\neruptions. Erotic factors are especially apt to be involved, and as a\nrule the deepest, generally unconscious root of the dislike of the son\nfor the father, or of two brothers for each other, is referable to the\ncompetition for the tender devotion and love of the mother. The \u0152dipus\nmyth shows plainly, only in grosser dimensions, the accuracy of this\ninterpretation, for the parricide is here followed by the incest with\nthe mother. This erotic relation with the mother, which predominates in\nother mythic cycles, is relegated to the background in the myths of the\nbirth of the hero,[91] while the opposition against the father is more\nstrongly accentuated.\n\nThe fact that this infantile rebellion against the father is\napparently provoked in the birth myths by the hostile behavior of the\nfather is due to a reversal of the relation, known as projection,\nwhich is brought about by very peculiar characteristics of the myth\nforming psychic activity. The projection mechanism, which also bore\nits part in the re-interpretation of the birth act, as well as\ncertain other characteristics of myth formation, to be discussed\npresently,\u2014necessitates the uniform characterisation of the myth\nas a paranoid structure, in view of its resemblance to peculiar\nprocesses in the mechanism of certain psychic disturbances. Intimately\nconnected with the paranoid character is the property of separating\nor dissociating what is fused in the imagination. This process, as\nillustrated by the two parents couples, provides the foundation for the\nmyth formation, and together with the projection mechanism supplies the\nkey to the understanding of an entire series of otherwise inexplicable\nconfigurations of the myth. As the motor power for this projection\nof the hero\u2019s hostile attitude on to the father stands revealed the\nwish for its justification, arising from the troublesome realization\nof these feelings against the father. The displacement process which\nbegins with the projection of the troublesome sensation is still\nfurther continued, however, and with the assistance of the mechanism\nof separation or dissociation, it has found a different expression of\nits gradual progress in very characteristic forms of the hero myth. In\nthe original psychologic setting, the father is still identical with\nthe king, the tyrannical persecutor. The first attenuation of this\nrelation is manifested in those myths in which the separation of the\ntyrannical persecutor from the real father is already attempted, but\nnot yet entirely accomplished, the former being still related to the\nhero, usually as his grandfather, for example in the Kyros-myth with\nall its versions, and in the majority of all hero myths in general.\nIn the separation of the father\u2019s part from that of the king, this\ntype signifies the first return step of the descent fantasy toward\nthe actual conditions, and accordingly the hero\u2019s father appears in\nthis type mostly as a lowly man: See Kyros, Gilgamos and others.\nThe hero thus arrives again at an approach toward his parents, the\nestablishment of a certain kinship, which finds its expression in the\nfact that not only the hero himself, but also his father and his mother\nrepresent objects of the tyrant\u2019s persecution. The hero in this way\nacquires a more intimate connection with the mother (they are often\nexposed together: Perseus, Telephos, Feridun), who is nearer to him on\naccount of the erotic relation; while the renouncement of his hatred\nagainst the father here attains the expression of its most forcible\nreaction,[92] for the hero henceforth appears, as in the Hamlet saga,\nnot as the persecutor of his father (or grandfather, respectively)\nbut as the avenger of the persecuted father. This involves a deeper\nrelation of the Hamlet saga with the Iranese story of Kaikhosrav,\nwhere the hero likewise appears as the avenger of his murdered father\n(compare Feridun and others).\n\nThe person of the grandfather himself, who in certain sagas appears\nreplaced by other relatives (the uncle, in the Hamlet saga), also\npossesses a deeper meaning.[93] The myth complex of the incest with\nthe mother\u2014and the related revolt against the father\u2014is here combined\nwith the second great complex, which has for its contents the erotic\nrelations between father and daughter. Under this heading belongs\nbesides other widely ramified groups of sagas (quoted in the author\u2019s\n\u201cIncest Book,\u201d Chapter XI), the story which is told in countless\nversions of a _newborn boy_, of whom it is _prophesied_ that he is to\nbecome the _son-in-law_ and _heir_ of a certain ruler or potentate,\nand who finally does so in spite of all persecutions (exposure and\nso forth) on the part of the latter. Detailed literary references\nconcerning the wide distribution of this story are found in R. K\u00f6hler,\n\u201cKleine Schriften,\u201d II, 357. The father who refuses to give his\ndaughter to any of her suitors, or who attaches certain conditions\ndifficult of fulfillment to the winning of the daughter, does this\nbecause he really begrudges her to all others, for when all is told he\nwishes to possess her himself. He locks her up in some inaccessible\nspot, so as to safeguard her virginity (Perseus, Gilgamos, Telephos,\nRomulus), and when his command is disobeyed he pursues the daughter\nand her offspring with insatiable hatred. However, the unconscious\nsexual motives of his hostile attitude, which is later on avenged by\nhis grandson, render it evident that again the hero kills in him simply\nthe man who is trying to rob him of the love of his mother: namely the\nfather.\n\nAnother attempt at a reversal to a more original type consists in\nthe following trait: The return to the lowly father, which has been\nbrought about through the separation of the father\u2019s r\u00f4le from that\nof the king, is again nullified through the lowly father\u2019s secondary\nelevation to the rank of a god, as in Perseus and the other sons of\nvirgin mothers; Karna, Ion, Romulus, Jesus. The secondary character of\nthis godly paternity is especially evident in those myths where the\nvirgin who has been impregnated by divine conception, later on marries\na mortal (Jesus, Karna, Ion) who then appears as the real father, while\nthe god as the father represents merely the most exalted childish idea\nof the magnitude, power and perfection of the father.[94] At the same\ntime, these myths strictly insist upon the motive of the virginity of\nthe mother, which elsewhere is merely hinted at. The first impetus is\nperhaps supplied by the transcendental tendency, necessitated through\nthe introduction of the god. At the same time, the birth from the\nvirgin is the most abrupt repudiation of the father, the consummation\nof the entire myth, as illustrated by the Sargon legend, which does not\nadmit any father, besides the vestal mother.\n\nThe last stage of this progressive attenuation of the hostile relation\nto the father is represented by that form of the myth in which the\nperson of the royal persecutor not only appears entirely detached from\nthat of the father, but has even lost the remotest kinship with the\nhero\u2019s family, which he opposes in the most hostile manner, as its\nenemy (in Feridun, Abraham, King Herod against Jesus, and others).\nAlthough of his original threefold character as the father, the king,\nand the persecutor, he retains only the part of the royal persecutor\nor the tyrant, the entire plan of the myth conveys the impression as\nif nothing had been changed, but as if the designation as \u201cfather\u201d\nhad been simply replaced by the term of \u201ctyrant.\u201d This interpretation\nof the father as a \u201ctyrant\u201d which is typical of the infantile\nideation,[95] will be found later on to possess the greatest importance\nfor the interpretation of certain abnormal constellations of this\ncomplex.\n\nThe prototype of this identification of the king with the father,\nwhich regularly recurs also in the dreams of adults, presumably is\nthe origin of royalty from the patriarchate in the family, which is\nstill attested by the use of identical words for king and father, in\nthe Hindoo-Germanic languages[96] (compare the German \u201cLandesvater,\u201d\nfather of his country, = king). The reversal of the family romance to\nactual conditions is almost entirety accomplished in this type of myth.\nThe lowly parents are acknowledged with a frankness which seems to be\ndirectly contradictory to the tendency of the entire myth.\n\nPrecisely this revelation of the real conditions, which hitherto had\nto be left to the interpretation, enables us to prove the accuracy of\nthe latter from the material itself. The biblical Moses-legend has been\nselected, as especially well adapted to this purpose.\n\nBriefly summarizing the outcome of the previous\ninterpretation-mechanism, to make matters plainer, we find the two\nparent-couples to be identical, after their splitting into the\npersonalities of the father and the tyrannical persecutor has been\nconnected; the high born parents being the echo, as it were, of the\nexaggerated notions which the child originally harbored concerning\nits parents. The Moses-legend actually shows the parents of the hero\ndivested of all prominent attributes; they are simple people, devotedly\nattached to the child, and incapable of harming it. Meanwhile, the\nassertion of tender feelings for the child is a confirmation, here\nas well as everywhere, of the bodily parentage (compare Akki, the\ngardener, in the Gilgamos-legend; the teamster, in the story of Karna;\nthe fisher, in the Perseus myth, etc.). The amicable utilization of\nthe exposure motive, which occurs in this type of myth, is referable\nto such a relationship. The child is surrendered in a basket to the\nwater, but not with the object of killing it (as for example the\nhostile exposure of \u0152dipus and many other heroes), but for the purpose\nof saving it (compare also Abraham\u2019s early history, p. 15). The danger\nfraught warning to the exalted father becomes a hopeful prophecy for\nthe lowly father (compare, in the birth story of Jesus, the oracle for\nHerod and Joseph\u2019s dream), entirely corresponding to the expectations\nplaced by most parents in the career of their offspring.\n\nRetaining from the original tendency of the romance, the fact that\nBitiah, Pharaoh\u2019s daughter, drew the child from the water, _i.e._, gave\nit birth, the outcome is the familiar theme (grandfather type) of the\nking, whose daughter is to bear a son, but who on being warned by the\nill-omened interpretation of a dream, resolves to kill his forthcoming\ngrandson. The handmaiden of his daughter (who in the biblical story\ndraws the box from the water, at the behest of the princess), is\ncharged by the king with the exposure of the newborn child in a box,\nin the waters of the river Nile, that it may perish (the exposure\nmotive, from the viewpoint of the highborn parents, here appearing in\nits original disastrous significance). The box with the child is then\nfound by lowly people, and the poor woman raises the child (as his\nwet nurse), and when he is grown up he is recognized by the princess\nas her son (just as in the prototype the phantasy concludes with the\nrecognition by the highborn parents).\n\nIf the Moses-legend were placed before us in this more original form,\nas we have reconstructed it from the existing material,[97] the sum of\nthis interpretation-mechanism would be approximately what is told in\nthe myth as it is actually transmitted; namely that his true mother was\nnot a princess, but the poor woman who was introduced as his nurse, her\nhusband being his father.\n\nThis interpretation is offered as the tradition, in the re-converted\nmyth; and the fact that this tracing of the progressive mutation\nfurnishes the familiar type of hero myth, is the proof for the\ncorrectness of our interpretation.\n\nIt has thus been our good fortune to show the full accuracy of our\ninterpretative technique upon the material itself, and it is now\ntime to demonstrate the tenability of the general viewpoint upon\nwhich this entire technique is founded. Hitherto, the results of our\ninterpretation have created the appearance of the entire myth formation\nas starting from the hero himself, namely from the youthful hero. At\nthe start we took this attitude in analogizing the hero of the myth\nwith the ego of the child. Now we find ourselves confronted with the\nobligation to harmonize these assumptions and conclusions with the\nother conceptions of myth formation, which they seem to directly\ncontradict.\n\nThe myths are certainly not constructed by the hero, least of all by\nthe child hero, but they have long been known to be the product of a\npeople of adults. The impetus is evidently supplied by the popular\namazement at the apparition of the hero, whose extraordinary life\nhistory the people can only imagine as ushered in by a wonderful\ninfancy. This extraordinary childhood of the hero, however, is\nconstructed by the individual myth-makers\u2014to whom the indefinite idea\nof the folk-mind must be ultimately traced\u2014from the consciousness of\ntheir own infancy. In investing the hero with their own infantile\nhistory, they identify themselves with him, as it were, claiming to\nhave been similar heroes in their own personality. The true hero of\nthe romance is, therefore, the ego, which finds itself in the hero,\nby reverting to the time when the ego was itself a hero, through its\nfirst heroic act, _i.e._, the revolt against the father. The ego can\nonly find its own heroism in the days of infancy, and it is therefore\nobliged to invest the hero with its own revolt, crediting him with\nthe features which made the ego a hero. This object is achieved with\ninfantile motives and materials, in reverting to the infantile romance\nand transferring it to the hero. Myths are, therefore, created by\nadults, by means of retrograde childhood fantasies,[98] the hero being\ncredited with the myth-maker\u2019s personal infantile history. Meanwhile\nthe tendency of this entire process is the excuse of the individual\nunits of the people for their own infantile revolt against the father.\n\nBesides the excuse of the hero for his rebellious revolt, the myth\ntherefore contains also the excuse of the individual for his revolt\nagainst the father. This revolt had burdened him since his childhood,\nas he had failed to become a hero. He is now enabled to excuse himself\nby emphasizing that the father has given him grounds for his hostility.\nThe affectionate feeling for the father is also manifested in the\nsame fiction, as has been shown above. These myths have therefore\nsprung from two opposite motives, both of which are subordinate to\nthe motive of vindication of the individual through the hero: on the\none hand the motive of affection and gratitude towards the parents;\nand on the other hand, the motive of the revolt against the father.\nIt is not stated outright in these myths, however, that the conflict\nwith the father arises from the sexual rivalry for the mother, but is\napparently suggested that this conflict dates back primarily to the\nconcealment of the sexual processes (at childbirth), which in this way\nbecame an enigma for the child. This enigma finds its temporary and\nsymbolical solution in the infantile sexual theory of the basket and\nthe water.[99]\n\nThe profound participation of the incest motive in myth formation\nis discussed in the author\u2019s special investigation of the Lohengrin\nsaga, which belongs to the myth of the birth of the hero. The cyclic\ncharacter of the Lohengrin saga is referred by him to the _fantasy\nof being one\u2019s own son_, as revealed by Freud (p. 131; compare also\npp. 96 and 990). This accounts for the identity of father and son,\nin certain myths, the repetition of their careers; the fact that the\nhero is sometimes not exposed until he has reached maturity, also the\nintimate connection between birth and death, in the exposure-motive.\n(Concerning the water as the water of death, compare especially chapter\nIV of the Lohengrin saga.) Jung, who regards the typical fate of the\nhero as the portrayal of the human libido and its typical vicissitudes,\nhas made this theme the pivot of his interpretation, as the fantasy\nof being born again, to which the incest motive is subordinated. Not\nonly the birth of the hero, which takes place under peculiar symbolic\ncircumstances, but also the motive of the two mothers of the hero, are\nexplained by Jung through the birth of the hero taking place under the\nmysterious ceremonials of a re-birth from the mother consort (_l. c._,\np. 356).\n\nHaving thus outlined the contents of the birth myth of the hero it\nstill remains for us to point out certain complications within the\nbirth myth itself, which have been explained on the basis of its\nparanoid character, as \u201csplits\u201d of the personality of the royal\nfather and persecutor. In some myths, however, and especially in the\nfairy tales which belong to this group,[100] the multiplication of\nmythical personages, and with them, of course, the multiplication of\nmotives, or even of entire stories, are carried so far that sometimes\nthe original features are altogether overgrown by these addenda. The\nmultiplication is so variegated and so exuberantly developed, that\nthe mechanism of the analysis no longer does it justice. Moreover,\nthe new personalities here do not show the same independence, as it\nwere, as the new personalities created by splitting, but they rather\npresent the characteristics of a copy, a duplicate, or a \u201cdouble,\u201d\nwhich is the proper mythological term. An apparently very complicated\nexample, namely, Herodotus\u2019 version of the Kyros saga, illustrates that\nthese doubles are not inserted purely for ornamentation, or to give a\nsemblance of historical veracity, but that they are insolubly connected\nwith the myth-formation and its tendency. Also, in the Kyros-myth, as\nin the other myths, the royal grandfather, Astyages, and his daughter,\nwith her husband, are confronted by the cattle-herder and his wife.\nA checkered gathering of other personalities which move around them,\nare readily grouped at sight: Between the high born parent couple\nand their child stand the administrator Harpagos with his wife and\nhis son, and the noble Artembares with his legitimate offspring. Our\ntrained sense for the peculiarities of myth-structure recognizes at\nonce the doubles of the parents in the intermediate parent-couples and\nall the participants are seen to be identical personalities of the\nparents and their child; this interpretation being suggested by certain\nfeatures of the myth itself. Harpagos receives the child from the\nking, to expose it; he therefore acts precisely like the royal father\nand remains true to his fictitious paternal part in his reluctance to\nkill the child himself\u2014because it is related to him\u2014but he delivers it\ninstead to the herder Mithradates, who is thus again identified with\nHarpagos. The noble Artembares, whose son Kyros causes to be whipped,\nis also identified with Harpagos; for when Artembares with his whipped\nboy stands before the king, to demand retribution, Harpagos at once\nis likewise seen standing before the king, to defend himself, and\nhe also is obliged to present his son to the king. Thus Artembares\nhimself plays an episodal part as the hero\u2019s father, and this is fully\nconfirmed by the Ktesian version, which tells us that the nobleman who\nadopted the herder\u2019s son, Kyros, as his own son, was named Artembares.\n\nEven more distinct than the identity of the different fathers is that\nof their children, which of course serves to confirm the identity of\nthe fathers. In the first place, and this would seem to be conclusive,\nthe _children are all of the same age_. Not only the son of the\nprincess, and the child of the herder, who are born at the same time;\nbut Herodotus specially emphasizes that Kyros played the game at\nkings, in which he caused the son of Artembares to be whipped, with\nboys of the same age. He also points out, perhaps intentionally, that\nthe _son of Harpagos_, destined to become the playmate of Kyros,\nwhom the king had recognized, was likewise apparently of the same\nage as Kyros. Furthermore, the remains of this boy are placed before\nhis father, Harpagos, in a basket, it was also a basket in which the\nnewborn Kyros was to have been exposed, and this actually happened to\nhis substitute, the herder\u2019s son, whose identity with Kyros is obvious\nand tangible in the report of Iustin, p. 34. In this report, Kyros is\nactually exchanged with the _living_ child of the herders;, but this\nparadoxical parental feeling is reconciled by the consciousness that in\nreality nothing at all has been altered by this exchange. It appears\nmore intelligible, of course, that the herder\u2019s wife should wish to\nraise the living child of the king, instead of her own _stillborn_\nboy, as in the Herodotus version; but here the identity of the boys\nis again evident, for just as the herder\u2019s son suffered death instead\nof Kyros in the past, twelve years later the son of Harpagos (also in\nthe basket) is killed directly for Kyros, whom Harpagos had allowed to\nlive.[101]\n\nThe impression is thereby conveyed that all the multiplications of\nKyros, after having been created for a certain purpose, are again\nremoved, as disturbing elements, once this purpose has been fulfilled.\nThis purpose is undoubtedly the exalting tendency which is inherent to\nthe family romance. The hero in the various duplications of himself\nand his parents, ascends the social scale from the herder Mithradates,\nby way of the noble Artembares, who is high in the king\u2019s favor, and\nof the first administrator, Harpagos, who is personally related to the\nking\u2014until he has himself become a prince; so his career is exposed in\nthe Ktesian version, where Kyros advances from the herder\u2019s son to the\nking\u2019s administrator.[102] In this way, he constantly removes, as it\nwere, the last traces of his ascent, the lower Kyros being discarded\nafter absolving the different stages of his career.[103]\n\nThis complicated myth with its promiscuous array of personages is\nthus simplified and reduced to three actors, namely the hero and his\nparents. Entirely similar conditions prevail in regard to the \u201ccast\u201d\nof many other myths. For example, the duplication may concern the\ndaughter, as in the Moses myth, in which the princess mother (in order\nto establish the identity of the two families)[104] appears among\nthe poor people as the daughter Miriam, who is merely a split of the\nmother, the latter appearing divided into the princess and the poor\nwoman. In case the duplication concerns the father, his doubles appear\nas a rule in the part of relatives, more particularly as his brothers,\nas for example in the Hamlet saga, in distinction from the foreign\npersonages created by the analysis. In a similar way, the grandfather,\nwho is taking the place of the father, may also appear complemented by\na brother, who is the hero\u2019s grand uncle, and as such his opponent,\nas in the myths of Romulus, Perseus and others. Other duplications,\nin apparently complicated mythical structures, as for example in\nKaikhosrav, Feridun, and others, are easily recognized when envisaged\nfrom this angle.\n\nThe duplication of the fathers, or the grandfathers, respectively, by\na brother may be continued in the next generation, and concern the\nhero himself, thus leading to the _brother myths_, which can only be\nhinted at in connection with the present theme. The prototypes of the\nboy, who in the Kyros saga vanish into thin air after they have served\ntheir purpose, namely the exaltation of the hero\u2019s descent, if they\nwere to assume a vitality of their own, would come to confront the hero\nas competitors with equal rights, namely as his brothers. The original\nsequence is probably better preserved through the interpretation of the\nhero\u2019s strange doubles as shadowy brothers, who like the twin brother,\nmust die for the hero\u2019s sake. Not only the father, who is in the way of\nthe maturing son, but also the interfering competitor, or the brother,\nare removed, in a na\u00efve realization of the childish fantasies, for the\nsimple reason that the hero does not want a family.\n\nThe complications of the hero myth with other myth cycles include,\nbesides the myth of the hostile brothers, which has already been\ndisposed of, also the actual incest myth, such as forms the nucleus\nof the \u0152dipus myth. The mother, and her relation to the hero, appear\nrelegated to the background in the myth of the birth of the hero. But\nthere is another conspicuous motive, meaning that the lowly mother\nis so often represented by an animal. This motive of the helpful\nanimals[105] belongs in part to a series of foreign elements, the\nexplanation of which would far exceed the scope of this essay.[106]\n\nThe animal motive may be fitted into the sequence of our\ninterpretation, on the basis of the following reflections. In a similar\nway as the projection on to the father justifies the hostile attitude\non the part of the son, so the lowering of the mother into an animal\nis likewise meant to vindicate the ingratitude of the son, who denies\nher. In a similar way as the detachment of the persecuting king from\nthe father, the exclusive r\u00f4le of a wet nurse, alloted to the mother,\nin this substitution by an animal, goes back to the separation of\nthe mother into the parts of the child bearer and the suckler. This\ncleavage is again subservient to the exalting tendency, in so far as\nthe child bearing part is reserved for the high born mother, whereas\nthe lowly woman, who cannot be eradicated from the early history, must\ncontent herself with the function of a nurse. Animals are especially\nappropriate substitutes, because the sexual processes are here plainly\nevident also to the child, while the concealment of these processes is\npresumably the root of the childish revolt against the parents. The\nexposure in the box and in the water asexualizes the birth process, as\nit were, in a childlike fashion; the children are fished out of the\nwater by the stork,[107] who takes them to the parents in a basket. The\nanimal fable improves upon this idea, by emphasizing the similarity\nbetween human birth and animal birth.\n\nThis introduction of the motive may possibly be interpreted from the\nparodistic point of view, if we assume that the child accepts the\nstory of the stork from the parents, feigning ignorance, but adding\nsuperciliously: If an animal has brought me, it may also have nursed\nme.[108]\n\nWhen all is said and done, however, and when the cleavage is followed\nback, this separation of the child bearer from the suckler\u2014which\nreally endeavors to remove the bodily mother entirely, by means of her\nsubstitution through an animal or a strange nurse\u2014does not express\nanything beyond the fact: The woman who has suckled me is my mother.\nThis statement is found directly symbolized in the Moses legend,\nthe retrogressive character of which we have already studied; for\nprecisely the woman who is his own mother is chosen to be his nurse\n[similarly also in the myth of Herakles, and in the Egyptian-Phenician\nOsiris-Adonis myth, where Osiris, encased in a chest, floats down the\nriver to Phenicia, and is finally found under the name Adonis, by Isis,\nwho is installed by Queen Astarte as the nurse of her own son].[109]\n\nOnly a brief reference can here be made to other motives which seem\nto be more loosely related to the entire myth. Such motives include\nthat of playing the fool, which is suggested in animal fables as the\nuniversal childish attitude towards the grown ups; furthermore, the\nphysical defects of certain heroes [Zal, \u0152dipus, Hephaistos], which are\nperhaps meant to serve for the vindication of individual imperfections,\nin such a way that the reproaches of the father for possible defects\nor shortcomings are incorporated in the myth, with the appropriate\naccentuation, the hero being endowed with the same weakness which\nburdens the self-respect of the individual.\n\nThis explanation of the psychological significance of the myth of\nthe birth of the hero would not be complete without emphasizing its\nrelations to certain mental diseases. Also readers without psychiatric\ntraining\u2014or these perhaps more than any others, must have been\nstruck with these relations. As a matter of fact, the hero myths are\nequivalent in many essential features to the delusional ideas of\ncertain psychotic individuals, who suffer from delusions of persecution\nand grandeur,\u2014the so called paranoiacs. Their system of delusions is\nconstructed very much like the hero myth, and therefore indicates\nthe same psychogenic motives as the neurotic family romance, which\nis analysable, whereas the system of delusions is inaccessible even\nfor psychoanalytical approaches. For example, the paranoiac is apt to\nclaim that the people whose name he bears are not his real parents,\nbut that he is actually the son of a princely personage; he was to be\nremoved for some mysterious reason, and was therefore surrendered to\nhis \u201cparents\u201d as a foster child. His enemies, however, wish to maintain\nthe fiction that he is of lowly descent, in order to suppress his\nlegitimate pretensions to the crown or to enormous riches.[110] Cases\nof this kind often occupy alienists or tribunals.[111]\n\nThis intimate relationship between the hero myth and the delusional\nstructure of paranoiacs has already been definitely established through\nthe characterization of the myth as a paranoid structure, which is\nhere confirmed by its contents. The remarkable fact that paranoiacs\nwill frankly reveal their entire romance has ceased to be puzzling,\nsince the profound investigations of Freud have shown that the contents\nof hysterical fantasies, which can often be made conscious through\nanalysis, are identical up to the minutest details with the complaints\nof persecuted paranoiacs; moreover, the identical contents are also\nencountered as a reality, in the arrangements of perverts for the\ngratification of their desires.[112]\n\nThe egotistical character of the entire system is distinctly revealed\nby the paranoiac, for whom the exaltation of the parents, as brought\nabout by him, is merely the means for his own exaltation. As a\nrule the pivot for his entire system is simply the culmination of\nthe family romance, in the apoditic statement: I am the emperor\n(or god). Reasoning in the symbolism of dreams and myths, which is\nalso the symbolism of all fancies, including the \u201cmorbid\u201d power of\nimagination\u2014all he accomplishes thereby is to put himself in the place\nof the father, just as the hero terminates his revolt against the\nfather. This can be done in both instances, because the conflict with\nthe father\u2014which dates back to the concealment of the sexual processes,\nas suggested by the latest discoveries\u2014is nullified at the instant when\nthe grown boy himself becomes a father. The persistence with which the\nparanoiac puts himself in the father\u2019s place, _i.e._, becomes a father\nhimself, appears like an illustration to the common answer of little\nboys to a scolding or a putting off of their inquisitive curiosity: You\njust wait until I am a papa myself, and I\u2019ll know all about it!\n\nBesides the paranoiac, his equally a-social counterpart must also\nbe emphasized. In the expression of the identical fantasy contents,\nthe hysterical individual who has suppressed them, is offset by the\npervert, who realizes them, and even so the diseased and passive\nparanoiac\u2014who needs his delusion for the correction of the actuality,\nwhich to him is intolerable\u2014is offset by the active criminal, who\nendeavors to change the actuality according to his mind. In this\nspecial sense, this type is represented by the anarchist. The hero\nhimself, as shown by his detachment from the parents, begins his\ncareer in opposition to the older generation; he is at once a rebel,\na renovator, and a revolutionary. However, every revolutionary is\noriginally a disobedient son, a rebel against the father.[113] (Compare\nthe suggestion of Freud, in connection with the interpretation of a\n\u201crevolutionary dream.\u201d Traumdeutung, II edition, p. 153. See English\ntranslation by Brill. Macmillan. Annotation.)\n\nBut whereas the paranoiac, in conformity with his passive character,\nhas to suffer persecutions and wrongs which ultimately proceed from\nthe father, and which he endeavors to escape by putting himself in\nthe place of the father or the emperor\u2014the anarchist complies more\nfaithfully with the heroic character, by promptly himself becoming\nthe persecutor of kings, and finally killing the king, precisely like\nthe hero. The remarkable similarity between the career of certain\nanarchistic criminals and the family romance of hero and child has\nbeen illustrated by the author, through special instances (Belege zur\nRettungsphantasie, _Zentralblatt f. Psychoanalyse_, I, 1911, p. 331,\nand Die Rolle des Familienromans in der Psychologie des Attent\u00e4ters,\nInternationale Zeitschrift f\u00fcr aerztliche Psychoanalyse, I, 1913).\nThe truly heroic element then consists only in the real justice or\neven necessity of the act, which is therefore generally endorsed and\nadmired;[114] while the morbid trait, also in criminal cases, is the\npathologic transference of the hatred from the father to the real king,\nor several kings, when more general and still more distorted.\n\nAs the hero is commended for the same deed, without asking for its\npsychic motivation, so the anarchist might claim indulgence from the\nseverest penalties, for the reason that he has killed an entirely\ndifferent person from the one he really intended to destroy, in spite\nof an apparently excellent perhaps political motivation of his act.[115]\n\nFor the present let us stop at the narrow boundary line where the\ncontents of innocent infantile imaginings, suppressed and unconscious\nneurotic fantasies, poetical myth structures, and certain forms of\nmental disease and crime lie close together, although far apart as to\ntheir causes and dynamic forces. We resist the temptation to follow one\nof these divergent paths which lead to altogether different realms, but\nwhich are as yet unblazed trails in the wilderness.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n\n                                               PAGE\n\n  Abraham,                                       15\n\n  Aleos,                                         21\n\n  Alkmene,                                       45\n\n  Akrisios,                                      22\n\n  Ambivalence,                                   70\n\n  Amphion and Zetos,                             43\n\n  Anarchist,                                     93\n\n  Animal motives,                                88\n\n  Apollo,                                        17\n\n  Artembares,                                    29\n\n  Arthurian legends,                             55\n\n  Astyages,                                      29\n\n  Attenuation of myth,                           78\n\n  Auge,                                          22\n\n\n  Babylonian myths,                              12\n\n  Beating,                                       56\n\n  Beowulf,                                       60\n\n  Birth symbols,                                 69\n\n  Blancheflure,                                  38\n\n  Borrowing theories,                             2\n\n  Box,                                           69\n\n  Bride true,                                    40\n\n  Brother myths,                                 87\n\n  Brothers, hostility of,                        88\n\n  Buddha,                                        53\n\n\n  Child psyche and myth formation,               63\n\n  Childhood of hero,                             81\n\n  Conflict of younger and older generation,      64\n\n  Content reversals,                             72\n\n  Criminality and myths,                         93\n\n  Criticism of parents,                          64\n\n\n  Darab,                                         19\n\n  Daughter father,                               77\n\n  Delusion formation,                            91\n\n  Dirke,                                         46\n\n  Displacements in myths,                        76\n\n  Dream and myth,                                69\n\n  Dreams of water,                               71\n\n  Dughda,                                        51\n\n  Duplication,                                   87\n\n\n  Egotism motives,                               92\n\n  Elsa,                                          56\n\n  Erotic factors,                                74\n\n  Exposure myths,                            72, 73\n\n\n  Family relations,                              62\n\n  Family romance of neurotics,                   65\n\n  Father and hero,                               61\n\n  Father and tyrant,                             76\n\n  Father daughter,                               77\n\n  Father replacement,                            67\n\n  Feridun,                                       37\n\n  Flood myths,                               25, 34\n\n  Fool motive,                                   90\n\n\n  Gilgamos,                                  23, 79\n\n  Grandfather replacement,                       77\n\n\n  Hamlet,                                        76\n\n  Harpagos,                              26, 27, 28\n\n  Hekabe,                                        20\n\n  Hercules,                                      44\n\n  Hero and father,                               61\n\n  Hero and mother,                               61\n\n  Hero myth, summary of,                         67\n\n  Herod,                                         50\n\n  Horn,                                          55\n\n  Hostile brothers,                              88\n\n  Hostility motives,                             74\n\n  Hysteria and myth,                             92\n\n  Hysterical fantasies,                          92\n\n\n  Incest motive in myth,                         83\n\n  Infantile imagination,                         62\n\n  Infantile psyche and myth,                  9, 10\n\n  Infantile sexual theory,                       82\n\n  Interpretation summary,                        79\n\n  Ion,                                           17\n\n  Iranese legends,                       19, 36, 37\n\n  Isaac,                                         15\n\n  Isolde,                                    38, 39\n\n\n  Jesus,   47, 48,   49, et seq.\n\n  Judas myth,                                    19\n\n\n  Kaikaus,                                       36\n\n  Kaikhosrav,                                    35\n\n  Kamleyses,                                     25\n\n  Karna,                                         15\n\n  Krishna,                                       47\n\n  Kyros,                                     24, 89\n\n  Kyros myth, versions of,               24, 32, 33\n\n  Kunti,                                         16\n\n\n  Lohengrin,                                 55, 58\n\n  Lunar myths,                                    5\n\n\n  Mandane,                                       25\n\n  Migration theories,                             2\n\n  Moses,                                     13, 79\n\n  Mother and hero,                               61\n\n  Myth and hysterical fancy,                     92\n\n  Myth and infantile psyche,                  9, 10\n\n  Myths and paranoid mechanisms,                 75\n\n  Myth and race,                                 11\n\n  Myth and sex,                                  65\n\n  Myth, complications of,                        83\n\n  Myth contents,                               4, 6\n\n  Myth displacements,                            76\n\n  Myth distribution,                              4\n\n  Myth, evolution of,                             8\n\n  Myth formation and child psyche,               63\n\n  Myth ground plan,                              61\n\n  Myth interpretation,                            5\n\n  Myth of hero, summary of,                      67\n\n  Myth, psychological significance of,           90\n\n  Myth structure and psychoneuroses,             63\n\n  Myth, type of,                                 61\n\n  Mythological theories,                       1, 3\n\n\n  Neurotic family romance,                       65\n\n  Neurotics,                                     64\n\n  Nightmares,                                     7\n\n\n  \u0152dipus,                                        74\n\n  \u0152dipus myth,                                6, 18\n\n  Old age and youth,                             64\n\n  Opposites,                                     70\n\n  Oriant,                                        56\n\n\n  Paranoid delusions,                            91\n\n  Paranoid mechanism in myths,                   75\n\n  Parental authority,                            63\n\n  Parental criticism,                            64\n\n  Parents, fancied,                              73\n\n  Parents, real,                                 73\n\n  Paris,                                         20\n\n  Perseus,                                       22\n\n  Persian myths,                                 37\n\n  Persian war,                                   32\n\n  Pharaoh,                                       80\n\n  Priamos,                                       20\n\n  Pritha,                                        16\n\n  Proca,                                         42\n\n  Projection,                                    75\n\n  Psychological significance of myth,            90\n\n  Psychoneuroses and myth structure,             63\n\n  Psychoneurotics,                               63\n\n\n  Races and myths,                               81\n\n  Real parents,                                  73\n\n  Reformer,                                      93\n\n  Remus,                                         40\n\n  Replacement of father,                         67\n\n  Retaliation and revenge,                       66\n\n  Revenge and retaliation,                       66\n\n  Reversals,                                     72\n\n  Revolt of hero,                                82\n\n  Revolutionary,                                 93\n\n  River legends,                                 46\n\n  Romulus,                                       40\n\n  Romulus, modifications of,                     42\n\n\n  St. Gregory,                                   19\n\n  Sam,                                           21\n\n  Sargon myth,                                   12\n\n  Sc\u00ebaf,                                         60\n\n  Scild Scefing,                                 60\n\n  Senechoros,                                    24\n\n  Sex and myth,                                  65\n\n  Siegfried,                                     93\n\n  Split personalities,                           84\n\n  Summary interpretation,                        79\n\n  Symbolic expression,                           69\n\n\n  Telephos,                                      21\n\n  Thebes,                                        43\n\n  Theories of myths,                           1, 3\n\n  Tristan,                                   38, 39\n\n  True bride,                                    40\n\n  Twin myths,                                    44\n\n  Types of reversal,                             77\n\n  Typical myth,                                  61\n\n  Tyrant and father,                             76\n\n\n  Water dreams,                                  71\n\n  Water in myth,                                 34\n\n  Wieland,                                       55\n\n  Wolfdietrich,                                  54\n\n\n  Youth and old age,                             64\n\n\n  Zal,                                           21\n\n  Zetos and Amphion,                             43\n\n  Zoroaster,                                     51\n\n\n\n\n                              FOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] A short and fairly complete review of the general theories of\nmythology and its principal advocates is to be found in Wundt\u2019s\n\u201cV\u00f6lkerpsychologie,\u201d Vol. II, Myths and Religion. Part I [Leipzig,\n1905], p. 527.\n\n[2] \u201cDas Best\u00e4ndige in den Menschenrassen und die Spielweise ihrer\nVer\u00e4nderlichkeit.\u201d Berlin, 1868.\n\n[3] \u201cDie Kyros Sage und Verwandtes,\u201d _Sitzb. Wien. Akad._, 100, 1882,\np. 495.\n\n[4] Schubert. Herodots Darstellung der Cyrussage, Breslau, 1890.\n\n[5] Compare E. Stucken, \u201cAstral mythen,\u201d Leipzig, 1896-1907, especially\nPart V, \u201cMoses.\u201d H. Lessmann, \u201cDie Kyrossage in Europe,\u201d _Wiss. beit.\nz. Jahresbericht d. st\u00e4dt. Realschule zu Charlottenburg_, 1906.\n\n[6] \u201cNaturgeschichte d. Sage.\u201d Tracing all religious ideals, legends,\nand systems back to their common family tree, and their primary root, 2\nvolumes, Munich 1864-65.\n\n[7] Some of the important writings of Winckler will be mentioned in the\ncourse of this article.\n\n[8] _Zeitschrift f. d. Oesterr. Gym._, 1891, p. 161, etc. Schubert\u2019s\nreply is also found here, p. 594, etc.\n\n[9] Lessmann, \u201cObject and Aim of Mythological Research,\u201d _Mythol.\nBibliot._, 1, Heft 4, Leipzig.\n\n[10] Winckler, \u201cDie babylonische Geisteskultur in ihren Beziehungen zur\nKulturentwicklung der Menschheit,\u201d _Wissenschaft u. Bildung_, Vol. 15,\n1907, p. 47.\n\n[11] Of course no time will be wasted on the futile question as to what\nthis first legend may have been; for in all probability this never had\nexistence, any more than a \u201cfirst human couple.\u201d\n\n[12] As an especially discouraging example of this mode of procedure\nmay be mentioned a contribution by the well-known natural mythologist\nSchwartz, which touches upon this circle of myths, and is entitled:\n\u201cDer Ursprung der Stamm und Gr\u00fcndungssage Roms unter dem Reflex\nindogermanischer Mythen\u201d [Jena, 1898].\n\n[13] Frobenius, Das Zeitalter des Sonnengotten, Berlin, 1904.\n\n[14] Siecke, \u201cHermes als Mondgott,\u201d _Myth. Bibl._, Vol. II, Pt. 1, p.\n48.\n\n[15] Compare for example, Paul Koch, \u201cSagen der Bibel und ihre\nUbereinstimmung mit der Mythologie der Indogermanen,\u201d Berlin,\n1907. Compare also the partly lunar, partly solar, but at any rate\nentirely one sided conception of the hero myth, in Gustav Friedrich\u2019s\n\u201cGrundlage, Entstehung und genaue Einzeldeutung der bekanntesten\ngermanischen M\u00e4rchen, Mythen und Sagen\u201d [Leipzig, 1909], p. 118.\n\n[16] Translated by Dr. A. A. Brill. Macmillan Co.\n\n[17] The fable of Shakespeare\u2019s Hamlet also permits of a similar\ninterpretation, according to Freud. It will be seen later on how\nmythological investigators bring the Hamlet legend from entirely\ndifferent view points into the correlation of the mythical circle.\n\n[18] In JOURNAL OF NERVOUS AND MENTAL DISEASE, 1912. Also collected in\nthis Monograph Series, No. 15.\n\n[19] Compare Lessmann (Mythol. Bibl., I, 4). Ehrenreich alone (loc.\ncit., p. 149) admits the extraordinary significance of dream-life for\nthe myth-fiction of all times. Wundt does so likewise, for individual\nmythical motives.\n\n[20] Stucken [Mose, p. 432] says in this sense. The myth transmitted\nby the ancestors was transferred to natural processes and interpreted\nin a naturalistic way, not vice versa. \u201cInterpretation of nature is\na motive in itself\u201d [p. 633, annotation]. In a very similar way, we\nread in Meyer\u2019s History of Antiquity, Vol. V, p. 48: In many cases,\nthe natural symbolism, sought in the myths, is only apparently present\nor has been secondarily introduced, as often in the Vedda and in the\nEgyptian myths; it is a primary attempt at interpretation, like the\nmyth-interpretations which arose among the Greeks since the fifth\ncentury.\n\n[21] For fairy tales, in this as well as in other essential features,\nThimme advocates the same point of view as is here claimed for the\nmyths. Compare Adolf Thimme, \u201cDas M\u00e4rchen,\u201d 2d volume of the Handb\u00fccher\nzur Volkskunde, Leipzig, 1909.\n\n[22] Volume II of the German translation, Leipzig, 1869, p. 143.\n\n[23] Of this myth-interpretation, Wundt has well said that it really\nshould have accompanied the original myth-formation. (Loc. cit., p.\n352.)\n\n[24] See Ignaz Goldziher, \u201cDer Mythus bei den Hebr\u00e4ern und seine\ngeschichtliche Entwickelung\u201d [Leipzig, 1876], p. 125. According to the\nwritings of Siecke [\u201cHermes als Mondgott,\u201d Leipzig, 1908, p. 39], the\nincest myths lose all unusual features through being referred to the\nmoon, and its relation to the sun. The explanation being quite simple:\nthe daughter, the new moon, is the repetition of the mother [the old\nmoon], with her the father [the sun] [also the brother, the son]\nbecomes reunited.\n\n[25] Is it to be believed? In an article entitled \u201cUrreligion der\nIndogermanen\u201d [Berlin, 1897], where Siecke points out that the incest\nmyths are descriptive narrations of the seen but inconceivable process\nof nature, he objects to a statement of Oldenburg [\u201cReligion der Veda,\u201d\np. 5] who assumes a primeval tendency of myths to the incest motive,\nwith the remark that in the days of yore the motive was thrust upon the\nnarrator, without an inclination of his own, through the forcefulness\nof the witnessed facts.\n\n[26] The great variability and wide distribution of the birth myths of\nthe hero results from the above quoted writings of Bauer, Schubert and\nothers, while their comprehensive contents and fine ramifications were\nespecially discussed by Husing, Lessmann, and the other representatives\nof the modern direction.\n\nInnumerable fairy tales, stories, and poems of all times, up to the\nmost recent dramatic and novelistic literature, show very distinct\nindividual main motives of this myth. The exposure-romance is known to\nappear in the following literary productions: The late Greek pastorals,\nas told in Heliodor\u2019s \u201cAethiopika,\u201d in Eustathius\u2019 \u201cIsmenias and\nIsmene,\u201d and in the Story of the two exposed children, Daphnis and\nChloe. The more recent Italian pastorals are likewise very frequently\nbased upon the exposure of children, who are raised as shepherds by\ntheir foster-parents, but are later recognized by the true parents,\nthrough identifying marks which they received at the time of their\nexposure. To the same set belong the family history in Grimmelshausen\u2019s\n\u201cLimplizissimus\u201d (1665), in Jean Paul\u2019s \u201cTitan\u201d (1800), as well as\ncertain forms of the Robinson stories and Cavalier romances (compare\nW\u00fcrzbach\u2019s Introduction to the Edition of \u201cDon Quichote\u201d in Hesse\u2019s\nedition).\n\n[27] The various translations of the partly mutilated text differ only\nin unessential details. Compare Hommel\u2019s \u201cHistory of Babylonia and\nAssyria\u201d (Berlin, 1885), p. 302, where the sources of the tradition are\nlikewise found, and A. Jeremias, \u201cThe Old Testament in the Light of the\nAncient Orient,\u201d II edition, Leipzig, 1906, p. 410.\n\n[28] On account of these resemblances, a dependence of the Exodus tale\nfrom the Sargon legend has often been assumed, but apparently not\nenough attention has been paid to certain fundamental distinctions,\nwhich will be taken up in detail in the interpretation.\n\n[29] The parents of Moses were originally nameless, as were all persons\nin this, the oldest account. Their names were only conferred upon them\nby the priesthood. Chapter 6, 20, says: \u201cAnd Amram took him Jocabed his\nfather\u2019s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses\u201d [and their\nsister Miriam, IV, 26, 59]. Also compare Winckler, \u201cHistory of Israel,\u201d\nII, and Jeremias, l. c., p. 408.\n\n[30] The name, according to Winckler (\u201cBabylonian Mental Culture,\u201d p.\n119), means \u201cThe Water-Drawer\u201d (see also Winckler, \u201cAncient Oriental\nStudies,\u201d III, 468, etc.), which would still further approach the Moses\nlegend to the Sargon legend, for the name Akki signifies I have drawn\nwater.\n\n[31] Schemot Rabba, fol. 2, 4. Concerning 2, Moses 1, 22, says that\nPharaoh was told by the astrologers of a woman who was pregnant with\nthe Redeemer of Israel.\n\n[32] The Hindu birth legend of the mythical king Vikram\u00e2dita must also\nbe mentioned in this connection. Here again occur the barren marriage\nof the parents, the miraculous conception, ill-omened warnings, the\nexposure of the boy in the forest, his nourishment with honey, finally\nthe acknowledgment by the father. (See J\u00fclg, \u201cMongolian Fairy Tales,\u201d\nInnsbruck, 1868, p. 73, et seq.)\n\n[33] \u201cHindu Legends,\u201d Karlsruhe, 1846, Part II, pp. 117 to 127.\n\n[34] \u201cHindu Legends,\u201d l. c.\n\n[35] See R\u00f6scher, concerning the Ion of Euripides. Where no other\nsource is stated, all Greek and Roman myths are taken from the\nExtensive Dictionary of Greek and Roman Mythology, edited by R\u00f6scher,\nwhich also contains a list of all sources.\n\n[36] According to Bethe, \u201cThebanische Heldenlieder,\u201d the exposure on\nthe waters was the original rendering. According to other versions, the\nboy is found and raised by horse herds; according to a later myth, by a\ncountryman, Melibios.\n\n[37] The entire material has been discussed by Rank in Das Inzest-Motiv\nin Dichtung und Sage, 1912, Chapter X.\n\n[38] I. In the version of Euripides, whose tragedies \u201cAuge\u201d and\n\u201cTelephos\u201d are extant, _Aleos caused the mother and the child to be\nthrown into the sea in a box_, but through the protection of Athene\nthis box was carried to the end of the Mysian River, Kaikos. There it\nwas found by Teuthras. who made Auge his wife and took her child into\nhis house as his foster son.\n\n[39] Later authors, including Pindar, state that Danae was impregnated,\nnot by Zeus, but by the brother of her father.\n\n[40] Simonides of Keos (fr. 37, ed. Bergk), speaks of a casement\nstrong as ore, in which Danae is said to have been exposed. (Geibel,\nKlassisches Liederbuch, page 52.)\n\n[41] According to H\u00fcsing, the Perseus myth in several versions is\nalso demonstrable in Japan. Compare also, Sydney Hartland, Legend of\nPerseus, 1894-96; 3 volumes. London.\n\n[42] Claudius Aelianus, \u201cHistoria animalium,\u201d XII, 21, translated by\nFr. Jacobs (Stuttgart, 1841).\n\n[43] It was also told of Ptolema\u00f6s, the son of Lagos and Arsino\u00eb, that\nan eagle protected the exposed boy with his wings against the sunshine,\nthe rain and birds of prey (_loc. cit._).\n\n[44] F. E. Lange, \u201cHerodot\u2019s Geschichten\u201d (Reclam). Compare also\nDuncker\u2019s \u201cHistory of Antiquity\u201d (Leipsig, 1880), N. 5, page 256 et\nsequitur.\n\n[45] The same \u201cplaying king\u201d is found in the Hindoo myth of\nCandragupta, the founder of the Maurja dynasty, whom his mother exposed\nafter his birth, in a vessel at the gate of a cowshed, where a herder\nfound him and raised him. Later on he came to a hunter, where he as\ncow-herder played \u201cking\u201d with the other boys, and as king ordered\nthat the hands and feet of the great criminals be chopped off. [The\nmutilation motive occurs also in the Kyros saga, and is generally\nwidely distributed.] At his command, the separated limbs returned to\ntheir proper position. Kanakja, who once looked on as they were at\nplay, admired the boy, and bought him from the hunter for one thousand\nK\u00e2rsh\u00e2pana; at home he discovered that the boy was a Maurja. (After\nLassen\u2019s Indische Altertumskunde, II, 196, Annotation 1.)\n\n[46] Justinus, \u201cExtract from Pompeius Trogus\u2019 Philippian History,\u201d I,\n4-7. As far as results from Justinus\u2019 extract, Deinon\u2019s Persian tales\n(written in the first half of the fourth century before Christ) are\npresumably the sources of Trogus\u2019 narrative.\n\n[47] The words in parenthesis are said to be lacking in certain\nmanuscripts.\n\n[48] Nicol. Damasc. Frag. 66, Ctes.; Frag. Pers., 2, 5.\n\n[49] This daughter\u2019s name is Amytis (not Mandane) in the version of\nKtesias.\n\n[50] On the basis of this _motive of simulated dementia_ and certain\nother corresponding features Jiriczek (\u201cHamlet in Iran,\u201d in the\n_Zeitschrift des Vereins f\u00fcr Volkskunde_, Vol. X, 1900, p. 353) has\nrepresented the _Hamlet Saga_ as a variation of the Iranese myth of\nKaikhosrav. This idea was followed up by H. Lessmann (\u201cDie Kyrossage\nin Europa\u201d), who shows that the Hamlet saga strikingly agrees in\ncertain items, for example, in the simulated folly, with the sagas\nof Brutus and of Tell. (Compare also the protestations of Moses.) In\nanother connection, the deeper roots of these relations have been more\nextensively discussed, especially with reference to the Tell saga.\n(See: Das Inzest-Motiv in Dichtung und Sage, Chapter VIII.) Attention\nis also directed to the story of David, as it is told in the books\nof Samuel. Here again, the royal scion, David, is made a shepherd,\nwho gradually rises in the social scale up to the royal throne. He\nlikewise is given the king\u2019s (Saul\u2019s) daughter in marriage, and the\nking seeks his life, but David is always saved by miraculous means from\nthe greatest perils. He also evades persecution by simulating dementia\nand playing the fool. The relationship between the Hamlet saga and the\nDavid saga has already been pointed out by Jiriczek and Lessmann. The\nbiblical character of this entire mythical cycle is also emphasized by\nJiriczek, who finds in the tale of Si\u00e2vaksh\u2019s death certain features\nfrom the Passion of the Savior.\n\n[51] The name Zoh\u00e2k is a mutilation of the original Zend expression\nAshi-dahaka [Azis-dahaka], meaning pernicious serpent. (See \u201cThe Myth\nof Feridun in India and Iran,\u201d by Dr. R. Roth, in the _Zeitschrift\nder Deutschen Morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, II, p. 216.) To the\n_Iranese Feridum_ corresponds the _Hindoo Trita_, whose Avestian\ndouble is Thraetaona. The last named form is the most predominantly\nauthenticated; from it was formed, by transition of the aspirated\nsounds, first Phreduna, then Fr\u00ead\u00fbn or Afr\u00eadun; Feridun is a more\nrecent corruption. Compare F. Spiegel\u2019s \u201cEranische Altertumskunde,\u201d I,\np. 537 et seq.\n\n[52] Compare Immermann, \u201cTristan und Isolde, Ein Gedicht in Romanzen,\u201d\nD\u00fcsseldorf, 1841. Like the epic of Gottfried of Strassburg, his poem\nbegins with the preliminary history of the loves of Tristan\u2019s parents,\nKing Riwalin Kannlengres of Parmenia and Marke\u2019s beautiful sister\nBlancheflur. The maiden never reveals her love, which is not sanctioned\nby her brother, but she visits the king, who is wounded unto death,\nin his chamber, and dying he procreates Tristan, \u201cthe son of the most\ndaring and doleful love.\u201d Grown up as a foundling in the care of Rual\nand his wife, Florete, the winsome youth Tristan introduces himself\nto Marke in a stag hunt, as an expert huntsman, is recognized as his\nnephew by a ring, the king\u2019s gift to his beloved sister, and becomes\nhis favorite.\n\n[53] See translation by W. A. White, M.D.., Psychoanalytic Review, Vol.\nI, No. 1, et seq.\n\n[54] Compare the substitution of the bride, through Brang\u00e4ne.\n\n[55] Mommsen, Th., \u201cDie echte und die falsche Acca Larentia\u201d; in\nFestgaben f\u00fcr G. Homeyer (Berlin, 1891), p. 93, et seq.; and _R\u00f6mische_\n_Forschungen_ (Berlin, 1879), II, p. 1, et seq. Mommsen reconstructs\nthe lost narrative of Fabius from the preserved reports of Dionysius\n(I, 79-831, and of Plutarch (Romulus)).\n\n[56] The Capitoline She Wolf is considered as the work of very ancient\nEtruscan artists, which was erected at the Lupercal, in the year 296\nB.C., according to Livy (X, 231). Compare picture on title page.\n\n[57] All these renderings were compiled by Schwegler, in his Roman\nHistory, I, p. 384, et seq.\n\n[58] Some Greek twin sagas are quoted by Schubert (loc. cit., p. 13, et\nseq.) in their essential content. Concerning the extensive distribution\nof this legendary form, compare the somewhat confused book of J. H.\nBecker, \u201cThe Twin Saga as the Key to the Interpretation of Ancient\nTradition. With a Table of the Twin Saga.\u201d Leipsic, 1891. German text.\n\n[59] Mommsen, \u201cDie Remus Legende,\u201d Hermes, 1881.\n\n[60] After Preller, Greek Mythology (Leipzig, 1854, II, pp. 120 et\nseq.).\n\n[61] The same transformation of the divine procreator into the form\nof the human father is found in the birth history of the Egyptian\nqueen, Hatshepset (about 1500 before Christ), who believes that the god\nAmen cohabited with her mother, Aahames, in the form of her father,\nThothmes the First (see Budge: A History of Egypt, V; Books on Egypt\nand Chaldea, Vol. XII, p. 21, etc.). Later on she married her brother,\nThothmes II, presumably the Pharaoh of Exodus, after whose dishonorable\ndeath she endeavored to eradicate his memory, and herself assumed\nthe rulership, in masculine fashion (cp. the Deuteronium, edited by\nSchrader, II ed., 1902).\n\n[62] A similar mingling of the divine and human posterity is related\nin the myth of Theseus, whose mother Aithra, the beloved of Poseidon,\nwas visited in one night by this god, and by the childless King Aigeus\nof Athens, who had been brought under the influence of wine. The boy\nwas raised in secret, and in ignorance of his father (v. Roscher\u2019s\ndictionary, article Aigeus).\n\n[63] Alkmene bore Herakles as the son of Zeus, and Iphikles as the\noffspring of Amphitryon. According to Apollodorus, 2, 4, 8, they were\ntwin children, born at the same time; according to others Iphikles\nwas conceived and born one night later than Herakles (see Roscher\u2019s\nLexicon, Amphitryon and Alkmene). The shadowy character of the twin\nbrother, and his loose connection with the entire myth, is again\nevident. In a similar way, Telephos, the son of Auge, was exposed\ntogether with Parthenopa\u00fcs, the son of Atalantis, nursed by a doe, and\ntaken by herders to King Korythos. The external subsequent insertion of\nthe partner is here again quite obvious.\n\n[64] For the formal demonstration of the entire identity of the birth\nand early history of Jesus with the other hero-myths, the author has\npresumed to re-arrange the corresponding paragraphs from the different\nversions, in the Gospels, irrespective of the traditional sequence\nand the originality of the individual parts. The age, origin and\ngenuineness of these parts are briefly summarized and discussed in W.\nSoltan\u2019s Birth History of Jesus Christ (German text), Leipsic, 1902.\nThe transmitted versions of the several Gospels,\u2014which according to\nUsener (Birth and Childhood of Christ, 1903, in Lectures and Essays\n(German text), Leipsic, 1907), contradict and even exclude each\nother,\u2014have been placed, or left, in juxtaposition, precisely for\nthe reason that the apparently contradictory elements in these birth\nmyths are to be elucidated in the present research, no matter if these\ncontradictions be encountered within a single uniform saga, or in its\ndifferent versions (as, for example, in the Kyros myth).\n\n[65] Concerning the birth of Jesus in a cave, and the furnishing\nof the birth place with the typical animals (ox and ass) compare\nJeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1905), p. 56, and\nPreuschen, Jesu Geburt in einer H\u00f6hle, Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Neutest.\nWissenschaften, 1902, P. 359.\n\n[66] According to recent investigations, the birth history of Christ\nis said to have the greatest resemblance with the royal Egyptian myth,\nover five thousand years old, which relates the birth of Amenophis III.\nHere again recurs the divine prophecy of the birth of a son, to the\nwaiting queen; her fertilization by the breath of heavenly fire; the\ndivine cows, which nurse the new born child; the homage of the kings,\nand so forth. In this connection, compare A. Malvert, Wissenschaft\nund Religion, Frankfort, 1904, pp. 49 et seq, also the suggestion of\nProfessor Idleib in Bonn (Feuilleton of Frankfurter Zeitung, November\n8, 1908).\n\n[67] Very similar traits are found in the Keltic saga of Habis, as\ntransmitted by Justin (44,4). Born as the illegitimate son of a king\u2019s\ndaughter, Habis is persecuted in all sorts of ways by his royal\ngrandfather, Gargoris, but is always saved by divine providence, until\nhe is finally recognized by his grandfather, and assumes royal sway. As\nin the Zarathustra legend, there occurs an entire series of the most\nvaried methods of persecution. He is at first exposed, but nursed by\nwild animals; then he was to be trampled upon by a herd in a narrow\npath; then he was cast before hungry beasts, but they again nursed him,\nand finally he is thrown into the sea, but is gently lapped ashore and\nnursed by a doe, near which he grows up.\n\n[68] Compare August Rassmann: Die deutsche Heldensage und ihre Heimat,\nHanover, 1857-8, Vol. II, pp. 7 et seq; for the sources, see Jiriczek,\nDie deutsche Heldensage (collection G\u00f6schen) and Piper\u2019s introduction\nto the volume: Die Nibelungen, in K\u00fcrschner\u2019s German National\nLiterature.\n\n[69] Compare: Deutsches Heldenbuch, Part III, Vol. I (Berlin, 1871),\nedited by Amelung and Jaenicke, which also contains the second version\n(B) of the Wolfdietrich saga.\n\n[70] The motive of calumniation of the wife by a rejected suitor, in\ncombination with the exposure and nursing by an animal (doe), forms\nthe nucleus of the story of _Genovefa_ and her son Schmerzenreich, as\ntold, for example, by the Grimm brothers, in their German Sagas, II,\nBerlin, 1818, pp. 280 et seq. Here, again, the faithless calumniator\nproposes _to drown the countess with her child in the water_. For\nliterary and historical orientation, compare _L. Zacher_, Die Historic\nvon der Pfalzgr\u00e4fin Genovefa, Koenigsberg, 1860, and _B. Seuffert_, Die\nLegende von der Pfalzgr\u00e4fin Genovefa, W\u00fcrzburg, 1877. Similar sagas of\nwives suspected of infidelity and punished by exposure are discussed in\nthe XI chapter of my investigation of \u201cDas Inzestmotiv in Dichtung und\nSage\u201d (The Incest Motive in Fiction and Legends).\n\n[71] The same accentuation of the animal motive is found in the saga\nof Schal\u00fb, the Hindoo wolf child; compare J\u00fclg, Mongolische M\u00e4rchen\n(Mongolian fairy tales; Innsbruck, 1868).\n\n[72] The Grimm Brothers, in their German Sagas (part II, p. 206, etc.),\nquote six further versions of the saga of the Knight with the Swan.\nCertain fairy tales of the Grimm Brothers, such as \u201cThe Six Swans\u201d (No.\n49), \u201cThe Twelve Brothers\u201d (No. 9), and the \u201cSeven Ravens\u201d (No. 25),\nwith their parallels and variations, mentioned in the 3d volume of the\n\u201cKinder-und Hausm\u00e4rchen,\u201d also belong to the same mythological cycle.\nFurther material from this cycle may be found in Leo\u2019s \u201cBeowulf,\u201d and\nin G\u00f6rre\u2019s \u201cIntroduction to Lohengrin\u201d (Heidelberg, 1813).\n\n[73] The ancient Longobard tale of the exposure of King Lamissio,\nrelated by Paulus Diaconus (L, 15), gives a similar incident. A public\nwoman had thrown her seven newborn infants into a fish pond. King\nAgelmund passed by, and looked curiously at the children, turning them\naround with his spear. But when one of the children took hold of the\nspear, the king considered this as of good augury; he ordered this boy\nto be taken out of the pond, and to be given to a wet nurse. As he had\ntaken him from the pond, which in his language is called \u201clama,\u201d he\nnamed the boy Lamissio. He grew up into a stalwart champion, and after\nAgelmund\u2019s death, became king of the Longobards.\n\n[74] Scaf is the high German \u201cSchaffing\u201d (barrel), which leads Leo to\nassume, in connection with Scild\u2019s being called Scefing, that he had no\nfather Sceaf or Schaf at all, but was himself the boy cast ashore by\nthe waves, who was named the \u201cson of the barrel\u201d (Schaffing). The name\nBeowulf itself, explained by Grimm as Bienen-wolf (bee-wolf), seems to\nmean originally (according to Wolzogen) B\u00e4rwelf, namely Jungb\u00e4r (bear\ncub or whelp), which is suggestive of the saga of the origin of the\nGuelphs (Ursprung der Welfen, Grimm, II, 233), where the boys are to be\nthrown into the water as \u201cwhelps.\u201d\n\n[75] The possibility of further specification of separate items of this\nschedule will be seen from the compilation as given by H. Lessmann, at\nthe conclusion of his work on \u201cThe Kyros Saga in Europe.\u201d\n\n[76] See also Wundt, who psychologically interprets the hero as a\nprojection of human desires and aspirations (loc. cit., p. 48).\n\n[77] Compare Freud, \u201cHysterical Fancies, and their Relation to\nBisexuality,\u201d with references to the literature on this subject. This\ncontribution is contained in the second series of the \u201cCollection of\nShort Articles on the Neurosis Doctrine,\u201d Vienna and Leipsic, 1909.\n\n[78] For the idealizing of the parents by the children, compare\nMaeder\u2019s comments (Jahrb. f. Psychoanalyse, p. 152, and Centralblatt f.\nPsychoanalyse, I, p. 51) on Varendonk\u2019s essay, \u201cLes id\u00e9als d\u2019enfant,\u201d\nTome VII, 1908.\n\n[79] Dream Interpretation (Traumdeutung), II ed., p. 200. See Brill\u2019s\nTranslation, Macmillan & Co., 1913.\n\n[80] Compare the \u201cbirth dreams\u201d in Freud\u2019s \u201cTraumdeutung\u201d (see Brill\u2019s\ntranslation, Macmillan & Co., p. 207 et seq.), also the examples quoted\nby the author in the \u201cLohengrin saga\u201d (p. 27 et seq.).\n\n[81] In fairy tales, which are adapted to infantile ideation, and\nespecially to the infantile sexual theories (compare Freud in the\nDecember number of Sexuelle Probleme), the birth of man is frequently\nrepresented as a lifting of the child from a well or a lake (Thimme,\n_l. c._, p. 157). The story of \u201cDame Holle\u2019s Pond\u201d (Grimm, Deutsche\nSagen, I, 7) relates that the newborn children come from her well,\nwhence she brings them forth. The same interpretation is apparently\nexpressed in certain national rites; for example, when a Celt had\nreason to doubt his paternity, he placed the newborn child on a large\nshield and put it adrift in the nearest river. If the waves carried it\nashore, it was considered as legitimate, but if the child was drowned,\nthis was proof of the contrary and the mother was also put to death\n(see Franz Helbing, \u201cHistory of Feminine Infidelity\u201d). Additional\nethnological material from folklore has been compiled by the author in\nhis \u201cLohengrin saga\u201d (p. 20 et seq.).\n\n[82] The \u201cbox\u201d in certain myths is represented by the _cave_, which\nalso distinctly symbolizes the womb; aside from statements in Abraham,\nIon, and others, especially in case of Zeus, who is born in a cave\nof the Ida mountains, and nourished by the goat Amalthea, his mother\nconcealing him for fear of her husband, Kronos. According to Homer\u2019s\nIliad (XVIII, 396, et seq.), Hephaistos is also cast into the water\nby his mother, on account of his lameness, and remains hidden, for\nnine years, in a cave surrounded by water. By exchanging the reversal,\nthe birth (the fall into the water) is here plainly represented\nas the termination of the nine months of the intrauterine life.\nMore common than the cave birth is the exposure in a box, which is\nlikewise told in the Babylonian Marduk-Tammuz myth, as well as in\nthe Egyptian-Phoenician Osiris-Adonis myth (compare Winckler, \u201cDie\nWeltanschauung des alten Orients, Ex Oriente Lux\u201d I, 1, p. 43, and\nJeremias, loc. cit., p. 41). Bacchus, according to Paus, III, 24, is\nalso removed from the persecution of the king, through exposure in a\nchest on the Nile, and is saved at the age of three months by a king\u2019s\ndaughter, which is remarkably suggestive of the Moses legend. A similar\nstory is told of Tennes, the son of Kyknos, who has been mentioned in\nanother connection (Siecke: Hermes, p. 48, annotation), and of many\nothers.\n\nThe occurrence of the same symbolic representation among the aborigines\nis illustrated by the following examples: Stucken relates the New\nZealand tale of the Polynesian Fire (and Seed) Robber, Mani-tiki-tiki,\nwho is exposed directly after his birth, his mother throwing him into\nthe sea, wrapped in an apron (chest, box). A similar story is reported\nby Frobenius (_loc. cit._, p. 379) from Betsimisaraka, where the child\nis exposed on the water, and is found and raised by a rich childless\nwoman, but finally resolves to discover his actual parents. According\nto a report of Bab (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie_, 1906, p. 281) the\nwife of the Raja Besurjay was presented with a child floating on a\nbubble of water-foam (from Singapore).\n\n[83] The before-mentioned work of Abraham, \u201cDreams and Myths,\u201d pp.\n22, 23, English translation, Monograph Series, No. 15, contains the\nanalysis of a very similar although more complicated birth dream,\ncorresponding to the actual conditions; the dreamer, a young pregnant\nwoman, who was awaiting her delivery, not without fear, dreamed of the\nbirth of her son, and the water appeared directly as the amniotic fluid.\n\n[84] This phantasy of an enormous water is extremely suggestive of the\nlarge and widespread group of the Flood Myths, which actually seem to\nbe no more than the universal expression of the exposure myth. The\nhero is here represented by humanity at large. The wrathful father is\nthe god; the destruction as well as the rescue of humanity likewise\nfollow one another in immediate succession. In this parallelization,\nit is of interest to note that the ark, or pitched house, in which\nNoah floats upon the water is designated in the Old Testament by the\nsame word (_tebah_) as the receptacle in which the infant Moses is\nexposed (_Jeremias_, loc. cit., p. 250). For the motive of the great\nflood, compare Jeremias, p. 226, and Lessmann, at the close of his\ntreatise on the Kyros saga in Europe, where the flood is described as a\npossible digression of the exposure in the water. A transition instance\nis illustrated by the flood saga told by Bader, in his Badensian folk\nlegends. When the Sunken Valley was inundated once upon a time by a\ncloudburst, a little boy was seen floating upon the waters in a cradle,\nwho was miraculously saved by a cat (Gustav Friedrichs, loc. cit., p.\n265).\n\nThe author has endeavored to explain the psychological relations\nbetween the exposure-myth, the flood legend, and the devouring myth,\nin his article on the \u201cOverlying Symbols in Dream Awakening, and\nTheir Recurrence in Mythical Ideation\u201d (\u201cDie Symbolschichtung in\nWecktraum und ihre Wiederkehr im mythischen Denken\u201d _Jahrbuch f\u00fcr\nPsychoanalyse_, V, 1912).\n\n[85] Compare the same reversal of the meanings in Winckler\u2019s\ninterpretation of the etymology of the name of Moses (p. 13).\n\n[86] The same conditions remain in the formation of dreams and in\nthe transformation of hysterical phantasies into seizures (compare\n\u201cTraumdeutung,\u201d p. 238, and the annotation in the same place),\nalso, Freud, \u201cAllgemeines \u00fcber den hysterischen Anfall\u201d (\u201cGeneral\nRemarks on Hysterical Seizures\u201d) in _Sammlung kleiner Schriften zur\nNeurosenlehre_, 2 Series, p. 146 et seq.\n\n[87] According to a pointed remark of Jung\u2019s, this reversal in its\nfurther mythical sublimation permits the approximation of the hero\u2019s\nlife to the solar cycle (\u201cWandlungen und Symbole der Libido,\u201d II Part,\n_Jahrb. f. Psychoanalyse_, V, 1912, p. 253).\n\n[88] The second item of the schedule here enters into consideration:\nthe voluntary continence or prolonged separation of the parents, which\nnaturally induces the miraculous conception and virgin birth of the\nmother. The abortion phantasies, which are especially distinct in the\nZoroaster legend, also belong under this heading.\n\n[89] The comparison of birth with a shipwreck, by the Roman poet\nLucretius, seems to be in perfect harmony with this symbolism: \u201cBehold\nthe infant: Like a shipwrecked sailor, cast ashore by the fury of the\nbillows, the poor child lies naked on the ground, bereft of all means\nfor existence, after Nature has dragged him in pain from the mother\u2019s\nwomb. With plaintive wailing he filleth the place of his birth, and\nhe is right, for many evils await him in life\u201d (Lucretius, \u201cDe Nature\nRerum,\u201d V, 222-227). Similarly, the first version of Schiller\u2019s\n\u201cRobbers,\u201d in speaking of Nature, says: \u201cShe endowed us with the spirit\nof invention, when she exposed us naked and helpless on the shore of\nthe great Ocean, the World. Let him swim who may, and let the clumsy\nperish!\u201d\n\n[90] Compare the representation of this relation and its psychic\nconsequences, in Freud\u2019s Significance of Dreams.\n\n[91] Some myths convey the impression as if the love relation with\nthe mother had been removed, as being too objectionable to the\nconsciousness of certain periods or peoples. Traces of this suppression\nare still evident in a comparison of different myths or different\nversions of the same myth. For example, in the version of Herodotus,\nKyros is a son of the daughter of Astyages, but according to the report\nof Ktesias, he makes the daughter of Astyages, whom he conquers, his\nwife, and kills her husband, who in the rendering of Herodotus is his\nfather. Compare H\u00fcsing, \u201cContributions to the Kyros Legend,\u201d XI. Also\na comparison of the saga of Darab, with the very similar legend of St.\nGregory, serves to show that in the Darab story the incest with the\nmother is simply omitted, which otherwise precedes the recognition\nof the son; here, on the contrary, the recognition prevents the\nincest. This attenuation may be studied in the nascent state, as\nit were, in the myth of Telephos, where the hero is married to his\nmother, but recognizes her before the consummation of the incest. The\nfairy-tale-like setting of the Tristan legend, which makes Isolde draw\nthe little Tristan from the water (_i.e._, give him birth), thereby\nsuggests the fundamental incest theme, which is likewise manifested in\nthe adultery with the wife of the uncle.\n\nThe reader is referred to Rank\u2019s paper, \u201cDas Inzest Motiv in Dichtung\nund Sage\u201d (\u201cThe incest motive in fiction and legend\u201d), in which the\nincest theme, which is here merely mentioned, is discussed in detail,\npicking up the many threads which lead to this theme, but which have\nbeen dropped at the present time.\n\n[92] The mechanism of this defense is discussed in Freud\u2019s \u201cHamlet\nAnalysis\u201d (\u201cTraumdeutung,\u201d p. 183, annotation); also by Jones, _Am. Jl.\nof Psychology_, 1911.\n\n[93] In regard to further meanings of the grandfather, compare\nFreud, \u201cAnalysis of the Phobia of a 5-year-old Boy\u201d (_Jahrbuch f.\nPsychoanalyse_, I, 1909, p. 7378); also the contributions by Jones,\nAbraham and Ferenzi (_Internat. Zeitschrift f. \u00e4rzt. Psychoanalyse_,\nVol. I, 1913, March number).\n\n[94] A similar identification of the father with God (heavenly\nfather, etc.) occurs, according to Freud, with the same regularity\nin the fantasies of normal and pathological psychic activity as the\nidentification of the emperor with the father. It is also noteworthy in\nthis connection that almost all peoples derive their origin from their\ngod (Abraham, \u201cDream and Myth,\u201d Monograph Series, No. 15).\n\n[95] An amusing example of unconscious humor in children recently ran\nthrough the daily press: A politician had explained to his little\nson that a tyrant is a man who forces others to do what he commands,\nwithout heeding their wishes in the matter. \u201cWell,\u201d said the child,\n\u201cthen you and mamma are also tyrants!\u201d\n\n[96] See Max M\u00fcller, \u201cEssais,\u201d Vol. II (Leipzig, 1869), p. 20 et seq.\nConcerning the various psychological contingencies of this setting,\ncompare p. 83 _et al._ of the author\u2019s \u201cIncest Book.\u201d\n\n[97] Compare E. Meyer (_Bericht d. Kgl. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss._, XXXI,\n1905, p. 640). The Moses legends and the Levites: \u201cPresumably Moses\nwas originally the son of the tyrant\u2019s daughter (who is now his foster\nmother), and probably of divine origin.\u201d The subsequent elaboration\ninto the present form is probably referable to national motives.\n\n[98] This idea which is derived from the knowledge of the neurotic\nfantasy and symptom construction, was applied by Professor Freud to the\ninterpretation of the romantic and mythical work of poetic imagination,\nin a lecture entitled: \u201cDer Dichter und das Phantasieren\u201d (Poets and\nImaginings) (Reprint, 2d series of Collected Short Articles), p. 1970.\n\n[99] For ethno-psychologic parallels and other infantile sexual\ntheories which throw some light upon the supplementary myth of the\nhero\u2019s procreation compare the author\u2019s treatise in _Zentralblatt f\u00fcr\nPsychoanalyse_, II, 1911, pp. 392-425.\n\n[100] The fairy tales, which have been left out of consideration in\nthe context, precisely on account of these complications, include\nespecially: \u201cThe Devil with the Three Golden Hairs\u201d (Grimm, No. 29),\nand the very similar \u201cSaga of Emperor Henry III\u201d (Grimm, Deutsche\nSagen, II, p. 177), \u201cWater-Peter,\u201d with numerous variations (Grimm,\nIII, p. 103), \u201cFundevogel,\u201d No. 51, \u201cThe Three Birdies\u201d (No. 96),\n\u201cThe King of the Golden Mountain\u201d (No. 92), with its parallels, as\nwell as some foreign fairy tales, which are quoted by Bauer, at the\nend of his article. Compare also, in Hahn, \u201cGreek and Albanese Fairy\nTales\u201d (Leipsic, 1864), the review of the exposure stories and myths,\nespecially 20 and 69.\n\n[101] A connection is here supplied with the motive of the twins, in\nwhich we seem to recognize the two boys born at the same time, one of\nwhich dies for the sake of the other, be it directly after birth, or\nlater, and whose parents appear divided in our myths into two or more\nparent couples. Concerning the probable significance of this shadowy\ntwin-brother as the after-birth, compare the author\u2019s discussion in his\nIncest Book (p. 457, etc.).\n\n[102] The early history of Sigurd, as it is related in the V\u00f6lsunga\nSaga (compare Rassmann, I, 99), closely resembles the Ktesian version\nof the Kyros saga, giving us the tradition of another hero\u2019s wonderful\ncareer, together with its rational rearrangement. For particulars, see\nBauer, p. 554. Also the biblical history of Joseph (1 Moses, 37, et\nseq.), with the exposure, the animal sacrifice, the dreams, the sketchy\nbrethren, and the fabulous career of this hero, seem to belong to this\ntype of myth.\n\n[103] In order to avoid misunderstandings, it appears necessary to\nemphasize at this point the historical nucleus of certain hero-myths.\nKyros, as is shown by the inscriptions which have been discovered\n(compare Duncker, p. 289, Bauer, p. 498), was descended from an\nold hereditary royal house. It could not be the object of the myth\nto elevate the descent of Kyros, nor must the above interpretation\nbe regarded as an attempt to establish a lowly descent of Kyros.\nSimilar conditions prevail in the case of Sargon, whose royal father\nis also known (compare Jeremias, p. 410, annotation). Nevertheless,\nan historian writes about Sargon as follows (Ungnad, \u201cDie Anf\u00e4nge\nder Staatenbildung in Babylonien\u201d (Beginnings of State Formation in\nBabylonia), _Deutsche Rundschau_, July, 1905): \u201cHe was evidently\nnot of noble descent, or no such saga could have been woven about\nhis birth and his youth.\u201d It would be a gross error to consider our\ninterpretation as an argument in this sense. Again, the apparent\ncontradiction which might be held up against our explanation, under\nanother mode of interpretation, becomes the proof of its correctness,\nthrough the reflection that it is not the hero, but the average man\nwho makes the myth, and wishes to vindicate himself in the same. The\npeople imagine the hero in this manner, investing him with their own\ninfantile fantasies, irrespective of their actual compatibility or\nincompatibility with historical facts. This also serves to explain the\ntransference of the typical motives, be it to several generations of\nthe same hero family, or be it to historical personalities in general\n(concerning C\u00e6sar, Augustus and others, compare Usener, Rhein. Mus. LV,\np. 271).\n\n[104] This identification of the families is carried through to the\nminutest detail in certain myths, as for example in the \u0152dipus myth,\nwhere one royal couple is offset by another, and where even the\nherdsman who receives the infant for exposure has his exact counterpart\nin the herdsman to whom he entrusts the rescue of the boy.\n\n[105] Compare Gubernatis, Zoological Mythology, London, 1872 (In German\nby Hartmann: Die Tiere in der indogermanischen Mythologie. Leipzig,\n1874). Concerning the significance of animals in exposure myths, see\nalso the contributions by Bauer (p. 574 et seq.), Goldziher (p. 274)\nand Liebrecht: Zur Volkskunde (Romulus und die Welfen) (Folk Lore,\nRomulus and the Whelps), Heilbronn, 1879.\n\n[106] Compare Freud\u2019s article on The Infantile Recurrence of Totemism\n(Imago, Vol. II, 1913). Concerning the totemistic foundation of the\nRoman she-wolf, compare Jones\u2019 Nightmare (Alptraum), p. 59 et seq. The\nwoodpecker of the Romulus saga was discussed by Jung (_loc. cit._, p.\n382 et seq.).\n\n[107] The stork is known also in mythology as the bringer of children.\nSiecke (Liebesgesch. d. Himmels, p. 26) points out the swan as the\nplayer of this part in certain regions and countries. The rescue and\nfurther protection of the hero by a bird is not uncommon; compare\nGilgamos, Zal and Kyknos, who is exposed by his mother near the sea and\nis nourished by a swan, while his son Tennes floats in a chest upon\nthe water. The interpretation of the leading motive of the Lohengrin\nsaga also enters into present consideration. Its most important motives\nbelong to this mythical cycle: Lohengrin floats in a skiff upon the\nwater, and is brought ashore by a swan. No one may ask whence he has\ncome: the sexual mystery of the origin of man must not be revealed\nbut it is replaced by the suggestion of the stork fable: the children\nare fished from the water by the swan and are taken to the parents\nin a box. Corresponding to the prohibition of all enquiries in the\nLohengrin saga, we find in other myths (for example, the \u0152dipus myth),\na _command to investigate_, or a riddle which must be _solved_. For\nthe psychological significance of the stork fable, compare Freud,\nInfantile Sexual Theories. Concerning the Hero Myth, compare the\nauthor\u2019s extensive contribution to the elaboration of the motives and\nthe interpretation of the Lohengrin saga (Heft 13 of this collection,\nVienna and Leipzig, 1911).\n\n[108] Compare Freud: Analysis of the Phobia of a five year old Boy.\n_Jahrbuch f. psychoanalyt. u. psychopath. Forschungen_, Vol. I, 1909.\n\n[109] Usener (Stoff des griechischen Epos, S. 53\u2014Subject Matter of\nGreek Epics, p. 53) says that the controversy between the earlier and\nthe later Greek sagas concerning the mother of a divinity is usually\nreconciled by the formula that the mother of the general Greek saga is\nrecognized as such while the mother of the local tradition is lowered\nto the rank of a nurse. There may therefore be unhesitatingly regarded\nas the mother, not merely the nurse of the god Ares.\n\n[110] Abraham, _loc. cit._, p. 40; Riklin, _loc. cit._, p. 74.\n\n[111] Brief mention is made of a case concerning a Mrs. v. Hervay,\nbecause of a few subtle psychological comments upon the same, by A.\nBerger (Feuilleton der Neue Freie Presse, Nov. 6, 1904, No. 14,441)\nwhich in part touch upon our interpretation of the hero myth. Berger\nwrites as follows: \u201cI am convinced that she seriously believes herself\nto be the illegitimate daughter of an aristocratic Russian lady. The\ndesire to belong through birth to more distinguished and brilliant\ncircles than her own surroundings probably dates back to her early\nyears; and her wish to be a princess gave rise to the delusion that she\nwas not the daughter of her parents, but the child of a noblewoman who\nhad concealed her illegitimate offspring from the world by letting her\ngrow up as the daughter of a sleight-of-hand man. Having once become\nentangled in these fancies, it was natural for her to interpret any\nharsh word that offended her, or any accidental ambiguous remark that\nshe happened to hear, but especially her reluctance to be the daughter\nof this couple, as a confirmation of her romantic delusion. She\ntherefore made it the task of her life to regain the social position of\nwhich she felt herself to have been defrauded. Her biography manifests\nthe strenuous insistence upon this idea, with a tragic outcome.\u201d\n\nThe female type of the family romance, as it confronts us in this case\nfrom the a-social side, has also been transmitted as a hero myth in\nisolated instances. The story goes of the later Queen Semiramis (in\nDiodos, II, 4) that her mother, the goddess Derketo, being ashamed of\nher, exposed the child in a barren and rocky land, where she was fed\nby doves and found by shepherds, who gave the infant to the overseer\nof the royal flocks, the childless Simmas, who raised her as his own\ndaughter. He named her Semiramis, which means Dove in the Syrian\nlanguage. Her further career, up to her autocratic rulership, thanks to\nher masculine energy, is a matter of history.\n\nOther exposure myths are told of Atalante, Kybele, and A\u00ebrope (v.\nRoscher).\n\n[112] Freud: Three Contributions to the Sexual Theory, Nervous\nand Mental Disease Monograph, No. 7. Also: Psychopathologie des\nAltagslebens, II ed., Berlin, 1909. Also: Hysterische Phantasien und\nihre Beziehung zur Bisexualit\u00e4t.\n\n[113] This is especially evident in the myths of the Greek gods, where\nthe son (Kronos, Zeus) must first remove the father, before he can\nenter upon his rulership. The form of the removal, namely through\ncastration, obviously the strongest expression of the revolt against\nthe father, is at the same time the proof of its sexual provenance.\nConcerning the revenge character of this castration, as well as the\ninfantile significance of the entire complex, compare Freud, Infantile\nSexual Theories and Analysis of the Phobia of a five year old Boy\n(Jahrbuch f. Psychoanalyse).\n\n[114] Compare the contrast between Tell and Parricida, in Schiller\u2019s\nWilhelm Tell, which is discussed in detail in the author\u2019s Incest Book.\n\n[115] Compare in this connection the unsuccessful homicidal attempt of\nTatjana Leontiew, and its subtle psychological illumination in Wittels:\nDie sexuelle Not (Vienna and Leipzig, 1909).","title":"The Myth of the Birth of the Hero: A psychological interpretation of mythology","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":36943}