LECTURE XVI. MYTHOLOGY. Myths. NEX EXT to language as such, it is myth or mythology which supplies us with materials for the study of Natural Religion. The outline of the genealogy of languages which I gave you in some of my former lectures will be equally useful for the genealogy of mythology. It will in fact be the chief object of this and the next following lectures to show that what we call myth is a natural and inevitable phase in the development of language; that in its initial stages that phase showed itself before the different languages belonging to the same family had become finally separated, and that therefore, besides much that is peculiar to each, we find in all a common fund of mythology which we may look upon as the earliest stratum likely to contain the germs of religious thoughts. If we use myth and mythology synonymously, we have the authority of Greek writers for doing so, for mythology (μvoλoyía) with them does not mean, as it often does with us, a study of myths, but it is used in the sense of a telling of mythic legends, and afterwards of these legends and tales themselves. Meaning of Mythology. Few words, however, have of late changed their meaning so completely as myth and mythology. Not very long ago Greek mythology meant Greek religion, Roman mythology meant Roman religion, and each was supposed to consist of a body of traditions and doctrines which a Greek or Roman had to believe, just as Christians believe in the New, or the Jews in the Old Testament. As mythology was taught at school chiefly from manuals, a very general impression prevailed that the legends collected in them existed in this collective form in Greece and Italy, that they formed in fact a complete system, and were known as such by every Greek and Roman, man, woman, and child; the fact being that hardly a single Greek or Roman could have passed an examination in our manuals of mythology, nay that the very names of many of the gods and heroes therein mentioned would have been utterly unknown to the majority of the inhabitants of Greece and Italy. Etymology of μύθος. Before we discuss the meaning which mythology has assumed, chiefly owing to the discovery that myth is a phase of language, inevitable in the early development of speech and thought, it may be well to ask in what sense μôlos was used by the Greeks themselves. The etymology of μûeos is unknown, or at all events doubtful. It is well to be reminded from time to time how many words there are still in Greek and Latin, to say nothing of Sanskrit, of which we cannot render any etymological account. Of course, we can guess that polos is derived from μów, to shut, to close. This is used of shutting the eyes, as in μύωψ, μύωπος, literally closing the eyes, then shortsighted; and it is likewise used of shutting the lips. From this a secondary base might be derived, μváw, which means to compress the lips, to express contempt. In Sanskrit we have a root mû, to bind, from which mû-ka, dumb, lit. tongue-bound, and likewise Latin mú-tus, dumb, and Greek μú-ris, which Hesychius mentions in the sense of ἄφωνος, as well as μύτης and μυττός. Possibly μvéw, to initiate, to teach secrets, may likewise come from that root, while μύστης and μυστήριον might owe their s to analogy. Still it would be strange if μôlos, word, had meant originally a muttering with closed lips, even though we can appeal to Latin muttum, a muttering, muttire, or mutîre, to mumble. The Gothic runa, secret counsel, has likewise been mentioned as a parallel case, because it is derived from a root RU, to whisper1. All we can say is that a derivation of μôlos from the root mû, to bind, to close, is phonetically possible, and this is more than can be said for another etymology which connects μlos with μúw, to murmur, for in μúo the final of the root is guttural, not dental, as is shown by μvyuós, muttering. Though the etymology of polos is somewhat doubtful, its meaning in Greek is clear enough. It means word as opposed to deeds, and hardly differs originally from Tos and λóyos. Afterwards2, however, a dis 1 Connected with Gothic rûna we find the Old Norse rún, secret, then the Runic letters. In A. S. we have rûn, secret, rûnian, to whisper, Med. English to roun, which has been changed into to round; German raunen. The Latin rumor too has been traced back to the same cluster of words. 2 Pind. O. 1, 47; N. 7, 34. tinction is made between uûeos in the sense of a story, a fable, and λóyos, an historical account, and this distinction has been preserved in modern times. Myth, a word. If the original meaning of the Greek λóyos, as both word and thought, has revealed to us a forgotten truth which must become the foundation of all true philosophy, namely the identity of thought and language, the original meaning of μûeos, word, will teach us an equally useful lesson for the study of mythology, and indirectly, of religion. Let us take myth in its original sense, and we shall see that here too the Greeks saw rightly. A myth was at first a word. The formation of such a word as Eos, dawn, seems at first sight not very different from the formation of any other word. But if you remember that all roots expressed originally an action, you will see that we require for every word an agent. Now so long as we deal with verbs, we always have our agent; namely, I, thou, or he-I strike, thou strikest, he strikes. But when we have to deal with a word like Eos-who is the agent there? Eos. We know that Eos is the Sanskrit Ushas, and we know that ushas is derived from a root VAS, which means to shine. So Eos meant originally shining-it,' or 'shining-he,' or 'shining-she.' But who was it, or he, or she? Here you have at once the inevitable birth of what we call a myth. What our senses perceive and what we are able to name is only an effect, it is the illumination of the sky, the brightness of the morning. or, as we now should say, the reflection of the rays of the sun on the clouds of the sky. But such were not the thoughts of the early framers of language. After they had framed a word which meant shining there, or light, namely Eos, they would go on to say, that Eos has returned, Eos has fled, Eos will return, Eos wakens the sleepers, Eos lengthens our life, Eos makes us grow old, Eos rises from the sea, Eos is the daughter of the sky, Eos is followed by the sun, Eos is loved by the sun, Eos is killed by the sun, and so on ad infinitum. Now what is all this? You may say, it is language, it is mythos-yes, and it is what I called the inevitable myth, and a myth that will grow on for ever. For, if Eos is followed by the sun, or, as we should say, if she has the sun for her follower or lover, she would naturally be conceived as a woman, and as a bright and beautiful woman. If she appeared veiled in clouds, she would be conceived as a veiled bride; if she was seen in her naked beauty, she would be celebrated for her brilliant charms. Now let us look at all the epithets which Greek poets have bestowed on Eos, and every one of them will become intelligible. If she is called the daughter of Hyperion, who can doubt that Hyperion, like Summanus, was the high heaven? If her mother is called Euryphaessa, the wide-shining, do we want an explanation to tell us that that is only another name for the dawn or for the East or for the morning? If she is called the sister of Helios and Selene, is that mythology, or is it plain truth? As the gloaming seemed but a repetition of the dawn, nothing was more natural than to suppose, as the Greeks did, that Eos had followed Helios through the whole of his course, and that she followed |