Page images
PDF
EPUB

Olympian Hermes grew as different from his physical prototype as Zeus, the father of gods and men, from the god of the bright sky.

Very little progress has as yet been made in analysing the transition from the physical Aryan mythology to the Olympian mythology 1, as we find it in Homer, and in distinguishing the elements which entered into the final composition of each Olympian god. Each of these gods is surrounded by a number of epithets, but while some of these epithets are adjectives, in the true sense of the word, others seem to have possessed originally a more independent and substantive character, so much so that they can be used by themselves and without what may be called the proper name of the Olympian deity.

And here a new difficulty arises, namely, how to distinguish modern epithets from ancient cognomina. We are told that the Erinyes were called Eumenides and σeμval beaí, in order to indicate different sides of their character. This may be so, and if we keep true to the principle that the original character of every ancient god and goddess must be physical, the name of Erinyes, i. e. the Dawn-goddesses, alone fulfils that requirement. But when the Erinyes are identified with the 'Apaí, this does not prove that the 'Apaí or imprecations were not originally independent creations of Greek mythology, particularly as even in later times (Soph. Electra 112) Arae and Erinyes are separately invoked. The same applies to the Moirae who, originally quite distinct from the Erinyes, are afterwards

1 See some good remarks on this subject in Some Aspects of Zeus and Apollo Worship, by C. F. Keary; Roy. Soc. of Lit. xii. part 2, 1880.

treated as children of the same mother, and at last mixed up with them so as to become almost indistinguishable.

It may be quite true that the problem here alluded to is one that admits of no quite satisfactory solution, for the simple reason that the period during which the crystallisation of ancient divine names took place is beyond the reach of knowledge and almost of conjecture. Still it is well to remember that every organized mythology has necessarily to pass through such a period, and that in Greece particularly the well-ordered Olympian mythology, such as we find it in Homer, presupposes a more chaotic period. Etymology may in time supply us with a thread enabling us to find our way through the dark chambers of the most ancient mythological labyrinth, and we may even now lay it down as a rule that every name, whether nomen or cognomen, which admits of a physical interpretation is probably the result of an independent creative act, represents in fact an individual mythological concept which for a time, however short, enjoyed an independent existence. Thus in Sanskrit A pâm napât, the son of the waters, is no doubt one of the many names of Agni, fire; but in the beginning it expressed an independent mythological concept, the lightning sprung from the clouds, or the sun emerging from the waters 1, and it retained that independent character for a long time in the sacrificial phraseology of the Brâhmanas.

Sârameya, the son of Saramâ, was in Sanskrit as independent a name as Hermeias in Greek. They both meant originally the same thing, the child of the

1

Rv. I. 22, 6, apẩm nápâtam ávase Savítáram úpa stuhi,

dawn. But while Hermeias became a centre of attraction and a germ which developed into an Olympian deity, the Vedic Sârameya dwindled away into a mere name of a dog. The germ was the same, but the result was totally different.

The Haritas in Sanskrit never became anything but the horses of the sun; in Greek they developed into Charites; in Latin, possibly, into the Fors, Fortuna.

If then we ask the question once more, whether Daphne and Athene, being both originally names of the dawn, were therefore one and the same deity, we should say No. They both sprang from a concept of the dawn, but while one name grew into an Olympian goddess, the other was arrested at an earlier stage of its growth, and remained the name of a heroine, the beloved of Apollo, who like the dawn, vanished before the embraces of the rising sun. Etymologically Athene and Daphne can be traced back to the Vedic Ahanâ and Dahanâ with almost the same certainty with which the Vedic Dyaush-pitar has been identified with Zeus Tarp, Jupiter, and Týr. If there are still philosophers who hold that such coincidences are purely accidental, we must leave them to their own devices. The Copernican system is true, though there are some Fijians left who doubt it. But if for practical purposes we believe that in spectral analysis the same lines prove the existence of the same elements in the sun as well as on the earth, we may rest satisfied with the lesson of Jupiter, such as it is, and feel convinced that, as there was an Aryan language, before a word of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin had been spoken, there was an Aryan mythology, before there was an Æneid, an Iliad, or a Veda.

LECTURE XVIII.

THE ANALOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SCHOOLS.

II. THE ANALOGICAL SCHOOL.

F Comparative Mythology had been strictly confined to the minute analysis of mythological names, it would perhaps not have become so popular a science, but it would have done more real and lasting good. It would have remained a subject for specialists; and as little as people ignorant of Greek attempt to write Greek verse, would scholars ignorant of Sanskrit have meddled with Comparative Mythology.

When

But the subject proved too attractive. scholars and philosophers had once perceived clearly that Zeus and Jupiter lived in the Veda as Dyaus, no wonder that they wished to look for themselves in order to find out whether other Greek and Roman deities might not be discovered in the same hidingplace. Thus there arose very soon a new school of Comparative Mythologists, which in order to distinguish it from the Etymological, may be called the Analogical school. The name is perhaps not quite adequate, but I cannot think of a better one. Its best known representatives in Germany were Welcker, Preller, von Hahn, in France Bréal and Decharme, in England first and foremost, Sir G. W. Cox, and more recently Professor John Rhys in his Hibbert Lectures.

They generally accepted the results of the etymological school, though not without occasional protests, and they did excellent work by showing how everything that seemed irrational and disjointed in classical mythology fell into its right place and assumed a new meaning as soon as the whole iners moles had been reanimated once more by the spirit so long buried and forgotten in the names of gods and heroes. And this revival affected not classical mythology only, but the mythology of other Aryan nations also, as shown in the German mythology of Grimm, and in numerous more recent publications on Celtic, Slavonic, and particularly on Indian mythology.

Characters common to Gods and Heroes of different Names.

The analogical school accepts the common origin of the mythologies of the various Aryan nations as an established fact, and its best representatives have concentrated their work chiefly on collecting mythological stories which show the same general characteristics, however different the names of the gods and heroes may be of whom such myths and stories are related. The names are of secondary consequence to them. What interests them chiefly are such broad mythological outlines as that the great heroes were often illegitimate children, the father a god or a stranger, the mother a native princess; that many of these heroes were believed to bring destruction to their father-in-law, were exposed, nursed by animals or by childless shepherds, distinguished themselves in their youth among their play-fellows, had to do menial service, but generally returned victorious from their fights and labours, killed their enemies, liberated

« PreviousContinue »