FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND
AUTHOR OF
"THE MYTHS OF MEXICO AND PERU"
"THE CIVILIZATION OF ANCIENT MEXICO"
"THE POPOL VUH"
"A DICTIONARY OF MYTHOLOGY"
"A DICTIONARY OF NON-CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY"
ETC. ETC.
This volume is an outline of the principles of mythology, chieflywith reference to its more modern developments. Hand in hand with thesister sciences of folklore and comparative religion, it has advancedso rapidly within the last twenty years and altered so greatly from itsancient aspect that it seems an entirely new science. Thirty years ago,if a student of myth had been asked who Janus was, he would probablyhave replied: "A Roman god of origins." To-day he might see in him adevelopment of the 'kirn-baby.' So does the study of collected factsand analogies enable us to make broad generalizations. Quite recently,for example, Dr Rendel Harris advanced the theory that Aphrodite wasoriginally a mandrake, while Professor Elliot Smith contends that her'larval form' was that of the cowrie-shell. Apollo, according to somewriters, was originally an apple, Bacchus a sprig of ivy, and Zeushimself a flint-stone fetish.
With such metamorphoses of the elder gods a rather long-sufferingpublic has become somewhat ruefully acquainted. But with the value ofthe new scientific machinery which has discovered these analogies,which has laid bare the true nature of myth, they are not so intimate.The purpose of this book is to provide them with a review of mythicscience from its beginnings down to the latest guesses of contemporaryauthorities. This plan may appear too ambitious, in the present chaoticcondition of the science, but a real necessity exists for some suchelementary study in order to cast light into the popular darkness onthe subject.
The two great drawbacks of mythology are lack of accepted[Pg 6] definitionsand of an historical and philosophical review of the subject on popularlines to co-ordinate the results of research. No science can expandwithout definition, and the definitions here offered have been acceptedby most authorities as good working rules, so that, having won theapproval of the ablest and most experienced specialists of the day,they may be regarded as an important help to the study of mythology. Auseful series of definitions was brought forward with the countenanceof the Folklore Society, but the mesh of most of these was far toowide. Seemingly prepared during personal consultation, they suffered inconsequence, and the general result was surprisingly inadequate. Howdifferent it has been when written opinions have taken the place ofverbal discussion may be observed by anyone who cares to compare themwith the present series.
The author would note here that he desires to illustrate his theoriesas far as possible by myths which have come under his own notice andhave been collected by himself, not wishing to have directed againsthim the usual criticism of the mere collector of Märchen, who appearsto regard the theoretical writer on mythic science as an arm-chairplagiarist. But he has also used as examples many myths which appearin the several volumes of this series, and is further obliged to thepublished writings and personal correspondence of the late Mr AndrewLang, Sir James Frazer, Dr Marett, Mr Sidney Hartland, the late SirGeorge Laurence Gomme, Professor G. Elliot Smith, and many others. Hehas