We are thus told that primitive man evolves stories and be lieves in them, in order to explain abstract ideas. As a matter of fact myth is not a form of primitive science, but an aspect of religion, magic and morality; its function is not to explain queries nor to illuminate abstract or obscure points, but to strengthen belief, to substantiate morals and to enhance tradi tion, in short to bring home to primitive man all that has to be believed, obeyed and accepted (B. Malinowski, Myth).
To establish our point, we have to place myth within the scheme of primitive culture and to show its pragmatic function. Myth is a part of folklore in the narrower sense of the word, that is of oral tradition. Man in all ages and all climes possesses a body of concrete stories which can be readily divided into several classes.
Of these, the first serves predominantly for amusement and recreation. Stories of this class describe more or less dramatic or funny adventures of men and animals, ogres and hobgoblins, none of which are regarded as real. Such tales, when studied within their cultural context and regarded from the native point of view are found to play an important part in native life, in that they enhance sociability, fill out seasons of enforced idleness or make up the substance of amicable gatherings.
Another class of stories, taken more seriously, refer to impor tant exploits and heroic deeds of past generations and are con sidered to be true. The sociological function of such stories is that they develop family pride, knit kinship bonds more firmly and serve to increase communal or tribal solidarity.
There are finally stories which are regarded as sacred and connected in a specific manner with magical and religious cult, with social organisation and with the body of tribal custom and moral rules. These and these only could be regarded as "explan atory" stories, in that among other subjects, they account for the origin of the world, give the reasons for death, furnish revela tions of future existence, and promise immortality, narrate the beginnings of magic, and so on. The explanatory character, how
ever, is prominent only as long as the story is considered without its cultural context. In all cases where the associated ideas and feelings have been observed; where we know the conditions under which the myth is recited or enacted ; above all where the prac tical influence of the myth has been studied—we are able to assign a definite cultural function to it. Thus, in connection with magic, we find stories which are not intended to explain the ritual or the phenomenon governed by magic, but are meant to substantiate the belief in magical efficiency. All such stories give us an account of an extremely successful, miraculous precedent. Around the various religious rites and ceremonies, there cluster stories which vouch for the efficiency of the religious acts in obtaining the desired effect.
Again, we have a class of myths which confirm the existence of privileges, give the antecedents of rank and power, or enforce duties and which, in general, strengthen traditional law and order. Wherever myth, that is a sacred story, has been studied in con nection with the sources of its sanctity as well as with its sacralis ing results, it can be shown that it has served to strengthen faith by reference to an original Golden Age, to miraculous precedents in the dim past. The study of myth in conjunction with ritual and institution has been carried out only in limited areas; e.g., in the Andaman islands (A. Radcliffe-Brown), in Central Australia (Spencer and Gillen), in Melanesia (B. Malinowski), in North western America (Boas and others), in Polynesia (Elsdon Best). All the facts we know, however, prove that myth is in no way comparable to primitive science, but that instead it functions as a religious warrant, vouching for the truth of belief, the efficacy of ritual, and the fitness and justice of moral or social duty.