A myth proper, then, is neither a philosopheme nor a legend. It is best described as a spontaneous product of the youthful imagination of mankind, —the natural* form under which an infant race expresses its conceptions and convictions about supernatural relations and prehistoric events. It is neither fiction,t history, nor philosophy ; it is a spoken poetry, an uncritical and childlike history, a sincere and self-believing romance. It does not invent, but simply imagines and repeats ; it may err, but it never lies. It is a narration, generally marvellous, which no one consciously or scientifi cally invents, and which every one unintention ally falsifies. It is,' says Mr. Grote, the natu ral effusion of the unlettered, imaginative, and be lieving man.' It belongs to an age in which the understanding was credulous and confiding, the imagination full of vigour and vivacity, and the passions earnest and intense. Its very essence con sists in the projection:. of thoughts into the sphere of facts. It arises partly from the unconscious and gradual objectising of the subjective, or con fusing mental processes with external realities ; and partly from investing the object with the feelings of the subject, that is, from imaginatively attributing to external nature those feelings and qualities which only exist in the percipient soul.
The myth then belongs to that period of human progress in which the mind regards history as all a fairy tale.' Before the increase of knowledge, the dawn of science, and the general dissemination of books, men's fancies respecting the past, and the dim conjectures of nascent philosophy, can only be preserved by these traditional semi poetic tales ; to borrow the fine expression of Tacitus, • fingunt simul crcduntque.' So far from being startled by the marvellous and the incredible, they expected and looked for it ; while discre pancies and contradictions were accepted side by side, because the critical faculty was wholly unde veloped. The real and the ideal,' says Mr. Grote, were blended together in the primitive conception . . . . the myth passed unquestioned, from the fact of its currency, and from its harmony with existing sentiments and preconceptions.' To the intensity of a fresh imagination, and the necessary weakness of the youth of language, we can trace the origin of a vast number of myths. In those early days men looked at all things with the large open eyes of childish wonderment. The majority of phenomena which they saw and en joyed were incapable of other than a metaphorical or poetical description ; and even if language bad been more developed it would have responded less accurately to their thoughts, because they seriously transferred their own feelings and emotions to the world around them, and made themselves the measure of all things. Thus the hunter regarded the moon and stars which `glanced rapidly along the clouded heaven' as a beaming goddess with ber nymphs ;' and Sunbeams upon distant hills Gliding apace with shadows in their train Might, with small help from fancy, be transferred Into fleet Dreads sporting visibly." And thus the manifold aspects of nature, imagina tively conceived and metaphorically described, furnished at once a large mythology ; and when these elements were combined and arranged for the purpose of illustrating early scientific or theo logical conceptions, and were corrupted by num berless erroneous etymologies of words, whose true origin was forgotten, we have at once the materials for an extensive and sometimes inscrutable mytho logy. In the early stage of the myth, confined to the period when everything is personified,.* it is
as difficult to distinguish between what was re garded as fancy and what was believed as fact, as it is to this day in the rude and grotesque legends of Polynesians and N. American Indians. But in a later time, when myths were preserved in writing and systematised into dogmas, the poetical imagina tive faculties had often well-nigh evaporated, and that which had originally been meant as half a metaphor was prosaically hardened into a real and marvellous fact. Thus, in many myths, as they were finally preserved, we may see the mere mis conceptions of a metaphor, and the guesses of a most imperfect etymology, mingling in two distinct streams with the original simple poetic tale. Any one who considers the evanescent ' tradition' of un tutored Polytheism as it is displayed among modern savages, may watch, even at the present day, the growth and swift diffusion of myths ; but we must look into various histories of civilised people (and especially into that of Greece) to see such myths first erroneously systematised into definite narra tives, to be deliberately believed—then partially and timidly rationalised—next contemptuously re jected—and finally restored to their true rank as the most interesting relics of a primitive society, and the earnest teachings of a yet unsophisticated religious philosophy.
This subject would require a volume to explain adequately, and indeed it has occupied many im portant volumes. All that we have here attempted, is to remove a groundless and injurious prejudice against the word. Whether or not there be any myths in the Bible, and especially in the earlier books, is a question which must be settled purely on its own merits. It is, however, undesirable that the mere word myth' should be avoided by those who undoubtedly regard some of the Biblical nar ratives as containing mythical elements. Even men like Bunsen and Ewald bowed to popular prejudice in shunning the word; and of the English theologi ans, who rely so much on their authority, scarcely one (with the exception of Dr. Davidson) has ven tured in this particular to desert their guidance. Yet the word myth' is far more reverent and far less objectionable than 'fable,' which some would substitute for it'; and it is, as Dr. Davidson has pointed out, far more honest than circumlocutions which mean the same thing (Infra. i, 146). It will be observed that we are here giving no opinion whatever as to the fact of the existence of Scrip tural myths, but merely pleading that those Biblical critics who understand the true nature of myths, and, rightly or wrongly, believe that here and there in the Hebrew records a mythic element may be traced, should not hesitate to express their conviction by the term which is most suitable and most likely to secure for the subject a clear and fair discussion.
The following are a very few of the more im portant books on the subject of myths :-0. Prolegomena en einer Wissenschaftlichen Gott. s825 [translated by J. Leitch, Loud. Grimm, Deutsche Alythologie ; Buttmann, lifytho logos ; Hermann, Ueber das Wesen rend die Be handlung d. hlythologie ; Lobeck, Agiaophamus • Creuzer, Symbolik and Atythologie der Allen Volker, Nitzsch, Helden-Sage der Griechen ; Bottiger, Kunst Mythologie d. Griechen ; Kavanagh, Myths traced to their primary Source through Language, 1856. The subject has of late years received two most important contributions in England — Mr. Grote's History of Greece, vol. i., and Prof. Max Miller's Essay on Greek Mythology, Oxford Essays, 1856.—F. W. F.