# Myth, Ritual, and Religion/Volume 1/Preface

PREFACE.
The following work is not a "key to all mythologies," but an attempt to disengage and examine, as far as possible, separately, and, as far as possible, historically, the various elements of religion and myth. The evidence of ritual is adduced because of the conservative tendencies of rites on which the prosperity of tribes and states is believed to depend. While the attempt is made to show that the wilder features of myth survive from, or were borrowed from, or were imitated from, the ideas of people in the savage condition of thought, the existence—even among savages—of comparatively pure, if inarticulate, religious beliefs or sentiments is insisted on throughout. It is pointed out that neither history, experiment, nor observation enables us to reach the actual Origins, nor to determine with certainty whether the religious or the mythical, the irrational or the sympathetic, element is the earlier, or whether both are of equal antiquity. Thus the problem—Why do people who possess a sentiment or ​instinct of the existence of a good being or beings habitually attach to his name or their names the recklessly immoral myths?—is practically left I unsolved. The process lies beyond our ken, beyond the view of history.
The book does not pretend to be exhaustive. For various reasons, the myths of various races are omitted or touched on but in passing. In the first place, I remember the woes predicted for him who "says all that he has to say on any subject." Therefore the myths of the Finns and of the Scandinavians are only alluded to incidentally. Babylonian myths and religion are still in a condition so perplexed and obscure that I have not the audacity to cross their frontier. Had Professor Sayce's Hibbert Lectures on this topic been published while these chapters were unwritten, I might have attempted to use Professor Sayce as a guide in so difficult a region. Roman myths are so entangled with those of Greece (different as is the genius of the Latin people), that I have only borrowed a few illustrations from the practice and belief of Rome. Of Mongolian, Chinese, and Japanese mythology I am almost entirely ignorant, and Celtic developments appear scarcely less hard to understand. Here, too, we may expect much aid from the Hibbert Lectures of Professor Rhys.
The book throughout, where it deals with the myths of the Sanskrit-speaking people and of the Egyptians, ​relies on the reports brought by learned translators and commentators from these literatures; while in treating of the lower and the American peoples, the reports of missionaries, travellers, historians, commentators, and occasionally of great compilations like Mr. Bancroft's, are employed in the same way. The authorities, I think, are usually acknowledged in the notes; nor, of course, does one pretend to decide upon the differences of the learned. An attempt is made to state these differences, and my own bias is probably manifest enough in each instance. Where the philological interpretation of proper names is concerned (especially in the chapter on Greek Gods), I see little just now to warrant any decided opinion.
I have endeavoured to keep controversy about Method as much as possible within the bounds of an Appendix to volume ii., but probably have not always avoided the temper of polemics.
A book like this would be practically impossible without the learned labours of men like Preller, Lobeck, Maspero, Roscher (with his allies in his great and valuable Ausführliches Lexikon, now (1887) in course of publication), Muir, Max Müller, Bergaigne, and many others whose names frequently recur.
In revising the proof-sheets, I have had the kind assistance of Mr. E. B. Tylor for part of the American chapters; of M. Charles Michel (Professeur à la Faculté des Lettres de Gand) for the chapters on India; of ​Mr. Evelyn Abbott of Baliol for the Greek chapters; and of Mr. Reginald Stuart Poole for the chapter on Egyptian Religion and Myths. Professor Robertson Smith has also assisted me in various points; and Mr. H. H. Risley, of the Bengal Civil Service; Mr. J. J. Atkinson, late of Noumea; and Mr. Brander Matthews have sent me interesting information. The gentlemen who have so kindly and carefully read the proofs must not be considered in any degree responsible for errors that may have escaped their notice, nor for ideas which, I dare say, they often do not share.
In the notes I have occasionally used references from books not within my reach, but quoted by authorities, and likely to prove useful to students who can lay their hands on the volumes. In most cases, I think, these references are printed within brackets.
The difficulty of correcting the numerals in references is considerable, and I can hardly hope that none of the 6's have become 0's, the 3's 5's, and so forth. Like the witty lady who had just seen a book through the press, about these references I may say horresco referens!
It was my original intention to have added studies of Deluge Myths, Fire Myths, Myths of the Origin of Death, and Myths of the Homes of the Dead. Three of these studies were even written, in whole or in part, but it appears better to reserve them for "a more convenient season." The Deluge alone, a very peculiar tradition, which possibly (in my opinion) rests on ​some universal fact, might well sweep over two volumes as large as these.
An essay in the Nineteenth Century (September 1886) contained some of the material used in the chapter on Egyptian Divine Myths, and the relations of "Demeter and the Pig" were stated in the same periodical (April 1887). A few remarks on Greek temple-rites appeared in the Saturday Review as "The Seamy Side of Greek Religion." Of the shorter Appendices, that on Mr. Morgan's theory of the Aztec civilisation, and that on Fontenelle's Origine des Fables, were more or less published in the St. James's Gazette, and "The Hare in Egyptian Religion" in Mélusine. These fragments have been used with the courteous permission of the several editors.
The article on "Mythology" in the Encyclopædia Britannica, translated as "La Mythologie" (Paris, Dupret, 1886) by M. Parmentier, with a preface and notes by M. Ch. Michel of Gand, was a brief sketch made from this book while in course of construction.
I must apologise for occasional allusions to other writings of my own on these topics, and for repetitions in this book; the latter are mainly, so to speak, like "cross references" in a dictionary or index.