entirely, in that form, from the rank of mythi.' I should not have been enabled to do so merely because the epic poets and logographers are silent on the subject, and even partly contain what is adverse. Such roundabout inquiries, as Creuzer has well remarked, do not lead to the point. But I thought, and still think, I had shown that the mythic fraternization of the Saïtans and Athenians had its natural root in the presence of the Ionians at Sais, when the strangers saw in Neith, who was worshipped there, their native Athenæa. I thought that I was able to follow, step by step, the gradual growth of the story; and that I had pointed out, besides, a series of analogous and kindred phenomena. At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that an accurate chronological arrangement of the evidences would be extremely advantageous, nay necessary, to the study of mythology; but its application must be guided by a very cautious judgment. Such an arrangement may, in favourable cases, furnish an actual history of a mythus. Suppose that three authors, of different ages, relate a mythus differently, and that the discrepancies may be perfectly accounted for by the altered spirit of the age or the narrators; the shape in which it is given by the oldest is, of course, the relatively original form, and it, therefore, must be the starting-point for further investigation. It may, indeed, also happen that the later as well as the earlier author makes use of the genuine legend, and communicates from it something more essential to a right understanding of it than the other. In that case, the literary determination of time is, of 1 Orch., p. 106 sqq. course, at an end, so far as regards this new information. But such investigations, also, very frequently enable us to separate, in the narrations of mythi, the original groundwork from the additions of poets and other authors, and to show that these are from their hands, and in their spirit as well as the spirit of their age. We thus learn from individual instances, in which the supplementary portion can be clearly made out, to determine its character in general, and even to undertake the separation in other cases. If we know, for instance, from authentic sources, how the dramatic writers gave a more tragic turn to certain mythi,-among other examples, the Medea of Euripides1 now occurs to me,we may perhaps ascertain, by analogy, how much has been added by the repréтeia in other cases. Nay, investigation here must lead still farther. It enables us, even in the case of mythi which have been transmitted to us by later compilers, to discover their former source from the style of narration, and to find out, therefore, at what period they were related in that particular form. It is easy to conceive how important this must be for the critical treatment of the mythus. Such a study of the literary sources in chronological order, and such an arrangement of mythi according to their literary sources, often furnish us with the means of entirely excluding a mythus from the class of genuine mythi, and assigning it its place among pure inventions. Suppose I find that a story did not exist before the time of Pragmatism, and that it has otherwise the appearance of having been devised as a connecting link between others, as 1 Orch., p. 270. a means of attaining pragmatical coherence, I cannot well regard it any longer as a mythic tradition. By this method of criticism we can often go so far as to decide with certainty the age of something connected with the mythus, but not of a mythic nature. Of the mythus itself, however, we shall be able to say nothing, further than that it was formed before the time when the poet handled it: how long before, his mention of it by itself cannot instruct us. It may have been formed at so early a period, that, as a mythus, it had become quite extinct, and was nowhere current among the people at the time of the author, who was the first, so far as we are concerned, to take notice of it. Since, therefore, the mere inquiry into the age of the evidences is so little calculated to advance our aim, we must try to find other ways and means of determining the age of a mythus. The main point is to comprehend the mythus at its origin; and in order to this, its true explanation is necessary. Without entering into this, we here seek merely for preliminary data. Such must be found, if we can establish a chain of connexion between mythi and facts in authentic history-either their contemporaneous existence, or the evolution of the one from the other. We shall try whether it can be shown, that a mythus already existed when a particular event took place; and, secondly, that it could not possibly have come into existence, but for some such particular event. Data of the latter sort are of especial importance; and even those of the former are by no means useless, inasmuch as they sometimes lead us far beyond the literary evidences. CHAPTER VI. Determination of the Age of Mythi from Historical Events. SUCH historical events are especially the establishment of colonies. It seems proper that a number of examples, although forming but a small portion of those otherwise obtained by investigation, should be here adduced; as the importance of this species of research to the science in general is not yet equally evident to all. 1. BYZANTIUM was founded in the 30th Olympiad by Megarians. Among them there were also Argives, if, indeed, these did not precede them. The only evidence of this, however, is a later writer, Hesychius Milesius; but, according to his own account, he drew largely on ancient poets and historians. This, I think, was the best source he could have. For as Hera, the ancient tutelar goddess of Argos, was honoured under the appellative of 'Axpaía at the 'Ακραία Argive fortress of Larissa, she was, in like manner, put in possession of a citadel at Byzantium.3 Dionysius, the Byzantine, speaks thus of an eminence within the city—“Ille locus Junonia Acra dicitur, ubi quotannis victimas primo anni die mactat gens Megarica, (which expression here denotes merely the ancient inhabitants.) Further, as the legends of Io (in connexion with the worship of Hera) had their locality at Argos, and the place was pointed out 1 In Πατρ. Κονσταντινουπόλεως, Ρ. 3. p. 60. Orelli. 2 Pausan., ii. 24, 1. 3 Hudson, Geogr. min., T. iii. p. 2. Κερόεσσα where she had grazed as a cow; so also, at Byzantium, was Io said to have grazed on the tongue of land called Ceras, "the Horn," at the confluence of the streams Barbyses and Cydarus, and to have brought forth a daughter, Kepóerra "the Horned One," mother of Byzas, the hero of the city. It seems to me clear that the name Bosporus, "Cow-ford," has some connexion with these mythi; that the Byzantines applied it to the strait in honour of their legendary cow; and that the tradition of Io having swum across, originated in this way." Hence it follows that the Argives, who emigrated to Byzantium, were already acquainted with the mythus of Io, and her transformation; for Argos and Byzantium had never afterwards so much intercourse as to occasion so remarkable a migration of mythi and religious worship. But it follows, secondly, that in the history of the wanderings of Io, in the course of which she swims across the Hellespont, legends are contained, of which, at least, the one just referred to did not exist until the 30th Olympiad.5 2. But most of the Byzantine sanctuaries were transferred from MEGARA, the metropolis, as it was called by way of eminence. In Megara flourished the worship of Apollo; and, in particular, an ancient temple, dedicated to him, stood on the Acropolis, looking towards the sea. The god himself was said to have assisted Alcathous in building the citadel. While thus employed, according to the legend, he laid his harp upon a stone, of which it was asserted, Dionys., p. 5. Hesych., 6. p. 63. in the heroic poem Ægimius, Dor., 1 2 Apollod., ii. 1. 1. 3 It had already appeared vol. i. p. 34d. 4 Eschylus, Prom. 726. |