Towards a Method of Mythology - Germanic Mythology

from which speculation and fancy about local myths have been banished once and for all.
Outside of this area, speculation and fancy can still have their free play. However, it
should be made clear that even the Germanic myths that do not have Proto-Indo-
European support may have been pan-Germanic. Lack of this support does not
demonstrate the opposite opinion, although the existence of support precludes it.
The last statement brings me back to Wundt’s words cited above that the main
task of mythology is to establish [441] the original identity of different mythic formations
that were separated by time and space.
Wundt points out that the mythological researcher has two methods at his
disposal: the Nominal method (which he calls the Linguistic method) and the Real
method (which he calls the Philological method).
Where it is possible to prove a strong mythic identity, the Nominal method is
used, as when the gods or heroes in the myths compared bear names that, notwithstanding
their possible external differences, refer back to the same original name-form, when the
laws of sound-shifts are observed. The identity of certain Indo-European figures attests to
their originality, thus for example the names Vâta and Vôdana, Parganya and Fjörgynn;
the original identity of certain Greek and Roman divine figures demonstrates the identity
of the names Hestia and Vesta, of Dione and Juno.
However, some have exaggerated the usefulness and certainty of the Nominal
method to a large degree. Some linguists seem not to have a sense for anything but the
Nominal method and appear to feel uncomfortable using the Real method, which is much
more meaningful and much more reliable. The Nominal method suffers first and foremost
from its narrowly restricted applicableness. Identical gods and heroes in related peoples’
mythologies can appear under completely different names. They can appear with
different names even among the same people and, within this people, in contemporary
mythological sources. They can appear with different names even in the same hymn or
the same mythic poem. This occurs, quite simply, because all mythologies are cluttered
with a more or less abundant synonymy. Gods, goddesses, and heroes can each bear
numerous [442] names and epithets. Like words in general, they struggle with one
another for existence, and are threatened to the same degree that a name or an epithet
falls more and more out of usage. During the course of centuries, many synonyms vanish,
while others arise, particularly under the influence of poets, who love new formations and
strive for new names and epithets that emphasize and accentuate the quality of the subject
celebrated, to which the poet particularly wants to call attention. If the epithet is well
chosen, it quickly solidifies into a name in the usual meaning of the word, and this name
is now in a position to supplant other names and epithets. Under such conditions, it is not
surprising that the Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Germanic mythic cycles are so different from
one another in reference to the names of gods and heroes; on the contrary, it is surprising
that more than a few such names are preserved, among the Teutons, among the Greeks,
and even among the Slavs, from far back into the Proto-Indo-European era. In cases
where this occurs, the Nominal method can be applied, but not otherwise.
Yet even in this limited area, the Nominal method alone is far from certain.
Actually, it can lead to unreasonable results. I need only refer to one example here. 19 The
19 A second example is the identification of the Germanic god Tyr with the Indo-European Sky-Father
based solely on the similarity between the name Tyr and the first half of the Proto-Indo-European term
“Dyaus Pater.” See Investigations into Germanic Mythology, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 7-10.