Myth and Religion; - Germanic Mythology

the older mythical systems, such as they have come down to us, set in complex forms,
which are the creations of a later period, when man had passed beyond the psychical into
the rational stage, in which, while still holding in veneration those savage myths which
had been handed down to him from an earlier time, he had become endowed with greater
power of memory and mental combination, so that those rude remains of the earlier
myths were refashioned in the shape, such as we have them now, which Mr. Rydberg
names the epical, in which we have indeed, the savage remains of the earliest myths, but
bearing manifold traces of modification through the spirit of the new time into which they
had come. Thus, Uranos and Gaia, Kronos and Rhea were doubtless in part, the
recollections of a more savage time; but in their composite form, such as we have them,
they are the creation of a later time. It is to be observed that Preller (Robert), in his Greek
mythology, goes even further than this and says, ”Vor allem hiite man sich vor dem
Irrthum, als ob es je eine Epoche der griechischen Religion gegeben habe, in der Kronos,
statt des Zeus als hochster Gott gegolten hatte, und verehrt worden ware. Die Titanen und
ihre Herrschaft reprasentiren nur eine fingirte Vergangenheit die niemals Gegenwart
war."
In respect to this theory, it is highly probable that these rude, savage and lustful
myths really belonged to a remote and savage antiquity. Yet it would appear that they
were held in reverence, otherwise they would not have been so carefully preserved and
handed down to future generations. But it is very unlikely, that in their first form they had
assumed the shape which they eventually took. There would be accretions to them as they
came down from generation to generation; they would be eked out and pieced together
until they came into the form, as accounting for the origin of Zeus and the twelve-god
system, in which we now find them embedded.
There can be little doubt that we possess in them the remains, to some extent, of
myths, of a primitive, rude and savage time, although as noticed, Preller (Robert)
supposes the older gods generally to have been abstracted out of the cultus of the
younger, as Uranos and Kronos were abstracted from the cult of Zeus. We have seen that
there are objections to this, and this objection is all the stronger, that we have reason to
believe that in Homer's time already, there was a feeling against degrading
representations of the gods. This was far from having reached the extent or the degree
which it takes in the Attic literature, and with the Attic poets. There, as with Euripides in
the Ion, the Hippolytus etc, it takes the form of sceptical exposures of the evil and corrupt
side of the ancient mythology.
The same is true also of the Germanic Mythology. The monsters connected with
Loki, the Fenris-wolf, the Midgard serpent, and the background of Jotunheim, all belong
to an earlier time, with which the new gods were no longer in unison. Those of the
monsters, which had not been cast down to Hel, were used as subordinate to the existing
system, such as Sleipnir, Odin's horse etc.
These earlier myths belong to the psychical stage, and had been retained from the
rude and monstrous creations of the popular imagination, and brought over into the
rational period with new accretions and modifications, such as they have come down to
us. This is practically the view of von Schmidt, of E. H. Meyer, of the Slavic mythologist
Shepping, and to some extent also of Lang, Harrison, and others of the younger
mythologists.