Myth and Religion; - Germanic Mythology

Germanischen Mythologie' has desiderated the union of what in the narrower sense is
called mythology, with the research of the whole huge mass of folk-sagas, the edited as
well as the non-edited, those which are to be found in poems; legends; songs; folk-tales;
proverbs and superstitious representations, into one study. 2
Mr. Victor Rydberg in the work lately referred to, in his chapter on the “Method
of Mythology" 3 has sought to draw a distinction between Mythogony and Mythology.
While he does not deny that both legitimately may come under the head of Mythology in
general, yet he thinks that in their study, they ought to be separated, as having differing
subjects and diverse methods of research. The aim of Mythology he considers from its
present standpoint, is to deal with the Aryan peoples', mythical groups or complexes
separately; the Semitic peoples' mythical complexes; the Mongolian etc. etc., and when
researches- into each group have been thoroughly carried out, to take up the various
groups, Aryan, Semitic, Turanian and compare them with one another to ascertain how
far relations can be found between them, or an interchange of ideas. Mythology must be
considered to be the comparative study of myths first, in relation to the various groups
within themselves, and when this is complete, to compare them internationally, or as
between races. Mythogony has a less extended aim its purpose being merely to solve the
question of the origin of the myths in the light of psychology, or their pre-historic
development, under laws which are alike for Aryan or Semitic. He believes that the
confusing of these separate lines of inquiry, has been detrimental to the successful
investigation of the objects of both. Mythogony, he considers to be a branch of folk-lore,
whose aim is to find the psychological laws in accordance with which the myths have
originated.
Dr. Eugen von Schmidt in his 'Philosophic der Mythologie' would divide the
study of myths into three stages. First, the collection of the great body of myths, or what
might be called the encyclopedia of myths, brought together as carefully and accurately
as possible. The second stage is their comparison, which might perhaps be conveniently
considered in relation to their origin or the local relations etc. under which they arose,
and then subsequently, in relation to the complex forms into which they have been
brought, as more or less assuming the epical form, which must, however, be considered
as a secondary, artificial treatment, to which they have been subjected (Undersokningar,
Rydberg II. 432). The third form which Herr Schmidt suggests is the Philosophy of
Myths, or indeed, as we have seen, Mythology proper. It would seem that were due
precaution taken, in passing through these successive stages, that we should be able to
arrange and classify myths, and by careful comparison, get at their true relations, and
their meaning, so far as they can be said to contain a meaning. Professor Mogk in his
brief but excellent treatise on mythology in Volume I, 5th part of the Grundriss der
Germanischen Philologie, has given us certain practical rules as to the treatment of
myths, which are quite reconcilable with the principles dealt with, in the preceding. They
come mostly under the second part of Dr. von Schmidt's arrangement in the treatment of
myths, and accord equally well also with Mr. Rydberg's. The first stage, the careful
collection of myths in their most authentic forms, may be considered as common and
applicable to all systems. It is the second stage which calls for a thoroughly careful
classification and arrangement of myths in order to their more effectual and careful
2 Die Thiere in der Indo-germanischen Mythologie von De Gubernatis. list Halfte, Vorwort VI.
3 Undersökningar i Germanisk Mytologi Vol. II, ss. 428-492.