Latin-American Mythology (Illustrated Edition). Hartley Burr Alexander

of deciding where myth clearly emerges from the misty realm of folk-lore, and, at the other extreme, where it is succeeded by science and religion; but this difficulty is more theoretic than practical: in its central character mythology is present wherever there are animating gods operant in the body of nature, and myth is present wherever spirits or deities are shown as dramatically interacting causes. With a few possible exceptions (the possibility being probably but the expression of our ignorance), all American Indians are mythopoets, whose mythology is characterized in characterizing their beliefs.

      The practical problem of handling and apportioning the subject-matter is similar to that presented in the case of North America, and rather more difficult. In the first place, it were idle to undertake the mere narration of stones and superstitions without some delineation of the conditions of the life and culture of those who make them; frequently, the whole relevance of the tale is to the manner of life. In the next place, the feasible mode of apportionment, by regional divisions, is made difficult not only by the vastness of some of the regions, but even more so by the unevenness of culture, and hence of the range of ideas. If the lines were drawn on the scale of Old World studies, Mexico (Nahua and Maya) and Peru would each deserve a volume; and the proportionately slight attention which they receive in the present work is due partly to the need of giving reasonable space to other regions, partly to the fact that the myths of these fallen empires are already represented by an accessible literature. Still a third problem has to do with the order in which the matters should be presented. From the point of view of native affinities, the logical step from the Antilles is to the Orinoco and Guiana region (that is, from Chapter I to Chapter VIII).³ But since, in beginning with the Antilles, one is really following the course of discovery—seeing, as it were, with Spanish eyes—the natural continuation is on to Mexico and Peru, and thence to the more slowly uncovered regions of central South America. This procedure, also, follows a certain bibliographical trend: the relative importance of Spanish authors is much less for the latter chapters of the book, and the sources of material, in general, are of later origin.

      Finally, a word might be said with respect to interpretation. No matter how conscientiously one may aim at straight narration, the mere need for coherence will compel some interpreting; while every translation is, in its degree, an interpretation (and one literally impossible). Besides and beyond all this, there are the prepossessions of the recorders to be taken into account—honest men who interpret according to their lights. There are the Biblical prepossessions of the early Padres, for whom the Tower of Babel and the Dispersion were recent and real events: granting a Noachian Deluge of the thoroughness which they had in mind, nothing could be more rational than were their readings of aboriginal legends of events of a kindred nature, or than their speculations as to what sons of Shem the Indians might be. There are the traditionary visions of migratory descendants of the Lost Tribes, of far-wandering Buddhist monks, of sea-faring Orientals, and forgotten Atlantideans; and there is the wonderful Euhemerism of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg (ever the more admirable in the more reading)—neither the first nor the last of his tribe, but assuredly the most gifted of them all. There are, again, the theological biases of missionaries, for whom the devil is seldom far and God is generally near; and there are the no less ingrained prejudices of the anthropologists who serenely Tylorize and fetishize the most recalcitrant materials, and of the philologists who solarize and astralize because the model was once set for them. America has proven an abundant field for the illustration of all these methods of reading the riddle of man's fancy; and it is scarcely to be desired that one should report the matters without some reflection of the colourations. But, in sooth, how could myth be myth apart from meaning?

      Which leads (by no devious routing of reflection) to some consideration of the meaning of mythology and of our interest in it. Such interest may be of any of several types. A first, and still persistent, interest, and one to which we owe, for America, from Ramon Pane onward, more actual material than to any other, is the desire of the Christian missionary to discover in the native mind those points of approach and elements of community which will best enable him to spread the faith of Christendom. In many cases, of course, the missionary is seized with a purely speculative zeal for recording facts, but it is usually possible in such records to detect the influence of the impulse which first brought him into the field,—and which, it may be added, makes of his services a matter for the gratitude of all who follow him. A second interest, which is often not sharply divorced from the first, as instanced in Missionary Brett's poetizing of the myths of the Guiana Indians,⁴ is the aesthetic and imaginative. What classical mythology has done for the art and poetry of Christian Europe all men know: Dante and Milton, Botticelli and Michelangelo are only less its debtors than are Homer and Phidias. Further, the Renaissance curiosity, with its passion for the antique gems and heathen gods whose forms so stimulated its own expressions, was at its height when America was discovered and conquered; and it is small wonder that that interest was transformed, where the marvel of the New World was in question, into a wave of American exotism which rose to its crest in the humanitarian enthusiasm of the eighteenth century.⁵ In our own day this interest is continuing, more soberly but not less fruitfully, in a deliberate effort on the part of artists, of poets, and of musicians to discover the elements of lasting beauty in the native arts and mythic themes. From a certain point of view there is a peril in the aesthetic interest: most investigators consciously or unconsciously possess it, and most recorders of native myths consciously or unconsciously dress their materials with the suaver forms of expression which the cultivated languages of Europe have developed. There is, in other words, some untruth to aboriginal thought in the desire to find or inject art where the original motive was realistic, or, if aesthetic, governed by a taste foreign to our own. On the other hand, we recognize readily enough that the real creative gain, in an artistic sense, must come from an amalgamation, and with such an example of artistic achievement through amalgamation as is afforded by the Renaissance, we can but hope that the more intimate adoption of the ideas and motives of American Indian art into our own aesthetic consciousness may yet result in an American Renaissance no less notable.

      A third interest in American mythology is that of the anthropologists, by whom the domain is today most cultivated. Here the foundation is scientific curiosity and the modes are those of the natural and historical sciences. This type of interest, of course, determines its own problems and methods. For example, to it we owe most of the exact recording and minute analysis of materials: the preservation of texts in the native tongues, and the careful application of ethnological and archaeological observations to their interpretation. Naturally, the key-problem here is of the origin and distribution of the American Indian peoples, and the reconstruction of their history, both physical and ideational,—wherein recent advances have been veritably in the nature of strides. Along with this problem of distribution and genesis there has co-existed the complementary question of the influence of nature (human and environmental) upon the forms of expression—a question to which one might ascribe three facets, the philological, the sociological, and the more strictly bionomic, with its strong Darwinian leanings. Ultimately the two complemental problems resolve into an effort to read human nature, as human nature is reflected in its express reactions to the complex world by which it is modified even while it offers a conserving resistance, born of the strength of its traditions and of racial solidarity. This means, at the bottom, an interest in human psychology.

      It is here that the anthropological interest in mythology passes over into the philosophical. Philosophy strives to achieve, as it were, a generalized autobiography of the human mind. It starts, inevitably, with psychology, and with those elemental unities of experience which our senses (inner and outer) determine for us; it goes on to try to discover the range and fullness of meaning of all the variations of human experience. Philosophers are interested in mythology, therefore, primarily from a psychological standpoint: they are interested in reading the mind's complexion, as mythopoesy reflects it; in analyzing out the images of sense in human thought, the images of instinct, of kind and kin, of speech and number; and again in reviewing the natural reactions of the human spirit to the visible and sensible world, with its seasons and cycles and evident metamorphoses,—reactions which start, apparently, with a dreamy consciousness of the fluid and incoherent character of an outer, man-environing world, and culminate in a sense of the allegory and drama of things physical, and the discovery of a thinking self, still hazy as to its powers and its limitations. The biographic tale is a long one; it begins in savagery and continues on