this brief review of greek divine myths does not of course aim at exhausting the subject. we do not pretend to examine the legends of all the olympians. but enough has been said to illustrate the method of interpretation, and to give specimens of the method at work. it has been seen that there is only agreement among philologists as to the origin and meaning of two out of nearly a dozen divine names. zeus is admitted to be connected with dyaus, and to have originally meant “sky”. demeter is accepted as greek, with the significance of “mother earth”. but the meaning and the roots of athene, apollo, artemis, hermes, cronus, aphrodite, dionysus — we might add poseidon and hephaestus — are very far from being known. nor is there much more general agreement as to the original elemental phenomena or elemental province held by all of these gods and goddesses. the moon, the wind, the twilight, the sun, the growth and force of vegetation, the dark, the night, the atmosphere, have been shuffled and dealt most variously to the various deities by learned students of myth. this complete diversity of opinion must be accepted as a part in the study.

the learned, as a rule, only agree in believing (1) that the names hold the secret of the original meaning of the gods; and (2) that the gods are generally personifications of elements or of phenomena, or have been evolved out of such personifications. beyond this almost all is confusion, doubt, “the twilight of the gods”.

in this darkness there is nothing to surprise. we are not wandering in a magical mist poured around us by the gods, but in a fog which has natural causes. first, there is the untrustworthiness of attempts to analyse proper names. “with every proper name the etymological operation is by one degree more difficult than with an appellative. . . . we have to deal with two unknown quantities,” origin and meaning; whereas in appellatives we know the meaning and have only to hunt for the origin. and of all proper names mythological names are the most difficult to interpret. curtius has shown how many paths may be taken in the analysis of the name achilles. the second part may be of the stem: people, or the stem: stone. does the first part of the word mean “water” (cf. aqua), or is it equivalent to: (“bulwark” or “the people”)? or is it akin to: “one who causes pain”? or is the: “prothetic”? and is (it) the root, and does it mean “clear-shining”? or is the word related to [greek], and does it mean “dark”?

all these and other explanations are offered by the learned, and are chosen by curtius to show the uncertainty and difficulty of the etymological process as applied to names in myth. cornutus remarked long ago that the great antiquity of the name of athene made its etymology difficult. difficult it remains.277 whatever the science of language may accomplish in the future, it is baffled for the present by the divine names of greece, or by most of them, and these the most important.278

there is another reason for the obscurity of the topic besides the darkness in which the origin of the names has been wrapped by time. the myths had been very long in circulation before we first meet them in homer and hesiod. we know not whence the gods came. perhaps some of them were the chief divine conceptions of various hellenic clans before the union of clans into states. however this may be, when we first encounter the gods in homer and hesiod, they have been organised into a family, with regular genealogies and relationships. functions have been assigned to them, and departments. was hermes always the herald? was hephaestus always the artisan? was athene from the first the well-beloved daughter of zeus? was apollo from the beginning the mediator with men by oracles? who can reply? we only know that the divine ministry has been thoroughly organised, and departments assigned, as in a cabinet, before we meet the gods on olympus. what they were in the ages before this organisation, we can only conjecture. some may have been adopted from clans whose chief deity they were. if any one took all the samoan gods, he could combine them into a family with due functions and gradations. no one man did this, we may believe, for greece: though herodotus thought it was done by homer and hesiod. the process went on through centuries we know not of; still less do we know what or where the gods were before the process began.

thus the obscurity in which the divine origins are hidden is natural and inevitable. our attempt has been to examine certain birth-marks which the gods bear from that hidden antiquity, relics of fur and fin and feather, inherited from ancestral beasts like those which ruled egyptian, american and australian religions. we have also remarked the brilliant divinity of beautiful form which the gods at last attained, in marble, in gold, in ivory and in the fancy of poets and sculptors. here is the truly hellenic element, here is the ideal — athene arming, hera with the girdle of aphrodite, hermes with his wand, apollo with the silver bow — to this the hellenic intellect attained; this ideal it made more imperishable than bronze. finally, the lovely shapes of gods “defecate to a pure transparency” in the religion of aristotle and plutarch. but the gods remain beautiful in their statues, beautiful in the hymns of pindar and the plays of sophocles; hideous, often, in temple myth, and ancient xoanon, and secret rite, till they are all, good and evil, cast out by christianity. the most brilliant civilisation of the world never expelled the old savage from its myth and its ritual. the lowest savagery scarcely ever, if ever, wholly loses sight of a heavenly father.

in conclusion, we may deprecate the charge of exclusivism. the savage element is something, nay, is much, in greek myth and ritual, but it is not everything. the truth, grace and beauty of the myths are given by “the clear spirit” of hellas. nor is all that may be deplored necessarily native. we may well believe in borrowing from phoenicians, who in turn may have borrowed from babylon. examples of this process have occasionally been noted. it will be urged by some students that the wild element was adopted from the religion of prehistoric races, whom the greeks found in possession when first they seized the shores of the country. this may be true in certain cases, but historical evidence is not to be obtained. we lose ourselves in theories of pelasgians and pre-pelasgians, and “la grece avant les grecs”. in any case, the argument that the more puzzling part of greek myth is a “survival” would not be affected. borrowed, or inherited, or imitated, certain of the stories and rites are savage in origin, and the argument insists on no more as to that portion of greek mythology.