human knowledge, social and natural, by means of personification." A doubtful point is how far the term Personifikation necessarily implies anthropomorphic expression. If this term can be stretched to include the representation of ideas in animal or other non-human concrete forms, there would be little if any difference between the two definitions. R. M. Meyer[1] has expressed in brief but pregnant form the main idea of my definition. According to him a myth is any part of the universe seen from the point of view of primitive man, "ein Eckchen Welt, angeschaut durch das Temperament eines primitiven Menschen."
Myths may deal with social topics in three distinct ways. First, it may be the primary motive of a myth, or of some part of a myth, to give an account of the coming into being of a social institution. Next, a myth may have a social setting. The whole myth may be coloured by some social atmosphere; thus, in the myths of a totemic people there will be a totemic colouring, shown by reference to persons in such a way as to leave it doubtful whether they are human beings or animals. Thirdly, a myth may include incidental references to specific social events, such as a special form of marriage.[2]
The significance of the social setting and of incidental references to social events is very great, but it is so obvious and, I think, so generally admitted, that I do not propose to deal with these aspects of myth in this paper. When a social condition is mentioned incidentally or is revealed by the general colouring of a myth, we can be confident that it is not the pure product of imagination, but has a definite historical value. Social incidents, still less the general colouring of a myth, could never appear unless they had
