interpretation. Moreover, every name must mean _something_. Now,
whatever the meaning of a name (supposing it to be really ascertained),
very little ingenuity is needed to make it indicate one or other aspect
of Dawn or Night, of Lightning or Storm, just as the philologist pleases.
Then he explains the divine or heroic being denoted by the name--as Dawn
or Storm, or Fire or Night, or Twilight or Wind--in accordance with his
private taste, easily accommodating the facts of the myth, whatever they
may be, to his favourite solution. We rebel against this kind of logic,
and persist in studying the myth in itself and in comparison with
analogous myths in every accessible language. Certainly, if divine and
heroic names--Artemis or Pundjel--_can_ be interpreted, so much is
gained. But the myth may be older than the name.

As Mr. Hogarth points out, Alexander has inherited in the remote East the
myths of early legendary heroes. We cannot explain these by the analysis
of the name of Alexander! Even if the heroic or divine name can be shown
to be the original one (which is practically impossible), the meaning of
the name helps us little. That Zeus means 'sky' cannot conceivably
explain scores of details in the very composite legend of Zeus--say, the
story of Zeus, Demeter, and the Ram. Moreover, we decline to admit that,
if a divine name means 'swift,' its bearer must be the wind or the
sunlight. Nor, if the name means 'white,' is it necessarily a synonym of
Dawn, or of Lightning, or of Clear Air, or what not. But a mythologist
who makes language and names the fountain of myth will go on insisting
that myths can only be studied by people who know the language in which
they are told. Mythologists who believe that human nature is the source
of myths will go on comparing all myths that are accessible in
translations by competent collectors.

Mr. Max Muller says, 'We seldom find mythology, as it were, in situ--as