The questions may be asked, Has race nothing, then, to do with myth?  Do peoples never consciously borrow myths from each other?  The answer is, that race has a great deal to do with the development of myth, if it be race which confers on a people its national genius, and its capacity of becoming civilised.  If race does this, then race affects, in the most powerful manner, the ultimate development of myth.  No one is likely to confound a Homeric myth with a myth from the Edda, nor either with a myth from a Brahmana, though in all three cases the substance, the original set of ideas, may be much the same.  In all three you have anthropomorphic gods, capable of assuming animal shapes, tricky, capricious, limited in many undivine ways, yet endowed with magical powers.  So far the mythical gods of Homer, of the Edda, of any of the Brahmanas, are on a level with each other, and not much above the gods of savage mythology.  This stuff of myth is quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, and is the original gift of the savage intellect.  But the final treatment, the ultimate literary form of the myth, varies in each race.  Homeric gods, like Red Indian, Thlinkeet, or Australian gods, can assume the shapes of birds.  But when we read, in Homer, of the arming of Athene, the hunting of Artemis, the vision of golden Aphrodite, the apparition of Hermes, like a young man when the flower of youth is loveliest, then we recognise the effect of race upon myth, the effect of the Greek genius at work on rude material.  Between the Olympians and a Thlinkeet god there is all the difference that exists between the Demeter of Cnidos and an image from Easter Island.  Again, the Scandinavian gods, when their tricks are laid aside, when Odin is neither assuming the shape of worm nor of raven, have a martial dignity, a noble enduring spirit of their own.  Race comes out in that, as it does in the endless sacrifices, soma drinking, magical austerities, and puerile follies of Vedic and Brahmanic gods, the deities of a people fallen early into its sacerdotage and priestly second childhood.  Thus race declares itself in the ultimate literary form and character of mythology, while the common savage basis and stuff of myths may be clearly discerned in the horned, and cannibal, and shape-shifting, and adulterous gods of Greece, of India, of the North.  They all show their common savage origin, when the poet neglects Freya’s command and tells of what the gods did ‘in the morning of Time.’

As to borrowing, we have already shown that in prehistoric times there must have been much transmission of myth.  The migrations of peoples, the traffic in slaves, the law of exogamy, which always keeps bringing alien women into the families—­all these things favoured the migration of myth.  But the process lies behind history:  we can only guess at it, we can seldom trace a popular legend on its travels.  In the case of the cultivated ancient peoples, we know that they themselves believed they had borrowed