Mythology among the Hebrews and its historical development/Translator's Preface

by Russell Martineau

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

Conscious THAT Comparative Mythology is not very generally studied even in England, where some of the earliest and ablest expositions of its principles have appeared, I foresee that this work is likely to fall into the hands of many who have not the preliminary intellectual training necessary to an appreciation of its principles. If anyone takes up the book with an idea that it will settle anything in the history of the Jews, he will be disappointed. Its aim is not theological nor historical, but mythological; and Mythology precedes History and Theology, and has nothing to do with them, except as a factor that may to a certain extent determine their form. To understand this book fully, some previous knowledge of what has already been done on the field of Comparative Mythology is essential. This is easily obtained by reference to the various works of Prof. Max Miiller and Rev. G. W. Cox, which are frequently quoted.^[1] Such studies will enable the reader to see how far Dr. Goldziher is merely treading in the foot steps of others, and how far he has struck out a new track. Speaking generally, it may be said that he acknowledges the principles of the science as laid down by Kuhn and Max Miiller, but that the application to the Semitic nations is his own. This application was, indeed, first attempted, fifteen years ago, by Professor H. Steinthal of Berlin with reference to one special mythological cycle, in Essays which, on p. xxix of his Introduction, Dr. Goldziher urgently recommends the reader to study as a suitable preparation for this book, since they ‘showed for the first time and on a large scale how the matter of the Hebrew legends yields to mythological analysis,’ and contain matter which is left out here precisely because it is to be had there. Through the obligingness of the publishers I am enabled to present the English reader with a translation of these Essays, whereby he is put in a position of no disadvantage as compared with the German. They will also serve the purpose of showing that the principles of Semitic Mythology were asserted in weighty words by a philosopher of high repute many years ago. But Dr. Goldziher has in the present work for the first time extended the application of the principles of Comparative Mythology to the entire domain of Hebrew Mythology, and laid down a broad foundation of theory, on which the elaboration of special points may be subsequently built up. Both these authors, it will be seen, regard a systematic working out of the results of Psychological science as the fundamental pillar of Mythological studies; and the reader will consequently find some psychological preparation not less necessary to the full understanding of the book than a knowledge of what has been written on Comparative Mythology.

The translation has received so many additions and corrections made expressly for it by the author, that it is far superior to the original German edition; moreover, it has been thoroughly revised by the author in proof.

I have added a few notes, where they seemed to be wanted; they are always distinguished (by ‘Tr.’) from the author’s own. The Index is also compiled by me.

References to the Old Testament are made to the original Hebrew; in the few cases where the chapter or verse bears a different number in the English and other modern versions, the reference to the latter is added in brackets.

I have adopted a few peculiarities of orthography, which I ought to confess to, the more so as I hope others may be convinced of their reasonableness. Nazirite, Hivvite, are corrections of positive blunders in spelling of the English Bible. Hivite was probably written in obedience to an unwritten law of English spelling which forbids the doubling of v; whether there is now any sense in this precept (which must have originated when vv would be confounded with w) or not, at least it ought not to be extended to foreign names. The tendency of the age to dispense with the Latin diphthongs æ, œ (which were a few generations ago used in æra, œconomy, Ægypt, etc.), I have ventured to anticipate in similar words, such as esthetic, Phenicia, Phenix. The anomaly of the French spell ing of the Greek word programme, alongside of anagram, diagram, parallelogram, seems to me sufficient condemnation of the form.

In the Hebrew and Arabic quotations the Latin alphabet has been used throughout. The transliteration of the following letters should be noted, as being the only ones about which there could be any doubt:- א ا‎ commencing a syllable in the middle of a word = ʾ. ע ع‎ = ʿ. غ‎ = ġ. ج‎ = j. ح‎ = ḥ. ה خ‎ = ch. כ ك‎ = k. ק ق‎ = ḳ. ת ت‎ ة‎ = t. ט ط‎ = ṭ. ظ‎ = ẓ. ס שׂ س‎ = s. שׁ ش‎ = sh. ث‎ = th. ذ‎ = ḏ. צ ص‎ = ṣ. ض‎ = ḍ. ו as consonant generally = v, but ו = w. י ى‎‎ = y. The aspirated ב כ פ ת are written bh (to be pronounced v), kh, ph, th. In Hebrew ă ĕ ŏ denote either the ordinary short vowels or the châṭêph vowels; and ĕ also the vocal sheva. In Arabic texts the i‘rȃb is omitted in prose, but preserved in verse on account of the metre. These principles of transliteration are the same which the author adopts in the German edition, with a few modifications which seemed desirable for English readers, especially the use of the letters j, th and y with their usual English force.

RUSSELL MARTINEAU.

London: January 1877.

---

1. Especially Max Miiller’s essay on Comparative Mythology (Chips etc., II. 1), and the ninth in the second series of his Lectures on the Science of Language; and Cox’s introductions to his Manual of Mythology, Tales of the Gods and Heroes, and Tales of Thebes and Argos.