THE STRUCTURE OF

MYTHS
The following has been excerpted from Mircea Eliade, Myth and
Reality. Trans. Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. It is
strictly for use in Professor Joseph's "In Search of Cupid and Psyche: Myth
and Legend in Children's Literature," and is protected by copyright.

For the past fifty years at least, Western scholars have approached the study of
myth from a viewpoint markedly different from, let us say, that of the
nineteenth century. Unlike their predecessors, who treated myth in the usual
meaning of the word, that is, as "fable," "invention," "fiction," they have
accepted it as it was understood in archaic societies, where, on the contrary,
"myth" means a "true story" and, beyond that, a story that is a most precious
possession because it is sacred, exemplary, significant. This new semantic
value given the term "myth" makes its use in contemporary parlance
somewhat equivocal. Today, that is, the word is employed both in the sense of
"fiction" or "illusion" and in that familiar especially to ethnologists,
sociologists, and historians of religions, the sense of "sacred tradition,
primordial revelation, exemplary model."
The history of the different meanings given to the word "myth" in the antique
and Christian worlds will be treated later . . .. Everyone knows that from the
time of Xenophanes (ca. 565-470)—who was the first to criticize and reject
the "mythological" expressions of the divinity employed by Homer and
Hesiod—the Greeks steadily continued to empty mythos of all religious and
metaphysical value. Contrasted both with logos and, later, withhistoria,
mythos came in the end to denote "what cannot really exist." On its side,
Judaeo-Christianity put the stamp of "falsehood" and "illusion" on whatever
was not justified or validated by the two Testaments.

It is not in this sense—the most usual one in contemporary parlance—that we

understand "myth." More precisely, it is not the intellectual stage or the
historical moment when myth became a "fiction" that interests us. Our study
will deal primarily with those societies in which myth is—or was until very
recently—"living," in the sense that it supplies models for human behavior
and, by that very fact, gives meaning and value to life. To understand the
structure and function of myths in these traditional societies not only serves to
clarify a stage in the history of human thought but also helps us to understand
a category of our contemporaries.

To give only one example—that of the "cargo cults" of Oceania—it would be

difficult to interpret this whole series of isolated activities without reference to
their justification by myths. These prophetic and millennialist cults announce
the imminence of a fabulous age of plenty and happiness. The natives will
again be the masters in their islands, and they will no longer work, for the
dead will return in magnificent ships laden with goods like the giant cargoes
that the whites receive in their ports. It is for this reason that most of the
"cargo cults" demand that, while all domestic animals and tools are to be
destroyed, huge warehouses are to be built in which to store the goods brought
by the dead. One movement prophesies Christ’s arrival on a loaded freighter;
another looks for the coming of "America." A new paradisal era will begin
and members of the cult will become immortal. Some cults also involve
orgiastic acts, for the taboos and customs sanctioned by tradition will lose
their reason for existence and give place to absolute freedom. Now, all these
actions and beliefs are explained by the myth of the destruction of the World,
followed by a new Creation and the establishment of the Golden Age. (We
shall return to this myth later.)

Similar phenomena occurred in the Congo when the country became

independent in 1960. In some villages the inhabitants tore the roofs off their
huts to give passage to the gold coins that their ancestors were to rain down.
Elsewhere everything was allowed to go to rack and ruin except the roads to
the cemetery, by which the ancestors would make their way to the village.
Even the orgiastic excesses had a meaning, for, according to the myth, from
the dawn of the New Age all women would belong to all men.
In all probability phenomena of this kind will become more and more
uncommon. We may suppose that "mythical behavior" will disappear as a
result of the former colonies' acquiring political independence. But what is to
happen in a more or less distant future will not help us to understand what has
just happened. What we most need is to grasp the meaning of these strange
forms of behavior, to understand the cause and the justification for these
excesses. For to understand them is to see them as human phenomena,
phenomena of culture, creations of the human spirit, not as a pathological outbreak of
instinctual behavior, bestiality, or sheer childishness. There is no other alternative. Either we do our
utmost to deny, minimize, or forget these excesses, taking them as isolated
examples of "savagery" that will vanish completely as soon as the tribes have
been "civilized," or we make the necessary effort to understand the mythical
antecedents that explain and justify such excesses and give them a religious
value. This latter approach is, we feel, the only one that even deserves
consideration. It is only from a historico-religious viewpoint that these and
similar forms of behavior can be seen as what they are--cultural phenomena--
and lose their character of aberrant childishness of instinct run wild.

Value of "primitive mythologies"

All of the great Mediterranean and Asiatic religions have mythologies. But it
is better not to begin the study of myth from the starting point of, say, Greek
or Egyptian or Indian mythology. Most of the Greek myths were recounted,
and hence modified, adjusted, systematized, by Hesiod and Homer, by the
rhapsodes and the mythographers. The mythological traditions of the Near
East and of India have been sedulously reinterpreted and elaborated by their
theologians and ritualists. This is not to say, of course, that (1) these Great
Mythologies have lost their "mythical substance" and are only "literature or
that (2) the mythological traditions of archaic societies were not rehandled by
priests and bards. Just like the Great Mythologies that were finally transmitted
as written texts, the "primitive" mythologies, discovered by the earliest
travelers, missionaries, and ethnographers in the "oral" stage, have a "history."
In other words, they have been transformed and enriched in the course of the
ages under the influence of higher culrtures or through the creative genius of
exceptionally gifted individuals.

Nevertheless, it is better to begin by studying myth in traditional and archaic

societies, reserving for later consideration the mythologies of people who
have played an important role in history. The reason is that, despite
modifications in the course of time, the 'myths of "primitives" still reflect a
primordial condition. Then, too, in "primitive" societies myths are still living,
still establish and justify all human conduct and activity. The role and function
of these myths can still (or could until very recently) be minutely observed
and described by ethnologists. In the case of each myth, as of each ritual, it
has been possible to question the natives and to learn, at least partially, the
significance that they accord to it. Obviously, these "living documents,"
recorded in the course of investigations conducted on the spot, do not solve all
our difficulties. But they have the not inconsiderable advantage of helping us
to pose the problem in the right way, that is, to set myth in its original
socioreligious context.

Attempt at a definition of myth

It would be hard to find a definition of myth that would be acceptable to all

scholars and at the same time intelligible to nonspecialists. Then, too, is it
even possible to find one definition that will cover all the types and functions
of myths in all traditional and archaic societies? Myth is an extremely
complex cultural reality, which can be approached and interpreted from
various and complementary viewpoints.

Speaking for myself, the definition that seems least inadequate because most
embracing is this: Myth narrates a sacred history; it relates an event that took
place in primordial Time, the fabled time of the "beginnings." In other words
myth tells how, through the deeds of Supernatural Beings, a reality came into
existence, be it the whole of reality, the Cosmos, or only a fragment of
reality--an island, a species of plant, a particular kind of human behavior, an
institution. Myth, then, is always an account of a "creation"; it relates how
something was produced, began to be. Myth tells only of that
which really happened, which manifested itself completely. The actors in
myths are Supernatural Beings. They are known primarily by what they did in
the transcendent times of the "beginnings." hence myths disclose their creative
activity and reveal the sacredness (or simply the "supernaturalness") of their
works. In short, myths describe the various and sometimes dramatic
breakthroughs of the sacred (or the "supernatural") into the World. It is this
sudden breakthrough of the sacred that reallyestablishes the World and makes
it what it is today. Furthermore, it is as a result of the intervention of
Supernatural Beings that man himself is what he is today, a mortal, sexed, and
cultural being.

We shall later have occasion to enlarge upon and refine these few preliminary
indications, but at this point it is necessary to emphasize a fact that we
consider essential: the myth is regarded as a sacred story, and hence a "true
history," because it always deals with realities. The cosmogonic myth is
"true" because the existence of the World is there to prove it; the myth of the
origin of death is equally true because man's mortality proves it, and so on.
Because myth relates the gesta of supernatural Beings and the manifestation
of their sacred powers, it becomes the exemplary model for all significant
human activities. When the missionary and ethnologist C. Strehlow asked the
Australian Arunta why they performed certain ceremonies, the answer was
always: "Because the ancestors so commanded it." (C. Strehlow. Die Aranda-und-
Loritja-Stämme in Zentral-Australien, vol. III, pi; Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, La mythologie primitive (Paris,
1935), p. 123. See also T.G.H. Strehlow, Aranda Traditions (Melbourne University Press, 1947), p. 6.)
The Kai of New Guinea refused to change their way of living and working,
and they explained: "It was thus that the Nemu (the Mythical Ancestors) did,
and we do likewise." (C. Keysser, quoted by Richard Thurnwald, Die Eingeborenen Australiens
und der Südseeinseln (=Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch, 8, Tübingen, 1927: p. 28.) Asked the
reason for a particular detail in a ceremony, a Navaho chanter answered:
"Because the Holy People did it that way in the first place." (Clyde Kluckhohn,
"Myths and Rituals: A General Theory," Harvard Theological Review, vol. 35 (1942), p. 66. Cf. Ibid. for
other examples.) We find exactly the same justification in the prayer that
accompanies a primitive Tibetan ritual: "As it has been handed down from the
beginning of earth’s creation, so must we sacrifice. . . . As our ancestors in
ancient times did—so do we now." (Matthias Hermanns, The Indo-Tibetans (Bombay, 1954),
pp. 66ff.) The same justification is alleged by the Hindu theologians and
ritualists. "We must do what the gods did in the beginning" (Satapatha
Brahmana, VII, 2, 1, 4). "Thus the gods did; thus men do" (Taittiriya
Brahmana, I, 5, 9, 4) (See M. Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return. New York, 1954: pp. 21
ff.)

As we have shown elsewhere (Ibid.,pp 27f.), even the profane behavior and
activities of man have their models in the deed of the Supernatural Beings.
Among the Navahos "women are required to sit with their legs under them
and to one side, men with their legs crossed in front of them, because it is said
that in the beginning Changing Woman and the Monster Slayer sat in these
positions. (Clyde Kluckholn, op. cit., quoting W.W. Hill, The Agricultural and Hunting Methods of
the Navaho Indians . New Haven, 1938: p. 179.) According to the mythical traditions of
an Australian tribe, the Karadjeri, all their customs and indeed all their
behavior, were established in "dream Time" by two supernatural Beings, the
Bagadjimbiri (for example, the way to cook a certain cereal or to hunt an
animal with a stick, the particular position to be taken when urinating, and so
on). (Cf. M. Eliade, Myths, Dreams and Mysteries. New York, 1960: pp. 191 ff.)

There is no need to add further examples. As we showed in The Myth of the

Eternal Return, and as will become still clearer later; the foremost function of
myth is to reveal the exemplary models for all human rites and all significant
human activities—diet or marriage, work or education, art or wisdom. This
idea is of no little importance for understanding the man of archaic and
traditional societies; and we shall return to it later.
 "True stories" and "false stories"

We may add that in societies where myth is still alive the natives carefully
distinguish myths—"true stories"—from fables or tales, which they call "false
stories." The Pawnee "differentiate ‘true stories’ from ‘false stories,’ and
include among the ‘true’ stories in the first place all those which deal with the
beginnings of the world; in these the actors are divine beings, supernatural,
heavenly, or astral. Next come those tales which relate the marvellous
adventures of the national hero, a youth of humble birth who became the
saviour of his people, freeing them from monsters, delivering them from
famine and other disasters, and performing other noble and beneficent deeds.
Last come the stories which have to do with the world of the medicine-men
and explain how such-and-such a sorcerer got his superhuman powers, how
such-and-such an association of shamans originated, and so on. The ‘false’
stories are those which tell of the far from edifying adventures and exploits of
Coyote, the prairie-wolf. Thus in the ‘true’ stories we have to deal with the
holy and the supernatural, while the ‘false’ ones on the other hand are of
profane content, for Coyote is extremely popular in this and other North
American mythologies in the character of a trickster, deceiver, sleight-of-hand
expert and accomplished rogue. (R. Petrazzoni, Essays on the History of Religions. Leiden,
1954, pp. 11-12. Cf. Also Werner Müller, Die Religionen der Waldlandindianer Noramerikasi . Berlin,
1956: p. 42.)

Similarly, the Cherokee distinguish between sacred myths (cosmogony,

creation of the stars, origin of death) and profane stories, which explain, for
example, certain anatomical or physiological peculiarities of animals. The
same distinction is found in Africa. The Herero consider the stories that relate
the beginnings of the different groups of the tribe "true" because they report
facts that really took place, while the more or less humorous tales have no
foundation. As for the natives of Togo, they look on their origin myths as
"absolutely real." (R. Petrazzoni, op. cit.: p.13.)

This is why myths cannot be related without regard to circumstances. Among

many tribes they are not recited before women or children, that is, before the
uninitiated. Usually the old teachers communicate the myths to the neophytes
during their period of isolation in the bush, and this forms part of their
initiation. R. Piddington says of the Karadjeri: "the sacred myths that women
may not know are concerned principally with the cosmogony and especially
with the institution of the initiation ceremonies. (R. Piddington, quoted by Lévy-Bruhl, p.
115. On initiation ceremonies, cf. Eliade, Birth and Rebirth. New York, 1958.)

Whereas "false stories" can be told anywhere and at any time, myths must not
be recited except during a period of sacred time (usually in autumn or winter,
and only at night). (See examples in R. Pettrazzoni, op. cit., p. 14, n. 15.) This
custom has survived even among peoples who have passed beyond the archaic
stage of culture. Among the Turco-Mongols and the Tibetans the epic songs
of the Gesar cycle can be recited only at night and in winter. "The recitation is
assimilated to a powerful charm. It helps to obtain all sorts of advantages,
particularly success in hunting and war. . . . Before the recitation begins, a
space is prepared by being powdered with roasted barley flour. The audience
sit around it. The bard recites the epic for several days. They say that in
former times the hoofprints of Gesar’s horse appeared in the prepared space.
Hence the recitation brought the real presence of the hero. (R.A.
Stein, Recherches sur l’épopée et le barde au Tibet. Paris, 1959: pp. 318-319.)

What myths reveal

This distinction made by natives between "true stories" and "false stories" is
significant. Both categories of narratives present "histories," that is, relate a
series of events that took place in a distant and fabulous past. Although the
actors in myths are usually Gods and Supernatural Beings, while those in tales
are heroes or miraculous animals, all the actors share the common trait that
they do not belong to the everyday world. Nevertheless, the natives have felt
that the two kinds of "stories" are basically different. For everything that the
myths relate concerns them directly, while the tales and fables refer to events
that, even when they have caused changes in the World (cf. The anatomical or
physiological peculiarities of certain animals), have not altered the human
condition as such. (Of course, what is considered a "true story" in one tribe
can become a "false story" in a neighboring tribe. "Demythicization" is a
process that is already documented in the archaic stags of culture. What is
important is the fact that "primitives" are always aware of the difference
between myths ("true stories") and tales or legends ("false stories"). Cf. . . .
"Myths and Fairy Tales.")

Myths, that is, narrate not only the origin of the World, of animals, of plants,
and of man, but also all the primordial events in consequence of which man
became what he is today—mortal, sexed, organized in a society, obliged to
work in order to live, and working in accordance with certain rules. If the
World exists, it is because supernatural Beings exercised creative powers in
the "beginning." But after the cosmogony and the creation of man other events
occurred, and man as he is today is the direct result of those mythical
events, he is constituted by those events. He is mortal because something
happened in illo tempore. If that thing had not happened, man would not be
mortal—he would have gone on existing indefinitely, like rocks; or he might
have changed his skin periodically like snakes, and hence would have been
able to renew his life, that is, begin it over again indefinitely. But the myth of
the origin of death narrates what happened in illo tempore, and, in telling the
incident, explains why man is mortal.

Similarly, a certain tribe live by fishing—because in mystical times a

Supernatural Being taught their ancestors to catch and cook fish. The myth
tells the story of the first fishery, and, in so doing, at once reveals a
superhuman act, teaches men how to perform it, and, finally, explains why
this particular tribe must procure their food in this way.

It would be easy to multiply examples. But those already given show why, for
archaic man, myth is a matter of primary importance, while tales and fables
are not. Myth teaches him the primordial "stories" that have constituted him
existentially; and everything connected with his existence and his legitimate
mode of existence in the Cosmos concerns him directly.

We shall presently see what consequences this peculiar conception had for the
behavior of archaic man. We may note that, just as modern man considers
himself to be constituted by History, the man of the archaic societies declares
that he is the result of a certain number of mythical events. Neither regards
himself as "given," "made" once and for all, as, for example, a tool is made
once and for all. A modern man might reason as follows: I am what I am
today because a certain number of things have happened to me, but those
things were possible only because agriculture was discovered some eight to
nine thousand years ago and because urban civilizations developed in the
ancient Near East, because Alexander the Great conquered Asia and Augustus
founded the Roman empire, because Galileo and Newton revolutionized the
conception of the universe, thus opening the way to scientific discoveries and
laying the groundwork for the rise of industrial civilization, because the
French revolution occurred and the ideas of freedom, democracy, and social
justice shook the Western world to its foundations after the Napoleonic wars
—and so on.

Similarly, a "primitive" could say: I am what I am today because a series of

events occurred before I existed. But he would at once have to add: events that
took place in mythical times and therefore make up a sacred history because
the actors in the drama are not men but Supernatural Beings. In addition,
while a modern man, though regarding himself as the result of the course of
Universal History, does not feel obliged to know the whole of it, the man of
the archaic societies is not only obliged to remember mythical history but also
to re-enact a large part of it periodically. It is here that we find the greatest
difference between the man of the archaic societies and modern man: the
irreversibility of events, which is the characteristic trait of History for the
latter, is not a fact to the former
Constantinople was conquered by the Turks in 1453 and the Bastille fell on
July 14, 1789. Those events are irreversible. To be sure, July 14th having
become the national holiday of the French Republic, the taking of the Bastille
is commemorated annually, but the historical event itself is not reenacted.
(Cf. Myths, Dreams and Mysteries, pp. 30 ff.) For the man of the archaic societies, on the
contrary, what happened Ab origine can be repeated by the power of rites. For
him, then, the essential thing is to know the myths. It is essential not only
because the myths provide him with an explanation of the World and his own
mode of being in the World, but above all because, by recollecting the myths,
by re-enacting them, he is able to repeat what the gods, the Heroes, or the
Ancestors did ab origine. To know the myths is to learn the secret of the
origin of things. In other words, one learns not only how things came into
existence but also where to find them and how to make them reappear when
they disappear.

What "knowing the myths" means

Australian totemic myths usually consist in a rather monotonous narrative of

peregrinations by mythical ancestors or totemic animals. They tell how, in the
"Dream Time" (alcheringa)—that is, in mythical time—these Supernatural
Beings made their appearance on earth and set out on long journeys, stopping
now and again to change the landscape or to produce certain animals and
plants, and finally vanished underground. but knowledge of these myths is
essential for the life of the Australians. The myths teach them how to repeat
the creative acts of the Supernatural Beings, and hence how to ensure the
multiplication of such-and-such an animal or plant.

These myths are told to the neophytes during their initiation. Or rather, they
are "performed," that is, re-enacted. "When the youths go through the various
initiation ceremonies [their instructors] perform a series of ceremonies before
them; these, though carried out exactly like those of the cult proper—except
for certain characteristic particulars—do not aim at the multiplication and
growth of the totem in question but are simply intended to show those who are
to be raised, or have just been raised, to the rank of men the way to perform
these cult rituals." (C. Strehlow, op. Cit., vol. III, pp. 1-2; L. Lévy-Bruhl, op. Cit. P. 123. On
puberty initiations in Australia, cf.Birth and Rebirth, pp. 4 ff.)

We see, then, that the "story" narrated by the myth constitutes a "knowledge"
which is esoteric, not only because it is secret and is handed on during the
course of an initiation but also because the "knowledge" is accompanied by a
magico-religious power. For knowing the origin of an object, an animal, a
plant, and so on is equivalent to acquiring a magical power over them by
which they can be controlled, multiplied, or reproduced at will. Erland
Nordenskiöld has reported some particularly suggestive examples from the
Cuna Indians. According to their beliefs, the lucky hunter is the one who
knows the origin of the game. And if certain animals can be tamed, it is
because the magicians know the secret of their creation. Similarly, you can
hold red-hot iron or grasp a poisonous snake if you know the origin of fire and
snakes. Nordenskiöld writes that "in one Cuna village, Tientiki, there is a
fourteen-year-old boy who can step into fire unharmed simply because he
knows the charm of the creation of fire. Perez often saw people grasp red-hot
iron and others tame snakes." (E. Nordenskiöld, "Faiserus de miracles et voyante chez les
Indiens Cuna," Revista del Instituto de Etnologia (Tucumán), vol. II (1932); p. 464; Lévy-Bruhl, op.
cit., p. 119.)

This is a quite widespread belief, not connected with any particular type of
culture. In Timor, for example, when a rice field sprouts, someone who knows
the mythical traditions concerning rice goes to the spot. "He spends the night
there is the plantation hut, reciting the legends that explain how man came to
possess rice [origin myth]. . . . Those who do this are not priests. (A.C. Kruyt,
quoted by Lévy-Bruhl , op. cit., p. 119.) Reciting its origin myth compels the rice to
come up as fine and vigorous and thick as it was when it appeared for the first
time. The officiant does not remind it of how it was created in order to
"instruct" it, to teach it how it should behave. Hemagically compels it to go
back to the beginning, that is, to repeat its exemplary creation.

The Kalevala relates that the old Väinämöinen cut himself badly while
building a boat. Then "he began to weave charms in the manner of all magic
healers. He chanted the birth of the cause of his wound, but he could not
remember the words that told of the beginning of iron, those very words
which might heal the gap ripped open by the blue steel blade." Finally, after
seeking the help of other magicians, Väinämöinen cried: "I now remember the
origin of iron! And he began the tale as follows: Air is the first of mothers.
Water is the eldest of brothers, fire the second and iron the youngest of the
three. Ukko, the great Creator, separated earth from water and drew soil into
marine lands, but iron was yet unborn. Then he rubbed his palms together
upon his left knee. Thus were born three nature maidens to be the mothers of
iron." (Aili Kolehmainen Johnson, Kalevala. A Prose translation from the Finnish. Hancock, Mich.,
1950: pp. 53 ff.) It should be noted that, in this example, the myth of the origin of
iron forms part of the cosmogonic myth and, in a sense, continues it. This is
an extremely important and specific characteristic of origin myths, and we
shall study it in the next chapter.

The idea that a remedy does not act unless its origin is known is extremely
widespread. To quote Erland Nordenskiöld again: "Every magical chant must
be preceded by an incantation telling the origin of the remedy used, otherwise
it does not act. . . . For the remedy or the healing chant to have its effect, it is
necessary to know the origin of the plant, the manner in which the first
woman gave birth to it." (E. Nordenskiöld, "La conception de l’âme chez les Indiens Cuna de
l’Ishtme de Panama," Journal des Américanistes, N.S., vol. 24 (1932), pp. 5-30, 14.) In the Na-khi
ritual chants published by J.F. Rock it is expressly stated: "If one does not
relate . . . the origin of the medicine, to slander it is not proper." (Ibid, vol. II, p.
487).

We shall see in the following chapter that, as in the Väinämöinen myth given
above, the origin of remedies is closely connected with the history of the
origin of the World. It should be noted, however, that this is only part of a
general conception, which may be formulated as follows: A rite cannot be
performed unless its "origin" is known, that is, the myth that tells how it was
performed for the first time. During the funeral service the Na-khi shaman
chants.

Now we will escort the deceased and again experience bitterness;

We will again dance and suppress the demons.
If it is not told whence the dance originated
One must not speak about it.
Unless one know the origin of the dance.
One cannot dare.
(J.F. Rock, Zhi-mä funeral ceremony of the Na-Khi. Vienna Mödling, 1955:, p. 87.)

This is curiously reminiscent of what the Uitoto told Preuss: "Those are the
words (myths) of our father, his very words. Thanks to those words we dance,
and there would be no dance if he had not given them to us." (K.T. Preuss, Religion
und Mythologie der Uitoto, vols. I-II. Göttingen, 1921-23: p. 625.)

In most cases it is not enough to know the origin myth, one must recite it; this,
in a sense, is a proclamation of one’s knowledge, displays it. But this is not
all. He who recites or performs the origin myth is thereby steeped in the
sacred atmosphere in which these miraculous events took place. The mythical
time of origins is a "strong" time because it was transfigured by the active,
creative presence of the Supernatural Beings. By reciting the myths one
reconstitutes that fabulous time and hence in some sort becomes
"contemporary" with the events described, one is in the presence of the gods
or Heroes. As a summary formula we might say that by "living" the myths one
emerges from profane, chronological time and enters a time that is of a
different quality, a "sacred" Time at once primordial and indefinitely
recoverable. This function of myth, which we have emphasized in our Myth of
the Eternal Return (especially pp. 35 ff.), will appear more clearly in the
course of the following analyses.
 Structure and function of myths

These few preliminary remarks are enough to indicate certain characteristic

qualities of myth. In general it can be said that myth, as experienced by
archaic societies, (1) constitutes the History of the acts of the Supernaturals;
(2) that this History is considered to be absolutely true (because it is
concerned with realities) and sacred (because it is the work of the
Supernaturals); (3) that myth is always related to a "creation," it tells how
something came into existence, or how a pattern of behavior, an institution, a
manner of working were established; this is why myths constitute the
paradigms for all significant human acts; (4) that by knowing the myth one
knows the "origin" of things and hence can control and manipulate them at
will; this is not an "external," "abstract" knowledge but a knowledge that one
"experiences" ritually, either by ceremonially recounting the myth or by
performing the ritual for which it is the justification; (5) that in one way or
another one "lives" the myth, in the sense that one is seized by the sacred,
exalting power of the events recollected or re-enacted.

"Living" a myth, then, implies a genuinely "religious" experience, since it

differs from the ordinary experience of everyday life. The "religiousness" of
this experience is due to the fact that one re-enacts fabulous, exalting,
significant events, one again witnesses the creative deeds of the Supernaturals;
one ceases to exist in the everyday world and enters a transfigured, auroral
world impregnated with the Supernaturals’ presence. What is involved is not a
commemoration of mythical events but a reiteration of them. The protagonists
of the myth are made present; one becomes their contemporary. This also
implies that one is no longer living in chronological time, but in the primordial
Time, the Time when the event first took place. This is why we can use the
term the "strong time" of myth; it is the prodigious, "sacred" time when
something new, strong, and significant was manifested. To re-experience that
time, to re-enact it as often as possible, to witness again the spectacle of the
divine works, to meet with the Supernaturals and relearn their creative lesson
is the desire that runs like a pattern through all the ritual reiterations of myths.
In short, myths reveal that the World, man, and life have a supernatural origin
and history, and that this history is significant, precious, and exemplary.

I cannot conclude this chapter better than by quoting the classic passages in
which Bronislav Malinowski undertook to show the nature and function of
myth in primitive societies. "Studied alive, myth . . . is not an explanation in
satisfaction of a scientific interest, but a narrative resurrection of a primeval
reality, told in satisfaction of deep religious wants, moral cravings, social
submissions, assertions, even practical requirements. Myth fulfills in primitive
culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances and codifies belief; it
safeguards and enforces morality; it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and
contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Myth is thus a vital
ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active
force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a
pragmatic charter of primitive faith and moral wisdom. . . . These stories . . .
are to the natives a statement of a primeval, greater, and more relevant reality,
by which the present life, facts and activities of mankind are determined, the
knowledge of which supplies man with the motive for ritual and moral
actions, as well as with indications as to how to perform them. (B.
Malinowski. Myth in Primitive Psychology. 1926; reprinted in Magic, Science and Religion. New York:
1955: pp. 101, 108.)