MYTH, RITUAL, AND RELIGION
by Andrew Lang
Volume One
CONTENTS
PREFACE TO NEW IMPRESSION.
PREFACE TO NEW EDITION.
Definitions
of religion--Contradictory evidence--"Belief in
spiritual
beings"--Objection to Mr. Tylor's definition--Definition
as
regards this argument--Problem: the contradiction between
religion
and myth--Two human moods--Examples--Case of
Ancient
mythologists--Criticism by Eusebius--Modern mythological
systems--Mr.
Max Muller--Mannhardt.
CHAPTER II. -- NEW SYSTEM PROPOSED.
comparative
or historical study of man--Anticipated in part by
Eusebius,
Fontenelle, De Brosses, Spencer (of C. C. C.,
and
Mannhardt--Science of Tylor--Object of inquiry: to find
condition
of human intellect in which marvels of myth are parts of
practical
everyday belief--This is the savage state--Savages
described--The
wild element of myth a survival from the savage
state--Advantages
of this method--Partly accounts for wide
DIFFUSION
as well as ORIGIN of myths--Connected with general
theory
of evolution--Puzzling example of myth of the water-
swallower--Professor
Tiele's criticism of the method--
Objections
to method, and answer to these--See Appendix B.
CHAPTER III. -- THE MENTAL CONDITION OF SAVAGES--CONFUSION WITH
NATURE--TOTEMISM.
The
mental condition of savages the basis of the irrational element
in
myth--Characteristics of that condition: (1) Confusion of all
things
in an equality of presumed animation and intelligence;
(2)
Belief in sorcery; (3) Spiritualism; (4) Curiosity; (5) Easy
credulity
and mental indolence--The curiosity is satisfied, thanks
to
the credulity, by myths in answer to all inquiries--Evidence for
this--Mr.
Tylor's opinion--Mr. Im Thurn--Jesuit missionaries'
Relations--Examples
of confusion between men, plants, beasts and
other
natural objects--Reports of travellers--Evidence from
institution
of totemism--Definition of totemism--Totemism in
Conclusions:
Totemism being found so widely distributed, is a proof
of
the existence of that savage mental condition in which no line
is
drawn between men and the other things in the world. This
confusion
is one of the characteristics of myth in all races.
CHAPTER IV. -- THE MENTAL CONDITION OF SAVAGES--MAGIC--
METAMORPHOSIS--METAPHYSIC--PSYCHOLOGY.
Claims
of sorcerers--Savage scientific speculation--Theory of
causation--Credulity,
except as to new religious ideas--"Post hoc,
ergo
propter hoc"--Fundamental ideas of magic--Examples:
incantations,
ghosts, spirits--Evidence of rank and other
institutions
in proof of confusions of mind exhibited in magical
beliefs.
CHAPTER V. -- NATURE MYTHS.
Savage
fancy, curiosity and credulity illustrated in nature myths--
In
these all phenomena are explained by belief in the general
animation
of everything, combined with belief in metamorphosis--Sun
myths,
Asian, Australian, African, Melanesian, Indian, Californian,
Brazilian,
Maori, Samoan--Moon myths, Australian, Muysca, Mexican,
Zulu,
Macassar, Greenland, Piute, Malay--Thunder myths--Greek and
Aryan
sun and moon myths--Star myths--Myths, savage and civilised,
of
animals, accounting for their marks and habits--Examples of
custom
of claiming blood kinship with lower animals--Myths of
various
plants and trees--Myths of stones, and of metamorphosis
into
stones, Greek, Australian and American--The whole natural
philosophy
of savages expressed in myths, and survives in folk-lore
and
classical poetry; and legends of metamorphosis.
CHAPTER VI. -- NON-ARYAN MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND OF
MAN.
Confusions
of myth--Various origins of man and of things--Myths of
Hurons,
Iroquois, Diggers, Navajoes, Winnebagoes, Chaldaeans,
Thlinkeets,
Pacific Islanders, Maoris, Aztecs, Peruvians--
Similarity
of ideas pervading all those peoples in various
conditions
of society and culture.
CHAPTER VII. -- INDO-ARYAN MYTHS--SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.
Authorities--Vedas--Brahmanas--Social
condition of Vedic
Arts--Ranks--War--Vedic
fetishism--Ancestor worship--Date of Rig-
Veda
Hymns doubtful--Obscurity of the Hymns--Difficulty of
interpreting
the real character of Veda--Not primitive but
sacerdotal--The
moral purity not innocence but refinement.
CHAPTER VIII. -- INDIAN MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND OF
MAN.
Comparison
of Vedic and savage myths--The metaphysical Vedic
account
of the beginning of things--Opposite and savage fable of
world
made out of fragments of a man--Discussion of this hymn--
Absurdities
of Brahmanas--Prajapati, a Vedic Unkulunkulu or Qat--
Evolutionary
myths--Marriage of heaven and earth--Myths of Puranas,
their
savage parallels--Most savage myths are repeated in Brahmanas.
CHAPTER IX. -- GREEK MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND MAN.
The
Greeks practically civilised when we first meet them in Homer--
Their
mythology, however, is full of repulsive features--The
hypothesis
that many of these are savage survivals--Are there other
examples
of such survival in Greek life and institutions?--Greek
opinion
was constant that the race had been savage--Illustrations
of
savage survival from Greek law of homicide, from magic,
religion,
human sacrifice, religious art, traces of totemism, and
from
the mysteries--Conclusion: that savage survival may also be
expected
in Greek myths.
CHAPTER X. -- GREEK COSMOGONIC MYTHS.
Nature
of the evidence--Traditions of origin of the world and man--
Homeric,
Hesiodic and Orphic myths--Later evidence of historians,
dramatists,
commentators--The Homeric story comparatively pure--The
story
in Hesiod, and its savage analogues--The explanations of the
myth
of Cronus, modern and ancient--The Orphic cosmogony--Phanes
and
Prajapati--Greek myths of the origin of man--Their savage
analogues.
CHAPTER XI. -- SAVAGE DIVINE MYTHS.
The
origin of a belief in GOD beyond the ken of history and of
speculation--Sketch
of conjectural theories--Two elements in all
beliefs,
whether of backward or civilised races--The Mythical and
the
Religious--These may be coeval, or either may be older than the
other--Difficulty
of study--The current anthropological theory--
Stated
objections to the theory--Gods and spirits--Suggestion that
savage
religion is borrowed from Europeans--Reply to Mr. Tylor's
arguments
on this head--The morality of savages.
PREFACE TO NEW IMPRESSION.
When
this book first appeared (1886), the philological school of
interpretation
of religion and myth, being then still powerful in
on the
Turkish throne of old, "Amurath to Amurath succeeds"; the
philological
theories of religion and myth have now yielded to
anthropological
methods. The centre of the
anthropological
position
was the "ghost theory" of Mr. Herbert Spencer, the
"Animistic"
theory of Mr. E. R. Tylor, according to whom the
propitiation
of ancestral and other spirits leads to polytheism,
and
thence to monotheism. In the second
edition (1901) of this
work the
author argued that the belief in a "relatively supreme
being,"
anthropomorphic was as old as, and might be even older,
than
animistic religion. This theory he
exhibited at greater
length,
and with a larger collection of evidence, in his Making of
Religion.
Since
1901, a great deal of fresh testimony as to what Mr. Howitt
styles
the "All Father" in savage and barbaric religions has
accrued. As regards this being in
the
volumes of the New Series of the Journal of the Anthropological
Institute,
which are full of African evidence, not, as yet,
discussed,
to my knowledge, by any writer on the History of
Religion. As late as Man, for July, 1906, No. 66, Mr.
Parkinson
published
interesting Yoruba legends about Oleron, the maker and
father
of men, and Oro, the Master of the Bull Roarer.
From
his
Native Tribes of South-East Australia, with the account of the
All
Father of the Central Australian tribe, the Kaitish, in North
Central
Tribes of
also The
Euahlayi Tribe, by Mrs. Langley Parker (1906).
These
masterly
books are indispensable to all students of the subject,
while,
in Messrs. Spencer and Gillen's work cited, and in their
earlier
Native Tribes of Central Australia, we are introduced to
savages
who offer an elaborate animistic theory, and are said to
show no
traces of the All Father belief.
The
books of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen also present much evidence
as to a
previously unknown form of totemism, in which the totem is
not
hereditary, and does not regulate marriage.
This prevails
among
the Arunta "nation," and the Kaitish tribe. In the opinion
of Mr.
Spencer (Report Australian Association for Advancement of
Science,
1904) and of Mr. J. G. Frazer (Fortnightly Review,
September,
1905), this is the earliest surviving form of totemism,
and Mr.
Frazer suggests an animistic origin for the institution. I
have
criticised these views in The Secret of the Totem (1905), and
proposed
a different solution of the problem.
(See also "Primitive
and
Advanced Totemism" in Journal of the Anthropological Institute,
July,
1906.) In the works mentioned will be
found references to
other
sources of information as to these questions, which are still
sub
judice. Mrs. Bates, who has been
studying the hitherto almost
unknown
tribes of
beliefs
and institutions, and Mr. N. W. Thomas is engaged on a
volume
on Australian institutions. In this
place the author can
only
direct attention to these novel sources, and to the promised
third
edition of Mr. Frazer's The Golden Bough.
A. L.
PREFACE TO NEW EDITION.
The
original edition of Myth, Ritual and Religion, published in
1887,
has long been out of print. In revising
the book I have
brought
it into line with the ideas expressed in the second part of
my
Making of Religion (1898) and have excised certain passages
which,
as the book first appeared, were inconsistent with its main
thesis. In some cases the original passages are
retained in notes,
to show
the nature of the development of the author's opinions. A
fragment
or two of controversy has been deleted, and chapters xi.
and
xii., on the religion of the lowest races, have been entirely
rewritten,
on the strength of more recent or earlier information
lately
acquired. The gist of the book as it
stands now and as it
originally
stood is contained in the following lines from the
preface
of 1887: "While the attempt is made to show that the wilder
features
of myth survive from, or were borrowed from, or were
imitated
from the ideas of people in the savage condition of
thought,
the existence--even among savages--of comparatively pure,
if
inarticulate, religious beliefs is insisted on throughout". To
that
opinion I adhere, and I trust that it is now expressed with
more
consistency than in the first edition. I
have seen reason,
more and
more, to doubt the validity of the "ghost theory," or
animistic
hypothesis, as explanatory of the whole fabric of
religion;
and I present arguments against Mr. Tylor's contention
that the
higher conceptions of savage faith are borrowed from
missionaries.[1] It is very possible, however, that Mr. Tylor
has
arguments
more powerful than those contained in his paper of 1892.
For our
information is not yet adequate to a scientific theory of
the
Origin of Religion, and probably never will be.
Behind the
races
whom we must regard as "nearest the beginning" are their
unknown
ancestors from a dateless past, men as human as ourselves,
but men
concerning whose psychical, mental and moral condition we
can only
form conjectures. Among them religion
arose, in
circumstances
of which we are necessarily ignorant.
Thus I only
venture
on a surmise as to the germ of a faith in a Maker (if I am
not to
say "Creator") and Judge of men.
But, as to whether the
higher
religious belief, or the lower mythical stories came first,
we are
at least certain that the Christian conception of God, given
pure,
was presently entangled, by the popular fancy of
new
Marchen about the Deity, the Madonna, her Son, and the
Apostles. Here, beyond possibility of denial, pure
belief came
first,
fanciful legend was attached after. I am
inclined to
surmise
that this has always been the case, and, in the pages on
the
legend of Zeus, I show the processes of degeneration, of
mythical
accretions on a faith in a Heaven-God, in action. That
"the
feeling of religious devotion" attests "high faculties" in
early
man (such as are often denied to men who "cannot count up to
seven"),
and that "the same high mental faculties . . . would
infallibly
lead him, as long as his reasoning powers remained
poorly
developed, to various strange superstitions and customs,"
was the
belief of Mr. Darwin.[2] That is also my
view, and I note
that the
lowest savages are not yet guilty of the very worst
practices,
"sacrifice of human beings to a blood-loving God," and
ordeals
by poison and fire, to which Mr. Darwin alludes. "The
improvement
of our science" has freed us from misdeeds which are
unknown
to the Andamanese or the Australians.
Thus there was, as
regards
these points in morals, degeneracy from savagery as society
advanced,
and I believe that there was also degeneration in
religion. To say this is not to hint at a theory of
supernatural
revelation
to the earliest men, a theory which I must, in limine
disclaim.
[1]
Tylor, "Limits of Savage Religion."
Journal of the
Anthropological
Institute, vol. xxi.
[2]
Descent of Man, p. 68, 1871.
In vol.
ii. p. 19 occurs a reference, in a note, to Mr. Hartland's
criticism
of my ideas about Australian gods as set forth in the
Making
of Religion. Mr. Hartland, who kindly
read the chapters on
Australian
religion in this book, does not consider that my note on
p. 19
meets the point of his argument. As to
the Australians, I
mean no
more than that, AMONG endless low myths, some of them
possess
a belief in a "maker of everything," a primal being, still
in
existence, watching conduct, punishing breaches of his laws,
and, in
some cases, rewarding the good in a future life. Of course
these
are the germs of a sympathetic religion, even if the being
thus
regarded is mixed up with immoral or humorous contradictory
myths. My position is not harmed by such myths, which
occur in all
old
religions, and, in the middle ages, new myths were attached to
the
sacred figures of Christianity in poetry and popular tales.
Thus, if
there is nothing "sacred" in a religion because wild or
wicked
fables about the gods also occur, there is nothing "sacred"
in
almost any religion on earth.
Mr.
Hartland's point, however, seems to be that, in the Making of
Religion,
I had selected certain Australian beliefs as especially
"sacred"
and to be distinguished from others, because they are
inculcated
at the religious Mysteries of some tribes.
His aim,
then, is
to discover low, wild, immoral myths, inculcated at the
Mysteries,
and thus to destroy my line drawn between religion on
one hand
and myth or mere folk-lore on the other.
Thus there is a
being
named Daramulun, of whose rites, among the Coast Murring, I
condensed
the account of Mr. Howitt.[1] From a
statement by Mr.
Greenway[2]
Mr. Hartland learned that Daramulun's name is said to
mean
"leg on one side" or "lame". He, therefore, with fine humour,
speaks
of Daramulun as "a creator with a game leg," though when
"Baiame"
is derived by two excellent linguists, Mr. Ridley and Mr.
Greenway,
from Kamilaroi baia, "to make," Mr. Hartland is by no
means so
sure of the sense of the name. It
happens to be
inconvenient
to him! Let the names mean what they
may, Mr.
Hartland
finds, in an obiter dictum of Mr. Howitt (before he was
initiated),
that Daramulun is said to have "died," and that his
spirit
is now aloft. Who says so, and where, we
are not
informed,[3]
and the question is important.
[1] J.
A. I., xiii. pp. 440-459.
[2]
Ibid., xxi. p. 294.
[3]
Ibid., xiii. p. 194.
For the
Wiraijuri, IN THEIR MYSTERIES, tell a myth of cannibal
conduct
of Daramulun's, and of deceit and failure of knowledge in
Baiame.[1] Of this I was unaware, or neglected it, for I
explicitly
said that I followed Mr. Howitt's account, where no such
matter
is mentioned. Mr. Howitt, in fact,
described the Mysteries
of the
Coast Murring, while the narrator of the low myths, Mr.
Matthews,
described those of a remote tribe, the Wiraijuri, with
whom
Daramulun is not the chief, but a subordinate person. How Mr.
Matthews'
friends can at once hold that Daramulun was "destroyed"
by
Baiame (their chief deity), and also that Daramulun's voice is
heard at
their rites, I don't know.[2] Nor do I
know why Mr.
Hartland
takes the myth of a tribe where Daramulun is "the evil
spirit
who rules the night,"[3] and introduces it as an argument
against
the belief of a distant tribe, where, by Mr. Howitt's
account,
Daramulun is not an evil spirit, but "the master" of all,
whose
abode is above the sky, and to whom are attributed powers of
omnipotence
and omnipresence, or, at any rate, the power "to do
anything
and to go anywhere. . . . To his direct
ordinances are
attributed
the social and moral laws of the community."[4] This is
not
"an evil spirit"! When Mr.
Hartland goes for scandals to a
remote
tribe of a different creed that he may discredit the creed
of the
Coast Murring, he might as well attribute to the Free Kirk
"the
errors of
of
fence" he may reply that I also spoke loosely of Wiraijuri and
Coast
Murring as, indifferently, Daramulunites.
I did, and I was
wrong,
and my critic ought not to accept but to expose my error.
The
Wiraijuri Daramulun, who was annihilated, yet who is "an evil
spirit
that rules the night," is not the Murring guardian and
founder
of recognised ethics.
[1] J.
A. I., xxv. p. 297.
[2]
Ibid., May, 1895, p. 419.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid., xiii. pp. 458, 459.
[5]
Folk-Lore, ix., No. iv., p. 299.
But, in
the Wiraijuri mysteries, the master, Baiame, deceives the
women as
to the Mysteries! Shocking to US, but to
deceive the
women as
to these arcana, is, to the Australian mind in general,
necessary
for the safety of the world. Moreover,
we have heard of
a lying
spirit sent to deceive prophets in a much higher creed.
Finally,
in a myth of the Mystery of the Wiraijuri, Baiame is not
omniscient. Indeed, even civilised races cannot keep on
the level
of these
religious conceptions, and not to keep on that level is--
mythology. Apollo, in the hymn to Hermes, sung on a
sacred
occasion,
needs to ask an old vine-dresser for intelligence.
Hyperion
"sees all and hears all," but needs to be informed, by his
daughters,
of the slaughter of his kine. The Lord,
in the Book of
Job, has
to ask Satan, "Whence comest thou?"
Now for the sake of
dramatic
effect, now from pure inability to live on the level of
his
highest thought, man mythologises and anthropomorphises, in
It does
not follow that there is "nothing sacred" in his religion.
Mr.
Hartland offers me a case in point. In
Mrs. Langloh Parker's
Australian
Legendary Tales (pp. 11, 94), are myths of low
adventures
of Baiame. In her More Australian
Legendary Tales (pp.
84-99),
is a very poetical and charming aspect of the Baiame
belief. Mr. Hartland says that I will "seek to
put" the first set
of
stories out of court, as "a kind of joke with no sacredness
about
it". Not I, but the Noongahburrah
tribe themselves make this
essential
distinction. Mrs. Langloh Parker
says:[1] "The former
series"
(with the low Baiame myths) "were all such legends as are
told to
the black picaninnies; among the present are some they
would
not be allowed to hear, touching as they do on sacred things,
taboo to
the young". The blacks draw the
line which I am said to
seek to
draw.
[1] More
Legendary Tales, p. xv.
In yet
another case[1] grotesque hunting adventures of Baiame are
told in
the mysteries, and illustrated by the sacred temporary
representations
in raised earth. I did not know it; I
merely
followed
Mr. Howitt. But I do not doubt it. My reply is, that
there
was "something sacred" in Greek mysteries, something
purifying,
ennobling, consoling. For this Lobeck
has collected
(and
disparaged) the evidence of Pindar, Sophocles, Cicero and many
others,
while even Aristophanes, as Prof. Campbell remarks, says:
"We
only have bright sun and cheerful life who have been initiated
and
lived piously in regard to strangers and to private
citizens".[2] Security and peace of mind, in this world and
for
the
next, were, we know not how, borne into the hearts of Pindar
and
Sophocles in the Mysteries. Yet, if we
may at all trust the
Fathers,
there were scenes of debauchery, as at the Mysteries of
the
Fijians (Nanga) there was buffoonery ("to amuse the boys," Mr.
Howitt
says of some Australian rites), the story of Baubo is only
one
example, and, in other mysteries than the Eleusinian, we know
of
mummeries in which an absurd tale of Zeus is related in
connection
with an oak log. Yet surely there was
"something
sacred"
in the faith of Zeus! Let us judge the
Australians as we
judge
Greeks. The precepts as to
"speaking the straightforward
truth,"
as to unselfishness, avoidance of quarrels, of wrongs to
"unprotected
women," of unnatural vices, are certainly communicated
in the
Mysteries of some tribes, with, in another, knowledge of the
name and
nature of "Our Father," Munganngaur.
That a Totemistic
dance,
or medicine-dance of Emu hunting, is also displayed[3] at
certain
Mysteries of a given tribe, and that Baiame is spoken of as
the hero
of this ballet, no more deprives the Australian moral and
religious
teaching (at the Mysteries) of sacred value, than the
stupid
indecency whereby Baubo made Demeter laugh destroys the
sacredness
of the Eleusinia, on which Pindar, Sophocles and Cicero
eloquently
dwell. If the Australian mystae, at the
most solemn
moment
of their lives, are shown a dull or dirty divine ballet
d'action,
what did Sophocles see, after taking a swim with his pig?
Many
things far from edifying, yet the sacred element of religious
hope and
faith was also represented. So it is in
[1] J.
A. I., xxiv. p. 416.
[2]
Religion in Greek Literature, p. 259. It is to be regretted
that the
learned professor gives no references.
The Greek
Mysteries
are treated later in this volume.
[3] See
A picture of
These
studies ought to be comparative, otherwise they are
worthless. As Mr. Hartland calls Daramulun "an
eternal Creator
with a
game leg" who "died," he may call Zeus an "eternal father,
who
swallowed his wife, lay with his mother and sister, made love
as a
swan, and died, nay, was buried, in
that Mr.
Hartland would call Zeus "a ghost-god" (my own phrase), or
think
that he was scoring a point against me, if I spoke of the
sacred
and ethical characteristics of the Zeus adored by Eumaeus in
the
Odyssey. He would not be so humorous
about Zeus, nor fall into
an
ignoratio elenchi. For my point never
was that any Australian
tribe
had a pure theistic conception unsoiled and unobliterated by
myth and
buffoonery. My argument was that AMONG
their ideas is
that of
a superhuman being, unceasing (if I may not say eternal), a
maker
(if I may not say a Creator), a guardian of certain by no
means
despicable ethics, which I never proclaimed as supernormally
inspired! It is no reply to me to say that, in or out
of
Mysteries,
low fables about that being are told, and buffooneries
are
enacted. For, though I say that certain
high ideas are taught
in
Mysteries, I do not think I say that in Mysteries no low myths
are
told.
I take
this opportunity, as the earliest, to apologise for an error
in my
Making of Religion concerning a passage in the Primitive
Culture
of my friend Mr. E. B. Tylor. Mr. Tylor
quoted[1] a
passage
from Captain John Smith's History of Virginia, as given in
Pinkerton,
xiii. pp. 13-39, 1632. In this passage
no mention
occurs
of a Virginian deity named Ahone but "Okee," another and
more
truculent god, is named. I observed
that, if Mr. Tylor had
used
Strachey's Historie of Travaile (1612), he would have found "a
slightly
varying copy" of Smith's text of 1632, with Ahone as
superior
to Okee. I added in a note (p. 253):
"There is a
description
of
published
in 1612. Strachey interwove some of this
work with his
own MS.
in the
I erred,
in company with Strachey's editor of 1849, and with the
writer
on Strachey in the Dictionary of National Biography. What
Mr.
Tylor quoted from an edition of Smith in 1632 had already
appeared,
in 1612, in a book (Map of Virginia, with a description
of the
Countrey) described on the title-page as "written by Captain
Smith,"
though, in my opinion, Smith may have had a collaborator.
There is
no evidence whatever that Strachey had anything to do with
this
book of 1612, in which there is no mention of Ahone. Mr.
Arber
dates Strachey's own MS. (in which Ahone occurs) as of 1610-
1615.[2] I myself, for reasons presently to be
alleged, date the
MS.
mainly in 1611-1612. If Mr. Arber and I are right, Strachey
must
have had access to Smith's MS. before it was published in
1612,
and we shall see how he used it. My
point here is that
Strachey
mentioned Ahone (in MS.) before Smith's book of 1612 was
published. This could not be gathered from the
dedication to Bacon
prefixed
to Strachey's MS., for that dedication cannot be earlier
that
1618.[3] I now ask leave to discuss the
evidence for an early
pre-Christian
belief in a primal Creator, held by the Indian tribes
from
[1]
Prim. Cult. ii. p. 342.
[2]
Arber's Smith, p. cxxxiii.
[3]
Hakluyt Society, Strachey, 1849, pp. xxi., xxii.
THE GOD
AHONE.
An
insertion by a manifest plagiary into the work of a detected
liar is
not, usually, good evidence. Yet this is
all the evidence,
it may
be urged, which we have for the existence of a belief, in
early
stands
thus: In 1607-1609 the famed Captain John Smith endured and
achieved
in
the
Council at home a MS. map and description of the colony. In
1609 he
returned to
Strachey,
gent., arrived in
state"
to Lord De la Warr. In 1612 Strachey and
Smith were both in
according
to the title-page. There was annexed a
compilation from
various
sources, edited by "W. S.," that is, NOT William Strachey,
but Dr.
William Symonds. In the same year, 1612,
or in 1611,
William
Strachey wrote his Historie of Travaile into
Britannia,
at least as far as page 124 of the Hakluyt edition of
1849.[1]
[1] For
proof see p. 24. third line from foot of page, where 1612
is
indicated. Again, see p. 98, line 5,
where "last year" is dated
as
"1610, about Christmas," which would put Strachey's work at this
point as
actually of 1611; prior, that is, to Smith's publication.
Again,
p. 124, "this last year, myself being at the Falls" (of the
which I
brought away and into
If Strachey, who went out with Lord De la Warr as secretary i