The best known example of this variant of the tale is the story of Bheki, in Sanskrit. Mr. Max Muller has interpreted the myth in accordance with his own method. {77} His difficulty is to account for the belief that a king might marry a frog. Our ancestors, he remarks, "were not idiots," how then could they tell such a story? We might reply that our ancestors, if we go far enough back, were savages, and that such stories are the staple of savage myth. Mr. Muller, however, holds that an accidental corruption of language reduced Aryan fancy to the savage level. He explains the corruption thus: "We find, in Sanskrit, that Bheki, the frog, was a beautiful girl, and that one day, when sitting near a well, she was discovered by a king, who asked her to be his wife. She consented, on condition that he should never show her a drop of water. One day, being tired, she asked the king for water; the king forgot his promise, brought water, and Bheki disappeared." This myth, Mr. Muller holds, "began with a short saying, such as that "Bheki, the sun, will die at the sight of water," as we should say that the sun will set, when it approaches the water from which it rose in the morning." But how did the sun come to be called Bheki, "the frog"? Mr. Muller supposes that this name was given to the sun by some poet or fisherman. He gives no evidence for the following statement: "It can be shown that "frog" was used as a name for the sun. Now at sunrise and sunset, when the sun was squatting on the water, it was called the "frog."" At what historical period the Sanskrit-speaking race was settled in seats where the sun rose and set in water, we do not know, and "chapter and verse" are needed for the statement that "frog" was actually a name of the sun. Mr. Muller"s argument, however, is that the sun was called "the frog," that people forgot that the frog and sun were identical, and that Frog, or Bheki, was mistaken for the name of a girl to whom was applied the old saw about dying at sight of water. "And so," says Mr. Muller, "the change from sun to frog, and from frog to man, which was at first due to the mere spell of language, would in our nursery tales be ascribed to miraculous charms more familiar to a later age." As a matter of fact, magical metamorphoses are infinitely more familiar to the lowest savages than to people in a "later age." Magic, as Castren observes, "belongs to the lowest known stages of civilisation." Mr. Muller"s theory, however, is this-that a Sanskrit-speaking people, living where the sun rose out of and set in some ocean, called the sun, as he touched the water, Bheki, the frog, and said he would die at the sight of water. They ceased to call the sun the frog, or Bheki, but kept the saying, "Bheki will die at sight of water." Not knowing who or what Bheki might be, they took her for a frog, who also was a pretty wench. Lastly, they made the story of Bheki"s distinguished wedding and mysterious disappearance. For this interpretation, historical and linguistic evidence is not offered. When did a Sanskrit-speaking race live beside a great sea? How do we know that "frog" was used as a name for "sun"?

We have already given our explanation. To the savage intellect, man and beast are on a level, and all savage myth makes men descended from beasts; while stories of the loves of G.o.ds in b.e.s.t.i.a.l shape, or the unions of men and animals, incessantly occur. "Unnatural" as these notions seem to us, no ideas are more familiar to savages, and none recur more frequently in Indo-Aryan, Scandinavian, and Greek mythology. An extant tribe in North-West America still claims descent from a frog. The wedding of Bheki and the king is a survival, in Sanskrit, of a tale of this kind. Lastly, Bheki disappears, when her a.s.sociations with her old amphibious life are revived in the manner she had expressly forbidden.

Our interpretation may be supported by an Ojibway parallel. A hunter named Otter-heart, camping near a beaver lodge, found a pretty girl loitering round his fire. She keeps his wigwam in order, and "lays his blanket near the deerskin she had laid for herself. "Good," he muttered, "this is my wife."" She refuses to eat the beavers he has shot, but at night he hears a noise, "krch, krch, as if beavers were gnawing wood." He sees, by the glimmer of the fire, his wife nibbling birch twigs. In fact, the good little wife is a beaver, as the pretty Indian girl was a frog. The pair lived happily till spring came and the snow melted and the streams ran full. Then his wife implored the hunter to build her a bridge over every stream and river, that she might cross dry-footed. "For," she said, "if my feet touch water, this would at once cause thee great sorrow." The hunter did as she bade him, but left unbridged one tiny runnel. The wife stumbled into the water, and, as soon as her foot was wet, she immediately resumed her old shape as a beaver, her son became a beaverling, and the brooklet, changing to a roaring river, bore them to the lake. Once the hunter saw his wife again among her beast kin. "To thee I sacrificed all," she said, "and I only asked thee to help me dry-footed over the waters. Thou didst cruelly neglect this. Now I must remain for ever with my people."

This tale was told to Kohl by "an old insignificant squaw among the Ojibways." {80a} Here we have a precise parallel to the tale of Bheki, the frog-bride, and here the reason of the prohibition to touch water is made perfectly unmistakable. The touch magically revived the bride"s old animal life with the beavers. Or was the Indian name for beaver (temakse) once a name for the sun? {80b}

A curious variant of this widely distributed Marchen of the animal bride is found in the mythical genealogy of the Raja of Chutia Nagpur, a chief of the Naga, or snake race. It is said that Raja Janameja prepared a yajnya, or great malevolently magical incantation, to destroy all the people of the serpent race. To prevent this annihilation, the supernatural being, Pundarika Nag, took a human form, and became the husband of the beautiful Parvati, daughter of a Brahman. But Pundarika Nag, being a serpent by nature, could not divest himself, even in human shape, of his forked tongue and venomed breath. And, just as Urvasi could not abide with her mortal lover, after he transgressed the prohibition to appear before her naked, so Pundarika Nag was compelled by fate to leave his bride, if she asked him any questions about his disagreeable peculiarities. She did, at last, ask questions, in circ.u.mstances which made Pundarika believe that he was bound to answer her. Now the curse came upon him, he plunged into a pool, like the beaver, and vanished. His wife became the mother of the serpent Rajas of Chutia Nagpur. Pundarika Nag, in his proper form as a great hooded snake, guarded his first-born child. The crest of the house is a hooded snake with human face. {81a}

Here, then, we have many examples of the disappearance of the bride or bridegroom in consequence of infringement of various mystic rules. Sometimes the beloved one is seen when he or she should not be seen. Sometimes, as in a Maori story, the bride vanishes, merely because she is in a bad temper. {81b} Among the Red Men, as in Sanskrit, the taboo on water is broken, with the usual results. Now for an example in which the rule against using names is infringed. {82a}

This formula constantly occurs in the Welsh fairy tales published by Professor Rhys. {82b} Thus the heir of Corwrion fell in love with a fairy: "They were married on the distinct understanding that the husband was not to know her name, ... and was not to strike her with iron, on pain of her leaving him at once." Unluckily the man once tossed her a bridle, the iron bit touched the wife, and "she at once flew through the air, and plunged headlong into Corwrion Lake."

A number of tales turning on the same incident are published in "Cymmrodor," v. I. In these we have either the taboo on the name, or the taboo on the touch of iron. In a widely diffused superst.i.tion iron "drives away devils and ghosts," according to the Scholiast on the eleventh book of the "Odyssey," and the Oriental Djinn also flee from iron. {82c} Just as water is fatal to the Aryan frog-bride and to the Red Indian beaver-wife, restoring them to their old animal forms, so the magic touch of iron breaks love between the Welshman and his fairy mistress, the representative of the stone age.

In many tales of fairy-brides, they are won by a kind of force. The lover in the familiar Welsh and German Marchen sees the swan-maidens throw off their swan plumage and dance naked.. He steals the feather-garb of one of them, and so compels her to his love. Finally, she leaves him, in anger, or because he has broken some taboo. Far from being peculiar to Aryan mythology, this legend occurs, as Mr. Farrer has shown, {83a} in Algonquin and Bornoese tradition. The Red Indian story told by Schoolcraft in his "Algic Researches" is most like the Aryan version, but has some native peculiarities. Wampee was a great hunter, who, on the lonely prairie, once heard strains of music. Looking up he saw a speck in the sky: the speck drew nearer and nearer, and proved to be a basket containing twelve heavenly maidens. They reached the earth and began to dance, inflaming the heart of Wampee with love. But Wampee could not draw near the fairy girls in his proper form without alarming them. Like Zeus in his love adventures, Wampee exercised the medicine-man"s power of metamorphosing himself. He a.s.sumed the form of a mouse, approached un.o.bserved, and caught one of the dancing maidens. After living with Wampee for some time she wearied of earth, and, by virtue of a "mystic chain of verse," she ascended again to her heavenly home.

Now is there any reason to believe that this incident was once part of the myth of Pururavas and Urvasi? Was the fairy-love, Urvasi, originally caught and held by Pururavas among her naked and struggling companions? Though this does not appear to have been much noticed, it seems to follow from a speech of Pururavas in the Vedic dialogue {83b} (x. 95, 8, 9). Mr. Max Muller translates thus: "When I, the mortal, threw my arms round those flighty immortals, they trembled away from me like a trembling doe, like horses that kick against the cart." {84a} Ludwig"s rendering suits our view-that Pururavas is telling how he first caught Urvasi-still better: "When I, the mortal, held converse with the immortals who had laid aside their raiment, like slippery serpents they glided from me, like horses yoked to the car." These words would well express the adventure of a lover among the naked flying swan-maidens, an adventure familiar to the Red Men as to Persian legends of the Peris.

To end our comparison of myths like the tale of "Cupid and Psyche," we find an example among the Zulus. Here {84b} the mystic lover came in when all was dark, and felt the damsel"s face. After certain rites, "in the morning he went away, he speaking continually, the girl not seeing him. During all those days he would not allow the girl (sic), when she said she would light a fire. Finally, after a magical ceremony, he said, "Light the fire!" and stood before her revealed, a shining shape." This has a curious resemblance to the myth of Cupid and Psyche; but a more curious detail remains. In the Zulu story of Ukcombekcansini, the friends of a bride break a taboo and kill a tabooed animal. Instantly, like Urvasi and her companions in the Yajur Veda, the bride and her maidens disappear and are turned into birds! {84c} They are afterwards surprised in human shape, and the bride is restored to her lover.

Here we conclude, having traced parallels to Cupid and Psyche in many non-Aryan lands. Our theory of the myth does not rest on etymology. We have seen that the most renowned scholars, Max Muller, Kuhn, Roth, all a.n.a.lyse the names Urvasi and Pururavas in different ways, and extract different interpretations. We have found the story where these names were probably never heard of. We interpret it as a tale of the intercourse between mortal men and immortal maids, or between men and metamorphosed animals, as in India and North America. We explain the separation of the lovers as the result of breaking a taboo, or law of etiquette, binding among men and women, as well as between men and fairies.

The taboos are, to see the beloved unveiled, to utter his or her name, to touch her with a metal "terrible to ghosts and spirits," or to do some action which will revive the a.s.sociations of a former life. We have shown that rules of nuptial etiquette resembling these in character do exist, and have existed, even among Greeks-as where the Milesian, like the Zulu, women made a law not to utter their husbands" names. Finally, we think it a reasonable hypothesis that tales on the pattern of "Cupid and Psyche" might have been evolved wherever a curious nuptial taboo required to be sanctioned, or explained, by a myth. On this hypothesis, the stories may have been separately invented in different lands; but there is also a chance that they have been transmitted from people to people in the unknown past of our scattered and wandering race. This theory seems at least as probable as the hypothesis that the meaning of an Aryan proverbial statement about sun and dawn was forgotten, and was altered unconsciously into a tale which is found among various non-Aryan tribes. That hypothesis again, learned and ingenious as it is, has the misfortune to be opposed by other scholarly hypotheses not less ingenious and learned.

As for the sun-frog, we may hope that he has sunk for ever beneath the western wave.

A FAR-TRAVELLED TALE.

A modern novelist has boasted that her books are read "from Tobolsk to Tangiers." This is a wide circulation, but the widest circulation in the world has probably been achieved by a story whose author, unlike Ouida, will never be known to fame. The tale which we are about to examine is, perhaps, of all myths the most widely diffused, yet there is no ready way of accounting for its extraordinary popularity. Any true "nature-myth," any myth which accounts for the processes of nature or the aspects of natural phenomena, may conceivably have been invented separately, wherever men in an early state of thought observed the same facts, and attempted to explain them by telling a story. Thus we have seen that the earlier part of the Myth of Cronus is a nature-myth, setting forth the cause of the separation of Heaven and Earth. Star-myths again, are everywhere similar, because men who believed all nature to be animated and personal, accounted for the grouping of constellations in accordance with these crude beliefs. {87} Once more, if a story like that of "Cupid and Psyche" be found among the most diverse races, the distribution becomes intelligible if the myth was invented to ill.u.s.trate or enforce a widely prevalent custom. But in the following story no such explanation is even provisionally acceptable.

The gist of the tale (which has many different "openings," and conclusions in different places) may be stated thus: A young man is brought to the home of a hostile animal, a giant, cannibal, wizard, or a malevolent king. He is put by his unfriendly host to various severe trials, in which it is hoped that he will perish. In each trial he is a.s.sisted by the daughter of his host. After achieving the adventures, he elopes with the girl, and is pursued by her father. The runaway pair throw various common objects behind them, which are changed into magical obstacles and check the pursuit of the father. The myth has various endings, usually happy, in various places. Another form of the narrative is known, in which the visitors to the home of the hostile being are, not wooers of his daughter, but brothers of his wife. {88} The incidents of the flight, in this variant, are still of the same character. Finally, when the flight is that of a brother from his sister"s malevolent ghost, in Hades (j.a.pan), or of two sisters from a cannibal mother or step-mother (Zulu and Samoyed), the events of the flight and the magical aids to escape remain little altered. We shall afterwards see that attempts have been made to interpret one of these narratives as a nature-myth; but the attempts seem unsuccessful. We are therefore at a loss to account for the wide diffusion of this tale, unless it has been transmitted slowly from people to people, in the immense unknown prehistoric past of the human race.

Before comparing the various forms of the myth in its first shape-that which tells of the mortal lover and the giant"s or wizard"s daughter-let us give the Scottish version of the story. This version was written down for me, many years ago, by an aged lady in Morayshire. I published it in the "Revue Celtique"; but it is probably new to story-comparers, in its broad Scotch variant.

NICHT NOUGHT NOTHING.

There once lived a king and a queen. They were long married and had no bairns; but at last the queen had a bairn, when the king was away in far countries. The queen would not christen the bairn till the king came back, and she said, "We will just call him Nicht Nought Nothing until his father comes home." But it was long before he came home, and the boy had grown a nice little laddie. At length the king was on his way back; but he had a big river to cross, and there was a spate, and he could not get over the water. But a giant came up to him, and said, "If you will give me Nicht Nought Nothing, I will carry you over the water on my back." The king had never heard that his son was called Nicht Nought Nothing, and so he promised him. When the king got home again, he was very happy to see his wife again, and his young son. She told him that she had not given the child any name but Nicht Nought Nothing, until he should come home again himself. The poor king was in a terrible case. He said, "What have I done? I promised to give the giant who carried me over the river on his back, Nicht Nought Nothing." The king and the queen were sad and sorry, but they said, "When the giant comes we will give him the hen-wife"s bairn; he will never know the difference." The next day the giant came to claim the king"s promise, and he sent for the hen-wife"s bairn; and the giant went away with the bairn on his back. He travelled till he came to a big stone, and there he sat down to rest. He said,

"Hidge, Hodge, on my back, what time of day is it?" The poor little bairn said, "It is the time that my mother, the hen-wife, takes up the eggs for the queen"s breakfast."

The giant was very angry, and dashed the bairn on the stone and killed it.

The same adventure is repeated with the gardener"s son.

Then the giant went back to the king"s house, and said he would destroy them all if they did not give him Nicht Nought Nothing this time. They had to do it; and when he came to the big stone, the giant said, "What time of day is it?" Nicht Nought Nothing said, "It is the time that my father the king will be sitting down to supper." The giant said, "I"ve got the richt ane noo;" and took Nicht Nought Nothing to his own house and brought him up till he was a man.

The giant had a bonny dochter, and she and the lad grew very fond of each other. The giant said one day to Nicht Nought Nothing, "I"ve work for you to-morrow. There is a stable seven miles long and seven miles broad, and it has not been cleaned for seven years, and you must clean it to-morrow, or I will have you for my supper."

The giant"s dochter went out next morning with the lad"s breakfast, and found him in a terrible state, for aye as he cleaned out a bit, it aye fell in again. The giant"s dochter said she would help him, and she cried a" the beasts of the field, and a" the fowls o" the air, and in a minute they a" came, and carried awa" everything that was in the stable and made a" clean before the giant came home. He said, "Shame for the wit that helped you; but I have a worse job for you to-morrow." Then he told Nicht Nought Nothing that there was a loch seven miles long, and seven miles deep, and seven miles broad, and he must drain it the next day, or else he would have him for his supper. Nicht Nought Nothing began early next morning and tried to lave the water with his pail, but the loch was never getting any less, and he did no ken what to do; but the giant"s dochter called on all the fish in the sea to come and drink the water, and very soon they drank it dry. When the giant saw the work done he was in a rage, and said, "I"ve a worse job for you to-morrow; there is a tree seven miles high, and no branch on it, till you get to the top, and there is a nest, and you must bring down the eggs without breaking one, or else I will have you for my supper." At first the giant"s dochter did not know how to help Nicht Nought Nothing; but she cut off first her fingers and then her toes, and made steps of them, and he clomb the tree, and got all the eggs safe till he came to the bottom, and then one was broken. The giant"s dochter advised him to run away, and she would follow him. So he travelled till he came to a king"s palace, and the king and queen took him in and were very kind to him. The giant"s dochter left her father"s house, and he pursued her and was drowned. Then she came to the king"s palace where Nicht Nought Nothing was. And she went up into a tree to watch for him. The gardener"s dochter, going to draw water in the well, saw the shadow of the lady in the water, and thought it was herself, and said, "If I"m so bonny, if I"m so brave, do you send me to draw water?" The gardener"s wife went out, and she said the same thing. Then the gardener went himself, and brought the lady from the tree, and led her in. And he told her that a stranger was to marry the king"s dochter, and showed her the man: and it was Nicht Nought Nothing asleep in a chair. And she saw him, and cried to him, "Waken, waken, and speak to me!" But he would not waken, and syne she cried,

"I cleaned the stable, I laved the loch, and I clamb the tree, And all for the love of thee, And thou wilt not waken and speak to me."

The king and the queen heard this, and came to the bonny young lady, and she said,

"I canna get Nicht Nought Nothing to speak to me for all that I can do."

Then were they greatly astonished when she spoke of Nicht Nought Nothing, and asked where he was, and she said, "He that sits there in the chair." Then they ran to him and kissed him and called him their own dear son, and he wakened, and told them all that the giant"s dochter had done for him, and of all her kindness. Then they took her in their arms and kissed her, and said she should now be their dochter, for their son should marry her.

And they lived happy all their days.

In this variant of the story, which we may use as our text, it is to be noticed that a lacuna exists. The narrative of the flight omits to mention that the runaways threw things behind them which became obstacles in the giant"s way. One of these objects probably turned into a lake, in which the giant was drowned. {92} A common incident is the throwing behind of a comb, which changes into a thicket. The formula of leaving obstacles behind occurs in the Indian collection, the "Kathasarit sagara" (vii. x.x.xix.). The "Battle of the Birds," in Campbell"s "Tales of the West Highlands," is a very copious Gaelic variant. Russian parallels are "Vasilissa the Wise and the Water King," and "The King Bear." {93a} The incident of the flight and the magical obstacles is found in j.a.panese mythology. {93b} The "ugly woman of Hades" is sent to pursue the hero. He casts down his black head-dress, and it is instantly turned into grapes; he fled while she was eating them. Again, "he cast down his mult.i.tudinous and close-toothed comb, and it instantly turned into bamboo sprouts." In the Gaelic version, the pursuer is detained by talkative objects which the pursued leave at home, and this marvel recurs in Zululand, and is found among the Bushmen. The Zulu versions are numerous. {93c} Oddly enough, in the last variant, the girl performs no magic feat, but merely throws sesamum on the ground to delay the cannibals, for cannibals are very fond of sesamum. {93d}

Here, then, we have the remarkable details of the flight, in Zulu, Gaelic, Norse, Malagasy, {93e} Russian, Italian, j.a.panese. Of all incidents in the myth, the incidents of the flight are most widely known. But the whole connected series of events-the coming of the wooer; the love of the hostile being"s daughter; the tasks imposed on the wooer; the aid rendered by the daughter; the flight of the pair; the defeat or destruction of the hostile being-all these, or most of these, are extant, in due sequence, among the following races. The Greeks have the tale, the people of Madagascar have it, the Lowland Scotch, the Celts, the Russians, the Italians, the Algonquins, the Finns, and the Samoans have it. Now if the story were confined to the Aryan race, we might account for its diffusion, by supposing it to be the common heritage of the Indo-European peoples, carried everywhere with them in their wanderings. But when the tale is found in Madagascar, North America, Samoa, and among the Finns, while many scattered incidents occur in even more widely severed races, such as Zulus, Bushmen, j.a.panese, Eskimo, Samoyeds, the Aryan hypothesis becomes inadequate.

To show how closely, all things considered, the Aryan and non-Aryan possessors of the tale agree, let us first examine the myth of Jason.

The earliest literary reference to the myth of Jason is in the "Iliad" (vii. 467, xxiii. 747). Here we read of Euneos, a son whom Hypsipyle bore to Jason in Lemnos. Already, even in the "Iliad," the legend of Argo"s voyage has been fitted into certain well-known geographical localities. A reference in the "Odyssey" (xii. 72) has a more antique ring: we are told that of all barques Argo alone escaped the jaws of the Rocks Wandering, which clashed together and destroyed ships. Argo escaped, it is said, "because Jason was dear to Hera." It is plain, from various fragmentary notices, that Hesiod was familiar with several of the adventures in the legend of Jason. In the "Theogony" (993-998) Hesiod mentions the essential facts of the legend: how Jason carried off from aeetes his daughter, "after achieving the adventures, many and grievous," which were laid upon him. At what period the home of aeetes was placed in Colchis, it is not easy to determine. Mimnermus, a contemporary of Solon, makes the home of aeetes lie "on the brink of ocean," a very vague description. {95} Pindar, on the other hand, in the splendid Fourth Pythian Ode, already knows Colchis as the scene of the loves and flight of Jason and Medea.

"Long were it for me to go by the beaten track," says Pindar, "and I know a certain short path." Like Pindar, we may abridge the tale of Jason. He seeks the golden fleece in Colchis: aeetes offers it to him as a prize for success in certain labours. By the aid of Medea, the daughter of aeetes, the wizard-king, Jason tames the fire-breathing oxen, yokes them to the plough, and drives a furrow. By Medea"s help he conquers the children of the teeth of the dragon, subdues the snake that guards the fleece of gold, and escapes, but is pursued by aeetes. To detain aeetes, Medea throws behind the mangled remains of her own brother, Apsyrtos, and the Colchians pursue no further than the scene of this b.l.o.o.d.y deed. The savagery of this act survives even in the work of a poet so late as Apollonius Rhodius (iv. 477), where we read how Jason performed a rite of savage magic, mutilating the body of Apsyrtos in a manner which was believed to appease the avenging ghost of the slain. "Thrice he tasted the blood, thrice spat it out between his teeth," a pa.s.sage which the Scholiast says contains the description of an archaic custom popular among murderers.

Beyond Tomi, where a popular etymology fixed the "cutting up" of Apsyrtos, we need not follow the fortunes of Jason and Medea. We have already seen the wooer come to the hostile being, win his daughter"s love, achieve the adventures by her aid, and flee in her company, delaying, by a horrible device, the advance of the pursuers. To these incidents in the tale we confine our attention.

Many explanations of the Jason myth have been given by Scholars who thought they recognised elemental phenomena in the characters. As usual these explanations differ widely. Whenever a myth has to be interpreted, it is certain that one set of Scholars will discover the sun and the dawn, where another set will see the thunder-cloud and lightning. The moon is thrown in at pleasure. Sir G. W. c.o.x determines {96} "that the name Jason (Iason) must be cla.s.sed with the many others, Iasion, Iamus, Iolaus, Iaso, belonging to the same root." Well, what is the root? Apparently the root is "the root i, as denoting a crying colour, that is, a loud colour" (ii. 81). Seemingly (i. 229) violet is a loud colour, and, wherever you have the root i, you have "the violet-tinted morning from which the sun is born." Medea is "the daughter of the sun," and most likely, in her "beneficent aspect," is the dawn. But (ii. 81, note) ios has another meaning, "which, as a spear, represents the far-darting ray of the sun"; so that, in one way or another, Jason is connected with the violet-tinted morning or with the sun"s rays. This is the gist of the theory of Sir George c.o.x.

Preller {97a} is another Scholar, with another set of etymologies. Jason is derived, he thinks, from ?a?a?, to heal, because Jason studied medicine under the Centaur Chiron. This is the view of the Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius (i. 554). Jason, to Preller"s mind, is a form of Asclepius, "a spirit of the spring with its soft suns and fertile rains." Medea is the moon. Medea, on the other hand, is a lightning G.o.ddess, in the opinion of Schwartz. {97b} No philological reason is offered. Meanwhile, in Sir George c.o.x"s system, the equivalent of Medea, "in her beneficent aspect," is the dawn.