'"Je crains toutefois que ce qui s'y trouve de vrai ne soit connu depuis longtemps, et que la nouvelle ecole ne peche par exclusionisme tout autant que les ainees qu'elle combat avec tant de conviction."

'That is exactly what I have always said. What is there new in comparing the customs and myths of the Greeks with those of the barbarians? Has not even Plato done this? Did anybody doubt that the Greeks, nay even the Hindus, were uncivilised or savages, before they became civilised or tamed? Was not this common-sense view, so strongly insisted on by Fontenelle and Vico in the eighteenth century, carried even to excess by such men as De Brosses (1709-1771)? And have the lessons taught to De Brosses by his witty contemporaries been quite forgotten? Must his followers be told again and again that they ought to begin with a critical examination of the evidence put before them by casual travellers, and that mythology is as little made up of one and the same material as the crust of the earth of granite only?'

Reply

Professor Tiele wrote in 1885. I do not remember having claimed his alliance, though I made one or two very brief citations from his remarks on the dangers of etymology applied to old proper names. {25a} To citations made by me later in 1887 Professor Tiele cannot be referring.

{25b} Thus I find no proof of any claim of alliance put forward by me, but I do claim a right to quote the Professor's published words. These I now translate:--{25c}

'What goes before shows adequately that I am an ally, much more than an adversary, of the new school, whether styled ethnological or anthropological. It is true that all the ideas advanced by its partisans are not so new as they seem. Some of us--I mean among those who, without being va.s.sals of the old school, were formed by it--had not only remarked already the defects of the reigning method, but had perceived the direction in which researches should be made; they had even begun to say so. This does not prevent the young school from enjoying the great merit of having first formulated with precision, and with the energy of conviction, that which had hitherto been but imperfectly pointed out. If henceforth mythological science marches with a firmer foot, and loses much of its hypothetical character, it will in part owe this to the stimulus of the new school.'

'Braves Gens'

Professor Tiele then bids us leave our cries of triumph to the servum imitatorum pecus, braves gens, and so forth, as in the pa.s.sage which Mr.

Max Muller, unless I misunderstand him, regards as referring to the 'new school,' and, notably, to M. Gaidoz and myself, though such language ought not to apply to M. Gaidoz, because he is a scholar. I am left to uncovenanted mercies.

Professor Tiele on Our Merits

The merits of the new school Professor Tiele had already stated:--{26}

'If I were reduced to choose between this method and that of comparative philology, I would prefer the former without the slightest hesitation.

This method alone enables us to explain the fact, such a frequent cause of surprise, that the Greeks like the Germans . . . could attribute to their G.o.ds all manner of cruel, cowardly and dissolute actions. This method alone reveals the cause of all the strange metamorphoses of G.o.ds into animals, plants, and even stones. . . . In fact, this method teaches us to recognise in all these oddities the survivals of an age of barbarism long over-past, but lingering into later times, under the form of religious legends, the most persistent of all traditions. . . . This method, enfin, can alone help us to account for the genesis of myths, because it devotes itself to studying them in their rudest and most primitive shape. . . . '

Destruction and Construction

Thus writes Professor Tiele about the constructive part of our work. As to the destructive--or would-be destructive--part, he condenses my arguments against the method of comparative philology. 'To resume, the whole house of comparative philological mythology is builded on the sand, and her method does not deserve confidence, since it ends in such divergent results.' That is Professor Tiele's statement of my destructive conclusions, and he adds, 'So far, I have not a single objection to make. I can still range myself on Mr. Lang's side when he'

takes certain distinctions into which it is needless to go here. {27}

Allies or Not?

These are several of the pa.s.sages on which, in 1887, I relied as evidence of the Professor's approval, which, I should have added, is only partial It is he who, unsolicited, professes himself 'much more our ally than our adversary.' It is he who proclaims that Mr. Max Midler's central hypothesis is erroneous, and who makes 'no objection' to my idea that it is 'builded on the sand.' It is he who a.s.signs essential merits to our method, and I fail to find that he 'strongly declines the honour' of our alliance. The pa.s.sage about 'braves gens' explicitly does not refer to us.

Our Errors

In 1887, I was not careful to quote what Professor Tiele had said against us. First, as to our want of novelty. That merit, I think, I had never claimed. I was proud to point out that we had been antic.i.p.ated by Eusebius of Caesarea, by Fontenelle, and doubtless by many others. We repose, as Professor Tiele justly says, on the researches of Dr. Tylor.

At the same time it is Professor Tiele who constantly speaks of 'the new school,' while adding that he himself had freely opposed Mr. Max Muller's central hypothesis, 'a disease of language,' in Dutch periodicals. The Professor also censures our 'exclusiveness,' our 'narrowness,' our 'songs of triumph,' our use of parody (M. Gaidoz republished an old one, not to my own taste; I have also been guilty of 'The Great Gladstone Myth') and our charge that our adversaries neglect ethnological material. On this I explain myself later. {28a}

Uses of Philology

Our method (says Professor Tiele) 'cannot answer all the questions which the science of mythology must solve, or, at least, must study.' Certainly it makes no such pretence.

Professor Tiele then criticises Sir George c.o.x and Mr. Robert Brown, junior, for their etymologies of Poseidon. Indiscreet followers are not confined to our army alone. Now, the use of philology, we learn, is to discourage such etymological vagaries as those of Sir G. c.o.x. {28b} _We_ also discourage them--severely. But we are warned that philology really has discovered 'some undeniably certain etymologies' of divine names.

Well, I also say, 'Philology alone can tell whether Zeus Asterios, or Adonis, or Zeus Labrandeus is originally a Semitic or a Greek divine name; here she is the Pythoness we must all consult.' {29a} And is it my fault that, even in this matter, the Pythonesses utter such strangely discrepant oracles? Is Athene from a Zend root (Benfey), a Greek root (Curtius), or to be interpreted by Sanskrit Ahana (Max Muller)? Meanwhile Professor Tiele repeats that, in a search for the origin of myths, and, above all, of obscene and brutal myths, 'philology will lead us far from our aim.' Now, if the school of Mr. Max Muller has a mot d'ordre, it is, says Professor Tiele, 'to call mythology a disease of language.' {29b} But, adds Mr. Max Muller's learned Dutch defender, mythologists, while using philology for certain purposes, 'must shake themselves free, of course, from the false hypothesis' (Mr. Max Muller's) 'which makes of mythology a mere maladie du langage.' This professor is rather a dangerous defender of Mr. Max Muller! He removes the very corner-stone of his edifice, which Tiele does not object to our describing as founded on the sand. Mr. Max Muller does not cite (as far as I observe) these pa.s.sages in which Professor Tiele (in my view, and in fact) abandons (for certain uses) _his_ system of mythology. Perhaps Professor Tiele has altered his mind, and, while keeping what Mr. Max Muller quotes, braves gens, and so on, has withdrawn what he said about 'the false hypothesis of a disease of language.' But my own last book about myths was written in 1886-1887, shortly after Professor Tiele's remarks were published (1886) as I have cited them.

Personal Controversy

All this matter of alliances may seem, and indeed is, of a personal character, and therefore unimportant. Professor Tiele's position in 1885- 86 is clearly defined. Whatever he may have published since, he then accepted the anthropological or ethnological method, as _alone_ capable of doing the work in which we employ it. This method alone can discover the origin of ancient myths, and alone can account for the barbaric element, that old puzzle, in the myths of civilised races. This the philological method, useful for other purposes, cannot do, and its central hypothesis can only mislead us. I was not aware, I repeat, that I ever claimed Professor Tiele's 'alliance,' as he, followed by Mr. Max Muller, declares. They cannot point, as a proof of an a.s.sertion made by Professor Tiele, 1885-86, to words of mine which did not see the light till 1887, in Myth, Ritual, and Religion, i. pp. 24, 43, 44. Not that I deny Professor Tiele's statement about my claim of his alliance before 1885-86. I merely ask for a reference to this claim. In 1887 {30} I cited his observations (already quoted) on the inadequate and misleading character of the philological method, when we are seeking for 'the origin of a myth, or the physical explanation of the oldest myths, or trying to account for the rude and obscene element in the divine legends of civilised races.' I added the Professor's applause of the philological method as applied to other problems of mythology; for example, 'the genealogical relations of myths. . . . The philological method alone can answer here,' aided, doubtless, by historical and archaeological researches as to the inter-relations of races. This approval of the philological method, I cited; the reader will find the whole pa.s.sage in the Revue, vol. xii. p. 260. I remarked, however, that this will seem 'a very limited province,' though, in this province, 'Philology is the Pythoness we must all consult; in this sphere she is supreme, when her high priests are of one mind.' Thus I did not omit to notice Professor Tiele's comments on the _merits_ of the philological method. To be sure, he himself does not apply it when he comes to examine the Myth of Cronos.

'Are the G.o.d and his myth original or imported? I have not approached this question because it does not seem to me ripe in this particular case.' {31a} 'Mr. Lang has justly rejected the opinion of Welcker and Mr. Max Muller, that Cronos is simply formed from Zeus's epithet, [Greek].' {31b} This opinion, however, Mr. Max Muller still thinks the 'most likely' (ii. 507).

My other citation of Professor Tiele in 1887 says that our pretensions 'are not unacknowledged' by him, and, after a long quotation of approving pa.s.sages, I add 'the method is thus _applauded_ by a most competent authority, and it has been _warmly accepted_' (pray note the distinction) by M. Gaidoz. {31c} I trust that what I have said is not unfair.

Professor Tiele's objections, not so much to our method as to our manners, and to my own use of the method in a special case, have been stated, or will be stated later. Probably I should have put them forward in 1887; I now repair my error. My sole wish is to be fair; if Mr. Max Muller has not wholly succeeded in giving the full drift of Professor Tiele's remarks, I am certain that it is from no lack of candour.

The Story of Cronos

Professor Tiele now devotes fifteen pages to the story of Cronos, and to my essay on that theme. He admits that I was right in regarding the myth as 'extraordinarily old,' and that in Greece it must go back to a period when Greeks had not pa.s.sed the New Zealand level of civilisation. [Now, the New Zealanders were cannibals!] But 'we are the victims of a great illusion if we think that a mere comparison of a Maori and Greek myth explains the myth.' I only profess to explain the savagery of the myth by the fact (admitted) that it was composed by savages. The Maori story 'is a myth of the creation of light.' I, for my part, say, 'It is a myth of the severance of heaven and earth.' {32a} And so it is! No Being said, in Maori, 'Fiat lux!' Light is not here _created_. Heaven lay flat on Earth, all was dark, somebody kicked Heaven up, the already existing light came in. Here is no creation de la lumiere. I ask Professor Tiele, 'Do you, sir, create light when you open your window- shutters in the morning? No, you let light in!' The Maori tale is also 'un mythe primitif de l'aurore,' a primitive dawn myth. Dawn, again!

Here I lose Professor Tiele.

'Has the myth of Cronos the same sense?' Probably not, as the Maori story, to my mind, has not got it either. But Professor Tiele says, 'The myth of Cronos has precisely the opposite sense.' {32b} What is the myth of Cronos? Ouranos (Heaven) married Gaea (Earth). Ouranos 'hid his children from the light in the _hollows_ of Earth' (Hesiod). So, too, the New Zealand G.o.ds were hidden from light while Heaven (Rangi) lay flat on Papa (Earth). The children 'were concealed between the _hollows_ of their parent's b.r.e.a.s.t.s.' They did not like it, for they dwelt in darkness. So Cronos took an iron sickle and mutilated Ouranos in such a way, enfin, as to divorce him a thoro. 'Thus,' I say, 'were Heaven and Earth practically divorced.' The Greek G.o.ds now came out of the hollows where they had been, like the New Zealand G.o.ds, 'hidden from the light.'

Professor Tiele on Sunset Myths

No, says Professor Tiele, 'the story of Cronos has precisely the opposite meaning.' The New Zealand myth is one of dawn, the Greek myth is one of sunset. The mutilated part of poor Ouranos is le phallus du ciel, le soleil, which falls into 'the Cosmic ocean,' and then, of course, all is dark. Professor Tiele may be right here; I am indifferent. All that I wanted to explain was the savage complexion of the myth, and Professor Tiele says that I have explained that, and (xii. 264) he rejects the etymological theory of Mr. Max Muller.

I say that, in my opinion, the second part of the Cronos myth (the child- swallowing performances of Cronos) 'was probably a world-wide Marchen, or tale, attracted into the cycle of which Cronos was the centre, without any particular reason beyond the law which makes detached myths crystallise round any celebrated name.'

Professor Tiele says he does not grasp the meaning of, or believe in, any such law. Well, why is the world-wide tale of the Cyclops told about Odysseus? It is absolutely out of keeping, and it puzzles commentators.

In fact, here was a hero and there was a tale, and the tale was attracted into the cycle of the hero; the very last man to have behaved as Odysseus is made to do. {34} But Cronos was an odious ruffian. The world-wide tale of swallowing and disgorging the children was attracted to _his_ too notorious name 'by grace of congruity.' Does Professor Tiele now grasp my meaning (saisir)?