An Introduction to Mythology by Lewis Spence Review by: George Sarton Isis, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Oct., 1921), pp. 378-380 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/224280 . Accessed: 08/05/2014 21:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
.
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 21:57:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378
isis. iv. 1922
Those interested in the history of science will welcome Professor BRETT'Srecognition of CABANIS as the founder of modern physiological Does not ROUSSEAU deserve a larger place than this psychology. work gives him as the father of child-study? It is a mistake to say that WUNDT became the successor of HERBARTat Leipzig (p. 152, vol. III). Among minor errors and misprints might be noted: 1660 as the date for the death of DESCARTES, instead of 1650 (p. 194, vol. II); Rene for Rene (p. 197, vol. II); Cherburg for Cherbury (p. 222, vol. II); lead for leads (p. 352, vol. II); bei Kinder for bei Kindern (p. 337, vol. II); Rapports de physique et de morale de l'homme instead of Rapports du physique et du moral de l'homme (p. 388, vol. II); keine Gedanke for kein Gedanke (p. 173, vol. III); Russell Wallace for Russel Wallace (p. 225, vol. 111I); elan vitale for elan vital (p. 267, vol. III); langage interieure for langage interieur (p. 312, vol. IlI). Professor BRETT speaks of BICHATas the founder of modern anatomy, where the expression founder of general anatomy (that is, an anatomy of the tissues) is to be preferred. WALTERLIBBY. Lewis Spence. An Introduction to Mythology. 335 p. London, HARRAP, 1921. ( The purpose of this book is to provide the reader with a review of mythic science from its beginnings down to the latest guesses of contemporary authorities )). That is, the author is chiefly concerned with the principles of mythology, and furthermore with the development of these principles. This book is thus of direct concern to the historian of science, who might not be interested in mythology itself, - though it is impossible to understand the beginnings of science without reference to it, - but who can not help being interested in the history of mythology, in the evolution of human ideas concerning myths. Mr. LEWIS SPENCEhas already written many useful books dealing with mythology, chiefly of tropical America, and what he calls an (( introduction )), is for him rather a conclusion. An introductory chapter is devoted to definitions and general (( The function of mythology is the investigation and questions. explanation of myths or tales relating to the early religious and scientific experiences of mankind. It throws light upon the material, methods, and progress of primitive religion and science, for many myths are an attempt to explain physical as well as religious phenomena )). After this preliminary definition, the author quotes many others to determine more exactly what mythology is and what it is not, and to differentiate it from other objects of study, such as folk lore, legend, religion. Chapter II, to which I shall come back pre-
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 21:57:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
379
REVIEWS
sently, deals with the (( Progress of mythic science )) (p. 40-101), and the remaining chapters treat successively the following topics: III, the evolution of the gods; IV, the various types of deity; V, the various classes of myth; VI, the making of the world and of man (cosmogony); VII, paradise and hell; VIII, folklore and myth; IX, ritual and myth; X, the written sources of myth; XI, the great mythic systems of the world. - It is, as one sees, a brief but comprehensive encyclopaedia of comparative mythology. Its usefulness to the student is greatly enhanced by excellent comparative tables, on the various classes of myths (p. 144-157) and on the principal creation myths (193-194), Of course chapter VI on cosmogony, is of special importance for the student of early science. Chapter II offers us a very interesting history of mythological science
while Mr.
from XENOPHANESof Colophon
I think
to our days.
to quote rapidly the principal
personalities
it worth
considered
by
SPENCE:
PHERECYDES OF THEAGENES OF RHEGIUM: XENOPHANES; SYROS; HECATAEUS OF MILET; PHERECYDES OF LEROS; EUHEMERUS (IVth
cent. B. C.); .........; FRANCISBACON; DE BROSSES (the first writer to strike upon the true line of interpretation, 1760); LAFITAU(1724); FRIEDRICH SCHELLING; CREUZER; K. O. MULLER (the truly scientific treatment of myths begins with his Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlicher Mythologie, 1825). Then comes the (( philological school ) grouped around MAX MULLER(1823-1900), from which arose later two himself (they saw sun-gods sub-schools, the solar headed by MUiLLER everywhere) and the meteorological, led by KUHN and DARMESTETER (they saw in all myths the phenomena of thunder and lightning). But it was not possible to explain everything in this way and the (( anthropological school )) developed, as more Aryan and non-Aryan myths were shown to be identical. Sir E.-B. TYLORwas first to lay down the anthropological point of view with clearness and accuracy (Researches into the early history of mankind 1865, Primitive culture 1871);
JOHN FERGUSON MC LENNAN (totemism);
WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH;
HERBERT SPENCER;
CORNELIUS PETRUS TIELE;
ANDREW LANG.
The latter was the more influential exponent of the anthropological school; he demonstrated the unsoundness of the ( disease of language )) theory; laid stress upon the irrational element in myth; indicated the complexity of mythic development; applied the idea of evolution to mythology; showed that the persistence of myth is caused by religious conservatism. Of our contempories, the following have attracted the author's attention: Sir JAMES GEORGE FRAZER, of particularly course; E.-J. PAYNE; SALOMONREINCAH; F.-B. JEVONS (reflection of myth by ritual); R.-R. MARETT; Sir GEORGE LAURENCE GOMME; RENDEL HARRIS, and finally GEORGEELLIOT SMITHwhom he names ((the Galileo
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 21:57:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380
isis. iv. 1922
of mythology )), a description which will not be universally approved. Prof. SMITH, it may be recalled, is the chief supporter of the panEgyptian theory: he finds traces of Egyptian influence everywhere, even in America.
GEORGE SARTON.
Charles Singer (editor). Studies in the history and method of science. Volume II, xxi -+ 559 p., LV pl. and other illustr. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1921 [L. 2. 8. 0]. I have reviewed the first volume of the Studies in Science, vol, 47, p. 316-319, and its contents have been analyzed in the Seventh Critical The new volume shows in every respect great progress Bibliography. upon the first; it is considerably larger and its contents are more varied. There are in all fifteen memoirs which can be classified as follows: 7 deal with biological or medical sciences, 4 with physical sciences, 1 with mediaeval science in general, f3 with philosophical questions. Or in another way: there are 12 original memoirs; 2 extensive reviews and 1 translation. Each of these items will be analyzed in the bibliography, but I must speak at greater length of the first memoir by CHARLESSINGERon Greek biology and its relation to the rise of modern biology, not simply because of its importance, but also because of its polymorphism, - of the impossibility of classifying it anywhere. Of course it is a study of the development of biology, but to call it a study of Greek biology would be misleading for it contains a great deal of information on mediaeval subjects. As a matter of fact, its most original part is a study of mediaeval botany ! This very valuable memoir is not simply ((polymorphic)), but highly heterogeneous. The first chapters are devoted to a general comparison between the spirit and methods of ancient and modern science. This is very suggestive, and I am in agreement with Singer on all points, except when he tries to minimize the importance of the recovery of the original texts of the Greek scientific classics. I think that SINGER overstates his case. He is right when he says (p. 6): ( Above all, we need to distinguish mere passive increase of knowledge brought by the revival of the Greek language from the active extension of knowledge by direct observation that is the essence of the experimental method. This process of active extension began centuries before the learned Greek revival and received its great impetus long after it. ) Yet the fact remains that in the xvth century the shortest road to science (as distinguished from a mere accumulation of facts) was the recovery of ancient science in its pristine purity. Greek science was the fruit of the sustained efforts of some of the greatest intellects of mankind;
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 21:57:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
