Introduction to a scientific system of mythology

Introduction

TO A SCIENTIFIC SYSTEM OF

MYTHOLOGY.

INTRODUCTION

A SCIENTIFIC

SYSTEM OF MYTHOLOGY.

BY C. 0. MULLER,

Author of " The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race," &c., &c.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN.

BY JOHN LEITCH.

LONDON :

MDCCCXLIV.

Dedication

Dear Sib,

I AM indebted to you for my first acquaintance with the writings of Miiller; and what chiefly determined me to translate his Prolegomena, was the circumstance that you entertained so high an opinion of that work, as to have thought, at one time, of translating it yourself. However much it may be a matter of regret that you did not undertake a task for which you are peculiarly well qualified, it is, nevertheless, gratifying to me that I am enabled to testify my respect for your character, and my admiration of your profound, varied, and elegant scholarship, by inscribing to you this Translation of a work which stands so high in your estimation.

I remain.

Contents

Chap. Page

I. External Idea of the Mythus, .... 1

II. Stdps towards tlie Internal Idea of the Mythus, . 8

CHAPTER I. External Idea of the Mythus

In order that our subject may be clearly understood, it is first necessary to convey to our readers an idea of the mythus, which will at least enable them to discover and recognise it. What the learned men of Greece, then, called mdoi, and treated as homogeneous materials, in such compilations as the Bibliotheca of ApoUodorus, and the kukKos fivdiKog of Dionysius, consists of a mass of narrations in which the deeds and destinies of individual personages are recorded, and which <dl relate, by the way they are connected and interwoven, to a period antecedent to the historical era of Greece, and separated from it by a tolerably distinct boundary. This definition contains nothing which a consideration of the mythic materials, as we find them in ApoUodorus, would not immediately suggest ; but it is wholly external, confines itself merely to the form in which mythi are presented, and expresses rather what they seem to be than what they are. This may be distinctly

2 EXTERNAL IDEA OF

shown from individual examples, without our entering, for the present, into investigations concerning the nature and origin of mythi. For, in the first place, even the account of an action or event is manifestly form, when permanent relations, whether of natural objects or ideas, are denoted in the mythus. Thus it is stated in the Theogony of Hesiod, amid an assemblage of mythological records, that Night gave birth to Deceit and Desire, (*i\ot>z?,) and that Discord brought forth Battle and Slaughter ;^ although these events cannot be regarded as insulated facts, but become, on the contrary, matters of daily occurrence, by the substitution of the abstract idea to cause or occasion for the figurative expression to give birth. But it is also clear that the form of a single definite occurrence belongs, of necessity, to the mythic representation. If you take away the one you destroy the other, and often retain what is nothing more than a figurative proverbial expression, although it may bear a close affinity to the mythus ; as in the well-known and so variously-applied adage of the Greeks, " Pride begets Discontent, Discontent Destruction." In like manner is it a peculiarity of the mythic form that personified beings are introduced, who* although never imagined as entirely human, are* nevertheless, seen to act after the manner of men. From Uranus and Gsea downwards, all mythological beings lead a personal existence. Uranus wills, acts, is pleased, angry, and so forth, while he is, at the same time, constantly represented as the all-eneircling canopy of heaven.^ But this property of personification is by no means confined to the Theogony, in which both physical and moral existences and ideas are invested with personality ; it pervades the entire local or heroic mythology.

The life-giving Streams from which the earth derives fertility and mankind sustenance, appear as the first progenitorsi and together with them the solid barriers of the country, the Peaks and Ridges of Mountains ; then the District, the City, and the People come into view, and various features of external nature, and the gods themselves, often under names mysterious and hard to be explained, but which, however, we shall not at present touch upon. There liiay be still, indeed, learned men, especially in foreign countries; who will, in spite of everything, assume that there once actually existed a King Inachus, from whom the river had its name ; and a person called Argos, who gave his name to the city. But surely we can, in many instances, learn from the language, that localities received their denomination from their physical charafcter; for example, in this very instance we kndw that Afyos signified a plain, especially one lying close to the sea ; and such precisely vvas the district of Argos.^ In like manner, a town in Arcadia was called Cleitor, because it stood in a narrow secltided valley, (from /cXe/w ;) and yet it also ig said to have been called after a hero of that name.^ Thousands of such instances might be collected, if the localities were carefully examined. But the same result is still more clearly deduced from the connected consideration of a local mythology, e. g. the Argiye. Oceanus, the source of all fresh water, begets Inachus, by which name the stream must,

' Orchom., p. 125. * Pausan., viii. 4. 3.

4 EXTERNAL IDEA OF

assuredly, have been originally meant ; as water most naturally produces water — ^the great primary water, a smaller and local water. Inachus having married a daughter of Oceanus, begat Phoroneus, the first man, according to the Argive tradition, and therefore, of course, no historical personage. This Phoroneus begat Apis, whose name is formed from 'A-n-la, the ancient designation of the Peloponnesus, and Niobe, a mysterious mythological being, whose significance we may, for the present, leave unexamined, without seriously interrupting the connexion. The latter had, by the great god Zeus, the father of gods and men, a son, Argos, the district, and also Pelasgus, the race, according to Acusilaus, the Argive, by whom the tradition was handed down, and from whom the greater part of the story in ApoUodoms was derived ;^ while he, in his turn, drew upon the ancient poem Phoronis.^ The simple consideration of similar legends, those of Arcadia, for instance, would be similarly instructive. But as we do not yet mean to drav? any conclusion with the view to a general explanation of mythi, it is suflicient that we have here pointed out the occasional personification of localities, &c. We now come to the third point, viz., that the events of which mythi speak, all relate, by the way they are connected and interwoven, to a time anterior to the historical period, and divided from it by a tolerably distinct boundary. This, again, is perfectly true, if we consider mythi to be nothing more than what they profess to be. In that view they all refer to a period which ter-

' ApoUod., ii. 1. 1.

' See particularly Clem. Alex., Strom, i. p. 321, A.

rainated in the series of epic poems called KvkXos WtKos, with Odysseus' last adventures, or thereabouts, and was somewhat further, but not materially, extended by other poets. We find, however, that this definition also can only apply to the form of the mythus ; in other words, that what is really stated in the mythus lies on this side of the boundary, is, in fact, a later occurrence. This can be pointed out in a great number of mythi which indubitably refer to historical events. I shall, however, confine myself to one.^ The Greek city of Gyrene, in Libya, was founded about the 37th Olympiad. The reigning family traced their descent from the Minyans, whose chief sway was at lolcus, a city of southern Thessaly. The establishment of the colony was principally the work of the Oracle of Apollo at Pytho. This is represented in a mythus as follows : The heroic virgin Cyrene, who dwelt in Thessaly/ was beloved of Apollo, and carried away by him to Libya.^ But it is not represented as if it had taken place in the 37th Olympiad. In order that it might be at all formed into a mythus, it is translated back to the early heroic age, and Cyrene brought into affinity with the ancient heroes of the Thessalian race, to whom the royal family believed themselves related.

We shall have an opportunity hereafter, for example when we come to speak of the mythic expression, of following up these remarks. Here they are merely designed to prove what they do prove : that the above definition of the mythus in

' I have already pointed out this case in my Orchomenos, p. 346. ^ See particularly Pindar; Pyth. 9.

6 EXTERNAL IDEA OF

many cases applies solely, to the form, the esuternal appearance. But how can we arrive at an idea of its real nature and import ? Such an idea cannot he attained a priori, as we have it only from experience ; neither is it immediately and of itself inteUigihle, being utterly unknown as a product of our times. It is a purely historical idea ; an idea, moreover, by which a creation of very remote ages is to be conceived. It cannot possibly be arrived at otherwise than historically. But how is its historical perception possible, the mythus itself being the only source of the idea of the mythus, and appearing, too, in a form different from its contents ? In the statement of an historical fact the form and the contents correspond ; an acquaintance with the language forms the bridge which leads from the one to the other. But here, to us they lie further apart ; and the path must first be sought, is itself a problem. In other words, mythi must be interpreted, must be explained, ere we can attaiu a knowledge of their contents. This must be done in a thousand individual instances ere we shall be able to seize the essence of the mythus as a generic idea. And then the question still remains, whether we can express the knowledge thus attained by an idea such as passes current among us, or by a simple combination of such ideas; whether we do not find something compounded aiccording to our notions of multifarious, widely-separated, and heterogeneous materials, the union of which is based on a mode of thinking entirely different from ours.

Were the Greek mythology, that definite whole of narrations, handed down to us alone and by itself, and did we possess no other access to a knowledge of Grecian antiquity, if this can be at all imagined, a systematic and philosophical explanation of mythology would be quite impossible ; nay, it could not even be shown with certainty that it ought to be understood in any other than the usual sense of the words, that it, in fact, required any explanation at all. And supposing some one should point out the necessity of this by a comparison with the mythologies of other nations, assuming these to have been previously known, the interpretation could be, after all, merely hypothetical, and the merit of any one hypothesis with regard to another would be determined by its superior or inferior capability of affording a general elucidation. Many have actually proceeded in this manner, and have devised very ingenious systems, by which the true meaning of all mythic narrations should be ascertained. But fortunately the case stands otherwise ; and we still possess^ from independent sources, a knowledge of Grecian antiquity which, in reference to mythology, suffices to furnish starting-points for its true explanation. We know the language, and find from it that many mythological names have a meaning, and that the activity of those to whom they are applied corresponds with them ; a circumstance which cannot be regarded as accidental and void of signifl^cance. We know, too, the land of the Greeks, with its rivers, its mountains, and its ruins; and by means of this knowledge we can often ascertain to what particular spot of the Grecian soil a mythus refers, and, it may bej even the purport of its language regarding it. We know, moreover, the authentic history of Greece,

8 INTERNAL IISISa OF

its religion, and its civil institutions, and observe that mythology frequently speaks of their origin and constitution. Nay, the mythic materials, although peculiar in their character, are not so distinctly separated from the other memorials of antiquity, but that they, as it were, pass into each other at the boundary, and stand in a relation of constant transition. Documents purely historical also frequently speak of the same circumstances which are mentioned in mythi ; and ideas expressed by mythology, are, in like manner, reproduced by the ancient philosophers ; nay, sometimes, too, clothed by them in mythic drapery. By means of this connexion between mythology and the other sources whence our knowledge of antiquity is obtained, we gain numberless points where we can plainly perceive what it speaks of, and the meaning of its communications. We thus gradually learn to understand its language and manner of expression, and rise by degrees to a systematic and philosopbical knowledge of the subject,

CHAPTER II. Steps towa/rds the Internal Idea of the Mythus

It is only by such a gradually progressive method as we have described, that a perfect idea of the nature of the mythus can be attained. We may here, however, though without entering into minute and exhaustive investigations, determine some points regarding it. It is quite clear that two distinct ingredients enter into mythology; viz., the statement of things done, and things imagined. With regard to the latter, there can be no doubt whatever : for when Hesiod mentions that the Earth gave birth to the Heavens, he does not relate a fact ; but he, at all events, expresses a notion, opinion, or whatever it may be called. It might be more easily doubted whether actual events are to be found in mythology ; but, in the first place, it would surely be strange if the form of narration of actions and destinies should contain nothing at all really and directly corresponding to itself ; and then authentic history frequently furnishes a test whereby the facts of a mythic narration may be verified. To give an example, by way of illustration : The Achaean tribe, within the historical period, dwelt on the northern coast of the Peloponnesus. Now, the mythus states that the Achaean prince, Tisamenus, having been expelled by the Dorians from Argos, took refuge in that region. But, perhaps, it will be objected that this event stands on the confines of history, and the account of it must, therefore, be regarded as historical. This once granted, we penetrate farther into mythology, and find that two sons of Achseus, who (to pass by whatever may admit of dispute) either denote the tribe, or conducted it, removed to Argos from Phthiotis.-^ We always find, therefore, a chain of facts leading from history into mythology. It might, indeed, be said that the mythic statement is merely a conclusion drawn by the inventor of the mythus, in order, as it were, to give the Achaeans a mythological footing in Argos ; but ' Fauean., vii. 1. 3.

on such an assumption, the enigma would remain to be solved, why this statement or invention corresponds so exactly with the numerous traditions of the Achaeans in JPhthiotis. It must then be alleged that both series of mythi were invented by the same person, or that the author of the one meant to follow up the invention of the other : suppositions which, in the sequel, will be shown to be inadmissible. We still, then, come to the result, that real events also are recorded in mythi.

These two elements, fact and imagination, the Real and the Idecd, to use expressions which ought to be as general as possible, often appear very closely united in a mythic relation. Numberless examples might be adduced. I shall select one which stands, so to speak, at the apex of Greek literature, — ^the story of Chryseisj in the first book of the Iliad. I take it from this source without, for the present, endeavouring to discriminate between the mythus itself and its poetical treatment. The Greeks had conquered and laid waste Hypoplaeian Thebes, near the Trojan territory, and carried away captive from the neighbouring temple of Chryse, the daughter of Chryses the priest. The father wished to ransom her ; but his application was harshly refused, and he himself insulted, by Agamemnon, to whom she had fallen at the division of the spoil. Hereupon Apollo, the god of the sanctuary, at the prayer of Chryses, sent vdth his arrows into the camp of the Greeks a pestilence, destructive both to men and animals. We know that the temple actually stood in the situation referred to. Traces of it were seen in later times ;^ and the appel-

■ Stra., xiii. 605.

lation of Smintheus, which the priest in Homer gives to. his god, was still preserved in the district. Thus far, then, at all events, are actual circumstances embodied in the mythus. On the other hand, the action of the deity, as such, is purely ideal. It can have no other foundation than the belief that Apollo sternly resents ill usage of his priests, and that too in the way here represented ; viz., by sending plagues. This belief is in perfect harmony with the idea generally entertained by the ancients, of the power and agency of ApoUo ; and it is manifest that this idea, placed in combination with certain events, gave birth to the story, so far as relates to the god. We have not yet before us the means of ascertaining whether it is to be held as an historical tradition or an invention, and must, therefore, leave that question for the present undecided. ,

The Real and the Ideal are often still more closely united, and the one still more completely taken up into the other. When, for example, tradition relates that Demeter, in her wanderings, came to Eleusis, served there as a maid, and taught the Eleusinians their mysteries ; it is plain that the main narrative is founded only on belief, and is not a statement of anything that had been actually seen. With it the fact of the actual existence of the goddess' worship at Eleusis is incorporated and interwoven.

This union, indeed, is found in most mythi; and there are probably few in which something real and something ideal might not be pointed out. Nay, if I may be thus early allowed to hint at a result of further investigation, the older the mythus the more intimately blended are its real and imaginary constituents. Consequently, the distinction between historical and philosophical mythi, on which so much stress was formerly laid, is of proportionally more limited applicability, and only a small part can, by means of it, be separated from the entire mass and classified.

If we proceed, in the manner proposed, from simple and clear to mdre complicated examples, and always endeavour to ascertain what refers to fact and what to idea, we are led to aim at a more accurate determination of the relations which subsist between these two elements of the mythus ; and even where sure starting-points fail, to find out, if possible, from analogy the boundary which divides them. It being here our object to obtain a preliminary idea of the real nature of the mythus, it will yet be necessary, for this purpose, that we endeavour to Btrrive at some determinations as to the manner in which these two ingredients enter into its composition.

Let us first inquire into the imaginary, the Ideal, in the mythus. The question regarding it cannot be answered unless we separate the theogonical portion of mythology from the rest. In the former, a crowd of ideas immediately present themselves to the mind of the inquirer in tolerably distinct expression ; in the latter, a much smaller number meet his view. When it is related that Zeus enclosed Metis, " Wisdom," in his body, in order that that goddess might make known to him good and evil,^ the fundamental idea that wisdom resides in the supreme Deity shines clearly through. When it is said that Night bore to Erebus, Ether and Daylight," the physical idea so common among the ancients, that light sprang out of darkness, is thereby expressed. In like manner, we find in Hesiod's Theogony, in so far as we understand them with certainty, a great variety of notions laid down regarding the pristine and the present form of this world, the essence and power of the gods, and the relation of man to a higher nature: notions which, taken in connexion, constitute a kind of philosophy, if we throw aside what belongs to religion. The case is precisely similar with the Orphic cosmogonies, in which, however, there is a great deal that must be referred to a much later period ; but the best solution, in regard to the nature of this representation, is afforded by the cosmogony of Pherecydes of Syros, in which it is impossible not to recognise philosophical ideas clothed in mythi. But nine-tenths 6f the Grecian mythi are of a totally different hind.

Their scenes are laid in particular districts of Greece ; and they speak of the Primeval inhabitants, of the lineage and adventures of native heroes, &c. A consfderation of these legends will soon show that a comprehensive connexion of the Ideal is not to be looked for in their original form. They are, evidently, not the work of one or a few persons, as may be seen from this circumstance of itself, that they manifest an accurate acquaintance with individual localities, which, at a time when Greece was neither explored by antiquaries, nor did geographical hand-books exist, could be possessed only by the inhabitants of those localities. Accordingly, any attempt to explain these mythi in order, — such, for instance, as we now find them in ApoUodorus, — as a system of thought and knowledge, must prove a fruitless task. Such a systematic coherence could, at most, extend merely to smaller portions orgiiially connected. Here, however, our inquiry is restricted to the Ideal, as it is exhibited in the heroic or local mythus. If we read mythi simply^ and without straining after interpretation, there is only one point where the Idfeal uniformly meets the view — the continual agency of the gods. They are the same deities that were worshipped in the temples of Greece. They act, too, almost always in consistency with the character ascribed to them by their worshippers ; and, therefore, it is clear that these narrations are an expression of belief in the gods of the country, a profession of religion, (the source of which, however, we shall not yet try to determine, nor even touch the question whether the gods may have originally sprung out of philosophemes.)

Religion is therefore, in addition to histoty, the only element which stands out prominently at the first consideration of the heroic or local mythology. But the more deeply the subject is examined, the more does faith in the gods gain space and importance. We find that they very often appear under names which they do not usually bear, but which are formed from their ancient appellatives; and that the mythus, as it has been handed down to us, while it may contain no direct intimation that it speaks of a god, does, nevertheless, frequently exhibit traces which must lead a reflecting mind to that persuasion. It may be proper that an example of this kind should be here fully developed. Modern investigations have already brought a number of them to light. The goddess Artemis was worshipped in a peculiar manner at Brauron in Attica. The virgins who served her were called a|0/cTot "she-bears."^ Hence it follows that the bear was held sacred to the goddess. Now Artemis was also worshipped in Arcadia; and there are indications, too, that her worship there corresponded, in several points, to that which was observed at Brauron. But the mythus informs us that Callisto, the daughter of Lyeaon, was her constant attendant in Arcadia, and her companion in the chase, until she becamie pregnant by Zeus, and was changed, by the wrath of the chaste goddess, into a bear, in which form she gave birth to Areas, the father of the Arcadian people. So the legend ran in a Hesibdic poem, according to the extract in Eratosthenes.^ In another poetical work, also ascribed to Hesiod, Callisto is called a nymph.^ Now, we set out from this, that the circumstance of the goddess, who is served at Brauron by she-bears, having a friend and companion chdnged into a bear, cannot possibly be a freak of chance, but that this metamorphosis has its foundation in the fact that the animal was sacred to the goddess. In this way only can the mythus, and at the same time the religious observance, be accounted for, and their connexion understood : for^ were any one to think also of deriving the latter from the former, he could only, however, do so, if the metaniorphosis of her nymph by the goddess into a bgar, of all animals, was not accidental ; and this, again, gtill brings us back to the sacredness of the animaL But hence, also, it follows that Hesiod

I See the Attic dramatists in Harpocr., a^xTsueai, Aristoph. Lysistr., 645, &c. ^ Catast. I. Hygin. Poet. Astron., ii. 1., p. 419, Staveren. ' ApolL, iii. 8. 2.

no longer handed down the mythus in its original shape ; for it would surely have been a glaring inconsistency in the ancient mythus, if Artemis should, in her anger, and as a punishment, bestow on her nymph the form of an animal sacred to herself. The supposition of an alteration is further supported by the observation, which, however, we cannot here prove, that the virginity of Artemis, being an idea generally received by the poets, was transferred to the service of the goddess, even in places where an entirely different notion regarding her originally prevailed. With precisely the same view, later poets introduced the favourite fable of Hera's jealousy, and made Zeus himself, from dread of it, transform Callisto into a bear, as he had changed lo into a cow. It is therefore clear that CaUisto became a bear, in the original legend, for this reason only, that that animal was sacred to Arcadian Artemis. We know further, that in the time of Pausanias, a temple to Artemis KaWta-rri, " the most beautiful," stood in Arcadia near Mount Msenala ; on a high earthen mound too, where, as that writer states, it was believed that CaUisto had been buried.^ The appellative of the goddess cannot have been formed from the name of the nymph, as the latter is evidently the derivative, the former the original ; besides, that appellative was widely diffused through other parts of Greece, where the Arcadian Callisto was but little regarded. Artemis was called KaXX/oTi? by Sappho ;^ and also in a hymn by Pamphus whom Pausanias reckons more ancient than the Lesbian poetess.^ In Attica, where these hymns had their home, there was a wooden image called KaXKia-rtj in the temple dedicated to Artemis, in the Academy.^ The goddess is styled, by Attic tragedians, d KoKd, by way of eminence, and as if this were her peculiar title. But as the name of Callisto is manifestly connected with the designation of the goddess, we must infer thatKaXXjo-Tw is the latter's title of honour changed into a proper name ; and we thus arrive at the inevitable conclusion, that Callisto is just nothing else than the goddess and her sacred animal comprehended in one idea. This much is evident from what has been adduced ; but in order to point at the connexion to which it belongs, it is sufficient to remark, that the ancient Arcadian fancied his Artemis to be a goddess of nature, who haunted lakes and fountains; who supplied with food and drink, and brought to maturity the young of wild animals, as well as the offspring of man ; and to whom, therefore, the most powerful creatures in nature, such as the bear, were sacred ; although, as the source of youth, growth, and bloom, she might also be called " the most beautiful," in accordance with the ideas of primeval humanity.' We come back, therefore, to the position, in proof of which we adduced this example, that mythological research frequently discovers objects of Grecian deification, even where they did not at first present themselves to the eye.

But with these ideas of the gods themselves, another class, which may be termed ethical — fundamental ideas of morality and justice — -were united

^ Dorians, vol. i. p. 390, 8qq.

from an early period among the Greeks ; and are, in like manner, to be found expressed in their mythi. I may refer to that of Lycaon, as a well-known instance. Zeus once visited him, or his sons, in humble disguise ; and in consequence of their having served up to him human flesh, destroyed their whole race. Whatever else this mythus may contain, it certainly expresses horror of anthropophagy. If I herewith connect the assertion, that the greater portion of the Ideal in heroic mythology, relates either directly or remotely, mediately or immediately, to theworship of the gods, the point, indeed, cannot at present be settled by proof, as a very complete induction would be required for that purpose ; but whoever has made himself familiar with interpretations of -mythology, whether ancient or modern, which aimed at discovering and unfolding from its materials some other system of knowledge and thought, — astronomical truths, maxims in practical philosophy, or whatever else it might be, — while he may have been struck with the pliability of particular portions of the matter to be explained, in adapting themselves, as it were, to the end in view, must, at the same time, have pronounced the interpretation, as a whole, to be forced, frigid, and unsatisfactory. Let us, therefore, without rejecting anything of that kind, merely hold back, and wait for the development of individual cases; and should we find that it leads us from the certain to the uncertain, so as to explain the latter by the former, we shall joyfully appropriate the result. At all events it is not a rare case to recognise in mythology even portraits of human character, sometimes spun out from particular persons, far across the limits of tradition — witness the stories of the cunning of SisypiuSjWand sometimes not traceable to any personal history at all, as in the legends of Prometheus and Epimetheus.^ We also recognise representations of a physical nature ; in iEolus, for example, (who is brought into connexion with heroic genealogies,) with whom the Homeric legend makes pleasant sport; in Typhoeus who is born in volcanic regions, fights and lies bound, &c.