The Aryo-Semitic School of Mythology

Abstract

IT has been a well-known fact for many years past that the breach between the linguistic and anthropological schools of mythology was growing steadily, and it was evident that a serious rupture must eventually occur. It was felt that the venerable linguistic method was being slowly but surely undermined by many workers, and that the anthropologists were consolidating their position in a remarkable manner. The rupture, however, might have been delayed, and the two schools might have made concessions mutually in the interests of the peace and progress of the science, the advancement of which each party professed to have at heart, had they been allowed to do so. But it was not to be, and the immediate cause of battle between the rival schools was the publication of Prof. Max Miiller's “Contributions to the Science of Mythology,” wherein the great writer discussed with his characteristic learning the subjects on which he is the first authority at present. This work was violently attacked by Mr. Andrew Lang, who, it cannot be denied, impressed many by his skill in word trickery and brilliant phrases, and the unwary reader may quite well be forgiven if he was led astray by a flood of journalistic eloquence. Those, however, who had any knowledge of the subject saw at once that Mr. Lang did not represent the anthropological school, and that he had no right to pretend to do so; for as is well known he has shown no evidence that he possesses any special knowledge of any one of the subjects which go to form that complex whole called mythology. Prof. Max Müller may have made mistakes, but he knows his languages; Mr. Lang has a competent knowledge of no Oriental language, and can never now acquire even a working hold upon the dialects of the East, wherein Prof. Max Müller was an authority thirty years ago. To us it seems doubtful if Mr. Lang has sufficient knowledge of Eastern linguistics to understand all the points of Prof. Max Müller's position. In any case Mr. Lang's attack upon the Oxford Professor was futile, and all it served to do was to show that Mr. Lang had mistaken his own powers, and that he had without any proper authority assumed to himself the right to act as spokesman for the anthropological school of mythology. Now, it seems, another combatant has joined in the fray in the person of Mr. Robert Brown, junior, who, though wishing to support Prof. Max Müller against Mr. Lang, has a few objections to urge against the venerable scholar, and an axe of his own to grind. Mr. Brown, like Mr. Lang, makes himself the spokesman of a “School,” which, he says, “for present purposes, I may style the Aryo-Semitic,” and though he recognises “the vast results that have sprung from the scientific application of Aryan linguistics,” he is “in entire sympathy with the researches of anthropology in general, and of folk-lore in particular.” The cynical outsider will have some difficulty in understanding the position of such a Mr. Facing-both-ways. As far as we can see, Mr. Brown has printed his book to prove that Hellenic mythology owes a pretty big debt to Semitic peoples; but then, no one, so far as we know, ever doubted this obvious fact. Mr. Brown has also taken a great dislike to Mr. Lang, the evidence of which forces itself upon the reader in several places. Mr. Brown's dislike is so strong that in order to relieve his feelings, he is obliged to write a number of childish things, which any friend of his would have excised from his manuscript before it was printed. Mr. Brown also falls foul of Mr. Frazer, the author of the “Golden Bough,” and when, like Mr. Silas Wegg, Mr. Brown is obliged to “drop into poetry,” and to print in a book intended to be serious the silly lines (p. 14), O Mr. Frazer, Mr. Frazer, what a man you are !

Semitic Influence in Hellenic Mythology, with special reference to the recent mythological works of the Right Hon. Prof. F. Max Müller and Mr. Andrew Lang.

By R. Brown junior. Pp. xvi + 288. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1898.)