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 support@jstor.org.

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
psychology. Does not ROUSSEAU deserve a larger place than this
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 expres-
sion 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 develop-
ment 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
questions. (( The function of mythology is the investigation and
explanation of myths or tales relating to the early religious and scien-
tific 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 phenome-
na )). 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
 REVIEWS 379

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 compre-
hensive 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 from XENOPHANESof Colophon to our days. I think it worth
while to quote rapidly the principal personalities considered by
Mr. SPENCE:
XENOPHANES; THEAGENES OF RHEGIUM: PHERECYDES OF
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 wissenschaft-
licher Mythologie, 1825). Then comes the (( philological school )
grouped around MAX MULLER(1823-1900), from which arose later two
sub-schools, the solar headed by MUiLLER himself (they saw sun-gods
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); HERBERT SPENCER;
WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH; 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
particularly the author's attention: Sir JAMES GEORGE FRAZER, of
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 pan-
Egyptian 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
Bibliography. The new volume shows in every respect great progress
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 exten-
sive 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 sub-
jects. 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 com-
parison 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