Myth and Science | Page 5

to excel the great mind, the acute genius,
and the universal learning of Herbert Spencer, who has been termed the
modern Aristotle by a learned writer; and this is high praise when we
remember how much knowledge is necessary in our times, and in the
present conditions of science, before any one can be deemed worthy of
such a comparison. But with due respect to so great a man, and with the
diffidence of one who is only his disciple, I venture to think that
Herbert Spencer's attempt to revive, at any rate in part, Evemero's
theory of the origin of myths will not be successful, and it may prove
injurious to science. First, because all myths cannot be reduced, to
personal or historical facts; and next, because the primitive value of
many of them is so clear and distinct in their mode of expression that it
is not possible to derive them from any source but the direct
personification of natural phenomena. Nor does it appear to me to be
always and altogether certain that the origin of myths, also caused by
the double personality discerned in the shadow of the body itself, in the
images reflected by liquid substances, in echoes and visions of the
night, can be all ascribed to the worship of the dead.
The worship of the dead is undoubtedly universal. There is no people,
ancient or modern, civilized or savage, by whom it has not been
practised; the fact is proved by history, philology and ethnography. But
if the worship of the dead is a constant form, manifested everywhere, it
flourishes and is interwoven with a multitude of other mythical forms
and superstitious beliefs which cannot in any way be reduced to this
single form of worship, nor be derived from it. This worship is
undoubtedly one of the most abundant sources of myth, and Spencer,
with his profound knowledge and keen discernment, was able to
discuss the hypothesis as it deserves; whence his book, even from this
point of view, is a masterpiece of analysis, like all those which issue
from his powerful mind.
Yet even if the truth of this doctrine should be in great measure proved,
the question must still be asked how it happens that man vivifies and

personifies his own image in duplicate, or else the apparitions of
dreams or their reflections, and the echoes of nature, and ultimately the
spirits of the dead.
Tylor developed his theory more distinctly and at greater length, and he
brought to bear upon it great genius, extraordinary knowledge, and a
sound critical faculty, so that his work must be regarded as one of the
most remarkable in the history of human thought. He belongs to the
school of evolution, and his book strongly confirms the truths of that
theory; since from the primitive germs of myth, from the various and
most simple forms of fetishes among all races, he gradually evolves
these rude images into more, complex and anthropomorphic forms,
until he attains the limits of natural and positive science. He admits that
there are in mankind various normal and abnormal sources of myth, but
he comes to the ultimate conclusion that they all depend on man's
peculiar and spontaneous tendency to animate all things, whence his
general principle has taken the name of animism. It is unnecessary to
say much in praise of this learned work, since it is known to all, and
cannot be too much studied by those who wish for instruction on such
subjects.
But while assenting to his general principle, which remains as the sole
ultimate source of all mythical representation, I repeat the usual inquiry;
what causes man to animate all the objects which surround him, and
what is the cause of this established and universal fact? The marvellous
ethnographic learning of the author, and his profound analysis, do not
answer this question, and the problem still remains unsolved.
It is evident from what we have said, that the theory of the origin of
myth has of late made real and important progress in different
directions; it has been constituted by fitting methods, and with
dispassionate research, laying aside fanciful hypotheses and systems
more or less prompted by a desire to support or confute principles
which have no connection with science. We have now in great measure
arrived at the fundamental facts whence myth is derived, although, if I
do not deceive myself, the ultimate fact, and the cause of this fact, have
not yet been ascertained; namely, for what reason man personifies all

phenomena, first vaguely projecting himself into them, and then
exercising a distinct purpose of anthropomorphism, until in this way he
has gradually modified the world according to his own image.
If we are able to solve this difficult problem, a fact most important to