"Taking all these facts together, it is not difficult to imagine how the story of Tuna"s brain grew up; and I am afraid we shall have to confess that the legend of Tuna throws but little light on the legend of Daphne or on the etymology of her name. No one would have a word to say against the general principle that much that is irrational, absurd, or barbarous in the Veda is a survival of a more primitive mythology anterior to the Veda. How could it be otherwise?"
Criticism of Tuna and Daphne
Now (1), as to Daphne, we are not invariably told that hers was a case of "the total change of a heroine into a tree." In Ovid {14} she is thus changed. In Hyginus, on the other hand, the earth swallows her, and a tree takes her place. All the authorities are late. Here I cannot but reflect on the scholarly method of Mannhardt, who would have examined and criticised all the sources for the tale before trying to explain it.
However, Daphne was not mangled; a tree did not spring from her severed head or scattered limbs. She was metamorphosed, or was buried in earth, a tree springing up from the place.
(2) I think we do know _why_ the people of Mangaia "believe in the change of human beings into trees." It is one among many examples of the savage sense of the intercommunity of all nature. "Antiquity made its division between man and the world in a very different sort than do the moderns." {15a} I ill.u.s.trate this mental condition fully in M. R. R. i.
46-56. _Why_ savages adopt the major premise, "Human life is on a level with the life of all nature," philosophers explain in various ways. Hume regards it as an extension to the universe of early man"s own consciousness of life and personality. Dr. Tylor thinks that the opinion rests upon "a broad philosophy of nature." {15b} M. Lefebure appeals to psychical phenomena as I show later (see "Fetishism"). At all events, the existence of these savage metaphysics is a demonstrated fact. I established it {15c} before invoking it as an explanation of savage belief in metamorphosis.
(3) "The Tuna story belongs to a very well known cla.s.s of aetiological plant-stories" (aetiological: a.s.signing a cause for the plant, its peculiarities, its name, &c.), "which are meant to explain a no longer intelligible name of a plant, &c." I also say, "these myths are nature- myths, so far as they attempt to account for a fact in nature--namely, for the existence of certain plants, and for their place in ritual." {16}
The reader has before him Mr. Max Muller"s view. The white kernel of the cocoanut was locally styled "the brains of Tuna." That name required explanation. Hence the story about the fate of Tuna. Cocoanut was used in Mangaia in the sense of "head" (testa). So it is now in England.
See Bell"s Life, pa.s.sim, as "The Chicken got home on the cocoanut."
The Explanation
On the whole, either cocoanut kernels were called "brains of Tuna"
because "cocoanut"="head," and a head has brains--and, well, somehow I fail to see why brains of Tuna in particular! Or, there being a story to the effect that the first cocoanut grew out of the head of the metamorphosed Tuna, the kernel was called his brains. But why was the story told, and why of Tuna? Tuna was an eel, and women may not eat eels; and Ina was the moon, who, a Mangaian Selene, loved no Latmian shepherd, but an eel. Seriously, I fail to understand Mr. Max Muller"s explanation. Given the problem, to explain a no longer intelligible plant-name--brains of Tuna--(applied not to a plant but to the kernel of a nut), this name is explained by saying that the moon, Ina, loved an eel, cut off his head at his desire, and buried it. Thence sprang cocoanut trees, with a fanciful likeness to a human face--face of Tuna--on the nut. But still, why Tuna? How could the moon love an eel, except on my own general principle of savage "levelling up" of all life in all nature? In my opinion, the Mangaians wanted a fable to account for the resemblance of a cocoanut to the human head--a resemblance noted, as I show, in our own popular slang. The Mangaians also knew the moon, in her mythical aspect, as Ina; and Tuna, whatever his name may mean (Mr. Max Muller does not tell us), was an eel. {17} Having the necessary savage major premise in their minds, "All life is on a level and interchangeable," the Mangaians thought well to say that the head-like cocoanut sprang from the head of her lover, an eel, cut off by Ina. The myth accounts, I think, for the peculiarities of the cocoanut, rather than for the name "brains of Tuna;" for we still ask, "Why of Tuna in particular? Why Tuna more than Rangoa, or anyone else?"
"We shall have to confess that the legend of Tuna throws but little light on the legend of Daphne, or on the etymology of her name."
I never hinted that the legend of Tuna threw light on the etymology of the name of Daphne. Mangaian and Greek are not allied languages. Nor did I give the Tuna story as an explanation of the Daphne story. I gave it as one in a ma.s.s of ill.u.s.trations of the savage mental propensity so copiously established by Dr. Tylor in Primitive Culture. The two alternative explanations which I gave of the Daphne story I have cited.
No mention of Tuna occurs in either.
Disease of Language and Folk-etymology
The Tuna story is described as "a clear case of disease of language cured by the ordinary nostrum of folk-etymology." The "disease" showed itself, I suppose, in the presence of the Mangaian words for "brain of Tuna." But the story of Tuna gives no folk-etymology of the name Tuna. Now, to give an etymology of a name of forgotten meaning is the sole object of folk- etymology. The plant-name, "snake"s head," given as an example by Mr.
Max Muller, needs no etymological explanation. A story may be told to explain why the plant is called snake"s head, but a story to give an etymology of snake"s head is superfluous. The Tuna story explains why the cocoanut kernel is called "brains of Tuna," but it offers no etymology of Tuna"s name. On the other hand, the story that marmalade (really marmalet) is so called because Queen Mary found comfort in marmalade when she was sea-sick--hence Marie-malade, hence _marmalade_--gives an etymological explanation of the origin of the _word_ marmalade. Here is a real folk-etymology. We must never confuse such myths of folk-etymology with myths arising (on the philological hypothesis) from "disease of language." Thus, Daphne is a girl pursued by Apollo, and changed into a daphne plant or laurel, or a laurel springs from the earth where she was buried. On Mr. Max Muller"s philological theory Daphne=Dahana, and meant "the burning one." Apollo may be derived from a Sanskrit form, *Apa-var-yan, or *Apa-val-yan (though how Greeks ever heard a Sanskrit word, if such a word as Apa-val-yan ever existed, we are not told), and may mean "one who opens the gate of the sky" (ii.
692-696). {18} At some unknown date the ancestors of the Greeks would say "The opener of the gates of the sky (*Apa-val-yan, i.e. the sun) pursues the burning one (Dahana, i.e. the dawn)." The Greek language would retain this poetic saying in daily use till, in the changes of speech, *Apa-val-yan ceased to be understood, and became Apollo, while Dahana ceased to be understood, and became Daphne. But the verb being still understood, the phrase ran, "Apollo pursues Daphne." Now the Greeks had a plant, laurel, called daphne. They therefore blended plant, daphne, and heroine"s name, Daphne, and decided that the phrase "Apollo pursues Daphne" meant that Apollo chased a nymph, Daphne, who, to escape his love, turned into a laurel. I cannot give Mr. Max Muller"s theory of the Daphne story more clearly. If I misunderstand it, that does not come from want of pains.
In opposition to it we urge that (1) the etymological equations, Daphne=Dahana, Apollo=*Apa-val-yan, are not generally accepted by other scholars. Schroder, in fact, derives Apollo "from the Vedic Saparagenya, "worshipful," an epithet of Agni," who is Fire (ii. 688), and so on.
Daphne=Dahana is no less doubted. Of course a Greek simply cannot be "derived" from a Sanskrit word, as is stated, though both may have a common origin, just as French is not "derived from" Italian.
(2) If the etymologies were accepted, no proof is offered to us of the actual existence, as a vera causa, of the process by which a saying.
"Apollo pursues Daphne," remains in language, while the meaning of the words is forgotten. This process is essential, but undemonstrated. See the chapter here on "The Riddle Theory."
(3) These processes, if demonstrated, which they are not, must be carefully discriminated from the actual demonstrable process of folk-etymology. The Marmalade legend gives the etymology of a word, marmalade; the Daphne legend does not give an etymology.
(4) The theory of Daphne is of the kind protested against by Mannhardt, where he warns us against looking in most myths for a "mirror-picture" on earth of celestial phenomena. {20a} For these reasons, among others, I am disinclined to accept Mr. Max Muller"s attempt to explain the story of Daphne.
Mannhardt on Daphne
Since we shall presently find Mr. Max Muller claiming the celebrated Mannhardt as a sometime deserter of philological comparative mythology, who "returned to his old colours," I observe with pleasure that Mannhardt is on my side and against the Oxford Professor. Mannhardt shows that the laurel (daphne) was regarded as a plant which, like our rowan tree, averts evil influences. "Moreover, the laurel, like the Maibaum, was looked on as a being with a spirit. This is the safest result which myth a.n.a.lysis can extract from the story of Daphne, a nymph pursued by Apollo and changed into a laurel. It is a result of the use of the laurel in his ritual." {20b} In 1877, a year after Mannhardt is said by Mr. Max Muller to have returned to his old colours, he repeats this explanation.
{21a} In the same work (p. 20) he says that "there is no reason for accepting Max Muller"s explanation about the Sun-G.o.d and the Dawn, wo jeder thatliche Anhalt dafur fehlt." For this opinion we might also cite the Sanskrit scholars Whitney and Bergaigne. {21b}
THE QUESTION OF ALLIES
Athanasius
Mr. Max Muller protests, most justly, against the statement that he, like St. Athanasius, stands alone, contra mundum. If ever this phrase fell from my pen (in what connection I know not), it is as erroneous as the position of St. Athanasius is honourable. Mr. Max Muller"s ideas, in various modifications, are doubtless still the most prevalent of any. The anthropological method has hardly touched, I think, the learned contributors to Roscher"s excellent mythological Lexicon. Dr. Brinton, whose American researches are so useful, seems decidedly to be a member of the older school. While I do not exactly remember alluding to Athanasius, I fully and freely withdraw the phrase. But there remain questions of allies to be discussed.
Italian Critics
Mr. Max Muller asks, {22} "What would Mr. Andrew Lang say if he read the words of Signer Canizzaro, in his "Genesi ed Evoluzione del Mito" (1893), "Lang has laid down his arms before his adversaries"?" Mr. Lang "would smile." And what would Mr. Max Muller say if he read the words of Professor Enrico Morselli, "Lang gives no quarter to his adversaries, who, for the rest, have long been reduced to silence"? {23} The Right Hon. Professor also smiles, no doubt. We both smile. Solvuntur risu tabulae.
A Dutch Defender
The question of the precise att.i.tude of Professor Tiele, the accomplished Gifford Lecturer in the University of Edinburgh (1897), is more important and more difficult. His remarks were made in 1885, in an essay on the Myth of Cronos, and were separately reprinted, in 1886, from the "Revue de l"Histoire des Religions," which I shall cite. Where they refer to myself they deal with Custom and Myth, not with Myth, Ritual, and Religion (1887). It seems best to quote, ipsissimis verbis, Mr. Max Muller"s comments on Professor Tiele"s remarks. He writes (i. viii.):
"Let us proceed next to Holland. Professor Tiele, who had actually been claimed as an ally of the victorious army, declares:--"Je dois m"elever, au nom de la science mythologique et de l"exact.i.tude . . . centre une methode qui ne fait que glisser sur des problemes de premiere importance." (See further on, p. 35.)
"And again:
""Ces braves gens qui, pour peu qu"ils aient lu un ou deux livres de mythologie et d"anthropologie, et un ou deux recits de voyages, ne manqueront pas de se mettre a comparer a tort et a travers, et pour tout resultat produiront la confusion.""
Again (i. 35):
"Besides Signer Canizzaro and Mr. Horatio Hale, the veteran among comparative ethnologists, Professor Tiele, in his Le Mythe de Kronos (1886), has very strongly protested against the downright misrepresentations of what I and my friends have really written.
"Professor Tiele had been appealed to as an unimpeachable authority. He was even claimed as an ally by the ethnological students of customs and myths, but he strongly declined that honour (1. c., p. 31):-
""M. Lang m"a fait 1"honneur de me citer," he writes, "comme un de ses allies, et j"ai lieu de croire que M. Gaidoz en fait en quelque mesure autant. Ces messieurs n"ont point entierement tort. Cependant je dois m"elever, au nom de la science mythologique et de 1"exact.i.tude dont elle ne peut pas plus se pa.s.ser que les autres sciences, contre une methode qui ne fait que glisser sur des problemes de premiere importance," &c.
"Speaking of the whole method followed by those who actually claimed to have founded a new school of mythology, he says (p. 21):--