New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-04-10
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
ARTHUR AS A MYTH,
STUDIES IN THE ARTHURIAN LEGEND. BY John

Rhys NJ A. svo, pp ALI. Clarendon Press
The attitude Of Professor Rhys toward the Arthuiian
legend is not altogether so clear as 1t might nave oeo
The practical tendency Of his work is TO reduce all the
stories OF Arthur and his Table Round to pure myths
vet he does not assume that there was no historic
Arthur and even goes fer 10 admit that there Is
valid evidence In support Of the historic theory Ihese
admissions however. weigh little against the mannos.
purpose of the studies. which is 70 identity ATtn anu
his knights and the legends about them with nature
heroes and un-myths Now there has for some years
been among conservative and cautious mythologists
growing suspicion that the eun-myth hypothesis mas
been very much overworked. Together WIN the CIT
ticing pursuit of pathological or etymoioscai my.
thology, 1t has indeed worked wonders IN iac| It's
tbauma tureic properties have proved so great as III
themselves TO cngender doubt as to the tstWorthees
of conclusions reached in this way For reheeuoh
shows that nothing easier than TO convert any Story
whether historical legendary. into sun-nyth' ana
that when the pathological method IS applied to Names
it is nearly always possible TO make plausible showing
for the investment OF no matter what names WIN
natureattrbutes, such as Sun, Clouds, Dawn NiSi'
and so forth.
There are moreover other allurng but perflous OPP
portsniues In the pursuit of myths by these methods
Comparative mythology is apt to appear particularly
scientific apparatus; but when two LEGENDS between
which certain resemblances be established are as
sumed to represent In their genesis the same sage
of culture danger of msappehenson is at once intro
duced; and as Mr. Rhys unconsclously demonstrates
In this volume, the student Is liable to coniound te
primitive with the advanced legend, and by reducing
them to the denomination work out nature
or sun myth quite illeGtmately.
This We are inclined to think, is what Mr.. Rhys
has been led to by his enthusiasm for and profound
knowledge Of the Welsh legends of Arthur and the
Round Table and the Holy Grail. No mythoogist Is
perhaps better aware than Mr.. Rhys Of the pitfalls
which besct inquiries Of the kind. But when scholar
has prepossessOns, and his knowledge Of a certain
branch Of folklore seems fl In with them. he must
be very remarkable indeed If he is not DETECTED
from perfectly straight llne by the conditions under
which he works. The comparisons between various
Welsh and other legends-lrsh and Gaelic for In
staucc-are full Of interest; and the general reader
who cares nothing mythology viii find great deal
of entertainment in the stories of Guinevere ana
pcrcdur and OWEN, and LanceOt and Eleyne ana
GaIahad and Crechulium and Heracles and Uren and
pclles and all the Of the legendary heroes and adj
yent,rers But when Mr.. Rhys proceeds 10 his
ANALYSIS and undertakes 10 prove that everybody Is
really Identical with somebody else in some other
legend and that this somebody else is sun OF cloud
ar dawn myth the travelling to be smooth and
doubts begin to arise
Probably the learned and ingenious author would
mt be slow TO admit that this kind OF analysis is very
far from producing conclusive results What Is least
satisfactory about IL is the succession OF uncertainties
TO which 1t gives rise, and the consequent hazness ana
,vagucness Of It's final results. No linked chain or
lions cohiectures bold and often audacous guesses,
are in demand at every turn Questions Of idenuhca
ZION are found TO depend upon conectnial ehchuauos
In Names or definitions of meanings ior which 10
guarantee can be provided. There are thus gaps IN
the argument which sometimes come very near 10
breaking it in pieces and even when the most hoe'a
allowance has been made for unvcrfabe surmlse the
end is hazv and inconclusive Mr.. Rhys Is an eA-
ceedipcly adept manipulation of legendary facts ana
persons, as the reader may satisfy mhlsen ny
pcrusing the ingenious chapters wherein '"c
courageous attempt is made 10 eS'aohsh
paralel between the adventures OF an lrlsh legeuS
hero and the twelve labors OF Hercules The easuc9
nnd tbc pasticity of the mythoogc methods we have
reference to have seldom if ever been more lh'Pes
sveIy set forth than in this instance YET even III
this case the analyst is sometimes so sore DeSeO '"
ne is Obliged to admit the entire absence Vi srouli
for the prctence Of paralelism Wheh nc Is oio"e
IN such strait the case must indeed be hopeless iof
Il is not little thing that will give pause u MI
pbvs when his sporting blood is fairly reused
Mr. Andrew Lang has at times had some sane anu
wholesome ideas upon folklore ana mFthoioeS "
the study of these sciences from the point Vi Wow "
anthropology seems moro and more necessary as u
toncs AGAINST falacy and delusion. In case Ike ta
=, tho Artlmrian legend the difficulties are no douDt
ruoat but IL presents special advantages i"o
videncc for historical Arthur is indeed, not concur
siyc but il is of character TO challense Ino ny '
ocists whose duty it would seem to be 10 Vi
destroy IL before they can WIN Safety vi Pi0P'O' "
,ho FIRST stone of their foundation. Whose proposes
-. d rtbur into a sun hero for example, is clearly
bound IN prove all this evidence untrusCWorthy. VI
course 10 the nature myth theory were a6andonoo'
would stu be open to any one to claim ta' tere may
have been historic Arthur but that his real career
had been overlaid with accrction OF myths. Iha'
&c a nrocess with which are all more or less ac-
ona,nted Myths are being created to-day as ne
ouentlv az a thousand years ago. They grow UP ABOUT
Ivinp men and women of distinction. Take the case
NJ Abraham Lincoln. whole CLASS oi lh!Cs ha'
grown I'D around his personality So also' Napoieoh
las become a mythcentre and scores OF other MOD
srrs But the nature-myth is a very different Gre
.,n The troube with ii is that it is too easily ap
,,,ad 70 apy state of legend or facts. NO dlmculty
,yas found in proving that Napoleon was mythical
nersonace O sun-hero, In fact and the iachV Oh tis
sort Of adaptation generally proves temptation not
to be resisted.
unfair or ambiguous he formally records his avoid
nco ~ definite conclusions, though it is plain that
ais own scholarly ingenuity has convinced him. But
tbe effect of his comparative analysis upon tlc us
reader is not likely to be the same Tor the
truth ia that the very facility Of his construction Is
suspolous The elasticity Of his methods enables him
to nroye too much. That there should exist certain
Wtsnesses between legends Of adventure in widely sep
or,ted countries and periods is Of quite compre
honsible and are prepared to find such points VI
resemblance 1t is not only in regard to naturemytiS
,hat men have had tile same thoughts in many lahuS
rrransmission is not indispensable assumption IN
those cases. So much the present imperfect knoweoee
Of folk lore open TO us teaches and 1t also points
mora and more emphatcally TO the probability that IN
caees where much and varied and prolonged action Is
involved In any legend cycle Of legends some rcse
human dong furnishes the nucleus Of the myth ms
seems tusfable conclusion as regards the Arthurian
legend and the profuse mythical growth which sprsn
mn all about the initial historical germs OF this legend
..h,,a Illustrating the fertility and Ingenuity OF INC
hnnan iuactnaton even in uncviliZed ages does not
- Oh weaken the considerations upon which this view