F. Max Müller and the Ṛg-veda : a study of its role in his work and thought [1. publ. ed.] 9780836400403, 0836400402

Citation preview

f

.._.,,

I-E-81-901480 Neufeldt, Ronald W., 1941F.Max Muller and the ~g-Veda: a study of its role in his work and thought / Ronald W. Neufeldt. - Calcutta : Minerva, 1980. viii, 192 p. ; 22 cm. Running title: Max Muller and the Rg-Veda. Originally presented as the author•s thesis (Ph. D.)-University of Iowa. Bibliography: p. c183rl89. Includes index. ISBN 0-8364--0040--2 : Rs60.00.

·~

""" 0

$.

~

~ p..

()0 S'

;

~ l'T1 CD

0 I\)

-

co

0)

N

3Ap81 Ox(C) CB BKB \

0

l-E-37422 AA THB SlGNIPlCANCl! OP TH'S RO-VEDA

11

maintained that while the Vedas contained some wisdom and pure moral teachings, for the most part they contained childish and superstitious notions. Accordingly, he rejected Rammohan Roy's assertion that the Vedas contained a monotheistic religion, as pure and perfect as Christianity itself. e 9 In pronouncing against the revealed character of the Vedas, he stated : These hymns are not only old, they are antiquated and effete, they have no right, like extinct megathcria to creep about in the strata in which we live ... I am not unaware that there are sparks of profound truth in some of the Vedic hymns, but they form a small portion only of that large collection.' 0 . His opinion of later literature was even worse. The other Vedas, besides the .(lg-Veda, were to him sacrificial books containing merely curious remnants of poetry, incantations, medical formula~ etc.' • It might be asked, if this was Max MUiler's opinion of India;s ancient literatur~ then how does one account for the enormous amount of time which he willingly spent on this Hterature ? The answ~r lies in the very fact that he considered this literature to be childish for the most part. For Max Millier, India's ancient literature provided man with the oldest hist~rical religious documents available and could therefore provide an insight · into the origin and growth of human thought which one could not find anywhere else.' 2 It was p'recisely because the .(lg-Veda was full of childish things that it was instructive, since, in Max MUiler's mind, it belonged to the childhood of the Aryan race.' 3 His harsh judgements therefore, do not belie his ~cw of their importance, but rather underline his opinion --that these ancient scriptures could no longer stand the test of the enlightened world-view of the nineteenth century. Perhaps his clearest enunciation of this is found in his book India, What Can It Teach Us?:

That the Veda is full of childish, silly, even . to our minds monstrous conceptions, who would ·deny? But even these monstrosities are interesting and instruc-

12

MAX.. MULLER AND TH! RG·VBDA

tive; nay, many of them if we can but make allowance f« different ways of thought and language, contain germs of truth and rays of light, all the more striking because breaking upon us through the veil of darkest night."' THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ~G-VEDA IN THB WORK OF MAX MOLLER

Max MUiier's work is notable for its multi-faceted character. For him, ho·Never, the rnC'st important aspects of all his works were those that dealt with the sciences of language, mythology, religion, and thought. 7 6 For each of these areas he produced at lc:ast two volumes and numerous essays. These were not to be seen as uncoonected fields of study. Max MUiler saw them .as a unity since the same principles were to be applied to each of these fields. .T hus he stated in his Gifford lectures on "Natural Religion" : I want, if possible, to show you how the road which , leads from the Science of Language to the Science of Mythology and to the Science of Thought, is the only safe road on which to approach the Science of Religion. This Science of Religion will thus become the test, and I hope the confirmation, of previous theories on language, mythology, and thought; and the work which I began at · Leipzig in 1843, will, if my life is spared, be brought to ·its final consummation in the Lectures which you have allowed me· to give in the University of Glasgow. 1 e Besides the principles of study, there is another thread which Max Millier saw running through his many works and which therefore created a unity out of his endeavors. Towards the end of his life he wrote that the plan for his life had been an exposition ... of the four Scicn~es of Language, Mythology, Religion, and Thought, followin$ e.a ch other in natural succei.s ion, and comprehending the whole sphere of activity of the:.human mind from the earliest period within the reach of our knowledge to the present day.71

MAX MUllEll AND THE SlGNlPICANCE OP THE RO·VEOA

13

He went on to say that the history of man began· witb language and proceeded through the successive stages of mythology, religion, and philosophy. 7 8 Max MUiler's concern therefore, was to probe into the development of the human mind and this he saw as the connecting link which held together his scholarly work. 19 His interest in the areas of mythology, religion, thought, and language was to discover origins and growth. Thus he stated in his preface to Kant's Critique or Pure Reason: In spite of all that seems to be accidental or arbit.rary, there is a natural and intelligible growth in what are called the creations of the human mind, quite as much as in what we call the works of nature.so Any analysis of the life and work of Max Millier cannot fail to notice that the ~g-Veda occupied a considerable amount of bis time. If one begins with his studies under Burnouf, Max Millier spent the years from 1845 to 1873 working on the first edition alone. In addition there are his translations of the Vedic hymns in volume thirty-two of the Sacred Bocks of the East, his History of Ancient Sanskrit Uterature, his numerous essays on the character and content of the ~g-Veda, and his new edition of the ~g-Veda in 1890-92. Max Milller's familiarity with the ~g-Veda prompted H. H. Wilson to write : I consider him also as extensively conversant with the general literature of the Hindus, especially with that part which relates to _their traditions, institutes and law, and I look upon him as without an equal in that interesting and most important department of it to which he has particularly devoted his attention, the Literature of the Vedas, and study of their ancient texts, and of many voluminous and difficult subsidiary compositions which are indispensible for their elucidation. 81 It should come as no surprise then, that Max M tiller attached considerable importance to the I.lg· Veda in his investi· gations of the origin and development of language, mythology, religion, and thought. N. C. Chaudhuri, in his biography of Max Millier, states that although the ~g-Veda kept him occupied for thirty years, it was a means to an end, serving him

14

MAX MUUEB AND THE RG•VEDA

somewhat in the fashion of a laboratory in which he carried out his experiments.~ 2 lo Max Miiller's eyes, the ,flg-JIeda was the foundatiJn upon which be built the edifice of his thought, an edifice made up of the four sciences, language, thought, mythology~ and religion. Max Millier felt that his "experimentation" in the ,flg-Veda provided him wilh the necessary empirical evidence to support bii views on the· development of the human mind and his attendant theories on the origin and development of language, mythology, religion, and thought. It was his belief that ·all such theories must remain on shaky ground until the ,flg-V watch in the .(lg-Veda the slow process of personification, the growth from · appcllatives to proper names. A sure sign of such growth is seen in the unsettled character of the Vedic pantheon ; the fact that there are no settled family relationships, that every god is conceived as supreme at the time that it is invoked, and the fact that for some poets the names of the deities are merely

different conceptions of some incomprehensible mystery which they were trying to grasp. 4 7 There are a number of examples which Max M tiller uses to point out the growth and uncertainty which characterizes the names of Vedic deities. An instructive example is the term dJ aus which Max Millier derives from the root dyu or div. 4 s It is his claim that originally this word· bad nothing to do with deity, but that it was simr ly used to refer to the sky or day. 4 9 This is based on his argument that the term is not found in the early lists of Vedic deities and that it remained a common name for sky even in the .(lg-Veda. 11 0 Even where dyaus is used as a name for deity, the unsettled character of this deity is seen in its various characterizations -as father, as creator, as the father of Indra, and as inferior to Indra. 111 On the basis of such observations Max Millier speaks of the half-physical and half-spiritual meaning of the names of Vedic deities.112 Max Millier sees the growth of these terms as moving through three stages. The first stage is the use of the term as an appellative for a natural phenomenon. The second stage

MAX MULLER AND THE STUDY OP THE RG·V!DA

29

is the metaphorical use of the term to express the intuitive apprehension of something in and behind a natural phenomenon. The third stage is that of personification, that is, the use of the term to mean an anthropomorphic deity. Again, the term dyaus becomes an instructive example for Max Muller : Whenever we thus find the name of heaven used for God, we must bear in mind that those who originally adopted such a name were transferring that name from one object, visible to their bodily eyes, to another object, grasped by another organ of knowledje, by the vision of the soul. Those who at first called God Heaven had something within them that they wished to cal! the growing image of God; those who at a later time called Heaven God, had forgotten that they were predicating of Heaven something that was higher than Heaven. 61 The origin of Vedic deities, Max Muller claims, is to be found in man's observation of aod attempts to name natural phenomena, particularly solar phenomena. He states : The principal objects of .the religious poetry of the Vedic bards were those of bright beings, the Sun, the Sky, the Day, the Dawn, the Morn, the Spring-who might all be called deva, brilliant. Th~ were soon opposed to the powers of night and darkness, sometimes called adeva, literally, not bright ; then ungodly, evil, mischievous. This contrast between the bright, beneficent, divine, and dark, mischievous, demoniacal beings, is of very ancient date. 6 4 Mux Millier asserts that the common theme of the hymns of the /.lg-Veda is the polar powers assaulting the east after having been robbed of their powers in the west. 6 6 tn keeping with this view he interprets many of the myths of the JJg-Veda as originating in man's attempts to explain the break of dawn. u In time, he claims, the origin of these explanations was forgotten and the explanations then became myths of personal powers or deities.

30

MAX MULLER AND THB RG•VEDA

Among the examples Max Millier uses in his attempt to prove his point, the clearest is his reference to the so called "correlative deities." He states : The Vedic Pantheon particularly is full of deities which are always introduced in the dual, and they all find their explanation in the palpable dualism of nature, Day and Night, Dawn and Gloaming, Morning and Evening, Summer and Winter, Sun and Moon, Light and Darkness, Heaven and Earth. 6 7 The source of these correlative deities, however, is to be seen in the sky and the dawn-the father is the sky, the power or place from which these deities emerge and which itself is not involved in the diurnal movement of the world, and the mother is the dawn, the place where the correlative deities meet. 6 8 For Max Millier, therefore, the sky, the dawn and the sun are to be seen as central to the development of the gods of the .(lg-Veda in particular, and to mythology in general. Man, he claims, recognized in these phenomena certain powers he attempted to name, and when the intention of these names was forgotten, they became names for personal gods. In claiming that it is the solar powers which bear the burden for the development of the Vedic deities Max Millier maintains that meteorological phenomena play a relatively small role in the development of Vedic deities. In doing so he introduces what he considers to be indispensible conditions for the deification of natuaral phenomena-regularity and trustworthiness : I consider the regular recurrence of phenomena an almost indispcnsible condition of their being raised, through the charms of mythological phraseology, to the rank of immortals, and I give a proportionately small space to meteorological phenomena such as clouds, thunder, and lightning, which, although causing for a time violent commotion in nature and on the heart of man, would not be ranked together with the immortal bright beings, but would rather be classed either as their subjects or as their enemies. 6 9

MAX MULLER AND THE STUDY OP THB RG·VBDA

31

For Max Millier therefore, the key to an understanding of the deities of the (lg-Veda is an understanding of ancient man's response to and attempts to name solar phenomena. In 1865, Max Millier delivered his "Lecture on Vedas" at the Philosophical Institution at Leeds. He appears to have had two basic concerns in this lecture: first, to establish the relative antiquity of the (lg-Veda, and second, to underline the religious worth of the (lg-Veda. In his attempt to establish dates for the (lg-Veda, he appeals to . what have become standard arguments for its ancient character. He argues that prose treatises such as the Brahmattas and Sutras presuppose both the content and poetic character of the (lg-Veda. 60 Since the Sutras presuppose the Brahma~as and the Brahma~as the (lg-Veda he maintains that in order to allow for the development of both the Brahmattas and the (lg-Veda one would have to place the (lg-Veda in the years from 1500- t 2~ B. C. 6 t For Max Millier, {lg~ Veda possesses an inestimable value. First, he finds here the key-note of all religion ; the expression of a "deep-felt dependence on the Deity." 62 Second, he sees in the (lg-Veda a stage of religious and mythological development which predates that of Persia, Greece, and Rome. 6 s Max Millier labels this as a "henotheistic" stage in which the god invoked is seen to be supreme and in which there are no clear cut relationships of superiority and inferiority among the gods. et Finally, he detects in the (lg-Veda the principal elements of "real religion'' : a belief in the gods as ideal immortal"beings characterized by power, protection. kindness and immortality; a belief in the gods as creators of heaven and earth and authors of the laws of right and wrong ; a belief in the immortality of man. 6 a In 1870 Max Millier delivered his lectures on the science of religion in which be developed further the characterization of Vedic religion as henotheistic. He refers to it as a peculiar phase which for ms the first stage in the growth of polytheism. 6 a It is a stage which is characterized by many deities, all independent of the rest, a stage in which there are no rules of precedence, for the deities arc simply invoked according

32

MAX MULLEll AND THB RG•VEDA

to the prominence of various aspects of nature and according to the cravings of the individual. 67 . Further, he repeats here an idea which he had already expressed in volume two of The Science of Language ; the half physical and half spiritual intention of words and hymns. This goes hand in hand with his idea of hcnotheism in that the .(lg-Veda is seen to represent a stage which predates the full development of polytheism as Max Millier understands it. 68 According to Max Millier the .(lg-Veda presents to us a level of language and a stage of religion marked by two tendencies. On the one hand, there is the struggle against the material character of language in order to fit words for abstract thought, and on the other, there is the relapse from a spiritual intention in language to a purely material understanding.69 For support Max Millier returns to one of his favorite examples-dyaus. While dyauJ, or the sky, may have become, in_the .(lg-Veda a personified diety, originally it was not meant for this. 7 0 Rather, the term dyaus was chosen as the best expression for man's yearning for something infinite and permanent. 71 When this intention or meaning was forgotten the sky slowly became personified and was invoked as a deity. 12 The same process is applied by Max Millier to other deities in the .(lg-Veda : The same mental yearning which found its first satisfaction · in using the name of the brilliant sky as an indication of the Divine, would soon grasp at other names of the sky not expressive of brilliancy, and therefore more appropriate to a religious mood in which the Divine was conceived as dark, awful, all powerful. Thus we find in Sanskrit by the side of Dyaus, another name of the covering sky, Varu\ta, originally only another attempt at naming the Divine, but soon assuming a separate and independent existence. 1 8 In 1878 Max Millier continued to give expression to his interest in the science of religion in the form of a volume entitled The Origin and Growth of Religion. Within the context of his discussion of the development of religion he again

MAX MULLER AND THE STUDY OP THE RG·VEDA

33

addressed himself at length to the character of the .flg-Veda. His concerns are expressed in the following quotation : While Hesiod gives us, as it were, the past history of a theogony, we see in the Veda the theogony itself, the very birth and growth of the gods, i. e., the birth and growth or the words for god ; and we also see in later hymns-later in character, if not in time-the subsequent phases in the development of these divine conceptions. 1 • We see here themes which Max Millier had expressed in earlier works-the birth and development of Vedic deities, stages or phases of thought and the nature of Vedic religion. In speaking of stages of thought Max Millier returns here to a distinction he made earlier in A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature ; the distinction between the mantra and chandas periods with the mantra period placed in the years 1000-800 B. C. and the chandas period before 1000 B. C. 76 In addition to this . general distinction Max Millier proposes a more specific distinction between individual hymns. He claims to see a historical or evolutionary su:ce$sion in the hymns of the .flg-Veda in that ... hymns celebrating the dawn and the sun were car.lier than hymns addressed to Aditi ; that these again w~re earlier than songs in honor of Prajapati, the one lord of all living things ; and that such odes as I tried to translate just now, in which the poet speaks of ''the One breathing breathless by itself," came still later. 7 8 Such an evolutionary development is .clearly based on Max MUiler's view of the birth and growth of deities or the concept of deity in the $g-Veda itself. The beginning is seen to lie in man's observation of natural phenomena .and in naming such phenomena in terms of human activity. 7 1 His claim is that it was not only the phenomena as such which Vedic poets were attempting to name, but also that invisible something in and behind these phenomena themselves. 7 8 The second step, the personification of natural phenomena, is said to ·occur later when the intention of. naming these phenomena in terms of human activity was misunderstood and forgotten. 7 9 3

34

MAX MULLER AND THB RG-Vl!DA

Once personification bas taken place it is seen as natural to invoke these beings asking them for help, protection, and guidance. 8 o Here, as in previous works, Max Millier asserts that this pantheon has its beginning in man's observation of solar phenomena. From this starting point Max Millier secs it as a relatively simple thing to account for other Vedic deities : We have thus seen how the sky, originally the light giver, the illuminator of the world, and for that reason called Dyaus, or Zeus, or Jupiter, might be replaced by various gods who represent some of the principal activities of the sky, such as thunder, rain, and storm. Besides these, there was, if not the activity, yet the capacity of covering and protecting the whole world, which might like-wise lead to the conception of a covering, all-embracing god, in place of the sky, as a mere firmament. In that capacity the covering god might easily merge into a god of night, opposed to a god of day, and this might again give rise to a concept of correlative gods, .representing night and day, morning and evening, heaven and earth. 8 1 The quotation appears to be tentative in mood, but all tentativeness disappears when Max Millier concludes that "every one of these changes passes before our eyes in the Veda". 8 ' The religion of the /J.g-Veda is again called henotheism, a term which Max Millier uses here to designate a dialectical period of religion, an anarchical or communal phase preceding a monarchical form of religion. 8 • He characterizes it as the worship of single gods which predates polytheism, a system of divine polity, and monotheism, the worship of one god. 8• Since it is a stage, Max Millier detects in the henotheism of the /J.g· V tda three .tendencies. The first is the tendency toward polytheism. Because the single deities were derived from the same source, the same stories came to be told of the different gods, gods came to be seen as identical with each other, dual deities were formed, various deities came to be comprehended under a single name, and finally, one god was made supreme as in the Greek and Roman pantheons. e &

MAX MULLER AND THE STUDY OP THE RG·VEDA

35

The second is the tendency to monotheism in names like Visvadevas, Visvakarman, and Prajapati. 86 The third is the tendency toward atheism which is said to arrive with the development of totally intangible or invisible deities such as Indra or Rudra. 87 Max Milller's lectures entitled India, · What Can It Teach Us?, delivered at the University of Cambridge in 1882, had a twofold purpose-to convince candidates for the Indian Civil Service of the need for the s.tudy of Sanskrit, and to eliminate views which he saw as detrimental to India's peoples and cultures. 8 8 In his concern to point out the value of India for the study of man, Max Millier spent some time in this· volume discussing the {lg-Veda. In doing so he emphasized three themes-the relative antiquity of the .(lg-Veda ; the nature . of Vedic religion ; the origin and development of Vedic deities. Max Millier recognizes in the .(lg-Veda a few philosophical hymns and few purely mytholo6ical hymns but sees the majority of the hymns as ''simple invocations of fire, wa·ter, sky, sun, and storms, often under the same names which afterwards become the proper names of Hindu deities." 89 He sees in these invocations a situation in which the manifestation or effect is confused with the cause or agent, and attributes this situation to a child-like mind or a childish age in the_ development of the human mind. 9 ~ Thus, he states : Now it is exactly this period in the growth of ancient religion, which was always presupposed, or postulated, but was absent everywhere else, that is clearly put before us in the hymns of the {lg-Veda. 9 t His conclusion is that in the {lg-Veda we are confronted with a nearer approach to intelligible beginnings than we find anywhere else. 9 i As Max Millier has already mentioned jn previous works the stage of religious development represented by the {lg-Veda is to be termed henotbeism or kathenotheism. 91 While he admits that many deities are praised in the hymns, he maintains that the {lg- Veda cannot be characterized as polytheistic because of the unsystematic character of the relationships among the gods-there are no ranks which are subordinate to

36

MAX MULL!ll AND THE llO·VEDA

a supreme deity, no single god is always first, no single god is always last, and finally, even inferior deities become supreme in the eyes of the worshipper.9t Furthermore, what is meant by the invocations of d1yas or deJ.•attU in the ~g-Veda is not to be seen as a settled matter. In Max Muller's words, the objects of worship ... are still oscillating between what is seen by the senses, what is created by fancy, and what is postulated by the understanding ; they are things, persons, causes, according to the varying disposition of the poets ... u The example he uses to highlight this is the worship of heaven and earth (Dyiva-prthivyau) as a divine couple. Many epithets, he points out, refer to the purely physical aspects such as wide, widely expanded, deep, giving fat, full of milk and rich in seed, while others refer to aspects that have connotations which transcend man such as never tiring, not decaying, not injuring, provident, etc. 9 8 Max Millier, therefore, sees in this henotheistic stage a gradual development or advancement "from the material to the spiritual, from the sensuous to the supersensuous, from the human to the superhuman and the divine." 91 Behind this be maintains lies the fact that the Vedic poets never saw natural phenomena in their entirety, and therefore sensed that there was something beyond the purely finite aspects of these phenomena. 9 8 As far as Max Millier is concerned, in this process or development lies the key to the origin and development of Vedic deities and the concept of deity as such. Referring to the god of fire (Agni) he asserts that one can sec here as in other Vedic deities the process in which man is startled by a natural phenomenon, begins to wonder at it, guesses at its cause, and tries to express it but can do so only by speaking of an agent, a concept which in turn grows, becomes more ge~ralized and finally more incomprehensible and divine. 9 9 Rejecting the notion that belief in the gods arose from fear induced by meteorological phenomena such as thunder and lightning, Max MU1ler maintains that it was solar phenomena which stirred the imagination or Vedic poets, impressing their

MAX MULLER AND THB STUDY OF THE RG VEDA

37

minds with order and regularity, and therefore with the idea of trust. 1 oo As far as he is concerned, it is the sun which plays the central role in the development of Vedic mythology: What we call the Morning, the ancient Aryas called the Sun or the Dawn ..• What we call Noon, and Evening, and Night, what we call Spring and " 'inter, what we call Year, and Time, and Life, and Etcrllityall this the ancient Aryas called Sun. 1 o1 In addition to this theogonic process Max Miillcr detects in the .(lg-Veda, two other religions or religious aspects-the worship of the departed spirits and the belief in a divine law governing the universe. The development of these two aspects parallels the theogonic process. In the case of ancestors there was the belief that once they departed from this life they existed somewhere in another realm. 102 From common names for these ancestors, names such as pitr or preta, there developed the idea of a kind of invisible, immortal and heavenly being. 1 0 a The belief in a divine law, rta, is said to show the same development. The term originally meant "the straight line" and was applied to the regular paths and recurrences of natural phenomena. 10 • Recognition of this .regularity eventually led to the notion of a law underlying everything. 1 0 6 The progression in all three religions therefore was from common terms or appellatives applied to aspects of life, to a personification of these appcllatives.

LATER WORKS

The last years of Max Muller's life are characterii.ed by monumental works in the areas of religion, mythology, and ·philosophy. Two of these works are particularly relevant for a discussion of his views of the .(lg-Veda- his four volume work on the development of religion based on the Gifford lectures delivered from 1885-1892, and his two volume work on mythology, published in 1897. Max MUiler's first year as the Gifford lecturer resulted in a volume entitled Natural Religion published in 1889. In this volume be argues against· the view that more abstract concepts

38

MAX MULLER AND THB RO-VEDA

of superhuman beings come first, gradually being invested with differentiating qualities or attributes. His position is what it always has been, that the abstract concepts of superhuman beings evolve slowly out of concrete concepts such as dyaus, agni, vayu, and surya ; in other words, out of names f~r natural phenomena.• o 6 This applies as well, he maintains, to general terms such as deva meaning bright, vasu meaning brilliant, and asura meaning living : They are names of material objects or phenomena of nature, though all of them with the background of the infinite behind them. They lose their individual character very gradually, and in the end only stand before us as sublimized into superhuman beings or personal agencies. The germ of the superhuman, or, as I like to call it by a more general name, of the infinite element, was there from the first but it was involved as yet in sensuous perception, not yet evolved in a conceptual name. 1 o., For Max Mil1ler, this means that when the poets of the (lg-Veda celebrated the rivers, dawn, sky, etc., they were not merely celebrating the objects but also something beyond these objects, the unknown, indefinite, or infinite suggested by the objects themselves. 1 us His view then is that the numerous objects of nature bad something intangible and unknowable and therefore infinite in them which impressed itself on the mind of man to the point where man had to recognize it. 1 o 9 Based on such a developmental view Max Milller claims to see strata or stages in the development of such names in the .(lg-Veda, stages which take one from a pre-mythological understanding to a religious understanding. By pre-mythological, he means a stage in which primitive man attributed activity or agency to natural phenomena in order to explain them 1 1 o The pre-mythological is followed by the mythological stage in which the agent or activity is made into something personal by transferring to the object all that is meant by agent or activity-body, arms, legs, will, passion. 111 This is followed by the religious stage in which the personal agent develops into an immortal deity who is seen as having a particular

MAX MULLER. AND THE STUDY OP THE RG-VEDA

39

relationship to man in terms of his needs and moral behavior. 11 t In 1890 Max Millier again served as the Gifford lecturer. The result of these lectures was a volume entitled Physical Rtligion, published in 1891. His comments on the .flg·Veda in this volume begin with a concern for the antiquity of the ,8g-Veda. He sees the .8g·Veda as primitive in two ways : on the one hand it is more primitive chronologically than any other literary work, and on the other, it contains many thoughts which are intelligible in themselves and therefore require no antecedents. 11 a Max Millier argues from an inherent simplicity in many hymns of the .{lg Veda, a simplicity which is said to make the hymns natural and perfectly intelligible. 11 • To him invocations to dawn, sun, sky, fire, waters and rivers are prefectly understandable in and of themselves : ... we require no explanation why human beings s~ould have addressed the sun in the morning and evening, asking him to bring light and warmth, on which their very life depended, deprecating bis scorching rays, which might destroy their harvest and kill their cattle, and imploring him to return when he had vanished for a time and had left them helpless in cold and darkness. 11 a The same simplicity and intelligibility is applied to a concept such as rta which, for Max MUiler, clearly has its origins in the observation of regular changes of the moon, seasons, years, day and night. 11 e Further there is said to be a simplicity in moral elements of the .{lg-Veda, particularly when the relationship between man and the gods is seen in terms of barter. 11 7 Finally, Max Millier sees a ·simplicity in some of the sacrificial aspects of the .{lg-Veda, particularly where the sacrifice consists of nothing but food relished by man or where sacrifices are natural acts such as libations accompanying meals. 11 8 Beginning with simplicity, Max Millier maintains here, just as he had earlier in A History of .Ancient Sanskrit Literatuf(• that one can detect subsequent levels of thought or develop·

40

MAX MULLER AND THE RG·VEOA

ment. This applies to the gods and the idea of deity as well as to sacrifice. He argues that hymns which presuppose an advanced system of · sacrificial technicalities are later than simple and natural festive gatherings or commemorations to emphasize important divisions of the year and to insure the performance of necessary duties. 1 t9 Where we have to do with a variety of priests with technical titles, the accurate fixing of times and seasons for sacrifices, and special names for sacrificial offerings, we are dealing with developments from a simpler more natural stage. 1 2 o Max Miiller's primary example for the growth of the gods and the concept of deity is agni, a term in which he sees a development from a time when it did not refer to a god at all to a point when it refers to a supreme god as creator and ruler of the world. He sees agni as simply a term derived from a root aj which expressed human activity such as running, jumping, and moving, and used to name fire in terms of such activities. 1 t 1 Initially, therefore, the term agni simply designated an agent, but this led man to conceive of agni as something like a human or animal agent with tongues, teeth, golden hair, wings, etc. 1 ' 2 The next s~p was to see agni as a deva or bright agent, a term derived · from another root which connotes human activity-div, meaning to shine. 1 2 • For this point on, Max Millier sees it as a relatively simple matter to ttace the steps whereby agni became a god : A Deva is as yet no more than a bright agent, tben a kind agent, then a powerful agent, a more than

human agent, nay, if you like, a superhuman agent ; and then only, by another step, by what may be called a step in the dark, a divine agent. 1 u · .N ot only are we to see here the evolution of the term ag11i, but we are also to glimpse the evolution of the term deva from a word having the material meaning of brightness to a word divorced from its material background and meaning divine. 1 • 6 Max Miiller's major and final work on mythology came

in the form of a two volume series entitled ContributionJ to tM Science / Mythology published in 1897. In addressing himself

MAX MULLER. AND THI! STUDY OP THI! RG·Vl!DA

41

to the problem of the development of mythology he devoted considerable attention to the . ~g-Veda, particularly to the question of the origin and development of Vedic deities. Perhaps the only difference that lies between what is said in this work and in previous works is the profusion of examples he brings to bear on the subject. The position which he had consistently taken is summarized in the following quotation taken from his first volume on mythology : If the ancient Greeks or the Aryas of India began to ask, · whence came rain and lightning. whence sprang hail or snow, heat and cold, day and night, coming and going in regular or irregular succession, they could only speak of agents and ·workers ...H they wished to form the first names for the wind, or the fire, or the sun by names such as alone their language could produce, they had to make use of the same radical elements from which all their roots had been derived •.• they called the wind a blower, Vayu, or vi to blow; they called the sun Savitri, from su, to stir, the cloud Megha, from mib, to moisten, or Parjany.a, from· a root meaning to sprinkle, preserved in a-spergo. By creating these names they created their Devas, whose Devahood, that is whose brightness, and afterwards divinity, was but the general complement of their pbysi· cal activity. 1 t 6 Once again his argument is that natural phenomena were described in terms of human activity, and that once agency was ascribed to these phenomena it was a natural step to see them as personal and then as divine. The movement is from a metaphorical understanding of nature to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of these metaphors. To the end of his days, therefore, Max Millier argued that behind every Vedic deity there stood a physical or material background, and that this background was not entirely lost even when names given to natural phenomena became names of deities. 1 2' The physical background that concerned Max Milller was, of course, the solar background. This, he maintained, was the key to Vedic mythology and Vedic deities:

42

MAX MULLER AND THB RG•VEDA

We must be satisfied with what history teaches us, with the fact that the Vedic poets called sky, sun and moon, dawn and fire, at first deva, bright, and that afterwards they extended that name, in a more abstract sense, to other phenomena of nature such as earth, water, storm, rain, nay even night, though they cer..tainly were not bright, so that deva in the end meant something indefinable which all these agents shared in common.• 28 As in previous works, Max Muller characterizes the worship of Vedic deities as henotheism. However, he sees in the .(lg-Veda anoth~r stage which is said to be a natural development from henotheism. This stage he labels •'allelotheism." From henotheism, an anarchical stage in which many single gods exist with no special relationship to each other, and in which each god is supreme when it is invoked, one proceeds to the phase where deities begin to .run together. It is this development which Max MUiler sees as allelotheism, and it is said to be evident particularly in the running together of two deities to form dual deities.12 e The characteristic mark of bis second volume on mythology is the detailed examples which Max Millier literally piles up in order to support his contention that ancient deities, particularly those of the .(lg·V~da take their rise · principally from man's observation of solar phenomena. In keeping with his previous comments on the antiquity of the .(lg-Veda be maintains that here we can go back further than in any other Indo-European mythology because in the .(lg-Veda we are able to watch the mythopoeic process in full operation. 11 0 One of Max Miiller's arguments for the solar origin of Vedic deities and for the mythopoeic process is based on a distinction be makes between early and late deities in the .(lgVeda. He maintains, for example, that Dyaus and Varut1a were earlier deities than Indra and Agni since neither Indra or Agni are found in other Indo-European mythologies and ·a nd since Dyaus usually occupies first place whenever bis name is f o,u nd in lists of deities. 1 •1 With Dyaus as a starting point, Max Millier feels be can speak of a solar family in the

MAX MULUR AND 'IH1! STUDY OP TRB RG•V!DA

43

/.lg-Veda in the sense that many of the deities are seen as children of Dyaus. 1 at A second argument, and one that be uses frequently, is the etymological analysis of the names of Vedic deities. This, he maintains, provides us with important clues as to the origin of the deities and therefore the development of the mythopoeic process. Thus Max MUiler argues that sarar.aya is derived from the root sar which expresses the idea of rapid movement and could only apply to the quickly moving dawn. 1 a a Trta derived from tar meaning to pass is said to have reference to the passing light. 1 a4 Savitr derived from su meaning to enliven, to excite, or to beget, is said originally to have been a name for the sun. 1 u Finally, Max Millier· argues that the attributes and activities of the deities become intelligible when explained by way of the solar drama. For example, the myths surrounding Saravyu are said to become intelligible if she is seen as representing the earliest glimmer of light, the moment when night and morning meet. 1 a 8 The Asvins arc said to be understandable only if seen as exhibiting light and darkness, or day and night. 1 a.1 Yama, the god of death, is said to find his explanation in the daily sun which is the first to die and therefore to become the pathfinder for mortals. 1 a8 Likewise, the conquest and liberation of the cows is to be seen as no more than a simple description of nature-the coming and going of the light. 13 ~ Max MUiier's argument therefore remains, that the deities of the /.lg-Veda and the mythologies surrounding these deities find ther origin in man's apprehension of the physical universe, and more particularly of the solar aspects of this universc. 1 ' 0 In 1899 approximately a year before his death, Max MUiier wrote a two volume work entitled Auld Lang Syne. In the second volume he devotes considerable space to a discussion · of the ~g-Veda and individual hymns within the /.lg-Veda. These reminiscences provide a good summary of his previous observation& on the /.lg-Veda. To begin with, Max Millier is concerned with the age of the ~g-Yeda, maintaining that it is older than any literary com-

44

MAX . MULLER AND THE kG-VEDA

position of any Aryan nation, that no other · religion has ·been preserved in written material as old as this. 141 Of more importance than chronological age for him is the simplicity and naturalness he detects in the .(lg-Veda, a simplicity and naturalness which attests to its intellectual age. 14 2 Max Millier claims that we find in the .(lg-Veda the kind of thoughts we would expect from unsophisticated observers who not only saw the natural phenomena but also sensed that there were powers or persons behind nature, directing its coursc. 14 a As he bas . stated in previous works, for Max MUiler this simplicity and naturalness means that in the .(lg-Veda we are nearer to the beginnings of religion and mythology than anywhere else.144 For Max Millier the Vedic deities are physical in origin, that is, they have their origin in man's observations of nature and, in particular, solar phenomena. His assertions of this so-called solar theory reach a crescendo in this work. Thus he pronounces with certainty : We know now, and we know it chiefty from the lessons t~ught us by the Veda, that our Aryan mythology, and to a certain extent our Aryan religion also, took its origin from a poetical interpretation of the great phenomena of 'nature, personified and named as the chief agents of the eternal physical drama, enacted bcfore us every day, every month, every season, every year .••••• 14 r, By the eternal physical drama be means regularly recurring events such as the coming and going of day and night or light and darkness rather than exceptional events such as meteors, earthquakes, and eclipses. 1 4 e In order to support this viewpoint he addresses himself to a number of hymns and deities in the .(lg- Veda. The deities discussed arc much the same as those which appeared as examples in Contributions to the Science of Mythology. The argument is simply that deities such as the Asvins, U~as, Sivitr Agni, Varuva, and Mitra, have their origin in man's observation and poetical interpretation of light and its constant struggle with darkness. 14 7 Max Mtiller secs this as fact, not theory, insisting that this broad interpretation has never been called 1

MAX MULL'Ell AND 'IHB ITUEJY OP THE llG·VJ!DA

45

into question by anyone with a knowledge of Greek, Latin, and Vedic Sanskrit. 14 8 So sure is he of his position that he concludes: If anybody, after reading these few hymns, selected quite at random, can still doubt whether the Solar Theory is the only possible theory to account for these Vedic deities, and in consequence, for the Aryan deities connected with them by name or character, I have nothing more to say. I doubt the existence of such a pe15on. He must in very truth be a solar myth. 1 '9 ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF THE CH&ONOLOOICAL SURVEY

Max Muller's Preoccupation with

th~

Qg-Veda

The chronological survey shows that Max MUiier's preoccupation with the Qg-Veda continued unabated throughout his life. This applies without exception to all .periods of his life. From the time he began his work under Burnouf in 1845 to the time of his death in 1900 he continued to return to the Qg·Yeda as a favorite subject. It might be argued that his direct involvement with the Qg-Veda comes to an end after he had completed his final volume of the Qg-Veda in 1873. Or, one might take the position that he was deflected from his interests in the ~g-Veda when he was given the chair in Comparative Philology in 1860. In fact, Max Millier himself takes the position that his duties as professor of comparative philology forced him to neglect tbe ~g·Yeda. 160 However, this must be seen as a neglect only in terms of the time Max Miiller would have liked to have spent on the Qg·Yeda, for the record speaks for itself. The chronologicai survey shows that he kept returning to the Qg-Veda in his major works on mythology, religion, language, and thought, .to the point that his discussion of the .{lg-Veda forms a major part of these works. In addition there arc the numerous essays and lectures delivered throughout England and the continent which point to the fact that Max Millier maintained a lively interest in the Qg-Veda· to the end of his life. 1 61 The Qg-Veda functions therefore, as an all-pervading presence in the life and work

46

MAX MULLF.R AND TH! RG•VIDA

of Max Millier to the point that towards the end of his life he could refer to it as an old friend. 11111 The Nature and the Development of the .(lg-Veda

A constant theme in Max Muller's treatment of the .(lg-Veda is the age of the work. In his estimation, it is the oldest monument of ..speech and thought in the ''Aryan" world. In the introduction to his translation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he states that the thought of the Aryan world begins in the .(lg-Veda and ends in .Kant. 16 8 He also soes it as the oldest ''book,'' predating any books from ancient Greece, Rome, or China, and older than Zend Avesta, the Buddhist Canon and the Old Testament. 111 • More important, the primitiveness of thought in the .(lgV eda is said to take us closer to the cradle of speech and thought than does any other book or form of research ; ... there exists no literary relic that carries us back to a more primitive, or, if you like, more childlike state in the history of man.than the Veda. 11111 This primitiveness is to be seen in fears that the sun might tumble from the sky 1118 alid the confl)sion of natural manifestations with agents behind those manifestations, 1117 and in the simple desires of vedic man for food, wealth, power, large families and long iife.111 e However, the .(lg-Veda, according to Max ·Miiller, .js not all of one piece. It is an edited work co~taining relics of various ages. Thus he states that one of the tasks of the vedic researcher is to distinguish between the more ancient and more modern hymns in the R.g•Veda. 1119 The .(lg-Veda as we have it today is seen by Max Millier to be the· work 0f a "superintending spirit'' under which. the ancient hymns were collected, classified, and imitated. 16 0 However, he maintains that such editing has not been able to obscure the spontaneity, naturalness, and originality of more ancient hymns. 1 61 In part, therefore; the .{lg-VeJa is seen to derive from a period prior to its composition; a period in which man reacted spontaneously and poetically . to the confrontation · with · the from. · the period.. wonders of nature. In part, it is seen to derive ......

\

MAX MULLER AND THE STODY OP TH! RO-V!DA

47

of its composition, a period in which ancient hymns were not {)nly collected and classified, but also imitated. On the whol~ however, the composition of the .(lg-Vet/a is not to be seen as .belonging to ~the period of elaborate or well-developed sacrificial systems. It is said to have a character which separates it from later documents like the Yajur Veda, Sama-Veda and the Brahma~as. Max Ml!_llcr would rather have us see the Jjlg-Veda· as a transitional document ascribing its composition to ... a less practical age than. that of the Brahmatta period,. to an age not entirely free from the trammels of a ceremonial, yet not completely enslaved by a system of mere formalitits ; to an age no longer creative and impulsive, yet not without some power of upholding the traditions' of a past that spoke to a later generation of men through the very poems which they were collecting with so much zeal and accuracy. 1 e' In short, therefore, Max Miiller's position is that the {lgVeda is evolutionary in character. His descriptions of its various aspects are pointed in one direction, to show development. Not only ·is .the content within the .(lg-Veda seen in terms of development, but the document as a whole is seen as transitional. This evolutionary view point as it relates to the content of the .(lg-Veda is evident first of all in the broad distinction Max Millier makes between the chandas and mantra periods of thought, a distinction that is already contained in the 18S9 publication of A · History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. The hymns of the chandas period are said to be simple, natural and spontaneous invocations of natural ·phenomena ; in other words, the kind of response one would expect from primitive man as he observed nature. 181 However, even the hymns "' bclotlging to the chandas period are to be divided into two consecutive periods. There are the earliest hymns, the simple and natural invocations of nature which are totally unrelated to sacrifice, and which are, in fact, a prerequisite for the possibility of sacrifice. 1 e i These early' hymns are then followed by simple and spontaneous sacrifices as yet unfettered by artificial, elaborate, and fixed ceremonial and ritual. 1 6 6

48

MAX MULLER ANO THI RO·V8DA

The chandas period is foil owed by the mantra period which is characterized by a lack of originality, freedom, and spontaneity. The hymns of this period exhibit a superintending spirit in the order, construction, a 1d imitation of hymns, and in the elaboration of sacrificial and priestly elements. Therefore, the basic distinction made by Max Muller, between the cbandas and mantra periods is that between simple and technical, or complex, with the simple preced~ng the technical. He states with referenee to ·sacrifice : But when these sacrifices are mentioned with their technical names, when morning, and noon, and evening prayers arc spoken of as first, second, and third libations, we feel that we move in a different atmos· phere, and that listening to priests rather than pocts. 1 6 8 An evolutionary schema is also evident in Max Muller's treatment of the Vedic deities. As was seen in the chronolo· gical survey, he claims that we can see the whole pantheon of Vedic deities rising before our eyes. 1 u H this is the case then one should also be able to distinguish between early and late deities, a distinction Max Mill'er feels quite free to make. First, on the basis of comparative philology, he separates the deities that were common to the Indo-Europeans before the separation into northern and southern branches from deities that are peculiarly Indian. 1 6 s Second, in terms of activity, inactive deities like Dyaus are said to be older than the more personal active deities like Indra. 1 6 .9 Finally the more concrete deities arc to be seen as earlier than the more abstract conceptions. 1 7 o The growth of individual deities is also seen in evolutionary terms. Max Millier claims. to be able to trace the gradual growth of the names of individual deities through three steps. The first step is to name natural phenomena in terms of human activity. The intent of such names is not only to name the physical appearance and activity &f ,these phenomena as such, but also to express man's awareness of something behind and beyond nature. 1 1 1 This is applied particularly to the case of man's attempt to come to grips with semi-tangible or intangible objects. Max Millier maintains that the hymns of the }.lg-Veda are addressed to semi-tangible and intangible

MAX MULLER AND THI! STUDY OP THB RO-VEDA

49

objects since these could not be entirely grasped by the senses and therefore contained something of the invisible or infinite within them. 1 n Evidence for this first step is seen in the appellative use of names which later become names of deities. Thus Max Millier· maintains that the deities of the Indians, as well as the deities of the Greeks and Romans, were originally nothing but poctic81 names or metaphors which were gradually allowed to assume a distinct personality. 17 • The names of the Vedic deities are therefore seen to derive from roots expressing a consciousness of human activity and predicated of natural objects and phenolilena. 1 ' ' The iecond step is the hardening of these metaphors or appellatives into proper names with distinct personalities. Terms or names which designate natural phenomena llS active powers or agents become names of personified powers· or mythological beings. Such a step is seen as the result of a complete misunderstanding of the metaphors or epithets which were originally applied to natural pbenomena. 1 1 6 However, this is also to be seen as a natural step or transition, for once agency was ascribed to natural phenomena, personification was bound to follow. Max MUiier states of primitive man: He never dreams at first, because the river is called a defender, that therefore the river has legs, and arms, and weapons of defence ; or that the moon, becaus~ he divides and measures the sky, is a carpenter. Much of this misunderstanding will arise at a later time. 171 The third step is for purely ·mythological beings or personal agents to become immortal deities. This is again to be seen as a natural and inevitable development. Max MUiier using the example of Usas, states in his discussion of natural religion : This will show you bow language, by the mere f ormation of a certain class of words, leads us on to myth, and from myth to religion. Ushas, the bright devi~ has now become Ushas, the immortal, and after that step has been taken, what is more natural than that she should have become an alternative centre for other religious sentiments and thought.~ 7 7 4

so

MAX MULLER AND THB RG•V!DA

Later in his magnum opru on mythology, he states that the ancient Indo-Europeans created their gods by creating names for natural phenomena, and that the brightness and finally the divinity attributed to these gods was merely the complement of their physical activity. 1 vs The evolution of the individual deities of the Q.g- Vtda is always the same. The movement is always from metaphorical names to mythological boings and finally to divinities. Max Millier ·sees the.people of the .(lg-Veda as creating their gods by naming natural phenomena as agents, by giving these agents a penonal character, and finally by raising them to a status of deity through praise and worship. 1 ., 9 The background for the Vedic deities is, in Max MUiier's eyes, always physical. It is the semi-tangible and intangible objects or more particularly, the solar phenomena that stand behind the Vedic deities. This physical background, however, is said to drop away as metaphorical names are changed to mythological and divine beings. The movement, therefore, is always from the material or physical to the spiritual or immaterial, from the visible to the invisible, from simple to complex and from the concrete to the abstract or more general concepts. The Vedic deities are seen, by Max Millier, to begin as agents of natural phenomena and, as they lose their physical background, to become moral or ethical beings who are creators, omniscient, and omnipotent. Thus he states of the Q.g-Veda : We have thus seen what I wished to show you, a real transition from the visible to the invisible, from the bright beings, the Devas, that could be touched, like the thunder, that could be setn, like the sun, to the . DeYas or gods that could no longer be touched, or heard, or seen. 1 8 0 In terms of his analysis of the careers of individual deities Max MUiier, therefore, perceives successive stages of development in the thought of the ~g-Veda. The premythol~gical or metaphorical stage refers to the use of the names of Vedic deities as appellativcs, or metaphorical expressions f.or natural phenomena. This stage itself is said to point to a preceding period of intellectual development which caQ be reconstructed

MAX MUI.I.ft AND THB STUDY OP THE RO-VEDA

S1

on the basis of comparative philoloay. 1 8 1 The second stage · is the mythological stage in which appellatives are hardened into personal beings.because of a misundentanding of words. The third staae is the religious, a phase in which mythological beings '*'>me divine immortal beinp with an ethical relationship to man. This third phase Max Mtiller labels henotheism. The term. as be uaes it, is also evolutionary in character. It refers to a stage which is characurized by an unsystematic wonhip of deities and a chaotic relationship among deities. Within this stage Max Millier sees certain evolutionary trends in the direction of systematization and further abstraction and complexity. There is fint, the development of allelotheism in the running together of deities to form dual deities. 1 '2 Second, there is the tendency toward making one god · supreme as in the polytheistic systems of Greece and Rome. 181 Third, Max Mtiller sees tendencies towards monotheism in hymns which express the unity of the divine, 1 u and in terms of names such as Vi,vakarman, Visvedevas, and Prajapati. 1 ea Finally, Max · Millier sees in the notion of the absolute beyond concepts of gender and personality, a dissatisfaction with all attempts to personify the divine. This development is referred to as mon- . ism, or a philosophical trend, and is said to be clearly evident in hymns 1.164 and 4.129.181 It is important to note that Max MUiier sees these developments as tendencies or trends and therefore not as .fully developed stages. This means that the .fl1-Yeda itself, as a representative of henotheism par excellence, is to be seen as a transitional document. It is the precursor of the polytheism of Greek and Roman mythology and, as such, an indispensible link for the study of the origin and development of mythology aad reJiaion.117

In Mu MUiier's analysis of the .{lg- Veda we are presented with an evolutionary process which exhibits a number of out- · standing characteristics. M we have seen, in aeneral it is a · development from simple to complex, from concrete to abstract, . from the material to the spiritual, and from lower·to higher.~ 81 · Further, this process i~ ·to be seen as natural, intelligible ·

52

MAX MULLl!R. AND TH'I! llO•VBDA

and inevitabie. First,· Max Millier argues that what we see in the /.l.g·V~da is derived totally from man's sense perceptions~ He maintains further that the /.l.g·V eda exhibits a continuous process in the sense that the various stages are to be -seen as direct results of.preceding stages. Finally, Max Miiller insists that the process is purposeful.· A clear expression of this is found in the following comment concerning the /.l.g·V~da. We enter into a new world-not always an attractive · one, · least of all to · us ; but it possesses one charm, it is real, it is of natural growth, .and like everything of natural growth, I believe it had a hidden purpose, and was intended to teach us some kind of lesson that is worth learning, and that certainly .we could learn · nowhere else. 1 8 9 Max Muller's comnients on the .(lg-Veda remain remarkably consistent throughout his works. · In bis earlier works he enunciated certain basic themes which he then devdoped in his later writings. Already· in 1853 he had stated those ideas which were to be the framework for his discussions of the .(lg-Veda: the '.(lg-Veda as a product of the earliest phases in the intellectual development of man ; the gods of the /.l.g-Yeda as products of man's attempts to name natural phenomena; the distinction between older and secondary materials in the ~g­ Veda. By the end of 1856 he had laid the groundw.ork for his theory of solaris~. Finally in 1865 he had named the stage of religious and mythological development represented by the /.l.g-Veda as henotheism. However, what ·was meant by henotheism had already been stated in the 1856 essay on mythGlogy. In spite of opposition Max MUiler changed neither his position on the importance: of the .(lg-Veda for mythological and religious development nor his views on the development of thought withia the 8g-Vtda." He was clearly aware of theories which contradicted bis emphasis oli. the primary impor· tance of the ~g-Veda, theories which sought the orisin of mythology and religion in fetishism, totemism, and animism. His position was that such developmeats themselves required antece'.leots to explain how tangible objects could become, in

MAX MULLER AND THE STUDY OP THE llG-VEDA

53

the eyes of the beholder, more than tangible objects, and these antecedents were to be found in the f.lg·Veda.uo In particular, bis solar theory came under severe attack. Otto Gruppe, while conceding that some Vedic myths did arise in the fashion described by Max MUiler, insisted that myths are complex poetic . creations in which anything that could arouse the human heart could find expression. 1 91 Andrew Lang stated that. Max Millier first published his ideas on the origin of mythology at a time when little was known of primitive races. 1 9 9 Against Hillebrandt's emphasis on lunar mythology in the /Jg-Veda Max Milller warns that the moon is not the most important ingredient of Vedic mythology.19a As the following quotation highlights, Max MUiler's position was made the subject of parody: Name are stubborn things, and those who imagine they can dispute away their evidence by joking on Mr. John Bright as a solar hero, forget that in ancient times, to say nothing of mythological periods, names were not what they arc with us, inherited, accidental, and meaningless, but r~al cognomina, given with a purpose, which purpose it is for us to discover. 19 • Max MUiler himself was accused of being a sun myth. 1 »& It seems that his response to such attacks was not to change his position but rather to assert it more emphatically. Thus, toward the end of his life he states : That people who know the Veda should ever doubt the prevalence of solar ideas in Vedic hymns, and the survival of some of them in the mythologies of other Aryan speakers, I consider simply impossible. However ready some of us may be to listen to what Maoris and Hottentots have to tell us, nothing will shake our conviction that the substance of the Vedic and most of the Aryan gods is physical. 1 If• So sure was be of this position that he doubted the existence of anyone who would seriously question the aolar theory. 197

NOTES AND REFERENCES I. F. Max Muller, Chips From 11 Gmnan Workshop {New York : Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891), I, pp. 67-68. 2. Ibid., p. 68. . 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. S. Ibid. 6. Ibid., p. 72. 7. I/rid. 8. n;d.,p. 11. 9. An extreme example of opposition to solar ism is found ·in the introduction to F. Max Muller, ComJ>araliDI Mytlwloo. edited by A. Smythe (London : George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1909), where Max Muller is accused of beina a sun myth. Max Muller himself mates reference to opposition in Sll.eud Essays on La11guage, Myt""1ov and R1ligion (London : Loagmaas, Greco and Co., 1881), I , p. 56S ; The Stinace of la1'guag• (Now York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891 ) II. pp. S28-29 ; Ardd Lang Syrw, Second Series. pp. 2'2-53. 10. F. Mall Muller, Chips From 11 German Workshop (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893), II, p. 7S. 11 . Ibid., pp. 7S·76. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., p. 76. 14. To support this view, Mu Muller refers to a number of names in the Rt-Veda, terms such as ahana, thotand and urvasi, claiming that orisinally they were simply appellatives for dawn. The same development is applied to terms such as arvat, rohita, and 11rwha. They arc said ori1inally to have boon adjectives, uaed to ellplain the sun. which in time come to be personified as deities or supernatural beings. Soc Chips. II. pp. S0.106 and 129-36. ts. Max Muller refers to Indra as the chief solar deity in the RgVeda and interprets the legends of Indra as derived from stories concernina the interaction between sun and dawn, or tho sun and darkness. Soe particularly his treatment of Rg-V•da IV. 30 in Chips II, p. 91. See also his treatment or the story or Urvasi and Pururavas in Chips, 11, pp. 97-125. He claims that the explanation for the story lies in short proverbial e•pressions describing natural phenomena. 16. Ibid., pp. 93 -94. 17. Ibid., pp. 96-97. 18. 16id., p. 98. 19. The terms cbandas and mantra are used by Ma:1 Muller to refer to two successive period in the Rg-V•da. Windisch makes tho obser•atioo that mantra refers to the sacred vera and fonnulae in the second period of' tho Rg-Yeda white cbandat rorors to·an earlier period in which the vedic hymns wore recited in metric form. See E. Windisch, Gescliicltl• D1r S1J11Skrit Philologie 111'14 Indisclun Altertumskunde (Berlin~ Waller DcGruytcr and Co., 1920), Zweiter Teil, p. 281.

MAX MUl.LEll AND "THE STUDY OP TH1! RG·VEDA

SS

20. F. Max Muller, .4 History of Ancitlll S01Ulcril Litnoture (Varanasi : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1968), p. 417. 21. Ibid., p. 453. 22. Ibid., pp. 422-23. 23. Ibid., pp. 423 -2S. 24. ll>id., p. 42S. 2S. Jl>;d., p. 437. 26. Ibid., pp. 437-38. 28. Ibid., p. 443. 27. Ibid p. 440. 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid., p. 447. See particularly Max Muller's discussion of hymns J. 10, Ill. 36 and V. 44 on pp. 447-48. 31. Ibid., pp. 448-SO. See particularly the discussion of hymns I. 84, Ill. 28 and Vlll. 2. See also Physical Religion (London : Lonamans, Green, and Co., 1891), p. IOS for a discussion of hymn X. 90 where Max Muller states that the distinction between rile (verse), saman (sona) and7aju1 (sacrificial formulae) points to an advanced or dearaded and

artificial sacrificial system. 32. l/JUJ., p . 507. In this connection Max Muller translates hymn I. 162 as a clear example of a later hymn. See pp. S07-10. 33. 16id., p. 485. 34. Ibid., p. 481. 35. Ibid., p. 428. 36. Ibid., p. 436. 37. 16id., p. 481. On pp. 486-96 Max Muller provides us with some examples of simple and natural hymns unrelated to sacrifical practices. Hymn VII. 30 for example is seen as a simple invocation to gain from the gods help, blessinp and protection. It is said to be primitive since it does not display any warmth of feeling or power or expression, and since it is attributed to Manu Vaivasvata. Hymns I. 25, VII. 86 and VII 89 to Varuna are seen as simple confessions and prayers for parJon unrelated to sacrifice. 38. Ibid., p. 506. In the case of dawn, Max Muller eees- a transition from the alleaorical description of dawn to dawn seen as a aoddess. The alleaorical description includes seeina dawn as a friend of man, a young wife, a dauahter of the sky, and aa bringing wealth. Dawn as divine is said to assume the characteristics of Dyaus. See p. 503. 39. Ibid., pp. 507-10. 40. See the discussion of the mantra period, pp. 30-33. 41. See the discussion of sacrifice in A History of Aneilnl Sanskrit Lite• ratur1, pp. 443-51. 42. Ibid., pp. 510-12. 43. F. Mu Muller, Tiu Scinru of LonptJp (7th ed. ; New York: Charles Scribner's Sona, 1891), II, p. S21. Accordina to Mu Muller, this edition contaiDI no substantial cbanaes from the first edition. 44. lbii., p. 522. 45. ltUI. 46. . Ibid. 47. Ibid., pp. 522--23. 48. Ibid., p. 538. 49. Ibid., p. S3_9• . 50. lbil. S2. 16i4., p. S68.

St. ltid.,. pp. S42-~3. A particular example is the term tkv11 which Max

56

MAX MULLBa AND THB aG·VEDA

Muller insists, should at times be translated as briaht or brilliant rather than aod or divine . S3. Ibid., p. SSL 54. Ibid., pp S68-69. SS. Ibid., p. S86. S6. For example, the myth surroundina Sarama it seen as the reproduction of the broak: of day (see pp. 578-84). Sarameya is inter· preted as the first peep of the day (see pp. 59().94). Saranyu is said to be another name for dawn (see pp. S91-iJ. 9 J. JbiJ•• p. 109. 92. 16id., p. 11 l. 93. ll>id., p. 147. 94. Ibid., pp. 143 46. 9S. 16id. p. 147. 96. Ibid., p. IS8. 97. Ibid., p. lS9. 98. 16id. 99. Ibid., p. 178. 100. Ibid., p. 179. 101. Ibid., p. 198. 102. Ibid., p. 219. 103. 16id., p. 220. 104. Ibid., p. 224. lOS. Ibid. 106. F. Max Muller, Natural Relifion, pp. 127-21. 107. Ibid., p. 130. 108. Ibid., pp. 144·46. 109. Ibid., pp. I SO-SJ. 110. Ibid., pp. 388-90. 111. /hid., p 406. 112. 16id., p. 410. A concrete example of these stages is presented in Max Muller's treatment of Usas, (pp. 430-34). He sees the term as

derived from the root oas and contends therefore that Usas was originally an appellative meaning ''the shiner." This agent developed into a personal entity. such as.a possessor of chariots, horses, Iiaht, and stables. a child of the parents heaven and earth, a mother or cows, and a bride with a beautiful body and faultless limbs. Such mytbo· logical conceptions. Max Muller maintains, contain reliaious aerms in that Usas is seen as always tho same, always returning, ever young, and never dying. Consequently, the mythological conception of Usas is said to be followed by a religious conception in which she is seen as immortal deity. 113. F . Max Muller, Physual Religion, pp. lS-16. His arguments for the chronoloaical antiquity of tho Rg-Yeda are found on pp. 92-97. Ho begins with the dates or Asoka and the Council at Patallputra in the third century B. c., arauing 'that available information would place the Buddha in the sixth century B. C. The Buddha, he argues, prosupposos the Brabmanas and the Upanisads. Allowin11 approximately 200 years for the development of each he places the Rg-Y1dtJ prior to 1000 B. C. 114. Ibid., pp. 98-99. us. Ibid. , p. 99. 116. lbiJ. 117. 16id., p. 100. 118. Ibid., pp. 100 and 110-11. 119. Ibid., pp. lOS-13. 120. 16id, p. tl3. 121. 16id., pp. 124-26. 122. 16UI,, pp. 127-28. 123. Ibid., pp. 134-3S. 124. Ibid., p. 136. 12S. Ibid., p. 138. 126. F. Max Muller, Contributions to tlu Sci111&f of M.1lholo1J, I, pp. 112-13. 127. See his discussion of various deities such as Mitra, Varona, A1Di. Indra, the Asvins, and the term rhoa on pp. 119-44.

58

MAX MULLER AND THB RG-VllDA

I 28. Ibid., p. l 19. 129. Ibid., p. 14S. As examples Max Muller points out that there are eleven hymns addressed to the dual deity Jndra1ni and that the same stories come to be told of different deities. Thus Aani is said to have the same father as Indra, is offered Soma, a drink aeoerally associated with Indra, and is helped by the Maruts who are generally seen as helpers of Indra. 130. F. Mu Muller, Conlriiutiou lo t/11 Sci1nu of Mytl.ology (New York: Lonamans, Green, and Co., 1897), II, pp. 424-30. 131. Ibid., pp. 492-96. 132. /hid., pp. 529-30.. Max MuUer speaks of Usas as the dauahter of Dyaw, of the Asvins as descendents of Dyas, and of the Maruls, .Agni, Indra, Parjanya, Surya, .Apoh, and Osadhis as sons of Dy:iw. I 33. Ibid.; p. 610. 134. Ibid, pp. 661-66. 135. Ibid., pp. 820-23. These are but a few of the many examples found throughout the second volume of Contributions to tht ScUn&1 of Mythology.

136. Ibid., pp. 541-64. 137. Ibid.~ pp. SS8-S9. 138. lbid., pp. 563-71. 139. Ibid., pp. 761-65. 140. Max Muller, is clearly aware that there aro Vedic deities whose names express abstractions such as qualities and who therefore appear to have no physical antecedents. He ar&UC9 however, that they have a physical foundation in tho &onae that they aro abstract cooceptions which have become deified because they were arafted on to primary gods which have a decidedly physical character. See particularly his treatment of Tvashtr, Dhatr, Tratr, and Mrtyu on pp. 817-20. 141. F. Max Muller, .Auld Lang S.Jne, Second Series, pp. 187-88 and 207·08. 142. ll>id., p. 188. 143. lbitl., p. 209. 144. Ibid., pp. 207-09. Max Muller laments the fact that mythologists tend to ignore the existence or the Rg-Y1da (ace p. 199) and claims that the study of the Rg-Y1da has laid to rest theories which interpret mytholoay as vestiges or moral teaching, fragments of the Old Testament, recollections or savaaery and survival of magic, or which find origins of mythology in fetishism, totemism and shamanism (see pp. 211-22). 145. Ibid., p. 212. 146. Ibid., pp. 209-10. 148. Ibid., p. 248. 147. Ibid., pp. 217-45. ISO. Ibid., p. 186. 149. Ibid., pp. 252-53. ISi. In adition to the works cited in the chroooloaial survey there are other that could be mentioned : an essay on "Caste" written in 1858 and appearing in Chips, Vol. II; the translation of Rig-Vida Pratisakhya published in 1869; a lecture on the "Philosophy of Mytholoay" doliverod at the Royal lns~itute in 1871 and appearin1 in Chi/'s, Vol. V; The Wostminisrer lecture ··on Missions" delivered in 1873

MAX MULLER AND TRI! STUDY OP TH! ltG-VBDA

59

and appearing in Cltips, Vol. IV; the opeoin1 address to tho Aryan section of tho International Congrcu or Oriontalists in 1874, appcarina in Cmps, Vol. IV ; an essay on "Solar Mytholoay" appcarin1 in S1u,hd Essa7s published in 1881 ; Bwgraphus of Words anti tlu Home of the A,,as published io 1888; V1di& H7mtts, a translation or hymns to tho Maruts appearing as Vol. XXXU of tho Sat:r1tl B~ of th. East in I 891 ; "Vcdische Mythologio" appoarina in the Q."4ttnl,7 &ow in 1893.

152. F. Max Muller, Aul4 Lang S7tte, Second Series, p. 186. IS3. Kant, Critiqru of Pun &ason, LXXVII. IS4. F. Max Muller,/ Point to India, p. 60. ISS. F. Max Muller, Chips From a Gmnan Workshofl, IV, pp. 3·4. 156. P . Max Muller, M7 Auto6iografJli7, A Fragmnt, p. 196. IS7. P. Max Muller, India, What Ca11 It T1ad1 Us ? p. 139. IS8. P. Max Muller, Chips I, pp. 67-69. 159. P. Max Muller, TM Scinie1 of Rtlition, p. 18. 160. F. Max Muller, History of A"'ient Sanskrit Lit,,ature, p. 417. 161. ll>id., p. 436. 162. Ibid. 163. Il>id., p. S06. Sec also India, What Ca It T1aeli Us ·?, p. 108. 164. Max Muller argues that simple invocations. i. o. prayen, must exist first in order ror a sacrificial system, whether simple or elaborate, to become a possibility. Soc Auld Lang S7M, Second Series. pp. 214-IS, ContribMtions lo lht Scien" of M7tholn17, II, pp. 4S3-S4, and Natural R.tligiu, pp. 182-87. 16S. F'. Max Muller, Ph7sical Rlligin, pp. 110-13. 166. F. Max Muller, A History nf Anmrat Sanskrit Literatar1, p. 4SO. 167. F. Max Muller, Origin and Growth of R1ligiora, p. 205. 168. On this basis Max Muller places Dyaus. Usas, Nakta. Surya. Agni. Bhaga, Varuna, Vach. the Maruts, and Parjanya prior to Indra. See India, Whal Can It Teach Us?, pp. 182-83. 169. Ibid., pp. 16:>-62. 170. F. Max Muller, Contributions to the Stimu of M:1tlaology, II, pp. 817· 19. For example, Max Muller places deities like Indra (causer of rain), Vac (spc~b), Sraddha (faith) and Aramati (devotion) in a secondary sta1e of Vedic religion. 171. F. Max Muller, Natural R.tligion, p. 130. 172. See the discussion or tangible, scmi·tangible, and lntangiblo objects in Origin and Growth of &ligion, pp. 168-219. Max Muller claims to see two classes or deities in the Rg·Vtda : semi-deities bas~ on scmitangible objects, and deities based on ·i ntangible objects. The semi· deities are said not to assume tho dramatic character or deities who havo their roundation in the less tan1iblc, less audible, and less visible phenomena. 173. P. Max Muller, Tll4 Sci1nc1 of Languag1 (New Y()rk: Charles Scribncr•s Sons, 1891), I, p. 11.

60

MAX MULLER AND THE RG•VEDA

174. F. Max Muller, Natwal /Uligion, pp. 388-90. See also the discussion of the appellative use of names such as Vayu, Vata. Marut, Parjanya, Savitr, U~as. Prthivi, and Dyava-prtbivi in Scienee of la11g111Jge, II, p. S22. 11S. F. Max Muller, T/'4 Sc~e of Mythology, I, p. 69. 176. F. Max Muller, Origin ad Growth of Religion, pp. 183-84. See also the discussion of Usa$ in Natwal &liglon, pp. 431-32. 177. F. Max Muller, Natural &ligion, p. 433. 178. F. Max Muller, Contributions to t/'4 Seima of Mythology, I, pp. 112-13.

179. Ibid., p. 278. 180. F. Max Muller, Origin and Growth of Religion, p. 207. The same evolutionary schema is applied to the term uva. Max Muller insists that it could only develop after the gods were divested of the .c haracteristic differences rooted in their physical and mythological attributes taec Natural Religion, pp. 130 and 574). He maintains further that the development of a aeneral term such as uoa was necessary before abstract conceptions such as death, speech, and faith could be raised to the status of deity ~sec Contribu_tions to tlu Scienc~ of M>thology, II, p. 817). 181. F. Max Muller, Contributions to the Science of Mytholo1,y, II, pp.

445·48. 182. See Contributions to the Scienu of Myt/aolov, I, p. 14S. See also footnote 2, p. S9. 183. See Origin ond· Growth of &ligion, pp. 279-81 and Contributions to ··t/'4 Scienu of Mytleolog1, ), pp. 146-47. 184. See the treatment of Rg-Veda I. 164. 46, X~ 114. S, and X. 121 in ChiJ>S, I, pp. 28·3~ and India, What Con It Teaeh Us?, p. 144. 185. F. Max Muller, Six SJsl1ms of Indian Philosoph,J (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1899), pp. S1-S9. 186. Ibid., pp. 63-6S. The same trend is aeco in Rg-Vedo III. S4. 8 and X- 82. See also the disc~ssion of I. 62, I. 63 and I. l lS in A History of A11eilnt Sanskrit Liuralur1, pp. 18-19. 187. See The Scimu ~f Religion, p. S2 and The Sci1nc1 of ,Language, II, p. 521. 188. Max MuUer recognizes the possibility of a relapse from tho spiritual to the material-sec Sci1nu of &ligion, pp. 118-19. However, such relapecs are to be seen as part of the process since ,arowth is achieved only throuah struagle and defeat-ace Thi Upanishads, Vol. I of TM Socr1d Books 'JI tlu &st (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879), ui. 189. F. Max Muller, India, What Can It Tea,ch Us?, p. 97. 190. Sec The Origin and Growth of &ligion, pp. 191-92 and Contri6Mtfons to thl Scilnu of Mytltoloo. I, pp. 194-201 and 208-13. 191.. Otto Oruppe, ••Review of Max Muller's Contributio11s to tlu Scilt1&1 of M,,lholop,'' .Archivfar Religionswissnuchaft, Bd II (1899), pp. 269-71.

MAX MULLER. AND THB STUDY OP THE R.G·Vl!DA

61

192. A. Lana, ••Theories of Muller," Contemporary Rtvi1w, LXXVIII (December, 1900), p. 78. 193. F. Max Muller, ••Vcdische Mytbologie," QuarttrZ,, Rlww, CLXXVII (October, 1893), p. 453. 194. F. Max Muller, S1uct1d Essays on Language, Mythology, and Religion, I, p. 565. 195. F. Max Muller, ComJ•atiDI M7tlullov, edited by A. Smythe, Introduction. vii and uxl-xlvii. 196. F. Max Muller. Contributions to 11" Scimu of M7thofog1, I, pp. S28-29. 197. F. Max Muller, Auld Lang Syt11, Second Series, pp. 252·53.

CHAPTEll

Ill

MAX MOLLER AND THE SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY

IN 1856 in bis preface to the third volume of the .flg·Vtda Samhita and in his essay entitled "Comparative Mytholoo,'' Max Miillcr atatca uocquivoaally that there must be a relation· ship between the study of mythology and the study of the .(lg-Veda. For him, the study of the .fl1· Yeda was essential for the study of comparative mythology. 1 In his "Lecture on the Vedas" delivered in 1865 be states: ••. the religion and incipient mythology of the Veda possess the same simplicity and transparency which distinguish the grammar or Sanskrit from Greek, Latin or German Grammar. We can watch in the Veda ideas and their names growing, which in Penia, Greece, and Rome we meet with only as full-grown or as fast decaying. t The concern of this chapter is to investigate the relationship which Max Millier secs between the study of the .(lg-Veda and the study of mythology. In general we shall ask the following questions : how does Max Millier define mythology? ; what is bis view of the origin and development of mythology? ; what docs he sec as important in the study of mythology ? In particular, with reference to this last question, we shall ask what Max Millier secs as the role of the .(lg-Yeda in the science of mythology. Max MUiier's principal works on the science of mythology are his two essays "Comparative Mytholoay" appearing in 18S6 and "On the Philosophy of Mythology" appearing in 1871, and his two volume work Contrihtlollaf to tM Science of Mythology appearing in 1897. Much of the information for this chapter is taken from these works along with relevant comments from some of his other works. Since his views on mythology arc much more systematically stated than hia views

MAX MULLJ!R AND TH'I! SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

6·3

on the ~f-V~da, a chronological survey is not necessary. lil fact, Max Muller's views on mythology remain remarkably consistent. His two volumes on mythology appear to be elaborate restatements of the principles stated in his 18S6 essay.· Andrew Lang, who took time to analyze Max Muller's views on mythology, states that Max Millier never departed from the principles enunciated in his essay. 1

Tue

DEFINITION OF MYTHOLOGY

Max MUiler speaks of mythology in various ways. He refers to ·it as a .stage, a period, and as a type of thought distingui~hable from other types of thought such as religious or philosophical thought. At the same time be says that the mythological mode of thought can affect every realm of thought including religiQus, philosophical and even psychological thought. The distinction he seems to be making is one between form and content. If seen as a form, as a way of speaking just as poetry is a way of speaking, then mythology is applicable to all forms of thought, to all ages, and even to all stages of thought. It is in this sense that Max Millier refers to mythology as a dialect or an ancient form of language which is applicable to all things : Nothing is excluded from mythological expression ; neither morals nor philosophy, neither history nor religion have escaped the spell of all that ancient sibyl. But mythology is neither philosophy, nor history, nor religion, nor ethics. It is, if we may use a scholastic expression, a qualc, not a quid-something formal, .n ot something substantial, and, like poetry, sculpture, and painting, applicable . to nearly all that the ancient world could admire or adore.' While Max MUiler tends to restrict the use of the mythological form of language to the thought of the ancient world, at times he points out that this form of speech is applicable even today, that w~ often speak in the form of traditionally accepted mythological expressions. As .a n example he directs ua to the attempts to distinguish between the material body and that

64

MAX- MULLER AND TRB llG•vn>A

which seems to animate it. On the religious plane this resulted in myths of souls, spirits, ghosts, and breath or air fluttering around Hades, and on the philosophical in the myth of the psyche which meant originally the breathing body.& There arc even more common mythological expressions with which we are familiar in our own lanpage, expressions, such as "the sun rises'' or "the sun sets," which attribute human-like activity to natural phenomena. 1 Such mythological expression is seen by Max Milller to be the result of the metaphorical nature of language. 7 Thus he states that mythology in the highest sense, is the power exercised by language on thought in every possible sphere of mental activity.s Generally, Max Millier refers mythology to the thought of the ancient world and speaks of it as characterizing a particular stage in the development of thought. The beginning of this stage he places beyond the .8g-Veda, in a period of an undi· vidcd Inda-European nation. 9 He refers to this period as the mythopoeic period in which words which were originally appellative were used to express attributes which seemed characteristic of certain objccts. 10 Thus Max Millier stresses the metaphorical nature of the language of this period, referring to it as a period of unconscious poetry.i 1 More specifi· cally, mythology follows two periods in the development of language. The first is the rhematic period, in ~hich expressions were coined for most of the necessary ideas, and a period in which grammar was not yet agglutinative, not yet impressed with individual and national characteristics. 1 1 The second is the dialectic period, in which language began to leave the simply agglutinative stage and the formative systems found in various dialects began to take their shape. 11 These two periods are then followed by the mythic period, which is difficult to understand since it is filled with absurd tales about gods and other beings, with stories which appear to be absolu· tely irrational if taken literally. u At this point it would appear that Max Millier bas gone beyond referring to mythology as a stage of unconscious poetry based on the metaphorical nature of language. By

MAX MULLl!R AND THB SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

65

mythology he now seems to mean metaphors that are really no longer metaphors, in the sense that the original intention of the metaphors has been forgotten. He says therefore : In order to become mythological, it was necessary that the radical meaning of certain names should have been obscured and forgotten in the language to which they belong. 111 It is on this basis that Max Millier refers to mythology as a "disease of language" or thought. 16 What he meant was simply that words were being used for purposes for which they bad not originally been intended. What had been epithets and adjectives came to be used as subjects and substantives.1 7 As an example he points out the development of the use of the term deva. While originally it was simply an epithet or an adjective meaning bright, it came to be used as a term meaning god, and this resulted further in plural gods, since as an adjective deva had been applied to various objects of nature. 1 s It is on this basis that Max Millier refers to mythology as irrational and absurd, and even as hallucination. However, as far as Max Millier is concerned, the absurdity or irrationality of mythology is only apparent. It is a dialect or a "disease', in which words have taken on substantial existence because their metaphorical or poetical intention bas been forgotten. Max Milller's point is that if everyone of these so-called diseased words originally had a meaning, if every name of the various gods .and heroes of mythology had a purposeful beginning, then mythology presents us with an understandable phase in the development of language and thought. 1 9 He sees the task of comparative mythology as discovering the reason in this apparent unreason, the order and the system in this seemingly strange mass of madness and disorder. 20 In treating mythology as a "disease of language," Max Millier uses the term mythology to mtan more than just a formal structure of language. If mythology means to make adjectives and epithets into subjects and substantives, then the result is a content which itself is classifie~ as mythology.

s

66

MAX MULi.Ell AND THE RO•Vl!OA

Otherwise it makes no sense to speak of gods and heroes of mythology, or to speak of tales which seem to defy human

reason. In speaking of the everyday natural occurrences he says: Let us express these simple scenes in · ancient language, and we shatt find ourselves surrounded on every side by mythology full of contradictions and incongruities, the same being represented as mortal or immortal, as man or woman, as the poetical eye of man shifts its po-int of view and gives color to the mysterious play of nature. 21 It is clear from this quotation · that Max Miilter is usfog mythology to refer to content as wett as a format way of speech. It is not the formal structure that is full of incongruities and contradictions, but rather the specific content. We are dealing here with stories, or tales whose content changes with the changes in men's vision. Max Millier himself refers to the "mythological lore" of the lndo-Europeans as belonging to a particular phase in the development of thought. t 2 To arrive at a definition of mythology, therefore, in Max MUiier's terms, one must distinguish between a number of uses of the term. Mythology is first of all something formal, a way of speaking and thinking as opposed to the content of thought. But here, on the basis of Max MUller's analysis, one must make a distinction between mythology as metaphorical language or unconscious poetry and mythology as a "disease of language" in which the original meaning or intention of metaphorical language is forgotten. It is a distinction between the use of a word to explain or characterize a phenomenon and the hardening of that word or epithet into a thing, a substantive. The distinction is one of chronological sequence and might be characterized as the distinction between early or incipient mythology (Max MUiier also uses the term· mythopoeic) and later or full-blown mythology. Where mythology is a disease· of language, that is, where the metaphorical intention of language has been forgotten, the result is mytho· logy as content. Max MUller, himself, uses the term to refer to specific content in terms of legends, tales, stories, or lore.

MAX MULLER AND THE SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

67

And this content, or this lore, is distinguished from the content of religious and philosophical _for ms of thought. In discussing Agni, for example, he refers to the story of Agni: devouring his parents in Rv. X.79.4, and the amorous adventures of Agni in later Indian literature and in the form of the Greek Hepbaestos as containing little of religion. u What he means by religion is ."the perception of the infinite under such manifestations as are able to influence the moral conduct of man.''2' Mythology would then be the opposite; it would have very little of the perception of tho infinite, at least of such perceptions as are able to influence man's moral conduct. Our discussion of Max Millier on the origin, development and study of mythology has reference to mythology both as form and content since the content is clearly dependent on the form. Tue

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MYTHOLOGY

In discussing mythology as a phase, Max Millier places its origin in the era before the lndo-European nations separated. This is said to be an era in which man first framed names in his attempts to understand natural phenomena and their causes. It was these names which were to become the names of the heroes and actors of ancient mythology. It . is on this basis that Max Miiller dismisses a number of alternative theories to explain the origin of mythology. For example, m)ths are not to be seen. as arising from corruptions of divinity..~ 6 Neither should eubemerism be seen as a possible expIan a tion. 9 6 Mythology, then, bas its origin in names, and these are na.mes of phenomena in which man perceived more than a mere finite object. This means that while mythology may be rational or explainable, it did not develop according to a plan. Rather, its development was haphazard. As Max Muller explains : Mythology began with the naming of certain objects and a few short sayings about them, often with proverbs, riddles, saws, in which old men and women embodied the results of their daily observations. It was at a much later time, when many of these sayings

68

MAX MUlLPlt AND THI ttO·Vl!DA

had become idiomatic and often unintelligible, that they were put together so as to form whole cycles of mythological lore. 1., One can discern in this quotation a number of clear steps in Max MUiler's view of the origin and development of mythology. Mythology began with names. Once language had been formed, sayings, proverbs, and riddles became a possibility. The next step was to develop these sayings which were no longer intelligible into systems or cycles of mythology. This sequence, particularly the starting point? is vitally important for Max MUiier's theory of mythology. Max Millier bas been called a proponent of the nature school of mythology.ts In his own words, be belonged to •.. that school of physical allegorical interpretation which looks for the conception of the prominent Devas in sky, dawn, sun, sunset, moon, water, earth, cloud, clear air, lightning, or what not. 2 9 He argues that our common sense and our observations of people today tell us that it was natural for people who made their livelihood from the soil to be impressed first by those natural phenomena on which their lives depended and, therefore, to attempt to give names to these phenomena. 80 In bis view there may have been additions made to mythology once the mytho1ogica1 process was begun, but the foundation of mythology, without question, had to be physical: Without a recognition of that substratum, a study of mythology would cease to be a scientific study. The beginning of mythology came from a poetical and philosophical conception of nature and its most prominent phenomena; or, if poetry and philosophy combined may claim the name of religion, from a religious conception of the universe. a 1 The argument that man would first attempt to name those phenomena on which his livelihood depended is the basis for Max MUiler's solar theory. The sun was that object on which man depended most and would therefore have been the first object to strike man's mind and demand a name. a 9 Max Millier is as sure of this as he is of his assertion that the foun-

MAX MULLER AND TH! SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

69

dation of mythology had to be physical. He sees the four great events in the annual career of the sun as central to the life of the early viJlage and therefore at producing myths which are still part of our language today. 18 Furthermore, he araucs that the regular and recurring character of the SUD would be more likely to produce a lasting impression on the mind of man than those phenomena characterized by irreauJarity.u Max Muller,s theory meant that it is the solar drama which lies at the basis of mythology. This refers first of all, to the sun, the first natural phenomenon to impress itself on the mind of man. But since it refers also to the career of the sun the term has a wider application incorporating not only sunrise and sunset, but also the return of day and night, the yearly return or renewal of spring, and the yearly struggle between summer and winter. 86 These are seen by Max Muller as amplifi~tions of the career of the SUD and are therefore said to be part of the solar drama. 8 6 And since, along with ·the sun all of these events are regular and recurring, solar phenomena in the widest sense are taken to be all those phenomena which are regular and recurring : I have always considered the solar and vernal phraseology as the more important and as the more primitive in the growth of mythology, because the solar and vernal myths, in their widest meaning, comprehended an the phenomena which are regular and recurrent, and therefore more likely to produce a lasting impression on the human mind. a 1 The point of Max Muller's theory is that the sun is primary. It is the sun and those phenomena that reflect the character and the career of the sun which are the first to be named, and in being named they become the basis for ancient mythology. The irregular meteorological phenomena such as thunder and liahtning are not primary, but are to be seen as being dependent for their existence on the sun and related phenomena. 8 8 The personification and deification of natural phenomena, so important for the development of mytholQgy, takes place first in solar phenomena and is extended later to the meteorological aspects of nature. a 9

70

MAX MUUBa AND TH! aG·VBDA

This theory is said to apply not only to Vedic mythology, but .also to all of ancient mythology. The primary source of mythol1y, wherever one may find it, is to be found in the . poetic and philosophic conceptions of the most prominent aspects of nature. 40 Max Millier claims that one can detect a physical and solar substratum in various mythologies. Thus he maintains that the gods of the mythologies of Egypt and Chaldea are based on natural phenomena such as earth, water, sky, sun, moon, and star~ that Ra, the chief deity of ancient Egypt, was the sun, that Osiris and Nut represented the sun, that Isis represented the dawn, that the chief deity of the Babylonian tablets was a sun-god- that Baal, the supreme deity of Mesopotamia was a sun-god, that Inti, the chief god of the Peruvian Incas was the sun, and finally that the Great Spirit and Master of Life for the Shawnee Indians was the sutt. 4 .1 The examination of Mordvinian mythology yields the same conclusions for Mai Millier. Mordvinian mythology is said to be simply another variation on the theme of heaven, sun, earth, water, clouds, thunderstorms, etc. u Finally, Finnish mythology is said to show the same results ; there are four classes of deities belonging to air and sky, the waten, the earth, and the region below the earth. 4 • The conclusion that is unequivocally drawn from these parallels is that the same physical background is to be found in all mythologies.•• Thus Max Millier states: The difficulty would be to find any mythology without physical background .•. What we maintain 'lt'ithout fear of contradiction is, that the gods of ancient mythology, whether in India or Persia, in Babylon or Nineveh, in Egypt, among Fins and Laps, among Greeks and Romans, were originally derived from Nature, thou3b, with Waitz, we are ready to adtnit that when once started the stream of ancient mytholoay is very rapacious and capricious, and may receive ever so many tributaries from different sources which require a special study and careful analysis. 4 5 With equal certainty be claims that nearly all serious students of mythology agree that the gods were originally representa-

MAX MUllEll AND THE SCIENCE OP MYTHOlOGY

71

ti•es of natural phenomena. 4 8 For him it is no less natural for the phenomena of nature to occupy center stage in the myths of ancient poets than it is for the myths of modern poets to be occupied with natural phenomena. 4 7 Granted that natural phenomena, and more particularly, solar phenomena, form the basis for a.ncient mythology, how. do they come to be gods and goddesses or heroes and heroines? Max Miillcr attributes the development of mythology to four factors. The first of these is the poverty of early language. He frequently states that mythology, either as form or as content, is the result of a stage in the development of lanauage in which man possessed only roots expressing acts. 4 8 Max Millier argues that since man possessed only roots expressive of action when he attempted to name aspects of nature, the result was actions, and therefore doers, rather than things done. Man, when speaking of the weather, for example, arrived at rainers rather than rain, at lighteners rather than lishtning, at blowers rather than wind, and at thunderers rather than thunder. 4 9 To name a few examples from the ~g-V~da itself, U ,as is the meaning to lighter, or she who lights; derived from the root Jight, and Savit~ is the enlivener or he who enlivens, derived from the root su meaning .to enliven. 60 This is what is meant when Max MUiier says that the gods of mythology were merely agents behind natural phenomena. In the mind of man, the roots used for ~the purpose of naming automatically implied agents. For Max MUiler, this is the key to the development of mythology. His argument is that once natural phenomena are seen as aaents, and this is all that is possible at the very early stages of language, it is a perfectly understandable and natural step for these agents to become gods, goddesses, heroes and heroines. 61 It is understandable, natural, and even inevitable because it is strictly a matter of the development of language, or. more precisely, of words ~nftuencing what was signified by words. Max MUiier states : If then, the ordinary signs of abstract ideas are words, and if, as Comparative Philology has proved, every appellative (with the exception of onamatopoeic words)

u'

72

MAX MULLER AND THB ao-VBDA

presupposes an abstract idea embodied in a root, it would require but little consideration to understand that in · the very first attempts at real language, the sign may react oft what is signified.' 1 This interactio~ between the word and that which the word signifies is what is meant by "disease of language."U Andrew Lang, in a discussion of Max MUiler's theory of mythology, makes the insightful observation that ''Mr. Max MUllcr's studies of language led him· to believe that the Word had a potent and almost magical influence on the mind of him who spoke the Word."°' Nowhere is this influence of the word or sign on that which is signified more clearly displayed than in Max Miiller's discussion of the gender terminations of words. Suryai,, for example, is ·said to have given to the sun or the agent behind the sun a masculine character while Surya is said to have given to it a feminine character. 16 It is here, in particular, that he sees the germs of mythology, for the gender terminations are said to account for stories which see the sun as either a man or a woman. 56 His argument then is that as soon as natural phenomena were named they became living agents, and because words had gender terminations, they became male and female beings. · Max Miiller frequently speaks of mythology as ·1anguage going beyond its original intention. He argues that this is natural, understandable and inevitable given the poverty of early language. He argues that because primitive language had only roots expressing qualities or actions, because these roots were given gender terminations, and because language in its formative stages ·had no auxiliary verbs, words said more than was actually intended. 5 7 He states : .. Every word, whether noun or verb, had still its full original power during the mythopoeic ages. Words were heavy and unwieldy. They said more than they ought to say ... Where we speak of the sun following the dawn, the ancient poets could only speak and think of the Suri · loving and embracing the Dawn. What is with us a sunset, was to them the Sun growing old,

MAX MULLElt AND THB SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

7.3

decaying or dyioa. Our sunrise w~s tQ them the Night · giving birth to a brillia.n t child ; and in the Spring they really saw the Sun or the Sky embracing the earth with a warm embrace, and showering treasure into the lap of nature. 6 s Two furt~r factors wllich are used to explain the d~velop­ ment of mythology have to do with the develop11:1ent of language itself; the factors . of polyonymy and synonymy. As we have seen, it is Max MUiler's view that names given to natural phenomena were simply appellatives. or predicates expressing the most characteristic attribute or activity of those phenomena. He points out however, that objects could have more than one attribute and that under certain circumstances different attributes would become prominent, thus resulting in a situation in which one object could have a variety of names. 69 An object would therefore be polyonymous and it is Max Milller's contention that the more ancient the language, the more polyonymous an object. so Further, he claims that since different objects possessed similar attributes they could be called by the same name. u He sees the result of polyonymy and synonymy as the wealth of colorful and overlapping stori~ often found in mythology. s2 Early language with its unwieldiness and with its tendencies toward po~yonymy and synonymy does not result in a content which can be labelled mythology until such language is taken literally. .T his brings us to the fourth fac.t or in Max MUiler's view of the formation of mythology ; the factor of time. He argues that as generations passed, the characterization of natural phenomeQJL as personal agents became meaningless . riddles which were, in turn, explained through the development of &tories involving ·heroes, giants . and. gods. 8 a These riddles. and thejr explanatio~ he claims, were a product not only of decay .in the meaninp of .words and phrases but also of amusement. 64 Thus Max Millier states: I feel convinced that this . ancient and. widelyspread taste for riddles has been a powerful elem~nt in the production of mythology, and that many strange features in the phenomena of nature were dwelt on and

74

MAX MULLER AND THB ao·VEDA

elaborated in order to amaze and puzzle people. After aJI, what subjects were there for conversation and intellectual amusement in those early days ?cs 6 Clearly, the discussion of the factor of time includes misunderstanding. It is because of misundersi.nding that early language is taken literally and results in mythology as content. Max Millier sees misundentanding in the transition of natural phenomena from mere agents to personal agents with male and fcmale attributes. This takes place, he claims, because the radical meaning of a word is forsotten. 6 cs He sees misunderstanding in the creation of new etymologies for words where the true etymologies have been forgotten.cs 7 Finally, it is misunderstanding that is seen to lie behind the development of multiple beings with human and animal attributes from the multiple names and adjectives applied to natural phenomena.'' The importance of such misunderstanding is setn in the following quotation : The Origin of mythological phraseology, whatever outward aspects it may assume, is always the same ; it is language forgetting herself. Nor is there anything strange in that self-forgetfulness ; if we bear in mind how large a number of names ancient language possessed for one and the same thing, and how frequently the same word applied to totally dilferent subjects. 6 9 In addition to factors in the development of mythology Max Muller also speaks of constituent elements. The first element is roots expressing activity which meant that natural phenomena could only be spoken of as agents or workers.' o The second is the idea of cause or apnt which was automatically transferred from the root to the aspect of nature beina named. 71 The third is the wider application and multiplication of such names on the basis of polyonymy and synonymy.' 1 The fourth is the influence of gender terminations in the creation of male and female agents. 7 1 The fifth is the. development of common epithets or general .terms for these ageDts based on the fact that they share common attributes. 7 4 The result, he claims, is that these agents cease to represent natural

MAX MULtP.R AND 'fHB 9Cl!NCE OP MYTHOLOGY

75

phenomena and become ideas with a substantial existence.'~ The sixth element is the development of complementary agents to account for complementary activities of nature. 16 The seventh and final element is the development of antagonistic agents to account for antagonistic activities in nature. 11 Throughout the discussion of the constituent elements of, and the factors in the devclopuient of mythology Max Muller's concern appears to be to show that mythology is basically a matter of the development of language ~nd that it is therefore natural, intelligible and inevitable. Both the factors and the ·clements have to do primarily with the nature and development of early language, more specifically with roots and the application or roots to natural phenomena. In discussing the factors Max Muller's argument is that given the state of early language ·and existence, it is only natural to assume that man was coticeroed primarily with natural phenomena and that the names applied to nature should have an effect on man's conception of nature. Further, given the passage of time, a -misunderstanding of early names was bound to occur. The same arguments are . applied to the elements of mythology. Given roots expressing acts, the polyonymous and synonymous nature of early language and gender terminations, the transfer of the idea.of cause to natural phenomena, the multiplication of names, and the application of personal characteristics ·becomes automatic. Accordingly Max Millier states: The constituent elements of mythology, when we can still discover them, are always perfectly natural. Their supernatural appearance is the result of growth and decay, of fancy and fun, of misunderstanding, some· times, though rarely, of a wilful perversion. 7 8

THE STUDY OF MYTHOLOGY

The basic problem of the study of mythology, as seen by .Max Muller, is quite clear from our analysis of his theory of the origin and development of mythology. It is to know how all the gods ot beings of mythological lore came into being and to know the meaning of the facts a~d circumstances which

76

MAX MULLER AND TH! RG•Vl!DA

surround them. It is Max MUiler's claim that his theory is supported by the verdict of history, that is, by the various mythologies which have come down to us from the past. 7 9 His two volume work, Contributions to the Science of Mythology, is devoted to showing that mythology finds its origin in the naming of natural phenomena and its development in the misunderstanding and personification of these names. He is quite convinced that the mythologies of primitive tribes will present to us the same picture as is found in the mythologies of Greece, Rome and ancient India. For Max Millier, the study of mythology had to be comparative if it was to rest on a solid base. It was his conviction that the road to higher and scientific knowledge was by way of comparison, for comparison, he argued, allowed one to base one's researches on the broadest possible evidence and the broadest p:>ssible reduction.so The study of mythology was to be a comparative study like all other scientific studies. With reference to the study of language and religion Max Muller maintained "that be who knows one knows none." 81 As is evident in the following quotation, this was applied with equal force to the study of mythology : Before all, a study of the East has taught us the same lesson which the Northern nations once learnt in Rome and Athens, that there are other worlds besides our own, that there are other religions, other mythologies, ·other laws, and that the history of philosophy from Thales to Hegel is not the whole history of human thought. In all these subjects the East has supplied us with parallels, and with all that is implied in parallels, viz. the possibility of comparing, measuring, and understanding. The comparati'Ve spirit is the truly scientific sprit of our age, nay of all ages. An empiri· cal acquaintance with single facts does not constitute knowledge in the true sense of the word. All human knowledge begins with the Two or the Dyad, the comprehension of two single things as one. st So strong was Max Milllcr's belief in the value of comparison for the study of mythology, that he accorded recognition to

MAX MULLD AND TH! SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

77

two schools of mythology (which he otherwise dismissed o~t­ right as too unscholarly) insofar as they were comparative. The first is the analogical school which is concerned to point out similarities in the character and fate of mythological figures within the realm of cognate languages, apart from a comparison of names. 81 The second is the ethnological school

which looks for coincidences in the myths of widely scattered tribes. 84 By the comparative study of mythology Max Muller meant, first of all, a comparison of the activities and characters of various gods or characters. He finds analogies for example, between Mordvinian, Finnish, and Vedic mythologies. The problem he sees with such analogies or comparisons is that they are not based on hard evidence. He claims that neither the analogical nor ethnological schools of interpretation can distinguish between what really is identical, and what seems to be identical, because they tend to ·ignore language. s & Real evidence, hard historical evidence for Max Miiller is language, and more ·particularly names. He belonged to the so-called "etymological school'' of comparative mythology which was concerned to discover the original meaning of myths, found in documents of cognate languages, through the etymological analysis of naines contained in these myths. s 6 We have already seen this emphasis on language in our discussion of Max Muller's theory of the origin and development of mythology. There w"' saw that he sees mythology as a dialect or old form of language outliving itself, as words reacting on thought. He maintains that the misunderstandings which lie at the heart of mythology rest on a particular phase of language in which there was as yet no distinction between the concrete and the abstract, in which the speaker comprehended at the same time both the spiritual and the material. 8 7 He· argues that, since mythology is both a particular phase of language and the result of a particular form of language, the science of language should present us with most important results in the study of mythology. 8 8 There are therefore two principles for the interpretation of mythology : the acts and characteristics of the mythological figures and language or

78

MAX MULLEll AND THE R.O•VEDA

etymology, with the latter being the more important of the two, for without language, Max Millier claims, one is bound to go astray in comparative investigations. The starting point for such etymological interpretation was the discovery of linguistic relationshipa between such Indcr European nations as the Greeks, Romans, Indians, Persians, Celts, Teutons, and Slavs. u Max Miiller maintained that cognate words in the languages of these nations pointed to a real historical relationship in the distant past, to a time before these nations had separated. 9 o He held such words in such high esteem as historical evidence that he saw the so-called proto-Aryan civilization as history ra~her than prehisiory. 91 In support of this he often emphasized that the name of the Vedic god Dyaus could be found in other Indo-Europeao languages: Toke only the one fact, which no one at present would dare question, that the name of the highest deity among Greeks and Romans, Zeus, and Jupiter, is the same as the Vedic Dyaus, the sky, and the old German Zio, Old Norse Tyr, whose name survives in the modern names of Dienstag or Tuesday. Does not this one word prove the union of those ancient races ? Does it not show us, at the earliest dawn of history, the fathers of the Aryan race, the fathers o( our own race, gathered together in the great temple of nature, llke brothers of the same house, and looking up in adoration to the sky as the emblem of what they yearned for, a father and a God ?U Such an etymological analysis of cognate languages is to be extended beyond the Indo-European family of languages to other language families with the expectation of similar results. 93 The success of such a comparative endeavor depended, of course, on being able to find a more ancient stratum of language and mythology than what was available in the classical languages and mythologies. This was thought to be found in the /Jg· Veda. Max M tiller argued that since Sanskrit is the elder sister of the lndo-European family of bnguages one

MAX MULLER AND Till! SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

79

should be able to see in Sanskrit an earlier stratum in the development of this family of languages. 9 • The same argument was applied to Vedic mythology. Its value was seen to lie in its age and in its unsettled character or state of fermentation. 9 1 Max Millier maintained that the -~g-Yeda ...exhibits ·one of the- earliest and rudest phases in the history of mankind ;. disclosing in its full reality a period of which in Greece we have but traditions and names, such as Orpheus and Linus, and bringing us as near the beginnings in language, thought and mythology as literary documents can ever bring us in the Aryan. world. 9 e The study of language is therefore considored to be central to the study of mythology, or to be more specific, it is comparative philology, and the etymologies based on comparative philology which are said to give us reliable results in the study of comparative mythology. · It is Max Muller's position that mythology will remain forever unintelligible without a knowledge of languages, partiwlarly of the grammar and phonetic law· of languages. 9 7 ·He argues, for example, that if on the basis of a sound knowledge of the laws of comparative philology, one can trace a word back · to Sanskrit, then one can account for the radical meaning and development of that word or name. 9 s So important are philological considerations for Max Millier that he spends a great deal of time in his first volume of Contributions to the -Science of Mythology dealing 1Vith the principles· of the etymological school of mythology. The · significance of language becomes particularly evident in the principles for the science of mythology, two of which have to do with language : there must be r~son in mythology ; there is nothing in the ancient gods of lndo-European mythology which is not suggested b' nature ; coincidences in myths of cognate languages must be examined through an analysis and comparison of names ; the significance of coincidences between myths and customs of different races must be determined by way of language. 9 9 According to these principles linguistic considerations in the study of mythology are to apply to more than simply ·the study of words in cognate languages. For

80

MAX MULLER AND THB RO-VEDA

Max Milller, it is the study of language which enables us to see with certainty the nature of mythology, that mythology is natural and intelligible, and that it is an inevitable or inherent necessity of language.1 oo The results which Max MUiler derives from a linguistic analysis of mythology are truly astounding. The stated purpose of his comparative mythology is to uncover those radical elements that form the basis of cognate mythologies. He claims that this can be done through philological and etymological research. One need only recall here the discussion of solar phenomena and man's attempts to name these phenomena as the basic elements of mythology. 1o1 With reference to lndo-European mythology, Max Millier Glaims that the discovery of the radical elements of mythology allows us to separate mythological from other elements, thus giving us a truer insight into the religion of the ancient Indo-Europeans. 1 o1 Indeed, on the basis of etymological studies Max Millier insists that one can arrive at a mosaic of the proto-Indo-European civilization before it broke up into various nations. 1 oa Because of the heavy emphasis which Max Millier places on Indo-European mythologies in bis researches it might appear that the results outlined above apply only to the mythologies of the Indo-European nations. That such results have a wider application can be seen from the following conclusions which Max Millier derives with absolute certainty from comparative mythology (for him this means the etymolopcal school of mythology) : various branches of the lndo-Buropean languages possessed common words and myths before their separation ; the gods of mythology were chiefly agents, supposed to exist behind the great phenomena of nature ; names of gods common to all branches of the lndo-European family of languages constitute the most ancient materials in mythology ; the best solution for mythology is pined throup the etymological analysis of names of gods and goddesses. 1 0 • · THE

/.lg-Veda

AND TBS SclENCB OF MYTHOLOGY

The emphasis which Max MUiler places 011 examples from Indo-European mythology in seneral, and Vedic mythology

MAX Ml.JU.Bil AND TID V'Dlfe& 01 MYTHOLOGY

11

ill particular, suaest• daat tbe .(lg-Yeda plays a aipiicaat role ff;Jr his reeearches in mythology. His stated purpoie iD the ~d volume of Contrlbutionj to the Sdence of Mythology ii to see whether Vedic mythology will disclose thoae same aolar elements which Mu MiiHer sees behind other mytbologies.1 o 6 His 1856 essay on "Comparative Mythology" relies al~st

eJ11Clueivoly on \leclic mythology for examples. This .cQDCel'D with the .(lg-Veda in hia studies in and works on ~lithology can in part be explained by the amount .o f time he devoted to the study of the '1.g-V.Na. This was the material .uh which he was familiar and which he had at hand. The Rg-Veda, however, serves as more than simply a place from wlaich convenient examples can be drawn in support of a theory. As soon as the examples are used for the sake of general .aiRPlication, they themselves become the foundation for Max MUiler's theory, thus making the .{lg-Veda his key for the study ~d interpretation of mytholo!Y. In the first place Max Miiller sees the .{lg-Veda as provjding us with an archaic stage of mythological development not available anywhere else, including the folklore of primitive tribes. 1 o 6 It was not, he maintains, until the discovery of the .(lg-Veda that it became possible to make any sense at all out of the mass of apparent unreason presented by classical mythology. 101 Claiming that in the [lg-Veda we can watch the "process of mythological incubation," he asserts that Vedic mythology presents us with a uage of mythological fermentation through which all other mythologies must have passed. 1 os Such a view of the .{lg-Veda leads Max Miiller to aay : If the Vedic mythology, such as it is, could .be pro~d to have sprung up but yesterday in a desett island or in the moon, its psychological interest would remain just the same. 1 0 9 Since he finds in the IJ.g-Veda a stage of mythology not avail~ble anywhere else, particularly .in psychological terms, he states that "the mythology of the Veda is to comparative mythology what Sanskrit has been to comparative grammar." 11 0 As far as Max Millier is concerned therefore, mytholosy with9,1:11 the IJ.g-Veda must forever remain an en.gma, .~xcept for 6

82

MAX MULUll AND THB RO-vBDA

a few instances where the physical origin and nature of individual deities shines through. The germs of the Greek development for example, are seen in the fact that in the I.lg-Veda heaven and earth are seen as husband and wife, dawn is seen as the daughter of the sky, the Maruts and Rudra are seen as sons of the sky, day and night are presented as brothers or twins, and dawn and night are seen as lovers of Surya. 11 1 Other indications of the archaic stage of mythological fermentation found in the JJ.g-Veda are seen in the many names assigned to the same phenomena such as sun, dawn, and moon. 111 In effect therefore, the JJ.g-Veda is seen to possess a missing link, a rudimentary or primitive mythology distinguished by a simplicity and transparency which other mythologies do not possess. 11 a We have said that for Max MUiler, the study of mythology is dependent on the study of language. Here too, the I,lg-Veda is seen to provide the missing link. For Max Millier it is the analysis of names that yields the "open sesame" of mythology. No judgements, he claims, are possible in comparative mythology without a knowledge of comparative philology, and this, in turn, is said to rest on a knowledge of Sanskrit along with the classical languages. 114 Since Sanskrit is seen as the -eldest of the lndo-European family of languages, and the {lg¥ eda as the oldest body of Sanskrit literature, the I,lg-V eda becomes an essential linguistic document for the study of ·mythology. Max Millier argues that the JJ.g-Veda takes us as -close to the beginnings of mythology, language, and thought as any literary document can. 11 6 Thus, his argument is that without the laws of philology based on the study of Sanskrit and other lndo-European languages, and, therefore, without the JJ.g-Veda, a correct study of mythology is impossible. Max Millier argues that the lJ.g-Veda takes us back to an -early stage in the development of language and thought because many words in the JJ.g-Veda have still retained their appellative -character . 11 6 He maintains that since appellatives represent a.n early stage in the development of language, it is obvious that a name such as Agni originally meant fire and names such as Savitr, Surya, Mitra, Vi~vu, Viraj, Rohita, and Prajapati

MAX MutLllll AND TRB SCIBNCB OP MYTHOLOGY

83

all originally meant the light of the sun. 11 7 Most of these names have their counterparts in the form of deities both in Vedic and other Indo-European mythologies. Therefore, the linguistic relationship of the ~g- Veda to Avestan, and to Greek and Latin, takes on a crucial significance in interpreting any Indo-European mythology. And, Max MUiler argues, since what is true of a part is true of the whole, the development -0f Indo-European mythology, interpreted through the ~g-Veda, can be applied to an understanding of the development of nonlndo-European mythologies. 11 s Throughout Max MUiler's words, an obvious similarity emerges between his theory of mythology and his interpretation of the ~g-Veda. The .(lg-Veda, he claims, yields the same basic elements that lie behind the development of all of mythology. Our discussion of the ~g-Veda in chapter two makes it abundantly clear that, in bis eyes, the foundation of Vedic mythology lies in the naming of natural and particularly solar phenomena, and the subsequent misunderstanding of these names. On this basis he rejected a number of opposing positions on mythology in general, and the .(lg-Veda in particular. Hermann Oldenberg, for example, held it as possible that a god 'Such as Savltr was originally meant for an abstract idea such as an exciting or moving power and that in time this idea came to be associated with a phenomenon like the sun. 11 9 Max Millier rejected this, saying that such abstract or general notions are later developments requiring physical antecedents. u o In the case of Savitr, he argues, one does not start with the general concept of ·exciter or enlivener; on the contrary such a concept presupposes the sun. 1 21 Against Hillebrandt's contention that the moon is the most prominent ingredient of Vedic mythology, Max MUiler argued that the non-solar aspects of the .(lg- Veda are too insignificant to merit much attention. 19 t The argument put forward by Otto Gruppe .and Andrew Lang, that Max Miiller's interpretation of mythology was too one-sided, was met with the charge that it was based on ignorance of the solar elements in the I.lg· Veda: That people who know the Veda should ever doubt

14 dac prevaleQce of solar ~s in V,:4ip by~ and the 1Ml'\'ival of 60• of tbegi ia tJ!e mftholo&ies of o\he~ Arpn sp,eakus, l ponsider simply impq$sible. How~ over re&4¥ some Qf us Bf.ay ~ to listen to what Maoris ·a nd Hottentot$ have to tell "8, noth~~g will shake our conviction t~t the substance of the Vedic and moat of the Aryan gods is phy&ical.1 2 a Given Max MUJler's view that the .{lg-Veda represents a stqe through which an mythology has h~d to pass, su~h people, by inference, are ignorant not only of the .{lgAVeda, but of mytlaology in general. The similarity between the theory of mythology and Max MUiier's views on the .{lg-Veda may be seen in a few wellclefined examples. The first is taken from ~~x Miiller's response to Hillebrandt's V edische Mythologie in which Hillebrandt analyzes the term soma and the mythology surrounding the term as originating in the moon. 124 Max Miiller's response is to analyze this mythology in the same way as he analyzes the solar aspects of the }.lg-Veda. He insists that like the sun, the ·moon was prisiqaµy conceived aad named as an agent, eventually becoming the representative not only of the moon, but also of all tha~ de~ded on the moon. 1 2 ~ He states : The moon was not only the light of the nigh~ the dispcller of darkness, but soon became the. giver of rest and sleep, the bestower of rain and fertility ; nay in its waning and returning character, the first symbol suggestive of life and death and immQrtality. 1 2 6 The point .o f the above analysis is that it represents essentially the kind of development presented to us in Max Miiller's theory of mythology. One begins with appellativ.es, applied to prominent natural phenomena, the original intention of the appellative is eventually forgotten as it is applied to more and more objects with characteristics similar to the moon, until finaUy we are left with the proper name of a deity or a mythological figure with a series of events or stories surrounding the name. Further the argument for this analysis is ba~)iC4).ly a ·linguistic one, based on the asaertion of the priority of appella-

MAX MUlt.tl\

ANb +\t]I

ien!~ Uf' Mft!ROLOOY

8S

tives and the ailai19fs of nalnet \re prO'fid~ ne With· tbb teo'8

or radtcal elements of mytlfo1ogical development. The second examplt is Max Miilter's analysis of the mythology surrounding Saratiyu in hymm X. 17. In the analysis ho attempts to show how tlie mytli may have developed : In our case ft probably began with such popular, half-. metaphorical expressions as yamau, the twins; bcin1 meant for day and night, yamasui,, tht! twm-niethe6, i.e., the dawn ; asva, the horse, i.e., the sun : va4avit the mare, i.e., the dawn ; asvinau, the hone-cmldren~ i.e., day and night. Oiven these expressions, aeme of which were very likely to lose tmb original meaaiaat we can understand the formation of such phrases aa 'Sara~yii is wedded to Vivasvat,' .• .i.e., the 8fCY dawll is embraced by the sun. Other phrases woakt bo 'Sai'a\}yii has left her twinsj' i.e., the dawn has aone; 'Vivasvat takes his second Wife,' i.e., the sun is $ettin9 in the gloaming ; 'the hd~e runs after the tnafe;' i.o., the sun has set. If lastly all these sayinss are thrown together and arranged as part of one stery, we bavo what we find in the m;tll~loBY both of Vedic IndtJ -.ad of Oreece. 1 ' ' A~iil; tire analysis is toWly hi keeptai with the theory. Tlm oiijin arid develojHnent of this mytb are seen aa totally natQraf1 iiltelligibfC and inevitable. More puticolarly, it has to do with the daily fortunes of the sun and light. Further, the anal~Sfs is again basically a linguistic one. One begins with an .a~adysls of names and sayings which are said orisinally to have ~n appellatt9es used to characterite prominent features of ~atural phenomena. Th~ af)pellatives and sayings eventually IQ~ thei~ t\ssociatfon With the pltermmena they are to d~bo and therefore become hardtiled into names and doscriptiens of

mytbeilogic&l beings~ What we see presented in Max Mttller's·.~theory of myth.lop is lin evohi\ionary prttceas which is an exact parallel to the pfi>cieSs in chapter two in the ani.lysis of Max MUiler's vfeWs of the ~-Ytad. It is a motemolit from simple to a;mj;lu, fr'om coiiefete to abstract, &em the physical to tb~

•11

86

MAX MULi.Bil AND TBB RO-VBDA

spiritual, and from the visible to the invisible. One begins. with simple roots, expressing agency or acts, applied to natural manifestations, and one ends with a host of male and female agents characterized by complex relationships. One begins. with the characterization of nature in terms of human activity and ends with beings totally divorced from their physical and concrete background. One begins with terms used to express. natural phenomena and ends with abstract concepts such as. dera,' asura, ajara, and amrta and with entities characterized in terms of these abstractions. One begins with a simple phrase to characteri7.c an aspect of nature and ends with a wealth of complicated and confticting stories surrounding the original phrase or saying. Furthermore, as in our analysis of Max Miillcr's views of the }.lg-Veda, this process is said to be perfectly natural, intelligible and inevitable. The role which the .(lg-Veda plays in Max M tiller's scienceof mythology is the refore a threefold one. In the first place. the J.lg-Yeda is the key to mythological investigations because it provides him with a primitive stage in the development of mythology which is not available in any other mythologies. Secondly, because the .(lg-Veda is the oldest body of Sanskrit literature it provides him with the linguistic tools which enable _ him to discern the following : the origin of and development of mythology ; the distinction between early and later strata of mythology; the distinction between purely metaphorical usage of language and the subsequent degeneration of these metaphors in substantives, and therefore mythological beings ~ the distinction between agents, personal agents, and supernatural agents or gods. Thirdly, there is a one to one relationship between the theory of mythology and the interpretation of the .(lg-Yeda itself. This is so because the tools which the study or. the .(lg-Veda provides are used to interpret the }.lg-Veda itself,. as a document of mythology. On the basis of a linguistic analysis a distinction is made between earlier and later deities. in the J.lg-Veda. 1 9 s On the basis of linguistic analysis tho. mythology of the .(lg-Veda is said to have a physical basis, tobe rooted in man's observation of solar phenomena and attempts to explain these phenomena in metaphorical fashion.

MAX MULU!ll AND THB SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

87

Finally, a linguistic analysis is said to show us that the development of Vedic mythology is based on the subsequent misunderstanding of these metaphors, the result being mythological beings with cycles of stories to explain their functions and relationships.

NOTES AND llEPBRBNCBS See the discussion OD pp. 13-14 or chapter I. 2. F. Max Muller. Chips, I, p. 26. 3. Andrew Lang, ..Theories of Muller," Contnnptwary Rtviewp LXXVIII (December, 1900). p. 788. In 1895 Max Muller himself wroto that he still held to the general principles for the treatment of mythology and the theories in mytholoay which he had enunciated in bia. early days as a acholar. See Chips, IV, Vol. VIII of The Collected Wlirksof the Right Hon. F. Mos Mulltr (London: Loogmans, Green, and Co.,. 1907). Preface. 4. F. Max Muller, Chips, II. pp. 140-41. S. F. Max Muller, Chips From a Gmnan Workshop (New York: Chari• Scribner's Sons, 1895), V, pp. 69-72. 6. F. Max Muller, Contributions to the Sciena nf Mythology (New York : Lonamans, Green, and Co., 1897), I, pp. 77-78. 7. F. Max Muller, Chips. V. p. 73. 8. Ibid., p. 66. 9. F . Max Muller. Chips, II, p. 16. 10. Ibid., p. 52. 11. Ibid. 12. lhitl., p . 8. 13. Ibid.• pp. 8-9. 14. Ibid., pp. 9-10. 15. Ibid., p. 74. 16. F. Max Muller, Conlrihutions to t"6 Scima of Mythofogy, I, p. 38. Max Muller considers lanauage and thouaht to be inscparablo--eeo Chapter V. 17. Ibid., p. 69. 18. Ibid. 19. F. Max Muller. Chips, II, p. 12 and Chips, V. p. 90. 20. F . Max Muller. "Presidential Addreu to the Aryan Section or the International Congress of Orientaliats," in Transactions of the S"on4 Susion of t"6 lnlmlalional Congress of Orimtalists, 1874, edited by Robert K. Douglas (Neudeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1968), p. 185. 21. F . Max Muller, Chips, II, p. 97. 22. F. Max Muller, Chips, V. p. 83. 23. F. Max Muller, Physical &ligitJ•, p. 276. 24. Ibid. 2S. F. Max Muller, Contrihtions to t"6 Scinu of MytMloo, J,.p. JOS. 26. Ibid., pp. St-52. Max Muller did not deny that historical peno1.

'

J

•

'

'.

L ..

"•

~

• "

88 __.,, cabd fate ,11,• a r6le mlater mythotoaal deYelo'i>airits, but simplJ denied eulllnnerisni •an explamtion for tt.e origin of m1thotoay. 27. F . Max Muller, ' ·Vedi1Che Mytholoaie", Q!uirlnl, Ra~w. CLXXVD (Oct. 1893), p. 4S1. 28. See W. Schmidt's diacusaion ,o f the "Nature Myth School'' in Thi Origin and s, I, p. 26. 114. F. Max Muller, Contributions to l"4 S&inla qf M,,WOo. I, pp. 11-19. 115. F. Mu Muller, Chips, I, pp. 72·73. 116. F. Max Muller, Contri/Jlllions to t"4 Scilnu of M1"""°V• p. 45. 117. Ibid. 118. F. Max Muller, "Vedischo Mytholoaie," {blal'Urf1 Rmlio, CLXXVJI, p. 4S3. 119. H. Oldonberg, ••Savitar", Zlltsclrrift tkr DMscha Morgmlaniisc/r4 GeuUschaft, LI (1897), pp. 473-484. 120. P. Max Muller, Contributions to t"4 Scilnu oj M,tholov. II, p. 820. 121. IbUJ., pp. 822-23. 122. F. Max Muller, ''Vedischo Mythologie,'' (}Juzrltrly RMMw, CLXXVll, p. 453.

MAX MULLER AND THE SCIENCE OP MYTHOLOGY

91

123. For Gruppo•a criticism see "Review of Muller's Contributions lo tht Science of Mythology... Archiv fur &ligionswissenschefl, Bd. Il (1899), pp. 269-71. For Lang's criticism see ' 'Theories of Muller,.. Contempor~ &uitw, LXXVIII (December, 1900), p. 788. For Max Muller's answer to. such criticisms see Contributions to the Scrence of Afythology, II, pp. 528-29. 124. F. Max Muller, "Vedische Mythologie." Quarterly Rlvi1w, CLXXVJI, p. 452. For Hillebrandt's views see Vedische Mythologie (Breslau: M. and H. Marcus, 1927), pp. 193-401. 125. Ibid. , p. 447. 126. Ibid. 127. F. Max Muller, Contributions to the Scitnu of MythologJ, II, p. 4S3. 128. Ibid., p. 492. Comparative philology is said to show that Dyaua. and Varuna predate Agni and Indra.

CRAPTn IV

MAX MOLLER AM!> THE SCIBNcE OF ltEIJIOl6N Muller's reputatioil and iaftuence has dfmidilhed oeonsider•bly, he still finds wide acclaim as the founder of, or as • pi0,~( ln t~ compar~tive study or retigfoil. 1 n is WHILE MAX

-clear from our discussion of

Ma~

Miillcr's theQry of mytho· logy, particularly the definition of mythology that he sees a

-significant relationship between mythology and religion. Behind both, he finds the same basic materials. Thus he states in treating the mythological developments of Agni : These mythological stories are, no doubt, chips and splinters from the same block out of which many a divine image has been chiselled by the human mind, but their character, their origin and purpose are totally different. t Furthermore, he sees a logical transition from mythology to what is generally regarded as religious. In discussing the ~ientific study of religion he states : If, as is now generally admitted, mythology was the first attempt at a poetical interpretation of the most important phenomena of nature, we can easily see how there was an easy transition from these efforts to know the causes of all things ... to the higher efforts to know the cause of all things. And if we remember that the nature of Aryan speech was such that it could at first express agents only,-doers, not things done; rainers, not rain, lighteners, not lightnings, it is not difficult to understand how the agents of the great and constantly present drama of Nature were merged at last in the Supreme Agent, the Author and Ruler of all things. 3 Mythology, in the view of this quotation, is seen as a lower form of thought giving way to a higher form of thought, religion.

Like others in his day, Max Miiller was inclined to see a

MAX MULLER AND THB SCIENCB OP RHUGION

9 J.

close relationship between the primary materials with which he worked and one's ability to make pronouncements on the origin, developmeet, and study of religion. 4 It is not surprising therefore that he should issue a volume on the origin aad .growth of relision as illustrated by India's religions. He claimed that India contained both the history of philosophy and the history of religion in a nut-shell, that it represented every phase of religion "from the coarsest superstition to the most sublime cnligbtenment." 6 Thus be maintained that in the religions of India one could study better than anywhere else how religious thought and language arose, gained force and spread. 6 ~hat this should be his position follows from his. assertion that the literature of India possesses both a chronolog4:al and a psychological age which is unsurpassed anywhere else. In his view, therefore, the sacred books of India in general, and the ~g-Veda in particular, offer the same advantages for the study of religion as they do for the study of mythology. The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the nature of the relationship between the JJ.g-Veda and Max Mtiller's science of religion. As in the case of the discussion of his science of mythology we shall attempt first an analysis of his views on religion. In particular, we shall ask how he defines religion,. how he understands the origin and development of religion and what he sees to be important in the study of religion. Finally, we shall ask what role Max Mtiller assigns to the .(lg-Veda in his science of religion. The same approach as was taken in chapter three shall characterize this chapter. Because Max MUiler's views on religion are much more systematically stated than are his views on the .{lg-Veda, we shall simply attempt a reconstruction of these views rather than a chronological survey of his works on religion. The bulk of Max Mtiller's work on the subject of religion dates from the second half of his life as a scholar : Introduction to the Science of Religion in 1873, the Hibbert lectures on the ''Origin and Growth of Religion" in 1878, and the Gifford lectures on "Natural Religion" from 1888-1892. Much of the material for this chapter is taken from these works.

MAX MULLER AND THB RO·VEDA

THB DBPINITION OF RBUGION

Max MUiler defines the history of religion as a history •hich shows ... how men in different parts of the world yorted their way in different directions, step by step, from the simplest perceptions of the world around them, to the highest concepts of religion and philosophy ; how, in fact, the consciousness of the infinite, which lay hidden in every fold of man's earliest impressions, was unfolded in a thousand different ways till it became freer and freer of its coarser ingredients, reaching at last that point of purity which we imagine is the highest that can be reached by human thought.' Ibis quotation contains his theory in summary form. There is an origin, a development and a culmination, but it is an -origin, a development, and a culmination of something. It is .this something which requires explanation. For Max MUiler, the term religion is not simply a word -empty of meaning for which one supplies a definition without .implying that there is an essential or true connection between the word and the meaning supplied. In his view, the term signifies an essence and it is this essence to which one sets limits when a definition is supplied. Thus he claims that on ·the basis of an essence one can make a judgement whether the -definition is too broad or too narrow, and whether something ·is indeed religious or whether it is mythological, metaphysical, _philosophical, or mathematical. s There is therefore a strong ought applied to Max Milller's understanding of the term religion. v It is to be understood and used in a particular ·way. Max Millier maintains that the essence of religion is to be determined from its psychological and historical development.1 ° Since religion has meant different things at different times, his concern is to find a definition that is applicable to ·everything that has been called religious. 11 Such a definition .he believes to be possible because religion is an essence which _has and stiill is taking different-shapes and forms.11

MAX MULLER AND THE SCIENCE OP RELIGION

95

Max Millier sees the distinguishing characteristic of religion -or the religious consciousness as faith which is ordinary cons~iousness developed and modified in such a way as to enable -one to apprehend religious objects. 13 More specifically, it is .a function of man's consciousness along with the sensuous and rational, but independent of these and directed to specific objects or beings which cannot be apprehended by sense or reason. 1 " Max MiilJer is impatient with any definition of religion which leaves god or the gods out of the picture.16 -On this basis, he proposes that religion is the apprehension or perception of the infinite under various names or guises and 1hat this is a necessary condition for all concrete religions, for they all display a longing for the iofinite. 1 6 Such a definition involves a distinction between religion as it is in essence and Teligion as it is in concrete mainfestation. The concrete mani· festation, which would include all historical religions, is an .attempt to give expression to that essence. Thus he states, after having made a distinction between the faculty of faith and the religious traditions : Without that faculty, no religion, not even the lowest worship of idols and fetiches (sic), would be possible ; and it we will but listen attentively, we can hear in all religions a groaning of the spirit, a struggle to conceive the inconceivable, to utter the unutterable, a longing after the Infinite, a love of God. 1 7 As a result of attacks on his definition Max Muller concluetween mythology and religion. Both are characterized as

stages in the history of man with mythology preceding r~li­ &ion. 9 1 In his discussion of the development of natural religion in Physical Religion, Max Millier appears to take two other positions. On the one hand he states that by the side of the development of the theogonic process (i. e., the ide~ of god and a supreme god), one can see the ~ginning of a mythology which was elaborated in later Indian literature. 9 t In fact, mythological stories are said to arise out of the same materials that have yielded divine images to the human mind. u._ On the other hand, he claims that there is a sense in which l'eligion precedes the development of mythology. For example be states: There was religion before sacrifice; there was religion before lllytb. There was neither sacrifice nor myth before religion, in the true sense of that word. Nothing is more interesting than to find out how sacrifice and myth sprans from the same .field as religion. But they did not spring from that field u11til it had been touched by those rays of light which transform the finite into the infillite, and which called into life the unnumbered seeds that lay hidden in the ground, the seeds of tares as well as of wh~t, both growing together until the harvest. 2 • The quotation is perplexi».g since Max Mi:iller seems to take two positions at once ; that r~ion comes befo~e myth, and that they are also coterminus. l'~e seell\ then .to be ~ee

MAX MU~AM> 5'111!! t.tleliMlllQt Oi-· ~ION

91,~

positions: mytJ:aoliaeQa:. MfDllnlB ·--~~ ·. . : . : .

w.:

-imf>Jkad'$ii1 fr._ 1M~; ·a91t, bave~ons where we smiply canno·~fht -aw peiftt or:see·a·limitt.'"" ~t, he• 1i11ai9ts, that tho1 devcilrl>pnwnt: ~- the lfntorimlt ~n8 would haV& bola Jmp0&sitJllc ·•itbout thM baiis intuition. a 6 . Mn Mi&Ueit, therefore; sees· the· inftaite distlOled to us ~ the·work of sense implaaaions. aocl reason. Ho argues tilati all knowledge, and thewfoic religious, lbM>wledge, must Wt derived: through sense impresaiouandi rcasoa.u However, *cs··taacept of the infinito is dealt with· throup. faith, for neidltr· .tbe sen&0s. nor reason are oompetent to cieal with the feetiag· 61' the idea of the infinite, ovon; though it is disclosed ih- our impressions and in our attempts to understand those impres&ions.. Max MUiier therefure secs three functions of the perceptive self, sense, reason, and faith, but sense is primary for without it faith and reason would have nothing upon which to exercise their powers.. as . If the one essential element of religion, the perception of the. infinite, is derived from sense impressions through the working of faith and reason, then the second essential element, the notion of morality, should exhibit the same origin. Max :Moller, in faet, secs its origin in the perception of the netural phenomena, or more· particularly, the fixed paths or Settled movements of the hea.enly bodies. The torm=r-ta, he cilaims, originally meant joined, fitted, fixed, or the going, and was used to express the movements of heavenly bodies, particularly the · movements of the sun. 8 9 From this perception he• sees a clear development toward the idea of morality : rta comes to be called the right place or path, the seat or foundation of all; men begin to pray that they might follow· rta since the gods overcome darkness through following their appointed ·paths; sacrifice comes to be .called rta since it is based on ·t he · sun and moon ; finally, the term comes to· mean law m general. 40 · Max· MUiler's conclusion tborefore is, that the·. roots of religion lie in the universal stratum of sense perception. He atates in hii discussion of tho origin. of religion as revealed -i n •

th• Sg·Y·eda-:

101

MAX MU~, ~~ ..~ -~~CB OP. •1'11GION

L

:·.:.: .. · ~~t ,.we .ha-ve ·learnt .t hen from tho Ve(ja i&_..tb~, . . : . -~ 1l!e . a~ofs of .our race in India .·~id( npt · f>D9' .. .· ~ · . l?eli~ ~- divlno powers more ~r l~ss m~ifest ¥> ~ir .. .senses, .in tilleIS and mountains, ..in the . sky ano. t4e · .sun, .in the thunder and rain, but that thW" . SfD~ .. . liJtewise StW&ested to ·them two of the most ,essential . e.iemoats of all religion, the concept of .the·,Uit'inite . · and the concept of order and law, .as rC-l(e~led ~~e r 1 .them, the -ooe.in the .golden sea behind -~e- dawp, t.be . " , .. '' . , .«i;>tller in the daily pat1;i of the sun.• 1 .; While: .the_· ex.a,mpl~ in the .above quotat~on a.-e tak~n ffpip;t~e ~g~Veda, they are seen as having reference .t9 a. univegiil . :.pJ:~ ~.hi.ch merely finds its clearest expresiion in the. ~g­ .veda. • .2 .ThC .i.orlnitCt or beyond. is said to be .re\'.ealed .t.O man in ~~ ;-~as~ ~Ii of which .inwlve sense :perception .... First, the : SCQK-;tanjible and .intapgible objects of natui;e are ~~d to have lent themselves to reli&ious development~ . the semi-tangible . c0bjects providing material for the development of .semi-4eities, :· anci the.intangible ob~ts providi~g t4e materiai' .f qr: '¥,.Peat deities. 4 3 . Second!):, the infinite is said to have . beon dis. oo~red in. man seen as an object.'' .one ,is to se~ . !ir.!~· .the . .same .pro.cess as in man's pcr~ption of natural object~. , . "Qiere was something perceived .and yet not percei~ed, . sQme.ibipg t]Mµ ~ent beyond and . r~ained free from human condngen~ies ,, like death and .decay. Thus we have the develQp~~·9t "'.or . .reverence for ancestqrs found in ~he. .{lg- V.eda .and ebewh~re wliich .finally ends in a belief in immor.tality of the soul - ~~d .a f atber. of .all.fathers. 4 6 Fin~y the infinite · is also said 't o . hav.e b~n revealed . in ipan leoked upon as a subject or self.' 6 . SeJf-coQ.1ciousness, . Max MUiler maintains, . 4as given rise to ' nl~y p~yc~olqgic~l deiti~ -su~h ~ spirit, min.d , .u9~erstanding, : intellect, and reason. ~ ., As we Iiave seen in ·qur discussion of . . the ~g-Ved,a in cha~r two,~- MUiler sees this. as~ develop~ · nient wpich the -Rg,..Veda contains in germ form only, . . ·.. .This threefold percep~i~n ·of .the Infinite is crtJ~~l to Max :,• (M~ler:s vie·w .of _the otjgin or' re1'ion . . Above . al), it is to J .• . • . c}>~e~ :of1aaturaliPiwJlPmefta-'•lcb O.ld i 081; bd uen • aotitVe, ~r •' ·•nta; 'iiace

: :in tttecaftf· ~tages of 1..go-.e .o.rything·had!to J>e,,,.oow~­ :bettd«.4 -..iil tdrmt 1of -1Jtaafs •aW'.a1e'11'81·1of ; ibis OWJl · aativiu.t.. ~ 3 l'tln MUllllr .,..fere 11peaksd 1he.: ~ i of jlS a;i:mtwrertt JIMceaiity mJeaa}J~ spmrb ,miditaraaaht·. · Thui:be

._..uay

'. eta1'&th•t~sioal TID aD1C' M

Ul'OION

101

destroyed nery ftltip of the deity intended by tbe ume.' a. In tams of growth, Max MGller aaerts that the same yearning which resulted in using the bright sky to express the divim. also grasped at other names of the sky to express other relipous moods which saw the divine as dark, awful or all-powerful. ' ' The imperfection of each name led to a search for otller names, till almost every part of nature in which the divine was perceived bad been named.'• Eventually, in Mu Motler's scheme of things, this dissatisfaction led to a rejection of all attempts to name the infinite in terms of a physical entity. Mu MUiier's example is both interesting and instructi\'e in that he makes an appeal to certain inherent feelinp in man as well as to the state of early language in order to explain the origin and growth of religion. The sky, he claims. was choeen by primitive man because it was an appropriate symbol to compensate for man's feelings of inadequacy and to express man's inner yearning. Once chosen it was named in terms of the level of early language, that is, by metaphors. or roots which expressed agency or activity. It was these names that were later misundentood. It should be noted that this eumple is taken from the earliest of Max MUiier's major works on religion. It would appear that in his later worb there is an important shift in emphasis. He no longer speaka. of a predisposition or an innate yearning for the infinite or diWie. Rather he speaks of the natural consciousness or pressure of the beyond or infinite which comes with man's sense perceptions.'• This shift may simply be the result of Mu Mllller's concern to see all of human knowledge, including religious beliefs as the gradual evolution of that which is contained in man's ordinary sense perception. In his volume on physi~ religion he states : The process was one of the most natural evolution ..• In the idea of agency which was involved in every root, there lay the germ which, as one outside envelope after the other was removed, came out in the end in all

its simplicity and purity.'' For Max MUiler this procesa is univenal.

While he sees.

.'•

a ~

•• )

J

•••

·tbia ·deldJ>JNPent. in · .i ts f'Jlg;ss in tl)e .llg"'Yeda he i~~e. tbat . *'-~pre'*& WlllS 4t .W4lr1:1Qftfywhore rill ~be~~~pmeat ,-RI 1ntliaion or roligiolli&·tho\laht . for. he sees th~ asults ()f tkat . '.Pf'O~ > ever~wller.e, 7 e Iiifer~ .that -like results mean .. like -~ning, and like proceues ··.and using · .t he .JJ.g~Y.ed~ ~tp ·:41>Cak.for the development of all religious thought, Max ~ai-.Js . .

.

.

MU:l.le'r ..

;

· . ...:ithat -raligious thought bgan ·with the .wunj~ . of . .. ·

c

... 1

a lar,e numbcJ of clearly .marked aD.d diffeieD!litiod . . .. : ct>einp, -sµch ·as Skw,.Dawn. Thunder, J4g~Ul,g;· Storm, Mountains, Trees, etc., and that the concept of_. s.perhuman bei0jt» .,,rps~ afler.watd4,-as a :c~t~on · oo aU. 7 9 THE STUDY OF RELIGION

A ~uasion of Mu Mi.iller's science of reliiion can not , .atf9rd to ignore his views on the study of religion, particularly :- his attempt to .e stablish a scieace of .comparative religion. '. Max Millier himself was cognizant of the .developments·in the · stµdy ,of uijaion up to .his 4i,ay and·JDa.de attempts, from time - io ti.mt;, to point -out t~ stages in th.is development. 8° While . ·h~ .we.l~ed the .infiux of new materials for the study of , . ieligion, he was d¥enchanted wit-h the may .theories that .he felt ·;-4&DQr.cd the facts of.the individual rel~ions.81 . , ..Max .Milller·loo~cJ for a .science which was both ~mparative : .and .histo.r.ical. Thepri.os, in order . to be .valid, .were to be .. .based . on previQus .analysis of .historical .material's. .. CQnse~: -A

Mu. Millier saw the ~g-V~da as the found& tion for the study and interpretation of religion. He was concerned to expose those theories of mythology and religion which were not based on good evidence through an appeal to facts which were more reliable than any other evidence. Such facts, he felt, were available in India, and more particularly in the Q.g-Veda, where one could see how the human mind was able to ascend from the worship of nature's gods to the god behind the universe. 1 0 8 Max Millier was concerned to arrive at origins, or as close to origins as possible, in order to make subsequent developments intelligible. Insisting on the logical and chronological antiquity of the ].lg-Veda, he felt that here we are given an pportunity to come closer to origins than we can on the basis f any other evidence. The /.lg-Veda, he maintained, provides us with antecedents which are complete in themselves in the sense that they do not need further antecedents to be under-stood. SpecificaJJy, Max Millier claimed that it is in the ].lgVeda that we can see most clearly and completely the development of physical religion, a stage which is anterior to the ·development of anthropological and psychological religion. 1 o g Consequently he saw it as impossible to engage in a proper study of physical religion and, therefore, the development of religion, without a knowledge of the ].lg-V eda. 1 1 o In effect, the J.lg-Veda becomes for Max Millier the paradigm for the development of .religion everywhere. Thus he ~laims that having seen the development of religion in the JJ,g-Veda we may on the basis of the general principle of "like results, like causes" guess at the origins of the beliefs of present day primitives, of Jews and the semitic peoples in general, and of the Egyptians. 111 Although he warns that such comparisons must be made with the greatest caution, he seems to apply the lesson he finds in the ].lg-Veda quite freely to other religious traditions. For example, in speaking of the biography f Agni as representative of a process which has occurred everywhere, he states : But though the regular development of religious names and concepts can best be studied in ancicat

MAX MUUD AND THI 8CDNCB OP Rl!UOION

115

India, every country and every sacred literature presents us with more or less complete portions of the samo intellectual evolution. Not only among Aryan and Semitic races, but among Negroes, Polynesians, and Red Indians we find a belief in a worship of the divine representatives of the principal phenomena of nature. 1 1 t It is interesting to note that Max Millier admits that he has I iUle evidence for such a process in all religious traditions. Ho has only gods who appear to b~ personifications of nature. It is on the buis of these produc;ts that he assumes that the causes must have been similar to those that stand behind Vedic deities. What he sees in the .(lg-Veda is applied therefore, to the development of all religions. As in the case of mythology, the ability to arrive at origins and to verify development is predicated on the continuity and relationship of language. 11 a It is Max MUiler's claim that through the study of language we can see more fully than anywhere elee the process of abstraction which is so central to any theory of the origin and growth of religion.~ 1 ' As we have seen in our discussion of ~ythology, the key to the study of language, particularly the Indo-European family of languages, is SIJ,id to be the .(lg-Veda. It is said to provide us with a missing link which allows us to go back further in history than any other evidence would allow. As far as Max Millier is concerned, to study the growth of religion one must pay attention to language, and to study the growth of language one must have the .(lg-Yeda. Once again, the .(lg-Veda is seen to provide the linguistic tools which are necessary to understand the origin and development of religion. These tools are in turn used to interpret the .(lg-Yeda as a religious document. Consequently, in Max Milller's work there is a close interrelationship between the general theory of religion and his understanding of the .(lg-Veda itself. This relationship can be highlighted with a few examples from our discussion of the .(lg-Veda in chapter two. It will be recalled that Max Millier divides the .(lg-Veda into two periods, the chandas and the mantra. The significant characteristic of the mantra period was said to be tho

116

MAX MULLER AND

·ms

aG-ftOA '

evidence of a prie5tly or superiateiuib1g. spirit -seen. particularly in the collection and ordering of hylnns foil the, purposes of sacrifice. Emphasizing, as he does, t-he · primai-y nature and importance of language, hymm which h~ tO do. . with an elaborate sacrificial ceremonial are said to :bo · seoondary and are distinguished from those hymns which have to do with simple sacrifices and invocations of nature's deities. . Religion is · to be seen as beginning with ·man's appr~hension. -0f the infinite and attempts to name the infinite. Everythi~ else, including sacrifice and ritual is said to be scoondary, growing out of man's attempts to name and understand the infinite. The development of thought which Max MUiler sees in the .(lg-Veda is echoed in his theory of religion. In general, this development is said to begin with the pre-mytkological stage and to progress in order through the mythological, religious, and philosophical stages. The pre-mythological is that stage where names, which are later used as names of deities, are still appellative, are still used to explain the activities of nature by way of human activity. This is the stage where metaphors are still understood and used as met.aphors. This is followed by the mythologioal stage in which the intention of the metaphor is forgotten and the words become personal agents or names of beings. Through the application of general epithets such as deva to these beings we have the growth of the notion of deity which eventually comes to be associated with the concept of morality. Where this happens we arrive at the religious stage. Beyond this lies the philosophical stage which Max MUiler finds only in germ in the ./.lg-Veda. A clear example of this developmental sequence is provided by Max Miiller in his biography of Agni in Physical Religion. The fact that the fire is seen in various objects such as the sun, the lightnin~, flint, and wood, resulted in various epithets to explain his physical appearance, and stories tC? explain his association with these phenomena.,1 1 11 In keeping with _h is functions and character Agni came _to be called , dera, or bright, undying, immortal, friend, · fath~r, h.e lper in battle, and a destroyer of forests. 1 1 6 Once the true meaning · of these names and stories was forgotten : the stage was set for

MAX MULL-JIJl AND· ~H~ , .spIBNCB OF RELIGION

]

17

Agni to become a ~rsonal ,agent. He was associated with the sacrificial fire beco~ing. ·first a messenger between god anJ men and then an archetypal priest. 11 7 Fina1ly he became a mythological god and it is from this stage that the concept of deity is said to have sprung.1 ~ s Max Millier sums up this evolution as follows : Havin,g once been called ''he who moves," Agni, or having been. conceived as the agent of any other of his more striking acts, ·his further growth became easy to understand. We saw how almost by necessity lie came after that to grow into a breathing and living agent (Animism), for fire breathes, lives, and dies; caine to grow into a man-like being · (Anthropomorphism), for fire, though not a man, is a man-like agent, came to grow into an individual person (Personification), ro·r one fire differs from another ; and came at last to grow into _a Deva or a go~ (Deification). 11 9 On the basis of this exampl~, Max Millier states that wherever Fire occupies a supreme position in other religions, it must have passed ~hrough the same evolution as· is seen in the .(lg~Veda. 1 t b The relationship between the theory of religion and the example is obvious . . The development of religion, Max Millier maintains, begins with ihe perception of the infinite in otit -ordinary sensuous perceptions of finite objects, results ·1n nu~berless ~aines. of mythological agents or deities, and finally devel'?ps jnto the name of a supreme being, a god who is worshipped and obeyed. 12 1 This is clearly the pattern out• lined in the example of Agni. Furthermore, the analysis of Api is a , linguistic analysis, a study of changes and developm~ . in the 'import of the term Agni. Likewise, · the study -of 'religion is basica1ly a ling·uistic study, for · it involves the· tracipg of te~ms fro~ a ~etapho1'ical stage ·to a re1igfous stage. .It is the .{lg".'Veda which ·i s seen to provide the· ~ools fdr such .a stud~. . . · · Max MUJlei~s theory of reli~on s~ates . that the origin of ~he _deities lies - i.n ml\n's apprehension or perception of the infinite in finite ._,objects. ]tl ·his ·attempts to name this per. . . . . ~ption, man yadually ~~ves from the mote cncrete deities '.

•

. ..

•

'

. ~ •~

I

: •:

..

•

' J(

118

MAX MULLER AND TR1! llO""YBDA

based on visible phenomena to deities based on phenomena which are not visible, and finally to the more abstract notions or generalizations such as asura or deva from which the notion of a supreme deity is derived. The movement according to. the theory is from the concrete to the abstract, from the material to the spiritual, or from the visible to the invisible .. It is the same evolutionary development as the one presented to us in our discussion of Max Miiller's analysis of the ~g-Veda. According to Max Millier the origin of the deities is stil~ evident in the ~g-Veda in the fact that the names of deities are also used in the form of appellatives. These appellatives. tell us that the great phenomena of nature were originally referred to as active or as agents. The first objects to be so named and eventually to become deities were the great phenomena of nature such as the sun and the sky, the phenomena which were still visible to man. · These deities were replaced by more invisible gods, that is, deities based on the more· invisible but active aspects of nature such as thunder. Thus. Max Millier asserts that gods such as Dyaus precede gods such as Indra. The more abstract deities such as Sraddha, Vacand Aramati developed as man's powers of abstraction developed. The notion deva is also said to have experienced the same development. It began as a concrete concept meaning. bright, developed into a name for · a class of deities with the· same characteristic, and as the material aspects of this class. diminished, it gradually assumed the meaning of a general or· abstract notion of god. The same th reefold relationship which we discovered between Max MUiler's theory of mythology and his analysis of the ~g-Veda is evident here. To begin with, the ~g-Veda· is seen as the key to the study of the origin and development of religion because it is said to provide us with the clearest. and most complete example of physical religion and to contain within itself the seeds for the development of anthropological and psychological religion. In the second place, the ~g-Veda­ is said to provide us with the linguistic tools which enable us to· discern the development of the two ··basic elements orreligion, the concepts of deity· and morality. Finally, we hav0:

MAX MtJLLD AND TID' 1CDMCB 01' U'.IOIOM

119

seen a one to one relationship between the theory of religion and the interpretation of the .{lg-Veda as a reliaious document. becauae the tools which the .{lg-Vda supplies are used to analyu the .{lg-V~da itself, as well as to develop a theory of religion.

NOTBS ANO RBFBRBNCBS G. W. Trompf, "Friedrich Max Muller: Somo Preliminary Chips From His German Workshop," Jtnmllll of &ligilnu Hill~ v, p . 210. 2. F. Max Mullor, Ph)sical /Uligion, pp. 276-77. 3. F. Mu Muller, "Science of Reliaion: A RotrOtPOCt," Livirrg Ag1. CCXIX, p. 913. 4. Thero were numorous such theories in Mull~r's day, all or which he souaht to refute. In particular he 1iaaled out fetiahi1111, anc:eator worship, totorr.iam, and animiam. His most frequent comme ii directed aaainst any ethnoloaical theories, i.e., theories that attempt to derive tho oriain and development of reliaion from investi· aationa into contemporary primitive tribea. S. F. Max Muller, Antlal'opologieal R1ligion (Loodon : Lonaman•ll Groen, and Co., 1903), p. 36. 6. F. Max Muller, Tiu Origin and Gnwth of RMigion, p. 127. 7. Ibid., pp. S2-S3. 8. F. Max Muller, Physieal /Wigion, pp. 294-9S. That ho thinks in terms of an eaaential or true definition is clear from bis rejection of various definitions with which he ia familiar. See particularly bia rejection of definitions propoted by Strama, Kant, Fichte, Schloier· macher, Compte, and Fouerbach in Tlw ~ and Gr0U1tla of &ligime. pp. lS-20. 9. F. Max ~uller, Origin and ~owlh q/ Rlligi""• p. 3. 10. Ibid. 11. JIM., p. 20. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., pp. 20-21. 14. llnll., p. 24. JS. liid., pp. 2-3. 16. Ibid., pp. 21-22. 17. F. Max Muller, TluScilne1 of Religion, p . 12. 18. F. Max Muller, Physkal Religion, p . 294. 19. Ibid. p. 29S. 20. F. Max Muller, Chips, I, Preface. x. 21. F . Max Muller, Co11trilndi01U to tlu ScWreu If M:/l}lolo11· I, Preface, v. 22. F. Max Muller. Physical RuiP,.. pp. 293.94. 23. Ibid., pp. 276-78. 24. Ibid., p. 302. See alto p. 299 whoro ho atatol that m)'tholoay J.

.' 20

,. ••

.,

'·

is not possible without the previous elabo·ration of the names and : ~le, rational and inevitable. He states : It should not be supposed that there is anything my~­ Mtrious in the application of the ten oa.teaories to the roots. The origin of roots we have explained in iho moat simple. and natural .manner. Their modification

134

by means of the categories is equally natural and simple. What we calJ categories are the only possible ways in which we can use.our roots. They are necessities, they are, if you like, pure reason, and. to reason-

able beings they are not the most mysterious, but the most reasonable of all things.~~ Besides the categories, Max Milller speaks . of ..two other factors which add to the multiplication of, words; the factors. of.composition and metaphor. By compcsition he means. three things: combining predicative and pronominal roots to form verbal and nominal bases, combining word bases. . with termi· nations to form words, and combinins words to form new words. 6' The metaphors which account for the growth or langUage are· said to be of two .types.. 'First there is the radical metaphor which involves the transference of .a siD'gle root to various objects, because the. objects possess an att~ibu te to ·Which the root is applicable. 68 Second, the poetical me&aphor involves the transference of ready made words from one.well known object to another. 89 A further.distinction is made.~ MUiler speaks, for example, of a fundamental metaphor which refers to the naming of objects in terms of our own subjectivo activities.' 0 He speaks of a grammatical metaphor in whicb tW'o forms of the same noun·are expressed, by the same word ttecause of an ambiguity in the meanins of a suffix.' 1 Finally• he speaks of metaphor as a result of generalization or . abstracflon, a process in wbiolt a concept or word becomes . applicable to · many things because it bas lost the min..te points which 8enstiteted its original intention. 7. 1 Metaphors then, al01l8 witb the' categories and composition are.seen as a chief cause of tho srowth of words because they allow for a host of applicatiooa or transitioos-from man to. animal, from .. ani~al to. man, from material to immaterial .and vi~ versa~ fropa the sip to what is signified, from cau,Se .to effect, from a partto1he whole.. from one thing to another where these are ge111.tally .ass~ ted. '8 As · in the C86C of the ··.eatogorles, tho use. of metaphor in th«>· developiQeDt ofi laBgUSse ·is said :to be entirely natural. mevitable and intelliaible. · Mu ·:MUllv Q)ai~. tut without

MAX MU1 lllll AlilD THE SCIENCE OP THOUOHT

a8J

metaphor we would be without tbc abstract or inuntt.elial con~ptiona which form so much of our laquaae; fer ~a)J words expressive of immaterial conceptions are dcrivod b1 metaphor from words expressive of sensuous ideas." 74 . 'Ile claim is, of course, that metaphor was necessary fRf8891td with their eorrupted forms, are abridged to make .\~~'"

MAX MULlD ~D TIU 8CllNCB Of THOUGHT

139

!~r ~rcounc.

and preserve dialectic and local coloring more ~han .ordµlary words.1° 1 In the case of proper namea, there.f ore, ho insisted that one must pay attention to other than linguiatiC facts : . . . If a sub1Jtantial harmony between two characters in cognate languages and cognate mythologies has once been establia~ the slight phonetic differences which . I we observe, for instance, between Varu\la, and Ouranos, must give way. tot l}1 w~ this assertion on Max Mtiller's part which brought the charge of arbitrariness in some of the comparisons he made ~n Greek and Vedic deities.~oa Comparison then, is seen to provide us with the laws which regulate the chanps in words as they passed from one laoguaae t.o an:other, and these laws in turn are said to enable us to trace words back to their basic elements or roots. Max Miillor ~tatea that ... words which have hardly one single letter incommon have been traced back with perfect certainty to one and the same souroe.. ~ o' It ..~ ·these laws and the use of these la~s to analyze word rela· tionsbips and to trace word origins which go to make up the science of languap. Comparative philology, and phonetics, tbefo.re, are seen to. mate up the foundation of the acience or tudy . of lanau"I0'. 106 Max Millier maintains that it is only on such a basis that sound etymology (the ability to show the history .of & liopiatic foma, to show how one word is·derived from .aoothcr, .and to show the steps involved in the process) is possible.~~.• " The pesaibility of such an cndeaYot is . blaaed • tlae..Jlotion tlaat althoulh words may change, no new additions have.been made to· the basic elements of speech. : Thus ~ ~illler atatts that, .."we speak io all intents and purposes IPb.siaDdally tbe same .lanpage .as the-eadicat allQCSton of: our ~~".I Of

...

.

T,he .. ~rn in.·..establishing . liJ18Uiaticzclstiomhips by way. of etymole•at ualysis and other e'Yidence was to trace -words .

.\taak . to their odgiDs in : order to cUa~ver- the .basic elements c>f" lupap and thoUllM, .Jnd to discowr the original ·meaning

'140

MAX MULl.!ll AND THB ao·VZDA

of

and purpose these elements and their . subsequent develop· nient to form the various languages of a single language-family. For Max MUller such discoveries meant an uncovering of the history of nations. For example, be states : We thus see how languages reflect · the history of nations, and bow, if properly analysed, almost every word will tell us the many vicissitudes through which · it passed on its way from Central Asia to India or to Persia, to Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, to Russia, Gaul, Germany, ·the British Isles, America, New Zealand ; nay, back again in its world-encompassing migrations, to India and the Himalayan regions from which it started.1 o s He claimed that guided by scientific etymology we can move backward in history to a time where the words we speak were first for med by our earliest ancestors. 1 o 9 In effect, therefore, language is said to make historical a period that was traditionally designated as prehistorical. Max MUiier insisted that we c1n now speak of a historical period beyond the pale of traditional historical evidence by virtue of the establishment ·of a common language, a common religion, and a common mythology based on tbe .comparatiTe study of related languages. 1 1 0 The words and the thoughts of this period arc said to reveal to us for the first time tbose intellectual struggles which had so formative an influeoce on later linguistic and intellectual developments.1 11 It is·important to ; recall Max MUiler's argument that· if one finds words shaied in common by the southeaata'n ·b ranch of the hdo-European family of la11guiigea Jlnd any mem"'r.ofthe northwestern branch, this constitutes real proof that the ancestors of the Greeks, Romans, Celts,- Germans, ·Slavs, Persian$; and Indians at one time formed a · single compact group ~peaking . the same languase. The conclusion that one can dra• from such common words, he maintains, is that they give· us an insight into the cwilization of the lndo.Europeans before they separated into various nations. Thus he states : It is-clear as da7tight that when we find a number of . .Ntforda which all Ary.an languqes abare in .common, 1

MAX MULLl!a. AND

THE

SCD~J! OP THOUGHT

141

these words and the ideas which they express, . must have been known before the Proto·Aryan language · was dil'erentiated as Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Latin, .aad all the rest. It has been possible to put together .. these fragmentary words into a kind of mosaic picture. pving us an idea of the degree of civilization reached before the Aryan separation. 1 12 Such an attempt to paint a mosaic of Indo-European civilization prior to the separation is made in Max MUiler's Biography ()j Words and the Home of the Aryas. The argument presented here works also in reverse. Thus. in el'ect, words and the refore ideas not shared in common by these nations are evidence of later developments peculiar to these nations after the separation of Indo-Europeans. In fact, one can make a threefold distinction. Words shared in common by these nations are evidence of what was seen, done, and heard by the Indo-Europeans before they sep~rated. Words peculiar to the southeastern branch and those peculiar to the northwestern branch are evidence of what was seen, done, and heard by each of these branches after the initial separation. Finally, words that are peculiar to each of the lndo-European nations are evidence of a yet later development following the division of the two branches into the variou~ Indo-European nations. Max Millier, however, inserts a cautionary note to the effect that whatever the northwestern and southeastern languages share separately may or may not be older than their separation, for one must take into account factors of forgetfulness and borrowing.1 1a This, however, turns out to be simply a cautionary note, for it will be recalled that one of the distinctions be makes between early and later deities in the .(lg-Veda is made precisely on the basis of the above divisions-that names of deities shared in common by southeastern and northwestern Indo-Europeans belong to a pre-separation er~ while names not shared belong to a later era. Thus he main· tains that Dyaus is an old Aryan deity while Indra is of purely Indian origin. Further, in bis analysis of . pre-separation lndoBuropoan civiliza~on Max t.JUller s~at~ . that not only thJ

142

MAX MULLER AND THB RG-VBDA

coincidences in words, but also the diJfereaces are full of historical import. 11 • And, curiously enough, these differences are full of ·historical import because they accord with what we would expect if we assume that there was a common lndoBuropean civilization somewhere in Asia. 11 ~ In other words, common sense will tell us, in addition to language, what may or may not have been the case in the history of the lndoEuropean nations.

In addition to providing an insight into pre-historical · civi· lizations, words held in common by language families are said to provide us with the radical elements of language. In dis· A

In. the &nal analysis, while ·growth is said to predominate, the evolutionary process is seen to include both growth and decay. In Max Miiller's view the growth of the· human mind is achieved only through many struggles and defeats. 1 9 In keeping with this view of progress, ~g-Veda is described in terms of stages and trends. 10 The chandas period with its simple, self explanatory invocations of natural phenomena. and natural unsophisticated sacrificial rituals, gives way to the mantra period with its complex and artificial sacrificial ceremonial and priesthood. Appellatives, used to describe natural phenomena, become proper names of deities and these in turn yield abstract conceptions such as deva. The older and more tangible deities such as Dyaus give way to younger and more intangible or abstract deities such as Indra. The unsystematic stage of benotheism shows trends toward the more systematic and sophisticated stages of polytheism,. monotheism, and monism. Further, these trends show movement toward a more spiritual and abstract understanding of deity. The idea of growth in terms of stages and trends applies as well to Max MUiler's views on mythology, religion, language, and thought. In the case of mythology he speaks of the metaphorical or appellative use of words giving way to the mythological use, the development of complex mythological beings from the simple notion of agency, the trend within mythological conceptions toward the development of religious conceptions, and stages of mythological development with aspects of Vedic mythology predating aspects of Roman and Greek mythology. 2 1 In the case of religion be speaks of development from an unsystematic worship of physical deities through the systematization of polytheism to the abstractions of monotheism and monism. 21 In each case we are to see the elaboration and developments of germs contained in the previous stages. Max Millier characterizes the development of religious thought in the following terms : It was long supposed that a Maker. a Creator, a Supporter or Preserver, must everywhere have been postulated by the human mind, but the evolution of

MAX MUL1.BB. AND BASIC A89UMP1'10NS

U#

religious thought, as we can study it now in tile Vecfl and elsewhere teadlos a diftetent lesson. The human mind laid hold at first of what was visible, and gradually discovered the invisible behind the visible. It began with what was concrete and from it proceeded slowly to the discovery of what was abstraot.s• Phlally, in ianpasc and thought, Max Millier tales us from a time in which there were only roots e1'pressing agency daroup increasingly complex stages of root combinations to tlkJ point where the abstractions of modern phDosophy become a .p ossibility. 1 ' Thus, in his preface to Kant's Critique of Pure ~Mon we find him saying : The bridge of thoughts and sighs tllat span the whole bistory of the Aryan wmld bu its first arch in the Veda, its last in Kant's Critique. In the Veda we watch the first unfoldiog of the human mind as we can watch it nowhere else.'• The various stages which constitute Max MUUer's evolutionary framework are said to be natural, intelligible and iaevitablo developments. By natural and inteUigibllJ, Max Miller seems to mean that each stage can be explained witlaout 1'9008llO to some extra-historical agency or somothiA& itulat. ia maa, and that each stage is to be seea as a nCGeSSuy eutpowth of a preceding stage. For Max Muller, the natu~ of oYolatiGn was to be continuous. 2 6 He states : In spite of all that seems to be accidental or ar•itratyy there is a natural and intellisible growth in what we call the c'eations of the human miBd, qui~ as much as in what we call the works of nature. 9 1 A noto of inevitability is cleatly contained in the assertion that each staac is a natural and intelligible outgrowth of a preceding stage. Max Muller sooma to mean not only that ~h stase is explainable in terms of what pt~ed it, but also tQt any developments are dotermiaed by what is contained in ~ding. staaes. However, there is also a teleoloJical dimension in Max Milller's use of the term "inevitable." Thitlgs are ia,'-vit~ble nol oaly in the sense that tho germ of potential .for: thcM" mena ~an be seen in his treatment of the folklore, tales, and nu.rsery rhymes of various countries. Seemingly he sees the dawn and the sun everywhere behind human thought, even behind the nursery rhymes he heard as a child from his mother. 46 In the case of language and thought, Max Millier claims that assuming only a self conscious individul capable of adding .and subtracting one can arrive at origins and developments which are natural, intelligible, and inevitable. 4 6 Thus, thought is said to be derived from the simultaneous operation of sensation and perception and to develop on the basis of inherent -categories of understanding and forms of intuition. In t~is development there is, he claims, a steady progress towards the truth. 4 7 Language (that is, sound plus meaning) is accounted for by way of roots and these roots are said to be based on man's awareness of his own activities. The sounds emboq~ed in these roots are said to arise naturally from the emission of various sounds that would accompany physical activity. Given -certain inherent categories and factors such as composition and metaphor which apply to language as well as thou&ht, Jinguistic development is said to be understandable and inevitable. Again, as in his treatment of religion and mytholosy, -everything is said to begin and develop from primitive man's ,perceptions of the physical µniverse. So insistent is M~ Mi.Wer -on this point that he will not accept any etymology of a mythological name which does not disclose the original physical -character of the god involved in that name. 4 8 As we have seen, in Max Miiller's eyes, to be historical apd scientific one had to be evolutionary. Given the emphasis that .. js ·placed on the direction and characteristics of the evolution·ary process. one might add that in Max Miiller's eyc:s, to be -evolutip.aar)': meant tund in Max Mi.iller's analysis of the developinen~ of religio•. In support for his views on tb~ origin of ph~sical religion be makes the. following appeal t~ common sense as well as to the .(lg-Veda :

No douat. evea without the 'vidence supplie:d by the Veda, ·e ae might have asktd in return what btUDr subjects there co.aid Jlave been fn an earlr state of soeicty, to. eqap the thou1hts and io satisfy even the ·higlldt a1Pirationa of mankiad, than tbo wonders of nature-the daily return of the sun, which meant the retuta of light and warsnth, that i~. the i>0ssibility of life >&nd the joy ef life-or the yearly retpfft Qf, the sun, which meuit apin the return of spring and summer after the horrcrs of wjater, that is, the poHibility of Me and t~ joy of ·life. 6 e Hi&. ap,eal tD logic is eviden~ in his lajm that our bite perceptions· must ileldy tile . infinite aod that this th•n bec;omcs the t>ua IH. ·our imuil:iOn ·of the transoendental. e 1 ·Such an appeal is also evident in the UIUPMPl tl:l~t the ebftiact concept

170

MAX MULLJ!& AND TRB RO-vm>A

of god is unattainable unless one begins with the more concrete perceptions of many gods or agents of nature. ee The appeal to psychological argumentation is again evident in the assumption of a common human nature. He argues that our own perceptions of nature support the notion that the sense of the infinite impressed itself on the Vedic poets through the finite because when we look at the universe we are overwhelmed with the pressure of the infinite. e 9 Clearly, his belief is that what is true for us must have been true for our ancient ancestors. In addition to this assumption, an attempt at psychological analysis to explain the origin of religion is obvious in Max Muller's statements that from the beginning man had feelings of weakness, incompleteness and dependence, and that · he compensated for these feelings by finding in the sky a symbol for that which was lacking in man.' 0 In Max Muller's discussion of thought and language the appeal to common sense is seen in his argument for the inseparability of thought and language. Everyone knows, he maintains, that one cannot speak a sentence without thinking . the concepts implied by that sentence.' 1 In his view it is impossible either to speak without thinking or to think without speaking.' 1 The assumption of a common human nature which says that psychologically there is no distance between modern man and his ancestors is evident in the following discussion of the transformation of language : What really happens is that names vary in intension. Percepts do not hold all the sensations which originally composed them, concepts do not retain all the percepts which at first they were meant to embrace. There is therefore a constant change going on in the meaning of words, and our mind, if we but watch it carefully, is the permanent scene of the most surprising transformations. As concepts lose their full intension-and this all concepts are apt to do by themselves and without assiitance derived from what we call abstraction-their names become larger, i.e.. become applicable to new germinal concepts which are but waiting for · a name t~ ,8Prin& into life.' •

MAX MUU.l!lt AND BASIC AISUMP'nONS

171

Again, Max MUiler is arguing that what happens in our own minds is evidence for what must have happened in the development of thought and language at a much earlier stage of history. The emphasis on logic to support his theory of thought and language is clearly evident in the assertion that there are certain necessary and inherent categories or conditions which allow for the development of language and thought, and that these categories and conditions are presupposed by language itsell. ,. Inasmuch as Max MUiler claims to be historical, to want to present the unbroken chain of the evolution of human thought on an empirical basis, such appeals represent a confusion of logical, common sense, and psychological argumentation with historical analysis. Furthermore, there is also a confusion of the results of logical and psychological analysis with historical evidence. Thus the ~g-Yeda is accepted as the most primitive of written documents because we find here what we might expect from savages who were dependent on nature, became it lacks systematic treatment and poetical beauty, and because it was isolated from foreign influence.' 5 Max MUller inds basic elements and factors in the development or mythology not on the basis of empirical evidence, but because he is looking for origins which in his views can be explained as natural and intelligible. The basic element or religion is said to be the perception of the infinite, not because Max MUiler has found evidence of a primitive postulating the notion of the infinitebut because the finite implies the infinite. The monosyllabic roots which Max MUiler accepts as an example of a rudimentary proto-Indo-European language are not the product of empirical investigation but rather the product of logical etymological analysis. Behind the acceptance of the results of logical, common sense, and psychological argumentation as empirical evidence lies an arbitrary definition of what it must have been like to be primitive.' e That it was arbitrary is indicated by the disagreements Max MUiier had with opposing theories. He declined to see primitive man in terms of theories such as animism and totemiam. He preferred rather to define primitive man in terms

1?2 of the matorials with which he worked, that is. it)· ~rms of Vedic materials. His argument wu that io the Jh-Yeda we -..ee origins which require no antecedents. As we have s~n such origins are not the result of historical eviden~, but of logical, common sense and psychological argument. Ttts PRIORITY OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES Our discussion of Max Mtill~r's views on the study of the ~g..y fd'1.. mythology, reliaion, and taougbt has sbow.n that he places c~asiderable emphasis on the study of laoju~e itself for ou-r koowledge of the JJ.g-Yeda, mytkology, relijioQ, and tlaought, This becomos quite evi. and tboqht. From the becinning Max Muller en~~d high ho~ about the results of philology ia &tneral, an4 Sanskrit phUotogy in particular. Thus, in A Hillory of A1&eitfnt Sanskrit LitertJtttre he wrote : The ebject aad aim of philelogy, in its ltiehest seAse. is but one-to learn what man is, by teaming what ma.n has been. With this principle for our pole-star, we shall never lose ourselves, thoqb engaged in the most minute and abtruse inquiries ... If, then, it is the aim of Sanskrit philology to supply one of t8e earliest and most important links in the history 0f mtmldnd, we must go to work historically ; that is, we UliHt begin as far as we can, with the beginning, Qd IJiQP tJ~ce gradually the growth of the Indian tnind, iQ itt; v,arious manifestation, as far as the remaining monpo.ients allow us to follow this coarse. 7 7 As far ae Max Miillcr was concerned, the disoovory o~ the ~leme&ts and roots of human speech had bro,.bt with it the dilcei.ery ·of the rdarts ad •mentJ of hvuJan t~pt. 7 8

of

· For Mll Maner, everyttiic import.at coocerains mu w~s

MAX MVl..Ua A.)lD aAllO MSUMPTIONS

173

a. qwettion of the stady of language. By ddblition the study of mytholog is a study of lan&uage and thought. Mytholo1Y is said so be a "di8ea9e of languages and thought," the result of tu metaphorical use of language, or an inevitable phase in the devolopmeat of languap, and thouaht. For Max MUiier tbe9)' to tbe abldy of mythology is not so much a matter of a comperati'IO study of the character and acbieveJDOAta of mythological figures as it is a comparative study of thoir names. 1 sThia is so because mythology is said to be the result of fhe inluence of language on thought. 8 0 It is language thereforewhich gives rise to mythology, and consequently, mytholosy can only be studied as a matter of language forgetting itself. s 1 Thus, Mu MUiler states that all mythological explanations. must ro&_t on a sound etymological basis, and that no explana-· tions of mythology are to be accepted unless they are based on an accmate analysis of the names of principal actors. s 2 As in mythology, the study of language is the key to thestudy of religion. By definition, it too is a matter of linguistic. investiption, for relipon is said to be the perception of the. infinite as it relates to man's moral behavior and attempts to. give a name to these perceptions. As was seen in cha ptor four, the most important material for the study of religion is language. Even materials such as mythology, custom, law, and sacred books are matters of language as far as Max Miiller is. concerned. In speaking of the development of physical religion he says:

At present it su&ices to state that all these proCOl&CS have now been traced back to their rera causa, oamoJy, language, and more particularly to what are called the roots of language. s 8 The problettl in the study of religion is seen as one of tracing the development of man's perception and conception of the mfittite. Since concepts are said to be contained only in words it becomes a problem of the development of language. Since the historical religions are seen as an inevitable development from the metaphorical and mythological use of language, ihe problem, as in the case or mythology, becomes the discovery of' how primitive matt perceived and conceived natural pheno-

174

MAX MULLER AND TBB RO·Vm>A

mena. e• The discovery of how the natural phenomena were perceived and conceived is seen as possible because we know bow they were named, and we are said to know how they were named because we have the evidence of language. 8 • Thu Max Millier claims that his theory of religion is not based on theo.retical expectations or logical necessities but begins with the factual evidence of language which allows us to trace words back to their root beginnings. s e Inasmuch as the .(lg-Veda is a document of ancient' mythology and religion, its analysis also becomes a question of the -study of language. It is presented as the oldest monument of speech and thought in the Indo-European world. It is seen as the fullest record of primitive thought, its antiquity being based -0n intellectual and linguistic constructions which require no antecedents. The distinction between the chandas and mantra periods is basically one between language and thought which is -0riginal, free and unconscious, and language and thought which is fettered by literary and ceremonial usage. A distinc,tion is made between non-philosophical, philosophical and mystical thought, and between pre-mythological, mythological, .and religious thought. The origin, and development of Vedic deities is a question of the origin and development of names .applied to natural phenomena. To understand the meaning ·of these names, one must of course, study the origin and development of language. Max Millier was concerned to arrive as closely as possible .to origins, for if these could be discovered, he felt, then human ·development would become intelligible. He saw language, that is, the uncovering of the original meaning and purpose of words, as the road to such discovery.s1 In his lectures on the science of thought a basic problem which he set for himself was to prove that "the whole of what we call the human mind is realized in language, and in language only."BB Such a .statement helps account for his attempts to analyze mythology, .religion, and even the .{lg-Veda as matters of linguistic development. The extent to which these are matters of language .for Max Millier is seen in the following quotation: In fact, if by this time there still could be any reason-

MAX MULLBR AND BASIC ASSUMP'nONS

175

able doubt in the correctnesa of the common origin of Dyaus, Zeus, and Jupiter, the comparative study of languages might as well be banished from our Universities, the comparative study of mythology should be ostracized, and the comparative study of religions should take its place behind astrology and palmistry. s e Thus he sees the ability to say anything reliable about the -origin and development of mythology, religion, and thought to be dependent on one etymological equation. This equation :and others like it are further dependent on the discovery and -study of Sanskrit. As far as Max MUiler was concerned, linguistic evidence provides us with the true biography of the human mind be-cause it is far superior to any other available evidence for the -study of human development. 9 0 He argued that a knowledge -of language is both crucial and reliable because it is here that human thoughts and feelings are realized. 9 1 Thus he maintained optimistically that in the roots shared by the language families we have the basic elements of thought and that the history and philosophy of language provides us with the true .history and philosophy of the human mind because in language we have irrefutable facts. 9 1 As in the case of his solar theory, -the extent to which Max Millier would apply the study of language can be seen in his appeal to etymology for an ade.quate understanding of modem folklore and tales. 9 8 For Max Millier, etymologyrepresented the prehistoric period in language =and thought, H and since etymologies were reliable historical -evidence, they served to make this period historical. So important were linguistic or etymological studies for him that one is ileft with the distinct feeling that anyone ignoring such studies ·would not be called a true scholar by Max MUller. 9 is In effect, Max MUiier's theory of the origin and development of language becomes tlle paradigm for all developments in human thought. As in language, a11 developments in buman thought are seen in terms of growth, decay and regener:ation of a few primary elements. In the case of religion, for -example, in Max MUiler's mind there is operating an obvious .analogy between religion and language. As in language, he

176 maintained, so in relijio11 thore i.s nothing new., rather every so-called oew development i& merely a new combination of a fo.w radical elemcnts.9 6 Max Mtillor's clauification of religions follows his classification of language into three famiJies, the Ural-Altaic, the Aryan, and the Semitic. The argument seems to be that since there are three oases of speech, 0110