« ForrigeFortsæt »
nor confirmation of the representative assemblies, but only the assent of the sovereign ; but all treaties affecting the customs duties must be approved by the Austrian Reichsrath and Hungarian Diet.
By the last census of the 31st of December 1880, the population of Austria was 22,144,244, and that of Hungary only 15,738,468, and, as we have just seen, the contributions of the latter towards the expenditure of the monarchy is only 31•4 per cent. of the whole ; yet we find her having an equal representation with Austria in the management of their common affairs. This has the appearance of a concession to Hungary, yet in practice it has worked well. As all questions in dispute are settled by the absolute majority of votes, such is the rivalry between the two States, that were the voting power of Austria to greatly prevail over that of Hungary the interests of the latter would be likely to suffer.
There can be no doubt that Home Rule has acted beneficially in regard to Hungary. On this point no higher authority can be cited than Louis Kossuth, the leading spirit in the revolutionary movement of 1848–49, and president of the Committee of Defence. This distinguished patriot and irreconcilable enemy of the Austrian government, in writing to his countrymen thanking them for an address which they had sent congratulating him on his eightieth birthday, said that
the present condition of Hungary is in accordance with the real wants of the nation,' that parties now stand on the basis of loyalty to the dynasty,' and that “it affords an amply sufficient guarantee for the future of the Hungarian State. Under these circumstances, he expressed the hope that Hungary might be preserved from revolutions in the future.
The rivalries that subsist between the different nationalities which constitute its population are a constant source of disquietude and even danger to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Except Russia, no other nation in Europe embraces within it so many distinct nationalities, peoples differing from each other in race, language, religion, customs, and manners. In Austria, according to the last census of 1880, of a total population of 24,144,244, there were 8,008,864 speaking German ; 5,180,908 Bohemian, Moravian, Slavonic ; 3,238,534 Polish ; 2,792,667 Ruthenian; 1,140,304 Sloven; 563,615 Serb and Croatian ; 668,653 Italian and Ladin; 190,799. Roumanian ; and 6,887 Magyar. In Hungary, of a population of 15,738,468, 6,206,842 spoke Magyar or Hungarian ; 2,325,838 Roumanian; 1,882,371 German; 1,799,563 Slavonic ; 2,325,747 Serb and Croatian ; 345,187 Ruthenian; and 83,150 Wendic. There were in Austria 17,693,648 and in Hungary 7,849,692 Roman Catholics ; in Austria 2,536,177 and in Hungary 1,497,268 Greek Catholics ; in Austria 401,479 and in Hungary 3,154,652 Protestants ; in Austria 1,005,394 and in Hungary 638,314 Jews; in Austria 493,542 and in Hungary 2,434,896 belonging to the Eastern or Oriental Greek Church. The Germans are the dominant race in Austria and the Magyars in Hungary, but in neither do they form a majority of the population. These different nationalities are constantly calling out for an independent government, or the right to manage their own affairs in their own way without the interference of others, but we do not hear of Home Rule being granted to them. The State, however, has endeavoured to bring about harmony by means of liberal concessions, as the lowering of the franchise and the substitution of direct for indirect representation, so as to give the inadequately represented nationalities more power in the National Council, but only with partial success. In 1882 a law was passed extending the franchise in Austria to all males in towns and rural districts paying direct taxes to the amount of 10s. annually. The same year a measure was introduced reorganising the army on the territorial system, so that in place of the different divisions being composed of a mixture of all nationalities, with the German element usually predominant, they will be composed entirely, or nearly so, of persons of the same nationality. The Emperor, by making frequent journeys to different parts of his dominions, has done much to increase his popularity and strengthen the loyalty of his subjects.
MYTHS AND MYTHOLOGISTS.
DURING the last three years Professor Max Müller has published in this Review a series, or rather a set, of articles dealing, more or less, with the beginnings of Myth and of Religion. I say a set rather than a series,' because the articles were written on various occasions, and have therefore little formal connection, or necessary logical sequence. The word 'occasion' was used, by the old Scotch writer on fencing, Sir William Hope, as synonymous with a chance hostile encounter. Such an occasion 'I venture to find in Professor Max Müller's mythological articles.
To keep up the metaphor, as it is usual for fencers to salute before they engage, I would take the opportunity of saying that not a word of what follows impugns the scholarship and learning which in Mr. Max Müller are as admirable as his pellucid and persuasive style. His philological conclusions, as far as they are philological, are sacred from an unlearned pen. Scholars may, and do, discuss and dispute them ; here we are only concerned to show that differences do prevail, and that, even if the philological arguments were universally accepted, they could not support the burden of theory that is raised on them as a foundation. The opposed system, a system unknown or ignored in Germany, though it attracts notice in France, must suffer from the advocacy of a 'mere belletristic trifler ' like myself, but if no one else will speak up for anthropological mythology, I must even, like the Men of the Mearse, in the Scotch proverb, do the best I can.
The 'general reader,' casting his eye over these pleasing essays, might suppose that the chief disputes of mythologists are actually settled : settled in Mr. Max Müller's sense, and in favour of what is called the solar hypothesis. The author assures us, and with
1 Nineteenth century, January 1882, January 1885, October 1885, December 1885.
? Mr. Max Müller has, himself, 'never attempted more than to prove that certain portions of ancient mythology have a directly solar origin.? I give a list of some of the mythical characters connected by Mr. Max Müller with the Sun or Dawn; in some cases
Roscher's Lexikon), Tithonus, Cephalus, Prokris, Herakles, Deianeira, Daphne, Apollo, Hermes, Athene, Eurydice (and, generally, all mythic ladies whose names begin with Eury), Europa's Bull (?), Achilles, Meleager, Orpheus, Eros, The Graces or Charites, Erinys, Aphrodite (a Moon goddess and Semitic, according to Dr. Isaac Taylor), Edipous, Perseus (apparently), Bellerophon, Helen of Troy.
perfect truth, that much solar mythology is found among Hottentots, Red Indians, and Samoyedes; that Mr. Le Page Renouf believes
almost every atom ’of Egyptian myth to be solar (he may settle that with M. Maspero); that Dr. Brinton holds the chief hero of the Algonkin Red Men to be a hero of the Dawn; that M. Réville finds the Sun everywhere in Mexico ; that Mr. Tylor recognises in Maui, the Maori hero, a solar hero, and we all know that a working majority of myths are solar according to Mr. Max Müller himself.
Very well, here seems to be a consensus of opinion, and the reader, perhaps with a sigh, decides that he must henceforth regard the solar cause as triumphant, and recognises in the Greek Daphne and Athene, and Achilles, as in the Maori Maui, and the Algonkin Manibozho, the old familiar figure of the sun, or the dawn.
I shall attempt (as far as several long essays can be answered in one short article) to prove that this acquiescence is premature; that the solar theory is scarcely, as Mr. Max Müller declares, “a generally recognised fact;' that even his old favourites, Athene, Daphne, Achilles, are not universally admitted to be the dawn or the sun; that the savage heroes whom he mentions are not proved to be solar'characters, and that the whole philological interpretation of myths is, at present, not much more than a series of contradictory etymological conjectures.
First, then, let us examine the statement that the solar theory is no longer a theory, but has now become a generally recognised fact.' I do not understand, I confess, in what sense this bold statement can be made by any student of contemporary mythological researches. Let us take some concrete examples. In his essays, “ The Lesson of Jupiter,' and Solar Myths,'3 Mr. Max Müller names Daphner Ahanâ' as a safe equation.' 'Ahanâ,' he repeats,4 is a Sanskrit word for • Dawn ;'Ahanâ became Daphne in Greek, and Daphne, the girl changed into a laurel, is really and originally a dawn-maiden. Mr. Max Müller has been telling us this for a quarter of a century, but do mythologists agree with him ? Do Sanskrit scholars, as a rule, agree with him ?
If the agreement were general,' could M. Bergaigne possibly write as he does on the subject, in a spirit, I regret to say, of Parisian flippancy? In Paris, according to Voltaire, the very gamins
Nasum rhinocerotis habent. This disdainful feature M. Bergaigne turns up at Abanâ and Daphne. The word Ahanâ, he declares (and Mr. Müller agrees), is, a äraš eipnuévov—that is, occurs only once—and therefore its sense is hard to determine. He translates it "eternal,' and gives four or five conjectural etymologies. “Note in passing,' he says, that this
Nineteenth Century, October and December 1885. 4 Compare Selected Essays, i. 397, 510, 607 ; ii. 237.
is the Abanâ to which Mr. Max Müller added a d, to make it the equivalent, or nearly so, of Daphne, and to discover in the Greek nymph a sister of the Vedic Dawn. O snows of yester-yearO neiges d'antan!' Mr. Max Müller complains of this flippancy. M. Bergaigne is a rebel, but would he dare to be so rebellious if
Ahanâ= Daphne' were a 'safe equation, a “generally recognised fact ’? But M. Bergaigne is not only a rebel, he is a French rebel. He has always experienced somewhat rough treatment from German scholars,' Mr. Max Müller says, and perhaps it is only a little revenge for Alsace and Lorraine he is taking on the Indo-Germanic dawn maiden. But, it must be allowed, he “bas great allies,' even among Americans, even among Teutons. A transatlantic critic, in the Nation (can this be Mr. Whitney, that Mephistopheles who stets verneint?), denies that Abanâ meant the dawn, or could possibly become Dahanâ, and therefore Daphne. As the Greeks at no time spoke Sanskrit, I myself cannot see how they got hold of Dahanâ, a Sanskrit word, if ever it was a word at all. But some of the very Germans reject' Abanâ=Daphne. The learned Roscher with twenty named allies is publishing a huge and most complete Dictionary of Mythology. In this thoroughgoing work, under the word Daphne, Mr. Max Müller's theory does not even receive a passing allusion. Mannhardt 6 alludes to it only to say that it absolutely lacks foundation in facts.'
Preller says nothing about the etymological analysis, though he does show that Apollo had two other loves with tree or flower names, Cypress and Hyacinth. On the whole, then, whether the solar theory' in this example be correct or not, can any mortal maintain that it is generally acknowledged'?
Let us take some other examples they abound. Achilles, in Mr. Max Müller's opinion, is a “solar hero,' and, like other solar heroes (and Tommy Atkins), is vulnerable.' Is this generally acknowledged ? Far from it. Setting aside five ancient etymologies of Achilles, the modern philologists 7 (in Roscher's Lexikon) recognise Achilles as a hero (1) of light, (2) of rivers, (3) of dark, (4) of fire. His name, poor fellow, is tortured into support of each of these four opinions, while some witty authors judiciously combine their information, and make Achilles a stream and sun god. All these views are based on etymological analysis. Any reader of Mr. Max Müller would suppose that Achilles was universally admitted (except by anthropologists perhaps) to be a sun hero. But the curious have really
5 Ausführliches Lexikon (Teubner).
Antike Wald- und Feld-Cultur. · The sensible Curtius conjectures, also, that Achilles may mean the stay of the host,' or the stone-wielder '-appropriate names for a warrior in days when warriors threw big stones. But it is pointed out that'stone-wielder' would be a natural title of a river-god, as if rivers were the only beings that could wield stones! Do we need more examples of the vanity of etymological research (as a general rule) into the roots and meanings of proper names ?