Myth and Meaning 9781442654112

Table of contents :
The 1977 Massey Lectures
Contents
An Introduction
One. The Meeting of Myth and Science
Two. ‘Trimitive’ Thinking and the ‘Civilized’ Mind
Three. Harelips and Twins: The Splitting of a Myth
Four. When Myth Becomes History
Five. Myth and Music

Citation preview

MYTH AND MEANING CLAUDE LÉVI-STRAUSS

Ever since the rise of science and the scientific method in the seventeenth century, we have rejected mythology as the product of super-stitious and primitive minds. Only now are we coming to a fuller appreciation of the nature and role of myth in human history. In these five lectures originally prepared for the CBC, Claude Lévi-Strauss, one of the world's greatest living thinkers, offers the insights of a lifetime spent interpreting myths and trying to discover their significance for human understanding. The lectures begin with a discussion of the historical split between mythology and science and the evidence that mythic levels of under-standing are being reintegrated in our approach to knowledge. In an extension of this theme, Professor Lévi-Strauss analyses what we have called 'primitive' thinking and discusses some universal features of human mythology. The final two lectures outline the functional relationship between mythology and history and the structural relationship between mythology and music. Combining history, anthropology, and philosophy, this book provides a broad and penetrating perspective on the contemporary western world. CLAUDE LÉVI -STRAUSS, Professor of Social Anthropology at the College de France, is the author of many distinguished works, among them The Elementary Structures of Kinship, Tristes Tropiques, Totemism, The Savage Mind, The Raw and the Cooked, From Honey to Ashes, and Structural Anthropology.

This page intentionally left blank

Myth and Meaning Five talk s for radi o by Claud e Levi-Straus s

UNIVERSITY O F TORONT O PRES S TORONTO B U F F A L O

© Universit y of Toront o Pres s 1978 Toronto Buffal o Londo n Printed in Canad a

Library of Congres s Cataloging in Publication Dat a Levi-Strauss, Claude . Myth an d meaning . (Toronto ; Buffalo : University o f Toront o Press , [1978])

Talks wer e broadcast o n th e CB C Radio series , Ideas , in December , 1977. ' 1. Structura l anthropolog y - Addresses , essays , lectures. 2 . Mytholog y - Addresses , essays, lectures . 3. Philosphy , Primitiv e - Addresses , essays, lectures. I. Title . GN362.L47 301.2 1 78-521 ISBN 0-8020-2 3 20-7 ISBN 0-8020-6348-9 pbk .

2

The 1977 Massey Lectures Ever sinc e th e adven t o f scienc e i n th e seventeent h century, w e hav e rejecte d mytholog y a s a product o f superstitious an d primitiv e minds . Onl y no w ar e w e coming t o a fuller appreciatio n o f th e natur e an d rol e of myth i n human history . In these five lectures, the distinguished socia l anthropologist , Claud e Levi-Strauss , offers th e insights of a lifetime spen t interpreting myth s and tryin g t o discove r thei r significanc e fo r huma n understanding. Entitled 'Myt h an d Meaning, ' the talk s were broad cast o n th e CB C Radi o series , Ideas, i n Decembe r 1977 . They wer e assemble d fro m a series o f length y conver sations betwee n Professo r Levi-Straus s an d Carol e Or r Jerome, produce r i n th e Pari s bureau o f th e CBC . Th e programs were organize d b y Geraldine Sherman , exec utive producer of Ideas, an d produced b y Bernie Lucht . The lecture s hav e bee n expande d fo r publicatio n t o include som e materia l which , fo r reason s o f time , could no t b e use d i n the origina l broadcasts . Th e spoken word s hav e bee n minimall y edited t o mak e

vi Th e 197 7 Masse y Lecture s them confor m t o th e mor e rigi d convention s o f print . Carole Or r Jerome's mai n question s t o Professo r Levi-Strauss, whic h helpe d shap e th e cours e o f th e lectures, wer e a s follows : CHAPTER ON E

Many o f you r reader s thin k tha t yo u ar e tryin g t o bring us back t o mythica l thought , tha t w e hav e los t something ver y preciou s an d tha t w e mus t tr y t o gai n it back . Doe s this mea n tha t scienc e an d moder n thought mus t g o ou t th e windo w an d tha t w e mus t go back t o mythica l thought ? What i s structuralism? Ho w di d yo u arriv e a t th e idea tha t structura l though t wa s a possibility ? Is it necessar y to hav e orde r an d rule s to hav e meaning? Ca n yo u hav e meanin g i n chaos ? Wha t d o you mea n tha t orde r i s preferable t o disorder ? CHAPTERS TW O AN D THRE E

There ar e thos e wh o sa y tha t th e thinkin g of so-calle d primitive peopl e i s inferior t o scientifi c thinking . The y say tha t i t i s inferior, no t becaus e o f a matter o f style , but because , scientificall y speaking , i t i s wrong. Ho w would yo u compar e * primitive' though t wit h * scientific' thought ? Aldous Huxley , i n his discussion i n The Doors of Perception, sai d tha t mos t o f u s use onl y a certai n amount o f ou r menta l power s an d th e res t o f the m are completel y shu t away . D o you fee l tha t i n th e kind o f live s we lea d today , w e ar e using less of ou r

vii Th e 197 7 Masse y Lecture s mental capacitie s tha n th e peopl e yo u writ e o f wh o thought i n a mythical fashion ? Nature show s u s a variegated world , an d weV e tended t o pic k u p o n th e difference s betwee n u s rather tha n th e similaritie s i n th e developmen t o f ou r cultures. D o you thin k w e ar e developin g t o a poin t where w e ca n star t closin g man y o f th e division s tha t exist betwee n us ? CHAPTER FOU R

There i s the ol d proble m o f th e investigato r wh o changes th e subjec t o f hi s investigatio n b y simpl y being there. I n lookin g a t ou r collection s o f mytho logical stories , d o the y hav e meanin g an d orde r o f their own , o r ha s order bee n impose d b y th e anthro pologists wh o hav e collecte d th e stories ? What i s the differenc e betwee n th e conceptua l organization o f mythologica l thinkin g an d tha t o f history? Doe s th e mythologica l tellin g o f a story dea l with historica l facts , the n transfor m the m an d us e them i n anothe r way ? CHAPTER FIV E

Could yo u tal k i n general abou t th e relationshi p between myt h an d music ? You hav e sai d tha t bot h myt h an d musi c ste m from languag e bu t evolv e i n differen t directions . What d o yo u mea n b y this ?

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

An Introduction 3 1

The Meeting of Myth and Science 5 2

'Primitive' Thinking and the 'Civilized' Mind 15 3

Harelips and Twins: The Splittin g of a Myth 2 5 4 When Myth Become s History 3 4 5 Myth an d Music 4 4

This page intentionally left blank

MYTH A N D MEANIN G

This page intentionally left blank

An Introduction Although I am going to talk about wha t I have written , my books an d paper s an d so on, unfortunately I forge t what I have written practically as soon as it is finished . There i s probably going t o b e som e troubl e abou t that . But nevertheles s I think ther e i s also somethin g signif icant abou t it , i n that I don't hav e th e feelin g tha t I write m y books . I have th e feelin g tha t m y book s ge t written throug h m e an d tha t onc e they have got acros s me I feel empt y an d nothin g i s left . You ma y remembe r tha t I have writte n tha t myth s get though t i n ma n unbeknowns t t o him . Thi s ha s been much discussed and even criticized by my English speaking colleagues , becaus e thei r feelin g i s that, fro m an empirica l poin t o f view , i t i s an utterl y meaningles s sentence. Bu t fo r m e i t describe s a lived experience , because i t say s exactly ho w I perceive m y ow n rela tionship t o m y work . Tha t is , my wor k get s though t in m e unbeknow n t o me . I never had , an d stil l d o no t have , th e perceptio n o f feeling m y persona l identity . I appear t o mysel f a s th e

4 A n Introductio n place wher e somethin g i s going on , bu t ther e i s no T , no 'me. ' Eac h o f u s i s a kin d o f crossroad s wher e things happen. Th e crossroad s i s purely passive; some thing happen s there . A differen t thing , equall y valid , happens elsewhere . Ther e i s no choice , i t i s just a mat ter o f chance . I don' t preten d a t al l that, becaus e I think tha t way , I a m entitle d t o conclud e tha t mankin d think s tha t way too . Bu t I believe that , fo r eac h schola r an d eac h writer, th e particula r wa y h e o r sh e thinks an d write s opens a new outloo k o n mankind . An d th e fac t tha t I personally hav e thi s idiosyncrac y perhap s entitle s m e to poin t t o somethin g whic h i s valid, whil e th e wa y i n which m y colleague s thin k open s differen t outlooks , all of whic h ar e equall y valid .

ONE

The Meeting of Myth and Science Let m e star t wit h a personal confession . Ther e i s a magazine whic h I read faithfull y eac h mont h fro m th e first lin e t o th e last , eve n thoug h I don't understan d all of it ; it i s the Scientific American. I am extremel y eager t o b e a s informed a s possible o f everythin g tha t takes plac e i n moder n scienc e an d it s new develop ments. M y positio n i n relation t o scienc e i s thus no t a negative one . Secondly, I think ther e ar e som e thing s we hav e lost, an d w e shoul d tr y perhap s t o regai n them , be cause I am no t sur e tha t i n th e kin d o f worl d i n whic h we ar e livin g and wit h th e kin d o f scientifi c thinkin g we ar e boun d t o follow , w e ca n regai n thes e thing s exactly a s if they ha d neve r bee n lost ; but w e ca n tr y to becom e awar e o f thei r existenc e an d thei r impor tance. In th e thir d place , m y feelin g i s that moder n scienc e is not a t al l moving awa y fro m thes e los t things , bu t that mor e an d mor e i t i s attempting t o reintegrat e them i n the fiel d o f scientifi c explanation . Th e rea l

6 Myt h an d Meanin g gap, th e rea l separatio n betwee n scienc e an d wha t w e might a s well cal l mythical though t fo r th e sak e o f finding a convenient name , althoug h i t i s not exactl y that - th e rea l separatio n occurre d i n th e seventeent h and th e eighteent h century . A t tha t time , wit h Bacon , Descartes, Newton , an d th e others , i t was necessar y for scienc e t o buil d itsel f u p agains t th e ol d genera tions o f mythica l an d mystica l thought , an d i t wa s thought tha t scienc e coul d onl y exis t b y turnin g it s back upo n th e worl d o f th e senses , the worl d w e see , smell, taste , an d perceive ; the sensor y wa s a delusiv e world, wherea s th e rea l worl d wa s a world o f mathe matical propertie s whic h coul d onl y b e graspe d b y th e intellect an d whic h wa s entirely a t odd s with th e fals e testimony o f th e senses . This was probably a neces sary move , fo r experienc e show s us that thank s t o thi s separation - thi s schis m i f you lik e - scientifi c though t was abl e t o constitut e itself . Now, m y impressio n (and , o f course , I do no t tal k as a scientist - I am no t a physicist, I am no t a biologist, I am no t a chemist) i s that contemporar y scienc e is tending t o overcom e thi s gap, an d tha t mor e an d more th e sens e dat a ar e bein g reintegrated int o scien tific explanatio n a s something whic h ha s a meaning , which ha s a truth, an d whic h ca n b e explained . Take, fo r instance , th e worl d o f smells . We were ac customed t o thin k tha t thi s was entirely subjective , outside th e worl d o f science . Now th e chemist s ar e able t o tel l us that eac h smel l o r eac h tast e ha s a cer tain chemica l compositio n an d t o giv e us the reason s

7 Th e Meetin g o f Myt h an d Scienc e why subjectivel y som e smell s o r som e taste s fee l t o u s as having somethin g i n commo n an d som e other s see m widely different . Let's tak e anothe r example . Ther e wa s i n philoso phy fro m th e tim e o f th e Greek s t o th e eighteent h and eve n th e nineteent h centur y - an d ther e stil l i s t o some exten t - a tremendous discussio n abou t th e ori gin o f mathematica l idea s - th e ide a o f th e line , th e idea o f th e circle , th e ide a o f th e triangle . There were , in the main , tw o classica l theories : on e o f th e min d a s a tabula rasa, wit h nothin g i n i t i n th e beginning ; ev erything come s t o i t from experience . I t i s from seein g a lot o f roun d objects , non e o f whic h wer e perfectl y round, tha t w e ar e abl e nevertheles s t o abstrac t th e idea o f th e circle . The secon d classica l theor y goe s back t o Plato , wh o claime d tha t suc h idea s o f th e cir cle, o f th e triangle , o f th e line , are perfect , innat e i n the mind , an d i t i s because the y ar e given t o th e min d that w e ar e abl e t o projec t them , s o to speak , o n real ity, althoug h realit y neve r offer s u s a perfect circl e o r a perfect triangle . Now, contemporar y researcher s o n th e neurophysi ology o f visio n teac h u s tha t th e nervou s cell s in th e retina an d th e othe r apparatu s behin d th e retin a ar e specialized: som e cell s are sensitiv e onl y t o straigh t direction, i n th e vertica l sense , other s i n th e horizon tal, other s i n th e oblique , som e o f the m t o th e rela tionship betwee n th e backgroun d an d th e centra l fig ures, an d th e like . S o - an d I simplify ver y muc h be cause i t i s too complicate d fo r m e t o explai n thi s i n

8 Myt h an d Meanin g English - thi s whole proble m o f experienc e versu s mind seem s to hav e a solution i n th e structur e o f th e nervous system , no t i n th e structur e o f th e min d o r i n experience, bu t somewher e betwee n min d an d experi ence i n the wa y ou r nervou s syste m i s built an d i n th e way i t mediate s betwee n min d an d experience . Probably ther e i s something dee p i n m y ow n mind , which make s i t likel y tha t I always was what i s no w being calle d a structuralist. M y mothe r tol d m e that , when I was about tw o year s ol d an d stil l unable t o read, o f course , I claimed tha t actuall y I was abl e t o read. An d whe n I was asked why , I said tha t whe n I looked a t th e signboard s o n shop s - fo r instance , boulanger (baker ) o r boucher (butcher ) - I was abl e t o read somethin g becaus e wha t wa s obviousl y similar , from a graphic poin t o f view, i n th e writin g coul d no t mean anythin g othe r tha n 'bou / th e sam e firs t sylla ble o f boucher an d boulanger. Probabl y ther e i s noth ing more tha n tha t i n th e structuralis t approach ; i t i s the ques t fo r th e invariant , o r fo r th e invarian t ele ments amon g superficia l differences . Throughout m y life , thi s searc h wa s probably a predominant interes t o f mine . When I was a child, fo r a while m y mai n interes t wa s geology. Th e proble m i n geology i s also to tr y t o understan d wha t i s invarian t in the tremendou s diversit y o f landscapes , tha t is , t o be abl e t o reduc e a landscape t o a finite numbe r o f geological layer s an d o f geologica l operations . Late r a s an adolescent , I spent a great par t o f m y leisur e tim e drawing costume s an d set s for opera . Th e proble m

9 Th e Meetin g o f Myt h an d Scienc e there i s exactly th e sam e - t o tr y t o expres s i n on e language, tha t is , the languag e o f graphi c art s an d painting, somethin g whic h als o exists in musi c an d i n the libretto ; that is , to tr y t o reac h th e invarian t prop erty o f a very comple x se t o f code s (th e musica l code , the literar y code , th e artisti c code) . The proble m i s t o find wha t i s common t o al l of them . It' s a problem , one migh t say , o f translation , o f translatin g wha t i s expressed i n on e languag e - o r on e code , i f you prefer , but languag e i s sufficient - int o expressio n i n a differ ent language . Structuralism, o r whateve r goe s under tha t name , has been considere d a s something completel y ne w an d at th e tim e revolutionary ; this , I think, i s doubly false . In th e firs t place , eve n i n th e fiel d o f th e humanities , it i s not ne w a t all ; we ca n follo w ver y wel l thi s tren d of though t fro m th e Renaissanc e t o th e nineteent h century an d t o th e presen t time . Bu t i t i s also wron g for anothe r reason : wha t w e cal l structuralis m i n th e field o f linguistics , o r anthropology , o r th e like , i s nothing othe r tha n a very pal e an d fain t imitatio n o f what th e 'har d sciences / a s I think yo u cal l the m i n English, hav e bee n doin g al l the time . Science ha s only tw o way s o f proceeding : i t i s either reductionis t o r structuralist . I t i s reductionis t when i t i s possible t o fin d ou t tha t ver y comple x phe nomena o n on e leve l ca n b e reduce d t o simple r phe nomena o n othe r levels . For instance , ther e i s a lot i n life which can be reduced t o physicochemical process es, whic h explai n a part bu t no t all . And whe n w e ar e

10 Myt h an d Meanin g confronted wit h phenomen a to o comple x t o b e re duced t o phenomen a o f a lower order , the n w e ca n only approac h the m b y lookin g t o thei r relationships , that is , by tryin g t o understan d wha t kin d o f origina l system the y mak e up . This i s exactly wha t w e hav e been tryin g t o d o i n linguistics , i n anthropology , an d in differen t fields . It i s true - an d let' s personalize natur e fo r th e sak e of th e argumen t - tha t Natur e ha s only a limited num ber o f procedure s a t he r disposa l an d tha t th e kind s of procedure whic h Natur e use s at on e leve l of realit y ar e bound t o reappea r a t differen t levels . The geneti c code i s a very goo d example ; i t i s well known that , when th e biologist s an d th e geneticist s ha d th e prob lem o f describin g wha t the y ha d discovered , the y could d o nothin g bette r tha n borro w th e languag e o f linguistics an d t o spea k o f words , o f phrase , o f accent , of punctuatio n marks , an d th e like . I do no t mea n a t all that i t i s the sam e thing ; of course , i t i s not. Bu t i t is the sam e kin d o f proble m arisin g a t tw o differen t levels of reality . It woul d b e very fa r fro m m y min d t o tr y t o reduc e culture, a s we sa y i n ou r anthropologica l jargon, t o na ture; but nevertheles s wha t w e witnes s a t th e leve l o f culture ar e phenomen a o f th e sam e kin d fro m a. formal poin t o f vie w ( I d o no t mea n a t al l substantially) . We can a t leas t trac e th e sam e proble m t o th e min d that w e ca n observ e o n th e leve l o f nature , though , o f course, th e cultura l i s much mor e complicate d an d calls upon a much large r numbe r o f variables .

11 Th e Meetin g o f Myt h an d Scienc e I'm no t tryin g t o formulat e a philosophy, o r eve n a theory. Sinc e I was a child, I have bee n bothere d by , let's cal l i t th e irrational , an d hav e bee n tryin g t o fin d an orde r behin d wha t i s given t o u s as a disorder. I t s o happened tha t I became a n anthropologist , a s a mat ter o f fac t no t becaus e I was intereste d i n anthropol ogy, bu t becaus e I was trying t o ge t ou t o f philosophy . It als o s o happened tha t i n th e Frenc h academi c framework, wher e anthropolog y wa s a t th e tim e no t taught a s a discipline i n it s own righ t i n th e universi ties, i t wa s possible fo r somebod y traine d i n philoso phy an d teachin g philosoph y t o escap e t o anthropol ogy. I escaped there , an d wa s confronte d immediatel y by on e proble m - ther e wer e lot s o f rule s o f marriag e all over th e worl d whic h looke d absolutel y meaning less, an d i t wa s all the mor e irritatin g because , i f the y were meaningless , the n ther e shoul d b e differen t rule s for eac h people , thoug h nevertheles s th e numbe r o f rules coul d b e mor e o r les s finite. So , if th e sam e ab surdity wa s found t o reappea r ove r an d ove r again , and anothe r kin d o f absurdit y als o t o reappear , the n this wa s somethin g whic h wa s not absolutel y absurd ; otherwise i t woul d no t reappear . Such wa s m y firs t orientation , t o tr y t o fin d a n or der behin d thi s apparen t disorder . An d whe n afte r working o n th e kinshi p system s an d marriag e rules , I turned m y attention , als o by chanc e an d no t a t al l o n purpose, towar d mythology , th e proble m wa s exactl y the same . Mythical storie s are , or seem , arbitrary , meaningless, absurd , ye t nevertheles s the y see m t o re -

12 Myt h an d Meanin g appear al l over th e world . A 'fanciful ' creatio n o f th e mind i n on e plac e woul d b e uniqu e - yo u woul d no t find th e sam e creatio n i n a completely differen t place . My proble m wa s trying t o fin d ou t i f ther e wa s som e kind o f orde r behin d thi s apparent disorde r - that' s all. And I do no t clai m tha t ther e ar e conclusion s t o be drawn . It is , I think, absolutel y impossibl e t o conceiv e o f meaning withou t order . Ther e i s something ver y curi ous in semantics , tha t th e wor d 'meaning ' i s probably , in th e whol e language , th e wor d th e meanin g o f whic h is the mos t difficul t t o find . Wha t doe s 't o mean ' mean? I t seem s to m e tha t th e onl y answer w e ca n give is that 't o mean * means th e abilit y o f an y kin d o f data t o b e translate d i n a different language . I do no t mean a different languag e lik e Frenc h o r German , bu t different word s o n a different level . After all , thi s translation i s what a dictionary i s expected t o giv e you - th e meanin g o f th e wor d i n differen t words , which o n a slightly differen t leve l ar e isomorphi c t o the wor d o r expressio n yo u ar e tryin g t o understand . Now, wha t woul d a translation b e withou t rules ? I t would b e absolutely impossibl e to understand. Becaus e you canno t replac e an y wor d b y an y othe r wor d o r any sentenc e b y an y othe r sentence , yo u hav e t o hav e rules of translation . T o spea k o f rule s an d t o spea k o f meaning i s to spea k o f th e sam e thing ; and i f we loo k at al l the intellectua l undertaking s o f mankind , a s fa r as they hav e bee n recorde d al l over th e world , th e common denominato r i s always t o introduc e som e

13 Th e Meetin g o f Myt h an d Scienc e kind o f order . I f thi s represents a basic nee d fo r orde r in th e huma n min d an d since , afte r all , the huma n mind i s only par t o f th e universe , th e nee d probabl y exists because ther e i s some orde r i n th e univers e an d the univers e i s not a chaos . What I have bee n tryin g t o sa y her e i s that ther e ha s been a divorce - a necessary divorce - betwee n scientifi c thought and what I have called the logic of the concrete , that is, the respect for an d the use of the data of the senses, as opposed to images and symbols and the like. We are witnessing the moment when this divorce will perhaps be overcome or reversed, because modern scienc e seems to be able to make progress not only in its own traditional lin e - pushin g forward an d forward bu t stil l within th e sam e narro w channe l - bu t als o a t th e sam e time to widen the channel an d t o reincorporat e a great many problem s previousl y lef t outside . In thi s respect, I may b e subjecte d t o th e criticis m of bein g calle d 'scientistic ' o r a kind o f blin d believe r in scienc e wh o hold s tha t scienc e i s able t o solv e ab solutely al l problems. Well , I certainly don' t believ e that, becaus e I cannot conceiv e tha t a day wil l com e when scienc e wil l be complet e an d achieved . Ther e will alway s b e ne w problems , an d exactl y a t th e sam e pace a s science i s able t o solv e problems whic h wer e deemed philosophica l a dozen year s o r a century ago , so there wil l appear ne w problem s whic h ha d no t hitherto bee n no t perceive d a s such. There wil l alway s be a gap betwee n th e answe r scienc e i s able t o giv e u s

14 Myt h an d Meanin g and th e ne w questio n whic h thi s answe r wil l raise . S o I am no t 'scientistic ' i n that way . Scienc e wil l neve r give us all the answers . What w e ca n tr y t o d o i s to in crease very slowl y th e numbe r an d th e qualit y o f th e answers w e ar e abl e t o give , and this , I think, w e ca n do onl y throug h science .

TWO

Trimitive' Thinking and the 'Civilized' Mind The wa y o f thinkin g amon g peopl e w e call , usuall y and wrongly , 'primitive ' - let' s describ e the m rathe r as 'without writing, ' becaus e I think thi s i s really th e discriminatory facto r betwee n the m an d u s - ha s bee n interpreted i n tw o differen t fashions , bot h o f whic h in m y opinio n wer e equall y wrong . The firs t wa y wa s to conside r suc h thinkin g a s of a somewhat coarse r quality, an d i n contemporar y anthropolog y th e exam ple which come s t o min d immediatel y i s the wor k o f Malinowski. I must sa y immediatel y tha t I have th e greatest respec t fo r hi m an d conside r hi m a very grea t anthropologist, an d I' m no t a t al l deriding his contrib ution. But nevertheless the feeling in Malinowski wa s that th e though t o f th e people h e was studyin g was , and generall y speakin g th e though t o f al l the popula tions withou t writin g whic h ar e th e subjec t matte r o f anthropology wa s entirely, o r is , determined b y th e basic need s o f life . I f yo u kno w tha t a people, who ever the y are , i s determined b y th e bar e necessitie s o f living - findin g subsistence , satisfyin g th e sexua l drives ,

16 Myt h an d Meanin g and s o on - the n yo u ca n explai n thei r socia l institu tions, thei r beliefs , thei r mythology , an d th e like . This very widesprea d conceptio n i n anthropolog y generall y goes under th e nam e o f functionalism . The othe r fashio n i s not s o much tha t their s i s an inferior kin d o f thought , bu t a fundamentally differ ent kin d o f thought . Thi s approac h i s exemplified b y the wor k o f Levy-Bruhl , wh o considere d tha t th e ba sic difference betwee n 'primitive ' though t - I alway s put th e wor d 'primitive ' withi n quote s - an d moder n thought i s that th e firs t i s entirely determine d b y emo tion an d mysti c representations . Wherea s Malinowski' s is a utilitarian conception , th e othe r i s an emotiona l or affectiv e conception ; an d wha t I have trie d t o em phasize i s that actuall y th e though t o f peopl e withou t writing is , or ca n b e i n man y instances , o n th e on e hand, disintereste d - an d thi s i s a difference i n rela tion t o Malinowsk i - and , o n th e othe r hand , intellec tual - a difference i n relation t o Levy-Bruhl . What I tried t o sho w i n Totemism an d i n The Savage Mind, fo r instance , i s that thes e peopl e who m w e usually conside r a s completely subservien t t o th e nee d of no t starving , o f continuin g abl e just t o subsis t i n very hars h materia l conditions , ar e perfectl y capabl e of disintereste d thinking ; that is , they ar e move d b y a need o r a desire t o understan d th e worl d aroun d them , its nature an d thei r society . O n th e othe r hand , t o achieve tha t end , the y procee d b y intellectua l means , exactly a s a philosopher, o r eve n t o som e exten t a scientist, ca n an d woul d do .

17 'Primitive ' Thinkin g an d th e 'Civilized ' Min d This is my basi c hypothesis . I would lik e t o dispe l a misunderstanding righ t away. T o sa y tha t a way o f thinkin g i s disintereste d and tha t i t i s an intellectua l wa y o f thinkin g doe s no t mean a t al l that i t i s equal t o scientifi c thinking . O f course, i t remain s differen t i n a way, an d inferio r i n another way . I t remain s differen t becaus e it s aim i s t o reach b y th e shortes t possibl e mean s a general under standing o f th e univers e - an d no t onl y a general bu t a total understanding . Tha t is , it i s a way o f thinkin g which mus t impl y tha t i f you don' t understan d every thing, yo u don' t explai n anything . Thi s i s entirely i n contradiction t o wha t scientifi c thinkin g does , whic h is to procee d ste p b y step , tryin g t o giv e explanation s for ver y limite d phenomena , an d the n goin g o n t o other kind s o f phenomena , an d s o on. A s Descarte s had alread y said , scientifi c thinkin g aime d t o divid e the difficult y int o a s many part s a s were necessary i n order t o solv e it . So thi s totalitarian ambitio n o f th e savag e min d i s quite differen t fro m th e procedure s o f scientifi c think ing. O f course , th e grea t differenc e i s that thi s ambi tion doe s no t succeed . W e ar e able , throug h scientifi c thinking, t o achiev e master y ove r natur e - I don' t need t o elaborat e tha t point , i t i s obvious enoug h while, o f course , myt h i s unsuccessful i n giving ma n more materia l powe r ove r th e environment . However , it gives man, ver y importantly , th e illusio n tha t h e ca n understand th e univers e an d tha t h e does understan d the universe . I t is , of course , onl y a n illusion .

18 Myt h an d Meanin g We should note , however , tha t a s scientific thinker s we us e a very limite d amoun t o f ou r menta l power . We use wha t i s needed b y ou r profession , ou r trade , or the particula r situatio n i n which w e ar e involve d a t the moment . So , i f somebod y get s involve d fo r twent y years an d eve n mor e i n th e wa y myth s o r kinshi p sys tems operate , the n h e use s this part o f hi s mental pow er. Bu t w e canno t reques t tha t eac h o f u s b e intereste d in exactly th e sam e things ; so each o f u s uses a certai n amount o f ou r menta l powe r fo r wha t i s needed o r for wha t interest s us . Today w e use les s and w e us e mor e o f ou r menta l capacity tha n w e di d i n th e past ; And i t i s not exactl y the sam e kin d o f menta l capacit y a s it was either. Fo r example, w e us e considerabl y les s of ou r sensor y per ceptions. When I was writing th e firs t versio n o f Mythologiques {Introduction to a Science of Mythology), I was confronte d wit h a problem whic h t o m e wa s ex tremely mysterious . I t seem s tha t ther e wa s a particu lar trib e whic h wa s abl e t o se e the plane t Venu s i n ful l daylight, somethin g whic h t o m e woul d b e utterl y im possible an d incredible . I put th e questio n t o profes sional astronomers ; they tol d me , o f course , tha t w e don't but , nevertheless , whe n w e kno w th e amoun t o f light emitte d b y th e plane t Venu s i n ful l daylight , i t was not absolutel y inconceivabl e tha t som e peopl e could. Late r o n I looked int o ol d treatise s o n naviga tion belongin g t o ou r ow n civilizatio n an d i t seem s that sailor s o f ol d wer e perfectl y abl e t o se e th e plane t in full daylight . Probabl y we coul d stil l do s o i f w e had a trained eye .

19 'Primitive ' Thinkin g an d th e 'Civilized ' Min d It i s exactl y th e sam e wit h ou r knowledg e abou t plants o r animals . Peopl e wh o ar e withou t writin g have a fantastically precis e knowledge of thei r environ ment an d al l their resources . All thes e thing s w e hav e lost, but we did not los e the m fo r nothing ; we ar e no w able t o driv e a n automobil e withou t bein g crushe d a t each moment , fo r example , o r i n th e evenin g t o tur n on ou r televisio n o r radio . This implie s a training o f mental capacitie s whic h 'primitive ' peoples don' t hav e because the y don't nee d them . I feel that , wit h th e potential the y have , the y coul d hav e change d th e qual ity o f thei r mind , bu t i t would no t b e neede d fo r th e kind o f lif e an d relationshi p t o natur e tha t the y have . You canno t develo p al l the menta l capacitie s belong ing to mankin d al l at once . You ca n onl y us e a smal l sector, an d thi s secto r i s not th e sam e accordin g t o the culture . That i s all. It i s probably on e o f th e man y conclusion s o f an thropological researc h that , notwithstandin g th e cul tural difference s betwee n th e severa l part s o f mankind , the huma n min d i s everywhere on e an d th e sam e an d that i t has th e sam e capacities . I think thi s i s accepte d everywhere. I don' t thin k tha t culture s hav e trie d systematicall y or methodicall y t o differentiat e themselve s fro m eac h other. Th e fac t i s that fo r hundred s o f thousand s o f years mankin d wa s no t ver y numerou s o n th e earth ; small groups wer e livin g in isolation , s o that i t was on ly natura l tha t the y develope d characteristic s o f thei r own an d becam e differen t fro m eac h other . I t wa s no t something aime d at . Rather , i t i s the simpl e resul t o f

20 Myt h an d Meanin g the condition s whic h hav e bee n prevailin g for a n ex tremely lon g time . Now, I would no t lik e you t o thin k tha t thi s i n it self is harmful o r that these differences shoul d b e over come. As a matter o f fact , difference s ar e extremel y fecund. I t i s only throug h differenc e tha t progres s ha s been made . Wha t threaten s u s right no w i s probabl y what w e ma y cal l over-communication - tha t is , th e tendency t o kno w exactl y i n on e poin t o f th e worl d what i s going o n i n al l other part s o f th e world . I n or der fo r a culture t o b e reall y itsel f an d t o produc e something, th e cultur e an d it s members mus t b e con vinced o f thei r originalit y an d even , t o som e extent , of thei r superiorit y ove r th e others ; it i s only unde r conditions o f under-communicatio n tha t i t ca n pro duce anything . W e are no w threatene d wit h th e pros pect o f ou r bein g onl y consumers , abl e t o consum e anything fro m an y poin t i n th e worl d an d fro m ever y culture, bu t o f losin g al l originality . We can easil y no w conceiv e o f a time whe n ther e will be onl y on e cultur e an d on e civilizatio n o n th e entire surfac e o f th e earth . I don't believ e thi s wil l happen, becaus e ther e ar e contradictor y tendencie s always a t wor k - o n th e on e han d toward s homogeni zation an d o n th e othe r toward s ne w distinctions . Th e more a civilization become s homogenized , th e mor e internal line s o f separatio n becom e apparent ; an d what i s gained o n on e leve l is immediately los t o n an other. Thi s i s a personal feeling , i n that I have n o clea r proof o f th e operatio n o f thi s dialectic . Bu t I don' t

21 'Primitive * Thinking an d th e 'Civilized ' Min d see how mankin d ca n reall y live without som e interna l diversity. Let u s now conside r a myth fro m wester n Canad a about th e skat e tryin g t o maste r o r dominat e th e South Wind an d succeeding . It i s a story of a time tha t existed o n eart h befor e mankind , tha t is , o f a tim e when animal s an d human s wer e no t reall y distinct ; beings were half-huma n an d half-animal . Al l were ex tremely bothere d b y th e winds , becaus e th e winds , especially th e ba d winds , were blowin g al l the time , making i t impossibl e fo r the m t o fis h an d t o gathe r shellfish o n th e beaches . S o the y decide d tha t the y had to fight th e winds and compe l them to behave mor e decently. Ther e wa s a n expeditio n i n whic h severa l human animal s o r anima l human s too k part , includin g the skate , whic h playe d a n importan t rol e i n capturin g the Sout h Wind . Th e Sout h Win d wa s liberate d onl y after h e promise d no t t o blo w al l the time , bu t onl y from tim e t o time , o r a t certai n periods . Sinc e tha t time, i t i s only a t certai n period s o f th e year , o r on e day ou t o f two , tha t th e Sout h Win d blows ; durin g the res t o f th e time , mankin d ca n fulfi l it s activities . Well, thi s stor y neve r happened . Bu t wha t w e hav e to d o i s not t o satisf y ourselve s tha t thi s i s plainly ab surd o r just a fanciful creatio n o f a mind i n a kind o f delirium. W e have t o tak e i t seriousl y an d t o as k our selves the questions: why the skat e an d wh y th e Sout h Wind? When yo u loo k ver y closel y a t th e mythica l materia l

22 Myt h an d Meanin g exactly a s it i s told, you notic e tha t th e skat e act s o n account o f ver y precis e characteristics , whic h ar e o f two kinds . The firs t on e i s that i t i s a fish lik e al l fla t fish, slipper y underneat h an d roug h o n th e back . An d the other capacity, which allow the skate to escape very successfully whe n i t ha s to figh t agains t othe r animals , is that i t i s very larg e see n fro m abov e o r below , an d extremely thi n whe n see n fro m th e side . An adversar y may thin k tha t i t i s very eas y t o shoo t a n arro w an d kill a skate because it is so large; but just as the arrow is being aimed , th e skat e ca n suddenl y turn o r sli p an d show onl y it s profile, which , o f course , i s impossibl e to aim at; thus it escapes. So the reason why the skate is chosen i s that i t i s an anima l which , considere d fro m either on e poin t o f vie w o r fro m th e other , i s capabl e of givin g - let' s sa y i n term s o f cybernetic s - onl y a 'yes' o r 'no ' answer . I t i s capable o f tw o state s whic h are discontinuous , an d on e i s positive, an d on e i s negative. The use the skate is put to in the myth i s - though , of course , I would no t lik e to strai n th e simil e to o fa r - lik e th e element s i n moder n computer s whic h ca n be use d t o solv e very difficul t problem s b y addin g a series of 'yes ' o r 'no ' answers . While i t i s obviously wron g an d impossibl e fro m a n empirical poin t o f vie w tha t a fish i s able t o figh t a wind, fro m a logical poin t o f vie w we ca n understan d why images borrowecLfro m experienc e ca n b e pu t t o use. This i s the originalit y o f mythica l thinkin g - t o play th e par t o f conceptua l thinking : a n anima l whic h can b e use d a s what I would cal l a binary operato r ca n

23 'Primitive ' Thinkin g an d th e 'Civilized ' Min d have, fro m a logical poin t o f view , a relationship wit h a problem whic h i s also a binary problem . I f th e Sout h Wind blow s ever y da y o f th e year , the n lif e i s impos sible fo r mankind . Bu t i f i t blow s onl y on e da y ou t o f two - 'yes ' on e day , 'no ' th e othe r day , an d s o on then a kind o f compromis e become s possibl e betwee n the need s o f mankin d an d th e condition s prevailin g i n the natura l world . Thus, fro m a logical poin t o f view , ther e i s an affin ity between a n anima l lik e th e skat e an d th e kin d o f problem whic h th e myt h i s trying t o solve . The stor y is not tru e fro m a scientific poin t o f view, bu t w e could onl y understan d thi s property o f th e myt h a t a time whe n cybernetic s an d computer s hav e com e t o exist i n th e scientifi c worl d an d hav e provide d u s wit h an understandin g o f binar y operation s whic h ha d al ready bee n pu t t o us e i n a very differen t wa y wit h concrete object s o r being s b y mythica l thought . S o there i s really no t a kind o f divorc e betwee n mytho logy an d science . I t i s only th e presen t stat e o f scien tific though t tha t give s us th e abilit y t o understan d what i s in thi s myth , t o whic h w e remaine d complete ly blin d befor e th e ide a o f binar y operations becom e familiar t o us . Now, I would no t lik e you t o thin k tha t I am put ting scientifi c explanatio n an d mythica l explanatio n on a n equa l footing . Wha t I woul d sa y i s tha t th e greatness an d th e superiorit y o f scientifi c explanatio n lies not onl y i n th e practica l an d intellectua l achieve ment o f science , bu t i n th e fact , whic h w e ar e witness -

24 Myt h an d Meanin g ing more an d more , tha t scienc e i s becoming abl e t o explain no t onl y it s own validit y bu t als o what wa s to som e exten t vali d i n mythologica l thinking . What i s important i s that w e ar e becomin g mor e an d mor e in terested i n thi s qualitativ e aspect , an d tha t science , which ha d a purely quantitativ e outloo k i n th e seven teenth t o nineteent h centuries , i s beginning t o inte grate th e qualitativ e aspect s o f realit y a s well. Thi s undoubtedly wil l enable u s to understan d a grea t many thing s presen t i n mythologica l thinkin g whic h we wer e i n th e pas t pron e t o dismis s a s meaningles s and absurd . An d th e tren d wil l lead u s t o believ e that , between lif e an d thought , ther e i s not th e absolut e gap whic h wa s accepte d a s a matter o f fac t b y th e seventeenth-century philosophica l dualism . I f we ar e led t o believ e tha t wha t take s plac e i n ou r min d i s something no t substantiall y o r fundamentall y differ ent fro m th e basi c phenomenon o f lif e itself , an d i f we ar e led the n t o th e feelin g tha t ther e i s not thi s kind o f ga p whic h i s impossible t o overcom e betwee n mankind o n th e on e han d an d al l the othe r livin g beings - no t onl y animals , bu t als o plants - o n th e other , then perhap s w e wil l reach mor e wisdom , le t u s say , than w e thin k w e ar e capabl e of .

THREE

Harelips and Twins: The Splitting of a Myth Our startin g point her e wil l be a puzzling observatio n recorded b y a Spanish missionar y i n Peru , Fathe r P J . de Arriaga, a t th e en d o f th e sixteent h century , an d published i n his Extirpacion de la Idolatria del Peru (Lima 1621) . H e note d tha t i n a certain par t o f Per u of hi s time, i n time s o f bitte r col d th e pries t calle d i n all the inhabitant s wh o wer e know n t o hav e bee n bor n feet first , o r wh o ha d a harelip, o r who wer e twins . They wer e accuse d o f bein g responsible fo r th e col d because, i t wa s said, the y ha d eate n sal t an d peppers , and the y wer e ordere d t o repen t an d t o confes s thei r sins. Now, tha t twin s ar e correlate d wit h atmospheri c disorder i s something ver y commonl y accepte d throughout th e world , includin g Canada . I t i s well known tha t o n th e coas t o f Britis h Columbia , amon g the Indians , twin s were endowe d wit h specia l power s to brin g good weather , t o dispe l storms , an d th e like . This is not, however , th e par t o f th e proble m whic h I wish t o conside r here . What strike s m e i s that al l th e

26 Myt h an d Meanin g mythographers - fo r instance , Si r James Fraze r wh o quotes Arriaga i n severa l instances - neve r aske d th e question wh y peopl e wit h harelip s an d twin s ar e con sidered t o b e simila r i n som e respect . I t seem s t o m e that th e cru x o f th e proble m i s to fin d out : wh y hare lips? wh y twins ? an d wh y ar e harelips an d twin s pu t together? In orde r t o solv e th e problem , w e have , a s some times happens, t o mak e a jump fro m Sout h Americ a to Nort h America , becaus e i t will be a North Ameri can myt h whic h wil l give us the clu e t o th e Sout h American one . Many peopl e hav e reproache d m e fo r this kind o f procedure , claimin g tha t myth s o f a given population ca n onl y b e interprete d an d understoo d i n the framewor k o f th e cultur e o f tha t give n population . There ar e severa l thing s which I can sa y b y wa y o f a n answer t o tha t objection . In th e firs t place , i t seem s to m e prett y obviou s that, a s was ascertained durin g recen t year s b y th e so called Berkele y school , th e populatio n o f th e Ameri cas before Columbu s wa s muc h large r tha n i t ha d bee n supposed t o be . And sinc e i t was much larger , i t i s obvious tha t thes e larg e populations wer e t o som e exten t in contac t wit h on e another , an d tha t beliefs , prac tices, an d custom s were , i f I may sa y so , seepin g through. An y neighbourin g populatio n wa s always , t o some extent , awar e o f wha t wa s going o n i n th e othe r population. Th e secon d poin t i n th e cas e tha t w e ar e considering her e i s that thes e myth s d o no t exis t iso lated i n Per u o n th e on e han d an d i n Canada o n th e

27 Harelip s an d Twins : Th e Splittin g o f a Myt h other, bu t tha t i n betwee n w e fin d the m ove r an d ove r again. Really , the y ar e pan-American myths , rathe r than scattere d myth s i n differen t part s o f th e contin ent. Now, amon g th e Tupinambas , th e ancien t coasta l Indians o f Brazi l a t th e tim e o f th e discovery , a s als o among th e Indian s o f Peru , ther e wa s a myth concern ing a woman, who m a very poo r individua l succeede d in seducin g i n a devious way. Th e bes t know n version , recorded b y the French mon k Andre Thevet i n th e six teenth century , explaine d tha t th e seduce d woma n gave birt h t o twins , on e o f the m bor n fro m th e legiti mate husband , an d th e othe r fro m th e seducer , wh o i s the Trickster . Th e woma n wa s going to mee t th e go d who woul d b e he r husband , an d whil e o n he r wa y th e Trickster intervene s an d make s he r believ e tha t he i s the god ; so , she conceive s fro m th e Trickster . Whe n she later find s th e legitimat e husband-to-be , sh e con ceives from hi m als o an d late r give s birth t o twins . And sinc e thes e fals e twin s ha d differen t fathers , the y have antithetica l features : on e i s brave, th e othe r a coward; on e i s the protecto r o f th e Indians , th e othe r of th e whit e people ; one give s goods t o th e Indians , while th e othe r one , o n th e contrary , i s responsibl e for a lot o f unfortunat e happenings . It s o happens tha t i n Nort h America , w e fin d exact ly th e sam e myth , especiall y i n the northwes t o f th e United States and Canada. However, in comparison wit h South American versions, those coming from th e Canadian area show two important differences . Fo r instance ,

28 Myt h an d Meanin g among th e Kootenay , wh o liv e in th e Rock y Moun tains, ther e i s only on e fecundatio n whic h ha s a s a consequence th e birt h o f twins , who late r o n become , one th e sun , an d th e othe r th e moon . And , amon g some othe r Indian s o f Britis h Columbi a o f th e Salis h linguistic stoc k - th e Thompso n Indian s an d th e Okan agan - ther e ar e tw o sister s who ar e tricke d b y appar ently tw o distinc t individuals , an d the y giv e birth , each on e t o a son; they ar e no t reall y twin s becaus e they wer e bor n fro m differen t mothers . Bu t sinc e they wer e bor n i n exactl y th e sam e kin d o f circum stances, a t leas t fro m a moral an d a psychologica l point o f view , the y ar e to tha t exten t simila r t o twins . Those version s are , from th e poin t o f vie w o f wha t I am tryin g t o show , th e mor e important . Th e Salis h version weaken s th e twi n characte r o f th e her o be cause th e twin s ar e no t brother s - the y ar e cousins ; and i t i s only th e circumstance s o f thei r birth s whic h are closel y paralle l - the y ar e bot h bor n thank s t o a trick. Nevertheless , th e basi c intentio n remain s th e same becaus e nowher e ar e th e tw o heroe s reall y twins ; they ar e bor n fro m distinc t fathers , eve n i n th e Sout h American version , an d the y hav e oppose d characters , features whic h wil l be show n i n thei r conduc t an d i n the behaviou r o f thei r descendants . So we ma y sa y tha t i n al l cases childre n wh o ar e said t o b e twin s o r believe d t o b e twins , a s in th e Kootenay verison , wil l have differen t adventure s late r on whic h will , i f I may sa y so , untwin them . An d thi s division betwee n tw o individual s wh o ar e a t th e begin -

29 Harelip s an d Twins : Th e Splittin g o f a Myt h ning presented a s twins, eithe r rea l twin s o r equiva lents to twins , i s a basic characteristi c o f al l th e myth s in Sout h Americ a o r Nort h America . In th e Salis h versions o f th e myth , ther e i s a ver y curious detail , an d i t i s very important . Yo u remem ber tha t i n thi s version w e hav e n o twin s whatsoever , because ther e ar e tw o sister s who ar e travellin g i n or der t o find , eac h one , a husband. The y wer e tol d b y a grandmother tha t the y woul d recogniz e thei r husband s by suc h an d suc h characteristics , an d the y ar e the n each deluded b y the Tricksters the y meet o n thei r wa y into believing that they are the husband whom eac h i s supposed t o marry . The y spen d th e nigh t wit h him , and eac h o f th e wome n wil l later giv e birth t o a son . Now, afte r thi s unfortunate nigh t spen t i n th e hu t of th e Trickster , th e elde r siste r leave s her younge r sis ter an d goe s visiting her grandmother , wh o i s a moun tain goa t an d als o a kind o f magician ; for sh e know s in advanc e tha t he r granddaughte r i s coming, an d sh e sends th e har e t o welcom e he r o n th e road . Th e har e hides under a log which ha s fallen i n th e middl e o f th e road, an d whe n th e gir l lifts he r le g to cros s th e log , the har e ca n hav e a look a t he r genita l part s an d mak e a very inappropriat e joke. Th e gir l i s furious, an d strikes him wit h he r can e an d split s his nose. This i s why th e animal s o f th e leporin e famil y no w hav e a split nos e an d uppe r lip , which w e cal l a harelip i n people precisel y o n accoun t o f thi s anatomica l pecu liarity i n rabbit s an d hares . In othe r words , th e elde r siste r start s t o spli t th e

30 Myt h an d Meanin g body o f th e animal ; if thi s spli t were carrie d ou t t o the en d - i f i t di d no t sto p a t th e nos e bu t continue d through th e bod y an d t o th e tai l - sh e would tur n a n individual int o twins , tha t is , two individual s whic h are exactly simila r o r identica l becaus e the y ar e bot h a part o f a whole. I n thi s respect, i t i s very importan t to fin d ou t wha t conceptio n th e America n Indian s al l over Americ a entertaine d abou t th e origi n o f twins . And wha t w e find i s a general belie f tha t twin s resul t from a n interna l splittin g o f th e bod y fluid s whic h will later solidif y an d becom e th e child . Fo r instance , among som e Nort h America n Indians , th e pregnan t woman i s forbidden t o tur n aroun d to o fas t whe n sh e is lying asleep, becaus e i f sh e did , th e bod y fluid s would divid e i n tw o parts , an d sh e would giv e birt h t o twins. There i s also a myth fro m th e Kwakiut l Indian s o f Vancouver Islan d whic h shoul d b e mentione d here . I t tells of a small girl whom everybod y hate s becaus e sh e has a harelip. An ogress , a supernatural canniba l wo man, appear s an d steal s all the childre n includin g th e small girl with th e harelip . Sh e put s the m al l i n he r basket i n orde r t o tak e the m hom e t o ea t them . Th e small girl who wa s taken firs t i s at th e botto m o f th e basket an d sh e succeed s i n splittin g i t ope n wit h a sea shell sh e ha d picke d u p o n th e beach . Th e baske t i s o n the bac k o f th e ogress , an d th e gir l is able t o dro p ou t and ru n awa y first . Sh e drop s ou t feet first. This position o f th e harelippe d gir l is quite symmet rical t o th e positio n o f th e har e i n the myt h whic h I

31 Harelip s an d Twins : Th e Splittin g o f a Myt h previously mentioned : crouchin g beneat h th e heroin e when h e hide s under th e lo g acros s her path , h e i s in respect t o he r exactl y i n th e sam e positio n a s if h e ha d been bor n fro m he r an d delivere d fee t first . S o we se e that ther e i s in al l this mytholog y a n actua l relation ship betwee n twin s o n th e on e han d an d deliver y fee t first o r position s whic h are , metaphoricall y speaking , identical t o i t o n th e other . Thi s obviousl y clear s u p the connectio n fro m whic h w e starte d i n Fathe r Arri aga's Peruvian relation s betwee n twins , people bor n feet first , an d peopl e wit h harelips . The fac t tha t th e hareli p i s conceived a s an incipi ent twinhoo d ca n hel p u s to solv e a problem whic h i s quite fundamenta l fo r anthropologist s workin g espe cially i n Canada : wh y hav e th e Ojibw a Indian s an d other group s o f th e Algonkian-speakin g famil y selec ted th e har e a s the highes t deit y i n which the y be lieved? Severa l explanation s hav e bee n brough t for ward: th e har e wa s a n importan t i f no t essentia l par t of thei r diet ; th e har e run s very fast , an d s o was a n example o f th e talent s whic h th e Indian s shoul d have ; and s o on. Nothin g o f tha t i s very convincing . Bu t i f my previou s interpretation s wer e right , i t seem s muc h more convincin g t o say : 1 , among th e roden t famil y the har e i s the larger , th e mor e conspicuous , th e mor e important, s o it ca n b e take n a s a representative o f the roden t family ; 2 , al l rodents exhibi t a n anatomica l peculiarity whic h make s ou t o f the m incipien t twins , because the y ar e partl y spli t up . When ther e ar e twins , o r eve n mor e children , i n th e

32 Myt h an d Meanin g womb o f th e mother , ther e i s usually i n th e myt h a very seriou s consequenc e because , eve n i f ther e ar e only two , th e childre n star t t o figh t an d compet e i n order t o fin d ou t wh o wil l have th e honou r o f bein g born first . And , on e o f them , th e ba d one , doe s no t hesitate t o fin d a short cut , i f I may sa y so , i n orde r to b e bor n earlier ; instead o f followin g th e natura l road, h e split s up th e bod y o f th e mothe r t o escap e from it . This, I think, i s an explanatio n o f wh y th e fac t o f being bor n fee t firs t i s assimilated t o twinhood , be cause i t i s in th e cas e o f twinhoo d tha t th e competi tive hurr y o f on e chil d wil l mak e hi m destro y th e mother i n orde r t o b e th e firs t on e born . Bot h twin hood an d deliver y fee t firs t ar e forerunner s o f a dan gerous delivery , o r I could eve n cal l i t a heroic delivery , for th e chil d wil l take th e initiativ e an d becom e a kin d of hero , a murderous her o i n som e cases ; but h e com pletes a very importan t feat . Thi s explain s why, i n several tribes, twin s were kille d a s well a s childre n born fee t first . The reall y importan t poin t i s that i n al l America n mythology, an d I could sa y i n mytholog y th e worl d over, w e hav e deitie s o r supernaturals , wh o pla y th e roles o f intermediarie s betwee n th e power s abov e an d humanity below . The y ca n b e represente d i n differen t ways: w e have, for instance , character s o f th e typ e o f a Messiah; we hav e heavenl y twins . And w e ca n se e that th e plac e o f th e har e i n Algonkian mytholog y i s exactly betwee n th e Messia h - tha t is , the uniqu e

33 Harelip s an d Twins : Th e Splittin g o f a Myt h intermediary - an d th e heavenl y twins . H e i s not twins , but h e i s incipient twins . He i s still a complete individ ual, bu t h e ha s a harelip, he i s half wa y t o becomin g a twin. This explain s why , i n thi s mythology , th e har e a s a god ha s an ambiguou s characte r whic h ha s worrie d commentators an d anthropologists : sometime s h e i s a very wis e deit y wh o i s in charg e o f puttin g th e uni verse i n order , an d sometime s h e i s a ridiculous clow n who goe s from misha p t o mishap . And thi s als o i s best understoo d i f we explai n th e choic e o f th e har e by th e Algonkia n Indian s a s an individua l wh o i s between th e tw o condition s o f (a) a single deit y benefi cient t o mankin d an d (b) twins , on e o f who m i s good and th e othe r bad . Bein g not ye t entirel y divided i n two, bein g not ye t twins , th e tw o opposit e character istics ca n remai n merge d i n on e an d th e sam e person .

FOUR

When Myth Becomes History This topic present s tw o problem s fo r th e mythologist . One i s a theoretical proble m o f grea t importanc e be cause, when w e loo k a t th e published materia l bot h i n North an d Sout h Americ a an d elsewher e i n th e world , it appear s tha t th e mythi c materia l i s of tw o differen t kinds. Sometimes , anthropologist s hav e collecte d myths which look more or less like shred s an d patches , if I may sa y so ; disconnected storie s ar e put on e afte r the other without an y clear relationship betwee n them . In othe r instances , as in th e Vaupes are a of Colombi a we have very coherent mythologica l stories , all divided into chapter s followin g eac h othe r i n a quite logica l order. And the n w e hav e th e question : wha t doe s a collec tion mean ? I t coul d mea n tw o differen t things . I t could mean , fo r instance , tha t th e coheren t order , lik e a kin d o f saga , i s th e primitiv e condition , an d tha t whenever w e fin d myth s a s disconnecte d elements , this i s the resul t o f a process o f deterioratio n an d dis organization; w e ca n onl y find scattere d element s o f

3 5 Myt h an d Meanin g what was , earlier, a meaningful whole . O r w e coul d hypothesize tha t th e disconnecte d stat e wa s th e ar chaic one , an d tha t th e myth s wer e pu t togethe r i n a n order b y nativ e wis e me n an d philosopher s wh o d o not exis t everywhere , bu t onl y i n som e societie s o f a given type . W e have exactl y th e sam e problem , fo r in stance, wit h th e Bible , becaus e i t seem s that it s ra w material wa s disconnected element s an d tha t learne d philosophers pu t the m togethe r i n orde r t o mak e a continuous story . I t woul d b e extremel y importan t t o find ou t if , amon g th e peopl e withou t writin g who ar e studied b y th e anthropologists , th e situatio n i s th e same a s with th e Bibl e o r i s completely different . This secon d proble m is , though stil l theoretical , o f a more practica l nature . I n forme r times , let' s sa y i n the lat e nineteent h centur y an d earl y twentiet h cen tury, mythologica l materia l wa s collecte d mostl y b y anthropologists, tha t is , people fro m th e outside . O f course, i n man y cases , and especiall y i n Canada , the y had nativ e collaborators . Le t me , for instance , quot e the cas e o f Fran z Boas , who ha d a Kwakiutl assistant , George Hun t (a s a matter o f fact , h e wa s not exactl y Kwakiutl becaus e h e wa s born o f a Scottish fathe r an d a Tlingit mother , bu t h e wa s raised amon g th e Kwak iutl, marrie d amon g th e Kwakiutl , an d completel y identified wit h th e culture) . And fo r th e Tsimshian , Boas had Henr y Tate , wh o wa s a literate Tsimshian , and Marius Barbeau had William Benyon, who was als o a literate Tsimshian . S o nativ e co-operatio n wa s sec ured fro m th e beginning , bu t nevertheles s th e fac t i s

36 Whe n Myt h Become s Histor y that Hunt, Tate, or Benyon worked under the guidanc e of th e anthropologists , tha t is , they wer e turne d int o anthropologists themselves . O f course , the y kne w th e best legends , th e tradition s belongin g t o thei r ow n clan, thei r ow n lineage , bu t nevertheles s the y wer e equally intereste d i n collectin g dat a fro m othe r fami lies, othe r clans , and th e like . When w e loo k a t thi s enormous corpu s o f India n mythology, suc h as , for instance , Boas ' an d Tate' s Tsimshian Mythology, o r th e Kwakiut l text s collecte d by Hunt , an d edited , published , an d translate d to o b y Boas, w e find mor e o r les s the sam e organizatio n o f the data , becaus e i t i s the on e whic h wa s recommend ed b y th e anthropologists : fo r instance , i n th e begin ning, cosmologica l an d cosmogoni c myths , an d late r on, muc h late r on , wha t ca n b e considere d a s legend ary traditio n an d famil y histories . It ha s s o happened tha t thi s task, starte d b y th e an thropologists, th e Indian s ar e takin g no w u p them selves, and fo r differen t purposes , fo r instance , t o have thei r languag e an d mytholog y taugh t i n elemen tary school s for India n children . Tha t i s very impor tant, I understand, a t th e moment . Anothe r purpos e is to us e legendar y traditio n t o validate claim s agains t the whit e peopl e - territoria l claims , political claims , and s o on . So i t i s extremely importan t t o fin d ou t i f ther e i s a difference and , i f ther e is , what kin d o f differenc e be tween tradition s collecte d fro m th e outsid e fro m thos e collected o n th e inside , though as //they wer e collec -

37 Myt h an d Meanin g ted fro m th e outside . Canad a i s fortunate, I shoul d say, i n tha t book s abou t it s own mytholog y an d leg endary tradition s hav e bee n organize d an d publishe d by th e India n specialist s themselves . Thi s bega n early : there i s Legends of Vancouver b y Paulin e Johnson , is sued befor e th e Firs t Worl d War . Late r on , w e ha d books b y Mariu s Barbeau , wh o was , of course , no t In dian a t all , but wh o trie d t o collec t historica l o r semi historical materia l an d mak e himsel f th e spokesma n o f his Indian informants ; h e produced , s o t o speak , hi s own versio n o f tha t mythology . More interesting , fa r mor e interesting , ar e book s such asMen ofMedeek, publishe d i n Kitima t i n 1962 , which i s supposedly th e verbati m accoun t collecte d from th e mout h o f Chie f Walte r Wright , a Tsimshia n chief o f th e middl e Skeen a river , bu t collecte d b y somebody else , a white fiel d worke r wh o wa s no t eve n a professional. An d eve n mor e importan t i s the recen t book b y Chie f Kennet h Harris , who i s also a Tsimshia n chief, publishe d i n 197 4 b y himself . So w e can , wit h thi s kind o f material , mak e a kin d of experimen t b y comparin g th e materia l collecte d b y anthropologists, an d th e materia l collecte d an d pub lished directl y b y th e Indians . I should no t sa y 'collec ted/ a s a matter o f fact , becaus e instea d o f bein g tra ditions fro m severa l families , severa l clans , severa l line ages put togethe r an d juxtaposed t o eac h other , wha t we hav e i n thes e tw o book s i s really th e histor y o f one famil y o r on e clan , publishe d b y on e o f it s descendants.

38 Whe n Myt h Become s Histor y The proble m is : where doe s mytholog y en d an d where doe s histor y start ? I n th e case , entirely ne w t o us, o f a history withou t archives , there bein g o f cours e no writte n documents , ther e i s only a verbal tradition , which i s claimed t o b e histor y a t th e sam e time . Now , if we compar e thes e tw o histories , th e on e obtaine d on th e middl e Skeen a fro m Chie f Wright , an d th e on e written an d publishe d b y Chie f Harri s from a famil y up Skeen a i n the Hazelto n area , w e fin d similaritie s and w e find differences . I n th e accoun t o f Chie f Wright, w e hav e what I would cal l the genesi s o f a disorder: th e entir e stor y aim s at explainin g wh y afte r their firs t beginning , a given cla n o r lineag e o r grou p of lineage s have overcom e a great man y ordeals , known period s o f succes s an d period s o f failures , an d have bee n progressivel y le d toward s a disastrous end ing. It i s an extremel y pessimisti c story , reall y th e his tory o f a downfall. I n th e cas e o f Chie f Harris , there i s a quite differen t outlook , becaus e th e boo k appear s principally geare d a t explainin g th e origi n o f a socia l order whic h wa s the socia l orde r i n th e historica l per iod, an d whic h i s still embedded, i f I may sa y so , i n the severa l names , titles , an d privilege s which a given individual, occupyin g a prominent plac e i n hi s famil y and clan , ha s collecte d b y inheritanc e aroun d himself . So i t i s as if a diachronic successio n o f event s was sim ultaneously projecte d o n th e scree n o f th e presen t i n order t o reconstitut e piec e b y piec e a synchronic or der whic h exist s an d whic h i s illustrated b y th e roste r of name s an d privilege s o f a given individual .

39 Myt h an d Meanin g Both stories , bot h book s ar e positivel y fascinating , and are , literaril y speaking , grea t pieces ; but fo r th e anthropologist, thei r mai n interes t i s to illustrat e th e characteristics o f a kind o f histor y widel y differen t from ou r own . Histor y a s we writ e i t i s practically en tirely base d upo n writte n documents , whil e i n th e cas e of thes e tw o historie s ther e ar e obviousl y n o writte n documents o r very few . Now , wha t strike s m e whe n I try to compare them is that both star t with the accoun t of a mythical or perhaps historical - I don't know which , perhaps archaeology will settle the matter - tim e whe n on th e uppe r Skeena , near wha t i s now Hazelton , ther e was a big town th e nam e o f whic h Barbea u transcribe d as Tenlaham an d a n accoun t o f wha t happene d there . It i s practically th e sam e stor y i n bot h books : i t ex plains tha t th e cit y wa s destroyed, tha t th e remnant s of th e peopl e wen t o n th e move , an d starte d difficul t peregrinations alon g th e Skeena . This, o f course , coul d b e a historical event , bu t i f we loo k closel y a t th e wa y i t i s explained, w e se e tha t the typ e o f even t i s the same , bu t no t exactl y th e de tails. Fo r instance , accordin g t o th e version , ther e ca n be a t th e origi n a fight betwee n tw o village s o r tw o towns, a fight whic h originate d i n a n adultery ; bu t th e story ca n b e eithe r tha t a husband kille d th e love r o f his wife, o r tha t brother s kille d thei r sister' s lover , o r that a husband kille d hi s wife becaus e sh e ha d a lover . So, you see , we hav e a n explanator y cell . Its basi c structure i s the same, but the content o f the cell is not the sam e an d ca n vary; so it i s a kind o f mini-myt h i f

40 Whe n Myt h Become s Histor y I ma y sa y so , because i t i s very shor t an d ver y con densed, bu t i t has stil l the propert y o f a myth i n tha t we ca n observ e i t under differen t transformations . When on e elemen t i s transformed, the n th e othe r ele ments shoul d b e rearrange d accordingly . Thi s i s th e first aspec t o f thes e cla n storie s tha t interest s me . The secon d aspec t i s that the y ar e histories whic h are highl y repetitive ; the sam e typ e o f even t ca n b e used severa l times , i n orde r t o accoun t fo r differen t happenings. Fo r instance , i t i s striking tha t i n th e stor ies of th e particula r traditio n o f Chie f Wrigh t an d o f the particula r traditio n o f Chie f Harris , we fin d simila r happenings, bu t the y don' t tak e plac e i n th e sam e spot, the y don' t affec t th e sam e people , and , ver y likely, the y ar e no t exactl y i n th e sam e historica l period. What w e discove r b y readin g thes e book s i s that th e opposition - th e simpl e oppositio n betwee n mytholo gy and histor y whic h w e ar e accustome d t o mak e - i s not a t al l a clear-cut one , an d tha t ther e i s an interme diary level . Mythology i s static, we find th e sam e mythical element s combine d ove r an d ove r again , bu t they ar e i n a closed system , le t u s say , i n contradis tinction wit h history , whic h is , of course , a n ope n system. The ope n characte r o f histor y i s secured b y th e in numerable way s accordin g t o whic h mythica l cells , o r explanatory cell s which wer e originall y mythical , ca n be arrange d an d rearranged . I t show s us that b y usin g the sam e material , becaus e i t i s a kind o f commo n

41 Myt h an d Meanin g inheritance o r commo n patrimon y o f al l groups, o f al l clans, o r o f al l lineages, one ca n nevertheles s succee d in building u p a n origina l accoun t fo r eac h o f them . What i s misleading i n th e ol d anthropologica l ac counts i s that a kind o f hodge-podg e wa s mad e u p o f tradition an d belief s belongin g t o a great man y differ ent socia l groups. This make s us lose sigh t o f a funda mental characte r o f th e materia l - tha t eac h typ e o f story belong s t o a given group , a given family , a given lineage, o r t o a given clan , an d i s trying t o explai n it s fate, whic h ca n b e a successful on e o r a disastrous one , or b e intende d t o accoun t fo r right s an d privilege s a s they exis t i n th e present , o r b e attemptin g t o validat e claims for right s which hav e sinc e disappeared . When w e tr y t o d o scientifi c history , d o w e reall y do somethin g scientific , o r d o w e to o remai n astrid e our ow n mytholog y i n what w e ar e tryin g t o mak e a s pure history ? I t i s very interestin g t o loo k a t th e wa y both i n North an d Sout h America , an d indee d every where i n th e world , i n which a n individual , wh o ha s by righ t an d b y inheritanc e a certain accoun t o f th e mythology o r th e legendar y traditio n o f hi s ow n group, react s whe n h e listen s t o a different versio n given b y somebod y belongin g t o a different famil y o r to a different cla n o r lineage , which t o som e exten t i s similar bu t t o som e exten t to o i s extremely different . Now, w e woul d thin k tha t i t i s impossible tha t tw o accounts whic h ar e no t th e sam e ca n b e tru e a t th e same time , bu t nevertheless , the y see m t o b e accepte d as true i n som e cases , the onl y differenc e mad e i s tha t

42 Whe n Myt h Become s Histor y one accoun t i s considered bette r o r mor e accurat e than th e other . I n othe r cases , the tw o account s ca n be considere d equall y vali d becaus e th e difference s between the m ar e no t perceive d a s such . We are no t a t al l aware i n ou r dail y lif e tha t w e ar e exactly i n th e sam e situatio n i n relation t o differen t historical account s writte n b y differen t historians . W e pay attentio n onl y t o wha t i s basically similar , an d w e neglect th e difference s du e t o th e fac t tha t th e wa y historians carv e th e dat a an d th e wa y the y interpre t them ar e no t exactl y th e same . S o i f you tak e tw o ac counts b y historians , wit h differen t intellectua l tradi tions an d differen t politica l leanings , o f suc h event s a s the America n Revolution , o f th e French-Englis h wa r in Canada, o r th e Frenc h Revolution , w e ar e no t reall y so shocked tha t the y don' t tel l us exactly th e sam e thing. Thus m y impressio n i s that b y studyin g carefull y this history, i n the genera l sens e o f th e word , whic h contemporary India n author s tr y t o giv e us o f thei r own past , b y no t considerin g thi s histor y a s a fancifu l account, bu t b y tryin g extremel y carefully , wit h th e help o f a type o f salvag e archaeolog y - excavatin g village site s referred t o i n the historie s - an d b y tryin g to establis h correspondences , inasmuc h a s this i s possible, betwee n differen t accounts , an d b y tryin g t o find wha t reall y correspond s an d wha t doe s no t cor respond, w e ma y i n th e en d reac h a better understand ing of wha t historica l scienc e reall y is . I am not far from believin g that, in our own societies ,

43 Myt h an d Meanin g history ha s replaced mytholog y an d fulfil s th e sam e function, tha t fo r societie s without writin g an d with out archive s th e ai m o f mytholog y i s to ensur e tha t a s closely a s possible - complet e closenes s i s obviousl y impossible - th e futur e wil l remain faithfu l t o th e pre sent an d t o th e past . Fo r us , however, th e futur e should b e alway s different , an d eve r mor e different , from th e present , som e differenc e depending , o f course, o n ou r politica l preferences . Bu t nevertheles s the ga p whic h exist s i n ou r min d t o som e exten t be tween mytholog y and history can probably b e breache d by studyin g historie s whic h ar e conceive d a s not a t al l separated fro m bu t a s a continuation o f mythology .

FIVE

Myth and Music The relationshi p betwee n myt h an d musi c o n whic h I insisted s o muc h i n the initia l sectio n o f The Raw and the Cooked an d als o i n the fina l sectio n o f VHomme nu - ther e i s not ye t a n Englis h titl e becaus e i t i s no t translated - wa s probably th e topi c whic h gav e rise t o most misunderstandings , especiall y i n th e English speaking world , thoug h als o i n France , becaus e i t wa s thought tha t thi s relationship wa s quite arbitrary . M y feeling was , o n th e contrary , tha t ther e wa s no t onl y one relationshi p bu t tw o differen t kind s o f relation ship - on e o f similarit y an d a n othe r o f contiguit y and that , a s a matter o f fact , the y wer e actuall y th e same. Bu t tha t I did no t understan d righ t away , an d i t was the relatio n o f similarit y whic h struc k m e first . I shall try t o explai n i t i n th e followin g way . In regar d t o th e similarit y aspect , m y mai n poin t was that, exactl y a s in a musical score , i t i s impossibl e to understan d a myth a s a continuous sequence . Thi s is why w e shoul d b e awar e tha t i f w e tr y t o rea d a myth a s we rea d a novel o r a newspaper article , tha t i s

45 Myt h an d Meanin g line afte r line , reading fro m lef t t o right , w e don' t un derstand th e myth , becaus e w e hav e t o apprehen d i t as a totality an d discove r tha t th e basi c meanin g o f the myt h i s not conveye d b y th e sequenc e o f event s but - i f I may sa y s o - b y bundle s o f event s eve n al though thes e event s appea r a t differen t moment s i n the story . Therefore , w e hav e t o rea d th e myt h mor e or les s as we woul d rea d a n orchestra l score , no t stav e after stave , bu t understandin g tha t w e shoul d appre hend th e whol e pag e an d understan d tha t somethin g which wa s written o n th e firs t stav e a t th e to p o f th e page acquire s meanin g onl y i f on e consider s tha t i t i s part an d parce l o f wha t i s written belo w o n th e secon d stave, the thir d stave , an d s o on . That is , we hav e t o read no t onl y fro m lef t t o right , bu t a t th e sam e tim e vertically, fro m to p t o bottom . W e have t o understan d that eac h pag e i s a totality. An d i t i s only b y treatin g the myt h a s if i t wer e a n orchestra l score , writte n stave afte r stave , that w e ca n understan d i t a s a total ity, tha t w e ca n extrac t th e meanin g ou t o f th e myth . Why an d ho w doe s thi s happen ? M y feelin g i s tha t it i s the secon d aspect , th e aspec t o f contiguity , whic h gives us th e significan t clue . As a matter o f fact , i t wa s about th e tim e whe n mythica l though t - I would no t say vanished o r disappeare d - bu t passe d t o th e back ground i n wester n though t durin g th e Renaissanc e an d the seventeent h century , tha t th e firs t novel s bega n t o appear instea d o f storie s stil l buil t o n th e mode l o f mythology. An d i t wa s exactly a t tha t tim e tha t w e witnessed th e appearanc e o f th e grea t musica l style s

46 Myt h an d Musi c characteristic o f th e seventeent h and , mostly , th e eighteenth an d nineteent h centuries . It i s exactly a s if musi c ha d completel y change d it s traditional shap e i n orde r t o tak e ove r th e functio n the intellectua l a s well a s emotive functio n - whic h mythical though t wa s giving up mor e o r les s a t th e same period . Whe n I speak her e o f music , I should, o f course, qualif y th e term . Th e musi c tha t too k ove r the traditiona l functio n o f mytholog y i s not an y kin d of music , bu t musi c a s it appeare d i n western civiliza tion i n th e earl y seventeent h centur y wit h Frescobald i and i n th e earl y eighteent h centur y wit h Bach , musi c which reache d it s full developmen t wit h Mozart , Beet hoven, an d Wagne r i n th e eighteent h an d nineteent h centuries. What I would lik e t o d o i n orde r t o clarif y thi s statement i s to offe r a concrete example , whic h I shal l take fro m Wagner' s tetralogy , The Ring. On e o f th e most importan t musica l theme s i n th e tetralog y i s th e one whic h w e cal l in Frenc h 'l e them e d e l a renuncia tion a Tamour' - th e renunciatio n o f love . As i s well known, thi s them e appear s firs t o f al l in th e Rhinegold at th e momen t whe n Alberic h i s told b y th e Rhin e maidens tha t h e ca n conque r th e gol d onl y i f h e re nounces al l kind o f huma n love . This very startlin g musical moti f i s a sign t o Alberich , give n a t th e ver y moment whe n h e say s that h e take s th e gol d bu t h e renounces lov e onc e an d fo r all . All thi s is very clea r and simple ; it i s the litera l sens e o f th e theme: Alberic h is renouncing love .

47 Myt h an d Meanin g Now th e secon d strikin g an d importan t momen t when th e them e reappear s i s in th e Valkyrie i n a cir cumstance whic h make s i t extremel y difficul t t o un derstand why . A t th e momen t whe n Siegmun d ha s just discovere d tha t Sieglind e i s his siste r an d ha s falle n in love wit h her , an d just whe n the y ar e going t o initi ate a n incestuou s relationship , thank s t o th e swor d which i s buried i n th e tre e an d whic h Siegmun d i s going to tea r awa y fro m th e tre e - a t tha t moment , th e theme o f th e renunciatio n o f lov e reappears. This i s some kin d o f a mystery, becaus e a t tha t momen t Sieg mund i s not a t al l renouncing lov e - he' s doin g quit e the opposit e an d knowin g lov e fo r th e firs t tim e o f hi s life wit h hi s siste r Sieglinde . The thir d appearanc e o f th e them e i s also i n th e Valkyrie, i n th e las t ac t whe n Wotan , th e kin g of th e gods , is condemning hi s daughter Brunhild e t o a very lon g magical slee p an d surroundin g he r wit h fire . W e coul d think tha t Wota n i s also renouncing lov e becaus e h e i s renouncing hi s love fo r hi s daughter ; bu t thi s i s no t very convincing . Thus you se e that w e hav e exactl y th e sam e prob lem a s in mythology ; tha t is , we hav e a theme - her e a musical them e instea d o f a mythological them e which appear s a t thre e differen t moment s i n a very long story : onc e a t th e beginning , onc e i n th e middle , and onc e a t th e end , i f for th e sak e o f th e argumen t we limi t ourselve s t o th e firs t tw o opera s o f The Ring. What I would lik e t o sho w i s that th e onl y wa y o f un derstanding thi s mysteriou s reappearanc e o f th e them e

48 Myt h an d Musi c is, although the y see m very different , t o pu t th e thre e events together , t o pil e the m u p on e ove r th e other , and t o tr y t o discove r i f the y cannot b e treate d a s on e and th e sam e event . We ca n the n notic e that , o n th e thre e differen t occasions, ther e i s a treasur e whic h ha s t o b e pulle d away o r tor n awa y fro m wha t i t i s boun d to . Ther e is th e gold , whic h i s stuc k i n th e depth s o f th e Rhine; ther e i s th e sword , whic h i s stuc k i n a tree , which i s a symboli c tree , th e tre e o f lif e o r th e tre e of th e universe ; an d ther e i s th e woma n Brunhilde , who wil l hav e t o b e pulle d ou t o f th e fire . Th e re currence o f th e them e the n suggest s t o u s that , a s a matter o f fact , th e gold , th e sword , an d Brunhild e are on e an d th e same : th e gol d a s a mean s t o con quer power , th e swor d a s a mean s t o conque r love , if I ma y sa y so . An d th e fac t tha t w e hav e a kin d of coalescenc e betwee n th e gold , th e sword , an d the woma n is , a s a matte r o f fact , th e bes t explana tion w e hav e o f th e reaso n why , a t th e en d o f th e Twilight of the Gods, i t i s throug h Brunhild e tha t the gol d wil l retur n t o th e Rhine ; the y hav e bee n one an d th e same , bu t looke d a t throug h differen t angles. Other point s o f th e plo t ar e als o mad e ver y clear . For instance , eve n thoug h Alberic h renounce d love , he wil l later on , thank s t o th e gold , becom e abl e t o seduce a woman whic h wil l bear hi m a son, Hagen . It i s thanks t o hi s conquest o f th e swor d tha t Sieg mund als o will beget a son, wh o wil l be Siegfried .

49 Myt h an d Meanin g Thus th e recurrenc e o f th e them e show s us somethin g never explaine d i n th e poems , tha t ther e i s a kin d o f twin relationshi p betwee n Hage n th e traito r an d Sieg fried th e hero . They ar e i n a very clos e parallelism . This explains als o why i t will be possibl e tha t Siegfrie d and Hagen , o r rathe r Siegfrie d firs t a s himself an d then unde r th e disguis e o f Hagen , wil l at differen t moments o f th e stor y conque r Brunhilde . I could g o o n lik e thi s for a very lon g time , bu t per haps thes e example s ar e sufficien t t o explai n th e simi larity o f metho d betwee n th e analysi s o f myt h an d the understandin g o f music . When w e liste n t o music , we ar e listening, afte r all , to somethin g whic h goe s o n from a beginning t o a n en d an d whic h develop s through time . Liste n t o a symphony: a symphony ha s a beginning, ha s a middle, i t has a n end , bu t neverthe less I would no t understan d anythin g o f th e symphon y and I would no t ge t an y musica l pleasur e ou t o f i t i f I were no t able , a t eac h moment , t o muste r wha t I hav e listened t o befor e an d wha t I am listenin g t o now , an d to remai n consciou s o f th e totalit y o f th e music . I f you tak e th e musica l formul a o f them e an d variations , for instance , yo u ca n onl y perceiv e i t an d fee l i t onl y if for eac h variatio n yo u kee p i n min d th e them e which yo u listene d t o first ; eac h variatio n ha s a fla vour o f it s own, i f unconsciousl y yo u ca n superimpos e it o n th e earlie r variation tha t yo u hav e listene d to . Thus ther e i s a kind o f continuou s reconstructio n taking plac e i n th e min d o f th e listene r t o musi c o r the listene r t o a mythical story . It' s not onl y a globa l

50 Myt h an d Musi c similarity. I t i s exactly a s if, whe n inventin g th e speci fic musica l forms , musi c ha d onl y rediscovere d struc tures whic h alread y existe d o n th e mythica l level . For instance , i t i s very strikin g tha t th e fugue , a s it was formalized i n Bach' s time , i s the true-to-lif e representation o f th e workin g o f som e specifi c myths , of th e kin d wher e w e hav e tw o character s o r tw o groups o f characters . Let' s sa y on e good , th e othe r one bad , fo r instance , thoug h tha t i s an over-simplifi cation. Th e stor y unrolle d b y th e myt h i s that o f on e group tryin g t o fle e an d t o escap e fro m th e othe r group o f characters ; s o you hav e a chase o f on e grou p by th e other , sometime s grou p A rejoinin g grou p B , sometimes grou p B escapin g - al l as in a fugue. Yo u have wha t w e cal l i n Frenc h 'l e suje t e t l a reponse. ' The antithesi s o r antiphon y continue s throug h th e story unti l bot h group s ar e almos t confuse d an d con founded - a n equivalen t t o th e stretta o f th e fugue ; then a final solutio n o r clima x o f thi s conflic t i s offer ed b y a conjugation o f th e tw o principle s whic h ha d been oppose d al l along durin g th e myth . I t coul d b e a conflict betwee n th e power s abov e an d th e power s below, th e sk y an d th e earth , o r th e su n an d subter ranean powers , o n th e like . The mythi c solutio n o f conjugation i s very simila r i n structur e t o th e chord s which resolv e an d en d th e musica l piece , for the y offer als o a conjugation o f extreme s which , fo r onc e and a t last , ar e bein g reunited. I t coul d b e show n als o that ther e ar e myths , o r group s o f myths , whic h ar e constructed lik e a sonata, o r a symphony, o r a rondo , or a toccata, o r an y o f al l the musica l form s whic h

51 Myt h an d Meanin g music di d no t reall y inven t bu t borrowe d unconscious ly from th e structur e o f th e myth . There i s a little stor y I would lik e t o tel l you. Whe n I was writing The Raw and the Cooked, I decided t o give each sectio n o f th e volum e th e characte r o f a musical form an d t o cal l one 'sonata, ' anothe r 'rondo, ' and s o on. I then cam e upo n a myth, th e structur e o f which I could ver y wel l understand, bu t I was unabl e to fin d a musical for m whic h woul d correspon d t o this mythica l structure . S o I called m y frien d th e com poser, Ren e Leibowitz , an d explaine d t o hi m m y problem. I told hi m th e strucutr e o f th e myth : a t th e beginning tw o entirel y differen t stories , apparentl y without an y relationshi p wit h eac h other , progressive ly become intertwine d an d merge , unti l a t th e en d they mak e u p onl y on e theme . Wha t woul d yo u cal l a musical piec e wit h th e sam e structure ? H e though t i t over an d tol d m e tha t i n th e whol e histor y o f musi c there wa s no musica l piec e h e kne w o f wit h tha t struc ture. S o ther e i s no nam e fo r it . I t wa s obviousl y quit e possible t o hav e a musical piec e wit h thi s structure ; and a few week s late r h e sen t m e a score whic h h e ha d composed an d whic h borrowe d th e structur e o f th e myth I had explaine d t o him . Now, th e compariso n betwee n musi c an d languag e is an extremel y trick y one , becaus e t o som e exten t the compariso n i s extremely clos e an d ther e are , a t the sam e time , tremendou s differences . Fo r example , contemporary linguist s hav e tol d u s that th e basi c ele ments o f languag e ar e phoneme s - tha t is , thos e sounds tha t w e represent, incorrectly , b y th e us e o f

52 Myt h an d Musi c letters - whic h hav e n o meanin g i n themselves , bu t which ar e combine d i n orde r t o differentiat e meaning . You coul d sa y practicall y th e sam e thin g o f th e musi cal notes. A not e - A , B , C , D , an d s o o n - ha s no mean ing in itself; it i s just a note. I t i s only th e combinatio n of th e note s whic h ca n creat e music . S o you coul d very wel l sa y that , whil e i n language w e hav e phon emes a s elementary material , i n musi c we woul d hav e something whic h i n Frenc h I would cal l 'soneme' - i n English perhap s 'toneme ' woul d do . This i s a similarity . But i f you thin k o f th e nex t ste p o r th e nex t leve l in language , you wil l find tha t phoneme s ar e combine d in order t o mak e words ; and word s i n their tur n ar e combined togethe r t o mak e sentences . Bu t i n musi c there ar e n o words : th e elementar y material s - th e notes - ar e combine d together , bu t wha t yo u hav e right awa y i s a 'sentence/ a melodic phrase . So , whil e in language you hav e thre e very definite level s - phon emes combine d t o mak e words , words combine d t o make sentence s - i n musi c you hav e with th e note s something o f th e sam e kin d a s phonemes fro m a logical point o f view , bu t yo u mis s the wor d leve l an d you g o directl y t o a sentence . Now you ca n compar e mytholog y bot h t o musi c and t o language , bu t ther e i s this difference : i n myth ology ther e ar e n o phonemes ; the lowes t element s ar e words. S o i f we tak e languag e a s a paradigm, th e para digm i s constituted by , first , phonemes ; second , words ; third, sentences . I n musi c you hav e th e equivalen t t o phonemes an d th e equivalen t t o sentences , bu t yo u don't hav e th e equivalen t t o words . I n myt h yo u hav e

5 3 Myt h an d Meanin g an equivalen t t o words , a n equivalen t t o sentences , but yo u hav e n o equivalen t t o phonemes . S o ther e is , in both cases , one leve l missing . If w e tr y t o understan d th e relationshi p betwee n language, myth , an d music , we ca n onl y d o s o by us ing language a s the poin t o f departure , an d the n i t ca n be show n tha t musi c o n th e on e han d an d mytholog y on th e othe r bot h ste m fro m language s bu t gro w apar t in differen t directions , tha t musi c emphasize s th e sound aspec t alread y embedde d i n language , whil e mythology emphasize s th e sens e aspect , th e meanin g aspect, whic h i s also embedded i n language . It wa s Ferdinan d d e Saussur e wh o showe d u s tha t language i s made u p o f indissociabl e element s whic h are o n th e on e han d th e soun d an d o n th e othe r th e meaning. An d m y frien d Roma n Jakobso n ha s just published a little boo k whic h i s entitled Le Son et le Sens, a s the tw o inseparabl e face s o f language . Yo u have sound , th e soun d ha s a meaning, an d n o meanin g can exis t withou t a sound t o expres s it . I n music , i t i s the soun d elemen t whic h take s over , an d i n th e myt h it i s the meanin g element . I have alway s dreame d sinc e childhoo d abou t bein g a compose r or , a t least , a n orchestr a leader . I trie d very har d whe n I was a child t o compos e th e musi c for a n oper a fo r whic h I had writte n th e librett o an d painted th e sets , but I was utterly unabl e t o d o s o be cause ther e i s something lackin g i n m y brain . I fee l that onl y musi c an d mathematic s ca n b e sai d t o b e really innate , an d tha t on e mus t hav e som e geneti c ap paratus t o d o either . I remember quit e wel l how , whe n

54 Myt h an d Musi c I was living in Ne w York durin g th e wa r a s a refugee , I had dinne r onc e wit h th e grea t Frenc h composer , Darius Milhaud. I asked him , 'Whe n di d yo u realiz e that yo u wer e goin g to b e a composer?' H e explaine d to m e that , whe n h e wa s a child i n bed slowl y fallin g to sleep , he wa s listening an d hearin g a kind o f musi c with n o relationshi p whatsoeve r t o th e kin d o f musi c he knew ; he discovere d late r tha t thi s was alread y hi s own music . Since I was struc k b y th e fac t tha t musi c an d myth ology were , i f I may sa y so , two sisters , begotten b y language, wh o ha d draw n apart , eac h goin g i n a differ ent directio n - a s in mythology , on e characte r goe s north, th e othe r south , an d the y neve r mee t agai n then, i f I wasn't abl e t o compos e wit h sounds , per haps I would b e abl e t o d o i t with meanings . The kin d o f parallelis m I have trie d t o dra w - I hav e said i t alread y bu t I would lik e t o emphasiz e i t onc e again - applie s only , a s far a s I am aware , t o wester n music a s it develope d durin g th e recen t centuries . Bu t now w e ar e witnessin g somethin g which , fro m a logical point o f view , i s very simila r t o wha t too k plac e when myt h disappeare d a s a literary genr e an d wa s re placed b y th e novel . We are witnessing th e disappear ance o f th e nove l itself . And i t is quite possibl e tha t what too k plac e i n th e eighteent h centur y whe n musi c took ove r th e structur e an d functio n o f mytholog y i s now taking place again, in that the so-called serial musi c has taken over the novel as a genre at th e momen t when i t i s disappearing fro m th e literar y scene .