mythThe contested scholarly conception of the nature of myth begins in
earnest during the nineteenth century with such figures as Edward B.
Tylor (1832–1917), Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941), and Friedrich
Max Müller (1832–1900). Under the influence of Darwin’s theory of
evolution, Tylor uses elements of religion, such as myth, folklore, and
customs, to construct an evolutionary model of the development of
humanity. He identifies three stages: savage, or hunter-gatherer, barbaric,
which is characterized by domestication of plants and animals, and civi-
lized, which begins with the art of writing. With his preconceived plan,
Tylor wants to re-establish the fundamental unity of humankind and to
find survivals, which are processes, customs, and opinions carried by
force of habit into a new state of society in distinction to the previous
state. Tylor argues that myth is an elaboration of belief about gods and an
explanation of the natural world, and it thus represents a history of errors
of the human mind. Tylor’s research is related to his attempt to develop
a “science of culture” that would provide a history of the human mind.
According to Tylor, myth and science contradict each other, with the lat-
ter replacing the former, resulting in the demise of myth, even though
animistic beliefs that form the foundation of religion continue to exist.
In comparison to Tylor’s evolutionary scheme, Frazer’s sequence
includes the following: magic, religion, and science. The final phase is
equated with the truth, whereas religion is false. Magic is identified as
more primitive than religion, a propitiation and conciliation of powers
believed to be superior to humans. Magic is the mistaken application of
powers believed to be superior to humans. Magic is also the mistaken
application of an association of ideas and is thus necessarily false,
whereas religion stands in fundamental opposition to magic and science.
Myth is associated with magic, which cannot make fundamental logical
distinctions, and it is thus irrational and false. Wanting to gain control of
the natural world, magic makes practical use of myth in the form of rit-
ual. Frazer envisions a time when humanity would reject magic, religion,
and myth and embrace science, which he equates with knowledge and
enlightenment. In the meantime, Frazer ties myth to ritual, which re-
enacts myth and shapes it.
Frazer shares a similar conception of myth with members of the so-
called myth-ritual school, which is advocated by such scholars as William
Robertson Smith (1846–1804), Jane Harrison (1850–1928), and S. H.
Hooke (1874–1968). Smith argues that myth is not autonomous because
it is tied to ritual. Hence, all myths, which are actions, accompany rituals
and vice versa. According to Harrison and Hooke, myth explains what
happens in ritual, originates in ritual, and thus represents a secondary,
later abstraction. Recent scholarship does not find a genetic connection