50 
MUSEUM BULLETIN NO. 16. 
mind that borrowing is a selective process. The problems con- 
nected with myth borrowing thus assume a far greater complexity 
than we are apt to give them . 1 
THE LITERARY INTERPRETATION AND THE POSITION OF EHREN- 
REICH. 
In a previous section we pointed out that the position of 
Ehrenreich and the German theorists in general centred prin- 
cipally on their conception of a single original and correct version 
of every myth . 2 Their prime object was to discover a way in 
which they could reconstruct these primary versions from the 
divergent versions with which they were acquainted. To 
Ehrenreich that seems to have been a comparatively easy matter 
and could be accomplished by the proper interpretation of certain 
motifs. “Die Motive geben den urspriinglichern Inhalt des 
Mythes an, weil sie dasjenige Element sind, das auf konkreter 
Grundlage beruhend am festesten mit der urspriinglichen Natu- 
ranschauung verbunden bleibt, ungeachtet aller sekundaren 
Formveranderungen .” 3 
It is rather significant that Ehrenreich resorts to ultimate 
psychological proofs to establish his position. In many places 
of his work it is indeed impossible to determine how intimately 
connected his specific mythological data are with his psychologi- 
cal formulation . 4 In this respect his treatment resembles that of 
1 Perhaps a critical examination of myth-borrowing may show that the greater the diver- 
gence of a given myth complex from the type prevalent in the recipient culture, the greater the 
tendency to borrow the myth as a unit; and the greater the similarity, the greater the ten- 
dency of the selective agency to begin synchronously with the hearing of the myth. 
2 I do not know whether Erhenreich would have admitted this, but it seems to me to be 
an implied corollary of his position. On page 36 of his "Allgemeine Mythologie” he says, 
“Jede mythische Handlung besteht aus einer ursachlich verkniipften Folge von Einzelziigen, 
Situationen und Akzidenzen, die aus der Naturgrundlage abgeleitet, meist sogar geradezu real 
daraus abgesehen sind. Diese Motive entsprechen den einzelnen Phasen des Naturvorgangs, 
dem sie den Character einer menschlichen Handlung verleihen.” 
As I assume that Ehrenreich is not reasoning on purely a priori grounds, he must have 
found corroboration for the above from a study of the contents of the myths. 
8 Ibid. 
4 “Die Form des Mythus hangt hauptsachlich ab von den Ideenassoziationen die sich auf 
der Grundvorstellung entwickeln. Sie setzen sich night ins ungemessene fort, sondern be- 
wegen sich innerhalb des Anschauungskreises der Grundvorstellung, d. h. sie bleiben mit dem 
Naturkern begrifflich verbunden. So erzeugt die Vorstellung des Mondes als Sichelschwert, 
zugleich die der Handhabung dieser Waffe als Enthauptung oder Abhauung eines Wesens, 
untersttitzt durch die Auffassung der Aurora als Blut des Verletzten” (p. 39). 
