less
others, the psychoanalytic and the anagogic interpretations are possible
alongside of the scientific. [We can criticise Hitchcock for having in his
explanations of fairy tales considered them only in their most developed
form, and not bothered about their origin and archaic forms. And as a
matter of fact the more developed forms permit a very much richer anagogic
interpretation than the archaic. But that is no proof against the
interpretation, but only establishes their orientation in the development
of the human spirit. The anagogic interpretation is indeed a prospective
explanation in the sense of an ethical advance. Now the evolution even of
fairy tales shows quite clearly a progression towards the ethical; and
inasmuch as the ethical content of the tale grows by virtue of this
evolution, the anagogic explanation is in the nature of things able to
place itself in higher developed tales in correspondingly closer
connection with mythical material.] I adduce here only one example, namely
the schema that Frobenius has derived from the comparison of numerous sun
myths. The hero is swallowed by a water monster in the west [the sun sets
in the sea]. The animal journeys with him to the east (night path of the
sun apparently under the sea). He lights a fire in the belly of the animal
and cuts off a piece of the pendant heart when he feels hungry. Soon after
he notices that the fish is running aground. (The reillumined sun comes up
to the horizon from below.) He begins immediately to cut his way out of
the animal, and then slips out (sunrise). In the belly of the fish it has
become so hot that all his hair has fallen out. (Hair probably signifies
rays.) Quite as clear as the nature myth purport, is the fact that we have
a representation of regeneration, which is quite as conceivable in
psychoanalytic as in anagogic explanation.

Now I cannot approve of the attempt of many psychoanalysts to treat as a
negligible quantity or to ignore altogether the scientific content (nature
nucleus) of the myths which has been so well substantiated by the newer
research, even though it is not so well established in the details. [I
have uttered a similar warning in Jb. ps. F., IV (Princip. Anreg.) and
previously, in Jb. ps. F., II (Phant. u. Myth), have advocated the
equality of the natural philosophical and the psychological content. Now I
observe with pleasure that very recently an author of the psychoanalytic
school is engaged on the ver