Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 21, 1910.djvu/564

 52 2 Reviews.

enfin, a medley of astral, lunar, and solar myths, and sex-totem myths, have obscured and more or less depraved the legends of the All Father, which is very probable. Thus the view of M. Van Gennep that the All Fathers are merely First Ancestors or Culture Heroes is set aside. It was rejected by Mr. Howitt, and may, I think, be disproved without all the apparatus of Pere Schmidt. Four divergencies from my view, and concessions to criticism, are made, — with my entire consent, though I am rather shy of our old friend the Solar Hero. J'en ai vii Men d^autres !

" Le resultat general de la critique est done extremement favorable a Lang." But Pere Schmidt for the present confines himself to Australia, while pointing out that my contention covers the whole field of savage and barbaric religion, as far as I have information. To the great mass of evidence Pere Schmidt intends to return.

His last chapter deals with the " preanimistic theories of Magic," which we associate in England with the name of Mr. Marett. The book of a predecessor, Mr. King, " The Super- natural," (London, 1892), is unknown to me, and is described as "the best work, hitherto, of the new school." Pere Schmidt has a genius for discovering hidden merit : he has met with no mention of Mr. King in the literature of our topic. One must instantly procure Mr. King's book, in two volumes : its title, " The Super- natural," would have attracted me, but it never swam into my ken. Mr. King does not accept Animism as the starting point of religion, " Magic is anterior to Animism." He investigates the notions of mana, wakatt, orenda, and so forth. About the All Fathers of Australia, Mr. King seems to be strangely ill-informed (p. 257). Concerning Mr. Marett's essays, Pere Schmidt makes criticisms of much the same sort as have occurred to myself: he admires the article " From Spell to Prayer," first published in Folk-Lore, June, 1904.

Space permits but a very inadequate notice of the work of Pere Schmidt, and vanity has dictated a treatment perhaps too personal, though it was quite impossible, as his readers will see, to keep myself " out of the memorial."

A prima ^«'e objection to the opinion which 1 share with Pere Schmidt, is that we have both a heavy bias, — he as a Catholic