Page:The Folk-Lore Journal Volume 5 1887.djvu/366

358

In his paper printed in this part of the Journal Dr. Gaster sets forth his theories as to the origin of Folk-tales and their relationship to Folk-lore, and therefore it is needless to explain the basis of his book. Folk-tales, he says, have nothing to do with custom or superstition. They must be studied separately, because they are of different origin. But is not such an assertion begging more than half the question? To those of the Society who accept the teaching of Professor Tylor and Mr. Lang in their study of Folk-lore we can safely assert that there is little in Dr. Gaster's book which will eventually disturb their tenets. The fact is, he has taken too narrow a ground. Because folk-tales are similar to Biblical stories, because others are really literary in origin, it does not follow that the folk-tale in its origin and raison d'être is literary in origin. We cannot subscribe in any way to Dr. Gaster's theories, though glad enough to welcome his book for two sufficient reasons. In the first place it points out facts which Folk-lorists are apt to overlook, and in the second place it gives us an almost unique account of Slavonic literature. Little is really known of this in England, and Dr. Gaster affords an opportunity of study which will be welcome to a large circle of students. Dr. Gaster's book ought to be studied side by side with the published works on Slavonic folk-lore, notably Mr. Ralston's well-known studies in Russian Folk-lore. In this relationship his learned dissertation cannot be otherwise than useful. But apart from the literary history which it contains and the suggestiveness of some of his conclusions, we think he has not yet even disturbed the position of the anthropological view of the science of Folk-lore.