NA TURE 



97 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1908. 



SCIENCE IN FOLKLORE. 

 Folklore as a Historical Science. By G. L. Gomme. 

 Pp. xvi+371. (London: Methuen and Co., n.d.) 

 Price ys. 6d. net. 



AS its title leads us to suppose, this interesting 

 volume is a plea for the recognition of folklore 

 as a historical science. Seeing that the barrier be- 

 tween history and folklore is still unbroken, in spite 

 of the efforts of Miss Harrison, Dr. Frazer, and 

 others, the author has resolved to destroy it once for 

 all, and has endeavoured to convince us that historical 

 fact is often the essence of tradition, and that we must 

 look to folklore for most if not all our light on the 

 earlv stages of the psychological, social, and political 

 development of modern man. In support of his argu- 

 ment, and by wav of illustration, he has drawn on his 

 vast store of instances, and discussed legends attached 

 to places and historical persons, folk-tales such as 

 Catskin, Faithful John, &c., which imply savage 

 social conditions, and tribal laws and rules, rhythmical 

 it not in verse, which have been handed down by 

 word of mouth and preserved in historical times. 

 Yet, in spite of the proofs at his command, he fears 

 that the historians may refuse to admit the value of 

 folklore as evidence, and believing that a change in 

 their attitude must be preceded by a change in the 

 attitude of the folklorists themselves, he urges on 

 the latter a more rigid scrutiny of their data, and a 

 more judicious use of the comparative method, than 

 has been customary hitherto. Not only must they 

 ascertain the position of each item of folklore in the 

 culture area in which it is found, but must try to 

 determine its correct relation to other items in that 

 area, taking heed to compare like quantities alone. 

 Onlv thus can they hope to discover the underlying 

 facts, and to offer the historians materials thev can 

 use. 



After indicating the relation of folklore to history, 

 and the svstem to be followed by the folklorists, he 

 discusses in the last half of the volume the aspects 

 under which they must regard it, and the conditions 

 they must take into account if their labour is to end 

 in a real increase of knowledge. 



The explanation of the folklore of a people should 

 he sought, as Mr. Gomme thinks, in its anthropo- 

 logical history, especially in the stage of its develop- 

 ment known as totemism, and as this is a topic on 

 which opinion is divided he discusses it at considerable 

 length. From totemistic survivals he passes on to 

 speak of those which can be subjected to sociological 

 and ethnological tests, and shows that certain differ- 

 ences in folklore are to be accounted for as the results 

 of different race origins or a different social organisa- 

 tion. In discussing European folklore he emphasises 

 the need of bearing in mind the introduction of a 

 foreign religion, viz. Christianity, and the manner 

 in which it affected and was affected by the existing 

 beliefs. 



For want of space we are unable to criticise the 

 work in detail, and must content ourselves with a 

 NO. 2014, VOL. 78] 



few general observations. Most, of its readers will 

 allow that folklore should be treated as a science, and 

 that the principles of its study have been correctly 

 laid down by the author. They will commend him, 

 too, for rejecting the methods of the destructive 

 school and laying stress on the value of popular be- 

 liefs. The scepticism of Voltaire and his followers 

 was a natural reaction from medieval credulity, and 

 was bound to precede any real advance in historical 

 writing. Our scholars of to-day are differently 

 placed ; as research has become closer and more ex- 

 tensive, their respect for tradition has been increased 

 in many cases rather than diminished ; thev are no 

 longer content to doubt ; they must separate the truth 

 from the overlying falsehood. In the light of our 

 fuller knowledge, Voltaire's treatment of the myth of 

 Romulus and Remus, for example, seems partial and 

 unscientific; Mr. Gomme, in discussing, for instance, 

 the story of the Frog Prince or the descriptions of 

 Britain by classical writers, greatly surpasses him in 

 breadth and acumen. To our mind, however, his con- 

 servative tendency is nowhere more happily expressed 

 than in hi? refusal to dismiss as superstition the at- 

 tempts of our savage ancestors to account for natural 

 phenomena. He shows with admirable insight that their 

 mental process was the same as that of their cultured 

 descendants — " primitive myth is primitive science " 

 — and the mistakes they made were but the natural 

 outcome of severely accurate reasoning from insuffi- 

 cient data. 



Yet, sensible as we are of his largeness of view and 

 the excellence of his methods, we are not altogether 

 satisfied as to the truth of his main contention; we 

 are far from certain that " the gap in the heart of 

 things " is not too wide to be bridged over by folk- 

 lore. His analysis of the various folk-tales is masterly 

 and suggestive, but he leaves us unconvinced that his 

 results are worthy of his pains, that the data of folk- 

 lore are matter for the historian, and not, as hitherto 

 supposed, for the philosopher. It i.s only just to say 

 that these doubts may not be felt by all, not to men- 

 tion that they may be lessened or removed by his 

 promised volume on " Folklore in Early British His- 

 tory." Be that as it may, we are less inclined to 

 quarrel with him for mistaking the uses of folklore 

 than for his attitude on certain other points, than, to 

 take one instance, for his somewhat cavalier treat- 

 ment of the mythologists. It is one thing to sav that 

 the key to folklore is anthropology ; it is another to 

 suggest that there are no traces of national gods 

 among the European peoples, and that the objects 

 of adoration were always of the tribe. Even if the 

 European sky-god is a fabrication of " the Cam- 

 bridge professor," even if Lud on the Thames and 

 Xod on the Severn were distinct until the Romans 

 united them, he is hardly justified in such sweeping 

 generalisations; he has still to account for, e.g., the 

 cult of Lug in regions so far apart as Lej'den and 

 Lyons and County Wicklow, as well as at a host of 

 intermediate places. It is possible that we shall re- 

 ceive greater satisfaction from the new volume; so 

 far it cannot be allowed that the author has said the 

 last word on the subject. 



V 



