Die Volkskunde als Wissenschaft. Von E. Hoffmann-Krayer. Zurich. 1902.
In this interesting and suggestive essay, dedicated to Mr. Hartland, the founder and President of the Swiss Folk-Lore Society expounds the purport and scope of our study. His standpoint is, in the main, that of most English folklorists: the "folk" whose "lore" is to be studied comprises the backward, unprogressive elements of the people who have reached a high stage of culture; in contradistinction to culture-lore (Kulturgeschichte), which lays stress upon the individualistic dynamic forces of society, folklore is concerned with its communal static elements; the two studies have, however, much in common, and many subjects can only be adequately treated from the varying standpoints of both.
Folklore may seek to determine the specific characteristics of a people, or to trace the formation and development of belief and fancy as they manifest themselves in practice and myth; hence two main divisions of the study, racial and general folklore as they may be termed, the one concerned with the enumeration and description of specific groups of phenomena, the other with the exposition and interpretation of the principles deducible from the comparison of many such groups. These two sections of folklore study must receive simultaneous and equal attention, though it should never be forgotten that the synthesis of general folklore can only be securely based on the exhaustive and accurate analysis of racial folklore; before we can explain and interpret we must know.
With these considerations, illustrated as they are by pertinent concrete examples and by illuminating analogies drawn from other branches of study, we English folklorists are not likely to quarrel. In the brief survey of the chief problems of folklore and in the indication of the solutions which he favours, the author seems to me to lay too great stress upon similarities and upon their explanation by direct transmission. I miss a clearer recognition of the view that transmitted influence is only effective where lending and borrowing cultures stand on much the same level, so that successful transmission is less the cause of similarity between two bodies of folklore than a proof of their essential identity.[1]
- ↑ [What does Mr. Nutt say to the case of the West Indian negroes, ante, p. 87?—Ed.]
