Reviews. 1 1 9
attracts far less attention than it merits. We would recommend all who, having visited Innsbruck, have admired Peter Vischer's fine statue of Dietrich, which stands side by side with his world-famous Arthur, to provide themselves with this convenient summary of the hero's deeds.
But why does Mr. Sandbach, on pp. 17 and 19, refer to von Hahn's theory as the '■'■Exposure and Return" formula, while on p. 24 he speaks of the "original basis oi expulsion — and return"? This latter is the generally accepted translation of von Hahn's
- Ausseizung und Ruckkehr " formula. Exposure would have little
meaning applied to such a hero as Siegfried, who admittedly belongs to this family.
Jessie L. Weston.
Le Cycle Turc des Douze Animaux. Par Edouard Cha- VANNES. Leyden, 1906.
If you ask a Chinaman when he was born, he answers that it was in the year of the rat, the ox, the tiger, the hare, the dragon, the snake, the horse, the goat, the monkey, the cock, the dog, the bear, or, as some say, the pig. The problem of the origin of this cycle is the subject of this learned pamphlet by M. Chavannes. Dr. Williams, the author of the Middle Kingdom^ was of opinion that it was not derived from the Hindus, but that both Hindus and Chinese got it from the Chaldeans. Prinsep believed that it came into India at a late period — about 965 a.d. Certainly the coincidences of the different versions suggest a common origin. M. Chavannes ascribes its invention to the Turks, who passed it on to the Chinese about the beginning of the Christian era, and suggests that it was adopted by the Egyptians from Central Asia when Egypt became a Roman Province. The objection that the monkey was unknown to the Turks he answers by assuming that it came to them from India, where Kanishka held the
