Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 2, 1891.djvu/112

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
104
Report on Folk-tale Research.

The Abbe Bielenstein is not the only learned man, we are assured, who has denied the authenticity of these tales. Other Slavonic scholars—Bezzenberger, Professor Bruckner, and Wolter—have expressed more than doubts; and the last-named has publicly called on Dr. Veckenstedt to produce the Lithuanian texts, and to answer twenty-seven questions framed with a view to test their value.

In summarising these grave charges, I have endeavoured to give their substance faithfully, while avoiding, as far as possible, both the philological details, which it would not be possible to give without running to too great a length, and also the tone of sarcasm employed by M. Carlowicz. Whether this tone be justified depends on the accuracy of the accusation. What answer has Dr. Veckenstedt made to it? In the November number of the Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, which he edits, he has inserted two pages of small type, wherein he refers to M. Carlowicz's article, not naming him, but describing him as M. Gaidoz's Polish assistant. Dr. Veckenstedt declares at the outset that he is not going to analyse every detail of his article, but only to exhibit enough to prove the slipshod knowledge, untruth, and slanderousness of "the Polish gentleman"; for it is not his custom to reply to every attack, as nobody knows better than "the Polish gentleman", whose article was really written years ago. Coming after awhile to the substance of the charges, he states that no defence is possible to the accusations by his former scholars against their fellow-pupils, since the latter are not named. M. Carlowicz, he says, impugns the credibility of Jews as such; but, talking of credibility, he will give some examples of the credibility of "the Polish gentleman's" friends, Gaidoz, Jahn, and Krauss. The instance given of M. Gaidoz is one concerning an alleged error in the date of the publication of Mélusine; and the others are equally important and relevant. He further complains that M. Carlowicz denies the existence of his (Dr. Veckenstedt's) former pupil and present friend, Herr