(1846-1894), who since 1883 had been Professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Robertson Smith was the first oriental scholar, the first scholar well versed in German work on theology, who contributed to the advancement of anthropological studies on religion; but the chief influence which we detect in his work is that of his contryman and personal friend MacLennan. Following, with far wider knowledge, MacLennan's example, and also that of the American scholar Morgan, he conducted his investigations from the standpoint of sociology, not from that of mere individual psychology. The problems relative to kinships, to the formation of families, clans, and tribes, absorbed him more fully than the explanation of myths and gods. His theory of sacrifice, in which something very like Catholic communion was considered as one of the primitive forms of worship, and was brought into close connexion with totemism, is, in my opinion, though I know that many scholars disagree, to be ranked with the most brilliant discoveries of modern science. But Smith, in his too short life, did more than the magnificent work to which his name is attached, more still than his illuminative teaching and lecturing in Scotland and in England: 'genuit Frazerum.'

Editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica' (ninth edition), Robertson Smith invited his young friend Frazer to write the articles on Taboo and Totemism. Never did two articles in an encyclopædia produce such a lasting effect on science. The doctrines therein condensed, put forward in that admirable style which others besides Englishmen can appreciate, are chiefly derived from Smith, MacLennan, Lang, and Tylor; but, though not entirely new to the learned, they were revelations to the reading public. Moreover, in a few lines or even words, Frazer had expressed some absolutely original ideas the beneficent influence of taboos, and the domestication of animals as possibly due to totemism. Though Frazer's article on totemism found a French translator, Van Gennep, England then became and remained for years in advance of France and of Germany. When I began, in 1900, under Smith's and Frazer's influence, to lecture in France on taboos and

* Set forth in the article 'Sacrifice' ('Encycl. Brit.' ed. viii), and developed in The Religion of the Semites.'

totemism, I had to explain these terms, which nobody understood at that time. A year earlier, when I mentioned them to the great Mommsen, he confessed to having never heard them previously. I shall never forget a long conversation which I had with Furtwaengler on the banks of the Seine, one fine summer evening. He knew nothing about these English' theories, which I explained to him at length in my broken German, but, I may say, with that tendency to clear expression which we are taught in French public schools. When my

speech was at an end, 'Das lässt sich sehr gut hören,' replied Furtwaengler; and it was as if, issuing from some dark room, he had suddenly been flooded by light.

In 1890 Frazer brought out the first edition of his magnum opus, The Golden Bough.' He started from the sanguinary ritual of the sacred wood at Nemi to take his course through the whole realm of folk- and savage-lore, guided by three dominant ideas that of sympathetic magic, which nobody had hitherto developed with such fullness and accuracy of information; that of the killing of the priest-king, not uninfluenced by Smith's theory of sacrifice, but quite free from the interference of totemism; and that of the all-pervading similarity of agricultural rites, directly taken from Mannhardt. Frazer, whose early study on totemism had created a host of followers, seemed himself somewhat reluctant to pursue the same line; in fact, he soon turned from the guidance of Smith to that of Mannhardt, and, while giving the keenest attention to taboos, avoided the subject of totemism. He returned to this difficult problem when the publication of Spencer and Gillen's works on the Australian tribes yielded new and unexpected light; and he has recently produced, as we all know, four bulky volumes on totemism and exogamy.t Unlike Andrew Lang, who destroys the delusions of others, Frazer excels in destroying his own. What now remains of his article on totemism published in 1887? Next to nothing, answers M. van Gennep, except the fact, clearly stated long ago by travellers, that the totemistic relation affects not individuals, but groups. I

* Two vols (Macmillan), 1890; 2nd ed. three vols, 1900; 3rd ed. in progress.

+ Totemism and Exogamy,' four vols (Macmillan, 1910). See notice in the Quarterly Review' for April 1911, art. 5.

have no intention of discussing this point; I only state what I think cannot be denied; but this affords me the opportunity for characterising the last phase, which may have originated about 1898, when the French school of M. Durkheim took the field and began issuing the 'Année sociologique.'

The general public is always late in accepting knowledge. While the ideas of Robertson Smith and Frazer were rapidly spreading-in Germany thanks to the able advocacy of the late Albert Dieterich, who was inspired by the English school no less than by his father-in-law Usener-a reaction against the anthropological method commenced in purely scientific circles. Sociology, as opposed to psychology, now asserted its claims. One after the other, the tenets of the English school were discussed and questioned. Universal totemism was held to be a fallacy. The survivals of totemism among Jews, Greeks, and Romans were said to be unproved. Smith's theory of sacrifice was nothing but a delusive hypothesis, in spite of all the facts which I have adduced * in confirmation of it. Tylor's animism was only an approximation to truth, since we must distinguish animism from animatism and admit a pre-animistic stage of thought. The logical inferences attributed to primitives and savages were misleading or arbitrary, for primitive folk discarded our logic and lived in a pre-logical state of mind. The theory that polydemonism preceded monotheism was rejected, since, according to Lang, who made many disciples, some sort of monotheism, and even the notion of a God All-father preceded polydemonism and so on. Not one of the more important theories of the near past has been exploded, but they have all been shaken; and, while I speak, the shaking goes on. The wider public begins to hear about it. A member of the French Institute, not a specialist, said to me only the other day: Who now believes in taboos and totems, except yourself?' This is naturally an obiter dictum, not to be taken too seriously; but it is a symptom. The scientific and perfectly legitimate craving for greater accuracy, and the desire to test the older hypothesis by the light of new facts-sometimes also the human, only

* In Cultes, Mythes et Religions,' three vols, Paris, 1905-8.

too human, tendency to make room for new theories, which may be old theories in verbal disguise-all these causes have contributed to create a state of uncertainty which may lead to a period of scepticism, before the constructive work is resumed.

6

While the struggle goes on, some people have a suspicious manner of applauding. Who are they? I will be discreet. They are gentlemen who still profess to explain the origin of religions, of morals, and even of society by and through a revelation made by God to man before the Fall. A little more of this,' wrote Gaidoz in 1898, and Mr. Lang will become a Father of the Church.' There are many Fathers in the Church, and many more outside it. Underlying and stimulating the work of criticism, as applied to the chief results of the anthropological school, I see, at all events in my own country, the ever-active upholders of tradition and established creeds. Of course, wherever truth lies, it is sure to prevail in the long run; and the encouragement given by a traditionalist should never deter a sincere critic from his work. But, as it was my duty to bring this long story to its conclusion, or, let us say, the year 1911, I could not avoid pointing out some symptoms which cannot be conscientiously overlooked. Free-thinking critics are engaged against each other in a process of destruction; when that has had its full effect, what will remain but tradition, and the old unscientific answer to the problem relating to the origin of religion? Such a reaction could not possibly be permanent, but we may yet live to witness it, and have to do much up-hill work before it is defeated again. Let me conclude by expressing the hope that some clever English scholar will give us two volumes on the great theme which I have insufficiently sketched in sixty minutes. The well-told history of this chapter of science should not merely afford a satisfaction to curiosity, but should be a most salutary stimulus to further enquiry and research.

SALOMON REINACH.

Art. 7.—BRITISH DIPLOMACY AND TRADE.* WHILE latter-day diplomacy has, unquestionably met with many signal triumphs, not alone in preventing international quarrels but also in effecting commercial treaties, it must be admitted that the conception of the duties of ambassador or minister in regard to commercial and industrial affairs remains extremely unsatisfactory, especially in the case of Great Britain. The day has gone by when a diplomatic post was looked upon as something which called for the exercise of mere cunning and duplicity, or when an ambassador could be even facetiously described as Sir Henry Wotton described him-as 'an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.' With the intellectual advance of the nations and the increase of international intercourse, the necessity has arisen for the services of men who will carefully watch and accurately report upon the substantial sources of material progress, protect and defend the interests of their fellow-countrymen both at home and abroad, and, in a word, act as 'the eye and the ear of the State.'

It is only those who have travelled considerably abroad, and more particularly in countries like the Latin-American Republics, who can adequately appreciate the great importance of appointing, as ministers abroad,† men who will interest themselves in the commercial relations between their own countries and the States to which they are accredited; and only such travellers enjoy opportunities of discovering how singularly remiss are many of his Britannic Majesty's representatives in this respect. These gentlemen appear to consider it beneath

* See also an article on The Consular Service' in the 'Quarterly Review' (No. 394) for April 1903, and one on The Promise of Latin America' in the 'Q.R.' (No. 426) for October 1910.

↑ The degrees in diplomatic appointments are as follows: (1) Ambas sadors, legates, and nuncios; (2) Envoys, Ministers, and other agents accredited to Sovereigns or States; (3) Chargés d'Affaires, accredited to the departments of Foreign Affairs. These grades were defined by the Great Powers at the Congress at Vienna of 1815; but there are inter mediate grades such as Envoy-Extraordinary and Minister-Plenipotentiary; Envoy-Extraordinary only, and Minister-Plenipotentiary only. An envoy is inferior to an ambassador in dignity, but he is generally invested with equal powers.