FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103  
104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   >>   >|  
comparison' between savage fables and the folklore of Homer and the Vedas 'as really authoritative _until fully demonstrated on both sides_.' Well, it _is_ 'fully demonstrated,' or 'a very thoughtful scholar' (like Dr. Oldenberg) would not accept it. Or it is _not_ demonstrated, and then Dr. Oldenberg, though 'a very thoughtful,' is not 'a true scholar.' Comparisons, when odious Once more, Mr. Max Muller deprecates the making of comparisons between savage and Vedic myths (i. 210), and then (i. 220) he deprecates the _acceptance_ of these very comparisons 'as really authoritative until fully demonstrated.' Now, how is the validity of the comparisons to be 'fully demonstrated' if we are forbidden to make them at all, because to do so is to 'obscure' the Veda 'by light from the Dark Continent'? A Question of Logic I am not writing 'quips and cranks;' I am dealing quite gravely with the author's processes of reasoning. 'No true scholar' does what 'very thoughtful scholars' do. No comparisons of savage and Vedic myths should be made, but yet, 'when fully demonstrated,' 'true scholars would accept them' (i 209, 220). How can comparisons be demonstrated before they are made? And made they must not be! 'Scholars' It would be useful if Mr. Max Muller were to define 'scholar,' 'real scholar,' 'true scholar,' 'very thoughtful scholar.' The latter may err, and have erred--like General Councils, and like Dr. Oldenberg, who finds in the Veda 'remnants of the wildest and rawest essence of religion,' totemism, and the rest (i. 210). I was wont to think that 'scholar,' as used by our learned author, meant 'philological mythologist,' as distinguished from 'not-scholar,' that is, 'anthropological mythologist.' But now 'very thoughtful scholars,' even Dr. Oldenberg, Mr. Rhys, Dr. Robertson Smith, and so on, use the anthropological method, so 'scholar' needs a fresh definition. The 'not-scholars,' the anthropologists, have, in fact, converted some very thoughtful scholars. If we could only catch the _true_ scholar! But that we cannot do till we fully demonstrate comparisons which we may not make, for fear of first 'obscuring the Veda by this kind of light from the Dark Continent.' Anthropology and the Mysteries It is not my affair to defend Dr. Oldenberg, whose comparisons of Vedic with savage rites I have never read, I am sorry to say. One is only arguing that the _method_ of making su
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103  
104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

scholar

 
comparisons
 

demonstrated

 

thoughtful

 

Oldenberg

 

scholars

 

savage

 

method

 

mythologist

 

anthropological


author

 

Continent

 

deprecates

 

making

 

authoritative

 

accept

 

Muller

 

rawest

 

defend

 

distinguished


philological

 

wildest

 

essence

 

learned

 

Robertson

 

totemism

 

religion

 

demonstrate

 

arguing

 

obscuring


remnants

 

definition

 
anthropologists
 
Anthropology
 

Mysteries

 

converted

 

affair

 

processes

 

validity

 

acceptance


forbidden

 

Question

 

obscure

 

folklore

 

comparison

 

fables

 

Comparisons

 

odious

 

writing

 
Scholars