led to the important conclusion that "the Fables of Aesop as literary products are the fables of Demetrius Phalereus." For it is to "The Assemblies of Aesopian Fables" compiled by the latter about the year 300 B.C. that both Phaedrus and Babrius can be traced. After reviewing the various theories put forward by Max Müller, Taylor and Benfey, to account for the appearance of the same or similar fables among peoples widely separate in space and time, Mr. Jacobs decides for the borrowing theory which Benfey favoured. He then presents and analyzes the few Jātaka tales to which parallels are to be found either in our Aesop or in Bidpai—a process which naturally leads up to the question "whether the Greeks derived their fables all or some from India." And at this point we are glad to see Mr. Jacobs vigorously combating the views of those scholars, who, under some sudden aesthetic impulse, desert the methods of science, and confound a question of evidence with a question of " taste." Professor Weber discovers something so clearcut, something so artistic about the Greek fables, as to exclude the very possibility of their being derived from a people who have presumably produced nothing but what is coarsely cut and inartistic. But this at least may be said for Professor Weber that he does not estimate the difference between two things without knowing both of them. Such an Indianist may be allowed to dogmatize about India. But Mr. Rutherford-as becomes a person who knows only one side of the question-is even louder in the same elevated strain. Holding himself severely free from any such prejudices as might flow from acquaintance with India and its literary products, is it possible, he asks, that a nation so original as the Greeks should be indebted for their fables to the childish Orientals? And so a possibility which was seriously entertained by a Benfey is banished from the face of the earth with the magnificent decision of a Podsnap. Mr. Jacobs maintains that where close parallels exist between our Aesopic collections and the Jātakas, the latter are prior and original-a conclusion which in his judgment would probably have been that of Benfey, had the latter been in possession of the fuller evidence which now establishes an earlier date than he suspected for the Jātakas. But we must now proceed to consider the Talmudic fables, as to which we learn that "the industry of Jewish scholars has only been able to unearth about thirty fables from the vast expanse of Tal mudic and Midrashic literature. Yet, few in number as they are, they are of crucial importance critically." Of these thirty "all but six, or perhaps only four, can be traced either to India or Greece, or both. It is the obvious inference that the Beast-fable in Judaea is a borrowed product, and the only question is from which of the two sources it has been derived. All our evidence turns in favour of India. For where the Greek and Indian forms of the fables common to the three differ, the Jewish form agrees with the Indian, not the Grecian." In the course of his endeavour to ascertain through what channel the beast-fable passed from India to Judaea, Mr. Jacobs has been able for the first time, as it appears, to throw light upon a difficult passage in the Talmud which has long tried the ingenuity of the commentators. We are told of R. Jochanan ben Zaccai that "he did not leave out of the circle of his studies even the Mishle Shu'alim (Fox-fables) and the Mishle Kobsim.” The puzzle lies in the last two words, for which the commentators offer the remarkable rendering, "Fables of the Washermen." "Now there is an uniform Greek tradition that a special class of fables called the Libyan were collected by a Libyan named Kybisas, Kybisios, or Kibysses. Babrius himself in his second prologue couples him with Aesop: πρῶτος δὲ, φασίν, εἶπε παισὶν Ἑλλήνων "Now the slightest rounding of a corner of a letter, transforming mem into samech would change the inexplicable Mishle Kobsim, "fables of washermen," into Mishle Kubsis "fables of Kybises," and with the Greek tradition before us there can be little doubt that the change is justified." Mr. Jacobs further concludes that the word Libyan, which appears to have been indiscriminately applied to all dark-skinned races, implies nothing more than the consciousness that the fables so styled were a foreign importation; and he goes so far as to identify them-if not wholly at least-mainly with the Jātakas (p. 130). Be this as it may, we think that few will be disposed to challenge the restoration of Kybises to the Talmud, and if Mr. Jacobs' preface contained nought else that was novel, it would on that ground alone be a noteworthy contribution to the history of the fable. But as to the suggestion that Proverbs xxx. 4 and 15-23 are also derived from India, we can see nothing in the first of the parallels adduced but what might easily have occurred independently to two thinkers in face of the question which has been stated in a thousand forms, but has never yet been answered. And in the last two cases the identity, being only partial, is in our judgment insufficient to support a definite conclusion. But with regard to the four things never sated the closeness of the agreement is such that there seems to be no escape from the conclusion that there has been borrowing on one side or the other; and we hold that on the strength of his parallel from the "Mahâbhârata" (iv. 2227), Mr. Jacobs is entitled to reverse the judgment of Professor Graetz, who, with the Hitopadésa alone in view, had decided for Jewish priority. We have left no space to deal with Mr. Jacobs' presentation of the mediaeval history of the fable, particularly in England; but we would specially refer our readers to what is said about the Jewish fabulist Berachyah Nakdan, who seems now at last to have been rescued from the semi-obscurity which has so long hung over his name and fame. In the course of his extended and minute investigation Mr. Jacobs has been led to traverse fields wider than can fall within the ken of any single scholar; but with the help of a never-failing tact he manages to walk circumspectly even when most remote from the limits of his special studies. The errors we have noticed-sins whether of omission or of commission-are few and unimportant. The strange form itiahasa, which confronts us at the top of the genealogical tree, we should have taken for a misprint, had it not been repeated (p. 147), and coupled with an interpretation which will come as a surprise to students of Sanskrit or Pali. On p. 130 one of the claimants for the child in the supposed Buddhist original of "the judgment of Solomon" appears as a Yakshini or female demon, and so far so good; but on p. 136 the same personage is alluded to as a rishi, whereas rishis were ascetics of distinguished piety, and, so far as our information goes, of the male sex exclusively. We think, moreover, that in appealing to Buddhism for wherewithal to account for the undoubted "degradation in the status of women due to early Christianity," Mr. Jacobs goes out of his way to obtain what lay in abundance ready to his hand nearer home. We believe that the fact in question was the natural and necessary result in practice of such ascetic teaching as that of Paul, not to speak of the concurrent influence of the legend-taken over by the Christians as part of their general inheritance from Judaism— in which woman appears as the channel through which sin entered the world, unless we are to suppose that this paтov Eudos, with its long train of consequences in the shape of cruelty and vice, was also derived from the Jātakas. Among the imitators of Aesop we think that mention might have been made of Leonardo da Vinci and Northcote. The former consummate and immortal-quem honoris causa nominatum volo; the latter a curicus spectacle in this century as with the help of Hazlitt he toils at the composition of fables dull and heavy as his own pictures, and that with the serious aim-not of amusing children, but of instructing men. But enough has been said to show the value and interest of the work before us. To the specialist it will need no recommendation; while the general reader-decoyed it may be to its perusal by the falsetto of Mr. Lang-will be surprised to find how varied and copious are the treasures of ancient wit and wisdom which lie hidden beneath the trite surface of " Aesop's Fables." "THE SEAT OF AUTHORITY IN RELIGION "1 [1890: AET. 27] HE present volume, though it forms a natural completion to the series of the author's works, appeals rather to that class of readers to whom his previous and more technical discussions would be unintelligible or distasteful, but who, nevertheless, through the mere fact of breathing the atmosphere of the present day, are vaguely conscious that a transformation is being wrought in the sphere of religion, and would gladly avail themselves of any sure means, if such can be found, of estimating its extent and direction. We say sure, for it by no means follows that learning and ability on the part of an author dealing with the history or the philosophy of religion will of themselves secure him a fair hearing in many quarters, unless he display the badge of the apologist as a sign that particular conclusions may be taken throughout as prejudged in a particular sense. The kind of reception accorded in certain circles to the book called "Supernatural Religion" is evidence of this. But in dealing with Dr. Martineau the task of the critic is at the outset lightened by the fact that, competence apart, his character needs no vindication. For in him the professor of philosophy may almost be said to have been subordinate to the minister of religion. And though many people may reasonably be startled at first by the coolness with which documents are dissected and the assurance with which conclusions are dismissed, which, as dogmas or the ground of dogmas, should still be entitled to respectful vindication, we venture to think that they will yet find much to console them in these eloquent pages. Granted that the main tendencies of those who in England are still quaintly called "the Tübingen critics," are 1 "The Seat of Authority in Religion," by James Martineau. "Athenæum," May 17th, 1890. |