You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This generously planned and ambitious work is recommended by its clear arrangement, systematic treatment, lucidity and industry. The author's wide reading in psychology, mythology, comparative religion and ethnology arouses our envy; his philosophical training is apparent in the discussion of difficult concepts. His interpretation of many myths is skilful and witnesses to his capacity for psychological empathy and his understanding of the thought and feeling of antiquity. The account and criticism of the theories of sacrifice, not always easy, say, in Frazer, are clear and comprehensive. Isolated remarks, such as that dealing with the connection between the institution of nunneries and the temple prostitution of antiquity, are excellent. Unfortunately such notes are few in number.
I now venture to criticize the work, which the Philosophical Faculty of the University of London has quite properly approved as thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This criticism will refer rather to sins of omission than to those of commission. In my opinion the first requirement in such a work is a min idea, or, if you like, a succession of ideas. In any case I think the work must be preceded by a happy inspiration which is then followed up. The idea may shew itself in new matter or in a new way of looking at known facts. Anyone who reads this work carefully will note with surprise the entire absence of such a leading thought. Money-Kyrle gives an account of the analytical theory of sacrifice, together with some additions of his own, which are common knowledge to the