Notes

PREFACE

1. The chronic fallacy is David Fischer’s term; see Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (1970, 152). For Ben-Amos’s discussion of “the chronic fallacy,” see Ben-Amos (1973, 114).

1. DISCIPLINE AND IDENTITY

1. Daniels quotes a letter from John L. LeConte to Charles Wilkes, March 7, 1847, and one from John Torrey to John L. LeConte, April 9, 1849 (LeConte Papers, American Philosophical Society).

2. Daniels quotes a letter from Charles Sanders Peirce to J. M. Peirce, dated December 18, 1859, located in the collection of the Houghton Library, Harvard.

3. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines scientism as “1. the techniques, beliefs, or attitudes characteristic of scientists. 2. the principle that scientific methods can be applied in all fields of investigation; often a disparaging usage.” The term scientism is employed here with the second definition, without the disparaging connotation.

4. This dispute over intellectual territory was not limited to the United States. It was occurring in Europe as well. For England, see Dorson (1968a). For France, see Clark (1973); Zumwalt (1978, 1982); Siegel (1965). For Germany, see Ben-David (1968-1969).

5. Recent dissertations on the history of American folklore scholarship are the following: William K. McNeil, “A History of American Folklore Scholarship before 1908” (Indiana University, Folklore Institute, 1980); Susan Dwyer-Schick, “The American Folklore Society and Folklore Research in America, 1888-1940” (University of Pennsylvania, Department of Folklore and Folklife, 1979); Peter T. Bartis, “A History of the Archive of Folk Song of the Library of Congress: The First Fifty Years” (University of Pennsylvania, Department of Folklore and Folklife, 1982); and Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, “Jaime de Angulo, an Intellectual Biography” (University of Pennsylvania, Department of Folklore and Folklife, 1983). See also the special issue of Journal of the Folklore Institute, American Folklore Historiography, volume 10 (1973); as well as Reuss (1971); de Caro (1972); Chambers (1973); Thoresen (1973); Gillespie (1975, 1980); Briscoe (1979); and Baer (1980).

2. AMERICAN FOLKLORE STUDIES

1. For an appraisal of Newell’s crucial contribution to the founding of the American Folklore Society and the shaping of the Journal of American Folklore, see Vance (1893, 595); “First Annual Meeting” (1890, 6); Dwyer-Shick (1979, 15). For a discussion of science as a gentleman’s avocation in the nineteenth century, see Daniels (1967, 1700).

2. See Dwyer-Shick (1979, 17), and Dundes (1966a, 239, 248), for the identification of Newell with this anonymous contribution. For a review of the beginnings of folklore in the United States, England, and Europe, see Herskovits’s presidential address to the American Folklore Society, “Folklore after a Hundred Years: A Problem in Redefinition” (1946).

3. This emphasis on the oral aspect of folklore has been present throughout the twentieth century See Utley (1961), and Leach (1949).

3. THE SCHISM IN FOLKLORE

1. See de Vries (1985), and Dorson (1955a) for a discussion of this theoretical approach.

2. For additional correspondence concerning the publication of obscene material, see Boas Papers, Newell to Boas, 3/1/1898.

3. In 1892, Chamberlain received the first Ph.D. in Anthropology granted in the United States. This was after Boas had already resigned from his position in the department of graduate education at Clark University (Dwyer-Shick 1979, 199; Dwyer-Shick and Bailey 1977, 2).

4. For additional correspondence concerning the change in editorship, see Boas Papers, Boas to Chamberlain, 1/10/1908; and Chamberlain to Boas, 1/15/1908.

5. See Dwyer-Shick for a review of the records of the American Folklore Society: Appendix A, “Presidents of the American Folklore Society and the American Anthropological Association, from the Founding of Each to the Present” (Dwyer-Shick 1979, 341-46); and “Policy of Rotation of Society Presidency,” pages 49, 59-62.

6. Personal communication, Wayland Hand, 1981.

7. This pattern of joint annual meetings is strikingly displayed in Appendix C, “Annual Meetings of the American Folklore Society, 1889-1978,” in Dwyer-Shick’s work (1979, 353-62).

4. THE LITERARY FOLKLORISTS

1. M. A. De Wolfe Howe has compiled A Scholar’s Letters to a Young Lady, a delightful selection of Child’s correspondence to a young lady friend. This covers the period from 1883 through August 14, 1896, less than a month before he died. The letters bring out in a touching way the sensitivity of this great scholar, his dedication to his roses, which he called by name, his love of his friends, and his continuing concern with his ballad publications.

2. See Appendix A of Sigurd Bernhard Hustvedt’s Ballad Books and Ballad Men (1930) for a collection of the correspondence between Child and Grundtvig.

3. Child to Grundtvig, March 26, 1872.

4. For a more detailed discussion of Child’s use of manuscript sources see Kittredge, “Francis James Child,” (1898, xxvii-xxviii); and also the list of manuscript sources (397ff.) of the fifth volume of The English and Scottish Popular Ballads. See also Hustvedt, Ballad Books and Ballad Men (1930, 213ff.). And in Appendix A of this book, the Child-Grundtvig correspondence testifies to a continuing concern with the acquisition of ballad manuscripts.

5. See Hustvedt (1930, 256), for Child’s preference of unprinted manuscripts.

6. Child to Grundtvig, March 26, 1872.

7. Marian Michael is quoting a circular of Child, dated January 29, 1881, filed in the Harvard Library.

8. Ibid.

9. For a further discussion of Kittredge’s early publications and his years of instruction at Phillips Exeter Academy (1883-1887), see Clyde Kenneth Hyder, George Lyman Kittredge Teacher and Scholar, chap. 3, “Phillips Exeter” (Hyder 1962, 33-40).

10. In American Scholarship in the Twentieth Century, Merle Curti mentioned the recognition in Europe of American scholars. Among those named were Willard Gibbs, William James, Franz Boas, J. H. Breasted, and George Lyman Kittredge (Curti 1953, 5).

11. For information on the courses taught by Kittredge, see Hyder (1962, 42-44), and Thompson (1956, 57-60).

12. Hyder is quoting a letter from George Lyman Kittredge to Dr. Cabot, dated May 14, 1926.

13. This theory, of course, was influenced by nineteenth century romanticism, by Herder and the Grimms, and the idea of the spirit of the folk. See Wilgus (1959, chaps. 1, 2), and McNeil (1980, 522-602), for a discussion of the communal theory of ballad origin and the controversy surrounding it.

14. Thompson mimeographed two installments of his memoirs, “Folklorist’s Progress” (1956), and “Second Wind” (1966). See also the interview, “Reminiscences of an Octogenarian Folklorist,” (Upadhyaya 1968); Thompson’s “Notes on an Itinerant Folklorist” (1957); and Peggy Martin, “Stith Thompson: His Life and His Role in Folklore Scholarship” (n.d.).

15. Lecture notes from Thompson’s “The Folktale and Allied Forms” have been published as “Informal Notes on Transactions and Lectures of Second Folklore Institute of America” (Bloomington: Indiana University, Privately Multigraphed, 1946). For a discussion of these notes, see Martin (n.d., 40, n30).

16. John Lomax perpetuated the study of folklore in his family. He was the father of Alan Lomax and Bess Lomax Hawes. Alan Lomax graduated from Harvard in 1931. Bess Lomax Hawes took her M.A. in folklore at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1970.

17. These few pages that Milman Parry had written before his death are included in Lord’s article, “Homer, Parry, and Huso” (1948).

18. In his tribute to his teacher, Henry Glassie quoted remarks made by MacEdward Leach at the close of a program given by the Philadelphia Folksong Society, held in honor of his retirement.

19. MacEdward Leach’s crucial contributions to the American Folklore Society were remarked on by many of his colleagues. See the MacEdward Leach Memorial Issue of the Journal of American Folklore (1968); Fenton (p. 104), Garbaty (p. 106), James (p. 112), Laws (p. 115), Luomala (pp. 115-16), and Richmond (p. 117).

20. For additional correspondence in the Boas Papers concerning Espinosa’s fieldwork, see Espinosa to Boas, 5/31/1913, 7/15/1913, 12/1/1913, 3/21/1915, 9/5/1920, 10/21/1920.

21. Anne C. Burson reported on Krappe and his contributions to folklore scholarship at the 1981 Meeting of the American Folklore Society.

5. THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL FOLKLORISTS

1. Personal communication, George Foster, 1976.

2. The conflict between Franz Boas and W. J. McGee over the establishment of the American Anthropological Association was played out between the two in private correspondence and in published accounts. It gave voice to concerns over the place of amateurs in anthropology, the power of professionals, and the direction and control of anthropology. (See Stocking 1960.) For Boas’s plans concerning the development of American anthropology, see Parmenter (1966, 100).

3. Rohner is quoting from Boas’s diary entry of 9/30/1886.

4. Darnell is quoting correspondence from Pilling to Boas (5/16/1887), and Hodge to Boas (3/31/1917), on file at the Bureau of American Ethnology.

5. For “A Bibliography of Franz Boas in Folklore,” see Lowie (1944b, 65-69). See also the selective bibliography of Boas’s major works in Herskovits, Franz Boas, The Science of Man in the Making (1953).

6. For Boas’s discussion of the development of anthropology courses at Columbia from 1893 to 1896, see “Instruction in Anthropology,” Boas Papers, attachment from Boas to Butler, 11/15/1902. For a discussion of the way in which Boas saw anthropological instruction linked to museum work, see Jacknis (1985, 88).

7. Buzaljko is quoting a letter from Kroeber to Hearst, dated March 29, 1902, on file in the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Papers at the Bancroft Library.

8. For Barrett’s work in folklore, see Pomo Myths (1933), Material Aspects of Pomo Culture (1952), and The Dream Dance of the Chippewas and Menominee of Northern Wisconsin (1911).

9. The information on courses offered in the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, was taken from a catalogue compiled by Kroeber. It consisted of a photostat copy of the University of California Catalogue beginning in 1901, and continuing past Kroeber’s retirement, when John Rowe followed Kroeber’s pattern of recording anthropology courses, adding notes in the margin with pertinent information about course or professor. John Howland Rowe graciously made this catalogue available to me.

10. Darnell is quoting a letter from Putnam to Newell, dated May 6, 1905, filed among the Frederick Ward Putnam papers.

11. Personal communication from Katherine Loumala in 1981.

12. See Witthoft (1951) for Speck’s bibliography.

13. See Thompson (1978, 641) for a list of these languages and the dates of the fieldwork.

14. Simpson is quoting a letter from Mead dated April 12, 1973.

15. Peter Hare notes that there is confusion about the actual date of Parsons’s birth. While 1875 is given in all reference works as the correct date, 1874 is recorded as the year of her birth in the family Bible. The latter date was regarded by Parsons as correct (Hare 1985, 27).

16. For additional information on Parsons, see Chambers (1973); Hare (1985); National Research Council (1938, 78); and Reichard (1943a).

17. See Dwyer-Shick (1979, 240-50) for a detailed account of Benedict’s tenure as editor.

18. Briscoe is quoting a letter from Ruth Benedict to Katherine Luomala, dated July 3, 1936, on file in the Benedict Papers at the Vassar College Library.

19. For a touching account of his memories of his teacher, see Sidney Mintz, “Ruth Benedict,” in Sydel Silverman, Totems and Teachers (Mintz 1981, 141-68). For more information about Columbia University’s reluctance to grant full professorship to a woman, see Mead (1974); and Lynd (1949, 22-24). Robert Lynd in his memorial to Ruth Benedict recalled, “When there was the problem of the moving of the Department of Anthropology into the Faculty of Political Science, the Faculty at Columbia under which the other social sciences are grouped, the shift was desirable and long overdue from the point of view of all of the other social disciplines. But there was an obstacle, around which gray-haired professors tip-toed, whispering anxiously: it would involve bringing a woman into the Faculty. And as a distinguished colleague, now dead, had remarked, ‘The Faculty of Political Science is a very exclusive gentlemen’s club’ ” (Lynd 1949, 23). Mead remarked, “The Faculty of Political Science, to which Anthropology had been transferred from the Faculty of Philosophy, Anthropology, and Psychology, felt that the addition of a woman to their ranks as a full professor would lower their academic standing” (Mead 1974, 55).

In addition to Columbia’s reprehensible treatment of one of the outstanding scholar’s of the twentieth century, there was also the matter of Ralph Linton’s overt hostility toward Ruth Benedict. Two people had been considered to replace Boas on his retirement from Columbia: W. Lloyd Warner and Ralph Linton. Ruth Benedict favored the appointment of W. Lloyd Warner. She thought that she and Linton were so similar in their approach that Warner would provide a new perspective for the students. Linton learned that she had not supported him; and when he was appointed head of the department, he never missed an opportunity to show his hostility (Mead 1974, 55-56). Sidney Mintz recalled, “I never heard Ruth comment on Linton, but his hostility toward her was intense . . . when he referred to Benedict, it was always with a good deal of animus. He would occasionally boast publicly that he had killed her, and he produced for me, in a small leather pouch, the Tanala material he said he had used to kill Ruth Benedict” (Mintz 1981, 161).

6. APPROACHES TO FOLKLORE

1. Hart was quoting Child’s passage on the ballad published in the Universal Cyclopoedia.

2. Ibid.

3. For a history of the type index, see Fritz Harkort, “Zur Geschichte der Typenindex,” in Fabula (1962). Thompson also gives a brief background in The Types of the Folktale (1961).

4. See Dundes’s note 10 to Thompson’s “The Star Husband Tale” for a discussion of an attempt to find an earlier version of this narrative (1965, 457-58). For works on a related narrative, the star wife tale of Central and South America, see Howe and Hirschfeld (1981); Schorer (1962); Metraux (1946); Wagley (1940); Krause (1911). For a survey of the criticisms of the Finnish historic-geographic method, see Utley’s “The Folktale: Life History vs. Structuralism” (1978).

5. Darnell is quoting a letter from Boas to Hodge, dated March 2,1900, on file at the Bureau of American Ethnology.

6. Boas changed his position on diffusion theory later in life. In 1935, he wrote to Kroeber, “It is by no means certain that a center in which widely distributed phenomena reach their greatest intensity, must be their home. . . . Unless other reasons can be given, the distribution alone does not indicate place of origin” (Rukyser, Boas to Kroeber, 8/5/1935).

7. Darnell is quoting a letter from Waterman to Hodge, dated May 29, 1912, which is part of the records of the University of California Archives, Department of Anthropology.

8. Darnell is quoting a letter from Kroeber to Waterman, June 17, 1913, which is part of the records of the University of California Archives, Department of Anthropology.

7. REMNANTS OF THE PAST IN THE PRESENT

1. See Fontenrose (1971, 26-35) for a discussion of Harrison and Hyman.

2. See also Yigal Zan, “The Text/Context Controversy: An Explanatory Perspective” (1982).

3. Much of the correspondence of the American Folklore Society is on file at the University of Pennsylvania Folklore and Folklife Archives.