1 Simpson (1909) vol.i, p.334. Cf. W.R. Nicoll’s eulogy: “We hazard very little in saying that Professor Smith, in the depth and range of his knowledge, had no equal among living men”. (British Weekly, no.388, vol. xv, 5 April, 1894.)

2 FCSAP, 1881, p.77 (May 24).

3 Simpson (1909) vol.i, p.400. Carnegie Simpson’s view was that, by this epithet, Rainy meant that the principle of liberty of expression was being hopelessly compromised “by its own protagonist [Smith]” through his refusal to compromise in terms of his teaching rôle. Simpson’s robustly argued but by no means convincing opinion (pp.398-403) was that it was Rainy who “saved the great and vital interest which was at stake—namely the securing of critical liberty within the evangelical and orthodox Free Church of Scotland”. See B&C, pp.568ff. for a trenchant rebuttal of this judgment by Smith’s biographers.

4 Ib., p.78: “Professor Smith put forth views which it is not unfair to characterise as advanced. I might describe them otherwise”. Rainy did, however, charge Smith with having “stumbled his brethren, even if his brethren, in his opinion, were behind the age in being stumbled” (FCSAP, 1881, p.80).

5 Cf. Marsh (1969) passim, and especially chapter 2, “Theological Paralysis”, for an account of the Anglican situation at this time: “In less than ten years, Biblical literalism had fallen from its throne as the ruling orthodoxy of the mid-Victorian Church, and was now the creed of only a small minority at least, among articulate churchmen” (p.56).

6 Morley insisted (in a prefatory note) that “the present little volume has no pretensions to be anything more than an Essay”; nevertheless, it forms an octavo volume of more than 250 pages.

7 This was effected by the University Tests Act, 1871. Cf. Roll-Hansen (1957) p.37, and also Marsh (1969) p.2, for a brief account of the earlier, more general anti-discriminatory legislation – e.g. the repeal in 1828 of the Test and Corporation Acts in England and Wales.

8 The notorious Bradlaugh case, in relation to the swearing of allegiance to the monarch by elected members of parliament, was still to come however. In 1881, the Free Church of Scotland agreed to call on both Houses of Parliament to resist “any alteration to the constitution of the country, with the view of facilitating the admission of atheists to sit as members of the Legislature” (FCSAP, 1881, p.293). The motion (deprecated by Rainy) was proposed by Dr Begg.

9 Morley (1877) pp.37f. All references to On Compromise are to the second edition, which differs from the 1874 original only in carrying some additional footnotes.

10 Ib., pp. 39f. The quotation is from Newman’s Essays Critical and Historical (1871) vol. i, “Prospects of the Anglican Church”, p.301.

11 Ib., p.40. Cf. Mill (1991) p.27: “There are, it is alleged, certain beliefs so useful, not to say indispensable, to well-being that it is as much the duty of government to uphold these beliefs, as to protect any other of the interests of society”.

12 Ib., pp.41f: “However little enlightened in some respects . . . they are at least representatives of the momentous principle of our own individual responsibility for the truth of our opinions”. Morley was plainly thinking of the relative open-mindedness and freedom of expression associated with both the Congregational and Unitarian Churches in England.

13 Ib., p.45: “The learned are to hold the true doctrine; the unlearned are to be taught its morally beneficial contrary”.

14 Morley’s ironic use of this expression is a direct allusion to Mill’s Utilitarian arguments in favour of truth and liberty.

15 The impact of such hypocrisy was to been seen not least, said Morley, in the domestic circle: “As it is, we all of us know men who deliberately reject the entire Christian system, and still think it compatible with uprightness to summon their whole establishment round them at morning and evening, and on their knees to offer up elaborately formulated prayers, which have just as much meaning as the entrails of the sacrificial victim had to an infidel haruspex” (ib., p.170).

16 Ib., pp.56f.

17 Ib., p.70.

18 Ib., p.75. Here, as elsewhere, Morley’s style is resonant with oblique Old Testament references.

19 Ib., p.95: this is a condensation of Morley’s somewhat verbose description.

20 Cf. Simpson (1909) pp.354f. for a poignant eye-witness description of Davidson’s silence during Smith’s trial: “One can see him still . . . sitting through the long debates, his fine head now sunk deep upon his breast as though he were uncertain about duty or opinion, and now thrown up . . . while the wistful smile – sharpening at times to the ironic – plays gently upon lips so firmly sealed”. But Simpson firmly discounts cowardice on Davidson’s part and suggests “a Hamlet-like irresolution” or an “Ecclesiastes-like feeling” (of disillusionment) or “a temperamental self-distrust and diffidence”.

21 FSCAP, 1881, p.126.

22 Ib., p.78.

23 Ib. Rainy’s series of lectures to the English Presbyterian College, London, prompted by the Smith case and published in 1878 as The Bible and Criticism, vividly illustrates his personal ambivalence in regard to the higher criticism. Rainy was well aware of the issues raised but vacillated continually between acceptance and rejection, as the following example (p.137) demonstrates: “. . . I rate highly the presumptions against [the findings of the higher criticism] from their apparent incongruity with what appears to me to be a sound and reasonable view of the Bible. I think I act rationally in doing so. But in many of these cases, I should not be acting rationally, if I put my decision higher than an estimate of evidence, resulting in a certain degree of confidence, but subject to be reconsidered if new evidence appears. I should not be acting rationally, if I put my decision so high, as to make it an irreversible degree, identified with my faith itself”.

24 Ib., p.81.

25 Earlier in 1881, Robertson Smith had delivered his public lectures on The Old Testament in the Jewish Church to great public acclaim and it is to this that Rainy alludes, as well as to the media publicity surrounding Smith’s arraignment and trial.

26 FCSAP, 1881, p.85.

27 Cf. Simpson (1909) vol. i, p.396, for WRS’s warning to Rainy’s future biographer: “. . . don’t trust Rainy – he’s a jesuit”. And, in his memories of WRS, J.P. Lilley wrote (Expositor, vol.xx, 1920, p.135) of Rainy’s “expediency of deferring so much as he did to the movement of what he called ‘the common Christian mind’ and the verdicts of a ‘sufficient number’ of imperfectly educated ministers and elders . . .”.

28 St George Jackson Mivart (1827-1900) was a biologist of repute (contributing the article “Ape” to EB⁹) who had been converted to Catholicism in 1844 and who devoted his not inconsiderable talents to defending the traditional tenets of the Catholic faith against Darwin in particular and scientific materialism in general, despite accepting the principles of evolution insofar as these did not infringe man’s unique differentiation from brute creation. His personal summa, entitled On Truth (1889), reads as a highly orthodox interpretation of Thomist theology and Cartesian philosophy grafted on to the findings of Victorian biology. Despite his record of loyalty towards the Catholic Church, Mivart found himself summarily excommunicated in March, 1900. The pages of The Nineteenth Century for 1900 (vol. xlvii) carry the Catholic side of the argument as well as Mivart’s defence.

29 Nineteenth Century, vol. iii (June, 1878) p.947. Mivart writes entertainingly and often with a degree of irony, but his adherence to Roman Catholic dogma at this stage was still unquestioning and his arguments are a strictly logical consequence of that stance. He points out, for instance (p.946), that an honest inquiry into the principles of toxicology by one’s spouse could well exemplify the distinctly dangerous pursuit of “certain scientific truths”.

30 Ibid. Mivart’s article centres on an attempted refutation of the scientific principle of “correlation of forces” – the hypothesis being developed in particular by Clerk Maxwell, Helmholtz, Thomson, Tait and Clausius of the ultimate equivalence of heat, light and other forms of energy, as aspects of molecular motion – and the logical implication of this, as promoted by Tyndall and Bain, that all mental and psychical operations were reducible to molecular motion.

31 He died in March, 1900, the month in which his excommunication was pronounced.

32 Cf. The Nineteenth Century, vol. xlvii, March, 1900, pp. 51-72, “The Continuity of Catholicism”, and pp.425-442: “Scripture and Roman Catholicism”, for Mivart’s last two papers, which describe his attempts to promote a more flexible attitude towards science on the part of Catholicism and his progressive disillusionment – e.g. (p.428): “. . . it was useless to go on living in a fool’s paradise, and . . . for my part I was utterly sick of verbal juggling which could only bring discredit on a faith for which they were offered as apologies”.

33 Ib., p.431. Mivart explained that his adherence to Catholicism had remained secure until 1893 and the publication of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical, Providentissimus Deus: “This finally convinced me that an impassable gulf yawns between science and Roman Catholic teaching” (p.431). Nothing, in effect, had changed since the Council of Florence. As Morley had observed, any amount of personal freedom was accorded to educated believers, provided that the official “stammering and equivocal” line (p.438) was not openly challenged.

34 Ib., pp.438f. Mivart ends (p.442) with the following words: “As we all know that the Bible is not comprehended by those who regard it as “the written word” but by outsiders who study and criticise it while entirely devoid of any belief in its supernatural character; so hereafter the doctrines which the surviving Roman Catholics will still venerate as the “unwritten word” [i.e. proximately de fide] will be understood and rationally explained to those who are willing to hear, by students who regard those doctrines from without, entirely devoid of any belief concerning them, save their relations to other departments and modes of action of the great process of evolution”.

35 Cf. Marsh (1969) p.59: “Both [Archbishop] Tait and Gladstone, though usually immersed in day to day affairs, were familiar with the growing intensity of intellectual criticism; it was to reach a climax in the second half of 1877 when nearly every issue of the Fortnightly Review contained an article attacking Christianity”. Gladstone himself was well aware of the Smith controversy – cf. a letter (D648: 24.11.81) to WRS from R Harvey Smith at Rhynie referring to a discussion between Gladstone and the Home Secretary as to Smith’s suitability for the chair of Humanity at Aberdeen University. Nothing came of this. Later, following his visit to the Hejaz, Smith was to provide useful intelligence to the Government as to the Ottoman rule in Arabia. Cf. also B&C, p.330 on Gladstone’s non-committal postcard to WRS regarding his application for the Glasgow Maths chair in 1880.

36 Cf. Dawkins (1998) pp.196f. for a brief and distinctly partisan discussion of the modern debate between the proponents of saltatory and gradualist evolution. John Tyndall took (from Emerson) a much better metaphor for the saltatory evolution of knowledge (Fortnightly, no.cxxxi, n.s., 1877, pp.596f.).

37 A74: from an undated (1880) note to J.S. Black from WRS.

38 There were rare moments of despair – e.g. when undecided over application for the Glasgow Maths chair (C29, 25.6.1879, to Lindsay): “. . . I have serious doubts whether I can ever again be comfortable in my present position”.

39 C 40. This letter again is undated but certainly forms part of Smith’s correspondence to Lindsay in autumn, 1880, when he was considering the wisdom of presenting the series of public lectures which were to become The Old Testament in the Jewish Church.

40 D651 (14.10.1880). Walter Smith was seriously worried by what he described as “too many ominous murmurs”: but he was asking WRS to go too far in the direction of compromise – suggesting, for instance, that he might concede the possibility of Mosaic legislation having been transmitted orally.

41 Smith was certainly of a more balanced temperament than, for example, his later close friend James G Frazer, whose obsessional characteristics are so apparent in The Golden Bough. For evidence of Smith’s sociability, see (in addition to the multiple references in B&C) “William Robertson Smith and the Academy of New Deer” by John Morrison, in Essays, pp.50-59.

42 Cf. Morley (1877) pp.136f.: “The political spirit is the great force in throwing love of truth and accurate reasoning into a secondary place. This achievement has indirectly countenanced the postponement of intellectual methods, and the diminution of the sense of responsibility . . . Theology has borrowed, and coloured for her own use, the principles which were first brought into vogue in politics”.

43 Rainy (1878) p.186. Of Rainy’s lecture series, his biographer comments: “. . . those who look in them for a clear definition of the lecturer’s position hardly get more light” (Simpson, 1909, vol.i, p.341).

44 Then minister of St George’s Free Church, Edinburgh, and one of Smith’s staunchest allies.

45 FCSAP, p.88.

46 Ib., p.90.Supporting Whyte’s motion, Dr John McKendrick, an elder and a Glasgow professor of medicine, added (ib., p.93): “. . . I am bound to tell you this, that this man you may be asked to cast from you has an influence in scientific and literary circles that perhaps no other member of our Church possesses, that he has qualities eminently fitting him for performing important services to the Church in bringing home the conviction of divine truth to men of culture, and that by his learning and many-sidedness he is eminently fitted for the work of defending Christian truth against the assaults of sceptical writers; and that, as he said himself yesterday, he is still a loyal and devoted member of the church”.

47 Simpson (1909) vol.i, pp.313f.

48 Cf. ib., p.307: “Robertson Smith represented this combination of evangelical faith and scientific scholarship almost ideally. He inherited it from his father . . . a self-made man, who in boyhood had had to learn a trade to support himself . . . and developed into one of the truest and most accurate scholars Scotland has known”. Unfortunately, Simpson does not give the source of his information about William Pirie Smith’s own youth.

49 F90 (11.6.1877). The remark is contained in Dr Pirie Smith’s long and impassioned response to a deeply censorious letter from William Blaikie, Professor of Apologetics and Pastoral Theology at New College.

50 Cf. B&C, p.17ff. for descriptions of this aspect of Smith’s nature as a child – certainly one encouraged by his father’s need for intellectual companionship. The strict Sabbatarianism of his childhood caused Smith some social difficulties as he moved into wider circles at Edinburgh and beyond but, as B&C notes (pp.563f.), the move to Cambridge finally emancipated him from what had been an acquired rather than a congenital puritanism.

51 In particular, the memoir written in 1908 by W.S. Bruce (CUL Add. Mss 7476, M11) offers a more balanced account, both of WRS and of the home environment. There was strict conformity to outward standards (e.g. of Sabbath-keeping and family worship) but, within that, wide liberties were sanctioned.

52 Cf. Mill (1924) ch.1, passim – e.g. (p.27): “From his own intercourse with me I could derive none but a very humble opinion of myself”. This was the opposite of Smith’s experience. J.S. Mill’s education at his father’s hands was not lightened by the kind of curricular breadth accorded to his pupils by Dr Smith at Keig and as described especially in W.S. Bruce’s memoir.

53 James (1902), The Varieties of Religious Experience. References below are to the twenty-eighth impression (1935) which is modified by only minor revisions.

54 Ib., Lectures iv.-vii., pp.78-165. James acknowledges that he is describing temperamental polarities and that most individuals fall between the two extremes – are, in his terms, “mixed cases”.

55 Ib., p.82. James goes on (p.83): “One can but recognise in such writers as these the presence of a temperament organically weighted on the side of cheer and fatally forbidden to linger, as those of opposite temperament linger, over the darker aspects of the universe”. Taken to extremes, James admitted, such one-sidedness could be as pathological as the opposite extreme.

56 Ib., pp.91f.

57 Ib., pp.134f. The expression, deriving from nineteenth century psycho-physical experimental research, was relatively novel when James used it in this context.

58 Ib., p.135. He continues: “Does it not appear as if one who lived more habitually on one side of the pain-threshold might need a different sort of religion from one who habitually lived on the other?”

59 Amongst the more notable may be counted Arthur Hugh Clough (close friend of Matthew Arnold), John Addington Symonds, James Anthony Froude, Mark Pattison, Frederick W. Myers and the tortured poet James Thomson. Scientists seem to have been predominantly “healthy-minded” although there is the notable instance of George J. Romanes (1848-94), biologist and pioneer of animal psychology, whose short life-span paralleled that of WRS but who (unlike Smith) found extreme difficulty in reconciling his religious belief with his espousal of the scientific method (cf. Turner, 1974, pp.136ff.). Robert Elsmere (1888), the novel by Matthew Arnold’s niece, Mary Augusta (Mrs Humphry Ward) is the classic fictionalised representation of Victorian loss of faith on the part of Oxford intelligentsia of the period.

60 CUL Add. Mss 7476, M11, p.2.

61 Ib., pp.22f.

62 L&E, p.320. Smith shows a repeated concern over the dangers of sectarianism within the Free Church. In his letter home from Göttingen in 1869 (C118) he describes how Ritschl and he had discussed the issue at length, and he enquires (rhetorically) of his father: “Don’t you think by the way that at a period of revival very wary walking would be necessary to guard against Sectarian views entering the Church”. He continues, with a clear reference to his own experience: “. . . we recognise that a child may in the Church under a Christian education grow up a child of God without being able to point to a definite conversion at a given time – nay we ought to look upon this as the singular course of the work of Grace in the children of Xⁿ parents. Ritschl in fact holds so far as I can see a doctrine which I think you hold too, that where a child is faithfully brought up under Xⁿ influences we may feel a confidence that God will begin a work of grace in his heart before his personal consciousness begins.” Smith’s preoccupation with sectarianism betrays a considerable degree of anxiety over the authenticity of his own faith, in the absence of a well-defined “conversion experience”.

63 Ib., p.339.

64 Ib., p.311. Smith is referring, of course, to the peroration of Tyndall’s thoroughly materialistic address, in which he extolled the “religious sentiment” as an essential element in the human spirit.

65 Cf. ib., p.315: “But, in fact, the mass of men seem to think that, for all purposes except the refutation of new objections, our theology is quite perfect enough”.

66 Rel.Sem, p.24. Contrast Hugh Miller (1861) p.300: “The hypothesis [of progressive development] involves a misreading of the geologic record, which not merely affects its meaning [but] substitutes error for truth . . . It threatens to write down among the degraded and lost, men who, under the influence of an unshaken faith, might have risen at the dawn of the terminal period, to enjoy the fulness of eternity among the glorified and the good”.

67 Rel.Sem, p.29. The passage is, without doubt, unconsciously autobiographical, as are the three which follow.

68 Ib., p.27.

69 Cf. L&E, p.317 (“The Place of Theology in the Work and Growth of the Church”): “. . . whatever of real living power there is in Christianity is moral, and deals with man as a conscious, intelligent personality. . . All morality implies purpose, and all purpose is conditioned by antecedent knowledge of the thing proposed. . . If we refuse to apply this law, we degrade religion to a mere material thing, and place it on one line with the functions of bodily growth”.

70 Rel.Sem, pp.40f.

71 Ib., p.64. Cf. the 1908 memoir by W.Y McDonald, one of the boarding pupils at the Keig Manse (M8, CUL Add. Mss 7476, pp.5f.): “We began with arithmetic or mathematics. Dr Smith told everybody what he had to do for the next hour, and thereafter he took a pinch of snuff and sat down to read a chapter from Alford’s Greek Testament, following up with some algebraic work which he performed, like the rest of us, on a slate, until the post came in. . . This method of teaching had, in my opinion, much to do with the success of the Smith family, and the impulse it gave to an intellectually vigorous boy to struggle on without outside assistance was all the driving that Robertson Smith ever got”.

72 Ib., p.255. Cf. pp.239f.: “This [kind of religion] implies a measure of insouciance, a power of casting off the past and living in the impression of the moment, which belongs to the childhood of humanity, and can exist only along with a childish unconsciousness of the inexorable laws that connect the present and the future with the past”.

73 Ib., pp.85f.: “Savages, we know, are not only incapable of separating in thought between phenomenal and noumenal existence, but habitually ignore the distinctions, which to us seem obvious, between organic and inorganic nature, or within the former region between animals and plants”.

74 “Christianity and the Supernatural” (January, 1869): in L&E, pp.109-136.

75 Rel.Sem, p.87. Smith’s description (p.90) of the “vast and undetermined mass of minor supernatural agencies” in early Semitic religion is wholly rationalistic in its approach and he notes that “the gods proper were not sharply marked off, as regards their nature, from the lower orders of demoniac beings, or even from such physical objects as were believed to possess demoniac attributes” (Smith’s emphases). In this respect, Mary Douglas (1984) is wrong (p.14) to say that Smith “discards” superstition and magic as irrelevant to his theme.

76 Ib., p.260. Smith’s extensive references in The Religion of the Semites to totemism, first inspired by his friendship with J.F. McLennan and subsequently by his very close association with J.G. Frazer, do not accord altogether harmoniously with his general developmental thesis. It is fair, however, to observe that WRS acknowledges the tentative nature of the totemism theory – a point frequently overlooked by anthropologists.

77 Rel.Sem, pp.16f.: “our modern habit is to look at religion from the side of belief rather than of practice . . .But the antique religions had for the most part no creed; they consisted entirely of institutions and practices”. Linking this axiom of Smith’s to an apt quotation from Goethe’s Faust (Studienzimmer I, line 1237) – Im Anfang war die Tat – Freud employed the epigram as the concluding words of Totem and Taboo (Freud, 1990, p.224): “In the beginning was the Deed”.

78 Durkheim (1915). Cf. Warburg (1989) p.55.

79 Ib., p.337. Cf. WRS in EB⁹, vol.xxi (1886) p.134, s.v. “Sacrifice”: “God and worshippers make up together a society of commensals, and every other point in their reciprocal relations is included in what this involves”. Smith’s EB article on sacrifice pre-dates his Burnett Lectures of 1888 (and their subsequent publication in 1889) and is an admirable summary of the ideas more fully worked out in the lectures.

80 Durkheim (1915) pp.89-90. Durkheim not unjustly described Frazer’s book, Totemism (1887), and his article “Totemism” in EB⁹, vol.xxiii (1888) pp.467-476, as “purely descriptive”, adding, “no effort was made to explain totemism or to understand its fundamental notions”.

81 Jones (1955) p.395. Freud’s future biographer recalled: “He had hardly been so pleased with any book. ‘To read it was like gliding in a gondola’”.

82 Freud (1959) p.67. The Oedipal hypothesis was developed slowly, from 1897 onward, with Freud constantly seeking external corroboration. His reading of The Religion of the Semites in 1912 was a personal landmark in this respect, a fact reiterated in his later writings.

83 Ib. As Gay (1988) p.333, comments: “. . . the historical reality of the primal crime was by no means essential to Freud’s argument” but emanated from his Lamarckian views.

84 Ib., p.68: “Now whether we suppose that such a possibility was a historical event or not, it brings the formation of religion within the father-complex and bases it upon the ambivalence which dominates that complex”. Freud presents here a very simple summary of the theory (or “vision” as he puts it) which is fully expressed in Totem and Taboo, first published in 1913.

85 Freud (1990) p.193.

86 Smith had drawn extensively on the 5^th century account, attributed to Nilus, of 4^th century ritual sacrifice in Arabia (cf. Rel.Sem, p.227n.; pp.281ff.; pp.285ff., etc.). Cf. Warburg (1989) pp.49-53 for a critical analysis of Smith’s use of Nilus (or “pseudo-Nilus”) as a basis for his belief in Semitic totemism.

87 Totem and Taboo, in Freud (1990) p.192. Robertson Smith’s clear exposition of those “two taboo prohibitions” associated with totemism are set out in Rel.Sem pp.277f.: “As a rule the savage man may not marry a clanswoman, and the children are of the mother’s kin, and therefore have no communion of blood religion with their father”; and “a man may not eat the totem animal of his clan”.

88 EB⁹, vol.xxi (1886) p.138, s.v. “Sacrifice”. Significantly, the final section of the article - “The Idea of Sacrifice in the Christian Church” – was written by Adolf Harnack, whose contribution is wholly orthodox in sentiment and touches only very lightly upon the connection with pre-Christian sacrifice.

89 No other chapter shows any material alterations beyond the inclusion of additional footnotes. Smith completed the revision in March, 1894, the month of his death: cf. B&C, p.556: “. . . and with this ended his participation in all human enterprises”.

90 Reprinted in The Gorgon’s Head (1927) pp.278-290, from the Fortnightly Review, vol.lx, n.s. (1894) pp.800-807.

91 Ib., p.289. The passage quoted by Frazer is from the first edition of Rel.Sem (1889) p.393, and the Biblical reference is to John, 17.19, with “I” changed to “He”.

92 Freud was an enthusiastic reader of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, though it is not certain that he owned a set of the ninth edition – most references in his writings being to the eleventh (1910-11) edition. It was not until 1925 that he was asked to contribute an article entitled “Psychoanalysis” for the thirteenth edition (1926) – actually, like the twelfth, a reprint of the eleventh with supplementary volumes (see Freud, 1959, pp.261-70 for the original, unedited text of the article).

93 Cf. Totem and Taboo (1990) p.202: “Psychoanalysis has revealed that the totem animal is in reality a substitute for the father and this tallies with the contradictory fact that . . . it is killed and yet mourned. The ambivalent emotional attitude, which today characterises the father-complex in our children and which often persists into adult life, seems to extend to the totem animal in its capacity as substitute for the father”.

94 Freud would fully have understood Smith’s animosity towards Tyndall.

95 It is impossible to judge where those researches might have led Smith, had a full life span been allotted him, but it is salutary to consider that his most creative years might still have lain ahead.

96 Freud (1963) p.115.

97 Ib., pp.113-115.

98 Cf. M7 (CUL Add. Mss 7476) p.6: “In my earliest recollections mother was always ailing” (Memorandum of Lucy Smith, 22.01.1909).

99 Moses and Monotheism (Freud, 1990) first published in 1939.

100 Ib., p.324. At p.326, Freud restates his obligation to WRS for the seminal notion of the totem meal as a commemoration of the killing of the tribal god.

101 Ib., p.385. Freud’s endeavour to trace monotheism back to Akhenaten has, however, not stood the test of time.

102 Ib.

103 Douglas (1984) p.18.

104 From The Future of an Illusion, in Freud (1985) p.238.