{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_21852/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_21852","id":"gutenberg_21852","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21852","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Folklore"],"text":"Produced by Clare Boothby, Sam W. and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n FOLKLORE AS AN\n HISTORICAL SCIENCE\n\n\n BY\n GEORGE LAURENCE GOMME\n\n\n WITH TWENTY-EIGHT ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\n METHUEN & CO.\n 36 ESSEX STREET W.C.\n LONDON\n\n\n\n\n _First Published in 1908_\n\n\n[Illustration: \"PEDLAR'S SEAT,\" SWAFFHAM CHURCH]\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER\n\nI. HISTORY AND FOLKLORE _pages_ 1-122\n\n INTRODUCTORY _pages_ 1-13\n\n HISTORY AND LOCAL AND PERSONAL TRADITIONS 13-46\n\n HISTORY AND FOLK-TALES 46-84\n\n TRADITIONAL LAW 84-100\n\n MYTHOLOGY AND TRADITION 100-110\n\n HISTORIANS AND TRADITION 110-120\n\n\nII. MATERIALS AND METHODS 123-179\n\n TRADITIONAL MATERIAL 123-129\n\n MYTH, FOLK-TALE, AND LEGEND 129-153\n\n CUSTOM, BELIEF, AND RITE 154-179\n\n\nIII. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 180-207\n\n\nIV. ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 208-302\n\n PRIMITIVE INFLUENCES 211-238\n\n EARLIEST TYPES OF SOCIAL EXISTENCE 238-261\n\n AUSTRALIAN TOTEM SOCIETY TESTED BY THE\n EVIDENCE 262-274\n\n TOTEM SURVIVALS IN BRITAIN 274-296\n\n SYNOPSIS OF CULTURE-STRUCTURE OF SEMANGS\n OF MALAY PENINSULA 297-302\n\n\nV. SOCIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 303-319\n\n\nVI. EUROPEAN CONDITIONS 320-337\n\n\nVII. ETHNOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 338-366\n\n\nINDEX 367-371\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\n PAGE\n1. PEDLAR'S SEAT, SWAFFHAM CHURCH, NORFOLK. _Frontispiece_\n\n2. CARVED WOODEN FIGURE OF THE PEDLAR IN SWAFFHAM\n CHURCH 8\n\n3. CARVED WOODEN FIGURE OF THE PEDLAR'S DOG IN SWAFFHAM\n CHURCH 8\n\n Nos. 1-3 are taken from photographs, and show how the\n story of the Pedlar of Swaffham has been interpreted in\n carving. The costume of the Pedlar is noticeable.\n\n4. THE PEDLAR OF LAMBETH AND HIS DOG, FIGURED IN THE\n WINDOW (NOW DESTROYED) OF LAMBETH CHURCH (from\n Allen's _History of Lambeth_) 20\n\n5. THE PEDLAR OF LAMBETH AND HIS DOG AS DRAWN IN 1786\n FOR DUCAREL'S _History of Lambeth_ 22\n\n Nos. 4 and 5 illustrate the traces of the Pedlar legend\n in Lambeth, and the costume of the Pedlar, though later\n than that shown in the Swaffham carving, exhibits analogous\n features which are of interest to the argument.\n\n6. PLAN OF THE SITE OF THE \"HEAVEN'S WALLS\" AT LITLINGTON,\n NEAR ROYSTON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE (reprinted from\n _Archaeologia_) 43\n\n7. SKETCH OF LITLINGTON FIELD (reprinted from\n _Archaeologia_) 44\n\n Nos. 6 and 7 show the site and general appearance\n of this interesting relic of the Roman occupation of\n Britain.\n\n8. STONE MONUMENTS ERECTED AS MEMORIALS IN A KASYA\n VILLAGE (reprinted from _Asiatic Researches_) 55\n\n9. STONE SEATS AT A KASYA VILLAGE (reprinted from _Asiatic\n Researches_) 55\n\n10. VIEW IN THE KASYA HILLS, SHOWING STONE MEMORIALS\n (reprinted from _Asiatic Researches_) 56\n\n No. 8 shows the practice among the primitive hill-tribes\n of India of erecting memorials in stone to tribal heroes,\n and No. 9 is a curious illustration of the stones used as\n seats by tribesmen at their tribal assemblies. No. 10 is a\n general view of the site occupied by these stone monuments.\n\n11. THE AULD CA-KNOWE: CALLING THE BURGESS ROLL AT\n HAWICK (reprinted from Craig and Laing's\n _Hawick Tradition_) 98\n\n12. THE HAWICK MOAT AT SUNRISE (reprinted from Craig and\n Laing) 99\n\n The tribal gathering is well illustrated by No. 11, and\n the moat hill is shown in No. 12.\n\n13. ONE OF FIVE STONE CIRCLES IN THE FIELDS OPPOSITE THE\n GLEBE OF NYMPHSFIELD (reprinted from Sir William\n Wilde's _Lough Corrib_) 101\n\n14. CARN-AN-CHLUITHE TO COMMEMORATE THE DEFEAT AND\n DEATH OF THE YOUTHS OF THE DANANNS (reprinted\n from Wilde) 102\n\n15. THE CAIRN OF BALLYMAGIBBON, NEAR THE ROAD PASSING\n FROM CONG TO CROSS (reprinted from Wilde) 102\n\n Nos. 13-15 are selected from Sir William Wilde's admirable\n account of the great conflict on the field of Moytura. They\n serve to show that the fight was an historical event.\n\n16. ALTAR DEDICATED TO THE FIELD DEITIES OF BRITAIN,\n FOUND AT CASTLE HILL ON THE WALL OF ANTONINUS PIUS 105\n\n It is important to remember that the Romans recognised\n the gods of the conquered people, and this is one of the\n most important archaeological proofs of the fact.\n\n17. ROMAN SCULPTURED STONE FOUND AT ARNIEBOG, CUMBERNAULD,\n DUMBARTONSHIRE, SHOWING A NAKED BRITON AS\n A CAPTIVE 112\n\n To the evidence derived from classical writers as to the\n nakedness of some of the inhabitants of early Britain, it\n is possible to add the evidence of the memorial stone. This\n example is reproduced from Sir Arthur Mitchell's _Past in\n the Present_, and there is at least one other example.\n\n18. REPRESENTATION OF AN IRISH CHIEFTAIN SEATED AT\n DINNER (from Derrick's _The Image of Ireland_,\n by kind permission of Messrs. A. & E. Black) 183\n\n This is reproduced from the very excellent reprint (1883)\n of this remarkable book, published originally in 1581. The\n whole book is historically valuable as showing the undeveloped\n nature of Irish culture. The flesh was boiled in the hide, the\n fire is lighted in the open camp, and the entire rudeness of\n the scene depicts the people \"whose usages I behelde after the\n fashion there sette downe.\"\n\n19. LONG MEG AND HER DAUGHTERS (from a photograph by\n Messrs. Frith) 193\n\n20. STONE CIRCLES ON STANTON MOOR (from\n _Archaeologia_) 193\n\n Nos. 19 and 20 are illustrations of two of the lesser-known\n circles about which the people hold such curious beliefs.\n\n21. CHINESE REPRESENTATION OF PYGMIES GOING ABOUT ARM-IN-ARM\n FOR MUTUAL PROTECTION (from Moseley's _Notes by\n a Naturalist on H.M.S. Challenger_, by permission\n of Mr. John Murray) 242\n\n22. SEMANG OF KUALA KENERING, ULU PERAK (from Skeat and\n Blagden's _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_,\n by permission of Messrs. Macmillan) 242\n\n23. NEGRITO TYPE: SEMANG OF PERAK (from the same) 243\n\n24. SEMANG OF KEDAH HAVING A MEAL (from the same) 244\n\n25. TREE HUT, ULU BATU, ABOUT TWELVE MILES FROM KUALA\n LUMPUR, SELANGOR (from the same) 298\n\n The old-world traditions and the scientific observation\n of pygmy people are illustrated in No. 21 and Nos. 22-25\n respectively. Though much has been written about the\n Pygmies, Messrs. Skeat and Blagden's account of the Semang\n people is by far the most thorough and important.\n\n26. RITE OF BAPTISM ON THE FONT AT DARENTH, KENT (from\n Romilly Allen's _Early Christian Symbolism_) 324\n\n The crude paganism on the sculptured stone is confirmatory\n of the pagan elements preserved in custom, and this\n illustration from Kent, one of the earliest centres of\n Christianity in Britain, is singularly interesting from\n this point of view.\n\n27 and 28. TWO SCENES FROM THE ANGLO-SAXON LIFE OF ST.\n GUTHLAC BY FELIX OF CROWLAND, DEPICTING THE ATTACK\n OF THE DEMONS 351, 352\n\n These two plates belong to a series of eight which\n illustrate the life of the saint. They are less primitive\n in form than the story which they illustrate. By contrast\n with the remaining six, however, which are purely\n ecclesiastical in character, they show how this early\n episode kept its place among the events of the saint's life.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIf I have essayed to do in this book what should have been done by one\nof the masters of the science of folklore--Mr. Frazer, Mr. Lang, Mr.\nHartland, Mr. Clodd, Sir John Rhys, and others--I hope it will not be\nput down to any feelings of self-sufficiency on my part. I have\ngreatly dared because no one of them has accomplished, and I have so\nacted because I feel the necessity of some guidance in these matters,\nand more particularly at the present stage of inquiry into the early\nhistory of man.\n\nI have thought I could give somewhat of that guidance because of my\ncomprehension of its need, for the comprehension of a need is\nsometimes half-way towards supplying the need. My profound belief in\nthe value of folklore as perhaps the only means of discovering the\nearliest stages of the psychological, religious, social, and political\nhistory of modern man has also entered into my reason for the attempt.\n\nMany years ago I suggested the necessity for guidance, and I sketched\nout a few of the points involved (_Folklore Journal_, ii. 285, 347;\niii. 1-16) in what was afterwards called by a friendly critic a sort\nof grammar of folklore. The science of folklore has advanced far since\n1885 however, and not only new problems but new ranges of thought have\ngathered round it. Still, the claims of folklore as a definite\nsection of historical material remain not only unrecognised but\nunstated, and as long as this is so the lesser writers on folklore\nwill go on working in wrong directions and producing much mischief,\nand the historian will judge of folklore by the criteria presented by\nthese writers--will judge wrongly and will neglect folklore\naccordingly.\n\nI hope this book may tend to correct this state of things to some\nextent. It is not easy to write on such a subject in a limited space,\nand it is difficult to avoid being somewhat severely technical at\npoints. These demerits will, I am sure, be forgiven when considered by\nthe light of the human interest involved.\n\nAll studies of this kind must begin from the standpoint of a definite\nculture area, and I have chosen our own country for the purpose of\nthis inquiry. This will make the illustrations more interesting to the\nEnglish reader; but it must be borne in mind that the same process\ncould be repeated for other areas if my estimate of the position is\neven tolerably accurate. For the purpose of this estimate it was\nnecessary, in the first place, to show how pure history was intimately\nrelated to folklore at many stages, and yet how this relationship had\nbeen ignored by both historian and folklorist. The research for this\npurpose had necessarily to deal with much detail, and to introduce\nfresh elements of research. There is thus produced a somewhat unequal\ntreatment; for when illustrations have to be worked out at length,\nbecause they appear for the first time, the mind is apt to wander from\nthe main point at issue and to become lost in the subordinate issue\narising from the working out of the chosen illustration. This, I\nfear, is inevitable in folklore research, and I can only hope I have\novercome some of the difficulties caused thereby in a fairly\nsatisfactory manner.\n\nThe next stage takes us to a consideration of materials and methods,\nin order to show the means and definitions which are necessary if\nfolklore research is to be conducted on scientific lines. Not only is\nit necessary to ascertain the proper position of each item of folklore\nin the culture area in which it is found, but it is also necessary to\nascertain its scientific relationship to other items found in the same\narea; and I have protested against the too easy attempt to proceed\nupon the comparative method. Before we can compare we must be certain\nthat we are comparing like quantities.\n\nThese chapters are preliminary. After this stage we proceed to the\nprincipal issues, and the first of these deals with the psychological\nconditions. It was only necessary to treat of this subject shortly,\nbecause the illustrations of it do not need analysis. They are\nself-contained, and supply their own evidence as to the place they\noccupy.\n\nThe anthropological conditions involve very different treatment. The\ngreat fact necessary to bear in mind is that the people of a modern\nculture area have an anthropological as well as a national or\npolitical history, and that it is only the anthropological history\nwhich can explain the meaning and existence of folklore. This subject\nfound me compelled to go rather more deeply than I had thought would\nbe necessary into first principles, but I hope I have not altogether\nfailed to prove that to properly understand the province of folklore\nit is necessary to know something of anthropological research and its\nresults. In point of fact, without this consideration of folklore,\nthere is not much value to be obtained from it. It is not because it\nconsists of traditions, superstitions, customs, beliefs, observances,\nand what not, that folklore is of value to science. It is because the\nvarious constituents are survivals of something much more essential to\nmankind than fragments of life which for all practical purposes of\nprogress might well disappear from the world. As survivals, folklore\nbelongs to anthropological data, and if, as I contend, we can go so\nfar back into survivals as totemism, we must understand generally what\nposition totemism occupies among human institutions, and to understand\nthis we must fall back to human origins.\n\nThe next divisions are more subordinate. Sociological conditions must\nbe studied apart from their anthropological aspect, because in the\nhigher races the social group is knit together far more strongly and\nwith far greater purpose than among the lower races. The social force\ntakes the foremost place among the influences towards the higher\ndevelopment, and it is necessary not only to study this but to be sure\nof the terms we use. Tribe, clan, family, and other terms have been\nloosely used in anthropology, just as state, city, village, and now\nvillage-community, are loosely used in history. The great fact to\nunderstand is that the social group of the higher races was based on\nblood kinship at the time when they set out to take their place in\nmodern civilisation, and that we cannot understand survivals in\nfolklore unless we test them by their position as part of a tribal\norganisation. The point has never been taken before, and yet I do not\nsee how it can be dismissed.\n\nThe consideration of European conditions is chiefly concerned with the\nall-important fact of an intrusive religion, that of Christianity,\nfrom without, destroying the native religions with which it came into\ncontact, conditions which would of course apply only to the folklore\nof European countries.\n\nFinally, I have discussed ethnological conditions in order to show\nthat certain fundamental differences in folklore can be and ought to\nbe explained as the results of different race origins. We are now\ngetting rid of the notion that all Europe is peopled by the\ndescendants of the so-called Aryans. There is too much evidence to\nshow that the still older races lived on after they were conquered by\nCelt, Teuton, Scandinavian, or Slav, and there is no reason why\nfolklore should not share with language, archaeology, and physical type\nthe inheritance from this earliest race.\n\nIn this manner I have surveyed the several conditions attachable to\nthe study of folklore and the various departments of science with\nwhich it is inseparably associated. Folklore cannot be studied alone.\nAlone it is of little worth. As part of the inheritance from bygone\nages it cannot separate itself from the conditions of bygone ages.\nThose who would study it carefully, and with purpose, must consider it\nin the light which is shed by it and upon it from all that is\ncontributory to the history of man.\n\nDuring my exposition I have ventured upon many criticisms of masters\nin the various departments of knowledge into which I have penetrated;\nbut in all cases with great respect. Criticism, such as I have\nindulged in, is nothing more than a respectful difference of opinion\non the particular points under discussion, and which need every light\nwhich can be thrown upon them, even by the humblest student.\n\nI am particularly obliged to Mr. Lang, Mr. Hartland, Dr. Haddon, and\nDr. Rivers, for kindly reading my chapter on Anthropological\nConditions, and for much valuable and kind help therein; and\nespecially I owe Mr. Lang most grateful thanks, for he took an immense\ndeal of trouble and gave me the advantage of his searching criticism,\nalways in the direction of an endeavour to perfect my faulty evidence.\nI shall not readily part with his letters and MS. on this subject, for\nthey show alike his generosity and his brilliance.\n\nTo my old friend Mr. Fairman Ordish I am once more indebted for help\nin reading my sheets, and I am also glad to acknowledge the fact that\ntwo of my sons, Allan Gomme and Wycombe Gomme, have read my proofs and\nhelped me much, not only by their criticism, but by their knowledge.\n\n24 DORSET SQUARE, N.W.\n\n\n\n\nFOLKLORE AS AN HISTORICAL SCIENCE\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nHISTORY AND FOLKLORE\n\n\nIt may be stated as a general rule that history and folklore are not\nconsidered as complementary studies. Historians deny the validity of\nfolklore as evidence of history, and folklorists ignore the essence of\nhistory which exists in folklore. Of late years it is true that Dr.\nFrazer, Prof. Ridgeway, Mr. Warde Fowler, Miss Harrison, Mr. Lang, and\nothers have broken through this antagonism and shown that the two\nstudies stand together; but this is only in certain special\ndirections, and no movement is apparent that the brilliant results of\nspecial inquiries are to bring about a general consideration of the\nmutual help which the two studies afford, if in their respective\nspheres the evidence is treated with caution and knowledge, and if the\nevidence from each is brought to bear upon the necessities of each.\n\nThe necessities of history are obvious. There are considerable gaps in\nhistorical knowledge, and the further back we desire to penetrate the\nscantier must be the material at the historian's disposal. In any case\nthere can be only two considerable sources of historical knowledge,\nnamely, foreign and native. Looking at the subject from the points\npresented by the early history of our own country, there are the Greek\nand Latin writers to whom Britain was a source of interest as the most\ndistant part of the then known world, and the native historians, who,\nwitnessing the terribly changing events which followed the break-up of\nthe Roman dominion over Britain, recorded their views of the changes\nand their causes, and in course of time recorded also some of the\nevents of Celtic history and of Anglo-Saxon history. Then for later\nperiods, no country of the Western world possesses such magnificent\nmaterials for history as our own. In the vast quantity of public and\nprivate documents which are gradually being made accessible to the\nstudent there exists material for the illustration and elucidation of\nalmost every side and every period of national life, and no branch of\nhistorical research is more fruitful of results than the comparison of\nthe records of the professed historian with the documents which have\nnot come from the historian's hands.\n\nAll this, however, does not give us the complete story. Necessarily\nthere are great and important gaps. Contemporary writers make\nthemselves the judges of what is important to record; documents\npreserved in public or private archives relate only to such events as\nneed or command the written record or instrument, or to those which\nhave interested some of the actors and their families. Hence in both\ndepartments of history, the historical narrative and the original\nrecord, it will be found on careful examination that much is needed\nto make the picture of life complete. It is the detail of everyday\nthought and action that is missing--all that is so well known, the\nobvious as it passes before every chronicler, the ceremony, the faith,\nand the action which do not apparently affect the movements of\ncivilisation, but which make up the personal, religious and political\nlife of the people. It is always well to bear in mind that the\nhistorical records preserved from the past must necessarily be\nincomplete. An accident preserves one, and an accident destroys\nanother. An incident strikes one historian, and is of no interest to\nanother. And it may well be that the lost document, the unrecorded\nincident, is of far more value to later ages than what has been\npreserved. This condition of historical research is always present to\nthe scientific student, though it is not always brought to bear upon\nthe results of historical scholarship.[1] But the scope of the\nhistorian is gradually but surely widening. It is no longer possible\nto shut the door to geography, ethnography, economics, sociology,\narchaeology, and the attendant studies if the historian desires to work\nhis subject out to the full.[2] It is even getting to be admitted that\nan appeal must be made to folklore, though the extent and the method\nare not understood. After all that can be obtained from other realms\nof knowledge, it is seen that there is a large gap left still--a gap\nin the heart of things, a gap waiting to be filled by all that can be\nlearned about the thought, ideas, beliefs, conceptions, and\naspirations of the people which have been translated for them, but not\nby them, in the laws, institutions, and religion which find their way\nso easily into history.\n\nThe necessities of folklore are far greater than and of a different\nkind from those of history. Edmund Spenser wrote three centuries ago\n\"by these old customs the descent of nations can only be proved where\nother monuments of writings are not remayning,\"[3] and yet the descent\nof nations is still being proved without the aid of folklore. It is\ncertain that the appeal will not be made to its fullest extent unless\nthe folklorist makes it clear that it will be answered in a fashion\nwhich commands attention. It appears to me that the preliminary\nconditions for such an appeal must be ascertained from the folklore\nside. History has not only justified its existence, but during the\nlong period of years during which it has been a specific branch of\nlearning it has shown its capacity for proceeding on strictly\nscientific and ever-widening lines. Folklore has neither had a long\nperiod for its study nor a completely satisfactory record of\nscientific work. It is, therefore, essential that folklore should\nestablish its right to a place among the historical sciences. At\npresent that right is not admitted. It is objected to by scholars who\nwill not admit that history can proceed from anything but a dated and\ncertified document, and by a few who do not admit that history has\nanything to do with affairs that do not emanate from the prominent\npolitical or military personages of each period. It is silently, if\nnot contemptuously ignored by almost every historical inquirer whose\nattention has not been specially directed to the evidence contained in\ntraditional material. Thus between the difficulties arising from the\ninterpretation of texts which, originating in oral tradition, have by\nreason of their early record become literature, and the difficulties\narising from the objections of historians to accept any evidence that\nis not strictly historical in the form they assume to be historical,\ntraditional material has not been extensively used as history. It has\nalso been wrongly defined by historians. Thus, to give a pertinent\nexample, so good a scholar as Mr. W. H. Stevenson, in his admirable\nedition of Asser's _Life of King Alfred_, lays to the crimes of\ntradition an error which is due to other causes. Indeed, he states the\ncause of the error correctly, but does not see that he is\ncontradicting himself in so doing. It is worth quoting this case. It\nhas to do with the identification of \"Cynuit,\" a place where the Danes\nobtained a victory over the English forces, and Kenwith Castle in\nDevonshire has been claimed as the site of the struggle and \"a place\nknown as Bloody Corner in Northam is traditionally regarded as the\nscene of a duel between two of the chieftains in 877, and a monument\nrecording the battle has been erected.\"[4] Mr. Stevenson's comment\nupon this is: \"We have in this an instructive example of the\nworthlessness of 'tradition' which is here, as so frequently happens\nelsewhere, the outcome of the dreams of local antiquaries, whose\nidentifications become gradually impressed upon the memory of the\ninhabitants;\" and he then proceeds to show that this particular\ntradition was produced by the suggestion of Mr. R. S. Vidal in 1804.\nOf course, the answer of the folklorist to this charge against the\nvalue of tradition is that the example is not a case of tradition[5]\nat all. On the contrary, it is a case of false history, started by the\nlocal antiquary, adopted by the scholars of the day, perpetuated by\nthe government in its ordnance survey of the district, and kept alive\nin the minds of the people not by tradition but by a duly certified\nmonument erected for the express purpose of commemorating the invented\nincident. There is then no tradition in any one of the stages through\nwhich the episode has passed. It is all history and false history.\nHistorians cannot shake off their responsibilities by looking upon the\nlocal antiquary as the responsible author of tradition. They cannot\nbut admit that the local antiquary belongs to the historical school,\neven though he is not a fully equipped member of his craft, and\nbecause he blunders they must not class him as a folklorist. They must\nbring better evidence than this to show the worthlessness of\ntradition. In the meantime it is the constant definition of tradition\nas worthless, the relegation of worthless history \"to the realms of\nfolklore,\"[6] which does so much harm to the study of folklore as a\nscience.[7] Because the historian misnames an historical error as\ntradition, or fails to discover, at the moment he requires it, the\nfact which lies hidden in tradition, he must not dismiss the whole\nrealm of tradition as useless for historical purposes.\n\nLet us freely admit that the historian is not altogether to blame for\nhis neglect and for his ignorance of tradition as historical material.\nHe has nothing very definite to work upon. Even the great work of\nGrimm is open to the criticism that it does not _prove_ the antiquity\nof popular custom and belief--it merely states the proposition, and\nthen relies for proof upon the accumulation of an enormous number of\nexamples and the almost entire impossibility of suggesting any other\norigin than that of antiquity for such a mass of non-Christian\nmaterial. Then the great work of Grimm, ethnographical in its methods,\nhas never been followed up by similar work for other countries. The\nphilosophy of folklore has taken up almost all the time of our\nscholars and students, and the contribution it makes to the history of\nthe civilised races has not been made out by folklorists themselves.\nIt does not appear to me to be difficult to make out such a claim if\nonly scientific methods are adopted, and the solution of definite\nproblems is attempted;[8] and if too the difficulties in the way of\nproof are freely admitted, and where they become insuperable, the\nattempt at proof is frankly abandoned. I believe that every single\nitem of folklore, every folk-tale, every tradition, every custom and\nsuperstition, has its origin in some definite fact in the history of\nman; but I am ready to concede that the definite fact is not always\ntraceable, that it sometimes goes so far back as to defy recognition,\nthat it sometimes relates to events which have no place in the\nafter-history of peoples who have taken a position on the earth's\nsurface, and which, in the prehistory stage, belong to humanity rather\nthan to peoples. Folklore, too, is governed by its own laws and rules\nwhich are not the laws and rules of history. These concessions,\nhowever, do not mean the introduction of the term \"impossible\" to our\nstudies. They mean rather a plea for the steady and systematic study\nof our material, on the ground that it has much to yield to the\nhistorian of man, and to the historians of races, of peoples, of\nnations, and of countries.\n\n[Illustration: CARVED WOODEN FIGURES IN SWAFFHAM CHURCH, NORFOLK]\n\nWe cannot, however, show that this is so without facing many\ndifficulties created for the most part by folklorists themselves. In\nthe first place it is necessary to overtake some of the earlier\nconclusions of the great masters of our science. The first rush, after\nthe discovery of the mine, led to the vortex created by the school\nof comparative mythologists, who limited their comparison to the myths\nof Aryan-speaking people, who absolutely ignored the evidence of\ncustom, rite, and belief, and who could see nothing beyond\ninterpretations of the sun, dawn, and sky gods in the parallel stories\nthey were the first to discover and value. We need not ignore all this\nwork, nor need we be ungrateful to the pioneers who executed it. It\nwas necessary that their view should be stated, and it is satisfactory\nthat it was stated at a time early in the existence of our science,\nbecause it is possible to clear it all away, or as much of it as is\nnecessary, without undue interference with the material of which it is\ncomposed.\n\nThe school of comparative mythologists did not, however, entirely\ncontrol the early progress of the study of folklore. There was always\na school who believed in the foundation of myth being derived from the\nfacts of life. Thus Dr. Tylor, in a remarkable study of historical\ntraditions and myths of observation,[9] long ago noted that many of\nthe traditions current among mankind were historical in origin.\nWriting nearly forty years ago, he had to submit to the influence,\nthen at its height, of Adalbert Kuhn and Max Mueller, and he conceded\nthat there were many traditions which were fictional myths. I think\nthis concession must now be much more narrowly scrutinised, and\npreparation made for the conclusion that every genuine myth is a myth\nof observation, the observation by men in a primitive state of\nculture, of a fact which had struck home to their minds. The question\nis, to what part of human history does the central fact appertain?\nHere is undoubtedly a most difficult problem. What the student has to\ndo is to admit the difficulty, and to state, if necessary, that the\nfact preserved by tradition is not in all cases possible to discover\nwith our present knowledge. This is a perfectly tenable position.\nHuman imagination cannot invent anything that is outside of fact. It\nmay, and of course too frequently does, misinterpret facts. In\nattempting to explain and account for such facts with insufficient\nknowledge, it gets far away from the truth, but this misinterpretation\nof fact must not be confused with the fact itself. In a word, it must\nbe borne in mind by the student of tradition that every tradition\nwhich has assumed the form of saga, myth, or story contains two\nperfectly independent elements--the fact upon which it is founded, and\nthe interpretation of the fact which its founders have attempted.\n\nThere is further than this. The other branch of traditional material,\nnamely that relating to custom, belief, and rite, rests upon a solid\nbasis of historic fact; customs which are strange and irrational to\nthis age are not in consequence to be considered the mere worthless\nfollowing of practices which owe their origin to accident or freak;\nbeliefs which do not belong to the established religion are not in\nconsequence to be considered as mere superstition; rites which were\nnot established by authority are not in consequence to be classed as\nmere specimens of popular ignorance. But the difficulties in the way\nof getting all this accepted by the historian are many, and, again,\nnot a few of them are the creation of the folklorist himself. Not only\nhas he neglected to classify and arrange the scattered items of\ncustom, belief, and rite, and to ascertain the degree of association\nwhich the scattered items have with each other, but he has set about\nthe far more difficult and complex task of comparative study without\nhaving previously prepared his material.\n\nThe historian and the folklorist are thus brought face to face with\nwhat is expected from both, in order that each may work alongside of\nthe other, using each other's materials and conclusions at the right\nmoment and in the right places. The folklorist has the most to do to\nget his results ready, and to explain and secure his position. He has\nbeen wandering about in a somewhat inconsequential fashion, bent upon\nfinding a _mythos_ where he should have sought for a _persona_ or a\n_locus_, engaged in an extensive quest after parallels when he should\nhave been preparing his own material for the process of comparative\nscience, seeking for origins amidst human error when he should have\nturned to human experience. He has to change all this waywardness for\nsystematic study, and this will lead him in the first place to\ndisengage from the results hitherto obtained those which may be\naccepted and which may form the starting-point for future work. But\nhis greatest task will be the reconsideration of former results and\nthe rewriting of much that has been written on the wrong lines, and\nwhen this is done we shall have the historian and folklorist meeting\ntogether in the spirit which Edmund Spenser so finely and truly\ndescribed three centuries ago in his treatment of Irish history: \"I do\nherein rely upon those bards or Irish chronicles ... but unto them\nbesides I add mine own reading and out of them both together with\ncomparison of times likewise of manners and customs, affinity of words\nand manner, properties of natures and uses, resemblances of rites and\nceremonies, monuments of churches and tombs and many other like\ncircumstances I do gather a likelihood of truth, not certainly\naffirming anything, but by conferring of times language monuments and\nsuch like I do hunt out a probability of things which I leave to your\njudgment to believe or refuse.\"[10]\n\nI shall of course not be able to undertake either of these tasks. I\nshall attempt, however, to indicate their scope and importance; and as\na preliminary to the consideration of the definite departments into\nwhich the subject falls, it is advisable, I think, to test the\nrelationship of tradition to history by means of one or two\nillustrations. It may be that the illustrations I shall give are not\naccepted by all students, that some better illustration is forthcoming\nby further research. This is one of the drawbacks from which tradition\nsuffers, and must suffer, until our studies are much further advanced\nthan they are at present. But I am glad to accept this possibility of\nerror as part of the case for the study of tradition, because the\nerror of one student cannot be held to disqualify the whole subject.\nIt only amounts to saying that the particular fact which seems to me\nto be discoverable in the examples dealt with has to be surrendered in\nfavour of another particular fact. My conclusions may be dismissed,\nbut that which is not dismissible is the discoverable fact, and it is\nonly when the true fact is discovered in each traditional item that\nprevious inferences may be neglected or ignored and inquiry cease.[11]\n\n\nI\n\nThe evidence of historic events which enter into tradition relates\nprincipally to the earliest periods, but much of it relates to periods\nwell within the domain of history and yet reveals facts which history\nhas either hopelessly neglected or misinterpreted. We shall find that\nthese facts, though frequently relating to minor events, often have\nreference to matters of the highest national importance, and perhaps\nnowhere more definitely is this the case than in the legends connected\nwith particular localities. Of one such tradition I will state what a\nsomewhat detailed examination tells in this direction. It will, I\nthink, serve as a good example of the kind of research that is\nrequired in each case, and it will illustrate in a rather special\nmanner the value of these traditions to history.\n\nThe _locus_ of the legend centres round London Bridge. The earliest\nwritten version of this legend is quoted from the MSS. of Sir Roger\nTwysden, who obtained it from \"Sir William Dugdale, of Blyth Hall, in\nWarwickshire, in a letter dated 29th January, 1652-3.\" Sir William\nsays of it that \"it was the tradition of the inhabitants as it was\ntold me there,\" and Sir Roger Twysden adds of it that: \"I have since\nlearnt from others to be most true.\" This, therefore, is a very\nrespectable origin for the legend, and I will transcribe it from Sir\nWilliam Dugdale's letter which begins \"the story of the Pedlar of\nSwaffham-market is in substance this\":--\n\n \"That dreaming one night if he went to London he\n should certainly meet with a man on London Bridge\n which would tell him good news he was so perplext in\n his mind that till he set upon his journey he could\n have no rest; to London therefore he hasts and walk'd\n upon the Bridge for some hours where being espyed by a\n shopkeeper and asked what he wanted he answered you\n may well ask me that question for truly (quoth he) I\n am come hither upon a very vain errand and so told the\n story of his dream which occasioned the journey.\n Whereupon the shopkeeper reply'd alas good friend\n should I have heeded dreams I might have proved myself\n as very a fool as thou hast, for 'tis not long since\n that I dreamt that at a place called Swaffham Market\n in Norfolk dwells one John Chapman a pedlar who hath a\n tree in his backside under which is buried a pot of\n money. Now therefore if I should have made a journey\n thither to day for such hidden treasure judge you\n whether I should not have been counted a fool. To whom\n the pedlar cunningly said yes verily I will therefore\n return home and follow my business not heeding such\n dreams hence forward. But when he came home being\n satisfied that his dream was fulfilled he took\n occasion to dig in that place and accordingly found a\n large pot of money which he prudently conceal'd\n putting the pot amongst the rest of his brass. After a\n time it happen'd that one who came to his house and\n beholding the pot observed an inscription upon it\n which being in Latin he interpreted it that under that\n there was an other twice as good. Of this inscription\n the Pedlar was before ignorant or at least minded it\n not but when he heard the meaning of it he said 'tis\n very true in the shop where I bought this pot stood\n another under it which was twice as big; but\n considering that it might tend to his further profit\n to dig deeper in the same place where he found that he\n fell again to work and discover'd such a pot as was\n intimated by the inscription full of old coins:\n notwithstanding all which he so conceal'd his wealth\n that the neighbours took no notice of it.\"[12]\n\nBlomefield thought it \"somewhat surprising to find such considerable\npersons as Sir William Dugdale and Sir Roger Twysden to patronise or\ncredit such a monkish legend and tradition savouring so much of the\ncloister, and that the townsmen and neighbourhood should also believe\nit,\" but I think we shall have reason to congratulate ourselves that\nso good a folk-tale was preserved for us of this age.\n\nThe next and, it appears, an independent version, is given in the\n_Diary of Abraham de la Pryme_, under the date November 10th, 1699:--\n\n \"Constant tradition says that there lived in former\n times, in Soffham (Swaffham), _alias_ Sopham, in\n Norfolk, a certain pedlar, who dreamed that if he went\n to London bridge, and stood there, he should hear very\n joyfull newse, which he at first sleighted, but\n afterwards, his dream being dubled and trebled upon\n him, he resolv'd to try the issue of it, and\n accordingly went to London, and stood on the bridge\n there two or three days, looking about him, but heard\n nothing that might yield him any comfort. At last it\n happen'd that a shopkeeper there, hard by, haveing\n noted his fruitless standing, seeing that he neither\n sold any wares nor asked any almes, went to him and\n most earnestly begged to know what he wanted there, or\n what his business was; to which the pedlar honestly\n answer'd, that he had dream'd that if he came to\n London and stood there upon the bridg, he should hear\n good newse; at which the shopkeeper laught heartily,\n asking him if he was such a fool as to take a journey\n on such a silly errand, adding, 'I'll tell thee,\n country fellow, last night I dream'd that I was at\n Sopham, in Norfolk, a place utterly unknown to me,\n where methought behind a pedlar's house in a certain\n orchard, and under a great oak tree, if I digged I\n should find a vast treasure! Now think you,' says he,\n 'that I am such a fool to take such a long jorney upon\n me upon the instigation of a silly dream? No, no, I'm\n wiser. Therefore, good fellow, learn witt of me, and\n get you home, and mind your business.' The pedlar,\n observeing his words, what he had sayd he had dream'd\n and knowing they concenterd in him, glad of such\n joyfull newse went speedily home, and digged and found\n a prodigious great treasure, with which he grew\n exceeding rich, and Soffham church being for the most\n part fal'n down he set on workmen and reedifyd it most\n sumptuously, at his own charges; and to this day there\n is his statue therein, cut in stone, with his pack at\n his back, and his dogg at his heels; and his memory is\n also preserved by the same form or picture in most of\n the old glass windows, taverns, and ale-houses of that\n town unto this day.\"[13]\n\nNow this version from Abraham de la Pryme was certainly obtained from\nlocal sources, and it shows the general popularity of the legend,\ntogether with the faithfulness of the traditional version.[14] But\nother evidence of the traditional force of the story is to be found.\nObserving that De la Pryme's _Diary_ was not printed until 1870,\nthough certainly the MS. had been lent to antiquaries, it is curious\nthat the following almost identical account is told in the _St.\nJames's Chronicle_ of November 28th, 1786:--[15]\n\n \"A Pedlar who lived many Years ago at Swaffham, in\n Norfolk, dreamt, that if he came up to London, and\n stood upon the Bridge, he should hear very joyful\n News; which he at first slighted, but afterwards his\n Dream being doubled and trebled unto him, he resolved\n to try the Issue of it; and accordingly to London he\n came, and stood on the Bridge for two or three Days,\n but heard nothing which might give him Comfort that\n the Profits of his Journey would be equal to his\n Pains. At last it so happened, that a Shopkeeper\n there, having noted his fruitless standing, seeing\n that he neither sold any Wares, or asked any Alms,\n went to him, and enquired his Business; to which the\n Pedlar made Answer, that being a Countryman, he had\n dreamt a Dream, that if he came up to London, he\n should hear good News: 'And art thou (said the\n Shopkeeper) such a Fool, to take a Journey on such a\n foolish Errand? Why I tell thee this--last Night I\n dreamt, that I was at Swaffham, in Norfolk, a Place\n utterly unknown to me, where, methought, behind a\n Pedlar's House, in a certain Orchard, under a great\n Oak Tree, if I digged there, I should find a mighty\n Mass of Treasure. Now think you, that I am so unwise,\n as to take so long a Journey upon me, only by the\n Instigation of a foolish Dream! No, no, far be such\n Folly from me; therefore, honest Countryman, I advise\n thee to make haste Home again, and do not spend thy\n precious Time in the Expectation of the Event of an\n idle Dream.' The Pedlar, who noted well his Words,\n glad of such joyful News, went speedily Home, and\n digged under the Oak, where he found a very large Heap\n of Money; with Part of which, the Church being then\n lately fallen down, he very sumptuously rebuilt it;\n having his Statue cut therein, in Stone, with his Pack\n on his Back and his Dog at his Heels, which is to be\n seen at this Day. And his Memory is also preserved by\n the same Form, or Picture, on most of the Glass\n Windows of the Taverns and Ale-houses in that Town.\"\n\nThe differences in these versions are sufficient to show independent\norigin. The identities are sufficient to illustrate, in a rather\nremarkable manner, how closely the words of the tradition were always\nfollowed. It appears from the last words of the contributor to the\n_St. James's Chronicle_, who signed himself \"Z,\" that he heard it by\nword of mouth about the time of his writing it down,[16] so that there\nis more than a hundred years between him and the Dugdale version,\nwhich was also recorded from \"constant tradition.\"\n\nIn Glyde's _Norfolk Garland_ (p. 69), is an account of this legend,\nbut with a variant of one incident. The box containing the treasure\nhad a Latin inscription on the lid, which John Chapman could not\ndecipher. He put the lid in his window, and very soon he heard some\nyouths turn the Latin sentence into English:--\n\n \"Under me doth lie\n Another much richer than I.\"\n\nAnd he went to work digging deeper than before, and found a much\nricher treasure than the former. Another version of this rhyme is\nfound in _Transactions of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society_ (iii.\n318) as follows:--\n\n \"Where this stood\n Is another as good.\"\n\nAnd both these versions are given by Blomefield.\n\nNow if there were no other places besides Swaffham in Norfolk to which\nthis legend is applied the interest in it would, of course, not be\nvery great. But there are many other places, and we will first note\nthose in Britain. The best is from Upsall, in Yorkshire, as follows:--\n\n \"Many years ago there resided, in the village of\n Upsall, a man who dreamed three nights successively\n that if he went to London Bridge he would hear of\n something greatly to his advantage. He went,\n travelling the whole distance from Upsall to London on\n foot; arrived there, he took his station on the\n bridge, where he waited until his patience was nearly\n exhausted, and the idea that he had acted a very\n foolish part began to rise in his mind. At length he\n was accosted by a Quaker, who kindly inquired what he\n was waiting there so long for? After some hesitation,\n he told his dreams. The Quaker laughed at his\n simplicity, and told him that _he_ had had last night\n a very curious dream himself, which was, that if he\n went and dug under a certain bush in Upsall Castle, in\n Yorkshire, he would find a pot of gold; but he did not\n know where Upsall was, and inquired of the countryman\n if he knew, who, seeing some advantage in secrecy,\n pleaded ignorance of the locality, and then, thinking\n his business in London was completed, returned\n immediately home, dug beneath the bush, and there he\n found a pot filled with gold, and on the cover an\n inscription in a language which he did not understand.\n The pot and cover were, however, preserved at the\n village inn, where one day a bearded stranger like a\n Jew, made his appearance, saw the pot, and read the\n inscription on the cover, the plain English of which\n was--\n\n \"'Look lower, where this stood\n Is another twice as good.'\n\n The man of Upsall hearing this resumed his spade,\n returned to the bush, dug deeper, and found another\n pot filled with gold, far more valuable than the\n first. Encouraged by this discovery, he dug deeper\n still, and found another yet more valuable.\n\n \"This is the constant tradition of the neighbourhood,\n and the identical bush yet exists (or did in 1860)\n beneath which the treasure was found; a burtree, or\n elder, _Sambucus nigra_, near the north-west corner of\n the ruins of the old castle.\"[17]\n\nIt would be tedious to go through other English versions,[18] but I\nmust point out that it is connected with a London district. This is\nshown not by the actual presence of the legend, which has died out in\nLondon, but by its representation in the parish church of Lambeth. The\nlegend so strongly current at Swaffham, in Norfolk, is represented in\nthe church in the shape of a carving in wood of a figure to represent\nthe pedlar, and below him the figure of what is locally called a\ndog.[19] A comparison of this carving with the representation of the\npedlar's window formerly existing in Lambeth Church, but which was\nsacrilegiously removed in 1884 by the late vicar of the parish, shows\nmuch the same general characteristics, and search among the parish\nbooks shows it to relate to a pedlar known by the name of Dog Smith,\nwho left property still known by the name of the \"Pedlar's Acre\" to\nthe parish.[20] All this suggests that we have here the last relics of\nthe pedlar legend located in London.\n\n[Illustration: THE PEDLAR OF LAMBETH AND HIS DOG\nFIGURED IN THE WINDOW (NOW DESTROYED) OF LAMBETH CHURCH]\n\nThe next stage in the history of this legend shows it to belong to the\nworld's collection of folk-tales. There is, however, a preliminary\nfact of great significance to note, namely that two non-British\nversions refer to London Bridge. Thus a Breton tale refers to London\nBridge, and the interest of this story is sufficiently great to quote\nit here from its recorder straight from the Breton folk:--\n\n \"Long ago, when the timbers of the most ancient of the\n vessels of Brest were not yet acorns, there were two\n men in a farmhouse in the Cotes du Nord disputing, and\n they were disputing about London Bridge. One said it\n was the most beautiful sight in the world, while the\n other very truly said, 'No! the grace of the good God\n was more beautiful still.' And as the dispute went on,\n 'Let us,' said one of them, 'settle it once and for\n all, and in this way: let us now this moment go out\n along the high-road and let us ask the first three men\n we meet as to which is the most beautiful--London\n Bridge or the grace of the good God? And which ever\n way they decide, he who holds the beaten opinion shall\n lose to the other all his possessions, farm and cattle\n and horses, everything.' So each being confident he\n was right, they went out: and the first man they met\n declared that though the grace of the good God was\n beautiful, London Bridge was more beautiful still; and\n the second the same, and the third. And the man whose\n opinion was beaten, a rich farmer, gave up all he had\n and was a beggar.\n\n \"'Now,' said he to himself when the other, taking his\n horse by the bridle, had left him--'now let me go and\n see this London Bridge which is so wonderfully\n beautiful;' and, being very manful and stout, he set\n out at once to walk, and walking on and on was there\n by nightfall. But, good Christian that he was, he\n could see in it nothing to shake his belief that the\n grace of the good God was more beautiful still.\n\n \"Soon the bridge was silent, and the last to cross it\n had gone home; and he, notwithstanding his losses,\n tired out and sleepy, lay down and fell into a doze\n there; and, while he was dozing, there came by two\n men, and one of them, standing quite close by him,\n said to the other, 'The night is fine, the wind\n gentle, the stars clear! On such a night whoever were\n to collect the dew would be able to heal the blind.'\n 'It is true,' answered the other; 'but none know of\n it.' And they passed on, quietly as they had come.\n Thereupon up rose the beggared farmer, and with basin\n and cup set about collecting the dew; and in a very\n short time performed with it the most wonderful cures;\n finally curing the daughter of a neighbouring Emperor\n who had been blind from her birth, and whom her\n grateful father gave to him at once in marriage, since\n directly she set eyes on him she loved him.\"[21]\n\n[Illustration: THE PEDLAR OF LAMBETH\nFROM DUCAREL'S \"HISTORY OF LAMBETH,\" 1786]\n\nThe second non-British variant, which also attaches to London Bridge,\nis to be found in the _Heimskringla_,[22] and I will quote William\nMorris's translation:--\n\n \"West in Valland was a man infirm so that he was a\n cripple and went on knees and knuckles. On a day he\n was abroad on the way and was asleep there. That\n dreamed he that a man came to him glorious of aspect\n and asked whither he was bound and the man named some\n town or other. So the glorious man spoke to him:\n Fare then to Olaf's church the one that is in London\n and thou wilt be whole. Thereafter he awoke, and fared\n to seek Olaf's church and at last he came to London\n bridge and there asked the folk of the city if they\n knew to tell him where was Olaf's church. But they\n answered and said that there were many more churches\n there than they might wot to what man they were\n hallowed. But a little thereafter came a man to him\n who asked whither he was bound and the cripple told\n him. And sithence said that man: We twain shall fare\n both to the church of Olaf for I know the way thither.\n Therewith they fared over the bridge and went along\n the street which led to Olaf's church. But when they\n came to the lich gate then strode that one over the\n threshold of the gate but the cripple rolled in over\n it and straightway rose up a whole man. But when he\n looked around him his fellow farer was vanished.\"\n\nI shall have to refer again to these Breton and Norse versions,\nbecause of their retention of London Bridge as the locale of the\nstory, in common with all the versions which have been found in\nBritain. In the meantime it is to be noted that the remaining\nnon-British variants are told of other bridges and other places.\nHolland, Denmark, Italy, Cairo, have their representative\nvariants;[23] and it thus presents to the student of tradition an\nexcellent example for inquiry as to the value to history of legends\nworld-wide in their distribution attaching themselves to historical\nlocalities.\n\nThere are some obvious features about this group of traditions, which\nat once lead to interesting questions. There is first the fact that\nall the British variants of the treasure stories centre round London\nBridge; secondly, there is the extension beyond Britain to the Breton\nvariant and the Norse variant, both non-British legends, of which the\n_locus_ is London Bridge. From these two facts it is clear that London\nBridge had some special influence at a period of its history which\ndates before the separation of the Breton folk from their Celtic\nbrethren in Britain, for the Bretons would not after their separation\nacquire a London Bridge tradition; and again at a period of its\nhistory when Norse legend and saga were fashioning. In the one case\nthe myth-makers must have been Celts of the fourth century, and the\nonly bridge known to these Celts must have been that belonging to\nRoman Lundinium; in the other case the myth-makers were Norsemen, and\nthe bridge known to them was the later bridge so frequently referred\nto in the chronicle accounts of the Danish and Norse invasions of\nEngland.\n\nIt is not difficult, by a joint appeal to history and folklore, to\ntrace out from this very definite starting-point the events which\nbrought about this particular specialisation of the world-spread\ntreasure myths.\n\nObviously the first point to note is that London Bridge loomed out\ngreatly in the minds and understanding of people at two distinct\nperiods of its history.[24] That the first period relates to its\nbuilding is suggested by the date supplied by the evidence of the\nBreton version. The people who wondered at its building, or the\nresults of its building, were certainly not the builders themselves,\nand we thus see a distinction in culture between the bridge builders\nand the wonder builders. This condition is exactly provided for by the\nbuilding of the earliest London Bridge. It was a work of the Romans of\nLundinium,[25] and the people who stood in wonder at this great\nenterprise were not the Roman engineers and builders, accustomed to\nsuch undertakings all over the then known world, and they must\ntherefore have been the surrounding non-Roman people, who were the\nCeltic tribesmen. Now the culture-antagonism between the Romans of\nLundinium and the Celts of Britain is, I believe, a factor of great\nimportance,[26] though almost universally neglected by our historians,\nbecause they do not study the facts of early history on\nanthropological lines. Not only is it discoverable, as I think, from\nthe facts of history, but the facts of tradition confirm the facts of\nhistory at all points. Thus I think it is important, if we can, to\nobtain independent testimony of the attitude of the surrounding people\nto the builders of London Bridge. We can do this by reference to the\npeasant beliefs concerning bridges, as, for instance, in Ireland,\nwhere on passing over a bridge they invariably pulled off their hats\nand prayed for the soul of the builder of the bridge,[27] and to the\nfact that the Romans themselves looked upon bridge-building as a\nsacred function, and would no doubt use this part of their work to the\nfullest extent, in order to impress the barbarism opposed to them.[28]\nThe extent of this impression may probably be contained in the old and\nwidely spread nursery rhyme of \"London Bridge is Broken Down,\" an\nexamination of which has led Mrs. Gomme to conclude that it contains\nreference to an ancient belief that the building of the bridge was\naccompanied by human sacrifice.[29] This conclusion is confirmed by\nthe preservation in Wales of a bridge-sacrifice tradition. It relates\nto the \"Devil's Bridge\" near Beddgelert. \"Many of the ignorant people\nof the neighbourhood believe that this structure was formed by\nsupernatural agency. The devil proposed to the neighbouring\ninhabitants that he would build them a bridge across the pass, on\ncondition that he should have the first who went over it for his\ntrouble. The bargain was made, and the bridge appeared in its place,\nbut the people cheated the devil by dragging a dog to the spot and\nwhipping him over the bridge.\"[30] This is a distinct trace of a\nsubstituted animal sacrifice for an original human sacrifice. But this\nis a practice which sends us back to the most primitive times, and in\nparticular we are referred to an exact parallel in India, where, on\nthe governing English determining to build a bridge of engineering\nproportions and strength over the Hoogley River at Calcutta, the\nnative Hindu tribesmen immediately believed that the first requirement\nwould be a human sacrifice for the foundation.[31] The traditions\nattaching to London Bridge are therefore identical with the current\nbeliefs concerning the Hoogley Bridge, and the culture-relationship of\nthe bridge-builders to the surrounding people in both cases is that of\nan advanced civilisation to tribesmen. Now if these conditions of\nmodern India are repetitions of the conditions of ancient Britain in\nthe days of Lundinium, and of this there can be but little doubt,\nthere is no difficulty in understanding to what part of history these\ntraditions have led us. We are again in the days when London Bridge\nwas a marvel--a marvel which sent travelling through the Celtic homes\nof Britain a new application of the treasure myth which they had\ninherited from remote ancestors. The marvel lived on through the ages\nwhen London was in the unique position of being an undestroyed city in\nSaxon times, times which witnessed the destruction of all other\ncities of Roman foundation,[32] and the sending forth of the Celtic\nrefugees to Brittany.[33] The accumulation during a long-continuing\nperiod of conceptions of treasure being found by way of the bridge\nleading to London, would become the direct force for keeping the\ntradition alive; and while the facts of history show us the important\nposition of London during the period which witnessed the departure of\nthe Celtic Bretons to their continental home,[34] the facts of\ntradition show us the Celtic tribesmen deeming it a way to wealth\nthrough the magic potency of dreamland. The Celtic tribesmen stood\noutside Roman Lundinium. Its life was not their life, and their\nconversion of its position into a mythic treasure house or a mythic\nroad to treasure, and their association of it with the bloody rites of\nthe foundation sacrifice, are in strict accord with the historical\nrelationship of the tribal life of Celtic Britain to the city life of\nRoman Lundinium.\n\nI may be permitted perhaps to emphasise this significant accordance of\nhistory and tradition when working together. I have already alluded to\nthe fact that I have worked out the history of London independently,\nand upon lines quite different from the present study. I have\ntherefore a wider grasp of the two currents of history and folklore in\nthis particular case than could in the ordinary way fall either to the\nhistorian or to the folklorist. That I can find in both just the\ncomplementary facts which help to realise the whole situation, to fill\nin the gaps of history which nowhere directly tells of the\nrelationship of Roman Lundinium to the British Celts, to extend the\noutlook of folklore which nowhere recognises that there was a great\nRoman city of Lundinium which would dominate the minds of those not\ntrained to city life, is a fortunate circumstance which neither\nhistorian nor folklorist is likely to repeat frequently, and I am\nentitled, I think, to claim the utmost from it. I can at least claim\nthat it answers all the facts in a way that has not yet been\naccomplished. Thus Sir John Rhys has discussed the treasure legend and\nhe can only account for it as part of the mythical trappings of Arthur\ninto which \"London Bridge is introduced,\" because London Bridge\n\"formerly loomed very large in the popular imagination as one of the\nchief wonders of London.\" Sir John Rhys refers for confirmation of\nthis to the \"notion cherished as to London and London Bridge by the\ncountry people of Wales even within my own memory,\" and then goes on\nto say that \"the fashion of selecting London Bridge as the opening\nscene of a treasure legend had been set perhaps by a widely spread\nEnglish story,\" that of the Pedlar of Swaffham.[35] All this is very\nunsatisfactory. Modern notions of this sort would not set the fashion\ntwo centuries ago, nor extend it to Brittany. Nor is the suggestion in\naccord with other evidence as to the extension of tradition. What has\nhappened is that the Arthur cycle has appropriated two London Bridge\ntraditions and has worked them up into the Arthur form, the traditions\nthemselves belonging to the far older period to which I have here\nreferred them--a period when the burial of treasure was a necessary\ncorollary to the events which were happening.[36] Buried treasure\nlegends are found all over the country. They belong to the period of\nconquest and fighting. They are the evidence which tradition yields of\nthe unrest of the times which caused them to arise. They are the\nfragments of history which tradition has preserved, while history has\ncoldly passed them by.[37]\n\nWith this in the background as the _corpus_ of a legend-covered\nLondon Bridge, we come to the second period.\n\nLondon Bridge to the Norsemen of the tenth and eleventh centuries was\na place of fierce fighting and struggle, a place of victory and death.\nThe saga takes pains to describe this wondrous bridge[38] before it\ndescribes the great fight there and its capture by King Olaf, a fight\nwhich produced a war-rhyme which, in Laing's version, begins with the\nsame words as the English nursery rhyme, \"London Bridge is broken\ndown!\"[39] and which Morris renders as a tribute to King Olaf, \"thou\nbrakest down London Bridge.\" There is little wonder, then, that the\nmen of King Olaf took back with them to saga-land a great memory of\nthis bridge and this fight, transferred to it their own variant of the\nworld-wide treasure legend, and made a legend not of money treasure,\nbut of regained health to a crippled warrior. The corresponding\nnon-British version of Brittany helps us to understand that the cure\nof disease was originally associated with the gains of treasure, and\nin the Norse version the treasure incident is altogether dropped, but\nin its place is the recovery of health, a treasure more in accord with\nthe sterner needs and recollections of a great fight. The Norse story\nis helpful to us as showing how London Bridge could enter into the\nlegends of a people, and remain with them even after that people was\nno longer living in Britain, and it becomes therefore a valuable\naddition to the evidence for the more ancient transference from\nBritain to Brittany of the original legend.\n\nAltogether the piecing together of the items of historical value in\nthis legend is most complete. We have not only recovered for history\nhitherto lost conceptions of the place held by Roman Lundinium among\nthe Celtic tribesmen, but we have recovered also evidence of the true\nculture-position of the Celtic tribesmen towards their Roman\nconquerors. The examination of this legend may have been long and\ntedious, but the result is, I think, commensurate. It illustrates the\npower of tradition to set historical data in their proper environment,\nto restore the proportion which they bear to unrecorded history, and\nif the student will but follow the evidence carefully, I think he will\nfind these results.\n\nWe will take a step forward, and turn from local to personal\nattachments of tradition. There is a whole class of traditions\nattached to personages about whose historical existence there can be\nbut little doubt, and just because of the accretion of tradition round\nthem their historical existence has oftentimes been denied. The most\nfamous example in our history is of course King Arthur, and so great\nan authority as Sir John Rhys is obliged to resort to a special\nargument to account for the problems he is faced with. He argues, and\nargues strongly, for an historic Arthur--an Arthur who was the British\nsuccessor of the Roman emperor after Britain had ceased to be a part\nof the Roman Empire.[40] But because of the myths which have grown\nround him, he suggests that there must also have been \"a Brythonic\ndivinity named Arthur,\" and we are thus introduced to a dual study of\nhistory and myth which does not appear to me to take us very far, and\nwhich, in fact, just separates history from myth, instead of showing\nwhere they join hands. This dual conception of myth is indeed a rather\nfavourite resort of those scholars who cannot appreciate the evidence\nthat proves a character in a mythic tradition to be an actual\nhistorical personage. It is the basis of the famous Sigfried-Arminius\ncontroversy. It does duty in many less important cases,[41] and most\nfrequently in connection with northern mythology, where the line\nbetween mythic and historical events gathering round a hero is\ngenerally so finely drawn as to be almost imperceptible. But it is so\nobviously a piece of special pleading on self-created lines that other\nexplanation is needed. And another explanation is to be obtained if\nonly students will rely upon the evidence of tradition itself instead\nof appealing to every fancy derived from sources which have nothing to\ndo with tradition.\n\nThe history of King Arthur has been the subject of inquiry too\nfrequently for it to be possible in these pages to discuss the dual\ntheory as it has been applied to him, but I will attempt to show that\nit is quite unnecessary thus to explain the history of King Arthur by\nturning to the history of another of our great heroic figures, one of\nthe greatest to my mind, who, like Arthur, has secured not only a fair\nshare of special tradition belonging to himself personally, but a\nlarger share than others of that corpus of tradition which has\ndescended from our earliest unknown ancestors, and become attached to\nthe historical hero of later times--I mean, Hereward, the last of the\nSaxon defenders of his land against William the Norman.[42] The\nanalysis of the Hereward legend affords a good example of the process\nby which tradition is preserved by historical fact, and in its turn\nhelps to unravel the real history which lies at the source. Instead,\ntherefore, of attempting to travel over the voluminous literature\nwhich is the outcome of the King Arthur story, I will use for the same\npurpose the shorter story of Hereward the Englishman.\n\nWe start with the fact that Hereward is unknown to history until his\ngreat stand in the Island of Ely against the might of William, the\nconqueror of England. And yet to the banners of this \"unknown\"\nchieftain there flocked the discontented heroism of England, men\nranking from the noble to the peasant, and including such great\nfigures as Morcar, Edwine, and Waltheof. I always think, too, that the\nlittle band of Berkshire men, who started across the country to join\nHereward in the fens, and were intercepted and cut to pieces by a\nNorman troop,[43] give us more than a passing glimpse at the\nestimation in which Hereward was held by his countrymen. Such a man\ncommanding so much, in face of so much, could not have been the\nunknown person which history makes him.\n\nHow then can we ascertain why he was held in such estimation? History\nbeing quite silent, tradition steps into the gap. It is the tradition\nrecorded in post-Herewardian times, be it noted. In this great body of\ntradition, contained in a Latin MS. of the twelfth century, he\njourneys to Scotland, where he slew a bear and saved the people whom\nit had oppressed; from thence to Cornwall, where he fought and slew a\ngreat champion, the lover of the princess; from thence to Ireland,\nwhere he assisted the King in war, and back again to Cornwall to\nrescue again the princess from a distasteful wooer, and, finally, to\nFlanders. Even in the camp of the Norman, which he visits in\ntraditional fashion, he has an adventure with witches which takes us\nto the worship of wells. Much of his adventure is but the application\nof well-known traditional events,[44] and it is important to note that\nthe geography of the supposed travels belongs to the very home of\ntradition, the unknown territories of the Celts, Ireland, Cornwall,\nand Scotland.\n\nNow all this tradition is certainly not true of Hereward. But what it\ndoes is to certify to his greatness in the eyes of his countrymen, to\nshow that his countrymen were anxious to explain why he was so great\nin A.D. 1070, and why before that date he was unknown to them. This is\nan important point to have gained. It shows the vacuum which was\noccupied by tradition because contemporary, or nearly contemporary,\nthought required it to be filled up. The popular mind abhors a vacuum\nas much as the material world of nature does. It will fill it with its\nown conceptions, if it cannot fill it with recognised facts. Hereward\nmust have been a famous man when he took his stand in the fens of Ely.\nThat his biographers explain his fame by the application of ancient\ntraditions is only saying that his countrymen reckoned his fame as of\nthe very highest; ordinary current events of the day would not suit\ntheir ideas of the fitness of things. Hereward was as Alfred had been,\nas Arthur had been, and so he must have his share of the national\ntradition, even as these heroes had. To say less of him was to have\nput him below the others. And history in this case could not help, for\nit was in the hands of Hereward's enemies, and they were careful to\nsay nothing or very little of English heroes at this period. The great\nbattle of Hastings had been lost, but of all the English men who had\nfought and died there we only know of three names beyond those of the\nking and his house. Leofric the abbot of Peterborough, Godric the\nsheriff of Berkshire, and Asgar the sheriff of London, have become\nknown by accident, as it were. All others are unnamed and unhonoured.\nTherefore, when the great deeds of Hereward came to be chronicled, it\nwas not enough to say he was at Hastings; the deeds of old must be\nchronicled of him as they had been chronicled of others.\n\nThis accretion of popular tradition to account for the fame of\nHereward when he took command at Ely, though it proclaims in the\nstrongest terms that Hereward was famous in the eyes of his\ncountrymen, displaces history therefore. Putting the case in this\nway, we may proceed to examine what recorded history exactly has to\nsay of Hereward, and then by noting what it has left unsaid, we may\nperhaps be able to fill the gap by a reasonable deduction from the\nfacts. In Domesday there are clearly two Herewards, one having lands\nin Lincolnshire in the time of King Edward and _not_ at the date of\nthe survey, the other having lands in Warwickshire in the time of King\nEdward and _also_ at the date of the survey. Here we have two widely\ndifferent counties and two widely different conditions, and it is\nright with all the evidence to conclude that they relate to different\npersonages. The Lincolnshire Hereward is the hero of the fens. He held\nof the abbot of Peterborough, and Ulfcytil, who was appointed in 1062,\nwas the abbot in question. This brings us to only four years before\nthe battle of Hastings, and another entry in Domesday, thanks to the\nscholarship of Mr. Round, proves that Hereward was deprived of his\nLincolnshire lands not before but after the great fights at Hastings\nand in the fens. Therefore the story shapes itself somewhat in this\nfashion. Hereward was in England in 1062. He was then a man of the\nabbot of Peterborough; that is to say, a tenant bound to perform\nmilitary service to his lord. His lord, the abbot, was at Hastings\nwith his tenants, and fought there. That Hereward of all the abbot's\ntenants should have followed his lord to Hastings is more than likely;\nthe strange thing would be that he should not have done so. That going\nthither nameless among the many, he should gain experience under\nHarold, though no fame has come to him through the historians from a\nfield where Saxon fame was buried; that his own genius should make\nhim use his experience when need arose; that among the English all\nsurvivors from that field who were still unwilling to bow the knee to\nWilliam would be reckoned as heroes by their depressed countrymen;\nthat on this account alone he would be given rank above Morcar, who\nhad kept away from Hastings--are the conclusions to be drawn\nlegitimately from the silence as well as the actual records of\nhistory, compared with the story told by tradition. History and\ntradition are in accord, not in conflict; the gaps of history are\nfilled by tradition--that tradition which was suitable and worthy of\nso great a hero, namely the ancient tradition told of all heroes.\nReopening these gaps and putting in its right place the tradition\nwhich had hitherto prevented them from being seen, we are able to\nappeal to history to yield up the true story of one of the greatest of\nEnglish heroes, a story which shows him to have been at Hastings by\nthe side of Harold, to have won fame there, to have continued the\nfight for English liberty as leader of the English patriots, and to\nhave earned a place in the unsung English epic.\n\nBut his place in English tradition helps us to understand the value\nand position of tradition in such cases. The traditions clustering\nround the name of Hereward do not compel us to interpret them as\nHereward facts. The historian, however, need not on this account fear\nfor Hereward. He should rather value the traditions as evidence of the\ngreatness of the English hero among the conquered English. They\napplied to him the legends of their oldest heroes. All that was\ndelightful to them in tradition was attached to their present hero.\nHe was worthy of a place among their greatest. And thus the fact of\nadded tradition brings out the estimate of the worth of the hero to\nthose among whom he lived and for whom he fought.\n\nThe traditions themselves belong to far other times, and the facts\ncontained in them must be interpreted from the oldest ideas of our\nrace. It is only by thus disengaging the traditions which have grown\nround the historical person that the correct interpretation of the\nposition can be attempted, and when that is done we are left, not with\na mass of uncertain and misleading testimony about a national hero,\nbut with certain definite historical facts belonging to Hereward, and\ncertain traditions attached to Hereward, certifying to his great place\nin the popular estimation, telling of facts which do not, it is true,\nbelong to Hereward, but which, in a special sense, belong to the\npeople who were reverencing Hereward.\n\nIf I have made it clear from these examples that the explanation of\nhistoric fact and mythic tradition in combination does not lead either\nto the discrediting of history or to the creation of new mythic\nrealms, I need not dwell much longer on this class of illustrations of\nthe relationship between history and tradition. Over and over again,\nin the local records, are examples to be found where history is in\nclose contact with tradition, and I am far more inclined to question\nthe evidence which proves the falseness of any authenticated tradition\nthan I am to trust all the statements which do duty for history. It is\nnot only the traditions looming largely in popular interest, but some\nof the smallest local traditions which throw light on great\nhistorical events. They may tell us not merely of the great historical\nevent, but of the peculiar relationship of parts of the kingdom to\nthat event, which no purely historical evidence could by any\npossibility explain. One of the most striking examples is, perhaps,\nthe Sussex tradition of \"Duke\" William as a conqueror.[45] The title\nDuke is here faithfully recorded of the great conqueror, who\neverywhere else in England, both in historical documents and in the\npopular language, is referred to as king. The explanation is, if the\nidentification of this tradition with the great Norman king is\ncorrect, that Sussex being more or less separated from the rest of the\ncountry by its great weald, carried its own tradition of the bloody\nfield at Hastings sufficiently long and uninterrupted for it to be\nstamped upon the minds of the people in its original form, and thus to\nremain. No better evidence could be found for the relationship of\nSussex to this great event. All the chapters in Mr. Freeman's great\nhistory do not impress the imagination so strongly as this one fact,\nthat William the Conqueror has always been Duke William to the Sussex\nfolk. He was Duke William to the fen folk, too. They fought for their\nbelief and were compelled to accept his kingship. The Sussex folk\nfought, too, and they handed down their conception of the great fight\nto their children.\n\nA good example of a slightly different kind occurs in connection with\nKett's rebellion in Norfolk. It was associated with a prophecy that\nsaid, \"there shulde lande at Walborne hope the proudest prince of\nChristendome, and so shall come to Moshold heethe, and there shuld\nmete with other ij kinges, and shall fyght and shalbe put down: and\nthe whyte lyon shuld optayne\" the mastery. And yet this prophecy goes\nmuch further back, for the Danes are said to have landed at Weybourne\nHope in their invasions, and the old rhyme is still remembered in the\ncounty:--\n\n \"He that would England win\n Must at Weybourn Hope begin.\"[46]\n\nThis is an example of the forcible revival of an ancient tradition to\nsuit a later fact, and is evidence of the enormous impression which\nthe event to which it refers had upon the locality. Kett's rebellion\nwas one thing to the nation at large and quite another thing to this\ndistrict of Norfolk, and the great events of the tenth century\npreserved in legend were equated with the minor events of the\nsixteenth century, thus enabling us to understand better the depth of\nthe local feeling which produced these events.\n\n[Illustration: PLAN OF THE SITE OF THE \"HEAVEN WALLS\" AT LITLINGTON,\nROYSTON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE]\n\nBoth local and personal traditions are of interest in the unravelling\nof the meaning of historical events, and the forces at the back of\nthem, and I will add a note of one or two examples of those humbler\ntraditions which confirm or enhance the value of the historical\nrecord. They are of the greatest importance if correctly understood.\nThey include such examples, for instance, as Mr. Kemble notes when he\nsays, \"I have more than once walked, ridden, or rowed, as land and\nstream required, round the bounds of Anglo-Saxon estates, and have\nlearned with astonishment that the names recorded in my charter were\nthose still used by the woodcutter or the shepherd of the\nneighbourhood.\"[47] This is remarkable testimony to the persistence of\ntradition. It is the commencing point of a whole series of examples\nwhich go to show that embedded in the memories of the people, and\nsupported by no other force but tradition, there are innumerable\ntraces of historic fact.[48]\n\nA stage forward, in the same class of tradition, are those examples of\nspecial names which indicate an important or impressive event, the\nreal nature of which is only revealed by modern discovery. Thus\nperhaps the \"White Horse Stone\" at Aylesford, in Kent, the legend of\nwhich is that one who rode a beast of this description was killed on\nor about this spot,[49] may take us back to the great battle at\nCrayford, where Horsa was killed. Another kind of local tradition is\nperhaps more instructive. Immediately contiguous to the north side of\nthe Roman road at Litlington, near Royston, were some strips of\nunenclosed, but cultivated, land, which in ancient deeds from time\nimmemorial had been called \"Heaven's Walls.\" Traditional awe attached\nto this spot, and the village children were afraid to traverse it\nafter dark, when it was said to be frequented by supernatural beings.\nHere is subject for inquiry. Both words in the name are significant.\nWhy the allusion to Heaven; why is a field called walls? The problem\nwas solved in 1821, for in that year some labourers were digging for\ngravel on this spot, and they struck upon an old wall composed of\nflint and Roman brick. This accidental discovery was followed up by\nDr. Webb, and the wall was found to enclose a rectangular space\nmeasuring about thirty-eight yards by twenty-seven, and containing\nnumerous deposits of sepulchral urns containing ashes of the dead. It\nwas clear from the results of the excavations that here was one of\nthose large plots of ground environed by walls to which the name of\n_ustrinum_ was given by the Romans,[50] a fact which was preserved in\nthe name long after the site had lost every trace of its origin.\n\n[Illustration: LITLINGTON FIELD]\n\nI will refer to one more local example. In Dorsetshire and Wiltshire\nfairs are held upon sites which are often marked by the remains of\nancient works, or distinguished by some dim tradition of vanished\nimportance.[51] One has only to refer to the history of the market as\n\"a contribution to the early history of human intercourse\" as Mr.\nGrierson puts it,[52] and to the extremely important and archaic\nconstitution of the market, a glimpse of which has been afforded by\nSir Henry Maine, alone among scholars who have investigated earliest\nEnglish institutions, to know how valuable such a note as this must be\nif it can be confirmed by extended research. Local investigation of\nthese places and their traditions would, no doubt, lead to many points\nin the tribal settlement of the district, an important fact of history\nnowhere found in history.\n\nNo one, I think, taking into consideration this view of the\nrelationship of local and personal traditions to history will deny\nthat history is likely to gain much by the proper interpretation of\nsuch traditions. Every yard of British territory has its historic\ninterest, and there are innumerable peaks above the general level\nwhich should be worth much to national history. Every epoch of British\nhistory has its great personage, who in popular opinion stands out\nfrom among his fellows. When once it is understood that traditions\nattaching to places and persons yield facts of a kind worth searching\nfor, there will arise the desire to obtain all that is now obtainable\nfrom this source, and to add thereto the deductions to be drawn from\ntheir geographical distribution.\n\n\nII\n\nIf the accretion of myth around the lives of great historic\npersonages, and the persistence of tradition in historic localities,\nmay be accepted as one phase of the necessary relationship of\ntradition to history, we may proceed to inquire how far the unattached\ntraditions, the folk-tales pure and simple, contain or are based upon\nhistoric details. These details will not tell us of any one historic\npersonage, or relate to any one historic locality, but will relate to\nthe peoples before personages and localities figured in their history,\nand will explain facts in culture-history rather than in political\nhistory. We shall be approaching the period before written history had\nbegun, and for which, so far as written history is concerned, we are\ndependent upon foreign or outside authority. I think, perhaps, Dr.\nKarl Pearson has put the case for this view in the best form. \"As we\nread fairy stories to our children,\" he says,\n\n \"we may study history for ourselves. No longer\n oppressed with the unreal and the _baroque_, we may\n see primitive human customs and the life of primitive\n man and woman cropping out at almost every sentence of\n the nursery tale. Written history tells us little of\n these things, they must be learnt, so to speak, from\n the mouths of babes. But there they are in the\n _Maerchen_, as invaluable fossils for those who will\n stoop to pick them up and study them. Back in the far\n past we can build up the life of our ancestry--the\n little kingdom, the queen or her daughter as king\n maker, the simple life of the royal household, and the\n humble candidate for the kingship, the priestess with\n her control of the weather and her power over youth\n and maid. In the dimmest distance we can see traces of\n the earlier kindred group marriage, and in the near\n foreground the beginnings of that fight with\n patriarchal institutions which led the priestess to be\n branded by the new Christian civilization as the\n evil-working witch of the Middle Ages.\"[53]\n\nI should not have ventured to quote this long passage if my own\nstudies, before Dr. Pearson's book was published in 1897, had not led\nme to much the same conclusions.[54] But Dr. Pearson assists me in a\nspecial way. His methods are scientific. He is not a folklorist\nbecause he loves folklore, but because he sees in it the materials\nfor elucidating the early life of man. He is not, so to speak,\nprejudiced in its favour. He brings to his aid the practical mind of\nthe statistician and the psychologist, and his conclusions may not,\ntherefore, be put on one side as easily as those of myself and other\nstudents of folklore.\n\nIt is due to the folklorist, however, to say that this aspect of the\nfolk-tale had already been discovered by one of the greatest of the\nearlier collectors of traditional lore, the late Mr. J. F. Campbell.\nThus, writing, in 1860, of his grand collection of \"Highland Tales,\"\nMr. Campbell very truly says: \"The tales represent the actual everyday\nlife of those who tell them, with great fidelity. They have done the\nsame, in all likelihood, time out of mind, and that which is not true\nof the present is, in all probability, true of the past; and therefore\nsomething may be learned of forgotten ways of life.\"[55] Readers of\nMr. Campbell's books well know how he has traced out from these\ntraditions from the nursery, identical customs with Highland everyday\nlife, and relics also of a long-forgotten past state of things; how he\npoints to the records of the stone age and the iron age in these\nrepresentatives of the scientific memoirs of the past; how very\nsignificantly he answers his own supposition, that if these tales \"are\ndim recollections of savage times and savage people, then other magic\ngear, the property of giants, fairies, and bogles, should resemble\nthings which are precious now amongst savage or half-civilized tribes,\nor which really have been prized amongst the old inhabitants of these\nislands or of other parts of the world.\"[56]\n\nThis is an extremely important conclusion on the relationship of\nhistory and tradition, and it will be well to illustrate it by turning\nto some obvious details of primitive life, which are to be seen with\nmore or less clearness enshrined in the folk-tales which have been\npreserved in our own country.\n\nIn Kennedy's _Fireside Stories of Ireland_, it is related in one of\nthe tales that there was no window to the mud-wall cabin, and the door\nwas turned to the north;[57] and then, again, we have this picture\ngiven to us in another story: on a common that had in the middle of it\na rock or great pile of stones overgrown with furze bushes, there was\na dwelling-house, and a cow-house, and a goat's-house, and a pigsty\nall scooped out of the rock; and the cows were going into the byre,\nand the goats into their house, but the pigs were grunting and bawling\nbefore the door.[58] This takes us to the surroundings of the\ncave-dwelling people.\n\nThen in other places we come across relics of ancient agricultural\nlife preserved in these stories. In the Irish story of \"Hairy Rouchy\"\nthe heroine is fastened by her wicked sisters in a pound,[59] an\nincident not mentioned in the parallel Highland tale related by\nCampbell.[60] Many Irish stories contain details of primitive life\nthat the Scottish variants do not contain. The field that was partly\ncultivated with corn and partly pasture for the cow,[61] the grassy\nridge upon which the princess sat, and the furrows wherein her two\nbrothers were lying,[62] are instances.\n\nA great question arises here. If the Scotch story does not mention\nthe primitive incident mentioned in the Irish story, does it mean that\nthe Irish story has retained for a longer time the details of its\nprimitive original? Or does it mean that it has absorbed more of\nsurrounding Irish life into it than the Scotch story has of\nsurrounding Scottish life?\n\nThese details must have a place in the elucidation of Irish\nfolk-tales, because they have a very distinct place indeed in\nprimitive institutions; and it hence becomes a question to folklorists\nas to how they have entered into, or escaped from, the narrative of\ntraditional story. It appears to me that the appearance or\nnon-appearance of these phases of early life are typical of what has\nbeen going on with the plot and structure of folk-tales as long as\nthey have remained the traditional treasures of the people. A story\nidentical in all the main outlines of plot will be varied in matters\nof detail, according to the people who are using it in their daily\nroutine of story-telling. But this variation is always from the\nprimitive to the cultured, from the simple to the complex. The\nmud-cabin or cave-dwelling in Irish story would have developed into\nthe palace in stories of a richer country like England; the old woman,\nyoung girl, master and servant, would become perhaps the queen,\nprincess, king and vassal; just as in Spanish and Portuguese stories\nthe giant of other European tales is represented by \"the Moor.\" If\nthis process of change is a factor in the life of the folk-tale, it\nfollows that those folk-tales which contain the greatest number of\nprimitive details are the most ancient, and come to us more directly\nfrom the prehistoric times which they represent.\n\nWe may gather warrant for such a conclusion if we pass from small\ndetails to a distinct institution. The institution which stands out\nmost clearly in early history is the tribe, and I will therefore turn\nto an element of ancient tribal life, and an element which has to do\nwith the practical organisation of that life, namely, the tribal\nassembly. We find that the folk-tale records under its fairy or\nnon-historic guise many important recollections of the assembly of the\ntribe. One very natural feature of this assembly in early times was\nits custom of meeting in the open air--a custom which in later times\nstill obtained, for reasons which were the outcome of the prejudices\nexisting in favour of keeping up old customs. These reasons are\nrecorded in the formula of Anglo-Saxon times, that meetings should not\nbe held in any building, lest magic might have power over the members\nof the assembly.[63]\n\nBefore turning to the tales of our own country, I will first see\nwhether savage and barbaric tales have recorded anything on the\nsubject, for their picture of the tribal assembly, when revealed in\nthe folk-tale, belongs to the period which might have witnessed the\nmaking of the story, and which certainly witnessed the tribal\norganisation of the people as a living institution. Dr. Callaway, in\nhis _Nursery Tales and Traditions of the Zulus_, relates a story of\n\"the Girl-King.\" \"Where there are many young women,\" says the story,\n\"they assemble on the river where they live, and appoint a chief over\nthe young women, that no young woman may assume to act for herself.\nWell, then they assemble and ask each other, 'Which among the damsels\nis fit to be chief and reign well?' They make many inquiries; one\nafter another is nominated and rejected, until at length they agree\ntogether to appoint one, saying, 'Yes, so and so shall reign.'\"[64]\nHowever far this may be actually separated from the political assembly\nof the Zulus, there is no doubt we have here a folk-tale adaptation of\nevents which were happening around the relators of the tale. This is\nall I am anxious to state, indeed. What in the folk-tale was related\nof the girl-king, was a reflex only of what happened when the\npolitical chieftain himself was concerned.\n\nThis, perhaps, is still better illustrated if we turn to India. In the\nstory of \"How the Three Clever Men outwitted the Demons,\" told by Miss\nFrere in her _Old Deccan Days_, it is related how \"a demon was\ncompelled to bring treasure to the pundit's house, and on being asked\nwhy he had been so long away, answered, 'All my fellow-demons detained\nme, and would hardly let me go, they were so angry at my bringing you\nso much treasury; and though I told them how great and powerful you\nare, they would not believe me, but will, as soon as I return, judge\nme in solemn council for serving you.' 'Where is your council held?'\nasked the pundit. 'Oh! very far, far away,' answered the demon, 'in\nthe depths of the jungle, where our rajah daily holds his court.' The\nthree men, the pundit, the wrestler, and the pearl-shooter, are taken\nby the demon to witness the trial.... They reached the great jungle\nwhere the durbar (council) was to be held, and there he (the demon)\nplaced them on the top of a high tree just over the demon rajah's\nthrone. In a few minutes they heard a rustling noise, and thousands\nand thousands of demons filled the place, covering the ground as far\nas the eye could reach, and thronging chiefly round the rajah's\nthrone.\"[65]\n\nA classical story told by AElian gives us another interesting example\nof this feature of early political life. It is said of the Lady\nRhodopis, who was alike fair and frail, that of all the beautiful\nwomen in Egypt, she was by far the most beautiful; and the story goes\nthat one time when she was bathing, Fortune, which always was a lover\nof whatever may be the most unlikely and unexpected, bestowed upon her\nrank and dignity that were alone suitable for her transcendent charms;\nand this was the way what I am now going to tell came to pass.\nRhodopis, before taking a bath, had given her robes in charge to her\nattendants; but at the same time there was an eagle flying over the\nbath, and it darted down and flew away with one of her slippers. The\neagle flew away, and away, and away, until it got to the city of\nMemphis, where the Prince Psammetichus was sitting in the open air,\nand administering justice to those subject to his sway; and as the\neagle flew over him it let the slipper fall from its beak, and it fell\ndown into the lap of Psammetichus. The prince looked at the slipper,\nand the more he looked at it, the more he marvelled at the beauty of\nthe material and the dainty minuteness of its size; and then he\ncogitated upon the wondrous way in which such a thing was conveyed to\nhim through the air by a bird; and then it was he sent forth a\nproclamation to all parts of Egypt to try to discover the woman to\nwhom the slipper belonged, and solemnly promised that whoever she\nmight be he would make her his bride.[66]\n\nA very beautiful legend, which has been preserved by the Rev. W. S.\nLach-Szyrma,[67] carries into its fairy narrative more of the\nrealities of tribal life. Mr. Lach-Szyrma obtained it from a peasant's\nchap-book, but it professes to be an ancient Slovac folk-tale:--\n\n\"An orphan girl is left with a cruel stepmother, who has a daughter\nwho is bad-tempered and disagreeable, and extremely jealous of her.\nShe becomes the Cinderella of the house, is ill-treated and beaten,\nbut submits patiently. At last the harsh stepmother is urged by her\ndaughter to get rid of her. It is winter, in the month of January; the\nsnow has fallen, and the ground is frozen. The cruel stepmother in\nthis dreadful weather bids the poor girl to go out in the forest, and\nnot to come back till she brings some violets with her. After many\nentreaties for mercy the orphan is driven out, and goes out in the\nsnow on the hopeless errand. As she enters the forest she sees a\nlittle way on in the deep glade, under the leafless trees, a large\nfire burning. As she draws near she perceives around the fire are\ntwelve stones, and on the stones sit twelve men. The chief of them,\nsitting on the largest stone, is an old man with a long snowy beard,\nand a great staff in his hand. As she comes up to the fire the old man\nasks her what she wants. She respectfully replies by telling them,\nwith many tears, her sad story. The old man comforts her. 'I am\nJanuary; I cannot give you any violets, but brother March can.' So he\nturns to a fine young man near him and says, 'Brother March, sit in my\nplace.' Presently the air around grows softer. The snows around the\nfire melt. The green grass appears, the flower-buds are to be seen. At\nthe orphan girl's feet a bed of violets appear. She stoops and plucks\na beautiful bouquet, which she brings home to her astounded\nstepmother.\"\n\n[Illustration: STONE MONUMENTS AS MEMORIALS (KASYA)]\n\n[Illustration: STONE SEATS AT A KASYA VILLAGE\n(2 FEET TO 6 FEET IN DIAMETER)]\n\nHow clearly this is a representation of the tribal assembly worked\ninto the folk-tale, where January and the months are the tribal\nchiefs, may be illustrated by a comparison with the actual events of\nIndian tribal life. Within the stockaded village of Supar-Punji, in\nBengal, are two or three hundred monuments, large and small, all\nformed of circular, solid stone slabs, supported by upright stones,\nset on end, which enclose the space below. On these the villagers sit\non occasions of state, each on his own stool, large or small,\naccording to his rank in the commonwealth.[68]\n\nNow evidence such as this, showing how the folk-tale among primitive\npeople gets framed according to the social conditions within which it\noriginates, will help us to realise the peculiar value of similar\nfeatures which may be found in the folk-tales of our own country.\nEnglish tales are nearly destitute of such illustrations of primitive\ntribal life as this. Some of the giant stories of Cornwall, such as\nthat relating to the loose, uncut stones in the district of Lanyon\nQuoit, on whose tors \"they do say the giants sit,\"[69] may refer to\nthe tribal assembly place, but it is shorn of all its necessary\ndetails, and we do not get many examples even in this shortened form.\n\nCuriously enough, too, we find but little mention in the Scotch tales\nof the open-air gatherings of the tribe. The following quotation may\nrefer to the custom perhaps, but it is not conclusive: \"On the day\nwhen O'Donull came out to hold right and justice....\" (there were\ntwelve men with him).[70] Another story is more exact. Mr. Campbell\ntook it down from a fisherman in Barra (ii. 137). The hero-child\nConall tends the sheep of a widow with whom he lodged. \"To feed these\nsheep he broke down the dykes which guarded the neighbours' fields.\nThe neighbours made complaint to the king, and asked for justice. The\nking gave foolish judgment, whereat his neck was turned awry, and the\njudgment-seat kicked. Conall gave a correct decision and released the\nking. He did this a second time, and the people said he must have\nking's blood in him.\" This allusion to the kicking of the\njudgment-seat is a very instructive illustration of tribal\nchieftainship and comes within that branch of the subject with which\nwe are now dealing.\n\nBut when we pass from Britain to Ireland, there is at once a great\nstorehouse of examples to be given. In Dr. Joyce's _Old Celtic\nRomances_ there are some remarkable passages, which give us a good\npicture of the assemblies of primitive times. These passages, it\nshould be noted, occur quite incidentally during the course of the\nstory--they belong to the same era as the fairy-legend, the giant, and\nthe witch, and taken as types of what was going on everywhere in\nprehistoric times, they tell us much that is very valuable.\n\n[Illustration: VIEW IN THE KASYA HILLS SHOWING STONE MEMORIALS]\n\nA great fair-meeting was held by the King of Ireland, Nuada of the\nSilver Hand, on the Hill of Usna. Not long had the people been\nassembled, when they beheld a stately band of warriors, all mounted on\nwhite steeds, coming towards them from the east, and at their head\nrode a young champion, tall and comely. \"This young warrior was Luga\nof the Long Arms.... This troop came forward to where the King of Erin\nsat surrounded by the Dedannans, and both parties exchanged friendly\ngreetings. A short time after this they saw another company\napproaching, quite unlike the first, for they were grim and\nsurly-looking; namely, the tax-gatherers of the Fomorians, to the\nnumber of nine nines, who were coming to demand their yearly tribute\nfrom the men of Erin. When they reached the place where the king sat,\nthe entire assembly--the king himself among the rest--rose up before\nthem.\" Here, without following the story further, the assembling in\narms, the payment of the tributes at the council-hill, the sitting of\nthe king and his assembly, are all significant elements of the\nprimitive assembly. In a later part of the same story we have \"the\nGreat Plain of the Assembly\" mentioned (p. 48). Another graphic\npicture is given a little later on, when the warrior Luga, above\nmentioned, demands justice upon the slayers of his father, at the\ngreat council on Tara hill. Luga asked the king that the chain of\nsilence should be shaken; and when it was shaken, when all were\nlistening in silence, he stood up and made his plea, which ended in\nthe eric-fine being imposed upon the three children of Turenn, the\naccomplishment of which forms the basis of the fairy-tale which\nfollows (p. 54). Then, in another place in the same tale, when the\nbrothers are on their adventurous journey, fulfilling their eric-fine,\nthey come to the house of the King of Sigar; and it \"happened that the\nking was holding a fair-meeting on the broad, level green before the\npalace.\"\n\nIn another story the hero Maildun asks the island queen how she passes\nher life, and the reply is, \"The good king who formerly ruled over\nthis island was my husband. He died after a long reign, and as he left\nno son, I now reign, the sole ruler of the island. And every day I go\nto the Great Plain, to administer justice and to decide causes among\nmy people.\"\n\nThe beginning of another story is--\"Once upon a time, a noble, warlike\nking ruled over Lochlann, whose name was Colga of the Hard Weapons. On\na certain occasion, this king held a meeting of his chief people, on\nthe broad, green plain before his palace of Berva. And when they were\nall gathered together, he spoke to them in a loud, clear voice, from\nwhere he sat high on his throne; and he asked them whether they found\nany fault with the manner in which he ruled them, and whether they\nknew of anything deserving of blame in him as their sovereign lord and\nking. They replied, as if with the voice of one man, that they found\nno fault of any kind.\"\n\nThe last example is also a valuable one. A dispute has occurred\nrespecting the enchanted horse, the Gilla Dacker, and \"a meeting was\ncalled on the green to hear the award.\" Speeches are made and the\nawards are given.[71]\n\nI think it will be admitted that the folk-tales of Britain refer back\nin such cases to the organisation of the tribe in early times, and the\nonly possible conclusion to be drawn from this fact is that they too\nbelong to early times and that they have brought with them to modern\ndays these valuable fragments of history which are hardly to be\ndiscovered in any other historical document.\n\nWe have thus shown that the folk-tale contains many fragmentary\ndetails of ancient social conditions, and further that it contains\nmore than mere details in the larger place it assigns to important\nfeatures of tribal institutions. It now remains to see whether apart\nfrom incident the very structure and heart of the folk-tale is founded\nupon conceptions of life. I will take as an example the well-known\nstory of Catskin. This story contains one remarkable feature running\nthrough many of the variants, and a second which is found in\npractically all of them. Both these features are perfectly impossible\nto modern creative fancy, and I venture to think we shall find their\ntrue origin in the actual facts of primitive life, not in the wondrous\nflight of primitive fancy.\n\nThe opening incidents of \"Catskin\" are thus related:--\n\n\"A certain king, having lost his wife, and mourned for her even more\nthan other men do, suddenly determines, by way of relieving his\nsorrows, to marry his own daughter. The princess obtains a suspension\nof this odious purpose by requiring from him three beautiful dresses,\nwhich take a long time to prepare. These dresses are a robe of the\ncolour of the sky, a robe of the colour of the moon, a third robe of\nthe colour of the sun, the latter being embroidered with the rubies\nand diamonds of his crown. The three dresses being made and presented\nto her, the princess is checkmated, and accordingly asks for something\neven more valuable in its way. The king has an ass that produces gold\ncoins in profusion every day of his life. This ass the princess asked\nmight be sacrificed, in order that she might have his skin. This\ndesire even was granted. The princess, thus defeated altogether, puts\non the ass's skin, rubs her face over with soot, and runs away. She\ntakes a situation with a farmer's wife to tend the sheep and turkeys\nof the farm.\"\n\nThe remainder of the story much resembles Cinderella's famous\nadventures, and I need not repeat it here. The pith of the story turns\nupon the fact that a father purposes to marry his own daughter, or, in\nsome versions, his daughter-in-law; and the daughter, naturally, as we\nsay, objecting to this arrangement, runs away, and hence her many\nadventures. This famous story, told by English nurses to English\nchildren, long before literature stepped across the sacred precincts\nof the nursery, is also told in Ireland and Scotland. It is also\ncurrent in France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Lithuania, and many other\nnations; and throughout all these versions, differing, of course, in\nsome matters of detail, the selfsame incident is observable--the\nfather wishing to marry his own daughter, and the daughter running\naway.[72] This incident, therefore, must be older than the several\nnations who have preserved it from their common home, where the tale\nwas originally told with a special value that is now lost. It must\nthen belong to primitive man, and not to civilised man, and must be\njudged by the standard of morals belonging to primitive man. It is not\nsufficient, or, indeed, in any way to the point, to say that the idea\nof marrying one's own daughter is horrible and detestable to modern\nideas; we must place ourselves in a position to judge of such a state\nof affairs from an altogether different standpoint. And what do we\nfind in primitive society? We find that women were the property, not\nthe helpmates, of their husbands. And the question hence arises, in\nwhat relation did the children stand in respect to their parents? The\nanswer comes from almost all parts of the primitive world that, in\ncertain stages of society, the children were related to their mother\nonly. It is worth while pausing one moment to give evidence upon the\nfact. Thus McLennan says of the Australians, \"it is not in quarrels\nuncommon to find children of the same father arrayed against one\nanother, or indeed, against their father himself; for by their\npeculiar law _the father can never be a relative of his\nchildren_.\"[73] This is not the language, though it is the evidence,\nof the latest research, and another phase of it is represented by the\ncustom, as among the Ahts of Vancouver Island, that in case of\nseparation while the children are young, the children go always with\nthe mother to their own tribe.[74]\n\nHere we see that the relationship between father and daughter was in\nno way considered in ancient society of the type to which Australians\nand Ahts belonged, and it is now one of the accepted facts of\nanthropology that at certain stages of savage life fatherhood was not\nrecognised. That this non-relationship of the father very often\nresulted in the further stage of the father marrying his daughter, is\nexemplified by many examples. The story of Lot and his daughters, for\ninstance, will at once occur to the reader, and upon this Mr. Fenton\nhas some observations, to which I may refer the student who wishes to\npursue this curious subject further,[75] while Mr. Frazer, in his\nrecent study of Adonis, has discussed the practice with his usual\nextent of knowledge.[76] Again, it should be remembered that in our\nown chronicle histories Vortigern is said to have married his own\ndaughter, though the legend and the supposed consequences of the\nmarriage have been twisted from their original primitive surroundings\nby the monkish chroniclers, through whom we obtain the story.[77]\nTurning next to the daughter-in-law, supposing that the difference\nbetween \"daughter\" and \"daughter-in-law\" (query stepdaughter) in the\nstory variants is a vital difference, and not an accidental\ndifference, there is curious and important evidence from India. The\nfollowing custom prevails among certain classes of Sudras,\nparticularly the Vella-lahs in Koimbator: \"A father marries a grown-up\ngirl eighteen or twenty years old to his son, a boy of seven or eight,\nafter which he publicly lives with his daughter-in-law, until the\nyouth attains his majority, when his wife is made over to him,\ngenerally with half a dozen children. These children are taught to\naddress him as their father. In several cases this woman becomes the\ncommon wife of the father and son. She pays every respect due to her\nwedded husband, and takes great care of him from the time of her\nmarriage. The son, in his turn, hastens to celebrate the marriage of\nhis acquired son, with the usual pomps, ceremonies, and tumasha, and\nkeeps the bride for himself as his father had done.\"[78] But even\nfurther than this, ancient Hindu law allowed the father, who had no\nprospect of having legitimate sons, to \"appoint\" or nominate a\ndaughter who should bear a son to himself, and not to her own\nhusband.[79] Sir Henry Maine gives the formula for this remarkable\nappointment, and then goes on to say that some customs akin to the\nHindu usage of appointing a daughter appear to have been very widely\ndiffused over the ancient world, and traces of them are found far down\nin history.[80]\n\nWhat we have before us, therefore, to guide us in the view we take of\nthe story incident of a father marrying his own daughter, may be\nsummarised as follows:--\n\n1. The father is not related to his daughter, and hence examples occur\nof fathers marrying daughters.\n\n2. The custom of marrying a daughter-in-law.\n\n3. The custom of nominating a daughter to bear a son.\n\nFrom any one of these facts of primitive life we arrive at the central\nincident in the story of Catskin: the father could marry his daughter\nwithout specially shocking the society of the primitive world, simply\nbecause, according to primitive ideas, father and daughter, as we call\nher, were not related.\n\nWe now arrive at the second incident--the running away of Catskin.\nThis again is a very early form of marriage custom. Women of primitive\ntimes often objected to the forced marriages, and they expressed their\nobjection very often by running away. In the instance of Catskin the\nrunning away was successful, as we all know; but in most instances the\nunwilling bride was captured and forced to surrender. Mr. Farrer, in\nhis _Primitive Manners and Customs_, quite clears the ground for the\nrefutation of an argument that might be applied if we did not know the\ncustoms of primitive society. It might be asked, why did Catskin run\naway if the custom was a usual one? For the same reason, we answer,\nthat the women of savage society often do run away--objection to the\nmarriage.[81]\n\nThus we have to note that the two principal features of our ordinary\nCatskin story are explainable by a reference to primitive manners and\ncustoms; and it seems to me much easier and much more reasonable to\nthus explain the origin of the Catskin story, than first of all to\ncreate a \"lovely myth,\" as the mythologists would undoubtedly have a\nright to call it, of the Sun pursuing the Dawn, and then to say that\nthe Catskin story is simply a relation of this myth.\n\nThe opening incident of the Catskin story, as thus interpreted, is not\nan isolated case of the survival of primitive marriage customs in\npopular stories. If it were so, there would be considerable difficulty\nin the way of supporting this interpretation. But it is only saying of\nCatskin what can be said of other stories. \"There are traces,\" says\nMr. Campbell, speaking of his Highland stories, \"of foreign or\nforgotten laws and customs. A man buys a wife as he would a cow, and\nacquires a right to shoot her, which is acknowledged as good law.\"[82]\nYes, this is good savage law and custom there is no doubt, and Lord\nAvebury and Mr. McLennan have illustrated it by examples. But in the\nHighland story of the \"Battle of the Birds\" the wife is sought to be\npurchased for a hundred pounds (Campbell, i. 36), and in the Irish\nstory of the \"Lazy Beauty and her Aunts\" we find something like\nbride-capture and purchase as well.[83] So, again, if we turn to India\nthe same kind of evidence is forthcoming of another part of the\nprimitive ceremony. \"Do not think,\" retorted the Malee in a story\ncollected by Miss Frere, \"that I'll make a fool of myself because I'm\nonly a Malee, and believe what you've got to say because you're a\ngreat Rajah. If you mean what you say, if you care for my daughter and\nwish to be married to her, come and be married; but I'll have none of\nyour new-fangled forms and court ceremonies hard to be understood; let\nthe girl be married by her father's hearth, and under her father's\nroof.\"[84] And in another story of the \"Chundun Rajah\" we have \"the\nscattering rice and flowers upon their heads;\"[85] the significance of\nboth of which customs are fully known.\n\nThese illustrations of the contact, the necessary contact, of\ntradition and history show that contact to be equally true of the\nfolk-tale as it is of the local or personal legend. They all point to\nthe substratum of fact underlying tradition, to the absorption by\ntradition of many features of the life by which it is surrounded, or\nto the absorption by some great historic person or event of the living\ntradition of his time or place. This contact is a fact equally\nimportant to history and to folklore. It cannot be neglected by\neither. It stands for something in the analysis which every student\nmust give of the material with which he is working, and that something\nhas a value, sometimes great and sometimes small, which must influence\nthe estimate of the material which both history and folklore supply in\nthe unravelling of man's past.\n\nI will now finally give a more complicated example of the folk-tale as\nillustrative of the connection between history and tradition. Mr.\nJ. F. Campbell printed a tale in the second volume of the\n_Transactions of the Ethnological Society_ (p. 336), which had been\nsent to him in Gaelic by John Davan, in December, 1862--that is, after\nthe publication of the fourth volume of his _Highland Tales_. The tale\nis only in outline, but in quite sufficient fulness for my present\npurpose, as follows:--\n\nThere was a man at some time or other who was well off, and had many\nchildren. When the family grew up the man gave a well-stocked farm to\neach of his children. When the man was old his wife died, and he\ndivided all that he had amongst his children, and lived with them,\nturn about, in their houses. The sons and daughters got tired of him\nand ungrateful, and tried to get rid of him when he came to stay with\nthem. At last an old friend found him sitting tearful by the wayside,\nand learning the cause of his distress, took him home; there he gave\nhim a bowl of gold and a lesson which the old man learned and acted.\nWhen all the ungrateful sons and daughters had gone to a preaching,\nthe old man went to a green knoll where his grandchildren were at\nplay, and pretending to hide, he turned up a flat hearthstone in an\nold stance,[86] and went out of sight. He spread out his gold on a big\nstone in the sunlight, and he muttered, \"Ye are mouldy, ye are hoary,\nye will be better for the sun.\" The grandchildren came sneaking over\nthe knoll, and when they had seen and heard all that they were\nintended to see and hear, they came running up with, \"Grandfather,\nwhat have you got there?\" \"That which concerns you not; touch it\nnot,\" said the grandfather; and he swept his gold into a bag and took\nit home to his old friend. The grandchildren told what they had seen,\nand henceforth the children strove who should be kindest to the old\ngrandfather. Still acting on the counsel of his sagacious old chum, he\ngot a stout little black chest made, and carried it always with him.\nWhen any one questioned him as to its contents, his answer was, \"That\nwill be known when the chest is opened.\" When he died he was buried\nwith great honour and ceremony, and then the chest was opened by the\nexpectant heirs. In it were found broken potsherds and bits of slate,\nand a long-handled, white wooden mallet with this legend on its\nhead:--\n\n \"So am favioche fiorum,\n Thabhavit gnoc annsa cheann,\n Do n'fhear nach gleidh maoin da' fein,\n Ach bheir a chuid go leir d'a chlann.\"\n\n \"Here is the fair mall\n To give a knock on the skull\n To the man who keeps no gear for himself,\n But gives all to his bairns.\"\n\nWright, in his collection of Latin stories, published by the Percy\nSociety in 1842 (pp. 28-29), gives a variant of this tale under the\ntitle of \"De divite qui dedit omnia filio suo,\" and, so far as can be\njudged by the abstract, the parallel between the two narratives,\nseparated by at least five centuries of time, is remarkably close. The\nlatter part is apparently different, for the Latin version tells how\nthe man pretended that the chest contained a sum of money, part of\nwhich was to be applied for the good of his soul, and the rest to\ndispose of as he pleased. But at the point of death his children\nopened the chest. \"Antequam totaliter expiraret, ad cistam currentes\nnihil invenerunt nisi malleum, in quo Anglice scriptum est:--\n\n \"'Wyht suylc a betel be he smyten,\n That al the werld hyt mote wyten,\n That gyfht his sone al his thing,\n And goht hym self a beggyn.'\"\n\nHere, then, is a case whereby to test the problem of the position of\nfolk-tales as historical material. Did the people adopt this tale from\nliterature into tradition and keep it alive for five centuries; or did\nsome early and unconscious folklorist adapt it into literature? The\nliterary version has the flavour of its priestly influence, which does\nnot appear in the traditional version; and I make the preliminary\nobservation that if literature could have so stamped itself upon the\nmemory of the folk as to have preserved all the essentials of such a\nstory as this, it must have been due to some academic influence (of\nwhich, however, there is no evidence), and this influence would have\npreserved a nearer likeness to literary forms than the peasant's tale\npresents to us. But the objection to this theory is best shown by an\nanalysis of the tale, and by some research into the possible sources\nof its origin.\n\nThe story presents us with the following essential incidents:--\n\n1. The gift of a well-stocked farm by a father to each of his\nchildren.\n\n2. The surrender of all property during the owner's lifetime.\n\n3. The living of the old father with each of his children.\n\n4. The attempted killing of the old man.\n\n5. The mallet bearing the inscription.\n\n6. The rhyming formula of the inscription.\n\nMr. Campbell notes the first and third of these incidents in his\noriginal abstract of the story,[87] but of the remaining second,\nfourth, fifth, and sixth no note has hitherto been taken.\n\nOf the first incident, the gift of a well-stocked farm by a father to\neach of his children, Mr. Campbell says: \"This subdivision of land by\ntenants is the dress and declaration put on by a class who now tell\nthis tale.\" But it also represents an ancient system of swarming off\nfrom the parent household when society was in a tribal stage. The\nincident of the tale is exactly reproduced in local custom. In the\nisland of Skye the possessor of a few acres of land cut them up only a\nfew years ago into shreds and patches to afford a separate dwelling\nfor each son and daughter who married.[88] In Kinross, in 1797, the\nsame practice prevailed. \"Among the feuars the parents are in many\ninstances disposed to relinquish and give up to their children their\nlanded possessions or the principal part of them, retaining only for\nthemselves some paltry pendicle or patch of ground.\"[89] In Ireland\nand in Cornwall much the same evidence is forthcoming, and elsewhere I\nhave taken some pains to show that these local customs are the\nisolated survivals in late times of early tribal practices.[90]\n\nWe next turn to the second essential incident of the tale--the\nsurrender of the estate during the owner's lifetime. This is a\nwell-marked feature of early custom, and Du Chaillu has preserved\nsomething like the survival of the ritual observances connected with\nit in his account of the Scandinavian practice. On a visit to Husum he\nwitnessed the ceremonial which attended the immemorial custom of the\nfarm coming into possession of the eldest son, the father still being\nalive. The following is Mr. Du Chaillu's description, and the details\nare important: \"The dinner being ready, all the members of the family\ncame in and seated themselves around the board, the father taking, as\nis customary, the head of the table. All at once, Roar, who was not\nseated, came to his father and said, 'Father, you are getting old; let\nme take your place.' 'Oh, no, my son,' was the answer, 'I am not too\nold to work; it is not yet time: wait awhile.' Then, with an\nentreating look, Roar said, 'Oh, father, all your children and myself\nare often sorry to see you look so tired when the day's labour is\nover: the work of the farm is too much for you; it is time for you to\nrest and do nothing. Rest in your old age. Oh, let me take your place\nat the head of the table.' All the faces were now extremely sober, and\ntears were seen in many eyes. 'Not yet, my son.' 'Oh, yes, father.'\nThen said the whole family, 'Now it is time for you to rest.' He rose,\nand Roar took his place, and was then the master. His father,\nhenceforth, would have nothing to do, was to live in a comfortable\nhouse, and to receive yearly a stipulated amount of grain or flour,\npotatoes, milk, cheese, butter, meat, etc.\"[91] Without stopping to\nanalyse this singular ceremony in detail, it is important to note that\nold age is the assigned cause of resignation by the father of his\nestate; that the ceremony is evidently based upon traditional forms,\nthe meaning of which is not distinctly comprehended by the present\nperformers; that the father is supported by his successor. As a proof\nthat we have here a survival of very ancient practice, it may be\nnoticed that in Spiti, a part of the Punjab, an exact parallel occurs.\nThere the father retires from the headship of the family when his\neldest son is of full age, and has taken unto himself a wife; on each\nestate there is a kind of dower-house with a plot of land attached, to\nwhich the father in these cases retires.[92] In Bavaria and in\nWuertemberg the same custom obtains,[93] and the sagas of the North\nalso confirm it as an ancient custom.[94]\n\nOf the third incident in the tale, the living of the father with his\nchildren, Mr. Campbell says this points to the old Highland cluster of\nhouses and to the farm worked by several families in common,[95] and I\nthink we have here the explanation why the father in Scotland did not\nhave his \"dower-house,\" as he did in Scandinavia and in Spiti.\n\nWe next come to the fourth incident, the attempted killing of the old\nfather. Now, from some of the earliest accounts of travels in Britain,\nwe know that the death of the aged by violence was a signal element of\nthe native customs. \"They die only when they have lived long enough;\nfor when the aged men have made good cheere and anoynted their bodies\nwith sweet ointments they leape off a certain rocke into the sea.\"\nThat we have in this episode of the story, remains of customs which\nonce existed in the North, Mr. Elton affords proof, both from\nsaga-history and from the practice of later times, when \"the Swedes\nand Pomeranians killed their old people in the way which was indicated\nby the passage quoted above.\"[96] It is the custom of many savage\ntribes, and the observances made use of are sometimes suggestive of\nthe facts of the tale we are now analysing. Thus, among the Todas of\nthe Nilgiri Hills, they place the old people in large earthen jars\nwith some food, and leave them to perish;[97] while among the\nHottentots, Kolben says, \"when persons become unable to perform the\nleast office for themselves they are then placed in a solitary hut at\na considerable distance, with a small stock of provisions within their\nreach, where they are left to die of hunger, or be devoured by the\nwild beasts.\"[98]\n\nThe important bearing of these incidents of barbarous and savage life\nupon our subject will be seen when we pass on to our fifth incident,\nnamely, the significant use of the mallet. Some curious explanations\nhave been given of this. Mr. Thorns once thought it might be\nidentified with Malleus, the name of the Devil.[99] Nork has attempted\nwith more reason to identify it with the hammer of Thor.[100] But the\nreal identification is closer than this. Thus, it is connected with\nthe Valhalla practices, already noted, by the fact that if an old\nNorseman becomes too frail to travel to the cliff, in order to throw\nhimself over, his kinsman would save him the disgrace of dying \"like a\ncow in the straw,\" and would beat him to death with the family\nclub.[101] Mr. Elton, who quotes this passage, adds in a note that one\nof the family clubs is still preserved at a farm in East\nGothland.[102] Aubrey has preserved an old English \"countrie story\" of\n\"the holy mawle, which (they fancy) hung behind the church dore,\nwhich, when the father was seaventie, the sonne might fetch to knock\nhis father in the head, as effoete, & of no more use.\"[103] That\nAubrey preserved a true tradition is proved by what we learn of\nsimilar practices elsewhere. Thus, in fifteenth-century MSS. of prose\nromances found in English and also in Welsh, Sir Perceval, in his\nadventures in quest of the Holy Grail, being at one time ill at ease,\ncongratulates himself that he is not like those men of Wales, where\nsons pull their fathers out of bed and kill them to save the disgrace\nof their dying in bed.[104] Keysler cites several instances of this\nsavage custom in Prussia, and a Count Schulenberg rescued an old man\nwho was being beaten to death by his sons at a place called\nJammerholz, or \"Woful Wood;\" while a Countess of Nansfield, in the\nfourteenth century, is said to have saved the life of an old man on\nthe Lueneberg Heath under similar circumstances.\n\nOur investigation of barbarous and savage customs, which connect\nthemselves with the essential incidents of this Highland tale, has at\nthis point taken us outside the framework of the story. The old father\nin the tale was not killed by the mallet, but he is said to have used\nit as a warning to others to stop the practice of giving up their\nproperty during lifetime. We have already seen that this practice was\nan actual custom in early times, appearing in local survivals both in\nEngland and Scotland. Therefore the story must have arisen at a time\nwhen this practice was undergoing a change. We must note, too, that\nthe whole story leads up to the finding of a mallet with the rhyming\ninscription written thereon, connecting it with the instrument of\ndeath to the aged, but only on certain conditions. If, then, we can\nfind that the rhyming inscription on the mallet has an existence quite\napart from the story, and if we can find that mallets bearing such an\ninscription do actually exist, we may fairly conclude that the story,\nwhich, in Scotland, is the vehicle of transmission of the rhyme, is of\nlater origin than the rhyme itself.\n\nFirst of all, it is to be noted under this head that Wright, in a note\nto the Latin story we have already quoted, gives from John of\nBromyard's _Summa Predicantium_ another English version of the verse--\n\n \"Wit this betel the smieth\n And alle the worle thit wite\n That thevt the ungunde alle thing,\n And goht him selve a beggyng,\"\n\nwhich shows, I think, the popularity of the verse in the vernacular.\nClearly, then, the Latin version is a translation of this, and not\n_vice versa_. It must have been a rhyming formula in the vernacular,\nwhich had a life of its own quite outside its adoption into\nliterature.\n\nThis inferential proof of the actual life of the English rhyming\nformula is confirmed by actual facts in the case of the corresponding\nGerman formula. Nork, in the volume I have already quoted, collects\nevidence from Grimm, Haupt, and others, which proves that sometimes in\nfront of a house, as at Osnabrueck, and sometimes at the city gate, as\nin several of the cities of Silesia and Saxony, there hangs a mallet\nwith this inscription:--\n\n \"Wer den kindern gibt das Brod\n Und selber dabei leidet Noth\n Den schlagt mit dieser keule todt\"--\n\nwhich Mr. Thoms has Englished thus:--\n\n \"Who to his children gives his bread\n And thereby himself suffers need,\n With this mallet strike him dead.\"[105]\n\nThese rhymes are the same as those in the Scottish tale and its Latin\nanalogue, and that they are preserved on the selfsame instrument which\nis mentioned in the story as bearing the inscription is proof enough,\nI think, that the mallets and their rhyming formulae are far older than\nthe story. They are not mythical, the story is; their history is\ncontained in the facts we have above detailed; the life of the\nfolk-tale commences when the use or formula of the mallet ceases to be\npart of the social institutions.\n\nTo the rhyming formulae, then, I would trace the rise of the mythic\ntale told by the Highland peasant in 1862 to Mr. J. F. Campbell. The\nold customs which we have detailed as the true origin of the mallet,\nand its hideous use in killing the aged and infirm, had died out, but\nthe symbol of them remained. To explain the symbol a myth was created,\nwhich kept sufficiently near to the original idea as to retain\nevidence of its close connection with the descent of property; and\nthus was launched the dateless, impersonal, unlocalised story which\nMr. Campbell has given as a specimen of vagrant traditions, which\n\"must have been invented after agriculture and fixed habitations,\nafter laws of property and inheritance; but it may be as old as the\nlake-dwellings of Switzerland, or Egyptian civilisation, or Adam,\nwhose sons tilled the earth.\"[106] I would venture to rewrite the last\nclause of this dictum of the great master of folk-tales, and I would\nsuggest that the story, whatever its age as a story, tells us of facts\nin the life of its earliest narrators which do not belong to Teutonic\nor Celtic history. The Teuton and the Celt, with their traditional\nreverence for parental authority, at once patriarchal and priestly,\nwould retain, with singular clearness, the memory of traditions, or it\nmay be observations, of an altogether different set of ideas which\nbelonged to the race with which they first came into contact. But\nwhether the story is a mythic interpretation by Celts of pre-Celtic\npractices, or a pre-Celtic tradition, varied as soon as it became the\nproperty of the Celt to suit Celtic ideas, it clearly takes us back to\npractices very remote, to use Mr. Elton's forcible words, from the\nreverence for the parents' authority which might have perhaps been\nexpected from descendants of \"the Aryan household.\"[107] These\npractices lead us back to a period of savagery, of which we have to\nspeak in terms of race distinction if we would get at its root.[108]\nThe importance of such a conclusion cannot be overrated, for it leads\ndirectly to the issue which must be raised whenever an investigation\nof tradition leaves us with materials, which are promptly rejected as\nfragments of Celtic history because they are too savage, but which\nneed not therefore be rejected as history, because they may be\nreferred further back than Celtic history.\n\nIf we proceed by more drastic methods, by the methods of statistics,\nwe shall arrive at much the same conclusion.[109] Taking the first\ntwelve stories in Grimm's great collection, we find that seven of them\nyield elements which we are entitled to call savage, because they are\nso far removed from the European culture amidst which the folk-tales\nhave lived, and because these elements belong not to the accidentals\nof the stories but to the essentials. Thus, if we divide the folk-tale\ninto its components, we shall find that it consists of three\nfeatures:--\n\n1. The story radicals, or essential plot;\n\n2. The story accidentals, or illustrative points;\n\n3. Modern gloss upon the events in the story--\n\nand if we go on to allocate the various incidents of the stories to\nthese three heads, we get the following common results with regard to\nseven out of the twelve first stories of Grimm's great collection:--\n\nI.--FROG PRINCE\n\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | Story | Story | Added | Modern\n | radicals | accidentals | features | gloss\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n |Youngest | | |\n | daughter | | |\n |Fountain or | | |\n | well the | | |\n | locality of | | |\n | leading | | |\n | incident | | |\n |Frog | | |\n1. Savage | prince=totem| | |\n elements |Frog prince | -- | -- | --\n | stays at the| | |\n | house of his| | |\n | future wife | | |\n |Exogamous | | |\n | marriage, | | |\n | the prince | | |\n | coming from | | |\n | a foreign | | |\n | country | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | |Faithful |\n2. Fantastic | | | servant |\n element | -- | -- | whose heart | --\n | | | is bound by |\n | | | iron bands |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | | |Kingly state\n | | | | and its\n | | | | trappings--\n | | | | the princess\n | | | | wears a\n | | | | crown on\n3. Rank and | -- | -- | -- | ordinary\n splendour | | | | occasions,\n | | | | and yet\n | | | | opens the\n | | | | door to a\n | | | | visitor\n | | | | while at\n | | | | dinner\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n\nIII.--OUR LADY'S CHILD\n\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | Story | Story | Added | Modern\n | radicals | accidentals | features | gloss\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | |Naked forest | |\n | | woman | |\n1. Savage | | captured | |\n elements | -- | for wife | -- | --\n | |Suspicion that| |\n | | she is a | |\n | | cannibal | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | | |Virgin Mary\n | | | | and heaven\n3. Rank and | | | | the central\n splendour | -- | -- | -- | features\n | | | | of the\n | | | | heroine's\n | | | | adventures\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n4. Moral |Punishment | | |\ncharacteristics| for | -- | -- | --\n | curiosity | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n\nIV.--THE YOUTH WHO WANTS TO LEARN TO SHUDDER\n\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | Story | Story | Added | Modern\n | radicals | accidentals | features | gloss\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n |Winning of | | |\n | wife by | | |\n | service | | |\n |Succession to | | |\n1. Savage | kingship | | |\n elements | through | -- | -- | --\n | wife--female| | |\n | kinship | | |\n |Treasure | | |\n | guarded by | | |\n | spirits | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | |The adventures| |\n2. Fantastic | -- | in the | -- | --\n element | | haunted | |\n | | castle | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | | |\n3. Rank and | -- | -- | -- |Kingly state\n splendour | | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | | |\n4. Moral |Bravery | -- | -- | --\ncharacteristics| | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n\nV.--THE WOLF AND SEVEN LITTLE KIDS\n\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | Story | Story | Added | Modern\n | radicals | accidentals | features | gloss\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n |Talking |Criticism upon| |\n | animals | men as | |\n |Cutting open | compared | |\n | of the | with | |\n1. Savage | animal to | animals, | -- | --\n elements | free the | 'truly men | |\n | swallowed | are like | |\n | kids, and | that' | |\n | refilling | | |\n | the stomach | | |\n | with stones | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n\nVI.--FAITHFUL JOHN\n\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | Story | Story | Added | Modern\n | radicals | accidentals | features | gloss\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n |Capture of | | |\n | bride | | |\n |Talking of | | |\n | animals | | |\n |Three taboos--| | |\n | Horse | | |\n | Garment | | |\n1. Savage | Sucking of | -- | -- | --\n elements | breasts | | |\n |Sacrifice of | | |\n | children and| | |\n | sprinkling | | |\n | their blood | | |\n | on a stone | | |\n |Human origin | | |\n | stone pillar| | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | | |Kingly state\n3. Rank and | | | | and great\n splendour | -- | -- | -- | wealth in\n | | | | gold and\n | | | | riches\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | | |\n4. Moral | -- |Punishment for| -- | --\ncharacteristics| | curiosity | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n\nIX.--THE TWELVE BROTHERS\n\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | Story | Story | Added | Modern\n | radicals | accidentals | features | gloss\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n |Going [causing| | |\n | to go] away | | |\n | of sons, so | | |\n | that the | | |\n | inheritance | | |\n | should fall | | |\n1. Savage | to the | Forest life | |\n elements | daughter | | -- | --\n |Change of | | |\n | brothers | | |\n | into ravens | | |\n |Life dependent| | |\n | on an | | |\n | outside | | |\n | object | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | | |\n3. Rank and | -- | -- | -- |Kingly state\n splendour | | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | | | |\n4. Moral | -- | -- | -- | --\ncharacteristics| | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n\nXI.--BROTHER AND SISTER\n\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n | Story | Story | Added | Modern\n | radicals | accidentals | features | gloss\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n |Transformation| | |\n | of hero into| | |\n1. Savage | roebuck | -- | -- | --\n elements | after | | |\n | drinking at | | |\n | stream | | |\n---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------\n\nThere are thus savage elements in seven out of twelve stories, and\nthe question becomes an important one as to how this is. They are the\nstories of the nursery, told by mothers to children, stories kept\nalive by tradition, and the only possible answer to our question is\nthat they contain fragments of the early culture-history of the\nancestors, or at all events the predecessors, of those who have\npreserved them for our use. An occasional savage incident might have\nbeen considered a freak of the original narrator, or a borrowing by\none of the countless late narrators of these stories brought home from\nsavage countries; but statistics disprove both of these suppositions.\nIt is not accidental but persistent savagery we meet with in the\nfolk-tale. It is also the savagery to be found amongst modern peoples\nstill in the savage stage of culture.\n\nThis is proved in a very complete manner by Mr. MacCulloch, whose\nstudy provides the material for a statistical survey of story\nincidents founded on primitive custom and belief.[110] They are the\nmost ancient history to which we have access. That this history is\ncontained in the folk-tales of modern peasantry shows it to have come\nfrom that far-off period which saw the earliest condition of these\npeople. It is still history, if it tells us of a life which preceded\nthe written record. It is history of the most valuable description,\nfor it is to be found nowhere else as relating to the remotest period\nof European civilisation. The modern savage is better off in this\nrespect. He has an outside historian in the traveller and the\nanthropologist of modern days. The savage who was ancestor to our own\npeople had no such means of becoming known to history, or had but very\nlimited means, and it is only in the deathless tradition that we can\ntrace him out.\n\nThese conclusions have been drawn from that great class of tradition\npreserved by historic peoples in historic times, and yet unmistakably\npointing to prehistoric culture. We have been able to show the methods\nto be adopted for, and the results of, disengaging the myth which has\ngravitated to the historic person or place from the historic facts\nwhich have become part of the legend, and to trace out in the\nfolk-tale facts which belong to a culture far removed from civilised\nlife. There are thus revealed two distinct centres of influence, the\ntraditional centre and the historic centre, and it is obvious that the\nquestion must be asked--which is the more important? It seems to me\nequally obvious that the answer must be given in favour of the\nhistoric. History is indebted to tradition for preserving some of the\nmost remote facts of racial or national life, which but for tradition\nwould have been lost, and if we are content to use this tradition as a\nstorehouse from which we may provide ourselves with ancient historical\ndocuments, we can trace out therefrom points in the history of any\ngiven country wherever the traditions have been preserved.\n\nThe folk-tale, in point of fact, equally with the personal and local\nlegend, comes into close contact with history. The periods of history\nin the folk-tales are different from those in the legends, but\ntogether these periods reach from prehistoric culture to historic\nevent. We cannot, however, call this extent of time a continuous\nperiod, and we cannot point to definite stages within the detached\nperiods. Much more research must be accomplished before it will be\npossible to claim such results as these. I have indicated some points\nof difficulty, some methods of treatment which appear to me to be\nwrong, and to which I shall have again to refer later on; but in the\nmeantime, from the necessarily incomplete evidence which I have been\nable to produce, it is, I think, abundantly clear that folklore has to\nbe studied from its historical surroundings if we would draw from it\nall that it is capable of telling.\n\n\nIII\n\nIn the meantime it is well to bear in mind that there is one important\ndepartment of history which has always been frankly and unhesitatingly\naccepted as history and yet which has no stronger foundation than\ntradition, and tradition of the most formal kind. I allude to the\nearly laws of most of the peoples who have become possessed of an\nhistoric civilisation. These laws have all been preserved by\ntradition, are in rhyme or rhythm in order to assist the memory, have\nbecome the sacred repository of a school or class of priests, and have\nfinally been reduced to writing by a great lawgiver, who by the act of\ngiving the people written laws has had attributed to him supernatural\norigin and powers. That history should have accepted from tradition\nsuch an important section of its material is worth consideration by\nitself, apart from its bearing on the present study, and I shall\nproceed, therefore, to set out some of the chief facts in this\nconnection.\n\nThere can be no doubt that in the tribal society of Indo-European\npeoples the laws and rules which governed the various members of the\ntribe were deemed to be sacred and were preserved by tradition. The\nopening clauses of the celebrated Laws of Manu illustrate this position.\n\"The great sages approached Manu, who was seated with a collected mind,\nand having worshipped him spoke as follows: Deign, divine one, to\ndeclare to us precisely and in due order the sacred laws of each of the\nfour chief castes and of the intermediate ones. For thou, O Lord, alone\nknowest the purport, the rites, and the knowledge of the soul taught in\nthis whole ordinance of the self-existent which is unknowable and\nunfathomable.\"[111] They were not only sacred in origin but they dealt\nwith sacred things, and Sir Henry Maine has drawn the broad conclusion\nthat \"there is no system of recorded law, literally from China to Peru,\nwhich, when it first emerges into notice, is not seen to be entangled\nwith religious ritual and observance.\"[112] In Greece the lawgivers were\nsupposed to be divinely inspired, Minos from Jupiter, Lykurgos from the\nDelphic god, Zaleukos from Pallas.[113] The earliest notions of law are\nconnected with Themis the Goddess of Justice.[114] In Rome it is to\nRomulus himself that is attributed the first positive law, and it is by\na college of priests that the laws were preserved.[115] In Scandinavia\nthe laws were in the custody and charge of the temple priests, and the\naccumulated evidence for the sacred origin and connection of the laws is\nto be found in the sagas.[116] Among the Celtic peoples it is well known\nthat the laws were preserved and administered by the Brehons, who are\ncompared with the Hindu Brahmins by Sir Henry Maine, \"with many of their\ncharacteristics altered, and indeed, their whole sacerdotal authority\nabstracted by the influence of Christianity.\"[117] In the Isle of Man\nthe laws were deemed sacred and known only to the Deemsters.[118]\n\nIn all cases laws were preserved by tradition and not by writing and\nevidence, and the superior value attached to the traditional record\nappears everywhere. The oldest record of Hindu law agrees with the\nbest authority that it was not founded on writing but \"upon immemorial\ncustoms which existed prior to and independent of Brahminism.\"[119] In\nGreece the very nature of the _themistes_ shows that they were\njudgments dependent upon traditional custom. In Rome it is the subject\nof definite research that the \"greater part of Roman law was founded\non the _mores majorum_.\"[120] In Scandinavia the law speaker was\nobliged to recite the whole law within the period to which the tenure\nof his office was limited.[121] The Celtic laws are based upon customs\nhanded down from remote antiquity,[122] and late down in English law\nit was admitted as a principle that if oral declarations came into\nconflict with written instruments the former had the more binding\nauthority.[123]\n\nOne of the means by which this sacred tradition was preserved was\nthrough the medium of rhythm and verse. Thus, as Sir Henry Maine\nexplains,\n\n \"The law book of Manu is in verse, and verse is one of\n the expedients for lessening the burden which the\n memory has to bear when writing is unknown or very\n little used. But there is another expedient which\n serves the same object. This is Aphorism or Proverb.\n Even now in our own country much of popular wisdom is\n preserved either in old rhymes or in old proverbs, and\n it is well ascertained that during the middle ages\n much of law, and not a little of medicine, was\n preserved among professions, not necessarily clerkly,\n by these two agencies.\"[124]\n\nIn Greece the same word, [Greek: nomos], was used for custom and law\nas for song. The [Greek: rhetra] (declared law) of Sparta and Taras\nwas in verse; the laws of Charondas were sung as [Greek: skolia] at\nAthens,[125] and Strabo refers to the Mazacenes of Cappadocia as using\nthe laws of Charondas and appointing some person to be their\nlaw-singer ([Greek: nomodos]), who is among them the declarer of the\nlaws.[126]\n\nSir Francis Palgrave, noticing the same characteristic of Teutonic\nlaw, says:--\n\n \"It cannot be ascertained that any of the Teutonic\n nations reduced their customs into writing, until the\n influence of increasing civilisation rendered it\n expedient to depart from their primeval usages; but an\n aid to the recollection was often afforded as amongst\n the Britons, by poetry or by the condensation of the\n maxim or principle in proverbial or antithetical\n sentences like the Cymric triads. The marked\n alliteration of the Anglo-Saxon laws is to be referred\n to the same cause, and in the Frisic laws several\n passages are evidently written in verse. From hence,\n also, may originate those quaint and pithy rhymes in\n which the doctrines of the law of the old time are not\n unfrequently recorded.\"[127]\n\nAgain, the editors of the Brehon Law Tracts point out that early laws\nare handed down \"in a rhythmical form; always in language condensed\nand antiquated they assume the character of abrupt and sententious\nproverbs. Collections of such sayings are found scattered throughout\nthe Brehon Law Tracts.\"[128] The sagas contain many verses which\npartake of the character of legal formulae, and in Beowulf there seems\nto be a definite example. It occurs in the passage describing Beowulf\nengaged in his fatal combat with the fiery dragon, when his\n\"companions,\" stricken with terror, deserted him, on which Wiglaf\npronounced the following malediction:--\n\n \"Now shall the service of treasure,\n and the gifts of swords,\n all joy of paternal inheritance,\n all support\n of all your kin depart;\n every one of your family\n must go about\n deprived of his rights\n of citizenship;\n when far and wide\n the nobles shall learn\n your flight,\n your dishonourable deed.\n Death is better\n to every warrior\n than disgraced life.\"\n\nMr. Kemble remarks on this passage, that it is not improbable that the\nwhole denunciation is a judicial formula, such as we know early\nexisted, and in regular rhythmical measure.[129]\n\nThese early examples may be followed up by others preserved to modern\ntimes. The most significant of these occurs in the Church ceremony of\nmarriage, which preserves in the vernacular the ancient rhythmical\nformula of the marriage laws, and the antiquity of the Church ritual\nis proved from the fact that it is accompanied and enforced by the old\nrhythmical verse, which is indicative of early legal or ceremonious\nusage.\n\n \"With this rynge I the wed\n And this gold and silver I the geve,\n and with my body I the worshipe,\n and with all my worldely cathel I the endowe.\"[130]\n\nSir Francis Palgrave has noticed the subject, and points out that the\nwife is taken\n\n \"to have and to hold[131]\n from this day forward\n for better, for worse,\n for richer, for poorer,[132]\n in sickness and in health,\n to love and to cherish,\n till death us do part\n and thereto I plight thee my troth.\"\n\nThese words are inserted in our service according to the ancient canon\nof England, and even when the Latin mass was sung by the tonsured\npriest, the promises which accompany the delivery of the symbolical\npledge of union were repeated by the blushing bride in a more\nintelligible tongue.[133] This is a curious and significant fact, and\nas we trace out these rhythmical lines farther back in their original\nvernacular, the more clearly distinct is their archaic nature.\nAccording to the usage of Salisbury the bride answered:--\n\n \"I take thee, John,\n to be my wedded husband,\n to have and to hold\n fro' this day forward\n for better, for worse,\n for richer, for poorer,\n in sycknesse, in hele,\n to be bonere and buxom [obedient]\n in bedde and at borde\n till death do us part\n and thereto I plight thee my trothe.\"[134]\n\nThe Welsh manual in the library of the Dean and Chapter of Hereford\nhas a slight variation in the form, and an older spelling:--\n\n \"Ich N. take thee N.\n to my weddid wyf,\n for fayroure for foulore,\n for ricchere for porer,\n for betere for wers,\n in sicknesse and in helthe,\n forte deth us departe,\n and only to the holde\n and tharto ich plygtte my treuthe.\"[135]\n\nTo this may be added the many local examples of the preservation of\nlaws or legal formulae by means of their form in verse. The most\ninteresting of these, perhaps, is that by which the Kentishman\nredeemed his land from the lord by repeating, as it was said, in the\nlanguage of his ancestors:--\n\n \"Nighon sithe yeld\n And nighon sithe geld,\n And vif pund for the were,\n Ere he become healdere.\"\n\nThe first verse,\n\n \"Dog draw\n Stable stand\n Back berend\n And bloody hand\"\n\njustified the verderer in his punishment of the offender. In King\nAthelstane's grant to the good men of Beverley, and inscribed beneath\nhis effigy in the Minster,\n\n \"Als fre\n Mak I the\n As heart may think\n Or eigh may see,\"\n\nwe have perhaps the ancient form of manumission or\nenfranchisement,[136] just as we have the surrender by a freeman who\ngave up his liberty by putting himself under the protection of a\nmaster, and becoming his man, still preserved among children, when one\nof them takes hold of the foretop of another and says:--\n\n \"Tappie, tappie, tousie, will ye be my man?\"[137]\n\nAll over the country we meet with these rhyming or rhythmical formulae\nwhich have legal significance. In the north the chief of the\nMacdonalds gave grants in the following form:--\n\n \"I, Donald, chief of the Macdonalds, give here, in my\n castle, a right to Mackay, to Kilmahumag, from this\n day till to-morrow and so on for ever.\"\n\n \"Mise Donull nau Donull,\n Am shuidh air Dun Donuill,\n Toirt coir do Mhac-aigh air Kilmahumaig,\n O'n diugh gus a maireach\n 'S gu la bhrath mar sin.\"[138]\n\nAt Scarborough there is an old proverbial saying as to \"Scarborough\nWarning,\" which has had various accounts given of its origin,[139] but\nthe true explanation of which is that it is the fragment of an ancient\nlegal formula of the kind we are investigating. Abraham De la Pryme\ndescribes it in his seventeenth-century diary as follows:--\n\n \"Scarburg Warning is a proverb in many places of the\n north, signifying any sudden warning given upon any\n account. Some think it arose from the sudden comeing\n of an enemy against the castle there, and haveing\n dischargd a broad side, then commands them to\n surrender. Others think that the proverb had it's\n original from other things, but all varys. However,\n this is the true origin thereof.\n\n \"The town is a corporation town, and tho' it is very\n poor now to what it was formerly, yet it has a ... who\n is commonly some poor man, they haveing no rich ones\n amongst them. About two days before Michilmass day the\n sayd ... being arrayed in his gown of state he mounts\n upon horseback, and has his attendants with him, and\n the macebear[er] carrying the mace before him, with\n two fidlers and a base viol. Thus marching in state\n (as bigg as the lord mare of London) all along the\n shore side, they make many halts, and the cryer crys\n thus with a strange sort of a singing voyce, high and\n low:--\n\n \"'Whay! Whay! Whay!\n Pay your gavelage, ha!\n Between this and Michaelmas Day,\n Or you'll be fined I, say!'\n\n \"Then the fiddlers begins to dance, and caper and\n plays, fit to make one burst with laughter that sees\n and hears them. Then they go on again and crys as\n before, with the greatest majesty and gravity\n immaginable, none of this comical crew being seen so\n much as to smile all the time, when as spectators are\n almost bursten with laughing. This is the true origin\n of the proverb, for this custome of gavelage is a\n certain tribute that every house pays to the ... when\n he is pleased to call for it, and he gives not above\n one day warning, and may call for it when he\n pleases.\"[140]\n\nRhyming tenures have been frequently noted but never understood. They\noccur in many parts of the country. The tithingman of Combe Keynes, in\nDorsetshire, is obliged to do suit at Winforth Court, and after\nrepeating the following incoherent lines, pays threepence and goes\naway without saying another word:--\n\n \"With my white rod\n And I am a fourth post\n That three pence makes three\n God bless the King, and the lord of the franchise\n Our weights and our measures are lawful and true\n Good morrow Mr. Steward I have no more to say to you.\"[141]\n\nIt is hardly necessary to quote more examples. They are not unknown to\nthe historian, but because they are in rhyme they have been hastily\nassumed to be spurious or even burlesque.[142] But the evidence of a\nrhyming formula is the opposite to this. It is evidence of their\ngenuineness, and if some of the words appear to be nonsensical it is\ndue to the fact that the sense of the old formula has been\nmisunderstood, and has then become gradually altered.\n\nAll these rhyming tenures, indeed, find their place among the\ntraditional examples of legal formulae. They are the local offshoots\npreserved because of their legal significance, preserved by those\ninterested from their legal side. Because they are not preserved in\nthe formal codes they need not be neglected, and they must not be\nmisunderstood. They are not to be put on one side by the historian as\nfreaks of local landowners. They are real descendants by traditional\nlines from the times when laws were not written, but kept alive in the\nmemory by means of such assistance as rhyme could supply, and from the\ntribesmen who thus treasured the law they obeyed.[143]\n\nThat this branch of recorded law is not only early but tribal is\nundoubted, but perhaps it will be well to refer to tribal rhyming\nformulae of an independent kind in order to show by parallel evidence\nthe tribal characteristics. In 1884 Mr. Posnett drew attention to this\nimportant subject, and noted that\n\n \"Dr. Brown, in an attempt to sketch the origin of\n poetry--an attempt which attracted the attention of\n Bishop Percy in his remarks introductory to the\n _Reliques_--proposed more than one hundred years ago\n to discover the source of the combined dance, song,\n melody, and mimetic action of primitive compositions\n in the common festivals of clan life. The student of\n comparative literature will probably regard Dr.\n Brown's theory as a curious anticipation of the\n historical method in a study which, in spite of M.\n Taine's efforts, has made so little progress as yet.\n The clan ethic of inherited guilt and vicarious\n punishment has attracted considerable attention. But\n the clan poetry of the ancient Arabs and of the\n bard-clans, surviving in the Hebrew sons of Asaph or\n the Greek Homeridae, has not received that light from\n comparative inquiry which the closely connected\n problems of primitive music and metre would alone\n amply deserve.\"[144]\n\nNot much has been done since this was penned. Max Mueller had\npreviously, in 1847, declared that the Rig Veda consisted of the clan\nsongs of the Hindu people,[145] but the importance of such a\nconclusion has been entirely neglected. In the meantime evidence is\naccumulating that in Britain there are still preserved many examples\nof clan songs. Thus Lord Archibald Campbell has published, in the\nfirst volume of his _Waifs and Strays of Celtic Tradition_, some\nsixteen or seventeen sagas. Some of these are clan-traditions; and the\neditor notes as evidence of their antiquity the fact that none of them\nmakes any mention of firearms. These clan-traditions all relate to\nfeuds and vendettas; and in one case it is expressly recorded that the\ndescendants of one of the foes of the clan, in their account of the\nincident narrated, \"altered this tradition and reversed the main\nfacts.\" This has been followed by a volume definitely devoted to\n\"clan-traditions,\"[146] while in the _Carmina Gadelica_ and many of\nthe Highland incantations there are preserved specimens of ancient\nclan songs.\n\nThe most interesting of the tribal songs is that preserved at the\nHawick Common riding. The burgh officers form the van of a pageant\nwhich insensibly carries us back to ancient times, and in some verses\nsung on the occasion there is a refrain which has been known for ages\nas the slogan of Hawick. It is \"Teribus ye teri Odin,\" which is\nprobably a corruption of the Anglo-Saxon, \"Tyr habbe us, ye Tyr ye\nOdin\"--May Tyr uphold us, both Tyr and Odin.\n\nFortunately Dr. Murray has investigated this formula, and I will quote\nwhat he says:--\n\n \"A relic of North Anglian heathendom seems to be\n preserved in a phrase which forms the local slogan of\n the town of Hawick, and which, as the name of a\n peculiar local air, and the refrain, or 'owerword' of\n associated ballads, has been connected with the\n history of the town back to 'fable-shaded eras.'\n Different words have been sung to the tune from time\n to time, and none of those now extant can lay claim to\n any antiquity; but associated with all, and yet\n identified with none, the refrain '_Tyr-ibus ye Tyr ye\n Odin_,' Tyr haeb us, ye Tyr ye Odin! Tyr keep us, both\n Tyr and Odin! (by which name the tune also is known)\n appears to have come down, scarcely mutilated, from\n the time when it was the burthen of the song of the\n gleo-mann or scald, or the invocation of a heathen\n Angle warrior, before the northern Hercules and the\n blood-red lord of battles had yielded to the 'pale\n god' of the Christians.\"\n\n[Illustration: THE AULD CA-KNOWE: CALLING THE BURGESS ROLL]\n\n[Illustration: HAWICK MOAT AT SUNRISE]\n\nAnd in a note Dr. Murray adds:--\n\n \"The ballad now connected with the air of 'Tyribus'\n commemorates the laurels gained by the Hawick youth at\n and after the disastrous battle, when, in the words of\n the writer,\n\n \"'Our sires roused by \"Tyr ye Odin,\"\n Marched and joined their king at Flodden.'\n\n Annually since that event the 'Common-Riding' has\n been held, on which occasion a flag or 'colour'\n captured from a party of the English has been with\n great ceremony borne by mounted riders round the\n bounds of the common land, granted after Flodden to\n the burgh; part of the ceremony consisting in a mock\n capture of the 'colour' and hot pursuit by a large\n party of horsemen accoutred for the occasion. At the\n conclusion 'Tyribus' is sung, with all the honours, by\n the actors in the ceremony, from the roof of the\n oldest house in the burgh, the general population\n filling the street below, and joining in the song with\n immense enthusiasm. The influence of modern ideas is\n gradually doing away with much of the parade and\n renown of the Common-Riding. But 'Tyr-ibus ye Tyr ye\n Odin' retains all its local power to fire the lieges,\n and the accredited method of arousing the burghers to\n any political or civil struggle is still to send round\n the drums and fifes, 'to play Tyribus' through the\n town, a summons analogous to that of the Fiery Cross\n in olden times. Apart from the words of the slogan,\n the air itself bears in its wild fire all the tokens\n of a remote origin.\"[147]\n\nWe could not get better evidence than this of the survival of tribal\ncustom, custom that is distinctly connected with tribes rather than\nwith places or individuals, with groups of people who, now bound\ntogether by local considerations and influences, have only recently\npassed away from the far more ancient influences of the tribe. Alike\nin the forms of historical codes and in traditional local remains, we\nhave found evidence of the use of rhyme for the preservation of\nunwritten rules and forms; and this use restores to tradition an\nimportant branch of its material.\n\nWe have thus ascertained that there is direct and acknowledged\nindebtedness of history to tradition. Its extent covers a wide area of\nculture progress, and of unbroken continuity from tribal to historic\ntimes. The legal codes of the barbaric tribes of Western Europe are\nthe direct successors of the traditional originals; and because these\nlegal codes, equally with their unwritten predecessors, cannot be\ndispensed with by the historian, they find their place unquestioned\namong genuine historical material. They are no more, and no less,\nhistorical than other traditional material. They are part of the life\nof the people rescued from prehistoric days, and they tell us of these\ndays by the same sanction and the same methods as the rest of the\ntraditional material which has been so strangely and so persistently\nneglected by the historian. The whole of tradition, and not selected\nparts of it, must be brought into use if we would follow scientific\nmethod, and I claim this for the study of folklore on the strength of\nthe results which have now been brought together.\n\n[Illustration: ONE OF FIVE STONE CIRCLES IN THE FIELDS OPPOSITE THE\nGLEBE OF NYMPHSFIELD]\n\n[Illustration: CARN-AN-CHLUITHE\nTO COMMEMORATE THE DEFEAT AND DEATH OF THE YOUTHS OF THE DANANNS]\n\n[Illustration: THE CAIRN OF BALLYMAGIBBON NEAR THE ROAD PASSING FROM\nCONG TO CROSS]\n\n\nIV\n\nHere, however, we are close up to an important point of controversy.\nThe mythologists claim tradition as theirs. It does not, they assert,\ngive us the history but the mythology of our race. It tells us not of\nthe men but of the gods. In explaining how this comes about, however,\nthey have fallen into errors which it is not only necessary to correct\nbut which are fundamental in their effects. We shall be better able\nlater on to discuss the extremely important question of the\nposition of the prehistoric tradition amidst historic life and\nsurroundings, if we try to understand what the mythologists have done\nand not done in their attempts to claim exclusive property in the\nfolk-tale. They have entirely denied or ignored all history contained\nin the folk-tale, and they have proceeded upon the assumption, the\nbald assumption not accompanied by any kind of proof, that the\nfolk-tale contains nothing but the remnants of a once prevalent system\nof mythology. They ignore all the proofs brought forward by\nfolklorists to the contrary, such proofs, for instance, as Mr.\nKnowles, Sir Richard Temple and others have produced concerning the\nHindu folk-tale. What is not true of the Hindu folk-tale cannot be\ntrue of its Celtic or Teutonic or Scandinavian parallel, and yet in\nthe most recent study of Celtic tradition, Mr. Squire takes its mythic\norigin for granted, and works through his ingenious statement without\nlet or hindrance from other points of view. But even his\nthorough-going methods compel him to stop short at certain points, and\nto admit that he has come across historic fact. Thus he agrees that\nthe Fir-Bolgs \"were not really gods but the pre-Aryan race which the\nGaels, when they landed in Ireland, found already in occupation,\"[148]\nand yet when he treats of the fight of the Fir-Bolgs with the Tuatha\nde Danann, and is confronted with Sir William Wilde's proofs that the\nmonuments on the plain of Moytura are in agreement with the traditions\nconcerning them, and point to the account of the battle being\nhistorical,[149] all that Mr. Squire can admit is that \"certainly the\ncoincidences are curious.\" He disposes of them on the ground that the\n\"people of the goddess Danu are too obviously mythical to make it\nworth while to seek any standing ground for them in the world of\nreality.\" That standing ground might be found connected with the\nTuatha de Danann in many places, but Mr. Squire will have it that it\nis impossible, because \"it was about this period that the mythology of\nIreland was being rewoven into spurious history.\"[150] It is not,\nhowever, upon the mistakes of other inquirers[151] that the\nmythologists may rest a good claim for their own view. The _Historia\nBritonum_ of Geoffrey of Monmouth disposes of neither the myths nor\nthe history of the Celts. It shows myth in its secondary position, in\nthe handling of those who would make it all history, just as now there\nare scholars who would make it all myth. In front of the legends\nattaching to persons and places is the history of these persons and\nplaces. Behind these legends lies the domain of the unattached and\nprimitive folk-tale, Mr. Campbell's _Highland Tales_, Kennedy's\n_Fireside Stories of Ireland_, and those English tales which have been\nrescued by Mr. Clodd and others. This makes it impossible to see in\nthe hero-legends naught else than the intangible realm of Celtic gods\nand goddesses.\n\nEqually impossible is it to create for them a home in a system of\n\"state religion,\" and yet a state religion is a necessary part of the\nevidence for mythological origins.[152] There was no Celtic state.\nEmphatically this was so. Everything we know about the Celts of\nBritain, both before and after the Roman conquest, both in Britain,\nwhere the Roman power was upheld for four centuries, and in Ireland,\nwhere the Roman power never penetrated, the Celts were possessed of a\ntribal, not a state polity; lived in tribal strongholds, not in Celtic\ncities; occupied tribal territories, not countries formed into states;\nelected tribal chiefs in primitive fashion, and not kings with state\nceremonial; and when they come under the dominion of an incipient\nstate policy after the conquest of the English and the Northmen, their\nlaws are promulgated and codified, and show that both Welsh and Irish\ncodes are tribal, not state law.\n\nNot only do I fail to discover a state religion of the Celts, but I do\nnot find it among the Teutons. There is greater evidence of\ndiscrepancies than of agreement in all the European religions, but\nthese have not been dwelt upon by scholars. Professor York Powell, in\none of his illuminating studies on Teutonic heathendom, is the only\nauthority I know of who argues against the idea of a systematised\nreligion. \"It is important that we should at once throw aside the idea\nthat there was any _system_, any organized pantheon in the religion of\nthese peoples. Their tribes were small and isolated, and each had its\nown peculiar gods and observances, although the mould of each faith\nwas somewhat similar. Hence there were varieties of religious customs\namong the Goths, Swedes, Saxons, and Angles.\"[153]\n\n[Illustration: ALTAR DEDICATED TO THE FIELD DEITIES OF BRITAIN\nFOUND AT CASTLE HILL ON THE WALL OF ANTONINUS PIUS]\n\nNow if there was no state there could be no state religion. What\nexisted of worship and religion was tribal. These are the historical\nfacts, which have been neglected by students of myth and saga. I\nshall have to point out in greater detail presently what these tribal\nconditions mean to studies in folklore, but the word of warning and\nprotest must come here, for it is unconsciously the conception of a\nCeltic state religion which gives even the semblance of possibility\nfor Celtic mythology to be found in every hero-legend. It is, in\nshort, the neglect of this among other historical facts which has led\nthe folklorist into error of a somewhat magnificent kind. He attempts\nto create out of the myths of a people a mythology which provides gods\nto be worshipped, faiths to be organised, and beliefs to be the\nstandards of life and conduct. Thus, as I have pointed out\nelsewhere,[154] Sir John Rhys has, in his acute identification of the\nworship of the water-god Lud on the Thames and of Nod on the\nSevern,[155] introduced the idea of a great Celtic worship established\non these two great rivers as parts of a definite system of Celtic\nreligion, whereas examination proves that the parallel faiths of two\nperfectly distinct Celtic tribes, the Silures on the Severn and the\nTrinovantes on the Thames, were welded into a common worship of the\ngod of the waters by the masters of Celtic Britain, the Romans. There\nwas no Celtic organisation which commanded both Severn and Thames\nuntil the Romans occupied the country, and occupying the country they\nadopted into their own religion the native gods and, fortunately for\nus, recorded their adoption in the pavements of their houses or their\ntemples.[156]\n\nMr. A. B. Cook goes much further than Sir John Rhys. He attempts to\ndig out the European sky-god from all sorts of queer places, all sorts\nof forgotten records, thereby producing a wealth of folklore parallels\nfor which every student must be profoundly thankful. But he does not\nmake it anywhere clear that this universal god was gloriously apparent\nto his worshippers. There is no established connection between the\nsky-god and those who worshipped the sky-god, and we seek in vain\namidst all the brilliant researches, which have been held to produce\nevidence of the sky-god, for evidence that he was worshipped by the\nAryan-speaking Celt and Teuton. In point of fact, we never get at the\nworshippers at all. There is the assumption of a state mythology\nwithout any evidence for the existence of the state.\n\nIn place of this obvious necessity we get an immense abstraction,\nworked out with all the subtle ingenuity and learning of the Cambridge\nprofessor. Mr. Cook has, in fact, used the materials he has collected\nwith such amazing care to project therefrom just those mythological\nconceptions which Celt and Teuton would have worked out for themselves\nif they, like the Hindu and the Greek, had developed the state while\nthey were still free to develop their own native beliefs. This they\nnever did, and so their fire worship did not advance beyond its early\nstages. It was separated from nature worship to become the servant of\nthe European tribes. It helped them to develop tribal and family\ninstitutions. It produced for them a tribal and family worship. It did\nnot get beyond this, because Roman institutions and Christianity stood\nin the way and prevented tribal fire worship from becoming\nanthropomorphised into a mythology. This need not cause us to doubt\nthat the analogies claimed by these scholars are true analogies. There\nwere among the Celtic peoples, as among other branches of the race to\nwhich Celt, Greek, Teuton, Scandinavian, and Hindu belonged, the\nincipient elements which would go to make up a national or state\nmythology, when the nation or the state emerged, as it did emerge in\nthe case of Greece and of Rome, from its tribal originals. But the\nCeltic state did not emerge from tribalism in Britain; the Celtic\nheroes were always tribal heroes. They were, as Hereward and Arthur\nwere, real human flesh and blood, fighting and raiding and loving and\nfeasting in their tribal fashion as the later heroes did in their\nnational fashion; because of their success as tribal heroes they had\nattached to them the tribal myths; because they died as nobly as\nCuchulain died they left imperishable records among those for whom\nthey died. They were more than gods to the Celtic tribesman--they were\nkinsmen.\n\nThe false conception of a state religion before there was a state,\nappears in other studies not primarily based upon folklore research,\nand not having in view anthropological results. It is the basis of the\nremarkable researches of Sir Norman Lockyer as to the astrological and\nsolar origin of Stonehenge and other circles, and in his chapter which\ndeals with the question, \"Where did the British worship originate?\" he\nfinds himself bound to the theory of a borrowed civilisation which\nestablished the solar system.[157] This borrowed civilisation is\nEgyptian, but it is too much to ask mythology to supply not only a\ncomplete system of belief but a civilisation which belongs to it. What\nis needed is independent evidence of the civilisation. Without such\nindependent evidence it is impossible to accept the deduction drawn\nonly from one sphere of information.\n\nThe error of transferring to the domain of mythology events and\noccurrences which belong to history, is followed by an error of\nanother sort, namely, the transferring to some general department of\nhuman belief the particular beliefs of a people, or of tribes of\npeople. It is wrong to continue to label particular cults as nature\nmyths, when they have already been transferred from that position to a\nmore definite position among the beliefs of a people. Thus even so\ngood a scholar as Mr. A. B. Cook, rightly interpreting Greek evidence\nof the hill-top fires and of the house fire, yet denies to the exactly\ncorresponding Irish evidence the same interpretation, and argues that\n\"the ritual of Samain, at which all the hearths in Ireland were\nsupplied with fresh fire from a common centre at Tlachtga [is] almost\ncertainly solar,\" and that \"we shall not be far wrong if we suppose\nthat the solar fires of Beltaine were the ritual of the sky god\nconnected with the Ash of Uisnech.\"[158] Mr. Frazer, too, has\ninterpreted these bonfires as mainly sun charms, and he sees in the\nBalder myth, and in the peasant customs all over Europe, which he\nasserts illustrate this myth, an ancient ritual which originally\nmarked the beginning of the new year, when the tree spirit, or spirit\nof vegetation, was burned, the special reasons why the deity of\nvegetation should die by fire being that as \"light and heat are\nnecessary to vegetable growth, on the principle of sympathetic magic,\nby subjecting the personal representative of vegetation to their\ninfluence you secure a supply of these necessaries for trees and\ncrops.\"[159] Mr. Frazer goes far afield for evidence. He does not see\nthat the fire ceremonies which he collects from all Europe have a\nspecialised significance, even in their last stages of existence as\nsurvivals, which is not found among the Incas, the African tribes, the\nhill tribes of India, and the Chinese, whom he cites as providing the\nrequired parallels. Parallel practices are not necessarily evidence of\nparallels in culture, and it is the failure to locate properly the\nseveral examples in relationship to each other which produces a loose\nand inadequate conception of the relics of fire worship in European\ncountries, and the refusal to recognise its special place as the cult\nof a tribal people.[160] Another example of this fundamental error\ntakes us in the very opposite direction to that of Dr. Frazer. Thus\nDr. Gummere, in a recent study dealing with Germanic origins,[161]\nsees nothing in the fire cult of the Indo-European people but a\nbranch, and apparently an undeveloped branch, of general nature\nworship, not specially Germanic or Indo-European, not specialised by\nthe tribes and clans of these people into a cult far more closely\nconnected with their doings and their life than mere participation in\nthe general primitive nature worship could have afforded.\n\nThe danger of searching for a general system of belief and worship\nfrom the beliefs and rites of peoples not ethnically, geographically,\nor politically connected is very great, and I venture to think that\neven Mr. Frazer's remarkable researches into the agricultural rites of\nEuropean peoples do not take count of one important consideration. I\nthink his constructive hypothesis is too complex in process and too\nsystematic in form to have been the actual living faith of the varied\npaganism of the European peoples. It would have meant as organised an\ninstitution as the Christian Church itself, and of this there is no\nevidence whatever. It would have meant an exclusive agricultural\nceremony, and of this there is strong evidence to the contrary. It\nwould have meant a deep system of philosophy, penetrating from the\nhighest to the lowest of the people, and of this there is no evidence.\nThe plain fact is that the historical conditions have been altogether\nleft out of consideration in these matters, and we consequently do not\nget a complete study. We get the advocate's position. The case for the\nmythological interpretation of folklore has been put with full\nstrength, but it is not the entire case.\n\n\nV\n\nThis short survey of the relationship of tradition to history would\nnot answer its purpose if we did not consider the complementary\nposition which history bears to tradition. This may best be done by\nreference to the period before that occupied by contemporary native\nrecord. The history here alluded to is, properly speaking, only\nderived from one source, namely, the works of foreign or outside\nauthorities. It is written by observers from a civilised country,\ntravelling among the more primitive peoples of another land, and the\nGreek and Latin authors who relate particulars of early Britain were\nof this class. Their narratives have to be compared with the\ntraditions written down as history by professed historians, who lived\nlong after the events happened to which the traditions are said to\nrelate, but who recorded the traditions of the people preserved in the\nmonasteries by devotees who were of the people, or by the songs and\nrhymes which, as Henry of Huntingdon states explicitly, were used for\nthe purpose.\n\nBoth the observations of the foreign historians and travellers and the\nrecorded traditions from native sources have been treated with scant\ncourtesy whenever they cannot be explained according to the views of\neach particular inquirer into the period to which they refer. They\nhave been alternatively the subject of dispute or neglect by students\nfor a long series of years. They consist of items which do not fit in\nwith Celtic or Teutonic institutions as we know them from other and\nmore detailed sources. They offend against the national pride because\nthey tell of a condition of savagery. They do not appeal to the\nhistorian, because the historian knows little and cares nothing at all\nabout the condition of savagery. If, therefore, they are not rejected\nas true history, they are purposely neglected. They are in any event\nnever taken into consideration by the right method, and they stand\nover for examination by any one who will take the trouble to deal with\nthem by the light and test of modern research.\n\nIt is not my purpose to deal with these matters now, but it is\nadvisable that we should try to understand two things--first, how they\nhave been dealt with by the historian; secondly, their true place in\nhistory.\n\nThe Greek and Latin authors who have stated of peoples living in\nBritain many characteristics which do not belong to civilisation or\neven to the borders of civilisation, range from Pytheas the Greek in\nthe middle of the fourth century before our era down to the Latin\npoets of the early fifth century anno Domini. They all refer to the\nBritish savage. He is cannibalistic, incestuous, naked, possesses his\nwives in common, lives on wild fruits and not cultivated cereals,\nindulges in head-hunting, has no settled living-place which can be\ncalled a house, and generally betrays the characteristics of pure\nsavagery.[162] Altogether there is a fairly substantial range of\nmaterial for the formation of a reasonable conception of the condition\nof savagery in Britain.\n\n[Illustration: ROMAN SCULPTURED STONE FOUND AT ARNIEBOG, CUMBERNAULD,\nDUMBARTONSHIRE, SHOWING A NAKED BRITON AS A CAPTIVE]\n\nWe need not dwell long upon the earlier of our historians who have\nneglected or contested the statements of the authorities they use.\nThey hardly possessed the material for scientific treatment, and\npersonal predilections were the governing factors of any opinion which\nis expressed. John Milton, in his brave attempt to tell the story of\nearly England, does not so much as allude to these disagreeable\npoints. Hume disdainfully passes by the whole subject and practically\nbegins with the Norman conquest. Lappenberg says of the group marriage\nof the Britons that it \"is probably a mere Roman fable.\"[163] Innes\naccepts the views of the classical authorities and argues from them in\nhis own peculiar way,[164] but Sullivan will have it that the\nmaterials afforded from classical sources are worthless: \"they consist\nof mere hearsay reports without any sure foundation, and in many cases\nnot in harmony with the results of modern linguistic and archaeological\ninvestigations.\"[165] Neither Turner nor Palgrave has any doubt as to\nthe authority of these early accounts,[166] and Dr. Giles accepts the\naccounts which he so usefully collected from the original\nauthorities.[167]\n\nThe modern historian cannot, however, be so incidentally treated. He\nlives in the age of the comparative sciences and of anthropological\nresearch. He sometimes uses, though in a half-hearted and incomplete\nfashion, the results of inquirers in these fields of research, but he\nnowhere deals with the problem fully. His sins are not general, but\nspecial. He agrees with one statement of his original authority and\ndisagrees with another, and we are left with a chaos of opinion\nfounded upon no accepted principle. If the earlier historians accepted\nor rejected historical records without much reason for either course,\nthe later historians have no right to follow them. The terms \"savage\"\nand \"barbarian,\" indulged in by the Greek and Roman writers, cannot be\nrejected by modern authorities simply because they are too harsh. They\ncannot be considered merely in the nature of accusations against the\nstanding and position of our ancestors, made by advocates anxious to\nblacken the national character. Even scholars like Mr. Skene, Mr.\nElton, and Sir John Rhys, though inclined to weigh these passages by\nthe light of ethnographic research, throw something like doubt upon\nthe exact extent to which they may be taken as evidence. Mr. Elton,\nthough admitting that the early \"romances of travel\" afford some\nevidence as to the habits of our barbarian ancestors, cannot quite get\nas far in his belief as to think that the account of \"the Irish tribes\nwho thought it right to devour their parents\" is much more than a\ntraveller's tale.[168] Sir John Rhys is not quite sure that the\naccount by Caesar of the communal marriages of the British is \"not a\npassage from some Greek book of imaginary travels among imaginary\nbarbarians which Caesar had in his mind,\"[169] though he notes\nelsewhere that \"the vocabulary of the Celts will be searched in vain\nfor a word for son or daughter as distinguished from boy or girl\" as a\nfact of no little negative importance in relation to Caesar's \"ugly\naccount;\"[170] and he has similar doubts to express, noteworthy among\nthem being the passage from Pliny which illustrates the Godiva\nstory.[171] Mr. Skene lays stress upon the fact that Tacitus \"neither\nalludes to the practice of their staining their bodies with woad nor\nto the supposed community of women among them;\" and he offers some\nkind of excuse for the Roman evidence as to the tattooing with\nrepresentations of animals,[172] evidence which Sir John Rhys, too, is\nchary of accepting in its full sense. Mr. Pearson reluctantly accepts\nCaesar's account of the group marriage and the human sacrifice of the\nDruids, but he ignores all else, including the attested cannibalism of\nthe Atticotti, though he mentions that tribe in another\nconnection.[173] Sir James Ramsay agrees that the Britons tattooed\ntheir bodies with woad, recognises the fact that their matrimonial\ncustoms were polyandric, and that brother-and-sister marriage\nobtained, and generally accepts the prevalent ideas as to Celtic\nDruidism with its sacrificial rites and the system of \"state worship.\"\nHe rests his views for much of this upon the anthropological evidence\nin support of it.[174] Mr. Lang on behalf of Scotland, and Dr. Joyce\non behalf of Ireland, have their say on the evidence. Mr. Lang seems\nto accept Caesar's evidence \"if correctly reported,\" throws doubts upon\nthe ethnological value of such customs, and declares roundly that to\nfound theories upon such evidence as archaeology provides \"is the\nprovince of another science, not of history.\"[175] Dr. Joyce says that\nin early Greek and Roman writers there is not much reliable\ninformation about Ireland, though he believes them when they talk of\nstudents from Britain residing in Ireland and of books existing in\nIreland in the fourth century.[176]\n\nThis meagre result from the historians seems to me to be most\nunfortunate. Even when the testimony of early writers is accepted, it\nis accepted without the necessary filling in which such an acceptance\nwarrants. Bare acceptance does not tell us much. Each recorded fact\nhas a relationship to surrounding facts, should lead us to associated\nfacts which, escaping observation by early writers, can nevertheless\nbe restored. In history they are isolated and unconnected, because of\nthe faults of the historian who records them. Anthropologically they\nbelong to a wider grouping, reveal a connection with each other which\nis otherwise unsuspected, and prepare themselves for treatment on a\nlarger platform. The historian has used them for the unprofitable\ncontroversy ranging round the question of early Celtic civilisation,\nwhereas they clearly belong to the history of early man, and even the\nfolklorist does not disdain to cast them on one side when they do not\nsuit his purpose.[177]\n\nIt is still more unfortunate that Sir Henry Maine should have sought\nto enhance the value of his Indian evidence by contrasting it with\nwhat he calls \"the slippery testimony concerning savages which is\ngathered from travellers' tales,\"[178] and that Mr. Herbert Spencer\nshould have replied to this in an angry note, declaring that he was\naware \"that in the eyes of most, antiquity gives sacredness to\ntestimony, and that so what were travellers' tales when they were\nwritten in Roman days have come in our days to be regarded as of\nhigher authority than like tales written by recent or living\ntravellers.\"[179] The scorn passed upon \"travellers' tales,\" the\napplication of the term \"romance\" to the early descriptions of\nvoyages, have done the same amount of mischief to these early chapters\nof history as the constant disbelief in the value of tradition has\ndone to the testimony of folklore.\n\nNow I do not recall these controversies, or lay stress upon what\nappear to me to be the shortcomings of the historian and folklorist in\ntheir relationship to each other, for the purpose of reawakening old\nantagonisms. I have merely selected a few illustrations of the present\nposition of the subject in order that it may be seen how essential it\nis to proceed on other lines. All the items which have formed the\nsubject of dispute, together with others which have escaped\nattention--items which have found their way into history by accident,\nwhich are by nature fragmentary and isolated, which do not connect up\nwith anything that is distinctively Celtic or Teutonic, and which do\nnot apparently fit in with any standard common to themselves--must\ncommand attention if only because they alone cannot be cut out of\nhistory when items standing side by side with them are allowed to\nremain, and in the end it can, I think, be shown that they command\nattention because of their inherent value.\n\nThe method of investigation as to the importance and significance of\nthese earliest historical records must be anthropological. They are in\npoint of fact so much anthropological data relating to Britain. It is\nno use calling them history, and then defining that history as bad\nhistory simply because as history the recorded facts do not appear to\nbe credible. As a matter of fact they belong to the prehistory period\nof Britain, and to test their value scientific methods are required.\n\nIn the first place, anthropology shows that there is no _prima facie_\nnecessity for calling them Celtic, thus identifying them with that\nportion of our ancestry which is Celtic in race; for there is evidence\nof a non-Celtic race existing in prehistoric times, and existing down\nto within historic times, if not to modern times. Mr. Willis Bund has\nrecently summarised the evidence from archaeology, philology, and\ntradition as it appears in a particularly valuable local study of\nancient Cardiganshire, stating it \"to be agreed that there was more\nthan one race of early inhabitants, and two of the sources say that\nthere was an original race and at least two distinct races of\ninvaders,\" and further, \"that whoever the original inhabitants were\nthey were not Celts.\"[180] These original inhabitants, who were not\nCelts, have left their remains in the barrows and megalithic monuments\nwhich still exist in various parts of the country, and anthropologists\nshow that they have not entirely disappeared from among the race\ndistinctions observable among the people of these islands. If it is\npossible to proceed from this to another stage, and to show from the\nBritish evidence what Mr. Risley has so well illustrated from the\nIndian evidence, namely, that gradations of race types as shown by\nanthropometrical indices correspond with gradations of social\nprecedence and social organisation,[181] it may yet be possible to\nprove that the people who were not Celts were the people with whom\noriginated those recorded customs and beliefs which are rejected as\ntoo savage for the Celt. Unfortunately, we know nothing about them,\nexcept the isolated scraps which are to be picked up from the early\nhistorians. This compels us to turn to other sources of information,\nand when we do this we find that British folklore preserves in\ntraditional custom, rite, belief, and folk-tale, parallels to each and\nevery item of savagery mentioned by the early historians of Britain;\nand further, that anthropology shows clearly enough that among the\ncustoms and beliefs of primitive races there are to be found parallels\nto every item of custom and belief recorded of early Britain. This\ngets rid of one of our greatest difficulties, and disposes of Dr.\nSullivan's unwarranted assertion to the contrary (_ante_, p. 113). The\nrecorded customs and beliefs of early Britain are proved by this means\nnot to be impossible or improbable factors in the elements of the\nBritish prehistoric race. It will not be possible to term them\ninventions of romance or of false testimony, simply on the ground that\nthey are not found elsewhere. On the contrary it will, I think, be\ndifficult to resist the conclusion that inventions such as these,\ncovering a wide and ascertained area of sociological and early\nreligious development, could hardly have been made by historians\nhaving the limited range of knowledge possessed by the native and\nclassical writers who are responsible for the facts. It is an easy,\nbut not a satisfactory method of criticism to declare what is not to\none's liking to be invention and romance, and it has until late years\nbeen difficult to combat such an argument. The battle has raged round\nwordy disputes, the merits of which are governed by the abilities of\nthe respective disputants; that this is no longer possible is due to\nthe fact that there have entered into the fray the methods and results\nof folklore which prevent the terms invention and romance from being\napplied, except where there is good independent reason for their use.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI have now dealt with all the points which appear to be necessary in\norder to show the inherent relationship of folklore to history, and I\nhave shown causes for resisting the claims of mythology to appropriate\nwhat it chooses of folklore, and then to reject all the rest from\nconsideration. I have dealt (1) with examples of local traditions and\nhero-traditions, in their relation to history and historical\nconditions; (2) with the folk-tale in its retention of details of\nearly historic conditions, and of the picture of early tribal\norganisation, and in that its structure is based upon the events of\nsavage social conceptions; (3) with the early laws and rules of tribal\nsociety preserved by tradition and accepted in historical times; (4)\nwith the claims of mythology to interpret the meaning of folk-tales,\nand the reasons for rejecting this claim; and (5) with the treatment\nby historians of statements by classical writers as to the condition\nof the peoples inhabiting Britain before the dawn of civilisation. I\nthink it will be admitted that, without pretending in any way to have\nexhausted the evidence, or even to have thoroughly comprehended and\nsatisfactorily stated it under each of these heads, a very\nconsiderable claim has been made out for the historical value of\nfolklore. If so much has been gained it will rest with folklorists to\npursue investigations on these lines, and it will remain with the\nhistorian to consider the results wherever his research leads him into\ndomains where the evidence of folklore is obtainable.\n\nIt will be seen that the problems which the two sciences, history and\nfolklore, have to solve in conjunction are not a few and that they are\nextremely complex. They cannot be solved if history and folklore are\nseparated; they may be solved if the professors in each work together,\nboth recognising what there is of value in the other. History in its\nearliest stages is either entirely dependent upon foreign\nauthorities, or it has to follow the practice of the earlier and\nunscientific historian and to deny that there is any history, or at\nall events any history worth recording, before the advent, perhaps the\naccidental advent, of an historian on native ground. History in its\nlater stages is dependent upon the personal tastes or ability of each\nhistorian for the record of events and facts. Folklore in its earliest\nstages has brought down from the most ancient times memories of\nancient polity, faith, custom, rite, and thought. In its later stages\nit has preserved custom, rite, and belief amid the attacks of the\nprogressive civilisation which has been developed, and it has clothed\nheroes of later times with the well-worn trappings of those of old.\nCombined history and folklore can restore much of the picture of early\ntimes, and can work through the fulness of later times with some\ndegree of success. There is needed for this work, however, a clear\nconception of the position properly held by both sciences, together\nwith established rules of research. This is more particularly needed\nin the department of folklore. I do not pretend to be able to\nformulate these rules. In the subjects dealt with in this chapter I\nhave indicated a few of the points which must be raised, and my object\nwill be in the remaining chapters to set forth some of the conditions\nwhich it appears to me necessary to consider in connection with the\nproblems with which folklore is concerned as one of the historical\nsciences.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Mr. Kemble gives an important illustration of this proposition in\nhis _Saxons in England_, i. 331.\n\n[2] I would refer the reader to Prof. York Powell's brilliant lecture\non \"A Survey of Modern History,\" printed in his biography by Mr. Oliver\nElton, ii. 1-13, for an admirable summary of this view.\n\n[3] _View of the State of Ireland_, 1595, p. 478.\n\n[4] Asser's _Life of Alfred_, by W. H. Stevenson, 262.\n\n[5] It is not worth while unduly emphasising this point, but the\npeculiar habit of classing fictional literature as folklore and\nthereupon condemning the value of tradition is very prevalent. Mr.\nNutt, in dealing with the Troy stories in British history, adopts this\nmethod, and denies the existence of historic tradition on the strength\nof it, _Folklore_, xii. 336-9.\n\n[6] This expression was recently allowed in our old friend _Notes and\nQueries_ in a singularly unsuitable case, 10th ser. vii. 344.\n\n[7] I am not sure this is always the fault of those who are not\nfolklorists. I recently came across a dictum of one of the most\ndistinguished folklorists, Mr. Andrew Lang, which is certainly much in\nthe same direction. \"As a rule tradition is the noxious ivy that creeps\nabout historical truth, and needs to be stripped off with a ruthless\nhand. Tradition is a collection of venerable and romantic blunders. But\na tradition which clings to a permanent object in the landscape, a tall\nstone, a grassy, artificial tumulus, or even an old tree, may be\nunexpectedly correct.\"--_Morning Post_, 2 November, 1906.\n\n[8] It is worth while referring to Mr. MacRitchie's article in _Trans.\nInternational Folklore Congress_ on the historical aspect of Folklore;\nbut Professor York Powell has said the strongest word in its favour in\nhis all too short address as President of the Folklore Society, see\n_Folklore_, xv. 12-23.\n\n[9] Chapter xi. of Tylor's _Early History of Mankind_.\n\n[10] Spenser, _View of the State of Ireland_, 1595 (Morley reprint),\n77.\n\n[11] Perhaps the most remarkable testimony to the foundation of the\nfolk-tale and ballad in the events of history is to be found in a\nstatement made to the _Tribune_, 14 September, 1906, by Mr. Mitra, once\nproprietor and editor of the _Deccan Post_, with regard to the\nagitation against the partition of Bengal into two provinces. Mr. Mitra\ndeliberately states that \"the best test of finding out Hindu feeling\ntowards the British Government is to see whether there are any ballads\nor nursery rhymes in the Bengali language against the British. You can\nhave it from me, and I challenge contradiction, that there is no single\nballad or nursery rhyme in the Bengali language which is against the\nBritish.\" This is where the soul of the people speaks out.\n\n[12] It is printed, and I have used this print, in Blomefield's\n_History of Norfolk_ (1769), iii. 506, from which source I quote the\nfacts concerning it. Sir William Dugdale's account goes on to connect\nit with a monument in the church, but this part of the local version is\nto be considered presently.\n\n[13] See the _Diary_ printed by the Surtees Society, p. 220.\n\n[14] The legend was also printed in that popular folk-book, _New Help\nto Discourse_, so often printed between 1619 and 1656, and Mr. Axon\ntranscribed this version for the _Antiquary_, xi. 167-168; and see my\nnotes in _Gent. Mag. Lib. English Traditions_, 332-336.\n\n[15] I happen to possess the original cutting of this version preserved\namong my great-grandfather's papers.\n\n[16] These words are, \"I am not a Bigot in Dreams, yet I cannot help\nacknowledging the Relation of the above made a strong Impression on\nme.\"\n\n[17] _Leeds Mercury_, January 3rd, 1885, communicated by Mr. Wm.\nGrainge of Harrogate.\n\n[18] Mr. Axon says it is current in Lancashire and in Cornwall,\n_Antiquary_, xi. 168; Sir John Rhys gives two Welsh versions in his\n_Celtic Folklore_, ii. 458-462, 464-466; a Yorkshire version in ballad\nform is to be found in Castillo's _Poems in the North Yorkshire\nDialect_ (1878), under the title of \"T' Lealholm Chap's lucky dreeam,\"\n_Antiquary_, xii. 121; an Ayrshire variant relates to the building of\nDundonald Castle, and is given in Chambers's _Pop. Rhymes of Scotland_,\n236.\n\n[19] Blomefield, _Hist. of Norfolk_, iii. 507, suggests that the animal\ncarving represents a bear. There is nothing to confirm this and readers\nmay judge for themselves by reference to the illustrations, which are\nfrom photographs taken in Swaffham Church.\n\n[20] I discussed the details in the _Antiquary_, vol. x. pp. 202-205.\n\n[21] This story was communicated by \"W.F.\" to the _St. James's\nGazette_, March 15th, 1888. Its continuation, in order to point a\nmoral, does not belong to the real story, which is contained in the\npart I have quoted.\n\n[22] _Saga Library_, _Heimskringla_, iii. 126.\n\n[23] These have been collected and commented upon with his usual\nlearning and research, by Mr. Hartland in the _Antiquary_, xv. 45-48.\nBlomefield, in his _History of Norfolk_, iii. 507, points out that the\nsame story is found in Johannes Fungerus' _Etymologicon Latino-Graecum_,\npp. 1110-1111, though it is here narrated of a man at Dort in Holland,\nand in _Histoires admirables de nostre temps_, par Simon Goulart,\nGeneva, 1614, iii. p. 366. Professor Cowell, in the third volume of the\n_Cambridge Antiquarian Society Transactions_, p. 320, has printed a\nremarkable parallel of the story which is to be found in the great\nPersian metaphysical and religious poem called the Masnavi, written by\nJalaluddin, who died about 1260. J. Grimm discussed these\ntreasure-on-the-bridge stories in _Kleinere Schriften_, iii. 414-428,\nand did not attach much value to them.\n\n[24] It is not unimportant in this connection to find that London\nitself assumes an exceptional place in tradition. Mr. Frazer notes a\nGerman legend about London, _Golden Bough_ (2nd ed.), iii. 235;\nPausanias, v. 292. Mr. Dale has drawn attention to the Anglo-Saxon\nattitude towards Roman buildings in his _National Life in Early English\nLiterature_, 35.\n\n[25] See _Archaeologia_, xxv. 600; xxix. 147; xl. 54; _Arch. Journ._, i.\n112.\n\n[26] I have worked this point out in my _Governance of London_.\n\n[27] Bishop Kennett, quoted in _Notes and Queries_, fourth series, ix.\n258.\n\n[28] Mommsen's account of the Pontifex Maximus should be consulted,\n_Hist. Rome_, i. 178; and _cf._ Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, 114, 147,\n214.\n\n[29] Mrs. Gomme, _Traditional Games_, i. 347.\n\n[30] Bingley, _North Wales_, 1814, p. 252.\n\n[31] See my _Folklore Relics of Early Village Life_, 29; Tylor,\n_Primitive Culture_, i. 97. This case was reported in the newspapers at\nthe time of its occurrence. It came to England from the _London and\nChina Telegraph_, from which the _Newcastle Chronicle_, 9 February,\n1889, copied the following statement:--\n\n\"The boatmen on the Ganges, near Rajmenal, somehow came to believe that\nthe Government required a hundred thousand human heads as the\nfoundation for a great bridge, and that the Government officers were\ngoing about the river in search of heads. A hunting party, consisting\nof four Europeans, happening to pass in a boat, were set upon by the\none hundred and twenty boatmen, with the cry 'Gulla Katta,' or\ncut-throats, and only escaped with their lives after the greatest\ndifficulty.\"\n\n[32] I have worked out this fact in my _Governance of London_, 46-68,\n202-229.\n\n[33] See Turner, _Hist. of Anglo-Saxons_, ii. 207-222; _Y Cymmrodor_,\nxi. 61-101.\n\n[34] A passage in William of Malmesbury points to the fact of the\nBretons in the time of Athelstan looking upon themselves as exiles\nfrom the land of their fathers. Radhod, a prefect of the church at\nAvranches, writes to King Athelstan as \"Rex gloriose exultator\necclesiae ... deprecamur atque humiliter invocamus qui in exulatu et\ncaptivitate nostris meritis et peccatis, in Francia commoramur\" etc.,\n_De Gestis Regum Anglorum_ (Rolls Ed.), i. 154.\n\n[35] Rhys, _Celtic Folklore_, ii. 466. Sir John Rhys acknowledges his\nindebtedness to me for lending him my Swaffham notes, but at that time\nI had not formed the views stated above and Sir John Rhys confessed his\ndifficulty in classifying and characterising these stories (p. 456).\n\n[36] In the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, anno 418, and in _Ethelward's\nChronicle_, A.D. 418, it is recorded that \"those of the Roman race who\nwere left in Britain bury their treasures in pits, thinking that\nhereafter they might have better fortune, which never was the case.\"\n\n[37] Buried treasure legends are worth examining carefully, especially\nwith reference to their geographical distribution, with a view of\nascertaining how far they follow the direction of the Roman, English,\nDanish and Norman Conquests. See Henderson, _Folklore of Northern\nCounties_, 320, for Yorkshire examples, and _Folklore Record_, i. 16,\nfor an interesting Sussex example.\n\nThe Danish part of Lincoln, near Sleaford, has numerous treasure\nlegends, see Rev. G. Oliver, _Existing Remains of Ancient Britons\nbetween Lincoln and Sleaford_, pp. 29 _et seq._\n\nMr. W. J. Andrew has proved in the _British Numismatic Journal_ (1st\nser. i. 9-59) that traditions of buried treasure may be verified a\nthousand years after the laying down of the hoard. This has reference\nto the famous Cuerdale find of coins. The people of Walton-le-Dale, on\nthe Ribble, had a legend that if you stood on a certain headland and\nlooked up the valley to Ribchester \"you would gaze over the greatest\ntreasure that England had ever seen.\" The farmers tried excavations,\nand the divining rod is said to have been used.\n\nThe tradition was true. In May, 1840, the hoard was accidentally found,\nnear Cuerdale Hall, within forty yards of the stream, by men who were\nrepairing the southern bank. A willow tree, still in its prime, was\nplanted to mark the spot. We do not know how much bullion was scattered\nby the finders, but there was recovered a mass of ingots, armlets,\nchains, rings, and so on, amounting to 1000 oz., with over 7000 silver\ncoins. They lay in a crumbling leaden case, within a decomposed chest\nof wood. There were about 1060 English silver coins, whereof 919 were\nof the reign of King Alfred. There were 2020 from Northumbrian\necclesiastical mints, and 2534 of King Canute, with 1047 foreign coins,\nmainly French. The treasure had belonged to the Scandinavian invaders\nin the host of the Danish Kings of Northumbria, and very many bore the\nmark of York, the Danish capital. The chest was the treasure-chest of\nthe Danes. The money had been seized in England, 890-897; on French\ncoasts, 897-910; and collected among the Danes of Northumbria about\n911. In that year, we know, the Danes raided Mercia, and were followed\nby the English King and thoroughly defeated. Their treasurer, Osberth,\nwas killed, and it is argued that the Danes fell back by the Roman\nroad, and were trying to cross into Northumbria by the ford at\nCuerdale, but that, the ford being dangerous, they were obliged to bury\ntheir treasure-chest forty yards on the southern bank of the river.\nThey were unable to cross, were cooped up in a bend of the stream, and\nwere all put to the sword. Mr. Lang discussed this from the folklore\npoint of view in the _Morning Post_, 2nd November, 1906, and concludes\nthat \"granting that none who knew the site of the deposit escaped, the\ntheory marches well, and quite accounts for the presence of the hoard\nwhere it was found. The Danish rearguard defending the line of the\nDarwen would know that their treasure was hurried forward and probably\nconcealed, but would not know the exact spot.\"\n\nAnother good example is recorded in the _Antiquary_, xiv. 228. Further\nHenderson notes that the Borderers of England and Scotland entrusted\ntheir buried treasure to the brownie (_Folklore of Northern Counties_,\n248). This is exactly the same idea which exists throughout India.\n\"Hidden treasures are under the special guardianship of supernatural\nbeings. The Singhalese, however, divide the charge between demons and\ncobra capellas. Various charms are resorted to by those who wish to\ngain the treasures. A puja is sufficient with the cobras, but the\ndemons require a sacrifice. Blood of a human being is the most\nimportant, but the Kappowas have hitherto confined themselves to a\nsacrifice of a white cock, combining its blood with their own, drawn by\na slight puncture in the hand or foot. A Tamil, however, has resorted\nto human sacrifice as instanced by a case reported in the _Ceylon\nTimes_.\"--_Indian Antiquary_, 1873. ii. p. 125.\n\n[38] Morris, _Heimskringla_, ii. 13.\n\n[39] Laing's _Heimskringla_, ii. 260.\n\n[40] Rhys, _The Arthurian Legend_, 7. Squire, in his recent _Mythology\nof the British Islands_, states the case for \"the mythological coming\nof Arthur\" in cap. xxi. of his book.\n\n[41] As, for instance, in the case of Taliesin and Ossian, see Squire,\n_Mythology of the British Islands_, 318; Rhys, _Celtic Mythology_, 551;\nNutt's Notes to _Mabinogion_.\n\nI suppose the most ancient example of the duplication process is that\nof Dion Cassius (iii. 5), who suggests an earlier Romulus and Remus in\norder to account for the early occupation of the Palatine Hill at Rome.\nMiddleton's _Anc. Rome_, 45.\n\n[42] It is interesting to find that, with independent investigation,\nMr. Bury explains on the lines I adopt the traditional part of the life\nof St. Patrick. See his _Life of St. Patrick_, p. 111.\n\n[43] Freeman, _Hist. Norm. Conq._, iv. 467.\n\n[44] Wright, _Essays_, i. 244, notes this point; see also Freeman,\n_Hist. Norm. Conq._, iv. 828, and the preface to my edition of\nMacfarlane's _Camp of Refuge_ (Historical Novels Series), where I have\ndiscussed this subject at length.\n\n[45] _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, iii. 52.\n\n[46] Russell, _Kett's Rebellion_, p. 6.\n\n[47] Kemble's _Horae Ferales_, 108.\n\n[48] Perhaps the most interesting example in a minor way comes from\nShrewsbury. In the Abbey Church, forming part of a font, is the upper\nstone of a cross (supposed to have been the Weeping Cross) which was\ndiscovered at St. Giles's churchyard. It had been immemorially fixed in\nthe ditch bank, and all traces of its origin were quite lost, except\nthat an old lady, who was born in 1724, remembered having seen in her\nyouth, persons kneeling before this stone and praying. The transmission\nof the tradition through very nearly three centuries proved correct,\nfor on its being loosened by the frosts of a severe winter, it fell,\nand its religious distinction became immediately apparent from the\nsculpture with which it was adorned.--_Eddowes' Shrewsbury Journal_,\n5th October, 1889.\n\n[49] _Gent. Mag. Lib. Popular Superstitions_, 121. The importance of\nthis tradition may be tested by reference to my book on the _Governance\nof London_, 96-98.\n\n[50] _Archaeologia_, xxvi. 369-370. One could give many additional\nexamples from all parts of the country, and undoubtedly they are worth\ncollecting. I cannot refrain from quoting the following, as it is from\nan out-of-the-way source. At Seagry, in Wilts, is an ancient farm, one\nfield of which was known as \"Peter's Orchard.\" The author of a local\nhistory records the following: \"It has been handed down from generation\nto generation that in a field on this farm a church was built on the\nsite of an ancient heathen burial ground. In order to test the accuracy\nof this tradition, in the autumn of 1882 I had excavations made on the\nspot, which I will now describe. The field contains about ten acres,\nand presents a very singular appearance. In removing the sods, about\ntwo feet from the surface we discovered extensive stone foundations,\nextending for a considerable distance over the field. From the charred\nappearance of the stones they had evidently suffered from fire, thus\nsupporting the tradition of some of the oldest inhabitants that the\nancient church had been destroyed by fire. On continuing the search we\nfound, about two feet below these foundations, a quantity of early\nBritish pottery, the remains of broken urns, some charred bones, and\nheads of small spears. The following is an extract from a letter which\nI have received from a gentleman, whose family have been connected with\nthis parish for over two hundred years, and who has given me great\nassistance. He says: My father was born at Startley in 1784, and\nremained there until about 1840. Both he and my grandfather were deeply\nimbued with old folklore. I well remember them constantly speaking of\nthe firm belief handed down to them of the heathen burial places at\nSeagry, and of the supposed ruins of a church and some religious house\nat Seagry. I think the discoveries made (on the very spot mentioned by\ntradition) in August, 1882, are abundant proof that after the lapse of\nmore than nine centuries actual verification of the carefully\ntransmitted tradition has at last been found.\"--_Bath Herald_, 1st\nSeptember, 1883. If references to other examples were needed I should\nlike to note Sir William Wilde's illustration as to \"how far the\nlegend, the fairy tale, the local tradition, or the popular\nsuperstition may have been derived from absolute historic\nfact.\"--_Lough Corrib_, 121, 123.\n\n[51] _Echoes from the Counties_ (1880), p. 30.\n\n[52] Grierson, _The Silent Trade_ (1903).\n\n[53] Pearson's _Chances of Death_, ii. 90. The reader should consult\nDr. Pearson's entire study on this subject, chapters ix. and x., which\nmay be compared with Mr. MacCulloch's _Childhood of Fiction_, 5-15, and\nmore particularly with Mr. Hartland's _Science of Fairy Tales_.\n\n[54] In 1881 I read a paper before the Folklore Society on \"Some\nIncidents in the story of the Three Noodles by means of reference to\nfacts,\" _Folklore Record_, iv. 211, and in 1883 I published in the\n_Antiquary_, two papers on \"Notes on Incidents in Folk-tales,\" based\nupon the same idea.\n\n[55] Introduction, p. lxix.\n\n[56] Introduction, p. lxxvii.\n\n[57] Page 12.\n\n[58] _Ibid._, p. 26.\n\n[59] _Ibid._, p. 5.\n\n[60] _Tales of the Highlands_, i. p. 251.\n\n[61] Kennedy, _loc. cit._, p. 77.\n\n[62] _Ibid._, p. 90.\n\n[63] See Beda, _Hist. Ecclesia_, lib. i. cap. 25.\n\n[64] See vol. i. p. 253.\n\n[65] Miss Frere's _Old Deccan Days_, p. 279.\n\n[66] AElian, _Var. Hist._, lib. xiii. cap. xxxiii.\n\n[67] _Folklore Record_, vol. iv. p. 57.\n\n[68] _Asiatic Researches_, xvii. p. 502.\n\n[69] _Folklore Record_, vol. iii. p. 284.\n\n[70] Campbell's _Popular Tales of the West Highlands_, i. 308.\n\n[71] Joyce, _Old Celtic Romances_, 38, 75, 153, 177, 270. In the _Silva\nGadelica_, by Mr. Standish O'Grady, the assembly is described sitting\nin a circle, vol. ii. p. 159, and Tara is also described, vol. ii. 264,\n358, 360, 384.\n\n[72] Miss Cox's admirable study and analysis of the Cinderella\ngroup of stories includes the Catskin variants, which number\nseventy-seven.--_Cinderella_, pp. 53-79.\n\n[73] _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 62.\n\n[74] Sproat's _Scenes and Studies of Savage Life_, p. 96.\n\n[75] See his _Early Hebrew Life_, p. 85.\n\n[76] Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_, 27-28.\n\n[77] Todd and Herbert, _Irish Version of Nennius_, p. 89.\n\n[78] _Indian Antiq._, iii. 32.\n\n[79] _Laws of Manu_ (Buehler), ix. 127; _Apastamba Gautama_ (Buehler),\nxxviii. 18.\n\n[80] Sir Henry Maine in his _Early Law and Custom_, p. 91.\n\n[81] A most remarkable instance of an actual case of running away from\na marriage, resulting in adventures which might easily become folk-tale\nadventures if the story were once started on its traditional life, is\nto be found in Shooter's _Kafirs of Natal and the Zulu Country_, pp.\n60-71.\n\n[82] _West Highland Tales_, vol. i. p. lxix.\n\n[83] Kennedy's _Fireside Stories of Ireland_, p. 64.\n\n[84] _Old Deccan Days_, p. 52.\n\n[85] _Ibid._, p. 233.\n\n[86] \"Standing-place.\"\n\n[87] _Journ. Ethnol. Soc._, _loc. cit._\n\n[88] _New Statistical Account of Scotland_, xiv. 273.\n\n[89] Ure's _Agriculture of Kinross_, 57.\n\n[90] _Archaeologia_, l. 195-214.\n\n[91] Du Chaillu's _Land of the Midnight Sun_, i. 393.\n\n[92] Tupper, _Punjab Customary Law_, ii. 188.\n\n[93] _Cobden Club Essays--Primogeniture._\n\n[94] Morris, _Saga Library_, ii. 194.\n\n[95] _Journ. Ethnol. Soc._, ii. 336.\n\n[96] Elton, _Origins of English History_, 91; _cf._ Du Chaillu, _Land\nof the Midnight Sun_, i. 393; Morris's _Sagas_, ii. 194.\n\n[97] Breeks, _Hill Tribes of India_, 108.\n\n[98] Mavor's _Collection of Voyages_, iv. 41.\n\n[99] _Anecdotes and Traditions_ (Camden Soc.), 85.\n\n[100] _Mythologie der Volkssagen und Volksmaerchen._\n\n[101] Geiger, _Hist. Sweden_, 31, 32.\n\n[102] Elton, _Origins of English History_, 92.\n\n[103] Aubrey, _Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme_, 14.\n\n[104] Nutt, _Legend of the Holy Grail_, 44.\n\n[105] _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1850, i. 250-252.\n\n[106] _Journ. Ethnol. Soc._, ii. 337.\n\n[107] Elton's _Origins_, 92.\n\n[108] Mr. Jacobs (_Folklore_, i. 405) objected to my interpretation of\nthis story because--first, the Latin rhyme appearing in the Gaelic\ntale, the twelfth-century Latin story and the German inscription \"tell\nfor the origination of the story in one single place in historic\ntimes;\" and, secondly, because a Kashmir story (Knowles' _Folk-tales of\nKashmir_, 241), based on the same main incident, omits the minor\nincident of the mallet altogether. The answer to the first objection is\nthat the Latin rhyme has been attached, in historic times, to the\nancient folk-tale; and to the second objection, that the Kashmir story\npreserves the main incident of surrender of property upon reaching old\nage, and omits the more savage incident of killing, because the Kashmir\npeople are in a stage of culture which still allowed of the surrender\nof property, but, like the Scandinavians, did not allow of the killing\nof the aged. Similarly, an English parallel to this form of the variant\nis preserved by De la Pryme in his _Diary_ (Surtees Society), 162. It\nmust be remembered that the Kashmiris occupy a land which is referred\nto by Herodotos (iii. 99-105) as in the possession of people who killed\ntheir aged (_cf._ Latham, _Ethnology of India_, 199); and if my reading\nof the evidence is correct, this is also the case of the Highland\npeasant.\n\n[109] Dr. Pearson advocates statistical methods in his _Chances of\nDeath_, ii. 58, 75-77, and shows by examples the value of them.\n\n[110] MacCulloch, _Childhood of Fiction_: \"Some of the things which in\nthese old-world stories form their fascination, have had their origin\nin sordid fact and reality\" (p. vii).\n\n[111] Buehler, _Laws of Manu_, i.: \"In Vedic mythology Manu is the heros\neponymos of the human race and by his nature belongs both to gods and\nto men\" (p. 57). _Cf._ Burnell and Hopkins, _Ordinances of Manu_, p.\n25.\n\n[112] _Early Law and Custom_, 5.\n\n[113] Pausanias, iii. 2(4).\n\n[114] Maine, _Ancient Law_, 4; Grote, _Hist. of Greece_, iii. 101.\n\n[115] Ortolan, _Hist. Roman Law_, 50; Maine, _Early Law and Custom_, 6.\n\n[116] Morris, _Saga Library_, i. p. xxx; Dasent, _Burnt Njal_, i. xlvi.\n\n[117] _Early Law and Custom_, 162.\n\n[118] Manx Society Publications, xviii. 21-22.\n\n[119] Strabo, lib. xv. cap. 1, pp. 709, 717; J. D. Mayne, _Hindu Law\nand Usage_, 4, 13.\n\n[120] Mackenzie, _Roman Law_, 11; _cf._ Pais, _Anc. Legends of Roman\nHist._, 139.\n\n[121] Dasent, _Burnt Njal_, i. p. lvii, and Vigfusson and Powell,\n_Origines Islandicae_, i. 348.\n\n[122] _Anc. Laws of Ireland_, iv. p. vii.\n\n[123] This appears very strongly in the famous twelfth-century law case\nwhich Longchamp pleaded so successfully. _Rotuli curia Regis_, i. p.\nlxii.\n\n[124] _Early Law and Custom_, 9; _cf._ Burnell and Hopkins, _Ordinances\nof Manu_, pp. xx, xxxi. It is worth while quoting here the following\ninteresting note from a letter from the Marquis di Spineto printed in\nClarke's _Travels_, viii. 417:--\n\n\"From the most remote antiquity men joined together, and wishing either\nto amuse themselves or to celebrate the praises of their gods sang\nshort poems to a fixed tune. Indeed, generally speaking, _the laws by\nwhich they were governed_, the events which had made the greatest\nimpression on their minds, the praises which they bestowed upon their\ngods or on their heroes were all sung long before they were written,\nand I need not mention that according to Aristotle this is the reason\nwhy the Greeks gave the same appellation to laws and to songs.\"\n\n[125] The references are all given in Smith's _Dict. of Greek and Roman\nAntiquities_ sub [Greek: nomos]. Aristotle in the _Problems_, 19, 28,\ndefinitely says, \"Before the use of letters men sang their laws that\nthey might not forget them, as the custom continues yet among the\nAgathyrsoi.\"\n\n[126] Lib. xii. cap. ii. 9.\n\n[127] _Hist. English Commonwealth_, 43.\n\n[128] _Anc. Laws of Ireland_, iv. pp. viii, x.\n\n[129] Hampson's _Origines Patriciae_, 106-107; Kemble, line 5763 _et\nseq._\n\n[130] Proctor's _History of the Book of Common Prayer_, p. 410.\n\n[131] _Hist. Eng. Commonwealth_, ii. p. cxxxvi. Littleton points out\nthe legal antiquity and importance of these words: \"no conveyance can\nbe made without them.\" See Wheatley's _Book of Common Prayer_ (quoting\nLittleton), p. 406.\n\n[132] The York manual had the additional clause, \"for fairer for\nfouler.\" See Wheatley, _loc. cit._, p. 406.\n\n[133] Palgrave, _loc. cit._\n\n[134] _Ibid._\n\n[135] _Manuale et processionale ad usum insiquis ecclesiae Evoracensis_,\nSurtees Society, 1875. See also _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1752, p. 171;\nProctor's _History of the Book of Common Prayer_, p. 409, for other\nexamples.\n\n[136] Palgrave, _English Commonwealth_, i. 43.\n\n[137] Chambers, _Popular Rhymes of Scotland_, 115.\n\n[138] Sinclair's _Stat. Acc. of Scotland_, x. 534.\n\n[139] Chambers, _Book of Days_, January 19; Nichols, _Fuller's\nWorthies_, 494.\n\n[140] _Diary of De la Pryme_ (Surtees Society), 126. It may be noted\nhere that Kelly, _Curiosities of Indo-European Traditions_, 179, notes\nthe preservation of an ancient law for the preservation of the oak and\nthe hazel in a traditional proverbial rhyme.\n\n[141] Hazlitt, _Tenures of Land_, 80; other examples refer to the\nHundred of Cholmer and Dancing, in Essex, 75; to Kilmersdon, in\nSomersetshire, 182; to Hopton, in Salop, 165. John of Gaunt is\nresponsible for many of these curious and interesting remains of tribal\nantiquity. Bisley's _Handbook of North Devon_, 28, refers to one\nrelating to the manor of Umberleigh, near Barnstaple, and I have a note\nfrom Mr. Edmund Wrigglesworth, of Hull, of a parallel to this being\npreserved by tradition only. There is a tradition respecting the estate\nof Sutton Park, near Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, which states that it\nformerly belonged to John of Gaunt, who gave it to an ancestor of the\npresent proprietor, one Roger Burgoyne, by the following grant:--\n\n \"I, John of Gaunt,\n Do give and do grant,\n To Roger Burgoyne\n And the heirs of his loin\n Both Sutton and Potton\n Until the world's rotten.\"\n\nPotton was a neighbouring village to Sutton. There is a moated site in\nthe park called \"John o' Gaunt's Castle,\" see _Notes and Queries_,\ntenth series, vi. 466. _Cf._ Aubrey, _Collections for Wilts_, 185, for\nan example at Midgehall; Cowell's _Law Interpreter_, 1607, and the\n_Dictionarum Rusticum_, 1704, for the custom of East and West Enborn,\nin Berks, which was made famous by Addison's _Spectator_ in 1714.\n\n[142] Sometimes these are called \"burlesque conveyances.\" See an\nexample quoted in _Hist. MSS. Commission_, v. 459.\n\n[143] It is well to bear in mind the great force of ancient tribal law,\nwhich was personal, upon localities. Nottingham is divided into two\nparts, one having primogeniture and the other junior right as the rule\nof descent. Southampton and Exeter have also local divisions. But\nperhaps the most striking example is at Breslau, where there\nco-existed, until 1st January, 1840, five different particular laws and\nobservances in regard to succession, the property of spouses, etc., the\napplication of which was limited to certain territorial jurisdictions;\nnot unfrequently the law varied from house to house, and it even\nhappened that one house was situated on the borders of different laws,\nto each of which, therefore, it belonged in part; Savigny, _Private\nInt. Law_, cap. i. sect. iv.\n\n[144] _Academy_, February, 1884; _Percy Reliques_, edit. Wheatley, i.\n384.\n\n[145] _Trans. British. Association_, 1847, p. 321.\n\n[146] Series No. V., published in 1895.\n\n[147] _Philological Society Papers_, 1870-2, pp. 18, 248; Dr. Murray\ngives the air in an appendix. See also a note by Mr. Danby Fry in the\n_Antiquary_, viii. 164-6, 269-70; and _The Hawick Tradition_, by R. S.\nCraig and Adam Laing, published at Hawick in 1898.\n\n[148] Squire, _Mythology of the British Islands_, 69.\n\n[149] Wilde, _Lough Corrib_, 210-248. Sir William Wilde has studied the\ndetails of this great fight with great care, and it is impossible to\nignore his evidence as to the monuments of it being extant to this day\namong the recorded antiquities of Ireland. The battle lasted four days.\nThe first day the Fir-Bolg had the best of the fighting, and\npillar-stones erected to the heroes who fell are still in situ.\nClogh-Fadha-Cunga, or long stone of Cong, which stood on the old road\nto the east of that village and a portion of which, six feet long, is\nstill in an adjoining wall, being erected to Adleo of the Dananians,\nand Clogh-Fadha-Neal, or long stone of the Neale, at the junction of\nthe roads passing northwards from Cross and Cong, commemorating the\nplace where the king stood during the battle. After the battle each\nFir-Bolg carried with him a stone and the head of a Danann to their\nking who erected a great cairn to commemorate the event, and this must\nbe the cairn of Ballymagibbon which stands on the road passing from\nCong to Cross. The well of Mean Uisge is identified as that mentioned\nin the MS. accounts of the battle, connected with a striking incident.\nAfter a careful examination of the locality, says Sir William Wilde,\nwith a transcript of the ancient MS. in his hand, he was convinced of\nthe identity of a stone heap standing within a circle as the place\nwhere the body of the loyal Fir-Bolg youth was burned. The second day's\nbattle surged northwards, and at the western shores of Lough Mask,\nSlainge Finn, the king's son, pursuing the two sons of Cailchu and\ntheir followers, slew them there, and \"seventeen flag stones were stuck\nin the ground in commemoration of their death,\" and by the margin of\nthe lake in the island of Inish-Eogan there stands this remarkable\nmonument to this hour. The line of the Fir-Bolg camp can still be\ntraced with wonderful accuracy. Caher-Speenan, the thorny fort, was a\npart of this camp, and still exists. More to the south-east, on the\nhill of Tongegee, are the remains of Caher-na-gree, the pleasant fort,\nand still further to the east are Lisheen, or little earthen fort, and\nCaher-Phaetre, pewter fort. Other forts also exist to give evidence both\nof the Fir-Bolg and the Danann lines. The Danann monuments are situate\nin the fields opposite the glebes of Nymphsfield. Five remarkable stone\ncircles still remain within the compass of a square mile, and there are\ntraces of others. The Fir-Bolgs were defeated on the fourth day and\ntheir king Eochy fell fighting to the last. \"A lofty cairn was raised\nover his body, and called Carn Eathach, from his name.\" On the grassy\nhill of Killower, or Carn, overlooking Lough Mask, stands to this hour\nthe most remarkable cairn in the west of Ireland, and there is little\ndoubt this is the one referred to in the ancient tradition as\ncommemorating the death of the last Fir-Bolg king in Erin.\n\n[150] Squire, _op. cit._, 76, 138.\n\n[151] Squire, _op. cit._, 230.\n\n[152] Squire, _Mythology_, 399.\n\n[153] See _Life and Writings_ by Oliver Elton, ii. 224.\n\n[154] _Governance of London_, 110-113.\n\n[155] _Celtic Heathendom_, 125-133.\n\n[156] See Bathurst, _Roman Antiquities of Lydney Park_, plates viii.,\nxiii., for the famous example dealt with by Sir John Rhys; and Stuart,\n_Caledonia Romana_, 309, plate ix. fig. 2, for a dedication to the\n\"Deities of Britain.\"\n\n[157] See his _Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments_, chap.\nxxii.\n\n[158] See _Folklore_, xv. 306-311, for the Greek evidence; and xvii.\n30, 164, for the Irish evidence.\n\n[159] Frazer, _Golden Bough_ (2nd ed.), iii. 236-316. Mr. Frazer,\nhowever, is inclined to review his explanation of bonfires as\nsun-charms; see his _Adonis, Attis and Osiris_, 151, note 4.\n\n[160] The specialisation of the fire cult is illustrated by the Hindu\nmyth of the Angiras, see Wilson, _Rig Veda Sanhita_, i. p. xxix.\n\n[161] Gummere, _Germanic Origins_, 400-2.\n\n[162] It will be convenient to give the references for the various\ndetails of savage life in Britain. The original extracts are all given\nin _Monumenta Historica Britannica_ and in Giles' _History of Ancient\nBritons_, vol. ii. Ireland--cannibalism: Strabo, iv. cap. 5, 4, p. 201,\nDiodoros, v. 32; promiscuous intercourse: Strabo; birth ceremony:\nSolinus, xxii. Scotland--human sacrifice: Solinus, xxii.; promiscuous\nintercourse, Solinus, cap. xxii., Xiphilinus from Dio in _Mon. Brit.\nHist._, p. lx., and St. Jerome adv. Jovin., v. ii. 201; nakedness,\nHerodian in _Mon. Brit. Hist._, p. lxiv, and Xiphilinus, _ibid._, p.\nlx. Britain--head-hunting, Strabo, iv. 1-4, pp. 199-201, Diodoros, v.\n29; tattooing, Caesar, _De bello Gallico_, v. 12, Pliny, _Nat. Hist._,\nxxii. i. (2); promiscuous intercourse, Caesar, _ibid._, v. 14,\nXiphilinus in _Mon. Brit. Hist._, p. lvii.\n\n[163] _History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings_, i. 14.\n\n[164] Innes' _Critical Essay_, 45, 51, 56, 240.\n\n[165] O'Curry's _Manners and Customs of Ancient Irish_, i. p. vi. Dr.\nWhitley Stokes has criticised O'Curry's translations as bad, \"not from\nignorance, but to a desire to conceal a fact militating against\ntheories of early Irish civilisation.\"--_Revue Celtique_, iii. 90-101.\n\n[166] Turner, _Hist. of Anglo-Saxons_, i. 64-74; Palgrave, _Eng. Com._,\ni. 467-8.\n\n[167] Giles' _History of Anc. Britons_, i. 231, referring to parallel\ncustoms among the Chinese.\n\n[168] Elton, _Origins of English History_, 82.\n\n[169] Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 55.\n\n[170] _Celtic Heathendom_, 320, note.\n\n[171] I have dealt with this in my _Ethnology in Folklore_, 36-40.\n\n[172] Skene, _Celtic Scotland_, i. 59, 84.\n\n[173] Pearson, _Hist. of England during the Early and Middle Ages_, i.\n15, 21, 35.\n\n[174] Ramsay, _Foundations of England_, i. 9, 11, 30.\n\n[175] Lang, _Hist. of Scotland_, i. 3-5.\n\n[176] Joyce, _Social Hist. of Ireland_, i. 19.\n\n[177] In addition to Mr. Lang and Dr. Joyce, who are folklorists as\nwell as historians, and who as we have seen do deal with these records\nscientifically, the folklorist goes out of his way to reject these\nrecords. Thus Mr. Squire says that \"the imputation\" which Caesar makes\nas to polyandrous customs \"cannot be said to have been proved,\"\n_Mythology of the British Islands_, 30.\n\n[178] _Village Communities_, 17.\n\n[179] _Principles of Sociology_, i. 714.\n\n[180] _Arch. Cambrensis_, 6th ser. v. 3.\n\n[181] _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, xx. 259.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\n\n\nThe materials of folklore consist of traditional tales (so called) and\ntraditional customs and superstitions (so called), the feature of both\ngroups being that at the time of first being recorded and reduced to\nwriting they existed only by the force of tradition. There is no fixed\ntime for the record. It is sometimes quite early, as, for instance,\nthe examples which come to us from historians; it is generally quite\nlate, namely, the great mass of examples which, during the past\ncentury or so, have been collected directly from the lips or\nobservances of the people, sometimes by the curious traveller or\nantiquary, lately by the professed folklorist.\n\nThe consideration of the relationship of history and folklore has\ncleared the ground for definitions and method. Before the material of\nwhich folklore consists can be considered by the light of method, we\nmust get rid of definitions which are often applied to folklore in its\nattributed sense. Folk-tales are not fiction or art, were not invented\nfor amusement, are not myth in the sense of being imaginative\nonly.[182] Customs and superstitions are not the result of ignorance\nand stupidity. These attributes are true only if folk-tales, customs,\nand superstitions are compared with the literary productions and with\nthe science and the culture of advanced civilisation; and this\ncomparison is exactly that which should never be undertaken, though\nunfortunately it is that which is most generally adopted. The\nfolk-tale may be lent on occasion to the artist--to Mr. Lang, to Mr.\nJacobs, and their many copyists; and these artists may rejoice at the\nwonderful results of the unconscious art that resides in these\nproducts of tradition, but the folk-tale must not be wholly\nsurrendered. It does not belong to them. It does not belong to art at\nall, but to science. That it is artistic in form is an addition to its\ncharacteristics, but has nothing whatever to do with its fundamental\nfeatures. Similarly with legend. It may be lent to Malory, to\nTennyson, to Longfellow, to the literary bards of the romance period,\nfor the purpose of weaving together their story of the wonderful; but\nit must not be surrendered to the romancist, and, above all things,\nthe romances must never be allowed to enter the domain of folklore.\nRomances may be stripped of their legends so that the source of\nlegendary material may be fully utilised, but the romances themselves\nbelong to literature, and must remain within their own portals. And so\nwith customs. They may be pleasing and reveal some of the beauties of\nthe older joyousness of life which has passed away, it is to be\nregretted, from modern civilisation; they may be revived in May-day\ncelebrations, in pageants, in providing our schools with games which\ntell of the romance of living. But they do not belong to the lover of\nthe beautiful or to the revivalists. Equally with the folk-tale they\nbelong to science. And so also with superstitions. The Psychical\nResearch Society, the spiritualists, the professional successors of\nthe mediaeval witch and wizard, may turn their attention to traditional\nsuperstitions; but the folklorist refuses to hand them over, and\nclaims them for science.\n\nThis use of traditional material for modern purposes is not the only\ndanger to proper definitions. There is also its appearance in the\nearlier stages of literature. The traditional narrative, the myth, the\nfolk-tale or the legend, is not dependent upon the text in which it\nappears for the first time. That text, as we have it, was not written\ndown by contemporary or nearly contemporary authority. Before it had\nbecome a written document it had lived long as oral tradition.[183] In\nsome cases the written document is itself centuries old, the record\nof some early chronicler or some early writer who did not make the\nrecord for tradition's sake. In other cases the written document is\nquite modern, the record of a professed lover of tradition. This\nunequal method of recording tradition is the main source of the\ndifficulty in the way of those who cannot accept tradition as a record\nof fact. In all cases the test of its value and the interpretation of\nits testimony are matters which need special study and examination\nbefore the exact value of each tradition is capable of being\ndetermined. The date when and the circumstances in which a tradition\nis first reduced to literary form are important factors in the\nevidence as to the credibility of the particular form in which the\ntradition is preserved; but they are not all the factors, nor do they\nof themselves afford better evidence when they are comparatively\nancient than forms of much later date and of circumstances far\ndifferent. It cannot be too often impressed upon the student of\ntradition that the tradition itself affords the chief if not the only\nsure evidence of its age, its origin, and its meaning; for the\npreservation of tradition is due to such varied influences that the\nmere fact of preservation, or the particular method or date of\npreservation, cannot be relied upon to give the necessary authority\nfor the authenticity of the tradition. Tradition can never assume the\nposition of written history, because it does not owe its origin, but\nonly its preservation, to writing.\n\nDocumentary material is examined as to its palaeographical features, as\nto the testimony afforded by its author or assumed author, as to its\ncredibility in dealing with contemporary events or persons, as to its\ndate, and in other ways according to the nature of the document.\nTraditional material has nothing to do with all this. It has no\npalaeography; it has no author, and if a personal author is assigned to\nany given fragment or element it is generally safe to ignore the\ntradition as the product of a later age; it does not deal with persons\nnor, as a rule, with specific events; it has no date. It has therefore\nto undergo a process of its own before it can be accepted as\nhistorical evidence, and this process, if somewhat tedious, is all the\nmore necessary because of the tender material of which tradition is\ncomposed. This will be made clearer if we understand exactly what the\ndifferent classes of tradition are and how they stand to each other.\n\nConsidering the materials of folklore in their true sense and not\ntheir attributed sense then, we may proceed to say something as to\nmethods. Definitions and rules are needed. No student can attack so\nimmense a subject without the aid of such necessary machinery, and it\nis because the attempt has been so often made ill-equipped in this\nrespect, that the science of folklore has suffered so much and has\nremained so long unrecognised. Already, in dealing with the\nrelationship of history and folklore, one or two necessary\ndistinctions in terms have been anticipated. We have discovered that\nthe impersonal folk-tale is distinguished in a fundamental manner from\nthe personal or local legend, and that the growth of mythology is a\nlater process than the growth of myth. These distinctions need,\nhowever, to be systematised and brought into relationship with other\nnecessary distinctions. The myth and the folk-tale are near\nrelations, but they are not identical, and it is clear that we need to\nknow something more about myth. Because mythic tradition has been\nfound to include many traditions, which of late years have been\nclaimed to belong to a definitely historical race of people, it must\nnot be identified with history. This claim is based upon two facts,\nthe presence of myth in the shape of the folk-tale and the\npreservation of much mythic tradition beyond the stage of thought to\nwhich it properly belongs by becoming attached to an historical event,\nor series of events, or to an historical personage, and in this way\ncarrying on its life into historic periods and among historic peoples.\nThe first position has resulted in a wholesale appropriation of the\nfolk-tale to the cause of the mythologists; the second position has\nhitherto resulted either in a disastrous appropriation of the entire\ntradition to mythology, or in a still more disastrous rejection both\nof the tradition and the historical event round which it clusters.\nHistorians doubting the myth doubt too the history; mythologists\ndoubting the history reject the myth from all consideration, and in\nthis way much is lost to history which properly belongs to it, and\nsomething is lost to myth.\n\nIf, therefore, I have hitherto laid undue stress upon the foundation\nof tradition in the actual facts of life, and upon the close\nassociation of tradition with historic fact, it is because this side\nof the question has been so generally neglected. Everything has been\nturned on to the mythic side. Folk-tales have been claimed as the\nexclusive property of the mythologists, and those who have urged their\nfoundation on the facts of real life have scarcely been listened to.\nThere is, however, no ground for the converse process to be\nadvocated. If tradition is not entirely mythology it is certainly not\nall founded on sociology, and the mythic tradition in the possession\nof a people advanced in culture has to be considered and accounted\nfor. It is myth in contact with history, and the contact compels\nconsideration of the result.\n\n\nI\n\nThe first necessity is for definitions. Careful attention to what has\nalready been said will reveal the fact that tradition contains three\nseparate classes, and I would suggest definition of these classes by a\nprecise application of terms already in use: The _myth_ belongs to the\nmost primitive stages of human thought, and is the recognisable\nexplanation of some natural phenomenon, some forgotten or unknown\nobject of human origin, or some event of lasting influence; the\n_folk-tale_ is a survival preserved amidst culture-surroundings of a\nmore advanced stage, and deals with events and ideas of primitive\ntimes in terms of the experience or of episodes in the lives of\nunnamed human beings; the _legend_ belongs to an historical personage,\nlocality, or event. These are new definitions, and are suggested in\norder to give some sort of exactness to the terms in use. All these\nterms--myth, folk-tale, and legend--are now used indiscriminately with\nno particular definiteness. The possession of three such distinct\nterms forms an asset which should be put to its full use, and this\ncannot be done until we agree upon a definite meaning for each.\n\nThe first place must be given to mythic tradition. This is not\nspecial to our own, or to any one branch of the human race. It belongs\nto all--to the Hindu, the Greek, the Slav, the Teuton, the Celt, the\nSemite, and the savage. It goes back to a period of human history\nwhich has only tradition for its authority, in respect of which no\ncontemporary records exist, and which relates to a time when the\nancestors of now scattered peoples lived together, and when they were\nstruggling from the position of obedient slaves to all the fears which\nunknown nature inflicted on them, to that of observers of the forces\nof nature.\n\nTraditions which are properly classed as myth are those which are too\nancient to be identified with historical personages, and too little\nrealistic to be a relation of historical episodes. They are rather the\nexplanations given by primitive philosophers of events which were\nbeyond their ken, and yet needed and claimed explanation. In this\nclass of tradition we are in touch with the struggles of the earliest\nancestors of man to learn about the unknown. Our own research in the\nrealms of the unknown we dignify by the name and glories of science.\nThe research of our remote ancestors was of like kind, though the\ndomain of the unknown was so different from our own. It was primitive\nscience.\n\nThe best type of this class of myth is, I think, the creation\nmyth.[184] Everywhere, almost, man has for a moment stood apart and\nasked himself the question, Whence am I?--stood apart from the\nstruggle for existence when that struggle was in its most severe\nstages. The answer he has given himself was the answer of the Darwin\nof his period. From the narrow observation of the natural man and his\nsurroundings, governed by the enormous impressions of his own life,\nthe answer has obviously not been scientific in our sense of the term.\nBut it was scientific. It was the science of primitive man, and if we\nhave to reject it as science not so good as our science, nay, as not\nscience at all judged by our standard, we must not deny to primitive\nman the claim of having preceded modern man in his observation and\ninterpretation of the world of nature.\n\nThe range of the creation myth is almost world-wide. It includes\nexamples from all quarters, and examples of great beauty as well as of\nsingular, almost grotesque hideousness; the New Zealand myth is surely\nthe best type of the former, and perhaps the Fijian of the latter. As\nMr. Lang says: \"all the cosmogonic myths waver between the theory of\nconstruction, or rather of reconstruction and the theory of evolution\nvery rudely conceived.\"[185]\n\nIt is not necessary to quote a large number of examples, because I am\nnot concerned with their variety nor with their essentials. I am only\nanxious to point out their existence as evidence of the scientific\ncharacter of primitive myth.[186] It is not to the point to say that\nthe science was all wrong. What is to the point is to say that the\nattempt was made to get at the origin of man and his destiny. Mr. Lang\nthinks that \"the origin of the world and of man is naturally a problem\nwhich has excited the curiosity of the least developed minds,\" but in\nthe use of the term \"naturally,\" I think the stupendous nature of the\neffort made by the least developed minds is entirely neglected, and we\nmiss the opportunity of measuring what this effort might mean.\n\nWhen savages ask themselves, as they certainly _do_ ask themselves,\nwhence the sky, whence the winds, the sun, moon, stars, sea, rivers,\nmountains and other natural objects, they reply in terms of good logic\napplied to deficient knowledge. All the knowledge they possess is that\nbased upon their own material senses. And therefore, when they apply\nthat knowledge to subjects outside their own personality, they deal\nwith them in terms of their own personality. How did the sky get up\nthere, above their heads--the sky evidently so lovingly fond of the\nearth, so intimately connected with the earth?\n\nThe New Zealand answer to these questions is a great one, by whatever\nstandard it is measured. Heaven and earth, they say, were husband and\nwife, so locked in close embrace that darkness everywhere prevailed.\nTheir children were ever thinking amongst themselves what might be the\ndifference between darkness and light. At last, worn out by the\ncontinued darkness, they consulted amongst themselves whether they\nshould slay their parents, Rangi and Papa, _i.e._ heaven and earth, or\nwhether they should rend them apart. The fiercest of their children\nexclaimed, \"Let us slay them!\" but the forest, another of the sons,\nsaid, \"Nay, not so. It is better to rend them apart, and to let\nheaven stand far above us and the earth to lie under our feet. Let the\nsky become as a stranger to us, but the earth remain close to us as\nour nursing-mother.\" The brothers consented to this proposal with the\nexception of Tawhiri-ma-tea, the father of winds and storms; thus five\nof the brothers consented and one would not agree. Then each of the\nbrothers tries to rend his parents, heaven and earth, asunder. First\nthe father of cultivated food tries and fails; then the father of fish\nand reptiles; then the father of uncultivated food; then the father of\nfierce human beings. Then at last slowly uprises Tane-mahuta, the\nfather of forests, birds, and insects, and he struggles with his\nparents; in vain he strives to rend them apart with his hands and\narms. Lo, he pauses; his head is now firmly planted on his mother, the\nearth; his feet he raises up and rests against his father, the skies;\nhe strains his back and limbs with mighty effort, and at last are rent\napart Rangi and Papa, who shriek aloud with cries and groans. But\nTane-mahuta pauses not, he regards not their shrieks and cries; far,\nfar beneath him he presses down the earth; far, far above him he\nthrusts up the sky. Then were discovered a multitude of human beings\nwhom heaven and earth had begotten, and who had hitherto lain\nconcealed. But Tawhiri-ma-tea, the wind and storm, the brother who had\nnot consented, is angry at this rending apart of his parents, and he\nrises and follows his father, the sky, and fights fiercely with the\nearth and his brothers.[187]\n\nThe explanation of this myth is simple. Unaided by the facts of\nscience, the New Zealand savages could only think of the facts of\ntheir own experience. Only two personalities could produce the various\nproducts of the world; therefore the earth was the mother and the sky\nthe father. But they are now separated and apart. Only a personality\ncould have separated, and the forest, root-sown in the earth,\nbranch-up in the sky, is evidently the means of this separation. And\nso, satisfactorily to their own minds, these rude savages settled the\nquestion of the origin of heaven and earth.\n\nThe close similarity of this to the story of Kronos has frequently\nbeen pointed out; but a Greek story is always worth repeating. Near\nthe beginning of things Earth gave birth to Heaven. Later, Heaven\nbecame the husband of Earth, and they had many children. Some of these\nbecame the gods of the various elements, among whom were Okeanos, and\nHyperion, the sun. The youngest child was Kronos of crooked counsel,\nwho ever hated his mighty sire. Now the children of Heaven and Earth\nwere concealed in the hollows of Earth, and both the Earth and her\nchildren resented this. At last they conspired against their father,\nHeaven, and, taking their mother into the counsels, she produced Iron\nand bade her children avenge her wrongs. Fear fell upon all of them\nexcept Kronos, and he determined to separate his parents, and with his\niron weapon he effected his object. All the brothers rejoiced except\none, Okeanos, and he remained faithful to his father.[188]\n\nIt would be well for the sake of the story itself to give a creation\nmyth from India, but I shall have other use for it than its particular\ncharm.\n\n \"'In the beginning, when Twashtri came to the creation\n of woman, he found that he had exhausted his materials\n in the making of man, and that no solid elements were\n left. In this dilemma, after profound meditation, he\n did as follows. He took the rotundity of the moon, and\n the curves of creepers, and the clinging of tendrils,\n and the trembling of grass, and the slenderness of the\n reed, and the bloom of flowers, and the lightness of\n leaves, and the tapering of the elephant's trunk, and\n the glances of deer, and the clustering of rows of\n bees, and the joyous gaiety of sunbeams, and the\n weeping of clouds, and the fickleness of the winds,\n and the timidity of the hare, and the vanity of the\n peacock, and the softness of the parrot's bosom, and\n the hardness of adamant, and the sweetness of honey,\n and the cruelty of the tiger, and the warm glow of\n fire, and the coldness of snow, and the chattering of\n jays, and the cooing of the _kokila_, and the\n hypocrisy of the crane, and the fidelity of the\n _chakrawaka_, and compounding all these together, he\n made woman and gave her to man. But after one week,\n man came to him and said: Lord, this creature that you\n have given me makes my life miserable. She chatters\n incessantly and teases me beyond endurance, never\n leaving me alone; and she requires incessant\n attention, and takes all my time up, and cries about\n nothing, and is always idle; and so I have come to\n give her back again, as I cannot live with her. So\n Twashtri said: Very well; and he took her back. Then\n after another week, man came again to him and said:\n Lord, I find that my life is very lonely, since I\n gave you back that creature. I remember how she used\n to dance and sing to me, and look at me out of the\n corner of her eye, and play with me, and cling to me;\n and her laughter was music, and she was beautiful to\n look at, and soft to touch; so give her back to me\n again. So Twashtri said: Very well; and gave her back\n again. Then after only three days, man came back to\n him again and said: Lord, I know not how it is; but\n after all I have come to the conclusion that she is\n more of a trouble than a pleasure to me; so please\n take her back again. But Twashtri said: Out on you! Be\n off! I will have no more of this. You must manage how\n you can. Then man said: But I cannot live with her.\n And Twashtri replied: Neither could you live without\n her. And he turned his back on man, and went on with\n his work. Then man said: What is to be done? for I\n cannot live either with her or without her.'\"[189]\n\nNow this myth has, so far as its central fact is concerned, its\ncounterpart in Celtic folklore. In the Welsh Mabinogi of Math, son of\nMathonwy, it is related how Arianrod laid a destiny upon her son, whom\nshe would not recognise, that he should never have a wife of the race\nthat now inhabits the earth, and how Gwydion declared that he should\nhave a wife notwithstanding. \"They went thereupon unto Math, the son\nof Mathonwy, and complained unto him most bitterly of Arianrod. Well,\nsaid Math, we will seek, I and thou, by charms and magic, to form a\nwife for him out of flowers. So they took the blossoms of the oak, and\nthe blossoms of the broom, and the blossoms of the meadow-sweet, and\nproduced from them a maiden, the fairest and most graceful that man\never saw.\" No one can doubt that this interesting fragment of Welsh\ntradition takes us back to a creation legend of the same order as the\nIndian legend, and that the two widely separated parallels belong to\nthe period when men were carving out for themselves theories as to the\norigin of women in relation to men.\n\nIt is impossible to deny a place among these myths of creation to the\nHebrew tradition of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The first\nchapter of Genesis is the answer which the early Hebrews gave to the\nscientific question as to the origin of man. How much it cost them to\narrive at this conclusion one cannot guess, one only knows that it has\nbecome a glory to the ages of Hebrew history, as well as to the\ncivilisation of Christianity. Unfortunately it has become much more.\nThe science of the primitive Hebrew has been adopted as the God-given\nrevelation to all mankind. It is the function of folklore to correct\nthis error, to restore the Hebrew tradition to its proper place among\nthe myths of the world which have answered the cry of early man for\nthe knowledge of his origin. There is no degradation here. Science is\nno longer in doubt as to the origin of man within the evolutionary\nprocess of the natural world, and it rightly rejects the first chapter\nof Genesis as of value to modern research. But science should accept\nit as a chapter in the history of anthropology, a chapter which has\nonly proved not to be true, because of the limited range of early man\nin the facts about man, but a chapter, nevertheless, which has the\ninherent value of a faithful record of man's search after truth. This\nis a great position. This is the revelation which is made to us from\nthe first chapter of Genesis, and when the theologian is bold and able\nenough to step outside the formularies of his ancient faith, and reach\nthe magnificent world of thought which lies in front of him by the\nrevelations of scientific discovery, he will consider the\nanthropological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible as one of the\nnecessary elements of his equipment. There is on present lines a\nwhole world of thought between science and religion, although they\nboth have the same object. They both seek the great unknown. Science,\nhowever, gives up all efforts in the past which have proved futile and\nerroneous, cheerfully surrenders all errors of research and\ninterpretation, starts investigation afresh, begins new discoveries,\nand rewrites the story they have to tell. Religion, on the other hand,\ncomes to a full stop when once she has made or accepted a discovery,\nwhen once she has pronounced that the great unknown has become known\nto her votaries and supporters. She is skilful to use the results of\nscience up to the point where they serve her purpose, and to use the\nterms of science in order to build up her shattering position. But she\ndoes not advance. She does not accept the first chapter of Genesis as\na wonderful revelation of the early stages of human investigation into\nthe realms of the unknown, but still keeps to her old formula of a\nrevelation of the deity as to the origin of man, and she does not see\nthat by this attitude she is lessening every day her capacity for\nteaching truth.\n\nI think the attitude of science to the Hebrew tradition is only a\nlittle less unfortunate than that of religion. Professor Huxley\nemployed all the resources of his great knowledge to disprove the\nscientific accuracy of the tradition, and when one rereads his\nchapters on this subject[190] one wonders at the absence of the sense\nof proportion. Perhaps it was necessary, considering the place which\nthe Hebrew tradition occupies in civilised thought, to show its utter\ninconsistency with the facts of nature, but it was equally necessary\nto show that it has its place in the history of human thought. The\nfolklorist replaces it among the myths of creation, and then proceeds\nto analyse and value it. The Hebrew is shown by the myth he adopted to\nhave frankly acknowledged that the origin of man and of the world was\nundiscoverable by him. Whatever older myths he once possessed, he\ndiscarded them in favour of a mythic God-creator, and this is only\nanother way of stating that the mystery of man's origin could not, to\nthe Hebrew mind, be met by such a myth as the New Zealander believed\nin, or as the Kumis believed in, but could only be met by the larger\nconception of a special creation. The Hebrew could not find his answer\nin nature, so he appealed to super-nature. His God was the unknown\nGod, and the realm of the unknown God was the unknowable. Though in\nterms this may not be the interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth,\nits ultimate resolve is this; and because modern science has\npenetrated beyond this confession of the unknown origin of man to the\nevolution of man, it should not therefore treat contemptuously the\neffort of early Hebrew science. Because it is not possible to admit\nthis effort as part of modern science, it must not be rejected from\nthe entire region of science. It must be respected as one of the many\nefforts which have made possible the last effort of all which\nproclaims that man has kinship with all the animal world.\n\nThese points illustrate the unsatisfactory attitude of science and\nreligion to myth. There is still to notice the unsatisfactory\nattitude of the folklorist. Wrong interpretation of special classes of\nmyth is, of course, to be anticipated in the commencement of a great\nstudy such as folklore; but there are also wrong interpretations of\nthe fundamental basis of myth. Thus even Mr. Frazer, with all his vast\nresearch into savage thought and action, doubts the possession of good\nlogical faculty by mankind. If mankind, he says, had always been\nlogical and wise, history would not be a long chronicle of folly and\ncrime.[191] But surely we cannot doubt man's logical powers. They have\nbeen too strong for his facts. He has applied mercilessly all the\npowers of his logical faculties upon isolated observations of\nphenomena, and it is this limited application which has produced the\nfolly and crime. I venture to think that civilised man shares with the\nsavage of to-day, and with the primitive ancestors of all mankind, the\ncharge of applying perfectly good logic to an insufficiency of facts,\nand producing therefrom fresh chapters of folly and crime.\n\nIf myth is correctly defined as primitive science, as I have ventured\nto suggest, it is important to know how it assumes a place among the\ntraditions of a people. Primitive science was also primitive belief.\nIf it accounted for the origin of mankind, of the sun, moon, and\nstars, of the earth and the trees, it accounted for them as creations\nof a higher power than man, or, at all events, of a great and\nspecially endowed man, and higher powers than man were of the unknown\nrealm. The unknown was the awful. Primitive science and primitive\nbelief were therefore on one and the same plane.[192] They were\nsubjects to be treated with reverence and with awe. The story into\nwhich the myth was so frequently woven is not a story to those who\nbelieve in the truth of the myth. It assumes the personal shape,\nbecause the personal is the only machinery by which primitive man is\ncapable of expressing himself. It was held only by tradition, because\ntradition was the only means of transmitting it, and it was of a\nsacred character, because sacred things and beliefs were the only\nforces which influenced primitive thought. When it was repeated to new\ngenerations of learners, it was not a case of story-telling--it was a\nmatter of the profoundest importance. Everywhere among the lowest\nsavagery we find the secrets of the group kept from all but the\ninitiated, and these secrets are the traditions which have become\nsacred, traditions expressed sometimes in ceremonial, sometimes in\nrites, sometimes in narratives. Thus the mythological and religious\nknowledge of the Bushmen is imparted in dances, and when a man is\nignorant of some myth, he will say, \"I do not dance that dance,\"\nmeaning that he does not belong to the group which preserves that\nparticular sacred chapter.[193] The Ashantees have an interesting\ncreation myth which is stated to be the foundation of all their\nreligious opinions.[194] Mr. Howitt, in his important chapter on\n\"Beliefs and Burial Practices,\"[195] seems to me to exactly interpret\nthe savage mind. The first thing he notes is the belief--a belief that\n\"the earth is flat, surmounted by the solid vault of the sky,\" that\n\"there is water all round the flat earth,\" that the sun is a woman,\nand that the moon was once a man who lived on earth, and so on. Then,\nsecondly, he notes the manner in which these beliefs are translated to\nand held by the people, the myth in point of fact--unfortunately, Mr.\nHowitt calls it a legend--wherein it is perfectly obvious that the\nAustralian is interpreting the facts of nature in the only language\nknown to him to be applicable, namely, that of his own personality.\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen produce much the same kind of\nevidence,[196] and describe a ceremony among the northern tribes\nconnected with the myth of the sun, which ends in a newly initiated\nyouth being brought up, \"shown the decorations, and had everything\nexplained to him.\"[197] Among the central tribes the same authorities\ndescribe minutely the initiation ceremonies, during which the initiate\nboy \"is instructed for the first time in any of the sacred matters\nreferring to totems, and it is by means of the performances which are\nconcerned with certain animals, or rather, apparently with the\nanimals, but in reality with Alcheringa individuals who were the\ndirect transformations of such animals, that the traditions dealing\nwith this subject, which is of the greatest importance in the eyes of\nthe natives, are firmly impressed upon the mind of the novice, to whom\neverything which he sees and hears is new and surrounded with an air\nof mystery.\"[198] Sir George Grey, speaking of the traditions of the\nMaori which he collected, says his reader will be in \"the position of\none who listens to a heathen and savage high priest, explaining to him\nin his own words and in his own energetic manner, the traditions in\nwhich he earnestly believes, and unfolding the religious opinions upon\nwhich the faith and hopes of his race rest.\"[199] This \"school of\nmythology and history,\" as it is significantly termed in John White's\n_Ancient History of the Maori_, was \"Whare-Kura, the sacred school in\nwhich the sons of high priests were taught our mythology and history,\"\nand it \"stood facing the east in the precincts of the sacred place of\nMua.\" The school was opened by the priests in the autumn, and\ncontinued from sunset to midnight every night for four or five months\nin succession. The chief priest sat next to the door. It was his duty\nto commence the proceedings by repeating a portion of history; the\nother priests followed in succession, according to rank. On the south\nside sat the old and most accomplished priests, \"whose duty it was to\ninsist on a critical and verbatim rehearsal of all the ancient\nlore.\"[200] The American-Indian account, by the Iroquois, of how myths\nwere told to an ancient chief and an assembly of the people on a\ncircular open space in a deep forest, wherein was a large wheel-shaped\nstone, from beneath which came a voice which told the tale of the\nformer world, and how the first people became what they are at\npresent,[201] is in exact accord with this evidence. The priestly\nnovice among the Indians of British Guiana is taught the traditions of\nthe tribe, while the medicine man of the Bororo in Brazil has to learn\ncertain ritual songs and the languages of birds, beasts, and\ntrees.[202]\n\nI do not want to press the point too far, because evidence is not easy\nto get on account of the incomplete fashion in which it has been\ncollected and presented to the student. The records of native life are\ndivided off into chapters arranged, not on the basis of native ideas,\nbut on the basis of civilised ideas, and from this cause we get myth\nand belief in different chapters as if they had no connection with\neach other; we get myths treated as if they were but the\nfancy-begotten amusements of the individual, instead of the serious\nideas of the collective people about the elements of nature to which\nthey have directed their attention. Mr. J. A. Farrer comes practically\nto this correct conclusion,[203] while Mr. Jevons seems to me to have\narrived at the same result in spite of some false intermediate steps,\ndue to his failure to discriminate between myth and mythology.[204]\nFailures of this kind are of almost infinite loss to scientific\nresearch. They stop the results which might flow from the stages\ncorrectly reached, and hide the full significance which arises from\nthe fact that man's aspirations are always so much in excess of his\naccomplished acts. Poetry, philosophy, prayer, worship, are all short\nof the ideal; and the question may surely arise whether the actual\naccomplishments of man in civilisation, as compared with those of man\nin savagery, afford any sort of indication of the distance between\nman's accomplishment and his aspiration at any age. If man has never\ntravelled at one moment of time, or at one definite period of life,\nall this distance in thought, it may still be possible to use this\ndistance between savage and cultured accomplishment as a standard of\nmeasurement between accomplishment and ideal, wherever the material\nfor such a purpose is available. If folklorists will keep such a\npossibility in mind, whenever they are called upon to investigate\nmyth, it will at all events save them from proceeding upon lines which\ncannot lead to progress in the investigation of human history.\n\nThe primitive myth does not include all that properly comes within the\ndefinition of myth. There must be included the myth formed to explain\na rite or ceremony, which originating in most ancient times has been\nkept up at the instance of a particular religion or cult, but the\nmeaning and intent of which has been forgotten amidst the progress of\na later civilisation. Pausanias is the great storehouse of such myths\nas this, and Mr. Lang has, more than any other scholar, examined and\nexplained the process which has gone on.\n\nThere is also included in this secondary class of myth, the myths upon\nwhich are founded the great systems of mythology. The Hindu mythology,\nin spite of all that has been done to place it on the pedestal of\nprimitive original thought, is definitely relegated to the secondary\nposition by its best exponents. The Vedic religion is tribal in form,\nand in the pre-mythological stage.[205] In the Ramayana and\nMahabharata, on the contrary, \"we trace unequivocal indications of a\ndeparture from the elemental worship of the Vedas, and the origin or\nelaboration of legends which form the great body of the mythological\nreligion of the Hindus.\"[206] The pre-mythological and the\nmythological stages of Hindu religion, therefore, are both\ndiscoverable from the traditional literature which has descended from\nboth ages, and this fact is important in the classification of the\nvarious phases of tradition. When once it is admitted that the\nbeginnings of mythology are to be traced in one section of the people\nwho are supposed to derive a common system of mythology from a common\nhome, future research will hesitate to interpret, as Kuhn and Max\nMueller and their school have done, the traditions of Celts, Teutons,\nand Scandinavians as the detritus of ancient mythologies instead of\nthe beginnings of what, under favourable conditions, might have grown\ninto mythologies. Mythological tradition is essentially a secondary\nnot a primary stage. This fact is overlooked by many authorities, and\nI have noted some of the unfortunate results. It is not overlooked by\nthose who study the principles of their subject as well as the\ndetails. Thus, as Robertson-Smith has so well explained, \"mythology\nwas no essential part of ancient religion, for it had no sacred\nsanction and no binding force on the worshippers.... Belief in a\ncertain series of myths was neither obligatory as a part of true\nreligion, nor was it supposed that by believing a man acquired\nreligious merit and conciliated the favour of the gods. What was\nobligatory or meritorious was the exact performance of certain sacred\nacts prescribed by religious tradition. This being so, it follows that\nmythology ought not to take the prominent place that is too often\nassigned to it in the scientific study of ancient faiths.\"[207] This\nis exactly the position, and all that I have advanced for the purpose\nof aiming at a classification of the various kinds of tradition is in\naccord with this view.\n\nAll that I am anxious to prove, all that it is possible to prove, from\nthese considerations of the position occupied by myth, is that myths\nconstitute a part of the serious life of the people. They belong to\nthe men and women, perhaps some of them to the men only and others to\nthe women only, but essentially to the life of the people.\n\nI do not think that even Mr. Hartland in his special study of the\nsubject has quite understood this. He begins at a later period in the\nhistory of tradition, the period of story-telling proper, when myths\nhave become folk-tales,[208] and he treats this period as the earliest\ninstead of the secondary stage of myth. In this stage something has\nhappened to push myth back from the centre of the people's life to a\nlesser position--a new religious influence, a new civilisation, a new\nhome, any one of the many influences, or any combination of\ninfluences, which have affected peoples and sent them along the paths\nof evolution and progress.\n\nIt is in this way that we come upon the folk-tale. The folk-tale is\nsecondary to the myth. It is the primitive myth dislodged from its\nprimitive place. It has become a part of the life of the people,\nindependently of its primary form and object and in a different\nsense. The mythic or historic fact has been obscured, or has been\ndisplaced from the life of the people. But the myth lives on through\nthe affections of the people for the traditions of their older life.\nThey love to tell the story which their ancestors revered as myth even\nthough it has lost its oldest and most impressive significance. The\nartistic setting of it, born of the years through which it has lived,\nfashioned by the minds which have handed it down and embellished it\nthrough the generations, has helped its life. It has become the fairy\ntale or the nursery tale. It is told to grown-up people, not as belief\nbut as what was once believed; it is told to children, not to men; to\nlovers of romance, not to worshippers of the unknown; it is told by\nmothers and nurses, not by philosophers or priestesses; in the\ngathering ground of home life, or in the nursery, not in the hushed\nsanctity of a great wonder.[209]\n\nThe influence of changing conditions upon the position of mythic\ntradition is well illustrated by Dr. Rivers in his account of the\nTodas. This people, he says, \"are rapidly forgetting their folk-tales\nand the legends of their gods [that is, their myths], while their\nceremonial remains to a large extent intact and seems likely to\ncontinue so for some time.\" Dr. Rivers attributes this to the effect\nof intercourse with other people. This intercourse has had no\nmissionary results and has not therefore affected their religious\nrites and ceremonies, but has shown itself largely in the form of loss\nof interest in the stories of the past.[210] In other words, and in\naccordance with the definitions I am suggesting, the primitive myths\nof the Todas have definitely assumed a secondary position as\nfolk-tale, and not a strong position at that, while religion has clung\nto rite and formula.\n\nPrimitive myth dislodged in this fashion is sometimes preserved in a\nspecial manner and for religious purposes in its ancient setting as a\nbelief, or as a tradition belonging to sacred places and appertaining\nto sacred things. This is what has happened to the Genesis myth of the\nHebrews; it has also happened to some of the sacred myths of the\nHindus, and perhaps to some of the sacred myths of the Greeks. In this\nposition the myth may even be reduced to writing, and where this\nhappens all the sacredness appertaining to tradition is transferred to\nthe written instrument.\n\nThus in Arkadia, Pausanias tells us, was a temple of Demeter, and\nevery second year, when they were celebrating what they called the\ngreater mysteries, they took out certain writings which bore on the\nmysteries, and having read them in the hearing of the initiated, put\nthem back in their place that same night.[211] In India examples occur\nof land being held for telling stories at the Uchaos or festivals of\nthe goddess Devi.[212] The colleges of Rome, composed of men specially\nskilled in religious lore, and charged with the preservation of\ntraditional rules regarding the more general religious observances,\nthe proper fulfilment of which implied a certain amount of\ninformation, and rendered it necessary for the state in its own\ninterest to provide the faithful transmission of that information,\nhave been described by Mommsen.[213]\n\nI pass to the third class of tradition, namely, the legend, and this\nneed not detain us long. We have already illustrated it by the notes\non history and folklore, and by its very nature it belongs essentially\nto the historic age. In dealing with legend, there is first to\ndetermine whether its characters are historical, or are unknown to\nhistory. If the former, there is next to disengage those parts of the\ntradition which, by their parallels to other traditions, or by their\nnature, may be safely certified as not belonging to the historical\nhero or to the period of the historical hero. If the latter, the\ndetails must be analysed to see what elements of culture are contained\ntherein. In both cases tradition will have served a purpose, and that\npurpose must be sought. Tradition does not attach itself to an\nhistorical personage without cause. There is necessity for it, and in\nthe case of Hereward the necessity was proved to have been the great\ngap in the history of a national hero. Tradition does not preserve\ndetails of primitive culture-history without cause, and in the\nexamples already quoted it has been shown that this cause rests upon\nthe indissoluble links which the uncultured peasant of to-day has with\nthe pre-cultured past of his race. He will have forgotten all about\nhis tribal life and its consequences, but will retain legends which\nare founded upon tribal life. He will have lost touch with ideas which\nproclaim that man or woman not of his tribe is an enemy to be feared\nor attacked, but will gladly relate legends which deal with events\ngrowing out of a state of perpetual strife among the ancestors of\npeople now in friendship. He will not understand the personal tie of\nancient times, but will listen to the legends attached to places in\nsuch strange fashion as to make places seem to possess a personal life\nfull of events and happenings. He will know nothing of giants and\nogres, but will love the legends which tell of heroes meeting and\nconquering such beings. The history of the school books is nothing to\nhim, but the history unknowingly contained in the legends is very\nreal, and is applied over and over again to such later events as by\nforce of circumstances become stamped upon the popular mind and thus\nsucceed in displacing the original. It would be an important\ncontribution to history to have these legends collected and examined\nby a competent authority. They would be beacon lights of national\nhistory preserved in legend.\n\nIt will be readily conceded, I think, that in attempting these\ndefinitions of the various classes of tradition, and in illustrating\nthem from the records of man's life in various parts of the world, it\nhas been impossible for me to deal with certain points in the problem\nbefore us. In particular I have not considered the favourite subject\nof the diffusion of folk-tales. I do not believe in a general system\nof diffusion, such a system, I mean, as would suffice to account for\nthe parallels to be found in almost all countries.[214] I think\ndiffusion occupies a very small part indeed of the problem, and that\nit only takes place in late historical times. It is a large subject,\nand I have virtually stated my answer to the theory of diffusion in\nthe definitions and classifications which I have ventured to put\nforward. It may be considered by some that other facts in the\nconditions of myth, folk-tale, and legend would not confirm the\ngeneral outline I have given of the three classes of tradition to\nwhich I have applied these terms; and of course there are many side\nissues in so great a problem. I would not urge the correctness of the\nviews I have put forward as applicable to every part of the world, or\nto every phase in the history of tradition; but I would urge that in\nthe great centres of traditional life they are practically the only\nmeans of arriving at the position occupied by tradition, and that in\nall cases they form a working hypothesis upon which future inquirers\nmay well base their researches.\n\n\nII\n\nOf late years there have been placed alongside of the traditional\nmyth, folk-tale, and legend many other products of tradition--customs,\nceremonies, practices, and beliefs, and it has been argued, and argued\nstrongly and convincingly, that the tradition which has brought down\nthe saga and song as far-off echoes of an otherwise unrecorded past\nhas also brought down these other elements which must also belong to\nthe same distant past. This argument is now no longer seriously\ndisputed. But there still remains open for discussion the exact kind\nof evidence which these elements of tradition supply, the particular\nperiod or people from which they have descended, the particular\ndepartment of history to which they relate. All this is highly\ndisputed.\n\nFolklore has in this department been greatly aided by Dr. Tylor's\nimpressive terminology, whereby the custom, ceremony, practice, and\nbelief which have come down by tradition are classed as \"survivals.\"\nThis term implies an ancient origin, and the necessary work of the\nstudent is to get back to the original. Until very lately the fact of\nsurvival has carried with it the presumption of ancient origin, but\nMr. Crawley has raised an objection which I think it is well to meet.\nHe urges that \"the history of religious phenomena exemplifies in the\nmost striking manner the continuity of modern and primitive culture;\nbut there is a tendency on the part of students to underestimate this\ncontinuity, and, by explaining it away on a theory of survivals, to\nlose the only opportunity we have of deducing the permanent elements\nof human nature.\"\n\nThis sentence at once prepares us for much that follows; but Mr.\nCrawley leaves the point itself untouched, except by implication,\nuntil he is in the middle of his book, and then we have his dictum\nthat \"it may be finally asserted that nothing which has to do with\nhuman needs ever survives as a mere survival.\"[215] It will at once be\nseen that we have here a new estimate of the force which survivals\nplay in the evidence of human progress. They prove the continuity of\nmodern and primitive culture. They are part and parcel of modern life,\nfilling a vacuum which has not been filled by modern thought, carrying\non, therefore, the standard of religious belief and religious ideal\nfrom point to point until they can be replaced by newer ideas and\nconcepts. This definition of survivals is very bold. It answers Mr.\nCrawley's purpose and argument in a way which no other fact in human\nhistory, so far as we can judge, could answer it. It is the basis upon\nwhich his whole argument is founded. Occupying such an important\nplace, it should have received explicit investigation, instead of\nbeing treated as a sort of side issue of incidental importance.\n\nWhen explicit investigation is undertaken, Mr. Crawley's case must, I\nthink, break down. Survivals are carried along the stream of time by\npeople whose culture-status is on a level with the culture in which\nthe survivals originated. It matters not that these people are placed\nin the midst of a higher civilisation or alongside of a higher\ncivilisation. When once the higher civilisation penetrates to them,\nthe survival is lost. There is not continuity between modern and\nprimitive thought here, but, on the contrary, there is strong\nantagonism, ending with the defeat and death of the primitive\nsurvival. This is the evidence wherever survivals can be studied,\nwhether in the midst of our own civilisation, or even of primitive\ncivilisations, which constantly exhibit traces of older beliefs and\nideas being pushed out of existence by newer. It is, indeed, a mistake\nto suppose, as some authorities apparently do, that survivals can only\nbe studied when they are embedded in a high civilisation. It is almost\na more fruitful method to study them when they appear in the lower\nstrata; and even in such a case as the Australian aborigines I think\nthat it is the neglect of observing survivals that has led to some of\nthe erroneous theories which have recently been advanced against\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen's conclusions.\n\nFor the purpose of examining survivals in custom, rite, and belief, we\nhave nothing more than a series of notes of customs and beliefs\nobtaining among the lower and lowest classes of the people, and not\nbeing the direct teaching of any religious or academic body. These\nnotes are very unequal in value, owing to the manner in which they\nhave been made. They are often accidental, they are seldom if ever the\nresult of trained observation, and they are often mixed up with\ntheories as to their origin and relationship to modern society and\nmodern religious beliefs. To a great extent the two first of these\napparent defects are real safeguards, for they certify to the\ngenuineness of the record, a certificate which is more needed in this\nbranch of inquiry than perhaps in any other. But with regard to the\nthird defect there is considerable danger. An inquirer with an object\nis so apt to find what he wishes to find, either by the exercise of\nhis own credulity or the ingenuous extension of inquiry into answer;\nwhereas the inquirer who is content to note with the simplicity of\nthose who occupy themselves by collecting what others have not\ncollected, may be deficient in the details he gives, but is seldom\nwrong or violently wrong in what he has recorded. In every direction,\nhowever, great caution is needed, and especially where any section of\ncustom and belief has already been the subject of inquiry. It is\nindeed almost safe to say that all research into custom and belief,\neven that of such masters as Tylor, Lang, Hartland, Frazer, and\nothers, needs re-examination before we can finally and unreservedly\naccept the conclusions which have been arrived at.\n\nSuch an examination must be directed towards obtaining some necessary\npoints in the life-history of each custom, rite, and belief. We have\nto approach this part of our work guided by the fact that folklore\ncannot by any possibility develop. The doctrine of evolution is so\nstrong upon us that we are apt to apply its leading idea insensibly to\nalmost every branch of human history. But folklore being what it is,\nnamely the survival of traditional ideas or practices among a people\nwhose principal members have passed beyond the stage of civilisation\nwhich those ideas and practices once represented, it is impossible for\nit to have any development. When the original ideas and practices\nwhich it represents were current as the standard form of culture,\ntheir future history was then to be looked for along the lines of\ndevelopment. But so soon as they dropped back behind the standard of\nculture, whatever the cause and whenever the event happened, then\ntheir future history could only be traced along the lines of decay and\ndisintegration. We are acquainted with some of the laws which mark the\ndevelopment of primitive culture, but we have paid no attention to the\ninfluences which mark the existence of survivals in culture. For this\npurpose we must first ascertain what are the component parts of each\ncustom or superstition; secondly, we must classify the various\nelements in each example; and thirdly, we must group the various\nexamples into classes which associate with each other in motif and\ncharacter.\n\nBy this treble process we shall have before us examples of the changes\nin folklore, and demonstrably they are changes of decay, not of\ndevelopment. By grouping and arranging these changes it may be\npossible to ascertain and set down the laws of change--for that there\nare laws I am nearly certain. It is these laws which must be\ndiscovered before we can go very far forward in our studies. Every\nitem of custom and superstition must be tested by analysis to find out\nunder which power it lives on in survival, and according to the result\nin each case, so may we hope to find out something about the original\nfrom which the survival has descended.\n\nEach folklore item, in point of fact, has a life history of its own,\nand a place in relationship to other items. Just as the biography of\neach separate word in our language has been investigated in order to\nget at Aryan speech as the interpretation of Aryan thought, so must\nthe biography of each custom, superstition, or story be investigated\nin order to get at Aryan belief or something older than Aryan belief.\nWe must try to ascertain whether each item represents primitive belief\nby direct descent, by symbolisation, or by changes which may be\ndiscovered by some law equivalent to Grimm's law in the study of\nlanguage.\n\nAnalysis of each custom, rite, or belief will show it to consist of\nthree distinct parts, which I would distinguish by the following\nnames:--\n\n1. The formula.\n\n2. The purpose.\n\n3. The penalty or result.\n\nIt will be found that these three component parts are not equally\ntenacious of their original form in all examples. In one example we\nmay find the formula either actually or symbolically perfect, while\nthe purpose and penalty may not be easily distinguishable. Or it may\nhappen that the formula remains fairly perfect; the purpose may be set\ndown to the desire of doing what has always been done, and the penalty\nmay be given as luck or ill-luck. Of course, further variations are\npossible, but these are usually the more general forms.\n\nI will give an example or two of these phases of change or degradation\nin folklore. First, then, where the formula is complete, or nearly so,\nand the purpose and penalty have both disappeared. At Carrickfergus it\nwas formerly the custom for mothers, when giving their child the\nbreast for the last time, to put an egg in its hand and sit on the\nthreshold of the outer door with a leg on each side, and this ceremony\nwas usually done on a Sunday. Undoubtedly I think we have here a very\nnearly perfect formula; but what is its purpose, and what is the\npenalty for non-observance? Upon both these latter points the example\nis silent, and before they can be restored we must search among the\nother fragments of threshold customs and see whether they exist either\nseparately from the formula or with a less perfect example. Secondly,\nwhere the formula has disappeared and the purpose and penalty remain,\nnearly the whole range of those floating beliefs and superstitions\nwhich occupy so largely the collections of folklore would supply\nexamples. But I will select one example which will be to the point.\nWhen the Manx cottager looks for the traces of a foot in the ashes of\nhis firegrate for the purpose of seeing in what direction the toes\npoint, the penalty being that, if they point to the door, a death will\noccur, if to the fireplace, a birth,[216] there is no trace of the\nancient formula. It is true we may find the missing formula in other\nlands; for instance, among some of the Indian tribes of Bombay. There\nthe formula is elaborate and complete, while the purpose and the\npenalty are exactly the same as in the Isle of Man. But this hasty\ntravelling to other lands is not, I contend, legitimate in the first\nplace. We must begin by seeing whether there is not some other item of\nfolklore, perhaps now not even connected with the house-fire group of\ncustoms and superstitions, whose true place is that of the lost\nformula of this interesting Manx custom. And when once we have taught\nourselves the way to restore these lost formulae to their rightful\nplaces, the explanation of the mere waifs and strays of folklore will\nbe attended with some approach to scientific accuracy, and we shall\nthen be in a position to get rid of that shibboleth so dear to the\nnon-folklore critic, that all these things we deal with are \"mere\nsuperstitions.\"\n\nThirdly, when the formula is complete, or nearly so, and the purpose\nand penalty become generalised. At St. Edmundsbury a white bull, which\nenjoyed full ease and plenty in the fields, and was never yoked to the\nplough or employed in any service, was led in procession in the chief\nstreets of the town to the principal gate of the monastery, attended\nby all the monks singing and a shouting crowd. Knowing what Grimm has\ncollected concerning the worship of the white bull, knowing what is\nperformed in India to this day, there is no doubt that this formula of\nthe white bull at St. Edmundsbury has been preserved in very good\ncondition. The purpose of it was, however, not so satisfactory. It is\nsaid to have taken place whenever a married woman wished to have a\nchild; and the penalty is lost in the obvious generalisation that not\nto perform the ceremony is not to obtain the desired end.[217]\n\nThe second process, that of classification of the various elements in\neach example, will reveal some characteristics of folklore, which, so\nfar as I know, have never yet been taken count of. One very important\ncharacteristic is the prevalence of a particular belief attached to\ndifferent objects in different places. Thus Sir John Rhys in his\nexamination of Manx folklore stopped short in his explanation of the\nsuperstition of the first-foot, because he had heard that, while in\nthe Isle of Man it was attached to a dark man, elsewhere it was\nattached to a fair man. Of the examples where, on New Year's morning,\nit is held to be unlucky to meet a dark person, I may mention\nLincolnshire, Durham, Yorkshire, and Northumberland. It is, on the\ncontrary, _lucky_ to meet, as first-foot, a dark-haired man in\nLancashire, the Isle of Man, and Aberdeenshire.[218] In these cases we\nget the element of \"dark\" or \"fair\" as the varying factor of the\nsuperstition; but instances occur in Sutherlandshire, the West of\nScotland, and in Durham, where the varying factor rests upon sex--a\nman being lucky and a woman being unlucky.\n\nSimilarly of the well-known superstition about telling the bees of the\ndeath of their owner, in Berkshire, Bucks, Cheshire, Cornwall,\nCumberland, Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Monmouthshire, Notts,\nNorthumberland, Shropshire, Somersetshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex,\nWilts, Worcestershire, it appears that a relative may perform the\nceremony, or sometimes a servant merely, while in Derbyshire, Hants,\nNorthants, Rutland, and Yorkshire it must be the heir or successor of\nthe deceased owner. Again, while in the above places the death of the\nowner is told to the bees, in other places it is told to the cattle,\nand in Cornwall to the trees;[219] and, in other places, marriages as\nwell as death are told to the bees.[220]\n\nIn some cases the transfer from one object to another of a particular\nsuperstition is a matter of absolute observation. Thus, the labourers\nin Norfolk considered it a presage of death to miss a \"bout\" in corn\nor seed sowing. The superstition is now transferred to the drill,\nwhich has only been invented for a century. Again, in Ireland, it is\nnow considered unlucky to give any one a light for his pipe on\nMay-day--a very modern superstition, apparently. But the pipe in this\ncase has been the means of preserving the old superstition found in\nmany places of not giving a light from the homestead fire.\n\nI will just refer to one other example, the well-known custom of\noffering rags at sacred wells. Sir John Rhys thought that the object\nof these scraps of clothing being placed at the well was for\ntransferring the disease from the sick person to some one else. But I\nventured to oppose this idea, and considered that they were offerings,\npure and simple, to the spirit of the well, and referred to examples\nin confirmation. Among other items, I have come across an account of\nan Irish \"station,\" as it is called, at a sacred well, the details of\nwhich fully bear out my view as to the nature of the rags deposited at\nthe shrine being offerings to the local deity. One of the devotees, in\ntrue Irish fashion, made his offering accompanied by the following\nwords: \"To St. Columbkill--I offer up this button, a bit o' the\nwaistband o' my own breeches, an' a taste o' my wife's petticoat, in\nremimbrance of us havin' made this holy station; an' may they rise up\nin glory to prove it for us in the last day.\"[221] I shall not attempt\nto account for the presence of the usual Irish humour in this, to the\ndevotee, most solemn offering; but I point out the undoubted nature of\nthe offerings and their service in the identification of their\nowners--a service which implies their power to bear witness in\nspirit-land to the pilgrimage of those who deposited them during\nlifetime at the sacred well.[222]\n\nNow, in all these cases there is an original and a secondary, or\nderivative, form of the superstition, and it is our object to trace\nout which is which. Do the rags deposited at wells symbolise offerings\nto the local deity? If so, they bring us within measurable distance of\na cult which rests upon faith in the power of natural objects to harm\nor render aid to human beings. Does the question of first-foot rest\nupon the colour of the hair or upon the sex of the person? I think,\nlooking at all the examples I have been able to examine, that colour\nis really the older basis of the superstition, and, if so,\nethnological considerations are doubtless the root of it. Again, if\nthe eldest son of the deceased owner of bees appears in the earliest\nform of the death-telling ceremony, we have an interesting fragment of\nthe primitive house-ritual of our ancestors.\n\nWhen, however, we come upon the worship of local deities, when we can\nsuggest ethnological elements in folklore, and when we can speak of\nthe house-father, and can see that duties are imposed upon him by\ntraditional custom, unknown to any rules of civilised society, we are\nin the presence of facts older than those of historic times. It is\nthus that folklore so frequently points back to the past before the\nage of history. Over and over again we pause before the facts of\nfolklore, which, however explained, always lead us back to some\nunexplored epoch of history, some undated period, which has not\nrevealed its heroes, but which has left us a heritage of its mental\nstrivings.\n\nThe method of using these notes of custom, rite, and belief for\nscientific purposes is therefore a very important matter. It is\nessential that each single item should be treated definitely and\nseparately from all other items, and, further, that the exact wording\nof the original note upon each separate item should be kept intact.\nThere must be no juggling with the record, no emendations such as\nstudents of early literary work are so fond of attempting. Whatever\nthe record, it must be accepted. The original account of every custom\nand belief is a corpus, not to be tampered with except for the purpose\nof scientific analysis, and then after that purpose has been effected\nall the parts must be put together again, and the original restored to\nits form.\n\nThe handling of each custom or belief and of its separate parts in\nthis way enables us, in the first place, to disentangle it from the\nparticular personal or social stratum in which it happens to have been\npreserved. It may have become attached to a place, an object, a\nseason, a class of persons, a rule of life, and may have been\npreserved by means of this attachment. But because every item of\nfolklore of the same nature is not attached to the same agent\nwherever that particular item has been preserved, it is important not\nto stereotype an accidental association as a permanent one. Moreover,\nthe modern association is not necessarily the ancient association, and\nthere is the further difficulty created by writers on folklore\nclassifying into chapters of their own creation the items they collect\nor discuss.[223] In the second place, we are enabled to prepare each\nitem of folklore for the place to which it may ultimately be found to\nbelong. The first step in this preparation is to get together all the\nexamples of any one custom, rite, or belief which have been preserved,\nand to compare these examples with each other, first as to common\nfeatures of likeness, secondly as to features of unlikeness. By this\nprocess we are able to restore what may be deficient from the\ninsufficiency of any particular record--and such a restoration is\nabove all things essential--and to present for examination not an\nisolated specimen but a series of specimens, each of which helps to\nbring back to observation some portion of the original. The\nreconstruction of the original is thus brought within sight.\n\nGenerally, it may be stated that the points of likeness determine and\nclassify all the examples of one custom or belief; the points of\nunlikeness indicate the line of decay inherent in survivals.\n\nThis partial equation and partial divergence between different\nexamples of the same custom or belief allows a very important point to\nbe made in the study of survivals. We can estimate the value of the\nelements which equate in any number of examples, and the value of the\nelements which diverge; and by noting how these values differ in the\nvarious examples we shall discover the extent of the overlapping of\nexample with example, which is of the utmost importance. A given\ncustom consists, say, of six elements, which by their constancy among\nall the examples and by their special characteristics may be\nconsidered as primary elements, in the form in which the custom has\nsurvived. Let us call these primary elements by algebraical signs,\na, b, c, d, e, f. A second example of the same custom has\nfour of these elements, a, b, c, d, and two divergences, which\nmay be considered as secondary elements, and which we will call by the\nsigns g, h. A third example has elements a, b, and divergences\ng, h, i, k. A further example has none of the primary elements,\nbut only divergences g, h, i, l, m. Then the statement of the case\nis reduced to the following:--\n\n 1 = a, b, c, d, e, f.\n 2 = a, b, c, d + g, h.\n 3 = a, b + g, h, i, k.\n 4 = + g, h, i, l, m.\n\nThe first conclusion to be drawn from this is that the overlapping of\nthe several examples (No. 1 overlapping No. 2 at a, b, c, d,\nNo. 2 overlapping No. 3 at a, b + g, h, No. 3 overlapping No.\n4 at + g, h, i) shows all these several examples to be but\nvariations of one original custom, example No. 4, though possessing\nnone of the elements of example No. 1, being the same custom as\nexample No. 1. Secondly, the divergences g to m mark the line of\ndecay which this particular custom has undergone since it ceased to\nbelong to the dominant culture of the people, and dropped back into\nthe position of a survival from a former culture preserved only by a\nfragment of the people.[224]\n\nThe first of these conclusions is not affected by the order in which\nthe examples are arranged; whether we begin with No. 4 or with No. 1,\nthe relationship of each example to the others, thus proved to be in\nintimate association, is the same. The second conclusion is\nnecessarily dependent upon what we take to be \"primary elements\" and\n\"secondary elements;\" and the question is how can these be determined?\nAs a rule it will be found that the primary elements are the most\nconstant parts of the whole group of examples, appearing more\nfrequently, possessing greater adherence to a common form, changing\n(when they do change) with slighter variations; while the secondary\nelements, on the other hand, assume many different varieties of form,\nare by no means of constant occurrence, and do not even amongst\nthemselves tend to a common form. The primary elements, therefore,\nconstitute the form of the custom which represents the oldest part of\nthe survival. They alone will help us to determine the origin of the\ncustom, whether by features represented in the elements thus brought\ntogether or by comparison with ancient custom elsewhere or with\nsurvivals elsewhere similarly reconstituted. Altogether these\nelements, thus linked together by the tie of common attributes, are\nparts of one organic whole, and it is on this reconstructed organism\nwe have to rely for the evidence from tradition.\n\nWhen any given custom or belief has undergone this double process of\nanalysis of its component parts and classification of its several\nelements, another process has to be undertaken, namely, to ascertain\nits association with other customs or beliefs, in the same country or\namong the same people, each of which customs or beliefs, being treated\nin exactly the same manner, is found to exhibit some degree of\nrelationship in origin, condition, or purpose to the whole group under\nexamination. In this way classification, analysis, and association go\nhand in hand as the necessary methods of studying survivals. Without\nanalysis we cannot properly arrive at a classification; without\nclassification we cannot work out the association of survivals.\n\nThe process is perhaps highly technical and complicated. It may not be\nof interest to all to discuss the process by which results are\nattained when what is most desired are the results themselves. But in\ntruth the two parts of this study cannot well be separated. To judge\nof the validity of the results one must know what the process has\nbeen, and too often results are jumped at without warrant; items of\ncustom and usage or of belief and myth are docketed as belonging to a\ngiven phase of culture, a given group of people, when they have no\nright to such a place in the history of man. It is not only\ndistasteful to the inquirer, but almost impossible to dislodge any\nitem of folklore once so placed, and thus much of the value of the\nmaterial supplied by folklore is lost or discounted.\n\nCustom, rite, and belief treated in this fashion become veritable\nmonuments of history--a history too ancient to have been recorded in\nscript, too much an essential part of the folk-life to have been lost\nto tradition. We may hope to restore therefrom the surviving mosaic of\nancient institutions, ancient law, and ancient religion, and we may\nfurther hope, with this mosaic to work upon, to restore much of the\nentire fabric which has been lying so many centuries beneath the\naccumulated and accumulating mass of new developments representing the\ncivilisation of the Western world.\n\n\nIII\n\nIt is only here that we can discover the point where we may properly\ncommence the work of comparative folklore. An item of folklore which\nstands isolated is practically of no use for scientific investigation.\nIt may be, as we have seen, that the myth is in its primary stage as a\nsacred belief among primitive people, in its secondary or folk-tale\nstage as a sacred memory of what was once believed, in its final or\nlegendary stage when it does duty in preserving the memory of a hero\nor a place of abiding interest. It may be, as we have seen, that the\ncustom, rite, or belief is a mere formula without purpose or result, a\nmere traditional expression of a purpose without formula or result, a\nmere statement of result without formula or purpose. We must know the\nexact position of each item before we begin to compare, or we may be\ncomparing absolutely unlike things. The exact position of each item of\nfolklore is not to be found from one isolated example. It has first to\nbe restored to its association with all the known examples of its\nkind, so that the earliest and most complete form may be recorded.\nThat is the true position to which it has been reduced as a survival.\nThis restored and complete example is then in a position to be\ncompared either with similar survivals in other countries on the same\nlevel of culture, or within the same ethnological or political sphere\nof influence, or with living customs, rites, or beliefs of peoples of\na more backward state of culture or in a savage state of culture.\nComparison of this kind is of value. Comparison of a less technical or\ncomprehensive kind may be of value in the hands of a great master; but\nit is often not only valueless but mischievous in the hands of less\nexperienced writers, who think that comparison is justified wherever\nsimilarity is discovered.\n\nSimilarity in form, however, does not necessarily mean similarity in\norigin. It does not mean similarity in motive. Customs and rites which\nare alike in practice can be shown to have originated from quite\ndifferent causes, to express quite different motifs, and cannot\ntherefore be held to belong to a common class, the elements of which\nare comparable. Thus to take a very considerable custom, to be found\nboth in folk-tales and in usage, the succession of the youngest son,\nit is pretty clear that among European peoples it originated in the\ntribal practice of the elder sons going out of the tribal household to\nfound tribal households of their own, thus leaving the youngest to\ninherit the original homestead. But among savage peoples where the\nyoungest son inherits the homestead, he does not do so because of a\ntribal custom such as that to be found in the European evidence. It is\nbecause of the conditions of the marriage rites. Thus among the Kafir\npeoples of South Africa\n\n \"the young man of the commonality, who being a young\n man has had but little or no means of displaying his\n sagacity--a quality with them most frequently\n synonymous with cunning--commences for himself in a\n small way. Hence, too, being polygamous, and his wives\n being bought with cattle, his first wife is taken from\n a position accordant with that of a young, untried,\n and poor or comparatively poor man. Hence also it\n happens that his wives increase in number, and in--so\n to speak--position, in accordance with his wealth, and\n with his reputation for wisdom and sagacity, which may\n have raised him to the rank of headman of a district,\n and one of the Chief's counsellors. It is, therefore,\n only when old in years that he takes to himself his\n 'great wife,' one of greater social and racial\n position than were his previous wives, and her son,\n that is, her eldest son, who is consequently the\n father's youngest or nearly his youngest, becomes his\n 'great son,' and par excellence the heir. If the\n father be a Chief, this son becomes the Chief at his\n father's death.\n\n \"As, however, subordinate heirs, the father after some\n consultation and ceremony chooses out of his other\n sons, secondly 'the son of his right hand,' and\n thirdly, 'the son of his grandfather.' If the father\n be a Chief, these two are after his death accounted as\n Chiefs in the tribe, subordinate to the 'great son,'\n and even if through their superior energy, the size of\n the tribe requiring emigration to pastures new, or\n other causes, one or both of them break off, and with\n their respective inheritance or following form a\n separate tribe or tribes, yet they are federally bound\n to their great brother, and their successors to his\n successors, and recognise him as their supreme or\n national Chief. Thus Krili, the Chief of the\n Amagcaleka tribe across the Kei, was also paramount\n Chief of all the Amaxosas, including his own tribe,\n and those this side the Kei, who are divided into the\n two great divisions--each of which includes several\n tribes--of the Amangquika and Amandhlambi, which\n latter has among it the Amagqunukwebi, a tribe of\n Caffre intermingled with Hottentot blood, and\n therefore rather looked down upon.\"[225]\n\nDr. Nicholson, from whom I quote this evidence, goes on to say that\nthe\n\n \"custom then of the heirship of the youngest, appears\n to me to have not unlikely grown up among a polygamous\n race, and to have arisen both from considerations of\n self security and from those of race and rank.\"\n\nQuite independently of Dr. Nicholson I had come to the same\nconclusion;[226] and Dr. Nicholson, after handsomely acknowledging my\npriority in the \"discovery,\" very properly alludes to the not\nunimportant fact of two workers in the same field coming to like\nconclusions. It is remarkable that the same distinction between the\nsuccession of the youngest son and of the son of the youngest wife\nappears in folk-tales.[227] Now clearly it would be quite wrong to\nsuggest a parallel between the heirship of the youngest among the\nKafir peoples of Africa and heirship of the youngest among the tribal\npeople of early Europe. They are not comparable at all points, and it\nis just where the point of comparison fails that it becomes so\nimportant to science.[228]\n\nI will take one other example, and this is the important practice of\nhuman sacrifice which looms so largely in anthropological research,\nand which is considered by so good an authority as Schrader to have\ntaken a prominent place among the Aryans,[229] though he takes his\nexamples, not from language, but from the unexamined customs of the\nGreeks, Romans, northerns, Indians, and Persians. We know more about\nthe development of sacrifice now that Professor Robertson Smith has\ndealt with the Semitic part of the evidence. Without resting on the\nfact that the occurrence of human sacrifice in a country occupied by\nAryan-speaking people does not, of itself alone, imply that the rite\nwas Aryan, it is far more important to point out that among the higher\nraces \"the feeling that the slaying involves a grave responsibility\nand must be justified by divine permission\" appears, and \"care was\ntaken to slay the victim without bloodshed, or to make believe that it\nhad killed itself.\"[230] This feeling marks distinctly the Greek\nsacrifice as at Thargelia and in the Leukadian ceremony, the Roman\nsacrifice at the Tarpeian Rock, the sacrifice at the Valhalla rock of\nthe northerns, while among the Hindus there is much to show that the\nidea of human sacrifice in some of the early writings is a literary\nborrowing from the Hebrews; and that if it ever prevailed among the\nAryas of India it was very early superseded by the sacrifice of\nanimals.[231] Colonel Dalton has given good reasons for his views\n\"that the Hindus derived from the aboriginal races the practice of\nhuman sacrifices.\"[232] Although, then, Greek ritual and Greek myth\nare full of legends which tell of sacrifices once human, but\nafterwards commuted into sacrifices where some other victim is slain\nor the dummy of a man is destroyed;[233] although the significant\nHindu ceremonial of so throwing the limbs of an animal slaughtered to\nbe burnt with the dead that every limb lies upon a corresponding part\nof the corpse;[234] although Teuton, Celt, and Norse[235] are credited\nwith the practice by authorities not to be questioned, it appears by\nthe evidence that the European form of human sacrifice has little in\ncommon with the savage form except in the nature of the victim. It\noccurred, as Grimm states, when some great disaster, some heinous\ncrime, had to be retrieved or purged, a kind of sacrifice, says Mr.\nLang, not necessarily savage except in its cruelty; and the victims\nwere not tribesmen, but captive enemies, purchased slaves, or great\ncriminals.\n\nThese two examples will serve as warning against the too general\nacceptance of the custom and belief of savage and barbaric races, as\nidentical with the custom and belief of early or primitive man. Such\nidentification is in the main correct; but it is correct not because\nit has been proved by the best methods to be so, but because, of all\npossible explanations, this is the only one that meets the general\nposition in a satisfactory manner. In many cases, however, it is\nmonstrously incorrect, and it is the incorrect conclusion which weighs\nfar more against the acceptance of the results of folklore than do the\ncorrect conclusions in its favour.\n\nThe work which has to be accomplished by the comparative method of\nresearch is of such magnitude that it needs to be considered. The\nlabour and research might in point of volume be out of proportion to\nthe results, and it may be questioned, as it has already been\nquestioned by inference, whether it is worth the while. The first\nanswer to this objection is that all historical investigation is\njustified, however much the labour, however extensive the research.\nSecondly, considering the very few results which the study of folklore\nhas hitherto produced upon the investigations into prehistoric Europe,\nit must be worth while for the student of custom and belief to conduct\nhis experiments upon a recognised plan in order to get at the secret\nof man's place in the struggle for existence, which is determined more\nby psychological than by physical phenomena. Thirdly, if the psychical\nanthropology of prehistoric times is to be sought for in the customs\nand beliefs of modern savages, it is of vital importance to\nanthropological science that this should be established by methods\nexactly defined. Whatever of traditional custom and belief is capable\nof bearing the test and of being definitely labelled as belonging to\nprehistoric man, becomes thereafter the data for the psychical\nanthropology of civilised man. Edmund Spenser understood this when his\nofficial duties took him among the \"wild\" Irish. \"All the customs of\nthe Irish,\" he says, \"which I have often noted and compared with that\nI have read, would minister occasion of a most ample discourse of the\noriginal of them, and the antiquity of that people, which in truth I\nthink to be more ancient than most that I know in this end of the\nworld; so as if it were in the handling of some man of sound judgment\nand plentiful reading, it would be most pleasant and profitable.\"[236]\n\nComparative folklore, then, to be of value must be based upon\nscientific principles. The unmeaning custom or belief of the peasantry\nof the Western world of civilisation must not be taken into the\ndomains of savagery or barbarism for an explanation without any\nthought as to what this action really signifies to the history of the\ncustom or belief in question. No doubt the explanation thus afforded\nis correct in most cases, and perhaps it was necessary to begin with\nthe comparative method in order to understand the importance and scope\nof the study of apparently worthless material. A new stage in\ncomparative folklore must now be entered upon. It must be understood\nwhat the effective comparison of a traditional peasant custom or\nbelief with a savage custom or belief really amounts to. The process\nincludes the comparison of an isolated custom or belief belonging,\nperhaps secretly, to a particular place, a particular class of\npersons, or perhaps a particular family or person, with a custom or\nbelief which is part of a whole system belonging to a savage race or\ntribe; of a custom or belief whose only sanction is tradition, the\nconservative instinct to do what has been done by one's ancestors,\nwith a custom or belief whose sanction is the professed and\nestablished polity or religion of a people; of a custom or belief\nwhich is embedded in a civilisation, of which it is not a part and to\nwhich it is antagonistic, with a custom or belief which helps to make\nup the civilisation of which it is part. In carrying out such a\ncomparison, therefore, a very long journey back into the past of the\ncivilised race has been performed. For unless it be admitted that\ncivilised people consciously borrow from savages and barbaric peoples\nor constantly revert to a savage original type of mental and social\ncondition, the effect of such a comparison is to take back the custom\nor belief of the modern peasant to a date when a people of savage or\nbarbaric culture occupied the country now occupied by their\ndescendants, the peasants in question, and to equate the custom or\nbelief of this ancient savage or barbaric culture with the custom or\nbelief of modern savage or barbaric culture. The line of comparison is\nnot therefore simply drawn level from civilisation to savagery; but it\nconsists, first, of two vertical lines from civilisation and savagery\nrespectively, drawn to a height scaled to represent the antiquity of\nsavage culture in modern Europe, and then the level horizontal line\ndrawn to join the two vertical lines. Thus the line of comparison is\n\n Ancient savagery Ancient savagery\n +-------------------------------+\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n Savagery Civilisation\n\nWe thus arrive at some conception of the work to be accomplished by\nand involved in comparative folklore. The results are worth the work.\nThey relate to stages of culture in the countries of civilisation\nwhich are recoverable by no other means. The stages of culture are\npractically lost to history. In ancient Greek and Roman history, and\nin ancient Scandinavian history, there are priceless fragments of\ninformation which tell us much. But these fragments are not the\ncomplete story, and they belong to relatively small areas of European\nhistory. Every nation has the right to go back as far in its history\nas it is possible to reach. It can only do this by the help of\ncomparative folklore. In our own country we have seen how history\nbreaks down, and yet historical records in Britain are perhaps the\nrichest in Europe. The traditional materials known to us as folklore\nare the only means left to us, and we can only properly avail\nourselves of these when we have mastered the methods of science which\nit is necessary to use in their investigation.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[182] Mr. MacCulloch, in the title of his interesting book, the\n_Childhood of Fiction_, has emphasised this mischievous idea. I am not\nconvinced to the contrary by the evidence he gives as to the popularity\nof the folk-tale among all peoples (p. 2). Indeed, the book itself is\nan emphatic testimony against its title. Mr. MacCulloch evidently began\nwith the idea that the folk-tale belonged to the domain of fiction.\nThus the opening words of his book are: \"Folk-tales are the earliest\nform of romantic and imaginative literature--the unwritten fiction of\nearly man and of primitive people in all parts of the world;\" whereas\nas he nears the end of his study he observes: \"Thus, in their origin,\nfolk-tales may have had some other purpose than mere amusement; they\nmay have embodied the traditions, histories, beliefs, ideas, and\ncustoms of men at an early stage of civilisation\" (p. 451). Mr.\nMacCulloch himself proves this to be the case, and it is therefore all\nthe more unfortunate that he should have stamped his very important\nstudy with the word \"fiction.\"\n\n[183] A folk-tale of the Veys, a North African people, explains this\nview most graphically in its opening sentences. The narrator begins his\ntale by saying: \"I speak of the long time past; hear! It is written in\nour old-time-palaver-books--I do not say _then_; in old time the Vey\npeople had no books, but the old men told it to their children and they\nkept it; afterwards it was written\" (_Journ. Ethnol. Soc._, N.S., vi.\n354). A parallel to this comes from Ireland: \"What I have told your\nhonour is true; and if it stands otherwise in books, it's the books\nwhich are wrong. Sure we've better authority than books, for we have it\nall handed down from generation to generation\" (Kohl's _Travels in\nIreland_, 140).\n\n[184] I am the more willing to take this as my illustration of myth\nbecause, strangely enough, Mr. MacCulloch has omitted it from the\nexamples he uses in his _Childhood of Fiction_.\n\n[185] _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, i. 166.\n\n[186] Mr. Jeremiah Curtin has collected and published the _Creation\nMyths of Primitive America_ (London, 1899), and his introduction is a\nspecially valuable study of the subject. I printed the Fijian myth from\nWilliams' _Fiji and Fijians_, i. 204, and the Kumis myth from Lewin's\n_Wild Races of South-east India_, 225-6, in my _Handbook of Folklore_,\n137-139, and Mr. Lang, in cap. vi. of his _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_\ndeals with a sufficient number of examples. _Cf._ also Tylor,\n_Primitive Culture_, cap. ix.\n\n[187] Grey, _Polynesian Mythology_, 1-15. I have only summarised the\nfull legend on the lines adopted by Dr. Tylor.\n\n[188] On the Kronos myth consult Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_,\ni. 23-31, who gives an admirable summary of the evidence as it at\npresent stands; Harrison and Verrall, _Mythology and Monuments of Anc.\nAthens_, 192; Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, i. 295-323.\n\n[189] Mr. Crawley discovered this story in Mr. Bain's _A Digit of the\nMoon_, 13-15, and printed it in his _Mystic Rose_, 33-34.\n\n[190] \"The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature,\" and\n\"Mr. Gladstone and Genesis,\" in _Science and Hebrew Tradition_, cap.\niv. and v.\n\n[191] _Adonis, Attis and Osiris_, 4, 25. Mr. Jevons, too, lays stress\nupon \"the source of errors in religion\" as human reason gone astray,\n_Introd. to Hist. of Religion_, 463.\n\n[192] Mr. Jevons practically arrives at this conclusion from a\ndifferent standpoint. \"Beliefs,\" he says, \"are about facts, are\nstatements about facts, statements that certain facts will be found to\noccur in a certain way or be of a certain kind\" (_Introd. to Hist. of\nReligion_, 402). Mr. Curtin, _Creation Myths of Primitive America_ (p.\nxx), confirms the view I take.\n\n[193] Orpen, _Cape Monthly Magazine_. Quoted in Lang's _Myth, Ritual,\nand Religion_, i. 71.\n\n[194] This myth is, I think, worth giving, because of its obvious\nobject to account for the difference between white and black races. It\nis as follows: \"In the beginning of the world God created three white\nmen and three white women, and three black men and three black women.\nIn order that these twelve human souls might not thenceforth complain\nof Divine partiality and of their separate conditions, God elected that\nthey should determine their own fates by their own choice of good and\nevil. A large calabash or gourd was placed by God upon the ground, and\nclose to the side of the calabash was also placed a small folded piece\nof paper. God ruled that the black man should have the first choice. He\nchose the calabash, because he expected that the calabash, being so\nlarge, could not but contain everything needful for himself. He opened\nthe calabash, and found a scrap of gold, a scrap of iron, and several\nother metals of which he did not understand the use. The white man had\nno option. He took, of course, the small folded piece of paper, and\ndiscovered that, on being unfolded, it revealed a boundless stock of\nknowledge. God then left the black men and women in the bush, and led\nthe white men and women to the seashore. He did not forsake the white\nmen and women, but communicated with them every night, and taught them\nhow to construct a ship, and how to sail from Africa to another\ncountry. After a while they returned to Africa with various kinds of\nmerchandise, which they bartered to the black men and women, who had\nthe opportunity of being greater and wiser than the white men and\nwomen, but who, out of sheer avidity, had thrown away their chance.\"\n\n[195] _Native Tribes of South-east Australia_, cap. viii.\n\n[196] _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, cap. xxii.; _Native\nTribes of Central Australia_, cap. xviii.\n\n[197] Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes_, 624; _cf. Native Tribes of\nCentral Australia_, 564.\n\n[198] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, 229.\n\n[199] Grey, _Polynesian Mythology_, p. xi. _Cf._ Taylor, _Te Ika a\nMaui_, where myths told by the priests are given in cap. vi. and vii.,\nand _Trans. Ethnological Soc._, new series, i. 45.\n\n[200] White's _Anc. Hist. of the Maori_, i. 8-13.\n\n[201] Curtin, _Creation Myths of Primitive America_, p. xxi.\n\n[202] Im Thurn, _Indians of Guiana_, 335; Landtman, _Origin of\nPriesthood_, 117.\n\n[203] _Primitive Manners and Customs_, cap. i. \"Some Savage Myths and\nBeliefs,\" and cap. viii., \"Fairy Lore of Savages.\"\n\n[204] _Introd. to Hist. of Religion_, 263. Of course I do not accept\nMr. J. A. Stewart's \"general remarks on the [Greek: mythologia] or\nstory-telling myth\" in his _Myths of Plato_, 4-17. All Mr. Stewart's\nresearch is literary in object and result, though he uses the materials\nof anthropology.\n\n[205] H. H. Wilson, _Rig Veda Sanhita_, i. p. xvii.\n\n[206] H. H. Wilson, _Vishnu Purana_, i. p. iv; _Rig Veda Sanhita_, i.\np. xlv.\n\n[207] _Religion of the Semites_, 19.\n\n[208] Mr. Hartland passes rapidly in his opening chapter from the myth\nas primitive science to the myth as fairy tale, from the savage to the\nCelt (_Science of Fairy Tales_, pp. 1-5), and I do not think it is\npossible to make this leap without using the bridge which is to be\nconstructed out of the differing positions occupied by the myth and the\nfairy tale.\n\n[209] It will be interesting, I think, to preserve here one or two\ninstances of the actual practice of telling traditional tales in our\nown country. Mr. Hartland has referred to the subject in his _Science\nof Fairy Tales_, but the following instances are additional to those he\nhas noted, and they refer directly back to the living custom. They are\nall from Scotland, and refer to the early part of last century. \"In\nformer times, when families, owing to distance and other circumstances,\nheld little intercourse with each other through the day, numbers were\nin the habit of assembling together in the evening in one house, and\nspending the time in relating the tales of wonder which had been handed\ndown to them by tradition\" (Kiltearn in Ross and Cromarty; Sinclair,\n_Statistical Account of Scotland_, xiv. 323). \"In the last generation\nevery farm and hamlet possessed its oral recorder of tale and song. The\npastoral habits of the people led them to seek recreation in listening\nto, and in rehearsing the tales of other times; and the senachie and\nthe bard were held in high esteem\" (Inverness-shire, _ibid._, xiv.\n168). \"In the winter months, many of them are in the habit of visiting\nand spending the evenings in each other's houses in the different\nhamlets, repeating the songs of their native bard or listening to the\nlegendary tales of some venerable senachie\" (Durness in\nSutherlandshire, _ibid._, xv. 95).\n\n[210] W. H. R. Rivers, _The Todas_, 3-4.\n\n[211] Pausanias, viii. cap. xv. Sec. 1.\n\n[212] _Journ. Roy. Asiatic Soc._, ii. p. 218.\n\n[213] _Hist. of Rome_, i. pp. 177-179. _Cf._ Gunnar Landtman, _Origin\nof Priesthood_, p. 77.\n\n[214] Perhaps Mr. Lang's study of \"Cinderella and the Diffusion of\nTales\" in _Folklore_, iv. 413 _et seq._, contains the best summary of\nthe position.\n\n[215] Crawley, _Tree of Life_, 5, 144.\n\n[216] Train, _Hist. of Isle of Man_, ii. 115.\n\n[217] The ceremony is fully described in _Relics for the Curious_, i.\n31; _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1784 (see _Gent. Mag. Library_, xxiii.\n209), quoting from a tract first published in 1634; and see _Proc. Soc.\nAntiq. Scot._, x. 669.\n\n[218] See _Folklore_, iii. 253-264; Rhys, _Celtic Folklore_, i.\n337-341.\n\n[219] Couch, _Hist. of Polperro_, 168.\n\n[220] I have investigated the bee cult at some length, and it will form\npart of my study on _Tribal Custom_ which I am now preparing for\npublication.\n\n[221] Carleton, _Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry_.\n\n[222] Mr. Eden Phillpotts mentions in one of his Cornish stories\nexactly this conception. Rags were offered. \"Just a rag tored off a\npetticoat or some such thing. They hanged 'em up around about on the\nthorn bushes, to shaw as they'd 'a' done more for the good saint if\nthey'd had the power.\"--_Lying Prophets_, 60.\n\n[223] I gave an example of this false classification of folklore in\naccord with its apparent modern association in my preface to _Denham\nTracts_, ii. p. ix. The left-leg stocking divination is not associated\nwith dress, but with the left-hand as opposed to the right-hand augury,\nand I pointed out that the district of the Roman wall, the _locus_ of\nthe Denham tracts, thus preserves the luck of the left, believed in by\nthe Romans, in opposition to the luck of the right believed in by the\nTeutons. See Schrader, _Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples_,\n253-7.\n\n[224] I elaborated this plan of comparative analysis in a report to the\nBritish Association at Liverpool, in 1896 (see pp. 626-656),\nillustrating it from the fire customs of Britain.\n\n[225] _Archaeological Review_, ii. 163-166; _cf._ the Rev. J. Macdonald\nin _Folklore_, iii. 338.\n\n[226] _Athenaeum_, 29th December, 1883; _Archaeologia_, vol. l. p. 213.\n\n[227] See MacCulloch's _Childhood of Fiction_, chap. xiii., where this\ndistinction is noted, though its significance is not pointed out.\n\n[228] Dr. Rivers has dealt with a very similar case of dual origin in\nconnection with bride capture, see _Journ. Roy. Asiatic Soc._, 1907, p.\n624.\n\n[229] Schrader's _Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples_, 422.\n\n[230] Robertson Smith's _Religion of the Semites_, 397.\n\n[231] Monier Williams, _Indian Wisdom_, pp. 29-31. The word-equations\nfor sacrifice are given by Schrader, _op. cit._, 130, 415.\n\n[232] _Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal_, xxxiv. p. 7. On the influence of\nthe aboriginal races _cf._ Monier Williams, _Indian Wisdom_, 312-313;\nSteel and Temple's _Wide Awake Stories_, 395; Campbell, _Tales of West\nHighlands_, l. p. xcviii.\n\n[233] Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, i. p. 271.\n\n[234] H. H. Wilson, _Religion of the Hindus_, ii. 289. I compare this\nwith the custom of the cow following the coffin mentioned by Mannhardt,\n_Die Gotterwelt_, 320, and the soul shot or gift of a cow at death\nrecorded by Brand, ii. 248.\n\n[235] _Cf._ Olaus Magnus, pp. 168, 169, for the significant Norse\nceremony.\n\n[236] Spenser, _View of the State of Ireland_, 1595 (Morley reprint),\n73.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nPSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS\n\n\nAlthough the great mass of folklore rests upon tradition and tradition\nalone, an important aid to tradition comes from certain psychological\nconditions which we must now consider. At an early stage all students\nof folklore will have discovered that it is not entirely to tradition\nthat folklore is indebted for its material. There are still people\ncapable of thinking, capable of believing, in the primitive way and in\nthe primitive degree. Such people are of course the descendants of\nlong ancestors of such people--people whose minds are not attuned to\nthe civilisation around them; people, perhaps, whose minds have been\nto an extent stunted and kept back by the civilisation around them.\nThere can be no doubt that civilisation and all it demands of mankind\nacts as a deterrent upon the minds of some living within the\ncivilisation zone, and belonging apparently to the civilised society.\nThis is the root cause of some of the lunacy and much of the crime\nwhich apparently exists as a necessary adjunct of civilisation, and it\nleads to various forms of thought inconsistent with the knowledge and\nideas of the age. When these forms of thought are not concentrated\ninto a new religious sect by the operation of social laws, they\nbecome what is sometimes called mere superstition, that kind of\nsuperstition which consists of using the same power of logic to a\nnarrow set of facts which primitive man was in the habit of using, and\nthus repeating in this age the methods of primitive science. We cannot\nquite understand this in the age of railways and schools and\ninventions, but it will be understood better if we go back for only a\ngeneration or two to those parts of our country which are most remote\nfrom civilising influences, and obtain some information as to their\ncondition.\n\nThis cannot be better accomplished than by referring to a Scottish\nauthor writing, in 1835, of the superstitions then prevailing in\nScotland. \"Our whole genuine records,\" says Dalyell,\n\n \"teem with the most repulsive pictures of the\n weakness, bigotry, turbulence, and fierce and\n treacherous cruelty of the populace. False and corrupt\n innovations of literature, a compound of facts and\n fiction, intermingling the old and the new in\n heterogeneous assemblage, would persuade us to think\n much more of our forefathers than they thought of\n themselves. Scotland, until the most modern date, was\n an utter stranger to civilisation, presenting a\n sterile country with a famished people, wasted by\n hordes of mendicants readier to seize than to\n solicit--void of ingenious arts and useful\n manufactures, possessed of little skill and learning,\n plunged in constant war and rapine, full of\n insubordination, disturbing public rule and private\n peace. For waving pendants, flowing draperies,\n brilliant colours, eagles' feathers, herons' plumes,\n feasts or festivals so splendid in imagination, let\n naked limbs, scanty, sombre garments to elude\n discovery by the foe, bits of heath stuck in bonnets\n if they had them, precarious sustenance, abject\n humility and all those hardships inseparable from\n uncultivated tribes and countries be instituted as a\n juster portrait of earlier generations.\"[237]\n\nThis statement as to Scotland is correctly drawn from social\nconditions which have now passed away, but which, down to the\nbeginning of last century, belonged to the ordinary life of the\npeople. Thus it is recorded that\n\n \"over all the highlands of Scotland, and in this\n county in common with others, the practice of building\n what are called head-dykes was of very remote\n antiquity. The head-dyke was drawn across the head of\n a farm, when nature had marked the boundary betwixt\n the green pastures and that portion of hill which was\n covered totally or partially with heath. Above this\n fence the young cattle, the horses, the sheep and\n goats were kept in the summer months. The milch cows\n were fed below, except during the time the farmer's\n family removed to the distant grazings called\n sheilings. Beyond the head-dyke little attention was\n paid to boundaries. These enclosures exhibit the most\n evident traces of extreme old age.\"[238]\n\n[Illustration: REPRESENTATION OF AN IRISH CHIEFTAIN SEATED AT DINNER, 1581\nFROM DERRICKE'S \"IMAGE OF IRELAND\"]\n\nIn Ireland the same conditions obtained so late as the sixteenth\ncentury; the native Irish retained their wandering habits, tilling a\npiece of fertile land in the spring, then retiring with their herds to\nthe booleys or dairy habitations, generally in the mountain districts\nin the summer, and moving about where the herbage afforded sustenance\nto their cattle.[239] An eighteenth-century traveller in Ireland\nwas assured that the quarter called Connaught was \"inhabited by a kind\nof savages,\" and there is record of the capture of a hairy dwarf near\nLongford, who appears hardly to belong to civilisation.[240] Similar\nconditions obtained in the northern counties of England, and in other\nparts.[241] Special circumstances kept the borderland outside the\ninfluences of ordinary civilised thought and control, and these\ncircumstances have been recorded by an eighteenth-century observer,\nfrom whom I will quote one or two facts as to the mode of life of\nthese people: \"That they might be more invisible during their outrodes\nand consequently less liable to the effects of their enemies'\nvigilance, the colour of their cloathes resembled that of the scenes\nof their employment or of their season of action, that is, of a brown\nheath and cloudy evening. Thus examples of what might condemn their\nconduct were never offered to them, and immemorial custom seemed as it\nwere to sanctify their wildness. Every border-man, almost without\nexception, was brought up in a state which we would call unhappy, and\nevery circumstance of his life tended to confirm his partiality for an\nuncertain bed and unprovided diet.\"[242]\n\nThe evidence which this acute observer collected led him to conclude\nthat the \"almost uniform train of circumstances which affected these\ncountries from their border situation, and the little difference there\nwas between one of the dark ages and another, strongly induce me to\nbelieve that the Northern people were little altered in manners from\nvery remote times to those immediately preceding the reign of Queen\nElizabeth,\" and this is confirmed by what we actually find from the\nreport of the Commissioners appointed to settle the peace of the\nMarches by fixed and established ordinances, who collected \"their\nordinances from the traditional accounts of ancient usages that had\nbeen sanctified as laws by the length of time which they had endured.\nThese laws were different from most others, nay, almost peculiar to\nthe men to whom they belonged.\"[243]\n\nI need not continue these notes as to the backwardness of portions of\nthe country compared with its general level of culture, because I have\ndealt with the evidence elsewhere.[244] What I am anxious to point out\nhere is that the faculty of such people as these to think, not in\nterms of modern science but in terms of their own psychological\nconditions, must have been pronounced. If they ever put the question\nto themselves as to the origin of things, they would answer themselves\naccording to the life impressions they were then receiving, and\naccording to the limited range of their actual knowledge. As with the\ncreators of the traditional myths, the scientific inquirers of\nprimitive times, so with these non-advanced people of later times,\nthey would deal with the problems they did not understand in fashions\nsuitable to their own understanding. It has always appeared to me that\nthe impressions of the surrounding life are not sufficiently regarded\nin their influence upon primitive thought. They press down upon the\nmind, and enclose it within barriers so that it can only act through\nthese surroundings. Child-life is, in this respect, much the same as\nthe life of primitive man. A child thinks and acts in terms of his\nnursery, his school, or his playground. Thus a memory of my own is to\nthe point. When quite a child, probably about eight or nine years old,\nI was entrusted with the changing of a small cheque drawn by my father\nin a country town where we were staying. I had never seen a cheque\nbefore. I remember the ceremony of writing it and the care with which\nthe necessary instructions were given to me, and I remember the\namazement with which I received the golden sovereigns. But my mind\ndwelt upon this strange thing called a cheque, and after a time I\ndeliberately came to the conclusion that my father was allowed to get\nmoney for these cheques on condition only that he wrote them without a\nmistake and without a blot. The conception is absurd until we come to\nanalyse the cause of it. My young life at that time was receiving its\ngreatest impressions, its all-absorbing impressions, from my school\nexercises in writing. It was a copybook life for the time being, and\nwhen I turned to ask my question as to origins, as every human being\nhas asked himself in turn, I could express myself only in copybook\nterms. It is so with the primitive mind. It can only express itself in\nthe terms of its greatest impressions, and it is in this way that\nprimitive animism, sympathetic magic and other conceptions obtained\nfrom the results of anthropological research, are to be found in much\nthe same degree wherever humanity is found in primitive conditions.\nAs Mr. Hickson puts it so well: \"Just as the little black baby of the\nnegro, the brown baby of the Malay, the yellow baby of the Chinaman,\nare in face and form, in gestures and habits, as well as in the first\narticulate sound they mutter, very much alike, so the mind of man,\nwhether he be Aryan or Malay, Mongolian or Negrito, has, in the course\nof its evolution, passed through stages which are practically\nidentical. In the intellectual childhood of mankind natural phenomena,\nor some other causes, of which we are at present ignorant, have\ninduced thoughts, stories, legends, and myths, that in their\nessentials are identical among all the races of the world with which\nwe are acquainted;\"[245] or to take one other example from the\nexperience of travellers, Mr. Mitchell, speaking of the Australians,\nsays: \"I found a native still there, and on my advancing towards him\nwith a twig he shook another twig at me, waving it over his head, and\nat the same time intimating with it that we must go back. He and the\nboy then threw up dust at us with their toes (_cf._ 2 Sam. xvi. 13).\nThese various expressions of hostility and defiance were too\nintelligible to be mistaken. The expressive pantomime of the man\nshowed the identity of the human mind, however distinct the races or\ndifferent the language.\"[246]\n\nThis identity is shown in many other ways to have been operating,\nperhaps to be operating still, upon minds not attuned to the\ncivilisation around them. The resistance of agriculturists to change\nis well known.[247] The crooked ridges of the open-field system were\nbelieved to be necessary because they were supposed to deceive the\ndevil,[248] while a superstitious dislike was entertained against\nwinnowing machines, because they were supposed to interfere with the\nelements.[249] This is nothing but a modern example of sympathetic\nmagic produced by the introduction of the new machine.\n\nI need not go through the researches of the masters of anthropology to\nexplain what the psychological evidence exactly amounts to, and the\nrealms of primitive thought and experience which it connotes.[250] It\nwill, however, be useful for the purpose of our present study, if we\ncan find among the peasantry of our country (perchance from those\ndistricts where we have noted conditions under which primitive thought\nmight retain a continuous hold) examples of belief or superstition\nwhich belongs rather to psychological than to traditional influences.\nThe interpretation of dreams, the belief in spirit apparitions, the\npractice of charms, all belong to this branch of our subject, though I\nshall illustrate the points I wish to bring out by reference to less\ncommon departments.\n\nIt was only in the seventeenth century that a learned divine of the\nChurch of England was shocked to hear one of his flock repeat the\nevidence of his pagan beliefs in language which is as explicit as it\nis amusing; and I shall not be accused of trifling with religious\nsusceptibilities if I quote a passage from a sermon delivered and\nprinted in 1659--a passage which shows not a departure from\nChristianity either through ignorance or from the result of\nphilosophic study or contemplation, but a sheer non-advance to\nChristianity, a passage which shows us an English pagan of the\nseventeenth century.\n\n\"Let me tell you a story,\" says the Reverend Mr. Pemble, \"that I have\nheard from a reverend man out of the pulpit, a place where none should\ndare to tell a lye, of an old man above sixty, who lived and died in a\nparish where there had bin preaching almost all his time.... On his\ndeathbed, being questioned by a minister touching his faith and hope\nin God, you would wonder to hear what answer he made: being demanded\nwhat he thought of God, he answers that he was a good old man; and\nwhat of Christ, that he was a towardly youth; and of his soule, that\nit was a great bone in his body; and what should become of his soule\nafter he was dead, that if he had done well he should be put into a\npleasant green meadow.\"[251]\n\nOf the four articles of this singular creed, the first two depict an\nabsence of knowledge about the central features of Christian belief,\nthe latter two denote the existence of knowledge about some belief not\nknown to English scholars of that time. If it had so happened that\nthe Reverend Mr. Pemble had thought fit to tell his audience only of\nthe first two articles of this creed, it would have been difficult to\nresist the suggestion that they presented us merely with an example of\nstupid, or, perhaps, impudent, blasphemy caused by the events of the\nday. But the negative nature of the first two items of the creed is\ncounterbalanced by the positive nature of the second two items; and\nthus this example shows us the importance of considering evidence as\nto all phases of non-belief in Christianity.\n\nPassing on to the two items of positive belief, it is to be noted that\nthe soul resident in the body in the shape of a bone is no part of the\nearly European belief, but equates rather with the savage idea which\nidentifies the soul with some material part of the body, such as the\neyes, the heart, or the liver; and it is interesting to note in this\nconnection that the backbone is considered by some savage races,\n_e.g._, the New Zealanders, as especially sacred because the soul or\nspiritual essence of man resides in the spinal marrow.[252] And there\nis a well-known incident in folk-tales which seems to owe its origin\nto this group of ideas. This is where the hero having been killed, one\nof his bones tells the secret of his death, and thus acts the part of\nthe soul-ghost.\n\nIn the pleasant green fields we trace the old faiths of the\nagricultural peasantry which, put into the words of Hesiod, tell us\nthat \"for them earth yields her increase; for them the oaks hold in\ntheir summits acorns, and in their midmost branches bees. The flocks\nbear for them their fleecy burdens ... they live in _unchanged\nhappiness_, and need not fly across the sea in impious ships\"--faiths\nwhich are in striking contrast to the tribal warrior's conception as\nset forth by the Saxon thane of King Eadwine of Northumbria. \"This\nlife,\" said this poetical thane, \"is like the passage of a bird from\nthe darkness without into a lighted hall where you, O King, are seated\nat supper, while storms, and rain, and snow rage abroad. The sparrow\nflying in at our door and straightway out at another is, while within,\nsafe from the storm; but soon it vanishes into the darkness whence it\ncame.\"\n\nSuch faiths as these, indeed, show us primitive ideas at their very\nroots. This seventeenth-century pagan depended upon himself for his\nfaith. He worked out his own ideas as to the origin of soul and heaven\nand God and Christ. They were terms that had filtered down to him\nthrough the hard surroundings of his life, and he set to work to\ndefine them in the fashion of the primitive savage. We meet with other\nexamples. Thus among the superstitions of Lancashire is one which\ntells us of the lingering belief in a long journey after death, when\nfood is necessary to support the soul. A man having died of apoplexy,\nnear Manchester, at a public dinner, one of the company was heard to\nremark: \"Well, poor Joe, God rest his soul! He has at least gone to\nhis long rest wi' a belly full o' good meat, and that's some\nconsolation,\" and perhaps a still more remarkable instance is that of\nthe woman buried in Cuxton Church, near Rochester, who directed by\nher will that the coffin was to have a lock and key, the key being\nplaced in her dead hand, so that she might be able to release herself\nat pleasure.[253]\n\nThese people simply did not understand civilised thought or civilised\nreligion. To escape from the pressure of trying to understand they\nturned to think for themselves, and thinking for themselves merely\nbrought them back to the standpoint of primitive thought. It could\nhardly be otherwise. The working of the human mind is on the same\nplane wherever and whenever it operates or has operated. The\ndifference in results arises from the enlarged field of observation.\nWhen the Suffolk peasant set to work to account for the existence of\nstones on his field by asserting that the fields produced the stones,\nand for the origin of the so-called \"pudding-stone\" conglomerate, that\nit was a mother stone and the parent of the pebbles,[254] he was\nbeginning a first treatise on geology; and when the Hampshire peasant\nattributes the origin of the tutsan berries to having germinated in\nthe blood of slaughtered Danes,[255] other counties following the same\nthought, I am not at all sure that he is not beginning all over again\nthe primitive conception of the origin of plants.\n\n[Illustration: LONG MEG AND HER DAUGHTERS]\n\n[Illustration: STONE CIRCLES ON STANTON MOOR]\n\nThis beginning shows the mark of the primitive mind, and that it was\noperating in a country dominated by scientific thought is the\nphenomenon which makes it so important to consider psychological\nconditions among the problems of folklore. They account for some\nbeliefs which may not contain elements of pure tradition. When the\nMishmee Hill people of India affirm of a high white cliff at the foot\nof one of the hills that approaches the Burhampooter that it is the\nremains of the \"marriage feast of Raja Sisopal with the daughter of the\nneighbouring king, named Bhismak, but she being stolen away by Krishna\nbefore the ceremony was completed, the whole of the viands were left\nuneaten and have since become consolidated into their present\nform,\"[256] we can understand that the belief is in strict accord with\nthe primitive conditions of thought of the Mishmee people. Can we\nunderstand the same conditions of the parallel English belief\nconcerning the stone circle known as \"Long Meg and her daughters,\"[257]\nand of that at Stanton Drew;[258] or of the allied beliefs in Scotland\nthat a huge upright stone, Clach Macmeas, in Loth, a parish of\nSutherlandshire, was hurled to the bottom of the glen from the top of\nBen Uarie by a giant youth when he was only one month old;[259] and in\nEngland that \"the Hurlers,\" in Cornwall, were once men engaged in the\ngame of hurling, and were turned into stone for playing on the Lord's\nDay; that the circle, known as \"Nine Maidens,\" were maidens turned into\nstone for dancing on the Lord's Day;[260] that the stone circle at\nStanton Drew represents serpents converted into stones by Keyna, a holy\nvirgin of the fifth century;[261] and that the so-called snake stones\nfound at Whitby were serpents turned into stones by the prayers of the\nAbbess Hilda.[262] These are only examples of the kind of beliefs\nentertained in all parts of the United Kingdom,[263] and they seem\nbased upon psychological, rather than traditional conditions.\n\nThe giant and the witch, or wizard, are terms applied to the unknown\npersonal agent. \"The two standing stones in the neighbourhood of West\nSkeld are said to be the metamorphosis of two wizards or giants, who\nwere on their way to plunder and murder the inhabitants of West Skeld;\nbut not having calculated their time with sufficient accuracy, before\nthey could accomplish their purpose, or retrace their steps to their\ndark abodes, the first rays of the morning sun appeared, and they were\nimmediately transformed, and remain to the present time in the shape\nof two tall moss-grown stones of ten feet in height.\"[264] This is\nparalleled by the Merionethshire example of a large drift of stones\nabout midway up the Moelore in Llan Dwywe, which was believed to be\ndue to a witch who \"was carrying her apron full of stones for some\npurpose to the top of the hill, and the string of the apron broke, and\nall the stones dropped on the spot, where they still remain under the\nname of Fedogaid-y-Widdon.\"[265] Giant and witch in these cases are\ngeneric terms by which the popular mind has conveyed a conception of\nthe origin of these strange and remarkable monuments, whether natural\nor constructed by a long-forgotten people; and we cannot doubt that\nsuch beliefs are generated by the peasantry of civilisation from a\nmental conception not far removed from that of the primitive savage.\nNeither their religion nor their education was concerned with such\nthings, so the peasants turned to their own realm and created a myth\nof origins suitable to their limited range of knowledge.\n\nIt may perhaps be urged that such beliefs as these are on the\nborderland of psychological and traditional influences. Witches and\ngiants certainly belong to tradition, but on the other hand they are\nthe common factors of the natural mind which readily attributes\npersonal origins to impersonal objects. I am inclined on the whole to\nattribute the beliefs attachable to the unexplained boulders or\nunknown monoliths to the eternal questionings in the minds of the\nuncultured peasants of uncivilised countries similar to those of the\nunadvanced savage. That the peasant of civilisation should confine his\nquestionings to the by-products of his surroundings and not to the\ngreater subjects which occupy the minds of savages, is only because\nthe greater subjects have already been answered for him by the\nChristian Church.[266]\n\nThere is a point, however, where psychological and traditional\nconditions are in natural conjunction, and I will just refer to this.\nThat matters of legal importance should be preserved by the agency of\ntradition has already been shown to belong to that part of history for\nwhich there are no contemporary records, and its importance in this\nconnection has been proved. Equally important from the psychological\nside is the fact that law is also preserved by tradition where people\nare unaccustomed to the use of writing, or by reason of their\noccupation have little use for writing. To illustrate this, I will\nquote an excellent note preserved by a writer on Cornish\nsuperstitions.\n\n \"There is an old 'vulgar error'--that no man can swear\n as a witness in a court of law to any thing he has\n seen through glass. This is based upon the formerly\n universal use of blown glass for windows, in which\n glass the constant recurrence of the greenish, and\n barely more than semi-transparent bull's eyes, so much\n distorted the view that it was unsafe for a spectator\n through glass to pledge his oath to what he saw going\n on outside. Now, through our present glass, this\n belief is relegated to the region of forgotten things,\n but nevertheless it has hold on Westcountry people\n still. I was, some years since, investigating the case\n of a derelict ship which had been found off the Scilly\n Islands, and towed by the pilots into a safe anchorage\n for the night. Next morning the pilots going out to\n complete their salvage, saw some men on board the\n derelict casting off the anchor rope by which they had\n secured her, but they distinctly declined to swear to\n the truth of what they had seen, and it turned out\n that they had seen through glass, by which they meant\n a telescope. In the same case I found that when these\n pilots (men intelligent much beyond the average, as\n all Scillonians are) had, on boarding the derelict\n (which had, of course, been deserted by her crew),\n found a living dog, they had deliberately thrown it\n overboard. They explained this act of cruelty to me by\n saying that a ship was not derelict if on board of her\n was found alive 'man, woman, child, dog, or cat.' And\n it turned out, on after-investigation, that these were\n the very words used in an obsolete Act of Parliament\n of one of the early Plantagenet kings, forgotten\n centuries ago by the English people, but borne in mind\n as a living fact by the Scillonians.\"[267]\n\nIn some special departments elementary psychological conditions\noperate in a considerable degree--operate to produce not waifs and\nstrays of primitive thought and belief, but whole classes. Thus in the\ncurious accretion of superstition around the objects connected with\nchurch worship, the same agencies are at work. The general\ncharacteristic of popular beliefs which originated with, or have grown\nup around the consecrated objects of the Church, is that such objects\nare beneficent in their action when employed for any given purpose.\nThus, as Henderson says of the North of England, \"a belief in the\nefficacy of the sacred elements in the Eucharist for the cure of\nbodily disease is widely spread.\" Silver rings, made from the\noffertory money, are very generally worn for the cure of epilepsy.\nWater that had been used in baptism was believed in West Scotland to\nhave virtue to cure many distempers; it was a preventive against\nwitchcraft, and eyes bathed with it would never see a ghost. Dalyell\nputs the evidence very succinctly. \"Everything relative to sanctity\nwas deemed a preservative. Hence the relics of saints, the touch of\ntheir clothes, of their tombs, and even portions of structures\nconsecrated to divine offices were a safeguard near the person. A\nwhite marble altar in the church of Iona, almost entire towards the\nclose of the seventeenth century, had disappeared late in the\neighteenth, from its demolition in fragments to avert shipwreck.\" And\nso what has been consecrated, must not be desecrated. In\nLeicestershire and Northamptonshire there is a superstitious idea that\nthe removal or exhumation of a body after interment bodes death or\nsome terrible calamity to the surviving members of the deceased's\nfamily.[268]\n\nIn the West of Ireland there were usually found upon the altars of the\nsmall missionary churches one or more oval stones, either natural\nwaterwashed pebbles or artificially shaped and very smooth, and these\nwere held in the highest veneration by the peasantry as having\nbelonged to the founders of the churches, and were used for a variety\nof purposes, as the curing of diseases, taking oaths upon them,\netc.[269] Similarly the using of any remains of destroyed churches for\nprofane purposes was believed to bring misfortune,[270] while the land\nwhich once belonged to the church of St. Baramedan, in the parish of\nKilbarrymeaden, county Waterford, \"has long been highly venerated by\nthe common people, who attribute to it many surprising virtues.\"[271]\nIn 1849 the people of Carrick were in the habit of carrying away from\nthe churchyard portions of the clay of a priest's grave and using it\nas a cure for several diseases, and they also boiled the clay from the\ngrave of Father O'Connor with milk and drank it.[272] One of the\nsuperstitious fancies of the Connemara folk in 1825 was credulity with\nrespect to the gospels, as they are called, which \"they wear round\ntheir neck as a charm against danger and disease. These are prepared\nby the priest, and sold by him at the price of two or three\ntenpennies. It is considered sacrilege in the purchaser to part with\nthem at any time, and it is believed that the charm proves of no\nefficacy to any but the individual for whose particular benefit the\npriest has blessed it. The charm is written on a scrap of paper and\nenclosed in a small cloth bag, marked on one side with the letters\nI. H. S. On one side of the paper is written the Lord's Prayer, and\nafter it a great number of initial letters.\"[273]\n\nSuch examples could be multiplied indefinitely, but no folklorist has\nproperly classified such beliefs and endeavoured to ascertain their\nplace in the science of folklore.[274] It is clear they have arisen\nnot from tradition, but from a new force acting on minds which were\nnot yet free to receive new influences without going back to old\nmethods of thought.\n\nHow completely the sanctity of the church exercises a constant\ninfluence upon the minds of men, thus substituting a new form of\nbelief when older forms were thrust on one side by the advance of the\nnew religion, is perhaps best illustrated by a practice in early\nChristian times for giving sanctity to the oath. Among the Jews the\naltar in the Temple was resorted to by litigants in order that the\noath might be taken in the presence of Yahveh himself, and \"so\npowerful was the impression of this upon the Christian mind, that in\nthe early ages of the Church there was a popular superstition that an\noath taken in a Jewish synagogue was more binding and more efficient\nthan anywhere else.\"[275] In exactly the same way the altar of the\nChristian Church is used in popular belief after its use in Church\nceremonial has been discontinued. Thus, to get in beneath the altar of\nSt. Hilary Church, Anglesey, by means of an open panel and then turn\nround and come out is to ensure life for the coming year,[276] and the\nwhite marble altar in Iona which has been entirely demolished by\nfragments of it being used to avert shipwreck has already been\nreferred to.[277] These are cases where there has been a throwing back\nfrom the new religion to the objects connected with the old religion,\nand they are paralleled by the practice of Protestants appealing to\nthe Roman Catholic priesthood for protection against witchcraft, and\nof Nonconformists believing that the clergy of the Episcopal Church\npossess superior powers over evil spirits.[278]\n\nPsychological evidence is therefore important. One can never be quite\nsure to what extent civilised man is free from creating fresh myths in\nplace of acquired scientific result, and to what extent this\ninfluences the production of primitive beliefs, or allows of the\nacceptance of traditional belief on new ground. The great mass of\ntraditional belief has come through the ages traditionally, that is,\nfrom parent to child, from neighbour to neighbour, from class to\nclass, from locality to locality, generation after generation.\nOccasionally this main current of the traditional life of a people is\nswollen by small side streams from fresh psychological sources.\nIndividual examples, such as those I have cited, have perhaps always\nbeen present, but their effect must have died away with the passing of\nthose with whom they originated. There are, however, stronger effects\nthan these, coming not from individuals, but from classes. Thus the\nvotaries and enemies of witchcraft produced a more lasting effect.\nWitchcraft, as Dr. Karl Pearson, I think, conclusively proves, and as\nI have helped to prove,[279] is founded upon traditional belief and\ncustom, but its remarkable revival in the Middle Ages was in the main\na psychological phenomenon. Traditional practices, traditional\nformulae, and traditional beliefs are no doubt the elements of\nwitchcraft, but it was not the force of tradition which produced the\nmiserable doings of the Middle Ages and of the seventeenth century\nagainst witches. These were due to a psychological force, partly\ngenerated by the newly acquired power of the people to read the Bible\nfor themselves, and so to apply the witch stories of the Jews to\nneighbours of their own who possessed powers or peculiarities which\nthey could not understand, and partly generated by the carrying on of\ntraditional practices by certain families or groups of persons who\ncould only acquire knowledge of such practices by initiation or family\nteaching. Lawyers, magistrates, judges, nobles, and monarchs are\nconcerned with witchcraft. These are not minds which have been crushed\nby civilisation, but minds which have misunderstood it or have misused\nit. It is unnecessary, and it is of course impossible on this occasion\nto trace out the psychic issues which are contained in the facts of\nwitchcraft, but it may be advisable to illustrate the point by one or\ntwo references.\n\nI will note a few modern examples of the belief in witchcraft:--\n\n \"In 1879 extraordinary stories were current among the\n populace of Caergwrle. Mrs. Braithwaite supplied a\n Mrs. Williams with milk, but afterwards refused to\n serve her, and the cause was as follows: Mrs.\n Braithwaite had up to that time been very successful\n in churning her butter, but about a month ago the\n butter would not come. She tried every known agency;\n she washed and dried her bats, but all to no purpose.\n The milk would not yield an ounce of butter. Under the\n circumstances she said Mrs. Williams had witched her.\n The neighbours believed it, and Mrs. Williams was\n generally called a witch. Hearing these reports, Mrs.\n Williams went to Mrs. Braithwaite to expostulate with\n her, when Mrs. Braithwaite said, 'Out, witch! If you\n don't leave here, I'll shoot you.' Mrs. Williams\n thereupon applied to the Caergwrle bench of\n magistrates for a protection order against Mrs.\n Braithwaite. She assured the Bench she was in danger,\n as every one believed she was a witch. The Clerk: What\n do they say is the reason? Applicant: Because she\n cannot churn the milk. Mr. Kryke: Do they see you\n riding a broomstick? Applicant (seriously): No, sir.\n The Bench instructed the police officer to caution\n Mrs. Braithwaite against repeating the threats.\"[280]\n\nThe next example is from Lancashire:--\n\n \"At the East Dereham Petty Sessions, William Bulwer,\n of Etling Green, was charged with assaulting\n Christiana Martins, a young girl, who resided near the\n Etling Green toll-bar. Complainant deposed that she\n was 18 years of age, and on Wednesday, the 2nd inst.,\n the defendant came to her and abused her. The\n complainant, who looks scarce more than a child,\n repeated, despite the efforts of the magistrates'\n clerk to stop her, and without being in the least\n abashed, some of the worst language it was possible to\n conceive--conversation of the most gross description,\n alleged to have taken place between herself and the\n defendant. They appeared to have got from words to\n blows and, while trying to fasten the gate, the\n defendant hit her across the hand with a stick. She\n alleged that there was no cause for the abuse and the\n assault, so far as she knew, and in reply to rigid\n cross-examination as to the origin of the quarrel,\n adhered to this statement. Mrs. Susannah Gathercole\n also corroborated the statement as to the assault,\n adding that the defendant said the complainant's\n mother was a witch. Defendant then blazed forth in\n righteous indignation, and, when the witness said she\n knew no more about the origin of the quarrel, he said,\n 'Mrs. Martins is an old witch, gentlemen, that is what\n she is, and she charmed me, and I got no sleep for her\n for three nights, and one night at half-past eleven\n o'clock, I got up because I could not sleep, and went\n out and found a \"walking toad\" under a clod that had\n been dug up with a three-pronged fork. That is why I\n could not rest; she is a bad old woman; she put this\n toad under there to charm me, and her daughter is just\n as bad, gentlemen. She would bewitch any one; she\n charmed me, and I got no rest day or night for her,\n till I found this \"walking toad\" under the turf. She\n dug a hole and put it there to charm me, gentlemen,\n that is the truth. I got the toad out and put it in a\n cloth, and took it upstairs and showed it to my\n mother, and \"throwed\" it into the pit in the garden.\n She went round this here \"walking toad\" after she had\n buried it, and I could not rest by day or sleep by\n night till I found it. The Bench: Do you go to church?\n Defendant: Sometimes I go to church, and sometimes to\n chapel, and sometimes I don't go nowhere. Her mother\n is bad enough to do anything; and to go and put the\n \"walking toad\" in the hole like that, for a man which\n never did nothing to her, she is not fit to live,\n gentlemen, to go and do such a thing; it is not as if\n I had done anything to her. She looks at lots of\n people, and I know she will do some one harm. The\n Chairman: Do you know this man, Superintendent Symons?\n Is he sane? Superintendent Symons: Yes, sir;\n perfectly.\"[281]\n\nIn Somerset belief in witchcraft still lingers in nooks and corners of\nthe west, as appears from a case brought before the magistrates of the\nWiveliscombe division.\n\n \"Sarah Smith, the wife of a marine store dealer,\n residing at Golden Hill, was for some time ill and\n confined to her bed. Finding that the local doctor\n could not cure her, she sent for a witch doctor of\n Taunton. He duly arrived by train on St. Thomas's day.\n Smith inquired his charge, and was informed he usually\n charged 11s., remarking that unless he took it from\n the person affected his incantation would be of no\n avail. Smith then handed it to his wife, who gave it\n to the witch doctor, and he returned 1s. to her. He\n then proceeded to foil the witch's power over his\n patient by tapping her several times on the palm of\n her hand with his finger, telling her that every tap\n was a stab on the witch's heart. This was followed by\n an incantation. He then gave her a parcel of herbs\n (which evidently consisted of dried bay leaves and\n peppermint), which she was to steep and drink. She was\n to send to a blacksmith's shop and get a donkey's shoe\n made, and nail it on her front door. He then\n departed.\"[282]\n\nSuch examples as these may be added to from various parts of the\ncountry, but they do not compare with the terrible case at Clonmel, in\ncounty Tipperary, which occurred in 1895. The evidence showed that the\nhusband, father, and mother of the victim, together with several other\npersons, were concerned in this matter, and one of the witnesses, Mary\nSimpson, stated \"that on the night of March 14th she saw Cleary\nforcibly administer herbs to his wife, and when the woman did not\nanswer when called upon in the name of the Trinity to say who she was,\nshe was placed on the fire by Cleary and the others. Mrs. Cleary did\nnot appear to be in her right senses. She was raving.\"[283] The whole\nrecord of the trial is of the most amazing description, pointing back\nto a system of belief which, if based upon traditional practices, has\nbeen fed by entirely modern influences. Such records as these stretch\nback through the ages, and almost every village, certainly every\ncounty in the United Kingdom, has its records of trials for\nwitchcraft, in which clergy and layman, judge, jury, and victim play\nstrange parts, if we consider them as members of a civilised\ncommunity. Superstition which has been preserved by the folk as sacred\nto their old faiths, preserved by tradition, has remained the\ncherished possession, generally in secret, of those who practise it.\nThe belief in witchcraft is a different matter. Though it has\ntraditional rites and practices it has been kept alive by a cruel and\ncrude interpretation of its position among the faiths of the Bible,\nand it has thus received fresh life.\n\nThe miserable records of witchcraft illustrate in a way no other\nsubject can how the human mind, when untouched by the influences of\nadvanced culture, has the tendency to revert to traditional culture,\nand they demonstrate how strongly embedded in human memory is the\ngreat mass of traditional culture. The outside civilisation, religious\nor scientific, has not penetrated far. Science has only just begun her\ngreat work, and religion has been spending most of her efforts in\nendeavouring to displace a set of beliefs which she calls\nsuperstition, by a set of superstitions which she calls revelation.\nNot only have the older faiths not been eradicated by this, but the\nolder psychological conditions have not been made to disappear. The\nfolklorist has to make note of this obviously significant fact, and\nmust therefore deal with both sides of the question, the traditional\nand the psychological, and because by far the greater importance\nbelongs to the former it does not do to neglect the importance, though\nthe lesser importance, of the latter.\n\nIt assists the student of tradition in many ways. People who will\nstill explain for themselves in primitive fashion phenomena which they\ndo not understand, and who remain content with such primitive\nexplanations instead of relying upon the discoveries of science, are\njust the people to retain with strong persistence the traditional\nbeliefs and ideas which they obtained from their fathers, and to\nacquire other traditional beliefs and ideas which they obtain from\nneighbours. One often wonders at the \"amazing toughness\" of tradition,\nand in the psychological conditions which have been indicated will be\nfound one of the necessary explanations.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[237] Dalyell, _Darker Superstitions of Scotland_, 197-198.\n\n[238] Robertson, _Agriculture of Inverness-shire_. For Argyllshire see\n_New Stat. Account of Scotland_, vii. 346; Brown, _Early Descriptions\nof Scotland_, 12, 49, 99.\n\n[239] Wilde, _Catalogue of Museum of Royal Irish Academy_, 99; Joyce,\n_Social Hist. of Anc. Ireland_, ii. 27.\n\n[240] _Tour in Ireland_, 1775, p. 144; _Gent. Mag._, v. 680.\n\n[241] Hutchinson, _Hist. of Cumberland_, i. 216.\n\n[242] James Clarke, _Survey of the Lakes_, 1789, p. xiii; _Berwickshire\nNat. Field Club_, ix. 512.\n\n[243] Clarke, _Survey of the Lakes_, pp. x, xv. Referring to the\nstatutes enacted as a result of the Commissioners' work the facts are\nas follows: There were certain franchises in North and South Tynedale\nand Hexhamshire, by virtue of which the King's writ did not run there.\n[Tynedale, though on the English side of the border, was an ancient\nfranchise of the Kings of Scotland.] In 1293 Edward I. confirmed this\ngrant in favour of John of Balliol (1 Rot. Parl., 114-16), and the\ninhabitants took advantage of this immunity to make forays and commit\noutrages in neighbouring counties. In the year 1414, at the Parliament\nholden at Leicester, \"grievous complaints\" of these outrages were made\n\"by the Commons of the County of Northumberland.\" It was accordingly\nprovided (2 Henry V., cap. 5) that process should be taken against such\noffenders under the common law until they were outlawed; and that then,\nupon a certificate of outlawry made to lords of franchises in North and\nSouth Tynedale and Hexhamshire, the offender's lands and goods should\nbe forfeited. In 1421 the provisions of this statute were extended to\nlike offenders in Rydesdale, where also the King's writ did not run (9\nHenry V., cap. 7). Still these excesses continued in Tynedale. By an\nenactment of Henry VII. (2 Henry VII., cap. 9) this \"lordship and\nbounds\" were annexed to the county of Northumberland. \"Forasmuch,\" the\npreamble sets forth, \"as the inhabitants and dwellers within the\nlordships and bounds of North and South Tyndale, not only in their own\npersons, but also oftentimes accompanied and confedered with Scottish\nancient enemies to this realm, have at many seasons in time past\ncommitted and done, and yet daily and nightly commit and do, great and\nheinous murders, robberies, felonies, depredations, riots and other\ngreat trespasses upon the King our Sovereign lord's true and faithful\nliege people and subjects, inhabiters and dwellers within the shires of\nNorthumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland, Exhamshire [_sic_], the\nbishopric of Durham and in a part of Yorkshire, in which treasons,\nmurders, robberies, felonies, and other the premises, have not in time\npast in any manner of form been punished after the order and course of\nthe common law, by reason of such franchise as was used within the same\nwhile it was in the possession of any other lord or lords than our\nSovereign lord, and thus for lack of punishment of these treasons,\nmurders, robberies and felonies, the King's true and faithful liege\npeople and subjects, inhabiters and dwellers within the shires and\nplaces before rehearsed, cannot be in any manner of surety of their\nbodies or goods, neither yet lie in their own houses, but either to be\nmurdered or taken or carried into Scotland and there ransomed, to their\ngreat destruction of body and goods, and utter impoverishing for ever,\nunless due and hasty remedy be had and found,\" it is therefore provided\nthat North and South Tynedale shall from thenceforth be gildable, and\npart of the shire of Northumberland, that no franchise shall stand good\nthere, and the King's writ shall run, and his officers and all their\nwarrants be obeyed there as in every other part of that shire. Further,\nlessees of lands within the bounds are to enter into recognisances in\ntwo sureties to appear and answer all charges.\n\n[244] See my _Ethnology in Folklore_, cap. vi.\n\n[245] Hickson, _North Celebes_, 240.\n\n[246] Mitchell's _Australian Expeditions_, i. 246.\n\n[247] See my _Village Community_, 18; Stewart's _Highlanders of\nScotland_, i. 147, 228.\n\n[248] _Notes and Queries_, second series, iv. 487.\n\n[249] Wild, _Highlands, Orcadia and Skye_, 196.\n\n[250] The psychology of primitive races is now receiving scientific\nattention, thanks chiefly to Dr. Haddon and the scholars who\naccompanied him upon his Torres Straits expedition in 1898. The volume\nof the memoirs of this expedition which relates to psychology has\nalready been published, and students should consult it as an example of\nscientific method.\n\n[251] One is reminded of the famous Shakespearian emendation whereby\nFalstaff on his death-bed \"babbled o' green fields.\"\n\n[252] Shortland, _New Zealanders_, 107. An Algonquin backbone story is\nquoted by MacCulloch, _Childhood of Fiction_, 92, and he says, \"the\nspine is held by many people to be the seat of life,\" 93 and _cf._ III.\n_Cf._ Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_, 277.\n\n[253] _Gent. Mag. Lib._, _Popular Superstitions_, 122.\n\n[254] _County Folklore, Suffolk_, 2.\n\n[255] _Hardwick's Science Gossip_, vi. 281; _cf._ Worsaae, _Danes and\nNorwegians_, 25.\n\n[256] _Journ. Asiatic Soc., Bengal_, xiv. 479.\n\n[257] King, _Munimenta Antiqua_, i. 195-6; _Gent. Mag. Lib._,\n_Archaeology_, i. 319-321; Hutchinson, _Hist. Cumberland_, i. 226.\n\n[258] _Arch. Journ._, xv. 204.\n\n[259] Sinclair, _Stat. Acct. of Scotland_, xv. 191.\n\n[260] _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, i. 2; _Gent. Mag. Lib._, _Archaeology_,\ni. 21.\n\n[261] _Archaeologia_, xxv. 198.\n\n[262] _Gent. Mag._, 1751, pp. 110, 182.\n\n[263] Some Irish examples are collected in _Folklore Record_, v.\n169-172.\n\n[264] Sinclair, _Stat. Acct. of Scotland_, xv. 111.\n\n[265] _Trans. Cymmrodorion Soc._ (1822), i. 170.\n\n[266] It is not worth while, perhaps, to pursue this part of our\nsubject into further regions. It is to be sought for in innumerable\npamphlets, such, for instance, as those relating to the Civil War.\nBeesley, _Hist. of Banbury_, 334, mentions one, the title of which I\nwill quote: \"A great Wonder in Heaven shewing the late Apparitions and\nprodigious noyses of War and Battels seen on Edge Hill neere Keinton,\"\nand the contents are \"Certified under the hands of William Wood Esq and\nJustice for the Peace in the said Countie, Samuel Marshall, Preacher of\nGod's Word in Keinton, and other Persons of Qualitie.\" The date is\nexactly three months after the battle of Edgehill, \"London, printed for\nThomas Jackson, January 23rd, 1642-3.\"\n\n[267] _West of England Magazine_, February, 1888.\n\n[268] Henderson, _Folklore of the Northern Counties_, 146; Napier,\n_Folklore of West of Scotland_, 140; Dalyell, _Darker Superstitions of\nScotland_, 142; _Choice Notes_ (_Folklore_), 8; Brand, iii. 300; Dyer,\n_English Folklore_, 146, 153 (Hereford, Lincoln, and Yorks).\n\n[269] Wilde, _Catalogue of Royal Irish Academy_, 131.\n\n[270] _Folklore Record_, iv. 105.\n\n[271] Rev. R. H. Ryland, _Hist. of Waterford_, 271.\n\n[272] Wilde, _Beauties of the Boyne_, 45; Croker, _Researches in South\nof Ireland_, 170; _Revue Celtique_, v. 358.\n\n[273] Blake, _Letters from the Irish Highlands_, 130-131.\n\n[274] _Church Folklore_, by Rev. J. E. Vaux, is a collection of\nmaterial, and does not attempt to give any indication of its value.\n\n[275] Lea, _Superstition and Force_, 28.\n\n[276] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._, xxv. 142; Rev. W. Bingley, _North\nWales_, 216-217.\n\n[277] Sacheverell, _Voyage to Isle of Man_, 132.\n\n[278] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i. 115; Landt, _Origin of the\nPriesthood_, 85; Henderson, _Folklore of Northern Counties_, 32-33;\n_Folklore Record_, i. 46.\n\n[279] Pearson's _Chances of Death_, ii. cap. ix., \"Woman as Witch;\"\nGomme, _Ethnology in Folklore_, 48-62.\n\n[280] _Daily Chronicle_, 15th February, 1879.\n\n[281] _Leigh Chronicle_, 19th April, 1879.\n\n[282] _Somerset County Gazette_, 22nd January, 1881.\n\n[283] _Standard_, 3rd April, 1895. The full details are reprinted in\n_Folklore_, vi. 373-384.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nANTHROPOLOGICAL CONDITIONS\n\n\nIn dealing with the folklore of any country, it is important to note\nthe general bearing of anthropological conditions. The earliest\ninhabitants, to whom part of the folklore belonged, and the later\npeoples, to whom part belonged, have both arrived at their ultimate\npoint of settlement in the country where we discover their folklore\nafter being in touch with many points of the world's surface. They are\nboth world-people as well as national people--they belonged to\nanthropology before they came under the dominion of history. This\nimportant fact is often or nearly always neglected. We are apt to\ntreat of Greek and Roman and Briton, of Cretan, Scandinavian, and\nRussian, as bounded by the few thousands of years of life which have\nfixed them with their territorial names, and to ignore all that lies\nbehind this historic period. There is, as a matter of fact, an immense\nperiod behind it, reckoned according to geological time in millions of\nyears, and this period, longer in duration, more strenuous in its\ninfluences upon character and mind, containing more representatives in\npeoples, societies, and races than the later period, has affected the\nlater period to a far greater extent than is generally conceded or\nunderstood. We cannot understand the later period without knowing\nsomething of the earlier period.\n\nThere is more than this; for the dominating political races occupying\nEuropean countries to-day were, in most cases, preceded by a\nnon-political people. Thus, if we turn to Britain for illustration, we\nfind evidence of a people physically allied with a race which cannot\nbe identified with Celt or Teuton,[284] philologically allied with a\npeople which spoke a non-Aryan language,[285] archaeologically allied\nwith the prehistoric stone-circle and monolith builders,[286] and we\nfind custom, belief, and myth in Britain retaining traces of a culture\nwhich is not Celtic and not Teutonic, and which contains survivals of\nthe primitive system of totemism.[287] These four independent classes\nof evidence have to be combined if we would ascertain the true\nposition they occupy in the history of Britain, and it is perfectly\nclear that, apart from general considerations, a direct appeal to\nanthropology is necessary to help out the deficiencies of both history\nand folklore. The questions involved in totemism alone compel us to\nthis course. It is questionable whether there is any existing savage\nor barbaric people who are non-totemic in the sense of either not\npossessing the rudimentary beginnings of totemism, or not having once\npossessed a full system of totemism. Totemism, at one stage or another\nof its development, is, in fact, one of the universal elements of\nman's life, and all consideration of its traces in civilised countries\nmust begin with some conception of its origin. Its origin must refer\nback to conditions of human life which are also universal. Special\ncircumstances, special peoples, special areas could not have produced\ntotemism unless we proceed to the somewhat violent conclusion that\nbeginning in one area it has spread therefrom to all areas. I know of\nno authority who advocates such a theory and no evidence in its\nfavour. We are left therefore with the proposition that the origin of\ntotemism must be sought for in some universal condition of human life\nat one of its very early stages, which would have produced a state of\nthings from which would inevitably arise the beliefs, customs, and\nsocial organisations which are included under the term totemism.\n\nThere is therefore ample ground for a consideration of anthropological\nconditions as part of the necessary equipment of the study of folklore\nas an historical science. Unfortunately, authorities are now greatly\ndivided on several important questions in anthropology, and it is not\npossible to speak with even a reasonable degree of certainty on many\nthings. This compels further research than the mere statement of the\npresent position, and I find myself obliged even for my present\nlimited purpose to suggest many new points beyond the stage reached\nby present research. There is one advantage in this. It allows of a\nhypothesis by which to present the subject to the student, and a\nworking hypothesis is always a great advantage where research is not\nfounded entirely on actual observation by trained experts in the\nfield. Where, therefore, I depart from the guidance of conclusions\nalready arrived at by scholars in this department of research, it will\nbe in order to substitute an opinion of my own which I think it is\nnecessary to consider, and the whole study of the anthropological\nproblems in their relation to folklore will assume the shape of a\nrestatement of the entire case.\n\nI am aware that a subject of this magnitude is too weighty and\nfar-reaching to be properly considered in a chapter of a book not\ndevoted to the single purpose, but it is necessary to attempt a rough\nstatement of the evidence, though it will take us somewhat beyond the\nordinary domain of folklore; but, while dealing with the\nanthropological position at sufficient length to make a complicated\nsubject clear, if I can do so, I shall limit both my arguments and the\nevidence in support of them to the narrowest limits.\n\n\nI\n\nMr. Wallace, I think, supplies the dominant note of the\nanthropological position when he suggests, though in a strangely\nunsatisfactory terminology, that it is the conscious use by man of his\nexperience which causes his superior mental endowments, and his\nsuperior range of development.[288] We must lay stress upon the\nimportant qualification \"conscious.\" It is conscious use of experience\nwhich is the great factor in man's progress. It is the greatest\npossession of man in his beginning, and has remained his greatest\npossession ever since. His experience did not always lead him to the\nbest paths of progress, but it has led him to progress.\n\nEven Mr. Wallace did not appreciate the full significance of this\nprinciple. The conscious adoption of a natural fact, of an observation\nfrom nature, or an assumed observation from nature, for social\npurposes, is an altogether different thing from the unconscious\nknowledge which man might have been possessed of, but which he never\nput to any use in his social development. Anthropologists must note\nnot the natural facts known to later man or known to science, but the\nfacts, or assumed facts, which early man consciously adopted for his\npurpose during the long period of his development from savage to\ncivilised forms of life. The unconscious acts of mankind are of no\nuse, or of very little use. It is only the conscious acts that will\nlead us along the lines of man's development. Man did not begin to\nbuild up his social system with the scientific fact of blood kinship\nthrough father and mother, but he evolved a theory of social\nrelationship which served his purpose until the fact of blood kinship\nsupplied a better basis. At almost the first point of origin in savage\nsociety we see man acting consciously, and it is amongst his conscious\nacts that we must place those traces of a sort of primitive\nlegislation which have been found.[289]\n\nNow this being the basis of anthropological observation, we have to\napply it to the question of man's earliest progress. It is at its base\nan economic question. Primitive economics dominated the movements and\ncondition of early man in a far more thorough manner than modern\neconomics affect civilisation, and between the two systems lies the\nwhole history of man. It reveals man adapting the social unit to the\nproductive powers of its food supply, and developing towards the\nadaptation of the productive powers of food supply to the social unit.\nIn the various stages that accompany this great change, there is no\ndefined separation of peoples according to stages of culture, savage,\nbarbaric, or civilised. There is nothing to suggest that all peoples\ndo not come from one centre of human life. On the contrary, the\nevidence is strong that the primal stages in human evolution are\ntraceable in all the culture stages, and, therefore, that they fit in\nwith the general conclusions of anthropologists and naturalists as to\nman's origin in one definite centre, and his gradual spreading out\nfrom that centre.\n\nI will take the chief conclusions arrived at in respect of this\ncondition of birth at one centre and subsequent spreading out. Darwin\nhas summarised the problem between the monogenists and polygenists in\na manner which still ranks as a sufficient statement of the case, and\nhis conclusion that \"all the races of man are descended from a single\nprimitive stock\"[290] is accepted by the most prominent\nnaturalists,[291] and confirmed by recent discoveries, which go to\nprove that this primitive stock began in miocene or pliocene times in\nthe Indo-Malaysian intertropical lands.[292]\n\nAnthropologists, who have been deeply interested in the controversy\nranging round the origin of man, have in a remarkable manner neglected\nto take into full account the most significant phenomenon of spreading\nout.[293] They either neglect it altogether, or they relegate it to so\nsmall a place in their argument as to become a practical neglect. They\ntreat of man as if he were always in a stationary condition, and\nexclude the important condition of movement as an element in his\ndevelopment. Mr. Spencer's general dictum that geological changes and\nmeteorological changes, as well as the consequent changes of flora and\nfauna, must have been causing over all parts of the earth perpetual\nemigrations and immigrations,[294] does not help much, because it\nrefers to special and cataclysmic events. Lord Avebury, though\nstating the true case, unfortunately contents himself at the end of\nhis book on prehistoric man with a short summary of the evidence as to\nthe equipment of primitive man in mental and social qualities when he\nbegan the great movement, and gives only a few lines to his conclusion\nthat \"there can be no doubt that he originally crept over the earth's\nsurface little by little, year by year, just, for instance, as the\nweeds of Europe are now gradually but surely creeping over the surface\nof Australia.\"[295]\n\nMr. Keane is the first authority who thinks it appropriate to commence\nhis treatise on man with an examination of the facts which show that\n\"the world was peopled by migration from one centre by pleistocene\nman ... who moved about like other migrating faunas, unconsciously,\neverywhere following the lines of least resistance, advancing or\nreceding, and acting generally on blind impulse rather than of set\npurpose;\"[296] and it still remains with Dr. Latham to have formulated\nsome fixed principles of the migratory movement in his admirable\nthough, of course, wholly inadequate summary of man and his\nmigrations. I will quote the passage in full: \"So long as any\ncontinental extremities of the earth's surface remained\nunoccupied--the stream (or rather the enlarging circle of migration)\nnot having yet reached them--the _primary_ migration is going on; and\nwhen all have got their complement, the primary migration is over.\nDuring this primary migration, the relations of man, thus placed in\nmovement and in the full, early and guiltless exercise of his high\nfunction of subduing the earth, are in conflict with physical\nobstacles and with the resistance of the lower animals only. Unless,\nlike Lot's wife, he turn back upon the peopled parts behind him, he\nhas no relations with his fellow-men--at least none arising out of the\nclaim of previous occupancy. In other words, during the primary\nmigration, the world that lay before our progenitors was either brute\nor inanimate. But before many generations have passed away, all\nbecomes full to overflowing, so that men must enlarge their boundaries\nat the expense of their fellows. The migrations that now take place\nare _secondary_. They differ from the primary in many respects. They\nare slower, because the resistance is that of humanity to humanity,\nand they are violent, because dispossession is the object. They are\npartial, abortive, followed by the fusion of different populations, or\nfollowed by their extermination as the case may be.\"[297] This\npassage, written so long ago as 1841, is still applicable to the facts\nof modern science, and there is only to add to it that the migration\nof man from a common centre, where life was easy, to all parts of the\nworld, where life has been difficult, must have been undertaken in\norder to meet some great necessity, and must have become possible by\nreason of some great force which man alone possessed. The necessity\nwas economic; the force was social development. If the movement has\nnot been geographically ever forward, it has been ethnographically\nconstant.[298] Movement always; sometimes the pressure has come from\none direction, sometimes from another; sometimes it has caused\ncompression and at other times expansion; sometimes it has sent\nhumanity to inhabit regions that required generations of victims\nbefore it could hold its own. At all times the essential condition of\nlife has been that of constant movement in face of antagonistic\nforces.[299] In whatever form the movement has come about, movement of\na very definite character has taken place over an immense period of\ntime, and sufficient to cover practically the whole earth with\ndescendants from the original human stock. This conclusion is\nenormously strengthened by the accumulating evidence for the\nworld-wide area covered by the remains of man's earliest weapon, the\nworked stone implement. It is everywhere. It is practically\nco-extensive with man's wanderings, and the greatness of the territory\nit covers marks it off as another of the universal relics of man's\nprimitive life. Of no other weapon or instrument or associated object\ncan this be said. The bow and arrow are unknown to the Australians and\nother peoples; pottery is unknown to the Bushmen and other peoples;\nthe use of fire in cookery is not found among the South Sea Islanders,\nand is not claimed for other peoples.[300] We can get behind the\ndevelopment of these and other arts and come upon the ruder people who\nhad not arrived at the stage they represent. But we cannot get behind\nthe worked flint. It must have been the chief material cause of man's\nsuccess in the migratory movement, and with the social development\naccompanying it must have made migration not only possible, but the\nonly true method of meeting the earliest economic difficulties. It\nalso provides us with the elements of a chronological basis. Behind\npalaeolithic times there is an immensity of time when man struggled\nwith his economic difficulties and spread out slowly and painfully.\nDuring palaeolithic times the movement was more rapid and more general.\nObstacles were overcome by palaeolithic man becoming superior to his\nenemies by the use of weapons, and use of weapons caused, or at all\nevents aided, the development of social institutions capable of\nbearing the new force of movement.\n\nThese two factors of economic necessity and social development are of\nequal importance in man's history, and they interlace at all points.\nThey lead straight to the necessity for always taking count of the\nfact that man is primarily a migratory being, and that he has spread\nover the earth. Everywhere we find man. There is no habitable part of\nthe world where he has not found a home. But we do not find him under\nequal conditions everywhere, and the different conditions afford\nevidence of the main lines of development. Roughly speaking, it may be\nput in this way. In the savage world the people appear as aborigines,\nthat is to say, the first and only occupiers of the territory where\nthey are located. In the barbaric world the condition of aboriginal\nsettlement is tinged with the result of conquest, namely, the pushing\nout or absorption of the aboriginal folk in favour of a more powerful\nand conquering folk. In the political world, and in the political\nworld only, there is not only the element of conquest, but the\ndefinite aim of conquest, which is to retain the aboriginal or\nconquered people as part of the political fabric necessary to the\nsettlement of the conqueror, and at the same time to keep intact the\nsuperior position of the conqueror. In the savage world, society and\nreligion are based upon locality; in the barbaric world there is the\nfirst sign of the element of kinship consciously used in the effort of\nconquest, which dies away gradually as successful settlement, by which\nconqueror and conquered become merged in one people, follows conquest;\nin the political world, and in the political world only, kinship is\nelevated into a necessary institution, is made sacred to the minds of\ntribesmen, and becomes an essential part of the religion of the tribe\nin order to keep the organisation of the tribal conquerors intact and\nfree from the perils of dissolution when conquerors and conquered\nbecome members of one political unit. The savage and barbaric worlds\nare the homes of the backward peoples, the non-advanced or fossilised\ntypes of early humanity. The political world is the domain for the\nmost part of the Aryan-speaking people, and of the Semitic people, and\nof those people who in Egypt within the Mediterranean area, and in\nChina in the eastern Asian area, have built up civilisations which\nhave only recently come under scientific observation.\n\nThese distinctions are not made by anthropologists as a rule, yet I\ncannot but think they are in the main the true distinctions which must\nbe made if we are to arrive at any general conception of the progress\nof man from savagery to civilisation. The distinctions which seem to\nhold the field against those I have suggested, are those of hunter,\npastoral, and agricultural. I say seem to hold the field, because they\nhave never been scientifically worked out. They are stated in\ntextbooks and research work almost as an axiom of anthropology, but\ntheir claim to this position is singularly weak and unsatisfactory,\nand has never been scientifically established. They are only\neconomical distinctions, not social, and they do not properly express\nrelated stages. Hunting, cattle keeping, and agriculture are found in\nalmost all stages of social evolution, and I, for one, deny that in\nthe order they are generally given, they express anything approaching\nto accurate indication of the line of human progress. The\ndistinctions I have suggested do not, of course, contain everything\nindicative of human progress. They are the first broad outlines to be\nfilled up by the details of special peoples, special areas, and\nspecial ages. They involve many sub-stages which need to be properly\nworked out, and for which a satisfactory terminology is required. In\nthe meantime, as measuring-posts of man's line of progress, they\nexpress the most important fact about man, namely, that his present\nenforced stationary condition has followed upon an enormous period of\nenforced movement. That movement has finally resulted in the presence\nof man everywhere on the earth's surface. This has been followed by\nthe continued moving of savage man within the limited areas to which\nhe has been finally pushed; by the movement of barbaric man from one\nplace of settlement to another place of settlement, again within\nlimited areas; and by the movement of political man through countries\nand continents of vast extent, and the final overlordship of political\nman over savage and barbaric man whom he has subjected and used for\nhis purpose of final settlement in the civilised form of settlement.\nIt will be apparent from the terms I have used to express the three\nchief stages in man's progress, that I give a special significance to\nthe use of blood kinship as a social force, and in the sequel I think\nthis special significance will be justified.[301]\n\nNo one can properly estimate the tremendous amount of movement which\npreceded these later limitations to movement. Savage and barbaric\nraces are now hemmed in by the forces of modern civilisation. This was\nnot the case even a few hundred years ago, and though we cannot say\nwhen constant movement all over the world was stayed, we can form some\nidea of the comparatively late period when this took place by a\ncontemplation of the very recent growth of the political civilisations\nknown to history. At the most, this can only be reckoned at some ten\nthousand years. At the back of this short stretch of time, or of the\nsuccessive periods at which the new civilisations have arisen, there\nare recollections of great movements and great migrations. Egypt,\nBabylonia, India, Persia, Greece, and Rome have preserved these\nrecollections by tradition, and tradition has been largely confirmed\nby archaeology. Celts and Teutons have preserved parallel traditions\nwhich are confirmed by history observed from without. These traditions\nand memorials of the migration period have not been scientifically\nexamined in each case, but where scholars have touched upon them,\ngreat and unexpected results have been produced.[302]\n\nThere was time enough, before these late and special movements which\nled to civilisation, for man, in the course of peopling the earth, to\nbe brought at various stages to a standstill, and such a change in his\nlife-history would have its own special results. One of the most\nmomentous of these results is the fossilisation of social and mental\nconditions. Man stationary, or movable by custom within restricted\nareas, would live under conditions which must have produced forms of\nculture different from those under which man lived when he was always\nable to penetrate, not by custom but by the force of circumstances,\ninto the unknown domain of unoccupied territory; and the fossilisation\nof his culture at various stages of development, in accord with the\nvarious periods of his being brought to a standstill, would be the\nmost important result.[303] Whenever man was compelled to move onward\nthe social forces which were demanded of him, as he proceeded from\npoint to point, must have been quite different from those which he\ncould have adopted if he had been allowed to stay in areas which\nsuited him, if he could have selected his settlement grounds and\nawaited events. The calmness of the latter methods would perhaps have\nled to the unconscious development of social forms; the roughness of\nthe actual method of constant movement led to the conscious adoption\nof social forms which has altered man's history. These considerations\nbring us to the conclusion that it is during the period of migratory\nmovement that man has developed the social and religious elements with\nwhich the anthropologist finds him endowed, when at last in modern\ndays he has been brought within the ken of scientific observation, and\nthat therefore it is as a migratory not a stationary organism that the\nevolution of human society has to be studied, aided by the fact that\nenforced stationary conditions have produced in the savage world\nexamples of perhaps the most remote as well as the more recent types\nof primitive humanity.\n\nThis last possibility, however, is not admitted by the best\nauthorities. They endeavour to use biological methods in order to get\nbehind existing savagery for the earliest period of human savagery.\nDarwin is not satisfied with the evidence as to promiscuity, strong as\nit appeared to him to be, and he pronounced it to be \"extremely\nimprobable\" in a state of nature, and falls back upon the evidence of\nthe rudimentary stages of human existence, there being, as among the\ngorillas, but one adult male in the band, and \"when the young male\ngrows up, a contest takes place for the mastery, and the strongest, by\nkilling and driving out the others, establishes himself as the head of\nthe community.\"[304] Mr. McLennan nowhere states the evidence for his\nfirst stage of human society--the primitive horde without any ideas of\nkinship, and based upon a fellowship of common interests and\ndangers[305]--but arrives at it by argument deduced from the\nconditions of later stages of development, and from the necessary\nsuppositions as to the pre-existing stage which must have led to the\nlater. Mr. Westermarck leads us straight to the evidence of the lower\nanimals, from which he arrives at the small groups of humans headed by\nthe male, and provides us with the theory of a human pairing\nseason.[306] Mr. Morgan claims that no exemplification of mankind in\nhis assumed lower status of savagery remained to the historical\nperiod,[307] presumably meaning the anthropo-historical period. And\nfinally, Mr. Lang definitely claims that conjecture, and conjecture\nalone, remains as the means of getting back to the earliest human\norigins.[308]\n\nThere is great danger in relying too closely upon conjecture. We shall\nbe repeating in anthropology what the analytical jurists accomplished\nin law and jurisprudence, and it will then soon become necessary to do\nfor anthropology what Sir Henry Maine did for comparative\njurisprudence, namely, demonstrate that the analytical method does not\ntake us back to human origins, but to highly developed systems of\nsociety. Law, in the hands of the analytical jurists, is merely one\npart of the machinery of modern government. Social beginnings in the\nhands of conjectural anthropologists are merely abstractions with the\nwhole history of man put on one side. Mr. Lang in leading the way\ntowards the analytical method in anthropology has avoided many of its\npitfalls, but his disciples are not so successful. Thus, when Mr.\nThomas declares that \"custom which has among them [primitive peoples]\nfar more power than law among us, determines whether a man is of kin\nto his mother and her relatives alone, or to his father and father's\nrelatives, or whether both sets of relatives are alike of kin to\nthem,\"[309] he is neglecting the whole significance and range of\ncustom. His statement is true analytically, but it is not true\nanthropologically until we have ascertained what this custom to which\nhe refers really is, whence it is derived, how it has obtained its\nforce, what is its range of action, how it operates in differentiating\namong the various groups of mankind--in a word, what is the human\nhistory associated with this custom.\n\nWe must, however, at certain points in anthropological inquiry have\nrecourse to the conjectural method. Its value lies in the fact that it\nstates, and states clearly, the issue which is before us, and it is\nalways possible to take up the conjectural position and endeavour to\nascertain whether the neglected facts of human history which it\nexpresses can be recovered. Its danger lies in the neglect of certain\nanthropological principles which can only be noted from definite\nexamples, and the significance of which can only be discovered by the\nhandling of definite examples. I will refer to one or two of the\nprinciples which I have in mind. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish\nbetween what is a practice and what is a rule. A practice precedes a\nrule. A practice incidental to one stage of society must not be\nconfused with a rule, similar to the practice, obtaining in a\ndifferent stage of society. Again, it must be borne in mind that\nidentity of practice is no certain evidence of parallel stages of\nculture, and already it has been pointed out that identical practices\ndo not always come from the same causes. Thirdly, it has to be borne\nin mind that primitive peoples specialise in certain directions to an\nextreme extent, and correspondingly cause neglect in other directions.\nThe normal, therefore, has to give way to the special, and it is the\ndegree of specialisation and the degree of neglect which are measuring\nfactors of progress; in other words, it is the conscious adoption of\ncertain rules of life with which we alone have to do.\n\nThese principles are apt to be wholly neglected, and, indeed, the\nlast-mentioned element in the evolution of human society does not\nenter into the calculations of analytical anthropologists. They\nprovide for the normal according to scientific ideas of what the\nnormal is. They either neglect or openly reject what cannot be called\nabnormal, because it appears everywhere, but which they are inclined\nto treat as abnormal because it does not fit into their accepted lines\nof development. That which I have ventured to term specialisation and\nneglect is a great and important feature in anthropology. It obtains\neverywhere in more or less degree, and accounts for some of the\napparently unaccountable facts in savage society, where we are\nfrequently encountered by a comparatively high degree of culture\nassociated with a cruel and debasing system of rites and practices\nwhich belong to the lowest savagery. Dr. Haddon has usefully suggested\nthe term \"differential evolution\" for this phenomenon in the culture\nhistory of man,[310] and as I find myself in entire agreement with\nthis distinguished anthropologist as to the facts[311] which call for\na special terminology, I gladly adopt his valuable suggestion.\n\nIt is advisable to explain this phenomenon by reference to examples, and\nI will take the point of specialisation first. Even where industrial\narts have advanced far beyond the primitive stage we are considering, we\nhave the case of the Ahts, with whom \"though living only a few miles\napart, the tribes practise different arts and have apparently distinct\ntribal characteristics. One tribe is skilful in shaping canoes, another\nin painting boards for ornamental work, or making ornaments for the\nperson, or instruments for hunting and fishing. Individuals as a rule\nkeep to the arts for which their tribe has some repute, and do not care\nto acquire those arts in which other tribes excel. There seems to be\namong all the tribes in the island a sort of recognised tribal monopoly\nin certain articles produced, or that have been long manufactured in\ntheir own district. For instance, a tribe that does not grow potatoes,\nor make a particular kind of mat, will go a long way year after year to\nbarter for those articles, which if they liked they themselves could\neasily produce or manufacture.\"[312] The remarkable case of the Todas\nspecialising in cattle rearing and dairy farming is another example.\nOther people, both higher and lower in civilisation than the Todas, keep\ncattle and know the value of milk, but it is reserved for the Todas\nalone to have used this particular economic basis of their existence as\nthe basis also of their social formation and their religious life.[313]\nThe result is that they neglect other forms of social existence. They\nare not totemists, though perhaps they have the undeveloped germs of\ntotemistic beliefs.[314] Their classificatory system of relationship\nmakes their actual kinship scarcely recognisable; they \"have very\ndefinite restrictions on the freedom of individuals to marry,\" and have\na two-class endogamous division, but their marriage rite is merely the\nselection of nominal fathers for their children.[315] Throughout the\ncareful study which we now possess, thanks to Dr. Rivers, of this\npeople, there is the dominant note of dairy economy superimposing itself\nupon all else, and even religion seems to be in a state of\ndecadence.[316] I do not know that anywhere else could be found a\nstronger example of the results of extreme specialisation upon the\nsocial and mental condition of a people. As a rule such specialisation\ndoes not extend to a whole people, but rather to sections, as, for\ninstance, among the Gold Coast tribes of Africa who \"transmit the secret\nof their skill from father to son and keep the corporation to which they\nbelong up to a due degree of closeness by avoiding intermarriage with\nany of the more unskilled labourers,\"[317] and Dr. Bucher, who has\nworked out many of the earliest conditions of primitive economics,\nconcludes that it may be safely claimed that every \"tribe displays some\nfavourite form of industrial activity in which its members surpass the\nother tribes.\"[318] This rule extends to the lowest type of man, as, for\ninstance, among the Australians. Each tribe of the Narrinyeri, says\nTaplin, have been accustomed to make those articles which their tract of\ncountry enabled them to produce most easily; one tribe will make\nweapons, another mats, and a third nets, and then they barter them one\nwith another.[319]\n\nThe evidence for industrial evolution is full of cases such as these,\nand they are extremely important to note, because it is not the mere\nexistence of particular customs or particular beliefs among different\npeoples which is the factor to take into account, but the use or\nnon-use, and the extent of the use or non-use, to which the particular\ncustoms or beliefs are put in each case.[320] Let me turn from the\nphenomenon of over-specialisation to that of neglect, and for this\npurpose I will take the simple fact of blood kinship. Existing\nobviously everywhere through the mother, and not obviously but\nadmittedly through the father among most primitive peoples, there are\nexamples where both maternal kinship and paternal kinship are\nneglected factors in the construction of the social group. The Nahals\nof Khandesh, for instance, neglect kinship altogether, and exist\nperfectly wild among the mountains, subsisting chiefly on roots,\nfruits, and berries, though the children during infancy accompany the\nmother in her unattached freedom from male control,[321] just as\nHerodotos describes the condition of the Auseans \"before the Hellenes\nwere settled near them.\"[322] Similarly, among many primitive peoples,\nkinship with the mother is recognised while kinship with the father is\npurposely neglected as a social factor. Thus, among the Khasia Hill\npeople, the husband visits his wife occasionally in her own home,\nwhere \"he seems merely entertained to continue the family to which his\nwife belongs.\"[323] This statement, so peculiarly appropriate to my\npurpose, is not merely an accident of language. With the people allied\nto the Khasis, namely, the Syntengs and the people of Maoshai, \"the\nhusband does not go and live in his mother-in-law's house; he only\nvisits her there. In Jowai, the husband came to his mother-in-law's\nhouse only after dark,\" and the explanation of the latest authority\nis that among these people \"the man is nobody ... if he be a husband\nhe is looked upon merely as _u shong kha_, a begetter.\"[324]\n\nThe neglect of maternal and paternal kinship respectively in these two\ncases is obvious. They are recognised physically. But they are not\nused as part of the fabric of social institutions. Physical motherhood\nor fatherhood is nothing to these people, and one must learn to\nunderstand that there is wide difference between the mere physical\nfact of having a mother and father, and the political fact of using\nthis kinship for social organisation. Savages who have not learnt the\npolitical significance have but the scantiest appreciation of the\nphysical fact. The Australians, for instance, have no term to express\nthe relationship between mother and child. This is because the\nphysical fact is of no significance, and not as Mr. Thomas thinks\nbecause of the meagreness of the language.[325] Our field\nanthropologists do not quite understand the savage in this respect. It\nis of no use preparing a genealogical tree on the basis of civilised\nknowledge of genealogy if such a document is beyond the ken of the\npeople to whom it relates. The information for it may be correctly\ncollected, but if the whole structure is not within the compass of\nsavage thought it is a misleading anthropological document. It is of\nno use translating a native term as \"father,\" if father did not mean\nto the savage what it means to us. It might mean something so very\ndifferent. With us, fatherhood connotes a definite individual with all\nsorts of social, economical, and political associations, but what\ndoes it mean to the savage? It may mean physical fatherhood and\nnothing more, and physical fatherhood may be a fact of the veriest\ninsignificance. It may mean social fatherhood, where all men of a\ncertain status are fathers to all children of the complementary\nstatus, and social fatherhood thus becomes much more than we can\nunderstand by the term father.\n\nWe cannot ignore the evidence which over-specialisation in one\ndirection and neglect in other directions supply to anthropology. It\nshows us that human societies cannot always be measured in the scale\nof culture by the most apparent of the social elements contained in\nthem. The cannibalism of the Fijians, the art products of the Maori,\nthe totemism of the Australian blacks, do not express all that makes\nup the culture of these people, although it too often happens that\nthey are made to do duty for the several estimates of culture\nprogress. It follows that a survey of the different human societies\nmight reveal examples of the possible lowest in the scale as well as\nvarious advances from the lowest; or in lieu of whole societies in the\nlowest scale, there might be revealed unexceptional examples of the\npossible lowest elements of culture within societies not wholly in the\nlowest scale. It will be seen how valuable an asset this must be in\nanthropological research. It justifies those who assert that existing\nsavagery or existing survival will supply evidence of man at the very\nearliest stages of existence. It is the root idea of Dr. Tylor's\nmethod of research, and it is an essential feature in the science of\nfolklore.\n\nEvidence of this nature, however, needs to be exhaustively collected,\nand to be subjected to the most careful examination, as otherwise it\nmay be used for the merest _a priori_ argument of the most mischievous\nand inconclusive description. It involves consideration of whole human\ngroups rather than of particular sections of each human group, of the\nwhole corpus of social, religious, and economical elements residing in\neach human group rather than of the separated items. Each human group,\nhaving its specialised and dormant elements, must be treated as an\norganism and not as a bundle of separable items, each one of which the\nstudent may use or let alone as he desires. That which is\nanthropological evidence is the indivisible organism, and whenever,\nfor convenience of treatment and considerations of space, particular\nelements only are used in evidence, they must be qualified, and the\nuse to which they are provisionally put for scientific purposes must\nbe checked, by the associated elements with which the particular\nelements are connected.\n\nThe human groups thus called upon to surrender their contributions to\nthe history of man are of various formations, and consist of various\nkinds of social units. There is no one term which can properly be\napplied to all, and it will have been noted that I have carefully\navoided giving the human groups hitherto dealt with any particular\nname, and only under protest have I admitted the terms used by the\nauthorities I have quoted. I think the term \"tribe\" is not applicable\nto savage society, for it is used to denote peoples in all degrees of\nsocial evolution, and merely stands for the group which is known by a\ngiven name, or roams over a given district. But the use of this term\nis not so productive of harm as the use of the term \"family,\" because\nof the universal application of this term to the smallest social unit\nof the civilised world, and because of the fundamental difference of\nstructure of the units which roughly answer to the definition of\nfamily in various parts of the world. It is no use in scientific\nmatters to use terms of inexact reference. As much as almost anything\nelse it has led to false conclusions as to the evolution of the\nfamily, conclusions which seem to entangle even the best authorities\nin a mass of contradictions. I cannot think of a family group in\nsavagery with father, mother, sons, and daughters, all delightfully\nknown to each other, in terms which also belong to the civilised\nfamily, and still less can I think of these terms being used to take\nin the extended grouping of local kinships. One of our greatest\ndifficulties, indeed, is the indiscriminate use of kinship terms by\nour descriptive authorities. We are never quite sure whether the\nphysical relationships included in them convey anything whatever to\nthe savage. If he knows of the physical fact, he does not use it\npolitically, for blood kinship as a political force is late, not\nearly, and the early tie was dependent upon quite other circumstances.\nOver and over again it will be found stated by established authorities\nthat the family was the primal unit, the grouped families forming the\nlarger clan, the grouped clans forming the larger tribe. This is Sir\nHenry Maine's famous formula, and it is the basis of his investigation\ninto early law and custom.[326] It is founded upon the false\nconception of the family in early history, and upon a too narrow\ninterpretation of the stages of evolution. When we are dealing with\nsavage society, the terms family and tribe do not connote the same\ninstitution as when we are dealing with higher forms of civilisation.\nThere is something roughly corresponding to these groupings in both\nsystems, but they do not actually equate. When we pass to the Semitic\nand the Aryan-speaking peoples, both the family and tribe have assumed\na definite place in the polity of the races which is not to be found\noutside these peoples.\n\nSo strongly has the family impressed itself upon the thought of the\nage that students of man in his earliest ages are found stating that\n\"the family is the most ancient and the most sacred of human\ninstitutions.\"[327] This proposition, however, is not only denied by\nother authorities, as, for instance, Mr. Jevons, who affirms that \"the\nfamily is a comparatively late institution in the history of\nsociety,\"[328] but it rests upon the merely analytical basis of\nresearch, separated entirely from those facts of man's history which\nare discoverable by the means just now suggested. One is, of course,\nquite prepared to find the family among civilisations older than the\nIndo-European, and yet to find that it is a comparatively late\ninstitution among Indo-European peoples. As a matter of fact, this is\nthe case; for the two kinds of family, the family as seen in savage\nsociety and the family as it appears among the antiquities of the\nIndo-European people, are totally distinct in origin, in compass, and\nin force; while welded between the two kinds of family is the whole\ninstitution of the tribe. It is no use introducing the theory adopted\nby Grote, Niebuhr, Mommsen, Thirlwall, Maine, and other authorities\nwho have studied the legal antiquities of classical times, that the\ntribe is the aggregate of original family units. Later on I shall show\nthat this cannot be the case. The larger kinship of the tribe is a\nprimary unit of ancient society, which thrusts itself between the\nsavage family and the civilised family, showing that the two types are\nseparated by a long period of history during which the family did not\nexist.\n\nIt has taken me some time to explain these points in anthropological\nscience, which appear to me not to have received proper consideration\nat the hands of the masters of the science, but which are essential\nfactors in the history of man and are necessary to a due consideration\nof the position occupied by folklore. The chief results obtained\nare:--\n\n (1) Migratory man would deposit his most rudimentary\n social type not at the point of starting his\n migration, but at the furthest point therefrom.\n\n (2) Custom due to the migratory period would continue\n after real migratory movement had ceased, and from\n this body of custom would be derived all later forms\n of social custom.\n\n (3) Non-kinship groups are more rudimentary than\n kinship groups, and are still observable in savage\n anthropology.\n\n (4) Anthropological evidence must be based upon the\n whole of the characteristics of human groups, not upon\n special characteristics singled out for the purpose of\n research.\n\nIt is with these results we have to work. They will help us to see how\nfar the facts of anthropology, which begin far behind the historical\nworld, have to do with the problems presented by folklore as a science\nhaving to deal with the historical world.\n\n\nII\n\nWe may now inquire where anthropology and folklore meet. It is\nsignificant in this connection that in order to reach back to the\nearliest ages of man, our first appeal seems to be to folklore. The\nappeal at present does not lead us far perhaps, but it certainly acts\nas a finger post in the inquiry, for Dr. Kollmann, rejecting the\nevidence of the Java _Pithecanthropus erectus_ as the earliest\npalaeontological evidence of man, advances the opinion that the direct\nantecedents of man should not be sought among the species of\nanthropoid apes of great height and with flat skulls, but much further\nback in the zoological scale, in the small monkeys with pointed\nskulls; from which, he believes, were developed the human pygmy races\nof prehistoric ages with pointed skulls, and from these pygmy races\nfinally developed the human race of historic times. And he relies upon\nfolklore for one part of his evidence, for it is this descent of man,\nhe thinks, which explains the persistency with which mythology and\nfolklore allude to the subject of pygmy people, as well as the\nrelative frequency with which recently the fossils of small human\nbeings belonging to prehistoric times have been discovered.[329] It\nmust not be forgotten, too, that this remote period is found in\nanother class of tradition, namely, that to which Dr. Tylor refers as\ncontaining the memory of the huge animals of the quaternary\nperiod.[330]\n\nIt must be confessed that we do not get far with this evidence alone.\nIf it proves that the true starting point is to be found in folklore,\nit also proves that folklore alone is not capable of working through\nthe problem. Anthropology must aid here, and I will suggest the lines\non which it appears to me it does this.\n\nOur first effort must be made by the evidence suggested by the\nconjectural method. This leads us to small human groups, each headed\nby a male who drives out all other males and himself remains with his\nfemales and his children. Sexual selection thus acts with primitive\neconomics[331] in keeping the earliest groups small in numbers, and\ncreating a spreading out from these groups of the males cast out. We\nhave male supremacy in its crudest form accompanied by an enforced\nmale celibacy, so far as the group in which the males are born is\nconcerned, on the part of those who survive the struggle for supremacy\nand wander forth on their own account. Marking the stages from point\nto point, in order to arrive at a systematic method of stating the\ncomplex problem presented by the subject we are investigating, we can\nproject from this earliest condition of man's life two important\nelements of social evolution, namely--\n\n (a) Younger men are celibate within the natural\n groups of human society, or are driven out therefrom.\n\n (b) Men thus driven out will seek mates on their own\n account, and will secure them partly from the original\n group as far as they are permitted or are successful\n in their attempts, and partly by capture from other\n local groups.\n\nThe first of these elements strongly emphasises the migratory\ncharacter of the earliest human groups. The second shows how each\ngroup is relieved of the incubus of too great a number for the\neconomic conditions by the double process of sending forth its young\nmales, and of its younger females being captured by successful\nmarauders.\n\nLet us take a fuller note of what the conditions of such a life might\nbe. There is no tie of kinship operating as a social force within the\ngroups; there is the unquestioned condition of hostility surrounding\neach group, and there is the enforced practice of providing mates by\ncapture. Of these three conditions the most significant is undoubtedly\nthe absence of the kinship tie. If then we use this as the basis for\ngrouping the earliest examples of social organisation, we proceed to\ninquire whether there are any examples of kinless society in\nanthropological evidence.\n\nFollowing up the clue supplied by folklore, we may see whether the\npygmy people of anthropological observation answer in any way to those\nconjectural conditions.[332] I think they do. Thus, we find that the\npygmy people are in all cases on the extreme confines of the world's\noccupation ground; that they occupy the territory to which they have\nbeen pushed, not that which they have chosen. As the most primitive\nrepresentatives, they are the last outposts of the migratory\nmovements. Dr. Beke has preserved an account of the pygmies which even\nin its terminology assists in their identification as a type of the\nremotest stages of social existence. Dr. Beke obtained certain\ninformation about the countries south-west of Abyssinia, from which\nLatham quotes the following:--\n\n \"The people of Doko, both men and women, are said to\n be no taller than boys nine or ten years old. They\n never exceed that height even in the most advanced\n age. They go quite naked; their principal foods are\n ants, snakes, mice, and other things which commonly\n are not used as food.... They also climb trees with\n great skill to fetch down the fruits, and in doing\n this they stretch their hands downwards and their legs\n upwards.... They live mixed together; men and women\n unite and separate as they please.... The mother\n suckles the child only as long as she is unable to\n find ants and snakes for its food; she abandons it as\n soon as it can get its food by itself. No rank or\n order exists among the Dokos. Nobody orders, nobody\n obeys, nobody defends the country, nobody cares for\n the welfare of the nation.\"[333]\n\nThis evidence is confirmed in many directions. It coincides with the\naccount by Herodotos of the expedition from Libya which met with a\npygmy race,[334] and with a seventeenth-century account of a Dutch\nexpedition to the north from the south, who \"found a tribe of people\nvery low in stature and very lean, entirely savage, without huts,\ncattle, or anything in the world except their lands and wild\ngame.\"[335] Captain Burrows' account of the Congoland pygmies agrees\nin all essentials, and he particularly notes that they \"have no ties\nof family affection such as those of mother to son or sister to\nbrother, and seem to be wanting in all social qualities;\" they have no\nreligion and no fetich rites; no burial ceremony and no mourning for\nthe dead; in short, he adds, \"they are to my thinking the closest link\nwith the original Darwinian anthropoid ape extant.\"[336] The evidence\nof the African pygmy people everywhere confirms these views, and\ndifferences of detail do not alter the general results.[337]\n\n[Illustration: CHINESE REPRESENTATION OF PYGMIES GOING ABOUT\nARM-IN-ARM FOR MUTUAL PROTECTION]\n\n[Illustration: SEMANG OF KUALA KENERING, ULU PERAK]\n\n[Illustration: NEGRITO TYPE: SEMANG OF PERAK]\n\nFollowing this up we get the greatest assistance from Asia.[338] The\nSemang people of the Malay Peninsula are a short race, the male being\nfour feet nine inches in height, with woolly and tufted hair, thick\nlips and flat nose, and their language is connected with the group\nof which the Khasi people is a member.[339] They subsist upon the\nbirds and beasts of the forest, and roots, eating elephants,\nrhinoceros, monkeys, and rats. They are said to have chiefs among\nthem, but all property is common. Their huts or temporary dwellings,\nfor they have no fixed habitations but rove about like the beasts of\nthe forest, consist of two posts stuck in the ground with a small\ncross-piece and a few leaves or branches of trees laid over to secure\nthem from the weather, and their clothing consists chiefly of the\ninner bark of trees.[340] They use stone or slate implements. The\nauthority for this information does not directly state their social\nformation, but in a footnote he compares them to the Negritos of the\nPhilippine Islands, \"who are divided into very small societies very\nlittle connected with each other.\" This is confirmed by Mr. Hugh\nClifford, who relates a story told to him in the camp of the Semangs,\nwhich tells how these people were driven to their present\nresting-place, \"not for love of these poor hunting grounds,\" but\nbecause they were thrust there by the Malays who stole their women.\nOne further point is interesting; they have a legend of a people in\ntheir old home, composed of women only. \"These women know not men, but\nbut when the moon is at the full, they dance naked in the grassy\nplaces near the salt-licks; the evening wind is their only spouse, and\nthrough him they conceive and bear children.\"[341] All this has been\nconfirmed and more than confirmed by the important researches of\nMessrs. Skeat and Blagden in their recently published work on these\npeople. There is no necessity to do more than refer to the principal\nfeatures brought out by these authorities. In the valuable notes on\nenvironment, we have the actual facts of the migratory movement drawn\nclearly for us;[342] their nomadic habits, rude nature-derived\nclothing, forest habitations and natural sources of food are\ndescribed;[343] the evolution of their habitations from the natural\nshelters, rock shelters, caves, tree buttresses, branches, etc., is to\nbe traced;[344] they belong to the old Stone Age, if not to a previous\nWood and Bone Age;[345] they have no organised body of chiefs, and\nthere is no formal recognition of kinship; marital relationship is\npreceded by great ante-nuptial freedom;[346] the name of every child\nis taken \"from some tree which stands near the prospective birthplace\nof the child; as soon as the child is born, this name is shouted aloud\nby the _sage femme_, who then hands over the child to another woman,\nand buries the after-birth underneath the birth-tree or name-tree of\nthe child; as soon as this has been done, the father cuts a series of\nnotches in the tree, starting from the ground and terminating at the\nheight of the breast;\"[347] the child must not in later life injure\nany tree which belongs to the species of his birth-tree, and must not\neat of its fruit. There is a theory to accompany this practice, for\nbirds are believed to be vehicles for the introduction of the soul\ninto the newborn child, and all human souls grow upon a soul-tree in\nthe other world, whence they are fetched by a bird which is killed and\neaten by the expectant mother;[348] but there seems to be no evidence\nof any religious cult or rite, and what there is of mythology or\nlegend is probably borrowed.[349] The details in this case are of\nspecial importance, as they form a complete set of associated culture\nelements, and I shall have to return to them later on.\n\n[Illustration: SEMANG OF KEDAH HAVING A MEAL]\n\nI shall not attempt to exhaust the evidence to be derived from the\npygmy people. What has been said of the examples I have chosen may in\nall essentials be said of the remaining examples. But it is perhaps\nadvisable to be assured that the evidence of kinless people is not\nconfined to the stunted and dwarfed races, for it has been argued that\nthe pygmies are nothing but the ne'er-do-wells of the stronger races,\nand may not therefore be taken as true racial types. This may be true,\nbut it does not affect my case, because I am not depending so much\nupon the physical characteristics of these people as upon their\nculture characteristics. These are definite and conclusive, and they\nare repeated among people of higher physical type. Thus the Jolas of\nthe Gambia district have practically no government and no law; every\nman does as he chooses, and the most successful thief is considered\nthe greatest man. There is no recognised punishment for murder or any\nother crime. Individual settlement is the only remedy, and the fittest\nsurvives. There is no formality in regard to marriage, or what passes\nfor marriage, amongst them. Natural selection is observed on both\nsides, and the pair, after having ascertained a reciprocity of\nsentiment, at once cohabit. They do not intermarry with any other\nrace.[350]\n\nIt is possible to proceed from this to other regions of man's\noccupation ground. In America, the evidence of the modern savage is\npreceded by most interesting facts. If we compare Dr. Brinton's\nconclusions as to the spread of the American Indians from the north to\nthe south, and as to the development of culture in the favoured\ndistricts being of the same origin as the undeveloped culture of the\nless favoured and of absolutely sterile districts, with Mr. Curtin's\naltogether independent conclusions as to the growth of the American\ncreation myth with its cycle of first people peaceful and migratory,\nand its cycle of second people \"containing accounts of conflicts which\nare ever recurrent,\" we are conscious that mythic and material remains\nof great movements of people are in absolute accord,[351] an accord\nwhich leads us to expect that the peoples who were pushed ever forward\ninto the most desolate and most sterile districts of southern America\nwould be the most nearly savage of all the American peoples. This is\nin agreement with Darwin's estimate of the Fuegians who wander about\nin groups of kinless society,[352] and it is in accord with other\nevidence. Thus the Zaparos, belonging to the great division of\nunchristianised Indians of the oriental province of Ecuador, have the\nfame of being most expert woodsmen and hunters. To communicate with\none another in the wood, they generally imitate the whistle of the\ntoman or partridge. They believe that they partake of the nature of\nthe animals they devour. They are very disunited, and wander about in\nseparate hordes. The stealing of women is much carried on even amongst\nthemselves. A man runs away with his neighbour's wife or one of them,\nand secretes himself in some out of the way spot until he gathers\ninformation that she is replaced, when he can again make his\nappearance, finding the whole difficulty smoothed over. In their\nmatrimonial relations they are very loose--monogamy, polygamy,\ncommunism, and promiscuity all apparently existing amongst them. They\nallow the women great liberty and frequently change their mates or\nsimply discard them when they are perhaps taken up by another. They\nbelieve in a devil or evil spirit which haunts the woods, and call him\nZamaro.[353]\n\nIn all these cases, and I do not, of course, exhaust the evidence,\nthere is enough to suggest that the social forms presented are of the\nmost rudimentary kind. Conjecture has not and, I think, cannot get\nfurther back than such evidence as this. The social grouping is\nsupported by outside influences rather than internal organisation;\nneither blood kinship nor marital kinship is recognised; hostility to\nall other groups and from other groups is the basis of inter-groupal\nlife. To these significant characteristics has to be added the special\nbirth custom and belief of the Semang pygmies. It is clear that the\nsoul-bird belief and the tree-naming custom are different phases of\none conception of social life, a conception definitely excluding\nrecognition of blood kinship, and derived from the conscious adoption\nof an experience which has not reached the stage of blood kinship, but\nwhich includes a close association with natural objects. All this\nmakes it advisable to take fuller count of pygmy culture than has\nhitherto been given to it. The pygmies have in truth always been a\nproblem in man's history. From the time of Homer, Herodotos, and\nAristotle, the pygmies have had their place among the observable types\nof man, or among the traditions to which observers have given\ncredence. In modern times they have been accounted for either as\npeoples degraded from a higher level of culture, or as peoples who\nhave never advanced. But whether we look upon these people as the last\nremnants of the primitive condition of hostility or whether they are\nreversions to that condition by reason of like causes, they bring\nbefore us what conjectural research has prepared us for. The first\nsupposition is neither impossible nor incredible. The slow\nspreading-out in hostile regions would allow of the preservation of\nsome examples of preference for unrestrained licence at the expense of\nconstant hostility, in place of a modified peacefulness at the expense\nof restricted freedom in matters so dear to the human animal as sexual\nchoice and power. The second supposition contains an element of human\nhistory which must find a place in anthropological research. The\npossible phases of social formation are very limited. If any section\nof mankind cannot develop in one direction, they will stagnate at the\nstage they have reached, or they will retrograde to one of the stages\nfrom which in times past they have proceeded. There is no other\ncourse, and the very limitations of primitive life prevent us from\nconsidering the possibility of any other course. Either of these\nalternatives allows us to consider the examples of hostile\ninter-grouping as sufficient to supply us with the vantage ground for\nobservation of man in his earliest stages of existence. Perhaps each\nof them may contain somewhat of the truth. But whatever may be\nconsidered as the true cause of the pygmy level of culture, there is\nan underlying factor which must count most strongly in its\ndetermination, namely, that these people are the people who in the\nprocess of migration have been pushed out to the last strongholds of\nman. Whether they could not or would not conform to the newer\ncondition of stationary or comparatively stationary society is not\nmuch to the point in presence of the fact that nowhere have they\nconformed to this standard of existence. Moreover we are entitled to\nthe argument, which has been the main point advanced in connection\nwith the anthropological problems we are discussing, that the most\nprimitive type of man must of necessity be sought for, and can only be\nfound at the extremes of the migration movement wherever that is\ndiscernible.[354]\n\nThe question now becomes, can we by means of recognisable links\nproceed from the rudimentary kinless stage of society to the earliest\nstage of kinship society? This is a most difficult problem, but it\nmust be solved. If the rudimentary kinless groups do indeed constitute\na factor in human evolution, they are a most important factor. If they\ndo not constitute such a factor, they can only be accidental\nproductions, the sport of exceptional circumstances not in the line of\nevolution, and as such they are not of much use in anthropology. It\nwill be seen, therefore, that the connection between rudimentary\nkinless society and the earliest, or representatives of the earliest,\nkinship society, is an essential part of an inquiry into origins.\n\nIt may be approached first from the conjectural basis. On this basis\nit may be asserted that the victorious male of the primary groups\nwould remain victorious only just so long as he could continue to\nadjust the conditions on the primary basis, and preserve his females\nto himself. New conditions would arise whenever the limitation of the\nfood lands produced a degree of localisation of the hitherto movable\ngroups. There would then have crept into human experience the\nnecessity for something of common action among a wider range than the\nsimple group. This is a new force, and social evolution is henceforth\ngoing to operate in addition to, perhaps to a limited extent in\nsubstitution of, the constant movement towards new food lands. The\nsingle male would no longer be the victorious male by himself; and\nsharing his power with other males meant the reduction of his power in\nhis own group. Called away for something more than the defence of his\nown primary group of females, he would leave the females with the\npractical governance of the primary groups. This tendency would\ndevelop. Wherever the constant movement outwards became stayed by\ngeographical or other influences, the groups which experienced the\nshock of stoppage would undergo change. The female in the various\nprimary groups would become a static element, and the male alone would\nfollow out in the more restricted area the older force of movement\nwhich he had learned during the period of unrestricted scope.[355] He\nwould have to find his mates during his roamings, instead of the\nformer condition of fighting for them during the group movements; and\nhis relationship to the primary groups would be therefore\nfundamentally changed. From being the central dominant head, he would\nbecome a constantly shifting unit. The female under these conditions\nwould become the centre of the new social unit, and the male would\nbecome the hunter for food and the fighter against enemies. The new\nsocial forces would thus consist of local units commanded by the\nfemale, and revolving units composed of the males, and there would\narise therefrom cleavage between the economic conditions of the two\nsexes.\n\nThat primitive economics bear the impress of sex cleavage is borne out\nby every class of evidence, and it is in this circumstance that we\nfirst come upon societies distinguished by containing two of the most\nimportant social elements, exogamy and totemism. Before, however,\nexamining examples of societies containing the two elements of exogamy\nand totemism, it will be necessary to say something by way of\npreliminaries on these two elements themselves. They have rightly been\nmade the subject of important special inquiry by anthropological\nscholars, as being in fact the key to the question of social\nevolution, and we shall clear the ground considerably by first of all\nturning to the principal authorities on the subject, and ascertaining\nthe present position of the inquiry.\n\nI must however note, in the first place, that as I have stated the\ncase, exogamy and totemism appear as two separate and distinct\nelements, whereas it is usual to consider exogamy as an essential part\nof totemism. I cannot, however, see that this is so. In advanced\ntotemism, it is true, they are found as inseparable parts of one\nsystem, but they may well have started separately and coalesced later.\nIn point of fact, all the evidence points in this direction, and if we\ncease to consider exogamy as a necessary element of totemism, we can\nadvance investigation more rapidly and with greater accuracy.\n\nWe come very quickly upon what may be termed natural exogamy. Male\nworking with male outside the groups formed by women and the younger\noffspring would produce a natural exogamy, which would have followed\nupon the exogamy produced by hostile capture of women, and two streams\nof influence would thus tell in favour of the evolution of a system of\nformal exogamy, and Dr. Westermarck's theory of a natural avoidance of\nhousemates, with all its wealth of evidence, helps us at this point.\n\nThe position is not so clear as to totemism. If we begin, however,\nwith a clear understanding that it is not a part of the machinery of\nexogamous grouping, but an independent growth of its own, we shall\nhave gained an important point, for the contrary opinion has very\noften obscured the issue and prevented research in the right\ndirection.\n\nIt will be advisable to have before us the principal theories as to\nthe origin of totemism. There are practically three--Mr. Frazer's, Mr.\nLang's, and Mr. Baldwin Spencer's. Mr. Frazer considers totemism to be\n\"in its essence nothing more or less than an early theory of\nconception, which presented itself to savage man at a time when he was\nstill ignorant of the true cause of the propagation of the species.\"\nMr. Frazer explains this theory further by saying that \"naturally\nenough, when she is first aware of the mysterious movement within her,\nthe mother fancies that something has that very moment passed into her\nbody, and it is equally natural that in her attempt to ascertain what\nthe thing is, she should fix upon some object that happened to be near\nher, or to engage her attention at the critical moment.\"[356]\n\nMr. Lang rejects Mr. Frazer's theory _in toto_, and propounds his own\nas due to the naming of savage societies, and to a sort of natural\nexogamy produced by practically the same set of conditions as I have\nalready described. Mr. Lang's totemism began in the primary groups,\nand began with exogamy as a necessary part of it. \"Unessential to my\nsystem,\" says Mr. Lang, \"is the question how the groups got animal\nnames, as long as they got them, and did not remember how they got\nthem, and as long as the names according to their way of thinking\nindicated an essential and mystic rapport between each group and its\nname-giving animal. No more than these three things--a group animal\nname of unknown origin; belief in a transcendental connection between\nall bearers human and bestial of the same name; and belief in the\nblood superstitions (the mystically sacred quality of the blood as\nlife)--was needed to give rise to all the totemic creeds and practices\nincluding exogamy,\" and further, \"we guess that for the sake of\ndistinction, groups gave each other animal and plant names. These\nbecame stereotyped we conjecture, and their origin was forgotten. The\nbelief that there must necessarily be some connection between animals\nand men of the same names led to speculation about the nature of the\nconnection. The usual reply to the question was that the men and\nanimals of the same name were akin by blood. The kinship _with\nanimals_ being particularly mysterious was peculiarly sacred. From\nthese ideas arose tabus, and among others that of totemic\nexogamy.\"[357]\n\nMr. Baldwin Spencer, and with him Dr. Haddon, consider totemism to\nhave arisen from economic conditions. Primitive human groups, says Dr.\nHaddon, \"could never have been large, and the individuals comprising\neach group must have been closely related. In favourable areas each\ngroup would have a tendency to occupy a restricted range, owing to the\ndisagreeable results which arose from encroaching on the territory\nover which another group wandered. Thus, it would inevitably come\nabout that a certain animal or plant, or group of animals or plants,\nwould be more abundant in the territory of one group than in that of\nanother.\"[358]\n\nThese theories are not necessarily mutually destructive, though they\nseem to me even collectively not to contain the full case for\ntotemism. Mr. Frazer does not account for woman's isolation at the\ntime of conceptual quickening, for the closeness of her observation of\nlocal phenomena, and for the separateness of her ideas from the actual\nfacts of procreation. Mr. Lang overloads his case. He is accounting\nnot for the origin of totemism, but for the origin of all, or almost\nall, that totemism contains in its most developed forms--\"all the\ntotemic creeds and practices including exogamy\" as he says. He\npostulates a name-giving process by drawing upon the conceptions as to\nnames by advanced savage thought, and he does not account for the fact\nthat according to his theory, animals and plants must not only have\nbeen named, but named upon some sort of system known to a wide area of\npeoples, before totemistic names for the groups could have been given\nto them. Mr. Spencer's and Dr. Haddon's theory is perhaps open to the\ndoubts caused by Mr. Lang's criticism of it that there is only one\ncase of a known economic cause for totemism--an Australian case where\ntwo totem kins are said to have been so called \"from having in former\ntimes principally subsisted on a small fish and a very small\nopossum;\"[359] but on the other hand it does supply a _vera causa_,\nthe actual evidence for which may well have passed away with the\ndevelopment of totemism, without leaving survivals.\n\nAll these theories, however, are the result of considerable research\nand experience, and it is more than probable that they may each\ncontain fragments of the truth which need the touch of combination to\nshow how they stand in relation to the problem which they are\npropounded to solve. There are features of totemism which are not\nnoticed by any of these distinguished authorities. By using the\nhitherto unnoticed features, I think it possible to produce a theory\nas to the origin of totemism, which will contain the essential\nfeatures of those theories now prominently before the world.\n\nI will set down the order in which the problem can be approached from\nthe standpoint already reached, and we may afterwards try to ascertain\nwhat proof is to be derived from totemic societies of the rudest type.\n\nNow totemism is essentially a system of social grouping, whose chief\ncharacteristic is that it is kinless--that is to say, the tie of\ntotemism is not the tie of blood kinship, but the artificially created\nassociation with natural objects or animals. It takes no count of\nfatherhood, and only reckons with the physical fact of motherhood. It\nis not the actual fatherhood or the actual motherhood which is the\nfundamental basis of totemism, but the association with animal, plant,\nor other natural object. This is evidently the fact, whatever view is\ntaken of totemism, and that totemism is, in its origin and principle,\na kinless, not a kinship system, is the first fact of importance to\nbear in mind throughout all inquiry. Thus Messrs. Spencer and Gillen\nsay \"the identity of the human individual is often sunk in that of\nthe animal or plant from which he is supposed to have originated.\"[360]\n\nThe next fact of importance is that as it commences at birth time, it\nmust be closely associated with the mother and her actions as mother.\nThis leads us to the observation that it is through the agency of the\nmother that the totem name is conferred upon their children, and to\nthe necessary antecedent fact that women must have themselves\npossessed the name they conferred--possessed, that is, either the name\nas a personal attribute and valued as such, or else the power of\nevolving the name and the capacity of using it with totemic\nsignificance. I conclude from this, therefore, that the search for the\norigin of totemism must be made from the women's side of the social\ngroup. Such a search would lead straight to the industrialism of early\nwoman, from which originated the domestication of animals, the\ncultivation of fruits and cereals, and the appropriation of such trees\nand shrubs as were necessary to primitive economics.[361] The close\nand intimate relationship with human life which such animals, plants,\nand trees would assume under the social conditions which have been\npostulated as belonging to this earliest stage of evolution, and the\naid which these friendly and always present companions would render at\nall times and under most circumstances, would generate and develop\nmany of those savage conceptions which have become known to research.\nAs human friends they would become part of humanity, just as\nLivingstone notes of an African people that they did not eat the beef\nwhich he offered to them because \"they looked upon cattle as human and\nliving at home like men,\"[362] an idea which is also the basis of the\ncustom in India not to taste fruit of a newly planted mangrove tree\nuntil it is formally \"married\" to some other tree.[363] These are but\nthe fortunate instances where definite record in set terms has been\nmade. At the back of them lies a whole collection of anthropomorphic\nconceptions, indulged in by man at all stages of his career.[364] As\nsuperhuman agencies for pregnancy and birth, they would do what the\nhuman father in the society we are contemplating could not be expected\nto do, for he would be seldom present during the long period of\npregnancy; he would have shared with other males the privileges of\nsexual intercourse, and he would therefore not be so closely in\ncompanionship with the women of the local groups as the friendly\nanimal, plant, or tree who did so much for the mothers. There would\nthus be formed the groundwork for the fashioning of that most\nincredible of all beliefs, well founded, as Mr. Hartland has proved\nboth from tradition and belief,[365] that the human father was not\nfather, and that other agencies were responsible for the birth of\nchildren.\n\nGathering up the several threads of this argument, it seems to me that\nthere is within this sphere of primitive thought and within these\nconditions of primitive life, ample room for the growth of all the\nmain conceptions belonging to totemism; and it will be seen how\nnecessary it is to separate totemism at its beginning from totemism in\nits most advanced stages. Totemism has not come to man fully equipped\nin all its parts. It is like every other human institution, the result\nof a long process of development, and the various stages of\ndevelopment are important parts of the evidence as to origins. At the\nbeginning, it was clearly not connected with blood kinship and\ndescent; it was as clearly not connected with any class system of\nmarriage. But its beginnings would allow of these later growths, would\nperhaps almost engender these later growths.\n\nThus, the primary notion of the totem birth of children would, when\nblood kinship and descent became a consciously accepted element in\nsocial development, easily slide into the belief of a totemic ancestor\nand kinship with the totem; the protection and assistance afforded by\nthe totem to the women of the primary groups who became the mothers of\nnew generations, would easily grow into a sort of worship of the\ntotem; the adoption of the totem name from the circumstances of birth\nimplying the origin of the name from within the group and not from\nwithout would, as aggregation took the place of segregation, give way\nbefore the association of groups of persons with common interests; the\naggregate totem name would come to the separate local totems as soon\nas, but not before, aggregation had taken the place of segregation in\nthe formation of the social system, and this was not at the earliest\nstage; the close association of the totems with groups of mothers who\nalways took the fathers of their children from without the mother\ngroup, would readily develop into differentiating the mother totems\nwithin the group from the totems of the fathers without the group, and\nthis differentiation would produce a special relationship between the\nsexes based upon the difference of totems instead of upon the sameness\nof them; and finally there would be produced first a two-class\ndivision founded on sex--all the mothers and all the fathers--and,\nonly in a developed form, a two-class division founded on the accepted\ntotem name.\n\nIf this is a probable view of the course of totemic evolution, we may\nmore confidently refer to its final stages for further evidence.\nAdvanced totemic society shows a constant tendency to substitute\nblood kinship for the association with natural objects: first, blood\nkinship with the mother, then with the mother and the father, finally\nrecognised through the father only. At this last stage, blood kinship\nhas practically succeeded in expelling totemic association altogether\nin favour of tribal kinship by blood descent, for totemism with male\ndescent as the basis of the social group is totemism in name only; the\nnames of totemism remain but they are applied to kinship tribes or\nsections of tribes, and they do duty therefore as a convenient\nname-system without reference to their origin in definite association\nwith the naming animal or plant; and it is already in position to\nsurrender also the names and outward signs. Blood kinship is therefore\nthe destroyer, not the generator, of totemism, and we are therefore\ncompelled to get at the back of blood kinship if we want to find totem\nbeginnings.\n\nThis is an important aspect of the case, and it is one which, I think,\ncannot be ignored. We have found that rudimentary totemism was the\nbasis of a social system founded on artificial associations with\nanimal or plant, was therefore kinless in character; and we have found\nthat when totemism has been carried on into a society developed upon\nthe recognition of blood kinship, blood kinship became antagonistic to\ntotemism, and ultimately displaced it. These two facts point to the\nrudimentary kinless system as the true origin of totemism.\n\n\nIII\n\nNow we may test these conclusions by applying the theory they contain\nto an actual case of totemic society. It would be well to choose for\nthis purpose a people who had specialised their totemic organisation,\nand there are only two supreme instances of this among the races of\nthe world--the North American Indians and the Australians. Everywhere\nelse, where totemism exists, it is not the dominant feature of the\nsocial organisation. In Asia and in Africa totemism is subordinate to,\nor at all events in close or equal association with, other elements,\nand we cannot be quite sure that we have in these cases pure totemism.\nNorth American totemism is in the most advanced stage. Australian\ntotemism is to a very considerable degree less advanced, and it is\ntherefore to Australian totemism I shall turn for evidence.\n\nBut even here it is necessary to bear in mind that primitive as the\nAustralians are, they are not so primitive as to be in the primary\nstages of totemic society. They have developed, and developed strongly\nalong totemic lines, and we know that such development once started\nhas the capacity to proceed far. What we have to do, therefore, is to\nattempt to penetrate beneath the range of development, to search for\nthe social group at the farthest from the centre point from which\nmigration started, to discover, if we can, relics of group hostility,\nhostile capture of women and of kinless society, all of which belong\nto the primary stage from which totemic development has taken place.\nIf we can do this, we may hope to arrive at the origin of totemism,\nand we are more likely to accomplish it in the case of the Australians\nthan with any other people. If we cannot, as Mr. Lang alleges,\nanywhere see \"absolutely primitive man and a totemic system in the\nmaking,\"[366] we may go back along the lines from which totemism has\ndeveloped in Australian society and see somewhat of the process of the\nmaking.\n\nWe may commence with evidence of the survival of the most primitive\nhuman trait, the condition of hostility among the local groups\nproduced by the struggle for women. \"The possession of a girl appears\nto be connected with all their ideas of fighting ... after a battle\nthe girls do not always follow their fugitive husbands from the field,\nbut frequently go over as a matter of course to the victors, even with\nyoung children on their backs.\"[367] Mr. Curr puts the evidence even\nmore definitely in a primitive setting when he informs us of \"the\nyoung bachelors of the tribe carrying off some of the girl wives of\nthe grey-beards,\" leaving the old territory and settling at the first\nconvenient place within thirty or forty miles of the old territory. I\ncall this state of things \"survival,\"[368] because it is the existence\nin totemic society of the fundamental basis of pre-totemic society. It\nis checked in Australian totemic society by rules which show a strong\ndevelopment from the primitive. Thus the successful warrior may not\ntake any of his captives to himself; \"if a warrior took to himself a\ncaptive who belonged to a forbidden class, he would be hunted down\nlike a wild beast,\" is the evidence of Mr. Fison, who allows it to be\n\"a strong statement, but it rests upon strong evidence.\"[369] This is\nthe exogamous class system operating even in the case of conflict,\nwhen men have resorted to their primitive instincts and their\nprimitive methods.\n\nThis discovery of primitive hostility accompanying the obtaining of\nwives leads us to look for other survivals of the earliest conditions,\nand we come upon mother-right groups in which the females in each\nlocal group are the sexual companions of males from outside their own\nsocial group. This is shown by the Kamilaroi organisation, where \"a\nwoman is married to a thousand miles of husbands.\"[370] This phrase\nmay be textually an exaggeration of actual fact, but it undoubtedly\nexpresses a condition of things which actually existed. Women in\nAustralian society must look outside their class, and in general\noutside their totem, for their sexual mates, and they must expect to\nbe claimed as rightful sexual mates by men whom they have never seen\nand who live at great distances. Carry this state of things but a few\nsteps back, and we must come to a condition of localised female groups\nwith males moving from group to group. Surely there is something more\nhere than savage organisation. The something more is the development\ninto a system of one of the results of the enforced migratory\nconditions of early man, namely, the migratory instincts of the males\nmoving outside the female local groups and thus producing natural\nexogamy. This is what appears to me to be clearly a distinct element\nin the Australian system. But there is a new element in juxtaposition\nwith it. The new element is the organisation into marriage\nclasses--not every man from without, but only special men from\nwithout, are allowed the sexual companionship.\n\nNow in both these cases, where we have apparently penetrated to the\nmost primitive conditions, we are also brought up abruptly against\nconditions which are not primitive, namely, the exogamous class system,\nand we are bound to conclude that this class system thus shows itself\nto be an intruding force which has not, however, been strong enough to\nquite obliterate the older forces of hostile marriage-capture and\nmother-right society.\n\nOur next quest is therefore to find out, if we can, an explanation of\nthese two contrasted elements in Australian totemic society, and for\nthis purpose it is advisable to still further narrow down the range of\ninquiry to one special section of the Australian peoples. For this\npurpose I shall take the Arunta. There has been much controversy about\nthis people. Mr. Lang argues that the presence of exogamous classes\nand male descent shows the Arunta to be more advanced than other\nAustralian peoples;[371] Messrs. Spencer and Gillen that the survival\nof totem beliefs, which are local and unconnected with the class\nsystem, proves them to be the least advanced. In this country Mr.\nHartland and Mr. Thomas side with Mr. Lang; Mr. Frazer with Messrs.\nSpencer and Gillen.\n\nThe first point of importance to note about the Arunta people is that\nthey occupy the least favourable districts for food supply.[372] This\nmeans that they have been pushed there. They did not choose such a\nlocation--in other words, they are among the last units of the\nmigration movements which peopled Australia; they are among the last\npeople to have become stationary as a group, and to have been\ncompelled to resort to the development of social organisation in lieu\nof constantly swarming off from the centre or from the last stopping\nplace to the ends. This tells for primitive, not advanced, conditions.\n\nThe next point is the totem system. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen,\ndescribing one special case as an example of the rest, give us the\nfollowing particulars. The Arunta believe that the most marked\nfeatures of the district they inhabit, the gaps and the gorges, were\nformed by their Alcheringa ancestors. These Alcheringa are represented\nas collected together in companies, each of which consisted of a\ncertain number of individuals belonging to one particular totem. Each\nof these Alcheringa ancestors carried about with him or her one or\nmore of the sacred stones called churinga. These are the general\ntraditions related by the Arunta of to-day to explain their own\ncustoms, and let it be noted that the explanation does not necessarily\nlead us to the primitive conceptions of the Arunta people, but to\ntheir present conceptions as to unknown facts. The local example is\nfound close to Alice Springs, where there are deposited a large number\nof churinga carried by the witchetty grub men and women. A large\nnumber of prominent rocks and boulders, and certain ancient gum\ntrees, are the nanja trees and rocks of these spirits. If a woman\nconceives a child after having been near to this gap, it is one of\nthese spirit individuals which has entered her body, and when born\nmust of necessity be of the witchetty grub totem; \"it is, in fact,\nnothing else but the reincarnation of one of the witchetty grub people\nof the Alcheringa;\" the nanja tree, or stone, ever afterwards is the\nnanja of the child, and there is special connection between it and the\nchild, injury to the nanja object meaning injury to the nanja\nman.[373] There is evidence that the reincarnation theory is not\nadmissible,[374] and, indeed, it does not seem warranted on the facts\npresented by the authors. With this unnecessary element out of the\nway, then, there is left a system of local totemism, arising at birth\nand depending upon the mother, without reference in any way to the\nfather, associated with natural features, rocks and trees, and showing\nin a special way a curious system of sex cleavage by the men of the\ngroup being the exclusive guardians of the sacred churinga, and the\nwomen the active power by which the churinga becomes connected with\nthe newly-born member of the totem group.[375]\n\nNow at this point we may surely refer back to the custom and belief of\nthe Semang people of the Malay Peninsula, and I suggest that we have\nthe closest parallel between Semang belief and custom and Arunta\ntotemism, not quite the same formula perhaps, but assuredly the same\nfundamental conception of every child at birth being in intimate\nassociation with objects of nature, and this association being the\ndetermining force of the newly-born man's social status and class,\nlasting all through life. In each case the kinless basis of totemism\nis thus fully shown. The totem names given by women, or assumed on\naccount of the conditions attachable to women as mothers, did not\nextend to the human fathers. The fathers may be known or unknown to\nthe mothers, but they did not become associated with the totems which\nthe mothers associated with their children. To the extent of\nfatherhood, therefore, totemism of this type was clearly not based\nupon the natural fact of blood kinship, but upon the conscious\nadoption of a non-kinship form of society. To the extent of motherhood\nalso it was not based upon blood kinship, for it was the local totem,\nnot the mother's totem, which became the totem of the newly-born\nmember of the group. We thus have an entirely non-kinship form of\nsociety to deal with, a kinless society, \"where there is no necessary\nrelationship of any kind between that of children and parents.\"[376]\nPrimitive man consciously adapted certain of his observations of\nnature to his social needs, and among these observations the fact of\nactual blood kinship with father and mother played no part. It would\nappear therefore that totemism at its foundation was based upon a\ntheoretical conception of relationship between man and animal or\nplant. Place of birth, association with natural objects, not\nmotherhood and not fatherhood, are the determining factors.\n\nWe may proceed to inquire as to the social form which has become\nevolved from this kinless system.\n\nIn the case of the Semangs we have the kinless totemic belief and\ncustom existing within a kinless society. In the case of the Arunta we\nhave the kinless totemism existing in a society based on a kinless\norganisation still, but containing also full recognition of\nmotherhood,[377] and perhaps recognition of physical fatherhood.[378]\nThere is, therefore, an important distinction in the social position\nof the two parallel systems. Among the Semang people, their totemic\nbelief and custom do not carry with them a superstructure of society.\nThey form the substantive cult of the scattered social groups, which\nare kinless groups dependent upon ties local in character and derived\nfrom the conscious use of the facts of nature surrounding them. Among\nthe Arunta people, on the contrary, the totem belief and custom are\ncontained within a social system of extraordinary dimensions and\nproportions. Of course, the obvious questions to raise are--have the\nSemang people lost a once existing social system connected with their\ntotemic cult? Have the Arunta people had imposed upon them a social\nsystem which has not destroyed their primitive totemic cult?\n\nTo answer these questions I can only deal with the Semang evidence as\nit appears in researches of great authority and weight, and there is\nundoubtedly in all the evidence produced by Messrs. Skeat and\nBlagden, and the authorities they use, nothing whatever to suggest\nthat Semang totemism once possessed above it an elaborate social\norganisation of the usual totemic type. There is indeed, the myth\nwhich points to a two-class exogamous division for marital\npurposes,[379] but there is more than myth for the unrestricted\nintercourse of the sexes both before and after marital rights.[380] In\nevery other direction we get simple groups fashioned on no larger\nbasis than nomadic roaming and journeying to fresh food grounds. On\nthe other hand, there is much to suggest that the Arunta have a dual\nsystem of organisation; one, in which the primitive types are still\nsurviving, the second, a more advanced type which covers but does not\ncrush out the first. If this is so, it is clear that the parallel\nbetween Semang and Arunta totemism is considerably closer than at\nfirst appears.\n\nIt will be necessary, therefore, to deal with the two principal signs\nof alleged Arunta progress, male descent and the exogamous classes. I\nsee no evidence whatever of male descent; male ascendancy, a very\ndifferent thing, appears, but there cannot strictly be male descent\nwhere fatherhood is unrecognised. And here I would interpose the\nremark that the use of the term descent, male descent and female\ndescent, in these studies is far too indiscriminate.[381] Descent\nmeans succession by blood kinship by acknowledged sons or daughters,\nand this is exactly what does not always occur. Sonship and\ndaughtership in our sense of the term are not always known to\nsavagery. They were not known to the Arunta males, for fatherhood was\nnot recognised by them and motherhood was not definitely used in the\nsocial sense. All that the Arunta can be said to have developed is a\nmother-right society with male ascendancy in the group.[382] Group\nsons succeeded to group fathers, but individual descent from father to\nson there is not.\n\nThere remain the exogamous classes. In the first place, it is\nnecessary to get rid of a difficulty raised by Mr. Lang. \"In no tribe\nwith female descent can a district have its local totem as among the\nArunta.... This can only occur under male reckoning of descent.\"[383]\nBut surely so acute an observer as Mr. Lang would see that with female\ndescent right through, as it exists among the Khasia and Kocch people\nof Assam, local totem centres are just as possible as with male\ndescent. Mr. Lang is conscious of some discrepancy here, for a little\nlater on he repeats the statement that local totem centres \"can only\noccur and exist under male reckoning of descent,\" but adds the\nsignificant qualification \"in cases where the husbands do not go to\nthe wives' region of abode.\"[384] This is the whole point. Where\nhusbands do go to the wives' region of abode, as they do among the\nKhasis and the Kocch, female descent would allow of the formation of\nlocal totem centres. This is not far from the position of the Arunta.\nThey are mother-right societies. The mother secures the totem name.\nThe father, _de facto_, is not father according to the ideas of the\nArunta people, is at best only one of a group of possible fathers\naccording to the practices of the Arunta people. Therefore, the local\ntotem centre is formed out of a system which may be called a\nmother-right system for the purpose of scientific description, but\nwhich is not even a mother-right system to the natives, because\nmotherhood is not the foundation of the local group.\n\nSecondly, we have the important fact, which Mr. Lang has duly noted,\nthough he does not apparently see its significance in the argument as\nto origins, that the class system \"arose in a given centre and was\npropagated by emigrants and was borrowed by distant tribes.\"[385]\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen distinctly affirm that the \"division into\neight has been adopted (or rather the names for the four new divisions\nhave been) in recent times by the Arunta tribe from the Ilpirra tribe\nwhich adjoins the former on the north, and the use of them is at the\npresent time spreading southwards.\"[386] This view is supported by the\nwidespread organisation of eaglehawk and crow, and by the general\nhomogeneity of Australian social forms. It is clear, therefore, that\nroom is made for the external organisation of the class system and the\nconsequent production of the dual characteristics of the Arunta--the\njoint product of the fossilisation of mother-right society at the end\nof the migration movement, and the superimposing upon this\nfossilisation, with its tendency towards the class system, of the\nfully organised class system. The two systems are not now fully welded\nin the Arunta group. Whatever view is taken of these, whether they be\nconsidered advanced or primal, the undoubted dualism has to be\naccounted for, and the best way of accounting for this dualism is, I\nsubmit, that of differential evolution. Further study of Messrs.\nSpencer and Gillen's work, together with the criticisms of various\nscholars, Mr. Lang, Mr. Hartland, Mr. Frazer, Mr. Thomas, and others,\nconvinces me that the extreme artificiality of the class system is due\npartly to a want of understanding of the entire facts, and partly to\nthe _ad hoc_ adoption by the natives themselves of new plans to meet\ndifficulties which must arise out of a too close adhesion to their\nrules. Mr. Lang has allowed me to see a manuscript note of his, in\nwhich he points out that the inevitable result of the one totem to the\none totem rule of marital relationship,--that is, totem A always\nintermarrying with totem B, males and females from both totems, and\nwith no others,--is the consanguineous relationship of all the members\nof the two totems. The rule for non-consanguineous marriage has\ntherefore broken down, and when it breaks down the Australian\nintroduces a new rule which satisfies immediate necessities. When this\nin turn breaks down a further new rule is made, and this is the way I\nthink the differing rules resulted. They represent, therefore, not\nvarying degrees of culture progress, but only varying degrees of\nartificial social changes, and they spring from the oldest conditions\nof all where there is no class system at all.[387] Arunta society is\nnot a \"sport\" under this view, but a product--a product to be\naccounted for and explained by anthropological rules, derived not only\nfrom Australian society but from the general facts of human society\nwhich have remained for observation by the science of to-day. The\nparallel between Semang and Arunta, therefore, helps us in two ways.\nIt enables us to go back to Semang totemism as an example of primitive\nkinless society, and forward to Arunta totemism as an example of early\ndevelopment therefrom. We have, in point of fact, discovered the datum\nline of totemism. Upon this may be constructed the various examples\naccording to their degrees of development, and we may thus see in\ndetail the commencing elements of totemism as well as the means by\nwhich we may proceed from the commencing elements to the more advanced\nelements, and finally to the last stages of totemic society where\nblood kinship is fully recognised and used, where, in fact, totemic\ntribes as distinct from totemic peoples take their place in the\nworld's history.\n\n\nIV\n\nI do not propose in this chapter to proceed further with this inquiry.\nIt will not advance my object, nor is it absolutely necessary.\nTotemism in the full has been described adequately by Mr. Frazer in\nhis valuable abstract of the evidence supplied from all parts of the\nworld, and there is not much in dispute among the authorities when\nonce the stage of origin is passed. There is danger, however, at the\nother extreme, namely, the attempt to discover totemism in impossible\nplaces in civilisation. Mr. Morgan has shown us totemic society in its\nhighest form of development, untouched by other influences of\nsufficient consequence to divert its natural evolution. This, I think,\nis the merit of Mr. Morgan's great work, and not his attempt, his\nfutile attempt as I think, to apply the principles of totemic society\nto the elucidation of societies that have long passed the stage of\ntotemism. In particular, the great European civilisations are not\ntotemic, nor are they to be seen passing from totemism. It is true\nthat Mr. Lang, Mr. Grant Allen, and others have attempted to trace in\ncertain features of Greek ritual and belief, and in certain tribal\nformations discoverable in Anglo-Saxon Britain, the relics of a living\ntotemism in the civilised races of Europe;[388] but I do not believe\neither of these scholars would have endorsed his early conclusions in\nlater studies. Mr. Grant Allen did not, so far as I know, repeat this\ntheory after its first publication, and Mr. Lang has given many signs\nof being willing to withdraw it. The fact is, there is no necessity to\nthink of Greek or English totem society because in Greece and England\nthere are traces of totem beliefs. We may disengage them from their\nnational position and put them back to the position they occupied\nbefore the coming of Greek or Englishman into the countries they have\nmade their own.\n\nIn that position there may well have been totemic peoples in Britain\nof the type we have been considering from Australia. I have already\nindicated that totemic survivals in folklore have been the subject of\na special study of my own which still in the main stands good, and for\nwhich I have collected very many additional illustrations and proofs.\nI discovered that folklore contained some remarkably perfect examples\nof totemic belief and custom, and also a considerable array of\nscattered belief and custom connected with animals and plants which,\nunclassified, seemed to lead to no definite stage of culture history,\nyet when classified, undoubtedly led to totemism. The result was\nsomewhat remarkable. At many points there are direct parallels to\nsavage totemism, and the whole associated group of customs received\nadequate explanation only on the theory that it represented the\ndetritus of a once existing totemic system of belief.\n\nThe present study enables me to take the parallel to primitive\ntotemism much closer. One of the perfect examples was of a local\ncharacter. This was found in Ossory. Giraldus Cambrensis tells an\nextraordinary legend to the following effect: \"A priest benighted in a\nwood on the borders of Meath was confronted by a wolf, who after some\npreliminary explanations gave this account of himself: There are two\nof us, a man and a woman, natives of Ossory, who through the curse of\none Natalis, saint and abbot, are compelled every seven years to put\noff the human form and depart from the dwellings of men. Quitting\nentirely the human form, we assume that of wolves. At the end of the\nseven years, if they chance to survive, two others being substituted\nin their places, they return to their country and their former\nshape.\"[389] Here is a saintly legend introduced to explain the\ncurrent tradition of the men of Ossory, that they periodically turned\ninto wolves. Fynes Moryson, in 1603, ridiculed the beliefs of \"some\nIrish who will be believed as men of credit,\" that men in Ossory were\n\"yearly turned into wolves.\"[390] But an ancient Irish MS. puts the\nmatter much more clearly in the statement that the \"descendants of the\nwolf are in Ossory,\"[391] while the evidence of Spenser and Camden\nexplains the popular beliefs upon even more exact lines. Spenser says\n\"that some of the Irish doe use to make the wolf their gossip;\"[392]\nand Camden adds that they term them \"Chari Christi, praying for them\nand wishing them well, and having contracted this intimacy, professed\nto have no fear from their four-footed allies.\" Fynes Moryson\nexpressly mentions the popular dislike to killing wolves, and they\nwere not extirpated until the eighteenth century.[393] Aubrey adds\nthat \"in Ireland they value the fang-tooth of an wolfe, which they set\nin silver and gold as we doe ye Coralls;\"[394] and Camden notes the\nsimilar use of a bit of wolf's skin.[395]\n\nIn the local superstitions of Ossory, therefore, we have several of\nthe cardinal features of savage totemism, the descent from the\ntotem-animal, the ascription to the totem of a sacred character, the\nbelief in its protection, and a taboo against killing it. I will\nventure to suggest, however, that to these important features there is\nto be added a parallel in survival to the Semang and Arunta features\nwhere the local circumstances of birth are the determining forces\nwhich supply the totem name, for the relationship of \"gossip,\"\n\"god-sib,\" is clearly of the same character as that of the soul-tree\nof the Semang and the alcheringa of the Australian.[396] The condition\nof survival has altered the detail of the parallel, but the parallel\nis on the same plane.\n\nThe wolf as gossip to the men of Ossory leads us on to inquire whether\nany other animal had such close connections with human beings. In\nErris, a part of Connaught, \"the people consider that foxes perfectly\nunderstand human language, that they can be propitiated by kindness,\nand even moved by flattery. They not only make mittens for Reynard's\nfeet to keep him warm in winter, and deposit these articles carefully\nnear their holes, but they make them sponsors for their children,\nsupposing that under the close and long-established relationship of\nGossipred they will be induced to befriend them.\"[397] Thus it appears\nthat the selfsame conception which the men of Ossory had in the\nthirteenth century for the wolf, the men of Erris had for the fox in\nthe nineteenth century. No explanation from the dry details of the\nnatural history of these animals is sufficient to account for this\ncurious parallel, and we must turn to ancient beliefs for the\nexplanation.\n\nThe general attitude of the men of Erris towards the fox is confirmed\nas an attribute of totemism when we come to examine a special local\nform of it. This we can do by turning to Galway. The Claddagh fishermen\nin Galway would not go out to fish if they saw a fox: their rivals of\na neighbouring village, not believing in the fox, do all they can\nto introduce a fox into the Claddagh village.[398] These people\nare peculiar in many respects, and are distinctively clannish. They\nretain their old clan-dress--blue cloaks and red petticoats--which\ndistinguishes them from the rest of the county of Galway, and it may be\nconjectured that the present-day custom of naming from the names of\nfish--thus, Jack the hake, Bill the cod, Joe the eel, Pat the trout,\nMat the turbot, etc.[399]--may be a remnant of the mental attitude of\nthe folk towards that belief in kinship between men and animals which\nis at the basis of totemism. But, returning to the fox, we have in the\nbelief that meeting this animal would prevent them from going out to\nfish, a parallel to the prohibition against looking at the totem which\nis to be found among savage people, and we have in the neighbours'\ndisbelief in the fox and a corresponding belief in the hare,[400] that\nlocal distribution of different totems which is also found in savagery.\nBut all these particulars about the relationship of the fox to the\nCladdagh fishermen receive unexpected light when we inquire into the\nbiography of their local saint, named MacDara. This saint is the patron\nsaint of the fishermen who, when passing MacDara's island, always dip\ntheir sails thrice to avoid being shipwrecked. But then, in the\nfolk-belief, we have this remarkable fact, that MacDara's real name was\nSinach, a fox[401]--an instance, it would seem, of a totem cult being\ntransferred to a Christian saint. Thus, then, in the superstitions of\nthese Claddagh fisherfolk we can trace the elements of totemism, the\nroot of which is contained, first, in the nominal worship of a\nChristian saint, and second, in the actual worship of an animal, the\nfox.\n\nThese examples of local totemism may be followed by a remarkable\nexample of tribal or kinship totemism. It was noted by Mr. G. H.\nKinahan in his researches for Irish folklore, and is mentioned quite\nincidentally among other items, the collector himself not fully\nperceiving the importance of his \"find.\" This really enhances the\nvalue of the evidence, because it destroys any possibility of an\nobjection to its validity--a really important matter, considering the\nremarkable character of this survival of totem-stocks in Western\nEurope. The exact words of Mr. Kinahan are as follows:--\n\n\"In very ancient times some of the clan Coneely, one of the early\nsepts of the county, were changed by 'art magick' into seals; since\nthen no Coneely can kill a seal without afterwards having bad luck.\nSeals are called Coneelys, and on this account many of the name\nchanged it to Connolly.\"[402] The same local tradition is mentioned by\nHardiman in one of his notes to O'Flaherty's _Description of West or\nH-iar Connaught_,[403] but the note is equally significant of\ngenuineness from the fact that the tradition is styled \"a ridiculous\nstory.\" It strengthens Mr. Kinahan's note in the following passage:\n\"In some places the story has its believers, who would no more kill a\nseal, or eat of a slaughtered one, than they would of a human\nConeely.\"\n\nThe clan Coneely is mentioned both by Mr. Kinahan and by Mr. Hardiman\nas one of the oldest Irish septs; and that it is widely spread, and\nnot congregated into one locality, is to be inferred from the\ndescription of the tradition as prevalent in Connaught, especially\nfrom Mr. Hardiman's words, describing that \"in some places\" the story\nhas its believers now; and hence we may conclude that wherever the\nclan Coneely are situated there would exist this totem belief.\n\nThe full significance of these facts may best be tested by reference\nto the conditions laid down by Dr. Robertson Smith for the discovery\nof the survivals of totemism among the Semitic races. These conditions\nare as follows:--\n\n \"'(1) The existence of stocks named after plants and\n animals'--such stocks, it is necessary to add, being\n scattered through many local tribes; (2) the\n prevalence of the conception that the members of the\n stock are of the blood of the eponym animal, or are\n sprung from a plant of the species chosen as totem;\n (3) the ascription to the totem of a sacred character\n which may result in its being regarded as the god of\n the stock, but at any rate makes it be regarded with\n veneration, so that, for example, a totem animal is\n not used as ordinary food. If we can find all these\n things together in the same tribe, the proof of\n totemism is complete; but even when this cannot be\n done, the proof may be morally complete if all the\n three marks of totemism are found well developed\n within the same race. In many cases, however, we can\n hardly expect to find all the marks of totemism in its\n primitive form; the totem, for example, may have\n become first an animal god, and then an\n anthropomorphic god, with animal attributes or\n associations merely.\"[404]\n\nNow in the Irish case all three of these conditions are found together\nin the same tribe, the clan Coneely, and it is impossible to overlook\nthe importance of such a discovery. It proves from survivals in\nfolklore that totemistic people once lived in ancient Ireland, just as\nthe corresponding evidence proved that the ancient Semitic stock\npossessed the totemic organisation.\n\nWe have now examined the most archaic forms of the survival of\ntotemism in Britain. If we pass on to inquire whether we can detect\nthe more scattered and decayed remnants of totem beliefs and customs,\nwe turn to Mr. Frazer as our guide. From Mr. Frazer's review of the\nbeliefs and customs incidental to the totemistic organisation of\nsavage people, it is possible to extract a formula for ascertaining\nthe classification of savage beliefs and practices incidental to\ntotemism. This formula appears to me to properly fall into the\nfollowing groups:--\n\n (a) Descent from the totem.\n\n (b) Restrictions against injuring the totem.\n\n (c) Restrictions against using the totem for food.\n\n (d) The petting and preservation of totems.\n\n (e) The mourning for and burying of totems.\n\n (f) Penalties for non-respect of totem.\n\n (g) Assistance by the totem to his kin.\n\n (_h_) Assumption of totem marks.\n\n (_i_) Assumption of totem dress.\n\n (_j_) Assumption of totem names.\n\nMy suggestion is that if a reasonable proportion of the superstitions\nand customs attaching to animals and plants, preserved to us as\nfolklore, can be classified under these heads this is exactly what\nmight be expected if the origin of such superstitions and customs is\nto be sought for in a primitive system of totemism which prevailed\namongst the people once occupying these islands. The clan Coneely and\nthe Ossory wolves are proofs that such a system existed, and if such\nperfect survivals have been able to descend to modern times, in spite\nof the influences of civilisation, there is no _prima facie_ reason\nwhy the beliefs and customs incidental to such a system should not\nhave survived, even though they are no longer to be identified with\nspecial clans. When once a primitive belief or custom becomes\nseparated from its original surroundings, it would be liable to\nchange. Thus, when the wolf totem of Ossory passes into a local\ncultus, we meet with the belief that human beings may be transformed\ninto animal forms, as the derivative from the totem belief in descent\nfrom the wolf. Fortunately, the process by which this change took\nplace is discernible in the Ossory example; but it will not be so in\nother examples, and we may therefore assume that the Ossory example\nrepresents the transitional form and apply it as a key to the origin\nof similar beliefs elsewhere.\n\nAgain, if we endeavour to discover how the associated totem-beliefs of\nthe clan Coneely would appear in folklore supposing they had been\nscattered by the influences of civilisation, we can see that at the\nvarious places where members of the clan had resided for some time\nthere would be preserved fragments of the once perfect totem-belief.\nThus, one place would retain traditions about a fabulous animal who\ncould change into human form; another place would preserve beliefs\nabout its being unlucky to kill a seal (or some other animal specially\nconnected with the locality); another place would preserve a\nsuperstitious regard for the seal (or some other local animal) as an\naugury; and thus the process of transference of beliefs into folklore,\nfrom one form into other related forms, from one particular object\nconnected with the clan to several objects connected with the\nlocalities, would go on from time to time, until the difficulty of\ntracing the original of the scattered beliefs and customs would be\nwell-nigh insurmountable without some key. But having once proved the\nexistence of such examples as the clan Coneely and the Ossory wolves,\nthis difficulty, though still great, is very much lessened. Our method\nwould be as follows. We first of all postulate that totem peoples did\nactually exist in ancient Britain, or whence such extraordinary\nsurvivals? We next examine and classify the beliefs and customs which\nare incidental to totemism in savage society, and having set these\nforth by the aid of Mr. Frazer's admirable study on the subject, we\nascertain what parallels to these beliefs and customs may be found in\nthe folklore of Britain. And then our position seems to be very\nclearly defined. We prove that in folklore certain customs and\nsuperstitions are identical, or nearly so, with the beliefs and\ncustoms of totemism among savage tribes, and we conclude that this\nidentity in form proves an identity in origin, and therefore that\nthis section of folklore originated from the totemistic people of\nearly Britain.\n\nI shall not take up all these points on the present occasion,\nespecially as they have in all essentials appeared in the study to\nwhich I have referred; but as an example of the scattering of totem\nbeliefs I will refer to the well-known passage in Caesar (lib. v. cap.\nxii.), from which we learn that certain people in Britain were\nforbidden to eat the hare, the cock, or the goose, and see whether\nthis does not receive its only explanation by reference to the totemic\nrestriction against using the totem for food. Mr. Elton, with this\npassage in his mind, notices that \"there were certain restrictions\namong the Britons and ancient Irish, by which particular nations or\ntribes were forbidden to kill or eat certain kinds of animals;\" and he\ngoes on to suggest that \"it seems reasonable to connect the rule of\nabstaining from certain kinds of food with the superstitious belief\nthat the tribes were descended from the animals from which their names\nand crests or badges were derived.\"[405]\n\nLet us see whether this reasonable conjecture holds good. The most\nfamous example is that of Cuchulainn, the celebrated Irish chieftain,\nwhose name means the hound of Culain. It is said that he might not eat\nof the flesh of the dog, and he came by his death after transgressing\nthis totemistic taboo. The words of the manuscript known as the Book\nof Leinster are singularly significant in their illustration of this\nview. \"And one of the things that Cuchulainn was bound not to do was\ngoing to a cooking hearth and consuming the food [_i.e._ the dog];\nand another of the things that he must not do was eating his\nnamesake's flesh.\"[406] Diarmaid, whose name seems to be continued in\nthe current popular Irish name for pig (Darby), was intimately\nassociated with that animal, and his life depended on the life of the\nboar.[407] These examples are so much to the point that we may examine\nthe cases mentioned by Caesar from the same standard.\n\nMr. Frazer points out that even among existing totem-tribes the\nrespect for the totem has lessened or disappeared, and among the\nresults of this he notes instances where, if any one kills his totem,\nhe apologises to the animal. Under such an interpretation as this, we\nmay surely classify a \"memorandum\" made by Bishop White-Kennett about\nthe hare, the first of the British totems mentioned by Caesar: \"When\none keepes a hare alive and feedeth him till he have occasion to eat\nhim, if he telles before he kills him that he will doe so, the hare\nwill thereupon be found dead, having killed himself.\"[408] But respect\nfor the hare, in accordance with totem ideas, was carried further than\nthis at Biddenham, where, on the 22nd September, a little procession\nof villagers carried a white rabbit [a substitute for hare] decorated\nwith scarlet ribbons through the village, singing a hymn in honour of\nSt. Agatha. All the young unmarried women who chanced to meet the\nprocession extended the first two fingers of the left hand pointing\ntowards the rabbit, at the same time repeating the following\ndoggerel:--\n\n Gustin, Gustin, lacks a bier,\n Maidens, maidens, bury him here.[409]\n\nThis points to a very ancient custom, not yet fully explained, but\nwhich clearly had for its object the reverential burying of a rabbit\nor hare. It is characteristic of the totem animal that it serves as an\nomen to its clansmen, and we find that the hare is an omen in Britain.\nBoudicca is said to have drawn an augury from a hare, taken from her\nbosom, and which when released pursued a course that was deemed\nfortunate for her attack upon the Roman army;[410] and in modern south\nNorthamptonshire the running of a hare along the street or mainway of\na village portends fire to some house in the immediate vicinity.[411]\nIn 1648 Sir Thomas Browne tells us that in his time there were few\nabove three-score years that were not perplexed when a hare crossed\ntheir path.[412] In Wilts and in Scotland it was unlucky to meet a\nhare, but the evil influence did not extend after the next meal had\nbeen taken.[413] Then, too, the prohibition against naming the totem\nobject is found in north-east Scotland attached to the hare, whose\nname may not be pronounced at sea, and Mr. Gregor adds the significant\nfact that some animal names and certain family names were never\npronounced by the inhabitants of some of the villages, each village\nhaving an aversion to one or more of the words.[414] A classification\nof the beliefs and customs connected with the hare takes us, indeed,\nto almost every phase of totemistic belief, and it is impossible to\nreject such a mass of cumulative evidence.\n\nOf the second of the British food taboos mentioned by Caesar we have\nthe most perfect illustration in the instance of the Irish chieftain,\nConaire, who, descended from a fowl, was interdicted from eating its\nflesh.[415]\n\nTurning next to the goose, we find that at Great Crosby, in\nLancashire, there is held an annual festival which is called the\n\"Goose Fair,\" and although it is accompanied by great feasting, the\nsingular fact remains that the goose itself, in whose honour the feast\nseems to have been held, is considered too sacred to eat, and is never\ntouched by the villagers.[416] In Scotland also the goose was never\neaten, being too sacred for food.[417]\n\nThus the hare, the fowl, and the goose have retained their sacred\ncharacter in a special manner in various parts of the country, and I\nmay add a further note of more general significance. In Scotland there\nexists a prejudice against eating hares and cocks and hens.[418] In\nthe south-western parts of England the peasant would not eat hares,\nrabbits, wild-fowl, or poultry, and when asked whence this dislike\nproceeds, he asserts that it was derived from his father[419]--the\ntraditional sanction which is so essential to folklore.[420]\n\nThe ideas surrounding these three special animals might be easily\nextended to others, but I will only observe that Mr. Elton, noting\nboth the classical and modern accounts of certain districts in\nScotland and Ireland where fish, though abundant, is tabooed as food,\nquotes with approval a modern suggestion that this abstinence was a\nreligious observance.[421] That fish are carved on numerous stones is\na curious commentary on this assertion, while another point to be\nnoted is that the inhabitants of the various islands have each their\npeculiar notions as to what fish are good for food. Some will eat\nskate, some dog-fish, some eat limpets and razor-fish, and as a matter\nof course, says Miss Gordon Cumming, those who do not, despise those\nwho do.[422] A prejudice also existed against white cows in Scotland,\nand Dalyell ventures upon the acute supposition that this was on\naccount of the unlawfulness of consuming the product of a consecrated\nanimal.[423] These are not stray notes of inexperienced observers, and\nwith two centuries between them it must be that they contain the\nessence of the people's conception--a conception which leads us back\nto totemism for its explanation.\n\nI do not think we could get closer to totemic beliefs and ideas than\nthis, nor could we have a better example of the necessity of examining\nearly historical data by anthropological tests and by folklore\nparallels. Caesar's words are unimportant by themselves. They convey\nnothing of any significance to the modern reader--a mere dietetic\npeculiarity which means nothing and counts for nothing. And yet it\nmight be considered certain that Caesar knew that the details he\nrecorded were of importance in the historical sense. He did not\nindicate what the importance was, probably because he was not aware of\nit; but because he was conscious that among the influences which\ncounted with these people were the food taboos, he rightly recorded\nthe facts. They have remained unconsidered trifles until now, when\nanthropology has brought them within the range of scientific\nobservation, and they are now to be reckoned with as part of the\nmaterial which tells of the culture conditions of a section of the\nearly British peoples.\n\nI must here interpose a remark with reference to this grouping of the\nevidence. Apart from the significance of the superstitions as they are\nrecorded in their bare condition among the peasantry, there is the\nadditional fact to note that the superstition against eating or\nkilling certain animals or birds, or against looking at them or naming\nthem, etc., is not universal. It obtains in one place and not in\nanother. If the injunction not to kill, injure, or eat a certain\nanimal were simply the reflection of a universal practice, such a\npractice might originate in some attribute of the animal itself which\ncharacteristically would produce or tend to produce superstition. But\nthe spread of this class of superstition in certain districts, and not\nin others, is indicative of an ancient origin, and it is exactly what\nmight be expected to have been produced from totem-peoples.\nUnfortunately, neither the negative evidence of superstitious beliefs\nnor the local distribution of superstitious beliefs has ever been\nconsidered worthy of attention. But some little evidence is\nincidentally forthcoming, and I would submit that this may be taken as\nindicative of what might be obtained more fully by further research\ninto this neglected aspect of folklore. I drew Miss Burne's attention\nto this subject, and she has noted some particulars in her valuable\n_Shropshire Folklore_.[424] But for the most part this portion of our\nevidence wants picking out by a long and tedious process from the mass\nof badly recorded facts about popular superstitions. I do not believe\nin the generally stated opinion that certain superstitions are\nuniversally believed or practised. It is difficult to prove a\nnegative, and such evidence is not absolutely scientific, but when it\ncomes in direct antithesis to positive, there does not seem any harm\nin accepting it. Every class of superstition wants tracing out\ngeographically, and local variants want careful noting. I cannot doubt\nif this were properly done that many so-called universal superstitions\nwould be found to be distinctly local. In the meantime, it is not with\nuniversal superstitions that we have to deal. It is primarily with\nthose local variants which show us side by side the differences of\nbelief. It is thus that we can afford evidence of that intermixture\nof totem-objects which is to be expected from the known facts of\ntotem-beliefs and customs. Indeed, Mr. McLennan has laid it down that\n\"we might expect that while here and there perhaps a tribe might\nappear with a single animal god, as a general rule tribes and nations\nshould have as many animal and vegetable gods as there were distinct\nstocks in the population ... we should not expect to find the same\nanimal dominant in all quarters, or worshipped even everywhere within\nthe same nation.\"[425]\n\nIt is important that we should thoroughly understand what these\nsurvivals of totemism in the British isles really mean. On the extreme\nwest coast of Ireland, farthest away from the centres of civilisation,\nthere are found these unique examples of a savage institution. The\nargument that they might have been transplanted thither by travellers\nfrom the far west, where totemism has developed to its highest form,\ncannot seriously be advanced. The argument that they might be the\naccidental form into which some merely superstitious fancies of\nignorant peasants happened to have ultimately shaped themselves, is\nmet by the mathematical demonstration that the ratio of chance against\nsuch a development would be well-nigh incalculable. The remaining\nargument is that they indicate the last outpost, or perhaps one of the\nlast outposts, of a primitive savage organisation which once existed\nthroughout these lands. This is the view that appears to me to be the\nonly possible one to meet all the conditions of the case; one proof\nin support of this view being the discovery of evidence in other\nparts of the country which shows that totemism has left its stamp in\nmore or less perfect form upon the traditional beliefs and practices\nof the nation. Though we are not able to identify further complete\nexamples of the same type as the seal clan of Western Ireland, or the\nwolf people of Ossory, we should be able, if the explanation I have\nadvanced of their origin be the correct one, to produce examples of\nthe varying forms which such an institution as totemism must have\nassumed when it had been broken up by the advance of civilising\ninfluences. If the seal clan, or the wolf clan, is in truth the last\noutpost of a savage organisation, there will be in the lands less\nremote from the centres of civilisation some evidences of the break-up\nof savagery as it has been driven westward. Somewhere in tradition,\nsomewhere in local observances of beliefs or superstition, there must\nstill be echoes, more or less faint, but still echoes, from totemism.\nHaving discovered these undoubted examples of totemism, the argument\nshifts its ground. We can no longer say that the theory of totemism\nmay possibly explain some of the customs and traditions of the people.\nWe are, by the logic of the position, compelled to say that custom and\ntradition must have preserved many relics of totemism, and that so far\nfrom seeking to explain custom and tradition by the theory of\ntotemism, we must seek to explain the survival of totemism by custom\nand tradition. I lay stress on this view of the case because it is\nhard to combat the views of those who look upon \"mere superstition\" as\nno explanation of primitive originals. To us of the present day the\nbeliefs of the peasantry are no doubt properly definable as \"mere\nsuperstition.\" But when we examine it as folklore we are seeking for\nits origin, not for its modern aspect; we are asking how \"mere\nsuperstition\" first arose, and in what forms, not how it exists; we\nare pushing back the inquiry from to-day when it exists side by side\nwith a philosophical and moral religion to the time when it existed as\nthe sole substitute for philosophy and morals. Even if it is \"mere\nsuperstition\" it has a dateless history. It is not conceivable that it\nsuddenly arose at a particular period before which \"mere superstition\"\ndid not exist, and all, both peasant and chief, were philosophical and\nmoral. It is not conceivable that the mere superstition of to-day has\nreplaced bodily the mere superstition of other ages. Every succeeding\nage of progress has influenced it, no doubt, but not eradicated it,\nand hence the mere superstition of to-day has just such an unbroken\ncontinuity of history as language or institutions. That we are able to\npick out from among its items undoubted forms of totemism, and that we\nmay add to these complete examples a classified grouping of customs\nand beliefs in survival parallel to the customs and beliefs of savage\ntotemism, affords proof that at least we may carry back that history\nto the era of totemism, at whatever point that era may cross the line\nof, or come into contact with, political history.\n\nThis is the definite conclusion to be drawn from the anthropological\ninterpretation of the presence of totemic beliefs among the survivals\nof folklore. The study of the anthropological conditions has occupied\na wide range of thought and inquiry, but it leads us back to a safe\nbasis for research, for it brings definitely within touch of that\nrealm of man which lies outside the civilisation wherein folklore is\nembedded, the peoples who have made, and the peoples who are dominated\nby, that civilisation. The savage of Britain cannot with this evidence\nbefore us be considered as the mere product of the literature of\nGreece and Rome. He is part and parcel of the savagery of the human\nrace. Anthropology has shown us that savagery reached the land we now\ncall Britain as part of the general movement of people which has\ncaused the whole earth to become a dwelling-place for man, and now\nthat we know this we must appeal to anthropology whenever we find that\nthe problems of folklore take us out of the culture period of a\ncivilisation known to history.[426]\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nI append a synopsis of the culture-structure of the Semangs of the\nMalay Peninsula (references are to Skeat and Blagden's _Pagan Races of\nthe Malay Peninsula_ where not otherwise specified), in order that the\nposition claimed for the one section of totemic belief may be tested\nby the remaining characteristics of Semang culture. I claim that there\nis nothing that remains which is inconsistent with the interpretation\ngiven of the totemic items.\n\n_Physical_:--\n\n(a). Live exclusively in the forest surrounded by hostile fauna (i.\n13).\n\n(b). Food consists of such wild vegetable food as may happen to fall\nfrom time to time in season (i. 109, 341, 525), together with small\nmammals and birds (i. 112), fish (i. 113).\n\n(c). As soon as they have exhausted the sources of food in one\nneighbourhood they move on to the next (i. 109).\n\n(d). Fire obtained by friction (i. 111, 113), but meat is eaten raw\n(i. 112).\n\n(e). Nudity is alleged (_Journ. Indian Archipelago_, i. 252; ii.\n258); no satisfactory proof (i. 137); do not use skins of animals nor\nfeathers of birds (i. 138); a girdle of fungus string (i. 138, 142,\n380); fringe of leaves suspended from a string (i. 139, 142);\nnecklaces and ligatures of jungle fibre (i. 144, 145); women wear a\ncomb made of bamboo as a charm against diseases (i. 149).\n\n(f). Habitations are rock shelters (i. 173), tree shelters afforded\nby branches of trees improved by construction of a weather screen (i.\n174); ground screen of palm leaves (i. 175).\n\n(g). Hunt successfully the largest animals, escaping easily up the\ntrees (i. 202-204).\n\n(h). Knives made of bamboo, flakes and chips of stone, knives of\nbone (i. 249, 269); bow and arrow (i. 251, 255); not sufficiently\nadvanced to have produced neolithic implements (i. 268); wooden spear\n(i. 270).\n\n(i). Ignorant of pottery, vessels made from big stems of bamboo (i.\n383).\n\n_Social_:--\n\n(j). Chief of the group is the principal medicine man, but is on an\nequal footing with his men, no caste and property is in common (i.\n497, 499).\n\n(k). Marriage rights are secured by the presentation of a jungle\nknife to the bride's parents and a girdle to the bride, and the bride\nnever lets the girdle part from her for fear of its being used to her\nprejudice in some magic ceremony; adultery is punishable by death (ii.\n58, 59) [but this information was not obtained from the most primitive\nof the Semang people].\n\n(l). Semang women are common to all men (Newbold, _Political and\nStat. Acc. of Settlements in Straits of Malacca_, ii. 379). Great\nante-nuptial freedom (ii. 56, 218); \"Of the Semang I have not had an\nopportunity of personally judging\" (ii. 377, Newbold).\n\n[Illustration: TREE HUT, ULU BATU, ABOUT 12 MILES FROM KUALA LUMPUR,\nSELANGOR]\n\n(m). Eat dead kindred except head (Newbold, ii. 379); burial takes\nplace in the ground, and the older practice was exposure in trees;\nthe Semang have no dread of ghosts of the deceased (ii. 89, 91).\n\n(n). No sacred shrines or places (ii. 197).\n\n(o). Avoidance of mother-in-law (ii. 204).\n\n(p). Myth of the ringdove informing the children of the first woman\nthat they had married within prohibited degrees of consanguinity, and\nadvising them to separate and marry \"other people\" (ii. 218).\n\n(q). Myth as to ignorance of cause of birth being dispelled by the\ncocoanut monkey informing the first man and woman (ii. 218).\n\n(r). The Semang are almost ineradicably nomadic, have no fixed\nhabitation, and rove about like the beasts of the forest (i. 172; ii.\n470).\n\n(s). Women and girls are not allowed to eat until the men and boys\nhave finished their repast (i. 116); the men do most of the hunting\nand trapping, and the women take a large share in the collecting of\nroots and fruits; all the cooking is performed by the women and girls\n(i. 375).\n\n(t). They are split up into a large number of dialects, each of\nwhich is confined to a relatively small area, and it often happens\nthat a little [clan] or even a single family uses a form of speech\nwhich is differentiated from other dialects to be practically\nunintelligible to all except the members of the little community\nitself (ii. 379).\n\n(u). Natural segregation of the [tribes] into small [clans] to some\nextent cut off from one another and surrounded by settled Malay\ncommunities (ii. 379).\n\n(v). The most thoroughly wild and uncivilised members of our race,\nregarded by the Malays as little better than brute beasts, with no\nrecorded history (ii. 384).\n\n(w). Nomadic life of the Semang leads them over a considerable tract\nof country (ii. 388).\n\n_Psychical_:--\n\n(x). Decorative patterns on quivers representing natural objects,\nand possessing magical virtue to bring down various species of monkeys\nand apes and other small mammals (i. 417), and as charms for the men\n(i. 423).\n\n(y). Decorative pattern on magic comb worn by women to serve as a\ncharm against venomous reptiles and insects, similar design for\nsimilar reason sometimes painted on the breast (i. 41, 420-436).\n\n(z). Child's name is taken from some tree which stands near the\nprospective birthplace of the child. As soon as the child is born this\nname is shouted aloud by the _sage femme_, who then hands over the\nchild to another woman, who buries the afterbirth underneath the\nbirth-tree or name-tree of the child. As soon as this is done the\nfather cuts a series of notches in the tree, starting from the ground\nand terminating at the height of the breast. The cutting of these\nnotches is intended to signalise the arrival on earth of a new human\nbeing, since it thus shows that Kari registers the souls that he has\nsent forth by notching the tree against which he leans. Trees thus\n\"blazed\" are never felled. The child must not in later life injure any\ntree which belongs to the species of his tree; for him all such trees\nare taboo, and he must not even eat their fruit, the only exception\nbeing when an expectant mother revisits her birth-tree. Every tree of\nits species is regarded as identical with the birth-tree (ii. 3, 4).\nWhen an East Semang dies his birth-tree dies too (ii. 5).\n\n(aa). The child's soul is conveyed in a bird, which always inhabits\na tree of the species to which the birth-tree belongs. It flies from\none tree of the species to another, following the as yet unborn body.\nThe souls of first-born children are always young birds newly hatched,\nthe offspring of the bird which contained the soul of the mother. If\nthe mother does not eat the soul-bird during her accouchement the\nchild will be stillborn or will die shortly after birth (ii. 4, 192,\n194, 216). She keeps the soul-bird within the birth-bamboo, and does\nnot eat it all at once, but piecemeal (ii. 6). All human souls grow\nupon a soul-tree in the other world, whence they are fetched by a bird\nwhich was killed and eaten by the expectant mother (ii. 194).\n\n(bb). Semang religion, in spite of its recognition of a thunder-god\n(Kari) and certain minor deities (so called), has very little indeed\nin the way of ceremonial, and appears to consist mainly of mythology\nand legend. It shows remarkably few traces of demon worship, very\nlittle fear of ghosts of the deceased, and still less of any sort of\nanimistic beliefs (ii. 174). [As the Kari is the deity common to the\nSemang and the people higher in culture than the Semang, it is\ndifficult to trace out the primitive idea. The myths also show a\ncommon impress, \"which is probably mainly due to the same savage\nMalay element\" (ii. 183).]\n\n(cc). During a storm of thunder and lightning the Semang draw a few\ndrops of blood from the region of the shin bone, mix it with a little\nwater in a bamboo receptacle, and throw it up to the angry skies (ii.\n204).\n\n(dd). Pretend entire ignorance of a supreme being, but on pressure\nconfessed to a very powerful yet benevolent being, the maker of the\nworld (ii. 209).\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[284] Beddoe, _Races of Britain_, cap. ii., and _Journ. Anthrop.\nInst._, xxxv. 236-7; Boyd-Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, cap. vii.\nviii. and ix.; Ripley, _Races of Europe_, cap. xii.\n\n[285] Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 271; Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, _passim_;\nRhys and Jones, _Welsh People_, cap. i. and Appendix B on \"Pre-Aryan\nSyntax in Insular Celtic,\" by Professor Morris Jones.\n\n[286] Barrows, mounds, tumuli, stone circles, monoliths are generally\nadmitted to belong to the Stone Age people before the Celts arrived,\nand when they are adequately investigated, as Mr. Arthur Evans has\ninvestigated Stonehenge (_Archaeological Review_, vol. ii. pp. 312-330),\nand the Rollright Stones (_Folklore_, vol. vi. pp. 5-51), the evidence\nof a prehistoric origin is unquestioned.\n\n[287] I have worked out the evidence for this in the _Archaeological\nReview_, vol. iii. pp. 217-242, 350-375, and though I do not endorse\nall I have written there, the main points are still, I think, good.\n\n[288] Wallace, _Darwinism_, cap. xv.\n\n[289] Spencer and Gillen, _Central Tribes of Australia_, 12, 272, 324,\n368, 420.\n\n[290] _Descent of Man_, i. cap. vii. 176.\n\n[291] _Cf._ Topinard's _Anthropology_, part iii., \"On the Origin of\nMan,\" pp. 515-535, for the details of the various authorities ranged on\nthe sides of monogenists and polygenists.\n\n[292] Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, discusses the important evidence\nobtained by Dr. Dubois from Java, and Dr. Noetling from Upper Burma,\npp. 5-8. It is only fair to that brilliant scholar, Dr. Latham, to\npoint out that without the evidence before him to prove the point, he\ncame to the same conclusion that the original home of man was\n\"somewhere in intra-tropical Asia, and that it was the single locality\nof a single pair.\"--Latham, _Man and his Migrations_, 248.\n\n[293] The most recent example of this is Mr. Thomas's extraordinary\ntreatment of the evidence of migration in Australia. It produces in his\nmind \"novel conditions,\" but has effects which he cannot neglect, but\nwhich he strangely misinterprets. N. W. Thomas, _Kinship Organisations\nin Australia_, 27-28.\n\n[294] Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i. 18.\n\n[295] Lord Avebury, _Prehistoric Times_, 586.\n\n[296] _Man, Past and Present_, pp. 1, 8.\n\n[297] Latham, _Man and his Migrations_, 155-6.\n\n[298] The ethnographic movement is a very definite fact in\nanthropological evidence, though it has been little noted. Thus \"the\nColes are evidently a good pioneering race, fond of new clearings and\nthe luxuriant and easily raised crops of the virgin soil, and have\nconstitutions that thrive on malaria, so it is perhaps in the best\ninterest of humanity and cause of civilisation that they be kept moving\nby continued Aryan propulsion. Ever armed with bow, arrows, and\npole-axe, they are prepared to do battle with the beasts of the forest,\nholding even the king of the forest, the 'Bun Rajah,' that is, the\ntiger, in little fear.\"--Col. Dalton in _Journ. Asiatic Soc., Bengal_,\nxxxiv. 9.\n\n[299] Traditions of great migrations exist among most primitive races.\nSome of these contain unexpected corroboration from actual discoveries.\nThus the natives of New Zealand had a tradition that their ancestors,\nwhen they arrived in their canoes some four centuries ago, buried some\nsacred things under a large tree. It is said that the tree was blown\ndown in recent times and that the sacred things were discovered. Taplin\nrecords \"a good specimen of the kind of migration which has taken place\namong the aborigines all over the continent\" (_The Narrinyeri_, p. 4);\nand similar evidence could be produced in almost every direction. Mr.\nMathew in _Eaglehawk and Crow_ deals with \"the argument from mythology\nand tradition\" as to the origin of the Australians in a very suggestive\nfashion (pp. 14-22). Stanley has preserved an African native tradition\nof local groups spreading out from the parent home _(Through the Dark\nContinent_, i. 346).\n\n[300] I am aware this is disputed by O. Peschel--_Races of Man_, 137\n_et seq._--but I think the evidence is sufficient; and it must be\nremembered that there is direct evidence of the most backward races not\nusing the fire they possess for cooking, but always eating their animal\nfood raw, as, for instance, the Semang people of the Malay Peninsula.\n(See Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_, i. 112.)\nThe Andaman Islanders could not make fire, though they possessed and\nkept it alive. This shows that they must have borrowed it and did not\npreviously possess it.--Quatrefages, _The Pygmies_, 108. Tylor, _Early\nHistory of Mankind_, cap. ix., should be consulted.\n\n[301] The term political is, I confess, a little awkward, owing to its\nspecially modern use, but it is the only term which, in its early\nsense, expresses the stage of social development represented by a\npolity as distinct from a mere localisation.\n\n[302] It was one of the first efforts of the science of language to\nendeavour to trace out the original home of the so-called Aryas and\ntheir subsequent migrations. \"Emigration,\" said Bunsen, \"is the great\nagent in forming nations and languages\" (_Philosophy of Hist._, i. 56);\nand Niebuhr, who has traced out most of the migrations of the Greek\ntribes, observes that \"this migration of nations was formerly not\nmentioned anywhere\" (_Anc. Hist._, ii. 212). Quite recently, Professor\nFlinders Petrie has worked at the question of European migrations in\nthe Huxley lecture of 1907 (_Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, xxxvi. 189-232),\nhis valuable maps showing \"the movements of twenty of the principal\npeoples that entered Europe during the centuries of great movements\nthat are best known to us\" (204). In the meantime, the folklorist has\nmuch to do in this direction, and up to the present he has almost\nentirely ignored or misread the evidence. I do not know whether Mr.\nNutt would still adhere to his conclusion that the myth embodied in the\nCeltic expulsion-and-return formula is undoubtedly solar (_Folklore\nRecord_, iv. 42), but a restatement of Mr. Nutt's careful and elaborate\nanalysis would lead me to trace the myth to the migration period of\nAryan history, just as I agree with von Ihering that the _ver sacrum_\nof the Romans is a rite continued from the migration period to express\nin religious formulae, and on emergency to again carry out, the ancient\npractice of sending forth from an overstocked centre sufficient of the\ntribesmen and tribeswomen to leave those who remained economically\nwell-conditioned (_The Evolution of the Aryan_, 249-290). Pheidon's law\nat Corinth, alluded to by Aristotle (_Pol._, ii. cap. vi.), could only\nbe carried out by a sending out of the surplus. See also Aristotle,\n_Pol._, ii. cap. xii.; and Newman's note to the first reference,\nquoting similar laws elsewhere. Both the \"junior-right\" traditions and\ncustoms take us back to the same conditions. The occupation of fresh\nterritories is an observable feature of the Russian mir (Wallace,\n_Russia_, i. 255; Laveleye _Primitive Property_, 34), and Mr. Chadwick\nhas recently called attention to the corresponding Scandinavian\nevidence (_Origin of the English Nation_, 334).\n\n[303] Mr. J. R. Logan long ago pointed out that \"the further we go\nback, we find ethnic characteristics more uniform,\" and further\nconcluded that certain facts observed by himself \"lead to the inference\nthat the Archaic world was connected.\"--_Journ. Indian Archipelago_,\niv. 290, 291.\n\n[304] _Descent of Man_, pp. 590, 591.\n\n[305] _Studies in Ancient History_, i. 84.\n\n[306] _History of Human Marriage_, cap. ii.\n\n[307] _Ancient Society_, p. 10.\n\n[308] _Secret of the Totem_, p. 32.\n\n[309] N. W. Thomas, _Kinship Organisation in Australia_, 4.\n\n[310] _Folklore_, xii. 232.\n\n[311] Both Dr. Haddon and myself made the same point on a criticism of\nMr. Fraser's _Golden Bough_, mine being from the Aricia rites, and Dr.\nHaddon's from the savage parallels thereto. See _Folklore_, xii. 223,\n224, 232.\n\n[312] Sproat's _Scenes and Studies of Savage Life_, 19. The use of the\nterm \"tribe\" in this quotation is, of course, descriptive only. There\nis no tribal constitution among the Ahts, and \"group\" would have been\nthe preferable term.\n\n[313] Dr. W. H. Rivers' recently published work on the Todas is the\nbest authority.\n\n[314] Rivers, _op. cit._, 432, 455.\n\n[315] Rivers, _op. cit._, cap. xxi. 504, 517.\n\n[316] Rivers, _op. cit._, 452-456.\n\n[317] Latham, _Descriptive Ethnology_, ii, 137.\n\n[318] Bucher, _Industrial Evolution_, 56.\n\n[319] Rev. George Taplin, _The Narrinyeri; South Australian\nAborigines_, 40. _Cf._ Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-east Australia_,\n710-720; Grierson, _The Silent Trade_, 22.\n\n[320] _Cf._ Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Tribes of Malay Peninsula_, i,\n10.\n\n[321] Graham, _Bheel Tribes of Khandesh_, 3.\n\n[322] Herodotos, iv. 180.\n\n[323] _Journ. Asiatic Soc., Bengal_, xiii. 625.\n\n[324] Major Gurdon, _The Khasis_, 76, 82.\n\n[325] N. W. Thomas, _Kinship Organisations in Australia_, 124.\n\n[326] Fustel de Coulange's _Cite Antique_, cap. xiv. and xv., is,\nhowever, the most exaggerated example of this point of view.\n\n[327] Lang, _Social Origins_, 1. The latest exponent of anthropological\nprinciples affirms that \"the family which exists in the lower stages of\nculture, though it is overshadowed by the other social phenomena, has\npersisted through all the manifold revolutions of society.\"--N. W.\nThomas, _Kinship Organisations in Australia_, 1.\n\n[328] Jevons' _Introd. to Hist. of Religion_, 195.\n\n[329] See also Prof. Geikie in _Scottish Geographical Mag._ (Sept.\n1897).\n\n[330] _Early Hist. of Mankind_, 303; MacCulloch, _Childhood of\nFiction_, 396; Gould, _Mythical Monsters_.\n\n[331] Mr. Westermarck has collected excellent evidence as to the\neconomic influences upon savage society (_Hist. of Human Marriage_,\n39-49), and we may quite properly assume the same conditions for\nearliest man.\n\n[332] A very good summary of the pygmy peoples in all parts of the\nworld is given by Mr. W. A. Reed in his useful _Negritos of Zambales_,\n13-22. _Cf._ Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, 118-121; Keane,\n_Ethnology_, 246-248; and Sir W. H. Flower, _Essays on Museums_, cap.\nxix.\n\n[333] Latham, _Man and his Migrations_, 55, 56. Dr. Beke was a most\ncautious observer, and I have consulted all his contributions to the\n_Journal of the Geographical Society_ (vol. xiii.) and have found no\nsign of his retraction of the evidence. His correspondence in the\n_Literary Gazette_ of 1843, p. 852, discusses the question of the Dokos\nbeing pygmies, but he adheres to his information as to the absence of\nsocial structure being correct.\n\n[334] Lib. ii. 32, 8; _cf._ Quatrefages, _The Pygmies_, cap. 1, \"The\nPygmies of the Ancients.\"\n\n[335] Lieut.-Col. Sutherland, _Memoir respecting the Kaffirs,\nHottentots, and Bosjemans_, i. 67 (Cape Town, 1846).\n\n[336] Burrows, _The Land of Pygmies_, 182.\n\n[337] Mr. A. B. Lloyd's volume _In Dwarfland and Cannibal Country_, p.\n96, is the most recent evidence.\n\n[338] It is worth noting here that the Chinese traditions of the\npygmies are exceedingly suggestive and curious. See Moseley, _Notes by\na Naturalist_, 369.\n\n[339] Skeat and Blagden, _Malay Peninsula_, ii. 443.\n\n[340] _Journ. Indian Archipelago_, iv. 425-427; _cf._ _Journ. Anthrop.\nInst._, xvi. 228; Wallace, _Malay Archipelago_, 452.\n\n[341] Clifford, _In Court and Kampong_, 171-181.\n\n[342] Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Races of Malay Peninsula_, i. 13.\n\n[343] _Op. cit._, i. 53-4, 139, 169, 172, 341.\n\n[344] _Op. cit._, i. 170.\n\n[345] _Op. cit._, i. 243-248, 268.\n\n[346] _Op. cit._, i. 494; ii. 56, 218.\n\n[347] _Op. cit._, ii. 3. Compare _Journ. Indian Archipelago_, iv. 427,\n\"they are called after particular trees, that is, if a child is born\nunder or near a cocoanut or durian, or any particular tree in the\nforest, it is named accordingly,\" and John Anderson, _Considerations\nrelative to Malayan Peninsula_, 1824, p. xli.\n\n[348] _Op. cit._, ii. 4, 192, 194.\n\n[349] _Op. cit._, ii. 174, 209.\n\n[350] _Archaeological Review_, i. 13, from an official report published\nin a Government Blue Book.\n\n[351] Brinton, _The American Race_; Curtin, _Creation Myths of\nPrimitive America_.\n\n[352] Darwin, _Journal of Researches_, 228.\n\n[353] _Anthropological Inst._, vii. 502-510.\n\n[354] Quatrefages, _The Pygmies_, 24, 48, 69.\n\n[355] There is ample evidence of this characteristic. Thus, of the\nAustralians of Port Lincoln district, it is said that \"the habit of\nconstantly changing their place of rest is so great that they cannot\novercome it even if staying where all their wants can be abundantly\nsupplied.\"--_Trans. Roy. Soc., Victoria_, v. 178.\n\n[356] _Fortnightly Review_, lxxviii. 455.\n\n[357] _Secret of the Totem_, 125, 140.\n\n[358] _British Association Report_, 1902, p. 745. _Cf._ Spencer and\nGillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, 160.\n\n[359] Lang, _Secret of the Totem_, 140, quoting Grey, _Vocabulary of\nthe Dialects of South-west Australia_.\n\n[360] Spencer and Gillen, _Tribes of Central Australia_, 119.\n\n[361] The reader should consult Mason's _Women's Share in Primitive\nCulture_, and Bucher's _Industrial Evolution_, for evidence on this\npoint.\n\n[362] Livingstone, _South Africa_, 462.\n\n[363] Sleeman, _Rambles of an Indian Official_, i. 43. \"Banotsarg is\nthe name given to the marriage ceremony performed in honour of a newly\nplanted orchard, without which preliminary observance it is not proper\nto partake of its fruit. A man holding the Salagram personates the\nbridegroom, and another holding the sacred Tulsi personates the bride.\nAfter burning a hom or sacrificial fire, the officiating Brahmin puts\nthe usual questions to the couple about to be united. The bride then\nperambulates a small spot marked out in the centre of the orchard.\nProceeding from the south towards the west, she makes the circuit three\ntimes, followed at a short distance by the bridegroom holding in his\nhand a strip of her chadar of garment. After this, the bridegroom takes\nprecedence, making his three circuits, and followed in like manner by\nhis bride. The ceremony concludes with the usual offerings\" (Elliot,\n_Folklore of North-west Provinces of India_, i. 234).\n\n[364] Myths explaining the domestication of animals belong to this\nstage of culture. The dog is a sacred animal among the Khasis, with\ncertain totemic associations, and there is a very realistic and\nhumanising myth relating how the dog came to be regarded as the friend\nof man (Gurdon, _The Khasis_, 51, 172-3). The Kyeng creation legend\nincludes a good example of animal friendship with man (Lewin, _Wild\nRaces of South-east India_, 238-9). The American creation myths afford\nremarkable testimony to this view of the case. \"Game and fish of all\nsorts were under direct divine supervision ... maize or Indian corn is\na transformed god who gave himself to be eaten to save men from hunger\nand death\" (Curtin, _Creation Myths of Primitive America_, pp. xxvi,\nxxxviii). The Narrinyeri Australians \"do not appear to have any story\nof the origin of the world, but nearly all animals they suppose\nanciently to have been men who performed great prodigies, and at last\ntransformed themselves into different kinds of animals and stones\"\n(Taplin, _The Narrinyeri_, 59).\n\n[365] _Legend of Perseus_, i. cap. vi.\n\n[366] _Secret of the Totem_, 29.\n\n[367] Mitchell, _Australian Expeditions_, i. 307; _cf._ Fison and\nHowitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 200, 224; Taplin, _The Narrinyeri_, 10.\n\n[368] Curr, _Australian Race_, i. p. 193; _cf._ Smyth, _Aborigines of\nVictoria_, ii. p. 316.\n\n[369] Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 66, 285, 289.\n\n[370] Fison and Howitt, _op. cit._, 68, 73.\n\n[371] Lang, _Secret of the Totem_, 64.\n\n[372] Spencer and Gillen, _Central Tribes_, 7.\n\n[373] Spencer and Gillen, _Central Tribes_, 120, 124, 133.\n\n[374] _Globus_, xci, a very important criticism of Spencer and Gillen's\nwork.\n\n[375] Spencer and Gillen, _op. cit._, 139, 154.\n\n[376] Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes_, 144.\n\n[377] _Globus_, xci, gives important evidence of traces of female descent\namong the Arunta.\n\n[378] There is conflict of testimony on this point. Spencer and Gillen\ndeny that the Arunta recognise the fact of paternity in any way (see\n_Northern Tribes_, pp. xiii, 145, 330), and yet talk of the \"actual\nfather\" in ceremonial functions (p. 361).\n\n[379] Skeat and Blagden, _Malay Peninsula_, ii. 218.\n\n[380] Newbold, _Political and State Acc. of Malacca_, ii.; Skeat and\nBlagden, _op. cit._, ii. 56.\n\n[381] Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, _Central Tribes_, 36, give a useful\nnote on this point.\n\n[382] In this they are exactly paralleled by the Khasi people of Assam,\namong whom we find a limited sort of male chiefship by succession\nthrough females, and an absolute succession to property by females by\nsuccession through females (Gurdon, _The Khasis_, 68, 88). Descent from\nthe female is absolute in both cases, and all we get is male\nascendancy.\n\n[383] _Secret of the Totem_, 73.\n\n[384] _Op. cit._, 79.\n\n[385] Lang, _Secret of the Totem_, 148.\n\n[386] _Central Tribes_, 72. Mrs. Langloh Parker's information as to the\norigin of the Euahlayi two-class division having arisen from an\namalgamation of two distinct tribes, points to the same\nfacts.--_Euahlayi Tribe_, 12.\n\n[387] Spencer and Gillen, _Tribes of Central Australia_, 96, 99, 106.\n\n[388] Lang's Introd. to Bolland's _Aristotle's Politics_ (1877), p.\n104; Grant Allen's _Anglo-Saxon Britain_ (1888), pp. 79-83.\n\n[389] _Topography of Ireland_, lib. ii. cap. 19.\n\n[390] _Hist. of Ireland_, ii. 361.\n\n[391] _Irish Nennius_, p. 205; Lang, _Custom and Myth_, p. 265; _Revue\nCeltique_, ii. 202.\n\n[392] _View of the State of Ireland_, p. 99.\n\n[393] Moryson, _Hist. of Ireland_, ii. 367.\n\n[394] Aubrey, _Remaines of Gentilisme_, 204.\n\n[395] Camden, _Britannia_, iii. 455; iv. 459.\n\n[396] The significance of the word \"gossip\" is worth noting. Halliwell\nsays it \"signified a _relation_ or sponsor in baptism, all of whom were\nto each other and to the parents _God-sibs_, that is, _sib_, or related\nby means of religion.\" This meaning does not seem to have died out in\nthe days of Spenser, and his use of the word to describe the\nrelationship of the men of Ossory to wolves is very significant. For\nthe history of this important word see Hearn's _Aryan Household_, 290.\n\n[397] Otway, _Sketches in Erris_, 383-4.\n\n[398] _Folklore Record_, iv. 98.\n\n[399] _Ulster Journ. Arch._, ii. 161, 162. They have also another\nprimitive trait. Their trade emblems are carved on their tombstones.\n_Roy. Irish Acad._, vii. 260.\n\n[400] This I gather from _Ulster Journ. Arch._, ii. 164, where it is\nstated that the hare is unpropitious.\n\n[401] _Folklore Journal_, ii. 259.\n\n[402] _Folklore Journal_, ii. 259; _Folklore Record_, iv. 104. Miss\nFfennell kindly informed me at the meeting of the Folklore Society\nwhere I read a paper on the subject, that she had frequently heard the\nislanders of Achill, off the coast of Ireland, state their belief that\nthey were descended from seals.\n\n[403] Published by the _Irish Archaeological Society_, p. 27; there is a\nSeal Island off the coast of Donegal (Joyce, _Irish Place-Names_, ii.\n282); and some Shetland legends of the seal will be found in _Soc.\nAntiq. Scot._, i. 86-89. Seals are eaten for food in the island of\nHarris (see Martin, _Western Islands_, 36), and one called the Virgin\nMary's Seal is offered to the minister (Reeves, _Adamnan Vita.\nColumb._, 78, note _g_). The attitude of the Irish to seals is shown by\nthe two following notes:--\"At Erris, in Ireland, seals are considered\nto be human beings under enchantment, and they consider it unlucky to\nhave anything to do with seals, and to have one live near their\ndwelling is considered as productive of evil to life and property. A\nstory current, in 1841, describes how a young fisherman came in a fog\nupon an island whereon lived these enchanted men in their human form,\nbut when they quitted it they turned to seals again\" (Otway, _Sketches\nof Erris_, 398, 403). Off Downpatrick Head they used to take seals, but\nhave given up the practice, because once two young fellows had urged\ntheir curraghs into a cave where the seals were known to breed, and\nthey were killing them right and left when, in the farthest end of the\ncave and sitting up on its bent tail in a corner, there sat an old\nseal. One of the boys was just making ready to strike him, when the\nseal cried out, \"Och, boys! och, ma bouchals, spare your old\ngrandfather, Darby O'Dowd.\" He then proceeded to tell the boys his\nstory. \"It's true I was dead and dacently buried, but here I am for my\nsins turned into a sale as other sinners are and will be, and if you\nput an end to me and skin me maybe it's worser I'll be, and go into a\nshark or a porpoise. Lave your ould forefather where he is, to live out\nhis time as a sale. Maybe for your own sakes you will ever hereafter\nleave off following and parsecuting and murthering sales who may be\nnearer to yourselves nor you think.\" The story is universally believed,\nand on the strength of it the people have given up seal hunting (Otway,\n_Sketches of Erris_, 230).\n\n[404] _Kinship and Marriage in Arabia_, 188. _Cf._ Mr. Jacobs' articles\nin _Archaeological Review_, \"Are there totem clans in the Old\nTestament?\" vol. iii. pp. 145-164.\n\n[405] _Origins of English History_, 297.\n\n[406] _Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, x. 436; Lang's _Custom and Myth_, 265;\nElton's _Origins of English History_, 299-300; _Revue Celtique_, i. 50;\niii. 176.\n\n[407] _Rev. Celtique_, vi. 232.\n\n[408] Aubrey's _Remaines of Gentilisme_, 102.\n\n[409] _Folklore Record_, i. 243.\n\n[410] Xiphilinus in _Mon. Hist. Brit._, p. lvii.\n\n[411] _Choice Notes, Folklore_, p. 16.\n\n[412] _Vulgar Errors_, p. 320.\n\n[413] Aubrey, _Gentilisme and Judaisme_, 109; Napier, _Folklore of West\nof Scotland_, 26. Consult Mr. Billson's valuable paper on \"The Easter\nHare\" in _Folklore_, iii. 441-466.\n\n[414] Gregor, _Folklore of North-East Scotland_, 129, 199.\n\n[415] O'Curry, _Manners of the Anc. Irish_, i. p. ccclxx.\n\n[416] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd ser. iv. 82, 158; Dyer's _Popular\nCustoms_, 384.\n\n[417] Gordon Cumming, _Hebrides_, 369.\n\n[418] Gordon Cumming, _Hebrides_, 369.\n\n[419] _Gentleman's Magazine Library, Pop. Sup._, 216.\n\n[420] It will be useful to refer to Mr. Thrupp's paper on \"British\nSuperstition as to Hares, Geese, and Poultry\" in _Trans. Ethnological\nSociety of London_, new ser. vol. v. pp. 162-167.\n\n[421] _Origins of English History_, 170.\n\n[422] Gordon Cumming, _Hebrides_, 365.\n\n[423] Dalyell's _Darker Superstitions of Scotland_, 431. It should be\nnoted that Dalyell wrote before the age of scientific folklore, and\ntherefore his observations are founded more upon conjectures derived\nfrom the practices and beliefs themselves than from any theory as to\norigins.\n\n[424] White horse, p. 208; black cat, p. 211, note 3; two magpies, p.\n224; crickets, p. 238; hawthorn, p. 244.\n\n[425] _Fortnightly Review_, xii. 562.\n\n[426] It is just possible that the value of investigating Australian\ntotemism may prove to have a still more direct bearing upon British\nfolklore, for Huxley's opinion as to the Australoid race is not\nentirely to be neglected. He argued that \"The Australoid race are dark\ncomplexion, ranging through various shades of light and dark chocolate\ncolour; dark or black eyes; the hair of the scalp black and soft, silky\nand wavy; the skull dolichocephalic. The great continent of Australia\nis the headquarters of the Australoid race.... The Dekkan, which is so\nremarkably isolated on the north by the valleys of the Ganges and\nIndus, beyond these by the Himalaya Mountains, and on the east and west\nby the sea, was originally inhabited, and is still largely peopled by\nmen who completely come under the definition of the Australoid race\ngiven above. In Abyssinia and Egypt there is a smooth-haired,\ndark-complexioned, long-headed stock which I am strongly inclined to\nregard as a westward extension of the Australoid race. I would venture\nto suggest that the dark whites who stretch from Northern Hindostan\nthrough Western Asia, skirt both shores of the Mediterranean, and\nextend through Western Europe to Ireland, may have had their origin in\na prolongation of the Australoid race, which has become modified by\nselection or intermixture\" (Huxley in _Prehistoric Congress, 1868_, pp.\n92-94). This point of view is confirmed by Mr. Mathew's conclusions,\n_Eaglehawk and Crow_, cap. iii.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nSOCIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS\n\n\nPerhaps the most important part of the anthropological aspect of\ncustom, rite, and belief in tradition is sociological. Perhaps, too,\nit is the most neglected. Inquirers into the origin of religion\nproceed one after the other to investigate the phenomena of early\nbeliefs as they interpret the origin of religion, without one thought\nof the sociological conditions of the problem. They interpose, as I\nhave already pointed out, the theory of a state religion, when such a\nfoundation is incidentally found to be necessary to carry the imposing\nsuperstructure of Celtic mythology, but they do not pause to inquire\nwhether the state, suddenly introduced into the argument, is a\ndiscoverable factor; or they proceed to erect their superstructure of\nreligious origins without any social foundation whatever, and we are\nleft with a great concept of abstract thought having no roots in the\nsource from which it is supposed to be drawn. The sun-god and the\ndawn-god, even the All-father, are traced in the most primitive\nthought of man, but it is not deemed necessary to show in what\nrelation these concepts stand to practical life. It is here I must\nrefer back to Robertson-Smith's dictum on mythology, for it is the\nnecessary preliminary to showing that belief cannot enter into life\nexcept through the sociological units into which all humanity fits\nitself; or rather, I would prefer Robertson-Smith's way of putting it,\n\"the circle into which a man was born was not simply a human society,\na circle of kinfolk and fellow-citizens, but embraced also certain\ndivine beings, the gods of the family and the state, which to the\nancient mind were as much a part of the particular community with\nwhich they stood connected as the human members of the social\ngroup.\"[427] Any proposal to examine a group of customs, beliefs, and\nrites which at their origin take us back to the earliest history of a\ncountry must, therefore, be considered from the sociological side. The\ngreat mass of the material to be used in such an inquiry is not\nancient so far as its date of record is a test of antiquity, but it is\nancient as traditional survival, and it is not possible to trace back\ncustom and belief surviving in modern times to the earliest times,\nexcept through the medium of the institutions which formed the social\nbasis of the peoples to whom such custom and belief belonged. A custom\nor belief exists as a living force before it sinks back into the\nposition of a survival. It is the lingering effect of this living\nforce which helps to preserve it for so many ages, and in the midst of\nsuch adverse circumstances, as a survival among other customs and\nbeliefs existing under a different living force. It is not possible,\ntherefore, to ascertain the origin of custom or belief in survival,\nexcept as a fragment of the social institution to which it originally\nbelonged. No custom or belief has a life of its own separate from all\nother. It is joined to other customs and beliefs in indissoluble\nco-partnership, the whole group making up the institutions under which\nthe race or people to whom they belong live and flourish. This, as we\nhave already seen, is a most important principle in the study of\nsurvivals. Not only is it strictly true of all primitive peoples, but\nit is true of the early stages of more advanced communities.[428]\nIndeed it has been put into a phrase used long ago by an English\nwriter on the manorial tenant, \"His religion is a part of his\ncopyhold,\"[429] and when the jurist talks to us in highly technical\nlanguage of lords, freeholders, villans, and serfs, we must bear in\nmind that at any rate these villans and serfs belonged to a social\ninstitution, one element of which was religion. So, too, must the\nfolklorist bear in mind that it is not the individual belief he is\nconcerned with, but with the belief that belongs to a community. It\nmust be assumed that the true test of the antiquity of every custom or\nbelief is its natural and easy assimilation with other customs and\nbeliefs, equally with itself in the position of a survival, and the\nrecognition of the whole group thus brought into relationship as\nbelonging to the institutions of the people from whom it is derived.\n\nIt is well to understand what this condition of things exactly means\nas an element in the study of early beliefs. It will be dealing with\nbeliefs from their place in the social habitat; housing them, so to\nspeak, within the groups of human beings with which they are\nconnected. It will be considering them as part of the living organism\nwhich the social units of man have created. All this indicates a\nmethod of treating the subject entirely different from what has\nhitherto obtained. Students of early English institutions are content\nto construct elaborate arguments from the often conflicting testimony\nof historical authorities; students of early beliefs construct\nelaborate systems of religious thought far above the custom and rite\nwith which they are dealing. The two branches of the same subject are\nnever brought together to illustrate each other. Early institutions\ncannot be separated from early beliefs. Early beliefs cannot properly\nbe separated from the society of which they form a component part. We\nrequire to know not only what beliefs a particular people possess, but\nin what manner these beliefs generate custom and rite and take their\nplace among the influences which affect the social organism. Early man\ndoes not live individually. His life is part of a collective group.\nThe group worships collectively as it lives collectively, and it is\nextremely important to work out the dual conditions. If the several\nitems of custom and belief preserved by tradition are really ancient\nin their origin, they must be floating fragments, as it were, of an\nancient _system_ of custom and belief--the cultus of the people among\nwhom they originated. This cultus has been destroyed, struggling\nunsuccessfully against foreign and more vigorous systems of religion\nand society. To be of service to history each floating fragment of\nancient custom and belief must not only be labelled \"ancient,\" but it\nmust be placed back in the system from which it has been torn away. To\ndo this is to a great extent to restore the ancient system; and to\nrestore an ancient system of culture, even if the restoration be only\na mosaic and a shattered mosaic, is to bring into evidence the people\nto which it belongs.\n\nIn the previous chapter it was necessary to lay somewhat special\nstress upon the system of social organisation known as totemism, which\nwas not founded upon kinship. This was traced in survival among the\npre-Celtic peoples of Britain. If we now turn to the Celts and Teutons\nof Britain we shall find that we have to deal with a social\norganisation founded definitely upon kinship; and if there are\nsurvivals of belief, custom, and rite, derived from this kinship\nsystem, existing side by side in the same culture area with survivals\nfrom the kinless system, it will be necessary to explain how two such\nopposite streams can have been kept flowing.\n\nIt is not difficult in the case of countries occupied by Celtic or\nTeutonic peoples to ascertain what the particular institution was\nwhich linked together the beliefs of the people, though it is not easy\nto trace out all the phases of it. It is the tribe--that system of\nsociety which appears as the means by which Greek and Roman, Celt and\nTeuton, Scandinavian and Slav, Hindu and Persian, were able to\nconquer, overrun, and finally to settle in the lands which they have\nmade their own. We know something of the Celtic tribe, less of the\nTeutonic tribe, but all we know is that it possesses features in\ncommon with the tribe of its kindred. There is no fact more certainly\ntrue as a result of comparative research than that the tribe is the\ncommon heritage of those people who have become the dominant rulers of\nthe Indo-European world. I use this term \"tribe\" in no formal sense,\nnot in the sense of its Roman derivation and use, which shows it quite\nas a secondary institution, but as the most convenient term to define\nthat grouping of men with wives, families, and descendants, and all\nthe essentials of independent life, which is found as a primal unit of\nEuropean society in a state of unsettlement as regards land or\ncountry. The tie which bound all together was personal not local,\nkinship with a tribal god, kinship more or less real with\nfellow-tribesmen, kinship in status and rights. We meet with this\ntribal organisation everywhere in Indo-European history. It made\nmovement from country to country possible. It made conquest possible.\nCelt and Teuton did not conquer in families any more than Greek or\nHindu did. They conquered in tribes, and it was because of the\nstrength of the tribal organisation during the period, first of\nmigration and wandering and then of conquest, that the settlement\nafter conquest was possible and was so strong. Everywhere we find\nthese people conquerors and settlers. In India, in Iran, in Greece and\nRome, in Scandinavia, in Celtic and Teutonic Europe, in Slavic Europe,\nthey are moving tribes of conquerors come to settle and rule the\npeople they conquer.[430] When Dr. Ridgeway asks whence came the\nAcheans,[431] he answers the question much in the same fashion as that\nin which Dr. Duncker describes the settlement on the Ganges:--\n\n \"The ancient population of the new states on the\n Ganges was not entirely extirpated, expelled, or\n enslaved. Life and freedom were allowed to those who\n submitted and conformed to the law of the conqueror;\n they might pass their lives as servants on the farms\n of the Aryas (Manu, i. 91). But though the remnant of\n this population was spared, the whole body of the\n immigrants looked down on them with the pride of\n conquerors--of superiority in arms, blood, and\n character--and in contrast to them they called\n themselves Vaicyas, i.e. tribesmen, comrades, in other\n words those who belong to the community or body of\n rulers. Whether the Vaicya belonged to the order of\n the nobles, the minstrels and priests or peasants, was\n a matter of indifference, he regarded the old\n inhabitants as an inferior species of mankind.... In\n the new states on the Ganges therefore the population\n was separated into two sharply divided masses. How\n could the conquerors mix with the conquered? How could\n their pride stoop to any union with the despised\n servants?\"[432]\n\nThese two divided masses thus so clearly described were, in fact,\ntribesmen and non-tribesmen, just that distinction which we meet with\nin Celtic and Teutonic law, and described in the same terms which\nBishop Stubbs was obliged to use when he set forth the facts of the\nTeutonic invasion of Britain.\n\nThe terms are indeed necessary terms. Tribesmen capable of retaining\nthe tribal organisation during the period of migration and conquest\ndid not lightly lose that organisation when they settled. In Sir\nAlfred Lyall's pure genealogic clan of Central India[433] I recognise\nthe unbroken tribal formation before the family group has arisen as a\npolitical unit. In Mr. Tupper's argument against the conclusions of\nSir Henry Maine I recognise the Hindu evidence that the tribe was the\nearliest social group, breaking up, as later influences arose, into\nvillage communities and joint families.[434] In Bishop Stubbs's\nmasterly analysis of English constitutional history the tribe appears\nat the outset--\"the invaders,\" he says, \"came in families and kindreds\nand in the full organisation of their tribes ... the tribe was as\ncomplete when it had removed to Kent as when it stayed in Jutland; the\nmagistrate was the ruler of the tribe not of the soil; the divisions\nwere those of the folk and the host not of the land; the laws were the\nusage of the nation not of the territory.\"[435] And so I agree with\nMr. Skene as to the Celtic tribe that \"the tuath or tribe preceded the\nfine or clan,\"[436] and with the editors of the Irish law tracts that\n\"the tribe existed before the family came into being and continued to\nexist after the latter had been dissolved.\"[437]\n\nWe need not go beyond this evidence. The tribe is the common form into\nwhich the early Indo-European peoples grouped themselves for the\npurpose of conquest and settlement. It was their primal unit. It may\nhave been numerically large or small. It may have been the result of\na combination of many smaller tribes into one great tribe. But in any\ncase and under any conditions there stands out the tribal\norganisation, that great institutional force from which spring all\nlater institutions. Its roots go back into the remotest past of\nIndo-European history; its active force caused the Indo-European\npeople to become the mightiest in human history; its lasting results\nhave scarcely yet ceased to shape the aspirations of political society\nand to affect the destinies of nations. The whole life of the early\nperiod was governed by tribal conditions--the political, social,\nlegal, and even religious conceptions were tribal in form and\nexpression.\n\nThe tribal institution of the Aryan-speaking peoples includes a life\noutside the tribe. That was an outlaw's life, a kinless outcast, whom\nno tribesman would look upon or assist, whom every tribesman\nconsidered as an enemy until he had reduced him to the position of\nhelot or slave, but for whom every tribe had a place in its\norganisation and a legal status in its constitution. But it was the\nlegal status imposed by the master over the servant, and the kinless\nincluded not only the outcast from the tribe, but the conquered\naboriginal who had never been within the tribe. It is important to\nnotice this, for it to some extent measures the strength of the tribal\norganisation. It not only allowed for a special position for all\ntribesmen, but it allowed for that position to have a definite\nrelationship to persons who were not tribesmen, and it is in the\ncombined forces of tribesmen and non-tribesmen that the tribal\norganisation which swept over part of Asia and over all Europe obtains\nits greatest power. There are tribal systems outside the Semitic and\nthe Indo-European, but these do not have the distinctive features that\nthe tribal systems of these two great civilising peoples possess. Like\nthe Semitic and Aryan tribal systems, savage tribes are fashioned for\nconquest, but, unlike them, they are not fashioned for settlement and\nresettlement, and perhaps again and again conquest and resettlement.\nThey spent all their power, or most of their power, in their one great\neffort of conquest, and whether we turn to the American Indian tribes,\nto the African tribes, or to the Asiatic tribes we find the same facts\nof frequent dissipation of power after sudden and complete conquest of\nit. The tribal system which led to civilisation has a different\nhistory. It has, too, a different constitution in that to the strength\nof tribesmen was added the subordination--politically, industrially,\nand economically--of non-tribesmen. They were the people who, in the\nterms of the northern poem,\n\n \"Laid fences,\n Enriched the plough lands,\n Tended swine,\n Herded goats,\n Dug peat.\"[438]\n\nUnfortunately the institution of the tribe has never been properly\nstudied by the great authorities in history, and students are left\nwithout guidance in this important matter. And yet in any attempt to\nget back to the earliest period of history in lands governed by an\nAryan-speaking people we must proceed, can only proceed, on the basis\nof the tribe, and it is the failure to understand this which has made\nso much early history unsatisfactory and inconclusive and compels us\nto the conclusion that the master-hand is still needed to rewrite in\nterms of tribal history all that has been written in terms merely of\npolitical history.\n\nIf, however, history from the written records is thus at fault, so too\nis history from the traditional records. No systematic effort has been\nmade to treat the traditional story or the traditional custom and\nbelief as part of the tribal history of our race, and yet in the few\ncases where it has been so treated the results are obviously\nsatisfactory. I can illustrate the value of this point of view by an\nexample drawn from the period which witnessed the earliest struggles\nof our race. I think with Mr. Keary that in those German stories\n\"which delight above all things in that portrait of the youngest son\nof the house--he is the youngest of three--who is left behind despised\nand neglected when his brothers go forth to seek their fortunes,\" we\nhave traces of a veritable fact, of an historical condition where the\nelder sons actually went forth to conquest and to settlement and the\nyoungest son remained in the original home as the hearth-child.[439]\nThe position of hearth-child, surviving as it does in our law of\nBorough English, is of great significance, and that we can by the aid\nof tradition reach a state of society which gave birth to it is a\npoint of the greatest importance, even if we could go no further. But\nthere is a stage beyond it. The majority of these youngest-son\nstories relate to events not to be identified with any particular\ntribe or people, but which belong to all the tribes and peoples whose\ncourse of conquest and settlement took the common form. But if apart\nfrom these all-world stories there exist stories, or if there be but\none story which has become identified with an episode, a person, or a\nplace belonging to a particular people, we may claim it as part of the\nhistory of that particular people. It may be that the general story\nhas become specialised in this one case, or it may be that an entirely\nnew story has sprung out of the special case. But whichever be the\norigin of such a story attached to a particular people, it must tell\nus something of that people at a period when its history was being\nmade rather than recorded. What it tells may be very little, may not\nlead up to anything very great or definite, so far as later history is\nconcerned; but that for the period to which it belongs it relates to\nan episode worthy to have been kept in the memories of the descendants\nof the chief actors in the events is the point to bear in mind.\n\nThere is one such story which belongs to English history. One of the\nmost famous of these youngest-son stories is that of Childe Rowland,\nand Mr. Jacobs, on examining its incidents and details, suggests that\n\"our story may have a certain amount of historic basis and give a\nrecord which history fails to give of the very earliest conflict of\nraces in these isles.\"[440] Mr. Jacobs gives good grounds for this\nconclusion, and shows up a picture of earliest English history which\nis certainly not contained elsewhere, and we are able by this means\nto pass from that large group of youngest-son stories, which have\nbrought with them living testimony of an ancient institution of our\nrace in its oldest home, to the narrower but more direct example which\ncomes to us from events which happened just at the dawn of history in\nour own land. It is not necessary to emphasise the importance of this\nservice to history at the instance of tradition, for it will be\nobvious to every student that many a struggle must have remained\nunrecorded and many a hero must have died unnamed in the events which\nbelong to the period of tribal conquest and settlement. And to have\nstill with us the far-off echo of these events is no slight\nencouragement to an inquiry which has for its object the\nreconstruction of the conditions under which such events took place.\n\nThis would be all the better understood if we could get a concrete\ncase for illustration, and, fortunately, this is possible by turning\nto the evidence of India. \"What we know of the manner in which the\nstates of Upper India were founded,\" says Sir Alfred Lyall,\n\n \"gives a very fair sample of the movements and changes\n of the primitive world. When the dominant Rajput\n families lost their dominion in the rich Gangetic\n plains one part of their clan seems to have remained\n in the conquered country, having submitted to the\n foreigner, cultivating in strong communities of\n villages and federations of villages and paying such\n land tax as the ruler could extract. Another part of\n the clan, probably the near kinsmen of the defeated\n chief, followed his family into exile, and helped him\n to carve out another, but a much poorer, dominion.\n Here the chief built himself a fort upon the hill; his\n clansmen slew or subdued the tribes they found in\n possession of the soil, and the lands were all\n parcelled off among the chief's kinsfolk, the\n indigenous proprietors being subjected to payment of a\n land tax, but not otherwise degraded. When the land\n grew too strait for the support of the chief's family\n or of the sept--that is, when there were no vacant\n allotments, a landless son of the chief would assemble\n a band, and set forth to make room for himself\n elsewhere.\"[441]\n\nThe evidence from India is fact, the evidence from England is\ntradition, and yet I do not think any student will deny that both fact\nand tradition are part and parcel of the same conditions of society,\nthe same forces operating upon the same material. The conditions of\nsociety in both cases are tribal conditions, and the common factor\nhaving thus been discovered, it is possible to determine not only the\ninter-relationship between fact and tradition, but the means by which\nwe may estimate the value of both.\n\nWe cannot, however, stop here. I carry on the same argument from the\ntraditional legend to the traditional custom and belief, and affirm\nthat it is only by their position as part of the tribal system that\ncustom and belief in survival must be tested. If they have descended\nfrom early Celtic or Teutonic custom and belief, they have descended\nfrom tribal custom and belief, and somewhere in the stages of descent\nwill be found the link which connects them definitely with the tribe.\nThat not all custom and belief has so descended is due to the fact\nthat much of it belongs to the pre-Celtic period, which was not\ntribal; some of it, no doubt, to comparatively modern times, when, as\nwe have already seen, superstition had taken the place of thought,\nwhile some phases of early belief belong to conditions which\ntranscend the division between pre-Aryan and Aryan folk. On this I\nwill say something by way of explanation presently. In the meantime it\nis an extremely important task to classify survivals into tribal and\nnon-tribal groups. Those which belong to Celtic or Teutonic origins\nmust show their tribal origin, for they could not have come into\nexistence apart from the tribe, and apart from the tribe they could\nnot have survived after the break-up of the tribe consequent upon the\ndevelopment of national and political life. Custom and belief which do\nnot fit into the ancient tribal system, therefore, cannot be\nrecognised as ancient Celtic or ancient Teutonic custom and belief,\nand contrariwise when it is seen that they naturally fall into this\nsystem it may be argued that there we must search for their origin.\nOur Anglo-Saxon forefathers have left a curious testimony to this view\nof the question in their word \"holy\" or wholesome. What is wholesome\nis so for the whole group. The Anglo-Saxon idea of holiness implies as\nits chief element relation to the tribal life.[442]\n\nThe classification of survivals in folklore into tribal and non-tribal\nitems is a lengthy and intricate process. Some years ago I made a\nstart in a study of fire worship which I presented to the British\nAssociation,[443] and I hope shortly to be ready with a volume on\n_Tribal Custom_, which will embody a fuller study of fire worship and\nits accompanying beliefs, together with a complete study of all the\nremains of traditional custom, rite, and belief, which only as the\ndetritus of the ancient tribal organisation receive adequate\nexplanation of their presence in the midst of modern political and\nreligious institutions. If I leave this part of my subject without\nfurther illustration in this present volume, I must add one important\nnote upon the persistence of survivals of both kinless and kinship\nsocieties. I have shown that the tribal system of the advanced races\nincluded provision for non-tribesmen, provision which kept\nnon-tribesmen outside the tribal bond, and at the same time kept them\ntied to the tribe by using them as the necessary dependent adjunct of\nthe tribe, using them as bondmen and serfs in point of fact. This\nextremely important factor in the history of the tribal organisation,\nwhich has not been properly noticed by the few authorities who have\ninvestigated tribal institutions, receives additional importance when\nviewed from the standpoint of folklore, for it allows for the\npreservation of non-tribal cults side by side with tribal cults.\nNon-tribesmen preserved their custom, belief, and rite simply because\nthey were not admitted to the custom, belief, and rite of the tribe,\nand this is the explanation of the existence, in survival, of folklore\nwhich goes back to pre-Celtic times. Some of this pre-Celtic folklore\nwe have already had before us, and some of it I have studied in my\n_Ethnology in Folklore_. Later on I shall have something more to say\non the subject. Here it is only necessary to emphasise the importance\nof having ascertained why it is that the Celtic conquerors of Britain\nand the earliest tribal conquerors of the Indo-European world\ngenerally permitted to live in their midst what in a sense was opposed\nto all that they believed, to all that they practised, to all that\ngoverned them in thought and action.\n\nI think this is a strong position upon which to conduct folklore\nresearch. It includes the whole of the historical position; it takes\ndue count of historical facts instead of ignoring them. It is based\nupon a scientific conception of the meaning of a survival of culture.\nA survival is that which has been left stranded amidst the development\nthat is going on around. Its future life is not one of development but\nof decay. We are not dealing with the evolution of society, but with\nthe decaying fragments of a social system which has passed away. We\nhave to trace out its line of decay from the point where it almost\nvanishes as the mere superstition or practice of a peasant or an\noutcast, back to phases where it exists in more strenuous fashion, and\nfinally back to its original position as part and parcel of a living\nsocial fabric. Moreover, the strength of our position is based upon a\nscientific conception of the development of the nation or people among\nwhom survivals exist. It is not all parts of the nation which develop\nat the same rate, at the same time, and for the same period. There are\nsocial strata in every country, and it is the observance of these\nstrata which has made it possible for the inquirer of to-day to use\nthe evidence they afford for historical purposes.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[427] _Religion of the Semites_, 30. It is worth while quoting here\nMerivale's note in his Boyle lectures, _Conversion of the Northern\nNations_, 122. \"Pagan temples were always the public works of nations\nand communities. They were national buildings dedicated to national\npurposes. The mediaeval churches, on the other hand, were the erection\nof individuals, monuments of personal piety, tokens of the hope of a\npersonal reward.\" _Cf._ Stanley, _Hist. Westminster Abbey_, 12.\n\n[428] Mr. Granger has a very instructive passage on this point in his\n_Worship of the Romans_, 210-214; _cf._ Robertson-Smith, _Religion of\nthe Semites_, lec. ii.; Mr. MacDonald, _Africana_, i. 64, notes, too,\nthat \"the natives worship not so much individually as in villages or\ncommunities.\" Prof. Sayce, studying early religion, says in its outward\nform it \"was made up of rites and ceremonies which could only be\nperformed collectively.\"--_Science of Language_, ii. 290.\n\n[429] Clarke's _Survey of the Lakes_, 36.\n\n[430] Pritchard's _Researches into the Physical Hist. of Mankind_, vol.\niii., may still be consulted for an account of the tribal movements in\nEurope.\n\n[431] _Early Age of Greece_, i. cap. iv.\n\n[432] _History of Antiquity_, iv. 116-17.\n\n[433] _Asiatic Studies_, i. 173.\n\n[434] _Punjab Customary Law_, ii. 3-59. _Cf._ Baden-Powell's _Indian\nVill. Com._, 230; Duncker, _Hist. Antiq._, iv. 115-17.\n\n[435] Stubbs's _Const. Hist._, i. 64. _Cf. Essays in Anglo-Saxon Law_,\n12.\n\n[436] _Celtic Scotland_, iii. 137, note 4.\n\n[437] _Anc. Laws of Ireland_, iv. p. 77. _Cf._ also Mr. Andrews' _Old\nEnglish Manor_, p. 20, and Meyer, _Geschichte der Alterthums_, 2-3.\n\n[438] Du Chaillu, _The Viking Age_, i. 488.\n\n[439] Keary, _Origin of Primitive Belief_, 464-5. Mr. MacCulloch,\n_Childhood of Fiction_, devotes a chapter to the clever-youngest-son\ngroup of tales (cap. xiii.), which should be consulted.\n\n[440] _Folklore_, ii. 194.\n\n[441] Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, 184, and compare pp. 198, 208,\n211.\n\n[442] _Cf._ Granger, _Worship of the Romans_, 211. Mr. Granger uses\nterms which I do not quite accept, though his suggestion is entirely\ngood in principle.\n\n[443] _Report of British Association_ (Liverpool Meeting).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nEUROPEAN CONDITIONS\n\n\nThere are obviously conditions attaching to European culture history\nwhich do not apply elsewhere, and as obviously the most important,\nperhaps the only important one, which it is necessary to consider in\nconnection with the problems of folklore is that resulting from the\nintroduction of a non-European religion and the adoption of this\nreligion as part of the state machinery in the several countries. This\nreligion is, of course, Christianity. It came into the home of a\ndecaying, corrupt, and impossible state religion wherever the Roman\nEmpire was established and into the homes of purer and sterner faiths,\nfaiths that had belonged to the people through all the years of\nconquest and settlement, migration and resettlement, wherever the\nempire of Rome had not become established.\n\nUntil the advent of Christianity into Britain the Celtic peoples\npossessed their own customs, their own religious beliefs, their own\nusages. Until the Anglo-Saxons came into contact with Christianity in\ntheir new settlements in England, they also possessed their own\ncustoms, usages, and beliefs. So far as Celt and Teuton were\nresponsible for continuing or allowing to continue the still older\nfaiths, the faiths of savagery as we have accustomed ourselves to\nterm them, they brought these faiths also into contact with\nChristianity, and Christianity dealt with the problem thus presented\nexactly as it dealt with the Celtic and Teutonic faiths, namely, by\ntreating all alike as pagan, all equally to be set aside or used in\nany fashion that circumstances might demand. Let it be particularly\nnoted that Christianity did not distinguish between the various shades\nof paganism. All that was not Christian was pagan.\n\nChristianity was both antagonistic to and tolerant of pagan custom and\nbelief. In principle and purpose it was antagonistic. In practice it\nwas tolerant where it could tolerate safely. At the centre it aimed at\npurity of Christian doctrine, locally it permitted pagan practices to\nbe continued under Christian auspices. In the earliest days it set\nitself against all forms of idolatry and non-Christian practices; in\nlater days, after the fifth century, says Gibbon,[444] it accepted\nboth pagan practice and pagan ritual.\n\nThe relationship of Christianity to paganism is, therefore, a very\ncomplex subject, and it would not be possible in this place to work\nout one tithe of it. Nor is it needed. The two cardinal facts with\nwhich we are now concerned are the principle of antagonism and the\npractice of toleration. As to the former there need not be any\ndiscussion on the fact. Everywhere throughout Europe its effect is to\nbe seen. It formed the most solid and systematic arresting force\nagainst the natural development of pagan belief and practice, and it\nis this fact of arrested development in pagan belief and practice\nwhich is of great importance. We can ascertain the point of stoppage,\nnote the stage of arrested development, and trace out the subsequent\nhistory of a custom, belief, or rite so arrested. As a survival in a\nstate of arrested development, a custom or belief is observable\nthroughout its later history. All it does is to decay, and decay\nslowly, and each stage of decay may oftentimes be discovered. On the\nother hand, if no arrest of development had taken place there would\nhave been no survival and no decay. The custom or belief which is not\narrested by an opposing culture becomes a part of the religion or of\nthe institutions of the nation, and the history of its development\nbecomes, as a rule, lost in the general advance of religion and\npolitics--custom develops into law, belief develops into religion,\nrite develops into ceremonial, and tradition ceases to be the force\nwhich keeps them alive. The two classes of custom and belief thus\ncontrasted are of different value to the student. The one is important\nbecause it contains the germs and goes back to the origin of existing\ninstitutions. The other is important because, having been arrested by\na strong opposing force, unable to destroy it altogether, it remains\nas evidence of custom and belief at the time of its arrestment. It\nwill be seen at once how far this evidence may take us. It stretches\nback into the remotest past. It survives in the stage at which it was\narrested, not of course in the form in which it then appeared, but in\nthe decayed form which years of existence beneath the ever-opposing\nforces of the established civilisation must have brought about.\n\nThese opposing forces can be detected in working order. What can be\nmore indicative of a dual system of belief than the cry of an old\nScottish peasant when he came to worship at the sacred well?--\"O Lord,\nThou knowest that well would it be for me this day an I had stoopit my\nknees and my heart before Thee in spirit and in truth as often as I\nhave stoopit them afore this well. But we maun keep the customs of our\nfathers.\" It appears over and over again in the lives of early\nChristian saints who were only just parting from a living pagan faith.\nThus St. Bega was the patroness of St. Bees in Cumberland, where she\nleft a holy bracelet which was long an object of profound veneration;\nand in a prefatory statement by the compiler of a small collection of\nher miracles, written in the twelfth century, we learn among other\nthings that whosoever forswore himself upon her bracelet swiftly\nincurred the heaviest punishment of perjury or a speedy death. It is\nto be observed that Beagas, the French Bague, is the Anglo-Saxon\ndenomination for rings, and Dr. William Bell suggests that holy St.\nBega was but a personification of one of the holy rings which, having\ngained great hold upon the minds of the heathen Cumbrians, it was not\npolitic in their first Christian missionaries wholly to subvert.[445]\nThese rings are, of course, the doom rings of the Scandinavian temples\nwhich are so often referred to in the Sagas.[446]\n\nBaptism, an essentially Christian ceremony, might off-hand be supposed\nto contain nothing but evidence for Christianity. It might at most be\nexpected that the details of the ceremony would contain relics of\nadapted pagan rites, and this we know is the case. But we can go\nbeyond even this, and discover in the popular conception of the rite\nvery clear indications of the early antagonism between Christianity\nand paganism--an antagonism which is certainly some eighteen hundred\nyears old in this country, and though so old is still contained in the\nevidence of folklore.\n\nAn analysis of baptismal folklore shows us that its most important\nsection is contained under the group which deals with the effect of\nnon-baptism. In England we have it prevailing in the border counties,\nin Cornwall, Devonshire, Durham, Lancashire, Middlesex,\nNorthumberland, and Yorkshire, and in North-East Scotland, that\nchildren joined the ranks of the fairies if they died unchristened, or\nthat their souls wandered about in the air, restless and unhappy,\nuntil Judgment Day. Various penalties attended the condition of\nnon-baptism, but perhaps the most significant is the Northumberland\ncustom of burying an unbaptised babe at the feet of an adult Christian\ncorpse--surely a relic of the old sacrifice at a burial which is\nindicated so frequently in the graves of prehistoric times,\nparticularly of the long-barrow period. In Ireland we have the effect\nof non-baptism in a still more grim form. In the sixteenth century the\nrude Irish used to leave the right arms of their male children\nunchristened, to the intent that they might give a more ungracious and\ndeadly blow.[447]\n\n[Illustration: RITE OF BAPTISM, ON FONT AT DARENTH, KENT]\n\nThese, and their allied and variant customs, are relics, not so much\nof the absorption by Christian baptism of rites belonging to early\npaganism as of the struggle between Christianity and paganism for the\nmastery, of the anathemas of Christians against pagans, and of the\nterrible answer of the pagan. And what are we to say to it? Is it that\nthe struggle itself has lasted all these centuries, or only its\nmemory? My belief is that the struggle itself has lasted in reality\nthough not in name.\n\nBut if we have been able to look through the very portals of\nChristianity to the regions of paganism behind, can we not boldly pass\nthrough altogether and recover from folklore much of the lost evidence\nof our prehistoric ancestors? I put the question in this way\npurposely, because it is the way which is indicated by the methods and\ndata of folklore, and it is a question which has much to do with the\ndifferent views held of the province of folklore.\n\nI will answer by referring to the pre-baptismal rites of washing. In\nNorthumberland we meet with the analogue of the sixteenth-century\nIrish practice, for there the child's right hand is left unwashed that\nit may gather riches better[448]--the golden coin taking the place of\nthe ancient weapon in this as in other phases of civilisation. Not\nonly is the water used for this purpose heated in the old-fashioned\nway by placing red-hot irons in it (_i.e._ the modern equivalent for\nstone-boiling), but in Yorkshire we have the custom that the newborn\ninfant must be placed in the arms of a maiden before any one else\ntouches it, two practices represented exactly in the customs of the\nCanary Islanders, who were in the stone age of culture and are\nconsidered to be the last remnants of a race which once included\nBritain among its lands of occupation.[449]\n\nThe Rev. C. O'Connor, in his third letter of Columbanus, gives a very\ninteresting statement of Irish well-worship in a letter addressed to\nhis brother, the late Owen O'Connor Don, and which shows the living\nantagonism between Christian and pagan belief. He says:--\n\n \"I have often enquired of your tenants what they\n themselves thought of their pilgrimage to their wells\n of Kill Orcht, Tobbar-Brighde, Tobbar-Muire, near\n Elphin, and Moore, near Castlereagh, where multitudes\n assemble annually to celebrate what they, in broken\n English, termed Patterns; and when I pressed a very\n old man--Owen Hester--to state what possible advantage\n he expected to derive from the singular custom of\n frequenting in particular such wells as were\n contiguous to an old blasted oak, or an upright unhewn\n stone, and what the meaning was of the yet more\n singular custom of sticking rags in the branches of\n such trees and spitting on them, his answer, and the\n answer of the oldest men, was that their ancestors\n always did it; that it was a preservative against\n Geasa-Dravideacht, _i.e._ the sorceries of Druids;\n that their cattle was preserved by it from infectious\n disorders; that the davini maithe, _i.e._ the fairies,\n were kept in good humour by it; and so thoroughly\n persuaded were they of the sanctity of these pagan\n practices that they would travel bareheaded and\n barefooted from ten to twenty miles for the purpose of\n crawling on their knees round these wells and upright\n stones and oak trees westward as the sun travels, some\n three times, some six, some nine, and so on, in uneven\n numbers until their voluntary penances were completely\n fulfilled. The waters of Logh-Con were deemed so\n sacred from ancient usage that they would throw into\n the lake whole rolls of butter as a preservation for\n the milk of their cows against\n Geasa-Dravideacht.\"[450]\n\nScarcely less important than the effect of the antagonism of the\nChurch in the production of arrested development is the effect of the\ntoleration of the Church for pagan custom and belief. This toleration\ntook the shape either of allowing the continuation of pagan custom and\nbelief as a matter not affecting Christian doctrine or of actual\nabsorption into Church practice and ritual. The story told to the full\nis a long and interesting one. And it still awaits the telling.\nGibbon, in a few sentences, has told us the outline.[451] Other\nauthorities have told us small episodes. I am, of course, not\nconcerned here with anything more than to adduce sufficient evidence\nto establish the fact that Christian tolerance of paganism has been\none of the assistant causes for the long continuance of pagan\nsurvivals.\n\nI shall not hesitate to begin by quoting at length a luminous passage\nfrom Grimm's great work. In the preface to his second edition he\nwrites as follows:--\n\n \"Oftentimes the Church prudently permitted, or could\n not prevent, that heathen and Christian things should\n here and there run into one another; the clergy\n themselves would not always succeed in marking off the\n bounds of the two religions: their private leanings\n might let some things pass which they found firmly\n rooted in the multitude. In the language, together\n with a stock of newly-imported Greek and Latin terms,\n there still remained, even for ecclesiastical use, a\n number of Teutonic words previously employed in\n heathen services, just as the names of gods stood\n ineradicable in the days of the week; to such words\n old customs would still cling silent and unnoticed\n and take a new lease of life. The festivals of the\n people present a tough material: they are so closely\n bound up with its habits of life that they will put up\n with foreign additions if only to save a fragment of\n festivities long loved and tried. In this way\n Scandinavia, probably the Goths also for a time, and\n the Anglo-Saxons down to a late period, retained the\n heathenish Yule as all Teutonic Christians did the\n sanctity of Easter-tide; and from these two the\n Yule-boar and Yule-bread, the Easter pancake,\n Easter-sword, Easter-fire, and Easter-dance could not\n be separated. As faithfully were perpetuated the name\n and in many cases the observances of Midsummer. New\n Christian feasts, especially of saints, seem\n purposely, as well as accidentally, to have been made\n to fall on heathen holidays. Churches often rose\n precisely where a heathen god or his sacred tree had\n been pulled down, and the people trod their old paths\n to the accustomed site; sometimes the very walls of\n the heathen temple became those of the church, and\n cases occur in which idol images still found a place\n in a wall of the porch, or were set up outside the\n door, as at Bamberg Cathedral there lie Slavic heathen\n figures of animals inscribed with runes. Sacred hills\n and fountains were rechristened after saints, to whom\n their sanctity was transferred; sacred woods were\n handed over to the newly-founded convent or the king,\n and even under private ownership did not lose their\n long-accustomed homage. Law usages, particularly the\n ordeals and oath-takings, but also the beating of\n bounds, consecrations, image processions, spells and\n formulas, while retaining their heathen character,\n were simply clothed in Christian forms. In some\n customs there was little to change: the heathen\n practice of sprinkling a newborn babe with water\n closely resembled Christian baptism; the sign of the\n hammer, that of the cross; and the erection of tree\n crosses the irmensuls and world trees of\n paganism.\"[452]\n\nThis passage, written in 1844, has been abundantly illustrated by the\nresearch of specialists since that date, and, of course, Mr. Frazer's\nmonumental work will occur to every reader. But, after all, the chief\nauthority for the action of the Church towards paganism in this\ncountry is the famous letter of Pope Gregory to the Abbot Mellitus in\nA.D. 601, as preserved by the historian Beda. It is worth while\nquoting this once again, for it is an English historical document of\npriceless value. \"We have been much concerned,\" writes the good St.\nGregory,\n\n \"since the departure of our congregation that is with\n you, because we have received no account of the\n success of your journey. When, therefore, Almighty God\n shall bring you to the most reverend Bishop Augustine\n our brother, tell him what I have, upon mature\n deliberation on the affair of the English, determined\n upon, namely, that the temples of the idols [fana\n idolorum] in that nation [gente] ought not to be\n destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be\n destroyed; let holy water be made and sprinkled upon\n the said temples, let altars be erected and relics\n placed. For if these temples be well built, it is\n requisite that they be converted from the worship of\n devils [daemonum] to the worship of the true God; that\n the nation seeing that their temples are not destroyed\n may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and\n adoring the true God may the more familiarly resort to\n the places to which they have been accustomed. And\n because they have been used to slaughter many oxen in\n the sacrifices to devils some solemnity must be\n exchanged for them on this account, so that on the day\n of the dedication, or the nativities of the holy\n martyrs whose relics are there deposited, they may\n build themselves huts of the boughs of trees, about\n those churches which have been turned to that use from\n temples and celebrate the solemnity with religious\n feasting and no more offer beasts to the devil\n [diabolo], but kill cattle to the praise of God in\n their eating, and return thanks to the giver of all\n things for their sustenance.\"[453]\n\nThe church of St. Pancras at Canterbury is claimed to be one of the\ntemples so preserved,[454] and there have survived down to our own\ntimes examples of the animal sacrifice which in early Christian days\nmay well have been preserved by this famous edict.[455] But beyond\nthese illustrations of the two stated objects of Pope Gregory's letter\nthere are innumerable additional results from such a policy,[456]\nresults which prove that British pagandom was not stamped out by edict\nor by sword, but was rather gradually borne down before the strength\nof the new religion--borne down and pushed into the background out of\nsight of the Church and the State, relegated to the cottage homes, the\ncattle-sheds and the cornfields, the countryside and the denizens\nthereof.[457]\n\nThis is where we must search for it, and I think this important\nelement in our studies will be better understood if we turn for one\nmoment to the results of Christian contact with earlier belief in the\none country where Christianity has set up its strongest political\nforce, namely, Italy. Dr. Middleton wrote a series of remarkable\nletters which tell us much on this point, but before referring to\nthis, I wish first to quote a hitherto buried record by an impartial\nobserver[458] in the year 1704. It is a letter written from Venice to\nSir Thomas Frankland, describing the travels and observations of a\njourney into Italy. The traveller writes:--\n\n \"I cannot leave Itally without making some general\n observations upon the country in general, and first as\n to their religion; it differs in name only now from\n what it was in the time of the ancient heathen Romans.\n I know this will sound very oddly with some sort of\n people, but compare them together and then let any\n reasonable man judge of the difference. The heathen\n Itallians had their gods for peace and for war, for\n plenty and poverty, for health and sickness, riches\n and poverty, to whom they addressed themselves and\n their wants; and the Christian Itallians have their\n patron saints for each of these things, to whom they\n also address according to their wants. The heathen\n sacrificed bulls and other beasts, and the Christian\n ones after the same manner a piece of bread, which a\n picture in the garden of Aldobrandina at Rome, painted\n in the time of Titus Vespasian, shews by the altar and\n the priests' vestments to have been the same as used\n now. The Pantheon at Rome was dedicated by the\n ancients to all the gods, and by the moderns to all\n the saints; the temple of Castor and Pollux at Rome is\n now dedicated to Cosmo and Damian, also twin brothers.\n The respect they pay to the Virgin Mary is far greater\n than what they pay to the Son, and whatever English\n Roman Catholics may be made to believe by their\n priests or impose upon us, it is certain that the\n devotion to the Madonnas in Itally is something more\n than a bare representation of the Virgin Mary when\n they desire her intercession. Miracles they pretend\n not only to be wrought by the Madonnas themselves, but\n there is far greater respect paid to a Madonna in one\n place than another, whereas if this statue were only a\n bare representation of the Virgin to keep them in mind\n of her, the respect would be equal. I visited all the\n famous ones, and it would fill a volume to tell you\n the fopperies that's said of them. That of Loretto,\n being what they say is the very house where the Virgin\n lived, is not to be described, the riches are so\n great, nor the devotion that's paid to the statue....\n The Lady of Saronna is another famous one and very\n rich; she is much handsomer than she of Loretto and a\n whole church-full of the legend of the miracles she\n hath wrought. She is in great reputation, and it's\n thought will at last outtop the Lady of Loretto; there\n is another near Leghorne that I also visited called\n _La Madonna della Silva Nera_, to whom all Itallian\n ships that enter that port make a present of thanks\n for their happy voyage, and salute her with their\n cannon, and most ships going out give her something\n for her protection during their voyage. I could tire\n you with she at the Annunciata at Florence, she within\n a mile of Bollognia, for whom the magistracy have\n piazza'd the road all the way from her station to the\n city, that she may not be encumbered with sun or rain\n when she makes them a visit, and hundreds more that\n would fill a volume of fopperies that I had the\n curiosity to see, but it would be imposing too much\n upon your patience.\"[459]\n\nThis only confirms Dr. Middleton's conclusions, which received the\napproval of Gibbon, and those of later writers. \"As I descended from\nthe Alps,\" writes the Rev. W. H. Blunt in 1823,\n\n \"I was admonished of my entrance into Italy by a\n little chapel to the Madonna, built upon a rock by the\n roadside, and from that time till I repassed this\n chain of mountains I received almost hourly proof that\n I was wandering amongst the descendants of that people\n which is described by Cicero to have been the most\n religious of mankind. Though the mixture of religion\n with all the common events of life is anything but an\n error, yet I could not avoid regretting that, like\n their heathen ancestors, the modern Italians had\n supplied the place of our great master mover by a\n countless host of inferior agents.\"[460]\n\nMr. Blunt goes on to give interesting details of the close connection\nbetween the modern religious festival, ceremony, or service, and those\nof classical times, and the conclusion is obvious. In modern days Dr.\nMommsen has lent the sanction of his great authority to the\nidentification of the birthday of Christ with that of Mithra,[461]\nand Mr. Leland has given such numerous identifications not only of the\ncults of pagan and Christian Italy, but of the god-names of ancient\nRome with the saint-names or witch-names of modern times,[462] that it\nseems impossible to deny a place for this evidence. \"It was,\" says\nGibbon,\n\n \"the universal sentiment both of the Church and of\n heretics that the daemons were the authors, the\n patrons, and the objects of idolatry; those rebellious\n spirits who had been degraded from the rank of angels\n were still permitted to roam upon earth, to torment\n the bodies and to seduce the minds of sinful men. It\n was confessed, or at least it was imagined, that they\n had distributed among themselves the most important\n characters of Polytheism, one daemon assuming the name\n of Jupiter, another of AEsculapius, a third of Venus,\n and a fourth perhaps of Apollo.\"[463]\n\nThis, then, is recognition and adoption of pagan beliefs, not the\nuprooting of them. If the Roman Jupiter was a Christian daemon, his\nexistence at all events was recognised. But even this negative way of\nadopting the old beliefs gave way as the Church spread further. The\ntribe of daemons soon included the popular fairy, elf, and goblin. And\nthen came the positive adoption of pagan customs. Gibbon describes how\nthe early Christians refused to decorate their doors with garlands and\nlamps, and to take part in the ceremonial of lifting the bride over\nthe threshold of the house.[464] Both these customs have survived in\npopular folklore, in spite of the recorded action of the early\nChurch, and it would be curious to ascertain whether they have\nsurvived by the help of the Church. We cannot answer that question of\nhistorical evidence just now, but it is a question which, in its wider\naspect, as including many other items of folklore, ought to be\nexamined into. There is no doubt, however, that by analogy it can be\nanswered, because we have ample evidence, if the writings of reformers\nmay be taken as historical facts and not polemical imaginations, that\nmany very important customs, among the richest as well as the poorest\ntreasures of folklore, have been, so to speak, Christianised by the\nChurch, and that the Church has taken part in and adopted\nnon-Christian customs, the survivors of olden-time life in\nEurope.[465]\n\nNow it is clear from these considerations, and from the vast mass of\ninformation which is gradually being accumulated on the subject, that\nnot only the arresting force of Christianity but also its toleration\nhas assisted in the preservation of pre-Christian belief and custom.\nBut the preservation has been in fragments only. The system which\nsupported the older faith and might, if it had been allowed a natural\ngrowth, have produced a newer religion of its own, was completely\nshattered. It left no preservative force except that of tradition,\nthe traditional instinct to do what has always been done, to believe\nwhat has always been believed. Pre-Christian belief and custom has\nthus become isolated beliefs and customs in survival. It has been\nbroken up into innumerable fragments of unequal character, and\ncontaining unequal elements. It has been forced back into secret\naction wherever Christianity was wholly antagonistic, and hence\nprimitive public worship has tended to become local worship, or\nhousehold worship, or even personal worship, while all such worship\nwhich is not the authorised Church worship has tended to become\nsuperstition. Where Christianity was not wholly antagonistic, it\nabsorbed rites, customs, and even beliefs, and these primitive\nsurvivals have taken their place in the evolution of Christian\ndoctrine, and thus become lost to the students of Celtic and Teutonic\nantiquities. But even so, there are discoverable points where the\ndividing line between non-Christian and Christian belief has not been\nobliterated by the process of absorption. In all cases it is the duty\nof the student to note the stage of arrested development in the\nprimitive rite, custom, or belief, whether it be caused by antagonism\nor by absorption. It is at this point, indeed, that the history of the\nsurvival begins. It is here that we have to turn from the polity, the\nreligion, or cultus of a people to the belief, practices, or\nsuperstition of that portion of our nation which has not shared its\nprogress from tribesmen to citizens, from paganism to Christianity,\nfrom vain imaginings to science and philosophy. It is from this point\nwe have to turn from the dignity of courts, the doings of armies, and\nthe results of commerce, to the doings, sayings, and ideas of the\npeasantry who cannot read, and who have depended upon tradition for\nall, or almost all, they know outside the formalities of law and\nChurch.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[444] _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (Bury), iii. 214-15.\n\n[445] _Royal Irish Academy_, viii. 258; _Brit. Arch. Assoc._\n(Gloucester volume), 62.\n\n[446] \"The Story of the Ere Dwellers,\" Morris, _Saga Library_, ii. 8.\n\n[447] Camden, _Britannia_, s.v. \"Ireland.\"\n\n[448] Henderson, _Folklore of Northern Counties_, 16.\n\n[449] Glas, _Canary Islands_, 148.\n\n[450] Betham, _Gael and Cymbri_, pp. 236-8.\n\n[451] _Decline and Fall_, iii. p. 214 (edit. Bury).\n\n[452] Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, by Stallybrass, iii. pp. 35, 36. A\npassage from Hakon's Saga, quoted by Du Chaillu in his _Viking Age_, i.\np. 464, shows that the northern peoples adopted the same measures.\n\n[453] Beda, lib. i. cap. 30; and consult Mr. Plummer's learned notes on\nthis (vol. ii. 57-61).\n\n[454] Stanley, _Memorials of Canterbury_, 37-38.\n\n[455] _Cf._ my _Ethnology in Folklore_, 30-36, 136-140. Compare St.\nPatrick's dedication of pagan sacred stones to Christian\npurposes.--_Tripartite Life of St. Patrick_, i. 107.\n\n[456] Thus Henry of Huntingdon records that Redwald, King of the East\nAngles, after his conversion to Christianity, \"set up altars to Christ\nand the devil in the same chapel\" (lib. iii.).\n\n[457] _Cf._ Kemble, _Saxons in England_, i. 330-335. Dr. Hearn writes:\n\"Even as the good Pope Gregory the Great permitted the newly converted\nEnglish to retain their old temples and accustomed rites, attaching,\nhowever, to them another purpose and a new meaning, so his successors\nfound means to utilize the simple beliefs of early animism. Long and\nvainly the Church struggled against this irresistible sentiment.\nFifteen centuries ago it was charged against the Christians of that day\nthat they appeased the shades of the dead with feasts like the\nGentiles. In the Penitentials we find the prohibition of burning grains\nwhere a man had died. In the _Indiculus superstitionum et Paganiarum_\namong the Saxons complaint is made of the too ready canonisation of the\ndead; and the Church seems to have been much troubled to keep within\nreasonable bounds this tendency to indiscriminate apotheosis. At length\na compromise was effected, and the Feast of All Souls converted to\npious uses that wealth of sentiment which previously was lavished on\nthe dead\" (_The Aryan Household_, p. 60). And, to close this short note\nupon an important subject, Mr. Metcalfe, speaking of the old poetic\nliterature of the pagan English, says: \"It was kidnapped, and its\nfeatures so altered and disguised as not to be recognisable. It was\nsupplanted by Christian poetical legends and Bible lays produced in\nrivalry of the popular lays of their heathen predecessors. Finding that\nthe people would listen to nothing but these old lays, the missionaries\naffected their spirit and language, and borrowed the words and phrases\nof heathenism\" (Metcalfe's _Englishman and Scandinavian_, p. 155).\n\n[458] For some reason not apparent in the document itself, Mrs. S. C.\nLomas, the editor of this report, says this interesting letter gives \"a\ncurious and evidently prejudiced description of the religious houses\nand observances.\" See preface to _Hist. MSS. Com. Report on the MSS. of\nChequers Court, Bucks_, p. x.\n\n[459] _Hist. MSS. Com., Chequers Court Papers_, pp. 171-2.\n\n[460] _Vestiges of Ancient Manners and Customs in Italy_, p. 1.\n\n[461] _Corpus insc. Lat._, i. 409; and _cf._ Cumont's _Mysteries of\nMithra_ (1903).\n\n[462] Leland, _Etruscan Roman Remains_ (1892).\n\n[463] _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (Bury), ii. 15.\n\n[464] _Decline and Fall_, ii. 17.\n\n[465] Evidence is scattered far and wide in most of the reliable\nstudies in folklore. Two special books may be mentioned. A great\nstorehouse of examples is to be found in _The Popish Kingdoms_, by\nThomas Naogeorgus, Englyshed by Barnabe Googe, 1570, a new edition of\nwhich was published by Mr. R. C. Hope in 1880; and Mr. H. M. Bower has\nexhaustively examined one important Italian ceremony in his _The\nElevation and Procession of the Ceri at Gubbio_, published by the\nFolklore Society in 1897.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nETHNOLOGICAL CONDITIONS\n\n\nAlready I have had to point out that an appeal to ethnological\nevidence is the means of avoiding the wholesale rejection of custom\nand belief recorded of early Britain, because it has been rejected as\nappertaining to the historic Celt. I will now proceed with the\ndefinite proposition that the survivals in folklore may be allocated\nand explained by their ethnological bearing.\n\nSome years ago I advanced this proposition in my little book entitled\n_Ethnology in Folklore_. Only haltingly have my conclusions been\naccepted, but I nowhere find them disproved,[466] while here and there\nI find good authorities appealing to the ethnological element in\nfolklore to help them in their views. Mr. MacCulloch, for instance,\nprefers to go for the basis of the Osiris and Dionysius myths to an\nearlier custom than that favoured by Mr. Frazer and Mr. Grant Allen,\nnamely, to the practices of the neolithic folk, in Egypt and over a\nwide tract of country which includes Britain, of dismembering the\ndead body previous to its burial.[467] Mr. Lang, Mr. Frazer, Mr.\nHartland, and others are strangely reticent on this subject. That Mr.\nLang should be content to trace a story from the Vedas, in which\nUrvasi tells Pururavas that he must never let her see him naked, to \"a\ntraditional Aryan law of nuptial etiquette,\"[468] seems to be using\nthe heaviest machinery for the smallest purposes, while for other and\ngreater purposes he fails to find in ethnological distinctions,\nexplanations which escape his research.[469] That Mr. Frazer should\nhave been able to examine in so remarkable a manner the agricultural\nrites of European peoples, and only to have touched upon their\nethnological bearings in one or two isolated cases, seems to me to be\nneglecting one of the obvious means of arriving at the solution of the\nproblem he starts out to solve.[470]\n\nI do not want to discount these fragmentary appeals to the\nethnological element in folklore. I accept them as evidence that the\nappeal has to be made. I would only urge that it may be done on more\nthorough lines, after due consideration of all the elements of the\nproposition and of all that it means to the study of folklore. We\ncannot surrender to the palaeontologist all that folklore contains in\ntradition and in custom as to pygmy peoples, or to the Egyptologist\nall that it contains as to dismemberment burial rites, without at the\nsame time realising that if it is correct to refer these two groups of\nfolklore respectively to the earliest ages of man's existence as man\nand to the neolithic stage of culture, they must be withdrawn from all\nother classification. We cannot use the same items of folklore in two\ntotally different ways. The results of withdrawal are as important as\nthe results of allocation, and the necessity for the correct docketing\nof all groups of folklore is thus at once illustrated.\n\nThe first point in the argument for ethnological data being\ndiscoverable in folklore is that a survey of the survivals of custom,\nbelief, and rites in any given country shows one marked feature, which\nresults in a dividing line being drawn as between two distinct\nclasses. This feature is the antagonism which is discoverable in these\nclasses. On one side of the dividing line is a set of customs,\nbeliefs, and rites which may be grouped together because they are\nconsistent with each other, and on the other side is another set of\ncustoms, beliefs, and rites which may be grouped together on the same\nground. But between these two sets of survivals there is no agreement.\nThey are the negations of each other. They show absolutely different\nconceptions of all the phases of life and thought which they\nrepresent, and it is impossible to consider that they have both come\nfrom the same culture source. I have applied the test of ethnology to\nsuch cases in Britain, and this appears to answer the difficulty which\ntheir antagonism presents. It appears too to be the only answer.\n\nThe subjects which show this antagonism are all of vital importance.\nThey include friendly and inimical relations with the dead; marriage\nas a sacred tribal rite and marriage as a rule of polyandrous society;\nbirth ceremonies which tell of admittance into a sacred circle of\nkinsmen, and birth ceremonies which breathe of revenge and hostility;\nthe reverential treatment of the aged folk and the killing of them\noff; the preservation of human life as part of the tribal blood, and\nhuman sacrifice as a certain cure for all personal evils; the worship\nof waters as a strongly localised cult, preserved because it is local\nby whatsoever race or people are in occupation and in successive\noccupation of the locality; totemic beliefs connected with animals and\nplants contrasted with ideas entirely unconnected with totemism--all\nthis, and much more which has yet to be collected and classified,\nreveals two distinct streams of thought which cannot by any process be\ntaken back to one original source.\n\nThis fact of definite antagonism between different sets of surviving\nbeliefs existing together in one country leads to several very\nimportant conclusions. This is the case with the Irish Sids. These\nbeings are said to be scattered over Ireland, and around them\nassembled for worship the family or clan of the deified patron. While\nthere were thus a number of topical deities, each in a particular spot\nwhere he was to be invoked, the deities themselves with the rest of\ntheir non-deified but blessed brother spirits had as their special\nabode \"Lands of the Living,\" the happy island or islands somewhere far\naway in the ocean. Now this Sid worship, we are told by Irish\nscholars, \"had nothing to do with Druidism--in fact, was quite opposed\nto it,\" the Sids and the Druids being \"frequently found at variance\nwith each other in respect to mortals.\"[471]\n\nThis is the commencing point of the evidence which proves Druidism to\nhave belonged to the pre-Celtic people, though finding an adopted home\namong them. This is so important a subject and has been so strangely\nand inconsistently dealt with by most authorities that it will be well\nto indicate where we have to search for the non-Celtic, and therefore\npre-Celtic, origin of Druidism. The Druidism revealed by classical\nauthorities is, for the most part, the Druidism of continental peoples\nand not of Britain, and I hesitate to accept off-hand that it is\nproper to transfer the continental system to Britain and say that the\ntwo systems were one and the same. There is certainly no evidence from\nthe British side which would justify such a course, and I think there\nis sufficient argument against it to suspend judgment until the whole\nsubject is before us. If Professor Rhys is right in concluding that\nDruidism is at its roots a non-Celtic religion,[472] we must add to\nthis that it was undoubtedly a non-Teutonic religion. Celts and\nTeutons were sufficiently near in all the elements of their\ncivilisation for this want of parallel in their relationship to\nDruidism to be an additional argument against the Celts having\noriginated this cult. And then the explanation of the differences\nbetween continental and British Druidism becomes comparatively easy to\nunderstand. The continental Celts, mixing more thoroughly with the\npre-Celtic aborigines than did the British Celts, would have absorbed\nmore of the pre-Celtic religion than the British Celts, and hence all\nthe details which classical authorities have left us of continental\nDruidism appear as part of the Celtic religion, while in Britain these\ndetails are for the most part absent. But this is not all. There are\ncertain rites in Britain noted by the early authorities which are not\nattached to any particular cult. They are not Druidic; they are not\nCeltic. They are, as a matter of fact, special examples of rites\npractised in only one locality, and accordingly referred to as\nsomething extraordinary and not general. From this it is clearly\ncorrect to argue that the British Celts had in their midst a cult\nwhich, if they did not destroy, they certainly did not absorb, and\nthat therefore this cult being non-Celtic must have been pre-Celtic.\n\nI do not wish to argue this point out further than is necessary to\nexplain the position which, it appears to me, Druidism occupies, and I\nwill therefore only add a note as to the authorities for the\nstatements I have advanced. The differences between continental and\nBritish Druidism are definite and pronounced,[473] the mixture of the\ncontinental Celts with the Iberic people, which they displaced, is\nattested, by ancient authority and modern anthropology,[474] while the\nonly evidence of such a mixture in Britain is the prominently recorded\ninstance of the Picts intermarrying with the Gael,[475] and this has\nto be set against the close distinction between tribesmen and\nnon-tribesmen, which is such a remarkable feature of Celtic law;[476]\nthe existence of local cults in early Britain having all the\ncharacteristics of a ruder and more savage origin, and not identified\nwith Celticism, is a point derived from our early authorities.[477]\nThese are the main facts of the case, and the subject has to be\nworked out in considerable detail before it can be settled.\n\nThere is one other primary subject which bears upon the question of\nrace distinctions in folklore. With the fact of conquest to reckon\nwith, the relationship of the conqueror to the conquered is a matter\nto consider. In the European tribal system it was a definite\nrelationship, so definite that the conquered, as we have seen, formed\nan essential part of the tribal organisation--the kinless slaves\nbeneath the tribal kindred. There was a place for the kinless in the\ntribal economy and in the tribal laws. There was also a place for them\nin the tribal system of belief, and the mythic influence of the\nconquered is a subject that needs very careful consideration.\n\nIt is an influence which appears in all parts of the world. Thus, to\ngive a few instances, in New Guinea they have no idols, and apparently\nno idea of a supreme being or a good spirit. Their only religious\nideas consist in a belief in evil spirits. They live a life of slavish\nfear to these, but seem to have no idea of propitiating them by\nsacrifice or prayer. They believe in the deathlessness of the soul. A\ndeath in the village is the occasion of bringing plenty of ghosts to\nescort their new companion, and perhaps fetch some one else. All night\nthe friends of the deceased sit up and keep the drums going to drive\naway the spirits; they strike the fences and posts of houses all\nthrough the village with sticks. This is done to drive back the\nspirits to their own quarters on the adjacent mountain tops. But it is\nthe spirits of the inland tribes, the aborigines of the country, that\nthe coast tribes most fear. They believe, when the natives are in the\nneighbourhood, that the whole plain is full of spirits who come with\nthem. All calamities are attributed to the power and malice of these\nevil spirits. Drought, famine, storm and flood, disease and death are\nall supposed to be brought by Vata and his hosts, so that the people\nare an easy prey to any designing individuals who claim power over\nthese. Some disease charmers and rain-makers levy heavy toll on the\npeople.[478]\n\nIt appears that the native population of New Zealand was originally\ncomposed of two different races, which have retained some of their\ncharacteristic features, although in course of time they have in all\nother respects become mixed, and a number of intermediate varieties\nhave thence resulted. From the existence of two races in New Zealand\nthe conclusion might be drawn that the darker were the original\nproprietors of the soil anterior to the arrival of a stock of true\nPolynesian origin, that they were conquered by the latter and nearly\nexterminated. There is a district in the northern island, situated\nbetween Taupo and Hawke's Bay, called Urewera, consisting of steep and\nbarren hills. The scattered inhabitants of this region have the renown\nof being the greatest witches in the country. They are very much\nfeared, and have little connection with the neighbouring tribes, who\navoid them if possible. If they come to the coast the natives there\nscarcely venture to refuse them anything for fear of incurring their\ndispleasure. They are said to use the saliva of the people whom they\nintend to bewitch, and visitors carefully conceal their spittle to\ngive them no opportunity of working their evil. Like our witches and\nsorcerers of old, they appear to be a very harmless people, and but\nlittle mixed up with the quarrels of their neighbours.[479] The\nAustralians, according to Oldfield, ascribe spirit powers to those\nresiding north of themselves and hold them in great dread.[480]\n\nIn Asia the same idea prevails among the native races. Thus Colquhoun\nsays,\n\n \"it was amusing to find the dread in which the Lawas\n [a hill tribe] are held by both Burmese and Siamese.\n This is due to a fear of being bitten by them and\n dying of the bite. They are called by their Burmese\n neighbours the 'man-bears.' A singular custom obtains\n amongst these people which may perhaps partly account\n for this superstition. On a certain night in the year\n the youths and maidens meet together for the purpose\n of pairing. Unacceptable youths are said to be bitten\n severely if they make advances to the ladies.\"[481]\n\nThe Semang pygmy people, afraid to approach the Malays even for\npurposes of barter, \"learnt to work upon the superstition of the\nMalays by presenting them with medicines which they pretended to\nderive from particular shrubs and trees in the woods.\"[482] That this\nis a real superstition of the conquerors for the conquered is proved\nfrom other sources to which I have referred elsewhere.[483]\n\nIn Africa it appears as a living force, and we are told that the\nstories current in the country of the Ukerewe, \"about the witchcraft\npractised by the people of Ukara island, prove that those islanders\nhave been at pains to spread abroad a good repute for themselves; that\nthey are cunning, and aware that superstition is a weakness of human\nnature have sought to thrive upon it.\"[484]\n\nIt appears in more definite form with the Hindus. The Kathkuri, or\nKatodi, have a belief that they are descended from the monkeys and\nbears which Adi Narayun in his tenth incarnation of Rama, took with\nhim for the destruction of Rawun, King of Lanka, and he promised his\nallies that in the fourth age they should become human beings. They\npractise incantation, and encourage the awe with which the Hindu\nregards their imprecations, for a Hindu believes that a Katodi can\ntransform himself into a tiger.[485]\n\nTo this day the Aryans settled in Chota-Nagpore and Singbhoom firmly\nbelieve that the Moondahs have powers as wizards and witches, and can\ntransform themselves into tigers and other beasts of prey with the\nview of devouring their enemies, and that they can witch away the\nlives of man and beast. They were in all probability one of the tribes\nthat were most persistent in their hostility to the Aryan\ninvaders.[486] In Ceylon the remnants of the aborigines are found in\nthe forests and on the mountains, and are universally looked upon and\nfeared as demons, the beliefs engendered therefrom being exactly\nparallel to the witch beliefs of our own country.[487]\n\nThere is similar evidence among European peoples. Formerly in Sweden\nthe name of Lapp seems to have been almost synonymous with that of\nsorcerer, and the same was the case with Finn. The inhabitants of the\nsouthern provinces of Sweden believed their countrymen in the north to\nhave great experience in magic.[488] The famous Gundhild, of Saga\nrenown, was believed to be a sorceress brought up among the\nFinns,[489] and even in respect of classical remains Mr. Warde Fowler\n\"prefers to think of the Fauni as arising from the contact of the\nfirst clearers and cultivators of Italian soil with a wild aboriginal\nrace of the hills and woods.\"[490]\n\nThese facts are sufficient to show that the mythic influence of a\nconquered race is a factor which may assist in the discussion of the\nethnological conditions of folklore, and it is obvious that they\nreveal a very powerful influence for the continuance of ancient ideas\nas well as for the creation of fresh examples of ancient ideas applied\nto new experiences. It is well in this connection to remember certain\nhistorical facts connected with the settlement of the English in\nBritain.\n\nFrom Freeman's _Old English History_ it appears that at the beginning\nof the seventh century \"the tract of country which the English then\nruled over south of the Humber, coincided almost exactly with the\nboundary of the Gaulish portion of Britain,\" as distinct from\nnon-Aryan Britain. This apparent recognition of Celtic landmarks, says\nProfessor Rhys, by the later invaders, \"is a fact, the historical and\npolitical significance of which I leave to be weighed by others,\"[491]\nand I venture to suggest that one important result is to show Britain\nto have contained an Aryan culture-ground and a non-Aryan\nculture-ground. If we try to step from one to the other we quickly\ndiscover the mythic relationship of conqueror to the conquered.\n\n[Illustration: SCENE FROM THE LIFE OF ST. GUTHLAC SHOWING THE ATTACKS\nOF THE DAEMONES]\n\nThus in the Anglo-Saxon life of St. Guthlac we have an interesting\nglimpse into the conditions of the country and the attitude of the two\nhostile races, Celts and Teutons, to each other.\n\n \"There is in Britain a fen of immense size which\n begins from the river Granta, not far from the city,\n which is named Grantchester ... a man named Tatwine\n said that he knew an island especially obscure, which\n ofttimes many men had attempted to inhabit, but no\n man could do it on account of manifold horrors and\n fears, and the loneliness of the wild wilderness....\n No man ever could inhabit it before the holy man\n Guthlac came thither on account of the dwelling of the\n accursed spirits there.... There was on the island a\n great mound raised upon the earth, which same of yore\n men had dug and broken up in hopes of treasure....\n Then in the stillness of the night it happened\n suddenly that there came great hosts of the accursed\n spirits, and they filled the house with their coming,\n and they poured in on every side from above and\n beneath and everywhere. They were in countenance\n horrible, and they had great heads and a long neck and\n lean visage; they were filthy and squalid in their\n beards, and they had rough ears and distorted face,\n and fierce eyes and foul mouths: and their teeth were\n like horses' tusks, and their throats were filled with\n flame, and they were grating in their voice: they had\n crooked shanks and knees, big and great behind, and\n distorted toes, and shrieked hoarsely with their\n voices, and they came with such immoderate noises and\n immense horror that it seemed to him that all between\n heaven and earth resounded with their dreadful cries.\n Without delay, when they were come into the house,\n they soon bound the holy man in all his limbs, and\n they pulled and led him out of the cottage and brought\n him to the black fen and threw and sunk him in the\n muddy waters. After that they brought him to the wild\n places of the wilderness, among the dense thickets of\n brambles that all his body was torn. After they had a\n long time thus tormented him in darkness they let him\n abide and stand awhile, then commanded him to depart\n from the wilderness, or if he would not do so they\n would torment and try him with greater plagues.\"[492]\n\nThese doings are not sufficiently remote from sober fact for us to be\nunable to detect human enemies in the supposed beings of the spirit\nworld, and this conclusion is confirmed by a later passage in the same\nnarrative describing Guthlac awakened from his sleep and hearing \"a\ngreat host of the accursed spirits speaking in British [bryttisc] and\nhe knew and understood their words because he had been erewhile in\nexile among them.\"[493] Guthlac in England is only experiencing what\nother saints experienced elsewhere,[494] and we cannot doubt we have\nin these reminiscences of saintly experience that mixture of fact with\ntraditional belief which would follow the priests of the new religions\nfrom their native homes to the cell.\n\nIt is necessary to consider another great element in human life with\nreference to its ethnological value, for folklore has always been\nintimately associated with it, and recently, owing to Mr. Frazer's\nbrilliant researches, this branch of folklore has been almost unduly\naccentuated. I mean, of course, agriculture. Mr. Frazer has ignored\nthe ethnological side of agriculture, and it has been appropriated by\nthe student of economics as a purely historical institution. This has\ncaused a special position to be given to agricultural rites and\ncustoms almost without question and certainly without examination, and\nit will be necessary to go rather closely into the subject in order to\nclear up the difficulties which present neglect has produced. I shall\nonce again draw my illustrations from the British Isles.\n\n[Illustration: SCENE FROM THE LIFE OF ST. GUTHLAC SHOWING THE ATTACKS\nOF THE DAEMONES]\n\nI put my facts in this way: (1) In all parts of Great Britain there\nexist rites, customs, and usages connected with agriculture which are\nobviously and admittedly not of legislative or political origin,\nand which present details exactly similar to each other in\n_character_, but differing from each other in _status_; (2) that the\ndifference in status is to be accounted for by the effects of\nsuccessive conquests; (3) that the identity in character is not to be\naccounted for by reference to manorial history, because the area of\nmanorial institutions is not coincident with the area of these rites,\ncustoms, and usages; (4) that exact parallels to them exist in India\nas integral portions of village institutions; (5) that the Indian\nparallels carry the subject a step further than the European examples\nbecause they are stamped with the mark of difference in race-origin,\none portion belonging to the Aryan people and the other to the\nnon-Aryan.\n\nI shall now pick out some examples, and explain from them the evidence\nwhich seems to me to prove that race-distinction is the key for the\norigin of these agricultural rites and usages in Europe as in India. I\nhave dealt with these examples at some length in my book on the\nvillage community, and I shall only use such details as I require for\nmy immediate purpose.\n\nMy first point is that to get at the survivals of the village\ncommunity in Britain it is not necessary to approach it through the\nmedium of manorial history. Extremely ancient as I am inclined to\nthink manorial history is, it is unquestionably loaded with an\nartificial terminology and with the chains so deftly forged by\nlawyers. An analysis of the chief features in the types of the English\nvillage community shows that the manorial element is by no means a\ncommon factor in the series. These types mark the transition from the\ntribal form to the village form. In Harris Island we have the chief\nwith his free tribesmen around him, connected by blood kinship, living\nin scattered homesteads, just like the German tribes described by\nTacitus. Under this tribal community is the embryo of the village\ncommunity, consisting of smaller tenantry and cottar serfs, who live\ntogether in minute villages, holding their land in common and yearly\ndistributing the holdings by lot. In this type the tribal constitution\nis the real factor, and the village constitution the subordinated\nfactor as yet wholly undeveloped, scarcely indeed discernible except\nby very close scrutiny.\n\nAt Kilmorie the tribal community is represented merely by the\nscattered homesteads. These are occupied by a joint farm-tenantry, who\nhold their lands upon the system of the village community. Here the\nvillage constitution has gradually entered into, so to speak, the\ntribal constitution, and has almost absorbed it.\n\nAt Heisgier and Lauder the tribal community is represented by the last\nlink under the process of dissolution, namely, the free council of the\ncommunity by which the village rights are governed, while the village\ncommunity has developed to a considerable extent.\n\nAt Aston and at Malmesbury the old tribal constitution is still kept\nalive in a remarkable manner, and I will venture to quote from my book\nthe account of the evolution at Aston of a tenantry from the older\ntribal constitution, because in this case we are actually dealing with\na manor, and the evidence is unique so far as England is concerned.\n\nThe first point is that the village organisation, the rights of\nassembly, the free open-air meetings, and the corporate action\nincident to the manor of Aston and Cote, attach themselves to the land\ndivisions of sixteen hides, because although these hides had grown in\n1657 into a considerable tenancy, fortunately as a tenancy they kept\ntheir original unity in full force and so obstinately clung to their\nold system of government as to keep up by _representation_ the once\nundivided holding of the hide. If the organisation of the hide had\nitself disappeared, it still formed the basis of the village\ngovernment, the sixteen hides sending up their sixteen _elected_\nrepresentatives. How the tenancy grew out of the original sixteen\nhomesteads may perhaps be conjecturally set forth. In the first place\nthe owners of the yard-lands succeeded to the place originally\noccupied by the owners of the sixteen hides. Instead of the original\nsixteen group-owners we have therefore sixty-four individual owners,\neach yard-land having remained in possession of an owner. And then at\nsucceeding stages of this dissolution we find the yard-lands broken up\nuntil, in 1848, \"some farmers of Aston have only half or even a\nquarter of a yard-land, while some have as many as ten or eleven\nyard-lands in their single occupation.\" Then disintegration proceeded\nto the other proprietary rights, which, originally appendant to the\nhomestead only, became appendant to the person and not to the\nresidence, and are consequently \"bought and sold as separate property,\nby which means it results that persons resident at Bampton, or even at\ngreat distance, have rights on Aston and Cote Common.\" And finally we\nlose all trace of the system, as described by Mr. Horde and as\ndepicted by the representative character of the Sixteens, and in its\nplace find that \"there are some tenants who have rights in the common\nfield and not in the pasture, and _vice versa_ several occupiers have\nthe right of pasture who do not possess any portion of arable land in\nthe common field,\" so that both yard-lands and hides have now\ndisappeared, and absolute ownership of land has taken their place. Mr.\nHorde's MS. enables us to proceed back from modern tenancy-holding to\nthe holding by yard-lands; the rights of election in the yard-lands\nenable us to proceed back to the original holding of the sixteen\nhides.\n\nAt Hitchin, which is Mr. Seebohm's famous example, we meet with the\nmanorial type. But its features are in no way peculiar. There is\nnothing which has not its counterpart, in more or less well-defined\ndegree, in the other types which are not manorial. In short, the\nmanorial framework within which it is enclosed does little more than\nfix the details into an immovable setting, accentuating some at the\nexpense of others, legalising everything so as to bring it all under\nthe iron sovereignty which was inaugurated by the Angevin kings.\n\nMy suggestion is that these examples are but varying types of one\noriginal. The Teutonic people, and their Celtic predecessors, came to\nBritain with a tribal, not an agricultural, constitution. In the\noutlying parts of the land this tribal constitution settled down, and\nwas only slightly affected by the economical conditions of the people\nthey found there; in the more thickly populated parts this tribal\nconstitution was superimposed upon an already existing village\nconstitution in full vigour. We, therefore, find the tribal\nconstitution everywhere--in almost perfect condition in the north, in\nWales, and in Ireland; in less perfect condition in England. We also\nfind the village constitution everywhere--in almost embryo form in the\nnorth, Wales, and in Ireland; in full vigour and force in England,\nespecially in that area which, as already noted, has been identified\nas the constant occupation-ground of all the races who have settled in\nBritain.\n\nNow the factor which is most apparent in all these cases is the\nsingular dual constitution which I have called tribal and village. It\nis only when we get to such cases as Rothwell and Hitchin that almost\nall traces of the tribal element are lost, the village element only\nremaining. But inasmuch as this village element is identical in\n_kind_, if not in degree, with the village element in the other types,\nand inasmuch as topographically they are closely connected, we are, I\ncontend, justified in concluding that it is derived from the same\noriginal--an original which was composed of a tribal community with a\nvillage community in serfdom under it.\n\nThis dual element should, I think, be translated into terms of\nethnology by appealing to the parallel evidence of India. There the\ntypes of the village community are not, as was thought by Sir Henry\nMaine and others, homogeneous. There the dual element appears, the\ntribal community at the top of the system, the village community at\nthe bottom of the system. But in India a new factor is introduced by\nthe equation of the two elements with two different races--the tribal\nelement being Aryan, and the village element non-Aryan. Race-origins\nare there still kept up and rigidly adhered to. They have not been\ncrushed out, as in Europe, by political or economical activity.\n\nBut if crushed out of prominent recognition in Europe, are we,\ntherefore, to conclude that their relics do not exist in peasant\ncustom? My argument is that we cannot have such close parallels in\nIndia and in England without seeing that they virtually tell the same\nstory in both countries. It would require a great deal to prove that\ncustoms, which in India belong now to non-Aryan aborigines and are\nrejected by the Aryans, are in Europe the heritage of the Aryan race.\n\nThe objections to my theory have been formulated by Mr. Ashley, who\nfollows Mr. Seebohm and M. Fustel de Coulanges as an adherent of the\nchronological method of studying institutions. Like the old school of\nantiquaries, this new school of investigators into the history of\ninstitutions gets back to the period of Roman history, and there\nstops. Mr. Ashley suggests that because Caesar describes the Celtic\nBritons as pastoral, therefore agriculture in Britain must be\npost-Celtic. I will not stop to raise the question as to who were the\ntribes from which Caesar obtained his evidence. But it will suffice to\npoint out that if Caesar is speaking of the Aryan Celts of Britain--and\nthis much seems certain--he only proves of them what Tacitus proves of\nthe Aryan Teutons, what the sagas prove of the Aryan Scandinavians,\nwhat the vedas prove of the Aryan Indians, what philology, in short,\nproves of the primitive Aryans generally, namely, that they were\ndistinctly hunters and warriors, and hated and despised the tillers\nof the soil.\n\nIt does not, in point of fact, then, help the question as to the\norigin of agricultural rites and usages to turn to Aryan history at\nall. In this emergency Roman history is appealed to. But this is just\none of those cases where a small portion of the facts are squeezed in\nto do duty for the whole.\n\nBoth M. Fustel de Coulanges and Mr. Seebohm think that if a Roman\norigin can be _prima facie_ shown for the economical side of\nagricultural institutions, there is nothing more to be said. But they\nleave out of consideration a whole set of connected institutions.\nReaders of Mr. Frazer's _Golden Bough_ are now in possession of facts\nwhich it would take a very long time to explain. They see that side by\nside with agricultural economics is agricultural religion, of great\nrudeness and barbarity, of considerable complexity, and bearing the\nstamp of immense antiquity. The same villagers who were the observers\nof those rules of economics which are thought to be due to Roman\norigin were also observers of ritual and usages which are known to be\nsavage in theory and practice. Must we, then, say that all this ritual\nand usage are Roman? or must we go on ignoring them as elements in the\nargument as to the origin of agricultural institutions? One or the\nother of these alternatives must, I contend, be accepted by the\ninquirer.\n\nBecause the State has chosen or been compelled for political reasons\nto lift up peasant economics into manorial legal rules, thus forcibly\ndivorcing this portion of peasant life from its natural associations,\nthere is no reason why students should fix upon this arbitrary\nproceeding as the point at which to begin their examination into the\norigin of village agriculture. Manorial tenants pay their dues to the\nlord, lot out their lands in intermixed strips, cultivate in common,\nand perform generally all those interesting functions of village life\nwith which Mr. Seebohm has made us familiar. But, in close and\nintimate connection with these selfsame agricultural economical\nproceedings, it is the same body of manorial tenants who perform\nirrational and rude customs, who carry the last sheaf of corn\nrepresented in human or animal form, who sacrifice animals to their\nearth deities, who carry fire round fields and crops, who, in a\nscarcely disguised ritual, still worship deities which there is little\ndifficulty in recognising as the counterparts of those religious\ngoddesses of India who are worshipped and venerated by non-Aryan\nvotaries. Christianity has not followed the lead of politics, and\nlifted all this portion of peasant agricultural life into something\nthat is religious and definite. And because it remains sanctioned by\ntradition, we must, in considering origins, take it into account in\nconjunction with those economic practices which have been unduly\nemphasised in the history of village institutions. In India primitive\neconomics and religion go hand in hand as part of the village life of\nthe people; in England primitive economics and _survivals_ of old\nreligions, which we call folklore, go hand in hand as part of the\nvillage life of the people. And it is not in the province of students\nto separate one from the other when they are considering the question\nof origin.\n\nThis is practically the whole of my argument from the folklore point\nof view. But it is not the whole of the argument against the theory\nof the Roman origin of the village community. I cannot on this\noccasion re-state what this argument is, as it is set forth at some\nlength in my book. But I should like to point out that it is in\nreality supported by arguments to be drawn from ethnological facts.\nMr. Ashley surrenders to my view of the question the important point\nthat ethnological data, derived from craniological investigation, fit\nin \"very readily with the supposition that under the Celtic, and\ntherefore under the Roman rule, the cultivating class was largely\ncomposed of the pre-Celtic race; and allows us to believe that the\nagricultural population was but little disturbed.\" Economically it was\ncertainly not disturbed by the Romans. If the agricultural implements\nknown to and used by the Romans were never used in Britain after their\ndeparture; if the old methods of land-surveying under the agrimensores\nis not to be traced in Britain as a continuing system; if wattle and\ndaub, rude, uncarpentered trees turned root upwards to form roofs,\nwere the leading principles of house-architecture, it cannot be\nalleged that the Romans left behind any permanent marks of their\neconomical standard upon the \"little disturbed agricultural\npopulation.\" Why, then, should they be credited with the introduction\nof a system of lordship and serf-bound tenants, when both lordship and\nserfdom are to be traced in lands where Roman power has never\npenetrated, under conditions almost exactly similar to the feudal\nelements in Europe? If it be accepted that the early agricultural\npopulation of Britain was non-Aryan; if we find non-Aryan agricultural\nrites and festivals surviving as folklore among the peasants of\nto-day; why should it be necessary, why should it be accepted as a\nreasonable hypothesis, to go to the imperial and advanced economics of\nRome to account for those other elements in the composition of the\nvillage community which, equally with the rites and festivals, are to\nbe found paralleled among the non-Aryan population living under an\nAryan lordship in India? The only argument for such a process is one\nof convenience. It does so happen that the Roman theory _may_ account\nfor some of the English phenomena. But, then, the Celtic and Teutonic,\nor Aryan theory also accounts for the same English phenomena, and,\nwhat is more, it accounts for other phenomena not reckoned by the\nRoman theory. My proposition is that the history of the village\ncommunity in Britain is the history of the economical condition of the\nnon-Aryan aborigines; that the history of the tribal community is the\nhistory of the Aryan conquerors, who appear as overlords; and that the\nRomans, except as another wave of Aryan conquerors at an advanced\nstage of civilisation, had very little to do with shaping the village\ninstitutions of Britain.[495]\n\nIt is necessary before leaving this subject to take note of a point\nwhich may lead, and in fact has led to misconception of the argument.\nI have stated that all custom, rite, and belief which is Aryan custom,\nrite, and belief, as distinct from that which is pre-Aryan--pre-Celtic\nin our own country--must have a position in the tribal system, and I\nhave said that custom, rite, and belief which cannot be traced back\nto the tribal system may be safely pronounced to be pre-tribal in\norigin and therefore pre-Celtic, to have survived, that is, from the\npeople whom the Celts found in occupation of the country when first\nthey landed on its shores. I did not interrupt my statement of the\ncase to point out one important modification of it, because this\nmodification has nothing to do with the great mass of custom and\nbelief now surviving as folklore, but I will deal with this\nmodification now so that I may clear up any misconception. We have\nalready ascertained that over and above the custom and belief, which\nmay be traced back to their tribal origins, there are both customs and\nbeliefs which owe their origin to psychological conditions, and there\nare myths surviving as folk-tales or legends which owe their origin to\nthe primitive philosophy of earliest man. Neither of these departments\nof folklore enters into the question of race development. The first\nmay be called post-ethnologic because they arise in a political\nsociety of modern civilisation which transcends the boundaries of\nrace; the second may be called pre-ethnologic, because they arise in a\nsavage society before the great races had begun their distinctive\nevolution. The point about this class of belief is that it has never\nbeen called upon to do duty for social improvement and organisation,\nhas never been specialised by the Celt or Teuton in Europe, nor by\nother branches of the same race. The myth alone of these two groups of\nfolklore could have had an ethnological influence, and this must have\nbeen very slight. It remained in the mind of Aryan man, but has never\ndescended to the arena of his practical life. It has influenced his\npractical life indirectly of course, but it has never become a brick\nin the building up of his practical life. This distinction between\ncustom and belief which are tribal and custom and belief which are not\ntribal, is of vast importance. It has been urged against the\nclassification of custom, rite, and belief into ethnological groups\nthat it does not allow for the presence of a great mass of belief,\nprimitive in character and undoubtedly Aryan, if not in origin at all\nevents in fact. The objection is not valid. The custom, rite, and\nbelief which can be classified as distinctively Aryan is that portion\nof the whole corpus of primitive custom, rite, and belief, which was\nused by the Aryan-speaking folk in the building up of their tribal\norganisation. They divorced it by this use from the general primitive\nconceptions, and developed it along special lines. It is in its\nspecial characteristics that this belief belongs to the tribal system\nof the Aryans, not in its general characteristics. Not every custom,\nrite, and belief was so used and developed. The specialisation caused\nthe deliberate rejection or neglect of much custom, rite, and belief\nwhich was opposed to the new order of things, and did not affect the\npractical doings of Aryan life.\n\nThere are thus three elements to consider: (1) the custom, rite, and\nbelief specialised by the Aryan-speaking people in the formation and\ndevelopment of their tribal system; (2) the custom, rite, and belief\nrejected or neglected by the Aryan tribesmen; and (3) the belief which\nwas not affected by or used for the tribal development, but which, not\nbeing directly antagonistic to it, remained with the primitive Aryan\nfolk as survivals of their science and philosophy.\n\nFor ethnological purposes we have only to do with the first group. It\nis definite, and it is capable of definite recognition within the\ntribe. When once it was brought into the tribal system it ceased to\nexist in the form in which it was known to general savage belief; it\ndeveloped highly specialised forms, took its part in the formation of\na great social force, a great fighting and conquering force, a great\nmigratory force. In accomplishing this task it grew into a solid\nsystem, each part in touch with all other parts, each part an\nessential factor in the ever-active forces which it helped to fashion\nand control.\n\nIt is in this wise that we must study its survivals wherever they are\nto be found, and the study must be concentrated within certain\ndefinite ethnographic areas. If I were to pursue the subject and\nchoose for my study the folklore of Britain, I should have to object\nto the treatment accorded to British custom, rite, and belief by even\nso great an authority as Mr. Frazer, because they are used not as\nparts of a tribal system but as mere detritus of a primitive system of\nscience, or philosophy. According to my views they had long since\nbecome separated from any such system and it is placing them in a\nwrong perspective, giving them a false value, associating them with\nelements to which they have no affinity to divorce them from their\ntribal connection. The custom, rite, and belief which were tribal,\nwhen they were brought to their present ethnographic area, cannot be\nconsidered in the varied forms of their survival except by restoration\nto the tribal organisation from which they were torn when they began\ntheir life as survivals.\n\nWhat I have endeavoured to explain in this way are the principles\nwhich should govern folklore research in relation to ethnological\nconditions. The differing races which made up the peoples of Europe\nbefore the era of political history must have left their distinctive\nremains in folklore, if folklore is rightly considered as the\ntraditional survivals of the prehistory period. To get at and classify\nthese remains we must be clear as to the problems which surround\ninquiry into them. The solution of these problems will place us in\npossession of a mass of survivals in folklore which are naturally\nassociated with each other, and which stand apart from other survivals\nalso naturally associated with each other. In these two masses we may\ndetect the main influences of the great tribal races and the\nnon-tribal races. We cannot, I think, get much beyond this. We may,\nperhaps, here and there, detect smaller race divisions--Celtic,\nTeutonic, Scandinavian or other distinctions, according to the area of\ninvestigation--but these will be less apparent, less determinable, and\nwill not be so valuable to historical science as the larger division.\nTo this we shall by proper investigation be indebted for the solution\nof many doubtful points of the prehistoric period, and it is in this\nrespect that it will appeal to the student of folklore.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[466] Mr. Nutt's presidential address to the Folklore Society in 1899\ndoes not, I think, disprove my theory. It ignores it, and confines the\nproblem to legend and folk-tale. Mr. Nutt's powerful, but not\nconclusive, study is to be found in _Folklore_, x. 71-86, and my reply\nand correspondence resulting therefrom are to be found at pp. 129-149.\n\n[467] MacCulloch, _Childhood of Fiction_, 90-101; Greenwell, _British\nBarrows_, 17, 18.\n\n[468] _Custom and Myth_, 76.\n\n[469] _Myth, Ritual and Religion_, ii. 215, compared with Gomme,\n_Ethnology in Folklore_, 16.\n\n[470] I have discussed this point at greater length in _Folklore_, xii.\n222-225.\n\n[471] Mr. J. O'Beirne Crowe in _Journ. Arch. and Hist. Assoc. of\nIreland_, 3rd ser., i. 321.\n\n[472] Rhys, _Lectures on Welsh Philology_, 32; _Celtic Heathendom_,\n216; _Celtic Britain_, 67-75; Rhys and Brynmor-Jones, _Welsh People_,\n83.\n\n[473] The continental evidence has been collected together in\nconvenient shape by modern scholars: thus Mr. Stock, in his work on\n_Caesar de bello Gallico_, notes and compares the evidence of Caesar,\nStrabo, Diodorus Siculus, Ammianus Marcellinus, Mela, Lucan, and Pliny\nas it has been interpreted by modern scholars (see pp. 107-113), and he\nis followed by Mr. T. Rice Holmes in his study of _Caesar's Conquest of\nGaul_, pp. 532-536. The Druidic cult of belief in immortality,\nmetempsychosis, ritual of the grove, augury, human sacrifice, is all\nset out and discussed. These are the continental Druidic beliefs and\npractices, and they may be compared with the Druidic Irish beliefs and\npractices in Eugene O'Curry's _Manners and Customs of the Ancient\nIrish_, lect. ix. and x. vol. ii. pp. 179-228, and Dr. Joyce's _Social\nHistory of Ancient Ireland_, i. 219-248, where \"the points of agreement\nand difference between Irish and Gaulish Druids\" are discussed. Mr.\nElton notices the difference between the continental and the British\nDruids, but ascribes it to unequal development (_Origins of Eng.\nHist._, 267-268). Caesar's well-known account of the wickerwork\nsacrifice is very circumstantial. It is not repeated by either Diodorus\nor Strabo, who both refer to individual human sacrifice. Pliny\nintroduces the mistletoe, oak, and serpent cults, and the other three\nauthorities are apparently dependent upon their predecessors.\n\n[474] The mixture of Celt and Iberian is very ably dealt with by Mr.\nHolmes in his _Caesar's Conquest of Gaul_, pp. 245-322, and by Ripley,\n_Races of Europe_, 461, 467, together with cap. vii. and xii.; see also\nSergi, _Mediterranean Race_, cap. xii.\n\n[475] The intermarrying of the Picts with the Celts of the district\nthey conquered is mentioned in all the chronicles as an important and\nsignificant rite, which determined the succession to the Pictish throne\nthrough the female side (Skene's _Chron. of the Picts and Scots_, 40,\n45, 126, 319, 328, 329). Beda, i. cap. i., mentions female succession.\nSkene discusses this point in _Celtic Scotland_, i. 232-235, and\nMcLennan includes it in his evidence from anthropological data\n(_Studies in Anc. Hist._, 99).\n\n[476] Mr. Seebohm is the best authority for the importance of the\nnon-tribesman in Celtic law (_Tribal System in Wales_, 54-60).\n\n[477] The local cults in Great Britain which are not Celtic in form,\nand do not seem to be connected with Celtic religion on any analogy,\nare those relating to Cromm Cruaich, referred to in the _Tripartite\nLife of St. Patrick_ (see Whitley Stokes in _Revue Celtique_, i. 260,\nxvi. 35-36; O'Curry, _MS. Materials of Anc. Irish History_, 538-9;\nJoyce, _Social History of Ancient Ireland_, i. 275-276; Rhys, _Celtic\nHeathendom_, 200-201). I do not follow Rhys in his identification of\nthis cult as a part of the ceremonies on mounds, and suggest that Mr.\nBury in his _Life of St. Patrick_, 123-125, gives the clue to the\npurely local character of this idol worship which I claim for it.\nSimilarly the overthrow of the temple at Goodmanham, Godmundingham,\ndescribed by Beda, ii. cap. 13, with its priest who was not allowed to\ncarry arms, or to ride on any but a mare, is the destruction of a\nsuccessful local cult, not of a national or tribal religion. I confess\nthat Dr. Greenwell's observations in connection with his barrow\ndiscoveries (_British Barrows_, 286-331) are in favour of an early\nAnglican cultus, but I think his facts may be otherwise interpreted,\nand in any case they confirm my view of the special localisation of\nthis cult.\n\n[478] Rev. W. G. Lawes in _Journ. Royal Geographical Soc._, new series,\niii. 615. _Cf._ Romilly, _From my Verandah_, 249; _Journ. Indian\nArchipelago_ vi. 310, 329.\n\n[479] Dieffenbach, _Travels in New Zealand_, ii. 7, 10, 59.\n\n[480] _Trans. Ethnol. Soc._, new series, iii. 235.\n\n[481] Colquhoun's _Amongst the Shans_, 52; Bastian, _Oestl. Asien_, i.\n119.\n\n[482] Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_, i. 228;\nand compare Rev. P. Favre, _Account of Wild Tribes of the Malayan\nPeninsula_ (Paris, 1865), p. 95.\n\n[483] _Ethnology in Folklore_, 45; and see Tylor, _Primitive Culture_,\ni. 112-113.\n\n[484] Stanley, _Through the Dark Continent_, i. 253. _Cf._ Burrows,\n_Land of the Pigmies_, 180, for the state of fear which the pygmies\ncause to their neighbours.\n\n[485] Latham, _Descriptive Ethnology_, ii. 457.\n\n[486] _Journ. As. Soc. Bengal_, 1866, ii. 158; see also Geiger,\n_Civilisation of Eastern Iranians_, i. 20-21.\n\n[487] _Journ. Ceylon As. Soc._, 1865-1866, p. 3. _Journ. Ind.\nArchipelago_, i. 328; Tennant, _Ceylon_, i. 331; J. F. Campbell, _My\nCircular Notes_, 155-157.\n\n[488] Landtman, _Origin of Priesthood_, p. 82, quoting the original\nauthorities.\n\n[489] Vigfusson and Powell, _Corpus Boreale_, ii. 38; and see i. 408.\n\n[490] _Roman Festivals_, 264.\n\n[491] Rhys, _Lectures on Welsh Philology_, 196.\n\n[492] _Life of St. Guthlac_, by Felix of Crowland, edit. C. W. Goodwin,\npp. 21, 23, 27, 35.\n\n[493] _Life of St. Guthlac_, p. 43.\n\n[494] Wright, _Essays on Popular Superstitions of the Middle Ages_, ii.\n4-10.\n\n[495] The substance of this part of my subject, with more elaboration\nin detail, is taken from a paper I contributed to the _Transactions of\nthe Folklore Congress_, 1891.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\naborigines, savage, 219\nAbyssinian pygmies, 241\nAfrican pygmy people, 241-2\naged, killing of the, 68-78\nagricultural custom, 49, 163, 188, 192, 220, 311, 339, 352-3, 359\nAhts of Vancouver Island, 62, 228\nAll Souls, feast of, 331\nallocation of folklore items, 340\naltar superstitions, 198, 200\nAmerican Indian creation myths, 131, 141, 258\nAmerican Indian traditions, 144, 246\nanalysis of custom, 159\nAndaman islanders, 218\nanimal traditions, 239\nanimals, domestication of, 258\nantagonism in folklore, 340\nanthropological conditions, 208-302\napparitions, 188\narm, right, left unchristened, 324, 325\narresting force of Christianity, 321, 322\nArthur traditions, 29, 33-34\nArunta people (Australians), 265-274\nAshantee creation myth, 141, 142\nashes, custom connected with, 160\naspirations of man, 145\nassociation, law of, in folklore, 166-9\nAston and Cote, manor, 355\nAustralian evidence, 61, 142, 143, 156, 187, 213, 217, 230, 232, 251,\n 256, 258, 262-74, 347\nAustraloid race, 296\nAvebury (Lord), quoted, 65, 215\n\nBalder myth, 108\nballads, growth of, 13\nbaptism, 323-4, 325, 328\nbaptismal water, 197\nbarbaric conquest, 219\nBeddgelert bridge tradition, 26\nBedfordshire evidence, 95, 287\nbees, telling the, 162, 164\nBega (St.), 323\nbelief the foundation of myth, 140-6\nBeowulf, quoted, 89\nBerkshire evidence, 95, 162\nboar as a totem animal, 287\nBorder civilisation, 31, 183-5\nBoudicca, hare portent of, 288\nbow and arrow, 218\nBreton tradition, 21-22, 28\nbridges, tradition concerning, 25, 26\nBritain, totemism in, 276-96\nBuckinghamshire evidence, 162\nbull (white) ceremony, 161\nBund (Willis), quoted, 118\nburial superstition, 198, 324, 339\nBurmese evidence, 347\nBury (J. B.), quoted, 35, 345\nBushmen dances, 141\n\nCaesar, food taboos in Britain, 286-91\nCanary Islanders, custom, 325\nCatskin story, 59-66\ncattle, telling of death to, 162\nCeltic mythology, 103\nCeltic tribes of Britain, 25-28, 103-5, 111, 310\nCeylon evidence, 31\nChadwick (H. M.), quoted, 223\ncharms, 188\nCheshire evidence, 162\nchild relationship to parents, 232\nchild thought, 186, 187\nChilde Rowland story, 314-15\nchildren not related to parents, 61, 268, 271\nChristianity and paganism, 320-37\nchurch ceremony of marriage, 90-1\nchurch, sacred character of objects and buildings, 197-9\nchurning superstition, 202\ncivil war pamphlets, 195\nCladdagh fisherfolk, 279\nclan songs, 97\nclass system in Australian totemism, 264, 265, 270, 272\nclassification, false, of folklore, 166\nClonmel witch case, 205\nclub, for killing the aged, 74-76\ncock as a totem animal, 286, 289\ncomparative folklore, 170-9\nconjectural method of inquiry, 225-6, 239, 250\nconquered, mythic influence of, 345-9\nconscious use of experience or observation, 211, 212\nconquest in man's history, 219\nCook (A. B.), quoted, 106, 108\nCornwall evidence, 20, 55, 162, 164, 193, 196, 324\nCrawley (E.), quoted, 155\nCrayford legend, 43\ncreation myths, 130-9\nCromm Cruaich, 344\nCuchulain, totem descent of, 286\nCuerdale hoard of coins, 30-31\nCumberland evidence, 162, 184, 323\ncustom, belief, and rite, 10, 123, 125, 154-70\nCynuit, fight with Danes at, 5-6\n\nDanish conquest in tradition, 22, 31, 41, 192\nDarwin (C.), quoted, 213, 224, 247\ndeath beliefs, 191-2\ndeath, telling of, to bees, 162\ndecay the principal force in folklore, 157-9, 319\ndefinitions, 129\nDemeter temple custom, 150\nDerbyshire evidence, 162\ndescent, use of the term, 270\nDevonshire evidence, 5, 95, 96, 324\ndifferential evolution, 228\ndiffusion of folk-tales, 153\ndog as a totem animal, 286\ndoom rings, 323\ndoors, decoration of, 334\nDorsetshire evidence, 45, 94\ndreams, 13-20, 188\nDruidism, 341, 342-4\nduplication of myth, 33, 34\nDurham evidence, 162, 184, 324\n\nEaster-tide, 328\neconomic influences upon early man, 219, 257\nEgyptian civilisation, 108\nElton (C.), quoted, 73, 74, 78, 114, 286, 290, 344\nEssex evidence, 95\nethnographic movements of man, 216\nethnological conditions, 338-66\nEucharist, sacred elements of, 197\nEuropean conditions, 320-37\nEuropean sky god, 106\nEvans (Arthur), quoted, 209\nExeter custom, 96\nexogamy, 252, 271\n\nfact, basis of tradition upon, 10, 47-49\nfairs, 45\nfamily, the term, 235-7\nFarrer (J. A.), quoted, 145\nfather kinship, 231, 259\nfather and daughter marriage, 59-66\nfemale descent, 271\nfestivals, pagan in origin, 328\nfictional literature, 6, 123, 145\nFijian creation myth, 131\nFir-Bolgs, 101\nfire, non-use of, 218\nfire worship, 106, 108, 160, 163, 317\nfirst foot custom, 162, 164\nfish as a totem, 290\nfolklore, necessities of, 4-7\nfolk-tales, 46-84, 123, 127, 129, 148-9\nfood taboos in ancient Britain, 286\nformula of custom, 159\nfox totem in Connaught, 278-80\nFrazer (J.), quoted, 62, 108-9, 110, 140, 228, 253, 255, 265, 274, 283,\n 285, 287, 329, 338, 339, 365\nFuegians, 247\n\nGambia district, peoples of, 245\nGenesis creation myth, 137-8, 150\ngeological age of man, 214\ngiants, 194\nGibbon (E.), quoted, 321, 327, 334\nGiles (Dr.), quoted, 113\nGold coast natives, 230\nGomme (Mrs.), quoted, 26\ngoose as a totem animal, 286, 289\nGospels used as charms, 199\ngossip, meaning of, 278\nGregory (Pope), letter of, to Mellitus, 329-30\nGreek totemism, 275\nGreek laws, 85, 86, 87, 88\nGrey (Sir George), quoted, 143\nGrierson (P. J. H.), quoted, 45, 230\nGrimm, quoted, 7, 78-81, 327-8\ngroup (human) the unit of anthropological work, 234\nGuthlac (St.) legend, 350-2\n\nHaddon (A. C.), quoted, 188, 228, 253, 254\nHampshire evidence, 96, 162, 192\nhare as a totem animal, 280, 287-9\nHarris, island of, 354\nHartland (E. S.), quoted, 23, 148, 259, 265\nHawick Common riding, 98-99\nHebrew creation myth, 137-8\nHereward in history and tradition, 35-40\nhistorians, neglect of folklore, 110-20\nhistorical material, 2-4\nhistory and folklore, 1-122, 315\nholy, the word, 317\n\"holy mawle,\" 74\nhorde, type of society, 225\nhostility among primitive groups of mankind, 264\nHowitt (A. W.), quoted, 142, 230\nhunting stage of society, 220\nHuxley (T. H.), quoted, 138\n\nidols in Christian churches, 328\nIndian evidence, 13, 27, 31, 52, 55, 63, 66, 72, 73, 78, 85, 86, 87,\n 101, 109, 119, 135-6, 146, 151, 174, 175, 193, 217, 229, 231, 258,\n 271, 309, 310, 315, 348, 349, 353, 357\nindustrial evolution, 228-30\nInnis (Thomas), quoted, 113\ninstitutions and religion, 305, 306, 360\nIrish evidence, 11, 49, 50, 56-59, 88, 97, 108, 159, 163, 177, 182, 183,\n 198, 205, 276-82, 286, 287, 324, 330\nItaly, Christian and pagan beliefs in, 331-4, 335\n\nJava, remains of man in, 214\nJevons (F. B.), quoted, 140, 141, 145, 236\nJewish temple rite, 200\nJoyce (Dr.), quoted, 116\njunior right inheritance, 96, 172-4, 223, 313\n\nKeane (A. H.), quoted, 214, 215, 241\nKeary (J. F.), quoted, 313\nKemble (J. M.), quoted, 3, 42, 89\nKent evidence, 43, 191, 330\nKentish laws, 92\nKilmorie, 352\nkinship, 219, 220, 226, 230, 261\nkinlessness, 225, 231, 235, 240-7, 256, 261, 268\nKronos myth, 134\n\nLambeth pedlar legend, 20\nLancashire evidence, 20, 162, 191, 289, 324\nlands, surrender of, to sons, 70-2\nLang (A.), quoted, 7, 116, 131, 132, 153, 225, 226, 236, 253, 254,\n 255, 263, 265, 271, 272, 273, 275, 339\nLapps as sorcerers, 349\nLappenberg (J. M.), quoted, 113\nLatham (Dr.), quoted, 214, 215-16, 241\nLauder, 354\nLaw, traditional origin of, 84-100, 196, 328\nleft and right superstition, 166\nlegend, 124, 127, 129, 151-2\nlegislation, primitive, 213, 273\nLeicestershire evidence, 198\nLincolnshire evidence, 30, 162, 350-2\nLitlington tradition, 43\nlocal traditions, 13-33\nlocality influence of, 219, 344\nLockyer (Sir Norman), quoted, 107\nlogic of primitive man, 140\nLondon Bridge legends, 13-33\nLud, Celtic god, 105\nLundinium (Roman), 24, 25, 105\n\nMabinogion creation myth, 136\nMacCulloch (Mr.), quoted, 47, 82, 123, 173, 239, 313, 338\nMaine (Sir Henry), quoted, 85, 87, 117, 226, 235\nmale descent, 269, 270\nmale groups, 225, 239\nmanorial evidence, 94-96, 305\nmanumission formula, 92\nManx custom, 160, 162\nMaori myths, 143, 144\nmarriage ceremony, 90-91, 162\nmarriage customs in folk-tales, 65\nmaterials and methods, 123-79\nMcLennan (J. F.), quoted, 61, 65, 225, 293\nmidsummer festivals, 328\nmigratory movements of man, 214-17, 221, 222, 223, 224, 237, 251, 264,\n 266\nmonogenists, 213\nMorgan (L. H.), quoted, 225, 275\nmother influence in totemism, 257, 267\nmother kinship, 231\nMoytura monuments, 101, 102\nMurray (Dr.), quoted, 98\nmyth, 127, 129, 130-48\nmythology, 9, 100-10, 128, 146-8, 303\n\nnames (totem), origin of, 260\nnatural objects, interpretation of, 193\nneglect of observation, 231\nneolithic burial custom, 339\nNew Guinea evidence, 345\nNew Zealand myths, 131, 132-3, 190, 217, 346\nNicholson (Dr.), quoted, 172, 173\nNod, Celtic god, 105\nNonconformist appeal to church, 200\nNorfolk evidence, 14-19, 42, 163\nNorse custom, 174, 175\nNorse tradition, 22-23, 32\nNorthamptonshire evidence, 198, 288\nNorthumberland evidence, 162, 324, 325\n_Notes and Queries_, quoted, 6\nNottinghamshire evidence, 96, 162\nnursery rhymes, growth of, 13\nNutt (A.), quoted, 6, 222, 339\n\noath-taking customs, 200\nO'Curry (Eugene), quoted, 113\noffertory money, 197\noral tradition, force of, 87, 125\noutlawry, 311\noxen, slaughter of, 329\n\npalaeolithic implements, 217, 218\nPalgrave (Sir F.), quoted, 88, 113\nparallel practices as evidence of common origin, 109, 171-6, 227\npastoral stage of society, 220, 358\nPearson (Dr. Karl), quoted, 47, 78, 201\nPearson (C. H.), quoted, 115\nPedlar of Swaffham legend, 14-19\npersonal traditions, 33-46\nPetrie (Flinders), quoted, 222\nPictish marriage custom, 344\npolitical races, 209, 219, 221\npolygenists, 213\npottery, 218\nPowell (York), quoted, 3, 8, 104\npractice and rule, 227\npre-Celtic remains, 101, 118-20, 209, 275, 318, 350\npriest's grave superstition, 199\npriests of old religion regarded as magicians, 200\npromiscuity, 224\nProtestants appeal to Roman Catholicism, 200\npsychological conditions, 180-207\npurpose of custom, 159\npygmy peoples, 238, 241-5, 248, 348\n\nRamsay (Sir James), quoted, 115\nrecord of custom, 156, 165\nreligion and folklore, 140\nreligion and myth, 138\nreligion and science, 138-9, 206\nresult in custom, 159\nretrogression in human society, 249\nRhodopis tradition, 53\nrhyming tenures, 94-95\nRhys (Sir John), quoted, 29, 33, 34, 105, 114, 115, 161, 163, 209,\n 342, 345, 350\nRidgeway (Prof.), quoted, 308\nright and left superstition, 166\nrites explained by myth, 146\nRivers (Dr. W. H. R.), quoted, 150, 174, 229\nRobertson-Smith (W.), quoted, 147, 174, 282, 303, 304\nRollright stones, 209\nRoman Britain, 25, 30, 105, 360-2\nromances, 124\nRome, ancient customs of, 26, 34, 151, 332, 349\n\nsacrifice (human), 174-6\nsavage customs in Britain, 112-16\nsavage incidents in folk-tales, 78-82\nScandinavian custom, 71, 223, 323, 328\nScarborough warning, 93-94\nscience, primitive, 130, 131\nScottish evidence, 20, 48, 49, 50, 56, 65, 67-78, 92, 149, 162, 181,\n 182, 198, 288, 289, 290\nseal totem in Connaught, 280-2\nSemangs of Malay peninsula, 218, 242-5, 267, 269, 270, 278, 297-302,\n 348\nsermon quoted, 189\nsex cleavage in human evolution, 251, 260\nShrewsbury Abbey Church, tradition, 43\nShropshire evidence, 43, 95, 162, 292\nSids, Irish, 341\nSkene (W. F.), quoted, 114, 115, 344\nsky-god, 106\nSlavonian tradition, 54\nsnake stones of Whitby, 194\nsociological conditions, 303-19\nSomersetshire evidence, 45, 95, 162, 205\nsoul resident in backbone, 189, 190\nSouthampton custom, 96\nspecialisation of culture, 227, 233, 364\nSpencer (Herbert), quoted, 117, 214\nSpencer and Gillen, quoted, 143, 265\nSpenser (Edmund), quoted, 4, 11, 177\nSquire (Mr.), quoted, 33, 34, 101-3, 117\nstationary conditions of life, 223, 224\nstate religion, 103-5\nStevenson (W. H.), quoted, 5\nStewart (J. A.), quoted, 145\nstone circles, 107, 193, 194\nStonehenge, 107, 209\nSuffolk evidence, 161, 162, 192\nSullivan (W. R.), quoted, 113, 120\nSurrey evidence, 20, 162\nsurvivals, 154-5, 319, 336\nSussex evidence, 41, 162\n\ntappie, tappie, tousie, 92\ntelling tales, 149\nTeutonic religion, 104\nTeutonic tribes, 310\nThomas (N. W.), quoted, 214, 226, 232, 236, 265\nthreshold custom, 159, 334\ntoad in witchcraft, 203\nTodas, loss of myth by, 150\ntotemism, 209-10, 252, 253-61, 274-96\ntransfer of superstition to different objects, 163, 325\ntreasure legends, 13-24, 30\ntrees, marriage of, India, 258\ntribal life in tradition, 51-59, 103-5\ntribal institutions, 307-18, 356, 364\ntribe, the term, 234, 308\nTuatha de Danann, 101\nTurner (Sharon), quoted, 113\nTylor (E. B.), quoted, 9, 133, 154, 200, 233, 239\n\nUpsall, Yorks, legend from, 19\n\nver sacrum, 223\nVortigern, 62\n\nwater god, 105\nwell worship, 163, 164, 323, 326\nWelsh evidence, 20, 26, 34, 162, 194, 200, 202\nWestermarck (Dr.), quoted, 225, 239\nWestmoreland evidence, 184\nWilde (Sir W.), quoted, 45, 101\nWilliam the Conqueror, Sussex tradition, 41\nWiltshire evidence, 44, 45, 95, 162, 287, 288, 354\nwitchcraft, 194, 201-6\nwolf totem in Ossory, 276-8\nwomen in early industrialism, 257\nWorcestershire evidence, 162\n\nYorkshire evidence, 19, 20, 30, 78, 93, 162, 184, 194, 324, 325\nYule-tide, 328\n\nZulu folk-tales, 51, 64\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nThis book contains some archaic and variant spelling, which has been\nretained as printed. Hyphenation has been made consistent where\nappropriate, without note. Minor printer errors (missing or transposed\nletters or punctuation, etc.) have been amended. The list of amendments\nis included below.\n\nThere are a few instances of oe ligatures; these have been rendered\nsimply as oe. There are also a few Greek words, which have been\ntransliterated in this version, in the form [Greek: word].\n\nIllustrations have been shifted slightly, so that they are not in the\nmiddle of paragraphs. The frontispiece illustration has been moved to\nfollow the title page.\n\n\nTranscriber's List of Amendments:\n\nPage 42--ryhme amended to rhyme--\"... the old rhyme is still\nremembered ...\"\n\nPage 76--missing accent added to \"vice versa\".\n\nPage 92--signifiance amended to significance--\"... rhythmical formulae\nwhich have legal significance.\"\n\nPage 118--missing accent added to \"prima facie\".\n\nPage 184--preceeding amended to preceding--\"... those immediately\npreceding the reign ...\"\n\nPage 198--bedesecrated amended to be desecrated--\"must not be\ndesecrated\"\n\nPage 271--missing apostrophe added--\"do not go to the wives' region of\nabode.\"\n\nPage 368--Firbolgs amended to Fir-Bolgs, in line with other\noccurrences.\n\nFootnote 358--missing period added at end of footnote.\n\nFootnote 416--Ser. made consistent with other occurrences--amended to\n\"ser.\"\n\nFootnote 469--comma added--\"Myth, Ritual and Religion\".\n\nFootnote 473--precedessors amended to predecessors--\"... apparently\ndependent upon their predecessors.\"","title":"Folklore as an Historical Science","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":113435}