an almost unbroken record, in spite of much modification and development. With such an amalgam in the background, historians have scarcely ever failed to draw the picture of European civilisation in deep colours, tinted according to their bias in favour of a Celtic, or Teutonic, or classical origin. But the picture of uncivilisation within the same area has not been drawn. The story always is of the advanced part of nations, though even here it occurs to me that very frequently the terminology is still more in advance of the facts, so that while everyone has heard a great deal of the conditions of civilisation, very few people have any adequate idea of the unadvanced lines of European life.

1

It will be seen that I accentuate the contrast between civilisation and uncivilisation within the same area, and the purpose of this accentuation will be seen when the significant difference in origin is pointed out.

Dr. Tylor states that the elevation of some branches of a race over the rest more often happens as the result of foreign than of native action. 'Civilisation is a plant much oftener propagated than developed,' he says.2 How true this remark is will be recognised by anyone familiar with the main outlines of the history of civilisation, ancient or modern. An axiom formulated by Sir Arthur Mitchell that no man in isolation can become

1 Some confirmation of this from classical history was pointed out by Dr. Beddoe in his address to the Anthrop. Inst. (see Journal, xx. 355).

2 Primitive Culture, i. 48.

civilised,' may be extended to societies. Whether in the case of Roman, Greek, Assyrian, Egyptian, or even Chinese civilisation, a point has always been reached at which scholars have had to turn their attention from the land where these civilisations were consummated to some other land or people, whose influence in building them up is detected in considerable force. And so it is in the western world. There are few scholars now who advocate the theory of an advanced Celtic or Teutonic civilisation. Roman law, Greek philosophy and art, and Christian religion and ethics have combined in producing a civilisation which is essentially foreign to the soil whereon it now flourishes.

But with uncivilisation the case is very different. Arrested by forces which we cannot but identify with the civilisations which have at various times swept over it, it seems embedded in the soil where it was first transplanted, and has no power or chance of fresh propagation. There is absolutely no evidence, in spite of allegations to the contrary, of the introduction of uncivilised culture into countries already in possession of a higher culture. And yet it is found everywhere and is kept alive by the sanction of tradition-the traditional observance of what has always been observed, simply because it has always been observed. Thus, after the law of the land has been complied with and the marriage knot has been effectually tied, traditional custom imposes certain rites which may without exaggeration be styled irrational, rude, and barbarous

After the Church has conducted to its last resting-place the corpse of the departed, traditional belief necessitates the performance of some magic rite which may with propriety be considered not only rude, but savage. Underneath the law and the Church, therefore, the emblems of the foreign civilisation, lie the traditional custom and belief, the attributes of the native uncivilisation. And the native answer to any inquiry as to why these irrational elements exist is invariably the same 'They are obliged to do it for antiquity or custom's sake';' they do it because they believe in it, as things that had been and were real, and not as creations of the fancy or old-wives' tales and babble.' Even after real belief has passed away the habit continues; there is a sort of use and wont in it which, though in a certain sense honoured in its observance, it is felt, in some sort of indirect, unmeditated, unvolitional sort of way, would not be dishonoured in the breach.'2

The significant answer of the peasant, when questioned as to the cause of his observing rude and irrational customs, of entertaining strange and uncouth beliefs, marks a very important characteristic of what has been so conveniently termed folklore. All that the

1 Buchan's St. Kilda, p. 35. Mr. Atkinson gives much the same testimony of Yorkshire. Inquiring as to a usage practised on a farm, the answer was: 'Ay, there's many as dis it yet. My au'd father did it. But it's sae many years syne it must be about wore out by now, and I shall have to dee it again.' -Forty Years in a Moorland Parish, p. 62. Miss Gordon Cumming's example of the force of custom in her book on the Hebrides is very amusing (p. 209).

2 Atkinson, op. cit. pp. 63, 72.

peasantry practise, believe, and relate on the strength of immemorial custom sanctioned by unbroken succession from one generation to another, has a value of peculiar significance so soon as it is perceived that the genealogy of each custom, belief, or legend in nearly all cases goes back for its commencing point to some fact in the history of the people which has escaped the notice of the historian. No act of legislation, no known factor in the records of history, can be pointed to as the origin of the practices, beliefs, and traditions of the peasantry, which exist in such great abundance. They are dateless and parentless when reckoned by the facts of civilisation. They are treasured and reverenced, kept secret from Church, law and legislation, handed down by tradition, when reckoned by the facts of peasant life. That these dateless elements in the national culture are also very frequently rude, irrational, and senseless only adds to the significance of their existence and to the necessity of some adequate explanation of that existence being supplied.

No one would pretend that modern civilisation consciously admits within its bounds practices and beliefs like those enshrined in folklore, and few will argue that modern civilisation is an evolution in direct line from such rude originals. The theory that best meets the case is that they are to be identified with the rude culture of ancient Europe, which has been swept over by waves of higher culture from foreign sources, that nearly everywhere the rude culture has succumbed to the force of

these waves, but has nevertheless here and there stood firm.

Now, these being the conditions under which the survivals of ancient customs and beliefs exist, we have to note that they cannot by any possibility develop. Having been arrested in their progress by some outside force, their development ceases. They continue, generation after generation, either in a state of absolute crystallisation or they decay and split up into fragments; they become degraded into mere symbolism or whittled down into mere superstition; they drop back from a position of general use or observance by a whole community into the personal observance of some few individuals, or of a class; they cease to affect the general conduct of the people, and become isolated and secret. Thus in folklore there is no development from one stage of culture to a higher one.

These considerations serve to show how distinctly folklore is marked off from the political and social surroundings in which it is embedded, and all questions as to its origin must therefore be a specific inquiry dealing with all the facts. The answer of the peasant already given shows the road which must be taken for such a purpose. We must travel back from generation to generation of peasant life until a stage is reached where isolated beliefs and customs of the peasantry of to-day are found to occupy a foremost place in tribal or national custom. To do this, the aid of comparative custom and belief must be invoked. As