believes the details have been independently developed" (Folklorist, i, 177). It is clear that if I have misunderstood Mr. Lang, I have done so in good company. He will doubtless be deeply grateful to M. Cosquin and myself for giving him occasion to combat so widespread an error.
But is it an error? Is it not rather an essential adjunct of Mr. Lang's anthropological method of dealing with folktales to hold that the savage elements have existed everywhere, and that therefore the tales that embody them could have arisen anywhere independently? If the stories have been imported into civilised countries, the savage element in them cannot prove anything as to the primitive conceptions of those civilised lands, and the anthropological value of folk-tales is nil. I have already urged this objection in these columns (Folk-Lore, ii, 125), and I was not convinced by Mr. Hartland's reply in his Chairman's Address at the Congress. Mr. Lang seemingly yields his whole position in granting the probabilities of diffusion by borrowing, and we would like to know how far he has been convinced against his will.
It was mainly for this reason that I have urged the necessity of attacking the problem of diffusion first, as, till that is solved, the anthropological use of the stories is unjustified. Mr. Lang rebukes me, good humouredly enough, for not recognising his merits in pointing out the savage origin of the unnatural incidents of folk-tales. I willingly do so, though a word should be said for the interesting savage parallels drawn before Mr, Lang, by Mr. J. A. Farrer, in his Primitive Manners and Customs[1] But in emphasising these savage elements Mr. Lang has, in my opinion, diverted attention from the real nature of folk-tales, and the true method of dealing with him. By laying stress on the savage ideas in folktales Mr. Lang has associated them with myths and
- ↑ Mr. Farrer is equally agnostic on the problem of Diffusion, Prim. Man., pp. 282-3
