the Buddhist propaganda sowed them broadcast. This, at least, as I understand it, is the old orthodox opinion of scholars who dispute the anthropological hypothesis. We shall all regret to think that we are not (as we hoped) to have among us to-day, in the person of M. Cosquin, the most illustrious of these scholars. Whether we agree with him or not, we all recognise in his writings a most valuable contribution to the science of folk-lore; and though we cannot hear from his lips, we shall at least have the advantage of hearing in his own words presently, a fresh exposition of his opinions. This will be the more interesting since many of us have been accustomed to think that the pressure of controversy of late years has broken up the Buddhist faith. Heretics have been found who mingle its purity with the streams of Egyptian, and even of Jewish, tradition. For as the area of research widens, we doubt more and more that folk-tales found in the remotest corners of the earth have all sprung from one centre within a measurable historical period. It has, therefore, been practically abandoned by most of its defenders in this country. But the anthropological hypothesis is not left in possession of the field. That hypothesis attributes the origin of folk-tales, as of every other species of tradition, to the constitution of the human mind. A similar environment acting upon the mind will everywhere produce similar results. And it is the variations of the environment, both physical and social, as well the moral and material products of civilisation as the natural features of the earth, its fauna and flora, which give rise to the variety of stories all presenting perpetual coincidences, and all evolved from a few leading ideas common to the race. The birthplace of any story is, therefore, impossible to determine; for no story has any one birthplace. There is no story but has been evolved in one form or other wherever in the whole world the environment has been favourable.
I am putting a broad statement of the theory, purposely putting it without qualification or reserve; and I do not now pause to ask whether any student of folk-lore would accept it stated thus baldly. For the moment I am only concerned to contrast it as far as possible with the counter-theory I am going to state. This counter-theory accepts the results of the controversies over the theories of the Aryan philologists and the Buddhist scholars. It
