legend, if it stood alone, might be called into question. But, besides other studies of Mr. Hartland's, which I am happy to think will soon be published in a collected form, this Godiva study stands alongside of Mr. Clodd's Rumpelstiltskin, Mr. Lang's interpretation of Grimm's stories, Mr. Nutt's discussion of the Holy Grail legend. But all these can be true only if all the branches of folk-lore tend towards the same direction. Folk-tale, legend, and saga cannot point one way, while folk-custom and belief point another way; and I would go further, and say that one section of either of these groups cannot point one way if all other sections point in the opposite direction. In a word, I believe that the results of folk-lore are scientific results.
If, therefore, practical agreement about the elements of folk-lore, or on the vital question of origins, does not in general obtain, either of two results must happen. We must amend our definition of the object and scope of our science, or we must go in for a delimitation of boundaries (rather a popular thing to do just now), and surrender to other branches of research some important material, hitherto reckoned as belonging to folk-lore. Of the two alternatives, I personally would prefer delimitation, as being by far the most scientific; but I shall not consider these "hateful" alternatives any further, because I believe that in the bulk of the phenomena sanctioned by tradition we have along with the uniformity of the sanction practical uniformity of origin.
This brings me very near to a dangerous topic, which cannot be altogether ignored. Does literature produce folk-lore? or, rather, has it produced folk-lor ? I do not mean to say that absolutely no modern traditional tales are literary in origin; I only deny that any great group of genuine peasant tradition is literary in origin. And I further qualify this denial by saying that it does not apply so much to the present age, which is the age of literature, not of tradition.
