insist on an occurrence which is familiar to every student of folklore; I only mention it because I have undertaken to point out some of the processes which are known to play a part in moulding tradition, in the hope that others will contribute some more which they have discovered by a careful study of facts.
There are two ways of proceeding in this study. One is to use the historical material that is available. A myth is examined in its successive forms, and from the results we infer the causes. The other is to catch myths actually in the making either by observation or by experiment, as Mr. F. C. Bartlett has done in Folk-Lore for 1920. The two methods are not as different as may seem at first sight; for in both cases we have only the starting point and the finishing point; we must bridge the gap by inference, for we cannot look into people's brains and see what actually happens; but in the second method those gaps are much smaller and the conditions are better known. For the experimental treatment I must refer to Mr. Bartlett's article; it must be remembered, however, that there are conditions which experiment cannot reproduce, such as the pride of old traditions, political or religious bias, and many other influences which affect myths as well as any other kind of history. I have quoted one case of observation from my own experience. There is one process which is comparatively easy to observe, because it is so glaring, and that is the falsifying of tradition; I have known no fewer than four of these makers of legend, including the author of the Moala myth. It is interesting to note that none of them were sound, healthy individuals; unfortunately I was not interested in the matter at the time, I did not study them closely enough to be able to describe accurately their mental types, beyond labelling them more or less abnormal. It remains, however, to be seen how far these myth makers, whether downright liars or merely irresponsibles, really affect tradition; their versions
