borrowed, but it does not follow that because the literary method fails us that the problem is insoluble.
It will be noted that most of the folklorists to whom I have referred, as well as others who have not been mentioned, were concerned with folk-tales, and certainly it seemed very difficult at that time to explain the wide distribution of some of the tales. The reason for this may perhaps be found in the fact that most of these folklorists were pre-occupied with European folklore. When towards the end of 1889 I first became acquainted with anthropologists and folklorists, I found that with very few exceptions not only were they studying in what were virtually watertight compartments, but some of them, at all events, had very little knowledge of or interest in cognate branches of study. It soon became evident to me that these barriers would have to be broken through if reasonable generalisations were to be formulated. As Sir Laurence Gomme was constantly emphasising, folk-tales and other traditional lore are only a part of any culture, and while it is necessary to deal with every special subject in an intensive manner, it is equally necessary to study the other components of that culture.
It appears that the main reason for the collapse of those who held the view that widely-spread similar stories had been disseminated was that they had not at their disposal an adequate mechanism of dispersal. It seemed almost incredible how apparently the same tale could have found its way into remote parts of the earth and be retold by peoples of diverse races and distinct linguistic stocks, most of whom could never have been in contact with the others. In some cases an explanation might be sought in the swapping of stories by traders and travellers, as a result of the impact of war or the more peaceful penetration of missionaries—Buddhist, Muhammadan, and others—indeed I have pointed out that even so-called savages may carry on a propaganda. But even these modes of dispersal did
