Further, in biology, we define “vestiges” as organs which were once active and essential, but which in process of evolution have become of very secondary or of negligible importance; their functions may have changed, but in true vestiges their function has become obsolete. They are relics of a vanished utility which have not yet been eliminated from the organism.
If these definitions be accepted it seems to be a necessary corollary that the lore of the folk belongs more to the latter category than to the former. A large proportion of the usages and beliefs classed as folklore certainly do not retain the individuality and functions which they once had, in this sense they are not survivals. They are attenuated, broken-down, and, so far as the folk are concerned, practically meaningless phenomena. They are functions which have had their day, but which still persist, partly by means of the inertia of the mind of the folk, but mainly because they evoke certain pleasurable sensations, such for example, as the satisfaction which is experienced when carrying on what is known or felt to be traditional, as is expressed in such a phrase as, “as we have done before.”
They thus more or less unconsciously strengthen a feeling of solidarity between the ages. The socialising effects of conjoint action whether in simple rite or play are true psychological survivals, attenuated they may be, but they still belong to the same category as those which permeated the social act when it was an important function of the community. It may be taken for granted that the persistence of almost any action or idea is due to the fact that it more or less satisfies some need, and thus from the point of view of psychology it may be regarded as a survival. On the other hand we now recognise that many elements in folklore are disrupted customs or parts only of culture complexes, which formerly were what might be described as “going concerns,” but now they
