enshrined in the accounts given us by residents and travellers. The mass of data that has not been seen, or very imperfectly seen, that has been misunderstood, or incorrectly recorded, the many pitfalls of omission and commission cause one at times to wonder at the temerity of those who feel confidence in what is termed the comparative method. Were all known, or even the greater part, the confidence might not be misplaced, but in the circumstances great caution is necessary. One is perhaps fairly safe so-to-speak in going from “Dan to Beersheba,” that is in comparisons within a fairly uniform cultural area, but it is quite another matter ranging from “China to Peru.” In this case the only real justification is the possibility that the customs in question may be part of a complex which has travelled over extended areas as an ethnical or a cultural migration. As I referred in my previous Presidential Address to the recent trend of ethnology which is concerned with this problem I need not now enlarge upon it.
In conclusion, one fact stands out prominently, and that is the extreme complexity of our science. The lore of the folk, may seem simple, possibly trivial, to most “superior persons,” but the problems that it opens out to the folklorist are bewildering in their complexity. They cannot be solved, as is too often attempted, by guesses; their significance cannot be satisfactorily explained by mere comparisons; the only sound procedure is by scientific methods, the grammar of the science has to be formulated, and its terms used with precision. A comprehensive study of folklore implies an adequate knowledge of the material, social, and psychical life of the people investigated, of their neighbours, and of all those who may at any time have influenced them. Who is sufficient for these things!
