118 

NATURE 
| une 15, 1871 

on the controversy between the upholders of the two 
theories of development and degradation, of whom Sir J. 
Lubbock and the Duke of Argyll are among the latest 
representatives. “The master-key,” he well observes, 
“to the investigation of man’s primeval condition is held 
by pre-historic archzeology. This key is the evidence of | 
the Stone Age, proving that men of remotely ancient 
ages were in the savage state.” While he shows, how- 
ever, that the study of archzeology has gradually cut away 
the ground under the feet of those who, like Archbishop 
Whately and the Duke of Argyll, appear to consider that 
civilisation was originally created in a state of happy 
mediocrity, from which it has since more frequently fallen 
than risen, he is careful at the same time to recognise the 
agency of degradation as secondary only to that of pro- 
gress. One circumstance in connection with this argu- 
ment has perhaps hardly been sufficiently considered by 
the advocates of either side. The distribution of man- 
kind over the face of the globe is an event for the most 
part belonging to pre-historic ages, but it is quite clear in 
some cases, and strongly probable in many others, that 
the occupation of new territories widely divided by the 
sea from the earlier inhabited portions of the world, was 
the result of seafaring disaster ; that, in fact, the first 
denizens of many islands, and perhaps of some continents, 
were the shipwrecked crews of primeval canoes, cut off 
from further intercourse with their countrymen, destitute 
of all the materials and appliances of such rude culture as 
they may once have possessed, and ignorant of even the 
primitive industrial arts necessary to utilise them even if 
they were at hand. Under such circumstances—and a 
consideration of the actual distribution of mankind in 
historic times countenances the supposition that the 
contingency must have occurred over and over again— 
the march of degradation must have been certain and 
swift; and even allowing that in the case of mariners 
belonging to a somewhat advanced tribe, the degradation 
might be only temporary, the event would account for at 
least some portion of the diversity which is only less 
striking than the uniformity perceptible-in the various 
civilisations of the world. Be this, however, as it may, 
the entire evidence available on the subject fully bears out 
Mr. Tylor’s conclusion, that “‘throughout the whole vast 
range of the history of human thought and habit, while 
civilisation has to contend not only with survivals from lower 
levels, but also with degeneration within its own borders, it 
yet proves capable of overcoming both and taking its own 
course. History within its proper field, and Ethnology 
over a wide range, combine to show that the institutions 
which can best hold their own in the world gradually 
supersede the less fit ones, and that this incessant conflict 
determines the general resultant course of culture. 
The next two chapters are devoted to “Survival in 
Culture,” the strange permanence in the midst of a higher 
civilisation of certain customs, arts, opinions, &c., long 
after the real and earnest meaning has died out of them, 
which in a lower stage commended them to acceptance. 
Among these metamorphic remains of an earlier world are 
many, if not most, of the games, rhymes, proverbs, riddles, 
and minor social customs of civilised peoples, A notable 
instance is to be found in archery. “Ancient and wide- 
spread in savage culture, we trace the bow and arrow 
through barbaric and classic life and onward to a high 

medizeval level. But now, when we look at an archery 
meeting, or go by country lanes when toy bows and ar- 
rows are ‘in’ among the children, we see, reduced to a mere 
sportive survival, the ancient weapon which, among a few 
savage tribes, still keeps its deadly place in the hunt and 
the battle.” Inanother passage Mr. Tylor remarks: “the 
practice of poisoning arrows after the manner of stings 
and serpents’ fangs is no civilised device, but a charac- 
teristic of lower life, which is generally discarded, even at 
the barbaric stage.” Perhaps one of the most striking 
instances of linguistic survival is to be found in the word 
“intoxication,” derived from “‘toxicon,” the material em- 
ployed for poisoning the arrow. Among other instances 
of survival, Mr. Tylor quotes the custom of casting lots. 
It is noteworthy that both Wesley and Whitfield in certain 
cases employed this means of ascertaining what they con- 
sidered the Divine will, and that even yet many English- 
men are to be found who attach under certain circum- 
stances the old sacred significance to the process. That 
the theory of survival suggested by Mr. Tylor does really 
account for nearly all the otherwise utterly unaccountable 
customs and ways in vogue among civilised nations, will 
not be doubted by anyone who has taken the trouble to 
trace their history in any considerable number of cases. 
It is not, for example, many years since the present Lord 
Leigh was accused 6f having built an obnoxious person 
—one account, if we remember right, said eight obnoxious 
persons—into the foundation of a bridge at Stoneleigh. 
Of course so preposterous a charge carried on its face its 
own sufficient refutation ; but the fact that it was brought 
at all is a singular instance of the almost incredible vitality 
of old traditions. The real origin of a story such as this 
dates from a time when the foundations of bridges, 
palaces, and temples were really laid upon human 
victims, a practice the tradition of which is handed 
down to us in the Romance of Merlin, and a thousand 
other legends old and new, to be finally embalmed for the 
benefit of posterity in Mr. Tylor’s volumes. The most 
telling, however, of all Mr. Tylor’s instances of survival 
are those which bear upon the history of modern 
spiritualism. 
“ Beside the question,” he observes, “of the absolute 
truth or falsity of the alleged possessions, manes-oracles, 
doubles, brain-waves, furniture movings, and the rest, 
there remains the history of spiritualistic belief as a 
matter of opinion. Hereby it appears that the received 
spiritualistic theory of the alleged phenomena belongs to 
the philosophy of savages.” 
This conclusion may possibly astonish and even 
“exercise” the spirits of some of the faithful; but as- 
suredly it is abundantly borne out by the evidence 
adduced, which parallels with most afflicting minuteness 
the various phenomena of spiritualism from medizval story 
and tales of witchcraft, from classic fable and ecclesiastic 
miracle, from Chinese divination and Indian divinity, 
from the feats of North American mountebanks, the 
hocus-pocus of the angekoks in Greenland, the juggleries 
of the Siberian shamans. Even this array of evidence, 
however, is but a fraction of what might be produced. 
Mr. Tylor quotes Lucian’s Hyperborean, who flew and 
walked on the water clad in undressed leather breeks, 
and who by the way is possibly only an allotropic form of 
our own Regnar Lodbrok; but he spares us that other 
