TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION H. 695 
we had better not attempt to picture that! The mere addition of a simple, strut- 
lke support between the free end of the ‘neck’ and the ‘body’ would have 
obviated this difficulty and rendered the instrument relatively efficient and 
unyielding to varying tension. And yet, even in Western Europe, this seemingly 
obvious and invaluable addition did not appear, as far as I can ascertain, until 
about the seventh or eighth century 4.D.; and even then it seems to have been 
added somewhat half-heartedly, and a very long time had yet to elapse before the 
fore-pillar became an integral part of the framework and was allotted its due pro- 
portion in the general design. 
I have purposely selected this particular series for my illustration, not because 
it is something new—indeed, it is already more or less familiar, and may be has 
even some merit in its lack of newness, since, in accordance with a popular dictum, 
it may urge a greater claim to be regarded as true—nor because it is specially 
striking, but rather for the reason that it illustrates suitably several of the points 
upon which I wish briefly to touch. Even in the severely condensed form 
in which I have been obliged to present this series of developments from bow to 
harp, there is, I think, demonstrated the practical application of several of the 
general principles upon which is based the theory whereby Colonel Lane Fox 
sought to elucidate the phenomena of human progress. 
A series of this kind serves, in the first place, to demonstrate that the absence 
of historical and archeological evidence of the actual continuity in development 
from simple to complex does not preclude investigations into the early history of 
any product of human ingenuity, nor prevent the formation of a suggestive and 
plausible if largely hypothetical series, illustrating the probable chain of sequences 
along which some highly specialized form may be traced back link by link to its 
rudimentary prototypes, or even to its absolute origin, which in this particular 
instance is the ordinary shooting bow temporarily converted into a musical 
instrument. Where an actual chronological series is not forthcoming, a compara- 
tive study of such types as are available, even though they be modern examples, 
reveals the fact that, if classified according to their apparent morphological 
affinities, these types show a tendency to fall into line, the gap between the 
extreme forms—that is, the most simple and the most advanced—hbeing filled by a 
succession of intermediate forms, more or less completely linked together, accord- 
ing to the number of varieties at our disposal. We are thus, at any rate, in 
possession of a sequence series. Is it unreasonable for us to conclude that this 
reflects, in great measure, the actual chronological sequence of variations through 
which in past times the evolutionary history of the instrument was effected from 
the earliest rudimentary form ? 
It is difficult to account at all for the existence of many of the forms such as I 
have briefly described, except on the supposition that they are survivals from more 
or less early stages in a series of progressive evolution ; and, for myself, I do not 
believe that so inefficient and yet so elaborate an instrument as, to take an 
example, the harp of ancient Egypt, Assyria, and India could have come into 
being by any sudden inventive process, by ‘ spontaneous generation,’ as it were, to 
use a biological term; whereas, the innate conservatism of the human species, 
which is most manifest among the lower and more primitive races (I use the term 
conservatism, I need hardly say, in a non-political sense) amply accounts for such 
forms having been arrived at, since the rigid adherence to traditional types is a 
prevailing characteristic of human culture, and only admits of improvement by 
very slight and gradual variations upon existing forms. The difficulty expe- 
rienced by man in a primitive condition of culture of emancipating himself from 
the ideas which have been handed down to him, except by a very gradual and 
lengthy process, causes him to exert somewhat blindly his efforts in the direction 
of progress and often prevents his seeing very obvious improvements, even when 
they are seemingly forced upon his notice. For instance, the early Egyptian, 
Assyrian, and Greek harps, as I have already stated, were destitute of a fore- 
pillar, and this remained the case for centuries, in spite of their actually existing 
in an environment of other instruments, such as the lyre and trigonon, which in 
their rigid, unyielding frames possessed and even paraded the very feature which 
