These two tales furnish a remarkable example, it seems to me, of coincidence, of similar features appearing at different times and under different conditions. In the preceding examples of similarities,-in the Brer Rabbit stories, for example, we have seen a definite means of contact and the proof is beyond question. There is also contact shown in the distribution of the Magic Flight cycle of myths, which can probably be traced to a single origin. In the present case, however, the absence of any known possibility of physical contact, and the great stretch of country, barren of this myth, between the two regions, all seem to point to independent origins. This is negative evidence, to be sure, and this type of argument is always lacking in cogency. The ideas of the sun being identified in some way with the father, of its being carried or driven, and the movement of the sun from the east to the zenith as an up-hill road, and from zenith to west as a down-hill road, are not difficult to arrive at. The coincidences of customs as well as of myths are too well known to deny diverse origins in many cases.

In the search for explanation for similarities of ideas of objects, both dissemination and independent invention are needed. Historical backgrounds show dissemination over wide areas. A lack of historical background does not always imply a lack of dissemination. But where tales, ideas, customs, are found in widely separated areas with no possibility of contact, it is possible, it seems to me, to admit the probability of independent origin. The history of inventions is full of identities of this character, and yet the late Dr. Rivers denied in my presence the possibility of more than a single origin, a single invention, of even the bow and arrow. And

wherever the bow and arrow are found, they are to be traced back to the single source. Man's mind is too fertile, it seems to me, to deny similar inventions among two or more distinct peoples.

THE CRITERIA OF PROGRESS

The application to the modern world of some of these theories will be considered next. There is no "one-way street" to cultural development. There are many ave

nues along which the different civilizations have travelled. There are varied values placed on many factors at different times and by diverse peoples. This brings numerous dilemmas into the discussion of the criteria of "progress."

It seems quite evident that there has been little or no progress or advance in man's physical body since the end of Palæolithic times. There has been, if anything, a degeneration. This is seen in the teeth and in the eyes.

When the progress of civilization is to be considered there is need first of all to determine what we mean by progress. If progress is defined as the increase of man's ability to control nature, the advance of man has been continuous since the earliest days of his history. But there are other factors to consider.

Graham Wallas writes, "Fifty years ago the practical men who were bringing the Great Society into existence thought, when they had time to think at all, that they were thereby offering an enormously better existence to the whole human race. Men were rational beings, and, having obtained limitless power over nature, would certainly use it for their good. . . . Now, however, that the change has come, hardly anyone thinks of it with the old undoubting enthusiasm. . . . The deeper anxiety of

our time arises from a doubt, more or less clearly realized, whether that development is itself proceeding on right lines." 19

Specialization in the modern world is often thought of as progress, the specialized workman in the specialized industry, the specialized scientist. Our forefathers and primitive man before them specialized in nothing. The industrial, the economic, and the social life centered for the most part in the family. The modern division of labor and the interdependence of the various parts of society were unknown. Specialization in the physical world is not progress. The specialized type of jaw of the anthropoid ape, the arms of the gibbon for locomotion, the prehensile tail of the monkey, the specialized type of leg of the wading birds, are only a few examples. In the long period of time separating man from his nearest ancestors, the general organization of his body resulted in many changes, and in two respects he came out specialized, his legs for walking and his brain for thought. In many respects he is the least differentiated of all the primates. Specialization in the physical sense means rigidity. If the races of men were developed on the physical side along lines of specialization, such as is found in the animal world, we might expect to find watch-makers with fingers tapering to the finest point, and the blacksmith with a hammer-like appendage in place of one of his hands. But man's mental capacity enables him to develop limbs extraneous to his body, or, in other words, tools, and this ability is at the foundation of his industrial and social life. It is a question how far specialization in the social sense can go without bringing its own downfall. Hos un pys

Has the tremendous increase of knowledge bre

a

about by this specialization been accompanied by a corresponding increase in man's intellectual faculties? The answer is undoubtedly, No. Galton attempted in his Hereditary Genius, published in 1869, and in his later papers, to determine the places the various races held in the intellectual scale by counting the proportion of the number of men of genius discoverable in each race. In spite of certain fallacies in his theory, the results are instructive at this time. He found that the English were rated two grades lower than the Fifth Century Athenian. Let us consider next the question of some of the socalled "finer things of life." We are certainly not now at the apex of man's achievement in art and music. The most sublime art is produced neither by our generation nor by the Anglo-Saxon people, and certainly the most beautiful music is a product foreign to our time. Nothing need be said of modern literature. The ethical conduct of the present world is a subject for discussion on every hand. Granting different standards of ethics for different peoples, and assuming that ethical conduct is tested by the ability of each people to live up to the standards of its own race, primitive man certainly committed fewer breaches of his ethical code than modern

man.

We have admitted an increase in the control of man over nature, but what of this increase when human nature is considered? "Harmonious co-ordination among members of a group," "social harmony," "behavioristic equilibrium," have been advanced as some of the criteria of progress. If these are used as our test, there is very little we can call progress.

The marked improvement during the last few generations in the care of the poor, the sick, and the feeble

minded, is distinctly an advance from the point of view of altruism. Granting to all social workers the sincerity of their efforts, the public as a whole is made to support these works of charity often by an appeal to selfishness; the better care of the sick is to prevent one from contracting a disease either by contagion or through inheritance; the amelioration of the condition of poverty is to prevent social unrest, and attempts to content the laborer with conditions as he finds them.

There are some efforts at the present time which can be considered as free from the charge of selfishness for their incentive; child labor is but one of these. The slow progress made in passing child-labor laws is but an indication of the far from progressive attitude of a portion, at least, of our population.

In the discussion of our immigration laws, there is much talk about "America a refuge for the oppressed," but a careful analysis of the motives of both factions reveals in one a desire for cheap labor and in the other an attempt to keep up the prices of labor.

It is not my intention to deny most creditable results on both the physical and the spiritual side to many of these efforts, but the point remains that their initiation and support can be traced in many cases to self-interest. The mere fact that the many agencies of social welfare are needed is in itself a reflection on the kind of progress we have in this generation. There is no doubt that from a purely physical standpoint the results are sometimes questionable. The mentally defective and the weakling are kept alive and allowed to perpetuate themselves to the detriment of the race. Galton writes, "Our human stock is far more weakly through congenital imperfection than that of any species of animals whether do