e community are not, as was thought by Sir Henry
Maine and others, homogeneous. There the dual element appears, the
tribal community at the top of the system, the village community at
the bottom of the system. But in India a new factor is introduced by
the equation of the two elements with two different races--the tribal
element being Aryan, and the village element non-Aryan. Race-origins
are there still kept up and rigidly adhered to. They have not been
crushed out, as in Europe, by political or economical activity.

But if crushed out of prominent recognition in Europe, are we,
therefore, to conclude that their relics do not exist in peasant
custom? My argument is that we cannot have such close parallels in
India and in England without seeing that they virtually tell the same
story in both countries. It would require a great deal to prove that
customs, which in India belong now to non-Aryan aborigines and are
rejected by the Aryans, are in Europe the heritage of the Aryan race.

The objections to my theory have been formulated by Mr. Ashley, who
follows Mr. Seebohm and M. Fustel de Coulanges as an adherent of the
chronological method of studying institutions. Like the old school of
antiquaries, this new school of investigators into the history of
institutions gets back to the period of Roman history, and there
stops. Mr. Ashley suggests that because Caesar describes the Celtic
Britons as pastoral, therefore agriculture in Britain must be
post-Celtic. I will not stop to raise the question as to who were the
tribes from which Caesar obtained his evidence. But it will suffice to
point out that if Caesar is speaking of the Aryan Celts of Britain--and
this much seems certain--he only proves of them what Tacitus proves of
the Aryan Teutons, what the sagas prove of the Aryan Scandinavians,
what the vedas prove of the Aryan Indians, what philology, in short,
proves of the primitive Aryans generally, namely, that they were
distinctly hunters and warriors, and hated and despised the tillers
of the soil.

It does not, in point of fact, then, help the question as to the
origin of agricultural rites and usages to turn to Aryan history at
all. In this emergency Roman history is appealed to. But this is just
one of those cases where a small portion of the facts are squeezed in
to do duty for the whole.

Both M. Fustel de Coulanges and Mr. Seebohm think that if a Roman
origin can be _prima facie_ shown for the economical side of