Again, Greek or German myths were usually to be interpreted by comparison
with myths in the Rig Veda. Their origin was to be ascertained by
discovering the Aryan root and original significance of the names of gods
and heroes, such as Saranyu--Erinnys, Daphne--Dahana, Athene--Ahana. The
etymology and meaning of such names being ascertained, the origin and
sense of the myths in which the names occur should be clear.

Clear it was not. There were, in most cases, as many opinions as to the
etymology and meaning of each name and myth, as there were philologists
engaged in the study. Mannhardt, who began, in 1858, as a member of the
philological school, in his last public utterance (1877) described the
method and results, including his own work of 1858, as 'mainly failures.'

But, long ere that, the English cultivated public had, most naturally,
accepted Mr. Max Muller as the representative of the school which then
held the field in comparative mythology. His German and other foreign
brethren, with their discrepant results, were only known to the general,
in England (I am not speaking of English scholars), by the references to
them in the Oxford professor's own works. His theories were made part of
the education of children, and found their way into a kind of popular
primers.

For these reasons, anyone in England who was daring enough to doubt, or
to deny, the validity of the philological system of mythology in general
was obliged to choose Mr. Max Muller as his adversary. He must strike,
as it were, the shield of no Hospitaler of unsteady seat, but that of the
Templar himself. And this is the cause of what seems to puzzle Mr. Max
Muller, namely the attacks on _his_ system and _his_ results in
particular. An English critic, writing for English readers, had to do