Allies or Not?


These are several of the passages on which, in 1887, I relied as evidence
of the Professor's approval, which, I should have added, is only partial
It is he who, unsolicited, professes himself 'much more our ally than our
adversary.' It is he who proclaims that Mr. Max Midler's central
hypothesis is erroneous, and who makes 'no objection' to my idea that it
is 'builded on the sand.' It is he who assigns essential merits to our
method, and I fail to find that he 'strongly declines the honour' of our
alliance. The passage about 'braves gens' explicitly does not refer to
us.



Our Errors


In 1887, I was not careful to quote what Professor Tiele had said against
us. First, as to our want of novelty. That merit, I think, I had never
claimed. I was proud to point out that we had been anticipated by
Eusebius of Caesarea, by Fontenelle, and doubtless by many others. We
repose, as Professor Tiele justly says, on the researches of Dr. Tylor.
At the same time it is Professor Tiele who constantly speaks of 'the new
school,' while adding that he himself had freely opposed Mr. Max Muller's
central hypothesis, 'a disease of language,' in Dutch periodicals. The
Professor also censures our 'exclusiveness,' our 'narrowness,' our 'songs
of triumph,' our use of parody (M. Gaidoz republished an old one, not to
my own taste; I have also been guilty of 'The Great Gladstone Myth') and
our charge that our adversaries neglect ethnological material. On this I