mythology a mere maladie du langage.' This professor is rather a
dangerous defender of Mr. Max Muller! He removes the very corner-stone
of his edifice, which Tiele does not object to our describing as founded
on the sand. Mr. Max Muller does not cite (as far as I observe) these
passages in which Professor Tiele (in my view, and in fact) abandons (for
certain uses) _his_ system of mythology. Perhaps Professor Tiele has
altered his mind, and, while keeping what Mr. Max Muller quotes, braves
gens, and so on, has withdrawn what he said about 'the false hypothesis
of a disease of language.' But my own last book about myths was written
in 1886-1887, shortly after Professor Tiele's remarks were published
(1886) as I have cited them.



Personal Controversy


All this matter of alliances may seem, and indeed is, of a personal
character, and therefore unimportant. Professor Tiele's position in 1885-
86 is clearly defined. Whatever he may have published since, he then
accepted the anthropological or ethnological method, as _alone_ capable
of doing the work in which we employ it. This method alone can discover
the origin of ancient myths, and alone can account for the barbaric
element, that old puzzle, in the myths of civilised races. This the
philological method, useful for other purposes, cannot do, and its
central hypothesis can only mislead us. I was not aware, I repeat, that
I ever claimed Professor Tiele's 'alliance,' as he, followed by Mr. Max
Muller, declares. They cannot point, as a proof of an assertion made by
Professor Tiele, 1885-86, to words of mine which did not see the light
till 1887, in Myth, Ritual, and Religion, i. pp. 24, 43, 44. Not that I