deny Professor Tiele's statement about my claim of his alliance before
1885-86. I merely ask for a reference to this claim. In 1887 {30} I
cited his observations (already quoted) on the inadequate and misleading
character of the philological method, when we are seeking for 'the origin
of a myth, or the physical explanation of the oldest myths, or trying to
account for the rude and obscene element in the divine legends of
civilised races.' I added the Professor's applause of the philological
method as applied to other problems of mythology; for example, 'the
genealogical relations of myths. . . . The philological method alone can
answer here,' aided, doubtless, by historical and archaeological
researches as to the inter-relations of races. This approval of the
philological method, I cited; the reader will find the whole passage in
the Revue, vol. xii. p. 260. I remarked, however, that this will seem 'a
very limited province,' though, in this province, 'Philology is the
Pythoness we must all consult; in this sphere she is supreme, when her
high priests are of one mind.' Thus I did not omit to notice Professor
Tiele's comments on the _merits_ of the philological method. To be sure,
he himself does not apply it when he comes to examine the Myth of Cronos.
'Are the God and his myth original or imported? I have not approached
this question because it does not seem to me ripe in this particular
case.' {31a} 'Mr. Lang has justly rejected the opinion of Welcker and
Mr. Max Muller, that Cronos is simply formed from Zeus's epithet,
[Greek].' {31b} This opinion, however, Mr. Max Muller still thinks the
'most likely' (ii. 507).

My other citation of Professor Tiele in 1887 says that our pretensions
'are not unacknowledged' by him, and, after a long quotation of approving
passages, I add 'the method is thus _applauded_ by a most competent
authority, and it has been _warmly accepted_' (pray note the distinction)
by M. Gaidoz. {31c} I trust that what I have said is not unfair.