(i. 24, 25) I cited his agreement with me in the opinion that 'the
philological method' (Mr. Max Muller's) is 'inadequate and misleading,
when it is a question of discovering the origin of a myth.' I also
quoted his unhesitating preference of ours to Mr. Max Muller's method (i.
43, 44). I did not cite a tithe of what he actually did say to our
credit. But I omitted to quote what it was inexcusable not to add, that
Professor Tiele thinks us 'too exclusive,' that he himself had already,
before us, combated Mr. Max Muller's method in Dutch periodicals, that he
blamed our 'songs of triumph' and our levities, that he thought we might
have ignorant camp-followers, that I glided over important questions
(bees, blood-drops, stars, Melian nymphs, the phallus of Ouranos, &c.),
and showed scientific inexactitude in declining chercher raison ou il n'y
en a pas.

None the less, in Professor Tiele's opinion, our method is new (or is
_not_ new), illuminating, successful, and _alone_ successful, for the
ends to which we apply it, and, finally, we have shown Mr. Max Muller's
method to be a house builded on the sand. That is the gist of what
Professor Tiele said.

Mr. Max Muller, like myself, quotes part and omits part. He quotes twice
Professor Tiele's observations on my deplorable habit of gliding over
important questions. He twice says that we have 'actually' claimed the
Professor as 'an ally of the victorious army,' 'the ethnological students
of custom and myth,' and once adds, 'but he strongly declined that
honour.' He twice quotes the famous braves gens passage, excepting only
M. Gaidoz, as a scholar, from a censure explicitly directed at our
possible camp-followers as distinguished from ourselves.

But if Mr. Max Muller quotes Professor Tiele's remarks proving that, in