his opinion, the 'army' _is_ really victorious; if he cites the
acquiescence in my opinion that _his_ mythological house is 'builded on
the sands,' or Professor Tiele's preference for our method over his own,
or Professor Tiele's volunteered remark that he is 'much more our ally
than our adversary,' I have not detected the passages in Contributions to
the Science of Mythology.

The reader may decide as to the relative importance of what I left out,
and of what Mr. Max Muller omitted. He says, 'Professor Tiele and I
differ on several points, but we perfectly understand each other, and
when we have made a mistake we readily confess and correct it' (i. 37).

The two scholars, I thought, differed greatly. Mr. Max Muller's war-cry,
slogan, mot d'ordre, is to Professor Tiele 'a false hypothesis.' Our
method, which Mr. Max Muller combats so bravely, is all that Professor
Tiele has said of it. But, if all this is not conspicuously apparent in
our adversary's book, it does not become me to throw the first stone. We
are all, in fact, inclined unconsciously to overlook what makes against
our argument. I have done it; and, to the best of my belief, Mr. Max
Muller has not avoided the same error.




MANNHARDT


Mannhardt's Attitude