author's use of the word todtschweigen, that this uncharitable charge was
made in Germany.



Mannhardt


Mannhardt, for a time, says Mr. Max Muller, 'expressed his mistrust in
some of the results of comparative mythology' (1. xvii.). Indeed, I
myself quote him to that very effect. {42b} Not only '_some_ of the
results,' but the philological method itself was distrusted by Mannhardt,
as by Curtius. 'The failure of the method in its practical working lies
in a lack of the historical sense,' says Mannhardt. {42c} Mr. Max Muller
may have, probably has, referred to these sayings of Mannhardt; or, if he
has not, no author is obliged to mention everybody who disagrees with
him. Mannhardt's method was mainly that of folklore, not of philology.
He examined peasant customs and rites as 'survivals' of the oldest
paganism. Mr. Frazer applies Mannhardt's rich lore to the explanation of
Greek and other rites in The Golden Bough, that entrancing book. Such
was Mannhardt's position (as I shall prove at large) when he was writing
his most famous works. But he 'returned at last to his old colours' (1.
xvii.) in Die lettischen Sonnenmythen (1875). In 1880 Mannhardt died.
Mr. Max Muller does not say whether Mannhardt, before a decease deeply
regretted, recanted his heretical views about the philological method,
and his expressed admiration of the study of the lower races as 'an
invaluable instrument.' One would gladly read a recantation so
important. But Mr. Max Muller does tell us that 'if I did not refer to
his work in my previous contributions to the science of mythology the
reason was simple enough. It was not, as has been suggested, my wish to