Muller's own words, written long ago, _he_ expressed his dread, not of
'everything becoming everything' (a truly Heraclitean state of affairs),
but of the 'omnipresent Sun and the inevitable Dawn appearing in ever so
many disguises.' 'Have we not,' he asks, 'arrived both at the same
conclusion?' Really, I do not know! Had Mannhardt quite cashiered 'the
corn-spirit,' who, perhaps, had previously threatened to 'become
everything'? He is still in great vigour, in Mr. Frazer's Golden Bough,
and Mr. Frazer is Mannhardt's disciple. But where, all this time, is
there a reference by Mannhardt to 'the general principles of comparative
philology'? Where does he accept 'the omnipresent Sun and the inevitable
Dawn'? Why, he says the reverse; he says in this letter that he is
immeasurably removed from accepting them at all as Mr. Max Muller accepts
them!

'I am very far from looking upon all myths as psychical reflections of
physical phenomena, still less as of exclusively solar or meteorological
phenomena, like Kuhn, Schwartz, Max Muller and their school.' What a
queer way of expressing his agreement with Mr. Max Muller!

The Professor expostulates with Mannhardt (1. xx.):--'Where has any one
of us ever done this?' Well, when Mannhardt said '_all_ myths,' he wrote
colloquially. Shall we say that he meant 'most myths,' 'a good many
myths,' 'a myth or two here and there'? Whatever he meant, he meant that
he was 'still more than very far removed from looking upon all myths' as
Mr. Max Muller does.

Mannhardt's next passage I quote entire and textually from Mr. Max
Muller's translation:--

'I have learnt to appreciate poetical and literary production as an