essential element in the development of mythology, and to draw and
utilise the consequences arising from this state of things. [Who has
not?] But, on the other hand, I hold it as quite certain that a
portion of the older myths arose from nature poetry which is no longer
directly intelligible to us, but has to be interpreted by means of
analogies. Nor does it follow that these myths betray any historical
identity; they only testify to the same kind of conception and
tendency prevailing on similar stages of development. Of these nature
myths some have reference to the life and the circumstances of the
sun, and our first steps towards an understanding of them are helped
on by such nature poetry as the Lettish, which has not yet been
obscured by artistic and poetical reflexion. In that poetry mythical
personalities confessedly belonging to a solar sphere are transferred
to a large number of poetical representatives, of which the
explanation must consequently be found in the same (solar) sphere of
nature. My method here is just the same as that applied by me to the
Tree-cult.'

Mr. Max Muller asks, 'Where is there any difference between this, the
latest and final system adopted by Mannhardt, and my own system which I
put forward in 1856?' (1. xxi.)



How Mannhardt differs from Mr. Max Muller


I propose to show wherein the difference lies. Mannhardt says, 'My
method is just the same as that applied by me to the Tree-cult.' What
was _that_ method?