fancies, habits, desires--that causes the amazing similarity of their
myths.

Mythologists, then, who find in early human nature the living ideas which
express themselves in myths will hardily venture to compare the analogous
myths of all peoples. Mythologists, on the other hand, who find the
origin of myths in a necessity imposed upon thought by misunderstood
language will necessarily, and logically, compare only myths current
among races who speak languages of the same family. Thus, throughout Mr.
Max Muller's new book we constantly find him protesting, on the whole and
as a rule, against the system which illustrates Aryan myths by savage
parallels. Thus he maintains that it is perilous to make comparative use
of myths current in languages--say, Maori or Samoyed--which the
mythologists confessedly do not know. To this we can only reply that we
use the works of the best accessible authorities, men who do know the
languages--say, Dr. Codrington or Bishop Callaway, or Castren or Egede.
Now it is not maintained that the myths, on the whole, are incorrectly
translated. The danger which we incur, it seems, is ignorance of the
original sense of savage or barbaric divine or heroic names--say, Maui,
or Yehl, or Huitzilopochhtli, or Heitsi Eibib, or Pundjel. By Mr. Max
Muller's system such names are old words, of meanings long ago generally
lost by the speakers of each language, but analysable by 'true scholars'
into their original significance. That will usually be found by the
philologists to indicate 'the inevitable Dawn,' or Sun, or Night, or the
like, according to the taste and fancy of the student.

To all this a reply is urged in the following pages. In agreement with
Curtius and many other scholars, we very sincerely doubt almost all
etymologies of old proper names, even in Greek or Sanskrit. We find
among philologists, as a rule, the widest discrepancies of