Thus writes Professor Tiele about the constructive part of our work. As
to the destructive--or would-be destructive--part, he condenses my
arguments against the method of comparative philology. 'To resume, the
whole house of comparative philological mythology is builded on the sand,
and her method does not deserve confidence, since it ends in such
divergent results.' That is Professor Tiele's statement of my
destructive conclusions, and he adds, 'So far, I have not a single
objection to make. I can still range myself on Mr. Lang's side when he'
takes certain distinctions into which it is needless to go here. {27}
Allies or Not?
These are several of the passages on which, in 1887, I relied as evidence
of the Professor's approval, which, I should have added, is only partial
It is he who, unsolicited, professes himself 'much more our ally than our
adversary.' It is he who proclaims that Mr. Max Midler's central
hypothesis is erroneous, and who makes 'no objection' to my idea that it
is 'builded on the sand.' It is he who assigns essential merits to our
method, and I fail to find that he 'strongly declines the honour' of our
alliance. The passage about 'braves gens' explicitly does not refer to
us.