Our method (says Professor Tiele) 'cannot answer all the questions which
the science of mythology must solve, or, at least, must study.' Certainly
it makes no such pretence.
Professor Tiele then criticises Sir George Cox and Mr. Robert Brown,
junior, for their etymologies of Poseidon. Indiscreet followers are not
confined to our army alone. Now, the use of philology, we learn, is to
discourage such etymological vagaries as those of Sir G. Cox. {28b} _We_
also discourage them--severely. But we are warned that philology really
has discovered 'some undeniably certain etymologies' of divine names.
Well, I also say, 'Philology alone can tell whether Zeus Asterios, or
Adonis, or Zeus Labrandeus is originally a Semitic or a Greek divine
name; here she is the Pythoness we must all consult.' {29a} And is it my
fault that, even in this matter, the Pythonesses utter such strangely
discrepant oracles? Is Athene from a Zend root (Benfey), a Greek root
(Curtius), or to be interpreted by Sanskrit Ahana (Max Muller)? Meanwhile
Professor Tiele repeats that, in a search for the origin of myths, and,
above all, of obscene and brutal myths, 'philology will lead us far from
our aim.' Now, if the school of Mr. Max Muller has a mot d'ordre, it is,
says Professor Tiele, 'to call mythology a disease of language.' {29b}
But, adds Mr. Max Muller's learned Dutch defender, mythologists, while
using philology for certain purposes, 'must shake themselves free, of
course, from the false hypothesis' (Mr. Max Muller's) 'which makes of
mythology a mere maladie du langage.' This professor is rather a
dangerous defender of Mr. Max Muller! He removes the very corner-stone
of his edifice, which Tiele does not object to our describing as founded
on the sand. Mr. Max Muller does not cite (as far as I observe) these
passages in which Professor Tiele (in my view, and in fact) abandons (for
certain uses) _his_ system of mythology. Perhaps Professor Tiele has
altered his mind, and, while keeping what Mr. Max Muller quotes, braves
gens, and so on, has withdrawn what he said about 'the false hypothesis
of a disease of language.' But my own last book about myths was written
in 1886-1887, shortly after Professor Tiele's remarks were published
(1886) as I have cited them.