All this matter of alliances may seem, and indeed is, of a personal
character, and therefore unimportant. Professor Tiele's position in 1885-
86 is clearly defined. Whatever he may have published since, he then
accepted the anthropological or ethnological method, as _alone_ capable
of doing the work in which we employ it. This method alone can discover
the origin of ancient myths, and alone can account for the barbaric
element, that old puzzle, in the myths of civilised races. This the
philological method, useful for other purposes, cannot do, and its
central hypothesis can only mislead us. I was not aware, I repeat, that
I ever claimed Professor Tiele's 'alliance,' as he, followed by Mr. Max
Muller, declares. They cannot point, as a proof of an assertion made by
Professor Tiele, 1885-86, to words of mine which did not see the light
till 1887, in Myth, Ritual, and Religion, i. pp. 24, 43, 44. Not that I
deny Professor Tiele's statement about my claim of his alliance before
1885-86. I merely ask for a reference to this claim. In 1887 {30} I
cited his observations (already quoted) on the inadequate and misleading
character of the philological method, when we are seeking for 'the origin
of a myth, or the physical explanation of the oldest myths, or trying to
account for the rude and obscene element in the divine legends of
civilised races.' I added the Professor's applause of the philological
method as applied to other problems of mythology; for example, 'the
genealogical relations of myths. . . . The philological method alone can
answer here,' aided, doubtless, by historical and archaeological
researches as to the inter-relations of races. This approval of the
philological method, I cited; the reader will find the whole passage in
the Revue, vol. xii. p. 260. I remarked, however, that this will seem 'a
very limited province,' though, in this province, 'Philology is the
Pythoness we must all consult; in this sphere she is supreme, when her
high priests are of one mind.' Thus I did not omit to notice Professor
Tiele's comments on the _merits_ of the philological method. To be sure,
he himself does not apply it when he comes to examine the Myth of Cronos.
'Are the God and his myth original or imported? I have not approached
this question because it does not seem to me ripe in this particular
case.' {31a} 'Mr. Lang has justly rejected the opinion of Welcker and
Mr. Max Muller, that Cronos is simply formed from Zeus's epithet,
[Greek].' {31b} This opinion, however, Mr. Max Muller still thinks the
'most likely' (ii. 507).
My other citation of Professor Tiele in 1887 says that our pretensions
'are not unacknowledged' by him, and, after a long quotation of approving
passages, I add 'the method is thus _applauded_ by a most competent
authority, and it has been _warmly accepted_' (pray note the distinction)
by M. Gaidoz. {31c} I trust that what I have said is not unfair.
Professor Tiele's objections, not so much to our method as to our
manners, and to my own use of the method in a special case, have been
stated, or will be stated later. Probably I should have put them forward
in 1887; I now repair my error. My sole wish is to be fair; if Mr. Max
Muller has not wholly succeeded in giving the full drift of Professor
Tiele's remarks, I am certain that it is from no lack of candour.