'My method is here the same as in the Tree-cult. I start from a given
collection of facts, of which the central idea is distinct and generally
admitted, and consequently offers a firm basis for explanation. I
illustrate from this and from well-founded analogies. Continuing from
these, I seek to elucidate darker things. I search out the simplest
radical ideas and perceptions, the germ-cells from whose combined growth
mythical tales form themselves in very different ways.'
Mr. Frazer gives us a similar description of Mannhardt's method, whether
dealing with sun myths or tree myths. {46} 'Mannhardt set himself
systematically to collect, compare, and explain the living superstitions
of the peasantry.' Now Mr. Max Muller has just confessed, as a reason
for incompetence to criticise Mannhardt's labours, 'my want of knowledge
of the materials with which he dealt--the popular customs and traditions
of Germany.' And yet he asks where there is any difference between his
system and Mannhardt's. Mannhardt's is the study of rural survival, the
system of folklore. Mr. Max Muller's is the system of comparative
philology about which in this place Mannhardt does not say one single
word. Mannhardt interprets some myths 'arising from nature poetry, no
longer intelligible to us,' by _analogies_; Mr. Max Muller interprets
them by _etymologies_.
The difference is incalculable; not that Mannhardt always abstains from
etymologising.