Here ends this 'Gentle and Joyous Passage of Arms.' I showed, first, why
anthropological students of mythology, finding the philological school
occupying the ground, were obliged in England to challenge Mr. Max
Muller. I then discoursed of some inconveniences attending his method in
controversy. Next, I gave a practical example, the affair of Tuna and
Daphne. This led to a comparison of the philological and the
anthropological ways of treating the Daphne myth. The question of our
allies then coming up, I stated my reasons for regarding Prof. Tiele
'rather as an ally than an adversary,' the reason being his own
statement. Presently, I replied to Prof. Tiele's criticism of my
treatment of the myth of Cronos. After a skirmish on Italian fields, I
gave my reasons for disagreeing with Mr. Max Muller's view of Mannhardt's
position. His theory of Demeter Erinnys was contrasted with that of Mr.
Max Muller. Totemism occupied us next, and the views of Mr. Max Muller
and Mr. J. G. Frazer were criticised. Then I defended anthropological
and criticised philological evidence. Our method of universal comparison
was next justified in the matter of Fetishism. The Riddle Theory of Mr.
Max Muller was presently discussed. Then followed a review of our
contending methods in the explanation of Artemis, of the Fire-walk, of
Death Myths, and of the Fire-stealer. Thus a number of points in
mythological interpretation have been tested on typical examples.
Much more might be said on a book of nearly 900 pages. Many points might
be taken, much praise (were mine worth anything) might be given; but I
have had but one object, to defend the method of anthropology from a
running or dropping fire of criticism which breaks out in many points all
along the line, through Contributions to the Science of Mythology. If my
answer be desultory and wandering, remember the sporadic sharpshooting of
the adversary! For adversary we must consider Mr. Max Muller, so long as
we use different theories to different results. If I am right, if he is
wrong, in our attempts to untie this old Gordian knot, he loses little
indeed. That fame of his, the most steady and brilliant light of all
which crown the brows of contemporary scholars, is the well-earned
reward, not of mythological lore nor of cunning fence in controversy, but
of wide learning and exquisitely luminous style.
I trust that I have imputed no unfairness, made no charge of conscious
misrepresentation (to accidents of exposition we are all liable), have
struck no foul blow, hazarded no discourteous phrase. If I have done so,
I am thereby, even more than in my smattering of unscholarly learning, an
opponent more absolutely unworthy of the Right Hon. Professor than I
would fain believe myself.