Mr. J. F. McLennan. To Mannhardt also much is owed, and, of course,
above all, to Dr. Tylor. These writers, like Mr. Farnell and Mr. Jevons
recently, seek for the answer to mythological problems rather in the
habits and ideas of the folk and of savages and barbarians than in
etymologies and 'a disease of language.' There are differences of
opinion in detail: I myself may think that 'vegetation spirits,' the
'corn spirit,' and the rest occupy too much space in the systems of
Mannhardt, and other moderns. Mr. Frazer, again, thinks less of the
evidence for Totems among 'Aryans' than I was inclined to do. {7} But it
is not, perhaps, an overstatement to say that explanation of myths by
analysis of names, and the lately overpowering predominance of the Dawn,
and the Sun, and the Night in mythological hypothesis, have received a
slight check. They do not hold the field with the superiority which was
theirs in England between 1860 and 1880. This fact--a scarcely deniable
fact--does not, of course, prove that the philological method is wrong,
or that the Dawn is not as great a factor in myth as Mr. Max Muller
believes himself to have proved it to be. Science is inevitably subject
to shiftings of opinion, action, and reaction.

Mr. Max Muller's Reply

In this state of things Mr. Max Muller produces his Contributions to the
Science of Mythology, {8} which I propose to criticise as far as it is,
or may seem to me to be, directed against myself, or against others who
hold practically much the same views as mine. I say that I attempt to
criticise the book 'as far as it is, or may seem to me to be, directed
against' us, because it is Mr. Max Muller's occasional habit to argue
(apparently) _around_ rather than _with_ his opponents. He says 'we are
told this or that'--something which he does not accept--but he often does
not inform us as to _who_ tells us, or where. Thus a reader does not
know whom Mr. Max Muller is opposing, or where he can find the
adversary's own statement in his own words. Yet it is usual in such
cases, and it is, I think, expedient, to give chapter and verse.
Occasionally I find that Mr. Max Muller is honouring me by alluding to
observations of my own, but often no reference is given to an opponent's
name or books, and we discover the passages in question by accident or
research. This method will be found to cause certain inconveniences.

THE STORY OF DAPHNE

Mr. Max Muller's Method i