thology of Greece, we see that the same rule holds
good. Metamorphosis into plants and flowers is extremely common,' and I,
of course, attributed the original idea of such metamorphoses to 'the
general savage habit of "levelling up,"' of regarding all things in
nature as all capable of interchanging their identities. I gave, as
classical examples, Daphne, Myrrha, Hyacinth, Narcissus, and the sisters
of Phaethon. Next I criticised Mr. Max Muller's theory of Daphne. But I
never hinted that the isolated Mangaian story of Tuna, or the stories of
plants sprung from mangled men, 'accounted,' by themselves, 'for the
story of Daphne.'

Mr. Max Muller is not content with giving a very elaborate and
interesting account of how the story of Tuna arose (i. 5-7). He keeps
Tuna in hand, and, at the peroration of his vast work (ii. 831), warns us
that, before we compare myths in unrelated languages, we need 'a very
accurate knowledge of their dialects . . . to prevent accidents like that
of Tuna mentioned in the beginning.' What accident? That I explained
the myth of Daphne by the myth of Tuna? But that is precisely what I did
not do. I explained the Greek myth of Daphne (1) as a survival from the
savage mental habit of regarding men as on a level with stones, beasts,
and plants; or (2) as a tale 'moulded by poets on the same model.' {11}
The latter is the more probable case, for we find Daphne late, in
artificial or mythographic literature, in Ovid and Hyginus. In Ovid the
river god, Pentheus, changes Daphne into a laurel. In Hyginus she is not
changed at all; the earth swallows her, and a laurel fills her place.

Now I really did believe--perhaps any rapid reader would have
believed--when I read Mr. Max Muller, that I must have tried to account
for the story of Daphne by the story of Tuna. I actually wrote in the
first draft of this work that I had been in the wrong. Then I verified
the reference which my critic did not give, with the result which the
reader has perused. Never could a reader have found out what I did
really say from my critic, for he does not usually when he deals with me
give chapter and verse. This may avoid an air of personal bickering, but
how inconvenient it is!

Let me not be supposed to accuse Mr. Max Muller of consciously
misrepresenting me. Of that I need not say that he is absolutely
incapable. My argument merely took, in his consciousness, the form which
is suggested in the passage cited