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 in Controversy

As an illustration of the author’s controversial methods, take his observations on my alleged attempt to account for the metamorphosis of Daphne into a laurel tree.  When I read these remarks (i. p. 4) I said, ‘Mr. Max Muller vanquishes me there,’ for he gave no reference to my statement.  I had forgotten all about the matter, I was not easily able to find the passage to which he alluded, and I supposed that I had said just what Mr. Max Muller seemed to me to make me say—­no more, and no less.  Thus: