. . .myths, and alone can account for the barbaric element, that old puzzle, in the myths of civilised races.  This the philological method, useful for other purposes, cannot do, and its central hypothesis can only mislead us.  I was not aware, I repeat, that I ever claimed Professor Tiele’s ‘alliance,’ as he, followed by Mr. Max Müller, declares.  They cannot point, as a proof of an assertion made by Professor Tiele, 1885-86, to words of mine which did not see the light till 1887, in Myth, Ritual, and Religion, i. pp. 24, 43, 44.  Not that I deny Professor Tiele’s statement about my claim of his alliance before 1885-86.  I merely ask for a reference to this claim.  In 1887 {30} I cited his observations (already quoted) on the inadequate and misleading character of the philological method, when we are seeking for ‘the origin of a myth, or the physical explanation of the oldest myths, or trying to account for the rude and obsce. . . Read More