-.-:-u»:af

Tho Prehistoric Goals on

methods and rooults of Comparative Mythology. In tho long run prehistoric reconstructiono, infor- oncos, analogies, and guesses do not find favor with certain types: of mind. Of courso, it is safer to ro- strict ono's solf ; to analyse: and describe: the history of onch Inclonliuroponn pooplo by itsolf; and to rofmin from speculating about their connection in n romoto past. Is it not bottor to stay at immc, onch trained scholar in his own philology, rather than to ride out towards points on the broad and dim horizon which hounds tho moro or loss hypothetical IndoEuropcan community, to chose nftcr something that may turn out to be a. mimgo P So it has transpired that What bid fair once upon a. timo to grow into on important branch of historical SCiGIlCC is now by some ignored, if not poohpoohod. Tho writings of many great scholars during the last fifty years: or more: are now doclorod by some to bc randy to be wiped off the slate. It is but fair to note that the same critics who are sceptical about Comparative Mythology are, as o rule, inclined also to doubt the explanations of myths that are restricted to a single people. It seems to ho a matter of temperament, this dislike to Search after origins, after final explanations, after resolving chords, as it were. Hero also they prefer to treat a myth at its face value, as story, fancy, poem, and nothing more. Now all this sounds very