Page:Barlaam and Josaphat. English lives of Buddha.djvu/81

Rh resemblance in the central idea (ω) does not prove derivation, but that resemblance in the details (a, b, c, d, &c.) does do so. Thus, if two stories be represented by the formulae ω + a + b + c + d and ω + e + f + g + h, we cannot conclude that the latter is derived from the former. The method is not so rigid or so objective as M. Bédier imagines. There is a good deal of elasticity and possibility of subjective preference in his to. But be that as it may, on the present occasion we have a state of affairs which has not been contemplated in M. Bédier's scheme. The ω is different, while some of the details are the same. We get the formulæ —

Yggdrasil = ω + a + b + c + d + e + f Man in Well = ξ + a + b + c + d + g + h

If the central idea had been in both cases the same there could be no doubt as to the derivative character of the myth of Yggdrasil, according to M. Bédier's method and formula. As it is, we are met by a state of affairs which, so far as I can observe, has not been contemplated by M. Bédier, and various interpretations will be given to the resemblance of details by various people. For myself, I am inclined