Page:Myth, Ritual, and Religion (Volume 1).djvu/13

 relies on the reports brought by learned translators and commentators from these literatures; while in treating of the lower and the American peoples, the reports of missionaries, travellers, historians, commentators, and occasionally of great compilations like Mr. Bancroft's, are employed in the same way. The authorities, I think, are usually acknowledged in the notes; nor, of course, does one pretend to decide upon the differences of the learned. An attempt is made to state these differences, and my own bias is probably manifest enough in each instance. Where the philological interpretation of proper names is concerned (especially in the chapter on Greek Gods), I see little just now to warrant any decided opinion.

I have endeavoured to keep controversy about Method as much as possible within the bounds of an Appendix to volume ii., but probably have not always avoided the temper of polemics.

A book like this would be practically impossible without the learned labours of men like Preller, Lobeck, Maspero, Roscher (with his allies in his great and valuable Ausführliches Lexikon, now (1887) in course of publication), Muir, Max Müller, Bergaigne, and many others whose names frequently recur.

In revising the proof-sheets, I have had the kind assistance of Mr. E. B. Tylor for part of the American chapters; of M. Charles Michel (Professeur à la Faculté des Lettres de Gand) for the chapters on India; of