he too becomes supreme in many Vedic hymns, and is actually introduced as disputing the supremacy of Varuna, can Zeus be said to have been originally the same as Varuna and Ahura Mazda.

The same scholar who thus attempts to identify Varuna and Zeus, does not shrink from identifying the Vedic Dyaus with the Greek Ouranos. Where would this lead to? By all means let us study how Dyaus and Zeus, Varuna and Ouranos, starting from common centres, did arrive at such widely distant points that the Vedic Dyaus should on some points resemble the Greek Ouranos, while the Vedic Varuna resembles the Greek Zeus. That is a study worthy of a true historian and a true psychologist.

However wide apart Dyaus and Zeus and Jupiter may be and on some points they are almost diametrically opposed to each other-we know as a matter of historical certainty that one unbroken thread holds them together, and that, if only we follow that thread far enough, it will lead us on to the true vital germ, namely the original name, out of which the whole entangled growth of Jovian mythology arose. It might have been said with perfect truth by an orthodox Roman that the Homeric Zeus was not his Jupiter, and yet neither his native Jupiter nor the foreign Zeus could have been fully understood, unless they were traced back to a common origin. Nor does it make any difference to us, if we are told that the Roman Jupiter and the Greek Zeus must have been the same god, because the Roman youth believed them to be so. If that faith had been founded on true etymological studies, the case would be different. But that was impossible in the time of

Cato and Varro. The mere teaching of Greek schoolmasters and philosophers that their Greek gods were the same as the Roman gods was wrong, even where it was right. It was accidentally right in the case of Zeus and Jupiter, it was accidentally wrong in the case of Demeter and Ceres, Poseidon and Neptunus. The same process of mythological and religious compromise may be watched at present among the Himalayan hill tribes. On more than one occasion,' as Mr. Oldham writes (Contemp. Rev., March, 1885), 'I have heard wandering religious devotees assure the people of a village that their Deota (godhead) was identical with Siva or some other orthodox divinity. The rustics are flattered to find their god is so famous, and are persuaded without much difficulty to adopt the new title.' Of course, if there is a similarity in name or in character between the two deities, the process of amalgamation becomes all the easier.

But to say that because Ouranos embraces the Earth, therefore he is not Varuna, but Dyaush-pitâ, the husband of Prithivî mâta, would be a kind of reasoning1 which would identify the planet Budha (Mercury) with Buddha, the prophet, because both have nearly the same name. Si duo faciunt idem, non sunt iidem, ought to be a fundamental principle of comparative mythology, whether etymological, historical, or psychological, while, if we only go back far enough, the fundamental principle of our science will never mislead us, viz. idem nomen, idem numen.

I see that M. Darmesteter himself, in his Notes Additionelles, has modified this statement. 'Cette répartition,' he says, 'n'a pas cependant été absolue.'

1II. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCHOOL. (VÖLKER-PSYCHOLOGIE.) We now have to consider a third school of Comparative Mythologists, which declares itself entirely independent both of etymology and analogy, and which nevertheless seems to me to have rendered most excellent service to the students of mythology. The followers of that school do not confine themselves to the study of the mythology of one linguistic family only, whether Aryan, Semitic, African, Australian, American, etc., but they consider the mythological stage as a necessary phase in the psychological growth of man in every part of the world, and therefore look for analogies, not only where the common origin of nations and languages possessing certain myths in common has been proved, but where no such relationship seems possible. This study has been cultivated with great success during the last fifty years, and is generally known on the Continent as a branch of Völker-psychologie. I have often been blamed, both for having been too enthusiastic an advocate and for having been too critical a judge of this new branch of mythological research, but I can plead Not Guilty to both these charges.

Advantages in England: India, Colonies, Missionary Societies.

Living in England, I naturally tried to avail myself of the splendid opportunities which this country offers for linguistic and ethnological studies. India, to me the most interesting of all countries in the world, is now divided from England by a three weeks' journey only, and through a number of eminent Englishmen who spend their lives in India, and a number of promising young men whom India sends to be educated

in England, there is now so close an intercourse between the East and the West, that at Oxford, for instance, it is almost as easy to study the language, manners, and customs of the Veddahs as of the Gaels.

Besides India, there are the Colonies, and there is. or, at all events, there ought to be, no difficulty in obtaining through the Colonial Office any information that could be of use for the study of civilised or uncivilised tribes from Canada to New Guinea.

Lastly, there is the wonderful net which Missionary enterprise has spread from England over the whole world, and which might so usefully be employed, not only for its own most excellent purpose, but likewise for gathering valuable information for the proper study of mankind.

Though I have often had to complain of the small encouragement which ethnological researches receive in England, where they ought to flourish and abound, I feel bound to express my sincere gratitude for the kindness and the intelligent interest with which the Directors of the old East-India Company, and the authorities at the India Office, the Colonial Office, and the Missionary Societies have listened to my constant and sometimes, no doubt, somewhat impatient appeals.

In India much has been done, not only for the study of its ancient classical literature and the exploration of its antiquities, but likewise for studying the numerous living dialects, collecting legends, registering customs, studying religions and superstitions. The publication of the Rig-veda, the oldest book of the Aryan race, in six quarto volumes, and the series of translations of the Sacred Books of the East,

entrusted to my editorship, bear sufficient witness that my appeals for help have not always been in vain.

If I have been less successful in stimulating ethnological research in the Colonies, it has not been altogether my fault. At one time I thought indeed that the first step at least had been made. During Lord Granville's tenure of office an official invitation was sent to all the Colonies, requesting all who took an interest in the history of native races, to collect their languages, to note down their religious practices, their customs and laws, to describe their antiquities, their idols, their weapons and tools, and to send accounts to the Colonial Office in London. The invitation was well responded to, and my hope was that these papers, after careful examination, might have been published from time to time as Ethnological Records of the English Colonies.' But alas, a new king arose which knew not Joseph. The papers were either allowed to accumulate in forgotten pigeon-holes, or were handed over to some learned societies, and under the cold water that was persistently poured upon it, the scheme that had been started with every prospect of success was finally extinguished. Languages which have lived for thousands of years are now allowed to die out without being recorded; laws dating from the first beginnings of social organisation are forgotten; religious customs which might have thrown light on many a dark page in the history of other religions, become extinct before our eyes, because the official correspondence became troublesome to the permanent staff of the Colonial Office, and because the expenditure of a few thousand pounds was considered too extravagant for preserving the historical records of