The Prehistoric Gods IOI methods and results of Comparative Mythology. In the long run prehistoric reconstructions, infer- ences, analogies, and guesses do not find favor with certain types of mind. Of course, it is safer to re- strict one's self; to analyse and describe the history of each Indo-European people by itself; and to refrain from speculating about their connection in a remote past. Is it not better to stay at home, each trained scholar in his own philology, rather than to ride out towards points on the broad and dim horizon which bounds the more or less hypothetical Indo-European community, to chase after something that may turn out to be a mirage? So it has transpired that what bid fair once upon a time to grow into an important branch of historical science is now by some ignored, if not pooli-poohed. The writings of many great scholars during the last fifty years or more are now declared by some to be ready to be wiped off the slate. It is but fair to note that the same critics who are sceptical about Comparative Mythology are, as a rule, inclined also to doubt the explanations of myths that are restricted to a single people. It seems to be a matter of temperament, this dislike to search after origins, after final explanations, after resolving chords, as it were. Here also they prefer to treat a myth at its face value, as story, fancy, poem, and nothing more. Now all this sounds very
