ve to account for those numberless gaps in history which no
hypotheses of theirs seem able to fill up. Notwithstanding their
present profound ignorance with regard to the early ancestry of the
Indo-European nations, and though no historian has yet ventured to
assign even a remotely approximate date to the separation of the Aryan
nations and the origins of the Sanskrit language, they hardly show the
modesty that might, under these circumstances, be expected from them.
Placing as they do that great separation of the races at the first "dawn
of traditional history," with the Vedic age as "the background of the
whole Indian world" (of which confessedly they know nothing), they will,
nevertheless, calmly assign a modern date to any of the Rik-vedic oldest
songs, on its "internal evidence;" and in doing this, they show as
little hesitation as Mr. Fergusson when ascribing a post-Christian age
to the most ancient rockcut temple in India, merely on its "external
form." As for their unseemly quarrels, mutual recriminations, and
personalities over questions of scholarship, the less said the better.

"The evidence of language is irrefragable," as the great Oxford
Sanskritist says. To which he is answered--"provided it does not clash
with historical facts and ethnology." It may be--no doubt it is, as far
as his knowledge goes--"the only evidence worth listening to with regard
to ante-historical periods;" but when something of these alleged
"prehistorical periods" comes to be known, and when what we think we
know of certain supposed prehistoric nations is found diametrically
opposed to his "evidence of language," the "Adepts" may be, perhaps,
permitted to keep to their own views and opinions, even though they
differ with those of the greatest living philologist. The study of
language is but a part--though, we admit, a fundamental part--of true
philology. To be complete, the latter has, as correctly argued by
Bockt, to be almost synonymous with history. We gladly concede the
right to the Western philologist, who has to work in the total absence
of any historical data, to rely upon comparative grammar, and take the
identification of roots lying at the foundation of words of those
languages he is familiar with, or may know of, and put it forward as the
result of his study, and the only available evidence. But we would like
to see the same right conceded by him to the student of other races;
even though these be inferior to the