ture by studying the non-historical but actual, instead of the
historical but mythical, portions of Universal History. And this they
have achieved, they believe (at any rate with a few of their querists),
by simply showing, or rather reminding them, that since no historical
fact can stand as such against the "assumption" of the "Adepts"--
historians being confessedly ignorant of pre-Roman and Greek origins
beyond the ghostly shadows of the Etruscans and Pelasgians--no real
historical difficulty can be possibly involved in their statement. From
objectors outside the Society, the writers neither demand nor do they
expect mercy. The "Adept" has no favours to ask at the hands of
conjectural science, nor does he exact from any member of the "London
Lodge" blind faith: it being his cardinal maxim that faith should only
follow inquiry. The "Adept" is more than content to be allowed to
remain silent, keeping what he may know to himself, unless worthy
seekers wish to share it. He has so done for ages, and can do so for a
little longer. Moreover, he would rather not "arrest attention" or
"command respect" at present. Thus he leaves his audience to first
verify his statements in every case by the brilliant though rather
wavering light of modern science: after which his facts may be either
accepted or rejected, at the option of the willing student. In short,
the "Adept"--if one indeed--has to remain utterly unconcerned with, and
unmoved by, the issue. He imparts that which it is lawful for him to
give out, and deals but with facts.

The philological and archeological "difficulties" next demand attention.

Philological and Archeological "Difficulties"

Two questions are blended into one. Having shown the reasons why the
Asiatic student is prompted to decline the guidance of Western History,
it remains to explain his contumacious obstinacy in the same direction
with regard to philology and archeology. While expressing the sincerest
admiration for the clever modern methods of reading the past histories
of nations now mostly extinct, and following the progress and evolution
of their respective languages, now dead, the student of Eastern
occultism, and even the profane Hindu scholar acquainted with his
national literature, can hardly be made to share the confidence felt by
Western philologists in these conglutinative methods, when practically
applied to his own country and Sanskrit literature. Three facts, at
least,