preposterous hypothesis of Prof. Max Muller that writing "was not used
for literary purposes in India" before Panini's time (again upon Greek
authority) that matter has been disposed of elsewhere.

---------
* Dr. Weber is not probably aware of the fact that this distinguished
astronomer's name was simply Maya; the prefix "Asura" was often added
to it by ancient Hindu writers to show that he was a Rakshasa. In the
opinion of the Brahmans he was an "Atlantean" and one of the greatest
astronomers and occultists of the lost Atlantis.
---------

Equally unknown are those certain other and most important facts, fable
though they seem. First, that the Aryan "Great War," the Mahabharata,
and the Trojan War of Homer--both mythical as to personal biographies
and fabulous supernumeraries, yet perfectly historical in the main--
belong to the same cycle of events. For the occurrences of many
centuries, among them the separation of sundry peoples and races,
erroneously traced to Central Asia alone, were in these immortal epics
compressed within the scope of single dramas made to occupy but a few
years. Secondly, that in this immense antiquity the forefathers of the
Aryan Greeks and the Aryan Brahmans were as closely united and
intermixed as are now the Aryans and the so-called Dravidians. Thirdly,
that before the days of the historical Rama, from whom in unbroken
genealogical descent the Oodeypore sovereigns trace their lineage,
Rajpootana was as full of direct post-Atlantean "Greeks," as the
post-Trojan, subjacent Cumaea and other settlements of pre-Magna Graecia
were of the fast Hellenizing sires of the modern Rajpoot. One
acquainted with the real meaning of the ancient epics cannot refrain
from asking himself whether these intuitional Orientalists prefer being
called deceivers or deceived, and in charity give them the benefit of
the doubt.*

---------
* Further on, Prof. Weber indulges in the following piece of
chronological sleight of hand. In his arduous endeavour "to determine
accurately" the place in history of "the Romantic Legend of Sakya
Buddha" (translation by Beale), he thinks "the special points of
relation here found to Christian legends are very striking. The
question which party was the borrower Deals properly leaves
undetermined. Yet in all likelihood (!!) we have here simply a similar
case to that of the appropriation of Christian legend by this worshipers
of Krishna" (p. 300). Now it is this that e