ist. Sans. Lit.," p.
501.) To support this theory, he expands the mnemonic faculty of our
respected ancestors to such a phenomenal degree that, like the bull's
hide of Queen Dido, it is made to embrace the whole ground needed for
the proposed city of refuge, to which discomfited savants may flee when
hard pressed. Considering that Professor Weber--a gentleman who, we
observe, likes to distil the essence of Aryan aeons down into an attar
of no greater volume than the capacity of the Biblical period--admits
that Europe now possesses 10,000 of our Sanscrit texts; and considering
that we have, or have had, many other tens of thousands which the
parsimony of Karma has hitherto withheld from the museums and libraries
of Europe, what a memory must have been theirs!

Under correction, I venture to assume that Panini, who was ranked among
the Rishis, was the greatest known grammarian in India, than whom there
is no higher in history, whether ancient or modern; further, that
contemporary scholars agree that the Sanskrit is the most perfect of
languages. Therefore, when Prof. Muller affirms that "there is not a
single word in Panini's terminology which presupposes the existence of
writing" (op. cit. 507), we become a little shaken in our loyal
deference to Western opinion. For it is very hard to conceive how one
so pre-eminently great as Panini should have been incapable of inventing
characters to preserve his grammatical system--supposing that none had
previously existed--if his genius was equal to the invention of
classical Sanskrit. The mention of the word Grantha, the equivalent for
a written or bound book in the later literature of India--though applied
by Panini (in B. I. 3, 75) to the Veda; (in B. iv. 3, 87) to any work;
(in B. iv. 3, 116) to the work of any individual author; and (in B. iv.
3, 79) to any work that is studied, do not stagger Prof. Muller at all.
Grantha he takes to mean simply a composition, and this may be handed
down to posterity by oral communication. Hence, we must believe that
Panini was illiterate; but yet composed the most elaborate and
scientific system of grammar ever known; recorded its 3,996 rules only
upon the molecular quicksands of his "cerebral cineritious matter," and
handed them over to his disciples by atmospheric vibration, i.e., oral
teaching! Of course, nothing could be clearer; it commends itself to
the simplest intellect as a thing most probable! And in the presence of
su