ch a perfect hypothesis, it seems a pity that its author should (op.
cit. 523) confess that "it is possible" that he "may have overlooked
some words in the Brahmanas and Sutras, which would prove the existence
of written books previous to Panini." That looks like the military
strategy of our old warriors, who delivered their attack boldly, but
nevertheless tried to keep their rear open for retreat if compelled.
The precaution was necessary: written books did exist many centuries
before the age in which this radiant sun of Aryan thought rose to shine
upon his age. They existed, but the Orientalist may search in vain for
the proof amid the exoteric words in our earlier literature. As the
Egyptian hierophants had their private code of hieratic symbols, and
even the founder of Christianity spoke to the vulgar in parables whose
mystical meaning was known only to the chosen few, so the Brahmans had
from the first (and still have) a mystical terminology couched behind
ordinary expressions, arranged in certain sequences and mutual
relations, which none but the initiate would observe. That few living
Brahmans possess this key but proves that, as in other archaic religious
and philosophical systems, the soul of Hinduism has fled (to its primal
imparters--the initiates), and only the decrepit body remains with a
spiritually degenerate posterity.*

-------
* Not only are the Upanishads a secret doctrine, but in dozens of other
works as, for instance, in the Aitareya Aranyaka, it is plainly
expressed that they contain secret doctrines, that are not to be
imparted to any one but a Dwija (twice-born, initiated) Brahman.
--------

I fully perceive the difficulty of satisfying European philologists of a
fact which, upon my own statement, they are debarred from verifying. We
know that from the present mental condition of our Brahmans. But I hope
to be able to group together a few admitted circumstances which will
aid, at least, to show the Western theory untenable, if not to make a
base upon which to rest our claim for the antiquity of Sanskrit writing.
Three good reasons may be adduced in support of the claim--though they
will be regarded as circumstantial evidence by our opponents.

I.--It can be shown that writing was known in Phoenicia from the date of
the acquaintance of Western history with her first settlements; and
this may be dated, according to European figures, 2760 B.C., the age of
the Tyrian settlement.

II.--Our