These two Orientalists are instances, because they are accepted beacons of philology and Indian paleography.  Our national monuments are dated and our ancestral history perverted to suit their opinions; the pernicious evil has ensued, that as a result History is now recording for the misguidance of posterity the false annals and distorted facts which, upon their evidence, will be accepted without appeal as the outcome of the fairest and ablest critical analysis.  While Prof.  Max Muller will hear of no other than a Greek criterion for Indian chronology, Prof.  Weber (op. cit.) finds Greek influence—­his universal solvent—­in the development of India’s religion, philosophy, literature, astronomy, medicine, architecture, &c.  To support this fallacy the most tortuous sophistry, the most absurd etymological deductions are resorted to.  If one fact more than another has been set at rest by comparative mythology, it is that their fundamental religious ideas, and most of their gods, were derived by the Greeks from religions flourishing in the north-west of India, the cradle of the main Hellenic stock.  This is now entirely disregarded, because a disturbing element in the harmony of the critical spheres.  And though nothing is more reasonable than the inference that the Grecian astronomical terms were inherited equally from the parent stock, Prof.  Weber would have us believe that “it was Greek influence that just infused a real life into Indian astronomy” (p. 251).  In fine, the hoary ancestors of the Hindus borrowed their astronomical terminology and learnt the art of star gazing and even their zodiac from the Hellenic infant!  This proof engenders another:  the relative antiquity of the astronomical texts shall be henceforth determined upon the presence or absence in them of asterisms and zodiacal signs, the former being undisguisedly Greek in their names, the latter are “designated by their Sanskrit names which are translated from the Greek” (p. 255).  Thus “Manu’s law being unacquainted with the planets,” is considered as more ancient than Yajnavalkya’s Code, which “inculcates their worship,” and so on.  But there is still another and a better test found out by the Sanskritists for determining with “infallible accuracy” the age of the texts, apart from asterisms and zodiacal signs any casual mention in them of the name “Yavana,” taken in every instance to designate the “Greeks.”  This, apart “from an internal chronology based on the character of the works themselves, and on the quotations, &c., therein contained, is the only one possible,” we are told.  As a result the absurd statement that “the Indian astronomers regularly speak of the Yavanas as their teachers” (p. 252).  Ergo, their teachers were Greeks.  For with Weber and others “Yavana” and “Greek” are convertible terms.