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 every Hindu and Buddhist has
the right to brand as “dishonesty,” whether conscious or unconscious. 
Legends originate earlier than history and die out upon being sifted. 
Neither of the fabulous events in connection with Buddha’s birth, taken
exoterically, necessitated a great genius to narrate them, nor was the
intellectual capacity of the Hindus ever proved so inferior to that of
the Jewish and Greek mob that they should borrow from them even fables
inspired by religion.   How their fables, evolved between the second and
third centuries after Buddha’s death, when the fever of proselytism and
the adoration of his memory were at their height, could be borrowed and
then appropriated from the Christian legends written during the first
century of the Western era, can only be explained by a German
Orientalist.   Mr. T.W.  Rhys Davids (Jataka Book) shows the contrary to
have been true.   It may be remarked in this connection that, while the
first “miracles” of both Krishna and Christ are said to have happened at
a Mathura, the latter city exists to this day in India—­the antiquity of
its name being fully proved—­while the Mathura, or Matures in Egypt, of
the “Gospel of Infancy,” where Jesus is alleged to have produced his
first miracle, was sought to be identified, centuries ago, by the stump
of an old tree in thee desert, and is represented by an empty spot!
----------

What can be thought of Prof.  Weber’s endeavour when, “to determine more accurately the position of Ramayana (called by him the ’artificial epic’) in literary history,” he ends with an assumption