"The evidence of language is irrefragable," as the great Oxford Sanskritist says. To which he is answered--"provided it does not clash with historical facts and ethnology." It may be--no doubt it is, as far as his knowledge goes--"the only evidence worth listening to with regard to ante-historical periods;" but when something of these alleged "prehistorical periods" comes to be known, and when what we think we know of certain supposed prehistoric nations is found diametrically opposed to his "evidence of language," the "Adepts" may be, perhaps, permitted to keep to their own views and opinions, even though they differ with those of the greatest living philologist. The study of language is but a part--though, we admit, a fundamental part--of true philology. To be complete, the latter has, as correctly argued by Bockt, to be almost synonymous with history. We gladly concede the right to the Western philologist, who has to work in the total absence of any historical data, to rely upon comparative grammar, and take the identification of roots lying at the foundation of words of those languages he is familiar with, or may know of, and put it forward as the result of his study, and the only available evidence. But we would like to see the same right conceded by him to the student of other races; even though these be inferior to the European races, in the opinion of the paramount West: for it is barely possible that, proceeding on other lines, and having reduced his knowledge to a system which precludes hypothesis and simple affirmation, the Eastern student has preserved a perfectly authentic record (for him) of those periods which his opponent regards as ante-historical. The bare fact that, while Western men of science are referred to as "scholars" and scholiasts--native Sanskritists and archeologists are often spoken of as "Calcutta" and "Indian sciolists"--affords no proof of their real inferiority, but rather of the wisdom of the Chinese proverb that "self-conceit is rarely companion to politeness." The "Adept" therefore has little, if anything, to do with difficulties presented by Western history. To his knowledge--based on documentary records from which, as said, hypothesis is excluded, and as regards which even psychology is called to play a very secondary part--the history of his and other nations extends immeasurably beyond that hardly discernible point that stands on the far-away horizon of the Western world as a landmark of the commencement of its history. Records made throughout a series of ages, based on astronomical chronology and zodiacal calculations, cannot err. (This new "difficulty"-- palaeographical, t his time--that may be possibly suggested by the mention of the Zodiac in India and Central Asia before the Christian era, is disposed of in a subsequent article.)