Clearly our author formed his conception of the man-god with great skill, and fitted it into his general scheme with all the care and precision he was capable of. On this elaboration of the self-consciousness of Krishna he concentrated all his intellectual and imaginative powers. And with what unequalled success! Could any greater compliment be paid an author than to have sixty generations of cultured readers take the creation of his mind for a transcript from history? * * * * * The masses of evidence we have marshalled to prove that Krishna never claimed to be God, may be briefly summarised as follows:— 1. The situation in which the _Gītā_ is said to have been uttered at once strikes the historical student as suspicious: one can scarcely believe that there was ever a battle in which such a thing could have taken place; and, on the other hand, it makes such an excellent background to the theory of Action Yoga, that one cannot help believing that it was invented for the very purpose. Further investigation leads to the following results:— 2. The characteristic religious and philosophical ideas of the _Gītā_ are not found in any books produced immediately after the age of Kurukshetra. If we start with the teaching of that age, we have to trace the stages of a long and clearly-marked development before we reach the ideas of the _Gītā_. 3. The diction of the _Gītā_ is not the Vedic Sanskrit of the early _Brāhmanas_ (which are the literature of the period following Kurukshetra), but belongs to a very much later stage of the language. 4. The fact that the _Gītā_ is not _sruti_, but _smriti_, proves that it comes neither from Krishna, nor from the time of Kurukshetra. 5. Krishna Devakiputra is known in the later Vedic literature as a man, and in the Sūtra literature as a hero or demi-god, but never as the supreme being. 6. The fact that there is not a single reference in the whole of the Vedic literature, nor yet in the Sūtra literature, to Krishna as the incarnation of Brahma, makes it impossible for us to believe that at the battle of Kurukshetra he claimed to be such. 7. The fact that there was no revival or reformation of religion in the age of Kurukshetra proves that God was not incarnated then. Footnote 1: The philosophic basis of the book is primarily the _Sānkhya_ system which is essentially atheistic. Footnote 2: Dr. Lorinser’s attempt (_Die Bhagavadgītā_, übersetzt und erläutert von Dr. F. Lorinser, 1869) to prove that the author of the _Gītā_ borrowed many ideas from the Bible must be pronounced a failure. _Cf._ Garbe, 19, 83-85; Max Müller, _Natural Religion_, 97-100; Hopkins, _R. I._, 429. Footnote 3: On the religion of the _Rigveda_ see Kaegi, 27-74; Hopkins, _R. I._, Chaps. II-VI; Macdonell, 67-115; Bose, _H.C._, I, 6-9; Dutt, _C.A.I._, Vol. I, Chap. V; Monier-Williams, Chap. I. Footnote 4: Hopkins, _R.I._, 141; Macdonell, 385; Garbe, 1-2; Kaegi, 87.