seen the head in heaven, while I could not discover the base in Tartarus; but if this be really the case, who are the witnesses to your having seen it?’ Brahma quickly replied,—‘The _ketaki_ and _Surabhi_; these, O ye gods! will attest that I speak the truth.’ The immortals then immediately sent for them; and when they arrived, _Surabhi_ and the _ketaki_ declared that Brahma had actually seen the top of the lingam. At this instant a voice was heard from heaven, saying,—‘Know, O Suras! that _Surabhi_ and the _ketaki_ have spoken falsely, for Brahma has not seen its top.’ The immortals then imprecated this curse on _Surabhi_,—‘Since thou hast with thy mouth uttered a falsehood, may thy mouth be henceforth deemed impure!’ and on the _ketaki_,—‘Though thou smellest sweetly, mayest thou be considered unworthy to be offered to Shiva!’ After the gods had ceased speaking, the voice from heaven thus cursed Brahma:—‘Since thou hast childishly and with weak understanding asserted a falsehood, let no one henceforth perform worship to thee.’” Lieutenant Colonel Vans Kennedy remarks that these are the only accounts of the origin of this worship which occur in the Puranas, but Mr. Ward in his “Account of the Writings, Religion, &c., of the Hindus,” says:—“There are several stories in the Puranas respecting the origin of the lingam worship, three of which I had translated, and actually inserted in this work, leaving out as much as possible of their offensive parts; but in correcting the proofs, they appeared too gross, even when refined as much as possible, to meet the public eye.” Lieutenant Kennedy alluding to this, says:—“Mr. Ward takes every opportunity of objecting indecency and obscenity to the Hindu mythology; but, after a most attentive examination of the subject, I have not been able to discover, unless calling a spade a spade be considered a sufficient ground, the slightest foundation for such an objection in either the Purans, Upa-Purans, Ramayanum, or Mahabharat; and with regard to other Sanscrit works, I agree entirely in the justness of the opinion expressed by Mr. Wilson in a note to his translation of the Magha Duta. He says:—‘I have, indeed, in this place concentrated, and in part omitted, two verses of the original, as offensive to our notions of the decorum of composition. I cannot admit, however, that Hindu literature, speaking generally, is more liable to the reproach of indecency than that of Europe: nothing can be found in their serious works half so licentious as many passages in the writings of Ovid, Catullus, Propertius, and even the elegant Flaccus. To descend to modern times, Ariosto and Boccaccio amongst the Italians, Brantome, Crebillon, Voltaire, La Fontaine, and the writers of many recent philosophical novels amongst the French, furnish us with more than parallels for the most indelicate of the Hindu writers. With respect to ourselves, not to go back to the days in which