Here again the mysterious hieroglyphic documents remain, but the keys by which alone they become intelligible have disappeared. In fact so little acquainted are our greatest Egyptologists with the funerary rites of the Egyptians and the outward marks of the difference of sex on the mummies, that it has led to the most ludicrous mistakes. Only a year or two ago, one of this kind was discovered at Boulaq, Cairo. The mummy of what was considered the wife of an unimportant Pharaoh, has, thanks to an inscription found on an amulet hung round its neck, turned out to be that of Sesostris—the greatest King of Egypt! Nevertheless, having found that “there is a natural connection between language and religion”; and that “there was a _common_ Âryan religion before the separation of the Âryan race; a _common_ Semitic religion before the separation of the Semitic race; and a _common_ Turanic religion before the separation of the Chinese and the other tribes belonging to the Turanian class”; having, in fact, discovered only “three ancient centres of religion” and “three centres of language”; and though as entirely ignorant of those primitive religions and languages as of their origin—the Professor does not hesitate to declare “that a truly _historical basis_ for a scientific treatment of the principal religions of the world” has been gained! A “scientific treatment” of a subject is no guarantee for its “historical basis”; and with such scarcity of data on hand, no Philologist, even among the most eminent, is justified in giving out his own conclusions for _historical facts_. No doubt, the eminent Orientalist has thoroughly proved to the world’s satisfaction that, according to the phonetic rules of Grimm’s law, Odin and Buddha are two different personages, quite distinct from each other, and has proved it _scientifically_. When, however, he takes the opportunity of saying in the same breath that Odin “was worshipped as the supreme deity during a period long anterior to the age of the _Veda_ and of Homer,”(18) he has not the slightest “historical basis” for it, but makes _history_ and _fact_ subservient to his own conclusions, which may be very “scientific” in the sight of Oriental scholars, but yet very wide of the mark of actual truth. The conflicting views of the various eminent Philologists and Orientalists, from Martin Haug down to Prof. Max Müller himself, on the subject of chronology, in the case of the _Vedas_, are an evident proof that the statement has no “historical” basis to stand upon, “internal evidence” being very often a Jack‐o’‐lantern, instead of a safe beacon to follow. Nor has the Science of modern Comparative Mythology any better argument to bring forward to crush the contention of those learned writers who have insisted for the last century or so that there must have been “fragments of a primeval revelation, granted to the ancestors of the whole race of mankind ...