useful
un-Aryan parallels to a few traits which have been preserved in the
earliest period of the Aryans.[28]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Megasthenes, Fr. XLI, ed. Schwanbeck.]

[Footnote 2: Epic literature springs from lower castes than
that of the priest, but it has been worked over by
sacerdotal revisers till there is more theology than epic
poetry in it.]

[Footnote 3: See Weber, _Sanskrit Literature_, p. 224;
Windisch, _Greek Influence on Indian Drama_; and Levi, _Le
theatre indien_. The date of the Renaissance is given as
"from the first century B.C. to at least the third century
A.D." (_India_, p. 281). Extant Hindu drama dates only from
the fifth century A.D. We exclude, of course, from "real
literature" all technical hand-books and commentaries.]

[Footnote 4: Jacobi, in Roth's _Festgruss_, pp. 72, 73
(1893); Whitney, _Proceed. A.O.S._, 1894, p. lxxii; Perry,
_P[=u]shan,_ in the _Drisler Memorial_; Weber, _Vedische
Beitraege._]

[Footnote 5: Westergaard, _Ueber Buddha's Todesjahr_. The
prevalent opinion is that Buddha died in 477 or 480 B.C.]

[Footnote 6: It must not be forgotten in estimating the
_broad_ mass of Br[=a]hmanas and S[=u]tras that each as a
school represents almost the whole length of its period, and
hence one school alone should measure the time from end to
end, which reduces to very moderate dimensions the
literature to be accounted for in time.]

[Footnote 7: _'Rig Veda Collection'_ is the native name for
that which in the Occident is called Rig Veda, the latter
term embracing, to the Hindu, all the works (Br[=a]hmanas,
S[=u]tras, etc.) that go to explain the 'Collection' (of
hymns).]

[Footnote 8: Schroeder, _Indiens Literatur und Cultur,_
p.291, gives: Rig-Veda, 2000-1000 B.C.; older Br[=a]hmanas,
1000-800; later Br[=a]hmanas and Upanishads, 800-600;
S[=u]tras, 600-400 or 300.]

[Footnote 9: _Principles of Sociology_, I. P.448 (Appleton,
1882).]

[Footnote 10: Ib. p. 398.]

[Footnote 11: Ib. p. 427.]

[Footnote 12: Ib. p. 824.]

[Footnote 13: Ib.]

[Footnote 14: Ib. p. 821.]

[Footnote 15: Compare Muir, _Original Sanskrit Texts_, V. p.
412 ff., where are given the opinions of Pfleiderer, Pictet,
Roth, Scher