had inherited
the knowledge from the most ancient times. He speaks with some
severity of those scholars in Europe who have attempted to explain the
technical terms of the Vedic sacrifices without the assistance of
native priests, and without even availing themselves carefully of the
information they might have gained from native commentaries.

In the preface to his edition of the Aitareya-brahma_n_a, Dr. Haug has
thrown out some new ideas on the chronology of Vedic literature which
deserve careful consideration. Beginning with the hymns of the
Rig-veda, he admits, indeed, that there are in that collection ancient
and modern hymns, but he doubts whether it will be possible to draw a
sharp line between what has been called the _K_handas period,
representing the free growth of sacred poetry, and the Mantra period,
during which the ancient hymns were supposed to have been collected
and new ones added, chiefly intended for sacrificial purposes. Dr.
Haug maintains that some hymns of a decidedly sacrificial character
should be ascribed to the earliest period of Vedic poetry. He takes,
for instance, the hymn describing the horse sacrifice, and he
concludes from the fact that seven priests only are mentioned in it by
name, and that none of them belongs to the class of the Udgatars
(singers) and Brahmans (superintendents), that this hymn was written
before the establishment of these two classes of priests. As these
priests are mentioned in other Vedic hymns, he concludes that the hymn
describing the horse sacrifice is of a very early date. Dr. Haug
strengthens his case by a reference to the Zoroastrian ceremonial, in
which, as he says, the chanters and superintendents are entirely
unknown, whereas the other two classes, the Hotars (reciters) and
Adhvaryus (assistants) are mentioned by the same names as Zaotar and
Rathwiskare. The establishment of the two new classes of priests
would, therefore, seem to have taken place in India after the
Zoroastrians had separated from the Brahmans; and Dr. Haug would
ascribe the Vedic hymns in which no more than two classes of priests
are mentioned to a period preceding, others in which the other two
classes of priests are mentioned to a period succeeding, that ancient
schism. We must confess, though doing full justice to Dr. Haug's
argument, that he seems to us to stretch what is merely negative
evidence beyond its proper limits. Surely a poet, though acquainted
with all the details of a sacr