Fiedorowicz-Weber, because he has failed to trace him, and that he represents the historical connections and the nature of the country of the Zhamaites in a false light in order to discredit his statements. In regard to the charge that he has overlooked a number of genuine mythical figures on which he offers no sagas nor myths, "the Polish gentleman" indirectly admits that he must have taken the figures mentioned in his book from the people rather than from books, since it would have been impossible for him to discover even the names of the figures he has omitted if he did not know a single word of Lithuanian.
He then turns to discuss whether the word Zhamaite should be written with an e or an a in the first syllable, and invokes Professor Bezzenberger against "the Polish gentleman" on this point, as well as on the existence in popular belief of Pijokas, the demon of the culture-drink, which M. Carlowicz had denied. On the etymology of Perdoytus he has a word to say also, arraying on this point Hartknoch, Frenzel, and Schwenck against "the Polish gentleman", who, after all, had no need to prove by this etymology the meanness of his intellect and culture.
This is practically the whole of Dr. Veckenstedt's answer: a defence he himself does not call it. Of the extraordinary parallelisms alleged between his Wendish and his Zhamaite sagas, of Lasicki, of Wolter's twenty-seven interrogatories, not a syllable! He treats as a charge against nameless pupils one of the most serious charges against himself, and calls it a calumny which the slandered persons cannot answer because no names are mentioned. He plays with the etymology of Zhamaite and Perdoytus when he should be vindicating his own good faith and the authenticity of his books. But Dr. Veckenstedt should understand that a heavy indictment has been laid against him, and that he has been brought to the bar of scientific opinion on the question whether he is an honest man, a distinguished contributor to the sum of anthropological knowledge, or an
