anyhow it has not escaped the notice of such an expert in
the affairs of India as Professor Thiele of Leyden, with
whom I am happy to find myself in harmony of view on
the subject of the Veda. That critic has, in consequence, not without reason, challenged[1] me to say why I have not
insisted on it more, and if, after this first avowal, I was
warranted to draw such a sharp distinction as I have done
between the epoch of the Hymns and that of the Brahmanas.
Whether I was right or wrong in doing so, it is not for me to decide. I have pointed out the differences which, as it appears to me, we must admit to exist between the two epochs referred to, differences which I do not think can be accounted for simply by the diverse nature of the documents. In the Brahmanas we have a sacred literature and a new liturgy ; the priesthood that inspired the Hymns has become a caste ; and there is a theory which is given forth as a law for this caste, as well as the others — one which, whether true or imaginary, is nevertheless in itself a fact. Were it only for these reasons, I should consider myself bound to maintain the generally accepted distinction ; but, not to adduce more, I confess that I had another reason — the fear, viz., of being drawn into the subject further than was desirable in a work such as this.
The Hymns, as I have already remarked, do not appear to me to show the least trace of popular derivation. I rather imagine that they emanate from a narrow circle of priests, and that they reflect a somewhat singular view of things. Not only can I not accept the generally received opinion that Yedic and Aryan are synonymous terms, I am even not at all sure to what extent we are right in speaking of a Yedic people. Not that communities did not then worship the gods of the Veda, but I doubt very much if they regarded them as they are represented in the Hymns, any more than that they afterwards sacrificed to them in community after the rites prescribed in the Brah-
- ↑ In the Theologische Tydschrift of July 1880.
