These are harsh words to say, and calculated no doubt to shock many a
European mind trained to look up to what is termed "scientific
authority" with a feeling akin to that of the savage for his family
fetich. They are well deserved, nevertheless, as a few examples will
show. To such intellects as Prof. Weber's--whom we take as the leader
of the German Orientalists of the type of Christophiles--certainly the
word "obtuseness" cannot be applied. Upon seeing how chronology is
deliberately and maliciously perverted in favour of "Greek influence,"
Christian interests and his own predetermined theories--another, and
even a stronger term should be applied. What expression is too severe
to signify one's feelings upon reading such an unwitting confession of
disingenuous scholarship as Weber repeatedly makes ("Hist. Ind. Lit.")
when urging the necessity of admitting that a passage "has been touched
up by later interpellation," or forcing fanciful chronological places
for texts admittedly very ancient--"as otherwise the dates would be
brought down too far or too near!" And this is the keynote of his
entire policy: fiat hypothesis, ruat caelum! On the other hand Prof.
Pages:
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487