The beauty of our case is that our evidence is linked in 
parallel and not in series, and one or another of our separate 
arguments can be shot down and yet our overall conclusions 
will hold good. 
Of primary interest to the readers of the French edition is the 
public reception that the book has had from leading scholars in 
the Sanskrit world, especially those competent in the RgVeda. 
This reception has been conspicuously marked by silence: so 
far as I know, there have been only three full-dress reviews by 
leading Vedic scholars, two unfavorable and one favorable. To 
each of the unfavorable reviews I have published a detailed 
reply. 
But that silence extends only to the printed word. The dis- 
cussions among Sanskritists and especially Vedic scholars 
were for a while lively. Beyond the confines of those limited 
disciplines, among botanists, anthropologists, indologists, 
sinologues, students of religion, etc., etc., the references to our 
mushroom surmise in lectures, discussions, and publications 
have been steady and, so far as I have knowledge, all lauda- 
tory. But these people are not Vedists. 
For generations the Vedic and Sanskrit fraternities have 
been an ingrown community: the outside world of scholarship 
and science has largely left them to themselves to till their rich 
gardens in peace, and in turn they have largely ignored that 
world. I hear tell of fratricidal infighting in the Sanskrit family, 
but however that may be, they are unaccustomed to invasion 
from the outside and many do not welcome intruders: they 
close their ranks when the watchman cries ‘Stranger!’ In Vedic 
time the Brahmans were the exclusive custodians of the Se- 
crets of Soma: today some of the Vedic scholars occupying 
exalted chairs seem to have replaced the Brahmans in their 
attitude of superior exclusivity, though of course these Vedic 
scholars are not possessed of the Secrets. 
In SOMA a Vedist and ethnomycologist, working as a team, 
think we may have found the answer to the Soma enigma. As I 
shall show shortly, invaluable support for our position has been 
forthcoming from those scholars whose minds are open to new 
ideas. 
There are problems in the humane letters as well as science 
213 
