1901.] Annual Beport. 89 



said to have met with any general approval among competent author- 

 ities, wliile, on the other hand, the division of the four successive 

 periods of Vedic literature is now universall}'- accepted, and has been 

 coxMoborated by further details brought to light by later researches. 



In connexion with Midler's Sanskrit publications, his book on 

 " India, what it can teach us ? " also deserves mention. It originated 

 from lectures delivered by liim to the candidates of the Indian Civil 

 Service at Cambridge, the object of which was to direct the 

 interest of the future administrators of India towards the value which 

 its literature, liistoiy, and antiquities still possess for us. In addition 

 to those lectures he published an appendix detailing his views on the 

 history and chronology of Sanskrit literature. His principal theory 

 here is that of a revival of Sanskrit literature. He believes that after 

 the Vedic and Epic periods the development of Sanskrit literature had 

 been interrupted in the first centuries of the Christian era, while the 

 greater part of India was under the sway of foreign invaders, Turanian 

 pi'inces, wlio imported foreign habits and were more addicted to 

 Buddhism than to the promoters of Sanskrit literature, the Brahmans. 

 The revival began in the fifth century, when princes of Indian blood 

 ngain acquired a footing over their country and drove the strangers 

 back, and it was at that time that classical Sanskrit literature sprung 

 up. This theory is at present hardly any more accepted, but its value 

 lies in formulating the problem and raising the discussion. 



In speaking of Midler's literary works devoted to Comparative 

 Philology and the history of Heligion, I must not be misunderstood if I 

 say that, wherever his work in this connexion is looked upon as original 

 research, its due merit is not given to it. His Lectures on the Science 

 of Language, published between 1861 and 1863, have certainly had a far 

 reaching influence. Many a young student, fascinated by the masterly 

 manner in which Miiller understood how to handle the most tedious 

 problems, owes to this book the first turn of his mind towards those 

 studies, and it is greatly due to it that Compai^ative Philology became so 

 popular not only in England but also on the Continent, as it was in the 

 seventies and eighties of the last century. But although, at the time of its 

 first appearance, it met only with isolated criticism from experts, such 

 as Professer Whitney, yet now-a-days it is hardly spoken of any more. 

 The progress of Comparative Philolojij;}' in later jears has been entirely 

 ignored by Miiller. His subsequent publications scarcely anywhere 

 refer to new tlieories and discoveries, of which a great number have 

 sprung up since 187.5 so as to change the entire aspect of this science 

 By saying this, I do not wish to detract anything from his great merits. 

 I readily admit that he has done more to promote the study cf languages 



