CORRESPONDENCE.
The Religion of Manipur. {Supra, pp. 409-55.)
Colonel Shakespear raises two questions in his paper on which I venture a comment. He appears to consider that I estimate wrongly the value of the Meithei Chronicles, and he differs from my statement that the real nature of the religion of the Meitheis is animistic.
First, what have I said about the jMeithei Chronicles ? In a note to vol. iii. pt. iii., p. 21, of the Linguistic Survey of India it is stated that " Mr. T. C. Hodson mentions the Ning-thau-vol \rol is correct], or history of the kings of Manipur, in which the first touch of history is dated 1432." In The Meitheis (p. 9) I describe the period about loco a.d. as a period before history of any real authenticity begins. As to traditions, I find that in The Ndga Tribes I use the expression, " we may regard as very largely true anything that tells against their pretensions. There can be no doubt that much of what we find in the chronicles is hopelessly exaggerated." In my paper on " Meithei Literature " in Folk-Lore (vol. xxiii. p. 2) I say of the Chronicles that "Their historical value is really much greater than many people are willing to allow. ... I am profoundly convinced that by the strictest modern tests there is plenty of good history here, and much of it is good direct history. There are dates, precise dates, — year, month, and day, — to satisfy the most exigent modern dryasdust historian." I find nothing here to vary or to modify, so I will leave the matter, only adding the remark that I agree with those who find it necessary to call us back to more cautious methods in dealing with traditions and myths. Too often are legends accepted at their face value as
