out of many are well calculated to undermine his faith in these
Western methods:--

1. Of some dozens of eminent Orientalists, no two agree, even in their
verbatim translation of Sanskrit texts. Nor is there more harmony shown
in their interpretation of the possible meaning of doubtful passages.

2. Though Numismatics is a less conjectural branch of science, and when
starting from well-established basic dates, so to say, an exact one
(since it can hardly fail to yield correct chronological data, in our
case, namely, Indian antiquities); archeologists have hitherto failed to
obtain any such position. On their own confession, they are hardly
justified in accepting the Samvat and Salivahana eras as their guiding
lights, the real initial points of both being beyond the power of the
European Orientalists to verify; yet all the same, the respective dates
"of 57 B.C. and 78 A.D." are accepted implicitly, and fanciful ages
thereupon ascribed to archeological remains.

3. The greatest authorities upon Indian archeology and architecture--
General Cunningham and Mr. Fergusson--represent in their conclusions the
two opposite poles. The province of archeology is to provide
trustworthy canons of criticism, and not, it should seem, to perplex or
puzzle. The Western critic is invited to point to one single relic of
the past in India, whether written record or inscribed or uninscribed
monument, the age of which is not disputed. No sooner has one
archeologist determined a date--say the first century--than another
tries to pull it forward to the 10th or perhaps the 14th century of the
Christian era. While General Cunningham ascribes the construction of
the present Buddha Gaya temple to the 1st century after Christ--the
opinion of Mr. Fergusson is that its external form belongs to the 14th
century; and so the unfortunate outsider is as wise as ever. Noticing
this discrepancy in a "Report on the Archeological Survey of India"
(vol. viii. p. 60), the conscientious and capable Buddha-Gaya Chief
Engineer, Mr. J.D. Beglar, observes that "notwithstanding his
(Fergusson's) high authority, this opinion must be unhesitatingly set
aside," and forthwith assigns the building under notice to the 6th
century. While the conjectures of one archeologist are termed by
another "hopelessly wrong," the identifications of Buddhist relics by
this other are in their turn denounced as "quite untenable." And so in
the case of every relic of whatever ag