forded by
historical--not psychological--data. Meanwhile, by analyzing some
objections and exposing the dangerous logic of our critic, we may give
the theosophists a few more facts connected with the subject under
discussion.

Now that we have seen Professor Max Muller's opinions in general about
this, so to say, the Prologue to the Buddhist Drama with Vijaya as the
hero--what has he to say as to the details of its plot? What weapon
does he use to weaken this foundation-stone of a chronology upon which
are built and on which depend all other Buddhist dates? What is the
fulcrum for the critical lever he uses against the Asiatic records?
Three of his main points may be stated seriatim with answers appended.
He begins by premising that--

1st.--"If the starting-point of the Northern Buddhist chronology turns
out to be merely hypothetical, based as it is on a prophecy of Buddha,
it will be difficult to avoid the same conclusion with regard to the
date assigned to Buddha's death by the Buddhists of Ceylon and of
Burmah" (p. 266). "The Mahavansa begins with relating three miraculous
visits which Buddha paid to Ceylon." Vijaya, the name of the founder of
the first dynasty (in Ceylon), means conquest, "and, therefore, such a
person most likely never existed" (p. 268). This he believes
invalidates the whole Buddhist chronology.

To which the following pendant may be offered:--

William I., King of England, is commonly called the Conqueror; he was,
moreover, the illegitimate son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, surnamed le
Diable. An opera, we hear, was invented on this subject, and full of
miraculous events, called "Robert the Devil," showing its traditional
character. Therefore shall we be also justified in saying that Edward
the Confessor, Saxons and all, up to the time of the union of the houses
of York and Lancaster under Henry VII.--the new historical period in
English history--are all "fabulous tradition" and "such a person as
William the Conqueror most likely never existed?"

2nd.--In the Chinese chronology--continues the dissecting critic
--"the list of the thirty-three Buddhist patriarchs .... is of a
doubtful character. For Western history the exact Ceylonese
chronology begins with 161 B.C." Extending beyond that date there
exists but "a traditional native chronology. Therefore .... what goes
before .... is but fabulous tradition."

The chronology of the Apostles and their existence has never been proved