in the Sanskrit text, is the Lalita-Vistara. In a discussion of the date of this work, Mr. Rhys Davids comes to the conclusion that it may have been composed some thousand years after Gotama's death; on which he takes occasion to enter "a protest against the careless and much too common habit of using works dating many centuries after the time of the Buddha, as evidence of opinions or teachings of Gotama himself." Every one must admit without reserve that the later the book the greater the chance of its contents departing from the original. But the question is by no means so simple as is here represented. Are we at liberty, for instance, to use a work in which the Greeks are mentioned "as evidence of the opinions or the teachings of Gotama himself"? and are we precluded from using other books, such as the Lalita-Vistara, the date of which is entirely unknown? In this same Lalita-Vistara, and in other writings of the Northern Church, passages occur which are found verbally, or almost verbally, in Pâli books as well. These passages, at any rate, must be regarded as equally ancient in either case. It is true, however, that there is a different spirit in the Lalita-Vistara. The ideal of the Bodhisatva, who endures all things out of love of created beings, comes out more beautifully perhaps in this than in any other Buddhistic writing; and if it may be taken, in its entirety, "as evidence of Nepalese beliefs at the time when it was composed," the Nepalese poet who so well perceived and worked out the ideal deserves our highest admiration. It is far from my intention to deny that Northern Buddhism approximates more closely to Hinduism than Southern Buddhism does, or to maintain that the writings of the former have not felt the influence of other Indian systems; and considering that most, if not all, of these writings were composed by Indians and in India, and that the Buddhists of the mainland remained much longer than the Singalese in close relations with their unbelieving countrymen, their distinguishing tendency and line of development is easily enough explained. "The modifications the faith has undergone in various countries" are to be ascribed to "influences of ideas foreign, even antagonistic," to the faith itself. Amongst the characteristics of the Northern Buddhism, Mr. Rhys Davids mentions "the exaggerated importance attached to its mysticism, to its negative teaching." As regards this latter point, we may remark by way of supplement that the zeal of the Northern believers, at any rate, was not "negative." Their preachers and pilgrims were men of action. They spread their faith successively over China, Thibet, Japan, and Mongolia, and made numerous converts in Kamboja (in Further India), in Java, and in Sumatra. In comparing the remarkable coincidence between the organisation of the Roman Catholic Church and the Thibetan Lamaism, Mr. Rhys Davids remarks (p. 194) that "each had its origin at a time when the new faith was adopted by the invading hordes of barbarian men bursting in upon an older, a more advanced civilisation." We will say nothing of the circumstances under which the Thibetan hierarchy was developed; but, confining ourselves to Europe, we may ask how far the facts to which the Roman Catholic hierarchy owed its origin are fairly represented. The "invading hordes of barbarian men bursting in upon an older civilisation" can only refer to the Teutonic peoples who made themselves the temporary or permanent masters of portions of the Roman empire in the fifth and sixth centuries. What influence may we ascribe to these peoples in the development of the hierarchy? This question demands the most careful consideration, for the Teutonic race, from the days of Julius Cæsar to the present time, has, on the whole, shown itself to be anti-hierarchical, and to value freedom more than autho rity. This fundamental trait in their character displayed itself in ancient times far more conspicuously than even now. As long as these 'barbarians "a term which, for my part, I should be sorry to use on my own account-retained their nationality, they were not favourably disposed to the Pope at Rome. The Goths, under Alaric and Theodoric, in their capacity of Arians, were anything but promoters of the hierarchy, while the Longobardi had other reasons for hostility. It was not till the eighth century, long after the invasion of the said "hordes of barbarian men," and long after the establishment of the hierarchy, that certain Frankish kings supported the Pope. Their reasons for doing so need not be investigated here, but they certainly imply no want of insight or conduct, for Pepin and Charlemagne cannot well be called "children in intellect." It may be urged that the deeds of princes prove little as to the spiritual and moral condition of peoples. But what proof or shadow of a proof is there that the Franks, Longobardi, and the rest were more apt to further the rise of the Roman hierarchy or organisation than the Romanised inhabitants of the countries conquered by the Teutons were? When we see that the peoples of Teuton race in Germany, England, Holland, Scandinavia, North America, and elsewhere, have for centuries been involved, in one way or another, in strained relations with the Holy Seat, and have in large measure formally severed themselves from the Roman Catholic Church, and when we compare all this with what we know of the Goths and Longobardi, we incline to the conclusion that the "invading hordes of barbarian men” were not in a position, indeed, completely to check the growth of the hierarchy, but that had it not been for them and their strong tendencies to decentralisation, this hierarchy would have become far mightier yet. So much is certain, that the Roman Catholic organisation has found more acquiescence and firmer support in countries of "an older, more advanced civilisation," than amongst the Teutonic "barbarians," so that we have no reason to suppose that the defective mental culture of these latter favoured the development of the hierarchy. Nor must we forget that, rightly or wrongly, these "barbarians" stood, in their own estimation, far above the Romans and the Romanised peoples, not only in strength and courage, but also in sound common sense. . more I conclude these notes on the Lectures by adopting the words of Mr. Rhys Davids and saying, in relation to my own criticisms, "What has been left unsaid is in extent, and in many directions more interesting perhaps, and more important, than what has been said." My object has by no means been to give such a full analysis of the contents of the Lectures as to tempt the reader into holding himself absolved from studying the book itself. On the contrary, everything I have said has been intended to stimulate all who read it to make themselves acquainted with the Hibbert Lectures; and it was in no spirit of barren compliment that I began by pronouncing them in a high degree interesting and suggestive. Leiden. H. KERN. W ALFONSO LA MARMORA.* HEN Burke, at the time of the French Revolution, lamented that the age of chivalry was gone, he meant the old cavalier spirit of loyalty to the reigning dynasty. And the statement was true to a certain extent. In our island the downfall of the Stuarts had given a fatal blow to this sentiment. After James II. had been thrust from the throne, and a foreigner elected in his stead, never again could the principle of Divine Right hold up its head with any sort of confidence. Thenceforward British sovereigns should reign by the will of the nation, and learn that Legitimacy, though a respectable thing in itself, was not an insuperable barrier to the removal of a prince who made himself obnoxious to his subjects. A century later, when the French Revolution gave birth to democracy, the spirit of chivalry (in Burke's sense) may be said to have expired generally throughout Europe. The nations, suddenly awakened to a sense of man's rights, rose and protested against despotism; and if they sank again under the yoke it was in a sullen mood awaiting a day of reckoning. In Italy the gross abuse of sovereign power provoked frequent conspiracies and rebellions. The Italians are naturally an easy-going, patient people, and could bear a considerable amount of paternal government if judiciously administered; and so it happened that in a State where the Prince, though despotic, was in the main just and true, he • Il Generale Alfsonso La Marmora. Ricordi Biografici. Per GIUSEPPE MASSARI. Firenze. |