scholar to arrive, without a knowledge of
Sanskrit, at a correct understanding of the doctrines of Buddha, a
knowledge of Sanskrit was sufficient for entering into their spirit,
for comprehending their origin and growth in India, and their
modification in the different countries where they took root in later
times. Assisted by his familiarity with Sanskrit, and bringing into
the field, as a new and valuable auxiliary, his intimate acquaintance
with nearly all the systems of philosophy and religion of both the
ancient and modern worlds, M. Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire has succeeded
in drawing a picture, both lively and correct, of the origin, the
character, the strong as well as weak points, of the religion of
Buddha. He has become the first historian of Buddhism. He has not been
carried away by a temptation which must have been great for one who is
able to read in the past the lessons for the present or the future. He
has not used Buddhism either as a bugbear or as a _beau ideal_. He is
satisfied with stating in his preface that many lessons might be
learned by modern philosophers from a study of Buddhism, but in the
body of the work he never perverts the chair of the historian into the
pulpit of the preacher.

'This book may offer one other advantage,' he writes, 'and I regret to
say that at present it may seem to come opportunely. It is the
misfortune of our times that the same doctrines which form the
foundation of Buddhism meet at the hands of some of our philosophers
with a favour which they ill deserve. For some years we have seen
systems arising in which metempsychosis and transmigration are highly
spoken of, and attempts are made to explain the world and man without
either a God or a Providence, exactly as Buddha did. A future life is
refused to the yearnings of mankind, and the immortality of the soul
is replaced by the immortality of works. God is dethroned, and in His
place they substitute man, the only being, we are told, in which the
Infinite becomes conscious of itself. These theories are recommended
to us sometimes in the name of science, or of history, or philology,
or even of metaphysics; and though they are neither new nor very
original, yet they can do much injury to feeble hearts. This is not
the place to examine these theories, and their authors are both too
learned and too sincere to deserve to be condemned summarily and
without discussion. But it is well that they should know by the
example, too litt