le known, of Buddhism, what becomes of man if he
depends on himself alone, and if his meditations, misled by a pride of
which he is hardly conscious, bring him to the precipice where Buddha
was lost. Besides, I am well aware of all the differences, and I am
not going to insult our contemporary philosophers by confounding them
indiscriminately with Buddha, although addressing to both the same
reproof. I acknowledge willingly all their additional merits, which
are considerable. But systems of philosophy must always be judged by
the conclusions to which they lead, whatever road they may follow in
reaching them; and their conclusions, though obtained by different
means, are not therefore less objectionable. Buddha arrived at his
conclusions 2400 years ago. He proclaimed and practised them with an
energy which is not likely to be surpassed, even if it be equalled. He
displayed a child-like intrepidity which no one can exceed, nor can it
be supposed that any system in our days could again acquire so
powerful an ascendency over the souls of men. It would be useful,
however, if the authors of these modern systems would just cast a
glance at the theories and destinies of Buddhism. It is not philosophy
in the sense in which we understand this great name, nor is it
religion in the sense of ancient paganism, of Christianity, or of
Mohammedanism; but it contains elements of all worked up into a
perfectly independent doctrine which acknowledges nothing in the
universe but man, and obstinately refuses to recognise anything else,
though confounding man with nature in the midst of which he lives.
Hence all those aberrations of Buddhism which ought to be a warning to
others. Unfortunately, if people rarely profit by their own faults,
they profit yet more rarely by the faults of others. (Introduction, p.
vii.)

But though M. Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire does not write history merely
for the sake of those masked batteries which French writers have used
with so much skill at all times, but more particularly during the late
years of Imperial sway, it is clear, from the remarks just quoted,
that our author is not satisfied with simply chronicling the dry facts
of Buddhism, or turning into French the tedious discourses of its
founder. His work is an animated sketch, giving too little rather than
too much. It is just the book which was wanted to dispel the erroneous
notions about Buddhism, which are still current among educated men,
and to excite