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 age.

When the “recognized” authorities agree—­among themselves at least—­then will it be time to show them collectively in the wrong.  Until then, since their respective conjectures can lay no claim to the character of history, the “Adepts” have neither the leisure nor the disposition to leave weightier business to combat empty speculations, in number as many as there are pretended authorities.  Let the blind lead the blind, if they will not accept the light.*