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 historically.  The history of the Papacy is confessedly “obscure.”  Ennodius of Pavia (fifth century) was the first one to address the Roman Bishop (Symmochus), who comes fifty-first in the Apostolic succession, as “Pope.”  Thus, if we were to write the history of Christianity, and indulge in remarks upon its chronology, we might say that since there were no antecedent Popes, and since the Apostolic line began with Symmochus (498 A.D.), all Christian records beginning with the Nativity and up to the sixth century are therefore “fabulous traditions,” and all Christian chronology is “purely hypothetical.”

3rd.—­Two discrepant dates in Buddhist chronology are scornfully pointed out by the Oxford Professor.  If the landing of Vijaya, in Lanka—­he says—­on the same day that Buddha reached Nirvana (died) is in fulfilment of Buddha’s prophecy, then “if Buddha was a true prophet, the Ceylonese argue quite rightly that he must have died in the year of the conquest, or 543 B.C.” (p. 270).  On the other hand, the Chinese have a Buddhist chronology of their own; and it does not agree with the Ceylonese.  “The lifetime of Buddha from 1029 to 950 rests on his own prophecy that a millennium would elapse from his death to the conversion of China.  If, therefore, Buddha was a true prophet, he must have lived about 1000 B.C.” (p. 266).  But the date does not agree with the Ceylonese chronology—­ergo, Buddha was a false prophet.  As to that other “the first and most important link” in the Ceylonese as well as in the Chinese chronology, “it is extremely weak.” ....  In the Ceylonese “a miraculous genealogy had to be provided for Vijaya,” and, “a prophecy was therefore invented” (p. 269).

On these same lines of argument it may be argued that: