Sacred Anthology contains some writings that cannot be strictly defined by the phrase in its secondary title-ethnical scriptures.' In these instances my desire to introduce passages full of truth and beauty, and at the same time not very accessible, overcame my desire for technical conformity with the only title I could find descriptive of the main purport of the volume. At the same time, it may be maintained. that these instances are few, and that the word 'scripture' is not so limited as to exclude those classics of a nation which have exerted a wide and profound influence on its religious life. The division of sacred books into canonical and uncanonical is, in every country, more or less arbitrary, and often of doubtful value. Thus in the case of Sàdi,-from whom I have largely quoted,-no writer, perhaps, after Mohammed is so universally read in his own country, or oftener quoted by public teachers. To this day the chant of the dervish is frequently taken from his glowing sentences,-especially the last nine lines of CLXXVII. p. 112 of this volume. The same, measurably, may be said of Hafiz 'the Tongue of the Secret,' of Nizami, of Khèyam. Their parables and verses have survived time and tide until now. These the siroc could not melt, Fire their fiercer flaming felt, And their meaning was more white Than July's meridian light. Nor time unmake what poets know. It was only to be expected that the freshness of thought and felicity of expression discoverable in It is many of the ancient scriptures should excite surprise, and lead to a suspicion among some not acquainted with Oriental writings, that they had been manipulated into nearer accord with modern thought or ethical principles. Having no theological or other ulterior purpose in publishing this collection, it did not occur to me to assert its good faith until I read in one journal a suggestion to the contrary,-followed, I was glad to observe, by a prompt retractation. now stated emphatically that, so far as my work is concerned, or I have been able to verify the work of others, the extracts herein given are in every case what they profess to be genuine translations from originals when offered as such; in the four or five cases where they are paraphrases, so marked in the margin ; and when given as versions, are also so indicated. The versions by Sir William Jones, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and others, are, so far as I can discover, careful renderings of the originals, with one exception that of the familiar legend of Abou Ben Adhem by Leigh Hunt, who does appear to have modified the original sentiment. In the tradition as reported by D'Herbelot, Abou says to the angel, 'Write me as one who loves those who love the Lord,' and not, as in Leigh Hunt's line, 'Write me as one who loves his fellow-men.' I believe this to be the only case in the volume in which any rendering or version has altered the sense of the original. There are many instances in which alterations in the language of ordinary translations occur, but such emendations have been made under consultations with Oriental scholars, and their admissibility tested by comparison with the originals whenever doubtful. The object of such alterations has been to get nearer to the sense of the original, or to avoid some coarseness in the expression; for some of the English translations have been made by missionaries not always erudite and refined, and others date from a period when the knowledge of Sanskrit, Pàli, and other ancient tongues was much less advanced than at present. In my desire to preserve only what is morally elevated and finely expressed, and at the same time that alone which is genuine, I have had to omit many passages which, except for some blemish whose omission would change the main sense, I would gladly have inserted. And perhaps it may be as well to state here, that while many of the omissions which have surprised my critics are no doubt attributable to my ignorance, the larger number of instances specified refer to passages which could not be inserted except with such modifications as I could by no means consent to make, or have made. If among the many necessary suppressions there is any one which misrepresents the sense of the original, I am unconscious of it, and will my best to correct the error if it be pointed out. The method adopted in this work must, I was well aware, disappoint some. While sharing their desire for such a chronological arrangement of Eastern scrip tures as might suggest the evolution of ethical principles and religious faith in the world, I am by no means competent for such a task. The subject of Chronology, difficult in itself, is as yet seriously com do plicated by national bias and religious rivalries. It being essential to preserve a spirit of impartiality, I have nevertheless considered that some indication of the supposed antiquity of ancient books was necessary to an appreciation of their character, and such I have inserted at the end of the volume, where such estimates would appear less obtrusive or dogmatic than if embodied in the work by the subordination of one sage or scripture to another. The wisest alternative to a chronological arrangement seemed to me that which I have chosen,-a grouping according to subjects. The chief drawback of this plan has been pointed out by Professor Max Müller in his kindly review of this work in The Academy (Oct. 31, 1874). Naturally, it will appear odd and unsatisfactory to Oriental scholars to find writings widely divergent in time and ethnical origin quoted side by side, even though they relate to the same subject. But it was hardly possible to avoid this in a book such as I have aimed to produce. It was my hope to bring near to the home and to the assembly some of the great thoughts and solemn aspirations by which races and generations are linked each to each, and contribute something-though but a chapter-to the larger, the human Lectionary. To this end it is as necessary that the Old and New shall have their lessons brought together as for other ends it is necessary that they shall be distinguished. I trust that the marginal references may prevent confusion as to the origin of the citations. I must also express regret for my inability to make these references altogether satisfactory as regards the translators on whom I have mainly depended. The alterations which it was found necessary, for reasons already stated, to make in many of the pieces selected, forbade my assigning them to works where they cannot textually be found, and which are therefore only generally acknowledged in the List of Authorities. In other cases the translations have been made especially for this work, or have been taken from MSS.such as those of H. H. Wilson-which have not been before printed in any English work. The readings being often compiled from passages taken from many different pages, could not be referred to any particular page. These are the chief reasons why I have been compelled reluctantly to supply but meagre information concerning some intermediate authorities in the margin, even after adding all that I could with any fairness in the present edition. The same reasons which have prevented my attempting to arrange the materials of this book in any chronological order, have operated yet more strongly to restrain me from endeavouring to supply any estimate of their comparative character. It may well be questioned whether, amid the sectarian divisions of the globe, the man exists who can weigh the various religions of mankind with entire freedom from all bias derived from his own race or education; and, if that were possible, it would be still doubtful whether the materials for satisfactory generalisation exist in accessible forms. The seriousness of the awakened interest in the religious and moral develop |