II. THE BOOK.

ON a warm and clear evening in the beginning of July, the guests assembled in Cordova Lodge earlier and more numerously than usual. They were not deceived in their expectation of finding, after the oppressive heat of the day, refreshing coolness in the shady walks and the inviting arbours. A gentle breeze which had arisen from the south-east wafted through the pure air the fragrance of splendid roses and delicate heliotropes, mingled with the sweet scent of linden blossoms; and it was not before they had witnessed a most beautiful sunset long lingering in the crimson skies, that the friends retired to the spacious drawing-room which opened on the tastefully designed and partially covered terrace, and overlooked the smooth and richly skirted lawn. After having partaken of refreshments which, in their cosmopolitan variety, were considerately adapted to the habits of the Oriental guests also, they had scarcely seated themselves at the open windows, when the Buddhist Subbhuti took some papers carefully wrapped up from the ample folds of his blue robe and, presenting them to the host, said with his characteristic vivacity, which made him plunge in medias res:

'I am greatly indebted to you, yet I am disappointed. True, I understand the remarkable Book better through your translation than I did in that which the worthy English missionary read and explained to me in Kandy; but I cannot find in it what you led me to expect'.

'What book'? naturally asked several of the guests at

once.

"The Book of Ecclesiastes', replied Mondoza. 'But did you not, in reflecting on its speculations', he continued turning

to Subbhuti, 'discover in them something of the spirit of your own sûtras, if not of the "Perfect Wisdom" of some of your metaphysical works' ?a

'How could I', cried the Buddhist with great animation, 'when I find in the Biblical shaster the most contradictory views and directions? On the one hand, the writer declares, as the result of his long experience, "Then I praised mirth, because there is nothing better for man under the sun than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry". On the other hand, he maintains, in a very different strain, "The day of death is better than the day of one's birth; it is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting; sorrow is better than laughter; the heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth". Yet these startling inconsistencies extend to points of even greater importance. In one part of the Book, the far-famed King Solomon, whose wisdom is still proverbial in the East'....

'Ecclesiastes is hardly the production of King Solomon', said Gregovius quietly; 'it may be desirable to keep this result of criticism in mind. I beg you to pardon my interruption'.

'Not the work of King Solomon'? exclaimed Subbhuti. 'By whom, pray, and when was it composed'?

'By whom it was written', answered Gregovius, 'it is impossible to say, but certainly not before the time of Alexander, the famous king of Macedon, who, as you know, invaded India about three hundred years after the birth of your Buddha,d and nearly seven hundred years after the beginning of Solomon's reign'.

"There is intrinsic and irrefragable evidence', said Humphrey with decision, 'that Ecclesiastes is the production of Solomon himself, despite the idle guesses of an infidel scholarship'.

'And despite the audacity of unblushing heresy', added Rabbi Raphael Gideon.

'Surely it could not have been written before the period of the Ptolemies or even the Maccabees', suggested Panini with some hesitation.

'It cannot have been compiled before the age of Herod from the fifteen fragments and interpolations which all who have eyes may discern', protested Berghorn vigorously, with a dark frown in his contracted eyebrows.a

'By Gautama's holy tooth! What am I to believe?' exclaimed the Cingalese Buddhist in bewildered agitation. 'The matter is perhaps not of such great moment as you seem to imagine', explained Canon Mortimer persuasively. Every nation accustoms itself to regard certain great men as the embodiment of all wisdom or worldly shrewdness, and to attribute to them any conspicuous work on practical ethics, the author of which is unknown or doubtful; nay later writers have not seldom issued books under the authority of those great names, in order to obtain for their lessons a surer effect; and as they are indeed pervaded by the spirit and nourished by the instructions of their renowned ancestors, might they not, with some justice, assign to them the ideal authorship of their works? Whether the revered code of your Vinaya or moral 'Discipline' was penned by your Master Sâkyamuni, or four or five centuries after him by one of his learned and pious disciples-and you are aware that some of our greatest scholars regard Sâkyamuni himself as an "unreal being" who never existed at all, and as much a fiction as his numberless preceding migrations"-;whether our Gospels were written down by Christ's immediate Apostles or, much later, by men thoroughly imbued with their teaching: is there really any material difference? And if there be, it is to the world's advantage; for thus we possess the doctrines of the Masters and Founders, enriched by the experience and enlightenment of more advanced generations. Whether, therefore, Ecclesiastes be traceable to King Solomon or some later thinker, the Book represents the highest speculative wisdom attained by the Hebrews.'

'Well, well', said Mondoza, smiling, be it so. I would not too anxiously enquire into the authorship of the Iliad, and am content to enjoy the wonderful creation as reflecting throughout the spirit of Greece in the period of her epic youthfulness. But', he added, addressing Subbhuti, 'we have interrupted you while engaged in pointing out those divergencies in Ecclesiastes, which seem to you to diminish the value of its teaching. Pray, continue.'

'When you gave me your manuscript,' said Subbhuti with increasing warmth, 'you made me anticipate that I should find in the Book much that was almost identical with the Meditations of Buddha; and you requested me carefully to consider whether, if that were the case, I ought not to accept those Hebrew doctrines also which my creed rejects or at least ignores, especially the belief in a God and the Immortality of the soul. But I confess, I find nowhere a solid ground, nowhere a settled convictiononly here a fata morgana in the desert, there an ignis fatuus in a treacherous morass; the desert and the morass are painful realities, the tempting visions are the mockery of phantoms. I do not know whether the author is in earnest when he contends, "As the beasts die, so die men; they have all one breath of life... All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all return to the dust: who knows whether the spirit of the sons of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth?"a or when he surmises, "The dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it". Shall I follow him when he affirms that all is accident-that the same chance befalls man and beast, the good and the bad, the righteous perishing in his righteousness to be for ever forgotten, the wicked flourishing in his wickedness to be buried with honour-as if a God were conceivable without the attribute of justice, that is, without a Providence-; or shall I be guided by him when he proclaims the strict doctrine of retribution with a confidence un

shaken by his daily experience to the contrary: "Though a sinner do evil a hundred times and prolong his life, yet surely I know that it shall be well with those that fear God"; or "God will bring every deed into judgment, even every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil" ?a How can I, from this confusion, derive a clear conception of the nature of the human soul, or the ruling power of a God, such as you assume? Again, the author admits indeed, "I saw that wisdom excels folly as far as light excels darkness", and he offers some good remarks besides in praise of wisdom". Yet, on the other hand, he ventures strange utterances like this, "In much wisdom is much grief, and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow"; nay he goes so far as to assert that the same destiny and the same death are allotted to the fool and the sage, and that it is therefore idle and futile to strive after wisdom. Have I really seized his meaning? "Science"djnâna―the Sublime, the Unerring, should be vain and bootless, and nothing more than "weariness of the flesh"? "Science", such as the rishis or rahats command, and is gained by one of the supreme degrees of contemplation, so teaches our revered Buddha, is omnipotent".

'Worthless is the apostate Buddhist's "knowledge", said Arvâda-Kalâma bitterly and contemptuously.

'Science', continued Subbhuti firmly, 'could never have suggested the frivolous lines of the Hindoo poet:

"I sang of friendship, wine and love,

"In early years of giddy youth.

"Now I am old, and know that all

"Is vanity of vanities.

"Yea, song and friendship, wine and love,

"The golden times of joyous youth,

"And oh! this late begotten wisdom,

"Are vanity of vanities".e

'For true Science, according to Buddha as well as the best of Hindoo sages, exercises dominion over the forces of nature and all created beings; it is endowed with the