M. Notovitch’s ‘conversations’ with them, that they

were as much addicted to pompous generalities as the orators of youthful debating societies. The Lamas I have met are prepared to answer rational inquiries courteously. They do so with brevity, and usually to the point. They confess willingly that their know- ledge on religious subjects is limited to their own religion, and that they know nothing whatever of religious systems unconnected with Tibetan Buddhism.
ALLEGED SOJOURN OF CHRIST IN INDIA. 195
They do not read any languages but Sanskrit and Tibetan, and their conversations with foreigners are altogether limited to commonplace topics. The Chief Lama of Himis had never heard of the existence of the Egj^ptians or of the Assyrians, and his indignation at M. Notovitch’s statement that he had discussed their religious beliefs was so real, that he almost seemed to imagine that M. Notovitch had accused him of saying something outrageously improper.
The exclusiveness of the Buddhism of Lassa seems to have instilled into the minds of the Lamaistes an instinctive shrinking from foreign customs and ideas.
I would call attention especially to the ninth answer in the Lama’s statement, in which he disclaims all knowledge of the English and Urdu languages.
The question arises, ‘ Who was M. Notovitch's interpreter?’ The Tibetans of Ladakh competent to interpret such a conversation are leading men, cer- tainly not more than three or four in number. Not one of them has ever seen M. Notovitch, to bis knowledge. What does our imaginative author tell about this detail? On page 35 of the English edition, we are informed that at the village of Goond (thirty- six miles from Srinagar) he took a shikari into his service * who fulfilled the role of interpreter.’ Of all the extraordinary statements with which this book abounds, this appears to us the most marvellous. A Kashmiri shikari is invariably a simple peasant* whose knowledge of language is limited to his native toDgue, and a few words of Urdu and English, relating to the necessities of the road, the camp and sport, picked up from English sportsmen and their Hindu attendants.
196
LAST ESSAYS.
Even in bis own language no Kashmiri villager would be likely to be able to express religious and philosophical ideas such as are contained in the 1 conversations ’ between M. Notovitch and the Lamas. These ideas are foreign to the Kashmiri mode of thought, usually limited to what our author would term ‘ things palpable.’
We will take one or two examples : —
‘ Part of the spirituality of our Lord ’ (p. 33) ;
‘ Essential principles of monotheism. ’ (p. 51);
‘An intermediary between earth and heaven ’ (p. 51) ;
used in the ‘conversation’ with the Abbot of Wokka on the journey to Leh. The conversations at Himis abound in even more magnificent expressions : —
‘ Idols which they regarded as neutral to their surroundings ’ (p- n4);
‘The attenuation of the divine principle’ (p. 115) ;
‘The dominion of things palpable ’ (p. 115) ;
‘ A canonical part of Buddhism ’ (p. 1 24) ;
and many others which readers will have no difficulty in finding.
Few things have amused me more, in connexion with this inquiry, than the half-annoyed, half-amused expression of the venerable Lama’s face when Mr. Joldan, after a careful explanation from me, did his best to translate into Tibetan, as elegantly as it deserves, the expression, ‘ the attenuation of the divine principle.’
Apart, then, altogether from the statement made by the old abbot, there are ample reasons for doubting the veracity of M. Notovitch’s narrative.
In my last conversation with the Lama we talked of the story of the broken leg. He assured me that
ALLEGED SOJOURN OF CHRIST IN INDIA. 197
do European gentleman had ever been nursed in the monastery while suffering from a broken limb, and then went on to say that no European traveller had ever during his term of office remained at Himis for more than three days. The abbot called in several old monks to confirm this statement, and mentioned that the hospitality offered by the monastery to travellers is for one night, and is only extended for special reasons by his personal invitation, and that he and his monks would not have forgotten so unusual a circumstance.
That M. Notovitcli may have injured his leg after leaving Leh on the road to Srinagar is possible, but the whole story of the broken leg, in so far as it relates to Himis Monastery, is neither more nor less than a fiction.
The Lamaistes of Ladakh are divided into two great parties : the red monks, or orthodox conservative body ; and the yellow monks, a reforming nonconformist sect.
On p. 1 19 of the Unknown Life of Christ, the Lama of Himis, the Chief Superior under the Dalai Lama of the red or orthodox monks of Ladakh, describes himself and his fellow monks as ‘ we yellow monks,’ in one of those wonderful conversations before alluded to. It would be just as natural for his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, discussing the state of the English Church with an unsophisticated foreigner, to describe himself and the whole bench of bishops as ‘we ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist body.’ The Russian traveller might have remembered the dark-red robes and the red wallets of the monks who fill the monastery of Himis, unless it be that the Russian author is colour-blind, as well as blind to
198
LAST ESSAYS.
a sense of truth. The l'eligious differences of these two religious bodies are described with an inaccuracy so marvellous that it might almost seem to be intentional.
Regarded, then, in the light of a work of the imagination, M. Notovitch’s book fails to please, because it does not present that most fascinating feature of fiction, a close semblance of probability.
And yet, if I am rightly informed, the French version has gone through eleven editions ; so M. Notovitch’s effort of imagination has found, doubt- less, a substantial reward. In face of the evidence adduced, we must reject the theory generously put forward by Professor Max Muller, that M. Notovitch was the victim of a cunning ‘ hoax ’ on the part of the Buddhist monks of Himis.
I do not believe that the venerable monk who presides over Himis Monastery would have consented to the practice of such a deception, and I do not think that any of the monks are capable of carrying out such a deception successfully. The departures from truth on other points which can be proved against