ON KRISHNA, AND SOLAR MYTHS. 165 
third century B.c.”? His reasonings, however, are not very 
conclusive, though ingenious. Several of his dates are con- 
siderably in advance of Professor Max Miiller’s. It is well 
known that the chronology of the early Hindu books is a very 
difficult subject; and is one which, in reference to early 
religions, would perhaps better repay investigation than any 
other study to which the Indian student can at the present 
time devote himself. Professor Max Miiller has expended 
much labour on it, the result of which we have in the notes 
on his India: What can it Teach Us? and elsewhere. 
9. The fact is, it is impossible to prove that the Gita 
was written prior to the Christian era. Mr. Telane thinks 
differently ; but, as I have said, I do not think that his 
reasoning is conclusive. I have not space to follow it in 
detail, but confine myself to one or two points. Mr. Telang 
lays great stress on the unsystematic character of the teaching 
of the Git&, compared with the systematic, orderly, and 
exhaustive method of the Yoga-Stitras, which were the work 
of Patanjali. On this he bases the conclusion that the Gita 
was the work of a more speculative age than that of Patanjali, 
when religious conclusions had not been systematised: that 
in this respect the Git&iis of the same character as the Vedic 
Upanishads ; and that therefore the poem is the work of an 
age prior to that of Patanjali. For instance, he gives as an 
illustration a passage from the Gita, exactly parallel to one in 
Patanjali’s Yoga-Siitras, one of which must have been quoted 
from the other—the passage in the Gita is a saying of 
Krishna’s, that ‘‘the mind may be restrained by practice 
(abhyasa), and indifference to worldly objects (vairigya).” He 
observes that Patanjali follows out the thought by systematic 
reasoning, whereas the writer of the Gitéi drops the subject 
after the bare recital of the aphorism. But if he quotes 
Patanjali, this is Just what we should expect. He quotes, as 
most men do, the main thought, which is enough for his 
Apollo there is no real parallel to the incarnation of our Saviour, and the 
doctrine of the New Testament. 
Itis worthy of notice that Mr. Spencer is entirely silent in the Heclesias- 
tical Institutions as to the absolutely historical character of the New 
Testament, existing, as it does, by the side of monuments as well as acts, 
the origin of which it records, and which it would have been impossible to 
impose upon the world after the time of the Apostles themselves. We get 
very near to Christ in the Apostles, who, as I suppose few sceptics would 
deny, were His actual companions, some of them probably his relatives. 
Their testimony as to Him is very different from the legends as to Pythagoras 
and Plato, reported, 600 or 700 years after their careers had closed, by 
Diogenes, Porphyry, and Iamblichus. 
