78 REV. PROFESSOR JAMES LEGGE, M.A., ON 
Zoroaster! That may be, or may not be; but I am sure 
that the man and the name had nothing to do with Ya 
Hsiung Hwang Ti, the legendary sovereign of China. 
Conclusion. 
20. On the cycle of China, I have nothing more to say 
that bears on the chronology of the nation. I cannot account 
for its origin, nor give the name of its inventor, nor say 
when the use of it began. I cannot account for the tem- 
porary appearance of the barbarous names employed by 
Sze-ma Ch’ien and a few others in lieu of its simple terms. 
Light may come to us on some of these points by and by. 
But the conclusions which I have sought to set forth are 
independent of all theories about the cycle. The era of 
Kung-Ho in B.c. 842 is sufficiently established by astronomical 
calculation and certain historical notices. From that date 
we go back, feeling our way slowly and as surely as we can, 
along the course of time for about 2,000 years more, and 
then all light of history fails us. The facts of the language 
convince us that there were men in China, communities of — 
men long before that date, but we can say nothing further 
about them. 
Canon Rawlinson has done his best to describe the five 
great monarchies of the ancient Kastern world. We are 
gradually becoming aware that there was a sixth Eastern 
monarchy greater than any of his five;—the monarchy of 
China, which probably preceded them, and certainly outlived 
them; and which still lives on, a modern monarchy as well, 
showing comparatively few signs of decay, with hardly a 
wrinkle on its brow! I cannot but hope that there is a 
future before it, compared with which its long past history 
shall not be worthy to come mto mind. 
The Presipent (Sir G. G. Stokes, P.R.S.)—I will ask you in 
the first instance to return thanks to Professor Legge for his very 
elaborate and interesting paper (applause). As there are some 
present conversant with the subject, perhaps they will favour us 
with their remarks.* 
* A brief letter was received from Professor T. de Lacouperie, ex- 
pressing his dissent from Professor Legge’s statement in Section 19—that 
‘Hwang Ti is not to be identified with the Babylonian Nakhunta.” _ 
