Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s3: Pariśiṣṭas

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s3

Language
English

Contents

Pariśiṣṭas

c8.s3.1

There is one class of works which must be mentioned before we leave the Sûtra period, the so-called Pariśiṣṭas. They are evidently later than the Sûtras, and their very name, Paralipomena, marks their secondary importance. They have, however, a character of their own, and they represent a distinct period of Hindu literature, which, though it is of less interest to the student, and though it shows clear traces of intellectual and literary degeneracy, is not on that account to be overlooked by the historian. Some of the more substantial Pariśiṣṭas profess to be composed by authors whose names belong to the Sûtra period. Thus Śaunaka is called the author of the Charaṇavyûha by the commentator of Pâraskara’s Gṛihya-sûtras, Râma-kṛiṣṇa¹ (MS. E.I.H. 440. 577. 912.); a writer no doubt quite untrustworthy where he gives his own opinions, but yet of some importance where he quotes the opinions of others. Kâtyâyana is quoted as the author of the Chhandoga-pariśiṣṭa.² The same Kuśika, who is known as the author of the Sûtras for the Âtharvaṇa, is mentioned as the author of the Âtharvaṇa-pariśiṣṭas also. Other Pariśiṣṭas, though not ascribed to Kâtyâyana, are said to be composed in accordance with his opinions.³ Again, while the Gṛihya-sûtras of the Chhandogas are acknowledged as the work of Gobhila, a Pariśiṣṭa on the same subject is ascribed to the son of Gobhila.⁴ The names of Śaunaka and Kâtyâyana are frequently invoked at the beginning or end of these works, and though some of them appear to us simply useless and insipid, it is not to be denied that others contain information which we should look for in vain in the Sûtras. Their style is less concise than that of the Sûtras. The simple Anushṭubh Śloka preponderates, and the metre is more regular than that of the genuine Anushṭubh compositions of Śaunaka. Their style resembles that of the Bârhaddaivata and Rig-vidhâna, works originally composed by Śaunaka, but handed down to us, as it would seem, in a more modern form. But on the other side the Páriśiṣṭas have not yet fallen into that monotonous uniformity which we find in works like the Mânava-dharma-śâstra, the Paddhatis, or the later Purâṇas; and passages from them are literally quoted in the Purâṇas. The Páriśiṣṭas, therefore, may be considered the very last outskirts of Vedic literature, but they are Vedic in their character, and it would be difficult to account for their origin at any time except the expiring moments of the Vedic age.

c8.s3.2

¹ The word stûpa does not occur in Pāṇini or the Gaṇapāṭha. Sāyaṇa to Rv. i. 24. 7. does not quote the Uṇādi-sûtra, but derives stûpa from a root styai, affix pa.

c8.s3.3

¹ त नर्णयस्वरव्यूहे शौनकेन दर्शितः॥

c8.s3.4

² छंदोगपरिशिष्टं कात्यायनमुनिकृतं सामवेदिककर्मबोधकं गोभिलसूत्राणां परिशेषशास्त्रमिति स्मृतिः॥

c8.s3.5

³ MS. Bodl. W. 510. अष्टादश परिशिष्टानि तदादौ यूपलक्षणं। चातुर्वर्ण्य (चातुर्वर्ण्य) प्रवक्ष्यामि वृक्षाणां पञ्चभिः सह॥ निंदाप्रशंसे वक्ष्यामः कात्यायनमतात्तथा॥

c8.s3.6

⁴ MS. Bodl. W. 504. गृह्यसंग्रहं नाम परिशिष्टं गोभिलणकृतं॥

c8.s3.7

The following argument may serve to confirm the favourable view which I take of some of the Páriśiṣṭas. Besides the MSS. of the Charaṇavyûha, there is a printed edition of it in Râja Râdhakânta Deva's Śabdakalpadruma. This printed text is evidently taken from more modern MSS. It quotes seventeen instead of fifteen Śâkhâs of the Vâjasaneyins; whereas the original number of fifteen is confirmed by our MSS. of the Charaṇavyûha, by the Pratijñâ-pariśiṣṭa, and even by so late a work as the Vishnu-purâṇa (p. 281.). We may therefore suppose that at the time when the Páriśiṣṭa, called the Charaṇavyûha, was originally composed, these two additional Śâkhâs did not yet exist. Now one of them is the Śâkhâ of the Kâtyâyanîyas, a Śâkhâ, like many of those mentioned in the Purāṇas, founded on Sūtras, not on Brāhmaṇas. The fact, therefore, of this modern Śākhā not being mentioned in the original Charaṇavyūha serves as an indication that at the time of the original composition of that Pariśiṣṭa, sufficient time had not yet elapsed to give to Kātyāyana the celebrity of being the founder of a new Śākhā.

c8.s3.8

On the other hand it should be stated that Pāṇini does not seem to have known literary works called Pariśiṣṭas.¹

c8.s3.9

¹ Pariśiṣṭa occurs only as a pratyudāharaṇa in Pāṇ. iv. 1. 48, but it is used there as a feminine, and in quite a different sense.

c8.s3.10

The number of Pariśiṣṭas is frequently stated at eighteen. This may have been their number at some time, or for one particular Veda, but it is now considerably exceeded. The Charaṇavyūha, itself a Pariśiṣṭa, gives the same number; but it seems to speak of the Pariśiṣṭas of the Yajur-veda only. There is a collection of Pariśiṣṭas for each Veda. Works, such as the Bahvṛicha-pariśiṣṭa, Sānkhāyana-pariśiṣṭa, Āśvalāyana-gṛihya-pariśiṣṭa, must be ascribed to the Rig-veda. A MS. (Bodl. 466.) contains a collection of Pariśiṣṭas which belong to the Sāma-veda. At the end of the first treatise it is said: “iti Sāmagānām chhandaḥ samāptam,” “here end the metres of the Sāma-singers.”² Other treatises begin with the invocation, “Namaḥ Sāmavedāya.” The second is called Kratusangraha, on sacrifices; the third, Viniyoga-sangraha, on the employment of hymns; the fourth, Somotpattiḥ, on the origin of Soma. The fifth and sixth treatises contain the index to the Archika of the Sāma-veda after the Naigeya-śākhā. As no pointed allusions to other Vedas occur in these tracts, there can be little doubt that the whole collection of these Pariśiṣṭas may be classed as Sâma-veda literature. The Chhandoga-pariśiṣṭa, however, which is commonly ascribed to Kâtyâyana, is not found in this MS. The Pariśiṣṭas of the Yajur-veda are enumerated in the Charaṇavyûha, and will have to be examined presently. Those of the Âtharvaṇa are estimated by Professor Weber at seventy-four¹, and are said to be written in the form of dialogues, in a style similar to that of the Purâṇas, and sometimes, we are told, agreeing literally with chapters of the astrological Sanhitâs.

c8.s3.11

² It is also called chhandasām vichayaḥ, and contains quotations from the Tāṇḍya-brāhmaṇa, Pingala, the Nidāna, and Uktha-śāstra.

c8.s3.12

¹ According to a passage in the Charaṇavyûha, belonging to the Âtharvaṇa, the number of the Kauśikoktâni Pariśiṣṭâni would amount to 70.

c8.s3.13

According to the Charaṇavyûha² the following are the eighteen Pariśiṣṭas of the Yajur-veda:

c8.s3.14

² Besides the MS. of the E. I. H., and collations of some of the MSS. at Berlin, I have used the printed edition of the Charaṇavyûha in Râdhakânta's Sanskrit Encyclopædia. The MSS. differ so much that it would be hazardous to correct the one by the other. They probably represent different versions of the same text. The name of the author varies likewise. Sometimes he is called Śaunaka, sometimes Kâtyâyana, and in Râdhakânta's edition, Vyâsa. The last is, perhaps, meant for the same whom we found mentioned before as the author of a Commentary on Patañjali's Yoga. The text has since been published by Prof. Weber.

c8.s3.15

1. The Yûpalakṣaṇam; according to Vyâsa's Charaṇavyûha, the Upajyotiṣam.

c8.s3.16

2. The Chhâgalakṣaṇam; Mângalalakṣaṇam, (Vyâsa).

c8.s3.17

3. The Pratijñâ; Pratijñânuvâkyam? (Vyâsa).

c8.s3.18

4. The Anuvâkasankhyâ; Parisankhyâ (Vyâsa).

c8.s3.19

5. The Charaṇavyûhaḥ; Charaṇavyûhaḥ (Vyâsa).

c8.s3.20

6. The Śrâddhakalpaḥ; Śrâddhakalpaḥ (Vyâsa).

c8.s3.21

7. The Śulvikâni or Śulvâni.

c8.s3.22

8. The Pârshadam.

c8.s3.23

9. The Rigyajûnshî.
10. The Iṣṭakâpûraṇam.
11. The Pravarâdhyâyaḥ; Pravarâdhyâyaḥ (Vyâsa, No. 7.)
12. The Uktha-śâstram; Śâstram (Vyâsa, No. 8).
13. The Kratusankhyâ; Kratu (Vyâsa, No. 9).
14. The Nigamâḥ; Âgamaḥ (Vyâsa, No. 10).
15. The Yajnapârśve or pârśvam; Yajnam (Vyâsa, No. 11); Pârśvân (Vyâsa, No. 12).
16. The Hautrakam; Hautrakam (Vyâsa, No. 13).
17. The Prasavotthânam; Paśavaḥ (Vyâsa, No. 14); Ukthâni, (Vyâsa, No. 15).
18. The Kûrmalakṣaṇam; Kûrmalakṣaṇam, (Vyâsa, No. 16).

c8.s3.24

A similar order has evidently been followed in a collection of the Pariśiṣṭas, forming part of Professor Wilson's valuable collection of MSS., now deposited in the Bodleian Library. The MS., however, is incomplete, and seems to have been copied by a person ignorant of Sanskrit from another MS., the leaves of which had been in confusion. Most of the MSS. of these Pariśiṣṭas are carelessly copied, whereas the MSS. of the Sûtras are generally in excellent condition. The MSS. which Râja Râdhakântadeva used seem to have been in an equally bad state, if we may judge from the various readings which he occasionally mentions.¹ But although the Bodleian MS. leaves much to desire, it serves at least to support the authenticity of the titles given in the MS. of the Caraṇavyûha against the blunders of the printed text. We find there:

c8.s3.25

¹ For instance पार्व्यानुह्रोचकमपि पाठः। instead of पार्ष्वान्। हौत्रकं॥

c8.s3.26

1. The Yûpalakṣaṇam,¹ a short treatise on the manner of preparing the sacrificial post.

c8.s3.27

¹ MS. Chambers, 66.

c8.s3.28

2. The Chhâgalakṣaṇam,² on animals fit for sacrifice.

c8.s3.29

² MS. Chambers, 66.

c8.s3.30

3. The Pratijñâ,³ begins with giving some definition of sacrificial terms, but breaks off with the fourth leaf, whereas the Pravarâdhyâya (No. 11) had already been commenced on the third, and is afterwards carried on on the fifth leaf. Thus we lose from the fourth to the eleventh Pariśiṣṭa, which formed part of the original MS. if we may judge from the fact that the Pravarâdhyâya is here also called the eleventh Pariśiṣṭa.

c8.s3.31

³ Called Prâtiṣṭhâlakṣaṇam in MS. Chambers, 66.

c8.s3.32

4. The Anuvâkasankhyâ exists in MS. E. I. H. 965.

c8.s3.33

5. The Charaṇavyûhaḥ is found in numerous copies.

c8.s3.34

6. The Śrâddhakalpaḥ exists in MS. E. I. H. 1201, and MS. Chambers 66. It is there ascribed to Kâtyâyana. There is also among the Chambers MSS. at Berlin (292—294) a Śrâddha-kalpa-bhâshya ascribed to Gobhila.

c8.s3.35

7. The Śulvikâni are found in MS. Chambers 66, and a Śulvadîpikâ, MS. E. I. H. 1678.

c8.s3.36

8. The Pârshadam. This must not be mistaken for a Prâtiśâkhya, nor would it be right to call the Prâtiśâkhyas Pariśiṣṭas. The Pârshada is a much smaller work, as may be seen from a MS. in the Royal Library at Berlin, Chambers 378.

c8.s3.37

9. The Rigyajûnshi is the only Pariśiṣṭa that cannot be verified in MS.; there is no reason for supposing that it was an Anukramaṇî either of the Yajur-veda or Rig-veda.

c8.s3.38

10. The Iṣṭakâpûraṇam has been preserved in MS. Chambers 389 with a commentary by Karka, and in MS. Chambers 392, with a commentary by Yâjnikadeva.

c8.s3.39

11. The Pravarâdhyâyaḥ is found again in our MS., and is followed by a small tract, the Gotranirṇayaḥ. The seven principal Pravaras are those of the Bhṛigus, Angiras, Viśvâmitras, Vasiṣṭhas, Kaśyapas, Atris, and Agastis. The eight founders of Gotras or families are Jamadagni, Bharadvâja, Viśvâmitra, Atri, Gautama, Vasiṣṭha, Kaśyapa and Agastya.¹ The whole treatise, of which more hereafter, is ascribed to Kâtyâyana.²

c8.s3.40

12. The Uktha-śâstram is found in our MS. So is

c8.s3.41

13. The Kratusankhyâ, which gives an enumeration of the principal sacrifices.

c8.s3.42

14. The Nigama-pariśiṣṭa is the last in our MS. It contains a number of Vedic words with their explanations, and forms a useful appendix to Yâska's Nirukta. It alludes not only to the four castes, but the names of the mixed castes also, according to the Anuloma and Pratiloma order, are mentioned.

c8.s3.43

The four last Pariśiṣṭas are wanting in our MS. The fifteenth, however, the Yajnapârśvam is found in MS. E. I. H. 1729, Chambers, 358; the sixteenth, the Hautrakam, exists with a commentary in MS. Chambers 669. The two last Pariśiṣṭas have not yet been met with in MS., but we may probably

c8.s3.44

¹ जमदग्निर्भरद्वाजो विश्वामित्रोऽथगौतमौ।
वसिष्ठकश्यपागस्त्या मुनयो गोत्रकारिणः॥
एतेषां यान्यपत्यानि तानि गोत्राणि मन्यते॥

c8.s3.45

¹ जमदग्निर्भरद्वाजो विश्वामित्रोऽथगौतमौ। वसिष्ठकश्यपागस्त्या मुनयो गोत्रकारिणः॥ एतेषां यान्यपत्यानि तानि गोत्राणि मन्यते॥

c8.s3.46

² कात्यायनविरचितो विप्राणां हितकाम्यया।
अध्यायः प्रवराख्योऽयं पुरा ब्रह्मविनिर्मितः॥

c8.s3.47

² कात्यायनविरचितो विप्राणां हितकाम्यया। अध्यायः प्रवराख्योऽयं पुरा ब्रह्मविनिर्मितः॥

c8.s3.48

form some idea of the last, the Kûrmalakshaṇam, from some chapters of Varâhamihira’s Bṛihatsaṃhitâ, where we find both a Kûrmavibhâgaḥ and a Kûrmalakshaṇam, the last being there followed by a chapter, called by the same name as the second Pariśishṭa, Chhâgalakshaṇam.

c8.s3.49.1

Although there is little of real importance to be learned from these Pariśishṭas, the fact of their existence is important in the history of the progress and decay of the Hindu mind. As in the first or Chhandas period, we see the Aryan settlers of India giving free utterance to their thoughts and feelings, and thus creating unconsciously a whole world of religious, moral, and political ideas; as we find them again during the second or Mantra period, carefully collecting their harvest; and during the third or Brâhmaṇa period busily occupied in systematising and interpreting the strains of their forefathers, which had already become unintelligible and sacred; as in the fourth or Sûtra period we see their whole energy employed in simplifying the complicated system of the theology and the ceremonial of the Brâhmaṇas; so we shall have to recognise in these Pariśishṭas a new phase of the Indian mind, marked by a distinct character, which must admit of historical explanation. The object of the Pariśishṭas is to supply information on theological or ceremonial points which had been passed over in the Sûtras, most likely because they were not deemed of sufficient importance, or because they were supposed to be well known to those more immediately concerned. But what most distinguishes the Pariśishṭas from the Sûtras is this, that they treat everything in a popular and superficial manner;

c8.s3.49.2

as if the time was gone, when students would spend ten or twenty years of their lives in fathoming the mysteries and mastering the intricacies of the Brâhmaṇa literature. A party driven to such publications as the Pariśiṣṭas, is a party fighting a losing battle. We see no longer that self-complacent spirit which pervades the Brâhmaṇas. The authors of the Brâhmaṇas felt that whatever they said must be believed, whatever they ordained must be obeyed. They are frightened by no absurdity, and the word "impossible" seems to have been banished from their dictionary. In the Sûtras we see that a change has taken place. Their authors seem to feel that the public which they address will no longer listen to endless theological swaggering. There may have been deep wisdom in the Brâhmaṇas, and their authors may have sincerely believed in all they said; but they evidently calculated on a submissiveness on the part of their pupils or readers, which only exists in countries domineered over by priests or professors. The authors of the Sûtras have learned that people will not listen to wisdom unless it is clothed in a garb of clear argument and communicated in intelligible language. Their works contain all that is essential in the Brâhmaṇas, but they give it in a practical, concise and definite form. These works were written at a time when the Brahmans were fighting their first battles against the popular doctrines of Buddha. They were not yet afraid.

c8.s3.49.3

Their language is firm, though it is no longer inflated. "Buddhism," as Burnouf says,¹ "soon grew into a system of easy devotion, and found numerous recruits among those who were frightened by the difficulties of Brahmanical science. At the same time that Buddhism attracted the ignorant among the Brahmans, it received with open arms the poor and the miserable of all classes.” It was to remove, or at least to simplify, the difficulties of their teaching, that men like Śaunaka and Kātyāyana adopted the novel style of the Sūtras. Such changes in the sacred literature of a people are not made without an object, and the object of the Sūtras, as distinct from that of the Brāhmaṇas, could be no other than to offer practical manuals to those who were discouraged by too elaborate treatises, and who had found a shorter way to salvation opened to them by the heretical preaching of Buddha. After the Sūtras there is no literature of a purely Vedic character except the Pariśiṣṭas. They still presuppose the laws of the Sūtras and the faith of the Brāhmaṇas. There is as yet no trace of any definite supremacy being accorded to Śiva or Viṣṇu or Brahman. New gods, however, are mentioned; vulgar or popular ceremonies are alluded to. The castes have become more marked and multiplied. The whole intellectual atmosphere is still Vedic, and the Vedic ceremonial, the Vedic theology, the Vedic language seem still to absorb the thoughts of the authors of the Pariśiṣṭas.

c8.s3.49.4

Any small matter that had been overlooked by the authors of the Sūtras is noted down as a matter of grave importance. Subjects on which general instructions were formerly considered sufficient, are now treated in special treatises, intended for men who would no longer take the trouble of reading the whole system of the Brahmanic ceremonial. The technical and severe language of the Sūtras was exchanged for a free and easy style, whether in prose or metre; and however near in time the Brahmans may place the authors of the Sûtras and some of the Pariśiṣṭas, certain it is that no man who had mastered the Sûtra style would ever have condescended to employ the slovenly diction of the Pariśiṣṭas. The change in the position and the characters of the Brahmans, such as we find them in the Sûtras, and such as we find them again in the Pariśiṣṭas, has been rapid and decisive. The men who could write such works were aware of their own weakness, and had probably suffered many defeats. The world around them was moving in a new direction, and the old Vedic age died away in impotent twaddle.

c8.s3.50

¹ Burnouf, Introduction à l'Histoire du Buddhisme. Roth, Abhandlungen, p. 22.

c8.s3.51

Considerations like these, in addition to what we found before in inquiring into the age of Kâtyâyana, tend to fix the Sûtra period, as a phase in the literary history of India, as about contemporaneous with the first rise of Buddhism; and they would lead us to recognise in the Pariśiṣṭas the exponents of a later age, that had witnessed the triumphs of Buddhism and the temporary decay of Brahmanic learning and power. The real political triumph of Buddhism dates from Aśoka and his council, about the middle of the third century B.C., and while most of the Vedic Sûtras belong to this and the preceding centuries, none of the Pariśiṣṭa were probably written before that time.

c8.s3.52

Before the Council of Pâṭaliputra the Buddhists place, indeed, 300 years of Buddhist history, but that history was clearly supplied from their own heads and not from authentic documents. Buddhism, up to the time of Aśoka, was but one out of many sects established in India. There had been as yet no schism, but only controversy, such as we find in the Brâhmaṇas themselves between different schools and parties. There were as yet no Brahmans as opposed to Buddhists, in the later sense of the word. No separation had as yet taken place, and the greatest reformers at the time of Buddha were reforming Brahmans. This is acknowledged in the Buddhist writings, though they probably were not written down before Aśoka's Council. But even then Buddha is represented as the pupil of the Brahmans, and no slur is cast on the gods and the songs of the Veda. Buddha, according to his own canonical biographer, learned the Rig-veda and was a proficient in all the branches of Brahmanic lore. His pupils were many of them Brahmans, and no hostile feeling against the Brahmans finds utterance in the Buddhist Canon. This forms a striking contrast with the sacred literature of the Jains. The Jains, who are supposed to have made their peace with the Brahmans, yet in their sacred works, written towards the beginning of the fifth century A.D., treat their opponents with marked disrespect. Their great hero Mahâvîra, though at first conceived by a Brahman woman, is removed from her womb and transferred to the womb of a Kshatriya woman, for "surely," as Sakko (Indra) says¹, "such a thing as this has never happened in past, happens not in present, nor will happen in future time, that an Arhat, a Chakravarti, a Baladeva, or a Vasudeva should be born in a low caste family, a servile family, a degraded family, a poor family, a mean family, a beggar's family, or a Brahman's family; but, on the contrary, in all time, past, present, and to come, an Arhat, a Chakravarti, a Vasudeva, receives birth in a noble family, an honourable family, a royal family, a Kshatriya family, as in the family of Ikshvâku, or the Harivanśa, or some such family of pure descent."

c8.s3.53

¹ Kalpa-sutra, p. 35.

c8.s3.54

Now this is mere party insolence, intelligible in the fifth century A. D., when the Brahmans, as a party, were re-establishing their hierarchical sway. Nothing of the kind is to be found in the canonical books of the Buddhists. Buddha had his opponents, and among them chiefly the Tîrthakas; but so had all eminent sages of whom we read in the Brâhmaṇas. But Buddha had also his friends and followers, and they likewise were Brahmans and Rishis; some of them accepted his doctrines, not excluding the abolition of caste. Buddhism, in its original form, was only a modification of Brahmanism. It grew up slowly and imperceptibly, and its very founder could hardly have been aware of the final results of his doctrines. Before the time that Buddhism became a political power, it had no history, no chronology, it hardly had a name. We hear nothing of Bauddhas in the Brâhmaṇas, though we meet there with doctrines decidedly Buddhistic. The historical existence of Buddhism begins with Aśoka, and the only way to fix the real date of Aśoka is by connecting him with Chandragupta, his second predecessor, the Sandrocottus of the Greeks. To try to fix it according to the early Buddhist chronology would be as hopeless as fixing the date of Alexander according to the chronology of the Purâṇas.

c8.s3.55

It is possible to discover in the decaying literature of Vedic Brahmanism the contemporaneous rise of a new religion, of Buddhism. Every attempt to go beyond, and to bring the chronology of the Buddhists and Brahmans into harmony has proved a failure. The reason, I believe, is obvious. The Brahmans had a kind of vague chronology in the different capitals of their country. They remembered the names of their kings, and they endeavoured to remember the years of their reigns. But to note the year in which an individual, such as Gautama Śâkyasinha, was born, however famous he may have been in his own neighbourhood or even in more distant Parishads, would have entered as little into their thoughts as the Romans, or even the Jews, thought of preserving the date of the birth of Jesus before he had become the founder of a religion. Buddha’s immediate followers may have recollected and handed down, by oral communication, the age at which Buddha died; the age of his disciples too may have been recollected, together with the names of some local Râjas who patronised Buddha and his friends; but never, until the adoption of Buddhism as the state religion by Aśoka, could there have been any object in connecting the lives of Buddha and his disciples with the chronology of the Solar or Lunar Dynasties of India. When, at the time of Aśoka, it became necessary to give an account of the previous history of Buddhism, the chronology then adopted for the early centuries of that faith was necessarily of a purely theoretical kind. We possess more than one system of Buddhist chronology, but none of them can be considered authentic with regard to the times previous to Aśoka, the second successor of Chandragupta. There is the system of the Southern Buddhists, framed in Ceylon; there are the various systems of the Northern Buddhists, prevalent in Nepal, Tibet, and China; and the system of the Purâṇas, if system it can be called, in which Śâkya is made the father of his father, and grandfather of his son. To try to find out which of these chronological systems is the most plausible seems useless, and it can only make confusion worse confounded if we attempt a combination of the three. It has been usual to prefer the chronology of Ceylon, which places Buddha’s death in 543 B.C. But the principal argument in favour of this date is extremely weak. It is said that the fact of the Ceylonese era being used as an era for practical purposes speaks in favour of its correctness. This may be true with regard to the times after the reign of Aśoka. In historical times any era, however fabulous its beginning, will be practically useful; but no conclusion can be drawn from this, its later use, as to the correctness of its beginning. As a conventional era, that of Ceylon may be retained, but until new evidence can be brought forward to substantiate the authenticity of the early history of Buddhism as told by the Ceylonese priests, it would be rash to use the dates of the Southern Buddhists as a corrective standard for those of the Northern Buddhists or of the Brahmans. Each of these chronological systems must be left to itself. They start from different premises, and necessarily arrive at different results. The Northern Buddhists founded their chronology on a reported prophecy of Buddha, that “a thousand years after his death his doctrines would reach the Northern countries.”¹ Buddhism was definitely introduced into China in the year 61 A.D.; hence the Chinese fix the date of Buddha’s death about one thousand years anterior to the Christian era. The variations of the date, according to different Chinese authorities, are not considerable, and may easily be explained by the uncertainty of the time at which Buddhism found its way successively into the various countries north of India, and at last into China.

c8.s3.56

¹ Lassen, Indian Antiquities, ii., p. 58. Schiefner, Mélanges Asiatiques, i. 436.

c8.s3.57

Besides 950 or 949 B.C.¹, which are the usual dates assigned to Buddha's death by Chinese authorities, we may mention the years 1130, 1045, 767, for each of which the same claim has been set up. The year 1130 rests on the authority of Tchao-chi, as quoted by Matouanlin in the annals of the Souï.² Fahian, also, seems to have known this date; for, according to his editor, he placed the death of Buddha towards the beginning of the dynasty Tcheu, and this, according to Chinese chronology, took place in 1122.³ In another place, however, Fahian, speaking of the spreading of Buddhism towards the north, places this event 300 years after Buddha's Nirvâṇa, or in the reign of the Emperor Phing-Wang. As this emperor reigned 770—720, Fahian would seem to have dated the Nirvâṇa somewhere between 1070 and 1020. The date 767 rests on the authority of Matouanlin.⁴ From Tibetan books no less than fourteen dates have been collected⁵; and the Chinese pilgrims who visited India found it impossible to fix on any one date as established on solid evidence. The list of the thirty-three Buddhist patriarchs, first published by Rémusat (Mélanges Asiatiques, i. p. 113), gives the date of their deaths from Chakia-mouni, who died 950 B.C., to Soui-neng, who died 713 A.D., and bears, like everything Chinese, the character of the most exact chronological accuracy. The first link, however, in this long chain of patriarchs is of doubtful character, and the lifetime of Buddha, from 1029 to 950, rests on his own prophecy, that a Millennium would elapse from his death to the conversion of China. If, therefore, Buddha was a true prophet he must have lived about 1000 B.C., and this date once established, everything else had to give way before it. Thus Nâgârjuna, called by the Chinese Nâga Koshuna, or Loung-chou, is placed in their own traditional chronology, which they borrowed from the Buddhists in Northern India, 400 years after the Nirvâna.¹ The Tibetans assign the same date to him.² In the list of the patriarchs, however, he occupies the fourteenth place, and dies 738 years after Buddha. The twelfth patriarch, Maning (Deva Bodhisatva), is traditionally placed by the Chinese 300 years after Buddha. In the list of the patriarchs he dies 618 years after the Nirvâna.

c8.s3.58

¹ Lassen, ii. 52. Foucaux, Rgya Tcher Rol Pa, p. xi.

c8.s3.59

² Foucaux, l. c. note communicated by Stan. Julien.

c8.s3.60

³ Neumann, Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, ii. 117; Lassen, ii. 54.

c8.s3.61

⁴ Foucaux, l. c. According to Klaproth Matouanlin places Buddha 688 to 609.

c8.s3.62

⁵ Csoma, Tibetan Grammar, p. 199—201. They are: 2422, 2148, 2139, 2135, 1310, 1060, 884, 882, 880, 837, 752, 653, 576, 546.

c8.s3.63

¹ Lassen ii. 58. Burnouf, Introduction, i. p. 350. n. 51.

c8.s3.64

² As they place Vasumitra more than 400 after Buddha, the date of Nâgârjuna ought to be about 450.

c8.s3.65.1

But if in this manner the starting point of the Northern Buddhist chronology turns out to be merely hypothetical, based as it is on a prophecy of Buddha, it will be difficult to avoid the same conclusion with regard to the date assigned to Buddha's death by the Buddhists of Ceylon and of Burmah and other countries which received their canonical books from Ceylon. The Ceylonese possess a trustworthy and intelligible chronology beginning with the year 161 B.C.³ Before that time their chronology is traditional, and full of absurdities. According to Professor Lassen, we ought to suppose that the Ceylonese, by some means or other, were in possession of the right date of Buddha's death; and as there was a prophecy of Buddha that Vijaya should land in Ceylon on the same day on which Buddha entered the Nirvâṇa,¹ we are further asked to believe that the Ceylonese historians placed the founder of the Vijayan dynasty of Ceylon in the year 543, in accordance with their sacred chronology. We are not told, however, through what channel the Ceylonese could have received their information as to the exact date of Buddha's death, and although Professor Lassen's hypothesis would be extremely convenient, and has been acquiesced in by most Sanskrit scholars, it would not be honest were we to conceal from ourselves or from others that the first and most important link in the Ceylonese, as well as in the Chinese chronology, is extremely weak.

c8.s3.65.2

All we know for certain is, that the Ceylonese had an historical chronology after the year 161 B.C., that is to say, long before the Brahmans or Buddhists of the North can show anything but tradition. If, then, the exact Ceylonese chronology begins with 161 B.C., it is but reasonable to suppose that there existed in Ceylon a traditional native chronology extending beyond that date; and that, at all events, the first conquest of Ceylon, the establishment of the first dynasty, had some date, whether true or false, assigned to it in the annals of the country. Vijaya, the founder of the first dynasty, means Conquest, and such a person most likely never existed. But his name and fame belong to Ceylon; and even the latest traditions have never connected him with the Buddhist dynasties of India. He is called in the Mahâvańsa, the son of Sinhabâhu, the sovereign of Lâla (supposed to be a subdivision of Magadha, near the Gandakî river), and he is connected by a miraculous genealogy with the kings of Banga (Bengal) and Kalinga (Northern Circars), but not with the Buddhist dynasties of Magadha. The only trace of Buddhism that can be discovered in the legends of Vijaya consists in the fact that his head, and the heads of his seven hundred companions, were shaved when they were sent adrift in a ship that was ultimately to bring them to Ceylon.

c8.s3.65.3

But the author of the Mahâvańsa takes care to say that this shaving of their heads was part of the punishment inflicted on Vijaya by his father, who, when asked by the people to execute his own son for numberless acts of fraud and violence, preferred to send him and his companions adrift on the ocean, after their heads had been shaved. Supposing then that before Dushtagâmani, *i. e.* before 161 B.C., the Ceylonese possessed a number of royal names, and that by assigning to each of them a more or less fabulous reign, they had arrived at the year 543 as the probable date of the Conquest, we can well understand how, under the influence of the later Buddhists, exactly the same thing took place in Ceylon which took place in China. Various temples in Ceylon had their legends, by which their first foundation was ascribed to Buddha himself. Hence the Mahâvańsa begins with relating three miraculous visits which Buddha, during his lifetime, paid to Ceylon. At that time, however, it is said that Ceylon was still inhabited by Yakshas. If thus the very earliest history of the island had been brought in connection with Buddha, it is but natural that some sanction of a similar kind should have been thought necessary with regard to the Conquest. A prophecy was, therefore, invented.

c8.s3.65.4

“The ruler of the world, Buddha,” so says the Mahâvańsa, “having conferred blessings on the whole world, and attained the exalted, unchangeable Nirvâṇa, seated on the throne on which Nirvâṇa is achieved, in the midst of a great assembly of devatâs, the great divine sage addressed this celebrated injunction to Śakra, who stood near him: ‘One Vijaya, the son of Sinhabâhu, king of the land of Lâla, together with seven hundred officers of state, has landed on Laṅkâ. Lord of Devas! my religion will be established in Laṅkâ. On that account thoroughly protect, together with his retinue, him and Laṅkâ.’ The devoted King of Devas having heard these injunctions of the successor (of former Buddhas), assigned the protection of Laṅkâ to the Deva Utpalavarṇa (Vishṇu). He, in conformity to the command of Śakra, instantly repaired to Laṅkâ, and in the character of a parivrâjaka (devotee) took his station at the foot of a tree.

c8.s3.66

³ Turnour, Examination of the Pali Buddhistical Annals, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vi. p. 721.

c8.s3.67

¹ Mahâvanso, p. 46. The Mahâvaṅsa was written in Pâli by Mahânâma. He was a priest and uncle of king Dasenkeleya or Dhâtusena, who reigned from A.D. 459 to 477. Mahânâma made use of earlier histories, and mentions among them the Dîpavaṅsa. This work, also called Mahâvaṅsa, and written in Pâli, is supposed to be still in existence, and carries the history to the reign of Mahâsena, who died A. D. 302. Mahânâma, though he lived more than a hundred years after Mahâsena's death, does not seem to have carried the history much further. His work ends with the account of Mahâsena's reign. It terminates with the 48th verse of the 37th chapter of what is now known as the Mahâvaṅsa, and it is only from conjecture that Turnour, the editor and translator of the first 38 chapters of the Mahâvaṅsa, ascribes the end of the 37th, and the whole of the 38th chapter, to the pen of Mahânâma. Mahânâma's work was afterwards continued by different writers. It now consists of 100 chapters, and carries the history of Ceylon to the middle of the 18th century. He is likewise the author of a commentary on his own work, which commentary ends at the 48th verse of the 37th chapter.

c8.s3.68

“With Vijaya at their head the whole party approaching him, inquired, ‘Pray, devotee, what land is this?’ he replied, ‘The land Lankâ.’ Having thus spoken, he blessed them by sprinkling water on them out of his jug, and having tied (charmed) threads on their arms, departed through the air.”

c8.s3.69

At the end of the preceding chapter, the date of the event is still more accurately fixed. “This prince named Vijaya,” we read there, “who had then attained the wisdom of experience, landed in the division Tâmraparnî of this land Lankâ, on the day that the successor of former Buddhas reclined in the arbour of the two delightful sal-trees, to attain Nirvâna.” In this manner the conquest of Ceylon was invested with a religious character, and at the same time a connection was established between the traditional chronology of Ceylon and the sacred history of Buddha. If Buddha was a true prophet, the Ceylonese argue quite rightly that he must have died in the year of the Conquest, or 543 B. C.

c8.s3.70.1

This synchronism once established, it became necessary to accommodate to it, as well as possible, the rest of the legendary history of the Buddhists. It contained but few historical elements previous to Aśoka’s Council, but that council had again to be connected with the history of Ceylon. Aśoka was the cotemporary of Devânâmpriya Tishya, King of Ceylon. This king adopted Buddhism, and made it, like Aśoka, the state religion of the island. Now, according to the traditional chronology of Ceylon, Devânâmpriya Tishya came to the throne 236 years after the landing of Vijaya¹, and he reigned forty years (307—267 B.C.) He was intimately connected with Aśoka, as we shall see, and it was necessary that the same interval which in the historical traditions of Ceylon separated Devânâmpriya Tishya from Vijaya should separate Aśoka from Buddha. This was achieved in the following manner: One Aśoka is supposed to have come to the throne ninety years after Buddha, and a council (the second, as it is called) is supposed to have taken place in the tenth year of his reign, or just one hundred years after Buddha. At that second council a prophecy was uttered that in 118 years a calamity would befall the Buddhist religion. This refers to the reign of the so-called second Aśoka, who was at first a great enemy to religion.

c8.s3.70.2

Now the first Aśoka is represented to have reigned 18 years after the Council (100 anno Buddhæ), and if we cast up these 118 years, the 22 years of Aśoka's sons, the 22 years of the Nine, the 24 years¹ of Chandragupta, the 28 years of Binduśara, and the 4 years which elapsed before Aśoka's inauguration², we find that Aśoka's inauguration would fall just 118 years after the second Council, 218 years after Buddha, or 325 B. C. The Council of this real Aśoka was held in the 17th year of his reign, or 235 after Buddha. Mahendra, the son of Aśoka, proceeded to Ceylon in the next year, or 236 years after Buddha; and in this manner the arrival of Mahendra in Ceylon, and the inauguration of Devânâmpriya Tishya as King of Ceylon, are brought together in the same year. It is true that in order to achieve this, it has become necessary to add a first Aśoka³, of whom the Northern Buddhists know nothing; it has become necessary to admit another Moggaliputto, and another Council, all equally unknown except in the traditional chronology of Ceylon. The Northern Buddhists know but one Aśoka, the grandson of Chandragupta; they know but one Council, besides the Assembly following immediately on the death of Buddha, viz. the Council of Pāṭaliputra under Dharmāśoka, and this they place 110 years after Buddha’s Nirvāṇa.¹ Piṇḍola, a contemporary of of Buddha, was seen as an old man by Aśoka. But who was to contradict the Ceylonese historians?

c8.s3.70.3

They possessed, what the Buddhists of Magadha did not possess, a history of their island and their sovereigns. They valued historical chronology for its own sake, forming an exception in this respect to all other nations of India. They were a colony, and like most colonies, they valued the traditions of the past. The Buddhists of Magadha, as far as we are able to judge, preserved but a few historical recollections, frequently in the form of prophecies, which they afterwards forced into the loose frame of the Brahmanic chronology. The Buddhists of Ceylon did not borrow the outlines of their history either from the Brahmans or from the Buddhists of Magadha; and this is a point which has never been sufficiently considered. Their outlines of history were not constructed originally in order to hold the Buddhist traditions of the North. They may have been slightly modified, so as to avoid glaring inconsistencies between the profane history of Ceylon and the sacred history of Buddhism. But there is evidence to show that, on the other hand, the historical legends of Magadha had to yield much more considerably,—the framers of the final chronology finding it impossible to ignore the annals of their island and the reigns of their ancient half-fabulous kings. The chronology of the Mahâvańśa is a compromise between the chronology of Ceylon and that of Magadha, but the latter was the more pliant of the two.

c8.s3.70.4

There is nothing to prove that the *terminus à quo* of the chronology of Ceylon,—the date of Vijaya’s landing—was borrowed from the North. There were Buddhist traditions connecting Vijaya’s landing with the death of Buddha, but the date 543 B. C. is never found in the sacred chronology of Buddhism, before it was borrowed from the profane chronology of Ceylon. There were similar, and, as it would seem, better founded traditions, connecting Devânâmpriya Tishya with the great Aśoka; but the date of Devânâmpriya Tishya was not determined by the date of the great Aśoka, nor was the date of Aśoka’s Council, as 110 after Buddha, accepted in Ceylon. On the contrary, the interval between Vijaya and Devânâmpriya Tishya was allowed to remain as it stood in the Ceylonese annals, and the Buddhist traditions were stretched in order to suit that interval. An intermediate Aśoka and an intermediate Council were admitted, which were unknown to the Northern Buddhists. The prophecy that Nâgârjuna should live 400 years after Buddha¹, had been altered by the Chinese so as to suit their chronology. They placed him 800 years after Buddha. In like manner the Ceylonese Buddhists, having fixed Buddha's death at 543 B.C., changed the traditional date of Nâgârjuna from 400 to 500 after Buddha.¹ All this is constructive chronology, and whether we follow the Chinese or Ceylonese date of Buddha, we must always remember that in both the *terminus à quo* is purely hypothetical.

c8.s3.70.5

This does not interfere with the correctness of minor details, such as the number of years assigned to each king, and in particular the chronological distance between certain events. These may have formed part of popular tradition, long before any system of chronology was established. A very old man, Piṇḍola, was represented in a popular legend to have been a contemporary both of Buddha and of Dharmâśoka. Hence the interval between the founder and the royal patron of Buddhism would naturally be fixed at about 100 years. This is a tradition which may be used for historical purposes. Again, when we see that a date like that of Nâgârjuna fixed in the North of India at 400 after Buddha, is altered to 800 and 500, so as to suit the requirements of two different systems of chronology, we may feel inclined to look upon the unsystematic date as the most plausible. But in order to make use of such indications we must first of all establish a που στῶ, and this can only be found in Chandragupta. Everything in Indian chronology depends on the date of Chandragupta. Chandragupta was the grandfather of Aśoka, and the contemporary of Seleucus Nicator. Now, according to Chinese chronology, Aśoka would have lived, to waive minor differences, 850 or 750 B.C., according to Ceylonese chronology, 315 B.C.

c8.s3.70.6

Either of these dates is impossible, because it does not agree with the chronology of Greece, and hence both the Chinese and Ceylonese dates of Buddha's death must be given up as equally valueless for historical calculations.

c8.s3.71

¹ Mahavanso, Pref. p. lii.

c8.s3.72

¹ Not thirty-four years as printed in the Mahâvanso. See Lassen, ii. 62. n.

c8.s3.73

² As. Res., xx. p. 167.

c8.s3.74

³ This first Aśoka is called Kâlâśoka, a name which it would be too bold to explain as the chronological Aśoka.

c8.s3.75

¹ In some instances that date is changed to 200 A.B., by means of a reaction exercised by the literature of Ceylon on the chronology of the Continental Buddhists. Burnouf, Introduction, p. 436. 578.

c8.s3.76

¹ As. Res. xx. 513.

c8.s3.77

¹ Turnour, Examination of some points of Buddhist Chronology, Journal of the As. S. B., v. 530. Lassen, ii. 58.

c8.s3.78

There is but one means through which the history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology be reduced to its proper limits. Although we look in vain in the literature of the Brahmans or Buddhists for any allusion to Alexander's conquest, and although it is impossible to identify any of the historical events, related by Alexander's companions, with the historical traditions of India, one name has fortunately been preserved by classical writers who describe the events immediately following Alexander's conquest, to form a connecting link between the history of the East and the West. This is the name of Sandracottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta.

c8.s3.79

We learn from classical writers, Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius and Plutarch, that in Alexander's time there was on the Ganges a powerful king of the name of Xandrames, and that soon after Alexander's invasion, a new empire was founded there by Sandracottus or Sandrocyptus. Justin says: "Sandracottus gave liberty to India after Alexander's retreat, but soon converted the name of liberty into servitude after his success, subjecting those whom he had rescued from foreign dominion to his own authority. This prince was of humble origin, but was called to royalty by the power of the gods; for, having offended Alexander by his impertinent language, guage,¹ he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Fatigued with his journey he lay down to rest, when a lion of large size came and licked off the sweat that poured from him with his tongue, and retired without doing him any harm. The prodigy inspired him with ambitious hopes, and collecting bands of robbers he roused the Indians to rebellion. When he prepared for war against the captains of Alexander, a wild elephant of enormous size approached him, and received him on his back as if he had been tamed. He was a distinguished general and a brave soldier. Having thus acquired power, Sandracottus reigned over India at the time when Seleucus was laying the foundation of his greatness, and Seleucus entered into a treaty with him, and settling affairs on the side of India directed his march against Antigonus."²

c8.s3.80

¹ Plutarch, Vita Alex. c. 62, says that Sandracottus saw Alexander when he was a μειράκιον.

c8.s3.81

² Justini Hist. Philipp. Lib. xv. cap. iv.

c8.s3.82

Besides this we may gather from classical writers the following statements, bearing on Xandrames and Sandrocyptus: "When Alexander made inquiries about the interior of India, he was told that beyond the Indus there was a vast desert of 12 (or 11, according to Curtius,) days' journey, and that at the farthest borders thereof ran the Ganges. Beyond that river, he was told, the Prasii (Prâchyas) dwelt, and the Gangaridæ. Their king was named Xandrames, who could bring into the field 20,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 2,000 chariots, and 4,000 (or 3,000, Curtius,) elephants. Alexander who did not at first believe this, inquired from king Porus whether this account of the power of Xandrames was true; and he was told by Porus that it was true, but that the king was but of mean and obscure extraction, accounted to be a barber's son; that the queen, however, had fallen in love with the barber, had murdered her husband, and that the kingdom had thus devolved upon Xandrames.”¹ Quintus Curtius says², “that the father of Xandrames had murdered the king, and under pretence of acting as guardian to his sons, got them into his power and put them to death; that after their extermination he begot the son who was then king, and who, more worthy of his father's condition than his own, was odious and contemptible to his subjects.” Strabo adds³, “that the capital of the Prasii was called Palibothra, situated at the confluence of the Ganges and another river,” which Arrian⁴ specifies as the Erannoboas. Their king, besides his birth-name, had to take the name of the city, and was called the Palibothrian. This was the case with Sandracottus to whom Megasthenes was sent frequently. It was the same king with whom Seleucus Nicator contracted an alliance, ceding to him the country beyond the Indus, and receiving in its stead 500 elephants.⁵ Megasthenes visited his court several times⁶; and the same king, as Plutarch says⁷, “traversed India with an army of 600,000 men, and conquered the whole.”

c8.s3.83

¹ Diodorus Siculus, xvii. 93. The statement in Photii Biblioth. p. 1579, that Porus was the son of a barber, repeated by Libanius, tom. ii. 632., is evidently a mistake. Plutarch, Vita Alexandri, c. 62, speaks of 80,000 horse, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 elephants.

c8.s3.84

² Quintus Curtius, ix. 2.

c8.s3.85

³ Strabo, xv. 1. 36.

c8.s3.86

⁴ Arrian, Indica, x. 5.

c8.s3.87

⁵ Strabo, xv. 2. 9.

c8.s3.88

⁶ Arrian, Exped. v. 6, Indica, v. 3.

c8.s3.89

⁷ Plutarch, Vita Alexandri, c. 62.

c8.s3.90

These accounts of the classical writers contain a number of distinct statements which could leave very little doubt as to the king to whom they referred. Indian historians, it is true, are generally so vague and so much given to exaggeration, that their kings are all very much alike, either all black or all bright. But nevertheless, if there ever was such a king as the king of the Prasii, an usurper, residing at Pâtaliputra, called Sandrocyptus or Sandracottus, it is hardly possible that he should not be recognized in the historical traditions of India. There is in the lists of the kings of India the name of Chandragupta, and the resemblance of this name with the name of Sandracottus or Sandrocyptus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones.¹ Wilford, Professor Wilson, and Professor Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir W. Jones's conjecture; and although other scholars, and particularly M. Troyer, in his edition of the Râjataranginî, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favour of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt. It is objected that the Greeks called the king of the powerful empire beyond the Indus, Xandrames, or Aggramen. Now the last name is evidently a mere misspelling for Xandrames, and this Xandrames is not the same as Sandracottus. Xandrames, if we understand the Greek accounts rightly, is the predecessor of Chandragupta or rather the last king of the empire conquered by Sandracottus. If, however, it should be maintained, that these two names were intended for one and the same king, the explanation would still be very easy. For Chandragupta (the protected of the moon), is also called Chandra¹, the Moon; and Chandramas, in Sanskrit, is a synonyme of Chandra. Xandrames, however, was no doubt intended as different from Chandragupta. Xandrames must have been king of the Prasii before Sandracottus, and during the time of Alexander's wars. If this Xandrames is the same as the last Nanda, the agreement between the Greek account of his mean extraction, and the Hindu account of Nanda being a Śûdra, would be very striking. It is not, however, quite clear whether the same person is meant in the Greek and Hindu accounts. At the time of Alexander's invasion Sandracottus was very young, and being obliged to fly before Alexander, whom he had offended, it is said that he collected bands of robbers, and with their help succeeded in establishing the freedom of India. Plutarch says distinctly that Sandracottus reigned soon after, that is soon after Xandrames, and we know from Justin, that it was Sandracottus, and not Xandrames, who waged wars with the captains of Alexander. Another objection against the identification of Chandragupta and Sandracottus was the site of their respective capitals. The capital of Chandragupta, Pâṭaliputra, was no doubt the same as the Palibothra of Sandracottus, the modern Patna. But exception was taken on the ground that Patna is not situated near the confluence of the Ganges and the Sone or Erannoboas, where the ancient Palibothra stood. This, however, has been explained by a change in the bed of the river Sone, which is established on the best geographical evidence.

First 101 of 205 passages. Read on

Linked texts (32)