Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s1.16

c9.s1.16

In connection with this, Sylvain Lévi comments that the story of Buddhaghosa is an obvious attempt to connect the name with the word *chavī*, meaning *brilliance*, and points to the similarity of this legend with another in the *Mahābhārata* recording the birth of the one hundred sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.¹ Other than noting this similarity, Lévi neither suggests an alternative etymology for the term, nor comments further on Buddhaghosa's interpretation. Prof. Rhys Davids,² D. R. Bhandarkar,³ K. P. Jayaswal,⁴ R. C. Majumdar,⁵ B. C. Law,⁶ Malalasekera⁷ and A. S. Altekar⁸ say nothing about the term except to mention it and discuss the various forms in which it occurs. Those who give the etymology (Sylvain Lévi, Malalasekera and Law) only report the derivation suggested by Buddhaghosa. In this connection B.C. Law simply says that “the word (Licchavi) is rather peculiar and defies easy analysis by the ordinary rules of grammar—hence the mythological interpretation by the commentator”.⁹ The etymology given by Buddhaghosa is evidently mythological, legendary and divorced from historical fact. It is, however, the only etymology we have. During the last 1,500 years no scholar has tackled the problem, and a solution seems long overdue.