Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:49 am

Malabar rites
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/8/21

Malabar rites is a conventional term for certain customs or practices of the natives of South India, which the Jesuit missionaries allowed their Indian neophytes to retain after conversion but which were afterwards prohibited by Rome.

They are not to be confused with the liturgical rite of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (a variant of the East Syriac Rite), for which see Syro-Malabar rite.

The missions concerned are not those of the coast of southwestern India, to which the name Malabar coast properly belongs, but rather those of nearby inner South India, especially those of the former Hindu "kingdoms" of Madurai, Mysore and the Carnatic.

Origins

The question of Malabar Rites originated in the method followed by the Jesuit mission, since the beginning of the seventeenth century, in evangelizing those countries. The prominent feature of that method was an accommodation to the manners and customs of the people to be converted. Enemies of the Jesuits claim that, in Madura, Mysore and the Karnatic, the Jesuits either accepted for themselves or permitted to their neophytes such practices as they knew to be idolatrous or superstitious. Others reject the claim as unjust and absurd and say that the claim is tantamount to asserting that these men, whose intelligence, at least, was never questioned, were so stupid as to jeopardize their own salvation to save others and to endure infinite hardships to establish among the Hindus a corrupt and sham Christianity.

The popes, while disapproving of some usages hitherto considered inoffensive or tolerable by the missionaries, never charged them with having knowingly adulterated the purity of religion. One of them, who had observed the "Malabar Rites" for seventeen years previous to his martyrdom, was conferred by the Church the honour of beatification. The process for the beatification of Father John de Britto was going on at Rome during the hottest period of the controversy over these "Rites", and the adversaries of the Jesuits asserted that beatification to be impossible because it would amount to approving the "superstitions and idolatries" maintained by the missioners of Madura. Still, the cause progressed, and Benedict XIV, on 2 July 1741, declared "that the rites in question had not been used, as among the Gentiles, with religious significance, but merely as civil observances, and that therefore they were no obstacle to bringing forward the process".[1] The mere enumeration of the Decrees by which the question was decided shows how perplexing it was and how difficult the solution. It was concluded that there was no reason to view the "Malabar rites", as practised generally in those missions, in any other light and that the good faith of the missionaries in tolerating the native customs should not be contested; but on the other hand, they erred in carrying this toleration too far.

Father de Nobili's work

The founder of the missions of the interior of South India, Roberto de Nobili, was born in Rome, in 1577, of a noble family from Montepulciano, which numbered among many distinguished relatives the celebrated Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine. When nineteen years of age, he entered the Society of Jesus. After a few years, he requested his superiors to send him to the missions of India. He embarked at Lisbon, 1604, and in 1606 was serving his apostolic apprenticeship in South India, where Christianity was then flourishing on the coasts. It is well known that St Francis Xavier baptized many thousands there, and from the apex of the Indian triangle the faith spread along both sides, especially on the west, the Malabar coast. But the interior of the vast peninsula remained almost untouched. The Apostle of the Indies himself recognized the insuperable opposition of the "Brahmins and other noble castes inhabiting the interior" to the preaching of the Gospel.[2] Yet his disciples were not sparing of endeavours. A Portuguese Jesuit, Gonsalvo Fernandes, had resided in the city of Madura fully fourteen years, having obtained leave of the king to stay there to watch over the spiritual needs of a few Christians from the coast; and, though a zealous and pious missionary, he had not succeeded, within that long space of time, in making one convert. This painful state of things Nobili witnessed in 1606, when together with his superior, the Provincial of Malabar, he paid a visit to Fernandes. At once his keen eye perceived the cause and the remedy.

It was evident that a deep-rooted aversion to the foreign preachers hindered the Hindus of the interior, not only from accepting the Gospel, but even from listening to its message. The aversion was not to the foreigner, but the Prangui. This name, with which the natives of India designed the Portuguese, conveyed to their minds the idea of an infamous and abject class of men, with whom no Hindu could have any intercourse without degrading himself to the lowest ranks of the population. Now the Prangui were abominated because they violated the most respected customs of India, by eating beef, and indulging in wine and spirits; but much as all well-bred Hindus abhorred those things, they felt more disgusted at seeing the Portuguese, irrespective of any distinction of caste, treat freely with the lowest classes, such as the pariahs, who in the eyes of their countrymen of the higher castes, are nothing better than the vilest animals. Accordingly, since Fernandes was known to be a Portuguese, that is a Prangui, and besides was seen living habitually with the men of the lowest caste, the religion he preached, no less than himself, had to share the contempt and execration attending his neophytes, and made no progress whatever among the better classes. To become acceptable to all, Christianity must be presented to all, Christianity must be presented in quite another way. While Nobili thought over his plan, probably the example just set by his countryman Matteo Ricci, in China, stood before his mind. At all events, he started from the same principle, resolving to become, after the motto of St Paul, all things to all men, and a Hindu to the Hindus, as far as might be lawful.

Having ripened his design by thorough meditation and by conferring with his superiors, the Archbishop of Cranganore and the provincial of Malabar, who both approved and encouraged his resolution, Nobili began his career by re-entering Madura in the dress of the saniassy (Hindu ascetics). He never tried to make believe that he was a native of India; else he would have deserved the name of impostor; with which he has sometimes been unjustedly branded; but he availed himself of the fact that he was not a Portuguese, to deprecate the opprobrious name Prangui.

He moved from the missionary compound into a hut in the Brahman quarter of the city and shaved his head except for a small tuft of hair. He spoke only Tamil, hired a Brahman cook and houseboy, and became a vegetarian. Like all Brahmans, Roberto limited himself to one meal a day. He abandoned the black cassock and leather sandals of the Jesuits for a saffron robe and wooden clogs. To cover the "nakedness" of his forehead, he put sandalwood paste on his brow to indicate that he was a guru or teacher. He referred to himself not as a priest but as a sannyasi. Eventually, he ate only with Brahmans, and for a brief period he also wore the Brahman thread of three strands of cotton cord draped from the shoulder to the waist as a sign of rank. He bathed daily and cleansed himself ceremonially before saying mass.

-- Roberto de Nobili: Case study in cross-cultural accommodation, by Howard Culbertson


With the changing social pressures of Buddhism, the communal boundaries that the Vedics had created to prevent racial mixing had also weakened, and the number of inter-caste relationships increased. Even Sanskrit, the secret language of the Vedics, the code of their scriptures and their tool of self-empowerment and superiority, was usurped by indigenous groups. This is evident in the hybridization of languages, where the indigenous cultures fused Sanskrit words and sounds with those of their own language.

These transgressions must have infuriated the priest clans, who felt their artificially propped up racial and spiritual superiority weakening. Their response was to tighten the grip of the caste system, and intensify the laws against intermarriage. The need for purity and protection of caste and lineage was emphasized and Brahmin sanctity was urgently buttressed. People were warned that the punishment for threatening or striking a priest, even with a blade of grass, was they they would be born to evil for twenty-one birth cycles and would have other people eat them in the nether world.

The vulnerable position of the low slave caste in particular was reinforced through intimidation, that is, with more stringent rules and punishments, all in the name of sacred laws. A Shudra pretending to be a Brahmin would have his eyes gouged out; for approaching a Brahmin's kitchen, he would have his tongue rooted out; for claiming to know the Vedas better than a Brahmin, he would have boiling oil poured into his mouth and ears; for daring to sit on the seat of an upper caste, he would have his buttocks chopped off; and for verbally abusing a Brahmin, he would get the death sentence.


In the light of increasing inter-caste liaisons, punishments were intensified for sexual violations of the caste hierarchy. Breaking the laws of caste boundaries was declared anti-religion or 'irreligion'. Mixing bloodlines, it was said, would destroy the foundation of both the social and the divine order. The most abhorred alliance was that of a Brahmin woman with a slave man. They would be discarded as outcastes, and their children too would be assigned to the lowest and most despised subdivision of outcastes, 'the fierce untouchables.' The outcastes were driven out of towns and villages and compelled to live on the outskirts of society. They were to wander constantly since they had no right to a piece of land, even to build a home on. They were also to work in cremation grounds to burn dead bodies, and they had to act as the kingdom's executioners, two jobs which generally nobody wanted to do. Since they could not buy things from the town markets they had to make do with clothes they could scavenge from the unclaimed corpses they burned. They also had to be for their food and eat in broken dishes. There were even stipulations on which animals they could domesticate; the cow being sacred was, of course, taboo to them, their choices being limited to the dog and the donkey, animals that were generally despised as being filthy.

-- Sex and Power, by Rita Banerji


As long as caste is mentioned in government forms, a non Brahmin cannot become a Brahmin and vice versa. No never in the present caste system. Caste is determined even in the womb.

Can a non-Brahmin become a Brahmin?, by http://www.quora.com


The Brahmens among the Hindus have acquired and maintained an authority, more exalted, more commanding, and extensive, than the priests have been able to engross among any other portion of mankind. As great a distance as there is between the Brahmen and the Divinity, so great a distance is there between the Brahmen and the rest of his species. According to the sacred books of the Hindus, the Brahmen proceeded from the mouth of the Creator, which is the seat of wisdom; the Cshatriya proceeded from his arm; the Vaisya from his thigh, and the Sudra from his foot; therefore is the Brahmen infinitely superior in worth and dignity to all other human beings. The Brahmen is declared to be the Lord of all the classes. He alone, to a great degree, engrosses the regard and favour of the Deity; and it is through him, and at his intercession, that blessings are bestowed upon the rest of mankind. The sacred books are exclusively his; the highest of the other classes are barely tolerated to read the word of God; he alone is worthy to expound it. The first among the duties of the civil magistrate, supreme or subordinate, is to honour the Brahmens. The slightest disrespect to one of this sacred order is the most atrocious of crimes. “For contumelious language to a Brahmen,” says the law of Menu, “a Sudra must have an iron style, ten fingers long, thrust red hot into his mouth; and for offering to give instruction to priests, hot oil must be poured into his mouth and ears.” “If,” says Halhed's code of Gentoo laws, “a Sooder sits upon the carpet of a Brahmen, in that case the magistrate, having thrust a hot iron into his buttock, and branded him, shall banish him the kingdom; or else he shall cut off his buttock.” The following precept refers even to the most exalted classes: “For striking a Brahmen even with a blade of grass, or overpowering him in argument, the offender must soothe him by falling prostrate.” Mysterious and awful powers are ascribed to this wonderful being. “A priest, who well knows the law, needs not complain to the king of any grievous injury; since, even by his own power, he may chastise those who injure him: His own power is mightier than the royal power; by his own might therefore may a Brahmen coerce his foes. He may use without hesitation the powerful charms revealed to Atharvan and Angiras; for speech is the weapon of a Brahmen: with that he may destroy his oppressors.” “Let not the king, although in the greatest distress, provoke Brahmens to anger; for they, once enraged, could immediately destroy him with his troops, elephants, horses, and cars. Who without perishing could provoke those holy men, by whom the all-devouring flame was created, the sea with waters not drinkable, and the moon with its wane and increase? What prince could gain wealth by oppressing those, who, if angry, could frame other worlds and regents of worlds, could give being to other gods and mortals? What man, desirous of life, would injure those, by the aid of whom worlds and gods perpetually subsist; those who are rich in the knowledge of the Veda? A Brahmen, whether learned or ignorant, is a powerful Divinity; even as fire is a powerful Divinity, whether consecrated or popular. Thus, though Brahmens employ themselves in all sorts of mean occupations, they must invariably be honoured; for they are something transcendently divine.” Not only is this extraordinary respect and pre-eminence awarded to the Brahmens; they are allowed the most striking advantages over all other members of the social body, in almost every thing which regards the social state. In the scale of punishments for crimes, the penalty of the Brahmen, in almost all cases, is infinitely milder than that of the inferior castes. Although punishment is remarkably cruel and sanguinary for the other classes of the Hindus, neither the life nor even the property of a Brahmen can be brought into danger by the most atrocious offences. “Neither shall the king,” says one of the ordinances of Menu, “slay a Brahmen, though convicted of all possible crimes: Let him banish the offender from his realm, but with all his property secure, and his body unhurt.” In regulating the interest of money, the rate which may be taken from the Brahmens is less than what may be exacted from the other classes. This privileged order enjoy the advantage of being entirely exempt from taxes: “A king, even though dying with want, must not receive any tax from a Brahmen learned in the Vedas.” Their influence over the government is only bounded by their desires, since they have impressed the belief that all laws which a Hindu is bound to respect are contained in the sacred books; that it is lawful for them alone to interpret those books; that it is incumbent on the king to employ them as his chief counsellors and ministers, and to be governed by their advice. “Whatever order,” says the code of Hindu laws, “the Brahmens shall issue conformably to the Shaster, the magistrate shall take his measures accordingly.” These prerogatives and privileges, important and extraordinary as they may seem, afford, however, but an imperfect idea of the influence of the Brahmens in the intercourse of Hindu Society. As the greater part of life among the Hindus is engrossed by the performance of an infinite and burdensome ritual, which extends to almost every hour of the day, and every function of nature and society, the Brahmens, who are the sole judges and directors in these complicated and endless duties, are rendered the uncontrolable masters of human life. Thus elevated in power and privileges, the ceremonial of society is no less remarkably in their favour. They are so much superior to the king, that the meanest Brahmen would account himself polluted by eating with him, and death itself would appear to him less dreadful than the degradation of permitting his daughter to unite herself in marriage with his sovereign. With these advantages it would be extraordinary had the Brahmens neglected themselves in so important a circumstance as the command of property. It is an essential part of the religion of the Hindus, to confer gifts upon the Brahmens. This is a precept more frequently repeated than any other in the sacred books. Gifts to the Brahmens form always an important and essential part of expiation and sacrifice. When treasure is found, which, from the general practice of concealment, and the state of society, must have been a frequent event, the Brahmen may retain whatever his good fortune places in his hands; another man must surrender it to the king, who is bound to deliver one-half to the Brahmens. Another source of revenue at first view appears but ill assorted with the dignity and high rank of the Brahmens; by their influence it was converted into a fund, not only respectable but venerable, not merely useful but opulent. The noviciates to the sacerdotal office are commanded to find their subsistence by begging, and even to carry part of their earnings to their spiritual master. Begging is no inconsiderable source of priestly power...

To all but the Brahmens, the caste of Cshatriyas are an object of unbounded respect. They are as much elevated above the classes below them, as the Brahmens stand exalted above the rest of human kind. Nor is superiority of rank among the Hindus an unavailing ceremony. The most important advantages are attached to it. The distance between the different orders of men is immense and degrading. If a man of a superior class accuses a man of an inferior class, and his accusation proves to be unjust, he escapes not with impunity; but if a man of an inferior class accuses a man of a superior class, and fails in proving his accusation, a double punishment is allotted him. For all assaults, the penalty rises in proportion as the party offending is low, the party complaining high, in the order of the castes. It is, indeed, a general and a remarkable part of the jurisprudence of this singular people, that all crimes are more severely punished in the subordinate classes; the penalty ascending, by gradation, from the gentle correction of the venerable Brahmen to the harsh and sanguinary chastisement of the degraded Sudra. Even in such an affair as the interest of money on loan, where the Brahmen pays two per cent., three per cent. is exacted from the Cshatriya, four per cent. from the Vaisya, and five per cent. from the Sudra. The sovereign dignity, which usually follows the power of the sword, was originally appropriated to the military class, though in this particular it would appear that irregularity was pretty early introduced. To bear arms is the peculiar duty of the Cshatriya caste, and their maintenance is derived from the provision made by the sovereign for his soldiers...

As much as the Brahmen is an object of intense veneration, so much is the Sudra an object of contempt, and even of abhorrence, to the other classes of his countrymen. The business of the Sudras is servile labour, and their degradation inhuman. Not only is the most abject and grovelling submission imposed upon them as a religious duty, but they are driven from their just and equal share in all the advantages of the social institution. The crimes which they commit against others are more severely punished, than those of any other delinquents, while the crimes which others commit against them are more gently punished than those against any other sufferers. Even their persons and labour are not free. “A man of the servile caste, whether bought or unbought, a Brahmen may compel to perform servile duty; because such a man was created by the Self-existent for the purpose of serving Brahmens.” The law scarcely permits them to own property; for it is declared that “no collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he has power, since a servile man, who has amassed riches, gives pain even to Brahmens.” “A Brahmen may seize without hesitation the goods of his Sudra slave; for as that slave can have no property, his master may take his goods.” Any failure in the respect exacted of the Sudra towards the superior classes is avenged by the most dreadful punishments. Adultery with a woman of a higher caste is expiated by burning to death on a bed of iron. The degradation of the wretched Sudra extends not only to every thing in this life, but even to sacred instruction and his chance of favour with the superior powers. A Brahmen must never read the Veda in the presence of Sudras. “Let not a Brahmen,” says the law of Menu, “give advice to a Sudra; nor what remains from his table; nor clarified butter, of which part has been offered; nor let him give spiritual counsel to such a man, nor inform him of the legal expiation for his sin: surely he who declares the law to a servile man, and he who instructs him in the mode of expiating sin, sinks with that very man into the hell named Asamvrita.”...

At the head of this government stands the king, on whom the great lords of the empire immediately depend...A Brahmen ought always to be his prime minister. “To one learned Brahmen, distinguished among the rest, let the king impart his momentous counsel.”...

The Brahmens enjoy the undisputed prerogative of interpreting the divine oracles; for though it is allowed to the two classes next in degree to give advice to the king in the administration of justice, they must in no case presume to depart from the sense of the law which it has pleased the Brahmens to impose. The power of legislation, therefore, exclusively belongs to the priesthood. The exclusive right of interpreting the laws necessarily confers upon them, in the same unlimited manner, the judicial powers of government. The king, though ostensibly supreme judge, is commanded always to employ Brahmens as counsellors and assistants in the administration of justice; and whatever construction they put upon the law, to that his sentence must conform. Whenever the king in person discharges not the office of judge, it is a Brahmen, if possible, who must occupy his place. The king, therefore, is so far from possessing the judicial power, that he is rather the executive officer by whom the decisions of the Brahmens are carried into effect.

They who possess the power of making and interpreting the laws by which another person is bound to act, are by necessary consequence the masters of his actions. Possessing the legislative and judicative powers, the Brahmens were, also, masters of the executive power, to any extent, whatsoever, to which they wished to enjoy it. With influence over it they were not contented. They secured to themselves a direct, and no contemptible share of its immediate functions. On all occasions, the king was bound to employ Brahmens, as his counsellors and ministers; and, of course, to be governed by their judgment. “Let the king, having risen early,” says the law, “respectfully attend to Brahmens learned in the three Vedas, and by their decision let him abide.” It thus appears that, according to the original laws of the Hindus, the king was little more than an instrument in the hands of the Brahmens. He performed the laborious part of government, and sustained the responsibility, while they chiefly possessed the power...

The sacred character of the Brahmen, whose life it is the most dreadful of crimes either directly or indirectly to shorten, suggested to him a process for the recovery of debts, the most singular and extravagant that ever was found among men. He proceeds to the door of the person whom he means to coerce, or wherever else he can most conveniently intercept him, with poison or a poignard in his hand. If the person should attempt to pass, or make his escape, the Brahmen is prepared instantly to destroy himself. The prisoner is therefore bound in the strongest chains; for the blood of the self-murdered Brahmen would be charged upon his head, and no punishment could expiate his crime. The Brahmen setting himself down, (the action is called sitting in dherna) fasts; and the victim of his arrest, for whom it would be impious to eat, while a member of the sacred class is fasting at his door, must follow his example. It is now, however, not a mere contest between the resolution or strength of the parties; for if the obstinacy of the prisoner should exhaust the Brahmen, and occasion his death, he is answerable for that most atrocious of crimes—the murder of a priest; he becomes execrable to his countrymen; the horrors of remorse never fail to pursue him; he is shut out from the benefits of society, and life itself is a calamity. As the Brahmen who avails himself of this expedient is bound for his honour to persevere, he seldom fails to succeed, because the danger of pushing the experiment too far is, to his antagonist, tremendous. Nor is it in his own concerns alone that the Brahmen may turn to account the sacredness of his person: he may hire himself to enforce in the same manner the claims of any other man; and not claims of debt merely; he may employ this barbarous expedient in any suit. What is still more extraordinary, even after legal process, even when the magistrate has pronounced a decision against him, and in favour of the person upon whom his claim is made, he may still sit in dherna, and by this dreadful mode of appeal make good his demand...

“The property of a Brahmen shall never be taken as an escheat by the king; this is a fixed law; but the wealth of the other classes, on failure of all heirs, the king may take.”...

“If a man strikes a Bramin with his hand, the magistrate shall cut off that man's hand; if he strikes him with his foot, the magistrate shall cut off the foot; in the same manner, with whatever limb he strikes a Bramin, that limb shall be cut off; but if a Sooder strikes either of the three casts, Bramin, Chehteree, or Bice, with his hand or foot, the magistrate shall cut off such hand or foot.” “If a man has put out both the eyes of any person, the magistrate shall deprive that man of both his eyes, and condemn him to perpetual imprisonment, and fine him.” The punishment of murder is founded entirely upon the same principle. “If a man,” says the Gentoo code, “deprives another of life, the magistrate shall deprive that person of life.” “A once-born man, who insults the twice-born with gross invectives, ought to have his tongue slit. If he mention their names and classes with contumely, as if he say, ‘Oh thou refuse of Brahmens,’ an iron style, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth. Should he through pride give instruction to priests concerning their duty, let the king order some hot oil to be dropped into his mouth and his ear.”...

Among the Hindus, whatever be the crime committed, if it is by a Brahmen, the punishment is in general comparatively slight; if by a man of the military class, it is more severe; if by a man of the mercantile and agricultural class, it is still increased; if by a Sudra, it is violent and cruel. For defamation of a Brahmen, a man of the same class must be fined 12 panas; a man of the military class, 100; a merchant, 150 or 200; but a mechanic or servile man is whipped...

For perjury, it is only in favor of the Brahmen, that any distinction seems to be admitted. “Let a just prince,” says the ordinance of Menu, “banish men of the three lower classes, if they give false evidence, having first levied the fine; but a Brahmen let him only banish.” The punishment of adultery, which on the Brahmens is light, descends with intolerable weight on the lowest classes. In regard to the inferior cases of theft, for which a fine only is the punishment, we meet with a curious exception, the degree of punishment ascending with the class. “The fine of a Sudra for theft, shall be eight fold; that of a Vaisya, sixteen fold; that of a Cshatriya, two and thirty fold; that of a Brahmen, four and sixty fold, or a hundred fold complete, or even twice four and sixty fold.” No corporal punishment, much less death, can be inflicted on the Brahmen for any crime. “Menu, son of the Self-existent, has named ten places of punishment, which are appropriated to the three lower classes; the part of generation, the belly, the tongue, the two hands; and fifthly, the two feet, the eye, the nose, both ears, the property; and in a capital case, the whole body; but a Brahmen must depart from the realm unhurt in any one of them.”

-- The History of British India, vol. 1 of 6, by James Mill


He introduced himself as a Roman raja (prince), desirous of living at Madura in practising penance, in praying and studying the sacred law. He carefully avoided meeting with Father Fernandes and took his lodging in a solitary abode in the Brahmins' quarter obtained from the benevolence of a high officer. At first he called himself a raja, but soon he changed this title for that of brahmin (Hindu priest), better suited to his aims: the rajas and other kshatryas, the second of the three high castes, formed the military class; but intellectual avocations were almost monopolized by the Brahmins. They held from time immemorial the spiritual if not the political government of the nation, and were the arbiters of what the others ought to believe, to revere, and to adore. Yet they were in no wise a priestly caste; they were possessed of no exclusive right to perform functions of a religious nature. Nobili remained for a long time shut up in his dwelling, after the custom of Indian penitents, living on rice, milk, and herbs with water. Once a day he received attendance but only from Brahmin servants. Curiosity could not fail to be raised, and all the more as the foreign saniassy was very slow in satisfying it. When, after two or three refusals, he admitted visitors, the interview was conducted according to the strictest rules of Hindu etiquette. Nobili charmed his audience by the perfection with which he spoke their own language, Tamil; by the quotations of famous Indian authors with which he interspersed his discourse, and above all, by the fragments of native poetry which he recited or even sang with exquisite skill.

Having thus won a benevolent hearing, he proceeded step by step on his missionary task, labouring first to set right the ideas of his auditors with respect to natural truth concerning God, the soul, etc., and then instilling by degrees the dogmas of the Christian faith. He took advantage also of his acquaintance with the books revered by the Hindus as sacred and divine. These he contrived, the first of all Europeans, to read and study in the Sanskrit originals. For this purpose he had engaged a reputed Brahmin teacher, with whose assistance and by the industry of his own keen intellect and felicitous memory he gained such a knowledge of this recondite literature as to strike the native doctors with amazement, very few of them feeling themselves capable of vying with him on the point. In this way also he was enabled to find in the Vedas many truths which he used in testimony of the doctrine he preached. By this method, and no less by the prestige of his pure and austere life, the missionary had soon dispelled the distrust. Before the end of 1608, he conferred baptism on several persons conspicuous for nobility and learning. While he obliged his neophytes to reject all practices involving superstition or savouring in any wise of idolatrous worship, he allowed them to keep their national customs, in as far as these contained nothing wrong and referred to merely political or civil usages. Accordingly, Nobili's disciples continued for example, wearing the dress proper to each one's caste; the Brahmins retaining their codhumbi (tuft of hair) and cord (cotton string slung over the left shoulder); all adorning as before, their foreheads with sandalwood paste, etc. yet, one condition was laid on them, namely, that the cord and sandal, if once taken with any superstitious ceremony, be removed and replaced by others with a special benediction, the formula of which had been sent to Nobili by the Archbishop of Cranganore.

While the missionary was winning more and more esteem, not only for himself, but also for the Gospel, even among those who did not receive it, the fanatical ministers and votaries of the national gods, whom he was going to supplant, could not watch his progress quietly. By their assaults, indeed, his work was almost unceasingly impeded, and barely escaped ruin on several occasions; but he held his ground in spite of calumny, imprisonment, menaces of death and all kinds of ill-treatment. In April, 1609, the flock which he had gathered around him was too numerous for his chapel and required a church; and the labour of the ministry had become so crushing that he entreated the provincial to send him a companion. At that point a storm fell on him from an unexpected place. Fernandes, the missioner already mentioned, may have felt no mean jealousy, when seeing Nobili succeed so happily where he had been so powerless; but certainly he proved unable to understand or to appreciate the method of his colleague; probably, also, as he had lived perforce apart from the circles among which the latter was working, he was never well informed of his doings. However, that may be, Fernandes directed to the superiors of the Jesuits in India and at Rome a lengthy report, in which he charged Nobili with simulation, in declining the name of Prangui; with connivance at idolatry, in allowing his neophytes to observe heathen customs, such as wearing the insignia of castes; lastly, with schismatical proceeding, in dividing the Christians into separate congregations. This denunciation at first caused an impression highly unfavourable to Nobili. Influenced by the account of Fernandes, the provincial of Malabar (Father Laerzio, who had always countenanced Nobili, had then left that office), the Visitor of the India Missions and even the General of the Society at Rome sent severe warnings to the missionary innovator. Cardinal Bellarmine, in 1612, wrote to his relative, expressing the grief he felt on hearing of his unwise conduct.

Things changed as soon as Nobili, being informed of the accusation, could answer it on every point. By oral explanations, in the assemblies of missionaries and theologians at Cochin and at Goa, and by an elaborate memoir, which he sent to Rome, he justified the manner in which he had presented himself to the Brahmins of Madura. He then showed that the national customs he allowed his converts to keep were such as had no religious meaning. The latter point, the crux of the question, he elucidated by numerous quotations from the authoritative Sanskrit law-books of the Hindus. Moreover, he procured affidavits of one hundred and eight Brahmins, from among the most learned in Madura, all endorsing his interpretation of the native practices. He acknowledged that the infidels used to associate those practices with superstitious ceremonies; but, he observed,

"these ceremonies belong to the mode, not to the substance of the practices; the same difficulty may be raised about eating, drinking, marriage, etc., for the heathens mix their ceremonies with all their actions. It suffices to do away with the superstitious ceremonies, as the Christians do".


As to schism, he denied having caused any such thing:

"he had founded a new Christianity, which never could have been brought together with the older: the separation of the churches had been approved by the Archbishop of Cranganore; and it precluded neither unity of faith nor Christian charity, for his neophytes used to greet kindly those of F. Fernandes. Even on the coast there are different churches for different castes, and in Europe the places in the churches are not common for all."


Nobili's apology was effectually seconded by the Archbishop of Cranganore, who, as he had encouraged the first steps of the missionary, continued to stand firmly by his side, and pleaded his cause warmly at Goa before the archbishop, as well as at Rome. Thus the learned and zealous primate of India, Alexis de Menezes, though a synod held by him had prohibited the Brahmin cord, was won over to the cause of Nobili. His successor, Christopher de Sa, remained almost the only opponent in India.

At Rome the explanations of Nobili, of the Archbishop of Cranganore, and of the chief Inquisitor of Goa brought about a similar effect. In 1614 and 1615 Cardinal Bellarmine and the General of the Jesuit Society wrote again to the missionary, declaring themselves fully satisfied. At last, after the usual examination by the Holy See, on 31 January 1623, Gregory XV, by his Apostolic Letter "Romanae Sedis Antistes", decided the question provisionally in favour of Father de Nobili. Accordingly, the codhumbi, the cord, the sandal, and the baths were permitted to the Indian Christians, "until the Holy See provide otherwise"; only certain conditions are prescribed, in order that all superstitious admixture and all occasion of scandal may be averted. As to the separation of the castes, the pope confines himself to "earnestly entreating and beseeching (etiam atque etiam obtestamur et obsecramus) the nobles not to despise the lower people, especially in the churches, by hearing the Divine word and receiving the sacraments apart from them. Indeed, a strict order to this effect would have been tantamount to sentencing the new-born Christianity of Madura to death. The pope understood, no doubt, that the customs connected with the distinction of castes, being so deeply rooted in the ideas and habits of all Hindus, did not admit an abrupt suppression, even among the Christians. They were to be dealt with by the Church, as had been slavery, serfdom, and the like institutions of past times. The Church never attacked directly those inveterate customs; but she inculcated meekness, humility, charity, love of the Saviour who suffered and gave His life for all, and by this method slavery, serfdom, and other social abuses were slowly eradicated.

While imitating this wise indulgence to the feebleness of new converts, Father de Nobili took much care to inspire his disciples with the feelings becoming true Christians towards their humbler brethren. At the very outset of his preaching, he insisted on making all understand that

"religion was by no means dependent on caste; indeed it must be one for all, the true God being one for all; although [he added] unity of religion destroys not the civil distinction of the castes nor the lawful privileges of the nobles".


Explaining then the commandment of charity, he inculcated that it extended to the pariahs as well as others, and he exempted nobody from the duties it imposes; but he might rightly tell his neophytes that, for example, visiting pariahs or other of low caste at their houses, treating them familiarly, even kneeling or sitting by them in the church, concerned perfection rather than the precept of charity, and that accordingly such actions could be omitted without any fault, at least where they involved so grave a detriment as degradation from the higher caste. Of this principle the missionaries had a right to make use for themselves. Indeed, charity required more from the pastors of souls than from others; yet not in such a way that they should endanger the salvation of the many to relieve the needs of the few. Therefore, Nobili, at the beginning of his apostolate, avoided all public intercourse with the lower castes; but he failed not to minister secretly even to pariahs. In the year 1638, there were at Tiruchirapalli (Trichinopoly) several hundred Christian pariahs, who had been secretly taught and baptized by the companions of Nobili. About this time he devised a means of assisting more directly the lower castes, without ruining the work begun among the higher.

Besides the Brahmin saniassy, there was another grade of Hindu ascetics, called pandaram, enjoying less consideration than the Brahmins, but who were allowed to deal publicly with all castes. They were not excluded from relations with the higher castes. On the advice of Nobili, the superiors of the mission with the Archbishop of Cranganore resolved that henceforward there should be two classes of missionaries, the Brahmin and the pandaram. Father Balthasar da Costa was the first, in 1540, who took the name and habit of pandaram, under which he effected a large number of conversions, of others as well as of pariahs. Nobili had then three Jesuit companions. After the comforting decision of Rome, he had hastened to extend his preaching beyond the town of Madura, and the Gospel spread by degrees over the whole interior of South India. In 1646, exhausted by forty-two years of toiling and suffering, he was constrained to retire, first to Jafnapatam in Ceylon, then to Mylapore, where he died 16 January 1656. He left his mission in full progress. To give some idea of its development, note that the superiors, writing to the General of the Society, about the middle and during the second half of the seventeenth century, record an annual average of five thousand conversions, the number never being less than three thousand a year even when the missioners' work was most hindered by persecution. At the end of the seventeenth century, the total number of Christians in the mission, founded by Nobili and still named Madura mission, though embracing, besides Madura, Mysore, Marava, Tanjore, Gingi, etc., is described as exceeding 150,000. Yet the number of the missionaries never went beyond seven, assisted however by many native catechists.

The Madura mission belonged to the Portuguese assistance of the Society of Jesus, but it was supplied with men from all provinces of the Order. Thus, for example, Father Beschi (c. 1710–1746), who won respect from the Hindus, heathen and Christian, for his writings in Tamil, was an Italian, as the founder of the mission had been. In the last quarter of the seventeenth century, the French Father John Venantius Bouchet worked for twelve years in Madura, chiefly at Trichinopoly, during which time he baptized about 20,000 infidels. The catechumens, in these parts of India, were admitted to baptism only after a long and a careful preparation. Indeed, the missionary accounts of the time bear frequent witness to the very commendable qualities of these Christians, their fervent piety, their steadfastness in the sufferings they often had to endure for religion's sake, their charity towards their brethren, even of lowest castes, their zeal for the conversion of pagans. In the year 1700 Father Bouchet, with a few other French Jesuits, opened a new mission in the Karnatic, north of the River Kaveri. Like their Portuguese colleagues of Madura, the French missionaries of the Karnatic were very successful, in spite of repeated and almost continual persecutions by the idolaters. Moreover, several of them became particularly conspicuous for the extensive knowledge they acquired of the literature and sciences of ancient India. From Father Coeurdoux the French Academicians learned the common origin of the Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin languages; to the initiative of Nobili and to the endeavours of his followers in the same line is due the first disclosure of a new intellectual world in India. The first original documents, enabling the learned to explore that world, were drawn from their hiding-places in India, and sent in large numbers to Europe by the same missionaries. But the Karnatic mission had hardly begun when it was disturbed by the revival of the controversy, which the decision of Gregory XV had set at rest for three quarters of a century.

The Decree of Tournon

This second phase, which was much more eventful and noisy than the first, originated in Pondicherry. Since the French had settled at that place, the spiritual care of the colonists was in the hands of the Capuchin Fathers, who were also working for the conversion of the natives. With a view to forwarding the latter work, the Bishop of Mylapore or San Thome, to whose jurisdiction Pondicherry belonged, resolved, in 1699, to transfer it entirely to the Jesuits of the Karnatic mission, assigning to them a parochial church in the town and restricting the ministry of the Capuchins to the European immigrants, French or Portuguese. The Capuchins were displeased by this arrangement and appealed to Rome. The petition they laid before the Pope, in 1703, embodied not only a complaint against the division of parishes made by the Bishop, but also an accusation against the methods of the Jesuit mission in South India. Their claim on the former point was finally dismissed, but the charges were more successful. On 6 November 1703, Charles-Thomas Maillard de Tournon, a Piedmontese prelate, Patriarch of Antioch, sent by Clement XI, with the power of legatus a latere, to visit the new Christian missions of the East Indies and especially China, landed at Pondicherry. Being obliged to wait there eight months for the opportunity of passing over to China, Tournon instituted an inquiry into the facts alleged by the Capuchins. He was hindered through sickness, as he himself stated, from visiting any part of the inland mission; in the town, besides the Capuchins, who had not visited the interior, he interrogated a few natives through interpreters; the Jesuits he consulted rather cursorily, it seems.

Less than eight months after his arrival in India, he considered himself justified in issuing a decree of vital import to the whole of the Christians of India. It consisted of sixteen articles concerning practices in use or supposed to be in use among the neophytes of Madura and the Karnatic; the legate condemned and prohibited these practices as defiling the purity of the faith and religion, and forbade the missionaries, on pain of heavy censures, to permit them any more. Though dated 23 June 1704, the decree was notified to the superiors of the Jesuits only on 8 July, three days before the departure of Tournon from Pondicherry. During the short time left, the missionaries endeavoured to make him understand on what imperfect information his degree rested, and that nothing less than the ruin of the mission was likely to follow from its execution. They succeeded in persuading him to take off orally the threat of censures appended, and to suspend provisionally the prescription commanding the missionaries to give spiritual assistance to the sick pariahs, not only in the churches, but in their dwellings.

Examination of the Malabar Rites at Rome

Tournon's decree, interpreted by prejudice and ignorance as representing, in the wrong practices if condemned, the real state of the India missions, affords to this day a much-used weapon against the Jesuits. At Rome it was received with reserve. Clement XI, who perhaps overrated the prudence of his zealous legate, ordered, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, on 7 January 1706, a provisional confirmation of the decree to be sent to him, adding that it should be executed "until the Holy See might provide otherwise, after having heard those who might have something to object". And meanwhile, by an oraculum vivae vocis granted to the procurator of the Madura mission, the pope decree, "in so far as the Divine glory and the salvation of souls would permit". The objections of the missionaries and the corrections they desired were propounded by several deputies and carefully examined at Rome, without effect, during the lifetime of Clement XI and during the short pontificate of his successor Innocent XIII. Benedict XIII grappled with the case and even came to a decision, enjoining "on the bishops and missionaries of Madura, Mysore, and the Karnatic " the execution of Tournon's decree in all its parts (12 December 1727). Yet it is doubted whether that decision ever reached the mission, and Clement XII, who succeeded Benedict XIII, commanded the whole affair to be discussed anew. In four meetings held from 21 January to 6 September 1733, the cardinals of the Holy Office gave their final conclusions upon all the articles of Tournon's decree, declaring how each of them ought to be executed, or restricted and mitigated. By a Brief dated 24 August 1734, pope Clement XII sanctioned this resolution; moreover, on 13 May 1739, he prescribed an oath, by which every missionary should bind himself to obeying and making the neophytes obey exactly the Brief of 24 August 1734.

Many hard prescriptions of Tournon were mitigated by the regulation of 1734. As to the first article, condemning the omission of the use of saliva and breathing on the candidates for baptism, the missionaries, and the bishops of India with them, are rebuked for not having consulted the Holy See previously to that omission; yet, they are allowed to continue for ten years omitting these ceremonies, to which the Hindus felt so strangely loath. Other prohibitions or precepts of the legate are softened by the additions of a Quantum fieri potest, or even replaced by mere counsels or advices. In the sixth article, the taly, "with the image of the idol Pulleyar", is still interdicted, but the Congregation observes that "the missionaries say they never permitted wearing of such a taly". Now this observation seems pretty near to recognizing that possibly the prohibitions of the rather overzealous legate did not always hit upon existing abuses. And a similar conclusion might be drawn from several other articles, e.g. from the fifteenth, where we are told that the interdiction of wearing ashes and emblems after the manner of the heathen Hindus, ought to be kept, but in such a manner, it is added, "that the Constitution of Gregory XV of 31 January 1623, Romanae Senis Antistes, be observed throughout". By that Constitution, as we have already seen, some signs and ornaments, materially similar to those prohibited by Tournon, were allowed to the Christians, provided that no superstition whatever was mingled with their use. Indeed, as the Congregation of Propaganda explains in an Instruction sent to the Vicar Apostolic of Pondicherry, 15 February 1792, "the Decree of Cardinal de Tournon and the Constitution of Gregory XV agree in this way, that both absolutely forbid any sign bearing even the least semblance of superstition, but allow those which are in general use for the sake of adornment, of good manners, and bodily cleanness, without any respect to religion".

The most difficult point retained was the twelfth article, commanding the missionaries to administer the sacraments to the sick pariahs in their dwellings, publicly. Though submitting dutifully to all precepts of the Vicar of Christ, the Jesuits in Madura could not but feel distressed, at experiencing how the last especially, made their apostolate difficult and even impossible amidst the upper classes of Hindus. At their request, Benedict XIV consented to try a new solution of the knotty problem, by forming a band of missionaries who should attend only to the care of the pariahs. This scheme became formal law through the Constitution "Omnium sollicitudinum", published 12 September 1744. Except this point, the document confirmed again the whole regulation enacted by Clement XII in 1734. The arrangement sanctioned by Benedict XIV benefited greatly the lower classes of Hindu neophytes; whether it worked also to the advantage of the mission at large, is another question, about which the reports are less comforting. Be that as it may, after the suppression of the Society of Jesus (1773), the distinction between Brahmin and pariah missionaries became extinct with the Jesuit missionaries. Henceforth conversions in the higher castes were fewer and fewer, and nowadays the Christian Hindus, for the most part, belong to the lower and lowest classes. The Jesuit missionaries, when re-entering Madura in the 1838, did not come with the dress of the Brahmin saniassy, like the founders of the mission; yet they pursued a design which Nobili had also in view, though he could not carry it out, as they opened their college of Negapatam, now at Trichinopoly. A wide breach has already been made into the wall of Brahminic reserve by that institution, where hundreds of Brahmins send their sons to be taught by the Catholic missionaries. Within recent years, about fifty of these young men have embraced the faith of their teachers, at the cost of rejection from their caste and even from their family; such examples are not lost on their countrymen, either of high or low caste.

Notes

1. Brief of Beatification of John de Britto, 18 May 1852
2. Monumenta Xaveriana, I, 54

Sources

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Malabar Rites". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Aug 09, 2021 7:14 am

Patriarch of Antioch
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/9/21

[Jean Venant] Bouchet went to India, first spending twelve years in the Madurai mission at Aur, near Tiruchirappalli, where he was introduced to the principles of adaptation laid down by Nobili. Here Bouchet would have begun to live as a sannyasin. In a letter written some time after his move north to join the Carnatic mission he claimed to be accepted as a sannyasin by those among whom he lived. After the arrival in 1703 of Charles Thomas Maillard de Toumon, the papal legate appointed to investigate the rites question, Bouchet was chosen by Tachard to explain the Jesuits’ practice in part because he had ‘applied himself with so much care and ardour to study and to understand the indigenous customs’. In 1704, following the decision of the legate against the Jesuits, he was sent to Rome to protest the Jesuit case. In 1710 he returned to India and succeeded Tachard as superior of the Carnatic mission, remaining there until his death in 1732. Throughout his time in India, Bouchet was in regular contact with other Jesuits, both in person and by letter, and was himself the author of nine letters from India in the Lettres edifiantes et curieuses. Two of the longest, both addressed to the former Bishop of Avranches, Pierre-Daniel Huet, are remarkable for the detailed accounts they contain of the Indian gods and of transmigration. It is likely that Bouchet is also the author of the Relation of the errors which are in the religion of the gentile malabars of Coste Coromandelle written in defence of the Jesuit mission against the charges of Tessier de Queralay and the Capuchins concerning the Malabar rites, and of other works which emerged from this controversy: Decision of the Jesuit Missionaries of the Kingdom of Carnate, (dated 3 November 1704 and signed by Bouchet, Mauduit, de la Lane and le Petit), the Protest of Frs. Jesuites de Pondichery, Against the legal notice made by M. de Visdelou, Bishop and Vicar Apostolic of January 15, 1716 and The development of the Patriarch of Antioch for the mission cause, the Decree by the most illustrious of the Index are broad, whom he is leaving he delivered to the word; datee of Rome, 12 March 1707. The first two treatises appear in a work published from the other side of the debate by the Capuchin Pierre Parisot (or Platel) under the pseudonym Pere Norbert. Bouchet’s position in the rites debate presupposes a demarcation between Indian social customs, tolerable in the church and the lives of the missionaries, and Indian religious beliefs and practices.

-- Chapter 7: Hinduism in the Jesuit Lettres edifiantes et curieuses, From "Mapping Hinduism: 'Hinduism' and the Study of Indian Religions, 1600-1776, by Will Sweetman


Patriarch of Antioch
CHRISTIAN
Information
First holder: Saint Peter
Denomination: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic.
Sui iuris church: Syriac Orthodox, Melkite, Maronite, Syriac Catholic, Greek Orthodox
Rite: West Syriac Rite, Byzantine Rite.
Established: 34 (founded); 451 (granted title of patriarch)

Patriarch of Antioch is a traditional title held by the bishop of Antioch.
The Church of Antioch (Arabic: كنيسة أنطاكية‎) was one of the five major churches of the pentarchy in Christianity before the East–West Schism in 1054, with its primary seat in the ancient Greek city of Antioch (present-day Antakya, Turkey).

-- Church of Antioch, by Wikipedia

As the traditional "overseer" (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos, from which the word bishop is derived) of the first gentile Christian community, the position has been of prime importance in Pauline Christianity from its earliest period.

Pauline Christianity or Pauline theology (also Paulism or Paulanity), otherwise referred to as Gentile Christianity, is the theology and form of Christianity which developed from the beliefs and doctrines espoused by the Hellenistic-Jewish Apostle Paul through his writings and those New Testament writings traditionally attributed to him. Paul's beliefs were rooted in the earliest Jewish Christianity, but deviated from this Jewish Christianity in their emphasis on inclusion of the Gentiles into God's New Covenant, and his rejection of circumcision as an unnecessary token of upholding the Law.

-- Pauline Christianity, by Wikipedia

This diocese is one of the few for which the names of its bishops from the apostolic beginnings have been preserved. Today five churches use the title of patriarch of Antioch: the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Eastern Catholic churches (Syriac Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and the Maronite Church) and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

According to the pre-congregation church tradition, this ancient patriarchate was founded by the Apostle Saint Peter. The patriarchal succession was disputed at the time of the Meletian schism in 362 and again after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when there were rival Melkite and non-Chalcedonian claimants to the see. After a 7th-century succession dispute in the Melkite church, the Maronites began appointing a Maronite patriarch as well. After the First Crusade, the Catholic Church began appointing a Latin Rite patriarch of Antioch, though this became strictly titular after the Fall of Antioch in 1268, and was abolished completely in 1964. In the 18th century, succession disputes in the Greek Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Churches of Antioch led to factions of those churches entering into communion with Rome under claimants to the patriarchate: the Melkite Greek Catholic patriarch of Antioch and the Syriac Catholic patriarch of Antioch, respectively. Their Orthodox counterparts are the Syriac Orthodox patriarch of Antioch, the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch, respectively.

History

First Christians


See also: Early centers of Christianity § Antioch

In Roman times, Antioch was the principal city of the Roman Province of Syria, and the fourth largest city of the Roman Empire, after Rome, Ephesus and Alexandria.

The church in Antioch was the first to be called "Christian," according to Acts.[1] According to tradition, Saint Peter established the church and was the city's first bishop,[2] before going to Rome to found the Church there.[3][self-published source]:95 Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 107), counted as the third bishop of the city, was a prominent apostolic father. By the fourth century, the bishop of Antioch had become the most senior bishop in a region covering modern-day eastern Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Iran. His hierarchy served the largest number of Christians in the known world at that time. The synods of Antioch met at a basilica named for Julian the Martyr, whose relics it contained.


Despite being overshadowed in ecclesiastical authority by the patriarch of Constantinople in the later years of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Antiochene Patriarch remained the most independent, powerful, and trusted of the eastern patriarchs. The Antiochene church was a centre of Christian learning, second only to Alexandria. In contrast to the Hellenistic-influenced Christology of Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople, Antiochene theology was greatly influenced by Rabbinic Judaism and other modes of Semitic thought—emphasizing the single, transcendent divine substance (οὐσία), which in turn led to adoptionism in certain extremes, and to the clear distinction of two natures of Christ (δύο φύσεις: dyophysitism): one human, the other divine. Lastly, compared to the Patriarchates in Constantinople, Rome, and Alexandria which for various reasons became mired in the theology of imperial state religion, many of its Patriarchs managed to straddle the divide between the controversies of Christology and imperial unity through its piety and straightforward grasp of early Christian thought which was rooted in its primitive Church beginnings.

Chalcedonian split

The Christological controversies that followed the Council of Chalcedon in 451 resulted in a long struggle for the Patriarchate between those who accepted and those who rejected the Council. The issue came to a head in 512, when a synod was convened in Sidon by the non-Chalcedonians, which resulted in Flavian II (a Chalcedonian) being replaced as Patriarch by Severus (a non-Chalcedonian). The non-Chalcedonians under Severus eventually came to be called the Syriac Orthodox Church (which is a part of the Oriental Orthodox Church), which has continued to appoint its own Syriac patriarchs of Antioch. The Chalcedonians refused to recognise the dismissal and continued to recognise Flavian as Patriarch forming a rival church. From 518, on the death of Flavian and the appointment of his successor, the Chalcedonian Church became known as the Byzantine (Rûm) Church of Antioch. In the Middle Ages, as the Byzantine Church of Antioch became more and more dependent on Constantinople, it began to use the Byzantine rite.[4]

The internal schisms such as that over Monophysitism were followed by the Islamic conquests which began in the late 7th century, resulting in the patriarch's ecclesiastical authority becoming entangled in the politics of imperial authority and later Islamic hegemony. Being considered independent of both Byzantine and Arab Muslim power but in essence occupied by both, the de facto power of the Antiochene patriarchs faded. Additionally, the city suffered several natural disasters including major earthquakes throughout the 4th and 6th centuries and anti-Christian conquests beginning with the Zoroastrian Persians in the 6th century, then the Muslim Arabs in the seventh century, then the Muslim Seljuks in the 11th century.

Great schism

The Great Schism officially began in 1054, though problems had been encountered for centuries. Cardinal Humbert, legate of the recently deceased Pope Leo IX, entered the Hagia Sophia cathedral in Constantinople during the Divine Liturgy and presented Ecumenical Patriarch Michael I Cerularius with a bull of excommunication. The patriarch, in turn, excommunicated the deceased Leo IX and his legate, removing the bishop of Rome from the diptychs. Consequently, two major Christian bodies broke communion and ended ecclesiastical relations with each other. One faction, now identified as the Catholic Church, represented the Latin West under the leadership of the pope; the other faction, now identified as the Eastern Orthodox Church, represented the Greek East under the collegial authority of the patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria.

The ecclesiastical schisms between Rome and Constantinople and between Constantinople and Alexandria and Antioch left the patriarch's authority isolated, fractured and debased, a situation which further increased when the Franks took the city in 1099 and installed a Latin patriarch of Antioch. The Western influence in the area was finally obliterated by the victories of the Muslim Mamluks over the Crusader States in the 13th century. The Latin Patriarch went into exile in 1268, and the office became titular only. The office fell vacant in 1953 and was finally abolished in 1964.

Melkite split of 1724

In 1724, Cyril VI was elected Greek patriarch of Antioch. He was considered to be pro-Rome by the patriarch of Constantinople, who refused to recognize the election and appointed another patriarch in his stead. Many Melkites continued to acknowledge Cyril's claim to the patriarchate. Thus from 1724 the Greek Church of Antioch split up in the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In 1729, Pope Benedict XIII recognized Cyril as the Eastern Catholic patriarch of Antioch and welcomed him and his followers into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.[5]

Current patriarchs

Today, five churches claim the title of patriarch of Antioch;[6] three of these are autonomous Eastern Catholic particular churches in full communion with the pope of Rome. All five see themselves as part of the Antiochene heritage and claim a right to the Antiochene See through apostolic succession, although none are currently based in the city of Antakya. This multiplicity of Patriarchs of Antioch as well as their lack of location in Antioch, reflects the troubled history of Christianity in the region, which has been marked by internecine struggles and persecution, particularly since the Islamic conquest. Indeed, the Christian population in the original territories of the Antiochene patriarchs has been all but eliminated by assimilation and expulsion, with the region's current Christians forming a small minority.

The current patriarchs of Antioch are listed below in order of their accession to the post, from earliest to most recent.

Image
From left to right: Gregory III Laham Patriarch emeritus of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Ignatius Aphrem II of Antioch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, John X of Antioch of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Bechara Boutros al-Rahi of the Maronite Church, and Ignatius Joseph III Yonan of the Syriac Catholic Church

• Ignatius Joseph III Yonan, patriarch of Antioch and all the East of the Syrians. Ignace Joseph III is the leader of the Syrian Catholic Church, an Eastern Catholic Church that is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church's Holy See at the Vatican and uses the Antiochene liturgy. The see is based in Beirut.
• Bechara Boutros Rahi, Maronite patriarch of Antioch and the whole Levant. The Maronite Church is an Eastern Catholic Church that is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and uses the Maronite liturgy. His see is based in Bkerké, Lebanon.
• John X of Antioch was elected Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch and All the East on December 17, 2012. John X is the leader of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and thus is one of the major hierarchs in the Eastern Orthodox Church. His see is based in Damascus and uses the Byzantine liturgy.[7]
• Ignatius Aphrem II, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. He is the Supreme Head of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which is part of the Oriental Orthodox communion and uses the Antiochene liturgy. His see is based in Damascus.
• Joseph Absi, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Alexandria, and Jerusalem of the Greek Melkites. He is the leader of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, an Eastern Catholic Church that is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and uses the Byzantine liturgy. His see is based in Damascus.

At one point, there was at least nominally a sixth claimant to the Patriarchate. When the Western European Crusaders established the Principality of Antioch, they established a Latin Rite church in the city, whose head took the title of Patriarch. After the Crusaders were expelled by the Mamelukes in 1268, the pope continued to appoint a titular Latin patriarch of Antioch, whose actual seat was the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. The last holder of this office was Roberto Vicentini, who died without a successor in 1953. The post itself was abolished in 1964.

Episcopal succession

One way to understand the historical interrelationships between the various churches to examine their chain of episcopal succession—that is, the sequence of bishops that each church regards as having been the predecessors of each church's current claimant to the patriarchate. There were four points in history where a disputed succession to the patriarchate led to a lasting institutional schism, leading to the five churches that exist today.

• All five churches recognize a single sequence of bishops until 518. In that year, Severus, who rejected the Council of Chalcedon, was deposed by the Byzantine Emperor Justin I and replaced by the Chalcedonian Paul the Jew, but Severus and his followers did not recognize his deposition. This led to two rival sequences of patriarchs: Severus and his successors, recognized by the two Syriac churches; and Paul and his successors, recognized by the Greek Orthodox, Melkite, and Maronite Churches. It was the successors of Paul who were recognized as legitimate by the Byzantine government.
• In 685, John Maron, who recognized the legitimacy of Paul the Jew and his successors until Byzantium began to appoint titular patriarchs of Antioch ending with Theophanes (681–687), was elected Patriarch of Antioch by the Maradite army. Byzantine Emperor Justinian II sent an army to dislodge John from the see; John and his followers retreated to Lebanon, where they formed the Maronite Church, whose succession of patriarchs have continued to the present day. The Byzantines appointed Theophanes of Antioch in his stead. Thus there were now three rival patriarchs: those that recognized Severus and his successors, those that recognized John Maron and his successors, and those that recognized Theophanes and his successors. It was the successors of Theophanes who were recognized as legitimate by the Byzantine government.
• In 1724, the church that recognized Theophanes and his successors elected Cyril VI Tanas, who supported re-establishing communion with the Catholic Church that had been broken in the Great Schism, as patriarch of Antioch. However, the ecumenical patriarch declared Cyril's election invalid, and appointed Sylvester of Antioch in his stead. Cyril and Sylvester both had followers, and both continued to claim the patriarchate. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church recognizes Cyril and his successors; the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch recognizes Sylvester and his successors.
• In 1783, a faction within the church that recognized Severus and his successors elected Ignatius Michael III Jarweh, a bishop who was already in communion with the Catholic Church, as patriarch of Antioch. Shortly thereafter, another faction, who rejected communion with Rome, elected Ignatius Matthew. Both had followers, and both continued to claim the patriarchate. The Syriac Orthodox Church recognizes Ignatius Mathew and his successors; the Syriac Catholic Church recognizes Ignatius Michael and his successors.

Thus, the succession recognized by each church is as follows:

• The Syriac Orthodox Church recognizes the succession from the Apostle Peter to Severus, then recognizes Sergius of Tella as Severus's successor in 544, then recognizes Sergius's successors down to Ignatius George IV, then recognizes Ignatius Matthew as Ignatius George's successor in 1783, then recognizes Ignatius Matthew's successors down to Ignatius Aphrem II today.
• The Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch recognizes the succession from the Apostle Peter to Severus, then recognizes that Severus was deposed in favor of Paul the Jew in 518, then recognizes Paul the Jew's successors down to Athanasius III Dabbas, then recognizes Sylvester of Antioch as Athanasius III's successor in 1724, then recognizes Sylvester's successors down to John X today.
• The Maronite Church recognizes the succession from the Apostle Peter to Severus, then recognizes that Severus was deposed in favor of Paul the Jew in 518, then recognizes Paul the Jew's successors until Byzantium began appointing titular Patriarchs of Antioch ending with Theophanes (681–687), at which point they recognize the election of John Maron, then recognize John's successors down to Bechara Boutros al-Rahi today.
• The Melkite Greek Catholic Church recognizes the succession from the Apostle Peter to Severus, then recognizes that Severus was deposed in favor of Paul the Jew in 518, then recognizes Paul the Jew's successors down to Peter III, then recognizes Cyril VI Tanas as Peter III's successor in 1724, then recognizes Cyril VI's successors down to Youssef Absi today.
• The Syriac Catholic Church recognizes the succession from the Apostle Peter to Severus, then recognizes Ignatius Michael III Jarweh as Severus's successor in 1783, then recognizes Ignatius Michael III's successors down to Ignatius Joseph III Yonan today.

Lists of patriarchs of Antioch

• List of patriarchs of Antioch before 518, 37–546
• List of Syriac Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, 512–present
• List of Syriac Catholic patriarchs of Antioch, 1662–present
• List of Greek Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, 518–present
• List of Melkite Catholic patriarchs of Antioch, 1724–present
• List of Maronite patriarchs of Antioch, 686–present
• List of Latin patriarchs of Antioch, 1098–1964

See also

• Melkite Greek Catholic Church
• Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
• Syriac Orthodox Church
• Syriac Catholic Church
• Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East

References

1. Acts 11:26
2. Peter, in the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
3. Jones, David (2010). The Apostles of Jesus Christ: Thirteen Men Who Turned the World Upside-Down. Xlibris Corporation, 2010. ISBN 9781450070867.[self-published source]
4. Fortescue, Adrian (1969). The Orthodox Eastern Church. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-8337-1217-2. Retrieved 2009-05-17.
5. Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Melchites" . Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
6. Anthony O'Mahony; Emma Loosley (16 December 2009). Eastern Christianity in the Modern Middle East. Routledge. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-135-19371-3.
7. Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East

Sources

• Grillmeier, Aloys; Hainthaler, Theresia (2013). Christ in Christian Tradition: The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451 to 600. 2/3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921288-0.

External links

• Catholic Encyclopedia: Antioch, Church of. Full history
• Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:27 pm

Learning to Live in Steven Weinberg’s Pointless Universe: The late physicist’s most infamous statement still beguiles scientists and vexes believers
Scientific American
by Dan Falk
July 27, 2021

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Steven Weinberg, who died last week at the age of 88, was not only a Nobel laureate physicist but also one of the most eloquent science writers of the last half century. His most famous (or perhaps infamous) statement can be found on the second-to-last page of his first popular book, The First Three Minutes, published in 1977. Having told the story of how our universe came into being with the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago, and how it may end untold billions of years in the future, he concludes that whatever the universe is about, it sure as heck isn’t about us. “The more the universe seems comprehensible,” he wrote, “the more it also seems pointless."

For thousands of years, people had assumed just the opposite. Our ancestors gazed at the world around us—the people and animals, the mountains and seas, the sun, moon and stars—and saw the divine. As the 19th Psalm puts it: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork.” Even Isaac Newton saw a universe filled with purpose. In his masterwork, the Principia, he wrote: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Science advanced by leaps and bounds in the centuries following Newton, and scientists dialed back much of the God-talk. Many thinkers suggested that the universe runs like a mighty clockwork. Perhaps a creator was needed at the very beginning, to set it going, but surely it now runs on its own. Einstein, who often spoke of God metaphorically, took a different tack. He rejected a personal deity, but saw a kind of pantheism—roughly, the identification of God with nature—as plausible.

In the second half of the 20th century, many saw even these lesser gods as redundant. In A Brief History of Time (1988), Stephen Hawking speculated on the possibility that the universe had no precise beginning; his controversial “no-boundary proposal” (formulated in the 1980s with Jim Hartle) suggested that time might have behaved like space in the universe’s earliest moments. Without a “time zero,” there was no moment of creation—and nothing for a creator to do. (It’s hardly a surprise that some people who balk at the teaching of evolution also object to the teaching of big bang cosmology.)

Hawking’s materialist philosophy, shared by Weinberg and many other prominent physicists, sees the universe as arising through some combination of chance and natural law. Where Prince Hamlet saw purpose in even the minutest occurrence—“There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow”—many of today’s scientists see only the impersonal laws of physics.

When I interviewed Weinberg in 2009, he told me about the long shadow cast by that one sentence on a “pointless” universe. “I get a number of negative reactions to that statement,” he said. “Sometimes they take the form, ‘Well, why did you think it would have a point?’ Other times people say, ‘Well, this is outside the province of science, to decide whether it has a point or not.’ I agree with that. I don’t think that science can decide that there is no point; but it can certainly testify that it has failed to find one.” And he specifically criticized what used to be called “natural theology”—the idea that, as the 19th Psalm suggests, one could learn about God by studying nature. Natural theology “is now discredited; we don’t see the hand of God in nature. What conclusions you draw from that is up to you.”

Although he never tried to hide his atheism—perhaps only Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have been more vocal—Weinberg was sympathetic to those who yearn for a more intimate conception of God. “I think a world governed by a creator who is concerned with human beings is in many ways much more attractive than the impersonal world governed by laws of nature that have to be stated mathematically; laws that have nothing in them that indicates any special connection with human life,” he told me. To embrace science is to face the hardships of life—and death—without such comfort. “We’re going to die, and our loved ones are going to die, and it would be very nice to believe that that was not the end and that we would live beyond the grave and meet those we love again,” he said. “Living without God is not that easy. And I feel the appeal of religion in that sense.”

And religion deserves credit for giving us “requiem masses, gothic cathedrals, wonderful poetry. And we don’t have to give that up; we can still enjoy those things, as I do. But I think I would enjoy it more if I thought it was really about something; and I don’t. It’s just beautiful poetry, and beautiful buildings, and beautiful music—but it’s not about anything.”

The philosophy that Weinberg laid out in The First Three Minutes is now echoed in many popular physics books. In The Big Picture (2016), physicist Sean Carroll sees nothing to fear in an amoral universe. Our task, he writes, is “to make peace with a universe that doesn’t care what we do, and take pride in the fact that we care anyway.” In a similar vein, string theorist Brian Greene is adamant that it’s physics all the way down. In Until the End of Time (2020) he writes: “Particles and fields. Physical laws and initial conditions. To the depth of reality we have so far plumbed, there is no evidence for anything else.”

As for meaning, he is firmly in the Weinberg camp: “During our brief moment in the sun, we are tasked with the noble charge of finding our own meaning.” In The End of Everything (2020), astrophysicist Katie Mack relays the existential opinions of an array of astronomers and physicists, most of whom repeat some version of the Weinberg-Carroll-Greene position: The universe doesn’t come laden with meaning; instead, you have to find your own. On the second-to-last page—clearly, this is where such things go—she reflects on “this great experiment of existence. It’s the journey, I repeat to myself. It’s the journey.”

Weinberg saw science and religion as having nothing constructive to say to one another,
a view shared by many (though certainly not all) of his colleagues. But the history of science could have unfolded differently. We can imagine generations of scientists standing with Newton, investigating nature as a path to understanding the mind of God. To be sure, some scientists think of their work in this way even today. (Guy Consolmagno, a Vatican astronomer, would be one example.)

But they are a minority. As science and religion began to go their separate ways—a process that accelerated with the work of Darwin—science became secular. “The elimination of God-talk from scientific discourse,” writes historian Jon Roberts, “constitutes the defining feature of modern science.” Weinberg would have agreed. As he told an audience in 1999: “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from that accomplishment.”

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:16 am

Part 1 of 2

The Siege of Madras in 1746 and the Action of La Bourdonnais
by G.W. Forrest, CLE.
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
Third Series, Vol. II, P. 189-
1908
Read May 21, 1908



When I was invited to read a paper on Indian history at a meeting of the Royal Historical Society I felt not only honoured by the request, but also gratified to learn that the Society intended to bring within its scope the encouragement of the study of the history of our Indian Empire, an empire whose progress and growth is a wondrous fact in the history of the world. The history of the Hindu kingdoms and the history of the government of the Mahomedans should be the special province of the Royal Asiatic Society, for no Englishman can deal with them in a satisfactory manner without a knowledge of the classical languages of the East He must study and compare the original historians of India. The systematic study of the history of British dominion in India must be the most effectual agency in removing that ignorance (so strange and so discreditable) which prevails among all classes in England regarding the history of our Indian Empire. The responsibility for a just, impartial and stable government of India has been committed for good or evil into the hands of Parliament, and through Parliament to the electoral body of Great Britain; but the electoral body must fail to discharge that great responsibility if the reading multitude remain ignorant of the history of English government  in India. It is also the duty and the interest of England that the young men who are sent from our universities to be the main instruments of administering the government of our Indian Empire in all its extensive and complicated branches should be trained to pursue the study of history in a scientific spirit, so that they may be able to apply scientific methods of inquiry to an examination in detail of the development of our administration in India. Many years spent in examining the musty documents in the Indian archives has brought home to me the value of the light which history may shed on practical problems. In India there is no problem which is old, there is no problem which is new. Measures which were supposed to be new would never have been passed if they had been studied by the dry light of history. In the Record Office under his charge the Indian civilian will generally find some material which will reward the labour of research.

In selecting a subject for my paper, I have been embarrassed by the numerous topics that were open to me. I might have selected a more recent and a more exciting period of Indian history. I might have selected a siege of greater dramatic interest I was guided in my choice by remembering that the object of history is to discover and set forth facts. The first object of a Historical Society should be to record and diffuse the knowledge of the facts which have been discovered. I chose the Siege of Madras in 1746 as my subject because it enabled me to bring to your notice this afternoon two documents of considerable historical value. The duties of my office as Director of Records of the Government of India led me to pay sundry visits to Madras. My primary aim was to search among the archives of that Government for all papers relating to Clive. Many a happy day have I spent in the company of Stringer Lawrence who taught Clive to be a soldier, of Clive himself, of Eyre Coote, and of Bussy whose sagacity and address were equal to that of Warren Hastings, and whose courage and genius were hardly inferior to that of Clive. Gentlemen, in that stubborn struggle between French and English in Southern India for a great dominion there is sufficient glory to cover both nations. In order to complete my work, I paid sundry visits to Pondicherry, a picturesque French city transplanted to the East I have stood by the fine statue, unlike most English statues, full of originality and life, which France has erected as a monument of one of the most famous of her sons. The sculptor has succeeded in giving the magnificent head, the lofty and wise forehead, and the intellectual face full of energy and penetration, of the great French administrator — Dupleix. When I was at Pondicherry I was taken to the house of a native gentleman, where we saw hanging on a wall the watch and a miniature of Dupleix given to their ancestor Ranga Pillai. Below them burn a lamp. It is now regarded as a household shrine. Ranga Filial held the post of chief dubash, or the broker who transacted business with the natives for the Pondicherry Government. He was on intimate terms with Dupleix and his wife, who seem to have had the greatest confidence in his integrity and judgment General Macleod, R.A., Consular Agent at Pondicherry, informed me that Ranga Filial had left a most valuable diary. In 1892 General Macleod and myself brought to the notice of the Madras Government the existence of the diary, and it was suggested that the matter which it contained was of such interest and value that it was highly desirable that a copy of it should be obtained, and a translation made of this and published. The Madras Government, which was then presided over by Lord Wenlock, readily adopted the suggestion, and after considerable research the undoubted originals of volumes i. and ii. and the last volume were discovered. They have been transcribed, and two volumes of translation published. They have been edited with the utmost care by Sir Frederick Price, who on his retirement from the Madras Civil Service after a long and distinguished career has devoted his time to so laborious a task.1 [ 'In 1846 M. Gallois Montbrun, the father of the gentleman who until recently was Mayor of Pondicherry — to whose courteous help in making search and enquiry regarding the diary I desire here to express my indebtedness — unearthed the manuscript, which up to then had lain unheeded in the house of the representatives of the family. M. Montbrun, who took the deepest interest in old vernacular writings, then proceeded to make a copy of it. But he apparently started with selections only, for the volume from which the translation for the Government of Madras was originally made is full of breaks. This was not observed until the actual work of editing was commenced. The omissions then noticed led to inquiry, and it was ascertained that M. Montbrun had subsequently supplied the blanks by a supplemental volume, which, however, was not forth- coming. Further search was made, and this resulted in the discovery of the undoubted originals of volumes i. and ii. The volume now being published is practically a fresh translation from these. — Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. i. General Introduction, pp. xiii, xiv. Another copy of the Diary, which is in the National Library in Paris, was made by M. Areel, but at present it is impossible to ascertain whether it is perfect. In 1870 was published Le Siege de Pondichery en 1746: Extrait des Memoires Inedits de Ranga Poulle Divan de la Compagnie des Indes, par F. N. Laude, Procureur-General. In 1889, M. Julien Vinson, Professor of the Special School of Living Oriental Languages at Paris, published a translation of some portions of it, which he followed up in 1894 by a volume amplifying these, and bearing the title of Les Francais dans l'Inde, This, however, does not go beyond 1748, and is composed of extracts referring only to a few special matters.'] The diary, never meant for publication, is a very human document, and it reveals to us the habits and manners of the time. It brings to life Dupleix and his wife, whose influence on his career was so great. She was a widow; her father was French, her mother an Indo-Portuguese. She was born and educated in India. Her brains, her strength of character, her diplomatic skill, her knowledge of the native languages (she corresponded with the native princes in their own language) were of the utmost service in forwarding the political schemes of her husband. She was to Dupleix what the beloved Marian was to Warren Hastings. Macintosh, 'the man of promise,' said that Jonathan Duncan had been Brahmanised and Wellesley Sultanised. Ranga Pillai reveals to us that Dupleix was both 'Brahminised' and 'Sultanised' and this accounts in a great measure for his failure. I shall illustrate the lecture by extracts from his diary. I also intend to read to you an important document which contains some fresh evidence as to whether La Bourdonnais received a large present from the English for the restoration to them of Madras.

In a paper on a particular period of English history the reader may fairly assume the possession by the audience of a certain knowledge of the events which preceded it But I am sorry to say that the same test does not always apply in the case of Indian history. It may therefore be desirable to give a brief account of the rise of Madras and Pondicherry, and of the leading events which preceded the siege of the former city in 1746.1 [With regard to the early history of Madras, we owe a good deal to Mr. Talboy Wheeler, to whose work in the field of Indian history sufficient justice has not been done; to Mr. Pringle, whose early death prevented the completion of his most excellent Selections from the Madras Records; to Mr. William Foster, Superintendent of Records at the India Office, who is so willing to aid any fellow-labourer, and to bestow on him the fruits of his own research.]

The foundation of Fort St George was due to the struggle between the Portuguese, the Dutch and the English as to who should enjoy the trade between India and the Spice Islands. In 1611, eleven years after Elizabeth had granted the first charter to 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies', Captain Hippon was despatched by the directors of the India Company in the ship Globe to open a trade with the Coromandel coast. He was accompanied by two Dutch merchants, Peter Floris and Lucas Antheunis.2 [The Journal of Peter Floris is in the India Office. Extracts from it were printed by Purchas.] The English and Dutch were both attracted to the eastern coast of Hindostan by the same object They wished to purchase painted cloths, or Indian cotton goods, and take them to the Moluccas in exchange for spices to be sold in Europe. The Globe touched at Pulicat, where the Dutch had established a factory and built a fort The Dutch governor, Van Wersecke, refused to allow the English to trade. Hippon, therefore, left Pulicat and coasted up the Bay of Bengal till he reached Masulipatam at the mouth of the Kistna, then the principal port of that part of India. At Masulipatam the English managed to establish a small agency, which was put under a chief, and a council was chosen from the merchants. Fifteen years later, in 1626, a factory was established and fortified at Armagon, a roadstead south of Masulipatam, and forty miles north of Pulicat It was the first fortification erected by the English in India. In the year 1628-9 Armagon is described as defended by twelve pieces of cannon mounted round the factory, and by a guard of twenty-three factors and soldiers. The factory at Masulipatam was transferred in 1629 to this fortress owing to the oppression of the native governor. But Armagon was not a good entrepot for the supply of 'white cloths,' and three years later the agency was again established at Masulipatam.

In 1639, Francis Day, one of the council at Masulipatam, was sent to examine the country in the vicinity of the station which the Portuguese, who were then friendly to us, had established at St. Thome.1 [Alfred the Great sent an embassy, under Bishop Sighelm, of Sherborne, to do honour to the tomb of a Holy Thomas. Gibbon hints that the envoys got no further than Alexandria, the great centre-point of the East and West, where they collected their cargo, and invented the legend. According to the legend of antiquity the Gospel was preached in India by St. Thomas. It was preached in the eighth century by Thomas Cana, an Armenian merchant, as Marco Polo was informed on the spot, at Meleapoor, the native name for St Thome.] Day 'was Inordered to goe towards St Thomay to see what payntings2 [Payntings, painted cloths, i.e. chintz.] those parts doth afforde, as alsoe to see whether any place were fitt to fortifie upon.' In August of the same year, three years before the outbreak of the Civil War in England, Day, 'haveinge Dispatcht what hee was sent about,' returned to Masulipatam and told his colleagues what he had done.

'And, first, he makes it appeare to us that at a place Called Madraspatam, neare St. Thomay, the best paintings are made, or as good as anywhere on this Coast, likwise Exellant long Cloath, Morrees,3 [Morrees (muri), blue cloth.] and percalla4 [Percalla (parkala), spangled cloth.] (of which wee have scene Musters), and better Cheape by 2c per cent, then anywhere Else. The Nague5 [Naik, H. (Nayak) was a general name for the Lords of Madura and other places in Southern India until the middle of the tenth century.] of that place is very Desirous of our residence there, for hee hath made us very fayre proffers to that Effect; for, first, hee proffers to build a forte, in what manner wee please, upon a high plott of ground adjoyneinge to the sea, where a ship of any Burthen may Ride within Muskett shott. Close by a river which is Capeable of a Vessel of 50 Tonns; and upon possession given us by him, and not before, to pay what Charges hee shall have disbursed.'6 [The Founding of Fort St. George, Madras, by William Foster, p. 10.]


Day was 'dispeeded' back to Madraspatam, and so important was the new acquisition considered that the agency at Masulipatam directed him to begin building the fort without waiting for the orders of the Court from England.

In their first letter, dated September 20, 1642, 'the Agent and Council on the Coast of Coromandel ' write:

'When wee doe (as that wee doe often) fall into Consideration how much your Worships are displeased with us, for proceedinge on this worke, it even breakes some of our hearts. Tis now to late to wish it undone, and yett wee may not but tell you that if soe bee your Woi ships will follow this Coast Trade (or rather the Kamatt) this place may proove as good as the best, but all things must have its growth and tyme, but on the contrary, if your Worships will not continew it, you may doe it away to proffiett, and not hazard the loss of a man, if you Resolve upon the latter, after advice given once within 12 mo, it may with ease be effected, unless the Moores Conquer the Country before .... wee have found him [our naique] still as good as his word, onely in the Forts erection (the Mayne thinge of all); but in that thinge he excuseth himself.'1 [Original Correspondence, No. 1791.]


Day offered 'to pay the Interest of all the monies that should be expended till the Forte was finished,' but their worships at home refused ' to allow of any Charge of [at?] all neither in building or payeing of Garrison.'

The fort, as first erected, was but a small place, not a quarter of a mile long, only a hundred yards wide from east to west, and situated in the north-east comer of the present fort Five years after its first erection its total cost had been only Rs. 23,000, and the highest estimate of a sufficient garrison was one hundred soldiers. In 1652, thirteen years after its foundation, it was considered safe with a garrison of twenty men. No great change was made in it for a century.

Madras, however, proved 'as good as the best.' A large number of natives sought protection of the English. Thus a prosperous settlement arose outside the English bounds which part was styled the Black Town, the original settlement, where none but Europeans were allowed to reside, being known as the White Town. When war was declared between England and France in 1744, the town had, owing to the trade from England to the coast of Coromandel, 'to the great returnes it makes in callicoes and muslins,' to its considerable trade with China, Persia and Mocha, and to its 'not being a great way from the diamond mines of Golconda,' risen * to a degree of opulence and reputation which rendered it inferior to none of the European establishments in trade except Goa and Batavia.' There were 250,000 inhabitants in the Company's territory, of which the greatest part were natives of India of various castes and religions. The English in the colony, however, did not exceed the number of 300 men, and 200 of these were soldiers who composed the garrison, 'but none of them, excepting two or three of their officers, had ever seen any other service than that of the parade.' Fort St George 'was surrounded with a slender wall, defended with four bastions and as many batteries,' but these were very slight and defective in their construction, nor had they any outworks to defend them. The principal buildings inside were fifty good houses in which the chief Europeans resided, an English and a Roman Catholic church, the warehouse of the Company and the factory in which their servants lived.

On September 24, 1744, 'at a Consultation, Present Nicholas Morse, Esq., Governour and President,' it was 'Agreed to despatch a Pattamar1 [Pattimar, Tam., messenger.] this evening at Bombay to advise of the war with France lest any accident should have befallen the King William.' It was further agreed, 'The war with France being broke out and it being therefore highly proper to have our garrison in the best order we can, and as it happened that for some months past there have not been less than forty to fifty of the Military on the Sick Roll which, with the servants hitherto allowed the officers, reduces considerably the number of Mounting Men. Its agreed that in lieu of servants each Lieutenant have five (5) Pagodas1 [A pagoda was worth forty-two fanams, or about seven shillings.] per month and Each Ensign four (4), and that this be continued to them only so long as the Board shall think it necessary.'2 [The Consultations and Diary Book of the President and Governor, &c., Council of Fort St. George, September 24, 1744.] This is the first mention in the records of that long combat which was to determine the issue whether France or England should win an empire in Asia.

On August 27, 1664, twenty-five years after Francis Day had obtained permission to form the settlement of Madras, Louis XIV., induced by Colbert, issued an edict founding the French East India Company.'3 [L'Inde Francaise avant Dupleix, par H. Castonnel des Fosses, p. 49.] The French, settling to work with considerable zeal, established factories at Surat and other places on the Malabar coast In 1672 they took from the Dutch, with whom they were at war, the splendid harbour of Trincomalee; but the Dutch soon retook it. The French then passed over to the Coromandel coast and obtained possession of St. Thome; two years later they were compelled to restore it also to the Dutch. The fortune of the French East India Company, now at its lowest ebb, was revived by the far sight, courage and administrative capacity of Francois Martin, whose name shines with a fair and honest lustre in an age of intrigue and corruption. Martin had lent the governor of Jinji, the great mountain fortress sixty miles from Pondicherry, money he could not repay, and in return he bestowed upon him a village4 [It was called by the natives Puduchere, which, by degrees, was corrupted to Pondicherry.] near the coast, and gave him permission to fortify a strip of land by the sea. Here, in 1676, Martin brought sixty Frenchmen, all that remained of the factories at Ceylon and St Thom6. 'The fortification that Martin erected could not have been of any great extent, seeing that it cost only the modest sum of seven hundred crowns.' Beneath the shelter of the slender walls he, however, proceeded to lay out streets and to build houses for the native weavers, whom he wished to attract to his new settlement The aim of his policy was to gather at Pondicherry a thrifty, loyal population, and he was wise enough to see that the best way of doing this was by respecting the manners, customs and religion of the people, and so winning their love and confidence. His policy proved eminently successful. However, just as Martin's little colony began to rise and flourish, a grave danger menaced it. Sivaji seized Jinji and threatened an attack on the new settlement. But Martin pacified the great freebooter by a present of 500 pagodas, and obtained from him a grant for the French to reside at Pondicherry in perpetuity on condition they did not interfere in the wars of the neighbouring states. Sivaji, however, insisted that the French should pay him a heavy tax on the imports and exports of the little colony, which continued to grow in wealth and importance. To protect it still further, Martin now threw around the town a wall, which was flanked by four towers, each of which mounted six guns. He had hardly finished the new fortifications when war broke out between France and Holland, and in 1693 Pondicherry was attacked by a Dutch fleet consisting of nineteen ships of war. Martin, who had only forty European soldiers to defend the place, was compelled to surrender. The Dutch, fully realising the value of their new possession, proceeded to improve the town and fortification, and make it the capital of their Indian possessions. But, five years after it had come into their hands, the treaty of Ryswick restored Pondicherry to the French. Martin hastened from France to resume possession of the city which he had founded, but the Dutch refused to restore it until they had been handsomely compensated for the improvements they had made. A French writer with patriotic indignation states: 'The sale, characteristic of a nation of traders, took place on the 17th September 1699, when Martin paid 16,000 pagodas to the Director of the Dutch Company as the price of the improvements and fortifications they had made.' Under the wise and vigorous administration of Martin, the town rapidly grew in prosperity. He mapped out new streets on the lines of an important European capital, erected substantial houses, warehouses and shops, and built a palace for the governor. When the English had only a small factory at Calcutta, and Chowringee was a malarious swamp, Pondicherry was a flourishing town with fifty thousand inhabitants. For the greater protection of the city Martin proceeded to construct a citadel after the model of Tournay. When finished, the new fortress was consecrated with great pomp and ceremony. On August 25, 1706, a stately procession of laymen and priests, chanting the Te Deum and Exaudiat, wended its way around the town, and as it reached the bastion, the cannons sent forth a roar of triumph and joy. This was the crowning day of Francois Martin's life. A few months later the patriot's manly heart ceased to beat.

After the death of Francois Martin, two of his successors, Lenoir and Dumas, managed the Company's affairs with prudence and sagacity. Mahe and Karikal were acquired by France, and Pondicherry soon rose to distinguished importance among the European settlements in India. Dumas was succeeded by Dupleix, who, after being first member of the supreme council at Pondicherry for ten years, was appointed chief of the French factory at Chandernagore in Bengal. By his knowledge of Orientals, by his strong business capacity, he not only amassed a fortune for himself, due to the coast trade which he introduced, but he raised Chandernagore from an insignificant village on the Hooghly to a rich and populous colony. The success at Chandernagore led to his being appointed governor of Pondicherry and ex-officio director-general of the affairs of the French East Company. On arriving at Pondicherry he found there La Bourdonnais, whom he had known in former years. They were of the same age, both endowed with extraordinary abilities, but dissimilar in their talents and their character. Born at the ancient town of St Malo, a nursery for hardy mariners. La Bourdonnais made several voyages to different parts of the world. He entered, when he was twenty, the service of the French East India Company. After having served as lieutenant and second captain, he left the Company in 1727, and commanded, as 'captain and supercargo,' the Pondicherry, a special vessel which had been commissioned by Lenoir and the council of Pondicherry. For five years he traded on the coast Then he quarrelled with Lenoir and entered the Portuguese service, in which he remained for two years. In 1733, he returned to France. He sent to the ministry a report on the situation in India, and was appointed, in 1735, governor of the Isle of France and Bourbon. The appointment was criticised, and Dupleix wrote at the time: 'I am utterly amazed. The Company must have lost its head. God grant that they may not repent the step. The petulance and vivacity of the man make me fear it The Company has been fascinated by the rigmaroles of this flighty spirit'.1 [Dupleix by Prosper Cultru, p. 200.] Dupleix was, however, jealous of La Bourdonnais, and saw in him a rival for the government of Pondicherry. The islands of Mauritius and Bourbon had been taken possession of by the French after they had been abandoned by the Dutch and the Portuguese. When La Bourdonnais arrived, they were in a lamentable state of barbarism and prostration, induced by extravagant abuse and cruel misgovernment. He made them healthy and prosperous. He taught the art of agriculture to the runaway slaves who inhabited the dense forests in the interior, and introduced the culture of the sugar-cane, cotton and indigo; he constructed vehicles, broke in bulls, and made roads for their commerce to the sea. He built docks, quays, mills, arsenals; also a hospital, which he visited every day. By his constant personal supervision, and the healthy stimulus of his strong character, the islands became, during the eleven years of his rule, flourishing colonies, and the naval arsenal in the East But strong complaints were brought by 'captains of ships, and other visitants of the islands, whom he checked in their unreasonable demands, and from whom he exacted the discharge of their duties,' to the ears of the Company's directors, who, 'with too little knowledge for accurate judgment, and too little interest for careful inquiry, inferred culpability, because there was accusation.'1 [Mill, History of India, vol. iii. p. 41.]

In 1739, La Bourdonnais returned to France. He saw that war with England must shortly arise, and he proposed to certain friends that they should subscribe to equip a fleet to cruise in search of English merchantmen. But the ministry proposed to send out a fleet composed partly of the king's ships and partly of the Company's ships, with La Bourdonnais in command, and La Bourdonnais gives us no explanation of this change of plan. On April 5, 1741, he sailed from L'Orient with five of the Company's ships, and arrived at the Isle of France on August 14. He there learnt that the Mahrattas had invaded the Carnatic and that the garrisons had left the islands, summoned by Dumas, the governor of Pondicherry, who feared a siege. La Bourdonnais, when he reached Pondicherry, found the danger had blown over, but that Mahe had been eight months blockaded.

On January 14, 1742, Dupleix reached Pondicherry and succeeded Dumas as governor. To him La Bourdonnais explained his project of capturing Madras when war was declared. Dupleix approved of it and sent Paradis, an able Swiss soldier and an engineer, on a secret mission to Madras, who examined the place with sufficient precision to enable him to draw up a memorandum and prepare a plan of attack. La Bourdonnais proceeded to Mahe, chastised the enemy, re-established the factory, and then returned to the Mauritius, ready to prey upon the English commerce. But the finances of the French Company did not admit of their keeping ships without some commercial profit, and, hoping that neutrality would be maintained in India, they recalled the fleet It was a grave error.

When the ministers in England heard of the preparations made by the French, they sent a squadron of men-of-war in 1744 under Commander Barnet to India. It consisted of two sixty-gun ships, one of fifty, and a frigate of twenty guns. They sailed first to the straits between India and China, where they took 'three French ships returning from China to Europe, and one returning from Manilha to Pondicherry, the cargoes of which prizes produced the sum of 180,000 l. sterling. They also took a French East India ship, which was converted into an English man-of-war of forty guns.1 [ Orme, vol. i. p. 61.] In July 1745 the squadron appeared upon the coast of Coromandel, at which time the garrison of Pondicherry consisted of no more than 436 Europeans, and its fortifications were still incomplete. This was due to no fault of Dupleix, for as soon as he took charge, he began to reform the administration, to discipline the soldiers, to recruit sepoys and to build fortifications. But, on September 18, 1743, he received a despatch from the Company which told him 'to make a point of reducing all expenses by at least one half, and to suspend all outlay on buildings and fortifications.' He obeyed the first order. But he continued with renewed vigour the construction of the fortifications. He advanced to the treasury of the Company 'cinq cent mille livres '; a part of it he employed on the fortifications, and the remainder in supplying cargoes for two ships, which he sent post-haste to France for arms, munition of war and men. But before reinforcements could reach him or the fortifications be completed, the English squadron anchored off Fort St David. Pondicherry was now at their mercy. Happily for the French, the Nawab of the Carnatic informed the Madras government that their ships of war must not 'commit any hostilities by land against the French possessions' within his territories. At the same time he assured the English that 'he would oblige the French to observe the same law of neutrality, if their force should hereafter become superior to that of the English.'

Moved by these threats, the authorities at Madras persuaded Barnet to suspend his attack. He sent one of the fifty-gun ships to cruise at the entrance of the Ganges, where she took several ships returning to Bengal. Soon after, the approach of the monsoon compelled him to leave the coast.

In the beginning of 1746 the squadron returned to the coast of Coromandel, and was reinforced by two fifty-gun ships and a frigate of twenty guns from England. The sixty-gun ship however, in which Barnet hoisted his flag, was found unfit for action, and, together with the frigate, was sent back to England. The French squadron was now daily expected. But months went on and no French ships could be seen. 'The 29th April 174S, Mr. Barnet departed this life at this place [Fort St David] when all the ships were here or near us.' His death was generally regretted as a public loss, 'and indeed he was a man of great abilities in public affairs.' Captain Peyton then commanded the squadron as senior captain. On June 9, the Princess Mary^ laden with bales and treasure, 'sailed to Madras under convoy of his Majesty's Ship the Lively, as did the rest of the squadron for Trancomolay.' But just as they were getting to the Bay, the Preston's bowspirit was sprung and they had to bear away to Negapatam. 'On the 25 at daybreak, from the mast- head in Negapatam road, they made several ships in the offing to which they Went out and found them to be nine (9) French ships.'

On September 18, in the previous year, 1744, the frigate La Fiere had arrived at the Mauritius with the news that war had been declared. She also brought a message from the directors to La Bourdonnais forbidding him to commence hostilities; he was only to return them. La Bourdonnais began at once to arm all the Company's ships he could collect, and he wrote to Dupleix that he could assemble six vessels and 1,500 to 1,800 men. These, with 300 to 400 furnished by Dupleix, would make a little army with which they might carry out some enterprise that would repair their losses. He proposed that he should send half of his ships to cruise for the Company and half for Dupleix and himself. He further suggested the vessels should cruise between the Cape and St. Helena, because, in all probability, the Indian Seas would be a neutral region. Dupleix replied that he had approached the English governor, and therefore counted on the maintenance of peace. He added that he had very few soldiers, barely enough to guard Pondicherry. He also disapproved of the cruise in the Atlantic as it would be contrary to the wishes of the Company, who could not authorise their officers to sail under the conditions proposed by La Bourdonnais, without running the risk of ruining their ordinary commerce, which was less protected than that of the English. But the capture of the China ships by Barnet, in some of which Dupleix had a pecuniary interest, roused his wrath, and drove from his mind all thoughts of neutrality. He set about equipping the country ships to follow the squadron. La Bourdonnais now sent him a plan of his voyage, and inquired if the scheme of 1741 for taking Madras was still feasible. He asked for the service of Paradis and a body of sepoys. He was certain that, with the aid of Dupleix, he could easily take and retain Madras. He had studied Paradis's plan, and he sent Dupleix the result of his study. 'It is,' says he, 'the only means of repairing our loss.' A little later he asked Dupleix to send him clothes for his troops, arms and the munitions of war. Dupleix complied with the greatest good-nature with these requests. He was full of zeal for the enterprise, and burning to have his revenge for the loss of the China ships. He once more had Madras thoroughly explored, and procured an account of the place from Madame Baraval, his wife's daughter, who was married to an Englishman. He had a plan made on a large scale indicating the measures pro- posed by Paradis for taking the fort.1 [Dupleix, by Prosper Cultru, p. 203.]

Meanwhile the departure of the ships which La Bourdonnais had equipped was delayed by the news that a fleet was being sent from France. La Bourdonnais was appointed to the command, and it was suggested to him that, after having landed the treasure on board the ships at Pondicherry, he should proceed to the Bay of Bengal. He might, if he wished, return to the Mauritius about June 1746, and start for France with the fleet in 1747. But the French fleet, which was expected in October, did not reach the Mauritius till January 1746. They arrived in bad order, and only one was armed. La Bourdonnais with characteristic energy proceeded to repair and equip them, and as soon as they were ready he sent them to Madagascar. On March 24 he sailed in the last ship from the Mauritius. Before his ships left Madagascar they were driven from their anchorage and scattered by a hurricane. One was lost and the rest greatly damaged. La Bourdonnais, collecting them in the bay of a desert island on the coast of Madagascar, refitted them, 'overcoming the greatest difficulties with such indefatigable perseverance and activity as intitles him to a reputation equal to that of the ablest marine officer his country has produced.'1 [Orme, i. 63. Mill writes: 'Here the operations of repairing were to be renewed, and in still more unfavourable circumstances. To get the wood they required, a road was made across a marsh, a league in circumference; the rains were incessant; disease broke out among the people; and many of the officers showed a bad disposition; yet the work was prosecuted with so much efficiency, that in forty-eight days the fleet was ready for sea.' — Vol. iii. p. 44.] In forty-eight days the fleet was again ready for sea. It now consisted of nine sail containing 3,342 men, among whom were 720 blacks and from three to four hundred sick. In passing the island of Ceylon they heard the English fleet was at hand, and on June 25 the British ships appeared to windward, advancing in full sail towards them.

La Bourdonnais knew that he was superior to the English in number of men, but greatly inferior in weight of cannon. He therefore determined to gain, if possible, the wind and to board. But Peyton, seeing his design, kept the wind and so frustrated it. The breeze was also light, and it was not till four in the afternoon that a distant fight began and lasted till about seven, when it grew dark. 'In the English squadron,' the despatch states, 'were Fourteen killed and Forty Six wounded, but not one killed or wounded in the Medway' The Medway was Peyton's ship.2 [Despatch from Fort St. David, October 17, 1746. Orme states: 'The fight finished with the entrance of the night; about thirty-five men were killed in the English squadron, and the greatest part of these on board the forty-gun ship. We are not exactly informed of the loss sustained by the French; but it was believed that the killed and wounded together did not amount to less than 300. One of their ships, that which mounted thirty guns, was in less than half an hour dismasted and so much shattered that immediately after the action Mr. De la Bourdonnais ordered her to proceed to Bengal to be refitted in the Ganges.' — Vol. i. p. 64.]

The next morning the two squadrons were near one another, according to the despatch, and continued so all the day. 'At four in the afternoon Capt. Payton summoned a Council of War when it was agreed not to engage the enemy but to proceed to Trincomalay Bay.' The resolution was mainly due to the sixty-gun ship being extremely leaky. The English ships made sail for the harbour of Trincomalee, and in the evening lost sight of the French squadron, which had lain to the whole day as if challenging the English, who were to windward, to bear down and renew the fight. 'This appearance of resolution in M. De la Bourdonnais,' writes Orme, ' was no more than a feint, practised to deter the English from doing what most he dreaded; for most of his ships had expended the greatest part of their ammunition, and several of them had not victuals on board for twenty-four hours.'1 [Orme, vol. i. p. 64.] La Bourdonnais in his 'Memoirs' states that it was not a feint, and that it was with supreme regret that he saw the English escape him.

On Saturday, July 9, 1746, Ranga Pillai enters in his diary:

'This evening at 5, M. de la Bourdonnais disembarked [at Pondicherry], and as he did so, fifteen guns were discharged by his ship. Another salute of fifteen guns was fired on his arrival at the sea-gate, where he was met by the Deputy Governor and other members of the Council, and by the Captain and other officers — M. Dupleix alone excepted — and was escorted by them to the Governor's residence. On M. de la Bourdonnais entering this, the Governor received him at the Sentinel's post, with an embrace, and conducted him into the courtyard, when a salute of fifteen guns was again fired. They afterwards conversed together for a while in the open space on the other side of the verandah.'2 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 113.]


Four days later, as La Bourdonnais was leaving Pondicherry, the soldiers at the gate turned out and formed up as a guard of honour. He, however, sent word to them by his peon that such a ceremonial was unnecessary as he was not wearing uniform, but had on only a dressing-gown and night-cap. 'Nevertheless they paid him the honour and beat the Tambour.' On his return the guards at the gates were anxious to pay him the same honour, but he begged they would do nothing of the sort He afterwards sent for Captain Duquesne:1 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 121.]

'Because I am within the jurisdiction of your Governor, your guards, when I pass them, beat the "Tambour" for me, an honour accorded to the Deputy Governor. But I suppose that you will not take exception to the beating, as is done in the case of the Governor, of the "Tambour-aux-champs" for me when surrounded by my own majors, captains, and soldiers?'2 [This was the major form of salute, and was accorded only to officials of high degree. It still exists in the French army.]


M. Duquesne replied that he could not allow it.

On the following day Ranga Pillai informs us:3 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 223.]

'M. de la Bourdonnais landed some of those who were aboard the ships; and mustering all his soldiers, who had been posted at the city gates in forties and fifties, as also his officers, and the men whom he had brought ashore, held a parade opposite to the Governor's house, and reviewed them. He then stood in their midst, when he was saluted by them with their weapons, after the manner of the Governor. After the parade was over, he repaired to M. Desjardins' house, which had been assigned to him as a residence. The parade held by M. de la Bourdonnais was not attended or witnessed by M. Dupleix, who pretended to be asleep all the while, and then having dressed after the troops had dispersed, came out to sit as usual in the courtyard. The Deputy Governor and others, who had for some time been waiting outside, presented themselves before him. M. de la Bourdonnais also paid him a visit. The Governor and he entertain a mutual dislike for one another. The former is aggrieved because M. de la Bourdonnais does not regard himself as his subordinate, maintains a guard of honour of troopers, keeps at his residence a party of soldiers and troopers, and conducts everything independently, and without consultation with him; whilst M. de la Bourdonnais holds that he is on a par with the Governor, and is consequently entitled to all the honours accorded to that functionary; and that the control of military operations resting wholly with him, he is not bound to consult the Governor in matters connected therewith. Thus business is transacted between them with but little cordiality. The future development of this remains to be seen.'


On July 16, in a conversation with Ranga Pillai, Dupleix gave vent to his feelings:1 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 128.]

'In the course of conversation with me this morning at 9, the Governor said as follows: "M. de la Bourdonnais is a strange man, with an ungovernable temper. He is a babbler. His injustice to Mascareigne drove the inhabitants there to petition against him to the Minister in France. He was on the point of being executed; but thanks to his good luck, which seems to attend him still, he effected his escape by propitiating with lavish presents M. de Fuivy, the brother of the Comptroller-General, who was open to bribes. With a squadron of seven sail he set out on an expedition to Arabia, boasting that he would subjugate that country. But he failed in this project, and thereby caused serious loss to the Company. He is a great impostor." M. Dupleix said many other disparaging things of M. de la Bourdonnais. Not only did I throughout express myself in harmony with his views, but I dwelt at length, and in highly eulogistic terms, on the address with which he administered the affairs of this city at so critical a time as the present.'


On July 17 La Bourdonnais wrote to Dupleix asking for sixty large cannon, a body of men, and food for the squadron. He intended to search for the English vessels, and, having defeated them, return and attack Madras. He consulted Dupleix as to what he was to do with the town. Was he to occupy it, or demolish it? He awaited the decision of Dupleix, and declared that 'all the glory was for him, whose help had made the expedition possible.' Dupleix supplied him with men, ammunition, and twenty-six guns, though he writes, 'These cannons leave many blanks in our ramparts.'

On August 3 Ranga Pillai enters in his diary:

'At noon to-day M. de la Bourdonnais and the Governor, M. Dupleix, were entertained by M. de la Villebague at his house. At about 3, they left in palanquins; that of M. de la Bourdonnais preceding that of M. Dupleix. As they passed out together through the sea-gate, the "Tambour-aux-champs" was beaten. They alighted at the custom-house, and there, as he was starting on an expedition against Commodore Peyton who commands the English fleet, M. de la Bourdonnais bade M. Dupleix farewell. A salute of twenty-one guns was then fired. The Governor accompanied M. de la Bourdonnais to the boat, embracing and kissing him before he embarked. When the boat with M. de la Bourdonnais on board pushed off from the shore, there was another salute of twenty-one guns. The Governor watched it until it had passed the outer surf, then returned to his house, and afterwards went out for a drive.'1 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 166.]


Ranga Pillai enters in his diary on August 4: 'The fleet of M. de la Bourdonnais consisting of eight ships set sail at II this forenoon to seek the English at Galle, Colombo, Jaffna, and Trincomalee.' Orme says the French squadron sailed from Pondicherry on July 24, 'working to the southward against the southern monsoon and on the 6th of August discovered that of the English which had been refitted at Trincomalee.'

Mill says: 'On the 17th [August] he [La Bourdonnais] descried the English fleet off Negapatam, and hoisted Dutch colours as a decoy. The English understood the stratagem, changed their course and fled.' Ranga Pillai gives an interesting account founded on a letter written by La Bourdonnais at the time of his landing at Negapatam. The diarist states:

'The Governor met M. de la Bourdonnais on the beach and conducted him in state along the carpeted way to the fire. M. de la Bourdonnais was entertained at a great banquet. The Governor executed to his guest a deed binding himself to pay the value of the ships (two English ships which the French had captured and the Dutch purchased) within fifteen days, and obtained from him a general safe conduct to protect the Dutch shipping from molestation by the French. Whilst M. de la Bourdonnais was still at table news was brought to him that five English men-of-war were in sight to the southward He hastily took his departure and, accompanied by the Governor and all his men, proceeded to the beach, where, after bidding farewell to his host, he stepped into the boat in which he had come ashore. The Governor watched its progress until it had conveyed M. de la Bourdonnais on board. He then left the beach and returned to the fort. By 2 o'clock M. de la Bourdonnais had reached his ship and cleared for action.'
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:17 am

Part 2 of 2

According to Ranga Pillai, night being at hand, La Bourdonnais waited for the morning to engage the enemy. 'When the day dawned, however, no English ships were to be seen.' On August 18 the French squadron appeared before Madras 'and fired on the Princess Mary, which was returned from the ship and from the fort Each ship gave a broadside as she stood to the northward and another as she returned, and then stood to the southward again. We are since informed they had two motives for this expedition. One was to make a plea with the country government that the English had committed the first hostility ashore and the other to see if Captain Peyton would come to our assistance or not.' The inhabitants of Madras anxiously watched for the appearance of the English squadron on which their safety depended, and they were struck with consternation when they heard 'that on the 23rd Captain Peyton with his squadron stood into Pullicat Road, where he sent his lieutenant, Mr. Weeims, on board a vessel in the Road, who was there told of all the circumstances of their attacking the Princess Mary, and of their then being between Madras and Pondicherry, on which he disappeared and has never since been heard of,1 [ Orme states: 'They proceeded to Bengal; for the 60-gun ship was now so leaky, that it was feared the shock of firing her own cannon would sink her if she should be brought into an engagement.— Vol. i. p. 67.] or from, by any of the English, though there has been no cost or pains spar'd for that Purpose as may easily be imagined from the since Mellancholly situation of affairs on the Coast. The last letter that was receivd from anyone belonging to the squadron was from Captain Payton to Governor Morse dated the 4th August when he was just come out from refitting. This unhappy con- duct of his so animated our enemys that they determined on attacking Fort St George. We call it unhappy because it has truly proved so in its consequences, though what reasons Captain Payton may have had for this Proceeding we know not.'

Morse, the governor of Madras, now called on the Nawab of the Camatic to fulfil his promise of restraining the French from committing hostilities against them by land. But he omitted to forward a present of money, and consequently the Nawab took no steps to prevent them from attacking Madras. When war became imminent, the French governors, Dumas and Dupleix, made all possible preparations for the struggle; the English, according to a well-established custom, did nothing. The day after news reached them that war had been declared they chose a safe site for a powder magazine. But it was never built. The fort was entirely unfit to stand a siege.

'The principal officer among the garrison was one Peter Eckman, an ignorant, superannuated Swede, who had been a common soldier, and now bore the rank of a first lieutenant; he was assisted by two other lieutenants and seven ensigns. To all which may be further added, that though the garrison had near 200 pieces of cannon, yet they wanted men that were capable of playing them; besides that the want of military stores was equal to the paucity of military men.'1 [Despatch from Fort St. David, October 17, 1746.] Long before the war with France, the English Company had promised to augment the garrison of Madras to 600 Europeans, 'exclusive of the gun-room crew,' but they never sent the recruits. The time had now come when European soldiers were sorely needed.

On August 24, 1746, Ranga Pillai enters in his diary, 'The eight ships comprising M. de la Bourdonnais' fleet came to an anchor in the roads last night. A salute of fifteen guns was fired by only the commanding officer's ship, the Achille. M. de la Bourdonnais, who was ill with fever and diarrhoea, wrapped himself up in his dressing gown, covered his head with a cap, and in this costume came ashore. On landing, he was put into a closed palanquin and conveyed to the house of the Governor who had previously ordered that it should be cleared of every one, and guarded by armed soldiers, who were posted in the streets running to the west and east of the building.' . . . 'The palanquin carrying M. de la Bourdonnais was brought to the residence of the Governor, into whose presence he was, on alighting, supported by two men, one on either side. The Governor came forward to meet him, embraced him, and took him into a room where they had a conference, in which M. Paradis took part'.1 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 233.]

On August 29, M. Desmares, a merchant, met Ranga Pillai on his way to the Governor's house and informed him what had taken place at the conference.

'The Governor asked why the expedition against Madras had been delayed. M. de la Bourdonnais replied: "The orders which I have received from the Company, and from the Government, are that I should attack the English ships wherever I might fall in with them at sea. My instructions do not extend to fighting on shore. I therefore cannot undertake a land attack. If you desire me to do so, I will; but I must first have the written order of your Council to that effect." "Was it not at your desire, expressed in writing," the Governor exclaimed, "that I made all these preparations for the expedition? I cannot understand why you now demand the Council's orders." High words then ensued between them. The Councillors were next summoned, but they declined all responsibility, stating that the Governor and M. de la Bourdonnais had not consulted them when they first planned the undertaking. The whole amount expended up to the present on this may, perhaps, have to be borne by the Governor himself. It is not known how it will end. M. Dupleix tried very hard to have Paradis appointed Commander in the place of M. de la Bourdonnais who is now ill; but the latter would not assent to this.'


Dupleix, who told La Bourdonnais that the capture of Madras was 'so necessary to the honour of the King and the welfare of the Company, that if you are prevented from carrying it out this season you must attempt it next January,' was naturally vexed at the vacillation and delay. He was a man of violent temper, and gave reins to it in his conversation with Ranga Pillai on September 4. He again abused La Bourdonnais in unmeasured terms.

'"La Bourdonnais was an utterly petty-minded man and one utterly regardless of the blow which the honour of the French has sustained." ..." He is, however, an artful man. Although he was a party to the arrangements, he has made me alone bear the whole expense, and has thus impoverished and ruined me. On his arrival he was but a pauper bringing nothing with him but the woollen coat which he wore. Did you not then see him with your own eyes? You are a shrewd man, and there is scarcely anything of which you are not aware." He added, "The Ministers of the King of France are the cause of all this."'


On the morning of September 12, the French fleet, having on board the troops, artillery and stores intended for the siege of Madras, sailed from Pondicherry. A letter from Madras dated October 17, 1747, states: 'They came in sight the 2nd. Nine Sail, and landed 800 Europeans at Covalong, marched to Thome, there landed more.' The neighbourhood covered with country houses was given up to pillage, and the French Commissary-General states that La Bourdonnais and his brother La Villebague harassed the town of St. Thome for loot. On September 17 the French 'began to play their mortars being 1 5 in number from behind the garden house, 10 and 5 from across the Bar: their strength on shore I compute 2,000 Europeans, Seapiahs, and 300 Coffrees: they have when all on board about 3,000 Europeans, 600 of which were Pondicherry troops: their intent was to have stormed us by escalade which we were in no condition to prevent, 1,000 Bombs having prevented our sleeping for 3 days and Nights. Yet we had more to dread from our own disorder within and want of Government and Council than from the enemy without.' On September 29, William Monson, ensign, and John Hallyburton, ensign, were sent as deputies to treat with La Bourdonnais. He received them with all courtesy, and, after a consultation, he offered them the following conditions; that the town should be delivered up, and all the English remain prisoners of war; that the articles of capitulation being settled, those of the ransom should be regulated amicably; that the garrison should be conducted to Fort St. David, and the sailors sent to Cuddalore. The deputies pressed for a more explicit explanation as to the ransom being regulated in a friendly manner. La Bourdonnais replied, 'Gentlemen, I do not sell honour: the flag of my King shall fly over Madras, or I will die at the foot of the walls. In regard to the ransom of the town, and in everything that is interesting, you shall be satisfied with me'; (and, taking the hat of one of the deputies, he said) 'here is nearly the manner how we will regulate matters: this hat is worth six rupees, you shall give me three for it, and so of the rest.' The capitulation was signed the next day, and in the afternoon La Bourdonnais, at the head of a large body of troops, marched to the gates, where he received the keys from the governor. The French flag was immediately hoisted and the boats of the French squadron took possession of the Company's ships. The letter from Madras adds that 'The French hitherto have been extremely civil with respect to the Inhabitants, and have come to a Treaty with the Govemour and Council for the ransom of the place at eleven Laack of Pagodas, payable in 3 years half in India and half in Europe; they to carry off all the Company's Goods and J the Cannon and Warlike Stores: but here's to be a Garrison of 400 ''french till January and I dont much trust to their faith.' The value of the Company's goods was about four laack of pagodas in silver, broadcloth, etc., and 'it is generally believed that Monsr. L Bourdonnie in Diaminds, Jewells, etca., Screwed Us a Purse of about 150,000 Pagodas, so Altogether makes up the Sum of 1,650,000, One million six hundred and fifty thousand Pagodas,1 [Grose states: 'The Governor and Council settled the price of the ransom with the French Commodores at 1,100,000 pagodas, or 421,666£ sterling.] for security of which hostages were to be delivered to Monsr. L Bourdonnie, the Governor's two Children, Mr Stratton and family, Mr Harris and wife, and Messrs Strake and Walsh. The first capitulation was according to the above terms, and the town was to be delivered the English on the 1st October.'

The terms did not suit Dupleix. He had agreed with La Bourdonnais that they should levy a large sum from Madras, either before the assault or in case the French were too weak to hold it But a few days after the squadron set sail for Madras, Dupleix learnt that a squadron of three large vessels of the French Company had touched at Mahe. This reinforcement would enable him to hold both Madras and Pondicherry against any attacks made by the English, and he at once declared that the arrangement of restoring it on the payment of a ransom must be altered. He determined to keep the town or have it at his mercy. He, however, had to consider the native power.

On September 9, three days before the fleet sailed Dupleix received a letter from the Nawab of the Carnatic which was to the following effect:

'"In spite of our explicit instructions that you should forbear from attacking Madras, you have despatched an expedition thither. We are therefore not disposed to allow Pondichery to continue in your possession. We accordingly propose to advance against your town. You transgress all bounds; this is improper."

'The letter was couched in these harsh terms. The Governor directed the despatch of a reply as below: — "The captains of the ships of war of France are bound by the orders of their King; and will not care to listen to the counsels of others."'2 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 291.]

On the following day a letter was despatched to Nawab Anwal-ud-din Khan enclosing a copy of another addressed to Nizam-ul-mulk. The purport of the communication was as follows — 'the King of France has been informed that the English at Madras have unjustly seized French ships, and that they have taken another, bound for Manilla, which bore the name and flag of Muhammad Shah Emperor of Delhi, and was carrying a cargo consigned to him. The insult offered to the Emperor, by thus capturing a ship bearing his name and flag, has exceedingly enraged the King of France, his most faithful friend. He is therefore resolved that the city of Madras, which belongs to the English, shall be seized, and that the British flag which now flies there shall be torn down, and replaced by that of the French. He has accordingly despatched a few men-of-war to take Madras and to hoist the white flag over it. We are carrying out the royal mandate, and you should help us in whatever way you can.'1 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 292.]


On September 19, a camel-express brought a letter from Nawab-ud-din Khan to the governor. The Nawab expressed his surprise that, in defiance of his remonstrances, the French should have despatched an expedition against the English, and trusted that they would in future refrain from affording ground for similar complaint. 'When this letter was read to the Governor, he, with a grimace, ordered me to send a reply couched in the following courteous terms: — "No harm will be done to the merchants of Madras, and any offender found guilty of wrong doing will be punished by the Commander-in-Chief of the French fleet." A letter to this effect was despatched by the camel courier.' Dupleix fully realised the necessity of conciliating the Nawab. He wrote to La Bourdonnais — 'I believe I have found the means of keeping him quiet by telling him we will give him up Madras, you understand, on the condition that we think suitable. This warning should induce you to press the attack briskly and not to listen to any propositions for ransoming the place after it is taken, as this would be deceiving the Nabob and causing him to unite with our enemies. After all, when you are master of this place, I do not see where the English can find the means to pay the ransom. I beg of you to reflect suitably on this subject.'

Dupleix was determined to build up solidly a French dominion in India, but in order to do that Madras, the rival of Pondicherry, must be destroyed. He would sack the town, dismantle the fortifications, and hand the place over to the Nawab. But La Bourdonnais clung obstinately to the first project of a ransom. On September 23, two days after the capitulation, he wrote to Dupleix a long letter in which he announced his intention of carrying off the goods taken, And making the English pay first a ransom for the town, and second for the pillage he had stopped. The first of these two contributions was to be for the Company, the second for the soldiers. He asked advice from the council as to whether he should seize the goods of the Armenians and Malabars. On the 24th he wrote again to Dupleix, asking him to send a scheme of how he thought Madras should be treated. All this time he was acting as if he were independent of any control. He was accompanied on the expedition by two commissioners. Messieurs d'Espremesnil and Bonneau, who were charged with the duty of taking over the captured property. The former was appointed by Dupleix, the latter by La Bourdonnais. D'Espremesnil was the head of the supreme council and second in authority only to Dupleix. On entering Madras La Bourdonnais received all the keys of the shops and the counting-houses, which he states he handed at once to the two commissioners. D'Espremesnil wrote the same day at 9 P.M. to Dupleix: 'I have already spoken to the Admiral and to M. Bonneau many times that they should let us attend to our duties. I had no answer, and if I had not spoken strongly as I did, we should not now have the keys of the Treasury, which had been given to M. Villebague, I hope with no evil design. I have declared to M. de la Bourdonnais that I will sleep at the door of the Treasury, if he does not order the key to be delivered to me, and that if he refuses I will institute a proces-verbal. At last the keys are come.' Espremesnil, hearing La Bourdonnais state that he would not give an account to anyone, told him that such a course of action would not redound to his credit. Seeing that La Bourdonnais intended to act as if he were sole master in Madras, Espremesnil asked Dupleix to come himself to Madras, the town being in his government.

Dupleix did not go to Madras. But in a letter, written on September 23, he informed La Bourdonnais that in whatever concerned Madras he must give an account to the supreme council. On the 24th Ranga Pillai enters in his diary — 'At 4 this afternoon M. Dulaurens embarked for Madras to manage the financial affairs of that place.' He also states that M. Barthelemy was nominated to assist him in council. A letter was sent to La Bourdonnais announcing the departure of the two councillors, and stating they were to form with four other persons1 [MM. d'Espremesnil, Bonneau, Desforges, and Paradis, all Pondicherry men.] an auxiliary council at Madras under the presidency of La Bourdonnais. On the 25th La Bourdonnais announced that he had appointed as commissioners his own brother. La Villebague, and a certain Desjardins to superintend the loading of the vessels. 'At the observation that this was an irregular proceeding he became very angry. However d'Espremesnil learnt that they were loading by night the Marie Gertrude, whose captain, La Gatinais, was in the pay of M. La Bourdonnais, and that long-boats loaded to the water's edge were carrying the spoil from the town.'

On the 25th Dupleix, replying to the letter in which La Bourdonnais had asked the advice of the council, boldly put to him the question whether he recognised the superior authority of the supreme council and of the governor-general of the Indian settlements, which were founded on the permanent orders of the king passed before the special letter that La Bourdonnais received conferring on him the naval command. Dupleix added that the promise of a ransom was a decoy, and that the governor's bills would never be paid. La Bourdonnais promptly replied that he had never been forewarned of the supremacy of the council, that he had come to Madras as a man in full authority, and as a man possessed of full authority he must keep to the terms of his engagement. From this position he would not depart: 'Whether I am right or wrong,' he said, 'I believe myself to be acting within my powers in granting a capitulation to the Governor of this place. I have pledged my honour to the English deputies that I will treat favourably the ransom of the fort and the city.' On the 30th Ranga Pillai informs us all the Europeans at Pondicherry went to the governor's house and made the following representation to him:

'We live under the flag of the French King, and are bound to uphold his honour. The English have done us many wrongs and have even insulted us. You have now by the capture of Madras lowered the English pride, and have established for ever the fame of the King of France, and this will reach the ears of the Emperor of Delhi. The fall of Madras is due to your superior skill, and forethought; and it was not possible for anyone else to have achieved the success which you have. Now we hear that M. de la Bourdonnais is treating with the English for the return of Fort St. George to them. If he has restored it, we dare not show our faces in this Muhammadan kingdom. All our glory will have departed. What does he mean by making restitution of Fort St. George, which was captured only after a severe struggle, and the taking of which has greatly added to our reputation? We have come to you to protest against his proceedings.'


Dupleix told them that he would forthwith send a letter to La Bourdonnais forbidding him to proceed further. Ranga Pillai adds that, 'having written a despatch to M. de la Bourdonnais on the lines suggested by the deputation (Dupleix) directed M. Paradis, M. de Bury, M. Desmareis the greffier (record-clerk) and M. Bruyeres to proceed by ship to Madras. They set sail at 4 in the evening.' On the 4th Ranga Pillai enters in his diary:

'This evening letters from MM. d'Espremenil, Dulaurens, and their party, arrived from Madras. These contained the following particulars. M. Paradis, M. de Bury, and those with them who quitted Pondichery on Friday, 18th Purattasi (30th September), arrived at Mylapore on Saturday, 19th idem (1st October). They had a talk with M. d'Espremenil, and his companions, who had betaken themselves there in displeasure at the conduct of M. de la Bourdonnais. On Sunday, 20th Purattasi (2nd October), they all proceeded to Madras, and asked M. de la Bourdonnais to explain why he had restored it to the English. He replied that he did so as he had been authorized in writing by the Council at Pondichery to exercise his discretion. M. d'Espremenil, Dulaurens, and other officials, explained that the order to which he referred gave him full discretionary powers in the conduct of the siege of Madras alone, and did not invest him with any authority to interfere thereafter, either in the administration of the fort, or in that of the town. M. de la Bourdonnais replied that he had restored the town to the English, because the capture of Madras was planned and effected by them all, without any authority from the King of France to wage war on land, and also because he had seized all the treasure that he found in the fort, and had settled with the English for the payment of eleven lakhs of pagodas, as a condition of restoring the fort to them. The Frenchmen, who came to remonstrate with him, now declared that the new order issued by the Council at Pondichery conferred the supreme authority on M. d'Espremenil, and cancelled the powers of M. de la Bourdonnais. They, thereupon, drew their swords, and called upon the ships' crews, the officers, the captains, and all others, to swear fealty to the King of France, and to take an oath of allegiance to M. d'Espremenil. The order of the Council at Pondichery was next read, and proclaimed. M. de la Bourdonnais was called upon to surrender his sword and to take the oath. They threatened that, if be did not, he would in accordance with the instructions which they said that they had received, be taken into custody. The captains and officers of the ships remained silent M. d'Espremenil took charge of the keys of the fort, and issued his orders. Mr. Morse, the Governor of Madras, and the other English- men, were next summoned and were informed that they were prisoners, and that the restoration of the fort to them was cancelled.'


On October 7, Ranga Pillai states:

'I asked M. de la Touche to tell me why a Council sat yesterday, from sunrise until 6 in the evening, and again until noon to-day, and why the Governor appeared depressed. He replied to me as follows: "M. de la Bourdonnais, in celebration of his Saint's day, ordered guns to be fired at Madras, at sunrise, on the 21st and 22nd Purattasi (3rd and 4th October). He then invited M. d'Espremenil, M. Dulaurens, M. de Bury, M. Paradis, M. Barthelemy, M. de la Tour, and other distinguished men, to dine with him in the fort at midday. When the guests were seated at table, M. de la Bourdonnais addressed them and said, 'I have received a report that English ships are approaching. You must permit me to embark all the soldiers from Pondichery on board my fleet.' 'No, no,' cried M. de Bury, M. Paradis, and their companions. M. de la Bourdonnais frowned on them, and ordered twenty-four of his men, who were under arms, to seize M. de Bury, M. Paradis, and M. de la Tour, and to keep them in custody. He deprived M. d'Espremenil of his authority, and assumed the sole power. He next ordered that the soldiers be embarked on board his ships, and directed that the merchandise in the fort and town should be conveyed on board."'


La Bourdonnais was most anxious to put an end to his quarrel with Dupleix and to set sail with his ships for France. He had in former years traded on the coast, and he knew well the danger of remaining in the Madras roadstead when the northern monsoon burst, which it does about October 15. He, however, did not wish to leave until his treaty had been ratified by the superior council at Pondicherry. He therefore opened negotiations with Dupleix and informed him of the conditions on which he would leave Madras. The principal ones were that Madras should be restored to the English, at the latest at the end of January, that it should not be attacked by either nation before that period, and that as long as it should remain in the hands of the French the roadstead should be accessible to the ships of both nations. On October 14 the superior council replied as follows:

'M. Dupleix has communicated to us your letter of the 12th with some articles which we have examined very attentively. Many reasons prevent us from being able to accede to them. The time to which you limit the evacuation of the place is not sufficient to enable us to make a division of the Artillery, rigging and the supplies and to take them away. All that we can promise you, is to work as promptly as possible. . . .

With respect to the hostages, letters of exchange and bills, we are very willing to engage to receive them on the understanding that this acceptance on our part does not pass for an acquiescence in the articles which relate to them. . . . The roadstead of Madras cannot be open to the English during the division of the prize property; the English squadron has only to come there with five or six ships from Europe as well as from India and disembark their crews gradually. It would thus be very easy, as you will see, for the English to take possession of Madras, at least to concentrate there a force of 2,000 Europeans. It is for this reason that we have inserted a paragraph that the roadstead of Madras must not be open to the English.'


Ranga Pillai informs us that on the night of the 13th 'the north wind blew, accompanied by lightning and a little rain.' The following morning, as the wind was blowing and the rain was falling, he did not go to the house of the governor, 'who was suffering from two boils on the neck.'

'At 8, as the stormy weather continued, the Governor did not put on his ordinary dress, but clothing himself in his night costume — loose trousers, a shirt, a waist-coat and a cap— he entered the travelling coach of Madame Dupleix, went to the beach, watched the ships tossing on the waves, and listened to the roaring of the sea; and having ascertained from the fishermen— who said that the northeast wind had subsided, and the south-west was blowing, there was no ground for fear — that the gale and rain would soon cease and no danger to the shipping need be apprehended, he, so it is reported, went home.'


On October 13 the weather at Madras, Orme tells us, was remarkably fine and moderate all day.

'About midnight a furious storm arose and continued with the greatest violence until the noon of the next day. Six of the French ships were in the roadstead when the storm began, and not one of them was to be seen at day-break. One put before the wind and was driven so much to the southward that she was not able to gain the coast again: the 70 gun ship lost all her masts: three others of the squadron were likewise dismantled and had so much water in the hold, that the people on board expected every minute to perish, notwithstanding they had thrown overboard all the cannon of the lower tier; the other ship during the few moments of whirlwind which happened in the most furious part of the storm, was covered by the waves and foundered in an instant, and only six of the crew escaped alive. Twenty other vessels belonging to different nations were either driven on shore, or perished at sea.'


La Bourdonnais' fleet was destroyed. He was no longer able to face the English or to continue on the coast of Coromandel. On October 21 a treaty, which he asserted had been assented to at Pondicherry, was signed by him and Governor Morse and five of the English council. All the merchandise, part of the military stores to the East India Company, all the naval stores belonging to the Company or private persons became the property of the French Company. La Bourdonnais gave it up to the English and the other inhabitants all the effects and merchandise belonging to them except the naval stores. It was agreed that the French should evacuate the town before the end of the ensuing January, after which the English were to remain in possession of it without being attacked by them again during the war. Upon these conditions the governor and council of Madras agreed to pay the sum of 100,000 pagodas, or 440,000 l. sterling. Of this sum 240,000 l. were to be paid at Pondicherry, by six equal payments before the month of October in the year 1749: and for the remaining 200,000 l. bills were drawn on the East India Company in London, payable a few months after they should be presented. The English gave hostages for the performance of this treaty.

On October 23, having made over the governorship of Madras to the senior member of council sent by Dupleix, La Bourdonnais sailed for the roads of Pondicherry. He anchored there the following day, but did not land. After an angry discussion with the Pondicherry council he acquiesced in their desire that the fleet, consisting of seven ships, should proceed to Acheen in Sumatra. For that port he accordingly set sail; the three ships which arrived last from Europe with another that had escaped from the storm made good their destination in spite of a contrary wind; but La Bourdonnais' seventy-gun ship and two others which had suffered in the storm were forced to give way and sail before the wind to the island of Mauritius, where they arrived; in the beginning of December. Here he was placed in charge of a squadron and directed to proceed to France, taking Martinique on the way. Owing to a storm which he encountered, he put in for shelter at St Paul de Loando, the Portuguese colony. As I have stated, he had been some time in the Portuguese service in India, and it was reported at Madras that he meant to send gold, silver, diamonds and merchandise to Goa. At St. Paul he chartered a small vessel, which carried his wife, his children (and, it was stated, the riches that he had gotten), to Brazil and thence to Lisbon. He reached Martinique with only four of his ships. He now found that his home- ward voyage was barred by English cruisers. He proceeded to St Eustache, one of the islands forming the colony of Curacoa, lying north from the coast of Venezuela, and took a passage to France in a Dutch ship. War, however, had now been declared between France and Holland, and the Dutch vessel was forced into an English harbour. La Bourdonnais was recognised and made a prisoner. Grose states: 'The ship was taken by an English privateer, and carried into Falmouth in December 1747. But the Commodore's lady, with most of the jewels, arrived in a Portuguese ship at Lisbon.'1 [A Voyage to the East Indies, began in 1750, with Observations continued [illegible] 1764, by John Henry Grose (second edition), vol. ii. p. xxi.] He adds, 'The Commodore was confined some days in Pendennis Castle, from whence he was conducted to London in the custody of two messengers. He was treated with the utmost politeness and afterwards sent to France.' As you all know on reaching France he was imprisoned in the Bastille and remained there for three years in the most rigorous confinement. He was charged, in addition to his political offences, with corruption, embezzlement and extortion, but was at length acquitted by a Committee of the Privy Council to whom his case was referred.

The chief accusation brought against La Bourdonnais is that he received a large sum of money from the English to conclude an unauthorised treaty for the ransom of Madras. Professor Cultru in his most interesting and useful work on Dupleix remarks — 'We have not the positive proof that La Bourdonnais did receive money from the English but there are signs that point to this.' He adds — 'Only a study of La Bourdonnais' case, and of the English documents, if there are any, can show if these suspicions of La Bourdonnais are founded on facts.' It is strange that a writer whose work is based on considerable research should not have learnt that in the archives of the India Office there are some important documents bearing on the case. He himself draws attention to the important fact that in 1750 a pamphlet in the form of a letter was published in England, which distinctly accused La Bourdonnais.1 [A Letter to A Proprietor of the East India Company, London: Printed for T. Osborne in Grays Inn, mdccl.] The pamphlet contained a letter from Governor Morse, written from Pondicherry, January 18, 1747, to The Secret Committee for Affairs of the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, in which he stated: 'I take this Occasion to advise you apart, that in that Transaction we were under a Necessity of applying a further Sum beside that stipulated by the Articles; which Affair, as it required Privacy, was by the Council referred to myself and Mr. Monson to negotiate: As therefore that Gentleman, who presents you this, is by that Means well qualified to give you the fullest view of that Matter, I believe we shall stand excused by you, that the Explanation of it with its Circumstances, its Consequences, and our Reasons, is thus referred to him, rather than committed to Paper.' No action was taken in the matter until December 15, 1748, when at a court of directors it was

'Resolved, that Mr. Monson be desired to give an Account in Writing to the Court of Directors, of the Matter referred to by Mr. Morse, in his letter to the Secret Committee, dated January 18, 1746-7, and also of the several Sums of Money taken up on Bond, or otherwise, after the Surrender of Madras to the French, and to explain the same, with the Circumstances relating thereto, together with the Reasons for the same, and that he be acquainted he may lay any Thing else before the Court he thinks proper, and desired to give in such Account by Wednesday next.'

Mr. Monson in his reply to this resolution (London, December 21, 1748) states that 'he did hope' that the secret committee 'would have given me an Opportunity to have explained it before themselves only; for as there is a Sort of Faith, which ought to be preserved, even with one's Enemies, I cannot help saying, it is a Thing which chagrins me exceedingly, to be called upon now to do it, in a Manner so much more public. However, as your Commands have fixed an indispensable Obligation on me to comply therewith, I am to acquaint you, that in treating for the Ransom of the Place, we were soon given to understand, that a further Sum was necessary to be paid, beside that to be mentioned in the Public Treaty. You will easily imagine from the Nature of the Thing, that it required to be conducted with some Degree of Secrecy; there was, however, a Necessity of acquainting the Council with it, though for Form Sake, and to preserve Appearances with the Person treated with, it was referred to Mr. Morse and myself to settle the Matter with him: I can nevertheless with great Truth assure you, that all the Gentlemen of the Council were constantly and faithfully acquainted with every Step that was taken in that Matter, except Mr. Edward Fowke, who, from the Beginning of the Treaty about the Ransom, declared, that he would not join with us in any of those Measures, which by all the rest were thought absolutely necessary at that Juncture.'

Mr. Monson adds: 'Having said thus much, it remains for me to acquaint you, that we had no Possibility of raising the Money, but by giving the Company's Bonds for it; and this Negotiation was not kept secret from those who supplied the Money on this Occasion, as they were to a Man informed of the Use it was borrowed for before they lent it; and thought by lending it, they did a meritorious Piece of Service to the Company: Bonds were accordingly given for so much as we could borrow, under the Company's Seal, and signed by Mr. Morse, and all the Council except Mr. Edward Fowke; a List whereof, I mean such only as were not mentioned in our general Advices,1 [Only a bill of exchange for 3,000 pagodas.] I add here.2
['To Mr. Morse / a Bond for Pagodas / 10,000
Mr. Salomons / a Bond for Pagodas / 40,000
Mess. Jones and Moses / a Bond for Pagodas /15,000
Mr. Heyman / a Bond for Pagodas / 10,000
Mess. Edw. and Jos. Fowke / a Bond for Pagodas / 5,400
Mr. Peter Baillieu / a Bond for Pagodas / 5,000
The Church Stock / a Bond for Pagodas / 2,000
The Mayor's Court (Mr. Monson made a mistake; the Mayor's Court lent 4,368 pagodas, and he omitted the bonds for smaller sums.) / a Bond for Pagodas /2000]

'Having gone thus far, and acquainted you with the Engagements we were under, I submit it to your further Consideration, whether you will insist upon my mentioning in this publick Manner the Sum agreed for; what Part was paid in Consequence thereof; and to whom: For the rest of what was borrowed in this Manner, over and above what was actually paid to the Person treated with, it was disbursed in defraying the Charges of the Garrison, till the French broke the Capitulation, and turned us out of the Town.'

'The Minister of Foreign Affairs in France ordered, in his letter of June 20, 1750, that Messrs. Monson and Straton, Councillors of Madras, should come to Paris, to give their evidence in the affair of La Bourdonnais. All their expenses were to be paid.' This shows that the Foreign Minister attached importance to the publication.

The documents in the archives of the Indian Office are the three folios relating to the Law Case No. 31, March 3, 1752. The case arose from the objection of the Court of Directors of the East India Company to meet the bonds on which the sum required for the ransom of Madras was raised on the ground that in part at least the bonds had been given not to save the Company's property, but the private property of the governor and his council. Attention was first drawn to these papers by Colonel Malleson in his History of the French in India.

Sir George Birdwood, in his most interesting and useful report on 'The Old Records of the India Office,' gives some copious extracts from these papers. In them we find the letter of Governor Morse, dated January 18, 1748; the letter of Mr. Monson, dated December 21, 1748. In the letter of Monson, as given in folio 3, we are told that * bonds were given for so much as we could borrow under the Company's seal, and signed by Mr. Morse and all the rest of the Council except Mr. Fowke. Part of the money thus borrowed was actually paid to the person treated with, and the rest was disbursed in defraying charges of the garrison until the French broke the capitulations and turned us out of the town.' In folio 4 there is another letter from Monson, dated May 3, 1749, who, after excusing himself from declaring to whom . . . this money . . . was given, says: — 'I hope I shall stand excused if I declare no further than that part of the money was appropriated to pay six months' salary and two months* diet to your covenant servants, with a month's arrear to the garrison, besides sundry disbursements to the officers and sailors of the Princess Mary, to your officers and military that were going to Cuddalore, and some little advances we judged necessary towards our future reestablishment, the rest of the money, with the diamonds, was actually and bona fide applied to the purpose already mentioned' (the payment of 'that person'), 'which, in the opinion of those who were concerned in this business, would have redounded very much to the honour, the credit, and the real advantage of the Company.'

In folio 5, 'Mr. Edward Fowke . . . speaking [letter of December 25, 1746] of the ransom . . . says: " In regard to ransoming of the town, afterwards when Monsieur La Bourdonnais told us we might march out with our swords and hats, I thought it' [going out with swords and hats] 'much more to your interest than to accept the terms that were agreed upon. ... I could have consented so far as five or six lacs. . . . Madras is but a tributary town . . . therefore for your Honours to be loaded with such a monstrous sum, and the Native Government not to feel any part of so severe a blow, would, I am afraid, in future have a very bad effect, especially with a little money laid out among the great men, which the French pretty well know how to place.'

Again, March 3, 1748: 'I can assure you, gentlemen, notwithstanding I may have appeared so lukewarm in defence of your town . . . I would rather have sacrificed my life than to have acceded to those terms of agreement, I thought them as directly opposite to your interest, honour, and credit, as others thought them for it.' In the same letter he says one of the bonds was brought to him to sign, and he wrote on it: 'I acknowledge Mr. George Jones to have brought me the above-mentioned bond to sign, but as I do not approve the ransom, nor do I know whether I am now legally authorised ' (being a prisoner of La Bourdonnais) 'to take up money on the Company's account, I refuse to sign it.'

It is important, however, to remember that Mr. Fowke said, in his answer to the interrogatories, that though he was a stranger to the payment he did not doubt the money being paid.

We have also the evidence of the bond creditors, who in answer to the interrogatories stated: 'That they heard and believe that the then President and Council of Fort St George did after the 10th September, 1746, agree to give and pay to Monsieur de la Bourdonnais 88,000 pagodas, but that they did not know or believe that the said 88,000 pagodas, or any part thereof, were so agreed to be paid in order to free or exempt the goods and effects of the merchants and inhabitants . . . and particularly the goods and effects of the said Govemour in Council, or the said Solomon Solomons' [one of the bondholders] 'in their private capacity, from being seized, taken, or plundered, but that the same was agreed to be given or paid to the said Monsieur de la Bourdonnais, as a douceur or present on behalf of the said East India Company, with a view to reduce the amount or value of the ransom insisted on by the said Monsieur de la Bourdonnais.'

And the same further say (folio II): 'They do believe in their consciences that . . . the same and said present of 88,000 pagodas, as agreed to be given to the said Monsieur de la Bourdonnais, was entered into for the benefit and interest of the East India Company.'

Folio 12, 'Francis Salvadore, executor to Jacob Salvadore, says: " He don't know, but hath heard and believes that the said President and Council did, after the said 10th day of September 1746, agree to give or pay to or to the use of the said Monsieur de la Bourdonnais the sum or value of 88,000 pagodas, as a present, but whether ... in order to exempt or free the goods and effects of the merchants or inhabitants . . . and particularly of the proper goods and effects of the said Govemour and Council, in their private capacity, or the said Edward and Joseph Fowke, or the said Jacob Salvadore, . . . he don't know nor has been informed."'

In 1749 Monson was unwilling to declare the name of 'that person,' but in 1753 he declared, in answer to certain interrogatories, that 'he the said Mr. Monson heard from Monsieur de La Bourdonnais that they must pay him down 100,000 pagodas if they expected performance of the agreement, he communicated such his information to the Council, who after deliberation agreed to pay it, but says this money was not demanded for granting the fifteenth and sixteenth Articles.' He also states, 'No receipt was taken or required for the money privately paid, nor could any be insisted on in such a transaction, nor was any agreement made for returning the 88,000 pagodas in case the treaty was rejected by the Governour and Council of Pondicherry; and can't say whether the Governour and Council of Pondicherry were ever informed of this private transaction.'

Dupleix, who had little doubt of the guilt of La Bourdonnais, had his grave suspicions confirmed by an important witness. When I was in Pondicherry a learned French lawyer, who took most patriotic interest in the history of his countrymen in India, told me that there was in the archives some important evidence as to La Bourdonnais having taken a bribe. He also with the characteristic generosity of his race gave me the following authenticated copy of the document. The translation was made by Mr. Markheim, Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, whose death deprived that University of one of her brilliant sons.

'21 August 1747. This day, twenty-first of August 1747, at four o'clock in the afternoon, I was summoned by Mr. Dupleix to act as interpreter between him and Mr. Savage, formerly Councillor at Madras and now ready to leave on parole for Ceylon. Mr. Savage asked me to make his best thanks to the Governour for all the civilities which he had received from him, and on his own part to assure him of his everlasting gratitude. The Governour after making response to this compliment, requested him as a proof of friendship to tell him how much Mr. Morse and the Madras Council had given privately to Mr. de La Bourdonnais, and to declare to him there and then, in a friendly way, and in secrecy, how the business had been done. Mr. Savage, very much surprised by this unexpected request, appeared to hesitate in his answer. I consented, he said, to all that was done, and I signed. What will Mr. Dupleix think of me, if I myself reveal operations at which I should be the first to blush. Never mind, replied Mr. Dupleix, anybody would have done the same in your place; you did your best to extricate yourself, and to get out of the hands of the victor whose overtures you were obliged to accept, however inconsistent they might appear to you with straightforwardness and with your honourable sentiments which are known to me.

'This answer cleverly given reassured Mr. Savage. After several long-winded compliments, he required of Mr. Dupleix his word of honour that he would not mention the matter and made the same request of me. Mr. Dupleix insinuated that he did not ask him the question with intent to use his name, but simply and solely, in order to get a clue; that he knew already a great deal but in a confused way, and without being positively sure.

'Your Madras Council must have already written to you fully about it, said Mr. Savage, for our English gentlemen of the hill have revealed to them the whole mystery. Mr. Dupleix answered that nothing had been told them. Pardon me, replied Mr. Savage, I was present when some of our gentlemen took Mr. Morse to task for this matter. They blamed him for the way in which he had practised upon them, but [added] that he would not take advantage of it, since they had revenged themselves by the expose they had made of all his secret manoeuvres to the gentlemen of the Pondicherry Council then at Madras. I am surprised, he continued that so public a matter and which has been in the mouths of so many malcontents, is not known to you in all its circumstances; you know the public treaty of the eleven lacs; the secret article was that we were to give privately to Mr. La Bourdonnais one lac down, to save the town from pillage and secure private property from aggression.

'Did he receive the whole lac, asked Mr. Dupleix.

'No, but to my knowledge he received in gold and silver as well as in diamonds eighty five to ninety thousand pagodas, and if he had but waited a day longer, the whole sum would have been paid.

'From whom was the sum levied? From the English residents? Were the Malabars made to contribute? I have not been able to clear up this point, but they complain loudly. And as to the Armenians what was extracted from them before they were let loose from prison?

'I do not believe that till then anything had been got out of them, but if the town had remained in our possession, they would have been compelled to do as the others did.

'Who were those malcontents who cried out so much against Mr. Morse and his Council?

'They were Messrs. Fawkes Junior and many others, because after contributing to the payment of this lac with their most clear and portable property, they saw by the way matters were going that their goods were going to be confiscated, nothing less than that. Don't ask me more about it, he continued, you will see all these underhand dealings in the English public papers next year; there have been so many complaints that they cannot fail to be noised about in Europe. I wish that all that has passed at Madras could be forgotten, I can only think of it with abhorrence.

'I asked him how many boxes of piastres there were in the Treasury the day when the town was taken.

'I cannot recollect the exact number, he said. But, Sir, I answered him by the minute of the deliberations, which is in your handwriting, there were in the last days of August eighteen boxes. This record goes as far as the sixth or seventh of September. Your . . . and no mention is made in it that piastres had been taken out of the Treasury. I have noticed in all this record that as soon as they were drawn, and even before, you did not fail to make an entry of it.

'Yes, he said, there must have been eighteen boxes, and no doubt they were there.

'He was much surprised when I told him that there were only six.

'This is the gist of what passed in that conversation. On leaving Mr. Dupleix asked me to put it down in writing, so that he might be the better able to remember it. Which I did as accurately as possible before seven o'clock in the evening, this twenty first of August 1747.

(Signed) Friell.

'I the undersigned certify on my soul and conscience that the contents of this document are true and were told me by Mr. Savage in English which I interpreted in French to the said Mr. Dupleix at Pondichery, at half past seven in the evening, this twenty first of this August 1747.

(Signed) Friell.

'I the undersigned Councillor in the Higher Council and commandant of Karikal, certify that the present document was presented to me by Mr. Dupleix commandant general of India at the very moment when it was completed by Mr. Friell, and that I read it after having previously given my word of honour to the said Mr. Dupleix to keep a profound silence on its contents, in consequence of the same pledge which had been required of those two gentlemen by Mr. Savage at Pondichery at half past seven in the evening, this twenty first of August 1747.

(Signed) Paradis.
Pondichery, 10 April, 1876.
(Copy) The Conservator of the Library and of the Old Records.
(Signed) de Gacon.
Stamp of the Old Records of Pondichery.'


In conclusion I would venture to suggest that little doubt can exist from the evidence I have placed before you that La Bourdonnais received a large sum of money to ransom the town of Madras. But in condemning him for the act it is necessary to consider that La Bourdonnais was a corsair of the same stuff as Drake and Hawkins. He regarded the capture of Madras as a prize in a privateering cruise, and he considered he was entitled to a share of it, as Drake did when he captured the Spanish cities and held them to ransom. It must also be remembered that La Bourdonnais was instructed not to form any new settlements, and the only alternatives in his power with regard to Madras were to restore or destroy it. The capture of Madras was but a part of his general plan to destroy the prestige and power of all the English settlements. By the capture of Madras he had dealt a severe blow to the reputation of the English, but the hurricane which destroyed his ships altered his prospects. He was no longer able to continue on the coast of Coromandel, and he had to settle with all expedition the affairs of Madras. He was obliged to leave the Indian Ocean for want of ships, but he left at Pondicherry 900 Europeans and 300 'Caffres': '1,200 disciplined men,' says Orme, who were of the utmost service to Dupleix in his future operations. Resolution, daring, and professional skill historians allow to La Bourdonnais, and he must have a place among the fighting heroes of France.1 [Orme writes: 'His knowledge in mechanics rendered him capable of building a ship from the keel: his skill in navigation of conducting him to any part of the globe: and his courage, of defending him against an equal force. In the conduct of an expedition he superintended all the details of the service, without being perplexed either with the variety or number of them. His plans were simple, his orders precise, and both the best adapted to the service in which he was engaged. His application was incessant; and difficulties served only to heighten his activities, which always gave the example of zeal to those he commanded.' — Orme, vol. i. p. 73.]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:21 am

Chapter 4: Law Books in an Oral Culture: The Indian Dharmasastras, Excerpt from "Studies in Hindu Law and Dharmaśastra"
by Ludo Rocher
edited by Donald R. Davis, Jr.
foreword by Richard W. Lariviere
February, 2013

Image

Chapter 4: Law Books in an Oral Culture: The Indian Dharmasastras

In 1772 the British authorities in Calcutta decided that, to be fair to the Indians, they should administer to them not British laws, which the Indians did not know and would not understand, but the local Hindu and Muslim laws, which they not only understood but had held in high esteem for centuries.87 [Governor Warren Hastings' Plan for the Administration of Justice included a section to the effect that "[ i]n all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages or institutions, the laws of the Koran with respect to the Mohamedans and those of the Shaster with respect to the Gentoos shall invariably be adhered to." It became law as S. 27 of the Administration of Justice Regulation of 11 April 1780.]

A fair, humane decision it was; a practical, easy decision it was not. The difficulty was not so much with the Muslims: they had the Quran and the Sharia, and many of the Englishmen who were to administer law to them knew Persian, some even Arabic. The problem was with the Hindus. They too, had law books, but these were in Sanskrit, and of that language no Englishman had any notion whatever.

I will pass over the early British solutions to that problem, since they are not relevant to the point I wish to make. I will just note that, after a few years, some courageous Englishmen came to the conclusion that there was only one way to do it right: they had to learn Sanskrit. That and only that would enable them to read the original texts of the Sanskrit law books, without having to depend on intermediaries, pandits, whom they no longer trusted.88 [Pandits were first attached to the Anglo-Indian Courts in 1772; they continued to act as legal counselors until 1864 when their office was abolished. On the distrust of pandits, see, e.g., Derrett 1968: 243.]

The British were told that the laws of the Hindus were contained in books called Dharmasastras, i.e., sastras "text, treatises" on dharma "the aggregate of all the rules which a Hindu is supposed to live by."89 [The term Dharmasastra, in a general sense, is used for both the Dharmasutras, which are in prose, and the Dharma-sastras stricto sensu, which are in verse. The individual Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras are also called smrtis, and the entire corpus of these texts is referred to as part of "the" smrti (literally, "memory"), i.e., a form of revelation inferior only to the higher form of revelation contained in the several Vedic texts (sruti). I must stress that this entire essay deals with this body of texts only, not with the immense commentarial literature on them, which developed at a later time.] The British also learned that the Dharmasastra the Hindus most highly respected was the one attributed to Manu, one of the several ancient sages who are supposed to have composed -- rather, "revealed" -- treatises on dharma.

One of the Englishmen who studied Sanskrit was Sir William Jones, since 1783 a judge in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Calcutta.90 [The fact that Jones' decision to study Sanskrit was linked to his distrust of the Court pandits is highlighted in a letter to Charles Chapman, written from the Bengal town of Krishnagar on 28 September 1785: "I am proceeding slowly, but surely, in this retired place, in the study of Sanscrit; for I can no longer bear to be at the mercy of our pundits, who deal out Hindu law as they please, and make it at reasonable rates when they cannot find it ready-made" (Cannon 1970; 683-684).] In 1794 Jones indeed completed and published, in Calcutta, an English translation of the Dharmasastra attributed to Manu: Institutes of Hindu Law: or, the Ordinances of Menu.

To be sure, Jones' translation, which was "printed by the order of Government," was intended, primarily, to serve the administration of justice. According to Jones, the judge,

it must be remembered, that those laws are actually revered, as the word of the Most High, by nations of great importance to the political and commercial interests of Europe, and particularly by millions of Hindu subjects, whose well directed industry would add largely to the wealth of Britain, and who ask no more in return than protection for their persons and places of abode, justice in their temporal concerns, indulgence to the prejudices of their old religion, and the benefit of those laws, which they have been taught to believe sacred, and which alone they can possibly comprehend. (Jones 1796, rpt. in Haughton 1825: 2.xxi-xxii; see note 92)


Yet, at the same time Jones, the scholar, expressed an opinion that is particularly important in the context of this essay. Jones was convinced that, by translating Manu, he not only had access to the laws to be applied to Hindus in 1794, but learned from the Manusmrti "that system of duties, religious and civil, and the law in all its branches, which the Hindus firmly believe to have been promulgated in the beginning of time by menu" (ibid.: viii).91 [Even though he was to be proved wrong on that account, Jones believed that the Manusmrti was composed as early as 1280 B.C.]

The Manusmrti continued to attract attention after 1794.92 [Jones' translation was reprinted, in England, in 1796, and translated into German in 1797. It was again reprinted, with an edition of the Sanskrit text and new annotations, by Graves Chamney Haughton, in 1825. For these and later editions, see Garland Cannon, Sir William Jones: A Bibliography of Primary and Secondary Sources (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1979), 32-34. The first edition of Manu in France, by Auguste Loiseleur Deslongchamps, appeared in 1830; his 1833 translation was reprinted in 1840.] Yet, more than a half century would pass before the publication of the translation of a second Dharmasastra, the one attributed to Yajnavalkya. This translation was not in English but in German, and it was not produced to be of any service whatever to the administration of justice in India. As the translator, Adolf Friedrich Stenzler (1849: iii), pointed out, the British had turned away from the ancient Dharmasastras to other Sanskrit texts that were totally devoted to law and, consequently, more important for the administration of justice.93 [English translations of other ancient dharma texts appeared more than one century after Hastings' Plan. Except for a preliminary translation, from manuscripts, of the Naradasmrti by Julius Jolly (1876), most translations were published, at Oxford, in Max Muller's The Sacred Books of the East: Apastamba and Gautama (vol. 2, Buhler 1879), Visnu (vol. 7, Jolly, 1880), Vasistha and Baudhayana (vol. 14, Buhler, 1882), Manu (vol. 25, Buhler, 1886), Narada and Brhaspati (vol. 33, Jolly, 1889). Many other Dharmasastras, some of them known only from quotations in the commentaries, still remain untranslated.]

Stenzler noted that the time had come to make a scholarly study of the entire corpus of Indian law books. He submitted that, once the relative chronology of the texts was established, "[a] comparative study of all these texts is bound to lead to results which will contribute not a little to our understanding of the development of life in India" (Stenzler 1849: Vorrede, iii). One year later he argued even more forcefully and in greater detail that "[ i]t is to be expected that a more accurate knowledge of this richly developed branch of Indian literature, which draws on the most varied situations of life, will provide true insights into the history of the Indian people" (Stenzler 1850: 237). Stenzler thus formulated, for the Dharmasastra literature as a whole, the same expectation voiced for Manu by Jones much earlier, namely that these texts provide a true picture of the law of the land, i.e., of law as it was actually practiced in classical India.

The same idea appears again and again in later scholarly literature. I will restrict myself to quoting some of its major proponents. Friedrich Max Muller noted, at least as far as the prose Dharmasutras -- which he considered to be older than the versified Dharmasastras -- are concerned, that "[t]hey are of great importance for forming a correct view of the old state of society in India" (1859: 134).94 [There is a potentially misleading statement by Georg Buhler concerning Muller's views on the versified Dharmasastras. In connection with the Dharmasutras attributed to Apastamba, Buhler noted: "Their discovery enabled Max Muller, nearly thirty years ago, to dispose finally of the Brahmanical legend according to which Hindu society was supposed to be governed by the codes of ancient sages, compiled for the express purpose of tying down each individual to his station, and of strictly regulating even the smallest acts of his daily life" (Sacred Books of the East, 2: ix). What Muller really meant is that the versified sastras, which he considered to be more recent than the prose sutras, should not be used to reconstruct life in earlier Vedic times, for "they likewise admitted the rules and customs of a later age" (1859: 61). Muller did not say that the versified Dharmasastras were unreliable sources as far as their own times were concerned.] In 1868 Albrecht Weber expressed the hope that the publication of more dharma texts "would spread the kind of light which we can as yet hardly fathom" (Weber 1868: 815-117). Arthur Cole Burnell realized that there were considerable differences between the various Dharmasastras, but that was "no reason to believe that these works do not represent the actual laws which were administered" (1868: xiii).95 [This is all the more remarkable since Burnell was a close friend of James H. Nelson whose -- very different -- views on the Dharmasastras will be discussed later.] Leopold von Schroeder spoke of the Indian law books as being "of the highest importance for the knowledge of public and private relations, nay of any aspect of Indian life and activity" (Schroeder 1887: 734). Willy Foy proposed to use the Dharmasastras to draw a picture of royal power which was to be "important for the cultural history of India" (Foy 1895: 4), and Joseph Dahlmann heralded the law books as "truly historical records."96 ["Der Gesellschaftskunde erschliessen sich seit dem neunten Jahrundert v. Chr. im Bereiche des indischen Rechts wahrhaft geschictliche Quellen" [Google translate: Social studies have been opening up since the ninth century BC. In the realm of Indian law, truly historical sources] (Dahlmann 1899: 48). Dahlmann opposed the opinion of Senart; see below.]

Perhaps most important of all is that Julius Jolly's classic work on Hindu Law and Custom (1928 [1896]) and Pandurang Vaman Kane's monumental History of Dharmasastra (1930-62) were based on the assumption that the legal precepts contained in the texts were real,97 [Jolly refers to the sutras and the sastras as two "stages of Indian legal literature" (2). In Kane's third volume (1946), which is more specifically devoted to the legal aspects of dharma, he says: "This work in intention and scope ... concerns itself with pointing out what the law of the Smrtis and writers of medieval digests was" (544).] and that the two standard treatises of modern Hindu law confirm in their introductions that "[t]here can be no doubt that the smriti rules were concerned with the practical administration of the law" (Aiyar 1950: 2), and, in connection with Manu, speak of "the systematic and cogent collection of rules of existing law that it gave to the people with clarity and in language simple and easy of comprehension" (Desai 1970 [1966]: 20).

Yet, not everyone agreed. I will mention only in passing the opinion of Thomas Babington Macaulay that "neither as the languages of law nor as the languages of religion have the Sanskrit and Arabic any peculiar claim to our encouragement," and his expectation that, once the Indian Law Commission of 1833, on which he sat, had completed its task, "the shastras and the hadith will become useless" (cited in Phillips 1977: 1411, 1410).98 [Macaulay wished to go even further: "I would strike at the root of the bad system which has hitherto been fostered by us. I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanskrit books" (Phillips 1977: 1412).]

Far more important was the proclamation, as early as 1861, of no less a personage than Sir Henry Sumner Maine that

[t]he Hindoo Code, called the Laws of Menu, which is certainly a Brahmin compilation, undoubtedly enshrines many genuine observances of the Hindu race, but the opinion of the best contemporary orientalists is, that it does not, as a whole, represent a set of rules ever actively administered in Hindostan. It is, in great part, an ideal picture of that which, in the view of the Brahmins, ought to be the law.99 [On Maine, see J. Duncan M. Derrett 1959. It is not clear to me whom Maine means by "the best contemporary orientalists." According to Derrett (42) "much of what turns up in Maine" was supplied by James Mill's "disastrous" History of British India (first published in 1817). As far as I know Mill did not make any statement similar to Maine's. Speaking about the "endless conceits" of Sanskrit grammatical literature, he said, thought, that "[ i]t could not happen otherwise than that the Hindus should, beyond other nations, abound in those frivolous refinements which are suited to the taste of an uncivilized people. A whole race of men were set apart and exempted from the ordinary cares and labours of life, whom the pain of vacuity forced upon some application of mind, and who were under the necessity of maintaining their influence among the people, by the credit of superior learning, and, if not by real knowledge, which is slowly and with much difficulty attained, by artful contrivances for deceiving the people with the semblance of it. This view of the situation of the Brahmans serves to explain many things which modify and colour Hindu society" (reprint from the 2nd edition, 1972 [1820]: 1.383-384). Mill also agreed with Francis Wilford that the king lists in the Puranas "are the creation of the fancies of the writers" (ibid.: 464).] (14)


Maine put the blame squarely on William Jones: "The opinions of Sir William Jones produced great effects both in the East and in the West... The Anglo-Indian Courts accepted from the school of the Sanscritists which he founded the assertion of his Brahmanical advisers, that the sacred laws beginning in the extant book of Manu were acknowledged by all Hindus to be binding on them" (1975 [1886]: 6).100 [At least this much is clear, that Jones, the "orientalist," was one of the principal betes noires of James Mill.]

Among the chief advantages which the Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies which obtained them,011 was the protection which they afforded against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in civilisation, it was a remarkably early code, and it was published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation and religious duty are inevitably confounded. Now a barbarous society practising a body of customs, is exposed to some especial dangers which may be absolutely fatal to its progress in civilisation. The usages which a particular community is found to have adopted in its infancy and in its primitive seats are generally those which are on the whole best suited to promote its physical and moral well-being; and, if they are retained in their integrity until new social wants have taught new practices, the upward march of society is almost certain. But unhappily there is a law of development which ever threatens to operate upon unwritten usage. The customs are of course obeyed by multitudes who are incapable of understanding the true ground of their expediency, and who are therefore left inevitably to invent superstitious reasons for their permanence. A process then commences which may be shortly described by saying that usage which is reasonable generates usage which is unreasonable. Analogy, the most valuable of instruments in the maturity of jurisprudence, is the most dangerous of snares in its infancy. Prohibitions and ordinances, originally confined, for good reasons, to a single description of acts, are made to apply to all acts of the same class, because a man menaced with the anger of the gods for doing one thing, feels a natural terror in doing any other thing which is remotely like it. After one kind of food has been interdicted for sanitary reasons, the prohibition is extended to all food resembling it, though the resemblance occasionally depends on analogies the most fanciful. So, again, a wise provision for insuring general cleanliness dictates in time long routines of ceremonial ablution; and that division into classes which at a particular crisis of social history is necessary for the maintenance of the national existence degenerates into the most disastrous and blighting of all human institutions—Caste. The fate of the Hindoo012 law is, in fact, the measure of the value of the Roman code. Ethnology shows us that the Romans and the Hindoos sprang from the same original stock, and there is indeed a striking resemblance between what appear to have been their original customs. Even now, Hindoo jurisprudence has a substratum of forethought and sound judgment, but irrational imitation has engrafted in it an immense apparatus of cruel absurdities. From these corruptions the Romans were protected by their code. It was compiled while the usage was still wholesome, and a hundred years afterwards it might have been too late. The Hindoo law has been to a great extent embodied in writing, but, ancient as in one sense are the compendia which still exist in Sanskrit, they contain ample evidence that they were drawn up after the mischief had been done. We are not of course entitled to say that if the Twelve Tables had not been published the Romans would have been condemned to a civilisation as feeble and perverted as that of the Hindoos, but thus much at least is certain, that with their code they were exempt from the very chance of so unhappy a destiny.

--Ancient Law: Its Connection to the History of Early Society, by Sir Henry James Sumner Maine


Maine's view found support from various quarters. Both for practical and academic reasons. James Henry Nelson who was active in various locations in South India, was unhappy administering the Hindu law created by Jones and other Sanskrit scholars in faraway Calcutta (on Nelson see Derrett 1961: 354-372). He raised the question. "Has such a thing as 'Hindu Law' at any time existed in the world? Or is it that 'Hindu Law' is a mere phantom of the brain, imagined by Sanskritists without law and lawyers without Sanskrit?" (Nelson 1877: 2).

Nelson questioned not only the reliability of the Manusmrti as a source of law, but the existence of Manu himself: "If he at any time existed ... , which is most unlikely, Manu cannot be supposed to have set laws to India" (4).

In early texts, it refers to the archetypal man, or to the first man (progenitor of humanity). The Sanskrit term for 'human', मानव (IAST: mānava) means 'of Manu' or 'children of Manu'. In later texts, Manu is the title or name of fourteen mystical Kshatriya rulers of earth, or alternatively as the head of mythical dynasties that begin with each cyclic kalpa (aeon) when the universe is born anew. The title of the text Manusmriti uses this term as a prefix, but refers to the first Manu – Svayambhuva, the spiritual son of Brahma...

In Vishnu Purana, Vaivasvata, also known as Sraddhadeva or Satyavrata, was the king of Dravida before the great flood. He was warned of the flood by the Matsya (fish) avatar of Vishnu, and built a boat that carried the Vedas, Manu's family and the seven sages to safety, helped by Matsya. The tale is repeated with variations in other texts, including the Mahabharata and a few other Puranas. It is similar to other flood such as that of Gilgamesh and Noah.

-- Manu, by Wikipedia


And he continued:

Assuming however, for argument's sake that a man named Manu once existed and set laws to men ..., it must ... be conceded that he set them only to certain masses of men abiding in and about part of the Punjab, namely to certain Arya tribes or families and in some instances also to certain tribes or families styled Sudras. Now: whether a remnant of any one of those tribes or families still exists in any part of India of course is exceedingly doubtful. And whether a remnant of any one of them existed at any time within the limits of the Madras Province, except perhaps on the Western Coast, is still more doubtful.101[John D. Mayne, whose Treatise of Hindu Law and Usage 1878) was first published one year after Nelson's View, admits that "[ i]n much that he says I thoroughly agree with him." Yet, "it seems to me that the influence of Brahmanism upon even the Sanskrit writers has been greatly exaggerated, and that those parts of the Sanskrit law which are of any practical importance are mainly based upon usage, which, in substance, though not in detail, is common to both the Aryan and non-Aryan tribes" (vii).] (Ibid.: 4-5)


[A]t the end of his letter Mr. Innes shows plainly that, at all costs, the Madras High Court intends to continue to perform its self-imposed duty of civilising the 'lower castes' of Madras, that is to say, the great bulk of its population, by gradually destroying their local usages and customs, the safety of which the royal proclamation of November 1, 1858, by express words, guarantees. It was Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen who said, 'We disclaim alike the right and desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects.... We will that generally in framing and administering the law due regard be paid to the ancient rights, usages, and customs of India.' Mr. Innes, however, as the representative of the Madras High Court, has announced (at p. 110): —

'To adopt Mr. Nelson's suggestions, whether as regards the higher or lower castes, would commit us to chaos in the matter of the Hindu law we are now called on to administer. What is contemplated would result in our abdicating the vantage ground we have occupied for nearly a century, in which, if we continue to hold it, we may hope gradually to remove the differentiations of customary law, and bring about a certain amount of manageable uniformity. It would be to commit us to the investigation and enforcement of an overwhelming variety of discordant customs among the lower castes, many of them of a highly immoral and objectionable character, which if not brought into prominence and sanctioned by judicial recognition, will gradually give place to the less objectionable and more civilised customs of the superior castes.'

-- Indian Usage and Judge-Made Law in Madras, by J.H. Nelson, M.A.




Arguments against the Dharmasastras also came from one eminent European Sanskrit scholar, the Frenchman Emile Senart. In Les castes dans l'Inde: Les faits et le systeme, Senart was less concerned with the legal sections of the Dharmasastras than with their presentation of the four-fold caste system: Brahmin, Ksatriya, Vaisya, Sudra. Yet, the result of his study was damaging to the law books as a whole. Senart contrasted the infinitely complex modern caste system with the relatively simple and structured way in which it appears in the Dharmasastras and other classical texts such as the epics. He submitted that the present-day complexities must, to a certain degree, go back as far as the time of the ancient texts, and concluded: "What seems certain to me is that neither the epics nor, above all, the Smrtis should be accepted as straightforward and faithful witnesses [temoins integres et fidels] of contemporary data"102 [Senart's view was criticized by Hermann Oldenberg (1897: 268), and by Dahlmann (1899: 49-50): "Der ganze Charakter des aus der Wirklichkeit des Lebens hervorgehenden Rechts schliesst aber jene bewusste Falschung auf das entschiedenste aus".] (1927 [1896]: 11).

Finally, according to Govinda Das, an Indian Sanskrit scholar, "[ i]t is a profound error to regard the Smritis as complete codes of law or as getting all their 'rules' rigidly enforced by the political authorities of their times" (Das 1914: 8), And he concluded a long discussion with the question: "After all this can one seriously contend that Hindu law was in the main ever more than a pious wish of its metaphysically-minded, ceremonial-ridden priestly promulgators, and but seldom a stern reality?" (16)

In other words, according to a number of reputable scholars the ancient Indian Dharmasastras duly and truly described the law of the land; according to other equally reputable scholars they were the product of pure brahmanical fantasy and they tell us only what the Brahmin caste would have liked the law of the land to be. The dilemma this situation makes for the historian of classical Hindu law is obvious. Either the information at his disposal is infinitely broad and detailed, allowing him to reconstruct both substantive and adjective law in ancient India with a high degree of accuracy; or the entire corpus of classical Indian law books is untrustworthy and should be dismissed as a source of information on what really was the law of the land. I will suggest in the following pages that there is a better and more productive approach to understanding the nature and meaning of the Indian Dharmasastras than asking the single question whether or not they describe the law of the land and, depending on the answer, concluding that they are or are not reliable law books.103 [This essay supersedes my earlier attempts (1957, 1967, and 1978) at understanding the nature of the Dharmasastra.]

By way of introduction I would like to remind the reader of the signal importance, in India, of memorization. It is well known that the entire system of education in classical, and to a certain extent in modern India, was and is based on learning by rote.104 [Hence, the emphasis on mnemotechnic devices in books on Indian education. See, for example, Mookerji 1969: 211-215; Rocher 1994.] From a very early age onward Indians were -- and still are -- trained to memorize sentences, passages, even books on all kinds of topics, whether learned or trivial.

Numerous Western visitors to India have expressed their amazement at this phenomenon, but I wish to concentrate on two such visitors because they reported not only on the mnemonics of Indians but also on law and law books.

In the first place there is a statement attributed to Megasthenes, the ambassador whom Seleucus Nicator, one of the successors of Alexander the Great, sent to Candragupta, the king of the Mauryas. Megasthenes visited India, perhaps several times, ca. 300 BC. A fragment of his lost Indica, as recorded in Strabo's Geography, relates the ambassador's surprise that there was so little crime among the Indians, "and that too among a people who use unwritten laws only." "For," he continues, "they have no knowledge of written letters, and regulate every single thing from memory" (Strabo in Jones 1930: 15. 1.53, 86-89). Megasthenes must have seen an Indian court of law at work. As a Greek, he was puzzled that the judge did not use any law books; as a Greek, he drew the logical conclusion that, if the judge did, i.e. , had to do, without a law book, first, the Indians did not have law books, and, second, they must not have known the art of writing.

Megasthenes was wrong as far as the latter part of his conclusion is concerned. We know that there was writing in India in the time of Megasthenes. Also, one of his predecessors, Nearchus, Alexander's friend and companion, reported that, according to some, Indians "write missives on linen cloth that is very closely woven" (ibid.: 15.1.67, 116-117) . But Nearchus did confirm Megasthenes' conclusion that the Indians had no law books: "Nearchus ... declares ... [t]hat their laws, some public and some private, are unwritten" (ibid.: 15.1.66, 114-115).

Nearchus' and, far more so, Megasthenes' statements on the absence of law books have attracted much scholarly attention. Knowing, as we do, that the Indians had many Dharmasastras, some of which may go back to 500 BC, the Greek observers must have been misled. According to one explanation, the ancient Indians did have written law books, but they were not needed in the law courts because the judges had memorized them (Schwanbeck 1846: 50-51, n. 48).105 [Schwanbeck adds an alternative explanation, namely that "for some reason" (quadam causa) Indians call their law books smrti (=mnene, memory). Cf. Rocher 1956-1957, also included in the present volume.] In the opinion of the latest editor of Megasthenes' fragments, "the laws were indeed mainly unwritten; it was not customary [for Indians] to reduce their sacred books (and the Dharmasastras belong to them) to writing" (Timmer 1930: 245). Others, finally, dismissed the statements on the absence of law books in ancient India as one of the many instances "in which the ignorance of the classical writers is difficult to explain" (Majumdar 1960: xix).

At this point I will introduce a document produced by the second visitor to India whom I announced earlier. It is a letter, sent to a prominent jurist in Paris, by a French Jesuit missionary, from Pondicherry in South India, in 1714. It has been published in several editions of the Lettres edifiantes et curieuses, the vast collection of letters written from various Jesuit missions. The writer of the letter is Father Jean Venant Bouchet; except for an introductory paragraph, the long letter is entirely devoted to the administration of law as Bouchet saw it in India, some two thousand years after Megasthenes.106 [Although the letter has not remained unnoticed, it has not received the attention it deserves. J.H. Nelson referred to it, especially in "Hindu Law at Madras," (1881). For an annotated English translation, see Rocher, "Father Bouchet's Letter," 1984b.] Yet, some two millennia after Megasthenes, Father Bouchet's first sentence sounds uncannily familiar: "They have neither codes or digests, nor do they have any books in which are written down the laws to which they have to conform to solve the disputes that arise in their families" (Rocher 1984b: 18). In other words, as astute and inquisitive an observer as Father Bouchet did not see any Hindu law books in 1714, either.

The observations on the absence of law books in settling disputes among Hindus, made by two foreigners visiting India at an interval of two thousand years, raise a number of questions. First, what did the Hindu judicial authorities use instead of law books to settle disputes? Second, where were the Dharmasastras, composed from ca. 500 BC onward, of which neither Megasthenes nor Bouchet saw any trace? Third, and most important, what are the Dharmasastras which William Jones accepted as representing the law of the land, and which Henry Sumner Maine dismissed as brahmanical fantasy?

On the first question Bouchet leaves no doubt. Echoing Megasthenes' brief remark that unwritten laws among Indians did not entail a higher degree of lawlessness, Bouchet explains, in far greater detail, that absence of law books did not in any way imply absence of justice.

The equity of all their verdicts is entirely founded on a number of customs which they consider inviolable, and on certain usages which are handed down from father to son. They regard these usages as definite and infallible rules, to maintain peace in the family and to end the suits that arise, not only among private individuals, but also among royal princes. (Ibid.: 18-19)
 

Bouchet makes it clear that some of these customs were "accepted in all castes," such as the belief that children of two brothers or of two sisters are brothers whereas children of a brother and a sister are cousins, with the result that the latter can intermarry, the former cannot. Other customs on the contrary, are valid within a particular caste only, and customs may vary from caste to caste: "As soon as it has been proven that someone's claim is based on a custom that is followed within the caste, and on common usage, that is enough" (ibid.: 19). Also, whereas the village head is the natural judge in suits arising in his village, "[ i]f it is a question related to caste, it is the heads of the castes who decide" (ibid.: 31).

In connection with the fact that these customs were unwritten, Bouchet relates how a European gentleman suggested to him that there must be much injustice in a system in which, unlike Europe, judges were not held in check by written laws.

I shall not examine here the enormous advantages one pretends to derive from this prodigious multitude of laws; but it seems to me that the Indians are not really to be blamed for not having cared to codify their customs. After all, is it not enough that they possess them perfectly? And, if this is so, what is the good of books? In reality, nothing is better known than these customs: I have seen children ten or twelve years old who knew them perfectly. (Ibid .: 21)


Finally, as to the form in which the customs are memorized and transmitted, Bouchet uses, interchangeably, the terms "maxims," "proverbs," and "'quatrains," the latter of which seems to indicate that they were in verse. At one point he more specifically refers to the fact that "they quote a quatrain which is to them more or less what Pibrac's quatrains are to us" (ibid.: 28-29).107 [This is a reference to the collection of moralizing quatrains by Gui du Faur, Seigneur de Pibrac (1529-1584). First published in 1574, they became very popular, and went through numerous editions, with additions.] Bouchet quotes and comments on several of these maxims. For instance:

When there are several children in a family, the males alone inherit; the girls have no claim at all to the inheritance. (Ibid.: 38-40)

If the property has not been divided upon the death of the father, anything that has been acquired by one of the children shall be entered into the common stock and divided equally. (Ibid.: 42-43)

Adopted children share equally in the estate with the children of their adoptive fathers and mothers. (Ibid.: 43-45)

The father shall pay all debts contracted by his children; children shall equally pay all debts of their father, (Ibid,: 47-48)


Bouchet's letter ends as follows:

It is these general maxims, Sir, that serve as substitutes for laws in India; it is these that are followed in the administration of justice. There are other more specific laws which are applicable within each caste. Since these would lead me too far, they shall be the subject of another letter which I will be honored to write you. (Ibid.: 48)


Unfortunately, this other letter does not seem to have been written.

The main conclusion to be drawn from Bouchet's letter is that in the area of India with which he was familiar, and probably in most other areas as well, law was administered on the basis of unwritten maxims, which were transmitted from generation to generation, in the local vernaculars, some of them applicable to the population of the area generally, others to specific groups such as the members of a particular caste only. I often wonder whether, had Bouchet also provided the readings of these maxims in the original vernacular, there would not be ample opportunity to compare them with specific verses, "quatrains." slokas, in the written, Sanskrit Dharmasastras.108 [For example, Bouchet's first maxim closely resembles a half stanza preserved in the Baudhayanadharmasutra (2.2.5.46) which declares women to be adaya "without a share," an idea which also occurs in earlier Vedic texts (Taittiriyasamhita 6.5.8.2: women are adayada). Cf. even Rgveda 3.31.2: "The son-of- the-body did not share the inheritance with his sister" (transl. Geldner). The principle referred to in the fourth maxim quoted above is well known in the Dharmasastras, and corresponds to what in Anglo-Indian law was to be called the pious obligation.]

Turning to the second question I asked earlier, it is quite clear that the Dharmasastras were unknown to Bouchet's informants. In fact, they were unaware of, and opposed to, even their own maxims being preserved in writing. Bouchet reports that he inquired why they had not collected their customs in books to consult if needed. "Their answer is that, if these customs were entered into books, only the learned would be able to read them, whereas, if they are handed down orally from generation to generation, everyone is fully informed" (Rocher 1984: 20).

Yet, there are indications that the Dharmasastras existed in written form perhaps even at a relatively early date. According to a verse in the Naradasmrti the sastra is one of the eight "limbs" of legal procedure, together with the king or chief judge, the assessors. the accountant, the scribe, gold, fire, and water (transl. Jolly, Introduction, 1.16). A sloka "quatrain" attributed to the lost Brhaspatismrti 1.17 prescribes that "the king should cause gold, fire, water, and the codes of the sacred law (Dharmasastras, plural) to be placed in the midst of them, i.e., the members of the court], also (other) holy and auspicious things."109 [I must note, though, that this verse is attested in one later digest, Devannabhatta's Smrticandrika, only.] Two other verses attributed to Brhaspati also provide the earliest interpretation and reconciliation of the conflicting views on levirate appearing in the preserved Manusmrti (to which I will return later) (transl. Jolly 24, 16-17).

Finally, even Bouchet's informants were vaguely aware of certain laws inscribed on mysterious copper plates, and guarded with care by learned Brahmins in a big tower in the city of Conjeeveram. However, "[s]ince the Moors have nearly entirely destroyed this large and famous town, no one has been able to find out what happened to these plates; the only thing we know is that they contained everything that relates to any caste in particular and the relations which different castes should observe among one another" (Rocher 1984: 20).

In other words, law books, even law books in the vernacular, and, a fortiori, Sanskrit law books, were the preserve of the learned, of the select few who were able to read -- and write -- them. In ordinary legal practice everyone used detached, unconnected maxims.

I can now return to the third question I raised: what exactly are the learned, written Dharmasastras?110 [I wish to remind the reader that the conclusions that will follow relate to the ancient Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras only (cf. note 3). The commentaries, which are also part of the Dharmasastra literature in its broader sense, raise problems of a totally different nature. See, e.g., my "Schools of Hindu Law," 1972, also included in the present volume.] To answer this question I must refer to one of their most salient features, which has helped me greatly to reach the conclusion I present in this essay. The point is that there are, in the Dharmasastras, some strange and troubling contradictions, not only between different Dharmasastras (Kane 1930-62: 3.866-870), but within one and the same text as well.

For instance, in Manu's section on inheritance there is a verse (9.104) to the effect that, after the death of both parents, the sons get together and divide the inheritance equally. The next verse (9.105), without any transition whatever, enjoins that, after the death of both parents, the eldest son gets everything and the younger sons continue to live under him as they did under their father. A few verses are then dedicated to praising the greatness of an eldest son. And then, again without transition, Manu 9.112 declares that, when both parents are deceased, the inheritance is divided, but in such a way that the eldest son receives an additional share of 5 percent, the next son an extra share of half of that, etc. In other words, within the brief span of nine verses Manu offers three different ways for sons to deal with the parental inheritance.

Elsewhere Manu 9.57 informs us that, when a husband dies without having a son, his younger brother shall substitute for him and have a son with his elder brother's widow. The text goes into detail on how and when the intercourse shall take place, on how the parties shall behave, etc. All of this clearly indicates that Manu is familiar with the custom of levirate which is also known in other legal systems.111 [The son born of this kind of union is called ksetra-ja "field-born," i.e., born from seed sown in someone else's field. Manu describes his share in the inheritance at 9.120-121.] But Manu 9.64 then goes on to say that a widow should never have intercourse with anyone other than her husband, including her brother-in-law. Such behavior, the text adds is pasudharma "dharma of pasus, beasts" (9.66).112 [On the history of niyoga, from Vedic times onward, see Emeneau and van Nooten 1991: 481-494.]

Contradictions of this kind occur throughout the Manusmrti, but they are particularly obvious in the ninth book devoted to family law (for other examples, see Lingat 1973 [1967]: 182). Scholars who believed that the Dharmasastras were codices representing the law of the land were forced to look for justifications. It has been suggested that contradictory rules in the Dharmasastras, as in all revealed Hindu texts, must be interpreted as options (Buhler 1886: xcii-xciii).113 [Hence Buhler introduces Manu 9.105 which makes the entire paternal property devolve on the eldest son with the word "[Or]" which is not present in the Sanskrit text. He also offers an alternate explanation: the fact that the versified Manava-Dharmasastra is, in his view, a recast of a lost prose Manavadharmasutra "alone is sufficient to account for contradictions."] According to Lingat, "[ i]t emerges from these texts that the author of the Code of Manu was hostile" to a number of practices, "but he was confronted by customs too deeply rooted for prohibition to be efficacious. All he could do was to try to discredit them" (1973: 182).114 [According to Derrett too, "the Rishis are found to acknowledge as existing and worthy of regulation a few institutions which affronted their refined moral senses" (Derrett 1978: 52) and he refers to niyoga as a prime example. Seventy years earlier Joseph Kohler used Manu's passage on niyoga as "a well-known example" of the fact that lex posterior derogat priori is a Western, not an Eastern principle (Kohler 1910: 242).] In connection with levirate in particular, it has been suggested by some that Manu intended the practice to be allowed for sudras, but forbidden for the three higher classes.115 [This interpretation based on Manu 9.66 ("the practice is reprehended by the learned of the twice-born classes"), appears as early as Eduard Gans, Das Erbrecht in weltgeschichtlicher Entwickelung (1824-1825: 1.77), and has often been repeated.] Most other explanations tacitly assume that Hindu society moved from a stage in which niyoga was common practice to a stage in which it was considered taboo.116 [Typically, see Ludwik Sternbach's introduction to Chakradar Jha's History and Sources of Law in Ancient India (1987: vii). I should note that this is also the traditional Indian interpretation, exhibited for the first time in the passage from the Brhaspatismrti to which I referred earlier: niyoga was allowed in the three earlier world ages, but is forbidden in the present, decadent Kali age.] The verses prohibiting levirate, therefore, "are probably a later addition" (Burnell 1884: E.W. Hopkins' note at 255); they have "obviously been tacked on ... at a time when the practice of Niyoga had fallen into disuse" (Jolly 1885: 48), the practice having to be described nevertheless as "being part of the traditional Dharma" (Holly 1928 [1896]: 121).

Notwithstanding these and other ingenious efforts, by the commentators first, by modern scholars later, to account for the contradictions in the Dharmasastras, it is obvious that books that prescribe three different ways of dealing with paternal property, books that first prescribe levirate and then forbid it, are hardly usable in legal practice.

The important but easily overlooked point is that it is normal, that it is a premise, in Hinduism, that what is dharma for one is different from what is dharma for another. Dharma, basically, is accepted custom (acara), i.e., custom accepted in a region, in a village, even in a caste or a sub-caste within a village. But all these different customs are dharma in their own right.117 [Marc Galanter rightly pointed out that this is one of the main differences between traditional and modern Indian law which "put[s] forth claims in terms of general rules applicable to the whole society" ("Hinduism, Secularism, and the Indian Judiciary," 1971; reprinted in Law and Society, in Modern India, 1989: 237).] With the single and relatively vague proviso that "they should not be contrary to the Veda," the Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras themselves unanimously accept the validity of practices recognized within a region, a caste, or a family; they provide that customs peculiar to cultivators, traders, herdsmen, money-lenders, artisans, etc., are binding on these various groups (see Kane 193(k;2: 3.857-863). In the case of inheritance in particular, a verse in Kautilya's Arthasastra 3.7.40 prescribes: "whatever be the customary law (dharma) of a region, a caste, a corporation or a village, in accordance with that alone shall he [i.e., the judge] administer the law of inheritance" (Kangle 1963: 249).118 [A nearly identical verse is transmitted as part of the lost Katyayanasmrti (Kane 313 [884A]).

In actual dispute settlement each of these customs, or sets of customs, was applied, consistently, in the appropriate circumstances. Members of one area or one group always divided paternal property equally, others unequally, others again did not divide it at all. Among some there was levirate, among others there was not.119 [On the practice of levirate in modern India, see Emeneau and van Nooten 1991: 487, based primarily on Karve 1965.] In India's largely oral culture these area-specific or group-specific rules were transmitted in the form of Memorialverse, in the vernacular; and they remained unwritten.120 [I borrowed the term Memorialverse in the context of Sanskrit dharma literature from an article by Luders 1917; reprinted in Philologica Indica. Ausgewahlte kleine Schriften, 1940.] The composers of the Dharmasastras, on the other hand, compiled treatises on dharma, on anything they considered worthy of being recorded as dharma with some people, somewhere. They gathered that information in books, in the language of the learned, Sanskrit.

What I wanted to show in this essay is that it is possible, in a culture in which memorization plays an important role in day-to-day life, to have books, the Dharmasastras, that are legal fiction because they were divorced from the practical administration of justice -- the role they were given in 1772 121 [The question whether Hastings' decision was right or wrong has been the object of much scholarly discussion. Derrett refers to K.V. Venkatasubramania Iyer, according to whom Hastings misunderstood what function the sastra had, when he made it the sole source of law, and adds: "this is not quite certain, but the fact that the doubt can arise is significant" (1968: 288). K. Lipstein's conclusion that the Plan of 1772 "led to the application of rules which were either obsolete or never in force" has to be seen against the background of his opinion that the sastra "was never more than a fiction" (1957: 281).] -- but which are not for that reason the product of brahmanical fantasy.122 [The argument of "brahmanical fantasy" has been used in other areas as well. Cf. Mill's statement on the Brahmins above. Also, in connection with the Dhatupatha, a list of some two thousand verbal roots of which more than half have not been met with in Sanskrit literature, it has been suggested that it was "concocted" by the Indian grammarians (Whitney 1884; reprinted in Staal 1992: 142). In fact, the Indian pandits have been accused of inventing the Sanskrit language (Dugald Stewart and Christoph Meiners, quoted in Rosane Rocher 1983: 78).] They are books of law -- rather, books of laws -- containing "a mass of floating verses of rules and observations" that were, indeed, at some time and in some place "governing the life and conduct of people" (Raghavan 1962: 2.335).
The main thing which makes of the grammarians' Sanskrit a special and peculiar language is its list of roots. Of these there are reported to us about two thousand, with no intimation of any difference in character among them, or warning that a part of them may and that another part may not be drawn upon for forms to be actually used; all stand upon the same plane. But more than half — actually more than half — of them never have been met with, and never will be met with, in the Sanskrit literature of any age. When this fact began to come to light, it was long fondly hoped, or believed, that the missing elements would yet turn up in some corner of the literature not hitherto ransacked; but all expectation of that has now been abandoned. One or another does appear from time to time; but what are they among so many? The last notable case was that of the root stigh, discovered in the Maitrayani-Sanhita, a text of the Brahmana period; but the new roots found in such texts are apt to turn out wanting in the lists of the grammarians. Beyond all question, a certain number of cases are to be allowed for, of real roots, proved such by the occurrence of their evident cognates in other related languages, and chancing not to appear in the known literature; but they can go only a very small way indeed toward accounting for the eleven hundred unauthenticated roots. Others may have been assumed as underlying certain derivatives or bodies of derivatives — within due limits, a perfectly legitimate proceeding; but the cases thus explainable do not prove to be numerous. There remain then the great mass, whose presence in the lists no ingenuity has yet proved sufficient to account for. And in no small part, they bear their falsity and artificiality on the surface, in their phonetic form and in the meanings ascribed to them; we can confidently say that the Sanskrit language, known to us through a long period of development, neither had nor could have any such roots. How the grammarians came to concoct their list, rejected in practice by themselves and their own pupils, is hitherto an unexplained mystery. No special student of the native grammar, to my knowledge, has attempted to cast any light upon it; and it was left for Dr. Edgren, no partisan of the grammarians, to group and set forth the facts for the first time, in the Journal of the American Oriental Society (Vol. XI, 1882 [but the article printed in 1879], pp. 1-55), adding a list of the real roots, with brief particulars as to their occurrence.1 [I have myself now in press a much fuller account of the quotable roots of the language, with all their quotable tense-stems and primary derivatives — everything accompanied by a definition of the period of its known occurrence in the history of the language.] It is quite clear, with reference to this fundamental and most important item, of what character the grammarians' Sanskrit is. The real Sanskrit of the latest period is, as concerns its roots, a true successor to that of the earliest period, and through the known intermediates; it has lost some of the roots of its predecessors, as each of these some belonging to its own predecessors or predecessor; it has, also like these, won a certain number not earlier found: both in such measure as was to be expected. As for the rest of the asserted roots of the grammar, to account for them is not a matter that concerns at all the Sanskrit language and its history; it only concerns the history of the Hindu science of grammar. That, too, has come to be pretty generally acknowledged.1 [Not, indeed, universally; one may find among the selected verbs that are conjugated in full at the end of F. M. Muller's Sanskrit Grammar, no very small number of those that are utterly unknown to Sanskrit usage, ancient or modern.] Every one who knows anything of the history of Indo-European etymology knows how much mischief the grammarians' list of roots wrought in the hands of the earlier more incautious and credulous students of Sanskrit: how many false and worthless derivations were founded upon them. That sort of work, indeed, is not yet entirely a thing of the past; still, it has come to be well understood by most scholars that no alleged Sanskrit root can be accepted as real unless it is supported by such a use in the literary records of the language as authenticates it — for there are such things in the later language as artificial occurrences, forms made for once or twice from roots taken out of the grammarians' list, by a natural license, which one is only surprised not to see oftener availed of (there are hardly more than a dozen or two of such cases quotable): that they appear so seldom is the best evidence of the fact already pointed out above, that the grammar had, after all, only a superficial and negative influence upon the real tradition of the language.

-- The Study of Hindu Grammar and the Study of Sanskrit, by William Dwight Whitney

It has been already observed, that the Bedas are written in the Shanscrita tongue. Whether the Shanscrita was, in any period of antiquity, the vulgar language of Hindostan, or was invented by the Brahmins, to be a mysterious repository for their religion and philosophy, is difficult to determine. All other languages, it is true, were casually invented by mankind to express their ideas and wants; but the astonishing formation of the Shanscrita seems to be beyond the power of chance. In regularity of etymology and grammatical order, it far exceeds the Arabic. It, in short, bears evident marks that it has been fixed upon rational principles, by a body of learned men, who studied regularity, harmony, and a wonderful simplicity and energy of expression....

Though the Shanscrita is amazingly copious, a very small grammar and vocabulary serve to illustrate the principles of the whole. In a treatise of a few pages, the roots and primitives are all comprehended, and so uniform are the rules for derivations and inflections, that the etymon of every word is, with facility, at once investigated. The pronunciation is the greatest difficulty that attends the acquirement of the language to perfection. This is so quick and forcible that a person, even before the years of puberty, must labour a long time before he can pronounce it with propriety; but when once the pronunciation is attained to perfection, it strikes the ear with amazing boldness and harmony. The alphabet of the Shanscrita consists of fifty letters, but one half of these convey combined sounds, so that its characters, in fact, do not exceed ours in number.


-- History of Hindostan; From the Earliest Account of Time, To the Death of Akbar; Translated From the Persian of Mahummud Casim Ferishta of Delhi: Together With a Dissertation Concerning the Religion and Philosophy of the Brahmins; With an Appendix, Containing the History of the Mogul Empire, From Its Decline in the Reign of Mahummud Shaw, to the Present Times, by Alexander Dow.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:02 am

Asoka and the Buddha-Relics
by T.W. Rhys Davids
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
pp. 397-410
1901


Our oldest authority, the Maha-parinibbana suttanta, which can be dated approximately in the fifth century B.C., (1) [That is substantially, as to not only ideas, but words. There was dotting of i's and crossing of t's afterwards. It was naturally when they came to write these documents that the regulation of orthography [the conventional spelling system of a language] and dialect arose. At the time when the Suttanta was first put together out of older material, it was arranged for recitation, not for reading, and writing was used only for notes. See the Introduction to my "Dialogues of the Buddha," vol. i.] states that after the cremation of the Buddha's body at Kusinara, the fragments that remained were divided into eight portions.

-- Dialogues of the Buddha, In 3 vols. Bound in 2., Vol. 1, translated from the Pali of the Digha Nikaya by T.W. Rhys Davids
Dialogues of the Buddha
In 3 vols. Bound in 2. Vol. 1
translated from the Pali of the Digha Nikaya by T.W. Rhys Davids
1899

PREFACE.

NOTE ON THE PROBABLE AGE OF THE DIALOGUES.


The Dialogues of the Buddha, constituting, in the Pali text, the Digha and Magghima Nikayas, contain a full exposition of what the early Buddhists considered the teaching of the Buddha, to have been. Incidentally they contain a large number of references to the social, political, and religious condition of India at the time when they were put together. We do not know for certain what that time exactly was. But every day is adding to the number of facts on which an approximate estimate of the date may be based. And the ascertained facts are already sufficient to give us a fair working hypothesis.

In the first place the numerous details and comparative tables given in the Introduction to my translation of the Milinda show without a doubt that practically the whole of the Pali Pitakas were known, and regarded as final authority, at the time and place when that work was composed. The geographical details given on pp. xliii, xliv tend to show that the work was composed in the extreme North-West of India. There are two Chinese works, translations of Indian books taken to China from the North of India, which contain, in different recensions, the introduction and the opening chapters of the Milinda1 [See the authors quoted in the Introduction to voi. ii of my translation. Professor Takakusu, in an article in the J.R.A.S. for 1896, has added important details.]. For the reasons adduced (loco citato) it is evident that the work must have been composed at or about the time of the Christian era. Whether (as M. Sylvain Levy thinks) it is an enlarged work built up on the foundation of the Indian original of the Chinese books; or whether (as I am inclined to think) that original is derived from our Milinda, there is still one conclusion that must be drawn — the Nikayas, nearly if not quite as we now have them in the Pali, were known at a very early date in the North of India.

Then again, the Katha Vatthu (according to the views prevalent, at the end of the fourth century A.D., at Kankipura in South India, and at Anuradhapura in Ceylon; and recorded, therefore, in their commentaries, by Dhammapala and Buddhaghosa) was composed, in the form in which we now have it, by Tissa, the son of Moggali, in the middle of the third century B.C., at the court of Asoka, at Pataliputta, the modern Patna, in the North of India.

It is a recognised rule of evidence in the courts of law that, if an entry be found in the books kept by a man in the ordinary course of his trade, which entry speaks against himself, then that entry is especially worthy of credence. Now at the time when they made this entry about Tissa’s authorship of the Katha Vatthu the commentators believed, and it was an accepted tenet of those among whom they mixed — just as it was, mutatis mutandis, among the theologians in Europe, at the corresponding date in the history of their faith — that the whole of the canon was the word of the Buddha. They also held that it had been actually recited, at the Council of Ragagaha, immediately after his decease. It is, I venture to submit, absolutely impossible, under these circumstances, that the commentators can have invented this information about Tissa and the Katha Vatthu. They found it in the records on which their works are based. They dared not alter it. The best they could do was to try to explain it away. And this they did by a story, evidently legendary, attributing the first scheming out of the book to the Buddha. But they felt compelled to hand on, as they found it, the record of Tissa's authorship. And this deserves, on the ground that it is evidence against themselves, to have great weight attached to it.

The text of the Katha Vatthu now lies before us in a scholarly edition, prepared for the Pali Text Society by Mr. Arnold C. Taylor. It purports to be a refutation by Tissa of 250 erroneous opinions held by Buddhists belonging to schools of thought different from his own. We have, from other sources, a considerable number of data as regards the different schools of thought among Buddhists — often erroneously called ‘the Eighteen Sects.'1 [They are not ‘sects' at all, in the modem European sense of the word. Some of the more important of these data are collected in two articles by the present writer in the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society' for 1891 and 1892.] We are beginning to know something about the historical development of Buddhism, and to be familiar with what sort of questions are likely to have arisen. We are beginning to know something of the growth of the language, of the different Pali styles. In all these respects the Katha Vatthu fits in with what we should expect as possible, and probable, in the time of Asoka, and in the North of India.

Now the discussions as carried on in the Katha Vatthu are for the most part, and on both sides, an appeal to authority. And to what authority? Without any exception as yet discovered, to the Pitakas, and as we now have them, in Pali. Thus on p. 339 the appeal is to the passage translated below, on p. 278, § 6; and it is quite evident that the quotation is from our Suttanta, and not from any other passage where the same words might occur, as the very name of the Suttanta, the Kevaddha (with a difference of reading found also in our MSS.), is given. The following are other instances of quotations: —

Katha Vatthu / The Nikayas

p. 344 = A. II, 50.
345 = S. I, 33.
345 = A. II, 54.
347 = Kh. P.VII, 6, 7.
348 = A. III, 43.
351 = Kh. P. VIII, 9.
369 = M. I, 85, 92, &c,
404 = M. I, 4.
413 = S. IV, 362.
426 = D. I, 70.
440 = S. I, 33.
457 = D. (M. P. S. 23).
457 = A. II, 172.
459 = M. I, 94.
481 = D. I, 83, 84.
483 = D. I, 84.
484 = A. II, 126.
494 = S. I, 206 = J. IV, 496.
p. 505 = M. I, 490.
506 = M. I, 485 = S. IV, 393 (nearly).
513 = A. I, 197.
522 = M. I, 389.
525 = Dhp. 164.
528 = M. I, 447.
549 = S. N. 227 = Kh. P. VI, 6.
554 = S. I, 233.
554 = Vim. V. XXXIV, 25-27.
565 = D. I, 156.
588, 9= P. P. pp. 71, 72.
591 = M. I, 169.
597, 8 = A. I, 141, 2.
602 = Dh. C. P. Sutta, §§ 9-23.


There are many more quotations from the older Pitaka books in the Katha Vatthu, about three or four times as many as are contained in this list. But this is enough to show that, at the time when the Katha Vatthu was composed, all the Five Nikayas were extant; and were considered to be final authorities in any question that was being discussed. They must themselves, therefore, be considerably older.

Thirdly, Hofrath Buhler and Dr. Hultsch have called attention1 ['Epigr. Ind.,' II, 93, and 'Z.D.M.G.,’ xl, p. 58.] to the fact that in inscriptions of the third century B.C. we find, as descriptions of donors to the dagabas,, the expressions dhammakathika, petaki, suttantika, suttantakini, and panka-neka-yika. The Dhamma, the Pitakas, the Suttantas, and the five Nikayas must have existed for some time before the brethren and sisters could be described as preachers of the Dhamma, as reciters of the Pitaka, and as guardians of the Suttantas or of the Nikayas (which were not yet written, and were only kept alive in the memory of living men and women).

Simple as they seem, the exact force of these technical designations is not, as yet, determined. Dr. K. Neumann thinks that Petaki does not mean ‘knowing the Pitakas,' but ‘knowing the Pitaka,’ that is, the Nikayas — a single Pitaka, in the sense of the Dhamma, having been known before the expression ‘the Pitakas’ came into use.1 ['Reden des Gotamo,' pp. x, xi.] As he points out, the title of the old work Petakopadesa, which is an exposition, not of the three Pitakas, but only of the Nikayas, supports his view. So again the Dialogues are the only parts or passages of the canonical books called, in our MSS., suttantas. Was then a suttantika one who knew precisely the Dialogues by heart? This was no doubt the earliest use of the term. But it should be recollected that the Katha Vatthu, of about the same date, uses the word suttanta also for passages from other parts of the scriptures.

However this may be, the terms are conclusive proof of the existence, some considerable time before the date of the inscriptions, of a Buddhist literature called either a Pitaka or the Pitakas, containing Suttantas, and divided into Five Nikayas.

Fourthly, on Asoka's Bhabra Edict he recommends to the communities of the brethren and sisters of the Order, and to the lay disciples of either sex, frequently to hear and to meditate upon seven selected passages. These are as follows: —

1. Vinaya-samukkamsa.
2. Ariya-vasini from the Digha (Samgiti Suttanta).
3. Anagata-bhayani from the Anguttara III, 105-108.
4. Muni-gatha from the Sutta Nipata 206-220.  
5. Moneyya Sutta from the Iti Vuttaka 67 = A. 1, 272.
6. Upatissa-pasina.
7. Rahulovada = Rahulovada Suttanta (M. I, 414-420).


Of these passages Nos. 1 and 6 have not yet been satisfactorily identified. The others may be regarded as certain, for the reasons I have set out elsewhere.1 [‘Journal of the Pali Text Society,' 1896; ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ 1898, p. 639. Compare ‘Milinda' (S.B.E., vol. xxxv), pp. xxxvii foll.]
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1898
11. Asoka's Bhadra Edict

by T.W. Rhys Davids
1898

p. 639

As the seven passages (pariyaya) mentioned by name on this Edict have now been (with various degrees of certainly) identified, it may be of use to record the result: —
Asoka / Pali / Where Found

1. Vinaya-samukkamsa / (? Patimokkha) / J.R.A.S., 1876
2. Ariya-vasani / Ariya-vasa / Digha (Sangiti Sutta)
3. Anagata-bhayani / Anagata-bhayani / Anguttara, iii, 105-108
4. Muni-gatha / Muni-sutta / Sutta Nipata, 206-220
5. Moneyya-sutta / Moneyya-sutta / It., No. 67 = A., i, 272
6. Upatissa-pasina / (Upatissa-panho / Vin., i, 39-41)
7. Rahulovada / Rahulovada-sutta / Majjhima, i, 414-420

Nos. 1 and 6 are the most doubtful. The Patimokkha can scarcely be rightly called a dhamma-pariyaya, and it does not correspond to the meaning of the title used by Asoka. The noun samukkamsa has not been found in the Pitakas. The verb always means 'to exalt.' (S.N., 132 = 438; M., i, 498; Th., i, 632.) 'The Exaltation of Vinaya' or 'of the Vinaya ' is much more probably meant, as the title of some short sutta or passage in praise of Vinaya in one or other of its two senses, ethical or legal. And I quite agree, therefore, with M. Senart (p. 204) in regarding this identification as unsatisfactory.  

As to No. 6, short edifying passages of the Vinaya are distinguished by titles. Vin., i, pp. 13, 14, §§ 38-47 (=S., iii, 66-68), is the Anatta-lakkhana-sutta; Vin., i, pp. 34, 35 ( = S., iv, 19, 20), is the Aditta-pariyaya, etc. And the passage identified with No. 6 might have been called Sariputta- or Upatissa-panho. But no mention of the title has yet been found in the Pitakas, and the identification, though otherwise suitable, is therefore at least uncertain.

No. 2 is no doubt the passage on the ten Ariya-vasa, not yet published, but contained in the Sangiti Sutta of the Digha. A similar passage may also be looked for in the Nipata of the Anguttara dealing with the Tens. The difference of gender is no objection. So pariyayani = pariyaya.

With regard to No. 7, it is not without reason that a special qualification is introduced in the Edict. There are so many 'Exhortations to Rahula' in the Pitakas that it was necessary to specify the one meant. The ones excluded, or some of them, will be found at S.N., 325-342 (dated in the 14th year after the Nirvana}; M.. i, 420 foll. (dated in the 12th year of the Nirvana); S., ii, 244 foll.; and S., iii, 135 and 136. All these are spoken by the Buddha. The expression in the Edict would seem also to imply that there is at least one other, not yet published, spoken by some one else.

No. 4, the Muni-gatha, called Muni Sutta in the Pali, is called Muni-gatha (exactly as in the Edict) in the Divyavadana. Other instances of such slight variations in titles are given in my article on this Edict in the Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1896.

Nos. 2 and 5 are, I believe, identified here for the first time.

T.W. Rhys Davids

No. 2 also occurs in the tenth book of the Anguttara. It is clear that in Asoka’s time there was acknowledged to be an authoritative literature, probably a collection of books, containing what was then believed to be the words of the Buddha: and that it comprised passages already known by the titles given in his Edict. Five out of the seven having been found in the published portions of what we now call the Pitakas, and in the portion of them called the Five Nikayas, raises the presumption that when the now unpublished portions are printed the other two will also, probably, be identified. We have no evidence that any other Buddhist literature was in existence at that date.

What is perhaps still more important is the point to which M. Senart2 ['Inscriptions de Piyadasi,' II, 314-322.] has called attention, and supported by numerous details: — the very clear analogy between the general tone and the principal points of the moral teaching, on the one hand of the Asoka edicts as a whole, and on the other of the Dhammapada, an anthology of edifying verses taken, in great part, from the Five Nikayas The particular verses selected by M. Senart, as being especially characteristic of Asoka’s ideas, include extracts from each of the Five.

Fifthly, the four great Nikayas contain a number of stock passages, which are constantly recurring, and in which some ethical state is set out or described. Many of these are also found in the prose passages of the various books collected together in the Fifth, the Khuddaka Nikaya. A number of them are found in each of the thirteen Suttantas translated in this volume. There is great probability that such passages already existed, as ethical sayings or teachings, not only before the Nikayas were put together, but even before the Suttantas were put together.

There are also entire episodes, containing not only ethical teaching, but names of persons and places and accounts of events, which are found, in identical terms, at two or more places. These should be distinguished from the last. But they are also probably older than our existing texts. Most of the parallel passages, found in both Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist texts, come under one or other of these two divisions.

Sixthly, the Samyutta Nikaya (III, 13) quotes one Suttanta in the Dialogues by name; and both the Samyutta and the Anguttara Nikayas quote, by name and chapter, certain poems now found only in a particular chapter of the Sutta Nipata. This Suttanta, and these poems, must therefore be older, and older in their present arrangement, than the final settlement of the text of these two Nikayas.

Seventhly, several of the Dialogues purport to relate conversations that took place between people, cotemporaries with the Buddha, but after the Buddha's death: One Sutta in the Anguttara is based on the death of the wife of Munda, king of Magadha, who began to reign about forty years after the death of the Buddha. There is no reason at all to suspect an interpolation. It follows that, not only the Sutta itself, but the date of the compilation of the Anguttara, must be subsequent to that event.

There is a story in Peta Vatthu IV, 3, 1 about a King Pingalaka. Dhammapala, in his commentary, informs us that this king, of whom nothing is otherwise known, lived two hundred years after the Buddha. It follows that this poem, and also the Peta Vatthu in which it is found, and also the Vimana Vatthu, with which the Peta Vatthu really forms one whole work, are later than the date of Pingalaka. And there is no reason to believe that the commentator’s date, although it is evidently only a round number, is very far wrong. These books are evidently, from their contents, the very latest compositions in all the Five Nikayas.

There is also included among the Thera Gatha, another book in the Fifth Nikaya, verses said, by Dhammapala the commentator,1 [Quoted by Prof. Oldenberg at p. 46 of his edition.] to have been composed by a thera of the time of King Bindusara, the father of Asoka, and to have been added to the collection at the time of Asoka's Council.

Eighthly, several Sanskrit Buddhist texts have now been made accessible to scholars. We know the real titles, given in the MSS. themselves, of nearly 200 more.2 [Miss C. Hughes is preparing a complete alphabetical list of all these works for the 'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ 1899.] And the catalogues in which the names occur give us a considerable amount of detailed information as to their contents. No one of them is a translation, or even a recension, of any one of the twenty-seven canonical books. They are independent works; and seem to bear to the canonical books a relation similar, in many respects, to that borne by the works of the Christian Fathers to the Bible. But though they do not reproduce any complete texts, they contain numerous verses, some whole poems, numerous sentences in prose, and some complete episodes, found in the Pali books. And about half a dozen instances have been already found in which such passages are stated, or inferred, to be from older texts, and are quoted as authorities. Most fortunately we may hope, owing to the enlightened liberality of the Academy of St. Petersburg, and the zeal and scholarship of Professor d’Oldenbourg and his co-workers, to have a considerable number of Buddhist Sanskrit Texts in the near future. And this is just what, in the present state of our knowledge of the history of Buddhist writings, is so great a desideratum.

It is possible to construct, in accordance with these facts, a working hypothesis as to the history of the literature. It is also possible to object that the evidence drawn from the Milinda may be disregarded on the ground that there is nothing to show that that work, excepting only the elaborate and stately introduction and a few of the opening chapters, is not an impudent forgery, and a late one, concocted by some Buddhist in Ceylon. So the evidence drawn from the Katha Vatthu may be disregarded on the ground that there is nothing to show that that work is not an impudent forgery, and a late one, concocted by some Buddhist in Ceylon. The evidence drawn from the inscriptions may be put aside on the ground that they do not explicitly state that the Suttantas and Nikayas to which they refer, and the passages they mention, are the same as those we now have. And the fact that the commentators point out, as peculiar, that certain passages are nearly as late, and one whole book quite as late, as Asoka, is no proof that the rest are older. It may even be maintained that the Pali Pitakas are not therefore Indian books at all: that they are all Ceylon forgeries, and should be rightly called ‘the Southern Recension’ or ‘the Simhalese Canon.'

Each of these propositions, taken by itself, has the appearance of careful scruple. And a healthy and reasonable scepticism is a valuable aid to historical criticism. But can that be said of a scepticism that involves belief in things far more incredible than those it rejects.? In one breath we are reminded of the scholastic dulness, the sectarian narrowness, the literary incapacity, even the senile imbecility of the Ceylon Buddhists. In the next we are asked to accept propositions implying that they were capable of forging extensive documents so well, with such historical accuracy, with so delicate a discrimination between ideas current among themselves and those held centuries before, with so great a literary skill in expressing the ancient views, that not only did they deceive their contemporaries and opponents, but European scholars have not been able to point out a single discrepancy in their work.1 [As is well known, the single instance of such a discrepancy, which Prof. Minayeff made so much of, is a mare's nest. The blunder is on the pert of the European professor, not of the Ceylon pandits. No critical scholar will accept the proposition that because the commentary on the Katha Vatthu mentions the Vetulyaka, therefore the Katha Vatthu itself must be later than the rise of that school.] It is not unreasonable to hesitate in adopting a scepticism which involves belief in so unique, and therefore so incredible, a performance.

The hesitation will seem the more reasonable if we consider that to accept this literature for what it purports to be — that is, as North Indian,2 [North Indian, that is, from the modern European point of view. In the books themselves the reference is to the Middle Country (Magghima Desa). To them the country to the south of the Vindhyas simply did not come into the calculation. How suggestive this is as to the real place of origin of these documents!] and for the most part pre-Asokan — not only involves no such absurdity, but is really just what one would a priori expect, just what the history of similar literatures elsewhere would lead one to suppose likely.

The Buddha, like other Indian teachers of his time, taught by conversation. A highly educated man (according to the education current at the time), speaking constantly to men of similar education, he followed the literary habit of his time by embodying his doctrines in set phrases, sutras, on which he enlarged on different occasions in different ways. In the absence of books — for though writing was widely known, the lack of writing materials made any lengthy written books impossible3 [Very probably memoranda were used. But the earliest records of any extent were the Asoka Edicts, and they had to be written on stone.] — such sutras were the recognised form of preserving and communicating opinion. These particular ones were not in Sanskrit, but in the ordinary conversational idiom of the day, that is to say, in a sort of Pali.


When the Buddha died these sayings were collected together by his disciples into the Four Great Nikayas. They cannot have reached their final form till about fifty years afterwards. Other sayings and verses, most of them ascribed not to the Buddha himself, but to the disciples, were put into a supplementary Nikaya. We know of slight additions made to this Nikaya as late as the time of Asoka. And the developed doctrine found in certain short books in it — notably in the Buddhavamsa and Kariya Pitaka, and in the Peta- and Vimana-Vatthus — show that these are later than the four old Nikayas.

For a generation or two the books as originally put together were handed down by memory. And they were doubtless accompanied from the first, as they were being taught, by a running commentary. About 100 years after the Buddha’s death there was a schism in the community. Each of the two schools kept an arrangement of the canon — still in Pali (or possibly some allied dialect). Sanskrit was not used for any Buddhist works till long afterwards, and never used at all, so far as we know, for the canonical books. Each of these two schools broke up, in the following centuries, into others; and several of them had their different arrangements of the canonical books, differing also no doubt in minor details. Even as late as the first century after the Christian Era, at the Council of Kanishka, these books, among many others then extant, remained the only authorities.1 [On the often repeated error that a Sanskrit canon was established at Kanishka’s Council, see my 'Milinda,' vol. ii, pp. xv, xvi.] But they all, except only our present Pali Nikayas, have been lost in India. Of the stock passages of ethical statement, and of early episodes, used in the composition of them, and of the Suttas now extant, numerous fragments have been preserved in the Hinayana Sanskrit texts. And some of the Suttas, and of the separate books, as used in other schools, are represented in Chinese translations of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. A careful and detailed comparison of these remains with the Pali Nikayas, after the method adopted in Windisch’s 'Mara und Buddha,' cannot fail to throw much light on the history, and on the method of composition, of the canonical books, which in style and method, in language and contents and tone, bear all the marks of so considerable an antiquity.

Hofrath Dr. Buhler, in the last work he published, expressed the opinion that these books, as we have them in the Pali, are good evidence, certainly for the fifth, probably for the sixth, century B.C. Subject to what has been said above, that will probably become, more and more, the accepted opinion. And it is this which gives to all they tell us, either directly or by implication, of the social, political, and religious life of India, so great a value.1 [No reference has been made, in these slight and imperfect remarks, to the history of the Vinaya. There is nothing to add, on that point, to the able and lucid exposition of Prof. Oldenberg in the Introduction to his edition of the text.]

It is necessary, in spite of the limitations of our space, to add a few words on the method followed in this version. We talk of Pali books. They are not books in the modern sense. They are memorial sentences intended to be learnt by heart; and the whole style, and method of arrangement, is entirely subordinated to this primary necessity. The leading ideas in any one of our Suttantas, for instance, are expressed in short phrases not intended to convey to a European reader the argument underlying them. These are often repeated with slight variations. But neither the repetitions nor the variations — introduced, and necessarily introduced, as aids to memory — help the modern reader very much. That of course was not their object. For the object they were intended to serve they are singularly well chosen, and aptly introduced.

Other expedients were adopted with a similar aim. Ideas were formulated, not in logically co-ordinated sentences, but in numbered groups; and lists were drawn up such as those found in the tract called the Silas, and in the passage on the rejected forms of asceticism, both translated below. These groups and lists, again, must have been accompanied from the first by a running verbal commentary, given, in his own words, by the teacher to his pupils. Without such a comment they are often quite unintelligible, and always difficult.

The inclusion of such memoria technica [memory technique] makes the Four Nikayas strikingly different from modern treatises on ethics or psychology. As they stand they were never intended to be read. And a version in English, repeating all the repetitions, rendering each item in the lists and groups as they stand, by a single English word, without commentary, would quite fail to convey the meaning, often intrinsically interesting, always historically valuable, of these curious old documents.

It is no doubt partly the result of the burden of such memoria technica, but partly also owing to the methods of exposition then current in North India, that the leading theses of each Suttanta are not worked out in the way in which we should expect to find similar theses worked out now in Europe. A proposition or two or three, are put forward, re-stated with slight additions or variations, and placed as it were in contrast with the contrary proposition (often at first put forward by the interlocutor). There the matter is usually left. There is no elaborate logical argument. The choice is offered to the hearer; and, of course, he usually accepts the proposition as maintained by the Buddha. The statement of this is often so curt, enigmatic, and even —owing not seldom simply to our ignorance, as yet, of the exact force of the technical terms used — so ambiguous, that a knowledge of the state of opinion on the particular point, in North India, at the time, or a comparison of other Nikaya passages on the subject, is necessary to remove the uncertainty.

It would seem therefore most desirable that a scholar attempting to render these Suttantas into a European language — evolved in the process of expressing a very different, and often contradictory, set of conceptions — should give the reasons of the faith that is in him. He should state why he holds such and such an expression to be the least inappropriate rendering: and quote parallel passages from other Nikaya texts in support of his reasons. He should explain the real significance of the thesis put forward by a statement of what, in his opinion, was the point of view from which it was put forward, the stage of opinion into which it fits, the current views it supports or controverts. In regard to technical terms, for which there can be no exact equivalent, he should give the Pali. And in regard to the mnemonic lists and groups, each word in which is usually a crux, he should give cross-references, and wherever he ventures to differ from the Buddhist explanations, as handed down in the schools, should state the fact, and give his reasons. It is only by such discussions that we can hope to make progress in the interpretation of the history of Buddhist and Indian thought. Bare versions are of no use to scholars, and even to the general reader they can only convey loose, inadequate, and inaccurate ideas.


These considerations will, I trust, meet with the approval of my fellow workers. Each scholar would of course, in considering the limitations of his space, make a different choice as to the points he regarded most pressing to dwell upon in his commentary, as to the points he would leave to explain themselves. It may, I am afraid, be considered that my choice in these respects has not been happy, and especially that too many words or phrases have been left without comment, where reasons were necessary. But I have endeavoured, in the notes and introductions, to emphasise those points on which further elucidation is desirable; and to raise some of the most important of those historical questions which will have to be settled before these Suttantas can finally be considered as having been rightly understood.

T.W. Rhys Davids
'Nalanda,' April, 1899.


These eight portions were allotted as follows:--

1. To Ajatasattu, king of Magadha.
2. To the Licchavis of Vesali.
3. To the Sakyas of Kapilavastu.
4. To the Bulis of Allakappa.
5. To the Koliyas of Ramagama.
6. To the brahmin of Vethadipa.
7. To the Mallas of Pava.
8. To the Mallas of Kusinara.

Drona, the brahmin who made the division, received the vessel in which the body had been cremated. And the Moriyas of Pipphalivana, whose embassy claiming a share of the relics only arrived after the division had been made, received the ashes of the funeral pyre.

Of the above, all except the Sakyas and the two brahmins based their claim to a share on the fact that they also, like the deceased teacher, were Kshatriyas. The brahmin of Vethadipa claimed his because he was a brahmin; and the Sakyas claimed theirs on the ground of their relationship. All ten promised to put up a cairn over their portion, and to establish a festival in its honour.

Of these ten cairns, or stupas, only one has been discovered -- that of the Sakyas. The careful excavation of Mr. Peppe makes it certain that this stupa had never been opened until he opened it. The inscription on the casket states that "This deposit of the remains of the Exalted One is that of the Sakyas, the brethren of the Illustrious One." It behoves those who would maintain that it is not, to advance some explanation of the facts showing how they are consistent with any other theory. We are bound in these matters to accept, as a working hypothesis, the most reasonable of various possibilities. The hypothesis of forgery is in this case simply unthinkable. And we are fairly entitled to ask: "If this stupa and these remains are not what they purport to be, then what are they?" As it stands the inscription, short as it is, is worded in just the manner most consistent with the details given in the Suttanta. And it advances the very same claim (to relationship) which the Sakyas alone are stated in the Suttanta to have advanced. It does not throw much light on the question to attribute these coincidences to mere chance, and so far no one has ventured to put forward any explanation except the simple one that the stupa is the Sakya tope.

Though the sceptics -- only sceptics, no doubt, because they think it is too good to be true -- have not been able to advance any other explanation, they might have brought forward an objection which has so far escaped notice. It is alleged, namely, in quite a number of Indian books, that Asoka broke open all the eight stupas except one, and took the relics away. This is a remarkable statement. That the great Buddhist emperor should have done this is just as unlikely as that his counterpart, Constantine the Great, should have rifled, even with the best intentions, the tombs most sacred in the eyes of Christians. The legend deserves, therefore, investigation, quite apart from its reference to the Sakya tope. And in looking further into the matter I have come across some curious points which will probably be interesting to the readers of this Journal.

The legend might be given in my own words, filling out the older versions of it by details drawn from the later ones. We might thus obtain an easy narrative, with literary unity and logical sequence. But we should at the same time lose all historical accuracy. We should only have a new version -- one that had not been current anywhere, at any time, among Buddhists in India. The only right method is to adhere strictly to the historical sequence, taking each account in order of time, and letting it speak for itself.

Now it is curious that there is no mention of the breaking open of stupas in any one of the twenty-nine canonical Buddhist writings, though they include documents of all ages from the time of the Buddha down to the time of Asoka. Nor, with one doubtful exception, is such an act referred to in any book which is good evidence for the time before Asoka. But in the canonical books there is frequent reference to the man who breaks up the Order, the schismatic, the sangha-bhedako. And in the passages in later books, which enlarge on this thesis, we find an addition -- side by side with the sangha-bhedako is mentioned the stupa-bhedako, the man who breaks open the stupas. The oldest of the passages is the exception referred to. It is in the Mahavastu, certainly the oldest Buddhist Sanskrit text as yet edited, and most probably in its oldest portions older than Asoka. Whether this isolated verse belongs to the oldest portions of the work is doubtful. It says (i, 101):

Sanghan ca te na bhindanti na ca te stupa-bhedaka
Na te Tathagate cittam dusayanti kathancana.


We find these gentlemen, therefore -- the violators of tombs, tomb-riflers -- first mentioned in a way that may or may not, and probably does not, refer to Asoka. In the same connection, that is with the schismatics, they are also mentioned in the Netti Pakarana, p. 93. The editor of this work, Professor Edmond Hardy, dates it about, or shortly after, the beginning of our era. And he was the first to call attention to the mention in these passages of the `tomb-violators' as a test of age.

The next passage will seem more to the point, inasmuch as it mentions both Asoka and the Eight Topes. It is in the Asokavadana, a long legend, or historical romance, about Asoka and his doings, included in the collection of stories called the Divyavadana. These stories are by different authors, and of different dates. The particular one in question mentions kings of the Sunga dynasty, and cannot therefore be much older than the Christian era.(1) [See J.P.T.S., 1899, p. 89] The passage is printed at p. 380 of Professor Cowell and Mr. Neil's edition. The paragraph is unfortunately very corrupt and obscure; but the sense of those clauses most important for our present purpose is clear enough. It begins, in strange fashion, to say, a propos of nothing:--

"Then the King [Asoka], saying, 'I will distribute the relics of the Exalted One,' marched with an armed force in fourfold array, opened the Drona Stupa put up by Ajatasattu, and took the relics."


There must be something wrong here. Ajatasattu's stupa was at Rajagaha, a few miles from Asoka's capital. The Drona Stupa, the one put up over the vessel, was also quite close by.(1) [See Yuan Thsang, chap. vii; Beal, ii, 65.] Whichever is the one referred to, it was easily accessible, and the time given was one of profound peace. Asoka's object in distributing the relics, in the countless stupas he himself was about to build, is represented as being highly approved of by the leaders of the Buddhist order. What, then, was the mighty force to do?

Then the expression Drona Stupa is remarkable. What is probably meant is a stupa over the bushel (drona) of fragments (from the pyre) supposed to have been Ajatasattu's share. But it is extremely forced to call this a Drona Stupa; and Ajatasattu's stupa is nowhere else so called. Burnouf thinks(2) ["Introduction, etc., p. 372.] this is probably a confusion between the name of the measure and the name of the brahmin, Drona, who made the division. The story goes on:

"Having given back the relics, putting them distributively in the place [or the places] whence they had been taken, he restored the stupa. He did the same to the second, and so on till he had taken the seventh bushel [drona];(3) [Bhaktimato is omitted. The discussion of its meaning, irrelevant to the question in hand, is here unnecessary. It is of value for the very important history of bhakti in India.] and restoring the stupas, he then went on to Ramagama."


Here again the story-teller must have misunderstood some phrase in the tradition (probably in some Prakrit or other) which he is reproducing. Asoka did not want to get these relics in order to put them back into the place, or places, they had come from. He wanted, according to the Divya-vadana itself, to put them in his own stupas. We shall see below a possible explanation. The story goes on:--

"Then the king was led down by the Nagas into their abode, and was given to understand that they would pay worship [puja] to it [that is, to the stupa or the portion of relics] there. As soon as that had been grasped by the king, then the king was led up again by the Nagas from their abode."


Their abode, of course, was under the sacred pool at Ramagama, the stupa being on the land above. After stating how Asoka then built 84,000 stupas (in one day!) and distributed the relics among them, the episode closes with the statement that this was the reason why his name was changed from Candasoka to Dharmasoka. Burnouf adds to the confusion with which this part of the story is told through translating (throughout) dharmarajika by 'edicts of the law.' It evidently is an epithet of the stupas. Can we gather from this any hint as to a possible origin of this extraordinary legend?

There is namely a very ancient traditional statistical statement -- so ancient that it is already found in the Thera Gatha. (verse 1022) among the verses attributed to Ananda -- that the number of the sections of the Dhamma (here meaning apparently the Four Nikayas) was 84,000, of which 82,000 were attributed to the master and 2,000 to a disciple.

Dvasiti Buddhato ganhim dve sahassani bhikkhuto
Caturasiti sahassani ye 'me dhamma pavattino.(1) [Quoted Sumangala, i, 24.]


Could it have happened that after the knowledge of the real contents of the Asoka Edicts had passed away, and only the memory of such edicts having been published remained alive, they were supposed to contain or to record the 84,000 traditional sections of the Dhamma? And then that by some confusion, such as that made by Burnouf, between epithets applicable equally to stupas and 'edicts of the law,' the edicts grew into stupas? We cannot tell without other and earlier documents. But this we know, that the funniest mistakes have occurred through the telling in one dialect of traditions received in another; and that the oldest form of the legend of Asoka's stupas is in so late a work that such a transformation had had ample time in which to be brought gradually about.  

Such a solution of the mystery how this amazing proposition could have become matter of belief is confirmed by our next authority, the Dipavamsa (vi, 94-vii, 18), which says distinctly that the number of Asoka's buildings was determined by the number of the sections of the Dhamma. But the legend here is quite different. There is no mention of breaking open the eight old stupas. The 84,000 viharas -- they are no longer stupas -- are not built in one day; they take three years to build. It is the dedication festival of each of them that takes place on the same day, and on that day Asoka sees them all at once, and the festivals being celebrated at each. This was the form of the story as believed at Anuradhapura in the early part of the fourth century A.D.

The next book, in point of date, which mentions Asoka in connection with the eight original stupas is Fa Hian (ch. xxiii). The passage runs, in Legge's translation, as follows:--

"When King Asoka came forth into the world he wished to destroy the Eight Topes, and to build instead of them 84,000 topes. After he had thrown down the seven others he wished next to destroy this tope (at Ramagama). But then the dragon (1) [Chinese-English for Naga.] showed itself, and took the king into his palace. And when he had seen all the things provided for offerings, it said to him: 'If you are able with your offerings to exceed these, you can destroy the tope, and take it (2) ["It" must be wrong. What he wanted to take away was the relics. Beal translates, "Let me tale you out," a more likely rendering, and one that would harmonize with the Divyavadana legend as given above.] all away. I will not contend with you.' The king, knowing that such offerings were not to be had anywhere in the world, thereupon returned.

"Afterwards the ground all about became overgrown with vegetation; and there was nobody to sweep and sprinkle about the tope. But a herd of elephants came regularly, which brought water with their trunks to water the ground, and various kinds of flowers and incense which they presented at the tope."


A group of elephants behaving precisely in this way is sculptured on one of the bas-reliefs in the Bharhut Tope (plates xv and xxx in Cunningham).

The pilgrim goes on to say that in recent times a devotee, seeing this, had taken possession of the deserted site.

This will probably represent the tradition at the place itself about 400 A.D., or a few years earlier. For Fa Hian left China in 399 A.D., and when he heard this tale at Ramagama it was no doubt already current there. It is good evidence of Ramagama having been very early deserted. Incidentally, its distance east of the Lumbini pillar is given as five yojanas, say thirty-eight miles.

Only twenty or thirty years later is Buddhaghosa's version of the story in the introduction to the Samanta Pasadika, his commentary on the Vinaya, in the portion edited for us by Professor Oldenberg.(1) [Oldenberg's Vinaya iii, 304 foll.] The story is well told, but we need not repeat it, as it reproduces the Dipavamsa version. In both versions the story is used merely as an explanation of the way in which Asoka's son, Mahinda, came to enter the Order. For it is on seeing the glory of the 84,000 festivals that Asoka boasts of his gift. But he is told that the real benefactor is one who gives his son to the Order; and then he, too, has both his son and his daughter initiated. All this is said to have happened after the ninth year of Asoka's reign had expired. We see there is nothing at all in this version about the original eight stupas, or rather seven of them, having been broken open.

But Buddhaghosa has another account in the Sumangala Vilasini, a little later than the last, and in that he introduces an entirely new factor. Here it is not Asoka, but Ajatasattu who gets the relics out of all the eight stupas (except that at Ramagama, which is protected by the Nagas). This he does (twenty years after the Buddha's death, according to Bigandet, ii, 97) on the advice of Maha-kassapa, who was afraid -- it is not stated why -- for their safety. The king agrees to build a shrine for them, but says it is not his business to get relics. The thera then brings them all, and the king buries them in a wonderful subterranean chamber. In the construction of this underground shrine Sakka, the king of the gods, or rather Vissakamma, on his order, assists. And it is there that Asoka, after breaking into all the seven stupas in vain (the Nagas protecting the eighth), finds the relics.(1) [Is it possible that this idea can lie behind the enigmatic expressions given above, p. 401, from the Divyavadana?] These he takes, and restoring the place where he had found them, establishes them in his own 84,000, not stupas, but viharas. It is incidentally mentioned that Rajagaha is 25 yojanas, say 190 miles, from Kusinara.(2) [This harmonizes with the distances given in the Jataka. See my "Buddhist Birth Stories," p. 87.]

The text of this part of the Sumangala has not yet been published. It will appear in the forthcoming edition for the Pali Text Society; and meanwhile an English version of a very late Burmese adaptation of the Pali can be consulted in Bigandet, ii, 131 foll. The legend is here very well and clearly told, and suggests possible explanations of several of the obscurities and inconsistencies in the oldest version in the Divyavadana.

The Mahavamsa (chap. v), which is again a very little later, gives the episode of the 84,000 viharas on the same lines as the Dipavamsa, omitting all reference to the breaking open of the stupas. But it agrees with the Divyavadana in stating (p. 35 of Turnour's edition) that this building of the 84,000 viharas was the reason why the king's name was changed from Asoka(3) [So the text. We ought perhaps to read Candasoka.] to Dhammasoka.

The form of the legend, as thus given in almost identical terms by the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa, is no doubt derived by both from the older Mahavamsa, in Simhalese, then handed down in the Maha Vihara at Anuradhapura, and now lost.  

About the same age (412-454 A.D.) is the Chinese work which Mr. Beal translated in vol. xix of the "Sacred Books of the East," and which he calls a translation of Asvaghosa's Buddha-Carita. Were this so, it would be of the first importance for our point. But it is nothing of the kind. There are resemblances, just as there would be if two Christian poets had, in different times and countries, turned the Gospels into rhyme with poetical embellishments. There are still closer resemblances, as if a later poet had borrowed phrases and figures from a previous writer. But there are greater differences. Taking the first chapter as a specimen, the Chinese has 126, the Sanskrit 94 verses. Of these, only about 40 express the same thought, and this is often merely a thought similar because derived from the same old tradition. More than half the verses in the Sanskrit have no corresponding verse in the Chinese, More than two- thirds of the verses in the Chinese have no corresponding verse in the Sanskrit. And even when the verses do, in the main, correspond, there are constant differences in the details and in the wording. It is uncritical, even absurd, to call this a translation.

The blunder of dating the Lalita Vistara in the first century on the ground of a 'translation' into Chinese of that date, rests on a similar misleading use of the word. We know of no such translation in the exact and critical sense. Twenty years ago (Hibbert Lectures, 198 foll.) I called attention to this. But Foucaux's conclusion still sometimes repeated as though it were valid. We must seek for the date of the Lalita Vistara on other and better grounds. Beal's so-called Dhammapada is also a quite different and much later work than the canonical book of which he calls it a version. See the detailed comparative tables ibid., p. 202. Mr. Rockhill, "Life of Buddha," p. 222, says that Beal's Chinese text "could not have been made from the same original" as the Tibetan version of the Buddha-Carita.

It was necessary to point this out as the Chinese book has two verses, of interest in the present discussion, which are not in the Sanskrit. If Beal were right we should have to ascribe them to Asvaghosa.(1) [There are six Asvaghosas mentioned in Chinese works quoted by Mr. Suzuki in his translation of the " Awakening of Faith," p.7.] As it is we are in complete ignorance of the real name and author and date of the original of Beal's Chinese book. We must, therefore, take the opinions expressed in the verses referred to as being good evidence only for the date of the Chinese book itself, only noting the fact that they are taken from some Sanskrit work of unknown date. The verses run, in Beal's words:--

"Opening the dagabas raised by those seven kings to take the Sariras thence, he spread them everywhere, and raised in one day 84,000 towers. (2,297.)

"Only with regard to the eighth pagoda in Ramagrama, which the Naga spirit protected, the king was unable to obtain those relics." (2,298.)


We see from Yuan Thsang's Travels, Book vi (Beal, ii, 26), that this curious story still survived in the seventh century of our era. It is interesting to notice how the legend had, by that time, become rounded off and filled in. Thsang naturally has nothing of the second Ajatasattu episode. He was never in Ceylon, and we have no evidence that this part of the legend was ever current in North India. But he also drops the absurd detail of the 84,000 stupas built in one day; and he fills out the Naga episode, making a very pretty story of it, turning the Naga, when he comes out to talk to the king, into a brahmin, and giving much fuller details of the conversation. He mentions also the interesting fact that in his time there was an inscription at the spot "to the above effect."

Finally, when we come to the Tibetan texts, which are considerably later,(2) [About 850 A.D.: see Rockhill, pp. 218 and 223.] we find an altogether unexpected state of things. We have long abstracts of the account, in the Dulva, of the death and cremation of the Buddha and of the distribution of his relics, from two scholars whose work can be thoroughly relied on, Csoma Korosi(3) ["Asiatic Researches," xx, 309-317.] and W.W. Rockhill.(1) ["Life of Buddha," pp. 122-148, and especially 141-148.] According to both these authorities the Tibetan works follow very closely, not any Sanskrit work known to us, but the Maha-parinibbana Suttanta. Where they deviate from it, it is usually by way of addition; and of addition, oddly enough, again not from any Sanskrit work, but on the lines of the Sumangala Vilasini.

However we try to explain this it is equally puzzling. Could they possibly, in Tibet, and at that time (in the ninth century A.D.), have had Pali books, and have understood them? In discussing another point, Mr. Rockhill (p. ix) thinks that the Tibetan author had access to Pali documents. M. Leon Feer has a similar remark ("Annales," vol. v, PP. xi, 133), and talks at pp. 133, 139, 143, 221, 224, 229, 408, 414 of a Tibetan text as though it were a translation from a Pali one. And the translations he gives, in support of his proposition, certainly, for the most part, show that the texts are the same.(2) [M. Leon Feer has not been able always to give volume and page of the originals of these Tibetan texts, often because they had not been edited. It may be useful, therefore, to point out that his page 145 = Anguttara, 5. 108. " 222 = Ang.5. 342, Jat. 6.14. " 231 = Ang. 4. 55 (which gives better readings), comp. 2. 61. " 293 = Divy. 193, Itiv. 76.] Strange as it may seem, therefore, it is by no means impossible that in our case also the Tibetan depends on a Pali original, or originals. We have at least good authority for a similar conclusion as to other Tibetan writings. And we now know, thanks to Professor Bendall, that a similar conclusion would be possible in Nepal.(3) [J.R.A.S., 1899, p. 422.]

If, on the other hand, our Tibetan texts are based on Sanskrit originals, the difficulty arises whence, at that date, could the Tibetans have procured Sanskrit books adhering so closely to the ancient standpoint.


Rockhill has not even a word about Asoka; Csoma Korosi has only a line, added like a note, at the end of the whole narrative, and saying:--

"The King Mya-nan-met (Asoka), residing at Pataliputta, has much increased the number of Chaityas of the seven kinds."(1) ["Asiatic Researches," xx, 317.]


What, then, are the conclusions to be drawn from our little enquiry?

1. That the breaking open of stupas is not mentioned at all in the most ancient Buddhist literature.

2. That Asoka's doing so is first mentioned in a passage long after his time. This passage is also so curt, self-contradictory: and enigmatic, that we probably have to suppose a confusion arising from difference of dialect. It is of little or no value as evidence that Asoka did actually break open seven of the eight ancient topes.

3. The number of the stupas he is supposed to have built -- 84,000 -- is derived from the traditional number (which is about correct) of the number of sections in the Four Nikayas, that is, in Buddhist phraseology, in the Dhamma. This suggests a possible origin of the whole of the legend.

4. In any case the eighth, that at Ramagama, was untouched. The site of it can be determined within a few miles, as we know, from the passages quoted above, its distance from Rajagaha on the one hand and the Lumbini pillar on the other; and we have, besides, the details as to distance given by the Chinese pilgrims. There was an inscription there, presumably put up by Asoka's orders. It will be most interesting to see if it lends support to, or could have given rise to, the legend.

5. The greatest circumspection must be used in dating any Indian work by the date of an alleged translation into Chinese. Even when a Chinese book is said to have the same title, and even similar chapter-titles, as a Sanskrit or Pali one, it does not follow it is really the same.

6. The Indian pandits who assisted in the ninth century in the translation of Indian books into Tibetan knew not only classical Sanskrit as well as Buddhist Sanskrit, but also Pali. It would be a great service if Tibetan scholars would ascertain exactly which Pali MSS. they had. They certainly had the Paritta; and certain Suttantas from, if not the whole of, the Digha; and certain Suttas from, if not the whole of, the Anguttara and the Samyutta. These books must have been handed down all the time in India; for we know enough of the journey of the emissaries from Tibet to be certain they did not go to Ceylon.

But we must stop. We are here brought face to face with some of the most debated of those larger questions on the solution of which the solution of the problem of the history of Indian thought and literature must ultimately depend.
We can only hope in an enquiry like the present to lay one or two very unpolished stones on the foundation of the Dhamma Pasada of history, in which the scholars of a future generation will, we hope, have the good fortune to dwell.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:23 pm

Dialogues of the Buddha
In 3 vols. Bound in 2. Vol. 1
translated from the Pali of the Digha Nikaya by T.W. Rhys Davids
1899



PREFACE.

NOTE ON THE PROBABLE AGE OF THE DIALOGUES.


The Dialogues of the Buddha, constituting, in the Pali text, the Digha and Magghima Nikayas, contain a full exposition of what the early Buddhists considered the teaching of the Buddha, to have been. Incidentally they contain a large number of references to the social, political, and religious condition of India at the time when they were put together. We do not know for certain what that time exactly was. But every day is adding to the number of facts on which an approximate estimate of the date may be based. And the ascertained facts are already sufficient to give us a fair working hypothesis.

In the first place the numerous details and comparative tables given in the Introduction to my translation of the Milinda show without a doubt that practically the whole of the Pali Pitakas were known, and regarded as final authority, at the time and place when that work was composed. The geographical details given on pp. xliii, xliv tend to show that the work was composed in the extreme North-West of India. There are two Chinese works, translations of Indian books taken to China from the North of India, which contain, in different recensions, the introduction and the opening chapters of the Milinda1 [See the authors quoted in the Introduction to voi. ii of my translation. Professor Takakusu, in an article in the J.R.A.S. for 1896, has added important details.]. For the reasons adduced (loco citato) it is evident that the work must have been composed at or about the time of the Christian era. Whether (as M. Sylvain Levy thinks) it is an enlarged work built up on the foundation of the Indian original of the Chinese books; or whether (as I am inclined to think) that original is derived from our Milinda, there is still one conclusion that must be drawn — the Nikayas, nearly if not quite as we now have them in the Pali, were known at a very early date in the North of India.

Then again, the Katha Vatthu (according to the views prevalent, at the end of the fourth century A.D., at Kankipura in South India, and at Anuradhapura in Ceylon; and recorded, therefore, in their commentaries, by Dhammapala and Buddhaghosa) was composed, in the form in which we now have it, by Tissa, the son of Moggali, in the middle of the third century B.C., at the court of Asoka, at Pataliputta, the modern Patna, in the North of India.

It is a recognised rule of evidence in the courts of law that, if an entry be found in the books kept by a man in the ordinary course of his trade, which entry speaks against himself, then that entry is especially worthy of credence. Now at the time when they made this entry about Tissa’s authorship of the Katha Vatthu the commentators believed, and it was an accepted tenet of those among whom they mixed — just as it was, mutatis mutandis, among the theologians in Europe, at the corresponding date in the history of their faith — that the whole of the canon was the word of the Buddha. They also held that it had been actually recited, at the Council of Ragagaha, immediately after his decease. It is, I venture to submit, absolutely impossible, under these circumstances, that the commentators can have invented this information about Tissa and the Katha Vatthu. They found it in the records on which their works are based. They dared not alter it. The best they could do was to try to explain it away. And this they did by a story, evidently legendary, attributing the first scheming out of the book to the Buddha. But they felt compelled to hand on, as they found it, the record of Tissa's authorship. And this deserves, on the ground that it is evidence against themselves, to have great weight attached to it.

The text of the Katha Vatthu now lies before us in a scholarly edition, prepared for the Pali Text Society by Mr. Arnold C. Taylor. It purports to be a refutation by Tissa of 250 erroneous opinions held by Buddhists belonging to schools of thought different from his own. We have, from other sources, a considerable number of data as regards the different schools of thought among Buddhists — often erroneously called ‘the Eighteen Sects.'1 [They are not ‘sects' at all, in the modem European sense of the word. Some of the more important of these data are collected in two articles by the present writer in the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society' for 1891 and 1892.] We are beginning to know something about the historical development of Buddhism, and to be familiar with what sort of questions are likely to have arisen. We are beginning to know something of the growth of the language, of the different Pali styles. In all these respects the Katha Vatthu fits in with what we should expect as possible, and probable, in the time of Asoka, and in the North of India.

Now the discussions as carried on in the Katha Vatthu are for the most part, and on both sides, an appeal to authority. And to what authority? Without any exception as yet discovered, to the Pitakas, and as we now have them, in Pali. Thus on p. 339 the appeal is to the passage translated below, on p. 278, § 6; and it is quite evident that the quotation is from our Suttanta, and not from any other passage where the same words might occur, as the very name of the Suttanta, the Kevaddha (with a difference of reading found also in our MSS.), is given. The following are other instances of quotations: —

Katha Vatthu / The Nikayas

p. 344 = A. II, 50.
345 = S. I, 33.
345 = A. II, 54.
347 = Kh. P.VII, 6, 7.
348 = A. III, 43.
351 = Kh. P. VIII, 9.
369 = M. I, 85, 92, &c,
404 = M. I, 4.
413 = S. IV, 362.
426 = D. I, 70.
440 = S. I, 33.
457 = D. (M. P. S. 23).
457 = A. II, 172.
459 = M. I, 94.
481 = D. I, 83, 84.
483 = D. I, 84.
484 = A. II, 126.
494 = S. I, 206 = J. IV, 496.
p. 505 = M. I, 490.
506 = M. I, 485 = S. IV, 393 (nearly).
513 = A. I, 197.
522 = M. I, 389.
525 = Dhp. 164.
528 = M. I, 447.
549 = S. N. 227 = Kh. P. VI, 6.
554 = S. I, 233.
554 = Vim. V. XXXIV, 25-27.
565 = D. I, 156.
588, 9= P. P. pp. 71, 72.
591 = M. I, 169.
597, 8 = A. I, 141, 2.
602 = Dh. C. P. Sutta, §§ 9-23.


There are many more quotations from the older Pitaka books in the Katha Vatthu, about three or four times as many as are contained in this list. But this is enough to show that, at the time when the Katha Vatthu was composed, all the Five Nikayas were extant; and were considered to be final authorities in any question that was being discussed. They must themselves, therefore, be considerably older.

Thirdly, Hofrath Buhler and Dr. Hultsch have called attention1 ['Epigr. Ind.,' II, 93, and 'Z.D.M.G.,’ xl, p. 58.] to the fact that in inscriptions of the third century B.C. we find, as descriptions of donors to the dagabas,, the expressions dhammakathika, petaki, suttantika, suttantakini, and panka-neka-yika. The Dhamma, the Pitakas, the Suttantas, and the five Nikayas must have existed for some time before the brethren and sisters could be described as preachers of the Dhamma, as reciters of the Pitaka, and as guardians of the Suttantas or of the Nikayas (which were not yet written, and were only kept alive in the memory of living men and women).

Simple as they seem, the exact force of these technical designations is not, as yet, determined. Dr. K. Neumann thinks that Petaki does not mean ‘knowing the Pitakas,' but ‘knowing the Pitaka,’ that is, the Nikayas — a single Pitaka, in the sense of the Dhamma, having been known before the expression ‘the Pitakas’ came into use.1 ['Reden des Gotamo,' pp. x, xi.] As he points out, the title of the old work Petakopadesa, which is an exposition, not of the three Pitakas, but only of the Nikayas, supports his view. So again the Dialogues are the only parts or passages of the canonical books called, in our MSS., suttantas. Was then a suttantika one who knew precisely the Dialogues by heart? This was no doubt the earliest use of the term. But it should be recollected that the Katha Vatthu, of about the same date, uses the word suttanta also for passages from other parts of the scriptures.

However this may be, the terms are conclusive proof of the existence, some considerable time before the date of the inscriptions, of a Buddhist literature called either a Pitaka or the Pitakas, containing Suttantas, and divided into Five Nikayas.

Fourthly, on Asoka's Bhabra Edict he recommends to the communities of the brethren and sisters of the Order, and to the lay disciples of either sex, frequently to hear and to meditate upon seven selected passages. These are as follows: —

1. Vinaya-samukkamsa.
2. Ariya-vasini from the Digha (Samgiti Suttanta).
3. Anagata-bhayani from the Anguttara III, 105-108.
4. Muni-gatha from the Sutta Nipata 206-220.  
5. Moneyya Sutta from the Iti Vuttaka 67 = A. 1, 272.
6. Upatissa-pasina.
7. Rahulovada = Rahulovada Suttanta (M. I, 414-420).


Of these passages Nos. 1 and 6 have not yet been satisfactorily identified. The others may be regarded as certain, for the reasons I have set out elsewhere.1 [‘Journal of the Pali Text Society,' 1896; ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ 1898, p. 639. Compare ‘Milinda' (S.B.E., vol. xxxv), pp. xxxvii foll.]

The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1898
11. Asoka's Bhadra Edict

by T.W. Rhys Davids
1898

p. 639

As the seven passages (pariyaya) mentioned by name on this Edict have now been (with various degrees of certainly) identified, it may be of use to record the result: —
Asoka / Pali / Where Found

1. Vinaya-samukkamsa / (? Patimokkha) / J.R.A.S., 1876
2. Ariya-vasani / Ariya-vasa / Digha (Sangiti Sutta)
3. Anagata-bhayani / Anagata-bhayani / Anguttara, iii, 105-108
4. Muni-gatha / Muni-sutta / Sutta Nipata, 206-220
5. Moneyya-sutta / Moneyya-sutta / It., No. 67 = A., i, 272
6. Upatissa-pasina / (Upatissa-panho / Vin., i, 39-41)
7. Rahulovada / Rahulovada-sutta / Majjhima, i, 414-420

Nos. 1 and 6 are the most doubtful. The Patimokkha can scarcely be rightly called a dhamma-pariyaya, and it does not correspond to the meaning of the title used by Asoka. The noun samukkamsa has not been found in the Pitakas. The verb always means 'to exalt.' (S.N., 132 = 438; M., i, 498; Th., i, 632.) 'The Exaltation of Vinaya' or 'of the Vinaya ' is much more probably meant, as the title of some short sutta or passage in praise of Vinaya in one or other of its two senses, ethical or legal. And I quite agree, therefore, with M. Senart (p. 204) in regarding this identification as unsatisfactory.  

As to No. 6, short edifying passages of the Vinaya are distinguished by titles. Vin., i, pp. 13, 14, §§ 38-47 (=S., iii, 66-68), is the Anatta-lakkhana-sutta; Vin., i, pp. 34, 35 ( = S., iv, 19, 20), is the Aditta-pariyaya, etc. And the passage identified with No. 6 might have been called Sariputta- or Upatissa-panho. But no mention of the title has yet been found in the Pitakas, and the identification, though otherwise suitable, is therefore at least uncertain.

No. 2 is no doubt the passage on the ten Ariya-vasa, not yet published, but contained in the Sangiti Sutta of the Digha. A similar passage may also be looked for in the Nipata of the Anguttara dealing with the Tens. The difference of gender is no objection. So pariyayani = pariyaya.

With regard to No. 7, it is not without reason that a special qualification is introduced in the Edict. There are so many 'Exhortations to Rahula' in the Pitakas that it was necessary to specify the one meant. The ones excluded, or some of them, will be found at S.N., 325-342 (dated in the 14th year after the Nirvana}; M.. i, 420 foll. (dated in the 12th year of the Nirvana); S., ii, 244 foll.; and S., iii, 135 and 136. All these are spoken by the Buddha. The expression in the Edict would seem also to imply that there is at least one other, not yet published, spoken by some one else.

No. 4, the Muni-gatha, called Muni Sutta in the Pali, is called Muni-gatha (exactly as in the Edict) in the Divyavadana. Other instances of such slight variations in titles are given in my article on this Edict in the Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1896.

Nos. 2 and 5 are, I believe, identified here for the first time.

T.W. Rhys Davids


No. 2 also occurs in the tenth book of the Anguttara. It is clear that in Asoka’s time there was acknowledged to be an authoritative literature, probably a collection of books, containing what was then believed to be the words of the Buddha: and that it comprised passages already known by the titles given in his Edict. Five out of the seven having been found in the published portions of what we now call the Pitakas, and in the portion of them called the Five Nikayas, raises the presumption that when the now unpublished portions are printed the other two will also, probably, be identified. We have no evidence that any other Buddhist literature was in existence at that date.

What is perhaps still more important is the point to which M. Senart2 ['Inscriptions de Piyadasi,' II, 314-322.] has called attention, and supported by numerous details: — the very clear analogy between the general tone and the principal points of the moral teaching, on the one hand of the Asoka edicts as a whole, and on the other of the Dhammapada, an anthology of edifying verses taken, in great part, from the Five Nikayas The particular verses selected by M. Senart, as being especially characteristic of Asoka’s ideas, include extracts from each of the Five.

Fifthly, the four great Nikayas contain a number of stock passages, which are constantly recurring, and in which some ethical state is set out or described. Many of these are also found in the prose passages of the various books collected together in the Fifth, the Khuddaka Nikaya. A number of them are found in each of the thirteen Suttantas translated in this volume. There is great probability that such passages already existed, as ethical sayings or teachings, not only before the Nikayas were put together, but even before the Suttantas were put together.

There are also entire episodes, containing not only ethical teaching, but names of persons and places and accounts of events, which are found, in identical terms, at two or more places. These should be distinguished from the last. But they are also probably older than our existing texts. Most of the parallel passages, found in both Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist texts, come under one or other of these two divisions.

Sixthly, the Samyutta Nikaya (III, 13) quotes one Suttanta in the Dialogues by name; and both the Samyutta and the Anguttara Nikayas quote, by name and chapter, certain poems now found only in a particular chapter of the Sutta Nipata. This Suttanta, and these poems, must therefore be older, and older in their present arrangement, than the final settlement of the text of these two Nikayas.

Seventhly, several of the Dialogues purport to relate conversations that took place between people, cotemporaries with the Buddha, but after the Buddha's death: One Sutta in the Anguttara is based on the death of the wife of Munda, king of Magadha, who began to reign about forty years after the death of the Buddha. There is no reason at all to suspect an interpolation. It follows that, not only the Sutta itself, but the date of the compilation of the Anguttara, must be subsequent to that event.

There is a story in Peta Vatthu IV, 3, 1 about a King Pingalaka. Dhammapala, in his commentary, informs us that this king, of whom nothing is otherwise known, lived two hundred years after the Buddha. It follows that this poem, and also the Peta Vatthu in which it is found, and also the Vimana Vatthu, with which the Peta Vatthu really forms one whole work, are later than the date of Pingalaka. And there is no reason to believe that the commentator’s date, although it is evidently only a round number, is very far wrong. These books are evidently, from their contents, the very latest compositions in all the Five Nikayas.

There is also included among the Thera Gatha, another book in the Fifth Nikaya, verses said, by Dhammapala the commentator,1 [Quoted by Prof. Oldenberg at p. 46 of his edition.] to have been composed by a thera of the time of King Bindusara, the father of Asoka, and to have been added to the collection at the time of Asoka's Council.

Eighthly, several Sanskrit Buddhist texts have now been made accessible to scholars. We know the real titles, given in the MSS. themselves, of nearly 200 more.2 [Miss C. Hughes is preparing a complete alphabetical list of all these works for the 'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ 1899.] And the catalogues in which the names occur give us a considerable amount of detailed information as to their contents. No one of them is a translation, or even a recension, of any one of the twenty-seven canonical books. They are independent works; and seem to bear to the canonical books a relation similar, in many respects, to that borne by the works of the Christian Fathers to the Bible. But though they do not reproduce any complete texts, they contain numerous verses, some whole poems, numerous sentences in prose, and some complete episodes, found in the Pali books. And about half a dozen instances have been already found in which such passages are stated, or inferred, to be from older texts, and are quoted as authorities. Most fortunately we may hope, owing to the enlightened liberality of the Academy of St. Petersburg, and the zeal and scholarship of Professor d’Oldenbourg and his co-workers, to have a considerable number of Buddhist Sanskrit Texts in the near future. And this is just what, in the present state of our knowledge of the history of Buddhist writings, is so great a desideratum.

It is possible to construct, in accordance with these facts, a working hypothesis as to the history of the literature. It is also possible to object that the evidence drawn from the Milinda may be disregarded on the ground that there is nothing to show that that work, excepting only the elaborate and stately introduction and a few of the opening chapters, is not an impudent forgery, and a late one, concocted by some Buddhist in Ceylon. So the evidence drawn from the Katha Vatthu may be disregarded on the ground that there is nothing to show that that work is not an impudent forgery, and a late one, concocted by some Buddhist in Ceylon. The evidence drawn from the inscriptions may be put aside on the ground that they do not explicitly state that the Suttantas and Nikayas to which they refer, and the passages they mention, are the same as those we now have. And the fact that the commentators point out, as peculiar, that certain passages are nearly as late, and one whole book quite as late, as Asoka, is no proof that the rest are older. It may even be maintained that the Pali Pitakas are not therefore Indian books at all: that they are all Ceylon forgeries, and should be rightly called ‘the Southern Recension’ or ‘the Simhalese Canon.'

Each of these propositions, taken by itself, has the appearance of careful scruple. And a healthy and reasonable scepticism is a valuable aid to historical criticism. But can that be said of a scepticism that involves belief in things far more incredible than those it rejects.? In one breath we are reminded of the scholastic dulness, the sectarian narrowness, the literary incapacity, even the senile imbecility of the Ceylon Buddhists. In the next we are asked to accept propositions implying that they were capable of forging extensive documents so well, with such historical accuracy, with so delicate a discrimination between ideas current among themselves and those held centuries before, with so great a literary skill in expressing the ancient views, that not only did they deceive their contemporaries and opponents, but European scholars have not been able to point out a single discrepancy in their work.1 [As is well known, the single instance of such a discrepancy, which Prof. Minayeff made so much of, is a mare's nest. The blunder is on the pert of the European professor, not of the Ceylon pandits. No critical scholar will accept the proposition that because the commentary on the Katha Vatthu mentions the Vetulyaka, therefore the Katha Vatthu itself must be later than the rise of that school.] It is not unreasonable to hesitate in adopting a scepticism which involves belief in so unique, and therefore so incredible, a performance.

The hesitation will seem the more reasonable if we consider that to accept this literature for what it purports to be — that is, as North Indian,2 [North Indian, that is, from the modern European point of view. In the books themselves the reference is to the Middle Country (Magghima Desa). To them the country to the south of the Vindhyas simply did not come into the calculation. How suggestive this is as to the real place of origin of these documents!] and for the most part pre-Asokan — not only involves no such absurdity, but is really just what one would a priori expect, just what the history of similar literatures elsewhere would lead one to suppose likely.

The Buddha, like other Indian teachers of his time, taught by conversation. A highly educated man (according to the education current at the time), speaking constantly to men of similar education, he followed the literary habit of his time by embodying his doctrines in set phrases, sutras, on which he enlarged on different occasions in different ways. In the absence of books — for though writing was widely known, the lack of writing materials made any lengthy written books impossible3 [Very probably memoranda were used. But the earliest records of any extent were the Asoka Edicts, and they had to be written on stone.] — such sutras were the recognised form of preserving and communicating opinion. These particular ones were not in Sanskrit, but in the ordinary conversational idiom of the day, that is to say, in a sort of Pali.


When the Buddha died these sayings were collected together by his disciples into the Four Great Nikayas. They cannot have reached their final form till about fifty years afterwards. Other sayings and verses, most of them ascribed not to the Buddha himself, but to the disciples, were put into a supplementary Nikaya. We know of slight additions made to this Nikaya as late as the time of Asoka. And the developed doctrine found in certain short books in it — notably in the Buddhavamsa and Kariya Pitaka, and in the Peta- and Vimana-Vatthus — show that these are later than the four old Nikayas.

For a generation or two the books as originally put together were handed down by memory. And they were doubtless accompanied from the first, as they were being taught, by a running commentary. About 100 years after the Buddha’s death there was a schism in the community. Each of the two schools kept an arrangement of the canon — still in Pali (or possibly some allied dialect). Sanskrit was not used for any Buddhist works till long afterwards, and never used at all, so far as we know, for the canonical books. Each of these two schools broke up, in the following centuries, into others; and several of them had their different arrangements of the canonical books, differing also no doubt in minor details. Even as late as the first century after the Christian Era, at the Council of Kanishka, these books, among many others then extant, remained the only authorities.1 [On the often repeated error that a Sanskrit canon was established at Kanishka’s Council, see my 'Milinda,' vol. ii, pp. xv, xvi.] But they all, except only our present Pali Nikayas, have been lost in India. Of the stock passages of ethical statement, and of early episodes, used in the composition of them, and of the Suttas now extant, numerous fragments have been preserved in the Hinayana Sanskrit texts. And some of the Suttas, and of the separate books, as used in other schools, are represented in Chinese translations of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. A careful and detailed comparison of these remains with the Pali Nikayas, after the method adopted in Windisch’s 'Mara und Buddha,' cannot fail to throw much light on the history, and on the method of composition, of the canonical books, which in style and method, in language and contents and tone, bear all the marks of so considerable an antiquity.

Hofrath Dr. Buhler, in the last work he published, expressed the opinion that these books, as we have them in the Pali, are good evidence, certainly for the fifth, probably for the sixth, century B.C. Subject to what has been said above, that will probably become, more and more, the accepted opinion. And it is this which gives to all they tell us, either directly or by implication, of the social, political, and religious life of India, so great a value.1 [No reference has been made, in these slight and imperfect remarks, to the history of the Vinaya. There is nothing to add, on that point, to the able and lucid exposition of Prof. Oldenberg in the Introduction to his edition of the text.]

It is necessary, in spite of the limitations of our space, to add a few words on the method followed in this version. We talk of Pali books. They are not books in the modern sense. They are memorial sentences intended to be learnt by heart; and the whole style, and method of arrangement, is entirely subordinated to this primary necessity. The leading ideas in any one of our Suttantas, for instance, are expressed in short phrases not intended to convey to a European reader the argument underlying them. These are often repeated with slight variations. But neither the repetitions nor the variations — introduced, and necessarily introduced, as aids to memory — help the modern reader very much. That of course was not their object. For the object they were intended to serve they are singularly well chosen, and aptly introduced.

Other expedients were adopted with a similar aim. Ideas were formulated, not in logically co-ordinated sentences, but in numbered groups; and lists were drawn up such as those found in the tract called the Silas, and in the passage on the rejected forms of asceticism, both translated below. These groups and lists, again, must have been accompanied from the first by a running verbal commentary, given, in his own words, by the teacher to his pupils. Without such a comment they are often quite unintelligible, and always difficult.

The inclusion of such memoria technica [memory technique] makes the Four Nikayas strikingly different from modern treatises on ethics or psychology. As they stand they were never intended to be read. And a version in English, repeating all the repetitions, rendering each item in the lists and groups as they stand, by a single English word, without commentary, would quite fail to convey the meaning, often intrinsically interesting, always historically valuable, of these curious old documents.

It is no doubt partly the result of the burden of such memoria technica, but partly also owing to the methods of exposition then current in North India, that the leading theses of each Suttanta are not worked out in the way in which we should expect to find similar theses worked out now in Europe. A proposition or two or three, are put forward, re-stated with slight additions or variations, and placed as it were in contrast with the contrary proposition (often at first put forward by the interlocutor). There the matter is usually left. There is no elaborate logical argument. The choice is offered to the hearer; and, of course, he usually accepts the proposition as maintained by the Buddha. The statement of this is often so curt, enigmatic, and even —owing not seldom simply to our ignorance, as yet, of the exact force of the technical terms used — so ambiguous, that a knowledge of the state of opinion on the particular point, in North India, at the time, or a comparison of other Nikaya passages on the subject, is necessary to remove the uncertainty.

It would seem therefore most desirable that a scholar attempting to render these Suttantas into a European language — evolved in the process of expressing a very different, and often contradictory, set of conceptions — should give the reasons of the faith that is in him. He should state why he holds such and such an expression to be the least inappropriate rendering: and quote parallel passages from other Nikaya texts in support of his reasons. He should explain the real significance of the thesis put forward by a statement of what, in his opinion, was the point of view from which it was put forward, the stage of opinion into which it fits, the current views it supports or controverts. In regard to technical terms, for which there can be no exact equivalent, he should give the Pali. And in regard to the mnemonic lists and groups, each word in which is usually a crux, he should give cross-references, and wherever he ventures to differ from the Buddhist explanations, as handed down in the schools, should state the fact, and give his reasons. It is only by such discussions that we can hope to make progress in the interpretation of the history of Buddhist and Indian thought. Bare versions are of no use to scholars, and even to the general reader they can only convey loose, inadequate, and inaccurate ideas.


These considerations will, I trust, meet with the approval of my fellow workers. Each scholar would of course, in considering the limitations of his space, make a different choice as to the points he regarded most pressing to dwell upon in his commentary, as to the points he would leave to explain themselves. It may, I am afraid, be considered that my choice in these respects has not been happy, and especially that too many words or phrases have been left without comment, where reasons were necessary. But I have endeavoured, in the notes and introductions, to emphasise those points on which further elucidation is desirable; and to raise some of the most important of those historical questions which will have to be settled before these Suttantas can finally be considered as having been rightly understood.

T.W. Rhys Davids
'Nalanda,' April, 1899.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:58 am

Notes to Arrian's Indica. [See translation of the Indica in the Indian Antiquary, ante, pp. 85-108. The main object of the Notes is to show how the localities, &c. mentioned m the text have been identified. In drawing them up I have derived great assistance from C. Muller's Geographi Graeci Minores, -- a work which contains the text of the Indica with notes, -- Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Classical Geography, and General Cunningham's Geography of Ancient India.]
by J.W. McCrindle, M.A., Patna College
December, 1876

Arrian, distinguished as a philosopher, a statesman, a soldier, and an historian, was born in Nicomedia, in Bithynia, towards the end of the first century. He was a pupil of the philosopher Epictetus, whose lectures he published. His talents recommended him to the favour of Antoninus Pius, by whom, he was raised to the consulship (A.D. 146). In his later years he retired to his native town, where he applied his, leisure to the composition of works on history. He died at an advanced age, in the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. The work by which he is best known is his account of the Asiatic expedition of Alexander the Great, which is remarkable alike for accuracy, and the Xenophontic ease and clearness of its style. His work on India ([x] or [x]) may be regarded as a continuation of his Anabasis. It is not written, however, like the Anabasis, in the Attic dialect, but in the Ionic. The reason may have been that he wished his work to supersede the old and less accurate account of India written in Ionic by Ktesias of Knidos.

The Indica consists of three parts: -- the first gives a general description of India based chiefly on the accounts of the country given by Megasthenes and Eratosthenes (chaps. i.—xvii.); the second gives an account of the voyage made by Nearchus the Cretan from the Indus to the Pasitigris, based entirely on the narrative of the voyage written by Nearchus himself (chaps. xviii.—xlii.); the third contains a collections of proofs to show that the southern parts of the world are uninhabitable on account of the great heat (chap. xlii. to the end).

Chap. I. The river Kophen. -- Another form of the name, used by Strabo, Pliny, &c., is Kophes, -etis. It is now the Kabul river. In chap. iv. Arrian gives the names of its tributaries as the Malantos (Malamantos), Soastos, and Garroias. In the 6th book of the Mahabharata three rivers are named which probably correspond to them—the Suvastu, Gauri,, and Kamana. The Soastos is no doubt the Suvastu, and the Garaea the Gauri. Curtius and Strabo call the Suastus the Choaspes. According to Mannert the Suastus and the Garaea or Guraeus were identical. Lassen [Ind. Alterthums. (2nd ed.). II.673ff.] would, however, identify the Suastos with the modern Suwad or Svat, and the Garaeus with its tributary the Panjkora; and this this is the view adopted by General Cunningham. The Malamantos some would identify with the Choes (mentioned by Arrian, Anabasis IV. 25), which is probably represented by the modern Kameh or Khonar, the largest of the tributaries of the Kabul; others, however, with the Panjkora. General Cunningham, on the other hand, takes it to be the Bara, a tributary which joins the Kabul from the south. With regard to the name Kophes he remarks: -- "The name of Kophes is as old as the time of the Vedas in which the Kubha river is mentioned [Roth first pointed this out; -- conf. Lassen, ut sup. -- Ed.] as an affluent of the Indus; and, as it is not an Aryan word, I infer that the name must have been applied to the Kabul river before the Aryan occupation, or at least as early as B.C. 2500. In the classical writers we find the Choes, Kophes, and Choaspes rivers to the west of the Indus; and at the present day we have the kunar, the Kuram, and the Gomal rivers to the west, and the Kunihar river to the east of the Indus, -- all of which are derived from the Scythian ku, 'water.' It is the guttural form of the Assyrian hu in 'Euphrates,' and 'Eulaeus,' and of the Turki suand the Tibetan chu, all of which mean 'water' or 'river.'" Ptolemy the Geographer mentions a city called Kabara situated on the banks of the Kophen, and a people called Kabolitae.

Astakenoi and Assakenoi. -- It is doubtful whether these were the same or different tribes. It has been conjectured, from some slight resemblance in the name, that they may have been the ancestors of the Afghans. Their territory lay between the Indus and the Kophen, extending from their junction as far westward as the valley of the Guraios or Panjkora. Other tribes in these parts were the Masiani, Nysaei, and Hippasii.

Nysa, being the birth-place of Bacchus, was, as is well known, bestowed as a name on various places noted for the cultivation of the vine. General Cunningham refers its site to a point on the Kophes above its junction with the Choes. The city may, however, have existed only in fable. [Lassen, u. s. 141, 681.]

Massaka (other forms are Massaga, Masaga, and Mazaga.)—The Sanskrit Masaka, near the Gauri, already mentioned. Curtius states that it was defended by a rapid river on its eastern side. When attacked by Alexander, it held out for four days against all his assaults.

Peukelaitis (other forms—Peukelaetis, Peukolitae, Peukelaotis): —'‘The Greek name,” says General Cunningham, “of Peukelaotis or Peukolaitis was immediately derived from Pukkalaoti, which is the Pali or spoken form of the Sanskrit Pushkalavati. It is also called Peukelas by Arrian, and the people are named Peukalei by Dionysius Periegetes, which are both close transcripts of the Pali Pukkala. The form of Proklois, which is found in Arrian’s Periplus of the Erythroean Sea and also in Ptolemy’s Geography, is perhaps only an attempt to give the Hindi name of Pokhar, instead of the Sanskrit Pushkara." The same authority fixes its position at “the two large towns Parang and Charsada, which form part of the well-known Hashtnagar, or ‘eight cities,’ that are seated close together on the eastern bank of the lower Swat river.” The position indicated is nearly seventeen miles to the north-east of Peshawar. Pushkala, according to Prof. Wilson, is still represented by the modern Pekhely or Pakholi, in the neighhourhood of Peshawar. The distance of Peukelaitis from Taxila (now represented by the vast ruins of Manikyala) is given by Pliny at sixty miles.

CHAP. II.-- Parapamisos (other forms— Paropamisos, Paropamissos, Paropanisos). This denotes the great mountain range now called Hindu Kush, supposed to be a corrupted form of “Indicus Caucasus,” the name given to the range by the Macedonians, either to flatter Alexander, or because they regarded it as a continuation of Caucasus. Arrian, however, and others held it to be a continuation of Taurus. The mountains belonging to the range which lie to the north of the Kabul river are called Nishadha, a Sanskrit word which appears perhaps in the form Paropanisus, which is that given by Ptolemy. According to Pliny, the Scythians called Mount Caucasus Graucasis, a word which represents the Indian name of Paropamisos, Gravakshas, which Ritter translates "splendentes rupium montes." According to General Cunningham, the Mount Paresh or Aparasin of the Zendavesta corresponds with the Paropamisos of the Greeks. In modern maps Hindu Kush generally designates the eastern part of the range, and Paropamisos the western. According to Sir Alexander Burnes, the name Hindu Kush is unknown to the Afghans, but there is a particular peak and also a pass bearing that name between Afghanistan and Turkestan.

Emodos (other forms—Emoda, Emodon, Hemodes).—The name generally designated that part of the Himalayan range which extended along Nepal and Bhutan and onward towards the ocean. Lassen derives the word from the Sanskrit haimavata, in Prakrit haimota, 'snowy.’ If this be so, ‘Hemodos” is the more correct form. Another derivation refers the word to “hemadri" (hema, gold, and adri, mountain), 'the golden mountains,’—so called either because they were thought to contain gold mines, or because of the aspect they presented when their snowy peaks reflected the golden effulgence of sunset.

Imaus.—Related to the Sanskrit himavata, 'snowy.’ The name was applied at first by the Greeks to the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas, but was in course of time transferred to the Bolor range. This chain, which runs north and south, was regarded by the ancients as dividing Northern Asia into “Scythia intra Imaum’’ and “Scythia extra Imaum,” and it has formed for ages the boundary between China and Turkestan. Pliny calls Imaus a 'promontorium' of the Montes Emodi, stating at the same time that in the language of the inhabitants the name means 'snowy.’

Pattala.—The name of the Delta was properly Patalene, and Patala was its capital. This was situated at the head of the Delta, where the western stream of the Indus bifurcated. Thatha has generally been regarded as its modern representative, but General Cunningham would "almost certainly" identify it with Nirankol or Haidarabad, of which Patalpur and Patasila ('flat rock’) were old appellations. With regard to the name Patala he suggests that “it may have been derived from Patalam, the trumpet flower’’ (Bignonia syaveolens), in allusion to the trumpet shape of the province included between the eastern and western branches of the mouth of the Indus, as the two branches as they approach the sea curve outward like the mouth of a trumpet.” Ritter, however, says: -- "Patala is the designation bestowed by the Brahmans on all the provinces in the west towards sunset, in antithesis to Prasiaka (the eastern realm) in Ganges-land: for Patala is the mythological name in Sanskrit of the under-world, and consequently of the land of the west.” Arrian’s estimate of the magnitude of the Delta is somewhat excessive. The length of its base, from the Pitti to the Kori mouth, was less than 1000 stadia, while that of the Egyptian Delta was 1300.

CHAP. III. 1300 stadia.—The Olympic stadium, which was in general use throughout Greece, contained 600 Greek feet = 625 Roman feet, or 606-3/4 English feet. The Roman mile contained eight stadia, being about half a stadium less than an English mile. Not a few of the measurements given by Arrian are excessive, and it has therefore been conjectured that he may have used some standard different from the Olympic,—which, however, is hardly probable. With regard to the dimensions of India as stated in this chapter, General Cunningham observes that their close agreement with the actual size of the country is very remarkable, and shows that the Indians, even at that early date in their history, had a very accurate knowledge of the form and extent of their native land.

Schoeni.—The schoenus was ==2 Persian parasangs = 60 stadia, but was generally taken at half that length.

Chip. IV. Tributaries of the Ganges.—Seventeen are here enumerated, the Jamna being omitted, which, however, is afterwards mentioned (chap, viii.) as the Jobares. Pliny calls it the Jomanes, and Ptolemy the Diamounas. In Sanskrit it is the Jamuna (sister of Yama).

Kainas.—Some would identify this with the Kan or Kane, a tributary of the Jamna. Kan is, however, in Sanskrit Sena, and of this Kainas cannot be the Greek representative.

Erannoboas.—As Arrian informs us (chap. x.) that Palimbothra (Pataliputra, Patna) was situated at the confluence of this river with the Ganges, it must be identified with the river Son, which formerly joined the Ganges a little above Patna, where traces of its old channel are still discernible. The word no doubt represents the Sanskrit Hiranyavaha ('carrying gold’) or Hiranyabahu ('having golden arms'), which are both poetical names of the Son. It is said to be still called Hiranyavaha by the people on its banks. Megasthenes, however, and Arrian, both make the Erannoboas and the Son to be distinct rivers, and hence some would identify the former with the Gandak (Sanskrit Gandaki), which, according to Lassen, was called by the Buddhists Hiranyavati, or 'the golden.’ It is, however, too small a stream to suit the description of the Erannoboas, that it was the largest river in India after the Ganges and Indus. The Son may perhaps in the time of Megasthenes have joined the Ganges by two channels, which he may have mistaken for separate rivers.

Kosoanos.—Cosoagus is the form of the name in Pliny, and hence it has been taken to be the representative of the Sanskrit Kaushiki, the river now called the Kosi. Schwanbeck, however, thinks it represents the Sanskrit Kosavaha (= 'treasure-bearing’), and that it is therefore an epithet of the Son, like Hiranyavaha, which has the same meaning. It seems somewhat to favour this view that Arrian in his enumeration places the Kosoanos between the Erannoboas and the Son.

Sonos.—The Son, which now joins the Ganges ten miles above Dinapur. The word is considered to he a contraction of the Sanskrit Suvarna (Suvanna), 'golden,’ and may have been given as a name to the river either because its sands were yellow, or because they contained gold dust.

Sittokatis and Solomatis.—It has not been ascertained what rivers were denoted by these names. General Cunningham in one of his maps gives the Solomatis as a name of the Saranju or Sarju, a tributary of the Ghagra, while Benfey would identify it with the famous Sarasvati or Sarsuti, which, according to the legends, after disappearing underground, joined the Ganges at Allahabad.

Kondochates.—Now the Bandak,—in Sanskrit, Gandaki or Gandakavati ([x]), — because of its abounding in a kind of alligator having a horn-like projection on its nose.

Sambos.—Probably the Sarabos of Ptolemy. It may be the Sambal, a tributary of the Jamna.

Magon.—According to Mannert the Ramganga.

Agoranis.—According to Rennel the Ghagra -- a word derived from the Sanskrit Gharghara ('of gurgling sound’).

Omalis has not been identified, but Schwanbeck remarks that the word closely agrees with the Sanskrit Vimala ('stainless’), a common epithet of rivers.

Kommenases.—Rennel and Lassen identify this with the Karmanasa (bonorum operum destructriae), a small river which joins the Ganges above Baxar. According to a Hindu legend, whoever touches the water of this river loses all the merit of his good works, this being transferred to the nymph of the stream.

Kakouthis. -- Mannert takes this to be the Gumti.

Andomatis. -- Thought by Lassen to be connected with the Sanskrit Andhamati (tenebricosus) which he would identify, therefore, with the Tamasa, the two names being identical in meaning.

Madyandini may represent, Lassen thinks, the Sanskrit Madhyandina (meridionalis).

Amystis has not been identified, nor Katadupa, the city which it passes. The latter part of this word, dupa, may stand, Schwanbeck suggests, for the Sanskrit dvipa, 'an island.’

Oxymagis.—The Pazalae or Passalae, called in Sanskrit Pankala, inhabited the Doab, —through which, or the region adjacent to it, flowed the Ikshumati (‘abounding in sugar-cane’). Oxymagis very probably represented this name.

Errenysis closely corresponds to Varanasi, the name of Banaras in Sanskrit,—so called from the rivers Varana and Asi, which join the Ganges in its neighbourhood. The Mathae may be the people of Magadha. V. de Saint-Martin would fix their position in the country between the lower part of the Gumti and the Ganges, adding that “the Journal of Hiouen Thsang places their capital, Matipura, at a little distance to the east of the upper Ganges near Gangadvara, now Hardwar.”

Tributaries of the Indus: —Hydraotes.— Other forms are Rhouadis and Hyarotis. It is now called the Ravi, the name being a contraction of the Sanskrit Iravati, which means ‘abounding in water,’ or ‘ the daughter of Iravat,’ the elephant of Indra, who is said to have generated the river by striking his tusk against the rock whence it issues. His name has reference to his ‘ocean’ origin.

The name of the Kambistholae does not occur elsewhere. Schwanbeck conjectures that it may represent the Sanskrit Kapisthola, 'ape-land,’ the letter m being inserted, as in ' Palimbothra.’ Arrian errs in making the Hyphasis a tributary of the Hydraotes, for it falls into the Akesines below its junction with that river.

Hyphasis (other forms are Bibasis, Hypasis, and Hypanis.) -- In Sanskrit the Vipasa, and now the Byasa or Bias. It lost its name on being joined by the Satadru, 'the hundred- channelled,’ the Zaradros of Ptolemy, now the Satlej. The Astrobae are not mentioned by any writer except Arrian.

Saranges.—According to Schwanbeck, this word represents the Sanskrit Saranga, 'six-limbed.’ It is not known what river it designated. The Kekians, through whose country it flowed, were called in Sanskrit, according to Lassen, Sekaya.

Neudros is not known. The Attakeni are likewise unknown, unless their name is another form of Assakeni.

Hydaspes.—Bidaspes is the form in Ptolemy. In Sanskrit Vitasta, now the Behutor Jhelam; called also by the inhabitants on its banks the Bedusta, ‘widely spread.’ It is the “fabulosus Hydaspes” of Horace, and the "Medus Hydaspes” of Virgil. It formed the western boundary of the dominions of Porus.

Oxydrakai.—This name represents, according to Lassen, the Sanskrit Kshudraka. It is variously written,—Sydrakae, Syrakusae (probably a corrupt reading for Sudrakae), Sabagrae, and Sygambri, According to some accounts, this was the people among whom Alexander was severely wounded when his life was saved by Ptolemy, who in consequence received the name of Sotor. Arrian, however, refers this incident to the country of the Malli.

Akesines.—Now the Chenab: in Sanskrit Asikni, ‘dark-coloured,’—called afterwards Chandrabhaga. “This would have been hellenized into Sandrophagos,—a word so like to Androphagos or Alexandrophagos that the followers of Alexander changed the name to avoid the evil omen,—the more so, perhaps, on account of the disaster which befell the Macedonian fleet at the turbulent junction of the river with the Hydaspes.”—Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.

Malli.—They occupied the country between the Akesines and the Hydraotes or Iravati. The name represents the Sanskrit Malava, Multan being its modern representative.

Toutapos. Probably the lower part of the Satadru or Satlej.

Parenos.—Probably the modern Burindu.

Saparnos.—-Probably the Abbasin.

Soanus represents the Sanskrit Suvana, 'the sun,’ or ‘fire’—now the Svan.

The Abissareans.—The name may represent the Sanskrit Abisara. [Lassen, Ind. Alt. II. 163.] A king called Abisares is mentioned by Arrian in his Anabasis (iv. 7). It may be here remarked that the names of the Indian kings, as given by the Greek writers, were in general the names slightly modified of the people over whom they ruled.

Taurunum.—The modern Semlin.

Chap. V. Megasthenes.—The date of his mission to India is uncertain. Clinton assigns it to the year 303 B.C., since about that time an alliance was formed between Seleucus and Sandrakottus (Chandragupta). It is also a disputed point whether he was sent on more than one embassy, as the words of Arrian (Anab. V. 6.), [x], may mean either that he went on several missions to Sandrakottus, or merely that he had frequent interviews with him. From Arrian we further learn regarding Megasthenes that he lived with Tyburtius the satrap of Arachosia, who obtained the satrapies of Arachosia and Gedrosia 323 B.C. Sandrakottus died about B.C. 288.

Sesostris has been identified with Ramses, the third king of the nineteenth dynasty as given in the History of Manetho.

Idanthyrsos.—Strabo mentions an irruption of Skythians into Asia under a leader of this name, and Herodotos mentions an invasion which was led by Madyas. As Idanthyrsos may have been a common appellative of all the Skythian kings, it may be one and the same invasion to which both writers refer. It was made when Kyaxares reigned in Media and Psammitichus in Egypt.

Mount Meros. -- Mount Meru, the Olympus of Indian mythology. As a geographical term it designated the highland of Tartary north of the Himalaya. Siva was the Indian deity whom the Greeks identified with Bacchus, as they identified Krishna with Hercules.

The rock Aornos.—The much-vexed question of the position of this celebrated rock has been settled by General Cunningham, who has identified it with the ruined fortress of Ranigat, situated immediately above the small village of Nogram, which lies about sixteen miles north by west from Ohind, which he takes to be the Embolima of the ancients. “Ranigat,” he says, or the Queen’s rock, is a large upright block on the north edge of the fort, on which Raja Vara’s rani is said to have seated herself daily. The fort itself is attributed to Raja Vara, and some ruins at the foot of the hill are called Raja Vara’s stables . . . I think, therefore, that the hill-fort of Aornos most probably derived its name from Raja Vara, and that the mined fortress of Ranigat has a better claim to be identified with the Aomos of Alexander than either the Mahaban hill of General Abbott, or the castle of Raja Hodi proposed by General Court and Mr. Loewenthal.”

The Cave of Promethess.—Probably one of the vast caves in the neighbourhood of Bamian.

Sibae.—A fierce mountain tribe called Siapul or Siapush still exists, inhabiting the Hindu Kush, who use to this day the club, and wear the skins of goats for clothing. According to Curtius, however, the Sivae, whom he calls Sobii, occupied the country between the Hydaspes and Akesines. They may have derived their name from the god Siva. In the neighbourhood of Hardwar there is a district called Siba.

Chap. VI. The Silas.-—Other forms are Sillas and Silias. Demokritos and Aristotle doubted the story told of this river, but Lassen states that mention is made in Indian writings of a river in the northern part of India whose waters have the power of turning everything cast into them into stone, the Sanskrit word for which is sila.

Tala.—The fan-palm, the Borassus flabelli-formis of botany.

Chap. VIII.—Spatembas and his successors were the kings of Magadha, which in these early times was the most powerful kingdom in India: Palimbothra was its capital.

Boudyas.—This is no doubt, the name of Buddha hellenized.

Souraseni.—This name represents the Sanskrit Surasena, which designated the country about Methora, now Mathura, famous as the birthplace and scene of the adventures of Krishna, whom the Greeks identified with Hercules. Methora is mentioned by Pliny, who says, Amnis Jomanes in Gangem per Palibothros decurrit inter oppida Methora et Charisobora." Chrysobora and Kyrisobora are various readings for Charisobora, which is doubtless another form of Arrian’s Kleisobora. This word may represent, perhaps, the Sanskrit Krishnaputra. Jobares is the Jamuna. The Palibothri, in the passage quoted, must be taken to denote the subjects of the realm of which Palibothra was the capital, and not merely the inhabitants of that city, as some have supposed.

Pandaea.—Pliny mentions a tribe called Pandae, who alone of the Indians were in the habit of having female sovereigns. Th, name undoubtedly points to the famous dynasty of the Pandavas, which extended so widely over India. In the south there was a district called Pandavi regio, while another of the same name is placed by Ptolemy in the Panjab on the Bidaspes (Bias).

Margarita.—This word cannot be traced to Sanskrit. Murvarid is, said to be a name in Persian for the pearl.

Palimbothra.—The Sanskrit Pataliputra, now Patna, sometimes still called Pataliputra. The name means ‘the son of the Patali, or trumpet flower (Bignonia suaveolens).' Its earliest name was Kausambi, so called as having been founded by Kusa, the father of the celebrated sage Visvamitra. It was subsequently called also Pushpapura or Kusumapura, 'the city of flowers.’ Megasthenes and Eratosthenes give its distance from the mouth of the Ganges at 6000 stadia.

The Prasians.—“Strabo and Pliny,” says General Cunningham, agree with Arrian in calling the people of Palibothra by the name of Prasii which modern writers have unanimously referred to the Sanskrit Prachya or 'eastern.’ But it seems to me that Prasii is only the Greek form of Palasa or Parasa, which is an actual and well-known name of Magadha, of which Palibothra was the capital. It obtained this name from the Palasa, or Butea frondosa, which still grows as luxuriantly in the province as in the time of Hiwen Thsang. The common form of the name is Paras, or when quickly pronounced Pras, which I take to be the true original of the Greek Prasii. This derivation is supported by the spelling of the name given by Curtius, who calls the people Pharrasii, which is an almost exact transcript of the Indian name Parasiya. The Praxiakos of AElian is only the derivative from Palasaka.

Chap. XXI. --According to Vincent, the expedition started on the 23rd of October 327 B.C.; the text indicates the year 326, but the correct date is 325. The lacuna marked by the asterisks has been supplied by inserting the name of the Macedonian month Dius. The Ephesians adopted the names of the months used by the Macedonians, and so began their year with the month Dius, the first day of which corresponds to the 24th of September. The harbour from which the expedition sailed was distant from the sea 150 stadia. It was probably in the island called by Arrian, in the Anabasis (vi. 19) Killuta, in the western arm of the Indus,—that now called the Pitti mouth.

Kaumara may perhaps be represented by the modern Khau, the name of one of the mouths of the Indus in the part through which the expedition passed.

Koreestis. —This name does not occur elsewhere. Regarding the sunken reef encountered by the fleet after leaving this place, Sir Alexander Burnes says: "Near the mouth of the river we passed a rock stretching across the stream, which is particularly mentioned by Nearchus, who calls it a dangerous rock, and is the more remarkable since there is not even a stone below Tatta, in any other part of the Indus." The rock, he adds, is at a distance of six miles up the Pitti. ‘‘It is vain," says Captain Wood in the narrative of his Journey to the Source of the Oxus, in the delta of such a river (as the Indus), to identify existing localities with descriptions handed down to us by the historians of Alexander the Great .... (but) Burnes has, I think, shown that the mouth by which the Grecian fleet left the Indus was the modern Piti. The ‘dangerous rock’ of Nearchus completely identifies the spot, and as it is still in existence, without any other within a circle of many miles, we can wish for no stronger evidence.” With regard to the canal dug through this rock, Burnes remarks: "The Greek admiral only availed himself of the experience of the people, for it is yet customary among the natives of Sind to dig shallow canals and leave the tides or river to deepen them; and a distance of five stadia, or half a mile, would call for not great labour. It is not to be that sandbanks will continue unaltered for centuries, but I may observe that there was a large bank contiguous to the island, between it and which a passage like that of Nearchus might have been dug with the greatest advantage.” The same author thus describes the mouth of the Piti: -- "Beginning from the westward we have the Pitti month, an embouchure of the Buggaur, that falls into what may be called the Bay of Karachi. It has no bar, but a large sandbank together with an island outside prevent a direct passage into it from the sea, and narrow the chamnel to about half a mile at its mouth.”

Krokala.—"Karachi,” says General Cunningham, must have been on the eastern frontier of the Arabitae,—a deduction which is admitted by the common consent of all inquirers, who have agreed in identifying the Kolaka of Ptolemy, and the sandy island of Krokola where Nearchus tarried with his fleet for one day, with a small island in the bay of Karachi. Krokala is further described as lying off the mainland of the Arabii. It was 150 stadia, or 17-1/4 miles, from the western mouth of the Indus,—which agrees exactly with the relative positions of Karachi and the mouth of the Ghara river, if, as we may fairly assume, the present coast-line has advanced five or six miles during the twenty-one centuries that have elapsed since the death of Alexander. The identification is confirmed by the fact that the district in which Karachi is situated is called Karkalla to this day. On leaving Krokala, Nearchus had Mount Eiros (Manora) on his right hand, and a low flat island on his left, -- which is a very accurate description of the entrance to Karachi harbour.”

Arabii.— The name is variously written, -- Arabitae, Arbii, Arabies, Arbies, Aribes, Arbiti. The name of their river has also several forms,— Arabis, Arabius, Artabis, Artabius. It is now called the Purali, the river which flows through the present district of Las into the bay of Sonmiyani.

Oritae. The name in Curtius is Horitae. General Cunningham identifies them with the people on the Aghor river, whom he says the Greeks would have named Agoritae or Aoritae, by the suppression of the guttural, of which a trace still remains in the initial aspirate of 'Horitae.' Some would connect the name with Haur, a town which lay on the route to Firabaz, in Mekran.

Bibakta.—The form of the name is Bibaga in Pliny, who gives its distance from Krokala at twelve miles. Vincent would refer it to the island now called Chilney,—which, however, is too distant.

Sangada. This name D’Anville thought survived in that of a race of noted pirates who infested the stores of the gulf of Kachh, called the Sangadians or Sangarians.

Chap. XXII. —The coast from Karachi to the Purali has undergone considerable changes, so that the position of the places mentioned in this chapter cannot be precisely determined. ‘'From Cape Monze to Sonmiyani,” says Blair, ‘the coast bears evident marks of having suffered considerable alterations from the encroachments of the sea. We found trees which had been washed down, and which afforded us a supply of fuel. In some parts I saw imperfect creeks in a parallel direction with the coast. These might probably be the vestiges of that narrow channel through which the Greek galleys passed.”

Domae.—This island is not known, but it probably lay near the rocky headland of Irus, now called Manora, which protects the port of Karachi from the sea and bad weather.

Morontobari.—‘*The name of Morontobara,” says General Cunningham, “I would identify with Muari, which is now applied to the headland of Ras Muari or Cape Monze, the last point of the Pab range of motmtains. Bara, or Bari means a roadstead or haven; and Moranta is evidently connected with the Persian Mard, a man, of which the feminine is still preserved in Kasmiri, as Mahrin, a woman. From the distances given by Arrian, I am inclined to fix it at the month of the Bahar rivulet, a small stream which falls into the sea about midway between Cape Monze and Sonmiyani." Women's Haven is mentioned by Ptolemy and Ammianus Marcellinus. There is in the neighbourhood a mountain now called Mor, which may be a remnant of the name Morontobari. The channel through which the fleet passed after leaving this place no longer exists, and the island has of course disappeared.

Haven at the mouth of the Arabis. —The Purali discharges its waters into the bay of Sonmiyani, as has been already mentioned. "Sonmiyani,” says Kempthorne, "is a small town or fishing village situated at the mouth of a creek which runs up some distance inland. It is governed by a sheikh, and the inhabitants appear to be very poor, chiefly subsisting on dried fish and rice. A very extensive bar or sandbank runs across the month of this inlet, and none but vessels of small burden can get over it even at high water, but inside the water is deep.” The inhabitants of the present day are as badly off for water as their predecessors of old. Everything,” says one who visited the place, "is scarce, even water, which is procured by digging a hole five or six feet deep, and as many in diameter, in a place which was formerly a swamp; and if the water oozes, which sometimes it does not, it serves them that day, and perhaps the next, when it turns quite brackish, owing to the nitrous quality of the earth.”

CHAP. XXIII. Pagali.—Another form is Pegadae, met with in Philostratus. who wrote a work on India.

Kabana.—To judge from the distances given, this place should be near the stream now called Agbor, on which is situated Harkana. It is probably the Kaeamba of Ptolemy.

Kokala must have been situated near the headland now called Ras Katchari.

CHAP. XXIV. Tomeros.—From the distances given, this must be identified with the Maklow or Hingal river; some would, however, make it the Bhusal. The form of the name in Pliny is Tomberus, and in Mela—Tubero. These authors mention another river in connection with the Tomerus, -- the Arosapes or Arusaces.

XXV. Malana.—Its modern representative is doubtless Ras Malin or Malen.

The Length of the Voyage, 1600 stadia. -- In reality the length is only between 1000 and 1100 stadia, even when allowance is made for the winding of the coast. Probably the difficulty of the navigation made the distances appear much greater than the reality.

Chap. XXVI. The Gedrosians.—Their country, which corresponds generally to Mekran, was called Gedrosia, Kedrosia, Gadrosia, or Gadrusia. The people were an Arianian race akin to the Arachosii, Arii, and Drangiani.

Bagisara.— ‘‘This place,” says Kempthorne, ‘‘is now known by the name of Arabah or Hormarah Bay, and is deep and commodious with good anchorage, sheltered from all winds but those from the southward and eastward. The point which forms this bay is very high and precipitous, and runs out some distance into the sea.... Rather a large fishing village is situated on a low sandy isthmus about one mile across, which divides the bay from another. .... The only articles of provision we could obtain from the inhabitants were a few fowls, some dried fish, and goats. They grow no kind of vegetable or corn, a few water-melons being the only thing these desolate regions bring forth. Sandy deserts extend into the interior as far as the eye can reach, and at the back of these rise high mountains.”

The Rhapua of Ptolemy corresponds to the Bagisara or Pasira of Arrian, and evidently survives in the present name of the bay and the headland of Araba.

Kolta. —A place unknown. It was situated on the other side of the isthmus which connects Ras Araba with the mainland.

Kalybi.—A different form is Kalami or Kalamae. Situated on the river now called Kalami, or Kumra, or Kurmut.

Karnine (other forms—Karbine, Karmina). The coast was probably called Karmin, if Karmis is represented in Kurmat. The island lying twelve miles off the month of the Kalami is now called Astola or Sanga-dip, which Kempthorne thus describes: -- "Ashtola is a small desolate island about four or five miles in circumference, situated twelve miles from the coast of Mekran. Its cliffs rise rather abruptly from the sea to the height of about 300 feet, and it is inaccessible except in one place, which is a sandy beach about one mile in extent on the northern side. Great quantities of turtle frequent this island for the purpose of depositing their eggs. Nearchus anchored off it and called it Karnine. He says also that he received hospitable entertainment from its inhabitants, their presents being cattle and fish; but not a vestige of any habitation now remains. The Arabs come to this island and kill immense numbers of these turtles,—not for the purpose of food, but they traffic with the shell to China, where it is made into a kind of paste and then into combs, ornaments, &c., in imitation of tortoise-shell. The carcasses caused a stench almost unbearable. The only land animals we could see on the island were rats, and they were swarming. They feed chiefly on the dead turtle. The island was once famous as the rendezvous of the Jowassimee pirates.” Vincent quotes Blair to this effect regarding the island:—“We were warned by the natives at Passara that it would be dangerous to approach the island of Asthola, as it was enchanted, and that a ship had been turned into a rock. The superstitious story did not deter us; we visited the island, found plenty of excellent turtle, and saw the rock alluded to, which at a distance had the appearance of a ship under sail. The story was probably told to prevent our disturbing the turtle. It has, however, some affinity to the tale of Nearchus’s transport.” As the enchanted island mentioned afterwards (chap, xxxi.), under the name of Nosala, was 100 stadia distant from the coast, it was probably the same as Karnine.

Kissa.—Another form is Kysa.

Mosarna.—The place according to Ptolemy is 900 stadia distant from the Kalami river, but according to Marcianus 1300 stadia. It must have been situated in the neighbourhood of Cape Passence. The distances here are so greatly exaggerated that the text is suspected to be corrupt or disturbed. From Mosarna to Kophas the distance is represented as 1750 stadia, and yet the distance from Cape Passence to Ras Koppa (the Kephas of the text) is barely 500 stadia.

Chap. XXVII. Balomon.— The name does not occur elsewhere.

Barna.—This place is called in Ptolemy and Marcianus Badera or Bodera, and may have been situated near the cape now called Chemaul Bunder.

Dendrobosa—In Ptolemy a place is mentioned called Derenoibila, which may be the same as this. The old name perhaps survives in the modern Daram or Duram, the name of a highland on part of the coast between Cape Passence and Guadel.

Kyiza.—According to Ptolemy and Marcianus this place lay 400 stadia to the west of the promontory of Alambator (now Ras Guadel). Some trace of the word may be recognized in Ras Ghunse, which now designates a point of land situated about those parts.

The little town attacked by Nearchus.—The promontory in its neighbourhood called Bagia is mentioned by Ptolemy and Marcianus, the latter of whom gives its distance from Kyiza at 260 stadia, which is but half the distance as given by Arrian. To the west of this was the river Kaudryaces or Hydriaces, the modern Baghwar Dasti or Muhani river, which falls into the Bay of Gwattar.

Chap. XXIX. Talmena.—A name not found elsewhere. To judge by the distance assigned, it must be placed on what is now called Chaubar Bay, on the shores of which are three towns, one being called Tiz,—perhaps the modern representative of Tisa, a place in those parts mentioned by Ptolemy, and which may have been the Talmena of Arrian.

Kanasis.—The name is not found elsewhere. It must have been situated on a bay enclosed within the two headlands Ras Fuggem and Ras Godem.

Kanate probably stood on the site of the modern Kungoun, which is near Ras Kalat, and not far from the river Bunth.

Troes.—Erratum for Troi; another form is Tai.

Dagasira.—The place in Ptolemy is called Agris polis,—in Marcianus -- Agrisa. The modern name is Girishk.

10,000 stadia.—The length of the coast line of the Ichthyophagi is given by Strabo at 7300 stadia only. “This description of the natives, with that of their mode of living and the country they inhabit, is strictly correct even to the present day.” (Kempthome.)

Chap. XXX.— In illustration of the statements in the text regarding whales may be compared Strabo, XV. ii. 12, 13.

Chap. XXXII.— Karmania extended from Cape Jask to Ras Nabend, and comprehended the districts now called Moghostan, Kirman, and Laristan, Its metropolis, according to Ptolemy, was Karmana, now Kirman, which gives its name to the whole province. The first port in Karmania reached by the expedition was in the neighbourhood of Cape Jask, where the coast is described as being very rocky, and dangerous to mariners on account of shoals and rocks under water. Kempthorne says: "The cliffs along this part of the coast are very high, and in many places almost perpendicular. Some have a singular appearance, one near Jask being exactly of the shape of a quoin or wedge; and another is a very remarkable peak, being formed by three stones, as if placed by human hands, one on the top of the other. It is very high, and has the resemblance of a chimney.”

Bados.—Erratum for Badis. It is near Jask, beyond which was the promontory now called Raj Keragi or Cape Bombarak, which marks the entrance to the Straits of Ormus.

Maketa.——How Ras Mussendum, in Oman -- about fifty miles, according to Pliny, from the opposite coast of Karmania. It figures in Lalla Rookh as “Selama's sainted cape.”

Chap. XXXIII. Neoptana.—This place is not mentioned elsewhere, but must have been situated somewhere in the neighbourhood of the village of Karun.

The Anamis (other forms—Ananis, Andanis, Andamis).—It is now called the Nurab.

Harmozia (other forms—Hormazia, Armizia regio). -- The name was transferred from the mainland to the island now called Ormus when the inhabitants fled thither to escape from the Moghals. It is called by Arrian Organa (chap. xxxvii.). The Arabians called it Djerun, a name which it continued to bear up to the 12th century. Pliny mentions an island called Oguris, of which perhaps Djerun is a corruption. He ascribes to it the honour of having been the birthplace of Erythres. The description, however, which, he gives of it is more applicable to the island called by Arrian (chap, xxxvii.) Oarakta (now Kishm) than to Ormus. Arrian’s description of Harmozia is still applicable to the region adjacent to the Minab. “It is termed,” says Kempthorne, “ the Paradise of Persia. It is certainly most beautifully fertile, and abounds in orange groves, orchards containing apples, pears, peaches, and apricots, with vineyards producing a delicious grape, from which was made at one time a wine called Amber rosolia, generally considered the white wine of Kishma; but no wine is made here now.” The old name of Kishma—Oarakta—is preserved in one of its modern names, Vrokt or Brokt.

Chap. XXXVII. The island sacred to Poseidon. —The island now called Angar, or Hanjam, to the south of Kishm.It is described as being nearly destitute of vegetation and uninhabited. Its hills, of volcanic origin, rise to a height of 300 feet. The other island, distant from the mainland about 300 stadia, is now called the Great Tombo, near which is a smaller island called Little Tombo. They are low, flat, and uninhabited. They are 25 miles distant from the western extremity of Kishm.

Pylora.—How Polior.

Sisidone (other forms—Prosidodone, pro-Sidodone, pros Sidone, pros Dodone). Kempthorne thought this was the small fishing village now called Mogos, situated in a bay of the same name. The name may perhaps be preserved in the name of a village in the same neighbourhood, called Dnan Tarsia—now Rasel Djard —described as high and rugged, and of a reddish colour.

Kataka.—Now the island called Kaes or Kenn. Its character has altered, as it is now covered with dwarf trees, and grows wheat and tobacco. It supplies ships with refreshment, chiefly goats and sheep and a few vegetables.

Chap. XXXVIII.—The boundary between Karmania and Persis was formed by a range of mountains opposite the island of Kataka. Ptolemy, however, makes Karmania extend much further, to the river Bagradas, now called the Naban or Nabend.

Kaekander (other forms—Kekander, Kikander, Kaskandrus, Karkundrus, Karskandrus, Sasaekander). This island, which is now called Inderabia or Andaravia, is about four or five miles from the mainland, having a small town on the north side, where is a safe and commodious harbour. The other island mentioned immediately after is probably that now called Busheab. It is, according to Kempthorne, a low, flat island about eleven miles from the mainland, containing a small town principally inhabited by Arabs, who live on fish and dates. The harbour has good anchorage even for large vessels.

Apostana.—Near a place now called Schevar. It is thought that the name may he traced in Dahr Asban, an adjacent mountain ridge of which Ochus was probably the southern extremity.

The bay with numerous villages on its shores is that on which Naban or Nabend is now situated. It is not far from the river called by Ptolemy the Bagradas. The place abounds with palm-trees, as of old.

Grogana.—How Konkan or Konaun. The bay lacks depth of water, still a stream falls into it—the Areon of the text. To the northwest of this place in the interior lay Pasargada, the ancient capital of Persia and the burial-place of Cyrus.

Sitakus.—The Sitiogagus of Pliny, who, states that from its mouth an ascent could be made to Pasargada in seven days; but this is manifestly an error. It is now represented by a stream called Sita-Khegian.

Chap. XXXIX. Hieratis.—The changes which have taken place along the coast have been so considerable that it is difficult to explain this part of the narrative consistently with the now existing state of things.

Mesambria.—The peninsula lies so low that at times of high tide it is all but submerged. The modern Abu-Shahr or Bushir is situated on it.

Taoke, on the river Granis.—Nearchus, it is probable, put into the mouth of the river now called the Kisht. A town exists in the neighbourhood called Gra or Gran, which may have received its name from the Granis. The | royal city (or rather palace) 200 stadia distant from this river is mentioned by Strabo, XV. 3, 3, as being situate on the coast.

Rogonis.—It is written Rhogomanis by Ammianus Marcellinus, who mentions it as one of the four largest rivers in Persia, the other three being the Vatrachitis; Brisoana, and Bagrada.

Brizana.—Its position cannot be fixed with certainty.

Oroatis.—Another form is Arosis. It answers to the Zarotis of Pliny, who states that the navigation at its mouth was difficult, except to those well acquainted with it. It formed the boundary between Persis and Susiana. The form Oroatis corresponds to the Zend word aurwat, ‘swift.’ It is now called the Tab.

Chap. XL. Uxii.—They are mentioned by the author in the Anabasis, bk. vii. 15, 3.

Persis has three different climates.—On this point compare Strabo, bk. xv. 3, 1.

Ambassadors from the Euxine Sea.-- It has been conjectured that the text here is imperfect; Schmieder opines that the story about the ambassadors is a fiction.

Chap. XLI. Kataderbis.—This is the bay which receives the streams of the Mensureh and Dorak; at its entrance lie two islands, Bunah and Deri, one of which is the Margastana of Arrian.

Diridotis.—This is called by other writers Teredon, and is said to have been founded by Nabuchodonosor. Mannert places it on the island now called Bubian; Colonel Chesney, however, fixes its position at Jebel Sanam, a gigantic mound near the Pallacopas branch of the Euphrates, considerably to the north of the embouchure of the present Euphrates. Nearchus had evidently passed unawares the main stream formed by the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris (called by some the Pasitigris), and sailed too far westward. Hence he had to retrace his course, as mentioned in the next chapter.

Chap. XLII. Pasitigris.—The Eulaeus, now called the Karun, one arm of which united with the Tigris, while the other fell into the sea by an independent mouth. It is the Ulai of the prophet Daniel. Pas is said to be an old Persian word meaning small. By some writers the name Pasitigris was applied to the united stream of the Tigris and Euphrates, now called the Shat-el-Arab.

The distance from where they entered the lake to where they entered the river was 600 stadia.— A reconsideration of this passage has led me to adopt the view of those who place Aginis on the Tigris, and not on the Pasitigris. I would therefore now translate thus:—“The ascent from the southern (end of the) lake to where the river Tigris falls into it is 600 stadia." The fleet, therefore, could not have visited Aginis. The courses of the rivers and the conformation of the country have all undergone great changes, and hence the identification of localities is a matter of difficulty and uncertainty. The distance from Aginis to Susa appears to me to be much under-estimated.

The following extract from Strabo will illustrate this part of the narrative:—

Polycletus says that the Choaspes, and the Eulaeus, and the Tigris also enter a lake, and thence discharge themselves into the sea; that on the side of the lake is a mart, as the rivers do not receive the merchandize from the sea, nor convey it down to the sea, on account of dams in the river, purposely constructed; and that the goods are transported by land, a distance of 800 stadia, to Susis: according to others, the rivers which flow through Susis discharge themselves by the intermediate canals of the Euphrates into the single stream of the Tigris, which on this account has at its mouth the name of Pasitigris. According to Nearchus, the sea-coast of Susis is swampy and terminates at the river Euphrates; at its mouth is a village which receives the merchandize from Arabia, for the coast of Arabia approaches close to the mouths of the Euphrates and the Pasitigris; the whole intermediate space is occupied by a lake which receives the Tigris. On sailing up the Pasitigris 150 stadia is a bridge of rafts leading to Susa from Persia, and is distant from Susa 60 (600?) stadia; the Pasitigris is distant from the Oroatis about 2000 stadia; the ascent through the lake to the mouth of the Tigris is 600 stadia; near the mouth stands the Susian village Aginis, distant from Susa 500 stadia; the journey by water from the mouth of the Euphrates up to Babylon, through a well-inhabited tract of country, is a distance of more than 3000 stadia."—Book xv. 3, Bohn’s translation.

The Bridge.—This according to Ritter and Rawlinson, was formed at a point near the modern village of Ahwaz. Arrowsmith places Aginis at Ahwaz.

Chap. XLIII.—The 3rd part of the Indica, the purport of which is to prove that the southern parts of the world are uninhabitable, begins, with this chapter.

The troops sent by Ptolemy. —It is not known when or wherefore Ptolemy sent troops on this expedition.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:18 am

Kanishka
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 9/3/21

Image
Kanishka I
Kushan emperor
Gold coin of Kanishka. Greco-Bactrian legend: [x] Shaonanoshao Kanishki Koshano "King of Kings, Kanishka the Kushan". British Museum.
Reign: 2nd century (120-144)
Predecessor: Vima Kadphises
Successor: Huvishka
Born: c. 70, Kapisi
Died: 144 (aged 73-74)
Dynasty: Kushan dynasty
Religion: Buddhism

Kanishka I (Sanskrit: [x]; Greco-Bactrian: [x] Kanēške; Kharosthi: [x] Ka-ṇi-ṣka, Kaṇiṣka;[1] Brahmi: Kā-ṇi-ṣka), or Kanishka the Great, an emperor of the Kushan dynasty in the second century (c. 127–150 CE),[2] is famous for his military, political, and spiritual achievements. A descendant of Kujula Kadphises, founder of the Kushan empire, Kanishka came to rule an empire in Gandhara extending to Pataliputra on the Gangetic plain. The main capital of his empire was located at Puruṣapura (Peshawar) in Gandhara, with another major capital at Kapisa. Coins of Kanishka were found in Tripuri (jabalpur madhya pradesh)

His conquests and patronage of Buddhism played an important role in the development of the Silk Road, and in the transmission of Mahayana Buddhism from Gandhara across the Karakoram range to China. Around 127 CE, he replaced Greek by Bactrian as the official language of administration in the empire.[3]

Earlier scholars believed that Kanishka ascended the Kushan throne in 78 CE, and that this date was used as the beginning of the Saka calendar era. However, historians no longer regard this date as that of Kanishka's accession. Falk estimates that Kanishka came to the throne in 127 CE.[4]

Genealogy

Image
Mathura statue of Kanishka. The Kanishka statue in the Mathura Museum. There is a dedicatory inscription along the bottom of the coat.

Image
The inscription is in middle Brahmi script:
Mahārāja Rājadhirāja Devaputra Kāṇiṣka
"The Great King, King of Kings, Son of God, Kanishka".[5]
Mathura art, Mathura Museum

Kanishka was a Kushan of probable Yuezhi ethnicity.[6] His native language is unknown. The Rabatak inscription uses a Greek script, to write a language described as Arya (αρια) – most likely a form of Bactrian native to Ariana, which was an Eastern Iranian language of the Middle Iranian period.[7] However, this was likely adopted by the Kushans to facilitate communication with local subjects. It is not certain, what language the Kushan elite spoke among themselves.

Kanishka was the successor of Vima Kadphises, as demonstrated by an impressive genealogy of the Kushan kings, known as the Rabatak inscription.[8][9] The connection of Kanishka with other Kushan rulers is described in the Rabatak inscription as Kanishka makes the list of the kings who ruled up to his time: Kujula Kadphises as his great-grandfather, Vima Taktu as his grandfather, Vima Kadphises as his father, and himself Kanishka: "for King Kujula Kadphises (his) great grandfather, and for King Vima Taktu (his) grandfather, and for King Vima Kadphises (his) father, and *also for himself, King Kanishka".[10]

Conquests in South and Central Asia

Kanishka's empire was certainly vast. It extended from southern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, north of the Amu Darya (Oxus) in the north west to Northern India, as far as Mathura in the south east (the Rabatak inscription even claims he held Pataliputra and Sri Champa), and his territory also included Kashmir, where there was a town Kanishkapur (modern day Kanispora), named after him not far from the Baramula Pass and which still contains the base of a large stupa.

Knowledge of his hold over Central Asia is less well established. The Book of the Later Han, Hou Hanshu, states that general Ban Chao fought battles near Khotan with a Kushan army of 70,000 men led by an otherwise unknown Kushan viceroy named Xie (Chinese:[x]) in 90 AD. Ban Chao claimed to be victorious, forcing the Kushans to retreat by use of a scorched-earth policy. The territories of Kashgar, Khotan and Yarkand were Chinese dependencies in the Tarim Basin, modern Xinjiang. Several coins of Kanishka have been found in the Tarim Basin.[11]

Controlling both the land (the Silk Road) and sea trade routes between South Asia and Rome seems to have been one of Kanishka's chief imperial goals.

Image
Kushan territories (full line) and maximum extent of Kushan dominions under Kanishka (dotted line), according to the Rabatak inscription.[12]

Image
Probable statue of Kanishka, Surkh Kotal, 2nd century CE. Kabul Museum.[13]

Image
Bronze coin of Kanishka, found in Khotan, modern China.

Image
Samatata coinage of king Vira Jadamarah, in imitation of the Kushan coinage of Kanishka I. Bengal, circa 2nd-3rd century CE.[14]

Kanishka's coins

Kanishka's coins portray images of Indian, Greek, Iranian and even Sumero-Elamite divinities, demonstrating the religious syncretism in his beliefs. Kanishka's coins from the beginning of his reign bear legends in Greek language and script and depict Greek divinities. Later coins bear legends in Bactrian, the Iranian language that the Kushans evidently spoke, and Greek divinities were replaced by corresponding Iranian ones. All of Kanishka's coins – even ones with a legend in the Bactrian language – were written in a modified Greek script that had one additional glyph ([x]) to represent /[x]/ (sh), as in the word 'Kushan' and 'Kanishka'.

On his coins, the king is typically depicted as a bearded man in a long coat and trousers gathered at the ankle, with flames emanating from his shoulders. He wears large rounded boots, and is armed with a long sword as well as a lance. He is frequently seen to be making a sacrifice on a small altar. The lower halfIranian and Indic of a lifesize limestone relief of Kanishka similarly attired, with a stiff embroidered surplice beneath his coat and spurs attached to his boots under the light gathered folds of his trousers, survived in the Kabul Museum until it was destroyed by the Taliban.[15]

Hellenistic phase

Image
Gold coin of Kanishka I with Greek legend and Hellenistic divinity Helios. (c. 120 AD).
Obverse: Kanishka standing, clad in heavy Kushan coat and long boots, flames emanating from shoulders, holding a standard in his left hand, and making a sacrifice over an altar. Greek legend [x]"[coin] of Kanishka, king of kings".
Reverse: Standing Helios in Hellenistic style, forming a benediction gesture with the right hand. Legend in Greek script: [x] Helios. Kanishka monogram (tamgha) to the left.

A few coins at the beginning of his reign have a legend in the Greek language and script: [x], basileus basileon kaneshkou "[coin] of Kanishka, king of kings."

Greek deities, with Greek names are represented on these early coins:

• [x] (ēlios, Hēlios), [x] (ēphaēstos, Hephaistos), [x] (salēnē, Selene), [x] (anēmos, Anemos)

The inscriptions in Greek are full of spelling and syntactical errors.

Iranian / Indic phase

Following the transition to the Bactrian language on coins, Iranian and Indic divinities replace the Greek ones:

• [x] (ardoxsho, Ashi Vanghuhi)
• [x] (lrooaspo, Drvaspa)
• [x] (adsho, Atar)
• [x] (pharro, personified khwarenah)
• ΜΑΟ (mao, Mah)
• [x], (mithro, miiro, mioro, miuro, variants of Mithra)
• [x] (mozdaooano, "Mazda the victorious?")
• ΝΑΝΑ, ΝΑΝΑΙΑ, [x] (variants of pan-Asiatic Nana, Sogdian nny, in a Zoroastrian context Aredvi Sura Anahita)
• [x] (manaobago, Vohu Manah )
• [x] (oado, Vata)
• [x] (orlagno, Verethragna)

Only a few Buddhist divinities were used as well:

• [x] (boddo, Buddha),
• [x] (shakamano boddho, Shakyamuni Buddha)
• [x] (metrago boddo, the bodhisattava Maitreya)

Only a few Hindu divinities were used as well:

[x] (oesho, Shiva). A recent study indicate that oesho may be Avestan Vayu conflated with Shiva.[16][17]

Kanishka and Buddhism

Image
Gold coin of Kanishka I with a representation of the Buddha (c.120 AD).
Obv: Kanishka standing.., clad in heavy Kushan coat and long boots, flames emanating from shoulders, holding standard in his left hand, and making a sacrifice over an altar. Kushan-language legend in Greek script (with the addition of the Kushan [x] "sh" letter): [x] ("Shaonanoshao Kanishki Koshano"): "King of Kings, Kanishka the Kushan".
Rev: Standing Buddha in Hellenistic style, forming the gesture of "no fear" (abhaya mudra) with his right hand, and holding a pleat of his robe in his left hand. Legend in Greek script: [x] "Boddo", for the Buddha. Kanishka monogram (tamgha) to the right.


Kanishka's reputation in Buddhist tradition regarded with utmost importance as he not only believed in Buddhism but also encouraged its teachings as well. As a proof of it, he administered the 4th Buddhist Council in Kashmir as the head of the council. It was presided by Vasumitra and Ashwaghosha. Images of the Buddha based on 32 physical signs were made during his time.

He encouraged both Gandhara school of Greco-Buddhist Art and the Mathura school of Hindu art (an inescapable religious syncretism pervades Kushana rule). Kanishka personally seems to have embraced both Buddhism and the Persian attributes but he favored Buddhism more as it can be proven by his devotion to the Buddhist teachings and prayer styles depicted in various books related to kushan empire.

His greatest contribution to Buddhist architecture was the Kanishka stupa at Purushapura, modern day Peshawar. Archaeologists who rediscovered the base of it in 1908–1909 estimated that this stupa had a diameter of 286 feet (87 metres). Reports of Chinese pilgrims such as Xuanzang indicate that its height was 600 to 700 (Chinese) "feet" (= roughly 180–210 metres or 591–689 ft.) and was covered with jewels.[18] Certainly this immense multi-storied building ranks among the wonders of the ancient world.

Kanishka is said to have been particularly close to the Buddhist scholar Ashvaghosha, who became his religious advisor in his later years.

Buddhist coinage

The Buddhist coins of Kanishka are comparatively rare (well under one percent of all known coins of Kanishka). Several show Kanishka on the obverse and the Buddha standing on the reverse. A few also show the Shakyamuni Buddha and Maitreya. Like all coins of Kanishka, the design is rather rough and proportions tend to be imprecise; the image of the Buddha is often slightly overdone, with oversize ears and feet spread apart in the same fashion as the Kushan king.

Three types of Kanishka's Buddhist coins are known:

Standing Buddha

Image
Depiction of the Buddha enveloped in a mandala in Kanishka's coinage. The mandorla is normally considered as a late evolution in Gandhara art.[19]

Only six Kushan coins of the Buddha are known in gold (the sixth one is the centerpiece of an ancient piece of jewellery, consisting of a Kanishka Buddha coin decorated with a ring of heart-shaped ruby stones). All these coins were minted in gold under Kanishka I, and are in two different denominations: a dinar of about 8 gm, roughly similar to a Roman aureus, and a quarter dinar of about 2 gm. (about the size of an obol).

The Buddha is represented wearing the monastic robe, the antaravasaka, the uttarasanga, and the overcoat sanghati.

The ears are extremely large and long, a symbolic exaggeration possibly rendered necessary by the small size of the coins, but otherwise visible in some later Gandharan statues of the Buddha typically dated to the 3rd–4th century CE (illustration, left). He has an abundant topknot covering the usnisha, often highly stylised in a curly or often globular manner, also visible on later Buddha statues of Gandhara.

In general, the representation of the Buddha on these coins is already highly symbolic, and quite distinct from the more naturalistic and Hellenistic images seen in early Gandhara sculptures. On several designs a mustache is apparent. The palm of his right hand bears the Chakra mark, and his brow bear the urna. An aureola, formed by one, two or three lines, surrounds him.

The full gown worn by the Buddha on the coins, covering both shoulders, suggests a Gandharan model rather than a Mathuran one.

"Shakyamuni Buddha"

Image
Depictions of the "Shakyamuni Buddha" (with legend [x] "Shakamano Boddo") in Kanishka's coinage.

The Shakyamuni Buddha (with the legend "Sakamano Boudo", i.e. Shakamuni Buddha, another name for the historic Buddha Siddharta Gautama), standing to front, with left hand on hip and forming the abhaya mudra with the right hand. All these coins are in copper only, and usually rather worn.

The gown of the Shakyamuni Buddha is quite light compared to that on the coins in the name of Buddha, clearly showing the outline of the body, in a nearly transparent way. These are probably the first two layers of monastic clothing the antaravasaka and the uttarasanga. Also, his gown is folded over the left arm (rather than being held in the left hand as above), a feature only otherwise known in the Bimaran casket and suggestive of a scarf-like uttariya. He has an abundant topknot covering the ushnisha, and a simple or double halo, sometimes radiating, surrounds his head.

"Maitreya Buddha"

Image
Depictions of "Maitreya" (with legend [x] "Metrago Boddo") in Kanishka's coinage.

The Bodhisattva Maitreya (with the legend "Metrago Boudo") cross-legged on a throne, holding a water pot, and also forming the Abhaya mudra. These coins are only known in copper and are quite worn out . On the clearest coins, Maitreya seems to be wearing the armbands of an Indian prince, a feature often seen on the statuary of Maitreya. The throne is decorated with small columns, suggesting that the coin representation of Maitreya was directly copied from pre-existing statuary with such well-known features.

The qualification of "Buddha" for Maitreya is inaccurate, as he is instead a Bodhisattva (he is the Buddha of the future).

The iconography of these three types is very different from that of the other deities depicted in Kanishka's coinage. Whether Kanishka's deities are all shown from the side, the Buddhas only are shown frontally, indicating that they were copied from contemporary frontal representations of the standing and seated Buddhas in statuary.[20] Both representations of the Buddha and Shakyamuni have both shoulders covered by their monastic gown, indicating that the statues used as models were from the Gandhara school of art, rather than Mathura.

Buddhist statuary under Kanishka

See also: Kushan art

Several Buddhist statues are directly connected to the reign of Kanishka, such as several Bodhisattva statues from the Art of Mathura, while a few other from Gandhara are inscribed with a date in an era which is now thought to be the Yavana era, starting in 186 to 175 BCE.[21]

Dated statuary under Kanishka

Image
Kosambi Bodhisattva, inscribed "Year 2 of Kanishka".[22]

Image
Bala Bodhisattva, Sarnath, inscribed "Year 3 of Kanishka".[23]

Image
"Kimbell seated Buddha", with inscription "year 4 of Kanishka" (131 CE).[24][25] Another similar statue has "Year 32 of Kanishka".[26]

Image
Gandhara Buddhist Triad from Sahr-i-Bahlol, circa 132 CE, similar to the dated Brussels Buddha.[27] Peshawar Museum.[28][29]

Image
Image of a Nāga between two Nāgīs, inscribed in "the year 8 of Emperor Kanishka". 135 CE.[30][31][32]

Image
Buddha from Loriyan Tangai with inscription mentionning the "year 318", thought to be 143 CE.[21]

Image
A Buddha from Loriyan Tangai from the same period.[21]

Kanishka stupa

Main articles: Kanishka stupa and Kanishka casket

Image
Kanishka casket

Image
Remnants of the Kanishka stupa.

Image
Kanishka, surrounded by the Iranian Sun-God and Moon-God (detail)

Image
Relics from Kanishka's stupa in Peshawar, sent by the British to Mandalay, Burma in 1910.

The "Kanishka casket", dated to 127 CE, with the Buddha surrounded by Brahma and Indra, and Kanishka standing at the center of the lower part, British Museum.

The "Kanishka casket" or "Kanishka reliquary", dated to the first year of Kanishka's reign in 127 CE, was discovered in a deposit chamber under Kanishka stupa, during the archaeological excavations in 1908–1909 in Shah-Ji-Ki-Dheri, just outside the present-day Ganj Gate of the old city of Peshawar.[33][34] It is today at the Peshawar Museum, and a copy is in the British Museum. It is said to have contained three bone fragments of the Buddha, which are now housed in Mandalay, Burma.

The casket is dedicated in Kharoshthi. The inscription reads:

"(*mahara)jasa kanishkasa kanishka-pure nagare aya gadha-karae deya-dharme sarva-satvana hita-suhartha bhavatu mahasenasa sagharaki dasa agisala nava-karmi ana*kanishkasa vihare mahasenasa sangharame"


The text is signed by the maker, a Greek artist named Agesilas, who oversaw work at Kanishka's stupas (caitya), confirming the direct involvement of Greeks with Buddhist realisations at such a late date: "The servant Agisalaos, the superintendent of works at the vihara of Kanishka in the monastery of Mahasena" ("dasa agisala nava-karmi ana*kaniskasa vihara mahasenasa sangharame").

The lid of the casket shows the Buddha on a lotus pedestal, and worshipped by Brahma and Indra. The edge of the lid is decorated by a frieze of flying geese. The body of the casket represents a Kushan monarch, probably Kanishka in person, with the Iranian sun and moon gods on his side. On the sides are two images of a seated Buddha, worshiped by royal figures, can be assumed as Kanishka. A garland, supported by cherubs goes around the scene in typical Hellenistic style.

The attribution of the casket to Kanishka has been recently disputed, essentially on stylistic ground (for example the ruler shown on the casket is not bearded, to the contrary of Kanishka). Instead, the casket is often attributed to Kanishka's successor Huvishka.

Kanishka in Buddhist tradition

Image
Kanishka inaugurates Mahayana Buddhism

In Buddhist tradition, Kanishka is often described as an aggressive, hot tempered, rigid, strict, and a bit harsh kind of King before he got converted to Buddhism of which he was very fond, and after his conversion to Buddhism, he became an openhearted, benevolent, and faithful ruler. As in the Sri-dharma-pitaka-nidana sutra:

"At this time the King of Ngan-si (Pahlava) was very aggressive and of a violent nature....There was a bhikshu (monk) arhat who seeing the harsh deeds done by the king wished to make him repent. So by his supernatural force he caused the king to see the torments of hell. The king was terrified and repented and cried terribly and hence dissolved all his negatives within him and got self realised for the first time in life ." Śri-dharma-piṭaka-nidāna sūtra[35]

Additionally, the arrival of Kanishka was reportedly foretold or was predicted by the Buddha, as well as the construction of his stupa:

". . . the Buddha, pointing to a small boy making a mud tope....[said] that on that spot Kaṇiṣka would erect a tope by his name." Vinaya sutra[36]


Image
Coin of Kanishka with the Bodhisattva Maitreya "Metrago Boudo".

Image
The Ahin Posh stupa was dedicated in the 2nd century CE and contained coins of Kaniska

The same story is repeated in a Khotanese scroll found at Dunhuang, which first described how Kanishka would arrive 400 years after the death of the Buddha. The account also describes how Kanishka came to raise his stupa:

"A desire thus arose in [Kanishka to build a vast stupa]....at that time the four world-regents learnt the mind of the king. So for his sake they took the form of young boys....[and] began a stūpa of mud....the boys said to [Kanishka] 'We are making the Kaṇiṣka-stūpa.'....At that time the boys changed their form....[and] said to him, 'Great king, by you according to the Buddha's prophecy is a Saṅghārāma to be built wholly (?) with a large stūpa and hither relics must be invited which the meritorious good beings...will bring."[37]


Chinese pilgrims to India, such as Xuanzang, who travelled there around 630 CE also relays the story:

"Kaṇiṣka became sovereign of all Jambudvīpa (Indian subcontinent) but he did not believe in Karma, but he treated Buddhism with honor and respect as he himself converted to Buddhism intrigued by the teachings and scriptures of it. When he was hunting in the wild country a white hare appeared; the king gave a chase and the hare suddenly disappeared at [the site of the future stupa]....[when the construction of the stūpa was not going as planned] the king lost his patience and took the matter in his own hands and started resurrecting the plans precisely, thus completing the stupas with utmost perfection and perseverance. These two stupas are still in existence and were resorted to for cures by people afflicted with diseases."


King Kanishka because of his deeds was highly respected, regarded, honored by all the people he ruled and governed and was regarded the greatest king who ever lived because of his kindness, humbleness and sense of equality and self-righteousness among all aspects. Thus such great deeds and character of the king Kanishka made his name immortal and thus he was regarded "THE KING OF KINGS"[38]

Transmission of Buddhism to China

Main article: Silk Road transmission of Buddhism

Buddhist monks from the region of Gandhara played a key role in the development and the transmission of Buddhist ideas in the direction of northern Asia from the middle of the 2nd century CE. The Kushan monk, Lokaksema (c. 178 CE), became the first translator of Mahayana Buddhist scriptures into Chinese and established a translation bureau at the Chinese capital Loyang. Central Asian and East Asian Buddhist monks appear to have maintained strong exchanges for the following centuries.

Kanishka was probably succeeded by Huvishka. How and when this came about is still uncertain. It is a fact that there was only one king named Kanishka in the whole Kushan legacy. The inscription on The Sacred Rock of Hunza also shows the signs of Kanishka.

See also

Menander I
• Greco-Buddhism

Footnotes

1. B.N. Mukhjerjee, Shāh-jī-kī-ḍherī Casket Inscription, The British Museum Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1/2 (Summer, 1964), pp. 39-46
2. Bracey, Robert (2017). "The Date of Kanishka since 1960 (Indian Historical Review, 2017, 44(1), 1-41)". Indian Historical Review. 44: 1–41.
3. The Kushans at first retained the Greek language for administrative purposes but soon began to use Bactrian. The Bactrian Rabatak inscription (discovered in 1993 and deciphered in 2000) records that the Kushan king Kanishka the Great (c. 127 AD), discarded Greek (Ionian) as the language of administration and adopted Bactrian ("Arya language"), from Falk (2001): "The yuga of Sphujiddhvaja and the era of the Kuṣâṇas." Harry Falk. Silk Road Art and Archaeology VII, p. 133.
4. Falk (2001), pp. 121–136. Falk (2004), pp. 167–176.
5. Puri, Baij Nath (1965). India under the Kushāṇas. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
6. Findeisen, Raoul David; Isay, Gad C.; Katz-Goehr, Amira (2009). At Home in Many Worlds: Reading, Writing and Translating from Chinese and Jewish Cultures : Essays in Honour of Irene Eber. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 138. ISBN 9783447061353.
7. Gnoli (2002), pp. 84–90.
8. Sims-Williams and Cribb (1995/6), pp.75–142.
9. Sims-Williams (1998), pp. 79–83.
10. Sims-Williams and Cribb (1995/6), p. 80.
11. Hill (2009), p. 11.
12. "The Rabatak inscription claims that in the year 1 Kanishka I's authority was proclaimed in India, in all the satrapies and in different cities like Koonadeano (Kundina), Ozeno (Ujjain), Kozambo (Kausambi), Zagedo (Saketa), Palabotro (Pataliputra) and Ziri-Tambo (Janjgir-Champa). These cities lay to the east and south of Mathura, up to which locality Wima had already carried his victorious arm. Therefore they must have been captured or subdued by Kanishka I himself." Ancient Indian Inscriptions, S. R. Goyal, p. 93. See also the analysis of Sims-Williams and J. Cribb, who had a central role in the decipherment: "A new Bactrian inscription of Kanishka the Great", in Silk Road Art and Archaeology No. 4, 1995–1996. Also see, Mukherjee, B. N. "The Great Kushanan Testament", Indian Museum Bulletin.
13. Lo Muzio, Ciro (2012). "Remarks on the Paintings from the Buddhist Monastery of Fayaz Tepe (Southern Uzbekistan)". Bulletin of the Asia Institute. 22: 189–206.
14. "Samatata coin". British Museum.
15. Wood (2002), illus. p. 39.
16. Sims-Williams (online) Encyclopedia Iranica.
17. H. Humbach, 1975, p.402-408. K. Tanabe, 1997, p.277, M. Carter, 1995, p. 152. J. Cribb, 1997, p. 40. References cited in De l'Indus à l'Oxus.
18. Dobbins (1971).
19. "In Gandhara the appearance of a halo surrounding an entire figure occurs only in the latest phases of artistic production, in the fifth and sixth centuries. By this time in Afghanistan the halo/mandorla had become quite common and is the format that took hold at Central Asian Buddhist sites." in "Metropolitan Museum of Art". http://www.metmuseum.org.
20. The Crossroads of Asia, p. 201. (Full[citation needed] here.)
21. Rhi, Juhyung (2017). Problems of Chronology in Gandharan. Positionning Gandharan Buddhas in Chronology (PDF). Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. pp. 35–51.
22. Early History of Kausambi p.xxi
23. Epigraphia Indica 8 p.179
24. Seated Buddha with inscription starting with [x] Maharajasya Kanishkasya Sam 4 "Year 4 of the Great King Kanishka" in "Seated Buddha with Two Attendants". http://www.kimbellart.org. Kimbell Art Museum.
25. "The Buddhist Triad, from Haryana or Mathura, Year 4 of Kaniska (ad 82). Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth." in Museum (Singapore), Asian Civilisations; Krishnan, Gauri Parimoo (2007). The Divine Within: Art & Living Culture of India & South Asia. World Scientific Pub. p. 113. ISBN 9789810567057.
26. Behrendt, Kurt A. (2007). The Art of Gandhara in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 48, Fig. 18. ISBN 9781588392244.
27. FUSSMAN, Gérard (1974). "Documents Epigraphiques Kouchans". Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient. 61: 54–57. doi:10.3406/befeo.1974.5193. ISSN 0336-1519. JSTOR 43732476.
28. Rhi, Juhyung. Identifying Several Visual Types of Gandharan Buddha Images. Archives of Asian Art 58 (2008). pp. 53–56.
29. The Classical Art Research Centre, University of Oxford (2018). Problems of Chronology in Gandhāran Art: Proceedings of the First International Workshop of the Gandhāra Connections Project, University of Oxford, 23rd-24th March, 2017. Archaeopress. p. 45, notes 28, 29.
30. Sircar, Dineschandra (1971). Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-2790-5.
31. Sastri, H. krishna (1923). Epigraphia Indica Vol-17. pp. 11–15.
32. Luders, Heinrich (1961). Mathura Inscriptions. pp. 148–149.
33. Hargreaves (1910–11), pp. 25–32.
34. Spooner, (1908–9), pp. 38–59.
35. Kumar (1973), p. 95.
36. Kumar (1973), p. 91.
37. Kumar (1973). p. 89.
38. Xuanzang, quoted in: Kumar (1973), p. 93.

References

• Bopearachchi, Osmund (2003). De l'Indus à l'Oxus, Archéologie de l'Asie Centrale (in French). Lattes: Association imago-musée de Lattes. ISBN 978-2-9516679-2-1.
• Chavannes, Édouard. (1906) "Trois Généraux Chinois de la dynastie des Han Orientaux. Pan Tch'ao (32–102 p. C.); – son fils Pan Yong; – Leang K'in (112 p. C.). Chapitre LXXVII du Heou Han chou." T'oung pao 7, (1906) p. 232 and note 3.
• Dobbins, K. Walton. (1971). The Stūpa and Vihāra of Kanishka I. The Asiatic Society of Bengal Monograph Series, Vol. XVIII. Calcutta.
• Falk, Harry (2001): "The yuga of Sphujiddhvaja and the era of the Kuṣâṇas." In: Silk Road Art and Archaeology VII, pp. 121–136.
• Falk, Harry (2004): "The Kaniṣka era in Gupta records." In: Silk Road Art and Archaeology X (2004), pp. 167–176.
• Foucher, M. A. 1901. "Notes sur la geographie ancienne du Gandhâra (commentaire à un chapitre de Hiuen-Tsang)." BEFEO No. 4, Oct. 1901, pp. 322–369.
• Gnoli, Gherardo (2002). "The "Aryan" Language." JSAI 26 (2002).
• Hargreaves, H. (1910–11): "Excavations at Shāh-jī-kī Dhērī"; Archaeological Survey of India, 1910–11.
• Hill, John E. (2009) Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, 1st to 2nd centuries CE. BookSurge, Charleston, South Carolina. ISBN 978-1-4392-2134-1.
• Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1998). A history of India. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-15481-9.
• Kumar, Baldev. 1973. The Early Kuṣāṇas. New Delhi, Sterling Publishers.
• Sims-Williams, Nicholas and Joe Cribb (1995/6): "A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka the Great." Silk Road Art and Archaeology 4 (1996), pp. 75–142.
• Sims-Williams, Nicholas (1998): "Further notes on the Bactrian inscription of Rabatak, with an Appendix on the names of Kujula Kadphises and Vima Taktu in Chinese." Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Edited by Nicholas Sims-Williams. Wiesbaden. 1998, pp. 79–93.
• Sims-Williams, Nicholas. Sims-Williams, Nicolas. "Bactrian Language". Encyclopaedia Iranica. 3. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Accessed: 20/12/2010
• Spooner, D. B. (1908–9): "Excavations at Shāh-jī-kī Dhērī."; Archaeological Survey of India, 1908-9.
• Wood, Frances (2003). The Silk Road: Two Thousand Years in the Heart of Asia. University of California Press. Hbk (2003), ISBN 978-0-520-23786-5; pbk. (2004) ISBN 978-0-520-24340-8


External links

• Media related to Kanishka I at Wikimedia Commons
• A rough guide to Kushana history.
• Online Catalogue of Kanishka's Coins
• Coins of Kanishka
• Controversy regarding the beginning of the Kanishka Era.
• Kanishka Buddhist coins
• Photograph of the Kanishka casket

1. From the dated inscription on the Rukhana reliquary
2. Richard Salomon (July–September 1996). "An Inscribed Silver Buddhist Reliquary of the Time of King Kharaosta and Prince Indravarman". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 116 (3): 418–452 [442]. JSTOR 605147.
3. Richard Salomon (1995) [Published online: 9 Aug 2010]. "A Kharosthī Reliquary Inscription of the Time of the Apraca Prince Visnuvarma". South Asian Studies. 11 (1): 27–32. doi:10.1080/02666030.1995.9628492.
4. Jongeward, David; Cribb, Joe (2014). Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins A Catalogue of Coins From the American Numismatic Society by David Jongeward and Joe Cribb with Peter Donovan. p. 4.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests