* *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Parts of the epic are called Pur[=a]nas, as
other parts are called Upanishads. These are the forerunners
of the extant Pur[=a]nas. The name, indeed, is even older
than the epic, belonging to the late Vedic period, where are
grouped together Pur[=a]nas and Itih[=a]sas, 'Ancient
History' and 'Stories'; to which are added 'Eulogies.' Weber
has long since pointed out that even when the 'deeds of
kings' were sung at a ceremony they were wont to be so
embroidered as to be dubbed 'fiction' by the Hindus
themselves. India has neither literary history (save what
can be gleaned from genealogies of doubtful worth), nor very
early inscriptions. The 'archaeology' of the Pur[=a]nas was
probably always what it is in the extant specimens,
legendary material of no direct historical value.]

[Footnote 2: Strictly speaking to the present
Allah[=a]b[=a]d, where is the Pray[=a]ga, or confluence of
Yamun[=a] and Gang[=a] (Jumna and Ganges).]

[Footnote 3: M[=a]gadha; called Beh[=a]r from its many
monasteries, _vih[=a]ras_, in Acoka's time.]

[Footnote 4: So, plausibly, Mueller, _loc. cit_. below.]

[Footnote 5: The tribes became Hinduized, their chiefs became
R[=a]jputs; their religions doubtless affected the ritual
and creed of the civilized as much as the religion of the
latter colored their own. Some of these un-Aryan peoples
were probably part native, part barbaric. There is much
doubt in regard to the dates that depend on accepted eras.
It is not certain, for instance, that, as Mueller claims,
Kanishka's inauguration coincides with the Caka era, 78 A.D.
A great Buddhist council was held under him. Some
distinguished scholars still think with Buehler that
Vikram[=a]ditya's inauguration was 57 B.C. (this date that
used to be assigned to him). From our present point of view
it is of little consequence when this king himself lived. He
is renowned as patron of arts and as a conqueror of the
barbarians. If he lived in the first century B.C. his
conquest amounted to nothing permanent. What is important,
however, is that all Vikram[=a]ditya stands for in legend
must have been in the sixth century A.D. For the drama, of
which he is said to have been patron, represents a religion
distinctly later