________________
296
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1881.
given for the same terms in Colebrooke's and Jones's versions, shows that in many cases Dr. Bühler has made a marked advance over his predecessors in that respect. It is hardly necessary to say that the trustworthiness of his translations is on a par with their aptness. He has followed as closely as possible the excellent Sansksit com- mentary on both Smritis by Haradatta, from which the substance of the notes has likewise been mainly taken. It is not often that the correct. ness of Haradatta's interpretations may be justly called in question. To the instances of this kind noted by Dr. Bühler we should like to add Haradatta's remarks on Gaut. XIII, 14-22—"By false evidence concerning smallcattle a witness kills ten; (by false evidence) regarding cows, horses, &c. (he kills) ten times as many." This means according to Haradatta, that a false witness kills ten, &c. of that kind regarding which he has lied. Now the same rules recur in other Smritis, e. g. Manu VIII, 97-100, where both the published Commentary of Kullaka and the unpublished Commentaries of Medhâtithi, Govindaraja and Narayana take them to mean, either (1) that a false witness sends a greater or less number of his own relatives to hell, or (2) that he incurs the same
guilt as if he had actually killed so and so many relatives. It appears that the commentators give to the first explanation the preference over the second, because as Medhatithi says, it is an established doctrine, that a man's good or wicked deeds will send his relatives to beaven or hell. The actual prevalence of this doctrine in the Smritis may be inferred from the future rewards which legitimate marriages are stated to confer on all the relatives of him who gave the bride in marriage; and similar views may be traced in the Zendavesta, which contains a passage (Vendidad, IV. 24 seq.) precisely analogous to the passages quoted above from Gautama and Manu. Another mistake on the part of Haradatta has been exposed by Nandapandita in his Commentary on the Vishnusmriti (III, 25). As it concerns a passage in the latter work, it is perhaps permitted to conjecture that a commentary on the Vishnusmriti now lost, has to be added to the list of Haradatta's works as given by Dr. Bühler. We must not conclude this notice without adverting to the great value and importance of those references to the analogous or identical passages in other Smritis, which have been given in the foot-notes.
J. JOLLY
ANCIENT INDIA AS DESCRIBED BY KTESIAS. BEING A TRANSLATION OF THE ABRIDGMENT OF HIS INDIKA BY PHOTOS
AND OF THE FRAGMENTS OF THE WORK PRESERVED IN OTHER WRITERS. BY J. W. MOCRINDLE, M.A., LATE PRINCIPAL OF THE GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, PATNA. INTRODUCTION.
envoys bringing presents and tribute from the To Ktesias belongs the distinction of having princes of Northern India, which was then subbeen the first writer who gave to the Greeks a ject to Persian rule. Ktësias unfortunately was special treatise on India-a region concerning not only a great lover of the marvellous, but also which they had, before his time, no further know- singularly deficient, for one of his profession, in ledge than what was supplied by the few and critical acumen. He took, therefore, no pains to meagre notices of it which had appeared in the sift the accounts which were communicated to Geography of Hêkataios of Milêtos, and in him, and the book which he gave to the world, the History of Herodotos.
instead of being, what a careful enquirer with his The Indika of Ktêsins, like his other works, advantages might have made it-a valuable reperhas been lost, but, like his great work on the tory of facts concerning India and its people, History of Persia, it has been abridged by Phô- seemed to be little else than a tissue of fables and tios, while several fragments of it have been pre- of absurd perversions or exaggerations of the served in the pages of other writers, as for instance truth, and was condemned as such, not only by Alian. It was comprised in a single book, and em- the consentient voice of antiquity, but also by the bodied the information which Ktësias had gathered generality of the learned in modern times. The about India, partly from the reports of Persian work was nevertheless popular, and in spite of its officials who had visited that country on the king's infirm credit, was frequently cited by subsequent service, and partly also perhaps from the reports writers. Its tales of wonder' fascinated the of Indians themselves, who in those days were credulous, while its style, which was remarkable occasionally to be seen at the Persian Court, alike for its ease, sweetness, and perspicuity, whither they resorted, either as merchants, or as recommended it to readers of every stamp. It
Ktèsias, though a Dorian, used many Ionic forms and modes of expression, and these more in the Indika thau in the Persika. His style is praised for the qualitios men
tioned in the text by Photios, Dion. Halicarn, and Demet. Phaler, who does not hesitate to speak of him a poet,. t he very demiurge of perspiculty (vapyoias On povprós).
