________________
160
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
it probable that these un-Aryan tribes lived somewhere on the North-Western Frontier. It will be seen that here he places himself in opposition to Indian tradition according to which Gunâdhya learnt to speak Paisachi in the Vindhyas (Sômadêva). I shall not in this place take up this difficult question. I shall only remark that I think it possible to prove that the Indian tradition is right as against European scholars, and that the home of the Paisachi dialect should be looked for in the neighbourhood of the present Ujjain.
M. Lacôte further shows that the original on which Somadeva and Kshêmêndra drew was not Gunadhya's Brihatkatha, but a later version which had become localised in Kashmir and which had been written by a Kashmirian. It did not give a good impression of Gunâdhya's work, the whole had been recast, the original story had been made in parts almost unintelligible, the composition had become changed, and numerous additions, such as the Panchatantra and the Vêtâlapañchavimsati, had been made. The proof is followed up in a double line, by considering the internal evidence of the Kashmirian versions themselves, and by comparing the new Sanskrit text from Nepal. It will be seen that this result makes it necessary to give up the old view that Gunadhya had already dealt with all those various subjects which meet us in the works of Somadeva and Kshêmêndra. Thus for instance, the Pañchatantra was formerly considered to be an old collection which already existed before Gunadhya's times, and which he incorporated in his work. That can no more be proved by the fact that it has been embodied in the later Kashmirian versions. Thus the Brihatkatha loses something of its importance for the history of Indian tales. But on the other hand, the results to which we can now come are much more certain; and our critical horizon has been widened so that we now begin to see our way towards a really critical history of this important branch of literature. We therefore have every reason to be thankful to M. Lacôte for his excellent study on Gunadhya.
LE BARON CARRA DE VAUX. La doctrine de l' Islam. Paris 1909. GABRIEL BEAUCHESNE & Cie, editeurs, 117, Rue de Rennes. 8° IV 319 pp. 4 franos.-Études sur l'histoire des religions 3.
THIS new essay on the Muhammedan religion is not meant to be a history of the Islam. It is a study on the actual doctrines which can be considered as orthodox at the present day and only occasionally deals with their development. Muhammedanism is, further, in various respects compared with the Christian religion, and it is always easy to
[MAY, 1910.
see that the sympathies of the author are with his own belief. His attitude towards Muhammedanism is, however, friendly, and he succeeds in imparting the keen interest he evidently takes in the subject to the reader. He does not go too much into details, his intention has been, throughout, to draw the broad lines, and to illustrate what is essential and typical. His style is admirable, and he has therefore succeeded in producing a book which will be read with great interest by the educated public for which it is destined.
The first chapter deals with the unity of God. The author here justly reproves the theory of Renan that monotheism was a natural result of the dispositions of the Semitic nations. Then the different rites and prayers are described.
The second chapter is devoted to the future life, and the third to the well-known fatalism of the Islam. Then follow chapters on the duty of giving alms, the pilgrimage, and the Sacred War for the propagation of the Faith. The seventh chapter deals with the position of woman in Muhammedanism. The author here emphasises, the fact that the lack of consideration of the female sex is the weakest point in the whole system and the one which makes it absolutely unlikely that European nations should ever, to any extent, embrace the doctrine of Muhammed. A good illustration of the difference of view between Muhammedan and Western ideas is afforded by the rules about divorce. The husband can divorce his wife and afterwards take her back twice. But after a third divorce he cannot remarry her unless she has, in the meantime, been married to another man. An amusing story is told in illustration of this rule, (page 169): a wife had been three times divorced by her husband Rofaah, but still wanted to return to him. She came to Mohammed and asked his permission. "Another man has married me," she said, "but he sent me away after he had only touched the fringe of my coat." But the prophet did not allow her to return to her old husband until the new one had actually had intercourse with her. After some time she returned and said that so had been the case, but Mohammed refused to believe her. It is hardly possible for a European mind to imagine how such a state of affairs can be possible.
The concluding chapters contain remarks on children and education, on mysticism and on the future of Islam. They all contain many fine observations, and, on the whole, it is a real pleasure to follow the author throughout the book, even in those few cases where one cannot agree with the views he takes of some question or other.
STEN KONOW.
