should be allowed to speak for itself, and not as it may be interpreted by translators and commentators; for, with respect to the passage in dispute, I observed in my last letter:-" Professor Wilson, therefore, has given to this chapter an interpretation not authorized by the original, in which nothing occurs that indicates that the composer of this Puran intended to describe either Buddha or Jina under this illusory form, or to adopt or allude to their doctrines in the words spoken by it." To this he replies in his letter:-" In the first place, then, speaking of those who first became followers of the false prophet, the text says expressly, they were called Arhatas from the phrase which the deceiver made use of in addressing them—arhatha, ' ye are worthy of this great doctrine.' So far there can be no question that the Arhatas are named in the Vishnu Puran as a sect of schismatics." Admitted. He proceeds: It is very true that we have not the name of the other apostate sect, but it is indicated in a manner not to be mistaken. 'Know ye,' says the teacher, 'budhyadwam;' 'it is known,' reply the disciples, 'budhyate.' If these inflexions of the verb budh-' to know'-do not clearly intimate the followers of a faith who, from the same root, are named Bauddhas, I should like to know to what other class of Indian religionists it can apply." But there is nothing whatever in the original which shews that the second address of this false teacher was intended to inculcate doctrines different from those taught in his first address. On the contrary, the former appears to be clearly a continuation of the latter, and, as it is not said in the original that a sect was denominated from the word budhyadwam, in the same manner that it is said that a sect was denominated from the word Arhatha, it is most probable that, in this passage, the Arhata sect is alone intended. But Professor Wilson ob"If Jains are not meant, what are the schismatics here described by their doctrines, and designated by the term Arhats? They are not Bauddhas -that is settled; and when no perversity of ingenuity can identify Arhatas with Bauddhas, there is no alternative left but to identify them with Jainas."

serves:

It is in this singular manner that Professor Wilson attempts to prove that the Purans, as now extant, are modern compilations; for he entirely disregards the original text, and substitutes for it his own inferences and assumptions. In this instance, he admits in his letter that it is the term Arhat, and not Jain, that is contained in the original; and he further admits, that in it the name Bauddha is not enunciated, but merely indicated; and yet he maintains that he was "fully authorized in inserting the words Jainas and Bauddhas in the translation." He remarks, also, that "though Colonel Vans Kennedy may possibly set a higher value upon his own erudition than that of any native pundit, he must not expect others to agree in such an estimate." But I may be permitted to observe, that long experience has convinced me that, although commentaries on Sanscrit works are no doubt of much use, yet they are by no means safe guides for ascertaining the plain and unsophisticated meaning of the text. In objecting, therefore, to the translation of the passage in dispute, I did not think it necessary to notice whether or not it agreed with the commentary; and Professor Wilson has now, most unfortunately for his argument, referred to it, for the commentator never uses the word Jain, but always Arkata, as in the passage quoted from the commentary in p. 43 of the Asiatic Journal for May last; consequently, Professor Wilson has no right to

*The italics in these two instances are mine.

+ Professor Wilson seems to forget here this note in p. 339 of the translation of the Vishnu Puran :— "Here is farther confirmation of the Jains being intended by our text, as the term Arhat is more particularly applied to them, although it is also used by the Buddhists."

quote the commentary of the Vishnu Puran as an authority in support of his assumption, that the Arhata of the Purans means the Jain sect. It is, however, on this assumption that Professor Wilson, when speaking of the date of that Puran, hesitates not to state :-" Both Bauddhas and Jains are adverted to [in it]. It was, therefore, written before the former had disappeared; but they existed in some parts of India as late as the twelfth century at least, and it is probable that the Purana was compiled before that period."* Thus, from a few verses of the Vishnu Puran, in which no sect is mentioned except the Arhata, Professor Wilson assumes that the Bauddhas and Jains are adverted to in it, and hence fixes the compilation of the Vishnu Puran at some time before the twelfth century. On the total invalidity of such a mode of reasoning I need not remark; but it seems extraordinary that he should have called attention to it by his ill-judged letter, as he has, by the arguments contained in it, fully confirmed all that I have said relative to his assertions and statements being at complete variance with what is actually contained in the Purans, and to his being, in consequence, unqualified to express a correct opinion respecting their age, and their scope and tendency.

I do not, therefore, understand what Professor Wilson means by observing in his letter that he has "implicit faith in the prevalence of truth." I objected to his introducing into his translation of the Vishnu Puran the names of two sects which are not contained in the original, and to his adopting these names as a criterion for fixing the dates of the Purans-and he admits these facts. The truth, consequently, in this instance, belongs to my objections. Although, also, he considers it quite superfluous to enter into any controversy with me, yet it has been hitherto supposed that discussion was the best means of ascertaining the truth; and it is surely not sufficient that the Professor of Sanscrit in the University of Oxford should be satisfied that his conclusions are true, for it might be expected that he would be prepared to support those conclusions, whenever controverted, by argument and authority. Professor Wilson may think that "my deductions are founded on imperfect investigation and inveterate prejudice," and that the refutation of "my doctrines of the high antiquity and pure theological† character of the Purans is to be found in the works themselves." But this is not enough; for, if my theory on these points is utterly untenable, it would most assuredly be much more conducive to the prevalence of truth to expose its erroneousness, than to refer for its refutation to such voluminous works as the Purans, which scarcely any person will take the trouble to examine. The weight, however, which should be attached to my opinions respecting the genuineness and antiquity of the Purans, as now extant, is not the point in question; for I observed in my last letter, that Professor Wilson had taken a most erroneous view of the remote and actual state of the Hindu religion, which had alone led him to ascribe a modern origin to the Purans; but that, "as he has not quoted any passages from the Purans in which sectarial fervour and exclusiveness are exhibited, and in which circumstances of comparatively modern date are mentioned, it may be concluded that he knew of no such passages, as their production would have at once proved the point which he wished to establish. This negative argument acquires the greater force from Professor Wilson having stated that he has collected a voluminous series of indices, abstracts, and translations of parti• Preface to the Translation of the Vishnu Purana, p. lxxii.

✦ I have never described the Purans as being purely theological, as I have merely stated that their principal object is moral and religious instruction; and I have invariably used the words "mythology and "theology" in order to shew that these subjects are of a distinct nature, although both are treated of in the Purans.

cular parts of all the Purans; and, consequently, if any passages occur in them which inculcate the exclusive worship of Vishnu or Shiva, or the worship of Rama, Krishna, or Shakti, or which mention the Jains or any modern sect, or any comparatively recent event, he could have had no difficulty in producing such passages in support of his statements, and their non-production, therefore, must be considered as strong proof of their non-existence." It is not, consequently, the opinions which Professor Wilson or myself entertains on this subject that should be considered, but that which is actually contained in the Purans. I affirm that the Purans do not contain what Professor Wilson has stated is contained in them; and, as I cannot be required to prove a negative, it remains with him to produce such passages from those works as will demonstrate that my affirmation is unfounded. Until, however, such passages are produced, I may be allowed to repeat my former conclusions, that Professor Wilson's opinion, that the Purans, as now extant, are compilations made between the eighth and seventeenth centuries, rests solely on gratuitous assumptions and unfounded assertions, and that his reasoning in support of it is either futile, fallacious, contradictory, or improbable.

It is not, I may trust, necessary that I should disclaim all intention of depreciating, by what I have written at any time, the labours of any Sanscrit scholar. In the present instance, in particular, as I had given some time and some attention to the examination of the Purans and to acquiring information concerning the remote and actual state of the Hindu religion, I saw no reason for refraining from making public my objections to the view which Professor Wilson had taken of the age, the scope, and the tendency of the Purans, in the preface to his translation of the Vishnu Puran. It must also be evident that, if the opinions expressed respecting any part of Sanscrit literature were not controverted when erroneous, it would be impossible that the real nature of that literature could ever be ascertained. Had, therefore, Professor Wilson been solicitous for the prevalence of truth, he should not have been indignant at the remarks on his theory which you obliged me by publishing in the Asiatic Journal; but, on the contrary, he should have taken the trouble of examining my objections and of exposing their erroneousness, if unfounded; but, if found. ed, candour and the love of truth should have induced him to acknowledge that he had called in question on insufficient grounds the genuineness and antiquity of the eighteen Purans.*

Bombay, 17th July, 1841.

I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant,
VANS KENNEDY.

NOTE.

Professor Wilson seems to have misunderstood the reason which led me to point out in my last letter that he had misunderstood and misinterpreted a passage in a Puran which he had himself translated; for in his reply, he merely defends the introduction into the translation of the words “Jainas" and "Bauddhas," but he says nothing with respect to his having adopted the names of these sects as a criterion for fixing the modern dates at which he thinks the Purans were written. It was, however, to this that I particularly

It is singular that Professor Wilson has, in one part of his letter, adopted my view of the subject, as he actually speaks in it of "learned Hindus, who most assuredly could not be suspected of any disposition to derogate from the sanctity and antiquity of such sacred books as the Purans." It would seem, therefore, that, however satisfied Professor Wilson may be with the truth of the conclusions which he has published, he nevertheless fluctuates in his opinion respecting the sanctity and antiquity of the Purans, as now extant, or their being modern compilations made for the purpose of sectarial imposture,

objected in my former letters; for in p. 1. of the preface to the translation of the Vishnu Puran, Professor Wilson states that the date of the Kurma Puran is avowedly posterior to the establishment of the Jain sect, and that there is no reason to believe that the doctrines of Arhat or Jina were known in the early centuries of our era." And in his notes to the translation, pp. 339, 340, 341, he remarks:-" Here is farther confirmation that the Jains are intended by our text."—" We, have, therefore, the Buddhists noticed as a distinct sect. If the author wrote from a personal knowledge of Buddhists in India, he could not have written later than the tenth or eleventh century.' "*"We may have in this conflict of the orthodox divinities and heretical Daityas some covert allusion to political troubles, growing out of religious differences, and the final prevalence of Brahmanism. Such occurrences seem to have preceded the invasion of India by the Mohammadans, and prepared the way for their victories."

But, after thus making use of the names "Jainas" and "Bauddhas," to prove the modern compilation of the Purans, Professor Wilson now admits that these names are not to be found in the original; but he maintains that he was fully authorized in inserting them in it, by the context and commentary. Yet in his letter he quotes no part of the context in order to evince that it relates to the Jains and Buddhists, and rests his argument in support of its being these sects that are intended in the passage in dispute solely on the words Arhata, and budhyadwam, and budhyate. But the commentator does not say that Arhata means Jain, and Professor Wilson assigns no other reason for supposing that these two sects are one and the same, than that, as the Arhatas cannot be Bauddhas, they must be Jains. I am, however, obliged to observe that the original does not in any manner admit of this translation in p. 339:-"In this manner exclaiming to them, 'know (budhyadwam),' and they replying, 'it is known (budhyate),' these Daityas were induced by the archdeceiver to deviate from their religious duties (and become Bauddhas)." For in the original-at least, according to my copy of it-it is not said that the words budhyadwam and budhyate were spoken by this emanation of Vishnu and the Daityas, but they are distinctly ascribed to Parashara, the narrator of the Puran, who, after relating what was said by this false teacher, proceeds to narrate that it was thus by saying "know ye," and they replying "it is known," that Maya Moha caused the Daityas to forsake their religion.+ The word budhyadwam, however, is used in this address of the false teacher, but evidently in its usual sense, for Professor Wilson thus translates the sentence in which it occurs :-" Understand my words, for they have been uttered by the wise." There are, consequently, no grounds whatever for supposing that the words budhyadwam and budhyate were in this passage intended to indicate the "Bauddhas;" and, as this emanation of Vishnu was not Buddha, it must be evident that the doctrines, which he is here represented as teaching, could not be the same as those which were first taught by Buddha. The original, therefore, did not justify this gloss of Professor Wilson-" and become Bauddhas;" for it is not

• But why not much earlier? as it is sufficiently proved that Buddha flourished in the sixth century before our era.

+ पसशरउवाच ॥ एवंबुध्यध्वं बुध्यतैवामेतीरयत् ॥ मायामोहः सदैतेयान्धर्ममत्याजयविजं ॥

Vishnu Puran, Part iii. chap. xviii.

said in it that, after the false teacher had addressed the Daityas a second time, a second sect was originated, and it appears evident that, throughout this passage, the text relates to no other sect than the Arhata, which is alone mentioned in it.

It is hence undeniable that Professor Wilson has not "vindicated unanswerably the propriety of employing the word Bauddha," and, consequently, the singular futility of his argument with respect to the Jains becomes the more conspicuous. "The Arhatas are not Bauddhas (he says), that is settled; and when no perversity of ingenuity can identify Arhatas with Bauddhas, there is no alternative left but to identify them with Jains." But, as Professor Wilson has not produced, and I am certain that he cannot produce, any Sanscrit authority which proves that the Arhata of the Purans is the same as the Jain sect, and as he here admits that it is not the same as the Buddhist sect, it must consequently follow that the "Jainas" and "Bauddhas" are neither mentioned nor indicated in the passage in dispute; and that he, therefore, attempts in vain to shew that he was fully authorized in inserting the names of these sects in his translation.

V. K.

ESOP'S FABLES IN CHINESE.*

A VERY curious work is now before us-a translation of the Fables of Æsop into Chinese, printed in China, with sundry auxiliaries calculated to facilitate the acquirement of the Chinese language by an Englishman, and even to render some help to a native of China in learning English.

Mr. Thom is a Chinese scholar, whose knowledge of the language must not be measured by his own modest estimate; it is attested not only by the most eminent judges in Europe, but by the principal British functionaries in China, to whom, in the capacity of official interpreter, he has rendered important services in their intercourse with the Chinese authorities. In his translations of official documents from the language of China into our own, Mr. Thom has avoided the wretched jargon, hitherto employed for that purpose, which, whilst it degraded us in the eyes of European scholars, has contributed to diffuse erroneous ideas of the taste as well as the understanding of the Chinese: his translation of Ke-shen's memorial to the Emperor is an example of the style in which such documents ought to be rendered.

This gentleman intends the present as the first of a series of elementary works comprising the various styles in which the Chinese language is written. The fables have been selected from Æsop, Phædrus, and other collections. They were dictated, in mandarin Chinese, by Mr. Thom, to his native teacher, Mun Mooy Seen-Shang (or Mun Mooy the teacher), who wrote them in the simple and easy style called tsă-lũh, the lowest form of Chinese composition, the acquisition of which will enable a student of the language to understand the "little narratives," or novels of the day. The first specimen of these fables was published in 1838, when their reception by the Chinese was extremely flattering. "They had their run of the public courts and offices," observes Mr. Thom, "until the manda

E-SHE-YU-YEN: Æsop's Fables, written in Chinese by the learned Măn Mooy Sten-Shang, and compiled in their present form (with a free literal translation) by his Pupil, Sloth (Robert Thom, Esq.) Printed at the Canton Press Office. 1840.