^{page 253 note *} See Schwanbeck's, Megasthenis Indica. Bonn, 1846.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note †} The religious character of the Indian philosophy is referred to in a story told by Aristoxenus the musician, as reported by Aristocles the Peripatetic (Eusebius, præp. Evang., xi. 3, 8). The story (for the truth of which, however, Aristoxenus does not vouch) is to the effect, that an Indian who had met Socrates at Athens, and had been told by him, in answer to a question he proposed, that the proper object of philosophy was human life, rejoined, with a scornful laugh, that no one could understand human things who was ignorant of things divine.

^{page 254 note *} A writer quoted by Strabo (xv. 1. 69, p. 718), and supposed by Lassen (Indische Alterthumsk. ii. 697), to be also Megasthenes, says that the Indians worshipped Jupiter Pluvius (by whom Indra must be meant), the river Ganges, and the local deities.

^{page 254 note †} Schwanbeck, pp. 89, 113.

^{page 254 note ‡} See Professor Müller's Lectures on the Science of Language, p. 139.

^{page 255 note *} Elphinstone's, History of India, 1st ed. vol. ii. p. 316.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note †} See also the Preface to the first volume of the “Christa Sangita, or Sacred History of our Lord Jesus Christ, in Sanskrit verse,” by the Rev. W. H. Mill, D.D., late Principal of Bishop's College, Calcutta, pp. iv–ix.

^{page 256 note *} Robert de Nobilis, a near relation of Pope Marcellus II., and nephew of Cardinal Bellarmin, founded the Madura Mission about the year 1620.

^{page 256 note †} Dr Mill does not agree with Mr Ellis in exonerating Robertus de Nobilibus from all share in the forgery, inasmuch as he (or the original author, whoever he was) puts Christian sentiments into the mouth of Hindu sages.—Preface to “Christa Sangita,” p. vii.

^{page 257 note *} The first grammar of Sanskrit in a European language was published by a Carmelite monk, Johann Philip Wesdin, better known as Paulinus a Santo BartholomÆo, at Rome, in 1790. See Müller's “Lectures on the Science of Language,” p. 149; also Professor Wilson's paper in the “Proceedings of the Philological Society,” vol. i. p. 16, where it is said that a second, more copious and correct, grammar was published by Paulinus n 1804.

^{page 257 note †} For an account of Mr Colebrooke's career, see the Notices of his Life by his son, Sir E. T. Colebrooke, the present M.P. for Lanarkshire, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, No. IX., for August 1838.

^{page 258 note *} For an account of Professor Wilson's career, see the Annual Report of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1860, pp. ii. ff. in the Journal of the Society, vol. xviii. part i.

^{page 258 note †} For a sketch of Burnouf's labours, see the Annual Report of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1853, in vol. xv. part i. of the Society's Journal.

^{page 259 note *} See the Notice of his Life prefixed to his edition, and Latin translation, of the first book of the Rigveda. London, 1838.

^{page 261 note *} In the present state of philological science, the speculations of Dugald Stewart on the origin of the Sanskrit language are not likely to meet with many defenders; but as the views of this eminent philosopher must always possess a certain interest in the country where he so long flourished, and attained so high and well deserved a reputation, I shall briefly allude to his theory on this subject. His supposition is (see Sir W. Hamilton's coll. ed. of his works, vol. iv. pp. 77–115; and vol. i. pp. 425–427) that “in consequence of the intercourse between Greece and India, arising from Alexander's conquests, the Bramins were led to invent their sacred language,” for the purpose of expressing the new ideas which they had received, and of concealing “from the other Indian castes their philosophical doctrines, when they were at variance with the commonly received opinions” (p. 83). He thinks that “with the Greek language before them as a model, and their own language as their principal raw material,” they could have no difficulty in “manufacturing a different idiom, borrowing from the Greek the same, or nearly the same system, in the flexions of nouns, and conjugations of verbs, and thus disguising, by new terminations and a new syntax, their native dialect. If Psalmanazar was able to create, without any assistance, a language of which not a single word had a previous existence but in his own fancy, it does not,” Stewart proceeds, “seem a very bold hypothesis, that an order of men, amply supplied with a stock of words applicable to all matters connected with the common business of life, might, without much expense of time and ingenuity, bring to systematic perfection an artificial language of their own, having for their guide the richest and most regular tongue that ever was spoken on earth; a tongue, too, abounding in whatever abstract and technical words their vernacular speech was incompetent to furnish” (p. 84). He also explains that although he had supposed “the first rude draught of the Sanskrit to have been formed soon after Alexander's invasion had introduced the learned in India to an acquaintance with the Greek language and philosophy, this supposition was not meant to exclude other languages from having contributed their share to its subsequent enrichment. The long commercial intercourse of the Romans with India, both by sea and land, accounts sufficiently,” he considers, “for any affinity which may subsist between Sanskrit and Latin.” The arguments by which Stewart endeavours to sustain this theory may be consulted by the reader for himself. The whole discussion furnishes a curious illustration of the mistakes into which acute and ingenious men may be betrayed when they attempt to theorize upon subjects with the details of which they are imperfectly acquainted, and at a period when the principles which ought to govern the investigation have not been sufficiently developed or recognised. It appears from a note of his editor, p. 115, that Mr Stewart subsequently elaborated his speculations on Sanskrit in a treatise which he left in manuscript, but which Sir W. Hamilton did not think it right to publish, as the hypothesis, however ingeniously supported, was contrary to the “harmonious opinion now entertained by those best qualified to judge,” and beset with many “difficulties appearing insuperable.” Stewart's views have been discussed by the late Professor H. H. Wilson, in a paper which is to be reprinted in the new edition of his works now in course of publication by Messrs Trübner & Co. See also the Quarterly Review, vol. liv. p. 299. On this theory I may shortly remark, 1st, That unless the views of all the most competent scholars, such as Colebrooke, Wilson, Max Müller, Goldstücker, Aufrecht, &c., in regard to the age of the Vedic hymns, are grossly erroneous, the Sanskrit language must have existed for at least eight hundred or a thousand years before Alexander invaded India; and this language, as it existed at that early period, exhibits, in quite as distinct a manner, all those affinities in roots and structure, with Greek and Latin, by which it was distinguished at a later period. 2dly, That the vernacular language—which, according to the best evidence we can obtain, existed at, or even before, the time of Alexander (I mean the Pali)—in its structure presupposes the prior existence of Sanskrit quite as necessarily as the forms of the Italian presuppose a Latin language out of which it arose.

^{page 264 note *} I may mention here that the principal authors who have translated or described or edited the Vedas are Mr H. T. Colebrooke, who, in 1805, gave a general account of these works, with specimen translations (Essays, vol. i. pp. 9–113); Professor Rosen, whose Latin version of the first book of the Rigveda was published in 1838; Professor Roth, who published in 1846 three Dissertations in German on the literature and history of the Veda; Professor Max Müller, who has published, between 1849 and the present time, four volumes of his edition of the Text and Commentary of the Rigveda, besides a history of ancient Sanskrit literature; Professor H. H. Wilson, who translated the whole of the Rigveda into English, though only half of his translation has yet been published; Professor Benfey, who has translated the Sāma Veda into German; Professor Aufrecht, who has published the text of the Rigveda in the Roman character; and Professor Weber, who has published the text of the White Yajur Veda and the Satapatha Brâhmana.

^{page 267 note *} See my “Original Sanskrit Texts,” vol. iii. pp. 90; 110, ff.

^{page 267 note †} Ibid. pp. 52, ff; 196, ff; 212, ff.

^{page 268 note *} Soma is the moon-plant, the juice of which was offered to the gods, whom it was supposed to exhilarate.

^{page 268 note †} Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 551.

^{page 268 note ‡} One of the names of Brahmā, the creator.

^{page 268 note §} Translated in Müller's Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 569.

^{page 269 note *} See Müller's fine remarks on this hymn, and the metrical version given by him, in Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 559, ff.

^{page 269 note †} Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 153, f.

^{page 270 note *} Another important work in the department of Sanskrit lexicography is the Dictionary which Professor Goldstücker is compiling on the basis of Wilson's, but with great additions and improvements. Of this work five parts have already appeared.

^{page 272 note *} See the preface to the 3d volume of his edition and translation of the Bhāgavata Purāna, (Paris, 1847), pp. xxxii–liv.

^{page 274 note *} Compare the Bhagavad Gîtâ, 2. 19, 20.

^{page 274 note †} The mind (mănăs) is regarded by the Hindus as an internal sense.

^{page 275 note *} I may remark, that though Indian philosophy has of late received considerable elucidation from the pens of Dr Ballantyne, Professor FitzEdward Hall, and others, yet the main points had already been given in Mr Colebrooke's Essays, read before the Royal Asiatic Society in 1823 and the following years. See Colebrooke's Misc. Essays, vol. i. 227–419; Dr Ballantyne's “Christianity contrasted with Hindu Philosophy;” his Lectures on the Vedānta, Nyāya, and Sānkhya Philosophies, and his translations of the aphorisms of the different systems; Professor FitzEd. Hall's “Rational Refutation of the Hindu Phil. Systems,” translated from the Hindee. In regard to the purely indigenous and original character of Indian philosophy, see Professor Max Müller's Appendix on Indian Logic, in Archbishop Thomson's “Laws of Thought,” 3d edition. Though in the quotation given above, p. 9, Dugald Stewart speaks of the Indians having become aequainted with the Greek language and philosophy through Alexander's invasion, yet in another passage (Works, vol. i. p. 425), he thus expresses himself: “The metaphysical and ethical remains of the Indian sages are, in a peculiar degree, interesting and instructive, inasmuch as they seem to have furnished the germs of the chief systems taught in the Grecian schools.” (Diss. on the Prog. of Met., Eth., and Pol. Phil.)

^{page 277 note *} In the text, following the example of Mr Colebrooke and Professor H. H. Wilson, I have spoken of Prakriti as matter (see Colebrooke's Essays, i. 242; Wilson's Sānkhya Kārikā, pp. 17 f., 82 f.; and also Professor FitzEdward Hall's translation of Pandit Nehemiah Gore's “Rational Refutation of the Hindu Philosophical Systems,” pp. 80, 81. But compare the preface to the same work, where the translator says, that if he had “departed fròm ‘nature’ as representing prakriti, he would hardly have done amiss.” “‘Originant’ might answer, or ‘evolvant.’”) I find, however, that the propriety of rendering prakriti by “matter” is disputed. In a note which he supplied to page 221 of an article on “Indian Literature,” which I furnished to the North British Review for May 1856, Professor Fraser thus expresses himself in regard to the principles of the Sānkhya philosophy:—“The Sankhya of Kapila is the most independent and comprehensive of all the attempts of the Indian mind to form a cosmological system on grounds of reason. In its fundamental principles and method, it anticipates (after its own fashion) modern European efforts to bridge the gulf that separates the Absolute from the Relative, by means of the relation of cause and effect. The Praeriti thus corresponds with Kapila to the ‘Absolute’ of modern speculation. In his method Spinoza approaches Kapila, but differs somewhat in his results. The Sankhya in many respects resembles the theory of Schelling, and it has some points of analogy with Fichte. It has throughout, however, an individuality of its own, which marks its indigenous growth, and forbids us to measure all its doctrines in the forms of European speculation.” It is to be remembered, however, that the “Absolute” embraces all being, whilst (as stated in the text) the Sankhya acknowledges a second primary principle, viz., Purusha, or Spirit, in addition to Prakriti.

^{page 278 note *} From the account I have given of this philosophy in the article in the “North British Review,” above referred to, I extract the following passage:—“The doctrine accordingly takes a somewhat different form in its gradual development. Assuming the same essential principle of non-duality—viz., that nothing exists but Brahma, or Deity—it no longer holds that he is transubstantiated into the material world, for the objects of sense, it is maintained, have no real existence at all. The outward world is only an illusion, just as when a rope (to use the Indian illustration), lying on the ground, is by mistake taken for a serpent; but this does not imply that the rope has been changed, or has really become a serpent. In the same way, when it is said that the universe is Brahma, it is not meant that he has really become the universe, but that he appears so. The existence which the world appears to have is no real existence of its own, but the existence of Brahma attributed to it. The name and the form which it has are derived from māyā, or illusion. Brahma is the substratum of the illusion; that is, he is not really the material cause of the world, as earih is of a jar, but he is such a substratum as the rope is of the serpent, for which it is mistaken. As the fancied existence of the serpent depends on the real existence of the rope, while the latter is not actually changed into a serpent, so, too, the seeming existence of the finite universe depends on the real existence of Brahma, though Brahma is not actually changed into the universe.”

^{page 281 note *} See Professor Müller's Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 304, ff.; Professor Goldstücker's “Panini, his place in Sanskrit Literature.”

^{page 282 note *} See his “Buddhisme Indien,” from which the above sketch has been derived, either immediately or at second hand; M. Barthelemy St Hilaire's work on the same subject; Professor H. H. Wilson's paper on Buddhism, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1856; and Professor Max Müller's Sketch of Buddha's career.

^{page 283 note *} I quote from the “North British Review” for May 1856, p. 213, the following estimate of the Indian intellect:—“The Indo-Arians partake largely in all the higher qualities of the Indo-Germanic race—in their capacity of self-development, their intellectual power, their love of science, their tendency to metaphysical speculation, their aspirations after ideal and spiritual perfection, their taste for the fine arts and for elegant literature. And yet they are distinguished by marked characteristics of their own, corresponding to their position as an Asiatic nation. They do not possess the masculine nature of the kindred tribes who migrated to the north-west. While the Greeks, with all their speculative genius and exquisite sense of the beautiful, were a restlessly active, energetic, and practical people, the Hindus, on the other hand, have manifested a strong tendency to repose, and to dreamy contemplation. While the Greeks sought, as far as possible, to realise their conceptions of ideal truth and good in the outward world, in forms of visible beauty, or of political organisation, the Hindus, rejecting the material universe as a theatre or permanent instrument of perfection, came soon to regard the world of the senses as, on the contrary, the necessary source of all evil and disorder, and to seek their chief good in a purely spiritual state, emancipated from all mundane relations, and from ordinary human feelings and interests. Their philosophy, properly so called, has all a religious aim; every branch of it professes to unfold a scheme of knowledge of which the declared end is to enable its possessor to free himself from the bondage of worldly existence. Its logical and metaphysical systems, while displaying wonderful acuteness and subtlety, are too much concerned with abstruse and unpractical niceties, and with the controversial anticipation of all possible and impossible objections. Gifted with a luxuriant imagination, with tenderness of feeling, with sensibility to natural impressions, with a delicate perception of the nicest shades of thought, and of the harmonies of language, the Hindus are yet deficient in correct taste, and in a sense of the true sublime: their poetical power is wasted on tasteless refinements or jingling alliterations; and when dealing with the vast, or the terrible, they are prone to mistake exaggeration and aggregation of magnitude and numbers for forcible and impressive representation.” See Lassen's great work on Indian history, the “Indische Alterthumskunde,” vol. i. pp. 412, ff.