man.

of the country is Araṭṭa; the water of it is called Bāhīka. There dwell degraded Brahmans, contemporary with Prajapati. They have no Veda, no Vedic ceremony, nor any sacrifice. The gods do not eat the food offered by Vratyas and servile people. The Prasthalas, Madras, Gandhāras, Araṭṭas, Khasas, Vasātis, and Sindhusauvīras are nearly all very contemptible." Again it is said of the same country (v. 2076, ff.) Tatra vai Brāhmaṇo bhūtvā tato bhavati Kshatriyaḥ| Vaisyah Sudraścha Bāhīkas tato bhavati nāpitaḥ | Nāpitaścha tato bhūtvā punar bhavati Brāhmaṇaḥ | Dvijo bhūtvā cha tatraiva punar dāso 'bhijāyate | Bhavaty ekaḥ kule vipraḥ prasṛishṭāḥ kāmachāriṇaḥ| Gāndhārāḥ Madrakāśchaiva Bāhīkāśchālpachetasaḥ. "There a Bāhīka, born a Brahman, becomes afterwards a Kshatriya, a Vaiśya, or a Sudra, and eventually a barber. And again the barber becomes a BrāhAnd once again the Brahman there is born a slave. One Brāhman alone is born in a family among the senseless Gāndhāras, Madras, and Bāhīkas; the [other brothers] act as they will without restraint." In the Rajataranginī, i. 307, ff., the Gandhara Brahmans are thus characterized: Agrahārān jagṛihire Gāndhāra-brāhmaṇās tataḥ | samāna-śīlās tasyaiva dhruvam te 'pi dvijādhamāḥ | Bhagini-vargasambhoga-nirlajjāḥ Mlechha-vamśajāḥ | Snusha-sangati-saktāścha dāradāḥ santi pāpinaḥ | Vastubhāvais tathā bhāṭya bhāryyā-vikrayakarinaḥ paropabhogitās tesham nirlajjās tarhi yoshitaḥ| "Then the Gandhara Brahmans seized upon rent-free lands; for these most degraded of priests were of the same disposition as that [tyrannical prince,] These sinners, sprung from Mlechhas, are so shameless as to corrupt their own sisters and daughters-in-law, and to offer their wives to others, hiring and selling them, like commodities, for money. Their women being thus given up to strangers, are consequently shameless."

M. Troyer remarks (vol. ii. 317) that "the inhabitants of the Panjab are in this passage of the Mahabh. named generally Bāhīkas and Araṭṭas, while the Gandhāras are associated with the different tribes into which these inhabitants are subdivided, such as the Prasthalas and Madras, in such a way that it can scarcely be doubted that the former (the Gāndhāras) lived in their neighbourhood, diffused like them between the six rivers of that country... The Sindhu-Gāndhāras mentioned, Rāj. i. 66, lived on the Indus."

And Wilson says (As. Res. xv. 105): "According to the Mahabh.

the Gandhari are not only met with upon crossing the Setlej and proceeding towards the Airāvatī (Ravi), or where Strabo places Gandaris, but they are scattered along with other tribes throughout the Panjāb, as far as to the Indus, when we approach Gandaritis. According also to our text (Raj. i. 66) one body of the Gandhari appear to occupy a division of their own on the last river, which is named after that very circumstance, Sindhu-Gandhar, and these may have extended westward as far as the modern Candahar." In his Vishnu-Pur., 1st ed., p. 191, note 83, the same writer says of the Gandhāras: "These are also a people of the north-west, found both on the west of the Indus, and in the Panjab, and well known to classical authors as the Gandarii and Gandarida." See also Rawlinson's Herodotus, iv. pp. 216, 217.

NOTE M.-Page 356.

Lassen, Ind. Ant. i. 527, remarks as follows: "The opinion that the original seats of these [the Indian and Iranian] nations are to be sought here in [the extreme east of the Iranian highlands], receives great confirmation from the fact, that we find branches of these nations on both sides of this lofty range; for the ancient inhabitants of Casghar, Yarkhand, Khoten, Aksu, Turfān, and Khamil are Tājīks and speak Persian; it is from this point only that they are diffused towards the interior of upland Asia: so that their most powerful germ seems to have been planted on this range."

And Professor H. H. Wilson says: "Without extending the limits of India, however, too far to the north, there is no reason to doubt that the valleys of the Indian Caucasus were properly included within them, and that their inhabitants, as far as to the Pamer mountains and Badakhshan, were Indians, who may have been at first tributary to Persia, and afterwards subjects of some branches of the Greek race of Bactrian kings."—Ariana Antiqua, p. 134.

Badakhshan is the country on the banks of the Oxus near its sources, situated between lat. 36° and 38° north, and lying eastward from Balkh. Pamer lies in the same direction. See the map in Ariana Ant. p. 214, or that of Ancient India in Lassen's Ind. Ant., vol. ii.

396, note 83, line 6.

na here referred to is as follows: asurās cha ubhaye präjäpatyāḥ urān sapatnān bhrātṛivyān digbhyo an | tasmād yāḥ daivyaḥ prajāś chatusrvate | atha yāḥ āsuryaḥ prāchyās trad ye nudanta hy enan digbhyaḥ. "Four-cornered.

both the offspring of Prajapati, contended in the

us expelled the Asuras, their rivals and enemies, from

conceived, apparently, as square, or angular]. "They, onless, were overcome. Hence, the people who are divine Let their graves four-cornered; whilst the Eastern people, who akin to the Asuras, construct them round. For the gods drove the Asuras from the regions."

NOTE O.-Page 443.

A question of considerable interest here presents itself, on which it may be desirable to make a few remarks, viz., whether the indigenous or non-Arian races, who now speak Tamil, and the other languages of the southern group, are of the same family as those tribes who were brought into contact with the Aryas on their first arrival in India, and the remains of whose languages have survived in the vernacular dialects of northern Hindustan. The late Rev. Dr. J. Stevenson appears to have been of opinion that the non-Sanskrit element in the northern and southern vernacular dialects was originally to a great extent the same, and that the people who spoke them also belonged to one race. He remarks (Art. vii., Journ. Bombay Branch Royal As. Soc., No. XII. for 1849), "It is usually taken also for granted that between the non-Sanskrit parts of the northern and southern families of languages there is no bond of union, and that the only connecting link between the two is their Sanskrit element. It is to this last proposition that the writer of this paper demurs." He afterwards proceeds: "The theory which has suggested itself to the writer as the most probable is, that on the entrance of the tribes which now form the highest castes, those of the Brahmans, Kshattriyas and

Waisyas, into India, they found a rude aboriginal population, speaking a different language, having a different religion, and different customs and manners; that by arms and policy the original inhabitants were all subdued, and in great numbers expelled from the northern regions, those that remained mixing with the new population, and being first their slaves, and then forming the Sudra caste. The language of these aborigines is supposed to have belonged to the southern family of languages, the most perfect remaining type of which family is the Tamil." The fundamental affinities of the northern and southern languages are then discussed by Dr. Stevenson in various papers in the same journal, which appeared in the years 1851 and 1852. Dr. Caldwell, however, has expressed his dissent from Dr. Stevenson, both in regard to the affinities between the pre-Aryan races themselves of the north and of the south, and their original languages. (See pp. 38, ff. and 69, ff. of his Dravidian Grammar). In regard to the languages he remarks (p. 39, ff.) that the hypothesis of their affinity does not appear to him to have been established; as though various analogies in grammatical structure seem to connect the nonSanskrit element in the north Indian idioms with the Scythian or Tartar tongues, yet that no special relationship of the former to the Dravidian languages has yet been proved to exist. If the nonSanskrit element in the northern vernaculars (p. 40) had been Dravidian, we might have expected to find in their vocabularies a few primary Dravidian roots such as the words for head, hand, foot, eye, ear; whereas Dr. Caldwell has been unable to discover any trustworthy analogy in words belonging to this class. Further research, he adds (p. 42), may possibly disclose the existence in the northern vernaculars of distinctively Dravidian forms and roots, but their presence does not yet appear to be proved; and he therefore concludes that the non-Sanskrit portion of the northern languages cannot safely be placed in the same class with the southern, except, perhaps, in the sense of both being Scythian rather than Arian. The same is the opinion of the Rev. Dr. J. Wilson, who in his "Notes on the Marathi Language," in the preface to the second edition of Molesworth's Marathi Dictionary (p. xxii), thus writes:-"The Scythian words in the Marathi are, in general, like those of the other Turanian tongues, more in their forms than in their sounds. They differ very much

from the vocables of the Turanian languages in the south of India (the Canarese, Telugu, Tamul, and Malayalam), the comparison of the dictionaries and grammars of which throws but little light on the Marathi; and though they may be classed in the same tribo of languages, they evidently belong to a different family, to a different Turanian immigration into India, yet to be explored by the combined labours of the philologist and the ethnographer." Regarding the question whether the non-Arian tribes of the north and the south are themselves of the same stock, Dr. Caldwell remarks (p. 72) that the Dravidians may be confidently regarded as the earliest inhabitants of India, or at least as the earliest that entered from the north-west, but it is not so easy to determine whether they are the people whom the Arians found in possession, or whether they had been already expelled from the north by the irruption of another Scythian race. Without deciding this point positively, Dr. Caldwell is led by the apparent differences between the Dravidian languages and the aboriginal element in the northern vernaculars, to incline to the supposition that the Dravidian idioms belong to an older stage of Scythian speech; and if this view be correct, it seems to follow that the ancestors of the Scythian or non-Arian portion of the north Indian population must have immigrated into India at a later period than the Dravidians, and must have expelled the Dravidians from the greater portion of north India before they were themselves subjugated by a new race of Arian invaders from the north-west. In any case Dr. Caldwell is persuaded that it was not by the Arians that the Dravidians were expelled from northern India, and that, as no reference occurs either in Sanskrit or Dravidian tradition to any hostilities between these two races, their primitive relations could never have been otherwise than amicable. The pre-Arian Scythians, by whom Dr. Caldwell supposes that the Dravidians may have been expelled from the northern provinces, are not, he considers, to be confounded with the Kolas, Santhals, Bhills, Doms, and other aboriginal tribes of the north, who, he supposes, may have retired into the forests before the Dravidians, or, like the Bhotan tribes, have entered into India from the north-east. The languages of these forest tribes Dr. Caldwell conceives to exhibit no affinity with the aboriginal element in the north-Indian vernaculars. We