Vara-ha, under whose directions he himself declares he wrote that work. Consequently Vara'-ha must have been then alive, or else a very short time before it; which agrees, as near as possibly can be, with the age above deduced; for the Bhasvoti, in 1799, will be exactly 700 years old." . . . . "From what has been said above, it appears extremely probable, that the name of Vara'-ha must have been to the Surya-Siddhanta when it was first written, and the author well known; but that after his death priestcraft found means to alter it, and to introduce the ridiculous story of Meya or Moya, having received it through Divine revelation at the close of the Satya-yug; upon which petty fiction its present pretended antiquity is founded. But this, it seems, was not the only pious fraud committed by the crafty sons of Brahma, for it appears that a number of other astronomical works were then framed, calculated also for the purpose of deception. Among these, some were pretended to be delivered from the mouth of one or other of their deities, as the Brahma-Siddhanta, Vishnu-Siddhanta, and the works of Siva, commonly called Toutros,” &c. &c. &c.

On this extract any comment would be superfluous. I shall therefore only subjoin the following query, which, essential as it obviously is to the decision of the question, has not yet, so far as I know, received an answer; nor, indeed, am I aware that it ever has been put by any of the numerous authors who have treated of Indian literature, with the single exception of Mr. Pinkerton, in his Geography. Upon what sort of materials are the most ancient records of Sanscrit learning preserved, and by what criteria are the Bramins enabled to judge of the antiquity of manuscripts?

The following are Mr. Pinkerton's words:" The Hindoos are ignorant of the Chinese art of printing, and the materials used in their manuscripts seem very perishable; nor have we any rules for determining the antiquity of these manuscripts. To an exact inquirer this would have been the first topic of investigation; but it has, on the contrary,

According to the best

been completely neglected. We have merely the bold assertions of Bramins, eagerly imbibed by European credulity, instead of successive arguments and proofs."-(Vol. i. p. 718.) "The Bramins," he adds, "are more conversant in quadrillions, trillions, and billions, than in discussing the little dates of European scholars."-Ibid. p. 739.

accounts, they have none of these tests to which European scholars and antiquaries are accustomed to have recourse on similar occasions. Dr. Francis Buchanan, the accuracy of whose details on all matters which fell under his personal observation in India is universally admitted, informs us, that "the greater part of the Bengal manuscripts, owing to the badness of the paper, require to be copied at least once in ten years, as they will in that climate preserve no longer." He observes farther, "Every copyist, it is to be suspected, adds to old books whatever discoveries he makes, relinquishing his immediate reputation for learning, in order to promote the grand and profitable employment of his sect, the delusion of the multitude."1

APPENDIX II.

The historical detail into which I have entered, (see pages 81-83,) with respect to the ancient intercourse between the Greek colony at Bactriana, and the inhabitants of Hindostan, throws a strong light upon Gibbon's conjecture concerning the source of Indian science. When we consider how long the intercourse between Greece and India subsisted, we must be satisfied, not only of the probability of a great influx of light from the former country into the latter, but of the absolute impossibility that this should not have taken place. Even in the army which accompanied Alexander, we may safely assume, that there were many well acquainted with all the philosophical opinions of the Grecian schools. With the history of one learned individual, rendered memorable by Alexander's cruelty, every reader is acquainted. I allude to Callisthenes, the

Essay on the Literature of the Burmas.-Asiatic Researches, vol. vi. 8vo edit. p. 174.

Having given so much countenance to the doubts which have been raised with respect to the records of Indian literature, it is but fair to direct the at

VOL. IV.

tention of the reader to what has been very ably urged on the opposite side of the question by Mr. Colebrooke, in a paper on the Vedas, or Sacred Writings of the Hindus.-Asiatic Resear ches, vol. viii. p. 377.

H

a

nephew of Aristotle, who, I think, may not unreasonably be conjectured to have been one of those who instructed the Bramins in the use of the syllogism. Sir William Jones, indeed, seems to lean to the opposite supposition, for he mentions" tradition which prevailed, according to the well-informed author of the Dabistan, in the Panjab, and in several Persian provinces, that, among other Indian curiosities which Callisthenes transmitted to his uncle, was a technical system of logic, which the Bramins had communicated to the inquisitive Greek, and which the Mahomedan writer supposes to have been the ground-work of the famous Aristotelian method." But, surely, if the name of Callisthenes was anyhow coupled in the Indian traditions with the syllogistic logic, it is much more probable that he was remembered rather as the person who first introduced into India a knowledge of that art, than as an inquisitive Greek, distinguished, during his stay with Alexander's army, by his logical curiosity. In the former case his memory must necessarily have been revered among the learned; in the latter case, his name, if at all heard of, was not likely to produce any permanent impression.

To this we may add, the utter impossibility that Callisthenes should have alone acquired his syllogistic knowledge, while all the rest of Alexander's army remained totally ignorant upon the subject; and the absurdity of supposing that Aristotle should venture to lay claim to this invention as his own, when so many of his countrymen were still alive who could so easily expose the falsehood of his pretensions.

The question, whether the Indians derived their knowledge of the syllogism from Greece, or the Greeks from India, I had occasion to start in the second volume of this work. The more I reflect on the subject, I am the more convinced of the improbability of the latter supposition; and, indeed, the considerations stated above, seem to me to afford evidence little short of demonstration, that the thing was impossible. I am disposed to extend the same opinion to all the branches of moral science; in particular, to the various ethical systems which were taught in the Grecian schools. Amongst all the mutual

charges which were urged against each other by these rival sects, it does not appear that any of them were accused of having stolen their doctrines from abroad.

I shall only observe farther on this head, that the different ethical systems of the Greeks were plainly indigenous plants of the soil, being the natural result (as has been shown most ingeniously by Mr. Smith in his Theory of Moral Sentiments) of the turbulent and unsettled state of society in the Grecian commonwealths. That these systems, particularly that of the Stoics, should have sprung up among the inhabitants of Hindostan, is hardly conceivable, in consistence with the accounts that have been handed down to us from the earliest ages of their quiet, submissive, and pacific character.1

The question concerning the antiquity of the Indian astronomy, and other branches of mathematical science, is much more problematical, and must be decided upon other data. But it appears to me, that the extraordinary coincidence remarked by Sir William Jones, between the tenets of the Hindoo sects upon moral subjects, and those professed by the different sects in ancient Greece, can be accounted for in no other way, so simple and satisfactory, as that suggested by Gibbon.**

entitled-" Conjectures concerning the Origin of the Sanscrit-(written in the end of 1824 and beginning of 1825)." It is in quarto, fairly copied out, and extends to ninety-one pages. But, however ingeniously the hypothesis of this origin is supported, it is so adverse to the harmonious opinion now entertained by those best qualified to judge, and is, withal, beset with so many difficulties, apparently insuperable, that I have not thought it right to publish it as an Appendix to the present volume.-Ed.]

CHAPTER II

OF THE PRINCIPLE OR LAW OF SYMPATHETIC IMITATION.

SECTION 1.-OF OUR PROPENSITY TO THIS SPECIES OF IMITATION.

THE subject of Language leads, by a natural transition, to that of Imitation; a principle of human nature to which children owe their first acquisitions in the art of speech, and which, in every period of life, exerts a very powerful influence over our accent, mode of pronunciation, and forms of expression. It is not, however, solely or even chiefly on this account, that I introduce the subject of Imitation here. The view which I mean to take of it relates principally to some other phenomena of our constitution, which, though equally important, have been hitherto much less attended to by philosophers. The phenomena, indeed, which I first mentioned, are matter of daily experience, and force themselves on the notice of the most careless observer.

In ranking Imitation among the original principles or ultimate facts in our constitution, it is, I presume, scarcely necessary for me to observe, that I do not use that term exactly in the popular sense in which it is commonly understood. I do not suppose, for example, that it is in consequence of any instinctive or mysterious process, that a painter or an author forms his taste in painting or in writing, on the models exhibited by his predecessors; for all this may obviously be resolved, in the most satisfactory manner, into more simple and general laws. The imitation of which I am here to treat, and