argument which has been above set fortlı touching the value of;
the geographical date in our play. Now we may, I think, take
it to be historically demonstrated, that Pâțaliputra is the Indian
name of the city, which is familiar in the classical accounts of this
country under the name of Palibothra, which was visited by the
Chinese traveller Fa-Hian (who travelled in India and Central
Asia between the years 399 and 414 A. D.) as the capital of
Magadha, and is described by the other famous Chinese traveller,
Hiouen-Tsang, as being a ruined city, south of the Ganges the
foundations of which still covered, in his time, an extent of 70 li,
though it had then been long deserted. †+ Hiouen-Tsang's journey
commenced about 629 A. D., and extended down to 646 A, D.
Therefore, we have Pâțaliputra still in existence till about the
middle of the seventh century. But one century later we come to
another Chinese account of India, and speaking of the year 756 A. D,
that account gives us the following item of information:-“At the
close of the year Kan-yuen"-this is said to be about 756 A.D.-"the
bank of the river Ho-lung gave way, and disappeared."## The scholar
who has translated this Chinese account tentatively suggests that
Ho-lung may stand for the Ganges, and General Cunningham and
Mr. Beglar more confidently maintain the same view.$$ Mr. Beglar,
then, arguing upon the basis that Ho-lung does signify the Ganges,
proceeds to state some very fair grounds for holding that the event
recorded in the extract above quoted is the destruction of the city
of Pâțaliputra by the falling-in of the banks of the Ganges*॥. 4 If
this conclusion is correct, then our previous argument shows that,
the Mudrârâkshasa must have been composed about the first half
- See Wilson's Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., p. 136; and compare Beal's Fa-Hian,
p. 103, and note there; J. B. B. R, A. S., Vol. III, Part II., p. 153; J. R. A. S., Vol. XVII, p, 126. Indian Antiquary Vol. VI., P, 131. At p. 50 of the Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., may be seen a strange superstition regarding Pâtaliputra.
- |See Elphinstone's History of India, by Cowell, p. 292, and Cf. the authorities
referred to in the last preceding note. ++|See Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. VI, p.71 $$ Cunningham's Arch Sury. Report, Vol. VIII, p. 12; see also Vol. XI, p. 156. *॥ Lassen (see Indian Antiquary, Vol: II., p. 196) says "tbe ancient capital, Pâtaliputra, had long ceased to exist at the time to which, I think, the reign of Kalkin must be referred," that is to say, according to him, 1522 A. D. I do not know exactly what this alludes to. But it looks as if the meaning merely was that Pataliputra had ceased to be occupied as the seat of. royalty long before 1522. If so, the passage can have no bearing on the question discussed in the text.
