of the eighth century of the Christian era. I am bound, however,
to point out, that besides the doubtful character of the evidence
we have here set out, we must recollect that in the recent-
republication of the account of Ma-Twan-Lin, the passage above.
adduced is very differently rendered. Instead of what is quoted
above, we read there as follows:-"Towards the end of the
Khien-yuen period ( 668), China having lost the country of
Holong, the kings of India ceased from that time to come to court."*
These two renderings are entirely different from one another, and
it is impossible for us to decide between them. We must, therefore,
leave the question to be determined by those who are conversant
with the subject. It is enough for us here to add, that
while on the one hand the modern Pâtna does not date back to any
period further removed from us than the time of Shir Shah, who-
indeed, appears to have founded the modern fortress and town, we
have no mention of Pâtaliputra in any work of ascertained date
subsequent to the time of Hiouen-Tsang And it would be remarkable,
that Ma-Tyan-Lin's own account should contain nothing
about a city which is referred to both by Fa-Hian and by Hiouen-
Tsang.
For obvious reasons, it is not possible for me to go into the
various geographical discussions regarding the change of the course of
the S'ona and the actual site of Pâţaliputra, which have been going on
from the time of Major Rennell to our own day. Nor is it
necessary for our present purpose that I should do so. Suffice it'
to say, that in all these discussions, as we have indicated above,
the date of the Mudrârâkshasa instead of being treated as a point for
investigation, has been assumed, in accordance with the opinion
of Professor Wilson, to fall in about the eleventh century of the
Christian era. There is however nothing, as far as I am able to judge,
in the points made in that discussion, either to render such an
assumption necessary, or even to indicate that it is a legitimate
one. The date of the play may be placed even five or six centuries
earlier than the point at which professor Wilson placed it, without
in any way running counter to any fact established in the discus-
* See Indian Antiquary. Vol. XI., p. 19, and Cf. Yule's Catbay, Vol I., P. lxxxi. |* Sec Cunningham's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. VIII., p. 14.
- But see as to this and generally the pote on this point in our note on
'the date of S'ankaracharya' in the Indian Antiquary. $ See p. 14 supra.