wholly contrary to historical evidence to call Persepolis Mourva', and absolutely arbitrary to connect the Mauryas with Persepolis, Mourva of the Vendidad is identified with Merv and is taken by Meyer, the foremost authority of our day on Persian history, as a place-name and not an ethnic appellation. It seems that serious chronological objection arises to deriving Maurya from Mōurva in that the latter form had gone out of use long before the time of Chandragupta. Darius in his Behistum inscription gives the form Margu. But no room for any speculation is left if we take into account the oldest vernacular form of ' Maurya ' known to Indian literature. The Hathigumph inscription of Orissa which is contemporary with the last days of the Mauryas has Rāja-Muriya*; and Muriya is the form found in the Jain chronological gatha. This form can only be connected with Mura which, the Sanskrit authorities say, was the name of Chandragupta's mother; the form could not be derived from Mourva. Muriya dislodges Mourva altogether.

The connection of Chandragupta with the Nandas is well established (a point which Dr. Spooner recognises, page 417). You cannot call Chandragupta a Parsi and leave his reputed father (Nanda) a Hindu. The difficulty is solved by Dr. Spooner by declaring the Nandas also to have been Parsis. Nothing like proof, however, has been given to support the thesis. We have only this: "The latter (the later Nandas) were hated cordially, and is it not recorded that they exterminated all the Kshatriyas? If they are Persian invaders, this is sensible enough." As the Nandas were rich, it is asserted that they came as merchant princes first, and won their empire as the English did.' Suppositions piled upon suppositions prove no case. On the other hand, there is positive and contemporary evidence that the Nanda who was ruling when Alexander came was the son of a barber (Curtius, ix, 2, Diodorus, xciii). The Purānas in effect say the same. There is no opportunity for

* Dr. Fleet's interpretation of the inscription has not been accepted. Dr. Spooner is literally right when he says there is no Moriya in that epigraph, for it has Muriya.

the Parsi Merchant-Prince of Dr. Spooner to claim and ascend the imperial throne upon which sat the Hindu barber.

In dealing with Chanakya Dr. Spooner (page 419) casually suggests that the Jyotish Vedanga is attributable to the Persian influence. But the Jyotish is astronomically dated in the twelfth century B.C., which is long before the birth of Persepolis and the Persian empire.

Internal evidence in the Artha Shastra perfectly disposes of any theory alleging a non-Brahman origin of the Mauryan chancellor. Chanakya enumerates the triple Vedas beginning with the Saman. Now it is a practice well-known to Vedic literature that a Brahman mentions his own Veda first. Chanakya was thus a Sama-vedin, and not an "Atharvan " as Dr. Spooner calls him (page 420). In fact Chanakya does not count the Atharva-Veda in his Trayi or the Vedic triple (Artha Shastra, page 7).

Dr. Spooner argues that medicine was associated with the Magians and as Chanakya practised medicine which (he says) the Brahman hated, Chanakya as a Brahman is found in suspicious circumstances' when the curtain lifts'. It is undoubtedly evident from his book that the great chancellor knew medicine which he must have studied at Taxila, his home and the famous place for that science in ancient days. But there is not a shred of evidence that he practised medicine. Such being the case it is not necessary to examine the general proposition whether Orthodox Brahmans in the fourth century B.C. did or did not practice medicine.

Chanakya's salutation to Sukra and Brihaspati in the beginning of his book is taken by Dr. Spooner to be 'encouraging' (I think, to his theory), as 'there is a distinctly astrological flavour about' it. Whether a distinct astrological flavour would help much the theory is a question which might be shelved, for the premise itself is wrong. Brihaspati and Sukra of Chanakya were not stars but human beings. They were the greatest authorities on Hindu politics; they have been mentioned in the Gribya Sutras and the Dharmasutras; and they have been copiously

quoted by Chanakya himself in the very book on the first page of which homage is done to them. Then it is more than doubtful that the invocation, as it appears, is ancient. We have only one manuscript of the Artha Shastra up to this time.

Great emphasis has been laid on Lokāyātā appearing in the course prescribed for the education of princes in the Artha Shastra because Lokayata, Dr. Spooner points out, is said to mean atheism (page 419). "If this be right Chanakya's orthodoxy is impugned at once." But 'impugned orthodoxy' does not turn a Brahman into a Parsi priest. Lokayata, however, did not mean atheism in ancient times. The matter has been discussed as early as 1899 by Professor Rhys Davids (Dialogues of the Buddha, ii, 166-172) who says: "The best working hypothesis to explain the above facts seems to be that about 500 B.C. the word Lokayata was used in a complimentary way as the name of a branch of Brahman learning ".

There are two more points urged as evidence of the Magian identity of Chanakya. The opening lines of chapter XII of the Artha Shastra are quoted. According to them orphans to be maintained by the State were to be taught astrology, palmistry, reading of augury, etc. Dr. Spooner thinks that no Hindu would have instituted such a curriculum; 'but it would be', he says, 'reasonable enough for a Magian minister of state'. If the heading of the chapter had been noticed, confusion would have been avoided. Chanakya treats astrology with contempt, not with Magian respect. He says that men for the secret service of police should be recruited from the ranks of orphans. They should be made astrologer-spies. The whole chapter is on the Institution of the Secret Service and such is the title of the chapter.

Dr. Spooner thinks that as Chanakya prescribes that the Royal Purohita must be a Brahman versed in the Atharvan and that he must be followed by king, Chanakya was a Parsi priest. But there is nothing Parsi in this. Orthodox authority even anterior to Chanakaya is unanimous that the

Purohita must be a follower of the Atharva-veda. Chanakya did not introduce this as a new rule.*

Dr. Spooner institutes comparison between the 'Yoga' mentioned in the Artha Shastra and the Magian mummeries'! But unfortunately Chanakya never defines his Yoga, and as Yoga had different meanings in different ages, it is useless to institute comparison between the unknown and the known.

The result of the architectural evidence' is no more satisfactory. Being on the spot I have had the opportunity to follow the progress of the Kumhrar excavations. I do not think that the learned archeologist has succeeded in proving that the site excavated represents Chandragupta's palaces. On a closer search the Persepolitan picture disappears from Kumhrar. This, I propose to show in another paper.

After a careful examination of the whole evidence and arguments contained in the lengthy paper of Dr. Spooner, I have no hesitation in saying that up to this time "The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History" appears to be a mere castle-in-the-air.

K. P. JAYASWAL, M.A. (Oxon.), BAR-AT-LAW.

I think in fairness to Dr. Spooner it must be mentioned that since the publication of his paper he has told me that he means to abandon the part of his theory relating to Chanakya.

NOTES OF THE QUARTER.

I.-Minutes of the Annual

Annual General Meeting held on the 24th January, 1916, at Government House, Bankipore.

His Honour Sir EDWARD GAIT, K.C.S.I., C.I.E., President, in the Chair.

1. The

Vice-President of the Council, the Hon'ble Mr. C. E. A. W. OLDHAM, I.C.S., read the report of the Council, which was accepted.

2. His Honour the President then delivered his address.* 3. The following articles of antiquarian interest collected by the Society were exhibited :

(1) Twelve specimens of ancient copper axe-heads, dis

covered in Chotā Nāgpur.

(2) Eighty Palæolithic and Neolithic stone axe-heads, hammers, chisels, stools, polishers, etc., collected in Chōtā Nagpur.

(3) A number of ancient copper ornaments, dug out from Asura graves in the Ranchi district.

(4) An old set of three copper plates with a

seal of

Yayati Gupta (11th century), found in the Sonpur

State in Crissa.

(5) One gold coin of Huvishka, of the Imperial Kushan dynasty, found in the Ranchi district.

(6) One gold coin of Anantha Varma Chola Gupta (11th century), found in the Sambalpur district.

*Printed at pages 1-18, sante.