[Footnote 108: Professor Müller rejects the theory of the Samvat era and the Renaissance of Sanskrit literature in the first century. Instead, he acknowledges the existence of a _S_aka era, bearing date with the coronation of Kanishka, 78 A.D. Although this monarch was a patron of the Buddhists, and the third collection of their sacred books was made under his auspices, our author considers the period of _S_aka or Yuen-chi domination from 24 B.C. till 178 A.D. as a literary interregnum. He is not willing to suggest any date for the Mahâbhârata or Râmâya_n_a, which appear to have been then extant. He exonerates Indian epic poetry, however, from any imputation of Greek influence. Not so with astronomy. Âryabha_t_a, the elder, who described the motion of the earth very accurately, he considers to have had no predecessors; and also cites other Indian authors who described the twelve signs of the zodiac with Greek names or their equivalents, and assigned each to a region in the body of the Creator, as we now see it marked out in our almanacs. In this matter he is certainly plausible. The period of the Renaissance and the reign and proper era of Vikramâditya are set down at about 550 A.D. He follows Dr. Bhao Daji, and is sustained by Mr. Fergusson, author of "Tree and Serpent Worship," and other works on religious architecture. It was the period of learned and literary men, as well as of active religious controversy. "Believers in Buddha and believers in the Veda lived together at this time," he remarks, "very much as Protestants and Roman Catholics do at the present day--fighting when there is an opportunity or necessity for it, but otherwise sharing the same air as fellow-creatures." Among a crowd of others we may instance Dignâga, a Buddhist, Kâlidâsa, a Siva worshipper, and Mânatunga, a _G_aina, as frequenting the royal court. Vasubandhu, to whom the revival of Buddhist literature was largely due, was the son of a Brahman and a student of the Nyâya philosophy; as, indeed, Hiouen-thsang, the Chinese traveller, also studied logic under a Brahma_n_a teacher. Vikramâditya oscillated between all parties. Having quarrelled with the King of Ka_s_mira and Manorhita, the great Buddhist teacher at the convent near Peshawer, he called an assembly of Sâstrikas and _S_ramanas, at which the latter were denounced. He also placed Matrigupta (Kalidasa?) over that country. At his death, however, the regal authority was surrendered to the legitimate king, who in his turn reinstated _S_îlâditya, the successor of Vikrama, on the throne. This king also called an assembly of divines, and the Buddhists were restored to their former position. As they seem to have constituted the principal men of learning, I am disposed to believe that they were the actual restorers of the golden period to India. The "Nine Gems," Professor Müller is very confident, belong to this period. He declares that the philosophical Sûtras have no ascertained date prior to 300 A.D.