Now Patna is situated near the confluence of the Sonus with the Ganges, in a very favourable position for a city of importance: and it appears to be pretty certain that it is the site of a very ancient city, but _not that of the city of Palibothra_. We must recollect that there is an Upper and Lower Ganges, the latter of which would be below Patna. Now, though the ancient kingdom of Maghada included Patna, it is not probable that there was a capital so low down. Heeren declares that the empire of the Prasii extended beyond the junction of the Jumna with the Ganges, and we may infer from this that the said junction was not much short of the limits of the empire. And, speaking of particular towns, he names Ayodhya, Kanoge, and others. Also mentioning Pataliputra (Patna) the same author says: "The scene of these fables (Hitopadesah, or Pilpay) is laid in the city of Pataliputra, by no means the most ancient in India." Arrian tells us that Palibothra was in the confines of the Prasii. But Pataliputra was the capital of King Chundragupta, who reigned long before the kingdom of the Prasii was established. Heeren[79] says: "Compare the accounts of Chundragupta given by Wilford in the 'Asiatic Review, vol. v. p. 264.'" In the list of kings arranged by Sir William Jones[80] the reign of Nauda is placed in 1602, and of Chundragupta in 1502 B.C.; the latter, therefore, must have lived 1200 years before Sandrocottus. Will any one pretend that there was another Chundragupta? Arrian tells us simply that the city of Palibothra is in the confines of the Prasii: he does not say that it had been thus distinguished as the capital of Chundragupta, which he would no doubt have done if the fact had been so, and the very antiquity of Chundragupta destroys the possibility of his capital being Palibothra, which was built so many years after. We conclude, therefore, that Patna, as is generally allowed, is the site of the ancient Pataliputra, the capital of Chundragupta; and that it is _not_ the same as Palibothra, but a much more ancient city. It has been stated by some, that Pataliputra and Palibothra are one and the same place, and that the latter name is simply a corruption of the former. But Buchanan well remarks on this subject,[81] "This city (Patna) is indeed allowed by the Pundits to be called Pataliputra; but Pataliputra has no great resemblance to Palibothra; nor can Patali be rationally considered as a word of the same origin as Pali, said to be an ancient name of this country, and of its people and language." There is no doubt that the use of the word Pali, in this connection, is derived from the Pali language of the Buddhists, who have a temple at Gya.