the Rigveda (12, 121). While Ceylon was occupied by the Aryas about the year 500 B.C. and the southern Mathura was founded even earlier, the knowledge of places in Manu's law does not really go beyond the Vindhyas towards the south: the Odras and Dravidas are merely mentioned in a general enumeration of nations (10, 44), and the Andhras as an impure caste (10, 36, 49). The kingdoms of Mathura and Kerala would certainly have been mentioned if they had been in existence. The book of the law mentions the Nyaya (logic), the system of Mimansa, though only in the suspected conclusion (12, 109, 111), but not the Buddhists. It is true expressions occur, like liars (Nastika, 2, 11), revilers of the Veda (Vedanindaka), but we know that before Buddha the Sankhya doctrine denied both the gods and the Veda. I can, therefore, concede to Johaentgen (who places the book between 500 and 350 B.C.) that germs and analogies from the Sankhya doctrine occur in it, especially in the doctrine given in the introduction of the elements and properties (1, 74-78); this requires no alteration in the date. It ought to be observed that in the book of the law the kings and heroes of the Epos are not mentioned at all, but names of kings are found which occur in the Vedas: Vena, Nahusha, Pijavana, Sumukha, Nimi, Prithu (Manu, 7, 41, 42; 9, 44, 66); hence we may conclude that the book was brought to a close before the revision of the Epos from a priestly point of view was accomplished, or at any rate became a common possession of all. M. Müller's position, that the _anushtubh çlòka_ was first used in the last centuries B.C., would affect only the form of the book, not the rules themselves; and Goldstücker is of opinion that this metre is of a far older date. However this may be, the metrical redaction of the Manava-dharma-çastra is not its original form: it is based upon a non-metrical Dharma-sutram. That the oldest Grihya-sutras and Çrauta-sutras are older than the first Dharma-sutra is allowed; but this does not prove the modern origin of the latter. A complete civilisation like that exhibited to us in the philosophy and grammar of the Indians before Buddha, by the sutras of the Buddhists and the accounts of the Greek, was certainly not without a systematic canon to answer the questions in life for the Brahmans. They required the power of the state, and could not leave it without a guide. It would be inconceivable how the condition of India, which Buddha finds, could have grown up without such a guide for princes and judges. Müller himself maintains that the distinction of Çruti and Smriti existed before Buddha; that it was the Çruti already containing Mantras and Brahmanas, which gave the impulse to his reforms. "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 78 ff,; p. 86, 107, 135. If Çaunaka wrote, as Müller concludes, about the year 400 _b.c._, his sutras for the elucidation of the understanding of the Brahmanas, and Açvalayana wrote the sutras of