It is possible that some English readers may have given so little attention to Indian subjects, that further preliminary explanations may be needed by them before commencing the perusal of the following pages. For their benefit I have written an Introduction, which I hope will clear the ground sufficiently for all. Let me now discharge the grateful duty of tendering my respectful thanks to the Governments of India for the patronage and support they have again accorded to my labours. Let me also acknowledge the debt I owe to two eminent Sanskritists-Dr. John Muir of Edinburgh, and Professor E. B. Cowell of Cambridge-for their kindness in reading the proof-sheets of the present series of lectures. These scholars must not, however, be held responsible for any novel theories propounded by me. In many cases I have modified my statements in accordance with their suggestions, yet in some instances, in order to preserve the individuality of my own researches, I have preferred to take an independent line of my own. Learned Orientalists in Europe and India who are able adequately to appreciate the difficulty of the task I have attempted will look on my errors with a lenient eye. As I shall welcome their criticisms with gratitude, so I shall also hope for their encouragement; for, often as I have advanced in my investigations, and have found an apparently interminable horizon opening out before me, I have felt like a foolhardy man seeking to cross an impassable ocean in a fragile coracle, and so have applied to myself the well-known words of the great Sanskrit poet : तितीर्षुर्दुस्तरं मोहादुडुपेनास्मि सागरम् ॥ Titirshur dustaram mohad uḍupenāsmi sāgaram. Oxford, May 1875. M. W. CONTENTS. PAGE The Ramayana LET RE XIII-The Maha-biirata LECTURE XIV.-The Epic Pems compared together and with 473 994 304 3.5 319 321 337 371 Homer IN INTRODUCTION. N this Introduction1 I shall endeavour, first, to explain how Sanskrit literature is the only key to a correct knowledge of the opinions and practices of the Hindu people; and, secondly, to show how our possession of India involves special responsibilities and opportunities with reference to the study of the three great systems of belief now confronting Christianity in the world-Brähmanism, Buddhism, and Islām. To clear the ground let me review very briefly the past and present history of the great country whose teeming population. has been gradually, during the past two hundred and fifty years, either drawn under our sway, or, almost against our will, forced upon our protection. The name India is derived from the Greek and Roman adaptation of the word Hindu, which was used by the Persians for their Aryan brethren, because the latter settled in the districts surrounding the streams of the Sindhu (pronounced by them Hindhu and now called Indus). The Greeks, who probably gained their first conceptions of India from the Persians, changed the hard aspirate into a soft, and named the Hindus 'Ivdoí (Herodotus IV. 44, V. 3). After the Hindu Aryans had spread themselves over the plains of the Ganges, the Persians called the whole of the region between the Panjab and Benares Hindustan or 'abode of the Hindus,' and this name is used in India at the present day, especially by the Musalman population. The classical name for India, however, as commonly 1 Some detached portions of the information contained in this Introduction were embodied in a lecture on 'The Study of Sanskrit in Relation to Missionary Work in India,' delivered by me, April 19, 1861, and published by Messrs. Williams & Norgate. This lecture is still procurable. 2 Seven rivers (sapta sindhavaḥ) are mentioned, counting the main river and the five rivers of the Panjab with the Sarasvati. In old Persian or Zand we have the expression Hapta Hendu. It is well known that a common phonetic interchange of initial s and h takes place in names of the same objects, as pronounced by kindred races. The name Hindustan properly belongs to the region between the Sutlej and Benares, sometimes extended to the Narbadā and Mahā-nadī rivers, but not to Bengal or the Dekhan. employed in Sanskrit literature and recognized by the whole Sanskritic race, more particularly in Bengal and the Dekhan, is Bharata or Bhārata-varsha-that is to say-'the country of king Bharata',' who must have ruled over a large extent of territory in ancient times (see pp. 371, 419 of this volume). It will not, of course, be supposed that in our Eastern Empire we have to deal with ordinary races of men. We are not there brought in contact with savage tribes who melt away before the superior force and intelligence of Europeans. Rather are we placed in the midst of great and ancient peoples, who, some of them tracing back their origin to the same stock as ourselves, attained a high degree of civilization when our forefathers were barbarians, and had a polished language, a cultivated literature, and abstruse systems of philosophy, centuries before English existed even in name. The population of India, according to the census of 1872, amounts to at least 240 millions 2. An assemblage of beings so immense does 1 Manu's name (II. 22) for the whole central region between the Himālaya and Vindhya mountains is Āryāvarta, ' abode of the Aryans,' and this is still a classical appellation for that part of India. Another name for India, occurring in Sanskrit poetry, is Jambu-dvipa (see p. 419). This is restricted to India in Buddhist writings. Strictly, however, this is a poetical name for the whole earth (see p. 419), of which India was thought to be the most important part. Bharata in Rig-veda I. xcvi. 3 may mean a supporter,' 'sustainer,' and Bhārata-varsha may possibly convey the idea of 'a supporting land.' 2 Of these about 27 millions belong to the native states. In the Bengal provinces alone the number, according to the census of 1871-72, amounts to 66,856,859, far in excess of any previous estimate. Of these, only 19,857 are Europeans, and 20,279 Eurasians. A most exhaustive and interesting account of its details is given by Sir George Campbell in his Bengal Administration Report. This is the first real census of the country yet attempted. Sir William Jones in 1787 thought the population of Bengal, Behar, Orissa (with Benares also) amounted to 24,000,000; Colebrooke in 1802 computed it at 30,000,000; in 1844 it was estimated at 31,000,000; and of late years it was assumed to be about 40 or 41 millions. Now it is found that the food-producing area of Bengal numbers 650 souls to the square mile, as compared with 422 in England, and 262 in the United Kingdom. The three Presidency towns number 644,405 inhabitants for Bombay (called by the natives Mumbai); 447,600 for Calcutta (Kalikātā); and 397,522 for Madras (Ćenna-pattanam): but |