^{page 302 note 1} I have omitted this translation of Jātaka, No. 225, as the Pāli is easily accessible, and as the form and scheme of the Pāli Jātakas is well-known here from the versions published by Prof. Rhys Davids and others.

^{page 303 note 1} The first to call attention to these facts was, as far as we know, E. Windisch, see his Ueb. d. Altirische sage des Táin Bó Cúalgne, der Raub der Rinder (Verh. 33, Phil. Vers. Gera, 1878), Leipzig, 1879, 15–32; and, regarding India, p. 28, where the legends of Hariṣcandra, Ṣunahṣepa, Urvaṣī-Purūravas, are mentioned. Further investigations by H. Oldenterg, Das altindische Akhyāna, in ZDMG. 37, 54–86, and Akhyāna-hymnen im Rigveda (ZDMG. 39, 52–90); R. Pischel and K. Geldner, Vedische Studien, i. ii. 1, Stuttgart, 1889–92; particularly Geldner's monograph ‘Purūravas und Urvaṣī,’ pp. 243–295; cf. review by Oldenberg in GGA. 1889, 1 sq. and 1890, 405–427. See also the interesting remarks in the same province in H. Zimmer's review of Hist, littéraire de la France, t. xxx. (GGA. 1890, 806–808, and Th. Nöldecke, Persische Studien, ii. 11, Wien, 1892 (Sitz.B.W.A.H.Ph. Cl. cxxvi).

^{page 303 note 2} Sometimes it happens that, while the tale itself is lost, the argumentum only remains; e.g. in the Jain collection Samyaktvakaumudī (A. Weber, S.B.Berl.Ak. 1889, pp. 741–743 sq.), the tale of the potter crushed by a falling wall is only preserved in one MS., while the two others give only the argumentum. This tale, in a somewhat different shape, is also found in the Pāli canon, in No. 432, Padakusalamā;ṇavaj., of which below a translation will be given [omitted here.—H. W.], together with a comparison with the Samyaktvakaumudī.

^{page 303 note 3} To the abundant literature that has already accumulated about this little fable we may add the version in Takkāriyaj. (481). It is interesting to see that this fable, in a very similar form, occurs also in the Makames of Hariri, see Fr. Rückert, Die Verwandlungen des Abu Seid von Serug. Stuttgart, 1837, i. 9.

^{page 304 note 1} See Davids', Rhys ‘ Buddhist Birth Stories,’ p. liiGoogle Scholar., who discusses this question at length and gives instances.—H. W.

^{page 304 note 2} Further details on this collection will be given by A. O. Ivanovski. Doubtless a closer examination of the Chinese and Tibetan literatures will supply us with translations of most, if not all, Jātakas and legends found in the Pāli canon; and we may also hope to find yet many Indian originals, when once Tibet becomes more accessible.

^{page 304 note 3} Prof. Rhys Davids has a comparative table in his ‘ Buddhist Birth Stories ’ showing the instances in which the Bharhut sculptures could be identified, when that work was published, with particular Jātakas. There remains a good number still unidentified. See also Cunningham and Hultzsch in the Bibliography at end of this article.—H.W.

^{page 304 note 4} [I would respectfully point out that it is quite certain that the Jātakas belong, not to the oldest period, but to the oldest period but one, of Buddhist literature. As I showed in the Introduction to my ‘ Buddhist Birth Stories,’ there are a fair number of what are now included as Jātakas in the Jātaka Book, which appear, not as Jātakas, but simply as stories in the older books, such as the Nikāyas and the Vinaya. The stories in the Cariya Piṭaka are already Jātakas. It follows that the transition from stories to Jātakas took place in the intervening period; that is to say, that the stories first became Jātakas after the oldest period of Buddhist literature had closed. We can even go further and fix the date at approximately between 450 and 250 b.c., and probably nearer to the earlier of the two.—Rh. D.]

^{page 306 note 1} Preface, v.—Of the MSS. which Prof. Kern did not inspect, we may observe that that of the Petersburg University entirely coincides in its text with those used for the edition, and the same is the case with the MS. of the late Prof. J. P. Minayev (now in the Public Library, fol. 130, 1. 7). The MS, of the Bengal Asiatic Society (Rājendralal., 49–57) probably belongs to the same family of MSS.; the different beginning there seems to us to have got there erroneously from the immediately following Bhodisattvāvdāna-Kalpa-Latā, where it really is in its place; there are not a few examples of a like negligence in this, otherwise most useful, catalogue.

^{page 308 note 1} We had only the use of Böhtlingk and Rieu's edition, trying, in one instance perhaps even too boldly, to reconstruct the titles of the Jātakas.

^{page 308 note 2} See Fausböll Jātaka; i. 45–47. In Morris' edition we must read, p. xiv. ii. 1 =455; ii. 5=278; in ii. 9, 2 (p. 90), sutadhammo is not a proper name, and, in the same v. read Alīnasattu, p. xvi, Jātakamālā is the same book as Bodhisathvāvadāna.

^{page 308 note 3} According to this, Rhys Davids' Birth St. p. 54, note 2, must be corrected. Ibid. p. 55 (written before the publication of the Cariyapiṭaka), instead of Snake king Sīlavā read elephant king Sīlavā, and, further on, elephant king Chaddanta.

^{page 308 note 4} Cf. also Hardy, Manual of B. 101–103.

^{page 309 note 1} Ryauon Fujishima, Deux chapitres extraits le memoires d'l-tsing, J.A. 8. xii, 424.

^{page 309 note 2} In this excellently edited text we have found only four unimportant misprints: 42, 33 read svastyayana; 58, 7 r. ṣoka; 97, 8 r. payoda; 111, 24 r. Ṣakras. [Two more are on p. 21, 21, where we expect jānānas ca rivatyayatām.–E.L.]

^{page 309 note 3} [This Jātaka is apparently a combination of the Brahmanic tale relating to Ṣibi and of the Jain tale concerning the offering of one's eye (ZDMG. xlvi. 611).–E.L.]

^{page 310 note 1} [A Jain parallel to this story occurs in the commentaries on the Āvasyakaniry.–E.L.]

^{page 311 note 1} Necessarily we observe here the similitude of this conversation with that of Yama and Nāciketas in the first vallī of the Kāṭhakopanishat.

^{page 317 note 1} It is extremely interesting that the verses quoted on p. 98, 20 as coming from the āryasthāvirīyakanikāya, are found, in fact, nearly identical in the Khuddakanikāya of the Pāli canon, Dhammap. 244, 245—

sujīvitam, etc. sujīvam, etc.

^{page 325 note 1} [The Jain tale corresponding to this Jātaka is found in the commentaries on Āvasyaka-niryukti, ix. 32 (more exactly on Viseshāvasyaka-bhāshya, v. 189, 5); it is alluded to also in Āv.-niry. xix. 164, 4.—E.L.]

^{page 328 note 1} On this table and the third compare the similar tables at the end of ProfDavids's, Rhys introduction to his ‘ Buddhist Birth Stories,’ London, 1881Google Scholar.

Those signed with an asterisk are not in Prof. Kern's table (Preface, p. viii sq.). The greater part of these omissions is explained by the fact that, at the time when the Jātaka Mālā was being printed, the fifth part of the Jātaka was not yet published. Yet other parallels are: 1 =in another redaction Divyāv 32. Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā (B.K.) 51. 95. Dsanglun 2; 2=Ds. 35; 6 = B.K. 104. Av. Ṣat. 37; 8 = Ds. 12; 9=B.K. 23; 28 = B.K. 38. [Ds. 11. H.W.]; 29 cf. Beal, Rom. Leg. 306–310; 31=Ds. 36, Bhadrakalpāvadāna 34.

^{page 333 note 1} The text apparently is corrupt, and it is not clear to whom the sacrifice is to be brought, and what is its aim.

^{page 336 note 1} In this place the text is very much corrupted, and we cannot form a clear idea what tale here is related, as also further on there is a lacuna; also the tale, how Buddha obtained a wise saying from the snake-charmer, is not clear.

^{page 339 note 1} Here M. Senart's edition stops unfortunately at present. The remainder of the titles, here added hy the author from Rājendralal, p. 145 sq. and Bendall, p. 56 sq., will doubtless be found in the forthcoming volume of M. Senart's edition.—H.W.

^{page 339 note 2} This collection is apparently very near related, if not identical, with the Katā-mahodadhi of the poet Somacandra.

^{page 342 note 1} Cf. Weber, A. Ueb. die Samy.; SBBA. 1889, xxxviii. For the text we had the use of the MS. from Minayev's collection, which resembles the redaction AB. of Weber (fol. 133, 11. 9–12; Saṃvat, 1629). It is in different hands—Jain Devanāgari; we denote it by M.; this MS. is now in the Imperial Public Library. The tales that are not found in M., or that are different from the redaction ABM., we give after Weber.

^{page 341 note 2} Cf. Weber, p. 30 (756), after the indication of Prof. Leutnann; for this text we only could make use of the Calcutta edition (Saṃvat, 1936), and two MSS. from Minayev's collection, nearly coinciding with the Calcutta text, viz. i. Saṃvat, 1839, fol. 293, with a tāba in bhāshā; ii. The Commentary (Uttarādhyāyanasūtrārthadīpikā) of Lakshmīvallabha, fol. 470, 1. 16; Saṃvat, 1909. Besides, we had a MS. of the Avactūi to the Uttarajjhayana, from the same collection, fol. 73, 11. 20–21, s.a.; it gives the tales nearly in the form of a conspect, not differing in any material point from the text of Lakshmīvallabha.

^{page 342 note 1} This conceit is often repeated in Indian tales.

^{page 342 note 2} Weber has already remarked (l.c. p. 18) that the Samyaktvak. has many quotations in common with the Pañcantantra and the Hitopadeṣa; we do not think it superfluous to adduce three argumenta from the Pañcantantra that we have found in the Samyaktvak.

i. tale: varam buddhir na sā vidyā vidyāto huddhir uttamā buddhihīnā vinaṣyanti yathā te siṃhakārakāḥ (Pañe, v, 5, Koseg.).

ii. tale: vṛddhavākyaṃ sadā kṛtyaṃ prajñaih ea guṇasālibhiḥ paṣya haṃsān vane baddhān vṛddhavākyena mocitān (Pañe. Benfey, ii, 139 sq.).

iii. tale: bubhukshitaḥ kiṃ na karoti pāpaṃ kshīṇā narā nishkaruṇā bhavanti ākhyāhi bhadre priyadarṣanasya na Gaṅgadattaḥ punar eti kūpam (Pañe, iv, 1, Koseg.).

^{page 342 note 3} The tale is in C.; in the other MSS. only the verse; in M. only a reference to the potter.

^{page 342 note 4} Weber does not mention the campaign.

^{page 343 note 1} Weber, Kulamatam.

^{page 343 note 2} Cf. Ausg, Jacobi Erz. in Māhārāshṭri, p. 51sqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 343 note 3} Weber, Niḥkaruṇa, both =‘pitiless.’

^{page 343 note 4} The tale is in B. only; the others have no more than the verse; from fragment, preserved in M., it is still apparent that the deer begs for forbearance.

^{page 343 note 5} Weber does not mention the wife.

^{page 343 note 5} Weber, Pāṭalīpura.

^{page 344 note 1} B. adds that the domestic, together with the wild, monkeys devastate the park.

^{page 344 note 2} The doubts of Weber arose from the explanation of the hidden meaning of the tales “die (i.e. the tales) sämtlich darauf hinausgehen, dass man durch Unvorsichtigkeit und Unklugheit, gelegentlich freilich auch ohne eigene Schuld, zu Schaden komt,” l.c. 14).

^{page 345 note 1} By reason of deficient material for the constitution of a good text, we had to renounce the production of all Prākṛit verses, and confine ourselves to those that are parallels to the Pāli ones; to omit those we thought not advisable, in. consideration of the importance of showing the identity of particular expressions in the compared texts.

^{page 346 note 1} Here, and further on, the plural number is used; apparently only a pl. majest. On Āshāḍhabhūti, who in the Avacūri is called Āshāḍhácārya; cf. Leumann, E., Die alten Berichte von den Sohismen des Jaina, Ind. St. xvii, 109–112 (Drittes Sch.). In the Karpūraprakarāvacūri (MS. of Minayev) there is a story about Āshāḍhabhūli. In the Brahminical literature this name is known from Pañcat. i, 4, where a clever thief, robbing a monk, is called thus.

^{page 347 note 1} We shall not repeat again this proverb, already known from the Jātaka and the Samyaktvak.

^{page 347 note 2} The robbery of the ornaments is repeated on the appearance of each following youth, and therefore, without repeating this circumstance, we give just the series of the remaining tales.

^{page 347 note 3} Those verses of these tales, which offer parallels with the tales in the Jātaka, we give below with a translation.

^{page 349 note 1} The meaning ia this, that the sacrificial grove round the pond, which the Brahmin had planted, thinking to merit a reward by this, became the source of misfortune for him, as in it himself nearly was offered up as a sacrifice, having been reborn for his sacrifices in the shape of a goat.

^{page 349 note 2} Kāṡavā.—E.L.

^{page 350 note 1} vutthaṃ.—E.L.

^{page 350 note 2} niruvaddave.—E.L. [See note on p. 356.]

^{page 351 note 1} Information on the collections and lists of Jātakas, cf. particularly the Index.

^{page 352 note 1} Translations from the commentary to the Dhammapadam; the complete Pāli text of this commentary, to be printed by the Pāli Text Society, is preparing by Prof. T. W. Ehys Davids.

^{page 354 note 1} These writings of Minayev's are all in Russian—mostly in the ‘Journal of the Puhlic Instruction Office.’