787
The Indian Kings named Siläditya, and the Kingdom
of Mo-la-p'o.
By Tincent A. Smith.
In my recently published work on Indian history I have
dealt briefly with king Siläditya of Mo-la-p'o in the following
passage : — "Very little is known about the history of India during the second half of the sixth century. It is certain that no paramount
power existed , and that all the states of the Gangetic plain had
suffered severely from the ravages of the Huns; but, excepting
bare catalogues of names in certain local dynastic lists, no facts
of general interest have been recorded.
The story of a certain king of one of the many independent
states which existed during those troublous times deserves notice,
not for its intrinsic importance, but on account of the serious
misinterpretation to which it has been subjected by several eminent
scholars. Hiuen Tsang, in the course of his extensive travels,
visited, about 640 A. D,, a kingdom at the head of the Gulf of
Cambay, which he calls Mo-la-p'o. The capital was situated on a
bend of the river Mahi, which enters the Ajabian Sea near Cambay. 2)
The countries of Kachchh (Cutch) and Anandapura (now in the
Baroda State) were dependencies of Mo-la-p'o , which was a rich
and prosperous region inhabited by men of exceptional intelligence
and learning. The kingdom thus described clearly corresponded
with the modern Bombay districts of Kaira (Kherä) and Ahmadäbäd,
togetber with parts of Baroda and some adjoining territory.
The pilgrim ascertained from the records of this kingdom that
sixty yeai-s before his visit, or in 580 A. D. , the king had been
named Siläditya, a man of eminent wisdom and great learning, a
devout Buddhist, and so careful to preserve animal life that he
1) The Early History of India from 600 B. C. to the Muhammadan
Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great, by Vincent
A. Smith (Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1904; pp. 279, 280). 1 follow M. Chavannes in using the spelling Hiuen Tsang.
2) Properly "Khambäyat".
788 V. A. Smith, The Indian Kings named Siläditya, etc.
caused the drinking water for his horses and elephants to be strained
lest perchance any creature living in the water should be injured.
This pious prince had reigned for more than fifty years.
This interesting, but wholly detached, bit of information about
a local Räja in Western India during the sixth century has been
pressed into the service of the general history of Northern India
in an unjustifiable manner. The Chinese name Mo-la-p'o having
been transliterated as Mälava, several learned writers have rashly
assumed that this Siläditya was king of Mälava, or Central India,
the country around Ujjain; and Mr. Beal actually dubs bim as
"Siläditya of Ujjain." A glance at the map and perusal of the
pilgrim's text are .sufficient to show that Mo-la-p'o, whatever be
the correct transliteration of the name, had nothing to do with
Mälava (Mälwä), which province lay on the other side of the Aravalli
mountains, "rhe Siläditya of Mo-la-p'o bad no political connexion
with Harsha-Siläditya of Kanauj and Thanesar, or with the history
of Northern India. These obvious remarks suffice to demolish a
large structure of purely imaginary history, built upon the assumption that Mo-la-p'o was identical with Mälwä.''^)
In the pages of a general history I could not fully explain
the grounds of my statements, and I propose to set them forth in
this article in a manner which will, I venture to think, convince
all readers that an unfortunate blunder committed, first by Vivien
de Saint-Martin and Stanislas Julien, and adopted by Mr. Beal and
his annotator Dr. Burgess, has grievously misled several eminent
Indian scholars, and has involved the history of India during the
seventh century in needless confusion.
The first thing to settle is the true position of the kingdom
of Mo-la-p'o, which Mr. Beal and Dr. Burgess, following the French
authorities, rashly identified with Mälava, the state of which Ujjain
(Ujjayinl) was the capital. The Chinese characters transliterated
as Mo-la-p'o undoubtedly might be the equivalent of Mälava, and,
if the context permitted that interpretation, it might stand. But
there is no necessity to take Mälava as the proper rendering of
Mo-la-p'o; for other renderings are quite possible, as, for instance,
1) Hiuen Tsang, bk. xi, in Beal, Records, ii. pp. 260—70; where the footnotes are not illuminating. Dr. Stein states that "Kalhana, himself, in a subsequent passage clearly designates this Vikramaditya-Harsa as the father of
king äüäditya-Pratäpaslla , wham we know from a statement of Hiuen-
Tsiang to have flourished as ruler of Mälava {Ujjain) about sixty years before his man time, i. e. about 580 A. D." (transl. Räjat, vol. i, p. G6).
The statement italicized is quite erroneous. Dr. Hoernle , being misled in the same way, has permitted himself to indulge in much fanciful speculation ("Some Problems of Ancient Indian History." in J. R. A. S. 1903, pp. 545—70, especially p. 553). His notion that Hiuen Tsang confounded Siläditya with Vikramaditya (p. 5G5) has no substantial basis. Max MUller (India, p. 278) was also led astray by Mr. Beal's blunder.
rsr
V. A. Smith, The Indian Kings named Siläditya, etc. 789
the medial l of the Chinese name may represent an Indian r. ■)
The context most certainly does not allow us to represent Mo-la-p'o
by Mälava, and anybody who reads Hiuen Tsang's text with care
must see that the current rendering is inadmissible, notwithstanding
the weight of authority by which it is supported. The persistent
unanimity with which the error of Mr. Beal, Dr. Burgess and their
French predecessors, has been adopted by all English writers on
the subject seems to be due to the fact that Mr. Beal, (whose
J) In Chao Ju-kua's ethnographical work, the Chu-fan-chih, written about 1205 A. D. , or a little later, the name Mä-la-va is transliterated Ma-lo-hua (J. R. A. S., 1896, p. 488). The reader will please note that ch in Chinese words has tho Euglish sound, that of tho French tch, or German tsch. Although I greatly dislike the use of the arbitrary symbol c for the Sanskrit English ch, I have felt bound to employ it in writing Indian words.
5 (
790 ^- Smith, The Indian Kings named Siläditya, etc.
version of the Travels is that usually consulted in England and
India), having on page 260 (Vol. II) transliterated the syllables
Mo-la-p'o by Mälava, substitutes "Mälava" for the Chinese form in the subsequent pages, and heads page 261 in capital letters "Siläditya
of Ujjain". Unsuspecting readers, whose attention had not been
directed specially to the question of identification, have accordingly
quoted Hiuen Tsang's observations as referring to the kingdom
of Mälava, of which Ujjain was the capital. But in reality the
state, of which the chief city was Ujjain, is clearly distinguished
by the pilgrim from the kingdom of Mo-la-p'o, the position of
which is defined by him in the most unmistakeable manner. I
say that the definition is unmistakeable, notwithstanding the fact
that some errors or corruptions have crept into the Chinese text.
But these defects in the text are not sufficient to throw the slightest
doubt upon the true position of the kingdom of Mo-la-p'o, as shown
in tbe accompanying map.
I now proceed to justify these positive assertions by showing
what it is that Hiuen Tsang really states concerning the relative
position of Mo-la-p'o and the surrounding kingdoms.^)
The pilgrim approached Mo-la-p'o from the south that is to
say, from Bharukaccha, the famous port near the mouth of the
Narmadä, commonly known as Broach, and more accurately as
Bharöc, which is situated in N. lat. 21° 43', E. long. 73° 2'. No
doubt is possible tbat the kingdom of Po-lu-kie-che-po, which Hiuen
Tsang reached after crossing the Narmadä (Nai-mo-to) river, was
that of Bharukaccha. He proceeds to say (Beal, II, 260) that
"going from this north-west about 2000 li, we come to the country of Mo-la-p'o".
This statement very clearly, and as will presently be shown,
quite accurately, places the kingdom of Mo-la-p'o to the north-west of that of Bharukaccha.
But the alleged distance of 2000 li is absurd. Reckoned in
miles it would be equivalent to about 350 English miles, and
estimated in day's journeys , at the rate of 50 li per diem ,-) it
1) CunninRliam (Anc. Geogr. p. 491) supposed the town of Dhar, or Dhäränagara, to represent the capital of Mo-la-p'o; and, starting from this erroneous premiss, arrived at many equally mistaken conclusions. It does not seem necessary to enter upon the formal discussion and refutation of theories based upon a fundamental error.
2) "Un autre point qui vaut aussi la peine d'etre releve ©st le sens exact de cette indication perp^tuellement repetee dans le journal de Hiuen-tsang:
"cinquante li ou environ". Prise h la lettre, elle correspondrait h dix-sept kilometres au plus . . . Mais Hiuen-tsang n'arpentait pas, que nous sachions, sa route: il comptait simplement par Stapes, par la bonne raison qu'il ne pouvait compter autrement. "Environ cinquante li" est I'approximation dont il se sert courammont pour designer la longueur d'uu© journee de marche, laquelle, bion que fort variable, ^tait ©t est encore ©n moyenne de quatr© de nos lieues." (Foucher, Notes sur la giographie ancienne du Gandhära, Hanoi, 1902, p. 20.)
5 i
V. A. Smäh, The Indian Kings named Siläditya, etc. 791
would correspond to forty day's travelling. Evidently there is a
clerical error in the figure, vrhich may be conjecturally amended
to 200.
The description of Mo-la-p'o which follows permits of no
uncertainty as to the position of that kingdom. The capital,
(according to Beal), was defended (or "supported") on the south-east
(or „south and east") by, or, according to Julien, was situated to
the south-east (situie au sud-est de) of, the Mo-ho river. This
stream is clearly the well known river Mahi, which enters the
Gulf of Cambay (Khambäyat) from the north-east. To emphasize
still more plainly the true situation of Mo-la-p'o, a Chinese com¬
mentator cited by Mr. Beal explains that the country is the same
as the southern Lo-lo country. Lo-lo, which Mr. Beal renders by
"Lara", is evidently Läta, tbe well-established name of Gujarät.
In due course, Hiuen Tsang proceeds to describe various neigh¬
bouring kingdoms. "Going north-west", he observes, "from the
country of Mo-la-p'o, after passing over 300 li or so, we come to
the country of K'ie-ch'a (Kaccha)" (Beal, II, 263). Julien's version
(II, 161) agrees. Hwui-li's Life of Hiuen Tsiang (Beal, p. 149;
Julien, p. 206) defines the relative situation of Mo-la-p'o and Kaccha
in the same sense. Julien's translation of the Vie states that "de
lä il fit trois cents li au nord-ouest, et arriva au royaume de
Ki-tch'a". Mr. Beal substitutes "three days" for "300 li", and
translates "from this, going north-west three days, we come to the
kingdom of K'ie-Ch'a". Both translators agree that Kacch lay a
short distance to the north-west of Mo-la-p'o, amounting to tifty
or sixty English miles, or, at the most, six days' journey. Mo-la-p'o,
as has already been shown, was situated to the north-west of the
kingdom of Bharukaccha. We now learn further that it was to
the south-east of Kaccha, and consequently between the countries
of Kaccha and Bharukaccha, as shown in my map.
These undoubted facts are sufficiently intelligible and conclusive;
but they do not stand alone , and are supported by much other
evidence. The province of Kaccha (Cutch), the pilgrim tells us,
was a dependency of Mo-la-p'o , which also exercised sovereignty
over a second small subordinate state named '0-nan-to-pu-lo, or
Anandapura, which must necessarily have adjoined Mo-la-p'o. Hiuen
Tsang j)laces this dependent province of Anandapura 700 li to the
north-west of Valabhl. The position of Valabhl, the modern Walä
in the peninsular of Käthiäwär, being perfectly well-known, a glance
at the map shows that there must be an error in the text. A
line drawn to a distance of 700 li (120—140 English miles) in
a north-westerly direction from Valabhl would bring us to the
neighbourhood of Bhüj in Kacch. But when the text is corrected
by reading "north-east" (ie. between north and east), for "north¬
west", the distance proves to be correct, and we find ourselves at
Vaj-nagar, situated midway between Ahmadäbäd and Mount Abü.
792 ^- ^- Smith, The Indian Kings named Siläditya, etc.
Now Varnagar (Vadnagar) is proved by "irrefragable evidence", as
Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar justly observes, to be the same as Ananda¬
pura; and inspection of my map shows that, as might be expected,
the two provinces of Kaccha and Anandapura, which were dependent
on Mo-la-p'o, adjoined the dominant state, the former on the north-
westem, and the latter on the northern side.')
It is thus established beyond the possibility of doubt that
Mo-la-p'o was a kingdom of Western India lying between Bharu¬
kaccha (Bharoc), Valabhl (Wala), Kaccha (Kacch or "Cutch"), and
Anandapura (Vadnagar); and that, consequently, it could not be
identical with Mälava, of which Ujjayinl (Ujjain) was the capital.
This proposition, abundantly proved as it is by the foregoing
argument, is further confirmed when we examine Hiuen Tsang's
definition of the position of the kingdom of Ujjayinl, or U-she-yen-na
(Beal, II, 270; Julien, II, 167). The pilgrim deduces the situation
of this kingdom from that of the kingdom of Gurjjarä (Kiu-che-
lo, Beal; Kiu-tche-lo, Julien); and the true position of Gurjjarä
or Gurjjarä has been demonstrated by Mr. D. M. Bhandarkar in
the essay already cited.
"Going north", says Hiuen Tsang, "from the kingdom of Valabhi
(Va-la-pi) 1800 li or so, we come to the kingdom of Kiu-che-lo
(Gurjjarä)". The bearing and distance are both correct, although of course the exact points from and to wbich the distance is reckoned
are not known. The distance is equivalent to 300 English miles, or
a little more, and a point some 300 miles to the north either of the
town of Valabhl, or of the approximate frontier of the Valabhl
State undoubtedly falls within the limits of the Gurjjarä kingdom.
1) "The identification of Anandapura with Vadnagar is based, in my humble opinion, on irrefragable evidence. The Vadnagar prasasti of the reign of KumärapSla distinctly makes mention of the town by the name of Anandapura, and speaks of it as containing a settlement of Brähmanas called Nagara (Ep.
Ind. I, pp. 295, 299, and 303). This is quite in accordance with the tradition current among Nägar Brähmanas that their original seat was Vadnagar {Gujarat
l^opulation in the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. IX, Pt. 1,
p. 13). Again, the Älinä charters of A. D. 649 and 656 wore issued to the same grantee who is described in the first as originally of Änarttapura, and in the second as originally of Anandapura {Ind. Ant. VII, 75 and 79). This
means that Anandapura was also known by the name of Anarttapurn. And,
as a matter of fact, according to popular stories, Vailnagar was called Änartta¬
pura in the Trötä-yuga {History of Gujarat iu the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. 1, Pt. 1, p. 6)." (Devadatta Kamkrishna Bhandarkar, "Gurjaras", p. 2 of reprint, J. Bo. It. A. S.. read 13th Nov. 1902.) "Verses 19—29 contain the praise of the ancient Brahmanical settlement of Nagara or Anandapura ....
Anandapura, which now is usually called Vadnagar, or in Sanskrit Vriddhanagara, lies in tho Kheriilu subdivision of the Kaili district, belonging to the Gaikoväd of Baroda. The earliest mention of its existence occurs in Iliuen Tsiang's Travels (Si-yu-ki, vol. II, p. 268). Somewhat lat.;r its name appears in the Valabhi land grnnts. and it is probably this Anandapura where Siläditya VI Dhrübhata issued his säsana of (Gupta-) Saiiivat 447" (Vajeshankar G. Ojhä and Biihler, Ep. Ind. loc. cit. p. 293).
V. A. Smith, The Indian Kings named Siläditya, etc.
Inscriptions prove that the kingdom or province of Gurjjarä,
at dates prior to the middle of the tenth century, included the
region to the north-east of Jödhpur, in the neighbourhood of the
Sämbhar Lake, and that it may be regarded as corresponding to
Central and Northern Räjputäna. The capital, which is called
Pi-lo-mi-lo by Hiuen Tsang, has not been identified, the attempte
to fix it at various places being unsuccessful.
From Gurjjarä, says the pilgrim, "going south-east 2800 li
or so, we come to the country of U-she-yen-na" (Ujjayini). The
bearing is correctly stated, but the distance noted is excessive, and
quite double the true distance, if the li be assumed to be equivalent
to about S/ie"» of an English mile of 1760 yards. The pilgrim's
information was apparently derived from vague hearsay, which
exaggerated the length of the route on account of the difficult
marching through the wilds of the Aravalli ranges.
The kingdom of Chi-ki-to (Jejäkabhukti or Jijhoti), now known
as Bundelkhand, lay to the north of Ujjayini at a distance of about
1000 li. Both direction and distance are approximately correct.
Going 900 li or so further north the traveller would arrive
at the kingdom of Mahe^varapura , that is to say the Gwälior
territory;^) and, if he returned to Gurjjarä, and went northward,
he would reach the river Sin-tu, and the kingdom of the same name,
that is to say. Sind. The river Sin-tu was probably the lost Hakrä,
or Wahindah, rather than the Indus.
All these particulars permit of no doubt concerning the po¬
sition of the kingdom of Ujjayini in relation to other states, and
it is obvious that Ujjayini, otherwise known as Mälava (Mälwä),
was remote and distinct from Mo-la-p'o. The king of the latter
was a Ksatriya by caste, and uncle (? father's brother) of the Räja
of Valabhl, who was son-in-law of the son of Räja Harsa- Siläditya
of Kanauj and Thanesar. But the ruler of Ujjain was a Brahman,
well versed in the Hindu scriptures, and without belief in the law
of Buddha , which found little favour in his dominions ; whereas
the population of Mo-la-p'o was fairly divided between the rival
creeds, as also was that of the dependent provinces of Kaccha and
Anandapura. The distinction between Ujjayini and Mo-la-p'o is so
obvious that I feel almost ashamed to insist upon the proofs of
such a patent fact in wearisome detail, but the necessity is forced
1) In Mahesvarapura "the sectaries principally belong to the PSsupatas"
(Beal, II, 271). Julien translates: — "11 y a plusieurs dizaines do temples des dieux, que frequeiitent surtout les sectaires qui se frottent de cendres (les t'dmcoupatas)" . Compare the Gwalior inscription: — " Mi/iirakul-eti-khi/ato- bhango yah Pas'upalim "the lord of the earth, who is renowned under the
name of Mihirakula. (and) who, (himself) unbroken [broke the power of]
Pasupati." The verb is lacking in the text (Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions, pp. 1C2, 163).
5 6*
794 V- Smith, The Indian Kings named äiladitya, etc.
upon me by the strange persistence of the erroneous opinion iden¬
tifying the two kingdoms.
The original author of the blunder was Vivien de Saint-
Martin/) whose opinions on matters of geography were accepted
by Stanislas Julien. The mistake thus authoritatively introduced
was adopted by Mr. Beal, as well as by Dr. Burgess, who wrote
many of the notes for Mr. Beal's version of Hiuen Tsang's Travels.
But Dr. Burgess evidently was not altogether unconscious of the
difficulties in the way of identifying two totally distinct kingdoms,
which are separately described by the author whose text he was
annotating, and his qualms have resulted in the production of some
very odd notes, which I forbear from criticising in detail.
The foregoing commentary on Hiuen Tsang's account of Westem
India shows that his observations, as tbey stand in the text of the
Travels, are by no means so erroneous as has been supposed. The only
errors in the bearings are those which place Valabhl to the north of
Kaccha {Beal II, 266), instead of the south ; and Anandapura to the
north-west of Valabhi, instead of the north-east. Whether these
mistakes are due to slips in the pilgrim's original notes or to
clerical errors of transcription I cannot say. The absolute and
relative positions of Kaccha, Valabhl, and Anandapura both being
certain, there is no doubt that the bearings referred to are erroneous as given in the text, and require correction in the manner proposed.
The estimated distances stated are clearly wrong also in two
cases only, the intervals between Bharukaccha and Mo-la-p'o, and
between Gurjjarä and Ujjayinl being much exaggerated. The origin
of these errors likewise cannot be explained with certainty.
But the admitted existence of these faults in Hiuen Tsang's
text, whatever be their origin, does not in the least affect the facts that the kingdom of Mo-la-p'o lay to the north-west of Bharukaccha,
to the south-east of Kaccha, and to the south of both Anandapura
and Gurjjarä; whereas the kingdom of Ujjayinl lay a long way
to the south-east of the last named state, and was totally distinct
from Mo-la-p'o. The learned authors, therefore, who identify Mo-
la-p'o with Mälava, meaning by the latter term the kingdom of
Ujjayinl, are demonstrably mistaken; and the king Siläditya of
Mo-la-p'o who reigned sixty years prior to Hiuen Tsang's visit
cannot possibly have been "Siläditya of Ujjain", as Mr. Beal calls him.
I shall conclude by a brief notice of the false theories of Indian
history which have been based upon the blunder committed by
Vivien de Saint-Martin and his copyists.
The wildly unhistorical legends of the early books of the
Rajataraiigini have been pressed into the service of the theorists
and made to yield astonishing results. Kalhana tells us that a
1) Mimoire Analytique, in Julien, Mimoires sur les Contries occi- dentales. Vol. II, p. 403.
5 6*
V. A. Smäh, The Indütn Kings named äüädäya, etc.
king of Kasmir named Pravarasena "replaced Pratapaslla, also called
i^iläditya, the son of Vikramaditya, who had been dethroned by
enemies, in the kingdom of his father"^ (Bk. Ill, 330). Upon this
passage Dr. Stein's comment is that "Siläditya-PratäpasTla can be
identified with Siläditya of Mälava-, whom Hiuen-tsiang (Si-yu-ki,
II , p. 261) mentions as having flourished sixty years before his
own time, and apparently indicates as the successor of Vikramäditya (I. c, I, p. 108). Prof. M. Müller, India, p. 289, assigns to Siläditya
hypothetically a reign from 550 to 600 A. D."
In the Introduction to his translation of the Rojatararigini
(Vol. I, p. 66), the same scholar observes: — "The reference which
Kalhana makes to the great Vikramäditya- Harsa of Ujjayini, in
connection with the next reign, that of the poet Mätfgupta, exposes
a chronological error of equal magnitude. Kalhana, true to his
chronological scheme , identifies this king with the Vikramäditya
whose victory over the Sakas he, in agreement with an old popular
theory, supposed to be commemorated by the initial date of the
^aka era, 78 A. D. Yet Kalhana himself, in a subsequent passage
[as quoted above] clearly designates this Vikramäditya-Harsa as
the father of king Siläditya- Pratapaslla , whom we know from a
statement of Hiuen-tsiang to have fiourished as ruler of Mälava
(Ujjain) about sixty years before his own time, ie. about A. D. 580."
We do not know anything of the kind. The king Siläditya
who lived sixty years prior to Hiuen Tsang's travels was the Räja
of the small state of Mo-la-p'o in Western India, and had no concern
with Ujjain , nor is there the slightest reason for connecting him
with the Siläditya-PratäpaSIla, mentioned by Kalhana in his confused
jumble of traditions.
Hiuen Tsang in Book II of his Travels (Beal, Vol. I, pp. 106
■ 108) narrates mere folk-lore stories about a mythical king of
Srävasti, named Vikramäditya, and remarks that "a little afterwards
Vikramäditya-räja lost his kingdom, and was succeeded by a monarch
who widely patronised those distinguished for literary merit". The
note to this passage (by Mr. Beal or Dr. Burgess ?) contains the
curious comment that "this would appear to be Siläditya of Ujjain,
spoken of by Hiuen Tsiang (Book XI) as having lived sixty years
before his own time". As there was no such person as "Siläditya of Ujjain", it is not worth while to criticize these observations in
detail. For the same reason. Max Müller's discussion {India, pp. 288,
289) may be dismissed without further commentary.
A very ingenious, though unconvincing, essay by Dr. Hoernle
dealing with some problems of ancient Indian history *) is open to
destructive criticism from various sides ; but at present I need only
point out that his argument assumes throughout the identity of
1) "Some Problems of Ancient Indian History" (J. R. A. S., 1903, pp. 545—70).
796 ^- -^^ Smith, The Indian Kings named Siläditya, etc.
the kingdom of Mo-la-p'o with that of Ujjain. The learned author
has succeeded in persuading himself of the existence of a person
named "Siläditya, Vikramäditya's son", who was the "Mälava em¬
peror" in 606 A. D., a purely imaginary creation, and^ has evolved
a fanciful hypothesis that Hiuen Tsang confounded Siläditya and
Vikramäditya (p. 566). Many pages would be required to prove
in detail the unsubstantial nature of Dr. Hoernle's theories, but
I trust that I may be excused from undertaking so unwelcome a
task. Hiuen Tsang's account of Siläditya of Mo-la-p'o is perfectly
clear and intelligible, being based upon local records, and has nothing
whatever to do with any Vikramäditya. The Master of the Law
is not responsible for the confusion in which European writers
have involved a simple matter.
The name or title of Siläditya was very commonly assumed
by Indian Räjas in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. The
list of the kings of Valabhi (Ind. Ant. XV, 273) includes no less
than seven Siladityas. The most famous monarch of the name was
Harsa, or Harsa-varddhana. Lord Paramount of Northern India
from 606 to 648 A. D., who is always spoken of by Hiuen Tsang
as Siläditya. He was the son of Prabhakaravarddhana , who was
also called Pratapaslla ,'^) and had nothing to do with Siläditya of
Mo-la-p'o. I have discussed his reign fully in chapter XIII of my
book, to which I may be permitted to refer the reader.
1) Bäna, Har^a-Carita, transl. Cowell and Thomas, p. 101.
797
Notizen.
Von Siegmund Fraenkel.
1. Zu S. 664 fiF. oben.
oi
Die Kombination von '^an-' mit xj.?! (S. 665, Mitte) wird auch
lautlich dadurch gestützt, daß der sporadische Lautwandel (aramäisch
-I = arab. !) sich in der Nachbarschaft von n noch einmal findet,
nämlich in der bekannten Gleichung JJo)J= J^t. Vielleicht liegt
■ein ähnlicher Fall auch bei "i-'n; vor, wenn man dies zu ziehen
darf. Zu dem arabischen Lautbestande stimmt allerdings syr.
= jüd.-ar. -inti Levy, Nhbr. WB. I, 56» 1. 32 Nr. 2 (dort wohl,
falsch erklärt). —
Mit seiner Bemerkung über das angeblich arabische, in Wirk¬
lichkeit aramäische Narf ist Fischer, wie ja schon durch den
Eingang der Nachricht des MidraS deutlich wird, zweifellos im
Rechte.') Dagegen bedürfen seine grammatischen Notizen S. 666,
Anm. 1 der Richtigstellung. 1. ^»bm kann niemals , die Kamele"
bedeuten. Die entgegenstehenden Angaben in der sehr unzuver¬
lässigen Abhandlung von Levias (Zeitschr. f. hebr. Bibliogr. 5,
S. 92—94), durch die Fischer irre geführt worden ist, beruhen auf
Mißverständnissen oder Textkorruptionen. 2. Das N am Anfange
von ^NbJiJN ist kein prosthetischer Vokal, sondern = br (Nöldeke,
Mand. Gramm. 58 Anm. 2).-)
1) Unter t<"'3n3' ist in jüdischen Schriften häufig die römische Provinz Arabia zu verstehen.
[2) Dieselbe Belehrung läßt mir brieflich W. Bacher zu teil werden, unter Hinweis auf Levias, Grammar, § 170. Auch Dalman, Grammatik, S. 180,
4 V. u. wäre zu vergleichen. Die Behandlung des l von 5y in diesen ost¬
aramäisehen Idiomen zeigt also eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit mit der des l von l^-^ in verschiedenen neuarabischen Dialekten. Vgl. Spitta, Grammatik, §§ 10, b und 83, b, 5; Reinhardt, Ein arab. Dial, gespr. in 'Omän und Zanzibar, §§ 8, 1, b und 175 ff.; Landberg, Proverbes et dictons, 413, und Dialectes de l'Arabie Meridio¬
nale, vol. I, p. 163, 3 v. u. ; auch Stumme, Grammatik des tunis. Arabisch, § 169, 5;
Meissner, Neuarab. Geschichten aus dem Iraq, §§ 2, 7 und 47, a, 3j Socin, Diwan
