convince us of the fact that the lower terminus of 200 A. D. is only problematical. Even if we place the date of the document between 200 A. D.-300 A. D. these arguments would constitute no objection but would rather be a strong support.
Dr. Bühler discussed this question in the year 1886 and since then a good deal of lost history of India has been recovered, and consequently we are in a better position to judge the date of the author. In 1887 Professor Jolly published the text of Manu, and his edition is of great value to us in either raising or quelling the doubts about the possible interpolations in the book. Thus to-day we are enabled to study the question with greater advantage.
Arguments for the date of the author.—In the treatment of the mixed castes there are references in our text, regarding Andhras, Yavanas, Shakas Pahlavas, Lichchivis and Chinas, which prove to be of great importance to us. We are assured that the references are not interpolations in the book, by the very fact that to make some statement about their status was a necessity and an excuse for a new treatise on dharma. The verses containing the references to these various peoples have been found in the Mahābhārata though in a slightly different form. Professor Jolly in his critical edition of the text does not regard them as interpolations. For these reasons I think that we can depend on these references to base our conclusions about the date of the author.
Our text describes Andhras as a tribe formed by the intermixture of Vaidehaka men and Kārāvāra women, and thus gives them a very low place, and says that
