also imitated, and we have the same sentiment as in the fourth, where Jímútaváhana wonders that the King of Snakes, with all his thousand mouths, had not even one wherewith to offer himself as a victim to save his subjects. In śl. 197, we have evidently an allusion to the name of the play,—the bones of the dead snakes are brought to life again, and it is said,
"Te 'pi sarve samuttasthus tad-varámrita-jívitáh ;
Surair Nágair muni-ganaih sánandair militair atha
Sa loka-tritayábhikhyám babhára Malayáchalah."
Mr Boyd has pointed out in his notes the allusions in the play to Buddhist doctrines. Professor Wilson remarks, in the Introduction to his translation of the Mrichchhakatikká, "Many centuries have elapsed since Hindu writers were acquainted with the Buddhists in their genuine characters; their tenets are preserved in philosophical treatises with something like accuracy, but any attempt to describe their persons and practices invariably confounds them with the Jainas;" and this very confusion occurs in the Mudrá-rákshasa, which he attributes to the twelfth century. But the present drama is correct in its allusions, which may be another argument in favour of the comparatively early date which I have advocated.
The two last acts are in the true style of Buddhist invention; but I do not remember to have seen any direct reference to Jímútaváhana in any Buddhist legend. Burnouf mentions (Introd., p. 620) that, though the gośírsha sandal is frequently alluded to in Buddhist books, he had only found one allusion to the
