20 The Diamond 



here to the flesh which is devoured by the birds, while the puerile inti- 

 mation that the putrefaction of the flesh transforms it into stone is 

 interpolated. The Fu-nan merchants had come to China from the 

 shores of western India, and brought from there the expensive crystal 

 mirror. With it came the story, and thus some form of the legend of 

 the Diamond Valley must have existed in the western part of India at 

 least in the beginning of the sixth century a.d. Certainly it was a 

 much fuller and more intelligent version than that presented to us 

 through the medium of the Fu-nan seafarers. Be this as it may, also 

 India took its place in this universal concert of Asiatic nations; and 

 our Chinese text has fortunately preserved the only Indian version 

 thus far known, and now first revealed and explained. It is most in- 

 teresting that the Indian tradition belongs to the type of the plain 

 dramatic version, in which the by-play of the serpents is wanting; so 

 is the Garucla; and the only specific Indian traits are the tree of the 

 gods and the Devaraja Kubera. Aside from these incidents, which 

 are inconclusive in stamping the legend as Indian in its origin, it 

 thoroughly tallies with that of Epiphanius. For this and also chrono- 

 logical reasons it follows that Fu-lin was the centre from which the 

 legend spread simultaneously to India and China. G. Huet 1 has re- 

 cently given another interesting example of a story originating in 

 western Asia, a weak echo of which was carried into India. 



It is therefore my opinion that the legend of the Valley of Diamonds 

 or Precious Stones in its two early variations, as represented by Epi- 

 phanius and Pseudo-Aristotle, whatever its antecedents and its possible 

 associations with earlier stories of the Herodotian type may have been, 

 originated in the Hellenistic Orient, and was propagated from this centre 

 to China, to India, to the Arabs, and to Persia. The Chinese tradition 

 of the Liang se kung tse ki, being an exact parallel to that of Epiphanius 

 and approaching it more closely in time than any of the Arabic and 

 other versions, being earlier and purer than that of Pseudo-Aristotle, 

 presents an important contribution to the question, and shows that 

 traditions of Fu-lin flowed into China long before its name was recorded 

 in her official annals. The Chinese and Indian versions bear out still 

 another significant point that may enable us to reconstruct the original 

 form in which the subject was propagated in the Hellenistic world. . It 

 is manifest that Epiphanius, while by a lucky chance our earliest source 

 on the matter, does not preserve the story in its primeval or pure form; 

 he pursues a theological tendency by lining it up in his discourse on the 



1 Le conte du "mort reconnaissant " et le livre de Tobie {Revue de I'histoire des 

 religions, Vol. LXXI, 1915, pp. 1-29). 



