310 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [July, 1910.] 



of a large number of Sanskrit works translated into Chinese 

 before 316 A.D. 



The whole of the revealed literature of the Mahayana 

 School in Sanskrit was composed during these centuries, and 

 their number is very large. 



Early in the second century B.C. the Jainas split into two 

 large sections, one of which mainly used the vernaculars and 

 the other mainly Sanskrit. 



Umasvativacaka, orator of Pataliputra, who is said to 

 have flourished in 151 of the Vikrama era, wrote the Tattvar- 

 thadhigama Sutra, an encyclopaedia of Indian literature, from the 

 Jaina point of view. 



The theory of revival of Sanskrit is untenable for the follow^- 

 ing amongst other reasons : 



(1) Brahmins wielded great influence and could not have 

 been idle in the matter of literature. 



(2) Some of the non-Brahminic sects gradually Sanskrit- 

 ised their vernaculars and in the end took to Sanskrit. 



(3) Greek works were translated into Sanskrit and not in 

 any of the vernaculars. Sanskrit therefore continued during 

 all these seven centuries as the language of culture, of science, 

 and of art, though some non-Brahaminic sects clung to their 

 vernaculars. 



With such avast Sanskrit literature — Brahminic, Buddhistic 

 and Jaina — before us, is it possible to say that with the death of 

 Buddha Sanskrit went to sleep for seven hundred years only to 

 awake by the middle of the fourth century A.D. ? 



