IIS HISTORY OF CASHMI'R. 



it with Factyaca ; *AMS.ai ° s Toyy \vttoy 'Ka.(nra.T'JOio rs 7roKi xai TV) YloLxlmxr] %eopr t 

 skti 7rpoTspi>i, 7rpos apxloo ts xou Bo|5=co oivsfAou xaloi>cr l fj.=vot- todv uXhwv Iv<kui/, 

 0/ Bv.xTpioKri 7rxf}y.7rXyimy}» s%s<ti Slailav, and in the second, he in like man- 

 ner connects it with Pactyaca \&ihpixrfivj\z$ sx Ka<r7rolops ts 7roA*oj koli 

 Trjg Haxluixrfi yr£. They (Scylax and his companions) setting out from the 

 city Caspatyrus, and the country of Pactyaca, sailed, he proceeds to say, 

 towards the east and rising sun into the ocean 7rpo£ t\to koli ijTuou dvaloTiag i$ 

 ^dxaa-crav • a course, which with reference to its commencement in Cash- 

 mir, its progress down the Indus, and its termination in the Indian Ocean, 

 is so far from being accurately described, as to have thrown a suspicion 

 upon the voyage itself, and which consequently requires some ex animation. 



We may infer from several passages in the text, that the limits of Cash- 

 mir were formerly by no means confined to the mountainous belt, which 

 now incloses it, but comprehended other districts, to the south and west, 

 amongst which was Pakhlee or Pdkholi, the Pactyica of Herodotus, a tract 

 immediately contiguous to Cashmir on the West, and lying towards the 

 upper part of the navigable course of the Indus, and hence, as Major Rennell 

 (Memoir of a Map of India, 14(3,) infers, the country from which Scylax set 

 out to explore the course of the river. It is by no means necessary there- 

 fore to question the general accuracy of the account left us of the commence- 

 ment of the voyage. Having embarked on the Indus, the course however 

 should have been rather west than east, and this part of the narration is 

 clearly erroneous : at the same time, as the navigators could only estimate 

 their southern course with any thing like accuracy, and as they conceived 

 liemselves advancing upon the whole to regions lying farther east, than 

 any yet known to them, the mistake was not unnatural, and need not affect 

 the general credibility of the story. It is to be observed also that we have 

 not the original narrative, and Herodotus, may have substituted the popu- 

 lar notion of the eastern course of the river to the sea, for the more cor- 

 rect account of! the navigator himself: such is Monsr. Larchers opinion 

 and it seems well founded ; « Herodote qui n' avait pas lu la relation de 

 Scylax, et qui avoit entendu dire, qu il avoit descendu l'Indus jusqu' i 



