1892.] V. A. Smith —On the Civilization of Ancient India. 73 
of Buddha, these Platonic ideas may very well have been transferred 
in a similar way. 
Even the bridge by which they crossed may probably be recognized. 
For should not the dialogues between the Yavana king Milinda (Me¬ 
nander), and the Buddhist priest Nagasena, as given in the ‘ Milinda- 
panha,’ be regarded as connected with the Platonic dialogues P May 
we not even look upon them as an intentional Indian imitation ? Olden- 
berg suggests that reminiscences of meetings between Indian monks and 
Greek rhetoricians are preserved in these dialogues. 
In the preceding case we have to deal not so much with a doctrine 
belonging to the peculiar systems of Indian philosophy as with a, so 
to speak, popular view. Nevertheless, even for these systems the 
chances of literary history are very unfavourable to their priority as com¬ 
pared with those of the old Greek philosophy, inasmuch as the former, 
on the whole, belong to a much later period than the latter. 
When, therefore, in any direction a special agreement between the 
old Greek and Indian philosophies is found to exist (such, for example, 
as may be the case with regard to the Indian atomic theory, developed 
later in a very peculiar fashion), and that agreement cannot be regarded 
as a spontaneous, independent, mental product of both peoples, we 
must always assume a borrowing from Greece. 
An example of the contrary may here be noted, though it is con¬ 
cerned with a popular conception rather than with a doctrine of syste¬ 
matic philosophy. In India, besides the above mentioned triad of the ob¬ 
jects of human life we find another of a purely ethical kind, namely, a 
classification of sins into those of thought, word, and deed, which testifies 
to a very high and pure popular moral consciousness. This triad occurs 
in the Avesta and Veda, as well as with the Buddhists, and so dates 
from the Aryan period, during which the later Iranians and Indians still 
formed one nation. 
When, therefore, we find it in our Christian litanies from the time 
of Pope Damasus in the middle of the fourth century down to Paul 
Gerhardt (“with heart, mouth, and hands”) we must recognize an 
Indian, probably Buddhist, influence on the western form. Some points 
of connection with the Protagoras of Plato, as well as with certain 
biblical expressions, may also be traced, but not enough to establish any 
systematic ethical doctrine, such as is expressed in the litanies. 
In this connection must be considered the question recently pro¬ 
pounded by Rudolf Seydel, Jul. Happel, and others, as to how far we 
may assume possible Buddhist influence on the Christian legends, and 
even on the gospels themselves. 
It is obvious that, even if the supposed influence is established, the 
j 
