contents is encyclopaedical. They are histories of Gods, as opposed to Itihasas, the histories of heroic men. The theology they teach is anything but simple, uniform or consistent.
Every Purana is supposed to treat of only five topics:— (i) The creation of the univeise (2) Its destruction and re-creation (3) The geneology of Gods (4) The periods ofthe Manut» (5) The history of the Solar and Lunar races of Kings. It was this characteristic of a Purana that made Amarasimha call it Pancha-Lakshani. The fact, that very* few Puranas now* extant answer to this index of contents and that the abstract given in the Matsya Purana of the subjects of the other Puranas does not tally with the extant works, proves the theory that the modern Puranas are but recensions or epitomes of more ancient originals. The mythology of the Puranas is more developed than that of the Mahabharata.
Prof. Wilson assigns the composition of these works to a-period later than the 6th century A. D. "They offer" he says-41 characteristic peculiarities of a more modern description, in the paramount importance which they assign to individual divinities, in the variety and purport of the rites addressed to* them and in the invention of new legends illustrative of the power and graciousness of those divinities and of the efficacy of implicit devotion to them/' Th6 Professor further discovers allusions to circumstances, which make the assignment of a* comparatively recent date indisputable. As a culminating, remark, he adds " they were pious frauds for temporary purposes."
The deductions which occasioned the learned scholar's-remarks are based on internal evidence, the authority ol