(Fabeln des Sophos, 1859). But the Talmud is late (150-450 a.d), and the Rabbis to whom the fables are attributed may easily have learned their beast-fables from the Romans, just as they took the chief elements of their culture from Rome. M. Halếvy has even suggested that the Fables of Bidpai were known to the Talmudic Doctors (Revue des études juives, xi, 195-200). He finds a pair of words which with a little coaxing can be made to resemble Karirak and Damonak. The words seem to mean in the text a set of fire-irons, whence the connection with fire-worshippers and with Persians, and so, with the Pehlevi text of our fables is made out to the satisfaction of M. Halếvy, who is on this occasion even more ingenious than usual, which is saying a great deal, but even less convincing than usual, which is saying more. But apart from all this, priority of time is against our deriving Indian fables from the Talmudic ones or even asserting the independence of the latter.
Remoteness of locality might seem to be equally effective in proving independence or priority of time. For this reason the African collections of Fables are especially interesting, and have been adduced by Professor Sayce and
