As Cosmos is the last Greek writer who treats of Taprobane[1], it may be interesting, before passing to his account of the island, to advert to what has been recorded by the Singhalese chroniclers themselves, as to its actual condition at the period when Cosmas described it, and thus to verify his narrative by the test of historical evidence.  It has been shown in another chapter that between the first and the sixth centuries, Ceylon had undergone all the miseries of frequent invasions:  that in the vicissitudes of time the great dynasty of Wijayo had expired, and the throne had fallen into the hands of an effeminate and powerless race, utterly unable to contend with the energetic Malabars, who acquired an established footing in the northern parts of the island.  The south, too wild and uncultivated to attract these restless plunderers, and too rugged and inaccessible to be overrun by them, was divided into a number of petty principalities, whose kings did homage to the paramount sovereign north of the Mahawelli-ganga.  Buddhism was the national religion, but toleration was shown to all others,—­to the worship of the Brahmans as well as to the barbarous superstition of the aboriginal tribes.  At the same time, the productive wealth of the island had been developed to an extraordinary extent by the care of successive kings, and by innumerable works for irrigation and agriculture provided by their policy.  Anarajapoora, the capital, had expanded into extraordinary dimensions, it was adorned with buildings and monuments, surpassing in magnitude those of any city in India, and had already attracted pilgrims and travellers from China and the uttermost countries of the East.

[Footnote 1:  There is another curious work which, notwithstanding certain doubts as to its authorship, contains internal evidence entitling it, in point of time, to take precedence of COSMAS.  This is the tract “De Moribus Brachmanorum”, ascribed to St. Ambrose, and which under the title [Greek:  “Peri ton tez Indiaz kai ton Brachmanon”] has been also attributed to Palladius, but in all probability it was actually the composition of neither.  Early in the fifth century Palladius was Bishop of Helenopolis, in Bithynia, and died about A.D. 410.  He spent a part of his life in Coptic monasteries, and it is possible that during his sojourn in Egypt, meeting travellers and merchants returning from India, he may have caused this narrative to be taken down from the dictation of one of them.  Cave hesitates to believe that it was written by PALLADIUS, “haud facile credem,” &c. (Script.  Eccles.  Hist.  Lit.); and the learned Benedictine editors of AMBROSE have excluded it from the works of the latter.  They could scarcely have done otherwise when the first chapter of the Latin version opens with the declaration that it was drawn up by its author at the request of “PALLADIUS.”  “Desiderium mentis tuae Palladi opus efficere nos compellit,” &c.  Neither of the two versions can be accepted