72

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

coincidences would, of course, have been of con siderable moment.

As it is, those coincidences

appear to me scarcely to warrant the conclusion which it is sought to base on them. The second circumstance pointed out by Dr. Bühler is, that “it might be expected that Rājasekhara, who lived in the middle of the fourteenth century, could obtain trustworthy information regarding a person who lived only about 150 years before him.” This I fully admit. But be it noted that Mādhavāchārya also lived in the middle, or rather somewhat before the middle, of the fourteenth century." And barring all other considerations, which, I think, will lead us to assign the palm of superi ority to Mādhava, it cannot be denied that Mādhava must have had access to at least as

trustworthy information on this matter as any author of the Jaina persuasion; and, as I have

pointed out in my paper, Mādhava makes Sri Harsha—the Khandanakāra—a contemporary of

Śankarāchārya.

Whom,

then, shall we

believe? Regarding the biography of a Hindu poet, is it more likely that the Jaina Sūri or the Hindu Achârya erred 2 True, Mādhava

may have wished to exaggerate the greatness of Śankara's powers by making him engage in a

[MARCH, 1873.

Naishadhiya. Now it is, I think, rather hard— although not quite impossible—to reconcile this circumstance with the words used by our author in one part of the Khandana. He says in that place:—“And in the Naishadha Charita, in the canto on the praise of the Supreme Being, I have said that the mind,” &c., &c. This asser tion in the original is put in the past tense.; And when Dr. Bühler mentions another cir

cumstance which is related by Rājasekhara in his Prabandhakosha, and after characterising it as “at all events consistent with that of the

Śri Harsha Prabandha,” goes on to contend that it corroborates this latter, I can scarcely persuade myself that others will concur in this. The consistency of all parts of a romance with each other cannot by any means be regarded as an argument for its truth.

Adverting to the passage which is said to be quoted in the Saraswati Kanthābharana from the Naishadha Charita, Dr. Bühler says that the passage may have been interpolated sub

sequently to the time of its author; and I learn from him that the passage in question does not occur in the Oxford copy of the Saraswati Kanthābharana. If this be so, it will, to some

extent, weaken the argument based upon it.

controversy with Sri Harsha, and representing

Dr. Bühler's authority for the statement about

him as coming off victorious in the conflict;

the Oxford M.S. is probably, however, the

but it is still difficult to regard this as a suffi cient explanation of this very gross anachronism,

elaborate catalogue of Professor Aufrecht. If so, I would point out one or two circumstances

if anachronism it be. Add to this, further, that

which seem to me to be worthy of consideration here. Dr. Hall says distinctly that the Naisha

may have been in a con troversial victory over Sri Harsha, had been already reflected in great measure on Šankara's name by Sri Harsha's own respectful mention of that great philosopher.f such credit as there

It must also be remembered, as pointed out by Dr. Bühler himself, that Rājasekhara's his torical knowledge is found to be at fault in two places in this very piece of biography—firstly, with respect to the relationship existing between Jayantachandra and Govindachandra; and se

condly, with respect to the king who was ruler of Kāśmir in Sri Harsha’s time.

This last

erroneous statement, I think, takes a very great deal from Rājasekhara's credibility in the matter. Furthermore, according to this account, Sri Harsha wrote his Khandanakhandakhādya SOIme time before he so much as contemplated the

• See Prof. Cowell's Introduction to the Kusumānjali,

Page 10, and authorities there referred to. t See Indian Antiquary, vol. I. p. 229. £ Pages 6 and 3.

dhiya is cited in the Sarasvati Kanthābharana."

On the other hand, Dr. Aufrecht's Catalogue— which, it may be observed, was published long after Dr. Hall's edition of the Văsavadatti

—is simply silent as to any quotation under the name either of Sri Harsha or the Naisha

dhiya. But Dr. Aufrecht does not go so far as to say categorically that the quotation does

not exist in the copy inspected and catalogued by him. On the contrary, what he does

say

seems to me to take from this negative testimony

of silence a considerable portion of its value. “Major vero,” says he in his article on this

Kanthābharana itself, “ distichorum pars unde desumta sit hucusque me latet.”** This being so, it may very well be that even in the Oxford

copy of the Saraswati Kanthābharana, the quota § Page 28, referred to in the Indian Antiquary, vol. I. p. 299 ‘T. = T*Iſāqāzſq =[T-TT CaſtT Traſkati gif siąſtā.

| Page 7.

• • Page 208 b.

Pasavadatta, Pref. p. 18.