72 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [March, 1873. 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. Biihler is, that “ it might be expected that Rajasekhara, 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 Madhavacharya 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 Madhava, it cannot be denied that Madhava 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, Madhava makes Sri Harsha—the Khandanakara—a contemporary of Sankaracharya. Whom, then, shall wo believe? Regarding the biography of a Hindu poet, is it more likely that the Jaina Suri or the Hindu Acharya erred? True, Madhava may have wished to exaggerate the greatness of Sankara’s powers by making him engage in a controversy with Sri Harsha, and representing him as coming off victorious in the conflict; but it is still difficult to regard this as a suffi¬ cient explanation of this very gross anachronism, if auachronism it be. Add to this, further, that such credit as there may have been in a con¬ troversial victory over Sri Harsha, had been already reflected in great measure on Sankara’s name by Sri Harsha’s own respectful mention of that great philosopher.t It must also be remembered, as pointed out by Dr. Biihler himself, that Rajasekhara* 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 Kastnir in Sri Harsha’s time.} This last erroneous statement, I think, takes a very great deal from Rajasekhara’s credibility in the matter. Furthermore, according to this account, Sri Harsha wrote his Khandanakhandakhadya some time before he so much as contemplated the
- See Prof. Cowell’s Introduction to the Kusumdnjali,
page 10, and authorities there referred to. t See Indian Antiquary, yol. I. p. 229, J Pages 6 and 3. 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 Khancfana. He says in that place :—u 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. Biihler mentions another cir¬ cumstance which is related by Rajasekhara in his Prabandhakosha, and after characterising it as “ at all events consistent with that of the Sri 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 Sarasvati Kanthabharana from the Naishadha Charita, Dr. Biihler 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 Sarasvati Kanthabharana. If this be so, it will, to some extent, weaken the argument based upon it. Dr. Biihler’s authority for the statement about the Oxford MS. is probably, however, the elaborate catalogue of Professor Aufrecht. If so, I would point out one or two circumstances which seem to me to be worthy of consideration here. Dr. Hall says distinctly that the Naisha¬ dhiya is cited in the Sarasvati Kanthabharana.^ On the other hand, Dr. Aufrecht’s Catalogue— which, it may be observed, was published long after Dr. Hall’s edition of the Vdsavadattd —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 Kanthabharana 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 Sarasvati Kanthabharana, the quota¬ § Page 28, referred to in the Indian Antiquary, vol. I. p. 299 TCJTJJmjfr ffwrl3j. || Page 7. ^ Vdsavadattd, Pref. p. 18.
- Page 208 b.
