298

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

to adopt your

terminus a quo as well as a terminus ad quem to limit our chronological uncertainty.” And the

letters altered.”

Professor then divides the interval between the

follows:

[Oct. 4, 1872. own

verses with

only some

And he then proceeds as

“Vyāghāto yadi Śankästi, na chechchhanká

two termini as stated above.

tatastarām.

Now we think that, plausible as this reasoning appears, there is a flaw in it. What proof have we that the Udayana who has commented on Văchaspati Miśra is the same with the Udayana who wrote the Kusumānjali' Independently of any light which may be thrown upon this ques tion by other considerations, the fact itself cannot be assumed as beyond controversy. On the contrary, we think there is positive evidence calculated to upset such a conclusion, and we propose here to set forth that evidence.

Vyāghātāvadhirāšankä tarkaššankävadhih ku tah.”

Now these verses are distinctly and ex pressly a parody of the verses in the Kusu mânjali,

“Sankáchedanumāstyeva na chechchhankä tatastarām.

Vyāghātāvadhirāšankä tarkaššankävadhirma tah.”$

We have thus (1) Udayana's Kusumānjali;

In the introduction to his edition of Vāchas

pati Miśra's Sänkhyatattvakaumudi, Professor Tārānāth Tarkavāchaspati of Calcutta mentions

(2) Sri Harsha's Khandana which quotes it; and (3) Vāchaspati Miśra's Khanqanoddhāra, which is an answer to (2).

that Vāchaspati Miśra has written a work in

Now it will be observed that this series re

answer to the Khandanakhandakhādya of Sri Harsha, entitled Khandanoddhāra.f We do not

verses the chronological relations of Udayana

know from whence this information is derived :

And this leads to the further result that Prof.

it may be from the enumeration of his own works said to be given by Vāchaspati Miśra in his

Cowell's terminus a quo is lost, whatever may be said of the terminus ad quem : for if Vāchaspati

and Vāchaspati as laid down by Prof. Cowell.

Bhāmatinibandha, to which we have not ac

comes after Udayana, we have no link to con

cess, and the Khandanoddhāra has no place in the list reproduced by Dr. Hall.i. If, there fore, Dr. Hall's list omits nothing that is in the list as given in the Bhāmati, and if that

nect Udayana and Sankara. If, then, Prof. Cowell's argument must be given up, the question arises—What can we substitute for it? The age of Bâna's Harsha, as fixed by Dr. Hall, will not help us in this mat ter; for while Bâna's Harsha is a royal person age, the Harsha of the Khandana is a mere dependant of a king of Kányakubja. And

list includes all the works written by Vāchas pati Miśra, the statement made by Prof. Tārā

nāth ceases to have any weight.

We find it

difficult, however, to understand how the state ment could have been made without some suffi

in this case, the supposition that some writer at -

cient authority, and if there is such authority, if

the king's court gave to his work the king's name is also negatived by the fact that Sri Harsha

Vāchaspati Miśra really wrote it, was written

is stated at the close of the Khandana to be the

after the Bhāmati had been finished.

It is un

name of the author himself—who is further de

fortunate that Prof. Târânăth has not given the authority for his statement; for reasoning in the absence of such authority must be merely hypothetical. Now if we adopt Prof. Tărănăth's statement, the results we arrive at deprive Prof. Cowell's arguments of all weight. The series of authors

scribed as a “kavi.” One hint, however, we get from Dr. Hall's catalogue. At page 26, we

it is possible that the Khandanoddhāra,

find a work noted, which is there said to have

been composed in 1252, and which quotes or mentions Udayana. Who this Udayana is, how ever, does not appear from Dr. Hall's note. A further circumstance, which will throw some

appears to stand thus —1st Udayana; 2nd Sri light on this matter, and which is less open to Harsha; 3rd Vāchaspati Miśra. This clearly ap

question, is to be found in Dr. Hall's preface to

pears to result from the following words of the

the Văsavadattá. We there learn, that the Naishadhiya is quoted in the Sarasvatikan

author of the Khandana. “Therefore,” says he, “in this matter, it is not impossible for us

• Kusumanjali, pp 9 & 10.

f Wide Introduction, p. 5. t p. 87 of Dr. Hall's catalogue. Dr. Hall's language º: that his list omits nothing that is in the list in the âmati.

thabharana—which work, according to Dr. Hall, § See the Khandana (Calc, edition), p 91, and the Kusu mânjali, p. 28.

| Väsavadattà, Pref. p 17. T Khandana, 199,