________________
176
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JUNE, 1887
" was reigning in 761 A.D.," he has adopted concerned, is only the phantom of his own the date (Harsha-Samvat 155= A.D. 761-62) of imagination. the Dighwa-Dabauli grant as finally settled by All this, however, has nothing to do with the me, and therefore has evidently made the date of Rajasekhara. identification in question, yet he distinctly does . But, on this latter point, I have now some not give it on my authority. It will also be remarks to make, based on the Asni inscripseen that Dr. Peterson's date for Rajabêkhara tion of Vikrama-Samvat 974, published at rests more on the fact that Kshîrasvamin, p. 173ff. above, which was brought to my "who wrote a commentary on the Amarakosha, Dotice about eight months ago by Mr. F. S. "and who was the teacher of Jayasimha of Growse, B.C.S. It is only want of leisure "Kasmir (A.D. 750), quotes a verse from that has prevented my disposing of it long ere " the Vriddhaídlabhanjika" of Rajasekhara. now.. This, however, involves the assumption that the As pointed out by Mr. V. Sh. Apte (p. 2.) date of Jayasimha of Kaśmir,---or more correctly the earliest possible limit for Rajasekhara is Jayapida,-really was A.D. 750; a fact which determined by a passage in the Introduction to remains to be proved, and will be disproved if his Bálarámdyana. “On being asked by the the poet is concerned in the question.
"Assistant Manager, 'Why do you not describe An examination of Mr. V. Sh. Apte's pam- " the poet P'the Manager says—Why; has not phlet will shew that the real explanation of his "the fortune teller described him ? He-who, gratuitons attribution of the above view to "in former times, was Valmiki, who afterwards me, is his desire to find a peg on which to " assumed on earth the form of Bhartsimeptha; hang some remarks about the date of the "and who again appeared in the person of Dighwa-Dabauli grant, and to refute my "Bhavabhđti, --is, at the present day, Rajase"attempt" (see his p. 8) to decipher it as "khara."" This shews, at any rate, that Rajagiving the year 155, in numerical symbols, and "Bokhara belongs to a later period than my reference of it to the era of Harshavardha- "Bhavabhati. And, as (p. 3)" Dr. Bhandar. na of Kanaaj, commencing A.D. 606 or 607. "kar, in the Preface to his edition of the It is unnecessary to follow him through all his "Málati Madhava, has shewn that Bhavabhūti remarks on this point; since they are based "flourished in the last part of the seventh on false premises; and, though he takes upon "century," it follows that "our poet must have himself (p. 8), in respect of the sigus used in "flourished after the end of the seventh centhe date, to "think they look like figures, " "tury." And Mr. V. Sh. Apte concludes (p. 4) instead of being numerical symbols, yet I can- that, allowing not less than a hundred years. not find that he expresses any definite opinion to have elapsed before Bhavabhati's fame as to the supposed real meaning of them, and could be so well established that RAjaádkhara the era to which they refer. It is sufficient to would think it an honour to claim to be an point out that, as he says (p. 8), he is plainly incarnation of him, Rajasekhara “could not only "a tyro in the art of deciphering :" and "have lived earlier than the end of the eighth that, when he has made even the slightest ad. "century A.D." Vance on the present state of his antiquarian On the other hand, the latest possible limit knowledge" (p. 7, note), he will understand is fixed, in a more definite manner, by the fact why the signs of the date are numerical symbols, (p. 58.) that, as disoo vered by Dr. Peterson, not decimal figures, and why they can only be Rajasekhara is quoted in the third copása of referred to the Harsha era. His views on this the Yasastilaha of samadeva, the date of point would not have been worth noticing at which, as given by Smadava himself, is Saka all; but that almost every page of the first Samvat 881, or A.D. 959-60, part of his pamphlet shews that, for some These are sound enough grounds, of which special object of attack, best known to him, he the latter is established by an actual date, and has gratuitously raised a complication in con- the former, though only argumentative, is an nection with the poet, which, so far as I am objeetionable ; and they will not be upset by
Report on the search for Sanakit MSS. in the Bombay Circle for 1888-84.
