________________
MARCH, 1889.]
BOOK NOTICES.
95
the figure 7, explained in words, which cannot be shew that a Friday cannot be obtained for Sravana taken as closely resembling the first figure as sukla 9 in any of the four years, even if the given in either lithograph of the date now under tithi were used as a current tithi,- for which discussion; though they do belong to the general application of it, however, there is in this case no type of the Någari figure 7 of the period, and justification, on a consideration of all the facts resemble pretty closely the figure 7 as it occurs in of the case, it cannot be doubted that Friday, 3rd the date of the Samångad grant of Dantidurga, of May, A.D. 880, is the proper English date; and Saka-Samvat 675 expired, ante, Vol. XI. p. 112, that the real reading of the text is Sakaline 30, and Plate. But, omitting this last point, warhvata(t) 782 Jyêshtha-buddha-9-Su(áu)kri. his conclusion, on the grounds actually put for- With his own reading of the date, Dr. Bhagward by him, was that "the date can be inferred wanlal Indrajin-relying also on the fact that to be 982;" the only difficulty-which he sought the Ambarnáth inscription mentions a certain to explain away by the supposition that, at this Mahapradhana Naganaiya as an officer of MÅmtime, there were two figures in use for the same vâni, while the other record, now to be referred number,-being, that a totally different figure, to to, gives the name of a Saruddhikarin Neganaiya which no value but that of 9 can be assigned, is used as an officer of Chhittaraja -proceeded to idenin this record to denote the number of the tithi. tify these two officials as one, and to suggest that,
In the Valabhi grants, however, we are "if this reading of the date be correct," the concerned with numerical symbols; not with Mahamandalákvara Chhittaraja of this inscription decimal figures, as in the present record; and might be identified with the SilAhera Mahamanno analogy can be founded on them, beyond dalesvara Chhittaraja who issued the Bhandup the general fact that the decimal tigures were grant, dated in Saka-Samvat 949; and that developed from the numerical symbols. Fur- Måmvåņi was probably his son or successor. ther, in the process of this development, the And, in publishing the Khêrêpåtan grant of the decimal figures that were arrived at, were not silthêra Mahamandaldóvara Anantadeva, dated absolutely identical in different parts of the in Saka-Samvat 1016, Mr. K. T. Telang identified country: and we are dealing with very different Mâmvatni with the Mummuni who is given in that parts, in respect of the Ambarnáth and Gwalior record as a younger brother of the Chhittaraja inscriptions. Also, not one of the lithographs of by whom the Bhandap charter was issued. The the three inscriptions is a reliable mechanical similarity in the names of Mamyani and Mumreproduction; so that we do not know what are muni, coupled in each instance with the proximity the exact forms, differing perhaps very slightly, of the name of Chhittaraja, was sufficiently though certainly in some detail of vital im. tempting to justify this identification ; on the portance, which we have to compare or to contrast. fucts of the case, as they were then understood. Again, even if two forms of one and the same But we must now abandon these identificafigure were ultimately arrived at, and were used, tions; the first two of which plainly were in in one and the same part of the country, it is still reality factors that helped to induce Dr. Bhagimpossible to believe that the risk of confusion wanlal Indraji's alteration in the interpretation of would be incurred, by employing them in one and the Ambarnáth date, rather than deductions from the same record. And finally, whatever may turn that interpretation. And, if Mâm vàpi belonged to out to be the exact form of the figure now under the Šilâhâra family at all, he must be placed very discussion in the Ambarnáth inscription, both the much earlier in the genealogy, and perhaps before lithographs, even as they stand, distinctly shew Kapardin I., with whom the list given in the that it belongs to the general type of the Nagari Bhandup grant commences, and who was eight 7, and not to that of the Nagari 9.
generations anterior to saka-Samvat 948. With the caloulated results before us, which
J. F. FLERT.
BOOK NOTICES. COLLECTIONS SCIENTIYIQUES de L'INSTITUT des LANQUES more than once in the pages of this Journal in the
ORIENTALES DU MINISTERE DES ATYAIRES ETRANGERSS. III. Manuscrits Persans, décrits par le Baron
notes on the Progress of European Seholarship. Victor Rosen. St. Petersburg, Eggers and Co. 1886. The Catalogue, it is hardly necessary to repeat, is 8vo. pp. IV., and 889, with 3 photolithographs.
a work of immense industry and learning, and in References to this work will have been met with every way worthy of its author. It deseribes Published by Dr. Bühler, ante, Vol. V. p. 276. the Ambarnkth insoription is simply Vari; vis. by ante, Vol. IX. p. 38.
taking érimon-Yani, instead of brf. Wampani. But I think
that, taking into consideration the construction in the It may be noted that Dr. Bühler (Report on Sanskrit text, both the lithographs are sufficiently reliable to Manuscripts, 1877, p. 52) preferred to read the name in shew that the real name is undoubtedly Mimpi.
