________________
JUNE, 1889.]
BOOK NOTICE.
185
Dr. Bhandarkar's important new views on the doctrines and the age of the Bhagavatas will be noticed below. His discoveries make it desirable that all the sacred works of the sect should be collected and be carefully studied. I would recommend that copies of those not yet prooured should be obtained from the Sarasvata Bhând gâra of the Maharaja of Mysore (see Dr. Kielhorn's Supplementary Catalogue). The great Bhagavata Math at Mulhör in Khándesh, which I have never been able to visit, might also be tried.
Two MSS. acquired at Patan, a copy of Hall yudha's Kavirahasya and a curious fragment of a brief history of Gujarat from the beginning of the Chapôtkata dynasty down to the reign of Aurangzeb, induce Dr. Bhåndárkar to offer some histori. cal remarks. With respect to the former work he maintains, in my opinion correctly, that it was written during the reign, not of Krishnardya of Vijayanagara, but of an older Rashtrakůţa prince, called Krishna. The verses printed in App. III. are found in all MSS. from Bombay and Gujarat, and oogur also in a copy of my private collection, (now in the India Office Library), which is aocompanied by the commentary of one Ravidharman. The Dekhant text, which leaves out the name of the Rashtrakatas, is, as Dr. Bhåndårkar shows, not worth much. I also agree with Dr. Bhandar. kar in believing it probable that the Abhidhana. ratnamdid has been written by the author of the Kavirahasya. It is an ancient Kôsha, as it is quoted by Hêmachandra and his pupil Mahendra, and probably has been used by Yådavaprakasa for his Vaijayanti about 1000 A.D. Which of the three Rashtrakata Krishnarajas is the theme of HalAyudha's laudation, cannot be determined for the present. It may have been Kfishnarkja I., as Dr. Bhåndårkar thinks, but there is no proof for the assertion. The Kavirahasya is, however, certainly more than 900 years old.
A full account of the contents of the histori. cal fragment is given in pp. 9-14 and App. III. L. The piece is certainly very interesting. But I doubt tat it deserves the great confidence which Dr. Bhåndarkar places in it. Among its dates and statemeats which we can control, there are numerous errors. In the Hindu period the dates of Kumarapala and Malaraja II. are, as Dr. Bhåndarkar admits, very much vut. Its assertion, too, that Kumarapala's mother was #sister of Siddharaja-Jayasimha is incredible. Tribhuvanapala, the father of Kumarap&la, was Jayasimba's second cousin. Hence a marriage with the sister of the latter would have been opposed to the sacred law and tu the custom of the Rajputs, who all practice exogamy and are very strict in this respect. Jinamandana's state
ment in the Kumarapalacharita, that the mother of his hero was a Kasmirian princess, is more plausible. In the statements on the Muhammadan period there are a number of very bad errors. Mud&par (Muzaffar) began to reign, not in V. S. 1418 or 1361-62 A.D., but in 1996 A. D.; Ahimud (Ahmad I.), not in V.S. 1436 or 1879-80 A.D., but in 1412 A.D. The reigns of Sultan Muhammad from 1443 A.D. and of Kutb from 1451 A.D, have been left out. Daud Shah did not reign 36 years from V. S. 1468 or 1411.12 A.D., but for seven days in 1459 A.D. Under these circumstances I cannot consider the new document more trustworthy than the Vichdrabreni of Mêrutunga, for my reliance on which Dr. Bhandarkar blames me. The text of the latter work no doubt contains mistakes which are due to clerical errors in the original of the bad copies of the Government and Bhad Daji's or actions. (Thirteen or fourteen years ago I saw a really good copy at Baroda, but could not obtain it.) But late researches have convinced me that the mistakes are not as formid. able, as I formerly thought, and as Dr. Bhåndárkar holde. I am now able to prove that an old tradition existed, which asserted the existence of eight Chapôtkata kings, and assigned a long reign to the last of them. Hence I do not attach any weight to the new dates for Tribhuvanapala, Vlaaladeva, and the other Vaghelf kings. The latter, though corroborated by another late writer, Dharmasågara, p. 150, are contradicted by a Patt&vali, an abstract of which Mr. Bhââ Dajt published in the Jour. Bo. Br. R. A. S. Vol. IX. p. 137. According to this work, Tribhuvanapala ruled not four years but two months and twelve days, Visaladeva 18 years, 7 months and 11 days, Arjunadeva 13 years 7 months and 26 days, Sarangadeva 21 years, 8 months, and 8 days. These circumstantial statements look more trustworthy than the round figures of the other sources. But I would not now pin my faith on any Pattavali or Prabandha, whose assertions, like those of the Puriņas, can only be accepted provisionally in the absence of really historical information from contemporary works, inscriptions, and MSS.
On his return from Pâţan, Dr. Bhåndarkar looked over some portions of the Jaina Bhandars at AhmadAbåd. His personal examination of their contents was rewarded by several very interesting discoveries. The most important find is a large fragment of a second copy of Bilhana's Vileramárkad dvacharita, including cantos i. 62 to vii. 76. The MS., though much younger than the Jésulmir copy, is yet, as Professor Bhandarkar says,' very valuable. On examining the varietas lectionum given in App. III. R. I find that it allows us to correct the printed text in 41 verses, while in some
