________________
128
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MAY, 1893.
of the older poet in his composition. Pandit Sadhakar Dvivêdi informs me that his own rather was a pupil, in the Rámáyana, of the Chhakkan Lâl already mentioned, and that he hinself had learned many things from him. Chhakkan Lal told him many times that his preceptor's, Ram Gulâm Dvivêdi's, opinion was that the Sat'saí was certainly not composed by the great Tulisi Das.
My own opinion is that the authenticity of the Sat'sai is at least doubtful. There is much to be said on both sides. The date, if the verse in which it occurs is genuine, is certainly against the authenticity, so is the style, and so is the opinion of many native scholars. A fact, which also lends strength to this side, is that if we take the date as a Saka and not as a Vikrama yeer, the week-day comes right, but the year A.D. will be a century later than the time of Tulsi Das. On the other hand, the authenticity of the Sat'sai was not impugned till the time of Rim Gulim Dvivêdi, who died in 1831 A.D. The fact of the large number of dshús which are common both to the Dohabali and the Sat'sai must be considered. The author of one must have borrowed from the other, and the question is which did so. If the author of the Sat'sai borrowed dokús from the older Tulsi Das to suit his purpose, why did he borrow only from the Duhábali, and, with one or two exceptions, only those verses in the Dôhábali which are not found elsewhere in the poet's works. We should have expected the author of the Satsaí to have borrowed freely from the thousands of other dohás written by Tulisi Dâs, and yet he does not borrow one except from the Dohábali. On the other hand, the Dôhábali admittedly borrows freely from every work of Tulsi Dâs in which dóhás occur, from the Rúmâgyé, the Birág Sandipini, and the Ráxin-charit-mánas, besides containing 127 verses occurring in the Sat'sai. A priori therefore, it would appear more probable that the author of the 'D3hábali borrowed from the Sat' sai, rather than that the author of the Sat'sai borrowed from the Dôhávali. I cannot get over the violent improbability that the author of the Sat' sai, if a plagiarist, should have committod plagiarism only on the DShábali, and not on the other greater works of the poet, and that, in committing this playiary, he should have carefully selected only those verses in the D3habali which are not themselves borrowed from elsewhere.
Tho Dihabali not only bears on its face proof of its being a cento of verses taken from other poems of the master, but is stated to be so by tradition. It is said to have been compiled by Tulsi Dils himself, at the request of the great Tôdar Mall. It was composed, partly of new eldhús, and partly of verses selected from his earlier works, as a sort of short religious manual. It was therefore compiled after June 4th, 1598 A.D., the alleged date of the composition of the Rámájüri, the latest of the works from which he quotes, and before 1623, the year of his death. As Tolar Mall died in 1589 A.D., the tradition that the work was composed at his suggestion may not be true.
On the whole, I am inclined to believe that at least a portion of the Sat'sat was written by our Tul'si Das, that from the poem, as he wrote it, he solected adhds, which he inserted in the Dohábali, and that the Sat'sai is not entirely a modern work, consisting partly of verses stolen from the latter. Possibly, or rather cortainly, it has undergone great changes at the hands of a later author, perhaps also named Tal'st Dis. This later author may have even given it the name of the Sat'sai, joalous that his master should not have the credit of having written 1 Sat'saí, as his great rival Sør Dis had done. Possibly the whole of the third Sarga7 is an interpolation. Although Rim Gulim Dvivedi denied its authenticity he was certainly an admirer of the poem, for there is a copy of it in his hand writing in the library of the Maharajah of Banaras.
• The corresponding date is Thursday May 5th, 1720.
5 See, however, notes to pp. 96, 97 ante, As Pandit Sudhákar Dvivedt maintains that this is the date of the copying of the MS., and not that of the composition of the poem, the above statement is possibly incorrect.
. Since the above was written I bave seen a very old MS. of the DShabali, which does not contain any verses quoted from the Ramajña. These verresare hence & subsequent addition. This fact modifies the statements made above.
7 Not a single dóht in the third Sarja is found in the Duhabali. * So I am informed by Pandit Sudhakar Dvivėdt.
