pala, Kalhana-Pandita, Brahmagupta, Albïrünï and Hiuen-Thsang. Far, however, from this being the case, not any source, good, bad or indifferent, has been adduced to support the extraordinary, howbeit common, theory, that Vikramaditya £akari lived 57 B. C. The nearest approach to quoting sources in order to support the theory, is, so far as I know at least, to be found in the grotesque speculations of Wilford. It is but fair to say, however, that Wilford is the only one who really might have adduced one source, for he certainly used it. The work in question is more than once mentioned and parts of it made subject of discussion by others; I mean the astrological book Jyotirvidabharana. The author of this production places, indeed, Vikramaditya £akari at 57 B. C., but I shall show that he is an impostor, and a very clumsy one, so that his word cannot carry much weight. To those who know the work, such a task may seem not requisite, but as the spuriousness of the Jyotirvidabharana has been inferred from other grounds, a new discussion on its merits will not be deemed wholly superfluous.
The author professes to be no less a person than the renowned Kalidasa. It vvould be a tedious task to enumerate all the reasons, why the work must be an impudent fabrication, although even- line affords examples <nauseam 7tsquet>-, moreover one passage decides all. The passage is given at full length by Fitz-Edward Hall1 whose remarks may be compared. There the PseudoKalidasa tells us, that he lived at the court of Vikramaditya, the king of Malava, who slew 555555555 £akas 2; that amongst others, at the same court, lived Varaha-mihira. Further it is said that the Jyotirvidabharana is written in the year 3068 of the Kali-yuga, or 33 B. C. This is enough; a man, living 33 B. C., calls himself the contemporary of Varaha-mihira, who lived more than 500 years afterwards. As if to assist us in the discovery of his forgery, the Pseudo-Kalidasa does not only say, Varaha-mihira, but he adds also the epithet khyata «the celebrated», so that how many other Varaha-mihiras there may have been, he at all events means the author of the Brhat-Samhita. I fully agree with F. E. Hall, when he says: «There is every reason for believing the Jyotirvidabharana to be not only pseudonymous, but of recent composition.» He does not state his reasons; amongst the many reasons I have for concurring in his opinion, are: 1° the absurd-
1 Wilson's translation of the Visnupurana, ed. by F. E. Hall, preface p. viii. footnote. The readings agree excictly with those of a manuscript before me.
s At another passage the number of Cakas whom a king is required to kill before he can claim the title of Qaka-destroyer, and has the right to found an era, is given as 5500000000, at least in figures, but in words sapancakotyabjadala (pramah), whieh is 5050000000; manifestly the figures represent the poetaster's meaning, and the words are at fault.