learning, and the greatest favourite of his prince.» The inscription is from Samvat 1015 or 948 A. D. So the antiquity of the tradition is fully vindicated, and at the same time additional strength is given to the assertion that the stanza is intruded into the Jyotirvidabharana.
It is at the same Buddha Gaya that General Cunningham has found a corroboration of the tradition that Amara-simha was contemporary, or at all events nearly contemporary, with Varaha-mihira. The learned archseologist shows 1 that the Buddhist temple at Gaya, the remains of which he has surveyed, is the same as the one seen by Hiuen-Thsang between 629
642 A. D.; he shows farther that the temple did not yet exist at the time
of Fa-Hian's visit between 399 and 414 A. D. As the temple, according to the inscription before mentioned, was erected by Amara-Deva, one of the nine gems at the court of Vikramaditya, he concludes that Amara-Deva is the same with Amara-simha, the author of the Amara-Kosa, and that the same Amara-simha must have lived between 400 and 600 A.D.; taking the mean, we get 500 A. D., which again coincides with what we should expect in regard to Varaha-mihira.
It remains to make some remarks about the date of the Pancatantra. Colebrooke argues from Varaha-mihira being quoted in that work, 2 that he must have been anterior to or contemporary with the celebrated Shah Nushirvan, in whose reign, 531—579 A.D., the translation of the Pancatantra into Pehlevi was made. Bentley makes the objection that Colebrooke's argument does not hold good, unless the name of Varaha-mihira be proved to occur also in the Pehlevi translation, on the specious ground that the passage in the Pancatantra, as it stands now, might be an interpolation. Bentley's objection seems to me utterly nugatory, and, well analysed, amounts to this, that the interpolation of passages is a physical possibility, which is true enough, but of no use in argument. It is not enough to say that a passage may be an interpolation ; any passage in any book, which is in disagreeable conflict with one's crotchets, may then be called an interpolation. One has to give at least plausible arguments that there is something suspicious about it. Bentley has failed to do so, and wisely, for the passage in the Pancatrantra has nothing suspicious about it. If one wishes to be sceptical, one had better doubt the whole story about the translation into Pehlevi by the command of Shah Nushirvan. Itismanydegreeslessimprobable that a poet, like Firdüsï, invents or modifies a story than that an appropriate, almost necessary, passage is to be held spurious.3 In short, I think
1 Arcliseological Survey Report (Journ. As. Soc. B. Vol. XXXII), p. vi. sqq.
5 Pancatantra (ed. Kosegarten), p. 50.
» The same Bentley could be childishly credulous, when it suited his purpose. So he