sentient views of the Sages about the cause of earthquakes are noticed, the commentator cites some verses of Vrddha-Garga, vvho represents earthquakes as caused by the gods to show their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the conduct of the mortals; Garga on the contrary sees the cause of earthquakes in the heaving sighs of the tired elephants of the four quarters. This is not the only passage. Sometimes Garga and Vrddha-Garga — i. e. the works quoted under these names — are both cited as authorities for some opinion in which both agree. Here we have two facts: Garga and Vfddha-Garga, considered as persons, are one and the same, but where Utpala quotes Vrddha-Garga he has another work than the Gargï-Samhita in view. How to explain it? Considering that after the words «iti VrddhaGargï-tantre, & c.» therefollowsaMayüracitrakam ofa «Vrddha-Gargïyam Jyotih?astram», and that at least one gloka, adducêd by Utpala from Vrddha-Garga really occurs there, I guess that Vrddha-Garga (i. e. the book) either formed a kind of paridis ta or appendix to Garga, orthat both works did not differ more from each other than different redactions of old Sanskrit books occasionally do. It must be remarked that many quotations from Vrddha-Garga in Utpala do not recur in the Mayüracitrakam appended to the Gargï-Samhita.
M\ codex is not only mutilated, but also extremely incorrect and carelessly copied; the omission of words and whole passages is of but too frequent occurrence. The verses of Garga found in the commentary to the Veda-calendar and published by Prof. Max Muller in the preface to the 4th Vol. of the Rgveda, are not to be found in my fragment, and could not indeed have made part of it, because their place would be in the earlier part, precisely that which is lost; there is, however, reason to believe that thev are taken from the Gargï-Samhita. 1
Por ascertaining the approximate date of the Gargï-Samhita we have in the first place the well known verse:2
Mleccha hi Yavanas tesu samyak chastram idam sthitam j
rsivat te pi püjyante kim punar daivavid dvijah ||
«The Greeks are Mlecchas, but amongst them this science is duly established; therefore even they (although Mlecchas) are honoured as Rsis; how much more then an astrologer who is a Brahman.»
• The objection that may be raised, is that the verses in the commentary to the Jyautisa are not of astrological character; the objection would be unanswerable if Samüita in this case has to be taken in its limited sense.
2 It is a mistake of Colebrooke to ascribe these lines to Varaha-mihira; I should not have remarked this, were it not that the mistake had been repeated again and again, long after Weber had given the correct statement.