yana 1 and contemporary, or nearly so, with the Mahabharata; the approximate date I assign to it is 50 B. C. It is certainly not older, and scarcely much more modern. I see no reason why the Yugapuranam should not go as far as other Puranas in its prophetic history. We may therefore adopt as the date of the book the period where the prophetic breath comes suddenly to an end. The principal Puranas go considerably farther. At the time of the composition of the Gargï-Samhita Pataliputra must have been the imperial city of Hindustan.
Another Samhita, the Naradï-Samhita or rather professing to be so, exists in many MSS. In the Catalogue of the Sanskrit MSS. of the Berlin Library (257), Weber has given the opening lines of the work. Those lines would suffice to raise serious doubts whether the Naradï-Samhita, now passing as such in India, be the same with the book meant by Varahamihira, who mentions Narada twice (Brh. Samh. Ch. XI. 5; Ch. XXIV. 2). Amongst the 18 authorities whose names occur in the opening lines of the so-called Naradï-Samhita we find a Yavana, a Paulastya and a Romaga. All three names are blunders; there is not one Yavana only, but there are many, the word is never used in the singular in any other work of some value. Farther Paulastya is in sundry MSS. a quasi corrected form for Pauliga-(Siddhanta); the work before us improves upon it by confounding Puliga with his adjective Pauliga, and making from an adjective a man. Romaka is again corrected into Romaga. It was to be expected beforehand that the quotations from Narada would not be found in the book in question; theyrtknotrecurin it. In short, the Naradï-Samhita current now-a-days is a cento of older Samhitas, not genuine, and worthless into the bargain.
Asita-Devala (or, as Utpala seems to mean, Asita and Devala), is one of the most celebrated of Rsi astronomers, celebrated even among Buddhists. Hiuen Thsang knows him under the name of O-si-ti, as the astrologer who cast the horoscope for the nativity ofBuddha; he was not aware that no horoscopy was known in India at thetimeof^akyamuni. The work ascribed to Asita-Devala has never come to my notice; from quotations I know that Asita-Devala, or at all events Devala, was acquainted with the signs of the Zodiac, from which is to te be inferred that he (I mean his work) was posterior to Garga.
1 It must in all fairness be added that all the MSS. of the Kamayana do not exhibit the ehapter where the names of the signs of the Zodiac occur. By the way, it may be noticed that Java and the country, called Chryse by the Greeks, now-a-days Malacca(?) are mentioned in the Ramayana, IV. 40, 30 (ed. Bombay). Gorresio's text has Jaladvïpa, a stupid would-be correction of some MSS. for Javadvipa. Such would-be corrections are very eommon; e. g. Bharukaccha, the Sanskrit form of Barygaza, now Bharoach, is generally corrupted to Marukaccha.