copy is thoroughly Greek, and not older than 300 B. C. At the same time, one ought not to call it a forgery without further proof; its style is not that of a bungler.
Badarayana is likewise the professed author or teacher of ajataka, and often quoted by Utpala in his commentary on the Brhaj-Jataka. The vvork is in Arya and exhibits many Greek words, amongst which are apoklima and panaphara.
Nagnajit composed a vvork on architecture, sculpttire, painting and kindred arts; Vigvakarman inspired a book on architecture; so, it seems, also Maya. — £rï-Dravyavardhana1, a prince of Avanti, evidently an historical person, was celebrated as an author on augury or gakuna. — About the rest I have nothing to offer.
In the Brhaj-Jataka, we find, besides some of those named above, Satya «the truthful», another name of whom, according to Utpala, is Bhadatta, «given by the stars», the latter formed after the analogy of Devadatta, \ ajnadatta, etc. Both appellations look as if they were fictitious. His work, although prior to Varaha-mihira's, seems not to have been much older; the metre is Arya; it seems moreover to have been a genuine Indian production (if any book on Nativity may be called so), for his opinions novv and then are contrasted with those of the Greeks. Concerning Jïvagarman, Siddhasena, Devasvamin, I have found nothing worth mentioning. The writings of the Greeks, «the ancient Greeks», as Utpala qualifies them , in contradistinction to Yavanegvara Sphujidhvaja, were so rare already in the days of the forementioned commentator, that he had never seen them. It ma}' be questioned whether books in Sanskrit are meant, and not in Greek. Utpala knevv from other sources that the «ancient Greeks» did not reckon from the £aka era, naturally enough, and thinks that Yavanegvara was the first to use the £aka. The latter statement seems very problematical, for it would follow that Yavanegvara preceded Varaha-mihira, of which there is no indication whatever. In the first place, the work of Yavanegvara, which is extant, bears no internal evidence of being more ancient, quite the reverse. Secondly, if he was prior in time, it is hardly to be explained why an author held so high amongst Hindu astrologers, is never noticed, nor alluded to by Varaha-mihira.
A curious name is Manittha, whom Weber suspects to be Manetho, the author of the Apotelesmata. I thought for a moment of Manilius, but, after al', Weber's conjecture is decidedly more plausible. Manittha, i. e. the book, being of foreign origin, would seem to be countenanced by the fact
1 A doubtful v. r. lias Qrï-Vardhamanaka.