If he derives it from a mere tradition, that tradition must be wrong; because, in the opening of his poem of Gita Govinda, Jayadeva speaks (Prabhand I. verse iv.) of Acharya Govardhan, a great Sanscrit poet, and Govardhan, in his work called Govardhan Satpshati (in the 35th verse), pays a very great compliment to Kalidas. From this, it will appear beyond doubt that Jayadeva lived after, and not before, Kalidas.

The compiler asserts, at page 31, line 8, that the original of which Kuvalayananda is a commentary was composed by Jayadeva. He who reads Kuvalayananda attentively will at once find that it is not the case. Kuvalayananda is a commentary on Chandraloka, and the author of Kuvalayananda often alludes to the doctrines of Jayadeva, which are very different from those of Chandraloka, the original of Kuvalayananda. It is true that Jayadeva has written a work similar to the original of Kuvalayananda, but it is not that original itself. The account of this poet, as well as those of most others, consists of nothing but a narration of some miracles.

At the opening of the account of Kalidas, the compiler says, that though there are many traditions regarding this poet, he will give only a short account of the bard from his works; while in that account he tells us nothing that is derived from the writings of the poet. Again, there appears no reason why Mr. Janardhan Ramchandra should have omitted to record the traditions regarding Kalidas, while more than three-fourths of his book is made up of traditions only.

The compiler observes, at page 33, that this celebrated poet, namely Kalidas, enjoys a great fame, not on account of his extraordinary poetical talents, but because he rigidly conformed to the rules established among the Sanscrit poets. He does not even make an attempt to prove this assertion of his, though it is contrary to the general opinion of the great Sanscrit authorities, and to that of the people, both of whom unanimously believe him to be one of the best, if not the best, of all Sanscrit poets.

In page 33, the compiler informs us that Mr. Colebrooke has composed an easy Murathee commentary on Amarkosh. We have never heard of such a Murathee commentary. We believe it was never composed by that gentleman.

The great Pracrit and Sanscrit grammarian Vararuchi or Katyayan lived, according to the compiler, one hundred and thirty-five years before the Shalivahan era, that is, about fifty years before Christ. But the oriental scholars of Europe, however (vide late Professor Wilson's review on Professor Max Muller's work on Vedic literature, in the latest number of the Edinburgh Review), place him (Katyayan) more than three centuries before Christ.

In page 36, the compiler quotes a Sanscrit verse,-"â çò¶à aqızân atfa fea” and renders it in Murathee thus: "All things which are excellent will be known among the people by means of him"-while the above verse actually means that he will have a liking for everything that is excellent.

The three succeeding notices, of Goraksh, Matchindranath, and Shalivahan, are made up of the most improbable stories possible. For instance, the first was born out of earth, and the second from the belly of a fish, while the third was born of a virgin by Shesh, or the serpent upon whose head the earth rests according to the Hindoo mythology. The third, that is Shalivahan, is also said to have prepared thousands of earthen figures of horses, elephants, and men, and to have changed them into living beings afterwards, &c. &c. ;-the com

piler having told us at the beginning of the life of Shalivahan, that although there is a bakhar of Shalivahan, as it is, like all bakhars, prolix, and full of exaggerations, he has only extracted from it a short account regarding the actual life of Shalivahan.

At the opening of the life of Ileshwaropadhyaya (page 46), the compiler says that this learned man flourished in the seventh century of the Shalivahan era; but in the course of this biography, he describes an interview between Ileshwar and Khan Khan, one of the generals of the celebrated Mogul Emperor Akbar, who lived in the sixteenth century of the Christian, or the fifteenth of the Shalivahan era. This huge chronological error appears the more inexcusable, as, according to the compiler, there are in actual existence documentary grants made to Ileshwar by some princes, a reference to which ought to have settled at once the time when the grantee really lived.

At page 47, the compiler informs us that this learned man, namely Ileshwar, had a great aversion to Pracrit or vernacular languages, and, thinking that to speak them was contrary to the Shastras, he always advised others to use Sanscrit only; and, consequently, even the women of his family spoke Sanscrit as fluently as they would use their mother tongue. But, strange to observe, this very man Ileshwar, according to our compiler, wrote a geographical work upon Tailangan, in a country language, which work, according to the compiler, is still extant.

At page 73, the compiler gives us an account of a learned man called Vishnu Sharma. His only authority for this account is a small Sanscrit work called Hitopdesh, in the introduction of which it is related that a Brahmin called Vishnu Sharma narrated the following stories to the sons of a king called Sudarshan. He who has read stories in Sanscrit, or in any other language, knows that any persons, real or imaginary, may be introduced in them as reciters, or hearers of those stories, and that this circumstance does not prove in any way that those persons actually recited or heard those stories, or even that they had any real existence. The mention of Vishnu Sharma in the introduction of Hitopdesh no more proves that he actually recited those stories, than the similar mention of Schahriar and Scheherazade in the introduction to the Arabian Nights, or that of Robinson Crusoe in the admirable fiction of DeFoe, proves that those personages recited or listened to those stories, or even that they ever existed.

We have given above an example of a very gross chronological mistake committed by the compiler in the life of Ileshwar. Another mistake of a similar character, though perhaps not as gross as the former, appears to have been committed by him in the account of Bhattojee Dixit, or in that of Jagannath Raya. He tells us, in the opening of the life of the former, that he was born in the year 1500 of the Shalivahan era, or A.D. 1578, and it is very reasonable to suppose that Bhattojee Dixit must have been thirty or forty years old before he wrote his celebrated book Manorama, and the book became celebrated among the learned. But in the account of Jagannath Raya, we are told that he lived at the court of Akbar, who reigned in the latter part of the sixteenth century. From this, it appears very probable that Jagannath must be much older than Bhattojee, if he was his contemporary at all. But Jagannath has written a refutation of Manorama, and Bhattojee Dixit has nowhere alluded to this refutation. From this circumstance, it seems more than probable that Jagannath lived after Bhattojeë, VOL. I.-61

rather than before him. As for his (Jagannath's) living at the court of Akbar, and marrying his daughter, the story appears to have no reliable foundation whatever.

he

Again, in the life of Bhattojee Dixit, we are informed that in his old age formed a resolution to go on a pilgrimage to Benares, and made preparations for the intended journey, but was prevailed upon by the urgent entreaties of the Brahmins of Chedambar to give up his resolution, and he lived and died at the latter place, that is Chedambar. In the account of Jagannath, however, we are told that he (Bhattojee Dixit) reproved Jagannath when he one morning saw him (Jagannath) sleeping with a Mahomedan woman, on the banks of the river Ganges. A Sanscrit verse is quoted on this occasion, which may apply to Jagannath as well as to any one else; nor does the verse make any mention of the Mahomedan woman.

The lives of Satsaya and Ram Mohun Roy are placed among the Sanscrit poets, but it is not shown that they wrote any Sanscrit work whatever. If it be said, that as they were Sanscrit scholars, they were reckoned among the Sanscrit writers, the reply is, that according to this rule, Waman and Moropant, and a great many other writers, whose lives are put among the Pracrit authors, will have to be placed among the Sanscrit ones, as they too were good Sanscrit scholars.

The lives of the Pracrit poets are, if possible, more legendary, and more full of miraculous stories, than those of the Sanscrit ones. They are extracted from Murathee works called Bhakti Lilamrit and Bhakti Vijaya, composed by Mahipati, about eighty-six years ago. These works do not pretend to anything like historical value. According to our compiler (page 199), Mahipati informs his readers in several passages of his works that he composed them from divine inspiration. No one, excepting perhaps a very credulous Hindoo, would expect to find anything like a historical narrative in these books. They exactly resemble the legends of the Roman Catholic Saints. The author of Bhakti Vijaya and Bhakti Lilamrit belongs to that intellectual state of society in which the mind delights in and values only the marvellous and the miraculous, and regards the sober truths of history as insipid and worthless. He thinks it very natural that a sadhu or saint should live a miraculous life, and, accordingly, he relates the most improbable stories in the same confidential tone as one would relate a most common occurrence. His readers were and are of the same state of mind with himself, and, therefore, he never makes the smallest attempt to support his statements, because he knows that they would never be called in question by his readers. Our compiler appears to believe whatever Mahipati or any other Sanscrit or Pracrit writer has said, and quotes from them as if they were the most unquestionable authorities. The lives of most of the poets are made up only of the most incredible stories possible. Read the accounts of Changdeo, Mukund Raj, Kabir, &c. &c.

One of the great faults of this book is, that in many places the author makes statements without telling his readers, either in the text or in a foot-note, the source from which he has derived his information. In the same manuer, he often quotes a verse without naming the work or the author from which or from whom that quotation is made. It is too much for him to expect his readers to believe his statements simply because he makes them.

The compiler is sometimes very capricious. He tells us that the dramas of

Kalidas called Shakuntala and Vikramorvashi have been translated into English, and the poems Raghuvansh and Kumarsanbhava, of the same poet, have been translated into Latin; but when he mentions Prasanuraghav, or Uttaramcharitra, or Shakuntala, or Vikramorvashi, he does not even allude to the Murathee translations of those books. We are sure that the latter information is by far more important to a Muratha reader than the former. If his glowing account of a poet awakens a desire in his Muratha reader to know the contents of his work, he will naturally be anxious to know whether these works are translated into Murathee. To him the knowledge that translations of these works are made into English or Latin is almost useless.

In the life of Bhavabhuti, the compiler has given a detailed account of the contents of every act of the drama of Uttaramcharitra, while regarding the subject-matter of hundreds of books mentioned in this work he is altogether silent. Sometimes he gives us very puerile information. For instance, he tells us, in the life of Bhaskara Acharya, that an edition of a Sanscrit work called Lilavati, which was published in Bengal, has an English title-page.

The compiler has omitted to mention many Sanscrit authors in this compilation. Govardhan, Bilhan, Krishna Mishra, the author of Prabodhchandrodaya, Murari, &c., among poets; Jagadish, Mathuranath, Gadadhar, &c., among the logicians; and many authors on Hindoo law, astronomy, and other subjects, have been altogether omitted. But the compiler has admitted this defect in the preface, and therefore we need not much dwell upon it. But the omission of some of the most celebrated and learned Sanscrit scholars, who lived only a few years ago, cannot be so easily excused. While he gives us an account of the late Bal Gungadhar Shastree, of the Elphinstone College, he does not say a word about Nilakant Shastree Thathe, Trimbak Shastree Raydurgakar, Kupa Shastreo, Mor Shastri Sate, Trimbak Shastree Shaligram, and many others, who were as celebrated as Bal Gungadhar Shastree, and much greater Sanscrit scholars than he was. They at least many of them-have written works much more learned than those of certain authors whose names appear in the compilation.

We will now give a few instances of bad grammar, inaccurate or wrong expressions, &c., which have occurred to us while reading the compilation under notice.

66

afaafca," the title of the book, is inaccurate, inasmuch as the book is not confined to the accounts of poets, but contains the lives of literary persons of all sorts : it ought to be therefore called विद्वचरित्र or ग्रंथकचरिच rather than कविचरित्र. We know that the word at, in Sanscrit, means 66 a learned man" as well as 66 poet," but the word in modern Sanscrit is seldom used in the former sense, and in Murathee never so used by the educated.

66

a

" परकाया प्रवेश विद्येचें ” (page 2, line 10) is a wrong word ; परकाया प्रवेश विद्या is a Sanscrit compound, and therefore every component word must be Sanscrit. is a Pracrit form, and consequently cannot enter into a Sanscrit compound. The Sanscrit form is काय, and therefore the right form will be परकाय प्रवेश दिवे.

" द्वापार युगाच्या अंतीं व्यास मुनीनीं आपलीं कतव्यें संपवून लोकांत अदृश्य होऊं लागले” is a sentence grammatically wrong. Instead of व्यासमुनी मीं, it ought to be व्यास मुनि. Page 17, lines 12, 13 – “ गीता, सनत्सुजातीय, नृसिंह तापिनी, ईष, केन, कठ, प्रश्न, मुंड, मांडुक्य, नैबिरोय, ऐतरेय, शंदेग्य वृहदारण्यक या दशोपनिषदांवर " &c. is a very

་་

careless sentence.

It may lead the reader to believe that गोता, रनत्सुजातोय, and सिंव्हतापिनी are among the देशोपनिषद, which is not the fact. Page 18, line 15 – “ सेान्यांचें डगले आणि पायांला हळद लावणें असें करूं लागलें.” What is the case of the word, and with what verb is it connected ?

Page 62, line 16 –“ सूर्यसिद्धांत हा मोठा गणिताचा ग्रंथ भास्कराचार्यीनें केला.” The assertion is quite wrong. सूर्य सिद्धांत was not composed by भास्कराचार्य.

Page 102, line 15 - " तो मितव्यायोपणाणानं राहात असे न्हणून मुख्यत्वं करून त्याला काहीँ रोग न होतां तो पुष्कळ वर्षे वांचला.” Here the word मितव्ययोपणानें is very carelessly used. faa, or frugal expenditure, does not lengthen man's life. The word is used here probably to render the English word " temperately." मिताहारी असे faareiì Hà ega &c. &c. would be a better expression. म्हणून

Page 114, line 13—“, fare " &c. The author, we think, means, by नाम प्रकरण, तद्वित प्रकरण. There is no such heading as नाम प्रकरण in कामुदी.

Page 91, line 10 –“ तो (वराह मिहिर) शालिवाहन शकाच्या १३३२ सांत होता. " But in a Sanscrit verse quoted by the compiler at page 33, we are told that ff belonged to the celebrated conclave of the court of Vikramaditya. Page 90, line 24 – “ नैषधावरची टोका (येही भटानें केलेली) मात्र ह्या देशांत What authority has the compiler that it was ever composed? ought to be before the word, and not after it. Page 94, line 9–“ ऐक्यता.” The right word is एकता or ऐक्य.

Again, the word

wrong.

66

Page 139, line 27– “ शेवटल्या शतकांत जेव्हां ज्ञानेश्वर रेड्याकडून वेद बोलविल्यावरून प्रख्यात झाले त्याविषयीं ऐकून चांगदेव त्याच्या भेटीस आले.” This sentence is evidently The relative adverb must always be followed in Murathee by a Page 144, line 8—“ajar el ca fuq qıai.” If we read the whole para graph, we will at once see that the pronoun is wrong; it ought to be àì. Page 141, line 9—“àmia aã.” This expression is very

66

carelessly used or fata, while it

as it is. It will naturally connect itself with the verb is meant to be connected with the verb at the end of the paragraph. Page 142, line 11 – “ शिकंदर पादशाहाच्या वेळों कबीर व नानक यांचा झगडा होत असे हो गोष्ट इतिहासा वरून खचित आहे.” What emperor is meant here under the title of f? The appellation is usually applied to Alexander the Great; but he cannot be meant here, as Kabir is said to have lived in the seventeenth century of the Christian era. "ही गोठ इतिहासावरून खचित आहे"(this fact is established from history): what history does the compiler refer to?

We now proceed to a pleasanter task, of noticing the merits of the work in question. The orthography, grammar, and style of the book are, on the whole, good. It is true that there are some mistakes of bad spelling and inattention to grammar, but they are few and trivial; and we must also make allowance for the unsettled character of these subjects in connection with Murathee, and for the irremediable inadvertence of printers. The compiler has made considerable research regarding books and authors, and he certainly deserves praise for his trouble. He has given a great deal of information in his compilation as to what books were prepared by what authors, and in many instances as to what is the subject-matter of those books.

In short, as a sober and critical biographical work, the book before us possesses very little value; but as a literary production, it will prove of considerable interest and amusement to the vernacular Murathee reader.