by him. The date which
he assigns to Sankara appears in an unimportant foot-note on page 89 of
his book on "The Religions of India," which reads thus: "Sankaracharya
is generally placed in the eighth century; perhaps we must accept the
ninth rather. The best accredited tradition represents him as born on
the 10th of the month 'Madhava' in 788 A.D. Other traditions, it is
true, place him in the second and fifth centuries. The author of the
Dabistan, on the other hand, brings him as far down as the commencement
of the fourteenth." Mr. Barth is clearly wrong in saying that Sankara
is generally placed in the eight century. There are as many traditions
for placing him in some century before the Christian era as for placing
him in some century after the said era, and it will also be seen from
what follows that in fact evidence preponderates in favour of the former
statement. It cannot be contended that the generality of Orientalists
have any definite opinions of their own on the subject under
consideration. Max Muller does not appear to have ever directed his
attention to this subject. Monier Williams merely copies the date given
by Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Weber seems to rely upon the same authority
without troubling himself with any further inquiry about the matter.
Mr. Wilson is probably the only Orientalist who investigated the subject
with some care and attention; and he frankly confesses that the exact
period at which "he (Sankara) flourished can by no means be determined"
(p. 201 of vol. I. of his "Essays on the Religion of the Hindoos").
Under such circumstances the foot-note above quoted is certainly very
misleading. Mr. Barth does not inform his readers where he obtained the
tradition referred to, and what reasons he has for supposing that it
refers to the first Sankaracharya, and that it is "the best accredited
tradition." When the matter is still open to discussion, Mr. Barth
should not have adopted any particular date if he is not prepared to
support it and establish it by proper arguments. The other traditions
alluded to are not intended, of course, to strengthen the authority of
the tradition relied upon. But the wording of the foot-note in question
seems to show that all the authorities and traditions relating to the
subject are comprised therein, when in fact the most important of them
are left out of consideration, as will be shown hereafter. No arguments
are to be found in support of the date assigne