144
which he assigns to Sankara appears in an unimportant foot-note appearing on page 89 of his book on "The Religions of India," which reads thus: "Shankaracharya is generally placed in the 8th century; perhaps we must accept the 9th 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 2nd and 5th centuries. The author of the Dabistan, on the other hand, brings him as far down as the commencement of the 14th." Mr. Barth is clearly wrong in saying that Sankara is generally placed in the 8th 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 Müller 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 enquiry 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" (page 201 of Vol. I of his Essays on the religion of the Hindus). Under such circumstances the foot-note above-quoted is certainly very misleading. Mr. Barth does not inform his readers wherefrom he obtained the tradition referred to and what reasons he has for supposing that it refers to the first Shankaracharya 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
