Vol, I, No. 10.] The Dutes of Subandhu and Din-naga. 253: 
LN.S.] 
36. Some Notes on the Dates of Subandhu and Din- -nidiya. —By 
CV = 
HARAPRASAD SASTRI. 
Since the publication of an edition of the Vasavadatta by 
Edward Hall, in the Bibliotheca Indica, in 1859, the date of its 
author is taken to be either the end of the sixth century or the 
beginning of the seventh. The reason assigned by Hall for 
arriving at this conclusion is the fact that Bana in the beginning 
of the seventh century mentions Subandhu as one of his prede- 
CeSSOrS. 
However unsatisfactory the reason might be, the Orientalists 
have accepted the above date for Subandhu. The question, how- 
ever, is still an open one; and here are facts which may be taken 
for what they are worth. 
In discoursing on the excellencies of sfpylle, Vamana, who 
belongs to the ninth century A.v., In his Kavyalankara Sutra 
Vrtti, quotes a verse as an example of the excellency named 
Significance (sabhiprayatva). 
The verse or rather hemistich runs thus :— 
“atsa aafa waQHIta: aRTRAT TAT | 
alat qufaarss: watuat feeqt AataTsa: 1” 
“The celebrated son of Candragupta, the young raja Candra- 
praksa, has become the refuge of learned men, and fortunately 
his labours are successful.” 
Commenting on this the author says, that the words, “the 
refuge of learned men,” are significant, because they bring to. 
mind the fact that Subandhu was one of his ministers. 
Now, there were two Candraguptas in the Gupta line; both 
were called Vikramaditya. The first was the founder of the 
empire and the second his grandson. The second Candragupta 
was a patron of learned men. Is it not likely that Subandhu 
served under one of his sons, Candraprakasa ? 
It is an old custom among Indian sovereigns to appoint Gem 
adult sons to rule extensive territories, and = ahaR@ Princes used 
to hold courts on the model of their imperial fathers. This 
Candraprakasa seems to have done with Subandhu as one of 
his ministers. 
As Candragupta’s inscriptions range from 400 to 414, A.D. 
Subandhu must have flourished about that time, ¢.e., in he 
beginning of the fifth century. 
There may be an objection to this, that in some MSS. 
the word is not Subandhu but Vastubandhu. But there is no such 
name as Vastubandhu in the history of Sanskrit literature, so 
far as it is known. Vastubandhu may be a corruption of 
Vasubandhu who flourished about this time; but he was a 
Buddhist monk who would not accept office and would not be 
spoken of with favour by a Hindu writer. Vastubandhu is only, 
I believe, a scribe’s mistake for Subaudhu. 
