The principal point in dispute seems to have been started by an expression of Śrídhara Swámin, a commentator on the Bhágavata, who somewhat incautiously made the remark that there was no reason to suspect that by the term Bhágavata any other work than the subject of his labours was intended. This was therefore an admission that some suspicions had been entertained of the correctness of the nomenclature, and that an opinion had been expressed that the term belonged, not to the Śrí Bhágavata, but to the Deví Bhágavata; to a Śaiva, not a Vaishńava, composition. With whom doubts prevailed prior to Śrídhara Swámin, or by whom they were urged, does not appear; for, as far as we are aware, no works, anterior to his date, in which they are advanced have been met with. Subsequently, various tracts have been written on the subject. There are three in the library of the East India Company; the Durjana Mukha Chapet́iká, 'A slap of the face for the vile,' by Rámáśrama; the Durjana Mukha Mahá Chapet́iká, 'A great slap of the face for the wicked,' by Káśináth Bhat́t́a; and the Durjana Mukha Padma Pad́uká, 'A slipper' for the same part of the same persons, by a

nameless disputant. The first maintains the authenticity of the Bhágavata; the second asserts that the Deví Bhágavata is the genuine Puráńa; and the third replies to the arguments of the first. There is also a work by Purushottama, entitled 'Thirteen arguments for dispelling all doubts of the character of the Bhágavata' (Bhágavata swarúpa vihsaya śanká nirása trayodasa); whilst Bálambhat́t́a, a commentator on the Mitákshara, indulging in a dissertation on the meaning of the word Puráńa, adduces reasons for questioning the inspired origin of this Puráńa.