The chief arguments in favour of the authenticity of this Puráńa are the absence of any reason why Vopadeva, to whom it is attributed, should not have put his own name to it; its being included in all lists of the Puráńas, sometimes with circumstances that belong to no other Puráńa; and its being admitted to be a Puráńa, and cited as authority, or made the subject of comment, by writers of established reputation, of whom Śankara Áchárya is one, and he lived long before Vopadeva. The reply to the first argument is rather feeble, the controversialists being unwilling perhaps to admit the real object, the promotion of new doctrines. It is therefore said that Vyása was an incarnation of Náráyańa, and the purpose was to propitiate his favour. The insertion of a Bhágavata amongst the eighteen Puráńas is acknowledged; but this, it is said, can be the Deví Bhágavata alone, for the circumstances apply more correctly to it than to the Vaishńava Bhágavata. Thus a text is quoted by Káśináth from a Puráńa--he does not state which--that says of the Bhágavata that it contains eighteen thousand verses, twelve books, and three hundred and thirty-two chapters. Káśináth asserts that the chapters of the Śrí Bhágavata are three hundred and thirty-five, and that the numbers apply throughout only to the Deví Bhágavata. It is also said that the Bhágavata contains an account of the acquirement of holy knowledge by Hayagríva; the particulars of the Sáraswata Kalpa; a dialogue between Ambarísha and Śuka; and that it commences with the Gayatrí, or at least a citation of it. These all apply to the Deví Bhágavata alone, except the last; but it also is more true of the Śaiva than of the Vaishńava work, for the latter has only one word of the Gayatrí, dhímahi, 'we meditate;' whilst the former to dhímahi adds, Yá nah prachodayát,

[paragraph continues] 'who may enlighten us.' To the third argument it is in the first place objected, that the citation of the Bhágavata by modern writers is no test of its authenticity; and with regard to the more ancient commentary of Śankara Áchárya, it is asked, "Where is it?" Those who advocate the sanctity of the Bhágavata reply, "It was written in a difficult style, and became obsolete, and is lost." "A very unsatisfactory plea," retort their opponents, "for we still have the works of Śankara, several of which are quite as difficult as any in the Sanscrit language." The existence of this comment, too, rests upon the authority of Mádhwa or Mádhava, who in a commentary of his own asserts that he has consulted eight others. Now amongst these is one by the monkey Hanumán; and although a Hindu disputant may believe in the reality of such a composition, yet we may receive its citation as a proof that Mádhwa was not very scrupulous in the verification of his authorities.