Jhe ^opp Libf^r^. 
 
 COLLECTED BY FRMZ BOP?, 
 
 Professcr of Comparative Philology in the 
 University of Berlin. 
 
 Purchased by Cornell University, 1868. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PK 519.G62 
 
 3 1924 023 200 235 »«....i 
 
m 
 
 ^«C5 
 
 Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this bool< is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924023200235 
 
PANINI: 
 HIS PLACE IN SANSKRIT LITEKATIJEE. 
 
PANINI: 
 
 HIS PLACE IN SANSKEIT LITERATURE 
 
 AN INVESTIGATION 
 
 LITERARY AND CHRONOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 
 
 "WHICH MAY BE SETTLED BY A STUDY OF HIS AVORK. 
 
 A SEPARATE IMPRESSION OP THE PKEFAOE TO THE FAC-SIMILE OP MS. NO. 17 IN THE LIBRAKY 
 
 or HER majesty's home GOVERNMENT POR INDIA, WHICH CONTAINS A PORTION OF 
 
 THE MANAVA-KALPA-StJTRA -WITH THE COMMENTARY OP KUMARILA-SWAMIN. 
 
 THEODOR GOLDSTUCKER. 
 
 LONDON: 
 K. TEUBNEE AND CO., 60, PATEEXOSTEE EOW. 
 
 BEELIN • 
 
 A. A S H E R AND CO., 
 
 (albekt cohx and uaniel coriJN.) 
 
 MrCCCT.XI. 
 
 <5? 
 
STEPHEN AUSTIN, 
 
 PRINTER, lIEETFOIil). 
 
 A 
 
 \ 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 \LfBRAf|Y 
 
TO 
 
 RUDOLF VIECHOW, 
 
 THE GREAT DISCOVERER AND DEFENDER OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH 
 
 THIS BOOK IS IJSrSCRIBED 
 
 AS A TESTIMONY OF RESPECT AND ADMIRATION, 
 
 BY HIS AFFECTIONATE FRIEND 
 
 THEODOE GOLDSTUCKBK 
 
The present pages form the Preface to the Fac-simile of the 
 Manava-Kalpa- Sutra, as mentioned on the title-page. The 
 separate impression has been taken at the suggestion of my 
 publishers and other friends, who thought that it would be 
 desirable to make their contents more easy of access than they 
 are in the original work. 
 
 This circumstance will explain the apparent incongruity of 
 presenting them without the Manuscript which they describe. 
 
 University College, Londu.v, 
 November 2, 1860. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 FAGB 
 
 The Original Manuscript of the Fac-simile 1 
 
 The Fac-sinule traced by Misa Amelia Eattenbury 3 
 
 Contents of the Manuscript 4 
 
 Contents of another Manuscript of the M&nava-Kalpa-Sdtra 7 
 
 The Commentary of KumSrila 8 
 
 Connection between the Kalpa-Siitras of the Taittiriya-Samhitl and the Mimansa 9 
 
 Author of the M^nava-Kalpa-Slitra 10 
 
 Date of this work 12 
 
 LlTERAKT AND CHRONOLOGICAL QUESTIONS CONOEBNING EVEKT WORK OP THE VaIDIK 
 
 Literature, and thebefoke beahing on the present Eitual Book 13 
 
 Professor Miiller holds tbat the art of writing was not yet known in India when P&nini 
 lived, or according to him, about 350 e.g. ; and that there is not a single word in 
 
 P&nini's terminology which presupposes his knowledge of writing ib. 
 
 Eeputation op this View 15 — 67 
 
 The Civilization of India as depicted in the Rigveda 15 
 
 Tavandni, probably the cuneiform writing, was known to P&nini ^ 16 
 
 Pinini mentions the word lipikara, "a writer" 17 
 
 JPatala, the name of a division of Sanskrit works, is a further proof that writing was known 
 
 in ancient India 19 
 
 A further proof is derived from the words Tcdnda axApattra, sutra a.ni grantha 20 
 
 Definition of the word Siitra 21 
 
 Note. — Objection to the promiscuous use made in Professor Miiller's quotations, of 
 the Sfltras of P&nini and the commentaries on them. Objection to his state- 
 ment concerning the instances to P&nini's Grammar 22 
 
 Probable origin of the Sutra Literature 25 
 
 Oscillations of Professor "Weber caused by the word grantha. Doubts of Professor Miiller 
 
 concerning the occurrence of this word in P&fini. Meaning of this word 27 
 
 jVbfo. — The nursery book SUuhrandiya is considered by Professor Veber to be an 
 
 epic poem and a forerunner of the E&m&yana 23 
 
 ^heedlessness of the doubts of Professor Miiller in reference to the word grantha 29 
 
 Note. — Critical means of ascertaining whether a Sfltra of PSinini be genuine or not. 
 Uncritical assertions made by Dr. Boehtlingk on this subject, in his reprint of 
 the Calcutta edition of P&nini. Only three or four SUtras out of 3996 do not 
 
 belong to P&nini H. 
 
X TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAOF. 
 
 The meaning of grantha in a passage from the Mah&.bh4rat8 31 
 
 Note. — On the names of the leading characters in this poem, as occurring in the 
 
 Satras of, and the commentaries on, PSnini 32 
 
 The phrase granthaio 'rthaiascha, compared with kdnda scad paddrt/ia 33 
 
 Professors Miiller and "Weber assume that the word varna does not mean a writteu letter. — 
 
 JRefutation of this view 34 — 43 
 
 Varna and kdra mean a letter of the alphabet 35 
 
 Use of the two words in the works of P&nini, Ka.tyayana and Patanjali 3B 
 
 Note — And in the K^ik^, etc 37 
 
 Difference hetween the two words ii. 
 
 DifiFerence between w™a and karana 39 
 
 The meaning of upadesa 40 
 
 Bifference hetween varna, kdra, karana and akshara 42 
 
 The word icdaga is a further proof that Plniui was acquainted with writing 44 
 
 A further proof results from his technical terms awaritet and mmddtfet, and from the word 
 
 swan'ia in Pinini's rule I. 3, 11 45 
 
 An unhappy reference of Professor Weber 'l>. 
 
 Note. — An insight into the character of Dr. Boehtlingk's "jdition" of P-inini. An 
 
 extraordinary explanation given by him, of the Sfltra I. 3, 11 46 
 
 Katy6.yana, Patanjali and Kaiyyata on Siitra I. 3, 11 47 
 
 The commentary of these grammarians proves that PSiriiui's manner of defining an adhikdra 
 
 would have been impossible without writing 52 
 
 Written accents were indispensable for P&nini's terminology 54 
 
 Note. — On the incorrect spelling of the word unnddi »*• 
 
 This results from the Dh^tupatha 65 
 
 Note. — On the pronunciation of the vowel a 67 
 
 Even the habit of marking Hindu cattle affords proof of the acquaintance of the Hindus, in 
 
 the time of Plnini, with the art of writing 69 
 
 The words lopa and dris, in the Sutras, are a further proof that P&nini had a knowledge 
 
 of writing 60 
 
 The Vedas were preserved in writing at Panini's time 61 
 
 Note. — A passage, relating to the mystical powers of the alphabet, from a Chapter 
 
 of a Dialogue between Siva and P6.rvati «4. 
 
 Note. — A passage from Y&jnavalkya, which shows that Manuscripts of the Vedas 
 
 existed in his time 62 
 
 Writing was known before Panini. — Rishi, a seer of Taidik hymns 64 
 
 Note.— On the title Rishi 66 
 
 Professor Miiller holds that there are four distinct periods of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, — 
 the Chhandas, Mantra, Brihmana and Sutia periods. His distribution of the Ancient 
 
 Literature over these periods 68 
 
 Refutation op his views and op his distkibution op the Ancient Litekature ...68 — 225 
 
 Meaning of the word mantra 69 
 
 Meaning of the word chhandas. Use of both those words in the Slitras of P&nini 70 
 
 Professor Miiller assigns dates to his four periods of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. His oldest 
 
 date is 1200 b.c 72 
 
 But a quotation, by Colehrooke, from the Jyotisha, proves that an arrangement of Vaidik 
 
 hymns was completed in the 14th century b.c 74 
 
 Professor Weber's slur on Colebrooke's accuracy 75 
 
 Professor Weber's silence on Lassen's researches 76 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI 
 
 PACK 
 
 Professor Weber as a personal witness of the progress of the Aryas in India up to 1500 B.C. ... 77 
 Professor Miiller holds that the uniform employment of the Anushtubh ^loka marks a new 
 
 period, viz., the Classical Period of Sanskrit Literature 7S 
 
 Proof that this view cannot be assented <o.— Tittiri and Charaka were authors of ^lokas. — 
 
 K^ty&yana composed felokas, called Bhraja 79 
 
 KMyiyana's Karmapradipa is written in Slokas.— Vy&di wrote a work, Sangraha, in 100,000 
 
 Slokas. — All these authors would belong to Professor MiiUer's Vaidik period 80 
 
 Professor Miiller assigns to K&.tyayana the date 350 B.o,, and considers P^nini to he his con- 
 temporary 81 
 
 Eefutation of this view 83 213 
 
 Dr. Boehtlingk also places P4nini about 350 b.o 85 
 
 Proof that the premises which have led to his conclusion are imaginary 86 
 
 Note. — An extraordinary view taken by Dr. Boehtlingk of the moral and intellectual 
 condition of ancient India. — The whole of the ancient scientific literature of this 
 
 country would prove, according to his view, a, gigantic swindle and imbecility. 87 
 
 Unsatisfactory results concerning the date of Pinini 88 
 
 Note. — PSnini looked upon by the llindus as a Rishi, in the proper sense of this word ii. 
 
 An investigation of the position which Pdnini holds in ancient Sanskrit literature is more likely 
 
 to lead to a solid result, than speculations as to the real date of his life ili. 
 
 On the Chronological relation between Panin-i and Katyatana, the author op 
 
 THE Varttikas 89 — 140 
 
 The Literature mentioned in the Mahkbhashya. — Grammarians prior to P^nini's Grammar. — 
 
 Authors of V&rttikas later than K&.tya,yana 90 
 
 The Ishtis of Patanjali , 91 
 
 Note. — An extraordinary syllogism of Dr. Boehtlingk relative to some authors of 
 
 V&rttikas 92 
 
 Note. — Another extraordinary syllogism of this writer by which ishti is metamor- 
 phosed into kdrikd ib. 
 
 The K&rikJs belong to different authors 93 
 
 Note. — A further insight into the value of the statements of Dr. Boehtlingk ib. 
 
 Various categories of K^rik^s 94 
 
 Authors of the.K&,rik&s not commented upon by Patanjali 95 
 
 Such K^kas are later than Katy&yana's V&rttikas. — Authors of the Kkrikis commented 
 
 upon by Patanjali 99 
 
 The method of Patanjali's Great Commentary 100 
 
 Eepetitinn of K^rikSs 101 
 
 Instances of works which are written in verse and commented on, in prose, by their own 
 
 authors 103 
 
 Note. — A valuable contribution to these instances by Dr. Fitz-Edward HaU 104 
 
 Authors of the K4rik&s with imperfect comment in the Mah&bhfehya of Patanjali 105 
 
 Paribhish^. — Definition of the word. Its difference from ra»j;«o' 106 
 
 Definition oi paribhdsM as given by the Purushottama-vritti-tik&. and Vaidyan^tha 107 
 
 Vaidyanatha's distinction between Paribh^h&s founded on jndpaka, and Paribhashas founded 
 
 OTxnydya 1"° 
 
 Note.— On. the difficulty which these terms have caused to the native grammarians. 
 
 Uncritical state of the Calcutta edition of Pinini on this point ib. 
 
 Paribhash&s which are anterior to the Virttikas of KatySyana 109 
 
 None of the Paribhisha collections in existence is the original collection of Paribh&shas Ill 
 
XU TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 FAOB 
 
 Paribh&shSs composed by Patanjali Ill 
 
 The oldest Paribh&sli&s are anterior to the Grammar of P^nini 113 
 
 Definition of the term, jndpaka 115 
 
 Eelation between y«apaAa aoA paribhdshd 117 
 
 The character of the Virttikas of K§ity&.yana 119 
 
 Note. — A fantastical conjecture of Professor "Weber on the MahSibhfehya, which has 
 
 not become real by dint of repetition ib. 
 
 The character of the Mah^bh^hya. Its relation to KS,ty &yana and to P&nini 120 
 
 A summary view of the criticisms of K^ty^yana 121 
 
 Four arguments to prove that Pinini must have preceded !K&.tyS.yana 122 
 
 First argument. — There are grammatical forms current in the time of Pinini which became 
 
 obsolete or even incorrect in the time of K&ty^yana 123 
 
 Second argument. — There are meanings of words, in the time of K&ty&yana, which did not 
 
 exist in the time of Pinini 125 
 
 Third argument. — There are words and meanings of words used by P^ini which had become 
 
 obsolete in the time of Kity&yana 128 
 
 Fourth argument. — There existed a literature in the time of K&ty&.yana which was not known 
 
 toPinini 129—140 
 
 A'ranyalas were not known to P^ini, but to K&ty&yana 129 
 
 The V&jasaneyi-SamhitS. and the Satapatha-br^hmana were not known to P&nini, but to 
 
 E;%a.yana 131—140 
 
 Professor "Weber's first explanation of the V&rttika to Sdtra TV. 3, 105 133 
 
 Professor "Weber's second explanation of the same Varttika, which destroys the first 134 
 
 An analysis of his critical method 135 
 
 Professor Miiller's explanation of the same Y&rttika 136 
 
 An analysis of his explanation. — The "V&rttika made the foundation of chronological results, 
 
 by both Professors, is misprinted in the Calcutta edition which supplied them with its text 137 
 
 The real meaning of this Varttika 138 
 
 It leads to the conclusion that Panini did not yet know the Satapatha-brahmana 139 
 
 None of the Br&hmanas and Kalpa-works in existence were ancient works from P-inini's point 
 
 of view. — The Kalpa-work of K&ty&yana was not known to P&.nini 141 
 
 The TJpanishads were unknown to P&nini ib. 
 
 He was acquainted with the Black Tajur-veda, the Rig- and Sama- veda 142 
 
 He did not know the Atharvaveda ib. 
 
 Professor Miiller's view of what are the oldest Rigveda hymns. — Objections to his view 144 
 
 P&nini's view of what are the oldest hymns 145 
 
 Patanj all's theory on the origin of the various versions of the Vaidik hymns 146 
 
 Note. — Kaiyyata's and N^gojibhatta's gloss on Patanjali ib. 
 
 Panini considers the second Mandala of the Rigveda, in its present version, to be amongst the 
 
 less ancient portions of this Yeda 149 
 
 The six philosophical systems were unknown to Panini. — 1. Mlminsi. — 2. Ved&nta 150 
 
 3. Sinkhya.— 4. Yoga 151 
 
 5. Nyaya 152 
 
 Note. — A further insight into Dr. Boehtlingk's " edition" of Pinini ib, 
 
 Gautama's definition of j&ti (^entts), ^kriti (species), and vyakti {individual) 153 
 
 P&nini does not make use of the term dicritf 164 
 
 His teuajdii is the same as Gautama's dkriti ;j. 
 
 Note. — Patanjali and K&tyiyana knew the system of Gautama 155 
 
 6. Yaiseshika was unknown to Panini I57 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chronological relation between Panini and the TjNNADi-StJTRAS 168—170 
 
 Professor Miiller's argument that the Unn&di-Siitras are anterior to Panini.— Dr. Aufrecht's 
 
 arguments to the same effect 158 
 
 Jtefuiation of these arguments , 159 
 
 Note. — ^New tTnnidi-Siitras taken from the Commentary oi Nrisinha on the Unn^di- 
 
 Sdtras, this Commentary being a portion of his Swaramanjari 160 
 
 On the critical test by which to judge of the chronological relation of PJinini to the Uniia,di- 
 
 Siitras and other grammatical works , 162 
 
 Five Sfltras of P&nini, the key-stone of his work 163 
 
 Note. — A further insight into the character of Dr. Boehtlingk's " edition" of Pinini. ill. 
 
 Patanjali on the technical terms of P&nini 164 
 
 Kaiyyata on Patanjali's gloss in question 165; 
 
 Inferences to be drawn from this gloss as to the originality of certain terms of P&,nini 166 
 
 Application of the test thus obtained to the Unnidi-Slitras 169 
 
 These Slitras are consequently later than Panini. This is the opinion, also, of Bhattojidi- 
 
 kshita, Ujjwaladatta and Vimala 170 
 
 Chronological relation between Panini and the TJnnadi-list 171—182 
 
 Nairuktas and Vaiy^karanas 171 
 
 Patanjali must hare looked upon Pinini as belonging to Y&ska's "some of the Vaiyakaranas". 172 
 
 Note. — A further insight into the character Dr. Boehtlingk's "edition" of Pinini... 174 
 
 KatySiyana must have looked upon P&nini as belonging to the Nairuktas ib. 
 
 Probability that N&gojibhatta's attributing the ITnnidi to Sa.kat&yana is erroneous 176 
 
 Note. — On the Ganaratnamahodadhi of VardharaJina. — Another insight into the 
 
 character of Dr. Boehtlingk's "edition" of P^inini 177 
 
 Patanjali's statement that the anubandhas of former grammarians have no anubandha effect 
 
 in the Grammar of PS-nini 181 
 
 P&nini is, consequently, the author of the Unnidi-list «4. 
 
 Chronological relation between Panini and the Dhatupatha 182 
 
 He is the author of the groundwork of the existing Dhltupatha Hi. 
 
 Chronological relation between Panini and the Pratisakhyas 183—213 
 
 Professor Miiller holds that all the Pr^itis&khyas preceded the Grammar of P&nini 184 
 
 Professor Eoth's view to the same effect. His interesting and graphic account of the rise and 
 
 progress of Grammar in India 185 
 
 Unhappily this account is fantastical 186 
 
 Professor 'Weber's view of the chronological relation between Panini and the VSjasaneyi- 
 
 Pritisikhya *• 
 
 Reasons for giving Professor "Weber a full hearing 189 
 
 The whirlpool. The certain posteriority 190 
 
 Professor Weber's fantastical story of the letter a 191 
 
 Dangerous adverbs 192 
 
 Professor Miiller does not agree with Professor Weber's splitting K&ty^yana into two 193 
 
 Professor Muller's own theory on the relation of the V&jasaneyi-Pr&tis^hya to Pinini's 
 
 Grammar 194 
 
 Refutation of all these theories 195—213 
 
 Fallacy in the argument that the Pritis^khyas are anterior to Panini. The PrMsakhyas are 
 
 no grammars • ^^^ 
 
xiv TABLE OF CONTE^TTS. 
 
 FACE 
 
 Vyakarana is a Vedinga, not the PrMlsakhyas. Difference between the character of the 
 Vyikarana and the Pritis&khyas. An a-priori argument for Pkaini's work having pre- 
 ceded the Pr^tisikhyas ^^^ 
 
 Point of contact between both. How far a comparison between both is admissible. Another 
 
 a-j)n'oW argument for the precedence of P&.nini's work 197 
 
 The Rik-Pr&tis'&khya is more complete than Piinini's Grammar, so far as both works can be 
 
 compared at all. Relation of the Vajasaneyi-Pr^tisakhya to Panini's work 199 
 
 Professor Weber schools Kity^yana for want of practice and skill.— K^tytiyana applies this 
 
 reproach to Professor 'Weber by showing him that he did not understand his Pr&tis4khya. 200 
 Katy&yana sometimes repeats the words of P&nini merely in order to make his criticisms more 
 
 prominent '*■ 
 
 Further instances of criticisms of his Pritisikhya on the Grammar of P^nini. The value of 
 
 the censure which Professor Weber assiduously passes on Katy^yana 202 
 
 Coincidences between the Pr&.tis'&khya, and the Y^rttikas of,Katya.yana 204 
 
 His PrS.tis4khya was written before his Virttikas 205 
 
 Further proof for the priority of the Grammar of Panini to the Vajasaneyi-Pritisakhya 206 
 
 The historical argument .'. ■^"' 
 
 ^aunaka was not the author of the Rik-Pratisakhya 208 
 
 Another word on the critical principles of Professor Weber 209 
 
 Patanjali calls Vyadi, Ddkshdyani 210 
 
 Panini is the son of DdksM; he therefore preceded Vyadi by at least two generations 211 
 
 Vyadi is quoted in the oldest Pratisakhya ; Pinini is, therefore, anterior to it. Confirmation 
 
 of Panini's priority to Vyadi by the Laghuparibhashavritti and Patanjali 212 
 
 Chronological eelation between Panini and the PniTStjTKAS 214 — 219 
 
 Professor Miiller holds that these Slitras have preceded the Grammar of Panini. Mefwtation 
 
 of this view 214 
 
 A doubt as to the ingenuity of Dr. Boehtlingk ; 215 
 
 Analogy between the Phitsutras and the Pratisakhyas 216 
 
 Further analogy between the Phitsdtras and the Pratisakhyas. Santana belongs to the 
 
 eastern grammarians. Bhattojidikshita maintains that the Phitsutras are posterior to 
 
 the Grammar of Panini 217 
 
 Nagojibhatta says that " the FMtsutras, when considered in reference to Panini, are as if they 
 
 tcere made to-djy" 219 
 
 Chronological kelatiojj between Panini and Yaska 220—225 
 
 Professor Miiller holds that Panini is anterior to Yaska 220 
 
 Refutation of this i)iew 221 
 
 Y'aska is named by Panini. Yaska on the Prepositions 222 
 
 panini on the Prepositions 224 
 
 panini is posterior to Yaska 225 
 
 Chronological relation between Panini and Buddha 225 — 227 
 
 Sakyamuni is not mentioned by Panini 225 
 
 Niryana 226 
 
 panini is anterior to Buddha 227 
 
 Date and early History oe the Mahabhashya 228 — 238 
 
 Professor Miiller holds that it is impossible to determine the date of the Mahabhashya ; but 
 
 Patanjali himself states when he did not live and when he did 228 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV 
 
 P\GR 
 
 Patanjali speaks of the Mauryas as a past dj-nasty 228 
 
 Patanjali mentions that AyodhyS. and the M&dhyamikas were besieged hy the Yavana, and 
 
 that these events took place when he lived ;.... 229 
 
 Professor Miiller holds that Buddha's death took place 477 b.c 231 
 
 Objections to his arguments 232 
 
 Professor Lassen holds that Buddha's death took place 543 n.c 233 
 
 The events alluded to by Patanjali must have fallen within the years 140 and 120 B.C. ; 
 
 and this must be therefore the date of the Mah&bh&shya 234 
 
 Professor Lassen's view is thus confinned by the MahS.bh&shya 235 
 
 The name of Patanjali's mother is Gonika; his birthplace is Gonarda ii. 
 
 He belongs to the East of India, and to the Eastern grammarians 236 
 
 Bhartrihari's account of the early History of the Mah&bh&shya 237 
 
 Note.— An interesting passage from the ESjatarangini blighted by Dr. Boehtlingk... 238 
 
 Bearing of the foregoino Investigation on the Study of Ancient S.vnskrit 
 
 LiTEUATDRE 239 — 245 
 
 Importance of the Hindu Commentaries. The traditional element in them 242 
 
 The grammatical element in these Commentaries 243 
 
 The chronological position of the Grammatical Works is the only critical basis for judging of 
 
 the correctness of the Commentaries 244 
 
 The pkesent Ckitical Position op Sanskrit Philology 245 — 258 
 
 The Sanskrit "VVorterbuch published by the Eussian Imperial Academy 245 
 
 Six Dicta and Critical Principles of Professor Poth ii. 
 
 (1) Professor Both intimates that S&yana gives only that sense of the Veda which was current 
 
 in India some centuries ago. Opinion which must be entertained of this assertion 248 
 
 (2) Professor Roth believes that he is far more able than Sa.yana to give us the correct sense 
 
 of the Veda. An examination of the foundation on which this assertion rests ib. 
 
 (3) Professor Both asserts that he can put together some ten or twenty passages for examining 
 
 the sense of a word, but that S&yana could not do this. Examination of the foundation 
 
 on which this assertion rests 249 
 
 (4) Professor Both says that the purely etymological proceeding, as it must be followed up by 
 
 those who endeavour to guess the sense of a word, cannot possibly lead to a correct 
 
 result. Examination of the foundation on which this assertion rests 250 
 
 (6) The object of Professor Roth is not to obtain that understanding of the Veda which was 
 current in India a few centuries ago, but to know the meaning which the poets them- 
 selves gave to their songs and phrases 252 
 
 The revelations received hy Professor Roth in regard to the Rigveda ib. 
 
 The revelations received by him in regard to the S^ma- and Yajur- veda 253 
 
 (6) Professor Roth is a conscientious European exegete 2-54 
 
 The treatment of the scientific and classical Uterature in the Wbrterbuch, by Dr. Boehtlingk. ib. 
 The Wiirterbuch cancels authoritatively, and without giving any reason whatever, all the bases 
 
 in ri, rl, In, etc 
 
 The opinion which must be entertained of such a proceeding 266 
 
 The Sanskrit language under Dr. Boehtlingk's treatment 2o7 
 
 Patanjali and the potters 
 
 The Champions of the Woi-terbuch and their means of defence.— Professor Kuhn 259 
 
 A further fflance at the Champions and their means of defence.— Professor Weber 261 
 
 265 
 The climax 
 
 A further glance at the Champions.— The hidden reasons of the " editor" of Pinini 266 
 
 . ''67 
 
 Conclusion 
 
E E E A T A. 
 
 Page 15, line 1 of note 12, Pr&tisakya, Pr&tis&khya. 
 
 P. 21, 1. 13, PdrdsaryaiMsUbhydm, Pdrdsaryasildlibhyum. 
 
 P. 36, 1. 16, before "da-kdra," insert " tha-kdra, P. on VII. 4, 46." 
 
 P. 61, 1.6 of note 62, 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 P. 100, 1.4 of note 114, 
 
 (Kar. 1. a. b.) 
 
 
 (K4r. 1). 
 
 ]'. 105, 1. 14 of note 120, 
 
 €b•<<^fi^l'<^■^<.| 
 
 TtfTT 
 
 *'<<<*ir*ii^'^<infd 
 
 P. 112,1. 14 of note 130, 
 
 "iM^ttTt 
 
 
 "t^lfvr: 
 
 P. 210, 1. 11, 
 
 Dakshayana, 
 
 
 DAkshayana. 
 
 P. 227, 1. 14, 
 
 avatdbhi — 
 
 
 avdtdbhi — 
 
 P. 229, 1. 10 of note 266, 
 
 ■^t: r^r 
 
 
 ^(:) ^^T 
 
 P. 2.52, I. 11, 12, 
 
 not to understand the Veda 
 
 not to obtain that understand- 
 
 
 such as it was 
 
 current. 
 
 ing of the Veda which was 
 current. 
 
"IT/'HEN collecting materials for a Ilistory of the Mimansa 
 philosophy, I happened to find in the Library of the 
 East India House a Manuscript (No. 17), formerly belonging to 
 the collection of Mr. Colebrooke, which bore on its outer page 
 the remark: " '^J^^jn^^fflT^^ RROO," (i.e., "the number, of 
 32 syllables, in this commentary of Kumarela on the Eigveda 
 is 2,200 "), and ended on leaf 120 with these words : " ^^^^^n U 
 =^100 II ^ II fJn^«r*rm^^Jrr^ ll " («'■«., "the number, of 32 syllables, 
 in the book is 2,200; end of the Commentary of Kumarda"). 
 The remark of the title, which differs in its handwriting from the 
 rest of the book, seems to have been made by a Hindu, who, 
 with much exactness, counted the number of the syllables for 
 the copying of which he had to pay his scribe ; but it certainly 
 did not come from one conversant with Sanskrit literature. 
 Nor can a better opinion be entertained of the Shaikh who 
 finished copying this volume — "Samwat 1643 (or 1586 after 
 Christ), when the sun was progressing south of the equator, in 
 the autumn season, during the light fortnight of the month 
 Karttika (October-November), in the city of Benares, for the 
 perusal of Devayika (Devakiya ?), the son .of Jani and 
 Mahidhara" — or of the writer of his Manuscript, — since the 
 Shaikh professes to have copied the latter with the utmost 
 accuracy, faults and all ; — for neither were the contents of this 
 volume a commentary on the Eigveda, nor would a learned man 
 have mis-spelt several words, and very common ones, too, of his 
 own composition, and, above all, the name of one of the most 
 celebrated authors of India. In short, the Manuscript in question 
 contained no other matter than a portion of the Manava-Kalpa- 
 Sutras, together with a commentary of Kumarila-Swamin, the 
 great Mimansa authority. 
 
 1 
 
^ MANAVA-KALPA-Sl/TRA. 
 
 A discovery of this ritual work, which had thus remained 
 latent under a wrong designation, would at all times have 
 been welcome to those engaged in the study of Yaidik litera- 
 ture ; it gained in interest from the facts that a doubt had 
 been raised, I do not know on what grounds, whether a copy 
 of it had survived, and that a commentary of Kumarila on 
 these Sutras, had, so far as my knowledge goes, never yet 
 been spoken of in any European or Sanskrit book. 
 
 It was but natural, nnder these circumstances, that I should 
 think of making the knowledge I had obtained generally 
 available, by editing this manuscript ; but, to my utter dis- 
 appointment, I soon perceived, after having examined it in 
 detail, that it belonged to that class of written books, the 
 contents of which may be partially made out and partially 
 guessed, but which are so hopelessly incorrect that a seeming 
 restoration of their text Avould require a greater amouiit of 
 conjecture than could bo permitted to an editor, or might be 
 consistent with the respect due to the author of the work itself. 
 
 When, therefore, another copy of the Manava-Ealpa-Sutras 
 with the Commentary of Kumarila was not to be procured, and 
 A^'hen I began to surmise that the volume in the possession of 
 the East India House was a unique copy of this rare work, I 
 resolved, with the consent of Professor Wilson, to have a fac- 
 simile of it lithographed and printed. This resolution was 
 strengthened by the consideration that even a correct text of 
 these Sutras would be serviceable only to the few scholars 
 who are familiar with this branch of the oldest Sanski'it literature, 
 and that they would be able, by the aid they might get from 
 other existing Sutras on the Yaidik ritual, and the Mimansa 
 works, to turn to account even this incorrect manuscript, in 
 spite of the many doubts it leaves. It was strengthened, too, 
 by the conviction I entertain, that unique manuscripts, or those 
 which are rarely met with, — every existing copy of which 
 consequently possesses a literary value much exceeding that of 
 ordinary manuscripts, — aught to be saved from possible casualties 
 by mechanical contrivances, the most practical of which, as 
 
MANAVA-KALPA-SirTEA. 3 
 
 answering the requirements of the case and entailing the least 
 expense, seems to be that which has been used in the production 
 of the present fac-siraile. 
 
 I must, however, confess that after several disappointments 
 m trying to secure the necessary aid, I should probably have 
 been compelled to abandon my plan, had I not been able to 
 avail myself of the assistance of a talented young lady, Miss 
 Amelia Eattenbury, who, while devoting herself to the study of 
 Sanskrit, came to my rescue, and, with much patience and skill, 
 accomplished the tracing of the original. 
 
 Her work may, indeed, in some parts, be still open to criticism, 
 so far as the exact thickness of the letters on a few pages is 
 concerned, or if some shortcomings, especially those which are 
 noticed in the Errata, be too much insisted upon ; but I must in 
 fairness state that several omissions of Anuswaras or strokes, as 
 pointed out in the Errata, are not her fault, but the result of 
 accidents which occurred in transferring the fac -simile to stone ; 
 and such defects could not, it would seem, have been wholly 
 avoided, notwithstanding the careful attention which was paid 
 to the work by the lithographic printers, Messrs. Standidge and 
 Co., and, I may add, in spite of the great trouble I took myself 
 in revising the proofs on the stones, and in thus combining the 
 work of a Sanskritist with that of an apprentice in lithography. 
 Several sheets which failed to show distinctly some Anuswaras or 
 parts of the letters themselves, though transferred to the stone 
 and originally visible there, I cancelled at once ; but this expe- 
 ditious process became, by frequent repetition, so little convenient, 
 that I had to submit at last, though reluctantly, to a list of Errata 
 which, however small, seems to be at variance with the notion 
 of a fac-simile. 
 
 On the whole, however, and after this censure, the severity 
 of which, I tru«t, no one will see occasion to increase, I must 
 express my belief, that the text which is laid before the 
 reader is, when amended by the aid of the Errata list, not 
 merely a thoroughly correct representation of the contents of 
 the special manuscript from which it is copied, but, at the 
 
4 MANAVA-KALPA-SITTEA. 
 
 same time, a good specimen of a fac-simile of a Sanskrit 
 manuscript.' 
 
 Of tlie work itself I liave but little to say, for the Sanskrit 
 scholars who will take an interest in it are well acquainted with 
 the general characteristics of those ritual books which bear the 
 name of Kalpa-Sutras, and they know, too, that the Manava-Kalpa- 
 Sutras teach the ceremonial connected with the old recension 
 of the Yajurveda, the Taittiriya-Samhita. The portion of these 
 Sutras contained in the present fac-simile comprises the first 
 four books of the whole work: the first or Ydjamdna book, in 
 two chapters (from fol. 1 to 54 a, and 54 a to 55 h) ; the second 
 on the Agnyddhdna (from fol. 55 h to 84 1) ; the third on the 
 Agnihotra (from fol. 84 5 to 106 a); and the fourth on the 
 
 ' It is necessary to obseire that the original, in its actual bound condition, 
 measures 9| inches in length and 3| inches in breadth, with the exception of fol. (>2 
 which is 4 inches broad. The surplus of margin in the fac-simile belongs, there- 
 fore, to the latter. The binder, in reducing the leaves of the original to the 
 size stated, has in various instances encroached upon the writing, and cut away 
 either portions of letters or even whole letters ; which circumstance will account for 
 the defects in the marginal additions of, especially, fol. 1, 3 a, b, 55, 11a, 12 a, 
 13 a, 14 a, 25 a, 26 a, 32 fi, 33 a, 34 a, 48 a, J, 50 i, 52 a, 53 a, 54 a, 58 a, 60 a, 61 a, 
 62 a, 66 b, 68 a, 70 b, 74 *, 80 *, 81 a, 86 b, 89 b, 107 *, 108 h, 1 13 a. Another destructive 
 animal, the white ant, has also added to the work of devastation in the interior of the 
 MS., but much more rarely ; on the margin of fol. 16 a two strokes ( = ) indicate the 
 eaten portion. Towards the end of the MS., especially from fol. 90 upwards, the 
 original has the appearance of having been smeared or powdered over ; and this care- 
 lessness, caused no doubt by putting the leaves together before the writing was dry, 
 has produced in several instances the errors of the fac-simile, especially as it 
 became sometimes difficult or even impossible to tell whether a dot represented 
 an original anuswdra or a smear. I have to mention, besides, that the leaves of 
 the original are bound so as to read downwards, and that the same arrangement 
 has been preser\'ed in the present work in order not to allow it to deviate from the 
 appearance of its modem prototype. There is good reason, however, to suppose 
 that the ancient Hindus had the leaves of their MSS. arranged so as to read in 
 the reverse or upward direction. For one liberty which has been taken in the fac- 
 simile, I am personally answerable. The remark on the outside page, mentioned above, 
 with its mis-spelling of the name of Kumdrila and its literary error, will not be found 
 in this volume ; its place is filled by the likeness of the god of literary accuracy who 
 is invoked in the commencement of tlie work. 
 
MAXAVA-KALrA-SUTEA. 
 
 Chdturmdsya sacrifices, in six chapters (from fol. lOG a to 108 «, 
 from there to the end of fol. 109 a, from 1095 to 112 a, from 
 there to 113a, from l]3a to 115a, and hence to the end).^ 
 That these books are the first portion of the Manava-Sutra results 
 not merely from the matter treated in them, but also from a fact 
 which accidentally came to my cognizance after the printing of 
 the present volume had been completed. 
 
 Professor Miiller, who is engaged in writing a history of 
 
 ^ There occur in the text and commentary of these hooks the following words for 
 sacrifices, sacrificial and other acts connected with them: '^'^, •^(m''1<<"1 . ^rf^- 
 
 ((^mi^^ifM^^. 3i«j*iifM^^), ■?rf^ifr»T. ^j'iiiyM. ^fi^?rra^ (^Rrrarr^- 
 t^), ^?R5?rra%fs:, ^-umch , ^frrrr^, ^?Tf«iPm. ^fy^iiui, ^^rim-i. 
 
 fjf^, ^5!rf*R^, ^?r«r^^, ^^pj^^tit. ^^nf^, -^^jT^^nrR. ^1^41 ft, wr^- 
 
 ^t%r^, -=i||4||44(U, ^^rTSSTftT, ^[^T^fTI, 4(WH, ^|*)^U!, ^K^WUR'HI. 
 
 ^\dmA , -v^y^nm , ^tra^xsr, ^i^fd C^"), wgr^, -^ (^fs^). ^r^r^^. 
 
 ^^xj^K' ■^M*<*<«1 . ■'Strar^. ^M<4M»i, ^M=(<d«(, '^ira^, ^t^, ^^iftT. 
 
 (f^^-R), RaM«t, R t MN^i , xn^^t^qr^i, Mr<*ii4«i , •qfw^'Jr. TTfr^, Trfi:- 
 ^^RTir, tiR^<ui , n4F4<=h<u!, •qf^w. tt^^^, v^iTxir, ■"Trar, tj-ra^rsr, ^- 
 tw'nw. -Pni^f^nTR, fqu ^fM ^^ ^-s i. ft^^. f^^, Vv^p^' ttre^^w- 
 fire%TT, -^T^T^tfr, ifr^^. Tm^^ (^^rf^"), Tm»nf^ift^. in^rf^, t^, 
 jfmw. ^ntiw. M.^1«h<ui , ■^:TJi^3!r. ^t^^iT^. «if^^<*«. 'm^^' '*^- 
 
 f^^ (frrft^), tfl[w^. ^fttr^TR. sicfR-n"\«*. wmrW, ^^TreH, t»t- 
 {'>■^■^), ^n*ini'i , 'fr^n^TR. €rflft, ■^rxTir- ^^ifrarr. f^asan,. ftT; 
 
 for sacrificial substances, implements, prayers, or objects incidentally mentioned as 
 referring to them: ^f^ ( Wl^'fNrTf^, Wfl^nt^. '^^IWrf^, TIlMWifM, ^t^- 
 
O MANAVA-KALPA-SUTEA. 
 
 Yaidik literature, had met among the MSS. of the East India 
 House, which he consulted for his labour, one (No. 599) which 
 bore at its end the intimation of being a part of the Manava- 
 Sutras; and when he showed me the MS., I saw at once that it 
 was written by the same writer who had copied the original of 
 the present fac-simile, in a similar, though smaller and less 
 elegant, handwriting, and immediately after he had copied the 
 first four books. For he states himself in his closing words 
 
 ii.=h<*m5r, -^t^, ^^Itrf^, ■sprra' (^^tst", -m'>, ^'•. 'r^', v^". '^°, ^h"). 
 
 'n^MFMilM, ^T"!^, ii\4\i:, ^fm^, m^^, 'frr, ^^g;, '^, 'sr^^n^, '^'H. 
 ^T^T^. wcw^, ^T^, ^ (^tf^), cTi^, f^, g^, <Ra!r, <^Ru!iw(it. 
 
 ■f^py-mf (T^cin^), f^, 5T^, vpJT, ftrs^, "g^ o^), •ici>*Mi'd, ■'M^, 
 
 (^»), ftT!^, -gwN, ^^<iN«i, wtm, iraT, TrrfHrflcr, -^tf^, ^f^, 
 
 tf^^^ftftr), tfci;, ^tff, 'si^ra:, irrWTH, ^irrrg'«ii, wt- (^r^fhrr^). 
 ^p:. 'skt^, irniT, -sTrar, 'an^rrf^, ^g^r, •^, tj^, -wmm, ^^, 
 
 (^N"), ^, ^fJJJT. ff^^JlT. lt%^. flT^; f<"" *^«® **"*^ "/ sacrificial acts, 
 asterisms, etc.: Mi^t\^, "^rTRT^IT. ^l(*l(<* I'sl , irfrpRT. %ft, <^ PiJ Uj I <* I »!)' , 
 
 ttrfip:, "g^JwlT;, ^^^rr, ^ra:^^iT^, ^T-^m:. i^t^. ^. ^. tT^r; for 
 
 priests, sacrificer, etc. : ^n^^( ^|m4«1). WfhT. W^TRf^^, "^SiT^. ^Tf^^, 
 ^r^fWi ■?!¥, ^tW (^^); for divinities {and their derivatives): ^rf^, ^f^^- 
 
MANAVA-KALPA-SUTRA. 7 
 
 that he finished copying <' the fifth part of the Agnishtoma book 
 of the Manava-Sutra, Samwat 1643 (or 1586 after Christ), when 
 the sun was progressing north of the equator, in the winter 
 season, during the light fortnight of the month Pausha (De- 
 cember-January), on the fifteenth lunar day, in the city of 
 Benares " ; and the next syllable, immediately succeeded by a 
 blank in the MS., makes it probable that he wrote this portion, 
 too, for the perusal of the son of Mahidhara. His conscience, 
 however, seems to have been more sensitive regarding the 
 accuracy with which he had performed his task, at the end 
 of the Agnishtoma portion, than it was before, since he makes 
 a very touching appeal to the indulgence of the reader, and 
 is even modest enough to count himself amongst the scribes 
 of limited intellect.^ 
 
 The contents of this latter manuscript, viz., the description 
 of the Agnishtoma rites in five Adhyayas,* now, too, explain 
 the meaning of the concluding words of our MS. (fol. 120 h) : 
 
 ffhr, ■iJMl'Jl (l-SllfM), ^ff5[frT, ^iMi»ig. wt^^ ( wfTghf). w^. ^^. 
 ^^<n, '55^:. ^^i^, •^TF^^fT, i^^yfd, ^r^fi; (wr^), it^' ^NrR^isr. 
 ^ (wt^), wm, M\*{^\m , €t%r^w. R<<i^ji4- 
 
 ^ I subjoin a literal copy of the last page (37) of this MS. with all the faults, which 
 will give some idea of the unhappy fate of these Mdnava-Siitras in the hands of their 
 ignorant transcriber : ?T|^>)j g^^ ^fT | TTTf^ Rll^fi 'T^ II ^if^ '^^Tgi" ^ 
 
 ?m ^Yfr ^ ^^t^ II <^ II ^^biiiiNidiR fwjfjrraj ii ^ar^tfH t^rf^ ^nrR i 
 »t<^HwtW: ^ R \ >nvi«n*i ^t^T 1 ^^T^ %^^R^ II R II *<i«fj'!*ri fH ^ ^rm 
 «iH i »i i MP>aiK< : I ^^ t^wpfr ft f^ 5^: ^^Tf§^: ii % ^f% ii 
 w^ <i^{i? ^ ^IT^ H 4(1*11^ ^thj^ %iT!fr^cff*i^mNi^Ti^: ii 
 
 qlN*ll^ ^4M^ «iM m^ f^ ^^ =hini«H*d'=ti *Tl<S-s!ldl4| 11 WT 
 
 II II Rift(d4< I %x(cinTra^i^: ^ v;^^ ii ^n^^fw ^^rlwt- 
 
 Mif^m M^M*i\*[*s 5^raOT%f% II ^: ii w ii ^ ii ^^rar^^r^: i frm «i w^ ii 
 ^ ^FHTT ^ ^^jittt: I 8 W5{IM: I M sii^misb^fir ^ iftfrr ii ^ % i ^ w^- 
 
 YC' I Q. ^^Nmi! I 10 TJfT TIT ^^T^TP'^^T^' ' *°*^ ^^^^^ *'^'* ^^^ piece of scholar- 
 ship is added in a diiFerent hand : " ^g^Ri II 4A^^-4 II ^TWT: M " ( !)• 
 
 * Whether the work which is mentioned in the Catalogue of the Sanskrit MSS. at 
 
» THE COMMENTARY OF KUMA'ETLA. 
 
 in'Wt'Wr^ ^^ (which ought to be irR^»), for they clearly 
 point to a contimiation, treating on the Soma rites, which con- 
 tinuation is given in the MS. 599, so far as the text of the 
 Sutras goes, though this MS. does not contain any further com- 
 mentary of Kumarila. 
 
 The text of the first four books of the Sutras in our MS. is, 
 unhappily, only fragmentary. Sometimes, but rarely, a Sutra 
 is given in full before the gloss of Kumarila ; for the most part, 
 however, the copy of the text, as is the case with many manuscripts 
 of Commentaries on Sutras, starts from the assumption that the 
 reader possesses a MS. which contains the words of the Sutra, and 
 refers to them by merely giving the first and the last word of 
 the sentence which is the subject of the commentary. Now and 
 then, it is true, some further words of the Sutra emerge from 
 the gloss of Kumarila, but, though it is possible to understand 
 the purport of his comment, it would be a fruitless task to try 
 to construe from it the full detail of the text, since much of the 
 latter is left unnoticed, as requiring, apparently, no gloss. 
 
 The interest connected with the present volume centres, there- 
 fore, chiefly in the commentary of Kumarila, and in the fact itself 
 that it is this great Mimansa writer who composed a commentary 
 on the Manava-Siitras of the Taittiriya-Samhita. For, since in 
 Sanskrit literature, commentaries on Avorks which involve scien- 
 tific convictions or religious belief were, as a rule, written by 
 those alone who shared in these convictions or meant to defend 
 this belief, it is a matter of significance that this celebrated 
 representative of the Mimansa doctrine, who lived before Sankara, 
 the commentator of the Yedanta-Sutras,' should have attached his 
 remarks to a Sutra belonging to the Black- Yajus School. 
 
 Benares, p. 118, under the title ^4^4J-4M^(c|V:||«14{^ (No. 2503) be the same as the 
 Agnishtoma portion of the M4nava-Siitras, I have had no means of ascertaining. The 
 same Catalogue records the existence of tlie 4^|«|c|U'^4{^(p. 78, No. 761), but without 
 naming the Commentaiy of Kumdrila. 
 
 ° Compare tlie Preface to the first edition of Wilson's Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 
 XK'iii seqq. 
 
THE MrMANSISTS. U 
 
 That this circumstance cannot be accidental is rendered proba- 
 ble by collateral facts. Kumarila quotes on two occasions (fol. 
 14 a and 85 b) the opinion of Sabara-Swamin on passages in the 
 Sutras, and as it is not the commentary of this author on the Jaimini- 
 Sutras to which he refers, his quotation can only imply that Sahara 
 had composed, besides, a gloss either on the Manava-, or on other 
 Sutras of the same school. Sahara, however, is, like Kumarila whom 
 he preceded, one of the principal authorities of the Mimansa philo- 
 sophy.^ Madhava also, the commentator on the Yedas, who may be 
 considered as the last writer of eminence on the Mimansa, composed 
 or indited a commentary on another Sutra work of the Taittiriya- 
 Samhita, the Sutra of Baudhayana. Of commentators on other 
 Sutras of the Black- Yajur-veda I do not speak, since they have not 
 attained a prominent rank among the Mimansists. But it ought 
 not to be left unnoticed, on the other hand, that neither the 
 Kalpa works connected with the Kigveda, nor those belonging 
 to the Sama-, or White- Yajur-veda, had commentators who, at the 
 same time, wrote Mimansa works. 
 
 It would seem, therefore, and I shall have to advert to this 
 point in detail in a more appropriate place, that the Kalpa- 
 Sutras of the Taittiriya-Samhita represented or countenanced, 
 more than other Kalpa-Siitras, the tenets and decisions of the 
 Mimansa philosophers. 
 
 This intimate connection between the two will enable us, then, 
 not merely to remove all doubt, if any exist, as to the identity 
 
 * I may mention, on this occasion, other quotations made by KumAi-ila. He speaks 
 several times of other Sdkhis, without, however, specifying them (fol. 9 b, 17 a, 33 a, 
 36 b, 41 b, etc. etc.), once even of a Krdras'dkhd, (fol. 50 o); of older teachers 
 (Pdrvdchdryds, fol. 43 S— 44 a, 85 a, Vriddhachdrya, 119 a), of the Vardha Si'itras (fol. 
 75 a, 935, 1206), the Bhdshyakdra, who is probably the same as Sahara (fol. 115 a), the 
 BrAhmanabhdshyakdra (fol. 60 b, 63 a, 75 b), the GrihyabhAshyakdra (fol. 60 a), the 
 Hdritabhdshyakrit (fol. 75 b) ; he names the Bahvrichds (20 a, 23 b) ; the Yajurveda 
 (fol. 9 o and b), and Ydjurvedika (fol. 12 b, 67 a), the Kdthaka (fol. 9 a, 98 b), the 
 Taittiriyaka (fol. 60 a, 61 b, 66 b), a Brdhmana (fol. 114 b) ; and the Sdmaveda (fol. 96) ; 
 Manu is usually called by him Sutrakdra or Sutrakrit (e.g: fol. 43 b, 71 b, 75 b, etc., 29 a, 
 32 a, 35 b, etc) ; other authors of Sutras, Siitrakdrds or Sutrakritas (fol. 38 a, 77 b). 
 
 2 
 
10 AUTHOR OF THE. MAXAVA-KALPA-SUTEA. 
 
 of the author of the present commentary with the author of the 
 Yarttikas on the Jaimini-^utras, — even if this identity were not 
 proved by the peculiar style of Kumarila's composition, by his 
 writing alternately in prose and sloka, by his pithy remarks, 
 and his strong expressions ; but it will throw light, too, on the 
 nature of the commentary itself. 
 
 It is not a commentary in the ordinary sense, merely explain- 
 ing obsolete or difficult words, and giving the meaning of the 
 sentences; it is often nothing else than a regular discussion and 
 refutation of divergent opinions which were probably expressed 
 in other Kalpa works. And the constant use it makes of current 
 Mimansa terms, in their Mimansa sense, such as apurva^ para- 
 mapiirva, uha, bddha, to which may be added also, vidhi, anuvdda, 
 arthavdda^ purushartha^ Jcratwartha^ hheda (mantrabheda^ vdJcya- 
 hheda), on account of the frequent application these latter words 
 find in the Mimansa writings, — impresses on the discussions of 
 Kumarila the full stamp of a Mimansa reasoning. 
 
 There is one fact which deserves special mention, though 
 it has only an indirect bearing on the present work. In the 
 Sutras, I. 3, 10-12, Jaimini treats of the question whether the 
 Kalpa works have the same authority as the Veda or not; in 
 other terms, whether they must be ascribed to divine or to 
 human authorship, and decides in favour of the latter alternative. 
 Kumarila, in his Yarttikas on this chapter, gives instances of the 
 works of several authors which would fall under this category ; 
 he names, in the course of his discussion, the Sutras of Baudhayana, 
 Yaraha, Masaka, Aswalayana, Yaijavapa, Drahyayana, Latyayana, 
 Katyayana, and Apastamba; but though his ^^ et ccetera^'' imply 
 that he did not intend to give a complete list, it is certainly 
 remarkable that he should not have named the Manava-Sutras, 
 which he has commented upon, more especially as he makes 
 reference to the Dharmasastra of Manu. 
 
 Sahara, also, his predecessor, who mentions, in his Bhashya on 
 the same Sutras of Jaimini, the Masaka-, Hastika-, and Kaundinya- 
 Kalpa-Sutra, does not speak of the Manava. And, to conclude, 
 the same omission strikes us in the Jaiminiya-nyaya-mala-vistara of 
 
AUTHOR OF THE MjKNAVA-KALPA-SUTRA. 11 
 
 Madhava, wlio names the Baudhayana-, Apastamba-, Aswalayana-, 
 and Katyayana-Zalpa-Stitras, but makes no allusion to our work. 
 
 It may be, and it even is probable, that Kumarila wrote 
 his gloss on the Manaya - Kalpa - Sutra after he had finished 
 his Yarttikas on the Sutras of Jaimini. But this circumstance 
 alone cannot account for the omission of this Kalpa work from 
 his Varttikas, nor does it offer any explanation of the general 
 silence in regard to it of the other renowned writers on the 
 Mimansa philosophy. 
 
 I believe that the reason for this silence must be sought 
 for in the decision of Jaimini, and in the legendary character 
 of Manu, the reputed author of our Kalpa work. At the 
 time of Sahara, Manu was no doubt already viewed by his 
 countrymen in the same light in which he appears in the 
 Dharmasastra that bears his name but professes distinctly not 
 to be the immediate work of Manu himself, and, consequently, 
 could be safely alluded to. This mythical character, however, of 
 Manu results from the legends connected with a personage of 
 this name in the Satapathabrahmana and the Eigveda itself. 
 To prove, therefore, on the one hand, that the Kalpa-Siitras 
 are, human work, and to hold before the reader's eye the 
 name of an individual who, if less than a god, was, at all 
 events, believed to be more than a man, would have been a 
 proceeding which might either have shaken the conviction 
 which it was intended to produce, or tinged the doctrine of 
 the propounders with a hue of heresy which certainly neither 
 Sahara, nor Kumarila, nor Madhava meant to impart to his 
 commentary. Probably, therefore, it appeared safer to evade 
 this awkward illustration of the human character of a Sutrakara, 
 and to be satisfied with instances of a more tangible and less 
 delicate kind. 
 
 From our point of view, however, and I conclude from the 
 point of view of the Mimansists themselves, there is no reason 
 to doubt that a Manu, the author of the present Sutras, was as 
 much a real personage as Baudhayana and the other Siitrakaras 
 who were never raised to a superhuman dignity. I can no more 
 
12 DATE OF THE MANAVA-KALPA-SUTEA. 
 
 see a valid argument for doubting the existence of this Manu, 
 because his name would mean, etymologically, " a thinking 
 being, a man," and because mythology has lent this character 
 to the father of the human race, also called Manu, than there 
 would be for doubting the real existence of the Brahmana 
 caste, merely because they ascribe their bodily origin to the 
 Creator of the World, And as to the name of Manu (man) itself, 
 it does not seem more striking or even more strange than other 
 proper names in the Yaidik time ; than, for instance, the proper 
 names Prana, life ; Eka, one ; Itara, or Anyatara, either of two ; 
 Panchan, /ye; Saptan, seven ; Ashtan, eight; Siras, head ; Loman, 
 hair ; Yindu, drop^ etc. 
 
 To assign a date to the Manava-Kalpa-Sutras, even approxi- 
 mately, is a task I am incapable of performing ; though, judging 
 from the contents of this work, it may seem plausible to assert 
 that they are more recent than the Sutras of Baudhayana and 
 older than those of Apastamba. But I have not any means of as- 
 certainiag when these latter works were composed. 
 
 It may not, however, be superfluous to add that they were 
 either younger than Panini or, at least, not so much preceding his 
 time as to be ranked by him amongst the old Kalpa works. Eor 
 in an important Sutra of his grammar he states that the names 
 of old Kalpa works are formed with the affix «'«, and it follows 
 therefore that none of the works cf this kind, which are likely to 
 be stm in existence, and amongst them the Manava-Kalpa-Sutras, 
 are, from Panini's point of view, old Kalpa works.' And when 
 I express the opinion that there is no tenable ground for assigning 
 to Panini so recent a date as that which has been given to him, 
 viz., the middle of the fourth century before Chi'ist, but that there 
 is on the contrary a presumption that he preceded the time 
 of the founder of the Buddhistic creed, — I have advanced as much, 
 
 ' Pdnini, iv. 3, 105. This Sutra is comprised under the head rule iv. 3, 101, which 
 extends as far as 111. In the gloss on some of these Slitras the KdsiltA, the Siddh.-k., 
 and the Calcutta Pandits who composed or compiled the printed commentary, have 
 introduced the word tJh41*4B in addition to vTlrtlH' ^ hold, arbitrarily, — since it is 
 neither indicated by the head rule, nor met with in the Mahdbhashya. 
 
MULLEE ON THE INTRODUCTION OF "WRITING. 13 
 
 or as little, as, I believe, can be safely advanced on the date of 
 the present Kalpa -work. 
 
 After the foregoing lines were written I received Professor 
 Max Miiller's ^^ History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far 
 as if illustrates the primitive religion of the Brahmans (1859)." 
 To acknowledge the merits of this work, which shows the great 
 importance of the religious development of India ; to acknowledge 
 the light it throws on the obscurest parts of Hindu literature, 
 and the comprehensive learning it has brought to bear on many 
 an intricate topic connected with the rise and progress of Hindu 
 grammar, law, and theology, must be the first and not the least 
 gratifying feeling of every one interested in Sanskrit, and more 
 especially in Vaidik philology,' The greater, however, this new 
 claim of the editor of the Eigveda to our gratitude, the more 
 does his work impose on us the duty of examining, among the 
 topics of which it treats, those which seem to require additional 
 evidence before they can be considered as having attained a 
 definite settlement. I take advantage of this opportunity, there- 
 fore, to re-open the discussion on two points, which seem to me to 
 fall under this predicament, especially as they concern every work 
 of the Yaidik literature, and equally bear on the present ritual 
 book. I mean the question of the introduction of writing into 
 India, ^ and the general question of the chronology of Yaidik 
 works.^ 
 
 Miiller's view on the first of these questions is contained in 
 the following words (p. 524): "If writing came in towards the 
 
 * Mailer's History, p. 497 — 524. This cliapter is reprinted in the Journal of the 
 Asiatic Society of Bengal (No. ii. 1859), with the following note which became ray first 
 inducement to treat the matter on this occasion : " This paper is an extract from a work 
 now in the press on the history of ancient Sanskrit literature. Professor MuUer has sent 
 it for the Society's Journal in the hope of eliciting some fresh information from European 
 or native scholars in India on the interesting questions which it discusses." 
 
 ' The same, pp 244, 313, 435, 572. 
 
14 MULLER ON THE INTRODUCTION OF WRITING. 
 
 latter half of the Sutra period/" it would no doubt be applied 
 at the same time to reducing the hymns and Brahmanas to a 
 written form. Previously to that time, however, we are bound 
 to maintain that the collection of the hymns, and the immense 
 mass of the Brahmana literature, were preserved by means of oral 
 tradition only ;" and (p. 507) : "But there are stronger arguments 
 than these (viz., the arguments alleged by him, pp. 497-507), 
 to prove that, before the time of Panini, and before the first 
 spreading of Buddhism in India, writing for literary purposes 
 was absolutely unknown. If writing had been known to Panini, 
 some of his grammatical terms would surely point to the graphical 
 appearance of words. I maintain that there is not a single word in 
 Panini' s terminology which presupposes the existence of writing 
 etc." 
 
 Miiller maintains, therefore, that not merely lefore the time of 
 Panini, but to Panini himself, writing was unknown ; and as 
 according to his view, " Panini lived in the middle of the fourth 
 century B.C.'' (pp. 245, 301 ff.)," it would follow that, according 
 to him, India was not yet in possession of the most useful of arts 
 at the time when Plato died and Aristotle flourished. 
 
 I must confess that I could not, and cannot, look upon this 
 assertion otherwise than as a splendid paradox, which, it is true, 
 makes up for its want of power of convincing by the ingenuity 
 of the defence with which it is supported, and the interest which 
 may be derived from the extraneous matter it has brought to its 
 aid ; and, had I happened to read this chapter before the rest, I 
 should probably have thought that the idea of conceiving India 
 without reed and ink untU, or after, Panini's death, did not originate 
 with Miiller before the close of his learned work, and then only that 
 he might crown, as it were, its merits by some extraordinary feat. 
 But though justice requires me to admit that such is not the case, 
 — that, on the contrary, the same opinion pervades the earlier por- 
 
 '" This period extends, according to his views, from 600 to 200 B.C. (p. 244). 
 " Tliis date will be the subject of ulterior remarks. 
 
CIVILIZATION OF ANCIENT INDIA. 15 
 
 tions of his book,'^ I must still say that it does not seem to have 
 taken root in his mind with that strong conviction vrhich produces 
 an impression on others, for it appears psychologically doubtful that 
 an author, having that conviction, could even metaphorically speak 
 of the " prayer4oo7f" of the Hotris (pp. 187, 473), or say that Katya- 
 yana, whom he defines as " the contemporary of Panini" (p. 138, 
 and elsewhere), ^^ writes in the Bhashya" (p. 138), ^^ wrote the 
 Varttikas" (p. 148), ^^ writes in prose" (p. 229), or that he 
 could call the Sutrakaras "writers of Sutras'' (p. 215). 
 
 No one, I believe, will easily imagine a civilized people who 
 at the time of the Mantras (the period prior to that of the Sutras 
 and Brahmanas), were such as to possess " arts, sciences, institutes, 
 and vices of civilized life, golden ornaments, coats of mail, 
 weapons of offence, the use of precious metals, of musical 
 instruments, the fabrication of cars, and the employment of 
 
 the needle the knowledge of drugs and antidotes, the 
 
 practice of medicine, and computation of the divisions of time 
 to a minute extent, including repeated allusions to the seventh 
 season or intercalary month" .... and again, "laws of property," '^ 
 " laws of inheritance, and of simple contract, or buying and sell- 
 ing," '* — ^having a civilization which Professor Wilson characterizes 
 in the preface to his excellent Translation of the Eigveda (vol. ii., 
 p. xvii), as " differing little, if at all, from that in which they 
 were found by the Greeks at Alexander's invasion," — no one, I 
 believe, will easily imagine a people in such a state of civilization 
 unacquainted with the art of writing, though no mention of this art 
 
 '^ E.g. p. 137, " the rules of the Pr&tis3,kyas were not intended for written litera- 
 ture f" p. 200, note, " the question whether the Hindus possessed a knowledge of the 
 art of writing during the Sutra period, will have to be discussed hereafter ;" p. 302, 
 "if we remember that in these old times literary works did not exist in writing" 
 [to • remember ' this on p. 362 is difficult, since the theory is propounded p. 497 — 524] ; 
 p. 311, "in India, where before the time of PSnini we have no evidence of any written 
 literature, etc.'' 
 
 " See Wilson's Translation of the 9.ig\'eda, vol. ii. p. xvi. 
 
 '* Ibid. vol. iii. p. xvii. 
 
16 PERSIAN INSCRIPTIONS.-YAVANANI'. 
 
 be made iu the liymns to the gods. And is it really plausible that 
 even 600 or 700 years later, the greatest grammarian of India 
 composed a most artificial and most scientific system of grammar, 
 utterly ignorant of the simplest tool which might have assisted 
 him in his work? Should it be possible to realize an advanced 
 stage of social development without a knowledge of writing, then 
 it is needless, of course, to refer to the arts, sciences, measures, 
 and coins mentioned in the Sutras of Panini ; yet I will advert, 
 within the limits of these preliminary remarks, to one fact, at 
 least, which it may be as well not to overlook. 
 
 We know from Herodotus that Darius, the son of Hystaspes, 
 subdued the Hindus ;^^ and we have inscriptions of this king him- 
 self which tell us that amongst the nations subdued by him were 
 the Gadara and Hidhu or the Gandharas, and the peoples living 
 on the banks of the Indus.'" Could Panini, therefore, who was 
 a native of Gandhara, had he lived after Darius, as Miiller sup- 
 poses to be the case, have remained ignorant of the fact that 
 writing was known in Persia ? And if not, would he not, in com- 
 posing his work, have profited by this knowledge, provided, of course, 
 that he was not acquainted previously with this art, independently 
 of his acquaintance with the Persian alphabet ? This question is 
 answered, however, I believe, by a word which is the subject 
 of one of his special rules (IV. 1, 49), the word yavandni, explained 
 by Katyayana and Patanjali as meaning the " writing of the 
 Yavanas." Both "Weber and Miiller mention this word, the former 
 as meaning " the writing of the Greeks or Semites (Ind. St. I. 
 p. 144), or, as he later opines, of the Greeks alone (IV. 89) ; the 
 latter (p. 521) " a variety of the Semitic alphabet, which, previous 
 to Alexander, and previous to Panini, became the type of the 
 Indian alphabet." It would seem to me, that it denotes the writing 
 of the Persians, and probably the cuneiform writing which was 
 known already, before the time of Darius, and is peculiar enough 
 in its appearance, and different enough from the alphabet of the 
 
 '^ iv. 44 : /iero. he tovtov; irepnfKwaama^ 'IvBov^ re KaTearpe-yfraTO Aapeio<;, etc. 
 '° Compare Lassen's Ind. Alterth. i. 422; ii. 112, 113, and the quotations given there. 
 
LiriKARA. 17 
 
 Hindus, to explain the fact that its name called for the formation 
 of a separate word. 
 
 While I intend to address myself now to the special arguments 
 offered by Miiller, for the theory that writing was unknown to 
 Panini, I find myself, as it were, arrested by his own words ; for, 
 after having proposed his reasons in support of this theory (from 
 page 497 to page 520), he makes the following remark on the word 
 lipikara, " a writer or engraver," which I quote in full : — " This 
 last word lipikara is an important word, for it is the only word 
 in the Sutras of Panini which can be legitimately adduced to 
 prove that Panini was acquainted with the art of writing. He 
 teaches the formation of this word, iii. 2, 21.'' Whether it is 
 the only word which can be legitimately adduced for such a 
 proof, I shall have to examine. But even on the supposition 
 that it is, I must really question the purport of the whole dis- 
 cussion, if Miiller himself admits that Panini would have pointed 
 to this word llpilcara had it been his task to defend himself 
 against the imputation of being ignorant of the art of writing. 
 For it becomes obviously immaterial whether the word lipikara 
 occurs once or a hundred times in the Sutras, — whether another 
 similar word be discoverable in his Grammar or not ; one word is 
 clearly sufficient to establish the fact, and to remove all doubt. 
 This admission of Miiller, which upsets all he has tried to impress 
 upon our minds, is doubtless very creditable to his candour ; for it 
 shows his wish to elicit the truth, and fully confirms our faith in 
 what he says at the end of his essay : "It is possible I may 
 have overlooked some words in the Brahmanas and Sutras, which 
 would prove the existence of written books previous to Panini. 
 If so, it is not from any wish to suppress them." But since he 
 has not even tried to invalidate by a single word the conclusion 
 which necessarily follows from this admission, it would be like 
 carrying owls to Athens if I endeavoured to prove what is suffi- 
 ciently proved already by himself. 
 
 Nevertheless, I will do so; not only out of respect for his 
 labour, but because the observations I am going to make may 
 tend to show that there is much more evidence in Panini than 
 
 3 
 
18 INCONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS. 
 
 this solitary word for the assumption that he was not merely 
 conversant with writing, but that his Grammar could not even 
 have been composed as it is now, without the application to it 
 of written letters and signs. 
 
 The chief argument of Miiller is a negative one : the absence 
 of words which mean book, ink, paper, and the like. Thus 
 he says of the Vaidik hymns (p. 497): "Where writing is 
 known, it is almost impossible to compose a thousand hymns 
 without bringing in some such words as, writing, reading, paper, 
 or pen. Yet "there is not one single allusion in these hymns to 
 anything connected with writing ;" or (p. 512) " If we take the 
 ordinary modern words for book, paper, ink, writing, etc., not 
 one of them has yet been discovered in any Sanskrit work of 
 genuine antiquity." ^' I do not think that such an argument, 
 in its generality, can ever be held to be a conclusive proof. It 
 is not the purpose of the Vaidik hymns to tell us that pen and 
 ink were known to the Aryas ; it becomes, therefore, entirely a 
 matter of chance whether so prosaic an object be mentioned in 
 them or not, — whether the poets borrow their figures from paper 
 and book, or from the life of the elements. The very instances 
 Miiller has adduced from the Psalms will probably leave in every 
 one's mind the impression that these songs might easily have 
 existed, without any damage to their reputation, even if they 
 had not contained the three verses which bespeak the scholarship of 
 their authors ; and the book of Job too, if it had not that literary 
 longing which is contained in Miiller's Tiappy quotation : " Oh 
 that my words were now written ! oh, that they were printed 
 in a book !" But what applies to poetical songs, avails with 
 still greater force in a grammatical work. Panini's object is to 
 record such phenomena of the language as are of interest from 
 a grammatical point of view. Sometimes the words which belong 
 to his province, will be at the same time also of historical and 
 antiquarian interest; but it does not follow at all, that because 
 a word of the latter category is omitted in his rules, it is absent 
 
 '' Not even lipi ? 
 
DIVISIONS OF SANSKRIT WORKS. 19 
 
 from the language also ; the extreme conclusion would be that it 
 is a word of no grammatical interest ; and this conclusion itself, 
 to be correct, would imply that Panini was a perfect author, and 
 did not omit any word or words which ought to have been noticed 
 by him on grammatical grounds. 
 
 "There is no word," says Miiller, "for book, paper, ink, 
 writing, etc., in any Sanskrit work of genuine antiquity" (p. 512). 
 Of lip, "to write," I need say no more, since it is the base of 
 lipi. I agree with him that the verbs adhi or vach (in the cans.) 
 which are used in the sense " to read," contain no proof of their 
 applying to a written work, since the former means literally " to 
 go over mentally, to acquire," and the latter " to cause to speak." " 
 I am equally willing to admit that the divisions of literary 
 works which are frequently met with, such as anuvdkas, prasnas, 
 mandalas, -pathas, vargas, suldas, etc., cannot be compared with 
 such words as "volumen, a volume, liber, i.e. the inner bark 
 of a tree ; or ^t/3Xo?, i.e. /Sv^o?, the inner bark of the papyrus ; 
 or book, ie., beech- wood" (p. 515). But I cannot admit that 
 there is no word of genuine antiquity meaning book, or division 
 of book, which cannot be compared with those latter words of the 
 cognate languages. One word is indeed supplied by Miiller him- 
 self, at the end of his essay ; it undoes, as it were, all that precedes 
 on this subject, in the same way as lipikara undid his arguments 
 against Panini's acquaintance with writing. 
 
 After the words I have quoted above, " if so, it is not from 
 any wish to suppress them," he continues (523): "I believe, 
 indeed, that the Brahmanas were preserved by oral tradition 
 only, but I should feel inclined to claim an acquaintance with 
 the art of writing for the authors of the Sutras. And there 
 is one word which seems to strengthen such a supposition. "We 
 find that several of the Sutras are divided into chapters, called 
 patalas. This is a word never used for the subdivision of the 
 Brahmanas, Its meaning is a covering, the surrounding skin 
 or membrane ; it is also used for a tree. If so, it would seem 
 
 Thus Pdnini himself says, V. 2, 84, ■^ftfT^T^'^ i'^^- 
 
20 
 
 KANDA.— SUTRA— GEANTHA. 
 
 to be almost synonymous with liher and ^ipKo<;, and it would 
 mean book, after meaning originally a sheet of paper made of the 
 surrounding bark of trees." But he seems to have entirely 
 overlooked — ^no doubt on account of its common occurrence — 
 the word Mnda, which is the name of a division of the Taittiriya- 
 Samhita and -Brtihmanas, not to speak of the frequent application 
 it has found at a later period in denoting chapters of ritual books, 
 or ritual books themselves, such as Mmyeshti-kdnda, hdmyapa'su- 
 Mnda, paurodd'sika-kdnda, dgneya-kdnda, hautra-kdnda, adhwaryu- 
 kdnda, yqfamdna-kdnda, sattra-kdnda, etc. And kdnda, before mean- 
 ing book, means "the part of the trunk of a tree whence the branches 
 proceed, — a stalk or stem;" — it is, therefore, a fair representative 
 of our word book. But, if such is the original purport of patala, 
 and of the more frequent kdnda, I cannot conceive on what grounds 
 Miiller founds his doubt (p. 513) oi pattra meaning the leaf of a 
 book, in works of genuine antiquity, since pattra means, originally, 
 the leaf of a tree, and since palm-leaves, even now, bespeak the 
 use which has been made of them for literary purposes. Por, 
 though Urvasi writes her amatory letter on a "birch-leaf," — which, 
 then, is called, not merely pattra, but bhurja-pattra, — it does not 
 follow that ordinary letters of literary works must also have been 
 engraved on what was probably a rarer material than the leaf of a 
 palm-tree or of a lotus. 
 
 Besides kdnda and patala, there are, however, two other im- 
 portant words, in the sense of work, which could not but attract 
 the attention of Professor Miiller — the words sutra and grantha. 
 The former, which means, literally, " string," has become, accord- 
 ing to him (p. 512), the well-known name of an extensive 
 class of works, by assuming the figurative sense, " strings of 
 rules." The latter, he says (p. 522), "is derived from a root 
 grath, which means nedere, severe. Grantha, therefore, like the 
 later sandarbha, would simply mean a composition. It corresponds 
 etymologically with the Latin textus. Thus it is used by the com- 
 mentator to Nir. i. 20., where he says that former teachers handed 
 
SUTRA, A COLLECTION OF EULES. 21 
 
 down the hymns, granthaio 'rthatascha,^^ ' according to their text, 
 and according to their meaning.' In the later literature of India, 
 grantha was nsed for a volume, and, in granthakuti^ a library, we 
 see clearly that it has that meaning. But in the early literature 
 grantha does not mean pustalca^ or book ; it means simply a com- 
 position, as opposed to a traditional work." 
 
 That " sutra " may haye assumed the sense of " string of rules," 
 before it became the name of a book, is possible ; but that it must 
 have gone through this metaphorical process, and no other, — as the 
 certainty with which Miiller explains the term would imply, — ^^ 
 is not corroborated by any proof he has given ; nor is it even 
 plausible. Before, however, I give my own opinion on this word, 
 it will be necessary, first, to ascertain whether the word sutra, — 
 which is used in the singular both as a name for a whole collection 
 of rules, and as a name for a single sutra, — denoted, originally, 
 the latter, and then became the designation of the former, or vice 
 versa. Thus, the Kasikavritti calls Panini's Sutra, V. 4, 161, 
 gana-sutram, and speaks of the five Sutras, I. 3, 72 — 76, sivarita- 
 
 nita iti partchahhis sutrair dtmanepadam, etc evani 
 
 panchasutrydm uddhdryam ; and Patanjali says, in the introduc- 
 tion to Panini, Sutrdni chdpyadhiydna ishyate vaiydk irana iti, "he 
 who studies the Sutras is termed a grammarian." But if we 
 examine the use which Panini himself makes of this word, we 
 find that he always uses sutra as a term for the whole collection 
 of rules, and not as an expression for a single Sutra : lY. 2, 65, 
 '■'Sutrdch cha Jcopadhdt ;" IV. 3, 110, '^ Pdrdsaryaildslibhydm 
 Ihikshunatasutrayoh'''' (where the dual shows that the analysis 
 requires bhikshusutre and natasutre). In his Eules, IV. 2, 60, and 
 V. 1. 68, the number of the word is less clear, since it is part of a 
 compound ; yet the instances of Patanjali to the Varttikas, and 
 some explanations of the Kasika (e. g. Kalpasutram adhite, Kdlpa- 
 
 ^» Similarly, e. g., Kulldka on Manu, VII. 43, f^^^^^fft ^n8Irr^T«I%i;. Sc( 
 also, " Muir's Original Sanskrit Texts," vol. ii. p. 175. 
 
 -" " We meet with Brdhmanas, the sayings of Brahmans ; with Sutras, i. e., th( 
 strings of rules." (p. 512.) 
 
22 SITTEA, A COLLECTION OF EULES. 
 
 sutrah^ and ashidv adhydydh parimdnam asya sutrasya asJitakam 
 pdniniyam) leave little doubt that it is likewise to be taken there as 
 a singular. In a similar manner it is used in Patanjali's comment 
 on II. 3, 66, V. 2, '■'■Sohhand Ichalu pdnineh sutrasya Icritih.^^^^ It 
 would seem, therefore, since no higher authority than Panini can be 
 quoted, that sutra, — when used in the sense of a single rule, — is 
 
 ^' In the Sutra VIII. 3, 90, and the Gana to V. 4, 29, its sense is the literal one ; 
 it is mentioned, too, as a masc. and neuter in the Gana to II. 4, 31. — It is necessaiy 
 for me to observe, that in the quotations from Pdnini I always distinguish between 
 the text of the Sutras, the V^rttikas of Kdtydyana, — and those alone can be held to 
 be K^tydyana's Vdrttikas which appear in the Mahdbhdshya, — Patanjali's Commen- 
 tary, the Vdrttikas found in the Kdsikd and in the Siddhdntakaumudi, and these 
 latter works. The importance of this distinction requires no I'emark, since all con- 
 clusions must become unsafe if the observations or instances of one wi-iter are given 
 as evidence for or against another, especially before it has been decided whether, for 
 instance, Pdnini and Kdtyayana were contemporaries or not. I regret that Professor 
 Miiller has paid little attention to this circumstance, for he has frequently confounded 
 the Commentaries, even the latest, with the text of the Sutras of Pdnini ; and the very 
 circumstance that he has sometimes pointed out the commentary as distinct from the 
 text, and vice versa, creates still more confusion where he has omitted to do so. Thus, 
 he quotes con-ectly (p. 44, note 2), " VIII. 3, 95 (text)," or, " IV. I, 176 (te.vt) " or, 
 (p. 45, in the same note), "IV. 3, 98 (text);" and I admit that an attentive reader 
 will conclude that the quotations not marked " text" are taken from the commentai")' ; 
 yet, " VI. 3, 75," is not commentary but text. And what does the word " commentary " 
 mean .'' Patanjali, KAs'ikd, Siddh.-k., or the Calcutta Pandits ? Again, when he says 
 (p. 09, n. 1) : " It is remarkable that, in P&nini also, the word sloka is always used in 
 opposition to Vedic literature," not one of his quotations given to prove this important 
 point, viz., IV. 2, 66 ; " IV. 3, 102, 1 ;" IV. 3, 107 ; " II. 4, 21," belongs to Panini, but 
 the two former to Pantajali ; and the two latter to the Kds'ikd. On p. 347, n., the 
 Saulabhani Brdhmandni are attributed by him to Pdnini himself, but Pdnini says 
 nothing about them. The instances to the quotations, of page 361, n. 3, ("IV. 3, 101 ; 
 IV. 2, 64"), and those to n. 4. (IV. 3, 108), belong to the Kas'ikd, — none to PAniui. 
 Nearly all the instances referred to, p. 364, n. 3, belong to Patanjali ; and p. 369, nn., 
 where "com." and "text" are contradistinguished, "VI. 2, 10" is not PAnini. P. 370, 
 n. 10, " IV. 3, 104," ought to have been marked " com.," and a similar confusion exists, 
 pp. 362, 371, 521, 522, etc. ; while, on the other hand, the commentary is correctly 
 quoted in most of the instances of p. 184, 185, 193, 252, 330, 339, 353, 357, though with- 
 out any mention whether the commentary of Patanjali, or of the Kds'ikA, etc., be meant. 
 The text is marked correctly, pp. 125, n. 2 ; 340, 368, n. 1 (IV. 3. 128), 5 ; 369, n. 1, 3 ; 
 371, n. 2, 6 ; 372, n. 2, 8 ; 373, n. 3 ; and the ganas correctly, p. 369, n. 6 ; 370, n. 7, 
 8, 9, 10 ; 372, n. 8 ; 373, n. 8. — I do not altogether think that thi» want of accuracy. 
 
SUTEA, A COLLECTION OF RULES. 23 
 
 pars pro toto, and that its original sense is that of a whole collection 
 of rules.^'^ If such be the case the question arises, whether it is 
 
 in a writer like Professor Miiller, is entirely the result of oversig'ht ; it seems to me, on 
 the contrary, that the reason for it lies in the words of his note to p. 46 : — " It was im- 
 possible to teach or to use Panini's Sdtras without examples, which necessarily formed 
 part of the traditional grammatical literature long before the great Commentary was 
 written, and are, therefore, of a much higher historical value than is commonly 
 supposed. The coincidences between the examples used in the Pr&tisilkhy&s and in 
 P3.nini, show that these examples were by no means selected at random, but that they 
 had long formed part of the traditional teaching.'' This coincidence, to be of that 
 value which is described in the words quoted, would require first the proof that the 
 Prdtisdkhyas, viz. the existing ones of Saunaka and K^tydyana, are older than Pdnini ; 
 otherwise, it ceases to be of any consequence, as regards PAnini. As to his statement in 
 general, how^ever, I must observe, that it can surely not be received as authoritative in 
 the absence of all proof. I must myself, on the contrary, quite demur to its admissi- 
 bility. The coincidences, in the first place, between the instances of the existing Pt&- 
 tis'Akhyas and those in the Commentaries of P4nini, considering the great bulk of the 
 latter, are perfectly trifling. Again, as to the other instances, about 2000 Sutras of 
 PAnini are not criticised by Kdtydyana, nor commented upon by Patanjali ; with regard 
 to the instances, therefore, in this considerable number of rules, our oldest authority is 
 nearly always the Kdsikd, the infallibility of which Commentary I have had, sometime?, 
 reason to doubt. Scarcely any instances of this category can be traced to the Vr&tl- 
 sdkhyas, and, unless it can be proved by Miiller that these instances belong to antiquity, 
 I do not consider it at all safe to found any conclusions on them, as regards antiquity. 
 But on no account can it be consistent with critical research to use even the instances 
 of Patanjali as evidence for or against the Vdrttikas, and much less for or against the 
 Sutras of Pdnini, since KdtyAyana never gives instances, but, like PAnini himself, either 
 lays down a general rule, or specifies the words which are the subject of his rule. 
 
 ^ Compare also the following passage of the Mahdbhdshya (ed. Ballantyne, p. 68). 
 
 Patanjali : ^?r^ ci) | eft <Uj [*) ctl J|j( IJ^^ W. XT^T^: I f'^ !1 K%dyana : ;^^ ^TRlT^ 
 
 -^m^ -S^^rqW: II Patanjali: ^ ^TRlT^ -q^q^ M^tJXI^^ "^l^h^O!**! ,^5f*rfrr I 
 
 t^ H^'itc^-^l^l'*^*!!*! I ^T^T^: ^ ^TTci; ; Kaiyyata ^^ ^ | 
 
 ^T«n3Tfxi ij^TSTRCTarrsTT: infdm<«n^rd<«*i*rR: I ^rnTRrt^^^nr^rT^n 
 
 .jipxr^it; Nagojibh : M^ 15^^^T«TT^ <*I1«*<«S^< ^■=»f*l(^4M<i|^ 
 
 CT ^?nf I ^T«ntM?r i ^■=(M<«iiiiiai«n%^ *j<0-^^ d^iMlbiid ^ infw: g 
 T *ai<^d Wf I ^TPfTRrf^^^ I ^ ^rPfTRT <4ji «*<«!] f^^: I ^■^iiij<^»iiai«rr- 
 
24 SCTTEA:— STRING-" BAND "—BOOK. 
 
 the figure implied by Miiller's rendering " strings of rules " that 
 has led to the word sutra being used in the sense of " book," or 
 not. As, I believe, I am able to show that Panini was perfectly- 
 well acquainted with the art of writing, and that written books 
 had even existed long before his time, my own opinion is, that 
 the name for book was, as in the case of patala and kdnda, 
 borrowed rather from a material fact than from the metaphorical 
 idea of the logical connection of rules. And here I appeal to evi- 
 dence, and to the admission which will be made to me that there 
 are peculiarities and habits in the life of nations, which may be 
 supposed to have existed at the earliest times such as we see them 
 now. Everyone who has studied Sanskrit MSS. in the libraries of 
 London and Paris, will have found that the oldest specimens of 
 these MSS. are written on palm-leaves, which are pierced in the 
 middle, and kept together by means of a " string." The natural- 
 ness of the material of these MSS., and the primitive manner in 
 which they are bound, — if we can use the term "binding," for a 
 parcel of leaves, covered on both sides with oblong pieces of wood, 
 and kept together by a string which runs through the middle, — 
 bespeak, in my opinion, the habits of high antiquity, religiously 
 preserved up to a recent date by a nation which, beyond all other 
 nations, is wont to cherish its antiquity, and to defend it, even in 
 practical life, against the intrusions of modern arts. The MSS. I 
 have seen are certainly not more than a few centuries old, as may 
 be easily inferred from the fragility of the material of which they 
 are composed; but I hold them to be genuine specimens of the 
 manner in which books were formed at the earliest periods of the 
 civilization of India. No one, however, ought, I should conceive, 
 to be less surprised at seeing the word " string " becoming the 
 name of "book," than a German who would call his own book 
 " Band^'' translating, as it were, literally, the Sanskrit sutra^ and 
 haviag recourse to the same figure of speech. 
 
 Since I contrast, in these remarks, opinion, with opinion, — not 
 
ORIGIN OF THE SUTRA LITEEATUEE. 25 
 
 claiming any greater value for mine than tliat which may be per- 
 mitted to the impressions and views of the individual mind, — I 
 will not conceal that I hold the very nature of the works called 
 ** Sutra," to have arisen from, and depended on, the material which 
 was kept together by the " string." I cannot consider it plausible 
 that these works, — " written, as they are, in the most artificial, 
 elaborate, and enigmatical form," — which have been so well de- 
 fined and described in Miiller's work (p. 71, ff.), — in which, to use 
 his words, " shortness is the great object of this style of composi- 
 tion," — should have been composed merely for the sake of being 
 easily committed to memory. " To introduce and to maintain such 
 a species of literature," argues Muller (p. 74), " was only possible 
 with the Indian system of education, which consisted in little else 
 except implanting these Sutras and other works into the tender 
 memory of children, and afterwards explaining them by commen- 
 taries and glosses." But, though I do not dispute that these 
 Sutras were learnt, and are learnt, by heart up to this day, this 
 circumstance alone does not explain why the matter thus to be 
 inculcated must have been written in such a manner "that an 
 author rejoiceth in the economizing of half a short vowel as much 
 as in the birth of a son;" why, "every doctrine thus propounded, 
 whether grammar, metre, law, or philosophy," must have become 
 " reduced to a mere skeleton." Miiller himself says (p. 601), — 
 and I fully concur with him, — that " we can form no opinion 
 of the powers of memory in a state of society so different from 
 ours as the Indian Parishads are from our universities. Feats 
 of memory, such as we hear of now and then, show that our 
 notions of the limits of that faculty are quite arbitrary." And, as 
 he himself produces proof that the three Vedas and their Brah- 
 manas were learnt by heart, it does not appear at all likely that 
 the peculiar enigmatic form of this Sutra literature was invented 
 simply to suit the convenience of a memory the capacities of which 
 must have been extraordinary. 
 
 The reason which accounts for this form is, in my opinion, 
 of a far more prosaic kind. I hold that it is the awkwardness, 
 the fragility, and, in some parts of India, perhaps the scarcity of 
 
 4 
 
26 GRANTHA. 
 
 proper natural leaves, which imposed upon an author the happy 
 restraint of " economizing half a short vowel ; " that the scanti- 
 ness of the writing material compelled authors to be very concise, 
 and betrayed them, as a consequence, into becoming obscure. 
 
 Vaidik hymns and sacrificial Brahmanas stand, clearly, under 
 a different predicament to works on grammar or philosophy. 
 A god cannot be invited with anuhandhas to partake of the 
 sacrificial meal, nor the religious feelings of a nation be roused 
 with hard and unintelligible phraseology ; but the purpose of 
 a grammar may be attained, if there be need to save space, 
 by an artificial method ; and a philosophical doctrine may be 
 propounded in riddles, as we can testify in our own days. I 
 draw here, of course, a line between genuine and artificial Sutras, 
 — the former, in my opinion, a creation of material necessity ; 
 the latter, a mere imitation when this necessity had ceased. The 
 Sutras of Panini, in their dignified brevity, and the Sutras of 
 the Buddhists, in their tedious prolixity, are, probably, the two 
 opposite poles ; ^' but it requires, I conceive, no great effort to see 
 that there is a gap, even between Panini and the Yoga-Sutras, 
 nay, between him and the Mimansa- and Vedanta- Sutras as well 
 as the ISTyaya-Sutras and the Sankhya-Pravachana. 
 
 Turning now to the second word I have mentioned above, 
 with the word Sutra, I will say at once, that grantha likewise 
 appears to me to have become the name of a book, not on account 
 of the connection which exists between the different parts of a 
 literary composition, but on account of the connection of the leaves 
 which form its bulk. Professor Weber, who makes Panini live 
 
 ^ The lamented Burnoiif has given a description of these Sutras, in his invaluable 
 work on the " Buddhisme Indien," p. 36, ff. He particularly points out, — and the 
 fact is important, — that amongst these caricatures of the Brdhmanic Siitras, there 
 are several which have the enigmatic brevity of the latter; he distinguishes, there- 
 fore, between Sutras which may be attributed to Sakyamuni, and Sutras which 
 belong to subsequent periods. See "Introduction k I'Histoire du Buddhisme Indien," 
 p. 104, S. 
 
GRANTHA. 
 
 about 140 years after Christ/* but who, nevertheless, is favourable 
 to the view I take of Paniui's acquaintance with writing, says, in 
 the " Indische Studien," vol. iv. p. 89, that " the word grantha, 
 which is several times used by Panini, refers, according to its 
 etymology, decidedly to written texts;" yet he informs us 
 (p. 436), that " the word grantha is referred by Bohtlingk-Koth to 
 the composition:'' Whether the latter remark is made '■^ pujdrtham,'" 
 or whether this author, — according to his habit of leaving the 
 reader to make his own choice amongst a variety of conflicting 
 opinions, — intended to establish a vihliasha^^'' or whether he has 
 altered his original view, is more than I can decide, since he has 
 neither supported his first opinion with any explanatory remark, 
 nor expressed adhesion or dissent when he concluded his fourth 
 volume of the " Indische Studien." ^^ 
 
 That grantha^ according to its etymology, may mean " a literary 
 composition," and that it has been used in that sense, is unde- 
 niable ; yet I contend that it did not bear this metaphorical sense 
 before it was used in the literal meaning of " a series of leaves ; " 
 or, in other words, before it designated a written book. Previ- 
 ously to supporting this opinion with other arguments than those 
 which are implied in my remarks on sutra^ I consider it necessary 
 to remove the suspicion which has been thrown by Miiller on this 
 legitimate word. He quotes the four Siitras in Panini where it 
 occurs,'" but remarks in the note of p. 45, " The word grantha^ 
 used in the Sutra (IV. 3, 87), is always somewhat suspicious." 
 
 ''^ " Akademische Vorlesungen fiber Indische Literaturgeschichte," p. 200, 202. 
 
 ^ Such is really the case in the " Indische Literaturgeschichte," p. 183, note. 
 
 ''^ Should I have overlooked any observation of his on this word, it would be quite 
 unintentional, since I have been guided in my quotations by the excellent indices he has 
 appended to his volumes. All I mean to convey is, that the only justification he gives 
 for the sense, " written work," of grantha, viz., the etymology of the word, does not 
 appear to be a sufficient one, since Miiller is certainly right when he remarks (p. 622), 
 that granth, nectere, serere, might be taken also in a figurative sense. 
 
 " Compare also, IV. 3, 101, v. 2 ; 105, v. 2 ; the Kds'ikd on V. 1, 10, v. 1 : T^;^^ 
 
 ?psr: ; on IV. 2, 62 : gH^Ui^^aH ^T^ ^s(r^*!!»l. ; on IV. 2, 63 : ^^STRIf^ftfft 
 
28 GRANTHA. 
 
 The reason for this sweeping doubt is contained, I suppose, in the 
 words which immediately follow : " That some of the Sutras which, 
 now form part of Panini's Grammar, did not proceed from him, is 
 acknowledged by Kaiyyata (c/. IV. 3. 131, 132) ;" and in the first 
 note of p. 361, where he writes, " Pan., IV. 3, 116, u^ ^ II 
 Kaiyyata says that this Sutra does not belong to Panini." That 
 there are three, perhaps four Sutras in Panini's Grammar, which 
 
 TT^ 'e(y*rl fWW^ ; oil III. 1, 89, v. 1 (a Vdrttika of the BhdradwAjfyas, according' to 
 Patanjali) : ^pBJ^ IfJ^'. ; on VII. 3, 4 : *cj<*4(^(51 Wt 1T^: ifl^OT ^il^: —Of 
 one of the Sutras he quotes, viz. I. 3, 75, MiiUer observes, (p. 522) that it is used there 
 " so as to apply to the Veda." This remark concerns the commentator, but not Pdnini, 
 who, as he correctly states, a few lines afterwards, uses grantlia as " opposed to a tradi- 
 tional work." I do not believe that the commentator is absolutely wrong, as will appear 
 from my subsequent remarks ; but I think that he might have chosen a better instance. 
 By commentary, however, I do not understand Patanjali's Bhdshya, which has no remark 
 on this Sutra, nor the Kdsikd, which has the counter-instance, -^'tlT^fif (xlfcht^T ^^' ! 
 the first trace of this instance I find in the Siddh.-k. (fol. 167 a.), — uncorrected in the 
 Praudhamanoram^, — whence it has crept into more recent books, e, g., the abridged 
 Commentary of N%oji on Panini's Sutras. This instance, one of many, will corroborate 
 my statement in note 21, that the compilation of the Calcutta Pandits, — ^however meri- 
 torious, and superior to its mutilated and unauthorized reprint, — so far from admitting of 
 being identified with Pdnini himself, ought not to be used as evidence for or against 
 PAnini, without a knowledge of the source whence it has derived its instances. 
 
 I feel grieved that I cannot leave this note without destroying one of the most 
 poetical illusions of Professor Weber, connected with this word grantlia. From the 
 stream of imaginary narrative which meanders through the desert of his " Literatur- 
 geschichte," emerges, h propos of the Rdmdyana (p. 182), the remark, that this master- 
 piece of Hindu poetry was probably preceded by some other epic works. To prove that 
 which cannot be proved without a knowledge of the date of the Rimdyana, which we 
 have not, — and without a knowledge of those epic poems, which likewise we have not, — 
 but which is plausible enough without any proof, he quotes Panini's Siitra, IV. 3, 88, 
 which treats on the titles of some granthas. Among these granthas (which are, to his 
 imagination, epic poems), is one called ISisulcrandiya, which therefore is, to him, a 
 forerunner of the Rdmdyana. The same ingenious conjecture occurs in his " Indische 
 Studien," vol. i. p. 155, where he grows somewhat indignant at Wilson, who, in his 
 Dictionary, renders this term " a work treating of infantine or juvenile grievances," 
 for he adorns Wilson, for this rendering, with a query and note of admiration (" Wilson 
 diet.?!"). Now, whether sisuhrandiya ought to have been, by right, the title of an 
 epic poem (in the same manner as we learn, from another work what the words 
 in the Vedas ought to have meant, if they hpd profited by the last results of Sanskrit 
 
GEANTHA. 29 
 
 probably did not belong to bis work originally, I will concede ; ^* 
 but amongst these three or four Sutras out of 3996, there is no 
 Sutra containing the word grantha; for I believe Miiller Avas 
 mistaken when he says that Kaiyyata acknowledges that the 
 
 and comparative philology), I am unable to say. Nevertheless, I believe that Wilson 
 is right; for the Kdslkd explains this. word, 'RpT'ri '^f'^^ f^iMsh^riaj TTTf^irafW 
 aini *A^\ nij»jsn«e|<4; , and the Ganaratna-maliodadhi has even an additional 
 remark : ft^T^ ^1517%^ sh«'^*jl*{fM*cM IT^ ^T^: fai^*«<0'T: I ^"Hy^d**: • 
 — It is, in other terms, " a book for children, written with reference to their cries," — a 
 kind of nursery-book for naughty babies. 
 
 ^* Dr. Otto Boehtlingk was the first who drew attention to this fact, in the volume 
 which he has annexed to his garbled aud unauthorized reprint of the meritorious 
 labour of the Calcutta editors of PdninL In a note of p. xx. of his Preface, he 
 enumerates seven Siitras, which, according to him, " were originally Vdrttikas, and only 
 at a later time became embodied into the text of Pdnini;" viz., "IV. 1, 166, 167; 
 IV. 3, 132 ; V. 1, 36 ; VI. 1, 63, 100, 136." It certainly raises a strong doubt as to the 
 authenticity of a Siitra, if it occurs also as a Vdrttika of Kdtydyana ; but I hold the 
 indispensable conditions for confirming such a doubt to be — I. that the Vdrttika must 
 really belong to Kdtydyana ; 2. that the wording of the Vdrttika must be identical with 
 that of the doubted Siitra ; and 3. that both must have the same tendency. In the first 
 place, however, we are entitled to consider as Vdrttikas of Kdtyayana only such as occur 
 in, and, — ^what is invariably then the case, — are commented upon by, the Bhdshya of 
 Patanjali. Vdrttikas found in the Kds'ikd or Siddhdntakaumudi, but not in the Bhdshya, 
 may be, and evidently are in many instances, the critical additions of later times. They 
 afibrd no basis for doubting the g-enuineness of a Siitra in Pdriini; nor is a mere 
 remark of Kaiyyata, the commentator of Patanjali, that " some" consider a Siitra as 
 having been a Vdrttika, sufficient to cancel the Sutra from amongst the original rules. 
 Secondly, if a Vdrttika is not worded in the same manner as the Siitra, — excepting, of 
 course, the usual addition of Kdtydyana, '^^ c((f)ct(4{^, — the mere similarity of both 
 is no sufficient ground for doubting the originality of the Sutra ; for the difiference in 
 the wording of the Vdrttika may have, as it very frequently has, the mere object 
 of criticizing the manner in which Pdnini delivered his rule. Lastly, if the Vdrttika 
 and Sutra are identical in words, but not in tendency, there is not the slightest ground 
 for doubting the authenticity of the Sutra, though Kaiyyata may historically record 
 that " some " have preferred to " throw it among the Vdrttikas." In applying these 
 tests to the enumeration given by Dr. Boehtlingk, we find, that IV. 1, 166 does not 
 occur literally in the Vdrttika 3 of IV. 1, 163; for, though the Calcutta editors write 
 d|'<S|4^ ■^ ■gwr^rnr.' *"'^ append their mark, that it occurs in the Siddh.-k. (the printed 
 edition of this work contains on p. 66a, line 1, the words "^^ ^ ^3||«tlf?Tf7I 
 c^|i^fl^ ),— the wording of this Vdrttika, in the Bhdshya is (MS., E.I.H., 330), ^plT^T 
 ^ ■^Wnrt g c|<j^l ^W^TR:, (probaWy ■iJeHi^ffT ^ftl =*!<<) ; IJut even if the additional 
 words belong, as is possible, not to the Vdrttika, but to the Bhdshya, it is clear 
 
30 GRANTHA. 
 
 Sutra IV. 3, 116 did not belong to Panini. I have not been able 
 to discover anywhere, in the Mahabhashya, either by the aid of 
 my memory or my indices, that Kaiyyata expresses any opinion 
 ■whatever on this Stitra ; but even should the mistake be mine, 
 there would be little importance in the mere doubt of Kaiyyata, 
 since Patanjali, ^^hen commenting on the Varttikas to IV. 3, 105, 
 
 that the tendency of the V^rttika and that of the Sutra are not identical ; for, in the 
 V4rttika, the rule is absolute, while in the Sutra, IV. 1, 166, it is optional, through 
 the anuvritti of the preceding ^^J of IV. 1, 165. Therefore, Patanjali comments on 
 the Vdrttika in question, rJ^H'ftil' J||j4l^(m: I W^H^'tfl' WTc^'TTr: without the 
 option recorded by the Kdsikd ou IV. 1, 166, in the instances, rr^^TTPTn^T'IWt 
 Tnff ^ I TH^TRHY ^Wt ^ I ^WlWt ^Tf^#r-— A similar negative con- 
 clusion applies to IV. 1, 167. The Vdrttika mentioned by the Calcutta editors, to 
 IV. 1, 162, does not occur in the BhAshya ; it is not identical, even in the Siddh.-k., with 
 the Siitra, IV. 1, 167; it has not the same tendency as the Sdtra, the latter being 
 optional, the former absolute. There is no ground, consequently, for doubting that the 
 " some " of Kaiyyata, who maintain the antiquity of the Sutra, are correct. — IV. 3, 132, 
 is suspicious, for it occurs as a V4rttika in the Bhdsyha to IV. 3, 131, and fulfils the 
 three above-named conditions ; equally so V. 1, 36, which is a Vdrttika to V. 1, 35, and 
 VI. 1, 62, which occurs as a Vdrttika to VI. 1, 61. On the other hand, VI. 1, 100, 
 need not be rejected absolutely, for its wording is not identical with that of the Vdrttika 
 of VI. 1. 99 ; nor is it clear that both coincide in tendency. VI. 1, 99, restricts the 
 rule to the condition of the word ^[f^ following a combination like M4fHd<\; VI. 1, 100, 
 exempts a similar combination, if ending in ^^ from this condition (comp. V. 4, 57) : 
 it would seem, therefore, that the Vdrttika to VI. 1, 99, maintains the condition, but cor- 
 rects the option eJT, by the word f^(i(<4^. I must admit, however, that Patanjali gives 
 the instance M^l|^|i|(r|, which would countenance the probability of this Sutra, also, not 
 being an original one. Lastly, the Sutra VI. 1, 136, ^^j^ltl'^ct 1^ "jftf neither 
 occurs as ci Vdrttika in the Bhdshya, nor even as a Vdrttika in the Kdsikd or the 
 Siddh.-k. ; nor has its original existence, in fact, been doubted by anybody except Dr. 
 Boehtlingk, who writes in his so-called Commentary (p. 256), " This Sutra has been 
 interpolated at a later time ; it owes its origin to the following two Vdrttikas to the pre- 
 ceding Si'itra, ^v^oi|c||i( 'JMfl'sid'lH. II "1 II ^?rWfm=4|e(|^ ^ II R II Compare Siddh.-k. 
 p. 144a ;" where, however, the reader will not find anything relating to the subject, while, 
 on p. 145a, he vnW discover the Sutra, IV. 1, 136, such as it is in the Calcutta edition 
 of Pdnini. That both Vdrttikas are a criticism of Kdtydyana, who clearly disapproved 
 of the condensed wording of the Siiti-a 136, did not even occur to the mind of Dr. 
 Boehtlingk ; but, considering the condition of his knowledge of Pdnini, as displayed 
 in this " Commentary," and even in his very last work, I cannot but express the belief, 
 that his "ai^TOS e(pa," to strike out a Siitra of Pdnini, goes for very little indeed, — 
 especially as it touches upon the sphere of reasoning. 
 
GEANTHA. 31 
 
 distinctly quotes twice the Sutra IV. 3, 116, which is a positive 
 proof that it existed at his time, and was genuine enough.^' 
 
 I will now give an instance from the Mahabharata, which, in my 
 belief, would be perfectly unintelligible, if ^rawifAa were taken only 
 in the sense of " composition," and not also in that of " written 
 book," or " volume." I am met here, however, with an objection ; 
 viz., that I ought first to show that the Mahabharata possesses the 
 qualification which Miiller has appended to his quoted remark, or, 
 in other words, that it is a work of " the early literature," since 
 he says that ^^ grantha does not mean pustaha, or book, in 'the 
 early literature,' " while he admits that it has that sense in th« 
 later literature. Both Miiller and Weber agree that there was a 
 Mahabharata at the time of Aswalayana, since they quote a pas- 
 sage from his Grihya-Sutra, where the name occurs (Miiller, p. 42 ; 
 Weber, "Literaturgeschichte,"p. 56), and neither denies that a work 
 prior to Aswalayana would have a claim to be called a work of 
 the earlier literature. Both scholars however question, — and very 
 rightly too, — the claim of the present Mahabharata, to having been 
 that Mahabharata which is quoted by Aswalayana. It is, of 
 course, impossible for me to treat here, as it were incidentally, 
 not merely of the question concerning the age of the Mahabharata, 
 but the relative ages of the various portions of this work, since 
 it must be evident to everyone who has read it, that it is, in its 
 present shape, a collection of literary products belonging to widely 
 distant periods of Hindu literature. To do justice to a subject 
 of this kind, I should have not merely to enter into details which 
 would be here out of place, but to discuss the prior important 
 question, as to how far the printed text in which this colossal 
 
 ^' There is no Bhdshya on IV. 3, 116, and, therefore, no commentary of Kaiyyata on 
 this Sutra. On the Vdrttika 2, to IV. 3, 105, li^ Jj;^ flrf^^flftp^ ^ which is a 
 criticism on Pinini IV. 3, 116, on account of the addition, *<R!q)|[c^<^ ilJT. and. 
 therefore, a proof that the latter Sdtra was originally existing, Patanjali says : If^ ^^J^ 
 
 x^-^ {i.e., IV. 3, 116) TT^nirrf^?^ iig -^wn: i Tf^Rfrfn: ?m ^nf^^rn; and on 
 
 a third Vdrttilia '^itT^fTfTTf^^ which is not printed in the Calcutta edition, he 
 observes, ^t^JTPT: W^^ | If^ ^ ( IV. 3, 116) 7^: #5T^f (IV. 3, 117) 
 
32 GRANTHA. 
 
 epos is generally known to us, may be relied upon ; and I should 
 feel all the more bound to do so, as my collations of considerable 
 portions of this text with the best MSS., in this country and 
 abroad, fully convince me that it is neither advisable to make a 
 translation of the Mahabharata, — a labour which, if done once, 
 should be done once for all, — nor to found a detailed criticism of 
 the several portions of this work, on the printed text, however 
 much I admire the industry, patience, and scholarship, of those 
 who have accomplished the task of laying before us a first edition 
 of this enormous work. Without their labours, it would have been 
 still more difficult than it now is, to perceive the defects of the MSS. ; 
 but this tribute, which I gladly pay to their merits, does not dispense 
 with my expressing the conviction, derived from my own labours, 
 that no conclusion founded on special passages of the present text, 
 is safe, before the differences of the MSS. — sometimes great — are 
 thoroughly sifted and discussed with the help of the Commentaries.^" 
 In proceeding now to give an instance which I hold to belong 
 to the early (though not the earliest) portions of the Maha- 
 
 '" Weber (" Indische Studicn," I. p. 148) and Muller (pp. 44, 45, note) give a 
 valuable synopsis of the leading- characters of the Mahdbhdrata, as they occur in the 
 text and the commentaries of P^nini. This synopsis, I conceive, must convince even the 
 most sceptic, that P&nini cannot have ignored the renown of these personages, nor con- 
 sequently, it is probable, the real or poetical events on which this renown was founded. 
 It forms the subject-matter of the Mahdbh^rata. Some stress has been laid by both 
 scholars on the circumstance, that the name Pdndu or Pilndava does not occur in the 
 Grammar of Pdnini (Weber, " Indische Studien," p. 148 ; Muller, p. 44) ; but, since 
 both have constructed their list as well from the Ganas and commentaries as from the 
 Sutras, it will not be amiss to add, that Pdndava occurs in Kaiyyata's gloss on 
 Patanjali to IV. 1, 168, v. 4, and in the Kds'ikd on IV. 1, 171, when the obser\'ation of 
 the former implies, what I pointed at in a former remark, that the word Pdndu does 
 not occur in the Vdrttika, as the name of Yudhishthira's father, because the word Pdndava 
 is too common a derivation to require a grammatical nile ; Vdrttika, MlU^t^tlf c(^ci|; 
 —Patanjali, trni^: — Kaiyj'ata, tnts/lRfrl I «1l^lf«^H^Rflf (IV. 1, 96, etc.) 1[^ 
 ^^^ ^ftf^^ 'ft^TR ?[fcT (words of Patanjali on a previous Vdrttika) ^^MT^1v1%- 
 Tlf^ftg: Mm/)<,*I^U!l^lR»i: l MIU:^=I ^[^ irWfrr — Kds'lkd on the same Vdrt- 
 tika (differently worded; quoted in the Calcutta edition, under the Siitra IV. 1, 168, in 
 the WSS. under IV. 1, 171), tn^I^: I ^'q^Tf'TT"'!^^ XT^- The word ^TT!^^^ 
 occurs in the Kds'ikd on the Gana IV. 1, 123. 
 
GRANTHA. 
 
 bharata, I must submit, therefore, to having its validity acknow- 
 ledged or rejected, according to the value the reader may attach 
 to my opinion. Not to be misunderstood, however, I will add 
 that I consider it as posterior to Panini. But, as the date I 
 shall assign hereafter to this grammarian will be older than the 
 date originated by Dr. Boehtlingk, the passage in question will 
 still be entitled to rank among the earlier literature. In the 
 ^dntiparvan of the Mahabharata we read:" "Vasishtha spoke 
 (to Janaka) ' The doctrines of the Vedas and the (philosophical) 
 Sastras which thou hast uttered, are rightly uttered by thee, but 
 thou understandest them not ; for the text {grantha) of the Yedas 
 and Sastras is possessed by thee, yet, king, thou dost not know 
 the real sense of the text {grantha) according to its truth; for 
 he who is merely bent upon possessing the text (grantha) of the 
 Veda and Sastra, but does not understand the real sense of the 
 text, his possession of them is an idle one ; he carries the weight 
 of the hook (grantha) who does not know the sense of it ; but he 
 who knows the real sense of the text {graniha\ his is not an idle 
 acquisition of the text." In this instance, grantha is used in its 
 double sense, composition or text, and hook; for there can be no 
 doubt that in the passage, '■'■Bhdram sa vahaie tasya granthasga,'''' 
 "he carries the weight of the grantha^'''' the last word can only 
 refer to the material bulk of the book. 
 
 I will conclude my observations on this word with a remark on 
 the phrase, '■'■ granthato hthatascha^'' which must undoubtedly be 
 rendered in the sense proposed by Miiller, " according to the text 
 and according to the meaning." An analogous contrast, exactly 
 in the same sense, is that of kdnda and paddrtha, which is of fre- 
 
 '' V. 11339 — 11342 (the corrections are founded on the com. and MSS.) : ' <<^d4 # 
 *Rrrr ^<^U{ I Mf^<vI'l*t. I T!^*id'^V!<| %IW ^^trr (for ^dfejj") fTOT 
 
 *RT^ II >irr^% tf ^^ ^J^ '^sT'Tf^^wr^^: i 't "^ M««)*si dT=i-sdl ^ttrt^ 
 (for ^rsTT ^ «^) i^^T II ^ ff tt'^ ^rn^ '^ ^Rrvn^uidrq^: i ^ ^ w^- 
 
 ^SdTHTJ^ TRT ^?RnWt f ^ II • 
 
 5 
 
34 GRAXTIIA.— VAENA. 
 
 quent occurrence in Mimansa writers.^^ That, in the latter case, 
 the meaning ''text" is a secondary one of Jmnda, no one will dis- 
 pute, since there is nothing in this word which points to " com- 
 position." It must be allowable therefore to conceive, that its 
 synonyme grantha may, through the same mental process as 
 kamda, have assumed the secondary meaning of " text." 
 
 There is another important word which Miiller will not admit 
 as evidence of Panini's having had a knowledge of writing, — for 
 it is used by this grammarian, — the word varna. But the only 
 reason he gives for invalidating its testimony is, that this word 
 which, etymologically and otherwise, really means "cofo^r,'' — when 
 having the sense of letter " does not mean colour in the sense of 
 a painted letter, but the colouring or modulation of the voice " 
 (p. 507). In the absence of any proof for this assertion, he adds, 
 in a note : " Aristotle, Probl. X. 39 : ra Be 'ypafj-fj-ara TrdOr] eo-rt TJ}s 
 ^ww"}?." In this respect he coincides, for once, with Weber, not 
 merely in the point at issue, but also in the remarkable brevity 
 of his argument. For all that Weber says on the subject (" In-- 
 dische Studien," iv. 109) is : " The name varna is probably [wohl) 
 to be understood of the ' colouring,' specializing (^specialisirung) of 
 the sound ; compare ralda, which is employed in the Eikprati- 
 sakhya in the sense of ' nasalised ' (nasalirt). With writing it has 
 nothing to do." E'ow, I confess, that I always become somewhat 
 suspicious when I meet with a definition which prefers the lan- 
 guage of similes to plain prose. How, T must ask, for instance, 
 does the figure of colouring apply to the notion of specialising ? 
 It is striking, moreover, that Weber, who starts with a prohaMlity^ 
 in two lines reaches a positive certainty, founded only on the 
 analogy of rakta. And, in turning again to Miiller's words, I 
 must, in the first place, ask, what does an analogy taken from 
 Aristotle prove for the Sanskrit word? But, supposing it could 
 prove anything, would it not be more plausible to make use of 
 it in favour of the contrary conclusion to that which Miiller 
 
 ^^ E.g. in Mddhava's Jaiminiya-nydya-mdld-vistara, where 
 trasted with l|d |V^|>|^44'^, for instance, V. 2, i, 2, 3, 4, 5, e, 7, etc. etc. 
 
VARNA.— KARA. 3£ 
 
 has drawn. ? Aristotle speaks of jpafifMaTa, which word applies ori- 
 ginally to none but writien signs ; and if he may apply ypdfifia to the 
 voice, might not the same liberty be claimed for a Sanskrit word 
 meaning a written letter ? Again, the notion of " colouring," itself 
 sxipposes necessarily a condition which may be called indifferent or 
 colourless : green, blue, red, are colours, because there is an in- 
 different condition, called white. A coloured sound is not intel- 
 ligible, except on the supposition that there is also an indifferent, 
 or uncoloured sound. Hence we speak, for instance, in modern ter- 
 minology, of ^, u, r, e, o, etc., as coloured vowels, because we., con- 
 trast them with the fundamental uncoloured vowel a. But I shall 
 show that varna is applied indifferently to all vowels, inclusive of a. 
 I do not dispute that varna is used like 7/3a/i/xa, "letter," 
 also for the spoken letter,^' but I hold that there is strong 
 evidence to prove that its original sense is that of written letter, as 
 arising naturally from its primitive sense " colour," and that the 
 appearance of this word in Panini or other authors, may serve as 
 one of many arguments that they practised the art of writing. 
 To make good this statement I must advert to another Avord which 
 may also mean letter, and in this sense is always the latter part of 
 a compound, the former of which is the letter itself designated by 
 it, viz., the word kdra ; e. g. a-Mra, the letter a; i-Mra, the letter «, 
 etc. It corresponds with varna, in the synonymous expressions, 
 a-varna, i-varna, etc. Katyayana looks upon it in the light of an 
 affix, probably on account of its being always compounded with 
 the letter itself; and Kaiyyata enlarges upon the expression 
 varria, in saying that this word means, in the Varttika quoted, 
 " that which expresses a varna or adequately realizes a varna 
 (i e., is the adequate value of a varna).'' He, therefore, like Katya- 
 yana, contrasts the purport of kdra and varna, though a-kdra and 
 a-varna, i-kdra and i-varna, may appear to be, — and we shall see 
 
 '' Thus Nagojibhatta explains, iu the commencement of the Vivarana, ^IT^ ^I[[: ; 
 or Kaiyyata s.ays : ^bmwrTl ^^ "^^J^ <^tc. 
 
36 
 
 VARNA.— KARA. 
 
 from what reason, — convertible terms." To understand, however, 
 this contrast, and the use of two other terms which I shall have 
 to name, I will first give instances from Panini, the Yarttikas of 
 Katyayana, and the Bhashya, which will illustrate the manner in 
 which these grammarians have used both terms. 
 
 We find : a-hdra^ Sivas. 1, v. 1 (omitted in the Calcutta edition of 
 Panini) ; II. 4, 30, v. 4,; IV. 4, 128, v. 2 ; III. 3, 108, v. 3, P. ;— 
 d-kdra, Sivas. 1, v. 1 (om. Calc. ed.) ; 1. 1, v. 4 ; 1. 1, 56, v. 11 ; III. 
 1, 8, P. ; YI. 1, 87, kar. 2. P. ;—t-kdra, III. 3, 108, v. 3, P. ; lY. 
 4, 128, V. 2 ;—i-kdra, YII. 1, 39, v. 3 ; YIII. 2, 15, v. 1. P. ;— 
 ti-Mm, YI. 1, 185, par. 1. P.; — n-Mra, P. on Sivas. 2 and Yartt. 
 (om. in the Calc. ed.); I. 1, 9, v. 2 ; YI. 1, 101, v. I. P.; YIII. 
 4, 1, V. 1 ; ri-kdra, YI. 1, 87, v. 1 (om. Calc. ed.); — Iri-Mra, P. on 
 Sivas. 2; Sivas. 4, v. 5, (om. Calc. ed.); I. 1, 9, v. 2 ; YI. 1, 101, 
 V. 2, P. ; — e-kdra, P. on a Vartt. to Sivas. 3 (om. Calc. ed.), lY. 
 3, 23, V. 6 ; — o-Mra, P. on a Yartt. to Sivas. 3 (om. Calc. ed.) ; Y. 
 3, 72, V. 1; YII. 2, 1. v. 1, 2, 3; YIII. 3, 20, y. l;—au- 
 kdra, YIII. 2, 89, P. ; —ka-kdra, P. on a Yartt. to Sivas. 4, 5 
 (om. Calc. ed.); YII. 3, 44, v. 1. P. •,—nga-kdra, I. 3, 12, v. 1 
 P. ; — cha-kdra^ P. on III. 1, 8 ',—jha-kara and na-kdra, P. on a 
 Yartt. to Sivas. 8 (om. Calc. ed.) ; — na-kdra, P. on a Yartt. to Sivas. 
 6 (om. Calc. ed.) ; YI. 1, 1, v. 10 ; YI. 4, 120, v. 1 ; YIII. 3, 55, v. 
 1. P. — ta-kdra^ P. on a Yartt. to Sivas. 4 (om. Calc. ed.) ; YII. 2, 48, 
 V. 1 ; — da-kdra and pa-kdra, P. on a Yartt. to Sivas. 4 ; — dha-kdra, 
 YIII. 3, 78, V. 1, P. and v. 3 ; — na-kdra, P. on a Yartt. to Sivas. 2 ; 
 — Iha-kdra^ P. on a Yartt. to Sivas. 8 (om. Calc. ed.) ; Y. 3. 72, v. 1 ; 
 
 '* VArttika 3, IIT. 3, 108 : ^l!j|«t*|<,: ; Patanjali— e( ijj | p+ |<.1( ft| ifl ^WSf: | ^cM<^ 
 f;gfn:: ; Kaiyyata— cuSlf^fd cjtljt^ if^^"^ «t*i!l^<*<*mf«^(4J«i: I ^^^nTfWT- 
 rKft^W *R1H 1 ^?Rr 'E^f^flr (VII. 4, 32) -^^ fT^ ^f^^'5<J*i«<i<lj'*<Uil- 
 ^f^ lj.^<4ll<. T^- To remove the apparent strangeness of the manner in which I have 
 rendered '^icti^tij which usually means "imitating', doing iu conformity with," I sub- 
 join two other instances from Kaiyyata, where the same word is also used by him in the 
 sense of "adequate, or real value." K^tydyana having given this derivation of tJ|-i^t, 
 " "^T^tMr ^rrt ■X'^T'I.." and Patanjali having added ^^jj^Tt-^T y»l<4t*f|({|Vf^cfi: 
 ^RTJTW^: . Kaiyyata obseries ^^"^vRffl | 'ER7JTSl*|*^l^«('M»!ftlI li^ 4j«h<4y ¥^ 
 ^ etc. ; or ^"WMm«hKIWt ^n^TTWJf d<(^<*<t!!*<^l'+l<: • 
 
VAUNA.— KARA. 37 
 
 —ma-lcara, P. on a Vartt. to Sivas. 7 -j—ya-kdra, P. on a Yartt. to 
 Sivas. 6 ; — la-Mra, I. 3, 3, v. 2 y—va-kdra, P. on a Vartt. to Sivas. 
 5; — sa-kdra, P. on a VaTtt. to Sivas. 5; — sha-kara, VI. 1, 1, v. 
 10 ; — sa-kdra, V. 3, 72, v. 1 ; — ha-kdra^ P. on a Vartt. to Sivas. 
 5 (all these Vartt. to the Sivas. om. in the Calc. ed.). 
 
 On the other hand : a-varna, P. on a Vartt. to Sivas, 1 (om. 
 Calc. ed.); IV. 1, 1, v. 3 ; VI. 3, 97, v. (not of K, but mentioned 
 in P.) ; VIII. 3, 64, v. 3 ; VII. 1, 82, v. 2 ; and in the Sutras: 
 VI. 1, 182 ; VI. 2, 90 ; VI. 3, 112 ',—i-varm, P. on a Vartt. to 
 the Sivas. 1 and 3 (om. Calc. ed.) ; VII. 2, 10. P. ; VIII. 2, 106, v. 1. 
 P. ; Sutra VII. 4, 53 ; u-varm, P. on a Vartt. to Sivas. 1. (om. Calc. 
 ed.); V. 3. 83, v. 5, and Kar. 1; VII. 2, 10. P.; VIII. 2, 106, 
 V. 1. P. ; — varna y (or y-varna) Sutra VII. 4, 53.^^ 
 
 The foregoing combinations of a letter of the alphabet with 
 kdra and varna are, I believe, all that occur in the grammarians 
 named, and they show at once, that kdra enters into compo- 
 sition with all vowels and all consonants, provided the latter are 
 followed ly the letter a — (for it may be assumed without risk that 
 the absence of some combinations, such as kha-kdra, gha-kdra, etc., 
 
 ^ The instances quoted arc restricted, as I have stated, to the Sdtras of PAnini, the 
 VArttilcas of K4ty4yana, as they occur in the Bhdshya of Patanjali, and to the latter, 
 (marked P.) Some of the above-named Vdrttilcas are marked in the Calcutta edition, 
 " Kds'.," or " Siddh.-k.," but they occur, too, in the Bh&shya. These instances might have 
 been multiplied, and had it been necessary to add quotations from the KAs'ikd, Siddh.-k., 
 or the words of the Calcutta editors : f. i. by ri-kdra, VI. 1, 91, K^sikd ; Kaiyyata 
 on ^ivas. 5 ;—tha-kdra, VIII. 3, 7, K4sikd ; VIII. 3, 34, Kdsikd ; VIII. 4, 54, Kds'ikA ; 
 —dha-kdra, VIII. 3. 55, Kdsikd -.—tha-kdra, I. 2, 23, Kds'ikd ; VIII. 3, 7, Kds'ikS ; 
 VIII. 3, 34, K&sik&i—na-kdra, VIII. 2, 16, Kds'ikd ;— jBAo-fo^ra, I. 2, 23, Kdsikil ; 
 VIII. 4, 54, Kds'ikd ; — sa-kara, I. 3, 8, Kds'ikd ; — or ri-varna, I. 1, 9, vw 1, Siddh.-k. ; V. 
 3, 83, V. 5, Kisikd (thus quoted in the Calcutta edition, but not met with in the MS. 
 2441 of the E.I.H.) ; VIII. 4, 1, v. I, KAsiki and Siddh.-k. i—lri-varna, I. 1, 9. v. 1, 
 Siddh.-k. The very unusual ra-kdra in the Commentary to VIII. 2, 15 (it occurs chiefly 
 in mystical, not in grammatical, works ; e.g: in the dialogue between Umd and Siva of 
 the Rudrayimalatantra), I must leave to the responsibility of the Calcutta editors ; for 
 the Bhdshya on the Vdrttika does not speak of the letter ra, and the Kds'ikd and 
 Siddh.-k. have, instead of rakdrdntdt, the usual repMntdt. I have omitted, of course, 
 to quote passages of the Sutras, etc., where varna or kdra have other meanings than 
 "letter." 
 
38 yARNA.-KARA. 
 
 is merely a matter of chance, not of necessity ; compare the ad- 
 ditional instances of the note 35} — while varna is joined merely to 
 vowels and to such consonants as are without a vowel sound^^ {cf. 
 Sdtra, YII. 4, 53). 
 
 This circumstance is significant, but at once intelligible, if 
 we draw a distinction between a spoken sound and a written 
 letter. To sound a consonant (^, ^, />, etc.) we must combine 
 it with a vowel ; in writing, we may omit that vowel, and should 
 omit it, unless it have its own peculiar value : the spoken k 
 has a different value to the written A'a, which means h and a. 
 Unless, therefore, Panini intended, for instance, to give a rule on 
 y and a, he could not employ a term ya, which merely refers to 
 the spoken sound y\ or, if he did so, he would have had to give a 
 special rule to the effect that the sound a in this combination is 
 mute or insignificant, as he has given various rules to a similar 
 effect when he employs for his technical purposes anuhandhas or 
 letters without significance. Now, such a rule on the suppression 
 of vowels which appear ia his grammar, but are not to be sounded 
 when the word with which they are combined becomes a spoken 
 word, is given by him (I. 3, 2), but for a distinct and special pur- 
 pose, and not with the intent of general application ; a vowel, such 
 as it is treated in this rule, is (and ought to have been always edited 
 with the appropriate sign) anundsika. Therefore, when Panini gives 
 a rule in which the vowel a is appended to a consonant, but value- 
 less, — though the absence of its value would not follow from the rule 
 quoted (I. 3, 2) or otherwise, — the commentators notice such an ex- 
 ceptional case as worthy of a special remark, and defend it in their 
 fashion if they deem it advisable.'' In other words, expressions like 
 a-kdra, i-kdra, u-kdra^ etc., and a-varna^ i-vania, u-varm, etc., are 
 
 ^ Pdnini never uses varna of a consonant followed by the vowel a ; but the late 
 Kasikd writes ^lt\ ^^<^^t, or X(v[^ ^SldMUjl"!^. or oR^I^ l5ldM«^*i., if 
 
 the MSS. are to be trusted. 
 
 ^ The K4sikd, e.g., observes on the Sivastitra ^Tff,- — ^c|i|4,|(c!Meti|4^ '^WTT- 
 7!jT?f Hlj^-*^ : I ^rarrr <?+-*lO>Jg^ftrai 17^: Tlfd-s|T*r^; or the Satra VII. 
 1, 25 -^d^d' where the first '^ is mute, is excused by Kdtydyana in this way : t^"^ 
 
VARNA.— KARA.— KARANA. 39 
 
 equivalent, because the value of a spoken vowel coincides with that 
 of the written vowel-sign ; they admit of a doubt whether hdra or 
 varna^ or both or neither, apply to a written sign ; but when we see 
 that sa-kdra, Iha-kdra, na-kdra^ sha-kdra, ta-kdra, etc., are portions 
 of rules, in which not sa, hha^ na, sha, ia, etc., but s, hh, n, sh, t, etc., 
 are meant, we perceive at once that kdra must apply to the uttered 
 sound. On the other hand, when Panini speaks (VII. 4, 53) of two 
 varnas^ yi^ i.e. of a varna y and of a varna i, we must conclude that 
 varna did not apply to the spoken sound, but to the written sign, 
 since the value y without a vowel would be unpronounceable. 
 
 I will give some additional proof for this conclusion on the mean- 
 ing of both these words. In the foregoing remarks I rendered kdra 
 in combination with t, u, sa, etc. " letter," since we use this word 
 in its double acceptation, uttered sound and written sign. If kdra, 
 however, is the uttered sound, it will be a synonyme of sabda, and 
 we find it therefore, e.g. in the comment of the Kasika, used as a 
 convertible term with sabda.^^ This is never the case with varna. 
 
 Since an uttered sound may comprise more than one letter, we 
 find kdra, as Kaiyyata already remarks (compare note 34), equally 
 applied to complicated sounds, e.g. eva-kdra (III. 4, 67, v. 3 and 6 ; 
 I. 4, 8, Kas. ; YI. 2, 80 P.) ; and Panini, who never uses it for 
 expressing a simple letter-sound (because his terms are such as 
 apply to a written book), applies it to the sound vashat in vashat- 
 kdra (I. 2. 35). Varna is never used in a similar manner. 
 
 In this respect kdra coincides with the term karana, which 
 occurs in combinations quite analogous, e.g , iti-karana, I. 1, 44, 
 V. 1, P.; lY. 2, 21, V. 2, P.; duk-karana, YII. 1, 25, v. 3; 
 dit-karana, YII. 1, 25, v. 4 ; 3, 118, v. 6 ; chit-karana, III. 1, 8, 
 V. 4, P ; or even combined with kdra, as evakdra-karana, YI. 2, 80, 
 Kas., etc. Varna, on the contrary, is used by Katyayana and Pa- 
 
 ^ Pdnini (VIII. 2, 37) uses the expression ^t^^I, which is rendered by the Kis'ik^ 
 4jeh | 4^ '^<||^ ^. The word '5J^ is used in a similar manner, e.g., in these com- 
 binations : ffni^. VI. 2, 81, KAs'ilid (f?r being there the last syllable of 'filtfT) I 
 gij^, VI. 2, 50, Kds'ikd (^ being affix) ; "^T^^, VII. 1, 25, v. 4, P. i^^ being 
 the ending of pronouns in the neuter) ; ^JTH?!^ VII. 1, 30, v. 1, P. (wnR!^ being the de- 
 clension ending). 
 
40 
 
 VARNA.— SANGHATA.—UPADESA. 
 
 tanjali in the same manner as in Panini's Sutra wMch speaks of 
 the varm y, viz., of unutterahU consonantal sounds, which therefore 
 must have been Avritten signs. Thus, a discussion is raised by 
 Katyayana on the Sutra VI. 4, 49, which treats of the elision of 
 ya, in reference to the question whether ya is to be dropped or 
 merely y ; and on this occasion, he calls the former sanghdta, "com- 
 bination," (viz., of y and a), and the latter varna. In a Yarttika 
 to VII. 3, 50, a similar discussion is started on tha ; again, tha is 
 called there sanghdta, and the unpronounceable th, varna. The 
 same term sanghdta is applied to ka in a Varttika to VII. 3, 44, 
 and varna to the vowelless Jc. 
 
 The same sense of varna is conveyed by a definition of Patanjali 
 concerning the term upadesa, which literally means demonstra- 
 tion, and then assumes the special sense of grammatical mode of 
 denotating, or of grammatical appearance, and of the book in which 
 such grammatical denotations occur : '^ it means, for instance, the 
 grammatical appearance of the radicals in the Dhatupatha, or the 
 Dhatupatha itself; and, in like manner, the grammatical appear- 
 ance of the letters in the Sivasiitras, " the root of Panini's Gram- 
 
 ^ Patanjali on the Sutra I. 3, 2 : flfi JT^tJ^TTTIt. 1 ^14^ H.- A Vdrttika on 
 I. 3, 3 : ■ftr§' g ci|e|R|dicy^rr(^; on which Patanjali comments : ftl'S^irtd^ I oF^TH, I 
 =4|«(Rldl«Til<?<|c(^ I =4|<^R(dll4n ff%(#Wt *l^Wtf?T <^fh<*IH. (K%4yana, says 
 Patanjali, ought rather to have said ^J^' .... )iqfn; theselatter words of Patanjali have 
 been mistaken by the Calcutta editors for the Vdrttika itself ; and they of course again make 
 their appearance in the reprint of Dr. Boehtlingk, who besides, and for the sake of greater 
 clearness, adds : "Ein Vdrttika :", arid prints "^, as if he had looked into the Mahdbhdshya 
 and amended the " VArttika" from the original work. — Patanjali then continues :) ^ U«|(|j- 
 ■^fild i: I >4lfJH ifrlMf^ <*«(*< *lRMId|J|*<l<aii:.— On account of the double sense 
 of upadesa, " book, etc." and " grammatical appearance," Patanjali raises this question 
 when speaking of the Siitra VI. 1, 45 : ^i^fJT^ R-slliJrl I TJW ^^'^^ ffrf I 
 ■*ll^f*fl^^«d <<^M^m f^fW. when Kaiyyata is still more explicit: cR^rfirfrr I 
 
 tjT^ >]e(|d Tr5I«Tf i(4M«^ TT^ ■ — ^ similar question of Patanjali occurs in his com. 
 on VI. 1, 186 : ^^M^ailf^fd ^R^rfJT^ tWl^ I ^^J^filft ^ ''Stl^ ^ | 
 
VARNA.— UPADESA. 41 
 
 mar," as Nagojibhatta calls them. For when Katyayaiia, in several 
 introductory Varttikas, enlarges on the purpose of the letters, as 
 they occur in the Sivasutras, Patanjali asks:" " Now, what is upa- 
 c^esa, or technical denotation ? Pronunciation. How is that? The ra- 
 dical di's, ' to show,' (whence upa-de'sa is derived) implies the act of 
 pronouncing ; for, after having pronounced the vamas, one may 
 say, 'these vamas are upadishta, or technically denoted.' " Patanjali 
 distinguishes, therefore, between vamas and upadisMa-vamas ; only 
 the latter are, according to him, the pronounceable varnas ; and it 
 ■would have been useless for him to draw this distinction, if varna 
 itself originally signified the spoken letter. 
 
 What the simple consonantal sound is to the pronounceable con- 
 sonant, the simple vowel is, in some measure, to the diphthong or 
 combined vowel sound. It is, perhaps, on this ground that, 
 while we find a general name for vowel-letters, viz., sioara-varna 
 (IV. 1, 3, V. 7), the compounds e-vama, o-varna, ai-vama, au-varna, 
 neither occur in Panini nor Katyayana, for e is a and i, o = a 
 and u, ai = a and e, au = a and o. Their general name is, in 
 "older grammars," sandhy-akshara ; and in Katyayana and Patanjali, 
 for e and o, pra'slishta-varna^ for ai and aw, samdhdra-varna.*^ The 
 Kasilta, it is true, speaks of these vowels simply as varnas ;*^ but, 
 in the first place, it does not form a compound e-varna, etc., like 
 i-varna, etc. ; and, secondly, however great the value of this com- 
 mentary, it cannot always be considered as fulfilling the conditions 
 of critical accuracy, and cannot therefore be quoted as evidence 
 against Panini or Katyayana. But even if there were in Panini's 
 Grammar such compounds as e-cama, o-carna, their occurrence 
 
 *" Patanjali on the Introduction : ^f^ ^ ''S^^: | Nd^KUl*^ | ^ XTrTfi; | t^ftf- 
 
 *' Kaiyyata to Patanjali on Sivas. 3 and 4 : ^'W^^XHli^WW^ '5^T"«I I'4^"5JT- 
 AVhether this term " older teachers *' applies to the present Prdtis^khyas where the same 
 term occurs, or not, will be included in the subsequent discussion on the relation of these 
 works to Pinini's grammar. — Patanjali on the same Sivas. : ^[JTT^^' MM l^|4^4Wf 
 the same on I. 1, 9: (1^ ^) Trf^TS^'tT^fft • 
 
 ^ Kdsikd on the Sivas. 3 : IJ ^ ^[^^^ ^T^; on s'ivas. 4 : ^ ^ ^[fflj^ ^l^f. 
 
 6 
 
42 VAENA— AKSHAEA. 
 
 would not invalidate the conclusion that varm represents the written 
 sign, since it is the combination of varna with a consonant that 
 alone can enable us to decide the question at issue. And that 
 there are other values in Panini which could not have been spoken, 
 though they are an essential portion of his Grammar, will be seen 
 afterwards. 
 
 How far varna coincides, and is synonj^mous with alcshara^ 
 " syllable," or not, is obvious : it coincides with the latter term 
 when it means vowel, otherwise not.^^ The distinction between 
 these terms may therefore be comprised in the following defini- 
 tion : Mra denotes the pronounceable sound, which must al- 
 ways be one syllable, but may also consist of more than one 
 syllable ; if denoting one syllable, it may mean a simple vowel 
 (a, a, 2, ^, ?«, u^ ri, ri, iri,), or a complex vowel (e, o, ai, au), or a 
 simple consonant made pronounceable by a vowel (usually the vowel 
 a) ; Jcarana denotes more especially the pronounceable sound re- 
 presented either by more than one syllable or by one syllable con- 
 taining more than one consonant. Varna, on the contrary, implies 
 merely the simple letter, — among vowels, especially the simple 
 vowel ; among consonants, merely the single consonant, not accom- 
 panied with a vowel sign. Lastly, ahshara means " syllable " in our 
 sense of the word, and may sometimes therefore coincide in value 
 with kdra, or varna, in the same way that kdra and varna are 
 apparently convertible terms when they are the latter parts of 
 compounds, the former of which are a, a, i, i, u, u, ri, ri, Iri. 
 
 I have, in the foregoing observations, purposely abstained from 
 alluding to the use which has been made of these terms in the 
 existing Pratisakhyas of Saunaka and Katyayana ; in the first 
 place, because it was my object to show their meaning in Panini's 
 work, as well as in those old Commentaries which have strictly 
 adhered to his terminology, and because it would have been an 
 uncritical proceeding to confound the meaning or bearing of these 
 terms in works belonging to a different class of Hindu litera- 
 
 ^' Kaiyyata on VIII. 2, 89 : •jj) ij! f^tj t^ ; the same on the Introduction to the Sivas. : 
 ^?r^ ^I^^relWi" ^=^5 Nagojihh. : ^I^ % -gWRf -^ tI^T^Tl*rf7f . 
 
VARNA— AKSHAHA. 43 
 
 ture ;" secondly, because the date of these works, themselves,— or, 
 at least, their relative position towards Panini,— will have to he 
 ascertained, before any conclusion can be drawn from a difference 
 which may have existed between them in the use of these terms. 
 Though I shall recur to this point, I may now state my belief, 
 that even if grammatical works older than Panini had used varna 
 in the general sense of akshara, such a circumstance would not 
 disprove the fact that varna might have meant a written sign even 
 before Panini's time. There is, for instance, an introductory Yarttika 
 of Katyayana which countenances the assumption that varna had 
 such a sense in some older grammarian ; but the very manner in 
 which it is brought before the reader shows that Katyayana con- 
 trasts the use of this word in Panini with that in his predecessor, 
 and confirms, therefore, the definition I have given before. At 
 the same time, it leaves the question undecided whether varna 
 was, or was not, a written letter in this older work. The Yarttika 
 I am alluding to occurs at the end of the general introduction, and 
 refers to the following Yaidik passage mentioned in the beginning 
 of the introduction: "Whoever establishes this speech according 
 to its words, its accent, and its syllables, he is fit to institute or to 
 perform sacrificial work ; and that it is a duty to study grammar, fol- 
 lows from the words ' let us be fit to institute, or to perform sacri- 
 ficial work.'"*^ The Yarttika then says: '■'•akshara, you must 
 
 *'' Tliis confusion, unhappily, does not seldom occur in the definition of woi-ds, as 
 found in our dictionaries; thus, -4(4^^ is used by Ydska in the general sense "re- 
 duplicated," and as applied to a dhdtii, or radical portion of the verb (Nir. IV. 23 : 
 |j^r« ?^Vf^^flFt 5«Rr: ; or IV.25 : <(<<:) l^lfd<,«l<d:); i" Vhma, however, it 
 means the first two syllables of a reduplicated anga or base (VI. 1, 5) ; '^piTTO means 
 reduplication, in the Nirukta (V. 12), on the form c(ae(|JK^, Wf^TP^lW^- 
 ^ f^d'TlM ^*! Id% ^^Rd<,Tl<^HT ; in Pdnini it means the first syllable of redupli- 
 cation (VI. 1, 4). To pliilosophical terms this remark applies in a still stronger sense ; 
 they have been generally dealt with as if the same term, e.g., Tpl^, "WSTt,. ^f%". 
 etc., had the same sense in all the philosophical systems, which is not the case. 
 
 ^= Patanjali : ^ ^ \jC^ tf^: <<(<.ujl i'^llt ^T=# t^^^JTlT! ^ Wf^wNt 
 
 »T^trr I wf^wNr: ^T *ig r ^ ^ ^rrar^^^i;; Kaiyyata : '^f^inTt<ft(inf^wN^ 
 
 ^SWR: (PAnini, V. 1, 71) I ^g fi^^^ ^lf tftfTT ^W^fiY ^TJITf^S^'f: («'*• VArttika). 
 
44 
 
 UEDHWA— UDAYA. 
 
 know, means na kshara^ i. e., not perishable," and continues, " or 
 aJcsJmra comes from as, 'to pervade,' with the affix sara [Kaiy- 
 yata: 'because it pervades the sense');" and concludes, " or they 
 call varna so in the Sutra of a former (grammarian)" \_Patan- 
 jali: i. e. "or in the Sutra of a former (grammarian) varna has the 
 name akshara." Kaiyyata: "For it is said in another grammar, 
 that the varnas are aksharasP NagojihhaUa : "In a similar 
 manner the term ahsharasamdmnaya means a multitude of varnas, 
 as seen in the Vedas].^^ 
 
 Before I proceed to give other evidence as to Panini's know- 
 ledge of writing, I will draw attention to two words which have 
 hero a claim to notice ; and first to the word urdhwa. It is used 
 adverbially in the sense of "after;" for instance, in Manu, ix. 77, 
 urdhwam samvatsa?'dt, " after a year," or, Chhandogya-Upanishad : 
 tata urdhtvam vakshydmi, "after that I shall say." But urdhwa 
 means, originally, " upwards, above, high, or (in combination with 
 an ablative) higher." It is possible to conceive progress as an act 
 of rising, when the sense " after " would follow from this latter 
 acceptation. But it is more probable that the metaphorical sense 
 of the word was first applied to passages in books, — where it is 
 frequently used in this way, — before it became a more general one ; 
 and, if so, the figure would naturally follow from the description I 
 have given of a Hindu book ; for the beginning of a Sanskrit MS., 
 — as may still be seen in some of the oldest specimens, — was at the 
 bottom of the pile of leaves which constitute its bulk. What is 
 "above," in a Hindu book, is, therefore, "after;" while, with us, 
 the term "above" denotes the opposite sense, from the circum- 
 stance of the progress of our books being a descending one. And 
 this assumption is corroborated by a second synonymous word, 
 viz.: udaya, which also means, originally, "going upwards," and 
 
 « K%dyana : ^^(^ ^ '^ f^<i|ldL II ^^mtttl ^ ^'^T^ II ^l^ TI^: ^^ ■ 
 Patanjali (on the latter) : -^«|<m U^.H% ^(U^N^f^fd ^'Sjj Hh^ri ; Kaiyyata : 
 'i^f5 T^ 1 =*ll<*<imnl<; ^T§T "^^TWVfrr =H«1K- ; Nagojibhatta 
 
 ^<l€^^ ^ftfTrg^^ ^ *rR: i Tt# ^'^^iflnaT^ x^^m ^"Rk^m^ 
 
SWARITET.— ANUDA TTET. 45 
 
 tlien, "after, following," and which, moreover, is never used iu 
 this sense, except of passages in books. It occurs frequently thus 
 in the Pratisakhyas ; but, for the reasons stated before, I content 
 myself with quoting, for its occurrence in Panini, the Sutra 
 VIII. 4, 67.*' 
 
 " If writing," says Miiller, " had been known to Panini, some 
 of his grammatical terms would surely point to the graphical 
 appearance of words. I maintain that there is not a single 
 word in Panini's terminology which presupposes the existence of 
 writing " (p. 507). 
 
 As Weber, in his " Indische Studien" (vol. iv. p. 89), had 
 already mentioned two grammatical terms of " Panini,'' viz., swa- 
 ritet and uddttet, which he considers as "founded on graphical 
 appearance," I cannot suppose that Miiller has overlooked the 
 remark of this scholar, but must assume that he has silently re- 
 jected it, either on account of its incorrectness or its ineonclusive- 
 ness. It is true, that the latter term does not occur at all in the 
 Siitras of Panini, nor the former, such as it is given by Weber ; 
 but, in the first place, there can be no doubt that, in the Siitra 
 I. 3, 72, swaritanitas must be analysed swaritetas and nitas (comp. 
 the commentaries), and on the other hand, Miiller can neither have 
 ignored that Panini's expression, aniiddttangitas (I. 3, 12), is 
 equivalent to anuddttetas and ngitas, nor that the term anuddttet 
 distinctly occurs in the rules III. 2, 149 and YI. 1, 186. His 
 absolute silence on this point was probably, therefore, not caused 
 by Weber's partial inaccuracy, but by the reference the latter 
 gives when naming these terms, — the reference to Dr. Boehtlingk's 
 "Comment" on the Sutra I. 3, 11. For it must be readily ad- 
 mitted that the gloss of this writer is quite enough to raise the 
 strongest apprehensions as to the sanity of Panini, provided that 
 it does not induce the reader to arrive at a peculiar view of the 
 
 " For the same reasons I do not avail myself of the word ^t>iRi " above," though 
 it occurs in the same sense, "after," e.g., in KdtyAyana's Prdtis'dkhya, I. 33. (The 
 word ■jjvm^«l is used in the sense "before," e.g., in Uvata's com. on this PrAtisdkhya, 
 I. 85 ; ^xr Rmd, . in the sense " after," e.g., in the introduction of the Jaiminiya- 
 nyAya-mAld-vistara). 
 
46 SWAEITA, THE MARK OF AN ADHIKARA. 
 
 fitness of Panini's " editor " himself to compose a comment on this 
 great grammarian/' 
 
 I must, therefore, while rejecting Weber's reference, defend 
 first his quotation of the Siitra with the assistance of Katya- 
 
 ^ I subjoin a literal copy of this gloss, which but poorly illustrates the character 
 of the second volume of Dr. Boehtlingk's "edition" of Pdnini. It runs thus: — "Wo 
 ,der Circumflex gestanden hat, wll ich nicht entscheiden ; wenn zu Panini's Zeiten 
 die Accente in der gewohnlichen Schrift nicht gebraucht wurden, konnte der Cir- 
 cumflex iiber einen beliebigen Buchstabcn des adhikdra gesetzt werden, ohne Venvir- 
 ning- hervorzubringen. Die Handschriften unseres Grammatikers, die ich verglichen 
 babe, sind alle aus der neusten Zeit und bezeichnen dicsen Accent ebenso wenig wie 
 die nasalen Vocale im upadeqa. Wenn ich 2 vdrtikas zu unserer Kegel recht verstehe, 
 so wurde bei einem adhikdra ein Buchstabe angefiigt (der vielleicht der Trager des 
 Circumflex war) und zwar so oft als der adhikdra in der Polg-e erganzt werden 
 musste ; konnte er nicht so weit erganzt werden, dann musste man ihn die fehlenden 
 3Iale bei den vorhergehenden (?) Regeln erganzeii. Hier die beiden vdrtika's selbst : 
 
 *rTf% 'flTIWff ^fJT "Wffl^ II R II •" Translation : " Where the circumflex [.tic., 
 this rendering of swarifa shows that the writer has no idea of the nature of this 
 accent] was placed, / will not decide (sic. /) ; if, at the time of Pdnini, accents 
 were not used in common wxiting, the circumflex could be put over any letter of 
 an adhikdra without causing confusion. Tlie MSS. of our grammarian which I 
 have compared (sic) are all of the most recent date, and mark this accent as little 
 as the nasal vowels in the upadesa. If I understand rightly two Vdrttikas to our 
 rule, a letter (which, perhaps, was the bearer of the circumflex) was added to an 
 adhikdra : that is to say, as often as the adhikdra had to be supplied in the sequel ; if 
 it could not be supplied so often, one had to supply it when wanted, at the preceding 
 (.') [this query belongs to Dr. B.] rules. Here are the two Vdrttikas themselves : [then 
 follow the Sanskrit words as given above]. — The latter words (" if it could not," etc.) 
 are beyond my comprehension ; for, what reasons could prevent an adhikdra from being 
 supplied, and if there was such an obstructed adhikdra, how could it be supplied 
 at a preceding rule ? I doubt, however, whether this sentence, which is intended to 
 represent the meaning of the second VArttika as quoted above, was understood by its 
 own author. But the very words of this " Vdrttika" revenge themselves on the person 
 who has ill-used them so much : they betray the character of the work which has com- 
 mented on them. For, however intelligible they are in themselves, it must be observed 
 that the Calcutta Pandits have made a mistake in the wording of this Virttika. Dr. 
 Boehtliugk, therefore, in giving himself the appearance of having quoted a rule labori- 
 ously examined in an original work, is simply detected in reprinting, without any exami- 
 nation whatever, the eiTor of the Calcutta editors. And this, I may add, is generally 
 the case in his " comment." Tlie fact, in short, is this : — the Kdsikd and Siddh.-k. have 
 no Vdrttikas on this Sutra, and in the MahAbhAshya the ivoi'ds given belong to two dis- 
 
SWAEITA, THE MARK OF AN ADHIKARA. 47 
 
 yana and Patanjali. Panini says (I. 3, 11): "An adhilcdra^ or 
 heading rule (will be recognized in my Grammar) by the accent 
 swaritay*^ Upon this Patanjali remarks: "Why does he say 
 
 that?" — Vdrttika: "An adhikara to every rule belonging 
 
 to it; its object is to avoid a (repeated) designation." — Patan- 
 jali : " ' An adhikara (says Katyayana) is made (so as to 
 
 tinct passag;es, which have been erroneously contracted by the Pandits into one ; viz., to 
 a passage of a Vdrttilia, ^TTRT l||4e|TJ«|4{^, and to a passage from the commentai-y of 
 Patanjali : IJErf^ H|J=|-«t«i ^^^W^ I TITT^ l[f?r ^W^TRl (" K%^yana ought to 
 have said — instead of TTf^ . ITT^fi with a word following in the ablative"). The second 
 of these passages is therefore merely a coiTection, by Patanjali, of the vague expression 
 of Katydyana, and the ^(r( c|7hci|f(^ which conveys the correction, becomes purposeless, 
 or assumes a different bearing, in the version of the Calcutta edition. And I may add, 
 that the Pandits have erred, too, in publishing what is their first Viirttika, for they 
 mistook the comment of, and a quotation made by, Patanjali, for the text of a Vdrttika. 
 Tlie reprint has been, of course, as conscientious in the latter case as in the former. 
 Compare for both Vdrttikas the following note with its translation. But to show in 
 its proper light the astounding explanation of Dr. Boehtlingk on this second Vdrttika, I 
 shall illustrate his ingenuity by taking some instances of the Kdsikd, as quoted in its 
 comment on this Sutra, and apply to them his comment on the first Vdrttika. Accord- 
 ing to the Kdsikd, the Sutras VI. 4, 129 ; III. 1, 91 ; VI. 4, 1 ; IV. 1, 1 ; III. 1, 1, are 
 among those marked with a swarita, to indicate that they are adhikdras ; the first of 
 these adhikdras extends over 47, the second over 541, the third over 613, the fourth over 
 1190, and the fifth over 1821 Stitras. If we credit, therefore, the explanation of Dr. 
 Boehtlingk, a letter of the alphabet (he does not say which ; probably, therefore, any 
 one) was added, perhaps, as he says in the parenthesis, as the bearer of this swarita, 
 " that is to say, as often as the adhikdra had to be supplied in the sequel." In other 
 words, in the five instances quoted such a letter was added to the Siitra VI. 4, 129, 
 47 times, and so on to the other Stitras severally 541, 613, 1190, and 1821 times ! And 
 this method, he conceives, had been devised in a kind of literature, where shortness is 
 the chief object, and where " an author rejoiceth in the economizing of half a short 
 vowel as much as in the birth of a son." Surely, it requires neither knowledge nor 
 scholarship, but merely something else, to deter a rational writer from eliciting such a 
 sense from a sane book. 
 
 *" Pdniui I. 3, 11: ^ (X.rtM I f^ eh ! < : — Patanjali : f^RJI^fil^g^^ .—Vdrttika 
 omitted in the Calc. ed. at this Sdtra, but mentioned VI. 1, 158, where it occurs as a quota- 
 tion) 'jifvjtftn. ; wf?t«(l'i d*^ ifii'^im>5:— Patanjali = '^jf^^^rn:'' f^R^ irfrnrt'i 
 w^rrf^f^sTT^ Tt^ I Rif*i4 tird4^Jif*(fd I ^ft^ ^ft^ "nfrT wV^i\\*\ •^ft^ "^ 
 
 cT^ ^'j m^^ftfrT— Kaiyyata: t=< R.'H^d^t^d'sl ^^ ^WNT I ^tt^TlfiJ- 
 
48 SWARITA, THE MARK OF AN ADHIKARA. 
 
 apply) to every rule belonging to it ; its object is to avoid 
 a (repeated) designation.' What docs that mean, ' to every 
 rule belonging to it?' 'To every rule belonging to it,' means 
 in reference to each such rule; and he wants to imply that 
 I must not make special mention (of the adhikara) in each such 
 rule," — Kaiyyata : " The words, ' by the accent swarita' [in Sanskrit 
 it is only one word], are the third case in the sense of ' such and 
 such a mark' (as ruled by Panini, II. 3, 21) ; i.e. an adhikara is 
 marked with the accent swarita. The plan to mark words which 
 are in the Sutra with the swarita, is merely devised in order 
 that the adhikara may become recognizable, lut it has nothing to 
 do with practical application [i.e. the swarita is not pronounced]. 
 The word adhikara either expresses a condition or it expresses an act ; 
 in common language, adhikara is the same as viniyoga, or appoint- 
 ment to an office ; and this is understood here. Patanjali asks : 
 'Why does Panini say that ?' This question means : Will there be 
 (in his grammar) as in common language, a connection of the matter 
 treated under the same head, because the subjects refer necessarily 
 to one another, and the like ?" .... [Then follows in the Bhashya 
 a discussion of Patanjali, the purport of which is to show that the 
 word adhikara^ which literally means superintendence^ government, 
 has, in grammar, an analogous sense to that which it has in com- 
 mon life]. — Vdrttika: "But (there is) no knowing how far an 
 adhikara goes." — Patanjali (repeats these words in the manner we 
 
 T!^ "HfMWdtfH W^'. ■— Vdrttika (omitted in the Calc. ed.) 
 
 ^>4=hKMR*llU!llJI«i g— Patanjali: ^rf^^chKyR+IHm-slH ^ *RtW I T 
 -SJNd Ri*<«rl*l=(fy*lfVi|<=hlO' 5^^<T 1^ .—Vdrttika (omitted in the Calc. ed.) 
 ^»fv|<*H.Mr<*1H<!-slHI«(' g— Patanjali: ^fych|<Mf<44H!j-s|Hls5*ic( TT^ ^ft'ft 
 
 •fcKMRillui W R-SjIfJ+i I V^ T^rrfiT *<)RTi^iry<*r<. ?;f?r— Kaiyyata: 
 
SWARITA, THE MARK OF AN ADHIKAEA. 49 
 
 have seen before, adding the ellipsis 'there is,' as he usually 
 repeats the words of a Yarttika which he explains, in order to 
 ensure its proper text, and then continues) : " These words mean : 
 It might not be known to what limit an adhikara is applicable." 
 — Vdrttika : " However, that the extent of an adhikara might be 
 known." — Patanjali: "Just that the extent of an adhikara might 
 be known, on that account this rule (I. 3, 11) had to be uttered ; 
 in other words, that I may know how far an adhikara goes. But 
 again, how can the extent of an adhikara be known through the 
 Sutra, which says *an adhikara (will be recognized in my grammar) 
 by the accent swarita,' so that I could say : ' the adhikara (is recog- 
 nized) by the accent swarita?'" — Kaiyyata: " 'But, there is no 
 knowing how far an adhikara goes,' says the Varttika ; for instance, 
 does adhikara III. 1,91, stop before the Sutra III. 4, 78, or does 
 it go to the end of the (third) book ? Does the adhikara VI. 4, 1, 
 stop before the Sutra YI. 4, 78, or does it go to the end 
 of the seventh book?" — Patanjali: "Since, as soon as (another) 
 swarita is seen^ there is an end of the adhikara (indicated by 
 the previous swarita) ; by what means, then, can there be 
 now an adhikara ? Adhikara is (as we have seen) a term of 
 common life. Now, if you say there is no such adhikara 
 (meant in this grammar), why was it said before [in a previous 
 discussion], ' that a new injunction stopping (the applicability 
 of the adhikara), a paribhasha (had to be given).' Therefore 
 on account of an adhikara this rule had to be uttered." — 
 Kaiyyata : " ("When Patanjali says), ' As soon as (another) swarita 
 
 Patanjali: ^f^ t§lfW<*lO' T ^l^dlfd ^^<^l»n*<ry<*lO ff^^rfW I 
 R«J<i«**d<illfM(X*rr^ffr l '4lfy4KI«i*}<^ «T^^ ^^Ipft =l(*«*i: — Kaiyyata.- 
 
 — Patanjali: spif ^tjfm^ | ^fV4««iKMf<*<Hm-slH f^ft I —Vdrttika: ZTR- 
 fH^ 4Hj'N'M*dNd l <riJ|lRfd c|-«('i i rcH'^4< — Patanjali: 4)Nfd«n 5^- 
 ^W^ dl«l<fl <nJIHfy'*lO 4^«<^«f Tf^ «!*<*(*{.— Kaiyyata : <4|e|ff|«( X^ I 
 
 7 
 
50 SWARITA, THE MARK OF AN ADHIKARA. 
 
 is seen^ etc., (his words mean) : to stop the (applicability of an) 
 adhikara on a subject-matter, the plan is devised to mark another 
 word with the swarita ; thus, because the swarita mark is seen 
 in the Sutra Y. 1, 32, it must be inferred that the applicability 
 of the adhikara, V. 1, 30 (which also was marked with the 
 swarita) has ceased." — Patanjali: "Now, has not Katyayana 
 said, ' But there is no knowing how far an adhikara goes ? ' " 
 (Quite so; hence the) VdrttiJca (continues): "This results from 
 what is said elsewhere : ' whatever the numerical value of the letter 
 
 tvhich is joined (to an adhikdra-ru^e), to as many rules ' " 
 
 — Patanjali: " These words would have been better quoted thus : 
 'With whatever numerical value a letter is joined (as anu- 
 bandha to an adhikara-rule), to as many (following) rules the 
 adhikara applies.'' ^^ — Kaiyyata: "Tor instance: to the Sutra 
 V. I, 30, the mute letter i (the second in the Sivasutras) is to 
 be joined ; therefore it applies to two subsequent rules ; and 
 similarly in other adhikara rules." — Patanjali: "Now, what 
 is to be done when an adhikara applies to more rules, while 
 there are fewer letters of the alphabet?" — Kaiyyata: "(When 
 Patanjali says) ' Pewer (and more),' is this comparative (liter- 
 ally, is the affix of the higher degree, i.e. the affix of the compara- 
 tive), used in reference to different species (of the same class) ? 
 (No ;) it is used in an absolute sense. (For he means) : If 
 you think the rules belonging to the same adhikara are few., 
 then (you would have to take his words as implying that) the 
 letters of the alphabet may be (still) fewer ; on the other hand, if 
 
 Tj^rn^RTft ^r<d<*i*i — Patanjali: ^«i<^TnT ^T^^fNTret ^: ^5^^ 
 
 iDJIHry^lO ig^^ ^ fTW ^i^^mC —Kaiyyata : ^^li(i<J ^ | qf^ 
 
 TT^T^ft^^t 'X^: I frar ^r^ ^ T^^ %^Tret ^rtTr:— v^rttika: ij^Erflr 
 
 HW-«I»IH, — Patanjali : ^J^srf^ TTpRR^ ^B^SfH I ini^ ^^[fTT «<fh<*|J< I 
 ^TTWRtfr t^t^TrfTItrf^ ff ^^^ I ^^il ^ <H f*> rd- Kaiyyata : ITO^g^ | '^TfW 
 
SWARITA, THE MARK OF AN ADHIKAUA. 51 
 
 you think the letters are many, then (his words would imply that) 
 there may be still more rules belonging to the same adhikara." — 
 Vdrttika: "If there are more (rules for the same adhikara than 
 
 letters), the expression prdk, ' before,' " — Patanjali: " If 
 
 there are more (rules for the same adhikara than letters), Panini 
 (says the Yarttika) ought always to have made use of the expression 
 prdJc, ' before ;' or the Varttika ought to have rather said ' before, 
 tvith a word following in the ablative.'' " [The Varttika means that 
 the adhikara then should have been always indicated in the Sutra 
 by the expression that such and such an adhikara is valid "before," 
 i.e. goes no further than, such and such a rule or word ; as is 
 the case, e.g. I. 4, 50; II. 1, 3 ; IV. 4, 1 aud 75 ; Y. 1, 1 
 and 18 ; 3, 1 and 70, ete.J Ought Panini indeed (in such a 
 case) to have expressed himself thus ? No, he ought not. This is a 
 mere question of a doubtful case, and in all such cases there avails 
 the Paribhasha which says that 'the solution of the special (diffi- 
 culty) results from explanation,'" for it does not follow that because 
 there is a doubt there is no criterion (to solve it ).' " — Kaiyyata : 
 " The foregoing words, < if there are more, etc' mean that Panini 
 (instead of giving, e.g. his rule, YI. 4, 1, as he does in the word 
 angasya, i.e. 'this is the adhikara on base'), ought to have said, 
 ' angasya prdg dceh,^ i.e. ' this is the adhiJcdra on base which avails 
 before {i.e. does not go further than) YIII. I, I (exclusively).' 
 The words of Patanjali, ' ought Panini, indeed, etc.,' mean : ought 
 Panini to have given the contents of the two preceding Yarttikas ?" 
 
 — Patanjali : f^ TT^oplH— Vdrttika (omitted in the Calc. ed.) tc((^- 
 
 ^Trf%j<*i<Jird4J«n t%wT%r— Patanjali: ^rf^gfi<j|(?r: I '^rfv^: ^irn:: i '^rf^ra 
 
 ^Tfj t^-sjl*a<^ <r^ Mr<r(»llfy<*K'irriJ^^cnfrt 1 ^trt Tf^^ etc. 
 
 °° " ^TT^rTTfTI ." The word ci||I^T<i " explanation" is defined in the Introduc- 
 tion of Patanjali : yi^l^iOT 1«^<l^<Ui ^TWt^iSrrfTT <5lr)rt^*jfc(«T ^'iTf't 
 )4c|(r( ; " explanation is giving an instance, giving a counter-instance, and supplying 
 the elliptical expression of a sentence : all these three together." 
 
52 SWAEITA, THE MARK OF AN ADHIKARA. 
 
 [Then follows, in the Bhashya, an observation of Patanjali on 
 a doubtful passage, which is the subject of his comment in its 
 appropriate place. He continues]: "What is the purpose of 
 the Sutra ? " — Varttika : " That the proper way of applying an 
 adhikara might be known by means of the swarita." — Patanjali : 
 " 'Proper way of applying an adhikara.' (Just so). (Adhi-kdra 
 means) an agent placed over, or an act to be done, placed over. 
 Now, at the Sutra 1.2, 48, the expression ^o^aw^ (used in the Yarttika 
 to this rule) must not be considered as the subject of the adhikara ; 
 for the expression stri will have the swarita. Therefore, according 
 to the words of the Varttika (' that the proper way,' etc.) those 
 affixes alone will have to be understood iu that Sutra (I. 2, 48) 
 which fall under the head stri, and, according to the Yarttika's 
 own words, there is no defect in the Sutra I. 2, 48." [To under- 
 stand this latter illustration of our rule, it is necessary to know 
 that Kdtydyana, in giving the Yarttika gotdngrahamm krinnivrit- 
 tyartham, to the Sutra I. 2, 48, intends to point out an omission in 
 the rule of Panini. Patanjali, however, shows that the swarita 
 over stri in this rule obviates the punctiliousness of the Yarttika, 
 and he therefore taunts Katyayana, as well on this occasion as when 
 he comments on I. 2, 48, for not having understood ' the proper 
 way of applying the adhikara,' by repeating to him his own 
 criticisms on the Siitra of the present discussion. Then follow 
 other illustrations of Patanjali as to the proper way of applying an 
 adhikara, which it is not necessary for our immediate purpose to 
 add to the foregoing translation]. 
 
 The passage I have given here from the "Great Commentary" on 
 Panini,- — and which may serve too as a specimen of the manner in 
 which the two grammatical saints, Katyayana and Patanjali, scruti- 
 nized every doubtful word of the Sutras, — will have sho .vn that the 
 rule of Panini, which teaches the manner of defining an adhikara, 
 or heading rule, is interpreted by them as being based on the 
 application of writing to his terminology. There are three modes, 
 as we learn from them (and the fact is, of course, fully borne out 
 by the Sutras themselves), by which Panini indicates a heading-rule 
 in his Grammar. The one consists in his using the word prdk, 
 
WRITTEN ACCENTS INDISPENSABLE FOR PANINI'S TERMINOLOGY. 63 
 
 " before," with a word following in the ablative, by which expres- 
 sion he implies that the heading continues up to that word, which 
 will occur in a later Sutra. Another mode of his is merely to 
 indicate the heading, the extent of which is then, as the Bhashya 
 says, matter of " explanation." His third and last mode consists 
 in putting the sign of a swarita, — which was not intended for pro- 
 nunciation, — ^not over any word of the Sutra, arbitrarily, as Dr. 
 Boehtlingk imagines, but, as common sense would suggest, over 
 that word which is the heading, as over the word stri, in the Siitra 
 I. 2, 48. Katyayana, moreover, indicates (by the expression 
 hhuyasi), and Patanjali expressly states, that in those cases in 
 which the number of Sutras comprised under an adhikara did not 
 exceed the number of the letters of the alphabet, a letter repre- 
 sentiag a numerical value (without, of course, being " the bearer 
 of a swarita "), was added to indicate the extent of the adhikara ; 
 and from the example given by Kaiyyata we must infer that the 
 numerical value of the letter was determined by the position 
 it has in the Sivasutras, since i is to him an equivalent of the 
 figure 2. And this representation of figures by letters of the 
 alphabet derives an additional interest from the circumstance that 
 it is quite different from the method we meet with at a later 
 period of Hindu progress in mathematics and astronomy.*' In 
 short, we see that Patanjali and Katyayana not merely presuppose 
 a knowledge of writing in Panini, but consider the use he has 
 made of writing as one of the chief means hy which he has built up 
 the technical structure of his work. 
 
 I will obviate, at once, an objection which may be raised, — 
 though it could scarcely be raised by those who treat Katyayana 
 as a contemporary of Panini, or use the Commentaries as direct 
 evidence for or against Panini, — I mean the objection that the com- 
 ments of Katyayana and Patanjali would only testify to their own 
 knowledge and use of written accents ; but that neither necessitate 
 the conclusion that Panini knew and employed, as they suppose him 
 
 ^' Compare the system of Aryabhatta, who uses vowels and nasals = ; ka, ta, pa, 
 ja=\; kha, tha, pha, ra = 2; ga, da, ba, la = 3, etc. See Lassen's Zcitschrift, II. 
 423 ff., "Journal Asiatiqne" (1833), vol. XVI., p. Ufi, etc. 
 
54 WRITTEN ACCENTS INDISPENSABLE FOE PANINI'S TERMINOLOGY. 
 
 to have done, written accents, nor that he was acquainted with the 
 use of written letters for the purpose of denoting numerical values. 
 And should there be any who attach more faith to Kaiyyata, the 
 late commentator on Patanjali, than to Patanjali himself and Ivat- 
 yayana, they might, perhaps, adduce an observation of this gram- 
 marian, " that the Sutras of Panini were read in one breath, 
 (without any regard to accent)," in order to infer that the swarita 
 might have been sounded over the word which it intended to 
 mark as adhikara.^'' Such a conclusion, however, would be in- 
 validated, not only by the natural sense of the passage quoted, but 
 by the remark of the same grammarian, which is contained in the 
 translation I have given before, and which states that the swarita 
 was not intended, in our present case, for " practical application." 
 It remains, therefore, to be seen whether this remark of Kaiyyata 
 is confirmed by analogous facts in Panini's Grammar. 
 
 Panini frequently refers, in his Sutras, not only to grammarians 
 who have preceded him, but to lists of affixes, and to arrange- 
 ments of the verbal roots, which must have coincided with his own 
 terminology. The personal relation of Panini to these collections 
 or books will be the subject of future remark ; it will suffice, at pre- 
 sent, to show that Panini's work, and these works, were based on 
 the same grammatical system. Panini refers, for instance, to a list of 
 affixes which begin with un ;^^ where the mute letter n — which has 
 exactly the- same technical value in the affix un as it would have in 
 
 '^ Kaiyyata towards the end of the Introduction : 'Q^'SfSrT ^'mUjt Mliilt^'^m^J 
 d 1 Til (^•11*1 l(^llj: • — Another discussion on adhikdra occurs incidentally in Patanjali's 
 comment on I. 1, 49. 
 
 ^ ^*H |f«^ ; compare Pdnini, III. 3, 1 ; 4, 75. — This word is sometimes written 
 ^dUJlfd ; but wrongly, for the Sandhi rules apply not only to real words, but equally to 
 the technical language of the Sdtras. Since '^T^, in 'd^Uff^', is a pada (pdrvapada), 
 it has to follow the Sandhi rule given, VIII. 3, 32. Real padas ending in TJf, it is true, 
 are rare, and perhaps still rarer as first parts of a compound ; but a word dmn ' iy 
 becomes on that very ground the subject of an exceptional rule ; its first part is said to be 
 not TJ? but ?T (I- 4, 18, V. 3). As the phonetic rules of the grammarians bespeak 
 the necessities and predilections of the Hindu organ of speech, technical names could 
 not but follow the general rules of pronunciation, and there is no cause, therefore, to 
 establish an exception for the term ^ijjlfe'. 
 
WRITTEN ACCENTS INDISPENSABLE FOR PANINI'S TERMINOLOGY. 55 
 
 Panini's affixes an, ria, or ia other terms containing this anubandha 
 —proves that these affixes rested on the terminology which governs 
 the Sutras of Panini. He speaks of bhuvddi, adddi, tudddi, — in 
 short, of the ten classes of radicals, just as they are given in the 
 Dhatupatha, and even of subdivisions of this work, e.g., dyutddi, 
 pushddi, Ihidddi, muchddi, t/qfddi, radhddi, etc. ; ^ and if there 
 existed a doubt that the expressions quoted, which contain the first 
 word of a list, necessarily imply the whole list, and in the order 
 in which the words of such a list appear in this work,'^ the doubter 
 would have at least to admit that the anubandhas or technical 
 letters which accompany each radical in the Dhatupatha, possess 
 the grammatical value which is expressly defined as inhering 
 in them by special rules of Panini.'" He refers to the TJpadesa, 
 which is, according to Patanjali, a list, not only of the radicals, 
 but of nominal bases, affixes, particles, increases of the base and 
 grammatical substitutes, all of which are " settled," as Katyayana 
 says.*' 
 
 Now, if we consult the Sutras which treat of the verbal roots, 
 we find, for instance, that, as a rule, a root is uadtta on the last 
 
 "^ Compare e.g. Pdnini I. 3, I ; II. 4, 72 and 75 ; III. 1, 69, 73, 77, 78, 79, 81, 25 ; 
 III. I, 55 ; 3, 104 ; VII. 1, 59 ; VI. 1, 15 ; VII. 2, 45, and other instances which are 
 quoted in the excellent Radices Lingua Scmscritte of Westergaard. 
 
 '" It is barely possible, however, to admit such a doubt ; for Pdnini does not restrict 
 himself to generally mentioning; radicals by giving the first word of the order, such as 
 bhuvddi, adddi, etc. ; he refers, also, to distinct numbers. Thus, VII. 2, 59, he speaks 
 of the four radicals beginning with '^^, and the rule he gives applies to no other four 
 radicals than "^^ and the three radicals which follow it in the Dhdtup. (§ 18, 19 — 22) ; 
 he speaks, VII. 2, 75, of the Jive radicals beginning with '^, and his rule avails only 
 for ■q} and the four radicals which follow it in the Dhdtup. (§ 28, 116 — 120) ; or, VII. 
 3, 98, of the Jive radicals beginning with ^^ ( = DhAtup. § 24, 59—63) ; or, VI. 1, 6, 
 of the six radicals beginning with 31^ ( = Dhdtup. § 24, 63 — 69) ; or, VI. 4, 125, of 
 the seven radicals beginning with xpjT (Dhdtup. § 19, 73 — 79), etc. In all these 
 instances, therefore, the order of the radicals in the Dhdtupdtha, as referred to by 
 Pdnini, is the absolute condition of his rule. 
 
 ^ Compare the quotations in Westergaard's Radices, p. 342, 343. 
 
 " Compare Pdnini I. 3, 2 ; VI. 1, 45, 186 ; 4, 37 ; VIII. 4, 14, 18 ; (the term 
 occurs frequently, too, in the Vdrttikas and Kdrikds,) and see note 39. 
 
56 
 
 "WRITTEN ACCENTS INDISPENSABLE FOR PANINI'S TERMINOLOGY. 
 
 syllable (VI. 1, 162). Yet (VII. 2, 10) Panini states that a radical 
 has not the connecting Towel /, if in the Upadesa it is a mono- 
 syllable and anuddtta. As the former rule concerns a radical, which 
 is part of, and emhodied in, a real word, while the latter describes 
 the theoretical existence of the radical in the Dhatupatha, we may 
 imagine, it is true, that for the purpose of grammatical teaching a 
 pronunciation of the radical was devised in the TJpadesa diiferent 
 to that which it has in real language. But, even on the supposi- 
 tion that a radical could be pronounced anuddtta^ is it probable 
 that Panini or the authors of the Dhatupatha could have 
 recourse to so clumsy a method for conveying the rule implied 
 by the term anuddtta? Would they, gratuitously, have created 
 the confusion that must necessarily arise from a twofold pronun- 
 ciation of the same radical, when any other technical anuhandha 
 would have enabled them to attain the same end ? Let us suppose, 
 on the contrary, that anuddtta, in the TJpadesa, does not mean the 
 spoken, but the written accent, and the difficulty is solved without 
 the necessity of impugning the ability or the common sense of the 
 grammarians. 
 
 This inference is strengthened, moreover, by another analogous 
 fact, which may be recalled before I give further proof from a 
 synopsis of Panini's rules and the appearance of the radicals in 
 the Upadesa. This fact is contained in the last Sutra of Panini's 
 grammar, where he teaches that the short vowel «, which in his 
 rules is treated as vivrita, or pronounced with the expansion of the 
 throat, is, in reality, samvnta, or pronounced with the contraction 
 of the throat. This Sutra did certainly not intend to impose upon 
 the pupil the task of pronouncing, during his grammar lessons, the 
 short vowel a in such a manner as no Hindu can pronounce it, or of 
 sounding, when learning the properties of this vowel, instead of it, 
 some nondescript deputy vowel-sound : it can only mean that, for 
 the sake of technical purposes defined by the commentators, Panini 
 made a fiction in his grammar, which, of course, he had to remove 
 when terminating his book. This fiction, however, being based on 
 
WRITTEN ACCENTS INDISPENSABLE FOR PAiXINrS TERMINOLOGY. 57 
 
 a phonetic impossibility, would be a very awkward one if it applied 
 to oral teacliing only ; it becomes quite unobjectionable if it is sup- 
 ported by a written text.'' 
 
 If a radical in tbe Upadesa, says Panini (I. 3, 12} has the 
 anuddtta (or ng) as anubandha, it is, in general, inflected in the 
 dtmanepada ; if its anubandha is the sioarita (or n) it is, under 
 certain conditions, inflected in the dtmanepada; under others, in 
 the parasmnipada (T. 3, 72) ; if it has neither of these anuhandhas 
 (nor is subject to any of the rules I. 3, 12—77), it is inflected in 
 the parasmaipada only (I. 3, 78). Again, from the Dhatupatha 
 we learn that, for instance, the radicals ^"ya, rf, ll^ vri, hhri, kshi(sh), 
 Jnd, are anuddtta [i.e., do not assume the connecting vowel i\ but 
 have neither the anuddtta nor the swarUa as anubandha!'^ The 
 latter term implies that the sign which bears this denomination is 
 added after the significant element. Since, however, the roots 
 named are monosyllables in the Upadesa, and since it is impossible 
 to pronounce an accent without a vowel-sound supporting it, the 
 assumption that the anuddtta and other accent-a«M5«»c?/2as were 
 spoken sounds, would lead to the conclusion that the same verbal 
 root was simultaneousl}^ anuddtta and not anuddtta.^" 
 
 ^ I call it a phonetic impossibility, since ^Sf, if it were pronounced fc|dr(, would 
 assume the properties of ■^; but as Pdnini does not allow such an "%( to occupy the 
 same portion of time which is required for the pronunciation of '^, a short '% pro- 
 nounced with the expansion of the throat, becomes, to a Hindu organ of speech and 
 from Pdnini's point of view, impossible. For this reason, Patanjali, too, who on a. 
 previous occasion had defined the letters which occur in the Upadesa, i.e., the upadishta- 
 varnas, as pronounced or pronounceable letters [see note 40], looks upon this last Sutra 
 of Pdnini as merely given to counteract the eflFect of the Upadesa ; he thus implies that 
 this is the only case in which an upadishta-varna was not pronounceable : "% "^ (VIII. 
 
 4, c8) II f^,*<vSfi<^4jit|T? I ^ehiO i^m^T^mr^T^ f%^ ^^trf^s^Ri %ffirrr- 
 
 UWTTTf%: t%^.— Kaiyyata: t^TTtftfrr I '^RiTT^n'^TTW^ TnTt^nTTTRT- 
 
 fins: I ^=hiOi*^f*<ffJ I 'ER^^f'Tf irr^ ^ffi^t^^wt i'^rpq -^Mf^a: i era 
 
 ™ Westergaard's Radices, § 31, 29—36. 
 
 ^ Other instances may be gathered from Westergaard's Radices. I must exclude, 
 however, some which arc not countenanced by the best MSS. I have consulted ; those, 
 
58 WRITTEN ACCENTS INDISPENSABLE FOR PANINI'S TERMINOLOGY. 
 
 If I had adhered to the termiuology of the Dhatupatha, as it 
 is met with in the best MSS. of Madhava's commentary, the fore- 
 going illustration would have become still more striking ; for, ac- 
 cording to them, the roots jya^ ri^ etc., are anuddtta^ and have the 
 uddtta as their anubandha. In general, it may be observed, that 
 the Sutra I. 3, 78 is apparently understood by Madhava and other 
 commentators as referring to roots which have uddtta as anu- 
 bandha : for a root which is neither anuddttet nor swaritet^ is 
 described by them as uddttet. There is some reason, however, to 
 doubt whether the latter term really occurred in the Upadeaa referred 
 to by Panini ; and as the solution of this doubt, in an affirmative 
 sense, would add another fact to those already obtained, it will 
 not be superfluous to advert to it here. 
 
 The misgiving I entertain is based on Panini's own termin- 
 ologj'. He speaks of roots which, in the Upadesa, are uddtla (VII. 
 3, 34} and anuddtta (VI. 4, 37 ; VII. 2, 10), which are anuddttet 
 and swaritet (see the preceding quotations, p. 45) ; but there is 
 no trace in his grammar of radicals which are uddttet. And this 
 omission is the more striking, as the number of roots which are 
 marked uddttet in the present MSS. of the Dhatupatha is con- 
 siderable. Nor is it satisfactorily explained by the negative tenor 
 of the Sutra I. 3, 78, since there is no other instance in Panini's 
 
 especially, which are met with in the Radices under the term ^T^tT?^^. For when we 
 read in the latter work [e.g. § 22 and § 31, 1, etc.) that W3f , ^^T, '"g^T, etc., \gs|U^. 
 lH=t^, ■^^, etc., are ^^.^ItJI: and *c((\'^h; , or (§ 31, 10, etc.) that ^, ■^^, 
 ■Oaf, etc. are >di ("di; and tc|f\r(d;, I could not adduce these and similar instances 
 in support of my conclusions ; since MAdhava is certainly right in giving, instead of the 
 term tjlf<,f}dl > the word '^SH^nrfe'Tt or \i*(4Jff|*n'^; , as the anuhandha ol would 
 become meaningless, if these roots had, besides, the anubandha *c((\_r( . The term 
 t=(t\r((t,'^ correctly indicated by Westergaard and the MSS., for instance, of the roots 
 fi^,^r^,etc. (§21);fT!rtW^,t%fgr^,f^X^(§25);^^,<JJjri(^, T!If,-^,etc. 
 (§ 26) ; g^, ^, etc. (§ 28); ^^f\ir^, firf^, etc. (§ 29), etc., for all these radicals 
 have not the anubandha af - A proof of the accuracy of the commentators in this 
 respect, is afforded by the instance of the root ^^ (§ 24, 7) which is described in the 
 Dhdtup^tha as '^«Jd (-rirt^, and represented at the same time as Tjfiij\*, for they 
 explain on this occasion that the anubandha ^ does not indicate the dtmanepada- 
 intlection, marked by the term '^•ifi (xlq^, but refers to the effect of the Sutra III. 
 2, 14D. 
 
HINDU CATTLE MARKED WITH NUMERALS. 59 
 
 work of a teclmical and important term being given vaguely and 
 inferentially. 
 
 If, however, we apply to the present case the conclusions we 
 have been already compelled to draw as to Panini's having used ac- 
 cents as written signs, we may surmise the reason why uddttet is 
 not amongst the terms employed by this grammarian. Of the three 
 accents, uddtta, swarita^ and anuddtta, the two latter only are 
 marked in the principal Vaidik writings, the swarita being indi- 
 cated by a perpendicular line over the syllable, the anuddtta by a 
 horizontal line under it. The syllable not marked is uddlta. It 
 is possible, therefore, to say that a radical or syllable which is not 
 marked is uddtta, and that one with a horizontal stroke under it is 
 anuddtta ; it is possible, too, to speak of a line added under or over 
 the last letter of the radical ; but it is surely impossible to call 
 that ' addition ' {anulandha) which, not being visible, could not be 
 added at all. This explanation of the absence of the term uddttet 
 is founded, of course, on the supposition that the system of marking 
 the accents was the same at Panini's time, as it occurs in our MSS. 
 of the principal Veda-Sanhitas ; but it can hardly be doubted that 
 this system is as deeply rooted in Hindu tradition as everything 
 else connected with the preservation of the sacred books. If, then, 
 it becomes certain that Panini knew written accent signs, which 
 were not pronounced, it will not be hazardous to put faith in the 
 statement of Kaiyyata, that the swarita, which was intended as a 
 mark of an adhikara, was also a written sign, a perpendicular 
 stroke, " but had nothing to do with practical application." 
 
 That Panini, as Patanjali tells us, and Katyayana gives us to 
 understand, used letters in his adhikara rules for the notation 
 of numeral values, does not follow, we must admit, from his own 
 words in the quoted Sutra (I. 3, 11), but there is a rule of his 
 (VI. 3, 115) in which he informs us that the owners of cattle 
 were, at his time, in the habit of marking their beasts on the ears, 
 in order to make them recognizable. Such signs, he says, were, 
 for instance, a swastika, a ladle, a pearl, etc. ; yet he mentions 
 besides, eight and five. Now, either the graziers used letters of the 
 alphabet to denote these numerals, or they employed special figures. 
 
60 HINDU CATTLE MARKED WITH NUMERALS.— LOPA. 
 
 as we do. In either case it is obvious that they must have been 
 acquainted with writing ; in the latter, moreover, that the age to 
 which they belonged had already overcome the primitive mode of 
 denoting numerals by letters, and that writing must have been, 
 therefore, already a matter of the commonest kind. At all events, 
 and whichever alternative be taken — if even the Hindu cattle 
 paraded the acquaintance of the Hindus with the art of writing 
 and of marking numerals, — one may surely believe that Panini was 
 as proficient in writing as the cowherds of his time, and that, like 
 them, he resorted to the marking of numerals whenever it was 
 convenient to him to do so. 
 
 The absence of a letter or grammatical element, or even of a 
 word, the presence of which would have been required by a pre- 
 vious rule, is called by Panini lopa. The literal sense of this word, 
 which is derived from lup, " to cut off," is " cutting off." It will 
 be conceded that it is not possible to "cut off" any but a visible 
 sign, and that a metaphorical expression of this kind could not 
 have arisen, unless the reality existed. Indeed, the very definition 
 which Panini gives of this term must remove every doubt, if there 
 existed any. He says: '-^ lopa ('cutting off') is the not being 
 seera" {scil, of a letter, etc.)®' For, whatever scope may be given 
 to the figurative meaning of the radical "to see," it is plainly 
 impossible that an author could speak of a thing visible, literally or 
 metaphorically, unless it were referable to his sense of sight. A 
 letter or word, which is no more seen^ or has undergone the effect 
 of lopa, must, therefore, previously to its lopa, have been a visible 
 or written letter to him. And the same remark applies to an ex- 
 pression which occurs several times in the Sutras ; for Panini speaks 
 more than once of affixes which are seen, or of a vowel which is 
 seen in words."^ 
 
 ^' I. 1,60: ^^j^n ^^:- 
 
 •^ ^?r%^ ^ 1^ "I- 2. 178 ; 3, 130.-^1%^ ifrf ^3?T% III. 2, 75.-^- 
 
 trmfq i^ vi. 3, 137. — ^^nPm fiiJ^ m. 2, loi.-fTjrjj^ ^ fT^% v. 3, u. 
 
 — Though in the foregoing observations no conclusion of mine is founded on statements, 
 of the later grammarians alone, it may not be without some interest to mention now 
 that these grammarians do not seem to have conceived as much as the idea of Panini's. 
 
THE VEDAS PEESERVED IN WRITING AT PANINI'S TIME 61 
 
 If it becomes eYident from the foregoing arguments that Paiiini 
 not only wrote, but that writing was a main element in the technical 
 arrangement of his rules, it may not be superfluous to ask, whether 
 the sacred texts had been committed to writing at the time at 
 which he lived, or whether they were preserved then by memory 
 only ? That the mere fact of learning the Yeda does not disprove 
 the possibility of its having been preserved by written letters also, 
 is clear enough, and is indirectly acknowledged by Miiller himself.®^ 
 
 grammar ever having existed except in writing. For Kaiyyata, amongst otliers, refers 
 to a written text of this grammar, even when there is no necessity whatever of making 
 allusion to such a circumstance. We must infer, therefore, that it was a matter of course 
 to him to look upon Pdnini's rules as having heen at all times written rules. Thus, iu 
 commenting on the vowel "^ of the pi'atydlidra '^(ef), and in adverting to its last letter, 
 he might have simply spoken of a letter eB , but he speaks of a letter-sign cR ] , " '^f^ f^ 
 i*<* !<;(!!■ t^g^ UWTfKWt Pl^cit t^rffs: etc."— And when Professor MuUer, as 
 we shall presently see, avails himself of so late an authority as the Mimdnsd-Vdrttikas 
 of Kumdrila to prove or to make plausible facts concerning the highest antiquity, I will 
 quote, as a counterpart, another late work which introduces to us the god Siva himself 
 as recommending the writing and wearing of grammatical texts as a means for the 
 attainment of boons and the prevention of evils. I need not add that 1 look upon 
 neither work as a sufficient authority to settle the points of the present discussion. The 
 passage alluded to occurs in the chapter of a mystical dialogue between Siva and his 
 wife, called Jndnakdndaseshardhasya, where Siva, after having explained to Pdrvati the 
 letters of the alphabet, concludes his instruction with the following words : Ij^ri^ I «h- 
 
 ^ ^ ^^fft '*im*<«if<4i I ^n[:^rTt^ -^mf^ f^i»n«n^r^r«nf*i ^ i.e., "if a 
 
 man writes this grammatical explanation on a birch-leaf, with a mixture of the yellow 
 pigment Gorochand and saffron, or if he has it written by a scribe with the quill of a 
 porcupine on his neck or his arm or his head, he becomes after three days free from all 
 disease ; and if a wise man, wishing for progeny, reads and retains it attentively, he is 
 sure to obtain a son, who will be like me, from his (previously) ban-en wife. If a battle 
 (rages), or the royal family spreads terror, or if a tiger causes alarm, or on similar 
 occasions, all danger vanishes in merely remembering (this grammatical explanation). 
 AVhat further shall I tell thee ?" etc. 
 
 *' Histoiy, etc., p. 246 : " The ancient literature of India was continually learnt by 
 heart ; and even at the present day, when MSS. have become so common, some of its 
 more sacred portions must still be acquired by the pupil from the mouth of a teacher, 
 and not from MSS." 
 
62 
 
 THE VEDAS PEESERVED IN "WEITING AT PACINI'S TIME. 
 
 He quotes, it is true, a passage from tlie Maliabharata, and one 
 from Kumarila's Varttikas, which condemn, the one the writing 
 of the Yeda, and the other the learning it from a written text ; "^ 
 but I hold that neither quotation proves anything against the 
 practice of writing the Yeda at or before Panini's time. Both 
 passages might, on the contrary, be alleged to confirm the fact 
 that the offence of writing the Yedas had already been committed 
 when these verses were composed. They betray, it is true, as we 
 should expect, the apprehension of their authors lest oral teaching 
 might become superfluous, and the services of the Brahmana caste 
 be altogether dispensed with ; but they convey nothing else — not 
 even the prohibition that the teacher or Guru himself might not 
 have recourse to a written text of the Yeda if he wanted to refresh 
 his memory or to support his meditation. Nay, we may go 
 further, and assert that by an authority certainly much older 
 than both the authors of this passage of the Mahabharata and the 
 Mimdnsa-Yarttikas, all the first three castes were distinctly recom- 
 mended to possess written Yaidik texts. For, let us hear what the 
 lawgiver Yajnavalkya says : " All the religious orders must cer- 
 tainly have the desire of knowing the Yeda : therefore the first 
 three classes — the twice-born — should see it, think on it, and hear 
 it.'' But how could Yajnavalkya order them to see the Yeda, 
 unless it could be obtained in writing ?** And that Panini, too, 
 
 ** J). 502 : " In the Mahabharata, we read : ' Those who sell the Vedas and even those 
 who write them, those also who defile them, they shall go to hell.' Kum&rila says : 
 ' that knowledge of the truth is worthless which has been acquired from the Veda, if 
 tie Veda has not been rightly comprehended, if it has been learnt from writing, or 
 been received from a Sddra.' " — Tlie passage of the Mahdbhdrata quoted by Miiller, 
 occurs in the Anusdsanap. verse 1645. I doubt, however, whether his rendering of 
 ^(f |<1| %^ 4 '=l°hl> " those also who defile the Vedas,'' is quite correct. It seems 
 t J me that it means " those who corrupt the text of the Vedas," and that it is syno- 
 n)Tnous with the expression e|^(c)^|i:4°hT' which occurs in the second act of the 
 Prabodha-cliandrodaya (ed. Brockhaus, p. 20,1. 14; ed. Calc. p. 12a, 1. 5). The ex- 
 pression ^^^|<f I ^ A l^chl': which precedes by a few verses {Anusdsanap. v. 16.30) 
 i.e., " those who vitiate agreements " is analogous. There is, unhappily, no comment 
 of Nilakantha on either of these passages. 
 
 "' vdjnav. III. 191 : ^ iTT'Ttfffwr^: 'ETrT^T^^ ^ I ^S^^fi'^r 'Tnl^; 
 
THE VEDAS PRESERVED IN WRITING AT PANINI'S TIME. 63 
 
 must have seen written Vaidik texts follows clearly, in my opinion, 
 from two Sutras, in which he says : " (the augment a) is seen also 
 in the Yeda (viz., in other instances than those mentioned in a former 
 rule)," and (the adesa an) is seen also in the Veda (viz., in other 
 cases of asthi, dadhi, etc., than those mentioned previously).^" It 
 is on this ground that — while disapproving the loose manner 
 in which the Siddhanta-kaumudi imparts to the word grantha 
 in Panini's Sutra, I. 3, 75, the meaning Veda^ — I cannot alto- 
 gether reject the identity which is established by this com- 
 mentary between the two words, though it would have been better, 
 in a gloss on Panini, to have retained the distinction which ho 
 himself established for facilitating a clearer understanding of those 
 Sutras which refer to revealed books, and of others which speak of 
 unrevealed ones."' 
 
 J!j^r|°i|^ fl[WrffrtT'. • Vijndneswara, the modem commentator of Y^jnavalkya, who, 
 like Kumarila, is evidently not pleased with the recommendation of " seeing " the Veda, 
 twists the construction of the latter passage into the following sense : " the twice-horn 
 should first hear (the expounding of) the Veda, then reflect pn it and thus (hy reflection) 
 keep it present (to their mind)." In order to impart to the word " to see " the figurative 
 sense, he reverses the entire, and, it would seem, natural order of the injunction, which 
 recommends the twice-born first to look into the Yeda, then to reflect on it, and ulti- 
 mately to ask the teacher to give his own explanation of it ; the latter becoming, of 
 course, more effectual, if the pupil is already somewhat familiar with his subject. — This 
 is the comment of the Mitdkshard : 'il4^l(^ci|d^l(44i|^im^dl ^T^WT^^TW^F- 
 
 •«= VI. 4, 73, and VII. 1. 76: ^.<(^<j|fl| f^ut- 
 
 ^' Compare note 27. I alluded above to the analogy which exists between the con- 
 trasted words grantha-artha and kdnda-paddrtha. After having shown that the Veda 
 was a written book at Pdnini's time, I may now quote a passage from the Parisishta of 
 the Nirukta (I. 12) : ^ *{'^\'^U'^\*^ S*^ iftf ^ffrHft rftf rf^tft ^ g 
 Y^rpST 'TWr R^Tfl^ili: TI«*<UI11! T[^ g R<5rh'i||: , which is thus rendered by Mr. 
 Muir, in his valuable work, " Original Sanskrit Texts" (vol. II., p. 188) : " This reflec- 
 tive deduction of the sense of the hymns is effected by the help of oral tradition and 
 reasoning. The hymns are not to be interpreted as isolated texts, but according to 
 their context." In this passage the words ^frtdl ifq rf^: are equivalent of TH^lfft 
 
64 RISHI, A SEER OF VAIDIK HYMNS. 
 
 There is but one other question which can be raised in con- 
 nection with the present inquiry : Was writing known before 
 Panini ? 
 
 One word, of frequent occurrence in the Yaidik hymns, or 
 rather the sense which is imparted to it, may enable us, perhaps, 
 to form an opinion on this difficult problem. I mean the word 
 Rishi. It is explained by old and modern commentators as " a 
 seer of hymns," a saint to whom those Yaidik hymns referred to his 
 authorship, were revealed by a divinity. Thus it is said in the 
 Satapatha-Brahmana that the Rishi Vamadeva obtained seeing the 
 Rigveda-hymn, IV. 26, 1 ; or in the Aitareya-Brahmana that the 
 Eishi seeing the hymn II. 41, 2, spoke it,"^ For reasons which 
 will appear from the statement I shall have to make on the 
 chronological relation of these works to Panini, I cannot appeal 
 to these Brahmanas as evidence for the present purpose ; it is 
 safer to quote Panini himself, who also speaks of hymns which are 
 seen (IV. 2, 7), and who must therefore be supposed to record an 
 impression current at, and very probably anterior to, his time. 
 This probability, however, becomes a certainty when we consider 
 the distinct evidence of Yaska, who says that " the Rishis see the 
 hymns with all kinds of intentions," and who makes mention of a 
 predecessor of his, a son or descendant of Upamanyu, who defined 
 the word " Rishi as coming from seeing ; for he sato the hymnsP "' 
 
 There were authorities, consequently, before Panini's time, who 
 
 ^ katap. XIV. 4, 2, 22 : fTtfTfinir^ftfnTt^: irfiR^ 1 -^ Tnr^R fi&%f7r- 
 
 —Aitar.Br. 9, 1: d^rllHc trSJ^T^r^eTT^ f^*j<<=ir <«j(.<:IKr«jRrd- Compare 
 
 also Mailer's " Ancient History," p. 237 : ^^'rat f^dlij 44U^<^ ffT . etc- ; 
 
 or Uvata on the first verse of the Rik-pratisdkya (in the valuable edition of Mr. Regnier, 
 "Journal Asiatique," tome VII. 1856, p. 181) ■^i 1(4^1 *l«T=ls<^l^* ' **'" N^gojibhatta on 
 Pdnini, I. 1, 1 : '4|-sjchm^s^^|<; '^^^\ ; or the same on IV. 1, 79: ij(M^^<tN 
 
 *iT=is(ar<: etc. 
 
 *' Nirukta, 7, 3 : TfggWT^%'Cf*nn%^t^Wt ^P^fS^ T^fsfT ; and 2, 1 1 : 
 •^jfl|^^«(|H I f^4{|<dd^ririM^<4^' • Hence Rishi becomes a synonyme of a 
 Yaidik hymn. Compare Pdnini, IV. 4, 96, or Sdyana on Rig-v. I. 189, 8 : -^jftf (♦{<_- 
 
RISHI, A SEER OF VAIDIK HYMNS, 65 
 
 maintained the doctrine that the hymns were revealed — not to the 
 sense of hearing, but to the sense of sight. That the act of 
 seeing may be applied metaphorically to the faculty of thinking or 
 imagining, and the term seen to what is imagined or thought, is no 
 matter of dispute. But when we read numerous hymns of the 
 Rigveda which neither express a truth, nor depict nature or 
 events of life, but which simply manifest the desire of a pious 
 mind; — when we read, for instance, such sentences as, "may this 
 oblation, Agni, be most acceptable to thee;" or "may afflictions 
 fall upon him who does not propitiate the gods ;" or " we address 
 our pious prayers to thee, Agni," etc., what metaphorical meaning 
 could connect such words with the notion of seeing ? 
 
 And we know, too, that it is not merely the general idea con- 
 veyed by a hymn, the ethical truth, or the picture of the ele- 
 mentary life, or the display of sacrificial rites, or the praise of the 
 gods, or the imprecation against foes, which is looked to by the 
 worshipper as having been revealed to a Eishi by a divinity, — 
 but that the very words of the hymn, and the very order in which 
 they stand, were deemed equally a gift from above. The various 
 methods devised by the learned to preserve the words in their 
 integrity and to prevent their order from being disturbed, prove 
 that they did not view these hymns in the light of mere reve- 
 lations of truths, but in that of revelations of words and of 
 sentences held sacred in the very order and form in which they 
 appear. Nor does the fact that there were various Sakhas with 
 various recensions of several hymns or passages of hymns, in- 
 validate this argument ; for each Sakha claimed its text as the 
 original one, as the revealed text ; and its belief was, therefore, 
 based on the same ground which was common to all. 
 
 If, then, such is the case, the word seer loses altogether the 
 power of metaphorical expression ; it then applies only to the 
 material fact of seeing material words, such as the divinity holds 
 before the seer's material eye. The inference to be drawn from 
 these premises is obvious. It seems to derive some corroboration 
 from a collateral fact. The Vaidik writings from immemorial 
 times being communicated by the teacher to his pupil orally, and 
 
 9 
 
66 THE VEDAS COMMITTED TO WRITING BEFORE PA'XINI. 
 
 tlie pupil being bound to receive them in this and iu no other 
 way, their name, as we find it at the time of the Brahmanas and 
 Kalpa-Sutras, is sruti, " hearing," or the sacred text received by 
 the sense of hearing. Though Panini does not use this term, we 
 may fairly admit, on account of his using the word srotriya^^'^ that 
 he was acquainted with it, and that the same mode of studying the 
 Vedas was already usual in his time, Now the contrast is marked 
 between "seeing'' the Veda and "hearing" it. In metaphorical 
 language both terms would be equivalent ; they would express com- 
 prehension of the revealed truth. But there is no metaphor in 
 the term " srutV " Hearing " the Yeda rests on a material fact. 
 Why should " seeing" the hymns be considered to rest on a less 
 solid ground ?"^ 
 
 To extend this view from Yaska and the predecessors he 
 quotes, to the authors of the hymns themselves, would, no doubt, be 
 very hazardous. For even on the supposition that the etymology 
 
 '" II. I, Go, and V. 2, 84. Compare also the Ganas to V. 1, 130, 133, ^ in the 
 Gana to V. 2, 88, and ^?^f^ in the Gana to IV. 2, 138. 
 
 " The title of Rishi was, at a later period, given to renowned authors, though they 
 were not considered as inspired by a divinity. The Kalpa works, for instance, are 
 admitted on all hands to be human and uninspired compositions ; yet Kumdrila writes 
 in one of his VArttikas (I. 3, 10) : ^ dM^'^fM: ^if^rW^ ^'tM^^dlct^ I ^^^ 
 
 4)f tflwi g W^ JT^Slu^rTW: and again : "^if^^^ fiT{4m4l«l5«» 
 
 l'?!^ I wW^r^Ff^rf^ <*^^M^t%rrr l and W^T^^TfTITT ^ 
 
 TTTirra ^^^ ^fft I -^l^r-li "^ :il%m: ^m^l -^dMiH Ten:, Je., " No men- 
 tion occurs of an author of a Kalpa work who was not a Rishi ; but all that Rishis 
 
 compose is like that which the authors of Mantras compose The word drsheya 
 
 is a synonym of eternal, and the quality of drsheya is vested in the Kalpa-Siltras . . . . ; 
 moreover, the Veda says that the words of Achdryas have authority, and the Achdryas 
 who have composed the Veddngas are deemed Rishis." And though these words of his 
 make part of a Purvapaksha, and the proposition that the Kalpa works have the same 
 claim to divine origin as the Mantras, is refuted by him in the Siddhdnta, his refuta- 
 tion merely concerns this latter part of the discussion, but does not invalidate the title 
 of Rishr given by him to the authors of the Kalpas. For, as he said on a previous 
 occasion : «f fJ'SI«fiT^^ ^^ U4«wr} ■^Hp^tm, 'the propounder even of a Purva- 
 paksha should not say that which is too much at variance with truth (if his P6rva- 
 ]iaksha is to be worthy of being part of a discussion).' llie title Rishi had, therefore, 
 already lost its primitive worth in the days of Kum&rila, and had undergone the same 
 fate Avhich is common to titles in general. 
 
MEANING OF THE WORD RFSEI IN SOME HYMNS. 67 
 
 proposed by the son of Upamanyu is correct,'^ no proof exists that 
 Eishi is conceived in the hymns as implying the seer of words or 
 sentences. He may be there the real representative of the Eoeh 
 who sees the general idea of his prayer or praise, but fashions it 
 with his own — uninspired — words. There are, we may add in 
 proof of this assertion, various instances in the poetry of the Eig- 
 veda, where the poet is spoken of as having '' composed " (literally 
 fahricated or generated)^ not as having " seen," a hymn ; and they 
 belong undoubtedly to real antiquity, as they show greater com- 
 mon sense. Thus it is said in the Eigveda (I. 171, 2} "this 
 praise accompanied with oflferings, Maruts, is made (lit. fahricated) 
 for you by the heart ;" or (VI. 1 6, 47) : " we offer to thee, Agni, 
 the clarified butter in the shape of a hymn made (lit. fabricated) 
 
 by the heart;" or (I. 109, 1, 2) : " my clear understanding 
 
 has been given to me by no one else than by you, Indra and Agni ; 
 with it I have made (lit. fabricated) to you this hymn, the product 
 of intelligence, which intimates my desire for sustenance. For I 
 have heard that you are more munificent givers than an unworthy 
 bridegroom or the brother of a bride ; therefore, in offering you the 
 Soma, I produce (lit. generate) for you a new hymn ;" or (VII. 7, 
 6) : " these men who have cleverly made (lit. fabricated) the hymn, 
 have increased the prosperity of all (living beings) with food." ''^ 
 And when the poet' says in a Valakhilya hymn : " Indra and 
 Varuna, T have seen through devotion that which, after it was 
 heard in the beginning, you gave to the poets — wisdom, under- 
 standing of speech ;" seeing is obviously used by him in none but 
 a metaphorical sense,'* 
 
 " That in '^^, the ^ may be a prefix, is countenanced by the following' analogies : 
 
 ^ ( = fX) ^""^ ^X^ 1^ ''"'^ '^' 1 (IWtfrT) and ^ (^^TlftfJT), fcT (re- 
 spected) and '^iffT (respected), ^ and ^^ (whence •^^•1^) f^^ (to be glad) and ^^, 
 •^^ and ^P^. 
 
 " Compare, for other instances, Muir's " Original Sanskrit Texts," vol. II. p. 208, 
 note ie3, and p. 220. 
 
 ^^ Compare ibid. p. 220 : ^S;^^^?!!! ^Tff^'^ ^tpft^ ^TTt THT ^TTJT^tW^ V 
 fTTTOT^nWl,- In the same sense Ydska says (I. 20) : ^iTSJIfdrnST^TW 
 
6S MULLEE'S PERIODS OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATUEE. 
 
 There are in the Vaidik age, says Professor Miiller (p. 70), 
 "four distinct periods which can be established with sufficient 
 evidence. They may be called the Chhandas period, Mantra period, 
 Brdhmana period, and Sutra period, according to the general form 
 of the literary productions which give to each of them its peculiar 
 historical character." In the continuation of his work he then 
 defines the Chhandas period as embracing the earliest hymns of 
 the Eigveda, such as he conceives them to be according to the 
 instances he has selected from the bulk of this Veda (p. 525 ff.). 
 The Mantra period is, in his opinion, represented by the remaiaing 
 part of the Eigveda (p. 456/!} ; and the Brahmana period by the 
 Sama-veda-samhita, "or the prayer-book of the Udgatri priests," 
 which is entirely collected from the Eigveda," the Samhitas of 
 the Yajurveda (p. 457), the Brahmana portion of the Yedas, 
 properly so called, and " on the frontier between the Brahmana and 
 Sutra literature," the oldest theological treatises or Xranyakas and 
 Upanishads (p. 313 ff.). Lastly, the Sutra period contains, accord- 
 ing to him (p. 71 ff.)., the Yaidik words written in the Sutra style, 
 viz. : the six Yedangas or the works on " Siksha (^pronunciation), 
 Chhandas (metre), Vyakarana (^grammar), Nirukta (explanation of 
 tvords), Jyotisha (astronomy), and Kalpa (ceremonial^ (p. 113 ff.). 
 
 An author has, in general, the right of choosing his terms ; nor 
 should I consider it necessary to add a remark on the names by 
 which Miiller designates these four periods of his Ancient History, 
 were it not to obviate a misunderstanding which he has not 
 guarded against, though it may be of consequence to do so. Two 
 terms which have served him for the marldng of two periods of 
 
 -^qcTi «J^g: , ' the Rishis had an intuitive insight into duty ' (Muir, vol. II. p. 174) ; 
 and Sdyana, e.g. in his gloss on Rigv. I. 162, 7 : ^TWrt idlT^^I^'STXit, or on IV. 
 36, 6 : '^fq^^^t^^emnft. 
 
 " Professor Benfey has pointed out, in his valuable edition of this Veda, the few 
 verses which cannot be found in the Rigveda (Pref. p. xix). This redundance, which is 
 apparently at variance with the general doctrine of the Hindu commentators, that the 
 Sdmaveda is extracted from the Rigveda, proves, in reality, that there must have been, at 
 one time, another recension of the Rigveda than that which we possess now; a fact 
 clearly proved also by Miiller's " Ancient History." 
 
MEANING OF MANTRA. 69 
 
 the ancient literature, viz., Sutra and Brdhmana^ have been used 
 by him nearly in the same sense in which they occur in the ancient 
 writers ; and if he embraces more works under these heads than 
 those writers would have comprised, it may be fairly admitted that no 
 misconception will result from this enlargement of Xh^ original ac- 
 ceptation of the words Sutra and Brahmana. But if he designates 
 the two first epochs by the names of Chhandas and Mantra^ with 
 the explicit remark that he has made this division of four periods 
 '''■according to the general form of the literary productims which gicc 
 to each of them its peculiar historical character'''' (p. 70), it may be 
 inferred that, as in the case of Siitra and Brahmana, he has chosen 
 those names in conformity with the bearing they have in the 
 ancient literature itself; that the Hindus, when using the words 
 Chhandas and Mantra, meant by them the older and the more 
 recent hymns of the Kigveda. Such, however, is not the case. 
 
 Mantra means, as Colebrooke has already defined the word — in 
 conformity with the Mimansa writers — "a prayer, invocation, (r 
 declaration. It is expressed in the first person or is addressed in 
 the second ; it declares the purpose of a pious act, or lauds ( r 
 invokes the object ; it asks a question or returns an answer ; 
 directs, inquires, or deliberates ; blesses or imprecates ; exults or 
 laments ; counts or narrates," etc. " Mantras are distinguished 
 under three designations. Those which are in metre are termed 
 rich^ those chanted are sdman, and the rest are t/ajiis, sacrificial 
 prayers in prose," etc.'" 
 
 " "Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society," I. p. 448, 449. — Compare also 
 Jaiminlya-nydyamdU-vistara, I. 4, 1 {pArvapaksha) : TP^T -^^ th*i, I ^^TfTW^Tin^" 
 
 TTnft^Twg^: I ^^ '4<aifM««4^% ^^rJ^wnT^^rirfi^ i ^^ ^rft ^^ ^rre^- 
 ^ <j<«tn^M*i I ^ wiri %f7i «5^iTH^M*i I ^if<u}<^ 'i i an'^°icTTH fdm.^«ii<*< : etc 
 
 —II. 1, 7 : fTW ^*<l*si(H*<^Bl«1^K<*l<{l«tT W^ TT^ri^T I ^3^ H«l^(4IT^«ft 
 TTi l^rf^ ?fi^^rtlT«(^; IR^'I'I^MT: I ^-"^(r*! ^ ^I'tT ^f^RT lrt(l«(«T: 
 
70 MEANING OF CHHANDAS. 
 
 The first meaning of Chhandas, in the ancient writers, is metre ; 
 the second is verse in general, and in this sense it is contrasted 
 with the prosaic passages of the Yajurveda. Thus the Purusha- 
 sukta of the Eigveda — the late origin of which hymn is proved hy 
 its contents — says:" "From this sacrifice which was offered to 
 the universal spirit sprang the Eichas (Eig-verses), the Samans 
 (Samaveda-verses), the metrical passages (Chhandas) and the 
 Yajus ; " which latter words seem to be referable only to the two 
 characteristic portions of the Yajurveda, since Yajus in general 
 designates its prosaic part. In a verse of the Atharvaveda it is 
 contrasted, in a similar manner, with the Yajurveda, and seems to 
 imply there the verses of the Atharvaveda : "From the remainder 
 of the sacrifice sprang the Eichas, Samans, the verses [Chhandas], 
 the old legendary lore, together with the Yajus." ^^ In the Sutras 
 of Panini the word Chhandas occurs, in rules which concern Yaidik 
 words, one hundred and ten times, and its sense extends over two 
 hundred and thirty-three Sutras ; in rules of this category it means 
 Yeda in general, comprising thus the Mantra- as well as the Brah- 
 mana- portion of the Yeda. "Whenever, therefore, such a general 
 rule concerning a Yaidik word is restricted or modified in the 
 Mantra portion, Chhandas then becomes contrasted with Mantra, 
 and thus assumes the sense of Brahmana ; or whenever such a 
 general rule is restricted or modified in the Brahmana portion, 
 
 ira-^xrr: i t^Ti^: ^r^^ ^f^Rrr T^rrsr^ ^Ti<4^m: i ^h^^tj^tit^sr: 
 
 etc.— II. 1, 10—12 : XTT^^^m^^^ '^^rH ^tR^ JT^m '^'f : I ^"ftflT^Jn 
 
 —11. 1, 13 : fTtft M'^\m t^^ ^r*^d*i. 
 
 " Rigveda (X. 90, 9): rren^r^Tc^f^^TT '^3^: ^TlfsT 5!f^ | ^^^ 
 gff^^ tT^n^ra^rWr^^TTTfT ■ Sdyana, it is true, renders ^•<^|(% with JUi^-am't^f*), 
 Avhen the word would simply mean " metre ;" but it does nqt seem natural that the 
 enumeration of the three Vedas sliould be interrupted by a word meaning; " metre," 
 while on the other hand the word Vajus alone might have left a doubt as to whether the 
 metrical contents of this Veda are included in it or not. 
 
 ™ Atharv. XI. 7, .24 : •^^q-; ^TRTflr ^^^^^it^ ^TTO ^TfWT ^ I ^crf^^ST^rf^^ 
 
 etc. — In this sentence Chhandas is separated from the word Yajus by the word Purdna, 
 width here probably implies the legends of the Bid'imanas. 
 
CHHANDAS.— MANTRA.— MULLER'S HISTORICAL DIVISIONS. 71 
 
 Chhandas then becomes contrasted with Brahmana, and therefore 
 assumes the sense of Mantra.'^ 
 
 From no passage, however, in the ancient literature, can we 
 infer that Mantra conveyed or implied the idea of a later portion, 
 and Chhandas that of an earlier portion of the Eigveda hymns. 
 
 Some very questionable points in the detail of this distribution 
 of the Yaidik literature will be noticed by me hereafter as touching 
 the ground on which I have raised this inquiry into the chrono- 
 logical results of Professor Miiller's work. There is, however, one 
 general question which must be dealt with previously. If Miiller 
 had contented himself with simply arranging his subject-matter as 
 he has done, we could readily assent to the logical or esthetical 
 point of view which, we might have inferred, had guided him in 
 
 " Thus it is used l)y Pdiiini in the general sense of Veda : I. 2, 61 ; 4, 9. 20. 81 ; II. 
 
 3, 3; 4, 28. 39. 73. 76 ; III. 1, 42. 50. 59. 84. 123 ; 2, 63. 88. 105. 137. 170 ; 3, 129 ; 
 
 4, 6. 88. 117; IV. 1, 29.46. 59; 3, 19. 150 ; 4, 106, 110, etc. Itis contrasted withManfra, 
 for instance, I. 2, 36 (comp. 34. 35. 37) ; HI. 2, 73 (comp. 71. 72) ; Mith Brdhmana, for * 
 instance, IV. 2, 66; IV. 3, 106 (comp. 105). — The meaning "desire" of the word 
 chhandas has not been mentioned above, as being irrelevant for the present purpose ; 
 nor was it necessary to give passages from Pdnini where the woi-d has the general sense 
 
 " metre," such as III. 3, 34, etc., or as base becomes the subject of rules respecting its 
 derivatives.^ — Professor Weber has adverted in his " Indische Studien" (vol. i. p. 29 note) 
 to the manner in which Pdnini has used chhandas ; he defines it, however, as meaning 
 first, " desire ;'' then " a prayer of desire, prayer, mantra, contrasted with brdhmana, 1\. 
 2, 66 ; then in a more extended sense, even brdhmandrtham. III. 2, 73" [or shall this 
 mean, asks he, brdhmananirdsdrtham ? Certainly not, for the word is contrasted in 
 ^11. 2, 73 with tlie wcwd mantra of III. 2, 71 (72), and implies therefore in this Siitra 
 the sense brdhmana'] ; and then " in the widest sense, generally, veda, as contrasted with 
 lohe, bhdshdi/dm and its slokaB(IV. 3, 102 ra)." [The latter instance is not happy, since it 
 belongs to a Vdrttika of tlie Kds'ikd, and since there are more than a hundred Sutras 
 of Pdiiini which might have been referred to for the corroboration of the sense feda]. 
 Lastly he says, it means " metre." — But this reversal of the meanings of chhandas is 
 not only objectionable etymologically ; it prevents our understanding how chhandas 
 could mean both a poetical and a prosaic passage of the Vedas. Hence, the inci- 
 dental question of Weber and his conjecture, — whicli could not have arisen if he had 
 started from the general sense Veda, which if contrasted (but only then) with mantra, 
 would imply the sense Brdhmana, and vice versd. It seems, moreover, that the sense 
 " desire '' marks the last stage of its develojiment ; in short, that chhandas means : 
 1. metre; 2. averse; 3 a. a verse as prayer; b. Veda in general, which may become 
 modified to Mantra or Briilimana ; 4. desire. 
 
73 
 
 MULLEE'S HISTOEICAL DIVISIONS. 
 
 planning his work. But he does not allow us to take this view, 
 Avhen he assigns dates to these periods severally. The " Chhandas 
 period," he says, comprises the space of time from 1200 to 1000 
 B.C. (p. 572), the "Mantra period" from 1000 to 800 b.c. (pp. 497, 
 572), the Brahmana period" from 800 to 600 B.C. (p. 435), and the 
 "Sutra period" from 600 to 200 B.C. (pp. 249, 313). In other 
 words, his arrangement is meant to be an historical one. He does 
 not classify ancient Sanskrit literature into a scientific, a ritual, a 
 theological, and poetical literature, each of which might have had 
 its coeval representatives, but he implies by these dates that when 
 the poetical epoch, his Chhandas- and Mantra- epoch, had termi- 
 nated its verses, the theological time, that of the Brahmanas and 
 Upanishads etc., set to work; and when this had done with 
 theology, the ritual and scientific period displayed its activity, 
 until it paused about 200 B.C. I need scarcely observe that such 
 an assumption is highly improbable, unless we suppose that India 
 which, from the time of Herodotus, has always enjoyed the privi- 
 lege of being deemed the land of supernatural facts, has also in 
 this matter set at defiance the ordinary law of human development. 
 But this doubt seems to derive some support from Miiller's own 
 arguments. In the course of his researches he has confirmed the 
 general opinion, that a Sutra work presupposes, of necessity, the 
 existence of a Brahmana, and that a Brahmana cannot be con- 
 ceived without a collection of hymns, the Saihhita. Thus the 
 ritual Sutras of Aswalayana would have been impossible unless a 
 Brahmana of the Eigveda — for instance, the Aitareya-Brahmana, 
 — had been known to him ; for he founds his precepts on it ; and 
 such a Brahmana, in quoting the hymns of the Eigveda, implies, 
 as a matter of course, a previous collection of hymns, a Eigveda 
 itself. Yet, though this argument is unexceptionable, and may be 
 used, perhaps — not without objections of some weight — so as to 
 presuppose in Aswalayana a knowledge of, and therefore as prior 
 to him, a Samaveda and a Taittiriya-Samhita — where is the logical 
 necessity that the Yajasaneyi-Samhita and the Satapatha-Brahmana 
 (belonging to Miiller's third period, 800—600 B.C.) existed before 
 Aswalayana who lived, according to him, between 600 and 200 
 
MULLER'S HISTOUICAL DIVISIONS. 73 
 
 before Christ ? His Slitras would be perfectly intelligible if 
 neither of the two last-named works had been composed at all. 
 And, again, where is the logical necessity that the Upanishads 
 should have been written before the authors of the Kalpa Sutras, 
 the Grammar, etc., since all these works are quite independent 
 in spirit and in substance from the theosophy of Upanishads 
 or Aranyakas. On what ground does Professor Miiller separate 
 Panini from these latter writings by at least 250 years, when there is 
 no trace of any description in his Sutras, either that he knew this 
 kind of literature or that his Grammar would not have been exactly 
 the same as it is now if he had lived much before the time of these 
 theological works ? I shall recur to this latter question ; but I 
 cannot conclude the expression of my misgivings as to this his- 
 torical division without questioning, too, the usefulness of these 
 dates in. general. They are not founded, as Miiller himself re- 
 peatedly admits, on any basis whatever.'" Neither is there a 
 single reason to account for his allotting 200 years to the three 
 first of his periods, nor for his doubling this amount of time in 
 the case of the Sutra period. He records, it is true, his personal 
 impression alone in speaking of 1200, 1000 years, and so on; but 
 the expediency of giving vent to feelings which deal with hundreds 
 and thousands of years, as if such abstract calculations were suitable 
 
 "' " Ancient Sanskrit Literature," p. 244 : " It will readily be seen, how entirely hypo- 
 thetical all these arguments are As an experiment, therefore, tliough as no more 
 
 than an experiment, we propose to fix the years 600 and 200 B.C. as the limits of that age 
 during which the Brahmanic literature was carried on in the strange style of Siitras.'' 
 p. 435 : " Considering, therefore, that the Br^hma^a period must comprehend the first 
 establishment of the threefold ceremonial, the composition of separate Brahma];ias, the 
 formation of Br&hmana-charanas and the schism between old and new Charanas, and 
 their various collections, it would seem impossible to bring the whole within a shorter 
 space than 200 j'ears. Of course this is merely conjectural, but it would require a greater 
 stretch of imagination to account for the production in a smaller number of years of 
 that mass of Brahmanic literature which still exists, or is kno^mi to have existed." 
 P. 497 : " I therefore fix the probable chronological limits of the Mantra period between 
 800 and 1000 B.C." [Where is the least probability of this date?] P. 572 : "The 
 chronological limits assigned to the Sfttra and Brfthmana periods will seem to most 
 Sanskrit scholars too narrow rather than too wide, and if we assign but 200 years to 
 
 10 
 
74 DATE DERIVED FROM THE JYOTISHA. 
 
 to the conditions of human life, appears very doubtful, if we con- 
 sider that there are many who will not read his learned work with 
 the special interest and criticism which it inspires in a Sanskrit 
 philologer, but will attach a much higher import to his feelings 
 than he himself does. One omission, moreover, I cannot leave un- 
 noticed in these general dates, since it has a bearing, not merely 
 on the intervals of his periods, but on their starting points. 
 
 Colebrooke, in his essay on the Yedas, speaks of the Jyotisha, the 
 ancient Vaidik calendar ; and after having quoted a " remarkable" 
 passage of this Yedanga, in which the then place of the colures 
 is stated, continues (M.E. vol. i. p. 109, or As. Ees. viii. p. 493) : 
 " Hence it is clear that Dhanishtha and Aslesha are the constella- 
 tions meant ; and that when this Hindu calendar was regulated, 
 the solstitial points Avere reckoned to be at the beginning of the 
 one, and in the middle of the other : and such was the situation of 
 those cardinal points, in ^e fourteenth century before the Christian 
 era. I formerly (As. Ees. vii. p. 283, or Essays, i. p. 201) had 
 occasion to show from another passage of the Yedas, that the cor- 
 respondence of seasons with months, as there stated, and as also 
 suggested in the passage now quoted from the Jyotish, agrees 
 with such a situation of the cardinal points." 
 
 "We have evidence, therefore, from this passage of the Jyotisha, 
 that an arrangement of Yaidik hymns must have been completed in 
 the fourteenth century before Christ ; and as such an arrangement 
 cannot have preceded the origin of the hymns comprised by it, we 
 have evidence that these hymns do not belong to a more recent date. 
 Nor is there any ground for doubting the genuineness of this calendar, 
 or for assuming that the Hindu astronomers, when it was written, 
 had knowledge enough to forge a combination, or if they had, that, 
 in the habit of dealing with millions of years, they would have 
 
 the Mantra period, from 800 to 1000 B.C., and an equal number to the Chhandas period, 
 from 1000 to 1200 B.C., we can do so only under the supposition that during the early 
 periods of history the growth of the human mind was more luxuriant than in later times, 
 and that the layers of thought were formed less slowly in the primary than in the 
 tertiary ages of the world."^ — But is 1200 B.C. a primary age of the world, except in 
 biblical geology .' 
 
MULLEE'S SILENCE.— WEBER'S DOUBTS. 75 
 
 used this knowledge for the sake of forging an antiquity of a few 
 hundred years. Yet the oldest hymns of the Eigveda are, ac- 
 cording to Miiller's opinion, not older than 1200 before Christ. 
 
 He has not only not invalidated the passage I have quoted, but 
 he has not even made mention of it. Yet a scholar like Cole- 
 brooke, laid, as I have shown, great stress on it : it is he who calls 
 it "remarkable;" and scholars like "Wilson and Lassen have based 
 their conclusions on Colebrooke's words.*' Should we, therefore, 
 be satisfied with the absolute silence of Miiller on the statements 
 and opinions of these distinguished scholars, or account for it by 
 the words of his preface ? *^ 
 
 No one, indeed, to the best of my knowledge, has ever doubted 
 the accuracy of Colebrooke's calculation, but Professor Weber, who, 
 in his "Indische Studien," vol. i. p. 85, thus expresses himself: — 
 '' I avail myself of this opportunity to observe that before Cole- 
 brooke's astronomical calculation (M. E. i. p. 110, 201) has been 
 examined once more, astronomically, and found correct, I cannot 
 make up my mind, to assign to the present Jyotih-castras, the 
 composition of which betrays — in language and style — a very 
 recent period, any historical importance whatever for the fixing 
 of the time when the Vedas were composed." Thus it seems that 
 Professor "Weber would make up his mind to that effect if some 
 one would comply with his desire, and confirm the result of Cole- 
 brooke's calculation. But, we must ask, on what ground rests this 
 desire, which, in other words, is nothing but a very off-hand slur 
 aimed at Colebrooke's scholarship or accuracy ? Is Colebrooke a 
 third-rate writer, to deserve this supercilious treatment ? Has he, 
 in his editions or translations of texts, taken such liberties as to 
 forfeit our confidence ? Has he falsified antiquity by substituting 
 
 *' See Lassen's " Indische Alterthumskunde," I. p. 747. Wilson's Introduction to 
 his Translation of the Rigveda, vol. I. p. xlviii. 
 
 *" Page vi. : " Believing, as I do, that literary controversy is more apt to impede 
 than to advance the cause of truth, I have throughout carefully abstained from it. 
 Wliere it seemed necessary to controvert unfounded statements or hasty conclusions, I 
 have cndea\'0ured to do so by stating the true facts of tlie case, and the legitimate con- 
 clusions that may be drawn from these facts." 
 
"^^ WEBER'S CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 for its traditions his own foregone conclusions or ignorance ? Has 
 he appropriated to himself the labour of others, or meddled with 
 subjects he did not thoroughly understand? His writings, one 
 would think, prove that he is a type of accuracy and con- 
 scientiousness, — an author in whom even unguarded expressions 
 are of the rarest kind, much more so errors or hasty conclusions 
 drawn from erroneous facts. But Colebrooke was not only a 
 distinguished Sanskritist, he was an excellent astronomer. Lassen 
 calls him the profoundest judge in matters of Hindu astronomy ; ^' 
 and he is looked upon as such by common consent. Yet, to in- 
 validate the testimony of a scholar of his learning and character. 
 Professor "Weber, simply because a certain date does not suit his 
 taste, and because his feelings, unsupported by any evidence, make 
 him suppose that the Jyotisha "betrays in language and style a 
 very recent period," has nothing to say but that he "will not 
 make up his mind" to take that date for any good until somebody 
 shall have examined that which Colebrooke had already examined, 
 and, by referring to it, had relied upon as an established fact ! 
 
 It is but just to add, that three or seven years after he had 
 administered this singular lesson to Colebrooke, Weber once more 
 is haunted by the asterisms Dhanishtha and Aslesha, and once 
 more rejects their evidence as to Hindu antiquity.'* This time, 
 however, it is no longer the accuracy of Colebrooke' s statement 
 which inspires his doubt — he passes it over in silence altogether — 
 but the origin of the arrangement of the Hindu ISTakshatras. 
 " Since," he says, " the latter was not made by the Hindus them- 
 selves, but borrowed from the Chaldeans, it is obvious that no 
 conclusion whatever can be drawn from it respecting Hindu 
 antiquity."** But he does not mention that Lassen, whose opinion 
 
 ^ " ludische Alterth." vol. I. p. 824 : " Ueber die Fortsohritte der Inder in dej- 
 Astronomie in der altesten Zeit driickt sieh der grundlichste Kenner dcs Gegenstandes 
 (Colebrooke, a. a. O. II. p. 447) auf folgende Weise aus, etc." 
 
 ^ In an essay on " Die Verbindungen Indians mit den Landcrn im ^Vesten," written 
 in April, 1853, and printed in the "Indisclie Skizzen," 1857. 
 
 ^' " Indische Skizzen," p. 73, note. 
 
LASSEN'S RESEAECnES— WEBER'S POETICAL VIEWS. 77 
 
 will have, I assume, as much claim to notice as his own, had 
 adduced weighty reasons for assigning the Hindu Nakshatras to 
 Chinese origin ; and had likewise, referring to the Veda-calendar, 
 observed: — "As it is certain now that there existed in ancient 
 times an intercourse, not thought of hitherto, between the Hindus 
 and the Chinese, and that, with the latter, the use of the sieu 
 ascends to a far higher antiquity, no objection can be founded on 
 the Chinese origin of the Nakshatras, against their having been 
 used by the Hindus at a time which is adverted to in their oldest 
 astronomical observations on record. These observations belong 
 to the fourteenth century e.g., and it results from them that the 
 Hindus at that period dwelt in the northern part of India." ^ 
 
 But, strange to remark, a year after having expressed his 
 repeated doubt, Professor Weber records his poetical views on the 
 earliest period of Hindu civilisation in the following manner: — 
 " From the Kabul river to the Sadam'ra, from the remotest point 
 of the western to that of the eastern border of India, there are 
 twenty degrees, three hundred geographical miles, which had to 
 be conquered (by the Aryas) one after the other. Thus we are 
 able to claim, without any further remark, 1000 years as a 
 minimum time for the period of occupying, subjecting to com- 
 plete cultivation, and brahmanizing this immense tract of land ; 
 and thus we are brought back to about 1500 b.c. as the time when 
 the Indian Aryas still dwelt on the Kabul, and after which they 
 commenced to extend themselves over India." *' 
 
 In short, with fantastical certainty he scruples about astro-, 
 nomical facts, and presents fantastical facts with astronomical cer- 
 tainty. I doubt whether this critical method will strengthen the 
 faith of the general public in certain results of Sanskrit philology. 
 
 "If we succeed," says Professor Miiller (p. 215), "in fixing 
 
 ^ " Indische Alterthumskunde," vol. I. p. 747- 
 
 *' "Die nencrn Forschungen iiber das alte Indieii. Ein Vortrag', im bcrliiicr wissen- 
 schaftlichen Vereiii gehalten am 4. Marz, 1854 ;" printed in the " Indische Skizzen," 
 1857, p. 14. 
 
78 
 
 THE ANUSIITUBH-SLOKA NO CHRONOLOGICAL CRITERION. 
 
 the relative age of any one of tliese Sutrakaras, or writers of 
 Sutras, we shall have fixed the age of a period of literature which 
 forras a transition between the Yedic and the classical literature of 
 India." This inference does not seem conclusive ; for neither can 
 the age of one individual author be held suflS.eient to fix the extent 
 of a period which, according to Miiller's own views, may embrace, 
 at least, 400 years, and probably more ; nor has Miiller shown that 
 the older portions of the Mahabharata and, perhaps, the Eamayana, 
 might not have co-existed with some, at least, of the authors of his 
 Sutra period. He says, it is true, in the commencement of his 
 work (p. 68) : — " Now it seems that the regular and continuous 
 Anusthubh-sloka is a metre unknown during the Yedic age, and 
 every work written in it may at once be put down as post- Yedic. 
 It is no valid objection that this epic Sloka occurs also in Yedic 
 hymns, that Anushtubh verses are frequently quoted in the 
 Brahmanas, and that, in some of the Sutras, the Anushtubh-sloka 
 occurs intermixed with Trishtubhs, and is used for the purpose of 
 recapitulating what had been explained before in prose. For it is 
 only the uniform employment of that metre which constitutes the 
 characteristic mark of a new period of literature." But this very 
 important assertion, even with its last restriction, is left by him 
 without any proof. For, when he adds, in a note (p. 69), " It is 
 remarkable that in Panini also, the word sloka is always used in 
 opposition to Yedic literature (Pan. lY. 2, 66 ; lY. 3, 102, v. 1 ; lY. 
 3, 107)," I must observe, in the first place, that in none of these 
 quotations does the word Sloka belong to Panini.** The first of 
 these instances, where Sloka occurs, cannot be traced to a higher 
 antiquity than that of Patanjali ; the second, which coincides with 
 it, occurs in the commentary of the late Kasika on a Yarttika, the 
 
 "* The quotations of Muller's note to his p. 69 are IV. 1, 66, instead of IV. 2, 66, and 
 IV. 3, 103, 1, instead of IV. 3, 102, v. 1 ; but as the word sloka neither occurs in the 
 Sutra, nor in the Vdrttika nor in the commentaries on the former quotations, I M'as probably 
 right in assuming that they were errors of the press, and in substituting for them the 
 figures given, which are the nearest approach to them. There is indeed one Slitra of 
 Panini where sloka and mantra arc mentioned together, viz., the Siitra III. 2, 23, but I 
 am not aware that any conrhision similar to that mentioned above could be. drawn 
 from it. 
 
THE BHRAJA-SLOKAS, A WORK OF KA'TYA'TAXA. 79 
 
 antiquity of which rests on the authority of this work ; and, in 
 the last quoted rule, the word Sloka likewise belongs to no other 
 authority than that of the same late commentary. But, in the 
 second place, it seems to me that these very instances may be used 
 to prove exactly the reverse of Miiller's views. 
 
 I should quite admit the expediency of his observation if 
 its object had been to lay down a criterion by which a class 
 of works might become recognisable. There is, however, clearly, 
 a vast difference between an external mark, concerning the con- 
 tents of certain writings, and the making of such a mark a 
 basis for computing periods of literature. For, when Patanjali 
 or the Kasika, in illustrating the rules IV. 2, 66, or IV. 
 3, 102, says that a Vaidik composition of Tittiri is called 
 Taittirii/a, but that such a derivative would not apply to the 
 Slokas composed by Tittiri; they distinctly contrast the two 
 kinds of composition, but they as distinctly state that the 
 same personage was the author of both. And the same author, 
 of course, cannot belong to two different periods of literature, 
 separated, as Miiller suggests, from one another by at least several 
 centuries. The same remark applies to the iastance by which the 
 Kasilca exemplifies the import of the rule IV. 3, 107 ; it contrasts 
 here the Vaidik work with the Slokas of the same author, 
 CharaJca. 
 
 But I will give some other instances, which, in my opinion, 
 corroborate the doubt I have expressed as to the chronological 
 bearing of this word. Katyayana, who is assigned by Miiller to the 
 Siitra period, and rightly so, so far as the character of some of his 
 works is concerned, is the author of Slokas which are called Bliraja^ 
 " the Splendid." This fact is drawn from Patanjali's commentary 
 on Paniai and Kaiyyata's gloss on Patanjali (p. 23 and 24 of Dr. 
 Ballantyne's valuable edition.)'^ Now, the word Sloka, if used in 
 
 ^ Patanjali (p. 23) : ft g^flTj^ MPtidH. I 'flWT THT -^T^: .— Kaiyyata (p. 24) : 
 ^-silri: ^JWgW: ^"^ ^1^ ^liTT^7^«l<lini .— N%ojibhatta (p. 23) : »flWT TW ^- 
 
80 THE KARMAPEADrPA, OF KATYATANA. — THE SANGRAHA, OF VYADI. 
 
 reference to whole works, always implies the Anushtubh-sloka : 
 thus Miiller himself properly calls the laws of Manu, Yajnavalkya, 
 and Parasara, " Sloka-works." (p. 86). It would seem, therefore, 
 that the Bhrdja-slokas of Katyayana were such a work in continuous 
 Anushtubhs. A second instance is the Karmapradipa, which is a 
 work of the same Katyayana, and is mentioned as such by Miiller 
 himself (p. 235) on the authority of Shadgurusishya ; it is "written 
 in the "regular and continuous Anushtubh-sloka," as every one 
 may ascertain from the existing MS. copies of this work. Vyddi^ 
 or Vydli^ who is an earlier authority than Katyayana (see Miiller' s 
 History, p. 241), composed a work called Sangraha, or " Com- 
 pendium" in one hundred thousand Slokas ; and there can be little 
 doubt that this information, which is given by ISTagojibhatta, applies 
 to a work in the continuous Anushtubh verse.^" And this very 
 Vi/ddi, I may here state, will hereafter become of peculiar interest 
 to us on account of his near relationship to Panini. It is evident, 
 therefore, that the "uniform employment of that metre" is not a 
 criterion necessitating the relegation of a work written in it to 
 a period more recent than 200 before Christ. 
 
 The "writer of a Sutra" which, in Miiller's opinion, may 
 help us to fix the whole period of the Sutra literature, is 
 Katyayana; and, if I do not mistake his meaning, Panini too. 
 For Miiller arrives at the conclusion that Katyayana lived about 
 350 B.C., and, if I am right, that Panini was his contemporary.^' 
 
 ^ Patanjali (ed. Ballantyne, p. 43): ^^ 'QrfcJnVr^'T M <^ f^ (^H, .— Kaiyyata : 
 ^^ J^ I ?rsrf%^-— N%ojibhatta : iin^ <4Hr^*dl ^R^^^WWt ^T^T J^ 
 llR^r^t • — This remark concerns the use which is made of the word Sloka in reference 
 to whole, especially extensive, works. Single verses, not of the Anushtubh class, are 
 sometimes also called Slokas ; thus Kaiyyata calls so the Aryd verse of the Kdrikd to 
 II. 4, 85, or IV. 4, 9, etc., or the Dodliaka verses of the Kdrikds to VI. 4, 12, or VIII. 
 2, 108 ; and Ndgojibhatta gives the name of Sloka to the Indravajra and JJpendravaJra 
 of the Kdrikd to I. 1, 38 ; but I know of no instance in which a whole work written in 
 such verses is simply spoken of as having been written in Slokas. 
 
 "' I regret that I am not able to refer with greater certainty to MuUer's views on 
 their contemporaneousness. In page 138 he writes : " K&tj&yana, the contemporary 
 and critic of Pflnini ;" p. 2-15 : " Now, if Panini lived in the middle of the fourth century 
 
MiJLLER ON THE DATE OF KATTATANA AND PANINI. 81 
 
 The reason for assigning this date to Katyayana is contaiaed in 
 the following passage of the "Ancient Sanskrit Literature:" — 
 " Let us consider," says Miiller, after having established the iden- 
 tity of Katyayana and Katyayana Yararuchi (p. 240 ff.), " the 
 information which we receive about Katyayana Yararuchi from 
 Brahmanic sources. Somadevabhatta of Kashmir collected the 
 popular stories current in his time, and published them towards 
 the beginning of the twelfth century under the title of Katha-sarit- 
 sagara, the Ocean of the Rivers of Stories. Here we read that 
 Katyayana Yararuchi, being cursed by the wife of Siva, was 
 born at Kausambi, the capital of Yatsa. He was a boy of great 
 talent, and extraordinary powers of memory. He was able to 
 repeat to his mother an entire play, after hearrag it once at the 
 
 B.C., etc." [this is the date which Miiller assigns to Kdtydyana] ; p. 303 : " the old 
 Ksity&yana Varanichi, the contemporary of Pftnini ;" hut at p. 184 he says : " at the 
 time of K^ty^yana, if not at the time of P^nini "■ — which clearly implies that he here 
 considers Pdnini's time as prior to Kdtydyana's, since Kdtydyana wrote a critical work 
 on Pdniui, the Vdrttikas ; and on p. 44, 45 he observes : " if, then, Asval^yana can be 
 shown to have been a contemporary, or at least an immediate successor of P^iiini, etc. ;" 
 but p. 239 : " we should have to admit at least five generations of teachers and pupils : 
 first, Saunaka; after him, Asval3,yana, in whose favour Saunaka is said to have de- 
 stroyed one of his works ; thirdly, KWyftyana, who studied the works both of Saunaka 
 and Asval3,yana ; fourthly, Patanjali, who wrote a commentai-y on one of K&ty&yana's 
 works ; and lastly, Vy&sa, who commented on a work of Patanjali. It does not follow that 
 Katyayana was a pupil of As'val&yana, or that Patanjali lived immediately after K&tyft- 
 yana, but the smallest interval which we can admit between every tvvo of these names is 
 that between teacher and pupil, an interval as large as that between father and son, or 
 rather larger." Now, if according to the first alternative of p. 45, Aswaldyana was a con- 
 temporary of Pdnini, the latter becomes a doubtful contemporary of Kdtyayana, according 
 to the quotation from p. 239; and if, according to the other alternative of p. 45, As'waldyana 
 was a successor of Pdnini, there is, according to p. 239, still a greater probability that 
 Pdnini and Kdtydyana were not contemporaries. Again, at p. 230, he says: "from all 
 these indications we should naturally be led to expect that the relation between Saunaka 
 and Katy&yana was very intimate, that both belonged to the same Sakhft, and that 
 Saunaka was anterior to Kdty&yana." But if Aswaldyana is an immediate successor of 
 Pdnini (p. 45), and an immediate successor of Saunaka (p. 239), Pdnini and Saunaka 
 must be contemporaries ; and if Saunaka is anterior to Kdtydyana (p. 230, and comp. 
 p. 242), Pdnini, too, must have preceded Kdtydyana. Acting, therefore, on the rule of^ 
 
 11 
 
82 MULLER ON THE DATE OV KATTATANA AND PA'NINI. 
 
 theatre ; and before he Avas even initiated he was able to repeat 
 the Pratisakhya which he had heard from Yyali. He was 
 afterwards the pupil of Yarsha, became proficient in all sacred 
 knoAvledge, and actually defeated Panini in a grammatical con- 
 troversy. By the interference of Siva, however, the final victory 
 fell to Panini. Katyayana had to appease the anger of Siva, 
 became himself a student of Panini's Grammar, and completed 
 and corrected it. He afterwards is said to have become minister 
 of King Nanda and his mysterious successor Yogananda at Pata- 
 liputra. 
 
 " "We know that Katyayana completed and corrected Panini's 
 Grammar, such as we noAV possess it."^ His Yarttikas are supple- 
 mentary rules, which show a more extensive and accurate know- 
 ledge of Sanskrit than even the work of Panini. The story of 
 the contest between them was most likely intended as a mythical 
 Avay of explaining this fact. Again, we know that Katyayana was 
 himself the author of one of the Pratisakhyas, and Yyali is quoted 
 by the authors of the Pratisakhyas as an earlier authority on the 
 same subject. So far the story of Somadeva agrees with the 
 account of Shadgurusishya and Avith the facts as we still find them 
 in the Avorks of Katyayana. It Avould be AArrong to expect in a 
 work like that of Somadeva historical and chronological facts in 
 the strict sense of the Avord; yet the mention of King Nanda, 
 who is an historical personage, in connection with our grammarian, 
 
 probabilities, and perceiving that MiiUer three times distinctly calls Panini a contempo- 
 rary of Kity&yana, and allows by inference only this date to be subverted two-and-a- 
 half times, it is fair to assume that he believed rather in the contemporaneousness of 
 both, than otherwise. The correctness of this belief I shall have to make the subject 
 of further discussion ; but when I find myself cot>ipelled to infer from Miiller's expres- 
 sions that P4niui is, to him, a contemporary of Saunaka, I must, in passing, observe 
 that Pdnini himself repudiates this conclusion, for in the Sutra IV. 3, 106, which is 
 intimately connected with IV. 3, 105, Panini speaks of Saunaka as of an ancient 
 authority. 
 
 '^ Note of MiiUer : " The same question with regard to the probable age of PSnini, 
 has been discussed by Prof. Bohtlingk in his edition of Pftnini. Objections to Prof. 
 BiJhtlingk's arguments have been raised by Prof. Weber in his Indische Studien. See 
 also Rig-veda, Leipzig, 1857, Introduction." 
 
MULLEE ON THE DATE OF KATYAYANA AND PANINI. 83 
 
 may, if properly interpreted, help to fix approximately the date of 
 Katyayana and his predecessors, Saunaka and Asvalayana. If 
 Somadeva followed the same chronological system as his contem- 
 porary and countryman Kalhana Pandita, the author of the Eaja- 
 tarangini or History of Kashmir, he would, in calling Panini and 
 Katyayana the contemporaries of Nanda and Chandragupta, have 
 placed them long before the' times which we are wont to call 
 historical. But the name of Chandragupta fortunately enables us 
 to check the extravagant systems of Indian clrronology. Chandra- 
 gupta, of Pataliputra, the successor of the Nandas, is Sandi'ocottus, 
 of Palibothra, to whom Megasthenes was sent as ambassador from 
 Seleucus Meator ; and, if our classical chronology is right, he must 
 have been king at the tiiming point of the fourth and third cen- 
 turies B.C. We shall have to examine hereafter the different 
 accounts which the Buddhists and Brahmans give of Chandragupta 
 and his relation to the preceding dynasty of the Nandas. Suffice 
 it for the present that, if Chandragupta was king in 315, Katya- 
 yana may be placed, according to our interpretation of Somadeva's 
 story, in the second half of the fourth century B.C. We may 
 disregard the story of Somadeva, which actually makes Katyayana 
 himself minister of Nanda, and thus would make him an old man 
 at the time of Chandragupta' s accession to the throne. This is, 
 according to its own showing, a mere episode in a ghost story,"' 
 and had to be inserted in order to connect Katyayana' s story with 
 other fables of the Katha-sarit-sagara. But there still remains 
 this one fact, however slender it may appear, that, as late as the 
 twelfth century A.D., the popular tradition of the Brahmans con- 
 nected the famous grammarians Katyayana and Panini with that 
 period of their history which immediately preceded the rise of 
 Chandragupta and his Sudra dynasty ; and this, from an European 
 point of view, we must place in the second half of the fourth 
 century B.C." 
 
 Thus, the whole foundation of Miiller's date rests on the 
 
 "^ Note of Miiller : " According to the southern Buddhists it was Chandragnpta, and 
 not Nanda, whose coi-pse was reanimated. As. Res. xx. p. 167." 
 
84 INCONCLUSIVENESS OF MULLER'S ARGUMENTS. 
 
 authority of Somadeva, tlie autlior of "an Ocean of [or rather, 
 for] the Elvers of Stories," who narrated his tales in the twelfth 
 century after Christ. Somadeva, I am satisfied, would not he a 
 little sui-prised to learn that "a European point of view" raises a 
 "ghost story" of his to the dignity of an historical document. 
 MiiUer himself, as we see, says that it would be "wrong" to 
 expect in a work of this kind "historical or chronological facts;" 
 he is doubtful as to the date which might have been in Somadeva's 
 mind when he speaks of Eing Nanda; he will " disregard" the 
 fact that Katyayana becomes, in the tale quoted, a minister of 
 Nanda; he admits that a story current in the middle of the 12th 
 century about Katyayana and Panini is but a "slender" fact; — 
 in short, he pulls down every stone of this historical fabric ; and 
 yet, because Nanda is mentioned ia this amusing tale, he " musf'' 
 place Katyayana's life about 350 B.C. 
 
 I have but one word to add: however correct the criticisms 
 of MiiUer on the value of this tale may be, the strength of his 
 conclusion would have become still more apparent than it is now, 
 if instead of the abstract of the story, which he has given, a 
 literal translation of it had preceded his premises; for the very 
 form of the tale, and its incidental absiu'dities, would have illus- 
 trated, much better than his sober account of it, its value as a 
 source of chronology. I subjoin, therefore, a portion of it, from 
 the fourth chapter of this work. Xatyayana, the grammatical saint 
 and author of the Kalpa-sutras, after having told Kanabhuti how 
 once upon a time he became enamoured of a beautiful damsel, by 
 what feelings he was moved, and that he at last married the fair 
 Upako'sa, continues as follows : " Some time after, Yarsha (who in 
 another tale is said to have lived at Pataliputra during the reign 
 of ISTanda) had a great number of pupils. One of them was a 
 great hloclchead, hy the name of Panini ; he, tired of the service, 
 was sent aAvay by the wife of Yarsha. To do penance, he went, 
 grieved yet desirous of knowledge, to the Himalaya; there he 
 obtained from Siva, who was pleased with his fierce austerities, a 
 new grammar which was the introduction to all science. Now he 
 came back and challenged me to a disputation; and seven days 
 
DR. BOEHTLINGK ON THE DATE OF PANINI. 85 
 
 passed on while our disputation proceeded. When on the eighth 
 day, however, he was defeated by me, instantly Siva (appeared) in 
 a cloud (and) raised a tremendous uproar. Thus my grammar, 
 which had been' given to me by Indra, Avas destroyed on earth ; 
 and we all, vanquished by Panini, became fools again." 
 
 It is almost needless for me to state, that the profound reseavdhes 
 of Dr. Otto Boehtlingk in his " commentary " on Panini, are based 
 on the same interesting " Ocean for the Elvers of Stories," and 
 have duly advocated the same date of Panini's life. But as we 
 have become already acquainted with the reasoning of the ^^ editor'''' 
 of Panini, it will not appear devoid of interest to recall his argu- 
 ments, which differ in several respects from those of Professor 
 Miiller. In the Eajatarangini, the Chronicle of Kashmir, he says 
 (p. XV.), we read that Abhimanyu ordered Chandra and other 
 grammarians to introduce the great commentary of Patanjali into 
 Kashmir. Now, continues he (p. xvii), "the age of King Abhi- 
 manyu, under whose reign Chandra lived, can be ascertained by 
 various ways, which all lead to the same result," viz., to the date 
 100 B.C. ; and (p. xviii) " since we have found that Patanjali's 
 Mahabhashya came into general use in Kashmir through Chandra, 
 about 100 B.C., we are probably justified in pushing the compo- 
 sition of this great commentary to the Sutras of Panini, into the 
 year 150. Between Patanjali and Panini there are still three 
 grammarians known to us, as we have observed before (p. xiv ; viz., 
 Katyayana, the author of the Paribhashas, and the author of the 
 Karikas), who made contributions to the Grammar of Panini. We 
 need therefore only make a space of fifty years between each 
 couple of them, in order to arrive at the year 350, into the neigh- 
 bourhood of which date our grammarian is to be placed, according 
 to the Katha-sarit-sagara." 
 
 " Every way," says the French proverb, " leads to Eome," — 
 but not every way leads to truth, even in chronology. There is one 
 way for instance, and it was the proper way, which led Professor 
 Lassen"* to the correct result that Abhimanyu did not live about 
 
 ^ " Iiidische Altcithumskunde," vol. II. p. 413. 
 
86 FALLACY OF DE. BOEHTLTNGK'S ARGUMENTS. 
 
 100 B.C., but between 40 and 65 after Christ. As to the triad of 
 grammarians which is "known" to Dr. Boehtlingk between Paniai 
 and Patanjali, and represented to his mind by Katyayana, and 
 what he calls the author of the Paribhashas and the author of the 
 Karikas, I must refer to my subsequent statements, which will 
 show the worth of this specious enumeration. But, when Dr. 
 Boehtlingk required 200 years between Patanjali and Panini, 
 simply to square his account with the " Ocean for the Eivers of 
 Stories," it would be Avrong to deny that he has rightly divided 
 200 by 4 ; nor should I doubt that he would have managed with 
 less ability the more difficult task of dividing 2000 or 20000 years 
 by 4, if such an arithmetical feat had been required of him by 
 that source of historical chronology, the Katha-sarit-sagara. 
 
 Professor Miiller must have had some misgivings like my own 
 as to the critical acumen and acciu-acy of Dr, Boehtlingk's inves- 
 tigations. For, in the first instance, he does not start from the 
 Katha-sarit-sagara in order to arrive at the conclusion that Katya- 
 yana lived fifty years after Panini ; on the contrary, he makes, 
 as we have seen, both grammarians contemporaries; judging, no 
 doubt, that two men who enjoyed a very substantial fight cannot 
 have lived at different times, even in a story book. Then he 
 adverts likewise (p. 243) to the little mistake of Dr. Boehtlingk 
 conceming Abhimanyu's date ; in short, he denies the validity of 
 all the arguments alleged by Dr. Boehtlingk, save those which are 
 founded on the Katha-sarit-sagara. When therefore he, neverthe- 
 less, says (p. 301) that the researches of Professor Boehtlingk " with 
 regard to the age of Panini deserve the highest credit," I am at a 
 loss to understand this handsome compliment, even though it 
 strengthen his assurance (p. 310) " that Katyayana's date is as 
 safe as any date is likely to be in ancient Oriental chronology.""^ 
 
 That Sanskrit philology should not yet possess the means 
 of ascertainiag the date of Panini' s life, is, no doubt, a serious 
 
 "" In reply to this compliment, Dr. Boehtlingk makes the following bow: "Allcs 
 was zur Entscheiduug dieser Frage beitragen kounte, finden wir auf das sorgfaltigste 
 
UXCERTAIXTY OF PACINI'S DATE. 87 
 
 impediment to any research concerning the chronology of ancient 
 Hindu works. For Panini's Grammar is the centre of a vast and 
 important branch of the ancient literature. No work has struck 
 deeper roots than his in the soil of the scientific development of 
 
 zusammengestellt und erwogen in einem so eben erchienenen Werke von Max Miiller, 
 einem Werke, in welchem (iberraschende Belesenlieit, Scharfsinn und geistreiche Be- 
 handlung des Stoffes den Leser in bestandiger Spannung erhalten ;" i.e., " All that can 
 contribute to the solution of this question — (viz., that of the introduction of writing into 
 India) we find put together and examined in the most careful manner, in a work by 
 Max Miiller, just publislied, a work in which surprising acquaintance with the literature, 
 acuteness and ingenious treatment of the subject-matter, never suffer the reader's atten- 
 tion to flag.'' The testimonial he thus gratuitously gives to his own knowledge of 
 " all that can contribute to the solution of that question," reached me too late to be 
 noticed in the previous pages, as they were already in the press ; it is contained in a 
 paper of his, having the title " Ein Paar VVorte zur Frage fiber das Alter der 
 Schrift in Indien." These "few words'' do not contain, indeed, a particle of fact 
 bearing on the question, but much reasoning; of which the following conclud- 
 ing passage is the summary : " Nach meinem Dafiirhalten also wurde die Schrift 
 zur Verbreitung der Literatur in den iilteren Zeiten nicht verwandt, wohl aber 
 wurde sie zum ScJiaffen neuer Werke zu Hiilfe genommen. Der Verfasser schrieb 
 sein Werk nieder, lernte es aber dann auswendig oder liess es durch Andere memoriren. 
 Niedergeschriebene Werke wurden in der alteren Zeit wohl selten von Neuem ab- 
 geschrieben, mogen aber im Original in der Familie als Heiligthiimer aufbcM'ahrt und 
 geheim gehalten worden sein. Moglicher Weise vernichtete aber auch der Autor sein 
 Schriftwerk, sobald er dasselbe memorirt hatte, um nicht durch sein Beispiel Andere zn 
 verleiten, um sich nicht des Vorwurfes einer Verratherei an der Priesterkaste schuldig zu 
 machen, vielleicht auch um nicht als gewohnlicher Autor, dem das VA'erk allmahlie/i 
 unter den Handen entsteht, zu erscheinen, sondern als ein inspirirter Seher, der, ohne 
 alle Miihe und Anstrengung von seiner Seite beim Schaffen, ein Werk in abgeschlossener 
 Gestalt im Geiste erschaut und als ein solcher von den Gottern Bevorzugter weiter 
 verkiindet ;" i.e., " In my opinion, therefore, writing was not used in the olden times for 
 the propagation of literature, but was resorted to for the production of new works. 
 The author wrote down his work, but then learnt it by heart, or made others commit it 
 to memory. Probably, works once written down, were not copied anew in the olden 
 time, with rare exceptions ; but the original manuscripts were perhaps preserved as 
 sacred relics in the family, and kept secret. But it is possible, too, that the author 
 destroyed his written work, after he had committed it to memory, in order not to seduce 
 others by his example, nor to make himself guilty of the reproach of treason towards 
 the caste of priests ; perhaps, too, not to appear as an ordinary author, whose work 
 grew gradually under his hands, but as an inspired seer who, without any labour and 
 exertion in producing, had seen in his mind a work in a finished form, and, as a person 
 thus favoured by the gods, had proclaimed it abroad." — This reasoning will not surprise 
 
°° UNCEETAINTY OF PANIXI'S DATE. 
 
 India. It is the standard of accm-acy in speech., — the gram- 
 matical basis of the Vaidik commentaries. It is appealed to by 
 every scientific writer whenever he meets with a linguistic diffi- 
 culty. Besides the inspired seers of the works which are the 
 root of Hindu belief, Panini is the only one, among those authors 
 of scientific works who may be looked upon as real personages, 
 who is a Eishi in the proper sense of the word, — an author 
 supposed to have had the foundation of his work revealed to 
 him by a divinity.'"' Yet, however we may regret the necessity 
 
 us in the author of a " commentary on Panini" (compare note 48, etc.). Yet I must ask, 
 whence he derived his information tliat it was treason towards tlie Bralimana caste to 
 write or to produce a manuscript ? or whence he lias learnt tliat an autlior could, in 
 olden times, pass himself off as an inspired seer who was favoured by the gods, without, 
 of course, being chastised by his countrymen, as an impostor ? Manu XI. 55, treats 
 false boasting — y^^ti ^^(^h^ — as a crime equal to that of killing a Brdhmana ; and 
 Ydjnavalkya, III. 229, places it on the same level with the drinking of spirituous 
 liquors, which crime is expiated only after the sinner has drunk either boiling spirits, or 
 boiling butter, cow's urine, or milk, until he dies (III. 253). Veracity, moreover, is known 
 to be one of the principal features of the character of the ancient Hindus, as, in the epic 
 legends, a word spoken, or a promise made, is always deemed irrevocable and binding. 
 It is notorious that the Hindu authorities did not look upon any one as an inspired seer, 
 except the author of a Mantra, and, probably, at a more recent period, of a Brdhmana. 
 The Kalpa works were never considered to be anything but human productions, and I 
 know only of one instance, viz., that of Pdnini, where the author of a scientific work 
 M'as supposed to have received it fi-om a divinity. — In other words, to the mind of Dr. 
 Boehtlingk the whole of the ancient scientific literature of India presents a picture of a 
 gigantic swindle and imbecility; on the one side are the charlatans who write works, learn 
 them by heart, and burn the manuscripts, in order to appear in direct communication 
 with a divinity ; on the other, is the idiotic nation which believes that the learned quacks 
 are inspired seers favoured by the gods ! It is not a little characteristic, but at the 
 same time very intelligible, that this should be the view of the "editor" of Panini. 
 
 °° Patanjali frequently, therefore, makes use of the expression, " Panini sees," when 
 an ordinary author is quoted by him as " saying " or the like ; e.g. p. 145 (in Dr. 
 BaUantyne's edition) : Ha^frf ^TRT^ TraiTW^rnft ^tTt *i<<f^ffr ; or p. 
 246, -q^lffr <<iNl<iT T ^^^*^ ^ *I^fftf7T; v- 281, -q^rfiT ^T^T^ ^ "ftr^- 
 
 -'^ ^ H^dlfd ; p- 615, xrafTi <<=)i-m4: *yiR«4<i<vn *j^(ftf?i; p. 787, tr^rfTT 
 ^M N* d^^^ir^g;<T «mi%^ ^w \f^ etc. ; but p. 658, •^^f?r irr^'^: {"■■"■■ 
 
 Kdtydy.ana, in his Vdrttikas to VI. 4, 104) | f^TJt ^f^ c(*J^U!H«i^ 4|V||rt^|i4(^- 
 'TcTTTT^t'T^ '^rft^iWrfetfl etc. — For the same reason, when Kaiyyata, for in- 
 stance, speaks of " the author of the Sutras," viz. Piinini, Ndgojibhatta explains this 
 
THE LITERATURE MENTIONED IN THE MAHABHASHYA. 89 
 
 of leaving tMs important personage in the chaos which envelopes 
 the historical existence of all ancient Hindu celebrities, it is better 
 to acknowledge this necessity than attach faith to a date de- 
 void of real substance and resting on no trustworthy testimony. 
 For, in doing so, we may feel induced to direct our efforts towards 
 an investigation more likely to lead to a solid result, — I 
 mean the investigation of the internal evidence afforded by the 
 ancient literature — as to the position of Panini relatively to 
 the works which are its chief representatives. If we could 
 succeed in establishing this position, or, at least, in deter- 
 mioing the critical means by which this end could be obtained, 
 future research iato the chronology of Sanskrit literature would 
 have, at least, some ground to build upon, as well as a test by 
 which to recognise the place that may be allotted to many im- 
 portant works within the structure raised. 
 
 In making an attempt in this direction, we feel our immediate 
 interest naturally engaged by the question whether Panini and 
 Katyayana (the author of the Varttikas), were in reality contem- 
 poraries or not, whatever be the age at which they lived. As a 
 substantial record of these Yarttikas is met with in no other work 
 than the '' Great Commentary" of Patanjali, it will first be ne- 
 cessary for us to examine the literature embodied or alluded to, 
 in the Mahabhashya, so far as it bears on this inquiry, in 
 order to ascertaiu what portion of this literature is anterior to 
 Katyayana, and what portion belongs to his OAvn authorship. "We 
 may consult for this purpose, Kaiyyata, the principal commentator 
 on Patanjali ; but we need not descend to the recent period of 
 the Kasika, the Siddhanta-kaumudi, the commentaries of Nagesa, 
 Purushottama, or other Yrittis and Tikas, for all these works are 
 at too great a distance from the period of Patanjali to assist us in 
 the solution of our problem. 
 
 expression with " Siva," who revealed to Pdniiii the first fourteen Siitras ; e.g. p. 8C, 
 ^"^«fclO T^^T' I ^^^^MI ^ ! t"" when Kaiyyata calls Panini, Ach^rya, Nagoji- 
 bhatta says (p. 120) 'ftj^ ^^g^¥t TRT^T^I ; or p. 197, -^INI^*. 11R: • Of tl'e 
 first fourteen, or the ^ivastitras, Ndgojibhat.ta says that they existed from eternity, while 
 Paijiini made the rest : (p. 703 ed. Ballantyne) Bm4i<lire><54l<«m MlfUlT^^d*?!!?!]. et«- 
 
 12 
 
90 AUTHORS OF VARTTIKAS BEFORE PATANJALI. 
 
 Of the grammatical writers named by the author of the Maha- 
 bhashya, we pass over those which are quoted by Panini himself, 
 as by his testimony we are enabled at once to assign to them 
 an existence prior to his Grammar.^' "We may pass over, too, 
 those authorities to whom Patanjali adverts when he speaks of 
 a "Sutra of the former" grammarians"'; for such an expression 
 on his part invariably refers to Panini' s Sutras ; and the substance 
 of the opinions or rules of these "former" grammarians must 
 equally, therefore, have preceded Panini's work, and, conse- 
 quently, the Yarttikas of Katyayana. 
 
 The first category of writings deserving our notice here will 
 therefore be those Yarttikas and grammatical dicta which are 
 quoted by Patanjali in relation to Katyayana's own Yarttikas. 
 As authors of such writings we meet, for instance, with the gram- 
 marians of the school of the Bhdradwdjiyas and Saundgas, with 
 Kunaravddava, Vddava, who is perhaps the same as this grammarian, 
 with Bauryahhagavat^ with Kuni, who is spoken of by Kaiy- 
 yata as a predecessor of Patanjali, and an indefinite number of 
 grammarians who are introduced to us under the general desig- 
 nation of "some" or "others."'* Whether the latter term com- 
 
 " These authors are Apis'ali, Kasyapa, Gargya, G^ava, Chakravarmana, Bhara- 
 dwdja, Sdkatayana, Sakalya, Senaka, SphotAyana, and those designated by the collective 
 appellation of eastern and northern grammarians. These names have been correctly 
 mentioned by Dr. Boehtlingk, vol. II. p. iii — v. 
 
 ^ Kaiyyata calls them TTc||T||i4|; or the " former teachers ;" e.g. in his comment on 
 the third Sivasdtra ; on I. 1, 4 ; V. 2, 39 ; VI. 1, 6, etc. The word ^^ which in the 
 sense given is a Tatpurusha, the former part of which is to be understood in the sense 
 of a genitive, occurs e.g. in the Bhdshya to VII. 1, 18 ; compare also note 46. — And the 
 authorities quoted by Patanjali, under the name of '4|Ml4n > a-re probably also meant 
 as " older grammarians ;'' e.g. in his gloss on the fifth Sivasdtra, on I. 1, 1 and 2, 18, etc. 
 
 ^ The Bhdradwdjiyas are quoted several times in the Bhdshya ; and in the Calc. ed. 
 four times, viz. III. 1, 89, v. 1 ; IV. 1, 79, v. 1 ; VI. 4, 47, v. 1, and 155, v. 1.— Tlie 
 Saundgas are mentioned there to II. 2, 18, v. 1 — 4 ; VI. 3, 44, v. 1 ; and VII. 2, 17 ; 
 the latter quotation, however, does not occur in the Bhdshya. — Kunaravddava is men- 
 tioned in the Bhdshya to VII. 3, 1, v. 6 ; Vddava and Saury abhagavat to VIII. 2, 106. v. 
 3. ; Kuni in Kaiyyata's gloss on I. 1, 75, where he says that Patanjali follows, in the words 
 referred to, the opinion of Kuni (Kaiyyata : d|]T[[<1|' MIJil^iii^Nl^f^'^^l^^l • • • • 
 >||(ii|ch|<^4^ ohfi(jrf>i|»(+jrSjf^'4|(|^.) Some of these quotations are given by Dr. 
 Boehtlingk, vol. II. pp. iv. li. The phrase " "■^H"<| -4)1 ^" is of frequent occurrence in 
 
AUTHOES OF VARTTIKAS BEFORE PATANJALI. 91 
 
 prise" the grammarians just named, or other authorities, we can- 
 not infer from the words of Patanjali ; probahly, however, we 
 are justified in deciding for the latter alternative, since Patanjali 
 is a writer who chooses his words deliberately, and would scarcely 
 have quoted his authority at one time by name, and at another 
 by a general term which does not imply that great respect 
 entertaiaed for a high authority. But, whatever view we take 
 of the matter, — setting aside those grammarians quoted by 
 Patanjali, who will require some additional remark before we can 
 establish their relation to Katyayana — we may see that aU 
 that are named must have lived before Patanjali, and after 
 Katyayana, siuce all their Yarttikas or remarks, recorded by 
 Patanjali are criticisms on, and emendations of, the Varttikas 
 of Katyayana,"" Of Patanjali's Ishtis or " desiderata," which 
 
 the Bhdshya, e.g. to the second Sivasutia, to I. 1, 10 ; 2, 50. 51 ; II. 2, 24; 3, 66 ; III. 
 1, 27. 112. 123 ; 2, 109. 123, etc. ; or itifia^^H.fiH:U ! IRTf e.g. II. 4, 56; "^ f^- 
 
 qrTTSrr: e.g. l. l, 27 ; ^f^ e.g., VIII. 2, so (^t^ H^) ; W^ e.g. 
 
 I. 1, 1 and 2 ; III. 2, 123 ; and four sets of grammarians are contrasted by Patanjali in 
 his comment on III. 2, 115 : c^vj^ltf^^ J^t l|0^ TR I ^f^rTR^TF: I ^- 
 
 '™ A few instances will bear out this conclusion. Kdtydyana's third V&rttika to II. 2, 
 18 runs thus: 1wg ITTf^flrf'JftTW^'rrfi;; and his fourth: in^: WtW (omitted 
 in the Calc. ed.). After having explained both, Patanjali adds : TJTT^^ '^ <f|«U^f4*d- 
 TW^^nr Mf^dH. and quotes the four Vdrttikas of the Saundgas as given in the Calc. 
 edition ; Kaiyyata is even more explicit on this occasion, for he says : IJcTS^fW I '^BTWT" 
 
 ^TTrfwrR^^ Hi^alRfg *ri«iiJi<.Tdf«i*si<;w TrfidfijcM'S: • — The vArttika of 
 
 Kdtydyana to I. 1, 20 reads : ViJ'SJI^I ^dfd'J^lii fi{<^*5*i,> ^^^' *ays Patanjali, the 
 Bhdradwdjiyas read it otherwise : ITI'^^'Wt^: '"TB'f'rl I ^^^T^TT H*fd*I^Tff t^- 
 f^^rJI^H.' which last compound contains an important improvement on the rule of 
 Kdtydyana. — The latter enlarges Pdnini's rule III. 1, 89, by this Vdrttika : ilcjif^mff; 
 ^rd^^ ^fj'lRy'H.r^^^l'jM^'sMH^i ""It) says Patanjali after his explanation of 
 
 4ij 1 44 M4J4st|HH. "'hich version of the Bhdradwdjiyas is a distinct criticism on Kdtyd- 
 yana. — His two Vdrttikas on VI. 4, 155 are the following : (m(q£ic|niirr|Ml«^<n<$l and 
 l/«(^ Ni^Nf^ <!r\M^<ijlf^M<.I^H> l*"* **>« Bhdradwdjiyas improved them in this 
 way: (Patanjali: ^K^n1<< I: ^R^ I) Wrf^S^fnTfrnT^^i^ jq«l<l<.*<l««fi- 
 ^U^<tjir4M<14l(«^f^^(ft^^f^^^1- The same Bhdradwdjiyas have criti- 
 cised Pdnini also, independently of K%dyana, for Patanjali mentions at the Sutra 
 
92 THE VARTTIKAS OF PATANJALI. 
 
 are his own additions to Katyayana's Yarttikas, I need not 
 speak, since they are an essential portion of his own Great 
 Commentary."" 
 
 VI. 4, 47: J^-^^tftqV^ <.*{'^d<*j)lH. . their Vdrttika: H^^^T^tT^inflwftt 
 WrRt <^f*=l^*)fi ■ The mere comparison of their Vdrttikas and the passages 
 quoted, will clearly show that these grammarians not only lived after Pdnini, but 
 also after KAtydyana; and that they were engaged on the same task which was 
 the object of Kdtydyana, viz., that of criticising Pdnini. Dr. Boehtlingk, however, 
 (vol. II. p. iv.) — when speaking of the Vdrttikas of the Bharadwdjiyas and one 
 Vdrttika of the Apisalas, which improves Pdnini's Siitra VII. 3, 95, rl^<^Uj'Kj*1< 
 4JI<^V||;^^ in this manner : (j^^V^^'i: ^^l(J^ W?t% (quoted by the Kdsikd, 
 not by Patanjali), — draws from them the twofold conclusion, " first, that the gram- 
 matical tenninology of both predecessors of our grammarian (Pdnini) was the same, 
 partly at least (dass die grammatische Terminologie bei den beiden Vorgangern 
 nnseres Grammatikers, gum Theil wenigstens, dieselbe gewesen ist), and then, that their 
 original works, in time, received similar emendations and additions as the grammar 
 of Pdnini." I know not by what logical process either of these conclusions could be 
 extracted from these Vdrttikas. The passages quoted are obvious criticisms on Pdnini 
 and Kdtydyana, — and so are the other Vdrttikas of the Bhdradwajiyas named by Patan- 
 jali. There is not the slightest evidence afforded by these Vdrttikas that they are in 
 any connection whatever with works of Bhdradwdja and Apisali, and any reasoning con- 
 cerning the latter becomes therefore without foundation. Or do we find that in India 
 all pupils and descendants are compelled to confine their writings or remarks to the 
 works of their teachers and ancestors ? and will their criticisms on these latter works 
 turn out, by some marvellous process, to fit exactly the productions of other authors also f 
 
 '"' It will probably be thought desirable that an editor should at least understand the 
 title-page of the work which he is committing to the press, even when editing is merely tan- 
 tamount to reprinting the labours of others, faults and all ; but I fear that this much can- 
 not be said of Dr. Boehtlingk's edition of Pdnini ; for, in translating the title-page of the 
 Calcutta edition, he renders ^[[fg " kdrikd" and justifies this version in the following note 
 (vol. II. p. xxxvii) : " I take TTp^JTr^fsfJT; as a dwandwa, and ^fg as synonymous 
 with kdrikd, because I should not like to miss these (the Kdrikds) on the title.'' Tlius, 
 because the Calcutta Pandits, rightly or wrongly, did not say on the title-page of their 
 edition that their compilation will comprise the Kdrikds, but merely stated that it will 
 give Vdrttikas, Ganas, Paribhdshds and Ishtis, Dr. Boehtlingk reasons, that " since he 
 does not like the omission of the Kdrikds," Isliti is the same as Kdrikd. There is, 
 indeed, nothing strange in this reasoning of Dr. Boehtlingk ; we have seen already 
 some specimens of it, and if any one would take upon himself the ungrateful task of 
 reviewing the second volume which he has annexed to his " edition " of Pdnini, he would 
 have to add a good many more of the same quality. But if Dr. Boehtlingk had chosen to 
 consult, by letter or otherwise, the editors of his edition of Pdnini, they would in all 
 probability have told him that ishfi means a " desideratum," and that ishtis, emphatically 
 
KA'EIKAS BELONGING TO DIFFERENT AUTHORS. 93 
 
 Another category of literary compositions, which are either 
 entirely or partly embodied in the Mahabhashya, are the 
 KdriMs.^^^ To assign these verses to one author, would be as 
 erroneous as to speak of one author of the Varttikas,""^ For, 
 even the Calcutta edition of Panini enables us to see, at first 
 
 so called, and not qualified otherwise (as Islitis of the Kds'iki, etc.), designate the Vdrtti- 
 kas of Patanjali. They might, too, have referred him to the Padachandrifcdvrittt, 
 which in the introduction plainly says : '^a^ifj ){|U|o|||4^4^ ; or to Mgojibhatta, who 
 when referring to the word ^[fff applied by Kaiyyata to the Fdrttika (of Patanjali to 
 I. 1, 1, omitted in the edition) ^•d^c|c4rH|[T!|' JT^f'tT comments : ^fafi^frj | r(V|| ^ 
 ^TT^TWirV'Trfrl^irng^ ^^?^:^Jl^f^<t7I *rra:. But, for aught I know, 
 they might have simply requested him to read their own edition, before sending it to the 
 printer, since they have themselves written the word ^TTSf^fT^^fS* > for instance, after a 
 Vdrttika to I. 1, 9, or )fjU)|%; after a Vdrttika to I. 1, 68 ; or the words ^fg^jll^Art: 
 after a Vdrttika to II. 2, 28 ; and it is clear enough that in none of these instances can 
 ^|[fg be synonymous with ch|(\eh| . 
 
 '"^ It is almost superfluous to state that I merely speak of the Kdrikds which 
 are recorded by Patanjali. Those belonging to Bhartrihari, who wrote a gloss on 
 Patanjali (comp. e.g. Ganaratnamahodadhi : ^H^'(X^I^M<il^<4l(lT T^TTrsr^rr^TT" 
 fff ^> ind my subsequent observations on the Fdkyapadiya), as well as the Kdrikds 
 met with exclusively in the Kdsikd or Siddlidnta-kaumudi, can have no bearing on the 
 present investigation. 
 
 "' These assertions have nevertheless been made by Dr Boehtlingk, vol. II. p. xiv., 
 where he states that " between Pdnini and Amara-Sinha there are still four gram- 
 marians : Kdtydyana, the author of the Paribhdshds, the author of the Kdrikds, and 
 Patanjali ;" and p. xviii. xix., where he states tliat each couple of these grammarians may 
 be separated from one another by a space of fifty years, he repeats, " as we have ob- 
 served above (p. xiv), there are between Patanjali and Pdnini still three grammarians 
 known to us, who made contributions to the grammar of Pdnini." On page xlix, it is 
 true, he says, " no doubt the Kdrikds do not all belong to the same author, since the 
 same subject is treated sometimes in two different Kdrikds in a perfectly different man- 
 ner ;'' but as he observed before that the Kdrikds are " scattered in various grammars 
 (sic), viz. in the Mahdbhdshya, the Kdsikd, the Padamanjari and the Kaumudi," and as two 
 quotations which he adds in corroboration of Iiis statement, viz. VI. 3, 103, and VII. 2, 10, 
 have reference to the Kdsikd and Siddhdnta-kaumudi only, we should be in fairness 
 bound to conclude that, in his opinion, it was the literary period after Patanjali whicli 
 produced this variety of authors of the Kdrikds. Yet when he presents us with a third 
 quotation, viz. " Calc. ed. p. 274," which clearly points to the fact that there were 
 different authors of Kdrikds at or before Patanjali's time, it would be curious to learn 
 how he reconciles this latter quotation with his previous statements at pages xiv and 
 XIX, according to which there is but one author of tlie Kdrikds between Pdnini and 
 
94 VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF KAEIKA3. 
 
 sight^ in four instances, that they cannot be the work of the same 
 author ; and, besides these, two other instances of the same kind 
 may be found in the "Great Commentary.'""* But, to define the 
 relation of these verses to Katyayana, it will not be sufficient 
 simply to state that some of them embody the rules of Katyayana, 
 while others deviate from them, and others again enlarge and 
 criticise the Varttikas : '"^ it will be necessary to describe the 
 characteristic features of these Karikas such as we find them in 
 Patanj all's work. 
 
 An external, but very important mark, is afforded by the cir- 
 cumstance that one portion of the Karikas is left by Patanjali 
 entirely without comment, while he comments on another por- 
 tion in the same manner as he does on the Yarttikas; and we 
 may add, too, that there are a few Yarttikas which are not 
 altogether without a gloss, but the gloss on which is so scanty 
 
 Patanjali, and a personage, too, who lived 50 years after the author of the Parilihdshds 
 and 50 years hefore Patanjali ! Compare also the following note. 
 
 '°* The KArikds not met with in the Bhdshya are, usually, correctly marked in 
 the Calcutta edition with the name of the work whence they have been taken ; those 
 not marked, are therefore, nearly always, recognizable in this edition as belonging to the 
 Mahdbhdshya. ITiat such KArikds of the latter kind, to the same Siitra of Pdnini, belong 
 to different authors, is indicated in the Calc. ed. at 1. 4, 51 ; III. 2, 123 {p. 274) ; IV. 1, 44 
 and 63. From the Bhdshya we learn it, at first sight, besides, in the two instances, 
 1. 2, 50, — where the words ^flWT ?|^ etc. are preceded by "41 m^ '^IT^— and VIII. 2, 58, 
 where the latter words precede the KArikd qTl« etc. Compare the notes 107, 108, 111. 
 
 ^"^ Three striking instances of the latter kind are the Kdrikds to IV. 2, 60 ; VIII. 
 1, 69 ; and III. 2, 118. The first occurs at the end of Patanjali's commentary on the 
 Vdrttikas of this Siitra, is without comment, and contains, for the greater part, new 
 matter, which is given in the shape of Vdrttikas in the Siddhdnta-kaumudi. It is omitted 
 in the Calc. ed. and runs thus : ^J^^^TW^^ iJ^^JI^t^'lt^ ^: I T^n^T^trT^- 
 <(l^dM t: fTOTSr: ■ The Kdrlkd to VIII. 1, 69 embodies the Vdrttikas 1, 2, 3 
 to the same Siitra and Vdrttika 2 to VIII. 1, 67, but in the latter Kdtydyana says 
 ?T^t(l^^ '^ . and tlie Kdrikd enlarges this rule to 4Jc4i|<<^Mt 'ffiT% (Nagojibhatta : 
 ^T ^dlm^fd ^Tf^i^t^ TfratTf^l^^^^:)- Tlie Kdrikd to III. 2, 118 is thus intro- 
 duced by Patanjali: f^ ^HT: Wf^'" I T ^ IjiNdT jfi{ (second Vdrttika) 
 f^rTT ^lrt||4|M^f ^rrf^""'; and by Kaiyyata: XrgBrR;f^r^Tf^ ^rg^ni^- 
 
AUTHORS OF THR UNCOMMENTED KKBIK&S. 95 
 
 and so different from the kind of comment bestowed on the Varttikas, 
 that they might seem to constitute a third category of Karikas."* 
 
 If we first examine the Kdrikds without comment, we meet 
 twice with the remark of Patanjali that '■'■ another^'' or "others," 
 have composed the verse in question, when the Karika is con- 
 trasted by him with the preceding Varttika ; and the same remark 
 occurs four times, when the Karika thus introduced to our notice 
 is contrasted with a preceding KdriM}"'' More definite statements, 
 I believe, are not volunteered by Patanjali ; but Kaiyyata once 
 tells us, that such an uncommented Karika was composed by the 
 SloJca-rdrttiJca-kdra, or the "author of the versified Yarttikas;" 
 and though this information is not more distinct or more satisfac- 
 tory than that of Patanjali, it has, at least, the merit of having 
 on another occasion elicited the remark of Nagoji, that this author 
 is not Katyayana.™ 
 
 ''"' Without any comment of Patanjali we find the Karikas to I. 1, 0. 14. 20. 38. 70; 
 
 2, 64 ; 4, 51 (Kar. 5-7).— II. 1, 10. 60 ; 4, 36. 85.— III. 1, 7 ( = V. 2, 94. Kar. 1). 
 22. 27. 79. 122. 127; 2, 3. 123 (Kar. 1, 2. 4. 5. 6) ; 3, 1. (Kar. 3.) 156 (= VII. 4, 41); 
 4, 79.— IV. 1, 44. 63. 161 ; 2, 9. 60. (comp. the preceding note); 4, 9.— V. 1, 115; 2, 
 48; 3, 55.— VI. 1, 1. 77 (Kar. 2). 87; 2, 199; 4, 114.— VII. 1, 18. 73 (Kar. 2); 4, 
 46 (Kar. 2). 92.— VIII. 1, 70 ; 2. 58. (Kar. 3). 59. 62. 80. 108 ; 3, 43.— There are Kari- 
 kas commented upon by Patanjali, in his usual manner, to I. 1, 19. 57; 2, 9. 17. 18. 
 50. 51 ; 4, 21 ( = III. 3, 161). 51 (Kdr. 1. 2. 1-4).— III. 1, 112; 2, 57. 109. 115. 139; 
 
 3. 1 (Kar. 1. 2).— IV. 1, 3. 10. 18. 32. 54. 78. 92. 93. 120. 165 ; 2, 8. 45 ; 3, 60. 84. 
 134.— V. 1, 19 ; 2, 39. 45. 94 (Kar. 2) ; 3, 83.— VI. 1, 77 (Kar. 1) 103. 158; 2, 1 ; 3, 
 46; 4, 3. 12. 22. 46. 62. 74. 128.— VII. 1, 9. 21. 40. 73 (Kar. 1). 96; 2, 102. 107 ; 3, 
 3. 86 ; 4, 46 (Kar. 1).— VIII. 1, 69 (comp. the preceding note) ; 2, 25. 55. 58 (Kar. 1.2); 
 3, 88 ; 4, 68. — To the third category belong the Karikas to I. 1, 38 (om. Calc. ed.). — 
 III. 1, 123; 2, 118. 123 (Kar. 3).— IV. 2, 13.— VI. 4, 120. 149.- VIII. 3, 45.— Other 
 Karikas quoted in the Calcutta edition do not occur in the Bhashya. 
 
 '"' Patanjali to III. 1, 27: -^IMi. W? I 'VfTH" (contrasted with the preceding 
 Vdrttika) ; III. 2, 123, K^r. 1 : ^^pn: W¥: I ^f^ ^^^TR: ^^ ^ I '^ '^TR 
 
 ^<llH^I^4vPd 1 "f «('«??f" ^ iWf^ ^[f«T (contrasted with the preceding 
 
 Varttika), etc. ; but the last Karika, which is introduced by the words -ilMi, W? I ^rf^ 
 
 f^^^o", is contrasted with the preceding Kdrikas; at IV. I. 44, after ip!}'; he says, 
 "WJiK "^(Tf I ^^ etc.; at IV. 1, 63, after «^T;%: ^. he adds, "^jq^ '^JTf | 
 H I ^4n °° ; at VIII. 2, 58, after '>J^, his words are, •?|tlT ^^ I ^Ti^ etc- 
 "^ Patanjili on IV. 4, 9: ^R t^ irt<lii<*i^ I Trft^nSH "*«5=*l*< I ^l«h^lrM"5l^; 
 
96 AUTHORS OF THE UNCOMMENTED KARIKAS. 
 
 Being here merely concerned with the question of the relation 
 of these Karikas to Katyayana, we should not feel under the 
 necessity of examining the contents of the six verses just men- 
 tioned, even if they differed ia character from the rest — which 
 is not the case, — for the statements alleged enable us, as it is, to 
 conclude that they are later than his Yarttikas. Still, as the 
 remaining portion of these uncommented Karikas does not ad- 
 mit of a similar inference without an inquiry into the evidence 
 which they yield, it will be necessary to observe that they fall into 
 two distinct divisions. 
 
 One class of them merely records the substance of the prece- 
 ding Varttikas. These, for the most part, stand at the end of 
 Patanjali's commentary on the Sutra to which they belong ; but 
 some of them are also met with in the midst of the discussion of 
 the Bhashya, but only when they comprise the contents of a por- 
 tion, not of the whole, of the Yarttikas to the Sutra of Panini."* 
 
 etc.— Kaiyyata: ^\<^^ XT-^m^X^ ^i*'<^\<H^^^T^ 'i^lfnlfiXHilliJ' XJ^^- 
 *m!f^- — Kaiyyata on the Karikas to VI. 4, 22 : e(|pT^«^ic<i|^^g TT^lft^l^g M|4si||- 
 ^ ^'><*=HrT^<=h<*lO*M*ri^«JI^'^ti: .— Nagojibliatta: cdf^ehchH : ch | (iHij^ : | 
 ■^t^RTf^^^rarr^^ "5!^ *n^: • see also page 99. 
 
 '™ Such uncommented Karikas standing at the end of the commentary occur at the 
 Sutras II. 1. 10 ; 4. 85 (Kar. i>. 3).— III. 1, 79 ; 2, 3.— V. 2, 48. ; 3, 55 (Kar. 3-5).— 
 VI. 1, 77 (Kdr. 2). 87.— VII. 1, 73 (Kdr. 2) —VIII. 2, 62. 108 ; 3, 43.— /» the middle 
 of the discussion they occur at the Sutras II. 1, 60, before the fourth Varttika, and 
 summing up the Varttikas 1, 2, 3 ; II. 4, 85 (Kar. I, being a summary of the Varttikas 
 preceding the third Vdrttika in the Calc. ed.). — The summary character of these 
 Karikas is sometimes expressly adverted to by the commentators. Thus at II. 1. 60, 
 Kaiyyata observes : ■4|e|V(T<»i| ^T^ %f^ ^ Xl^T^ M^ili\ %^f^: ; II. 4, 
 85 (Kdr. 1), -CTr -q^T^ (of what precedes) ^|4^| ^fi^: ; II. 4, 85 (Kar. 2. 3), 
 
 ^w Ti;^: ^^ ^'j^d: ; in- 2, 3, ^wrW^nr^ "^^r 1 f^ m^jkui- 
 
 trrfTI ; V. 2, 48, TTarai%rrt^f?r 'q;ffirr^ *l ^ ^1^: , etc. etc. I may here observe 
 that the word f[f?I, which is usually added by authors after quotations they make from 
 other authors, is scarcely ever met with after the last word of these or any other Kari- 
 kds. There is the following instance which clearly proves that no inference can be 
 drawn from the presence or absence of this word X^ after the Karikas ; viz. the Karikii 
 to III. 1, 7 is identical with the first Kdrika to V. 2, 94 ; '?[f7r occurs after the former, 
 not after the latter. Only one of the KarikSs introduced by -41114 ^j)]^; a clear 
 
PATANJALI, AUTHOR OP UNCOMMENTED KAEIKAS. 97 
 
 The second class has not the character of summaries of the Vartti- 
 kas. It is an essential part of the discussion of the Bhdshya itself 
 now introducing the poiat at issue with some general remark, then 
 connecting or strengthening the links of the debate hy an impor- 
 tant definition or a new argument, then again summing up the 
 substance of the discussion itself, and throwing, as it were, some 
 additional light on it.'" 
 
 instance of a quotation — is followed by this word, viz. : III. 2, 123 (Kdr. 1) ; none of the un- 
 commented Kdrikds except the one mentioned (III. 1, 7) has this word after it ; and among 
 the Kdrikds with comment, it occurs only at III. 2, 139. It is not necessary, on the 
 present occasion, to make any further statement concerning the use of "^H in Patan- 
 jali's commentary ; but compare also note 1 30. — The Calcutta editors, who, unfortunately, 
 have considered tliemselves justified in giving us "Extracts" from the Vdrttikas of 
 Kitydyana, do not enable their readers fully to recognize the summary character of 
 these Karikds ; and, in placing the Kdrikds either at the end or at the beginning, they 
 have, in this class of the Kdrikas, and still more so in the following classes, entirely 
 destroyed all possibility of perceiving how these Kdrikds are sometimes summaries 
 of a portion only of Vdrttikas, sometimes the summary of Patanjali's discussion, and 
 sometimes an essential portion of his arguments. When, in the MSS. of the Bhdshya, 
 to judge from the one at my command, a Kdrikd, which occurs in the middle of the 
 discussion, is sometimes — not always, — repeated at the end, such a device on the part of 
 Patanjali, or, as it seems more probable, on the part of the copyists, is intelligible, and 
 deserves approval, as it is calculated to draw our attention to the occurrence, in the 
 middle of the discussion, of such a verse, which usually contains important information. 
 But when such a verse is always taken from its original and proper place, and always 
 put either at the beginning or at the end, for no other reason than that it is a verse, 
 such a method, in a book, moreover, of that equivocal class which gives dribbled extracts 
 of an important literature, makes the same impression, on my mind at all events, as if 
 an editor of a garbled Shakspeare were to present us first with all the prosaic and then 
 with all the poetical parts of the play, or vice versa. 
 
 "° Uncommented verses of this kind are met with in the Bhdshya at or near the 
 beginning of the discussion on IV. I, 44 (<4^(f|' ^TST' I ^jUj^-qiif^g-^n I W ^Uft 
 •ITT I T% f'l^^ etc., when he contrasts the following Kdrikd— ^[XIT Wf I ^hST" 
 —with the preceding words) ; IV. 1, 63 HlTi<*jfl<» I ^Ifif^t^-^ri ^ WrfrT^T I 
 ^irgrffnnW" • which words are contrasted with the Kdrikd of "another:" 'VkH\ 
 Wf I irri^") ' ^^- ^' ^^^ (T'ft^nTT^^'' l ^R%^f^ etc.) ; V. 1, 115 (^ 
 
 %g ^^ miTir: ^R*n tw: ^5^ ^f^ i Htr: ^'»'') s vi, 2, 199 (i^<,in^^dj«*(- 
 f% ^^^R I ^Hii^iTm^g^ I ^ K\ ^i^ ^nj^frg"") ; vii. 4, 46, Kdr. 2, (ft ^f » 1 
 
 13 
 
98 PATANJALI, AUTHOR OF UNCOMMENTED KARIKA'S. 
 
 A comparison of these two classes of uncommented Karikas 
 shows, therefore, that while the former might have been omitted 
 ill the Great Commentary, without any detriment to the contents 
 of this work, the latter was indispensable to it. We may look 
 upon the summary Karikas as memorial verses, adapted for forming 
 a separate collection for the convenience of teachers and pupils ; but 
 the independent existence of the commentatorial Karikas is quite 
 imintelligible, and would be altogether purposeless. In short, though 
 there might be a doubt whether Patanjali, or some other gram- 
 marian, poetically inclined, had versified the Yarttikas, it seems im- 
 possible to assume that the second class of those Karikas was com- 
 posed by any one but Patanjali. It is very probable, however, 
 that the author of the Mahabhashya was not the author of the 
 summary or memorial Karikas. For since there was an 
 "author of versified Karikas," as we learn from Kaiyyata 
 and Nagojibhatta, and as Ave shall see that a considerable number 
 of the commented Karikas do not belong to his authorship, the 
 literary activity of this personage would become restricted to, 
 
 ■ifefrf'T) fcldTl '^ etc.). — The foregoing quotations, wliicli begin with the Sutra itself, 
 will show the introductory character of these Karikas. — In the middle of the discus- 
 sion of the Bhfehya we iind such Kdrikds at I. 1, (ed. Ballantyne, p. 201, 202, to- 
 wards the end of the Introduction) ; I. 1 , 20 (preceding the fourth Vdrttika of the Calc. 
 ed.) ; I. 1, 38 (the first Kdrikd of the Calc. ed. ; it stands after the Vdrttikas of this 
 ed., and is followed by a Kdrikd of the third category — see note 100, — which is omitted i;i 
 the Calc. ed.) ; I. 2, 64 (preceding the eighteenth Vdrttika of the ed.) ; III. 1, 22 (after 
 the Vdrttika of the ed., but before other Vdrttikas omitted there) ; V. 3, 55 (Kdr. 1. 2 ; 
 preceding the ninth Varttika of the Calc. ed. ; Patanjali speaks in the first person) ; VI. 
 4, 114 (before the third Vdrttika of the ed.) ; VIII. 2, 80 (before the second Vdrttika of 
 the ed.) — Uncommented Kdrikds occur at the end of the discussion of the Bhdshya at I. 
 1, 14, 38 (the last Kdrikd of the ed. ; the Calc. editors add that this Kdrikd is originally 
 a Vaidik passage referring to W^. Kaiyyata and Ndgojibhatta have no remark to 
 this effect ; but even if the editors be right, they ought to have proved first that the 
 " Vaidik " passage in question — a very vague definition — is older than Patanjali's 
 Bhashya, and not taken from it) ; on I. 1, 70; 4, 51 (Kar. 5—7) ; II. 4, 36 ; III. 1, 7 
 (which occurs once more in the middle of the discussion on V. 2, 94 as Kar. 1) ; III. 1 , 
 122. 127 ; 3, 1. Kar. 3 (see note 113). 156 ( = VII. 4, 41) ; 4, 79 ; IV. 2, 9, 60 (omitted 
 in the Calc. ed. ; see note 105, ^^^4 °°) ! V. 3, 55 (Kar. 3—5) ; VI. 1, 1 ; VII. 1, 18 ; 
 4, 92 (where Patanjali speaks in the first person) ; VIII. 1, 70 ; 2, 59. 
 
AUTHORS OF THE COMMENTED KAEIKAS. 0-3 
 
 and his fame would have been founded on, less than half-a-dozen 
 lines, if we did not ascribe to him more Karikas than those 
 expressly attributed to him by these commentators, or if we 
 fathered these summary Karikas on Patanjali. Whether the 
 *' other'''' mentioned in the first six instances be the same, or not, 
 as the " author of the versified Karikas," I have no means of 
 deciding; but, at all events, it becomes certain, after this brief 
 explanation, that all the uncommented KdriMs arc later than the 
 Vdrttikas of Kdtydyana. 
 
 The Karikas commented upon by Patanjali are in one respect 
 similar to the foregoing class, but in another wholly different 
 from it. As regards an external mark, we again meet here with 
 " another," who has twice composed a Karika which is contrasted 
 by Patanjali with a preceding Yarttika, and twice a Karika which 
 he contrasts with a preceding Karika, the authorship of which 
 is left without a remark."' Another such Karika, too, is distinctly 
 ascribed by Kaiyyata to the "author of the versified Karikas."''^ 
 And when we examine the contents of this second class of Karikas, 
 we again find many which form an essential part of the argimients 
 in the discussion of Patanjali."* Here, however, the analogy 
 stops ; for the remainder have in no way the nature of summaries ; 
 they are to all intents and purposes identical in character with 
 the Varttikas of Katyayana; and even Patanjali's commentary 
 
 '" III. I, 112, Patanjali says, 4m< W? I ^'sjl^li TJ1% etc., when he contrasts the 
 Kdrikd with the preceding Vdrttika ; III. 2, 109, -4m< Wf I •ft^f^T^rPT. ^'c- contrasted 
 with preceding Vdrttikas omitted in the Calc. ed. ; I. 2, 50 (Kar. 2), '■4m <, Wl' 1 'fiTOT 
 ^[ct etc. contrasted with the preceding Kdrikd ; I. 4, 51, ^TTT "^T^ I ^n^l<1<4l4)4UII<Sj^ 
 etc. (commented on up to chcj^l' f^^> Kar. 1-4) contrasted with the preceding Kdrikd. 
 
 "" VI. 4. 22. Compare note 108. 
 
 ^'' Such Kdrikds are met witli at or near the beginning of the Bhashya on I. 4, 51 
 (the two first Kar. of the Calc. ed.) ; III. 3. 1. (Kar. I. 2. ; the last Karika is left without 
 comment) ; IV. 1, 3. 54. 78. (the first four Karikas stand at the beginning, before the first 
 Vdrttika ; the following nine after the second Vdrttika of the Calcutta edition, which, in 
 the Bhashya, however, is the fourth) ; 93. 165 ; V. 2, 45 ; VI. 1, 103. In the middle of 
 the discussion on I. 1, 57 ; IV. 1, 93 ; V. 1, 19 ; 2, 94, Kdr. 2 (before the seventh 
 Vdrttika of the Cak. ed.) ; VI I. 4, 46 (Kdr. 1). 
 
100 METHOD OF PATANJALI'S GREAT COMMENTARY. 
 
 on them follows the same method that he observes in his comment 
 on the Yarttikas."* 
 
 This method is analogous to that -vvhich has become famiKar 
 through the classical commentaries of Sankara on the Upanishads, of 
 Medhatithi and KuUtika on Mann, of Sayana on the Yedas, of 
 Yijnaneswara on Yajnavalkya, and so on. Its character chiefly con- 
 sists in establishing, usually by repetition, the correct reading of the 
 text, in explaining every important or doubtful word, in showing 
 the connection of the principal parts of the sentence, and in adding 
 such observations as may be required for a better understanding of 
 the author. Patanjali even excels, in the latter respect, the com- 
 mentaries instanced, for he frequently attaches his OAvn critical 
 remarks to the emendations of Katyayana, often in support of the 
 views of the latter, but not seldom, too, in order to refute his criti- 
 cisms and to defend Panini ; while, again, at other times, he com- 
 pletes the statement of one of them by his own additional rules. 
 
 Now this method Patanjali strictly follows in his comment 
 on the Karikas I am alluding to. As they nearly ahvays con- 
 stitute a whole verse, and as such a verse is generally too com- 
 plicated an assemblage of words to be thoroughly intelligible 
 without being interrupted by some explanatory remark, it seldom 
 happens that the comment of Patanjali does not begin till he has 
 given the whole verse in its uninterrupted order. Nor is it often 
 that so many words of the Karika as constitute half a verse remain 
 together in the Bhashya, though it is obvious that half a verse is 
 
 "* KdrikAs of this description occur in the Bhdshya at or near the beginning of the 
 commentary on 1, 1, 19 ; 2, 9. 17. 18. 50 (Kar. 1) ; III. 2, 115 ; IV. 1, 10 (the Varttika of 
 the Calc. ed. on this Sutra is no Varttika but Bhashya) ; 3, 60, 84. 134 ; V. 3. 83 ; VI. 1, 77 
 (Kar. 1 a. b.). 158 ; 2, 1 ; 3, 46 ; 4, 3. 46. 128 ; VII. 1, 21. 40. 73 (Kar. 1). 96 ; 2, 107 ; 3, 3 
 (Kar. 1). 86 ; VIII. 1, 69 (?) ; 2, '25. 55. 58 (Kar. 1. 2) ; 3, 88 ; 4, 68.— Zm the middle, at 
 I. 2, 51 ; 4, 21 ( = III. 3, 161) ; III. 2, 57. 139 ; IV. 1, 18. 32 (the second Varttika of 
 the Calc. ed. is no Varttika but Bhashya on the last part of the Karika) ; 2, 8 (the second 
 Varttika of the Calc. ed. is misedited ; it runs thus : '^g ^TTTf'T ^TI^ ^TilHt^fg^^l' 
 ■f^Vt^)- 45 ; V. 2, 39 ; VI. 4, 12. 62. 74 ; VII. 1, 9 ; 2, 102 ; 3, 3 (Kar. 2 and 3).— 
 Towards the end, at IV. 1, 120. — In several of tliese instances there are no other 
 Varttikas to the Siitra besides the Karika, which is then the subject of the whole com- 
 mentary, e.g. at IV. 3, 00. 84 ; VI. 4, 46, 128 ; VII. 1, 21 ; 3, 86. 
 
METHOD OF PATANJALI'S GREAT COMMENTARY. 101 
 
 more likely to afford -uiidivided matter for comment than a whole 
 one. The rule, therefore, is, that small portions of the Karika, for 
 the most part of the extent of an ordinary Varttika, are, like so 
 many Yarttikas, separately commented upon by Patanjali, and that 
 in all such instances we have to gather the scattered parts of the 
 Karika from amongst the commentatorial interruptions of Patanjali, 
 in order to see that, put together, they form a verse, — a Sloka, an 
 Indravajra, a Dodhaka, an Arya, or the like."^ This trouble we 
 are frequently saved, either by the author of the Great Com- 
 mentary himself, or by the attentive copyists of his work, as he 
 or they usually repeat, at the end of the gloss on the Varttikas, 
 
 "' The text of the whole verse of Karik^s of this class is given before the comment 
 of PatanjaU, at I. 2, 51 ; V. 2, 94. K4r. 2 ; VI. 4, 46 ; VIII. 4, 68. There occur half 
 verses of the Kdrikds, without commentatorial interruptions, e.g. at I. 4, 21 ( = III. 3, 
 161). 51 ; III. 2, 57. 115 ; IV. 1, 3. 10. 32. 93. 165 ; 2, 8. 45 ; V. 2, 39 ; VI. 4, 3. 12. 62. 
 128 ; VII. 1, 9. 98 ; 2, 102. 107 ; 3, 3. 86.— Both modes are combined at VIII. 3, 45 (a 
 Kar. of the third category) where Patanjali first comments on the text of the first Kdrikd, 
 which is given without any interruption ; then on the first half of the second K4riki ; then 
 on the second half of the second and the first half of the third Kdrikd, both given together ; 
 then on the second half of the third ; and lastly, on the first half of the fourth K^rikd. 
 The comment on the second half of the fourth Karikd follows first after the words f^<^ ^ 
 % ^IITT% > 3.nd then after the words l|(r|t{vmv^U «f(^ ■J'T'^- — The manner in which 
 the great majority of these Kdrikfe is interrupted in the MahAbhdshya may be guessed 
 from a very few instances which have escaped the garbling process of the Calcutta 
 editors ; from IV. 1, 120, where the four Vdrttikas are the literal text of the Kdrikd ; 
 and from V. 3, 83, where the first five Vdrttikas constitute the Kdrikd. The inju- 
 diciousness of giving these Kdrikis on all other occasions, without indicating the 
 manner in which they have arisen from a number of short VArttikas, requires no 
 remark after the foregoing explanation ; but this proceeding becomes still more subject 
 to censure, when some portions of the Kdrikd are given as VArttilias and others are 
 omitted, or ascribed to other works than the Bhdshya, while the Kdrikd, nevertheless, 
 is printed as belonging to the latter work. For it becomes evident that, in all such 
 cases, there was not even a principle which guided the so-called selection or quotation 
 of the works whence the VArttikas are taken. Thus at IV. 1, 32 the Calcutta edition 
 gives the Kdrikd, but only the last portion of it as Vdrttika — mistaking, moreover, the 
 words of the commentary 'm ^idf^ •fjg^fgi; for the Karikd-Vdrttika, which runs 
 thus : m ^(riRj •fJ^^d;— . A similar mis-edition of the second Varttika to IV. 2, 8, 
 and the attributing to the Kds'ikd of the fifth Varttika, make it impossible to see that 
 the Varttikas 2 — 5 form, in the Mahabhdshya, the text of the printed Kdrikd. — In 
 ascribing the third and the fifth Vdrttika of V. 3, 83 to the Siddhatita-kaumudi, the 
 
102 AUTHORS OF TBE COMMENTED KAEIKAS. 
 
 the ^yllole Karika in its metrical integrity. Sometimes, however, 
 they omitted to do this ; and if I may judge from the copy of 
 the Mahabhashya in the possession of the Library of the Home 
 GoTernment for India, the Calcutta Pandits, who published an 
 edition of Panini, have, in some instances, supplied the apparent 
 defect of this manuscript."" 
 
 The foregoing remarks sufficiently express my views on these 
 commented KdriMs. "Where the authorship of " another," or 
 of the Sloka-vdrttika-kdra, is distiactly mentioned by Patanjali 
 or Kaiyyata, I see no reason to doubt that the Karikas to which 
 this remark applies are neither Patanjali's nor Katyayana's. When 
 the Karikas are part of the arguments of the Bhashya itself, it 
 seems certain, as in the case of the analogous Karikas without com- 
 ment, that their author is Patanjali ; but when they have entirely 
 
 editors obscure the origin of the Kirikd to tliis Siitra, which repeats the text of tlie 
 first five Vdrttilvas, such as they occur in tlie Bh^sliya. — At VIII. 2, 25 tlie same edition 
 does not allow us to perceive more than the first stop of the first Kavilia, while it gives 
 the three KdrikAs in full.- — I may mention, too, that there is no such Karika in the 
 Bliashya as that printed at VI. 4, 19. It certainly was very tempting to roll up into 
 a Sloka the words of Patanjali, W^Tre^cf, which explain the second Varttika 
 fT^Tf^^^, together with the three othtr Varttikas which belong to Katyayana; but 
 there is no evidence to show that Patanjali made this verse ; nor does it occur in the 
 Kas'ika or the Siddhanta-kaumudi. —For one Karika Patanjali seems, indeed, to be 
 himself answerable, for the Varttikas to VIII. 1, 69 merely contain the material for 
 the first fourth and the second half of the Karika, which occurs at the end of his 
 Bhashya on this Siitra. It is possible, however, under the circumstances, that this 
 Karika may be one of the summary class. See note 105. 
 
 "" Dr. Ballantyne's edition of the first Pada of the first Adhyaya of the 3Iaha- 
 bhashya, and the MS. of the E. I. H., which have the four Varttikas to I. 1, 57, 
 
 f^: M<.*<<J!i^D|: (MS. vi^jtiii^arr t^: i comm i tj^^t^ ^cj^v t i 
 
 comm I ^'IM(M*T^ Ml1% I comm | WflTf'T t^TerfiT I comm. | , do 
 
 not repeat these words without interruptions in order to show their Karika nature ; and 
 the same remark applies to the MS. with regard to the commented Karikas I. 2, 51 ; 
 4, 21. 51 ; IV. 1, 3. 32. 78. 92. 93. 120. 165 ; 2, 45; 3, 60. 134 ; V. 1, 19; 2, 39. 45. 94 
 (Kar. 2) ; 3, 83 ; VI. 1, 158 ; 4, 46. 62. 74. 128 ; VII. 1, 96 ; 4, 46 (Kar. 1) ; VIII. 2, 25. 55. 
 58 (Kar. 1, 2) ; 3, 45 ; 4, 68. The repetition of some of these Karika- Varttikas has no 
 doubt been omitted, because the commentary of Patanjali allowed the whole verse or 
 half a verse of this text to remain unintemipted (see note 115). In the Calcutta edition 
 all these Karikas are given in their metrical integrity. 
 
AUTHORS OF THE COMMENTED KA'RIKAS. 103 
 
 the character of Varttikas — which will later be defined — they are 
 undoubtedly the composition of Katyayana ; and such, I hold, is 
 the view of Kaiyyata and Nagojibhatta also. For though it is no 
 part of their task to specify the authorship of the Karikas, except 
 when such a remark is essential to their gloss, they, nevertheless, 
 have done so occasionally ; and when thus we find that they plainly 
 ascribe some of these commented Karikas either to the author of the 
 Varttikas or the author of the Great Commentary, as the case may be, 
 we must be allowed to infer that they entertained a similar opinion 
 on other Karikas which would fall under either of the heads I 
 have mentioned above."' Nor need we hesitate at the idea of a 
 poetical author of Yarttikas. Not only were whole grammatical 
 works, ancient and modem, written in verse,"' but it is a 
 common occurrence with scientific commentators in India, that 
 they cannot resist the temptation of running into verse, even 
 at the risk of endangering their prosaic task. We need only 
 remember another celebrated author of Varttikas, Kumarila, 
 who writes alternately in Sloka and prose. It might seem more 
 remarkable that Patanjali should write in verse and comment 
 upon this himself; but Mddhava aifords an analogous instance 
 in his Jaiminiya-nyaya-mala-vistara; Viswandtha-Panchdnana 
 
 "' Thus, on the first four Karikas to IV. 1, 78, Ndgojibhatta observes : XJ^ ^eh| 
 ^f^Arl Tf^ "f ^ifrl^K^d! — which words, moreover, plainly intimate that there 
 exist Karikas composed by Katyayana ; or in the latter part of Kaiyyata's comment on 
 
 the Karika to VI. 1, 103 we read : ^Tf^ t^t^TS^ f'sT^'^^UJ WSTERT- 
 
 ilUlir^dH- — ^" his comment on the Karika to IV. 3, 60, Nagojibhatta, in referring 
 to the remark of Patanjali, 4j'4^MI^ <,3ldl«rT fRRTPirnft'^Wianflr etftl"*!: (which 
 words explain the beginning of the second Karika) observes : ITT^ fRnfrRJTTf'Tf^ 
 edf-^iii 411 ^C^ I (^^14:1: ; and on a further remark of Kaiyyata : T51uI^Tf^«fiJPTt- 
 gf^nrr^- On the affix "t^ in the second Karika to VI. 1,158, Nagojibhatta remarks : 
 
 tj l pff^ d^JJ^t l j ^^Ixra^W^; on the first Karika to VI. 2, 1 : X^ (^*J*ft 
 
 iftrW Tt^ «lirT^«hl^: ; «" Kaiyyata to the first Karika to VI. 3, 46 : ■^RTTHrfTrfTf^ 
 ^Wrf^^^Wn^nTs^ ^rT^% ; <>" Kaiyyata to the second fourth of Karika 1. to VI.. 4, 12 : 
 ^Ipdeji ^XIHT) etc. ; on a various reading in the second Karika to VII. 3, 86 : 
 cHf^ % ^<j^l| ^f7f trra, etc.— In his gloss on the Karika to VIII. 4, 68, Kaiyyata 
 says : W^ t^ ^dllM^^iK'tl^lf M f^g c Tm^ ^ a : 'B^T^^TfTSTT^ ^ Trfh^imT 
 
 ^4^ irffRTt^rm:- 
 
 "* For instance, the Paniniya-iSiksha and the Rik-Pratisakhya. 
 
104 AUTHORS OF KARIKAS 'WITH IMPERFECT COMMENT. 
 
 wrote a commentary in prose, the Siddhantamulctavali, on his 
 metrical exposition of the Yaiseshika Philosophy, the Bhasha- 
 parichchheda ; Daivajnardma explained in prose his versified 
 Muhurtachintamani ; Vardhamdna did the same with his Gana- 
 ratnamahodadhi ; and many more instances could be adduced to 
 show that there is nothing striking, or even remarkable, in the 
 assumption that Patanjali composed grammatical verses and com- 
 mented on them in prose.''* 
 
 After the foregoing observations, the authorship of those 
 Karikas, which, apparently, form a third category, can create 
 no difficulty so far as Katyayana is concerned. They were neither 
 written by him, nor before his tinje. The manner in which 
 Patanjali comments on them, and their very contents, show that 
 they cannot be assimilated to Katyayana's Karikas, which, as I 
 mentioned before, are dealt with by him in the same manner as 
 the Yarttikas in prose. There is either scarcely any comment on 
 
 "' I owe to the kindness of Dr. Fitz-Edward Hall an extract from his " Contribu- 
 tion, towards an Index to the Bibliography of the Indian Philosophical Systems,'' 
 which mentions besides Viswanatha-Panchanana, eleven authors who wrote twelve works 
 in verse and commented on them in prose. As this extract is, on other grounds, of con- 
 siderable interest, I will, with Dr. Hall's permission, forestall the arrival in Europe of 
 his important work, and here subjoin the substance of his communication. He names 
 in it, besides the author of the Bhasha-parichchheda — I. Jivardja-Dlkshita, who 
 wrote the Tarka-kasika (on the Vais'eshika) in verse, and a commentary on it in prose, 
 the Tarka-manjari ; 2. Vidydranydchdrya, the author of the Vedantadhikarana-mala 
 (in verse) and a prose exposition interspersed; 3. Prakdsdnanda or Anantdnanda- 
 krishna (?), the author of the Stddhantamuktavali ; 4. Vasudeva-Brahma-Prasdda, 
 the author of the Sachchidanandanubhavapradipika ; 5. Lakshmadhara-Kavi, who 
 wrote the Adwaita-makaranda ; 6. ^ankardchdrya, to whom the Atmabodha is 
 ascribed, and likewise a comment on it, entitled Ajnanabodhini ; 7. Sankardnanda, 
 the author of the Atmapurana and a comment on it, the Atmapurana-dipika ; 8. 
 Appayya-Dikshita, the author of the Brahmatarkastava and the Brahmatarkastava- 
 vivarana ; 9. 10. Vallabhdchdrya, the author of the Pushtipravahamaryadabheda and 
 a Vivarana on it, and likewise of the Antahkaranaprabodha and a Vivriti on it; 11. 
 Gangddharasaraswati, the author of the Siddhantasuktimanjar! (an abridgement of the 
 Siddhantalesa) and a Prakasa of it ; and 12. Govindasdstrin, who wrote the Atharvana- 
 rahasya and a commentary on it. — ^All these works (except the first) treat on the 
 Vedanta ; their text is in verse and their commentary in prose. 
 
AUTHORS OF THE KARIKXS "WITH IMPERFECT COMMENT. 105 
 
 the Karikas of this class, or his comment assumes more the nature 
 of a general exposition, which is intended to work out the sense of 
 the Karika, but not to give, at the same time, a gloss, in the 
 usual sense of this word."" In short, a comparison of these 
 Karikas with those of the two other classes, must lead to the con- 
 clusion that, in reality, they are no separate class, but belong either 
 to one or the other. They are partly Patanj all's own arguments ex- 
 pressed in verse and amplified in prose, or the composition of that 
 "other" grammarian whom we have encountered before. There 
 are, indeed, two of these Karikas which are distinctly ascribed by 
 
 '^^ Thus the two half verses of a Karika to 1. 1, 38 (omitted in the Calc. ed.), are inter- 
 rupted and accompanied by a brief remarlc, as will appear from the following quotation 
 (ed. Ballantyne, p. 492) : ^rrT^fTT^ ^?Tftj g ^iT^ ^Wrf^t^ Wfirf^t^rn % (first 
 half verse) || ^ irfPT^tit *RWtf?t ^W^m^ I TfT 'n ^ I TT^ ^ ^^f^ ^jffT II 
 cf^rrr^TiTf^^TfW ^ ^irNf ^TlRdHi ^TfJJ '^ trrt (second half verse) || TJ[% 
 ^^Sm^^W^ f^J^ %f ^ illHUfd I TT^jfrt: M<*<'n^Pkfd -—The Bhdshya 
 on the first two half verses of the Karika to III. 1, 123 (which are left uninterrupted), 
 merely consists of the words : fijSt'W frj^fld M^<=ill^* 5 on the following portion, 
 <liH <<*<*) Ng4: ^5rC, of the instances: ^c(^4j: | TPft^: I ^TW^: I 'dp^bii: I ; 
 on 'cjd^'rl 'Tcft fWfV: > of the instances tf^', | 4j|4l^'^: I '^^I , and the 
 like on the last half verse. — The comment on the Karika to IV. 2, 13 runs thus : 
 
 ^l^rvrr^ ^iRmld l «*t*iK*^ *nr^ ««14<|0-— The whole Shashya on the 
 Karikas to VI. 4, 120, is the following; on the first half verse : «|;«d4^fii'ij^<^Mir7f 
 *(rtl<=ilH. I t% k41'3|*I^ I "41 •(Hi'"? and on the rest, which is given without any 
 interruption: ^rf^IWt ^ RfyM^- — The Karika to VI. 4, 149, which also 
 is given entire — up to r(V!|| , which is preceded only by the word iJlf^'q^ — 
 is followed by these words: -^((irl^ ^ d <^5i ^T^.— The Bhashya on 
 the whole continuous first Karika to VHI. 3, 45, consists of these words : 
 
 eq^^TOTT^'n'^Vsi^ ^ y,»1<<*l«rT'HNl <<'!H'*IM; on the first half of the second, 
 the Bhashya runs : T^efilSf irfJT TT^ ^ T ^Tnt. I ^JPSMlOfd I 'Bff^: ^ift" 
 {f^f^; on the uninterrupted second half and first half of the third Karika; ^ifz 
 
 ^^<j *R«flt7r ^^ ^ TTfl T m^tfff I m.tiyPM'MiOfd; on the second 
 half of the third K4rik^ : ^.^<l*i JT«M<<a^fd irffj^ ^Ot^ d^m<(rtlNT^: I 
 ^^f^ W\M I^Tr^fTT; fourth Kanka, etc. 
 
 14 
 
106 PAEIBHASHAS. 
 
 Patanjali to this grammarian, and a third which quotes Katyayana, 
 and cannot therefore belong to this author of the Yarttikas.'^* 
 
 Another and very important class of grammatical writings 
 frequently adverted to in the Mahabhashya is familiar to Hindu 
 grammarians under the name of Paribhdshds. They do not amend 
 and criticize, but teach the proper application of, the rules of Panini. 
 While the Sanjnd-rules explain the technical terms of his work, 
 the Paribhdshds explain the general principles, according to which 
 the Sutras are to be applied. Thus, when Panioi or other gram- 
 marians teach the meaning of the terms Gum, Vrtddki, Vpasarc/a, 
 Gati, Dwandwa, etc., the rules devoted to this purpose are Sanjnd- 
 rules ; but when Panini says, " If a grammatical element in the 
 Sutras has the mute letter m^ this anubandha indicates that such 
 an element has to be added after the last vowel of the radical or 
 base with which it is to be joined ;" or if he states, " The sixth 
 case in a Sutra means that, instead of that which is expressed by 
 this case, something else, enjoiued by the Sutra, is to be sub- 
 stituted," — such rules are Parilhdshd-rulesP'^ 
 
 '-' The Karikas to 1. 1, 38 ; VI. 4, 149 ; and VIII. 3, 45, belong, in all probability, to 
 Patanjali, and those to III. 1, 123 ; 2, 118. 123 (Kar. 3) ; IV. 2, 13 ; and VI. 4, 120, to the 
 "other" grammarians. The Karika to III. 1, 123, is distinctly introduced by Patanjali 
 iTith the words -iHK^ "^Jf^ . — The third Karika to III. 2, 123, which has no other comment 
 than the words f^«(e||>tfi( 4|T^(rt , is thus introduced by him, tog-ether with the two 
 preceding and the two following verses : -4)14 <^ WFI I •! Ipd ^^WTT: eRT^ ^^^ I 
 ^Jpl '^T^ ^eti|«J<^|^<^f»(i I «I c(<^fj, etc. Compare note 107. — The first Karika 
 to III. 2, 118, explicitly refers to Katyayana, in quoting his second Varttika to this 
 S6tra. 
 
 '^ Compare 1. 1, 1. 2. etc., and other SlJtras marked in the edition ^^TTT^: 5 
 and I. 1, 47- 49. and other Stitras marked there ifli.^mi^'slH.- ^"* ^^^ Calcutta 
 editors have failed in accuracy, also, in this respect. Thus the rule I. 1, 21, '-4||il|<(i«l7- 
 ^5f%!^, is marked by them as an -41 fd^^: , but Patanjali calls it distinctly TrfTm^ ; 
 or I. 1, 69, -41^14 (^«H5*^ ^TRW?T: . has their mark ^J-gjIM^Vj : , but is called by 
 Katyayana himself a Paribhasha (ed. Ballantyne, p. 763) ; or I. 1. 72, %«r f^t^TW- 
 ■^•tT^ Is marked by them tl'5|IM^%(: , but Patanjali likewise calls it a Paribhasha (ed. 
 Ballantyne, p. 372): ^[^: trfT'TTWl': ^T^^nT^ft: ^TfralWff^lTr^r'TlW^^ 
 
 T^ '^ T *rf%^2rf^ ^ f^ffv*si<<n^f7r, etc. 
 
PAEIBHASHAS MENTIONED BT PATANJALI. 107 
 
 A Parihhdshd contains either a special mark, which enables 
 the reader to recognise at once the Sutra to which it refers, or it 
 is delivered without such a criterion. In the latter case, it is 
 matter of discrimination to see whether it applies unconditionally 
 or conditionally to a given Sutra. In explaining, for instance 
 (I. 1, 3), that "whenever Gum or Vriddhi is the subject of a 
 rule, these terms are used iu reference to the vowels «, z, m, m, n, 
 ri, and Iri only," Panini, by these technical terms, gives us the 
 power of distiaguishing at first sight, as it were, the Sutras affected 
 by this ParibhdsJid. But when he says (I. 1, 54), " If a rule is 
 given in reference to something which follows^ it concerns merely 
 the beginning of such a following element,'' it is for the reader 
 to judge whether this Parihhdshd prevails unconditionally at, and 
 is an essential part of, for instance, rule YII. 2, 83, or not. Again, 
 when a Paribhdshd (I. 4, 2) teaches that " If two rules connected 
 with one another, but of a different purport, apparently apply to 
 the same case, the later rule only is valid," it is left to his judg- 
 ment to decide whether it may be applicable or not to rule VII. 
 3, 103, for instance.'^ 
 
 The Paribhashas, however, which are to be the subject of the 
 following remarks, are not those given by Panini himself: they 
 are the Paribhashas met with in the Great Commentary of 
 Patanjali, and have been defined by Vaidyandtha, sumamed 
 Pdyagunda, in his gloss on the Paribhdshendu'sekhara of Ndgo- 
 
 "' Purushottama-vritti-tlM on Panini, I. 1, 3: tjf^ ^T^lIWr "dM^ttll ^WV 
 
 E.I.H. No. 224,<>?TRt) •TiM^Joild ^ f^^-^^ I ^ ^^ f*<ty<4T*l "dM^^rj ^TR- 
 
 fW (I. I, 54) I ^ (MS. ■^) ff 7(f^ t;^TO T^ (VII. 2, 83) TJ^t I ^TTt^ t%- 
 fert^n|rrT l RwldM^ l|<f*lld (I. 4, 2) ^RO^ ^^N(*l|({1 ^^T=l*i'=t|l^d^^ 
 (comp. VII. 3, 103) I f^TTttrf^^ ^ H.T=HfM< (MS. TBT^PT^) ^BTTWrtcf • The 
 explanation of the Ras'ika — which in general is much more lucid, and on the whole not 
 more extensive than the compiled g-loss of the Calcutta edition — runs thus on the word 
 
 t%irf7i^(i- 4, 2) : firdvt t^TTlTR^: I ^Tf ^ TrawT^^^fT^T^^'rf^pg^firr^: 
 
108 JNAPAKA.— NYA'YA. 
 
 jihhatta^ sumamed the Upddhydya, as " axioms (tlie existence 
 and authority of) which are established by certain Sutras of 
 Panini, and axioms (the existence and authority of) which are 
 established by the method that governs other works, but is applic- 
 able to Panini also." Each of these categories has been taught, 
 as they state, by " older grammarians, in the shape of Sutras ;" 
 the former however, Vaidyanatha observes, prevail in number and 
 authority over the latter. In other words, these Paribhashas are, 
 according to the grammarians quoted, special axioms referring to 
 Panini exclusively, and general axioms which avail for Ms Gram- 
 mar as well as for other works. The "certain" Sutras of Panini 
 which indicate that such Paribhashas are in existence and are 
 required for a proper application of the rules, are called Jndpaka^ 
 and the method of other authors which indicates that those Pari- 
 bhashas are applicable as well to them as to Panini, bear the name 
 of Nydya}^^ We shall see, however, that this definition, to be 
 correct, will have to be modified ; and I may mention, besides, that 
 older commentators, Kaiyyata, for instance, merely speak of Pari- 
 bhashas and Nyayas, not of Paribhashas founded on Nyayas; while 
 the author of the Paribhashendusekhara himself frequently gives 
 the name of Nyaya to those Paribhashas which, according to his 
 introductory words, are such as are founded on Nyaya."' 
 
 '^^ Paribhdshendusekhara, in the introduction : l||'<n*lM't|l<4l4^U!r|<M qcqf'r- 
 
 ^m^mRU dlf^ c^l^aMI^Tt • Fariblidshendmekhara-Kasikd of Vaidyanatha 
 on these words: HTq^t%f?T I l«3?.l<fl(4|^: I <4Nfi(<*lfif | ^^(^Tjuj TlfS- 
 
 f^rafTTRfq ddi^-«i(Xdi«ii ^^: i •*iNRi^i^mi*ni^'^ (ms. e.i.h. no. 
 490 : HtT^rftnT i^") Trra%Tr«rff fT^wgiTraiF^^ 1^ ^qf^i^ntr: (comp. ii. 
 
 2, 34, V. 3) I fltcf^^mt^Tf^ -sllMchM^ I Tm^^T^^t^R^WRRTTftT^gt^- 
 
 ^Tf *n^rf?i etc. 
 
 '^ The Laghuparibhdshdvritti is therefore divided into a gloss on what 
 we may call the Paribhashas proper and a gloss on the «i||i|^i!ii: HlX^TT^J 
 which comprise twenty-eight axioms. Tliis distinction is somewhat obscured in the 
 
PARIBHASHAS ANTEEIOE TO THE VARTTIKAS OP KATYAYANA. 109 
 
 In now adverting to the chronological relation in which these 
 axioms stand to Panini and Katyayana, we are, in the first place, 
 enabled to decide that Paribhashas of this kind must have 
 existed before the Varttikas of Katyayana, for the latter quotes 
 such Paribhashas in his Varttikas.'^" Another question, how- 
 
 Par jJAefe^eredaseMara, where both categories are mentioned in the introduction (comp. 
 the preceding note), but afterwards treated promiscuously. The Calcutta edition has, 
 in most instances, correctly appended the Paribhasha to the Sdtra which is its 
 Jndpaka : thus the P. t^Tf^ljnTPr^rr^Wr ^^f«cl which is required for the proper 
 application of, e.g. the Sutra VI. 4, 130 ; VII. 2, 101, etc., is correctly appended in this 
 edition to the Jndpaka-S&tra 1. 1, 49 ; the P. •1l*J^*Mdd^*i4l^c=i^ which applies e.g. 
 to VI. 4, 127, to the Jndpaka I. 1, 55 ; the P. C* s| cH t^lTffT^ ^Tl[TfV<T fTl[TfVrl^ 
 which applies e.g. to VI. 4, 105 combined with VII. 1, 35, to the Jndpaka I. 4, 2, and 
 so on. Sometimes, however, the editors have appended the Paribasha to the Siitra for 
 the interpretation of which it is required, but not to the Jndpaka rule where it ought to 
 have been placed ; e.g. the P. fc|ch<^({|4^' f'RT'ft' «|'^4||«^ applies to I. 3, 12, but 
 its Jndpaka is I. 3, 43 ; or the P. «||<1s(<t<dd^*l'3|<(1<<4H. '* required for the proper 
 interpretation of I. 1, 20 ; VI. 1, 45, etc., but its Jndpaka is III. 4, 19, etc. In some 
 instances the authorities named differ as to the Jndpaka of a Paribhasha ; thus the P. 
 '^I^^GJ^U^'IM^'d^ 4(^(!j4{^is indicated according to the Pariblidshendusekhara which 
 invokes the authority of Patanjali, by the Jndpaka I. I, 72; according to the Laghu- 
 paribhdshdvritti, by the Jndpaka 1. 1, 34 ; the Calc. editors have placed it under 1. 1, 68. 
 — The P. MA(r|^<«?J<tli^U| ^T^rffl is indicated, according to the first named work, by 
 the Jndpaka VI. 4, 59, according to the second, by the Jndpaka I. 3, 18 ; the editors 
 have appended it to VIII. 2, 46, which Stitra, however, merely illustrates its applicability. 
 Many other instances of this kind might be alleged in order to show that the matter is 
 one of great difficulty to the Hindu grammarians themselves, and that in this respect, also, 
 much scope is left for a future conscientious editor of Panini. That the Paribhashas 
 are not met with at the end of Patanjali's Bhashya to a Sutra, requires no further ob- 
 servation after the statement of note 109 ; for they are an essential portion of the argu- 
 ments of his discussion. — The term •c(|«( is applied six times to Paribhashas by the 
 Calcutta editors (viz. at the Sutras I. 1, 23. 42. 47 ; twice II. I, I ; III. 1, 12) ; hvt 
 if they followed the Paribhasha collections quoted, they ought to have marked in a 
 similar manner several axioms which are given by them simply as Paribhashas. At all 
 events, they ought not to have called the same axiom •rf^^'^WT'" Nydya,a.t III. 1, 
 12, and Paribhdshd, at VI. 1, 71 ; and since they repeated it in order to show its 
 application, they might have mentioned it also at VI. 1. 135, where it likewise occurs in 
 the commentary of Patanjali. 
 
 '-° A Varttika to I. 1, 65, which has disappeared in the Calcutta edition, says : 
 ■JI'ttlR-siHll ^'gfTTfTt %3T1^^ 5Wr in*jR(%lT'n«n^rf^[WIT ; »*» la^t words 
 •ni^^j etc., are a Paribhasha, as results fiom the Bhashja on this Varttilca : 
 
110 COLLECTIONS OF PAEIBHASHA'S. 
 
 ever, is, wlietlier those Paribhashas which existed before Katya- 
 yana existed also before Panini, and whether we should be justified 
 in looking upon the Paribhashas collected in the Paribhdshen- 
 dusekhara, the Paribhashasangraha, and similar works, as the 
 original Paribhashas to the Sutras of Panini. If we believed 
 Yaidyanatha's definition of the two categories of Paribhashas, and 
 of the distinction he establishes between Jndpaka and Nymja^ as 
 just mentioned, it would become very probable that the Pari- 
 bhashas were composed after the Grammar of Panini, and by 
 another grammarian than Panini, since there is no evidence to 
 show that he wrote other Paribhashas than those which are 
 embodied in his o-\vn Sutras ; and if we assumed that the collec- 
 tions of Paribhashas made and commented upon by Nagojibhatta, 
 Siradeva, and others, are the original collections, there would be a 
 certainty that the " older grammarians," whom the former quotes 
 as his authority, did not precede Panini, for one, or perhaps two, of 
 these axioms, mentioned in each of these collections^ distinctly refer 
 to him.'" 
 
 There are, however, reasons which must induce us to doubt 
 the originality of the Paribhashas contained in these collections, 
 and to doubt too the strict correctness of Vaidyanatha's defini- 
 tion. In the first place, because these collections, each of which 
 appears to be entitled to equal authority, differ in the number, 
 and even in the wording, of the Paribhashas which they contain, 
 though they coincide in giving aU those Paribhashas which espe- 
 
 «i(^|^ I '^fT*5Wf%e|n^ • Compare also a similar instance, in note 137. 
 
 '" Tlie Paribhasha to IV. 1, 82 : -41^(1 <=^^i: M l fi l l'Tl ^ir: 5 a"d the P. to VIII. 
 I. 1 : ll«('mR)^'q*llei^, which is, perhaps, founded on the Sutra VIII. 2, 1 ; but 
 as the expression HqT^Tftp^ need not be a quotation from Panini, it would not be safe 
 to found a conclusion on it with the same certainty as on the word M 1 {((J vTl^ I* • 
 For this reason I do not lay stress on another Paribhasha which occurs in the 
 Paribhdshiirtliasangrdhavydkhydchandrikd and the Laghuparibhdshdvritti, and is 
 founded on VII. 4, 2 : 'g^TTft^ 1 ^iRqr^ (its wording in the Laghup. '0^^- 
 ftr^^ "T ^Tf'l^cT, is eiToneous. Compare note 132). 
 
PAEIBHASHAS OF PAT AN J ALL 111 
 
 cially concern ns here."' It is not probable, therefore, that the 
 original collection of Paribhashas was any of those now pre- 
 served in manuscript. But there is more ground to confirm 
 this doubt. The ParibMshendu'sehhara states, in its introduction, 
 that it is going to explain " the axioms explicitly mentioned by 
 the older grammarians .... and recorded in the Bhdshya and the 
 Vdrttikas ;^^ — whereupon Yaidyanatha comments: "< The older 
 grammarians' are Indra and so on; < explicitly mentioned' means 
 
 read in the shape of Sutras; ' in the Bhashya' says the 
 
 author of the Paribhashendusekhara, because it is not his intention 
 to explain the Paribhashas which are embodied ia Panini's Sutras, 
 and because some of those mentioned by the older grammarians 
 carry no authority with them." "" 
 
 Now, if we compare the Paribhashas collected in the last-named 
 work, and in the other works devoted to the same purpose, with 
 the Great Commentary itself, we find that they frequently call 
 that a Paribhasha which is not a quotation made by Patanjali from 
 authorities which preceded him, but simply a portion of his OAvn 
 argument. No doubt, when this great critic considered himself 
 justified in laying down general principles, according to which 
 certain Sutras are to be interpreted or applied, such axioms of his 
 are to all intents and purposes Paribhashas, but they are Paribhashas 
 of his, not of the authorities who preceded him."" And this dis- 
 
 ''^ The number of Paribhashas in the Paribhdshendusekhara is 108 ; it may, how- 
 ever, be given as 112, as several P. are contracted into one; in the Paribhdshdvritfi of 
 Slradeva it is 130 ; in the Laghuparibhdshdvritti and the Paribhdshdrthasangrahavyd- 
 khydchandrikd there are 108 Paribhashas proper and 28 nydyanMdh P., some of the 
 latter being included in the 108 of the first named work. Another collection, which does 
 not mention the name of the compiler, hut bears the title of Pdninimatdnugdmini 
 Paribhdshd, has 123 Paribhashas. Each of these collections has some Paribhashas 
 whicli are not named in several of the others. 
 
 ■'» See note 124. 
 
 "" I mentioned in note 109 that the absence or presence iu'the Bhashya of the quo- 
 tational word %Ji\ affords no criterion in the case of the metrical Kdrikds. It is neces- 
 sary to state now that this word is always met with when a Paribhasha is quoted by 
 Patanjali, and its absence is therefore a safe mark that a general axiom which occurs in 
 his commentary is one of his own creation. A few instances chosen from the first 
 
1 12 PAEIBHASHAS OF PATANJALI. 
 
 tinction we must draw in order to judge whether Patanjali origi- 
 nated an axiom merely for the purpose of defending Panini, or 
 whether the Sutra in question is hond fide entitled to the benefit of 
 such a general rule, since it is certain that several of these axioms 
 were invented at later periods, either to palliate the shortcomings 
 of Panini, or to make his rules so conveniently elastic as to extend 
 
 chapters of the Mahabhashya will make good this assertion. We read in the Bhashya 
 on 1. 1, 20 (p. 393, ed. Ballantyne) : ^ T^^fT^T: TTf^T^TTTT: I ^ ^UiMlrm«{ tm^: 
 llfrlM<^fh%'%fiT 1 1l*{I(^l<lfUiNRuit| "^H (the former of these P. is omitted in the 
 Calc. ed.) ; or at I. 1, 49 (p. 565) t^f^JT'R^l^irr *Rnft^^ trf?:HT^T etc. ; or 
 at I. 1, 55 (p. 608) ^^H^^ Trf^TTT I 'n^'=('M*d*J^«*lT«<4 *Rfftf?r ; or at 1. 1, 15 
 (p. 377) 11^ Trff Jnui4j4#|«n*J^ ^iTWrSRT ^i or at 1. 2, 63 d'-sJ|i|4|(i(H|^: 
 '^ ^^^ t%*n'^§«*l=l^«<<itfrr (not 1wrt^» as in the Calc. ed.) ; or at I. 4, 2 
 
 flg^ if^ifcT'T^ffr; when in the latter three instances the word "^^[^ indicates that the 
 preceding words are a Paribhasha, while in the first three instances the term itself is 
 added, and ^f^ afterwards. On the other hand, when we read at I. 1, 27 (p. 442) : 
 
 • -- — •• t^ '^: I Tf^fH ft w^wV^ (Tpr^ R-5iH*<fM I cT5r?n i 
 
 f^^Rrra^nTTTT etc. ; or in the Bhashya on the same Sdtra (p. 448): eJj^^Y ^ 
 ^I(^: I ^V^rr%^ tf Rmd^irR ll^f^, the words ^F^^ o Jrftr and ^TV- 
 «Bl»«Jq' are undoubtedly Patanjali's own ; and it may, in passing, be observed 
 that the Paribhashendusekhara and the Calc. ed. have omitted the word f^ in giving 
 these words as Paribhashas. Or when the Bhashya on the Varttika yjrJV{|«t'<riT| f'T- 
 l*<"d*{NlPd'*l i*IN*d<ri<l|=ll<^<«(|fll(omitted in the Calc. ed.), to II. 3, 46, says : 
 
 • • • ^T^^rr'fft" t^i|f^?rr^ eft ^^ ^Tvnft" I 'T 'qr^TT^f^^^^^ 
 
 PlHiairl I ^ dN<^-=l '*<^lRPd^:l^ari ^l^fcT etc., the words ^ « » -Sfirf^f^^ 
 are clearly a portion of Patanjali's general argument, and do not contain Paribhashas of 
 older grammarians. — These instances will illustrate the uncritical condition of the 
 actual collections of Paribhashas. Some of these Paribhashas, moreover, are nothing 
 else than Varttikas of Katyayana forming part of the discussion of the latter ; they, 
 too, are therefore not the oldest Paribhashas, since, as we have seen above (note 126) 
 Katyayana quotes a Paribhasha which must have preceded his Varttikas. Such Pari- 
 bhasha- Varttikas, which are commented upon by Patanjali in the same manner as the 
 Varttikas — while he generally contents himself with merely quoting a Paribhasha rule 
 —are, for instance, the P. to 1, 1, 66 : ^^T'rf'f^ t?fff?T' ^ I fM ^ 4) R'^uH ; or to I. 1, 
 72 : ':«)H^faiq :giqi J«ifriMf^%5f; or J*. tr^TlTtV^n^ <T^ ^ d^TKif^^ ^; 
 or t<(i|i)4J^(!j ^T^WrT.' , etc. Other Paribhashas of the Paribhashendus'ekhara, etc., 
 do not even represent the words of Patanjali, but merely the meaning of his general argu- 
 
paribha:sha's of patanjali. 113 
 
 from the time at wHch he lived down to a period of linguistic develop- 
 ment, which could not but find them defective in many respects."' 
 
 There is a material difference, therefore, between the Pari- 
 bhashas contained in these collections, when taken as a whole, and 
 the Paribhashas quoted by Patanjali ; and no conclusion becomes 
 safe until we know which Paribhashas are quotations made by 
 Katyayana and Patanjali, and which belong to their authorship, 
 or even to other and later works. It suffices for our present pur- 
 pose to add, that neither the first Paribhasha already mentioned, 
 Avhich distinctly refers to Panini, nor the second, is a Paribhasha 
 quoted by Patanjali or Katyayana."^ 
 
 "We are left, then, free to judge of the relative age of 
 these axioms entirely from their contents, and to weigh the 
 probabilities which decide whether they could all have been 
 written after Panini or not. These probabilities strongly tend 
 in favour of the latter alternative. For, however many of these 
 old Paribhashas may have been additions made after Panini's, 
 
 ments ; e.g., the P. given at I. 2, 9, l|^<4Jc|^i^(jjl4^pr|: , is the representative of the 
 following words of the Bhashya : ^dehlf^ <s(^fq IJT^ M^'iJeJcl, I cT^TSTT I tT^^jft 
 ^N4.*t 'TW ^ W^Tf'T^"^rf*T> etc.; and other Paribhashas, again, so far as I was 
 able to ascertain, do not occur at all in the Bhashya ; e.g., the P. at I. 1, 62, 63 ; II. 3, 
 46 (par. 2), etc. 
 
 '^' Such Paribhashas are, e.g., '^JTWnrrf^tVTf'TM. . at VI. 2, 197, and the nine 
 P. mentioned at III. 1, 79, by the Calcutta editors. 
 
 "^ The Paribhasha '4(^r|<=^n 'TrfW'Tl*!!': is mentioned in Kaiyyata's gloss on the 
 Bhashya to IV. 1, 82, but not by Patanjali. The P. ■^^■^TfwNTTfli^^ is, in 
 my opinion, a portion of Patanjali's own argument, wlien commenting on the 10th 
 Varttika (of the Calcutta edition), to VIII. 1, 1, as results fi-om the following- 
 quotation : t^:^ X^:gfif^ ^[fff I "^UlfrlH [«(<*<?» I Tir^d)- 
 
 r^frr^ ^^rra: i ^ ^rff ^n^ fM^ tt^ ^T^RT'*M<^f?T (?) ^^^t^r- 
 ^tf^ ^ f%wf^ I T^f*t^ #3raT^ fl[f=^ t^f^r?i1 I'sHMK^I'DrTr i t^ 
 
 ^KVIHUil I Tj;^ riff |^4-mfy41<<*<r^4-«l»< ^ffT ^^Tfir etc. The same remark 
 applies to the third Paribhasha mentioned in note 127; for the passage of the Bhdshya 
 to VII. 4, 2, whence this Paribhasha is taken, runs thus : n^^lM<4Rll'<4 !«(• I ^ 
 
 f?[(ij?tl*i I fTW ^^ *RfFT etc. 
 
 15 
 
114 THE OLDEST PAEIBHASHAS ANTERIOR TO PAXINI. 
 
 though, before Patanjali's, time, we still shall hare to admit that 
 without a great number of them, a proper application of his rules 
 is absolutely impossible. Without them, many rules would become 
 open to equivocations and doubts, nay, to such serious objections, 
 that it is hardly possible to conceive a grammarian of the mould 
 of Panini handing his Avork to his contemporaries in a condition 
 so needlessly precarious, and so little creditable to his skill. '''^ 
 Nevertheless, if he had delivered his grammar entirely without 
 any Paribhasha, we might still be free to assume, without incon- 
 sistency, that ia doing so, he meant to leave to the acumen of 
 
 133 rp,yQ instances will suffice to illustrate this character of what I consider to be the 
 oldest Paribhashas. In the rule III. 1, 94, Panini teaches that if, in his chapter on 
 Ijrit-affixes, a subsequent rule supersedes a preceding rule, either of the kind of affixes 
 enjoined by such rules may be at will employed in the formation of a krit-derivative, 
 except when the affix enjoined is used exclusively in the feminine gender, and when the 
 affixes in the preceding and subsequent rules are of the same form. Thus the Siitra III. 
 1, 133, teaches that nouns denoting the agent are fonned with the affixes nwul ( = aka) and 
 trich ( = tri). Again, Siitra III. 1, 135, says that from kship and other radicals there 
 named, such derivatives are formed with the affix ka( = a); hence, according to the Pari- 
 bhasha-rule III. 1, 94, the nouns of agent formed of kship may be kshipa, or kshepa or 
 ksheptri, since none of these affixes is used exclusively in the feminine gender, and none 
 has the same form as the two remaining ones. But when Panini rules, in III. 2, 3, that 
 from dd a derivative may be formed -da (as latter part of compounds like go-da, etc.), and, 
 in III. 3, 12, a derivative -ddya (as latter part of such compounds as go-ddya, etc.) it would 
 become doubtful whether there be an option also in these instances, since the technical 
 affix of the form -da is ka, and of the form -ddya, an, and since it is not clear whether ka 
 and an could be considered as affixes of a different form, or — on account of their repre- 
 senting the real affix a, though with a different influence on the radical — as affixes of 
 the same form. This doubt is not solved by Panini himself, but by a Paribhasha quoted 
 by Patanjali, which says : »i l^sl'tJdld*)^ l^l^l+l,. " dissimilarity (of the affixes) is not 
 produced by the mute anubandhas." And Panini must have supposed that his readers 
 were acquainted with this Paribhasha ; for otherwise, as an accurate writer, he could 
 not — in the Sutra III. 1, 139 — ^have treated, without any further explanation, the affixes 
 »a ( = a) and na ( = a) as similar affixes, and exempted them as such from the influ- 
 ence of the rule III. 1, 94.— Or when, in the Sutra VI. 1, 48 (and VII. 3, 36), he says 
 that the radical i, before the affix of the causal, becomes dp, his rule (VI. 4, 57) on dp 
 would be equivocal, since the form dp may represent a simple i-adical, too, — unless he 
 relied on the familiarity of his reader with the Paribhasha, which states : <«i -^ UI 'UflpT' 
 «(ll**lt: HfdM^tlf^. "(if there is a doubt) whether a secondary or a primitive form 
 (be meant), the primitive form (has the precedence)." 
 
MEANING OF JNAPAKA. 115 
 
 his commentators the task of eliciting these general principles 
 from his grammatical rules. But we know that such is not the 
 case; his work bears evidence that he has given Paribhasha- 
 rules, — axioms which are in no way more important than many 
 of those which are met with in the Mahabhashya, but not m. his 
 work ; — axioms which admit of the same arguments for or against 
 their desirability or their iudispensableness in a book of this kind. 
 The omission of these rules, then, would not be one made on 
 principle ; it would assume the nature of a serious defect, unless 
 we discovered a motive which would reconcile it with the 
 accuracy that characterizes this great grammarian. 
 
 We have proof — and some will be afforded in the sequel — that 
 Panini was not the inventor of the grammatical system preserved 
 in his work, though he improved the system of his predecessors, 
 and made his own additions to it. "We shall see, moreover, that 
 he availed himself of the technical means of the older grammarians, 
 and, in such a case, never gave any explanation of those techni- 
 calities which must have been known to his contemporaries, and, 
 therefore, required no remark. If, then, we supposed that he 
 followed the same course with regard to the Paribhasha-rules — 
 and there is no reason why he should not — our inference would, 
 of necessity, be that he was compelled to give such Paribhashas 
 as did not occur in the works of his predecessors, and were 
 required as special axioms for his own work ; but that, without 
 exposing himself to the reproach of carelessness, he could omit all 
 those Paribhashas which were already in existence, and were 
 available, as well for the grammar of his predecessors as for his 
 own. 
 
 And this conclusion is confirmed by the sense in which the 
 term JndpaJca is used in the older commentaries, especially 
 in the Mahabhashya itself, where by this name are called such 
 rules of Panini as '< indicate" or point to other rules which show 
 how the former rules are to be applied properly. In commenting, 
 for instance, on a Yarttika to the Sutra I. 1, 23, which defines 
 the technical term sankhyd^ Patanjali asks, "how will there be 
 in rules on sanhhyd a correct understanding of this term?" and 
 
116 MEAKING OF JNAPAKA. 
 
 answers this question in the following manner : " (This under- 
 standing) results from the Jndpaka-wle. What is such a 
 Jndpalca-x\i[e ? When Panini, in his Sutra Y. 1, 23, teaches that 
 bases formed with the affix vat, have an additional vowel i before 
 the affix Jca enjoined in the preceding rule for sankhyds^ — is this 
 Sutra V. 1, 23, the Jndpaka-rvle of sankhyd ? (i.e. does this Sutra 
 indicate that bases formed with vat are comprised under the 
 technical name sankhyd ?) No. For the term Jndpaka concerns 
 the application of a rule (i.e. this term is not used of a Sutra when 
 its application is prohibited ; the Sutras Y. 2, 51 and 52, for instance, 
 as Kaiyyata observes, are Jndpakas of the Sutra on sankhyd )?^^ 
 
 Hence, though a rule may stand in relation to another rule, 
 it is not its Jndpaka unless it indicate its real purpose ; '^ 
 
 ''^ Varttika to I. 1, 23 (om. in the Calc. ed. ; p. 432 ed. Ballantyne) : ej^l^«(|4t- 
 ^JfUrJR;. Patanjali : -^gT^t^ ^Tf^ ail=W*<*fn. I ^^<^hT ^<si(IH^5j^ ^^Tf- 
 
 irsm^ *rtwf?r i wnr^rrf^r^ i wm ^^ \ ^r^ ^RTtftllTr (v- i, 23) 
 #wnn RRd*^ ^Ht (comp. V. 1, 22) ^^rarf^ ^rrfw 1 ^<^t^ dTsm^ti 
 
 ^i^ °<^^'ii<iaj<JM < ji fwf^ (V. 2, 52) tr^TtfVf^ (V. 2, 51) v^fdM^d w^ irrf^ 
 
 d^-sjm*<rd *rat7r 4J*sMI<*l4f*<rd- Nagojibhatta explains : ^ftTT^^f'rfW I 
 
 Tr^^TT^^tTRlJr^; • — This instance will suffice to illustrate the use of the vfovA jndpaka, 
 which is of constant occurrence in the Bhashya, and is always employed in a similar manner. 
 In order to obviate an objection which might be raised by those not familiar with the 
 Mahabhashya against my rendering e|«Tl<|s( 'd'^'SJIM^ ^TR^, " is this S<itra V. 1, 
 23," etc., — I have to observe that Patanjali when quoting a Sutra, often merely men- 
 tions its principal word, instead of repeating the words of tlie Sdtra and adding after 
 tliem the quotational word '?rf7I . Tlie word '^tft« taken from the Si'itra '^cfttTWT '^ 
 therefore here an equivalent of ^cTlf^^t^ • Analogous instances will be found in 
 note 136. 
 
 "' Patanjali obsei-ves, for instance, in his comment on the first Sivasutra (p. 87 ed. 
 Ballantyne): ^ 'gi^ i^i^HH ^ (VIII. 4, 68) ^[^^in^ t^^cRl ^^rmTIf(irr> 
 Tifm irrfW I trT^f^ -sJIMctl+i 1 ^?rf^ H^^Tl^ Ti-^fl^RJi: etc. ; or on the Varttika 
 to I. 1, 56, ^ff^ 41lO<ti tt^^V: , he obsei-ves (p. 633, ed. Ballantyne) : Wft^JTt- 
 
RELATION BETWEEN JNAPAKA AND PAEIBHASnA. 117 
 
 and as Patanjali expressly and repeatedly states, a rule has 
 the character of a Jnapaka only ivhen it is given in reference 
 to a rule ah-eady previously established, and Avhen its sense 
 becomes completed by it. Thus the Siitra III. 2, 97, says 
 Patanjali, is no Jndpalca of the Guna-rule I. 1, 3, since the 
 former rule does not become completed through the contents of 
 the latter. Or, the Sutra YII. 2, 103 is not a Jndpaka of the 
 rule VII. 2, 102, since its object would not be accomplished by 
 the contents of this latter rule, though the words concerned 
 by both rules are comprised under the term sarvandman.^^ In 
 consequence, a Jndpaka rule cannot precede, but must come after 
 the rule which is indicated by it. 
 
 In now considering the relation which exists between the 
 Jnapakas and the Paribhasha-Sutras,"^ we cannot but perceive that 
 it nowise differs from the relation which exists between rules in- 
 stanced before and ordinary rules indicated by these Jnapakas. In 
 the same manner as there are Jnapaka-rules which indicate the 
 purpose of other rules, there are Jnapaka-rules which indicate the 
 purpose of Paribhashas, and all the Paribhashas given by Panini 
 
 ^w Tarsi: i ^itn^M^rri'T^m^f rr i irtf^f Hwrtcr i ^r^^nnf^Tf^ (viii. 
 
 «|^e|| 4^|H etc. ; and the like in other instances. 
 
 ^^ Patanjali e.g. in his gloss on the Varttikas to 1. 1.3 (ed. Ballantyne, p. 248) : . . . . 
 
 ^i^Tj^ <jj^v|c|t|^ (III. 2, 97) -w^ T 3r§R^ ^pn^ *R<flt?r f%t f%f%n;T- 
 
 ^I^^IUH -Sjm°hl^ *r^f?f I T ^ ql ^jui«f "RrarfW; on the last words of the third 
 K^rikd to VII. 2, 102: "^ dt?N l4n jPd-^m^f Tt ^ ^f^ ft»< l.fl'lI'lT^ 'K- 
 
 wrtTT I ^i^ t^: ^ i:f7i (VII. 2, 103) qn^ inf% I iin^ ff t^ il^i^ 
 
 "' A Paribhdsha is, on account of this relation, also called -sj|lt| . In his comment, 
 for instance, to I. 4, 14, Patanjali says : '4|<(t4(^Uj fcJiJT^^ | •! tlfVl^^^f+lwl^'^n 
 
 %'^.^m7 d<«rtHi Ht^^rHr i n^^frf^lvm i '^rci ^arit xraf^r — varttika : xj^- 
 
 ^f^PTWrlT^iraHR ^^Tf^refr irannTf^ Tf^nrf^fvirfrR^Traf— Patanjali. 
 I(3lV*-l^% rtt^mfcfRr^ *{«J<flf7f etc. Compare note 126. 
 
118 PANINI— KATYXYANA— PATANJALI. 
 
 himself, therefore, precede their Jnapaka-rules. If, then, as we 
 learn from Katyayana and Patanjali, there existed Paribhashas 
 which are not contained in Panini's grammar, but which never- 
 theless are indicated by Jnapakas, which are Sutras of Panini, 
 such Paribhashas must, at least in Patanj all's opinion, have ex- 
 isted before Panini's work ; for otherwise the definition given by 
 the Mahabhashya of the term Jndpaka would become inconsistent 
 with itseK. And since Paribhashas or principles of interpretation 
 cannot be conceived without matter to be interpreted according to 
 them, such Paribhashas must not only have preceded Panini, but 
 they must have been taught in one or more other grammatical 
 works ; and Yaidyanatha, therefore, as I suggested above, cannot 
 be correct in basing his distinction between Nydya and Jndpaka 
 on the circumstance that the latter refers to Panini exclusively, 
 while the former applies also to other works. In all probability 
 the difference is this : that Jndpaka is used especially of gram- 
 matical rules, while Nydya is a synonyme of Paribhasha, but 
 applies to writings which are not grammatical. 
 
 In now summing up the result we have obtained from the pre- 
 vious investigation, so far as it bears on our immediate problem, we 
 find that the oldest author on record who wrote on Panini was 
 Katyayana, and that he was not merely the author of the Yarttikas, 
 properly so called, but also of a certain number of Karikas, which, 
 in reality, however, are nothing else than an assemblage of single 
 Varttikas, forming, conabined, a stanza or a verse. "We have seen, 
 too, that Varttikas, which form an essential part of the Maha- 
 bhashya itself, are of Patanjali's authorship. 
 
 What, then, is the relation of Xatyayana to Panini, and of 
 Patanjali to Panini and to Katyayana ? Is it that of commenta- 
 tors, or is it to be defined otherwise ? 
 
 Professor Miiller confers upon Katydyana the title of " editor" 
 of Panini, and says that " the Great Commentary of Patanjali 
 embraces both the Yarttikas of Katyayana and the Sutras of 
 Panini." ^^ Professor Weber, on the contrary— who, even in some 
 
 "" Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 353 and 243. 
 
THE VXRTTIKAS OF KATTATANA. 119 
 
 of his latest writings, candidly confesses that he has never read the 
 Mahabhashya, but nevertheless, or perhaps for this reason, abounds 
 in conjectures on this work, which not only is in existence but 
 within reach, — goes so far as to throw doubt on the genuineness of 
 those Sutras which are not explaiaed, because they are not ex- 
 plained, in the Great Commentary, "» I fear that neither scholar 
 will find adherents for his opinion amongst the pupils of Patanjali 
 and Katyayana. The mutual relation of these latter grammarians 
 and their relation to Panini is, indeed, implied by the word 
 Vdritika. 
 
 "The characteristic feature of a Varttika," says Nagojibhatta, 
 "is criticism in regard to that which is omitted or imperfectly 
 expressed in a Sutra." "" A Yarttika of Katyayana is therefore 
 not a commentary which explaias, but an animadversion which 
 completes. In proposing to himself to write Yarttikas on Panini, 
 Katyayana did not mean to justify and to defend the rules of 
 Panini, but to find fault with them ; and whoever has gone through 
 his work must avow that he has done so to his heart's content. 
 He will even have to admit that Katyayana has frequently failed 
 in justice to Paniai, by twistiag the words of the Sutras into a 
 sense which they need not have, or by upbraiding Panini with 
 
 "' For instance, in the Indische Studien, vol. IV., p. 78 : " Die Piax^s kommen in 
 dem Schol. zu P3,nini (IV. I, 95; 2, 112) vor (ob aus dem Mahabhashya?);" or in a 
 note to the same vol., p. 168, when referring to the Siitra VI. 2, 142 of Panini, he 
 observes : " Allerdings : bhdshye tu na vydkhydtam, also unsicher, ob ihm g-ehorig." 
 ["Also" — . on what basis does this conclusion rest? "Unsicher" — , for whom?] 
 The same confession and the same conjecture occur, indeed, so often in Professor 
 Weber's multifarious writings, that it becomes a matter of psychological curiosity to see 
 how an author, apparently much concerned about a certain subject, instead of acquiring 
 the necessary information — which in the present case could not have caused any 
 great difficulty, — or of consulting at least some one who might have allayed his dis- 
 quietude, constantly displays before the public his feelings and theories, whereas, by 
 dint of a stereotyped repetition of the same words, he must convey to a confiding 
 reader the impression that there may be some foundation, at least, for his would-be 
 critical surmise. 
 
 '*" Nagojibhatta on Kaiyyata to the first Varttika (of the Calc. ed.) of I. 1, 1 (ed. 
 Ballantyne, p. 213) : qrTfSsBWfT I ^ i^Wf^Wf^^aT^f^ WTf^^fi^Ti;. 
 
120 THE MAHABHA'SHTA OF PATANJALI. 
 
 failings he was not guilty of. On this score he is not unfi-equently 
 rebuked by Patanjali, who on such occasions severely rates him 
 for his ungenerous treatment of Panini, and, as we have seen in 
 an instance above (p. 52), proves to him that he himself is wanting 
 in proficiency, not Panini. Katyayana, in short, does not leave 
 the impression of an admirer or friend of Panini, but that of an 
 antagonist, — often, too, of an unfair antagonist. In consequence, 
 his remarks are attached to those Sutras alone which are open to 
 the censure of abstruseness or ambiguity, and the contents of 
 which were liable to being completed or modified : he is silent on 
 those which do not admit of criticism or rebuke. 
 
 The position of Patanjali is analogous, though not identical. 
 Far from being a commentator on Panini, he also coiild more 
 properly be called an author of Yarttilias. But as he has two 
 predecessors to deal with, instead of one, — and two predecessors, 
 too, one of whom is an adversary of the other, — his Great Com- 
 mentary undergoes, of necessity, the influence of the double task 
 he has to perform, now of criticising Panini and then of animad- 
 verting upon Katyayana. Therefore, in order to show where he 
 coincided with, or where he differed from, the criticisms of 
 Katyayana, he had to write a comment on the Varttikas of this 
 latter grammarian ; and thus the Mahabhashya became not only 
 a commentary in the ordinary sense of the word, but also, as the 
 case might be, a critical discussion, on the Varttikas of Katyayana ; 
 while its Ishtis, on the other hand, are original Varttikas on such 
 Sutras of Panini as called for his OAvn remarks. 
 
 I have already mentioned that Patanjali often refutes the stric- 
 tures of Katyayana and takes the part of Panini ; I may now add 
 that, in my opinion, and as a few instances hereafter will show, he 
 sometimes overdoes his defence of Panini, and becomes unjust to 
 Katyayana. It is easy, hoAvever, to understand the cause of this 
 tendency in Patanjali. The spirit of independent thought, com- 
 bined with the great acumen and consummate scholarship Avhich 
 pervade the work of this admirable grammarian — to whom, as far 
 as my knowledge goes, only one author of the later literature 
 bears a comparison, I mean the Mimansa philosopher, Kumarila — 
 
THE MAHABHASHYA OF PATA:S'JALI. 121 
 
 could not allow liim to become a mere paraphraser of another's 
 words. An author like Patanjali can only comment on the condi- 
 tion that, in doing so, he developes his own mind, be it as adherent 
 or as antagonist. And since Katyayana had left but little chance 
 for a successor to discover many more blemishes in the Grammar 
 of Panini than he had pointed out, an active and critical mind 
 like that of Patanjali would find more scope and more satisfaction 
 in contending with Katyayana than in completing Panini ; and 
 thus, I hold, we may explain his proneness to weaken even those 
 censures of Katyayana which we should see reason to approve, 
 did we not discover in favour of Panini arguments which will 
 appear hereafter, but which were foreign to Patanjali. 
 
 As little, therefore, as it entered into the purpose of Katyayana 
 to advert to every Siitra of Panini, did it come within the aim 
 of Patanjali to write a commentary on Panini, and, according to 
 the requirements of such a commentary, to explain every rule of 
 this grammarian. His object being, like that of Katyayana, merely 
 a critical one, Patanjali comments upon the Yarttikas of Katyayana, 
 because such a comment of his implies, of necessity, criticisms, 
 either on Panini or on Katyayana ; and, in consequence, no Yarttika 
 could be left unnoticed by him. Again, independently of Katyayana, 
 he writes his own Yarttikas to Sutras not sufficiently or not at all 
 animadverted upon by the latter grammarian, because they, too, are 
 criticisms, viz., on Panini. And, like Katyayana, therefore, he passes 
 over altogether all those Sutras which are unexceptionable to his 
 mind. It is obvious, therefore, that no doubt whatever concerning 
 the genuineness of a Sutra of Panini can be justified on the ground 
 alone that it has no Bhashya of Patanjali ; and the unsoundness of 
 such a doubt becomes still more obvious when we consider that a 
 great many Sutras of Panini, which have no Yarttikas and no 
 Bhashya of Patanjali, nevertheless make their appearance as quota- 
 tions and as part of Patanjali's argument in his Commentary on 
 other Sutras criticized by Katyayana. 
 
 Now, if we take a summary view of the labours of Katyayana, 
 we find that of the 3993 or 3992 Sutras of Panini, more than 1500 
 offered him the opportunity of showing his superior skill ; that his 
 
 16 
 
122 NUMBER OF KATTAYANA'S CRITICISMS ON PANINI. 
 
 criticisms caLed forth more than 4000 Varttikas, which, at the lowest 
 estimate, contain 10,000 special cases comprised m his remarks. 
 
 Having arrived at this point, let us ask — How could India re- 
 sound with the fame of a work which was so imperfect as to contain 
 at least 10,000 inaccuracies, omissions, and mistakes? Suppose that 
 there existed in our days a work of 4000 paragraphs, every second 
 or third of which not merely called for an emendation, an addi- 
 tion, and corrections, in formal respects, but which, on the Avhole, 
 compelled us to draw the conclusion that there wei^e twice and 
 a haK times as many blunders in it as it contained matter to be 
 relied upon, — is it possible to assume that such a work could 
 create a reputation for its author except one which no sensible man 
 would be desirous of? If we assumed such a possibility, it could 
 only be on the supposition that such an author origiaated the 
 subject he brought before the public, and, as an inventor, had a 
 special claim to indulgence and fame; or, on the supposition of 
 public ignorance and individual immorality. 
 
 But there is evidence to show that Panini was not the first 
 Hindu grammarian who wrote, nor even the inventor 6/ the 
 technical system which has caused so much uneasiness to would- 
 be philologers. It is certain, too, that grammar was not, in 
 ancient India, the esoteric study of the few ; and there is no 
 proof of any kind that Panini had influenced or hired a number 
 of scribes to puif his Grammar and his fame. "We must needs, 
 therefore, resort to another explanation, if we want to reconcile 
 the fact of the Yarttikas with the fact of Panini' s reputation, which 
 was so great that supernatural agency was considered as having 
 assisted him in his work. 
 
 This explanation, I hold, can only be derived from the circum- 
 stance that Panini and Kdtydyana belonged to different periods of 
 Hindu antiquity, — periods separated by such a space of time as was 
 sufficient to allow — 
 
 1. Grammatical forms which were current in the time of Panini 
 to become obsolete or even incorrect ; 
 
 2. Words to assume meanings which they did not possess at the 
 period when he lived ; 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND KATYAYANA. 123 
 
 3^ Words and meanings of words used hy him to become anti- 
 quated ; and 
 
 4. A literature unknown to him to arise. 
 
 It is on this supposition alone that it seems possible to realise 
 Panini's influence and celebrity ; of course, on the supposition, too, 
 that ia his time he gave so accurate, so complete, and so learned a 
 record of the language he spoke, that his contemporaries, and the 
 next ages which succeeded him, could look with admiration on the 
 rules he uttered, as if they were founded on revelations from above. 
 If he had bungled along, as he must appear to have done, had 
 he been a contemporary of Katyayana, — not he, but the author of 
 the Varttikas, would have been the inspired Kishi and the reputed 
 father of the Vyakarana. It is not necessary to exaggerate this 
 view by assuming that Panini was an infallible author, who com- 
 mitted no mistakes, omitted no linguistic fact, and gave complete 
 perfection to a system ah-eady ia use : we need take no other 
 view of the causes of his great success than we should take of those 
 which produce the fame of a living man. His work may or may 
 not have been looked upon by his contemporaries as having 
 attained the summit of excellency, but, at all events, it must 
 have ascended far beyond mediocrity. At its own period it can- 
 not have failed so signally, and in so many respects, as it would 
 have done if Panini and Katyayana had been contemporaries. 
 
 In order fully to substantiate this view, I should have to sub- 
 mit a considerable portion of Panini's Grammar and the Yarttikas 
 connected with it, to an investigation which would exceed by far 
 the limits prescribed by the present inquiry; and such an in- 
 vestigation might, moreover, appear to be superfluous on the pre- 
 sent occasion, since I shall adduce hereafter arguments of another 
 kind, which will add materially to the force of these deductions. 
 Yet the importance of this question is so great that I will 
 indicate, at least by a few instances, the direction in which, I 
 believe, the facts may be found that lead to the conclusions 
 named. 
 
 1. Panini says (I. 2, 6) that the radical indh is kit in lit, which 
 words mean that, according to rule YI. 4, 24, the preterit of indh is 
 
124 CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND KATYAYANA. 
 
 idhe. This radical lie treats together with hku ; and he does not 
 observe — as he always does if such be the case — that his rule 
 concerns the Vaidik use of the preterit of indh. Yet Katyayana 
 corrects the injunction of the Sutra by adding this restriction ; 
 and, for reasons connected with the latter, goes so far as to declare 
 this Sutra of Panini to be superfluous."' 
 
 In rule YII. 1, 25, Panini states that the sarvandmdni (which 
 word is usually but inaccurately rendered "pronouns") which 
 are formed with the affixes datara^ and datama, — moreover, itara, 
 anya, and anyatara (Grana to I, 1, 27) form their neuters not in 
 m, but in J, e.g. katarad, Tcatamad^ anyad^ etc. ; but he says in a 
 following special rule, that, in the Yeda, itara has itaram for 
 its neuter. It is obvious, therefore, that he intended to 
 exhaust his subject by these rules ; yet Katyayana has to state 
 that " ekatara forms ekataram in the Yeda as well as in the 
 language of common life." '*^ 
 
 The letters k, t, /, p, at the end of a Pada, says Panini (YIII. 4, 45) 
 may become^, d, c?, b, before a following nasal, or be changed into the 
 nasal of their class. Katyayana adds : "If, however, the following 
 nasal is part of an affix, these letters must always become the 
 nasal of their class, in the language of common life.'''' "^ 
 
 Now I have chosen these instances from the sphere of conju- 
 gation, declension, and phonetic laws, simply because they at once 
 suggest the question whether Panini knew as much grammar as 
 
 "' I. 2, 6 : ii:f«it*I^f7I«rr ^.— Varttika : ^^^tflPlM'Mc'Hi^^ t ^ f^MWT- 
 TlPSri ntl^-«( •! I "i (5*J*<-— Bhdshya : ^'^If^f^^Jlft t%^ I ^ ITrl^ '^^ 
 
 t'T^^'lWffWT r^S^'<t*1*1*l's<^*l,- (The Calcutta editors have on this occasion mis- 
 taken Katyayana's Varttika for Patanjali's Bhashya). 
 
 '« VII. I, 26: ^rt<l^«»^Rl— Varttika : <d<.l^t^(% ITfTT^ Hchd<l(y4^- 
 
 "' VIII. 4, 45: ^ ^g^rrftj^ .jg^TftrWt TT— Varttika : iq^ 5g^f%'5 IHSI^ 
 
 ?Tmmf fsrW^^^T^l-— Bhdshya: ^S^ft ^^^1%^ Tf^ »TTTT^ t^TWt^rfH ^If- 
 
 3Ew: I ^fpr wfT^R- 
 
INDII.— EKATARA.— VANGMAYA— T-WANGMAYA.— VISHKIRA— VIKIRA. 125 
 
 we should fairly expect from a beginner, who had studied Sanskrit 
 for a few months. Is it probable or not, that he was proficient 
 enough to form the preterite of the common radical indh, " to 
 kindle," the nominative of the neuter of eJcatara, " one of two," — 
 a word which, moreover, is the subject of one of his special rules 
 (Y. 3, 94) ? and was he really so ignorant as not to be able to 
 combine vak or twaJc, with the common aifix maya into vaiigmaya 
 or twangmaya, though a phonetic influence of the affix maya on 
 the base hiranya is adverted to in his rule YI. 4, 174 ? Or is it 
 more plausible to assume that idhe and ekatarad were forms 
 current in his time, though no longer current and correct 
 when Katyayana wrote ; and that when Panini lived, vdgmaya 
 or twagmaya were as legitimate as vdhgmaya or twangmaya ? 
 That Katyayana' s stricture may be as much open to censure as 
 the rule of Panini, unless we, in fairness, gave it the benefit of a 
 similar argument, is proved by the words kalcudmat, kakudmin, 
 and garutmat, which "in the (classical) language of common life" 
 are quite correct, but would have been incorrect according to the 
 Yarttika, if they had been used in such language at the time when 
 it was composed.'" 
 
 2. Panini says (YI. 1, 150), " the bird (nominative) may be 
 vishkira or vikira''' (either of which means any eatable bird but 
 a cock). This rule is thus modified by Katyayana: "the form 
 may be vishkira or vikira if the sense of the word is ' bird' " {loca- 
 tive). Patanjali, it is true, sides with Panini. The Yarttika, 
 he says, is irrelevant, since it teaches that either form vishkira or 
 vikira^ is correct, if the word means " bird," but that vishkira 
 would be the only legitimate form, if the word has any other sense. 
 Panini, however, he adds, did not mean to affect the sense "bird" 
 by his optional "or," but the irregular form of the derivative."' 
 
 '" It is not permitted to adduce also c||(l^«(^, for this word ought to be written— 
 as, for instance, the commentators of the Amarakosha do write it — WrfTTTT'l.. since its 
 affix is not fipt^ ,but ^:t^, according to Panini, V. 2, 124 : ^^T^ fJUf^i: . That in 
 frjffif the letter It is not an anubandha, results from I. 3, 8. 
 
 "' VI. 1, 150: f%fe^: IT^Mffwd ^--Varttika: t^ffejiX:: ^I^ fwt^ 
 
 ^ ^IJcSjli;.— Bhashya : I[^ tt^'gWR TTf^ ^ (WT ?) ^^'IT^ft f^an^l 
 
126 CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN TANINI AND KATYAYANA. 
 
 Nevertheless, it appears to me tliat both, grammarians are right, 
 and that Patanjali's decision is open to doubt. Whenever Panini 
 binds the application of a rule to the condition of a special sense, 
 he expresses the latter by a word either in the locative or 
 nominative. If he gives the meaning of the word in the locative 
 it does not necessarily follow, though it usually happens to be the 
 case, that such a word has other meanings, too, which are then 
 excluded from the influence of the rule ; but if he expresses the 
 sense of the word in the nominative, he seems always to indicate 
 that the word has this sense, and this sense only, — that both sense 
 and word, being expressed in the same case, are, as it were, con- 
 gruous."' His present rule would therefore imply that each form, 
 visMira or viMra, has no other sense than that of "bird;" but 
 Katyayana's corrections would mean that both forms are optional 
 in the sense of " bird," while in any other sense both forms repre- 
 sent separate words. This fact is borne out by the meanings 
 given in Wilson's Dictionary under each form. 
 
 The word ascharya is rendered by Panini anitya (VI. 1, 147), i.e. 
 " not permanent, rare." Katyayana corrects this meaning, in sub- 
 stituting for it adhhuta, i.e. "that which has not existed before, 
 miraculous, wonderful." On this occasion, too, PatanjaK defends 
 Panini, by observing that this remark might have been spared, for 
 the sense, "wonderful, miraculous," is implied by the sense " rare ;" 
 and he gives instances to confirm this view, viz., "the height of 
 (this) tree is something ' rare ' (or wonderful) ; the blueness of the 
 sky is something 'rare' (or wonderful);" but I very much doubt 
 whether logicians will assent to this view of Patanjali ; for, though 
 all that is wonderful is rare, not all that is rare need be wonderful. 
 And he himself seems to break doAvn under his third instance, 
 which runs thus: "That the stars which are not fastened in the 
 
 "" Compare e.g. III. 3, 80. 81. 87; V. 2, 15 ; VI. I, 149 (the meanings 2 and 3 of 
 ^nrW^) in ™y Dictionary, are of later origin) ; VI. I, 155. 156, etc. 
 
VISHKIEA.— VIKIRA.^A'SCHARYA.— BHAKHSHYA.— BHOJYA. 127 
 
 atmosphere do not fall down, is" — surely not rare, but wonderful."' 
 In other terms, the meaning of d'scharya, given by Panini, seems to 
 have been only " rare ;" and if so, it preceded that which became 
 more usual at a later time, and is mentioned by Katyayana. 
 
 Another and, perhaps, more striking instance is afforded by the 
 Siitra (VII. 3, 69) where Panini renders the word hhojya by hhakshya; 
 for Katyayana corrects him in saying that he ought to have rendered 
 hhojya by abhyavahdrya. Now, if we consult the use of these 
 words in the classical language, there can be no doubt that hhojya 
 and abhyavahdrya mean " what is fit for consumption," and apply 
 to solid as well as to liquid substances ; that, on the other hand, 
 hhakshya means " what is fit to be eaten," and applies to solid food 
 only. Is it likely, however, that Panini should have blundered 
 in the application of words which, it would seem, the most ignorant 
 would employ properly? Patanjali, who, as I have already 
 observed, is always disposed to stand by Panini, again takes up 
 his defence, and observes, that Panini' s using the word hhakshya 
 instead of abhyavahdrya need not have been criticised by Katya- 
 yana, for there are expressions like ah-bhaksha^ " one who eats 
 water," or vdyu-bhaksha, " one who eats air," which show that the 
 radical hhaksh is used also in reference to other than solid food."' 
 
 '*' VI . 1 , 1 47 : '4||4i|4^r*l^ .— Varttika (misedited in the Calc. ed.) : '4il^4^'dd Tf^ 
 ■411^ 4*1 •dR.^ i«<«y»HR T^TflfW T MdnTirrT I rffrff «)fti=*l<i I T «(rh<*l*i I 
 
 Tjd«d^fli Tr^4y^«!d d'sHKinr^'^w^ t^ wtf ira^fwr ^ '^rf^rsn i 
 
 ' "* VII. 3, 69: Ht5^ H# -—Varttika: >f\^J4J^c|^| j}f*<fd ^W^TR: (where the 
 nominative of -41^14^14) implies an additional criticism against the locative of H^ i 
 see the foregoing remark, page 126) . — Bhashya : ?[^ftl H^\ ^Td, I 'ftWi Wi' I 
 
128 CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND KATYAYANA. 
 
 But both instances alleged by Patanjali are conventional terms-; 
 tbey imply a condition of fasting, and derive their citizenship 
 amongst other classical y^ox^s, from a Vaidik expression, as Patanjali 
 himself admits, when, in his introduction to Panini, he speaks of 
 eJcapadas, or words, the sense of which can only be established 
 from the context of a Vaidik passage to which they originally 
 belong ;"^ they do not show, therefore, that bhaksh is applied also 
 to other phrases of the classical language, so as to refer to liquid 
 food. It seems evident, therefore, that in Panini's time, which pre- 
 ceded the classical epoch, bhalcshya must have been used as a con- 
 vertible term for hhojya; while, at Katyayana's period, this rendering 
 became incorrect, and required the substitution of another word. 
 
 3. The words and the meanings of words employed by Katya- 
 yana are such as we meet Avith in the scientific -writers of the 
 classical literature : his expressions would not invite any special 
 attention nor call forth any special remark. This cannot be 
 said of the language of Panini. In his Sutras occur a great 
 niunber of words and meanings of words, which — so far as my 
 own. knowledge goes — ^have become antiquated in the classical 
 literature. I -\vill mention, for instance, pratyavasdna^ eating 
 (I. 4. 52 ; III. 4. 76) ; upasamvada, making a bargain (III. 4, 
 8) ; rishi, in the sense of Veda, or Vaidik hymn (IV. 4. 96) ; 
 utsanjana, throwing iip (I. 3. 36) ; vyaya, application, employment 
 in (I. 3. 36) ; upasambhdshd^ talking over, reconciling (I. 3. 47) 
 svakarana, appropriating, especially a wife, marrying (I. 3. 56) 
 sdlinikarana, humbling (I. 3. 70) ; matt, desire (III. 2. 188) 
 abhreska, propriety (III. 3. 37) ; avaklripti, imagining (III. 3. 145) 
 abhydddna, commencement (VIII. 2. 87) ; hotrd^ in the sense of 
 ritwij\ priest (V. 1. 135) ; updj'ekri and anwdjekri, to strengthen 
 (I. 4. 73) ; nivachanekri, to hold one's speech, to be silent (I. 4. 76) ; 
 kanehan and manohan, to fulfil one's longing (I. 4. 66), etc. etc.'^" 
 
 "° For the quotation from Patanjali's preface to Panini (ed. Ballantyne, p. 46) see 
 my Dictionary, s:v. ■^ii\t\^\^. 
 
 "* Some of these expressions, or others belongipg to the same categorj', occur also 
 
OBSOLETE WORDS IN PANINI.— ARANTAKA. 129 
 
 4. To prove a negative, is, no doubt, the hardest of all pro- 
 blems. There are circumstances, however, which may lessen the 
 danger of drawing the conclusion that an author cannot have pos- 
 sessed such and such knowledge when he wrote. If we take into 
 account the evidence afforded by the author's character and work, 
 the judgment passed on his writings by his countrymen, and the 
 condition of the latter, — these elements put together into the scale 
 of criticism will show whether the scale of the author's proficiency 
 can spare, or not, a certain amount of weight without disturbing 
 the balance required. That Paniai was an eminent writer, is not 
 only manifest from his Grammar, but acknowledged by the com- 
 mon judgment of his countrymen ; and the learning and civiliza- 
 tion of ancient India was such that we must admit the fullest 
 competence in those who established his celebrity. But we know, 
 too, that Panini was a Brahmanic writer. No amount of scholar- 
 ship could have ensured to him the position he holds in the ancient 
 literature if he had been a professor of the Buddhistic creed. In 
 forming, then, an opinion on Panini we must always bear in mind 
 his learning and his religious faith, and the consequences which 
 follow from both these premises. 
 
 After these preliminary remarks I will first advert to the Sutra 
 (lY. 2. 129) in which Panini teaches the formation of the word 
 AranyaJca, and says that it means " a man who lives in a forest." 
 That Aranyaha has this meaning is unquestionable. It means, too, 
 if we considt the lexicographers, " a forest-road, a forest-elephant, a 
 jackall, etc. ; " but above all it is the name of those theosophical works 
 which are the precursors of the Upanishads, and are held in the 
 greatest awe by the Hiadu authorities.'" If a learned Hiadu were 
 
 in the Koshas, and in the artificial poetry, especially the Bhatti-kavya. This circum- 
 stance, however, does not disprove that they are obsolete in the real literature, since the 
 Koshas have borrowed them from Finini, whereas the Bhatti-kavya is expressly written 
 to illustrate the rules of Pdnini, and the artificial poetry bases its chief merits on the 
 strangeness of its style and words. 
 
 "' Manu, IV. 123, for instance, applies the same injunction to the termination of a 
 lecture of an Aranyaka as to that of a whole Veda: 4;||44Ve(«t1dJi{^in •ll^^ld' 
 
 17 
 
130 CEEONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND KATYATANA. 
 
 asked the meaning of Aramjaica, he would certainly first point to 
 the sacred Avorks which bear this name, and then refer to the 
 meaning " forester," just as, I suppose, a Eiu-opean questioned on 
 the sense of the word " Bible," would first say that it means 
 " Testament," and then remember its etymological sense, " book." 
 Yet Panini merely speaks of Arani/alm, '' the forester." No 
 wonder that Katyayana supplies, in a Varttika of his, the defect 
 which must have struck liim if, and since, he Avas acquainted with 
 this portion of the sacred literature."^ But is it possible to assume 
 that Panini could have knoAvn this sense of the Avord Arant/aka, 
 Avhen he is altogether silent on it; and if he did not knoAV it, 
 that the works so called could have already existed in his time ? 
 
 The acquaintance of Panini Avith a Yajurveda is evidenced by 
 several Sutras of his."'^ But in speaking of a Yajurveda, he does 
 not tell us whether he kneAV the Blae/c as Avell as the White 
 version, or only the Bhck version of it. That the former, 
 Avhich is considered as the literary property of the Tittiri school, 
 is older in form and contents than the latter, the Vdjasaneyi- 
 Samhitd, requires no observation of mine, after the conclusive 
 proofs Avhich have been given by previous Avriters. To decide, 
 however, Avhether Panini had a knowledge of the Yajasaneyi- 
 Samhita or not, — in other Avords, whether both versions of 
 
 ""- Panini, IV. 2, 129 : ^^TTWT^^ .— Patanjali : ^pt^ni| f *^<*^^«tl'c^ T^^ ^ — 
 Katyayana ; TJiytiJ |4J .4(14^1^ ^H^*4^«|^ Hjl fid f^ ^1)3^^.— Patanjali : 4IK<!a<*: 
 
 irg^: I ^l<*L*)<*l' f^.— K%ayana: ^ aftlT^.— Patanjali : ^ aftflT^f*^ 
 «)ftl'^*i I ■4ll<*lM«*r 'rffTTr: l -4tl <,<!iJ r 'fTflrar: • (Botli Varttlkas are marked in 
 the Calcutta edition, as if they did only occur in the Siddhanta-kaumudi). Professor 
 Miiller has pointed out that Pdnini does not mention the principal meaning of 
 Aranyaka, but expresses himself thus (page 339) : " Whether Pinini knew the Aran- 
 yakas as a branch of sacred literature is uncertain. Although he mentions the word 
 ' aranyaka,' he only uses it in the sense of 'living in the forest ;' and it is the author of 
 the Vftrttikas who first remarks that the same word is also used in the sense of ' read in 
 the forest.' " 
 
 '*• For instance, by the Sutras II. 4, 4 {adhwaryu) ; VI. 1. 117; VII. 4, 38; VIII. 
 3, 104, etc. 
 
VAJASANEYI- SAMHITA.— ^ATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. 131 
 
 this Veda are separated in time or not, by the Grammar of 
 Panini, is a matter which touches closely on our present inquiry 
 with regard to the chronological relation between Panini and 
 Katyayana. 
 
 In mustering the facts which bear on the solution of this 
 question, we shall have, first, to observe that the word Vajasaneyin 
 does not occur in a Stitra of, but only as a formation in a Gana to, 
 Panini (IV. 3. 106), while the formation, of Taittiriya, from the 
 base Tittiri, is taught in a Sutra (IV. 3. 102). There is, conse- 
 quently, a prima facie doubt against Panini' s acquaintance with the 
 Vajasaneyi-Samhita.'** And this doubt is heightened by the cir- 
 cumstance that the sacred personage, also, who is believed to 
 have collected not only the Sarnhita, but the Brahmana of the 
 White Yajurveda, Ydjnavalkya^ is also not mentioned in the 
 Sutras of, but merely in the Ganas to, Panini.^" 
 
 Since the question, however, whether Panini knew the Vajasa- 
 neyi-Samhita, coincides with the question whether he had a know- 
 ledge of the Satapatha-Brahmana, I will first quote a passage from 
 Professor Miiller's work, which, in a correct and lucid manner, 
 describes the relation of Yajnavalkya to both these works : — " A 
 comparison," he says (p. 353), " of the texts of the Taittiriyas and 
 Vajasaneyins shows that it would be a mistake to call Yajnavalkya 
 the author, in our sense of the Avord, of the Vajasaneyi-sanhita 
 and the Satapatha-brahmana. But we have no reason to doubt 
 that it was Yajnavalkya who brought the ancient Mantras and 
 Brahmanas into their present form, and, considering the differences 
 
 '°^ Professor Weber has already drawn attention to the fact that in the Ganas to 
 Panini only the first word may safely be ascribed to the knowledge of Panini, since it is 
 mentioned by himself ; and I may add, those words of a Gana, too, which are impliedly 
 referred to by him ; for instance, >^r|<^, 'g^^, ^[ffC) ''^pSf, ■^RTfT^. of the Gana to 
 I. 1, 27, adverted to in the Sutra VII. 1, 25, which otherwise would be unintelligible. 
 See also note 55. With these exceptions, we have no real certainty of deciding whether 
 the words of a Gana were those which Panini had in view when he wrote ; for not only 
 are there considerable differences iu the readings of the Gana collections in existence, 
 but it is certain that these lists have been subject, at various periods, to various inter- 
 polations, which materially lessen their critical worth. 
 "' In the Ganas to IV. 1, 105 and 2, 111. 
 
132 CHRONOLOGICAL KELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND KATYATANA. 
 
 between the old and new text, we must admit that lie had a 
 greater right to be called an author than the founders of the 
 Charanas of other Yedas whose texts we possess. In this sense, 
 Katyayana says, in his Anukramani, that Yajnavalkya received 
 the Yajur-veda from the Sun. In the same sense, the Satapatha- 
 brahmana ends with the assertion that the White Yajur-veda was 
 proclaimed by Yajnavalkya Yajasaneya." 
 
 If, then, we turn our attention to the word Satapatha^ we have 
 again to state that it occurs only in a Gana to Y. 3, 100 (compare 
 also note 105), but is not mentioned authentically in any Sutra of 
 Panini. Yet Katyayana, I hold, has helped us to untie this knot, 
 which has been drawn still tighter than it was by Professors Miiller 
 and "Weber, in spite of the excellent counsel which the latter gives, 
 " not to increase, by inattention, the darkness, which is great 
 enough abeady in the history of Sanskrit literature."'*^ 
 
 A rule of Panini's, which, literally translated, runs thus, 
 " amongst the Brdhmanas and Kalpas which have been proclaimed by 
 an Old one (or by the Old),^'' '" teaches, in its connection with pre- 
 ceding rules, that names of Brahmanas and Kalpas are formed 
 by adding the (technical) affix nini (i.e. the real affix in with 
 Yriddhi in the base), to the proper name of the personage who 
 proclaimed them, provided that such a personage is an old autho- 
 rity. Kaiyyata gives as an instance of a Brahmana so formed, 
 the word Sdtydyanin^ derived from Sdtydyana^ the saint who pro- 
 claimed this Brahmana ; and other instances are mentioned by 
 Patanjali in his comment on a previous Sutra. To this rule 
 Kdtydyana added a Yarttika, which, according to the text in the 
 Calcutta edition, would mean literally : ^'^ In reference to Ydjnavalkya 
 and so on (there is) an exception, on account of the contemporaneous- 
 
 '" Indische Studien, voL I., p. 483 : " We have already darkness enough in the 
 history of Hindu literature ; let us abstain at least from increasing it through our own 
 inattention! " 
 
 "' IV. 3, 105 : Y?JT!riTt#^ ^I^U!ch'^t| , which words are completed by the 
 Sutras IV. 3, 101 and 103. 
 
OLD BRiCHMANAS.— WEBER'S GLOSS ON A VARTTIKA TO IV. 3, 105. 133 
 
 m<?ss;"''* and the commeiit on this additional rule is afforded by 
 Patanjali, in the instance he gives: Ydjnavalkdni Brdhmandni, 
 vi^here the Brahmana referred to the authorship of Yajnavalkya, is 
 not formed by means of the (technical) affix nini, but by the 
 (technical) affix an (i.e. «, with Yriddhi in the base). 
 
 The great importance of this additional rule of Katyayana 
 is obvious. It has been made the subject of several remarks 
 in the " Indische Studien," where Professor Weber writes (vol. i. 
 p. 57, note): — " By the Yajnavalkani-brahmanani [Ydjnavalkydni^ 
 as the " Indische Studien" writes it, is probably an error of the 
 press] there [i.e. ia the commentary of the Calcutta edition to 
 lY. 3, 106], and also in th) Vdrtilca, and in lY. 2. 66, there can 
 probably be meant none but the Catapatha-brahmana, either the 
 whole of it, or from XI. to XIY., which, therefore, Patanjali even 
 did not consider as purana-proktam [i.e. proclaimed by an old 
 authority]." Again (vol. i. p. 146), "A matter of importance is the 
 distinct separation of Brahmanas composed by the Old (purana) 
 lY. 3. 105, by which [expression], in contradistinction, the exist- 
 ence also of such as belong to a more recent time (tulyakalani, 
 says the Yartika) is necessarily implied ; amongst the latter, 
 recent ones, the Yajnavalkani [the repeated error of the press, 
 " Tdjnavallc//dni" becomes suspicious] (comp. p. 57, note), and the 
 Saulabhani (otherwise unknown) Brahmanani are mentioned iu the 
 Yartika ; amongst the old ones, the scholiast there, (is it on 
 Patanjali's authority ? '*^) names the Bhallavinah and the Catyaya- 
 
 '" Varttika of the Calcutta edition to IV. 3, 105 : %Jl-sf«l<r4i|;f^^: TrfTT^V- 
 
 "' For this query of Professor Weber, compare note 139. But I cannot help askings 
 how he reconciles the statement of the note to vol. I. p. 57, just quoted, where he speaks 
 of Patanjali in terms of that assurance which can only proceed from personal know- 
 ledge, — with his repeated avowal of not having read the Mahabhashya, and with the 
 text itself of p. 57 to which this note refers, since he is doubtful even there whether the 
 Calcutta editors have taken their instances to IV. 3, 105 from Patanjali or not? As a 
 guess, his attributing the words ^TTW^^^inf'r $ll^(!!ir^ to Patanjali happens to be. 
 quite correct; but it wonld have been certainly much better to give it distinctly as such, 
 than leave us doubtful now as to the nature of other statements of his. 
 
134 CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND KATTAYANA. 
 
 ninali." And (vol. i. p. 177, note) : — " Now we have seen (pp. 57 
 note., and 146) that the Yajnavalkani-brahmanani [" Yajnavalkyani" 
 again, which now becomes very suspicious], are considered by the 
 author of the Yarttikas as contemporaneous with Panini. The ques- 
 tion, therefore, is whether by it [i.e. the Yajnavalkani-brahmanani] 
 we have really to understand the Catapatha-brahmana itself, or, in 
 general, Brahmanas only, which were composed by Yajnavalkya, or 
 such as merely treated of him. In the former case, it would follow, 
 too, from his proved contemporaneousness Avith Uddalaka, and from 
 Uddalaka's preceding Paiidu, that the epoch of Pandu is later than 
 that of Panini." But (vol. ii. p. 393) he observes : " By the 
 Yajnavalkani-brahmanani'^" we, probably, have not to understand 
 those [Brahmanas] which have been composed by Yajnavalkya him- 
 self, but those which merely treated of him; and a specimen of 
 these is preserved us in the Yajnavalkiyam-kandam of the Yrihad- 
 aranyaka (see my Akad. Yorles. p. 125-26) ; therefore, if this 
 [my] second view is correct, the contemporaneousness of Yajna- 
 valkya and Uddalaka with Panini, which is the necessary conse- 
 quence of my first view, would fall to the ground, together with 
 Panini's preceding Pandu, whose priority in time is again the con- 
 sequence of such a contemporaneousness." '^' 
 
 There is nothing novel or remarkable in the circumstance of 
 
 '™ Professor Weber again writes " Yujnavalkyuni." Being compelled, therefore, 
 to abandon the hypothesis of an error of the press, the more so as the same " Ydjna- 
 valkyuni-brdhmandni" make their reappearance, in their alphabetical place, in his 
 Index to the first two volumes of the " Indische Studien" — I must refer him for the 
 correct form " Ydjnavalkdni," to Panini VI. 4, 151. — It is needless for me to say that 
 the "editor" of Panini likewise writes ^ | -^ c{ tr^zl I (% IV. 2, 66 and 3, 105, intending 
 probably to improve on the Calcutta edition, which IV. 3, 105 writes <<|"sj'«|<!5inf'l> but 
 IV. 2, 66 i\ I 'sj c| ^ejij I fsf . Habent sua fata libelli ! 
 
 "' The self-quotation of Professor Weber (Akad. Vorles. p. 125, 126) need not be 
 repeated here, since it merely contains the same conjecture that the Ydjnavalkdni (cor- 
 rectly written in the Akad. Vorles., but re-quoted from this work " Ydjnavalkydni" in 
 the Ind. Stud. vol. II. p. 390) brdhmandni are the same as the Ydjuavalkiyam-kdndam 
 which treats of Yajnavalkya. — The text of the quotations given above, it is superfluous 
 for me to mention, is in German. To save space I have confined myself to communi- 
 cating merely a translation of it, which, I trust, no one will find wanting in strictest 
 
WEBER'S GLOSS ON A VAETTIKA TO IV. 3, 105. 135 
 
 Professor "Weber's recanting on one page wliat he maintained 
 with, the most specious arguments on another, or of his leaving 
 the bewildered reader between a chaos of what are to him 
 established facts ; but however interesting it may be thus to 
 obtain from him an autobiography of his mind, and an insight 
 into the state of matui-ity in which he presents us with his re- 
 searches, I must, this time, defend him against himself, and show 
 that, within the sphere of his own presumptive facts^ there is not the 
 slightest ground for immolating by his last conjecture the state- 
 ments contained in the first three quotations from his essays. 
 
 The exception made by Katyayana to the rule of Panini (IV. 
 3, 105) is contained in the word Ydjnavulka^ as we learn from the 
 authentic comment of Patanjali. There is no proof, whatever, 
 that it can extend to any other derivative of Yajnavalkj'^a. 
 Whatever, therefore, be the import of the word Ydjnavalkiya^ the 
 Ydjnavalkiyam Itdndam has nothing to do with the Ydjnavallcdni 
 hrdhmandni mentioned by Patanjali in reference to our Yarttika. 
 But, in the second instance, the '^otcA. pratishedha^ or "exception," 
 used by Katyayana necessarily concerns works of the same category^ 
 As little as an author could, for instance, call geology an exception 
 to astronomy, as little, I hold, could Katyayana speak of an '■^excep- 
 tion'''' to names of Brahmanas when he had in his mind, as Professor 
 Weber thinks, the name of a particular chapter of an Aranyaka. 
 And thfrdly, this same word ' exception ' in the Varttika must 
 likewise concern the proclaiming of such a work by the personage 
 Avho becomes the base of the derivative ; for Panini uses the word 
 prokta "proclaimed," distinctly enough in the Sutra which is 
 criticized by the Yarttika. There would be no '•'•exception^' if the 
 formation alluded to by Katyayana, meant a work " treating of'' 
 the personage who is the base of the derivative. But, when Pro- 
 fessor Weber, in his " Akademische Yorlesungen " (pp. 125, 126) 
 crowns his syllogism by the remark that he prefers his last con- 
 jecture because it " appears, indeed, extremely ticklish (bedenk- 
 
 fairness and literal accuracy. The words between brackets, marked [ ], are my own 
 parenthetical explanations, as the reader will easily see for himself. The italics in the 
 quotation are Professor Welier's own. 
 
136 CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND KATYATANA. 
 
 licli)" to him "to consider the whole Catapathabrahmana or as much 
 as its last hook?, as bearing distinctly the name of Yajnavalkya 
 — ^however much it may contain his system [ ?] — or as contempo- 
 raneous Avith, or as preceding even by little, Panini's time ;" and 
 when he adds, in the fulness of his authority, "but for the Yajna- 
 valkiyam-kandam I have not the slightest hesitation in doiag the 
 latter " [Letsteres su thun, — what lat/cr .^], I fear I should overstep 
 the limits of scientific criticism, if I attached a single remark to a 
 passage like this, which treats its readers as if the personal feel- 
 ings of Professor Weber had all the weight of scientific arguments, 
 and deals with one of the most important problems of Sanskrit 
 literature ia such a manner as if it were matter for table talk. 
 
 Before I proceed m my observations on the point at issue, I 
 will state the views of Professor Miiller on this Yarttika. He 
 writes (p. 353) : " In the same sense Panini, or rather his editor, 
 says ia the first Yarttika to lY. 3, 105, that there were modern 
 Brahmanas proclaimed by Yajnavalkya, and that their title differed 
 by its formation from the title given to more ancient Brahmanas ;" 
 and (p. 363) : " It is wrong, for instance, to speak of the Yajna- 
 valkyas iu the same sense as we speak of the Taittiriyas, and the 
 works promulgated by Yajnavalkya, although they are Brahmanas, 
 are called Yajnavalkyani [sic] Brahmanani. 'And why?' says 
 Katyayana ; ' because they are of too recent an origin ; that is to 
 say, they are almost contemporaneous with ourselves.' " 
 
 Where, I must now ask, does Katyayana speak of Brahmanas 
 '■'■more ancient" than the Brahmanas proclaimed by Yajnavalkya? 
 and where, I must further ask, does he say that the latter are 
 '■'■ almosV contemporaneous? Again, what proof has Professor 
 Weber that Katyayana meant by contemporaneous, as he says 
 (see above, p. 134), contemporaneous wi'h Panini? and what proof 
 has Professor Miiller that Katyayana implied by this word, contem- 
 poraneous with himself? Assuredly, all these questions ought to 
 have been settled first, and by very substantial proofs, before an 
 edifice of chronology was allowed to be built on them. Not only 
 does Katyayana nowhere indicate a degree^ either in the relative 
 age of the Brahmanas of Yajnavalkya and those subject to the 
 
THE REAL VARTTIKA TO IV. 3, 105. 137 
 
 Sutra of Panini, or in the contemporaneousness of the former with 
 him, — but, in my opinion, the y^oxA. pratishedha, ^'■exception,'''' already- 
 adverted to, is altogether fatal to the ellipsis supplied by Pro- 
 fessors Weber and Miiller when they refer to the word contem- 
 poraneous. This word '■'■exception'''' clearly proves that Katyayana 
 could never have held the dialogue with which Miiller enlivens 
 the scene of the Yarttika. For if the Brahmanas spoken of in 
 the Varttika, were contemporaneous with Panini or with Katya- 
 yana, the Varttika would have made an addition^ not an exception 
 to the rule of Panini, since the latter merely treats of such Brah- 
 manas as are old from his point of view, and is no wise concerned 
 with any Brahmanas of his time. 
 
 In short, the Varttika can, on account of the word exception^ 
 convey no other sense than that Panini himself was guilty of an 
 inaccuracy, by omitting to state that the Brahmanas which had 
 been proclaimed by Yajnavalkya (and others) were exempt from 
 his Sutra IV. 3, 105, these Brahmanas leing as old as those 
 lohich he had in view when he gave this rule. 
 
 Did the words of the Varttika, such as they are printed in the 
 Calcutta edition, admit of the slightest doubt — if interpreted pro- 
 perly, — or had the inferences drawn from them been propounded 
 with less consequence, and did not the discussion I have raised 
 concern a principle, viz. the method of examining the relation of 
 Katyayana to Panini, the course I should have taken, in refuting 
 the opiuion of Professors Weber and Miiller would have been 
 a different one. I should have at once stated the fact, that the 
 inadvertence of the Calcutta editors of Paniai — (need I repeat 
 that Dr. Boehtlingk's reprint is as conscientious in this case 
 as in all analogous instances?) — has skipped two words which 
 belong to the Varttika, — words, which, indeed, are not ab- 
 solutely required for a correct understanding of the Varttika, 
 but the presence of which would have prevented as much as the 
 possibility of a misconception, however inattentive the reader of the 
 Varttika might be. These words are no other than the words of 
 Panini's Sutra itself, which Katyayana, no doubt with the dis- 
 tinct purpose of obviating the very possibility of a misunder- 
 
 18 
 
138 CHRONOLOGICAL EELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND KATYAYANA, 
 
 standing, has emiDodied again in his Yarttika in placing them 
 before his own critical remark. In short, the Varttika runs thus : 
 "Among the Brahmanas and Kalpas, which are proclaimed by an 
 old one (or by the old), there is an exception in reference to 
 Tajnavalkya, on account of the contemporaneousness," viz., of 
 these latter Brahmanas with the old Brdhnanas spoJcen of by Pdnini. 
 In this sense, then, Patanjali remarks, after having named the 
 Brahmanas of Yajnavalkya and Sulabha, " Why (is there an excep- 
 tion to these ?) ' On account of the contemporaneousness ; ' that is 
 to say, becaxise they, too, are of the same time;" and Kaiyyata 
 adds : ' because they belong to the same time as the Brahmanas 
 proclaimed by Sdtydyana, and so on.' " '"^ 
 
 The ground on which we now stand is once more the groimd 
 we have occupied before. And when I previously asked whether 
 it is likely that Panini could have blundered in conjugating or 
 decliaing a common word, or whether he was not proficient enough 
 to use the expression " eatable," or whether he could have ignored 
 the meaning of Aranyaka, — I must now add the question whether 
 he was likely to give a rule which, by an essential omission, would 
 have vitiated the name of a principal Brahmana ? Could he have 
 ignored that name which stands foremost amongst all the authors 
 
 "^ PAnini, IV. 3, 105 : gTTWft^ m^Of^lElg .— K^ty^ana : y^lOJlH^^ WT" 
 W*U=^^g ^■SJ-N'S-'Nll^^i: TTfrrq^^^^RiT^f^fi;.— Patanjali : JTTtpft^fMctm 
 
 ^nTTJR. 1 fj'^4M<<mci; l IffrRTPl rj <!M «* H l "Tl fd -—Kaiyyata : g^^T<dc=(lT«(fd I 
 !mA||<4«llf«(^irii*^l^^'<!.<*<4ll»<?mn(cy4: • For the sake of greater clearness, and in 
 order to anticipate any objection, I will mention, that the Sdtra of Pdnini itself precedes 
 the words of the Vdrttika in the MS. E.I.H. 330, whence this passage is quoted ; so 
 that there can be no assumption of a meaningless or careless repetition of the words 
 U4^|(!j'ir\9iM $||^(!jo||^^ . Moreover, the beginning of Patanjali's commentary on 
 the Vdrttika, and his method of commenting, as explained above, is sufficient to remove 
 all doubt — if any still existed — that they belong to the Vdrttika. — Professor Benfey, too, 
 is therefore mistaken, when, in his learned and valuable " Volktiindige Grammatik 
 der Sanskritsprache" (§ 518) he says, " it has been explicitly stated [viz. by our Vdrttika] 
 that Yajnavalkya and some others do not belong to the old." 
 
THE REAL MEANING OF THE VAETTIKA TO IV. 3, 105. 139 
 
 of Brahmanas ? So much, so, that we have heard only by name of 
 the Brahmanas of Bhallu, Satyayana, and Sulabha ; but are full 
 of the Satapatha-brahmana, proclaimed by Yajnavalkya ? 
 
 In my belief there is but this alternative : either Patanjali, 
 who mentions the Bhallavins, together with other Brahmanas, in 
 his comment on the Yarttika 26 to IV. 2, 104, is correct in saying 
 that the Brahmana of Yajnavalkya is coeval with them, in this case 
 all these Brahmanas must have been unknown to Panini, and other 
 Brahmanas must have been before his mind's eye, when he wrote 
 the Sutra lY. 3, 105 ; or Panini did know and meant to imply in his 
 rule the Brahmana of Bhallu, and of others named by Patanjali, — 
 then the error must be on Patanjali's side, when he asserts that 
 Yajnavalkya was their contemporary. I say purposely, it must be 
 an error of Patanjali, for there is no evidence to show that Katya- 
 yana alluded to Bhallu^ for instance, when he speaks of contem- 
 poraries of Yajnavalkya ; he may have referred, for aught we 
 know, to proper names belonging to other old authorities — old 
 from Panini's point of view ; and his error would then have con- 
 sisted in making Yajnavalkya the contemporary of the personages 
 who were the authors of those old works. 
 
 Yet both — the error of Patanjali and the error of Katyayana — 
 become explainable on the assumption that there is such a consider- 
 able period of time between Panini and Katyayana, and much more 
 so between Panini and Patanjali that Katyayana even could con- 
 sider as " old" that which was not only not old, but in all pro- 
 bability did not yet exist in Panini's time. 
 
 It is curious, though I lay no stress on this circumstance, that the 
 Kd'siM-vritti should pass over in silence the whole Vdrttika of Katya- 
 yana, but should, in giving the counter-instance, " Yajnavaltani 
 Brahmanani," add : " Why does this rule of Panini (restrict the 
 formation of Brahmana-names with the affix in) to those Brahmanas 
 proclaimed by the ' old ? ' Because the Brahmanas of Yajnavalkya, 
 etc., are called Yajnavalkani Brahmanani, etc ; for, according to 
 legendary reports, these and similar Brahmanas do not belong to a 
 
1-10 MODERN BEAHMANA- AND KALPA- "WORKS. 
 
 remote time}'^^ Thus, on traditional grounds — wliicli we should 
 have thanked Jayaditya if he had designated in more precise terms 
 — the Kasika, too, discards the notion of the YdjnavalJcdni Brdli- 
 mandni beiag an exception to the much-quoted rule of Panini. On 
 the contrary, it looks, as we see, on the derivative Ydjnavalka as 
 a counter-instance, which confirms the statement of Panini ; but, 
 I hold that this commentary was wanting in judgment when it 
 passed over in silence the Yarttilia of Katyayana, since the latter, 
 by its very mistaken reproach, affords us a valuable means of judg- 
 ing on the chronological relation between Panini and Katyayana. 
 
 Before I support with further arguments the concliTsions I have 
 drawn with regard to this chronological relation between the tAVO 
 grammarians, it will be expedient to take a cursory view of the 
 pincipal categories of known ancient writings not already men- 
 tioned ; acquaintance with Avhich, on the one hand, is shown by 
 Panini himself; and the existence of which, on the other, may 
 either be assumed to fall within a period not very distant from the 
 time when Panini wrote, or in his time, to be open to doubt, on 
 account of the reasons previously alleged. 
 
 Since Panini teaches, in the rule I have so often referred to, that 
 all ancient Brahmanas and Kalpa works bear names which end in the 
 (technical) affix nini^ the names of the former, by the common con- 
 sent of all commentators, ancient and modern, being used in the 
 plural only, we are justified in inferring that none of the Avorks of 
 the category now preserved in manuscript, so far as my knowledge 
 
 "^ The commentary of the KSsikd on this Siitra which, as in general, is much better 
 and more clearly worded than the comment of the Calcutta Pandits, runs thus (MS. E.I.H. 
 
 2440): iranrNT^f^^TOitcjtt^ I ^^-siTO^r^wt^ tx!rf^w^ ^i^tri i ^rfiTql'^ 
 
 «UJitjtt*i I mw%3 <n^ I »^wf^: i UTd'nrf^: (shouw be ^t^t^Rm:) i 
 ^fT^I^: II ^i^g I ^t^ ^^: I ^<s.iHM<T^ II gx.'RTiftii'Nt^ "T^ I ^rg 
 
 ^■g ^OT ■ I may add, that the SiddhAnta-kaumudi also makes no mention of the 
 VArttika of Kdtydyana, but, in reference to our question, merely contains these words 
 (p. 81 b. line 1) : ^-^^T^ f^S^ | ^T'^^^tI^ (mi.sedited ^'^qR^Tf^) ^TW''nf'T . 
 
. UPANISHADS UNKNOWN TO PAXINI. 141 
 
 goes, are ancient works from Panini's point of view. That one of 
 them, at least, the Kalpa work of Katyayana, cannot have existed 
 in Paniai's time, would be the consequence of the foregoing 
 inquiry ; but I shoiild not venture to say more than I have said 
 of the other ritual books of the same category. 
 
 Again, if the conclusion I drew as to Panini's not having been 
 acquainted with the Aranyalcas be correct, it would imply, of 
 necessity, that the Upanishads could not have existed when he 
 lived, since they are a further development of this class of works ; 
 and this conclusion, again, strengthens the arguments I have 
 adduced for the non-existence, in Panini's time, of the Yajasaneyi- 
 Samhita, arranged by Yajnavalkya ; for an important Upanishad, 
 the Tsa-JJpanislmd^ is the last portion of this version of the 
 Yajurveda."'* 
 
 That Panini was conversant, not only Avith a Blaclt Yajtir- 
 
 '^ Panini mentions the word Upanishad once, viz. I. 4, 79, but not in the sense of 
 a sacred work. It occurs twice in the Ganas, viz., to IV. 3, 73 and 4, 12 ; in the former 
 it has the sense of such a work, but it is doubtful whether it has in the latter also. — In a 
 note at page 325, Professor Miiller gives a detailed account of the history oiAnquetil du 
 Perron's Oupnekhat, " which contains the translation of fifty Ujianishads from Persian 
 into Latin." Since his bibliographical sketch cannot fail to be of much interest and 
 use to many of his readers, it will not be superfluous to correct a mistake of his when 
 he states that the French translation of Anquetil du Perron was "not published." 
 It was not published entirely ; but in the well-known work of Tieffenthaler, Anquetil, 
 Rennell, and Bernoulli : "Description historique et gdographique de VInde, ttc.BerUn% 
 vol. I. second edition, 1791 ; vol. II. 1786; vol. III. 1788," the second part of the second 
 volume contains his translation " en franqois barbare," as the author himself calls it, 
 of the " Oupnekhat Narain {tire) de VAthrban Beid" (p. 297 ff.); of the " Oupnekhat 
 tadiv (tir^) du Djedjr Beid" (p. 301 ff.); -of the "Oupnekhat Athrhsr {tire') de 
 VAthrban Beid" (p. 308 ff.) and of the " Oujmekhat Schat Roudri {tir^) du Djedjr 
 Beid" (p. 323 ff.). The same volume also contains an interesting paper of his : 
 " nouvelles preuves que I'Oupnekhat ne parte nulle part du Kal'iougam, ni des trois 
 autres lougams " (Table des Articles ; p. 548 ff.). — There is another work, published 
 anonymously, which comprises, besides other interesting matter, translations in German 
 of portions of Oriental works ; the first volume of this work — the only one that appeared, I 
 believe — bears the title "Sammlung Asiatischer Original-Schriften. — Indische Schriften. 
 — Zurich, 1791," and contains, amongst (jfhers, a German translation of the first three 
 Upanishads published in the work of Tieffenthaler, Anquetil du Perron, etc. As this 
 volume is curious and of great scarcity, I subjoin a list of its contents, as given by the 
 
142 ATHAEVAVEDA UNKNOWN TO PANINI. 
 
 veda,^'^'' but with a Rig- and and a Sdma- veda, is borne out by several 
 Sutras of his. We may expect, too, that he, like every other 
 Hindu, looked upon the Rigveda as the principal Yeda ; and this 
 assumption is confirmed by the circumstance of his calling a Pdda 
 of the Eigveda simply the " Pada," without the addition of the 
 word Rik."'° But there is no evidence to show that he knew an 
 Atharvaveda. The word atharvan, it is true, occurs three times, 
 but only in the Ganas to his rules, and there even only as the 
 name of a priest. We may add, also, that the word dtharvanika 
 is found in two Sutras (lY. 3, 133, and VI. 4, 174), where it is ex- 
 
 author himself: " Bagawadam. Tewetat. Ber Talapoeng Reg. Patimuk. Des Fo 
 Buck. Upnekliat. Mahabarat. Ind.Raschah. Ambertkend. Bedang Schaster. Dirm 
 Schaster. Neadirseji. Gutter Verzelclinis. Schastah- Bade. Lords Schaster. Tiru- 
 namalei. Bamesuram. Ramesuram Phil. Gespriich. Sastiram." — A note appended to 
 the translation of the " Upnekhat Athrbsar," at p. 286 of this work, drew my attention to 
 " A prayer directed by the Brahmans to be offered up to the Supreme Being ; written 
 originally in the Shanscrit language, and translated by C. W. Bovghton Rouse, Esq. ; 
 from a Persic Version of Dara Shekoo, a son of J ah Jehan, Emperor of Hindostan" — 
 which prayer is appended to the " Institutes of Timour," by Joseph White (Oxford, 
 1783) ; for the note in question says that this prayer is a free and abridged version, from 
 the Persian, of the same Upnekhat Athrbsar (or Upanishad Atharvasiras). But having 
 compared them, I cannot convince myself that such is the case ; though the ideas ex- 
 pressed in both compositions have much similarity. — In passing, I may mention, also, 
 that this same prayer attracted the attention of the " Monthly Review of 1783," and, in 
 consequence, that of August Hennings in his interesting work, " Versuch einer Ostin- 
 dischen Litteratur-Geschichte nebst einer kritischen Beurtheilung der Aechtheit der 
 Zend-BUcher. Hamburg und Kiel, 1786." This work, which is extremely rare, bears 
 testimony to the extensive scholarship of its author ; it gives a critical review — more 
 or less detailed — of 114 works, and has an Appendix, entitled " Grundlage zu einem, 
 vollstandigen Vergeichnisse aller Schriften die Ostindien und die damit verbundene 
 Liinder betreffen. In alphabetischer Ordnung als ein Anhang zur Litteratur-Ge- 
 schichte Ostindien^. Hamburg." This Appendix contains the titles of not less than 
 1372 works of the 16th, 17th, and 18th century, referring to the history, " antiquities, 
 nations, languages, religions, and the natural history of India," many of which are 
 unknown not only to me, but to several Oriental scholars, librarians, and bibliographers 
 whom I have consulted about them. 
 
 '" See note 153. 
 
 "* For his knowledge of the Rigveda, compare VI. 3, 55, 133 ; VII. 4, 39, etc. ; for 
 the occurrence oi pdda, VI. 1, 115; VII. 1, 57; VIII. 1, 18, etc.; for Sdmaveda, I. 2, 
 34 ; IV. 2, 7 ; V. 2, 59, etc. 
 
ATnARVAVEDA UNKNOWN TO PANINI. 143 
 
 plained by Patanjali as meaning " the office and the sacred record 
 of the Atharvan," — ^that Patanjali confirms the occurrence of the 
 word atharvan in the Gana to the Sutra IV. 2, 63, where it can 
 only mean a literary work ; and, besides, that the word dtharvana 
 occurs twice in the Ganas.'^' Yet even the testimony of Patanjali 
 cannot entirely remove the uncertainty which, as we have seen 
 above, must always adhere to the Ganas as evidence for or against 
 Panini, with the exception of their first word, mentioned by him- 
 self, or such of their words as are referred to by other rules of his. 
 Nor does the occurrence of the word dtharmnilca in the two Sutras 
 quoted necessarily confirm the interpretation of Patanjali. It may 
 there only mean the ofiice of an Atharvan priest, who, probably, 
 was employed in the performance of sacrificial acts. In short, 
 there is no valid ground for attributing to Panini a knowledge of 
 the fourth and least sacred Veda, the Atharvaveda ; and this 
 doubt derives some additional weight from the fact that, though 
 the word Angiras, one of the reputed Eishis of the Atharvaveda, 
 is mentioned in a Sutra (II. 4. 65), neither the compound 
 Atharvdngirasas, nor its derivative, Atharcdngirasa, is met with 
 in the Sutras of Panini, though the former is the name, as well 
 of the two seers of the Atharvaveda, as especially of the hymns of 
 this Veda itself, — while the latter means the observances con- 
 nected with the Atharvaveda, and would have deserved a place 
 amongst grammatical rules. 
 
 In the last chapter of his learned work. Professor Miiller gives 
 instances of hymns which he considers as belonging to the oldest 
 portion of Vaidik literature. It seems difiicult to follow his argu- 
 ments so as to arrive at a settled conviction on this point ; for the 
 
 '^' For Atharvan, see the Ganas to IV. 2, 38 and 63 ; (it occurs, too, in a Vdrttika 
 to IV. 3, 133). For Atharvanika, IV. 3, 133 ; VI. 4, 174 and the Ganas to IV. 2, 63 
 and (in the Kds'ikd) 60 ; for Atharvana the Ganas to IV. 2, 33 and 63 and (in the 
 K^sikd) 60. — On IV. 3, 133, Patanjali remarks, after the words of the Sutra : . . . '^- 
 
 ^t I ^^nn(^M«<4iH'< w^^tsnr^^ (comp. iv. 2, 63) znrr ^ ^% «wr% (vi. 
 4, 174) iral7i*rraT^ T(^ t^rq^ «tc. 
 
14-i MULLER'S VIEW OF THE OLDEST RIGYEDA HYMNS. 
 
 reasons he gives in assigning these hymns to the earliest portions 
 of Hindu poetry rest on impressions so individual, that assent or 
 dissent of those who read the Eigveda hymns Avill depend much on 
 their own disposition. I should, for instance, for my part, hesitate 
 very much to assign to a hymn which speaks of thirty-three 
 gods'"* a place amongst the most ancient hymns, since it betrays, 
 in ray opinion, a very artificial and developed condition of religious- 
 ness, and a considerable deviation from what I hold to be the 
 primitive feeling of the human mind. The impression I derive 
 from another hymji, a poetical version of which Professor Miiller 
 gives (p. 564), and a prose translation of which we owed already to 
 Colebrooke (Misc. Ess. I. p. 33), would be to the same effect, — 
 that it belongs, not to the earliest, but to the very latest hymns 
 of the Eigveda-Samhita ; for it seems to me that a song which 
 
 begins, "There was no entity, nor non-entity death was 
 
 not, nor was there immortality ; " and concludes : " Then who can 
 Icnow Avhenee it proceeded, or whence this varied world arose, or 
 whether it uphold itself, or not ? He who, in the highest heaven, 
 is the ruler of this universe, does iudeed know, but not another 
 can possess that knowledge" — it seems to me that such a song 
 must be already the result of the greatest struggles of the human 
 heart : the fall-grown fruit of a long experience in thought, — in 
 other words, that it marks the end, and not the beginning, of a 
 phase of religious development. 
 
 I agree with Miiller in one important point, viz. (p. 566) : 
 that " the evidence of language is the most decisive for settling 
 the relative age of Yedic hymns," and I should have agreed with 
 him still more if he had said that it is the only safe criterion with 
 a European of the niueteenth century to settle this point. There- 
 fore, when he adds that " the occurrence of such a word as 
 taddnim is more calculated to rouse doubts as to the early date of 
 this [last-named] hymn than the most abstruse metaphysical ideas 
 which may be discovered iu it," — though I do not share the 
 opiuion expressed in his latter words, — I hold the adverb he men- 
 
 '"* Miiller's Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 531. 
 
PANINI'S VIEW OF THE DATE OF CERTAIN VAIDIK HYMNS. 145 
 
 tions to be quite sufficient authority for removing this hymn 
 from the earliest portion of Hindu songs. 
 
 But setting aside our personal feelings, which, after all, are of 
 no consequence, we cannot be indifferent about learning what Panini 
 considered to be the older or the more recent Vaidik hymns. A 
 direct opinion on this point we can scarcely expect to obtain from 
 himself; but indirect evidence of his own impressions, or, more 
 probably, of the tradition current in his time, I believe may be 
 collected from his Sutras ; and, however scanty it be, and however 
 much we may think Ave may be able, without his aid, to arrive at 
 a similar result in regard to the hymns I am going to name, it Avill 
 not be superfluous to advert to it here. The hymns of the Rig- 
 veda — and, consequently, those collected from it for the version 
 of the Sama-, and the two other Vedas — were "seen," as I have 
 shown above (p. 62), by the Eishis, who received them from a 
 divinity. This general belief was, as I there proved, shared in by 
 Panini, who, therefore, was not so unshackled by the inspiration- 
 doctrine as Professor Miiller represents him to have been in his 
 discussion on old and new Brahmanas.'^^ But there is a marked 
 difference in the language he uses when speaking at one time of 
 one category, and, at another, of another category of hymns ; and 
 it is this difference which induces me to express a doubt whether he 
 looked upon all Yaidik hymns as immediate revelations from above. 
 In his Sutras IV. 2, 7 to 9, he teaches the formation of words 
 expressing the name of Samaveda-hymns, and he. applies to the 
 latter the word "seera," i.e., received by inspiration from the 
 divinity. In the Stitra lY. 3, 101, on the other hand, he heads a 
 chapter, which comprises the next ten rules, with the words, ^'■pro- 
 claimed by him,'''' which words imply that the Yaidik compositions — 
 the names of which he teaches the student to form va. these rules — 
 were promulgated by the Rishis, whose names are the bases of the 
 several derivatives."" That these two different expressions were 
 
 '^° Ancient Sanskrit Liturature, p. 361 : " Panini, whose views are not shackled by 
 the inspiration-doctrine which blinded and misled all the followers of the orthodox 
 Mlmins^ school, broadly states the fact that there are old and new Br&hmanas, etc." 
 
 "" IV. 2, 7 : ^ ^EH^T •— IV. 3, 101 : ^ ifl'^fn;.— Praudhamanoramd : -JM^Wtlf 
 
 19 
 
146 PACINI'S VIEW OF THE DATE OF CEHTAIN VAIDIK HYMNS. 
 
 cliosen hj Panini deliberately, results from the contents of the 
 last-named rules. They contain amongst others (lY. 3, 105), 
 names of Kalpa works, which, at no period of the Hindu religion, 
 were "seen" or ascribed to superhuman authorship. This ATord 
 ^^ proclaimed ^' has also been noticed especially by Katyayana and 
 Patanjali, who judge as follows of its import in these rules : — 
 Katyayana : " (It might seem that) this word ' proclaimed ' is pur- 
 poseless, since no affix is visible in (certain) derivatives (which 
 imply its sense)." — Patanjali: " Why is it purposeless ? ' Because,' 
 says Katyayana, 'no afiELs is visible.' That is to say, if 'pro- 
 claimed' means that the Yaidik version of the Kalapas or 
 Kathas is recited village for village, a derivative implying such 
 a sense has no (special) o.^x..^'' —Katyayana : " (It is piu-pose- 
 less, too) if applied to the sense 'book,' for (in this case) an affix 
 is taught (elsewhere)." — Patanjali: "There is an affix, if the 
 sense ' composed, as a book,' is implied by it ; but such an affix 
 is provided for by another rule of Panini, viz., IV. 3, 116. 
 Could we, then, consider this word ' proclaimed ' (in our rule) as 
 used in reference to the Yeda ? But again, the Yedas are not made 
 (like a book) ; they are permanent (or eternal)." — Katyayana : 
 " If (howeA^er, one should, assert that this Avord) concerns the 
 Yeda, (he Avould be correct, provided that he meant to impart 
 to the AVord 'proclaimed') a jigurative sense." — Patanjali (after 
 repeating these latter Avords) : " Is it not said, hoAvever, that 
 'the Yedas are not made, but that they are permanent {i.e., 
 eternal)?' (Quite so); yet, though their sense is permanent, the 
 order of their letters has not ahvays remained the same ; and it is 
 through the difference in the latter respect that we may speak of 
 the versions of the Kathas, Kalapas, Mudakas, Pippaladakas, 
 and so on." ''' Noav, Avhatever opinion we may entertain of 
 
 ^T)<tl^irMd^- Compare the following note. 
 
 "' Panini: ^ ^"^fiq;.— Kdtydyana: TfrWWPT^tfi d :=H <al«l |dl^.— Patanjali : 
 
TANINI'S VIEW OF THE DATE OP CERTAIN VAIDIK HYMNS. 147 
 
 Patanj all's accounting for tlie various versions of the Vaidik 
 texts, it is evident that Panlni — who comprises Kalpas under the 
 term "proclaimed" — looked upon the works, the names of which 
 are taught in these rules, not as having been "seen" or received 
 immediately from the divinity. They must, in his mind, therefore, 
 belong to a later period than the Samaveda hymns which he treats 
 
 "flt^ I T rl^ iranft f^-— K.atyAyana: T^ ^ ^^^fj;.— Patanjali : lER 
 
 ■^ ^^ TFsr: ;ff *Rf7f fT^ -^ ^rsj -^^ fwwK (iv. s, iie) i ip^-^" 
 
 cllf^ ^W^W; I ^ tf -^T^if^ f^% I f^ranf^ ^^^^jftr.— K%^yana: 
 ?p^-^ftrRl ^Tj^safl;.— Patanjali : ig^i^-'^f^Tfrr ^-rj>^*ir|-S=(nT I [The MS. 
 contains here a repetition, which is evidently a mistake of the copyist] •fg -q^tn "T 
 
 IfTm: I *<l^0 [t/- Kaiyyata: snf^] ffrf: I -erf^ rTff {-^M f-l-N-M-l+lf^ I 
 <iH^cfa| : -^tcfir: .—Kaiyyata : ■JTjft ^t^: irafTIf^ ^WT^H^ ^ ^^ ^iT% 
 
 ^ 1 «r^^ iW TTpsrqt "T ?^ I f^^ g ^f^pTjxw («-f- IV. 3, iie) f^^-- 
 
 ^a} 440 1 1 "^m Wrd<**nltU{4»!!!f?Tf7T [probaWy : ^3^BJ^ | ^"l THTt^fl" T ll?m 
 
 f^ cji^l^y^THiMI^ TJTWT^ (MS. y^drM"i| j '^m^: *JJ*KirdiH*Jlt^T^ 
 ^«Tr sjs«x|ii f%^>j(ftgr^: (ms. f^^^a^w^:) 1 crf^Tf^ 1 wg^^fir^rt^- 
 ^: I rnrg *<ii<«n ^^T^Mcyi: ^R^ 11^ ^ f%frT ^ ^ii^Tf^^rimwrT: 1 
 TTcrg '^5'?;^rPT i>^ ^i^ t^ (i'v- 3> ne) f%^: inii^ ^ ^n^: 1 Tn^gftfTT 1 
 JTT^^ TTJmri: iK«*ini!rifS|v5: 1 (IV. 3, 108) ^R^rrf^^ rfwwJi^TfxsRrrfv^Rf^- 
 tn^ wnrrrcRTCH^tfr (ms. '^^nwT"*") 1 t^[f^ ^f iftw 'ju^ TTT;^«t 
 
 a ^ a e 
 
 ^(^)cT ^ ^Hji*Tra!<i ^ :RVaiTf>>ra>n; ij^ ^rarf^^ ^^nrr'Piw^rf^^n'w:- 
 
 — Nilgojibhatta: ^ iftW^i: I ^gTq^ihT<l«h<n JH'I-^I <U! I^'^ (IV. 3, 12G) V^T- 
 of the E. I. H., No. 350 and 1209, in the same order] ^^^ ^f^ W^F^^: I ^ 
 
 w% Ti^ tni tf lit ^T^ Tsr^: (IV- 3, 116) 1 ^nsr: ^ tRt tf wr ^nar: ^ 
 ?[gr^: I ^tf ^^ t^n^m ^artiiui frfirei^^-n i ^i^tji^ Tft i ^tf 
 
148 PA'NINI'S VIEW OF THE DATE OF CERTAIN VAIDIK HYMNS. 
 
 of in the rules IV. 2. 7-9 as having been " seen.'''' Nor would there 
 be anything remarkable in this view, if it merely referred to the 
 Brahmana works which also are the subject of his rules ; for this 
 class of inspired literature is looked upon by all the authorities as 
 being inferior in degree, and, I hold therefore, less immediate, 
 as an emanation than the hymns of the Samhitas. But there 
 
 ^^ ^=4 mt*r«rffTn^f%rm: (ms. 1209 «»f%f?r^o ; perhaps of^rftf^n^") ) 
 ^rid?l»iifiioMc=rf3rf7r *rR ^f^ %f^ 1 riw 1 ^nrRrm V^m <(*jiI^=imj|5!M- 
 fT(g% I TIT g I wf f^ Twr^ im^iwf%Tt^jrf^M^#^rpjR'm: ^^iRuir 
 
 ■^^^TWTci: I tfg ^f^ ^ -^ afhfttfwr^: (XV. 15) 1 ^^^ 
 
 ^^rf^sr% immTf fTt^wf^r 1 ^^rf^tsra^-pg^^ fTf(^rf%: i^i^«iMM*ii 
 t^ g ^ TT^Tw (? Mss. ^nr^?) I ^^ i^T^ ^rwfTT'TTf I ^z%3nfl[ 1 ^- 
 
 tI^Tt% rnsi^trr -5^1%^ rf^Tf | rTrT^ «h<il<^4| flJrfV^ *1^m«lT i^^'^K I T^ 
 
 Tr^T|iT%^ ^rr^nrci wf (comp. iv. 2, lu) 1 ^s^tPhY ^Wh (iv. 3, los) 1 
 
 flMSirt^q il^lijlf^df '^T^'- ■ [Obvious mis-spellings in the MSS.— especially in 
 MS. 350, which here is more indifferent than MS. 1209 — whence this passage is taken 
 have been left unnoticed by me. The text here given is, in my opinion, as correct as the 
 MSS. in question will allow to edit it.] 
 
 I have quoted the full gloss of the three principal commentators on this important 
 Siitra and its Varttikas, because it is of considerable interest in many respects and, at 
 the same time, bears out my statement at page 65. We see Kaiyyata and Nagojibhatta 
 writhing under the difficulty of reconciling the eternity of the Veda viith the differences 
 of its various versions, which nevertheless maintain an equal claim to infallibility. 
 Patanjali makes rather short work of this much vexed question ; and unless it be 
 allowed here to render his expression varna (which means "letter"), "word," it is 
 barely possible even to understand how he can save consistently the eternity or per- 
 manence of the "sense" of the Veda. That the modern Mimansists maintain not 
 only the " eternity of the sense " but also the " permanence of the text," which is 
 tantamount to the exclusive right of one single version, we learn, amongst others, 
 from Ndgojibhatta. But as such a doctrine has its obvious dangers, it is not shared ia 
 
PANINI'S VIEW OF THE DATE OP CERTAIN VAIDIK HYMNS. 149 
 
 occurs in midst of these rules one (IV. 3, 106) which contains the 
 word Chhandas, which, being contradistinguished from the word 
 Brdhmana in the preceding rule (lY. 3, 105), cannot have there 
 any other sense than that of Mantra, as I have sho^vn above ; or, 
 if it should be thought that it is contrasted there with Kalpa as 
 well as mth Brahmana in the preceding rule, it would mean Veda 
 in general — Mantra and Brahmana. And, in connection with this 
 word Panini writes, '■'■ Saunakay Saunaka, hoAvever, we know, 
 from Sayana's commentary on the Kigveda and the Anukramani, 
 was the Eishi who is supposed to be the author of the second 
 Mandala, as we now possess it, though in a former version it 
 appears to have belonged to the Eishi Gritsamada.'" 
 
 Should, then, my view of Panini's rule be correct, it will 
 follow that Panini considered this second Mandala as of a 
 later date than the other Mandalas ; and we cannot but admit 
 that even the first hymn of the second Mandala fully confirms 
 this impression, for, by speaking of Hotri, Potri, Neshtri, Agnidhra, 
 Prasastri, Adhwaryu, and Brahman priests, it certainly betrays a 
 very advanced development of sacrificial and artificial rites. 
 
 Ilimdnsd is a word of special grammatical interest, not in so 
 
 by the old Mimansists, nor by Ndgoji, as he teUs us himself. He and Kaiyyata hiform 
 us therefore that, amongst other theories, there is one, according to which the order of 
 the letters (or, rather, words) in the Vaidik texts got lost in the several Pralayas or 
 destructions of the worlds ; and, since each Manwantara had its own revelation, 
 which differed only in the expression, not in the sense of the Vaidik texts, the 
 various versions known to these commentators represent these successive revela- 
 tions which were " remembered," through " their excessive accomplishments," by the 
 Rishis, who, in this manner, produced, or rather reproduced, the texts current in their 
 time, under the name of the versions of the Kathas, Kalapas, and so on. In this way 
 each version had an equal claim to sanctity. There is a very interesting discussion 
 on the same subject by Kumdrila, in his Mimdmd-Fdrttika (I. 3, 10). I forbear, how- 
 ever, quoting it on the present occasion on account of its great length, and because I 
 hope to be able to give it in a more appropriate place. 
 
 '" Compare Sdyana in the beginning of his commentary on the second Mandala ; 
 Professor Wilson's detailed account in his translation, vol. ii., p. 207 ; and Professor 
 Midler's Ancient Literature, pp. 231, 232 ; as well as the corresponding passage from 
 Shadgurusishya, at p. 237. 
 
150 MrMANSA A^'D VEDA'NTA UNKNOWN TO PANINI, 
 
 far as its affix a is concerned — for the latter belongs to a general 
 category of derivatives dealt -vvitli by Panini in Ms rule III. 3, 102 
 — but on account of tbe irregular formation of its base. It must 
 be admitted that the Sutra I. 3, 62 may be looked upon as in- 
 cluding this base also ; but whether the instance mimdns, given 
 by the commentators, has there the general sense of considering, or 
 the special sense of the philosophical reasoning of the Mimansa, 
 cannot be inferred from the general tenor of this rule. This latter 
 sense is emphatically expressed by two words derived from mimdns, 
 viz., Mimdnsd, the name of the philosophy ; and Mimdnsaica, a 
 Mimansa philosopher. Neither word occurs in Panini.^" Nor 
 does he mention Jaimini, the author of the Mimansa -Sutra; 
 and it is, perhaps, Avorthy of oiu- attention, that not even the 
 Ganas to Panini contain the formation of this word, which is 
 of as much interest as any other word of the Gana Bdhwddi 
 (IV. 1, 96).''* 
 
 The word Veddnta having no remarkable grammatical pecu- 
 liarities, had no claim to the notice of Panini; but had he 
 been aware of the word Veddntin, " one who knows the Ve- 
 danta," it would certainly have required a special rule of his, 
 since there is no Sutra in his Grammar by which the sense 
 of this derivative could be made out satisfactorily. And as 
 Panini notices but one single word in which the base is not a 
 proper name, and the affix in (technically ini) imparts to the 
 
 ''' Even Katyayana gives no Varttika to teach the formation of mimdnsaka, though 
 this word is of some interest from a grammatical point of view. Amongst those words 
 which designate followers of a doctrine or philosophy, it is the only one formed with a 
 knt-aMx. It occurs, e.^. as an instance of Patanjali, to I. 2, 64, v. 17, II. 2, 29, and in 
 a Karika of the latter to III. 2, 123, where it is rendered by Kaiyyata vichdraka ; it 
 occurs, too, as an instance, not in the Mahabhashya, but the Kas'ika and Siddh.-k. 
 to II. 1, 53, in the compound JI^TTt^fcR^T^JS ; and it is probably the property of 
 the Calcutta Pandits, as an instance to IV. 3, 9. 
 
 ''^ With regard to Jaimini, I have only to add that the instance mTM f^ «h^ I i, or 
 <4l'^li,^r^r*t to II. 2, 38 has not yet found a place in the Bhashya or in Kaiyyata's 
 commentary ; it occurs in the Kasika and the Ganaratnamahodadhi ; but on what 
 authority Jayaditya and Vardhamana give this handsome epithet to the old Jaimini, or 
 whether it is levelled against another Jaimini, I have no means of stating. 
 
SANKETA AND YOGA UNKNOWN TO PANINI. 151 
 
 derivative the sense of studying or knowing, viz., aniibrdhmtinin, 
 " one wlio studies or knoAvs a work like a Bralimana" (IV. 2, 62), 
 the omission of Veduntin acquires increased significance.'" 
 
 Sdnkhya is a peculiar form. It comes from sanJchyd^ and de- 
 signates the philosophy which is based on synthetic (sam) reasoning 
 (khya). Its very name shows that it is the counterpart, as it 
 "were, of Nydya (ni-aya), or the philosophy founded on " analytical 
 reasoning.'''' For while the former builds up a systiem of the 
 universe, the latter dissects it into categories, and " enters into" 
 its component parts. Yet a grammatical rule would have had to 
 explain why the name of the former system is not a 7m'^-forma- 
 tion, — for instance, its very base, sanJchyd^ analogously to the 
 ^nY-formation nydya. It has not been noticed by Panini. Nor 
 does he teach — as he probably would have done had this philo- 
 sophy existed in his time — that the same word means, as a 
 masculine, a foUoAver of the Sankhya philosophy."" 
 
 The word Yoga occurs several times in the Sutras,'" but 
 never in the sense of a system of philosophy; and the only 
 two derivatives of this word which are taught by Panini, viz., 
 yogya and yaiigika (V. 1, 102) are two words Avhich have no 
 
 '" In the Sutra IV. 3, 111, the affix in (technically, ini) has a similar purport, but 
 the base implies a proper name ; thus, Karmandin, KrUdswin mean " one who studies 
 or knows the works of Karmanda, Kris'aswa." 
 
 *'° For the various explanations, given by native authorities, of this term, I need 
 now refer to one essay only, since it probably comprises all the literary information — 
 and not only on this point — which can be obtained in our days on Sdnkhya writers, 
 and certainly more than any one scholar in Europe would have at his command — I mean 
 the learned and excellent preface of Dr. Hall to his elaborate edition of the Sdnkliya- 
 Pravachana. The latter sense of the word Sdnkhya, "a follower of the Sdnkhya philo- 
 sophy," occurs, e.g. in the Bhagavad-Gltd, III. 3 ; or, together with the word Kdndda," a 
 follower of the Vaiseshika doctrine," in the commentary of Sankara on the Veddnta 
 
 sdfra, II. 3, 51 : «<^Mi(4<^ *j4j|T}t| 5rfdiiiO< ^TiTT'^Rraf^'^iir #f%t|^ 
 
 TrafR etc. 
 
 '" I. 2, 54. 55.— III. 4, 20.— V. 1, 102; 4, 44. 47. 50. 126.— VI. 4, 74. 75.— VIII. 
 1,59. 
 
152 NYATA UNKNOWN TO PANINI. 
 
 connection whatever with its philosophical meaning. In the 
 sense of " religious austerity," it seems to have been known by 
 Panini, thotigh he has no rule on the formation of this word, 
 apparently because it offers no other grammatical interest than 
 that which would be satisfied by his general rules III. 3, 18 
 and YII. 3, 52 ; for he has a rule on the formation of t/offt'n 
 (III. 2, 142). But this word means a man who practises religious 
 austerities ; it does not mean a follower of the Yoga system of 
 philosophy. 
 
 That Nydya was known to Panini in the sense of syllogism 
 or logical reasoning^ or perhaps logical science^ I conclude from the 
 Sutra III. 3, 122,^'^ where its affix conveys the sense of instru- 
 mentality, i.e. that by which analysis {lit. entering-into) is effected, 
 for the same form, nydya, is made the subject of another rule 
 (III. 3, 37), where Panini gives as its meaning "propriety, good 
 conduct," which would lead to its later meaning, "policy." Un- 
 less we drew this distinction between the two Sutras named, the 
 first Sutra would become superfluous. Nor is it probable that a 
 civilization like that Avhich is traceable in Panini' s rules could 
 have done without a word for syllogistic thought. But between 
 this sense of the word nya.ya, and its designating the special 
 
 ''' I regret that I must again animadvert on an error of the Calcutta editors. In 
 their gloss on the Siitra III. 3, 122, they give the following etymology of HTRI, 
 " ufl^) I '^^% >S«i»i'f?I I •TFT' ■" According to them, this word would therefore 
 come from ift " to lead," an etymology which, of course, is absolutely impossible. Nor 
 is there any trace of it in any of the commentaries known to me. Patanjali and his 
 commentators have no remark on this easy word. The Kdsikd, which explains every 
 Sutra, writes •flijri i»i«if7I '•i(|i|; , but neither allows these words to be preceded by 
 " tql^l ," nor, as this quotation shows, to contain a third person of t]M plural (<n^<(l)- 
 Its gloss obviously means, " because entering is made (f^ + 4,4jfj) by it, the deriva- 
 tive is "ijlij." The Siddhdnta-kaumudi (fol. 211a, line 7) has an analogous inter- 
 pretation: "f^ilfirl '^Pff," etc., which is still more transparent. But what 
 
 must one think of the proficiency of au "editor" of Pdnini, who has none of the labo- 
 rious work — which always gives a title to indulgence^of comparing MSS. and com- 
 piling a commentary, — who merely reprints the labour of others, — and yet, even in a simple 
 case like this, does not feel induced to consult the K^sika or Siddhdnta-kaumudi, though 
 he talks a great deal, even on this occasion, of the Kasikd " A. B. and C, " but without mas- 
 tering its "a, b, c," simply repeats the gross blunder of the editors of his edition of Panini ! 
 
NYAYA UNKNOWN TO PANINI. 153 
 
 system of Gautama there is a vast difference. Nay, had Panini 
 even written the Gana lY- 2, 60, which implies, in its present 
 version, the formation naiydyika, this latter word would not 
 require us to infer that it means there a follower of Gautama's 
 school ; it may only signify a man who studies or knows the laws 
 of syllogism."^ To substantiate this conclusion, with all the detail 
 it deserves, would be a matter of great interest ; for no philo- 
 sophical school has dealt more largely with grammatical subjects 
 than the Nydya school, and its branch, the Vai'seshika. The nature 
 of "sound" and "word," the question whether word is "eternal 
 or transitory," the "power" or purport of words, the relation of 
 base and affix, and such kindred matters are treated of in. a vast 
 literature based on the Sutras of Gautama ; and the controversies 
 of the Naiyayikas with the Vaiyakaranas or etymologists need not 
 blush before those of our modem philosophers. I must, however, 
 confine myself on the present occasion, as heretofore, to giving a 
 small amount of proof, that Panini could not have known the 
 Sutras of Gautama. 
 
 After having refuted the opinion that the sense of a word 
 conveys either the notion of genus or that of species, or that of 
 individual, each taken separately, Gautama continues: — "1. The 
 sense of a word conveys (at the same time) as well the notion 
 of genus (j'dti), as that of species (dkriti), as that of an individual 
 (vyakti). 2, An individual (vyakti) is a bodily form as a receptacle 
 for the particularization of qualities. 3. Species (akriti) is called 
 the characteristic mark of genus. 4. Genus (Jdti) is that which 
 has the property of (intellectually) producing (species) of the 
 same kind." °" 
 
 "' To arrive at the form ^i||f4|e|| it is necessary to combine with the Gana quoted, 
 the Sdtra VII. 3, 3. The same word 'HIH in the philosophical sense, occurs in the Gana 
 to IV. 3, 73, where a MS. of the Kds'ikd has even the reading •ill^fcl'^l ; and probably, 
 in the same sense in the Gana to VIII. 1, 27 ; but even if Pdnini himself had written 
 it there, we should not be justified in giving it a more definite sense than the one stated. 
 In the Sdtra IV, 4, 92, and the Gana to IV. 3, 54, it has the sense of " propriety." 
 
 '«' Nydya Siitras II. 131—134: WIWrat^t^Tai^ V[^: II ^rfW^lTjrf^^^TSI^ 
 
 20 
 
154 NTA'TA UNKNOWN TO PANINI. 
 
 Let US noAV refer to the terminology of Paiiini, and see how 
 he dealt with similar notions. In the first place, we find that he 
 does not make use of a term dkriti. We meet, in his Grammar 
 only Avith the two terms jdti and vyaMi. In the rule I. 2, 52, 
 he speaks of (words which express) " qualities as far as a jati 
 goes ;" and the instance of the jdti^ given by Patanjali, is a tree.'*' 
 
 ^ff : 11 Wirf?T#TfM%fT^rT ll *J*1l<1H«=)in««*l WrfTr: ll .—The object of Gautama 
 is to show that individual, species, and genus are notions which cannot be conceived, 
 independently of one another, and tliat a separation of one from the other produces a 
 fallacy. In translating the term vyakti, stress must be laid on the word visesha, 
 " particularization ; " othei-wise there would he but one individual. The same consider- 
 ation induced me to differ, in my translation of dkriti, from Dr. Ballantyne, who, in his 
 meritorious edition and learned translation of the Nyaya-Siitras, renders this term 
 "form." which undoubtedly is its usual sense in non-philosophical writings. But when 
 Viswandtha, in his comment on the Siitra II. 124, writes : '4(l^rd<^«=(*l<N^*^ltr%^^' 
 and on II. 133: WTf?rf%^R<«*ll*#H ^T^TT WTWWT^ ¥T^Tf5^^*^T'iR^M~\ 
 f^^^, — ^he intends, in my opinion, to convey the understanding, that dkriti is " the 
 particularization of organisms," and " the characteristic mark of ' cowhood ' is the 
 particularization of the organism of a cow,'' which, translated into our philosophical 
 language, would mean that dkriti is species. In my rendering of the fourth Siitra 
 (II. 134), the parenthetical words are borrowed from Viswandtha, who comments on 
 them thus ; ^fTTT: ^WTTT<*I<"*: TRRt ff^^RTTTWT M^M ^reiT: ^ETT rraT '^ 
 ^TflTTraTT^t^^ilTTsflrrer^TT^; There can be no doubt, therefore, that Gautama 
 meant our term genus. 
 
 '*' I. 2, 52 : r«|5|mm'Tt 'cll^ld: . — I must obsen'e here that the Kasikd and, on 
 its authority, the Calcutta edition, are quite at variance with Patanjali, in explaining- 
 the last words of this Sutra, as if it had the sense ^ ■4)<jf|^: . Patanjali distinctly 
 rejects such an explanation, on the ground that it is impossible to speak of qualities 
 which are not jdtis. He rejects, too, such instances as l|^|<^| ^<tM(«'> ^f'T^ ^l|f)- 
 m<ni<4., <t^^l<!$4Wl<?(. > which illustrate his pdrvapaksha ; an instance of his conclusion 
 is ^fV ^^"^l!^!*'! T^TT ^: .—Patanjali : q5Wf?T^ fW^I^ I •aHld^fl^"^- 
 
 f%vrfwi^^RftT!l*<Ti|giT^^Tf^ Ru|MU!l«nf Wlf%^ffiT^(MS.o^;)^TraTj7^- 
 
 ^: I ^¥^irr^T5^ j^ i m^hi ^iTq^^ ^ t^^ifli i ii^ frff t% trgr^^ 
 
 IT^ *r^-— Varttika : -^U 5n^: .—Patanjali : ^ WrfWH^ITfl^ 1 t^Wsf J'TIT- 
 ^^^.— Varttika: f^l^WlinTf W^ WrfWf^^W^-— Patanjali : ^Trftrf^I^TSI- 
 
NYAYA UNKNOWN TO MNINI. 155 
 
 At I. 2, 58, he treats of the optional use of the singular or plural : 
 "if the word expresses a /a^*','' i^-O- ^ Brahmana or the Brah- 
 manas); at V. 2, 133, he applies the term jdti to the elephant, — 
 at y, 4, 37, to herbs, — at Y. 4, 94, to stones and iron, a lake and 
 a cart,— at VI. 1, 143, to the fruit Kustumburu,— at VI. 3, 103, 
 to grass ; — and IV. 1, 63, is a rule on "/afe-words, which are not 
 permanently used in the feminine gender.'' It is not necessary 
 to multiply these instances, in order to show that Panini under- 
 stands by jdti the same thing that Gautama understands by akriti^ 
 viz., species ■,^^'^ and I may add at once, that he has no word at all 
 for the notion of '■'■genus.'''' 
 
 As to vyaMi, it occurs but once in the Sutras, viz., I. 2, 51, 
 
 Tgnf^ffT-— V4rttika:^r'TT'nf^I^RTW^Tf^riK-— Patanjalii^HT'TrHin^ 
 WJ^^ITWIT^ T *RffT etc.— Kaiyyata: ^<jlMf\<4J4H*1V§*J*1|5Er: I *t^fff 
 
 ^ wt: 1?%^: T g i^: etc. 
 
 '^ There is, indeed, a KArikd of Pataiijali M'liich explicitly corroborates this com- 
 parison whicli I have made between P&nini and Gautama, and which, moreover, has an 
 additional import in affording evidence that Gautama is prior to Fatanjali. I mean the 
 Kdrikd to IV. 1, 63, which says : ^IdlfdJJ^*!!! Wrfrrf^P^ ^ T ^^TT^ I ^ra^- 
 '^rnrf'Rn'^n 'ft^ ^ ^^TW> ^T?' '•^■' "y<^*' I'^s (in Pdninlj the sense of dkriti ; it 
 does not possess all the genders, and, once determined, is easily recognized (elsewhere) ; 
 but it is, too, a family with its schools." The following passages from Kaiyyata will 
 bear out my translation : WarfrT^ftir ^^IT: ^irfTRTfTSTTenSTW^tW^Hl^^^l- 
 >^^r^; [For these last words compare Viswandthd's comment on the Nydya S&tra 
 II. 133, in note 180.] | J!^ aftWrf^^TTfcf^fWr WTlPHWrf^^ T iJ^j^dT 
 
 ^insr^^^t^ 'awTT^ ^r^irwrf^lrr dcM*)^i4iif i f^iiTrfirfTr. etc. 
 vr#^: I 'TNf'TfTr I. wqw^ar^: i ^ttiht^ ^'^Twrf^Ht ^ii% i 
 
 jJl^*^ ¥#f^^t<riry«|3jM|^«T»l, li *iK|4J«i Tg^rafrrnr ^MTc^- And after 
 having explained the K^rlkd of " another " quoted by Fatanjali, on the same subject, 
 Kaiyyata adds, " from this quotation by Fatanjali it has been infen-ed that the former 
 Kdriki expresses his own opinion:" xrtf^i^^ ^RfW HT'i|«*'K'*il *\n*\ I ^HK' 
 ^^^rf*TVT") I r«{ rtl'l^; • — On another occasion Fatanjali, in adopting himself to 
 Pdnini's use of the term jdti (i.e. = dkriti), observes in a somewhat poetical strain (I. 2, 
 52, after the last words of the quotation from the BhAshya in iirte 181) : Wf%Sf%^ 
 
156 NYAYA UNKNOWN TO PANINI. 
 
 and means there ^mn^a" generic mark, wMcli, in grammatical 
 terminology, is gender }^^ The notion of individuality is not repre- 
 sented by a special word ia the language of Panini ; the nearest 
 approach to it is his word adhikaram, as it is used in the ndes 
 II. 4, 13. 15, and Y. 3, 43, where it is rendered by the com- 
 mentators by dravya " substance." The term vi'seshya may be 
 compared to adhikarana ; but as it signifies "the object to be 
 
 <JHff1^flrt*JMT<^r4( TTW^ I ^pq'fTnnprr f^^TnTrrrfl^ T llfTffT [Kaiyyata : 
 Wf%H t%lf ^SniT ^f%Sf%rfT r»i<ldnHi'c4|*5: , etc.] i.e., " If Jdti has a fixed 
 gender, — whenever it has taken that gender, from birth to death it does not abandon 
 that gender." — I must also call attention to another passage from the Mahdbhdshya, 
 which likewise shows tliat^f^^j has, in Pdnini, Gautama's sense of dkriti, and which at the 
 same time proves that Patanjali not only had a knowledge of the philosophical applica- 
 tion of the latter term, but, when speaking in his own name, uses dkriti in the same 
 manner in which it is used by Gautama. In the passage I am alluding to, he 
 broaches the same problem which is proposed by the Nydya-Sdtras, but as a gram- 
 marian, and in reference to Pdnini, who has no term for genus, he comprises in his 
 question merely the alternative whether the sense of a word in Pdvini implies " species '' 
 [dkriti), or "individuality" {dravya). His answer is, that it comprises both, for those 
 who maintain the former alternative are justified in their opinion by the Siitra 1. 2, .58, 
 and those who incline towards the latter, by the Siitra I. 2, 64. PatanjaWs Introduc- 
 tion (ed. Ballantyne, p. 40-42) : fSR gsRJlrfTi: V[^ ^|^nc)^=4|H, I ^^*Rrf*r3rTf I 
 
 ^ ^m^ I ^3H^raT HTqr^ ^^rfw MtiTldiR i wsrfTT xi^itf ;Rwr ^rmr- 
 
 ■^IK^ilfj . — 'Whether Kdtydyana, in using the expression '^TOWf%^ Wrffl. (!• 4, ] . 
 v. 3, of the Calcutta edition), merely adapted himself to the manner in which Panini 
 uses WrffI > or whether he, too, had not yet a knowledge of Gautama's definition would 
 have remained doubtful, had he not availed himself, in another of his Vdrttikas, of the 
 terra dkriti exactly in the sense in which it is defined by the Nyaya Siitra — viz., in the 
 Vdrttika 5 (ed. Calc.) to VII. I, 74 : ^ ^ 5EraTTraTflTlirft" «rrft|dy<=hn<-5!'Hlci:; 
 and though Patanjali observes that this Vdrttika is superfluous, since its contents are a 
 matter of course, we may, nevertheless, be thankful for its word '^II^HT > and the conclu- 
 sions it enables us to draw in our present case. — Patanjali : »T ^ ^W^TH.! fsR <4ll<,UJH. ' 
 
 *rtl«Tl<; Qr|^irMdy*5ti*i, I f^ «J(<i=i|*idrC. I T ff eh«|H^-^*<R ^^ I THT^TSr^- 
 "N^inf^r^; and Kaiyyata fj'q MJ^Sisi^t ^^T*^ IjtW* Mi<!lldd*1 
 
 "^ Vyakti is used in the same sense by KdtyAyana in the Vdrttika 1 (of the Calc. 
 ed.) to I. 2, 52. 
 
NYAYA AND VAISESHIKA UXKNOWX TO TAXIXI. 157 
 
 qualified," it is not the counterpart oi jdli, but of vi'scsham, "the 
 quality." '" 
 
 The result of the foregoing comparison between Panini and 
 Gautama must remove, I believe, every doubt as to the chrono- 
 logical position of both. The expressions of Panini show that he 
 had not even conceived so much as the philosophical problem started 
 and solved by Gautama. The very manner in which Patanjali is 
 compelled to answer the question, whether " the sense of a word" 
 in Panini "implies species or individuality" — viz., that at one 
 time it implies the former, and at another, the latter, shows that 
 philosophical investigations into the " sense of the word" had not 
 yet troubled Panini's mind. A mere difference of opinion between 
 the grammarian and the Nyaya philosopher would be no proof for 
 the posteriority of the latter ; but the absence of the problem 
 itself, in the Sutras of Panini, is, I hold, sufficient ground for this 
 inference. A problem of this kind could not have been slighted 
 by Panini if he had been aware of it ; it would have entered un- 
 consciously, as it were, into his terminology, and into the mode 
 of delivering his rules. There is abundant evidence in Patanjali's 
 Great Commentary, that his training must have been a philoso- 
 phical one ; and it is Katyayana's superiority, too, in this respect, 
 which inflicts on Panini a quantity of Varttikas finding fault 
 with his empiric and unphilosophical treatment of grammatical 
 facts. 
 
 After this conclusion, it seems needless to add that the Sutras 
 ignore the word vai'seshika, which, from a grammatical point of 
 view, would have had as much claim to being noticed by Panini 
 as any word comprised in his rules lY. 2, 60 and 63. The for- 
 mation vai'seshika is taught in the Gana to V. 4, 34, but merely 
 in the sense of vi'sesha. 
 
 There is an important class of ancient works the chronological 
 relation of which to Panini deserves our peculiar attention here, 
 from the circumstance that their contents are more or less kindred 
 
 '" Compare II. 1, 57 ; also V. 1, 119, v. 5 (ed. Calc.) 
 
158 CHRONOL. EELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNA'DI-Sl/XEAS. 
 
 with those of Panini's work, — I mean the grammatical works 
 known under the name of Umddi- Sutras, Dhdtupdtha, Prdti- 
 'dJchyas, Phit-Sutras, and we may add to them the Nirulda, the 
 exegetical work of Ydska. Each of these works, with perhaps 
 the exception of one, if I am not mistaken, is unanimously con- 
 sidered hy Sanskrit scholars, as prior to the Grammar of Panini. 
 
 Before I proceed to examine whether this view can be 
 upheld or not, I will quote Professor Miiller's opinion on the age 
 of the Umddi-Sutras. "We do not know," he says, "by whom 
 these Unadi affixes were first collected, nor by whom the TJnadi- 
 Sutras, as we now possess them, were fixst composed. All we can 
 say is, that, as Panini mentions them, and gives several general 
 rules with regard to them, they must have existed before his 
 time.'"^^ 
 
 On the same subject. Dr. Aufrecht, to whom we are indebted 
 for a careful edition of the JJnnddi- Sutras, together with a 
 commentary by Ujjwaladatta, expresses himself thus'**: — "We 
 have no direct tradition as to the author of the sutras. They 
 were composed before the time of Panini, as they are referred to 
 by him in two different passages of his Grammar. The fact, how- 
 ever, that both Ydska and the author of the above-quoted Karika 
 [vi^;., to III. 3, 1] specify Cdkatdijana as the grammarian who 
 derived all nouns from verbs, speaks in favour of NdffojPs con- 
 jecture, that the authorship is to be attributed to Cdkatdyana. Nor 
 is this supposition entirely unsupported by the evidence of the 
 sutras themselves. In one place (II. 38) we are told that the 
 people of the north used the word kdrshalca for 'a husbandman;' 
 in another (lY. 128), that they employed kdri in the meaning of 
 'an artisan.' This distinction refers to a period of the language 
 
 '^ Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 151. 
 
 '^ " Ujjvaladatta's Commentary on the UnS,(li-Sutras, edited from a Manuscript in 
 the Library of the East India House, by Theodor Aufrecht. Bonn, 1859 ; " Preface, 
 p. viii. — The Unnddi-Sutras weie first published in the Calcutta edition of the Sid- 
 dhdnta-kaumudi, afterwards reprinted — witliout any further consultation of BISS., but 
 witli deteriorations, I)y — Dr. BoehtUngk. Compare note 53. 
 
DR. AUFRECHT'S VIEW OF THE AGE OF THE UNNADI-StTTEAS. 159 
 
 of whieli no mention is made by any grammarian after Pdnini. 
 In another rule (III. 144,) we find the name of Cdkravannma, 
 an old grammarian who is only once more quoted, namely, in 
 Pdnim, VI. 1, 130. It is of some importance also, that the author 
 of the sutras considers agman (stone) and hhuvana (world) as 
 Vaidic, whereas they are treated by Panini as words of common 
 occurrence. These facts, even when taken collectively, furnish 
 no decisive evidence as to the authorship of the sutras^ but they 
 show, at all events, that they were composed a considerable time 
 before Pdmni." 
 
 I have in the first instance, to demur to the correctness of one 
 of these " facts," which, if it were real, would dispense with any 
 further proof of the IJnnadi-Sutras having preceded — not, indeed, 
 Panini, for such an inference would always remain hazardous — 
 but his grammatical work. It is true that this grammarian 
 speaks twice of Unnddts, but he never speaks of JJmiadi-Sutras.^^^ 
 The former term merely implies a list of Tniiadi afiixes, and may 
 imply, according to analogous expressions in Panini, a list of 
 words formed with these affixes ;'^' but it can never imply a work 
 which treats of these affixes and these formations, like the Unnadi- 
 Sutras which we are speaking of. Between a list of Unnadis — 
 affixes or words — and TJnnadi-Sutras, there is all the difference 
 which exists between a lexicographical and a grammatical work. 
 All the conclusions, therefore, which are based on the identity 
 of both, vanish at once. 
 
 With the conjecture of Nagojibhatta I shall deal hereafter ; 
 but when Dr. Aufrecht quotes the meaning of Mrsliaka, ' husband- 
 man,' and of Mri, ' artisan' as proving his conclusion, I candidly 
 confess that I do not understand how the fact of these words 
 having been used by the people of the north, in the sense given, 
 can have the remotest bearing on the point at issue, even if in 
 
 "' III. 3, I : 'dt!jl(^*|y «(.|J<!|JK,; and III. 4, 75 : rTFWTR^'^Y'Jn^: • 
 
 '^ Vaidyandth(t on the Paribhasha '«j4ij|d'tf) i^R^TWlf'T i|l(rm(c{chl(% — : '^(Jjf. 
 
160 CHRONOL. EELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-SUTRAS. 
 
 the whole stretch of the voluminous grammatical literature subse- 
 quent to Panini, all of which, of course, is covered by his asser- 
 tion, no grammarian had made mention of the distinction he is 
 adverting to.'*'' The Unnadi Sutras profess to give such informa- 
 tion as is not contained in Panini' s work ; he himself informs us 
 of this character of the Unnadi list in the two rules alleged. It 
 is but natural, therefore, that we should find in these two Unnadi 
 rules, as indeed we find in all the rest, much interesting matter 
 of which no trace occurs in the Sutras of Panini. 
 
 But even assuming that my inability to understand this premiss 
 of Dr. Aufrecht only proves my own incapacity, I might go further 
 and ask — "What proof does there exist that these two Sutras, 
 which have nothing characteristic or peculiar in them, were not 
 added to the original Sutras at a later time, since Dr. Aufrecht 
 himself has shown that the genuineness of sixteen Sutras was 
 suspected by Ujjwaladatta himself ? And I may add — Are there 
 not, for instance, in a valuable commentary on more than 300 of 
 these Unnadi-Sutras, composed by Nrisinha,wh.o lived Samwatl577 , 
 or 1520 after Christ, at least in the MS. I have consulted, not only 
 many readings which differ from the text of Ujjwaladatta, as edited 
 by Dr. Aufi:echt, but three Sutras the substance of which is now 
 in the Commentary, and three Sutras which are neither met with 
 in the text of Bhattoji nor in that of Ujjwaladatta P'®" It seems. 
 
 '^ And has this question — which portion of the grammatical literature is later than 
 Panini ? — been so finally settled that, at present, any one is allowed to speak of it as a 
 matter of course ? 
 
 '* Between the Sutras III. 60 and 61 we read in the E. I. H. MS. 98 of Nrisinha's 
 Swaramanjari (on accentuation)- — where these Unnadi-Sutras occur — a Siitra which is 
 neither amongst those of Ujjwaladatta, nor in his Commentary, viz. : ^|<]]'ftjj4 ^ || 
 Coram. : \|K-t|fT|fr| ^^^UT: I f^^ '^ '^H^ I ^^^IIT X!=fit^l[: I TWtf^lTi: . 
 Between IV. 2 and 3, it has a Siitra the contents — but not the wording — of which are 
 embodied in Ujjwaladatta's Sutra IV. 2: '3f^; f^fi^ || Comm. : ^f[4^|<1rS4ri|'^; (ch^ 1 
 irsnfHTr inrrg: l 'eranl^ inrr^- Between I v. 90 and 91 : rl^'^^ (its substance 
 occurs in the commentary on Siitra IV. 90) ; Comm. : ^^'^J^nTST^! I '^Tn'Wt fftt^^' I 
 
 (?) I dl**ird ft«lfri dN'JlH, ! ^""^ ^<!i I fi^J^r^ ^ (embodied also in the 
 
 Commentary of Ujjwaladatta) || Comm. : ^Ullri^^llc^ii: I ^V^f^^ | J^Uiltflfd 
 Vrr^^' I TW^: ^l<£<!ll^ TT^' • Before V. 28, it mentions a Sutra which is neither 
 
DR. AUFEECHT'S VIEW OF THE AGE OF THE UNNADI-SUTEAS. 161 
 
 tlierefore, that with, the actual doubts we must entertain as to the 
 originality of several Unnadi-Sutras, it is by no means safe to 
 appeal to two or any such Sutras for chronological evidence, unless 
 they be able to show cause why they should not be ranked 
 amongst the additions of later times.'" 
 
 And again, what possible conclusion as to the chronological 
 relation of the Unnadi-Sutras to Panini can be drawn from 
 another quotation made by Dr. Aufrecht ? Chakramrmana, he 
 says, is once quoted by the Unnadi-Sutras, and " only once more, 
 namely, in TaniniP I will make no remark on these latter 
 words. That they are quoted by both is undeniable ; but since 
 it happens that both Dr. Aufrecht and I have quoted Panini', 
 does it follow that either of us lived a " considerable time" before 
 the other, or before any other writer who may also have quoted 
 Panini ? When, however, Dr. Aufrecht points out that the author 
 of the Unnadi-Sutras " considers agman (stone) and bhuvana (world) 
 as Vaidic, whereas they are treated by Panini as words of common 
 occurrence," I, too, lay much stress on the statement contained 
 in this passage of the Unnadi-Sutras, but by it arrive at the 
 
 amongst those of Ujjwaladatta nor embodied in liis Commentary : ^JT'sTT II Comm. : 
 mi^fd fiim«*J^ 1^ 'd«J^«h<% I ^irW: ^nr etc. Before V. 52 which precedes 
 V. 70, and follows V. 69 and the new Sdtra (i.e. V. 69— the new Sdtra— 52. 70 ) : 
 fd^f^^r^»|xj^ II Comm. : ^ai|(fi(7| ^; | fden I f^^'. ; this Sutra, too, is neither 
 amongst the Sutras nor in the Commentary of Ujjwaladatta. 
 
 '°' Dr. Aufrecht himself observes (p. ix) with perfect accuracy : " the un^dis&tras 
 have not been handed down to us in their original form. It was not the intention of 
 the author to give a complete list of all the unHdi-words, but merely to collect the most 
 important of them. Hence we frequently meet with the sentence : q.^j^n^ixcmlM ' i" 
 various other words, too,' or ^i^f)^ ,jftf d^t^ ' the same suffixes are found in other 
 words, too.' " The former of these expressions, quoted by Dr. Aufrecht, occurs, indeed, 
 five times and the latter once; and Patanjali says in his Karika to III. 3, 1, and in his 
 comment on it: ^TF^ TTliWgft; II cN^: H*fd«I "^^T^^ f^^ 
 
 T TS'aamX p5i^ II trnRT^w^TTr^ft ^^rni; ii irraTsr ^i^fj ^g^rrr: i t 
 ^ tfigf^dr: ii wi^^^^ ri^ih+i, ii Hhi^Tfur ^^ft ^^^rfw ifrrrf'T i t 
 
 ^edfuj ^^^«T WT<^4irHrf<T • since, then, the Unnadis are admitted, even by Patan- 
 jali, to be an incomplete list, and if there is evidence to prove that at recent periods 
 writers permitted themselves to supply the deficiencies, it will be admitted that my 
 liesitation is not a hypercritical one. 
 
 21 
 
162 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-SITTRAS. 
 
 very opposite inference to that wticli has suggested itself to 
 him. For, if Panini treated these words which occur in the 
 Yedas as words of common life, and, on the other hand, the author 
 of the Sutras ia question had ceased to use them ia his conversa- 
 tional speech, and records the fact that they belong, not only to 
 literary language, but to that of the very oldest literature, — I do 
 not conclude that such facts " show, at all events, that they 
 (the Unnadi- Sutras) were composed a considerable time before 
 Paniai;" but I conclude that Panini lived in that Yaidik age 
 when asman and hhuvana were as well Yaidik as common words, 
 and therefore required no distinctive remark of his ; that, on 
 the contrary, the author of the two TJnnadi-Sutras in question 
 belonged to a period when these words had become obsolete in 
 common life, — in short, that Panini lived a considerable time 
 before this grammarian. 
 
 An inference, however, of such importance as this could not 
 be considered as resting on suificiently solid ground if there were 
 no other means of establishing it than two Sutras of a work 
 avowedly open to interpolations at various periods of Sanslmt 
 literature. 
 
 In order to support it with stronger arguments, I must raise a 
 pre^sT-Ous question, which does not concern the Unnadi-Sutras 
 alone — the question, whether or not Panini was the originator of 
 all the technical terms he employs in his work ? Since he adverts, 
 several times, in his rules, to grammarians who preceded him,'^^ it 
 would probably — not necessarily — be possible to answer this ques- 
 tion if we possessed the works of these grammarians. Sdkatdy ana's 
 grammar seems indeed, to have come down to us, but though, in 
 such a case it would be within my reach, it must still remain at 
 present a sealed book to me, and I must treat it like the works of 
 Grargya, Kasyapa, and the other predecessors of Panini who merely 
 survive in name and fame.^"' 
 
 "' See note 97. 
 
 '" Tlie knowledge that Sakatdyana's Grammar exists, and is preserved amongst the 
 treasures of the Library of the Home Government for India, we owe, like so much of 
 our knowledge of Sanskrit literature, to the lamented Professor Wilson, who speaks of 
 
TECHNICAL TERMS IN PANINI'S GEAMMAR. 16S 
 
 There are, in my opinion, two Sutras of Panini which may- 
 serve as a clue through the intricacies of this problem. 
 
 In five important rules of his, Panini states that, on principle, 
 he will exclude from his Grammar certain subjects, as they do not 
 fall within his scope. But since he gives reasons for doing so, 
 he at the same time enables us to infer what he considered his 
 duty, as a grammarian, to teach.'^* Amongst these rules, one 
 (I. 2, 53) referring to a subject touched on by him in. a previous 
 Sutra, says : " Such matter will not be taught by me, for it falls 
 under the category of conventional terms, which are settled (and 
 
 it in liis Mackenzie Collection, vol. I. p. 160. Many years ago I obtained sight of the 
 precious volume ; but as it is written on palm leaves in the Hdld Kerndta character, 
 and as I could not attempt to make it out without a magnifying glass, and then only 
 with much difficulty, I was compelled to abandon my desire of mastering its contents. 
 It is to be hoped now that a learned, laborious, and competent Sanskrit scholar will 
 transcribe and publish this awkward MS., and thus relieve Sanskrit studies from a 
 suspense which no one can feel more keenly than I do in writing these lines. I must 
 add, at the same time, that doubts have been lately expressed to me whether this MS. 
 contains really the original work of Sdkatdyana, or merely a Grammar founded on his. 
 
 '** These rules are I. 2, 53-57. They contain Pdnini's grammatical creed, and are 
 the key-stone of his work. But all that the " editor" of Pdnini has to offer with respect 
 to them is the following attempt at an epigram (vol. II. p. 47) : " PAnini makes an expedi- 
 tion against his predecessors." And thus, in taking up that which is merely incidental, 
 and, compared with the subject itself, quite irrelevant, he completely leads the reader 
 away from the real importance of these rules. The Kdsikd, it is true, mentions that 
 Pdnini differs in the principles he lays down in these rules from previous grammarians ; 
 but it is far from making a joke or concentrating the essence of its comment on so 
 futile a point. It shows, on the contrary, the fiill bearing of these rules, and, I 
 believe, it would have done still better had it embodied in its gloss the remarks of 
 Patanjali on some of these Sutras. At all events, the commentary of the Kdsikd on 
 them was deemed important enough even by Dr. Boehtlingk to be quoted by him on 
 this occasion in its full extent, though his reason for doing so is merely to show the 
 " expedition of Pdnini against his predecessors." " The whole," (viz., this expedition) 
 he writes in introducing the Kdsika, " becomes sufficiently clear through an excellent 
 commentary, I mean the Kdsikd^vritti, which mil make any other remark superfluous." 
 As the quotation he then gives from the Kds'ikd is the only one, of any extent, in 
 his whole second volume, and as he assumes all the appearance of treating it with 
 that minute and critical and conscientious circumstantiality which even in an incidental 
 quotation must be extremely welcome, — I mean by giving the various readings of his 
 MSS. {"A" = MS. 829; " B" = MS. 2440 of the East India lio\x%t— wrongly 
 
164 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-SU'TRAS. 
 
 tlierefore do not require any rale of mine ; Uteralh/ : for it has the 
 authority of a sanjnd or conventional term)." To these words 
 Patanjali appends the following gloss: "When Panini speaks of 
 conventional terms which he will not teach, because they are 
 settled, does he mean, by this expression, such technical terms 
 as ti, ghii, iha, and the like ? No ; for sanjnd is here the 
 
 described by him at p. liv.), by recording the omissions in either of them, even so 
 far as the omission of a " ^" is concerned, — in short, as he gives us in his lengthened 
 and highly valuable extract from the Kds'ik^ a specimen of his editorial character, 
 I considered it my duty to make a comparison of his edition of this portion of tlie 
 Kdsikd with the two MSS. named and used by him. For though I was perfectly 
 well aoquainted with his so-called Commentary on PAnini, and though it has been 
 my thorough conviction for very many years that his curtailed reprint of the Calcuttii 
 edition — I will not qualify it now otherwise — by suppressing important texts and by 
 propagating errors which, even in a reprint, are not excusable, has been more an im- 
 pediment to a conscientious study of Sanskrit grammar, and of Panini in particular, 
 than his very imperfect commentatorial remarks may have done service to beginners, — 
 though my opinion of the literary activity of Dr. Boehtlingk was the result of a careful 
 study of his works, and was by no means founded on occasional errors of his, or formed 
 iu disregard of all the difficulties he had to contend with ; — in short, though not all the 
 imperfections of his writings — if they amounted only to such — would ever have induced 
 me to stint the share of indulgence which I hold ought to be always and largely awarded 
 to laborious and honest work, whatever be its failings, I have considered it my duty to 
 make this comparison since, within the chain of the peculiar circumstances which weigh 
 on his edition of Pdniui and on some of his other " editions," too, the point I ii anted to 
 ascertain, once more, did not so much concern a question of scholarship as one of 
 scientific reliability. The result of my comparison was this. Dr. Boehtlingk records 
 at his quotation from the Kds'ik^ to I. 2, 53, the various readings of MS. A : firfS^f^ 
 (for B -SM^^;^^), ■^Sm^ (for B ^: ), c|<U!l^< (for B ^XTHT ), f^TfT^ (fo'' 
 B ["Sl^'q-qit ^), and '^1(^ ^ (for B i\^\ ) ; but he does not say that A reads tin- 
 last words: '^ift 'i\K.\ 'f?!; I^dl («'"") ^'^T ?[f7T- — At I. 2. 54 he mentions that 
 MS. A has omitted the word 3{ori ; but he does not state that A reads cSf^f ; instead of 
 B's reading ^^f^f: , nor that B has a marginal note on the word "^TITigrT'TTfl^ whi< li 
 runs thus : ^JN^M^I^: ^^fwrf^fST'. ^^^: I rt^Tfl <^ I "il li^^J^^^lTant: ■ 
 And he edits ou his own authority — without any remark wliatever — 'a^'^SJ •(31^ — 
 ickich is perfectly meaningless — while both MSS. read 'a'^^^^rTWlT • — ^^ ^- 2; 55, be 
 mentions that A has omitted '^rf^ and rf^; moreover that B reads : "^f^^^f^ttj 
 ■31 »m^ 'trWT^nr^; l fT^° ; but he does not say that A omits also ■^ftTTTT^ befoie 
 rT^, and adds fj^ before the last words Hdrt 1^. And what is much worse, lie 
 not only edits d^NS^*<<3tI'l'ri=4|J<, while both MSS. read d^ l4 aj) *< ^ Vjl| J| «rl = tlH ' 
 but «i|«4 r^RlTlon: — iv/iich is simple nonsense — while both MSS. have the intelligible 
 reading ^v^X^ *r\^ir*ll*lTl<=h; . — At I. 2, 56, he observes that "^^ is omitted in B and 
 
PATANJALI ON THE TECHNICAL TEEMS OF PANINI. 165 
 
 same as sanjndna, 'understanding' (i.e. a name which has a 
 real meaning, that may be traced etymologieally)." And 
 Kaiijyata enlarges upon these words in the following strain : 
 "The question of Patanjali is suggested by the rule of analogy. 
 His answer is in the negative, because context itself has a 
 greater weight than (mere) analogy. Now, though such terms as 
 ti, ghu, hha, and the like, are settled terms, this circumstance 
 would not have been a sufficient reason in an etymological work 
 (like that of Panini) for leaving them untaught, for they have no 
 etymology.' 'Understanding,' (as Patanjali paraphrases sanjnd) 
 means mentally entering into, understanding the component parts 
 of a word, [or it means the words which admit of this mental 
 process.] " ""^ 
 
 fjf^^ in Jl ; but he does not mention that instead of B's "TflTnifWrff, 1 '4|<^ , etc., A 
 reads : °M44|4{j'<<^'|(e^(i|'>if , etc. ; nor does he mention that B reads '4|Vt(f^^4^'^ fsfi 
 'q(^«( while A reads "^Sf^', fWW'. f^ rT^ T^T i but, again, he edits, without any remarli 
 wliatever, WTP^flTI^^Tft.j which is ungrammatlcal, in spite of the concurrent and 
 correct reading of botli MSS.: -^J^t^ |>^it^ |Uj«:4 |(^(or^ °«<4|T«^rd > see before). — His 
 remarks at I. 2, 67, are that A omits '^fujt^ — ^^^TfTt , and that B reads f^ (for A'^), 
 trft^rr^nT: (for a V^ty^m^), and JTW^ (for A ■i\^i\^\^ ). Yet he does not 
 record the various inaccuracies oiA, which are essential for those not acquainted with this 
 MS., in order that they may form an opinion on it and on its relation to the readings of B. 
 Thus he omits stating that A reads the commencing words '^fuji^Rlfrl Wnff > tbat it 
 omits ^[^ '^: cRrigj, and reads TJ«(4^T,jj <_^ "^^Pli^ for B's more correct reading TJ^T^XF; | 
 '^'e^^" • ^"* ■D'"- Boehtlingk likewise does not mention that B has a marginal note 
 to the word ti\ r4i|T<t> viz., '^ff^SfX (sic) ZfTTI j tl""-* ^ reads ^tf^I^ ^ for i>'« W(fl^ 
 (in the commencement) ; that B adds H after ■^i^^ (last line of his page 48) ; that A reads 
 rT^ '^t'TO^'' for B flV iHim^.! " (first line of his page 49), and ^ ^fqx?^^ for 
 B "^ ^^ <^rm<<]^ • And to crown the edition of this portion of the " excellent com- 
 mentary, I mean the Kdsikd-uriiti, which will make all further explanation superfluous,'' 
 Dr. Boehtlingk prints, without a single remark (p. 49, line 4), rr^l(4J^«i*<JrVl»tf*ir<1 
 3[fi]^ ; when A has the following passage : rnftTO^'t ^^^T^ ^^ ^T ^ I 
 '4M^^«1*1^^l*iri|[7r T^ (sic), whereas B gives the complete sentence in this way : 
 
 ^^ri; I ^^m^ ^f Tu^ w[ ^3^ra#minirT'Tf*T^ 3TJ!j^.— And such is his. 
 
 edition of even an easy text of a commentary to only Jive Sutras of Panini, — of a com- 
 mentary, too, so pompously announced by himself, and laid before the public with so 
 much appearance of care and conscientiousness ! 
 
 "' Pdnini, I. 2, 53 : rT^f^ ^^TTWRfWTcI.-— Patanjali : f^ ^ -qTrr: Iff^- 
 
166 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-Sl/TRAS. 
 
 From this rule of Panini and tlie commentaries alleged we 
 learn therefore — ■ 
 
 1. That his Grammar does not treat of those sanjnds or con- 
 ventional names which are known and settled otherwise. 
 
 2. That this term sanjnd must be understood in our rule to 
 concern only such conventional names as have an etymology. 
 
 3. That it applies also to grammatical terms which admit of 
 an etymology, but not to those which are merely grammatical 
 symbols. 
 
 4. That such terms as ti, ghu, and hha, were Mown and settled 
 hefore Pdnini's Orammar, but that, nevertheless, they are defined 
 by Panini because they are not etymological terms. 
 
 Having thus obtained, through the comment of Patanjali on 
 the Siitra in question, a means by which to judge of the originality 
 of Paniui's terms, we must feel induced to test its accuracy before 
 we base our inferences on it ; and the opportunity of doing so is 
 afforded not merely by the technical symbols Avhich Patanjali 
 himself names, — we easily ascertain that Panini has given a de- 
 finition of them, — but also by another of these important five Sutras. 
 This Sutra (I. 2, 56) says : " Nor shall I teach the purport of the 
 principal part of a compound {pradhdna\ or that of an affix 
 {pratya})a\ because they, too, have been settled by others {i.e. 
 people know already from other authorities, that in a compound 
 the sense of the word gravitates towards its principal part, and in 
 a derivative towards the affix.)" '^"^ 
 
 Thus we learn here from Panini himself that the term pratyaya 
 (affix) was employed before he wrote his work ; and if Patanjali's 
 interpretation be correct, Panini, who also makes use of this term, 
 
 "* Panini, 1. 2, 56 : MMI*<)4FM'm^<=l^*(^^^l*^l<^IUJ(<4lc{(- There is no Bhasliya 
 on this rule. 
 
ORIGINAL TERMS IN PANINI'S GRAMMAR. 167 
 
 must have left it tmdefined, since it has an etymology and was 
 " settled " in his time. And such, indeed, is the case. Panini uses 
 fkewordpratj/ai/a many times (e.c/. 1. 1, 61. 62. 69 ; 2, 41. 45 ; 3, 63. 
 etc. etc.), he heads with it a whole chapter which extends over three 
 books of his work, yet he gives no definition whatever of its sense. 
 Findiag, then, that Patanjali's comment is confirmed by Panini's 
 own words, we may proceed ; and we then obtaia the result that 
 the Sutras employ but do not explain such terms, for instance, as 
 prathamd (nominative), dwitiyd (accusative), tritiya (instrumental), 
 cJiaturtM (dative), pancMmi (ablative), shashthi (genitive), and 
 saptami (locative). And the commentators apprise us that these 
 words were technical names used by the eastern grammarians, 
 which are refered to by Panini ia some of his rules.^^' We 
 likewise meet in his work with such terms as samdsa (compound 
 II. 1, 3), tatpurusha (II. 1, 22), avyayibhdva (II. 1, 5), hahuvrihi 
 (II. 2, 23), krit (III. 1, 93), taddhita (lY. 1, 76), etc. etc. : he 
 enumerates all the special compounds or affixes which fall under 
 these heads, but does not give any definition whatever of the 
 meaning of these names. Again, the commentaries, ia adverting 
 to them, tell us that the terms expressing compounds, for instance, 
 belong to " older grammarians." 
 
 When, on the other hand, we see that he does give a definition 
 of karmadhdraya (I. 2, 42), or of samyoga (I. 1, 7), or of anundsiJca 
 (I. 1, 8), terms which are conventional and admit of an etymo- 
 logical analysis, we are at once compelled to infer that he was the 
 first who employed these technical names in the sense stated hy him. 
 And this conclusion would apply with equal force to all other terms 
 of a similar kind which do not merely head an enumeration of rules 
 but are clearly defined by him, e.g. to savarna (1. 1,9), pragrihya (I. 
 1, 11), lopa (I. 1, 60), hraswa^ dirgha^ pluta (I. 2, 27), uddtta (I. 2, 
 29), anuddtta(l. 2, 30), swarita (I. 2, 31), aprilda (I. 2, 41), etc. etc. 
 Nor do I believe that this conclusion becomes invalidated in those 
 instances in which Panini gives a definition, while yet there 
 may be a strong presumption that the term defined was already 
 
 '" II. 3, 46. 2. 3. la 30. 7 etc. 
 
168 CHEONOL. EBLATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-SU'TRAS. 
 
 used in liis time, for it seems to me that, in such, a case, his de- 
 finition either imparted an additional sense to the current term, 
 and, in reality, thus created a new term of his own, or had a sjoecial 
 bearing on the technical structure of his own work. When, for 
 instance, he defines the term dwandwa,^^^ though there is a pro- 
 bability that this term was used by previous grammarians,'^^ his 
 definition may have corrected the current notion on the subject 
 implied by it, as I infer from the lengthened discussion of Patanjali. 
 Or, when he uses the term upasarjana in one of those five rules 
 already mentioned, thus allowing us to conclude that it was a 
 current term in his time,^"" and still appears to define it in two 
 other rules, ^" his definition is in reality no definition at all ; it 
 merely instructs the pupil how he may recognize an upasarj ana- 
 rule in his work.^"^ 
 
 "Ml.2,29:^f^^^:. 
 
 "' Kd^ika (M.S. 829, E.I.H.) on I. 2, 67: 7^7 '^ ^#r^T%: trfT^tl^ | ^?pgq- 
 
 'g»{4(M(J|^iniTT'ft l[^ f;^^TTf^:- MS. 2440, E.I.H., reads t\t^ instead of 
 "^xiMtf 1^ l> but both readings are objectionable, as we may infer from the Mahd- 
 bhashya on II. I, 20 : l[f Wf^?gTrre: ^^tJ^T^^iTR: I Wf^ ^Tl<M<:( l 4j<<MH : I 
 cfif^l^'Jni^X'^TTVTf .' I c^n^^H^Md I^J4^l*i: etc. ; and these identical words re- 
 occur in the Mah^bliishya to II. 1, 49. Neither of the terms bahuvrlhi, aoyaylbhdoa, 
 or tatpurusha is explained by Pdnini.-— Compare also note 44, and my Dictionary, s.v. 
 
 ^^ 1. 2, 57: cjii^lmj^? ^ g^w;. 
 
 '^ 1. 2, 43 : TTST^nf^is ^Pfrra ^My<5»f*i-— i. 2, 44 : ■^qif^JTfw c( i ^4fHnrTH . 
 
 ^"^ In the foregoing remarks I have drawn a distinct line between the definition 
 Avhich Panini gives of a term, — as when he says " abliyasta are the two syllables con- 
 stituting a reduplicated base" (VI. 1, 5), or " prutipadika is that which has a sense but 
 is neither a verbal root nor an affix'' (I. 2, 45); and the enumeration he makes 
 of the matter comprised under a term, as when he says " dhdtu is called bliU, etc." 
 fl. 3. 1), or "pratyaya (affix) is that which is treated from the beginning of the third 
 l)Ook up to the end of the fifth" (III. I, 1). For I hold that Piiiini could not, at one 
 time, feel the necessity of defining the linguistic properties of a grammatical category, 
 and at another leave unexplained the notion, for instance, of a verbal root, an affix, a 
 particle, and so on, while using these terms extensively, unless these notions were 
 sufficiently clear at the time he wrote, and his grammatical purposes were attained by 
 stating what application he gave to these terms in his work. An evidence of the 
 plausibility of this view is afforded e.g. by the terms dtmanepada and parasmaipada. 
 
TERMS USED BY PA'NINI AND THE UNNADI-SUTRAS. 169 
 
 To extend this inference to purely grammatical symbols like 
 those mentioned by Patanjali, e.g., gha, shash, luk, slu, lup, etc. etc., 
 would be wrong, after the remark of this grammarian ; for, as we 
 learn from him, that they are not sanjnds^ in the sense in which 
 Panini uses this word in his rule I. 2, 53, we cannot decide to 
 what extent he may have invented these names, or whether he 
 even invented any of them, since Patanjali distinctly tells us, as we 
 have seen, that ti^ ghu, bha^ were terms already known to Panini. 
 
 If, then, we apply the test we have obtained to the Unnadi- 
 Sutras, we shall have, in the first place, to observe that the technical, 
 and, at the same time, significant names which would fall under the 
 category of Panini's rule (I. 2, 53), and which are not only used 
 in, but are indispensable to, the mechanism of these Sutras are 
 the following : ahhydsa^ avyaya^ uddtta, upadhd, upasarga^ dirgha, 
 dhdtu^ pada, vriddhi, lopa, samprasdrana^ hraswaP^ Amongst 
 these, Panini gives no definition whatever of dhdtu ; for his ex- 
 planation is merely an enumeration (I. 3, 1) ; and the same remark 
 applies to upasarga (I. 4, 59), and perhaps to vriddhi (I. 1, 1) 
 and avyaya (I. 1, 37. 38, etc.). It is probable, therefore, that 
 Panini did not invent these terms, but referred to them as of cur- 
 rent use. On the other hand, he distinctly defines hraswa, dirgha^ 
 uddtta, upadhd, lopa, samprasdrana, and abhydsa.^°'^ The termji?«^« 
 is also defined by him, but it seems that he merely extended its 
 current application for his own purposes, since the commentaries 
 tell us that "the former grammarians" gave a definition of the 
 terms for compounds, and this definition contains the word pada. 
 That the Unnadi-Sutras contain no definition of any technical word 
 requires no confirmation from me. 
 
 In rules VI. 3, 7 and 8, Panini mentions that tliese terms are used by " grammarians," 
 which expression can only mean that they were in use before he wrote ; and in rules 
 I. 4, 99 and 100 he enumerates the conjugation endings comprised under these denomi- 
 nations, but gives no definition of the terms themselves. 
 
 2°' E.g. I. 12. 15. 27. 32. 48.— II. 16. 59. 65.— III. 114.— IV. 55. 136. 144.— V. 19, etc. 
 
 "^ I. 2, 27: nA.<iH1 ^gfr^ft^W: — I- 2, 29: NJ^i^f^l-d t •-!• 1, 65: -^SC^ 
 
 i^enr^f ^3Tnrr-i- 1, eo: ^r^^ ^t^it.-i. i, 45: ^^jinir: *jh*iku!*v.-vi. i, 
 
 4 : '9^ i^^TRTI (comp. also note 44). 
 
 22 
 
170 CHEONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-SITXEAS. 
 
 Now, had Panini not written the five Sutras (I. 2, 63-57) in 
 which, he explains the method of his Grammar, or had he explained 
 all the technical terms used by him, the absence of a definition of 
 such terms in the TJnnadi-Sutras would not justify us in arriving' 
 at any conclusion as regards the mutual relation of the two works. 
 But since we know that Panini does not define all his terms ; and, 
 on the other hand, that a treatise like the Unnadi-Sutras uses those 
 terms which are defined by liim, and exactly in the same sense in 
 which they occur in his work, the only possible conclusion is that 
 this treatise was written later than the Grammar of Panini. And 
 this also must hare been the opinion of TJjjwaladatta and Bhatto- 
 jidikshita, for both grammarians, in their comment on an Unnadi- 
 Sutra, which is an original one, if any be, since it treats of a whole 
 category of Unnadi words, state in the plainest possible language 
 that this Sutra is given as an exception to a rule of Panini}"^ Nay? 
 we owe to Dr. Aufrecht himself a very interesting passage from 
 Vimala's Rupamdld, which distinctly ascribes the authorship of 
 these Unnadi-Sutras to Vararuchi. But as Yararuchi is a name 
 of Zatyayana also,^"^ this work seems to intimate that Katyayana 
 completed the Grammar of Panini, not only in his Yarttikas, but 
 in the important work which concerns us here.^"' 
 
 '^ Unnadi-Siitra, IV. 226: ^Tfrt <*!<<* 41: ^"^M^Mdfd*?) <«f(H,-— Ujjwaladatta : 
 
 J|fd«hKciriMM<^|r*ci^ (Pdnini, VI. 2, 139) <(^Tl<M(^H^rdt<j<. ^ ^rfrf t^- 
 
 ^rr^f^Trr^ in^ <<-«<»if*<(^*1 |<«l^.— Bhattojldikshita (Siddh.-k. p. 204 b-\. 6) . . . 
 
 "'* Sec also Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 240. 
 
 -"' I subjoin a literal copy of this extract from the edition of Dr. .Aufrecht, p. ix. : "^TJff- 
 
 ^^ ^¥^ II wrf%^ ^: II rTTwrwjrfrwT^: ii #TT^^Tn^TTr«rnfw- 
 ^ *^\W miHriTR I rT^r^rr i ifwrrrf^rfir^t^Tep^^r w ii " He adds to 
 
 this quotation the following curt rebuke : " This assertion, which makes Vararuci 
 older than Punini, has no claim to probability." But I must ask — Is there one single 
 word in this passage which justifies, in the slightest degree, the stricture passed by Dr. 
 
NAIRUKTAS AND VAIYAKARANAS. 171 
 
 Although, it follows from all these premises that the treatise on 
 the Unnadi- words, the existing collection of Unnadi-Sutras, is later 
 than the Grammar of Panini, there still remains the question : 
 "What relation exists between the latter work and a list of Unnadi- 
 affixes or words which Panini twice quotes in his rules ? 
 
 Ydslca relates, in an interesting discussion on the derivation of 
 nouns, that there were in India two classes of scholars, the one 
 comprising the NairuMas, or etymologists (his commentator Durga 
 adds : except Gdrgya), and the grammarian Sdkatdyana ; the other 
 consisting of some of the Vaiydkarams, or grammarians, and the 
 etymologist Gdrgya. The former maintained that all nouns are 
 derived from " verbal roots ; " the latter that only those nouns are so 
 derived in which accent and formation are regular, and the sense of 
 which can be traced to the verbal root, which is held to be their 
 origin. They denied, as Yaska tells us, the possibility of assigning 
 an origin to such words as go, "cow," am a, "horse," purusha, 
 " man." ^"^ Now, it is this latter description of words which is 
 the subject of the Ilnnadi list : they are the Unnadi words. We 
 must ask, therefore, did Panini belong, as regards his linguistic 
 notions, to the Nairuktas or to the "some of the Vaiydkaranas V 
 
 Aufrecht on Vimala ? The latter says, " To illustrate (or to make clear) the Unnadi 
 affixes, Vararuchi composed the (Unnadi) Slitras as a separate work." He draws a 
 distinction therefore, as I have already done, between the Unnadi list and the Sutras on 
 them ; but where does he say that Vararuchi is older than Panini ? Dr. Aufrecht evidently 
 mistook his own conclusions, quoted above, which precede this passage from Vimalds 
 Rtipamdld, for the opinion of the latter work. Having first established his conclusions 
 in the manner we have seen, he seems never to have doubted that any writer can differ 
 from his view. Therefore, when meeting with Vimala, who reports that Vararuchi is 
 the author of the Unnadi Sdtras, he upbraids this poor grammarian with having made 
 Vararuchi older than Panini. 
 
 '"" See Roth's Nirukta, I. 12 ; Miiller's Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 164 ; and 
 Aufrecht's Unnadi-Sutras, p. vi. vii. Yaska, according to the present edition, adds 
 to the three instances given the word ^fijl*!, also. He can scarcely have meant the word 
 " elephant," which is not a krit, but a regular taddhita derivative of hasta : nor does 
 this word occur iu the Unnadi-Slitras. It seems therefore probable that he said, or at 
 least meant, the real Unnadi word hasta, " hand.' But as Durga, too, at all events 
 in the MS. at my command, writes ^*dlfd. I do not venture upon more than a con- 
 jecture that the latter words are to be corrected iu the text of the Nirukta: ^5^ 'f^frl- 
 
172 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNN-^DI-LIST. 
 
 Since the former designation is chiefly applied to the exegetes 
 of the Yaidik texts, and the latter is emphatically used by the 
 grammarians, it seems probable that Panini, in this question 
 of the derivability of TJnnadi words, would stand on the side of 
 these Yaiyakaranas. And this unquestionably is the opinion of 
 Patanjali, as may be judged from the following facts : — In the 
 rules YII. 1, 2, Panini teaches, amongst other things, that when an 
 affix contain the letters d\ or Ith^ or cM, these letters are merely 
 grammatical symbols, the real values of which are severally ey, «», 
 iy. To this rule Kdtydyana appends the remark that the Unnadi 
 affixes form an exception^ when Patanjali explains this view of the 
 author of the Yarttikas by the instances sankha, sandha; for 
 though these words are formed with the affixes kha and dha^ the 
 letters dh and M, in their affixes, are real, not symbolical. 
 " And," continues Katyayana, in two subsequent Yarttikas, 
 " though Panini speaks himseK, in Sutra III. 1, 29, of an affix 
 iyaiig (not chhang, as might be expected according to rule YII. 
 1, 2), this does not invalidate my exception, for the latter is based 
 on the circumstance that Panini treats in his rule YII. 1, 2, not of 
 verbal but of nominal bases." " True," rejoins Patanjali; "but 
 Katyayana might have spared this discussion, for " nominal bases 
 formed with Unnadi affixes are bases which have no grammatical 
 origin P ^"^ 
 
 In rule YII. 3, 50, Panini teaches that the letter th in the affix 
 tha has the value of ik ; that tha^ therefore, means in reality ika ; ^"' 
 
 ™ VII. 1, 2: -^ini^^^Yf^: ih<s*d*vri Trann^tTni— a vdrttika: <rftx!rr- 
 
 R^Hffl^^j: .—Patanjali : d^«UI<fl»1T HfTIWt W^i^'. ^: ^P^: (comp. Un. S. 
 I. 101. 104).— Varttika : VTjff^^r^'^Trft.-— Patanjali : ^qm ^T^^ dO^jfel W 
 (III. 1, 29) \t|d\0*<^- mf^ etc.— Varttika: Tn fdMf^ctif^ ^-pnW ITrfW^: 
 f^'^. — Patanjali: mfdMf^cllf^-SJ IHTW 'fT^: TTfTST^Tl^TW t%W^ I 
 
 ^■"VII. 3, 50: 3%^: .-A Vdrttika: <JMId44^UJ ^^*H ![<*< ir«irrl'=hl<^»li 
 
 TTffl^: .—Patanjali : ^*i!l<{l«li rtT^ I ^TO?: XT'!?: IJW: (^mp- Un. S. 
 
 I. 105 ; IV. 104) etc.— Varttika : TT^rrfliflrS^Iltp^ .—Patanjali (after a lengthened 
 discussion asks and answers) : ll.c|«il^4yl^«li 'nf?I^\ft ^W^: I T cjrht^: I '^WT- 
 
PATANJALI'S VIEW OF TJNNADI "WORDS. 173 
 
 in rule VII. 4, 13, tliat a long vowel a, I, u, becomes short before 
 the affix ka ; '" in YIII. 2, 78, that the short vowels i and u be- 
 come long before a radical consonant r and v, if these consonants 
 are followed by another consonant ;^^^ in YIII. 3, 59, that the s of 
 an a&s. is changed tinder certain conditions to sA.^'^ To all these 
 rules Katyayana takes exception by excluding from them the 
 Unnddi words. Thus kantha, pantha^ santha^ are formed with the 
 affix tha which does not mean ika ; rdka and dhaka retain their 
 long a before the affix ka\ from yr^ is derived j^VVn, vsAjivri; kiri 
 and giri form their dual Mryos and giryos^ not kiryos and giryos ; 
 and in the words krisara^ dhusara^ the s has not become sha ; while, 
 on the other hand, this change has taken place in varsha and 
 tarsha^^'^ though the conditions named by Panini in rule YIII. 
 
 ^ -J^TTWrfn MlfdM^chlR I It^Wfq ^3Skz T3R irmtfrl (comp. v. 2, 35, 
 where the affix is not a ls,rit, but a taddhita). 
 
 =" VII. 4, 13 : % iTSr: .— Vdrttika : % ^TJ^ ;g^^ rrf^fT^nni Iff^^T^T^.— 
 Patanjali : ^ .JI^^ '5^% rrf^d'^^tli >*«?'4l*i I f^ i(<n^»l*l, I Iff^fT^T^ I 
 IfffT ^ ■^ I T^T Vra (MS. \IT^) ^ {cf. Un. S. III. 40) I rPfrff ^(WH^ I 
 ^ «lTti<4IH. I ^aWT^n^ 5«*irMrilR «irdMf<<*lfil etc. 
 
 "' VIII. 2, 78 : "SStr^TRlt '^ .—A Vdrttika : xiMWT«0^5^ ^ m i ^f^f ^'?^ Trf?!- 
 
 ^: .—Patanjali : ^Myi<{l'5^ wuHRPstxifjiSi nfTT^^ ^fw^: I tT%: I tt^: i 
 ^f%^: I ^at^: ii ^wra ii fsrfw: (ms. ^?i«n¥f%f^:) ii xifjf^di i -Mjr^ciH. — 
 
 Vdrttika : ^^TT^Hf TrfrlW^ .—Patanjali : ^3^T^^ 'q' irf^l^Vt ^^i^: I t^fi^: I 
 
 (*(«(iJ\fr| but after some discussion he concludes : fwf^TrfrT^V^ T ^W^> 
 
 (MS. -sm^) I ^«}!l(^<n S^TqWrf^ ^lfdMf4«hlf % {cf. Un. S. V. 49) ; and again 
 
 T fit f^frtftqRmTTrTft: I 'ft'^ <nn5R«4(«{l^: I "^^Tf^Trffr^^ 
 
 ^If^ Tfff I Mfltd^cm, I ^WT^ i^rtrarf^ irrf?; Mf<chl«nfd (e/. Un. S. IV. 
 142). 
 
 ''' VIII. 3, 59: ^^nt^n^W^Pft: --Vdrttika: ^I4 i a;)rt)i)<n : ^1% ^H^ER; Tlfn- 
 ^\ii:.— Patanjali: ^^n^TprcSpST^: ^Ef^ ^TT^: irfrl^^^ -^WH'. I IWT: I ^gTETT: I 
 ^fi|«!Hf*<<g'^IW ¥^ f;f?r-— Vdrttika: *J<JH<{l»H(^rd ^W^^;.— Patanjali : 
 TfTft ^nrr ^Hci: I ^^ I rT^^rfrr I rTfTfl ^W^W: I 'I ^rh=41*i I ^5WT^ 
 i^rqWrf^ HTf?nrf^^fTf^ etc. {cf. Un. S. III. 73. 62). 
 
 ^" In the E. I. H. MS. of the Mahabhashya and in the Calcutta edition of Panini 
 the instances to VIII. 3, 59, v. 2, are ^^ and fT^ (instead of ^'^ and TT'^) > but it is 
 evident that this reading is erroneous ; for, in his first Vdrttika, Katyayana intends to 
 show that Panini's rule is too wide ; and, in the second, that it is too narrow, if applied 
 
174 CHEOXOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-LIST. 
 
 3, 59 would not justify it there. But Patanjali, who supplies us 
 with all these instances, in order to establish, first, the sense of the 
 Yarttikas, always rejects the criticism of Katyayana, and defends 
 Panini with the same argument which he used before, viz., in 
 saying that '■^nominal bases formed with Unnddi affixes are bases 
 which have no grammatical origin^'''' and therefore do not concern an 
 etymological work like that of Panini. 
 
 But if Katyayana were really wrong in his censure of Panini, 
 can the argument used by Patanjali in defence of Panini be right ? 
 Let us imagine that there existed amongst us two sets of gram- 
 marians, the one contending that the words red, bed. shed, are 
 derived from radicals re, be, she, with an affix d; and another 
 refuting these etymologists, and asserting that their derivation is 
 
 to certain Unnadi words. Compare also the Commentary on the Unn4di-Sutra III. 62. — 
 It is needless to observe once more that in this, as in all similar instances, the reprint 
 of Dr. Boehtlingk has simply continued the mistake of the Pandits, though it always 
 assumes the air of having- taken its information from the MSS. Thus, in this very 
 \'ai-ttika, the Calcutta edition has a misprint ^^ehufff^Vw a,nd Dr. Boehtlingk 
 writes — not "the Calcutta edition," but — " Ein vdrtika: 4j i^c)) 1| frlM V^'. {sic)," as if this 
 reading were an original one. But the E. I. H. MS. of the Maliabhashya reads quite 
 correctly : " ^?;^: TTfTf^^; " ; and Kaiyyata has even a special remark to the effect, 
 that though the Unnadi-Siitra III. 73 (comp. also 70) teaches the affix 'B^'l.' '''^ 
 Varttika and Bhdshya write ^^![efi (of which ^<^c(); is the genitive), because this 
 affix is t^ti; viz : ^: <4<fg(4|^: <J <.'i4 ft) i) : (MS. o^) If^Tfrf^^T: tM^^TfT- 
 
 ^^B (Uii. s. III. 73) I fsRTKilvf^sjT^ fticcft I J H-mT^T^f^rf^^: iEn:^^iTf3fi: • 
 
 In all these instances, and others too {e.g. to VII. 2, 8, v. 1 of the Calc. cd.), the 
 K. I. H. MS. of the Mahabhashya, and tlie Calcutta edition — as often as it gives tliis 
 passage — write : ^^Sj liiTl' ^S^^rM^ ifV M irdMfcf <=hl(% ('^^^ ^^IS. of the Mahabhashya 
 H-ithout the ^ ; the coiTectness of the reading given, however, does not only result from the 
 commentaries, but from the Paribh^shd works ; MS. 778 of the Paribhashendus'ekhara e.g. 
 writes ^*m<J«rt W^") > when the first word, though literally meaning " the affixes un, 
 etc." has the sense, "the words formed with the affixes un, etc." (comp. I. 1. 72), in con- 
 formity with the \ise which Pinini makes of the words ffcl^ and fTf^rf (in tlie 
 masi uline gender), e.g. I. I. 38 ; 2, 46 ; VI. 2, 155. Compare also Vaidyandtha's 
 explanation, in note 18S. The reading " 'dUI Irflsf^ilrMfl !(% ITTfdMl^ohTf'f "> which is 
 given by Dr. Aufrccht, p. vi., I have never met with, though I have frequently met 
 with the phrase quoted above, not only in the g-rammatical commentaries, but in all 
 the Paribhash^-works, which give it as a Paril)hasha. I, therefore, very much doubt 
 its correctness, ei^en if it should really be found in any MS, 
 
PANINI'S VIEW OF UNNADI WORDS. 175 
 
 absurd; that red, led, shed are "bases without a grammatical 
 origin." Is it probable, on the same supposition, that a member 
 of the last-named category, in writing a grammar and iu dealing 
 with these words, would ascribe to them an affix £?? Yet, if 
 Patanjali were right, Panini would belong to this latter category, 
 and he would have committed such an incongruity. He has not 
 only spoken of an Tlnnadi affix m, but he calls it by its technical 
 name un, which means that he bore in mind a distinct form of a 
 radical, the vowel of which would become subject to the Vriddhi 
 increase if it is joined to this affix u. The Unnadi words must, 
 consequently, have been to Panini words in which he perceived a 
 real affix and a real radical, — words, in short, with a distinct 
 etymology. There is other evidence to the same effect besides the 
 two rules of his which contain the word unnadi. In rule YII. 
 2, 9, he mentions the affixes ti, tu, tra, ta, tha, si, su, sara, ka, sa ; 
 all these are Unnadi affixes, and consequently represent to him 
 as many radicals as are capable of being combined with them for the 
 formation of nominal bases.^'^ That there is a flaw in the defence 
 of Patanjali, must have been already perceived by Kaiyyata, for 
 this commentator tries to reconcile the fact I have pointed out 
 with the assertion of Patanjali. I will quote his words, but merely 
 to show that it was a desperate case to save Panini from the 
 Nairukta school, and to give him the stamp of a pure-bred 
 Vaiyakarana. On the occasion of Patanjali's commenting on the 
 Varttika to YIII. 3, 59, and repeating the remark already men- 
 tioned, Kaiyyata says : " Though the Unnadi words have been 
 derived for the enlightenment of the ignorant, their formation is not 
 subject to the same grammatical influence as it would be if they had 
 an origin ; " and, after having endeavoured to prove the correct- 
 ness of this view through rule YIII. 3, 46, he winds up with the 
 
 following words : " Therefore in the Unnadi formations, 
 
 krisara, etc., sara etc. do not fall under the technical category 
 
 '" VII. 2, 9 : t?r 
 
176 CHRONOL. RELATIOK BETWEEN PA'NINI AND THE UNNADI-LIST. 
 
 of affixes, SO that the rule "which concerns the change of an affixal 
 s to sh, would have to be applied in their case." ^^^ 
 
 That Katyayana, when he found fault with Panini, must have 
 taken my view, is obvious. He must have looked upon Panini as 
 judging of the Unnadi words in the same way as Sakatayana did: 
 otherwise his '■^ pratishedhas''^ exceptions, or even his additions to 
 the rules in question, would have been as irrelevant as if he had 
 increased them with matter taken from medicine or astronomy. 
 
 The conclusion, however, at which I have thus been compelled 
 to arrive, viz., that Panini shared in the linguistic principles of 
 Sakatayana, is of importance, if we now consider the relation in 
 which he is likely to have stood to the original IJnnadi list and 
 to the criticisms of Katyayana. 
 
 Ndgojibhatta, who wrote notes on Kaiyyata's gloss on Patanjali, 
 conjectures from the Karika to III. 3, 1, that the Unnadi Sutras 
 were the work of Sakatayana.^^' His conjecture rests on the state- 
 ment of Yaska, alluded to by Patanjali, that this grammarian con- 
 
 ^'° Patanjali to VIII. 3, 59 (comp. note 213) : -dtyit^iT) 'S^TTPTf'r M l fdMf^chT - 
 f^.— Kaiyyata: ^3^T^ 1^ I ^^V|4^y.i|4| ^TqT^mT^ ^lg*t!|<j41' ^rTfrT- 
 
 f*rf*fTr ^BTsf T ^Rr% i -wn'. g lc^^fi^c^; ^ rtl,^ (viii. 3, 46) p q^^ii^tif t d^ 1 ^ -m 
 
 f»TW^: I 11^ rTfffrT IT^T^ "^ ^% IJW^IF^T T *Rt!r.— I here subjoin 
 the interesting comment of Slradeva, in his Paribhdshdvritti (MS. E.I.H. 593), on this 
 Paribhdsha, as it is appealed to by other autliors of Paribhdshd-works : NJmj | dijY i^- 
 
 TTant^ mTdMn(«*ifii ii ^ ^gmf 4v5=i<<^-^m!i*<»ii<^*d1«iiT>sJ: i ^Rrm ^^t- 
 w^ (VIII. 3, 46) ^Bfinrfi^ ifwr =ti*(-M^u!i<dmT^: i wn ^^^fef^ f^ ^ ^ i^ ^ {sic. 
 
 romp. Un. S. IV. 142) i;: fgRf^tftcBrQ H pi ) i< M tD : t%ftW^^I^TTtfrf% ^^T- 
 f t ^ VTgWTlTRT^1% tfTT (VIII. 2, 77) ^V^ ^ 5^f?r | fltri?f: I f^- 
 
 frfw I ijriw T w^^ I ^^r: Tn:fwf^f?r ( 1. 1, 57) <^iRiT=<i^1 \ Jm^t i^ 1 
 
 WTf^Rf^ AA'^X^ (comp. I. 1, 58) I ^J^T TriTifl|t7I I ^^ frtt Wl^^'^> 
 Wf^: f^T^ ^ tf?T (Un- S.V. 49) fijRm^ T% T^T^ '^ T^l!^ Wt ^t 
 
 "'' See also Dr. Aufrecht's Preface to the Un. S. p. vii, where the Commentary of 
 NAgojibhatta is quoted, and translated by him. 
 
Sakatayana and the ganaeatnamahodadhi. 177 
 
 tended for the possibility of deriving all nominal bases from verbal 
 roots. NoTV, I have shown before, that the opinion of Nagojibhatta 
 cannot be adopted so far as the Sutras are concerned, for they were 
 written after Panini's work, and Sakatayana wrote before Panini.^" 
 It may, at first sight, however, appear to be consistent with fact, 
 if only the Unnadi list were meant, for Sakatayana's views are such 
 as would admit of nominal derivation by means of Unnadi afiixes. 
 Yet, suice Nagoji's conjecture is purely personal, and is not sup- 
 ported by any evidence, I may be allowed, after the explana- 
 tion I have given, to assume that the Unnadi list is of Panini's 
 authorship. Indeed, how could Katyayana take exception to the- 
 technical application or to the working of a rule of PdninVs, and 
 supply this defect by pointing to the Unnadi list, unless he looked 
 upon Panini as being the author of both ? Had he thought that 
 the Unnadi list was written by Sakatayana, he would have laid 
 himself open to serious reflections, in censuring the anuhandhas of 
 Panini for not fitting the system of Sakatayana. We might 
 make an assumption, it is true, by which we could reconcile 
 Sakatayana's authorship of the Unnadi list with Katyayana's 
 strictures on Panini, — the assumption that Panini's work repre- 
 sented, as it were, besides its own property, that of Sakatayana's 
 too, — that both grammarians owned one set of technical signs, 
 and that perfect unanimity reigned between their works. The 
 Ganaratnamahodadhi of Vardhamdna gives numerous quotations 
 from the Grammar of Sakatayana, but as several of them merely 
 give the substance of his rules, it would scarcely be safe to 
 judge of his system on the authority of this valuable Gana 
 work.^^^ Unless, therefore, it can be shown that there was no 
 
 =" See note 97- 
 
 ^^'^ Relative to this work, wliieli is of the greatest importance for the study of Sanskrit 
 grammar. Dr. Boehtlingk gives the following information (vol. II., p. 3cxxix. — ^xli.) : — 
 " A third work, which contains the Ganas, is the Ganaratnamahodadhi (the great Ocean 
 of the Gana-pearls). In London there exist two MS. copies of this work : the one in 
 the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society, the other in that of the East India House. 
 [He adds some remarks on the age of the former MS., and continues] : The work 
 
 23 
 
178 CHRONOL. EELATION BETWEEN PACINI AND THE UNNADI-LIST. 
 
 difference whatever and, much, more so, if it can be shown 
 that there was a difference between the technical method of both 
 these grammarians, common sense would lean in favour of the 
 conclusion that Katyayana, in his Yarttikas, hit at but one of 
 his predecessors, and that this predecessor was the author as well 
 of the eight grammatical books as of the TJnnadi list, — Panini. 
 
 consists of eight chapters ('^J^J71') and about 450 double verses. Its author is Cr'l- 
 Vardhamdna, a pupil of Cri-Govinda, and, as it is stated in the introductory verses, it 
 owes its origin to the request of his pupils, three of whom he names in the commentary 
 on his work, viz., KumarapMa, HaripMa, and Munikandra. Text and commentary are 
 so corrupt in both Manuscripts, that at the very best only a tolerable text could be 
 made up. Besides, this collection was not intended for the work of Panini, but for 
 some more modern grammar. There occur Ganas in it which are neither mentioned in 
 the Sutras nor in the V&rttikas. Then, again, we find two Ganas which are separate 
 in our collection [Dr. B. means the Ganas edited by him] combined into one, when 
 the derivatives formed according to two diiferent rules, differ from one another 
 only in accent. The various readings of the Ganaratnamahodadhi (G. R. M.) I have 
 indicated merely at the Gana chU^I'f? ." — To this statement I have to append the fol- 
 lowing remarks : — 
 
 1. Wlien Dr. Boehtlingk tells the public that there are but two MS. copies of this work 
 in London, his readers will no doubt believe, if they believe him, — indeed, they cannot 
 draw any other inference from his words than — that there are in London only two texts 
 of the Ganas collected by Vardhamana in his work, the Ganaratnamahodadhi. I cannot 
 suppose that there can be any one who would interpret the meaning of his words in the 
 sense that there are only two catalogued Nos. of this work in the libraries he is 
 speaking of. Yet I am compelled to take this favourable — though vei"y unreasonable — 
 view of his statement, in order not to be compelled to qualify it otherwise. For, the 
 fact is that the bound volume No. 949 of the Library of the E. L H., which he is 
 speaking of, is, indeed, one volume only, but contains two distinct copies of the work in 
 question, written in different handwritings, and constituting, therefore, two separate 
 MSS. These, added to the copy in the R. A. S., form, therefore, at first sight, three 
 MSS., not two, as he says. But I should trifle with my readers if I considered this 
 correction as sufficient to illustrate the character of Dr. Boehtlingk's statement. The first 
 MS. of No. 949 contains the text of the Ganaratnamahodadhi only, on 30 leaves. The 
 second MS. of the same No. 949, which is a commentary, by the same author, on his 
 work, contains, first the text, and afterwards the comment, which repeats every word 
 of the text, either literally or impliedly, by stating the derivatives from the word or 
 words as they occur in the text. The same method is observed in the MS. belonging 
 to the Royal Asiatic Society. Hence we possess, in London, not tiio texts, nor yet 
 three, but in reality ^»e texts of this work. 
 
 2. The MSS. in question are, no doubt, open to correction, as, indeed, probably every 
 Sanskrit MS. in existence is, but I hold that at all events the ancient copy of the R.A.S. 
 
ANUBANDHAS OF PANINI. 179 
 
 The proof that such a difference existed between Panini and 
 Sakatayana, indeed, between him and all the grammarians who 
 preceded his work, is afforded by a statement of Patanjali, which 
 is so important that it settles definitely, not only the question of 
 the authorship of the TJimadi list, but of all the other works which 
 foUow the anuhandha terminology of Panini. In his comment on 
 
 will, in spite of its inaccuracies, be ranked by everyone conversant with MSS., amongst 
 the best Sanskrit MSS. in escistence. And having considered it incumbent on me to 
 study this book carefully, I have no hesitation in maintaining that even a tolerable 
 Sanskrit scholar would be able to make a perfectly good edition of at least the text of 
 this work, with the aid of these five copies of the text, the two copies of the commentary, 
 and, as a matter of course, with the aid that may be got from Panini and his com- 
 mentaries. 
 
 3. As to the nature of this work : I must allow the reader to draw his own conclu- 
 sions with regard to the credit that may be attached to the information given by Dr. 
 Boehtlingk, when I state that there is not one single Gana in the Ganaratnamaho- 
 dadhi, the contents of which may not be referred either to Paniui's Sutras or to the 
 Varttikas of Katyayana, the Kasika, etc., and the commentaries on them, or to the 
 Ganas connected with these works, though the latter frequently do not contain so 
 much matter as the Ganas of Vardhamana, who is later, and, as we may expect, 
 made his own additions to previous lists. The substance of its Ganas, increased 
 sometimes in the manner stated, is often contained in several rules of, and in the 
 commentaries on, Panini and K^tyiyana, which have been brought into Gana shape, 
 while, at other times, several of its Ganas, also increased, as the case may be, differ 
 from the Ganas to Pdnini merely in so far as the heading word of the one occurs 
 in the middle of the other, and vice versd. Thus the two combined Ganas aij^ j- 
 frflj-mri) of the G. R. M. do not occur in the Ganas to Panini, but give the substance 
 of Pdnini's Sutra, and the commentaries on, IV. 1, 42 ; its Gana g «^ y *^en y f(» that of the 
 commentaries on II. 1, 62 ; *l<lfi)<*'l'f«5^ ^^^^ "^ *^® comm. on II. I, 66 ; ^^^T^TTf^ 
 that of the comm. on II. I, 53 ; •T'^TITt^ that of VI. 3, 75 ; c4JH^|f^ that of 
 V^rttika I. to IV. 1, 97 ; ^ ^T< l f ^ that of IV. 2, 39. 40 ; ^?RTf^ that of the Varttikas 
 to V. 1, 77; -4jJ| ll? that of IV. 3, 72, etc. etc. — On the other hand, the Gana of 
 the G. R. M. '3(^ m^llfei is equivalent to the Gana to Panini '^<1M^'<^*1 lUf (V. 1, 
 111), its Gana ^c<5)fi | f^ to ^<:H.Tl<<fl^ lf|[(V. 1, 94. v. 3) ; VfWrf^ to "^raWt^ 
 (IV. 1, 84) ; ^SSlTJnt^ to '^snqffrf^ (V. 2, 64) ; f^^sh^^^lf^ to l^^KfTf^ (IV. 
 3, 88) ; ^■^WTf^ to ^^^Tf^ (IV. 2, 80) ; t*RTf^ to 4siri!^<*|f|[ (IV. 2, 45), 
 etc. etc. — There are omitted, on principle, in the G. R. M., all the Ganas (1) which 
 have reference to the enumeration of affixes, e.g., rrf^'STTt^. ^T^rf^. etc. ; (2) of radi- 
 cals which are referred to by Panini in rules on conjugation, such as J^lf^ , '^(^|f«^ , 
 etc. ; <^r{ir^, Ubnfa , etc. ; (3) those which concern Vaidik words ; and (4) those ap- 
 dended to Panini's rules on accentuation. — Of other Ganas to Pdniui and the Varttikas, 
 mentioned in the Kdsikd, Siddhanta-kaumudi, and the Gana lists, which do not fall under 
 
180 CHEONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-LIST. 
 
 the Sutra VII. 1, 18, wMch makes use of the teclmical declension 
 affix amg (= «m), he shows that the mute letter ng has none of 
 the properties which inhere in this anuhandha in the system 
 of Panini. After some discussion on the various modes in 
 which this anuhandha could be dealt with, so as not to interfere 
 with the consistency of the method of Paniui, he concludes with 
 
 any of these oategories, there are omitted in the G. R. M. the Ganas to Panini or theVarttikas : 
 ^Hir^ (I'l- 3, 94. V. 1), <t^|f^ (V. 2, 29. v. 5), -jqc^^l f^ ? (IV. 3, 58. v. 1), 
 
 ^ijrar^ (IV. 2, 51. V. 1), anqrf^ ("i- 3, 3), f;trf^ (iv. 2, 51. v. 2), ^n^rflj 
 
 (II. 3, 17. V. 2), t^I^Tf^ (V. 1, 20), ^| | f^ (VII. 3, 53), qT^lf< (HI- 2, 15. v. 1), 
 TTirant^ (II. 3, 18. V. 1), Trf71%rrf^ (VI. 3, 122. V. 3), TTrf^ (I. 4, 58), g^Ttl[ 
 (IV. 3, 164), Xc|,^ i r< (V. 3, 14. V. 1), ^fl^nf^ (in. 4, 74), ■g^T^ (VIII. 4, 11. 
 V. 1), -jft^hsnt^ (IV. 1, 178; V. 3, 117), T^rrf^ (V. 2, 95), c<<tm^ (IV. 2, 82), 
 R'g4ch|(^ (VI. 4, 153), ^MTdlf< (V. 3, 66. v. 5), a{|cfcmr^c|(r^ (II. 1, 69. v. 1), 
 lENi^rrf^ (IV. 2, 75), ^Mf^lf^ (IV. 1, 35), ^fRiiTTf^ (VIII. 3, 110), g^T^jf^ 
 (IV. 2, 77), fdtchlf^ (VI. 3, 2), ^Od'»llf4 (IV. 3, 167), and perhaps «)^|f^ (IV. 
 1, 45), since only some words of this Gana are included in the Gana of the G. R. M. 
 yj\Ujlf«( • — These omissions will be excused, if a report, current at Benares, be true, 
 that the author died before he completed his work ; but I have no doubt, whether 
 this report be true or not, that they will be looked upon with the greatest indulgence 
 by Dr. Boehtlingk, as he himself, in his so-called " Alphabetical Ganapatha," has omitted 
 not less than about 90 Ganas to the S&tras and Vdrttikas. 
 
 4. That a work so conscientiously described by Dr. Boehtlingk can have no value in 
 his eyes is very obvious. Others, however, may think differently, when they become 
 acquainted with the real character of the Ganaratnamahodadhi. Its Ganas, as I men- 
 tioned before, are all based on rules of PAnini, which very frequently are literally quoted 
 for their authority ; while even, when they are not literally quoted, the refer- 
 ence made to their contents plainly shows their close relation to thera. Tlie com- 
 mentary not only enumerates every derivative formed — thus securing in most instances, 
 beyond a doubt, the reading of the text, — but often gives instances from other works — 
 gTammatical, lexicographical, and poetical, several not yet published ; as, for instance, 
 those of Gaja, Chandra, Jaydditya, Jinendrabuddhi, Durga, Bhoja, Sdkatdyana, 
 Haldyudha, etc. And, above all, it supplies us with the meanings of a considerable por- 
 tion of such Gana-words as have been hitherto either not understood at all, or understood 
 imperfectly. Of the 12,000 words and upwards, which I have collected from this work 
 for grammatical and lexicographical purposes, there are at least 3,000 which would fall 
 under the latter category ; and they have signally avenged themselves on the detractor 
 of this work, as, in his own Dictionary, he is now compelled to leave, in a great many 
 instances, a very telling blank space, which would have been filled up if he had 
 really read the Ganaratnamahodadhi, while in other instances he would have obtained 
 additional meanings to those which he assigns to certain words. When I mention, more- 
 over, that this Ganaratnamahodadhi is the only known work in existence which gives a 
 
ANUBANDHAS OF OLDER GRAMMARIANS. 181 
 
 th.e following words : "Or this rule belongs to a Sutra of a former 
 grammarian ; but whatever anuhandhas occur in a Sutra of a former 
 grammarian, they have no anuhandha effect in this work.^'' 
 
 Hence we learn from Patanjali, who is the very last author that 
 can be suspected of having made such an important assertion without 
 a knowledge of the works anterior to the Grammar of Panini, that, 
 though Panini adopted from his predecessors such technical symbols 
 as fe", ghu, hha, and though he availed himself of other terms of theirs 
 which have a meaning and an etymology (see page 166), — he did 
 not adopt their technical anuhandhas ; and if he avails himself of 
 such an anubandha, as that in rule YII. 1, 18, we must look upon 
 it as a quotation made by him, but not as influencing the rule 
 in which it occurs.^^" 
 
 Now, all the Unnadi affixes have anuhandhas^ which are exactly 
 the same, and have the same grammatical effect, as those used by 
 Panini. They cannot be later than his work, for it refers to 
 them : they cannot have preceded it, for Patanjali says that "what- 
 ever anuhandhas occur in a Siitra of a former grammarian, they 
 have no anubandha effect in Panini's work." Consequently the 
 Unnadi list must be of Panini's own authorship. 
 
 commentary on the Ganas to, or connected with, Pdnini — so obscure in many respects, — 
 comprising also, as I before observed, many Sutras of, and Varttikas to, Pdnini ; and 
 when, thus, it becomes evident that a conscientious editor of Pdnini ought to have eagerly 
 availed himself of the instruction afforded him by this unique work, it will, perhaps, 
 be intelligible why a certain Nemesis has induced Dr. Boehtlingk to divert the atten- 
 tion of the scientific public from the MSS. of this work, by describing their condition 
 and contents as he has done. As a matter of curiosity, I may, in conclusion, add, that the 
 only Gana of the G. R. M., the various readings and meanings of which he has regis- 
 tered in his " Alphabetical Ganapfttha" — the Gana ch(Svg|Q — occurs very near the end 
 of the whole work, viz., at fol. 28, in the text of MS. 949 of the E. I. H., which ends on 
 fol. 30 ; and at fol. 1 19 of the combined text and commentary of the same MS., which 
 ends on fol. 121. In the palm-leaf MS. of the R. A. S., which ends on fol. 178, this 
 Gana stands at fol. 168. The title of a Sanskrit book, I need not mention, is always 
 given at the end of a manuscript. 
 
 ^-'' VII. 1, 18 : "41 ^* WW. • — Patanjali (towards the end of his discussion) : -^Vilcd 
 
 ^fi^^'ft i'^nr: l ■^#15 'g % i^^s^n: 1 T tf^tc^^rftir 1%^%.— Kaiyyata: 
 
 ^HM^J^UjIvf '^ tJ^^ET^f'f^: etc.— For ^^, compare also note 46. 
 
182 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE UNNADI-LIST. 
 
 Having settled this poiat, we may now ask, whether the 
 criticisms of Katyayana do not lead to a further inference ? 
 When Katyayana finds fault with Panini for having overlooked 
 the fact that the vowel a remains long in rdka, d/idlia, or for having 
 given an inadequate rule for such derivations as krisara and dhusara, 
 varsha and tarsha^ such criticism applies to omissions which may 
 occur in the case of an author, even a Panini. But when he 
 reproaches him with having spoiled the consistency of his anii- 
 handhaS' — so dear to a Hindu grammarian — this blemish seems to 
 me so important, and would probably appear so much more im- 
 portant to a Hindu Pandit, that it compels my conclusions to take 
 another course. For it was obviously so easy for him to modifj- 
 his rules VII. 1, 2, and VII. 3, 50, in order to meet the objections 
 raised by Katyayana, — to do, in other words, that which he has 
 done in an analogous case ; ^^^ and the matter he is reproached with 
 in the Varttikas must have been so deeply impressed on his mind 
 that it seems almost impossible not to draAV another result 
 from the strictures of Katyayana. And this result is no other 
 than that either the words which are alluded to by the author of 
 the Varttikas in these criticisms did not yet exist when Panini 
 "\^Tote, or that they had in his time another etymology than that 
 stated by Katyayana. And if this view be correct, it Avould also 
 add another fact to those I have advanced in favour of the argu- 
 ment that Panini and Katyayana cannot have been contemporaries. 
 
 The passage just now quoted from Patanj all's Great Commen- 
 tary, and the conclusions which had to be draAvn £iom it, enable us 
 at once to see that Panini must also have been the author of the 
 Dhatupatha fi-equently referred to in his rules. This list makes 
 
 ■"' Nominal bases derived with tlie krit affixes fT^or fr»t_ have certain properties of 
 iii>cleiision which are taught by Panini. The Uniiddi say (11.96) tliat some of the bases 
 TF' ^' ^' i^' ■'Ttf . '^. alTTT^. Trrg, f^g, fff^ are derivatives 
 formed with fT^ and others tvith fT't,- But since all of them do not share in the declen- 
 sion properties of the H^and Hi^^bases, Piinini gives a rule, VI. 4, 11, which obviates 
 an objection that might have been made, like that brought forward by K4ty4yana in 
 his Vdrttikas to VII. 1, 2 and VII. 3, 50. 
 
PANINI, AUTHOR OF THE DHATUPATHA. 183 
 
 use of the same mute letters wHch are tlie anuhandhas of Panini's 
 Grammar, and their grammatical value is exactly the same in 
 hoth -works. According to Patanjali's statement, therefore, the 
 Dhatupatha of Pdiiini cannot have been arranged by any one else 
 than Panini.^^^ Whether another Dhatupatha existed previously to 
 Panini does not concern us here, since it is not known to us ; nor 
 does it belong to my present purpose to examine whether the 
 Dhatupatha which has reached us has received additions from 
 those who wrote, and commented on, it, and if so, to what extent. 
 There is the same probability for such additions having been 
 made to the original list as in the case of all other Ganas ; and 
 we may fairly, therefore, ascribe the present Dhatupathas to 
 various authors, who also, perhaps, added meanings to the list 
 composed by Panini, since there is no direct evidence to show that 
 Panini did more than arrange this list with the anuhandhas attached 
 to the radicals. All these questions, however, are foreign to the 
 present subject. It is quite enough for the settlement of this 
 question that the groundwork of the only Dhatupatha we now 
 possess, is, like the groundwork of the Unnadi list, the work of 
 Panini. 
 
 The problem which concerns the chronological relation between 
 Panini and the Prdtisdhhyas, more especially those of the Rigveda 
 and the Vdjasaneyi-Sanihitd, has a still greater claim to our 
 attention than that discussed in the foregoing remarks.^^** The 
 
 -" Compare my previous observations at page 54 and the following pages. 
 
 '^^ I can here only speak of those two Pratisakhyas which have become g-enerally 
 accessible — the Rik P. through the valuable and learned edition of Mr. Regnier, 
 and the Vajasaneyi P. through that of Professor Weber — because I am not sufficiently 
 acquainted with the two others, which are not yet published, and are not met with in the 
 libraries of London, so as to feel justified in uttering opinions which I could not fully 
 substantiate. But as I have no ground for doubting the matter-of-fact statements 
 concerning these two latter works, for which we are indebted to the industry of 
 Professor Weber in his preface to his edition of the Vajasaneyi P., I should infer 
 from them that the Atharvaveda P. must be more recent than the Rik P., and that, in 
 3,11 probability, the Taittiriya P. also is posterior to the same Pratisakhya. So far, 
 therefore, as this latter inference — but this latter inference only— is concerned, and with 
 
184 CHEONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PRATIS'aKHYAS. 
 
 immediate connection of these grammatical writings with the 
 collections of Vaidik hymns, gives to them an appearance of im- 
 portance which some may deny to the Dhdtupdtha and the Unnddi 
 list. Besides, the speculations to which they have been subjected 
 by several authors show that in spite of the seeming unanimity 
 of their results, there is no work of Hindu antiquity which has 
 caused more uncertaiaty, as respects the question of date, than 
 these Pratisakhya works. 
 
 There are, I conceive, two ways in which the solution of 
 the problem of which I am here speaking, may be attempted, 
 the one literary, the other historical. But before I offer from 
 the evidence at my disposal such facts as may enable us to 
 arrive at a settled conclusion on this point, it is my duty 
 to state the prevalent opinion as to the relation of these 
 works to Panrai, and the reasons with which this opinion has 
 hitherto been supported. I take for this purpose the works of 
 those authors who have dealt more comprehensively than others 
 with subjects which concern the Vaidik literature, and whose 
 conclusions express, I believe, on this point, the creed of actual 
 Sanskrit philologers. 
 
 Professor Miiller writes in his History of Ancient Sanskrit 
 Literature (p. 120), as follows : " The real object of the Prati- 
 sakhyas, as shown before, was not to teach the grammar of the 
 old sacred language, to lay down the rules of declension and con- 
 jugation, or the priaciples of the formation of words. This is a 
 doctrine which, though it could not have been unknown during 
 the Yedic period, has not been embodied, as far as we know, in 
 any ancient work. The Pratifeakhyas are never called Yyakaranas, 
 grammars, and it is only incidentally that they allude to strictly 
 grammatical questions. The perfect phonetic system on which 
 Panini's Grammar is built is no doubt taken from the Prati- 
 sakhyas ; but the sources of Panini's strictly grammatical doctrines 
 must be looked for elsewhere." 
 
 all the reservation which is implied by the source whence my information has been 
 obtained, I shall feel free to speak of all the Pratis'akhyas. Otherwise I shall merely 
 treat of the two former. 
 
PEOFESSOR ROTH ON THE AGE OF THE PRATISAKHYAS. 185 
 
 Thus, according to this author, all the Pratisakhyas " no douhV 
 preceded Panini's Grammar ; and we must infer, too, from Professor 
 Miiller's words, that he meant by Pratisakhyas those either edited 
 or preserved in MSS., since his conclusions cannot consistently have 
 been founded on any imaginary Pratisakhya which may or may not 
 have preceded those that we now possess, — which may or may not 
 have dealt with the same subjects in the same manner as the works 
 we are here alluding to. Nor can it have been his object merely 
 to state what is sufficiently known, that there were other gram- 
 marians, though not authors of Pratisakhyas, before Panini who 
 gave rules on Vaidik words, since Panini himself makes mention 
 of them. 
 
 Professor Eoth, whom we have to thank for an edition of Yaska's 
 Nirukta, states his view to the same effect in the following words : ^^* 
 " Grammar, therefore, took the same natural course of develope- 
 ment as we find it has taken elsewhere. It did not proceed 
 from the foundation of the living language, but owed its origin 
 to the observation of that difference which exists between certain 
 forms of language in the actual intercourse of life and those of 
 written works ; and, at first, it confined itself to pointing out 
 chiefly these differences. Then, again, it comprised, not the whole 
 mass of literature, but only single books, especially important to 
 certain classes of society {einzelne in den hetreffenden Kreisen hesonders 
 wichtige Biicher). Thus the path was opened to a general grammar 
 treating as well of written as of spoken language ; we meet this 
 first in Panini, and from this time all those special grammars 
 gradually disappear from general use." 
 
 There is but one thing wanting to this very interesting state- 
 ment of Professor Eoth's, viz., that he should inform us whence he 
 obtained this invaluable historical account of the rise and progress 
 of Sanskrit grammar. No doubt he has some voucher of high 
 authority for the important fact that grammar began and proceeded 
 in India in the manner he describes ; and that these special gram- 
 
 ^"'' In the Preface to his editition of the Nirukta, p. xliii. — The original text of this 
 quotation, it is superfluous to mention, is in German, and in very good German, too. 
 
 24 
 
186 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANIXI AND THE PRATI^AKHYAS. 
 
 mars, the Pratisakliyas, wliicli he enumerates immediately after- 
 wards, were the pioneers of Panini's work. But as he has for- 
 gotten to give lis the name of his authority, we must, for the 
 present at least, be permitted to look upon this graphic narration 
 of his as a contribution to Vaidik poetry. 
 
 Professor Weber, with a caution that almost startles one in so 
 bold a writer, who, as we have seen above (p. 77), has witnessed the 
 progress of the Arians in their conquest of India 1500 B.C., does not 
 sweep over all the Pratisakhyas with his chronological brush, but 
 merely records his views of the relation of Panini to one of them, 
 the Pratisakhya of Katyayana, or that of the Yajasaneyi-Sarilhita. 
 
 " We now come to Panini himself," he says in his preface to 
 his edition of this work, " that is to say ('' respP), to the description 
 of the relations which exist between him and the Yajas. Prat. These 
 relations are, on the one hand, very close, — since a great number of 
 the rules contained in it re-occur, individually, either literally or 
 nearly literally in Panini, and since the Yaj. Pr., like Panini, now 
 and then makes use of an algebraic terminology ; but, on the other 
 hand, there is agaiu a vast gulf between them, since this algebraic 
 terminology does not entirely correspond, like that of the Ath. Pr., 
 with that of Panini, but, on the contrary, partly thoroughly (^sum 
 Theil gam) differs from it. The particulars on this point are the 
 following : — There correspond with Panini — tin I, 27, an YI, 24 
 (MS. A^ hoAvever, reads merely a), luk III, 12, lup I, 114 (^/ lup 
 — "res/?."' — lopa occur several times, but already, too, in the Eik 
 Pr. and Taitt. Pr.) ; the use of t in et and ot, I, 114, lY, 58, may 
 likewise be added, and, amongst other expressions which are not 
 algebraic, upapadam YI, 14. 23 ; yadvrittam YI, 14 (compare 
 Pan. YIII. 1, 48, kimvritta) ; anudeca I, 143; dhatu, verbal root, 
 Y, 10 ; anyataratas Y, 15 (Pan. anyatarasyam) ; linga, gender, 
 lY, 170 (only in BE.); samjna lY, 96.— But there belong exclu- 
 sively to the Yaj. Pr., and there have been nowhere shown to 
 exist the algebraic terms : sim I, 44, lY, 50, for the eight simple 
 vowels; jit I, 50. 167. 111,12. lY, 118, for the tenues inclusive 
 of the sibilants (except h); mud I, 52. Ill, 8. 12. lY, 119 for c, 
 sh, s ; dhi I, 53. lY, 35. 37. 117, for the sonant sounds ; and to 
 
PROFESSOR AVEBER 02^ THE AGE OF THE VAJASANEYI-PRATISAKHYA. 187 
 
 these maybe added— bhavin I, 46. Ill, 21. 55. lY, 33. 45. VII, 9, 
 for the designation of aU vowels except a; rit = ripMta IV, 33. 
 VI, 9, and samkrama III, 148. IV, 77. 165. 194; for they, too, 
 are peculiar to the Vaj. Pr. alone. 
 
 " If thus, then, the independence of this Pr. of Panini be 
 vouched for with a tolerable amount of certainty {mit siemlicher 
 Sicherheit\ we shall be able to look upon the numerous literal 
 coiacidences between both, either as [the result of their] having 
 drawn [them] from a common source, or of Panini having bor- 
 roAved [them] from the Vaj. Prat., just as we have the same choice 
 in the case of the rules which are common to the Katiya-crauta- 
 sutra I. 8, 19. 20, and Pan. I. 2, 33. 34. In the latter case the 
 former conjecture may be preferable (compare also Vaj. Pr. I. 
 130); but in oiu' present case I should myself, indeed, rather 
 [in der That eher) prefer deciding for Panini's having borrowed 
 [them] immediately [from the Vajasaneyi-Pratisakhya], on account 
 of the great speciality of some of these rules. Por, a certain 
 posteriority [eine gewisse Poster ioritdt) of the latter — independently 
 of [his] having much more developed the algebraic terminology — 
 seems to me to result with a tolerable amoimt of certainty [mit 
 ziemlicher Sicherlieit), from the circumstance also, that the pronuncia- 
 tion of the short a was in his time already so much [ber^eits so sehr) 
 samvrita, covered, that he does not make this vowel, but w, the 
 type of the remaining vowels, Avhereas the Vaj. Pr. (and likewise 
 the Ath. Pr.), it is true, agree with him in the samvritata of 
 the vowel a, but still retain it as the purest voAvel ; compare the 
 note to I. 72. But it is true that local differences might have 
 been the cause of this, since Panini seems to belong to the North- 
 West, but the Vaj. Pr. to the East, of India. 
 
 " For the posteriority of the Vaj. Pr. to Panini [fur eine Pos- 
 terioritdt des Vdj. Pr. nach Panini) it might be alleged, at the 
 very utmost (hdchstens), that the author of the Varttikas to Panini 
 bears the same name as the author of the Vaj. Pr. There are, 
 indeed, betAveen both some direct points of contact, — comp. III. 
 13. 41. 46, — but then again there are also direct differences; comp. 
 (III. 85) IV. 119. In general, sameness of names, like that of 
 
188 CimONOL. EELATIOK BETWEEN PAXINI AND THE PRATISAICHYAS. 
 
 Katyayana, can never prove the identity of persons [wlio bore 
 them] ; there is nothing proved by it, except that both belonged 
 to the same family, or ("resjt?.") were followers of the same 
 school, — the Katas. 
 
 " Amongst the Sutras which are identical in the Yaj. Pr. and 
 in Panini, we must now point out, first, some general rules which 
 are of the greatest importance for the economy of the whole arrange- 
 ment of both texts, and which, indeed, are of so special a nature 
 that they seem to claim with a tolerable amount of force (mit 
 giemlicher Entschiedenheit) [the assumption of the one] having bor- 
 rowed from the other. They are the three following (called pari- 
 bhasha by the scholiast to Panini): tasminn iti nirdishte purvasya, 
 Yaj. Pr. 1, 134. Pan. 1, 66 ;— tasmad ity uttarasyadeh,Yaj. Pr. 1. 135. 
 Pan. I. 1, 67 (without adeh, but see 54); — shashthi sthaneyoga,Yaj. 
 Pr. 1, 1 36. Pan. 1. 1 , 49.— There are very remarkable also : samkhya- 
 tanam anudeco yathasamkhyam,Yaj. Pr. 1, 143, compared with Pan. 
 I. 3, 10 yathasamkhyam anudecah samanam; and vipratishedha 
 iittaram balavad alope, I, 159, compared with vipratishedhe param 
 karyam, Pan. I. 4, 2. But both [passages] do not require [the sup- 
 position of] such a special relation (heide hedingen indess nicM ein so 
 specielles Verhdltniss), for they might be brought home to a common 
 source in the general grammatical tradition (sondern Jconn ten aufgemein- 
 same Quelle in der allgemeinen grammatischen Tradition suruckgefiihrt 
 werden) (the samanyam of the Ath. Pr. I, 3, evam iheti ca vibhasha- 
 praptani samanye). Likewise, varnasyadar9anam lopah, I, 141, 
 Pan. 1. 1, 60 (without varnasya); — uccair udattah — ^nicair anudattah 
 — ubhayavan svaritah I, 108-110 ; Pan. I. 2, 29-31 (where sama- 
 harah stands for ubh.); — tasyadita udatta*" svarardhamatram, 1, 126, 
 Pan. I. 2, 32 (where ardhahraswam) ; — udattac canudatta'°'svaritam 
 — nodattasvaritodayam lY, 134. 140, udattad anudattasya svaritah 
 — nodattasvaritodayam. Pan. YIII. 4, 66. 67; — samanasthana- 
 karanasyaprayatnah savarnah, I. 43, tulyasyaprayatnaiTi savarnam. 
 Pan. I. 1, 9; — asi3d iti cottaram vicare, II, 53, upari svid asid iti 
 ca. Pan. YIII. 2, 102 (97) ; — nuc camredite, lY, 8, kan amredite, 
 Pan. YIII. 3, 12. — There are besides these a very great number 
 [eine selir grosse Zahl) of coincidences [between them] ; for instance, 
 
PROFESSOR WEBER ON THE AGE OF THE VAJASANEYI-PRATI^AKHYA. 189 
 
 lY, 49 (Pan. VI. 1, 84), YI, 19-23 (Pan. YIII. 1, 58-63), which, 
 however, may be accounted for simply (einfach) by the similarity 
 of their subject. In some of these instances the Yaj. Pr, is de- 
 cidedly inferior (stcht entschiedm surucJc) to Panini (comp. the note 
 to II, 19. 20). Its grammatical terminology does not appear 
 to have attained the survey and systematic perfection repre- 
 sented ia Panini ;^^° but compare also my former general state- 
 ment on the want of skill or ("resjo.") probably want of practice 
 of the author [vgl. indess auch das bereits im Eingange — p. 68 — 
 uher die TJngescMcldichlceit resp. wohl Ungeubtheit des Vfs. im 
 Allgemeinen Bemerkte). In most instances, however, from being 
 restricted to the one text of the Yajas. Samhita, he is in a better 
 position than Panini, who has to deal with the whole linguistic 
 stock; and therefore he is enabled to give rules with a certain 
 safety and precision, when Panini either wavers in indecision 
 (bahulam) or decides in an erroneous and one-sided way (comp. 
 the notes to II, 30. 55. Ill, 27. 95. lY, 58)." ''' 
 
 Two distinct reasons have induced me to give a full hearing to 
 Professor Weber on this important question. I do so, in the first 
 
 ^"^ The words of the text are : " Die grammatische Fixirung scheint eben daselbst 
 noch nicht zu der in P&nini repraesentirten Uebersicht und systematischen VoUkom- 
 mcnheit gelangt gewescn zu sein." I confess my utter inability to guarantee the cor- 
 rectness of the translation of this passage. What is the " grammatical fixing ?" and of 
 what ? I have assumed that these words may have been intended for "terminology;" 
 but for aught I know they may mean anything else. And what " survey" is represented 
 in Pdijini ? 
 
 ^-° Indische Studien, vol. IV. pp. 83 — 86. Once more, and considering the possi- 
 bility of a reproach whicli may be made to my translation of his words, I must express 
 the conviction that I have not only brought the original before the English reader 
 literally and faithfully, but even favourably. Pi-ofessor Weber's mode of composition, 
 in all his writings, is not only grammatically incorrect and illogically elliptical, but 
 devoid of the very smallest amount of that care which every reader is entitled to expect 
 in his author. I could have wished that he, not I, had been compelled to undergo the 
 agony of rendering his original into English, with a view of combining the consideration 
 due to my readers with a scrupulous faithfulness, in the version of his words and 
 thoughts. The words between [ ] have been added by me in order to make something 
 like sense of some of his sentences. 
 
190 CimONOL EELATIOiX BETWEEN PANINl AXD THE PRATI^A'KHYAS. 
 
 jilace, because the lengthened passage I have quoted from his Preface 
 to the Yajasaneyi-Pratisakhya — in my opinion^ his most important 
 literary work — is a thorough specimen of the manner and of the 
 critical method — of the scholarship also, as I shall show hereafter — 
 in which he deals with, and which he brings to bear on, all his 
 learned investigations ; in the second place, because to give him a 
 hearing at all — and his great industry and his merit of having 
 touched, with no inconsiderable damage to himself, upon all the 
 hurning questions of ancient Sanskrit literature, entitles him to one 
 — was to give him a full hearing, in the fullness of all his Avords. 
 For, though it be possible to perceive the qualities of a clear 
 spring by taking a draught from it, however small, a whirlpool 
 can only be appreciated by seeing it entu'e and in the condition 
 in which it happens to exist. 
 
 If I had attempted, for instance, to maintain that Professor 
 Weber looks upon the algebraic terminology of Katyayana's 
 Prati'sakhya and Panini's Grammar, "on the one hand as very 
 close to, and on the other hand as thoroughly differiag from, one 
 another" (p. 186, lines 15-21), he would have justly upbraided me 
 with not representing him faithfully, for he really says : the one 
 diifers "partly thoroughly" from the other. Again, should I 
 have ventiu'ed upon the statement that he considers Paniai's work 
 as later than this Prati'sakhya, because he says that it has bor- 
 rowed a good deal from it ; he would have pointed at p. 187, line 
 18, where he speaks of a "certain posteriority" of Panini, which 
 kind of posteriority is just as intelligible to my mind as the answer 
 which some one, whom I asked about his travels, gave me, viz., 
 that he had been, but not exactly, on the Continent. Or, if I had 
 said that his cMef argument for this "certain posteriority" is the 
 difference in the pronunciation of the short «, between Panini and 
 Katyayana, since this diiference led to his conclusion with " a 
 tolerable amount of certainty" (p. 187, line 20), he would reply : 
 "You are mistaken. I stated that this difference may have been 
 caused by local reasons (line 27) ; it has, therefore, not the slightest 
 conckisiveness." Or, if I gave his opinion on the relative proficiency 
 of both authors to this effect, that he considers the Vajasaneyi- 
 
PROFESSOR WEBER'S FANTASTICAL STORY OF THE LETTER A. 191 
 
 Prati'saMiya as being '■'■decidedly inferior" (p. 189, line 4) in this 
 regard to Panini's work, lie would have pointed to line 15, in 
 showiag me how much I erred in attributing to him the idea of 
 such "a decided inferiority;" for it is the Prati'sakhya, on the 
 contrary, which, "in most instances, gives the rules with a 
 certain amount of safety and precision, when Panini either wavers 
 in indecision, or decides in an erroneous and one-sided way." 
 
 We must, therefore, leave the whirlpool, such as it is ; and in 
 doing so we cannot but appreciate the immense advantage which 
 an author enjoys, when he is impartial enough to arrive at his 
 conclusions unbiassed by a knowledge of the subject of which he 
 is speaking. Professor "Weber has made up his mind that the 
 Yajasaneyi- Prati'sakhya must be anterior to Panini, probably be- 
 cause it "appears extremely ticklish" to him to decide otherwise ; 
 hence he is not troubled with any of those cares which are likely to 
 distiu'b the miads of scholars who would first endeavour to stxidy 
 both works before they drew their inferences from them. He 
 meets with an overwhelming amount of identical passages in the two 
 works : he finds that their terminology is likewise identical to a 
 certain degree, — hence he concludes : either Panini has borrowed 
 these passages and this terminology from Katyayana, or both 
 authors have borrowed them from a common source. Por, as to 
 a third alternative, — that Katyayana may have borrowed such 
 passages from Panini, it is dispatched by him "with a tolerable 
 amount of certainty," as ranging amongst things impossible, be- 
 cause Paniai is later than the Yajasaneyi-Prati'sakhya; and this pos- 
 teriority, again, he chiefly bases on the argument that the pronun- 
 ciation of the short a, was, in the time of Panini, " already so 
 much covered," that he had to take the vowel u for his type 
 of a vowel sound, Avhereas Katyayana could still make use of 
 the vowel a as the typical vowel in his Yaidik rules. Now, 
 though I have already mentioned that this great argument is 
 strangled by him as soon as it is bom, I must nevertheless take 
 the liberty of asking for the authority which supplied him with 
 the circumstantial account of this phonetic history of the vowel a? 
 Panini and Katyayana both state and imply, as he himself 
 
192 CHRONOL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE TRATIS'^KIIYAS. 
 
 admits, tliat the vowel a is pronounced samvrita^ or with the con- 
 traction of the throat ; they do not say one single Avord more on 
 the pronunciation of this sound; nor is there any grammarian 
 kno"\vn to me who does so much as allude to the fantastical story 
 narrated by Professor Weber relative to this vowel a. An ordi- 
 nary critic, then, would content himself with the authentic infor- 
 mation supplied him by both grammarians ; and if he perceived 
 that Panini, ia his rule I. 2, 27, gives the vowel m as a specimen 
 vowel, and not as a type, while Katyayana chooses the vowel 
 a for such a specimen^ he would conclude that, even should 
 there be a real scientific motive for this diiference, it cannot be 
 founded on a different pronunciation of the vowel «, since it is 
 repudiated by both grammarians. But a critic like Professor 
 Weber, Avho looks upon facts as worsted if they do not agree with 
 his theories, concludes that this vowel a was " already so much 
 samATita" in the time of Panini, that he must needs throw it 
 overboard, and receive u into the ark of his grammatical ter- 
 minology. 
 
 And here I may, in passing, advert once more to a practice 
 sometimes met with in literary arguments. It consists in quietly 
 introducing into the premises some such innocent words as 
 "more," or "almost," or "already," or "so much," or similar 
 adverbs of small size, which have not the slightest claim to any 
 such hospitality ; and then, suddenly, these little interlopers grow 
 into mastership, and sway the discussion into which they had 
 stealthily crept. Thus, Panini and Katyayana, as I have just 
 said, speak of the vowel a simply as samvrita ; and upon these 
 words Professor Weber reports that " a in the time of Panini was 
 already so much samvrita" — that important secrets may be ex- 
 tracted from this grand discovery. 
 
 The foregoing illustration of Professor Weber's critical remarks 
 does not embrace the arguments in which he splits into two, 
 Katyayana, the author of our Pratisakhya, and Katyayana who 
 AATote the Yarttikas to Panini ; for I shall first quote the 
 observations of Professor Miiller on this treatment of Katyayana. 
 In speaking of the Yajasaneyi-Pratisakhya he expresses himself 
 
KATYAYANA SPLIT INTO TWO BY PROFESSOR "WEBER. 193 
 
 thus : ^" " It was composed by Katyayana, and shows a considerable 
 advance in grammatical technicalities [viz., in comparison with the 
 Pratisakhya of the Black Yajurveda]. There is nothing in its style 
 that could be used as a tenable argument why Katyayana, the author 
 of the Prati'sakhya, should not be the same as Katyayana, the con- 
 temporary and critic of Panitii. It is true that Panini's rules are 
 intended for a language which was no longer the pure Sanskrit of 
 the Yedas. The Vedic idiom is treated by him as an exception, 
 whereas Katyayana' s Prati'sakhya seems to belong to a period when 
 there existed but one recognised literature, that of the Eishis. 
 This, however, is not quite the case. Katyayana himself alludes to 
 the fact that there were at least two languages. * There are two 
 words,' he says (I. 17), ' om and atha, both used in the beginning 
 of a chapter ; but om is used in the Vedas, atha in the Bhashyas.' 
 As Katyayana himself writes in. the Bhashya, or the common 
 language, there is no reason why he should not have composed 
 rules on the grammar- of the profane Sanskrit, as well as on the 
 pronunciation of the Vedic idiom." 
 
 In other words, Professor Miiller sees that in no grammatical 
 work known to him — and I may safely add to anyone else — mention 
 is made of two Katyayanas ; he sees, no doubt, too — though he does 
 not state the fact adverted to by Professor Weber himself — that 
 several Varttikas to Panini correspond in substance with the Sutras 
 of the Vajasaneyi-Prati^akhya ; he deducts, moreover, from very 
 correct and plausible premises, that there is nothing in either 
 work to discountenance the possibility of the author of theYarttikas 
 having also written a work on the pronunciation of Yaidik words ; 
 and since he doubtless coincides with me in the opinion that even 
 Sanskrit philology can neither gain in strength nor in esteem by 
 freeing itself from the fetters of common sense, — he arrives at the 
 result that the hypercritical splitting of the one Katyayana into 
 two, as proposed by Professor Weber, is utterly fantastical. I 
 shall support his view with stronger proof than may be gathered 
 from the quotations I have made; but in leaving for a while the 
 
 ^' Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 138. 
 
 25 
 
194 CHEONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PEATI^AKHYAS. 
 
 whirlpool of the Indische Studien, I must now take up Professor 
 Miiller's own theory. 
 
 After the words just given, he continues as follows : " Some 
 of Katyayana's Sutras are now found repeated ipsissimis verbis in 
 Panini's Grammar. This might seem strange ; but we know that 
 not all the Sutras now incorporated ia his grammar came from 
 Panini himself, and it is most likely that Katyayana, ia writiug 
 his supplementary notes to Panini, simply repeated some of his 
 Pratisakhya-sutras, and that, at a later time, some of these so- 
 called Varttikas became part of the text of Panini." 
 
 Thus, in order to establish the theory that Panini's work is 
 later than the Prati'sakhya of Katyayana, whom Miiller, as we 
 know, conceives to be a contemporary of Panini, he presents us with 
 this very plausible sequence and chain of works: — 1. The Prati- 
 'sakhya of Katyayana. 2. The Grammar of Panini. 3. The 
 Varttikas of Katyayana. And since some rules of the second work 
 are identical with some of the first, he assumes that such rules 
 marched from the first into the third, and they then gradually in- 
 vaded the second work. Now even supposing that such a migration 
 of rules could be supported by a particle of evidence, what becomes 
 of those stubborn Prati'sakhya-Sutras and Yarttikas of Kdtyayana 
 which are identical in their contents — as I shall hereafter show — 
 and which have not ventured to walk into the Sutras of Panini ? 
 They become the stumbling-block of the whole theory ; for since 
 Panini, and especially Panini the contemporary of Katyayana, 
 could not have written rules of which the defects must have been 
 apparent to him, if he had seen rules so much better in a work 
 written before his own, the substance of these Sutras of Katyayana 
 could not have simultaneously preceded and followed the Grammar 
 of Panini. But I need not go further in showing the weakness of 
 this theory, for I have already explained (p. 29, etc.) that out of 
 the 3996 Sutras which form the present bulk of Panini's Gram- 
 mar, only three, or perhaps four, may be ascribed to Katyayana, 
 on critical and tenabh grounds. A mere supposition, unsupported 
 by any proof, that the Yajasaneyi- Prati'sakhya is older than 
 Panini's work, can certainly not justify the sweeping doubt which 
 
THE PRATI^AKHTAS NO GRAMMARS. 195 
 
 is levelled by Professor Miiller against the whole work of Panini, 
 and which is not even substantiated — as we might have expected 
 it to have been— by a distract enumeration of all or any of those 
 Sutras which he would propose to restore to their rightful owner, 
 Katyayana. 
 
 In now proceeding to state the reasons which induce me to 
 look upon all Prati'sakhya -Sutras, not only as posterior to Panini's 
 Grammar, but to Panini himself, and separated from him by at 
 least several generations, I must, in the first place, point out the 
 general fallacy which has led to the assumption that these works 
 are anterior to Panini. It consists in applying the standard of 
 the notion oi grammar to both categories of works, and having done 
 this, ia translating the result obtained, which is less favoiirable to 
 the Pratifeakhyas than to Panini's work, into categories of time — 
 priority and posteriority. An analogous fallacy would be too 
 apparent to require any remark, if it premised conclusions con- 
 cerning the chronological relation of works of a totally different 
 nature and character. It may assume however, as it has done, a 
 certain degree of plausibility if it be applied to works of a similar 
 category. 
 
 I must observe, therefore, in adverting to Professor Miiller' s 
 own words, as before quoted, that the term vydJcararia, grammar, 
 though constantly and emphatically given to Panini's work, has 
 not been applied by any author within my knowledge to a Pra- 
 ti'sakhya work.^^ This circumstance, however, implies an im- 
 portant fact which must not be overlooked. Tradition, from im- 
 memorial times, as every one knows, connects with the Veda a 
 class of works which stand in the most intimate relation to it — 
 the Veddnga works. One of them is the Vydkarana. The Prd- 
 tihdkhyas do not belong to them. Thus, tradition even in India, — 
 and on this kind of tradition probably the most squeamish 
 
 ^''^ I may here observe that the full title of Patanjali's Great Commentary is not 
 simply MahAbhdshya, but Vydkarana-Mahdbhdshya. The end, for instance, of a 
 chapter in the sixth book of the Great Commentary runs thus : ij[f?f ^iR^^IeRTfl^- 
 
 RtR<R t «<ii«*<ui*<^i*ii5l MBimN^a Ridl*im< nv!(*nr^«(i*i,. 
 
196 CHRONOL. EELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PBATI^AKHYAS. 
 
 critic will permit me to lay some stress, — does not rank amongst 
 the most immediate offsprings of tlie Vaidik literature, those works 
 which apparently stand in the closest relation to it, — which have 
 no other object than that of treating of the Vaidik texts of the 
 Samhitas ; — ^but it has canonized Panini's Vyakarana, which, on 
 the contrary, would seem to be more concerned with the language 
 of common life than with that of the sacred hymns. Is it pro- 
 bable, let me ask, even at this early stage, that tradition would 
 have taken this course if it had looked upon these Prati'sakhyas as 
 prior to the work of Panini ? 
 
 But this question will receive a more direct answer if we 
 compare the aim and the contents of both these classes of works. 
 Vyakarana means '•'■ un-doing ^'' i.e., analysis, and Panini's Grammar 
 is intended to be a linguistic analysis : it un-does words and un- 
 does sentences which consist of words ; it examines the component 
 parts of a word, and therefore teaches us the properties of base 
 and affix, and all the linguistic phenomena connected with both ; 
 it examines the relation, in sentences, of one word to another, and 
 likewise unfolds all the linguistic phenomena which are insepar- 
 able from the meeting of words. 
 
 The Prdtisdkhyas have no such aim, and their contents con- 
 sequently differ materially from those of the Vyakarana. Their 
 object is merely the ready-made word, or base, in the condition in 
 which it is fit to enter into a sentence, or into composition with 
 another base, and more especially the leady-made word or base as 
 part of a Yaidik hymn. These works are no wise concerned in 
 analyzing or explaining the nature of a word or base ; they take 
 them, such as they occur in the Pada text, and teach the changes 
 which they undergo when they become part of the spoken sen- 
 tence, i.e., of the spoken hymn. And the consequence implied by 
 these latter words entails, moreover, on the Prati'sakhyas the duty 
 of paying especial attention to all the phenomena which accom- 
 pany the spoken words ; hence they deal largely with the facts of 
 pronunciation, accent, and the particular mode of sounding a 
 syllable or word in connection with ritual acts. 
 
 This brief comparison will abeady have hinted at the point 
 
DIFFERKNCE BETWEEN PANINI'S GRAMMAE AND THE PEATI^AKHYAS. 197 
 
 of contact wHch exists between Panini and tlie authors of these 
 Prati'sakhya works. Leaving aside the wider range of the 
 domaia of the former, and the narrower field of the Vaidik pur- 
 suits of the latter, we may at once infer that both will meet 
 on the ground of phonetic rules, of accentuation, and of the 
 properties of sound ; but we shall likewise infer that any 
 other comparison between both would be as irrelevant as if 
 we compared Panini with Su'sruta, or the Prati'sakhyas with the 
 Jyotisha. 
 
 The aim of both categories of works being entirely different, 
 there is neither a logical nor an historical necessity, nor does there 
 exist a fact or a circumstance which would enable us to conclude, 
 from the absence ia these Pratisakhyas of certain grammatical 
 matter, that their authors were not as much conversant with it as 
 Panini, who treats of it, because it is his object, and therefore his 
 duty, to treat of it. 
 
 These facts being beyond the reach of doubt, we may again 
 raise an a-priori question whether it is more probable that the 
 plan of Panini's work preceded in time the plan of a Prati'sakhya 
 work, or the reverse ? 
 
 Throughout a great portion of his admirable Introduction to 
 Panini, Patanjali endeavours to impress on the reader the great 
 importance of grammatical study for promoting the objects of 
 religion and holiness. He shows that a knowledge of language 
 is necessary to a proper understanding of the sacred texts ; that 
 no priest is safe in the practice of rites without a thorough com- 
 prehension of the grammatical laws which define the nature of 
 sounds and words, — in short, that nothing less than eternal bliss 
 depends very much on the proper and correct use made of words, 
 and, as a consequence, on the study of Panini. 
 
 Here, then, we have a distinct deiinition of the relation of 
 Panini to the Vaidik texts,— a distinct statement of the causes 
 which have produced the Vydkarana. And what do they show 
 else, than that Panini must have stood in the midst of a living 
 religion, of a creed which understood itself, or at least had still 
 the vigour to try to understand itself ? 
 
198 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PRATISAKHYAS. 
 
 In Panini there is organism and life. In the Prati'sakhyas 
 there is mechanism and death. They do not care for the sense of 
 a word. A word antah, for instance, is to them merely a combi- 
 nation of five sounds, nothing else ; for whether it represent the 
 nominative of anta, "end," or the adverb antar, "between," is 
 perfectly indifferent to them. The rule of Katyayana's Pra- 
 ti'sakhya on this word (II. 26), is, therefore, as dreary as a 
 grammatical rule could ever be imagined to be, and the critical 
 remarks which Professor Weber has attached to this rule merely 
 prove that, on this occasion, also he beats the air. 
 
 It does not follow, as I have before observed, that, because 
 linguistic death reigns in these Sutras, Katyayana or their other 
 authors must have been as ignorant of grammar as it would 
 seem if these works made any claim to be grammars at all. It 
 merely follows that, in the period in which they were written, 
 there existed a class of priests who had to be drilled into a proper 
 recital of the sacred texts ; and it may follow, too, that this set of 
 men had none of the spirit, learning, and iatelligence, which 
 Patanjali would wish to find m a man who practices religious 
 rites. 
 
 In other words, it seems to me that between Panini's living 
 grammar and these dead Prati'sakhyas, there lies a space of time 
 sufficient to create a want, of which a very insignificant trace is 
 perhaps perceptible in some of Panini's Yaidik rules, but which 
 must have been irresistible at the period of the Prati'sakhya 
 works. 
 
 In substantiating with material proofs the priority of Panini's 
 work, I may dispense with giving evidence that Paniai meant, 
 in his eight grammatical books, to concern himself with Yaidik 
 language as well as the language of common life. For I should 
 have simply to quote hundreds of his rules which are entirely 
 devoted to Yaidik texts, and I should have to carry the reader 
 through the whole Introduction of Patanjali, which proves, as I have 
 already mentioned, that one of the chief objects of grammar is the 
 correct apprehension of the hymns. I will merely therefore com- 
 pare, first some matter treated by Panini with some matter treated 
 
THE PBATI^AKHYAS MORE COMPLETE THAN PANINI'S GRAMMAR. 199 
 
 by the Rik-Pratisakhya, — such matter, of coiirse, as admits of a 
 point of contact between both., and therefore of a comparison 
 at all. 
 
 The fifth chapter of the latter work treats of the cases ia 
 which the consonant s becomes sh ; the same subject is comprised 
 in the latter part of the third chapter of Panini's eighth book ; 
 but this book does not contain the smallest number of the cases 
 mentioned ia the Rik-Prati'sakhya. The same work enumerates 
 in the same chapter the words and classes of words ia which 
 n becomes n, and very few only of these instances are taught by 
 Paniai ia the last chapter of his work. A similar remark applies 
 with still greater force to a comparison of Panioi's rules on the 
 prolongation of vowels with those given by the Eik-Prati'sakhya 
 in its seventh, eighth, and niath chapters. In short, there is not 
 a siagle chapter ia this work which, whenever it allows of a com- 
 parison between its contents and the contents of analogous chapters 
 of Panini's Grammar, must not at once be declared to be iofinitely 
 more complete than the rules on them delivered by Panini. 
 
 In addressiag myself for a like purpose to the Yajasaneyi- 
 Pratisakhya, I might seem to do that which is superfluous. Por, 
 as I have shown before that Panini was not acquainted with a 
 Vdjasaneyi-Saihhita, it would require no further proof that he must 
 have preceded a work which is entirely devoted to this collection 
 of hymns. But as such a comparison, beiag extended also to 
 the Varttikas, would involve at the same time the question whether 
 the author of the Yarttikas and the author of the Pratisakhya is 
 the same person or not ; and as it would, too, bear on the very 
 appreciation of the character of this Vaidik work, I will enter 
 into it with greater detail than was required for the conclusions 
 which foUow from a comparison between the Eik-Prati'sakhya and 
 Panini. 
 
 It is a remarkable feature ia the explanatory gloss which 
 Professor Weber has attached to his edition of the Vaja- 
 saneyi-Prati'sakhya, that he eviaces much pleasure in school- 
 ing Katyayana for introduciag irrelevant matter iato his work ; 
 now upbraidiag him for his remarks on the common dialect, which 
 
200 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PRATIs'aKHTAS. 
 
 ought not to have concerned him in a Sutra of this kind ; then 
 finding fault with him for treating of words which do not occur in 
 the Vajasneyi-Samhita, and which, likewise, ought not to have 
 troubled him. Professor "Weber has given us too, in the be- 
 gioning of his preface, a valuable collection of instances, which 
 in his opinion prove either that Katyayana must have had before 
 him a different version of the "White Yajurveda than the one 
 known to us, or that he has botched on to his Prati'sakhya a 
 number of rules which, for his purpose, were out of place ; or, to 
 sum up in the words of the Indische Studten, already referred to, 
 that Katyayana shows neither skill nor practice ia his treatment of 
 the matter edited and commented upon by Professor Weber, But 
 what would the latter think if Katyayana applied this very 
 reproach to him? if he told Professor "Weber that he did not 
 even understand the character of the Pratisakhya which he was 
 editing and subjecting to all this learned criticism ? 
 
 Let me, then, take the place of Katyayana, and maintain for 
 him, that he is not only the very same Katyayana who wrote the 
 Yarttikas to Panini, but that his Yajasaneyi-Prati'sakhya has the 
 double aim of being a Yaidik treatise as well as of containing 
 criticisms on Panini. And let me, therefore, tell Professor Weber 
 that since there is abundant proof of this view in- Katyayana' s 
 Yaidik work, all his handsome epithets are put out of court. And 
 this, I hold, wUl also settle the question why we meet with so 
 many Sutras in Katyayana which are identical with those of 
 Panini ; for we shall presently see that this identity is merely an 
 apparent one, and, in reality, no identity at all. 
 
 I will take this point up first, and show that Katyayana merely 
 repeated the words of Panini in order to attach his critical notes 
 to them, just as I sometimes literally repeated the words of Pro- 
 fessor "Weber himself, merely for the purpose of improving on him. 
 
 Panini says (I. 1, 60) adar'sanam lopah. " This is not distinct 
 enough," I hear Katyayana say; hence he writes (I. 141) var- 
 nasyddarsanam lopah. — Panini gives the definition : (I. 2, 29. 30) 
 uchchair uddttah and nichair anuddttah. "So far so good," I 
 f^uppose Katyayana to say; "but you give the necessary com- 
 
CRITICISMS OF THE VAJASANEYI-PEATISAKHTA ON PANINI. 201 
 
 plement of these two rules in the words (I. 2, 31) '■ samdhdrah 
 swaritaV ; I ohject to this definition, for the swarita would better 
 have been defined thus," uhhayavdn swaritah (K. 1. 108—110). — P. 
 I. 2, 32 : tasyddita uddttam ardhakraswam ; butK. 1. 126 : tasyddila 
 uddttam swardrdhamdtram. — P. YIII. 4, 67, 66 : noddttaswaritodayam 
 (with the quotation of a dissent on the part of Gargya, Ka'syapa, 
 and Galava) ; uddttdd anuddttasya swaritah. The former rule is 
 approved of by Katyayana, who repeats it literally, but the latter 
 he words thus : uddttdch chdnuddttam swaritam (lY. 140, 134). — 
 P. I. 1, 8 : muJchandsilcdvachano 'nundsikah ; but K. I. 75 : 
 mukhdnundsikakarano ^nundsikah. — P. 1. 1, 9 : tulydsyaprayatnam 
 savarnam. " "Would it not be clearer," we hear Katyayana say, 
 " to give this definition thus : (K. I. 43) samdnasthdnakarandsya- 
 prayatnah savarnah." — P. YI. 1, 84: ekah purvaparayoh ; but K. 
 lY. 49 : athaikam uttarach cha. — P. I. 1, 66 : tasminn iti nirdisMe 
 purvasya. " This rule I adopt," Katyayana probably thought, 
 (I. 134) "but for your next rule (I. 1, 67), tasmdd ity uttarasya, 
 I prefer the clearer wording" (I. 135) tasmdd ity uttarasyddeh, 
 "and your shasMM sthdneyogd (1. 1, 49), evidently a rule which 
 you ought to have put with those two preceding Paribhasha 
 rules which are its complement, instead of separating it from 
 them by seventeen other rules, I place it, therefore, immediately 
 after these" (I. 136). 
 
 I will not add more instances of the same kind ; they have all 
 been carefully collected by Professor Weber ; but he is far from 
 perceiving that the identity between the language of both authors 
 is merely an apparent one, and that the additional words of Katya- 
 yana, either in the same Sutra or in one immediately following, 
 but intimately connected with it, are so many criticisms on Panini, 
 which are even made more prominent by the repetition of a certain 
 amount of Panini's words. For to assume, even without any of 
 the further proofs which I shall adduce, that Katyayana first 
 delivered his clearer and better Sutras, and that Panini hobbled 
 after him with his imperfect ones, is not very probable. 
 
 The following synopsis of rules is an extract from those I 
 have collected for the purpose of determining whether it could be 
 
 26 
 
202 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PRATISAKHYAS. 
 
 a matter of accident that the Prati'sakhya Sutras of Katyayana are, 
 to a considerable extent, nothing but Yarttikas to Panini. 
 
 Panini writes (YIII. 2, 87), "ow abhydddne,'''' which rule proves 
 that in his time om was not confined to Yaidik use only; but Katya- 
 yana writes (I. 18 and 19), ^^ omMram vedeshu''^ and ^'- athakdram 
 hhdshyeshu.''^ No doubt if Katyayana had not written with a 
 direct glance at Panini, this latter rule would be out of place, but 
 in this combination its origin becomes intelligible. P. says (YIII. 
 
 I, 46), '■'■ehi manye prahdse Irity Though this rule does not 
 treat of the accent of manye^ it nevertheless would follow from 
 other rules of Panini, that manye is adyudatta in its com- 
 bination with eM. This inference is emphatically corrected by 
 K. 2, 15 : manye padapurvaih sarvaira. Professor Weber, it is 
 true, says that this word sarvatra — which embodies the emphasis 
 of the censure of Katyayana — is meaningless : once more, no doubt, 
 Katyayana has bungled through "want of practice and skill." 
 How much Panini's rules YIII. 1, 19 and 72, dmantritasya cha^ 
 and dmantritam purvam avidyamdnavat^ are the torment of com- 
 mentators, may be seen from many instances in Sayana's Com- 
 mentary on the Kigveda. K. improves them considerably by 
 
 II. 17 and 18 : padapurvam dmantritam andndrthe ^pddddau and 
 tendnantard shashty elzapadavat. — K. writes II. 22 : bhutir ddyu- 
 ddttam : this rule again rouses the critical indignation of Professor 
 "Weber. "Why," he exclaims, "is this word singled out (by 
 Katyayana) ? Assuredly, it is not the single klin formation in the 
 Y. S." My answer is, because Katyayana had studied Panini, 
 and Professor Weber, it is clear, has not ; for Panini says. III. 3, 96, 
 that Ihuti is antoddtta in the Yeda ; and Katyayana therefore 
 singled this word out with the decided intention of stating that 
 in theYajasaneyi-Samhita Panini's rule would be erroneous. This 
 instance, I hold, moreover, is one of those which add some weight 
 to the proof I have already given, that Panini did not know, 
 and therefore preceded, the Yajasaneyi-Samhita. — K. says, II. 48, 
 demtddwandwdni chdndmantritdni ; and his words are a distinct 
 criticism on P. YI. 2, 141, devatadwandwe cha. — In rule YIII. 
 3, 36, Panini teaches that Yisarjaniya may remain such (or, as 
 
CRITICISMS OF THE VAJASANEYI-PEATISAKHTA ON PANINI. 203 
 
 the Sutra expresses itseE, on account of previous Sutras, may 
 become Yisarjaniya), before sibilants, or may become assimilated 
 to the following sibilant. But he committed the yenial offence of 
 not stating that this latter alternative rests on the authority of 
 Sakatayana, and the former on that of Sakalya. Could Katyayana, 
 therefore, forego the opportunity of writing (III. 8): '•'■ fratyaya- 
 samrnam mudi SdkaUyanah,''^ and (III. 9), '■'■ avilcaram Aakalyah 
 sashaseshu''^ ? — In YI. 1, 134, Panini gives a comprehensive rule on 
 the elision of the final s iaregardtothe Vaidik use of the nomiuative of 
 tad. " ISTo," says Katyayana (III. 14), "in the Y. S.this elision occurs 
 before vowels only in two instances : sa oshadhimayohP — Z. (III. 22) 
 says avir nir ida iddyd vasatir varivah, and thus criticises the imper- 
 fection of P.'s rule YIII. 3, 54, iddyd vd. — In III. 27, adhmno rqjaso 
 rishah sprigas pdtau, he shows the clumsiness of P.'s rule YIII. 3, 52, 
 pdtau cha bahulam; in III. 30, pardv avasdne, the imperfection of 
 P.'s YIII. 3, 51, panchamydh pardv adhyarthe ; in III. 55, bhdvi- 
 bhyah sah sham samdnapade, that of P.'s YIII. 3, 59, dde'sapratya- 
 yayoh. — In the Sutras III. 66 and 57, Katyayana teaches that the 
 intervention of anuswdra, k and r do not prevent s from becoming 
 sh, if this change would have to take place otherwise. " These 
 rules," says Professor Weber, "have no business here, for Samhita 
 and Pada-text agree in this respect, and these rules are quite 
 general grammatical rules;" and in support of this argument he 
 quotes TJvata, who also points out the superfluity. The latter 
 consoles us for it, it is true, by the remark that a man should not 
 complain if he found honey though he intended only to fetch fuel, 
 or a fish though his object were to fetch water, or fruits though he 
 went out merely to pluck flowers. But as Professor Weber is 
 not so easily consoled, and not so leniently disposed towards 
 Katyayana as Uvata is, I may tell him that these rules are levelled 
 against Panini's rules YIII. 3, 57 and 58, which omit to include r. 
 At II. 55, dwandwam gendrasomapurvam pushdgnivdyushu, Professor 
 Weber discharges a witticism. "None of the compounds" (re- 
 ferred to in the Siitra), he says, " occur in the Y. S. or the Sat. 
 
 Br How is that to be explained ? Did our Homer nod 
 
 when he composed this rule ? or did he have before him passages 
 
204 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PEATI^AKHYAS. 
 
 of the V. S. which, it no longer contains [Professor Weber probably 
 meant to say, ' which was not the V. S. we now possess^'] ? or is the 
 text of our Stitra corrupt, and have we to read another word for 
 sona .?" I will try to relieve his anxiety by expressiag the belief 
 that this Sutra and the next, II. 56, are criticisms on Panini's 
 general rule VI. 2, 141, and on his special rule VI, 2, 142. — 
 The rule of Panini VIII. 3, 107, suhah, is criticised ia three Sutras of 
 Katyayana III. 59, 60. 61, okdrdt su; och chdpriktdt^ and ahhe's cha. 
 
 The Varttika 3 to III. 3, 108 says varmt karah ; K. I. 37, 
 Icdrena cha; both are identical in their contents, and complete 
 Panini's rule III. 3, 108. The same remark applies to the Varttika 
 4 to P. III. 3, 108, rdd iphah, and to K. I. 40, ra ephena cha, in 
 reference to the same rule of Panini. — K. III. 38, aharpatau repham, 
 points out an omission in P. VIII. 2, 70 : the same criticism is 
 conveyed by the Varttika 2 to this Siitra of Panini, aharddindm 
 paty'adishii. — K. III. 12, lung mudi jitpare fills up a blank in P. 
 VIII. 3, 36, vd sari; and likewise a Varttika on this Sutra to the 
 same effect, vd sarpralcarane kharpare lopah. — P.'s rule VI. 3, 109, 
 prishodarddini yathopadishtam, is criticised by K. III. 41 and 42, 
 ukdram dur de and nd'se cha, as well as by a Varttika to the former 
 rule, which has the same contents : dura dd'sand'sadahhadhyeshutcum 
 vaktavyam uttarapaddde's cha sMutvam. — A Varttika to the same 
 rule of P., shasha utodm datrida'sasuttarapadddeh sMutvain cha, is 
 identical in contents with K. III. 46, shad ddsadantayoh samkhyd- 
 vayorthayo's cha : both are criticisms on P. VI. 3, 109. — The first 
 Varttika to III. 2, 49 (improperly marked, like the two others, in 
 the Calcutta edition, as if these Varttikas did not occur in the 
 Mahabhashya), ddrdv dhano ^nnantyasya cha tah sanjndydm, is similar 
 in contents with K. III. 47, ta dghdd anddambardt : both complete 
 P. III. 2, 49, d'sishi hanah. — The important omission in P.'s Sutra 
 VIII. 4, 1, rashdbhydn no nah samdnapade, is, with almost a literal 
 reference to these words, criticised by K.'s III. 83, risharebhyo 
 nakdro nakdram samdnapade, and by his Varttika to the former rule, 
 rashdbhydm natva rikdragrahanam. 
 
 I need not increase the foregoing quotations by a comparison of 
 the contents of whole chapters of theVaj asaneyi-Pratisakhya with the 
 
KATYAYANA'S PEATISAKIIYA ANTERIOR TO HIS VARTTIKAS. 205 
 
 analogous contents of whole chapters in Panini. Eor, though the 
 result would be exactly the same as it has been in the ease of our com- 
 parison between the Rik-Prdti'sdkhya and Panini' s work, even the 
 isolated Sutras which I have contrasted in these quotations suffi- 
 ciently show that Panini could never have laid his Grammar open to 
 such numerous criticisms as he has done, if the work of Katyayana 
 had been composed before his own. My synopsis, moreover, shows 
 that many rules of Katyayana become utterly inexplicable in his 
 Prati'saldiya work unless they he judged in their intimate connection 
 with the Grammar of Panini. And, as it is simply ridiculous to 
 assume that "Homer constantly nodded" in wi'iting an elaborate 
 work, which evidences considerable skill and practice in the art 
 of arranging the matter of which he treats, there is no other con- 
 clusion left than that the Pratisakhya of Katyayana had the twofold 
 aim which I have indicated above. 
 
 There might, however, remain a doubt as to whether Katya- 
 yana first wrote his Prati'sakhyas or his Varttikas to Panini. Two 
 reasons induce me to think that his Pratifeakhya preceded his 
 Varttikas. In the first place, because the contrary assumption 
 would lead to the very improbable inference that a scholar like 
 Katyayana, who has given such abundant proof of his thorough 
 knowledge of Sanskrit grammar, left a considerable number of 
 Panini's rules without those emendations which, as we must now 
 admit, are embodied in his Pratisakhya work. If we made a 
 supposition of this kind, we should imply by it that he belongs to 
 that class of authors who present their writings in a hurried and 
 immature state, and, upon an after thought, make their apology in 
 an appendix or an additional book. If we assume, on the other 
 hand, that he first wrote his Pratisakhya Sutras, wlaich neither 
 imposed upon him the task, nor gave him an opportunity, of making 
 a thorough review of Panini, we can understand that they might 
 have seduced him now and then into allowing himself to be carried 
 away by the critical tendency which he afterwards fully developed 
 in his Yarttikas ; and we can then, too, understand why these 
 Varttikas treat merely of those Sutras of Panini which were not 
 included in his former work. 
 
206 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PA'NINI AND THE PRATI^AKHTAS . 
 
 My second reason for this view is derived from a comparison 
 between sncli of his Sutras and such of his Varttikas as are 
 closely related to one another. For if we examine the contents 
 and the wording of either we cannot fail to perceive that some 
 of Katyayana's Yarttikas show an improvement on some of his 
 Sutras, and we may infer that they were given on account of this 
 very improvement. Thus the Yarttika to YIII. 3, 36, quoted 
 before, contains the word vd, which is not in the Sutra III. 12 ; 
 the Yarttika duro, &c., to YI. 3, 109 embraces more formations 
 than the Sutras III. 41 and 42 ; the Yarttikas 1-3 to III. 2, 49 do 
 not contain, it is true, the word ddamhara alluded to in III. 47 — 
 perhaps because it was abeady contained in this Siitra — but in- 
 crease considerably the contents of this rule ; the Yarttika 2 to 
 YIII. 2, 70 treats of a whole Gana, while the Sutra III. 38 
 merely names its heading word ; and so on. Nor could we forego 
 such a comparison on the ground that there is a difference of pur- 
 pose in the Sutras which are attached to the Yajasaneyi-Samhita, 
 and in the Yarttikas, which are connected with Panini, — that, 
 consequently, an improvement of the Yarttikas on the Pratisakhya 
 need not tell on the chronological relation between both. For we 
 have seen that Katyayana's Pratisakhya does not strictly confine 
 itself to the language of his Samhita or even to that of the Yedas in 
 general. Already the instances given before would suffice to bear 
 out this fact, in the appreciation of which I so entirely differ 
 from Professor Weber's views; and a striking instance of this 
 kind is afforded by Katyayana's Sutra III. 42, quoted before. 
 It treats of a case entirely irrelevant for the Yajasaneyi-Samhita ; 
 this case is taken up again and enlarged upon in a Yarttika to 
 YI. 3, 109, and there is no reason why the additions made in this 
 Yarttika might not have been entitled with equal right to a place 
 amongst Katyayana's Sutras, as Sutra III. 42 itself. Their not 
 standing there shows to my mind that this Yarttika is later than 
 this rule of the Pratisakhya work. 
 
 It will readily be seen that I have arrived at the result of the 
 priority of Panini's work to the Pratisakhya of Katyayana, in 
 entire independence of all the assistance which I might have 
 
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 207 
 
 derived from my previous arguments. I have hitherto abstained 
 from availing myself of their aid, because an inference must gain 
 in strength if it be able to show that two entirely distinct lines of 
 argument necessarily lead to the same goal. Such is the case 
 with the question before us. For if we noAV appeal, once more, to 
 the important information which Patanjali supplied, viz., that the 
 " anubandhas of former grammarians have no grammatical effect in 
 the work of Panini : " in other words, that if a grammarian uses 
 anubandhas employed by Panini in the same manner as he did, his 
 work must have been written after Panini's work, — we need 
 only point to the pratayhara ting, in Katydyana's Sutra I. 27, in 
 order to be relieved from any doubt that Panini's grammar is 
 prior to the Sutra of Katyayana. That Katyayana added in his 
 Sutras other technical terms to those of Panini, cannot be a matter 
 of surprise ; indeed, it is even less remarkable than it would be 
 under ordinary circumstances if we consider that he made — either 
 as inventor or as borrowing from older grammarians — such addi- 
 tions to the terminology of Panini in his very Varttikas, where 
 one would think there was the least necessity for them, — where, 
 for instance, he might have easily done without such new terms 
 as sit, pit, jit, jhit, ghu, in the sense in which he uses them.^^" 
 
 Thus far my literary argument on the chronological relation 
 between Panini and the Prati'sakhya works. The historical proof, 
 that not only the work of Panini, but Panini himself, preceded, hj 
 at least two generations, the author of the oldest Prati'sakhya, re- 
 quires, in the first place, the remark that by the latter designation 
 I mean the Pratisakhya of the Eigveda hymns. 
 
 Since Professor Weber, in his introduction to his edition of the 
 Yajasaneyi-Prati'sakhya has given proofs that this work as well 
 
 ^' Varttika 1 to Panini I. 1, 68 : ftjTTf^^^^T f^T^T^; Varttika 2 : fllfH^T- 
 ZR'q^f^ 'q- ^T^r^; Varttika 3 : t^fM^|4|c|xH^^ TT^^T^; Varttika 4 : 
 Htj-rt*^ ^ df^^mUji ^ *1rti<|<JJv5*i-— In his Karikd to VII. I, 21 (compare note 
 114) Katyayana uses the term 'Ef in the sense of ■aTl^M* > as results from the com- 
 mentary of Patanjali. — Kdrikd : -4^(1(^1 etc.— Patanjali : ^i{V<|(e|f^ c|rt)°ilH^ 1 1^- 
 Rli^^MlRrrl I '^•jTi<M<^ ^[frf etc. — The same term ^ occurs in Patanjali's Karikd 
 to VI. 4, 149 (see note 121) : . . . '^ «H^lf\ .Sf'ff'Wf^W^ etc., when Kaiyyata observes : 
 
208 CHRONOL. EELATION BETWEEN PATflNI AND THE PEA'TI^AKHYAS. 
 
 as the Atharvaveda-Pratisakhya — and I infer too, that of the 
 Taittiriya-Samhita— are more recent than the Eik-Pratisakhya, 
 and since these reasons are conclusive to my mind, I need not, 
 by the addition of other proof to that which he has afforded us 
 on this point, weaken the great pleasure I feel, in being able, 
 for once in a way, to coincide Avith him in his views. 
 
 It is necessary, however, that I should first touch in a few 
 words on the question of the authorship of this Eik-Pratisakhya. 
 It is adverted to in the first verse of this work, in a passage 
 which contains all the information we possess on this point. The 
 passage in question runs thus: "After having adored Brahma, 
 Saunaka expressed the characteristic featiire of the Kig-veda verses." 
 
 Now, as it is hot unusual in Sanskrit writings for the author to 
 introduce himself in the commencement of his work by giving his 
 name, and speaking of himself in the third person, this verse alone 
 would not justify us in looking upon the words quoted as necessarily 
 containing a mere report of Saunaka's having delivered certainrules 
 which another later author brought into the shape of the Eik- 
 Pratisakhya as we now find it. But it must be admitted, also, 
 that it does not absolutely compel us to ascribe this work to 
 Saunaka himself It leaves us free to interpret its sense according 
 to the conclusions which must be derived from the contents of the 
 work itself. 
 
 These contents have already required us to establish the 
 priority of Panini's Grammar to this Pratisakhya work. If, 
 then, we find that Panini speaks of Saunaka as of an ancient 
 authority, ^^^ while there is no evidence to show that the Saunaka 
 named in both works is not the same personage, there is from the 
 point of view of my former ' literary^ argument, a certainty that 
 Saunaka was not the author of the Pratisakhya here named. ^'' 
 
 -™ IV. 3, 105 : y^HUlTi^g 9)1^0! ch^lj ; IOC : \»n«1«*ir<«r^*«<^Rl • Compare 
 mIso page 149. 
 
 -" This is the view, too, of Uvata, the commentator on this Pritisakhya. He says 
 that Saunaka's name is mentioned for the sake of remembering him : <1|4{i|^(!J 
 ^i^Ujl^^- See Mr, Regnier's edition of the Rik-P. in the Jonmal Asiatique, vol. 
 VII. (1856), p. 183. 
 
VTADI, AUTHOR OF THE SANGRAHA. 209 
 
 This inference, however, it must be admitted, is only entitled to 
 be mentioned thus at the beginning of the historical argument, 
 in so far as it may afterwards strengthen and corroborate it, but 
 not, if it had to be used in order to premise the conclusions which 
 will have to be drawn. 
 
 Another preliminary remark, also, must be devoted to the 
 sweeping assertion of Professor Weber, already quoted, which is 
 to this effect, that " sameness of names can never prove the 
 identity of the persons" who bear these names. It is true he 
 qualifies this dictum by adding after "names," " like Katyayana ; " 
 but, even Avith this restriction, I cannot convince myself that 
 literary criticism gains in strength by carryiag Pyrrhonism beyond 
 the confines of common sense. If great celebrity attaches to 
 a name in certain portions of Sanskrit literature ; and if the 
 same name re-occurs in other and kindred portions of this same 
 literature, I believe we are not only free, but compelled, to infer 
 that the personage bearing this name in both such places is the 
 same personage, unless there be particular and good reasons which 
 would induce us to arrive at a contrary conclusion. I thus hold 
 that a critic has no right to obtrude his doubts upon us until he has 
 given good and substantial reasons for them. 
 
 After this expression of dissent from the critical principles of 
 Professor Weber, I may now recall the fact I have mentioned on 
 a previous occasion (p. 80), that there is a grammatical work, ia a 
 hundred thousand Slokas, called Sangraha, whose author is Vyddi 
 or Vydli. I know of no other grammatical work bearing this name 
 Sangraha^ nor of any other celebrated grammarian named Vyddi. 
 Both names, however, are not unfrequently met with in the gram- 
 matical literature. Vyddi is quoted several times in the Rik- 
 Prdti'sdkhija,^^'^ and there is no valid reason for doubting that he 
 is there the same person as the author of the Sangraha. This 
 same work and its author are sometimes alluded to in the illustra- 
 tions which the commentators give of the Sutras to Panini or the 
 
 ^- Rik-P. Ill, 14. 17 ; VI, 12 ; XIII, 12. 15. See Mr. Regnier's Indea; dea nomg 
 propres to his edition of the Rik-Prdtis'4khya, s.v. Vyali. 
 
 27 
 
210 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PRATISAKHYAS. 
 
 Varttikas of Katyayana ;^'' and both, indeed, as I shall show here- 
 after, appear to have stood in a close relation to the Mahabhashya 
 of Patanjali. We are, however, only concerned here with one 
 instance with which Patanjali illustrates the second Varttika of 
 Panini's rule II. 3, 66. 
 
 It is this: ^'■'beautiful indeed is DdJcshdy ami's creation of the 
 Sangraha^'''^* 
 
 From it we learn, then, in connection with the information Ave 
 already possess of the proper name of the author of the Sangraha, 
 that Yyadi and Dakshayana are one and the same grammatical 
 authority. Dakshayana, however, is not only a descendant of 
 Daksha, but of Ddkshi also,^'^ and of the latter, at least in the 
 third generation, while he may possibly have held a far more 
 distant place in the lineage of this personage who is so often 
 named in the ancient literature. For Panini, . who defines the 
 term yiivan as the son of a grandson or of a more remote degree 
 in the lineage of a family chief, ^^^ gives a rule in reference to 
 this term, which the principal commentators illustrate by the 
 name of Dakshayana}^'' 
 
 '^ Patanjali's commentary on v. 6 (of the Calcutta edition) to IV. 2, tJO gives the 
 instances : 4h4^<^: I ^^cTS^: I ^T^lf^: I ^¥?Tf : ; or the Kasika to VI. 3, 79 : 
 
 ^^^ This instance follows another which says : " beautiful indeed is Panini's creation 
 of (his) Sutra."— Varttika 2 to 11. 3, 66 : ^^ f^^TRT .—Patanjali : ^jYHTT ^^ 'TT" 
 
 t%%: ^;w ^f^i: i ^fr*RT ^ irrfTirfsRT ^^ iffTi: i "^w^ ^ ^t^t^- 
 
 -^ PAnini, I V. 1, 95 : -^cT i;^.— K^tydyana : ^[^^ ^^^'rn^TT ftRf^^Iisft t^lrfrr- 
 ^^.— Patanjali : i;^ ^^TfrTWIT 'ftif^T?!^ 'l^fT: t^rfTR^ I i;^ i=|t|iTU: I 
 ^Tf%: etc.— Kasikd: (^T^^|M(ir ^Tf^".- 
 
 -'' Pdnini, IV. 1, 162 : -^[fm ^^iPjf^ 'ft^?^:; 163 : wNf^T ^ ^ ^TT ; 16*: 
 
 ^' IV. 1, 101 : ilpHaill^ • This Siitra has no direct commentary by Patanjali, and 
 I shall therefore first quote the K4s'ik4 on it : 'Sr3|<d||?3{«r|T^Tq^ M)<=mtJ | ^ T^tfl I 
 
 (IV. 3, 10) I (IV. 2, 80) ^ dj| jni f^»r Tt^n^mt ^ h^ ii ^H^'M^u t q- ^f^ f%- 
 
 Ui^fi I rId«dM'*j«^|^ H(i(^: (comp. IV. 1, 94).— But there is no occasion for doubt- 
 
PANINI ANTERIOR TO VYADI AND THE PRATI^AKHYAS. 211 
 
 If "we now turn to Panini himself, we liave it on the authority 
 of Patanjali that his mother bore the name of DdJcshV^^ And 
 Ddkshi^ again, is, on the faith of all commentators on a rule of 
 Paniui, the female family head of the progeny of Daksha, standing 
 in the same relationship to Daksha as the male family chief Dakshi ; 
 she is, in other words, the oldest sister (vriddhd) of the latter per- 
 sonage.^^^ ^ya^di, therefore, was a wear relative of Panini^ and 
 Panini must have preceded him by at least two generations. 
 
 ing the genuineness of this Sutra on account. of there being no Bhdshya to it (compare 
 note 139), for Patanjali refers to it in his comment on the fifth Paribhdsh^ (in the Calc. 
 ed.) to I. 1, 72 and has also, amongst others, the instance d I^I^Uj ; viz. (ed. Ballan- 
 tj'ne, p. 795) ; Paribhdshd : TTBRnTf W TPTWrT: I HdlilV^'!! '^ •4m^«<T: 1T^- 
 
 (^|4|<i: I (^|t^|4|U|: I M<*<(^ | Ti!J*<W ' etc.— That DAlishdyana is the yuvan, not the 
 son of Ddkshi is suflSciently clear from the K4sikd itself, since it refers to IV. 1, 94. 
 For this reason it also gives as an instance of a yuvan to I. 2, 66, besides 3]7J4 I ^'Uj* 
 and c||(^|i|«) (omitted in the Calc. ed.), the word d |i^|'?IT!J': — Patanjali contents 
 himself with the instance J||j4'|^Uj'< > !•"* it commences its counter-instance to 11. 
 4, 58 in this way : ■^rfW^tfrfrl f^S^i. 1 ^^TW ^TT <^l^l<<W: • We must, 
 consequently, consider it an inaccuracy when the same Kasikd gives its counter- 
 instance to II. 4, 60 in these words : MI'cHRird f^i'^ I ^f^: f^^ I <^I^I^U]': 
 ira; . The Calcutta edition continues it, and Dr. Boehtlingk, of course, reprints it 
 without a single remark. In short, whenever we open his discreditable reprint, we 
 understand perfectly well why he writes in his preface, p. xxxviii. : " The Calcutta 
 edition is very correct, so much so that only on the very rarest occasions have I had an 
 opportunity of preferring the readings of the Manuscripts." 
 
 ^'« Karika to I. 1, 20 : ^f ^xr^Tt^H <n1m^«^ MlW: etc. 
 
 '^' Pdnini, VI. 4, 148 :^T%ffr '^.—Patanjali : ^lfT'rT%Rl f^i^^Tf^ t "^^l^ 
 ^^: I t ^Tf^ fft ^f^ ^t>Tt f ^TTfCetc— Kaiyyata : ^%T^T%f7r 1 1 l^r#- 
 
 f?f I ^Tf^ ai»< ir<dt TjBprr^ftm (ms. f ^^fnt^f^oo) (iv. i, 65) #tm 
 
 ^ (T^ ^ITl" "g^ If^ etc.— IV. 1, 65 : ^ ?Tjti|^l^: •- Kds'ikd ^t€I" 
 
 —IV. 1, 94: aft^T^^Jrfwrm— KAsikd . . . ^rf^^TTftrfTT f?B»i: I ^'^ ■ • -I- 2, 
 
 66: ^^ XJ^^ (where ^^^ implies in reference to the preceding Sutra ^^T^^> i.e. the 
 eldest daughter of a grandson, or a further descendant, considered as the female head of the 
 family).— KAsikd : ^^ ^^ (I. 2, 65) ^ ^f^ | ^ ^^ "^ ^ ^^^ t^^ I 
 d<5l^Ul^<cl t%^^ V(^fH I i^ T^^: (thus MS. 829 ; MS. 2440 H^XWl^) 
 
 girsf *iwf?r I ^^: j^r^^^^fTi i Tn>ff '^ an^i^iui^ 'n'^ i Tr^fft '^ ^- 
 
 l^n^TTg ^T<^ I ^Wt '^ ^T^TVUl^ ^^ (thus MS. 2410 ; MS. 829 ^T^). 
 
212 CHRONOL. RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PRATI^AKHYAS. 
 
 Now since the Rik-Pratisakhya quotes Vyadi, as we have seen, 
 on several occasions, and since the Pratisakhya of Katyayana is 
 more recent than this work, I must leave it to the reader to de- 
 termine how many generations must, in all prohability, have 
 separated Panini from the author of the Eik-Prati'sakhya on the 
 one hand, and from the author of the Vajasaneyi-Pratisakhya and 
 the Yarttikas on the other. 
 
 After this statement, which, I fear, is entirely fatal to a great 
 many chronological assumptions which have hitherto been regarded 
 as fully established, and to the critical and linguistic results which 
 hace been huilt on these assumptions, it is not necessary — but it will 
 nevertheless be interesting — to see that modern and ancient gram- 
 matical authorities contain additional testimony to the conclusion 
 I have here arrived at. 
 
 When explaining the uncritical condition of the Paribhasha 
 collections, I pointed out that if they were looked upon as an 
 indivisible whole, there could be no doubt that they must be 
 later than Panini, — since one of them uses the word Pdniniya. I 
 pointed out, too, that the compilers of these collections, Yaidya- 
 natha, for instance, must have taken this view of their chrono- 
 logical relation to Pariini. Now at the end of the Laghuparibhdshd- 
 vritti we read that " some ascribe the composition of all the 
 Paribhashas to the Muni Vt/ddi." ^^^ They must consequently have 
 considered him as posterior to Panini. 
 
 I will at once, however, ascend to the author of the Great 
 Commentary. In illustrating the first Varttika to Panini's ride 
 VI. 2, 36, Patanjali writes down the following compound : 
 Apisala-Paniniya-Vyadiya-Gautamiyah.^*' It tells its own tale : 
 it names first the disciples of Api'sali — of whom we know, through 
 Panini himself, that he preceded him, — then those of Panini, 
 
 ="" LaghuparibhdshAvrifti: ^ ^T^^f<c|i:|^ H . 1 ^f^ SETT^rRfT (the first Pari- 
 
 ^' P4nini, VI. 2, 36 : W^^TTRT^T^^^^-— Katyayana : ^^JT^^fq^^ 
 4^<*<^lfXT ^4m<«?)I<<^'3^: ■— PatanjaU ; ^I^TiTfM^^^ i*i<*'^Pr ^?^^ ^'^^ 
 
MtJLLEE'S VIEW OF THE AGE OF THE PHITSl/TRAS. 213 
 
 afterwards those of Vyddi, and ultimately those of Gautama. There 
 can be no doubt that we have here a sequence of grammarians 
 who wrote one after the other ; but, if any doubt still existed, 
 it would be dispelled by the grammatical properties of the com- 
 pound itself; for a Yarttika to II. 2, 34, teaches that — unless 
 there be reasons to prevent it — the name of the more important 
 part must come first m. a Dwandwa compound ; and for a 
 similar reason other Varttikas teach that, for instance, in forming 
 such a compound of the names of seasons, the name of the earliest 
 season in the year must precede that of a subsequent one ; or in 
 compounding the names of castes, they must follow one another 
 in their natural order ; or in making a Dwandwa of the names of 
 two brothers, the name of the older has precedence of the name 
 of the younger.^*^ But as none of the grammatical reasons taught • 
 by Paniai in previous rules would compel the component parts of 
 the compound alleged to assume another order than that which 
 they have, we can only interpret their sequence in the manner 
 I have stated. ^*^ 
 
 The descent from the height of the Pratisakhyas to the level 
 plain of the Phitsutras would almost seem to require an explana- 
 tion. Before I give it, however, I will refer to Professor MiiUer's 
 Ancient Sanskrit Literature, and state its opinion on the rela- 
 
 '*' Pdnini, II. 2, 'ii : •M'^\-c^ <+l^.— V4rttika 3 (of the Calc. ed.) ^pjrf^ ^ 
 
 Patanjali: ^P^rffct ^"filMddlTd ^ftl-ilH. I *<T<nf^dVl ^TIT^^ •— Varttika 2 
 (of the Calc. ed.) ^Sf^RTTSTnTT^^^'n' <:(*fHN <.IWrTC-— Patanjali ; ^^WT^WT- 
 
 T!rTm^[^t!r ^in^ii^^nji ^ff^nrnfr ^w^sr: i ftiftix^Wl"--varttika 5 (of 
 
 the Calc. ed.) ^T^^Hl^^'U!-— Patanjali : efrfpTT ^^^TIJ ^^f^nH^ ^l^HtffT 
 «)r»l<*IH, I sll^U!i!!Riir=l4^s(i: •— Vdittika C (of the Calc. ed) ^^7^^ ^[HM' — 
 Patanjali: VH^ ^\Hm l^if^fjnWt ^T^^ftfTI ^W^K I ^t^^f^TT^- 
 
 ^" Such a reason would be, for instance, if one part of the compound belonged to the 
 words technically called f^ (I. 4, 7 — 9) ; for in such a case the base f^f would have 
 precedence of a base ending in "^ (compare II. 2, 3ii). On this account the names 
 of the three grammarians, Sdkalya, Gdrgya and Vyadi, form in the Rik-Pratisdkya, 
 XIH. 12, the dwandwa: <H \ (do^ I '=h<!^ ^1 h4 I * ■ 
 
214 CHEONOL. EELATIOX BETWEEN PANIJJI AND THE PHITSITTRAS. 
 
 tion of these Sutras to Panini. It is contained in the following 
 words : ^" 
 
 "As to Santana's Phitsutras, we know with less certainty to 
 what period they belong. A knowledge of them is not pre- 
 supposed by Panini, and the grammatical terms used by Santana 
 are different from those employed by Panini, — a fact from which 
 Professor BoehtUngk has ingeniously concluded that Santana must 
 have belonged to the eastern school of grammarians. As, how- 
 ever, these Sutras treat only of the accent, and the accent is used 
 in the Vedic language only, the subject of Santana's work would 
 lead us to suppose that he was anterior to Panini, though it woidd 
 be unsafe to draw any further conclusion from this." 
 
 Once more I am unable to assent to the arguments of my learned 
 -predecessor on this subject. If the knowledge of a work, as he 
 admits, is not presupposed by Panini, it would seem to follow that 
 such a work is not anterior but posterior to him, since it is scarcely 
 probable that he could have ignored the information it contains. 
 Xor has Professor Miiller given any evidence to show that the 
 contents of the Phitsutras are restricted to the Vaidik language 
 nnl}^ On the contrary, the great bulk of the words treated of in 
 these Sutras belongs with equal right, and, in some respect, with 
 much greater right, to the classical language, in preference to that 
 of the Vaidik hymns or Brahmanas. And as no word can be 
 pronounced without an accent, it is not intelligible why such a 
 treatise should not be of as great importance for the student who 
 recites the Mahabharata as for the priest who reads the Rigveda 
 poetry. Panini himself has, indeed, embraced in his rules on ac- 
 centuation a great number of words no trace of which occurs in the 
 Samhitas. But even if the statement made by Professor Miiller 
 were unobjectionable, why should it follow that an author who — : 
 and because he — writes on a Vaidik subject, must, or is even likely 
 to, be anterior to an author who treats of the classical literature ? 
 And Panini moreover treated of both. 
 
 As little as I can adopt, on these premises, the conclusions Prof. 
 
 '** Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 152. 
 
MiJLLEE'S VIEW OF THE AGE OF THE PHITSirTRAS. 215 
 
 Miiller draws, so little can I join in the compliments lie pays to the 
 ingenuity of Dr. Boehtliiigk.^^' For since Panini himseK, as I have 
 shown before, makes use of the terms prathamd, dtoHiyd, tnti?/d, 
 chaturthi, etc., and of aunff, a«^(in the sense of an instrumental in the 
 singular),^" all of which are terms of the eastern grammarians, and, 
 as everyone knoAvs that Panini did not belong to them, I can see 
 no ingenuity ia assigning Santana to this school on the sole ground 
 of his having used terms which differ from those of Panini ; espe- 
 cially when these terms have no grammatical influence whatever, 
 like the anubandhas of Panini, and are not distinctly defined in 
 the commentary as terms of the eastern grammarians.^*' 
 
 ^" As in the case of the Calcutta edition of Pdnini, and of the Unn4di-Sutras, the edition 
 of the Phitsiitras also was entrusted by Dr. Boehtlingk to his compositor, who reprinted 
 the text of these Sutras from the Calcutta edition of the Siddhduta-kaumudi. — The 
 difficulties offered by these SAtras are not inconsiderable, and might have yielded good 
 materials for many remarks. Dr. Boehtlingk's Commentary on them consists of 32 lines, 
 which contain the substance of about 12, nearly all of which are insignificant. Even 
 his very small Index to the Sdtras is imperfect ; for it omits the Sutra <4«j(7f m(i|*n 
 which he mistook for a part of the commentary on IV. 15, and the Siitra ^3H^<| | ^g |- 
 fi{c|<i| which also he has reprinted as if it were a portion of the commentary on IV. 
 12, though he himself is doubtful as to its proper position there. He professes, too, to 
 have given an Index of the contents, " for those who mean to pursue the subject." But 
 as one of the latter, I had to make a thorough Index of all the technical symbols in the 
 Sutras, and also of a good number of real words which occur in the commcntai-y and 
 text, but which, in accordance with his notion of an Index, or through his usual 
 inaccuracy, are omitted in his Index ; e.g. -^I^tjolj II. 13 ; ■^frf flf IV. 15 ; '^rf'T 
 IV. 13; ^?n^ I. 2; W^ I- 4; W8t4w IV. II ; ^[5^111.19; '^g II. 22 ; IfSfi- 
 ^JTO II- 22 ; ^prl^hl I- 21 ; '§rf^iT H- 8, and very many more. Of compounds he 
 has never enabled the reader to find the latter part; and such general terms as 
 ^d'lTT) ^tXTTj -ilHrf It! > 41 '^j<^ etc., which are as indispensable for a student as the 
 individual words themselves, are of course, also omitted. And all these remarks are 
 suggested by the edition of a text which comprises no more than 88 Sutras. It is, of 
 course, needless for me to add that the trouble of consulting or using a very valuable 
 commentary on these Sutras, the Phits&tra-vritti, does not enter into the plan of an 
 editor whose activity in editing grammatical Sanskrit texts only consists in putting the 
 printed Calcutta works into different type. 
 
 ■*^ See notes 197, 220, and Pdnini, VII. 3, 105. 
 
 ^■" Dr. Boehtlingk enumerates the terms which induced him to draw the inference 
 alluded to by Muller, that Sdntana belonged to the eastern grammarians ; and he adds 
 also the Sutras where they occur, viz. '^ra II. 4, 19, 2C ; "f^II. 3 ; fxj;^ I. 1 ; ^^•c(<t^ 
 
216 CHEONOL. EELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PHITSUTEAS. 
 
 The real reasons for this assumption, which I share in, must, in 
 my opinion, be sought for elsewhere ; and as they are connected 
 with the question of the chronological relation of the Phitsutras 
 to Panini, I will first explain why I speak of them after the 
 Pratisakhya works. 
 
 It is because they stand on the same linguistic ground as the 
 latter writings, and because it was safer to survey this ground in 
 the wider field of the Pratisakhya literature than in the narrow 
 precincts of the Sutras of Santana. This having been done, we 
 need now merely recall the results obtained. 
 
 We have seen that the Prati'sakhyas represent the mechanic 
 treatment of the language, unlike Panini's method, which is organic 
 and shows the growth and life of the language he spoke. The 
 same is the case in these Phitsutras. Whereas Panini endeavours 
 to explain the accent of words by connecting it with the proper- 
 ties of the word, — whereas he seeks for organic laws in the accents 
 of uncompounded or compounded words and, only reluctanctly, as 
 it were, abandons this path whenever he is unable to assign a 
 general reason for his rules, — the Phitsutras, like the Prati'sakhyas, 
 deal merely with the ready-made word,^*' and attach to it those 
 mechanical rules which bewilder and confuse, but must have been 
 well adapted for an intellectual condition fitted for admiring the 
 Pratisakhya works. They belong, in my opinion, like the Prati- 
 sakhyas, not to the flourishing times of Hindu antiquity, but to its 
 decadence. 
 
 II. 18 ; flj^ II. 6 ; fw^ H- 16 ; ^^H- 25. Amongst these, f*yicfi does not occur 
 in the text of the Sutras of Bhattoji, but is a various reading mentioned by him in 
 his commentary, which reports on this various reading that it is a term of the eastern 
 grammarians. The text of his Sutras has ^fTt^ instead of f^lf^. As to the other quo- 
 tations given by Dr. Boehtlingk, not one tells us that these terms are terms of the 
 eastern grammarians. There was, consequently, not a particle of evidence to draw 
 from them that inference which he so positively draws. It is a mere guess, the pro- 
 bable correctness of which is corroborated, but by such evidence as never occurred to 
 him. 
 
 ''*^ Phitsutra, I. 1 : ftR^ 5«rr ^3^TtT; • — Phitsutravritti : . . . . '4|V$c(d>4|H4^14(i|<{: 
 (comp. Pan. I. 2, 45) ftji^ | WTrfWfraTreT%RT (comp. Pan. I. 2. 46). — Compare 
 also the end of note 255, 
 
ANALOGY BETWEEN THE PHITSUTRAS AND THE PRATISAKHTAS. 217 
 
 In the second place, vre have seen that on the ground -which is 
 common to both, the Prati'sakhyas possess a far greater amount of 
 linguistic material than Panini does ; and we had to conclude that 
 Panini could on no account have ignored the knowledge they con- 
 veyed, had they existed before his time. Precisely the same 
 remark applies to the little treatise of Santana ; for, brief as it is, 
 it is richer in many respects than the analogous chapter which 
 Panini devoted to the same subject ; and it would be inconceivable 
 that Panini should bring forward his rules, so much more incom- 
 plete in substance than the Phitsutras, had they been the precursor 
 of his work. 
 
 But, thirdly, we were compelled to admit that, at least, one of 
 the Prati'sakhyas, that of Katyayana, was written with the direct 
 intention of completing and criticising Panini; and I may here 
 observe, that Professor "Weber has, with very good reasons, assigned 
 to this grammarian a place within the Eastern school. These 
 features, too, characterise the tract of Santana. 
 
 Some of his rules are delivered with the evident purpose of 
 criticising Panini, and we meet on one occasion with the remark of 
 the commentator that the eastern grammarians point out the dififer- 
 ence between a rule of Panini and one of Santana, when the con- 
 text in which this passage occurs leaves no doubt that they meant 
 a criticism on Panini. And from this remark alone I should con- 
 clude that Santana was one of their school, while, from all these 
 reasons combined, I draw the inference that he must have written 
 after Panini. 
 
 I will give some proof to substantiate this view, and to show, 
 moreover, that there are grammatical authorities in India who 
 expressly imply the view here taken of the posteriority of these 
 Sutras to Panini. 
 
 According to Panini's rule, VI. 1, 213, a word ihhya would 
 have the uddtta on the first syllable ; Bhattojidikshita, in his com- 
 ment on the Phitsutras, quotes this rule in order to show that 
 Santana gave his Sutra I. 5, with a view of statmg that Panini's. 
 
 28 
 
218 CHRONOL. EFXATION BETWEEN PANINI AND THE PHITSCTEAS. 
 
 rule would not apply to this word.^*^ He quotes the same rule of 
 Panini for a similar purpose when he comments on I. 18/*" for, 
 according to this rule, arya is not udatta on the first, but on the 
 last syllable ; and also in his comment on IV. 8, for, according to 
 this Sutra, the words tilya^ sikhya {martya\ dhdnya and Icanyd, are 
 not udatta on the first, but swarita on the last syllable.^*^ On the 
 rule I. 7, Bhattoji reports that, in the opinion of certain gram- 
 marians, Santana gave it in order to ^^kilV Panini's rule YI. 2, 2.^'^ 
 Santana's rule I. 23, Bhattoji says, contravenes Panini's rule VI. 
 I, IGT.^'** And it is the same grammarian who, when explaining 
 that saha, as a part of Santana's rule IV. 13, is udatta on the last 
 syllable, reports : " The eastern grammarians inform us that saha 
 in Panini's rule VI. 3, 78, is udatta on the first syllable;" and he 
 adds the advice: '■'■think on thaiP'^^^ But I find no evidence in 
 the arguments of Dr. Boehtlingk, as regards the relation of Santana 
 
 ™ Panini, VI. 1, 213: ^nft i^^! .— Phitsi'itra, I, 5: -erg^ Wtf^¥«I^ — 
 Bhattojid. : f^^^nif HI t^ I l^MTT ^Hft iTR T<i|T<3<lTi T'^HI^: • 
 
 ^* Pliitsiitra, I. 18: '^f^ *c( | mn^ | %(;.— Bliattojid. : *! M HTT'^nT^ffirfTr 
 (III. 13) I ^nft i»rR Tt^ ^^^% "ITTH ^"^^Ji; (where the word T^ sufficiently 
 indicates Bhattoji's view of the chronological relation between Santana and Panini. 
 The same rule is given by Katyayana in his Varttika to Panini, III. 1, 103). 
 
 ^' Phitsritra,IV.8 : fd»!J^nj^;<t<i|<j)4v=<M'h'*lll<N'«*< j'^i<l|m«d : .—Bhattojid. : 
 ^ttfi: ^TTci: I frl^ITSrf 'l^ %^ fW^W: I ^TTt iTR ^ '^ -—The Phitsutra- 
 \Titti reads this Sutra : f^^rf^J^'ITnUeliT WHiTn^" ° • 
 
 ^'^ Phitsutra, I. 7: f^8c|rt:i<,fr|Vit*MMl«HH— bhattojid. : 4Je|(M<,: I '^Rf- 
 
 ^M^M^H^fdMO (comp- Pan. VI. 2, 2) ^ ^TT^STfT X^^\ ■ 
 
 '^'^ Phitstitra, I. 23 : ^ 8 ■<*R 8 *Ft<?^lf% .—Bhattojid. : ^T^ ^^\-^\ ^TTtl. I #^ 
 Wf '^■?raT I Tl f^Wr^^Trr iref (comp. Pdn. VI. 1, 197). 
 
 ^^ PhitsAtra, IV. 14 (not 13) : l}.c(l<{ l»l |J H «r i : .—Bhattojid. : "Q^Jn^^nf'rfTI TTT- 
 
 «iM<*t I -qig \ M?M^ I ^^ I ^f I ^ H^fftf^r- ^ ' ^^ ^^ ^f^^ ^ 
 i;f?I (Pdn. VI. 3, 78) ■Jrax:% <^^U1=< W^^TtT ^ W^\ I rrf^^ei^.— The state- 
 ment of the Pranchas mentioned by Bhattojidilcshita, is that of Patanjali in his com- 
 ment on VI. 3, 78, V. 1, viz. : '4||^<^|Tir<tt4|c1<i "fifT^I^ ; and Kaiyyata in referring 
 to Phitsutra IV. 12, observes : ^Mlrtf W^^TtTT "t^ ^111^ ^I^i^ItC . But 
 this reference of Kaiyyata by no means admits of the conclusion tliat he looked upon 
 Panini's rule as more recent than this Phitsutra ; for this rule is not concerned with the 
 accent of ^f? ; it is Patanjali who alludes to it ; and Kaij'yata comments, in the words 
 alleged, on Patanjali, not on Panini. 
 
THE PHITSUTRAS POSTERIOE TO THE 6RAMMAE OF PANINI. 219 
 
 to the eastern grammarians, of his having followed the advice of 
 Bhattoj idikshita. 
 
 Of equal importance with these observations of Bhattoji, is a 
 passage in the notes of Nagojibhatta on Kaiyyata, when the latter 
 accompanies the gloss of Patanjali to Katyayana's Varttika 6, to 
 Panini YI. 1, 158, with his own remarks. For Nagojibhatta, after 
 having observed that a rule of Panini would contain a fault when 
 compared with the standard of the Phitsutras, pointedly winds up 
 with the following words: "But, on the other hand, these Phit- 
 sutras, when considered in reference to Panini, are as if they were 
 made to-day P^^^ 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that the best Hindu grammarians, too, 
 
 "^ Varttika 6 (of the Calc. ed.) to VI. 1, 158 : TraffrnTBRnTt: ^T^ ^TR^IiTTIWr- 
 
 ^jrflrf^: .—Patanjali : ua1nH«t«r<ri: *5i<^ ^mohi!»i«!m«^i»r%^: ^iTfi; i "Rw- 
 
 ^<Ith Trat?i: ^^ ^ri; i flR ^'i. i tCW'T msTinT i «*«?=n*i i tfTiO*»*l i 
 f^3rf7T^W fMrt(*<*^0 'rf^^rOi I %^ twfTT^^ xn^M'31^ (I- 4, 2) I ^r xn:: 
 
 varttika 7 (of the Calc. ed.) : fc(Mrd^Vn[rM(il^4d< T^^ ^r*l«(|*<ir«^tj f«|t=llKU!H,- 
 —Patanjali : t%Trf?l^VT<ITWr^T T^ ^c^hMl'tJI^ilPad: ■<*<l'*li: I M-^«*l*4<Td I 
 iftTTRlTI I ^^*\^ I ^^ ^: I TTlrfTr^Tt «^ ^Ttl^ Hf^^rfH 1 ITSffTT^ 
 ■HJ^ra^TTTR' I <*<5 «*!*{, I dpri 0*<*tr~'^*'yy*ta) on the preceding passages : 
 
 ■JrarrWHT cJP* <?<=y^^ — Nagojlbhatta: •^^ ^fJIW^ «?=(T=l«*ll«Ji- 
 
 ■(4|^^r«iifd (PhitsAtra, IV. 10) «*rH<^<lTl| 1 frrfrrft: Si^'Tl'li ^ ^- 
 
 ^^firRT (Phitstitra, II. 21) wwt^Trr: I ftt^^^O ^ ^^ TJi^ tf%- 
 
 'U|7{|^. — The Phitstitra II. 21, referred to by Nagojlbhatta, is read differently in Bhattoji's 
 text from that of the Vritti. I subjoin both readings with their commentary, in order 
 to illustrate at the same time the nature of the latter commentary as compared with that 
 of Bhattoji. The latter reads <|[[ch<f|<(| ^ ^gjUll^T^, and comments : TTq ^TErffTrf 
 ^TTcl. I ^^« I ffrfrrf^: •— The Phitstitravritti reads ^J^^^j ^ 'siyy^^lUHH' 
 and comments 5|f^ ^ IJ^f^RTf^f "sIMN^ l^t^ ^^S^ ^T^^^TTfT 
 
 firfW f^ I ^i^: I tTTfrrf^: I <sl3lO<i« •— I ™»y I""*® ^^^^ * passage from 
 Sdyaija's Commentary on ^'ig^eda I. 1, 1, in order to obviate a misunderstanding of it. 
 
220 CHRONOLOGICAL EBLATION BETWEEN PANINI AND TASKA. 
 
 looked upon these Sutras not only as not anterior to Panini, but as 
 quite recent, when compared with his work. 
 
 On Ydska^ Professor Miiller expresses himself thus : ^'^ 
 " There are some discussions in the beginning of the Nirukta 
 which are of the highest interest with regard to etymology. 
 While in Greece the notions of one of her greatest thinkers, as 
 expressed in the Cratylus, represent the very infancy of etymo- 
 logical science, the Brahmans of India had treated some of the 
 vital problems of etymology with the utmost sobriety. In the 
 Pratisakhya of Katyayana we find, besides the philosophical divi- 
 sion of speech into nouns, verbs, prepositions, and particles, 
 another division of a purely grammatical nature and expressed in 
 the most strictly technical language. ' Verbs with their conjuga- 
 tional terminations ; Nouns, derived from verbs by means of Krit- 
 suffixes ; Nouns, derived from nouns by means of taddhita-suffixes, 
 and four kinds of compounds, — these constitute language' [Vajas. 
 Prat. I. 27.] 
 
 "In the Nirukta this division is no longer considered sufii- 
 cient. A new problem has been started, one of the most impor- 
 tant problems in the philosophy of language, whether all nouns 
 are derived from verbs ? No one would deny that certain nouns, 
 or the majority of nouns, were derived from verbs. The early 
 grammarians of India were fully agreed that Icartri, a doer, was 
 derived from kri, to do ; pdchaJca, a cook, from pack, to cook. But 
 
 With regard to the accent of the word -4|(m he writes : J||Ji|4:^ J{f{ <S[M^'^^I' 
 WS^rrrfrnr^^imfrqf^ i^ ^3^TtT ^[aRft^TrrWR:- These words need not 
 mean that Gargya, the predecessor of Panini, deducts from Phitsdtra I. 1, the accent 
 of '^rf^ ) Ijut they may — and, I conclude, do — mean : " since, according to the opinion 
 of Gargya, agni is an indivisible base {i.e. a base which must not be analysed ; compare 
 note 248), its accent is the uddtta on the last syllable, agreeably to Phitslitra I. 1. — The 
 last reference, therefore, would belong to Sayana, not to Gdrgya ; and the only inference 
 we might be allowed to draw from the words of S4yana would be, that Gargya looked 
 upon agni as an Unnddi-formation (compare p. 171), and, perhaps — but not necessarily, — 
 that already in his time there existed a rule on accentuation similar in purport to that 
 of the PhitsAtra alleged. It is not admissible, therefore, to adduce this passage in 
 proof that, in Sayana's opinion, the Phitstitras were known to Gdrgya. 
 ^^ Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 163. 
 
KATYATANA AND THE DISCUSSION OF THE NAIEUKTAS, ETC. 221 
 
 did the same apply to all words ? Sakatayana, an ancient gram- 
 marian and philosopher, answered the question boldly in the 
 affirmative, and he became the founder of a large school, called 
 the Nairuktas (or Etymologists), who made the verbal origin of 
 all words the leading principle of all their researches.''^" 
 
 It is sufficiently clear from the preceding words that Professor 
 Miiller considers Yaska as more recent than Katyayana, and since 
 he himself admits (see above p. 1 93) '' that there is nothing in the 
 style of the Pratisakhya composed by Katyayana that could be used 
 as a tenable argument why Katyayana, the author of thePrati'sakhya, 
 should not be the same as Katyayana, the contemporary and critic 
 of Panini," he must also consider the author of the Mrukta as 
 subsequent to Panini. 
 
 To refute his view on the relative position of Katyayana and 
 Taska, we need now merely point to the facts with which we are 
 already familiar. Miiller's reason for Taska's posteriority to Katya- 
 yana is founded, as we see, on the assumption that the problem of 
 the derivability or non-derivability of all nouns from verbs had not 
 yet been proposed in the time of Katyayana. But whence does 
 he know this? The Pratisakhya of Katyayana is no sufficient 
 testimony for establishing this theory. When Katyayana there 
 says that nouns are either nouns derived from verbs, or nouns 
 derived from nouns, — either krit or taddhita derivatives,— he has 
 already said too much in a work of this kind, which has nothing to 
 do with the origin of words, and which alludes to this and other 
 matter, foreign to a Pratisakhya itself, only because, and in so far 
 as, it concerns its other purpose, viz. that of criticizing Panini. 
 Whether or not therefore it dealt with a problem such as that of 
 which Miiller is speaking, is merely a matter of chance. 
 
 But this problem itself, as we have seen, is epitomized in the 
 term unnddi. A grammarian who uses this term shows at the 
 same time that he is cognizant of that division between the old 
 grammarians which Taska describes. Por whichever side he 
 
 ^'' In the continuation of tliis passage Professor Miiller gives the statement similar 
 to that which is contained above, on page 171. 
 
222 CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND YASKA. 
 
 espouse, he lias expressed by the term unnddi, that there are krit- 
 derivatives which are of an exceptional kind and which are looked 
 upon by some as being, strictly speaking, no derivatives at all. 
 Now, I have quoted several instances which prove that Katyayana 
 dealt with the question of Unnadi words. Hence he was aware of 
 that problem discussed in theNirukta; it was not " a new problem" 
 to him ; and all the inferences that may or may not be built on 
 its absence in the Yajasaneyi-Pratisakhya become iavalidated at 
 once. 
 
 But the knowledge possessed by Panini, of this problem itself 
 would, of course, not prove anything as to his priority or pos- 
 teriority to Taska, who speaks of it. It leaves this question just 
 where we find it, and we must seek for other evidence to settle it. 
 
 Such, I hold, is afforded by the fact that Panini knows the 
 name of Yaska, for he teaches the formation of this word and 
 heads a Gana with it.^'^ And as we know at present of but one 
 real Taska in the whole ancient literature, a doubt as to the 
 identity of the author of the Nirukta and the family chief adduced 
 by Panini, would have first to be supported with plausible argu- 
 ments before it could be assented to. 
 
 A second and equally strong reason is, in my belief, afforded 
 by the test I have established above, on the ground of the gram- 
 matical sanjnds which occur in Panini's work. 
 
 Amongst these terms there is one especially which allows us 
 to judge of the relative position of Yaska and Panini, viz., the 
 term upasarga, prefix or preposition. Panini employs it in many 
 Sutras ; he does not define it ; it must consequently have been in 
 use before he wrote. Yaska, however, enters fully into the notion 
 expressed by it, as we may conclude from the following words of 
 hisNirukta:-^^^ 
 
 ''' panini, II. 4, 63 : ^Sn^fflf^ •^. 
 
 ^'^ Nirukta, I. 3 (according to the edition of Professor Roth) : wf f'T^^ ^TTOlh 
 
TASKA ON THE PREPOSITIONS. 223 
 
 " Sakatayana says that ' the prepositions when detached (from 
 noun or verb) do not distinctly express a sense ; ' but Gargya 
 maintains that ' they illustrate the action which is the sense ex- 
 pressed by a noun or verb (in modifying it) ; and that their sense 
 is various (even wben they are detached from a noun or verb).' 
 Now they express (even in their isolated condition) that sense 
 
 f^rf^fX; . — Of the commentary of Durga on this passage I subjoin here only those pas- 
 sages which are required for a justification of my translation, and of the instances added to 
 the text of Ydska (MS. E.I.H., 206) : ^TT^TT"* I rjV}g<{^ ^'^ VKU I l ^: I TTTTWrrnflT^ 
 
 ^ i^: ^4 ri%^ t%^^ ejf^^M***]'*) ^^rnrf'ff I ^ T[^ iTTrwrfnflT^^f^^ 
 «<i*i^^: I i}.^>*t #^ HT^it TrrmirnTf^'f^ ^»i<*i'4 ^T^rf^rfrr?: ii — ii 
 
 *n<«jR<*<t!!H, II • • - II W Itil^Hl"^ I fl^rar I W TT^rlTf^ I ^frf^TfrT TRl^ 
 II IT iHrtid*^ WlfdHlwi*^ I «iT<lf=l5idl^M«^^d^'^l'*ti^t^ irrf7I^t«T- 
 
 ww^: I JTiTi: I qTTTri: II wtanf^T^fsmTf I ^^rf^Rrr: II Tiffl%T#Tr^: tttRi- 
 
 ^I^RTrnf I TTfTRTT TffT II 'Wfri ^ <5ldl=lf»T^f^HI«f ^"^ I "^rf^^iR: I ^WW 
 
 Tf^ II t^fx^tnft: Trr fd«8ri*MH. i f^n5^: i f^RT Tf^ ii ^Wi f^rf^nrfi- 
 "^Mt I f^']^T(«=(']^rfw II ^t*i4i*i«* Tj;^ K^: Tnf^^t«RTf I ^^^rnftfri ii 
 ^f^T^^Vm^^Tr^TTf I *i'j^itftf^ II ^M5ld<ii TrrRi^t^rTTfg: i ^Jj^ictiM- 
 «j^id1f7r II ^rf^frf 4jii^!M)m<,*i'R«TTf i ^^<^Mir%frr ^fijTR; i 4i^j|^>ft- 
 3itn?TT^ri; II ^Mlfd ^^r^JTTf I ^^ ^ ^TTft. I w^ sf^ ^nfi: II ^^^- 
 w{^, I ^sq^nroif^r^sn^ i ^M<jii*<d ii ^Orfi ^ffr^rrwTrf i Trfr^nT^mVfTi ii 
 ^iTiiVsfqftTTR^nf I ^^ TT I ^rfVfTistrr I'^rfttttfrrfrf^ I "^rr^ i 'n^n^gnrr- 
 ^^ ^^wfr^trraiT 'TwhpiTi: I -^R 'H^: wftr^^ffr^triwr *R5fftf?T i 
 
224 CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND YASKA. 
 
 wHch inheres in them ; it is this sense which modifies the sense of 
 a noun or verb. The preposition a expresses the sense of limit 
 (e.g. wp to the mountain) ; fra and fara express the reverse of a 
 {e.g. gone forth or away) ; alU.^ the sense of towards {e.g. gone 
 towards — in a friendly sense) ; prati, the reverse of alhi {e.g. gone 
 against) ; ati and su, excellence {e.g. having much wealth, an ex- 
 cellent Brahmana) ; nir and dur, the reverse of these two {e.g. having 
 no wealth, a 5at/ Brahmana) ; ni and ava, downwardness {e.g. he takes 
 down) ; ud^ the reverse of these two {e.g. he takes up) ; sam^ junction 
 {e.g. he takes together) ; vi and apa^ the reverse of sam {e.g. he takes 
 away) ; anu, similarity or being after {e.g. having a similar appear- 
 ance, he goes after); api, co-existence {e.g. let it be a drop of 
 butter, a drop of honey) ;^'"' upa, excess {e.g. he is bom again); 
 pari, surrounding {e.g. he puts round) ; adhi, being above and 
 superiority {e.g. he stands over, a supreme lord). In this manner 
 they express various senses, and these have to be considered." 
 
 This passage records, as we see, besides the definition of Yaska, 
 the opinions of Sakatayana and of Gargya ; it is silent on Panini. 
 Yet how much more complete and scientific is his treatment of the 
 prepositions ! Durga, the commentator of Yaska, feels this defect 
 in Yaska, for at the end of his gloss he says : " upasargas can 
 only be joined to a verb, not to a noun; it is therefore only 
 through the mediation of the former that they can ascend also to 
 the latter" (viz. in so far as nouns are derived from verbal roots). 
 
 Panini teaches that the first and general category to which 
 prepositions belong, is that of nipdtas or particles : he then con- 
 timies, that they are upasargas when they are joined to " verbal 
 action " {i.e. to a verb) ; gatis, if the verbal roots to which they are 
 attached become developed into a noun ; and that they are Jcarma- 
 pravachaniyas if they are detached and govern a noun.^^^ Of such 
 
 '™ It seems to me doubtful whether tltl<l implies the sense which is illustrated by 
 the instance of Durga ; without his words, which clearly refer to Patanjali's comment on 
 Panini, I. 4, 96, 1 should have rendered ^^T by union, and thought of an instance like 
 
 ^'' Panini, I. 4, 58 : TTT^: ; 59 : ^gTRT^: |l«><<l<n^ ; 60 : ?rf?I^ ; 83 : gf^^- 
 
SAKYAMUNI NOT MENTIONED BY PANINI. 225 
 
 a distinction there is no trace in the Nirukta, which stops, as we 
 see, at the speculations of Sakatayana and Gargya, both predeces- 
 sors of Panini, Nor can the meanings which Taska assigns to the 
 prepositions, so far as completeness is concerned, be compared to 
 those we meet with in the rules of Panini. Abhi^ for. instance, has 
 with him not only the sense mentioned by Yaska, but that of 
 "towards, by (severally), with regard to;" ati, that of "excellence 
 and transgression ;" apa, that of " exception ;" anu, that of " in con- 
 sequence of, connected with, less than, towards, by (severally), with 
 regard to, to the share of;" prati, the sense of "towards, by 
 (severally), with regard to, to the share of, instead of, in return 
 oi;^' pari, the sense of prati, except in the two last meanings, and 
 that of an " expletive;" adhi, that of " superiority and of an ex- 
 pletive." ''' 
 
 It seems impossible, therefore, to assume that Yaska could 
 have known the classes of upasarga as defined by Panini, and 
 their meanings as enumerated by him when he wrote the words 
 before quoted. But not knowing the grammar of Panini, is, in the 
 case of Yaska, tantamount to having preceded it. 
 
 Though Yaska be older than Panini, and Panini older than 
 Katyayana, there still remains the mystery as to the era of Panini. 
 No work of the ancient literature, within my knowledge, gives us 
 the means of penetrating it. But as the remotest date of Hindu 
 antiquity, which may be called a real date, is that of Buddhah 
 death, it must be of interest to know whether Panini is likely to 
 have lived before or after this event. 
 
 Not only is the name of SdJcyamuni, or Sakya, never adverted 
 to in the Sutras of Panini,'*^' but there is another fact connected 
 with this name which is still more remarkable. 
 
 ^^ Compare I. 4, 84—97. 
 
 ^ The formation IJT^ occurs in three Ganas ; as a derivative from '^f^ with ^^aT 
 in the Gana to IV. 1, 105 ; mth S^ to IV. 3, 92, but there it becomes doubtful, through 
 the difference in the readings of the MSS. ; and as a derivation from ^('^i with tQT in 
 the Gana to IV. 1, 151. 
 
226 CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN PANINI AND BUDDHA. 
 
 The great schism which divided ancient India into two hostile 
 creeds, centres in the notion which each entertained of the nature 
 of eternal bliss. The Brahmanic Hindus hope that their soul will 
 ultimately become united with the universal spirit ; which, in the 
 language of the TJpanishads, is the neuter Brahman ; and, in that of 
 the sects, the supreme deity, who takes the place of this philosophi- 
 cal and impersonal god. And however indefinite this god Brah- 
 man may be, it is nevertheless, to the mind of the Brahmanic 
 Hindu, an entity. The final salvation of a Buddhist is entire non- 
 entitij. This difi'erence between the goal of both created that deep 
 and irreconcileable antagonism which allowed of none of the com- 
 promise which was possible between all the shades and degrees of 
 the Brahmanic faith, from the most enlightened to the most 
 degenerate. The various expressions for eternal bliss in the Brah- 
 manic creed, like apavarga^ moksha^ mukti, nih'sreyasa, all mean 
 either "liberation from this earthly career'' or the "absolute 
 good;" they therefore imply a condition of hope. The absolute 
 end of a Buddhist is without hope ; it is nirvana or extinction. 
 This word means literally "bloion out;^' but there is this differ- 
 ence, if I am not mistaken, between its use in the Brahmanic and 
 in the Buddhistic literature, — that, in the former, it is employed, 
 like other past participles, in any of the three genders, whereas in 
 the latter it occurs only in the neuter gender, and there, too, only 
 in the sense of an abstract noun, in that of extinction, i.e., absolute 
 annihilation of the soul. I have no instance at my command in which 
 nirvana, when used in the classical literature, implies any other 
 sense than the sense " blown out,^' or a sense immediately con- 
 nected with it. Thus Patanjali, when illustrating the use of this 
 past participle, gives the instances: "the fire is blown out by the 
 wind, the lamp is blown out by the wind ; " and Kaiyyata who, on 
 the same occasion, observes that a phrase, " the wind has ceased to 
 blow," would not be expressed by ^'■nirvana vatah, but by nirvato 
 vatah," corroborates the instances of Patanjali with one of his 
 own : " blowing out (has been effected) by the wind." But 
 Panini, who teaches the formation of this participle in rule YIII. 
 2, 50, which has indirectly called forth all these instances, says : 
 
NIRVANA.— PANINI ANTERIOR TO BUDDHA. 227 
 
 " (the past participle of va with prefix nir is) nirvana (if the word 
 means) '■free from wind,'' (or, 'not blowing, as wind')."^^* 
 
 This is the natural interpretation of Panini's rule. Katyayana, 
 it is true, gives a Yarttika which corrects the word av'ate into avatd- 
 hhidhane " (if it have) not the sense of wind (or of blowing) ;" yet 
 it is very remarkable that Patanjali, in commenting on this Yarttika, 
 does not interpret its words in his usual manner, but merely adds 
 to them the instances I have just named ; it is remarkable, too, 
 that he introduces them with the observation : " (this Yarttika is 
 given in order to show) that (nirvana) is also or is emphatically 
 used in the following instances." Still he has no instance what- 
 ever for the sense stated by Panini, and his word " ofeo" or " em- 
 phatically" does not appear to be justified by the criticism of 
 Katyayana, which simply corrects the word avate into avdtdbhi- 
 dhdne without any additional remark. 
 
 In short, my opinion on this Yarttika is analogous to that 
 which I have expressed in previous instances. The sense of 
 nirmna, " free from wind (or not blowing)," had become obsolete 
 in the time of Katyayana, who merely knew that sense of it which 
 found its ulterior and special application in the nirvana of the 
 Buddhistic faith. But since there is no logical link between this 
 latter word and the nirvana, "wind-still," of Panini; and since it 
 is not probable that he would have passed over in silence that 
 sense of the word which finally became its only sense, I hold that 
 this sense did not yet exist in his time ; in other words, that his 
 silence affords a strong probability of his having preceded the 
 origin of the Buddhistic creed. 
 
 The task I had proposed to myself would now seem to have 
 
 ^"^ VIII. 2, 50: tMwt «n^.— Katyayana: ^^t^TrTTf^TVin^ —Patanjali : ■^I^- 
 Wrf'lVT'T ^[frf «lrtl<^H. (these words have been mistaken for the Varttika itself, in 
 the Calcutta edition) | ^[frf^ ^I^ ^^TTtl^ I t'T^TTO^ ^f^T^ I f'T^'Ri: TT^Wt 
 ^Tt^— Kaiyyata: -JlcUHlfi WT^ ^ I ^ f^^Tcft ^Trl X^B^ 1^1^^^ 
 
228 DATE OF THE MAHABHXSHYA. 
 
 reached its natural close for the present ; yet if, after this brief and 
 imperfect attempt to do justice to one of the most difficult ques- 
 tions of Sanskrit literature, I were now to take leave of Panini, 
 even temporarily, without devoting a special word to Patanjali, I 
 should fail in gratitude to this great teacher, who has supplied us 
 with nearly all the materials for this discussion and its results. 
 
 "At what time," says Professor Miiller,^^' "the Mahabhashya 
 was first composed, it is impossible to say. Patanjali, the author of 
 the Great Commentary, is sometimes identified with Pingala ; and 
 on this view, as Pingala is called the younger brother, or^at least 
 the descendant of Panini, it might be supposed that the original 
 composition of the Mahabhashya belonged to the third century. 
 But the identity of Pingala and Patanjali is far from probable, and 
 it would be rash to use it as a foundation for other calculations." 
 
 This is the only date, the fixing of which is called " impossibles'^ 
 in Midler's Ancient Sanskrit Literature ; and as it has hitherto been 
 my fate to diflfer from this work in all its chronological views, I seem 
 merely to follow a predestined necessity in looking upon the date of 
 Patanjali as the only one which I should venture to determine 
 with anything like certainty. 
 
 I do so, because Patanjali, as if foreseeing the conjectural date 
 which some future Pandit would attach to his life, or the doubt 
 that might lift him out of all historical reach, once took the oppor- 
 tunity of stating a period before which we must not imagine him 
 to have lived, while on another occasion he mentions the time 
 when he actually did live. 
 
 "If a thing," says Panini, " serves for a livelihood, but is not 
 for sale " (it has not the affix; ka). This rule Patanjali illustrates 
 with the words " Siva, Skanda, Visakha," meaning the idols that 
 represent these divinities and at the same time give a living to the 
 men who possess them, — while they are not for sale. And, 
 "why?" he a,sks. "The Mauryas wanted gold, and therefore 
 established religious festivities. Good ; (Panini's rule) may apply 
 to such (idols, as they sold) ; but as to idols which are hawked 
 
 "^ Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 244. 
 
PATANJALI ON THE MAURYAS. 229 
 
 a:bout (by common people) for the sake of such worship as brings 
 an immediate profit, their names will have the affix ^«." ^"^ 
 
 Whether or not this interesting bit of history was given by 
 Patanjali ironically, to show that even affixes are the obedient 
 servants of kings, and must vanish before the idols which they sell, 
 because they do not take the money at the same time that the bar- 
 gain is made — as poor people do, — I know not. But, at all events, 
 he tells us distinctly by these words that he did not live before the 
 first king of the Maurya dynasty who was Chandragupta, and who 
 lived 315 b.c. And I believe, too, if we are to give a natural inter- 
 pretation to his words, that he tells us, on the contrary, that he 
 lived after the last king of this dynasty, or in other words later 
 than 180 before Christ. But he has even been good enough to 
 relieve us from a possibility of this doubt when commenting on 
 another rule of Panini, or rather on a criticism attached to it by 
 Katyayana. 
 
 In Sutra III. 2, 111, Panini teaches that the imperfect must 
 be used, when the speaker relates a past fact belonging to a time 
 which precedes the present day. Katyayana improves on this rule 
 by observing that it is used, too, when the fact related is out of 
 sight, notorious, but could be seen by the person who uses the verb. 
 And Patanjali again appends to this Varttika the following instances 
 and remark: " J%e Yavana besieged (imperfect) Ayodhyd ; the 
 
 "^ V. 3, 99 : wtfW^ 'q'TTT^-— Patanjali : W:m Ts^^ f!^ T ■RnjrfW I 
 'K^t t. fTig T ^TTfi: I ^^%rn: #jrfW^5T^: l rrrf *rf%Wfrr— Kaiyyata : ^JT^^- 
 
 ftr^wf^^wNfhr ^.— Nagojibhatta: j^ f%%^ T!i7nTTttr^7^^#?:#r: 
 
 ^f^di: (MS. 351: -^t^; t^wtg TTfiWTftffq^Tlio'' «i<^-; MS. 1209: jft^: f^- 
 
 ■^ ^^ filing tw»i^^: ^wt ^nfs^^snTT^ Traj^#^m^: i -tpi 
 
230 PATANJALI ON THE YAVANAS AND MADHYAMIKAS. 
 
 Yavana besieged (imperfect) the Madhyamikas. Why does Kdtya- 
 yana say, '■out of sight V (because in such an instance as) 'the 
 sun rose ' (the verb must be in the aorist). Why ' notorious ? ' 
 (because in such an instance as) ' Devadatta made a mat ' (the 
 verb must be in the preterit). Why does he say : ' hut when 
 the fact could he seen hy the person who uses the verl ? ' (because in 
 such an instance as) ' According to a legend Yasudeva killed 
 Kansa ' (the verb must likewise be in the preterit).^®' 
 
 Hence he plainly informs us, and this is acknowledged also by 
 Nagojibhatta, that he lived at the time — though he was not on 
 the spot — when " the Yavana besieged Ayodhya^'' and at the time 
 when " the Yavana besieged the MddhyamiliasP For the very 
 contrast which he marks between these and the other instances 
 proves that he intended practically to impress his contemporaries 
 with a proper use of the imperfect tense. 
 
 Now the Madhyamikas are the well-known Buddhistic sect 
 which was founded by Nagarjuna?^'^ But here, it would seem, 
 
 -" III. 2, 111: -^R^m^ ^.— Kdty4yana: tT^tt ^ ^I'^R-SllT} TRTtf- 
 ^'^Tf^^ .— Patanjali : H^^ ^ 'sH'^lR-SjT^ "ff^tWf^'^Tf^^ ^ =lrh<4|: I 
 
 TT^Tf^: I 'sTlchR-sKd Tfir Ri*<*§*i I '^^iTT ^ ^^ti: II Trq^tf^- 
 
 •»RM*t Tf^ ftl*i4H, I ^t^n^ ^ f^^ ^T^^:.— Kaiyyata: TH^ ^ffl I 
 
 — N4gojibhal;ta on these instances of Patanjali : J^T^ ^^1*1 (TT t^i'^ I ^ ^Vl' fW <l(f |- 
 
 (^)'ffr ^Y^n^" — That these instances concern the moment at which Patanjali wrote 
 them, is therefore certain, beyond all doubt. But we obtain at the same time an insight 
 into the critical condition of the later commentaries on P4nini, when we find, for instance, 
 that the Kds'ika copies these instances, but without saying that they belong to Patanjali. 
 The same is the case in the present edition of Pdnini. On account of the importance 
 of this passage of the Mahabhashya, I will remind the reader that it is contained in the 
 MS. E.I.H. No, 330, the only one I could consult. The two MSS. of the Kasikd in the 
 library of the E.I.H. have instead of TTTWf'T^iT't.. a word ?rSrffl'o|iJl^ ; but since 
 the latter is not only meaningless, but grammatically wrong, there can be no doubt 
 that the reading of the MS. 330 is the only correct one. 
 
 ""' See Burnours Introduction k I'histoire du Buddhism Indien, vol. I., p. 359 : 
 Lassen's Indische Alterthumskunde, vol. II. p. 1163 and the quotations there. 
 
MtfLLER'S VIEW OF THE DATE OF BUDDHA'S DEATH. 231 
 
 that at this early stage we are already at a chronological stand- 
 still. For the Northern Buddhists say that Nagarjuna lived 400, 
 and the Southern Buddhists that he lived 500, years after Buddha's 
 death. And again, while we believed that the researches of that 
 admirable work of Professor Lassen had finally settled this latter 
 date, and " for a last time," — while we believed, in other words 
 that it was 5-13 before Christ, Professor Miiller seizes and shakes 
 it once more and makes Buddha die 477 before Christ. "Were I 
 to agree with the opinion which he has elsewhere expressed, ^^' 
 that " in the history of Indian literature, dates are mostly so 
 precarious, that a confirmation, even within a century or two, is 
 not to be despised," I should be out of all my difficulties. For 
 since the difference stated as regards the life of Nagarjuna would 
 not amount to more than 166 years, it would fall within the 
 alloted space. But I am" not so easily satisfied. Dates in Sanskrit 
 literature, as anywhere else, are either no dates at all — and then 
 they are not so much as precarious — or they are dates, and then 
 we must look closely at them. 
 
 The doubts which Prof. Miiller has expressed in reference to the 
 assumed date of Buddha's death, viz., 543 B.C., are by no means mere 
 vague and personal doubts. On the contrary, they are embodied 
 in an elaborate discussion, which not only proves a conscientious 
 research, but is extremely valuable on account of the opportunity it 
 gives of surveying the real difficulties of the question, and of form- 
 ing one's own opinion, with greater safety and ease : and, whether 
 dissenting from him or not, one is happy to deal with his arguments. 
 
 My objection to them may be summed up in the commencing 
 and the closing words of his own investigation. 
 
 " It has been usual,'' he says in his Ancient Sanskrit Literature 
 (p. 264), " to prefer the chronology of Ceylon, which places 
 Buddha's death in 543 B.C. But the principal argument in favoi\r 
 of this date is extremely weak. It is said that the fact of the 
 Ceylonese era being used as an era for practical purposes speaks in 
 favour of its correctness. This may be true with regard to the 
 
 '"^ Ancient Sanskrit Liturature, p. 243. 
 
232 MULLER'S VIEW OF THE DATE OF BUDDHA'S DEATH. 
 
 times after the reign of Asoka. In historical times, any era, how- 
 ever fabulous its beginning, will be practically useful ; but no con- 
 clusion can be drawn from this, its later use, as to the correctness 
 of its beginning. As a conventional era, that of Ceylon may be 
 retained, but until new evidence can be brought forward to sub- 
 stantiate the authenticity of the early history of Buddhism, as told 
 by the Ceylonese priests, it would be rash to use the dates of the 
 Southern Buddhists as a corrective standard for those of the 
 Northern Buddhists or of the Brahmans." 
 
 And, towards the close of his inquiry, he expresses himself 
 thus (p. 298): — "At the time of A'soka's inauguration, 218 years 
 had elapsed since the conventional date of the death of Buddha. 
 Hence if we translate the language of Buddhist chronology into 
 that of Greek chronology, Buddha was really supposed to have died 
 477 B.C. and not 543 b.c. Again, at the" time of Chandragupta's 
 accession, 162 years were believed to have elapsed since the con- 
 ventional date of Buddha's death. Hence Buddha was supposed to 
 have died 315 -I- 162 = 477 B.C." 
 
 In quoting these two passages, I show at once that Professor 
 Miiller attaches no faith to the tradition which concerns the date 
 of Buddha's death, but that he attaches faith to that which 
 places Asoka 218, and Chandragupta 162, years after that event. 
 But if tradition is to be believed in one portion of the history con- 
 nected with the rise and progress of the Buddhist faith, why not 
 in another, and in all? The arguments which are good for the 
 one case will equally apply to the other ; and if tradition be wrong 
 in fixing Buddha's death at 543 b.c, we must also reject it when 
 giving the dates 162 and 218, and the sum total will then have no 
 quantities out of which it can be produced. And this objection 
 would seem to derive additional force from the very words of Pro- 
 fessor Miiller just quoted ; for he says himself that the argument 
 in favour of the date 543 b.c, so far as it is founded on the prac- 
 tical use made of this date, " may be true with regard to the times 
 after the reign of A'soka." But 218 after Buddha's death, is the 
 date of A'soka himself, and 162 that of Chandragupta, who pre- 
 ceded that king. Both, consequently, would, in Professor Midler's 
 
DATE OF THE MAHA'BHA'SHYA. 233 
 
 opinion, deserve the same amount of belief as the date of Buddha's 
 death itself. 
 
 The grounds on which Professor Miiller dififers from Professor 
 Lassen have been fully discussed by him, as already observed ; but 
 as the essentials of this discussion lie in a nutshell, they admit of 
 being here stated in reference to the question which actually 
 concerns us. 
 
 Both scholars assume — and so long as Greek chronology de- 
 serves any credit at all, they do so, I hold, without the possibility 
 of a contradiction — that Chandragupta, who is Sandrocottus, 
 reigned 315 b.o. Buddhistic tradition, however, says that he lived 
 162 years after Buddha's death, which means that if this event 
 took place 543 B.C., he reigned 381 B.C. But since 315 must be 
 right, and 381 must be wrong, either Buddha's death occurred 
 477 B.C., or Chandragupta lived 66 years later than Hindu tradi- 
 tions allows him to live, viz., 228 years after 543 B.C. Lassen 
 decides in favour of the latter alternative, no doubt, by saying to 
 himself that since there is an error of 66 years, it was more likely 
 committed by tradition in remembering the duration of the reign 
 of kings who preceded Chandragupta, than in recording an event 
 that was engrossing the national mind, and much more important 
 to the national feeling and interest than an exact chronicle of 
 by-gone, and some of them insignificant, kings. Miiller prefers 
 the precise tradition of 162 years, and therefore arrives at 477 B.C. 
 as the date of Buddha's death. 
 
 Let us return, after this statement, to the events which 
 Patanjali tells us occurred in his time, and confront them with the 
 opinions of the two scholars named. 
 
 If Nagarjuna lived 400 years after Buddha's death, his date, 
 according to Professor Lassen's conclusions, would be 143, — or, if 
 he lived 500 years after this event, 43 years B.C. Again, his date, 
 according to Professor Miiller's conclusions, would be 77 B.C., or 
 23 after Christ. But I must mention, too, that Professor Lassen, 
 on the ground occupied by him, supposes a further mistake of 66 
 years in the tradition which places Ndgarjuna 500 years after 
 Buddha's death, and that he thus also advocates the date of the 
 
 30 
 
234 PATANJALI WROTE BETWEEN 140 AND 120 B.C. 
 
 founder of the Madhyamikas as 23 years after Christ."" ISTow, 
 since the sect which was founded by Nagarjuna existed not 
 only simixltaneously with, but after, him, that event which was 
 contemporaneous with Patanjali and the Madhyamikas, " the siege 
 of Ayodhyd ly the Favana^' must have occurred within or below the 
 circle of these dates. The latter alternative, however, is again 
 checked by the date of Abhimanyu, who reigned about 60 years 
 after Christ ; for we know from the chronicle of Kashmir that he 
 introduced into his country the Commentary of Patanjali, which 
 must consequently have been in existence during his reign. 
 
 In other words, the extreme points within which this historical 
 event must have fallen, are the years 143 before, and 60 after 
 Christ ; and as in the time of Abhimanyu the Great Commentary 
 had already suffered much, according to the report of Eajatarangini, 
 it is necessary to limit even the latter date by, at least, several 
 years. 
 
 Yet the word '' Yavana^^ carries with it another corrective of 
 this uncertainty. According to the researches of Professor Lassen 
 it is impossible to doubt that within this period, viz., between 143 
 before and 60 after Christ, this word Yavana can only apply to 
 the Grseco-Indian kings, nine of whom reigned from 160 to 85 
 B.C."' And if we examine the exploits of these kings, we find that 
 there is but one of whom it can be assumed that he, iu his con- 
 quests of Indian territory, came as far as Ayodhya. It is Menandros, 
 of whom so early a writer as Strabo reports that he extended his 
 conquests as far as the Jumna river, and of whom one coin has 
 actually been found at Mathura. He reigned, according to Las- 
 sen's researches, more than twenty years, from about 144 B.C. ^" 
 
 If then this inference be correct, Patanjali must have written 
 his commentary on the Varttika to Panini III. 2, 111, between 140 
 and 120 B.C. ; and this is the only date in the ancient literature of 
 India which, in my belief, rests on more than mere hypothesis. 
 
 "" Indische Alterthumskunde, vol. II. p. 412, 413. 
 "' Ibid. vol. II., p. 322. 
 -" Ibid. vol. II. p. 328. 
 
PATANJALI BELONGING TO THE EAST OF INDIA. 235 
 
 But it has also the merit of giving that " new evidence" which 
 Professor Miiller requires for a corroboration of the chronology of 
 Ceylon. For none of the fluctuating dates I have mentioned will 
 allow us to look upon Menandros and the Madhyamikas as con- 
 temporaries, except the date 143, which was the extreme limit 
 of the date of Nagarjuna's life. And since, on the basis of 
 tradition, this date again becomes impossible, — unless we claim 
 amongst those alleged, 543 for the time of Buddha's death, and 
 400 years for the succession of Nagaijuna, — Patanjali's Great 
 Commentary becomes invaluable also in this respect, and more 
 especially to those who are concerned in Buddhist chronology. 
 
 Of the lineage of Patanjali all the knowledge I possess is that 
 the name of his mother was GoniltaF^ It occurs in the last words 
 of Patanjali on a Karika to Panini. Of more importance, how- 
 ever, is the information he gives us of his having resided tem- 
 porarily in Kashmir,^''* for this circumstance throws some light on 
 the interest which certain kings of this country took in the pre- 
 servation of the Great Commentary. 
 
 His birthplace must have been situated in the East of India, 
 for he calls himself Gonardiya \^''^ and this word is given by the 
 Kasika in order to exemplify names of places in the East. Patan- 
 
 ^'' Patanjali, after quoting the Karikds to I. 4, 51 gives his own opinion, and con- 
 cludes with these words (MS. E.I.H. No. 171), '4^41V|| iftfW^fT^^: • — Nagojibhatta : 
 
 a nru!'tiia^" \ ^n^rarr; t^tt^: (thus ms. e.i.h. 349 ; the ms. 1208 iftft!roRTg»). 
 
 ^■^ III. 2, 1 1 4 : fW^n^ ^rar^' .—Patanjali : f^l*i<(l^<«ilH I ^f+i^MlRl fSf^rT 
 
 TJTTf^ ^l'* l ^*i I ^^f^rilchl^rild : ?rWr^-Katyayana : f^J^T^ «|i*l§ 
 I^f^.— Patanjali : f^JH^ ^T^fT% ^R^f^ «(*=*l*l. I If ^^ I ^rf^ A\*iX^ ^ II 
 
 ^ »n^fi: I ^if *4 ^Hif^ ^^ <ic=n».4l<Hif*imi*4 : 1 ^jcchi^nii-iJi^mi 
 ^-dV^<^«i ^Tt^rrat I ^TrT^^'w^'^JTff II '^Rf^ I ^^rfi^wrMTflr ^^ «in?fft- 
 Tparf *(mm : 1 ^RTflHTTT^grT 1 d41<«i ^fr^TRt 1 ci^1<«i*<*j'5*<r^ 11 
 
 -" Patanjali to I. 1, 21, v. 2 (of the Calcutta edition ; p. 412 ed. Ballantyne) : aft^T- 
 ^fET^Tf etc.— Kaiyyata : ITT^RfTT^Tf etc.— Nagojibhatta : Jn«1«(T*m«^ ^^ I 
 >||m<(^|<; ^[frf . — It is on this authority that the word Gonardlya has found a place 
 amongst the epithets of Patanjali in Hemachandra's Glossary. 
 
236 PATANJALI BELONGING TO THE EAST OF INDIA. 
 
 jali's birthplace had tlierefore the name of Gonarda?''^ But that 
 he is one of the eastern grammarians is borne out also by other 
 evidence. Kaiyyata calls him on several occasions Achdrya- 
 de'siyaJ"'' If we iaterpreted this word according to Panini's rules 
 V. 3, 67 and 68, it would mean "an unaccomplished teacher;" but 
 as there is not the slightest reason for assuming that Kaiyyata 
 intended any ii-ony or blame when he applied this epithet to 
 Patanjali, it is necessary to render the word by the teacher " who 
 belongs to the country of the Acharya." Now, since Kaiyyata also 
 distinctly contrasts dchdrya, as the author of the Varttikas, with 
 d,chdryade'siya^ the latter epithet can only imply that Patanjali was 
 a countryman of Katyayana. Katyayana, however, as Professor 
 Weber has shown by very good arguments, is one of the eastern 
 school ; Kaiyyata, therefore, must have looked upon Patanjali also 
 as belonging to it. 
 
 Another proof is afforded by a passage in the comment of Bhatto- 
 
 "™ The Kas'ika to I. 1, 75 : XT^ H\-r\ \ ^^ , gives the instances : lJ^(jf|lj-c||»t|4j; | 
 »ft«t^ ^: U 'ftWERfV^r: l 'itfft^: (thus MS. E.I.H. 2440 ; the MS. 829, which is 
 generally more incorrect than the former, has the plurals instead of the singulars : 
 *°'?1T0- Professor Lassen (Indische Alterthumskunde, vol. II., p. 484) assumes a con- 
 nection between Gonardiya and Gonarda, the name of a king of Kashmir ; but I believe 
 that my explanation is supported by the whole evidence combined. 
 
 '" For instance, Patanjali to VI. 1, 158, v. I (of the Calcutta edition) writes : 
 
 'Tfr 'TfT^Tf^'RnTt ft'Sll^id ^tc. ; and Kaiyyata introduces his comment 
 
 on these words with : '4|(t| |^^<lf|'i| '^(T^ ilfd M«tR.frr and so on, in a similar man- 
 ner, on other occasions. An instance, however, which will better bear out my con- 
 clusion, is afforded by the combined Varttika-KarikA of Kdtyayana (see note 1 14), and 
 the commentaries to V. 2, 39. After the words of the Sutra, Patanjali says : f^flHr 
 TjtXTTTTir <(*j^d I ^ TRrrW Tf^ ^^^ l "^ rrft f%% iBtfl ^JrqfW^PTfW 
 mOffI d'^SimitPiH-m^: I '^•*|rM*mi!*|.i)fl(I\*irHjfiTf^ ; then follows the first 
 Vdrttika (or first portion of the Karikd of Katyayana) : \^ ( c| d H ^^ Sj ^ \^W^W> '^- 
 3[^rf , Avhich again is followed by the further comment of Patanjali. In reference to 
 this passage, Kaiyyata expresses himself in this way : f^fiTTTf'Tf?! I '^^ IUiMT\^IUj- 
 
 V{=<41<;«*|^^ ?T^T ira: I -^ Tmnrr i:f7i ^^ -^ \ ^mrr 'f^: Tr^ft^rraE^rr 
 
 Wf I TJ^' fffffrl I ^M|4 Wf ^ldlT«lfff etc. He therefore contrasts dchdrya, 
 who is the aathor of the Varttika ^MN'S". ">*'' delidryadesiya, who is Patanjali 
 
BHARTRIHARI ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE MAHABHASHYA. 237 
 
 jidikshita on the Phitstitras which I have quoted above.'™ For 
 when this grammarian tells us that the eastern grammarians attri- 
 bute the accent in question of saha to Panini's rule VI. 3, 78, 
 we find that it is Patanjali himself who gives us this information 
 and without any intimation of his having obtained it from other 
 authorities. 
 
 I conclude these few remarks on our great teacher with an 
 account which Bhartrihari gives of the early history of the Maha- 
 bhashya. It is of considerable interest, inasmuch as we learn from 
 it that there was a party of grammarians who preferred to it the 
 Sangraha (of Vyadi), and still more so, as it informs us, that 
 Patanjali's Commentary was founded on this great grammatical 
 work of the relative of Panini. The passage in question occurs at 
 the end of the second chapter of Bhartrihari'' s Vdkyapadii/a, and, 
 in reference to the word Bhdshya^ which immediately precedes it, 
 makes the following statement : "' 
 
 " After Patanjali had obtained the aid of \or had come to] gram- 
 marians who had mastered the new sciences more or less [literally : 
 in their full extent and in their abridged form], and after he had 
 
 "^ See page 218. 
 
 "'" The text of this passage belongs to the MS. No. 954 in the Librai-y of the Home 
 Giovernment for India, which in a few days will have ceased to be the Librai-y of tlie 
 Bast India House. It bears on its outer leaf the corrupt title c|m2jL|(^ci||4i4^tl| , but 
 at the end of its three chapters the words : ^|[f?l ^^^d^r<,Ad «ima(M<{^ 
 
 U«J*J*1ehf^: (sic.) ; 'f^<n*i <*i^*i; l*'^' ^i^* -""^ '^^^ '' Vdkya- 
 
 padiya, because, the MS. in question being very incorrect, I cannot give its reading any 
 preference to the reading ^T^SPT^TT by which this work is several times quoted in 
 the portion of the Mahabhashya edited by Dr. Ballantync. For, the identity of both 
 results from a comparison I have made between the passages quoted in this highly 
 valuable edition and the MS. before me. It is right, however, to mention that the 
 second chapter of the work concludes in this MS. in the following manner : ?lfl ^tX.th r| 
 ^*I«<{1m^ fif <fhT 'Sjrn^Ti; I ^TRT^ ^l*m<^^T?^ , where the reading ^^TT?:fl(1-- 
 T(Sft\ , when corrected to "fcjcJiT , admits of a sense, but suggests also the conjecture that it 
 may be a corruption of c||e)2|]^^fl|oh| . I now transcribe the passage in question litei-ally, 
 in order to show the condition of the MS., and also to enable the reader to supply better 
 conjectures than I may have made; but some conjectures I have been compelled to 
 make in order to impart a meaning to a few very desperate lines. These conjectures 
 are added in [ ] . After the vords Xr^^^W f'f^^ W^ T& T^^W. . "liich are 
 
238 
 
 BHAETRIHAEI ON THE EAELT HISTORY OF THE MAHABHASHYA. 
 
 acquired the Sangraha [of Vyadi], he, the Guru, well versed in 
 the sacred sciences, connected all the original nyayas in the 
 Mahabhashya. But when it was discovered that this Commentary 
 could not be fathomed on account of its depth, and that the minds 
 of those who were not quite accomplished floated, as it were, on 
 the surface, in consequence of their levity, those grammarians who 
 liked dry reasoning, Vaiji, Saubhava, and Haryaksha, who were 
 partisans of the Sangraha, cut in pieces the book of the Eishi 
 [Patanjali]. That grammatical document [or manuscript of the 
 Mahabhashya], which was obtained from the pupils of Patanjali, 
 then remained for some time preserved in one copy only amongst 
 the inhabitants of the Dekhan. Chandra, again, and other gram- 
 marians, who went after the original of the Bhashya, obtained this 
 document from Parvata, and converted it into many books \that is 
 to say^ took many copies of it], and my Guru, who thoroughly 
 knew the ways of logical discussion and his own Dar'sana, taught 
 me the compendium of this grammatical work." ^^•' 
 
 connected with the subject treated of in the second chapter, Bhartrihari continues : TTT'TW 
 
 ^^ti^T^o"] I ^%^ <iRmi5lg vawx^ [^q^"] serIw: i tr^m^T»r*i 
 
 4j|J|414Ji|^; [TfTjft'fl' ^I^'SnWRi'ni'"]- The subsequent words, which conclude 
 the second chapter, concern the subject-matter of the work, not the history of the 
 Mahabh&shya. 
 
 -*" This passage will now aid us also in a correct understanding of the interesting 
 verse from the Rajatarangini, which has been quoted, but blighted, by Dr. Boehtlingk in 
 the version he gives of it (vol. II. p. xv and xvi). This verse reads in the Calcutta edition 
 of the latter work (I. 176) : ^^TTT^rf^fH^aTI^ d<*(lTl<|wm*l I TT^^ f(^- 
 TT^i ^ ^ <4|ch<,<^ 8)n*1,- Mr. Troyer, in his edition, substitutes for the latter words 
 
BEAEING OF THE INVESTIGATION ON THE STUDY OF SANSKRIT. 239 
 
 A perusal of the foregoing pages will probably have raised the 
 question in the reader's mind, why I have attached an investigation 
 of the place which Panini holds in Sanskrit literature to the text 
 of the present ritual work ? 
 
 I will answer this question without reserve. It is because I 
 hold that an inquiry like this was greatly needed in the present 
 critical position of Sanskrit philology ; and that no ancient text, 
 whatever its nature, should remain any longer, — much less should 
 come for a first time, — ^before the public without pre-supposing in 
 its readers a full knowledge of the literary problems I have here 
 been dealing with. For whether my views meet with approval or 
 not, I have, I believe, at least shown that the mode in which 
 these problems have hitherto been discussed, is neither adequate 
 to the difficulties with which they are beset, nor to their bearings 
 on the scientific treatment of the Sanskrit language itself. 
 
 No one, indeed, can be more alive than I am myself to the 
 conviction of how much may be added, in the way of detail, to the 
 facts I have adduced ; for, however imperfect my present attempt 
 and my own knowledge may be, I still could have largely in- 
 creased the foregoing inquiry with materials taken from the 
 
 '^■S(.°MI<=h^Uj ^HK.- Both readings are alike good, for they convey the same sense ; 
 and the correction <^oVc('|^;i{ for ^faiTf^lJ, as proposed by Dr. Boehtlingk, is no 
 doubt also good. But the double mistake he has committed in this single verse consists 
 first in giving to -^ii'i*! the sense of ' coming,' whereas the passage from tlie Vixkya- 
 padiya proves that it must there have the sense of "a written document or TOomM«cri/>^;" 
 and secondly, in arbitrarily assigning to the causal of Traj^the sense ol" introducing" 
 in its European figurative sense, which the causal of H^H never has. The verse in 
 question would therefore not mean, as Dr. Boehtlingk translates it : " After the teacher 
 Chandra and others had received from him (the King Abhimanyu) the order to come 
 there (or to him), they introduced the Mahdbhashya and composed a grammar of their 
 own " — but : " After Chandra and the other grammarians had received from him (the 
 King Abhimanyu) the order, they established a text of the Mahdbhdshya, such as it 
 could be established by means of his MS. of this work {literally : they established a. 
 MahAbhashya which possessed his — the King's — grammatical document, or, after they 
 had received from him the order and his M.S., they established the text of the Mahd- 
 bhdshya) and composed their own grammars." For we know now that Chandra and 
 the other grammarians of King Abhimanyu obtained such an dgama or manuscript of 
 the Mahdbhashya from Parvata, and according to the corresponding verse of the 
 Rdjataranginf, it becomes probable that this MS. came into possession of Abhimanyu. 
 
240 BEARING OF THE INVESTIGATION ON THE STUDY OF SANSKRIT. 
 
 Brahmana-, Upanishad-, and the philosophical literature. I have 
 not done more than allude to the contents of Panini's Grammar 
 and I have scarcely hinted at the linguistic results which may 
 be derived from a comparison between Katyayana and Patan- 
 jali, on the one side, and the recent grammatical literature (which 
 is represented by the Ka'sika, the Siddhanta-kaumudi with its 
 Praudhamanorama, and the commentators on the Dhatupatha 
 and the artificial poetry), on the other, Por my present object was 
 merely to convey a sense of the inherent difficulties of the ques- 
 tions I have been speaking of, and while tracing the outlines of 
 my own results, to offer so much evidence as was strictly neces- 
 sary for supporting them with substantial proof. 
 
 Before, however, I add some words on the practical object I 
 had in view in entering upon this investigation, both justice and 
 fairness require me to avow that the immediate impulse which 
 led to the present attempt was due to Max Miiller's Ancient 
 Sanskrit Literature. So great is my reluctance to the public dis- 
 cussion of literary questions, if such a discussion requires a con- 
 siderable amount of controversy, and so averse am I to raising an 
 edifice of my own, if, in order to do so, I am compelled to damage 
 structures already in existence, that this feeling would in all pro- 
 bability have prevented me now, as it has done hitherto, from 
 giving public expression to my views, had it not been for the 
 importance I attach to Miiller's work. This work reached me, as 
 already mentioned, when the first pages of this Preface were eom- 
 pletdd ; and it was the new material it brought to light, and the 
 systematic and finished form by which its author imparted to his 
 theories a high degree of plausibility, which induced me to oppose 
 to it the facts I have here made known and the results I have 
 drawn from them. 
 
 And, as everyone has his own way of paying compliments, 
 this avowal is the compliment which / pay to Professor Miiller's 
 work. For as I myself care but little for blame, and much 
 less for praise, so long as I consider that I have fulfilled my 
 duty, I could not but assume that he, too, would much prefer, to 
 uninstructive panegyrics which anyone could inflict on him, such 
 
BEARING OF THE INVESTIGATION ON THE STUDY OF SANSKHIT. 241 
 
 dissent as I have here expressed, as it can only lead either to con- 
 firmation of the opinions he has advanced, or, by correcting them, 
 to an attainment of that scientific truth for which both of us are 
 earnestly labouring.^*^ 
 
 And now I shall speak my mind as to the necessity I felt for 
 writing these pages in view of the present critical position of 
 Sanslcrit philology. 
 
 The study of Sanskrit commenced, not with the beginning but 
 with the end of Sanskrit literature. It could not have done other- 
 wise, since it had to discover, as it were, the rudiments of the 
 language itself, and even the most necessary meanings of the most 
 necessary words. "We have all been thankful — and our gratitude 
 will never suffer through forgetfulness — for the great advantage 
 we have derived from an insight into the Mahabharata, the 
 Eamayana, the Hitopade'sa, the Sakuntala, through the labours 
 of those great scholars. Sir William Jones, Schlegel, Bopp, and 
 others, who are before the mind's eye of every Sanskritist. But 
 the time of pleasure had to give way to a time of more serious 
 research. The plays and fables are delightful in themselves, but 
 they do not satisfy the great interests of Sanskrit philology. Our 
 attention is now engrossed, and rightly so, by the study of gram- 
 mar, of philosophy, and, above all, of that literature of ancient India, 
 which — very vaguely and, in some respects, wrongly, but at all 
 events conveniently — goes by the name of the Vaidik literature. 
 With the commencement of that study we always associate in our 
 minds such great names as those of a Colebrooke, a Wilson, a 
 Burnouf, a Lassen, the courageous and ingenious pioneers who 
 opened the path on which we are now travelling with greater safety 
 and ease. 
 
 But whence was it that they were able to unfold to us the first 
 secrets of ancient Hindu religion, of ancient Hindu philosophy and 
 
 ^' Almost simultaneously with tlie last proof sheets I received the second edition of 
 Professor Miiller's " History of Sanslirit Literature." As both editions entirely cor- 
 respond in their typographical arrangement, and I believe, in their contents also, the 
 quotations here made from the first edition, will be found on the same pages of the 
 second. 
 
 31 
 
242 BEAEING OF THE INVESTIGATION ON THE STUDY OF SANSKRIT. 
 
 scientific research ? It was through the aid of the commentaries, 
 in the first rank of which stands that of Patanjali ; in the second 
 the works of those master minds, the most prominent of whom are 
 Sankara and Madhava-Sayana, Without the vast information these 
 commentators have disclosed to us, — without their method of ex- 
 plaining the obscurest texts, — in one word, without their scholar- 
 ship, we should still stand at the outer doors of Hindu antiquity. 
 
 But to understand the value of these great commentators and 
 exegetes, we must bear in mind the two essentials which have 
 given them the vast influence which they have acquired. The 
 first is the traditional^ and the second the grammatical^ element that 
 pervades their works. 
 
 The whole religious life of ancient India is based on tradition. 
 Sriiti, or Yeda, was revealed to the Rishis of the Yaidik hymns. 
 Next to it comes Smriti, or tradition, which is based on the revealed 
 texts, and which is authoritative only in so far as it is in accordance 
 with them . Hence a commentator like Mddhava-Sdi/ana^ for instance, 
 considered it as incumbent on him to prove that he had not merely 
 mastered the Yaidik texts, but the Mimansa also, one portion of 
 which is devoted to this question of the relation between Sruti- 
 and Smriti- works. It is known that he is one of the principal 
 writers on the Mimansa philosophy. Without tradition, the whole 
 religious development of India would be a shadow without reality, 
 a phantom too vague to be grasped by the mind. Tradition tells 
 ' us through the voice of the commentators, who re-echo the voice 
 of their ancestors, how the nation, from immemorial times, under- 
 stood the sacred texts, what inferences they drew from them, 
 what influence they allowed them to exercise on their religious, 
 philosophical, ethical, — in a word, on their national, development. 
 And this is the real, the practical, and therefore the truly scientific 
 interest they have for us; for all other interest is founded on 
 theories devoid of substance and proof, is imaginary and phan- 
 tastical. 
 
 But it would be utterly erroneous to assume that a scholar like 
 Sayana, or even a copy of him, like Mahidhara, contented him- 
 self with being the mouth-piece of his predecessors or ances- 
 
TRADITIONAL AND GRAMMATICAL ELEMENT OF HINDU COMMENTARIES. 243 
 
 tors. They not only record the sense of the Vaidik texts and the 
 sense of the words of which these texts consist, but they endeavour 
 to show that the interpretations which they give are consistent with 
 the grammatical requirements of the language itself. And this proof, 
 which they give whenever there is the slightest necessity for it — 
 and in the beginning of their exegesis, even when there is no 
 apparent necessity for it, merely in order to impress on the reader 
 the basis on which they stand, — this proof is the great grammatical 
 element in these commentatorial works. 
 
 In short, these great Hindu commentators do not merely 
 explain the meanings of words, but they justify them, or endeavour 
 to justify them, on the ground of the grammar of Panini, the Vdrt- 
 tiJcas o/Eatyatana, and the Mahabhdshya o/Patanjali. 
 
 Let us recall, then, the position we have vindicated for Panini 
 and Katyayana in the ancient literature, and consider how far this 
 ground is solid ground, and how far, and when, we may feel justi- 
 fied in attaching a doubt to the decisions of so great a scholar as 
 Sayana. 
 
 "We have seen that within the whole range of Sanskrit litera- 
 ture, so far as it is known to us, only the Samhitas of the Eig- 
 Sama- and Black- Yajurveda, and among individual authors, only 
 the exegete Yaska preceded Panini, — that the whole bulk of the re- 
 maining known literature is posterior to his eight grammatical books. 
 We have seen, moreover, that Kdtyayana knew the Yajasaneyi- 
 Samhita and the Satapatha-brahmana, and that, in consequence, 
 we may assign to him, without fear of contradiction, a knowledge 
 of the principal other Brdhmanas known to us, and probably of 
 the Atharvaveda also. 
 
 Such being the case, we must then conclude that Sayana was 
 right in assenting to Patanjali, who, throughout his Introduction 
 to Panini, shows that Panini's Grammar was written in strict refer- 
 ence to the Yaidik Samhitas, which, as I may now contend, were 
 the three principal Samhitas. He is right, too, in appealing, 
 wherever there is need, to the Yarttikas of Katyayana; for the 
 latter endorses the rules of Panini when he does not criticise them, 
 and completes them wherever he thinks that Panini has omitted to 
 
244 BEAEING OF THE INVESTIGATION ON THE STUDY OF SANSKRIT. 
 
 notice a fact. And since we have found that the Kik-Pratisakhya 
 fulfils the same object as these Yarttikas, viz. that of completing 
 the rules of Panini, and that Katyayana's Pratisakhya, which is 
 later than that attributed to Saunaka, preceded his own Yarttikas, 
 we must grant, too, that he was right in availing himself of the 
 assistance of those works, all of which are prior to the Yarttikas of 
 Katyayana. 
 
 That analogous conclusions apply to the Ishtis of Pantanjali 
 and to the Phitsutras of Santana is obvious. 
 
 But it is from the chronological position in which these works 
 stand to one another that we may feel justified in occasionally criti- 
 cising the decisions of Sayana. Without a knowledge of it, or at 
 least without a serious and conscientious attempt at obtaining it, 
 all criticisms on Sayana lay themselves open to the reproach of 
 mere arbitrariness and superficiality. 
 
 For, if the results here maintained be adopted, good and sub- 
 stantial reasons — which, however, would first have to be proved — 
 might allow us to doubt the correctness of a decision of Sayana : 
 if, for instance, he rejected an interpretation of a word that would 
 follow from a rule of Panini, on the sole ground that Katyayana 
 did not agree with Panini ; or, if he interpreted a word merely on 
 the basis of a Yarttika of Katyayana, we might fairly question his 
 decision, if we saw reason to apply to the case a rule of Panini, 
 perhaps not criticised by Katyayana. Again, if we had substantial 
 reasons for doing so, we might oppose our views to those of Sayana 
 when he justified a meaning by the aid of the Phitsutras alone, 
 though these Sutras may be at variance with Panini, for we should 
 say that these Sutras, " when compared to Panini, are as if they 
 Mere made to-day." 
 
 In short, the greater the distance becomes between a Yeda and 
 the grammarian who appended to it his notes, the more we shall 
 have a plausible ground for looking forward, in preference to him, 
 to that grammarian who stood nearer to the fountain head. Even 
 Panini would cease to be our ultimate refuge, if we found Yaska 
 opposed to him ; and Gargya, Sakalya, Sakatayana, or the other 
 predecessors of Panini, would deserve more serious consideration 
 
SANSKRIT WORTERBUCH OF THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL ACADExMY. 245 
 
 than himself, if we Ivere able to see that they maintained a sense 
 of a Yaidik word which is differently rendered by him. 
 
 This is the critical process to which I hold that the commen- 
 taries of Sayana may be subjected, should it be deemed necessary 
 to differ from them. 
 
 These remarks apply, of course, only to the Safiihitas which 
 preceded Panini ; for, as to the literature which was posterior to 
 him, Katyayana becomes necessarily our first exegetic authority, 
 and after him comes Patanjali. I need not go further, for I have 
 sufficiently explained the method I advocate, and the exception 
 I take to that dogmatical schooling of these ancient authorities, 
 which, so far from taking the trouble of conscientiously ascertain- 
 ing their retative chronological position in the literature merely 
 exhibits, at every step, its own want of scholarship. 
 
 I must now, though reluctantly, take a glance at the manner 
 in which the Vaidik texts, more especially their groundwork, the 
 Samhitas, nay, how the whole Sanskrit literature itself, is dealt with 
 by those who profess to be our teachers and our authorities. And 
 still more reluctantly must I advert to one work especially, which, 
 above all others, has set itself up as our teacher and authority— 
 the great Sanskrit Dictionary published by the Russian Imperial 
 Academy. 
 
 The principles on which this work deals with the Vaidik texts 
 is expressed by Professor Both in his preface to it, in the following 
 words ■}^^' " Therefore we do not believe, as H. H. Wilson does,^**^ 
 that Sajana better understood the expressions of the Veda than any 
 European exegete, and that we have nothing to do but repeat what 
 he says ; on the contrary, we believe that a conscientious European 
 exegete may understand the Veda much more correctly and better 
 than Sajana. We do not consider it the [our] immediate purpose 
 to obtain that understanding of the Veda which was current in 
 
 -*' " Sanskrit-Worterbuch herausgegeben von der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wis- 
 senschaften, bearbeitet von Otto Boehtlingk und Rudolph Roth." Preface, p. v. 
 
 ^ Note of Professor Roth ; " Rig-Veda-Sanhit^i. A collection of ancient Hindu 
 hymns, etc. Translated from the original Sanskrit. By H. H.Wilson. London, 1850. 
 I. p. 25." 
 
246 THE PRESENT CRITICAL POSITION OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. 
 
 India some centuries ago, ^^* but we search for the meaning which 
 the poets themselves gave to their songs and phrases. We con- 
 . sequently hold that the writings of Sajana and of the other com- 
 mentators must not be an authority to the exegete, but merely one 
 of the means of which he has to avail himself in the accomplish- 
 ment of his task, which certainly is difficult, and not to be effected 
 at a first attempt, nor by a single individual. On this account we 
 have much regretted that the meritorious edition of the commen- 
 tary on the Eigveda, by Miiller, is not yet more advanced.^^^ 
 
 "We have, therefore, endeavoured to take the* road which is 
 prescribed by philology : to elicit the sense of the texts by putting 
 together all the passages which are kindred either in regard to 
 their words or their sense ; a road which is slow and tedious, and 
 which, indeed, has not been trodden before, either by the com- 
 mentators or the translators. Our double lot has, therefore, been 
 that of exegetes as well as lexicographers. The purely etymological 
 proceeding, as it must be followed up by those who endeavour to 
 guess the sense of a word, without having before them the ten or 
 twenty other passages in which the same word recurs, cannot 
 possibly lead to a correct result." ^^^ 
 
 It would be but common fairness to allow these words of 
 
 ^^ Note of Professor Roth : " Wilson, a.a. O. II. p. xxiii." But the page quoted by 
 Professor Roth does not contain one single word in reference to the passage which it 
 apparently intends to bear out. 
 
 ^' The first part of the Dictionary of Professor Roth and Dr. Boehtlingk was issued 
 in 1852 ; the first volume, which is prefaced by the words quoted, in 1855 ; the first and 
 second part of the second volume in 1856 ; the third part of the same volume in 1857. 
 Professor MuUer's first volume of the Rigveda appeared in 1849, the second in 1854, 
 the third in 1856. 
 
 -^ In reference to this view of Professor Roth, of the relation of the Hindu com- 
 mentators to the Vaidik hymns, Professor Weber says in the " Zeitschrift der Deut- 
 schen morgenlandischen GeseUschaft," vol. X. p. 575 : " AUem was daruber gesagt 
 ist schliessen wir uns auf das Unbedingteste and Entschiedenste an;" i.e. "To all 
 that has been said on it [on this relation, in the Preface of the Worterbuch] we (sic, 
 does Professor Weber speak in his own name or in that of the whole Dictionary-com- 
 pany ?) assent in the most unconditional and in the most peremptory manner." 
 
DICTA AND CRITICAL PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSOR ROTH. 247 
 
 Professor Eoth to be followed by the entire preface which the 
 lamented Professor Wilson has prefixed to the second volume of 
 his invaluable translation of the Eigveda: the more so, as his 
 views have been unscrupulously distorted in the statement here 
 quoted ; for though his views are supposed to be refuted by this 
 passage, they could not shine brighter, in genuine modesty, in true 
 scholarship, and in thorough common sense, than when placed by 
 the side of this passage, which I will not qualify but analyze. 
 But as I could not easily quote some twenty pages from Professor 
 Wilson's excellent work, and as I should scarcely do justice to the 
 manes of that distinguished man if I did not allow him to give his 
 full answer, I must leave it to the reader to obtain for himself that 
 contrast to which I here advert. 
 
 If, then, we analyze the ideas and principles presented in 
 the passage just quoted, they come before us to the following 
 effect : — 
 
 (1) Sayana gives us only that sense of the Yeda which was 
 current in India some centuries ago. 
 
 (2) Professor Eoth is far more able than Sayana and other 
 commentators to give us the correct sense of the Yeda. 
 
 (3) For, he can put together some ten or twenty passages re- 
 ferring to the same word, whereas Sayana and other commentators 
 could not do this, but had to guess its sense. 
 
 (4) He is above confining himself to the purely etymological 
 process, which is that of these commentators. 
 
 (5) His object is not to understand the sense of the Yeda which 
 was current in India a few centuries back, but to know the mean- 
 ing which the authors of the hymns themselves gave to their songs 
 and phrases. 
 
 (6) Professor Eoth is a conscientious European exegete. 
 Before I give my Yarttikas to these six Sutras, which define 
 
 the exegetical position of the Sanskrit Worterbuch, I must observe 
 that I am compelled, by the very nature of this Preface, to leave 
 them in a similar position to that occupied by the Preface of Pro- 
 fessor Eoth itself. His Dictionary is the test of the assertions he 
 makes. The test of my remarks would be a critical review of his 
 
248 THE PRESENT CRITICAL POSITION OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Dictionary. I hereby promise him that my earliest leisure will he 
 devoted to this revietv, especially as my materials for it are not only 
 collected and ready, but so abundant as to give me a difficulty of choice. 
 But my present answer must, of necessity, deal with his generali- 
 ties only in general terms. 
 
 (1) Sayana or the other commentators give us, he intimates, 
 only that sense of the Yeda which was current in India some cen- 
 turies ago. 
 
 A bolder statement I defy any scholar to have met with in any 
 book. Sayana incessantly refers to Yaska. All his explanations 
 show that he stands on the ground of the oldest legends and tradi- 
 tions — of such traditions, moreover, as have no connection whatever 
 with the creed of those .sects which represent the degenerated 
 Hindu faith in his time ; yet Professor Eoth ventures to tell the 
 public at large, authoritatively and ivithout a particle of evidence, 
 that these legends and his version of the Eigveda are but some cen- 
 turies old. I believe, and every learned Hindu will hold with me, 
 that Sayana would have been hooted out of the country where he 
 lived, had he dared to commit the imposition implied in this 
 charge, on King Bukka, his lord, or on his countrymen. I 
 hope, however, that Professor Eoth will free himself from the 
 reproach expressed by these words, by showing on what authority 
 he gives such a piece of information, which is either all important 
 for Europe as well as for India, or places him in the most ridiculous 
 position that is conceivable. 
 
 (2) When an author tells us that he is able to do that which 
 another airthor cannot do, we are entitled to infer that he is, at all 
 events, thoroughly acquainted with all that this author has done. 
 I am well aware, — I may add through the pleasure of personal 
 remembrances, — that Professor Eoth passed some time at Paris, and 
 some little time in London also, when collecting his valuable 
 materials for his edition of Yaska's Nirukta. Only in London and 
 at Oxford, and, in some small measure, at Paris also, are the 
 materials requisite for studying the Yaidik commentaries of Sayana 
 obtainable in Europe. Does Professor Eoth intimate by the state- 
 ment above quoted, that his stay in these cities enabled him to 
 
DICTA AND CRITICAL PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSOR ROTH. 249 
 
 study and copy, for his lexicographical purposes — then not thought 
 of — all the works of Sayana, or that he, at Tubingen, is in posses- 
 sion of all those materials, the knowledge of which alone could 
 entitle him to claim credit for a statement like that which he has 
 ventured to make? But I need not pause for his reply. He 
 regrets, as we have read, that " the meritorious edition by Miiller, 
 of Sayana's Commentary was not further advanced" when he closed 
 the first volume of his Dictionary. Thus, when he began his 
 " exegetical" work, he was only acquainted with the Commentary 
 of Sayana as far as the first Ashtaka ; and when he wrote these 
 lines, he may perhaps have known its continuation up to a portion 
 of the third Ashtaka — in other words, no more than a third of 
 Sayana's whole Commentary on the Rigveda ; and yet he ventures 
 to speak of the whole Commentary of Sayana, and to say that he 
 can do what Sayana was unable to perform? But we almost 
 forget that the words of Professor Eoth are by no means restricted 
 to the Eigveda Commentary alone ; it embraces the commentaries 
 to all the Samhitds. And here I am once more compelled to ask — 
 Does he assert that he knew, when he wrote these words, Sayana's 
 Commentary on the Samaveda and the Taittiriya-Samhita, or even 
 Sayana's Commentary on the Satapatha-Brahmana ? For surely 
 he would not think of calling that Sayana's Commentary to this 
 Brahmana, which has been presented to us extracted and mangled 
 in Professor Weber's edition of the Satapatha-Brahmana. And 
 yet he has the courage to pass this sweeping condemnation on all 
 these gigantic labours of the Hindu mind, while ignorant of all 
 but the merest fraction of them ? 
 
 (3) Professor Eoth no doubt enjoys a great advantage when he 
 can put together some ten or twenty passages for examining the 
 sense of a word which" occurs in them ; but I beg to submit that 
 there are many instances in which a Yaidik word does not 
 occur twenty or ten, nor yet five or four times, in the Samhitas. 
 How does he, then, muster his ten or twenty passages, when, 
 nevertheless, he rejects the interpretation of Sayana ? Por it would 
 seem that in such a case the " guessing" of Sayana, as he calls it, 
 stands on as good ground as his own. But the assurance with 
 
 32 
 
250 THE PRESENT CRITICAL POSITION OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. 
 
 which he implies that Sayana was not capable of mustering ten or 
 twenty passages which are at the command of Professor Eoth, pre- 
 supposes, indeed, in his readers a degree of imbecile credulity 
 which is, no doubt, a happy condition of mind for those who rejoice 
 in it, and perhaps that best fitted for reading assertions like these, 
 but which may not be quite so universal as he seems to assume. 
 Madhava-Sayana, one of the profoundest scholars of India, the 
 exegete of all the three Yedas, as he tells us himself, — of the most 
 important Brahmanas and a Kalpa work, — Madhava, the re- 
 nowned Mimansist — he, the great grammarian, who wrote the 
 learned commentary on the Sanskrit radicals, who shows at every 
 step that he has Panini and Katyayana at his fingers' ends, — 
 Madhava, who, on account of his gigantic learning and his deep 
 sense of religion, lives in the legends of India as an incarna- 
 tion of Siva, — in short, the great Madhava, we are told, had 
 not the proficiency of combining in his mind or otherwise those 
 ten or twenty passages of his own Veda, which Professor Eoth has 
 the powerful advantage of bringing together by means of his 
 little memoranda ! 
 
 (4) " The purely etymological proceeding," he says, " as it 
 must be followed up by those who endeavour to guess the sense 
 of a word, cannot possibly lead to a correct result." 
 
 By these words he compels us to infer, in the first instance, 
 that the meanings which Sayana gives to Vaidik words are purely 
 etymological; for when he illustrates his statement in a subsequent 
 passage, by alleging such instances as " power, sacrifice, food, 
 wisdom, to go, to move," it is clear that his sweeping assertion 
 cannot be considered as merely embracing these six words, which, 
 in his opinion, sometimes admit of a modification of sense. Just 
 as he cancels the whole spirit of Sayana's commentary, he tells 
 us with the utmost assurance that the whole commentary of Sayana 
 is purely etymological. There is, I admit, an advantage in bold- 
 ness ; for if you tell a man while gazing on the noon-day sun that 
 he is actually in the darkness of niid-nij^ht, he may probably prefer 
 
DICTA AND CRITICAL PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSOR ROTH. 251 
 
 to doubt the evidence of his senses rather than venture to reject 
 the extraordinary news you bring him. I open at random the 
 three quartos of Max Miiller ; I look at every page once, twice, 
 many times, l^o doubt Professor Eoth must be quite correct, for 
 my eyes are blind. But, since I suffer under this sudden dis- 
 ability, I may at least be permitted to quote that very page from 
 Wilson's preface to the second volume of his translation which 
 Professor Eoth quotes above, as if it bore out his statement con- 
 cerning the " some centuries." 
 
 "As many instances of this elliptical construction," we read 
 there, " have been given in the notes of both this and the former 
 volume, a few additional instances will here be sufficient : — thus 
 (p. 301, V. 9) we have the 'grandson of the waters has ascended 
 
 above the crooked ;' 'the broad and golden spread 
 
 around.' What would the European .scholar do here with- 
 out the Scholiast ? He might, perhaps, suspect that the term 
 crooked, curved, or bent, or, as here explained, crooked-going, 
 tortuous, might apply to the clouds ; but he would hesitate as to 
 what he should attach the other epithets to, and the original author 
 alone could say with confidence that he meant ' rivers^' which 
 thenceforward became the traditional and admitted explanation, 
 and is, accordingly, so supplied by the Scholiast." 
 
 Thus, has Sayana stopped at the etymological sense of "crooked- 
 going," or of "gold-coloured ?" 
 
 But, in the second instance, though Professor Eoth, of course, 
 possesses all the knowledge which these ignorant Hindu commen- 
 tators were wanting in, he implies by his words, that the mean- 
 ings he creates in overstepping the purely etymological process, 
 nevertheless rest on it. Since my reply on this point would have 
 to enter into detail, and since I have promised to give much detail 
 in the review which will be the commentary on my present re- 
 marks, I will merely here state that I know of no work which 
 has come before the public with such unmeasured pretensions 
 of scholarship and critical ingenuity as this Worterbuch, and 
 which has, at the same time, laid itself open to such serious 
 reproaches of the profoundest grammatieal ignorance. And, asi 
 
252 THE PRESENT CRITICAL POSITION OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. 
 
 an etymological proceeding without a thorough knowledge of 
 grammar is etymological thimblerig, I may at least here prepare 
 the reader who takes an interest in such plays, for a performance 
 on the most magnificent scale. Or to speak in plain prose, I shall 
 prove to Professor Eoth by means of those same authorities which 
 I have so often impressed on the reader's mind, that his Dictionary 
 has created many meanings without the slightest regard to the 
 grammatical projjerties of the word, and, in consequence, that his 
 Vaidik exegesis in all these numerous and important instances 
 has just that worth which a Yeda revealed by Professor Eoth has 
 in comparison with the Veda of India. 
 
 (5) The object of Professor Eoth is " not to understand the 
 Veda such as it was current in India a few centuries back, but to 
 know the meaning which the poets themselves gave to their songs 
 and phrases." 
 
 This is unquestionably most important intelligence. Sayana 
 gives us the sense of the Veda, such as it was handed down to him 
 — not indeed a few centuries ago, but from generation to genera- 
 tion immemoi'ial — yet within this Kaliyuga, I suppose. Nagoji- 
 bhatta, again, we have seen,^" tells us that in the various destructions 
 of the world, the Eishis received new revelations from the divinity, 
 which did not aff'ect the eternal sense of the Veda, but merely the 
 order of its words. But now we learn, for the first time, that Pro- 
 fessor Eoth has received a revelation at Tiibingen, which as yet 
 has neither reached the banks of the Thames nor those of the 
 Ganges. He is going to tell us the sense which the original Eishis 
 gave to their songs and phrases, at a period of Hindu antiquity, 
 which is as much within scientific reach as the commencement of 
 the world itself Who will not hail this revelation which dispenses 
 with grammar and all that sort of thing, and who will not believe in it? 
 
 And yet I have one word more to add in regard to Professor 
 Eoth's " direct communication with the Hindu divinities." He 
 does not attach any importance, as he tells us, and abundantly 
 proves, to that Veda which is the foundation of the religious 
 
 See note 171. 
 
DICTA AND CRITICAL PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSOR ROTH. 253 
 
 development of India ; for that Veda is the Yeda of Sayana, and 
 that Yeda, too, which alone concerns us uninspired mortals. But 
 even Professor Eoth himself professes, in another part of his Pre- 
 face, the greatest respect for the native commentaries on theolo- 
 gical and ritual books. There he emphatically exclaims (p. iv.) : 
 " Indeed, for one of the two portions of the Vaidik literature, for 
 the works on theology and the rites, we cannot wish for any better 
 guides than these commentators, accurate in every respect, who 
 follow their texts word for word, who are untiring in repeating 
 everywhere that which they have already said whenever there 
 could arise even the appearance of a misunderstanding, and who 
 sometimes seem rather to have written for us foreigners than for 
 their priestly pupils grown up under these ideas and impressions." 
 How far his work has embodied the conviction expressed in these 
 words which could not have been expressed with greater truth, I 
 shall have to examine in my review. But I fear that these elo- 
 quent words must have escaped his memory in the midst of all the 
 revelations he received. On the Eigveda we have already ex- 
 changed our vie^^■s ; but not yet on the other Yedas. These are 
 avowedly extracted, or " milked," as the Hindus say, from the 
 Rik. That the Samaveda is entirely taken from it, we liave proof, ^^^ 
 and that the metrical part of the Yajus likewise rests on a version 
 of it, no one will dispute. But both these Yedas are professedly 
 not poetical anthologies. They are purely and simply ritual Yedas, 
 and therefore belong — not only from a Hindu, but from an European 
 point of view also — to the ritual literature. At the Jyotishtoma, for 
 instance, the priest chants, not the Eig-, but the Sama- veda hymns, 
 though the verses are apparently the same in both. At the A'swa- 
 medha he mutters, not the Eig-, but the Tajur- veda hymns. This 
 means that, whatever may have been the " original sense" of such 
 Eigveda verses, in their Sama- or Yajur- veda arrangement which, 
 in numerous instances, has brought Eigveda verses of different 
 hymns or books, into a new hymn, — the Samaveda hymns and the 
 Yajurveda hymns have only a value so far as their immediate 
 
 ^ See note 75. 
 
254 THE PRESENT CRITICAL POSITION OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. 
 
 object, the sacrifice, is concerned. Hence even the most transcen- 
 dental and the most inspired critic has nothing to do in these two 
 Yedas with ''the sense which the poets themselves gave to their 
 songs and phrases," he has simply to deal with that sense which 
 religion or superstition imparted to these verses, in order to adapt 
 them to the imaginary effects of the sacrifice. As little as it would 
 be our immediate object, when assisting at the horse-sacrifice, to 
 ask what is the etymology of horse ? or as little as it would be 
 seasonable to trace the linguistic origin of a cannon-ball when it 
 whistles past our ears, just so little have we to impart " the 
 original sense " — I mean that sense revealed to Professor Eoth — to 
 the verses of the Sama- and Yajur- veda, even when we are " both 
 exegetes and lexicographers." And yet I shall give abundant 
 proof that, even on these two Yedas, Professor Eoth has had revela- 
 tions of a most astounding character. 
 
 (6) " We believe that a conscientious European exegete might 
 understand much more correctly and thoroughly the sense of the 
 Veda than Sayana." I should encroach on the judgment of the 
 reader, if I ventured upon any remarks on this latter statement 
 after what I have already said. 
 
 In now adverting to the treatment which the scientific and 
 classical literature has received in the Sanskrit Worterbuch, I need 
 only say that this department is in the hands of Dr. Boehtliugk. 
 In saying this, I have said everything. After such an expression 
 of opinion, it will, of course, be my duty to show, at the earliest 
 opportunity, that Dr. Boehtlingk is incapable of understanding even 
 easy rules of Panini, much less those of Katyayana, and still less 
 is he capable of making use of them in the understanding of 
 classical texts. The errors in his department of the Dictionary 
 are so numerous and of so peculiar a kind — yet, on the whole, so 
 thoroughly in accordance with the specimens I have adduced from 
 his Commentary on Panini, that it will fill every serious San- 
 skritist with dismay, when he calculates the mischievous influence 
 which they must exercise on the study of Sanskrit philology. 
 
 On the present occasion, I must confine myself to these pre- 
 liminary remarks, or at best content myself with adverting to one 
 
THE UKASE OF THE SANSKRIT WORTEEBUCH. 255 
 
 other passage in the Preface to the 'Worterbuoh. It runs thus (p. vii.) : 
 "In order to facilitate the finding (of the words) for those who 
 will make use of our Dictionary, we have to make the following 
 observation. We have banished completely from the verbal roots 
 the vowels n, ri, and Iri, as well as the diphthongs at their end ; 
 for ri at the end of nominal bases we have substituted ar." 
 
 Thus theWorterbuch does not give, like the Hindu grammarians, 
 a radical kri, but it gives Tear ; not Mrip, but kalp ; not jri, but jar ; 
 not pitri, but pitar ; not datri, but ddtar^ etc. Now, this Diction- 
 ary professes to be a Dictionary of the Sanskrit language, not of 
 some imaginary idiom which may be current at Tiibingen or St. 
 Petersburg. One would therefore have supposed that the public 
 was entitled to expect some reason for these changes, — to know by 
 Avhat scientific considerations the authors of this work were guided, 
 when they took upon themselves the responsibility of thus abolish- 
 ing the radicals and nominal bases taught by Pdnini and subsequent 
 grammarians. But, in the fullness of its authority, this work does 
 not condescend to meet any such demand : it simply cancels whole 
 categories of grammatical forms, and those of the greatest im- 
 portance and comprehensiveness. Whether I am right or not in 
 inferring the arguments which were in the minds of its writers 
 when they presumed thus dictatorially to impose their theories on 
 Sanskrit philology, may be a matter of doubt, but my supposition 
 is that this innovation is founded on researches belonging to com- 
 parative philology. It cannot rest on mere Sanskritio ground, 
 since all the forms they have cancelled really occur as thematic 
 forms in the Sanskrit language itself. Thus, to use the same in- 
 stances : Icri occurs in kri-ta^ klrip in klrip-ta, pitri in pitri-bhis, 
 ddtri in ddtri-bhis ; and as to jri, — jirna can only follow from jri., 
 not from jar. Their reasons, founded on comparative grammar, 
 must then be these : that some bases in ri are represented in Latin 
 by er and or, and in Greek by ep, rjp, and op ; pitri-, for instance 
 corresponds with Latin pater-, Greek Trarsp-, ddtri with datdr- and 
 SoTTjp, etc. 
 
 Kow even supposing that such an argument had any weight 
 at all in a dictionary of the Sanskrit language, the application made 
 
256 THE PRESENT CRITICAL POSITION OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. 
 
 of it would be incongruous. For though piiar- corresponds with 
 liater-^ ddtdr- does not correspond with datdr- ; its representa- 
 tive would have had to assume the form ddtdr-. The whole 
 theory therefore, on the supposition I have made, would practically 
 break down, and the innovation would be inconsistent with itself as 
 well as at variance with comparative results. 
 
 But can such an argument be at all admissible ? If a Sanskrit 
 Dictionary were concerned, like Professor Bopp's Comparative 
 Grammar, with eliciting from the forms of sister languages the 
 forms of that parental language whence they may be supposed to 
 have derived their origin, it would be defensible to give the forms of 
 that parental language itself. But a Sanskrit Dictionary can have 
 no such aim. Its immediate object is the actual language which it 
 has to deal with. It must take it such as it is, in its very devia- 
 tions from the germ whence it has sprung. Its function is not 
 to correct the real historical language, but to record its facts ; and 
 in doing so, to collect the materials which are to be used as well by 
 the special as by the comparative philologer. And in so far as its 
 direct purpose is concerned, this is all it has to do. Any obser- 
 vations it may choose to attach to the real historical facts may of 
 course be given ; but it shoAvs an utter want of judgment, to say 
 nothing else, when it presumes to alter the very forms of the 
 language itself. 
 
 I may venture also to add a few other observations on the forms 
 thus cancelled in this "conscientious" Sanskrit Worterbuch. It 
 is known that many Sanskrit bases, and amongst them the bases in 
 ri, undergo various changes in their declension and otherwise. 
 Pitri, for instance, becomes pilar, in the accusative pifar-am, while 
 it remains as it is, in the instrumental pitri-hhis ; dadhi remains so 
 in dadhi-bhis, but its base is dadhan, with the loss of a, in dadhn-d ; 
 asthi forms asthi-hhis, but asthn-d. Now there exists a paper of 
 Dr. Boehtlingk on the Sanskrit declension ; but whoever reads it 
 must fancy that the language either played dice with these and 
 similar forms, or is undergoing some remarkable cure. He talks of 
 bases "which are strengthened as well as weakened," of bases 
 " which are only strengthened," and of bases " which are only 
 
THE SANSKRIT LANGUAGE UNDER DR. BOEHTLINGK'S TREATMENT. 257 
 
 weakened." Why language should nurse and physic its bases, as 
 we learn from him, no one will understand. But a sadder spec- 
 tacle of the treatment of a language or of linguistic facts than is 
 presented in that paper, it is not possible to imagine. The reason- 
 ing there is exactly on the same level as the reasoning in the 
 " edition''^ of Panini, of which so many specimens have now become 
 familiar to the reader of this Preface. Exactly the same game at 
 dice or the same vagaries of disease reign in this Dictionary : thus, 
 though the declension phenomena of aJcsM^ asthi, dadhi, are iden- 
 tical, and acknowledged to be so by Dr. Boehtlingk himself in his 
 paper on Declension (§ 69), in his Dictionary he discourses on 
 the first noun under akshan, and again under alcshi, while, on the 
 contrary, if we look to asthi, he refers iis to asihan ; and if under 
 his guidance we now go to dadhan^ he requests us to seek for 
 information under dadhi. 
 
 But since the linguistic hospital, which is opened in the works 
 of Dr. Boehtlingk, is fortunately not the place in which the 
 Sanskrit language lies, — for this language has had a sound and 
 rational development — it will be obvious to everyone who happens 
 not to be placed under Dr. Boehtlingk's treatment, that there must 
 be reasons for this variety of thematic forms which constitute the 
 declension of the same base. And as there are such reasons, the 
 iminediate consequence is that we cannot decide, a priori, whether 
 kartar be the " strengthened" form of the original base kartri, or 
 ^^ kartri" the "weakened" form of the original base kartar. Such 
 a decision can only be taken after a thorough investigation of the 
 influences which cause this change, of the nature of these influ- 
 ences themselves, and of the manner in which they work. And as 
 language does not sit down like a school-boy, first to master the 
 declensions, tben the conjugations, and so on,— but as the influ- 
 ences I am speaking of are influences which are traceable in the 
 whole organism of language itself, it is obvious, too, that such an 
 investigation would not restrict itself to the phenomena of declen- 
 sion merely, but extend over the whole area of the linguistic 
 development. 
 
 When I myself assumed the responsibility of writing a Sanskrit 
 
 33 
 
258 PATANJALI AND THE POTTERS. 
 
 Dictionary, I considered it incumbent on me to devote a most 
 serious researcli to those little facts whicli, as we have seen, are 
 despatched in five lines by our. modern " exegetes and lexico- 
 graphers." Six years have elapsed since I laid my first results, 
 so far as lexicographical purposes are concerned, before the 
 London Philological Society, and it is only the desire of giving 
 them in their full bearing and extent that has hitherto delayed 
 their presentation through the press. Now, it is questions like 
 these — questions which, in my mind, ought to be decided with 
 the very utmost circumspection, and which cannot be decided 
 without very laborious research, — it is questions like these which 
 have been trifled with in this Worterbuch in the most unwarranted 
 manner. It does not show that it even understands the important 
 problem which lies in its path; it briefly informs the reader that it 
 has cancelled all the bases in ri, ri, Iri, etc. and bids him — good- 
 bye. 
 
 Patanjali, — let us for a moment repose after this dreary journey 
 through the Worterbuch, — Patanjali on one occasion thus speaks 
 to us : "When a man is in want of a pot, he goes to the house of a 
 potter and says : (potter), make me a pot, for I have occasion for it. 
 But (surely) a man who wants to employ words will not go, like the 
 other, to the house of a grammarian and say : (grammarian) make 
 me some words, I have occasion for them." ^'^ Happy Patanjali ! 
 blessed in thy ignorance ! Here we have potters who can fabri- 
 cate — and not simply meanings of words, but the very words 
 themselves, and words, too, which you labom-ed so earnestly, 
 so learnedly, so conscientiously, to save from the pottering of all 
 future "exegetes and lexicographers." Nay, we have, too, men 
 who can repair to these potters, and call for, and admire, their 
 linguistic wares ! 
 
 When in the presence of these extraordinary facts, which, un- 
 happily, must silence the expression of all the acknowledgment — 
 
 ^*' Mahabhashya Introduction (p. 52 ed. Ballantyne) : V(^<i sfiT^ «ilf^W'«fi'^il«)fTT- 
 
THE CHAMPIONS OF THE WORTERBUCH.-PEOFESSOE KUHN. 259 
 
 nay, of all the admiration I really entertain for the immense industry 
 displayed in thisWorterbuch,. — ^when with that deep sense which I 
 entertain of the duties and of the influence of a Dictionary, and, in 
 the actual condition of Sanskrit philology, more especially of a 
 Sanskrit Dictionary, — when with these convictions, the earnestness 
 of which, I believe, is proved throughout the whole- of this in- 
 vestigation, — when — I will not conceal it— under the indignation 
 and grief I felt in seeing a magnificent opportunity thrown away 
 — as I shall abundantly prove that it has been thrown away in the 
 case of the Sanskrit "WortOrbuch, — when under these impressions 
 I uttered a warning, five years ago, in the "Westminster Ee- 
 view," a warning contained in three pages, there ensued a spectacle 
 which, during my literary experience, stands without a parallel. 
 
 Professor Kuhn, — not indeed a proficient in Sanskrit, nor having 
 ever obtained any position amongst those who are earnestly en- 
 gaged in Sanskrit philology, but — as a contributor of quotations 
 to the Worterbuch, launched against me the grossest personal in- 
 vectives which ever disgraced the pages of a scientific journal. 
 As sound, literary argument was beyond his range, he indemnified 
 himself, and gratified his employers, by calling me names. Unfortu- 
 nately for him his abuse could produce no effect upon me, for the 
 following reason. Amongst the few critical remarks for which I 
 had room, in the " Westminster Eeview," there was one which illus- 
 trated the manner in which Professor Eoth had translated a ritual 
 text. This remark was expressly written for Professor Kuhn's 
 amusement as well as that of Professor Weber. Por, at a small San- 
 skritic party which used to meet every fortnight at Berlin during the 
 years 1847 and 1848, 1 had shown them the Commentary of Madhava 
 on a Mimansa work, the editing of which I had then commenced, 
 this Commentary being the proof of the assertion I had made in 
 1855 in the '< Westminster Eeview." Professor Kuhn heartily 
 enjoyed, at one of these meetings, the precious translation of the 
 passage in question from the Aitareya-Brahmana, given by Pro- 
 fessor Eoth, in the preface (pp. xxxviii-xli) to his edition of the 
 Nirukta. Nay more, so anxious was he to possess its substance, 
 before it was published, that in my presence he took notes from 
 
260 THE CHAMPIOXS OF THE -WORTERBUCH.— PllOFESSOR KUHN. 
 
 the Commentary I am speaking of, — viz., that of the Jaiminiya- 
 nyaya-mala-vistara. And in the invectives to which I am allud- 
 ing, he does not deny the existence, nor yet the value, of my 
 evidence, but he words his defence of Professor Eoth in so studied 
 and so ambiguous a manner as to create in the minds of his readers 
 a suspicion as to the reliability of the statement I had made, 
 though its truth was perfectly familiar to him.^"" 
 
 Now, a writer who has recourse to such weapons as these has 
 laid aside those qualities which are necessary to retain a man within 
 the pale of a gentlemanly consideration, and his language, however 
 
 ™ In possession of the information I am speaking- of he writes as follows : " Der 
 letzteren stellt der verfasser eine bedeutend abweichende des commentators gegenuber, 
 da er aber nur the commentator und nicht all the commentators oder almost all the 
 commentators sagt, so ist stark zu vermuthen, dass noch andere commentare existiren, 
 welche den text wahrscheinlich in der Rothschen weise erklaren werden ; dabei nehme 
 ich naturlich den Fall als ganz unmoglich an dass der verfasser (der nichts als die 
 iibersetzung giebt) etwa selber den commentar missverstanden haben sollte" i.e. "In 
 opposition to the latter [viz. the version of Professor Roth of the passage in ques- 
 tion] the reviewer gives another of the commentator which is considerably different from 
 it ; but as he merely says the commentator, and not all the commentators or almost all 
 the commentators, thei*e is a strong probability {sic .') that there are other commentators 
 who probably {sic .') explain the text in the manner of Professor Roth, ff^ith these 
 words I assume it, as a matter of course, to be plainly impossible that the reviewer who 
 gives nothing but the translation, should have misunderstood the commentary." — That 
 Professor Kuhn had not the slightest doubt as to who was the author of the review in 
 question, even he will not venture to deny ; for he has stated the fact in letters and in con- 
 versation. But even if he had any such doubt, he knew that I was in possession of the 
 commentary, for he had taken notes from it. If, then, the ascertainment of truth alone 
 had been the object of his remark, as the public might expect of an author, and if 
 his notes were not complete enough- — which, however, I do not admit — the time required 
 for a letter to me and an answer back, that is to say, five days, would have sufficed to 
 give him all the information he could wish for. It requires, however, no statement from 
 me that his object was not to inform his readers of the true state of the facts ; it better 
 suited his purpose to insinuate a doubt as to the correctness of the translation I had 
 given. Indeed, Professor Weber, — who, as I have mentioned, possessed the same know- 
 ledge and had obtained it in the same manner, as Professor Kuhn, settles the point. 
 Though he did not remain behind his colleague in scurrilous abuse, and though, in 
 speaking of my translation, he shows his usual levity, he, nevertheless, plainly and 
 openly acknowledges the full reliability of the translation I had given, on the ground of 
 the Mimausa work. He says : " er kennt uamlieh ofFenbar nur die systematisirende 
 Erklarung der Mlm&nsaschule, etc. ;" i.e. " the reviewer obviously knows only the sys- 
 
THE CHAMPIONS OF THE WORTEEBUCH.— PROFESSOR -WEBER. 261 
 
 gross, and adapted to his own character, can not touch one who 
 does not stand on the same level with him. 
 
 A similar exhibition took place, I am grieved to say, in a 
 journal of high standing and respectability, in the ^'Zeitschrift der 
 Deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft." It is a salutary prac- 
 tice in the journals of all learned societies, not to admit into their 
 pages scurrilous or libellous attacks against individuals ; and this 
 practice has been rigidly adhered to in the journal to which I 
 am adverting, with the single exception of my own case. Pro- 
 fessor Weber, who is also in the service of the Worterbuch, sud- 
 denly attacked me in this journal,— not, indeed, with anything that 
 deserves the name of argument, but with personal abuse of the 
 coarsest kind. Five years have passed by, and at last a sense of 
 justice, which does credit to himself, has re-entered the mind of Pro- 
 fessor Weber ; and in the last number of the " Zeitschrift," which 
 reached me when this Preface was nearly completed in print, he 
 has fully and honestly retracted all his former calumnies ; still, 
 however, combining with the compliments he now pays to my 
 Dictionary, the remark that my views of the Worterbuch show a 
 perfect derangement of my mental faculties, since I do not reject 
 the authority of the greatest Hindu scholars as freely and easily as 
 the work he so assiduously praises. 
 
 I am certainly in no humour to find fault with the opinion 
 which he entertains of my mental condition, for it will always give 
 me a sense of safety and satisfaction when I find him bearing 
 testimony to the vast distance which separates qur respective 
 modes of studying, and judging of, Hindu antiquity. But, as he 
 has chosen to connect his opinion of me with a piece of scientific 
 advice, this seems a fitting opportunity for illustrating, once more^ 
 his competence for passing a judgment on matters of Sanskrit 
 philology. 
 
 He says : "Another, third, essential difference [between the 
 Worterbuch and my Dictionary; — I, myself, trust and hope that 
 
 tematizing explanation of the Mim^nsa school, etc." Tlius, whatever be his opinion of 
 this explanation, he speaks of it from personal knowledge, and admits that my account 
 of it was correct and not liable of doubt. 
 
262 THE CHAMPIONS OF THE 'WOETEIIBUCH.— PROFESSOR WEBER. 
 
 attentive readers will find many more essential differences than 
 three between the two works] consists in [my] not mark- 
 ing the accent of the words." 
 
 In his opinion, therefore, the Worterbuch does mark the accent. 
 Now, setting aside the very considerable quantity of words which 
 are not marked with any accent in this work, the instances in which 
 it is marked there seem to satisfy the scientific requirements of 
 Professor "Weber, I ought, then, to mention, in the first place, that 
 in all such cases the accent is put there over the word without any 
 further explanatory remark. But I have shown that there are periods 
 in the known Sanskrit grammatical literature ; — that the first period 
 is that of Panini, the second that of the Eik-Prati'sakhya, the third 
 (perhaps fourth) that of Katyayana, the fourth (or perhaps fifth) that 
 of the Phitstitras ; and that, as we continue our descent, we have 
 the period of the Za'sika, Kaumudi, etc. Thus, marking an accent 
 without saying to what period such an accent belongs, and up to 
 what period it remains in force, is giving evidence of the greatest 
 superficiality, — it is showing, too, that the difficulties of the question 
 we are speaking of, were not at all understood. As regards myselfj 
 I believe I might have entered into such detail, since I have con- 
 sidered it my duty to turn my researches into this channel also ; 
 and if the scientific and liberal disposition of my publishers could 
 have disregarded all material considerations in the ease — and could 
 have added still more to the great concessions of space which they 
 have already made me, to their own material detriment, since the 
 publication of the third part of my Dictionary, — I should have been 
 able not only to give quotations historically, which the Worterbuch, 
 notwithstanding Professor Weber's bold assertion— I will not attach 
 to it another epithet — does not give, and to discuss the matters of 
 accent, — ^but even to re-edit, little by little, the Commentary to the 
 Satapatha-brahmana, as I have already done on several occasions, 
 in order to prove the meanings I give, and which meanings no one 
 could gather from the text as edited by Professor Weber. No 
 doubt I might have done all this had I been perfectly independent 
 of material considerations. But, at all events, had I, in marking 
 the accents, contented myself with that which satisfies completely 
 
THE CHAMPIONS OF THE WORTERBUCH.-PEOFESSOE WEBER. 263 
 
 Professor Weber's scientific wants, my Dictionary would have 
 become as superficial as the book which he has qualified as a work 
 of the " most scrupulous conscientiousness." ^"^ 
 
 In adverting to Professor Weber's advice, I may as well quote 
 one more instance from his impartial illustration of the difference 
 between the two Dictionaries. It concerns the meanings of words 
 in both. But as I have adverted to this subject before, I need 
 now only say, that he describes the Worterbuch in the following 
 manner. 
 
 "It represents," he writes in the ' Zeitschrift ' '* the principle 
 of reality in contrast with the historical proceeding of interpretation 
 [which he says, is mine], by allowing the words to interpret them- 
 selves through the chronological order (sic. ! !) of the quotations 
 added to them, and through these quotations themselves, the 
 authors always quoting the native exegesis also, but merely as a 
 secondary means. "^^^ And of myself he says, that my "orthodox 
 faith in the authority of native exegetes and grammarians " is 
 something perfectly bewildering ; indeed, it presupposes the "de- 
 riangement of my mental faculties." ^^^ 
 
 It requires all the levity, on the one hand, and all the hardi- 
 hood, on the other, which are the mixed essentials of Professor 
 
 ^" In his libel he says ; " dieses Werk des bewundernswerthesten Fleisses und der 
 sorgsamsten Gewissenhaftigkeit." 
 
 ^^ " Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenlandischen Geselschaft," vol. XIV. p. 755 : 
 Die Haupttendenz, die er {i.e, myself] hiebei verfolgt, besteht eben — ^und dies markirt 
 einen ferneren Haupt-Unterschied von Boehtlingk-Roth — darin, dass er es sich zur 
 Aufgabe macht, die Ansichten der einheimischen Erklarer und Sprachforscher zur 
 pragnanten Geltun gzu bringen,wali-rend Boehtlingk-Roth diesem historischen Erkla- 
 rungsverfahren gegenuber das sachliche Princlp vertreten, die Worter namlich durch 
 zeitllche Ordnung der betreffenden Stellen und durch eben diese Stellen selbst sich 
 uumittelbar erklaren zu lassen, wobei sie die einheimische Exegese zwar auch stets 
 aniiihren, aber doch nur als sekundares Hiilfsmittel beti'achten." 
 
 ^' Ibid. p. 756 : " Personliche Beziehungen habcn uns seitdem iiberzengt, dass der 
 Verfasser bei Abfassung jenes, fiir uns allerdings immer noch geradezu unbegreiflichen, 
 Angriffes auf das Petersburger Worterbuch dennoch wirklich im voUigeu Rechte zu sein 
 glaubte. Es setzt dies freilich nach unserer Ansicht eine Art Verirrung des Denk%'ermo- 
 gens voraus, wie sie auf sonstigen Gebieten nicht selten ist, hier aber in der That be- 
 
264 THE CHAMPIONS OF THE WOETERBUCH.— PROFESSOR WEBER. 
 
 Weber's literary productions, to allow an author to come before the 
 public with statements like these. As for myself, any one may see 
 that there are various instances in my Dictionary where / plainly 
 state that I differ from Ihe etymologies or meanings given hy the native 
 authorities. These cases of dissent are certainly not frequent, be- 
 cause a serious investigation of the native grammarians led me in 
 most instances to appreciate tbeir scholarship and the correctness 
 of its results; nor have I the presumption to supersede them 
 with mere vague and vapouring doubts ; but that I have ground 
 sometimes to differ even from the views of a Katyayana or a 
 Patanjali, Professor Weber will have probably learned now from 
 the foregoing pages, though he might have learned it already 
 from my Sanskrit Dictionary, which he is good enough to favour 
 with his advice. His statement, therefore, concerning my blind 
 belief in all that the Hindu scholars say, is founded on that same 
 overweening superficiality which, as we have seen, leads him to 
 assume the responsibility of schooling Katyayana, whom he does 
 not even understand. 
 
 But as to his description of the Worterbuch, I know not how 
 to qualify it without using language which could only be used 
 by a Professor Kuhn. It is one of my most serious reproaches 
 against the Sanskrit Worterbuch, that it not only creates its 
 own meanings, and by applying them to the most important docu- 
 ments of the literature, practically falsifies antiquity itself but 
 deliberately, and nearly constantly, suppresses all the information 
 we may derive from the native commentaries. I have intimated 
 that the great injury they have thus done to the due appreciation 
 of Hindu antiquity, would have been lessened had they at least, as 
 common sense would suggest, given by the side of their own in- 
 ventions the meanings of Sayana or Mahidhara or of other author- 
 ities, and thus enabled the student to judge for himself. Yet 
 while the reader may peruse their Dictionary page after page, 
 
 fipemdet, eine orthodoxe Hingabe namlich an die Auktoritat der indischen Exegeten und 
 Grammatiker, wie sie uns gegeniiber diesen Haarspaltern, die bei aller Spitzfindigkeit 
 denn doch gar oft jenen verblendeten Leitem gleichen, die da Miicken seigen und 
 Kameele verschlucken, sehr wenig am Platze scheint." 
 
THE CHAMPIONS OF THE WORTERBUCH.— THE CLIMAX. 265 
 
 sheet after sheet, without discovering a trace of these celebrated 
 Vaidik commentaries, while the exceptions to this rule are so rare 
 as to become almost equal to zero, Professor Weber dares to 
 speculate on the credulity of the public in telling it that this Dic- 
 tionary ALWAYS quotes the native exegesis ! 
 
 When a cause has sunk so low as to have such defenders and 
 require such means of defence as these, when its own contributors and 
 its noisiest bards have no other praise to chant than such as this, it 
 seems almost cruel to aggravate its agony by exposure or reproach. 
 
 But the spectacle exhibited on the appearance of my remarks 
 in the "Westminster Eeview" does not end here, and its epilogue 
 is perhaps even more remarkable than the play itself. In the same 
 "Zeitschrift der J)eutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft" there 
 followed another act, which is so characteristic of the system pursued 
 in these attacks, that it deserves a special word, merely for the sake 
 of curiosity. An individual whose sole connection with Sanskrit 
 studies consists in handing Sanskrit books to those who can read 
 them, a literary naught, wholly unknown, but assuming the airs of 
 a quantity, because it has figures before it that prompt it on, — 
 this personage who, as his own friends informed me, is perfectly 
 ignorant of Sanskrit, he, too, was allowed to give his opinion on the 
 Worterbuch. I need not say that, in the absence of all knowledge 
 of the subject itself, it merely vented itself in the most grandiloquent 
 praise ; but, to complete its mission, there was added to this fustian, 
 language, in reference to me, such as certainly was never heard, 
 or admitted, before in a respectable journal of any society. He 
 need not tremble lest I should drag him into notoriety. Nature 
 has not fitted him for estimating the ridicule to which he exposed 
 himself in becoming the mouthpiece and the puppet of his insti- 
 gators. If he deserve anything, it is not chastisement, but pity, 
 and the mercy of a charitable concealment of his name. 
 
 And all this outrage, not only against the interests of science and 
 truth, but against the commonest rules of decency, was committed 
 in a series of planned attacks, because I had warned the Sanskrit 
 Worterbuch of the danger of its career, and had not expressed 
 any admiration for Dr. Boehtlingk's competence or scholarship. 
 
 84 
 
266 THE HIDDEN EEASONS OF THE "EDITOR" OF PANi:<I. 
 
 It was then, and on the ground of observations I had made in 
 regard to his want of proficiency, that I was called upon by one of 
 his men, not only to have respect for the "editor of Panini," but 
 even for the hidden reasons he might have had in foisting on the 
 public his blunders of every kind. The "editor of Panini" was 
 held before me as a symbol of scientific accomplishment ; his 
 " edition of Panini " was the great thunderbolt which was hurled 
 at my head by one of these little Jupiters.^^* 
 
 Por eighteen years I have been thoroughly acquainted with the 
 value and the character of this ^' edition''^ of Panini; and yet, from 
 a natural disinclination to antagonize with those who have similar 
 pursuits to my own, I have refrained from apprizing the public 
 of the knowledge I possessed in regard to it. Twelve j'^ears have 
 passed since I explained my views on this book personally and 
 
 ^"^ Prof. Kuhn writes in his " Zeitschrift " the following words : " Wo der alten gi-amma- 
 tiker nicht erwahnung gethan ist, geschah es nur deshalb nicht, weil ihre etymologic mit 
 der der verfasser iibereinstimmte ; stellteu dieselbcn aber ohne jene zu erwahnen eigne ety- 
 mologieen auf, so liess sich doch wohl voraussetzen, dass der herausgeber des Panini, des 
 Vopadeva u. s. w. dazu seine wohlerwogenen griinde gehabt haben mochte ;" i.e., " where 
 no mention was made [in the Worterbuch] of the old grammarians, this was done be- 
 cause their etymology agreed with that of the authors of the Worterbuch ; but when 
 the latter made their own etymologies without naming the former, it was but natural 
 to suppose that the editor of Pftnini, of Vopadeva, etc. had his own well-weighed reasons 
 for doing so." The real nature of this statement of Professor Kuhn will become ap- 
 parent from the review whieh I shall give of the Worterbuch. But his information, as it 
 is, is not without great interest. Thus, according to this quotationer of the AVorterbuch, 
 its authors pass over in silence the labours of the Hindu grammarians — not because 
 they see reason to adopt the results of the latter — but because these labours have the 
 honour to meet with the approval of Dr. Boehtlingk and Company. Under any cir- 
 cumstances, however, it was but natural and rational to pass them over in silence and 
 to suppress the information they give, — for, either they have the honour of being ap- 
 proved of by Dr. Boehtlingk, or " the editor of Panini " had probably his well-weighed 
 reasons for not agreeing with them ; and, in the latter case, there was of course not 
 the slightest necessity that he should give or even allude to these important reasons. 
 The passage quoted would alone quite suffice to illustrate the character of the fulsome 
 adulation and of the puffing advertisements — written, of course, exclusively by the em- 
 ployed scribes of the Worterbuch — which for some years have made their appearance 
 in some literary journals of Germany, and have not only misled, but imposed upon, the 
 public unacquainted or imperfectly acquainted with Sanskrit philology. 
 
THE CHAMPIONS OF THE ■WORTERBTJCH— CONCLUSION. 267 
 
 privately, at our Sanksritic parties, to Professors Weber and Kuhn ; 
 and the longer the interval passed over, the less I felt disposed to 
 speak of it in print. At present, after twenty years' time, I should 
 have considered it almost unfair to rake up the past ; for a sense 
 of charity -would have told me that the moral and intellectual con- 
 dition of a man may undergo considerable changes during so con- 
 siderable a period of his life. But in spite of my strongest desire 
 to combine the defence of literary interests with a regard for all 
 the circumstances connected with the author himself, I am not 
 allowed to remain silent, in consequence of the insolent provoca- 
 tions which I receive. Not only does Dr. Boehtlingk quote his 
 ''edition" of Panini, in his Worterbuch, — not only does he thus 
 force it, as it were, on us by the references he makes to it, and 
 acknowledge it to this day as his legitimate child, — but one of his 
 own scribes, well acquainted with the judgment I should pass on 
 it, has the hardihood to defy me publicly, by bidding me have 
 respect for the "editor of Panini." 
 
 "Well, then, I have taken up this impertinent challenge. In 
 so far as my present subject permitted, I have illustrated the 
 nature of this immaculate book ; and it will not be my fault if I am 
 compelled to recur to it again. 
 
 Still a provocation of this kind alone would have as little 
 induced me to take up my pen now as it did heretofore; but 
 when I see the public told authoritatively, yet without any 
 proof, that Sayana teaches that understanding of the Veda which 
 was current in India no longer than a few centuries ago; — 
 when I see that the most distinguished and the most learned 
 Hindu scholars and divines— the most valuable, and sometimes 
 the only, source of all our knowledge of ancient India — are 
 scorned in theory, mutilated in print, and, as a consequence, 
 set aside in the interpretation of Vaidik texts ;— when I see that 
 the most ancient records of Hindu antiquity are interpreted 
 to the European public in such a manner as to cease to be that 
 which they are ;— when a clique of Sanskritists of this description 
 vapours about giving us the sense of the Yeda as it existed at the 
 commencement of Hindu antiquity ;— when I see that the very forms 
 
268 CONCLUSION. 
 
 of the language are falsified, and that it is made a principle to slur 
 the grammar of Panini, and to ridicule those who lay stress on it ; — 
 when I see that one of the highest grammatical authorities of India 
 is schooled for a " want of practice and skill," while this censure is 
 passed without even an understanding of the work to which it 
 refers ; — when I see that they who emphatically claim the epithet 
 of " veracious, "^^^ make statements which are the very reverse of 
 truth ;— and when I consider that this method of studying Sanskrit 
 philology is pursued by those whose words apparently derive weight 
 and influence from the professorial position they hold ; — and when, 
 moreover, departing from rule and precedent, I see the journal of a 
 distinguished Society — I fully hope through an oversight of its 
 editor, though a Professor of Sanskrit himself — permanently made 
 the channel for propagating such statements as I have described 
 and qualified, together with these scandalous personal attacks and 
 calumnies, — then I hold that it would be a want of courage and 
 a dereliction of duty, if I did not make a stand against these 
 Sattjunalta op Sanskrit Philology. 
 
 On this ground I have raised my voice, however feeble and 
 solitary for the moment, and have endeavoured to examine the 
 competence of those who set themselves up as our masters and 
 authorities. On this ground I have endeavoured to vindicate for 
 Panini the position he holds in Sanskrit literature, and the position 
 he ought to hold amongst honest Sanskrit philologers. 
 
 '■'' Professor Weber in his libel : " einen um so peinlicheren Eindruck muss es auf 
 jeden wahrheitsliebenden Forscher machen, etc. ;" i.e. " the more painful is the im- 
 pression which must be produced on every veracious scholar " [viz., if he reads my 
 opinion on the Worterbuch, which opinion, — I must add, so far from having changed, is 
 even more emphatic now than it was when I wrote the review which has so much dis- 
 pleased him]. 
 
 BTEPBBN AOemn, FBIXTZB, HESTroIU).