CORRESPONDENCE, &c.

FEBRUARY, 1873.]

place. My object, therefore, was to show that the Mahābhārata was far more ancient, and that it existed at and before all the well-ascertained dates in Sanskrit literature.

It was not meant

to collect all possible evidence, whether certain or doubtful, for the existence of the poem. Had I thought of doing so, it would have taken me much longer time than I could spare ; and some of the books to which it would have been necessary to refer were also wanting. I have not even brought together all the passages bearing on the point to be found in Patanjali's work. But I am content for the present to leave the task to the well-known industry and acuteness of Professor Weber.

WEBER ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.

[IN order that our readers may have all the evi dence before them, a translation is here appended

of that portion of Professor Weber's critique on Goldstücker's “Pānini” which refers to the Date

of Patanjali.-Ed.] At the close of Goldstücker's essay [Preface to the Mānavakalpasūtra] we find an enquiry into the date of Patanjali (pp. 228-38). In the first place, from mention being made in his work of the Maurya, it is pointed out, and indeed

thereby established, that he could not have lived before the date of this dynasty. The passage in question is of great interest, and would imply besides, according to the view of Patanjali, that Pānini also lived after that time !

It is as follows:

Patanjali, in commenting on the rule V. 3, 99: jivikār the chá 'p any e, “in the case of a life sustenance-serving (object, which is an image [pra tikrit a u is still to be understood, from 96], the affix ka is not used), except when the object is saleable,”—gives the following explanation (accord

ing to Goldstücker, p. 229): apanya ity uchyate, tatredamna sidhyati, sivah skando vis'âkhaiti | kim

kāranam mauryair hiranyārthibhir archāh pra kalpitáh bhavet | tasu na syāt | yås twº etāb sampratipājārtháh, tásu bhavishyati | “In the case of a saleable, e.g., Siva, Skanda, Visãkha, the rule does not apply (the affix k a being used in such

cases). The gold-coveting maury a had caused images of the gods to be prepared. To these the rule does not apply, but only to such as serve for immediate worship (i.e., with which their possessors

go about from house to house [in order to exhibit them for immediate worship, and thereby to earn money], Kaiyyata).” From this it appears that Patanjali is undoubtedly of opinion that Pánini himself, in referring to images (pratikriti) that were “saleable,” i. e., by their sale afforded suste nance of life (jivikārtha), had in his eye such as those that had come down from the Mauryal Be this as it may, the notice is in itself an exceedingly curious cne. If it were at all allowable, we might

61

understand the word maury a here as an appella tive, meaning “sculptors,” or something of the kind ; as indeed seems to be the opinion of Nâges'a, whose text,however,is corrupt (m a ury a h vikretum pratimãsſilpavantas is somewhat ungrammatical). But the word cannot be shown to bear such a

meaning in any other passage. And the part. perf. causativi goes rather to prove that the Maurya were

not themselves the

actual makers of the

images, but only caused them to be made ; al though, to be sure, this cannot be laid down posi tively, seeing that causativa frequently appear also quite as new verba simplica, and there are several instances of this precisely in the case of the root k a 1 p. And if, in support of the view that the word refers to the Maurya-dynasty, it should further be adduced that Patanjali in other places also makes frequent mention of the covetousness of kings (cf. Ballantyne, pp. 234 and 315 : Gargås Satam dandyantãm a r th in a s cha rājāno h i r a n yen a bhavanti, na cha pratyekam dan dayanti), yet on the other hand it is not easy to understand how kings, in order to earn their liveli hood (and only on this condition is the exam ple relevant to the sūtra), should have caused images of the gods to be prepared or exhibited for sale ! But if, consequently, we cannot as yet quite rid ourselves of some amount of uncertainty, whether we are really to understand by the word m a ury a in this pâssage the dynasty of that name, there can at all events be no doubt with regard to the fact itself, that Patanjali did not live until after their time. The proofs which establish this, and which have been overlooked by Goldstücker, are contained in two examples which Patanjali adduces with reference to a virt tika in I. 1, 68 (Ballan tyne, p. 758) : Pushyamitrasabhā, Chandragupta sabhā. Even if the latter example (which recurs also in the Calc. Schol. on II. 4, 23) does not abso lutely establish that he lived later than the time of the Maurya, yet the former affords quite conclusive proof of this ; and we learn at the same time from this passage, that the bearer of the name Pushya mitra who founded the Suñga dynasty, succeeding that of the Maurya, was not merely a general (senāpati), as he is called in the Purāna and in the Málavikāgnimitra, but really a king (reigned, according to Lassen, 178-142 B.C.); for Goldstücker cannot well have any doubt as to the identity of the two Pushyamitras.

The date of Patanjali may, however, be still more definitely fixed. The lower limit is determined by a passage from the Rājatarañgini, adduced first by

Böhtlingk, according to which Abhimanyu, king of Kashmir (reigned, according to Lassen, 45-65 A.D.), rendered some service to the text of the Mahābhā

shya, of which we shall presently speak more in detail. We cannot, therefore, come any lower down than his time. Goldstücker very justly calls atten tion to two highly important examples which Patan