FEBRUARY, 1873.]

CORRESPONDENCE, &c.

as indeed the perpetual contest between this latter and other Buddhist schools (cf. Hiuen Thsang I. 172) gave occasion to the great council held under Kanishka, which was intended to effect a reconci liation. And although, according to the Rājatarafi gini, Nāgārjuna's influence was in full bloom under Abhimanyu, yet it would still have been quite pos sible that under his predecessor, Kanishka, the pre dominant feeling might have been hostile to Nāgār juna, as in point of fact the latter appears never to have had any share in the council held under the presi dency of Pärs’va and Vasumitra. With respect to No. 3, the composition of the Mahābhāshya, we will in the first place bring forward here what can be gathered from other sources regarding the author, Patanjali. According to Goldstücker, the names G on i kāpu tra and G on a r diya, with which in two passages of the Mahābhāshya the view in question is supported, are to be referred to Patanjali himself, seeing that the commentaries (Nâges'a on “Gonikāputra,” Kaiyyata on “Go nardiya”) explain them by the word “bhāshyakāra.” As a matter of fact, Patanjali never speaks in the first person, but he is always spoken of in the third person, and his opinion is several times introduced by tu (pasyati tv fichāryah, in Ballantyne, pp. 195, 196, 197, 245, 281,303, 787): it is also quite possible therefore that the words “Gonardiyas t v flha” do really refer to Patanjali. One only, however, of those two identifications can be correct ; the other must to all appearance be false. For according to a

communication

for which I am indebted to

Aufrecht's kindness, Gonardiya and Gonikāputra are two different persons, whom Vātsyāyana, in the

63

circumstance that Kaiyyata sometimes designates Patanjali as “à châry a desiya,” i.e., as country man of the āch är y a, or rather, contrasts him with the latter, i. e., Kātyāyana, the author of the Vârt tika; and that as Kātyāyana belonged to the east, Patanjali is also hereby assigned to the east. Mention should also have been made here of the

special statement :—vyavahite 'pi pårvasabdo war tate, tad yathá, pårvam Mathurāyāh Pātaliputram (Ballantyne, p. 650) “Pātaliputra” lies before Ma thură, which is intelligible only in the mouth of a man who lived behind Pātaliputra, and consequently decides for the eastern residence of Patanjali. In case, therefore, that “Gonardiya” is really to be understood as his name, the word can in fact be referred only to that “prāchām des'a,” not to the Kashmirian kings called Gonarda, as Lassen's opi nion is, II. 484, and still less to the people of the same name mentioned by Varāhamihira, XIV. 12, as dwelling in the south, near Dasapura and Kerala. Now, according to what has been remarked with

reference to Nos. 1 and 2, the work of Patanjali must have made a name for itself with great rapidity, in order to have been able to be introduced

into Kashmir so early as in the reign of Abhimanyu. We come back again to this question further on ; meanwhile we turn to what is in fact a highly inte resting representation of the history of the Mahā bhāshya, which Goldstücker adduces for the eluci dation of that verse of the Rājatarañgini which refers to the services rendered to the commentary by Abhimanyu, from the second book of the Vākya padiya of Bhartrihari, containing the so-called Harikārikās.

introduction of his Kåmasſtra, celebrates side by side as his predecessors in the teaching of the ars amandi : in a very surprising fashion : the one, namely, as author of a manual thereon, showing how one should behave in this matter towards one's own

wife; the other as author of a work treating of the proper procedure in reference to strange women : Gonardiyo bhāryadhikārikam, Gonikāputrah pāra dārikam (namely, kāmasſ tram samchikshepa): see Aufrecht, Catalogăs, p. 215. In the body of the work Gonardiya is specially quoted five times, Gonikāputra six times. It would be delightful to

get here so unexpected a glimpse into the private life of Patanjali.

It may serve to set our minds

at rest with reference to his moral character to

remember that it is only the comparatively modern

Nâges'a who identifies him with the Don Juan Godikāputra, while by Kaiyyata, almost a thousand years earlier, the contemporary of the author of the Trikāndas'esha and of Hemachandra, he is compared with the honoured Gonardiya. As regards the name of the latter, Goldstücker, pp. 235-236, calls attention

to a passage of the Kāsikā, I. 1, 75, in which the word “Gonardiya” (or “Gonardiyas,” as the Calc. Schol. has it) is adduced as an instance of a place situated in the east (prāchām dese); and also to the

After this long digression on this passage, which seemed to be demanded by its importance, we turn now again to the proper question which is specially engaging our attention here, and on account of

which it was was cited by Goldstücker.

There can

evidently be no doubt that the recovery, des cribed therein by Hari, of the Mahābhāshya by “Chandra and the others” is the same to which

the statement of the Rājatarañgini I. 176 (some five or six centuries later) refers regarding Abhi manyu's care for the work :— Chandrāchāryadibhir labdh(v) a desam tasmát tadāgamam | Pravartitam mahābhāshyam, svain cha vyākara nam kritam || Now, when Goldstücker translates —“After that Chandra and the others had received

command

from him (Abhimanyu), they established a text of the Mahābhāshya, such as it could be established by means of his MS. of this work, and composed their own grammars,” this translation rests partly upon an application, demanded by nothing in the pas sage, of the meaning which, without sufficient

grounds, he has attached to the word āgama, viz., “MS. :" partly upon the quite gratuitous assumption