64

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

that such a “MS.” received, according to the Våkyapadiya, from Parvata, came “into possession of Abhimanyu" by the hands of Chandra and the others. In my opinion we have to abide simply by Lassen's conjecture: tad-āgame (Loc.), “after they had received from him the command to come to him;” and indeed this appears to me quite indubitable when we take also into consideration the second

passage of the Rājatarañgini, IV. 487, already quoted by Böhtlingk, in which it is said of Jayápida (reigned, according to Lassen, 754-85)—

des àntarăd āgamayya vyāchakshānān

kshamā

patih prāvartayatavichhinnam mahābhāshyam svaman dale || “From another land bade come explainers thereof the earth-prince, And brought the split Bhāshya in the kingdom new into vogue.” And the combination, occurring here, of právar tayata with svamandale, definitely decides that in the first passage also (I.176) prāvartitam is to be understood as meaning, not the “constituting of a text,” but the “introduction” of the work into Kashmir; and, consequently, the whole of Gold stücker's polemic against the hitherto received con ception of this verse is shown to be perfectly idle and groundless. And, moreover, Bhartrihari's representation by no means leaves the impression that all that is recorded therein could have taken place within the short period of about 30 years; and yet, according to

[FEBRUARY, 1873.

fore we cannot well call in question the possibility that even the two passages referred to above may belong to such interpolations. But in that case the entire ground on which we stand with reference to this question becomes so unstable and uncertain, that we gladly hold by the assurance that these passages may just as likely be genuine. The very peculiar manner in which, in the Mahābhāshya throughout, Patanjali is spoken of in the third person, is certainly remarkable, and might easily lead to the supposition that the work, as we possess it, is rather a work of his dis ciples than of Patanjali himself (compare what is

said in the Acad. Worles., p. 216, regarding two other cases of the kind). This is not, however, abso lutely necessary: the example of Caesar shows that such a practice may be employed even when the author is speaking of himself; and therefore it would certainly require very special evidence to

prove such a conclusion. If, in reference to this, it could

be

established that in the Mahābhā

shya—I can speak naturally only of the compa ratively small portion to which we have access in

Ballantyne's edition—cases are found in which a series of proof-passages are cited only with their initial words, while the text of the passages follows after. wards in ectenso, together with a detailed explanation,

yet on the other hand such self-commentaries are by no means uncommon in Indian literature; and, in con sideration of the remarkable amount of detail with

which even the Mahābhāshya otherwise treats its

what has been said above on Nos. 1 and 2, regarding

subject, not in the least degree surprising: the brief exhibition of the proof-passages finds, too, its quite

the passages “arunad Yavanah Sāketam” and “arunad Yavano Mādhyamikān,” it is not easy to

corresponding analogue in the peculiar use of the work for closing a discussion by versus memoriales

account for alonger interval between the composition bhāshya into Kashmir; we obtain this interval,

which gather up in brief what has been already said. It would be presumptuous to pronounce at present on the complete authenticity of the existing

to wit, when, in the absence of every other

text of the Mahābhāshya, when we have access to

fixed point, we strike the mean between the dates

only so small a portion. And in the preceding discussion I have only sought to show that, in so

of these passages and the introduction of the Mahā

already found, 5-45 and 45-65 A.D., and consequently fix the composition of the Mahābhāshya at 25 A.D., and Abhimanyu's care for the same at 55 A.D. The

question therefore naturally arises, whether possibly those two examples may not have come into the text

only through “Chandra and the others,”—originally therefore do not come from Patanjali at all? That the restoration of a text lost for a time—and this, according to the Vākyapadiya, was really the question at issue—in the fashion which Indian

scholars are accustomed to employ, would not take place without interpolations on their part, is, to say the least, extremely likely; and there

far as we are at present acquainted with its con tents, there exist no directly urgent grounds for doubting its authenticity. In the meantime, the two passages adduced by Goldstücker : “arunad Yavanah Sāketam” and “arunad Yavano Mādh

yamikān,” may be regarded as furnishing sufficient evidence for determining the date of Patanjali; and

on that evidence it would appear—on the assump tion that Lassen's chronology is correct—that the date must be fixed not, according to the opinion of Goldstücker, at 140-120 B.C., but probably at about 25 after Christ.