JULY, 1873.]

CORRESPONDENCE, &c.

Mauryas. I never said more than this, and Bhān dārkar goes too far when he says “Prof. Weber

infers that Pāini in making his rule had in his eye,” &c. My words are: “According to the view of Patañjali;” “Patañjali is undoubtedly of opi nion;” “Be this as it may, the notice is in itself an exceedingly curious one.”—Now with regard to this very curious and odd statement itself, I venture to throw it out as a mere suggestion whether it may not perhaps refer to a first attempt at gold coinage made by the Mauryas (in imitation of the Greek coins). It is true no Maurya coin has been discovered as yet, so far as I know, but this may be mere chance; the real difficulty is how to bring Patañjali's words into harmony with such an interpretation, the more so as in his time no doubt gold coins were already rather common.

When a thing is called at the same time Parok sham and pray ok tur dar Š an avi shay a m, we can render the first only by “what is no more to be seen,” the second by “what has been seen by the speaker, or could have been seen by him.” The imperfect is used always, parokshe, when a thing is no more to be seen, but it may be either lokavijnáta, notorious, or prayoktur dar éanavishaya, belonging to the personal experience of the speaker, or even to both together. In thus concluding what I had to say in my defence, I beg to repeat my acknowledgment of Prof. Bhāndārkar's critical spirit, of which he has given ample proof already in an elaborate -leview of Haug's Aitareya-Brahmana (1864), of which he now acknowledges himself the author, and

which I embodied

in

the ninth volume

209

pared in London under Goldstücker's care, will still defy for a while many attempts to break through its hard crust. It is a great pity that from the colossal dimensions of Ballantyne's edition we are now reduced to the other extreme, viz. to having nothing except a mere transcript of a manuscript, without any indications and helps of an editorial character. The text of the Mahābhāshya, in all three editions, is prima vista a quite undiscernible mictum compositum of Pămini's värttika and bhā

shya; and the bhāshya, again, is itself composed in a most unwieldy and unsettled way, stuffed to suffocation with objections, counter-objections, repetitions, examples and counter-examples. And with regard especially to the latter, we ought never to lose sight of the circumstances under which, according to the testimonies of the Vākyapadiyam

and the Rájatarañgini, the work was finally ar ranged in its present form, and of the many chances that rendered it liable to changes and intercalations, under the treatment it may have experienced.

I beg to add some remarks on another subject : In The Academy (No. 68, March 15, p. 118) I gave a short statement of my real views on the relation

of Vālmīki to the Homeric saga-cycle, by repro ducing pertinent passages from Mr. Boyd's transla tion of my Essay on the Rāmāyana, as contained in your pages. A correspondent of The Academy had (No. 65, p. 58) drawn the attention of its readers to the patriotic indignation of some learned Hindus against its results, at the same time him self stating its purport in terms which I could not consider as a true representation of my views.

I had not then seen the review of my Essay by Kāşinăth Trimbak Telang, and could judge of it

of my Indische Studien, on account of its intrinsic merits, without knowing at all from whom it came. “It is the first time,” I said in introducing it,

only from the notice given by the writer in The Academy. By the courtesy of the author I have

“as far as we know, that a born Hindu has

state that—far from “laying particular stress on the total want of correspondence in the delineation

subjected with courage and independence the work of a European Sanskrit scholar to a search ing critique, and this moreover in a manner which shows him quite competent and fully prepared to do it.” He has given a new instance of his saga

city on the present occasion, and in congratulat ing him as a most welcome fellow-labourer in our common studies, I beg to express my hope that

he may continue still for a time to make the critical ransacking of the Mahābhāshya his special

department; as he has succeeded already in drawing from it some very important details, he will not fail doubtless to find more of them.

since received it, and take this opportunity to of the various characters introduced in the two

poems,” as he was said to do in The Academy, and which would have exposed him too, to the charge of “fighting against windmills,” which I direct against all who state it as any theory “that the Rāmāyana of Vālmīki is simply an Indian transla tion of Homer's Iliad”—he has indeed “endea voured to refute my arguments one by one,” with

out at all giving so prominent a part to that particular point. Though prejudiced, as he ho nestly allows, by his national feelings, he proves a

Combined

faithful inquirer after truth; and if he has not, in

efforts are necessary to wield this huge mass, which, in spite of the Benares edition, as well as of the forthcoming photolithographed edition, pre

any opinion, succeeded in anyways changing the aspect of the question-partly because he too puts it wrongly,” and partly because he has written

• The title of his review is:-"Was the Rāmāyana copied from Homer ?” I never thought of maintaining so much as that.