240

that passage to do with the circumstance of this

being a värtika 2 If Professor Weber means to show that Patañjali was acquainted with the

lingual usages prevailing in the South, I do not deny that he was, and it is just the lingual usages in that part of the country that are noticed even here.

[AUGUST, 1873.

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

But this does not destroy the character of

the passage as a vårtika. It must be a vértika for the above reasons: hence my inference that Kät

yāyana was a Southerner. The Professor is in clined to account for allusions to Southern usage contained in the Mahdbhāshya from the fact that it was preserved in books in the South, i. e. pro

bably, he thinks them interpolations.

Śri Harsha at p. 213 of the Indian Antiquary, I would observe that the MSS. read n a r a fºr tº va,

not marajurápa, in the passage in question, and it would be interesting to know by what process marañrºva and sáran are made to mean “pre

eminent in arts of poetry”; further, the MSS. have wa, not ſa, and in consequence the rendering “wreath of victory” is purely imaginary. The line rendered “who composed the chronicle

of king Bhoja” stands in the MSS. “jinai seta bandhyau tibhojan prabandham,” which is, I admit, not very easy to translate. There is a reading bhajani, which is far better; the anuswära is here

Are we

merely inserted to make out the metre, which,

similarly to think that the Mahābhāshya was preserved in books and unfairly treated by the people of Surāshtra, by the Kambojas, and by the

being Bhujangi, requires a long syllable at that place, thus—

Práchyas and Madhyamas, because it contains allusions to their usage also? (see p. 62 ed. Bal

jinäisèt rābān dhyāuſ ti bhöjäfniprābān dhām. I willingly admit the new reading and the conse quent mention of the bhojaprabandha, but the syl

lantine.)

lable ti is thus left unaccounted for, as well as seta.

Inferiority in rank there is in Patañjali in com parison with Kātyāyana. It does not matter if Patañjali's views are adopted by Kaiyata and others. They are so adopted because he was the

greater the authority. But still Pālini is always

My rendering proceeded upon the supposition that ti stood for tri, and bhojan can only mean ‘enjoyment.’ The line in this aspect appears to allude to Kalidasa's wide-spread popularity as a writer of plays and poems, which are figuratively compared, by a familiar image in Indian literature, to the Setubandha, or bridge between India and Ceylon. Setu is further used to signify any

regarded as first in rank, Kātyāyana second, and

work which, from its merits and established autho

Patañjali third.

that the Vákyapadłya and the Rájatarangiai afford evidence of the Mahábhāshya having been

rity, acts as a dyke or protection to laws, institu tions, or literature, against heresies of belief or taste. Putting these considerations together, I essayed the rendering quoted by Mr. Growse. If we are to give up this rendering, them we must have an explanation of seta and ti, otherwise our line is still partially untranslated. The rendering “who composed the chronicle of king Bhoja,” though so dogmatically asserted to be correct, will certainly not stand.

tampered with by Chandrāchārya and others. They appear to me to say that these persons promoted

Balasor, July 12, 1873.

last of the three Munis. When the three Mumis differ, the rule for one's guidance is yathottaram

mºuntnám prámányam,_the later the Muni, the

I need not say anything on the few remaining points. Professor Weber has made one or two admissions, and as to the rest I leave it to my

readers to judge of the merits of the controversy. I reserve one point for discussion on some future

occasion, especially as Professor Weber has not given prominence to it now. I do not believe

John BEAMEs.

the study of grammar, brought the Mahābhāshya into use, and wrote several works themselves.

In conclusion, I give Professor Weber my sin cere thanks for the many good and encouraging words he has said about me. I am gratified to

The same.

Mr. Growse is a well-known authority on Chand's Epic, but it seems to me he is not correct in

find that my criticisms have not offended him.

regarding the “Naishadha as a poem of consider able antiquity.” Chand, in the prefatory chapter

Controversies on philological or literary points

of his Prithirdja Rºtsau, mentions the names of

ought not to embitter the feelings of the disputants against each other, but unfortunately they very often do so. I am therefore particularly glad that our controversy is an exception to the general rule in this respect. R. G. BHANDARKAR.

CHAND'S MENTION OF SRf HARSHA. With reference to Mr. F. S. Growse's note on

Šeshnāg, Vishnu, Vyāsa, Sukadeva, Śri Harsha, Kalidasa, Dandamāli, and Jayadeva; but these are not placed in chronological order, as Mr. Growse supposes. For the great bard Kalidasa, who graced the court of Vikramāditya and Bhoja, flourished some centuries before Sri Harsha. Sri Harsha was one of the five Brähmans who were

invited by Adisura, king of Gaur. This fact is clearly pointed out in the historical work on Ben