________________
Ocr. 4, 1872.]
THE DATE OF PATANJALI.
301
shows that it is not wanted, though out of re- spect for the great Acharya he does not distinctly Bay so, tells us that there are some sůtras in which the rules given are applicable,-1, sometimes to the synonymes of the words,-2, sometimes to the individuals comprised under the species denoted by the words,-3, sometimes to the words alone, and, sometimes to any two of these three. In these cases some indicatory letters ought, he says, to be attached to the words to show to which, or to which two, of the three categories the rule is to be applied. Then in such rules as II. 4, 28, which teaches that a Tatpurusha compound ending in the word sabhd (court or assembly) preceded by rdjan (king) becomes neuter he tells us that j should be attached to rajan and others, to show that the rule is appli"cable only to the synonymes of Rajan and others, and not to rájan or others themselves, or to the individuals comprised under the species denoted by rajan and others. And the instances he gives to show that it is not applicable to individual rájás or kings are Pushpamitra-sabhá (the assembly or court of Pushpamitra) and Chandragupta-sabha' (the assembly or court of Chandragupta) in which we see that the compound is not neuter but feminine. We thus come to
• Patanjali face7T US at: कर्तव्य :। ततो वक्तव्य पर्यायवचनस्यैव ग्रहण भवति। किं प्रयो जनम् । राजाद्यर्थम् । सभाराजामनुष्यपूर्वा। इनसभम् । ईश्वर सभम | तस्यैव न भवतिाराजसभा। ताशेषाणां च न भवति। पुष्पमित्रसभा| चन्द्रगुप्त सभा
+ See amongst others his comments on I-8-2, II-1-16, II-3-28, III-3-134, and 186 and 7-3-67. In the second of these, one of the examples given is YTETIOC E . Pataliputra was situated on the banks of the Sonn.
1 And I may say the Puranas do not mention another king of the same name of any country whatever. The Dame Pushpamitra does occur elsewhere, but in that case there is no agreement among the Puranas. The Vishou and the Vayu make it the name of a dynasty and according to the former it was #Babliks or foreign dynasty. The Bhagavata only mentions it as the name of an individual, but this pur , froin the manner in which it has corrupted several paines and some facts, is not much to be depended on. See Wilson, Vish. Par. 1st edn. p. 478.
This Pushpamitra is spoken of in the Malavikågnimte of Kalidas. Prof. Wilson calls him a general, and Prof. Lassen the general of his son, who is represented in the drama as king of Vidis'. Prof. Lassen, wil. Alterthumsk. (Vol. II. p. 27l and 346) is constrained bowever by other evidence to admit that he was king: but he thinks he reigned at. Vidis', and that his son was co-regent with him. Prof. Wilson supposes that he usurped the throne for his son rather than for himself. But the first portion of the DARBARO on which they seem to base their conclusions L this Devusya Denpateh Pushpamitrays Baka'at ..... . .............lekhah praptah. Professor Lassen understands this to mean ** letter has been received from Pushpamitr, the general of the lord (i.6. Agaimitro)." But wbo ever heard of a father being Commanderin-Chief to his son? And immediately after, Pushpamitrs
the conclusion that Pushpamitra was the name of a king.
Now we know that the most powerful kin dom during a few centuries before Christ, the sovereigns of which extended their sway over a large portion of India, was that of Magadha, the capital of which was Pataliputra. And Patanjali so often speaks of this city in his works that we must infer that he had a great deal to do with Pataliputra, and perhaps lived there for some time, and that on that account the city and things concerning it were uppermost in his thoughts. The Pushpamitra then that he speaks of in the two cases here pointed out, must have been king of Pataliputra in his time. And the fact of his being mentioned along with Chandragupta in one of the two cases strengthens this inference. For Chandragupta the Maurya was king of Magadha, and there was no other Chandragupta till several centuries afterwards when the Gupta dynasty came into power.
Now looking into the Purâņas we find that there was only one king of Magadha of the name of Pushpamitra, the founder of the Sunga dynasty, which succeeded the Mauryas. He was the Commander-in-Chief of Brihadratha, the
is represented as about to perform an As'vamedha sacrifice, which done but kings who pretended to paramount supremacy could institute. In other authorities also it is Pushpamitra that appears as the conqueror or usurper and not his son. Pushpamitra therefore could not have been his son's general; nor does Kalidasa say he was. Agaimnitra's commander-in-chief was Virasena, to whom he is more than once represented in the play as issuing orders. 1 be words above quoted are to be thus interpreted. "A letter has been received from the lord Senapati (general), Pusbpamitra" i. e. the genitive Devasya ought to be taken as an epithet of Puh panitra, and not as connected with or koverned by Senapati. Todeed the title Deva shows that Pushpamitra was king, for it is applied in the dramatic works to kings only, and there is even a rule to this effect (see Dr. Hall's Dug'arupa, p. 109-Devah svâmiti připatih). And Senepati (general) must have become a distinguishing epithet of Pushpamitra, for he was the general of Bribadrutbi, the last Maurya king. And even in the Vishnu Purans the epithet senapati seems to have been applied to him some. wbat in this way. Tatah Pushpamitrak Senapatih Sve minam hatv8 rijyam kariahyati." The first two kings of the Vala bi dynasty in Surashtrs, were called Senápatis ; nor does it follow from this passage that Vidis'ê was the capital of Pushpamitra but rather the opposite. For in the letter which he sends to Agnimitra, he invites the latter to come with his wife to be present at the As'vamedha sacrifice. If Vidis'a bad been his capital, the sacrifice would have been performed at that city, and no such invitation would have been cessary. It follows, therefore, that some other city was Pushpamitra's capital, and wat other could it have been but Påtaliputra, the capital of the Mauryas whom he had supplanted, and which in the Bud.. histic account given by M. Burnout is mentioned as his place of residence. Agoimitra his son may probably have been appointed by bim Governor or King of Vidis', while be himselt reigned as supreme monarch at Påtaliputra : for the practice of appointing soon to guvera remote provinces existed in the time of the Mauryas. May not Patanjali be alluding to this As'yamedha sacrifice in the instance quoted in the text?
