________________
JCLY, 1873.)
CORRESPONDENCE, &c.
209
Mauryas. I never said more than this, and Bhân. pared in London under Goldstücker's care, will still clarkar goes too far when he says "Prof. Weber
defy for a while many attempts to break through infers that Panini in making his rule had in his
its hard crust. It is a great pity that from the eye," &c. My words are: "According to the view colossal dimensions of Ballantyne's edition we are of Patañjali; " " Patañjali is undoubtedly of opi- now reduced to the other extreme, viz. to having nion;" "Be this as it may, the notice is in itself an nothing except a mero transcript of a manuscript, exceedingly curious one."--Now with regard to without any indications and helps of an editorial this very curious and odd statement itself, I venture charncter. The text of the Valleluia. in all to throw it out as a mere suggestion whether three cditions, is prima vista a quite undiscernible it may not perhaps refer to a first attempt at midtum compositum of Panini's vürttika and bhgold coinnge made by the Mauryas (in imitation shyn; and the blåshya, again, is itself composed in of tho Greck coins). It is true no Maurya coin | a most unwieldy and unsettled way, stuffed to has been discovered as yet, so far as I know, but suffocation with objections, counter-objections, this may be mero chance; the real difficulty is repetition, examples and counter-examples. And how to bring Patañjali's words into liarmony with regarii especially to the latter, we ought never with such an interpretation, the more so as in his to loso siglot of the circumstances under which, time no doubt gold coins were already rather according to the testimonies of the Vikyapadiyan common.
and the .ijatarangini, the work was finally arWhen a thing is called at the same timo ranged in its present form, and of the many chances Paroksham and prayokturdarsanavi. that rondered it liable to changes and intercalations, shayam, we can render the first only by " whnt! under the treatment it may have experienced. is no more to be seen," the second by "what has I beg to add some remarks on another subject : been seen by the speaker, or could have been soen In The Academy (No. 68, March 15, p. 118) I gavo by hira." The imperfect is used always, parokshe, a short statement of my real views on the relation whon a thing is no more to be seen, but it may be of Valmiki to the Homeric saga-cycle, by repro. either lokavijnata, notorious, or prayoktur dar- ducing portinent passages from Mr. Boyd's transla. kanavishaya, belonging to the personal experience tion of my Essay on the Ramayana, as contained of the speaker, or even to both together.
in your pages. A correspondent of The Academy In thus concluding what I had to say in my had (No. 65, p. 58) drawn the attention of its defence, I beg to repeat my acknowledgment of readers to the patriotic indignation of some learned Prof. Bhåndárkar's critical spirit, of which ho linus against its results, at the same time him. has given ample proof already in an elaborato self stating its purport in terms which I could not Jeview of Haug's Aitareya-Brahmana (1864), of consider is a true representation of my views. which he now acknowledges himself the author, I had not then seen the review of my Essay by and which I embodied in the ninth volume Kasinath Trimbak Telang, and could judge of it of my Indische Studien, on account of its intrinsic only from the notice given by tho writer in Tho merits, without knowing at all from whom it came. Academy. By the courtesy of the author I have "It is the first time," I said in introducing it, sinco received it, and take this opportunity to "as far as we know, that a born llindu has state that-far from "laying particular stress on subjected with courage and independenco the the total want of correspondence in the delineation work of a European Sanskrit scholar to a search- of the various characters introduced in the two ing critique, and this moreover in a nanner which poems," as he was said to do in The Academy, and shows him quite competent and fully prepared to which would have exposed him too, to the charge of do it." He has given a new instance of his saga. "fighting against windmills," which I direct city on the present occasion, and in congratulat- against all who stato it as my theory "that the ing him as a most welcome fellow-labourer in our Råmayara of Valmiki is simply an Indian translacommon studies, I beg to express my hope that tion of Homer's Iliad"-he has indeed "endeahe may continue still for a time to make the voured to refute my arguments one by one," withcritical ransacking of the Mahabhashya his special out at all giving so prominent a part to that department; as he has succeeded already in drawing particular point. Though prejudiced, as he ho. from it some very important details, he will not nestly allows, by his naticnal feelings, he proves a fail doubtless to find more of them. Combined faithful inquirer after truth; and if he has not, in efforts are necessary to wield this huge mase, my opinion, succeeded in anyways changing the which, in spite of the Benares edition, as well as of aspect of the question-partly because he too puts the forthcoming photolithographed edition, pro. it wrongly,* and partly because he has written
The title of his reviow in
Was the Bamdyana copied from Homer P
I never thought of maintaining so much as that.
