________________
240
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[August, 1873.
that passage to do with the circumstance of this being a vdrlika ? If Professor Weber means to show that Patasijali 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. But this does not destroy the character of the passage as a vartika. It must be a drtika for the above reasons: hence my inference that Kat- yâyana was a Southerner. The Professor is in elined to account for allusions to Southern usage contained in the Mahdbhashya from the fact that it was preserved in books in the South, i. e. probably, he thinks them interpolations. Are we similarly to think that the Mahabhdahya was preserved in books and unfairly treated by the people of Surfishtra, by the Kambojas, and by the Prachyas and Madhyamas, because it contains allusions to their usage also P (see p. 62 ed. BalIantine.)
Inferiority in rank there is in Patasijali in com parison with Katyayana. It does not matter if Patasijali's views are adopted by Kaiyata and others. They are so adopted because he was the last of the three Manis. When the three Munis differ, the rule for one's guidance is gathottaram muninám prámányam,--the later the Muni, the greater the authority. But still Panini is always regarded as first in rank, Katy&yana second, and Patalijali third.
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 that the Vakyapadiya and the Rijatarangini afford evidence of the Mihibhishya having been tampered with by Chandracharya and others. They appear to me to say that these persons promoted the study of grammar, brought the Mahabhdshya 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 find that my criticisms have not offended him. Controversies on philological or literary points 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.
Sri Harsha at p. 213 of the Indian Antiquary, I would observe that the MSS. read narairiva, not naraúrdpa, in the passage in question, and it would be interesting to know by what process naraiwúva and adxurh are made to mean "preeminent in arts of poetry"; further, the MSS. have
not ra, 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 bandhuyar tibhojan prabandham," which is, I admit, not very easy to translate. There is a reading Bhojar which is far better; the anuswira is here merely inserted to make out the metre, which, being Bhujangi, requires a long syllable at that place, thusji näiset på băn dhylufti bhojāmi pră ban dham.
I willingly admit the new reading and the consequent mention of the blojaprabandha, but the syllable ti is thus left unaccounted for, as well as seta. 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 work which, from its merits and established authority, acts as a dyke or protection to laws, institutione, or literature, against heresies of belief or taste. Patting these considerations together, I essayed the rendering quoted by Mr. Growse. If we are to give up thir rendering, then 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.
JOHN BEAMES. Balasor, July 12, 1873.
The same. Mr. Growse is a well-known authority on Chand's Epic, but it seems to me he is not correct in regarding the "Naiahadha as w poem of considerable antiquity." Chand, in the prefatory chapter of his Prithirdja Risau, mentions the names of Soshnag, Vishnu, Vysa, Sukadeve, Srl Harsha, Kalidasa, Dandamáli, and Jayadeva; but these are not placed in chronological order, as Mr. Grow80 supposes. For the great bard Kalidasa, Growse SUDDOSE who graced the court of Vikram ditya and Bhoja, flourished some centuries before Sri Harsha. Sri Harsha was one of the five Brahmans who were invited by Adisura, king of Gaur. This fact is clearly pointed out in the historical work on Ben
CHANDS MENTION OF SRI KARSHA. With reference to Mr. F. S. Growse's note on
