________________
64
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[FEBRUARY, 1873.
that such a "MS." received, according to the Vákyapadiya, from Parvata, came "into possession of Abhimanyu" by the hands of Chandra and the others. In my opinion we have to abide simply.by Lassen's conjecture : tad-agame (Loc.), "after they had received from him the command to come to him;" and indeed this appears to me quite indubitable when we take also into consideration the second passage of the Rajatarangini, IV. 487, already quoted by Böhtlingk, in which it is said of Jayapida (reigned, according to Lassen, 754-85), des'ântaråd &gamayya vyachaksh&nan kshama
patih pråvartayata vichhinnam mahâbhâshyam svaman
dale "From another land bade come explainers thereof
the earth-prince, And brought the split Bhashya is the kingdom
new into vogue." And the combination, occurring here, of pravartayata with svamandale, definitely decides that in the first passage also (I. 176) pravartįtam is to be understood as meaning, not the "constituting of a text," but the "introduction" of the work into Kashmir; and, consequently, the wbole of Goldstücker's polemic against the hitherto received conception of this verse is shown to be perfectly idle and groundless.
And, moreover, Bhartrihari's representation by no means leaves the impression that all that is recorded therein could have taken place within the short period of about 30 years; and yet, according to what has been said above on Nos. 1 and 2, regarding the passages "arunad Yavanah Säketam" and " arunad Yavano Madhyamikan," it is not easy to account for a longer interval between the composition of these passages and the introduction of the Mah- bhishya into Kashmir; wo obtain this interval, to wit, when, in the absence of every other fixed point, we strike the mean between the dates already found, 5-45 and 45-65 A.D., and consequently fix the composition of the Mahabh­a at 25 A.D., and Abhiinanyu's care for the same at 55 A.D. The question therefore naturally arises, whether possibly those two examples may not have come into the text only through "Chandra and the others,"-originally therefore do not come from Patanjali at all? That the restoration of a text lost for a time—and this, according to the Vakyapadiya, was really the question at issue-in the fashion which Indian scholars are accustomed to employ, would not take place without interpolations on their part, is, to say the least, extremely likely; and there
fore we cannot well call in question the possibility that even the two passages referred to above may belong to such interpolations. But in that case the entire ground on which we stand with reference to this question becomes so unstable and uncertain, that we gladly hold by the assurance that these passages may just as likely be genuine. The very poculiar manner in which, in the Mahâbhâshya throughout, Patanjali is spoken of in the third person, is certainly remarkable, and might easily lead to the supposition that the work, as wc popsess it, is rather a work of his digciples than of Patanjali himself (compare what is said in the Acad. Vorles., p. 216, regarding two other cases of the kind). This is not, however, absolutely necessary: the example of Cæsar shows that such a practice may be employed even when the author is speaking of himself; and therefore it would certainly require very special evidence to prove such a conclusion. If, in reference to this, it could be established that in the Mahabh­a-I can speak naturally only of the compa. ratively small portion to which we have access in Ballantyne's elition-cases are found in which a series of proof-passages are cited only with their initial words, while the text of the passages follows afterwards in extenso, together with a detailed explanation, yet on the other hand such self-commentaries are by no means uncommon in Indian literature; and, in consideration of the remarkable amount of detail with which even the Mahabhåshya otherwise treats its subject, not in the least degree surprising: the brief exhibition of the proof-passages finds, too, its quite corresponding analogue in the peculiar use of the work for closing a discussion by versus memoriales which gathet up in brief what has been already said. It would be presumptuous to pronounce at present on the completo authenticity of the existing text of the Mahabhishya, when we have access to only 80 small a portion. And in the preceding discussion I have only sought to show that, in so far as we are at present acquainted with its contents, there exist no directly urgent grounds for doubting its authenticity. In the meantime, the two passages adduced by Goldstücker : “ arunad Yavanah Saketam" and "arunad Yavano Madhyamikan," may be regarded as furnishing sufficient evidence for determining the date of Patanjali; and on that evidence it would appear-on the assumption that Lasgen's chronology is correct--that the date oust be fixed not, according to the opinion or Goldstücker, at 140-120 B. C., but probably at about 25 after Christ.
