________________
242
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[AUGUST, 1878.
on the Mahábháshya (Indische Studien, vol. Mahábláshya as given by our MSS. to be XIII. p. 293), and as there I had found some the same as it existed about 2000 years ago.' statements regarding the history of the text of Let us await, then, his proofs; for the protest that work for which there appeared to me to alone might, in opposition to the statements be little foundation, I deemed it advisable to handed down to us by tradition on three difconclude my note as follows:
ferent occasions the terms viplávita, bhrashta, "I cannot conclude this short note without vichchhinna are employed regarding the work), protesting against the statement, which I find not be sufficient. It must, besides, be added repeated over and over again, that at some that the South Indian MSS. of the text, accordtime or other the text of the Mahabháshya hading to Burnell's testimony (see Preface to the been lost, that it had to be reconstructed, &c. Vansabr. p. xii., note), appear to differ conAll we know at present amounts to this, that siderably." for some period of time Patanjali's great work So far as I am aware, the question at issue was not studied generally, and had consequently between Professor Weber and myself is, clearly ceased to be understood. We may perhaps stated, this :allow a break so far as regards its traditional According to Professor Weber there are grave interpretation, but for the present we are bound reasons for doubting the text of the Mahabhato regard the text of the Mahabháshya as given shya, as we find it in the existing MSS., to be by our MSS. to be the same as it existed about the original text of that work. At the time of two thousand years ago."
king Abhimanyu of Kashmir the original My object in writing these lines was no other text of Patanjali's work existed only in fragthan to induce Professor Weber to reconsider
ments, from which a new text of the Mahabhathe grounds for his assertions. From a note on shya was reconstructed by Chandracharya p. 242 of the second edition of his lectures on and others. This second text underwent in its Indische Literaturgeschichte I now learn that he
turn the same fate as the original, and a new has done so, but that he has seen no reasons to (third) text was accordingly prepared, under change his views. For Professor Weber, in king Jaya pida of Kashmir. This third text reply to my remarks, sums up his own views in is the one given by our MSS. the following words :
According to my own view no evidence has “On the other hand it-follows, not only from yet been adduced to prove that the text of the the statements of the Rájatarangini, but also
Mahabhishya as known to us from MSS. is not particularly from those at the end of the second the original text of that work, and the only one book of Hari's Vikyapadiya. . . . . that the that ever existed; and I shall now attempt to Bhashya bas suffered manifold fates, that it has
show why the reasons which have been brought been several times" vichchhinna and newly re- forward to the contrary appear to me invalid. arranged, so that the possibility of considerable In the note from his lectures quoted above, these alterations, additions, and interpolations cannot reasons are clearly implied by Professor Weber be denied, and that in every case it remains to be the following :à priori uncertain whether a particular example (1) - According to the testimony of Dr. belongs to Patanjali himself, or is owing only Burnell, the South Indian MSS. of the text of to these later reconstructions. . . . . Kielhorn, the Mahabháshya differ considerably from those it is true, has strongly protested against the found in other parts of India, statement that at some time or other the text (2) From the verse IV. 487 of the Rajataof the Mahabháshya had been lost, that it had rangini we learn that a new (what I have called to be reconstructed, &c,' and will only perhaps above third) text of the Mahabháshya was preallow a break so far as regards its traditional pared, under king Jayapida of Kashmîr. interpretation,' while for the present he con- (3) In another verse (I. 176) of the same siders us bound to regard the text of the work and in the concluding verses of the
• In his later articles Prof. Weber employe, so far as speaks of "remodellations' (Bearbeitungen), on p. 320 of I remember, only the Bansksit words vipidvita, bhrashta, reconstructions, but on p. 821 distinctly of fragments and vichchhinna, but I believe that the above representa out of which & net text was constructed. Op p. 160 of his views correctly. From & note on p. 297 of vol. XIII. vol. V. vipidvita is translated by devastated' or 'deof the Ind. Stud. I infer that the word vichchhinna is taken stroyed' (verulistet), on p. 161 bhrashta by 'lost,' and on in the sense of incomplete ;' on p. 315 Prof. Weber p.167 vichchhvinna by split into pieces.'
