________________
250
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(AUGUST, 1876.
On the first 240 pages the verbal forms that have to be considered are the following: p. 22a, ruft, supply Kdtydyana. See his várt.
on P. I. 1. 9, fere are 1996 सवर्णम्, and the way in which it has been paraphrased by Patanjali on
p. 696. p. 276, (37a 577) geft; supply Katyayana. His
várt. is given immediately after the
word of p. 30a, refat; supply Katy dyana, várt. on P.
VI. 4. 133. p. 40a, Rafat; supply Kátyáyana, várt. on P. I.
2. 45. p. 406, rafer supply Kátyáyana, värt. on P.
VIII. 2. 6. p. 556, (
3 341) 48f4; supply Kátyáyana ; his
vårt. follows immediately upon the
word gafa. p. 596, nafa; supply Katydyana, odrt. on the
same page. p. 666, aft; supply Katydyana, várt. on P. I.
1. 47. p. 69a, 4ft; supply Katy dyana, várt. on the
next page. p. 72a, 4; supply Katyayana, várt. on P.
VI. 1. 101. p. 776, Tafa; supply Kdtydyana, udrt. on P. I.
4. 14. p. 866, afer; supply Katyayana, várt. on P.
VI. 1. 1. » Tafat, supply Kdtydyana ; see his várt.
on P. VIII. 3. 59. p. 88a, Tufat: supply Kátyáyana, várt. on P. I.
1. 72. p. 99a, infat; supply Kátyâyana, várt. on P. II.
2. 35. p. 996, 1. 3, 4f; supply Kátyáyana, várt. on
P. II. 2. 35. p. 102a, mfa; supply Kátyáyana, várt. on P.
VI. 2. 2. p. 1066, haft; supply Katyayana, várt. on P.
VIII. 2. 3. prohibited the substitution of Gana and Vriddhi by his rale fana , &c.
On the other hand, when, as has been shown in the above, Patanjali speaks of Katyayans without particularizing him, his doing so is in my opinion accounted for by the fact that Katyayana's is the work on which he is commenting (or, m other scholars would say, the work which he is refuting), and in sponking of him in the third person without mentioning his name Patanjali has done what numbers of commentators have done besides him. On p. 101a, where
p. 117a, fet; supply Katyayana, várt. on P.
VI. 4. 72. The only verbal forms of this kind which remain are a d on p. 24a, on p. 52a, and on p. 996, line 1. As regards the two latter, it might indeed at first sight appear as if we had to supply for them the subject Patanjali; but to do so would in my opinion be incorrect. For in reality the statement which follows upon the word 274fa on p. 52a is not of Patanjali's invention, but it must, as we are told by Patanjali on P. V. 2. 4, be ascribed to Panini; similarly the statement which follows the word Raff on p. 996 is not Patanjali's, but is implied in Kâtyayana's várt. on P. II. 2. 35, and belongatherefore to him. Finally, not even the one remaining it on p. 24a is likely to support Prof. Weber's view, for the best copy of the Mahabhashya accessible to me does in this case not read for, but Tua (see the lith. ed. of the India Office, p. 81).
As, then, the perasal of the first 240 pages of the text of the Mahabháshya does not appear to furnish any argument in favour of Prof. Weber's views, it will not, I trust, be thought unreasonable when for the present I venture to doubt their correctness, and when I continue to regard the supposition that the Mahabháshya may have been composed by the pupils of Patanjali, as void of foundation. The longer I study that great work the more I feel convinced that from beginning to end it is the masterly production of one and the same individual scholar, and that few works in the whole range of Sanskrit literature have been preserved to us as complete and intact as the text of the Mahabháshya.
I may be wrong, and when I find my viewe refuted by cogent arguments I shall be the first to say so. The Mahabháshya, besides being one of the most interesting works for the student of language, is in many respects also one of the most difficult, and every attempt to facilitate Patanjali adduos both Papini and Katyayans w authorities for one and the same thing, he does consider it necessary to inform us that he is quoting the Varttikakars: Yfraifa......a var. That no subject whatever need be supplied for the phrase Ale when it occurs in such sentences as TATE, raft416, f , Tafa , &c., which give answers to questions that have been previously mised, those who are acquainted with the style of the Mahabhdalvya need hardly be reminded of.
