________________
OCTOBER, 1877.]
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANEA.
303
before all, that Professor Kielhorn's explanation of vyakarandgama as not relating to the very text of the Bhashya, but only to its traditional interpretation, deserves as full attention as the one given hy myself.
(2) Professor Kielhorn states (p. 246) that the views of Dr. Burnell on the Bhdshya have been somewhat misrepresented by myself in my review of his work. Now here the simple fact is that in my short quotation from Dr. Burnell's essay the final s of the word works has been dropt, it may be by a clerical blunder, or perhaps (1) only by a misprint overlooked by me in my revision of the proofs. What I there say on this subject is (see Jenaer Literatur Zeitung, 1876, p. 205), "In Purnell's opinion this work is indeed rather a skilful compilation of the views of Pånini's critics, and of their refutation by Patanjali, than the real text of the original work," " not works, as Dr. Burnell has. It was not my intention to enter there more fully on his particular views on the subject, and I hope he himself will acquit me of having really misrepresented' them by that unlucky oversight with regard to the end of the last word in the sentence.-On the other hand, I cannot acknowledge it as a quite correct representation of my views on the Bhdshya when Professor Kielhorn says, " According to Professor Weber, some such work as the Mahabhashya which we possess was actually composed by Patanjali." For, as your readers will see below (and I beg to refer them also to the earlier statements of my views contained in vol. II. of the Ind. Ant. pp. 64, 209), my opinions as to this very point are not yet settled in quite distinct form, for there are to be weighed and put aside before such a decision several items which speak rather forcibly for a composition of the work rather by the school of Patanjali than by Patanjali himself.
(3) With regard to my statement that "the South Indian MSS. of the text, according to Burnell's testimony (see preface to the Vamsabr. p. xxii. note), appear to differ considerably," Pro. fessor Kielhorn remarks (p. 243) that all he finds Dr. Burnell to have stated regarding such differences is this, that in the introductory áhrika "the South Indian MSS. omit the quotation from the Atharvaveda; whereas in one of his later works Dr. Burnell too states that "the Northern and Southern MSS. of the Bhashya differ to no great extent, though various readings occur"; and Professor Kielhorn himself, moreover, can add, from his own perusal of such MSS., that he has "not been able to discover any traces of the ex. istence of several recensions of the work". Of course, both these latter (and later) testimonies are of great value; but on the other hand I think
I was fully justified at that time in my supposition, as given above: for the omission in the SouthIndian MSS. of the quotation from the Atharvaveda in the introductory dhnilea is indeed a matter of some importance. The Atharvaveda is quoted twice (fol. 36 and fol. 10a), and both times in a very peculiar position, viz. at the head of the four Vedas and as their chief representative : see Ind. Stud. vol. XIII. p. 431. If such passages are omitted in one group of MSS., I think we have a right to say that the MSS. appear to differ considerably. (It would be interesting to know how the matter really stands in this case.)
(4) Professor Kielhorn is very desirous (p. 248) to exculpate Nagesa from having made a wrong statement as to the meaning of the word acharya in the Bhashya. And after having examined for himself the remark in question, he found indeed that it admitted of a very different interpretation : for according to him the sentence & T TT TIETZTERT T for a would relate only to that particular passage of the Bhashya to which Någesa has at. tached it, and which begins que fan, and it would imply that in this passage alone "achdrya denotes exceptionally the author of the Bhdshya himself, and not those whom it denotes generally (Panini or Kåtya yana)." But I am afraid such an interpretation cannot well be grafted on the words as they stand above : for, in order to convey that meaning, which Professor Kielhorn intimates them to convey, they ought to be भाष्ये अत्रैव आचार्यपदेन शास्त्राध्यापको भाष्य
farra: but there is no atrai 'va, or even only atra, in the text, and the eva stands distinctly after T45, so that the sentenco cannot well, according to common usage, be translated otherwise than by " in the Bhashya by the word Ach drya is meant only the author of the Bhashya, the teacher of the ITGIT (compare Ballantyne's translation, p. 35). Moreover, the very addition of this otherwise somewhat superfluous epithet शास्त्राध्याTo appears to imply that Nâgesa wished to give a general and formal rule; it contains at the same time his own explanation for the fact he statesbecause Patanjali is the teacher of the $dstra, therefore is he called in it by the title acharya, kar' deoxw. Finally also the phrase ar TEporn is not restricted to this particular passage, of which it forms a part, but is a solemn one, which recurs rather frequently in the course of the work : see below.
I proceed now to the promised translation - ".... On account of all this, we must be content at present to lay the time of the composition of the Bhashya between the two limits;
