________________
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANEA.
OCTOBER, 1877.]
:
1186; VIII. 376; T: I. 1126, : VIII. 406; : very often, e.g. III. 9a, VII. 50a, VIII. 340; विज्ञास्यामः I. 9a विशेषयिष्यामः I. 38a 67a, 140a; IV. 29a; VI. 5a; VI. 4f. 31a; I. 2398, अपेक्षिष्यामहे I. 1440; मन्यामहे I. 1696; नैतद्विव1. 1346: I. 144a; and, on the other hand, according to Bhandarkar, in such sentences as पश्यति खाचार्य we are to understand by r not Patanjali at all, but Pánini! And in a great number of passages he is undoubtedly in the right, though certainly not throughout. For on one hand this would be, after all, rather too glaring a contrast to Nagesa's distinct assertion to the contrary (Ballantyne, p. 36), viz. that by acharya in the Bhashya only Patanjali is to be understood: भाष्ये आचार्यपदैन शास्त्राध्यापको भाष्यकार eva विवक्षितः, and on the other hand in many of such cases their relation to the text, not of Pânini's sutras, but to the very deduction of the Bhashya, is quite manifest and apparent. The real state of things in this respect wants at present a special inquiry still. But, in spite of these two corrections, this much certainly remains of my previous assertion, that on the whole those cases where the opinions of the bhdshyakára are presented to us in the first person are relatively rare, and that generally his assertions are given in the third person. Sometimes in such cases he is called even by name directly, though not as Patanjali, a name which, as far as I can see, is not mentioned at all in the work,-but (and this four times) as Gonardiya, explained by Kaiyata as bhashyakára, and once, according to Nâgesa, as Goldstücker informs us, also under the metronymic name Gopikaputra (see I. 4. 51f 2906), against which latter identification, however, I have some real doubts (see these Studies, vol. V. p. 156).† Whether now this quotation of the author in the third person should be taken in a similar way as with Cæsar, or whether, like other self-quotations in Sanskrit texts, it should rather be ascribed to the tradition of the work by the school he founded, see my Academic Lectures on Indian Literature, p. 216 (2nd ed. p. 258),even by the latter supposition the unitarycharacter
To my remarks on both names in this passage I add here that Mallinatha quotes in his schol. of Kumár. VII. 95 (see Stenzler's note in his edition) a passage from the Ars Amandi of Gaunarda.
Rather odd in the mouth of the author, but quite in order, indeed, in the mouth of his school, is the fact that we find in several passages in the Bhashya the work itself quoted by this very name, whether it refer to a passage in the foregoing varttikas, or to one in the sequel, as for instance उक्तो भावभेदो भाष्ये III. 4. 67F. 1066 (सार्वधा तुके यगित्यत्र बाह्याभ्यन्तरयोर्भावयोविशेषो दर्शितः, Kaiyata
-see III. 1. 671. 40b et seq.).
305
of the work is not disparaged so far that it would not still serve us as a warrant for its authenticity as being in its essential context the work of one author, with all reserve, of course, 'fer any modifications of this assumption which may possibly still become necessary on the basis of a more special study of the work than I have yet been able to devote to it. With regard, for instance, to the rather numerous cases where we find a sort of self-commentary following a sentence just quoted before, I refer to my remarks in Ind. Studien, vol. V. p. 169; there we might indeed be induced, before all, to seek secondary glosses of the school; here we may adduce, for instance, also the case mentioned above, at p. 315 (viz. the gloss tong). On the other hand, we must still, however, emphasize that, even from the mere formal view, the very manner and style of proceeding in the Bhashya, the connexion and annexion of all those manifold corrections, objections, explanations, versus (kariká) memoriales, &c., appears as of one cast. And this principally on account of a merely external moment. viz. of the very frequent repetition throughout the whole work of some, as it were, fixed expressions as well as stock examples; whether consisting of single words, or of short or lengthy sentences. In the first respect, for example, the way in which the s is mentioned (whether in a given case we have by him to understand Patanjali or Pânini) is characteristic. Thus, for instance, the formula regalnice.....ca
I. 1436, 2716, II. 316a, 4016, III. 966, 97a, IV. 766, V. 126, 196, 55a, 57a, or, as we read in the introduction, सुहृडूखा आचार्य इदं शास्त्रमन्वाचष्टे I. 10a;§ further the partly very frequent solemn phrasesआचार्यप्रवृत्तिर्ज्ञापयति...इति । ज्ञापयत्याचार्यः । पठिष्यति ह्याचार्यः । पश्यति त्वाचार्यः । एवं चैव हि कृखा आचार्येण सूत्रं पठितं । न चेदानीमाचार्याः सूत्राणि कृत्वा निवर्तयन्ति । एवं स्याह । अपरस्त्वाह । यथा लौकिकवैदिकेषु । विषम उपन्यासः । माङ्गलिक आचार्यः ... मङ्गलादीनि हि शास्त्राणि अथवा मण्डूकगतयो ऽधिकाराः । तद्यथा । मण्डूका उत्योत्लुत्य गच्छन्ति तद्वत् I. 516, II. 4026, V. 326, VI. 166, 986, VII. 109a, (a long passage), योऽव्युत्पन्नानि प्रातिपदिकानि Solemn examples are § Here it is that Nigesa remarks that under always the bhashyakara is to be understood, and indeed here this explanation suits remarkably, for though alone might very well refer also to grammar in general, that is to Panini, there still follow here after the words इमानि प्रयोजनान्यध्येयं व्याकरणमिति, which go back to the words in the beginning of the deduction (fol. 6a)-4f भूयः शब्दानुशासनस्य प्रयोजनानि. And similarly also with a great number of the other passages where this formula
i
-
recurs.
