________________
148
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MAY, 1886.
Pedavenkata's grandfather, in stanza 31 of the Kallakursi grant:
2. Dr. Oppert's table furnishes an additional proof, as it gives the names of the four brothers of Ranga II., to whom each of the two grants published by myself alludes.
In this manner the miraculous double string of similar names disappears. Dr. Oppert's Ranga VII. and his two sons Pedavenkata and Chinnavenkata are identical with Ranga II. and his two sons
Pedavenkata and Chinnavenkata (Pinavenkata in the grants); and Venkata V., his son Ranga VIII., and his grandson Gopala, with Venkata I. (Ven. katAdri in the granta), his son Ranga IV., and his grandson Gopala.
These corrections having been made, Dr. Oppert's table agrees, as far as I can control it, with my revised table of the Karnata dynasty."
E. HULTZSCA. Vienna, 12th March 1886.
BOOK NOTICES. JOURNAL OF THE BOMBAY BRANOR OF THE ROTALI "B.O. 150, the date now commonly accepted for ABLATIC SOCIETY, Vol. XVI. No. XLIII. 1885.
"Pataljali."--To this paper Dr. Peterson has Library. Townhall, London: Trubner and Co. attached A "Note on the date of Patafljali" pp. 161 to 880, xix. to xliii., and Index i. to v.
(p. 181ff.), with the object of showing that the Two full years elapsed between the issue of grammarian in question lived in the time of a king No. XLII., the first half of this volume, and the Pushpamitra or Pushyamitra, who was conquered isque, at the end of February of this year, of the by the Early Gupta king Skandagupta; 1. e., iu present Number which completes it. It is much accordance with Dr. Peterson's view of the epoch to be wished that the Secretary would follow the of the Gupta era (published by him in a subeequent example of the Royal and the Bengal Asiatic paper and noticed below), about the middle of Societies, and issue smaller parts at frequent the fifth century A.D. The question depends in intervale, thus providing for the more speedy the first place upon a grammatical example, given publication of the papers submitted to the Society, in his Mahdbhdshya by Patalijali, --iha Pushpainstead of keeping them locked up from the mitran ydjayamah, which indicates that Patati public for so long a time. It is also desirable jali lived in the time, and perhaps at the court, that the papers published in the Journal should of Pushpamitra. But, whatever may be shown invariably be headed by the dates on which they hereafter to be the real truth as to Patañjali's date, are read before, or submitted to, the Society. the rest of Dr. Peterson's argument, as to the In previous volumes, it has been the custom identity of this Pushpamitra, loses its validity, usually, though not quite always, to give this in consequence of the fact that the passage information; in the present Number, it has in the Bhitart inscription, on which he relies, is been uniformly omitted. The Index is meagre, -not samudita-bala-koshat.Pushyamitram cha and gives a very inadequate idea of the various jitud, as he gives it on Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's contents of the volume. It has been prepared, authority but samudita-bala-koshdn-Pwahya. however, in accordance with the custom for mitrdmacha jitud. Skandagupta conquered, not a previous volumes. The practical value of these particular king named Pushyamitra, but the tribe. volumes would be much enhanced by full and confederacy, or dynasty, of the Pushyamitras. detailed Indices. The Editor himself can hardly Art. XIII. & "Note on Bedardyana" (p. 194ff), be expected to do this work alone. But much by the Hon'ble K. T. Telang, is directed might be done in this direction by securing the against Professor Weber's inclination to identify co-operation of the scholars whose papers are this writer, the author of the Brahma-Stras, printed in the Journal ; each of them would with Suka, one of whose pupils was Gaudapáda, probably gladly assist by indexing his own con. the teacher of Govindanaths, who again was the tributions.
preceptor of SamkarachArya; on which identiAs to the contents of this Number -in the first fication Prof. Weber would refer Badardyans paper, Art. XII. "On tbe Auchityalankdra of conjecturally to between 400 and 500 A.D. Mr. Kshemendra" (p. 167 f.), Dr. Peterson draws Telang's opinion is that "the Brahma-Satras special attention to & verse, cited in the Mahu- "date back to a far remoter age than that which bhdshya, and now found to be quoted by Kehé. " Professor Weber assigns to them" me above; mêndra (A.D. 1050) and assigned by him to but he does not appear to be prepared at present "Kumaradana, an author whose date is not to suggest an absolute date for them and their
known, but who, from the specimens of his author. style available in the later anthologies, cannot," Art. XIV. "The date of Patañjali; A Reply Dr. Peterson contends, " be placed ao far back as to Professor Peterson" (p. 199 ff.), is a paper by
1. c. p. 156.
