________________
106
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MARCH, 1887.
of deciding; nor do I know what scholar is In conclusion, I would here draw attention meant to be denoted by the term Sauryabhagas to the fact, that instead of the regular terms of cat, "the Acharya of the town Saurya,' as the Pániniya and also in addition to them, Kaiyata explains it.30 Nagôjibhatta takes Vá- occasionally, both in the Varttikas and in the dava to be the author of the Vârt. 3 on P. VIII. Kárikás, we meet with a number of other 2, 106, a statement, the correctness, of which grammatical termini technici. Most of those I doubt.
terms had doubtless been in use already be
fore Panini, and they were generally adopted in The Samgraha of Dakshayana.
several of the later grammars, in preference This work, on which Patañjali is reported to the more artificial terms of Påņini. Bata to have based his own work, is cited in the few are themselves highly artificial symbols, Mahâbhâshya only once, in connection with which may have been invented by grammarians the first Vårttika (Vol. I. p. 6). From that later than Panini, and which remind one of the passage we learn, that the question, as to terms used in the Jainéndra, where indeed one whether words are nitya or kárya, had been of them actually occurs. fully discussed in the Savraha, and that the Thos, Katyayana occasionally employs the science of grammar had been shown to be neces- terms svara for Pånini's (Vol. I. pp. 59, 123, sary, whichever view might be taken regarding etc.), vyanjana for a (Vol. I. pp. 26, 42, etc.), the nature of words. Elsewhere we are told samanákshura for 3* (Vol. I. p. 24 and Vol. that the Sangraha was composed by Vyadi; II. p. 19), sandhyakshara for (Vol. I, pp. Patañjali himself incidentally calls the author 22, 24, etc.); sparsa and aghosha (Vol. I. p. 355); of it Dakshayana, in Vol. I. p. 468.
prathama, doitiya, tritiya, and chaturtha for the
first, second, third, and fourth consonants of Considering the great balk of the Mah&- the five Vargas (Vol. III. pp. 218, 463, and bhishya, it is disappointing that we do not learn Vol. I. p. 154); ayôgavdha, jikvmúliya, and from it more regarding the history of Indian upadhmániya (Vol. I. p. 28 and Vol. III. p. grarnmar, and particularly, that, what we are 431). For , , , and we he has bhatold in it of the predecessors of Påņini, is well- vanti, svastani, bhavishyanti and adyatani (Vol. nigh valueless. But I trust, that my survey of I. p. 443; Vol. II. pp. 114, 123, 160 ; Vol. II. the grammatical authorities referred to by p. 143; Vol. I. p. 474; Vol. II. p. 114; Vol. Katyayana and Patañjali will at least make this III. p. 217). For the phrase in he much clear, that Kityayana cannot have been uses the artificial term tan (Vol. I. p. 488; Vol. the first author of Vårttikas, and that between II. pp. 99 and 221); and, strange to say, for him and Patañjali there intervene a large num- Paņini's shash, which he himself has, e.y. in ber of writers, writers in prose and in verse, in- Vol. II. p. 199 and Vol. III. p. 107, he employs dividgal scholars and schools of grammarians, du in Vol. I. p. 304. who all have tried to explain and to amend the In addition to some of these terms we find in works of both Pånini and Katyayana. To what the Kúrikás, parokshd for PE (Vol. I. p. 199), extent Katyâyana and Patañjali were indebted kårita to denote the Cansal (Vol. II. p. 415), to those that went before them, we shall never and chékriyita and charkarita to denote the know; judging from the analogy of the later two forms of the Intensive (Vol. II. p. 232 and grammatical literature of India we may, in my Vol. III. p. 359). In the Karikás we also meet opinion, certainly assume, that, like Påņini him- with la for 18pa (Vol. II. pp. 284, 378, and self, both have based their own works on, and 425), and with ghu" (or perhaps dyu) for Pâņi. have preserved in them all that was valuable ni's uttarapada (Vol. III. pp. 229, 247, and in, the writings of their predecessors.
318). 20 A town Saurya is mentioned in Vol. I. p. 474. * See ante, Vol. XV. p. 231, note 24.
