________________
364
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[DECEMBER, 1898.
a correct one." "In support of your quite correct view that the g rihyáni karmáni are older than the śrautáni, I should also like to point out that the tariffs for the latter were much too high to be ever carried out completely."
In Vol. I. of the Vienna Oriental Journal, 1887, Bühler had published an article on the elliptic use of it and cha, which was to a certain extent directed against myself, inasmuch as I had, in my edition and translation of the Gobhilagrihyasútra, taken a different view from that of the Hindu commentators which Bühler defends in his paper. I considered it my duty to oppose Eühler in a special article. With some misgivings for I was an admirer of Bühler and could ill spare his *6 As to help and advice I wrote to him pointing out my objections. And what was his reply? iti and cha it does not matter. I shall return to the subject on some other occasion. All I ask for, if anybody wishes to enter upon a controversy with me, is that the tone should always be that of polite society." A few days later he writes: "The fuller the discussion the better." I do not know what impression my article published soon after in the Festgruss an Otto von Böhtlingk had made upon him; but when I announced to him my intention to come to Vienna in the summer of that year 1888, he invited me to stay with him. Of course, I did not like to trouble him. But when I came to Vienna, he frequently invited me to his house, and we met every day in the Oriental Institute. With the heartiest kindness he placed everything that could be of any use to me at my disposal, and assisted me with his advice and help with an unselfishness shrinking from no sacrifice that was truly touching. What could it be that induced the wonderful man to be so exceedingly kind to me? His personal acquaintance I had only made in 1886 at the Vienna Congress of Orientalists and, of course, then only very superficially, as he could not pay much attention to a beginner in those eventful days which taxed all his energies. I had not been his pupil, and was already a professor. Neither personally nor in literary matters could I be of any service to him; besides I had attacked him in public. Were these not reasons enough for him to receive me, in 1888, with cool reserve and to grant me only such favours as he could not deny me for decency's sake? Far from that, he fully opened to me the rich stores of his learning and allowed me a deep insight into his world of ideas, which proved a lasting gain to myself. It was clear that Bühler considered no one as too unimportant whom he thought capable of contributing in any way to the progress of learning, and that he tried to help and assist any such person to the utmost of his power. At the same time he had a charming manner of placing himself on a level, as it were, with those below him, so that even the humblest became inspired with courage.
-
On the 10th of July, 1896, he wrote to me on some other occasion: "This I should like now to substitute in the place of former conjectures, and you may print and criticise it as much as you like." And in his last letter to me he writes to thank me heartily for the splendid' work (my edition of the Manavagrihyasûtra), although in this work I had repeatedly made critical remarks directed against him. Bühler was free of all touchiness in questions of scholarship, and granted to everybody the full liberty of his own opinion, nay, he seemed to experience a certain pleasure in meeting with views differing from his own, if only they were expressed judiciously. One might think that such a feature should be raatter of course in any scholar, particularly in one who has everything at his command and can afford to be superior to little weaknesses. However, experience teaches that this is not so and that even men of the greatness of a Bühler are not always proof against gnatbites' received in literary warfare, in consequence of which they become disagreeable (though it may be only for a short time). Bühler, however, was a lion without fear. He was a truly great scholar, an extraordinary character, an exceedingly keen observer of human nature, and a wise educator in matters of learning. Honour to the memory of a master !
AN APPRECIATION OF BÜHLER.
BY EMILE SENART, MEMBRE DE L'INSTITUT.
WHEN I agreed to add a few words to the notice that Dr. Winternitz was writing on the life and works of Bühler, I only considered, with my old sympathy for the Indian Antiquary, my affectionate admiration for the eminent scholar whose loss has left us an irreparable void.
