________________
JULY, 1924)
HISTORICAL GLEANINGS FROM THE KAUTILIYA
CULTURAL, LINGUISTIC AND LITERARY HISTORICAL GLEANINGS FROM
THE KAUTILIYA.
BY HERMANN JACOBL. (From the Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XLIV, 1911-Sitzung der phil.-hist. Classe vom 2 November, pages 954-973.) TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, BY NARAYAN BAPUJI UTGIKAR, M.A.
(Continued from page 136.) Regarding the sastras, it is particularly of importance for our question, to know what Kautilya says about things grammatical. He begins with explaining the letters : akárádayo warnds trinantih. The number of the Sanskrit letters varies according to the different authori. ties between sixty and sixty-five. In the commentary to the Taittiriya Prátisakhya, (Bibl. Ind., p. 4) the following statement of the Sikşákåra is given : trigantiś catuhgapir vd varnah Sari bhumate matah, and the number sixty-three is also given in Harivamia, 16161. Had the lelchaka written Prakrit, then a reference to the forty-six letters in the Prakrit language (cf. Bühler, Indisc. Paläographie, p. 2) would have been in place, and not that to the sixty. three letters of the Sanskrit language. After the explanation of the varnas follow those of the pada, rákya, and of the four (966) kinds of words : Nama, Akhyata, Upasarga and Nipata. His definition of Upasarga runs : Kriydviđeşitäh prádaya upasargāh, an undoubted imitation of Panini I. 4. 58, 59 : pradayah upasargah keriyayoge; and he similarly bases his definition: avyayas cadayo nipatah on P&ņini, I. 4. 56, 57, (prag tsvaran) nipälah cadayo'sattve, combined with I. 1. 37: Svaradi nipdtam avyayam. Wo see therefore that already in the fourth century B.C., Panini was recognised as a grammatical authority. This chronological clue is of great significance in the uncertainty which has long been prevailing about the date of the great grammarian.35 Hopkins could indeed say with justification (The Great Epic of India, p. 391) :-"No evidence has yet been brought forward to show that Pånini lived before the third century B.C." Here we have the "evidence" required, if it were still to appear necessary, after what we know regarding the literature intervening between Panini and Patañjali.26
Incidentally, it may be montioned that Kautilya limits the meaning of Apaśubda to the wrong use of the gender, number, tense and case (lingavacanakalakarakanam anyathaprayogo pasabdah, p. 75), and that he does not use the word in the sense of Apabhraxisa as Patanjali does on Paņini I. 1. 1, vdritika 6.21 The explanation
m
t af ATT RUS: II. 9, seems to refer to a kind of syntactical rule, as it was later urged by the Mimamsakas and Naiyayikas, which if I understand it correctly, means : "Arrangement is the mentioning of a theme of which the subject and the verb stand in mutual sequence." 48 The meaning of Pradhana as a grammatical subject is to be found in Hemahamsagaņi's Nydyasamgraha, II. 29.99
26 C. J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, I, p. lix. Kielhorn's opinion was "that Papin stands much nearer to the Vedio than to the so-called classical literature, and that ho belonge to a period when Sanskrit was something more than a language of the learned."--Göttingen Nachrichten, 1885 p. 186.
26 Ci. Kielhorn, Der Grammatiker Panini, G. N., 1885, pp. 187 ff.
27 Kautilya himself often use the Absolutive in mod in the case of verbe joined with propositions, against Papini, VII, 1. 37: Pretracer (981), Tof (248), M
(253), rufak (886), R T (887), TUTARTI (406), all in the causal mode. Ho also forma 9919007 (296, 828).
10 (Shamashastri translate this passage (p. 81 of his English translation) as -The act of mentioning facta in the order of their importance is arrangement.] N.B.U.
** Commentary, p. 781 T F ATA T (P7) TECTAR ir trug etsita वर्शनीब.......व एव हि पुरुषस्वाधिकरणं स एवास्तिक्रियाया अपीति किवबा सह सामानाधिकरणबमयोगेण grytur NT Homabansagani wrote in 1454 A,D. The work is published in Benaro, Viraamvat, 2437 = 1911 A.D.
M
