________________
184
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[OCTOBER, 1026
Tradi
process perhaps of centuries, one of the earliest works of that kind could not have mentioned that whole literary collection as already existing. This would be as absurd as if Shakespeare's very first play were to claim to be the first part of his collected works.
: The Vyâļi Argument. Vyâdi is quoted several times by the Rk Prátisakhya. In the commentary on the introduction to the Mahâbhâsya (kim punar nityah sabdah, etc.). Nagesa tells us that the samgraha alluded to by Patañjali is a work in 100,000 slokas written by Vyâdi (Vyddikto lakşaslokasamkhyo granthah). In the Uttarakânda of Ramayana, 36, 45, an allusion is also made to a samgraha, studied by Hanumant, and the commentator states the samgraha to be the work of Vyâdi.
Now Goldstücker drew attention to Patañjali's commentary on the second várttika of Pånini's rule II. 3. 66, where the bhágyakára "as an instance thereof gives the phrase : "beautiful indeed is Då kşayana's creation of the Samgraha."
We know that Panini's mother bore the name of Dâkşi. Now Dakşayana, according to the rules for the formation of names, would mean a relation of Daksi, the son or a grandson, or of a later scion of the lineage of a family chief of that name. As the commentators of Pånini agree in making Daksl" the female family head of the progeny of Dakşa," Vyadi, according to Goldstücker," was a near relation of Pånini, and Påņini must have preceded him by at least two generations."
If Max Müller retorts that at least three Vyâdis are known-and as many (if not more) Sam grahas, one can reply truly that only one Vyâdi is named as the author of a Sam graha, and only one Samgraha is accepted as the work of a Vyâdi.
But he does not deny that the instance quoted by Patañjali refers to this Vyadi, the author of the Samgraha. He urges that the rule, under which the name of Dakşayana is quot. ed as an example, especially lays down the condition that the great-grandson, etc., should be called yuvan, only as long as the father, the elder brother or one of the old Sapindas are living; and he asks: "Was geschieht also, wenn diese gestorben sind ?”
As far as I can see, this question is quite out of place. For when the rule was illustrated by the word. Dåkşâyana, evidently the commentators meant that the conditions laid down in the rule did apply fully to this name; i.e., they presuppose a time when the father, etc., of Dákşâ yaņa was living.
But when Max Müller states that yuvan names also, according to Pânini, IV.1. 166, were given honoris causa, and that Däksi, Pånini's mother, need not have been the daughter of the same Dakşa, who was the great-grandfather of Dakşayana, the correctness of his assertion, of course, cannot be denied. For, however likely the combination made by Goldstücker seems to be, I quito agree that it cannot be proved to stand beyond all doubts.
But the same argument applies with greater force still to what Max Müller himself further says. For when he quotes a second-hand quotation from Somadeva found in the work of the Tibetan Târânátha, according to which Vyâdi is described as the school-fellow of Pånini and the teacher of Katyayana-Vararuci, this flatly contradicts another passage of Somadeva's work (Kathasaritságara, ed. Brockhaus, I. p. 31) which makes Katyayana the elder of the two and relates how he was challenged to a dispute on grammar and was conquered by Panini. Thus, even if such late authors as Somadeva and Târân&tha really could be thought in one matter or another to have recorded an ancient tradition, this can in no way be the case on this point, for Somadeva, the earlier of the two, shows a profound ignorance of the chronology of Indian grammarians.
Immediately after this quotation Max Maller concludes: "Könnten wir aber nicht entscheiden, ob der Verfasser des Samgraha derselbe war als der Vyali, welcher unter den bedeu. tendsten Siksi-Autoritäten vom Verfasser unseros Prátis&khya zitiert wird, so hätten wir
