Page:The Indian Antiquary, Vol. 4-1875.djvu/260

 Acstrrr, 1S7V] COBRfiSP^Nl>f:rK MSD MISCELLANEA. 247 popularity -, tha kwa significant and I mi popular work* aft) thnplj loft, If this lint t««-Ti thi* r.tvv evcu with r|, Indeed wo hare Itwit, aa it awma. almost all of the eld Urdhmnna* and St'dntt, only scanty dtfbria rptniuiiing in quotation* hero and that), it is much mora eo with thn M-oulor p hoppfor OMfOr lui3 put aaida hi* AtirpasRed 'i.-ueBwr, whoso text Ik now no mow by hft&rt or oopfod, Tim « it has come to pass that what wo have itill of 1 1 rO o*o only the maAwr-work?, En trt&h Mcb branch of il roachi** it* enlminatfon* and which acrred after- wards aa models far Ihn minK-ru literature de- prived mORl or leas of self-creative faculty. J Imp far wo love tttkou nil tbe*e "alio words and pAReagoa tut real <- for Patou- jali'a time ; bat after the publication of thn non» eluding ronefl of tho mcofld ehnpter of tho F r by Prof tuolborn in to'|. 111. pp. S latl" irrespoiiding pay-iugo of huh Stmt, V. 158-103 had bean loft out), I Iran Bhan-Jfirkar too will now acknowledge that a work whioh lina 9uffi.-rt.-d such treatment and undergone mo many &r.oflrt-r (l ant OCOasiOJ cpitlnjln t. . is not to bo trusted in all it* d*-" iboot thy dale "f ■ ,| :,ili i i ■ .— In maltm? 11 1«» of m,v nf thorn, we. nrast alwaya i-i.l (fad Stud XHI . possibility i iimy may not bo valid for Patau- jali^. nay, even for ClwiulnU-hnryrt*«. but only for Jayflplda'i timet wborea luind, truly it may n* well ug to the above- men: go hn'k vvvn I Wo arc hero always in a bad dilemma what to chooait w*j M p n doubl brut, jvo tried to ilo, every itatvnitml which i* to tare to d< U»!) on tbo relative ->f eneh auigk' foci- 3. Tin H thank prof, Bh&udurkar lor havuig corTocied (vol II. p, 13$) my erroni i thing to oornupoud with tho passage quot- ed by Blmubhati from the end of tho Bdtttehatita lIMi-tkditkrii hi* remarks about i bio In ttioui in tiorresio's text at thin vary place Trimbak To- Jang haw succeeded (vol. lit pp, l'2i. SttoJ fa r *H-HMH-<T Tt *Tr III. the iliree fir»t. v. I pas«nge cstab£i*liM tmyond tho re»cb of contro- ■'"<■ prior '. of VibhtlcTaJI I'attuTjali'i Atiih(tlrln1»hya. T atn afraid ho u mistaken In tbl« hid nsaerttou, Praporbinl sayings O'thi 'ikt bemtrodttectHtynriy • rode without tho taut d.' Else vcrsw contain* tu/thuitf to ahow that it miuf havo origin- ally btlOfjgod to the i?Ihavuorer Pataujuli? Hera indued we knvvr the contrar}' aa jl fart, rot tbo « i ju-it the stamp : and aa we do not know Vfllmlki's age from other annmejt, wo certainly ran not eattblb fnjrn tacbc 1, J by Mr. KAshlnlth I ok Ti-liiojj, wlueh roakva it an n lity to eooilder Vftlniiki an lie author. For he gire* liKim*;}/ only .t ■ ' Tflr^fi" : mm in the Bombay noonsioa (<^«^i«{j %...) ' I do no< takft tti an eridotico that Villuiiki Imrmwoil it fram the MtLikua.—iuiO dourco, — but (Aw j mn«A U a, tho remo la of ♦w> (Wl it 1 1 Hit lo tin* pHoriLy of Vilhuiki over tbo UhJ, r hoa Mr iiioro fortiuuilo with, regard to tbum otli> dtcationa of thf oxi^ti-uL-^ of ti< it the tiom of tin- lutttr, which ho baa brooght Jbrward iu hia fanner tuuuy, " Wjh tho /{ froni II'./iiiit.-'" and sum Call it must t*r-r ro ImL SluJ, XI 1 .... rr.— I comu now to Laasea's gsnioral objection* ttgniitit my theory about tho agf ai of the Hi * trnmiuitcd by Dr. Moir in your vol 111 | thnt I cannot fully ackuowledge the truth ol, vtivw* a* girnn > when he any* that 1 m ai ntain that M thr R il tho ixraggji Indiana with the ■ 'nil tin bi i,i-:;i and Brahmana to <^-i oblior/' ho confound* the views of Mr. T fa i am quoting and partly cri- ticising, partly adopting.,— with my own which *r aido, bti! rat bur tend to t ■«. and inoreov. e»tabli ^ tho . > purport of the poem, via. the restoration. uatiounl godit. : >>g l»»-"k H to
 * and iu hla opinion '*tlu»