Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/343

 Värttikas.”

300

KUMARILA BHATTA.

OCT, 4, 1872.]

Kshemendra merely states, that

lected the grammar (i.e., that of Indra).” Again in the story of Putraka, Somadeva states (I. 3-22,) that the new-born child, by the grace of
 * Vararuchi, through the grace of Sambhu, recol

Siva, ob

tained a daily present of a lakh of pieces of gold ; Kshemendra contents himself with one thousand

coins. Now it is invariably the rule that the later Sanskrit poets, especially if they treat of the same subject as their earlier brethren, try

story ‘Why the fish laughed’ (Kathasaritsägara I. 5, 14, 27.) In the first sloka, Somadeva states that “Yogananda saw his queen asking a Brahman

guestS (about what is not said) and became jealous.' Kshemendra says that the queen asked a Brahman about the lunar day (tithiprasne dvijanmånam bhāshamānām). Now this looks exactly as if Somadeva had had before him a bad MS. which contained the syllables ‘tithim'

and as if, not understanding their real meaning

to efface the latter by exaggerating, not by toning

he had made the word atithin out of them and

down too glaring absurdities. Hence it is not likely that, when writing such passages, Kshe

referred that to the Brahman.

mendra had before him the Kathasaritsägara.

of Somadeva and Kshemendra, that they re modelled a Prakrit original, perfectly credible. But if that is granted, the recovery of Kshemen

Finally, there are other differences in the two works which, it seems to me, find a sufficient explanation only if we assume that either author worked on a Prakrit original.

Thus

Śātavāhana's adoptive father's name is given as Dvipakarni by Somadevaf and as Dipakarna by Kshemendra.

These two forms look like trans

literations of a Paisàchi “ Dipakanna or Tipa kanna.'t Again the teacher of Pushpadanta is named in the Kathâsaritsägara (I. 7, 56) Veda kumbha in the Vrihatkatha Vedagarbha.

Ac

cording to the Prakrit grammarians the Paisà chi form of Vedagarbha would be Vedakabbha, and that would explain the different forms used by the two Sanskrit poets. Another curious discrepancy occurs in the

All these circumstances make the statements

dra's work furnishes us with a powerful instru ment for determining the exact contents of the old Paisàchi Vrihatkathâ. The old Wrihatkatha once being reconstructed, we shall further obtain

important results for the history of those works, which like the Panchtantra the Wetálapancha viñsati are embodied in it. For Gunadhya's Vrihatkathá possessed certainly a higher antiquity than the Persian or Mongolian translations of those fable-books. I must defer the explora tion of the portions of Kshemendra's work, which

contain these stories books, until later; but I may state now that the Vrihatkatha includes

them just as well as the Kathasaritsägara.

AN INTERESTING PASSAGE

IN KUMARILA BHATTA's TANTRAVARTTIKA. By A. C. BURNELL, M.C.S., M.R.A.S., MANGALORE. THE most famous Mim a fi sã treatise exist

ing in India, is Kumarila Bhatta's Tan

in England or India. Among a mass of argu ments which are neither interesting nor of any

tra v art tika, a commentary on the Jaim i ni-s à tras, but supplementary to Ś a bara's

customs, races, and languages, that certainly

Bhāshya. It seems uncertain if this work exists in a complete form, but the examination

ready given one relating to the Buddhists, but

importance, there are however casual notices of deserve excerpting.

Prof. Max Müller'ſ has al

of a number of MSS. leads me to the conclu

the following which, I believe, is the earliest

sions arrived at by Dr. F. E. Hall, that the chief divisions bear distinct names, improbable though this may seem. Granted the premisses, it is a very subtle and

known mention (in Sanskrit) of the Dravidian languages has passed unnoticed. Kum a ril a

well-reasoned treatise, but since Dr. Goldstücker

the words he mentions are still good current Tamil words, and his evident acquaintance with

is no more, it is little likely to attract attention
 * Kath. I. 4-88.

B h a t t a lived at the end of the seventh cen

tury A.D." so it is interesting to remark that

§ ‘Prichchhantim brāhmānātithim.
 * Contributions towards an Inder. p. 170.

f According to the conflicting statements of the gramma rians either form is possible. See Lassen, Inst. Prak. 439 &
 * 1) Kathâs. I. 6, 88.

edition of the Samavidhāna Brählmana, and which are from
 * See the reasons for this given in the preface to my

440.

Tibetan texts,


 * Ancient Sans. Lit. pp. 79 and 80 (note).