Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/266

 210 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [August, 1873. that passage to do with the circumstance of this being a vdrtika f If Professor Weber means to show that PataHjali was acquainted with the lingual usages prevailing in the South, I do not deny that he was, and it is just the lingual usages in that part of the country that are noticed even here. But this does not destroy the character of the passage as a vdrtika. It must be a vdrtika for the above reasons: hence my inference that K&t- yayana was a Southerner. The Professor is in¬ clined to account for allusions to Southern usage contained in the Mahdbhdshya from the fact that it was preserved in books in the South,«. e. pro¬ bably, he thinks them interpolations. Are we similarly to think that the Mahdbhdshya was preserved in books and unfairly treated by the people of Sur&shtra, by the Kambojas, and by the PrtLchyas and Madhyamas, because it contains allusions to their usage also ? (see p. 62 ed. Bal- lantino.) Inferiority in rank there is in Patanjali in com¬ parison with KAty&yana. It does not matter if Patanjali's views are adopted by Kaiyata and others. They are so adopted because he was the last of the three Munis. When the three Munis differ, the rule for one’s guidance is yathottaram munindm prdmdnyam,—tho later the Muni, the greater the authority. But still P&nini is always regarded as first in rank, Katyayana second, and PataSjali third. I need not say anything on the few remaining points. Professor Weber has made one or two admissions, and as to the rest I leave it to my readers to judge of the merits of the controversy. I reserve one point for discussion on some future Occasion, especially as Professor Weber has not given prominence to it now. I do not believe that the Vdkyapadiya and the Rdjatarangini afford evidence of the Mahdbhdshya having been tampered with by Chandr&ch&rya and others. They appear to me to say that these persons promoted the study of grammar, brought the Mahdbhdshya into use, and wrote several works themselves. In conclusion, I give Professor Weber my sin¬ cere thanks for the many good and encouraging words he has said about me. I am gratified to find that my criticisms have not offended him. Controversies on philological or literary points ought not to embitter the feelings of the disputants against each other, but unfortunately they very often do so. I am therefore particularly glad that our controversy is an exception to the general rule in this respect. R. G. Bhandarkar. CHAND’S MENTION OP gRf HARSHA. With reference to Mr. F. S. Growse’s note on Harsha at p. 213 of the Indian Antiquary, I would observe that the MSS. read nar a h ruva, not narahrupa, in the passage in question, and it would be interesting to know by what process narahrtiva and 8 dr am are made to mean “ pre¬ eminent in arts of poetry”; further, the MSS. have not gqj-, and in consequence the rendering M wreath of victory ” is purely imaginary. The line rendered " who composed the chronicle of king Bhoja” stands in the MSS. ‘*jinai seta bandhyau tibhojan prabandham, ’’which is, I admit, not very easy to translate. There is a reading bhojath which is far better; the anusw&ra is here merely inserted to make out the metre, which, being Bhujangi, requires a long syllable at that place, thus— ji nai sSt f & ban dhyau [ ti bho jam | pra ban dham. I willingly admit the new reading and the conse¬ quent mention of the bhojaprabandha, but the syl¬ lable ti is thus left unaccounted for, as well as seta. My rendering proceeded upon the supposition that ti stood for tri, and bhojan can only mean ‘enjoyment/ The line in this aspect appears to allude to Kalid&sa’s wide-spread popularity as a writer of plays and poems, which are figuratively compared, by a familiar image in Indian literature, to the Setiibandha, or bridge between India and Ceylon. Seta is further used to signify any work which, from its merits and established autho¬ rity, acts as a dyke or protection to laws, institu¬ tions, or literature, against heresies of belief or taste. Putting these considerations together, X essayed the rendering quoted by Mr. Growse. If wo are to give up this rendering, then we must have an explanation of seta and ti, otherwise our lino is still partially untranslated. The rendering M who composed the chronicle of king Bhoja,” though so dogmatically asserted to be correct, will certainly not stand. John Beamxs. Balaeor, July 12, 1873. The same. Mr. Growse is a well-known authority on Chand’s Epic, bub it seems to me he is not correct in regarding the “ Naishadha as a poem of consider¬ able antiquity. ” Chand, in the prefatory chapter of his Prithirdja Rdsau, mentions the names of 6eshnftg, Vishnu, Vytlsa, Sukadeva, 3rl Harsha, Kalidftsa, Dandam&li, and Jayadeva; but these are not placed in chronological order, as Mr. Growse supposes. For the great bard Kalid&sa, who graced the court of Yikram&ditya and Bhoja, flourished some centuries before Sri Harsha. 6ri Harsha was one of the five Br&hraans who were invited by Adisura, king of Gaur. This fact is clearly pointed out in the historical work on Ben- a