Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/233

July, 1873.] CORRESPONDENCE, &c. 209 Mauryas. I never said more than this, and Bh&n- dArkar goes too far when he says “ Prof. Weber infer8 that PAnini in making his rulo had in his eye,” &c. My words are: “ According to the view of Patanjali" PataSjali is undoubtedly of opi¬ nion “ Be this aB it may, the notice is in itself an exceedingly curious one.”—Now with regard to this very curious and odd statement itself, I venture to throw it out as a mere suggestion whether it may not perhaps refer to a first attempt at gold coinage made by the Mauryas (in imitation of the Greek coins). It is true no Maurya coin has been discovered as yet, so far as I know, but this may bo mere chance; the real difficulty is how to bring Patanjali’s words into harmony with such an interpretation, the more so as in his time no doubt gold coins were already rather common. When a thing is called at the same time Paroksham arwf pray ok turd arsanavi- s h a y a m, we can render the first only by “ what is no more to be seen,” the second by “ what hat been seen by the speaker, or could have been seen by him.” The imperfect is used always, parokshe, when a thing is no more to be seen, but it may be either lokavijndta, notorious, or prayohtur dar- ianaviahaya, belonging to the personal experience of the speaker, or even to both together. In thus concluding what I had to say in my defence, I beg to repeat my acknowledgment of Prof. BhAndArkar’s critical spirit, of which he has given ample proof already in an elaborate .review of Hang’s Aitareya-Brahmana (1864), of which he now. acknowledges himself the author, and which I embodied in the ninth volume of my Indische Btudien, on account of its intrinsic merits, without knowing at all from whom it came. “It is the first time,” I said in introducing it, “as far as we know, that a born Hindu has subjected with courage and independence the work of a European Sanskrit scholar to a search¬ ing critique, and this moreover in a manner which shows him quite competent and fully prepared to do it.” He has given a new instance of his saga¬ city on the present occasion, and in congratulat¬ ing him as a most welcome fellow-labourer in our common studies, I beg to express my hope that he may continue still for a timo to make the critical ransacking of the Mahdbhdshya his special department; as he has succeeded already in drawing from it some very important details, he will not foil doubtless to find more of them. Combined efforts are necessary to wield this huge mass, which, in spite of the Benares edition, as well as of the forthcoming photolithographed edition, pre¬ pared in London under Goldstiicker’s care, will still defy for a while many attempts to break through its hard crust. It is a great pity that from the colossal dimensions of Ballautyne's edition we are now reduced to the other extreme, viz. to having nothing except a mere transcript of a manuscript, without any indications and helps of an editorial character. Tho text of tho Mahdbhdshya, in all three editions, is prima vista a, quite undiscornible mixtum compositum of PAnini’s vArttika and bhA- shya; and tho bhAshya, again, is itself composed in a most unwieldy and unsettled way, stuffed to suffocation with objections, counter-objeotions, repetitions, examples and counter-examples. And with regard especially to the latter, we ought never to lose sight of tho circumstances under which, according to the testimonies of the Vdkyapadiyam and the Rdjalarahgim, tho work was finally ar¬ ranged in its present form, and of the many chances that rendered it liable to changes and intercalations, under the treatment it may have experienced. I beg to add somo remarks on another subjeot: In The Academy (No. 68, March 16, p. 118) I gave a short statement of my real views on tho relation of VAlmiki to the Homeric saga-cjcle, ,by repro¬ ducing pertinent passages from Mr. Boyd’s transla¬ tion of my Essay on tho RAmAyana, as contained in your pages. A correspondent of The Academy had (No. 65, p. 68) drawn the attention of its readers to the patriotic indignation of Borne learned Hindus against its results, at the same time him¬ self stating its purport in terms which I could not consider as a true representation of my views. I had not then seen tho review of my Essay by KAsinAth Trimbak Telang, and could judge of it only from the notice given by the writer in The Academy. By the courtesy of the author I have since received it, and take this opportunity to state that—far from “ laying particular stress on the total want of correspondence in tho delineation of the various characters introduced in the two poems,** as he was said to do in The Academy, and which would have exposed him too, to the charge of “fighting against windmills,” which I direct against all who state it as my theory " that the RAmAyana of VAlmiki is simply an Indian transla¬ tion of Homer*s Iliad*—he has indeed “ endea¬ voured to refute my arguments one by one,” with¬ out at all giving so prominent a part to that particular point. Though prejudiced, as he ho¬ nestly allows, by his national feelings, ho proves a faithful inquirer after truth; and if he has not, in my opinion, succeeded in anyways changing the aspect of tho question—partly becauso ho too puts it wrongly,* and partly becauso ho has written • The title of his review is:—“ Was the Rfimfiyana copied from Homer P” I never thought of maintaining so much as that.