August, 1873.] CORRESPONDENCE, 239 to Sanskrit authors could not have originated so early. Dr. Kern’s book I saw and glanced over the preface of, several years ago ; but I did not ro- member his explanation of the word Madhya mika when I wrote my article in the Indian Antiquary, vol. I. p. 299, though I always thought the word meant some such thing. But soon after the article appeared, and before Professor Weber’s criticism on it was received, I read Dr. Kern’s preface again, so that it was not Professor Weber that first directed my attention to it. Now to come to Professor Weber’s remarks on my article at vol. II. p. 69. The Professor still adheres to his interpretation of the passage Mathnrdydh Pdtaliputram purvam. And his reason is PataS- jali’s use of the word vyavahita in that connection, which he thinks means‘distance.’ Now the word vyavahita, so far as I know, never means * distance,’ but ‘ covered,’ * concealed,’ or * separated’ by some¬ thing intervening; as, for instance, England is vya¬ vahita from us, by several countries and Beas in¬ tervening : or in the word R&mena, R is vyavahita from n by d, m, and e. The context of the passage in Patanjali is shortly this :—In the sAtra aehah parasmin ptirva vidhau, the question is, With re¬ ference to what standard is the word ptirva or
- preceding’ to be understood P For a time he
takes the nimitta, or condition of a grammatical change, to be the standard, and says that the prin¬ cipal example of this sfltra, viz. paJtvyd or mridvyd is also explained or shown to fit with the rule on this supposition. How does it fit P The state of the case in patvyd is this:—first we havepofa, then t the feminine termination changed to y, and after that, d, the termination of the instrumental singular. This last is the nimitta of the change of the previous I to y. Then what is to be done by applying the s&tra is—to regard y as a vowel and change the u of pain to v. But says the ob¬ jector, tho rule in the s&tra does not apply here on tho supposition you have made, for the u ofpatu is not p{irva from d, which is the nimitta, as it is separated from it by y substituted for f. Then, says the original speaker, the word pdrva is used not only to signify a thing that immediately pre¬ cedes another, but also to signify one that precedes but is separated from it by something intervening, as in such expressions as this: “ Pitaliputra is piirvam from Mathurft,” in which p&rvam is used though several places intervene between the two towns. Now, it is plain that this is given as a phrase in use and current among the people to serve as an authority for taking p&rva in a certain sense, and therefore, if Professor Weber’s inference is correct, all people using the expression, i. e. tho Sanskrit-speaking population of India, must have lived to tho east of PAtaliputra. The only proper meaning therefore is “ P&taliputra is to the east of Mathura.” And even if we take Professor Weber’s explanation, “ P&taliputra is before Mathur&,” it does not follow that the speaker, supposing he was Patanjali—which however is not the case—was to the east of P&^alipntra, any more than it does when I say “ the horse is before the cart" that I am to that side of the cart, and not this, or to this, and not that. The word ptirrn no doubt means primarily ‘ before.’ but when applied to show the re¬ lations between places the anteriorness of one from another is to be taken with reference to the usual standard in such comparisons, namely—the rising sun. Hence the word comes to signify the * east,’ and as used in connection with places it has always this sense. I have no doubt therefore that my in¬ terpretation of the passage is correct, and that it does not in any way militate against the con¬ clusion I have drawn from another as to the native place of Patanjali. I do not see why a district very near Oudh may not be said to be situated prdchdm deSe. Benares was not the point from which the hearings of different places in India were taken. Pragdesa, Udagdesa, &c. were settled terms; and one living in Pr&gdesa could call himself a Pr&chya. Amara defines Pr&gdesa as that lying to the south and east of the Sar&vatf. Professor Weber gives no reason for thinking that yathd laukika-vaidiJceshu is not a vdrtika. But this passage is explained by Patafijali and made the subject of a dissertation just as other vdrtikas are. The whole argument given by the author of the Mahdbhdshya, a portion of which was reproduced by me in my article, is contained in these three aphorisms, the last of which is the one under discussion :—1, Siddhe sabddrtha- sambandlie; 2, lokatortha-prayukte 6abdaprayoge kdstrena dharma-niyamah ; 3, yathd laukika vai- dikeshu. These aro all explained and, as texts, descanted upon by our author; he mentions Acharya * incidentally as the author in connection with the first of these, which Acharya must be K&ty&yana here, since these are not sutras, and Nagojibhatta f expressly calls the first two vdr¬ tikas. The third also must then bo a vdrtika, since it is of a piece in every respect with the other two, and completes the argument, which without it would be incomplete. The aphorism cannot be the composition of Pataujali, for ho makes it the subject of his criticism, and says that the words contained in it are Dakhani words, t cannot understand the connection between this passage and the one quoted by Professor Weber about the use of sarasi in the South. What has • Ballantine, pp. 47, 49. t Ibid. p. 53.
