O 
 
 3 
 
 >4 
 D 
 
 X 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 ^( 
 
 
 <>««» 
 
 
 NJD 
 
 
 LJ-) 
 
 ? 
 
 in : 
 
 > 
 
 QD 
 
 >- 
 
 > 
 
:t^ 
 
 TIIK 
 
 ;\r(^HrrYALAMKAriA OF KSHEMENDHA, 
 
 WITH A NOTE ON THE 
 
 DATE OF PATANJALI, 
 
 AND 
 
 AN INSCIUPTION FROM KOTAH ; 
 
 Two Papers read before the Bombay Branch of the 
 Royal Asiatic Society: 
 
 WITH A PREFACE IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR BHANDARKAR. 
 
 BY 
 
 PETER PETERSON, 
 
 1 I'illNSTONE riiOFESfcJOE OF SANSKRIT_, BOMBAY 
 
 5l5ombaj) : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE 
 
 EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PRESS, BYCULLA. 
 
 1885. 
 l-rlca L' 
 
THE 
 
 AUCIIITYALAMKARA OF KSHEMENDM, 
 
 WITH A NOTE ON THE 
 
 DATE OF PATANJALI, 
 
 AND 
 
 AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH; 
 
 Two Papers read before the Bombay Branch of the 
 Royal Asiatic Society; 
 
 WITH A PREFACE IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR BHANDARKAR. 
 
 BY 
 
 PETER PETERSON, 
 
 n 
 
 ELPHINSTONE PEOPESSOR OP SANSKRIT, BOMBAY. 
 
 PRINTED AT THE 
 
 EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PRESS, BYCULLA. 
 
 1885. 
 Frice Re, 
 
CARPENTIER 
 
 /^v: :/'>:- '•; 
 
 
^ 
 
 PREFATORY. 
 
 The first of the two papers that follow contains a short account 
 of a small treatise on rhetoric by the Kashmirian poet, Kshe- 
 mendra, called the Auchityavicharacharcha. ^ . In examining 
 that book I was extremely interested to find that Kshemendra 
 quotes in its entirety a verse, the last pada of which is quoted 
 in Patanjali's Mahabhashya, and that ho gives the name of 
 the author of the verse as one Kumaradasa. This is the 
 name of one of the authors quoted in the Anthologies of 
 Vallabhadeva and Sarngadhara : and I set out the verses 
 known from these sources to be by this poet in support of the 
 contention that a writer who quotes Kumaradasa cannot have 
 lived in the second century before Christ. Mr. K. T. Telang, 
 in the course of some remarks on my paper, referred to this 
 part of it as, in the light of accepted facts, pointing rather to 
 the conclusion that Kumaradasa must be put prior to the 
 accepted date for the author of the Mahabhashya than to the 
 conclusion I had suggested. It was in response to this challenge 
 that I drew up the Note on the Date of Patau jali which is 
 appended to this paper. I am induced to publish the paper 
 in its present form chiefly from a desire to animadvert here 
 
 1 This is Kshemeadra's own name for the book. Auchityalamkara, the 
 name by which it is referred to in my paper, probably came into use as a 
 convenient short title. 
 
 M152333 
 
4 PREFATORY, 
 
 very briefly on the reply^ from Dr. Bhandarkar which that 
 Note has elicited. 
 
 The Note was negative in its character, and its main conten- 
 tion is not I think misrepresented if I describe it as an 
 attempt to show that there is nothing on the record inconsistent 
 with some considerably later date for Patanjali than the second 
 century before Christ. 
 
 Goldstiicker, I knew, had maintained that two passages in 
 the Mahabhashya taken together proved that Patanjali lived 
 after the overthrow of the Maurya Dynasty in the third century 
 B.C., and at the time of certain events to which he himself 
 refers as events of contemporary history, and which, according 
 to Goldstiicker, must be taken to have ocsurred in the middle 
 of the second century before Christ. If Groldstiicker's conten- 
 tion were correct, there was of course an end at once of mine : 
 and my first care was to examine again independently the pas- 
 sages he relies on. It will be seen that I claim to show that 
 Goldstiicker misunderstood the grammatical import of the 
 passage in which the supposed reference to the Maurya Dynasty 
 occurs, and that I contend that, with his wrong translation 
 disappears all reason for seeing in the passage any reference 
 to a dynasty at all. Dr. Bhandarkar admits the first of these 
 conclusions, but dissents from the second. He holds that the 
 grounds for taking Maurya as the name of a dynasty that was 
 extinct in Patanjali's time still remain. "The contrast be- 
 tween a royal dynasty and common people [which was Gold- 
 stiicker's ground] is not that ground : but there is another 
 ground which Professor Peterson has lost sight of, and which 
 consequently has been neglected in his translation.*' 
 
 Bhandarkar proceeds to give my translation, and to show 
 
 • The Date of Patanjali. A lleply to Professor Peterson ; by Kaiukrisbai^ 
 Gopal Bhandarkar, MA., &c. 
 
PREFATORY. 
 
 where it is, as he takes it, incorrect. For convenience of re- 
 ference I give below tlio passage in dispute,^ my translation, 
 and Bhandarkar's criticism : and will state here what I have to 
 urge in reply. This I will do briefly. 
 
 3 Mahabliashya on Pari. V. 3, 99. ^^^ f^"^ rftt ^ i%'-¥rr I f^; 
 
 " In that case [if ^FF^ is to be part of the rule] the following expression 
 is not obtained [i.e. must be declared to be bad grammar, while as a matter 
 of fact it is in common use, and so it is the correctness of the stitra that is in 
 peril.] ^^^i {^^m: "A Skanda in act to shoot." ** Why ?" " It is for 
 gain that the Mauryas make images." rTfH" ^ ^q"frX. *' Let it be admitted 
 that so far to them the rule ^'Tf |5^ should not apply, but that the affix 
 ka should be used. ^R?^fTT: ^RT^ ^^ff^f: But whatever images among these 
 even, are from the beginning intended for worship and not for sale, rTPFT 
 Hf^^^W to them that rule will apply, and the affix ka will be barred." 
 
 Professor Peterson rejects the reading f^f : before ^^'^^i why, I do not 
 understand, unless the reason be that it goes against the translation which he 
 has worked himself into believing to be coi-rect- ftW^: he translates by 
 *' in act to shoot" and his authority is a certain explanation of the word with a 
 second-hand quotation in support from a commentary on the Amarakosa, 
 contained in the St. Petersburg Lexicon, and copied from that as a matter 
 of course by Monier Williams. But Bohtlingk and Roth have not found a 
 single instance of the use of the word in that sense in the whole extent of 
 the literature which they have examined. Still Professor Peterson thinks 
 Pataujali has used it in that sense. But after all wljat Bohtlingk and Roth 
 and Monier Williams say is that R^f^ expresses " an attitude in shoot- 
 ing" ; and not " one in that attitude" ; so that if the sense is to be admitted 
 here at all, ^^f f^W^: would mean ** Skanda who is an attitude in shoot- 
 ing," which of course will not do. Patanjali, however, uses the word as 
 expressive of a certain god who is always mentioned together with Skanda. 
 Ilnder Pan. VIIL 1. 15, he gives C't ^^=^ft^r^ along with ^'k ^'rf^f- 
 K^ as an instance of a copulative compound of the names of things or per- 
 sons always mentioned together, which admits of the use of the word Dvan- 
 dva or "pair" instead of Dvau, or "two." It is clear from this that 
 Pataijjali himself means to speak of them as two individuals always asso- 
 ciated together, and forming a pair, and the dual also expresses that they 
 were two. 
 
6 PREFATORY. 
 
 And first of my " Skanda in act to shoot." My authority 
 was not Monier Williams, nor was it the mere explanation 
 of the word in the St. Petersburg Dictionary. Like other 
 
 Now Professor Peterson's translation of 4r%1i."Mll'^ffHT^: ^^["^rfr: is "It 
 is for gain that the Mauryas make images. " ** Make " is present tense while 
 the original ^^f^Tcir: is past tense, that being the past passive participle of 
 the causal of f T. Again q^^f^Trff: means " devised, " *' planned, " " used 
 as means, *' and not simply " made." A closer translation of f|T^[%^- 
 than that we have in the expression " for gain" ought to be given, for an im- 
 portant point is involved in that. Patanjali applies several times the ex- 
 pression ^Tr^^TT^ flT'^^^ *T^P(T " seek for gold *' to kings, and the presumption 
 it gives rise to is that here too those to whom he applies it must be kings. 
 la the last sentence Professor Peterson's translation of the nominative ^rTf: 
 by "among these'* is wrong. It is only the genitive ^rn"^ri,or the loca- 
 tive ^tTTSr that can be so translated. Similarly ^RT^ cannot mean ** from 
 the beginning " as the Professor takes it to mean ; it can only signify "now," 
 ** in these days," &c. 
 
 The sense of the passage is this. Paaini lays down a rule that the ter- 
 mination ha which is appended to the name of an object to signify some- 
 thing resembling that object (f%). provided that something is an image 
 (^rf^fTcTT), is dropped (^^ 3"'t), when the image is used for deriving a liveli- 
 hood (^ftft^f^) and is not vendible (^TT^^). Now Patanjali raises this 
 question. The addition of the condition that the image should not be Ten- 
 dible renders such forms as Sivalj, Skandah, Visakhah, grammatically not 
 justifiable (fT\t — l^^'^ ffrf.) He must here be taken to mean that these 
 forms are current, and that the description " not vendible " is not applicable 
 to them. " Why not " (f*" ^TITT^), he asks. " Because the Mauryas, seek- 
 ing for gold or money, used images of gods as means" (hTh — ^^l^rff;). 
 Here the author must be understood to say that the description " not ven- 
 dible " is not applicable to the images now called Sivah, SUandalj, and Visa- 
 kah, because such images were sold by the Mauryas. They are therefore 
 vendible objects, though as a matter of fact they are not for sale, and though 
 the seUing of such images of gods is discreditable. It is the act of the 
 Mauryas that has rendered them vendible objects. Hence the termination 
 cannot be dropped in accordance with the rule, and they should be called 
 ^ivakah, Skandaka^ and Visakhakah, but they are called Sivalj, SkandaJi, 
 and Visakhah. " It may be ( H^^T ) that the rule about the dropping of ka 
 is not applicable (^ ^^THT) to them, i.e. to those (fff^) images of gods which 
 were sold by the Mauryas. But as to these (^?Tr:) [viz. those called by 
 the names SivaJi, Skandajj, and Visakhah, the correctness of which is in 
 
PREFATORY. 7 
 
 students I am under constant obligation to both these diction- 
 aries. But I endeavour also to use my own judgment : and 
 if Bhandarkar will turn to the word WnJT in the St. Peters- 
 burg Dictionary, I think he will agree with me that Bohtlingk 
 and Roth supply, with their explanation, sufficient evidence 
 
 question] which (^fO are at the present day used for worship (^'Rfrf iTSTPTf:) 
 the rule is applicable to them (rfTg" ^R^^frT)." That is, the termination ka 
 should be dropped in their case and the forms whose correctness was ques- 
 tioned are correct. 
 
 The forms are correct, because they signify images of gods which are now 
 worshipped and are not vendible. They were thought to come under the 
 class of vendible objects because such images were used by the Mauryas for 
 raising money ; but the vendibility of some does not make those that are 
 worshipped vendible, and consequently the names of those images do come 
 under Panini's rule and drop ka. In understanding the passage thus I 
 have set aside Nagojibhatta's comment which I think can be shown to be 
 wrong. He appears to me to say that the words Sivah, Skandah, and 
 Visakhah express images sold by the Mauryas, and as such they are vendible 
 objects and consequently should have the termination ha, i.e. the forms 
 should be Sivakah, &c., and not Sivah, &c., as given in the Mahabhashya 
 which are incorrect, while those, which, in conformity with Panini's stitra 
 drop ka, are such as express images, intended for that sort of worship which 
 immediately after their manufacture brings in gains and enables a man to 
 earn his livelihood. Now this makes no difference as to the province or 
 operation of Panini's rule; but that the passage itself has been misunder- 
 stood by Nagojibhatta appears to me clear. He interprets ^^^f^ ^J3fpff:as 
 " bringing in gains immediately after manufacture," which interpretation is 
 far-fetched, as are those of all commentators when they do not understand 
 the point and still wish to explain a passage somehow. He also neglects the 
 the word ^F:. But the great mistake he makes is his forgetting that 
 when PataSjali supposes an opponent and makes him raise an objection by 
 the expression ^ RT-^, " this is not justifiable by that rule," he very 
 generally makes him object to the rule by bringing forward correct forma 
 which that rule does not explain. Eventually, he interprets the rule in such 
 a manner that those forms also are explained by it. In accordance with my 
 interpretation this is exactly what is done here by Patafijali. If the passage 
 were put in the form of a dialogue between the Doctor (Siddhantin) and his 
 opponent (Ptlrvapakshin), it would stand thus : — 
 
 Op. Panini inserts the condition that the image should not be vendible. 
 Then, the forms 6ivah, Skandha, Visakhah are not correct according to his 
 
8 PREFATORY. 
 
 that that word is used in the sense I have endeavoured to 
 fix on M^ii^ here.^ I do not understand the force, in Bhan- 
 darkar's mouth, of the appeal to the fact that my authorities ^ 
 such as they are, do not recognize a corresponding use of the 
 adjective nRf'^. They do not. But if k^\T^ ^^J^^ is used of an 
 attitude in shooting it would not, I think, be easy to show why 
 f^^lT^ might not be used as an adjective to a word signifying 
 an image as indicating that attitude. It would have been well 
 if I had given the precise reference ; but I had these quotations 
 in view when considering the passage, and I may therefore 
 fairly, I think, dissent from the remark that my authority is 
 ^' a certain explanation of the word with a second-hand quota- 
 tion in support from a commentary on the Amarakosa, contained 
 in the St. Petersburg Lexicon, and copied from that as a matter 
 of course by Monier Williams." On another small point too here 
 Bhandarkar does me some wrong. He does not understand 
 why I reject the reading f%^: before 'E^i^: , "unless the reason 
 be that it goes against the translation which" I have " worked 
 myself into believing to be correct.'' It would be a legitimate 
 retort to say that Bhandarkar reads Chandragupta-sabha, 
 against Kielhorn, in the note on Panini I, 1, 68, because the 
 omission of that word might be fatal to the edifice Bhandarkar 
 
 rule. [These forms express images of those gods, and should have the 
 suffix ka."] 
 
 Doc. Why? 
 
 Op. Because the Mauryas, desirous of raising money, used as means the 
 images of gods [i.e. they bartered them; and these are such images, and 
 consequently belong to the class of vendible objects]. 
 
 Doc. Those images may not come under the rule [because they bartered 
 them, and consequently they may not drop A;a]. But these [viz., those in 
 question] , which at the present day are used for worship, come under the 
 operation of the rule [and consequently the ka is dropped], 
 
 * They quote two passages from the Harivansa ^: Tf J^^f ^ l^Tf^^- 
 (^^ ^^1.6235 ; and W<^ ^^fpr^ff^f^, (said of Baladcvo). 
 
PREFATORY. 9 
 
 has raised upon it. But Bhandarkar gives his authority for 
 the reading he prefers. And so did I. It will be seen that 
 since writing my paper I have ascertained that the Alwar MS. 
 of the Mahabhashya also omits %^:. I can add now that, 
 having been given an opportunity by my friend the Honorable 
 Rao Saheb Visvanath Narayan Mandlik of consulting the fine 
 copy of the Bhashya with Kaiyyata's Pradipa in his private 
 collection, I find that there too the reading is tTM" T ^'n^ 
 f9R*^ l^^r^f^. We have thus the India Office Photozincogra- 
 phic copy of Kaiyyata, this one of the Rao Saheb's, the Alwar 
 MS. of the Mahabhashya, and one of Kielhorn's MSS. all 
 testifying to a reading which is not to be rejected so lightly as 
 Bhandarkar thinks. And if the reading I prefer turns out 
 ultimately to be that which the weight of evidence shows to be 
 correct, Bhandarkar's attempt to refer the following qin": 
 (nominative plural) to these words will fall to the ground. It 
 would seem then that my critic is here as much exposed, to 
 say the least, to the danger of unconscious bias as I can be. 
 
 Neither the right reading however, nor the exact interpreta- 
 tion of the phrase [rR:?] Wt-^ RaiI<^ Xl^ is, as it happens and 
 as I was careful to point out, material to the first point at issue. 
 We are agreed here as against Goldstiicker that the phrase con- 
 tains instances, or an instance, of a form which as denoting an 
 image is prima facie incorrect under the rule. Let it be 
 admitted then, for the sake of the argument, that the instance 
 put forward is not the word skanda, in such a context as shall 
 show it is the name of an image of the god, and not the god 
 himself, that is meant, but three names heaped together, which 
 we are to understand from the general tenor of the whole pas- 
 sage to be the names of images. The question is as to what 
 the next words mean, and here I join issue directly with my 
 critic. 
 
10 PREFATORY. 
 
 We are dealing here with images or idols which are profit- 
 able all of them for a livelihood, but which may or may not be 
 for sale. This last distinction is a perfectly intelligible one, 
 and I do not understand why Bhandarkar should insist as he 
 does, that the vendible character of certain images must be 
 taken to be due to some mysterious action taken with regard 
 to them by the Mgurya kings, or what grounds he has for 
 maintaining that these images and these images alone are 
 referred to in the words Siva, Skanda, Visakha. Idols have 
 been sold from the beginning and are sold now : and the 
 supply will doubtless continue so long as the demand shall 
 last. Nor is there anything discreditable in the idol-makers' 
 profession per se. Such names of idols then as Siva, Skanda, 
 Visakha are for the matter in hand colourless. They do not of 
 themselves tell us whether the objects of which they are the 
 names — that is idols in general — are panya or apanya, vendible 
 or not vendible, much less whether 'such particular idols as 
 may by a forced construction be supposed to be referred to, 
 are those the Mauryas dealt in or not. What then is it that 
 raises the presumption, which it is necessary to notice, that 
 all idols are in their nature vendible ? The answer to this query 
 lies in the phrase 'ft^^r'^nfirf^T^: JT^f^rii: Does this mean, 
 as I take it, " It is for gain that the Mauryas make images," 
 or, as Bhandarkar believes, " The Mauryas seeking for gold 
 or money used images of gods as means." 
 
 I will first repudiate the charge that I commit here the 
 schoolboy error of rendering a word that denotes past time 
 by a word that denotes present time. There is no restriction 
 to time present, past or future in my English sentence, any more 
 than there is in the Sanskrit so-called " past passive participle" 
 sjf^xf^'ir. The Mauryas, it may be, had made, were then 
 making, and would continue to make images, but that is not 
 
PREFATORY. 11 
 
 Patanj all's assertion here. What he says is that in making 
 images they do not act from disinterested motives. They 
 are in search of gain. In view of Dr. Bhandarkar*s misappre- 
 hension on this point I should prefer now to translate '' images 
 are made by the Mauryas for gain/' and I am confident that 
 the so-called past passive participle in Sanskrit is the proper 
 translation of " made" here, and that the use of the present 
 would convey an entirely diflfereut meaning. But I do not 
 repudiate my first translation, which is merely a more idiomatic 
 rendering of the same thing. I traverse directly Bhandarkar'a 
 contention that the use of ST^f^q^: throws the whole action, as 
 far as Patanjali is concerned, into the past. 3|^rf^qiTr: denotes 
 no more than that the action of making is to be conceived as 
 completed. It has not that note of time which FJhandarkar 
 sees in it. But while refusing to admit that the^ action in this 
 sentence must belong to past time I will not fall into the opposite 
 error of maintaining that it must be present. Bhandarkar may 
 be right even if he has not, as I think he has not, any warrant 
 for being so positive. The speaker may very well be referring 
 to some notorious action of past time when lust for gain 
 ( ^T^TRnftrfH":) led the *' Mauryas" into paths to them forbidden. 
 For if the ' 'Mauryas" turned images into a source of profit it 
 would surely seem to follow that images must be vendible 
 things. Not being then of the class to whom such manufacture 
 and sale is not forbidden the '* Mauryas'' may have trafiicked 
 in idols. Or love of money may have led the "Mauryas" to 
 commit the heinous sin of selling idols that had once been con- 
 secrated. Nay the " Mauryas" may have been the then Para- 
 mount Power, and as such dealt with idols as the English Go- 
 vernment deals with opium. Any one of these things may be. 
 None of them, in my view, must be. 
 
 For who were these " Mauryas," whose connection with 
 
12 PREFATORY. 
 
 images raises a presumption that images as a class, not certain 
 images as Bhandarkar would understand, are vendible ? The 
 fact of course is that we do not know. I can only say that the 
 context appears to me to lend very strong support to Nagoji- 
 bhatta's assertion that they are idol-makers, and that, whether 
 that be so or not, I can discover in the same context absolutely 
 no reason for -taking them to be the Maurya kings, whether of 
 the third century before Christ or of the sixth century after 
 Christ. That Patanjali in other places speaks of kings too as 
 actuated by desire of gain is hardly conclusive. 
 
 I admit that M^l'^Mdl: is a difiBcult word. But it is as dif- 
 ficult for Dr.. Bhandarkar as it is for me. And while I believe 
 that it can mean ' made' or ' made and sold,' I doubt whether 
 it can mean 'used as a means to that end, namely making 
 money,' which appears to be in effect the construction sought 
 to be put on it. 
 
 In my construction of q^TT: I am fully supported by Kaiyyata 
 and Nagojibhatta, neither of whom refer that word to the be- 
 ginning of the paragraph.^ I do not think it can, in accordance 
 
 ^ To make this clear I give E[aiyyata's note and Nagojibhatta^s gloss upon 
 it:— 
 
 Kaiyyata : qif^c^dl ffrf I ^: ^(^^ 'J^I^^HdPrT rTrf^^rqt^; I ^?n=5 f^- 
 ^ mj 5f »T^ I flr^^P^ofhr ff^.— Nagojibhatta : ^jf^ f^%H ^f^- 
 Rl^rM-U'dtfii^li sr^q^: I f^%5p^ ft^tT^tTWt M^^rcTlTt^ srrq^lVW>J|«*J^. 
 
 How Kaiyyata understood the passage is not, to my mind, open to ques- 
 tion. His short note deals only with the clause Mlt^^dl-, which, according 
 to Bhandarkar refers to the beginning of the paragraph. And his meaning 
 is that the case of images made by Mauryas with an eye to gain must be finally 
 disposed of in re this rule, according as they are either taken from door to 
 door that service may be held and a ** collection'* made, or sold. I believe 
 
PREFATORY. 13 
 
 with the ordinary rules of construction, be referred farther back 
 than the bt^: of the preceding clause. And I feel sure that it 
 would have been made to stand before, and not after the 
 adversativ^ particle 5 if it had the meaning Bhandarkar 
 now ascribes to it. I will, to lighten the argument, accept Bhan- 
 darkar's dictum that ^ii^E^^ril: cannot mean ' whichever of these.' 
 But substitute for f^^: its antecedent ^Wh, and we get the sim- 
 ple meaning ' whichever images.' As I do not believe that 
 Patanjali is drawing any distinction between images dealt with 
 by the Mauryas and any other class of images, the point is not, 
 in my judgment, a material one. 
 
 that Kaiyyata construes qi^?^: as I do, " But whichever being these" that 
 is " But whichever of these" : and that his nominative to aTH^'Tfr ia mW'" I 
 can only note here that in the India Office MS. N&gojibhatta seems actually 
 to read ^ {i.e. the Mauryas) after qX: TlT^^ in Kaiyyata. 
 
 The meaning of N&gojibhatta's comment too appears to me to be quite 
 clear, and to be moreover perfectly relevant to the "province of operation 
 of P&nini*s rule." " We must," says Nagojibhatta, " understand the word 
 ??Fff9 after m^ic^FTT:. The images referred to are therefore vendible, and the 
 occasion for the suffix ka presents itself. In the two clauses that follow, 
 beginning respectively with H^ and ^It^^ill: Patanjali first (H^l «TI1 
 f ^^) accepts the proposition that the occasion for the suffix has pre- 
 sented itself, and, secondly (^?T^?Tr= ifsffcf ^nTRif: tTTf Hl^^^) shows how 
 nevertheless his rule is not of none effect. The phrase ^s^?T 'J^rnfl': in this 
 clause requires separate explanation : and it is explained as meaning images 
 destined from the beginning for such lucrative worship as shall yield a liveli- 
 hood. Lastly, the mention of this second class of images (^: TIT^CnW) sug- 
 gests a final remark which may be necessary to avoid all misapprehension. 
 Images are not exhaustively divided into those which are hawked about from 
 house to bouse that the owner may levy a religious toll, and those which are 
 sold right ofi'. There are images which are exposed to neither indignity, 
 but are set up and remain for worship and for worship only. With regard 
 to these Nagojibhatta holds that the condition precedent of the suffix is 
 absent. These images are not things made in the likeness of the god. 
 They are the god himself. 
 
 i 
 
14 PREFATORY. 
 
 Kaiyyata explains ?ar^ l^rnfT: by mi tR*5"5T ^JTf »T?f^ and 
 Nagojibhatta's Note is W^ ^HHhmH'^m^^ ^r^^f^^ m ^T 
 ^f^^\m<^^ rlT^:. I follow respectable authority then in taking 
 ^Hlr^ to refer not to the time of speaking " now/' ^' in these 
 days/* but to the time of manufacture "at the time/' '' from the 
 beginning/' If the time of speaking is the same as the time 
 of manufacture the distinction is one without a difference. I 
 do not dispute however that Nagojibhatta may be wrong, and 
 that the sense may be ' now/ In that case the meaning will be 
 that even images which have been objects of barter, if they 
 have ceased to be such, and are now objects of worship only, 
 must be held to have acquired the quality of apanyatva. 
 
 Bhandarkar has pointed out that he himself published a trans- 
 lation of this passage in 1873, "in accordance with the native 
 commentators" when he also stated that Goldstiicker's interpre- 
 tation was wrong. I greatly regret that Bhandarkar's transla- 
 tion, although the paper which contains it is among the refer- 
 ences I gave, escaped my notice at the time I was writing my 
 paper. I have referred to it now, and am bound to say that 
 in 1873 Bhandarkar had already silently corrected the worst 
 of Groldstucker's mistakes. In other respects however Bhandar- 
 kar's version of 1873 is very defective, a fact which in fairness 
 should not be lost sight of when comparing my version with 
 that with which Bhandarkar has now followed it. In 1873 
 Bhandarkar took Patau jali to mean that Panini's rule is arbitra- 
 rily set aside in the case of images sold by the Mauryas, so that 
 forms not valid are nevertheless in use. " What Patanjali 
 means to say is that the termination ka should be applied 
 to the names of the images sold by the Mauryas, according to 
 P^nini's rule; but the rule is set aside in this case, and the 
 wrong forms Siva, Skanda, and Visakha are used." This is a 
 capital error, as Bhandarkar now sees. That it is in accordance 
 
PREFATORY. 15 
 
 with the native commentators is a view of it due I believe to a 
 misapprehension of Nagojibhatta's meaning, from which Bhan- 
 darkar has not yet shaken himself free. I should be more than 
 human if I refrained from adding that in 1873 Bhandarkar 
 gave to the phrase rTT^ ^T^^rJ precisely that reference which he 
 now seeks to give to the admittedly converse phrase «<i<;<:5ai.', 
 and that ^^'. he naturally then took in the sense he refuses to 
 admit for it now. '^ It may not be dropped in those cases ( i.e, 
 the proper forms must be Sivaka &c.) says Patanjali, but it is 
 dropped in the case of those images which are now used for 
 worship/' I think it must be admitted that if I have done 
 nothing else I have at least led Bhandarkar to reconsider his 
 own view of Patanjali's meaning, and that to some purpose.^ 
 
 So much for the Maurya passage. Its importance, as I have 
 pointed out, lies in the fact that what I maintain to be a mere 
 hypothesis, not proved, if not incapable of proof, with regard 
 to the persons meant, led Goldstiicker, and has led others, to 
 look for Patanjali's date soon after the third century before 
 Christ. With regard to the other passages I do not think that 
 I can usefully add anything to what will be found in the follow- 
 ing paper. My own contention was that Patanjali had been 
 discovered to quote Kumaradasa, that Kumaradasa is the author 
 of verses of a character precisely similar to verses which we can 
 assign to dates ranging from 600 to 1000 A.D., and that in 
 these circumstances it was difficult to believe that Patanjali 
 really lived in the second century before Christ. These consi- 
 derations appear to me to be unaffected by Bhandarkar'a ela- 
 borate hypothesis as to what Patanjali must have meant by the 
 illustration " Arunad Yavanah Saketam," while as for Pushya- 
 mitra and Chandraguptalhavepointedout that the existence of 
 two princes of these names reigning at about the same time 
 
 « Bhandarkar's translation of 1873 is in the Indian Antiquary, vol. II., p. 95. 
 
16 PREFATORY. 
 
 is better guaranteed for the fourth century after Christ than 
 for the third before Christ. I am far from saying that Patanjali 
 must be taken to be referring to my pair of princes. I think 
 the whole argument a most unsafe one, which aflfords no suffi- 
 cient warrant to scholars to treat the subject as a closed book. 
 One more word about Panini. It is not I think the case that 
 I have anywhere sought to bring Panini down to the sixth 
 century after Christ. What I have said is, that if Panini wrote 
 tho verses ascribed to him in the anthologies he certainly did 
 not live in the sixth century before Christ. The evidence that 
 he did write those verses appears to me to be accumulating ^ 
 though I have never attempted to say that it is yet sufficient, 
 
 as atravff opav Koi ndvT aKovcov navr dvarrTixra-ei )(^p6vos.'^ 
 
 I cherish the hope that one day I may hold in my hands the 
 Patlilavijaya, or the Jambavativijaya of the ' Mahakavi ' Panini. 
 Nor will I much grudge the prize to my friend Bhandarkar • in 
 view of the eflfect the prasasti may possibly have upon him. 
 If the book be found, I do not at all anticipate that it will turn out 
 to be written in an archaic style. ^ What appears to me on a 
 
 * This is Aufrecht's quotation when giving (from the Saduktikarn&mritB) 
 the fine verse attributed there, and in other anthologies, to the Bhashyak^ra ; 
 
 • " Should the entire work be discovered and found as a whole to be written 
 in an archaic style, there will be time enough to consider its claim to be the 
 work of P&nini ; but at present we must reject that advanced on behalf of 
 these artificial verses." — Bhandarkar* s paper. 
 
 Pischel has recently suggested that the Pat&lavijaya may turn out 
 to be a grammatical poem of the same kind as the Bhattik&vya. The 
 suggestion is not in harmony with the verses that have been recovered : and 
 itself rests on a misapprehension of the reference to the Patalavijaya in Nami's 
 commentary on Budrata. As the matter is of some importance, and as I my- 
 self am disposed to attach a special significance to Nami's reference to P&nini, 
 I will give the passage here from the Bombay Government Palmleaf copy, 
 (No. 53 of Kielhorn's Coll.) and from the Paper copy secured by me for 
 
PREFATORY. 17 
 
 review of thewliole case to be probable is that Panini was one of 
 
 several grammarians who, late in the study of the subject, applied 
 
 the Government of Bombay- Narai is discoursing on the precise sigaificance 
 of the word ^*^ in the following canon of Rudrata : 
 
 And his Note is 
 
 f?^^':^^fT?^ PrfTlf^cT?r^ft q"?^ II 
 For ^# ?q^^: (" lyap is the &desa or substitution for ktva) the Palm- 
 leaf xMSS. hasT^r ^qrr^^: and the other ^?tf ?q^K^: . The paper MS. reads 
 ^H"lf%^^rrT^^. ^^f^af^^rr T^^ ('* a word the n of the anti of which has 
 been dropped) appears to me to be wanted. 
 
 Pischel sees in Nami's words here a statement to the effect that great 
 poets use ungrammatical forms in order to impress on their readers the 
 importance of not doing so, which would not, it may be remarked in passing, 
 be a very nice adaptation of means to ends. But Nami doe§ not say this. 
 What he says is that by the use of tlie word ^*? here his author intends to 
 exclude apasabdas or ungrammatical forms, ami that Rudrata returns to this 
 subject to lay stress upon it, although it might be considered to have been 
 already disposed of by what he said about vyutpatti, in view of the fact that 
 even great poets sometimes slip in this respect. (As when Byron writes 'lay ' 
 for * lie,' a mistake which I observe a good English scholar has taken upon 
 himself lately quietly to correct in editing an English Anthology for Indian 
 students. It may be doubted whether Byron would have thanked him.) 
 
 Namisadhu's short roll of offenders — all of them by his own stntement 
 mahakavis — has only four names in all, Panini, Bhartriliari, Kalidasa, and 
 Bharavi. I have spoken of the peculiar significance I am disposed to attach 
 to Nami's reference to Panini. I confess I think that he purposely heads his 
 list with two, Panini and Bhartrihari, whose emineuce as grammarians makes 
 their conduct to the pedantic mind all the more anomalous. In any case 
 the dilemma is obvious. Namisddhu must be added to the list of learned 
 men witnessing to a poet, and a great poet, Panini, who either needed not 
 to be distinguished from the only wearer of that name known to these later 
 days, or was in their minds not distinguishable from him. In the former 
 alternative how has this second Panini dropped into utter oblivion : in the 
 second is there any good reason to suppose that men Uke Kshemeudra and 
 3 
 
1^ pRtfAT(mr. 
 
 themselves to consolidate and perfect the system of Sanskrit 
 grammar, that the archaisms on which stress is laid are dn© 
 la the fact that he was dealing with older docaments, great part 
 of which he incorporated, that the superior excellence of his 
 grammar was early apparent, and has never since been effec- 
 tually challenged, but that he was also a poet, and a great poet. 
 Writing as a poet in the poetical language of his day. What 
 that day was— how farPanini will eventually have to be brought 
 ^own from the date now accepted for him, or how far it may be, 
 on the contrary, advisable to push into remoter antiquity th& 
 lyric poetry of Northern India — is a question which we have no 
 adeqiJate means now of determining. Let us then wait. 
 
 To the paper which is the subject of this Preface I have 
 added a second paper in which I gave the Society a fresh trans- 
 cript and a translation of the inscription set Kansim near Kotah, 
 This inscription is dated i» the Malwa era which I have shown 
 to be identical with the Vikramaditya era, and to have been in 
 use under that name before 544 A. d. In reading and transla- 
 ting the inscription I received great assistance from Dr, 
 Bhagvanlal Indraji and from Dr, Bhandarkar, to whom I desire 
 to offer my best thanks. 
 
 Bombay, 2bth August 1 885. 
 
 Namisadim, identifying the poet with the grammaTian, conld have been i» 
 errtir, 
 
 Nami's exact date is still uncertain. Kielhorn gives Samvat 1176 as the 
 «!ate of the Palm leaf Manuscript. I have shown that the verse from whieh 
 this is taken reall)' gives Kami's date for the composition of his work. Our 
 pHlm-lcnf MS. may be the first copy of the work. The reading diflFers m the 
 two MSS. The Palm-leaf MS. has 
 
 For 5g?TFri^ here the Paper MS. reads q^l^lf^. Kami therefore wrote 
 tliii book either m Samvat 1176 or in Samvat 112^^ 
 
ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA OF 
 KSHEMENDRA, 
 
 WITH A NOTE ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 
 
 In the coarse of a visit paid recently to Rajendrasuri, a Jain re- 
 ligious teacher at the time in Ahmedabad, I noticed that his list of 
 books, which he kindly let me look over, contained an entry Auchitya- 
 larnkfira. Buhler, in his review of my First Report on the Search for 
 Sanskrit Manuscripts (Indian Antiquary, January 1884) pointed out that 
 I had omitted from my list of the known works of the Kashmir poet 
 Kshemendraa small treatise on rhetoric called Kavikanthabharanam, our 
 first copy of which Buhler himself obtained. " An examination of my 
 apograph of this manuscript by Mr. J. Schonberg,"^ Buhler goes on to 
 say, **has shown that it contains, besides the Kavikanthabharanam, 
 another small treatise on Alamkara called Auchityavicharacharcha. " 
 Eajendrasuri's Auchityalamkara turned out to be the work here 
 referred to : and through his courtesy in lending it I am able to offer in 
 the following paper a short account of the valuable data for the history 
 of Sanskrit literature which, within very small compass, it offers in rich 
 profusion. A more extended notice of the book itself, and of the Kavi- 
 kanthabharanam, which here also, as in the previous case, is presented 
 in the same manuscript, I hope to give in my forthcoming Third 
 Report. From the fact just alluded to it is perhaps to be conjectured 
 that the two books were generally regarded as supplementary the one 
 to the other, 
 
 A word of preface is perhaps desirable as to the importance to us of 
 a work like this. The poet Kshemendra tells us himself that one of 
 his books, the Samayamatrika, was finished during the reign of 
 king Ananta, in the 25th year of the Kashmirian cycle = A.D. 1050 
 ( Biihler's Report, p. 46). He was a most learned and voluminous writer, 
 and, what is more to our purpose, he invariably give his references 
 when quoting illustrations of the breach or observance of the rhetorical 
 
 ^ Mr. Schonberg has since pabliuhed ou aooount of the Kavikanth^bharanam. 
 Wien, 1884 
 
20 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA 
 
 rules he is discussing. We obtain from him then many names of 
 Indian poets and their works, for all of which we get Kshemendra'sown 
 time as a lower date, after which they cannot have flourished or been 
 written. Kshemendra's favourite method, as has been hinted, is to 
 give first one or more examples of verses which comply with his rule, 
 and to follow with one or more examples of verses which do not. It 
 must be said for him that he deals out praise and censure as a true 
 critic who is no respecter of persons. In more than one instance in- 
 deed he illustrates the two sides of the canon he is dealing with by 
 different verses from the same work of his own. These verses by 
 Kshemendra himself are not included in the analysis which follows. 
 
 I. Amaraka. 1. 54Mlr4|HricfiMrr|. BohtHngk 1035, from Ama- 
 rusatakam. yd'^M^'Sir: ^rRT idid^HT^. 8 fK^i^ch^KH^^^:- 
 
 " If you must go you shall go ; but why so soon ? Turn and stand 
 while I gaze on your face. Your life and mine are but two drops of 
 the water that will rush out of the bucket when it turns the top of the 
 wheel : and when that is done who can say whether you and I, in the 
 lives to come, shall ever meet again."* 
 
 ^fichi may also mean a waterclock, when the figure would resemble 
 our one of the * sands of life.' But I think snif shows that the sense is 
 as I have indicated. It would b6 curious if the same figure underlies 
 a common English coUoquiahsm. 
 
 This verse is quoted also in the Kavikanthabharanam (Schonberg, 
 p. 14).^ Our two examples show that this poet Amaraka is not to be 
 distinguished from the author of the Amarusatakam. Aufrecht (Z. D. M. 
 G. 27, 7) thinks Amaru was the original form afterwards sanskritized 
 into Amaru. 
 
 II. Bhatta Induraja. 1. STirnr ^Ttt TTTfT:. Kavya Prakasa, p. 453 
 (Calc. Ed. 1876). /3 f% ?f R ^rf^rf ^^ *I^^. ^ TTrfPr^^f^. 
 Aufrecht ( Z. D. M. G. 27, 94 ) cites this verse from the Sarngaddha- 
 rapaddhati under Srisuka. 2. HnqiJ T^^r^HY-- 
 
 » "For we most needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which can- 
 not be gathered up again." II Samuel, xiv. 14. 
 
 •' In ^ both Manuscripts read C^^?^ in the Karikantbfibhnranam, and T^f^ 
 in the book before us. Professor Bhandarkar suggests ^f5Tt5r ' moments.' 
 
OF KSHEMENDRA. 21 
 
 III. Srimad UtpalarAja. ^^f ^r ^C ^. Bohtliagk 844, from 
 Bhartrihari. 
 
 IV. Karpatika. 
 
 " As I sat perishing with cold, and plunged like the moon in Maghft 
 ( the moon surrounded by clouds ) in a sea of thought, the fire sank 
 low, and my blistered lips and hunger-parched throat were of no 
 avail to keep it alight. Sleep has left me and gone like an insulted 
 wife: and the night, like land given to a good holder, is no whit spent.** 
 
 This is the verse which Kalhana in the Rajatarangini ( III. 181 ), 
 puts into the mouth of the poet Matrigupta,* who is there said to 
 have composed it impromptu, in reply to the king's enquiry as to why 
 he alone of all the palace servants was not asleep. Its appearance 
 here is noteworthy. Kshemendra in another passage of this small 
 book quotes Matrigupta by name. It is impossible, I think, to say 
 whether we are to take Karpatika as the real name of the author of 
 one of the works which are summarised for us in the Rajatarangim or 
 as a synonym of Matrigupta, referring to his condition as a suppliant 
 for the king's favour. The verse occurs also in Vallabhadeva's Subha- 
 shitavali, where it is ascribed to Matrigupta, with the much better read- 
 ing ^rrFTT^^f^^^ 'ir^RTR^ * dried up with cold like a peaspod.' 
 
 V. Kalidasa. 1. 3T^ g- m^^T^rf TTF'Tr. RV. IV. 70. 2 f^»T^f?PT° 
 Vikram. Act II. « ^^'H^rt^T^^JTr^'TriR^n::. »T?5^!J^mi^l^rr- Both 
 good readings- 
 
 The heading to this verse is ^nrr ^^'^^c^ 5jrn%^R^- I ^ave 
 not found the verse in any known work of Kalidasa, and can only 
 suppose that Kuntesvaradautyam is the title of a lost work by the 
 prince of Indian poets. 4. grF^5T^°- KS. VIIL 87. Kshemendra's 
 testimony to the authenticity of the eighth canto. "3^i|r7H^*iMHl'^^'' 
 5. mrw JPfr ^Tf?: KS. III. 72. 6. WtT t^. Meghaduta V. 6. Cf. 
 
 * Compare Bhau Daji's Paper in Vol. VI. of the Journal, B. B. R. A. S. p. 213. 
 
22 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKAEA 
 
 note on No. 4. » rJysvf^JJT: 7. ^M^^thlf^f . KS. III. 29. 8. ^"Iijc^^ 
 ^%. KS. III. 28. 
 
 VI. KUMABADASA. 
 
 Bohtlingk 562, from Ind. Stud. 8, 414, where it was quoted from 
 Aufrecht. MS. fw^^ff^- As long ago as 1859 Aufreclit, in his 
 edition of Ujjvaladatta's Commentary on the Unadi Sutras, pointed out 
 that the fragment of a verse ^CrT^ ^T^r% ^r^^T: given by Ujjvaladatta 
 ia his comment, on I. 82, occurs also in the Mahabhashya, in the 
 note on p. I, 3, 48. ( Kielh. Ed. p. 283. ) Aufrecht at the same time 
 gave the whole verse as he found it quoted by Niirayana on Kedara- 
 bhatfca. The discovery that Kshemendra quotes this verse and assigns 
 it to Kumaradasa will one day I hope prove a valuable datum 
 for the Mahabhrishya itself. Unfortunately we do not yet know 
 Kumaradasa's own date. But the following verses by him are quoted 
 in the Sarngaddharapaddhati and Subhashitavali ; and are presented 
 here as, with the present example, presenting strong internal evidence 
 that a writer who quotei Kumaradasa cannot have lived at the date 
 now widely accepted for PatanjaU. 
 
 3:^ RVTT^r it f^ 3fi^ ^- 
 
 From Aufrecht, Z. D. M. G. 27, 17. 2 ^STFT f^5^ Aufrecht, who 
 points out that it occurs in the Amarusatakam. 3. T!T:5ToFrsifj4^<«^*M. 
 Cited by Aufrecht. 
 
 " When the wind blew cold with showers of icy spray, Love took 
 fright, and fled for shelter to the heart of the forsaken lover where the 
 fire of sorrow burned." Quoted and translated by Aufrecht, who 
 compares the Anacreontic fieaovvKTiois jtot' &paiK. 
 
 " The wandering Sun has gone to the South country and there scatter- 
 ed his rays: now like a poor priest (who with the hope of alms in 
 bis heart has been holding out his hand to every passer-by) he goes to 
 
or KSHIMSNDBA, ^ 
 
 the North country to repair his heams (goes to the rich man's house 
 to get wealth.)" This last example is from the Subhashitavali, It ha» 
 a very modern ring. 
 
 VII. Malava Kuvala\a. 
 
 1. -"i^rl^^H^: ap^ ^'^nr ^ i^"^ I ^ 
 
 VIII. GaTJDA KuMBHAKiRA. 1. c^jlT^ TprftriMMf^j^^ ;. A 
 
 description of Hanumau crossing the straits. 
 
 IX. Gangaka. 
 
 Kshemendra quotes this verse as a praiseworthy asirvachanam by 
 " My own teacher Gangaka." 
 
 X. Chandaka. 
 
 1. fr^: ^^r^- ^^- ^ttRt^T^: ^^t^: 
 w^ ^^ ^r^. fq"4x=* *"<Tr?nff rTT^ : I 
 
 Bohtlingk 1895 from Bhartrihari. 
 
 2. ff5%?rRiT%H qT^imr^:%^^:. 3. ^^Tfrferltt:. 
 
 t^ PT^'^s^ ^'^ '^ q^^nnf '^ I 
 M^'MM ^^ ftqr^ ^^?f ^RT't II 
 
 "In battles Fortune goes now here, now there, and for them I will 
 not answer. Fate gives victory and defeat to whom she will. This 
 one thing I promise, that when I go down into the fight the enemy 
 shall not look upon my horses' backs." 
 
 XL DivAKA. 1 ^^ Ni^RN-d . 2qnT%?rr%. BiihtliDgk 4102 
 
24 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA 
 
 from Bhartrihari. a RTrTTr«^?nTn^f^nT?#. /3 ^r^fqtJT^. V ll ' f^ - 
 
 XII. Dharmakirti. 
 
 Of this poet Aufrecht writes as follows in the sixteenth volume of 
 Weber's Indische Studien «— 
 
 •' Dharmakirti is one of the oldest writers on Alatnkara. A work of 
 his, called Bauddhasaqigati, is mentioned by Subandhu in the Vasa- 
 vadatta ( p. 205, ed. Hall). In all probability he is the Buddhist 
 philosopher of that name who according to Wassiljew wrote a commen- 
 tary on Dinnaga's Pramiliiasamuchchaya, as also the work Pramana- 
 varttika, Pramanavinischaya, and Prasannapada. A half verse by the 
 philosopher Dharmakirti is quoted in the chapter of the Sarvadarsana- 
 samgraha that deals with Buddhism. Anandavardhana quotes Dharma- 
 kirti in the Dhvanyaloka : the Sarngadharapaddhati gives one, and the 
 Saduktikarnamritam eight of his verses." 
 
 Six of the verses referred to here will be found in Aufrecht's paper. 
 A seventh is the verse ^fW^^^(^T^%, which, as Aufrecht notes, 
 had already been given by Bohtlingk from the Kuvalayananda, without, 
 of course, any author's name. Kshemendra in the book before us is 
 now found to corroborate the statement of the Saduktikarnamritam as 
 to the authorship of this verse, and so far to corroborate generally the 
 statements of the Saduktikarnamritam as to the authors cited. 
 
 ••He fecked not of the store of beauty he spent on her or of the toil 
 he took : he made her a fire of torment for people who were dwelling 
 at their ease : she herself is doomed to sorrow as one who can never 
 find a mate : say, what did the Creator propose to himself when he 
 tnade this woman ? " 
 
 The verse is quoted in censure of the employment of the word rpas^n' 
 
 "ffffTrT:. So also Aufrecht. Bohtlingk aTT^rT:. 
 
 ' Bohtlingk ^T^~< '^m ^R^ ^^. So also A with ^^ for ^^\r 
 
 ' A and B ^-^iJoirj^^rJT^rHI^^. 
 
 • B, ci'=fiRj{r ?T'^m. 
 
Ot' KSHEMENDRA. 25 
 
 which Kshemendra says has nothing to recommend it but the jingle 
 \vitli the words rT^ cT^. The poet should have used some such word 
 as ^s^^f : This shows that the reading of our book (and of the Sad- 
 ukti) is undoubtedly the right one, as may be said also, I think, 
 of the other variants presented. 
 
 Other two verses — ST^fNt ^TTTPTf and ST^Trfr ?rr*-^^^r: — which in the 
 Skm. are ascribed to Dharmakirti " belong," says Aufrecht, "to Bhar- 
 trihari. Their appearance in the anthology under Dharmakirti is to be 
 accounted for on the theory that the compiler of the Saduktikar- 
 namritam took them from Dharmakirti' s book on rhetoric without 
 troubling himself to trace them further." 
 
 Kshemendfa in this book assigns six verses which now stand in 
 Bhartrihari's ^atakas to other authors, and claims at least one for 
 himself, a state of things which makes us hesitate to accept Aufrecht's 
 theory here. The alternative theory, that the book which passes under 
 Bhartrihari's name is a late compilation, deserves renewed consideration. 
 
 XIII. Bhatta. NArAyAna. 1. ^Tfr^t^fTr^rr^PTrT. 2. ^r ^T: ^^. 
 Both from the Veiiisaiphara. 
 
 XIV. Parimala. 
 
 " He neither eats nor drinks, and he abjures the society of woman * 
 he lies on the sand, puts from him all worldly pleasures, and courts the 
 hottest sun. Oh Lion of the House of Malva, it seems to me that 
 this Gurjara King is doing penance in the forests of Mar war that^ he 
 may be found worthy to touch the dust of your feet." 
 
 2. rT^ f^rf f^qT^JTrTT ^^ |^- 
 
 ** There, good king ! thy servant got a footing, as fate would have 
 it, and there he remained so many days, curious at heart — there, 
 where thy fame sets dancing the pearls on the quivering breasts o^ 
 the deer-eyed women." 
 4, 
 
20 ON THE ACCHlTrALAMEARA 
 
 3. HTTFR ffW ^Tt^R ^fT^ ^^TsT^^TRT^^ 
 
 ^rirnt '^f^KTT f^'^ ^: T^l: fTTn" ^F II 
 "The silly Gurjara Queen, as she. wanckrs terror-struck in the forest 
 ever and anon casts her eyes on her husbaixl's sword to see if there be 
 no vratef (vnTT) there, bethinking herself in her heart how often m t?ae 
 days that are gone she has heard the bards say ' Great king, the hosts 
 of your foes have gone down in the battle through which your sword's 
 edge (>^nT) swept.' " 
 
 "O Hill of the River of Love. O Crest Jewel of Kings, O Home o{ 
 all Goodness, O Milky Ocean of Cleverness, O Lover of iTjjayinf, Q 
 thou that wert a living God of Love to young women, () Kinsman to* 
 all the Good, O Brewer of the Nectar of the Arts, where O King, art 
 thou gone : wait for me.*' 
 
 These verses show that Parimala's lost poem probably present an 
 almost contemporary record of one of the earlier struggles between the 
 sovereigns of Malva and Gujarafc. 
 
 I will only conjecture here that the theme of the poem was that 
 expedition in Gujarat despatched by Tailapa, under a General of the 
 name of Barapa, ** against Mularaja, the founder of the Cbaulul^a 
 dynasty of Anahilapattana, who for some time was hard pressed, though 
 according to the Gujarat chroniclers the General was eventually defeated 
 with slaughter." ® The striking verse in the Kfivyaprakasa il^^M. 
 9^ 5T Tnrq'f^ TT (p- 450, Calc. Ed. 1876) wears every appearance of 
 being from, the same work, for which we should be on the look out. 
 
 XV. Parivramka. 
 
 1- rTTf ^ rnf ^^ rTBT 
 
 ^mr ^ 5^w ^^^ g^KT: i 
 ^^"ir ^ ^znTH" ^^^^ ^nrrr: 1 1 
 
 This seems a better form of the verse which Bohtlinglir, No. 4631^ 
 H!^T,3rTirr: gives from Bhartrihari. 
 
 ' Bhandarkar : Early History of the Dekkan,. pi 59. See also the Ms Mala, 
 Cap. IV. to which Bhandarkar refers. 
 
or KSHEMENDRA, 27 
 
 XVI. BhatT'^ Prabhakara. 
 
 This poet is already known only from Aufrecht's citation from the 
 Sarngadharapaddhati of what is surely one of the prettiest compli- 
 caeats to beauty even a poet ever devised. 
 
 ^^^^ '^^: CRr^ It 
 
 ** She spoils indifFerently those who see her and those who see her 
 not : these lose their hearts, those might as well have never had their 
 eyes," 
 
 RT^r ^if^ ^^ ^^f^ ^ ^n^'- T^^TrT I 
 
 ^^JTrfTf^^^^rTPT? ^%? '^^rf iTtT'JL II 
 
 XVII. Sri Pravarasena, Two verses are quoted, which both 
 occur in this writer's Setubandha. I, 2, and III, 20. 
 
 XVIII. Bhatta BAna. Three verses by Bana, the author of Kadam- 
 bari, are quoted. Two of these, 1. "Sf^c^T^: a^cl 2. ^H^4|', are from 
 that book, and call for no remark. But the third is of extraordinary 
 interest for us. It is the verse 
 
 which now stands in the Araarusatakam ( No. 98 ). In his note 
 Kshemendra tells us that this verse is part of a description of the state 
 to which Kadambari was reduced by the absence of Chandrapida. 1 1 
 would appear then that Bana, in addition to the work known to us, 
 treated the same theme, or part of the same theme, in verse : and with 
 this clue we can assign to their place in such a composition more 
 than one of the verses cited by Bana in the later anthologies. 
 
 XIX. Bhatta Bhallata. 
 
28 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA 
 
 BtfT: ^r^Tfr ^nr^ JT>fft ^ ?tk 'ftrf 5% 
 
 The use of singiug or music as one of the weapons of the hunter is 
 often referred to. Aufrecht quotes ten verses by this poet from the 
 Sarngaddharapaddhati. 
 
 XX. Bhavabhuti. 1. ^r ^'T ^frT: ^f^H". Uttara R. Act. 2. 
 ^ff^*r^; ^Trrrtr^ Uttara R. Act. IV. 3, f^^re^ ?r f^^Raft«T'^fi:rTT: 
 Uttara R. Act. V. a frfg-frT ^^sTf. /^ g;^ ^f^^^. y ^T^rfr^^r^^rT 
 8 t^55R>T^. In the heading to the second of these examples the poet 
 is in both MSS. called Bhavabhilpati. 
 
 XXI. MAgha. 
 
 ••The hungry cannot feed upon grammar, or the thirsty satisfy 
 themselves with the nectar of poetry. No man ever exalted his house 
 by learning. Get money. Learning leads to nothing." Note in the 
 Sisapalavadha. Bohtlingk 44!84, from the Subhashitarnava. 
 
 XXIL MAtrigupta. 
 
 Note that Kshemendra would seek to distinguish between Matri- 
 gupta and Kalidasa. Compare Max Miiller * India : what can it teach 
 us?' p. 133. 
 
 XXIII. RAjaputra MuktApida. 
 
 ^^ ^PPt ^ TW^ |rf^ f^^ ^TN^: II 
 
 ••From afar the hermit gazes with mingled love and fear at the mighty 
 elephant, whose throat is encircled by swarms of bees heavy laden 
 
OP KSHEMENDRA. ' 29 
 
 with tliR juice that exudes from its temples, and rememhers how this is 
 he whom at first he nourished with the tender tops of the rice-plant, and 
 who drank from a leafy cup the milk that was over from the sacrifice." 
 
 XXIV. Yasovarmadeva. 
 
 Yasovarman, according to x-Vufrecht (Z. D. M. G. 36, 521) wrote a 
 drama, Ramahhyiidaya, which is cited by Abhinavagupta. 
 
 XXV. Bhatta Lattana. 
 
 XXVI. R^JASEKHARA. 1 . q'cT^f: ^'T^^^f'C:' Balanlmayana Act 
 V.(p. 121 Ben. Ed.) /3 JT^T'^: TT^m. Ed. i(q^V TRT^t. Sf^^T'^ 
 is given by BR. (compare also Bohtlingk's Smaller Dictionary) from 
 schol. on p. 3. 2. 33, as a word for which a reference was not then 
 available. — fPT^: ^^TT- 
 
 2. ^'Tfff^^^rf^rr: f^rfT^irrCr^sT^r^r 
 jrNtbr7^rfTfrf^rT: sr^riT^'r^H-Tft^rf^: I 
 
 Rajasekhara was perhaps not such a rake as he professes to be. 
 The verse may go to show that similar autobiographical couplets, of 
 which tradition has preserved a great many, may oftener be genuine 
 than is sometimes supposed. 
 
 3. f^f^ =^5":. 4. "i^r^m^ ^5=^, Balaram^yana Act IV. (p. 87). 
 
 C. TPT^^: 5rT%T> Balaramayana Act II. (p. 36). 7. TPT 5'^. 
 8. ^Trfrfff?, Balaramayana Act I. (p. 19). 9. ^^5^«;5"5TT 
 10. ^fTTTJTi.^. 
 
 XXVII. M.iLAVA Rubra. 
 
 Given as by Bhata in the Subhashitaharavali. 
 
30 ON THE AUCHITTALAMKARA 
 
 Aufrecht writes the name of this poet Malavarudra. But compare 
 Malava Kuvalaya and Gauda Kumbhakara above. 
 
 XXVIII. SEi Vakra. 
 
 1. ^ ^ftim ^t ^T^ ^ r^^h ^^ H?MHa 
 
 This one verse is so far all that has been found of a poem — by a poet 
 himself also otherwise unknown — which must contain a contemporary 
 account of one of the early leagues of the Hindu princes against their 
 Musalman invaders. Compare what has been said above of Parimala's 
 lost work. Jalantara here is I presume Jullundur. 
 
 XXIX. VarIhamihira, 
 
 " The waning mooii enters the orb of the aun at each month's end, 
 and having there renewed his fires goes each day further from his 
 helper : nay, when his fulness comes, as come it will, vies in the 
 eastern sky with the setting orb of day. Verily, verily the cold-blooded 
 man never leaves off his ingratitude and his meanness." 
 
 Given in Vallabhadeva's Sabhashitavali as by Dharadhara. 
 
 XXX. BhagavAn Maharshi VyAsa. 
 
 ^Tc^ THf^Tr TT^' ?3r^ TJ^ f^^^: I 
 
 ** Doubtless woman is a pleasant thing and wealth too : but life 
 abides no longer than the glance shot from the corner of her eye by a 
 love-sick girl." 
 
 Bohtlingk 6733, from the Subhashitarnava, with JRITfrr: ^TPTT: in «• 
 
 XXXI. SyAmala. 'J^jto'tK: The only ^yamala we know of is the 
 Syamala who was Bana's cousin. Ilall's Vasavad. Introd. p. 41. 
 
OF KSHBMENDRA. 
 
 31 
 
 XXXII. Sri Harsha. ^fTJTrc^f^'Rrr, Ratnfiv. Act II., B, 
 
 ST^r:^:. 2. ^7 ^tTR-^^, Ratnav. Act II. 3. t^^ ^^^:, Ratnav. 
 Act II. a STfr^^. 4. q-Rj:?^^. Ratnav. Act /3 m^rtHH;. 8 l^f^Rf- 
 q-^RTsr^T'T R'iTrrrf^^^nfr, Ratnav. Vishk. 
 
 To the twelve compositions by Kshemendra which were already 
 known *° Schonberg, in his paper on the Kavikanthabharana, added 
 other eight, which he found quoted or referred to in that book. Hia 
 list is as follows s — 
 
 13 Sasivansa, 
 
 14 (Padya) Kadambari^ 
 
 15 Chitrabharata, 
 
 16 Lavanyavati, 
 
 17 Kanakajanaki, 
 
 18 Desopadesa, 
 
 19 Muktayali, 
 
 20 Amritataranga. 
 
 Three of these are quoted in our book also, where the Chitrabharats 
 is called a Nataka, and the Lavanyavati and the Muktavali are called 
 Kavyas. In addition the following new names occur, Avasarasara, 
 Baudhavadanalata, Nitilata, Munimatamimansa, Lalitaratnamala^ 
 Vinayavalli, Vatsyjiyanasutrasara. Of the books in the earlier list 
 the Chaturvargasamgraha is the only one quoted under the same name. 
 
 1 should make some small amends to the Society for a dull paper if 
 I could adequately describe the scene where I got this book, and the 
 impression that scene made upon me. In an upper chamber of a by- 
 street in Ahmedabad were gathered over a hundred of the common 
 people, listening eagerly to their word of life, as that was communicated 
 by Rajendrasuri to his more immediate disciples. A little company of 
 women sat apart, but not so as to be out of hearing of the teacher, 
 
 lo (1) Brihatkathamanjari. (2) BMratamanjari. (3) KamviMsa. (4) BA- 
 mayanakathdsdra. (5) Dasavatdracharita, (6) SamayamAtrika. (7) Vyfis^- 
 shtaka. (8) Suvrittatilaka, (9) LokaprakSsa. (10) Nitikalpataru, (11) Ch&- 
 TucharyaButaka. (12) Cbaturvargasaingraha. 
 
32 
 
 ON THE AtCHITYALAMlCARA OP KSHEMENDRA. 
 
 At the end of our conversation a young Rajpoot, a rich young man 
 as I could judge from his dress, who had been an intent observer of all 
 that passed between his teacher and myself, rose from the crowd, put 
 his folded hands to his head, and told me in his own language that 
 he had one request to make to me. Between Rajendrasuri and 
 another teacher then in Ahmedabad there were vital ditferences— as to 
 the kind of garments men desiring salvation should wear, and as to 
 whether in the evening hymn they should recite the three verses only, 
 or four. Would I undertake to solve his doubt ? 
 
 I put him oif with a jest which I have sometimes regretted since. 
 But I came away with new wonder at the strangeness of human life ; 
 and, as I hope, with fresh sympathy for all of the one family who in 
 every place are thus feeling after God, if haply they may find Him. 
 
Note on the Date of Patanjali. 
 
 *' Pafcanjali's date, B.C. 150, may now be relied on." — Bhandarkar 
 m his Early History of the Dekkan, p. 7. So too Kiclhorn, though 
 he was more directly concerned with the question of the authenticity 
 af the text of the book, maintains that " we are bound to regard the 
 text of the Mahabhashya as given by our MSS. to be the same as it 
 existed about 2000 years ago." (Indian Antiquary, IV., p. 107, and 
 v., p. 241.) I will state very briefly why I think the question must 
 still be regarded as open. Kalhana's verse : — 
 
 Rajatarangint, I., 175 (p. 7, Calc. Ed., 1835), 
 appears to me to have exercised what can only be described as a perni- 
 cious influence on this controversy. In itself it contains no indication 
 that Kalhana so much as had PatanjalVs Mahabhashya in his mind 
 when writing the passage. But if we grant, for the sake of argument, 
 Prof. Weber's contention (Ind, Stiid., 5, lOS), that the transaction 
 Kalhana is referring to is clearly the same as that spoken of in Bhar- 
 trihari's Vakyapadiya, and grant also, under the same reserve, that it 
 follows that Kalhana here is speaking of Patanjali's work, the verse 
 even then cannot bear the weight which is sought to be put upon it. 
 It is not open to us to quote Kalhana as corroborating Bhartrihari's 
 statement, when it is clear that, writing in the 12th century, he is, if 
 he is referring here to Patanjali at all, dishing up for us and doctoring 
 a story which he must have got directly or indirectly from Bhartrihari 
 or from the same sources as Bhartrihari. Still less is it justifiable 
 to transfer to Kalhana the credit that would attach to any statement 
 made in the Vakyapadiya as to the date at which this mysterious 
 transaction took place. It is Kalhana, and not Bhartrihari, who here 
 seems to connect Abhimanyu of Kashmere with Patanjali's commen- 
 tary : and I do not understand why so much weight should be attach- 
 ed to this one statement, occurring as it does in a part of theRajataran" 
 giiii wliich, as Buhler puts it (Report, p. 59),* is full of improbabiUties 
 5 
 
34 • ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 
 
 and absurdities. A similar reasoning holds good of Kalhana's second 
 Terse : — 
 
 Rajatarangini IV., 487 (p. 58, Calc. Ed.) 
 I notice that Max Miiller ( Note, p. 335 ), suggests a doubt as to 
 whether Kalhana is here referring to Patanjali's Mahiibhashya. 
 But if we grant that he is, here too his statement must be! checked by 
 the passage in Bhartrihari. And as soon as that is done it becomes at 
 once apparent that on Kalhana alone rests the responsibility of divid- 
 ing the story as it stands in Bhartrihari into two parts and separating 
 the two by centuries. Bhartrihari tells us that to Chandra and his 
 school was due the revived study of the Mahabbashya. Kalhana puts 
 Chandra in the first century, for Abhimanyu's greater glory, and as 
 he cannot ignore the fact that something of the kind occurred in the 
 reign of king Jayapida ( A.D. 755-786), he invites us to believe that 
 twice in the history of Kashmere did the king of the country inter- 
 fere to set the Mahabhashya on its feet again. Of the two passages 
 the second appears to me to be far more deserving of credit than the 
 first : and the mR^vI ( which need not be construed with HH^^)* 
 refers to the state from which Chandra had (recently ?) rescued the 
 book, not to a state into which it had been permitted in Kashmere to 
 fall centuries after his benevolent activity,* 
 
 * As for example Kielhorn does. " * The King having sent for interpreters 
 [ reading with the Paris edition «ql^'^|'^f*!^] brought into use in his realm the 
 Mahabhashya, which had ceased to be studied' (in Kashmei'e, and was there 
 fore no longer understood)." Indian Antiquary, V., p. 243. It may be worth 
 noting that ^^^^TcT is the ordinary expression in the case of the first patron 
 of a book. Thus for example in the colophon to a MS. of Hfila in my possession 
 SAtavShana is called the ^T^n^ of the Kal^pa grammar. Our word therefore 
 should be translated, as Kielhorn does here, or as Max Miiller in his Note, 
 p. 335, " introduces": and this verse in itself does not suggest that wbat Jay&pida 
 did was to « re-establish " (Max Miiller, p. 334) the Mahabhashya. 
 
 * In his reply to this paper Professor Bhslndarkar takes this sentence ta 
 mean that I understand Kalhana to put Chandra in Jayfipida'a reign, and that 
 I accept that as a fact on Kalbana's authority. This of course leads straight 
 to the absurdity of Bhartribari's having moTitioned a fact which took place 
 105 years after his death. As my words have been n>ade matter of public 
 comment I must leave them as they were written. But I take this opportunity 
 of saying that, for my owinpart, I entirely repudiate the construction Bhandar- 
 kar puts on them. I am concerned bore o»ly with what Kalbana's meaning 
 
Oh- THE DATE OP PATANJALI. 35 
 
 Better texts of the Rajatarangini, and a careful collation of the two 
 verses, as they ought to be read, with Bhartrihari would, I think, 
 strengthen this position, I have little doubt that the Parvata of 
 Bhartrihari's verse is, as Max Miiller suggests, no other than the hill of 
 Chittore, which was a centre of learning for the southern country, 
 (Compare my First Report, p. 47). I think it is not impossible that the 
 words rys^^ ^^HM^iaR, which from the crux of Raj. I., 176, conceal 
 Bhartrihari's own phrase M^rtlc^Hi't ?7«^^, If Kielhorn's conjectural 
 emendation rjst^ ^^PrfTrrffirrT*!, be ever confirmed, it will become 
 still more obvious that the two verses have one and the same origin. 
 They will then almost textually agree. 
 
 But if we are thus really dependent on Bhartrihari's statement which 
 contains no note of time, we are entitled to range further thanGoldstiicker 
 and Bhandarkar do in their search for events and names which will suit 
 certain passages in the Mahabhashya itself, where Patanjali, as they 
 hold, is referring to contemporaneous or recent history.* I will not 
 discuss the question here as to whether these instances really do, in Gold- 
 stiicker's words, " concern the moment at which Patanjali wrote." (Pan. 
 p. 230.) I think it is forgotten in that argument that Patanjali could 
 trust to the practical acquaintance with the language or literature which 
 his pupils possessed, much as an English grammarian might without risk 
 of confusion illustrate after having given the rule, our past and present 
 by two such phrases, as '*In six days God made Heaven and Earth," 
 and "This people perishes with hunger." 
 
 Four passages in all, so far as I know, have been adducedlfrom the 
 Mahabhashya itself as supplying definite chronological data for the 
 time of Patanjali. The first is the note on Pan., v. 3, 99. Gold- 
 stiicker, it is true, who brought this passage to light, did not contend 
 that it proves more than that Patanjali did not live before the first 
 
 was : and I sfcill think that he got his Rf^iT^ from the story he read in Bhar- 
 trihari, and that his MMrl-Hd refers to something that happened in Jaydpida's 
 time. He may have mixed the two things up together hopelessly : but I 
 desired to suggest that his own words do not necessarily preclude the supposi- 
 tion that he himself understood that there was an interval between the his- 
 torical llff^3^r^ of the Mah&bh&shya and Jaydpida's action. — [Note added when 
 publishing ."l 
 
 3 Goldstiicker treated this subject in his 'PAnini: his place in Sanskrit 
 Literature,' pp. 227-238. The references for Bhandarkar are Indian Antiquary 
 p, 23J, II., pp. 59, 39, 94 aad 238. 
 
36 ON THE DATE OF PATANJALT. 
 
 king of the Maurya dynasty, who was Chandragupta, and who lived 
 315 B.C.; or, possibly, "if we are to give a natural interpretation to 
 his words/' that he lived after the last king of this dynasty, or, in 
 other words, later than 189 before Christ. If the passage stood alone 
 then, and there were no such thing as cumulative eflfect in arguments 
 of this kind, the inference sought to be drawn from Patanjali's note on 
 Pan., V. 3, 99, might be allowed to pass without challenge. But 
 it will not be denied that this suggestion as to a date hefore which 
 Patanjali may not be supposed to have lived, when taken in connection 
 with a date (.\bhimanyu's time), removed from it by two centuries 
 only, and regarded, on what grounds we have just seen, as a date after 
 which he may not be supposed to have lived, has done much to 
 strengthen the conviction that here or hereabout we must look for the 
 time of Patanjali. Yet I think it can be shown, beyond all manner of 
 doubt, that this passage has nothing whate\er to do with the matter 
 in hand, and that, as far as it is concerned, we are as free — or shall I 
 rather say hampered ?— with regard to the upper date to be assigned to 
 Patanjali, as I have contended we still are with regard to his lower date. 
 Panini's rule is ifrft^f^ '^T'^. On which the note is 3TT''"5[ 
 
 ?n"^ vrf^'^^frT' Goldstiicker's explanation of this passage is as follows :- 
 ** ' If a thing,' says Piinini, ' serves for a livelihood, but is not for sale, it 
 has not the affi.^ ka.' This rule Patanjali illustrates, with the words 'Siva 
 Skanda Visakha,' meaning the idols that represent here divinities, 
 and at the same time give a living to the men who possess them, 
 while they are not for sale. And 'why?* he asks. 'The Mauryas 
 wanted gold, and therefore established religious festivities.' Good. Pan- 
 ini's rule may apply to such (idols as they sold); but as to idols which 
 are hawked about (by common people) for the sake of such worship as 
 brings an immediate profit, their name will have the affix ka. " 
 
 "Whether or not," Goldstiicker goes on to say, " this interesting 
 bit of history was given by Patanjali ironically, to show that even 
 affixes arc the obedient servants of kings, and must vanish before the 
 idols which they sell, because they do not take the money at the 
 same time that the bargain is made — as poor people do — I do not 
 know." 
 
 In the rest of the passage Goldstu«kcr draws his inference in words 
 that I have already given. 
 
ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 37 
 
 Could Patanjali have thus anticipated the super fframmatieam story ? 
 I thought not : and it was my conviction that there must be some 
 mistake here which led me to examine closely the passage Goldstiicker 
 quotes. As a result, I think I can show that Goldstiicker misunder- 
 stood and mistranslated that passage from top to bottom. I need 
 hardly say that it requires all the courage Max Muller recommends 
 thus to challenge that mighty and indignant shade. But I have put 
 Goldstiicker's explanation fairly before the reader. I will now say how 
 I understand the passage. If I am right my translation will, I think, 
 justify itself: and I shall, I hope, be judged to have done some small 
 service with regard to a question on which much depends. 3TT"^ f^" 
 «?(% then tells us that a doubt is about to be suggested with regard to 
 the word BTT'^ occurring in the sutra under comment. " Siva, 
 Skanda, Visakha," are not three words illustrating Panini's rule. They 
 form the clause or sentence referred to by the f ^^ preceding. For 
 rT^f ^ f^'-^ra" is the doubt of which we have been forewarned, and 
 must be translated: **In that case [if aTT*^ is to be part of the rule] 
 the following expression is not obtained [?>., must be declared to be 
 bad grammar, while, as a matter of fact, it is in common use, and so it is 
 the correctness of the sutra that is in peril.] But if f^: ^fj" ft^l^T; 
 or ^<fh nr^r^' as Kaiyyata, as 1 think rightly, reads, be an expression 
 that prima facie throws doubt on the correctness of the sutra, we must 
 look in it for an indication that the Skanda of this passage is an idol, 
 and not the god of that name. ^^: in itself cannot be a form of 
 doubtful authority. The doubt is as to whether in a particular connec- 
 tion the form ^^^Sfi": should not be used. The word we are in 
 search of can neither be RT^: nor ^^f :. It must, therefore, be 
 f^^rnsT:* and we have next to see whether that word, when used 
 as an adjective to ^^T^: , of its own force suggests that the refer- 
 ence is to an image or representation, as when we talk of a sitting 
 Madonna or a sleeping Venus. But a reference to any dictionary will 
 show that such a meaning is one of the best authenticated senses of 
 the word n^?^':. ^cfrfr NAIKsi-* means, "A Skanda in act to shoot," 
 and that is the phrase given here as affording an example of a form 
 which apparently under this rule would have to be condemned. 
 " Why ?" (icR* ^r^«T sc. q- re"t^frr), " it is for gain that Mauryas make 
 images.''* The Skanda in act to shoot must be an image : and as it 
 is notorious that images are vendible things it ought not to be possible 
 to speak of a ^f r f^^^:, but only of a ^gpTf^ R'^n^:. 
 
 So far the doubt. And now the Doubter answers himself. H"^ "Good." 
 
38 ON THE DATE OP PATANJALI. 
 
 Vendible images made by the Mauryas are, as a class, by the operation 
 of the word 3TT^ in this sutra, taken out of one of the categories 
 of things falling under the general rule which enjoins the omission of 
 affix ka. rTT^ ^ ^^rl " Let it be admitted that so far to them the 
 rule gR^ ^q^ should not apply, but that the affix ka should be used. 
 ^rr^^rTT: WAlrf ^C^TT^* ^^^ whatever images among these even, are 
 from the beginning intended for worship and not for sale, rTO Hf^T^'rf^ 
 to them that rule will apply, and the affix ka will be barred/* 
 
 The extent of the difference between Goldstiicker's explanation of 
 this passage and that now offered may be gauged by the last clause 
 here, "and the affix ka will be barred," which stands for Goldstiicker's 
 "their names will have the affix ka.'* But Kaiyyata puts beyond all 
 dispute the question, as to what is the subject of the clauses rfT^ ^ k^ l ^^ 
 and rirg *if^^^, when he says, ^TT^^ N«M^*^ rfr^ ^ ^^ RN4>lf ^- 
 5f»HnT ^frf. The ^ ^U^ of Patanjali means that the word in question 
 should have the affix : the HT^^^f^ that it will not. 
 
 Two points in this explanation require a further note, though for- 
 tunately any judgment with regard to them does not affect the argu- 
 ment. I have so far not met with any native support for the parti- 
 cular construction put above on the words ^^ R^ll^ :. That — 
 with or without f^-. — these words refer to the clause immedi- 
 ately preceding, and not to the sutra, and contain therefore a form or 
 forms whose currency throws doubt upon the sutra, I believe to be certain. 
 But the shastris I have been able to consult — in particular Mr. Raja- 
 ram Shastri, the learned grammarian attached to Elphinstone College — 
 agree in thinking that the context of the whole passage is sufficient 
 to show that idols are meant here : and they take the three words Siva, 
 Skanda, Visakha, in the current acceptation of three names of images. 
 That theirs is an old view is shown by the way in which the passage 
 is treated in the Siddhanta Kaumudi, where I'^AH^: is quietly dropped, 
 and ^fT^^: substituted for it. I put forward that part of my explana- 
 tion therefore only tentatively, and am quite prepared to find that there 
 I am wrong. It might have been the more prudent course to hold it 
 back: but I confess I believe it is right, and am unwilling to abandon it. 
 
 The India Office photozincograph of Kaiyyata and one of Kielhorn*s 
 MSS. omit i%^:. *Kaiyyata's own note on this passage is attached 
 to the phrase tMi^c^dl: ^W 'J^Trat : I ^lU ^Tf^^zrf^ in which, as 
 Nagojibhatta puts it, Patanjali "indicates an example for the su- 
 
 * As does also the MS. of the Mahfibhushya in the Alwar Library. — [Note 
 added when publishing. ] 
 
ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI* 39 
 
 '55^^Tr?T?T*T 4^Ni^ — t^*^* is, I take it, states circumstances 
 Under which it will come into play without giving an actual exam- 
 ple. If Kaiyyata then — whose note runs in full ^n^^rTT ffrT I ^: 
 
 f^'^'hl^nd fif^ — illustrates his own note of that part of the passage 
 by an example of the converse case ( ^TT^ ?^rast^F% &c.,) he is not 
 to be taken as repeating Patanjali's illustration of the doubt that went 
 beforehand, and confirming the reading there. In such a context a 
 different illustration seems called for. The whole result is that *'Skando 
 Visakha" is a phrase which may or may not be right, according to the 
 context, while " Sivak^n vikriniti" is imperative. I do not therefore 
 think that we are to see in Kaiyyata's example RNchrFc<9hl"j7ri proof 
 that he read f^T^: in his text of the Mahabhashya. I am more disposed 
 to see in it the source of the subsequent corruption of that text. 
 
 The quotation just made from Kaiyyata will illustrate the other 
 point on which a doubt may be entertained as to the correctness of 
 the translation I have given. What is the subject of 3^?^^ in Kaiy- 
 yata's sentence? Goldstiicker supplied "common people," whom he 
 next contrasted with the royal dynasty of the Mauryas. But is it not 
 the Mauryas themselves who are here represented as setting apart 
 for purposes of peripatetic worship some of the images they make ? 
 I believe that to the present day the makers of idols contrive that 
 their profession shall pay the same double debt. That seems to me 
 the more natural construction: and so also in Patanjali's note 
 '"Ml^c^dr : seems to me to mean " whichever among these. " I do not 
 however dispute that xr^X' here may refer to images in general 
 (3T^:) and not to images made by Mauryas (*il4<4if^4dM?:)» or that 
 ST3f»^ "^ay mean " people wander " and not " they wander." 
 
 I will only add that ^nrfcT 'J^aT^f: must be taken as two words, 
 though both Goldstiicker and Kielhorn (Ed., p. 429) take them as one. 
 ^flff^ does not qualify ^^j and there is no question here of " such 
 worship as brings an immediate profit '* (Goldstiicker' s translation). 
 What is insisted on is that the affix ka will be barred in all cases 
 where the images have from the beginning been meant for worship and 
 not for sale. Compare Nagojibhatfca's gloss — 
 
 There is, therefore, I contend, no such contrast between the Mauryas 
 and common people as Goldstiicker discovered in this passage : and 
 
40 ON THE DATE OF PATANJALl. 
 
 with that vanishes the only foundation for his belief that the Mauryas 
 intended here are the dynasty of that name. They are a guild or caste 
 of idol-makers, as Weber pointed out was apparently NAgojibhatta's 
 explanation, (Compare Weber, Indische Stiidien, p. 150). I ought to 
 add that Weber also noted that ^^\: must not be translated, as Gold- 
 stacker does, by "religious festivals. " I am not quite certain how far 
 Weber intends his translation to be a correction of Goldstiicker's. I 
 notice that he puts, '*Auf diese passt die Regel nicht^" for Gold- 
 stiicker's "Panini's rule may apply to such. " But he does not, as in 
 the other case, call attention to this as a correction : though, if it is meant 
 for a correction, it is a very important one. I mention the matter, because 
 I am of course anxious to yield priority to a scholar eminent no less 
 for his fairness than for his learning and achievements for any part of 
 the foregoing explanation which he may see reason to claim as his own. 
 
 Of the three remaining passages in the Mahabhashya which are 
 relied on, that cited by Bhandarkar f ^ ^sqf*f^ ^If^ff: — is I think 
 the only one which, as matters stand at present, really concerns us. 
 Goldstiicker it is true has shown that Patanjali illustrates a varttika of 
 K{ityayana according to which the imperfect should be used when the 
 fact related is 'out of sight, notorious, but could be seen by the person 
 who uses the verb, * by the two clauses aTF^^q'JT: ^r%^ I ^rF'T^^T^'H" 
 ^TT^^rf^^r^ "the Yavanas besieged Ayodhya : the Yavanas besieged the 
 Madhyamikas. " To these two passages the doubt I have hinted 
 above as to the validity of the major premiss in this argument appears 
 specially applicable. Is it not a perfectly reasonable view to suppose 
 that the varttika is illustrated by clauses which, tahen along with it, 
 serve their purpose apart altogether from the time at which the gram- 
 marian lived? To suppose in other words that the user (infrrFT) 
 whose relation to the time and circumstances of the action is specified 
 is not necessarily, or even probably, Patanjali. Is this not indeed just 
 what Nagojibhatta means when he says that we are to gather from the 
 clause itself that the speaker is contemporaneous with the action — 
 
 But farther discussion of this point here may well be waived in the 
 absence so far of any information as to the events referred to. Havoc has 
 already been made of Goldstiicker's Buddhist sect of Madhyamikas : 
 and we do not know either that the ' Yavanas ' besieged ' Saketa ' in 
 the time of Menanders, or that they did not besiege that city more 
 than once in the centuries that followed. In the case of Bhandar- 
 
ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 41 
 
 kar*s example it seems to me to be more probable than not, that the 
 whole context — the illustration itself I regard as open to the same 
 reasoning as the other two— ^points to the conclusion thatPatanjali lived 
 at the time, and perhaps at the court, of Pushpamitra, But if that be 
 80 there were more Pushpamitras, or Pushyamitras, than the king who 
 reigned in the second century before Christ, There was a Pushyamitra, 
 who lived at the time to which recent speculation appears to the 
 present writer to be slowly but surely referring Patanjali.' In the 
 Bhitari Lat inscription it is mentioned that Skandagupta, "the son 
 of Kumaragupta, who was the son of Chandragupta, who was the son 
 of Samudragupta, who was the son of Chandragupta, who was the 
 son of Ghatotkacha, who was the son of Maharaja Sri Gupta, '* 
 the founder of the later Gupta dynasty, conquered Pushyamitra 
 ^^ffrT^f^^rrr^^^^rf^ '^ f^r^^. This point has been hitherto obscured 
 from the fact that in Bhao Daji's revised translation of this 
 inscription, published in the tenth Volume of our Journal, p. 59, 
 * Pushya ' is, perhaps by a printer's error, enclosed in brackets as if it 
 were doubtful or conjectural. It is not so in Bhao Daji's own transcript 
 which follows : and Dr, Bhagvanlal ludraji, to whom I owe this 
 reference, and who it was that obtained the transcript on which Bhao 
 Daji worked, assures me that the reading is clearly as I have given 
 above. (Bhao Daji read ^5f^rr^f^^^t^''5^R^ ^fT^r)- The Pushya- 
 mitra against whom Skandagupta had to move all his forces, and 
 employ all his treasure, must have been a formidable opponent : and it 
 seems to me that it is open to any one who admits that Patanjali is 
 referring to a living Pushyamitra to prefer this one to that. 
 
 * I can only refer hero to the discovery that Kshemendra does not distiu-r 
 guish between P4nini the grammarian andPAninithe poet, and to the evidence 
 adduced by Max Miiller from the works of the Chinese pilgrim I'tsiag, Note, 
 p. 347 ; and my Reports I. p. 39, ?^nd II. p. 61. 
 
AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 
 
 I took the opportunity of a recent visit to Kotah in Rajputana to 
 examine and take a fresh rubbing of the inscription at Kansua, near 
 that town, of which I now offer a revised transcript and translation. 
 Attention was first called to this interesting and important memorial 
 of antiquity by Colonel Tod, who published a translation in an 
 Appendix to Vol. I, of his Annals of Rajasthan. Dr. F. Kielhorn 
 contributed to Vol. XIII. of the Indian Antiquary a transcript of 
 the original text, with a short abstract of the contents. I hope it 
 may be permitted to as warm an admirer as Tod's Book ever had 
 to say, what is indeed the bare truth, that on this occasion the trans- 
 lation given to him by his shastris presents hardly a single feature in 
 common with the original. Dr. Kielhorn's transcript had already 
 made so much clear. But the inscription is of a nature to warrant a full 
 translation : and as my rubbing supplies a considerable number of 
 corrections it does not seem superfluous to give, along with the version 
 which follows, a revised transcript. 
 
 Kielhorn has pointed out that the alphabet used in this inscription 
 is essentially the same as that of Dr. Biihler's Jhalrapathan inscriptions 
 published with facsimiles in Vol. V. of the Indian Antiquary. A 
 difference which Kielhorn draws attention to is that in the Kotah 
 inscription middle long a " is denoted by a wedge-shaped sign placed 
 after the consonant, not by the sign /^— ^placed above it." It has to 
 be added that the wedge-shaped sign in question is hardly, or rather 
 not at all, distinguishable in form from another wedge which both in 
 the Jhalrapathan and in the Kotah inscriptions is a constituent part of 
 the signs for the letters ^ and ^. In the eighth line of Dr. Biihler's fac- 
 simile of the first Jhalrapathan inscription the word ^c^ H ^c^^^ rt tc| <^r° 
 supplies in close juxtaposition the syllables 5^ and ^^f. It will be 
 seen that both have the wedge. The second character differs from 
 the first in that there the wedge is drawn out from the thin end by 
 a curve above the line into the "diminutive trident," as Biihler callg 
 it, which is the ordinary sign for middle long a in the Jhalrapathan 
 inscriptions. For the letter 5^ compare the word ?7t7fT in the second 
 line of the same facsimile, where, however, the wedge has got to look 
 like a mere continuation of the top line, 
 7 
 
44 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 
 
 The wedge then being already a constituent part of the sign for 3T 
 and ^ in this alphabet a difficulty arose when, as here, it came to be 
 used also for mid' lie long a. The al[)li!ibet, as it previously existed, 
 indicated the expedient made use of in the Kotah inscription. While 
 after other letters long a is written by the simple wedge, after ^ and ? 
 the wedge is drawn out in a curve going above the line, though not to 
 the same extent as in the older inscriptions. 
 
 The only other characters which appear to call for remark are those 
 for middle short and long i. The two are differentiated, as in other 
 Sanskrit alphabets, not by the relative position each occupies to its 
 consonant, nor by any material difference in the shape of the sign, but 
 by the direction, to the rig:ht or left, the curve takes from the initial 
 point, which is, as a rule, somewhat thicker than tlie rest of the 
 character. The neglect of the distinctions I have noticed has, I think, 
 led Kielhorn to correct ipfi" V. 3 into iFfPr, f^^RTT V. 4 into f^r^R^, and 
 ^^1% V. 9 into 5FT^. In all three cases the right reading would appear 
 to be on the stone. 
 
 This inscription is dated in the 796th year of the Lords of Malava. 
 It is probable that the Jhalrapathan inscription, which is dated in the 
 747th year of an unnamed era, is to be referred to the same method of 
 computing time. The slight difference in the alphabet to which atten- 
 tion has been drawn is of the kind that might develop in the fifty 
 years which, on this hypothesis, would separate the two. Neither the 
 Sivagana of our inscription nor the Durgagana of the Jhalrapathan in- 
 scription is spoken of as a sovereign monarch :^ and when we find one 
 spoken of as ruling at Kotah, under a Maurya Emperor, in the year 
 796 of the Lords of Malava, and the other referred to as ruler in 
 the year 747, of a town only seventy miles to the south, which has 
 always been very closely connected with Kotah, it seems natural to 
 suppose that "Durgagana," and "Sivagana," are of the same stock. 
 If this be so, it is to be noted that the want of any reference on the 
 Jhalrapathan inscription speaks of an era which at the time had wide 
 and undisputed currency. 
 
 * Diflferently Kielhorn, who carries the line of Maurya Emperors given here 
 from Dhavala through a Chirantana to ^amkuka, who was the father of the 
 Sivagana of our iuBcription. A reference to either transcript will however 
 show, I think, that it is the ftiendship existing between Dhavala and Samkuka 
 which is referred to, and that chirantana is not a proper name at all. 
 
AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH. 45 
 
 It can be shown that this era of the Lords of Malwa is no other 
 than that now known as the Vikramaditya era, Snd that it was in 
 use under this or some such similar name before 644 A. D., the year 
 in which, according to Mr, Fergusson's ingenious theory, the Vikra- 
 maditya era was first invented. 
 
 When I was at Jhalrapathan I was told by the Brahmans of that 
 place that they could trace their lineage back to a body of immigrants 
 from the west country, part of whom halted at Dasapura, while 
 their own progenitors pushed seventy miles further to the east, and 
 finally settled where I found their descendants living. Dasapura, they 
 added, was the old name of the village now called Mandosar near the 
 station of that name on the Rajputana-Malwa Railway. It will be seen 
 that this identification, which is an important one, was confirmed by 
 the inscription about to be referred to. Dasapura as the name of a 
 town in Malwa occurs in the Hitopadesa. 
 
 I knew that the village of Mandosar contained an old inscription 
 which was probably of very great importance : and what I heard from 
 the Jhalrapathan Brahmans did not diminish my anxiety to make out a 
 visit to the place. Unfortunately that proved impracticable at the time. 
 I was able however to supply Pandit Bhagvanlal with funds for the 
 journey : and he has put me in possession of his rubbing and transcript. 
 
 The Mandosar inscription refers to a temple built by a guild of 
 weavers, immigrants from the Lat country, who had been hospitably 
 received at Dasapura, whither they had been attracted by the report 
 of the virtues of the then ruler of that town, Bandhuvarman, son of 
 that ornament of kings, Visvavarman.^ But while Bandhuvarman 
 
 " I hoard of it from Dr. Bhagvanlal, who got his information from Mr. J. F. 
 Fleet, into whose hands a rough copy, made at the time by an engineer employed 
 in the construction of the Railway, was finally put. The inscription is aa 
 extremely quaint one, and I should much like to publish it in full. But my 
 friend Mr. Fleet, who has since obtained his own facsimile, destines the in- 
 scription for his forthcoming Gupta volume : and in deference to whatever 
 may be his rights of treasure-trove in the matter I willingly refrain from doing 
 more now than adducing what is necessary to the matter in hand. The 
 chronological speculations above are however my own. 
 
 3 The word I have translated ruler is parthiva. If tho names of all the 
 rulers of Dasapura ended in varman (compare our ^iyagana and Durgagana 
 above) we may have here a clue to the Pflithivo Bantivarman at whose court 
 the Mudrilrdkshasa was written. 
 
46 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 
 
 ruled over Dasapura, the Earth "with the four seas for her girdle, and 
 Meru and Kailasa for her fair great breasts," was under the sway of 
 Kumaragupta. And this temple was erected — 
 
 "when four hundred and ninety-three years from the establishment [in 
 the country ?] of the tribes of the Malavas had passed away.** Whether 
 ganasthiti here has the meaning I have suggested for it may be matter 
 of future discussion. I think it will not be disputed that in any case 
 we have here the same era as that of our Kotah inscription. What is 
 the era in the 494th year of which Kumaragupta was ruling the wide 
 earth? This is a question to which I take it there can be but one 
 answer. It is the era now known as that of Vikramaditya. 
 
 This can perhaps be most effectively demonstrated by beginning at 
 the end, and assuming for the sake of argument what I desire to 
 prove. Kumaragupta then, let us take it, was reigning in the year 494 
 of the Malava era, that is, of the Vikramaditya era, that is, in the year 
 A. D. 438. KumAragupta's earliest and latest known dates, in the era 
 of his House, are 98 and 129, that is, the years A. D. 407 and 448. 
 On our hypothesis then the Mandosar inscription falls easily within 
 the time at which Kumaragupta is known to have been reigning : and 
 there is no other era known to us which will give us the same result. 
 The Malava era and the Vikramaditya era are therefore one and the 
 same. 
 
 It is taken for granted in the above that the initial year of the 
 Gupta era is A. D. 319. But with Oldenberg and Bhandarkar I hold 
 that no apology is required for such an assumption. Those who still 
 hesitate may rather fairly be challenged to show how any other theory 
 of the Gupta era can be made to fit in with the Mandosar inscription. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson attempted to get rid of the chronological diflSculties 
 attaching to King Vikrama of popular story, by the theory that the as- 
 tronomers who calculated for the monarch who was Kalidasa's patron, 
 an era to be called after his name, took as the date round which it should 
 pivot A. D. 544, *' the year in which the great battle of Korur was 
 fought," but called that year Samvat 600, not Samvat 1, of the new 
 method of reckoning. While the theory, as so expressed, must now, 
 1 think, be abandoned, it remains quite possible that Fergusson*s 
 solution of the chronological difficulties referred to may nevertheless 
 "turn out to be in the main correct.*' But in that case what happened 
 
AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 47 
 
 was not that Vikramaditya's astronomers were so 'careful to provide 
 a reckoning for past, as well as for present and future time, as Fer- 
 gusson's theory would make them out to be. Either Vikramaditya was 
 personally concerned in restoring, not establishing, the old era of the 
 kings of Malava :* or the common people forgot in his glory all the 
 other kings who had ever ruled that land. In or after his time the 
 years took their name from him, as July took that new name from 
 Divus lulius. 
 
 It must not be put out of sight, however, that we may any day 
 discover that Vikramaditya, as a name of the Malava era, is older than 
 it has yet been found to be, and that Biihler is right in still holding 
 to the belief that the Vikrama era, " whieh begins 56 B. C. was really 
 established by a king of that name who lived before the beginning of 
 the Christian era.'** That is the natural explanation of the name, 
 and, as not unfrequently happens, it may ultimately turn out to be the 
 correct one. 
 
 To come back to our inscription, the year in which it is dated cor- 
 responds, if the foregoing be correct, to A. D. 740. Of the two villages 
 set apart for the maintenance for ever of the temple, the name of one, 
 Chaoni, can be seen close to Kotah, in the map of the Trigonometrical 
 Survey. I have not been able to identify the other. It would be 
 interesting, and is perhaps possible, to trace the fortunes of an 
 endowment so solemnly set apart. 
 
 Transcript. 
 
 1. SHT: ^^^♦trt^H^K^HMlO-HK'^d^ I 
 
 ^c^^^WFVT^nrr: W:f^ih f^^l: qRrPr^ HMIHMh ltLine 1 ends. 
 
 * As Tribhuvanamalla had again to do in 1182 A. D. when the Sakaerahad 
 for the time in its turn displaced the older method ©f computation. See 
 references given by Max Muller, * India : What can it teach ub ?' p. 285, note 1. 
 
 » Max M tiller, ' India: What can it teach us?' page 385. 
 
 Verse 1. a 5f^:^^r5°. sic. 
 
48 
 
 AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH, 
 
 3. ifW?^^ "?r^RFr^fcTf^rry?»ftr5ff?|Pfffd^^r 
 
 %^ ^'^rPTTT^nr^T^r: ^^^t^J: TF3 ^: II tLine 2 ends- 
 
 ^^^^•^ Jnr^^T^Tfr ^rnr^ r^zTr*:* m-4 4 k ii' hj ch : n 
 
 6. •dv^Mi^H"iT^*if^>dd^: ^r^n^RnrpjT^: 
 
 7^'^'^H'MifTi'H'chd^rii ?^rr^tJTr ^^ | * 
 
 =^i H rH ^mii K<H I J I i'^ 4! ^fNt^r^ p^i^ 11 
 
 8. f^ >T^tg 5^ ^^n^ ^r^?yr »# i 
 
 9. ^I^MlRHchilf^Si^ii^ ^^ ^: ^ERT 
 
 fMr^m" ^RTrT^ ^IrlRri ^T^qTC^rrPTT: \ 
 ^tTl^-^i^ll ?J^ q^^tf^^^ NMrilK^f: 
 
 ^Hl^ir^ Hil^di t 'iiNH jj gftrTT- R^IM I f? II 6 
 
 Verse 3. a H>"IIMl'^. Kielhorn 'fT^R'^, corrected into ^Tr^^f^. ^ ^ftrTT- 
 ^^raTf. K. fI?^T^H>iiT. Verse 4. a Eead,with K., ^. ^ f^J. K. f?^5T 
 corrected to f^^3". The distinction between 2" and ST is very clearly seen iu 
 the four syllables SfHT^^ here, y sr^^^rrrS". K. ^-qT^TT^- Verse 5. a 
 ^^»^W is throughout so written.— ^q^PTTOt. K. ( f^ ) Hrert.— y Eoad with K., 
 C^?1P-^IT^5°. Verse 7. )3 ^^ffT. K. ^IW. S Read, withK., T^W^. Verse 9 a. 
 Visarga is wanted after ^1TC» K. reads it, but says it is very indistinct. My rub- 
 bing, which does not show it, may bo defective. But compare two other cases of 
 an omitted visarga in the noxfc lino. ^ lioad (%«5r^^^ 9^t1Wf :. K corrects. 
 
AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH. 49 
 
 g-?rn^rR? t^^ ^^m f^w^ •■ f^\^;f^^^ 
 
 f^'^l^'i f^Rril rr^^: c^FTTT ^^ <*m\: H fLine 7 ends. 
 
 c^s^rs^fPTfT'P^ rr^: ^w^v- ^r^* w 
 
 12. ^S^*:i^|c!eTf^ MHKHMii^^'^TW^Erflr^ 
 
 13. ffipTi" ^TTT rTPTrar^^^TWi" ff^r^^ I 
 
 14. ^RT^ ^7T^ fTrrr 'ifKr \\\^m\ ^: I 
 
 RT^^ ^?f ^ ^"TT ^ rT^r^F^ TrT: II 
 
 16. ^TR^ w^ ^R:rr%«ffT^rT#^^^l'f^rf 
 
 t^icMt-mcq?^ zffir ^f^*f rfr%t JTfe^: ^ I 10 
 
 R*^^<?(l'> and reads ffrTfT^f^" (" the C very indistinct.") — Ecad ^sItH^W- 
 rRT:. K. ^iTf'g-iT^'^^rT^r: corrected into ^T^f^T^^fRF:. y Road with K. 
 f^^^HK^r. ^S =K^^. K. (f^^of )rff. Compare my translation. Verse 10. 
 y Read ^'TrSTT^ which is K.'s reading of the stone. — Correct, with K. f^f 
 fi ^: W^ sic. Verse 11. a K. 11:5^^^ (^=^N^) Trfjq-. /3 jt<^. q^^^ tj^q 
 Btone is injured here. ^ f^ is throughout the inscription written f^". 
 Verse 12. a K. gfT^. ^ Read vpf?^ K. ^jf^t5^°. § k. rT^ [r^'*W^]rf: 
 Verse 13. a K. ft^V^ * Anusvdra or uncertain.' ^ K. [^:] fTrfiJorr [^iT:]. 
 
 Verse 14. y K. ?FT%. Verse 15. y Read JflTT^. K. 5rrrr(^#)(^. K. 
 
 rfST^. 5 K. sffrf^rcTJTjfr.— K. ^prWfr^n^rr: Verse 16. a K. ^%rf : cor- 
 rected into ^^W« The correct form is quite distinct, ^ being written as 
 in Jain MSS. mT» except that two wedges take the place of the two lines. 
 y K. corrects ^ into ^. Compare my translation. 
 
50 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 
 
 17. swrr^'^m'jftr^ 5^rf^P%=^Hifrr 
 
 18. grr&^^nTT^^^r rr^^ rtn h <i csf ^'^tc^'pr-rt 
 
 cfil«^HT f^^PTT^ ^^^r» ^1 n 'itHTfk ^ HI * I f^^ I 
 
 19. Tt ViR*l'4> ^ I' K<H ^ * I if^ii MH n i : I 
 
 20. ^TTf^rq^^T^rr^^ ^jP^^^f^t^TT I 
 
 iTP^^ ^^ 'ftPT: ^rWrfNtf^sRfi" II 
 
 21. M i rt^^^ ^q-f: ^ w ^Ritzr >T% I 
 
 ^ ^ % ^^^ ^ 'irf^ tf^NH^ II 13 
 
 22. ^4HK^MK ^ ^^ >^'='f%3^ I 
 
 rnrf^iT^^Tc^r ^ ^F^ft '^ftr^ "^ II 
 
 23. ^Tr^^^TFirf 5^^ ^TTTf '^ ^^^TTT I 
 
 24. ^r^c^R^t^: yq-r^H^ctMJjff?: I 14 
 
 ^nr^j^Tfet^rnTT ^f^ ^^^-.-f ^^ II 
 
 25. 3TW5^: ?^^rf^ '^ RT^^Tf^KTrT: ^T^ I 
 
 26. ^: sm^ R?rnTRTr 5F^=?Fr: ^^t^: i 
 
 27. ^tch?*^"? f^r^^^ ff^f^^^ ^5^r I 
 
 ^3^r ^g-^^HT^^ t^5^^: II 15 
 
 28. ^irarr 3T»fr fTrrr tPtt 'm^^^is'^^^: I 
 
 fi^Tg^Tt ^J"lldM^ ^^>^T^ T^'^T^: II 
 
 Verso 17. /3 K. ^rp%.— K. °3r;^^^^°. Verse 18. a K. ^r^=^.— K. 
 
 ^4rl"^. Verso 19. a K.° ^^ift the " f being, very faintly visible." ^ 
 Bead ^M. Verse 20 ^ Read perhaps 5rr^ ^T(|^q( jfp-;. K. 58% =ftf^ 
 evidently stands for 3T53^rfff^:. Verse 21. a Read, with K. ^fT. Verse 23. 
 y Bead rl^^n^:. Verse 24 a K. "the expression sa-argala for adhika I have 
 not met with anywhere else." Sapanchanavatyargalaih is perhaps better 
 explained as a bahuvrihi compound, the first member of which is Sapanch- 
 anavati " 90 plus 5, and the second, argala, in the sense of " farthest limit." 
 Verse 25. y K. mm^ ^T^^JI^: § Verso 26. « K. ^^^'.—^ Eoad with 
 K. >nHr^f^^^. Verse 28. a Bead H^qT. K. f[r^] H=5fqr. 
 
AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH. 51 
 
 29. fTrfrgFTcr^ript ^Jr-^T ^^^TWt ^ I 
 
 30. zrfrr^ 3T^^ s ^ ^ H' JTT^fnf 5 ^^ 1 
 
 ?rcgo% grgf^ t^^T »m74 I^^^r^l 1 tLine I6 ends 
 
 Translation. 
 
 Om ! Adoration to oiva ! Om ! 
 
 1. Adoration to 6ambhu through Whom it is that we are able to 
 cross life's whole sea, Whose is the Hand let down to us that are all 
 fallen in the Pit of Darkness.^ 
 
 2. May Sambhu's matted locks protect you — locks that delight by 
 conditions (moods) wide apart : for here they are bright as the 
 White Land with the countless rays of the moon falling upon them, 
 there dark with the heavy folds of the Monarch of Serpents that 
 lie ever upon them : here hot with the flashes of his eye, there 
 cold indeed with the plashing waters of the Daughter of Jahnu.'' 
 
 3. May Sambhu's matted locks protect you — locks whose orna- 
 ments are ever intermingling : for over all of them there lie the quiver- 
 ing rays of the moon that are blended with the lustre of the jewel in the 
 Great Serpent's hood : and in some places they are streaked with the 
 smoke-encircled tawny tongues of flame from the fire of his eye, in 
 others dashed with the pearly drops of spray thrown up by the River 
 of the Gods. 
 
 Verse 29 a. He first wrote ^TfcffhT^. — Read with K. H%fT. 
 
 ^ ^rfHti'-llrl is given by Bohtlingk (Smaller Dictionary) as a word for which 
 no reference was available. f<:fi|rt'-«^ is the same as f^tKMrJ'^^ a word which 
 B R e3qplain as meaning " that which the hands lay hold of." I have suggested 
 another way of taking the word. Compare the verse which B R refer to : — 
 
 ^ Siva wears the Moon as his crest jewel, and the serpent Sesha coils its 
 folds over his head, through his matted locks the Ganges finds a path as it 
 descends from heaven to become an earthly stream. 
 8 
 
5 2 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 
 
 4. May Sthanu's Head protect you. It is a lake whose lotus charms 
 the eye.^ That lotus is the great braid of hair : and the mud to which 
 it clings loosely is the great serpent that ever lazily swims on the 
 water of the heavenly Ganges. It is a lake where the moon's rays 
 quietly shining, appear like many lotus stalks seen between the white 
 skulls that are its lotus-flowers. 
 
 5. Lo He begins to dance and his toes keep measure with the 
 beat : he has bound together the weight of those locks that are reddened 
 with the tongues of flame from the flashing fire that has its home in 
 his deep-sunk eye : he has put straight the moon's orb that is bright 
 with its nectar-like rays : and with his two hands he has pulled tight 
 the serpent from whose knotted face the fire of the poison is up- 
 springing. May this Sthanu protect the world. 
 
 6. The Maurya line is seen to be like the deep (noble) sea : it 
 illuminates the world with the moon of its crest-jewel (the moon as its 
 crest-jewel) is the refuge of great princes (great serpents) : it is able to 
 protect kings (mountains) tbat are in pain and trouble through fear of 
 the destruction of their forces (wings) : to it come armies (rivers) from 
 far and wide : it is bright with all manner of precious possessions 
 (jewels): and in it fortune dwells. 
 
 7. The kings of that line— like World Elephants — greatly glad- 
 dening good men with the light of their faces bright with gifts (the juice 
 that exudes from the temples of elephants) — exalted in their pride, 
 roam at large over the earth' confidently and undaunted of heart : 
 praised too for their friendliness (bhadra, a kind of elephant) and 
 - - - - ? they are glorious for their race, more glorious for their 
 virtues. 
 
 8. Such were these kings and they reigned over the whole earth. 
 And among them there arose king Dhavala, himself, by reason of his 
 fame, as resplendent (dhavala = white) as his name. 
 
 9. Through their own faults heaped up in the sight of all men 
 from day to day by sins of thought, word, and deed, this king's enemies 
 were by him at once conquered and made kings (wandering beggars) 
 like evil spirits naked and ever hungry, with new terrors appearing 
 each day, they wander by night from door to door of the stranger. 
 
 1 0. Not once or twice did he the mighty and valorous one by his 
 own right hand adorn over again the fields of fight— deserted of timid 
 
 * Literally " like a lake charming by means of the lotus," &c. It is no easy 
 matter to render this style into English in a way that shall not be absolutely 
 unreadable. 
 
AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 53 
 
 men with the severed heads of his enemies for lotuses torn from their 
 stalks, though these fields were already adorned with the pearls that had 
 fallen from the elephant temples he had cloven asunder in his wrath, 
 and garnished with broad streams of blood. 
 
 11-12. Now a king Sri Sankuka by name had long been this 
 man's intimate and dear friend. Though a brahmin this Saukuka 
 bore arms and took such joy in them that he was a very vessel of ac- 
 ceptable offerings to the King of the Dead. He was famed for his 
 virtues. Even now the spirit-haunted fields of fight, full of the mur- 
 mur of the rivers of the blood of his foes slowly drying up speak of 
 his pastime in the courts of war. To Dhavala Sankuka was what the 
 meaning is to the significant word, what the Path of the so-called 
 Triad (the three Vedas) is to the Law. He was pure at heart and a 
 very Root of Good Conduct - - . . ? 
 
 13. He had a lawful wife, by name Dengini, of the people of the 
 twice-bora. She bore to him a son — a hero, who paid due respect 
 to merit. 
 
 14. King Sivagana, glorious, handsome, liberal and fortunate. 
 Surely he was once (in a previous birth) that gana (host) of Siva 
 since he became now his devotee. 
 
 15. Not once or twice did he wrestle, pleased at heart in the field of 
 war, the field made frightful by the noise that issued from the open ends 
 of the throats of the headless corpses that were their own funeral pyre, 
 on which they burnt with the flame lit by the flashes of fire that rose 
 from their arrows as it was cloven by the sword stroke — the field where 
 the spirits of the dead saw with pleasure the blood vomited by the fowls 
 of the air as they rose in terror from the faces gashed by the arrows that 
 still adhered to them.* 
 
 16. But the good know assuredly that life is full of all manner of 
 troubles — old age, bereavement, and death — and that * one thing only is 
 needful ' here : therefore did this man cause to be built this temple of 
 the Most High God, to but look on Whom is for all people to wash from 
 their bodies the stain of Time. 
 
 17. When asoka-trees in flower perfumed the air, when the mango 
 was in blossom, and East, West, North, and South were beset with 
 swarms of drunken and staggering bees, when Love spoke only of the 
 
 * The birds were wounded or frightened : and the spirits of the air get 
 blood to drink without haviag to go further. 
 
54 AN INSCRIPTION FEOM KOTAH. 
 
 coquettish glances of women folk, here in the hermitage of Kanva thi^ 
 man piously built a fair House for Siva. 
 
 18. At the time when women, brought face to face with their lorers, 
 with a laugh bend low and half close their eyes, as they think of all 
 they show on breasts laid bare by the motion of the swing, and speak 
 the love they feel only by their knotted brows. 
 
 19. And when those whose lords are absent, let fall a tear as they 
 mark how all round them the place is adorned with mango-trees on 
 which the drunken bees are humming. 
 
 20. For incense, perfumes or light, and for repairs, two villages 
 Sarvatka and Chaoni, have been assigned in perpetuity. 
 
 21. Let all kings whose this land may be maintain this gift: if 
 they do so for righteousness sake assuredly they will come to Siva's, 
 heavenly home. 
 
 22. This is a Bridge of Righteousness over which assuredly such 
 an one may transport himself and his parents'* across life's awful sea. 
 
 23. His fame shall endure as long as the earth with her seas, hills, 
 and groves, as long as the sun and moon shall burn. 
 
 24. When 795 years of the kings of Malava had gone this temple of 
 oiva was built. 
 
 25. The architect was Asabdagana (?) — a man free from avarice, 
 kindly spoken, and always a true worshipper of Siva. 
 
 26. The writer here is Gomika's son Raupuka, a man clever, wise, 
 modest of heart, devoted to his guru, kind spoken. 
 
 27-8. Sivanaga, Dvarasiva's son engraved this : Devafca, Bhattasura- 
 bhi's son composed with faithful heart these verses that are bright as 
 the scriptures, and full of the nectar distilled from the moon on His 
 crest. And the virtuous Nannaka, Krishna's son, was the Sutradhara 
 here. 
 
 29. Forasmuch as the hermitage of Kanva is blessed and able 
 to take away all sin : therefore in it has been built this temple of 
 Sambhu, whereby that one's merit and fame shall increase. 
 
 30. Whatever mistakes there may be in the joinings or words or 
 matras these I pray the learned of all time kindly to forgive. 
 
 •BR give this as a meaning of T^ for which no reference was available. 
 
M152333 
 
 73^ 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY