Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s2: The Anukramaṇīs

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s2

Language
English

The Anukramaṇīs

c8.s2.1

Several of the works mentioned before were ascribed to Śaunaka and his two pupils, Kâtyâyana and Âśvalâyana. But we have not yet mentioned a number of treatises, ascribed to the same authors, and belonging to the same sphere of literature as the Sûtras, which, however, on account of their technical character, could not lay claim to the title of Vedâṅga, or "member of the Veda." They are known by the name of the Anukramaṇīs, from *anu*, along, and *kram*, to step. They are systematic indices to various portions of the ancient Vedic literature.

c8.s2.2

The most perfect Anukramaṇī is that of the Saṃhitâ of the Rig-veda. It is ascribed to Kâtyâyana, an author chiefly known by his works on the Yajur-veda and Sâma-veda. Its name is Sarvânukramaṇī or Sarvânukrama, *i. e.* the index of all things.¹ It gives the first words of each hymn, the number of verses, the name and family of the poets, the names of the deities, and the metres of every verse. Before the time of Kâtyâyana, there had been separate indices for each of these subjects, and it was with reference to them that Kâtyâyana called his own index the general or comprehensive index. Our authority for this is Shaḍguruśishya, the author of a commentary on the Index of Kâtyâyana; a man who like Devarâjayajvan, the author of a commentary on the Nighaṇṭu, was not without a certain appreciation of the historical progress of Indian literature. He tells us in his Vedârthadîpikâ, that before Kâtyâyana, there existed one index of the poets, one of the metres, one of the deities, one of the Anuvâkas, the old chapters of the Rig-veda, and one of the hymns;² and that these indices were composed by Śaunaka. Now we know the style of Śaunaka, and as by a happy accident some of these former indices have been preserved, some complete, others in fragments, we are able to test Shaḍguruśishya’s accuracy.

c8.s2.3

¹ सर्वज्ञेयार्थवर्णनात्सर्वानुक्रमणीशब्दं निर्ब्रुवंति विपश्चितः॥

c8.s2.4

² आर्षानुक्रमणीत्याद्या छंदसी दैवती तथा। अनुवाकानुक्रमणी सूक्तानुक्रमणी तथा॥

c8.s2.5

We remarked before, as a distinctive peculiarity of the style of Śaunaka, as contrasted with that of Kâtyâyana, that the Prâtiśâkhya ascribed to the former is composed in mixed Ślokas, whereas the Prâtiśâkhya of Kâtyâyana is written in prose or in Sûtras. The same observation applies to the Anukramaṇīs. Those ascribed to Śaunaka are composed in mixed metres, as far as we can judge from quotations; the Anukramaṇī of his pupil Kâtyâyana is in prose, and exhibits all the artificial appliances of a Sûtra composition. There is one of Śaunaka’s Anukramaṇīs, the Anuvâka-anukramaṇī, which can be restored completely from MSS.¹; and this work bears the most manifest traces of Śaunaka’s style, partly in the mixture, partly in a peculiar rudeness, of its metres. The other Anukramaṇīs ascribed to Śaunaka are lost to us, but they must have existed at the time of Shaḍguruśishya. He quotes not only from the Anuvâka-anukramaṇī (Bhâshya, viii. 1.), but also from the Deva-anukrama (Bhâshya, viii. 4.), and he distinguishes this work from the Bṛihaddevatâ, another work attributed to Śaunaka, of which there is one MS. in Europe at the Royal Library of Berlin.² Sâyaṇa also, though later than Shaḍguruśishya, was still in possession of Śaunaka’s works, and he quotes particularly the Bṛihaddevatâ, in several of his own commentaries. Śaunaka’s Ārsha-anukramaṇī is quoted by Sāyaṇa in his Commentary on the Rig-veda, i. 100. 1. If we add to these quotations a reference to Śaunaka’s Chhando-’nukramaṇī, which is found in Shaḍguruśishya’s Vedârthadīpikâ (MS. E.I.H. 1823, p. 7. a.), we may consider the authenticity of these works sufficiently established; and it is hardly unreasonable to suppose that the fifth Anukramaṇī also, of which no quotations have as yet been met with, the Sūktânukramaṇī, was in existence as late as Sāyaṇa’s time.¹

c8.s2.6

¹ Several MSS. contain portions of the Anuvâkânukramaṇī; and with the help of Shaḍguruśishya’s Commentary, contained in the introduction to his commentary on Kâtyâyana’s Sarvânukrama, (MS. Bodl. Wilson, 379.), the text might be published in a critical edition.

c8.s2.7

² Dr. Kuhn gives the following description of this MS. in Haupt’s “Zeitschrift fur Deutsches Alterthum.” The Bṛihaddevatâ (Chambers, 192.) composed in epical metre, is ascribed to Śaunaka, and contains an enumeration of the deities invoked in each hymn of the Rig-veda. It gives much mythological and other information as to the character of the gods of the Veda. The text of the MS. is so corrupt that we can scarcely think of restoring it without the help of other MSS.” Another MS. has since been found in India, and a distinguished Sanskrit scholar is preparing an edition of it.

c8.s2.8

¹ Another Anukramaṇī, containing the last verses of each Maṇḍala, is quoted by Shaḍguruśishya (Anukr. Bh. viii. 1.). मण्डलांतानामृचामनुक्रमणे प्रतिचच्च विचच्चेत्येष्वपि गृह्यते॥ Cf. Rv. Maṇḍ. vii. 6. 15; Ashṭ. v. 7. 9.

c8.s2.9

This would give us for the Rig-veda five Anukramaṇīs by Śaunaka, one by Kâtyâyana, and one by an unknown author. The Bṛihaddevatâ is a work of too large a compass to be called an Anukramaṇī, and it is even doubtful whether we possess this work in the same form in which Śaunaka left it. To judge from Dr. Kuhn’s extracts, the author of the Bṛihaddevatâ follows indeed the Śâkala-śâkhâ, but his text must have differed from that of our MSS. The author may have followed one of the subdivisions of the Śâkalas, the Śaiśira-śâkhâ, for instance, which we know was followed by Śaunaka. The division of the Sanhitâ which is adopted in the Bṛihaddevatâ, is that of Maṇḍalas, Anuvâkas, and Sūktas; but the other division into Ashṭakas is equally known, and even the Khilas are taken into account, whereas both Śaunaka and Kâtyâyana exclude these later hymns distinctly from their indices. Dr. Kuhn concludes from a passage in Shaḍguruśishya’s Commentary, to which we shall revert hereafter, that not Śaunaka, but Āśvalāyana, was the author of our Bṛihaddevatā. This conclusion, however, is not borne out by sufficient evidence, nor is the fact that Śaunaka is quoted by name in the work itself a sufficient argument against Śaunaka’s authorship. According to the line of argument adopted by Dr. Kuhn, it would be equally objectionable to ascribe the Bṛihaddevatā to Āśvalāyana; for in one passage, according to Dr. Kuhn’s own emendations, the name of Āśvalāyana also occurs in it. Other authorities which are quoted in this curious work are the Aitareyaka, the Kaushītakins, the Bhāllavi-brāhmaṇa, the Nidāna (nidānasanjnake granthe), Śākalas, Bāshkalas, Madhuka, Śvetaketu, Gālava, Gārgya, Rathītara, Rāthantarin, Śākaṭāyana, Śāṇḍilya, Romakāyana Sthavira, Kāthakya, Bhāgurin, Śākapūṇi, Bhārmyaśva Mudgala, Aurnavābha, Kraushṭukin, Mātrin, and Yāska. The last is most frequently mentioned, and the whole book is dedicated to him. To judge from the style of the Bṛihaddevatā, the work as we now possess it, though originally written by Śaunaka, seems to have been recast by a later writer.

c8.s2.10

The following figures, taken from Śaunaka’s Anukramaṇīs, will serve to give an idea of the minuteness with which the Veda was studied at his time. According to Śaunaka, the Śākala-śākhā of the Rigveda-saṃhitā consists of 10 Maṇḍalas, or 64 Adhyāyas.

c8.s2.11

| Maṇḍalas. | Anuvâkas. | Hymns. |
| The 1st contains | 24 and | 191 |
| 2nd | ,, | 4 ,, | 43 |
| 3rd | ,, | 5 ,, | 62 |
| 4th | ,, | 5 ,, | 58 |
| 5th | ,, | 6 ,, | 87 |
| 6th | ,, | 6 ,, | 75 |
| 7th | ,, | 6 ,, | 104 |
| 8th | ,, | 10 ,, | 92(+11 Vâlakhilyas) |
| 9th | ,, | 7 ,, | 114 |
| 10th | ,, | 12 ,, | 191 |
| — | — | — |
| The 10 have | 85 and | 1017+11=1028. |

c8.s2.12

The Bâshkala-śâkhâ had 8 hymns more=1025 hymns.

c8.s2.13

The 64 Adhyâyas have 2006 Vargas. These are arranged as follows:—

c8.s2.14

| | Verses. | Vargas. | Verses. |
| Vargas consisting of 1 | = | 1 = | 1 |
| ,, | 2 | = | 2 = | 4 |
| ,, | 3 | = | 97 = | 291 |
| ,, | 4 | = | 174 = | 696 |
| ,, | 5 | = | 1207 = | 6035 |
| ,, | 6 | = | 346¹= | 2076 |
| ,, | 7 | = | 119 = | 833 |
| ,, | 8 | = | 59 = | 472 |
| ,, | 9 | = | 1 = | 9 |
| | — | — | — |
| | 64 Adhyâyas | = | 2,006=10,417 |

c8.s2.15

¹ Triṇi śatâni shaṭkânâm chatvâriṃśat shaṭ cha vargâḥ.

c8.s2.16

Here we have to observe a difference between the number of verses, as deduced from the Vargas, and the number stated by Śaunaka. The latter gives the sum total of verses = 10,580½, but, immediately afterwards, the sum total of half verses = 21,232½ = 10,616 verses.

c8.s2.17

How this difference arose it is difficult to say; but it should be observed that, if we divide the sum total of half verses, 21,232, by 2, we get 10,616 verses, and this number comes very near to 10,622, which the Charaṇavyûha gives as the sum total of the verses of the Rig-veda. According to the Charaṇavyûha (MS. Ch. 785.) the 64 Adhyâyas of the Rig-veda have:—

c8.s2.18

| | Verses. | Vargas. | Verses. |
| Vargas consisting of | 1 = | 1 = | 1 |
| ” | 2 = | 2 = | 4 |
| ” | 3 = | 93 = | 279 |
| ” | 4 = | 176 = | 704 |
| ” | 5 = | 1228 = | 6140 |
| ” | 6 = | 357 = | 2142 |
| ” | 7 = | 129 = | 903 |
| ” | 8 = | 55 = | 440 |
| ” | 9 = | 1 = | 9 |
| | | 2042 | 10,622 |

c8.s2.19

The number of padas or words in the Rig-veda-sanhitâ is stated as 153,826, which gives an average of between 14 to 15 words to each verse. Another computation brings the number of the charchâ-padas (i. e. words which are used in the Kramapâtha, omitting the repeated passages or galitas) to 110,704, and the number of syllables to 432,000.

c8.s2.20

In another Anukramaṇî, Śaunaka gives a list of verses, arranged according to the metres in which they are written; and at the end he states the sum total of verses as 10,402; but here again, if we cast up the number of verses in each metre, according to his own statement, we get 10,409 instead of 10,402. These differences are startling if we consider the general accuracy of the exegetical works of the Brahmans; but they may arise either from faults in the MSS. of the Anukramaṇîs, or from the fact that some of the Khilas were included, though, according to their own professions, both Śaunaka and Kâtyâyana would seem to exclude these later hymns from their Anukramaṇîs. The following table will show the distribution of metres according to Śaunaka:—

c8.s2.21

| Gâyatrî | - | 2,451 | Brought forward | 9793 |
| Uṣṇih | - | 341 | Aṣṭi | - | 6 |
| Anuṣṭubh | - | 855 | Atyaṣṭi | - | 84 |
| Bṛhatî | - | 181 | Dhṛti | - | 2 |
| Paṅkti | - | 312 | Atidhṛti | - | 1 |
| Triṣṭubh | - | 4,253 | Ekapadâ | - | 6 |
| Jagatî | - | 1,348 | Dvipadâ | - | 17 |
| Atijagatî | - | 17 | Pragâtha Bârhata | 194 |
| Śakvarî | - | 26 | Kâkubha | - | 55 |
| Atiśakvarî | - | 9 | Mahâbârhata | - | 251 |
| Carried forward | 9793 | | | 10,409 |

c8.s2.22

For the Yajur-veda we have three Anukramaṇîs, one for the Âtreyi-śâkhâ of the Taittirîyas, the other for the Śâkhâ of the Chârâyaṇîyas, the third for the Mâdhyandina-śâkhâ of the Vâjasaneyins. The former¹ differs from other Anukramaṇîs in so far as it contains an index not of the Sanhitâ only, but also of the Brāhmaṇa and the Āraṇyaka. Its object is not simply to enumerate the Kāṇḍas (Aṣṭakas), Praśnas, Anuvākas, and Kāṇḍikās as they follow in the text, but rather to indicate the chief subjects of this Veda, and to bring together the different passages where the same sacrifice with its supplements is treated. Though we do not possess a MS. of the Ātreyī-śākhā, it is possible to identify nearly the whole of the Index with the text of the Saṃhitā ¹, the Brāhmaṇa ², and the Āraṇyaka ³ which we possess. The Ātreyī-śākhā, though not mentioned in the Caraṇavyūha, must be considered as a subdivision of the Aukhīya-śākhā; and the Anukramaṇī says that Vaiśampāyana handed it down to Yāska Paingi, Yāska to Tittiri, Tittiri to Ukha, and Ukha to Ātreya, who was the author of a Pada-text⁴, while Kuṇḍina composed a commentary (vṛtti) on the same Śākhā. The Āpastamba-śākhā, of which we possess the complete Brāhmaṇa, is a subdivision of the Khāṇḍikeyas.

c8.s2.23

¹ MS. E. I. H. 1623, 965.

c8.s2.24

¹ MS. E. I. H. 1701, 1702; name of Śākhā unknown.

c8.s2.25

² MS. E. I. H. 293, containing the three books of the Āpastamba-brāhmaṇa.

c8.s2.26

³ MS. E. I. H. 1690, &c.

c8.s2.27

⁴ See MS. Bodl. Wilson, 361.

c8.s2.28

There is a curious tradition, preserved in the Kāṇḍānukrama, that, although the greater portion of the Ātreyī-śākhā was originally taught by Tittiri, some chapters of it owed their origin to Kaṭha, the founder of the Kāṭhaka-śākhā. This assertion is confirmed by Sāyaṇa in his Commentary on the Taittirīyāraṇyaka. The chapters ascribed to Kaṭha and called the Kāṭhakam, are found at the end of the Brāhmaṇa and the beginning of the Āraṇyaka. They contain —

c8.s2.29

1. The Sâvitrâgnichayana with the Brâhmaṇa, Tait.-brâhm. iii. 10.
2. The Nâchiketachayana, Tait.-br. iii. 11.
3. Divaḥśyenaya iṣṭayaḥ. Tait.-br. iii. 12. 1 & 2.
4. Apâdyâ iṣṭayaḥ. Tait.-br. iii. 12. 3 & 4.
5. Châturhotrachiti. Tait.-br. iii. 12. 5.
6. Vaiśvasṛijachiti. Tait.-br. iii. 12. 6—9, end of Brâhmaṇa.
7. Âruṇaketukachiti. Tait.-âraṇyaka, i. 1.
8. Svâdhyâya-brâhmaṇa. Tait.-âraṇyaka, i. 2.

c8.s2.30

They are given here as they follow one another in the text of the Âpastamba-Śâkhâ, and this order is confirmed in every particular by Sâyaṇa’s Commentary (MS. E. I. H. 1145), which is in fact a commentary intended for the Âpastamba-śâkhâ of the Taittirīya-brâhmaṇa. According to his introductory remarks prefixed to each Anuvâka, the Sâvitrachiti occupies the tenth, the Nâchiketachiti the eleventh Prapâṭhaka. In the twelfth Prapâṭhaka, he remarks, the Châturhotra and Vaiśvasṛija should be explained. But as the iṣṭis, called the Divaḥśyenīs and Apâdyâs, form part of the complete Châturhotra (they stand either in the middle or at the end of it), they are explained first. Thus we find in the beginning of the twelfth Prapâṭhaka (iii. 12. 1.), the pratīkas of the Yâjyânuvâkyâs of the Divaḥśyenīs; in iii. 12. 2. the rules for the same iṣṭis; and in the same manner, the Yâjyânuvâkyâs of the Apâdyâs in iii. 12. 3., and the rules in iii. 12. 4. Then follows the Châturhotra-chayana in iii. 12. 5., and in the last four Anuvâkas the Vaiśvasṛija-chayana.

c8.s2.31

A different order seems to have been observed in the Âtreyī-śâkhâ of the Taittirīya-brâhmaṇa, for, although the same chapters are here ascribed to Kaṭha, their arrangement must have differed, unless we suppose that the author of the Kāṇḍānukrama introduced an alteration. He writes: "Tāvat Tittiriḥ provācha. (Tittiris Taittirīyaśākhāpravartako 'nyebhyo munibhyaḥ śiṣyebhyaḥ provācha.) Athāṣṭau Kāṭhakāni (athānantaram Kāṭhakaśākhāpravartakena Kāṭhakamuninā proktāny uchyante):

c8.s2.32

1. Sāvitra, Taittirīya-brāhmaṇa, iii. 10.
2. Nāchiketa ,, ,, iii. 11.
3. Chāturhotra ,, ,, iii. 12. 5.
4. Vaiśvasṛija ,, ,, iii. 12. 6—9.
5. Aruṇa, Taittirīya-āraṇyaka, i. 1.
6. Divaḥśyenis, Taittirīya-brāhmaṇa, iii. 12. 1—2.
7. Apādyās ,, ,, iii. 12. 3—4.
8. Svādhyāya-brāhmaṇa, Taittirīya-āraṇyaka, i. 2."

c8.s2.33

The second Anukramaṇī of the Yajur-veda which we possess, belongs to the Chārāyaṇīya-śākhā, and is called the Mantrārṣādhyāya.¹ The only copy which we have of it is found in the same MS. which contains the Charaka-śākhā,² and it is evidently intended as an index to this śākhā. Nor is there anything anomalous in this, if we remember that the Chārāyaṇīya-śākhā is a subdivision of the Charaka-śākhā. But what is less intelligible is the title given to the text, which instead of Yajur-veda, is called in the MS. Yajur-veda-kāṭhaka. This title, Kāṭhaka, cannot well refer to the śākhā of the Kaṭhas, for this is itself a subdivision of the Charakas. It must most likely be taken in the same sense in which Kāṭhaka was explained before, i. e. "Kāṭhakamuninā proktam;" though it is strange that the very chapters which in the Āpastambaśâkhâ of the Taittirîyaka are ascribed to Kaṭha, are wanting in our Śâkhâ, while all the other sacrifices which are described in the Taittirîya-saṃhitâ and Brâhmaṇa, are laid down in very much the same order.

c8.s2.34

¹ See Catalogue of the Berlin MSS., No. 142.

c8.s2.35

² The title is "Ekottaraśatādhvaryuśākhāprabhedabhinne Yajurvedakāṭhake Charakaśākhā."

c8.s2.36

The third Anukramaṇî, that of the Mâdhyandina-śâkhâ of the Vâjasaneyaka, is ascribed to Kâtyâyana, who is mentioned also as the author of an Anuvâkânukramaṇî. It gives the names of the poets, the deities, and the metres, for all the verses of the Saṃhitâ, including the Khila (Adhyâya 26–35.) and the Śukriya portions. (Adhy. 36–40.)

c8.s2.37

For the Sâma-veda we have two classes of Anukramaṇîs, the former more ancient, the latter more modern than those of the other Vedas which we have hitherto examined. One index to the hymns of the Sâma-veda (following the order of the Veyagâna and Âraṇyagâna) has been preserved under the name of Ârsheya-brâhmaṇa¹, a title by which this work is admitted within the pale of the revealed literature of the Brahmans. Allusions to the names of poets and deities of different hymns occur in the Brâhmaṇas of other Vedas also; but in none, except the Sâma-veda, have these scattered observations been arranged into regular Anukramaṇîs before the beginning of the Sûtra period, or been incorporated in the body of their revealed literature. What the Brahmans call Śruti or revelation, signifies, as we saw, what is more ancient than the Sûtras; and that the Ârsheya-brâhmaṇa is earlier at least than Kâtyâyana, can be proved by the fact of Kâtyâyana's quoting passages from it.² It has been pointed out as a distinguishing mark of the Brâhmaṇas of the Sâma-veda that they are never accented, but it is doubtful whether any conclusion could be drawn from this as to their being of later origin than the Brâhmaṇas of the other Vedas.¹

c8.s2.38

¹ See Benfey, Sâma-veda, p. vii.

c8.s2.39

² In the first chapter of the Ârsheya-brâhmaṇa, we read: यो ह वा अविदितार्षेयच्छन्दोदैवतब्राह्मणेन मन्त्रेण या-

c8.s2.40

¹ Kumârila says: यत्तु भाष्यकारेण स्वराभावादित्यसन्निय-मार्थव्याख्यानं कृतं तन्नचेष्यप्येदत्वं कल्पाधीतेषु साधयेत्। तथा गृह्योपदिष्टेषु छांदोग्यब्राह्मणेषु च। ब्राह्मणानि हि यान्यष्टौ सरहस्यान्धीयते छंदोगस्तेषु सर्वेषु न कश्चि-न्नियतः स्वरः। तेन तेष्वप्येदत्वं स्वराभावात्प्रसज्येत॥

c8.s2.41

But while the existence of an Ârsheya-brâhmaṇa shows that the Chhandogas were the first to compose an index to their sacred literature, we find that their regular Anukramaṇîs are more modern than those of the Rig-veda, and must be referred to a class of works known by the name of Pariśiṣṭas. They are contained in MS. Bodl. Wilson 466, where they form the fifth and sixth of the twenty Pariśiṣṭas attached to the Sâma-veda. Their title is, “Naigeyânâm rikshv ârsham,” and “Naigeyânâm rikshu daivatam,” and they give respectively the names of the poets and the deities for the verses composing the Ârchika of the Chhandogas according to the Śâkhâ

c8.s2.42

जयति वाध्यापयति वा स्थाणुं वच्छति गर्तं वापद्यते (MS. 689. गर्तं वापद्यते) प्र वा मीयते पापीयान्भवति यातया-मान्यस्य छंदंसि भवंति। This passage is referred to by Kâtyâyana, when he says: अनेवंवितो यातयामानि छंदंसि भवंति स्थाणुं वच्छति गर्तं वा पत्यते प्रमीयते वा पापी-यान्भवतीति विज्ञायते॥ See also Kâtyâyana’s Introduction to his Anukramaṇî of the Mâdhyandina-śâkhâ, and Rig-veda-bhâshya, p. 40.

c8.s2.43

of the Naigeyas, a subdivision of the Kauthumas. It agrees on the whole, but not in all particulars ¹, with the Śākhā published by Stevenson and Benfey, and it has been supposed that their text is taken from MSS. belonging to the Rāṇāyanīya Śākhā. The most characteristic difference between these Pariśiṣṭas and the Ārsheya-brāhmaṇa seems to lie in this, that the latter refers to the original prayer-books of the Chhandogas, the Veyagāna, and Āraṇyagāna, while the former follow the Saṃhitā, including Ārchika and Staubhika, or as they are also called, Pūrvārchika and Uttarārchika.

c8.s2.44

¹ Cf. Sāmā-veda, ed. Benfey, p. xx.

c8.s2.45

For the fourth Veda, the Atharvaṇa, or Brahmaveda, an Anukramaṇī has been discovered by Professor Whitney in a MS. of the British Museum, prepared for Col. Polier. A copy of this MS. is found in MS. 2142 of the East India House. It is a complete index to the Saṃhitā in 10 Paṭalas, written in a simple and intelligible style. Its title is Bṛhat-sarvānukramaṇī.

c8.s2.46

It is evident, that if it was possible to determine the age of the Anukramaṇīs, we should have a terminus ad quem for the Vedic age. The index of the Rig-veda enables us to check almost every syllable of the hymns; and we may safely say that we possess exactly the same number of verses, and words, and syllables in our MSS. of the Rig-veda as existed at the time of Kātyāyana. The index of the Ātreyī-śākhā (by Laugākshi?) authenticates our MSS. not only of the Saṃhitā, but also of the Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka of the Taittirīya-veda, and the index to the Kāṭhaka refers to a work exactly the same as that of which we possess the text in MS. The Ārsheyabrâhmaṇa presupposes the existence of the Gânas of the Sâma-veda, and the Anukramaṇis of the Naigeyas could only have been written after the text of the more modern Ârchika had branched off into different Sâkhâs.

c8.s2.47

The only Anukramaṇis of which the authors are known are, the Anukramaṇis of Śaunaka to the Rig-veda, and the two Sarvânukramas of Kâtyâyana, one to the Rig-veda, the other to the white Yajur-veda. We shall see whether it is possible to fix the age of these two writers.

c8.s2.48

We remarked before, that the Anukramaṇi of Kâtyâyana, if compared with the Anuvâkânukramaṇi of Śaunaka, shows the same progress in style which we may always observe between these two writers. Śaunaka writes in mixed Ślokas, and takes great liberties with the metre; Kâtyâyana writes in prose, and introduces the artificial contrivances of the later Sûtras. Again, Śaunaka’s index follows the original division of the Rig-veda into Maṇḍalas, Anuvâkas, and Sûktas; Kâtyâyana has adopted the more practical and more modern division into Aṣṭakas, Adhyâyas, and Vargas. The number of hymns is the same in Śaunaka and Kâtyâyana. They both follow the united Sâkhâ of the Śâkalas and Bâshkalas, and bring the number of hymns, exclusive of all Khilas, to 1017. Before this union took place, the Bâshkalas counted eight hymns more than the Śâkalas, i. e. 1025 instead of 1017; and they read some of the hymns in the first Maṇḍala in a different order.¹

c8.s2.49

¹ In the Śâkala-śâkhâ, the hymns of Gotama are followed by those of Kutsa, Kakshîvat, Paruchchhepa, and Dîrghatamas; in the Bâshkala-śâkhâ their order was, Gotama, Kakshîvat, Paruchchhepa, Kutsa, Dîrghatamas.

c8.s2.50

The Khilas, or supplementary hymns, are omitted in the Anukramaṇīs of Śaunaka and Kātyāyana, though they were known to both; Śaunaka, however, excludes them more strictly than Kātyāyana.¹ The latter has admitted the eleven Vālakhilya-hymns, and thus brings the total number of hymns to 1028.

c8.s2.51

¹ खल्किानामनादेशोऽस्मिन्ग्रन्थेऽनुवाकानां; or, according to MS. 502., ऽनुवाकानामिह स्मृतः॥

c8.s2.52

From all these indications we should naturally be led to expect that the relation between Śaunaka and Kātyāyana was very intimate, that both belonged to the same Śākhā, and that Śaunaka was anterior to Kātyāyana. We know of only one other writer whose works are equally intended for the united Śākhā of the Śākalas and Bāshkalas; this is Āśvalāyana, the author of twelve books of Śrauta-sūtras, of four books of Gṛihya-sūtras, and of some chapters in the Aitareyāraṇyaka.²

c8.s2.53

² Thus it is said: एतस्य (समाम्नायस्य) इतिशब्दो निवित्षपुरोरुकतापवालखिल्यमहानाम्न्यतरेयब्राह्मणहितस्य शाकलस्य बाष्कलस्य चाम्नायद्वयस्यैतदाश्वलायनसूत्रं नाम प्रयोगशास्त्रमित्यध्येतृप्रसिद्धं संबंधविशेषं द्योतयति॥ Śrauta-sūtra-bhāshya. i. 1.

c8.s2.54

Let us see now, whether these indications can be supported by other evidence.

c8.s2.55

Shaḍguruśishya in his Commentary on Kātyāyana’s Sarvānukrama, says:—

c8.s2.56

“Śunahotra, the great Muni, was born of Bharadvāja, and of him was born Śaunahotra, all the world being a witness. Indra himself went to the sacrifice of the Rishi in order to please him. The great Asuras, thinking that Indra was alone, and wishing

c8.s2.57

to take him, surrounded the sacrificial inclosure. Indra, however, perceived it, and taking the guise of the Rishi, he went away. The Asuras seeing the sacrificer again, seized Śaunahotra, taking him for Indra. He saw the god that is to be worshipped, and saying, ‘I am not Indra, there he is, ye fools, not I,’ he was released by the Asuras. Indra called and spake to him: ‘Because thou delightest in praising, therefore thou art called Gṛitsamada, O Rishi; thy hymn will be called by the name of *Indrasya indriyam*, the might of Indra. And thou, being born in the race of Bhṛigu, shalt be Śaunaka, the descendant of Śunaka, and thou shalt see again the second Maṇḍala, together with that hymn.’ He, the Muni Gṛitsamada, was born again, as commanded by Indra. It was he who saw the great second Maṇḍala of the Rig-veda as it was revealed to him together with the hymn Śajanîya; it was he, the great Rishi, to whom at the twelve years’ sacrifice, Ugraśravas, the son of Romaharshaṇa, the pupil of Vyâsa, recited, in the midst of the sacrifice, the story of the Mahâbhârata, together with the tale of the Harivaṅśa, a story to be learnt from Vyâsa alone, full of every kind of excellence, dear to Hari, sweet to hear, endowed with great blessing. It was he who was the lord of the sages, dwelling in the Naimishîya forest; he, who to the King Śatânîka, the son of Janamejaya, brought the laws of Vishṇu, which declare the powers of Hari. That Śaunaka, celebrated among the Rishis as the glorious, having seen the second Maṇḍala, and heard the collection of the Mahâbhârata, being also the propagator of the laws of Vishṇu, the great boat on the ocean of existence, was looked upon by the great Rishis as the only vessel in which worshippers might get over the Bahvṛicha, with its twenty-one Śâkhâs, like one who had crossed the Rig-veda. There was one Śâkhâ of Śâkala, another of Bâshkala: taking these two Sanhitâs, and the twenty-one Brâhmaṇas, the Aitareyaka, and completing it with others, Śaunaka, revered by numbers of great Ṛishis, composed the first Kalpa-sûtra.”

c8.s2.58

It need hardly be pointed out that this passage contains a strange and startling mixture of legendary and historical matter, and that it is only the last portion which can be of interest to us. The story of Śaunahotra, the son of Śunahotra, and grandson of Bharadvâja, being born again as Gṛitsamada-Śaunaka, may have some historical foundation, and the only way in which it can be interpreted, is, that the second Maṇḍala, being originally seen by Gṛitsamada, of the family of Bhr̥igu, was afterwards preserved by Śaunahotra, a descendant of Bharadvâja, of the race of Angiras, who entered the family of Bhr̥igu, took the name of Śaunaka, and added one hymn, the twelfth, in praise of Indra. This is partly confirmed by Kâtyâyana’s Anukramaṇî¹, and by the Ṛishyanukramaṇî of Śaunaka.² It would by no means follow that Śaunaka was the author of the hymns of the second Maṇḍala. The hymns of that Maṇḍala belong to Gṛitsamada of the Bhr̥igu race. But Śaunaka may have adopted that Maṇḍala, and by adding one hymn, may have been said to have made it his own. Again, it does not concern us at present whether Śaunaka, the author of the Kalpa-sûtra, was the same as Śaunaka, the chief of the sages in the Naimishîya forest, to whom, during the great twelve-years' sacrifice, Ugraśravas related the Mahâbhârata, and who became the teacher of Śatânîka, the son of Janamejaya. If this identity could be established, a most important link would be gained, connecting Śaunaka and his literary activity with another period of Indian literature. This point must be reserved for further consideration. At present we are only concerned with Śaunaka, the author of the Kalpa-sûtras and other works composed with a view of facilitating the study of the Rig-veda.

c8.s2.59

¹ य आंगिरसः शौनहोत्रो भूत्वा भार्गवः शौनकोऽभवत्स गृत्समदो द्वितीयं मण्डलमपश्यदिति॥

c8.s2.60

² तथा तस्यैव शौनकस्य ऋष्यनुक्रमणे। त्वमग्न इति गृत्समदः शौनको भृगुतां गतः। शौनहोत्रः प्रकृत्या तु य आंगिरस उच्यत इति॥

c8.s2.61

Shaḍguruśishya continues:

c8.s2.62

“The pupil of Śaunaka was the Reverend Âśvalâyana. He, having learned from Śaunaka all sacred knowledge, made also a Sûtra and taught it, thinking it would improve the understanding and please Śaunaka. Then, in order to please his pupil, Śaunaka destroyed his own Sûtra¹, which consisted of a thousand parts and was more like a Brâhmaṇa. ‘This Sûtra,’ he said, ‘which Âśvalâyana has made and taught, shall be the Sûtra for this Veda.’”

c8.s2.63

¹ विपाटितं means “torn,” and corresponds with Sûtra, “a thread.” A similar expression is विच्छिन्नं, which is applied, for instance, to the Mahâbhâshya, when it fell into disuse in Kashmir. See Râjataranginî, Histoire des Rois du Kashmire, traduite et commentée par M. A. Troyer, iv. 487.; and Böhtlingk, Pâṇini, p. xvi. The true sense seems to be that in which Devarâjayajvan uses विच्छिन्न in such passages as तच्चाध्ययनं कलियुगे प्रायेण विच्छिन्नसंप्रदायमासीत्॥ A work was lost when the chain of the oral tradition was broken.

c8.s2.64

altogether ten books of Śaunaka, written for the preservation of the Rig-veda; 1. The index of the Rishis; 2. The index of the Metres; 3. The index of the Deities; 4. The index of the Anuvâkas; 5. The index of the Sûktas; 6. The Vidhâna (employment) of the Rich-verses; 7. The employment of the Pâdas¹; 8. The Bârhaddaivata; 9. The Prâtiśâkhya² of the Śaunakas; 10. His Smârta work on matters of law.³ Âśvalâyana having learnt all these ten Sûtras, and knowing also the Gotras, (genealogies⁴), became versed in all the sacrifices by the favour of Śaunaka. The sage Kâtyâyana had thirteen books before him: ten of Śaunaka and three of his pupil Âśvalâyana.⁵ The latter consisted of the Sûtras in twelve chapters, (Śrauta-sûtra), the Gṛihya-sûtras in four chapters, and the fourth Āraṇyaka (of the Aitareyāraṇyaka) by Āśvalāyana. The sage Kātyāyana, having mastered the thirteen¹ books of Śaunaka and of his pupil, composed several works himself; the Sûtras of the Vājins², the Upagrantha³ of the Sāma-veda, the Ślokas⁴ of the Smṛiti (the Karmapradīpa), the Brahma-Kārikās of the Atharvans⁵, and the Mahāvārttika⁶, which was like a boat on the great ocean of Pāṇini’s Grammar. The rules promulgated by him were explained by the Reverend Patañjali⁷, the teacher of the Yoga-philosophy, himself the author of the Yoga-śāstra and the Nidāna, a man highly pleased by the great commentary, the work of the descendant of Śantanu. Now it was Kātyāyana, the great sage, endowed with these numerous excellencies, who composed, by great exertion, this Sarvānukramaṇī. And because it gives the substance of all the works composed by Śaunaka and his pupils, therefore the chief among the Bahvṛichas have called it the General Index.”

c8.s2.65

¹ I read विधाने च, because these must be two different works, the Rigvidhâna and Pâdavidhâna, in order to complete the number of ten. The Rigvidhâna exists in MS. (E. I. H. 1723), and is not only written in Śaunaka's mixed Ślokas, but distinctly ascribed to him in the second verse: कर्मणामृषिदृष्टानां विधिं प्रोवाच शौनकः। The book ends with the words शौनकाय नमः। Nevertheless, in the form in which we have it, it is later than Śaunaka. The term Rigvidhâna is mentioned in the Taittirîyâranyaka.

c8.s2.66

² This must be the Prâtiśâkhya of the Rig-veda, and not of the Atharva-veda, which is likewise ascribed to Śaunaka, the Châturadhyâyikam Śaunakîyam.

c8.s2.67

³ See Stenzler, Indische Studien, i. p. 243.

c8.s2.68

⁴ साक्षतगोत्रजः is unintelligible. Should it be व्याक्षतगोत्रजः?

c8.s2.69

⁵ All the works of Âśvalâyana still exist, as Shadguruśishya describes them. Instead of चतुष्पद्यं, it would be better to read चतुष्कं गृह्यं।

c8.s2.70

¹ If this number is right, Śaunaka’s Śrauta-sûtra could not have been destroyed at the time of Kātyāyana.

c8.s2.71

² The Kalpa-sûtras of the Yajur-veda. On the Vājins or Vājasaneyins, see Colebrooke, Essays, i. 16.

c8.s2.72

³ See page 210. Upagrantha is not to be taken in the sense of Pariśiṣṭa.

c8.s2.73

⁴ Bhrājamāna, is unintelligible; it may be Pārshada.

c8.s2.74

⁵ These Kārikās have not yet been met with.

c8.s2.75

⁶ The Vārttikās to Pāṇini.

c8.s2.76

⁷ Patañjali, the author of the Mahābhāshya, according to tradition called by the name of Bhartṛihari also, was the reputed author of the Yoga-sûtras. On these a commentary was written by Vyāsa, who might be called a descendant of Śantanu. The reading may not be quite correct, and Mahābhāshya is more likely to refer to Patañjali’s own work; but the dental n of the MSS. speaks rather in favour of the reading mahābhāgyena.

c8.s2.77

भरद्वाजसुतो जज्ञे शुनहोत्रो महामुनिः। शुनहोत्रस्तस्य जज्ञे सर्वलोकस्य पश्यतः॥ इंद्रो जगाम प्रीत्यर्थमृषेर्यज्ञमपि खयं। इंद्रमेकाकिनं मत्वा जिघृक्षंतो महासुराः॥ परिवव्रुर्यज्ञवाटं तदिंद्रोऽप्यनबुध्यत। इंद्रोऽपि यजमानस्य वेषमास्थाय निर्गतः॥ यजमानं पुनर्दृष्ट्वा जग्मुस्ते महासुराः। शुनहोत्रमिंद्रबुद्ध्या यजनीयं ददर्श सः॥ नाहमिंद्रः स एवाह नाहमित्यनुवर्णयन्। मुक्तस्तुरैरेंद्र आह्वयैवमुवाच ह॥ गृण्हादयसे यस्मात्तस्माद्गृत्समदं ऋषे। इंद्रखेंद्रियमित्येतन्नाम्ना सूक्तं भविष्यति॥ त्वं तु भूत्वा भृगुकुले शुनकाच्छौनको भव। एतत्सूक्तयुतं पश्य द्वितीयं मंडलं पुनः॥ स इंद्रचोदितो जातः पुनर्गृत्समदो मुनिः। सजनीययुतं यो वै द्वितीयं मंडलं महत्॥ ददर्श यस्मै चाचष्टे सचे द्वादशवार्षिके। वेदव्यासप्रसादेन रोमहर्षणनंदनः॥

c8.s2.78

¹ अनबुध्यत Ch. 192. Weber, Catalogue, p. 12.

c8.s2.79

² वेवं Ch. 192., W. 379. वेषं?

c8.s2.80

³ गृत्समदो Ch., W.

c8.s2.81

⁴ त नाम्ना Ch., W.

c8.s2.82

⁵ Rv. II. 12., the Sûkta with the refrain, “sa janâsa indrah.

c8.s2.83

⁶ वाचस्ते Ch., W.

c8.s2.84

उग्रश्रवा व्यासशिष्यः कर्ममध्ये महर्षये। महाभारतमाख्यानं हरिवंशकथान्वितं॥

c8.s2.85

वेदव्यासैकविज्ञेयं महागुणगणान्वितं। हरिप्रियं श्रुतिसुखं कर्ममध्ये महर्द्धिमत्॥

c8.s2.86

आसीद्गृहपतिर्यो वै नैमिषारण्यवासिनां। शतानीकाय राज्ञे यो जनमेजयसूनवे॥

c8.s2.87

उपानयद्विष्णुधर्मान् साक्षात्करकरां हरेः। स शौनकौ मुनिगतो श्रूमाणो महायशाः॥

c8.s2.88

द्वितीयं मंडलं दृष्ट्वा श्रुतभारतसंहितः। संसाराब्धिमहापोतविष्णुधर्मप्रवर्त्तकः॥

c8.s2.89

एकविंशतिशाखस्थ बहुर्चस्य महर्षिभिः। कल्पितः कल्पितारोऽभूदृग्वेद इव पारगः॥

c8.s2.90

शाकलस्य संहितैका बाष्कलस्य तथाहरा। ते संहिते समाश्रित्य ब्राह्मणान्येकविंशतिः॥

c8.s2.91

ऐतरेयकमाश्रित्य तदेवान्यैः प्रपूरयन्। कल्पसूत्रं चकाराद्यं महर्षिगणपूजितः॥

c8.s2.92

शौनकस्य तु शिष्योऽभूद्भगवानाश्वलायनः। स तस्मात्कृतसर्वज्ञः सूत्रं कृत्वा न्यवेदयत्॥

c8.s2.93

¹ से क Ch., W.

c8.s2.94

² द्धि धर्मात् W. द्धु धर्मान् Ch.

c8.s2.95

³ करां Ch., W.

c8.s2.96

⁴ दृष्ट्वा W.

c8.s2.97

⁵ ता W., Ch.

c8.s2.98

⁶ खास्थ W., Ch.

c8.s2.99

⁷ नः W.

c8.s2.100

⁸ द्य Ch., W.

c8.s2.101

⁹ गुण Ch., W.

c8.s2.102

¹⁰ यन् Ch., W.

c8.s2.103

प्रबोधपरिशुद्धयर्थं शौनकस्य प्रियं त्विति। सहस्रखंडं स्वकृतं सूत्रं ब्राह्मणमनिभं॥ शिष्याश्वलायनप्रीतयै शौनकेन विपाटितं। उक्तं तत्तत्कृतं सूत्रमस्य वेदस्य चास्खिति॥ शौनकीया दश ग्रंथास्तदा ऋग्वेदगुप्तये। आर्षानुक्रमणीत्याद्या छंदसी दैवती तथा॥ अनुवाकानुक्रमणी सूक्तानुकमणी तथा। ऋक्पादयोर्विधाने च बार्हदैवतमेव च॥ प्रातिशाख्यं शौनकीयं स्मार्तं दशममुच्यते। स सूत्रदशकं ज्ञात्वा तया साङ्गतगोत्रजः॥ शौनकस्य प्रसादेन कर्मज्ञः समपद्यत। कात्यायनमुनिर्मेने त्रयोदशकमच तु॥ शौनकीयं च दशकं तद्विष्यस्य त्रिकं तथा। द्वादशाध्यायकं सूत्रं चतुष्कगृह्यमेव च॥ चतुर्थरव्यकं चेति ह्याश्वलायनसूचकं। सशिष्यशौनकाचार्यत्रयोदशकविन्मुनिः॥ वाजिनां सूत्रकृत्साम्नामुपग्रंथस्य कारकः। स्मृतेश्च कर्ता श्लोकानां भाजमानां च कारकः॥ अथर्वणां निर्ममे यः सम्यग्वै ब्राह्मकारिकाः। महावार्त्तिकनौकारः पाणिनीयमहार्णवे॥

c8.s2.104

¹ ने न W. Ch.

c8.s2.105

² तया W. Ch.

c8.s2.106

³ साङ्गतगोत्रजः W., साङ्गतगोत्रज Ch.

c8.s2.107

⁴ चातुष्क W.

c8.s2.108

⁵ पार्षदस्य ?

c8.s2.109

यत्प्रणीतानि वाक्यानि भगवांस्तु पतंजलिः। व्याख्यच्चांतनवीयेन महाभाष्येन हर्षितः॥ योगाचार्यः स्वयं कर्ता योगशास्त्रनिदानयोः। एवंगुणगणैर्युक्तः कात्यायनमहामुनिः॥ तपयोगात्निर्ममे यः सर्वानुक्रमणीमिमां। सशिष्यशौनकआचार्यसर्वग्रंथार्थवर्तनात्॥ प्राङ्बृहच्चसिंहास्तु सर्वानुक्रमणीमिमां। &c.

c8.s2.110

If we accept this statement of Shaḍguruśishya,—and it certainly seems to agree in the main with what we might have guessed from the character of the works, ascribed respectively to Śaunaka, Āśvalāyana and Kātyāyana,—we should have to admit at least five generations of teachers and pupils: first Śaunaka; after him Āśvalāyana, in whose favour Śaunaka is said to have destroyed one of his works; thirdly, Kātyāyana, who studied the works both of Śaunaka and Āśvalāyana; fourthly Patanjali, who wrote a commentary on one of Kātyāyana’s works; and lastly Vyāsa, who commented on a work of Patanjali. It does not follow that Kātyāyana was a pupil of Āśvalāyana, or that Patanjali lived immediately after Kātyāyana, but the smallest interval which we can admit between every two of these names is that between teacher and pupil, an interval as large as that between father and son, or rather larger. The question now arises: Can the date of any one of these authors be fixed chronologically?

c8.s2.111

Before we attempt to answer this question, it will be necessary to establish the identity of Kātyāyana and Vararuchi. Kâtyâyana was the author of the Sarvânukramanî, and the same work is quoted as the Sarvânukramanî of Vararuchi¹, the compiler of the doctrines of Śaunaka. In Professor Wilson's Catalogue of the Mackenzie Collection, a Prâtiśâkhya is ascribed to Vararuchi, and this can hardly be anything else but the Mâdhyandina-prâtiśâkhya of Kâtyâyana. Hemachandra in his Dictionary gives Vararuchi as a synonyme of Kâtyâyana without any further comment, just as he gives Śâlaturîya as a synonyme of Pânini.

c8.s2.112

¹ तदंजलिः Ch. W.

c8.s2.113

² क्कांतयनीयेत W., क्कांतपनीयेन Ch.

c8.s2.114

³ भाष्येण or भाग्येन?

c8.s2.115

¹ MS. E. I. H. 576. contains a commentary on the Rig-veda, where a passage from the Sarvânukramanî is quoted as शौनकदिमतसंग्रहीतुर्वररुचेरनुक्रमणिका॥ This commentary of Âtmânanda seems anterior to Sâyaṇa. In the introduction different works and commentaries, connected with the Veda are quoted, but Mâdhava and Sâyaṇa are never mentioned. We find the Skândabhâshya, and commentators such as Udgîtha-bhâskara, mentioned (स्कान्दभाष्यादिषु भाष्यकारैरुद्गीथभास्करादिभिः) by Âtmânanda, and the same works were known also to Devarâjayajvan. Devarâjayajvan, however, quotes not only Skandasvâmin and Bhaṭṭa-bhâskara-miśra, but also Mâdhava. He therefore was later than Mâdhava. Skandasvâmin, and Bhâskara, on the contrary, were anterior to Mâdhava, being quoted in his commentary. Âtmânanda, though not quoted by Mâdhava, seems anterior to Mâdhava, and the authorities which he quotes are such as Śaunaka, Vedamitra (Śâkalya), the Bṛihaddevatâ, Vishṇudharmottara, and Yâska.

c8.s2.116

Let us now consider the information which we receive about Kâtyâyana Vararuchi from Brahmanic sources. Somadevabhaṭṭa of Kashmir collected the popular stories current in his time, and published them towards the beginning of the twelfth century under the title of Kathâ-sarit-sâgara², the Ocean of the Rivers of Stories. Here we read that Kâtyâyana Vararuchi, being cursed by the wife of Śiva, was born at Kauśambî, the capital of Vatsa. He was a boy of great talent and extraordinary powers of memory. He was able to repeat to his mother an entire play, after hearing it once at the theatre; and before he was even initiated he was able to repeat the Prâtiśâkhya which he had heard from Vyâḷi. He was afterwards the pupil of Varsha, became proficient in all sacred knowledge, and actually defeated Pâṇini in a grammatical controversy. By the interference of Śiva, however, the final victory fell to Pâṇini. Kâtyâyana had to appease the anger of Śiva, became himself a student of Pâṇini’s Grammar, and completed and corrected it. He afterwards is said to have become minister of King Nanda and his mysterious successor Yogananda at Pâṭaliputra.

c8.s2.117

² Kathâ-sarit-sâgara, edited by Dr. Hermann Brockhaus. Leipzig, 1839.

c8.s2.118

We know that Kâtyâyana completed and corrected Pâṇini’s Grammar, such as we now possess it.¹ His Vârttikas are supplementary rules, which show a more extensive and accurate knowledge of Sanskrit than even the work of Pâṇini. The story of the contest between them was most likely intended as a mythical way of explaining this fact. Again we know that Kâtyâyana was himself the author of one of the Prâtiśâkhyas, and Vyaḷi is quoted by the authors of the Prâtiśâkhyas as an earlier authority on the same subject.² So far the story of Somadeva agrees with the account of Shaḍguruśishya and with the facts as we still find them in the works of Kâtyâyana. It would be wrong to expect in a work like that of Somadeva historical and chronological facts in the strict sense of the word; yet the mention of King Nanda, who is an historical personage, in connection with our grammarian, may, if properly interpreted, help to fix approximately the date of Kâtyâyana and his predecessors, Śaunaka and Âśvalâyana. If Somadeva followed the same chronological system as his contemporary and countryman, Kalhaṇa Paṇḍita, the author of the Râjataranginî or History of Kashmir, he would, in calling Pâṇini and Kâtyâyana, the contemporaries of Nanda and Chandragupta, have placed them long before the times which we are wont to call historical.¹ But the name of Chandragupta fortunately enables us to check the extravagant systems of Indian chronology. Chandragupta, of Pâṭaliputra, the successor of the Nandas, is Sandrocottus, of Palibothra, to whom Megasthenes was sent as ambassador from Seleucus Nicator; and, if our classical chronology is right, he must have been king at the turning point of the fourth and third centuries B.C. We shall have to examine hereafter the different accounts which the Buddhists and Brahmans give of Chandragupta and his relation to the preceding dynasty of the Nandas. Suffice it for the present that if Chandragupta was king in 315, Kâtyâyana may be placed, according to our interpretation of Somadeva’s story, in the second half of the fourth century B.C. We may disregard the story of Somadeva, which actually makes Kâtyâyana himself minister of Nanda, and thus would make him an old man at the time of Chandragupta’s accession to the throne. This is, according to its own showing, a mere episode in a ghost story¹, and had to be inserted in order to connect Kâtyâyana’s story with other fables of the Kathâ-sarit-sâgara. But there still remains this one fact, however slender it may appear, that as late as the twelfth century A.D., the popular tradition of the Brahmans connected the famous grammarians Kâtyâyana and Pânini with that period of their history which immediately preceded the rise of Chandragupta and his Śûdra dynasty; and this, from an European point of view, we must place in the second half of the fourth century B.C.

c8.s2.119

¹ The same question with regard to the probable age of Pâṇini, has been discussed by Prof. Böhtlingk in his edition of Pâṇini. Objections to Prof. Böhtlingk’s arguments have been raised by Prof. Weber in his Indische Studien. See also Rig-veda, Leipzig, 1857, Introduction.

c8.s2.120

² Cf. Rig-veda, Leipzig, 1857, p. lxvii.

c8.s2.121

¹ Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, ii. 18.

c8.s2.122

¹ According to the southern Buddhists it was Chandragupta, and not Nanda, whose corpse was reanimated. As. Res. xx. p. 167.

c8.s2.123

The question now arises, can this conjectural date, assigned to Kâtyâyana, be strengthened by additional evidence? Professor Böhtlingk thought that this was possible; and he endeavoured to show that the great Commentary of Patanjali, which embraces both the Vârttikâs of Kâtyâyana and the Sûtras of Pânini, was known in the middle of the second century B.C. It is said in the history of Kashmir, that Abhimanyu, the king of Kashmir, sent for Brahmans to teach the Mahâbhâshya in his kingdom. Abhimanyu, it is true, did not reign, as Professor Böhtlingk supposed, in the second century B.C., but, as has been proved from coins by Professor Lassen, in the first century A.D. But even thus this argument is important. In the history of Indian literature dates are mostly so precarious that a confirmation even within a century or two is not to be despised. The fact that Patanjali’s immense commentary on Pânini and Kâtyâyana had become so famous as to be imported by royal authority into Kashmir in the first half of the first century A.D., shows at least that we cannot be very far wrong in placing the composition of the original grammar and of the supplementary rules of Kâtyâyana on the threshold of the third century B.C. At what time the Mahâbhâshya was first composed it is impossible to say. Patanjali, the author of the Great Commentary, is sometimes identified with Pingala; and on this view, as Pingala is called the younger brother, or at least the descendant of Pânini¹, it might be supposed that the original composition of the Mahâbhâshya belonged to the third century. But the identity of Pingala and Patanjali is far from probable, and it would be rash to use it as a foundation for other calculations.

c8.s2.124

¹ Shadguruśishya: तथा च सूच्यते हि भगवता पिंगलेन पाणिन्यनुजेन॥

c8.s2.125

It will readily be seen how entirely hypothetical all these arguments are. If they possess any force it is this, that in spite of the conflicting statements of Brahmanical, Buddhist, and European scholars, nothing has been brought forward as yet that would render the date here assigned to Kâtyâyana impossible. Nay more;—if we place Kâtyâyana in the second half of the fourth century, Âsvalâyana, the predecessor of Kâtyâyana, about 350, and Saunaka, the teacher of Âsvalâyana, about 400; and if then, considering the writers of Sûtras anterior to Saunaka and posterior to Kâtyâyana, we extend the limits of the Sautra period of literature from 600 to 200, we are still able to say, that there is no fact in history or literature that would interfere with such an arrangement. As an experiment, therefore, though as no more than an experiment, we propose to fix the years 600 and 200 B.C. as the limits of that age during which the Brahmanic literature was carried on in the strange style of Sûtras.

c8.s2.126

In order to try the strength of our supposition we shall ourselves attempt the first attack upon it.

c8.s2.127

There is a work called the Uṇâdi-sûtras, which, as it is quoted under this name by Pāṇini, must have existed previous to his time. The author is not known. Among the words the formation of which is taught in the Uṇâdi-sûtras,¹ we find (iii. 140) dînâraḥ, a golden ornament; (iii. 2) Jinaḥ, synonymous with Arhat, a Buddhist saint; (iv. 184) tirîṭam, a golden diadem; (iii. 25) stûpaḥ, a pile of earth.

c8.s2.128

¹ A new and more correct edition of the Uṇâdi-sûtras has lately been published by Dr. Aufrecht, Bonn, 1859.

c8.s2.129

The first of these words, dînâra, is derived by the author of the Uṇâdi-sûtras from a Sanskrit root, dîn. By other grammarians it is derived from dîna, poor, and ri, to go, what goes or is given to the poor. It is used sometimes in the sense of ornaments and seals of gold. These derivations, however, are clearly fanciful, and the Sanskrit dînâra is in reality the Latin denarius.² Now, if Pāṇini lived in the middle of the fourth century B.C., and if the Uṇâdi-sûtras were anterior to Pāṇini, how could this Roman word have found its way into the Uṇâdi-sûtras? The word denarius is not of so late a date in India as is generally supposed. Yet the earliest document where it occurs is the Sanchi inscription No. I.¹ Burnouf remarked that he never found the word dînâra used in what he considered the ancient Buddhist Sûtras. It occurs in the Avadâna-śataka, and in the Divyâvadâna. It would seem to follow, therefore, either that the Uṇâdi-sûtras and Pâṇini must be placed later than Chandragupta, or that the Sûtra in which this word is explained is spurious. It would not be right to adopt the latter supposition without showing some cause for it. It is well known that in a literature which is chiefly preserved by oral tradition, corrections and additions are more easily admitted than in works existing in MS. The ancient literature of India was continually learnt by heart; and even at the present day, when MSS. have become so common, some of its more sacred portions must still be acquired by the pupil from the mouth of a teacher, and not from MSS. If new words, therefore, had been added to the language of India after the first composition of the Uṇâdi-sûtras, there would be nothing surprising in a Sûtra being added to explain such words. Happily, however, we are not left in this instance to mere hypothesis. Ujjvaladatta, the author of a commentary on the Uṇâdi-sûtras, forms a favourable exception to most Sanskrit commentators, in so far as he gives us in his Commentary some critical remarks on the readings of MSS. which he consulted. He states in his introduction that he had consulted old MSS. and commentaries, and he evidently feels conscious of the merit of his work, when he says, "If anybody, after having studied this commentary of mine, suppresses my name in order to put forth his own power, his virtuous deeds will perish."¹ Now in his remarks on our Sûtra, Ujjvaladatta says, "Dinâra means a gold ornament, but this Sûtra is not to be found in the Sûtivṛtti and Devavṛtti."² If, therefore, the presence of this word in the Uṇādi-sûtras would have overthrown our calculations as to the age of Pāṇini and his predecessor who wrote the Sûtras, the absence of it except in one Sûtra, which is proved to be of later date, must serve to confirm our opinion. Cosmas Indicopleustes remarked that the Roman denarius was received all over the world; and how the denarius came to mean in India a gold ornament we may learn from a passage in the "Life of Mahâvîra."³ There it is said that a lady had around her neck a string of grains and golden dinars, and Stevenson adds that the custom of stringing coins together, and adorning with them children especially, is still very common in India.

c8.s2.130

² J. Prinsep says: "The Roman denarius, from which Dinâr was derived, was itself of silver, while the Persian Dirhem (a silver coin) represents the Drachma, or dram weight, of the Greeks. The weight allowed to the Dinar of 32 ratis, or 64 grains, agrees so closely with the Roman and Greek unit of 60 grains, that its identity cannot be doubted, especially when we have before us the actual gold coins of Chandragupta (?) (didrachmas), weighing from 120 to 130 grains, and indubitably copied from Greek originals, in device as well as weight."

c8.s2.131

¹ Journal A. S. B., vol. vi. p. 455. Notes on the facsimiles of the inscriptions from Sanchi near Bhilsa, by James Prinsep.

c8.s2.132

¹ यो ऽमुं वृत्तिं समालोच्य स्वपौरुषसमीहया। मन्नामाच्छादनं कुर्यात्सुकृतं तस्य नश्यति॥

c8.s2.133

² सूत्रमिदं सूतीवृत्तौ (सतीवृत्तौ?) देववृत्तौ च न दृश्यते॥

c8.s2.134

³ Kalpa-sûtra, translated by Stevenson, p. 45.

c8.s2.135

That Ujjvaladatta may be depended upon when he makes such statements with regard to MSS. or commentaries, collated by himself, can be proved by another instance. In the Uṇādi-Sûtras IV. 184, we read: "kṛtṛikṛpibhyaḥ kiṭan." Out of the three words of which the etymology is given in this Sûtra, kṛpiṭam, water, and kiriṭam, a crest, are known as ancient words. The former occurs in the Gaṇa Kṛipaṇâdi (Pâṇ. VIII. 2. 18. 1.); the other in the Gaṇa arddharchâdi. The third word, however, tiriṭa, a tiara, has never been met with in works previous to Pâṇini. Now, with regard to this word, Ujjvaladatta observes that it is left out in the Nyâsa.¹ The authority of this work, a commentary by Jinendra on the Kâśikâvṛitti, would, by itself, be hardly of sufficient weight; but on referring to the MS. of Mahâbhâshya at the Bodleian Library, I find that there also the Sûtra is quoted exactly as Ujjvaladatta said, i. e. without the root from which tiriṭa is derived. Having thus found Ujjvaladatta trustworthy and accurate in his critical remarks, we feel inclined to accept his word, even where we cannot control him, or where the presence of certain words in the Sûtras might be explained without having recourse to later interpolations. Thus stûpaḥ, which occurs III. 25, might be explained as simply meaning a heap of earth. Nay, it is a word which, in its more general sense, is found in the Veda. Yet the most common meaning of stûpa is a Buddhist monument, and as we are told by Ujjvala, that this word does not occur in the Satîvṛitti, and that in the Sarvasva it is derived in a different manner, we can have little doubt that it was not added till after the general

First 135 of 141 passages. Read on

Linked texts (35)