A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s2.129

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.