Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The History of Indian Literature c10: Supplementary Notes

The History of Indian Literature c10

Language
English

Supplementary Notes

c10.2

P. 9, ₃₆ ff. (and 64, ₂₉ ff.). Burnell, in his preface to the Ársheya-Br. (Mangalore, 1876), p. xvi. ff., and Aufrecht, *Hymnen des Rigveda* (Bonn, 1877), Pref. pp. xvi., xvii., dispute the superior antiquity of the readings of the Sáma-Samhitá, as compared with those of the Ṛik-Samhitá.

c10.3

P. 25, note ¹⁷, and p. 67, note ⁵⁶. On the Śikshás see Kielhorn's paper in the *Ind. Antiq.*, v. 141 ff., 193 ff., and my comments thereon, *ibid.*, p. 253.

c10.4

P. 32, note ²¹. On the Váshkalas somewhat more light has now been cast. In the first place, from a comparison of the *káriká* quoted in my Catal. of the Berlin Sansk. MSS., p. 314, ‘*Śákalánám samání va ity ṛichá ’ntyá ”hutir bhavet* | *Báshkalánáṃ tu tachhamyor ity ṛichá ’ntyáhutir bhavet*,’ it results that the citation in the forty-eighth Atharva-pariśishṭa (see *I. St.*, iv. 431) of the *śamyuváka* as the concluding verse of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá has reference to the Váshkala-recension of the latter. Next, it becomes evident that this recension stood in a special relation to the Śáñkháyana texts, since in the Śáñkh. Gṛih., 4. 5. 9, the same verse is cited as the concluding one of the Samhitá, and this expressly as the view of Kaushítaki. In addition to this we have the fact that the *pratíka* of the whole section to which this verse belongs, and which forms the last *khila*—*samjñána*—in the vulgate recension of the Ṛik-Samhitá, is found cited in the Śáñkháy.-Śrauta-Sútra, 3. 6. 4, but is wanting in the parallel passage, Áśval., 2, 11. And, lastly, we shall probably also have to allot to the Váshkalas the eleven hymns—ten *Áśvináni* and one *Aindrávaruṇam súktam*—which, as Rud. Meyer has recently pointed out (Rigvidhána, Praef., p. xxiv.), are cited in the Bṛihaddevatá, 3. 24, between Ṛik-Saṃh., i. 73 and 74. For, according to Meyer, their *pratíkas* prove to be identical with those given by the scholiast on Śáṅkh. Śr., 9. 20. 14, for the ‘*triśataṃ suparṇam*’ there mentioned in the text, which again is specified under this name in the Śáṅkh. Br. itself (18. 4) as part of the Áśvina-śastra. Probably, too, the other portions of text, which, as stated by Meyer (*l. c.*, p. xxv. ff.), appear in the Bṛihaddevatá as well as in the Ṛigvidhána, as belonging to the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, whereas they are found neither in the vulgate—the Śákala-Saṃhitá—itself, nor in its *khila* portions, will have to be assigned to the Váshkalas. In point of fact, the *saṃjñána khila* also, to which (see above) the concluding verse of the Váshkala-Saṃhitá belongs, is mentioned in both texts (Meyer, p. xxii.). An exact comparison of the Ṛik-verses cited in the Sáṅkháyana texts will probably throw full light upon this point.—In Bühler's letter from Kashmír (published in *I. St.*, xiv. 402 ff.) the interesting information was given that he had there discovered an excellent *bhúrja*-MS., some five to six hundred years old, of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá in the Śákala recension. This MS. is accentuated, whereas the Kashmír Vedic MSS. are not wont to be so, but the accent is denoted in a totally different manner from that customary in India, the *udátta* alone being marked by a perpendicular line, precisely as, according to Haug, is usual in one of the two schools of the Maitráyaṇí Saṃhitá, and as we ourselves do; cf. my remarks in the *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1875, p. 315. On this MS. see now the detailed report of Bühler's journey in the *Journal Bomb. Br. R. A. S.*, 1877, extra No., pp. 35, 36.

c10.5

Pp. 35, 36, note §. See also Myriantheus, *Die Aśvins* (Munich, 1876), and James Darmesteter, *Ormazd et Ahriman* (Paris, 1877).

c10.6

P. 41, note ²⁹. See Alfred Hillebrandt, *Varuṇa und Mitra, ein Beitrag zur Exegese des Veda* (Breslau, 1877).

c10.7

P. 43, note ³². Max Müller's issue of the text alone of the Ṛik has now appeared in a second edition (London, 1877). *Saṃhitá-páṭha* and *pada-páṭha* are here printed on opposite pages. Respecting the latter it has to be remarked that, as in Müller's previous editions, so again in this one the so-called *galitas* are in no way marked, the text which a particular passage shows the first time it occurs being uniformly simply repeated, without any reference to what is done in the MSS. themselves in these cases. This is all the more surprising as, after I had pointed out this defect, in my review of the last volume of his large edition in the *Lit. Cent. Blatt*, 17th April 1875, Müller himself, in an article which appeared in the same periodical a year and a half later (16th December 1876) fully recognised the critical importance of the *galitas*.—Aufrecht's edition has also been reprinted (Bonn, 1877): the preface (comp. desideratum at note 28) contains a variety of critical remarks.—Complete translations of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, by Alfred Ludwig (Prag, 1876) and Hermann Grassmann (Leipzig, 1876–77) have appeared.—Very meritorious, also, is the edition of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá which is appearing in monthly numbers at Bombay, under the title ‘Vedárthayatna,’ with English and Mahráṭhí translation, as well as with Mahráṭhí commentary: the latest No. brings it down to i. 100. The name of the excellent editor, Shankar Paṇḍit, is an open secret.—Lastly, there remains to be mentioned M. Haug’s *Vedische Räthselfragen und Räthselsprüche* (Ṛik, i. 164, 1876).

c10.8

P. 48, note 33b. Rájendra Lála Mitra's edition, in the *Bibl. Indica*, of the Áitareya-Áraṇyaka with Sáyaṇa's commentary, has now been completed. A MS. acquired by Bühler in Kashmír shows a number of variations; see his Report of Journey, *l. c.*, p. 34.

c10.9

P. 50, 6 (cf. p. 285). Pañchálachaṇḍa appears in a Páli Sutta among the *mahásenápatis* of the *Yakkhas*; for the conclusions to be drawn from this see *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 7th April 1877, p. 221.

c10.10

P. 56, 8. The Śáṅkh. Gṛih. (4. 10. 3) inserts between Viśvámitra and Vámadeva, the two representatives of the third and fourth *maṇḍalas*, the name of Jamadagni, to whom in the Anukramaṇí to the Śákala-Saṃhitá only the last three verses of the third *maṇḍala* (iii. 62, 16–18) are in this place ascribed,—but in addition to these, also five entire hymns and four separate verses in the last three *maṇḍalas*. Have we here also to do with a divergence of the Váshkala school? (In Śáṅkh. Gṛih., 4. 5. 8, however, there is no trace of this variation from the vulgate; rather, the verse iii. 62. 18 appears there as the concluding verse of the third *maṇḍala*.)

c10.11

P. 58, note ⁵⁰. The Śáṅkh. Gṛihya has been published, with translation and notes, by Herm. Oldenberg; see *I. St.*, xv. 1–166. There exists also another recension of it, which is designated as Kaushítaka-Gṛihya, but which, according to Oldenberg, is rather to be understood as Śámbavya-Gṛihya. Its text is ‘nowise identical’ with the Śáṅkh. Gṛih., ‘but it has borrowed from the latter by far the greatest part both of its matter and form.’ The last two books of the Śáṅkh. Gṛih. are not used in it, and a great deal is lacking besides.

c10.12

P. 61, note *. On the Jyotisha a very meritorious work has just appeared by G. Thibaut.

c10.13

P. 62, 6, 26 ff. On the Bṛihaddevatá and Ṛigvidhána see R. Meyer’s edition of the latter work (Berlin, 1877).

c10.14

P. 65, 28. The forty-eighth Atharva-pariśishṭa, see *I. St.*, iv. 432, gives indeed the same beginning, but a different concluding verse to the Sáma-Saṃhitá, namely, the last verse but one of the *first* part of the vulgate; accordingly, it did not reckon the second part as belonging to the Saṃhitá at all, while for the first part also it presents the discrepancy stated.

c10.15

P. 65, note ⁶⁰. The Áraṇya-Saṃhitá, with Sáyaṇa’s commentary, has been edited by Satyavrata Sámáśramin, and that in a double form, namely, separately (Calcutta, 1873), and also in the second part of his large edition of the Sáma-Saṃhitá, p. 244 ff.

c10.16

P. 66, note ⁶¹. This edition of the Sáma-Saṃhitá, in the *Bibl. Indica*, has now reached, in its fifth volume, as far as 2. 8. 2. 5.

c10.17

Pp. 73, 74. The Talavakára- or Jaiminíya-Bráhmaṇa, to which the Kenopan. belongs, has been recovered by Burnell (letter of 19th April). Also a Sámaveda-Prátiśákhya.

c10.18

Pp. 74, 75, notes ⁷¹, ⁷². The Ársheya-Bráhmaṇa and Saṃhitopanishad-Bráhmaṇa have also been edited by Burnell (Mangalore, 1876, 1877); the former with a lengthy introduction containing an inquiry into the Gánas, the secondary origin of the Saṃhitá from these, the chanting of the *sámans*, &c. On this compare A. Barth’s detailed notice in the *Revue Critique*, 21st July 1877, pp. 17–27. The Ársheya-Bráhmaṇa has, further, just been issued a second time by Burnell, namely, in the text of the Jaiminíya school, which he had meanwhile recovered (Mangalore, 1878).

c10.19

Pp. 99–101. According to the catalogue (1876) of M. Haug's collection of MSS., there are now in the Royal Library at Munich, with which this collection was incorporated in the spring of 1877, not only two MSS. of the Maitráyaṇí Saṃhitá, but also several more or less complete, but, unfortunately, in great part modern, copies of Ápastamba, Mánava, Bháradvája, Baudháyana, Vaikhánasa, Hiraṇyakeśin.—The description (in notes 108, 109) of the Dharma-Sútras as part of the Śrauta-Sútras is not quite correct; rather both are portions, possessing an equal title, of a collective Sútra-whole, to which in each case there also belonged a Gṛihya- and a Śulva-Sútra, and which we might perhaps designate by the name of Kalpa-Sútra.—[The North-Western origin of the Kaṭha school (cf. *Κάθαια*, *I. St.*, xiii. 439) is also, in a certain measure, attested by the fact that, according to Bühler's letter from Kashmír (dated September 1875, published in *I. St.*, xiv. 402 ff.) on the results of his search for MSS. in that province, this school is still in the present day the prevailing one in Kashmír. The Brahmans there call themselves, it is true, *chaturvedí*, but they follow the rules of the Káṭhaka-Gṛihya-Sútra of Laugákshi. Besides portions of all the Vedas, the Bhaṭṭas learn by heart the Paddhati of Devapála, the commentary and *prayoga* to the Káṭhaka-Gṛihya. 'Of these Gṛihyas I have acquired several MSS., among them an old one on *bhúrja*. To the Káṭhaka-Sútra are attached a Pravarádhyáya, an Ársha, the Cháráyaṇíyá Śikshá, and several other Pariśishṭas.'—*Additional note in second German edition.*] According to Bühler, *Z. D. M. G.*, xxii. 327, the Dharma-Sútra of the Káṭhaka school is identical with the Vishṇu-Smṛiti. On this, and on the Káṭhaka school in Kashmír generally, see now Bühler, Report of Journey, *l. c.*, pp. 20, 36, 37.

c10.20

P. 103, note ¹¹⁶. The Taitt. Prátiśákhya has also been edited in the *Bibl. Indica* by Rájendra Lála Mitra (1872).

c10.21

Pp. 117, 118. The forty-eighth Atharva-Pariśishṭa specifies a recension of the Váj. Saṃh., which begins with 1. 1, but which ends with 23. 32! See *I. St.*, iv. 432.

c10.22

P. 114. For the formula Ambe ambike 'mbálike, which differs in all three Yajus texts, Páṇini (vi. 7. 118)

c10.23

has a fourth reading; on this and the other points of connection between Pánini and the vocabulary of the Yajus texts, *see I. St.*, iv. 432.

c10.24

P. 138, 23. According to Mahávansa, p. 9. 12, 15, the name of Buddha's wife was Bhadda- or Subhadda-Kachcháná!

c10.25

P. 139, note ¹⁴⁷. Śatap., 3. 1, 1-2. 2, is translated in Bruno Lindner's dissertation, *Ueber die Dîkshâ* (Leipzig, 1878); other portions in Delbrück's *Altind. Wortfolge* (1878).

c10.26

P. 142, note ¹⁵⁵. The Páraskara has been edited by Stenzler (1876).

c10.27

P. 150, note ¹⁶⁵. In the forty-eighth Atharva-Pariśishṭa, the commencement of the Atharva-Samhitá is given just as in the published recension, but it ends there with Book xvi.; see *I. St.*, iv. 432.

c10.28

P. 151, note ¹⁶⁶. With the *doshapati* compare the *pápman ásura* in the Nṛisiṅhop.; see *I. St.*, ix. 149, 150.

c10.29

P. 153 ff. Cf. Paul Regnaud, *Matériaux pour servir à l'Histoire de la Philosophie de l'Inde*, 1876, and my review of this work in the *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.* of 9th February 1878.

c10.30

P. 182, note ¹⁹⁸. The dates of the Nepálese MSS. apparently reach back as far as A.D. 883! See Dan. Wright, *History of Nepal*, 1877, *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1877, p. 412.

c10.31

Pp. 187, 188, note . On Olshausen's explanation of the word *Pahlav*—the basis of the Indian *Pahlava*—from *Parthava*, 'Parthians,' see now also Th. Nöldeke in *Z. D. M. G.*, xxxi. 557 ff.

c10.32

P. 189, note ²⁰⁴. According to Kern, *Over de oud-Javaansche Vertaling van't Mahâbhârata* (Amsterdam, 1877), p. 7 ff., the Kavi translation of the Adi-parvan, from which he there communicates the text of the Paushyacharita, dates from the beginning of the eleventh century.

c10.33

P. 189, note ²⁰⁵. For the criticism of the Mahá-Bhárata, Holtzmann's researches (*Indische Sagen*, Preface, Stuttgart, 1854) are also of great importance.

c10.34

P. 191, note ²⁰⁶. The Index to Hall's edition of Wilson's translation of the Vishṇu-Puráṇa (vol. v. part ii.) appeared in 1877. The edition of the Agni-Puráṇa in the *Bibl. Ind.* has now reached *adhy.* 294.

c10.35

P. 195, 15. The identity of the author of the Raghuvaṅśa and Kumára-sambhava with the dramatist Kálidása is contended for by Shankar Paṇḍit in the *Transactions* *of the London Congress of Orientalists* (London, 1876), p. 227 ff.

c10.36

P. 196, note 208. Bháravi and Kálidása are mentioned together in an inscription of Pulakeśi II., ‘in the Śaka year 507 (A.D. 585–6);’ at that date, therefore, they must have been already famous. See Bháu Dájí in *Journ. Bomb. Br. R. A. S.*, ix. 315, and J. F. Fleet in *Ind. Antiq.*, v. 68.—On the Kashmír poets Chandraka and Meṇṭha, of about the fifth (?) century, Ratnákara of the ninth, Kshemendra and Bilhaṇa of the eleventh, Somadeva, Maṅkha, Kalhaṇa, &c., of the twelfth century, see Bühler, Report of Journey, *l. c.*, p. 42 ff.

c10.37

P. 199, note †. For the text of these Suttas see now Grimblot, *Sept suttas Pális* (Paris, 1876), p. 89; ‘*nachcham gítam váditam pekkham akkháṇam . . iti vá iti evarúpá vísúkadassaná*’ (exhibitions, p. 65, spectacles, pp. 179, 215). From this it appears that the word here properly in question is not so much the general term *vísúka* as rather, specially, *pekkha* (*prekshya*), ‘exhibition,’ ‘spectacle,’ translated by ‘theatricals,’ pp. 65, 179, ‘représentations dramatiques,’ p. 215; comp. *prekshaṇaka* as the name of a species of drama in Bharata (Hall, Daśarúpa, p. 6), and *dṛiśya* in the Sáhitya-darpaṇa as the name of dramatic poetry in general.

c10.38

Pp. 200, 12, 205, 20. According to Hall, Vásavad., Introd., p. 27, Bhavabhúti would have to be placed earlier than Subandhu, and if so, of course, *à fortiori*, earlier than Báṇa: the latter, however, does not allude to him in the classic passage in the introduction to the Harsha-charita, where he enumerates his predecessors (Hall, *ibid.*, pp. 13, 14). See also *Ind. Streifen*, i. 355.

c10.39

P. 201, note ‖. According to Lassen, *I. AK.*, iii. 855, 1163, Bhoja died in 1053. An inscription of his in the *Ind. Antiq.*, 1877, p. 54, is dated in the year 1022.

c10.40

P. 203, note. According to Bühler, *Ind. Antiq.*, v. 112 (April, 1876), a grant of King Jayabhaṭa is ‘older than the year 445 A.D., and dated in the Vikrama era.’

c10.41

P. 204, note 211. In *Z. D. M. G.*, xxx. 302, Jacobi cites from the Urvaśí a (chronometrical) datum betokening Greek influence.

c10.42

P. 207, note 218. Of new publications, &c., of Indian dramas have to be mentioned: Bhaṇḍarkar’s edition of the Málatí-mádhava (Bombay, 1876), Cappeller's edition of the Ratnávalí (1877, in the second edition of Böhtlingk's *Sanskrit-Chrestomathie*), the Bengálí recension of the Śakuntalá, edited by Pischel (see Cappeller in the *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1877, p. 121), the two latter dramas translated by Ludw. Fritze; lastly, Regnaud's translation of the Mṛichhakaṭiká (Paris, 1876).—On the question as to the various recensions of Kálidása's Śakuntalá—discussed in *I. St.*, xiv. 161 ff.—see also Bühler's Report of Journey, *l. c.*, p. lxxxv. ff., where the first act of the Kashmír recension of this drama is printed.

c10.43

P. 210, note 220. To this place also belongs Śrívara's Subháshitávalí of the fifteenth century, containing quotations from more than 350 poets; see Bühler, Report of Journey, *l. c.*, p. 61 ff.; further, the Subháshita-ratnákara by Krishna Shastri Bhátavadekar (Bombay, 1872).—*Here*, too, have to be mentioned the four papers *Zur Kritik und Erklärung verschiedener indischer Werke*, published by O. Böhtlingk in vols. vii. and viii. of the *Mélanges Asiatiques* of the St. Petersburg Academy (1875–76).

c10.44

P. 212, note 222. Comp. Benfey's Introduction to Bickell's edition and translation of the ‘Kalilag und Damnag’ (Leipzig, 1876). It now appears doubtful whether the ancient Pahlaví version really rested upon one individual work as its basis, or whether it is not rather to be regarded as an epitome of several independent texts; see my notice of the above work in *Lit. C. Bl.*, 1876, No. 31, Bühler, Report of Journey, p. 47; Prym in the *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1878, Art. 118.

c10.45

P. 213, note 224. Read ‘recast by Kshemendra.’ It is only to Kshemendra that the statements from Bühler's letter, given in the next sentence, refer. Bühler now places him in the second and third quarter of the eleventh century, Report of Journey, *l. c.*, p. 45 ff.

c10.46

P. 213. On the Rája-taraṃgiṇí see now Bühler, Report of Journey, pp. 52–60, lxvi.–lxxxii. (where an amended translation of I. 1–107 is given); and on the Níla-mata, of about the sixth or seventh century, *ibid.*, p. 38 ff., lv. ff.

c10.47

P. 214, note 225. The Harsha-charita appeared at Calcutta in 1876, edited by Jívánanda.—On the Siṅhásanadvátriṅśiká see now my paper in *I. St.*, xv. 185 ff.

c10.48

P. 215, note 227. In the interpretation of Indian inscriptions, Bühler and Fleet also, in particular, have of late done very active service (especially in *Ind. Antiq.*, vols. v., vi.).

c10.49

P. 221, note 233. Goldstücker's 'facsimile' (comp. note ¹⁹⁶, p. 100) edition of the Mánavakalp. is not 'photo-lithographed,' but lithographed from a tracing.

c10.50

P. 226, note ²³⁸. Kielhorn has come forward with great vigour in defence of the Mahábháshya, first, in a lengthy article in the *Ind. Antiq.*, v. 241 (August 1876), next in his Essay, *Kátyáyana and Pataṁjali* (Bombay, December 1876), which deals specially with the analysis of the work into its component parts; and, lastly, in his edition of the work itself, which exhibits the text critically sifted, in direct reference thereto (the first number, Bombay, 1878, gives the naváhnikam). Cf., further, two articles by Bhaṇḍarkar, *On the Relation of Kátyáyana to Páṇini and of Pataṁjali to Kátyáyana* in *Ind. Antiq.*, v. 345 ff. (December 1876), and *on Goldstücker's Theory about Páṇini's Technical Terms* (reprint of an earlier review of *G.'s Páṇini*), *ibid.*, vi. 107 ff. To this place also belongs an article on the Mahábháshya, which was sent off by me to Bombay on 9th October 1876, but which only appeared in the *Ind. Antiq.*, vi. 301 ff., in October 1877.

c10.51

P. 226, note ²³⁹. On the antiquity of the Kásiká see now Bühler's Report of Journey, p. 72. The issue of the work in the Paṇḍit is perhaps by this time completed. It is to be hoped that it will appear in a separate edition.—Bühler's information regarding Vyáḍi, the Mahábháshya, Kátantra, &c., is given in detail in his Report of Journey.—On Burnell's essay, *On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians* (1875), which contains rich materials, see my critique in the *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, March 1876, p. 202 ff.—Of Hemachandra's Prákṛit-Grammar Pischel has given us a new edition (Halle, 1877, text and good index of words).

c10.52

P. 229, note †. This note, according to Barth, *Revue Critique*, 3d June 1876, is to be cancelled, as *paraître* can only have the sense of 'seem' (*scheinen*).

c10.53

P. 231, note ²⁴³. On Kshemendra's Loka-prakáśa see Bühler, Report of Journey, p. 75.

c10.54

P. 231, 29. See note above to p. 182.

c10.55

P. 231, note ²⁴⁴. The translation of the Sáhitya-darpaṇa in the *Bibl. Indica* is now finished.—For the rich information supplied by Bühler regarding the Alaṃkára literature in Kashmír, see his Report of Journey, p. 64 ff. According to this, the Alaṃkára-śástra of Bhaṭṭa Udbhaṭa dates from the time of Jayápíḍa (779–813), whose *sabhápati* the author was. Vámana, too, in Bühler's opinion, belongs to the same period. Ánandavardhana and Ratnákara belong to the ninth century, Mukula to the tenth, Abhinavagupta to the beginning, Rudraṭa to the end, of the eleventh, while Ruyyaka flourished at the commencement, and Jayaratha at the close, of the twelfth century; Mammaṭa is to be placed still later.

c10.56

P. 235, note ²⁴⁷. Of the Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha there is now a translation, by Cowell and Gough, in the *Paṇḍit*, 1875 ff.

c10.57

P. 237, note ²⁵⁰. The Sáṃkhya-tattva-pradípa has been translated by Govindadevaśástrin in the *Paṇḍit*, Nos. 98 ff.

c10.58

P. 237, note ²⁵¹. Abhinavagupta was still living in a.d. 1015; Bühler, Report of Journey, p. 80.—The Śaiva-śástra in Kashmír, *ibid.*, pp. 77–82, is divided into two groups, of which the one connects itself with the Spanda-śástra of Vasugupta (854), the other with the Praty-abhijná-śástra of Sománanda (ab. 900) and Utpala (ab. 930). It is of the latter—which appears to rest upon Śaṃkara—that Abhinavagupta is the leading representative.

c10.59

P. 241, note ²⁵⁶. The last number of this edition of Śabarasvámin brings it down to 10. 2. 73; the edition of the Jaiminíya-nyáya-málá-vistara has just been completed by Cowell. The Jaimini-sútra is being published in the Bombay monthly periodical, ‘Shaḍdarśana-chintaniká,’ begun in January 1877—text and commentary with a double translation, in English and Mahráṭhí.

c10.60

P. 243, note ²⁵⁹. Váchaspatimiśra’s Bhámatí, a gloss on Śaṃkara’s commentary on the Vedánta-sútra, is in course of publication in the *Bibl. Ind.* edited by Bálaśástrin,—commenced in 1876.—In the *Paṇḍit* for 1876, p. 113, in the Preface to his edition of Srínivásadása’s Yatíndramatadípiká, Rámamiśraśástrin cites a passage from Rámánuja’s Brahmasútra-bháshya, in which the latter mentions the *bhagavad*-Bodháyana as his predecessor therein, and as separated from him by several generations of *púrvácháryas*. As such *púrvácháryas* Rámamiśra gives the names of Dramiḍa, Guhadeva, and Brahmánandi, at the same time designating them by the epithets *maharshi* and *supráchínatama*. By Śrínivásadása himself (p. 115) the teachers are mentioned in the following order: Vyása, Bodháyana, Guhadeva, Bháruchi, Brahmánandi, Draviḍáchárya, Śrí-Paráṅkuśanátha, Yámunamuni, Yatíśvara.—Here is also to be mentioned the edition in the *Paṇḍit*, by Vechana-rámaśástrin, of two commentaries on the Vedánta-sútra, viz., the Śaiva-bháshya of Śríkaṇṭha Śiváchárya (see *Z. D. M. G.*, xxvii. 166), and the Vedánta-kaustubha-prabhá of Keśava Káśmírabhaṭṭa.—Further, in the second edition of his *Sanskṛit-Chrestomathie* (1877) Böhtlingk has given a new translation of the Vedánta-sára; and the Vidvan-manorañjiní of Rámatírtha, a commentary thereon, has been published, text with translation, in the *Paṇḍit* by Gough and Govindadevaśástrin. In the same journal has also appeared the Advaita-makaranda of Lakshmídhara.

c10.61

P. 245, note ²⁶⁴. A translation, by Keśavaśástrin, of the Nyáya-darśana and of Vátsyáyana's commentary thereon, has begun to appear in the *Paṇḍit* (new series, vol. ii.). The fourth book of Gaṅgeśa's Nyáya-chintámaṇi, with the commentary of Ruchidatta, has also been edited, *ibid.* (Nos. 66–93) by Bálaśástrin.

c10.62

P. 247, note ²⁶⁸. Of importance are the names, communicated to me from Albírúní by Ed. Sachau, of the *menázil* in Soghd and Khvárizm, the list of which begins with *thurayyá*, *i.e.*, with *kṛittiká*, and that under the name *parví*; by this is evidently meant *parvíz*, *i.e.*, the name which stands *third* in the Bundehesh, whence it necessarily follows that the list of names in the latter is the modern one, commencing with *áśviní*; see *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1877 (7th April), p. 221. Some of the names here cited by Albírúní are distinctly Indian, as *frshtbáth*, *i.e.*, *proshṭhapáda*, the ancient form of name, consequently, (not *bhadrapadá*). Here, too, presumably, as in the case of China, the Buddhists were the channel of communication.

c10.63

Pp. 250, 251, note ²⁷⁴. The proposition laid down by H. Jacobi in *Z. D. M. G.*, xxx. 306, that no Indian writings, which enumerate the planets in the order—Sun, Moon, Mars, &c.—can have been composed *earlier* than the third century A.D., has application to Yájnavalkya, as well as to the Atharva-pariśishṭas, which in point of fact already observe this order; see *I. St.*, x. 317.

c10.64

P. 253, note \*. The absence of mention of the Romakas in the Rámáyaṇa may perhaps also rest upon geographical grounds, namely, on the probable origin of the poem in the east of India, in the land of the Kośalas, whereas the ‘war-part’ of the Mahá-Bhárata was in all likelihood composed in Central, if not in Western India.

c10.65

P. 256, note ²⁸¹. Cf. Thibaut’s paper ‘On the Śulvasutras’ in the *Journ. As. Soc. Bengal*, 1875 (minutely discussed by Mor. Cantor in the hist. lit. div. of the *Zeitsch. für Math. und Physik*, vol. xxii.), and his edition of the Śulva-sútra of Baudháyana with the commentary of Dvárakánáthayajvan (text with translation) in the *Paṇḍit*, May, 1875-77.

c10.66

P. 256, note \*. The explanation of the Indian figures from the initial letters of the numerals has recently been rudely shaken, see Bühler in *Ind. Ant.*, vi. 48,—through the deciphering, namely, of the ancient ‘Nágarí numerals’ by Paṇḍit Bhagvánlál Indraji, *ibid.*, p. 42 ff. These, it appears, turn out to be *other* letters, yet the derivation of the later figures from them can hardly be called in question. What principle underlies these ancient numerals is, for the rest, still obscure: the zero has not yet a place among them; there are letter-symbols for 4–10 (1–3 being merely represented by strokes) for the tens up to 90, and for the hundreds up to 1000. Comp. pp. 222, note ²³³, and 257, note ²⁸⁴.

c10.67

P. 260, note \*. The remainder of the Yátrá has now been edited by Kern in *I. St.*, xiv. and xv.

c10.68

P. 266 ff. In complete opposition to the former dreams about the high antiquity of Indian medicine, Haas has recently, in *Z. D. M. G.*, xxx. 617 ff. and xxxi. 647 ff., characterised even the most ancient of the Indian medical texts as quite modern productions, to be traced to Arabian sources. In the accounts given by the Arabs themselves of the high repute in which Indian medicine stood with them, and of the translation of works of the kind, which are specified by name, from Saṁskṛit into Arabic, he recognises hardly any value. As regards the latter point, however, there exists absolutely no ground for throwing doubt upon statements of so definite a character made by the old Arab chroniclers; while, with respect to the former point, the language of Suśruta, Charaka, &c., is distinctly opposed to the assignment to them of *so* late a date. At the same time, every real proof of the presence of Greek (or even Arabian) conceptions in the works in question, will have to be thankfully received. But the early existence of medical knowledge in India would in no way be prejudiced thereby, as its beginnings are well attested by evidence from the Vedic period, especially from the Atharvaveda.

c10.69

P. 270, note ³¹⁰. Charaka, as Bühler informs me, has now also been printed at Bombay, edited by Dr. Anna Mureshvar Kunte, Grant Medical College.

c10.70

P. 271, note ³¹³. The Kavi translation of the Kámandaki-níti probably belongs, at the earliest, to about the same date as the translation of the Mahá-Bhárata; see remark above to note ²⁰⁴.—Progress has been made with the printing of Nirapeksha's commentary in the *Bibl. Indica*.

c10.71

P. 273, note ³¹⁹. On modern Indian music, see now the numerous writings of Sourindro Mohun Tagore, Calcutta, 1875 ff., cf. *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1877, p. 487.—It is possible that the investigation of the *gánas* of the Sáma-veda, in case these are still in actual use and could be observed, might yield some practical result for the ancient *laukika* music also.

c10.72

P. 274, note . For such representations of Venus, supported on the tail of a dolphin, or with a dolphin and Cupid behind her, see J. J. Bernouilli, *Aphrodite* (Leipzig, 1873), pp. 245, 370, 405. See also numerous representations of the kind in the *Musée de Sculpture par le Comte F. de Clarac* (Paris, 1836–37), vol. iv., pl. 593, 607, 610, 612, 615, 620, 622, 626–628, 634.

c10.73

P. 278, note ³²⁷. Bühler has also published a translation of Ápastamba: it is now being reprinted in the series of ‘Sacred Books of the East’ which is appearing under Max Müller's direction.—Gautama has been edited by Stenzler (London, 1876), and is also comprised in Jivánanda's large collection ‘Dharmashastrasamgraha’ (Calcutta, 1876), which, all inaccuracies notwithstanding, is yet a very meritorious publication, on account of the abundance of material it contains. It embraces 27 large and small Smṛiti-texts, namely, 3 Atris, 2 Vishṇus, 2 Hárítas, Yájnavalkya, 2 Uśanas', Aṅgiras, Yama, Ápastamba, Saṃvarta, Kátyáyana, Bṛihaspati, 2 Paráśaras, 2 Vyásas, Śaṅkha, Likhita, Daksha, 2 Gautamas, and 2 Vasishṭhas.—Nárada's Smṛiti has been translated by Jolly (London, 1876); see also his papers, *Ueber die rechtliche Stellung der Frauen bei den Indern* (Munich, 1876), and *Ueber das indische Schuldrecht* (Munich, 1877).

c10.74

P. 280, note ³²⁹. The Aruṇa-Smṛiti, Bühler informs me, is quite a late production, probably a section of a Puráṇa.

c10.75

P. 281. As Yájnavalkya enumerates the planets in their Greek order (1. 295) the earliest date we can assign to this work is the third century A.D. (see remark above to p. 251, note ²⁷⁴, following Jacobi).

c10.76

P. 284, 5. See remark on Pañchálachaṇḍa above, note to p. 50.

c10.77

P. 288. E. Senart, in his ingenious work, *La Légende du Bouddha* (Paris, 1875), traces the various legends that are narrated of Buddha (and in part, identically, of Kṛishṇa also) to ancient solar myths which were only subsequently applied to Buddha; comp. my detailed notice and partial rejoinder in the *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1876 (29th April), p. 282 ff.

c10.78

P. 291, note †. Schiefner's ‘Indische Erzählungen,’ from the Kágyur, in vols. vii. and viii. of the *Mélanges Asiatiques* of the St. Petersburg Academy, embrace already forty-seven such legends.

c10.79

P. 292, note ³⁴⁵. Whether the Buddhaghosha of this inscription is, as Stevenson assumes (p. 13), to be identified with the well-known B. must still appear very doubtful, as the princes mentioned in the rest of these inscriptions belong to a far older period; see Bhaṇḍarkar in the *Transactions of the London Congress of Orientalists* (1876), p. 306 ff.

c10.80

P. 293, note \*. *Sept suttas Pális, tirés du Díghanikáya*, from the papers of Paul Grimblot, were published by his widow in 1876 (Paris), text with translation.—The second part of Fausböll's edition of the Játaka appeared in 1877.—The *Maháparinibbána-sutta* was edited in 1874 by Childers in the *Journal R. A. S.*, vols. vii. and viii.: a separate impression of it has just appeared. The same journal also contains an edition of the Pátimokkha by Dickson. An edition of the whole Vinaya-piṭaka by Herm. Oldenberg is in the press.

c10.81

P. 297, note ³⁴⁹. A collected edition of the sacred Aṅgas of the Jainas was published last year (1877) at Calcutta by Dhanapatisiṅhají: the text is accompanied with the commentary of Abhayadeva and a *bháshá*-explanation by Bhagván Vijaya.

c10.82

P. 300, note 350. On this compare also S. Beal, *The Buddhist Tripiṭaka as it is known in China and Japan* (Devonport, 1876).

c10.83

P. 303, note ‡. On possible points of connection between the Avesta and Buddhism see *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1877, p. 221.

c10.84

P. 305, note ‡. In Gautama the word *bhikshu* appears expressly as the name of the third of the four *áśramas*; in place of it Manu has *yati*.

Linked texts (75)