The History of Indian Literature c10.50

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.