·Copies of this book can be had by addressing to the Oriental Books Supplying Agency, 13 Shukrawar, Poona. Indian price Rs. 2-0-0. Toreign price 4 shillings. American price one dollar. All prices include postage. BY THE SAME AUTHOR THE UTTARA-RĀMA-CHARITA OF BHAVABHŪTI MARATHI TRANSLATION Over 275 pages Price Rs, 2-0-0 To be had of- The Oriental Books Supplying Agency 13 Shukrawar, POONA Printed by Anant Vinayak Pativardhan at the Aryabhushan Press, Poona, and published by Shripad Krishna Belvalkar at Poona. First edition, 1915, One Thousand Copies ·CONTENTS ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . L'ACE PREFACE vii 1. Grammatical speculations in Julia : Thoir extent un:l valnc %. Early grammatical speculations : In the Vedas, 3. In the Brühmaņas, and 3 H. In allic:1 works 4 5. The firclccessors of Yaska 4 0. Yaska's Nirakta : Its dato 6 7. Nature of Yaskn's work 8 8. Yaskn's sncccssors 3. Tho 60-calle. Ainira trcatiscs 10 10. The School of Pāņini 12 11. L'anini's date 13 12. Tho view thint l'anini cannot bo place:l loforo B. C. 350 ornmined 15 13. Known facts abont l'anini's lifo... 18 14. Character of larini's work 10 15. Technical devices uscd by Panini 10. Treatises accessory to l'anini's Aslıtlhyayi 25 17. Katyāyann : Ilis dnto 28 18. Naturo of Katyāyana's vārtikns to Panini's grannar 20 19. Vartiknkārus boforc and after Katyayanı 31 20. Patañjali : His elato anl porsonal history 32 21. The Vyükariņa-Malabliaslıya ug marking to cud of the first period in the history of the Pāṇiniya school 34 32. Chandragonin an his work 34 23. Tho Kašika of Jaya litya and Vānana ... 35 24. The indlobtolnoss of tho Kašikā to Chandragomin 37 25. Jinendrabullhi's Nyāsia on tho Kāģikā ... 38 20. Haru:latta's Pa'lamaħjari on the Kūšika 30 27. Bhartpilari's Vakyapaliya 40 ... 20 .. ... ... ... ... ...

·iv. Contents ... ... ... PAGE 28. Kaiyyata's Pradīpa as marking the end of second period in the history of the Pāṇiniya school 41 29. Recasts of the Ashțādhyāyī: The Rāpamālā 43 30. Rāmachandra's Prakriya-kaumudi, and its commentaries 45 31. Bhattoji's Siddhānta-kaumudi and other works 46 32. The works of Nāgeſa and of Vaidyanātha Pāyagunda ... 49 33. Grammatical works outside the Dikshita school 50 34. Abridgements and manuals 51 35. Later history of treatises accessory to Pāṇini's grammar 51 36. Dhātupātha 51 37. Gaņapātha 53 38. Liñgānušāsana 53 39. Uņādipātha... 54 40. Paribhāshās 54 41. Résumé of the history of the Pāṇinīya school... 55 42. The ehāndra school 57 43. The date of Chandragopin 58 44. Nature of his work 59 45. Accessory treatises of the Chāndra grammar 60 46. Later history of the Chāndra school 61 47. The Jainendra school 62 48. Date of the Jainendra Vyākaraña 64 49. Its character, and ... 65 50. Later history 66 51. The Sākațāyana school 68 52. Its founder not the ancient Śākatāyana but his modern name-sake 68 53. Character of Sakatāyana's Šabdānusāsana 69 54. Other works of this school 71 55. Its later history 71 56. The Hemachandra school 73 57. Life of Hemachandra 73 58. Nature of Hemachandra's Śabdānusāsana 75 59. Treatises accessory to the Sabdānusā sana 77 I. .. ... ... ... ... ...

·Contents ... ... 52 .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1. ... ... Page 60. Commentaries on liio Sabiánusisana 76 01. Digests, m:intuals, nnl other miscellaneous works 79 02. Conclusion of the licmachaniri fcliool 80 63. The kütantra school 81 01. Trulitional account abont Sarvnvarman, Ilic foun:ler of the school 03. Exilence for later interpolations in thc Krtanim sotmjathn... 63 60. Nature of Sarvavarinnn's work 86 07. Early history of the school 87 OS. Dargasitiilia and his vritti 87 09. Commentaries on Durgasitilin's spitti 85 70. Treatiscs arccsory to tho Kitantra 89 71. llistory of thc Kftantra fchool in Bengal 90 72. listory of thic Katinti school in kaimim 01 73. The Sūrasvata school : Ito anto 74. Special features of the Sansunta 03 Its traditional fonnier 05 76. Samantas-prakripti of Anublotisvarūpacharyn... 00 77. Commentators of Srimsvatn-pirukriya 00 78. Commcutitors of thic Sarasvat: inlopendcutly of the Prikriya 102 70. Treatiscs nccessory to the Sirasvat: 103 80. Gonorni rovicw of the history of tho Sarasvata school 103 81. The school of Bopadeva 101 82. Date of Bopadern... 104 83. Object of Bojualova's Dlugulabodha 105 84. Later history of tho school 107 85. Supplements and accessory trcatiscs of tho Dluguhn Lodlin 108 80. The Jaumara school of Kramaliśvarii 108 Its special features 100 88. Commontarics on the Jaumom 109 89. 'Its present status 110 90. The Saupadma school of PavlnanabliniInttu 111 01. Its special features 111 92. Commentaries on tho Sanpadnia... 112 .. ... I ... ... ... ... .. 87. ... .. ... .. ... ... ..+ ·Contents vi: : : PAGE 03. Treatises accessory to the Saupadna 112 113 94. Its present status ... 95. Later sectarian schools 113 96. Harināmāmțita 113 97. Prabodhaprakāśa 114 98. Lesser Manuals and school-books 115 99. Conclusion ... 116 APPENDIX I. Chāndra-varņa-sātrāņi 117 APPENDIX II. Jogưrāju’s Padaprakaranasañgati... 181 APPENDIX III. A Chronological Conspectus of the different Schools, separately in a bag GENERAL INDEX 121 System of Transliteration अ आ इ ई उ ऊ ऋ ऋ ल ए ऐ ओ औ i i u ū ți și li e ai o au 뵈 च झ क ख TT घ his cha chha ja jha ña ka kha ga gha na त थ ho T! OT ढ ड ho 4 ta tha da dha na ta tha da dha na य Š वं श प म फ ब भ ra ya la va sa pa pha ba bha ma T ho 81 sha sa ha la Visarga - b; Nasalized स् as in संयम Nasalized æ as in ÄTHIET .

·PREFACE The following essay (trith the non de plume 17THOR fratt:) was offered in competition for tho Vishatrapath Namron Mandlik Gold Medal of the University of Bowlny. It mas approred by the Juigcs trith the remark: It losorveg to be printed, as it collects together a great deal of interesting bistorical information. It is not accordingly publishel with tho kind pormission of the University of Bombar. In preparing the cosir I have utilised tbo Inbours of most of the previons workers in the fiold, to whore writings I have given constant references in the foot-gotes. I nlen enjores the exceptional nirantage of having nt my disposal the entiro Goremment Manuscripts Library at the Deccin College, Poona, and rur in fact, at the time of writing this essay, actually enggel in preparing n Descriptivo (ntnlogne of the grammatical works in that Libmrs. As the title in·licates, it is an essay-A mero tentative attempt--and not a profound trentise; and I have thought it worth while printing it morels because, as for as I know, no work of tho kiol, corering exactly the field of this esgny, has so far appeared. Iu the 'Grundriss der Inlo-chriechen Philologio' thoro was to appear & work ishich would bave made the writing of this essay onperfluons, but apparently notbicg has come of it so für. I have made a few necessary changes in the essiy as it was originally submitted, especially in the light of some kind suggestions received from Professor Hari Maladora Bhadkamkar of the Wilson College, Bombay, and from Professor Vaijanath Kashinath Rajavade of the Fergusson College, Poona, who wero appointed jadges for the essay. Bly old and honoured teacher, Professor K. B. Pathok, hal also the goodness to read the cosay through and point out certain inaccuracies of fact and statement, for which I uu deeply grateful to him. For the most part, however, the ·viii. Preface essay remains just as it was written iv 1009 with the exception of the Chronological Conspectus anıl the General Index, withont which no jinblishe:l work of this nature could be regarded as completc. I do not, of course, expect that the essay would bo entirely free from mistakes both of omission and of commission. New facts are coming to light every day; and even of facts that have been already known, it is too much to lopem..so numerous are tho Forkers in the field and so scattered their writings that I have taken into consideration all, or even the most important all. I would most thankfully receive, therefyre, any correctious or suggestions for improvement. I only hope that the essay contains enongh to justify its publication in this present form. POUSA, Norember 1914. S. K. BELVALKAR. Postscript : Little did I espect, when I wrote the above in November last, that one of the judges for the essay--Professor H. 11. Bhadkamkar of the Wilson College, Bombay-rould not live to see it in print. But it is the unexpected that has happened. Professor Bhadkankar took a genuine interest in me and my work, and by writing this postscript I wish to keep his name permanently associated with what is though not the first-get one of the earliest fruits of niy literary activity. DEODAN COLLEGE, Poona, 15th July 1915. S. K. BELVALKAR.

·AS ACCOUNT OF TIIE DIFFERENT CXISTING SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT GRAMMAR 1. Orammatical speculations in India: Their extent and value. It would be liardly an exaggeration to say that in no other country has the scionce of grammar been studied with such a zcal and carried to such a perfection as it has been in India. Even a haro cataloguc of the names of gmminarians ancicnt and modern and of such of thcir works as are still preserved to us can amply bear out the truth of this assertion. On thic lowest calulation there arc yct current in various parts of Indin nearly a dozen different schools of Sanskrit grammar, at Icast three hundred writers in the field including those that arc known to us only from quotntions, and nioro than a thousand separato trcatiscs original as well as explana. tory. And it is not merely the quantity--for that acod not be a source of unalloyed pride to any pcoplc-but the quality of the work produced that has won for it a recognition and an honorablo mention even at the hands of the rigorously scientific philologists of our own day, who arc not ashamed to own their obligations to works and authors of over twenty-five hundred years old. Early grammatical speculations 2. Grammatical speculations in the Vedas...Tho carliest spe. culations of a grammatical nature are to be met with in the later portions of the Rigveda itself; for, even if we condemn Patañjali's explanation (Mahabhashya : Kielhorn, Vol. I, p. 3) of चत्यारि शुगर by नामाण्यातोपसर्गनिपाता: or his explanation (Ibid. p. 4.; Rigveda viii. 69. 12 ) of सर सिन्धयः by सप्त विभक्तयः as being too subtle for the Vedic [Sk. Gr. ) ·$ 2-) Systems of Sanskrit Granmar 2 bards, still passages, such as Rigveda &. 125 or Taittiriya Samhitā vi, 4. 7. 3, already evince the consciousness that the study of the forms of speech is of sufficient importance to be pursued by itself independently of the dealings between men and men which are rendered possible by them. It is not, however, necessary for our purpose to put together all the Vedic passages that have or can be made to have a grammatical significance. Suffice it to say that the available data do not warrant the supposition that the "Seers of the Mantras' had made any considerable advance in the science of grammar. Indeed, it was not their business to do that. To observe the silent or violent workings of Nature and to record in fitting verse the feelings and thoughts awakened by their contemplation was enough to employ all their leisure hours. Philosophy arises only when the harmony of life is disturbed from within (or from without:) so that the old child-like faith in the world and its laws becomes no longer possible ; and grammar is a species of philosophy. The study of grammar receives a sudden impetus when one form of speech comes into close contact with another and a different form. Thus, for example, the discovery of Sanskrit by modern Europe has created a revolution in the science of philology, just as, in ancient times, the Roman conquest of Greece and, later, the discovery of Greek after the fall of Constantinople led to equally momentous consequences in the development of thought. The same result is also produced when in course of time there arise inevitable dialectical peculiarities within a language. These are either a consequence of the inpact of the different races one of which.conquers:and dominates over the rest, or they may be due I Compare Tantra-vārtika, Benares edition, p. 216. 2 Until the Greeks began to teach their language to the Romans, Greek grammar mado little progress.

·(-$3 Early gramimatical speculations 3 to a change in the climalic conditions to thic people Inring migratoil from one placo to nnotlics and modifica their cxpressions and articulations in the coursc of their journcy. Something of this sort must have lappen. od when the ancient Sanskrit diverged into the different forms of Prakrit, and rc arc probably to explain in tho saruc tay tho considerable diffcrcncc thnt is observable in the language of tho Brahimamas when contrasted tvilli that of the ancient Saslitas.' 3. Orammatical speculations to thc Drahmanas.--Wien wo come to thc Brahmanic speculations on the nature and meaning of the utlcmnces of tho ancient suges, vo find that thoy lare already lost any living touch with thic old form of the language. Old forms and old words as also old ideas had grown obsoleto giving pincc to power, Icss poctic and morc practical oncs. Since, howarcr, tho Sacred Scriptures (thic Vedas) woro composed in the older form of the language, and since, for various reasons, it was dccme necessary to preserve intact from gencra. tion to generation the inhorited stock of Vedlo poctry, attention amo naturally to be focussed upon tho pecu. llarities of that form of tho language, and this tras tho boginning of grominar proper. The main interest of the Brahinanas, however, was sacerdotal. Thoy busicd themselves with tho details of the ritual and tricd to discoveror invent-f rational, ilmat is to say, a mythological justiGcation for overy act of the priest and overy element of tho scriſice. If thoy discussed questions of grammar or plionctics at all, they. 1 Dr. Borsello bis nisyon tbo ly developed enquiry lato Aledra ochool of Graintharlang langnage u Pipial's trentino notan, " without some contact displays is contrury to all or. with foreign people, and periebce," Litter disputes. Among religi. 2 Coinparo tho Arctic homo in the Our necta at komo, noch tigh. Veds, p. 230.

·4 Systems of Sanskrit. Grammar 3 - ] came in mainly by way of illustration, or because no other equally cogent explanation of the Samhitā passage in question was at hand. We cannot make much capital out of their stray and half poetic utterances. 4. Grammatical speculations in allied works. It was in the next period that the study of grammar as a science was taken in earnest. This was the period when the scattered hymns of the Vedas came to be collected into familybooks and elaborate rules were framed for the regulation of the parishads or charanas. To help students in their task there also came into being about the same time various manuals on phonetics, which dealt with letters, accents, quantity, pronunciation, and euphonic rules. In course of time the retentive faculty came to be culti-, vated to an extent which is without any parallel in the history of the world. A further advance was made by the constitution of the Padapātha, commonly ascribed to Šakalya, which resolved the euphonic combinations and gave each word, each member of a compound, each prefix of the verb, as also each suffix or termination of the noun separately. The stock of grammatical notions familiar to this stage of development, though not very large, is already sufficient to indicate the earnestness of the search: for truth. 5. The predecessors of Yāska. We are not yet certain when the art of writing came to be invented—or introduced in Ancient India. It was certainly much earlier; than what Max Müller once believed it to be. Whats, over that period might be, it must have been prior to the production of the Prātiſakhya literature; and by this we 1. See Mar Müller's History of Ancient Indian literature, 2nd edition pp. 128, 187, &c. 2 Op. Taittiriya Aranyaka, vii. 1. 3 History of Apcient Indian Literature, p. 520. Compare on the subject Bühler's contribation to the Grundriss der Indo- Arischen Philologie, especially page 18. ** ·[-$5 Predecessors of Yâska 5 mcan not tlic Pratiiikliyas in their present form—which arc post-Pāņiniya nnd pre-suppose much of liis fcrinino. logy—but in some carlicr form, and under whatcrer Other namcs thcy may have been then known. The contributions which thcso prototypes of our present Prštitákhyas mode to thc scicncc of grammar can now, in the absence of any really representative works of that class, be merely guessed at. If tho naturc and contents of our cxisting Prātijāklya litcrature can snfely bc made tho basis of any inference, we may suppose that thcsc carlicr treatiscs 1. classificd the Vedic texts into thic four forms of speech known to Yaska ; 2. framed and carcfully dc. fined some of thic primitive sanjñās or technical terms ; and 3. possibly also made somc more or less crudo at. tempts to reduce thc words to their clements and cxplain the mode of their grammatical formation. The really creative period of this science is just this. Had there been for this period any works extant, they would have shown us Yūska in the making, as Yūska himself, to some extent, shows us Panini in the making. It is a great pity, therefore, that tho period should be all blank to us. Since, however, these tentative sallics of tho enrlier authors were not probably definite enough to constitute a system, and since we have here to treat of systems of Sanskrit grammar, we must next pass on to Yaska', who, although a philologist and not a gramma. rian as such, can for our purpose bc regarded as forming the link between the primitive Prátisakhya type of spe- 1 Goldstucker, Pipini : his place jo Sanskrit literature, pp. 183 and ff. ; Reprint of the fatto by Ponial office, pp. 141 and ff. 2 Primitive: thoso nately that Paņini pre-supposes and uses without explaining ther. Dr, Burnell would call the so tho terms of the Aindra School of Grammariage. 3 Yoska calls bis on coluplement to gratDAS: पाकरणस्प कारपर। work & ·G Systems of Sanskrit. Grammar : 5-] same. culation on the one hand, and the later Paņinīya mode of thought on the other. 6. Yāska’s Nirakta:: Its date -In & memorable: passage Yaska, himself roughly indicates the course of the deve lopment of Vedic studies before his timic, and, reflecting the achievements. made: upto his days in the sciences of grammar and philology, contributes his own. quota to the The passage has been variously, interpreted, but the explanation given below may be found perhaps as acceptable as any other.' It mentions three distinct periods of intellectual development corresponding roughily, to sections 2–5 above. Unfortunately, the time of Yáska :is by no means yet certain. It depends for the: most part, on the date that.is.to be assigned:.to, Pāṇini, between whom.and this great writer ati least; a century, if not more, must be supposed to have elapsed in: orders to account properly for all the advances in the matter 1. Flere auarot Fustang: { "Mantras.".. These are the original “Seers of These correspond to the authors: of: तेऽपरेम्पोऽसाक्षात्कृतधर्मभ्य उप the Brahmanic.speculations; possib- देशेन मन्नान सम्मादुः। ly also to the compilers of the family-books. उपदेशाय ग्लायन्तोऽपरे बिल्मग्रहः These are the anthors of the Pada- णायेम ग्रन्धं समाम्नासिषुः। वेदं च patha, the Nighantu,and other allied' works, including possiblythe proto: zapell types of our modern Prāti ākhyas. while Pāṇini.uges- णिजन्त पलवस्त समस्त निशेषण 2. Thus, for Yuska uses Csubal कारित Frequentative चर्करात Desiderative चिकीर्पित Attribute पञ्जन 'Weak termination. निवृचिस्थान Denominative termination: नामकरण Similarly Yīske defines (18- ther deripes ) Far as para नामानि यस्य । सर्वेषुः भूतेषु नमति ya at i Fet i It is :No.one term.exists for these often used by him otherwise than ag ... technical term of grammar. Compares:pi. 6. 8, vii. 1..2, vii; 15; &c.. Again, ·7 [-$6 Yaskn's 'Nirukta : Its date and wording of tho rules of grammar that are to bo met with in thc Ashtadhyāyi. We have dealt with the ques. tion of Panini's dato.in another part of this essay, and if that result be accepted, Yaska must be placed about 800 to 700.before Christ. There aro, hotever, a fox facts which seem to militate against the view that Yaska flourished before Papini. The Sõtras of Pāņini.nowhero make any provision for the formation of words like this, which occurs in Nirukta (Bib. Ind. edition, Vol. ir..page 258 &c.). Nor did Paņini appar. cntly know Yaska's explanation of aut (Pigveda x. 85.20) by aut craft. Pánini must, thereforc, havo prcccded Yáska; clso how con fe account for such omissions in a grammarian of the calibre of Panini ? The utter uselessness of thoscand similar negativcarguments can be seen on a closer examination of the instances adduced. To obviato the last of these defects Katyāyana' gives XiquaTui TTT 17: as a vārtika to sātra iv.i. 48. Katyäyna must, thereforo, havo come after Yaska whosc work he hero presumably utilises. On the contrary, the first omission is not rectificd even by Katyayana who gives two vártikas (no.7 and 8 to vi. 1.89) to explain forms like sruf and Featro but not suruf. This Fould necossitate tho supposition that Yaska came aftor Katyāyana. A mode of argumentation which leads to such contradictory conclusions is no safo foundation for weon thero is a groat distance bet. 1.In Kiellorn's odition vol. ii. p. Yaska's definition of 220, this is given not as a निपात: 8 उशावचेष्यपु निपतन्ति vartika of Kotydyade but 86 and his giring the meanings & part of the Mahabhishys. for each individually, and la that cage Yaska's explana- Papini's classification of thom tion of 31roorat 88 SITUYET into Tut when joined to trift and his non-acquaintanco vorba, na if the root develops with virtika 1 to Sutra iv. 1. into.B 2000, and rate. 49 may be adduced to prove Wany more similar, illustra the point at issuo. tions could be found.

·6 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 5 - ] culation on the one hand, and the later Pariniya inode of thought on the other. 6. Yāska's Niruktn : Its dato.--In & memorable passage Yáska himself roughly indicates the course of the dovelopment of Vedic studies before: his time, and, reflecting the achievoments made upto his days in the sciences of grammar and philology, contributes his own quota to the same. The passage has been variously interprcted, but the explanation givon below may be found perhaps as acceptable as any other.' It mentions throc distinct periods of intellectual development corresponding rougli. ly. to sections 2005 above. Unfortunately tho time of Yaska.is by no means yet certain. It depends for the most part, on the date that is to be assigned to Panini, between whom and this great writer at least. & century, if not.more, must be supposed to have clapsed in order to account. properly for all the advances in the matter 1 FTETTE MUHITOT 9799547 TT: 1 तेऽपरेम्पोऽसाक्षात्कृतधर्मभ्य उप. देशेन मन्त्रान् सम्माः। These are tho original "Seers of Montros ". These correspond to the anthors of the Brainanic apeculations; possibly also to the compilers of tho family-books. Theso aro the anthors of the Pada. patha, the Nighantn, and other alliod works, incluins possibly tho prototypes of our modern Prūtisakhyas, उपदेशाय ग्लायन्तोऽपरे पिल्मग्रह णायेनं ग्रन्धं समाम्नासिपुः। येवं च au whilo Pänini 1944 णिजन्त पलवस्त विशेषण 2. Thus, form Yuskaugegame Caugal कारित Frequentative चरित Desiderative चिकीर्पित Attribute स्पञ्जन Weak termination Page FUT Denominative termination नामकरण Similarly Yūska defines (rather derives ) Fantas ng नामानि यस्य । सर्वपुः भूतेषु नमति Twia T I syn 1 It is No.ogo.term.orists for these often used by him otherwise than as a tecbpical term of grammar. Compara. vi. 6. 8, vii. 1. 2, rii, 1. 6, &c.. Again, ·[§ 6 Yaska's Nirukla : Its date and wording of the rules of grammar that are to bo met with in the 'Ashtadhyayi. We have dealt with the ques. tion of Paņini's dato.in another part of this cssay, and if that sesult be accepted, Yaska must be placed about 800 to 700.bcfore Christ. There arc, however, a fow facts which seem to militate against the vicm that Yaska flourished bofore Pspini. The Sátras of Papini.nowherc make any provision for the formation of words liko trui, thich occurs in Nirukto (Bib. Ind. edition, Vol. iv..page 258 &c.). Nor did Paņini appar. cntly know Yáska's oxplanation of a (Pigreda 8.85.20) by Erika qit. Parini must, thereforc, havo prcccded Yaska; ciso how can wc account for such omissions in a grammarion of the alibre of Pāņini ? Thc utter usclcssness of thescond similar negative arguments aan beseen on a closer examination of the instances adduced. To obviate the last of these defects Kátyáyana' gives ouagi ETK Tour: as a vārtika to sūtra iv.r.:48. Katyáyna must, thereforo, havo comc after Yáska whose work he hero presumably utiliscs. On the contrary, the first omission is not rectificd even by "Katyayana 'who gives two vártikas (20.7 and 8 to vi. 1.89) to cxplain forms like stof and Feuntu but not rf. This *ould uccessitate tho supposition that Yaska came after Kátyāyana. A mode of argumentation which leads to such contradictory conclusions is no safc foundation for thero is a groat distanco bel. 1.lp Kielhora's cdition vol.ii. p. weon Yaska', definition of 220, this is given not as a निपात: शापचेयर्थेषु निपतन्ति virlika of Katy yana but 06 and his giving the meanings # part of the Malabutedya. for cach individunlly, and In that caso Yaska's explana. Papini's classification of them tion of our as wat into a wlien joined to groft and his non-acquaintauco verbo, t if the root develope with virtika 1 to Satra iv. 1. into a noun, and morgata. 49 may be adduced to proro Vany more similar illustra. the point at issuo. tione could be found.

·8 § 6- ] Systems of Sanskrit Grammar any chronological edifice, especially when the evidence for Yáska's priority to Pāņini is so overwhelming. 7. Nature of Yāska's work. In form Yaska's work is a running commentrary upon a list of words in five adhyāyas, known as the Nighantu. The words are all taken from the Veda; the first three adhyāyas arrange them as synonyms, the fourth is a collection of certain difficult words occurring in the Veda, while the last is a list of the naines of Vedia deities. Yáska takes these words one by one (in the case of the first three adhyāyas only the more important ones), quotes Vedic passages wherein they are used, and tries to connect them with radical stems and launches into various interesting social and historical discussions in his attempts to trace the later history of these words, always giving references to any conflicting views that may have been held on the subject. Certain general reflections as to the nature and utility of the study of the Vedas, the cosmological functions of the Vedic Gods, and 'so forth also find their proper place in the work. That grammatical speculations had sufficiently advanced in the days of Yáska is evidenced even by the list of schools and individual teachers quoted or referred to in the Nirukta,' none of whose works have been preserved to us. Yāska already knew, what it required an Aristotle to discover subsequently, viz : the fourfold classification of words, as also the distinction between personal terminations and tense affixes on the one hand, and the primary and secondary nominal affixes on the other. Nay, he definitely formulates the theory that every noun is deriv- 1 Thesc are: 31990:, TIETOT, आचार्या,एके, ऐतिहासिकाः,औदुंब- रायणः, औपमन्यवः, और्णवाभः, #TEUFT:, Sigrii, strefi, strgai, वर्मशिराःतैरिकि,नैदानाः, नैरुक्ताः, CITE (For:, TETA, I., 77- शिकाः, पूर्वे याज्ञिकाः, वाायणिः, TUTT:, ştergati, trpi. groti, Trei, fitotetta,etit- 7.11 ·(-68 Yasha's Succexors 9 cd from a verbal rool and mects the various objections raiscd against it,-- theory on which the wholo system of Panini is bascd, and which is, in fact, the postulate of modern Philology.' & YIska's succelson_Many valuable works on gmmmar subscqucnt to Yaska's Nirukta but antcrior to Pipini's Ashodhyayi have been irrevocably lost to us ; (or, it cannot be maintained with cogency that the extremely artificial and algobric style of the Ashtadhyayi could have been complctcly csolved by Panini himself in the absence of similur tentative works prcccding his. We have got for this the criticncc of Pirini's own sitms, which uso many technical words and formulas without haring previously cxplnincd them'--an omission which, as indicated by Panini at 1.2.53.57, is to be accounted for on the supposition that tlicy were too well-known or alrcady sufficicntly dealt with in other works to nccd any cxposition at his hands. Some of thcso works must ccrtninly harc been in cxistenco long after the time of the Mahabhashya, since wvc find manny quotations from them in later writers. The chick founders of grammatical schools prior to Pinini arc, Apišali and Kasakritsna (comparc Panini vi. 3. 92). A rulo of Apisali: is given by thc Käsiki on vii. 3. 95, 1 Cornpero Bar Muller's Iliobory and elsewhero. The could of Ancient Sk. Literature, pp. aof all late beca taken Irom 1G1-108. tbo Pratitskhya works noterior 2. Such as $149, HT, PT, to Yoks, ninco somo of them getar, wout, wit, , appcar lo lo unknown to that मममी,समास,तरपुरुष, अप्पपीभाव, author and must laro como in. avant, OT, TT, &c., occur. to voguonioco his day.Cornparo ring rejectively in i, 1. 63, Almo l'Avini l. 3. 120, KTO ii. 3. 46, ii.3. , ii. 3. 18, ii. sifarra i wbere Bhaffoji 3. 13, ii. 3. 28, li. 3. 60, li. 3. Bayg, u ZTÁSIT TOT! 36, fi. 1.3, ij. 1. 22, ii, 1.5, 3 fonenOT141: Adults 11. 2. 23, lii. 1. 13, is. 1, 76, सुन्दसीसि पठन्ति! [ Sk. Gs.)

·10 Systemis of Sanskrit Grannar § 8-] while elsewhere it gives us the information that the grammar of Kāšakritsna consisted of sātras thrown into three Adhyāyas. Kaiyyata on v. 1. 21 actually gives portions of the text of both these grammarians-and this is about all the information that we possess regarding these two ancient grammarians. To later writers like Bopadeva3 they are probably little more than mere names, 9. The 80-called Alndra treatises. The case stands a little different with Indra or Indragomin. Pāṇini nowhere mentions this name except under the general appelation of the easterners'. An oft-quoted passage from the fourth tarañga of the Kathāsaritsāgara informs us that the school which Pāṇini supplanted was known as the Aindra school, and numbered among its adherents Kātyā. yana alias Vararuchi, Vyādi, and Indradatta. Hiuen Tsang the Chinese pilgrim, and Tārānātha the Tibetian historian, both relate a similar story, the latter adding that the Chāndra vyākarana agrees with Pāṇini, and the Kālāpa vyākarana with the Aindra. Tārānātha also states that God Kārttikeya revealed the Aindra vyākaraṇa to Sapta- (not Sarva-)varman (compare section 64, below). Further corroborative evidence is furnished by a passage from the Taittiriya-samhitā (vii. 4. 7), which speaks of Indra as the first of grammarians. To all this Dr. Burnell 1 Compare the Kīsikū on v. 1.58, the subject of आतिष्ठते। andiv. 2.65 : FEC EI 2 SITOSTOSTETHEUTETTUTETET Frant: TT TAT: 1 Another bit चनादन्यत्र प्रतिपेधाभावः। of information about 31169- 3 Compare, ESTE: SFTTHCFIT- To which I owo to Profes. शली शाकटायनः पाणिन्यमरजैने- Bor Pathak, is that he changed FT 74774Etfest #T: 11 from the root te 'to be' to H. Com Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha. pare अस्ति सकारमासिष्ठते, in the 4 वाग् वै पराच्यव्याकृताऽवदत् । ते देवा Mabūbhāsliga on i. 3. 22. इन्द्रमबुवस्लिमां नो वाचंध्याकुर्विति। Jinendsaluddli nad ŚakatAgaua ... LaTAT ETTİ59514 (1. 4. 38 ) supply 3T193112: as Egalai ·Thermall diridesselises further adult llat the Tollapriyam, one of the oldest Tazail framt, rcficients itself to be full of thic Aindra nic.. and trai rood in the l'anija King's auschbly :id there macwill approval. This Tolkappi. yam la closely eclaice to Kilantia, to Kachchiyana's lali fon*1976, ax11o the l'a!itálilipas, all of whichi nrc to he scordc ni ticatives bclonging to the lindia school of parumariane. Me conclusio:' which 1). Lurnell scac!cx is that the lindra mat the oldott school of Sanskrit warmnt, and 11.0! Nindra ficalises weic acully linorn 10 and qualcl hy l'itini and office), and that Aindra srcatiscs srill crist in the l'rátilskhyas, in the Kiinnira, and in similar works, though they have been paris rcast or correctal. And again, 'llic dinden trcauses belong lo a system older tizan l'aņini's, lliouple there is peiliapa rca:on to belicrc that not one of thcoa is, as a wholc, older than the grammar of thic last.' That the Icchnical iciras used by the so-called Aindra treatiscs are connccted with onc another and arc, furthcr, simpler and morc primitive than those of Panini is quilc evident; and on this ground it is not unlikely that they rcpresent a school of gronarians prior to P'Inini's. But since, besides the dindra, wc luarc at Icast two other schools also older than l’inini, it will not do to put down every onc of tricic sanjn's as belonging to the Aindra school, sccing that we have no information rc. garding thic safijfias of the other two. In the present state of our knowlcuge, the fact that thic Aindra school is nowhicrc quoted by narc citlicr in Parini or Hubu. bhashya or Kodika should point to the conclusion- also endorsed by Keilhorn-that tho Aindra scliool is post. Paniniya in date, though prc.Paninlya in substance. Possibly it may be no other than the katantra school 1 Compue llo Eesty ca the Aloda scocol of grammarlade, pastim.

·I2 § 9-] Systems of Sanskrit Grammar which belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era, Any further details regarding the grammatical efforts earlier than Pāṇini it is not possible to give. All that we can do is, following Yāska and on the basis of references occurring in Pāņini, Kātyāyana, Patañjali, and the earlier Prātiśākhyas and Brāhmaṇas, to frame a tabular statement of the schools and teachers with the tenets peculiar to each. A beginning towards one is made in Dr. Burnell's essay quoted before, where only the names of the teachers -some of them later than Pāṇinimare given.' The School of Panini 10. The School of Pāṇini.- The work which brought to a focus these tentative efforts of the early grammarians and by its accuracy and thoroughness eclipsed all its predecessors, dominating the thoughts of generations of thinkers even to present times, is the Ashțādhyāyi of Pāṇini. It stands--and it will always stand as long as Sanskrit continues to be studied as a monument at once of encyclopedic research and technical perfection. The work is also interesting in that it is probably the oldest surviv- 1 A few instances are also collected in Indische Studien, iv. p. 76. Compare also History of Ancient Sanskrit Litera. ture, p. 160. 2 In his sätras Pūņini refers to the Northern and the Eastern schools of grammarians and to the following tea individual authors: 39, 977944, गाये गालव, चाक्रवर्मण, भारद्वाज $71972077.377974, water, and स्फोटायन. It would not be far from the truth to assume that in one way or another Pūņini's work was an improvement upon those of his predecessors. Some of them may have confined their attention merely to tbe Vedic and some to the post-Vedic Literature, or, treating of both, must have given less attention to current speech and more to the scriptures. The Vedūöga spoken of by Yaska must be such a treatise and not the Ashtādbyāyī.

·1 [- $11 Panini: His Dalc 13 ing specimen of that type of literary Activity which found cxpression in the nphoristic style.' 11. Pişinl'a date -The question about the age of this greatest of granımarinns is by no means yet scttiod, or even on the way of being settled. The late Dr. Peterson was inclined to identify him with his nomcsakc, Pūnini tlic poct, quoted in Vallabhndeva's Subhashitāvali and clsewhere, and to placc lim'at a datc much later than that ordinarily accepted,' that is, about thic beginning of the Christian cr.: Tho identification of Pāņini tlic grammarian with Pāṇini tho poct was also accepted by Pischel, who however assigned to him the date cir. 500 bcforc Christ. The question how far Pāņini will crentually have to be brought down from thc date now accepted for him, or how far it may be, on the contrary, advisable to push into rcmoter antiquity thc lyrical poetry of Northern India' is finally left undctcrmined by Dr. Peterson." According to this vicw it would appear thut the two well-known references to the Ikhyāyikā called Võsa. vadatta occurring in the Mahābhäshya (vol. ii, p. 284) are to be taken as chronologically in touch with the celebratcd romance of Subandhu, a writer of the seventh century. This will leave not cren a century between Pataſijali and Bhartrihari the author of the Vākyapadiya. How in that case we are to account for thio vicissitudes in the text of the Mahābhāshya as recorded in the latter work and in the Rājatarañginis one is at a loss to say. Since the recent discovery of Bhāsa's Svapna-Vasavadattani, which probably was based upon an earlier epic or ākhyāoska, 1 That the stra-form was bot Der 3 latroduction tu the Subhashitain Panini's days is evident vali, p. 58. from the Gtra v.1.58 : a 4 Towards the end of Konda ii. पार संज्ञासपस्त्रायपनेषु। 5 Comparo 1.170 ; Sce aloo Indian 2 Soo his Report on the search of Antiquary, vol. iv. p. 107. Sk. M88, for 1882-83, pp. 398, ·14 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § II - ] we are no longer required to connect Patañjali with Subandhu. Weber and after him Max Müller put Pāṇini down to about 350 B. C., thereby making Pāṇini almost the contemporary of Kātyāyana the author of the vārtikas to Pāṇini's sūtras ; ? and this opinion obtained for a time, until it was assailed by Drs. Goldstücker and Bhandarkar who have succeeded in proving that Pāṇini cannot have flourished later than B. C. 500. Goldstücker went much farther : he maintained that within the whole range of Sanskrit literature, so far as it is known to us, only the Samhitās of the Rik, Sāna, and Krishna-Yajus, and among individual authors only the exegete Yāska preceded Pāņini, and that the whole bulk of the remaining known literature is posterior to him.' This position in an exaggerated form has been stated at length by Pandit Satyavrata Sāmaśramī, in the introduction to his Nirukta, making Yāska also a successor of Pāṇini. The date he assigns to Pāņini is cir. 2400 before Christ. Conclusions of this kind it was once the fashion to brush aside as carrying the starting point of Vedic chronology much farther than there was any warrant for it. Since, however, recent researches into the antiquity of 1 TTistoy of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 28 quoted by Goldstücker in his note 91, p. 80 (Reprint, p. 60) of Papini, His place &c. 2 Goldetlicker, . loc. cit., p. 243 (Reprint, p. 187). This view of Goldstücker, however, is not strictly accurate. Pūnini must have known some form of the Gribya and the Dharma sūtras. In his būtru iy. 4.71 Pūņini mentions probibited places or times for study : STEYPTFT Tora. Patañjali in the Mahabhīshya (vol. ii, p. 386) explains what prohibited places (771) or timeg ( BATATFYT or aeft) are meant. These prohibitions are embodied in works of the Grihya or Dharma sūtra type, and Pūnini must be thinking of some such works existing in his days. I owe this note to Professor Pathak.

·(-1: Pāṇini: Ilis Date 15 Ihc l'edas havc donc tuch to throw a doubt over tho starting point for Ancient Indian Literaturc acccpied by Professor Max Viller and other writers, the best thing, in the abscncc of any positivc cridcncc, is a suspension of judgment. In another place (pp. 6-7) wo have given rcasons for agrecing rith Goldstticker in accepting the priority of Yiska over Piņini. Perhaps 700 to 600 B.C. trould hc as ricar an approximation to Panini's time as, in our prcsnt sintc of knoir edge, or rather rant of knowledge, C are likely to get. 12. The view that Pinal annot be placed helorc D. C. 350 tuamined. The fact that Pamini in is. 1.49 (strinya TUTOHTUUSTOTIHTI TITUÍTSATTF) mentions lasanas (nud the femalc formation Paranánt (roin the stem) has lcd most restern scholnrs to put domn Panini 10 a datc nol carlier than B.C. 350. The underlying assumptions are: i. that'Y'avanas' en designato nonc but thc Ionian Grocks, and ji. that Indin did not liasc her knowledge of "Yosanns' prior to Alcxandcr's invnsion, B. C. 327. Not regarding point i. thc lato Dr. Rajcndmlai Mitm in his Indo. Aryans' gorc ampic cridence to prove that for no period of Indian history could wc he quite certain that the word Yarana ncccssarily designated the Ionian Grecks. But cven if we agree to marc this consideration for the prescnt, point ii. is by no means a settied fnct. Thc 'v' sound in the word 'Yarana 'ropresents an original digamma (T) in Greek ; and as the digammn was lost as carly as B. C. 800, the Sanskrit word Yavana' must be at lcast as old as the ninth century before Christ. The Ionians appear in history long beforc B.C. 1,000 and it is not at all improbable that the Indians know them, as soll as their neighbouring raccs,--such as Assyrians (UT-****T-376) Skythians (T4-TTTTT), MIcdcs (HF-RE-RET), Persians (TTTTTT), Parthians (Tv), etc.-perhaps centuries before Alexander's invasion. Al nny rate if Indian troops are ·"16 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar ſ 12 - ) known to have formed part of the army of Darius in the battle of Platææ (B. C. 479), India's knowledge of the Greeks can go back to the middle of the fifth century before Christ. The fact is--and scholars are just begining to recognise it—that we have been too hasty. in con demning the Pauranic accounts of the frontier tribes and races (e. g. those in the Vishịupurāņa or in the Mahābhārata, Bhishmaparvan, Chap. xi) as purely imaginative fabrications. We have so far altogether ignored the extensive commerce and interchange of ideas that went on between the Indian Aryans and their brethren beyond the frontiers as far as the Mediterranean--and this long before B. C. 400. So much so that when other independent proofs vouch for the antiquity of an author (in the case of Pāņini we shall discuss these proofs presently) the burden of proof rests with the person who maintains that some specific reference in that author belongs to a later and not to an earlier time, when, so far as facts go, the reference might just as well be to an earlier period. Nay, more. In this particular case Pāņini's reference must certainly belong to the earlier period. Compared with Kātyāyana's knowledge about the Yavanas that of Pāṇini is very slight. Pāņini did not know that the Yavanas bad a script of their own (comp. Waarom, Katyāyana's vārtika to iv. 1.49), or at least in his time there was no current Sanskrit word for that script. Nor was the fact that the Yavanas had a native-place and a kingdom of their own sufficiently known to Sanskrit literature, as is, evidenced by Kātyāyana's vārtika कम्बोजादिभ्यो लुग्वचनं चोडाद्यर्थम् i. c. चोडकडेरकेरल(शकयवना)द्यर्थम to iv. 1.175--supposing of course that शक and formi a genuine part of the main@tut. Such slight acquaintance with the Yavanas, therefore, as Pāṇini betrays cannot have belonged to a time subsequent to Alexander's invasion. 3 यवन ·1- (1. dimini: Ilis Dile But there is also indcrenilcat aridence to prove that Tágini lived lcrore dlciandet's inrition. Thic internal cvidcricc mhich compeli usio mesuprusCut 121ttn coupio of buddici! yeats licinees l'atanjali and Katyayana, and Katy Spania and 1'inini- cvidc:lc which cien Vincent Sraith finds himself compelled to ncccpiflarly Ifant.rol. r., p. 451, nolc *)-hastocitiralalon note 1, 1*** forlor. The most aportant of circinul cvilence that has been lately brought forward (hrl. listanáth Kísluitli Rajarade in the cus' for oth August 1980) is l'amani's ention of Ilic torn Singala (Gr. Sangala, ... Siikala) in 1fic sta (ir. :.75). l'únim derises the namo of the town fro: thic proper a:uc Salilala. Siikala son city compiled by (l'rincc?) Safikala. this city Alexander in cd to the ground as n punishment for thic stout scisl. ance of its defenders (Vincent Sinith, loc. cit., page 7). no l'afini could not harc llicrcaſiet spoken of it in the ruanner in which lie docs. 1'39n, thcicforc, musi liyo lived hcforc dicuadct's inınsion. Another indercadcut cridoncc is furnishc: by the süles raifftruentimit (« 3.117). Ilcrc llic l'arsus or the l'esbians (and thic Asurns or thic Assyrians) arc men. tioned as on siivotirante or an organization of mercenary fighters, similar to tho Grecks of the fourth century B.C., or thic Gcrmans of the screntcenth century. Thc Persians vcrc blotied out us a politiail power in B. C. 329, and tha Assyrians in B. C. 538. l'iņini's rcfcrcnccs to theso pcopic belong, tlicrcforc, probably lo n limo anterior to thcsc datcs. Lastly, rcscrting onco more to Katyāyana's värtikn to iv. 1.175, iſ the word TF. Cormos a genuinc part of the fraraus, it will bo necessary to suppose that lånini did not kuow thut tho šakns or Skythius lind a country or a kingdom of their own. Now the first King of the 3 SL. Gr.)

·18 Systems of Sanskrit Granimar $ 12-1 ܕ ܀ Skythians was Deioces (fa) whose date is cir. 700 B.C., and Pāṇini must have lived before B. C. 700 or. at least not long after that date. It is of course conceded that none of these arguments are decisive taken singly. Alternative suppositions could be made to explain away some of these facts. Thus Pāṇini may conceivably mention the city of Sangala even after its destruction by Alexander. The Persians and the Assyrians might have turned into mercenary soldiers after the loss of their independence. And in the case of the OFFTA sūtra, since Patañjali in his gloss on Kātyāyana's vārtika does not mention the Śakas or the Yavanas, the two words may not possibly form a genuine part of Kātyāyana's addition, and consequently no cogent argument could be based on that circumstance,~-waving the alternative possibility of Pāṇini having at times made mistakes. Finally, it is not altogether impossible that the sõtras on which our arguments for Pāṇini's antiquity are based, were taken over by Pāṇini bodily from some of his predecessors, just as, contrariwise, the sūtras from which his modernity is inferred (especially the word TT in sūtra iv. 1.149) were later interpolations. But in that way anything is possible and we would be reduced to speechlessness. The upshot of all this is that there is nothing in · Pāṇini's Ashțādhyāyī that is inconsistent with his having flourished in the seventh century B. C., and this negative conclusion is all that I am content to reach for the present, leaving the burden of proof with those who wish to maintain the contrary. 13. Known facts about Pāņini's life. As differing from himself Pāņini mentions (v. 3. 80, vi. 2. 74, etc.) a school of Eastern grammarians, and in later literature he is also known by the name śālāturiya' which is probably derived Firstaera77FEIENFrant &c, from TUTTETHETÇÍÈ stanza 2.

·[ - $14 Kno:on Facts about l'āṁini's Life 19 ' from his native place. Cunningham lias identificul Salatura with the present Lalaur in thc Yusufzai valley. In thic days of Hillen Tsang the valley was known as Udyrna and Saixtura was a prosperous town. To-day it is an obscurc dcscrted village in the North-western Frontier Provincc, car Attock. In his Halåbliūsliyn' Patnſijali gives another bit of biographical information about Panini whom ho alles anfit. Dakshi then was Panini's inother. The Kathisaritsigara (Inmiiga 4) makes Pāṇini a contcm. porary of Kiltyd yana and l'yadi nnd Indradatta, nlong with whom he studied at the house of aporo vý. Not succeeding in his studies Panini practiscil penance and received from God śiva the fourteen pra!sāhāra sātras. Thc story about liis death from a tiger' as recorded in Panchatantra, iſ based on fact, may or mnny not refer to our Panini. And this is about all that we know of Pāņini's personality. 14. Character of Pininl's work.-Panini's work consists of nearly four thousand sūtras thrown into cight ndhyayas of four pādas cachi: lcncc its name Ashtādhyāyi. Thic text of the sūtras has come down to us almost intact. A doubt exists as to the genuineness of only five of thcsc sñtras, and that is becausc they are given in thc Nahábhishya as vārtikas to the sätras just preceding them. When we say that the text has been preserved intact, it is not meant that it is exactly as we find it in any of our current editions. The Inte Dr. Kiclhorn drow attention to the 1 म मर्षपदादेशा दासीपुरप पाणिनेः । tendency to regarid an aotra Kielhorn's enl. vol.i. p. 75. wbat is given as virtika, anil . ffret TRUITUTET PT PTUTTI rice rersa, tiny create som BATT grfuritz i Tantra li, lanza confusion in this exactenumera tion of tho patran. The whole 3 Namely, two bet woen iv. 3.131 matter nepilt to love critically and 132 ani, 1.36, vi. 1.62, studied. Compare (loldatticker and vi. 1.100,--tha last thren page 29 (Reprint, p. 21), nola being siyon in the Malabha. eliya as vårtikes to the sotras 4 Indion Antiquary, rolume xri, immediately preceding. Tho 33. 28. Pago 179, ·20 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 14 - ] fact that the text of the sūtras has not received from the editors all the care that is necessary. All that we mean is that with sufficient pains we can restore from the vārtikas and the Mahābhāshya the exact words 'as they were used by Pāṇini himself. Changes have been suggested in more than one place by more than one writer, but they were not actually made until after the times of Chandragomin, the Kāśikākāras, and subsequent writers. Pāṇini has discussed his entire subject in a manner which is very simple in outline, could we but once grasp it, but which has proved very complex in execution. We may conceive of it in some such way as the following: Analysing language--and this is what vyākarana literally means--the first element we reach is a sentence, which again consists of a verb in the various tenses and moods, and a number of substantives in case-relations to each other. [The indeclinables we do not count for the present ; they are put in towards the end of 1.4.] Now the forms of verbs that we meet in sentences seem to be made up of an original root-stem and a number of pratyayas or endings, and it is these endings that give the verbs their several modal and temporal significances. These endings, we further notice, group themselves into two sets, and some roots take invariably only one of them, others both, while a number of others change from one to the other under certain circumstances. At the outset then, and to get rid of extra complexity, we dispose of these so-called Atmane-pada and Parasmai-pada prakriyās (i. 3). Turning pari passu to the other element of the sentence, having defined a case-relation (i. 4), we notice that “there are often in a sentence sustantives without any case termination at all. We explain these as the members of a whole which we technically call a samāsa or a compound. The formation and the varieties of these nust ·21 [- 14 Programme of the Ashtadhyayi first be cxplained (ii. 1 and 2), before we actually treat of the kārakas or casc-relations (ii. 3). Taking up the verbs where we left them, we next, after a few preliminary definitions and other cognato matters (ii. 4 end), deal at length with the formation and the uses of the various tenses and moods; and, while we are still on the subject, we explain what arc usually known as verbal derivatives, that is to say, thosc clements of sen. tences which, although by reason of their case-endings they may seem to belong to the category of substantives, do yet bear a very close affinity in nicaning and forination to the root stems from which they arc derived (iii. 1-4). Now we are frec to concentrate ourselves on the nounelement of the sentence. The Nairuktas or Etymologists seem to assert that all these nouns arc derived from the root-stems, which were the ultimate factors that we reached in our examination of the verb-clement of the sentence. Let us examine this theory, To simplify matters wc niust, in the first place, dispose of a large number of nouns which are derived from other nouns by the addition of the so-called taddhita affixes (iv.1.76—7.4). Then it is thnt we reach the substantive divested of all extornal wrappings. But may not there be some changes in the very body of the nouns which we can explain? It is only when we have done that (vi.4m-vii.4) that we are at liberty to style the residual as temata mauna,'--unless, of course, we intend to step outside the rolc of a mere grammarinn, as distin. guished from a philologist, and try to trace even these back to some more primitive verb-stems. Pāṇini has made his contribution to philology in the form of the Uņādi. sātras (see below, § 16). This gives us the complete programme of the Ashtā. dhyāyi, and if Pāṇini seems to depart from this in places ·22 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 14 - ] it is more for convenience of treatment than for anything else. He begins, as was quite appropriate, with a few definitions and canons of interpretation (i. 1 and 2), and he always takes care to introduce such definitions whereever they are required. Some minor topics usually found included in systematic treatises on grammar, such as the Svara-prakarana (vi. 2) or the Strī-pratyayas, Pāṇini has attempted to put into the places where they would most fit in, the only prominent exception to the above rule being the Sandhi-prakaraņa, which may conceivably have as well been placed elsewhere than where it occurs (vi, i and viii. 2-4), and which in any case need not have been cut into two halves separated from one another by the whole matter of nearly two chapters. His system of pratyāhāras and his anxiety to secure a maximum of brevity are perhaps responsible for this lapse in regular logical sequence. But barring these paltry exceptions there is no doubt that Pāṇini has succeeded remarkably well in welding the whole incongruous mass of grammatical matter into a regular and a consistent whole.' 15. Technical devices used by Pāņini..The difficulty in understanding Pāṇini comes from the very circumstance which Pāṇini himself perhaps considered as his real adyance over all his predecessors, namely his attempt to economise expression where conceivably he could do so 1 I do not wish to conceal the fact that the above topical scheme for the whole of the Ashitadhyayi will be found wanting, if tried in details. It would seem as if Pūnini was work, ing allornately upon the two main aspects of his problem: the noung and the verbs; and the present arrangement of the sūtras in the Ashțādhyāy is the result of attempting to dovetail the two into a coherent whole, involving in the process many an addition and omission and transposition. It may even be that some sections of the gūtras aro post-Pūņinīya interpolations, just as, trariwiso, other sections of the entras Prồini may have bodily taken over from some earlier con- ·[- 15 Technical Devices used by Pāṇini 23 without bcing misunderstood. Wly Pāṇini should have clccted to strain all his nerves to bring about a result which a student of grammar is often likely to rcgurd as thc curse of his lot is inore than what wc can say. His object may have been to give his students aids to memo. Ty; or thc sūtra-stylc may harc arison, us suggested by Goldstiicker, in the scarcity of thc material for writing. In any case we have rcasons to assumic that the sātras from the earliest times were accompanicd by a traditional explanation of them. Lct us for a inoment dwell a little longer on this point and note tho various means thoroby Pāṇini attemp. ted to sccur terseness and brority of cxpression. The foremost amongst the devices used was of course that of the pratyāhārns or elliptical statements, and of the anubandhas or significant endings. The first was cficcted by means of the fourteen Siva-sātras, which, according to tradition, wore revealcd to him by God Siva himself by sounding his tabor. As to the sccond, although the anubandhas used by Pāṇini arc pcculiar to himself, thc device does not appear to have been his invention. The practice already existed, and Pāṇini only utilised it to its utmost limits.. The formation of ganas, by which are mcant lists of words which undergo similar grammatical changes, also tended towards the same result. Some of these ganas are complete and some ākriti-ganas, that is to say, ganas which do not exhaustively cnumerate all the words of a - Grammare. But for the intrinhave it now,-licro would be a sic difficulty of the task and splendid problem in textual for the fact that we have no criticigui. extent authority earlier than 1 Comparo Baliabbaslıya on vii, 1, the Mabablishya, which knows 18 : suur grafagatste ! the Ashļūdhyayı in practically पूर्धसूत्रेषु येऽनुयन्धा न रिस्का- tho same form in wlich we र्याणि क्रिपन्ते।

·24 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 15-1 class, but rather give merely a few leading types. Pāṇini in his sūtras gives only the first word of a gana and they have hence been considerably tampered with since his times. So, although we cannot be certain whether any one word now found in the Ganapātha existed in Pāṇini's day, still the bulk of our present Gaņapātha may safely be considered as coming from the hands of the grammarian himself. The next device to secure brevity was the invention of peculiar technical symbols such as घ, षष्, लुक, लु, लुपू &c. Some of these may have been known to Pāņini from his predecessors, while others were probably of his own creation: Patañjali distinctly tells us that ſê, g and # were known to him already.' In the framing of the sātras Pāṇini always scrupulously omitted all such words as may be conveniently supplied from sense or from preceding sūtras. The technical name for this process is anuvritti, and to secure it he has made some of his sātras adhikāra-sūtras," that is to say, sūtras which have to be repeated, wholly or in part, each time any of the sõtras dominated by it are to be interpreted. Lastly, in portions of the Ashtadhyāyi he has so arranged the sūtras that where two sūtras appear equally applicable, that which comes earlier in the order of the Ashtādhyāyī must obtain precedence over the one which comes later.3 1 Mabūbhñslıya on i. 2. 53, and fraamc.g. i. 2.48, where at Kaiyyata in the same place. has it; 3. giving a numerical 2 Pūņini shows that & perticular value to some mute letter addsutra is an adbikūra sutra by ed to the sūtra ; c.g. (=2) i, the word प्राकू followed by a is supposed to be added to word in the ablative case v. 1.30 to show the extent of occurring in a subsequent sutra the adhikūra ; and 4. ETOTT to which the adhikūra is to तो विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः। continue ; as in i. 4. 56; 2. 3 Pāņini viii. 2.1-esha ·[- $ 16 Treatises accessory to Põnini 25 There is yet one nuorc device serving the samo ond which romains to be montioned and of which so much was made in later grammatical speculations: nomoly, the use of the paribhäsliās or canons of interpretation. Some of them are enunciated by Pāṇini limsolf, but a larger nun. ber he found already current in his day, and so used them tacitly, and the task reserved for later grammarians was to discover what facts in Pāṇini's sūtras imply the use of what particular paribbāsliżs.' 16. Treatises accessory to l'aņini's Ashçadnydyl.- In addition to thic Ashţādhyāyi, Pāṇini put together a Dhātupātha or list of roots, a Ganapātha or list of words which behave aliko grammatically, and Uņādi-sõtras in some form or other. Regarding the first, Pāṇini mentions in the sātras themselves all the ten classes and oven somo of their sub-divisions just as they occur in the Dhātupātha. The anubandhas of the Dhātupātha, furthor, have the samo significance as those of the Ashțădhyāyi. These facts tend to establish Pāṇini's authorship of the Dhātupātha. We have already spoken (p. 23 Above) about the Gana. pātha, which also in the main belongs to Pāṇini. The question as to the authorship of the Uņādi-sātras cannot be so easily settled. They are commonly supposed to be the work of Sākațāyana on the basis of statements found in the Nirukta' and the Mahābliāslya,' according to which Śākatāyana agreed with the truth ihr in deriving 1 For the distinction betweon tho vii. 1. 59; vii, 2. 45;&c. परिभाषास्त्र and the ज्ञापकसूत्र 3 Westergaard's Radices Lingun and the whole question of Saoscritw, pp. 342, 343. Panini's use of parillaslTs 4 Nirukta i. 4.1 : THEYTHse0 Goldstückes, pp. 106-118 जानीति शाकटायनो भैरुक्तसमयश्च । (Reprint, pp. 81-90). 5 Kielhorn, vol. ii. p. मामच 2 Compare i. 3.1 ; ii. 4, 72 and धातुजमाह निरुक्त प्याकरणे शकटरप 75 ; iii, 1. 25, 56, 69, 73, 77, च तोकम् । 78, 79, 81; üi. 3. 104; vi. 1.16 +[Sk. Gr. ) i ·1 ₂ Systems of Sanskrit Grammar Ś 16 - 1 all nouns from roots. Since, however, no work of Śākatā- Śabdānušāsana has come down to us, and since the yana which now passes under his name is a comparatively late production (see below, § 52), we cannot say whether this ancient ſākatāyana left behind him any work in justification of the views which he doubtless held. On the other hand the Uņādi-sūtras exhibit unmistakable marks of Pāņini's system. They use sanjñās such as fra, giá, ta, 367, TUT, TT, FISTATTUT, and it in the same sense in which Pāṇini uses them. The anubandhas of the Uņādis are also similar to Pāņini's. This raises a strong presumption that the Uņādi-sātras are the work of Pāņini himself; and it is further corroborated by the fact that Kātyāyana in more than one place takes objection to the technical application of a rule in the Ashtādhyāyī urging that it does not hold good in the case of particular Uņādisūtras-man objection which could not have been urged unless Kātyāyana regarded Pāņini to be the author of the Uņādis ; for, Pāṇini was not to be expected to frame rules that would hold good in other people's works.' There is no reason why we should not accept this conclusion. We cannot, however, assign all the Uņādi-sātras to Pāṇini's authorship, seeing that in some places their teaching runs counter to the Ashțādhyāyi. The probable view, as suggested by Goldstücker," is that the Uņādi list was first drawn up by Pāņini, but that it was afterwards modified or corrected by Kātyāyana. The extent of the changes introduced by the author of the Vārtikas must 1 Examples are vii. 3.50, vii, 4.13, ed on the fact that forests viii. 2. 78, and viii. 3. 59. In व्युत्पन्नानि प्रातिपदिकानि । most of these cases Katyayang 2 Tbus, UŅūdi-sütra iv. 226 goes has the remark gureta - against Pāṇini vi. 2. 139. ut Thaq: or words to this 3 Pāṇini, his place &c., pp. 170 effect. Patañjali's defence of (Reprint, 130) and 181 (Re- Pagini is throughout ground print, 139).

·27 [- 8 16 Treatises accessory' lo Panini have been so grent ns to credit him, in popular trndition, with their solo nuthorship. Thus Vimninsannsynti, a writer not Inter than the fourtconth century A. D., and Durgasimha' who belongs to the carly centuries of the Christinn cra, both assign the nuthorship of the Uņādi. sātras to Vararuchi atins Katyāynna. Thc poct Magha, homercr, scems to look upon the Uņādis ns belonging to Pāṇini," though liis words aro not quite explicit. The other works nppcnded to Pāņini's system pro. bably do not come from him. The Phit-sūtmas arc, by unanimous testimony, the work of Sintanaricháryn, a writer inuch later than Pāṇini. Thc Śikslia bcars on the face of it the stamp of modernncss, notwithstanding the fact that a versc from it has found its way into the Malābhaslıya ; 9 and the same is truc of the Liūgānušāsana. Regarding the Paribhāskūs, in addition to thoso given by Pāņini in his Ashtadhyāyi there may have been others current in Panini's timc and tacitly cmployed by him ; but no ancient collection of them las como down to us. The Paribhashās are usually assigned to the authorship of Vyāļi who comes between Pāṇini and Patanjali. 1 In the रूपमाला, the India Office Comparo मागोगिभर on फिदयन Mo, of which is dated 1381 it. 21, where lo remarka-"T A.D., we find : gunfaat. दिएमाण पाणिग्पपेक्षा आy. करणाप परुचिमा पपगेष एत्राणि मिफगर्नुकाणीति पर धोपम् । AT IT OUT I ETY &c. 5 AfghabliExlıya, rol. i. p. 2-4! 2 Ilo begian his coin. on the T &c. = TETT, stanza 52-- section of tho Katastra with it ta: &c. This stanza, the peran : Temecat ETT however, forms a scauiao छतिना म एताछतः। फारपापनेन part of the Malabhrabya, seo- Hot get resterfte. The ing that it is commented upon krits in this school also in. by woeft in hio ATTRIZIAT, clade the Uņudie, as will be Kielhorn, vol. il, preface, p. 13, and la qnoted by gat 3 Sidupalayadha xix, 76, and Mal. in tho Tantravertika, Benares lingtha's cornmentary upon ed., p. 233. tbo samo, Keen later.

·28 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 16-1 our Between Pāṇini and the next great grammarian; Kātyāyana, came many authors, who attempted, more or less successfully, to emend or justify Pāṇini's rules, and some of the mietrical vārtikas found in the Mahābhāshya probably belong to these predecessors of Kātýāyana. We must needs assume this, unless we are ready to suppose that the considerable interval of time that exists between Pāñiñi and Kātyāyana was altogether barren of grammatical spèculations. Whoever tliese predecessors were, as knowledge about their works is next to nothing, we must now pass on to Kátyāyana himself. 17. Kātyāyana : His date. The Kathāsaritsāgara makes Kātyāyana the contemporary of Pāṇini, or more accurately, the senior of the two; and had not this tradition been to this extent accepted by so great an authority as "Max Müller, we might have explained this on the analogy of a row of columns seen in perspective, where the columns which are farthest from us look nearest to each other, for the simple reason that we cannot discern any marks in the interspaces. We must be prepared however to give up this view and presuppose between Pāṇini and Kätýāyana that much time which the nature of the changes in the forms of language above indicated will reasonably require; and unless we assume that language and customs were in an extraordinarily volatile condition in ancient times, 1 Goldstücker proves this by showing that 1. grammatical forme current in Panini's time are obsolute in that of Kūtyāyana. 2. So also the: beanings of words. 3. Words acquire in Katyayana's time significances which they had uot in Pāņini's. 4. Literaturo known to Būtylyana was unknown to Panini. 5. Writers contemporary with or little separated in time from Pūņini are looked upon by Kūtyāyana as very ancient, o.g. Yājäyåvalkys ; on his last point the Kusika remarks: याज्ञवल्क्यादयो हिं न चिरकाला इत्याख्यानेषु वार्ताः For fuller particulars see Goldsticker on Pūņini, pp. 122-167 (Řeprint, pp. 94-120).

·[ - $18 halvann : Ilis 1l'ork 29 about two to three centuries would not by any means bc too great an interval that we can suppose to intc clapsed betricen them. In the present stnic of our knowledge tre cannot thereforc, unfortunately, arrivo nt a greater approximntion than 500-350 13. C., nearer to the Intter limit if the relation of Katyāyuna sitli tlic Nandas mentioned in Kathisaritsägaru hins any basis in fact. 18. Nature of Kityiyana's work.- Kityliyana's work, the Intikas, arc meant to correci, modify, or supplement the rules of Pänini wherever tlicy irerc or had becomc partially or totally inapplicabic. Therc aro evro trorks of his which aim at this object. The earlicr' is the Vájasancyi Prātisīkliya, I work dcaling with thic grammar and ortho. graphy of thc Vajasancyi-Samhită. Bcing limited by the nature of his subject to Vedic fornis of language only, Katyāyana las hçrcin given his criticisms on such of the sātros of Panini as fell within his provincc. Taking up tho suggestion which dawned upon him probably in the course of his Prātisakhya, Katyāyana next subjected Panini's Ashțādhyayi to n searching criticism. Sinco herc his objcct was not to explain Päņini but ſind faults in his grammar, hic has left unnoticed many sātras that to him appeared valid. Of the nearly 4,000 sātmas Katyāyana 1 Katyayant io credited with the thero giren arriodentical with enthonkip of a third work in those of Papini. if. The pra. #atra style, the Kalstyann tyalitas and apubandhag aro Srauta gatras (publiabied in in most cares iboto oł Papini. Clapkhamis Sasoris til. Where there ato changes series), but It hans nothing to they are improvemeota opon do witb grammar. It might Papini, such 'improvements as have given Katyayana prac. Katt Fans Jstor embodied tico in writing sotras, but with occasional changes for tbat is all. the better in bia vtrukas. See & That the Vajananeyi-Pratietkhya Goldstucker, Papiai, pp. 199 in posterior to and based upon (Reprint, pp. 163) and the fol. Pupial is clear from the fact losing i. that many of the stras ·30 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $18 - ] 1 noticed over 1,500 in about 4,000 vārtikas. We must add to these the considerable number of cases where Kātyāyana has criticised Pāṇini's rules in his Prātišākhya. Some of these criticisms he repeats as vārtikas, generally saying there what he had to say in a more correct form. Kātyāyana has not merely stated his doubts and objections in regard to some of Pāṇini's rules, but in most cases has shown how they can be solved or removed.2 At the same time he always takes care to prove his propositions, and when suggesting an alternative course, he always tells us that he does so. Notwithstanding this there are, according to Patañjali's showing, a good many cases where his criticisms are misplaced, or are the result of misunderstanding Pāṇini. Some of the vārtikas are written in prose, while others are thrown into a metrical form.. In a vast number of cases Kātyāyana has clearly indicated the rules of Pāṇini to which his remarks refer by repeating the sātras verbatim, or with slight changes, or by taking its most importants or introductoryo 8 word. Cross references to his own vārtikas he gives by 377 379, 37 at, or 3T gå ut. Kātyāyana, in that he meant to write a criticism on Pāṇini was compelled to adhere to the latter's terminology. Notwithstanding this fact he has used fat for 37 1 For Pāṇini's Katyāyana in the Prūtiśākhye has- अदर्शनं लोपः १-१-६० . Torfarsesta ta: 9–989 TFANGRETTIFY 9-9-€ तस्मादित्युत्तरस्यादेः १-३५ मुखनासिकावचनोऽनुनासिकः १-१-८ मुखानुनासिकाकरणोऽनुनासिकः १-७५ 2 Usually by phrases such as i 4 Vārtika 1 to sūtra iii. 1. 84 ; er. Compare Indian Anti: 5 Vārtika 1 to sūtra v. 2. 47; quary, yolume V, Note 2 on 6 Vārtika 1 to sūtra vi. 4. 14; the Mabābhāshya, where Kiel- 7 Vartika 2 to sūtra iii, 4. 79 ; horn discusses the whole subto give but one instance of ject. each, 3 Vartika 1 to sūtra ii. 1. 33 ;

·t-19 Earlier and Later Vārtikakáras 31 cum fos , THTATETT for HF, Hunt and start fos 75 and 5. This fact, together with the statement in the Kathūsaritsāgara' to the effect that he was a follower of the Aindra school, makes it probable that he belonged to a school, of grammar different from Pāmini's. Patofijali distinctly calls him a Southerncr'.: 19. Vartikakóras before and after Katyāyana. As observed beforo (p. 28), Kātyāyana had several predecessors from whose works he may have taken many suggestions. In his Prātišākhya he refers to ſākațāyann“ and Sīknlyn," names already quoted by Pāṇini ; while in the vārtikas he refers by name to Vājapyāyann, Vyādi,' and Paushkarnsädi,' and designates a number of others under the general appelation of vita, at, and so forth. Some of these latter must have been scholars who, likc Kātyāyana himself, subjected the wording of the sātras of Pāṇini to a critical examination. Vyādi we know, was the author of an extensive work called Sangraha, referred to in the Mahābhā. shya' which is in fact based upon it. Kātyāyana was followed in his task by a vast number of writers. The names of some of these are preserved for us by Patañjali.so To that list we must add the author or authors of the metrical vārtikas(over 250) that are quoted in the Mahābāshya. Some of these belong to Pataſijali himuself, others probably to Kātyāyana, while still others, to either the predecessors or successors of Kätyāyana." That 1 Tsraiga ir, and elsewhere : * pallye describes the Maha. प्रणटमैन्दं तदस्मद्याकरणं भृषि । bhushya as houeafych. 2 dabūbhashya, vol.1, p 8, line 2: 10 Namely, Herto, plant, . मियतद्धिता दाक्षिणात्याः। णरवादव, वादव, सौर्यभगवत् and 3 iii. 8: HE FETT:1 HTT. 4 ii. 9 : sa Ti $7169: 1979 11 The question as to the author. 5 Vartika 35 to i. 2. 64, ship of these sterfaring is 6 Vartika 45 toi. 2. 64. discussed in the Indian Anti- 7 Vartika 3 to viii, 4. 48. quary vol. 7, Note 4 on the 8 Vårtika 4 to ii, 1, 1, &c. Malablaelya. 9 Vol, i. p. 6, line 2; The Vakya, ·92 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 8.1.9 - ) some of them at least presuppose Kātyāyana is proved by kārikā i on Pāṇini iii. 2.118, which quotes one of his vārtikas. Unfortunately none of these successors of Kātyāyana are known to us otherwise than through quotations made by Patanjali in his Mahābhāshya. We must therefore next pass on to Patañjali, with whom ends the first period in the history of the Pāņiniya scliool. 20. Patanjall: His date and personal history.--The date of Patañjali the author of the Mahābhāshya is not subject to as vague a guess-work as that of Kātyāyana or Pāṇini. At one time scholars were inclined to make him a contemporary of Christ, but Dr. Bhandarkar has fought through the pages of the Indian Antiquary for an earlier date ; and it has been now accepled by scholars all round, and formed, in fact, until the recent discovery of the Kautilīya, the one definite landmark in the history of ancient Indian Literature, by a reference to which the dates of Patanjali's predecessors and successors could be approximately determined. The main arguments for assigning him to 150 B. C. are these: i. The instance to TSITAT TIFOTĦ: in such a context that the event must have occurred within the lifetime of Patanjali. ii. Similarly the instances अरुणद्यवनः साकेतं and अरुणयवनो मध्यामिकाम, which refer to a siege by Menander. iii. As a collateral evidence, the mention of a financial expedient of the Mauryas. Regarding the personal history of Patañjali very little is known. He was a contemporary of Pushpamitra and probably much honoured by him for his learning. It is usual to suppose that the epithets Gonardiya and Goņikā. putra used in the Mahābhāshya’ are his own other names 1 The references are : ladian An. tiquary i. 299-302 ; ii, 57, 69, 94, 206-10, 238, and 362 ; xv. 80-84 ; xvi, 156, 172 ; and Goldsticker, pp. 228-38 (Roprint, pp. 175-183), 2 Vol. i. pp. 78, 91, 336, &c, ·(- 20 Patanjali's Vahābhashya 33 ricrired from his native place and the name of liis mother, but it lias been shown by Rajendralit Mitra' and Dr. Kiclhorn' that thcs are distinct authors, and as such thcy arc quoted by socially a writer as littsyarana tlic author of thic Kim.-sitra.' Thic licst :rcount of Putnij.li's time, iſ not of his person, is to bc found in liic Mabiblislıya itself; and a dcinilcil crposition of the religious, historicaligcographical, socin!, and litcrary data as resulting from the contents of that work is to be found in the Indischic Studien, viii. pp. 293-502. Ilc fuave stitcal that l'atanjali was not the first to deal willi KalyIynnn in the samc way in which tlic lattor dealt with limini. Patanjali was perlups the most success. ful if not also the last of the number. Besides giving liis ishlis (dcsidcrata) on Panini's sitrus, sriicrcver Kilyo. yann liad omitice to give vārtikas, liis chief aim was to vindicatc Pāṇini uyninst the often unmcritcd attacks of Kütyāyano ; and in this lic has nchicved a remarkable success, although in some places he overdocs his defcnca and becoincs dccidedly unſuir to Kätyäynnn. The styic of his work is unpamileled in the whole range of Sanskrit Literaturc, only thc Širira.blıIshya of Snakorn being worthy of a mention by its sido. Regarding the toxt of the Mahabhishya the ernditions recorded in thic Rijatarnigins and in the Vökynpndiyas state that it has become so liopcicssly corrupt in the time of king Abhimanyu of Kašmir that only one authentic Ms. of it cxisted throughout India, from which all subsequent copics of it have been derived. The work, liko 1 Journal of the Asiatic Society of vided into four class00, whilo Bengal, rol. Lli, p. 269. mradi dirides them into 2 Indisa Apliquery six, p. 40. eight. 3 See Koma-sotro, p. 67 (Karga. # Vido polo 6 en p. 13 above. mola edition). According to 5 Kanels li, alanzas -181-90. गोणिकापुष tho गायिकाs are di. 5 ( St. Gr. ) ·34 § 20 - ] Systems of Sanskrit Grammar Pāṇini's Ashtādhyāyī, is divided into eight adhyāyas of four pādas each, each pāda being further subdivided into from one to nine āhnikas. The Mahābhāshya does not notice all.the sūtras of Pāņini, but only such as were noticed by Kātyāyana, as also such others as Patañjali himself considered incomplete and capable of improvement. Whether the remaining were likewise commented upon by Patanjali or not is more than what we can say.' 21. Patañjali's Maltāblāslıya as marking the end of the first period in the history of the Pāṇinīya school.-Pāņini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali are traditionally known as the "three sages,” muni-trayam, who gave the law to the science of grammar. Each took for his study the whole field of the living language, and the contribution made by each to the stock of inherited knowledge and ideas is quite considerable. Patañjali's Mahābhāshya for a time marked the highest point in the development of the science of grammar. So far as grammatical speculations go, the next three or four centuries which coincided with the bloom of the classical Prākrit literature and which also witnessed the Scythian invasions on a large scale-are a perfect blank to us ; and our next leap from Patanjali should be to Chandragomin, the founder of the Chāndra school. 22. Chandragomlu and his work.--Chandragominº was a close student of Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali, and for his work he utilized all their labours, trying in several places, in the light of the changes that had come over 1 A fanciful explanatio) of the the Mahabhashya vere blown fact that some of Pīņioi's away by the wind and others sutras are not to bo found in got disarranged. Another acthe Malībläshya is given in count makes a monkey TESthe Patañjala-clarita (Kūrya चयग्रासलोल: responsible for inīlī, No. 51), where it is said the accidont. that some of the lea vea of tho 2 For a more detailed account of originally complete copy of him seo $$ 42 and following.

·Chirain and his work 35 Sanskrit since the days of the author of the Jahabhi ya to improve upon chcin in tlic (cr: as well a, llic matter of thcir sülras w rärtikas and islitis. Chandraconill as a Euddha, and onc ci hisojec? 13 writing a ricw grammas nust have been to apply, fui lic Ocnclit o? mickcis of his Cincii, i 21.12.2011 : 0:18! fsc irco fron thic 11:27:110:al Brah:1:7:110al clcm:01. The more orthodox 31:15:ans, dicucich, *C!C 110l willing to #cccpe his innovations. They accordingly nici lo invent 11c* maxims of intcrprctal:9:1. Ivana!!!" to shox, niicr al very diligent maiysia of the world of the three TCRE sages, ta? sucli dcfecit. Ca 1.1731111 others trici 10 linii in tlic l'inimit mcrc in it nircadly implicitly prosiiled for. This poc mic *.15 II doubt historical, but :) sallat ol kimi rollis or of Pitario jali. als yet we cannol lit upon aaz 150 leiling names,' but the traditional cinnation of :N: 3icin of jminalas und Marillalás 1113$t lic rcfcrred to the line sonculcro fictwccn $70 (Ilıc dilc of Chandramomin) 1914 6,50 (tho date of onc of tlic authors of fie lit ilir. 17:6 1;:11.5 of Jay Tullya onu \21:1. Itsing thic Clincse pilgrim, srcalis of Juridity of Rimir as tho author of a grasmaticil work callcid vrilli-sitra, which it is usual lo identify with the Kiili, a joint work of Juriditya and l'im3011. Itsing tells us that Jayaditya died about A. D. 060; and iſ llic above identification is correct, this gives us the date of the Karika. $ Uilms it le those of ro, nha, and rear turktion in the Sokrajaya, Kini recutul, fari. 457, 2 Herg's crcont of thin format bage 77 to my liot Efter all rcfer to tie ITP. 11 spiahno u cum, on the road by l'ataujali od wrict as 11 7911415 com letril this that 1.1.1: II 1:12'), lo serer, 450 Chellring: Ile Kisiki nay punit than 651) 4.1)., *pling the univ. 3 68 it mentiora the l'Ihyaparliga by name, 'Jayaditya then aplrasa tu bo ·36 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 23-] The Kāśikā was once believed to be the work of one author variously called Vāmana, Jayāditya, or Vāmana- Jayāditya. It has now been found out that they are two distinct persons. Bhattoji Dikshita clearly distinguishes between their views,' and the concurrent testimony of Mss. from all parts of India assigns to Jayāditya the authorship of the first five chapters of it, while the last three belong to Vāmana, who probably came soon after Jayāditya and certainly before the time of Jinendrabuddhi, who comments upon the whole work.? Regarding the personality of the authors of the Kāśikā little definite is known. Neither of them begins his work with any mañgala, both exhibit an unorthodox tendency to introduce changes into the wording of the sūtras, and Jayāditya at any rate refers on i. 1. 36, with evident satisfaction, to the work of the Lokāyatikas.3 These reasons tend to show that the author or authors were Bauddhas. It is supposed that Jayāditya is to be identified with king Jayāpīda of Kāśnīr, whose minister, as mentioned by Kalhåņa, was a person named Vāmana. This may not be strictly accurate. Dr. Bühler believed that the author was a native of Kāšmir. at least a contemporary of Pūnini v. t. 42: एतत् सर्व जयादि- Bhartrihari the author of the TTAMATTATI TECTIE &c. Vikyapadiya. Vamana who 2 On tho question of the different probably wrote the last three authorship of the Kasikū see chapters of the Kasikūī came Dr. Bhandarkar's Report for soon after Jayāditya, and 1883-84, p. 58. Jinendrabuddhi, the author of 3 Sco Bala Sastri's edition of the the Nyūsa on the Kūšikā came Kūšikā, p. 62-aret ys: I probably before 750, seeing तत्सम्बन्धादाचार्योऽपि चार्वी । स that he is quoted by so early लोकायते शास्त्रे पदार्थान् नयते । an author as Blūmaha. Coin उपपत्तिभिः स्थिरीकृत्य शिष्येभ्यः pare also J. B. B.R.A.S. for प्रापयति । युक्तिभिः स्थाप्यमानाः 1909, p. 14; Indian Antiqnary, सम्मानिताः पूजिता भवन्ति । sti, pp. 232-237 and xlii, pp. 4 Dr. Biihler's Rr:pori,for 1875–76, 253-264, 1 Compare the sigaÄRAT on p. 73.

·( - $ 24 Kašikā of Jayāditya and Vāmano 37 Tic Kūšikā is a running commentary on Panini's Ashtādhyāyi, and its incrit consists in tlic lucid maulicr in which it has csplained the sâtras of Pâniui, clearly indicating all tlo anuvrittis and giving numerous illustrations for cach rulc. Somctimes thc Käsikā gives us inforination which we could not possibly have obtained from any other sourco. Thus on sūtra vii.3.95 it giros us a rule of Āpišali,' the gruinmarian who preceded Pāņini and whose work must conscquently have been known to tlic authors of thic Käsikā. On sitra vii. 2. 17 it wires us a vārtika of the Saunigas other than thosc quoted in thic Valäbliäshya. These facts, however scanty by themselves, corroboratc llic tradition of the cxistence of a vast number of graminarians prior and subscqucnt to the time of Kātyāyann. 24. The indebtedness of the Käsiks to Chandragomin.- The object of thic Käsikī was to embody in tlic Pāriniya system all the improvements that were made by Chandragomin. As the result of an exhaustivo analysis of the text of Pāṇini's sātras as given in the Kāšikā-yritti Dr. Kielhorn? sums up his conclusions thus: “ Thic text of the Ashtādhyāyi as given in tlic Käsikā differs in the case of 58 rules from the text known to Kätyāyana and Patañjali. Ten of these 58 rules arc altogetlicr fresh additions; nine arc a result of separating (by yoga-vibhāga) the original & sūtras into 17. In 19 cascs new words have been inserted into the original sūtras, while in the rest there are other changes in the wording &c. of the sötras." Some of these changes had been already suggested by Kātyāyana or Patañjali, especially in the matter of yogavibhāga. The additional words also were mostly taken 1 See alore, page 9 noto 3. 2 See Indian Antiquary yol, xvi, pp. 179 and following.

·38 Systems of Sanskrit Graninar $ 24- ) . from the vārtikas or from the notes in the Mahābhāshya, as well as from some of the added rules. Most of the new matter found in the Kāśikā can, however, be traced to Chandragomin, from whose work he diligently draws his material without anywhere acknowledging his sources.? This fact, as before pointed out, settles 470 A. D. as the upper limit for the date of the Kāśikā. 25. Jluencirabuddlil's Nyāsa on the Kāśikā.--An excellent commentary on the Kāśikā called Kāśikā-vivarana-panjikā or Kāśikā-nyāsa is the work of Jinendrabuddhi, who styles himself attraCTIITETT. This inforins us about his religion ; as to his date he cannot be later than 750 A. D., seeing that he is referred to by Bhāmaha, who says that a poet should never employ a compound in which a verbal derivative in gz is compounded with a noun in the genelive case, and adds that he should not support such usage by the authority of the Nyāsa, which presumably is the same as this work.3 The Nyāsa follows closely on the lines of the Kāśikā and tries to incorporate into itself whatever new was produced upto its time. It is a pity that we as yet 1 Tlus on is, 2. 138 Kūsikū gives the gūtra itself in conformity the vārtika agenire Tea04 with the Chandra vyakarana. athar: which is Chandra Many more similar instances satra iii. 2.61 ; the kīrikū on are given by Liebich in his v. 4.77 in the Kasikīt ein bodies edition of the Cliūndra vyakag'atras iv. 4: 72 and 73, of. ranil. Chandra, the Kūšika further 2 Govt. Or. Mss, Library, Madras, remarking geta tri Ms. 10. 941 gives the name FeaT FETY ; Pūņini's satra as स्थविरजिनेन्द्र viii. 3. 118, F: TTGT Fê, 3 See, however, the references cited Chandra changes into सदिस्व at the end of page 35, note 2 Fore (vi. 4.98), following ubove. herein a vārtika of Katyāyana 4 Compare—37971: FRATETT naar (सदो लिटि प्रतिषेधे स्वजेरुपसं काशिका यथा। वृत्तिस्तस्या यथा. TY); while Kasikā reads शक्ति क्रियते पञ्जिका तथा॥

·. (- $26 Commentaries on kasika 39 possess not a single cdition of this ancient commentary. There is no complctc Ms. of it in any hitherto known collection, but tlic scrcral fragments may yield a toler. ably complete text. And the commentary is well worth the labours of a critical cditor, to judge from suchi frngments of it as were available to me at the Deccan College diss. Library. 26. Haradalta's Padsiaañari on Ilie Kaski.-There is auother valuable commentary on the Kašikā called the Padamaſjari by Haradatta. Harndatta was, as he llimsell informs us, the son of Padma-(or Rudrn-)kumara, and younger brother of Aynikumārn; while his picceptor was ono Aparajita. He was probably a native of the Tamil country and may subscqucntly linve acquainted himself with the Telugu literature, as the instance of a vornacular word (Fifi) given by him secms to indicate.: Thc Padamaſjari is quoted in the Mädlinriya Dhītuvritti and by Mallinātha, and itself quotes Mágha. According to a portion of tho Blikvisliyottara Purūņa giving the aist of Harndatia (who is considered as an incarna- 1 L'rofessor K. B. Pathak tells uno gliortly (1912), Maitreyarak. that the M.. in the Jain ghita is reported to have writ- Blathin at Śravana Belgola, ten a commentary on the which is put down in the lists Nydaa, but I have not loon alle as a NyTea on the Sakațiyana. to verify tho staternent. Salmanustada, is really a día. 2 Thego and the following «letails of the above work, and goes are taken from Shestagiri as far as viii. 3.11. I undor. Shastri's Report on tho search stand that Prof.Srial Chandra of Sanskrit and Tamil 1.s. Chakravarti of Rajshahi Col for 1893-94, Madras, No. 2. lege, Bengal, bes beon ablo 3 Bcadres edition (Reprint from to put together a tolerally the Paodit) pages 657; 715 complete copy of the text line 2 (lligba iii. 74), &c. from Mas, collected from all Kirata ii, 35 in quoted on corners of India. He is pago 237 line 8; ood Bhattialso going to publish the work kivya on page 641 line 16.

·40 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 26 - 1 2 tion of God Śiva,) we learn that he died 3979 years after the beginning of Kali, which corresponds to 878 A. D. This account of the Bhavishyottara Purāņa probably does not refer to our Haradatta, seeing that it gives Vāsudeva as the name of Haradatta's father.' Moreover, Haradatta's Padamañjarī seems to be later than and partly based upon Kaiyyata's Mahābhāshya-Pradipa, and we cannot assign to Kaiyyata so early a date as cir. 800 A. D., which would be necessary if Haradatta is to be put at 878. Probably, therefore, Haradatta belongs to somewhere about IIOO A. D. 27. Bhartplhari's Vākyapadiya.-From Padamañjarī, the commentary on the Kāśikā, we go back to the writer who according to Itsing was a contemporary of Jayāditya, one of the authors of the Kāśikā; and this is no other than Bhartrihari, the celebrated poet and grammarian whose, date of death, according to the Chinese pilgrim, is 650 A. D. It is not necessary for us to consider in this place the different problems suggested by his name. He may or may not have been a king, a brother of a king or the author of the Itsing's account unmistakably Šatakas. . 1 Mr. Sheshagiri Shūstri suggests, genions but not convincing, loc.cit.,that Haradatta's father and it must yield to the chrono- . may have been a Vaishṇava to logical evidence given below. begin with and inay have 2 Compare Padamañjarī on ii. 1.66 later changed his name and (Benares ed. p384 11.5 1.) with liecome a Saiva, just as Hara Pradipa on thie haine place catta himself changed bis ori. (Nir. Sng. ed. of the Mahaginal name of Sudarsana into bhūslıya, part ii. p. 405). So the one which is more general also comparo Padamañjari on ly knowo). Some such change ii. 1.70 (p. 385) with Pradipa of name may appear to bave on the same place (ibid, p. 414): been hinted at in the intro- Many more instances can be ductory stanza-fra likewise adduced to show the संज्ञया विश्रुतोदशसु दिक्षु दक्षिणः। indebtedness of Padamañjarf JSTETT TEASETTAAT STEstra to the Predīpa. सहकारपादपातू ॥ All this is in.

·[- $ 28 Bhartrihari's l'akyapadiya rcfcrs to Bhuirtrihari the author of the l'íkyapadiya and conscqucntly also to the nuthor of a commentary on the Viahābhāslya. Regarding the latter work all thint we can say is that it was probably never complcicd by the author. Thic Gumaratna-maliodadhi states that tlic commenuary cricids only to ilic first ilirce pádus.' According lo Dr. Biihler fragments of Bhariridari's comment exist in tlic Royal Library at Betliti and in this Deccin. If thicy exist in the Deccan, clicy lare not so far como to liglit. The lükyapadiyu is a wctrical discoursc on thc pluie losophy of grammar, distribuicd into thircc clinptcrs : tho Brahma or Agamn-kūnla, tlic l'ikyn-kiwin, and the Puda or Irukira-kända. Tho chicf historicnl interest of thic work attaches itself to the account given in about scren stanzas, towards the cud of the second kāw:la, confirming the statement of thic Rājatarñgini about the intc of the Mahābhāsliya. Tlic passage niso contains the corlicst reference to the Chandra school, and mcntions Baiji, Saubliavu, and IInryaksha as grnnimarinus who went bcforc Chandrācharya or Chandragomin, and who by their uncritical methods of study contributed not a little to the neglect of thic Mahabláshya during tlic carly centuries of the Christian cm. 28. Kalyyafa's Pradipa as mirkin: the end of the second period in the liistory of the Paņinly'a school.-Botscon Bhartri. hari (650 A. D.) and Kniyyatn (tho nicxt great writer of thc Pāṇiniya school whom we notice and who probnbly belongs to the cloventlı century) we have no names of any consequence to mention. Thic period was indeed marked by a nuore or less general grammatical activity, but that 1. Comparo com. on Gaparataa. the Malallaslıya, vol. ii. malodedli, 01,3,- net: 3 ludia : what can it teach us ? भारमिपाचागारागाना। P. 352 ; Iudinu Autiquars for 2 See preface tu Kielhura's ed. of 1676, p.216. 6[ Sk. Gr. ) ·42 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 28-) was confined to the systems of grammar outside the Pāṇinīya school. These we shall notice in another place. For Pāņini's school Kaiyyata's Pradīpa marks the end of the second period of development." Kaiyyata was probably, as his name indicates, a native of Kāśmir. His father was Jaiyyata surnamed Upādhyāya, and his preceptor was one Maheśvara. In a commentary on Mammata's Kāvyaprakāśa written by Bhimasena (Samvat 1779=1722 A. D.) Kaiyyata along withi Auvata has been spoken of as the disciple and even the younger brother of Manimata,' This statement is inaccurate if by Auvata is meant the author of the Bhāshya on the Yajurveda-Samhitā, whose father was Vajrata ; and since Bhimasena is a late writer we need not likewise attach much importance to the chronological relation between Mammata and Kaiyyata as suggested by him. Mammața was, we know, a great grammarian as well as a rhetorician who lived cir. 1100, and there is nothing improbable in his being a teacher to even Kaiyyata. Kaiyyata's lower limit is given by the circumstance that he is quoted in the Sarva-darśana-sañgraha (cir. 1300).? Regarding the nature of Kaiyyata's performance it is not necessary in this place to say mucli. He tells us in his introduction that he followed on the lines of Hari, that is, Bhartrihari,; and he may be pronounced to have been fairly successful on the whole in the task of interpreting the Mahābhāshya. His work has been, 1 श्रीमान कैय्यद औवरो वरजो यच्छा- Balatar rift ASA TETI- क्राममनुव्याख्याय सिद्धिं गतः॥ 2 Aufrecht's Oxford Catalogue, p. 247 . 3 Are we to suppose, thorefore, that Kaiyyata had a complate manuscript of Bhart;ihari's commentary on the Maha, bhūshya before him ? In that case the "Tri padi' alluded to in the Ganaratna-waliodadui (above, p. 41 ) must be either a distinct work, or may be no other than the Vakya padiya itself, which is in three chap- Lers.

·[ - $ 29 Kaiyyala's Pradipa and commentaries 43 in turn, conimented upon lý Nāgojiblata the author of the Pradipodyota, by Nārāyana wlio las written a Vivaraạn upon it, and by Isvarānanda tlic pupil of Satyā. donda wlo las composed another similnrly named commentary. None of thicso writers sccnus to be carlier thinn A.D. 1600. We have already spoken of Haradattn's Padanıalijari, which is based upon Kaiyyata's work. For most of these writers wlio followed Kniyyata there was very little original work in the Pāriniya school that was left to be done. Sanskrit lind long been estaba lished as a classical language; it ceascd to be influenced by current speech in any vital manner. Henco in grammar there was no occasion for any crcative work; and even the Fork of critical claborntion lind well-nigh run its coursc. This was also the period of tho early Muhammedon incursions, which necessarily preceded their permunent occupation of India ; and it was, is was to be expected, marked by a general decadence of literature, reflecting a corresponding ebb in the tide of social and political acti. vities. The study of granımar, accordingly, succunibed to the operation of the usual laws of demand and supply. In the next century or two there may have been petty commentators hero and there, and, possibly, some really great writers, but none of their names even have survived thie ravages of time. Later when the clouds clenred a little and liternture began to flourish, the demand--feeble at first--which some of the enlightened Muhammedan rulers crented was adequately met by popular schools of grammar, like the Sārasvata, which now sprang into existence. 29. Recasts of the Ashtëdhyāyi : The Rlipamili.— It was clear now that if the Pāṇiniya grammar' was to keep abreast of the spirit of the times, it should have been remoulded and presented in casier and less repellent stylo.

·44. Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 29-] The earliest and on that ground the simplest of tliese recasts of the Ashtādhyāyī that has come down to us is the Rūpamālā of Vimalasarasvati, a writer who, if the date given in a Ms. of the work be true,' must be placed not later than A. D. 1350. The arrangement of the work is in the style of later Kaumudis. After treating of प्रत्याहार, संज्ञा, and परिभाषा the author deals with antes in four sections : FTTHTATO SETəhra, 295vtat, and FERRTETTFET; then follows declension in six parts: i, 345FAHTIT, OCHOT, iii. सर्वनाममाला, iv. संख्याभाग, v. irregular words like TIÊU, Trâ &c., and vi. Vedic irregularities. After these come fargtas, their meanings and grammatical peculiarities, स्त्रीप्रत्ययs, and कारक relations. The longest section deals with the 34TETTAS, the peculiarities of each OFIT being arranged under separate headings; and as an appendix we have लकारार्थमाला and तडादिनियमभाग, the last giving the circumstances under which verbs change their qes. The ea and the area occupy the next two sections, the work concluding with a chapter on समास. It has been thought worth while giving the above details as they help us to show in what respects the later Kaumudīs are an improvement on this their prototype. Vimalasarasvati's manner of presenting his whole subject is quite simple and attractive, if it cannot also claim to be exhaustive. The merit of later works consists mainly in a more systematic arrangement and a somewhat more detailed treatment. All the same, the credit for having... conceived the idea of such a recast and carried it into exe-. 4 1 India office Ms. No. 612, wbich is stated to have been written in Samvat 1437 = 1379A.D. The game M8. gives Sam. 1467 as another date: A Ms. deposited at tho Deccan College (No. 209 of 1879-80) is dated Samvat 1507. Vimalagaragvati is quoted by Amritabhārati, a writer of the Sarasvata school, & manuscript of whole work bears the date A. Di 1496, ·[- $ 30 Rocasts of Ashlādhyavs 45 cution must ungrudgingly be given to the author of the Riipamāli.' 30. RS machandra's Prakriy Shaumudi and its commentarles. Text in chronological order comics tlic Prakriyaknuniudi of Rāmachandra, a writer who probably belongs to the first half of the fifteenth century. He was a Dakshini Brahnian, the son of a Krislināchiryn, und was cmincntly versed in grammar and I'cdānta and astronomy, in all of which lic has written original works of his own. Illo Prakriyūkaumudi is supposed to have been thc model for Bliattoji's Siddhantakaumudi. There are sercral commcntarics cxtant on Ram. chandm's Prakriyākaumudi of which the most famous is the Prosāda of Vitthaláchāryn. 'Thc enrlicst Ms. of the Prasida is datcd Samsat 1605-6 = A. D. 1548-9; licnice Vitthalācharya cannot be later than 1525 A. D. As a gramnarian Vitthala is disparaged by Bhattoji, who often refers to him. Vitthala, in his turn, quotes from, anong others, Kniyyata, Trilochanadāsa, Kshirasvămin, Durgasimha, Jinendrabuddhi, Bhartrihari, Väinana, Haradatta, and Bopadcra. Vitthala tells us tlint lie was the son of Nrisimhāchārya and grandson of Rāmakrishņācharya, while fris own son was named Lakshmidharācharya. Another commentary on the Prakriyakaumudi that demands a passing notice is the Prakriyaprakāśn of Sesha- Krishna the son of Seslin-Nrisimhasūri. As lic tells us isa the introduction to his commentary, which cxtends to 46 stanzas, lie composed this comment for the benefit of Prince Kalyāņa, the son of a (petty) king of Patrapunja, 1 Bleffoji Dikaliits acksowledges details, for which seo Bepdall'a Huis indebtedpens to hiin in Cat. of Mits. ia tho Durbar that he quotes him in the Library of Nepal, p. vil. Praudba-laborem. 3 Aufrecht's Oxford . Catalogue 2 The information comes from gives these and other names. Vijfhala who also gives other ·46 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 30 - ] a small place in the Dual) formed by the Ganges and the Yamunā. Šesha-Krishna, as we shall presently see, was the preceptor of Bhattoji Dikshita, and must accordingly be placed cir. 1600 A. D. 31. Bhattoji's Siddhāntakaumudi and other works. We next pass on to the deservedly famous Siddhāntakaumudi of Bhattoji Dikshita,-a work which is remarkable not only by reason of the host of commentaries and sub-commentaries that it called into being, nor again because it is at present practically the only popular introduction to Pāṇini's grammar, but also owing to the fact-strange as : it may appear that it has eventually ousted Pāṇini himself and most of the other ancient authors of grammar, as also the numerous new schools that had lately sprung into existence. The work is too well known to need any detailed exposition. From the list of previous authors quoted by Bhattoji in this and his other works? we can gather that he freely availed himself of such help as he could possibly get. His indebtedness to one work, however, we learn, only from Meghavijaya, the author of Haima-Kaumudi, who tells us that Bhattoji's Kaumudi was largely modelled upon Hemachandra's Šabdānušāsana. Bhattoji was the son of Lakshmīdhara and the brother of Rangoji Dīkshita, while his son was variously known as Bhānu-dikshita, Vireśvara-dikshita or Rāmā. śrama. Regarding the other details of Bhattoji's life Jagannātha, the court pandit of the Emperor Shahajahan, informs us in his Manoramākuchamardinî that Bhattoji was the pupil of Šesha-Krishņa, to whose memory he does p. 162. 1 Other cominentaries on ET Aufrecht's Oxford Catalogue, meet are pst by Firpijar, 3thana by YITUTTETSTI, 3 Peterson's report iii, p. 291. I trenia by farfa &c. ain not sure about the truth of 2 An exhaustive list is given in this statement.

·¿ - $ 31 Bhalloji's Siddhāntakaumudi 47 very scant justice in lvis Proudha-Vanornmā. As Jagan. nātha himself was thic pupil of the son of this Écsha- Krishna, this gives us Blinttoji's date, which must be about A. D. 1630. This is also coufirined by the fact that a pupil of Bhattoji wrote a work in Suvnt 1693: Bhnttoji himself wrote a commentary on liis Sid- Jhānta-kaumudi, called Proudha-Nanornui lo distinguish it from an abridgment of the samic citlic: Balu-danorama also hy tlic samc autlior. Bcsidcs shorter works such as commentarics on tho Pāviniya Dlätupatha, Liūgūnušísanit, &c, Bliatioji wrote the Subdi-kuustublin which is : voluminous commentary on Pāvini's Aslițădlıyāyi similar in plan to tlic Kašikā. This was Icft, probably, incomplctc; though he must have written ns (nr at least as thic Courth Ihnika oſ udhyāya iii, and not only the first pāda of thc first ndhyāyn, as is usually supposcd." Bcsidcs Jagannathn's comincntary on the Proudha. Manoramā, there is another written by Nāgcsā, but us. cribed by him to his teacher Hari-dikshitn, just as Nāgoša ascribed another work, i conimentary on the Adhyātma-Rāmāyaṇn, to his parton. Środn-knustubha similarly is commented upon by Nāyeśn nnd by Nāgcśn's pupil Vaidyanāthn Pāyngunda. To commcntaries ancione and modern on the Siddlıāntakaumudi there is no limit. Those most famous arc thic Tattrabodhini by Jhāncndrasarasvati, pupil of Vāmanendra-sarasvati, which trents i Compare to our तापि समतिपरीक्षार्थ पुमररमाभिनि। THYWATTAL..... क्ष्यिते। TATTATAI vfrgcongloemt.. 2 Deccan Collego dig. No. 183 of प्रसादादासादितशम्दानुशासनास्तेपु A.1882-83, the author of which ATT tag ta. TE: finiri pont S Gor. Or. Mes. Library, Madrus, farharghitarrhispanit "H8. Do, 1328 goes upto the #T 9776 91T TEHT ATTA. Gftb aliniks of adhgaya iii. दुरुपन्डितवीरेश्वराणां तमपि. is नीलकण्ठ शुक्ल.

·48 Systems of Sanskrit Ġrainmar $ 31 - of the classical language only and omits the svara and vaidikī prakriyā. It is mostly modelled on Bhattoji's own commentary and is very useful for beginners. Jayakrishna, son of Raghunāthabhatta of the Mauni family has written a commentary on the svara and vaidiki prakriyā only of the Siddhānta-kaumudī, thus completing that. of Jnānendra-sarasvati. Both these writers probably belong to the first half of the eighteenth century. Regarding the abridgments of the Siddhānta-kaumudi and other shorter manuals based upon it we shall speak presently. The family of Bhattoji Dikshita seems to have been a family of great writers and grammarians up and down. Bhattoji's nephew Kondabhatta wrote an original work on syntax and philosophy of grammar modelled on the lines of his illustrous uncle and being in fact a dis. cursive gloss on some 74 kārikās of Bhattoji. Bhattoj's son Bhānuji taught several pupils, as also his grandson Haridikshita. Among the pupils of the latter is ranked no less an illustrious name than that of Nāgojibhatta or Nāgesa. . 1 These relations would be clear from the following geneulogical table- लक्ष्मीधर शेषकृष्ण Author of प्रक्रियाप्रकाश Bong SOL रंगोजिदीक्षित disciple भहोजिदीक्षित वीरेश्वर son BOD WEHE Author of भानुजि-धीरेश्वर-रामाश्रम disciple जगनाथराय पंडित (1650 A. D.) the भूपण BOD . *** हरिदीक्षित dieciplo disciple नीलकण्ठ शुचाल Aros Or TOTE ole in 1635 A. D. disciple 1891900 disciple सत्वराज wrote in 1641 A,D, ·(-$32 Burks of Vāgria and Pāyorunda J.. The work of Nissia and of l'aidyanatha Piyazung Nāges or Varojiblatta was n icry prolific writer. Bc. sides fourtoch great works on Dharun, onc on logo, throc on Alaikära, and about n do:cn on l'yakarana-sastra, lic has heen credited with thic authorship of cxtcnsisc commentaries on külmiki-Raniyati3 and Adhyatms. Röinsiysin ns also on Sapiaiali, Gitagorinda, Sadhglalars, and other works. Wc arc herc concerned with his gran. matical locatiscs, and promincnt amongst thcsc is the Lüyola on Kaiyyata's Malibhishya-pradina ; Paribha. shendu:cl:hara, a collection of l'aribhashas handed dosen in connection with larini's inmmar and followed by a concisc cxplanatory cornnicntary on thicm called the Sab. donduickhara (in two cditions a toujor and a minor); A conucntary on the Silllinta- numudi and intended as a companion to the Manorami ; Faldataina, a comincnlary on thc I'mulia-Manorami, nscrihci by him honoris causa to liis teacher llari-diksliitn ; Vishami a commentary on Bhattoji's Subuda-kaustuhla ; and finally tho 'niyakarannsiddhintamafijūstai (in thrcc cilitions) on the philosophy of grammar. Thc gencologiail tree giren abovc cxhibits Vāgojibhatia's spiritual descent from his illustrious prcdcccs. sors; it also hclps us rouglily to dctcrininc his timc. In addition we fave tradition current at Jeypur, and mentionců by the icarncd cditor of the Kavyam315 in his introduction to Rasagañgadharn, which refers to an invitn. tion for a horse sacrifice rcceivcd in 1714 A. D. by Nāgesmbhatta from Savãi Jcysimha, ruler of Jcypur (1686 to 1728 A.D), st invitation whichi Nāgcsa courtcously dc. clined on the ground thint hic Im taken kshetra-sunnyası and could not, therefore, Icarc Benarcs to attend the ccrcinony. Regurding himself lic informs us thut he was a Muliratta Brahmuan surnamed Kalc, the son of Sira. bliatte and Sati, a sesident of Benarcs and a protegec of * ( Sk. Gr. 3 ·so Systems of Sanskrit Ġrainiai § 32 - 1 Rāmasimha, a local prince of Śriūgaverapura (now Singarour) a few miles north of Allahabad. Vaidyanātha or Bālambhatta Pāyagunda, a direct disciple of Nāgeśabhatta, wrote like his teacher several works on Dharma and Vyākarana-śātra. He was the son of Mahādeva and Venī, and Lakshmīdevi the wife of king Chandrasimha of Mithilā was probably his patroness, in whose honour he is reported to have composed a comnuentary on the Vyavahāra-kāņda of the Mitāksharā, which is usually known as Bālambhattī. His grammatical labours are mainly confined to writing comments on the works of his predecessors. Thus he has written a Gadā on the Paribhāshendusekhara, a Chhāyā on the Mahābhāshya-pradipodyota, a Kalā on Vaiyākaraḥasiddhānta-. mañjāshā, a Prabhā on the Sabdakaustubha, a Bhāvaprakāśikā on the Sabdaratna, Chidasthimālā on the Šabdendusekhara, and a host of others. 33. Grammatical works outside the Dikshita school.-Independently of the Dikshita school there are very few notable names of grammarians belonging to the seventeenth century. We may perhaps mention, as belonging to the early decades of the century, Annambhatta the author of the Tarkasañgraha, who has written an indenpendent commentary on the Ashtādhyāyī, called Mitāksharā. The school of profound grammarians which is now almost dying out was already on the decline since the middle of the eighteenth century, as is evidenced by the numerous easy manuals that have come into existence during the last two centuries. Some of these 'popular epitomes ally theniselves to no particular school, and these will be dealt with in another part of the essay. We now confine our attention to those belonging to the Pāṇiniya school. 1 Published in the Benares Sanokrit Series.

·[- § 36 Abridgements and Manunis 51 34. Abridgements and Manuais.-Prominent among thesc are the abridgements of the Siddhanta-Kaumudi itself by Varadarīja. There arc thrcc cditions of themmadhiya-, laghu., and a sāra-Siddhāntakaumudi,--thic difference consisting only in the more or less thorough cschewing of unnecessary details. Strange as it may sccm, cren these cpitomcs stood in need of connicntarics for their further simplification, or rather thc roversc of it. The major abridgment was commented upon by Rāma. šarinan at the request of nc Širānanda ; the middle onc by a Jayakrishna, son of Raghunithabhatta and grandson of Govardhanabhatta of thic Vauni family.' Thercare a few other easy texts framed independently of the Siddhantakaumudi, but they hardly deserve specini inention. The last stage of this progressivo simplification is perhaps Teached when to works such as Rupărali, Samāsachakra, ctc. 35. Later history of treatises accessory to Pantal's grammar. It only remains now, finally, to speak of thic further history of the trcatiscs accessory to Pārini's grammar mentioned by us on pages 25 and following of this essay. These works, although originally framed for a particular systemhad so much in common with other schools of grammar that they have been transferred with very little modifications from onc school to another. The successivo stages of this process deserve to be made the subject of an independent study; we cannot in this place afford to dwell on them at any length. We shall only allude to a few notable works in ench line. 36. Dkátupātha – The Dhātupātha as we find it embodied in the Pāṇiniya system was commented upon by Wc comic 1 The प्रक्रिया कौमुदी has a similar abridgment eslld Ton, the work of one of the pupils of the author, 797, and writtea in A. D. 1031 (?).

·52 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 36 - ) Kshīrasvāmin. A Kāśmirian tradition makes him teacher to king Jayāpīļa, which brings him into the eighth century. This conflicts with the fact that Kshirasvāmin quotes Bhoja, and in so far as he is quoted by Vardhamāna in the Ganaratnamahodadhi, this settles his date, which is roughly 1050 A. D.' Besides the Dhātuvritti Kshīrasvāmin wrote five other works : i. commentary on the Amarakoshin, ii. निपाताव्ययोपसर्गवृत्ति, iii. अमृततरङ्गिणी referred to in the Dhātuvritti (which is more usually known as afroatfuft), iv. FUTETI mentioned by Devarāja in his Niruktanirvachana, and v. Ganavritti referred to by Vardhamāna in his Gaņaratnamahodadhi, a work presently to be mentioned. In the introduction to the Dhātuvritti Kshirasvāmin notes that several people, including the great Chandra, had essayed before him to write about the roots, but not always successfully.” The Chandra here referred to must be Chandragomin, the founder of the Chāndra school, whose Dhātupātha was subsequently incorporated by Durgasimha with the Kātantra grammar. About the nature of the contents of the Dhātuvritti Kshīrasvāmin tells us that one can find therein : सूत्रव्याख्याकार्यजातं गणानां सेहत्वानिदत्वोपग्रहादेः फलं च । अष्टाध्याय्यां ये विशेषप्रयोगा धातोर्धातोर्दर्शितास्ते विशेषात् ॥ of other works of Kshīrasvāmin it is not necessary to say much in this place. We next turn our attention to the Madhvîya-Dhātuvritti, which deals with the same subject and which was written by Madhava or Sāyaṇa, the great Vedic Bhāshyakāra (1350 A.D). Sāyaṇa also mentions numerous workers in the same field whose labours he partly utilised. Among 1 See Introduction to Mr. Oke's edition of Kshiraslimin's com. on Amara. 2 Compare Or: arararTTXT न्द्राद्या अपि च यत्र विभ्रान्ताः। तान्धातून्विवरीतुं गहनमहो अध्यवhar: 11 ·[- $ 38 Accessory Treatises 53 thesc may be mentioned, as belonging to the Pāṇiniya school, Bhimascna and Mnitrcyarakshita.' Of Sãyann's Successors we need only specify Bhattoji and Nāgesa. The Dhītupātius belonging to the otlier grainmatical schools will be found in their proper places clsewhere. 37. Canopšļlie.-Tlie Paniniya Ganapätlin has not received from comu:untators tlic attention tlint it mcrits. Different portions of it, such as nipālas, auravas, and apasargas have been individually explained by various writers, and Kshirasrāmin, as we saw, is reported to have written a Ganavritti, which is no longer extant. The only completo work on thc Gannpātha is the Gawarntnamahodadli, wlich is a motrical arrangement of thic Ganas followed by a lucid commentary, both composed by l'ardhamāna in A. D. 1140. 38. LiñginusSsana.--Besides Ramachandra and Bhattoji, who have cmbodicd thic Liñgūnušāsana in their Kaumudis and written commentaries upon it, we find nicntioned in connection with the Pāṇiniya treatises on genders the names of Harshavardhann, Sabarasvâmin and Vararuchi. Of these the first is probably not the same as the cele. brated patron of Bāņa, while the second may or may not be identical with the great Mimāüsākāra. Vararuchi is another name for Kātyāyana, and even if these bo considered as different, so many late and spurious works arc assigned to this great name that it is well-nighi difficult determine the genuineness of any one of them. A palm. lenf Ms. at Cambay, dated Samvat 1287 contains a Liñgā. nušāsana by Vāmanāchārya, which mentions among its predecessors the works of Vyādi, Vararuchi, Chandra, and Jinendra. This would at least decide for the cxistence of to 1 See noto 1 on pago 39, above, 2 Cambay, No. 266; fagu पारपचं सचान्द्र जैनेन्द्रलक्षणगतं विविधं तथान्यत् । लिकमस्य लक्षन हि समस्य विशेषयुक्तमुक्तं मया परिमित &c. See aleo Dr. Peteracn's ·54 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 38 - ) -- these works prior to 1200 A. D., and, if Dr. Peterson's identification of Vāmanāchārya with the author of the Kāśikā be correct, prior also to 800 A. D. 39, Uņādipāțlia. -The question as to the authorship of the Paņinīya Uņādi.sātras has been already dealt with (p. 25, above). These Uņādis have been very readily absorbed--with only slight modifications—by the various non-Pāṇiniya schools such as Kātåntra, Haima, Jaumára, Saupadma, &c. In the school of Pāṇini the future development of the Uņādis has been only by way of commentaries, the best known being Ujjvaladatta's Vritti, which, as pointed out by Aufrecht in his introduction to his edition of that work, must be assigned to cir. 1250. Ujjvaladatta quotes the Vrittis of Kshapanaka, Govardhana, Purushottamadeva, and the Sati-vritti,--all of which preceded his own commentary. Later than Ujjvaladatta come Māņikyadeva, Bhattoji, and others. 40. Paribhāshās.--Already we have more tlian once alluded to the Pāṇinīya paribhāshās. Pāṇini himself gave a few of these as his sūtras, but he can be proved to have tacitly employed a still larger number. Kātyāyana quotes one, according to Patanjali's showing, in his vārtika 3 to sātra i. 1. 65, while Vyādi, who according to some was a near relation of Pāṇini, is credited with the authorship of almost all the paribhāshās now current. The doctrine of the paribhāshās was, however, fully elaborated by Patanjali and the writers who came after him.? So much ingenuity and energy has been spent on the ITTEE and Report iii. p. 41. The Jinen. 2 For the distinction between edra here mentioned must be ज्ञापकसूत्र and the the founder of the Jainendra whole theory of paribhashas Vyākaraña. 200 ibidem, pp. 115 (Reprint, 1 Goldstücker : Pūņini, page 114 p. 89) and the following. (Reprint, p. 87).

·[-$41 Accessory Treatises 55 paribhashās that eventually it has become, for the Pāņi. niya student, the hardest nut to crack. This feat has usunlly been attempted in the body of the commentaries themselves. Regular treatises specially dealing with pariblashās come much later. Perhaps the earliest known is that of Siradeva, who is quoted in the Madhaviya-Dhātuvritti. Nāgesa's Paribhāshendusekliara contains the most popular exposition of tlie paribhāshās, and it has been commented upon by Pāyagunda, Bliairavamišra, Sesiinsarman, Bhimabhatta, and inany others. Non-Pāņiniya schools copied most of their paribhashās from Pāṇini, the enrliest of them being tlic Kātantra for which Durgasińha put together a list of paribhäshās and wrote a commmentary on the same. This is also the place where we can introduce a host of treatises on the philosophy of grammar--dealing with questions such as the nature of sound, the connection betweon word and its meaning or of sentenco and its component parts, and so forth. The issuos liave been raised and dealt with in the Mahābhāshya itself, and later writers have derived most of the material for their lucubrations from that source. The earliest of such treatises is the Vākyapadiya of Bhartřihari and thic latest deserving a special mention is the Vaiyākaranasiddhāntabhāskann of Kondablatta, a commentary on which was written by Nāgeća. A multitude of smaller and larger lights came in between. The works are mainly special monograms on particular topics, the kāraka relations alone having engaged over forty writers of different schools and opinions. 41. Résumé of the history of the Pāņiniya school - Here perhaps we may draw a deep breath and, before proceeding with the history of the non-Pāņiniya schools of grammar, cast a hurried glance over the field that we have already travelled. .

·56 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $41-1 Beginning with the dim and half poetic speculations of the Brahmanic exegetes, we saw how the science of grammar flowed onward broadening down from precedent to precedent until we reach the age of Yāska who sums up the results achieved by his predecessors and makes his own contribution to the stream. The leap from Yāska to Pāṇini is probably a very great one, but the course of development is, to a large extent, hidden froin us--is underground as it were--until it issues in a perfect form in the Ashtādhyāyī of Pāṇini. The subsequent history of the science is marked by three well-defined stages. The first which ends with the Mahābhāshya busies itself with the perfection of Pāņini's work, adding a rule here, restricting the application of another there, and so on. This period may be characterised as the creative stage of the science. This is followed by a period of critical elaboration, the chief work of which consists in giving a precise point to these rules, changing the wording of some for the sake of brevity, of others for including in it a word or two inadvertently left out by the earlier grammarians, or not.in vogue in their time ; but for the main part in writing vast commentaries on the works of their predecessors so as to explain their intention. This was also the stage when the theory of the paribhāshās and jñāpakas was worked out in details. The branching off from the main stem of a separate school, the Chăndra, which belongs to this period, is to be explained as due rather to the necessities of the times, than to any real split in the domain of the science itself. This period extends roughly to about 1000 A. D. The last stage marks a progressive deterioration in the study of grammar. We have in the first place the rise of a number of new and popular schools' of gramnar intended to simplify the science for the enlightenment of .

·[ - $ 42 The Chandra School 57 the laity. Following the wake of the times we have, side by side, numerous recasts of the Ashtādlıyāyi tending towards the same object. The lowest stage is reached when we come to the popular handbooks of the eighteenth century. How far this decline is to be attributed to the political aspects of the time is more curious than profitable to inquire. Certain it is that they could not lave failed to produce their influence, though it is easy to exaggerate it. Nor, finally, slould it be forgotten that broad characterisations of long periods in the history of any country or science have always to be accepted with limitations. The periods often overlap, and in this present case they are tentative only and may have to be revised in the light of later researches. It is time now that we turned to the non-Pāņiniya schools of grammar.' The Chāndra School 42. The Chándra Schoo).-The earliest reference to the Chāndra school of grammarians occurs in Bhartrihari's Vākyapadiya (see p. 41 above), while one of the latest is perhaps that of Mallinātha, who quotes a rule of his in his commentary on Kālidāsn's Meghadāta, stanza 25 (ottt treu FTATUTA:).? Mallinātha, however, does not appear to 1 The order in which schools are here presented is not strictly chronological, the allied schools being taken together. 2 In the paesage cited Mallinatha says that while Panini allow, only the form a Chandra allows to also. As & inatter of fact Chandra allovys only one form (Clīndra sūtra vi. 1.42); it is sokatāyana and Henschandra who allow 8 [ Sk. Gr. ] both the forms, which are in discriminately used in classical Sanskrit. Presumably, therefore, Malliontha either had access to & work of the Cbrödra school got known to us, or more probably ho meant by Chandra Rema-chandra, unless the whole is a positive mistake. I owe thin note to Mr. Kțishnaji Govinda Oka, editor of the Kshtratarangiạr.

·58 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 42 - ] have had a direct access to the Chāndra vyākarana, seeing that Mss. of the work have been extremely rare, none of the various ' Searches for Sanskrit manuscripts' instituted by Government having been able to bring to light any works of the school except a fragment brought by Dr. Bühler from Kāśmir in 1875, and a complete copy of the Chāndra vyākarana written in the Nepalese year 476 (i. e. 1356 A. D.) brought by Haraprasāda Shastri from Nepal. However, by the labours of Dr. Bruno Liebich, the whole system has now been recovered in the original or Tibetan translation. The same scholar has also published the Chāndra vyākaraņa (Leipzig 1902). The account of the system given below is mostly based on his writings. ? 43. The date of Chandragomin.-Chandra, or more accurately, Chandragomin must have lived at least some time before the authors of the Kāśikā, which has borrowed, always without acknowledgment, such sātras of Chandra as have no parallel either in Pāņini or in Kātyāyana. This gives us 650 A. D. as the lower limit for Chandragomin. The upper limit is supplied by a vritti on the Chāndra sūtras, most probably the work of Chandragomin himself,” which gives the sentence FTUGHT(? Ms. Wat or जप्तो) हूणान् as an illustration of the use of the imperfect to express an event which occurred within the lifetime of the speaker. This victory over the Hūņas can refer either to their temporary defeat by Skandagupta soon after 465 A.D., or (less likely) to their final expulsion by Yasodharmain 544 A. D. This gives us 470 as the approximate date for Chandragomin. This result is further confirmed by the fact that Vasurāta the preceptor 1 See Neohrichten der Goettinger Datum Chandragomin's und Gesellschaft 1895, pp. 272-321. Kālidūsa's'; p. 3. 2 See Dr. Liebich's paper. “ Das '3 Who, however, was not a Gupta. .

·[- $ 44 Chandragomin : Ilis Work 59 of Bhartrihari acknowledged Chandracharyn (Chandra. gomin) as his master.' Chandrngomin must liarc lived thereforc at Icast two gencrations bcfore the author of the Vākyapadiya. All accounts agrec in stating that Chandragomin was a Bauddha. He was one of the Inity, and is not to be confused with Chandradása who belong. ed to thc order.: «4. Nature of Chandmgomla's work. - Chandrogomin's grainmar was meant as an improvement on that of Panini, Kātyāyana, and Patanjali, mainly in the way of greater brevity and precision. Accordingly hc has omitted, for obvious reasons, thc Pāņinlyn rulcs about Vedic nccent and grammar, although he includes somo l'edic roots in his Dhätupātha. Ho las Icsscncd the number of pratyā. härn-sūtras by onc (fusing ETTE and go into TV), omittcd sonic of the Pāṇiniya pratyūhāms and coincd others. In many cascs, the rulcs of l'anini nro recast simply for the sake of sccuring facility of pronuncia. tion. The really original contributions of Chandragornin amount to about 35 sätras and thesc have been incorporated in thic Käsiki. In all thcsc ascs Kaiyyata lins thic remark for forefro: Tits 75:. The total number of thc Chāndra sūtras is about 3100 as ngainst 4000 of Pāņini. The work consists of six chapters of four pādas cach, the matter of Panini's first two chapters being scattorcd all through. The object of Chandmgomin was to carrange the grammatical material with the object of bringing to. gother all thc rules that deal with the saino phonctic or grammatical operations as well as the samc part of coun. 1 Sec Vakya padiya Kanļa ii, alapza. 189-10 and thereon. ? Lielieb, ibidein, p. 10.11; Kern: Blanual of Buddhiem, pp. 120, 130; also lud. Ant, xv, np. 183-184. 3 For Panini's 51 BR on (1. 1.55) Chandra rendo fee. AFTE 15 (i. 1.12).

·60 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 44- ) speech. The Chāndra terminology with slight changes is that of Pāṇini. The mode of presenting the subject is also artificial, after the fashion of Pāṇini. The gramar goes by the nickname of STÁTE, perhaps because the #Fits are not here treated of separately, but probably because wherever in his sūtra Pāṇini has used the word FITT Chandragomin uses the word नामन्.' 45. Accessory treatises of the Chãndra grammar.-In addition to the sūtras in six adhyāyas Chandragomin has put together an Uņādi list in three parts, a Dhātupātha in ten sections (both published by Dr. Liebich), as also Liñgakārikās or Liñgānušāsana, Gaņapātha, Upasargavritti, and Varņa sūtras. The Uņādis differ from those belonging to the Pāṇinīya school principally in their mode of presentation, the suffixes being here arranged according to their final letter. In a few cases Chandra also derives the words differently. The Dhātupātha, as we saw (p. 52, above), is referred to by Kshirasvāmin and was subsequently incorporated in the Kātantra system. The Liñgānušāsana is referred to by Vāmanāchārya, Ujjaladatta, and Rāyamukuta (see above, p. 53). As to the Gaņapātha no separate work of the kind has yet been discovered, but we must assume the existence of such a work as we find it embodied in the sātra-vritti, just as the Kāśikā has done with regard to the Pāṇiniya Ganapātha. The Upasargavritti is found in Tibetan version only, and explains the meaning and use of about twenty upasargas. Finally, the Varnasūtra (Ms. no. 289 of 1875-76 in the Deccan College collection) is a very short treatise corresponding to the Pāṇinīya Sikshā and gives in about 40 sūtras 1 Compare Clindra sutras i. 2.30, i. 3. 77, ii. 2. 14, &c. with Panini's iii. 2.46, iii. 3. 174, ii. 1. 21 &c. A fesy cases do occur, however, whore Chandra pórmits the use of the word: €. g. Chandra i. 1. 123=Pūņini iii. 1. 112. 2 I tako this occasion to publish the work entire on the basie ·[- $46 Chandra School : Lator Iltstory' 61 the ruth and then of us. No Tork on Paribhâslās in connection with the Chandra school has come down to us. Besides the above grammatical works Chandragomin is credited with the nuthorship of a religious poem called Sishynlckha, and a drama called Lokānanda, neither probably of much conscquence. 16. Later history of the Chandra school. - IVc harc already alluded to Chandragomin's own yritti on his grammar. Pragments from it cxtending from about y. 1. 13 to 1.1.176 arc still cxtant. This vritti was later incoporatcd in a commentary by Dharnındāsn, complctc Ms. of which cxists in the Library of tlic Mahārāja of Nopal. It is undoubted that there must have been written numerous commontaries on the Chandra Vyākarana during the palmy days of Buddhistic literaturc; and thcy must have been very popular, sccing that a good many of them have been translated and frcely circulated in Tibct at least since 1000 A. D., if not carlier, when Sthiramati, onc of the translators of most of the Chandra tcxts in the Tibetan language, probably lived. Some of these works had also gone to Ceylon along with other Buddhistic texts. However, at present, in addition to the works above mentioned, only a few more about fiftccn-arc known to exist, mostly in Tibetan translations. Such of the Sanskrit Mss. as we know of, come all froni Nepal. Having once enjoyed such a rast circulation, the almost total disappearance of the system from India rcquires explanation. We can account for this fact, firstly, on the ground of its want of originality, such of the original matter as there was--and it was not much-bc. of the only Ms. of the work I Por a list of these see Ind. ant. known to exist. Fce Appea Xxv, pp. 103 and following. dizi.

·62 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $:46 - 1 ing already incorporated in the Pāṇinīya school through the Kāśikā. Mainly however we must look to the cause of its disappearance in its non-secular character. Being the work of a Buddhist for the Buddhistic community, it shared the fate of Buddhism, and having obtained vogue for a few centuries it gradually ceased to be cared for, its aid being invoked in later times only for the sake of justifying an otherwise unjustifiable word, or for pointing out and rejecting such of its rules as went counter to the established system of grammar. The Grammar, we are told, is still extensively studied in Tibet. In Ceylon its fate was different. Being a Buddhistic country we expect the Chāndra system to be diligently studied there. As a matter of fact, the current Sanskrit grammar in Ceylon belongs to the chāndra school, but we shall look in vain for any original Mss. either of the Chāndra-sūtras or of commentaries thereon. The reason is that about 1200 A. D. a Ceylonese Buddhistic priest, Kāśyapa by name, wrote a popular recast of the Chāndra grammar called Bālāvabodha. It corresponds to Varadarāja's Laghu-kaumudi in treatment and subject-matter. The work was so popular in Ceylon that it quite superseded the original Chāndra text, with the result that all other Chāndra works have disappeared in course of time, just as the works of the pre-Pāṇiniya grammarians did after the advent of Pāṇini. Under these circumstances, it is quite impossible to pursue any farther the history of the Chāndra school of grammarians in India. The Jainendra School 47. The Jaipendra School. The traditional author of the aphorismas of grammar which go under this name is Jina or Mahāvira, the last of the Tīrthañkaras. The tradition ·63 [- $ 47 Thc Jainendra School of thc Digambara' Jains as embodicd in scrcral of their works such as Samnyasundamsūri's commentary on the Kalpasūtmas or Lakshmivallabha's Upadcsamálākarniki is, that Indru asked certain questions to Jina which of cight years, and lind thic science of grammar revcalcd to him by way of answers; thc grammar in consequence came to be known by their joint name. Alls. (no. 1223) belonging to Professor Kathavate's collection for 1891. 1895 launches, in its marginal notcs, into a dctnilcd vcri. fiation of this tradition, trying to answer all the objcc. tions raised aganist it. The chicf objection, of course, is the concurrent testi. mony of the colophons of all thc Mss., which invariably ascribc thc work to Dosnnandi. This is also conärmed by the introductory stanza- लक्ष्मीरात्पतिकी परप निरपवायभागते । दंपनदितपून नमस्तरमै स्वयंभुपे । which is given by all Mss.,' whcrcin the first word of the second linc, obscurc in mcaning as it is, appears to be purposely used to indicate the namo of the author. Further, works like Dhannnnya-kosa or Jaina-Harivamsa (A. D. 783) and writers like Bopadcra or Hemachandra rcfor to Devanandi as the author of this grommar. Thc point then may be regarded as fairly settled. This Dovanandi is otherwise known as Pūjyapāda. 1 The Jalneodra-qatrapaglia luego 3 Except the ono aboro quoted, looge to the Diganbaras from which gire a different pad. wbom the Sretimbarat have gala. borrowed it wholesale, Tho 4 la the openiag pratatli of thio tradition, iberefore, belongo work there is a refercoco to Juore strictly to the Svetim. tho Jaloendra-vyakaran.. Aku. barag. laikadora also quotes a Jula. 2 पदिग्दाप जिमेग्देण कोमारेपि निरू endra sutra in the nाराजा- पितम्। ऐग्दं जैनेन्द्रामितितत्याहुः fl. 5.1. क्षपदासासमम्॥

·64 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 47 - ] Dr. Kielhorn once believed that Pājyapāda was a nom de plume assumed by a late writer, with the view all the more readily to make the work pass under the name of the last Tirthañkara. The historical existence of the founder of this school thus doubted by Dr. Kielhorn has been conclusively established by Professor Pathak, who quotes a verse from the Nandisangha Pattāvalia and gives other references to prove that Devanandi was no other personage than Pājyapāda himself. 48. Date of the Jainendra-vyākaraḥa.-The foundation of this school dates from about the same time as that of the Chāudra. If anything, the Jainendra would come a little before the Chāndra. Professor Pathak in his paper on the Jaina Śākatāyana (Indian Antiquary, Oct. 1914) gives evidence to assign the Jainendra-vyākaraņa to the latter part of fifth century A. D. Among his arguments are: 1. the fact that the Kāśikā seems to betray a knowledge of the Jainendra-vyākaraņa ; 2. the circumstance that the Jainendra sūtra4 alludes to īśvarakrishņa the author of the Sankhya-kārikās (who is assigned by Dr. Takakusu to A. D. 450 ) and to the twelve year cycle of Jupiter according to the heliacal rising system a system which was in the time of the Early Kadamba kings and their contemporaries, the Early Gupta kings; and 3. the collateral evidence to be drived from later references to the Jainendra from the ninth century on. Thus the ſākatā. in vogue 1 Indian Antiquary xii, pp. 19 ff. 4 Sūtra iii, 3.134—TTETY Tanuf- 2 यश-कीर्तियशोनन्दी देवनन्दी महा निशर्मकृष्णरणाद् भृगुवत्साग्रायण- यतिः। श्रीपूज्यपादापराख्यो गुणनंदी TOTIETOTETTIÊ Contrast TUTTGT: 11 Pūņini, iv. 1.102. The Amo- 3 Kašikā iii. 3.40 TFT Tour ghavritti of śākațūyada ex- Tha: presupposes Jainendra plains 311FTSTARTOTT arfouet, gūtra ii, 3. 36 Tareas the latter being another name j , as Kasikū could not for īsyarakțisliņa. have derived it from else-" 5 Sätra iii. 2.5 ikiqarighê whore, ·[- § 49 Jaincndra-zākarana : Ils Character 65 yana Sabdānušāsana (whicli dates fronu 1025 A. D., as we slali scc) is largoly indebted to the Jaincndrn. A Digambara Dardanašāstra of 853 A. D. mentions, as stated by Dr. Peterson,' a pupil of a certain Põjyapādn as being the founder of a Dravida-sangha. Lastly, an inscription from the soīkhabasti temple at Lakslinośvara records a gift in Saka 652 (730 A. D.) of Sri-Päjyapada to his house-pupil, although this last is not quite a trust. worthy evidenco, being not contemporaneous, and there may have been moro than one Pājyopāda. 19. Character of the Jalacadra-Vyakarana.-Thoro are two versions in which the Jainendra grammar has como down to us. The shorter one which consists of about 3,000 Sātras is followed by Abhayannndi in his gloss on the grammar, whilc tho longor one which, besides other minor diffcrcnces in the wording and the arrangement of the sätras, gires over 700 sātras not found in the shorter version, is followed by Somadeva in his commentary called Šavdārņavachandrika, which, as he himself tells us, was composed in A. D. 1205. Professor Pathak has accumulated cvidcncc tending to show that the longer version followed by Somadeva is the truer one, while that of Abhayannndi is much later." The Jaincndra grammar is altogother wanting in originality. It is nothing but Pāṇini and tho vārtikas condensed as much as possible. The merit of the work solely consists in the number of ingenuous shifts resorted to for the purpose of securing the maximum economy of words. Even the most trifling changes such as that of विमापा or अन्पतरस्यां into था, of मनुष्य into नृ, and the alteration of the order of the words in the sātras so as to 1 Report for 1883-84, p. 74. subject. 2 Professor Patliak iutends abort. 3 Peqini vii. 1. 9 snt firm ga is ly to write a paper on the changed into fuFISH OTT! 9 [ Sk. gr.)

·66 Sysicruis of Sanskrit Grammar $ 49 - ) produce by coalescence a syllable less are not disregarded. The Pāṇiniya pratyāhāras are retained without a change, though the fourteen Śiva-sūtras together with the section on Vedic grammar, are omitted. In addition, Devanandi has invented a large number of shorter technical ternus' which bristle throughout his work and make its study the most complex imaginable. Devanandi alias Pūjyapāda has, as is the wont of inost Digambara writers, nowhere quoted by name or acknowledged his obligations to authors and works not belonging to his own religion. He has in his sūtras quoted six names. The Deccan College Ms. no. i 223 of 1891-95, which makes it its business to prove that the author of this grammar is Jina himself, gives on this point a rather incorrectly written notes which tends to say that since one of the above names, that of Prabhāchandra, which occurs in the sātra TÈ: THTHEFT, appears on the face of it to be a fiction, we may presume the same for all the rest. We can couple with this the statement of one of the coinmentators on Hemachandra's Dvyāšrayamahākāvya to the effect that Siddhasena, another of the quoted names, was not a grammarian at all. Dr. Kielhorn similarly believed that all these names were fictitious and thought that the practice of thus quoting names honoris causa was not confined to the Jainendra school alone. Unfortunately we cannot decide the matter now. 50. Later history of the Jainendra-vyakaraña.--The absence of any originality accounts for the paucity of works connected with this school. Two commentaries only have 1 Such as if for 777, y for a 3 paarsarsu(?at Ferara' TÊ: 4174, # for ITĀTE, 375 for प्रभाचन्द्रस्यवत् । देवनंदिमतां मोहः आर्धधातुक, and so on. प्रक्षेपरजसोपि चेत् । चिराय भवतां 2 Namely, ręt, TF1127, grata, "17" frara!! 777757, FT, & ea *** ·{-50 Joinonimnikar: lonin llistossa ficcn prescricil, oc by Abhaynnandi wiosc dnlc is probably 750.1. D)., and intotlicr cullca Subdárnuva-clandrikilvy Somadora. Soinilor represents' himself as the con. Tempomy or the Šilčlára king Bhojndera (Blioja II) und an inlusitant of jurika (which is probably to lic identifici vitli rat in thc Kolhapur Sinic). It is pro. babicilat in addition in these two comucntaries that 11avc comc down to us, some others CIC writicn, and possibly thc grammar was at one time made the olijcct of diligent seuly; but our information on this point is cxtremely senty. There is also :: iccast of the Juinonden grammar inicant to facilitatc ils sildy for beginners. It is called Panchavastu, and, as is to lie crpccicl, it follows thic sliostcr text of thic scirns is given by Abhayanandi. The srork is said to lic that of Icranadı; but tlus is clearly a mistalic founded on tlic fact that tlic stras followca 110 those of Devallanili. The introduciury section of the I'nficha vastu which deals with thic pratyahirns scenis lo be an interpolation. This section mentions a person called Arya-Srutskirti' as the author of the whole work. Is lie thien thic author of this recast? If so, the absence of any other allusion to him in the body of the work liccomes Tatlicr curious. I'rofessor T'achali iucntions a Érutskirti as turing flourished alont Saka 1015. About the history of the Jaincntru grammar since the thirteenth century very little definitc is l:nown. The work probably sliared the fate of all imitations and conscd 1 Comur thic Curlophon--2114 *{19749107 (Cinta finfitimgatmigfester 14779 uusifs. TULIT............ nres. ? lodian Auflunary, X, p. 75; KICITOZATE......firit M. l'ctrina's Benoit fuif srafineria ATHENTI 1863-1, pp. 67 11. शासनिममोपनगंगामरे.

·68 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 50 -] to be attended to when the original on which it was based came to be studied more and more. It was meant to appeal to a sect and even there it was not without a rival. To this day it draws a solitary student here and there from amongst the Digambara Jains, especially of Southern India. The Saktayana School 51. The Śakațāyana School...Separated from the Jainendra school by some two centuries or so but much allied to it in its object and the mode of treatment comes the Śākatāyana Šabdānušāsana, which, like its predecessor, was meant to appeal to a limited body of co-religionists : the Śvetāmbara Jains. To judge from the number of regular commentaries and other accessory treatises in connection with this school and from the numerous references to it in works like the Gaņaratna-mahodadhi, Madhaviya- Dhātuvritti and so forth, it would appear that at one time the Sabdānušāsana was largely studied among members of communities other than those to whom it was primarily addressed. There is not much originality in the work itself to deserve this popularity. 52. The founder of the ſakațāyana ſabdāpušāsana not the ancient ſakațāyana but his modern namesake. The name Śāka.. tāyana suggests, as we have seen, a very high antiquity in that it is quoted in the Nirukta (i. 3) and in Pāṇini's Ashtādhyāyi (iii. 4.111, viii. 3.18, viii. 4.50). Here, however, we are dealing not with the ancient šākatāyananone of whose works have survived even in name--but with a modern or abhinava Śākatāyana: with the person who under this appelation is quoted, for instance, in Bopadeva's Kāmadhenu,' by Hemachandra, and other later writers. 1 Colebrooke, Mis. Essaye, Vol. II. p. 44; Aufrecht's Oxford Catalogue p. 176 a.

·[- $ 53 Abhinara-sakarāyana : llis Dato 69 The late Dr. Kielhorn oncc cxpressed doubts as to the historial existence of this inodern sākatāyann. He inclined to tlic view that it was somc modern Jain writer who has presented his own grammatical Inbours under the auspicies of a revercd namc, carefully trying to follow the views attributed to him in ancient works and possibly having for its basis somic of the teachings of the earlier śākatāyana. Professor Pathak's paper on the Jaina sakatāyann (Indian Antiquary for October 1914) has now conclusively establislied not only tlie historical existence of the author of thic Srbdānujāsana but liis exact date. The Šákatāynna who wrote the śab. dānušāsanu also wrote thc Ainogravritti, vbich was written in the time of Amoghavarsha I, the great Räshtrakūta king whoso known epigraphic dates range from A. D. 817—877. 53. Character of the sakațsyana savdinusitana.-Besides tho older grammarinns such as Pāṇini, Katyāyann, Patafijali, and Chandragomin, śākațāyana has freely drawn upon the work of Pajyapāda the author of the Jainondra. vyakarana. Many sātras of sākatāyana are identical with those of Pāṇini, and in cases where they differ the object has bcen to say in shorter and fewer words what 1 Carefully but often inaccurately: Thus in sutrag iij. 4.111 And 112, Panini tells us that the Imperf. 3rd pers. plit. of or is 3g: odly according to Skaçayana, but not so in his own opicioa. This establishes - TT. Now the modern Saka. Agada also makes the rule optionel and allows both forins in his sutra आधिपोझेस्था । This is what Paſini teaches, and not what Panini represents SukatTyans to bare taught. 2 Tho most conclusivo proof for this is the use of the iOSIADCO charistmaiz to illus trate the use of the imperfect (8Qira 11. 3. 207) to describe & well-known past event which tbo writer might have per. sonally witsersed but did not. There is inscriptional cridence to prove that tho erent in question took place shortly Lefore Saka 789 or A. D. 867 (se0 Ep. Ind. vol. i, p. 51, Ind. Apt. vol. zil, p. 181). 3 E. 5. l'anivi's i. 3. 11, ii. 1.1, Fiii. 4. 40, &c.

·70 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 53 - ] was already intended by Pāṇini.) Most of the new matter is taken from Chandragominº (without acknowledgment of course) and where he has improved upon Chandragomin, the improvement was already suggested by the Jainendra sätras, independently of which there is hardly anything new that we can put to his credit. In his sūtra i. 2.37 Śākațāyana seems to quote Indra who probably is to be identified with Pājyapāda, the founder of the Jainendra school. The sākatāyana Šabdānušasana consists of four adhyāyas of four pādas each, the total number of sūtras being about 3,200. The arrangement of topics is similar to that of later Kaumudīs. He gives thirteen ForeTRES and following the suggestion of Kātyāyana has omitted from them the vowel ag and assigned therein a place to: the statales. He does not, of course, treat of the Vedic grammar. His ingenuity is mainly confined to economising the wording of the sūtras. Except in threes cases, he has invariably substituted the monosyllabic Tin wherever Panini had used विभापा, or अन्यतरस्यान or had quoted the name of some ancient authority. The most striking instance of this tendency is given perhaps by >> 1 E.g. HÄÄT for 11ęrarùa Bar of Pūņini (i. 1. 71). 2 Instead of Pāņini's iv. 4. 29, परिमुखं च, Chandra gives परे- मुखपार्थात and so also does Śūkatāyana. 3 In giving Chandragomin's improvenent pacar 7 on Pāņini's Frey: (1. 1. 126) Śūkatāyāna economises one syllable by giving the sitru is FITTÍUang: , herrin imitating Pūjyapāda. 4 For Pāṇini's That what (v. 2. 133), Chandra gives frezar- Barat (iv. 2. 130), Jainendra gives हस्तदन्तकराज्जातो (iii 4. 143), and so also does Šakațiyana. The like holds true of l'īnini': ii. 1. 18, ii. 3. 34, &c. 5 Namely Sakatāyana gūtras ii. 1. ; 229, i, 2. 13, i, 2. 37 (corresponding to Pāņini's v. 4. 154, rii. 1. 79, and vii. 2. 101 respectively), whers - Sūkațū yana quotes figurer, sirast, and 3. Whether, these three names aro merely gore or there wero before him grammarians of that naine cannot be determined.

·[~ $ 55 sakalāyana School : Inter llistory 71 Pārini's sñtrn s. 2.128, which runs Engraiignoranetarit Cliandra changed this into a =) = 34TTINETTI- TITETTIITTITTEN:, wlicre thic substantint change is thic wildition of the qualifying clause 1979,175. sākatāyana says just wut Chandra said, but instead of iria puis a form which is shortcr log full tuo syllables--173777. In liis teelmical terminoloxy also lic lins often taken up Chāudra words in preference to Panini's wherever llic former were shouler. Thus lic has usci -7if;. rif. TT and মযঃ, instead of নিতানা, নান, মাণ anif i of Piirini. 34. Other works of th: sskaffynna #ch21.-Besides thic Šabdūnusāsana and thic Amoylivritti Säkatsiyann is credited with llic authorsiusp of i. Paribhäslui-sitrus, ii. Ganapathia 112 sixteen 19นิเus, iii. Diapitfits, iv. Clicii-5 วิเชus is: four pādas, ami r. Liñganuāsann in scrcnty aryā sinnzas. of these none is older than the corresponding räniniya trentisc. Onc cxpects to find in the Viridi-sütras att Icast traces of the ancient Siikarāyana nnd luis works, but lic is sure to hc disappointed in his cxpcctntions. The other trcatiscs also do not call for any spccinl notice. Ilcmr. chandrn based liis own Linginušāsona on that of Sakarā. yatig, of which, in fact, it is only an cnlarged cdition. 55. later history of the skalyana schoot -The later history of the Sakatayang school as is the case with alinost crery grammatical school—is to be divided into two parts: tlic period of coinmcntarics and sub-commentarics, and the period of digests and manunls. The periods often overlap chronologically. Of commcntaries on the Sákatāyann Subdānušāsana the most notcd uro i. a Xyāsa quoted in the Madhaviya Dhātuvritti. Probably this is 1 The Ma. in the Jain Naha at Śrivana Benzola is put, a sc. poslel, die, of thic Sokasi. yaus lyase ; it is a usef Jincodrobuddhi. Kicik visa. janapaújika, sod an almost complete dls. for that, written 3n Conrrego characters. Sco before, note I on pago 39.

·72 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 55-) $ man. 110 other than the Nyāsa by Prabhāchandrāchārya, which is in the nature of a commentary on the Amoghavritti.' And ii. a commentary called Chintāmaņi by Yakshavar- This was throughout based upon the Amoghavritti and lays no claim to originality. Nevertheless it has been honoured by many sub-commentaries such as the Maniprakāśikā by Ajitasenāchārya, Chintāmaņipratipada by Mangarasa, and a Tippaņi by Samantabladra. Besides regular commentaries there have been produced at least two or three recasts of the ſākatāyana grammar. The best of them is the Prakriyāsañgraha by Abhayachandrāchārya, published at Kolhapur, 1907. Abhayachandra's date follows from that of his pupil Keśavayarủi who in śaka 1281 (=A. D. 1359) wrote a Sanskrit cominentary on Gomatasāra, a philosophical work in Prākrit. Abhayachandra thus flourished during the first half of the fourteenth century. In his recast Abhayachandra has omitted a large number of the original sātras, which were unnecessary in a work for beginners, and amplified a few others, His arrangenient is closely modelled upon works like the Prakriyākaumudi. Another and a still shorter abridgment of the ſākatāyana grammar is the Rūpasiddhi by Dayāpāla, pupil of Matisāgara and a fellow-student of Vādirāja alias Jaya. simha II, the Chālukya emperor who was reigning in Saka 947 (=A. D. 1025). The work is somewhat similar in scope lo tlic Laghukaumudi. | Regarding the Amoglavritti, Sakatayonu's own comuentary on his stras, geo Professor Pūthak's papor (Ind. Ant. for October 1914). 2 Cuinqurlaunahat nifi HD त्येयं लधीयसी । सम्पूर्णलक्षणा वृत्ति- Toon it Extracts to provo the dependence of this commentary on the Amoghavritti are given by Professor Pathak, loc. cit. 3 For theso facts I am indobted to Professor Pathak's paper in the Ind. ant. foi Oct, 121..

·[- $ 57 The Hemachandra School 73 In course of time the Śakatāyana Šabdīaušāsana came to be fairly ousted from the field by a powerful rival in the shape of Hemachandra's Sabdānušāsada, whiclı liko its predecessor' was addressed to the Svetām. bara Jains, with the result that even Miss. of works belonging to the school are at present very rarely to be met with outside of Southern India, which was once the contre of its greatest influence. The Hemachandra School 56. The Hemachandra School.-Tho last, but not on that account the least, of these sectarian schools that we have to notice is the ono which is knoirn under the name of its founder, the Jain monk Hemachandra. About Hemachandra and his times we know a good deal moro than what we did regarding the founders of the other schools hitherto described. Tlic biographical material regarding Hemachandra has been brought to a focus in Dr. Biihler's German pamphlet? entitled Ueber das Leben des Jainn Monches Hemachandra,' Wien, 1889. 57. Lits of Hemachandra.-Heninchandra was born on the full-moon night of the month of Kārttika in the year of Vikrama 1145 (corresponding to A. D. 1088 or 1089, November-December) at a place called Dhunduka, not in the British Collectorate of Ahmedabad. His parents were humble banias, Chachiga and Pahini by namc. He was originally named Chäūgadeva. The mother was a 1 Tlut Sakaļdyana was Śretīm. work is based upon प्रभाषक. tara Jain is proved by tho afa by Roman and numerous references to the HOTET (1250 A. D.), 1974 Avasyaka-sūtra, Cliheda-stre, faat by AT&T Nirgukti, Kalika-sútra, and (1305.6 A. D.), 474T by other Svetambara works found rat (1348-9 A. D.), and in tho Amogheyritti. yataan by forstivat 2 Besides the gas found in (1435-9 A. D), Hezechend:e'e rriting this 10 [Sk. Gr. ) ·74 Systenis of Sanskrit Grammar $ 57 - ] good pious woman, and the birth and the greatness of hor would-be son was conveyed to her in a dream which was interpreted for her by a religious teacher named Devachandra. When Hemachandra was a boy of five, Devachandra requested Pahini to surrender the son to the service of religion, offering considerable money in compensation. The moncy was refuscd, but tlic boy was given over, who, at Cambay, on the ifth day of the light bulf of the inonth of Māgha, being Sunday, wis solemnly received into the order of the Jain Priesthood, taking on thint occasion the new name of Somachandra. During the twelve years that followed his ordination, and of which our information is very scanty, Somachandra probably devoted himself to learning with great zeal. On the conclusion of his studies he was consecrated as Sūrior Achārya, once more, and for the last time, changing his name to Hemachandra. The next glimpse that we have of him is at Anahillapattaka as the acknowledged head of the greatest of the nany Jain communities there. Jayasimha otherwise called Siddharāja, was then on the throne, ruling froin (Anhilvad-) Patan an empire which extended from Abu to Girnar and from the western sea to the borders of Malva. He was a munificent patron of learning and an earnest enquirer into religious truth. He never abandoned the worship of Siva which was traditional with his house, but it was his delight to gather religious men from all quarters and to set them discussing before him the truth of their systems. Hemachandra early attracted his notice and he sought to conciliate, if not actually to convert, his sovereign by the use of clever parables inculcating suspense of judgment and eclecticism. There are several stories current about Jayasimha and Hemachandra displaying the latter's shrewdness in contending with his Brahman enemies at court, ·[- $ 58 Ilomarlandra: Ilis Work 75 After the death of Jayasiiia (1143 4. D.) Kuiūrapāla, his nephewr, came to tlic tlirone. The first ton years of his reigu he spent in victorious warfare on the northern frontiers of his kingdom. When he had nothing to fear from his encinics, he settled down to a peaceful and contemplativc life. In this case there is no reason to doubt that Homachandra's exertions resulted in the king's conversion. A drama called Moharījn-parajaya is based upon this fact. It is the oldest of our authorities for Hemachandra's times, being written by Yašalıpala, minister to Ajnynpāla, Kumărapăla's succossor. According to the drama Kumārapāla's conversion took place in Samrat 1216, the second day of the bright half of the month of Mārgašīrsha. It is at the request of Kumārapāla and in order to cstablish him in his new faith that Hemachandra wrote the Yogaśāstm, just as, cre long, he had written the Sabdānušāsana at the request of Siddharāja or Jayasimha. During the closing years of Kumărapăln's reign he, in company with Hemchandra, made many pilgrimages to Jain sacred places in Western India. Hemachandra, who was now an octogenarian, soon felt his end drawing near, and he boldly set out to meet it by means of 191992. He was 84 at the time of his death. Kumārn. pāla dicd only six months after him. With their death the glories of the ſaiu empire also come to an end, after a brief existence of unparalleled brilliancy. 58. Nature of Hemachandra's savdAuusisana. Regarding Hemachandra's grammar (the full title of which is FETTATL3191/') it consists, like Pāṇini's work, of eight adhyāyas of four pādas each, the total number of sūtras being about 4,500. Of these nently a 1 A certain commentator explains the firet part of the title thusfirst steeTTA FATA ! ईमपन्मेण कृतलार ऐमचनम् ।

·76 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 58 - ] fourth part of sūtras is given by the last adhyāya alone, which deals exclusively with the Prākrit languages which were now in their most flourishing condition. In the remaining adhyāyas the arrangement of subjects is natural, only slightly differing from that of the Kaumudis, Hemachandra's object in writing a new grammar for the benefit of his illustrious patron was to say in the shortest possible manner not only all that his predecessors had said upon the subject, but everything that could be said. Accordingly he has drawn freely upon the works of all the grammarians and commentators that had gone before him : indeed in some cases-especially in regard to Śākatāyana's Śabdānušāsana and the Amoghavritti-his dependence is so close as to amount to almost slavish imitation.' wa Hemachandra wrote a commentary on his own sūtras called Šabdānušāsana-Bțihadvritti. This commentary is profuse and learned, quoting the views of many writers-- always under the general appellation of sati, T<:, gri, , etc.--- for approval in some cases and refuta tion in most others. A commentary called Nyāsa on this Brihadvritti identifies a large number of these quotations? and if properly edited along with Hemachandra's Brihad- 1 Some typical instances will be 2 These are : EESTI, ETTES, found collected by Professor उपाध्याय, कसल, कलाप, काशि Pathak in the Indian Anti- काकार, क्षीरस्वामी, चन्द्रगोमिन, quary for October 1914, page Tiart, gike, eqret, sare 209.. That Hemachandra does 576, Torre, og (othernow and then add a bit of his wise 3195IST or stic), ret, own is proved by instances वामन, पार्तिककार, विश्रान्ताविद्या- like the gūtra TTT FEZ TUTTET UT, 9721977, 90910, and (Pūņini ii. 1. 18), which ŚTkamany others. The TEYTT is tiyana gives as पारे मध्येऽन्तः probably कैय्यट, while भुतपात . (ET), while Hemachan is probably the same person dra gives as पारे मध्येऽग्रेऽन्तः who is quoted in the Amogha- 989 vritti at iy. 1. 252-3,- ·[- $ 59 deirssory Tocalises yritti it is very likely to shed considerabic light 03 many a dubious point in thc history of Indian granımır. At tho cnd of each pidn of the yritti Hemachandra, by way of a praiasti, las added a stanza in praisc of liis patron and his family. Thoy nrc all given togсther in a notc to Dr. Bilhlor's pamphlct nborc reforred to, and aro written in the usual classical style of Nattery. An abridgment of the Brilindvritti for thc first soren clinptors of thic Éabdinušāsann is also attributed to Hemia. chandra, and may probably have been writion with his concurrence. It is a mcrc patchwork, contnining nothing non or original. Mss. of it dato os far back as cir. 1350 A. D., and one old palm lcat Ms. calls it, instead of Šabdīnušāsnna, Laghuvritli-ŠabdīnusIsann-Rainsyn. To illustrate the rules of his grammar, Hemachandra has composed a pocin, resembling the Bhattikavya, which is known as Dryasrnya.mahakävyn. 39. Treatises accessory to lemachandra's Saddlnudiseas.-It is not necessary to describe in fullor details the treatisos accessory to Hcmachandra's Énbd nušksana. These aro: i. Hnima-Dhātupitha, which is arranged for tho most part like the corresponding treatise of Paņini; il. Unudisūtras, numbering a little over 960; lii, Linigiausisana, a metrical treatise, being an cnlargement of the Śskatāyana Liñgānušāsana and divided into cight sec. tions;' iv. Ganapathn ; v. A collection of Paribhashas; and some others. For the most part theso trcatiscs are embodied in Hemachandr's Brihadvritti, from which they scom to have been subsequently extracted and pub. lished in a scparate form. It is doubtful whicther the vivaranas or vrittis which are given in Mss. of tho Lifiganušāsana or of the Uņådisātras do really come from 1 Naineis-mey, ergunternetin soitin, wife swimuler inte, A sad the ·78 Systeins of Sanskrii Grammar § 59 - ] ) Hemachandra. Here, as in most of the commentaries on the Sabdānuśasana, the colophons of the original work are mistaken for those of the cominentaries themselves. 60. Commentarlss on Homechandra's śabdānusāsA19. The 12ost important and extensive of these commentaries or rather sub-commentaries is the Brihadvritti-dhundhikā. No complete Ms. of this work has been hitherto discovered, the longest extending only upto the fifth adhyāya. The Mss. indifferently call it दीपिका, अवचूरि, अवचूर्णिका and groft. Its authorship also is equally uncertain. Many Mss. and reports ascribe it to Hemachandra, which is very probably a mistake. A Mş.' from the Deccan College collection, which contains the commentary on adhyāyas vi. and vii, is stated to have been the work of Dhanachandra. Another? Ms. of the Dhundhikā purports to be the work of Jinasāgara, while a third which contains only a fragment from the ākhyāta section gives Nandașundara as its author. These conflicting statements it is very hard to reconcile. The most probable view is that there were two slightly varying versions of the Dhundhikā and consequently there may have been two separate authors. Whether each wrote a commentary on all the seven adhyāyas or only on portions from them it is perhaps impossible to decide. The Dhundhikā on the eighth or the Prākrit chapter is the work of Udayasaubhāgya, pupil of Harshakula of the Laghutapāgachchha. It was written in 1533 A. D. during the reign of Bahadur Shah of Gujarat (1525-1537). The object of a Dhundhikā is to take the various sātras of the śabdānušāsana in order, explain them word by word, and in the majority of cases to quote instances of its application, deriving the several forms step by step by bringing in the necessary sātras. Another very useful commentary on the Brihadvřitti is by Devendrasūri, pupil of Udayachandra of the Chan- 1 No. 10 of 1877-78. % No. 119 of 1869-70, ·[-$61 Digests, Manuals, etc. 79 drogachchha. It is called Haimalayhunyása and purports to be an abridgment of a larger Nyāsa by Udayachandra, tlic author's preceptor.' This latter york has not come down to us. The importance of this commentary mainis consists in that it rcfers many of Hemnchandras's quota. tions to their sources. third anonymous commentary calls itscif Sibdanınkārņavanyās. There do not scem to be existing any more commcntarics worth the naino. 01. Digests and manuals and other inl.cellancous works.. Smaller manuals based on Hemachandra's Šabdīnusāsapn have also come down to us, thio nuost famous by far being the Haima-laghuprokriyā by Vinnyavijayagani, pupil of Kirtivijayagani. It was composed in Samrat 1710=1052 A. D. conumentary on it callcd llainın-prakāsa mas also written by the author somc twenty-five years later." A second digest referred to abovc,' called Haimnkaumudi alias Chandraprabhā, vras put togethor in Samrat 1725 (=1669 A, D.) by Meghavijaya, one of the sūris who "by the command of tlıc lord of the country (Deśnpati) werc provided with quarters for the rainy scason in the palace of Agarārarn..“ This work is said to havo been the model for the Siddhāntakaumudi. The facts may lure Deon just otherwisc. Of lesser lights we have i. Punynsundaragani who arranged for the school the different Sanskrit roots in their alphabetical order giving aftor cach root its meaning, gana, and other conjugationnl peculiaritics; ii. Srivallabhnvāchanāchārya who wrote in Samvat 1661, 1 Compare the following stanzas तो राजधन्यपुरनगरे।हमस्याफरणस्प from the Prasasti: andag 29...... ..JETTETET ffiez ÁFA 3 Compare: Ficha Tunisia पतां वरः। यावज्जीवमभूधस्य ध्यास्पा प रतलामपुरे रम्ये। अन्धोऽपं ज्ञानामृतमपा ॥ तस्योपदेशाधेन्द्र Fagor fav14rafirat......... I afectat curTiO FIT 4 Seo before, pago 46, noto 3. मुद्धार गनीषी फगफपमः। 5 Peletop's Resort iii, 1989 10. 2 Cemfaze : drana.

·No text on this page.

·( - 63 The Kalantra School 81 who troca SabdInulisans of his ornand composedacom. mentary on it during the lifc.time of licmachandra liin. self, if wc arc to trust the cridoncc furnished by thic in. stanec TFITT: given in thc comincntary.' This would makc Malayagiri Nourish between A. D. 1843 nud 1174. Jalnyngiri, unlike Himachandrn, uscu pratyūliirus and followed on the lincs of the Kilanira ns well as šalarayana. Unfortunately, the only Ms. of this work that has so far concio light is incompletc, and nothing further could be said of this work licrc. Regarding the Prikrit chapicr of liomchandra's $15. dinusīsana and its subscqucnt history-for, it had nn independent dc clopment of its own-c nccd not discuss it in this place as it is beyond the proper province of our cssay, thich is limited only to thc S.:1:skrit schools of gramniar. From thcsc scctarian schools of grammar tre shall Qoir turn to schools which arc rathcr cosmopolitan in character, being designed inainly lo appeal to the masses auto schools whose objcct was to say just what is sufiicicnt for a proper understanding of thc language, to which grammar was considered, and justly considered, as only ancillory-o schools, namcly, which go by the damcs of tho Kitantra, and the Sirasvata. The Kütantra School 63. Tae Kilantra school.-Thc namc Kütantrn, according to the commentators, means a short trentisc, i handbook in other words in which the nicctics of Päņini's grammar have been dispensed with for the bencſit of beginners. This view gains plausibility from a statement la tbo 1 Sue De, Ellbora's sport for 1880-81, Paco (G. 11 ( St. GR. ) ·82 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 63-] Vyākhyānaprakriyā? which says that this grammar was primarily designed for the use of छान्दस : स्वल्पमतयः शास्त्रान्तररताश्व ये। ईश्वरा व्याधिनिरतास्तथालस्ययुताश्च ये ॥ TIEFTIREFITTAT TTCT FEAT: 1 तेषां क्षिप्रं प्रबोधार्थम्- Weber in his history of Indian Literature p. 227 notes that this granmar was meant for those who wished to approach Sanskrit through Prākrit, and that the Pāli grammar of Kachchāyana was based upon the Kātantra. We have else where (page 10) spoken of the relation which Dr. Burnell discovered between this and the Tamil grammar, and of these again with the ancient Prātiśākhyas and other Aindra treatises. All accounts thus agree in stating that the Kātantra grammar was not the creation of a school, but was rather meant to satisfy a real popular need ; and looking to the intrinsic merits of the work itself, as also to the host of commentators that have been attracted towards it, it is clear that the work must have served its purpose pretty well, at least for a time, 64. Traditional account about śarvavarman, the founder of the school. The Kātantra is otherwise known as Kaumāra or Kālāpa, and the traditional explanation of the genesis of these two names is as follows: There once lived in thie Deccan a king called Śātavāhana' who, while ono day having jala-kcli with his queen, was requested by hier wa T TAI," meaning "Pray, do not sprinkle any more 1 Mo. No. 316 of 1875-76 from 3 Is be to be identified with ibo the Deccan College Library. Andhra King of that arme The tredition is inontioncd in montioned on p. 208 of V. A. Dr. Bübler's Report for 1876 Smith's Early History of 76, p. 74, and detailed in the ladia, tbird edition, pablishod SBTTTTTTTTTTTFRITT byta in 1914? In tbat cine the 2, - Ms. of which is No. beginding of the Kutantra 30 of Nolicet, fecond Soriet, will buyo to be pat la tbeint by Busapratada &busiri. centary of the Christes ora.

·83 [-05 Treditional Origin of Kalantra watcr og mc." Thereupon the ignorant king offered her somc (s) sweets. Subsequently, discoscring liis crror and being much ashamed of his ignorance of Sanskrit, hc requested lis Pandit named Sarvararmain' to derise n speeds method of learning grammar. Thic Pandit in his difficulty bcsought God Siva who ordered his son Kärtli. koya or Kumšra lo accedo to his wishes. Accordingly, Kumim rcrcnlcd the sõtros of thic Knumira grammar. As the God's vehicle, the hird Kalapin (reacock), was the in. strumcnt of comipunication, thic sülras also obtained thcir other name. This tradition like most offices of its kind -has probably a gem of truth. The date of the rise of this school as given by the tradition is not at all incon. sistent with other ascertained facts. Thus Durgasimha the earlicst known commcntator on this grammar cannot as wc shall presently scc, bc later than 800 A. I., and when wc consider that he may not have been the first commcntutor on the Katantra, and that, nt any rnic, the Sätrapātha known to liim annot hc necessarily identicni with that which wos originni, sccing that considerable diffcrcnccs ATC obscirabic between his Satrapitha and that currcnl, for instance, in Kasmir sincc 1100 d. D.,-- c may for the present nccept the first century aftor Christ as the century which witncsscd the rise of this grammar. 65. Evidence for later laterpolations in the Kitantra satra. p/the-Comiog now to the work itself sc notice that the Sūtrapātha which now goes under the name of Énrravørman is divided into four parts : i. Onnsisting of TETETFT (TTATT) STE, FATTURATO (*) 76 FPT (***). To, Freien, apd (Agrasi). 1 Iudapt this form of the aime ip pri ferroor to GATTIYUTOID. • The curred ones ut dariyad from the Ant word of the ·84 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 65 - ] ii. TFCU-Consisting of 1977a (fog) 979: 47 TEC1- पाद, सखिपाद, सुप्सत्पाद, कारकपाद, समासपाद, ATEGANTE, and [ITTE). iii. 3TEUTATETUT-Jousisting of FÅTTES, ETC. द्विवचनपाद, स प्रसारणपाद, गुणपाद, अनुपङ्गपाद, इडागमपाद, -4and घुट्पाद. iv. ErgoConsisting of frEGYTE*, TICIES, TOUTE, SETTE* , (FO@976], and TFSETTE*. In this connection the first question to be raised is : Does the fourth part-the estatubelong to the authorship o£ Šarvavarman himself, or was it only tacked on to his work by a later hand ? Most commentators, including Durgasimha, note that the word fra which begins the first section of this prakarana is AFCTF. A mañgala it is true, may come at the beginning of the work as a whole or ia the body of it ; before conimeucing the various subdivisions of it. In this particular case Durgasimha tells us सिधिग्रहण भिन्नकर्तृकावागमङ्गलार्थम्व. He elsewhere tells us that the 5th To is the work of Kātyāyana.' Jogatāja the author of a work called the Pādaprakarņasañgatiº and probably the same person who is alluded to by Dlažiklia (circa 1135-45 A. D.) in his Šrikaạtha-charita, agrees is not assigning the Easterut to the authorship of Šarvavarman ; only he makes Śākatāyana their author. Lastly, Raghunandanaširomani, the author of a commentary on the Durgasiraha-vritti, credits Vararuchi with the authorship of the prakarņa in question-a3791' ESETT: HTT HOT ettrad commoncing tho various sections, Alternative games QIO enclosed within circuisr brackote. 1 Sco noto 2 on pago 27 bofore: 2 This work givae .a topical ADAM lyois of the Kitantra-8Utrne. It is printed in Appendix 2 od the basis of the Deccan College Mo, 292 of 1875-76, ? A Mo. of tho work is no. 363 nm Noticca, Soncord Sarins.

·(-865 Interpolations in Adlanirc-Sairapalha 85 नावादितामधिना'काशित मितिमासा OTTHTE 1 iron? Whocser bc the real sutlios, it is clear that the ERITE is lalcr addition to the original sutrapitha. Another clear caso of latcr interpolations in the Kitanım svirapitha is (urnished by the three sections in rectangular brackets-निरालयका सीमापार. and उमादिशा- Flich arc abscht in Durgasithhn's commcntary but which are regularly found included in the Kiimirinn sütro. patha.' And cron in the sections which are common to hoth thcsc thercato so many variant readings that we are probably justified in inferring that the Külintra sötrapatha was in a very unsettled and changeabic form when it reached Kasmir-probably long before it fouod an crpositor in Durgasiibha. Finally, the Ali Fara belonging to the sccond prokarna &ccms likewisc to bc not of the authorship of Sarra varmann, The $5:ras in this section (like those in the 197ECT AS girca by the Kaimirian tradition) naturally arrange them. scircs into anushtubh sinnzas; and although somc sulros here and there from this scction have been in Profcssor Eggcling's edition of the Kilantra printed ns such stanzas, still this general fact has not yet roccired sullicicut attce. tion. The infcrcncc is obvious. If Sarvavarruan did not think it ncccssary to icach thic * section to his Royal 1 Varafochi is often na sllu ol Kotykgods. The ladii offico Mo. no. 855 porsorld to be Faratecbi's com.cn bis ow , which are just tbou coin.. % Oolalde Keimir the place of tbene pecioza is taken up by a Llegraad144.s 10 86 try 88, aluributed to Dargriet, vbe e probably at the Martin por SON 1 Darguoltba, ucd by an Uqadifsiba pul together by Durgwithbu hiarell. Thin latter work diden consider lly from tho Totte lo. cluded in the regalar Kr. mirias sotrpihi. A Icr euch are collected in Di. Dublar'de soport for 1876-76, Dorixiy, ·86 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 65-] pupil, no more did he care to teach him the mic section (or the first section). And as it cannot be urged that the area section formed for the king a harder nut to crack than, for instance, the streeta section, there was no apparent need for Sarvavarman's running into poetry and that for one or two sections only. The facts may have been these : A manual which made the king proficient in graminar in a few months' time must have attracted the early notice of the courtiers and subjects of the king. The omission of arêqa and other sections may. then have been noticed and rectified-either by the original author or some other scholar. And the impetus to such additions being once given, the Kātantra from being a mere handbook issued forth into a full-blown system. 66. Nature ol Šarvavarman's work. The nature of the improvements made by Śarvavar varman on the current textbooks of grammar is evidont even from that portion of the Kātantra which we have no hesitation in accepting as his own genuine work. These consist in i. dispensing with the artificial arrangement of the letters of the alphabet introduced by Pāṇini, and retaining in their stead their natural arrangement such as is found in the Prātiśā. khyas.' ii. As a consquence the Pāņiniya pratyāhāras, which result in' brevity as well as unintelligibility, are dispensed with, their place being taken by the earlier and simpler Sanjhas such as स्वर, व्यञ्जन, समान etc. This has saved the system the defining sūtras, of which there is such a number in Pāṇini. iii. In the distribution of the subject matter, in preference to the old artificial arrangement of Pāṇini there has been adopted one which is natural or topical, similar to that of the later Kaumudīs. iv. Lastly, as was essential in a work designed for beginners, the 1 The first stra of the Kotantra- Tagaturret—in in fust taken from the Protikkhyas.

·( - $ 68 Kålantra School : Early History: whole of the Vnidiki prakriys of Panini nud all the other ruics of an cxccptionni or difficuit charcter have been simply omitted. Thus instead of the nearly 4000 sotms of Panini, Šarvnvarman could finish his work in about 655 siltas, or including the section, ifno sítras only. 67. Early tilstary of the Kilantna ochoat-Thc intrinsic mcrits of the work as also the inct that its author was patroniscd by a porrerful king of the Deccan ensured its rapid circulation cren in countrics as remolc ns Kismit and Ceylon. The cxplanation of this popularity is also partly to be found in the fact that there was an urgent demand for such a work. The text-books in wsc prior lo the advent of this school xcrc intcndcd mther for Pandits and monks than for the merchants and ogriculturisis, in whora ncrcrthicss thc dcsire to learn the langunge of the Scripturcs nnd of refined socicty was not quite absent. This led to the detection of innccusacics and omissions in tho originni version of thic grammor, which came to he rectificd in the course of study, so this the originn! Sötra. p5thn of Šarvatarman experienced, in the course of the next two or three conturics, the addition of the art and igra Tys, and the substantial assimilation with Śakt. yana's or Varoruchi's TT.TT. During the period of its casuing cxtensive circulation other minor changes or additions may have been mndo from time to time. The text must in any asc lave been pretty fairly fired in at Icast two recensions, the northern and the southern, beforo it found an nble commentator in Durgasimha. 68. Dursusloka sod his vrittiWhether Durgasimha had any predecessors in the task of cxpounding the Katantra cannot now be ascertained. His was probably the first systematic attempt where necessary to oxplain and ampli. fy' the Kalantra grammar so as to make it a thorough. 1 By mount of giving irukas, Romeo ut which later comples. later bare incorporated with the origioul atun.. Ct. Egy log'i editioc, Yoter, p. 67.

·88 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 68 - 1 going as possible, without running counter to its original object of ease and simplicity. As Durgasimha is quoted by Hemachandra, and as he knew the Chāndra Dhātupātha, on the basis of which he put together another Dhātupātha for the Kātantra, Durgasimha probably is to be assigned to the eighth century. As the verse introductory' to his Uņādisātras contains an invocation to God Śiva, Durgasimha probably was not a Bauddha, and if so, he is distinct from another Durgasiṁha, the author of a commentary on Durgasińha's vritti, whose invocation? points unmistakably to his faith. Durgasimha is also to be distinguished from later writers such as Durga, Durgātma, and Durgāchārya. The last is the author of a commentary on the Nirukta, and one of the first two, if indeed they are two persons, wrote à Liñgānušāsana to the Kātantra (see note 2 on page 85). 69. Commentaries on Durgasimha's vşitti.-Writers subse. quent to Durgasimha have mainly confined themselves to writing commentaries on his masterly vritti. The earliest of these is the Kātāntravistara by Vardhamāna, whose patron was Karnadeva, who probably is the same who ruled Gujarat in A. D. 1088. Vardhamāna is often quoted by Bopadeva in his Kāvyakāmadhenu. A writer called Mahāmahopādhyāya Prithvidhara wrote a sub. commentary on Vardhamāna's work. 4 1 TAHU FATE raag Pratamarcoral लिई जयति सन्नित्यमशेषागमकार- उणादयो विधास्यन्ते पालव्युत्पत्ति 077 . It has a ring of that हेत। faith about it. The other as 2 शिषकम सुद्ध अग्राह्यं च स्वयंभुवम् । we saw was e Bnuddha. फासंबवत्तिटीय नस्सा दुर्गेण रच्यते॥ * Goldsticker thelieved him to be This Durga stylea Durgasimba the same as the author of the 29 भगवान् वृत्तिकारः। Comparb Gañaretoama hododbi, sork, Eggeling's Notes, p. 465. composed (8EFT TO- 3 Cos of thein may base been a KB pdag) in 1139-40 ata; compare the perse snim sitgagerinstaforeret er AD.

·(- $70 Treatiscs ziccessory to kõlanira 89 The next in succession comes Trilochanndāsa,' who is also cited by Bopadcya and by Vitthala thic commentator on the Sarasvata. Ilc may havo como very soon after Vardhamānn. His commcntary is called Kātantravrittipati. jikā, and from it so learn that the nuthor wns a Káyastha, the son of Megha and father to Godidharn. Trilochanadisa has been himself commented upon by Jinaprabhasari alias Jinaprabodha,? by Kušaln, by Ramachandm, and by other more modern writers. Nahāder, the author of a commentary called Sabda. siddhi, n Ms.' of which bcars the datc Samvat 1340, is chro. nologically the next writcr whom we havc to noticc. As, however, there is very little known about him citlicr from his own works or from those of otlicrs, wc slull pass on to latcr writers. of thesc ve linvc aircady alluded 10 Durga or Durrätma, author of il commentary on Durgasrila's yritli, who has often been confounded with Durgasirita liimself. An anonymous writer has written & Dhundhikä on the Kātantravritti, probably modellcd upon a similarly named conimentary on Ilemachandra's Subdārusasana. Xo other comarcnturies on the Kātantra that could no definitely assigned to a period anterior 10 1500 A.D., aro now oxtant. Scc, lowever, $72. 70. Treatises accessory to the Kiteiten. We live alrcady incidentally spoken alore of thic trcatiscs accessory to Kātnutra. There are not many of llicm, and the inujority of them arc inuch later productions. The carlior ones arc tho Liſigānušāsana in 88 āryās by Durga, and the 1 He is not to be identified with the author of that name who wrote tlio Katantrottaraparisi. ghts to Śrspalidatta's supplejent. 2 For particulars about Jinapra. 12[Sk. Gs.] bodha sco Peterson's Roport for 1696-92, Index; and Kiellorn's report for 1880 81, Nos, nos. 35 and 30. 3 N4. 09. GO of Dr. Ricllorn' collectiun for 1880-31.

·90 Systenis of Sanskrit Grammar $70 - ) Uņādipātha and the Dhātupātha by Durgasimha the author of the vritti. The Dlātupātha is modelled upon that of Chandragomin, with only slight modifications. The genuine Kālāpa-Dhātusātra, which differs considerably fron the above, is now reported to exist only in a Tibetian translation. 71. History of the Kātantra school in Bengal.-No definite information exists as to when the Kātantra was introduced into Bengal. In thic fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there arose in Bengal a host of commentators and writers of supplements to the Kātautra, and the grammar is there to this day most assiduously studied. Some of the most famous of these Bengali writers are : i. Kavirāja who quotes Trilochanadāsa and is quoted by Harirāva; ii. Kulachandra who is quoted by Rāmadāsa ; Gopinātha Tarkāchārya who is commented upon by Ramachandra who also wrote a commentary on the Kātantravrittipaíjikā; iii. Sripati who wrote a supplement to the Kātantra which is honoured with commentarics written by Gopinātha Tarkāchārya, Rāmachandra Chakravarti, Sivarāına Chakravarti, and Pundarikāksha ; iv. Trilochana (not the older Trilochauadāsa) who wrote an Uttaraparišishta, giving therein such information on 78, arth, and FATF as had escaped Śrīpati ; and several others. Most of these writers came from the Vaidya commaunity of Bengal, and their object in all cases has been, by partial or wholesale borrowing from all available sources, to make the Kātantra as complete and up-to-date as possible, so as to prevent its being neglected in the course of the struggle for existence which began with the modern revival of Pāṇini under the auspices of the Kaumudikāras, and the simultaneous springing into existence of a largo number of other modern schools of grammar. At present, as before observed, the study of the Kātantra is confined to only a few districts of Bengal.

·[- $ 73 Sarasate School 91 71. History of the Kistantra school in Kiimiin Kiimir llic school had a slightly varice development. The Sätra. palha sercivcıl tliere was, as wew, considerably different from that known to Durgasithha : and we can hence conclude that thic Kiimirinn l'andits got faruiliar with thic works of Dargasitila much latcr. Until thion they busicd themselves with writing original coraluci. tarics and digests on the filantra whicls, as Dr. Lulier obscrrcs, has been tlic grammar of the Kidunirinns from the (clfth to tlic sixteenth century. Only a fow of thcir trarl:s in .llss. hare so far licct availablc. There is among otlicis : worl called the Dalubodhini by Blatta Jagudiura with a Nyást upon it by a writer called Ugrabitati, who, ir idential with leis namc.sako who was a teacher of gt:utorar lo Ananlupala and whosc book (ris .Jllcráni says) was made fushionable in Käimir hy liberal donations (rom tlic royul pupil lo llic Pandits, must be placed in the latter part of tlic Icnth century.' Another rather well.linown bool: is thic Laghuvrittilly Chlichlublata, which perhaps liclongs to about the samc timeOr Inter and Icss important hooks there is quite a number. The modern popular bools of gratutuar in Kaštuir arc based on the Katantra. The Sarasvata School 73. The Sirasvata school : its date -The origin of the Särasvata school of grupuarians cannot be put down to a datc very much carlier than 1250 A. D., when Lopadera the author of the Mugdhabodhu tlourishel, seeing that he 1 Smm Vincent Shithi's learly Ilis. tory of India, Thiel rition, 35, 392, wo, Thie Deccan College Alu, of the worki brought over by Bithler in 1876 7G contine at the end the following culption : 111 aufam ) ma &r., whicle preslinjalanilt for Saka 10:37 - 1113 A. D.

·92 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 73 - ] nowhere refers to the Sārasvata school. If the school existed in his days if it had attained a sufficient standing in the eyes of scholars--we should naturally expect Bopadeva to mention it, just as he does many other established schools and authors. Nor does the school appear to have been known to Hemachandra. Further, none of the commentaries on the Sārasvata belongs to a data earlier than 1450 A. D., and the majority of them were written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Looking to the native places of the different commentators and the places where the Mss. were copied or discovered, it has to be admitted that the influence of the school, even in the most glorious period or its existence, was mostly limited to Northern India : to Gujarat, Nagapur, Udepur, Bikaner, Delhi and Bengal. The school continued in vigour down to the modern revival of Pāṇini under the auspices of Bhattoji Dikshita and his pupils, when most schools of grammar began to decline and were driven into the corners of Bengal and other out-lying districts. The Sārasvata school was probably the last to go. These facts when taken in conjunction with the extremely simple and brief manner in which the Sārasvata treats its entire subject--700 sātras? as against the 4,000 1 Seven hundred sūtrasmi.e., in the original sūtrapãţha of the schcol. This assertion is made on the basis of the Deccan College Ms. no, 239 of 1892-95, which gives 597 mūlasīlras plus 91 more vârtikas or vaktavyas, thus reaching the total of 658. The original order of the sūiras geems to be preserved in this Ms. alone; other Mss. usually follow the order of Anubhutisyarūpacharya in his Sūrasvata-prakriya. Thus in two M83, of the Deccan College Collection (no. 257 of 1895- 98 and no. 210 of A. 1882-83) the total number of sūtras is. nearly 890, including some sūtras which occur twice and some vārtikas distinctly given by Anubhūtisvarūpācharya as auch, We have in fact to distinguish clearly between the Sarasvata-mūlasūtrapatha and the Sārasyataprakriyīsūtra pāțha, 1 ·[ - $ 74 Special Features of Sārasrota 93 of Pārini-render pinusillc thc infcrcncc thint thic Sārns. rata school, like thic Kātantra, arosc in response to a dcfinite demand. This time the demand probably came from the Muhammedan rulers of India wlio felt it necessary to promote the study of Sanskrit, werc it only for the pur. pose of criticising works written in that language. Thus Gaisuddin Khilgi tlic pcaccful and enlightened ruler of Malvn, Salemslınlı (1555 to 1556) the emperor who ruled Delli during Humayun's wanderings, and Jahorgir, the Conqueror of thic world--all thicsc alike encouraged the study of the Sārasvatn grammar as being the ono calculated to produce greatest results with the least cffort. Indian princes like Udayasing of Udepur (1679 d. D.) also found it casier and less likely to interfere with their usual cnjoyments to study this grammar. We shall presently consider the special fentures to which tho Sarasvata owed its popularity amongst tlic aristocracy; in the meanwhile it may be assuinicd ns very probable that the Muhammedan rule of India is to bo crcdited with having produced the demand which erentually led to the risc of the scliool of grammar with which we arc at present concerned, 74. Special features of the Sarasvata.—These special fentures are not very far to scck; and proninent amongst them is brevity of treatment. When we remember that schools like those of Jainendra and Bopadera, whose avowed object was to curtail and improve upon Panini as far as practicable, could not conveniently treat of their subject in less than 3000 and 1200 sātras respectively; or that the school which in current opinion was labelled the short school--Kātantra--has more than 1400 sātras, 1 It is necessary to emphasise thig ia order to counteract the tendency to look upon the Ialam as a purely destructivo force. The instanco bofore us ig only one out of many.

·94 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 74 -] it was certainly an achievement for the Sārasvata granımar to compass the whole subject in 700 aphorisms only. More important than brevity is simplicity; and in this respect also the Sārasvata compares favourably with its predecessors. The Sārasvata uses pratyāhāras but dispenses with the puzzling its so that in its terminology the letters T, 2, 7, 8, 9, for instance, are indicated by the formula 14. This method has the advantage of pointing out at a glance the letters included in the application of a rule, which Pāṇini's fails to do, except to the initiate. The other technicalities adopted by the Sārasvata are of the simplest kind and are such that the meaning is evident from the word itself (havi, FiTAT etc.), or is established by the concensus of grammarians (FreSITECTET, HESTEREOT, FFT, 545FXT, ETET, ra ctc.). Accordingly, the Sārasvata very rarely goes out of its way to explain its Sanjījās and thus, without sacrificing simplicity, gains enormously in economy. Tlie order followed is, of course, the natural or the topical one. The language of the sītras is easy, and in their interpretation we have not to follow the guidance of any paribhhāshās. No book on paribhāshās has come down to us in connection with this school. This has been made possible, of course, by a studied avoidance of all difficult and out-of-the-way forms, the object being to learn granımar not for its own sake but as a medium for the study of literature. The Vedic irregularities and accents are left out, is also any detailed consideration of the Uņādis. Sometimes this process was carried too far and then later it was found necessary, to insert vartikas such as पतिरसमास एव सखिशब्दवद्वक्तव्यः or गवा- ETTUTTtirSaret 27Fey: or again Ferat: fare star 77624:, where it was discovered that even some of the commoner forms of words remained unnoticed.

·[ - 75 Traditional Founder of Sàrasvala 95 75. Traditional founder of the Sārasvata school. The personi who is credited with the autlıorship of these vārtikas to the Sārasvata is an ascetic called Anubhūtisvarāpāclārya. Tradition gocs furtlier and makes him the direct recipient of the revelation of the sülras from the Goddess Saras. vatī, after whom the school gets its name. This does not seem to bc, however, the right view. We know that Anubhūtisvarāpāchārya gives in his Sārasvala-prakriyā somie vārtikas, and this is incompatible with liis being the Sūtrakāra, as there was nothing to prevent hin from turning his vārtikas into so many sūtras. Secondly, some of the rules which Asubliūtisvarārāchārya gives in lis commciltary are absent in other commentaries. Lastly, though This has liardly much bcaring on the question before us, Anubūtisvarūpāchārya is the spiritual nainc of a man about whom we know nothing. On the contrary Ksheinendra at the end of his commentary on tlic Sārasvata-prakriyā las the colophon--faIITTITITI HOTEi fermai ATATITthereby making Narendra the author of the Sārasvata. Again, Amritabhārati another commentator lias the following: यन्नरेन्द्रनगरिप्रभापितं यन्त्र वैमलसरस्वतीरितम् । तन्मयात्र लिखितं तथाधिकं किञ्चिदेव कलितं स्वगा धिया ।। A grammarian Narendrāchārya is also quoted by: Vitthalāchārya in bis Prakriyākaumudiprasāda. Although as # result of these conflicting facts we are not justified in throwing any doubt upon the historical existence of Anubhūtisvarūpāchārya, still we must admit that he is no more than a name for us, and to set against him we have another-Narendra or Narendrācharya—who must have written some original work on the Sārasvata, no trace of which has, however, been hitherto discovered. We may observe in passing that such a confusion of names is more likely to occur in the case of modern rriters, especially obscure writers; and such we might ·96 Systenis of Sanskrit Gramma; $75 - assunie was the person who, in response to a felt demand, produced the Sārasvatasūtras, and thus made it possible even for the foreign rulers of India to get an insight into Sanskrit literature. 76. The Sārasvata-prakriya of Anubhūtisvarūpāchārya - Fron this obscure and almost mythical personage, who could not have lived prior to the establishment of Muhammedan rule in India, our next leap in the history of this school is to Anubūtisvarūpāchārya the author of the Sārasvataprakriyā. He may have had one or two predecessors in his task. Anyhow when he took up the task, there was probably such a confusion in the order of the Sārasvatasutras that he found it necessary to rearrange (जु कुर्वे) the whole matter for logical presentation. Anubhūtisvarūpacliārya could not have lived earlier than 1250 and later than 1450, when Puñjarāja the earliest of bis known commentators lived. When the sūtras once received a stereo-typed form at the hands of Anubhātisvarūpa, the future history of this school is mainly one of commentaries and sub-commentaries ; and the fact that very few of the commentators--and they are over fifteen in the course of about 175 years make any really original contribution, but confine themselves merely to an explanation juore or less accurate, only means that the graminar was meant for 'practical purposes only. That there should have arisen so many commentators at all is to be explained on the ground that the several local Pandits felt it necessary, in vindication of their scholarship, to write for their patrons fresli commentaries rather than take up those already existing. 77. Commentators on the Sarasvata-prakriyā.--We shall now give short notices of these commentators one by one. Puñjarāja.--He belonged to the Śrīnāla family of Malabar which some time or other settled in Mālva. He ·(-77 Commentators on Sarasrata-prakriya 97 gives his ancestry in tho pošasti nt tho cnd of his coinmcntary, from which to learn that ho WAS a minister to Gaisudin Kliilji of Mälsa (1469-1500). Pufjarāja scems to have arricd on the administmtion very officiently collecting round him a band of Icarncd admirers, and indulging in nudicrous acts of charity and relicſ. Ho nust have lived in the last quarter of tho fifteenth contury. Ho also wrote a work on nlaīkām called śiśuprabodha, and another larger work called Diivanipradipa.' Amyllabhirati. As abovc pointed out, this commentator mcntions Narcndranagari ns nn influcncial rriter on the STrasvata. Amritabhirnti was a pupil of Annlasara. stati, and lic bcars the title rah71. His commentary is called Subodhiki. Unfortunntely all tho cxisting muss. of this commentary contnin such a confusion as to the name of the author and of liis guru, some stating the work to be that of Visvešvarābuhi, pupil of Adrayasarasvati, others that of Satyaprabodhnbliattāraka, pupil of Brahmasigaratuuni, that it is hard to get at thic truth. As the carlicst known ms. of this work is datcd Samrat 1554, the author must lave lived about tho Inst quartor of tho fifteenth century. Tho work is said to have been composed at thc holy place of Purushottama: क्षेत्रे पपायि पुरुपोत्तमसंज्ञफेऽस्मिन् । Kshemendra.-Wo next take this commontator not bccause ho comes chronologically next but because he, liko Amritabhārati, speaks of Narendra. The only personal information we havo of him is that he was the pupil of Kțishņāśrama and tho son of Hariblatta or Haribhadra, a fact sufficient to indicate that hc was other than tho great Kshemendra of Kāśmir, who lived a full contury before Bopadeva. Ksliemendro speaks of some predecessors of his, and he is in turn quoted by Jagannātha, the 1 Soe Dr. Bhandarkar's Report for 1882-83, p. 12. 13(SL.GR. ) ·98 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 77 - ] author of Sărapradipikā, arid unfavourably criticised by Bhattà Dhänešvara who explicitly calls his own commen: tary Àrafataan. As a ms. of this last work is dated Samvat 1653, it clearly follows that Kshemendra could not have lived later than the first quarter of the sixteenth century. . Chandrakīrti.-His commentary is indifferently called Subodhikā or Dipikā. From the praśasti given at the end of this commentary we learn that the author was a Jain belonging to the Brihad-Gachchha of Nagpur, residing in a Jain Tirtha called Kauţika, and 15th in succession from the founder of the Gachchha, Devasāri (Saṁ. 1174). He had a pupil called Harshákīrti who wrote this commentary at first hand, and who himself produced a Dhātupatha and a commentary for the Sārasvata grammar. From the prašasti of this latter work we learn that Chandrákīrti was honoured by Sāhi Salem' (A. D. 1545 to 1553) the emperor of Delhi. Chandrakīrti thus belongs to the second quarter of the sixteenth century. Mädhava.--The son of Kāhnu and pupil of Śrīrañga. He mentions several commentators before him, If the date of a ms. of his commentary (Sam. 1591) is correct, he must be placed earlier than Chandrakīrti. Vásudevabhatta.--He calls himself the pupil of Chandiśvara and gives the date of his commentary to be Sanřat 1634. The commentary is called Sārasvataprasāda. Mandana.--From the colophon at the end of the fer- Tut we learn that Mandana was the Mahā-pradhāna and Sanghapati to Alpasāhi. His father was named Vāhada 1 Compare- श्रीमत्साहिसलेमभूमिप- 2 Compare-संवत्सरे घेदवद्विरसभूमि- तिना सम्मानितः सादरम् । सूरिः समन्विते। शुचौ कृष्णद्वितीयाया सर्वकलिन्दि[का कलितधीः श्रीच प्रसादोऽयं निरूपितः॥ न्द्रकीर्तिः 1:11 ·[ - $ 77 Commentators on Sarasvata-prakriya 99 and he belonged to the Kharatara Gachchha. The commentary subsequent to the futut seems to have been written by one of his pupils. From one of the miss. of the commentary (Dec. Coll. coļlection, no. 13 of 1877-78) we gather that Alpasāhi or Alam was a king of Málva, whose minister (amātya) was known as Pädama. Võhada the father of Maņdana was a brother to this Padama, and was, besides, himself a Sangheśvara or Saūghapati. Our Mandana accordingly must have inherited his father's office and title. We are not yet certain as to who this Alpaşahi, king of Mālva, was. Probably he was merely some local chieftain. The earliest dated ms. of the commentary þelongs to the year 1574 A. D. Megharatao.He was a Jain belonging to the Brihat- Kharatárà 'Gachchha, and the pupil of Vinayasurdara. The commentary is called Sārasvatavyākaranadhundhikā or Särasvatadipikā. A ms. of this work is dated Samvat 1614 (A. D. 1556), and tủis gives the lower limit for Megharatna. Dlianešvara. He wrote his commentary with the avowed object of correcting Kshemendra. As a consequence he comes after Kshemendra and before 1595 A. D., when one of the mss. of Dhanesvara's commentary was copied. He has written, as mentioned in the prasasti of 1. 1 Profeggor S. R. Bhandarkar in (Elliot and Dowgon, iii. PP. bis Report of a second tour in 157 and 208). If this Alpasearch of mos. in Rajpatana khana be the same as 0117 and Central India (1904-5 and Alpaguhi, Mandana will have 1905-6) mentions a Facouri on to be placed 'éven before guffamaragiadient, which is l'uājarajá, whích however'dões written in Samvat 1369. This not appear very likely. Facguh was made during the 2 He must be distinguished from reign of Alçakbūna who has Bopadeva's preceptor, who was been identified with the bro. also named Dhanesvara. ther-in-law of Sultan Alaadin + ·100 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 77 - ) five stanzas at the end of the area section of the commentary, a Tikā on the Mahābhāshya called Chintāmaņi, a new grammar for beginners called Prakriyāmaņi, and a commentary on a stotra from the Padmapurāņa. Jagannatha. This commentator also quotes and is therefore later than Dhanendra. We know nothing personal about Jagannātha. The commentary bears the name of Sārapradīpikā. Kašīnātha.--His commentary is called Sarasvatabhāshya, but is not so diffuse as the name would imply. The author is not communicative about himself and the only thing that can be definitely asserted of him is that he must have lived prior to 1610 A. D., when a ms. (no. 292 of 1880-81) of his commentary was copied down at Barhanpur. Bhatta Gopāla.-Is another commentator who can be similarly disposed of by noting that a ms, of his commentary was copied in A. D. 1615. Sahajakirti. It is a relief to come from these shadowy figures to one who is somewhat less chary of giving us information about himself. Sahajakīriti was a Jain, a Vāchanāchāraya and a pupil of Hemanandanagaņi of the Kharatara Gachchha. The com. is called Sārasvataprakriyāvārtika and was composed' in A. D. 1623. Hansavijayagani..The contribution of this author is very slight, he having been apparently content to write a very diffuse com. called Šabdārthachandrikā on the introductory verses of the Sārasvataprakriyā. He was the pupil of Vijayānanda and flourished about Samvat 1708 = A. D. 1650. 1 Comparemacht LATATZTE: Taarafata i माघस्य शुक्लपञ्चम्यां दिवसे पूर्णतामगात् ॥

·101 [-$77 Commentators on Sārasrala-prakriya Rimabhatta.—This author's com, is a curiosity not so much for its subject matter as for thc manner of its compilation. Tlic com. is called Vidvatprabodhin or Ranibhatti after the author. At the end of cach section of the com. thc author gives in one to fivo stanzas details about himself, his family, his travels, and his literary Works, from which wo Icarn i. that tho author yas an Andhra coming from the Telnīgana country, or more definitely, from the regions around the Uranigala hills, where rulcd in his days a king called Pratāparudra, in whose court was the great pandit called Uddana or Udayann; ii. that the nuthor's father was one Narasimhn and his mother a very pious lady called Kāma. Having lcd a very happy life in his native place and written various literary works-among others, commentarics on the three Kūryas of the great Kalidasa—tho author in the company of his wifc, two sons alled Lakshmidhara and Janārdana, and daughters-in-Inty starts, at the advanced ago of seventy-soven, on a pilgrimage to holy places. During the halts of the journoy such leisure momonts as the author could command werc employed in writing the present commentary. The main interest of the work lies in the record which is kept of thc lioly places visited on At thc conclusion of every section, the incidents of the pilgrimage aro versified and written down as a sort of a prašasti, together with a stanza or two in praise of the filial affection and dutifulness of tho two sons. Although the diary is not as accurate and detailed as we would wish and the incidents of the journey by no means unusual yet the picture it gives of the real social life some thrce hundred years ago is by no means void of charm. It is to be regretted that none of tho mss. acccssible are complete. In addition to these names there could be mentioned a few others--such as Ratnākarn, Nārāyaṇabhārati, the way.

·102 Systems of Sanskrit Grainmar $ 77 - ] 78 Kshemañkara, Mahīdhara, etc.—but we have had already a wearisoine list of them, sufficient to indicate the course of development of the school since its origin in the thirteenth century. It is necessary, however, to mention a few more writers who wrote commentaries on the Sārasvata independently of the Sārasvata prakriyā, although none extant is older than that work. Commentaries on the Sārasvata independently of the Prakriyā.--The most famous of these, as having given rise to more than one sub-commentaries is the Siddhāntachandrikā by Rāmchandrāśrama. As we possess little information about this author, we at once turn to his commentators. These are i. Lokeśakara, son of Kshemañkara and grandson of Rāmakara. He wrote a com. on the Siddhāntachandrikā called Tattvadīpikā in the year GET Tatya, i. e. A, D. 1683. And ii. Sadānanda who wrote a com. called Subodhinī, which has been published at Benares. Rāmachandrāśrama appears also to have written an abridgment of his own com. called Laghu-Siddhāntachandrikā. Another independent com. on the Sārasvata sūtras is by Tarkatilakabhattāchārya, the of Dvārika or Dvarakādāsa and the younger brother of Mohana Madhusádana.' The author points' out many interpolations in the works of Anubhūtisvarupāchārya. He wrote his work in 1614 A. D. in the reign of Jahangir.2 Siddhāntaratna by Jinendu or Jinaratna is yet another. We know nothing about it or its author. The com. is very short and probably very modern. One more extensive work on the Sārasvata remains to be mentioned. It was undertaken by a pupil of Bhason 1 With the words-- TTT 2 Compare-eaglalaraqiti (1672) 'श्रीमदनुभूतिलिखने क्षीरे नीरमिच वर्षेनगरे च टोडाख्य। तिरियं सं.. SETI सिद्धां क्षितिमवति श्रीजहांगीरे॥

·[- $79 Trealiscs Accessory to Särasrata 103 ttoji Dikshita, Raghunithn by namo. It is called Laghubhashya and aspires to treat of the various grammatical topics oftor tlc manner of Palafijali. Raghunatha was a Nāgnin, tlic son of Vinayakn, and belongs, as tho pupil of Bhattoji lo the middle of the soventconth century. 79. Treatises accessory to the Sarasvals. Of accessory trcatisos in connection with the Sarasvata thcro arc very fcw. There are 110 works on Unādis or Paribhashas. A Dhitupātha sith a com. on it callcu Tarañgin was composcd, as stalcd above, by Harshakirti, pupil of Chan. drnkirti. His datc, therefore, is cir. 1500 m. V. A vriter called Jinntilakn has put together all thc cxamples of ET, ACT, and Jone nflixcs bascd on the Sarasvata chapters dealing with them. ims. of this work is datcd Sammt 1704. Another writer nained Madhava has attempted a deriration of words nccording to tho Sarasvatn. His datc is probably: 1680; and these are all, or nt any ratc, all wortlı noticing. As thc Sárasvata was meant to be the shortost and the casicst manual of Sanskrit granımar, it would seem that no furthor abridgments of it were called for. Tho facts are otherwiso. Besides thc Laghusiddlıāntachandrikā aborc noticed, an author callcd Kalyānnsarasvati hias produced pri SiTUTT a sinall work called Laghusārns. sata. He lived probably towards thc closo of the 18th century. 80. General review of the history of the Sirasvata school.- Taking now a general reviow of the history of this school it will be perceived that the Sarasvata like thc Kātantra, sprang up in response to the folt need of the time, and having once attained a fixity of form, the work continued to be studied in all parts of Northern India by the 3 Compare - sam /? a diretti सिसौम्पै कादश्या पये (1) पुरे। a(l) at HUT I ofta se ·104 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 80 - ] help of the numerous commentaries which came into existence simultaneously and on all sides. Each commentary may be looked upon as having centered within itself the literary longings of the country around its place of nativity. And in later times there were made no attempts to improve or supplement the Sārasvata, simply because the students of the Sārasvata did not wish to be erudite grammarians, considering grammar only as a means to an end. Only one such attempt by a pupil of Bhattoji has come down to us; but by that time the Kaumudis and the abridgments of Varadarāja and others had fairly ousted the Sārasvata from the field. It is an interesting coincidence that when the British rulers of India were first actuated by a desire to acquaint themselves more thoroughly with the literature and the ancient traditions of their subjects through the medium of Sanskrit, one of the earliest and the easiest of anglosanskrit grammars that was written was Wilkin's, the basis for which was just this same Sārasvata. At present. the school has very little following. Its study is nainly confined to the provinces of Behar and Benares. The School of Bopadeva 81. The school of Bopadeva.This is a comparatively recent school of grammarians. Consequently there is no tradition of divine revelation attaching to the Mugdhabodha, the chief text-book of the school, but it is accepted as the work of a real human author called Bopadeva. 82. The date of Bopadeva.--Bopadeva was the son of a physician named Keśava and his teacher's name was Dhaneša. Bopadeva's birth-place is said to have been somewhere near the modern Daulatabad in the Mahratta country, then ruled by the Yādavas of Devagiri. Bopadeva is quoted by Mallinātha (cir. 1350) in his commen- ·[- $ 83 Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha 105 tary on the Kumăra, and he is known' to have been the protege of Homādri, who was a minister ( UTITUT) to Malādeva tho Yadava king of Devagiri (1260-1271 A.D.), and to his successor Rämndeva. Bopadeva's fatlior as well as teacher lived at a placo called Sartha situated on the banks of thc Varadā. He was thus a native of the Berars. Although born of Vaidya parents le bears the surnamo Gosvami or high pricst. Bopadeva was a scholar of great renown and a voluminous writer. Besides tho Mugdhabodha, Kavikalpadruma, and its coinmentarythe Kāmadhonu-Bopadova has written the Muktāphala and Harililāvivarana (both dealing with the Bhagavathpurāņa), a medical work called Sātašloki, and a treatiso on Dharmaśāstra." 83. The object of Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha.-We havo scen how various attempts were modo quite early to improvo upon Pāṇini's grammar by making his rules more terse and accurate. Whero these attempts tere made in the way of vārtikas or commentaries, thoy increased the student's difficulties rathor than simplificd them. And where attempts wero made to establish a new school independently of Paņini, the founders were in most cases the followers of some unorthodox church, so that the need of a fresh manual (as distinguished from a mere iccast of old rules and terms) remained as pressing as avor. 1 Cnınpare-fantastico forghe शरमूनुना। हेमादिपिदेषेन मुक्ता. 457731-from the thir- फल, and श्रीमद्भागवतस्कंधाध्याया। र्धादि निरूप्यते । विदुपा पोपदेवेन Afteafcce 1—from tlie cít. rattut. 2 Dr. Bhandarkar's Early Ilistory of tho Deccan, p. 89, 3 That Bapadere did not write 14 [ Sk. Gr. ] the Bhagavata can be proved from various arguments : amongat others tlio followirg quotation (उक्तोवधूतमार्गश्च कृष्णे- मैवोद्धर्ष प्रति । श्रीभागवतसंक्षे तु पुराणे हश्यते दिसा) from the giarha (1. 63) of pifity TI, tdited (1909) by Rangacharya, wbo tries to provo it! genuineness.

·106 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 83-] It was at such a juncture that Bopadeva wrote his Mugdhabodha. His object therein was simplicity coupled with brevity. The first he attained by following the natural mode of presentation such as is found in the Kātantra. For the second, the adopted Pāṇini's pratyāhára-sūtras-making in them the changes necessary for their adoption to his own system. He omits all notices of accents, and the Vedic peculiarites are dismissed in one (the last) sūtra--E Nor, corresponding to Pāṇini's oft-repeated aest ETETA. Another feature which we notice in this grammar for the first time is its religious element. In the choice of examples illustrating his rules Bopadeva has taken care to use wherever possible the names of Hari Hara, and other gods. Bopadeva is here equally partial to Hari, Hara, or Rāma; but later writers have outdone him in this respect. Even the technical terms of some of these modern grammarians are the names of Kțishņa, Rādhā, Šiva, Durgā, etc. We shall have occasion to revert to these later. Bopadeva's technical terms often deviate from Pāņini's. Owing to the absence of all the its of the Pāṇinīya systen, and a slightly varied arrangement of letters, the pratyāhāras or rather the samāhāras of Bopadeva are quite puzzling to a student of Pāņini; and since all ancient writers and commentators have followed the Paņiniya grammar in their writings, this extreme divergence from his system prevented the Mugdabodha from being studied in all parts of India, which its clear and logical method entitled it to be. 14 1 Thus FEUTRISI is illustrated by instance of 777 i8--17: 7777 TIFT, VERTET, fagocha; the गृणात् तस्मै लक्ष्मणोऽवगृणात् कपिम्।। optional forma pa, paiotc. and so on everywhere. are shown by-इमं विद्धि हरेभक्तं 2 For example, धू for धातु वृ for विध्यर्थमं शिवार्चकम् । अनेन पूजितः gigi 3719 for F1AT, 12 for yoursusta fiftis: 11 an सर्वनामन् etc.

·[- $ 84 Bopanda's School : Later Ilistory, 107 81. Later history of Itopadeva's school from that is snid just noir wc arc not to conclude thnt tlic Mugdhabodha was never mildly popuinr. In the two centurics proccd. ing the rise of the valimin power and thic rcrival of Pāņi. ni it cnjoyco a wide currency as trell in the land of its origin os olscwhere. This is clear from thic statements of Blastoji-dikshitn in the Sabdakaystublia nnd in tlic Mono. ram). In the latter lic says- UN TIETOTEUR TEETTA: 1 र मगन मापन विमागितः ॥ He is also nt great pains to refulc thc opinions of the author of the Mugdhabodha, which must have dominated tlic litcrry world before the advent of Bhialtoji. It rras only in the scrcntccnth century that like other non-l'Aniniya systems of grammar this school liad 10 lako rcfuge in a country which was farthest rcmoved from Malimita in ucnco, that is, Bengal, or rather thc ncighbourhood of Nadia on both the sides of the Ganges, where it continues to bc assiduously studied to the present day. During thic Com centuries of its crislonce tho Muga dhabodha hins produced quite a bewildcring number of digests and coninicntarics. The most celebrated of the commcntaries is that of Råmatarkavägisa, a profound logician and an adept in the grammars of other schools (TTTTT:), upon whose systems ho frcquontly draws to supply crrors or omissions in the Mugdha. bodhn. He is quoted by Durgadasa (1639 A. D.) who wrote a commentary on the Kavikalpadruma. Durgādāsa also quotos Räminanda, Dovidāsa, and Kāśiśvāra and his predecessors, whilc lio is in his turn quoted by Vidyāvägisa, Bholīnátha, and Rămabhadranya. yalaākára.

·108 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 84 - ] A few more names are given by Aufrecht, but they need not detain us here. Of modern commentaries on the Mugdhabodha there is no end. Most of these are produced in Bengal. 85. Supplements and accessory treatises of the Mugdhabodha.. As the aim of the Mugdhabodha was brevity, it was inevitable that it should have omitted several obscure rules. Accordingly we find three attempts made one after another to supply the defects : by Nandakiśorabhatta, by Kāšīśvara, and by Rāmatarkavāgūša. The first of these gives his date---aFATTAATSSEATTHã, that is, A. D. 1398. He was therefore a very early writer. Of other modern attempts we need not speak anything. As to accessory treatises Bopadeva himself left none, except the Kavikalpadruma, which is a list of roots arranged accordingly to their endings, and a commentary the same called Kāmadhenu, the chief importance of which for us lies in its numerous quotations. Attempts more or less successful have been since made to give to this school other accessory treatises. Rāmachandravidyābhūshņa (Šaka 1610) wrote a Paribhāshāvritti. Rāmatarkavāgīša put together an alphabetically arranged Uņādikoša. And there are other minor works attributed, probably by mistake, to Bopadeva himself. on The Jaumara School . 86. The Jaumara school of Kramadīśvara.-The name by which this school is popularly known is a misnomer. It comes from Jumaranandi the most celebrated writer of the school, though we have reason to think that he lived some time after its founder. This was Kramadīśvara styled artes ETAŽŪT. Nothing is known of Kramadīśvara's parentage and nativity. His work is called Sañkshiptasāra, indicating by it that it was an epitome or an abridgment of some larger grammar; and as it could be the .

·(- $ 88 The Jaumora Scliro! 109 nbridgment of no oblier grammar than Panini's, it is pos. siblc that this was the first of its kind, prior to thic Prokriyi- nnd Siddhinta-kaumudis. Aufrecht in fact minkcs the school cren nintcrior to Bopadora, thongli Colebrookc places it inimcdintcly after, 87. Special features of the Joumina hromadisonra scoms to have composed his ginint on the model of Bliartrihari's Mahābhisliya-lipiki, nnd lic fuas taken most of his illustrntions from thic Bhattikäryn. Thc srork incant as an cpitome of the Ashtidliyyi is about thrcc-fourths os Jarge as that work. Tlic only changes cficcted by Kramadišvna were confined to thic rojcction of a few superfluous or difficult tulcs of Panini and the adoption of a diffcrent mode of armngement. The work is divided into seven pādas,' the cighth dealing with Prakrit being add. cd later. In the mode of systematising the gommati. cal material, as also in nccumcy and mcthou, the gram. mars of Bopadcıa and others certainly compare favournbly with this gramınor, which inny bc due to its being perhaps the first of its kind. Still it is not altogether wanting in correct rcasoning, and thc erudition displayed by Kmmadišvam is for in advance of that of popular fromtuarians. 88. Commentaries on the Jaumaro.Thc Sankslipinsim as it icit the hands of Kramadišvara must have been cither incomplctc or dcficicnt, and it has undergonc a morc or Icss thorough revision nt thc lands of Jumaranandi who is styled in the mss. HETTI TUTTA. Detractors of the school makc much fun of tho namo Jumaranaadi, which they beliovo belongs to a man of the weavor castc. Juniarn. pandi's vritti is known as Rasavnti and in conscqucnco the school itself borc tlic namic of Rosaynta undor which 1 Mamely, allu, lua, TTTT, TT, , 0977, and TATT.

·IIO Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 88 - ] title it is quoted by Bharata the commentator on the Bhattikāvya. Jumarnandi's seems to have been the earliest exposition of this system. He has also revised for this school the Pāņiniya Dhātupātha.' Next to Rasavatī, Goyîchandra's commentary deserves a brief mention. Goyichandra styles himself intai, which may be either & patronymic or some religious or political title the significance of which is lost to us. The best part of Goyichandra's commentary is that on the fifth or the Kāraka pāda, which along with its able and learned gloss by Abhirāmavidyālankāra is studied even by the students of other schools for the sake of a correct and complete understanding of syntax. Besides this commentary Goyichandra has also written a work on the Uņādis, and a list of some 127 pariblāshās. Goyichandra's commentary is further commented upon by Nyāyapañchānana, son of Vidyāvinoda, a ms, of which is dated Saka 1634 ; by Kešavadeva styled Tarkapanchānanabhattāchārya ;3 by Chandrasekharavidyālaſīkāra; by Vamśīvādana, Harirāma, and many others. Independently of Goyichandra's gloss there do not seem to be in existence any notable commentaries on the Jaumara grammar. Colebrooke mentions only one by Gopālachakravarti. 89. Present status of the Jaumara school.Next to the Katantra this grammar has the widest circulation at present in Western Bengal, where it disputes with Mugdhabodha the palm for supremacy. The literary activity of the school_such as it is is not yet over. * 1 Compare mg. no. 196 of Notices, 3 Tlie commentary is calledtetitor. second series, vol. i. दुर्घटोद्घाट, and regarding it the ? Explained ab-TUTYTA ata author anys--10th #TU राजादिभिरिति । अन्यगदिश्य राज्ञा TGETEIT Tri3rrqut for arryfeugai 3 TATO पट्टा तनाया प्रकटीएतम् । दिगो प्रत्याधिक्यमास्ति।

·[- $91 The Sawpadma School The Saupadma School 90. The Sauradma school of Padmanabhadatta -The origi. mator of this school is a Vnithila Brahman numc I'ndnin. nábhadatla, tlio son of Damodardatta and grandson of Šridatta. This l'admanabhadatta is to be distinguished from another writer of thc same name, the son of Garcs sam nnd grandson of Sripati, who wrotc for the school i work callcd l'rishodaridivritti, rhich was writton, accord. ing to the author's own statement, in Šakn 1:97 (1. D. 1375). If this datc bc correct' it follows that the other I'ndmanabhindattn, thic Counder of the Saupadma school, was cither a contemporary or lived very shortly after Vjjvalndatin, whom he mentions as one of hisauthoritics in his lcxicon alled Bhūripmyoga. His being placed in the last quarter of thc fourlccnth century docs not, at any rate, conflict with any other hitherto asccrtnincd facts. 91. Special features of the Saupadma.–Regarding tho work of Padmanabhadatta it is, as he himself states, buscd upon Párini, sono of whoso sālrus nnd technical terms as nlso his pratyalıras ho has rctincd vcrbntim. Ho lins, of course, reinodcllcd' a greater part of Panini's rules and arranged them in a socwhat morc mcthodical form, adding u short cxplanation of liis own after cnch sūtra. His 1 A mo. of the work in Do. 228 2 Compase-fit in of Notices, accond scrica, निकायोपोगासदाकृतीः। vol. i. Tho data looks rather पारापलीमेदिनिकोपगापमालोषप लस auspicious from ibo fact that लिखित मपैतत् । to the beginning of the same 3 Tlus Panini's xiaomita Fret work tho author has attempted is changed into भादिरितागपेम to traco liis ancestry from 4:1 Vararncht, one of the nido Tho work consists of also clup. geins in the court of vikranitors dealing with i. tate and Aditya. Noculose to say urat mau; li.rs and declension; the atteupted gencology is a ill.भास्पात iv.ve and उणादि falluro. sulisce; and Y. ATT i ·II2 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar · § 91-] treatment of Pāṇini-the fact of his having retained most of the Pāņinīya terminology-has given the Saupadma an advantage over Bopadeva. Students of the Saupadma have not in their later studies to face the inconvenient necessity of unlearning their own technicalities in order to read the various commentaries and scholia (written to elucidate poems and works of science), most of which use Pāṇini's terminology. 92. Commentaries on the Saupadma.--Padmanābha, the founder of the school, has himself written & commentary on his grammar, called the Supadmapañjikā. Several later commentaries are mentioned by Colebrooke, such as those of Kandarpasiddhānta, Kāšīśvara, Śrīdhara-chakravarti, Rāmachandra, etc. The best of the lot is Vishịumišra's Supadma-makaranda in twenty sections called drops or 'bindus.' 93. Treatises accessory to the Saupadma.-Of accessory treatises to the Saupadma there is also a great number. Works on the Uņādis, Dhātus, and Paribhāshās were written by the founder himself. At the conclusion of the last work, Paribhāshāvritti, the author has given an up-to-date account of his literary activity, which is of considerable value.' Regarding his work on the Uņādis (Uņādivritti) it follows a peculiar plan of arrangement. “The treatise is divided into two chapters, the first containing the suffixes that end in a vowel, and the second those in consonants. They are all arranged alphabetically. The sātras are Padmanābha's own composition, and in his explanations he usually follows Ujjvaladatta." The paribhāshās of the Saupadma 'school are some of them word for word Pāṇini's, while others are modelled on that basis. The Dhātupātha follows Pāṇini's division into Jane, 3e etc, and has a com. on it called 1 Sce India Ofico Cataloguo, Part ii, MB. 20. 890, ·[- $ 96 Latcr Scclarian Schools 113 Dhätunirnaya. A Ganapatha to the Saupadma las lycon supplicd by Kūšišvam and a com. on it by Ramākānta. Thcro are also minor works on TATT and vilt nttaching to the school, and a suppicment has also later bcon tacked on to it. 94. Present status of the Saupadmadt present tlic in- Nucace of the school is limited to parts of central Bengal that is, to Jessoro, Khulna and Blinratpur in the Twentyfour Pamganas. Later Sectarian Schools 95. Later Sectarian Schools. We now comic to a class of grammarians who have arricd to cxtrcmcs tho ten. dency, alrcady present, as wo saw, in Bopadova, to make grammar tlc vchiclc of religion; and prominent amongst thcso nrc thc Vnishṇava grammars called Harināmīmrita. 96. Maria5mimpita - Thero aro two works going by this name. The ono by Rūpagosvămin, thc coinpunion and disciple of Chaitanya (1484-1527) and the author of scvcral other Vaishnava works, is perhaps the older of the two. The peculiarity of this work is the employ. ment of various names of Krislina and Rādhā, and of their acts, not simply by way of illustration but as actunl technical terms. Thus tlo vowels of the pratyāhāra 37 are cach designatod by the different incarnations of Vishņu, the theory bcing- साङ्केत्यं परिहासं पा स्तोत्रं (१) हेलनमेय । धैकुण्ठनामग्रहणमशेपापहरं विदुः ।। P As is to be expected, beyond the introduction of this sectarian clement no other improvoment on the existing texts of grammar is here to be met with. The whole subject is presented to us in a dull uninteresting manner. 15 [Sk. Gr. ) ·114 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 96 - 1 Jivagosvāmin's Harināmāmrita varies only slightly from the above. A third Vaishnava grammar called Chaitanyāmrita is likewise mentioned by Colebrooke.' Most of these grammars were intended to appeal to a very small community. There are consequently no commentaries or supplements handed down in connection with them. The few that exist do not call for any special mention. These grammars are at present in use among the Vaishṇavas of Bengal. 97. Prabodhaprakāśa. There are reported to have been in existence similar sectarian works of the Saiva or ſākta schools, of which the Prabodhaprakāśa is one It is uncertain and immaterical as to whether the Vaishnavas or the Saivas are to be credited with the invention of this ingenious sectarian device. We may suppose that the beginning having been once made by Bopadeva, who was a हरिहराद्वैतवादी, little remained but to stretch the thing still further. The author of the Prabodhaprakāśa is Bālarāmapanchānana, probably a Brahman by caste, about whose time and place no information has come down to us. In his works he designated the vowels by Śiva, so that we read in his work of शिवसन्धिपाद, शक्त्यन्तपुल्लिङ्गपाद, शिवान्तस्रीलिङ्गपाद etc. Here is one of his sūtras अमृशम्भूनां रुद्रो प्रथमः, which is explained Tavarrauhi Feta hauf: FTES I A Dhātuprakāśa is also attributed to this author. It is clear that works which carry things to such an extreme can claim the only merit of doggedly carrying an idea through. It may therefore be excused if no further attempt is made to sketch out the history of such schools, for the simple reason that they have no history. 1 Miscellaneous Essays, vol. ii. P. 48.

·[ - $ 98 Lessor Januals and School-books 115 Lesser Manuals and School-books 98. Lesser Manuals and School-books. The age of the really original grammarians was long over. It was succccded by thint of abic comnicntators and critics which continued as long as there was the necessity of understanding and correctly interpreting a great nutlior. When even this became a difficult task, there was nothing to be donc but the writing of small and smaller manuals adapted to tlic comprclicnsion of the lay understanding. We have seen how, in most of the schools of grammarings worthy of the name, the declining age of cach witncsscd a host of such manuals and manuals of manuals. Evon this, it would appcar, was not cnough. Out of the debris of thcsc schools there grew up a spirit of cclecticism, and now we meet with grammaticul hand. books which depend upon no system, and werc written merely for a sclcct circle of the uninitiated. Thcsc mushroom crops disappeared as fast as they were pro. duccd. They were not written for postcrity. Before we close this ossay we shall take up a low typical works of this class. 1. Prabodhachandrikom-A work not more than a hundred and fifty years old, being an clemontary grammar trcating in anushțubli stanzas of the leading topics of grammar, the illustrative examples being connected with the names of Rāma. The author is supposed to be Vijjala-bhāpati, the son of one Vikrama and Chandravati and belonging to the Chauhāņa race ruling at Patna. He wrote it for the benefit of his son Hirādhara. A commentary called Subodhini is written upon it by Gopālagiri doubtless a protege of the prince. 2. Bhoja-vyākaraņa by Vinayasundara-Written for the benefit of a king Bhoja, son of Bhāramnila, This ·116 Systairs of Scanskrit Grammar $ 98-99] Work, like the above, is metrical in form, following the usual topical arrangement. 3. Bhavasimhaprokrijā by Bhatia-rināyaka-This is another of what we may call 'royal' gramınars. It was written for the edification of Bhārasimha the cldost son of a local prince who is styled Heart (Lord of the Earth). 4. Dipacyž kuruna by Chidrüpāśrama--The author calls himself ETTATH. The work is independent of the symbolical and intricate terminology of the older schools, giving short rules in an casy form adapted to the capacities of jurcnilo students. 5. Kärikävali by Nārāyanız surnamca Bhattacharyachakravarti--This elementary grammar was meant origi. nally for the author's son, who in this case has made a grateful return by writing a coinmentary on the same. 6. Baliabodha by Murakari--This is the last of these little manuals--cach typical of a host of others-- that we mention. The work is meant to remove the obstacles in the way of students Icarning the five malii. kiryas, arising from the circumstance of their not having lcurnt grammar before. The author assures us that with the heip of his work दाभिर्दिवसबैय्याररणी भवति. In it worts and their forms are taken up in the order in which they are requireri for the study of the Karyas in the order in which they are usually studied. 09. Conclusion - We might mention a fou more works of a similar lind, bringing the record down to quite recent times, but it would be hardly necessary. These works can by no device be grouped mder one school. They merely represent a tendency and as such they do 00: Call ithin the province of our essay, Herc thien we Tight .ppose ont account of the diflerent existing oslik of Saussi urambar to live at last attained its natural terminion.

·App.i.] Systems of Sanskrit Grammide 117 APPENDIX I. (Scc noli a on parc 60 ) ॥पान्यवर्णसूत्राणि ॥ विमानकाप नमः । स्थानमानसपनायो गण नापन्न प्र स्थानम् । कण्ठः शसिनापानाम् । फटनादरम् विनाम् । कटौतम , उदीदानाम् । मुद्रां करपानाम् । दग्नाः गुलमानाम् । नासिका अनुग्गामा पायानानुनामिका निमाः । नानु पुपानाम् । भोl Trमा.. पपोः । दन्ना पकाया निशाग निहाम पाय ६ फरणम् । निहाप दन्नानाम् । निहामाय मारप्पाना । निहोला तिर. भ्यानाम् । गोपाः पाधानकारनाः ॥ प्रयत्नी दिपिधः । भाम्पन्नगं पापा तनाभ्यन्तरः संवृतान विनय १ रहतपरटन्य प ॥ सपनल मारय । हिजून कप्मण! पना पानेभ्यो विनाय नदोनोः दोनो: ] । गापादोगोः । नाम्पामप्पा. फारम्य ॥ पृष्टय पानाम् ॥iपन्नाधानाम् ॥ या । पगांना १२ प्रथमदिनीपाः शपसापिसनीपनिदामलीपापम्मानीया पितफण्टा गादा. गुमदाना अपोषः । प्रथमदिनापपसमा मन्नामामागमाणाः । इनरे सर्प महामाणाः । गृनीपचनुपसमाः सानुम्यारान्नरपासागः अमृतकण्ठनादानु. १५ प्रदाना पोपपन्नः । द्वितीयपनुयाः शराहाभोप्माणः । पादपो भाषसानाः रपाः । अन्नरथा परलगाः । इत्येप पापः सपत्नः ।। अत्र पापर्णो दायो दीर्पः इन इनि निधा भिन्नः प्रत्येमुदात्तानुदात्त. १८ म्परितभेदेन सानुनासिकनिरनुनासिकभेदेन पारादरापा भपति । एषमिपर्णी. पों वर्णए । पर्णस्य दीपां न सन्ति । तेन द्वादशधा भपति ॥ एक- मात्रिको हालः । दिमात्रिको दीपः । प्रिमाग्रिफः पुनः । उपेन्दातः । नाप- २१ रनुदात्तः । समाहार: ग्यरितः॥परधानानुनासिको निरनुनासिका। गन्नग्धा दिपभेदा रेफवनिताः सानुनासिका निरनुनासिकायोति ।। 1 ॥ इति चान्द्रवर्णसूत्राणि समाप्तानि ।

·118
Systems of Sanskrit Grammar [ App: ii. -
APPENDIX ii.
( See note 2 on page 48)
॥ अथ जोगराजविरचिता पादप्रकरणसङ्गतिः ॥
।
ॐ नमः शिवाय । ॐ
आराध्य षण्मुखमवाप्तवरप्रसादः
कारुण्यपूर्णहृदयः किल शर्ववर्मा ।
लोकस्य मोहतिमिराहतये व्यधत्त
सक्षेपतः प्रकरणत्रितयात्मशास्त्रम् ॥ १ ॥
तत्रादितो व्यधित वर्णपदेषु सन्धि
तत्रानुनासिकपदं बहुकारकादि ।
आख्यातिकं तदनु साध्यपदं क्रियाख्य-
मेतावतैव हि समन्वयमात्रलाभः ॥ २ ॥
संज्ञाश्य परिभाषाश्य प्रथमे पाद आदिशेत् ।
द्वितीये स्वरसन्धिं च तृतीये तन्निषेधनम् ॥ ३ ॥
वैयञ्जनं चतुर्थे च सन्धिं वैसर्गिकं परे ।
पष्ठे प्रथमवच्चैवं सन्धिप्रकरणं जगौ ॥ ४ ॥
नाम्न आये स्वरान्तस्य लिङ्गस्य स्यादिनिर्णयः ।
स्वरान्तव्यञ्जनान्तस्य द्वितीये युष्मदस्मदोः ॥ ५ ॥
तृतीयेपि त्यदादीनामित्थं नामपदस्थितिः ।
चतुर्थे कारकस्येह विनियोगोथ पञ्चमे ॥ ६ ॥
समासवृत्तिसिद्धस्य तद्धितेष्वपि वर्तनम् ।
पष्ठेथ सप्तमे प्रोक्तलिङ्गात् स्वीप्रत्ययात् स्त्रियाम् ॥ ७ ॥
इदं नामपदं सिद्धं सक्षेपात् समुपादिशत् ।
तदन्तन्तमतो वित्तं वाङ्मयस्योपबृंहणम् ॥ ८ ॥
आख्यातेष्वादितः कालपुरुषार्थ नियोजनाः ।
न्यात्युद्देशे( ? )द्वितीयेपि सनादिप्रत्ययान्तता ॥ ९ ॥
ततो विकरणा आत्मनेपरस्मै विनिर्णयः ।
तृतीयेभ्यासकार्याणि चतुर्थे सम्प्रसारणम् ॥ १० ॥

·• App. ii.] Systems of Sanskrit Grammar
119
आदेशागमलोपादि पश्चमे नु गुणागुणाः ।
तन्त्रं पाणपदं पष्ठं सप्तमे सेउनियता ॥ ११ ॥
सरोदम इत्येवं आरण्यातिकपदफमः ।
सश्चिन्तनीयो पात्यर्थकालभेदाद्विपक्षणः ॥ १२ ॥
यथोसोर( 1 )नपत्येको यः परोपरुतो रतः ।
योपि धन्यो धनं धत्ते सोत्यन्तं सुरामभुते ॥१॥
रुतस्तम्यादयः सोपपदानुपपदाच ये ।
लिगमरुतिसिप ता जगौ शाकटापनः ॥ ४ ॥
तत्रायपादे रुत्तन्त्रं पक्षपाया रुता(!)विधिः ।
सोपि साधनकालादि पिमागेनेति निर्णयः ॥ १५॥
स्यायन्तत्वात् सुसिद्वृत्वान्न नान् सूत्ररुदमवीत् ।
दिशन्नदीदृशद्वाहिपन्सिनिष्टादुदीरणम् (1) ॥ १६ ॥
धातोः परे रुतो युष्तृनादयस्ते च फरि ।
आदी तय्यादयस्तेषां रुत्यास्ते भावफर्मणोः ॥ १७ ॥
अण्णादयः सोपपदारते च कालत्रये मताः।
भूते कन्स्वादयो यर्तमाने शन्तृधनादयः ॥ १० ॥
उणादयः स्युपंडुलं ये ते शाखान्तरे स्थिताः ।
भविष्यतिस्यत्स्यमानकियार्थीपपदा मताः ॥ १९ ॥
धनलकारयुकाया भावे पुंखीनपुंसके ।
संज्ञायां पासवासादा( 1 )वकर्तरि च कारके ॥ २० ॥
करणे चाधिकरणे घ्वादिरन्यत्र चेप्यते ।
शेयो धात्वसम्बन्धे काणंसन्तु( 1 )विशेषणात् ॥ २१ ॥
कर्तान्यार्थोपदेशोपि ज्ञातापूज्यो मतः सताम् ।
प्रकीर्णतन्त्रमित्येवं पादपकरणस्थितिः ॥ २२ ॥
यद्यप्यन्यानि कार्याणि पादेष्वेषु समासते ।
तथापीयन्ति बाहुल्याभिप्रायेणोदितानि हि ॥ २३ ॥
एवं शाखमिदं सूत्रमात्रेण पठितं सदा ।
तदेति कापि सौभाग्यलक्ष्मीः किं नेति शृण्वताम् ॥ २४ ॥

·120 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar [ App. i. नाम्नः पादैः कारकस्य स्वरूपं द्विराख्यातस्थितैश्च क्रियायाः । कान्तैश्वालोच्याभिधानं क्रमेण श्लोकाद्यर्थावेदने दत्तकर्णम् ॥ २५ ॥ श्रुत्वा साहित्यानि सूक्ष्माण्यथादौ ज्ञात्वा काव्याकूतवृत्तार्थशब्दान् । स्वप्रागल्भ्याच्चेतिहासादि बुध्वा काव्याभ्यासे तिष्ठताच्छब्दयत्नः ॥ २६ ॥ वाग्देवी सा सर्वतो भ्राजमाना पात्रापात्रावेक्षणेन प्रसादान् । कुर्वत्यन्तः कस्यचित् स्वाध्ययस्य(!) स्फीतिं सूतेथेतरस्याप्यशक्तिम् ॥ २७ ॥ .... पादप्रकरणस्थितिम् । पठतां शास्त्रमाभाति करस्थं शार्ववर्मणाम् ॥ ४९ ॥ द्विजराजजोगराजोरचयद्देदीपनाय शिष्याणाम् । पादप्रकरणसङ्गतिमेतां कातन्त्रसूत्राणाम् ॥ ५० ॥ ॥ इति जोगराजविरचिता पादप्रकरणसङ्गतिः समाप्ता॥ * At this place a fow unimportant slanzas aro omittod.

·GENERAL INDEX N. B. Roforences aro to page and line, or to pago and foot. noto (n), unless whero preceded by S which indicates section. Tho arrangement is according to the Eoglish alphabet, the diacritical marks being ignored. A . Ablayachandra's recast vf (Śaka1 fryana-) Prakriyasangraha72-12; its nature 72.171f; the date of the anthor 72.14ff. A bhayannndin's version of the Jain. endra 65-14; later than that of Somadova 65.23 ; big date 67.2 ; bis version followed by the l'aiicha vastu 67.15. Abbimanyu of Kasmir restorcs the corrupt text of the Malabhūslıya 33'27. Abhinava-Śakaļīyana, see Śakaţuyana (Jaina). Ablirūmavidyalankūra's yritti on the KTraku-pada of Goyrchaudra's comnieutasy 110.11. Асссөзory treatiscs to Panini's grammar $ 10; their later history $35;,-to Chindra grammar $15; --to SakațTyana grainmar $54;- to Ilemachandra's granmar $59; --to the Katuntra $ 70 ;--to the Sarasvata 879:--to Dingoha bolha $ 85 ;-to the Saupadma $ 93. Adhikūra-sūtras, hot indicated by Panini 24.n2. Adbyatma-Rimīyana, com. on, loy Nages 47-21 ; 49.6. Advayagarasvati 97-18. Agarāvara 79 21. Agnikumāra, elder brother of Iuradatta 39.12. Agnisarma, alias of Igrarakrishna 64.94. Āgrayana mentioned in Nirnktu 8.n1. Agriyana mentioned in Nirukta 8.01. Aindra school, supplanted by Pa. ņini 10-15 ; amongst its fellowers Katyteana (Vararuchi), Vydtļi and Indradatta 10-16; its ac. connt by Hiuen Tsang and Tara. 16 [Sk. Gr.] natha 10-17; agreeing with Kn. tantra and perliapa identical with it 10:20, 121, 84.14 ; Trvealed by Karttikoya 10:22; nuslogics in lle Pratishklyas 11:12; ita ter. min Vogy in iho Tolakappiyam 11.3; Burncll's conclusion about it 11.9f; post. Prņinrya ia dato and pre-l'aninlya in fubstanco 11.32 Aindra School of grammarinns, by Ds. Burnell 3.nl ; 5-n2; 11.n1. Aitibarik is incntioned in the Nirukta 8.nl. Ajayapala successor of Kumaru - påla 75:11. Ajitascotchirya author of Mani. prakasikī, com. on th: Chinta- 1:ani 72.7. Ajuriko 67-5. Akalankadeve 63.04. Alaudin, Sultan 99.16. Alberūni 91 16. Alexander 15-35 ; 16-34 ; Panioi lived before his invasion 17.2 ; rozed Sangala to ground 17.15; 18.8. Alpaklar or Sultan Alaudin 99.n1. Alpasahi or Alain, pntron und way. ter of Manilana 98.29ff ; proba. lly a local chieftain from Malra 99.12; not the game ng Sultan Alaudin 99.nl. Apalasara'vati teacher of Amritabhürati 97.12. Amara quoted by Damo in Bopadeva'e Mugdhabodha 10.n3. Amarachandra's Syndisamuchichaya 80-81f. Ararakoshia, coin, Op., 111.n2 ; l.ge KshTrasyāmin 52.7. Amogha varsba I. (Rashtrakūta ), patron of Jaisa) Sakațſyanı 69.14, 69.n2. Amogbavřitti 64.84 ; written by ·122 Systeins of Sanskrit Grammar 011 Coll. On it Śakatiynna limself 69-13; its art of writing, when introduced date 69.16, 09.112,72:11 : VYTTER 1:20: presupposed lige primitive by Pralilīcliniracharya Pratisīkliyas 4.30. 72.2 ; Yakshatarma: 's C!.1.1 Arya-śrutakirti anther (?) of the inani baserl upon it 72.1; refers Pillorastu: 07211f. 10 virions Svetubara Warks Ārvavajræ quoted loy (Jainia) Śak: 78-n1 ; drawn upon freely by ty thi: 7t). IIemachandra 76-13, Tü:111; asaſijñaka a nickname for Chandra 76.n2. jurannar 60. Ainritabiūrali's cor, Subodlik, Ashtu byžyſ of Panini 7.2 ;9.7; on Saragvat: pakriyū eniiong 9.9:12.n2 ; 12.17; oldie' survis- Miranda : chaanilior vf Sīriis. ing work in sūtma mtyle 1%-2 ; sat: 95-2',ff, 97.11 ; quotes Vi 18:26; why so calleri 19.20; inalesarasvati 44.nl: pirsonilde programme of, p. 20-21, and tails about lim 97.12ff :lis cato 22-n1 ; arrangement of süttis 97.22. within it, 24:2111, 24.n3 : tren. Amriiuril: liga Värinavares, il tises actuacry to it $16 ; someon tlic Prakriyūkaumudi times its teaching coní:ary 46.ni. to of the Unadinūlras Amritatnraigini ser Kolfratarañ. 26.01, 2dorim; 27.17 ; 29.20 ; in. gini. cants of $29, 57.2 : coin. Annvillapattak: 7.1.18, by Dhartoji 47.12 : com. on it Anandapala of Kasmir 11:15 : his by Annambhatta 50.21 ; 56:10 ; date 01.18. mentiong Sakairana 68.26 ; Ancient linn, Litcrisure, llisteryo 103-101 ; scr also Panini. of, by Max Miller, Inl : 113; Asiatic Society of Bengal, Journal 9.nl ; 12.nl : 14.01. of, 33.n1. Andhra 82.113 ; 101.8. i Asayrinn3 not unknown to Indians Anamblıntın'i Biiviksliarä on the Loforo Alexander's invasion Ashtidliyyi 50.2... 15:32; mentioned a inercenary Annlaudhas of Pinisi 2..20 ; the fighters lay I'ñorini 17-23; Matteit 9y9t afreuls krown before mning i political powor in 538 Piiniui 23.11 :-uſ the 1 lui B.C., 17.37 ; 18.9. ho samo as tho9! of the ishtī. Asuras, ser Assyriaus. lyžīT 25:18 :-!f Una diurna Audumbariyan inentioricul in the 13 Pinini's 20.10;- Niruktit S.nl. Vajnsaneyi Piūtiskikliye sille 13 Auficchi 12.02; 16•ni ; his cilition thoic or Panini 29.12. optimidiritti 51:11; 68.nl ; Anubiliūissarūpeira'Sirinya 105.1 ; 169.3. toprakriya 2u1, ; tl. trudi Aupanyasa mentioned in the tiaut ivanda Virulitaf.nl. 933; bių virtikas ; his Auraviibhin mentioned in the (11:10 96.161 ; interpuntions in Xirikia s.pl. liis cuin. 102.21, 2016.n). Anthionnika title of Goyrel: aurinn Sparajita preceptor of Haradai'it 110.6, 1.10.02. 33.13. Anuntnt.12.0if. Aprili, founder of grammatical Arachūrior Arnchurnilifi on lomaschool, in quodal liga Porini chiara's Brilad riitti 78.9. 9.01 12:12: bija rul vlot buge Åsnyaknītrn 13.ni. the Ko 9.2. - 113. 10.11: 3-5; Ksiyat qurts from 9811C Joy !!!!" i! Hozaura a Brug Sile: 107, 11113. *- izcie lfomnis in on, 91.1, Willi tigrutüti's Ryan ·Gencral Inder 123 3 on the game !1.14. 10'ata-vilayalala Izlatnancratur an aliri rrini.! of l'rxhrij: 11g.. the Praulhumacoin pikaltikiria quotes by Ilara latta by thn 11.cat:l'c 7.4. 59-3:57.16:10.0.3:40.13.0- I'Alami tatil, A R-18.4ntl. Vynus. hy lif-tata 110... Bitrakoot of t.. Milti, ly Dlat ji lila 9.12; ditinsci. Valdyat 71!.9, recrilne talija mi litroen tiir (0 Arth.or. Je!ron 11 30.10. ito Riik:64, 3G nt ; ac 1'811:manicl.Ti Art'a l'!ol a. 1.noriedraitilledru in l. birakasa 114.190 ; l.in Phil. . 1: 00:1; 13.nl ; his facer! ATA: 114.16. for SM:71.1.hat:sirdi th. Pra. Bali istri, editor of this krila kriyalar::rd of kinnetratia 10.03. 11.10 : bis Sill. 11.11.19. attrit: 3% Slivnlrodhi. Chin la trayet ly 1 cl.ro mil. $31; iti! CN Kalapa (2.); ?? It's t.! q*ir!ly t'i 16.1.9 ; l.im gore cther Chandia treatinca in Cire rre indelindnes 10 l:... Ion 62.-3. Conta's $11.505.001 0.31 : Balirabodhi ly Xarui 116 G. discişle a frol. okrslita 10.3: Bina 53.33. Dendall, Catalogue of legal 14. T:09:11 r, lo 10.2.3:1 ; linate 47:1; work. Phizarata.marina 103.11, 103.12 : ne tik flagt i !!!iita 47.9:7, 63.3, not the work of Hosadesa 11.5.0'). 33.18, 31.17: proroirsirat inlir Chiraronixrin crm. unle l'ari. 11. lllatfajr. (^..ily th.nl ; 1.1. Lbsah ndadeklara 33.9. puit in .ccrin irrirai or Tuni I!bandarkar I?. G., Nrpnia (1-33. 02.17; 1033;testir. tatl.rde. 84, 36.12 : Heart Tor 1482-83. #itativa o l'ordrinil. 97.01 ; on linii's str 147; BI! ivy rakiki Valdyti!l.' on l'aterijali's 'nic 32.12; Vals 6?!!), on the Sillareits 39.15. listory of the Dician 105.02. Ihanisliye :1nn-Porn 59.19; 40.3. Bhandarkar S 1.99 l. Ill.mall.n* con, on the l'ati. Dht..dikulia ni.. Piston 1 11:7-8. klints 33.10. alias Nonostama, ron ( Plastoji Dlains ket: 42 R ; ?ne citiorrel kun 46.95. wsites (1986181 Sigura 33.2. Bharadaje mentioned lly l'inici Bhr.:97:38 van, Hahallarta, 16.8. 12.02 Plu ja quctedly kial.season in 52.2; Bharadvajlyn mer tirard lis l'ataji. glicid i luy, Ilemachandra 16.2. inli 31.n1o. Llojn II (6:13).Tin ) 67.4. Blitrawalla, fatier of Bhojn 116.33. plicja, sin of Mihinnalla 115 33. Blonta, commentator if the Bling. Phinja vyakauns hy Visayarun. tiktwyn 110.2. dara 115.3?IT. Bliarişifari's account of the vicini. Blatlar:ita quotits from Durga. tudos in the test of the Juli: 1. drea 107.32. Ibishya 13.26, 13.n4:27.0.1 ; ant. Blūriprayoga of l'admanablindatta hor of Vakyapadiya $27,63.23 ; qetes Ujjraladatta 111.135, Itsing'a dato for him 10.17; also 111.12. astlios vis com, Dipika, on the Bl.atiliali que tral hy roja pads Mallitslyn 41.3, 42.n2, 109.8; G61.2. quoted by Vitthalicharya 45.20 ; l'ombay I'ranch of the R.A.S., his preceptor l'aburīta 59.1. jurnal of, 35.12. Bhaga's Seogna-t'isa ssdattx 13.29. Lojdeve quotes loy name various Blitsbyokrra, sce Patanjali. Bliuvasinl.a 116.5. framinrrian, 10.7, 10.n3, 92.6 ; Blīvagimla-Prakriya. by Chatta. quoted by Vittlinlich:Arya 15.21; incntiont Deragadt es author of vinayaka 116.3. Jainendiagramat 63.22; quotes Bhafta Gopala 100.16ff. Yardlamīna 88.23 ; quctes Trilo,

·No text on this page.

·General Index 125 Devapendi anthor of Jainendra Ceylonese recast supersedes them in Ceylon 62.23. granitoar 63.14ff ; his new techni. Chandrivati mother of Vijjala. cal terms 66.5, G6.nl, does not bliūpatt 115.27. acknowledge ohligations G6.10; Chuñgadera, Hemachandra's first namce quote by bim G6.12, nalno 73.25. GG.n2 ; 67.1G quoted by Hema. chandra 76.n2. Charanag, rules for, frained 4.10. Charmasiras meationed in tlic Nir Derasja mentiona Kehtrasrimin's ukta 8.ni. Nighanţurţitti 62.10. Chauhitnu 115.28. Derasundarnsuri teacher of Goon Chlūya, Vaidyapitha's coin: on ratnagGri 80.15. the Alabībliasliyapradipoddyota Devasűri founder of the Brihal 50.14. gechichlia of Nagpur 98.101. Chheda-sutra 73.01. Devendra Gri author of lainn. Chlichlubhatta's Laghuvritti 91.19. InghungTaa nnd pupil of Udayn Chidasthimala, Voidyanniba's coin. chandra 78.33/1, 79.ni. on Nagojibhatta's Sabdendust. Devidas quoted by Darstidten khara 50.16. 107.30. Chidrūpasrama's DTpavynkarana Dhanaclionira 78.14. 116.7. Dhananjaya-kosa 63.21. Chintamani, com. on Śakatayana Dhanesrora or Dhaneda teacher of Sabelanusthana by Yakshavar Bopadera 99.n2 ; 104.30, 105.nl. man 72.3 ; sub-coinmentaries on Dliane rara, Bhatta, criticises Kshe. it 72.6ff. Inendra 98.7f, 09.21 ; him dato Clintawani, sce Mahabh Islaya-chin. 99.2111; nct paine as teacher of Botimaņi. padera 99.n2 ; His works 100.111. Chiptīmanipratipada, Mañgarnga's Dlarınadisa's coin, incorporates thic com. on the Chintamani 72.7. Chandravritti 61.12. Choda 16.30. Dhiriña gūtrag of some kind know Climatic conditione, causes of dia. to Pinini 14.n2.. lectical peculiarities, and influ Dhūtrpațlın, thio Pininfya 25.14, ercing study of grainmar 3.1. 25.n2 ; ils nnubandhag ramo as Colebrooke 68.01 ; 109.4 ; 110.23 ; thogo of l'anini 25.18, 25.03 ; 112.12; 114.3. com. by Bliaţtoji 47.10; com. loy Cunningham identifies Panini's na. Kshtragvlimin in his Dhatuyritti tive place with Lahaur 19.2. 52.Gff ; cther writers on Paniniya Duatupaths : viz. Chandra 52.15, D 52.n2; sindhava or Sayaņa 52.28; Blimasena 63.2; Maitreyarak Dikshi, name of Panini's mother shita 53.2; and Nigera 53.3; the 19.8, 19.nl. Chandra --- vas incorporated by Damodaradatta father of ladina. Durgagimba with the Kalantra nabhadatta 111.4. 52.19, 59-14, 60.10, G0.19; 88.30E, Darius 16.1. 90.1ff, Jumaranandi revises Pa. Daréanašīstra, Digambara, 65.3. miniya—and adoptes it for hig Dayapala's, abridgment, Rüpeşidl. own school 110.3f ;- of San. dhi, of Śākatīyuna ſabdīnusā. padma 112.19 ;-of Sakațiyana sana 72.23: personal details about him 72.23ff; his date 72.20. 71.15 ;-of Hemachandra 77.21; the genuine-of Katantra school Deiccea ( Drankas) first king of in Tibetan translation the Sakas or Skytliacs, cir. 700 90.4 ;--for the Süragrato, by only B.O. 18.1. Haraliakirti 98.14, witls a com. Devachandra propbesies Hemachandra's future greatness 74.4 ; on it called Tarangiņi 103.9 ; receives hirn into order 74.11. the Saupadma---modelled after Devagiri 104.32, 105.3. Pāṇini's 112.32 ; com. Dhatupir. naya on it 113.1.

·5 126 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar on. Dhintnprakisit by Baluríma-panclinant 114.26. Dhatuvșitti by Kshirasvūmin 52.61f; its nature and contents 52.2011; ---by Alidhava or Sīyana 52.28. Diuunilhikī on Hcmuchandru's Bri- }dvritti 78.10; its nature 72.2811 ; its disputed nuthorship 78.100; its prilable varying versior:8 78.20 ; on the last chapter of the Brilind rritti 78.24 ff ; 89.20. Dhundliiki on Durgasiinha's vritti 89.19f. Dlunduka, native place of liomachandra 73.23. Dhvani pradipa 97.9. Dinlectical peculiarities causes of shifting climatic conditions, and promoting study of grammar 2.29. Dikshita school 48.nl ; grammatical works outsido it $33. Dīpa-vyäkarana by Chidrūpasrahmin 116.7. Dipikt on Demachandra's Bribadvritti 78.9. Dipikā or Subodhikū by Chandrnkirti, with an important praśusti at the end 98.7ff. Dowson 99.1. Druvidasangba 65.7. different froin Durgasinha 88.12 ; 89.16 ; see Durgñtma also. Durgūchīrya author of com. on Nirukia 88.14. Durgūdžīsa anthor of a Kavikalpadruma 107.28f;authors quoted by him 107-30ff. Durga padaprabodha by Srivallabha Vachanacharya on Hainachondra's Liñginušāsena 80.2f. Durgisimli mentions Kītyīyana as the author of the Unādisūtras 27-4, 27.n2 ; quoted by Vitthalācharya 45 ; incorporates Chandra Dbatupatha with thie Katantra 52:19, 88.381, 90.1ff ; takes over most of the Pāņinſya paribhāskās 55.12 ; quoted by Hemachandra 76.92, 88.3 ; says that the Krit. prakaraņa of . tlie Kātantric is by Katyāyana 84:17ff; Durgasiniha and his yritti $68 ; his vārtikas to the Kitantra 87.nl ; his date 83.16, 88.6 ; not the first commentator of Katantra 83.17ff; his date 83.16; his sūtrapallia differs from the one current in Kasmir 83.21f, 87.27, 9:14; 85.511 ; author of an Uņādipatha 87 112, 90.1 : ? Śniva 88.n1, and distinct from his namesake, it Baudella 88.2, who wrote a com. on his vritti 88.10, and from other later namnesakes of lis 83-1111 ; known in Kasmir much late 91.0. Durgasiin!!!!, Banddha, author of a coin, on Durgasimha's vritli 88.8. Durgasimla-vritti, com. hy Raghunandanasiromani 84.26; by another Durgasinha 88.10; other comm. on it $69 ; ? com. (100- nyilalls) on it 99.n1. Durgātina (or Durga) perhaps a Virasairn 88.113, and author of a Lingīnusāren1288.15,88•n3,85•n2 viistinct from Durgasiinba 88-12; 89.16; 89.29. Durgātina Luthor of (Kütantra ) Liñyntiśīsara 85.n2; different from Durgasiinha above 85.02. Derakadai alias Dvīrika father of Tarknlilaka-bliaţtācharya 102.22. Dvīrika, see Dvīrikūdīsi. Dryāśrayanabiktīvya of Hemachinndra G6.20; 77.17. ; Coni. on Early History of India by Vincent Smith 175; 17.16, 82. n3. Early History of the Deccan by Dr. R. G. Blanlarkar 105u2. E: stern school mentioned by Pímini 10-12; 12.n2; 18.33. Eggeling's edition of the Kat-intra 85.22; 87.nl. Elliot 99.nl. Epigraphica Indica 69.n2. Family-books of Vedas, compilers of, 6.nl. Gadā liy Vaidyanatha, a coin. on Paribhashendusekhara 50-13. Gadadh r'a son of Trilochanadisa 89.6. .Gaisuddin Khilji of Mālv.: 93.7 ; 97-3.

·Gencral Index 127 on Gülara mentioned in the Xirukta Gosrami, surname of Bopadeva 105.8. 8.nl; by Panini 12.n2. Garajstha of l'īğini 23.2411 ; Govardhara's villi on Cundin, 5:20;37; co', uport by Kalır. qucted by Ujjvalodatta 54.14. rasvamin 53-10; Clindr3--60.12; Govardhacallinta, gremdfather of embodied in the sűtravritti of Jayakrishna 51.12. Chandragomin 60-24; Panintys Goytchandra's com. on thic Safik. ---сndolied in the kašiku 60 21; sliplasaru 110.G/T;hir other works of Sakatnyana 71.14; - of 110-14f;sub-commentarios antis coin, 110-1GI. lIcmachandra 77.26;- of the Enupadma 113.1. Grammar, ila study in nulis 1.3; existing school of -in folia 1.10; Ganiratnauna kodadili quating Salánot treatens science in folic turiya or Panini, S:karayann, limes 2:11; its stmiy infuenced Chandragomin, etc. 18.11:42.n? by contact of different forns of 41-5, 41.nl ; 52.16 ; with the nuthor's own com. 53.138; 89.3:1. Ricecit, liye giorth of dialrct“, Gaņavritti by Kelifrasvītnin inenor by a change of climatic tioned by Vardhimia 52 11. conditions 2-2117; Grech, infin. Ganesvara father of Padmanablir. enecd by Hom in corquest 2..? tatta 111.6. i18 etudy on acicnce poat-Berlu Gargya inentioned by l'oņini 12.1%; manic 3.29; 4.6; ils really crenmnentioned in the Nirukta 8.n). tive period 6.17; plilooliy ofa, treatises un, 05.1CF. Citagovinda, coin. on, by Nagcéa Grainnars, Vaislinara, 113-15. 19.7. Grummatical speculations in India : Goldsticker: Panini, Elis place in their extent and value $1 ; early Sanskrit literature, on l'rimitive -852–4;- in the Vedas $2, Pratifīklıya, 5.nl ; 23.7; in the Bixhmanos $3, and in l'anini's pariblashs 25'n1 ; luis allical works $4;- in the views as to the authorship of the TaittirIgarambit1. Unidisātros 26-25, 26.03 ; ou Grecks, Ionian, pot always to bo Vinjasanesi rruti iklya 20.112 identificd with Yavanas 16-21; 32-n1;88•n4; on Payini's date14.7, their appearance in history long 14.nl, 14.n2; 19.n3; his reasong before 1000 B. C. 15.30. for assuuing considerable inter Grilya-Aatras of coino kied known vul between Panini and Katya to Panini 14.n2. yana 28-nt; 54.nl, Gunakara 64.02. Gomatasara, a philosophical work in Gunanapdr 6t.p2. Prakrit 72.15. Gunaratnasari's Xriyaininnsatu- Gopardiya inentioned in the Balā uchchaya 80.120; his date 60-10, bhashya 32-29, 32-12; quoted by 80.n3; important prasasti at the Vatsyāyana in the Kamasutra end of his work 80.16ff. 33.n3, 33.5. Gupta victory over llūņas 58.24; Goņikāputra mentioned in the Ma- Early--kinga 64.24. lubhashya 32-29, 32•12; quoted by Vatssūyang in the Kame. H sutra 33-5, 33.03. Gopaluchakravarti's com. on the Jaumara 110-23. Haima-Dhatupāțha 77.21. IIuiina Kaumudr by Megliavijaya Gopalagiri's subcdhini on Vijja inentions Bhattoji's indebtedness labbūpati's Prabodha-prakāśa to Hemachandra 4G-21; otherwise 115.30. called Chandraprabht 79.17 ; Gopinitha Tarkachurga writes sub its date 79 17. coin, to Sripati'a supplernent to Haima-laglunyāsa on Hemachand- Katantra 90-16; 90.20. ta's Brihadyritti 79'11 abridg.

·128 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar - ment of a larger Nyasa 79-2ff. Haima-lagluprakriya by Vinayavijayagani 79.12; com., Haimaprakāśa, on-79.14. Haimaprakāśa com. on Haimalagluprakriyā 79.14, its date 79.15, 79.n3. Haima school absorbs Pāṇinīya Uņ. ūdisūtras 54.8; 77.23; sce also Heinachandra. Hansavijuyagani's Śabdarthachandrikā 100-27 ; his date 100-30. Haradatta author of Padainanjari $26 ; personal details 39.10ff; his original name Sudarśana 10.nl; his date 40 11; quoted by Vitthalächūrya 45-23. Haraprasāda Shastri 59.8; 82:n2. Haravali 111'02. Hari, see Bhartrihari. llaribhadra, sce Haribhatta. Haribhatta or Haribhadra father of Kshemendra 97.29. Hari-dikshita teacher of Nāgcsa 47.19, 48.n1. Haridravakı mentioned in the Nirukta 8.nl. Harililīmrita by Bopadeva 105-12, 105.nl. Harināmāmrita $ 96 ; two such grammurs 113.16ff; their technical terms 113.23ff. Harirama, a Bengal Katantra writer, quoted by Kavirāja 90-14. Harirūma's com, on Goyichandra's vritti 110.20. Hariramsa (Jain ) 63.21. Elarshakirti pupil pupil of Chandrakīrti 98.13 ; wrote a Dhatupātha for the Sarasvata with an important praśasti at the end 98.15, and a coin. on it called Tarañ. gint 103-9ff. Horshakula teacher of Udayasaubhagya 78.26. Harsha vardhuna 53.20. Haryaksha 35.nl ; 41.20. Hemachandra 57.n2; mentions Devanlandt as author of Jainendra 63.22; 66.20 ; 68.31 ; his Lingīnusāsana based on that of Śūknţayann 71.22; biographical inaterial of ---73.n2, collected by Bühler 73.17 ; his life $ 57 ; his birthplaco 73.23; reccired into order 47.10; consecrated sūri or achärya 74.16; attracts attention of Jayasimha Siddharāja 74.29; writes Sabdanušāsana for him 75.18, 75.nl; converts Kumārapāla 75.8, writes Yogaśāstra at the instance of Kumūra pāla 75.16 ; his pilgrimage 75.20, and death 75.24; his indebtedness to the Aipogbavritti and to Sakațāyana Śabdanuśī: sana 76:12, 76.nl ; gives the prašasti of his patron in his Brihadvřitti77.3ff; author of Dryasraya-ina lūkāvya 77.17 ; also of accessury tre:tises 77.28, but not of the rivaranas or yrittis on them 77-30ff; other works of Hcmachandra 80.20; does not use pratyahāras 81.6 ; 89.21. Hemachandra's Śabdīnusās:na one of the works presumably used by Bhattoji 46.22 ; its nature $ 58 ; its object 76.6ff; author's own com. on it 76.17ff ; other comni. and sub-commentaries on it 8 60; digests, manuals, and iniscellaneous works $ 61; the Prakrit chapter from it 76:2; its later independent history 81•12ff; Dhundhikū on it 78.25; 89.21. Hemādri minister of Mahadeva and patron of Bopadeva 105.2ff, 105.nl. Hemahansa vijayagaội writes on pariblāslıīs for Hemachandra's. school 80-3ff ; his Nyāyārthamaājūshū 80.7. Homanındanagani teacher of Sihajakirti 100.22. Hirādhara son of Vijjola-blūpati 115.29. History of Ancient Indian Literature, by Mas Miller, 4.n1; 4in3; 9.nl ; 12.nl ; 14.nl. History of Indian Literature by Wober 82.7. Hiuen Tsang, liis account about the Aindra school 10-17 ; 19.3... Humayun 93.9. Hūņas, Gupta victory over, 58.26. India : what can it lench us, 41.n3.

·General inder 129 ron inliin Antiquary 1991: 13,1; รักเธ31 พ วรารา กระโปรงรอง ใrr **?; 31.nil; :*13; 25: finse dit fill : il roal anilor 1981-441 41 149, alin. l'ajya. fide 61?, 1.1.2, date of it €33;..:T* 11:12.1;74.11. 1.1.1981, GIIGIT Indische dien.nl;31:-1n. 3.1.1 traiterbod in JAVA. inl... trasy, by :7j: 11.1:1, intln takie, 0113, chacirri- ***.11.111(+ rios, 1.191.ite sa. non ality In!:a elis. It dizrain cirilo unt..111511 0:2 11 07.111; 1.103: 67.1911.stalatertoret $11Merrillii DT:.); in irili in Albrit: fokra 70 5.712.0, 1201,921. urilor fit? am 7151. Jarys a failer of ki..syair 12.6. 1027, 11:48 trills Glass Jari it!a: 1 of Israll:41ja 21.1 707, 713. grir! los 101.IR Tirirachandro ft. Ja ir7:1:"al.c:1 ' Shiriya Indra (10-) trich Fra!!!:07 too 1310118 31. 114 11 13103 104370: its praal Iuralarnid i 1r lenkt f.3.11151*7.166.lencoline maar 11. Bart of the Jitra Folxv 1 31:16:11 A cett:101). Jagülitra lua dair J2 : Fren rary of 1'&iti 19.10. t: n.1 ly Itxit's 5-2, 28 Iouinii fiscale til layo ni (alle 11tı Otra idewise with Yasar:48 13.1. at lattifringvary their arrucr in limbury J.;: ! of them all of this lakari 13.C., 1:1). fya...: Ing tinitrolution to Lalix of l'ataliji 3:15 ... thern vind fruin Hvarskrislust alla fast to in Janne nt of 981741,2, 0.nl ; bra attr: 6:19; 1 two plo. to Insystika 610, * Gl:1:1. JG B; posluje mame n* Jaya. beratanoda a Vivenda os. liais. :: Kaanir 6.19 ; tintire of a l'radia 43. hasinlr 30.4. Itring * Becom of Jayiditya An is worl: 33-35. Jayakrinliga repleurns the Tate ivalotin tuye a section on earr J erd rai likt prakriya 46,3 ; his date 13.8. Jagaddkara, Bhatta, author of LJ. Jayakrislma's com, on the Lagliu. lilodlin 91.12. Kilolithtaknnmndt 61.11 ; pct. Jagannithis gives personal details Fonni betrilk alont lin 51.1111. alont Blaftoji 46.27ff ; pupil of Jayanth nithor of Tattvachandra, the son of aceliakſislina 17.2, an nlridgment of the I'rahriya. 48.n1. kaminodi 61.nl. Jaginnitha, author of Sirapradi. Jayantikūta quotcd by lleniachan. pika, quotes Kahemendra' 98.1, drn 76.12. 100.G. Jaliingir, Emperor, 03.9 ; 162.26; Jay.InTela fupposcul to be pupil of 102.n. kohtrasvilmin 52. Juiuendra quoted ly, naine in Co. Jaynsimha II (Chalukya chiperor padeva's Mwallabolla 10.3.3 ; bliss Vadiraja, fellow-student of 63.n2 ; mentioned by Yunani. Day Tpüla 72.2411. chirya 53.31, 53.n?; Jainendru Javasitnin-Siddhrīja patron of school 617 ; its traditional author licchira 7.1.2017 ; stories 62.32£; its pūtrapatha originally aliont linn an Ilcinaclisuudra belonged to Diguralara Jaina, 74:32; lis cath 75.1 ; ibo 17 [SL. Gr. ] ;

·Igo Systems of Sanskrit Grammar i Sabdūnušāsana written at luis K request 75.18. Jina or Mahīvīra, traditional anthor Kaclichīyana's Pali Grammar of the Jaincndra school 62.32f ; closely related to Tolkappiyam 03.4. 11.5; and based on Katantra Jinadattaşūri teacher of Anura S2.10. chandra 80.8. Kadamba kings, Early, C4.23. Jinaunandana's Kunārapalıclarita Karcra 16:30. 73.12. Khu father of Madhava 98.20. Sinaprabha sūri alias Jinaprabodha, Kaiyyata quotes from the works author of a com. on Klantra of Apisali and Kūšakritsna 103, vritti-panjika 89 12; particulars 10.n2 ; 24.nl ; the Padamañjari about him $9.112. based on his Pradīpa 40-7, 40•n2; Jinaprabodha, scc Jinaprabhasūri. his Pradipa marking end of ec. Jinaratna, sec Jinendu. cont period in the 'histroy of Jinisãgara 78.16. Pāṇinīga school 8 28 ; his pro- Jinendrabuddhi author of Nyāsa bable date 41.29, personal dcon Kūšikīī $25, 71.nl; liis date tails about him 42-5ff ; quoted 35 n2, 38 12; quoted by Blūmaha in the Sarva-darśana-sangraha 35.1:2, 39.13ſf ; called sometimes 42.21, 42.n2 ; acknowledges in- Sthavira-Jinendra 38.n2; styles debtedness to Bhartrihari 42-25; himself Bodhisattradesīyācharya quoted by Vitthalācharya 45-19; 38.11 ;. n t later than 750 A.D. 59.21 ; 76•n2. 38 12 ; quoted by Vitthalācharya Ka' kala quoted by Hemachandra 45.20. 76.n2. Jincndu alias Jinaratna author of Kalā, Vaidyanātha's com. on Nī- Siddhantarotna 102.27. gesa's Vaiyakarana-siddhānta- Jivagosvamin's Harināmāorita mañjūshū 50:15. 114.1. Kālāpa-dlātusūtra 90-4. Jūłnatilaka 103.12. Kālāpa grammar said to agree with Jntgendra Sarasvati author of the the Aindra graminar 10-20'; also Tattrabodhini 47.25. culled Kaumūra and Katantra Jnapakas 35.17, 54.27ff, 54•n2, 82.22f, 83.9f. 56 25 ; scc also Paribhashas. Kalūpaka quoted by Hemachandra 76.n2. Jodha pur (Yodhapura) 80.1, 80.nl. Kalūpavyākaraņotpatti prastāva by Jogarāja's Pūdaprakaraņusañgati Vanamali S2 n2. 84.20, Arp. 2; mentioned by Kalūpin, the vehicle of Kumāra Mañkla 84.22; assigns the Kū 83.9. tantra Kritprakarana to śākațā Kale surnamic of Nīgojibhatta 49.34. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Kalhana 36.20. Bengal 33.nl. Kalidasa 57.22 ; 58.n2; 101.16. Journal of the Bombay Branch of Kalika-sūtra 73.nl. the R.A.S. 35.02. Kalpasūtras, Samayasundara's com. Jumaranandi author of the vritti, on, 63.2, 63.n2. Rasavati on Kramadīśvara's San. Kalyana, Prince, patron of Sesha krishna 45.29. kshiptasīra 109,27ff; the school receives name (Janmara) from Kalyāṇasarasvati's Laghusārasvata 103.24f. him 109.28 ; and (Rāsavata) Kīma mother of Rāmabhatia from his vritti 101.12. vises Pūnivīya Dhatupātha for his own school 110.3f. Kūmadhenui by Bopadeva 68.31 ; quotes Vardhainīnn 88:23; com. Jupiter, tirelve year cycle of, on the author's Kavikalpadruma 61.21, 64.n5. 105.11. yana 84 24. 109.32 ; re- ·Gcncral Index 131 Kamasutra quotes Gonarılıya anul Gonikoputri 33.5, 33•113. Kamboja 16:30. Kandarpasiddlinta's com. on the Saupadmi 112.13. Kirakas, treatises on, 55.23. Karikivali ly Yariyana Blafti. chitryn 116-12 Kartikeya reresled Ainira frain. T118r to Saptavarman 10.00; $10 alan kumira. Kusakrit 11.2, founder of a gramina. tical school, 9.23 ; liie grammar consisted of sūtras in three AdlyIyaa 10:3, 10.nl ; Kniyyata quotes froin lig grammar 10:4; 10.n? ; quoted his name in Bonn. dera's singelhabodhr 10.7.10.13. Kasiko gives a sale of Ajisali 9:21: ts]ls that Kisakritsna's grammar consisted of sūtra in three Adhyayar 10:3, in nl ; docs not anywhicro mention the Aindra gelool 11-20; 20-8; 28.n1 ; ita date 35.91; a joint work of Jay.to ditya au limang $ 23 ; perlinge une an Yrittisūtra iritionelliy Iling 35-24;quotca Villiyrpadli. VR and so not carlier thian 650 A.D. 3n2; Syrs cr-v Jinendrabuddhi $23,33n?;persona. lity of the authors of 36.11ff ; Bülesastri's cdition of 6 n3 ; nature of the-3710 ; quotes a a rule of Apisali 37.8 ! 13 ; gives a new ritika of the S111. Nyns 37.11 ; its indeltrings to Chan!ragomin $21. 62.2, 59-21, 1989certnine.l by Kiclhorn 37.2n; illustrated 38.711 ; Kriki duce rot acknowledge its indel. tedness 393, 58:18 ; llaraunttu's Pailnmnījari on the Kisil a $27; 47.13 ; cintodies l'aniniya Gana. p.1th CO 25 ; appareatly knows ilic Jaincndru C#.17, Gi n3. Kit4ikitkāra quotedly IIemachiancre 76'1.2. Kidiküvivaranaranjika, sce Nyasa. Kainittha author of Sara, & com. on the Prakrivaksleud 4G.nl. Karinthe, luis Sirasvata-blsīslıya 100.9ff his dute 100-13. Kaliśvara quoted by Durgadasa 107:31 ; liis supplement to the Jagdhalolia 103.10. stvara's com, on the Sanpadina 112-13; his Gananatha to Sau. pailma 113.1 ; coin. on it ly Ilamikinta 113.2. Kinyapa inentioned by l'anini 12-11... KIŚyapa nutlior of tlie Chandra recast, Balivalodla 02.10. Katantra, closely related to 'Tolkappiyan 11.5 : absorls l'anintyn l'n tuliaatras 54.8; ly co called 81.611 ; tradition account of its origins 01: its rute 62.1 83.2311; its to recen.jur. 87 25ff : l'ersal com 13. or-71; its study nos confined to a few districts of fingul 50.2; its histury in Kasur $72; in- Corporate Chazra Dato: 13.2 12.19: tales User Last 1 the l'aninya parillasli s 56 11: 81.7; interpolations in the Sütrnpttha $ 65 : 57.1717; its Carly listory s 67; 9:32.93:1 . 106.5 ; 110-20. Kitantraviatara, Vaidonna'ston. on Purgasirala's vilti. 8.2); A sul-coin. n it by ritlivli bora 88 24. Katantravrittij unijiki, Triluelana. 178a on Turgasisila's yritti 83.117; fub.com antics on it 89 20. Kallutsaritsagara account mort Panini, lis predecessors and contemporaries 10.1517, 19-08:28:19; 297 ; it: account aloit Katrin yana 313, 31.n1. Kutharnie, I'rofessor, 6.3-8. Kittihakya inertione iu tlic .vi. 1.ktn 8 nl. Katyayana 7.17; 7.91; 7.1.2 ; :lias Vararn hi 85.nl, Bill to 10 licen at firet follower of thic Aindra sclioul 10.15:12 6;145: Jis knowledge of the Yariras more rart than thint of ranini 16.25 ; 17-4 ;17 30; 18.1.1 ; $.id to be a contenpoirry of lāniti 19:10; lic protally regarded the Uņādisītras 118 l'anni's !G18, 26.nl ; he also probelly n cdified tlicm 26.27 ; incLlicncil is to com.

·132 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar sole anthor of the Uņādisülre, by Vimalasarasvati 27.2, 27'nl ; by Durgasiib. 274, 27-n2; Vīrtikakitias b'fore him 29:3; considerabile interval between him and Panini 277, 27•n1, 8+19 : his data $17 ; his relation with the Yandas 29.6; nature of his work $18 ; his first work, Vaja- Eineyi Pritisīklıya 29:13; ox tant: of his criticism on Panini 3):1: his criticisın ulso construclive 30-9, but in places injust 3.-13; did not uniformly follow Panini's tarminlogy 30.24ff ; probably belonging to a differont school of grammar from Panini 31 5 ; Culld a 'sontharner' by Patañjuli 31.6, 31.02 refers to Sikatiyanı 31.n3, Śūkalya 31•nd, Vījupyāyana 31.n5, l'yadi 31.no Paushkarasīdi 31.127, and others 31.nS ;38.91;54 21 ; 59.10 ; 69:19; 70.11. Kantra anothur na:ne of Kūtantra S3.8. Kauma.!T 101:11; see Sidjlantia kulimudi, Priskriya-knumi, and IIim-kirimdi. hinumudikīras 'S anthoit o moita ern revival of Pūrini 90.31. Kushtuki inentioned in the Vir. ukta S 1:1. Kantiki, a Jain Titlu 98 11, Kautiliyi 32.10. kuntsil mentioned in the Nirukta 8.01. Karikuladunale. Dopadeva with his 0:51) com, kima 12111, 103 101. 108.151 : com, by D'ur. Sl: 107.29. Kavirija : Bengt I crtit. on Katantill 3.1.1:'; 9:10104 Trilochandise 11911 is quoted by Ilarirana 9) 1. Kiryaprak 42.8. Kriil. 10:39 Keśavavarni pupil of Abhayachandra 72.13 ; author of a con, on Gomatasīīra 72.15. Klaratara-gachebha 99.1; 160.23. Kiclhorn, his ed, of the Malabilita shyal 7.1211.31 : 19-27; 27.no; 30.12 :311111 ; about Patanjali being distinct from Gonarutya and Gonikīputru 33.5 : 09 the indebtedness of the Kaiki to Chandroyomin 37 21 il ; alout Bhartrilari's com, on the Nenhutbhashiyil 11.12: doubts cxistence of Pūjyapīın as a real author 64.11F, 66-22;, doubts cxistcoce of Abhinava sakatayul 09.1fi ; 81.n1 ; 89.112 ; 29.03. Kirālirjaniya quoted by Haradistta 39 13. Kirtisijnyagani teacher of Vinnyavijayagani 79.13. Konablintta ucphew of Bhattoji 48:13, 19:11 ; author of Vnivii. karana bhushana 48*n1, 48:11, 55.25. Kramaili:svari founder of the Jaleonra school 108:30;luis Sublishipt: sätra probally an abridgment of Panini 109.320.; tikes Blartrihari's Malalliisliya-cījika for liis model 109.8; his illustrations mostly from Bluttiltrya 109 9; his cruition 109.21; le rclation to l'iūnini's work 109.111.. Krislinñcharya, Iuther of Rī!!! - chandra 115.7. Krishnizsrizma teachers of Kshem. on-lra 97.29. Krishna-Yajus-Siilidt anterior to Piņini 14.12. Kivīratunsomuchchaya of G17!!- ratusüri 50.12. Kshapanaka's vrilli en Uniriis, filoted by Ujjvalo latte ist.14. K cunnkara '102.1; father is Tiokosalarn 109-1:). Klondon of Kititr 97.31. 1 kemuril's (0:1, 0:Siiritista. prikrivi inentinople Virenma ris ouris the Sirasyta 171711, 097.27: jersonret ils ont line 27.08; 9:10 y 17th 97:57; criticise Dinar: 9:12, 1921: liis Jato: 14.if. Kahe Drippen19:39:19 laya Diurer 98. Kori, articla, kay Mr, 1.javad KR:13fatiusof fire210!.!!!; firma pravichiesta!!! h! Guyacingras 10.1.

·No text on this page.

·134 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar . Māgha about authorship of Uņādigūtras 27.6 ; quoted by Haradatta 39.n3. Mahābbārata, Bhīshina parvan, 16.8. Maliūbhāshya ed. of Kielhorn 7:n2 ; 9.20 ; does nowhere mention the Aindra school 11.30; 13.20 ; 14.n2 ; gives name of Pāṇini's mother 19.8; 19.23; 19.n3; 22.nl ; 23.nl ; 24.nl; 25.25; 25:n5 ; gives a stanza from the Pāṇinīya Siksha 27.15, 27•n5 ; Bhartrihari's commentary on- 27.n5, 41.6,41·23,109.8; Mentions Ślokavārtikakāras 28.4; Kielhorn's Notes on 30 n2, 311.nl;described as a summary of the Sangraha of Vyādi 31.n9; describes Kātyāyana as a 'southerner' 31.6, 31.n2; mentions a number of vīrtikákāras following Katyāyana 31•n10; 32-5; incntions Gonardīya and Goņikāputra 32:29, 32.n2; detailed exposition of data in--found in Indische Studien 33.10 ; text of the traditions about, 33.24ff, 41.18; docs not notice all sūtrīs of Pūņini 34:3 ; fanciful explanation of this fact 34.nl ; it marks end of the first period in the history of Pāṇinīya school $21, 56.13 ; Chintāmaņi on by Dhanesvara 100-2. Malabhashya-chintamani of Dhanesvara 100.2. Mahābhāslya-pradīpa as the basis of Haradatta's · Padamañījarī 40.7, 40•n2 ; itself indebted to Bhartrihari. 42.24 ; commentaries on, it by Nāgjibhatta, Nārāyana, īśvarīnanda, and others 43.1ff. Mahābhīshya-pradipoddyota of Nīgojibhatta 43.2 ; 49.10; a com. on it by Vaidyanatha, called Chhīyā 50.13. Malvīdeva father of Vaidyanātha 50.6. Malīdeva, author of Śabdasiddhi, on Durgasimha's vritti 89.10. Mahadeva the Yādara king of Devagiri 105.3. Malīvīra, see Jina. Mahesvara preceptor of Kaiyyatı 42.7. Malīdhara 102-1. Maitreyarakshita 39.n1. Maitreyarakshita mentioned as a writer on roots by Sāyaṇa 53.2. Malayagiri's Śabdūnušāsana with his own com. 80.31ff ; his date 81.4. Mallinātha, his commentary on the Siśupālavadha 27.n3 ; quotes Padainanjarī 39.18; quotes Bopadeva in his com. of the Kumāra 104.33f; quotes, a Chandra rule 57.21, 57.n2. Mammața 42.8ff ; 42.nl. Mandana coinmentator on the Sārasvata-prakriyā 98.27ff; personal details about him 98.28ff; patro nized by Alpasūhi of Mālva 99.9. Mañgarasa author of a com. on the Chintamani 72.7. Mūņikyadeva on Pāṇinīya Uņādisūtras 54.17. Maniprakāśikā by Ajitasenīclārya, a com. on the Chintamani 72.6. Mankha author of Śrīkantha-charita 84 22. Manoramā, see Praudhamanoramā. Manoramūkuchamarding of Jagannātha gives somo personal details atout Ehaſtoji 46.28ff, 47.nl. Mantras, Seeis of, 6.nl. Manu mentioned in the Nirukta 8.nl. Manual of Buddhism by Kern 59.n2. Manuals, lesser, $ 98 ; characteristic of the declining age of a school 115.11. Matisāgara teacher if Dayāpāla 72.24. Mauni family 48-4;51.12. Mauryas, their financial «xpédicnt mentioned by Patañjali 32:25. Maxiing of interpretation, Paribhashū. Max Miller, History of Ancient Indian Literature. 4.n1 ; 4.n3 4.28 ; on introduction of art of writing 4.28 ; 9.nl ; on Pāṇini's date 14.3; 15.3; 28.15. Medes not unknown to Indians lic. fore Alexander's invasion 15.33. Medini 111.n2. Megha father of Trilochanadiisa 89.6. Meghadūtil, Mallinatha's com. on 57.22. sce ·General inder 135 Meghatna's Sireninryakarana. loji's Salin-knustulia 47-22; lvis Dinlikt or Siraesntadipiki mil, Vaidyantha l'nyagunda 99.111. 47 2:3, 48211; his work: $32. 63:3; Bloglinvijnya tc!! of shaftoji'e in. his tinc 19.0ff; inuitol liyo dirbtedner to 11cmachandra Sarai Jayrim la of Jeypur for an 40 20 nivaineella 19-3; perpcnnd details Jioglievijayn untilor of Ilnimakan. about himn 49-333/1 ; 55-7. inud 19.ISIT. Mnidinas mentioned in thic Nirii. Menner, his siege mentionesi loy in 8.11. l'atanjali :19-24. Xairuking nucntioned in the Ninu. Merulung Tchtrya's l'ralamahneliin. kta 8.111; 21.14: their view as to timmuni 7-12. ront-origin of mill trorsa 95.26. Miscell.incond lernye lis Colclrooke Yandas, their relation withi Katya GS.n1;114.nl. yan: 29.6. Mitakshara (grammar) Annnnn. Yandaki orallasja'r elupplement to fa's com. on l'avini's Arlits. the Nugcikalsodla 108-9; his date dilis Tyr 50.24. 109.11. Mitikalari (la) the V'yaralira Xandasunilara 78.17. hinila from it cominented upon Sanilieafiglin infjorali 64.7.611/?. Hoy Vaidyanttia on-9. Marnari's Ballynldha 116-161. Mitra, Rajendralal, on the isletiti. Xarasiilia father of Manalilintu fication of Yarona, with Iunion 101.12. Grecka 16.21 ; shows that l'etais. Nārāyana's rivasaņa on Kaiyyata's jali ir not 8:uino as Gonardiya or l'radipa 43-2. Gonikimitra 33.2. Nariyannbharati 101-35. Alolan Aladhulans brother of Narayana Blagjacharya's Karika- TurkutilaknblattachTryn 102.23. sali 116.12. Broharajajarajaya, diraman hy I'nsnis. Narendra or Narendracharya mnen. paln, 75-8. tioncil ng founder of Sarasiat dogulladolin qucks bs namoro. by Kolierendra 95-18, by amsi. rious grammariang 1/in3 ; 91.28; Cable Trati 3522; luy' v'itiali. 104-23; 103-10; the object of chitrya 93.24. SR3; its clomination prior to Siglingu G.nl ; commented upon Blastoji 107-12 ; contientaries liy Yaska's Nirukta 8.5. on, 1072411 ; supplements to Nighinnf1-vritti lry Koltrasvamin, 108.9ff ; accessory trentiscs to 109.1511 : 110 37. quoted by, Devaraja 62.10. Muthaminedan incursions as aficct. Nilakantha Sukla, riipil of Bluțioji ing growth of literaturo 43-1511; 47.n2, 48.nl. later Muhainincilan rulers no Nipativyayopasargarşitli Lry Kshicriating a derand for Sanskrit ragrafinin 52.8. greminar 43.27, 93.411 ; 96.7. Nirukta of Yhska, its date &G; 7-9; Muktuphala by Bopadcra 105-11, its nature $7; teachers and 105.ni. schools referred to in it 8.nl; Munitrayam 34.12. introduction to, by I'andit Satyavrata Simasrami 14:17; 25.25; N 25.n4; quotes Sakațayant 68.25; com. on, by Durgūcliarya 68.14. Nogosa, see Nogojibhatta. Niruktanirvachiana by Devornja Nigojibliaţta speaks of Santanarı- 62.10. chirya AB relatively modern anthior 27•n4 ; liis Uddyota on Niryukti 73.nl. Kaiyyata's Pradipa 43:1; his com. Northern school picntioned by on the Praudhamanorant 47.18, Panini 12.n2. and on the AdhyAtina-Ramayana Nrisimlichirya father of Vitthalt- 47:21 ; bis comcatary on Blat. chīrya 45.22.

·izó Systems of Sanskrit Grammai Wynan on Risikit hy Jinendrabul. alli 35•na, $25; otherwise known as Kusikil-vivaramak-janjiki 34.."; not il single edition or a complete manuscriptof it in existence 39.1, 39.1n; said to have been commieulec pion hy Maitreyaralsluitit 39.nl; 71.111; quoleil (?) lige llenhandia 70.112. Vyrsas (three) on llomchinuri's Brilliritti,' the first identifies moslofliemichandra': quotations 76.n2; second hy Udayachandril 79.), with an ahridgnin which traces most of Ilcmaeldra's quotations 76n2; 79.98; 76-21; and the third anonymous Vytisi called Silidumuhitrnira 79.7. Nyhsil on the sakatiyanı-Sabdīta Sasana 339.n1; quotui in Midtvīyil Dlälavritti 71:31 ; quica by Hcmachumra: 70.nº. Nyngil, :2 com. on the Amoglı-vyilli quoted by Prablichundrīcluiryn 72.2. Nytist of Ugrablinti on Jagaci. dhara's Balaboihint 91.13. Nyaypanchinam's com. on Goyla cliandra's vritti 110).1711.. Nrityarthaimnījūslut of llomaluisa-- vijayagani 80.7; its dato S0.12. Padmanabindalla founder of the $:111ndma school 111.2; personal details about lim 111.211; Herent from the autor of the l'riploda. divritti 111.8; lvis slaic '111.15; the üringement of his work 111.16 : his own com. it colica 20cm panjikă 112:11; liit l.work: 112.131, 113.nl. Paulotilolaattil, author of Pri. aludarīlivnili, ritmerint from the iviilder of Salpar11151. Padınaporīna 100.1. Pühini poter 1 10mlandra 73.25 ; piros hot still oser for religions gorrice 74.7. Palbumas, 81€ Pnrtliups. Pamiya kiner. The Tolkarrivain rearl liofurc, 17:33. l'anchatantri story about livini's death by tiger 1915 19.12. Panchayag 1, recast of Jainendra 67:14f1; its int:oductory martintorpolatel 07.20. Panini, 3.nl ; his terminology pro- 5!"osor by prosent Pratisikliyas 5%; -, Ilis place in Sanskrit literature, lay Guldetiicker, 5.nl; his terminolgy compared with that of fiski! 6.n2 objeclions to liis bring junced after läska cons:clered liis system based on Yüska's theory of the verbal origin of every noun 9.3; 9.61 : 115es teebuical words and formulas of carliar writers, somo o1 whion camo after Tüska 9.1.1 ; 9.n2; 10.n3; said to have supplanted the Aindra school 10.15; as also other schools 62.26 ; does not any-where mention Indra by name 10-11, Aindra school 11-28; 12.6; the school of_$$10 1011; authors quoted by-12.n2 ; his dato $11; posterior to liska 14.14; must have known soine form of Grilya and Dharina Sūtras 14.02; placed oveu before Yīska hy Pandit Satyarrata Sămnasrami 14:18; usually but without suflicient evidence as. signed to 350 B.C. $12; lived prior to Alesander's invasion 7.61f; O Oka, Shastri, cditor of Kshirasvžia min's com. on Amarakosha 52 n1; 57.2. р nor the Padama brother of Vaballa and ininister to Alpasilii 99.6. Padamanjori of Haradatta $26 ; quoted in the Madhavīya Dhatuvritti anil by Mallinātha 39.19; quotes Magha 39.18, 39.n3 ; quotes Kirata and Bhattikävya 39.n3; based upon Kaiyyata's Mahābhīshya-pradipa 40-7, 10:n2, 43.7. Padapatha of Śūkalya 4:17; 6.n1. l'adına-(or Rudra-) kumia, father of Haradatta 39.11.

·Gencral Inder iz? 17:19; lived prior to 700 B. C. 18:3; 18:16; only negativo conclusion about lii« dato posili 1827; tho known facts about his lifc $13; 6t1aturfy: an alias of - 18-34; his mother's name, Doksbt 19.8,19-ul; bistcacher said to bs Varsha 19.11; hattbe four. toca fratyalitra satras retailed to him 19.13, 23:18;rtory about his death by a tiger 13:14, 19.n2; character of l'smini's work $14; his contribution to pilology in tho Unidisctras 21:31; tho tecls. nical crices used hy him $13; loid metlial of indicating ndhi. kira #utras 21.n; his l'aribit. alts 25.4; fio Dlintnpitha 23:14[[; lis Gauajatha 13.21, 21.28. 25.20 : reasons for assign. ing most of the Unidinūtrar to his outlorship 2G-711 ; bia l'inti. kakörns r. 28-3?: consideramo interval separates lum from istity T. yana 27.7, 27.nl ; criticisel logo Katy Tyana Grot in tlis Vījasınevi Priitikhya 29-16, Anil'later in the l'artika: 29-20; his termino. luray not strictly addict to by Katy Tynna 30-21fE ; 38.nt ; Sic. alintakausnude the most popular introduction to his grainmar 46.11; bo tacitly employed many Pariblijsbts current beforo kimi 54:21, 5tºni; li atory of his school, review of. Sit ; 567; thrco stages in the later leistory of his rchoul 56.11; 599; 65.28 ; Gint ; 69:18; 69.83; 70u1-5; 71.1; 75:30; 76.n2; 81.28; 86.21 ; 86-28; 86:30 ; 87.4; modern reriral of Panini 1074; 92:16; 53:1; 93.27 ; later attempts to improro upon him 105.17; 105 22 ; 109:1 ; 111.20; 112.1. Pinini, the poet, quotes in Valla. bhadeva's Subhislititrali apd indentified with Panini the gram. marian 13.10. Paribhushia df Panini aod of later grammarians 23:4; 25:01 ; do ancient collection was come down 27.19 ; commonly ascribed to Vyadi 277.21, 5+23; invention of the system of 35:10 ; Paribha. 18 [Sk. Gr.] shts and Jinakas clalorated belirecn 470-630 A. D. 35.17, 51.27St, 61.n2, 56-25: $10; I'r nini tacitly cinployed many - currcot bofore lain 51.21, 51'pl ; Paniniga paribhaol.1borrowers by tho Faiantra and other nonriniuiya schools 55.10; l'ari. hlui:lit.sutra by. Śikatayang 71.14; of Ilemachandra 77.26, collocter bry licmuharisarijaga. ani 80-411 noco for $3ragrata 31-21, 103-8; a cllection of by Goyclopra 110:15; of SaJpadma samo as l'inini'. 112-30; 112.19. l'aribbeltvritti (to lugdha boda) by Rimacinndra-vidyabhaeliana 105.21. l'aribli.is īrritti (Saujalına ) of Padmanabhadalta 112-211. l'ariblizslienduycklarn by Nigoji. bhafin 49.1111, with the author's com. called Sabrica lusckharn 49.14,35.7; co:non it called Godt l'aidyanatla 50.1:3; other coinncntarics 33.). Pariuluds, roles for, framel, 4.10. l'arivrajakas inentioned in tlic Nir. ukt Soul. Parslarla: fuentioned in the Nir. uxta l.nl Parnus, ace Persians. Partliians not unknown to Indians cron before Alexander's invasion 15.33. Pālaajala-clurita gives a fanciful explanation of the fact that the Jalsablaghyn does not notico oll futras of Piiņini 34.nl. Patañjali 12:6; 13:23 ; 14:1; 14.n2; 17; 18:11 ; gives tho namo of Paniti's mother 19.8; 24.13 ; 26.01 ; 27.21 ; quotes certain mo. trical Vārtikas preceding thosc of Katystynna 28:4;. inentions a puler of Vartikakäras folloir. ing KatyTyana 31.n10; lsie date and personal history $20 ; main arguments for assigning him to 150 B.C. 32.190 ; Apeaks of l'u. shipamitra as his contemporary 32.21 ; refers to a siege of Dicaander 32.24 inontions & Gdancini capedient of the Mauryas 32-25 ; 90-31 ;

·138 Systems of Sanskrit Grammät . a detailed exposition of his timo givon in Indische Studion 33-10; 33-11 ; vindicates Panini against the attacks of Katyāyuna 33.18 ; often unfair to Katyāyana 33.20 ; his unparalled style 33.21 ; his ishtis 33.15 ; 35.3; 54.22 ; 59-10; 69-18; 76.n2 ; 103-3. Pathak, professor, 10.nl ; 14.n2 ; 39.nl ; proves the historical oxistence of Pūjyapāda 64.6ff; his papor on Jaina Sakațāyana 61.14; 69-8ff, 76•nl ; his arguments for the date of Jainendra 64.16ff ; 65.n2; 67.24; 72:11; 72.n2; 72.n3. Patrapuñja 45.29. Pauranic accounts of frontier tribes not incre iinuginativo fabrications 16.6. Paushkarasādi mentioned by Küla yāyana 31.n7. Payagundit, scc Vairlyanātha Paya-, gunda, Porsians not unknown to Indians boforo Alexander's invasion 15.33; mentioned as merceuary fighters by Panini 17.24 ; blotted out as a political power in 329 B.C. 17-26 Poterson on Panini's date 13.50f ; 13.n2; 46•03 ; 53:12 ; 54:1 ; 65.4; 67.n2; 79.15 ; 89.12. Philology, science of, revolutionized by discovery of Sanskrit by inodora Europo 2.24 ; its postulats Yaska's Theory of the rooturigin of every noun 9.4. Phitsūtras of śāntanavūcluīrya 27.12, 27.n4. Phonetics, munnals on, 4.12. Pigchel on the identification of Pīņini tho grainmarian und Pā. nini tle pocí 13.10, Platwv 16.2. Prabaudhachintīınani by Nerutun. güchirya 73.n2. Prabandhakosa by Rājasokhara 73.02. Prablia, Vaidyanatha's com. Blnttoji': Sabdakaustublia 30.10. Prablachandru quoted by Pujylpada 66.02 ;attejupi to prove that the name is fictitiolis 66.18 ; 66.03. Prabhachandra author of Prabhatvakacharitra 73.12. Prabhachandracharya anthor of a Nyāsa on Amoghavritti 72.1. Prablīvakacharitra by. Prabhän chandra and Pradyumnusuri 73.n2. Prabodhachandrika by Vijjala-bhữpati 115.22ff ; com. ou it by Gopālagiri 115.30. Prabodhaprakūša, a Sãiva grammar by Bălarūmapanchanani 114.12, 114.1941. Pradipa, see Mahahllishya-pradspa. Pradyumnasūri reviser of Prabliū. chandra's Prabhāvakaclaritra 73.n2. Prakrit literature, growth of, as affecting clovelopment of Sanskrit 34.20, Prakriyākaumudī of Rilinachandra $30, the model for Blattoji's Siddhanta-kaumudi 45.10 : commented upon by Vitthalachsya in the Prasarla 45.14 : by Sosha, krishna in the Prakasa 45.25 ; and by others 46•n1 ; an abridgment of it by author's pupil 51.n1 ; 72:21 ; 109.3. Prakriyamani by Dhanesvaru 100-3. Prakrivāprakasă of Seehakrishna 45.25. Prakriyāśañgraha of Abhayachandra, recast of Śäknțīyaua Śab. denususana 72.11. Prasāda of Vitthalacharya. 15:14; its date 45.16 ; quotes Narendra charya 95.24. Pratāparudra of Telangana 101.10. Prūtiśīklyas, primitive, prresult pose art of writing 4:30 ; Present -- Post-Pāniuiya 5:2; their coultribution to science of graminai 5.101f; their their ieclinical terms identified by Dr. Burnell with those of Aindra school 5.312, 82.13 ; show līska in the making 5.19; G.nl; 9.82 ; closely related to Tolkappiyam 11.6, and to Kutantrn 82-13; 12:6: 86.22, 86.nl; Vījusunoyi Pritisakhya the first grammatical work of. Katyāyani, &cc undor Vājasaneyi. on ·General Inder 139 1 Pratyahira gatras, fourteen,, re. prolasbly Pelanjati's own pintron vealed to l'iņini lig God'Sira 32.-3. 19.13; 22.15 ; meant to produce brerity and trrscnego 23.25 ; VR R jasancsi.Pratidaklıya Pratyal.I. Its gancam lápini's 29 n?; their Racco, impact of different, as innumber redncel hy Claudingo: fluencing study of gromnar 2.31. min 59.15; Paniniya rolained Ragliunandenndirornaui 84.26. by Jaincndrs 60-3;-of 6IkaļT. Raghunathis author of the Leglio. yana 70-13;- Halayagiri 810; bibliya on the Sirasvata 103.1 ; - nnt used by uimichandra Ditopil of Dhingtoji 103.5. $1.6; l'anintya - diapen cul with Ilayliuntthinlibutin sathirs of Jaya. Lg Kitantra €623; their !!*** krisliga 18.4 : 51.11. rithout its by the Straerata!!ajallangapura 79.nl. 91-5; 113:22; -of Bopadeva | Ilajasekhara's I'ralandhakoan3.n?. 100.6, called San hTrastons i Hajctarangint account of the vicissi. 106.2);--of Panini retaincel hy ludce in tlic tout of ile Aclit. Saunalina 111.21. Wisaliga 1.3.27, 18.05; 33:25, Pranha-manorami Bhajfoji'r own 41:17. com. on tlic SiddlTnta-kaum Kajavade, Figlıxanth. k., lia raper 47.7; distinguialıca het echtlic on tänini', date 17.9 ff. two anthor of thin Kuik 30.nl: I!.Tjendral:1 Mitra on the identitica. acknowledge indebtedness to Ro. tion ut Yaranam with Ionian pamilt 43.nl ; doce scant justier Grecka 16.21 : slinwe thot lataa to the inemicry of Scaliahiri. inli is not the same o Gonaniliya ohna 471;ite ahriilgincnt enlleil us Gotikapunta 3:32. B&la-nınorami 47.8: Jaganna. Ramuntiladmotīválafkira 17:32 thin' com. on it called the lano. , liānal.latin'.' Vident-pra lushing ramikuciuinardini 17-18; anolfi. 10:3 : personal deinils nout cr com. on it ly Yarata calle the author 101.611 ; his world $ndarntna 47.18, 49:16; 107.7. 101.16 fr. Prislolar divritti of Padmanahlia. Rriniablinti!, se vidvalprazolhini. datta 111:8; its date 111.9, Hijmachandra's Prakriyakannudi 111.nl. $30; i datr 56: ferrodal dr. Prithvtilhara, Mahimalopidlıytva, tails alout lim 45-G ft. authut of anb.com. on Parelha Ramachandra, corticointor or likminn's Kitantra-vistara 88.21. tantravrittirunjikI 89.8 ; 90:10. PGjyapada an alias of Deranonelt Hananchinndra's cominentary on the 63-25; Gt.n2; mentioned as the Sarpadma 112.14. forader of a Draviila-sangla Ramachandra-chakravarti writes 65.4 ; possibility of other name. 91b.com. to Sripti'a supplement takes of his 65.10 ; 09.20; 70-8. to Katantra 90-20. Pandartkaksha writes aub-com. to llimachandsfram's Siddhtata. Sripati's suppleinent to Katantra chandrihi 102-11 ; commentaries 90.21. on it 102.13 fr : the author's own Puñjarāja the earliest com. on the abridgment of it 102.19. Sára rata-prekriya 96.15; per. sonal details about him 96-3311 : Ruadaga 90-16. his date 96-16, 97.7; bis works Riinadeva thie Yadara king of 97.81 ; 99.nl. Devagiri 105-4. Punyasundaragani 79-24ff. Ranakanta's coip. on Saupadina. Purushottama 97.23. Ganapathe 113.2 Puritshottamadeva's vritti on Undi Rama un grandfather of Lokesaquoted by Ujjvaladatta 54.15. kasat 102.14, Pushpamitrn alluded to 29 coptom. Ramakrielniclurga grandfather of porary by Patañjali 32-21, and Vitýlialacharya 45-22.

·140 Systems of Sanskrit Grammat Rūmananda quoted by Durgidīsa com. on the ghidhy:lyr 17.12; 107.30. fırobabis not completer by the Rinasaran'a com. on the Madhya author .17.1.1, 17.n3 ; com. on it Siddhanta kiumudi 51.10. called Vishami, lux Vigesa 49.18; Rimasiin bir patron of Nigojiblarla another com. called Prallia, by 50-1. Vaidyanatha 50-15; 107-7, Rămasrama, sec Bhanu dikshita. Sabdamaltārnava-nyisa, an anony. Ramatarkavägisa, commentator on mous coin. on Hewachundia's Mugdhabodha 107.24; lis supplc Brilindrritti 79.7. ment to Mugdhabodba 103.10; Sahdanusisana of Honnchiand:: his Unidikoin 108.22. presumably utilised by Bhattoji Rangicharya's edition of Sankara's for lus Siddhantakilumudi 46.22. Sarrasiddhiinta-gangraha 105'n3. Sabdinusiana of Balayagiri Roñigoji-rikshita brother of Bhat 80.31 1. toji 16:21; 48.nl. Śnbdinusasana of Sakarīyana Rasagañgadhara 49-27. (Jaina) not a very ancient work Rasvat: another name for the Jnu 26:3 ; later than Jainendra US 9; mara school 109.32; quoted in Bla. meant for Sretimlarg 08:13 ; rata's com. on Blattikivyn 110.1. mentioned in the Gamurati- Ragavatt Jumaranandi's vritti on malodadli 69.16 ; in the Milha Krainadiśvarn's Suñksliiptasarn VIya-Dliituyritti 68.17 ; C011- 109.31. mentaries on it 68.1.1 ; !ccessory Rūghtrakatn 09.10. Irectives on it 69.11; got tlın kame ໃtal້ແ:: 7::3. 09 ancient Sikatiyana ş 52; Ratonkara 101.33. proof for this 69.nl ; quonda's Kayomukutil mentions Chindra allisoon by Bopadan 68:31. Lingamushgana 60) 20. Šabdanus:19113-Brihadvritti, lIema- Recasts of slysdliyayt$ 29 : 57.2. rolundraia com. on រង own Riyreda, grammntical speculations Saldūnus iisana 76-17 ; threc in 1.25 ; its Sarilith interior to dilisent Voisis on the silme Pinini 14.12. 76.21, 79.2, 79.7 ; ita quota. Roman concet, influencing anily tius Toatly identified hy of Greek grammar 2.12. the first Nyasi 70.2 ; contains Royal Asiatic Sociniy, the Bombay Siddharaja's poras'asti 77-3 fi;itg Brauch, Journal of, 33•112. abridgment perhaps y llema- Nopogosrimin # Ilarininiurilam clinira himself" 70.8: com. 113.17. prchends also accensory trenties Kapumila of Vimalisarasvati mons of tho school 77.29; Dimnikit tions Varnruchi aling Katvarnua on it 78.6 fi ; a Logim-nyian on it !!9 outlior of Unndisutr:19 27.nl ; 79.1, it is a recast of Andhyart Saixlaratno, NRgoji's com. on the 111; its cinto 410, 44.n its l'raudhuinanorama 19:16; 1 cm., Stangement of topics 4.1.68; in. Blivaprako:fikir, on it lig luidru. delitedness to it acknowledgally bith: 50.10. Blattnji Dikslita 15.nl. Sabilürtlachiandrikit ls llatisavijri- Hapasiddhi, anabridgıneat of $in Salman: 441!, yaani 100.27. lsy Duripila 72-23. Sahilsillhi, Salvadovas.com. Darasitola's vritti 89.10. Ilup sali 51.10. Sadanand:i'# Subodhint 102-141. Retra-(or Padm.)!mfra, father of II radit: 39.11. Sars, the three, 30.11. Sahajaliitti's Suraavat praktivitas tikr, 100.21 f;lis dato 100.34, S 2011.11. Sarminin 33.21). Siti Salern, emperor o? Di Hu, honourr Chandrulliti 13:17 , baknuruble by Blagoji, a ni.

·General Index 141 Srira grammat: 114:10 m. Kakn 16:31; 17:31 ; 18:1:: alar Srylbiara 18:18. Sakalya, l'oilapathia ly, 4:18; 19e ti. tioned in the Nirukia ni: mentioned by l'inin 12.n2; quoted lig Kaiyiyana 31.ni. Sikapāņi mentioned in the Situata 8.ni. Kikasigana (ancient) quoleil Boy naine in Pomera's Jagdbo. dha 10-n3 ; mentinned by l'atini 12.n?. GS-23 ; often considered author of the Unidirütmag.321; Do work of the ancieet Sikata. vann DCT cxlane 26-5; quofuil lige Katy Jynus 31-3; Inc:jotird in th: 18:30hya 23.03;, differ. ent from later (Waita ) dark yan $53; E031; 81.8i credito with lio autorship of the line prakarana ay incorporatoil in ilic krtantra 84-24, 67.20. Sikafayan (Jain) Prof. l'athiah's papier 0n, 01.14: Glint ; Iria date 63.1, 69.1 11; lui in. debtediros to Jainendra 03.; also anthor of the dinoglavritti 69-13; was a SvetIınlara Jain 73-11; paturo of liis Kabilant, $Esana $53; draws freely upon tho Jaitenden (9.20; nany of his Etrar eine 44 l'anici's 69.22, 69:23, or only slightly changed 70-1, 70.1 ; indebted(88 to Chandragnin 70-211, 70 112 ;ta Jaipendra 70-5, 70.n3, 70 nt; quotes Indra 70.7 ; the extent and arrargement of liis Sab. dinnisana 70-10f1; the authors quoted by him 70.05; bis frantic effort to secure brevity illustrated 71.C; lis technical terminclogy 71-7; other works liy Sakrętyana $ 54; comin. on his Sabdanusi- FADO 713011; recasts of it 72-101F ; later ou led by llena. chandra's Sabilausasana 73-3, which loterer freely draws upon it 76.13, 76.nl, 76.02. Saketa besieged by dicrunder 32-23. Śakta granibars 114.10ff, $ilsturo l'anini's fatiro placo 19-1; identified withi Laliour in Yusut. zii salles 19.2; not an olscuro Anil derette Mate 19.6. Silatulya an alias of l'inini 18-34; IS'ni. Salem-hals, Emperor, 38. Samantalaisa qucted by Pojra. pida China. Samantalbadra'. Tiprami on the Cliniani 72.7. Samálachakra 1.17. Simavranı, Satyarrnta, on linini's cale 14.17. Samaraeundam diis com, on tuo Kalp Stras: 673, 03.02. Satibiin, Trittiriya, ratnmatical freculations in, 2; the Innguage « Saulita. dillerent from that or Joh.manae, 39; the Saving of Rik, Siira. Anil Krislina.Yajus anterior to l'anini 14.12. Sanni, a fons destroyed his Alexandes ou mentioned by l'aniti 17-1111 Sanghajati of Sanglesvara 98.29 ; 39.8. Sahgrals, as extensive work of Vyali 31:18, and described as the luis for Jalıslıhaelyn 31•n9. Eaujas, «se Tecluical terms. Sinkola, se Sangala. Santala, Prince who founded the city of Sangala 17:13. Safikartickarya's Sarvasiddhanta. kahigralın edited by Mangacharya 105-13; lia Sirfra bbüsliga 33.02. Sankhalasti ingription 63-6. Sinklįyn-Würikas 64.20. Sarkshiptaera of Kromadidrare 108:32 ; ita rclation to tlo Agbyx. dhyayt 109-10 ff ; Janiqlanardis yritti on it 109 271. Sanskrit grammar, schools of, acar Iy a Jozen 1:10; writers on, at least three hundreds 1.11; treatises on, orer & thousand 1:13; see under echools. Santanavācharya, author of the Phițgūtras 27.12; medtioned as a relatively modern writer 27.n4. Saptašati, com. on, by Nagesa 49.7. Saptavarman received revelation of Aindra granımar from Karttikeya 10-22 ; 8ce also Sarvavarman.

·142 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar c Sara by Kašīnnthia, a com. on the Prakriyūkaumudí 46.n1. Sūrapradīpikī by Jagannātha 98.1, 100.8. Sara-Siddhantakaumudy of Varadarāja, an an abridgment of the Siddhantakaumul 51.4. Sarayvata school 43.29;81.24;its date 873 ; its original extent 92.nl ; two recensions of its Sūtrapūtha 92.nl ; its special features $74 ; its technical terms 94.11f1; no paribhasbas to it 94.21; and no Unndis 94.29 ; the school not mentioned by Bopnova 92.4, not known to Homachandra 92.6; its traditional founder $ 75; Vārtikas to it 94:31, 95-2; com. on it by Vitthala 89.2; most of the comm. on it later ilian 1450 A. D. 92.8, and coinc from Northern India 92.14; comm, on it in. dependently of the Saragválaprakriyū § 78 ; the - school encouraged by by Muhammedan rulers of India 93.4ff; its abridgments 103.21ff; a general review of its history $80; no suppleinents to it 104.6; the school affected by modern revival of Panini 92.20 ; its present status 104 21. Sūragvatabhāsliya of Kasinatha 100-9ff. Saragvata-dipiki, sce Sarasvata. vyakarana-dhundbika. Sārasvata-mūlagūtrapātha 92.nl. Sāragvataprakriya of Anubhūti, svarūpīcharya 92.nl, $76; its gūtrapatha not the original sūtrapatha '92'nl; commentators on it 96.20£, 377; commentaries on Sat .svata independently of this $ 78 ; Vārtikas imbcded in its sūtrapatha 95.9 ff it by Kshemendra 95.17; by Amrita bharati 95.20. Sāragvataprakriyūvārtika liy Sahajakīrti 100.24 ; its date 100.24, Sūrasvatapragada by Vasudeva, bhatta 98.24ff ; its date 98.26, 98.12. Sarasvatarynkarana-shundhikā or Sarasvata-dlīpika by Megharatna 99.14ff. Sarasvati reveals Saras yata sūtras 95.5. ŚTrīra-bbaghya 33.22. Sartha 105-5. Sarvasiddlūntagañgrala of Sankarācharya, ed. by Rañgācbürya 105 n3. Sarvavarman 10-3; 83'n1; founder of the Kātantra 864 ; his patron śātavābana 82.25, 83.4, 82.n3 ; evidence for later interpolations in his original sūtrapatha $65; 87.17ff ; the Kritprakarnna Dot by him 84.18ff, as also certain other sections 85.5/1, 85.16ff ; nature of his work $65; the extent of his work 87.3ff. Śatabalaksha mentioned in the Nirukia 8.nl. Šatašlokī by Bopadera 195.13. Śītavāhana, patron of Sarvavarman $2.25, 82.03. Sati mother of Nagesa 49.35. Satī-vritti on Uņādis quoted by Ujjvaladatta 54.15 Satvarāja disciple of Blanndikishita 48.nl. Satyūnanda, teacher of Isvarānanda the author of Maliūblāslıyapradīpa-fivarana 43.3.- Satyaprabodhabhattāraka 97.18. Satyavrata Sāmasrami on Panini's date 14.17. Saubhaya 35.n1 ; 41.20. Saunāgas mentioned by Patanjali 31.n10; one of their vārtikas quoted by the Kasikū 37 11. Sappadma school absorbs Paņinīya Unādigūtras 54.9. Saupadma school of Padmanabhadatta $90; its special features $91 ; its arrangement 11.1.n4; commentaries on it $92 ; its present.status $94. Saupadma-makaranda by Visbnumisra 112.15. Saupadma panjikā, Padmanabha's. own comi on the Saripadma 112.10. Sauryabhagavat mentioned by Pat. añjali 31.010. Savai Jeysim ha invites Nagesa for an asvamedha 49:29. Sagana or Madhava author of the Dhūtuyritti 52.28ff. com. on ·General Index 143 Schoole of Sanskrit Grammar, Shahajalian patron of Jagannatha nearly dozen 1.10; Aindra school 46.27. of Grammarians by Dr. Burnell Sheshagiri Shastri 33.12; 10 nl. 3.nl; tho Dikebita school 48 nl, Siddhanandi quoted by sakațāyans $33. The school of Panini $810 to 70.05. roview of its history Siddhantachaadrika by Nama- $41 ; three stages in its later hig. chapdrūsrama 102.10; its comtory 56:11. Chandra school $42 montaries 102-131f; the author's to $46; its branching off from own abridgment of it called the Paniniga school 56.27; its Lagbu-Siddlūntucliandika with later history $46;, why dis. com. 102.19IF. appeared from India 61.28ff. Sidalintakaumudi of Bhattoji Tho Jaineadra school $47–550 ; modelled upon Kaniachandra'd its later, lüstory $50. The Prakriyūkaurudi 45 10 ; inschool of Śūkatīyana 851-855; its portance of the Siddhantakaulater history $65. Early secta. mudi 831 ; its presumed indebtedrian rcliools $$42-62. Rise of ness to Hemachandra's Sabdan. popular schools of gratDiar $Tsana 46.22 ; author's own com. 56.34; $03-$80. Hemacliandra on it in two recensions 47.7ff ; school $86-962 ; its later bistory com. Tattva bortbini by Joanen- $62 ; Puuited influence 80-22. drasarasvati 47.25, with a supile Kütantra school 563-972; its pleincnt by Jayakrishma 48.4 ; early liistory $67; its history com.on it by Nayojibhatta 19.15; in Bengal g71 ; in Kasmir $72. its abridgınents $34 ; its relation The Sitragvatá school 973-$80 ; to the Haimakaunmdi 79-211 ; general review of its history $80. 109.3. rbe school of Bopadova 8981-85; Siddhāptaratna by Jinendu alias its later history $84. The Jaumara Jinaratna 102.27. school $8G-29 ; its present status Siddharīja, sce Jayasiri ha. $89. The Saupadma school Siddhasenil quoted by Pujyapada $$90-94; its present status $94. GG:n2; not a grammarian at all Later secturian ecliools $95-507. according to Hemachandra 66.22. Scythian invasions as affecting de Śikshā (of Panini) not a very anvelopment of Sanskrit 34.20 ; cient work 27.12; 2 etanza from the people not unknown to Indians it found in tbo Mababliūsliya Leforo Alexander's invasion 27.15, 27.05; the same con. 15.33; 17-32; their first king incnted upon by. Blart;ibari Dcioces 18.1. 27.n5 ; and quoted by Kumarila Sectarian schools, early 8842-62 ; 27.n5, 60-300 · later $895-97. Silabāra 67-4. Senaka nicntioned by Panini 12.02. Scsha-Krislına author of Prakās'a Singarour, see Śringarerapura. Sīradeva's treatiee on paribhashab on Ramachandra's Prakriyakau. mud: 45.25; personal details quoted in the Madhaviya.Dbātuabout him 45.2717 ; tlie precep. vritti 55.6. tor of Blattoji 46.3, who is hois. Śisbyalekha, poem by Cbapdraevor not grateful to his memory gomin (2) 61.6. 46.29; his date cir. 1600 A. D. śišupalavadha 27-23. 46.4; Jagannātha bis son's pupii śisuprabodha by Puñjarāja 97-8. 472, 48.nl. Śiva sevealed the pratyāhāra būtras Seglia.Nrisimhasūri father of Sesha Panini 19.13 ; 23:18 ; 83-6 ; Krishna 45.26. (=vowels) 114.22. Sesliarāja, see Patanjali. . Siyabhatta father of Nāgojibhatta Seshagarinau's com. on the Pari. 49:34. blashondusekhara 55.9. Śivananda 51.10.

·144 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar Śivarāma Chakravarti writes subcom, to ŚrIpati's supplement to Katantra 90.21. Siwairāj alias Sūrasinha of Jodha. pur 80.1f, 80.nl. Skandagupta 58.27. Sloka-vārtikas, their number 31-23; their authorship discussed 31.n11. Smith, Vincent, Early History of India, 17.5 ; 17:16 ; 82.03 ; 91.01. Somachandra, second name of Hcmachandra 74.12. Somadova's version of Taipendra 65.18; his Sabdūrņavachandrikā 65.19, 67.2 ; his version earlier and truer 65.21ff, 65•n2 ; personal details about him 67.2ft. Spooches, contact of differcnt, as influencing study of grammar 2.21. Splošīyana mentioned by Pīņini 12.n2. Śrnuta-gūtras of Katyayana 29.nd. Śrāvana Belgoļa 39.n1 ; 71.n1. Sredatta quoted logo Pújrapula 66.2. Sriciatta grandfather of Padmauībhadatta 111.5. Śridhara Chakravarti's coin, ou the Saupadma 112.13. Śrikantbacbarita by Muñklın 84.22. Śrimāla family 96-33. Sringarerapura 50-1. Śripnti's suppluinent to the liatantra 90:18; sub-commentarios on it 90.20f ; further supplenient to the supplement 90-24. Sripati grandfather of Padmanīta bhadatta 111.7. Śrfranga teacher of Madhava 98.20. Srifeelin, scc Patañjali. Srirallubla-vīclamacharya's coni. llenuachandra's Lingänusu- Rann 79.2811. Śrutapāla quoted by Iemachandra 76.n2 ; also in the Amoghayritti 76.12. Sthanlarlativi mentioned in the Nirukta G.ni. Sthavira-Jinondra, scc Jinendra buddhi. Sthiramati, translator of Cländra Lests in Tibetan languago 61•19. Subandhu 13.22 ; 14.1. Subhashitävali of Vallabhadeva quotes Panini the poet 13.7, 13.n3. Subodhika, Amritablārati's. com. on the Sarasvataprakriyā 97.14; also ascribed to Visvešvarībdhi, to Satyaprab. dhablaţtūraka, otc. 97-1711. Subodhika or Dip kū by Chandrakirti rith an inportant pras'asti at tlie cud 98.7ff. Subodhinī of Sadananda 102.14f. Subodhini loy Gopālagiri on Vijjalabhūpati's Prabodhaprakiss 115.30. Sucursalna un alias of Haradatta 40.nl. Sudhñlaharī, com. on, hy Nāgesa 49.7. Sūrasiniha alias Siwairīj of Jodhapur S0•1f; 80'111. Sūtra-forın not new to Pūnini 13.nl ; possibly clue to scarcity of writing material 23.6. Srapna-Viisavacattun of Blisa 13.28. Syādisamuchchaya of Amarachan. dra 80.10f. i T Taitiki montiouod in Tho Nirukia 8.nl. Taittiriya Aranyaka, 4.12. Taittiriyil Sanhita, gramintival spcculations in 2.2; speaks of lodra as the firsl of grauinarians 10-24, 10.n4. Takakusu 64.20. Tantra-Tārtika 2.n1; 27.11. Tīrīnathil, his account about to Aindra school 10-17. Tarangini, Horshakirli's com. on luis own Dhātupatha for Sarasrata 103.9. Tarkasangraha 50.23. Tarkatilakabhattichirya's com. on the Siragvata 102.22 ; his dato 102.26. OR ·Gencral Index 145 U Tattrelodbint bs Jóābendragarage vati, & con. on Siddhāntakau. mudi 47.25; supplemented by Jarakțiahna 48:4; ils naturo 48-21, and date 48.8. Tettveclnndra. Jaganta's abridy. ment of the Prakriyakaumudi 51.nl. Tattvadipika by Lokesakara 102.15. Tattvārtharājasīruika 63.ni. Technical devices used by l'aņini $13. Technical ternis (Sanjias) of primi. live Pratisaklıyas 5.13;irlentified with thogn of Aindra school by Dr. Barnell 5.n2; -- of Yonka and Pāṇini compared G .; prc. Paniniya -- not all necessarily of the Aindra school 11.25; those of Katyāyana not always i he samo ay thugo of Panini 30-24ff; of Devanandi 66-5, G6-nl; of śika. tTyana 71.85; of the Katantra 86-26; of the Sarasvata 94.6, 94.11f; of later sectarian schools 106-16 ; of Bopadeva 106-20, 106.n2 ; of Sampdma, aame 28 of Panini 111.20, 1122ff ; of the Ilarinimmrita 113-23ff; of Pre. bodliaprakala 114.22ff. Tibetan truosiations of Chindra treatises 58.11 ; 61-18 ; of the Kalap:-Dhatūsūtra 90-5. Toda 102 n2. Tolkappiyain, the Temil grainmar, full of Aindra terminology 11:3, 82.12 : read in tho Pandya King's assembly 11-4 ; is closely related to Katantra 'to Kachchyana's Pali grammar, and to the Pratiga khyls 11-7. Trikándasegha 111.n2. Trilochans (not = Trilochanades author of the Uttarapariţishta to Śtipati's supplement to Katantra 90.22€. Trilochanadada quoted by Vitthala. charys 45-19: lus Katantravritti. pañjika 89.1ff ; quoted by Bopa. deva and Vitthala 89.2f; per. sonal details about lim 89-5f; kubcom. on his work 89.7ff, 19-16; distinct from the author of the Kitantrottarsparisista quoted by Kaviraja 90-14 ; differ ent from Trilochans 90.29. 19 (St. Gr.) Udayachandra uuthor of an exten. fire Nyuga on He machundru's Brihadvritti 79.2, 79.nl ; Lelongs to Chandragachilia 78.33. Udayana or Uddana court pandit of l'ratāparudra 101.11. Udayasaubhagya unthor of the pluindlika un tlo Prakrit chap. ier of Hen aclandra's Briladvşitti 78.25. Udayasing of Vdepur 93.13. Uddata, sce Udnyana. Uddycta, see Nubiblishyapradipod dyofa. Udyîna saice as Yusufzni valley 19.3. Ugrabhūti author of Nyūgu on JA- Laddlara's Būla bodhin 91.14 : his probabile identification wittı he namesake of cir. 1000 A. D. 91.18. Ugrabhali teacher of Anundapila and probally thin ramo as the author of tho Ny18a 91.15. Ujjraladatta's rriti on Piņinisu Uņādieütras 54.11; edited by Aufrecht 54.12 ; quotes carlier vrittis 54.14; mentions Chandra- Liñgūnusteapa 60-20 ; quoted by Padinanabludatta 111:13, 111.n2; 112.29. Unūdikoa (to slugdha bodlia) by Rimatarkavägisa 168.22. Uņālipātha $3y, se Untriigūtrug. Uņādigūtras of Panini 21.31 ; coninonly ascribed to tinatayani 25.246, 25.n4; their technical terms and annbandbas saine us Panini's 26.10 ; probably regard. ed as Panini's by Katyāyanu 26:18, 26-nl ; not all belonging to Pāņini 26-23; probably revised Ly Katyāyana 26-27; tradi tionally agsigned to Vararuchi alias Katyayana 27.0; Panini's Uņādi gūt'es absorbeel by other schools 54.8; Ujjvaladatta's vritti on them 54.11;other commentators 54.14ff ; Chindra Uñadi 60-10, its mode of presentation 60-14; that of Sākatāyana 71.15; of Ele. machandra 77.23, with vivarana or vritti on it 77.31 ; of Katantra in tso recensions: that of Durga. 89.nl ;

·146 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar siinha 90.1, and that current in Kiśmir 85.n2; nne for Saras- Pata 94.29, 103.8 ; of Goy china rira 110-14; of ladinanabludatta the founder of Saupadmu 112.19. Unadivritti (Sampedimu) of Pumanibhidatta 119.24 ; its arrange. ment 112-25ff. Upadesamtläkarnika of Lakshinsvallabhat 63.3. Upadhyāya quoted by Itcmachan. drn 76.n2 ; sec Kaiyyata. Upala quoted by Heinachandra 76•n?. Upasusgavritti of Chandragomin 60.12; found in Tibetan version only 60.26. Virañgala 101.9. V Śüknlya 31.md. Võjusaucyi Sazhitz 29.14. Vajratil 42.13. Vikyapadiyu account of viciesitues in the Mahblutshya text 13.26, 1:3•114, 33.5 41.15; states that Mabiblashıya was i Sunndary' of Vyidi's Suñgralı 33:9; mentions Buiji and others. 35•n) ; luy Blartrihari $27 ; its nature 11.1111; gives the earliest reference to Chandra aud menrions his predocessors 41•1911, 57-20; 42.n3 ; 56.23: 59.nl. Vallabhadeva in the Sublāsliti. vali quotes Pāņini tho poct 13 7. Vilniki-Rīīmāyana, commentary on, by Nñgesa 49.6. Vāmana, one of the authors of the Kūsiki 35:12, 36.8, : his contribution to the Kisikit distinguished from that of Jayaditya 36-4, 3G.nl ; minister of Jayapida of Kamīr, sometimes idenlified with Jayāditya 36:21; quotod by Viţthulīchūrya 45-20: identified with the outlior of a Liñgūnusāsana 54.2, quoted by Hemachandru 76-02 ; and by Bhattoji 107.9 ; sce Jiyditya. Vīmanichirya author of a Liñganusāsana 53.28 ; identified with author of the Kasika 54.2 ; earlier writers mentioned by bin 53-30f ; mentions Chandra Lin. gānnsīsanu 60.20. Vümanendra-sarasvati 47.26. Vannsīvadana's com. on Goyichandra's yritti 110-20. Vanamīli's Kalapavyakaraņotpattiprastava 82-n2. Varndarīja author of. abridgments of the Siddhantakaumudi 51.4 ; 62-21 ; 104.11. Vāranāraneša author of Aniritasriti, a com. on the Prakriyakaumudi 46.nl. Varnruchi (alias Kītyāyana) said to bave been at first a follower of the Aindra school 10-15; mentioned by Vimalasarasvati as, author of the Uņādisūtras 27.nl, 27-6; 1111n1; 53:24; 53-30; 53.n2 85.nl ; credited with authorship of the Katantra-britprakarana Vädava inentioned by Patanjali 31.010. Vidirīja alins Juyngiulia II, follow-student of Daylipain 72:24, and a Chalukya emperor 72-25. Vahada father of Mandana and brother of the minister Padama 99.7. Vaidya community of Beogrl 15 Producing many writers on Katantra 10.25. Vaidyanathi l'âyngunda, pupil of Nagesa 48.nl ; comments upon Sabda-kaustubha 47.23; his works $32, 50-317, 55.9 ; personal details about lim 50.5ff. Vaishnava grammars 113.15, 11.4.3; now current only in Bengal 114.9. Viiyakaranas, mentioned in the Nirakta 8 ul. Vaiyakaranasiddhantabhushana of Kondabhatta 48.nl, 48.14, 55.24; com. on it hy Nāgesa 55.26. Vriyakaranagiðdbantamañjūshū of Nāgesa 49.20 ; a com. on it by Vaidyanatha, called Kala 50.14. Vaijapyāyana mentioved by Katycyada 31.05. Vtijasaneyi Pratiśükhya, the first grammatical work of Kutyayana 29.11 ; posterior to and based upon Panini 29.n2 ; some of its rules repeated in an emended form as vērtikas 30.5, 30.nl ; re. fers 'to Sákatāyapa: 31.03, and: .

·General Indor 147 84.20, 87.23, with a com. on the ramo 3.n1. Vardha u Ina Antlior of Ganurat. nainaholaihi 52.12; quole, Koht. Tugrimin 02:4; his datr 63.15. 68.nl ; not in as the author of Kitantravistara 65.2017. Vardhaming author of Katantra. vistara 89.20 ; qnoted by: Bopa. dera 59-23; lis prolalle date 89..!; distinct from author of Genarainamalındarihi 88.04; 89.4. Virnaputing of Chandragomin 60-13, 60-29, 6C 12, Appendix i. Varsha, taid to be the icsclier of Panini 19.11. Varsliyaganya an alias of ldvarse krishna Glof. Värshy Tyoni mentioned in the Nir. ukla 8 nl. Vartikna of Katyayana 14.5: their number 30.1 ; xom— AD cincnd. d statement et l'ajaranryi l'rs. tidakuss rules 30-5, 30-nl ; roko and mctrical - 30.15. Vanikokora quoted by IIcmacuan. dr 76•n2; «c Katy Tyana. VārtikakTras Llore Katy Iyant eg. pecially, tlic Sloka-virukakaras 28-4; the question about the nutlorabip of these last, discussed 31.n11;-after Katriyana31-201, 31.010. Varrradattı, an akhytyiko men. tioned in the Mahabhanlıya 13:20. Varudernbhatta's Sarasvainprasida 98.240f ; liis date 98.26, 98.02. Vasurata preceptor of Bbertritari and disciple of Chandra 59.1. VatayTyana quotes Gonurdiya and Goņikuputra 33-4. Viyadagachchlia 80-9. Vedangas, 6.01 ; 12 n2. Vedas, grammatical speculations in, $2; Arrtic llome in the collected into family. books 4.9 ; G.nl ; ligte of dificult words from them collected 8.7; natnre aud utility of their etudy 8.17. Vedic Gods, their names 6-9; their cosmological functio 8.18. Vent mother of Vaidyanatha 50-6. Vidvatprabodhint or Rimabliaçit of Nānabbatts 101.3; the mapy pras'astis embodied in it 101.57; 101.2411. Vidyaragisa quotes Durg Td.19A 107.32 Vidyarinoun, failier of Nyiya pariclinana 110-17. Vijay:nonde tracher of llansavijıini 100-29. Vijjala-bhapatik Prabodhachandriks 115.2211; personal details About lim 115.271. Vikrama, father of Vijjala-bhüpati 115-17. Vikinazđity111:01. Vimalasarasvati mentiods Vnraruchi alias KitsTvAnd as author of Unidistitros 27.2; 27-01; anthor of Kapantla 44.2; lis date 44.5; 41.nl ; quoted by Amritabharati 44.nl. Vintyskn, father of Haglunnatha 10.3.4. ViDayanındara, leaclier of logba. ratna 99.15. Vinayavijayagani author of Ilaima. laglaprakriya 79.12 ; pupil of Kinivijayagani 79.13 ; his date 79.13, 92. Vincent Smith, Early Ilistory of India, 17-5 ; 17.16. Virenvara, preceptor of Jagannatlia 47.nl, and son of Seshkrislını 48.01. Vishemt by Nigoj bašta, a com. on Blaftoji's Sabda-kaustubha 49.18. Visliņumidra's com. Saupadmanakaranda 112.16. Visliņu.puraņa 16.7. Vibrantavidyadhara quoted by IIeniachandra 70-n2. Vigvakarma, author of Vyakriti, a com. on Prakriyakaumudi 4G.n1. Vigyaprakisa 111.02. Vibreśvara-dikshita, sce Blandiksbita. Visvesvarabdhi 97.17. Vitthala, com. on Sārasvata, quotes Trilochapadisa 89-2. Vitthalachirya author of Prasīda the best com, on the Prakriya. kaumudi 45•14, 45'02 ; bis date 45.16; disparaged by Bhattoji 45:17; the authors quoted by bin 45.19ff ; personal details 3•12 ;

·148 Systeins of Sanskrit Grammar about him 45.21ff; quotes Naren Yabahkirti 64:02 drācharya 95.24. Yusuḥpāla writes the drama Moha- Vivarana of Isvarānanda, a coin. rāja-parajaya 75.11. on Mahābhūshyapradipa 43-3, Yūska, predecessors of, $5; he knew Vivaranu of Narnyana, a com. on fourfold classification of words: Mahābhāshyapradīpa 43-3. 5.19; 8.25; shows Pūņipi in mak-: Vivarana on Hemachandra's Liñgaing 5.19, as primitive Pratiśckh. musasana and on Uņādisūtrás yas show Yūska in making 5.19; 77.31ff Ya-ka, mainiy, a philologist 5:26; Vrittisūtra mentioned by Itsing and forms' link between primitivo perhaps samo as the Kasiki Prātiśākhyas and Paņini 5.28 ; 35•20, 35•n2. calls his work complement to Vyādi said to havo been at first a grainmar 5.n3 ; his Nirukta, its follower of the Aindra school date 86 ; his account of course 10.16 ; said to be a contemporary of developinent of Vedic studies of Panini 19.10 ;. commonly re 6.nl ; mentions. three periods garded author of the Pari blūshūs of Vedic studies 6n1 ; his data 27.20 ; comes between Pāṇini depending upon that of Pāņiai and Patañjali 27.21 ; mentioned 6.14 : his technical terms comiby Katyāyana 31'n6 ; author of pared with those of Panini 6.n2; the Sañgraha 31•18. 31•n9; men Yaska comes belween 800 to 700 tioned by Vānanīcharya 53:30, before Christ 7.5; objections to 53.n2. his being placed before Pūnini Vyūkaraņadurghatodghata by Ke considered 7.6ff; nature of his. savudeva 110 n3. Nirikta 37 ;. teachers and schools Vyākhyāna-prakriya 82.1. mentioned by him 8•ul; lis theory Vyakriti by Viśvakurman, coin. on that every noun is derived froni the Prakriyūkaumudi 46.nl. verbal root 9.1, being basis for Pūņini and postulate of inodern philology 9:4; Yūrka's suicoes- Weber on Pāņini's date 14.3; his 8:18 Ş8 ; 9.n2 ; 12.5; 12.n2 ; he History of Indian literature 82.7. preceded Pāṇini 14.13 ; -made Westergaard's Radices Linguæ posterior to Pūņini hy Pandit sanscritæ 25. n3. Satyavrata Sūnasrami 14.17;56.4. Wilkin's Sanskrit Grammar 104.18. Yasobhadra quoted by Pūjyapūdu Writing, art of, when introduced 66•n2. 4.26: presupposed by the princi- Yasodharma 58.29. live Prātisakhyas 4.30. Yasonandı 64.n2,- X, Y, Z Yavanas mentioned hy Panini 15-13; Yadavas of Devagiri 104.32, 105.3. not always to be identified with Yajnuvalkya looked upon hy Kat Ionian Greeks 15:23; Panini's yāyana as a very arcient writer knowledge of them less than that 27.01. of Katyāyana 16:23;16:33; 18.12; Yājaikas mentioned in the Nirukta 18:22 ; Menunder, called Yayana 8.nl. 32.23. Yajurvedasamhita-bbāshya 42:13. Yogavibhāga 37.25, 37:31 ; 39.n1. Yajus, Krisņa, Samhita anterior to Panipi 14.12. Yusufzni valley 19.2; kuown as. Yakshavarman's com. called Chin Udyāna in the days of Hiuen tīmaņi on Śákatāyana Sabdānu-, Tsang 19.3. Sueana 72.2.

·BRIKITA
l'afe 1, liar K-for calolation rend calculation.
l'art A, noir in tlir lint add :, and 78,1
l'agrlitin - for commentary rend commentary.
Pane 27, lite t-for easly contarire rrad eighill cealury.
l'agro?, liton - for ato read is.
I'mir 31, line in for aliridermierile rond abridgmutila.
I'mxn Co. Jinr 3-M is rrod gram,
l'age 61. line 1- for 105 rend $:.
l'age 67, line for 750 rrad 1950,
l'agons, noto colama b, lino:-for ITi rengirror.
l'age 100. line (for Dlanendra read Kshomaandra.
.. A few tecte mlipsialı (especially regarding dia-ritical toasha) bare
Uplotensiely cest in, bu kote not been here indicated