English
The emendation which I proposed in mj edition of the ^kalu- pr&tis&khya, requires the admission of a so-called ij&dipiira^a in ivadi. 140 FKinslKlirAS* the Chftiurftdhydyikll, i. 1. 8.^ The gr£[mtnaticl ter- minology of this little tract is far in advance of the technical terms used by Saunaka. Yet there is a cer^ tain connection between the two books, and it is most likely that the author of the Ch&tur&dhyftyika was a member of the j^aunaktya-charana, founded by the fkuthor of the j^dkala-pr&tisdkhya. Nay it seems as if its author had retained something of the allegiance which daunaka owed to i^Hkalya and the l§d,kalas. In one instance, where Panini quotes the opinions of l§&kalya, the original is found in the Chllturftdhy&yik&y and not in the j^drkala-pr&tifi&khya. We are told by Pdnini, that l§&kalya pronounced the o of the voca- tive to be unchangeable (pragrihya), if followed by the particle iii,^ Exactly the same rule, and in the very same words, is given in the Atharvana-prati- 6&khya^, whereas the S&kala-pr&tiS&khya teaches first, that the o of the vocative is pragrihya (i, 69)*; se- condly, that it is liable to certain changes (i. 132, 135) ; and lastly, that all pragrihya vowels are un- changeable, if followed by iti (i. 165). In none of these Siitras do we find the exact words which P&nini quotes, and which are found in the Atharvana-pr£tti- Mkhya. Again, P&nini (viii. 3, 19.) ascribes the dropping of y and v in vishna iha instead of viahnav iha, in hara ehi instead of haray ehi^ to l^&kalya. Now it is true that this process is not unknown in the $dkala-pr&ti^khya, but it there assumes quite a dif- 1 The quotation refers to ^kala-pr. i. 114. 1. 1. 16. ^^^ njv^^ftnm^n 1- 3. 19. ■^H4inidfiliHc|lH^|| * 1. 69. ^*K sii^iHid^; irs^: i fbAti^Akhyas. 141 ferent aspect (i. 129. 132. 135) ; whereas, in the Chft- turftdhy&yik& the explanation is very much the same as in P&nini.^ P&nini quotes in the same place (viii. 3. 18.) the spelling adopted in these cases by Sftkata- yana.^ This is mentioned likewise in immediate con* section with the rules which precede it in the Athar-* vana-prfttifid>kbya ; it is not mentioned at all in thel§&^ kala-pr&ti6ftkhya. It has been supposed^ that a rule, which in E&ty&yana's Pr&ti6&khya is ascribed to l§Au^ naka, was taken from the Chfttur&dhyftyikll, and that therefore Elltyd.yana'8 Pr&ti8d.khya was later than that of the Atharva-veda. But the rule ascribed to l^aunaka by E&ty&yana is, that a final tenuis, if followed by a sibilant of a different dasSj is changed into the aspirate, whereas according to the Chlltur&dhylLyikll (11. 1.6.) a tenuis, followed by a sibilant of its own class, would have to be aspirated.^ It must be admitted, however, that no such rule as that ascribed by Klltydryana to Saunaka is found in the I§£lkala-prd,ti6llkhya, and, in other respects, the Pr&tis&khya of K&ty&yana shows traces of more modem origin than the Chlltur&- dhyftyik£L iL 1. 21. %i<nn€)i; tn[t?i^:B m t^t ^m?:B H- 1. 22. iTRFnowTT^B ^snnf^il ^ i- 23. Jt^x ^ ^^Cpir Tf^ ^H Forms like nbli& u, instead of ubh&y a, sanc- tioned by the 6akala-pr. L 129, would offend against the rule of the Atharvana-pr&tii^khja. > Indische Studien, iv. 249. * K&tyftjana would write ^ l|i|^ ^T^ f^TT^ ^1^1 *^® chatoriMihyayika, fTBi^ ^, f^^T^ a^n U2 VBirtBAKBYAS. The following list gives the names oT the principal authorities quoted in the Sllkala-prftti^khya, the Taittiriysrpr&tiil&khya, the £&tylL7antya-pdlti6&khyfty the €hlktur&dhylkyik&, the Nirukta, and P&ninL I have availed myself of the lists given by Roth, Weber, and Bohtlingk; and though I do not pretend that my own list b complete, it will be sufficient to show the active interest which was taken in grammatical subjects at that early period: — 1. Agnivefeya. T. 2. AgniveSylkyana. T. 3. Agr&yana. N. 4. Atreya. T. 6. Anyatareya. S. Ch. 6. Apifeali. P. 7. Abvarakas. T. 8. "Ckhya. T. 9. Uttamottariyas.(?)T. 10. Udichyas. P. 11. Audumbar&yana. N. 12. Aupamanyava. N. 13. Aupa&ivi. E. 14. Aurnav&bha. N. 15. K&ndam&yana. T. 16. K&nva. K. 17. K&tthakya. N. 18. £%apa. E. P. 19. Eaundinya. T. 20. Eautsa. N. 21. Eauhaltputra. T. 22. Eraushtuki. N. 23. G^rgya.' S. E. N. P. 24. Gftlava. K. P. 25. Gautama. T. 26. Charma^iras. N. 27. Chftkravarmana. P. 28. J&tukarnya. E. 29. Taitiki.*N. 30. Taittiriyakas. T. 31. Dalbhya. E. 32. Panch&las. |§. 33. Paushkaras&di. T. P. (vftrt.) 34. Pr&chyas. S. P. 35. Piakshi. T. 36. Pl&kshayana. T. 37. B&bhra^^a (Erama- krit). 8. 38. Bh&radvaja. T. P. . 39. M&ndiikeya. 6. 40. Mliiaktj&. T. 41. Mtm|,n8akas. T. 42. YAska. g. 43. Y&tabhikara. T. 44. VHtsapra. T. 45. Vatsya, Ch. (?) 46. y&rshyllyani. N. psAmikBTAS. 14S 47. y&lmiki. T. 56. 6fikalya-pitri (stW 48. Yedamitra. 6. vira). S. 49. Vyftli. d. 57. SlLnkhftyana. T. 50. SatabaUlksha Maud- 58. Saity&yana. T. galya. N. 59. Saunaka. 6 (?). K. 51. l§&katd.yana.d.E.Ch. Ch. N. P. €0. S&nkritya. T. 52. 6&kap{kni. N. 61. SenaJEa. P. 53. 6lLkaIa (p&dakrit). 6. 62. Sthaulashthivi. N. 54. ^ftkalas. I§. * 63. Sphot&yana. P. 55. 6&kalya. 6. E. P. 64. H&ilta. T. For the Sftma-veda no Prftti^khya has as yet been discovered. There is a small treatise which I found in the same manuscript of the Bodleian Library which contains the Taittiriya-pr&ti6&khya, and which might be called a Prftti^hya of the Sftma-veda. But it is. so badly written, and so unintelligible without a com- mentaiy, that little use can be made of it at present. It is called Sftma-tantra ^, and evidently treats of the same subjects which usually occur in the Prftti- It begins (MS. BodL W. 605.) i|(ftir^lJTO lif IB ^S^- wr:i ^IHprti ^^iWi ^s^i f%^i ^rrf^n ^^W^i f%?Wl ^?r9l WHt^^B ^1 TO! ^1 fWt?T- "VSfl l(<m f^^t^N ^- TProm my notes taken in the Boyal. Library of Berlin, I see that the same work exists there with a commentary (?) in 13 Prapathakas. ^HIHRI^ ^O^'^^t^^ ^8T7f?nnt^WPI 4||4i^^! I* The same work I find mentioned; 4^ , . Its autlienticlty is supported by the Charana -^liere a Sfitma-tantra. is mentioned, but wittiou r-fbher particiilars. ,. ;. be asked now why all these works, so dil i::Hn appearance, are to be ascribed to one perio ::-tture, the Stltra-period, the reasons for it at ^ws: first, that the stjle of the majority < ^^Drks is the old Sutra style, for instance, in tt ^^3^a-prati6&khya, the KAtyayanlya-prHtifeAkhyj Chatur&dhyAyik&i; secondly, that the lat s caU. these works SAtras; thirdly, thi n-ks, written in mixed 6lokas, like those < , are quoted as SAtras^ a title which woul 5 given to works like the Mllnava-dharm o. ; and fourthly, that the same men to who ^:yirKB are ascribed are known to have cor ^Ixer works, generally written in the style •,^l:>er'8 interesting article on tlie Sama-veda. (Indisc ^ 48.) It is curious that this Sdmatantra is called V3 p^mmar. The sanci^ name is also given to the R ^^all 6ik8h& trea^ifle, MS. SodL W. 375. This 'h^ .^eral small treatises on 6iksli& matters connected -w ^^V'eda, but more in t^© form of Parii&ishtas : one 4)t diviaion of words; aixotlier called simasankb] called Stobhanusanhfira, beginning with the wo Tie pit *^ ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^® chapters of the Taittiri iB *' iti priLti&atoya-siitre prathamah praiSnah sam&pi -^ishya, in bis Commentary on the Anukramani, e '^ erst composed a Kalpars^tra, consisting of lOOO pj ^as afterwards destroyed by himself; but his ^yicB, which are written in verse, are equally ca -^ng' S&tras^ PRATISAKHYAS. 145 SAtras. That the PratiS&khya of the S&kalas should be written in Slokas and yet be ascribed to Saunaka, the teacher of K&tyd.yana, is no objection. It would have to be excluded from the Sfttra period, if written in regular Anushtubh41okas like those of Manu. But the mixture of the Sloka with other ancient metres indicates better than anything else the trans- ition from one period to another, and is quite in ac- cordance with that position which, as will be seen, Saunaka occupies in the literary history of India. By comparing Saunaka's chapters on iSikshfi, in his first Pr&ti&&khya with the small Sloka compilation which is generally quoted as the Ved&nga, the dif- ference of old and modern Slokas will at once be perceived. This modern tract which has been printed in India, contains scarcely more than the matter of the Siva or Samkara-sAtras brought into Slokas.