English
I was particularly anxious for a translation of I-tsing’s work ; and as far back as 18801 I expressed a hope that the Record of that great Chinese traveller’s stay in India would soon be rendered accessible to us in an English translation. Some of the contents of his book became known to me through one of my Japanese Buddhist pupils, Kasawara ; but he unfortunately died before he could finish his translation of the whole Record. From the fragments of his translation, however, I gathered some important facts, which were published first in the Academy, October 2, 1880, then in the Indian Antiquary’, and in the x LETTER FROM PROFESSOR F. MAX MULLER appendix to my ‘India, what can it teach us?’ under the title of Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature. ; From I[-tsing or from any of the Chinese travellers in India we must not expect any trustworthy information on the ancient literature of India. What they tell us, for instance, on the date of the birth of Buddha, is mere tradition, and cannot claim any independent value. It is interesting to know that the name of Pavini and his great Grammar were known to them, but what they say about-his age and circumstances does not help us much. All that is of importance on this subject has been collected and published by me in my edition of the Pratisdkhya, 1856, Nachtrage, pp. 12-15. The date of Pavini can be fixed hypothetically only. It has been pointed out that Pata#gali in his Mahabhashya speaks of Pushpamitra, and according to some MSS. of Kandragupta also. Aandragupta was the founder of the Maurya dynasty, Pushpamitra was the first of the dynasty which succeeded the Mauryas. As it seems that Pata#gali in one place implies the fall of the Mauryas, which happened in 178 B.C, it has been supposed that he must have lived about that time. And this date seemed to agree with the statement, contained in the Ragatarangizi (1148 4.D.), that his work, the Mahabhashya, was known in Kashmir under king Abhimanyu, that is, in the middle of the first century B.C. As there is a series of grammarians succeeding each other between Patafgali and Pawini, it was argued with some degree of plausibility that P4zini cannot have lived later than the fourth century B.c. But all this is constructive chronology only, and would have to yield as soon as anything more certain could be produced. It was quite right, therefore, that Professor Weber, of Berlin, should point out and lay stress on the fact that Pazini quotes an alphabet called Yavandéné which he (Weber) takes to mean Ionian or Greek. This alphabet, he argues, could not have been known before the invasion. of TO MR. J. TAKAKUSU. , xi Although Professor Boehtlingk maintains that writing, at least for monumental purposes, was known in India before the third century, he has produced no dated inscription to support his assertion, still less has he proved that this non-existent alphabet was called Vavanént We cannot deny the possibility that a knowledge of alphabetic writing may have reached India before the time of Alexander; nor need Yavandnt . have meant Ionian or Greek. No one has ever held that any one of the Indian alphabets was derived direct from the Greek letters such as they were at the time of Alexander. No writer of any authority has derived these Indian alphabets from any but a Semitic or Aramaic source. Even Semitic (Phenician) inscriptions before that of Eshmunezar at the end of the fifth century B.c. (fourth century, according to Maspero) are very scarce, 1 only know of that of Siloam about 700 B.c., and that of Mesha about goo B.c. Professor Weber’s argument cannot therefore be brushed away by a mere assertion. Still less could any scholar say that the existence of the ancient Vedic literature was impossible or inconceivable without a knowledge of alphabetic writing. Where the art of alphabetic writing is known and practised for literary purposes, no person on earth could conceal the fact, and I still challenge any scholar to produce any mention of writing in Indian literature before the supposed age of Pazini. To say that literature is impossible without alphabetic writing shows a want of acquaintance with Greek, Hebrew, Finnish, Estonian, Mordvinian, nay with Mexican literature. Why should all names for writing. paper, ink, stylus, letters, or books have been so carefully avoided if they had been in daily use? Besides, it is well known that the interval between the use of alphabetic writing for official or monumental purposes and its use for literature is very wide. Demand only creates supply, and a written literature would presuppose a reading public such as no one has yet claimed for the time of Homer, of Moses, of the authors of the Kalevala, of Kalevipoeg or of the popular and religious songs of Ugro-Finnish or ba xii LETTER FROM PROFESSOR F. MAX MULLER even Mexican races. To say that the art of writing was kept secret, that the Brahmans probably kept one copy only of cach work for themselves, learnt it by heart and taught it to their pupils, shows what imagination can do in order to escape from facts. The facts on which I base my negative vote are these :— The inscriptions of Asoka are still the earlicst inscriptions in India which can be dated, and the tentative character of the local alphabets in which they are written forms in my eyes a proof of the recent intro- duction of alphabetic writing in different parts of India. I see no reason to doubt the possibility that the Brahmans were acquainted with alpha- _ betic writing at an earlier time, and I should hail any discovery like that of Major Deane (if indeed they are Indian inscriptions) as an important addition to the history of the migrations of the Hieratic or so-called Phenician alphabet. But that is very different from asserting that writing was known, or must have been known, whether for monumental or literary purposes, before say 400 B.C. I have still to confess my ignorance of any book having been written on palm leaves or paper before the time of Vattagdmani (88-76 B.C.), or of any datable inscription before the time of Asoka. But though the works of Chinese pilgrims throw little light on the ancient literature, or even on what I called the Renaissance period up to 400 A,D., they have proved of great help to us in fixing the dates of Sanskrit writers whom they either knew personally or who had died not long before their times. I pointed this out in a paper on the Kasika- vrittit published in the Academy, October 2, 1880. Professor von Boehtlingk, in the introduction to his edition of Pazini’s Grammar (p. iv), referred the Kasiké-vvitti to about the eighth cen- tury A.D., on the supposition that VAmana, the author of the Kasika, 1 K4sika, a commentary on Paxini’s Grammatical Aphorisms, by Pandit VAmana and Gayaditya. dited by Pamdit Balasdstri (Benarcs, 1876, 1878). TO MR. J. TAKAKUSU. xiii was the same as the Vamana mentioned in the Chronicle of Kashmir (iv, 496). Kalhava Pardita, the author of that chronicle, after men- tioning the restoration of grammatical studies in Kasmira under Gayapida, and the introduction of Patafgali’s Mabdbhdashya, passes on to give a list of the names of other Iearned men at the king’s court, and he mentions more particularly Kshira (author of Avyaya-vritti and the Dhatutarangizt), Damodaragupta, Manoratha, Sankhadatta, Xataka, Sandhimat, and Vamana. This Vamana was supposed to have been the author of the Kasik4. There was nothing to support this conjecture, and Professor von Boehtlingk has himself surrendered it. Another conjecture was stated by Professor H. H. Wilson that the Vamana at the court of Gayapida was the same as VAmawza, the author of the Kavydlankara-vritti. But this Vamana quotes among other authors Kavirdga, the author of the Raghavapdzdaviya', who lived after 1000 A.D.2, while Gayapida died in 776 {or 786) A.D. ‘ Lastly Dr. Cappeller, the editor of the Kavydlaikara-vritti, after ascribing its author Vamana to the twelfth century, tried to identify him with Vamana, the author of the Kasika-v7itti. Professor Goldstiicker referred the grammarian Vamana to a period more recent than the thirteenth century. . Among later scholars Dr. Bihler.placed Vamana in the tenth, Burnell in the twelfth century, while Schonberg * showed that he was quoted by Kshemendra in the eleventh century. This will show the uncertainty of chronology even in the later history of Indian literature. And it will show at the same time the value of Chinese travellers such as I-tsing. I-tsing studied Sanskrit in India 1 Pathak in Indian Antiquary, 1883, p. 20, tries to ascribe the poem to Arya Srutakirti, Saka 1045. 2 Mr. Rice in his Karnata Authors (Journ. R. A. S., 1883, p. 298) fixes his date at 1170 A.D. 8 Schonberg, Kshemendra’s Kavikan¢habharana, p. 15, note. xiv. LETTER FROM PROFESSOR F. MAX MULLER before the end of the seventh century, and he knew the KAsika-vritti. © This book, which is a commentary on Pazini’s Sdtras, was really the work of two authors, Vamana and Gaydditya. It is sometimes ascribed to one, sometimes to the other; nay the two names have also been assigned to one and the same person. There was, however, a tradition which assigned certain portions of the Grammar to Vamana, and others to GayAditya4. I-tsing quotes the Vritti-sdtra as the work of Gaya- ditya. The name Vriétti-sttra is strange. We expect Sitra-vritti. But Bhartyzhari uses the same name®. I-tsing states that Gaydditya died not later than 661-662 A.D., that is, about ten years before his own arrival in India. It can thus be shown that what I-tsing calls a commentary on this work, or a Kirvi®, was meant for Pataf#gali’s Mahabhashya, as taught in I-tsing’s time, as a commentary on the Kasika arrangement of the Sitras of Pazini.