Oct. 4, 1872.]

THE DATE OF PATANJALI.

301

shows that it is not wanted, though out of re

the conclusion that Pushpamitra was the name

spect for the great Áchārya he does not distinctly

of a king.

say so, tells us that there are some siltras in which the rules given are applicable, –1, sometimes to the synonymes of the words,-2, sometimes to

Now we know that the most powerful king dom during a few centuries before Christ, the sovereigns of which extended their sway

the individuals comprised under the species de

over a large portion of India, was that of

noted by the words,-3, sometimes to the words alone, and, sometimes to any two of these three.

Magadha, the capital of which was Pātaliputra. And Patanjali so often speaks of this city in

In these cases some indicatory letters ought, he

his workf that we must infer that he had a

says, to be attached to the words to show to

great deal to do with Pātaliputra, and perhaps

which, or to which two, of the three categories the rule is to be applied. Then in such rules as II. 4, 23, which teaches that a Tatpurusha compound ending in the word sabhá (court or

lived there for some time, and that on that account

assembly) preceded by rājan (king) becomes neuter he tells us that j should be attached to

rājan and others, to show that the rule is appli cable only to the synonymes of Rájan and others, and not to rājan or others themselves, or to the individuals comprised under the species denoted by rājan and others. And the instances he gives to show that it is not applicable to indivi

the city and things concerning it were upper most in his thoughts. The Pushpamitra then that he speaks of in the two cases here pointed out, must have been king of Pātaliputra in his time. And the fact of his being mentioned along with Chandragupta in one of the two cases strengthens this inference. For Chandra

gupta the Maurya was king of Magadha, and there was no other Chandragupta till several centuries afterwards when the Gupta dynasty

dual rajás or kings are Pushpamitra-sabhá (the

came into power. Now looking into the Purānas we find that

assembly or court of Pushpamitra) and Chandra gupta-sabhá" (the assembly or court of Chandra gupta) in which we see that the compound

there was only one king of Magadha of the name of Pushpamitra, the founder of the Sunga dynasty, which succeeded the Mauryas.f He

is not neuter but feminine.

We thus come to

was the Commander-in-Chief of Brihadratha, the

• Patañjali ſãňāqā HāāH Târâul ſă ăr:

is represented as about to perform an As’vamedha sacrifice,

1. 1. 31: Hiſ ##### qāqāzārā Täät Hſi, f.i. Hiſ

could institute. In other authorities also it is Pushpamitra that appears as the conqueror or usurper and not his son. Pushpamitra therefore could not have been his son's general; nor does Kālidasa say he was. Agnimitra's com mander-in-chief was Virasena, to whom he is more than once represented in the play as issuing orders. 'I he words above quoted are to be thus interpreted. “A letter has been received from the lord Senapati (general), Pushpamitra” i. e. the genitive Devasya ought to be taken as an epithet of

1. 1. 1. 1 Tiſa&#1 Hurriàſhàºjī, that I far

alſº Hää a Hiſârſăghſ ###4IIf a H. Hål JºſhHänſ arrnggūſ + See amºngst others his comments on I-3-2, II-1-16, II-3-28, III-3-134, and 136 and W-3-57.

these, one of the examples given is

which none but kings who pretended to paramount supremacy

In the second of

Pushpamitra, and not as connected with or governed by

• Hiſi qfzſäjäg.

Senipati. Indeed the title Deva shows that Pushpamitra was king, for it is applied in the dramatic works to kings only, and there is even a rule to this effect (see Dr. Hall's Dasarupa, p. 109—Devah svāmiti nripatih). And

‘Pātaliputra was situated on the banks of the Sºona.' And I may say the Purānas do not mention an other king of the same name of any country whatever. The name Pushpamitra does occur elsewhere, but in that case there is no agreement among the Purānas. The Vishnu and the Vāyu make it the name of a dynasty, and according

of Pushpamitra, for he was the general of Brihadratha, the last Maurya king. And even in the Vishnu Purāa the opithet Senapati seems to have been applied to him some

to the former it was a Båhlika or foreign dynasty. The

what in this way: “Tatah Pushpamitrah. Senapatih Svä

Senápati (general) must have become a distinguishing epithet

Bhāgavata only mentions it as the name of an individual, but this Purāna, from the manner in which it has corrupted

minam hatvá ràjyam karishyati.”

several names and some facts, is not much to be depended on. See Wilson, Wish. Pur. 1st edn. p. 478.

nor does it follow from this passage that Vidis'a was the capital of Pushpamitra but rather the opposite. For in the letter which he sends to Agnimitra, he invites the latter to come with his wife to be present at the Asvamedha sacrifice. If Vidis'a had been his capital, the sacrifice would have been performed at that city, and no such invi

This Pushpamitra is spoken of in the Mālavikāgnim tra of Kãlidasa. Prof. Wilson calls him a general, and Prof. Lassen the general of his son, who is represented in the drama as king of Vidis'a. Prof. Lassen, Ind. Alterthumsk.

(Vol. II. p. 271 and 346) is constrained however by other evidence to admit that he was king; but he thinks he reigned at Vidis'a, and that his son was co-regent with him. Prof. Wilson supposes that he usurped the throne for his son rather than for himself. But the first portion of the

sage on which they seem to base their conclusions is this :—Devasya

senāpateh

lekhah

Pushpamitrasya sakas'at práptah. Professor Lassen

The first two kings of

the Wala hi dynasty in Surāshtra, were called Senapatis ;

tation would have been necessary. It follows, therefore, that some other city was Pushpamitra's capital, and what other could it have been but Pātaliputra, the capital of the Mauryas whom he had supplanted, and which in the Bud histic account given by M. Burnouf is mentioned as his place of residence. Agnimitra his son may probably have been ap

pointed by him Governor or King of Vidis'a, while he him self reigned as supreme monarch at Pātaliputra: for the prac

has been received

tice of appointing sons to govern remote provinces existed

from Pushpamitra, the general of the lord (i. e. Agni mitra).” But who ever heard of a father being Commander

in the time of the Mauryas, May not Patanjali be alluding to this As' vamedha sacrifice in the instance quoted in

in-Chief to his son? And immediately after, Pushpamitra

the text?

understands this to mean “a

letter