OM-ARHAM

[1] Since the date of this report I have, through the good offices of a friend and the kindness of the owner, procured this manuscript for a more careful examination. I find that the work is identical with what is known as Uvaṭa's Bhāṣya. But there is one peculiarity about the manuscript which is worth notice. The manuscript begins: — Śrīgaṇeśāya namah || Śrībhavānīsvargesvarāya namah || Śrīvedapuruṣāya namah || Parāvare Brahmaṇi. •••••• Śaunakaḥ || 2 || Aṣṭan Samānākṣarānyāditaḥ II Kimarthamidamārabhyate ||. At the end of this commentary follow the usnal rules relating to the modes of recitation of the words occurring in the verses of the Ṛigveda (called vikṛitis) and then this part of the manuscript ends as follows: — Samvat 1899 (1849?) pramādīsamvatsare āśvinaśukladaśamyāṃ Āṭhalopanāmaka-Ātmārātmabhaṭṭasuta-Gamgādhareṇa likhitam || || (Fol. 124b and 125a). Then follows in the same handwriting all the portion which is usually found as the introductory portion of Uvaṭa's Bhāṣya, viz., the portion from Sūtrabhāṣyakṛitaḥ down to iti Devamitrasūnu-Viṣṇumitrakṛite (tā ?) Prātiśākhyavargadvayavṛittirbhāṣyaparibhāṣārupeti samāptā ll And after that follow the words: — Śrībhavānīsvarge || || Samvat 1899 (1849?) Pramādīnāmābda Āśvinakrishṇadvādaśyāṁ samāpta || (Fol. 125a— 130a)

There is also another manuscript of Uvaṛa's Bhāṣya which begins in the same way, No. 1450 in Rajendralal Mitra’s “Notices”. But unfortunately, it goes down to only about the middle of the work and so the usual introductory portion does not occur in it at all.

On the strength of certain verses in what I have called the usual introductory portion it has been hitherto believed that Viṣṇumitra (according to Roth, Viṣṇuputra, which is probably an error in the manuscript) Kumāra composed a commentary on the Prātiśākhya and Uvaṭa adapted it. Roth however thinks (Litteratur and Geschichte des Weda, pp, 60-1) that Uvaṭa on account of his craving the indulgence of the experts and from another expression of his seems to feel diffident and that he would not do so if his work were to be merely the abridgement of another that he declares it to be. He therefore takes it that when Uvaṭa speaks of Viṣṇumitra being the original author of his commentary he simply wishes to represent the extent and worth of his work to be but small. Max Müller too (in his edition and translation into Grerman of the Prātiśākhya, p. 1, footnote) speaks of the modesty of Uvaṭa in wholly attributing to Viṣṇumitra the commentary on the first two vargas or ten verses of the first of the eighteen paṭalas.

I believe, however, that the manuscript I have described as well as some other circumstances point to a different conclusion. That manuscript and No. 1450 of Rajendralal Mitra’s “Notices” begin with the 11^th verse of the first Paṭala and the former gives the usual initial portion at the end separately. It is clear, therefore, that the two were often regarded as separate.

Besides, the usual practice of commentators of quoting the initial words (pratīka) of a passage in order to show that that is the passage about to be explained is followed in the case of the 11^th verse in both the parts: Saṃjñāsaṃjñisambandhārthamāha | ashṭau samānākṣaramityādi | (p. 16 of the Benares edition, the only edition of the commentary ever published but one most carelessly seen through the press) and tadarthamidamārabhyate | ashṭau samānākṣarāṇyāditaḥ | (p. 19, 1. 14:). This could never be were both the parts by the same author.

Again in the edition, at p. 16, after the words at the end of the introductory portion occur the words: ''Atha bhāṣyam," as if the preceding portion were no part of the Bhāṣya to follow. In the manūscript before me there could obviously be no occasion for these words, as the two parts are treated as quite distinct. Moreover, in the colophons at the end of the several paṭalas the work is spoken of as a Bhāṣya in all cases in the present manuscript and in most cases in the edition and never as a Vṛitti, as the commentary on the first ten verses of the first Paṭala is called.

Lastly, the purpose for which a Prātiśākhya is wanted is dwelt upon twice, once in each part, which would not have been the case, had both been by the same author.

For these various reasons I should be inclined to infer that the portion of the whole commentary, that goes by the name of Uvaṭa, which ends with the second varga of the first paṭala is really not a part of Uvaṭa's Bhāṣya but a fragment of a Vṛitti by Viṣṇumitra and that the rest only is Uvaṭa's Bhāṣya. Viṣṇumitra may have left his Vṛitti unfinished and Uvaṭa may have completed it by his Bhāṣhya or a fragment dealing with the first ten verses of the Prātiśākhya may be all that is left of Viṣṇumitra's Vṛitti.

The introductory verses, therefore, must and can be interpreted accordingly. In fact, Roth himself has suggested such an interpretation. The only serious objection against it that he has brought forward, viz, that the colophons of the several paṭalas refer to Uvaṭa being the author, vanishes when the two parts are regarded as of separate authorship.

It seems rather strange that out of modesty Uvaṭa should attribute only a slight fragment of his work to Viṣṇumitra, as Max Müller supposes.