126 Bemarhs hy Dr. Hoernle on Kachchaijana. [Aug., 



sense of " nominal base") occurred ; yet the work must be very much 

 older than the 10th century ; it had been revised and recast over and over 

 again, at various times, and in its latest revised form it was known to 

 Hema Chandra, who lived in the middle of the 12th century. This simply 

 showed that Chanda's grammar also belonged to the Aindra School. Col. 

 Fryer ascribed the composition of the Katantra grammar to the 10th cen- 

 tury, but it did not appear on what grounds. Like many other ancient 

 works, Kachchayana's grammar may have passed through revisions ; the 

 commentary to it, in which Col, Fryer had pointed to one striking agree- 

 ment with Durga Siniha's commentary on the Katantra, was not ascribed 

 to Kachchayana, but to Sanghanandi (as quoted by Dr. Burnell) ; and it 

 might be possible that the commentary or one of the revisions of the 

 grammar was made so late as the 12th century. Thus, while Kachchayana's 

 rule enjoined certain words (as divvate) to be spelled with v, in agreement 

 with the ancient practice of the Inscriptions, his commentator, after a 

 much later fashion, spells them with h {dibhate). The circumstance that 

 Kachchayana's grammar was not known to Buddhagosha had been satis- 

 factorily explained by Dr. Burnell in his work on the Aindra Grammarians. 



Col. Fryer's second argument was an historical one, but he (Dr. 

 Hoernle) could not quite understand how it precluded the traditional 

 ascription of the composition of the grammar in question to an Indian 

 Kachchayana. On the whole, he thought, therefore, that the question as 

 to the identity of Kachchayana must still be considered an open one. 



Col. Fryer still thought that the Pali of Ceylon and Burma was the 

 language of Buddha used in Magadha. But most Pali scholars were 

 now agreed that this was not so, though they were not quite agreed to 

 which exact locality in India it should be referred. The reasons against 

 Pali being Magadhi were very strong ; the exceptional (by no means 

 " common," as Col. Frjer said) occurrence of e for o — a fact not unknown 

 hitherto — was not at all decisive. 



The following note was subsequently received from Col. Fryer: — 



" According to Ariyavamsa — who in 1439 A. D. wrote Kachchayana 

 bheda tika — the commentator Sanghanandi and Kachchayana are the same 

 person, and the illustrations are ascribed by him to Brahmadatta : for he 

 says ' imani suttani mahakachchayanena katani, vutti ca sanghanandisan- 

 khatena mahakachchayanen' eva kata, payogo brahmadattena kato ti Vuttam 

 c'etam : — 



Kachchayanakato yogo vutti ca sanghanandino, payogo brahmadattena 

 nyaso vimalabuddhina [App. D'Alw. Introd. p. 104] 



Omitting the illustrations ' dibhate' &c. ascribed to Brahmadatta, 

 Kachchayana's rule, and Sanghanandi's comment thereon, singularly alike, 

 are subjoined : — 



