262 
R&jendral&la Mitra —On Gonilc&puira and Oonardiya. [No. 3, 
different. Certain it is that Patanjali has to give his opinion at an average 
once in every tenth line in the course of his elaborate exegesis of over 22,000 
lines of 32 letters each, and he always does so by the use of participles, 
such as jneyam “ it should be known,” kartavyam “ it should be done,” 
vaktavyam “ it should be said,” and by other devices, and not by naming 
himself in the third person. Sometimes, but not often, he appears under 
the £egis of the modern editorial dignity of the first person plural “ we,” 
(vayantu brumah, p. 15,) but never under the third person, nor under the 
name of Patanjali. The question therefore is not easily solved why he 
should have preferred the derivative and not-very-honorific Gonikaputra 
to his own personal name. I have not had an opportunity of lately reading 
the whole of the Mahabhashya with the special object of finding out how 
many times the word Gonikaputra has been used in it ; but in the first 
volume of the work as edited by Dr. Kielhorn and comprising about one- 
third of the entire text, this is the only instance, and its evidence leans 
heavily on the other side: at any rate it is certainly not conclusive. 
Of Gonardiya the internal evidence is even more unsatisfactory. It 
occurs twice in the volume above referred to, and in both places in such a 
dubious, misleading way as not to justify the conclusion arrived at. The 
first time I meet with it is in Sutra I, 1, 21. The question at issue there 
is, how should the rules referring to initial and final hitters apply to cases 
where there is an only letter in a word, and the Sutra lays down that the case 
is the same “ in solitaries as in initials and finals.”* This gives rise to a 
long discussion on the necessity, purport, and use of the rule, and Patanjali, 
after citing a number of vartikas, comes to the conclusion that the rule is not 
necessary.f He then cites a v&rtika which says, “ Initiality arid finality are 
effected in a solitary letter from the characteristics of its having nothing 
preceding and nothing following.” J Commenting on this, he continues, “ the 
character of having nothing preceding is initiality, and the character of 
having nothing following is finality ; this occurs also in solitarity, i. e., from 
the circumstance of the character of nothing preceding and nothing following 
(in a word of a single letter) the operations enjoined for initials and finals 
must take place in solitary letters, and there is no use in saying (as is done in 
the Sutra) “ in the same way as in initials and finals,”§ i. e., the solitary is 
by its very nature both initial and final, and there is no necessity in saying 
that the solitary is governed in the same way &c., and the aphorism is redun- 
* I 
^ I VrT^f^fq- V^frT I ^^TTJWWTi:- 
* 'i ^ ^ Os^ j 
