266 
Rajendralala Mitra —On Gonikaputra and Gonardiya. [No. 3, 
of less repute are cited as belonging to the school of Bharadvaja,* or simply 
as “ other grammarians.”f And if Patanjali thought proper to cite these 
authorities, there is no & priori reason that he should not name Gonardiya 
or Gonikaputra. 
It might he said that we have nowhere seen Gonardiya and Gonikapu¬ 
tra cited as authors, and we assume the existence of authors who proba¬ 
bly never existed. Such a line of argument, however, is not admissible. 
When a trustworthy author quotes from an unknown author, we are bound 
to take for granted that the unknown author did exist, though his work 
ma} r have long since died out. We follow this principle in the case of 
S'akala and Vajapyayana, and there is no reason why we should not do so 
in that of Gonardiya. 
Nor is it necessary to depend on this logical principle in the present 
instance. In the Kama-sutra of Vatsyayana, there are the most incontesta¬ 
ble proofs in support of the assumption. A learned correspondent, Pandit 
Kamachandra, of Alwar, has lately drawn my attention to that work, and 
I find in it both Gonardiya and Gonikaputra cited several times as authori¬ 
ties whose opinions were worthy of the respect from the author of that 
work. Thus, I find in Chap. I, sec. 4 on the subject of wives : 
And further on, *T ^ 
Ao-ain, I 
O' Cv ’ 
Acrain, rf^HTq[ ifft JTT«T^fsp I 
° V» J . _ 
In section V, on unchaste women, cT^IT 
Sfrfw Tnmfl vfw i 
Again, in Chapter VI, on zenana women, ^ T% *f3"*TP9*T 2jrr5nr*T- 
frliT wr?r i 
Again, #f?T JTTfvnfTP?^-’ I 
Again, ^^FcffrWWIfiT JTTr^rT^: I 
^ vj 
None will, I venture to think, question, in the face of these quota¬ 
tions, the existence of Gonikaputra and Gonardiya as authors of repute ; 
hut it might he said that the quotations do not suffice to prove that the 
two were separate authors. It might he supposed that the one and the same 
* 1 P- 136 - 
Ditto, p. 201. 
Again, THUT vfarRT 1 V- 291 - 
t ^ I P. 87. 
