1883.] Eajendralala Mifcra —On Gonilcdputra and Gonardiya. 260 
ed among medieval Sanskrit grammarians, and their dicta in regard to 
the special subject of their study are received throughout India with the 
highest consideration, and without a single demur. It is extremely 
hazardous, therefore, for people in the present day to call their opinions into 
question, even when a very strong array of arguments may be brought forth 
against them. The question at issue, however, is not a grammatical, but 
an historical, one, and, however great they may have been as gramma¬ 
rians, they certainly were not very careful and critical in historical matters, 
and an error on their part in the identification of ancient authors is not 
such as would be impossible, or calculated to detract from their renown as 
grammarians. It is obvious, too, that the error in the case of Nagoji Bhatta 
who lived about 250 years ago, was one of mere copying. He was en¬ 
grossed with the grammatical questions he had to deal with, and never 
thought of enquiring into the authority of his predecessors regarding the 
identification of obscure names, a branch of study which seldom engaged 
their attention, and gross anachronisms in that respect were easily passed 
over. Certain it is that he has given us no clue to the identification of 
any one of the old names which occur in the Mahabhashya. The same may 
be said of Bhattoji Dikshita who preceded him by about two or three 
hundred years. He had Hemachandra’s Glossary before him and probably 
by heart, and that told him Gonardiya was another name for Patanjali, and 
straightway he adopted it, as for his purposes that was sufficient. Hema- 
chandra flourished in the eleventh century, and to him the authority of 
Ivaiyata was evidently quite sufficient. The original error rests, therefore, 
with Kaiyata, and Ivaiyata alone. If this error be not admitted, we have to 
fall on the second branch of the alternative and to believe that the Gonika- 
putra and the Gonardiya of Vatsyayana were different, and Patanjali had 
these two names as his aliases, which he used in his work in a very incon¬ 
sistent and absurd manner to indicate himself in the third person, though 
he never even for once used his individual personal name for such a 
purpose. Put in this form the first branch of the alternative is one which 
impartial criticism will accept as the right one. In support of this view 
I find a remarkable sentence in a paper published in the August number 
of the Indian Antiquary, p. 227, in which Hr. Kielhorn says, “ I hope 
elsewhere to show by the help of Bhartrihari’s commentary that later 
grammarians are wrong in identifying Gonardiya with Patanjali.” I re¬ 
gret I have not a copy of that commentary at hand to work out the 
problem for myself. Anyhow, for the present, I give up the inference 
drawn from the passages above quoted that Patanjali was the son of 
Gonika and a native of Gonarda. 
N N 
