DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0059
Introduction
55
the commentary of Devendra. It is a rather large work, the
Berlin-Ms. containing 400 leaves of large size with 3—7 lines of
text. As far as I can judge, the commentary is an excellent piece
of work, especially as regards the purely explanatory matter; each
single verse of the niryukti — generally constituting the introduc-
tory part of the several chapters — as well as of the sutra itself,
is duly explained, and it is generally quite possible from the
words of the commentary to find out the exact structure of the
text followed by Santisuri. But not only so, for Santisuri diligently
collected and embodied in his commentary all the pathcintara's
and arthantara’s known to him; the pathantara’s are generally in-
troduced by the words pathanti ca, pathantaras ca or pcithantare
til1, and are also explained, at any rate in part. Consequently,
it seems quite clear that, in working out his commentary, Santi-
suri did not follow only one of his predecessors, but made a selec-
tion from all the materials he had available. Whether he also
derived from his predecessors his predilection for etymologizing
— of course etymologies of the well-known Hindu art, e. g.
grasate huddhyadln guncm iti grcimah2 &c. — is unknown to me;
it does not appear in the work of his disciple Devendra, and
we have perhaps here an individual predilection for grammatical
and etymological studies.
There is, however, one special feature which forms a most
striking difference between the work of Santisuri and that of his
successor Devendra, similar as the two scriptures are in all other
points. This difference occurs in the tales incorporated in the com-
mentaries, and has been already noticed by Leumann3. As far as
I have been able to see, there are relatively few passages in which
the same tale does not appear in the works of both authors; but
the difference is that, while Devendra gives us for the most part
very long and exhaustive stories, of which the best specimens
were selected for inclusion in Jacobi's well-known Maharastri-tales,
the identical story occupies perhaps in Santisuri’s work some two
or three lines, or at most and only in a very few instances extends
to a single page or somewhat more. Leumann thinks the reason
1 The pallia's belonging to the Nagcirjuriiya s have been dealt
with above, pp. 52 et seq.
3 Comm, on Uttar. II, 14.
3 WZKM. V, p. 113 sq.
55
the commentary of Devendra. It is a rather large work, the
Berlin-Ms. containing 400 leaves of large size with 3—7 lines of
text. As far as I can judge, the commentary is an excellent piece
of work, especially as regards the purely explanatory matter; each
single verse of the niryukti — generally constituting the introduc-
tory part of the several chapters — as well as of the sutra itself,
is duly explained, and it is generally quite possible from the
words of the commentary to find out the exact structure of the
text followed by Santisuri. But not only so, for Santisuri diligently
collected and embodied in his commentary all the pathcintara's
and arthantara’s known to him; the pathantara’s are generally in-
troduced by the words pathanti ca, pathantaras ca or pcithantare
til1, and are also explained, at any rate in part. Consequently,
it seems quite clear that, in working out his commentary, Santi-
suri did not follow only one of his predecessors, but made a selec-
tion from all the materials he had available. Whether he also
derived from his predecessors his predilection for etymologizing
— of course etymologies of the well-known Hindu art, e. g.
grasate huddhyadln guncm iti grcimah2 &c. — is unknown to me;
it does not appear in the work of his disciple Devendra, and
we have perhaps here an individual predilection for grammatical
and etymological studies.
There is, however, one special feature which forms a most
striking difference between the work of Santisuri and that of his
successor Devendra, similar as the two scriptures are in all other
points. This difference occurs in the tales incorporated in the com-
mentaries, and has been already noticed by Leumann3. As far as
I have been able to see, there are relatively few passages in which
the same tale does not appear in the works of both authors; but
the difference is that, while Devendra gives us for the most part
very long and exhaustive stories, of which the best specimens
were selected for inclusion in Jacobi's well-known Maharastri-tales,
the identical story occupies perhaps in Santisuri’s work some two
or three lines, or at most and only in a very few instances extends
to a single page or somewhat more. Leumann thinks the reason
1 The pallia's belonging to the Nagcirjuriiya s have been dealt
with above, pp. 52 et seq.
3 Comm, on Uttar. II, 14.
3 WZKM. V, p. 113 sq.