Georg Bühler's Contribution to Indology 9781463240493, 146324049X

Citation preview

Georg Bühler’s Contribution to Indology

Harvard Oriental Series - Opera Minora

12

Series Editor Michael Witzel

The Opera Minora series of the century-old Harvard Oriental Series aims at the publication of important materials that cannot be included in the mainly text-oriented Harvard Oriental Series. Therefore, Opera Minora include the publication of seminal conferences, archeological reports, important dissertations, currently controversially discussed topics in Indology and South Asian studies, biographies of outstanding scholars, supporting materials such as linguistic or historical atlases or indexes of important works. 

Georg Bühler’s Contribution to Indology

Amruta Chintaman Natu

gp 2020

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2020 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

‫ܛ‬

1

2020

ISBN 978-1-4632-4049-3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available at the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................... vii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ ix Plates ......................................................................................................................... xi Chapter I. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1. Selection of the Topic ...................................................................................... 1 2. Primary Objectives and their Evolution .......................................................... 2 3. Survey of Literature on Bühler ....................................................................... 3 4. Methodology.................................................................................................. 5 5. Data Collection ............................................................................................... 5 6. Style ................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter II. Life and Work .......................................................................................... 9 1. Life .................................................................................................................. 9 2. Work.............................................................................................................. 23 Chapter III. Writings – A Brief Survey ...................................................................... 41 1. Dharmaśāstra ................................................................................................. 41 2. Sanskrit and Prakrit Grammar and Lexicography ......................................... 47 3. Catalogues of Manuscripts and Reports on Manuscript-search..................... 51 4. Poetic Literature ........................................................................................... 56 5. History and Geography ................................................................................ 59 6. Historical Poems .......................................................................................... 62 7. Epigraphy ..................................................................................................... 68 8. Palaeography and Numismatics ....................................................................85 9. Jaina Literature ............................................................................................. 94 10. Miscellaneous .............................................................................................. 96 Chapter IV. Insight and Investigation ..................................................................... 103 1. India and the Historical Consciousness ........................................................ 103 1.1. Approach towards Historical Kāvyas .........................................................106 1.2. Trust in the Tradition ................................................................................ 111 2. Tracing Ideas Back to the Context ............................................................... 116 3. Ethnographical Approach and Continuity in Culture .................................. 118 4. Synergistic Approach.................................................................................... 131 5. Against positive and emphatic conclusions on the basis of weak evidence ...140

v

vi

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Chapter V. Recapitulation ...................................................................................... 149 A Complete Classified List of the Writings of Georg Bühler .................................... 153 I. Independent Works ...................................................................................... 153 II. Works edited, superintended etc. ................................................................ 155 III. Essays, Reports, Lectures and Smaller Articles ........................................... 155 IV. Reviews and Notices ................................................................................. 170 Chronological Bibliography of Georg Bühler’s Works ............................................ 173 I. Independent Works ..................................................................................... 173 II. Essays, Reports, Lectures and Smaller Articles............................................ 175 III. Reviews and Notices ................................................................................. 196 IV. Bühler’s Handwritten Material ................................................................. 199 Writings on Georg Bühler ....................................................................................... 201 I. Bio- and Bibliographical ............................................................................... 201 II. Obituaries ................................................................................................... 201 General Bibliography ............................................................................................. 203 Books ............................................................................................................. 203 Articles ........................................................................................................... 208 Appendix I: Bühler’s writings on Aśokan inscriptions ............................................ 213 The Minor Rock Edict Sites ............................................................................ 213 The Major Rock Edict Sites............................................................................. 213 The Pillar Sites ................................................................................................ 213 The Cave Sites ................................................................................................. 214 Appendix II: Scheme of the “Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde” (Encyclopedia of Indo-Aryan Research)............................. 215 Band I. Allgemeines und Sprache .................................................................... 215 Band II. Litteratur und Geschichte ................................................................. 215 Band III. Religion, weltliche Wissenschaften und Kunst ................................ 216 Appendix III: Letters and Papers related to Georg Bühler ...................................... 217 Index ....................................................................................................................... 225

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Professor Michael Witzel kindly offered to publish the present work under the prestigious Harvard Oriental Series (Opera Minora). I extend my sincere gratitude towards him. This work is a revision of my dissertation for which the doctoral degree was awarded by the Savitribai Phule Pune University in April 2015. Thanks are due to the University authorities for granting permission for its publication. I express my sincere gratitude towards my PhD Supervisor Prof. G. U. Thite. I cannot thank him enough for his thought-provoking ideas on the subject. My father Chintaman Vasudev Natu, with his silent love and unassuming attitude, was my first teacher at home. Mother, Chhaya Natu, who has cheerfully maintained a ceasefire with cancer for the last two decades and a half, is a quintessential example of endurance and liveliness. Smt. Urmila Pawagi, my paternal aunt encouraged me to continue with my studies in Pune. The late Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar stood as inspiration behind this work. Prof. S. S. Bahulkar, then Honorary Secretary of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, has always cheered this work in his usual fashion. I also express my heartfelt gratitude towards Prof. Saroja Bhate, Dr. Lata and Prof. Mahesh Deokar for their encouragement. Among the Institutes which made this research possible, the foremost is my dear Bhandarkar Institute, where I ‘met’ Bühler first. I used the Library resources of the Institute extensively. Every member of the staff of the Institute was always helpful. A mention must be made of Shri Bhupal Patwardhan, Chairman, Executive Board, Prof. Sudheer Vaishampayan, Honorary Secretary, Bhandarkar Institute, and Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande, Member of the Board, for their goodwill. The Department of Sanskrit and Prakrit Languages, S. P. Pune University is my alma mater. The Head, Dr. Shailaja Katre, gave some useful suggestions. The Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth opened new academic avenues for me. The late Prof. Shripad Bhat, then Head of the Department of Sanskrit and Indological Studies, was always very kind. The Library of the Deccan College was very much useful. I am thankful to the Librarian Dr. Trupti More for her assistance. I also used resources of the Library of the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. Had I not received the Erasmus Mundus Experts II Scholarship, I would not have been able to get hold of most of the material I could include in this dissertation. Further, it was a great experience to study at Göttingen, where Bühler himself studied, and to visit Vienna where he worked during the last leg of his career. Prof. Thomas Oberlies, Director, Seminar for Indology and Tibetology, University of Göttingen, induced me to bring a paradigm-shift in this dissertation. Right from recommending my name for the Erasmus vii

viii

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Mundus scholarship to various practical arrangements for me in Vienna, Prof. Karin Preisendanz was always very kind to me. Dr. Sylvia Stapelfeldt too helped me a lot in Vienna. The people who were of great help, in one way or the other, while in Germany, are Dr. Ines Fornell, Dr. Reinhold Gruenendahl, Dr. Jon Keune, Frau Mund, Dr. Gabriele Zeller, Petra Szemacha and Dr. Ahmadudin Wais. In May 2018, through the efforts of Prof. Johannes Schneider of Munich I got to know about Mr. Martin Bühler, great grandson of Bühler’s brother, who lives in Friedrichshafen in Germany with his 90 years old mother. He enthusiastically supplied to me material from his personal ancestral document collection. I extend my deep sense of gratitude towards him and his family, and also towards Prof. Schneider. I am thankful to Prof. Jan Houben, one of the referees of this dissertation, for appreciating my efforts and giving important suggestions. He has remarked that at some places Bühler had become my personal hero. But that is due to my passion for the subject and there is no “śraddhā-jāḍya” or “prīti-jāḍya”. I am also grateful to Prof. Neelakandhan, the second referee of the dissertation, for encouraging me. I am immensely indebted to Prof. George Cardona for reading the dissertation meticulously and giving numerous valuable remarks and suggestions. I cannot thank enough Prof. Jürgen Hanneder, Prof. Kenneth Zysk and Dr. Dragomir Dimitrov who kindly offered to read the monograph and gave important suggestions. I am indebted to stalwarts, the indirect teachers of mine, Prof. Harry Falk, Prof. Patrick Olivelle and Shri G. B. Mehendale. My husband Yogesh Kulkarni, who willingly shares domestic responsibilities, induced and backed me to dedicate myself to the work. My close school-friend Ashwini Pathak and her husband Subodh stood by me in difficulties. Hemant Rajopadhye made my stay in Göttingen easy with his ever enthusiastic helping nature. Rucha Mulay and Nikhil Gadgil encouraged me to learn the German language. I am thankful to Shri Kaustubh Mudgal for laying out the photo-plates. Smt. Shyamala and Shri Laxman N. Bapat are like my local guardians in Pune. With their sheer love for education and research, they encouraged me like no one else. This piece of writing would be far from being complete without the mention of Sheetala and Dr. Shreenand L. Bapat, whose manifold support can never be fully acknowledged. Amruta Pune April 2020

ABBREVIATIONS ABORI Academy AKAW ASSI ASWI Athenaeum BJDN CII Digest

EpInd GOUGH Grundriss IA JASB JBBRAS JBBRAS (Proc.) JRAS ÖMO Proc. ASB SBE

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune The Academy: A Weekly Review of Literature, Science, and Art, London Anzeiger der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Classe, Wien Archaeological Survey of Southern India Archaeological Survey of Western India The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, London Biographisches Jahrbuch und Deutscher Nekrolog, (ed.) Anton BETTELHEIM Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum A Digest of Hindu Law. From the Replies of the Shastris in the several Courts of the Bombay Presidency. With an Introduction, Notes, and an Appendix. (Ed. Georg BÜHLER and Raymond WEST) Epigraphia Indica, ASI, Calcutta; Reprint, ASI, New Delhi, 1983 GOUGH, A. E. (ed.) Papers related to the Collection and Preservation of the Records of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, Calcutta, 1878 Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde (Encyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research) The Indian Antiquary; Reprint by Swati Publications, Delhi, 1984 and Agamkala Publications, Delhi, 1985 Journal of the Asiatic Soceity of Bengal Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Proceedings) Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland Österreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta Sacred Books of the East ix

x SBKAW WZKM ZDMG ZVS

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen

PLATES

Plate 1. Johann Georg BÜHLER (19.07.1837 – 08.04.1898) (after JOLLY: 1899)

Plate 2. Georg BÜHLER: 2 photographs (Courtesy: Martin BÜHLER)

Plate 3. BÜHLER’s Passport, 1858: page 1 (Courtesy: Martin BÜHLER)

Plate 4. BÜHLER’s Passport, 1858: page 2 (Courtesy: Martin BÜHLER)

Plate 5. BÜHLER’s Passport, 1858: page 3 (Courtesy: Martin BÜHLER)

Plate 6. Communication from the Bühler family about BÜHLER’s death, 18 April 1898 (Courtesy: Archiv der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (AÖAW), Personalakt Georg Bühler)

Plate 7. BÜHLER’s family-tree diagram (As per the information received from Martin BÜHLER)

Plate 8. Georg (above) and Guido BÜHLER (Courtesy: Martin BÜHLER)

!

Plate 9. Georg BÜHLER’s Devanāgarī handwriting Last page of the manuscript of Vikramāṅkadevacarita copied by Georg BÜHLER and Hermann JACOBI. This copy is deposited in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, and bears the accession number ‘50 of 1873–74’.

p. 1

p. 7

English rendering of lines 6 to 13 of ‘p. 7’: A year among the people has fitted me in the sacred Sanskrit literature and culture more easily than 6 in Bombay. I now use this opportunity to communicate intimately with all possible social classes.

p. 12

Plate 10. Letter written by BÜHLER to NÖLDEKE, dated 12th April 1872: 3 pages collaged (Letter from Eberhard Karls University collection, Tübingen, Acc. No.: Md 782 A 36)

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Hofrath Prof. Dr. Johann Georg BÜHLER, LLD, CIE (henceforth ‘BÜHLER’), was one of the foremost Sanskritists and Indologists of German origin who lived in the 19th century. He has 13 books, over 300 articles and 36 review-articles to his credit. With his writings encompassing almost every branch of Indology, he played a major role in furthering scientific research in the field. The present work intends to investigate this phenomenal scholar’s work which stands even after almost 120 years as a guiding star, not only because the results he got were everlasting, but because his approach was unique and judgment unbiased.

1. SELECTION OF THE TOPIC I began to work in the Manuscripts Library of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in May 2003 as a contractual worker. I happened to read at the instance of Dr. Shreenand L. BAPAT, the then Assistant Curator and now Registrar and Curator, the exhaustive Introduction by Prof. S. K. BELVALKAR to the first volume of the descriptive catalogue of manuscripts deposited in the Bhandarkar Institute and the Report of Search of manuscripts for the period 1875–76 by BÜHLER. Through BELVALKAR’s Introduction I came to know how the manuscripts collection of the Institute came into existence and because of the report of 1875–76 aroused interest in me regarding the history of the searches of manuscripts and specially BÜHLER’s work in that direction. I, then, read the other Reports, out of which, besides that of BÜHLER, PETERSON’s reports made a great impact on me. Before that, GOUGH’s book entitled “Papers related to the Collection and Preservation of the Records of Ancient Sanskrit Literature in India” where BÜHLER is the most frequently mentioned scholar and which contains 7 out of 10 reports submitted to the Government by BÜHLER, introduced me to BÜHLER as a collector of manuscripts. It occurred to me that it probably would yield a good research paper, or if the scope turns out to be greater, then it should make a good topic for a doctoral dissertation. When I discussed this with Prof. G. U. THITE, the then Curator of the Bhandarkar Institute, he at once suggested me to consider not only the collections of manuscripts, but the entire works of BÜHLER and take this up as a topic for my PhD.1

1 Knowing the German language was a prime qualification to deal with such a topic. Fortunately, I already knew a little bit of it.

1

2

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

2. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES AND THEIR EVOLUTION When Prof. THITE suggested that I should consider BÜHLER’s whole work for my thesis, it was decided to give a kind of brief survey of his work. Considering the magnitude of BÜHLER’s writings, there was a high probability that I would not achieve complete success, but then there was a hundred percent probability that it would add tremendously to my own knowledge. So while ‘large gain’ in the personal knowledge was possible, there was a danger of ‘no gain’ or ‘very little gain’ for the field. It was not too long before the possible ‘little gain’ result was recognized. It was then decided to discuss in detail along with the contents of his writings, the ‘destiny’ of BÜHLER’s views in the history of Indology, and where do they stand presently, for instance, his theory of the origin of Brāhmī from the North Semitic alphabet, how it was viewed by his contemporaries, what were the later theories and what are the recent investigations on the topic. BÜHLER has contributed to almost every branch of Indology. Since hundred and thirty years or so, BÜHLER is being referred to in almost every branch of Indology and his contributions are already widely recognized. With the above scheme, to discuss his contribution in every field and to judge the ‘destiny’ of his every piece of writing was to invest great amount of time with comparatively small gain in knowledge. The No Problem Stage

Basically there was no ‘Problem’. The ‘thesis’ was merely to elaborate contents of BÜHLER’s writings, his views on various aspects of Indology and where do they stand with the progress of the science. Thus the dissertation was initially intended to be descriptive in nature. At this stage, Prof. Thomas OBERLIES guided me to find out and ‘develop’ a further problem. This was like to write lyrics when the tune was already composed. I read on “Orientalism”; SAID, JENKINS, POLLOCK, GRUENENDAHL et al. This helped me to find other ‘paths’ and more ‘avenues’. Dr. Jon KEUNE helped me to realize that there are two broadways, on either of which my topic can be lead, one is to concentrate on Sanskritic aspect and the other is to investigate the ‘Orientalism’ germ of it. This was the cloud phase as it is termed by ALON (2009: 2), who describes two types of schema (i.e. mental picture for a project), the objective schema and the nurturing schema. In the objective schema one starts at a point A and straight away moves towards the goal at point B. Here there is no flexibility in objectives which can lead to failure if assumptions go wrong. According to ALON it is better to adopt the second schema, i.e. the nurturing schema, in which this ‘cloud’ phase is overcome by finding a new problem C. If C is more interesting and feasible than B, one can choose to go toward it (ALON 2009: 3). Similar process took place in case of the present topic. Prof. OBERLIES asked me several questions to help me to find an interesting as well as a feasible problem. Is BÜHLER still important today? Is he still relevant? Such questions are significant. While reviewing history of any Indological topic, be it Dharmaśāstra, epigraphy, palaeography, manuscriptology, historical literature, Jainism, Sanskrit and Prakrit lexicography, consulting BÜHLER’s work is still found necessary. Prof. Kenneth ZYSK, during a conversation with me, described BÜHLER as a “phenomenal scholar”. This led me to think

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

3

on a different line. Why was he so much phenomenal? What made him phenomenal? The expression phenomenal suits BÜHLER better than any of the scholars of his generation. Why is it so? What was the difference which made him stand distinct from his contemporaries? To answer these questions would be more interesting than to present his research mostly referred to and commented upon by the last century authors. It was observed that BÜHLER’s writings are devoid of cavalier attitude and any imperial or colonial approach. At the same time, boasting of European critical attitude is hardly traceable in his writings. Thus there is a difference in his approach. A typical method to approach a problem can be gleaned from his writings. This methodology distinct from 19th c. philological and historical methods has made him unique and phenomenal. The approach towards the sources of Indian Studies has helped him to perceive ‘the other’ in the right context. To understand the ‘foreign’ concepts by abolishing the predetermined frameworks is the real contribution of BÜHLER to Indology. Thus the evolved objectives of the project are: (1) To describe various features of historical Kāvyas enumerated by BÜHLER and to illustrate the principles adopted by him while deploying these Kāvyas for writing history. (2) To comprehend BÜHLER’s approach about historical consciousness in ancient India and its effect on his researches. (3) To demonstrate the peculiar methodology adopted by BÜHLER. (4) To deduce some of the basic principles that worked behind his researches would help to achieve the said aim. (5) To show with examples how these principles have played a key role in the treatment which BÜHLER gave to various sources of ancient Indian history. A brief survey of his writings brings forth his major achievements in research and his position in the coeval academia. On this basis, it is aimed to delineate further, how his specific approach towards the sources of Indian Studies, methods to deal with these sources and his knowledge of contemporary India have helped him to gain an insight into the ancient past of the land. Scope of the Work

This work is focussed primarily on the path followed by BÜHLER for exploring India’s political, literary and cultural past. It includes his efforts to unearth the sources and to use them with balanced understanding and discernment. His works are viewed, wherever necessary, in comparison with those of his contemporaries and successors of the field. This work strives to take a fresh overview of the life-mission and the century-old, path-breaking, multi-dimensional work of BÜHLER, which symbolizes an epoch of Indological studies.

3. SURVEY OF LITERATURE ON BÜHLER My task would be almost impossible if two contemporary accounts of BÜHLER’s achievements were not available. The one is a biography of BÜHLER written by Julius JOLLY and the other is an obituary of BÜHLER written by his pupil Moriz WINTERNITZ.

4

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

There is a separate section in the Indian Antiquary Vol. 27 (1898), titled “In Memoriam George Bühler”. It comprises sixteen articles written by sixteen scholars in memory of BÜHLER. Besides JOLLY’s work there are eight biographical writings on BÜHLER, such as “Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie” or “Neue Deutsche Biographie”, narrating brief accounts of BÜHLER’s career. Biographical Sketch by JOLLY

This detailed biographical account was published in the following year after BÜHLER’s death. It was published under “Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde”, the series conceived and founded by BÜHLER. Apart from BÜHLER’s writings, the other important source available to JOLLY was the letters sent by BÜHLER to his brother-in-law and to his close friend NÖLDEKE,2 through which JOLLY managed to present a detailed picture of BÜHLER’s career. Obituary by WINTERNITZ

Since WINTERNITZ was the greatest pupil of BÜHLER, he presents a vivid description of his personality along with his literary and scientific achievements. It has a more personal touch than JOLLY’s work. He describes the qualities of BÜHLER as a researcher, as a person, as a teacher. He narrates BÜHLER’s approach towards India and Indians. His inclination towards languages, history, historical literature, epigraphs and more prominently towards Indian culture and people has been illustrated by WINTERNITZ. He hints at how BÜHLER “brought his extensive knowledge of modern Indian life to bear on” his researches (1898: 348). In this obituary lies a seed or germ of my thesis. The fond and intimate words of WINTERNITZ for BÜHLER, his ‘Doctorvater’ (literally ‘Research-patron’, or Supervisor), never fail to create on readers’ minds a deep impact of BÜHLER’s personality.3 I was also fortunate to get access to some personal letters of BÜHLER during my sojourn in Germany in 2012–2013. All this material, however, renders the outer and ‘material’ sketch of the scholar. These accounts provide facts and figures of his life, about his work and his writings, and effectively reveal that he was a profound scholar. But, it cannot be ascertained from these sources why he was a profound scholar, in what way his approach or methods were different than others. Thus the time span of a century and a decade after BÜHLER’s death offers the benefit of hindsight towards the life and works of BÜHLER, the stalwart of all times.

Theodor NÖLDEKE (1836–1930) was a German Orientalist who studied in Göttingen with BÜHLER. He is well known for his History of the Quran. His chronology of Quran is famous as “Nöldeke Chronology” in the field of Quranic Studies. 3 It is striking that WINTERNITZ named his third son born on 23rd September 1898 after BÜHLER’s sudden death in April 1898, as Georg, and fourth son born in 1900, after MAX MÜLLER’s death, as Max. 2

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

5

4. METHODOLOGY (1) Chapter II: Life and Work of BÜHLER For this chapter, I have chiefly relied on JOLLY’s biography as also on the obituaries written by WINTERNITZ and other scholars in the Indian Antiquary. His life-sketch is brief and the work, apart from ‘writings’ has been dealt with separately. (2) Chapter III: Writings: A brief survey Chapter III presents a brief survey of BÜHLER’s writings. It is classified under ten major subject-heads. The subjects of less prominence, e.g. Vedic literature, Buddhism or Archaeology are dealt with in the last ‘Miscellaneous’ section. A complete list of BÜHLER’s writings classified subject-wise, is appended at the end. It will help the reader gauge the expanse of his writings on each of the subjects. I have mainly relied on the data obtainable from the writings of BÜHLER which is the primary source for the present study. (3) Chapter IV: Insight and Investigation: While I read BÜHLER’s writings I could delineate some noteworthy features. His efforts to see the ‘other’ in their context were apparent. Various events of his life pointed towards his ‘motto’ ‘Be the other to know the other’. He applied his knowledge of the contemporary India to solve the problems of the past. He did not take a detached approach merely as an indifferent observer of the society and culture that he was studying. I have tried to note such features and their impact on his findings.

5. DATA COLLECTION I procured the necessary material in physical and digital format. It consists of more than 340 articles published in over 40 different journals. The work of data collection got impetus when BÜHLER’s biography, penned by JOLLY, became known. It contained a bibliography of BÜHLER’s works, which, however, had to be ‘decoded’. As noted by JOLLY in the beginning of this about three and half page long list of works, the abbreviations used therein are as they appeared in the “Orientalische Bibliographie” – Abkürzungen im Allgemeinen wie in der “Orientalischen Bibliographie”. The task seemed simple when I got the volume of the Orientalische Bibliographie for the year 1897. However, there were some inconsistencies and no means to verify them. The journey from guessing the probable full form, finding the correct title and reaching to the book was a long one. The abbreviations like ‘Monatschr. Berl. Ak.’, ‘Wien. Phil.-Vers.’, or ‘Alm. d. k. Ak. d. Wiss.’ sounded not less than some magical formulae. The Athenaeum Journal was unknown to me and it was not until February 2013 that I could decode the abbreviation “Verh. d. 32. Vers.d. Philol.” meaning Verhandlungen der zweiund-dreissigsten Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wiesbaden. One of the challenging abbreviations comprised just two letters, easily understood otherwise, ‘Ac.’ meaning Academy. Which ‘Academy’ was the question, which was answered by the accidental discovery on internet of a Journal bearing that name published from London. There were few printing mistakes in JOLLY’s bibliography which converted the task into a riddle. The last ‘Samasyā’ was the letters “Weber I. Lit2 322–8, 367”, which finally turned out to be

6

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

“Akademische Vorlesungen über Indische Literaturgeschichte, zweite vermehrte Auflage, Berlin (1876) 332–338, 367.” To give an idea about the task, a small portion of JOLLY’s bibliography is cited here along with the corresponding portion in the final bibliography of this book: JOLLY (1899: 22): 9. Paläographie und Numismatik. Ursprung d. ind. Schrift u. d. Ziffern: IA. 6, 47 f.; 11, 268—70; 24, 285—92. 311—16. JRAS. 1882, 339—47– Leidener Or. Congr. (1883) I, 120 f. WZ. 9, 44—66. Sitzb. 132, 5, I—90 (Indian Studies No. III), cf. Anz. 1894,87—91. 1895, 24. Japanische Sanskrithss.: MAX MÜLLER, Buddhist Texts from Japan (Oxf. 1881), Appendix 63 — 95, 6 Tafeln (1884). Ö. M. 11. 68. IA. 14, 228 f. Bower-Hs.: WZ. 5, 103—10. 302—10. Ac. 40, 138 f. JRAS. 1891, 689—94. Andere Hss. aus Kaschgar: WZ. 7, 260—73. Wiener Philol. Vers. 1.894, 502. Indo-Grecian Coins: WZ. 8, 193—207. Specimina d. »Faullenzer«: Anz. 1897, 48—52. JOLLY (1899: 22) expanded in the present book: 9. Palaeography and Numismatics (275) On the Ancient Nâgarî Numerals by BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRAJI, Translated from Gujarati along with a “Postscript”, IA 6 (1877) 42–48. (276) On the Origin of the Indian Alphabets and Numerals, IA 11 (1882) 268–270. (277) Memorandum by Professor G. Bühler, JRAS (1882) 339–346. (278) Indo-Pâli Alphabets, Leidener Oriental Congress (1883) 1, 120–121. (279) The Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet, WZKM 9 (1895) 44–66; IA 24 (1895) 285– 292, 311–316. (280) On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet, SBKAW 132, 5 Indian Studies No. III. (1895) 1–90 [2nd revised edition Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg 1898]. (281) Remarks on “On the Origin of the Brāhma Alphabet”, AKAW (1894) 87–91. (282) A Notice of addendum to Indian Studies No. III on p. 7ff and p. 14, AKAW (1895) 24. (283) Palaeographical Remarks on the Horiuzi Palm-leaf MSS., The Ancient Palm-leaves containing the Pragñâ-pâramitâ-hridaya-sûtra and the Ushnîsha-vigaya-dhâranî, ed. MAX MÜLLER F. and BUNYIU NANJIO, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series Vol. I, Part III, Oxford (1884) Appendix, 63–95, 6 Tables. (284) Ein zweites Sanskrit Palmblatt-Manuscript aus Japan, ÖMO 11 (1885) 68. (285) A Note on a Second old Sanskrit Palmleaf Manuscript from Japan, IA 14 (1885) 228–229 [Translated from ÖMO 11, 68]. (286) The New Sanskrit MS. from Mingai, WZKM 5 (1891) 103–110; JRAS (1891) 689– 694. (287) A further Note on the Mingai or Bower MS. WZKM 5 (1891) 302–310. (288) The New Sanskrit MS. from Mingai, Academy 40 (1891) 138–139. (289) New Manuscripts from Kashgar, WZKM 7 (1893) 260–273. (290) New Manuscripts from Kashgar, Verhandlungen der Zweiundvierzigsten Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wien, 24–27 Mai 1893, Leipzig (1894) 502. [A small paragraph mentioning BÜHLER’s remarks on the Weber manuscript]. (291) The Kharoshṭhî Inscriptions on the Indo-Grecian Coins, WZKM 8 (1894) 193– 207. (292) Specimina der Faullenzer, AKAW (1897) 48–52.

Further, I have been able to add to BÜHLER’s bibliography 16 articles that were not noticed by JOLLY.

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

7

Volumes of some journals, such as Indian Antiquary, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, and Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society are available in Pune. However, most of the other sources, especially the German ones, are not available. Moreover, there were practical limitations on the accessibility of the available material. A student exchange scholarship under the ‘Erasmus Mundus Action 2 Experts II Project’, a project for South and South-East Asia, funded by the European Commission, was awarded to me in May 2012 and I had the privilege to study at the Seminar für Indologie und Tibetologie, University of Göttingen under the guidance of Prof. Thomas OBERLIES from 14th August 2012 to 30th September 2013. I could happily avail all library facilities including inter-library loan. Without this opportunity it would have been next to impossible to prepare even a detailed bibliography of BÜHLER’s writings. The required old journals, proceedings etc. were easily available and accessible in the Historical Building (Historisches Gebäude) of the library of the University of Göttingen. Over 7,000 pages of various journals including reference works could be scanned. Some more were scanned in Vienna during my weeklong stay.4 The internet was another major source of the data. There are various websites where volumes of journals like Indian Antiquary, Journals of various societies are available in pdfs or DjVu file formats. All old volumes of ZDMG became available in fully searchable file format on the website of the Society. The other useful websites include www.archive.org, the Digital Library of India and the JSTOR. Twelve articles including three reports of search of manuscripts of BÜHLER are available on the GRETIL website. Dr. GRUENENDAHL, Supervisor of the GRETIL project made it a point to inform me about these files. Thus, in all 79 volumes of different journals having BÜHLER’s articles have been downloaded. Similarly, other innumerable reference works have been downloaded through the internet. Two articles of BÜHLER “Indische Erbauungsstunden” and “Eine Reise durch die Indische Wüste” are printed in Fraktur style that was in vogue till the 19th c. in Europe and particularly in Germany. An online software ‘Abbyfine reader OCR’ was used to convert these documents into usual script, which saved time and I could directly take up the task of translation. Included in this work is the yet-unnoticed Devanagari handwriting of BÜHLER from the manuscript of the Vikramāṅkadevacarita (50/1873–74) deposited at the BORI, copied by him at Jaisalmer with the help of Hermann JACOBI. Writings not available to me

In spite of all the efforts I could not find the Report of search of manuscripts for the year 1879–80, which might have been published after BÜHLER left India in 1880. 5

4 Prof. Karin PREISENDANZ of the Institute for South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, Vienna

University and Dr. Sylvia STAPELFELDT, Librarian of the same Institute, kindly guided me. 5 Though it has been referred to later at some places by BÜHLER himself, nobody else not even S. K.

BELVALKAR, the erstwhile Curator of the manuscripts, seems to have used it.

8

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

6. STYLE (1) References to BÜHLER’s writings have been given differently for the books, articles and review articles, in the following manner: a. Books: Roman capital letters have been assigned in alphabetical order to each title as per their year of publication i.e. letter ‘A’ for the book published first in time. These letters are used in combination with the publication year of the edition of the same book used by me, e.g. The Digest of Hindu Law is second in the chronological order (1867) hence letter ‘B’ is assigned. While the edition used by me was published in 1884. Thus it has been referred as “(1884B: 1)” i.e. first page of the 1884 edition of the Digest. Where there is no continuous pagination for two volumes/parts of a single text, small a, b, c are used along with the capital A, B, C. e.g. (1891Cb: 1) refers to the first page of part 2 of the Pañcatantra’s edition where, ‘1891’ is the year of the edition used by me, ‘C’ denotes that chronologically it is the third published work of BÜHLER and ‘b’ denotes the part 2 of it. b. Articles: Articles have been arranged chronologically and alphabetically. Multiple numbers of items in a year have been denoted by letters ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, etc. Since the number of articles pertaining to the year 1892 crosses 26, the articles have been denoted by ‘aa’, ‘ab’… ‘ba’, etc. e.g. (1892as: 45) refers to page number 45 of “Some remarks on “Beiträge zur Erforschung der Geschichte des Mahâbhârata”, AKAW (1892) 45–51”. c. Review Articles: These have been arranged chronologically and alphabetically. Multiple numbers of items in a year have been denoted by letters (a), (b), (c) put in the round brackets. e.g. (1895(b): 246). (2) As is shown in the above examples, while referring to BÜHLER’s articles, his name is not mentioned in the bracket. The names of authors other than BÜHLER are placed in the brackets as usual while referring to their works. (3) Some non-English words having repeated occurrence, e.g. Brāhmaṇa and Śāstrī (Śāstrin) and common personal names have been used in their anglicized forms, such as Brahman, Shastri, etc.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK 1. LIFE (A) Early Years and Education

Johann Georg BÜHLER was born in Hannover province in Germany on 19th July 1837 CE. His birthplace was a small locality named Borstel near Nienburg in Hannover. His father Johann G. BÜHLER was a pastor. At first BÜHLER was trained through private instruction. He attended the city Gymnasium1 at Hannover from 1852 to 1855.2 He then went to the University of Göttingen to study Philology and got registered as a student of Theology and Philosophy. He studied Classical Philology3, Sanskrit and Zend.4 He also learnt German Philology, Persian and Armenian, Arabic, Archaeology and Philosophy under Leo MEYER, H. v. EWALD, WÜSTENFELD, F. WIESLER, and H. LOTZE respectively (THITE 2010: 156; JOLLY 1899: 1–2). He completed his “Promotion” i.e. doctoral degree at the age of twenty-one in 1858. His dissertation was related to Greek Grammar titled “Das griechische Secundärsuffix THΣ. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Wortbildung”.5

1 Gymnasium is a type of secondary school in the German education system, where emphasis is given

on academic learning. 2 Six weeks before his death, BÜHLER had participated in a Jubilee function of his Gymnasium in Hannover. 3 Under K. F. HERRMANN, F. SCHNEIDEWIN, E. v. LEUTSCH, H. SAUPPE and E. CURTIUS. 4 Under Theodor BENFEY. According to WINTERNITZ, BENFEY was always very proud of BÜHLER, his greatest pupil, while BÜHLER was attached to him throughout his life in the way that a Śiṣya is attached to his Guru (1898: 337). “B. [Bühler] always considered Benfey as his own teacher in Göttingen. B.’s doctoral dissertation, his edition of Pāiyalacchī which he let be printed at his own cost in the Felicitation volume in Benfey’s 50 years’ Jubilee of doctorate, in 1878, and the Daśakumārac are dedicated to Benfey and his first works mostly connected with the direction of Benfey’s studies appeared in his “Orient u. Occident” (THITE 2010: 156; JOLLY 1899: 2 fn. 1). 5 As has been mentioned above, his second doctoral thesis (i.e. Habilitation), an essential qualification in Europe to qualify for the post of Professor, was his edition of Pāiyalacchīnāmamālā.

9

10

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (B) Sojourns begin6

After completing his PhD, in the autumn of the same year, BÜHLER went to Paris to examine Sanskrit manuscripts available in a library there; and in the middle of 1859 to London for the same purpose (THITE 2010: 156; JOLLY 1899: 2). His first endeavours with manuscripts can be traced back to this period of his life.7 According to WINTERNITZ, there was another reason to go to London. His enthusiasm to study Sanskrit as an independent branch of knowledge separate from Comparative Philology awakened in him a strong desire to go out to India and in order to form connections for achieving this purpose, he went to England. He achieved both the goals eventually. He spent three years in London studying Vedic manuscripts of the India Office and of Bodleian library, Oxford. His early articles show a wide variety of subjects. Before he arrived in India his writings were in connection with comparative mythology and grammar. During this time he must have recognized the need to search for new material available in form of manuscripts. He got acquainted with scholars like MAX MÜLLER, T. GOLDSTÜCKER, C. LOTTNER and the British officers like Whitley STOKES (WINTERNITZ 1898: 337). He prepared index to MAX MÜLLER’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1860b: 589–607). He worked as an assistant librarian in the Royal Library in Windsor. Towards the end of 1862 BÜHLER was nominated to be the Assistant at the University-library at Göttingen. In Göttingen, while he was busy with the preparations of the Habilitation (a second doctoral), through the mediation of MAX MÜLLER an opportunity to go to India was offered. He started at once for India and arrived in Bombay on 10th February 1863 (THITE 2010: 157; JOLLY 1899: 3) only to find that the post which was promised to him was not vacant. Fortunately he became acquainted with Alexander GRANT, then Principal of the Elphinstone College, through whose efforts he was appointed the first Professor of Oriental Languages at that college (WINTERNITZ 1898: 338).8

6 See Plates 3–5 for BÜHLER’s Passport dated 16 August 1858. 7A

lot of unpublished literature had remained hidden in the manuscripts. In absence of good editions of known texts, manuscripts were the only source to access the ancient literature of India. To consult the manuscripts European scholars had to go either to Paris or to London since the major collections of Sanskrit manuscripts were located there. Thus, this might be one of the reasons which induced BÜHLER to work towards collecting manuscripts. 8 “Happily, however, in those days European scholars were constantly wanted in the Educational Department” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 338). “To attract talented Europeans to serve in the Education Department, a system referred to as the Graded List Service was introduced and it lasted from 1870–71 to 1896–97. Under this system, all superior posts were assigned to one or other sanctioned grades of pay which varied from Rs 500– 750 (given to a junior Professor) to Rs 2000–2500 (given to the Director of Education). … In 1896– 97, an Educational Service analogous to the Civil Service on an all India basis referred to as the Indian Educational Service (IES) was introduced and brought an end to the graded list system.” (A Review of Education in Bombay State 1855–1955, Government of Bombay, Poona, 1958, p.61, vide GANNERI 2016: 76). The graded list system was also called Wood’s Despatch (GANNERI 2016: 76).

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

11

(C) From 1863 to 1868

BÜHLER entirely dedicated himself to his duties as a Professor. Since the position for oriental languages was newly created there, he has to look after such activities like organization of the instruction and procurement of new books and manuscripts for the library. He used to conduct classes for Sanskrit, Prakrit, Latin Studies and Comparative Linguistics. The same year he was nominated as a fellow of the Bombay University and member of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society where he delivered a number of lectures. In the beginning of 1864 he was selected along with the Registrar of the Bombay High Court to write the Digest of Hindu Law (See section III.1 (A)). It took nearly two years to prepare for the same. These two years proved to be vital in developing his approach as a researcher. The Digest opened a new avenue with regard to his studies. It added a sixth sense, so to say, in the approach of a well-trained Indologist.9 During 1865–1866 a plan of publishing ‘A Collection of Sanskrit Classics’ under the title Bombay Sanskrit Series was proposed by him in association with Franz KIELHORN. Though the publication was intended for the use of high-schools and colleges, according to WINTERNITZ, the excellent editions of Sanskrit works published under this series played an important role for the progress of Sanskrit studies in Europe (1898: 338). The work of the Digest got delayed due to repeated attacks of fever faced by BÜHLER which caused him great weakness and body-ache. Due to the bad health he was compelled in 1866 to accept professorship at the Deccan College in Pune10 where vacancy was created due to Martin HAUG’s premature retirement from the position of the Professor of Sanskrit. HAUG had to resign due to a Times of India news broken about his endeavour in collecting and purchasing manuscripts, which was popularly perceived as snatching the intellectual property of the nation!11 Like HAUG, BÜHLER was deputed by the Government of the Bombay Presidency to examine private manuscripts collections. For this purpose, BÜHLER travelled to the area what is today a part of Southern Maharashtra and Northern Karnataka. Contrary to HAUG’s tour, his tour brought no controversy and was more than successful due to his skill in dealing with people. Moreover, it served as a model for Whitley STOKES to draft a plan for a pan-Indian project on parallel lines.12 BÜHLER performed this travel in company of the Director of Public Instruction during November 1866 to January 1867. The proceeds of manuscripts amounted to more than 200, and among these there were many novelties

Germans, among the non-British Europeans, were mostly benefitted during this time by the above mentioned system. French and Portuguese were rivals of Britishers in colonization and obviously did not prefer to serve under the British Government in India. Whereas, Germans had no such barrier. 9 This is elaborated further in this book. 10 The climate of Pune is moderate as compared to warm and humid climate of Mumbai (then Bombay). BÜHLER was prone to apoplexy (THITE 2010: 174; JOLLY 1899: 18). It might have got augmented due to the unsuitable climate of India, especially for a European. 11 For details see JOHNSON 1988. 12 See JOHNSON 1986 and 1988.

12

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

and rare works, particularly in the field of Vedic literature and grammar (THITE 2010: 159; JOLLY 1899: 4). After the completion of this travel, BÜHLER returned to his old position in the Elphinstone College and continued the work upto the end of 1868. In December 1868, he was nominated as Acting Education Inspector of the Northern part of the Bombay Presidency. He was also commissioned (along with KIELHORN) by the Indian Government to work under the project of searches for Sanskrit manuscripts which had begun in November 1868. To become an Educational Inspector in the Department of Public Instruction seems to be a conscious decision on BÜHLER’s part for the furtherance of science. There seem to be three motives: (1) to collect manuscripts, (2) to travel across India and (3) to know the Indian people and their life.13 Since his arrival in India, BÜHLER was engaged in such activities which gave him a comprehensive view of Sanskrit literature. He learned Sanskrit as a ‘living language’ in connection with which he must ‘learn afresh’ his Sanskrit completely. Up to 1864 he knew Sanskrit ‘as good as English’ (THITE 2010: 157 fn. 3; JOLLY 1899: 3 fn. 1). It helped him later to converse fluently in that language with Pandits, to influence the people, to gain their friendship and thus to get access into their personal libraries. Till 1868, he studied Śāstras, particularly Dharma, Nyāya and Vyākaraṇa, and Alaṅkāra in connection with artistic poetry, particularly that of Kālidāsa. He also learnt the melodies of several metres by heart, worked on Sanskrit-Syntax and studied the Gṛhya-practices under a Yājñika (i.e. practicing priest). He also learnt the Marathi language to the extent that he occasionally worked as examiner in the Bombay University for that subject (THITE 2010: 157–158 fn. 3; JOLLY 1899: 3 fn. 1). It is not known from whom he learned Marathi and how much time it took. Similarly, later in Gujarat, he learnt Gujarati. During that period, enhancing public relation work must have helped him to learn the language very quickly. He conducted (university) exams for Gujarati as well. Later BÜHLER’s knowledge of Gujarati served a kind of bridge for BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI to the western scholarly world (See section IV.4 (2)). (D) From 1869 to 1874

(1) Educational Inspector: After taking responsibilities of Educational Inspector there was a change in BÜHLER’s sphere of work and scope of activities.14 Also, the work area is now concentrated in Gujarat instead of Maharashtra. While not on a tour, he used to base himself at Surat. He had to travel for most of the time since the area allotted to him, the northern part of the Bombay

13 In his letter to BENFEY he says “In the distant districts, between small states life is still now almost

the same as it was in the old times, and a visit there delivers for those who can communicate to the people in their own language, much more results than ten years of studies in Europe or even in our large cities of India can do.” Acc. No. Cod.MS.Philos.184_Briefe_81–110 page 178 (deposited in the Library of the Georg-August University of Göttingen), a letter dated June 20, 1867 Byculla Club, Bombay. 14 ADLURI and BAGCHEE (2014: 21) are misinformed that BÜHLER was working at the Elphinstone College, Bombay till 1880.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

13

Presidency, was very large in extent. The population of the region, as per BÜHLER’s account, was 5.5 million i.e. 55 lacs. There were 600 schools. During 1873–74 he travelled 1100 miles (1770.27 km) in five months. He held a rank of a Lieutenant Colonel and received a salary of Rs. 1,361/- per month. His duty was to organise, monitor and inspect all types of schools in the area. He was responsible to appoint and train teachers; and to dismiss them if required. He was also to look after issues like construction of buildings, sanctioning grants, keeping records, maintaining accounts, procuring books and other teaching material. The staff assigned for the purpose included six inspectors, eight clerks and accountants. He happily informs NÖLDEKE in a letter that he now uses this opportunity to communicate intimately with all possible social classes and he now knows more about Sanskrit literature and culture than when he was in Bombay (JOLLY 1899: 6 fn. 2). (2) Searches of manuscripts: BÜHLER used his office and travelling also for the search of manuscripts. He visited numerous towns in Gujarat; Ahmedabad, Dholka, Limdi, Rajkot, Gondal to name a few. As per Gen. CUNNINGHAM’s recommendations in 1872 to increase the extent of researches beyond the limits of the Bombay Presidency and to visit Jaisalmer and Bikaner (GOUGH 1878: 81), BÜHLER visited Abu, Nandol, Palli, Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, and Bhatner or Hanumangarh from 15th December 1873 to 15th March 1874 (GOUGH 1878: 117). BÜHLER, along with JACOBI, who was in India on a private visit, made a trip to Rājputānā and the princely states in the region. It seems that BÜHLER also examined on some occasions schools governed by and located in the princely states e.g. in his article Eine Reise durch die indische Wüste he narrates an event in which, as the king i.e. Rāṇā of the town Sirohi was absent at the time of his visit, BÜHLER had to meet a minister of the king and was expecting the minister’s co-operation in connection with the search of manuscripts. The minister, however, could not do much for his purpose, instead compelled BÜHLER to examine two very bad schools, the activity which consumed almost an entire day for BÜHLER and JACOBI. The incident shows BÜHLER’s even-tempered attitude and placid temperament (1883h: 520). (3) Vikramāṅkadevacarita and the first endeavours with epigraphy: On his tour in search of Sanskrit manuscripts in Rajasthan BÜHLER discovered a manuscript of Vikramāṅkadevacarita in Jaisalmer. He edited it in 1875 and wrote a detailed introduction, specially enumerating the features of historical Kāvyas. He also showed that the poem is based on the historical facts and that the facts of Vikramāditya’s life mentioned in the Kāvya are historical (1875H: 5). About the same time in 1875 he edited a copperplate grant of Valabhī king Dhruvasena-I which came to his hand at Wallā. Though he kept writing about the historical Kāvyas till as late as 1893, it can be seen that after 1875 he seems to have turned his attention more and more to inscriptions.15 This shift should be viewed in context with his observation evinced in 1875 in the edition of the Vikramāṅkadeva-carita that the historical 15 In fact in 1866 he did not bother to decipher the three inscriptions which fell in his hands at Kolha-

pur.

14

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Kāvyas may with proper care be used to rectify and to complete the information gathered elsewhere (1875H: 5). (E) From 1874 to 1880 and the Kashmir saga

BÜHLER proposed to the Government to extend his area further and to include Kashmir and Central India in his territory of search. The request was granted and a grant of Rs. 5,000/- for the purchase of manuscripts and Rs. 1,000/- for travelling was sanctioned (GOUGH 1878: 121). BÜHLER’s Kashmir tour proved the most successful one. He could procure 838 manuscripts, all important and rare; more so today, because of the disruptive conditions in the valley for the past thirty years. It seems that the Government of India was, at first, reluctant to sanction BÜHLER’s proposal. BÜHLER had to ‘repeat’ his request to sanction the grant (GOUGH 1878: 121). He further added that last year’s grant of Rs. 3,200/- is intact and if the Government would sanction the yearly grant again in addition to the requested grant for 1875–76, the funds would be ample to carry out the Kashmir tour. However, the regular yearly grant was not sanctioned. Instead, additional Rs. 2,800/- were allowed to be drawn just to meet the requested sum of Rs. 5,000/- (GOUGH 1878: 124). The reluctance is also evident from the fact that after BÜHLER’s second request of 19th April 1875 the final order of the Government to proceed on a tour reached BÜHLER only on 18th July 1875, two months after the right season to visit the valley had begun.16 BÜHLER started immediately on the next day from Surat for the tour which lasted for more than three months. He could give the detailed account of his tour, which describes his personal experiences, interesting observations of life and customs of the Kashmiri Brahmans and exhaustive philological discussion about numerous hitherto unknown works and authors with the help of his meticulously drawn notes during the tour. (F) From 1880 till the last journey

BÜHLER’s academic career can clearly be divided into two parts, having the year 1880 as the dividing line, and the year 1875 as a turning point. In the first part, his writings were mainly focused on Sanskrit and Prakrit literature and philology, and the second was dedicated to Epigraphy and Palaeography. During the earlier part, he worked to unveil unknown works and manuscripts treasure, to increase the standard of education in the Bombay Presidency, to embed philological methods in the traditional Sanskrit learning and to set new standards of Sanskrit studies. The later part was solely dedicated to reconstruction of the history of India as could be gleaned from epigraphs, to discovery of the roots of Indian palaeography, and most importantly, to advocating India’s case before scholars ‘sitting in their cabins and imagining the Indian sky’.17 His failing health was one of the reasons for his retirement from India but there seems to be some background reasons as well. While in India he would have to remain engaged 16 Due to the lack of funds, perhaps, BÜHLER could not or did

not publish the complete report for 1873–74 which he had promised earlier. 17 Here I mean to refer to scholars like HOLTZMANN who propounded the gradual development of the Mahābhārata extending as late as till the 14th c. CE.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

15

in search for manuscripts which now possessed less hope to discover entirely new branch of knowledge. The duties of the Educational Inspector were time consuming and demanded constant travelling with less leisure left for academic endeavours. Also in 1877 he got married to Ms. Mathilde FORRER of Switzerland. “Now in Vienna he could fully devote himself to the scientific research unhindered by the fetters of a heterogeneous official activity, and to work in full leisure on the materials, experiences, and impressions collected in India. The teaching duties in a German university and in his own work-sphere could not take the power of the vigorous man in his forties, who had completely recovered himself again from the effects of the Indian Climate…” (THITE 2010: 164; JOLLY 1899: 8).

He took up his duties as a Professor of Indian Philology and Archaeology in the University of Vienna in 1881. He continued his dedicated work towards research and to science along with new teaching responsibilities. He must have had established good contacts and a steadfast position for himself, as can be seen from the facts that within five years of his joining the duties he founded the Oriental Institute and hosted the 7th International Congress of Orientalists. Death It was a fateful Good Friday of 8th April 1898 when the 19th c. Indology lost its leader and a zealous worker, and India lost her not just greatest but the most intimate friend amongst Indologists (See Plate 6, Communication from the Bühler family about BÜHLER’s death). BÜHLER was travelling from Vienna to Zürich to spend the Easter vacation with his wife and son who were staying there with relatives. He left Vienna on 5th April and broke his journey at Lindau on Lake Constance (Bodensee in German).18 WINTERNITZ thinks that he was probably tempted by the fine weather to break the journey. Perhaps he wanted to enjoy rowing before proceeding to Zürich (WINTERNITZ 1898: 337). Boating was BÜHLER’s favourite sport according to KAEGI (KAEGI 1898: 363). On the 7th after rowing for some time with a small hired boat he returned to the hotel towards evening. On the 8th April he hired the same boat again – a small rowing boat, ominously called ‘nut-shell’ by the natives – to take another trip across the lake. He was last seen about seven o’clock in the evening. It is believed that he must have lost an oar and, in attempting to recover it, over-balanced the boat, and so was drowned. Next day the boat was found floating bottom upwards on the lake, but no one knew who ‘the old gentleman’ was that had been seen in the boat the night before. While his servants in Vienna believed him to be in Zürich with

18 Lake Constance is a lake on the river Rhine at the northern foot of the Alps. It is situated in Ger-

many, Switzerland and Austria near the Alps. This freshwater lake is at 395 m (1,296 ft) above sea level and is the third largest lake of Central Europe. It is 63 km long, and measures nearly 14 km at its widest point. It has a total surface area of 536 km2 and average depth of 90 m (300 ft). Lindau is a Bavarian major town and an island on the eastern side of Lake Constance. Source Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Lake_Constance, accessed on 03 October 2014.

16

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

his family, his wife thought that he had been unexpectedly detained in Vienna,19 though she was very distressed at receiving no reply to her letters. A few days passed before the proprietor of the hotel, in which the professor had been staying, communicated with the police. Enquiries were set on foot, and at last, on the 15th of April, it was ascertained that the occupant of the boat was Hofrath BÜHLER of Vienna. The body was never recovered. There were rumours in Vienna as to whether it was really an accident or a planned death. In recent years T. A. PHELPS raised a question mark whether it was an accident. Charles ALLEN opined that BÜHLER must have committed suicide considering possible defamation for upholding and publishing forged material, particularly related with the discovery of Buddha’s birthplace. During the last years of his life, BÜHLER was connected to Alois Anton FÜHRER (1853–1930), of the Archaeological Survey of India. It was revealed in 1898 that FÜHRER was engaged in fraudulent activities.20 While working with the ASI, he sent impressions of many inscriptions—purportedly found in the excavation—to BÜHLER in Vienna who deciphered the same and validated them in this way unknowingly. BÜHLER’s association with him was seen since then with suspicion; not so much by the scholars contemporary to BÜHLER as by the recent academicians. (Detailed discussion at the end of this chapter.) PHELPS remarked that “Immediately following Fuhrer’s exposure in 1898, Buhler drowned in Lake Constance in mysterious circumstances, and since he had enthusiastically endorsed all of Fuhrer’s supposed discoveries, one cannot help but wonder whether this tragedy was accidental.” It is true that both the events took place in 1898 but the question remains whether they had any cause and effect relation. Charles ALLEN (2010: 161f.) suggested that FÜHRER must have sent from Lucknow copies of his “preliminary brief report on the results of the Nepalese excavations … of 1897– 98” and proof copies of Antiquities of Buddha Sakyamuni’s Birth-place in the Nepalese Tarai to BÜHLER in Vienna. If BÜHLER ever got a chance to compare the two documents, he would have realised that FÜHRER’s discoveries which were fully endorsed and lauded in print by BÜHLER were bogus (ALLEN 2010: 165). ALLEN ascertained that BÜHLER had indeed taken his own life after he was led to believe that the Priprahwa inscription was another fraud by FÜHRER (2010: 176). From the available accounts it can be said that till BÜHLER’s death on the 8th April, FÜHRER was not exposed, in fact, was very much in the service of the ASI. It was in September 1898 that he was questioned by Vincent SMITH and undesirous of facing stringent consequences, rather opted to resign from the service (ALLEN 2010: 177f.). Fortunately for 19 BÜHLER had not informed his wife about his travel. She became restless having no communication

from him for several days. After enquiring in Vienna, their maid informed her that some days had passed after he had left for Zürich. She presumably also informed that a letter revealing that BÜHLER was in Lindau had been received. This information stems from a letter dated 17th April 1898, that has become available to me from Mr. Martin BÜHLER. He was kind enough to transliterate the same for me with the help of his 90–year old mother. It is addressed to Karl BÜHLER by Frick FORRER, BÜHLER’s relative from Zürich. 20 Later he was suspected of forging inscriptions. It was LÜDERS who exposed FÜHRER’s forgeries of Mathura.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

17

BÜHLER, “combination of revelations concerning” FÜHRER was yet to become fully known at the time of his death. It is hardly possible that the copies of the ‘preliminary report’ and the proof copies of Antiquities might have reached Vienna before BÜHLER left Vienna, i.e. 5th April. In the late 19th c. it would take at least a day for a parcel from Lucknow to reach Mumbai or any port in India. The sea-mail used to take 20 days to reach the post offices at cities like Zürich or Vienna. FÜHRER returned to Lucknow from Nepal in early March 1898. Then he wrote his ‘preliminary report’. Thus, if at all, as imagined by ALLEN, FÜHRER had posted the said copies on the 16th March 1898 from Lucknow, it is unlikely that they would reach Vienna before the 5th April. As supposed by ALLEN (2010: 170), suspicion might have arisen in BÜHLER’s mind about FÜHRER because of his correspondence with Burmese monk U MA. But there is no evidence to show that he was aware of FÜHRER’s complete fraudulent nature. BÜHLER was not intentionally involved in FÜHRER’s hoaxes. Why would an intelligent man commit suicide in such a situation? If nothing else, committing suicide will definitely prove one’s compromises with integrity. In fact, such a person would strive to live, at least in order to prove his innocence or non-relation with crime. KAEGI, a scholar from Zürich affirms in his Postscript to the obituary of BÜHLER that the possibility of suicide is out of question. According to him, BÜHLER did not have “a tendency to the negation of the pleasure of existence” (1898: 363). His enthusiasm and interest in his line of research was unbeatable. BÜHLER’s friends from Vienna denied most positively the possibility of any philosophical motive for suicide (KAEGI 1898: 363). On the 7th of April he was seen engaged in cheerful conversation with other visitors at the Hotel. On the 8th, he was induced by the beautiful spring weather to stay one day longer, “in order to make a longer excursion,” as he was heard saying (KAEGI 1898: 363). An unsent telegram to his wife in his handwriting was found in the hotel stating that he would reach Zürich the next day. KAEGI also asserts that there was no foundation for the hypothesis of a murder as “it being entirely uncalled for in view of the facts which have come to light”. JOLLY (1899: 18) adds to what KAEGI says: Since BÜHLER was prone to apoplexy, because of many hours of strenuous rowing an apoplectic stroke might have hit him. He also informs us that prior to his sudden death BÜHLER had plans to travel to India for archaeological excavations. All these points are sufficient to refute the theory of suicide. The theory of homicide seems even more farfetched. What can be pointed to at the most, is an unusual nature of circumstances which form a backdrop of any accident. However any conjecture about backstage scenes must not rest only on speculative psychoanalysis. (G) Personal Life

Not much is known about BÜHLER’s personal and family life, except that he was born to Johann Georg BÜHLER (1802–1891), a pastor in the towns of Borstel and Altenhagen in the Lower Saxony. As can be inferred from BÜHLER’s letters, his father perhaps lived in Hannover during old age. He died in 1891 to precede his son only by seven years. There is no mention of BÜHLER’s mother in his published biographies. Mr. Martin BÜHLER of Friedrichshafen, great grandson of BÜHLER’s brother has informed me as follows: Georg’s

18

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

mother Charlotte Elisabeth HAGEMANN, daughter of a pastor, was born in 1806 in Borstel. She got married to BÜHLER’s father in 1836. She died in 1861. Thereafter BÜHLER’s father got married again “as pastors that time used to do”.21 BÜHLER was very close to his Guru Theodor BENFEY as is gleaned from several letters, now deposited at the Library of the Georg-August-University of Göttingen, written to him from India. He requests BENFEY, in a letter dated June 23, 1871, to send to him his photograph because BÜHLER’s young colleagues and students wanted to see how BENFEY looked as they knew him through his writings. He wrote every year till 1878 an account of his work for the family of his fiancée, later wife, at the suggestion of Frick, the priest of his brother-in-law in Zürich. JOLLY utilized these autobiographic accounts to write BÜHLER’s biography. Though supported by the letters to NÖLDEKE sent by BÜHLER from India, the biography is mostly based on BÜHLER’s own account (THITE 2010: 157; JOLLY 1899: 1). As stated earlier, BÜHLER married Ms. Mathilde FORRER of Switzerland in 1878 (KIRFEL 1955: 726). They had a son, Guido (See Plates 6 and 8). Astonishingly, BÜHLER is mentioned as “Kinderlos” i.e. childless in the Deutsche Biography.22 In 1886, BÜHLER’s wife received cordially the ladies visiting Vienna for the 7th International Congress of Orientalists.23 From the letters written from Vienna it becomes clear that he changed his place of residence many a time. As regards his health, it seems that he never got acclimatized to Indian weather. Constant travelling and hard work which brought him many fold success must have taken toll on his health. He had frequent attacks of fever and sometimes liver-pain. As stated earlier, he was also prone to apoplexy (THITE 2010: 174; JOLLY 1899: 18). Religious Disposition (or Disposition related to Dharma) BÜHLER was a son of a protestant clergyman or pastor (JOLLY 1899: 1; MAX MÜLLER 1898: 350).24 He held himself to be “descended from the Aryan stock” (1878h: 50) and, as can be seen from his early articles, was very much interested in the Vedic Studies and Comparative Mythology. His views about the Vedas seemingly have changed after he spent some time in India. He writes to NÖLDEKE that now he holds that the Ṛgvedic hymns were not intended to be songs for devotion but as pure magical formulae (THITE 2010: 161–162 fn. 2; JOLLY 1899: 6 fn. 2).

21 Martin

BÜHLER’s email to me dated 28th June 2018. The detailed information about his lineage is given separately in form of a family-tree (See Plate 7). 22 Vide website of the Deutsche Biography, which is the online version of KIRFEL, Willibald (1955) “BÜHLER, Johann Georg”, Neue Deutsche Biographie 2, 726 f.: http://www.deutsche-biographie.de/ pnd118667947.html, accessed on 28/09/2014 at 22:00. 23 Letter (BÜHLER to ROTH) dated ‘Wien, 19th July 1886’, Tübingen University, Acc. No.: Md 765– 2a [No.]1, Fol. 2. 24 “Konfession lutherisch” vide https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz6325.html accessed on 23/12/2016 at 11:30; or more commonly “evangelisch” as conveyed by Martin BÜHLER through email dated 27/08/2018.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

19

He hardly spoke in belittling language about any Indian or anything Indian.25 He held very high views for the Brahmans.26 In his editions of the Dharmasūtras and Manu, where there can be a chance to criticise the Brahmans, he has confined his remarks mostly to the text and academic sphere. He narrates one incidence that occurred in the famous temple at Kolhapur where he was charmed not only by the skill of the person who was narrating stories from Purāṇas, first in Sanskrit and then translating it in Marathi but also by that narrator’s detached attitude towards monetary gains from his activities. He describes picturesquely various events where Brahmans were doing their duty of chanting their sacred lore without caring for the number of the audience (1894g). He attended devotional hours or edifications of the Jainas. Ācārya Jinamukti Sūri was introduced to him during one such occasion. He opines that the similarity of the Jaina edification with the people in the West is great. There is a difference only in one point that “it lacks the feeling of unlimited reverence, with which the Western people are satisfied by their God-services” (1894g: 231). He counted Jaina Ācārya Śrīpuj among his good friends (WINTERNITZ 1898: 344). (H) Personality

A vivid picture of his overall personality is nicely drawn by WINTERNITZ in his obituary and by JOLLY in his biography. BÜHLER’s personality as can be gleaned from his writings is briefly described here. (1) As an Academician: He had great enthusiasm and interest for his work and for the special branch of knowledge that he was engaged in, i.e. Orientology. It can be observed in his writings that he was more interested in history and historical writings. He had an inclination towards study of the written word than that of the material culture.27 This can be inferred from the fact that he did not study ancient coins and other artefacts except just one article where he corrected the earlier reading on the Indo-Grecian coins. He acquired the position of a leader because of his academic excellence, his role in the International Congresses and his contacts with all classes of people from ‘native’ students, scholars, Shastris and Jaina munis to British officials, western scholars and ministers in the 25 “Never

have I heard from Bühler any of those slighting and disparaging remarks about the character of the Natives, … When he spoke of the people among whom he spent so many years of his life, it was always with words of just appreciation of the good he had found in the Native character, and words of kindly and grateful remembrance of the services they had rendered him in his scientific pursuits” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 345) 26 An opposite view can be seen in (PETERSON 1883: 46): “Through paths ankle deep in dust, and followed by crowds of Brahmin beggars, as ignorant as they were shameless and importunate, we visited one deserted shrine after another, asking ourselves how long the best minds of India will be content to leave the religion of the common people a prey to the obscene creatures who fatten on it as a means of livelihood. To the Hindu who respects his country’s past, and who hopes in her future, I can conceive of no sight more distressing than the present condition of the Holy city, Pushkar”. 27 This was suggested by Shreenand L. BAPAT.

20

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Austrian Government. He had connections in influential circles both in India and in England, in Austria and in Germany. He knew how to interest people in his cause (WINTERNITZ 1898: 347). His wonderful historical instinct, critical tact, accuracy, and ever unbiased judgement made him one of the pioneers of Indology. (2) As a Teacher: BÜHLER’s inspirations were more wonderful than his science and this is evident from the following words of WINTERNITZ: “It was impossible for anyone, whatever special department of Indian research he might be interested in, to converse with Bühler even for half an hour only, without gaining from him new points of view and many new inspirations” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 346).

He had the same enthusiasm for teaching like that he had for epigraphic researches. WINTERNITZ adds that “it was real pleasure to attend his ‘Elementary Course of Sanskrit’”. He was ever willing to help and to advise. Many times he supplied copies of manuscripts of various texts procured by him to his colleagues and students for editing. WINTERNITZ noted that he knows many, who call themselves pupils of BÜHLER, who have never attended a single lecture of his (1898: 347). (3) As a Person: BÜHLER had courage to go out and search the untrodden paths. He was very much unassuming while at times he did not hesitate to remind scholars like WHITNEY that the use of strong language in all scientific discussions is undesirable (1894r: 142). He had tact to deal with people even in a way accepting prejudices of people. He respected the prejudices and beliefs of people and sometimes even used them for a just cause like in an incident narrated in his “Eine Reise durch die indische Wüste”, the most illustrious one in this regard. A gist of the same is translated by WINTERNITZ in a lucid language (1898: 345). The event also displays his sense of justice. It would be apt to narrate it here in brief. During BÜHLER’s stay near Jaisalmer one day it happened that a cow was found in the neighbourhood of his camp, ransacking the fodder stores of the camels, and one of the camel-drivers threw a stone to frighten the cow away. Unfortunately he hit her leg. The owner of the cow demanded corporal punishment for the offender. The minister of Rawal who had hurried to the spot also insisted on the same demand. The camel-driver was to receive hundred strokes. BÜHLER refused to endorse such a sentence, and a whole day passed in futile negotiations with the local officials. Finally, BÜHLER offered to inflict on the camel-driver a heavy fine, and to use the sum for a pious work. He imposed on the offender a fine of twenty rupees, with which he bought five camel loads of hay and all the cows of Jaisalmer had a solemn pasture. The wounded cow soon recovered, and the incident, which otherwise might have led to serious disturbances, had no further consequences. It raised BÜHLER’s authority in the eyes of the people, who were impressed with his sense of justice (WINTERNITZ 1898: 345). One can only agree with BURGESS when he says that BÜHLER’s judgement was remarkably accurate and his knowledge of human nature instinctively clear, while his energy, wisdom and tact ensured success in whatever he undertook (BURGESS 1898: 371).

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

21

(I) Degrees, Titles awarded, and the Memberships

BÜHLER himself mentions following recognitions fallen to his lot up to 1878, in his “Vita” (THITE 2010: 163 fn. 2; JOLLY 1899: 8 fn. 2 and JACOBI and others 1898: 367–368): 1858: Membre de la Société Asiatique, Paris. 1863:

Member of the Asiatic Society of Bombay (Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society).

?:

Gujarat Vernacular Society.

1871:

Corresponding member of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, Jena, and Correspondent of the Institute des langues Orientales vivantes, Paris.

1872:

Knight-Cross III class of the Prussian order of the Crown.

1876:

Corresponding Member, American Oriental Society.28

1878:

Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire (CIE): 1st Jan. 1878.

1878:

Corresponding Member of the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien and of the Kaiserliche Ges. der Wissenschaften, Göttingen.

1878:

Corresponding Member of the Berlin Academy of Science (JACOBI 1898: 367).

1885:

Officiating (Ordinary) member of the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien; Hon. member of the Royal Asiatic Society in London and Hon. Doctor of Laws in Edinburgh (LLD).

1887:

Honorary member of the American Oriental Society and Corresponding Member of the Institut de France.

1889:

K. K. Hofrath.

1890:

Member of the Executive Council of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft.

1893:

Corresponding Member of the Petersburg Akademie.

1895:

Honorary Member of Asiatic Society of Bengal.

1897:

‘Compteur’ of the Order of Franz-Josef (Joseph) (Comthur des Franz-Josef-Ordens).

1897:

Member of the International Committee for the Research of India formed at the International Congress of Orientalists, Paris.

?:

Member of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society.

?:

Member of the Anjuman-i-Punjab.

19th July 1837:

(J) Life Events at a Glance Born at Borstel near Nienburg in Hannover, Germany.

1852–1855:

Went to Gymnasium at Hannover.

28 In 1873 according to JACOBI and others 1898: 367.

22

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1855–1858:

Studied Classical Philology and Archaeology; also studied Sanskrit and Oriental Philology under Theodor BENFEY, University of Göttingen, Germany.

1858:

PhD on Greek Grammar, University of Göttingen.

1858–1859:

Went to Paris to study manuscripts. Procured his livelihood through a house-teacher’s position in a prominent Russian family.

1859:

Went to London.

May 1861 to Oct. 1862

Assistant to the Librarian, Royal Library, Windsor, England.

Oct 1862–1863:

Assistant at the University Library, Göttingen.

10th Feb. 1863:

Arrived in Bombay.

1863:

Professor of Oriental Languages, Elphinstone College, Bombay.

Dec. 1863:

Nominated for the Fellow and Examiner of the Bombay University and member of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.

March 1864:

Member of the Commission, Digest of Hindu Law.

June 1864:

Professor of Ancient History and English, Elphinstone College in addition to Professor of Oriental Languages.

January 1866:

Acting Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies and Professor of Ancient History and English, Deccan College, Poona.

Nov. 1866–67:

First tour for the Search of Sanskrit manuscripts in Southern Maharashtra and Northern Karnataka.

1867:

Professor of Oriental Languages and Ancient History, Elphinstone College, Bombay.

20 Dec. 1868:

Acting Educational Inspector, Northern Division, Bombay Presidency and Officer in charge, Search of Sanskrit manuscripts.

Dec. 1869 to Nov. 1870

As a result of an accident returned to Europe on medical leave.

May 1872:

Got permanent position as Educational Inspector.

Dec. 1873 to March 1874

Sent on special duty to Rajputana.

July 1875 to April 1876

Sent on special duty to Kashmir and Central India.

1877:

Went to Europe on leave.

1878:

Published his second doctoral thesis.

27 May 1879:

Returned to India with wife after getting married in Switzerland.

12 Sept. 1880:

Retired from all the offices in India.

18 Sept. 1880:

Left India.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

23

October 1880:

Professor of Indian Philology and Archaeology (Altertumskunde), University of Vienna.

1886:

Hosted the 7th International Congress of Orientalists, Vienna.

8th April 1898:

Died by drowning into the Lake Constance (Bodensee).

2. WORK (A) Profession

(a) Professor at the Elphinstone College, Bombay: BÜHLER pioneered Sanskrit studies at two places viz. Elphinstone College, Bombay and the University of Vienna. BÜHLER used to teach Sanskrit, Prakrit, Latin and Comparative Linguistics, and later also Ancient History while he was a Professor at the Elphinstone College in the position for oriental languages that was newly created. In the Bombay University, he had to work as an examiner of Sanskrit, Latin, Greek and sometimes Marathi (THITE 2010: 157; JOLLY 1899: 3). He worked towards raising a library and collecting manuscripts for the College. He had generated such a motivation among the students that a fund of Rs. 5,000/- was voluntarily raised for procuring manuscripts for the College. Many standard Sanskrit works were thus added through his exertions to the College Library (WINTERNITZ 1898: 338). BÜHLER tried to combine the advantages of European educational methods with the traditional Indian. He recommended to the Government appointment of a Shastri educated in the traditional system as a help to the advanced students and as an assistant to the Professor (WINTERNITZ 1898: 338). (b) Educational Inspector: As an Educational Inspector B ÜHLER contributed to increase the standard of popular education in the Northern Bombay Presidency i.e. today’s Gujarat. At that time the new Director of Public Instruction brought a thorough reform of the Primary and Secondary education system. B ÜHLER dedicated himself to the reorganization of the same. In JOLLY’s words his contribution can be adduced as follows: “In the course of the next six years [1872–1878], the number of schools was increased circa 800 to circa 1600, through strengthening of the seminaries (training colleges) for a better and general training of the teachers taken care of, new normal-plans for the instruction introduced and schools carefully classified, as well as care taken for detailed yearly inspection of the schools. At the same time the wages of the teachers in the secondary schools were significantly increased and opportunities were given to the teachers of primary schools to earn yearly increase (in salary) through particularly good management” (THITE 2010: 161; JOLLY 1899: 6).

When BÜHLER retired from his services, the Director of Public Instruction in the Bombay Presidency in his report for the year 1879–80 referred to BÜHLER’s work as zealous labours that have laid the foundation of a sound popular education in Gujarat (WINTERNITZ 1898: 339).

24

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(c) Professor of Indian Philology and Archaeology,29 University of Vienna: BÜHLER, befitting his zeal, took up an extensive teaching activity, in spite of the fact that the chair was newly created. He conducted cycles of lectures, which extended over the most branches of the history of Indian literature and of social life. He composed a Primer for basic Sanskrit. In its introduction he states: “It is based upon the purely practical method of Sanskrit instruction, which was introduced at Haug’s and my own instance into the Indian secondary schools, and has become established there by means of R. G. Bhandarkar’s text-books. The attempt to transfer this method to European universities is justified by the practical success which, as my experience shows, is to be gained thereby” (PERRY 1886: iii).

Besides the elementary course of Sanskrit, his lectures consisted of the following (THITE 2010: 165; JOLLY 1899: 9): (1) Indian Law, with or without explanation of the Mitākṣarā (eight times); (2) Indian History (twice); (3) History of Western India (once); (4) Social and Political Composition of India (once); (5) History of Indian Religion (twice); (6) Ancient Indian Art (twice); (7) History of Indian Script (once); (8) Indian Palaeography (six times); (9) Indian Epigraphy, Aśokan Inscriptions (eleven times); (10) Epigraphical-historical Exercises, Interpretation of Sources of History30 (eight times); (11) Indian Fable-literature and Pañcatantra (seven times); (12) Daśakumāracarita (twice); (13) Kādambarī (twice); (14) Kirātārjunīya (once); (15) Śrīharṣacarita (twice); (16) Gauḍavaho (once); (17) Kumārasambhava (once); (18) Raghuvaṁśa (thrice); (19) Indian Drama, along with explanation of Śakuntalā (once); (20) Mālavikāgnimitra (thrice); (21) Vikramorvaśīya (twice); (22) Mālatīmādhava (once); (23) Explanation of Philosophical Works: Tarkasaṅgraha, Vedāntasāra among others (six times); (24) Siddhāntakaumudī (seven times); (25) Poetics and Kāvyādarśa (thrice); (26) Pāli (twice); (27) Prakrit (twice); (28) Gujarati (twice).

29 Professur, Indische Philologie und Altertumskunde. 30 This is notable that BÜHLER was teaching not only the sources of Indian history and culture, but

also the methodology of their interpretation.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

25

With his special students he even used to devote his vacations and used to read special texts or Aśoka-inscriptions (THITE 2010: 165; JOLLY 1899: 10). JOLLY witnessed a lecture of his, where, already in 1882, there were about fifty listeners who knew basic Sanskrit. They could fluently interpret the Nala-Damayantī ākhyāna. His listeners included, from time to time, aged people, professors, jurists, priests, officers, a book-seller and a printer, many university-colleagues, as also a woman colleague (THITE 2010: 164; JOLLY 1899: 9). The establishment of the Oriental Institute to which two halls were allotted, was a result of his initiative (THITE 2010: 165; JOLLY 1899: 10). He founded it in 1886 together with other Professors of oriental languages at the University and with the assistance of the then Minister of Public Instructions. (B) Voluntary Activities

(a) Member of various Societies, International Congresses: BÜHLER was an ordinary member of the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften (now Austrian Academy of Sciences) where he proposed to establish a commission for the edition of the sources of the Indian Lexicography (Commission für die Herausgabe der Quellenschriften der indischen Lexikographie). In 1893, Anekārthasaṅgraha of Hemacandra with excerpts from the commentary of Mahendra, was completed. He was a member of various oriental societies in India, Germany, Austria, America and Russia. He took active part in proceedings of many of them, especially of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He delivered a number of scholarly lectures before the academia of these societies, many of which were later published in their respective journals or proceedings. He participated in the various sessions of the International Congress of Orientalists and hosted the 7th one at Vienna. (b) Series Editor: (1) Bombay Sanskrit Series: BÜHLER initiated and superintended editing of the Bombay Sanskrit Series together with KIELHORN (1868–1880). The enterprise begun in order to give an opportunity to the young Indian scholars to learn the methods of critical edition and to produce cheap and useable textbooks for the Bombay-Colleges (THITE 2010: 159; JOLLY 1899: 4). BÜHLER edited the first number of the series and contributed altogether four editions. (2) Österreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient: BÜHLER worked as one of the editors of a literary and critical supplement to the ÖMO (1884–1886). (3) Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes: He founded and co-edited WZKM Vol. 1–11 (1887–1897), along with J. KARABACEK, D. H. MÜLLER, F. MÜLLER and L. REINISCH. (4) Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde: BÜHLER founded, planned and edited the series which was called in English the Encyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research. The series proved to be a culmination point in BÜHLER’s career and life. On the basis of his versatile knowledge of almost every branch of Indology BÜHLER was able to come up with this grand voluminous project based on the lines of LASSEN’s Indische Al-

26

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

tertumskunde,31 the difference being that in the Grundriss expert scholars in every specialised branch of Indology were expected to contribute a separate volume on their respective subjects.32 More than thirty scholars of various nationalities, from Austria, Germany, England, India, the Netherlands, and America had joined BÜHLER in the endeavour. Before his untimely death, BÜHLER authored one volume and edited eight (1896– 1898) with the participation of R. GARBE, A. HILLEBRANDT, J. JOLLY, H. KERN, A. MACDONELL, E. J. RAPSON, J. S. SPEYER, T. ZACHARIAE.33 The editorship then transferred to the equally able hands of KIELHORN. BÜHLER had planned to contribute together with JOLLY and Sir Raymond WEST volumes on sociology, clans, castes etc. and on economics, tenures, commerce etc. (WINTERNITZ 1898: 348). In all 27 volumes were published, all being classics which proved ‘vulgate’ in the respective branch of Indology. The work continued for almost forty years, wherein the last volume published in 1935. (c) Other: In the general census of 1881 in India the following four questions were asked to the Brahmans – What was their sub-caste? Which Veda did they study? Which Caraṇa did they belong to? And which Gotra did they belong to? The data of the Census, particularly of the last three questions was then sent to BÜHLER by J. A. Baines,34 Deputy Superintendent of the Census, Bombay Presidency, for further working. From that data BÜHLER inferred that conclusive results may be obtained in spite of the ignorance of the people about their Gotras etc.; though a number of Vedic schools are extinct from the oral tradition, they may be still traced through further investigations for manuscripts (1884b: 32).35 (C) Collector of manuscripts

As has been rightly pointed out by Ernst LEUMANN, history of any science is dependent on the local distribution of its material (1898: 368). According to him BÜHLER was one of those scholars whose activity most decidedly determined the progress of Indian Research (LEUMANN 1898: 369). If BÜHLER had done nothing more than collecting manuscripts still he would have contributed greatly to the field.

31 A first of its kind complete and exhaustive history of India dealing with political, social and intel-

lectual development of India, in four volumes, published respectively in 1847 (2nd ed., 1867), 1849 (2nd ed., 1874), 1858 and 1861. 32 For the detailed scheme see Appendix “Scheme of Grundriss”. 33 Five volumes were published in 1896, four in 1897. See WINTERNITZ 1898: 348 fn. 2. 34 Sir Jervoise Athelstane BAINES, CSI, (17 October 1847 – 26 November 1925). In 1881, he was Deputy Superintendent of the Census in the Presidency [Bombay Presidency] and excelled to the degree that he was appointed Census Commissioner for the National Census of 1891. (Vide https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervoise_Athelstane_Baines; Accessed on 15/03/2018 at 15:00 IST.) 35 It is not known whether BÜHLER was to submit to the British Government any official report communicating his remarks about the census and whether he did.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

27

(a) A Humble Entry: It is already stated in the previous section how BÜHLER’s interest turned more and more towards Sanskrit and how he felt the need to discover unpublished Sanskrit works by hunting more and more manuscripts. His early efforts in this direction were described by him later in his article “Two Lists of Sanskrit MSS. together with some remarks on my connexion with the Search for Sanskrit MSS.” (1888m). In 1863 when he arrived in India one of the chief aims he had in mind was to collect manuscripts. He began his activities in that direction immediately after the arrival. In his words: “When twenty five years ago I landed in India, no idea had a greater charm for me than the hope to acquire a collection of unpublished Sanskrit works which might enable me to solve at least some of the numerous difficult problems which Sanskrit philology and Indian history then offered and, I may add, still offer” (1888m: 530).

But the field was already occupied by individuals like Bhau Daji LAD36 and Martin HAUG. BHAU DAJI was a well-to-do physician with his own practice and a reputed educationist and antiquarian who later became the Sheriff of Bombay.37 He had employed agents to collect manuscripts and was ready to pay generously for the purpose. Hence wherever and whenever manuscripts became available he was able to catch hold of them. The manuscripts in Pune would go to Martin HAUG of the Deccan College. There was little scope for a beginner. BÜHLER was collecting manuscripts on his own, and had to spend all his savings for the purchases till 1866. It is interesting to note that the first bunch of manuscripts which BÜHLER could obtain was from Pune, then a city of orthodox Brahmans. With the help of his friend Whitley STOKES he got permission from the Madras Government to get copied manuscripts in the Madras Government collection (1888m: 531). In the beginning of 1864, BÜHLER, along with the then Registrar of the Bombay High Court, Raymond WEST was selected to compose a Digest of Hindu Law cases. Preparation for the Digest, for which many unpublished law-books were necessary for him, doubled his eagerness in collecting manuscripts. He also got prepared for himself transcripts of original manuscripts in Madras, Banaras and other cities (GOUGH 1878: 7; 1888m: 531).38 He became successful, up to 1866, to gather the greatest part of his valuable collection of 321 manuscripts, which he donated to the India Office Library in 1888 (1888m: 531–532;

Till the early British period, the surname was usually dropped. (Hence only ‘BHAU DAJI’ henceforth). BHAU DAJI was a physician and did not hold a PhD. So BÜHLER is little reluctant to use the title Dr. for him and states that he was called as such only by the general people (1888m: 530). 37 In 1869 and 1871. The Sheriff of Mumbai is an apolitical titular position of authority bestowed for one year on a prominent citizen of Mumbai. The Sheriff is an officer of the High Court and the nominal Head of the High Court Department. He has an office and staff but does not have executive powers of his own. In the order of precedence, the Sheriff ranks just below the Mayor (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Sheriff_of_Mumbai; Accessed on 17/08/2014 at 13:27 IST). 38 Interesting to note the contradictory remarks of STOKES and BÜHLER about the quality of the work of the copyist. STOKES praises the work while according to BÜHLER it was not satisfactory. 36

28

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

THITE 2010: 160 fn. 1; JOLLY 1899: 5 fn. 2). He extensively used the manuscripts and furnished, based on comprehensive manuscripts studies, an introduction on the sources of Indian law to the Digest (THITE 2010: 159 fn. 2; JOLLY 1899: 4 fn. 2). (b) Manuscripts Collection: 1866–1868: As has been noted earlier, he was also engaged in such activities which gave him an overall view of Sanskrit literature and an ability to discriminate at once between the important and less important texts. He learned Sanskrit as “living language”. Up to 1864 he knew Sanskrit “as good as English” (THITE 2010: 157 fn. 3; JOLLY 1899: 3 fn. 1). It helped him later to converse fluently with Pandits, to influence people, to gain their friendship and thence to get access into their libraries. Before the first volume of Digest was published, BÜHLER received permission to travel in the Southern Maharashtra and the Northern Karnataka to investigate the private libraries and to make purchases of manuscripts of rare works, wherever possible. He travelled during November 1866 to January 1867. Later Whitley STOKES proposed the pan-Indian manuscripts search project on the operation-plan drawn by BÜHLER for the tour (For the plan see Chapter III.3A). (c) Pioneer of Searches of manuscripts in India 1868–1873: LEUMANN opines that the zeal and ability exhibited by BÜHLER in building his own collection during his early years in India induced the Bombay Government to secure BÜHLER’s services in that line and so during 1866–68 BÜHLER was specially deputed to explore the native libraries. In 1868, Whitley STOKES proposed to the Indian Government a detailed scheme for the search of Sanskrit manuscripts.39 Though Pandit RADHAKRISHNA appealed and induced the Government to initiate the programme (GOUGH 1878: 1) and STOKES can justly be called as the founder of the whole enterprise, BÜHLER certainly had a lion’s share in it. There is enough ground to believe that STOKES was inspired by his friend BÜHLER (1888m: 531). STOKES not only quotes BÜHLER and refers to his tour for the search of Sanskrit manuscripts in the Southern Bombay Presidency but also asseverates that the proposed plan agreed completely with the plan drawn by BÜHLER (THITE 2010: 160 fn. 1; JOLLY 1899: 5 fn. 2). “I speak with confidence as to the practicability of the scheme; for, in its leading features, it is identical with that lately framed by Professor Bühler, which has resulted hitherto in obtaining from the Southern Mahratta Country and Canara alone the originals or copies of nearly two hundred valuable codices” (GOUGH 1878: 7).

The method adopted for collecting manuscripts during 1864–68 by BÜHLER, as described later in 1888 in an article (1888m: 530–532) matches for most of the part with the scheme proposed by STOKES in 1868. BÜHLER and KIELHORN emended the plan to prepare catalogues of private libraries proposed by STOKES (GOUGH 1878: 51). BÜHLER’s area of search was larger than anyone working under the project. At many places he was the first foreigner to be allowed to enter

39 His “Note” dated 6th August 1868 in GOUGH 1878: 1–7.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

29

the Jaina Bhandars and temples. Thus BÜHLER should be regarded as one of the foremost pioneers of searches of manuscripts in India. (d) Places Visited: During his first tour in 1866–68 BÜHLER visited towns in the Southern Maharashtra and the Northern Karnataka, viz. Pune, Indapur, Satara, Ashte, Kolhapur, Sangli, Dharwar, Belgaum, Nargund. The collection of that period also includes some copies of manuscripts procured from Nashik with the assistance of a Shastri. In the beginning of 1866 he was temporarily transferred to the Deccan College, Pune. He recalls incidents when he purchased manuscripts from unknown Brahmans who secretly came to his house in Pune “being in great pecuniary distress, yet afraid of an open intercourse with the Mlechchha” (1888m: 531–532). The accounts of charges paid for the copying of manuscripts are interesting and give an idea about the economic and literary conditions in various cities. “The prices paid for old MSS. were on a average Rs 5—6 per 1,000 Ślokas, only a few being good bargains. The charges for copying were in Benares and Calcutta Rs 1 ½ —2 per 1,000 Ślokas, in Puṇa Rs 3 or Rs 10 per mensem [i.e. month], in Bombay Rs 5, in Madras Rs 7. It may be easily imagined that my purchases swallowed all the savings which I was able to make. It was, therefore, lucky for me that I was obliged to stop the operations on my own account towards the end of 1866” (1888m: 532).

In Benares and Kolkata there might have been several Brahmans willing to and skilled in copying the manuscripts hence the rate for copying was low. Though the situation in Pune must not be different the rates were rather high due to the attitude of the Pune Brahmans towards the sacred lore. BÜHLER has described “In Puṇa, the orthodox sentiments of the majority of the Brahmans who considered the traffic with “the face of Sarasvati” to be impious and hated the very thought of giving their sacred lore to the Mlechchhas, made operations very difficult” (1888m: 530). Mumbai was already a growing city and hence costlier, while Chennai posed a different problem. Scribes who could transcribe manuscripts from the Southern alphabet into Devanāgarī were difficult to find (1888m: 531). In the Pan-Indian manuscripts project BÜHLER became in charge of the Northern division of the Bombay Presidency. Thus during 1868–69 he visited Gujarat and Kathiawar which include Ahmedabad, Dholka, Limdi, Rajkot, Gondal, Junagadh, Palitana, Bhaunagar (Bhavnagar), Nariad, Cambay (Khambayat), Broach (Bharuch), and Bulsar (Valsad). He had interviews with the possessors of manuscripts and explained to them the intentions of Government, and the purposes for which the search for Sanskrit manuscripts was instituted. At Bulsar he held a regular Sabhā which was well attended. At Junagadh he was mostly received in a very friendly manner by the Brahmans and Shastris. They came willingly to talk with him, to show the lists of manuscripts and to bring those which BÜHLER wanted to inspect. He realised and received a curious proof of how deeply the Pandits had been impressed by seeing a foreigner able to converse in their sacred language and acquainted with their Śāstras. On the last evening of his stay in Junagadh, a deputation of Pandits came and requested him to answer some questions. The interesting conversation reported by BÜHLER is as follows:

30

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY “(1) Whether in Europe, especially in Germany, the learned lived according to the Brāhmanical law. (2) Whether they performed sacrifices, as a European had done in Poona (Dr. Haug). (3) Whether I preferred sacrifices, or the study of the Vedānta, as the road to salvation. (4) How, supposing that I was descended, as I had told them, from the Aryan stock, I could consider myself entitled (adhikṛita) to study the Vedas and Śāstras without having been initiated. Though I hereupon disclaimed all belief in the Vedas and Śāstras, I succeeded in satisfying them that I had no sinister intentions against their creed; and one of them volunteered to teach me the correct way of reading the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa from Professor Weber’s edition” (GOUGH 1878: 50–51).

There can be many connotations to varied interesting points present in the above conversation. The one important for the present discussion is that it shows very clearly how good orator and skilled communicator BÜHLER must had been. Though he disclaimed all belief in the Vedas and Shastras he was still able to secure the confidence of these Pandits and a teacher for the “uninitiated bizarre Pandit”. His interaction with the Jainas was no less interesting. One of them invited BÜHLER to his house. He gave permission to take away books from his collection and asked in exchange nothing but a railway-guide (GOUGH 1878: 51). In 1870–71 BÜHLER visited Surat, Mahudha, Kapadvanj and again Broach. He used to stay in Ahmedabad particularly during autumn. He extended his area of search in 1873 and during 15th December 1873 to 15th March 1874 he made a tour to Rājputānā i.e. Rajasthan and visited towns famous for their libraries and religious establishments, Abu, Nandol, Palli, Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, and Bhatner (or Hanumangarh). Copies of the catalogues of the Maharaja’s and some private persons’ libraries were procured (GOUGH 1878: 117). The first success during 1873–74 was the opening of a famous Bhandar or Jaina library at Tharad.40 In Jaisalmer after great trouble Pārśvanātha temple Bhandar was open to him where manuscripts dating from the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries were preserved. The oldest of these bore the date Saṁvat 1160, i.e. 1103–04 CE. In this Bhandar BÜHLER made his famous discoveries, eight up till then unknown poems among them two were historical, Vikramāṅkadevacarita and Gauḍavaho. With the help of JACOBI, who was on a private trip to India, BÜHLER copied the entire manuscript of Vikramāṅkadevacarita (See Plate 9). The handwritten copy is now deposited in the Bhandarkar Institute (MS. No. 50/1873–74). Jaisalmer was rich in private Jaina libraries. The two scholars inspected every manuscript in the Pārśvanātha temple library and selected 28 manuscripts to be copied for the Bombay Collection. But the copies were perhaps never made. BÜHLER requested repeatedly in vain. There was the oldest extant manuscript then known in India, dated 1103 CE.

40 Banaskantha District, presently in the Gujarat State.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

31

In Bikaner, the most important library which he saw was of the Maharaja, which contained about 1,400 manuscripts (GOUGH 1878: 118). BÜHLER did not rest during the period of his leave. He used a month’s privilege leave to visit Lahore, Delhi, Benares, and other towns of Northern and Eastern India and collected manuscripts for the Government. His visit to Patan during 1874–75 was very successful. Patan, the ancient Aṇhilvāḍ, is a town which was in the princely state of the Gaikwad’s during the British period. BÜHLER describes it as a true centre of Jainism in Gujarat. It was inhabited by a larger number of Śrāvakas than Ahmedabad, Vadhvan, or Cambay; and the Upāśrayas were likewise numerous (GOUGH 1878: 126). The first Bhandar in Patan where BÜHLER got permission to enter was Pophliapadano Bhandar. However his repeated attempts to enter into the famous Bhandar of Hemacandra or Hemācārya failed. He visited the town thrice in six months’ duration for the purpose but was unable to inspect the entire library. He was shown only 600–700 manuscripts.41 (e) Reports of the Searches: As rightly pointed out by JOHNSON BÜHLER’s previous experience as Assistant to the Librarian of the Royal Library at Windsor Castle and at the library of the University of Göttingen prepared him well for developing a research collection (JOHNSON 1988: 114). Moreover, it also helped him to prepare one-line catalogues of manuscripts collections. In 1866 before starting for his first tour in search of manuscripts he prepared lists of manuscripts available in Mumbai so that there should not be duplications; the idea which his predecessors in the field perhaps did not envisage. While on the trip itself he collected lists of holdings of libraries in the Presidency, so people in Mumbai could learn of resources outside Mumbai (JOHNSON 1988: 115). The detailed reports on searches for manuscripts presented by BÜHLER, KIELHORN, PETERSON, R. G. BHANDARKAR et al. to the Government is the pioneering work regarding cataloguing of manuscripts. Even today these reports are indispensable for a researcher. During the search for manuscripts, BÜHLER and KIELHORN prepared lists of manuscripts possessed by several private libraries. Today, after more than 125 years, it is hardly possible to trace out what happened with these collections. Though as such the entries in these lists are now obsolete, the record bears a historic value. The reports of search of manuscripts written by BÜHLER and KIELHORN differ in many aspects from the reports written by their successors. The philological discussions contained in them are not as lengthy as in the reports of BHANDARKAR and PETERSON. 42 BÜHLER described manuscripts in detail in the report of Kashmir. Along with the details of the manuscripts discussed therein the remarks and observations made by him from socio-historical point of view are significant. JOHNSON has summarised BÜHLER’s work in the following words: “... his [BÜHLER’s] actions in India indicate concern primarily to identify unique works of Sanskrit scholarship in India, to publicize their existence, and to assist scholars from 41 See JOHNSON 1988 for details. 42 See JOHNSON 1990: 75.

32

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY around the world in gaining access to such titles. His production of numerous lists with no cumulation to them or the detail of cataloguing ... again reflect the work of a discoverer rather than a library organizer” (JOHNSON 1986: 30).

The nature of BÜHLER’s job was completely different from KIELHORN’s, in whose possession the manuscripts actually were vested. KIELHORN was situated in Pune while BÜHLER has to travel in order to inspect the schools and thus his official duties made it inevitable that he should not get to stay long at one place which is absolutely necessary for a library organizer. As JOHNSON himself pointed out the detailed catalogues were beyond the capabilities of Government staff who undertook such work in conjunction with numerous other responsibilities (JOHNSON 1986: 29). Hence it would not be just to inculpate BÜHLER of not initiating a manuscripts library. One of the objectives of searches of manuscripts he had in mind since 1866 was to try to supplement the existing libraries of Bombay and Pune by acquiring important manuscripts. He expressed dissatisfaction about the fact that unlike the other Presidencies of India, Bombay possessed no large collection of Sanskrit manuscripts. In fact he was the one who envisaged founding of a Sanskrit library. He stated in his very first report of the search of manuscripts as follows: “Should I, therefore, be permitted to continue my labours of collecting, and should the Government see fit to unite with the newly acquired MSS. the older already existing collections, it would be possible to form a Sanskrit library, which might go far towards satisfying the wants of our Sanskrit students, and encourage them to make independent researches.” (1868b: 325).

His search operations continued from 1863 to 1880 during the entire period of his stay in India. For the first three years he collected manuscripts on his own, from 1866 to 1868 for the Government of Bombay and since 1868 onwards till his retirement in 1880 under the scheme of Government of India. He reported about his private collection and the manuscripts collected during 1866–68 elaborately in an article published in ZDMG in 1888. BÜHLER’s published reports stand for the following periods: 1866–67, 1868–69, 1870–71, 1871–72, 1872–73, 1873–74 (Abstract Report), 1874–75, 1875–76. There is no reference to the reports between 1877–1880 in JOLLY’s bibliography or elsewhere. Hence it is not clear whether they were actually published or not. He perhaps submitted a report for 1879–80 on 8th June 1880,43 in which he wrote that he has prepared a detailed report of his tour in Rājputānā during the winter of 1873–74, together with notices of the more important books which he bought then. The said detailed report never got published. The list of manuscripts procured during 1873–74 appeared along with KIELHORN’s report for 1880–81 (BHANDARKAR S. R. 1907: 1–2).

43 Also referred to by BÜHLER in 1888m: 533 fn. 1. The report is not available to me.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

33

(f) Manuscripts Collected: The number of manuscripts collected by BÜHLER for the Government, the collection which now forms a part of manuscripts library of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, amounts to in all 2,876 as per BÜHLER’s own record.44 1. Important manuscripts: The following are some of the important manuscripts procured by BÜHLER. Manuscripts of Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, Kauśika Gṛhyasūtra, Pariśiṣṭas of Atharvaveda and Kāśikā-vivaraṇa-pañcikā by Jinendrabuddhi were procured in 1866–67. A manuscript of the Mālatīmādhavaṭīkā, bought in 1869, was used by R. G. BHANDARKAR for his edition of that drama (MS. No. 67/1869–70). The manuscripts of Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya with Kaiyaṭa’s Commentary (MS. No. 84, 85/1871–72), the Bṛhatkathā45 of Kṣemendra and the Pārtha-parākrama-vyāyoga (MS. No. 33, 20/1872–73) are significant. In 1872–73 BÜHLER bought about ten palm-leaf manuscripts which are between five and six hundred years old. The oldest, containing the Bṛhatkalpasūtra with its commentaries (MS. No. 128–130/1872– 73), is dated 1334 Vikrama, or 1278 CE. The Ācārāṅgasūtra, with its commentaries (MS. Nos. 78–80/1872–73), forms one large pothī, the leaves of which are about 90 cm in length, and about 7.5 cm broad. Pañcasiddhāntikā of Varāhamihira (37/1874–75), Bhāratamañjarī (6/1874–75), Naiṣadhīyadīpikā of Cāndūpaṇḍita (16/1874–75) and Nāradasmṛtibhāṣya of Kalyāṇa (27/1874–75) are some other important manuscripts. 2. Old manuscripts: During his tour in 1866–67, he procured a 16th century copy of Mādhavīya Dhātuvṛtti and a very old manuscript of the Mitākṣarā copied in 1467 CE. He assigned great importance to the latter and observed that the readings of the manuscript agreed mostly with those adopted by the oldest commentator Viśveśvara (1868b: 323). Within two to three years of search in Gujarat, BÜHLER could state with confidence that he would be able to procure manuscripts dating as back as to the 11th century. He says: “I have already acquired several manuscripts which are fully 600 years old, and have full confidence that I shall obtain others which exceed that age by 200 years. The more I become acquainted with Gujarat, the more offers of old and valuable books I get” (GOUGH 1878: 84, Report for the year 1871–72).

The last sentence brings forward importance of his approach of public relations. The following numbers will state the richness of Gujarat in old manuscripts. Nine manuscripts procured by BÜHLER in the year 1871–72 were older than Saṁvat 1600 while

During the years 1868 to 1880, BÜHLER collected as many as 2363 manuscripts, according to LEUMANN (1898: 369). If 201 manuscripts collected during 1866–1868 would be added the number reaches to 2564. The actual number of manuscripts of the collection 1866–68, now deposited in BORI, stands to 172. 45 This was the first manuscript which made the text accessible to European Sanskritists, although the title of the text was known earlier to modern Sanskritists since H. H. WILSON, and there was a reference to it in AUFRECHT’s Catalogue. 44

34

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

seven manuscripts older than 1500. In a single year 1872–73 BÜHLER bought 24 manuscripts which were written prior to Saṁvat 1600 i.e. 1544 CE including 3 manuscripts written before Saṁvat 1400 i.e. 1344 CE. 3. Newly Discovered Works: The following works were unknown to the scholarly world till BÜHLER discovered their manuscripts: (1) Three new Smṛtis attributed respectively to Kaśyapa, Dakṣa, and Likhita (discovered in 1866–67), (2) The Padapāṭha of the 19th Kāṇḍa of the Atharvaveda (5/1870–71), (3) A small Prātiśākhya (12/1870–71), (4) A Paddhati on the Kauśikasūtra (9/1870–71), (5) Vahnipurāṇa (7/1872–73), (6) Hemacandra’s Śabdānuśāsana (282–284/1873–74), (7) Deśīnāmamālā (270–271/1873–74), (8) Vikramāṅkadevacarita (50/1873–74), (9) Gauḍavaho (27/1873–74), (10) Abhilaṣitacintāmaṇī, a work of King Someśvara (115–116/1873–74), (11) Mahāvīracarita of Hemacandra (250/1873–74), and (12) Many Brahmanical manuscripts on logic, rhetoric and Sāṅkhya philosophy. 4. Kashmiri manuscripts: A special mention needs to be made here of the collection of Kashmiri manuscripts that BÜHLER made during 1875–76 for the Government.46 This collection of 838 manuscripts has become all the more important due to the turbulent political and social situation in the valley that has extended for over last three decades. This collection comprises birch-bark and paper manuscripts written in Śāradā script and ‘new copies’ made at the instance of BÜHLER of those manuscripts that he could not procure in original. The manuscripts are related to specialised subjects like Kashmir Śaivism, Jainism and the history of Kashmir. Some of the important manuscripts can be listed as below: Acc. No. Title (1875–76) 5 The Birch-bark Ṛgveda that has entered the Memory of the World Register of UNESCO at Sr. No. 159. 159 Mahābhārata (Codex archetype, BORI critical edition) 176 Rājataraṅgiṇī-saṁgraha 192 Śākuntala 276 Uṇādisūtravṛtti 446 Pratyabhijñāsūtravimarśinī 447 Tantrasāra 816 Upaniṣads translated into Persian 817 Tārīkh-i-Kaśmīr (Persian translation of Rājataraṅgiṇī) 819 Bhāgavatapurāṇa (10th Skandha), Persian (g) Manuscripts sent to Europe: Manuscripts went to Europe in two ways through BÜHLER’s efforts; donation and sale. He donated to India Office Library his personal collection which comprised 193 modern 46 Since 1923 the collection is deposited in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

35

transcripts and 128 old manuscripts procured by him during 1863–1866. Since 1873 during the search for Sanskrit manuscripts instituted by the Government of India he obtained permission from the Government from time to time to send such manuscripts to European libraries on sale, texts of which are already well represented in the Government collection. He narrated the whole idea in his article published in ZDMG Vol. 42. If various stray descriptions obtainable from BÜHLER’s writings about the ‘manuscripts market’ in India are compiled some idea can be gleaned about the conditions in which BÜHLER conducted his activities. It seems, like the antiquity collectors of today who collect and deal in antique objects and there are dealers who operate as middlemen, there existed a market for manuscripts during BÜHLER’s time. Especially Gujarat and Rajasthan were richer in manuscripts and many individuals offered their entire ancestral collections for sale.47 Private collectors, both foreign and indigenous, including Maharajas of the princely states, and their agents, and the collectors appointed by the Government were the interested parties. Further, there were Pandits working as copyists. It can be imagined that the Government supplies of funds must be moderate as compared to the private dealers. BÜHLER narrated one incident: “Some other Brahmanical MSS., marked Gujarāt [in the list], I bought in the rains of 1874, when a portion of the library of Maṅgalshaṅkar of Ahmadābād came into the market. My supply of Govt money had run out, and the fact that a new grant had been made, had not been notified to me. Later the books were mislaid and I found the parcel only in 1877 when on leave in Europe. I then kept the most valuable ones apart and presented them to Government” (1888m: 533).48

This is also evident from the following narration: “After I had been working for some years in Gujarāt, I found that the number of MSS. offered for sale, especially of those of the Jainas, was so large that it was impossible to purchase with the funds a[t] my disposal more than a small fraction of them” (1888m: 534).

Further: “He [JACOBI] very courteously asked for my permission [to buy for himself], which I readily gave, as I was unable to take more than a small fraction of the heaps of manuscripts which the Bikaner Dalāls [agents] brought every day to our tents” (1888m: 535).

Moreover it was not desirable to purchase all the manuscripts offered because they contained over and over again the same works which had already been purchased. As per BÜHLER’s experience the unsalable manuscripts in Gujarāt usually found their way into the hands of the Borah paper-manufacturers and were destroyed. Hence he informed several friends in Europe and India of the facts and asked them to use the opportunity to add to the stock of manuscripts in other libraries (1888m: 534). He asked from time to time for Even a few orthodox Pune Brahmans secretly sold their manuscripts to BÜHLER due to great pecuniary distress (1888m: 531–532). 48 Brackets mine. 47

36

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

formal sanction from the Government of India and was permitted to send manuscripts to Europe as per the requests received from various European libraries. He has cited five such resolutions of the Government in his detailed article in ZDMG. At one occasion he retained three birch-bark manuscripts bought from Kashmir and presented one manuscript each to the India Office Library, to the Royal Asiatic Society and to the Royal Library of Berlin. Thus, the following libraries in Europe were benefitted through his activities: The India Office Library (323 manuscripts),49 the Royal Library at Berlin (482),50 Cambridge University Library (30), Library of the Institut de France (4),51 Göttingen University Library (1). BÜHLER’s activities should not be judged against the present conditions but in terms of his own time in which the Treasure Trove Act, first of its kind in India, came into enforcement only in 1878. Manuscripts did not come under the Act.52 The total number of manuscripts which found their way to European libraries through BÜHLER is 904.53 While supplying manuscripts to others BÜHLER was always cautious that the best possible manuscripts would come to the Government collection. This is evident from JACOBI’s case. JACOBI when accompanied BÜHLER on his tour to Rājputānā purchased some manuscripts. BÜHLER later in 1877 saw JACOBI’s manuscripts in Europe, amongst which he found an illustrated copy of the Kalpasūtra which, he thought, should have gone to the Government collection. Thence he suggested to JACOBI to present it to the India Office Library (1888m: 536). The suggestion was implemented by the latter scholar. (D) Partnership in delinquency? – The FÜHRER Controversy

BÜHLER’s excellent academic career, in spite of his authoritative command over the subject, his legion and extraordinary contributions to the field, has a defaming question mark

49 Including JACOBI’s manuscript of the Kalpasūtra which he presented to the library on BÜHLER’s

request (1888m: 536). 50 Or 506 according to WEBER (1888m: 534 fn. 1). Two separate calculations are possible since single

bunch may contain more than one text and thus can be counted separately. This can be ascertained only after more detailed examination of each manuscript. 51 The manuscripts were purchased and sent by the Government to France as a gift. 52 For the Act, Treasure meant “anything of any value hidden in the soil, or in anything affixed thereto”. Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, Act No. VI of 1878, 12th February 1878. 53 This includes apart from manuscripts supplied to various libraries in Europe, the manuscripts collected for MONIER-WILLIAMS. According to BÜHLER’s own account he did not collect manuscripts for individuals. But under a misconception that the manuscripts would go to the Bodleian Library BÜHLER supplied 30–40 manuscripts to MONIER-WILLIAMS which actually formed part of MONIER-WILLIAMS’ private collection (1888m: 535), later donated to the library of the Indian Institute at Oxford (JOHNSON 1986: 27). Nevertheless, some ‘native’ and foreign friends, including a Russian scholar from St. Petersburg Ivan Pavlovich MINAEV, with BÜHLER’s knowledge and consent availed of the services of the Government Agents for procuring manuscripts (1888m: 536).

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

37

against some of his writings (not activities) due to his association with FÜHRER54 during the last few years of his life. A. A. FÜHRER, a German pastor-turned-epigraphist was involved in fraudulent activities during his tenure as archaeologist in the Archaeological Survey of India. FÜHRER was serving as a Sanskrit teacher in Bombay. BÜHLER first came in contact with FÜHRER when he asked FÜHRER to edit the Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra for the Bombay Sanskrit Series. BÜHLER also helped him to travel to London in order to copy out a Burmese-Pāli law text deposited in the India Office Library (HUXLEY 2010: 489–490). FÜHRER was engaged in plagiarism evidently since 1882 (HUXLEY 2010: 490) the nature of which not only escaped from the notice of scholars like JARDINE, FORCHHAMMER, JOLLY and RHYS DAVIDS, but on the contrary they considered it as a work of serious scholarship (HUXLEY 2010: 491). Being considered a “good Sanskrit scholar and epigraphist”, in 1885 Sir Alfred LYALL,55 Lt.-Governor of the North-West Provinces, appointed FÜHRER as Curator of Lucknow Provincial Museum. He was recommended to the ASI in late 1885.56 As against textual and philological studies, archaeology was, for FÜHRER, an open field to invent new things. BURGESS, who excavated Mathura in the earlier season, retired from India before the beginning of the season of 1888–89. Though, due to want of funds the post of Director General was suspended after BURGESS in 1889,57 the funding to continue Mathura was still available. FÜHRER stepped in for the work, got tremendous success and procured grant for the next season. He sent impressions of many inscriptions to BÜHLER who by deciphering the same validated them unknowingly. HUXLEY sees this as a joint venture by BÜHLER and FÜHRER (HUXLEY 2010: 495). HUXLEY’s words, “Next year’s finds”, attached to the general statement of BÜHLER that [explorations] “would without a doubt completely free their [Jaina]58 creed from the suspicion of being a modern offshoot of Buddhism”, produce misleading impression to make BÜHLER’s lobbying “disconcertingly like prediction”. Actually, in the year 1887 itself, it was already successfully proved by BÜHLER in his monograph on the Jaina sect that among Jainas and Buddhists none is the offshoot of the other, as supposed by the then scholarly world which was divided into two groups on the issue. FÜHRER’s Mathura inscriptions were merely additional proofs to support the results of B ÜHLER’s earlier researches and Alois Anton FÜHRER (1853–1930) studied Roman Catholic theology and Oriental Studies at the University of Würzburg under J. JOLLY, received doctorate in 1877, posted as a Sanskrit teacher in Bombay probably through JOLLY. 55 Sir Alfred LYALL (1835–1911) worked as Foreign Secretary to Government of India from 1878 to 1881 (during this period he helped negotiate peace and a monarchy in Afghanistan). He was then appointed Lieutenant-Governor of North-West Provinces, and Chief Commissioner of Oudh (North-West Provinces) from 1882 to 1887. 56 He had, apparently, no training and education in that direction. BURGESS excavated Mathura on BÜHLER’s request in the 1887–88 season. “FÜHRER apparently visited the site for a few days to handle the epigraphic finds. This is the only hands-on training in archaeological methodology that FÜHRER was ever given” (HUXLEY 2010: 494). 57 Till 1902. 58 Brackets mine. 54

38

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

also of JACOBI’s.59 The statement mentioned above has no such ‘disconcerting’ sense as has been attached to it by HUXLEY. It was merely for the purpose of lobbying for funds, in case the Government was not willing to spend money. BÜHLER knew very well, through his close acquaintance of the Jainas, that the wealthy followers of the creed would generously donate money for the cause of their religion. Some consider BÜHLER and FÜHRER “as business partners, with FÜHRER handling acquisitions in India, and BÜHLER in charge of European marketing” (HUXLEY 2010: 496). No proof for such a conjecture is evident. Such statements of HUXLEY that BÜHLER and FÜHRER must be co-authors and that they made an unwritten contract of partnership seem farfetched due to want of enough evidence. It was customary for FÜHRER since 1882 to copy from other’s writings and to present it as his own. Thus he drew from BÜHLER’s work of Sanchi and Mathura and inserted it in his Ramnagar account. As has been rightly pointed out by T. A. PHELPS “this wholesale deception appears to have passed completely unnoticed during this period, including, apparently, by Buhler himself” (PHELPS 200860). It is notable that BÜHLER had no chance to see originals of any of the inscriptions excavated by FÜHRER. The article of PHELPS “Lumbini on Trial: The Untold Story” presents a more adducible view on this issue. While vindicating BÜHLER, the author states that according to the existing accounts BÜHLER “may have unwittingly provided FÜHRER with the necessary details”. A new dimension of the issue brought forward by PHELPS is the hidden role of the British officers in fraudulent activities especially related with Buddhist remains. He showed that British officials intentionally neglected FÜHRER’s activities. He contends that FÜHRER’s 1893 account appeared in ‘The Pioneer’ seems some sort of ‘plant’, designed to further British ‘forward’ imperial interests in Nepal; and consequently “an increasingly paranoid Nepalese Government soon put an end to these archaeological intrusions into its territory, and the border became firmly closed to all such ‘surveys’ shortly thereafter” (PHELPS 2008). There is a controversy concerning Buddha’s birthplace, discovered by FÜHRER; and whether PEPPE or FÜHRER was responsible for the forgery. PHELPS opines that both were responsible for crafting the story (PHELPS 2008). BÜHLER was the first to ask for further details of Piprahwa inscription and also stated the following: “At the same time I asked for a photo and an impression, and begged Mr. Peppe to look if any traces of the required I in the first word, of the medial i in the second, and of a vowel-mark in the last syllable of bhagavata are visible. I also asked Professor Rhys Davids to kindly let me know if a Śākya Sukitti (Sukīrti) is mentioned in the Buddhist scriptures”61 (1898e: 388).

There must have been some doubt in BÜHLER’s mind about the inscription. This is clear from what he adds further:

59 This was proved also by JACOBI independently of BÜHLER. 60 The pdf downloaded from the internet has no page numbers. 61 RHYS DAVIDS informs that the name Sukitti does not occur in any Pāli text

(1898e: 388 fn. 1).

CHAPTER II. LIFE AND WORK

39

“It was my intention to defer the publication of the inscription until I had received answers to these queries. As I learn from M. A. Barth that he, too, has received a copy of the inscription from Dr. Führer, and that he has laid his reading and explanation, which appear to substantially agree with mine, before the French Academy, I publish my reading and version in confirmation of his results” (1898e: 388–389).

In concluding lines of the essay, he reiterates his inhibition while publishing the readings based on ‘untrustworthy’ reproductions: “I may add that, in my opinion, the inscription is older than the time of Aśoka. But I must defer the discussion of this point until fully trustworthy reproductions of the document are accessible to me” (1898e: 389).

For the excavations BÜHLER intended to travel personally to India and had already planned for that prior to his sudden death (THITE 2010: 174; JOLLY 1899: 18). The only fault that falls to BÜHLER’s share is that he trusted FÜHRER too much and too easily. Considering his long experience and expertise in epigraphy, if we judge BÜHLER’s approach towards spurious grants, and that he failed to detect spurious nature of many in spite of his correct observations in that regard (see section III.7), the gullibility seems perfectly consistent.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS – A BRIEF SURVEY During his four decade long research career, BÜHLER dealt with variety of subjects from Dharmaśāstra to palaeography and from religion to epigraphy. In this chapter a summary of his writings is presented, which demonstrates his contributions to various branches of Indology.

1. DHARMAŚĀSTRA BÜHLER worked with Raymond WEST1 on the Digest of Hindu Law which was prepared by the order of the Government of Bombay Presidency and was meant to replace the assistance of Shastris from lower courts of justice. It was to be the authoritative source to be consulted instead of the Shastris. BÜHLER wrote an exhaustive introduction on the sources of Indian Law. In 1868 he edited with critical notes the Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra which was published in the Bombay Sanskrit Series. He then translated the Āpastamba, Gautama, Vasiṣṭha and Baudhāyana Dharmasūtras which formed a part of the famous series, Sacred Books of the East. The other important contribution of BÜHLER to the Sacred Books, ‘The Laws of Manu’ translated with extracts from seven commentaries, was published in 1886. As mentioned by JOLLY, BÜHLER had to his credit a rich collection of manuscripts concerning the law-books of Gautama, Baudhāyana, Viṣṇu, Vasiṣṭha and Nārada and thought of critically editing them. Later he entrusted his materials to the young scholars for editing (THITE 2010: 159 fn. 5; JOLLY 1899: 5 fn. 1). (A) A Digest of Hindu Law

This work comprises three books, each devoted to a separate subject, viz. Inheritance, Partition and Adoption. This English work, which witnessed three editions during BÜHLER’s lifetime, even got translated into Marathi, Gujarati and Kannada, the three main languages of the Bombay Presidency. BÜHLER co-authored the first two books with Raymond WEST. He did not participate in the last part, published in 1884, comprising discussion on Adoption; this was apparently due to the inconveniently great geographical distance between the two authors and of BÜHLER from the Shastris (1884B: iv) who were an indispensible part of the work. Sir Raymond WEST (1832–1912) M.A., I.C.S., Bar-at-Law, Bombay High Court Judge. He was a scholar and jurist, well versed in Roman Law and comparative jurisprudence.

1

41

42

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

During the East India Company’s dominion i.e. the early period of the British Raj, Shastris, expert in the Dharmaśāstra, were employed in the courts to help to make decisions in accordance with the Hindu Laws.2 By the two acts constituted in 1859 and 1864 their services were discontinued.3 As a part of new developments, it was decided by the Government to prepare a Digest of Hindu Law to replace Shastris possessing the knowledge of the old Śāstras. The Digest was meant to replace them from lower courts of justice.4 The method of preparing the Digest was to put questions relating to legal suits to the Shastris, discuss with them about their decisions and the authorities quoted by them in support of their opinion. From the discussions with these Shastris, it was of immense importance to draw right conclusions regarding the actual practice followed i.e. regarding the application of the Dharmaśāstric texts. BÜHLER discussed with eminent Shastris more than 2500 legal suits involving domestic matters like inheritance and partition. He searched each and every Sanskrit citation. In this book we find a detailed discussion about the answers returned by various Shastris to every question related to the domestic matters. Each of the answers collected became the basis of an actual decision (WEST 1884: 3). A study of the Sanskrit sources of law, of their character and teachings was indispensible as a foundation for a true mastery of the then prevailing practical law (WEST 1884: 9). BÜHLER’s Introduction describing the sources of Indian Law included meticulously drawn conclusions about the chronology of the texts and the actual practices and regional preference given to one text over the other. While enumerating the sources of law BÜHLER first discusses about the authorities of the Hindu Law as prevailing in the Bombay Presidency. He enlists the following texts for the same (1884B: 9–10): 1. The Mitākṣarā of Vijñāneśvara 2. The Mayūkhas of Nīlakaṇṭha, especially the Vyavahāramayūkha 2 “By Bombay Regulation II.of 1827, a Hindū law officer [i.e. a Shastri] was attached to the Saddar

Adālat, and one to each Zilla Court, and questions of Hindū Law were disposed of in accordance, generally, with the responses of these officers.” (WEST 1884: 2–3). 3 “The functions of the Hindū, as of the Mahomedan law officers were virtually set aside by the new Civil Procedure Code Act VIII. of 1859; and by Bombay Act IV. of 1864, supplementing (General) Act XI of 1864, the sections of the Regulation relating to the Hindū law officers were repealed” (WEST 1884: 3). 4 “The common law system – a system of law based on recorded judicial precedents- came to India with the British East India Company. Following the First War of Independence in 1857, the control of company territories in India passed to the British Crown. Being part of the empire saw the next big shift in the Indian legal system. Supreme courts were established [at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in 1862] replacing the existing mayoral courts. These courts were converted to the first High Courts through letters of patents authorized by the Indian High Courts Act passed by the British Parliament in 1862. Superintendence of lower courts and enrolment of law practitioners were deputed to the respective high courts. …Coding of law also began in earnest with the forming of the first Law Commission. Under the stewardship of its Chairman, Thomas Babington MACAULAY, the Indian Penal Code was drafted, enacted and brought into force by 1862.” Vide http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/about/about-the-legal-profession/legal-education-in-the-united-kingdom/ accessed on 29/04/2014 at 12.27.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

43

The Vīramitrodaya of Mitramiśra The Dattakamīmāṁsā of Nandapaṇḍita The Dattakacandrikā of Kubera The Nirṇayasindhu of Kamalākara The Dharmasindhu of Kāśīnātha Upādhyāya The Saṁskārakaustubha of Anantadeva The Dharmaśāstras or the Smṛtis and Upasmṛtis which are considered to be Ṛṣivākyāni together with their commentaries.

BÜHLER then discusses the relative position of these works to each other. The region-wise importance of various texts has also been enumerated (1884B: 10–11). BÜHLER infers that Vijñāneśvara must have lived during the latter half of the eleventh century. He thinks that Vijñāneśvara’s book was adopted as the standard work in Western and Southern India, and even in the valley of the Ganges because he was an inhabitant of the city of Kalyāṇa in the Cālukyan dynasty and a contemporary of the most powerful Cālukya king Vikramāṅka (1884B: 17). Regarding the age of Aparārka BÜHLER asserts that he must have reigned and wrote during 1140–1186 CE (1884B: 18). KANE places him between the period 1115–1130 CE (1930: 680). BÜHLER then discusses about the contents of the Vyavahāramayūkha and its age (1884B: 19–21). BÜHLER notices the high esteem in which Nirṇayasindhu is held in the regions of Maharashtra (1884B: 23). It was composed during 1611–1612 CE. Regarding the relative chronology of Anantadeva, author of the Saṁskārakaustubha and the author of the Nirṇayasindhu, BÜHLER thought that both were contemporaries (1884B: 24). However KANE asserts that the literary activity of Anantadeva must be assigned to the third quarter of the 17th century (1930: 452). BÜHLER has enlisted the names of 88 Smṛtis excluding the collections of Smṛtis and extracts from them (1884B: 27–28). He renders his opinions about the value of the Indian tradition, extent of its trustworthiness, and its flaws while discussing about the origin and history of the Smṛtis (1884B: 29–30). According to him the general assertion of the tradition that these works belong to the same class of writings as the Śrauta and Gṛhyasūtras, and that in some cases they have been composed by the authors of such Sūtras, is in the main correct but the tradition is untrustworthy in details regarding the names and times of the authors. He thinks that “the ancient history of India is enveloped in so deep a darkness, and the indications that the Smṛtis have frequently been remodelled, are so numerous, that it is impossible to deduce the time of their composition from internal or even circumstantial evidence” (1884B: 30). While BÜHLER states that the tradition neglects to distinguish between the various classes, into which the Smṛtis must be divided, KANE considers such divisions gratuitous. He holds that the fashion of dividing Hindu works into schools and assigning them definite territorial limits started with COLEBROOKE and strange results have flowed from this (KANE 1946: 878). The editors of the Digest agree with the views of MAX MÜLLER who considers the Dharmaśāstras in verse to be mere modern versifications of ancient Dharmasūtras (1884B: 31). BÜHLER divides the versified texts of Dharmaśāstra into the following four groups:

44

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (1) (2) (3) (4)

Metrical redaction of Dharmasūtras and fragments of such redactions. Secondary redaction of metrical Dharmaśāstras. Metrical versions of Gṛhyasūtras. Forgeries of the Hindu sectarians.

BÜHLER then elaborates on the school system in the Vedic tradition, the position of the Dharmasūtras in the Vedic literature, lost Dharmasūtras and the lost mass of Vedic literature in general. After considering how the Smṛti literature must have risen from the Dharmasūtras he discusses the relative chronology of the various Dharmasūtras. He records the traditional views which place Baudhāyana earlier in chronology than Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin. Among the latter two Āpastamba is older. He states that Gautama is older than Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha, and Gautama is the oldest Dharmasūtra. Though the oldest mention of the Āpastamba branch is in inscriptions dating to the 4th c. CE, from the internal evidence he thinks that it cannot be younger than the 5th c. BCE and hence the works of Baudhāyana and Gautama must be even older (1884B: 38–39). He remarks that it is of some interest for the practical lawyer to know that four out of the five existing Dharmasūtras have been composed in the South of India (1884B: 39). BÜHLER has addressed the question of the comparative age of the texts composed in prose style and the verse style of composition. He concludes that “we never find a metrical book at the head of a series of scientific works, but always a Sūtra, though at the same time, the introduction of metrical handbooks did not put a stop to the composition of Sūtras (1884B: 42–43)”. BÜHLER explains how Manusmṛti must have originated from Mānava-Dharmasūtra quoted in the Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra. Although KANE appreciates BÜHLER’s attempts to answer questions related to Manusmṛti and Mānava-Dharmasūtra, he strongly rejects the arguments in favour of origin of Manusmṛti from a Sūtra called Mānava-Dharmasūtra. After discussing the age of various Smṛtis, BÜHLER also deals with minor Smṛtis and states that they are not forgeries as supposed by his predecessors and contemporaries, but extracts from more extensive treatises. (B) The Sacred Laws of the Āryas

For MAX MÜLLER’s Sacred Books of the East BÜHLER translated four Dharmasūtras into English, namely those of Āpastamba, Gautama, Vasiṣṭha and Baudhāyana. Previously, in 1868, he had worked on the Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra for the Bombay Sanskrit Series (Nos. XLIV and L) and had edited the Sanskrit text with critical notes, indices and extracts from Haradatta’s commentary.5 (1) Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra According to OLIVELLE (2000: xvi) out of the four Sūtras edited by BÜHLER, the best edited is the Āpastamba. The Dharmasūtra originally formed an integral portion of the whole Kalpasūtra and is not a later addition (1879Ia: xii). BÜHLER holds that it is the work of the same author 5 Though

the title page of the said edition claims to include a translation of the text, it never seems to have appeared.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

45

who wrote the remainder of the Kalpasūtra (1879Ia: xii-xiii). On the basis of repetition of a Sūtra with an irregular grammatical form, ṛtve for ṛtvye, in both the Sūtras, the Śrautasūtra and the Dharmasūtra, he asserts that they belong to the same author. BÜHLER has shown that there are cross-references between the Gṛhyasūtras and Dharmasūtras of Āpastamba pointing to a common author of the two. He also thinks that the entire Kalpasūtra, including the Śrautasūtra, is the work of one author. According to OLIVELLE (2000: 4 fn. 5) the grounds for this conclusion rest on quite thin evidence and it was already rejected by OLDENBERG. (2) Gautama-Dharmasūtra BÜHLER endorses the view of MAX MÜLLER that this text is a manual belonging to Sāmaveda (1879Ia: xlv-xlviii) and that the author was a Sāmavedin (1879Ia: xviii). But he is not sure about whether it belongs to the Gautama Caraṇa (1879Ia: xviii). He tries to prove that the Gautama-Dharmasūtra is older than the Baudhāyana. OLIVELLE rightly points out after KANGLE that arguments for the priority of Gautama can be used equally well to show that he is chronologically later (OLIVELLE 2000: 6 fn. 8). BÜHLER holds that the Gautama-Dharmaśāstra may be safely called as the oldest of the existing works on the sacred law (1879Ia: liv). Rejecting the possibility of major interpolations or alterations, BÜHLER points out that it is too methodically planned and too carefully arranged to admit of any very great changes (1879Ia: lv). BÜHLER thinks that Gautama knew an ancient work on law which was attributed to Manu and that it probably was the foundation of the existing MānavaDharmaśāstra (1879Ia: lvii). BÜHLER used for his edition a manuscript bought at Belgaum for the Government of Bombay (now in the Bhandarkar Institute’s Collection) and a manuscript borrowed from a Shastri from Pune (1879Ia: lvii). (3) Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra His translation of Vasiṣṭha and Baudhāyana was published in 1882. Regarding VasiṣṭhaDharmasūtra he enquires whether it belongs to Vasiṣṭha and to the Ṛgvedins. BÜHLER accepts MAX MÜLLER’s views about the Mānava-Dharmasūtra in the following words: “... it seems indisputable that the author of the Vāsiṣṭha Dharma-sūtra knew a treatise attributed to a teacher called Manu, which, like all other Dharma-sūtras, was partly written in aphoristic prose and partly in verse. The passage furnishes, therefore, the proof for Professor Max Müller’s conjecture that our metrical Manusmṛti, like all the older works of the same class, is based on the Dharma-sūtra of a Vedic Sūtra-caraṇa” (1882Ib: xix-xx).

Since the early Sanskrit inscriptions invariably place Manu’s name first (1882Ib: xx) BÜHLER infers that in ancient times Manu’s name had as great a charm for the Brahman teachers as it has for those of his day, and that the old Mānava-Dharmasūtra held that dominant position which the metrical Manusmṛti actually occupied in the middle ages and theoretically occupied in his days.

46

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

BÜHLER concludes the section on secret penances by saying that it is not simply a later addition intended to supply an omission by the first writer, but that, for some reason or other, it has been remodelled (1882Ib: xxiv). Regarding the age of the Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra BÜHLER clearly states that with the exception of the quotations, the Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra contains no data which could be used either to define its relative position in Sanskrit literature or to connect it with the historical period of India. The only ascertainable fact in his opinion is that the Sūtra belongs to a Caraṇa settled in the North India (1882Ib: xxvii). (4) Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra BÜHLER opines that Baudhāyana was more ancient than Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin (1882Ib: xxxv) and probably he was an inhabitant of the eastern coast (1882Ib: xliii). He adduces a southern origin of the Baudhāyanīya school (1882Ib: xlii). (C) The Laws of Manu

This is one of the most referred works of BÜHLER. He staunchly supports the theory first put forth by MAX MÜLLER that the Manusmṛti is based on a Dharmasūtra of the Mānavas. He tries to differentiate and show the old and the new parts of the work (1886K: lxvi-lxxiii). The new parts comprise the additions made to the Dharmasūtra by the editors of the metrical version. He makes some conjectures regarding the sources from which the additions must have been made. Then he discusses the position of Bhṛgu-Saṁhitā among various recensions and its probable date. Opposing the view of a gradual textual evolution, BÜHLER proposed the unitary authorship of the text (OLIVELLE 2005: 6–7; 1886K: xcii). As for the age of the Manusmṛti, BÜHLER discusses relative chronology of various Dharmaśāstra texts. This epoch making book by BÜHLER has been referred to in many works where Manusmṛti finds a place. 6 (D) Miscellaneous

Other than the above mentioned works BÜHLER wrote a number of articles on Indian Law. In ZDMG BÜHLER and BÖHTLINGK seem to have a raging discussion regarding BÜHLER’s Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra. BÖHTLINGK strongly condemns BÜHLER for trusting Haradatta, the commentator of Āpastamba. Among BÜHLER’s other articles on Indian Law the article on the Wergeld is interesting (See for details section IV.D.6). In his very first article dealing with Dharmaśāstra written in 1864, BÜHLER tries to draw support from the Dharmaśāstric texts and especially from the Vedas against prepuberty marriage of girls then prevalent in Indian society. The article was first read in a monthly meeting of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society on 9th June 1863, within first four months of his stay in India. He attempted to prove that the laws enjoining the early marriages of girls are opposed to the practice of the Vedic age and, therefore, not binding, even for an orthodox Hindu (1864f: 139). Here he makes an attempt to seek for “Georg Bühler’s translation and study, which has remained the standard for over a century, …” (OLIVELLE 2005: 3).

6

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

47

the authority of the Vedas to draw attention towards a folly in the society. He certainly considered himself to be descended from the Aryan stock (GOUGH 1878: 50). There seems an attempt in this article to show that something which was righteous for the then European mind and society is found in the Vedas, the most authentic extant transmitters of the uncontaminated tradition of the Aryas. It was almost 27 years prior to the infamous Phulomnee case, the age of consent debate and the consequent emendation in the Age of Consent Act in 1891 (CHAPALGAONKAR 2009: 447).7 In an article on the age of the author of the Mitākṣarā, BÜHLER states it to be latter half of the 11th c. CE. Vijñāneśvara lived under the protection of and wrote for the Cālukyan king Vikramāditya of Kalyāṇī who was one of the most powerful kings at that time. His empire embraced the greater part of Southern and Western India. That is why, according to BÜHLER, Mitākṣarā came into general use and enjoyed high repute in the said region. In another article (1893h) BÜHLER presents results of collation of the manuscripts of Yājñavalkyasmṛti (BORI manuscripts No. 358–362/1875–76) done by KIRSTE and an index of various terms.

2. SANSKRIT AND PRAKRIT GRAMMAR AND LEXICOGRAPHY (A) Prakrit Lexicography

In 1873 BÜHLER discovered the Deśīnāmamālā of Hemacandra. A manuscript dated Saṁvat 1587 of the text was lent to him for transcription (BORI MS. No. 184/1872–73). He wrote a short notice in the IA of 1873 about the newly discovered text and the general scheme and importance of it. Within a period of six months he found another lexicographical work titled Pāialacchīnāmamālā of Dhanapāla (BORI MS. No. 185/1872– 73) notice of which also appeared in the June issue of the same journal. BÜHLER edited the Pāiyalacchīnāmamālā with critical notes, an introduction and a glossary for the Festschrift (felicitation volume) for Theodor BENFEY in 1878. He discusses the term ‘Deśī’ in detail (1878p: 77–78) and points out that many tatsama and tadbhava words are listed by Dhanapāla as Deśī (1878p: 78). It can be inferred that Hemacandra used Pāiyalacchī for his commentary while in his text he followed a different authority (1878p: 79). BÜHLER further infers that Dhanapāla wrote some other Prakrit Koṣa besides Pāiyalacchī to which Hemachandra’s quotations refer (1878p: 80). At the end BÜHLER declares that he must reserve a fuller enquiry regarding the real nature of the “so-called Deśī-words” for the introduction to Hemacandra’s Deśīkoṣa, which PISCHEL was going to edit in conjunction with BÜHLER (1878p: 79). At first BÜHLER had plans to edit the work of Hemacandra (GOUGH 1878: 134). However, it seems that due to lack of time and leisure, he handed over to PISCHEL the manuscripts of the text procured by him and decided to confine himself only to a historical introduction. BÜHLER was also to supply a glossary for the said work. Though the work was planned it is not known whether it was finished. PISCHEL published his edition of the

7 It seems, however, that the Act was not taken seriously by the subjects and the enforcing authority.

48

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

text in 1880 in the Bombay Sanskrit Series. The part consisting BÜHLER’s introduction and a glossary was perhaps never published.8 (B) Sanskrit Grammar and Lexicography

BÜHLER wrote a notice about the Yādavaprakāśa’s Vaijayantī in ÖMO in 1884. He then published a partial analysis of its contents and some extracts from it. BÜHLER concludes that the author was an ascetic from South India. PISCHEL thought the age of Pāṇini to be not older than 5th-6th c. CE. Thus he infers that Pāṇini stands not at the beginning of the grammatical literature but at the beginning of its final development. BÜHLER refutes these views of PISCHEL in an article titled “Hiuen Tsiang’s Angaben über das Alter Pâṇini’s”. BÜHLER argues that though Hiuen Tsang narrated some legends pertaining to Pāṇini they contain negligible historical element in them. Had Pāṇini preceded Hiuen Tsang only by one or two hundred years then Hiuen Tsang should have come to know at least some historical information about the former. BÜHLER affirms that Indians anticipate events that happened a hundred years ago, as “within the memory of man”. In the hometowns of authors who lived two hundred years ago, you get better informed than about such authors who lived three to four thousand years ago. Consequently, he considers Hiuen Tsang’s statement against PISCHEL’s assumption of the time of the grammarian (1885i: 225). In his article on the peculiar meaning of the particles iti and ca BÜHLER points out the correctness of the traditional view that they also mean, depending upon the context, ‘and so forth’, ‘and the like’ (1887a: 13–20).9 Another epoch-making article on Sanskrit grammar by BÜHLER is titled “The Roots of the Dhātupāṭha not found in Literature” (1894r: 141–154, 250–255; 17–42, 122–136).10 As far as his other activities are concerned, through the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften (i.e. the Imperial Academy of Sciences and now the Ӧsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften) BÜHLER initiated a project for editing “the Sources of the Indian Lexicography”. His contributions to Sanskrit and Prakrit Lexicography may be summarised in brief as follows:11 (1) Catuṣka (Text: Pañcatantra) P: A hall resting on four pillars or a Maṇḍapa. MW: A quadrangular courtyard (used for receiving guests) BÜHLER: The Cauka or four-cornered figures are meant, which are drawn in white chalk, or formed of wheat or rice, round the seat or dining-place of honoured guests at festive occasions (1891Ca: 72). The edition was revised with a glossary by Paravastu Venkata RAMANUJASWAMY in 1938 and published by the Bhandarkar Institute. There is another edition of PISCHEL’s work published from Kolkata. 9 For details see Chapter IV. 10 For details see Chapter IV. 11 Abbreviations used only for the present section: P = Petersburg Dictionary, MW = Monier-Williams Dictionary. 8

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY Source: Argument: Remark:

49

MOLESWORTH’s Marathi dictionary cauka; S. P. PANDIT. “...it is, at least now, not customary to erect Maṇḍapas simply for reception of guests” (1891Ca: 72). Interpretations of P and MW are not in concord with the expression ‘Racitacatuṣkā’, adjective of the hostess in the Pañcatantra story.

(2) Praśasti (Technical meaning of) P: An edict MW: An edict, eulogy BÜHLER: (only) eulogy or eulogistic inscription; “Edict” is not correct. Edict is a Śāsana (1888j: 86–91). Source: Khaṇḍa-Praśasti, Kumāravihāra-Praśasti and many such works. Argument: In literature short laudatory poems are commonly called Praśastis. (3) Uttarāyaṇa and Dakṣiṇāyana P: Uttarāyaṇa - the summer solstice. MW: Uttarāyaṇa - the summer solstice.12 As both P and MW equate Uttarāyaṇa with summer solstice they do not do it in the case of Dakṣiṇāyana. Uttarāyaṇa is winter solstice and Dakṣiṇāyaṇa is summer solstice (1888j: BÜHLER: 90–91). Source: Inscription of Dharaṇīvarāha of Vaḍhavāṇa dated “pauṣa sudi 4 uttarāyaṇe” (1883b: 190–195); karkasaṁkrāntir dakṣiṇāyanam makare’ntyam - Nirṇayasindhu. Argument: “The Uttarāyaṇa-day is the first day of the sun’s course towards the north [printing mistake corrected] and falls in the month of Pauṣa [i.e. in winter]. The day called Dakshiṇāyana, on the other hand, is the first day of the sun’s course towards the south and falls in the month of Āṣāḍha [i.e. in summer]” (1888j: 90–91). Remark: Solstice is the farthest conjectural point from the equator to which the sun touches. Each year, the summer solstice is reached by the sun on the 21st of June, while the winter solstice on the 22nd of December. According to the ‘mixed calendar’ (having both lunar and solar considerations) used in India, these two points are reached in the months of Āṣāḍha and Pauṣa respectively and they are called Viṣṭambha and Avaṣṭambha (THAKUR 1977: 683–684). The sun’s journey from Viṣṭambha to Avaṣṭambha is Dakṣiṇāyana and thus Uttarāyaṇa is perceived vice versa. The solstices and the ayana are conceptually different.13 However, considering the implication of the term Uttarāyaṇa in the inscription and the mention of the month Pauṣa, BÜHLER stands vindicated for his translation ‘winter solstice’, as against the meaning offered by P and MW.

12 The description given in both the dictionaries is correct.

P: der Gang (der Sonne) nach Norden, das Halbjahr in dem die Sonne sich von Süden nach Norden bewegt. MW: the progress (of the sun) to the north; the period of the sun’s progress to the north of the equator. 13 THITE has suggested a new term ayanabindu as a Sanskrit translation of the word solstice. BÜHLER calls it Uttarāyaṇa-day.

50

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(4) Bhrūṇa, Bhrūṇahan, Bhrūṇahatyā, Bhrūṇahanana P: An embryo; Bhrūṇahan - the destroyer of a Brāhmaṇa. MW: An embryo, a very learned Brāhmaṇa; Bhrūṇahatyā – the killing of a learned Brāhmaṇa. A learned Brāhmaṇa. Derives from the Vedic root bhur meaning to move BÜHLER: quickly, to be active (1888j: 182–185). Source: Baudhāyana-Gṛhyasūtra; Haradatta’s commentary on the ĀpastambaDharmasūtra.14 Remark: Both the dictionaries accept the meaning Brāhmaṇa at only a few places and otherwise render the meaning as an embryo, while BÜHLER argues that the latter meaning is comparatively rare. He cites many references from Brāhmaṇas and particularly from Dharmaśāstra texts where the meaning embryo is utterly impossible and the word Bhrūṇa needs to be translated as a Brāhmaṇa. (5) Dharmavahikā (occurring in Prabandhas) P: N. A. MW: N. A. Name of a town. (Grant of Bhīmadeva II, IA 1890: 112). FLEET: BÜHLER: An account book of charitable expenditure (1889j: 365–366). Source: Prabandhacintāmaṇi of Merutuṅga; Grant of Bhīmadeva II mentioned above. Argument: Gujarati Vahikā; Marathi Vahī; Hindi and Panjabi Bahī; Marvadi Vaṇī (probably a contraction of Vahiṇī; Khātāvaṇī). All from the root vah to mean vehicle (of accounts). “Indian kings used to keep regular accounts of their charitable gifts….” (1889j: 366). Remark: The word does not find place in the lexicographical works like Indian Epigraphical Glossary (SIRCAR 1966) and Contributions of Sanskrit Inscriptions to Lexicography (TEWARI 1987). (6) Dṛṣṭam (occurs at the beginning of inscriptions) BHAGWANLAL and FLEET: Dṛṣṭam (No explanation about the possible meaning). KIELHORN: Oṁ, Oṁ. BÜHLER: Seen (1892af: 9). Explanation: It is a remark to denote that the copy of the grant has been seen and endorsed. (See section IV.2). (7) Kuṭila alphabets (The nomenclature) Kuṭila alphabets (used the term for the first time based on a wrong interPRINSEP: pretation of an expression in the Dewal Praśasti). FLEET: Kuṭila (expresses doubt). Kuṭila (No arguments for the nomenclature, SIRCAR 1965–66: 50). OJHA: BÜHLER: Nāgarī of the North Indian type (1892av: 76; JANERT 1961: 69). SALOMON: Siddhamātṛkā (1998: 39). Argument: “…Moreover, if the writer says that he was acquainted with crooked letters, the natural interpretation of the phrase seems to be that it refers to his skill in reading badly written and difficult documents, not that he was acquainted with letters called Kuṭila. For there is nowhere else an indication that an alphabet of this name existed” (1892av: 76). 14 Also see Mahābhārata 12.15.55 (BELVALKAR 1950: 59).

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

51

(8) Āgama (Vākyapadīya II.1–6) GOLDSTÜCKER: A document or a manuscript WEBER: A text STENZLER: Überlieferung (tradition) KIELHORN: Traditional knowledge BÜHLER: The tradition or the traditional interpretation of the Śāstras. BÜHLER confirms the meaning contended by KIELHORN by consulting “the most learned grammarians in Benares, Indore, and other parts of India” (1877b: 71). There was a long debate between WEBER, KIELHORN and STENZLER about the meaning of the word Āgama in a Bhartṛhari’s verse (KIELHORN 1876: 244). With the help of a manuscript of Bhartṛhari’s commentary on the Mahābhāṣya preserved in the Berlin library BÜHLER could further substantiate KIELHORN’s view. Bhartṛhari himself explains the word as pāramparyeṇāvacchinna upadeśaḥ (1882d: 653–654). (9) Siddham (Frequently stands in the beginning of ancient inscriptions) STEVENSON: To the Perfect one. BÜHLER: Siddhiḥ, success (1881b: 273). BÜHLER points out that the word is used as a maṅgala in the Mahābhāṣya. He refers to KIELHORN’s edition and BHANDARKAR’s article (1876: 346) for the same.

3. CATALOGUES OF MANUSCRIPTS AND REPORTS ON MANUSCRIPT-SEARCH In September 1863 BÜHLER wrote a review of two catalogues of manuscripts in the Library of the Board of Examiners in Chennai, then Madras, and commented on the part related to Sanskrit manuscripts. The catalogues were not systematic and displayed gross errors. There were numerous works ascribed to Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānuja, Madhvācārya with the commentaries of their disciples. BÜHLER offers the following remarks about the importance of the collection: “Many of these works are at present unique, and should the time come ... when the now neglected last stage of the religious development of India, shall again engage the attention of Oriental scholars, we shall have to look to the collection of Madras chiefly for further information on the history of the fall of Hinduism” (1864h: 77).

When he wrote this he perhaps believed that the division into sects is the “last” stage of the religious development of “India” and that it was the “fall” of Hinduism. Here it seems that he was looking from the view point of a Western, Christian scholar who did not have an in depth acquaintance with Hinduism. For a Christian might perceive, due to the influence of the history of his own religion, the existence of many sects as a last stage of development. In contrast with this remark of 1863, his epoch making article written in 1887 on the Jainas “Über die indische Secte der Jaina”, displays a thorough awareness of the Indian religious systems.15 A survey of BÜHLER’s reports of searches of manuscripts is already summarised in the previous section (Section II.2–2.2). His reports contain detail information on 15 See Chapter IV.

52

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

manuscripts, interesting accounts of the places visited as also acknowledgment to the persons who helped him in one or the other way and his interaction with them. (A) Report for the period 1866–67 (Tour to Southern Marāṭha Country, 1868b)

BÜHLER made a tour to Southern Maharashtra and Northern Karnataka from November 1866 to January 1867 in search of Sanskrit manuscripts for the Government of Bombay. He sent to WEBER in Berlin a copy of the report that was submitted to the Government. WEBER got it printed along with his own footnotes in the ZDMG, Vol. 22. In the beginning of the report, BÜHLER states that the Quarter Master General was unable to provide him with a tent for his journey. Therefore he had to restrict himself to those parts of the country where he could find Traveller’s Bungalows, or other suitable house accommodation. Thus, except some occasional nearby excursions, he had to follow the main road. The chief towns visited were Wāi, Sattara (Satara), Pāl, Karhad (Karad), Ashte, Kolhapur, Sangli, Miraj, Kaghul (Kagal), Nipani, Sankeshwar, Belgaum, Dharwar, Nargund, Hubali, Yellapur, and Karwar. BÜHLER then elaborates the guiding principles which he has laid down for himself in advance for the search. They are summarized as follows: (1) A primary object, of course, must be to search for Sanskrit works, hitherto unobtainable, the recovery of which might contribute to the solution of some of the many pending questions of Sanskrit philology. (2) Unlike the other Presidencies of India, Bombay possessed no large public collection of Sanskrit manuscripts. Except in ‘Puṇa’16 College Library, there was nothing much useful even in the libraries of Pune. So another aim was to try to supplement the existing Libraries of Bombay and Pune, by acquiring important works, which though perhaps easily obtainable elsewhere, were wanting at these two places, and new and better manuscripts of already accessible books. (3) Third objective was to provide suitable materials for young Sanskritists who had undertaken to assist in the edition of the Bombay Sanskrit Series (1868b: 315–316). In order to realize these objects, the following method was adopted: (1) A list of such works, the acquisition of which seemed particularly desirable was prepared. Copies of this list were placed in the hands of all Shastris and other persons, who showed themselves ready to assist in the search for manuscripts. (2) All obtainable lists of books which were in the possession of Shastris and other native gentlemen in the places visited, were collected and carefully examined. Whenever anything promising to be of interest was found in the lists, the manuscripts used to be examined either by BÜHLER himself or by his Shastri and other assistants. (3) He invited the Shastris and Sanskrit Scholars of every town visited to meet him, and used these meetings to explain the objects of his mission, to make inquiries regarding manuscripts (1868b: 316).

He always preferred the colloquial name ‘Puṇa’ over either ‘Pune’ a formal form, or Poona, the anglicized form prevalent in those days. 16

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

53

BÜHLER used such meetings also to discuss with the traditional scholars in Sanskrit, interesting points of Sanskrit philology and literature. He stated that he hoped, by a personal acquaintance, and by showing a real interest in their ancient language and culture, to remove, or at least to lessen the aversion, which natives generally had, to giving or even showing their books to strangers, and particularly to foreigners. BÜHLER remarked that the personal collections of Bhau Shastri DIKSHIT at Satara, and of LIMAYE at Ashte17 were the most important. These two libraries surpassed all the rest in extent, and were also the richest in unique or rare books. A great many of the manuscripts which Mr. DIKSHIT placed at his disposal were very ancient, and written in Kayasth and ‘Guzerat’18 handwriting. He praised Mr. DIKSHIT for his liberality far in advance to the general spirit of the Brahman possessors of libraries. On the other hand, he found the Madhva Brahmans in Karnataka the most bigoted and illiberal of all. He stated “though a number of them were willing to talk with me on the secular branches of Sanskrit literature, they refused altogether to discuss their Vedanta, and to part with or to show me any of their books.” With the help of two Mādhva fellows working in the public instruction department he could get a few manuscripts for copying. An account of the manuscripts procured or copied for the Government is given next in the report. BÜHLER remarked that anyone who wishes to prepare an edition of the Mahābhāsya could find in this Presidency ample materials for it. Then follows a list of printed books, documents in the vernacular and English, and curiosities found during the tour.19 This included history of state of Nargund, a list of the Konkanasth families studying the Āpastambaśākhā, a list of the spiritual heads of the Madhvas, a genealogy of Śaṅkarācārya, a few maps, three inscriptions obtained from Kolhapur20 and a set of sacrificial implements used by the Liṅgāyats. 21 At the end he has acknowledged assistance of as many as 15 persons including five British officers and the rest Indians. They included Collectors of three districts, the political resident at Kolhapur, Educational and Deputy Educational Inspectors, Head Masters, a Principal of a college and his assistant, and a moonsiff.22

Ganesh Anant or Dhonddeva Ganesh LIMAYE (GODE 1954: 510). Seemingly, LIMAYE had not parted with his collection and allowed the manuscripts only to be copied. However, a descendent of the Limaye family, namely Shambhurao Govind LIMAYE donated the collection to the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in 1938 (GODE 1954: 505–506). 18 By Guzerat handwriting he certainly means the Jain Devanagari characters. It is generally believed that the Jain Devanagari characters are used in the manuscripts found in Gujarat. But it seems from his remarks that the manuscripts had travelled from Gujarat to Satara, probably during the Maratha advance in that territory. 19 In this respect this report differs from the other reports of BÜHLER. 20 It seems that he did not bother to decipher or study the inscriptions. 21 I am not aware about present location of this material and whether it was placed together with the Government Manuscripts Collection. 22 A native civil judge of the lowest class (munasaf or munasūf, PADMANJI 1863: 347). 17

54

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (B) The Catalogue of Private Libraries

In November 1868 searches of manuscripts were instituted by the Government of India. It was proposed under the scheme “to prepare uniformly all procurable unprinted lists of the Sanskrit manuscripts in Indian libraries, and to send them to the various learned Societies of Europe, and to individual scholars in Europe and India, with an intimation that the Government will carefully attend to their suggestions as to which of the MSS. therein mentioned should be examined, purchased, or transcribed” (GOUGH 1878: 9). Accordingly BÜHLER and KIELHORN were entrusted with preparing a catalogue of manuscripts from the unprinted lists of various private and individual libraries. BÜHLER prepared a catalogue of manuscripts which consisted of a survey of libraries of Surat, Ahmadabad, Baroda, Broach and many other towns of Gujarat, the towns of Kathewad such as Bhavnagar, Sihor, Junagadh, etc. The catalogue also contained lists from Hyderabad in Sindh, the Royal collection of Bhuj, the libraries of Khandesh23 and the libraries in the Nashik district. The catalogue is a result of a survey of manuscripts carried out “partly by paid agents, partly by the Śāstrīs of the native courts, and partly by schoolmasters and other employees of the Educational Department” (1871F: iii). It was published in four fascicles divided subject-wise. The first fascicle contains manuscripts of the Vedic and the Sūtra literature, the second lists Poetry, the third has Grammar, Glossaries, Alaṁkāra, Metrics and Dharma while the fourth enumerates Darśanas and the other technical sciences. According to BÜHLER, the catalogue would enable the Bombay Sanskritists to gain access to a very large number of good manuscripts (1871F: iv). He offers to procure copies of the manuscripts for any Sanskritist who might apply to him. The rates of the copyists were, for simple copies Rs. 2.50–3.00 and for ‘corrected’ ones Rs. 4.00–5.00 per 1000 Ślokas. BÜHLER has stated his general remarks about the extent and the scope of the literature obtainable through these manuscripts and he also has commented on the rare and important works. BÜHLER takes Sarasvatīpurāṇa to be a modern fabrication (1872Fa: ii). Through the catalogue several new works, especially relating to the Atharvaveda came to light (1871F: viii). The second fascicle lists 120 such works which were unknown till then (1872Fa: viii). BÜHLER declares some of the Māhātmyas like Ḍākora-Māhātmya and SābharamatīMāhātmya as of recent origin (1872Fa: ii). He calls Naiṣadhacarita as the most worthless of all the Mahākāvyas (1872Fa: iv). The catalogue is now almost obsolete from the point of view of getting access to the manuscripts listed. Nevertheless, one can peep into the history of various collections and manuscripts extant in the 19th century. It is possible that during the past hundred years some of the manuscripts might have reached a public manuscripts repository or Oriental Research Institute in the vicinity.

23 which BÜHLER calls highly interesting.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

55

(C) Extracts from the Reports

BÜHLER was the first person to explore manuscripts libraries in India on such a wide geographical area. He was the first European to be able to enter into the Bhandars of the Jainas. Obviously the European scholarly world was enthusiastic about his discoveries and curious to know about any developments on that front. Extracts from his reports were published from time to time in various journals like Orient und Occident, Indische Studien and most often in the Indian Antiquary. By publishing extracts from the letters written to him by BÜHLER, WEBER informed the readers of his Indische Studien and other German journals about BÜHLER’s accounts and results of his searches (1874b, 1876k and 1876l). The discovery of the Vikramāṅkadevacarita and BÜHLER’s accounts of Kashmir tour were the most noticed. (D) The Reports 1872–73 onwards

BÜHLER’s reports written 1873 onwards are the most important ones. He found numerous new works, rare and old manuscripts during 1872 to 1876. The lists of manuscripts for 1873–74 and 1875–76 also contain along with the basic information about each manuscript the name of the place where it was procured. His detailed narration about the Rājputānā tour “Eine Reise durch die indische Wüste” appeared in the Österreichische Rundschau in 1883. (E) Kashmir Report

This epoch-making report of BÜHLER’s ten month tour to Kashmir became famous and is still considered to be important due to the academic discussions therein as also from the point of view of history and accounts of manuscripts procured during that period. Beginning with this report the later reports in search of manuscripts became more and more exhaustive and full of lengthy academic discussions. Published in 1877 as an Extra Number of the JBBRAS the report is divided into three sections: BÜHLER’s personal narrative, an account of the Kashmiri Brahmans and an account of the manuscripts purchased. The three sections are under “Part I - Kashmir”. As the title suggests BÜHLER intended to write similar detailed account of his tour to Rājputānā and Central India in the consecutive part of the number which perhaps never appeared. The importance of the report can be stated in the following words of JOLLY: “The important Kāshmīr Report contains, besides the manuscripts-list, also detailed investigations on the age of the works discovered by B. [BÜHLER] and extracts from the same, B. also brought forward a lot of new material for the criticism and explanation of the Rājataraṅgiṇī and pointed out, as STEIN, in his worthy edition of this work has remarked, the way for the work still to be carried out” (THITE 2010: 162 fn. 3; JOLLY 1899: 7 fn. 3).

(F) A Journey through the Indian Desert (Eine Reise durch die indische Wüste)

This nineteen page long article printed in the Fraktur script gives enchanting account of BÜHLER’s experiences during his visit to various towns in Rājputānā, now Rajasthan. BÜHLER believed that Rajasthan is a true representation of ancient Indian social and

56

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

cultural conditions, as described in the ancient Sanskrit literature. Therefore he suggests that those who want to study Indian history should see with their own eyes what the conditions really are. He was eager to visit the country because there was an opportunity to explore the life in the princely states which were not fully under British control and hence have not exposed more to the western culture (1883h: 518). As has been stated earlier, JACOBI accompanied him on this tour. From bad drinking water to beautiful temples and from the system of Huṇḍī to a stonemason in Abu, BÜHLER gives glimpse of everything connected to his journey which was made on camels. (G) Two Lists of Sanskrit MSS. together with some remarks ... (1888m)

This article of BÜHLER is important due to a number of reasons. It is BÜHLER’s own account and personal narration about the situations at the beginning and early stage of the searches of manuscripts. BÜHLER presented his personal collection of manuscripts to the India Office Library. He narrates in detail how this collection was formed. The list of manuscripts collected during 1866–68 for the Bombay Government which remained unpublished has been presented in this article. Another important feature of this article is BÜHLER’s statement about the manuscripts sent through his agency to various European libraries. The exact dates and numbers of resolutions of the Indian Government, sanctioning such mediation by BÜHLER are specified in the article. BÜHLER clarifies his role in the activity, which removes or at least lessens the intensity of the doubts posed later by the scholarly world about his integrity.

4. POETIC LITERATURE (A) Pañcatantra

The Bombay Sanskrit Series was to produce cheap and useable textbooks for the Bombay colleges. BÜHLER edited the first number of the series beginning with a simple text but which is important for the students, the Pañcatantra. He edited all the Tantras except the first one which was taken up by KIELHORN. This is a popular edition of the text with notes useful for the students. There is no introduction to any of the editions and it is not clear on which manuscripts or printed edition the text is based. Later when BÜHLER became the first Professor of the Oriental Languages and Antiquity at the University of Vienna, the Pañcatantra was an important part of the Sanskrit teaching at the University. Regarding the connection of the Jātakas with the Pañcatantra, he did not believe the theory to be true that the Pañcatantra must have originated from a Buddhist source. At the 42nd meeting of German Philologists he presented his views on this topic (1893m: 504). However, as he once said to WINTERNITZ, he did not write separately on the topic since in that case he would have to controvert his own revered Guru, BENFEY, who believed that all Indian tales were derived from a Buddhist source (WINTERNITZ 1898: 337). (B) Śrīharṣa and Harṣavardhana

BÜHLER read before the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society a paper entitled “On the Age of the Naiṣadhacarita of Śrīharṣa” in which he showed that the author of the

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

57

Naiṣadhacarita belonged to the latter half of the 12th c. CE. Here he refutes arguments put forth in the IA by scholars like K. T. TELANG and GROWSE. TELANG opined that Śrīharṣa must have lived during 9th-10th c. CE. Regarding F. E. HALL’s assertion of occurrence of a quotation from the Naiṣadhīya in the Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharaṇa, BÜHLER concludes that HALL’s statement must either be based on a mistake or on an interpolated copy (1875c: 281). BÜHLER tried to confirm through manuscript evidence the conjecture of F. E. HALL about the author of the Ratnāvalī that he is not, as supposed by H. H. WILSON, King Śrīharṣadeva of Kashmir, but Śrīharṣa of Kanoj and that consequently the play dates, not from the 12th, but from the 7th c. CE (1873e: 127). (C) Daśakumāracarita

The edition of the Daśakumāracarita was published under the Bombay Sanskrit Series (No. X). BÜHLER edited the first part in 1873 while the second was edited by PETERSON in 1891 (No. XLII, Ucchvāsa 4–8). BÜHLER used six manuscripts and two printed editions. Both are students’ editions and not critical ones. (D) Caṇḍikāśataka

BÜHLER acquired a manuscript of the Caṇḍikāśataka, which ascribed the poem to one Śrīvaṇa. As no great poet of this name is known, BÜHLER concluded on the basis of a Jaina commentary which ascribes Caṇḍikāśataka to famous poet Bāṇa, that the original word Śrī Bāṇa must have been incorrectly spelt as Śrīvaṇa (1872c: 111). He subjoins to his article the text and translation of some of the first Ślokas of the text and the concluding one (1872c: 112). At the end he rendered the legend about Bāṇa and Mayūra and could explain from Caṇḍikāśataka why the story of Bāṇa’s self-mutilation must have arisen (1872c: 115). (E) Bṛhatkathā

BÜHLER recovered Kṣemendra’s Bṛhatkathā by procuring a manuscript of the text in 1872–73. In an article in the IA he compares it with Somadeva’s Kathāsaritsāgara. The Lambhas of Kṣemendra and the Lambakas of Somadeva have been compared. He also tried to throw some light on the age of Kṣemendra (1872d: 307). The comparison of the two Kathā works is done in order to check whether anyone of the works is based on the other or has made use of the other. The result of his exercise is that he arrives at a negative answer and could confirm that both the authors independently remodelled a Prakrit original. BÜHLER opines that the recovery of Kṣemendra’s work furnishes a powerful instrument for determining the exact contents of the old Paiśācī Bṛhatkathā. He further hopes that: “The old Vṛihatkathā once being reconstructed, we shall further obtain important results for the history of those works, which like the Pañcatantra, the Vetālapañcaviṁśati are embodied in it. For Guṇāḍhya’s Vṛihatkathā possessed certainly a higher antiquity than the Persian or Mongolian translations of those fable-books” (1872d: 309).

58

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (F) The age of the Kashmiri poet Somadeva

H. H. WILSON conjectured that Somadeva, the author of Kathāsaritsāgara wrote during 1059 – 1071 CE or somewhat earlier. BÜHLER contends the conjecture on the basis of four manuscripts of the Kathāsaritsāgara present in the Government Collection of manuscripts in the Deccan College (now in the Bhandarkar Institute). From the four manuscripts he cites the last verses of the work which render the genealogy of Somadeva’s patron Harṣadeva. From these verses and the verses from the Rājataraṅgiṇī he concludes that when Somadeva wrote Harṣadeva was a grown up person but still did not hold the throne. He finally adduces that Somadeva must have written sometime between the beginning of Kalaśa’s rule in 1063–1064 and the death of Anantadeva and Sūryamatī in 1081–1082 CE (1885l: 558). (G) Āpastamba’s Quotations from the Purāṇas

The question regarding the antiquity and authenticity of the Purāṇas possesses considerable importance for the history of Indian religion and literature. In the first edition of his translation of the Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra BÜHLER had stated that the Purāṇas are, though not identical with, yet not altogether independent of, the Purāṇas which are mentioned in the Vedic works (1896f: 323). He seems to account for the opinions of his predecessors and senior contemporaries like WILSON and MAX MÜLLER on the issue of chronological placement of the Purāṇas. While WILSON places them in the 8th9th c., MAX MÜLLER opined that the Purāṇas might contain materials, though much altered, of the Purāṇa mentioned in Vedic literature (MAX MÜLLER 1883: 88). In his article on the Āpastamba’s quotations from the Purāṇas BÜHLER points such quotations from the Āpastamba which prove that the language of the ancient Purāṇas was closely allied to that of the Vedic texts (1896f: 327). According to BÜHLER the quotations are sufficient to prove that existing Purāṇas are connected with the homonymous works, mentioned in Vedic literature (1896f: 327). Finally he concludes that it is not possible to trace the history of extant Purāṇas beyond 600 CE (1896f: 328). (H) Other Writings

BÜHLER also wrote about authors like Abhinanda and his works, the Rāmacarita and the Kādambarīkathāsāra (1873a: 104). He deals with the history of Kashmir and particularly the Karkoṭa kings (1873a: 104–105). He adduces evidences for the identity of Karkoṭa king Muktāpīḍa with Lalitāditya and shows that the two names belong to the same person (1873a: 106). His epoch making article about the antiquity of Indian artificial (i.e. classical) poetry and the article about the history of the Mahābhārata have been discussed in detail elsewhere in this book (See Section IV.5.A and IV.5.B respectively). The other subjects dealt with by BÜHLER include the Rasikasaṁjīvinī of Arjunavarman (1893l: 92–95).

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

59

5. H ISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY (A) History

Such miscellaneous articles on political history which are not directly related to a historical Kāvya or editing of an inscription have been discussed under this rubric. BÜHLER also edited an article of BHAGWANLAL on the history of Nepal (1880a, 1884f, 1885k). (1) The Sātavāhanas and the Western Kṣatrapas: On the basis of Pandit BHAGWANLAL’s researches on the antiquarian remains at Sopārā, BÜHLER expresses some conjectures in his article “On the Relationship between the Andhras and the Western Kshatrapas” (1883j: 272–274). BHAGWANLAL indentified the name of Gautamīputra Yajñaśrī’s father as Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇī. With this identification BÜHLER tallies the Kanheri inscription no. 11 which tells about the queen of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇī. She is descended from the race of Kārdamaka kings and she is a daughter of a great Kṣatrapa king. Only the initial character ‘Ru’ of the name of this Kṣatrapa king has survived and there is a space for only one character which is mutilated. As the Junagadh inscription states that a Sātakarṇī king was a relative of Rudradāman BÜHLER thinks that this Ru stands for Rudra and who is no one else than Rudradāman himself. Thus he draws conjectures that Vāsiṣṭhīputra might be a son-in-law of Rudradāman and then Yajñaśrī must be his grandson. Further he enumerates evidences to show that Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi conquered Nahapāna and his son-in-law Uṣavadāta before the 14th year of his own reign (1883j: 273). As is evident from KHARE (1951, facsimile reprint 2010: 194, 198), historians have confused Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇī with Vāsiṣṭhīputra Pulumāvi.24 However, MIRASHI (1981: 57–58, 85–86) addresses this issue and attests the find of BÜHLER. BHANDARE25 has dealt with this topic through numismatic finds and has reached the same conclusion as that of BÜHLER. (2) Some Chronological considerations: 1. Gupta-Valabhi Era Regarding the origin of the era BÜHLER held that it was established in the year 318–319 CE, the view held also by BHANDARKAR as against that of FLEET who believed it to be 319– 320 CE. BÜHLER tried to rebut views of FLEET, who holds that the Gupta-Valabhi era is related with the Licchavis and that it has no connection with any particular important event. BÜHLER opined that the era is not related with the Licchavis and that it marked the coronation of Candragupta-I. He emphasised that the Gupta era is identical with the Valabhi Saṁvat (1891j: 215–229). KIELHORN supported BÜHLER’s views (RAU 1969: 648– 649; KIELHORN 1892: 107–108). From the study of various inscriptions KHARE (1951, facsimile reprint 2010: 53–54) holds the era as the Gupta-Valabhi era (having no connection with the Licchavis), but he takes its beginning in 319–320 CE (past year). 24 This was pointed out to me by Shreenand L. BAPAT.

BHANDARE, Shailen, unpublished doctoral dissertation placed on the website www.academia.edu, referred to on 19/09/2014: 130–132. 25

60

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

2. Vāghelā kings B ÜHLER wrote an article about an inscription of 1275 CE of the Vāghelā king Sāraṅgadeva to rebut BHANDARKAR’s views about the dates of the Vāghelā kings which were, according to BÜHLER, based on untrustworthy sources like Pravacanaparīkṣā. BHANDARKAR placed Sārṅgadeva’s accession as late as 1296–94 CE (1892 au: 277). (3) STEIN’s Researches: BÜHLER’s contributions to the Jaina religion and history are not limited to inscriptional studies. He was also a mediator in discovery of at least one temple of great antiquity. Hiuen Tsang noticed a Jaina temple to the south-east of the town Singhapura in Punjab, where Lord Mahāvīra paid a visit. CUNNINGHAM discussed the geographical identification of Singhapura but he could not discover any Jaina ruins at the possible site. BÜHLER, therefore, kept urging many of his friends who resided in Punjab to examine ancient sites for the purpose. On BÜHLER’s suggestion STEIN made a trip to Ketas, discovered a Jaina temple and could locate the site of ancient Singhapura. BÜHLER gave account of STEIN’s journey translating it into English from STEIN’s letter in German dated 28 December 1889 (1890e: 80). BÜHLER gives a detailed and interesting account of STEIN’s researches in Kashmir. STEIN explored some historical sites and temples in the valley. BÜHLER presents translation of extracts from two letters of STEIN (1891e: 345–348). BÜHLER informs the readers of WZKM about the condition of Sanskrit studies at Lahore after STEIN’s appointment as the Principal of the Oriental College (1888l: 271–272). He informs that STEIN has undertaken the reorganisation of the instruction in Sanskrit and has induced the Lahore University to sanction new standards for the examinations framed on the model of those of the Bombay University. BÜHLER also obtained through STEIN’s efforts a printed rough catalogue of manuscripts collected by the order of Maharaja Ranjitsingh. (B) Geography

Residing in Austria might have posed difficulty for BÜHLER to get the required tools i.e. Trigonometrical Survey Maps, Toposheets etc. essential for identification of spots mentioned in inscriptions. That is why probably he was not able to indentify all the places mentioned in the inscriptions deciphered by him. He wrote three separate articles on identification of villages mentioned in Rāṣṭrakūṭa and Gujarat Cālukya grants. They contribute towards the ancient Geography of Gujarat. Villages in various grants BHAGWANLAL identified Kāyāvatāra with Kāvi in Gujarat. BÜHLER refutes this identification on the ground that Kāvi is called Kāpikā in an inscription of Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Govinda IV. Instead he proposes that the Kāyāvatāra might be identified with the modern Kārvān (1889k: 176).

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

61

The following is a brief survey of the results presented by BÜHLER through his three articles:26 (1) A Grant of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Dhruva III found at Bagumra (1887l: 100–101): Ancient Name => Modern Name Mottaka => Mōta in Surat district Pārāhaṇaka => Parōna Moivāsaka => Mōwachhi Khaurāchhaka => Kharwāsa Treṇnā => Tēn (app. 2 miles west of Bardoli) Bhadrapalī => Bardōlī (original prakrit Bāraḍapallikā) Karmāntapura => Kamrēj; Kamaṇēya, Kārmaṇeya or Kammaṇijja in Gurjara, Cālukya and Rathor inscriptions Kuṇḍīravallikā and Jōnandhā => Not traceable (2) Rāṣṭrakūṭa (Rathod) Grant of Kṛṣṇa II of Ankuleśvara A.D. 888 (1887l: 100–101): Variavi => Variāo, on the Taptī Kaviṭhasāḍhi => Kōsād Valachha => Varachha Uttarapaḍhavaṇaka => Utrān (3) Cālukya grant No. 4 published in IA (1877) 197. (1889k: 176–178): Sāṁpāvāḍā => Sāmpawārā Śeṣadevati => A hamlet built close to the temple of Śeṣadevatā Phīṁcaḍī => Phēchari (Taluka Vīramgām) Hāṁsalapura => Hasalpur (Taluka Vīramgām) Khāmbhila => Khambēl Āḍhiyāvāḍā => Ādivārā Ḍoḍiyāpāṭaka => Dōriwārā Iṭilā (Indilā in grant 3) => Indla Kālharī => Kālrī Vahicara => Bechar Bhaṭṭāraka-Śeṣadevatā => ? Salakhaṇapura => Sankhalpur Vardhi Pathaka => Vaḍhiār (vṛddhikāra) Gambhūtā => Gāmbhu Cāharapalli => Chārol FLEET suggests that Gambhūtā might be Cambay. BÜHLER rightly refutes the suggestion and shows the following derivation for Cambay: Stambhatīrtha (occurs in Prabandhas and inscriptions) => Skambhatīrtha => Khambhaittha (Prakrit) => Khambhāyat (modern) => Cambay (Anglicised).

Though the old signs of transliteration have been replaced with the current ones, the original transliterations given by BÜHLER have been maintained in this section in ancient as well as modern names. The modern place names might have undergone since BÜHLER’s time some changes in their spellings which have not been considered here. All the places are now in Gujarat state. 26

62

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(4) Cālukya grant No. 10 in IA (1877) 208 (1889k: 178): Bhāṁṣara => Bhākhar Kuralī => ? Dāsayaja => Dāsaj Tribha => Tarabh Araṭhaura => Aithōr (Athor) Uṁjhā => Unjha Dāsayaja => Dāsaj Kāmbalī => Kāmbli Rājapurī => Rajapur Kūlāva[saṇa] => Jhulāsan Dāṁgarauā => Dāngarwa Caṁḍāvasaṇa => Charāsan Indrāvaḍa => Idarād Āhīrāṇā => Irānā Sirasāvi => Sarsāō Naṁdāvasaṇa => Nandāsan Uṁtaūyā => Utwa Kuīyala => Kiōl The Viṣaya Pathaka included the districts south-east of Sidhpur, and the Daṁḍāhī Pathaka those east of Kaḍi. (5) Gujarat Rāṣṭrakūṭa grants from Torkheḍe and Baroda (1897j: 39–40): In this article BÜHLER tried to identify the places mentioned in the Torkheḍe grant of the Gujarat Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govinda (FLEET 1894–95: 53–58) and Baroda grant of the Gujarat Rāṣṭrakūṭa Dhruvarāja II (HULTZSCH 1885: 196ff). Sīharakkhī => Serkhi, near Baroda (identified by FLEET) Gōvaṭṭanaka => Kōtna, north-west of Baroda, near Serkhi Badarasiddhi => Bōrsad in the Kaira Collectorate Badara+Siddhi => Bor+Sidh* (*still occasionally used - BÜHLER) Puśilāvilli => ?; Place now occupied by a village called Kopra Kaśahrada => Kāsandra (from Prakrit Kāsadraha) Vēhiccā nadī => Khārī river Vōrīvadraka => Barōdra (?) Catuḥsarī => Chōsar Āsilāvalli => Aslālī Vinhucavalli => Vinjhōl

6. HISTORICAL POEMS The credit of discovery of four historical poems viz. Vikramāṅkadevacarita, Gauḍavaha, 27 Pṛthvīrājavijaya28 and Kīrtikaumudī goes to BÜHLER. Out of these he edited Vikramāṅkadevacarita. He received a manuscript of another historical poem titled Jagaḍūcarita in 1876 which he edited in 1892.

27 Edited by S. P. PANDIT. 28 Edited by J. MORISON, one of BÜHLER’s students, in WZKM VII.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

63

(A) Vikramāṅkadevacarita

The Vikramāṅkadevacarita of Bilhaṇa edited by BÜHLER for the first time with the help of a copy of a single manuscript was published in the Bombay Sanskrit Series in 1875. He wrote a detailed introduction dealing with the history of Cālukyan dynasty as depicted in the Kāvya. In the introduction he has delineated important features of Sanskrit historical Kāvya literature and has shown the way to deal with it in a manner that authentic historical information can be easily extracted. It is a quintessential example of BÜHLER’s method of studying a somewhat newer branch of literature in the right context while capturing the right purport. From this point of view the introduction is very important. However, he did not deal with the poetical aspect of the text in detail. 29 He focused particularly on the historical information. 30 (1) The Discovery of the Manuscript: BÜHLER on a tour in search of Sanskrit manuscripts in Rajasthan during the winter season of 1873–1874 discovered a manuscript of Vikramāṅkadevacarita in Jaisalmer in a Bhandar belonging to the Osval Jainas. It was a palm-leaf manuscript written, as per BÜHLER’s conjecture, towards the end of the 12th c. (1874c: 89). It was very carefully written, and still more carefully corrected and annotated. The corrections were very old. Having realized the importance of the text and not being allowed to take away the manuscript BÜHLER with the help of JACOBI copied by hand in seven days all 18 cantos of the text written on 158 folios. BÜHLER copied 11 cantos and 34 Ślokas (75–108) of 18th canto, while JACOBI copied 6 cantos31 and 1–74 Ślokas of the 18th canto.32 It must have been a difficult task in the wake of the fact that the manuscript was written in the Jain Devanāgarī characters of the 11th century and in a few places the ink was rubbed off and the letters which had become indistinct had to be made out with a strong magnifying glass (1875H: 45). (2) The Importance of the Text: The Cālukyas of Kalyāṇī were known till then exclusively through their inscriptions and the discovery of the Kāvya marked a remarkable progress for the study of history of this branch of the Cālukyas. The author was not only a contemporary of the Cālukyan king but was his Vidyāpati i.e. the court poet. According to BÜHLER Vikramāditya Tribhuvanamalla ruled from Kalyāṇa (Kalyāṇī) from 1076–1127 CE. The text is also important from the point of view of the history of Kashmir. Along with the description of important buildings and temples in Pravarapura, it gives notices of 29 This was done by Shastri Murari Lal NAGAR in 1945. 30 Book Notice of the Vikramāṅkacarita by the ed. in IA V (1876) 325. 31 Canto No. V, VI, XIV-XVII, XVIII 1–74.

As has been stated earlier, the complete copy in the handwritings of BÜHLER and JACOBI, containing 185 foolscap pages is deposited in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Acc. No. 50/1873–74) and is well-preserved. See plate. About the style of writing of BÜHLER and JACOBI: They have not written the manuscript in the traditional Indian style i.e. without leaving space in between the words. BÜHLER seems to be quicker in copying than JACOBI. Further, he seems to write 10–11 letters at a stretch with a single dip of the holder into the ink. 32

64

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

kings of Kashmir and their sons who apparently were the contemporaries of Bilhaṇa; the king Anantadeva, his son Kalaśa and Kalaśa’s son Harṣadeva (1875H: 8). On analysing the Kāvya BÜHLER arrived at the conclusion that king Ananta’s accession to the throne must have taken place in 1028 CE and his death in 1080. The reign of Kalaśa lasted from 1080– 1088 while he was a nominal ruler since 1062 CE (1875H: 20). The Kāvya is not only important for the political history but also for the literary history of India. It can be asserted from it that the poet Śrīharṣa existed before Harṣadeva of Kashmir (1875H: 10 fn. 3). Up to the discovery of the Vikramāṅkadevacarita, Bilhaṇa was known to Sanskritists as the author of Bilhaṇapañcāśikā, a small erotic poem (1875H: 6). The discovery led to information of many important aspects relating to Bilhaṇa’s personal history. BÜHLER has translated into English the verses giving account of Bilhaṇa and his family (1875H: 10–16; Verse No. XVIII.70–108). Bilhaṇa left his country sometime between 1062 and 1065 CE and wrote in around 1085 CE the Vikramāṅkadevacarita at his advanced age. Thus his travels and literary activity fall in the third and fourth quarters of the eleventh century (1875H: 23). The Kāvya helped to verify the description and history of Kashmir as narrated in the Rājataraṅgiṇī. BÜHLER cites references to the Ślokas from the Rājataraṅgiṇī which are parallel to the Ślokas in the Vikramāṅkacarita. The number of verses from Rājataraṅgiṇī comparable or parallel to Bilhaṇa’s account is more than ten excluding the VII canto from Rājataraṅgiṇī, as the whole canto gives the history also mentioned by Bilhaṇa in the XVIII canto of his work. (B) Navasāhasāṅkacarita

The paper titled “Ueber das Navasāhasāṅkacharita des Padmagupta oder Parimala” was written in collaboration with ZACHARIAE. It is a short account of a then unknown Mahākāvya based on a single manuscript preserved in the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society in London. The first 20 pages of the article were contributed by ZACHARIAE (1888o: 583–603) and the last 27 by BÜHLER (603–630). The original German article was translated into English by May S. BURGESS and was published in the IA. ZACHARIAE commented about the manuscript, the author, his time and his work including quotations from the poem appearing in other Sanskrit texts. BÜHLER commented about the historical aspect of the poem. On comparing the historical data supplied by the Kāvya (e.g. the relation of Vākpatirāja with his brother Sindhurāja (BURGESS M. 1907: 170)) with the legends mentioned in Prabandhas or Caritas BÜHLER draws interesting conclusions about the trustworthiness of the latter class of literature as compared to the historical Kāvyas. According to him: “Padmagupta’s narrative completes and extends the information about the inscriptions, and shows more plainly than these, that the historian cannot trust to the Prabandhas and Charitas, can only make use of them with great caution. The Prabandhas are founded exclusively on the tradition of the bards and the Jaina monasteries, in which Muñja and also his nephew very soon became mythical personalities. Whoever seeks to combine the statements of the inscriptions with the narratives of the Prabandhas will

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

65

find a mixture of truth and fiction, in which contradictions are apparent” (BURGESS M. 1907: 159; 1888o: 604).

BÜHLER shows that Padmagupta’s poem is more reliable than the above mentioned Prabandhas and Caritas. He assigns greater credibility to the historical Kāvyas composed by the contemporary court poets than the Prabandhas based on the bardic tradition. BÜHLER draws the following historical information from the Navasāhasāṅkacarita. The age of Vākpatirāja I can be ascertained as around 895 CE. Vairisiṁha’s reign may have begun about 920 CE (BURGESS M. 1907: 167). According to BÜHLER Padmagupta’s account leaves no doubt that Vākpatirāja II was the son of Harṣadeva. He is identical with Utpalarāja, (Navasāhasāṅka, the hero of the poem), Muñja (recognized by F. E. HALL) and Vākpatirāja-Amoghavarṣa in the land grants (BURGESS M. 1907: 168). BÜHLER adduces that Vākpatirāja II must have reigned during 974 CE to 994/996 CE (BURGESS M. 1907: 170). BÜHLER gives account of various poets, about their patrons and tries to decide the age of many poets which fall during the age of Vākpatirāja. The method applied by BÜHLER while drawing historical data is not to depend on the details of any legend, but to examine the historical truth of the basic data supplied by a historical Kāvya with the help of other sources. For example, he states: “The narrative is adorned with so many touching scenes, and so many verses, which the imprisoned king is said to have composed, under different circumstances, that its legendary character is unmistakable. The details are therefore not to be depended on. But that Tialapa II killed Vākpatirāja-Muñja is correct, as two Chālukya inscriptions mention this famous deed” (BURGESS M. 1907: 170).

BÜHLER asserts that Padmagupta’s seemingly fanciful legend rests throughout upon a historical basis (BURGESS M. 1907: 171) and that here and there perfectly prosaic details appear in Padmagupta’s poem (BURGESS M. 1907: 172). (C) Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana

The Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana was brought to light by BÜHLER during 1879–80 when he discovered a manuscript of the text. The Mahākāvya is about the deeds of Vastupāla the minister of Vāghelā king Vīradhavala from Ḍholkā and his son Vīsaladeva. For his article on the subject, which appeared in SBKAW, BÜHLER used three manuscripts, all procured by him.33 BÜHLER discusses in detail the character and structure of the work, the author and his time, history of the Cāuḍās and Cālukyas, Vastupāla’s pilgrimage to Śatruṁjaya and Girnār, buildings and sacred structures built by Vastupāla and his military activities. BÜHLER also gives excerpts from Rājaśekhara’s Prabandhakośa and from the Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana.

(1) MS. No. 302 of his collection donated to the India Office Library in 1888, (2) BORI MS. No. 415/1879–80, (3) BORI MS. No. 411/1880–81. 33

66

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

The Mahākāvya comprises eleven Sargas with 553 verses. Five verses at the end of every Sarga do not belong to the author but originate from Amarapaṇḍita. According to BÜHLER both the poets are not great experts as far as their knowledge of meter and grammar is concerned (1889d: 3). Rājaśekhara has stated some information about Amarapaṇḍita in the thirteenth section of his Prabandhakośa. BÜHLER opines that the author, Arisiṁha, belonged to the Jaina sect and that he must be a Rājput as his name and his father’s name, Lāvaṇyasiṁha, ends in Siṁha. Arisiṁha has enumerated the genealogy of the Cāpotkaṭa or Cāuḍā dynasty (1889d: 8). BÜHLER compares the historical information contained in the present poem with the other historical sources like Prabandhas and the Kīrtikaumudī of Someśvara (1889d: 8–10). BÜHLER reiterates the fact that the court-poets often sought for the intervention of the God at turning points in the fortunes of their heroes (1889d: 23). From an inscription in the Vastupālavihāra, BÜHLER concludes that the Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana must have been written before the 3rd of March 1232 CE (1889d: 36). On comparing the list of Vastupāla’s buildings with the ones enumerated in the Kīrtikaumudī BÜHLER infers that the latter text must have been written before the Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana. (D) Jagaḍūcarita

The Jagaḍūcarita of Sarvāṇanda is a historical romance from Gujarat. It is of later origin as compared with the other such poems of its class. It was probably written in the second half of the fourteenth or at the latest in the beginning of the fifteenth century. The other point of deviation is that its hero was not a king or a minister “but a simple merchant who did much for his native town by rebuilding its walls, and for Gujarat by alleviating the widespread distress during a terrible famine in A. D. 1256—58” (1892aw: 1). The Jagaḍūcarita, which in the colophons is called a Mahākāvya, contains seven Sargas, with 388 verses. BÜHLER examines every event in Jagaḍū’s life narrated by the author on the grounds of practicability e.g. BÜHLER finds that the long list of kings, to whom Jagaḍū is said to have made presents of grain from his stores, is grossly exaggerated (1892aw: 38). Unlike the Vikramāṅkadevacarita or Navasāhasāṅkacarita, BÜHLER deals in detail with the poetical aspect of the text. The reason seems to be that the poet, who was a Jaina, though conversant with the norms of the Sanskrit poetics, due to want of natural talent tries merely to imitate the classical style of composition. “His Jagaḍūcarita is nothing more than a metrical exercise in a foreign language and in a style, strange to him. ... In order to make his work rasika and to make it look like a real Brahmanical Kāvya, he carefully avoids all allusions to Jaina legends and doctrines and substitutes those of the Brahmans” (1892aw: 2).

BÜHLER has critically evaluated Sarvāṇanda as a poet. The discussion (1892aw: 2–4) shows how well read BÜHLER himself was with regard to the Sanskrit poetics, grammar, metrical science etc. He could delineate major types of Kāvya-doṣas from the poem. The following is his observation about the compositions of medieval Sanskrit poets: “As is very commonly done by the late Sanskrit poets, especially if they are Jainas, Sarvāṇanda employs a not inconsiderable number of rare Sanskrit words, or of common

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

67

Sanskrit words with unusual genders and meanings, and a few Prakrit or foreign words which have been transliterated into, and made to look like, Sanskrit” (1892aw: 3).

There is not much data procurable from the poem for political history. In such case the question arises why BÜHLER chose to edit this poem and wrote such a detailed article on it. The reason lies in the fact that the poem is quite different in its subject matter, its language is influenced by Gujarati, and that BÜHLER was well-acquainted with that language. The poet is not very good at Sanskrit and influence of Gujarati on his Sanskrit is more than evident. BÜHLER mentions numerous instances where Gujarati language has influenced Sarvāṇanda’s Sanskrit. BÜHLER also gives a list of 28 ‘real’ Sanskrit words which do not appear in the Kośas and the standard dictionaries, and use of some is not sufficiently illustrated by quotations. There are many Sanskrit words, coined out of Prakrit or foreign words. BÜHLER mentions five out of them including Garjaneśa for the king of Gazni and the ruler of Delhi (1892aw: 5). Sarvāṇanda calls him Mojadīna (1892aw: 20). Though BÜHLER has not mentioned the name of the ruler, it can be inferred that he was none else but Mu’izz-ud-Din Muhammad alias Shahabuddin Ghori, who was originally ruling Gazni and established the Ghurid rule in India shifting his capital to Delhi in the last decade of the 12th century. This is clearly anachronistic on Sarvāṇanda’s part. While describing reactions of various rulers on the news of Jagaḍū’s death he mentions a ruler named Arjuna (1892aw: 22). BÜHLER infers that this Arjuna must be the Vāghelā king who was the successor of Vīsaladeva and ruled during the last few decades of the 13th c. CE. However BÜHLER further adds that if it is the Vāghelā king Arjuna meant here, then Vīsaladeva’s reference in the verse 39 is wrong. “For, in that case, Jagaḍū’s brothers cannot have continued to grace Vīsaladeva’s court after Jagaḍū’s demise” (1892aw: 22 fn. 1).34 BÜHLER calls Mudgalas as Moghuls (actually Mongols) who raided India during the 13th c. CE, and states that like the terms Yavanas or Tāmras Mudgalas, according to the Jaina authors, all referred to western invaders especially the Musalmans (1892aw: 5–6). SHOKOOHY, after A. K. MAJUMDAR, specifically identifies these Mudgalas of the Jagaḍūcarita with the Mongols who campaigned into India under Jalalluddin Mangubisti Khwarazmshah in 1224 CE (1991: 9). At the end of this long article, BÜHLER has given extract of Jagaḍūsaṁbandha from Śubhaśīlagaṇi’s Pañcaśatīprabodhasaṁbandha (1892aw: 68–74). (E) Other Articles

BÜHLER wrote articles on such subjects as the origin of Ajmer or a spurious Kāvya Pṛthivīrājarāsau. The 5th Sarga of the Pṛthvīrājavijaya gives the story of how the town of Ajmer came into existence. BÜHLER presents this information from a German article This would be another example of anachronistic description which, in fact, concords with BÜHLER’s observation that in Sanskrit Kāvyas various rulers are placed anachronously in a single event or at a same period of time e.g. Kālidāsa mentions the Pārasikas, the Hūṇas and others while describing the digvijaya of Raghu (supposedly based on Samudragupta’s digvijaya). (See Chapter IV.)

34

68

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

written by one of his students J. MORISON in WZKM Vol. VII. The origin of the town is not of antiquity as is supposed by the sources like Hammīra-Mahākāvya dating from 14th c. onwards. Ajaya the 20th Cāhamāna king was the founder of Ajmer, who was the great grandfather of Pṛthvīrāja Cauhāna. BÜHLER assigns more credibility to the Pṛthvīrājavijaya Kāvya since it was composed during the reign of Pṛthvīrāja II or in the last quarter of the 12th c. CE (1897i: 164) and its account agrees with that of the inscriptions (1893i: 94). In the article about Pṛthivīrājarāsau he compares it with the Pṛthvīrājavijaya and suggests that the Rāsau had better be left unprinted. He says, “it is a forgery as Marārdhān of Jodhpur, and Śyāmaldas of Udaipur, have said long ago” (1893i: 95). BÜHLER has illustrated through an article on the end of the Vāghelās of Gujarat that not only historical Kāvyas but compositions like Tīrthakalpa may prove useful from the point of view of history. The Tīrthakalpa or Kalpapradīpa of Jinaprabha (BORI MS. No. 1256/1886–92) narrates with exact dates the account of the fall of Gujarat by the expedition of the youngest brother of Aladdin. The event took place as per the said Kalpa in Vikrama Saṁvat 1356 (1897b: 194–195).

7. EPIGRAPHY Epigraphy in India was at the zenith of its ‘creative period’35 during the last few decades of the nineteenth century and BÜHLER played a leading role in it. BÜHLER had studied Archaeology in the University of Göttingen under F. WIESLER and to uncover India’s ancient past was his main aim since the beginning. However, being inclined towards Sanskrit and textual studies, he did not turn towards actually working on material evidences before 1875. The discovery of the historical epic Vikramāṅkadevacarita in 1875 was a turning point in BÜHLER’s academic pursuit, after which he turned to ‘tangible’ historical documents – stone inscriptions, copperplates, caskets etc. His debut articles on the Valabhī grants caused the birth of a competent epigraphist who had to his credit 159 articles, long and short, written on numerous inscriptions (including the articles of BHAGWANLAL that he translated from Gujarati to English) during the last twenty-three years of his life. His discourse on Indian palaeography was a result of his experience and insight in decipherment. BÜHLER must also be credited for faithful yet lucid translation of the texts of inscriptions. This was a result of his meticulous study of the ancient and the modern languages as well as his first hand experience of India, the birthplace of these inscriptions. It will be useful to cite a couple of examples in this regard. The history of Indology has been classified by THITE in three periods, Creative, Classical and Decadent Period. The Creative Period, are those early infancy years of the science when new texts, new epigraphs and other such material is being discovered continuously. Every branch is new and yet taking shape into its definite form. Because of inevitable constraints the research is not perfect and there remain some lacunae. In the Classical Period researchers try to work on these lacunae and try to reach the perfection which sometimes tends to the level of hair splitting. The Decadent period sees many difficulties and limitations for the original research due to lack of new findings, confined scope for new work areas etc.

35

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

69

1. The expression regarding the donee Brahmans of the Chammak (Ilichpur) plates: brahmaghna-caura-pāradārika-rājāpathyakāri-prabhṛtīnām saṁgrāmam kurvatām anyagrāmeṣv anaparāddhānām has been rightly translated as “(the king shall allow the village to be held by the Brahmans, if) they do not commit treason against the Government … and if they are not guilty of offences of slaying Brahmans, committing theft, adultery, or acts prejudicial to the King, or engage in frays with other villages” (1883m: 247). 2. The expression ayaṁ somakuṇḍakā-grāmo brāhmaṇa-vāmarathyena kūṭaśāsanena bhuktaka iti vicārya regarding the claim of Vāmarathya, has been translated as “having considered that this village of Somakuṇḍikā has been enjoyed by the Brahman Vāmarathya on the strength of a forged edict” (1892az: 74). Both the tricky cases, though short in length, are indicators of the ability of BÜHLER as a translator. After he retired to Vienna, he was supplied by his friends in India, namely James BURGESS, L. RICE, J. F. FLEET and others, with rubbings and photographs of new stone inscriptions and copperplates. Scarcity of epigraphists as against the large number of discoveries of inscriptions was a major factor in this cross-continental supply of materials to BÜHLER. However, owing to this, he could handle almost no original material, which contributed to some of the lacunae that crept into his work. Nevertheless, the penchant for decipherment and publication of new material that he bore, worked two-way: the materials being sent to him in quick succession and the publication of the same in reciprocal manner. An attempt is made here to enumerate the salient features of BÜHLER’s contribution to the field: (A) The Sohgaura Bronze-plate

This important bronze-plate, brought into light by one W. HOEY in 1894 and published by him along with V. A. SMITH and A. F. R. HÖRNLE the same year (1894: 84–88) remained unnoticed till 1896 when BÜHLER wrote an article interpreting the plate in detail for the first time (1896k). Since then scholars like FLEET (1907: 509–532; 1908: 187–188, 822– 823), BARUA (1930: 32–48) and JAYASWAL (1933–34: 1–3) attempted to solve the riddle which this small plate poses. While these scholars do not deviate much from BÜHLER’s interpretation of the main theme of the plate, the reading, translation and interpretation of other details in the text and of the symbols vary tremendously.36 This lack of unanimity adds to the special status that this plate bears in Indian Epigraphy due to its age, text, use of symbols, orthography and even mode of casting.37 The words which have been identified by BÜHLER as names of various grains to be stored in the store-houses have been interpreted as names of towns by FLEET, as varied commodities like fodder, wheat, ladles, yoke-pins etc. by BARUA, and once again as names of towns by JAYASWAL adding two more towns to the earlier count of three.38 36 See for the history of interpretation BARUA (1930: 36–48). 37 See for details BARUA (1930: 33–36). HÖRNLE’s identification of the manufacturing procedure as

sand mould casting is agreed upon by BÜHLER. 38 Translation given by various scholars:

70

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

As regards the use of symbols BÜHLER did not interpret them in combination with the text as has been done by the later scholars. The credit for identifying the symbols as emblem of the cities on the line of symbols occurring on coins and thus recognizing their significance other than that of mere religious symbols is due to FLEET. BÜHLER has interpreted the ‘warehouses’ as partitioned pavilions, the two trees as deciduous leafy tree and leafless one and the ‘Caitya’ symbol as mount Meru. The mount Meru interpretation may not be accepted by all scholars. However, he has rightly pointed out that the spoon-like figure on the plate is not a spoon but a handled mirror which was supposed to be auspicious found carved on Jaina caves. It may be affirmed now, on the basis of the archaeological evidence that was not available to BÜHLER, that there were no spoons of such shape as this in ancient India. Though it may be contested whether that figure is a handled mirror or not, its identification as spoon is certainly not confirmed archaeologically. On palaeographic grounds BÜHLER has ascribed the plate to the times of the Mauryas and this was held by the other scholars too. BÜHLER also looks at this as an evidence for the assumption that already in the third century BCE the use of writing was common in the royal offices and that the knowledge of written characters was widely spread among the people (1896k: 148). (B) Aśokan Edicts (See Appendix I)

Out of the 159 articles BÜHLER wrote on inscriptions, the major chunk of 53 articles comprises those on the edicts of Aśoka. As regards Aśokan inscriptions, his contribution, as far as the number of writings is concerned, can only be compared with SENART (1847–1928) among his close contemporaries. In the words of MAX MÜLLER “… our oldest inscriptions, those of Aśoka, in the third century B. C., owe to him and M. SENART their first scholarlike treatment” (MAX MÜLLER 1898: 354). It seems that BÜHLER could avail more resources than SENART. It is more likely that he must have always tried to secure newer and better rubbings. He rarely used an eye-copy while at a number of times he used rubbings and impression or paper-casts forwarded to BÜHLER: The order of the great officials of Śrāvastī, (issued) from (their camp at) Mānavasitikaṭa: These two storehouses with three partitions, (which are situated) even in famous Vaṁśagrāma require the storage of loads (bhāraka) of Black Panicum, parched grain, cumin-seed and Āmba for (times of) urgent (need). One should not take (anything from the grain stored). FLEET: Notice for all the three great roads for vehicles! At the junction, (named) Manavasi, of the three roads, in actually (the villages) Ḍasilimata and Usagāma, these two storehouses are prepared for the sheltering of loads of commodities of (i.e., from and to) Tiyavani, Mathulā, and Chaṁchu, -- to meet any case of urgent need, but not for permanent use! BARUA: The order of the High Functionaries of Śrāvastī! These two storehouses, (which are situated, one) in Mānavāśitikṛtaśrīmanta (and the other) in Ūṣagrāma, (the provisions of) fodder and wheat, (and) the loads of ladles, canopies, yoke-pins and ropes are used in (times of) urgent need (these are) not to be taken away. JAYASWAL: The order of the Mahāmātras of Śrāvastī (issued) from the Manavasiti camp. Only to the tenants, only on the advent of drought, these (the) dravya store-houses of Trivēṇī, Mathurā, Chaṇchu, Mōdāma, and Bhadra are to be distributed (discharged); in case of distress they are not to be withheld.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

71

him by FLEET (1893c: 299), CUNNINGHAM (1877g: 149), or BURGESS (1889e: 273). For instance, SENART’s edition of the Kālsī text is based on CUNNINGHAM’s eye-copy of the inscription while BÜHLER published the text and translation from a rubbing supplied by CUNNINGHAM (1883d: 87; 1886a: 127), and a revised version of the text of edict XIII from an impression prepared by BURGESS (1889f: 162ff.; HULTZSCH 1925: xi). He got improved copies in case of a number of edicts and then reedited these edicts a number of times (HULTZSCH 1925: xi-xiv); some as many as seven times (e.g. Jaugaḍa). The following table will show in numbers his writings on different types of Aśokan edicts: Type of Aśokan sites Minor Rock Edict Sites Diverse Edicts Major Rock Edict Sites Pillar Sites Cave Sites

Number of sites

Edicts found before BÜHLER’s death (1898)

Edicts found after BÜHLER’s death (1898)

BÜHLER on all edicts found at the site

BÜHLER on select edicts found at the site

17

6

11

6

0

2

1

1

0

0

9 19 2

7 11 4

3 1 0

6 7 2

4 3 3

As is evident from the above table, BÜHLER investigated all the minor rock edict sites (6) discovered during his life time. More than fifty percent of the Major Rock Edicts (7) had been found before 1898 and except Sopārā edict no. 8, he wrote articles on all the edicts. Out of 12 Pillar Edicts 11 had been discovered before 1898 and except Kauśāmbī he re-investigated all the edicts. The Author of the Inscriptions:39 PRINSEP first identified the author of the inscriptions, i.e. Devānaṁ-priya Priyadarśin, with the Maurya king Aśoka (HULTZSCH 1925: xxx). When BÜHLER’s first article on the topic titled “Three New Edicts of Aśoka” about Sahasrām, Rūpanāth and Bairāṭ edicts was published in 1877 (1877g) the number of Aśokan edicts discovered and the material published about these edicts was scanty. There were writings by scholars like COLEBROOKE, PRINSEP and WILSON about the edicts of Dhaulī, Girnār and Toprā. A few scholars, still in 1877, were not inclined towards the opinion that the author of the inscriptions was Aśoka (1878q: 142). BÜHLER strongly argued for the identity of the author of the edicts with Aśoka (1877g and 1878q) on various logical grounds. Though some of his interpretations were rejected, e.g. the word Vivutha as the Buddha and Satavivāsa refers to Buddha’s death, the other arguments and the identification were accepted by later scholars. Now we may wonder why such a simple fact was doubted by the scholars then. But in the words of

This section stands devoid of the new opinion expressed by scholars, represented by Ashok AKLUJKAR, who believe that many of the Aśokan edicts are Buddhist ‘clerical’ copies of the ‘original’ texts and not engraved by the imperial order (AKLUJKAR’s lecture in the year 2012 delivered at the Bharat Itihas Samshodhak Mandal, Pune). 39

72

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

PRINSEP “Like most other inventions, when once found it appears extremely simple” (1837: 566ff. after HULTZSCH 1925: XVI) The Date of the Buddha’s Nirvāṇa: There are various opinions regarding this issue, such as that the Buddha attained Nirvāṇa in the following years before the Common Era: 1097 (Fa-hien), 638 (BHAGWANLAL), 541 (the Jaina tradition), 482 (FLEET), 481 (FERGUSSON), 478 (CUNNINGHAM), 388 (KERN), etc. (KHARE 1951, facsimile reprint 2010: 100). BÜHLER, combining the inscriptional and literary evidence has given a bracket of eleven years between 483 and 472 BCE (1877g). His comments on RHYS DAVIDS’ placement of the event at 410 BCE, seems to be too personal (1878q). In the last years of his academic career, he fixed this date to 477 BCE (1895g: 177). It is generally believed today that consensus may be reached on the date as 487 BCE. As regards the Barabar and the Nagarjuni hill caves, BÜHLER does not hesitate to assign them to the Ājīvikas or to the Vaiṣṇava ascetics (1891k). This opinion of his is certainly contestable. Interpretation of some important terms: (1) Rājūkas: The Land Surveyors: One of the important and widely accepted interpretations given by BÜHLER is of the word Rājūka. With his ingenuity he has shown that the two dialectical forms Rājūka and Lajūka are derived from Rajjūka, and that this is an abbreviation of rajju-grāhaka, ‘rope-holder’, which occurs in the Jātaka-story (1893b: 466– 467). Basically Rājūkas were the land surveyors. The Rajjūka originally ‘held the rope’ in order to measure the fields and to assess the land-tax. Thus the word became the designation of a revenue settlement officer. (2) Samāja: BÜHLER propounded that the word Samāja means “assembly” or “a gathering on festivals of the Gods” (1883a: 93–94). With the evidence of Nashik inscription no. 14 of Gautamiputra Sātakarṇi, where the words Utsava and Samāja are used side by side to mean “festivities/celebrations” and “festive-gatherings” respectively, he explains that while Samāja lost its old meaning the word Utsava still exists in different forms and carries the same meaning in the modern dialects. He further elaborates that the word Samāja has the same designation what the word Melā has in modern Indian langauges that means the gatherings, held in honour of the various Gods, consisting of amusements, markets, spectacular displays etc. He also states it probable that very often the Melās also be used for immoral purposes. Interestingly enough he shows how several sayings from various Dharmasūtras prohibit students of Vedas to visit such Samājas and further states that perhaps on the same grounds Aśoka prescribes not to arrange or to take part in the Samājas. Now it is interesting to compare this interpretation with the personal examination of all the Minor Rock Edict sites done by Harry FALK during the last decade of the 20th century and his interpretation as to why remote appearing places were selected to inscribe minor rock edicts. “As a result of the personal examination of all the sites, the comparison with modern practices, and by evidence, we now know that Aśoka had his first text [minor rock edict] placed exactly where people gathered to celebrate their basic cults. He must have known

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

73

about the orgiastic nature of these activities. This in turn adds a new dimension to the text itself: it is not only Buddhist by nature but also serves to oppose folk-religion by its very presence at centers of popular cults … Thus, what today appear to be rather hidden places for a text of pro-Buddhist propaganda were in their time the most adequate spots to reach huge crowds during religious activities that Aśoka wanted the people to give up.” (FALK 2006: 57)

Thus it is possible to interpret the word Samāja as the gatherings pertaining to folk-religion where orgiastic activities take place along with other Melā-like activities. (3) Ayaputa: Unlike the general belief that ayaputa (āryaputra) is an invocation of the husband, BÜHLER takes it to mean the son of the king, i.e. the prince (1898f: 75). (4) Brāhmaṇibhya: He takes this as a compound of brāhmaṇa and ibhya (vaiśya) (1898f: 76). Palaeography of the Edicts: BÜHLER identified that the last letters of the Siddapur edicts (1893j) are inscribed in Kharoṣṭhī alphabet and that the last sentence gives the name of the writer (1894–1895: 134– 135).40 In continuation with the previous work on this issue he gives the reading of the line as “paḍena likhitaṁ ṇarekapili”, where the last word is to be read in the reverse order as lipikareṇa (1897f). He insisted, on palaeographical grounds, that local varieties of the Southern alphabet existed in the times of Aśoka, and hence this alphabet must have had a longer history. He also pointed out that not only in Aśokan period but also in later times too, a close connection is observable between the letters of the epigraphical documents from Gujarat or Kathiavad, and those from the south of India (1894–1895: 135). The chief peculiarities exhibited by the alphabets of the edicts have been included in the plates in his Indian Palaeography (1896L: Plates I, II, IX). The later scholars, like ALSDORF, used some of his insightful conjectures to support their arguments. ALSDORF cites BÜHLER’s remarks about the writer of the Siddapur inscription, his North-Western origin and the opinion, supported by BÜHLER’s observation of the then prevalent situation, about the transfer of the subordinates along with the governors. ALSDORF thus refutes MEHENDALE’s argument about North-Western origin of the text (1960: 269–270). BÜHLER also termed the script of the Bhattiprolu inscription as pertaining to the Southern Maurya alphabet. From the letters appearing therein, he believes that the edicts were all issued from the same office and that importance was attributed to the writings of the royal clerks at Pāṭaliputra to influence the copyists in the various provinces and to induce them to imitate the shapes of the letters used at the headquarters (1892ad: 522 col. 1).

40 He reads it Paḍa while ALSDORF reads it as Capaḍa (1960: 270).

74

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (C) Votive Sanchi Inscriptions

Impressions of in all 456 votive inscriptions (378 from the first Stūpa and 78 from the second) were made over to BÜHLER by BURGESS and FÜHRER.41 BÜHLER meticulously deciphered these inscriptions, mostly ending with the mention of the name of the donor in genitive case and the word dānam (1894s and 1894d). He has given the Sanskrit forms of the names of people and villages and has given indexes of the names of the months, the nuns, the names of male and female donors other than monks and the geographical names occurring in the inscriptions, arranged in Roman alphabetical order. His observation on the basis of the palaeographic diversity, that the inscriptions furnish additional evidence for the fact that the Buddhism survived in India upto a very late time, long after the period when stupid legends allege it to have been drowned in a deluge of blood, stands remarkable (1894d: 366). This material that he has produced is indeed valuable for the ancient Buddhist geography of India. The insightful researcher also recognised a couple of inscriptions from the site which need to be read from below rather than in the usual fashion. He suggests that they were incised on the pillars after the pillars were erected and thus this unusual phenomenon has occurred (1891g: 231). (D) The Graeco-buddhist Pedestals

BÜHLER has improved upon the reading of the inscription appearing on the pedestal from Hashtnagar. He suggests that the date of the same, viz. Saṁvat 274, 5th day of Bhādrapada, does not belong to the prevalent Śaka Saṁvat (274 = 352 CE). However, he does not propose any alternative (1891l). This Saṁvat might originate from the last Nanda king, taking the pedestal to 51 BCE.42 A second proposal can be if this era begins with the enthronement of Aśoka, in which case the pedestal will date around 5 CE.43 A second pedestal found by M. A. STEIN, is dated by BÜHLER as belonging to the second century CE on palaeographic grounds and he proposed to date the adjoining Gāndhāra sculptures in the context of the said pedestal (1896a: 312). (E) The Sātavāhana inscriptions

The eye-copy and rubbing of the Jaggayyapetta inscription made over to BÜHLER by BURGESS has facilitated him in tracing the evolution of the Brāhmī script (1882a) and to comment that “the mason has done his best to show off his skill in making the letters ornamental and their form artistic”. While interpreting an inscription of Yajñaśrī Gautamīputra (1892ac), he differs with BHAGWANLAL, who interprets the expression Vasasatāya as ‘in the century’. Giving the correct reading as Vasasattāyāḥ, he prefers the interpretation of BURGESS as ‘existence of the power of the king’. 41 Scholars

have raised doubts about the genuineness of the inscriptions made over to BÜHLER by FÜHRER. 42 Khāravela in his Hāthīgumphā inscription refers to this era. 43 The date with reference to Aśoka seems more probable due to the Buddhist nature of the pedestal and it concurs better with the conjecture of BÜHLER. He takes the pedestal contemporary to the time of Kaniṣka or Huviṣka.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

75

Interpreting the ‘Nānāghāṭ’ inscription of Nāgaṇikā (1883n), BÜHLER derives the Sūtra texts and the various names of sacrifices referred to have been performed. MIRASHI, after him, claims that “The Nāṇeghāṭ inscriptions, which belong to the oldest historical documents of Western India, are in some respects more interesting and important than all the other cave inscriptions taken together” (MIRASHI 1981, Part II: 5). He and others have considerably revised the genealogy of the Sātavāhanas. Shobhana GOKHALE has identified from the donations in the multiples of 17, the sacrifice concerned as Vājapeya.44 It is observed that the names of the aristocratic personalities of the Sātavāhana dynasty that were incised on the back wall above the positions of the heads of the destroyed statues that BÜHLER could happily decipher have got mutilated within the last century (1883n: 64). BÜHLER’s readings of thirty inscriptions of Kanheri are published in the 5th volume of the Archaeological Survey of Western India in 1883. However, LÜDERS in his list of Brāhmī inscriptions furnished a list of 51 inscriptions from the site, out of which he reported 19 as undeciphered. GOKHALE, in 1973, was successful in deciphering 18 of them and she improved upon some of the readings of BÜHLER having the advantage of a firsthand visit to the site (GOKHALE 1991: 4). (F) Inscriptions of the Kṣatrapas

As is evident from his other writings, BÜHLER had a special affection towards Gujarat. He translated into English BHAGWANLAL’s Gujarati article on the famous Junagadh inscription of Rudradāman and gave an additional note (1878o: 263). An identification of the places and the areas described in the inscription was attempted therein. EGGELING’s work on the said inscription has been praised by BÜHLER over that of BHAU DAJI. BÜHLER also differs with BURGESS in the identification of ‘Niṣāda’. He claims that the word should be Niṣadha, name of any one of the several districts in India bearing that name. BÜHLER also edited an inscription found at Gunda (1881a) dating Saṁvat 102, and informing that Rudrabhūti, the ruler, caused to construct a tank in the village named Rasopadra. As a fitting tribute to his friend BHAGWANLAL, BÜHLER edited his material regarding the Mathura ‘Lion Capital’ (1894c). This interesting sculpture bears in all 18 small inscriptions named ‘A’ to ‘R’ by BÜHLER. He calls the script Bactro-Pāli or Ariano-Pāli. Giving the genealogy of the Kṣatrapas, he rightly identifies their proper names as barbaric, in spite of the inscription being in an indianized language. The ‘longest inscription’ in Swat (1896b) was found at Kaldarra by WADDELL. It denoted the construction of a tank by Thera Nora, the son of Dati, for the worship of all snakes. BÜHLER indentifies the names Dati and Nora as having a foreign look. He does not forget to bring out the close connection of snake worship and Buddhism and further informs that any big spring in Kashmir is named ‘-nāga’, and ‘-nāgin’ stands at the end of the names of the small ones. He further observes that large lakes also bear a similar form at

44 Gathered from various lectures delivered by her and informal discussions with her students.

76

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

the end of their names. In an additional note on the inscription (1896e), he corrects WADDELL’s reading of the word Pu(ṣ)karaṇe as Pu(ṣ)karaṇī. (G) Prakrit Grant of Śivaskandavarman (1892af)

This peculiar find was handed over to BÜHLER by BURGESS. He observed that there are various irregularities of script and language in this grant, which except the last verse, is in Prakrit close to Pāli. Interestingly he translates ‘Bhaṭṭiśarman Kolivālabhojaka’ as Bhaṭṭiśarman, the Ināmdār of Kolivāla. This stands in testimony of his understanding and love of the current Indian languages. The Pallava rulers were certainly not Buddhist and it was a matter of astonishment for the contemporaries of BÜHLER how the inscriptions of rulers like Sātavāhanas and Pallavas are in Prakrit. On this he rightly observes: “… the use of Prākrit in the older inscriptions is not due to the influence of Buddhism, but that in the early times Prākrit was the official language of the Indian kings, while the use of Sanskrit was still confined to the Brahmanical schools. … the said language (Sanskrit) was not unknown to the persons who composed the text (as is evident from the imprecatory verses). … The results of the recent epigraphic and linguistic studies are most unfavourable to the theory that there was in India once a golden age during which kings, priests, and peasants spoke the language of Pāṇini. They rather tend to show that the classical Sanskrit is a Brahmanical modification of the, or a, northern dialect, elaborated by the grammatical schools, which very slowly and in historical times gained ascendancy throughout the whole of India and among all the educated classes” (1892af: 5).

LEUMANN, has stated that Prakrit inscriptions always present particular difficulties, and has praised BÜHLER for his sagacity exhibited in removing most of them connected with this grant (1894: 483). Another example of such inscription may now be cited in the form of the Washim plate of Vindhyaśakti II which came to light in 1939 (SHASTRI 1997: 39). Convenient incorporation of non-Sanskrit languages for expressing the details of the grant can be seen in various later inscriptions, e.g. the celebrated Aihoḷe Praśasti. (H) An insightful decipherment of inscriptions ‘from below’ (1891g)

Several brief votive inscriptions had come to light from Amaravati, Mathura, Sanchi and Nadsur, by the explorations carried out by CUNNINGHAM, FLEET, HULTZSCH and FÜHRER. While deciphering the Mathura inscription no. 7 of CUNNINGHAM, BÜHLER realised that it makes no sense if read in the usual manner from top to bottom and illustrated that the stonemasons have occasionally committed such a bizarre thing in much earlier times (1891g: 230). As regards one of the Nadsur inscriptions made over to him by FÜHRER, he cautiously states that it is to be read from below but he would differ giving his version as his photographs were not distinct enough to allow a reading with certainty (1891g: 232). (I) Vākāṭaka: Ilichpur (Chammak) Grant of Pravarasena II (1883m)

The Ilichpur [Elichpur] Grant or the Chammak copperplate grant was only the second Vākāṭaka copperplate charter published till then, the first one being the Seoni [Sivanī] charter published by James PRINSEP in 1836 (PRINSEP 1836: 726–731). Besides, a mutilated

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

77

stone inscription from Ajanta Cave 16 was known. BÜHLER was not the pioneer to work on the Ilichpur charter. It was transliterated by BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI and published by BURGESS in his Notes on the Bauddha Rock-Temples of Ajanta (BURGESS 1879: 54–57). Perhaps in view of the necessity of further work on the same, BURGESS entrusted the work to BÜHLER.45 Besides giving a revised transliteration and translation of the charter, BÜHLER dealt in detail with its orthography and language, and a number of problems of Vākāṭaka chronology and history.46 He rejected the identification of the Vākāṭaka ruler Vindhyaśakti as Kailakila Yavana made by BHAU DAJI (BHAU DAJI 1865: 65) and affirmed with reference to the Ajanta inscription that the said ruler was of indigenous origin. According to BÜHLER, the Vākāṭakas hailed from the northern or central part of India, which is today accepted by most of the scholars.47 His interpretations of the word Vākāṭaka is not based merely on etymology. However, relying on the metronymic practice of the Rājputs, he took Vākāṭaka to be the name of the country and of the ‘Rājpūt’ clan ruling it. This interpretation is now proved to be far-fetched and anachronistic. In taking the Vākāṭakas to be kṣatriyas who assumed the Vedic Viṣṇuvṛddha gotra as per the prevalent practice, he seems to have ignored the fact that only Brahmans are held qualified to perform the bṛhaspatisava mentioned in the charter. 48 BÜHLER rightly dates the grant to the fifth century CE on palaeographic grounds and gives the genealogy of the dynasty on the basis of Ajanta inscription. This genealogy is no longer acceptable.49 However, credit must be given to BÜHLER for a much more precise date compared to his contemporaries, namely FLEET and KIELHORN who placed the Vākāṭakas in the 8th century CE (KIELHORN 1894–1895: 260). He accepts the Vākāṭaka boundaries as presumed by CUNNINGHAM (Report IX 1879: 121. Not 123 as stated by BÜHLER), but states that the capital Bhandak (Pravarapura) has no etymological connection with the name Vākāṭaka. His interpretations of the term Vaijayika Dharmasthāna and the existence of a number of Senāpatis in the course of a few months should be seen as a proof of BÜHLER’s insight. He saw Mahārājādhirāja as a personality greater than the Vākāṭakas but refrained from identifying him with the Gupta dynasty. Though he has deciphered the beginning of the present grant as Om, he has corrected it as dṛṣṭam in the Hīrahaḍagalli (?) charter of Pallava ruler Śivaskandavarman (1892af: 9–10) after having inspected the original plates of the grant and has interpreted for the first time that it denotes 45 Seemingly in the form of facsimiles of the plates (1883m: 239, fn. 2). 46 He has literally translated the whole charter except the expressions (i) apāram-paragobalivardda,

(ii) avarāsanavarmmāṅgāra, (iii) alavaṇaklinnakreṇibanaka and (iv) sakliptopaklipta. They have been interpreted later by MIRASHI (MIRASHI 1963: 14). The existence of two separate lines of the Vākāṭakas, namely Nandivardhana and Vatsagulma was established as late as 1939 when Y. K. DESHPANDE and D. B. MAHAJAN read an article on the Basim plates of Vindhyaśakti II at the Indian History Congress, Second Session, Calcutta, Dec. 1939 (Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Third Session: 449 ff. [=MIRASHI/MAHAJAN 1952: 137]). 47 Some scholars have postulated the theory of a South Indian origin (SHASTRI 1997: 150f). 48 To follow THITE (2004: 503–507; Kalichakra 2008) this may be taken merely a ‘claim’ of the king to have performed the sacrifices concerned and not a faithful record. 49 For the latest genealogy see SHASTRI 1997: 212.

78

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

‘seen’— a remark that the draft of the charter has been approved. Along with its usual meticulous nature, the translation of the charter done by BÜHLER also holds the beauty of the language, e.g. the statement atitānekarājadatta.... na kīrtayāmaḥ is rendered beautifully as “and in this document which procures at least spiritual merit we do not mention the care and protection bestowed (by us) on grants made by various former kings, in order to avoid boasting of meritorious actions performed (by us).” It is also remarkable that BÜHLER refrains from passing any adverse judgement against the donee Brahmans who were threatened that this grant would be confiscated if they were found indulged in offences against the state or the subjects. (J) The Valabhi Grants

An epigraphical masterstroke of this great scholar played in the form of the eighteen Valabhi inscriptions that he brought out and discussed during 1875–1893. It will be no exaggeration to call this period ‘creative’ for the history of Valabhi in the light of the fact that the number of Valabhi inscriptions known till date stands at 105. Except editing the texts and providing translations, BÜHLER has made several observations with regard to the plates. His chief observations on the plates may be enumerated as follows: He doubts if it will appear strange to the Europeans that the daughter of Dhruvasena’s sister (Dhruvasena I) should have been a Buddhist while her uncle was staunch Vaiṣṇava (1875a: 107). He identifies the officers named Dhruvādhikaraṇikas as the modern Dhruvas, tax collectors and Sthānādhikaraṇas with Thānādārs (1876d: 204). Vassalage of the king Dharasena I (in fact the dynasty) to some unidentified mighty empire is reckoned by him (1877d: 9). On the basis of the date of the plate, viz. 589 CE, it may be observed that this mighty emperor was a successor of the Guptas and the predecessor of Harṣavardhana. The officer Divirapati has been identified rightly as a Kārkun, i.e. writer/ accountant/chief clerk/secretary (1877d: 10). It is remarkable that the term Kārkun (Superintendent) that continued to be used till the early colonial period in India, has lost its glory and today the word denotes merely a petty clerk. BÜHLER further identifies the officers Vartmapāla and Pratisaraka as guards of the road and that of the gate respectively and claims that such officers existed even during his time. However, he does not explain the meaning of ‘Kāthebarika’, a new class of officers (1878b). BÜHLER’s identification of the ruler Śilāditya VI Dhruvabhaṭa with Tu-lu-po-po-tu of Hieun Tsang stands in testimony of his all-round consideration of the historical evidence (1878b). Specifying the Gupta era as employed by the Valabhi rulers for their records he nods to Al-Beruni’s statement that it began in Śaka 241, i.e. 320 CE (1886h). As regards the inscribed royal seal from Walā (1883c: 275) BÜHLER observed that it palaeographically matched with the grants of Dhruvasena I. His idea of getting the details of Brahman castes through the names of donees appearing in the respective grants (1893a) seems to have been carried knowingly or unknowingly

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

79

by scholars of the field, Nirmala KULKARNI of the S. P. Pune University being one of them. (K) Inscriptions of Harṣavardhana

BÜHLER edited two inscriptions of Harṣavardhana, found at Madhuban (1892az) and Banskhera (1896–1897a), dated regnal year 25 and 28 respectively, which indeed were pathbreaking discoveries. The Madhuban plate that referred to a spurious copperplate of an earlier date is unique in its contents. BÜHLER has excellently translated the plate refraining from saying anything against the Brahman Vāmarathya who had reportedly claimed his right on the village Somakuṇḍakā on the strength of a forged grant. He has dealt with the genealogy of the Vardhanas in detail and has observed that unlike the popular belief Harṣa was a Śaivāite and not a Buddhist. He affirms again that the epigraphic alphabets of India lag behind those appearing in manuscripts.50 The Banskhera plate was secured by FÜHRER fortunately, when he ‘unfortunately’ could not bring to light any new inscriptions in the Indo-Nepalese region. The said plate closed with the fanciful signature of the donor, ‘svahasto mama mahārājādhirājaśrīharṣasya’ in the so called shell characters. BÜHLER has meticulously observed that the medial i in the syllable dhi here consisted of more than a dozen separate strokes, and the ā of jā had seven strokes. He wonders “If the great poet-king really did sign all official documents in these letters, he must have been a most accomplished penman and his conquest of India must left him a great deal of leisure” (1896d: 81). BÜHLER has, however, not commented on the ironical absence of the royal endorsement on the Madhuban plate where it would be deemed necessary, and its impressive presence on the Banskhera plate, which perhaps had already been laid as a practice by Harṣavardhana. (L) The Bagumra Grant of Nikumbhallaśakti, year 406 (1889c)

Identifying rightly the era used in this particular grant with the Cedī era, BÜHLER dates it to 654–655 CE and establishes the relation of the Sendrakas with the Cālukyas of Badāmī. Observing that the names of the Sendraka ruler ended with ‘~śakti’, he expresses the importance of the publication of several other grants of the Sendrakas that were possessed by BHAGWANLAL. (M) The Lakkhā-Mandal Praśasti (1892bd)

BÜHLER denotes the contents of this Praśati, merely an eulogy and no donation, of the rulers from Senavarman to Candragupta. He rightly refrains from dating the Praśasti exactly and proposes in his usual conservative manner, “in conclusion, I may add that this inscription very forcibly inculcates the necessity of our abstaining from identifying every Chandragupta who may turn up in literary or epigraphic documents with the Maurya or the Gupta king of that name” (1892bd: 12). This opinion was expressed by him in his article on the Umeta plate (1878f). However, the said inscription is spurious.

50

80

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (N) The Baijanātha Praśastis (1892be)

Dealing with the two Baijanātha Praśastis located in the Kangra district, BÜHLER has described the temple and the deities there in the form of Liṅgas. He seems to be excited by the fact that the said inscription pertains to the Śāradā script and discusses in detail the palaeography of the inscriptions. He identifies the places given in the inscriptions and deals with the genealogy of the ruler Lakṣmaṇacandra in detail (1892be: 97–102). BÜHLER reads the date of the first inscription as [Jyeṣṭha] Śukla 1, Sunday, year 80 of the Saptarṣi Saṁvat, which corresponds to 13th May 804 CE. He complains that it was a Tuesday on the 13th of May. It may be suggested, however, that the two damaged letters denoting the name of the month could also be read as Caitra, Pauṣa or Prauṣṭha. The date Śukla Pratipadā of all these three months occurred on Saturday. Interestingly, the same Tithi of the month of Māgha occurred on a Sunday (PILLAI 1922: Vol. 2, 10–12).51 (O) The Grant of Dharaṇīvarāha of Vaḍhvān (1883b)

This grant, dated Śaka 836, belonging to a feudal dynasty of the Cālukyas, did not possess any historical details except genealogy. The decipherment of this grant, however, was remarkable since it was partially done from a paper rubbing and partially from an impression created by beating thin lead strips onto the surface of the plate. (P) Rāṣṭrakūṭa Inscriptions

BÜHLER dealt with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa inscriptions in three articles (1876f, 1877a, 1883k). In the first article, he expresses inclination to consider the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Gujarat, vassals of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkheda (Mālkhet, Mālkheḍ or Mānyakheṭaka) (1876f: 145). In the second one he adduced that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa ruler Dantivarman was none other than Dantidurga. The third article proved to be more important through which Karka III was indentified with Amoghavarṣa. Needless to say, that all these articles bear a meticulously prepared text and interpretation of the plates. (Q) Inscriptions of the Cālukyas (Soḷankīs) of Anhilvāḍ (1877c)

A ‘hoard’ of eleven copperplate inscriptions was accessed by BÜHLER through Sir T. Madhavrao, the then Dīvān (Prime Minister) of the Baroda state. The inscriptions are enlisted as follows: Ins. 1: dated 1043, Māgha Vadya 15, Sunday, of Mūlarāja. Ins. 2: dated 1086, Kārttika Śuddha 15, of Bhīmadeva. Ins. 3: dated 1263, Śrāvaṇa Śuddha 2, Sunday, of Bhīmadeva II. Ins. 4: dated 1280, Pauṣa Śuddha 3, Winter-solstice, of Jayantasiṁha. Ins. 5: dated 1283, Kārttika Śuddha 15, Thursday, of Bhīmadeva II. Ins. 6: dated 1287, Āśāḍha Śuddha 8, Friday, of Bhīmadeva II. 51 Information

received from Shreenand L. BAPAT, who stated that missing one day in conversion of a Tithi into a common date is normally condoned while deciphering inscriptions and Persian and Moḍī documents. In the absence of the facsimile of the inscription, and in view of BÜHLER’s reading as ‘Jyeṣṭha’, one should be more inclined to imagine the Mātrās on the first letter of the name of the month. Thus though the date of Māgha in that year occurs on the prescribed day, it would stand as a weaker proposal in comparison with the first three.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

81

Ins. 7: dated 1288, Bādrapada Śuddha 1, Monday, of Bhīmadeva II. Ins. 8: dated 1295, Mārgaśīrṣa Suddha 14, Thursday, of Bhīmadeva II. Ins. 9: dated 1296, Mārgaśīrṣa Vadya 14, Sunday, of Bhīmadeva II and of queen Sūmaladevī. Ins. 10: dated 1299, Caitra Śuddha 6, Monday, of Tribhuvanapāladeva Ins. 11: dated 1317, Jyeṣṭha Vadya 4, Thursday, of Siddharāja In order to bring the details of the Soḷankī dynasty, BÜHLER has referred to Sanskrit as well as Persian sources right up to Āīn-i-Akbarī. He has also referred to a text Rāsamālā which mentions the Soḷankī rulers in good details. He equates the name Cālukya with the Gujarati surname Soḷankī and the Maharashtrian surname Cāḷke. As regards the Dohad inscription of Jayasiṁha (1881d), BÜHLER identifies the first part of the inscription up to the 8th line, which is dated Vikrama Saṁvat 1196, with the consecration of the image of Śrī Gogānārāyaṇa-deva, while the second part, dated Vikrama Saṁvat 1202, is meant for the worship of the deity.52 BÜHLER also has to his credit the Vadnagar Praśasti of the reign of Kumārapāla dated Vikrama Saṁvat 1208. (R) The Dabhoi Inscription (1892ag)

This Praśasti pertaining to Vīradhavala, made over to BÜHLER by BURGESS, was composed by Someśvaradeva, the composer of the Kīrtikaumudī. In the introduction to this Praśasti BÜHLER has narrated the history of expeditions of Shihabuddin Ghori (1178 CE), Kutbuddin Aibak (1194 and 1196 CE) and the establishment of permanent Mohammdan garrison in Gujarat at the end of the 12th century. (S) Inscriptions having bearing upon the authenticity of the Jaina tradition

Inscriptions from Mathura as mentioned above were made over to BÜHLER by FÜHRER. BÜHLER, who was the pioneer in propounding that the Jaina tradition is separate from the Buddhist one, made full justice to these inscriptions on the one hand and to the authenticity of the Jaina tradition on the other. He found out several Gaṇas, such as Koṭṭiyaka, Sthānikīya, Ucchenāgarī, Bambhalijja from these inscriptions (1890h). As regards the relation of the Vaiṣṇava, the Śaiva and the Jaina tradition, he propounded as follows (1890f): (1) Śaivas were closer to Jainas as compared to Vaiṣṇavas. (2) Goddess Sarasvatī was worshiped by the Jainas as well. (3) A Caitya is a funeral monument constructed in the honour of a teacher or a prophet and it is necessarily not a temple. Such insights of BÜHLER seem to have got eclipsed by the controversy that arose around FÜHRER and was taken to have reflected on the so called business relation of the two.

This completion of the inscription at an interval of six years may be compared with the ‘Cauryāyaśī’ inscription at Pandharpur, dated Śaka 1195–1199, in which donations have been recorded in the order they were received (TULPULE 1963: 168–170).

52

82

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (T) The Nepalese Inscriptions (Translated article) (1885k)

BÜHLER’s respect and affection for BHAGWANLAL is clearly evident from his translation of the exhaustive Gujarati article on the Nepalese inscriptions. BÜHLER informs that the Nepāla (Nevāra) Saṁvat originated in 879 CE. The twenty-three inscriptions included in this article range from Nepāla Saṁvat 386 (1265 CE) to Vikrama Saṁvat 1878 (1822 CE). A list of the inscriptions for ready reference is as follows:53 (1) Pillar in the Cāṅgu-Nārāyaṇa temple: Saṁvat 386, Jyeṣṭha Śuddha 1. (2) Jayavarman’s inscription incised during the reign of Mānadeva: Saṁvat 413. (3) King Vasantasena: Saṁvat 435: Jaisi Lagantol temple at Kathmandu. (4) Saṁvat 535: Broken stone slab in the same temple. (5) Inscription of Śivadeva. (6) Inscription of Aṁśuvarman: Harṣa Saṁvat 34. (7) Inscription of Aṁśuvarman: Harṣa Saṁvat 39. (8) Inscription of Vibhuvarman: Harṣa Saṁvat 45. (9) Inscription of Jiṣṇugupta: Harṣa Saṁvat 48, Kārttika Śuddha 2. (10) Undated Inscription of Jiṣṇugupta. (11) Undated Inscription of Jiṣṇugupta. (12) Inscription of Śivadeva: Harṣa Saṁvat 119, Phālguna Śuddha 10. (13) Inscription of Śivadeva: Harṣa Saṁvat 143. (14) Inscription dated Harṣa Saṁvat 145. (15) Inscription of Jayadeva: Harṣa Saṁvat 153. (16) Inscription of Jyotimalla: Nepāla Saṁvat 533, Māgha Śuddha 13, Punarvasu nakṣatra, Prītiyoga, Sunday. (17) Inscription of Siddhinṛsiṁha of Lalitapaṭṭan: Nepāla Saṁvat 757, Phālguna Śuddha 10, Thursday. (18) Inscription of Paśupatimalla of Kathmandu: Nepāla Saṁvat 769, Phālguna Śuddha 6, Sunday. (19) Inscription of Pratāpamalla: Nepāla Saṁvat 778, Māgha Śuddha 7. (20) Inscription of Ṛddhilakṣmī: Nepāla Saṁvat 810. (21) Inscription of Śrinivāsa: Nepāla Saṁvat 792, Māgha Śuddha 5. (22) Inscription of Princess Yogamatī: Nepāla Saṁvat 843, Māgha Śuddha 2. (23) Inscription of Queen Lalitatripurasundarī: Vikrama Saṁvat 1878. (U) A list of other inscriptions B ÜHLER worked on is as follows

(a) Two (Stone) Inscriptions (on a single slab) from Jhālrāpāṭhan (1876i: 180–183): (1) Inscription of Durgagaṇa dated Vikrama 746 = 690 CE; (2) A mutilated inscription transcribed but not translated. (b) Inscription from the gate of Girnar, revised and translated (1876g). (c) Vastupāla Tejapāla’s inscription on the Western door of a temple dated Vikrama 1288, Phālguna Śuddha 10 (1876j). (d) The Cintra Praśasti of the reign of Sāraṅgadeva, originally published by Charles WILKINS (1892at). (e) Śrīdhara’s Devapattana Praśasti (1894l). (f) Inscription of Govana III of the Nikumbhavaṁśa, Śaka 1075 (1879a). BÜHLER concludes here that the Nikumbhas were feudatories of the Yādavas. 53 Since the original article does not pertain to BÜHLER, it is preferred here not to write in details on it.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

83

(g) Two British museum inscriptions dated Saṁvat 781, Kārttika Śuddha 13 and Saṁvat 783, Caitra Śuddha 5 (1884h). (h) The Banawasi Inscription of Hārītiputa Sātakamni (1885j). (i) The Peheva inscription from the temple of Garibnāth (1892bc). (j) An inscription of Toramāṇa Śāha (1892bb). (k) The Taxila plate of Patika (1896–1897b). (l) Somnāthpattan Praśasti of Bhāva Bṛihaspati, edited by V. G. OZHĀ and introduced by BÜHLER (1889l). …And here BÜHLER nods! We have seen earlier that BÜHLER had a habit to take the exhibits at par, no matter from where they came and how they appeared, which sometimes resulted in proving him gullible. This, however, was not the fault to be found only in him but in a number of Indologists of the ‘creative period’, who were naturally excited to publish the material they received without rigorous examination.54 Such cases pertaining to BÜHLER cited by FLEET are as follows: (1) The Dhiniki Grant of Jāikadeva (1883l): From the rubbings available to him BÜHLER had realised that this grant having two plates measuring 9.75” by 5.00” was the smallest in western India and that the plates were so thin that at places the punch has completely gone through the sheet55 and altogether the work was done by an unskilful man, unaccustomed to delicate work. He observes that “the official who composed the text of the grant did not use the old format current in Gujarat but for some reason or the other invented a new one” (1883l: 152) and that the seal of the plate was also unmatching. He has also realised that the language of the plates is not quite grammatical Sanskrit, the copyist of the plates is careless and hasty, and the details of the donees family have not been given satisfactorily. BÜHLER has gone to the extent to say: “A few years ago most epigraphists would have unhesitatingly condemned the Dhinikī śāsana on account of the modern appearance of its characters as a forgery of the 11th or 12th century…[In view of the discovery of the Horiuzi manuscripts and a few copperplates] it is no longer possible to fall into such an error. On the contrary, it must be conceded that an alphabet closely resembling the modern Devanāgarī was in general use certainly during the 7th and 8th centuries, and probably at a much earlier date…” (1883l: 151). The date of the plates is given as 794 Vikrama Saṁvat, Kārttika New-moon, Sunday, Jyeṣṭhā Nakṣatra, Solar eclipse = Sunday, 16 November 738 CE. It is interesting to note here FLEET (1901) has enlisted 61 inscriptional records already published and found to be spurious in his critical evaluation of them. 55 It is normally believed that the copperplates are inscribed with punch and hammer, however, copper when heated red and treated with water and acid, becomes soft to the extent that it can be cut through even with a stylus. This information is gathered from a welknown antiquity collector Pradeep SOHONI, Pune, Retired vice-president, Godrej Industries, Mumbai, who opines that copperplates are made in this manner. His opinion is based on his minute observation of the copperplates from his own collection. Ravindra POTDUKHE and Manish BHAGWAT, two artist friends having hands-on field experience confirm SOHONI’s observation regarding working of copper. 54

84

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

that the solar eclipse occurred on the Āśvina amāvāsyā. BÜHLER, however, has tried to understand it as – “The well-known fact that the grants were rarely written on the day when the donation was made, permits us to explain the error with respect to the eclipse. … The Kārkūn forgot to give the two dates separately, and thus made the same muddle as the writer of the Morbī plate, who asserts that the grant was made on the fifth day of the bright half of Phālguna, on the occasion of an eclipse of the sun” (1883l: 154). In view of the above it is phenomenal that BÜHLER refrains from declaring the plates clearly as spurious. Further, this article was to be continued for giving remarks on the Vikrama, Valabhi and the Gupta eras, however, it has not been continued for unknown reasons. (2) The Umeta grant of Dadda II and the ‘forged’ Valabhi grant of Dharasena II: In his article of 1876 on the inscriptions from Kavi, BÜHLER remarks that the Umeta grant is apparently the prototype of a forged Valabhi grant ascribed to Dharasena II (1876e: 110 fn.). Later he stated that there are some important discrepancies, and that in some points the forged grant is independent, while in others it agrees with the Ilao grant of Dadda. (1881g: 279). The proofs of the Dharasena II grant being spurious have been enumerated by him as follows (1881g): (a) The Nandī on the seal is standing and facing right; (b) There are mistakes in the genealogy; (c) Numerous mistakes of spelling; (d) The closing statement of the minister and the date is unmatching; and finally (e) The closing statement of the king himself ‘Svahasto’yaṁ mama Śrīdharasenadevāsya’ does not resemble the usual style in which the name of the king is mentioned. He strongly believed Umeta grant to be genuine (1878f). Raising the matter in 1888 again, after the discovery of Bagumra grant, he states that the discovery permits us to assert with full confidence the genuineness of Umeta and Ilao grants (1888i: 185). He remarks that BHAGWANLAL’s inference of the grants being spurious is not agreeable (1888i: 188) and FLEET’s arguments inconclusive (1888i: 189). Assuming the three grants to be genuine he reconstructs the pedigree of the Gurjar princes of Broach (1888i: 191). (3) The date of the Aihoḷe Praśasti: The date of the famous Aihoḷe inscription was not settled still by 1876 due to a misreading: the word ‘pañcāśatsu’ occurring in a second verse of the portion of the date had been misinterpreted by FLEET and the date of the inscription was taken to be 3735 years of the Bharatas, (three thousand) 550 of the Kali age and 506 years of the Śaka kings (FLEET 1876: 73, after BÜHLER 1876f: 152). BÜHLER has tried to explain this erroneous reading by saying that the Śaka year should be taken the Vikrama year, and in that case it would be another instance of an early use of the Vikrama era! However, later on the date was settled as 3735 years of the Bhārata war and 556 years of the Śaka era, both exactly matching with 634 CE (GOKHALE 1975: 182). (4) Two Grants of Dadda IV (1898–1899b): These two grants offered to the Brahman Sūrya of the Bhāradvāja Gotra and the Mādhyandina recension of the Śukla Yajurveda, who lived in Kṣīrasara, are meant to record the donation of fields in the villages, Suvarṇapallī and Kṣīrasara respectively. They bear the same

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

85

date, Saṁvatsara 392, Vaiśākha Paurṇimā, recorded differently on each of them as Vaiśākha Śuddha Pañcadaśī and Vaiśākha Paurṇimā respectively. The composer of the plates apparently is the same but there is a remarkable palaeographic difference in them. While the first plate exhibits the normal Western variety of the Northern script, the second one has button like shapes at the top of every letter. BÜHLER takes a note of this but tries to justify the difference as “These men apparently care for exactness not more than the modern Karkuns, since we see here that the same writer, though working according to an older office copy, permitted himself to introduce small changes in two documents which he drafted on the same day” (1898–1899b: 38). BÜHLER could have very well doubted in the light of differences cited above, why two separate charters were issued by the same donor to the same donee on the same day. There are inscriptional instances of making a number of donations by a donor to a donee in a single charter, which would save the material and the labour for the state. From the above discussion there seems to be a good ground to term the second charter as doubtful, if not spurious. (5) In his article (1876a) on the inscription of Chittarājadeva Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara of Koṅkaṇa that was reportedly given on the solar eclipse that occurred on Śaka 948, Kārttika Śuddha 15 = 1026 CE. BÜHLER comments here that the solar eclipse is to be read as lunar. He also reported that a similar discrepancy has occurred in the Morbi plates deciphered by BHANDARKAR (1872: 258). Actually, the year Śaka 948 had both the solar and the lunar eclipses in the month of Kārttika (PILLAI 1922: Vol. 3, 55). (6) In his article entitled “Further Valabhi Grants” (1877d), BÜHLER has observed that the inscription of Śilāditya V, dated year 441, Kārttika Śuddha 5, bears mistakes in a great number. It may further be observed on the basis of the large number of inscriptions of Valabhi discovered till date that this inscription is doubtful due to variation in writing and provision of a separate box for the closing statement, ‘svahasto mama’ of the king. Similarly in his article “Additional Valabhī Grants, Nos. IX-XIV”, he observes regarding the grant of Guhasena dated year 240 that its genealogy did not match the usual one (1878b). However, he further comments that it was quite premature to solve that problem. These two are the cases of BÜHLER’s hesitation, or rather modesty, which prevented him from doubting the genuineness of the records concerned.

8. PALAEOGRAPHY AND N UMISMATICS (A) Early Writings of B ÜHLER

The first ever writing of BÜHLER dedicated to the subject of Palaeography is a Postscript appended to an article of BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI, which BÜHLER translated from Gujarati into English. BHAGWANLAL attempted to settle the exact signs for 40, 50, 60 and 70 occurring in various ancient inscriptions and to explain the origin of the ancient Nāgarī numerals. BÜHLER was convinced about the correctness of BHAGWANLAL’s views that the Nāgarī numerals are akṣaras or syllables. He argues in his postscript that it can be proved by a statement of Malayagiri in his commentary on the Sūryaprajñapti where

86

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Malaygiri uses the word Śabda instead of Aṅka for a Nāgarī numeral sign denoting four (1877e: 47–48). The two conjectures expressed by BÜHLER about the probable origin and explanation of the Nāgarī numerals are interesting. Firstly since the signs for the Anunāsika, Jihvāmūlīya and Upadhmānīya are used to denote certain numbers he suggests that the Nāgarī numerals were invented by Brahmans, and neither by “Vāṇiās”, nor by Buddhists who used the Prakrit language. Secondly and more importantly, the Nāgarī numerals may be traced back to one of the ancient Brahmanical schools, or caraṇas, and to their practice of using certain Padas and syllables as code (or Saṁjñā) in various grammatical operations or processes (1877e: 48). From the closely resembling variants of character-numerals found in the Jaina manuscripts, tracing them to one single origin, at least in case of manuscripts, seems probable.56 Furthering his views expressed in the Postscript he wrote an article in 1882 stating that the numbers consisting of separate signs for the units, the tens, the hundreds, and the thousands, are all syllables, which are pronounced as such. BÜHLER supplies various arguments e.g. the letter śu used in Kṣatrapa inscriptions for 100 which should be otherwise letter su as in earlier Maurya Brāhmī. Since sa and śa are pronounced interchangeably, sign for su was replaced by śu. Thus though the form of alphabet remains the same the sign for 100 i.e. su differs from the earlier writings. It in turn proves that the numeral signs are pronounced as syllables (1882c: 269–270). He even concludes that the signs for 1, 2 and 3 i.e. one horizontal line, two and three horizontal parallel lines respectively, are too intended as symbols for vowel u; Hrasva u, Dīrgha u and Pluta u (1882c: 270). Later, however, he gave up BHAGWANLAL’s hypothesis in favour of the Egyptian Hieratic figures since the similarities between the two are quite striking (1904M: 82). Scholars are still divided on the issue, among the theories of foreign and indigenous origins. However, the real concrete proofs are wanting on both the sides (SALOMON 1998: 60). BÜHLER discusses how the ancient Indian alphabet owed its development to the grammatical schools of the Brahmans. He states that the Brāhmī alphabet was an old institution in India about 300 BCE. His arguments for its age are: (1) The enormous extent of its territory. (2) It must have been generally known among the higher classes (and even the lower classes like stonemasons). (3) The alphabets of the Mauryas and the Andhra (Southern Brāhmī) alphabets are derived from a common source. He shows that the Maurya sign is not the parent of the Andhra sign. (4) The Brahmanical grammarians have developed the Maurya and Andhra alphabets and brought them into the shape in which we first find them. He adduces for this: 1. Differentiation of the nasals found in the alphabet. 2. Existence of the three sibilants. 3. Careful system of short and long vowels. 4. Invention of ḷa. BÜHLER believed that like the Indian alphabets, numerical system too came from a foreign country, for which, he immediately did not supply any definitive evidence (1882c: 270). 56 See the tables of variants in H. R. KAPADIA 1936: Appendix IV, 17–24.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

87

(B) Indian Paleography (Indische Palaeographie)

Indische Palaeographie published in 1896 as the second part of the first volume of the Grundriss marked the culmination point of BÜHLER’s researches (and his life so to say). It accompanied nine plates of alphabetical characters and numerals, eight tables of explanatory transliteration. The Grundriss has produced classics in Indian studies and BÜHLER led its foundation with the Indian Palaeography which stands at the foremost position both chronologically and treatment-wise. He has done a very detailed and systematic study and hence even though many new inscriptions have found till now, this treatise still stands indispensible for studying Indian Palaeography. The English version of this work was made by BÜHLER himself which remained only in manuscript form due to his untimely death. Steps were taken to publish it under the direction of KIELHORN. But due to many reasons eventually it had to be abandoned. FLEET took the initiative in 1902 and was successful in publishing it in 1904 as an appendix to the IA (FLEET 1904: 1). It is an English version and not a literal rendering of the German original. It is not a revised version as well, though there are some new passages.57 Beginning with the antiquity of writing in India and the origin of the oldest Indian alphabet BÜHLER has covered every topic that ought to be treated under the head Indian Palaeography. He holds that the antiquity of writing can be pushed back to 8th c. BCE when probably North-Semitic alphabets were introduced in India. He adduces that the popular Brāhmī contained since the third century BCE only 46 letters (instead of usual 50 or 51) and it was adapted to the wants of the Sanskrit language. He presents a minute and exhaustive study of the two major oldest available scripts in India, Kharoṣṭhī and Brāhmī and the region-wise and time-wise varieties of Brāhmī. The numeral notations of both the scripts also have been dealt with in detail. The external arrangement of inscriptions and manuscripts, writing materials, libraries and writers are the subject of his early area of expertise. He deals with all these subjects most eruditely. With respect to connection between the two scripts, BÜHLER had to fight hard the similarity between Brāhmī ‘ś’ and Kharoṣṭhī ‘ṣ’ that CUNNINGHAM had spoken first. BÜHLER derived ś from the Phoenician shin. The Indus Valley Civilisation was unknown to BÜHLER, so was the Indus script, which came to light more than twenty years after BÜHLER’s death. SALOMON describes Indische Palaeographie as “a work of such a stature that, although inevitably outdated, it continues to be a useful and important reference work even to the present day” (SALOMON 1998: 221).

57 There was only English text without the plates and tables. Moreover it was not in the book-form.

When copies of the Indian Antiquary became rare, its reprint was brought out as the first issue of a quarterly journal “Indian Studies: Past and Present” that was established to reprint rare monumental works. But this was again without plates. In 1959 for the first time the English version in its proper book-form along with the reproduction of the plates and tables was published by the same journal (CHATTOPADHYAYA 1959: iv).

88

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(1) The Origin of Brāhmī: BÜHLER had presented an exhaustive study of Brāhmī first in 1895 through his epoch making treatise “On the origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet” (1895e). At the beginning he discusses the literary evidences for the antiquity of writing. According to him the literary evidences point to the common use of writing in India during the 5th and perhaps in the 6th c. BCE (1898N: 53). The palaeographic evidences for the antiquity of the Brāhmī script prepare a foreground for his main thesis of the derivation of the Brāhma letters from the most ancient North Semitic signs. BÜHLER adduces that the Brāhmī letters closely agree with or are most easily derivable from the old types of the North Semitic alphabet, which shows the same type from Phoenicia to Mesopotamia. The introduction of the prototypes of Brāhmī letters lies between the beginning of the 9th c. and the middle of the 8th c., or about 800 BCE (1898N: 84). Based on archaeological evidences, F. R. ALLCHIN affirms this view in the following words: “… archaeological evidence has recently been obtained to show that the Brahmi script began to be used in Sri Lanka at least a century and a half before the start of the Mauryan rule in Magadha, and perhaps as early as three centuries before that event. We have long admired the brilliant analysis of Buhler … who reached the conclusion that the Indian script had been first introduced into South Asia by merchants around BC 800” (ALLCHIN 1995: 209).

According to ALLCHIN, archaeologists in India neglected to obtain absolute dating for the finds, including inscriptions, from this period. He condemns that they instituted no problem-oriented research designed to investigate the question of antiquity of Indian script. It is remarkable that DERANIYAGALA’s excavations at Anuradhapura have revealed Brāhmī inscriptions on potsherds scientifically dated at least to the 4th-5th c. BCE, if not earlier (ALLCHIN 1995: 211). The antiquity of Brāhmī in Sri Lanka adduces a possibility of use of the script in Northern India at least two centuries prior to that date i.e. during the 7th c. BCE and the age of the prototype Brāhmī can be safely pushed back to the 8th c. BCE.58 The North-Semitic alphabets are compared by BÜHLER with the earliest forms of Brāhmī. SALOMON recapitulates the destiny of BÜHLER’s theory of Semitic origin in the following words: “The theory of a Semitic origin for Brāhmī, on the other hand, does have a strong, if not entirely conclusive, body of concrete evidence in its favor. The derivation, along the lines worked out by Bühler, has … been generally adopted by Western scholars; … But in South Asia, as we have seen …, the Semitic hypothesis is not widely accepted, though there too some scholars, notably A. H. Dani in his influential work on Indian Paleography …, have cautiously supported some form of Semitic derivation. … the shortcomings

58 FALK tries to establish the “invention theory” of the origin of Brāhmī (1993: 165 vide HOUBEN and

RATH 2012: 11–12). He thinks that Brāhmī did not exist before Aśoka. The homogeneity and regularity of Aśokan Brāhmī are such that it must have been an invention under his rule. If so, the same principle may be applied to the generally homogeneous language of Asokan inscriptions.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

89

of Bühler’s presentation do not necessarily discredit the Semitic hypothesis itself” (1998: 29).

Though BÜHLER’s theory is not fully acceptable to modern scholars, nevertheless the conditions laid down by him for such a study are important: 1. The comparison must be based on the oldest forms of the Indian alphabet and actually occurring Semitic signs of one and the same period. 2. The comparison may include only such irregular equations, as can be supported by analogies from other cases, where nations have borrowed foreign alphabets. 3. The comparison must show that there are fixed principles of derivation (1898N: 53). BÜHLER has explained in detail how changes were made to the North-Semitic alphabets to form Brāhmī signs. He has explained derivation of each of the 22 Brāhmī characters out of the Semitic. Though his derivation of some signs is more or less convincing, in a few cases it seems farfetched and in other few it is hardly convincing e.g. derivation of na from Nun or ca from Tsade. However as SALOMON rightly points out, BÜHLER’s theory of Semitic origin was not completely refuted: “Part of the problem is that, despite the defects in Bühler’s methodology and data, no one since him has undertaken a comprehensive and careful paleographic reexamination of the Semitic hypothesis” (SALOMON 1998: 29).

From BÜHLER’s point of view the Brahman ‘schoolmen’ have framed the ‘Brāhma’ alphabet but as far as the introduction of Semitic signs in India is concerned he attributes it to the merchant class. Brahmans possessed since very early times the system of oral instruction for preserving their literary composition.59 So it was the merchant class who most urgently wanted a means for perpetuating the record of their daily transactions (1898N: 88). However, the historical and chronological considerations pose problems to this theory. According to SALOMON paleographically and even historically the Aramaic derivation of Brāhmī is plausible: “The palaeographic ramifications of this theory, however, have not yet been fully worked out. Historically and chronologically too, the Aramaic theory is much preferable to the Phoenician derivation. The widespread use of the Aramaic language and script as a lingua franca throughout the Near East and the Iranian world and as a bureaucratic language of the Achaemenian empire provides a ready explanation for its influence in India, in contrast to Bühler’s weak historical, geographical, and chronological justifications for a Phoenician prototype” (SALOMON 1998: 28).

(2) The Kharoṣṭhī script: 1. The Name Kharoṣṭhī: In 1892, on the basis of Buddhist Kharoṣṭî and Jaina Kharoṭṭhî BÜHLER termed it as “Kharoshṭrî” on the supposition that the word means ‘the writing (lipi) of the country of the (wild) asses and of the camels’ i.e. of the Panjab. However, in 1894 he declared that it is HOUBEN and RATH opine that Brāhmī existed at least a century or two before Aśoka and was adapted gradually for Sanskrit from his reign onwards (2012: 14).

59

90

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

safer to adopt Kharoshthi (i.e. Kharoṣṭhī) suggested by the Chinese translation “ass-lips” (1894p: 193 fn. 1). He acknowledges Terrien de la COUPERIE for this finding (1898N: 23).60 Later some scholars including HULTZSCH (1925: xi) gave the credit of restoring the term Kharoṣṭhī to BÜHLER (FALK 1993: 85). BÜHLER states that he accepts this derivation from the name of its inventor, who is said to have been called Kharoṣṭha or “Ass-lip”, because the ancient Hindus have very curious names – apparently nicknames like Śunaḥśepa, Kharījaṅgha etc. (1898N: 113–114). SALOMON points out that the term Kharoṣṭhī is by no means certain. Since the word was very likely not originally Sanskrit or even Indic, variations in spelling may have arisen from different Sanskritizations of the original name of the script (1998: 50). Albert LUDWIG proposed a derivation from an unattested Aramaic ḥarūtthā. BÜHLER showed his willingness to accept this as an alternative (1898N: 114 fn. 1; SALOMON 1998: 51). 2. Origin of Kharoṣṭhī: The originals of the Kharoṣṭhī letters are, according to BÜHLER, to be found in the Aramaic inscriptions of the time of the earlier Achaemenian kings (1898N: 98). Its connection with the Semitic scripts, particularly Aramaic, was evident to scholars from an early period but it was worked out by BÜHLER in a definitive manner in his “The Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet” in 1895 (1895h) (SALOMON 1998: 52). However, SALOMON does not seem to agree fully with BÜHLER regarding the derivation of retroflexes as secondary derivatives within Kharoṣṭhī (1998: 53). Since BÜHLER used Aramaic forms from widely differing periods and places to derive the Kharoṣṭhī characters, he was severely criticised by HALÉVY on methodological grounds (SALOMON 1998: 53), the methodology which was actually against BÜHLER’s own set up standards (1898N: 100). 3. Age of Kharoṣṭhī: BÜHLER calls Kharoṣṭhī ephemeral alphabet which was in vogue during 4th c. BCE to 3rd c. CE. The knowledge of its existence was preserved by the Buddhists much longer even in 7th c. CE (1959M: 34–35). BÜHLER ascribes the origin of the script to the early Achaemenian era i.e. around 5th c. BCE. Though SALOMON expresses doubt about this view and accepts it only provisionally after discarding views of other scholars like HALÉVY and FALK who assign it to 330 BCE and 325 BCE respectively, finally accepts it to sometime in the 4th, or possibly the 5th c. BCE (SALOMON 1998: 46). Similarly, SALOMON’s views about the Harry FALK has discussed in detail (1993: 84–85) how the indigenous name Kharoṣṭhī was restored by the scholars. Till 1882 the script used to be called by various names as Bactrian Pāli, IndoBactrian, Ariano-Pāli, Bactro-Aryan (due to its occurrence on the coins of Bactrian kings) or Gandharian (due to the region where it was in vogue). Gabriel DEVÉRIA writing under pseudonym “T. CHOUTZÉ” firstly pointed out that the Chinese texts mention two non-Chinese scripts, one of which is written from right to left and is invented by Kharôchta. In 1886–87 a French scholar, Terrien de la COUPERIE, stated with the help of a Chinese encyclopedia and Chinese translation of the Lalitavistara that the indigenous name of the script termed by scholars as Bactrian, Indo-Pāli et al. is in fact Kharôsti invented by a person Chinese translation of whose name is “Ass-lips”. See also SALOMON 1998: 50–51. 60

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

91

upper limit for the use of the script concord with BÜHLER’s except that SALOMON allows a period of another century or more for its occasional use (1998: 47). On the basis of the available epigraphic evidences and bilingual coins, BÜHLER accepts CUNNINGHAM’s view that the Kharoṣṭhī always held only a secondary position by the side of the Brāhmī alphabet even in Northwestern India (1898N: 92). But this view, according to SALOMON, is “no longer valid in light of subsequent discoveries which have enhanced our understanding of the important historical and cultural role of this script” (1998: 48). According to BÜHLER, Kharoṣṭhī is not a Pandit’s, but a clerk’s alphabet since it has an imperfect vowel system, employs anusvāra for a parasavarṇa and substitutes single consonant for double ones (1895h: 288). BÜHLER thinks that the discovery of the Khotan manuscript makes it very improbable that there existed another form of Kharoṣṭhī which was more complete like Brāhmī (1959M: 35). To sum up, in the words of SALOMON, “[BÜHLER’s] cogent theories on the origin of Indian scripts which, if not universally accepted, have also never been completely refuted” (1998: 221). (C) Palaeography of manuscripts

(1) Horiuzi Palm-leaf manuscript: Due to a Chinese-Sanskrit vocabulary it was first struck to MAX MÜLLER that there might be Sanskrit manuscripts still extant in Japan (1881: 1). He then brought to light with the help of Japanese students and scholars six Sanskrit texts discovered in Japan. One of the manuscripts found in the Horiuzi monastery contained two texts Prajñā-pāramitā-hṛdayasūtra and Uṣṇīṣa-vijaya-dhāraṇī. MAX MÜLLER edited these texts in collaboration with BUNYIU NANJIO in 1881 under the series Anecdota Oxoniensia published with an Appendix by BÜHLER elaborating on the palaeography of the manuscript. In this 33 page-long appendix BÜHLER points out the importance of the manuscript. Its age is proved around 6th c. CE by the external evidences and the manuscript strongly proves that palm-leaf manuscripts can survive for more than 1300 years. The characters used are identical with the contemporary manuscripts from Nepal but differ from the inscriptions and show an advanced stage of development than the inscriptions (1884d: 64). The name Brāhmī assigned to the Aśokan script is attested by mention of it by the Japanese writer (1884d: 67–68). BÜHLER presented a detailed and comparative examination of the characters of the Horiuzi palm-leaves (1884d: 73–95). It was BÜHLER’s conjecture since 1878 that in the 10th c. at least, the characters used for the literary purposes differed from those employed for official documents (1878f: 61). Now from the relation of the Horiuzi alphabet to those used in the Nepalese inscriptions BÜHLER concludes that the epigraphic character did not keep pace with those used for literary purposes, but remained for a long time more archaic, and were gradually modified by the influence of the letters employed for purposes of everyday life (1884d: 88).61

61 Also see 1891a: 308–309.

92

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(2) Bower Manuscript: At first BÜHLER called this birch-bark manuscript as Mingai manuscript as it was found in the ruins of ancient city of Mingai near Kashgaria. Later he accepted the name given to it by HÖRNLE on its discoverer’s name Lieut. BOWER. The manuscript was not available to BÜHLER. He made his investigations with the help of the facsimiles of two folios no. 3 and 9 published in the Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (No. IX, 1890, Plate III). Both BÜHLER and HÖRNLE through independent research assign the manuscript to the 5th c. CE. BÜHLER suggests that detailed investigations will compel to push the earlier limit further back than 400 CE. The alphabets of this manuscript resemble the North-Western alphabet. It contains a page showing the some characters that resemble those of the Gupta inscriptions (1891n: 105). BÜHLER discusses in detail the contents of the two folios. Fol. 3 contains a Buddhist snake-charm composed in the Southern India. The language is incorrect Sanskrit mixed with Prakrit forms. BÜHLER also notes that this small piece contains a dozen words which are unknown to dictionaries (1891n: 106). The article contains text and translation of the two folios. At the end, to make the matter more legible he suggests to soak the leaf of the birch-bark manuscript in water and dry it later. (3) The Kashgar or Weber manuscript A collection of manuscripts was found at Kashgar, a westernmost city of China. There were two collections of which one came to Kolkata and the other was added to the collections of the Library of St. Petersburg. HÖRNLE gave a full account of the manuscripts that came to India in the JASB (Vol. LXII). BÜHLER made some remarks on the contents and palaeography of the manuscripts. According to HÖRNLE the age of the manuscripts is not later than the end of 7th c. or the beginning of 8th c. CE and some portions may even date back to 5th c. CE. They contain several Sanskrit texts. The first section contains, according to HÖRNLE, a Nakṣatrakalpa belonging to the Atharvaveda while BÜHLER states it to be belonging to the Sāmaveda (1893g: 263). The translation of some portion of the text has been given which differs from HÖRNLE’s translation. The script has been termed as the Central Asian Nāgarī by HÖRNLE. On the basis of the following observations, and the inferences based on these observations BÜHLER concludes that the manuscript must have been copied from the south Indian original (1893g: 264–265): 1. The leaves bear the numbers on the first page The South Indian manuscripts bear folio numbers on the first page i.e. on the recto side as against the practice in the North India to use verso side or the second page for pagination. 2. The word vaiśvadaivatam is wrongly copied as vaiśyadaivatam In southern characters ya can easily be mistaken for va and vice-versa. 3. Ahirbudhnya is read as Ābhivṛddhi (a) To mistake hi for bhi is only possible in Grantha, and the Devanāgarī transcripts of Grantha manuscripts. (b) va is substituted for ba which is usual in the North India.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

93

4. Aja Ekapāda is read as Āryamākalpa aja is taken to mean Prakrit ajja i.e. ārya. pā can be easily mistaken for lpa. In southern characters e is open at the top which may resemble mā. 5. In viṣṇudaivatam, kṣa is substituted for ṣa which is again common in North India. From the above BÜHLER also infers that the Weber manuscript may have been derived from a Southern manuscript not directly but at second hand (1893g: 265). The palaeography suggests relatively older age. The figure for 10 exactly resembles that in the Naneghat inscription. There is use of single or double dots for interpunction which is common on the oldest copperplates and occasionally has been the cause of the erroneous insertion of Visargas in the transcripts (1893g: 266). The second section is in a variety of the North-western Gupta characters, as per HÖRNLE, and contains, according to BÜHLER, a metrical composition related to Śaiva tantra. The sections from 3 to 5 and 7 and 8 contain charms of various kinds while section 6 bears a Sanskrit metrical Kośa. Section 9 is a medicinal treatise in some unknown language interspersed with Sanskrit words. BÜHLER compares the contents of eight leaves of the Weber manuscript with the fragments of Petroffski manuscript deposited in the library of St. Petersburg and published by S. von OLDENBURG. (D) Kharoshṭhī Inscriptions on the Indo-Grecian Coins

BÜHLER tried to explain in his article on the above mentioned subject the probable causes of mistakes in reading the Kharoṣṭhī letters on the Indo-Grecian coins. He expounded that the short upward strokes, which in the Aśoka edicts are used for marking the ends of the verticals, appear on coins as small detached lines or dots close to the end of the verticals of ka, ta, da and ra which can be mistaken for vowel signs (1894p: 195). He further affirms that in all epigraphic work, as long as inexplicable words and forms seem to come out, the readings are wrong. He illustrates how some signs on coins appear closely resembling and in turn cause mistakes in reading (1894p: 197). He states that he distrusts all eye-copies and relies on the originals or purely mechanical productions (1894p: 198). He attempted to give the following corrected readings of the names of kings appearing on the Indo-Grecian coins published earlier in GARDNER’s Coins of the Greek and Scythic kings in the British Museum and VON SALLET’s Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen (1894p: 198–202). Agathokles = Akathukreyasa Antialkidas = Aṁtialikitasa and Atialikitasa Apollodotos = Apuludatasa, Apaladatasa, Apaladadasa Artemidoros = Atrimitorasa Diomedes = Diyumedasa Dionysias = Diunisiyasa Eukratides = Erukratitasa Heliokles = Heliyukreyasa, Heliyakreysa Hippostratos = Hipustratos Menandros = Mena(ṁ)drasa or Mena(ṁ)dasa (the readings are doubtful) He also read five of the titles and epithets (1894p: 202–204) appearing on the coins and thus corrected some of the misreadings of GARDNER. The inscription on the Agathokles’

94

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

triangular coin hindujasame or hidujasame has been read by him as hitajasame (Sanskrit hitayaśomān) or hirañasame (Sanskrit hiraṇyāśrame) (1894p: 206–207).

9. JAINA LITERATURE Investigations into the Jaina Religion: “The sect of the Jainas, whose literature has only become popularly known by BÜHLER’s discoveries, has, also by the investigations of the same scholar, received its due position in the history of religious systems in India” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 341) are the words of WINTERNITZ which rightly point out BÜHLER’s contributions to this field, made through a series of articles on the authenticity of the Jaina tradition (1887h, 1888h, 1889i, 1890f). (A) Über die indische Secte der Jaina

This is an epoch making treatise from BÜHLER’s pen. While the western scholarly world was divided on whether Buddhism was an offshoot of Jainism or vice-versa, BÜHLER affirmed with solid inscriptional evidence that the two were independent contemporary religious entities. JACOBI, who had shown this independently through textual evidence, was in a way supported and superseded by BÜHLER. Till the late 19th century there were many misconceptions among the western scholars regarding the Jainas. Scholars of the first generation like COLEBROOKE, STEVENSON and THOMAS believed that the Buddha was a disloyal disciple of the founder of the Jainas. H. H. WILSON, WEBER, and LASSEN held and it was generally accepted by the scholars for many years that the Jainas are an old sect of the Buddhists (BURGESS 1903: 23 fn. 1).62 BÜHLER proved the antiquity of the Jainas to the time of Buddha. The essay title “Über die indische Secte der Jaina” was read at the anniversary meeting of the Imperial Academy of Sciences on the 26th May 1887. It was then published in its annual publication (BURGESS 1903: III) and was translated into English by BURGESS in 1903. BÜHLER, following the contemporary academia, believed at the beginning that the Jainas are an old sect of Buddhists and even thought that he recognised the Jainas in the Buddhist school of the Sammatiya. During his tours in connection with the search for manuscripts he examined Jaina literature extensively (BURGESS 1903: 24). He also came in contact with many Jaina ascetics. Through some Digambara Jainas at Delhi and Jaipur he learnt that the Digambaras were called since the ancient times as Nirgranthas63 (1878n: 28). This seems to have led him to rethink over the issue. Finally after the observation of the fact that the Buddhists recognise the nigantha and relate of their head and founder as a 62 All seems to be mere textual studies with no ‘Field Work’.

“In older times the Digambara ascetics used to go naked, and from this custom they derive the names Digambara, Nirgranthas, Nagnātas [Nagnāṭas from nagna-aṭa would be the correct form]. Now they make a compromise with the spirit of the times and the British law. … the paṇḍits wear the usual dress of the country, and even the Bhaṭṭārkas cover themselves with a chaddar, which they put off when eating. At their meals they sit perfectly naked, and a pupil rings a bell to keep off all the strangers” (1878n: 28). In independent India Digambara Jaina ascetics seemingly follow their old tradition. 63

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

95

rival of Buddhas and mention that he died at Pava where the last Tīrthaṅkara is said to have attained Nirvāṇa, he inferred that these Nirgranthas must be none other than the Jainas and that the Jainas and the Buddhists sprang from the same religious movement. Once this identification was done it also became possible to recognise that the king Aśoka mentions the sect in his edicts and that it was of such an importance as to mention it separately (BURGESS 1903: 39–40). JACOBI reached the same result independently by another course (BURGESS 1903: 24). BÜHLER and JACOBI showed that Jñātiputra or nātaputta a contemporary of Buddha mentioned in the oldest Buddhist texts is identical with Vardhamāna Mahāvīra (1878q: 143 fn. 5; BURGESS 1903: 29). In 1884, at the International Congress of Orientalists in Leiden BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI first recognised the true names of the King Khāravela and his predecessors and showed that Khāravela and his wife were patrons of the Jainas. The antiquity of the Jainas was decisively proved by the large number of dedicatory inscriptions from Mathura which belonged to era of Indo-Scythian kings and came to light during the early eighties of the 19th c. In the inscriptions BÜHLER recognised the names of the schools of the Jainas, many of which are mentioned in the Kalpasūtra. He not only stated that the division amongst the Jainas must have taken place long before the beginning of the common era but also argued that the tradition of the Śvetāmbaras really contains ancient historic elements, and by no means deserves to be looked upon with distrust, and that the suspicion that the tradition of the Jainas themselves is intentionally falsified is not correct. Before he obtained the vast amount of inscriptions during 1889–1891 excavated at Mathura by FÜHRER (JANERT 1961: 43 fn. 2) there were already some inscriptions excavated by CUNNINGHAM and the copies published in 1873. With the help of these inscriptions he proved the authenticity of the Jaina tradition and the antiquity of the Jaina sect. That was possible because of the three factors. He came to know from the Digambara Jainas that they are called Nirgranthas the name with which he could recognise the mention of Jainas in the Buddhists scriptures; he then combined this conjecture with the inscriptional data which he also compared with the Jaina canons like Kalpasūtra. (B) Über das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemacandra

BÜHLER was the first to draw the attention of scholars to the works of Hemacandra (1088– 1173 CE) the famous Jaina monk, grammarian and lexicographer and brought forward importance of the same for the history of Indian literature. K. FORBES gave an account of the life of Hemacandra based on the Prabandhacintāmaṇi in his ‘Rās Mālā’ which contained many anecdotes. A kind of supplementary article to FORBES’ work was contributed by BHAU DAJI to JBBRAS (PATEL 1936: 1; 1889m: 1). It was BÜHLER who for the first time presented a critical and exhaustive study of the life of Hemacandra. His monograph “Über das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemacandra” appeared in the Denkschriften der kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in 1889. The sources for his study were Prabhāvakacarita, Prabandhacintāmaṇi, Prabandhakoṣa and Kumārapālacarita. In his thorough treatment to the subject BÜHLER throws light upon Kumārapāla’s conversion to Jainism including Hemacandra’s own account of it and the consequences of the event. He also deals with the relation between Hemacandra and Jayasiṁha-Siddharāja.

96

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Jina Vijaya Muni has brought forward some of the lacunas of BÜHLER’s monograph (PATEL 1936: XI). The Kumārapālapratibodha of Somaprabhācārya was unknown to BÜHLER. Hence he could not deploy this reliable and historically important treatise for his work. BÜHLER had taken notice of the Moharājaparājaya Nāṭaka, but, according to Jina Vijaya Muni, he did not himself go through this work. Moreover, the material on which he had to rely was then only in the form of manuscripts which were not completely accurate and thus it had its limitations. (C) Indische Erbauungsstunden (Indian Hours of Devotion)

This popular essay presents BÜHLER’s enchanting experiences and observations of Indian religious practices, gatherings, recitations etc. at various temples, Jaina monasteries, towns, streets, in India. His interactions with a Gujarati Sheth Maganbhai and Ācārya Jinamukti Sūri are specially enumerated. The experiences at the discourses of Jinamukti Sūri which he attended in an Upāśraya at Ahmedabad have been picturesquely narrated. He opines that the similarity of the Jaina edification with the people in the West is great. The only difference is that “it lacks the feeling of unlimited reverence, with which the Western people are satisfied by their God-services” (1894g: 231). His other contributions contain an account of Digambara Jainas (1878n) and an article on “A Legend of the Jaina Stupa at Mathura” (1898b, 1898a) which is his last article appearing in the IA.

10. MISCELLANEOUS BÜHLER was an erudite scholar and a versatile researcher. As a student, he had studied Archaeology along with classical languages. His multifaceted scholarship enabled him to encompass variety of subjects with his research. (A) Greek Grammar, Comparative mythology and linguistics

BÜHLER’s doctoral dissertation was about a Greek suffix.64 He continued to deal with comparative linguistics and mythology in his early writings. In one of his articles about the Vedic God Parjanya he tried to prove that Parjanya is not personified rain but personified cloud. He shows that Sāyaṇa always explains Parjanya by Megha, and the commentaries of Śatapatha and Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa and even Amarakośa illustrate it by cloud. He derives the word Parjanya from the root sphurj where the original form is sparj. He has related the Lithuanian word perkunas with parjanya and compares Lithuanian, Slavic, Italian folk Gods with the Vedic Parjanya (1859b). He delivered lectures on the God Savitṛ and his relation to the Greek Poseidon at the Philological Society of London (THITE 2010: 156–157 fn. 1; JOLLY 1899: 2 fn. 4). His writings on Greek, Gothic and Latin etymologies appeared in the Orient und Occident, the Journal edited by BENFEY.

64 I refrain from elaborating this since it has no bearing on Indology and because I know no Greek.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

97

(B) Vedic Literature

Though in the beginning BÜHLER’s writings were concerned with the comparative philology and Vedic mythology later his contributions to the Vedic studies were confined more or less to the manuscripts of the Vedas and the history of Vedic schools. SCHROEDER had tried to show that the Maitrāyaṇīyas were originally called Kālāpas or Kalāpins. BÜHLER adduces this view by citing a passage from Divyāvadāna where an explicit statement confirms the connection of the two (1887i: 345). Except for comparative mythology and a review article B ÜHLER has not discussed topics related to the Vedas in his writings. But from the views expressed on certain occasions we can ascertain that like all other Sanskrit vāṅmaya, for Vedas too he relies on the Hindu tradition. He states that he stands on the side of those who consider the Vedas to be Indian books, and interpret them as such.65 He endorses the authority of the tradition in connection with the Vedic studies. He uses the following euphemistic words – “The older school has rendered most important services chiefly by its successful war against the omnipotence of the Hindu tradition. But it is just this success that has caused its chief weaknesses” (1894r: 146 fn. 10). As against the views of the contemporary Western academia he believed that the Ṛgvedic hymns were not intended to be songs for devotion but as pure magical formulae. “As far as Veda is concerned I consider the usual view about the nature of the Ṛgveda, as a kind of song book for devotion to be entirely incorrect. I believe that Indians are still correct that the hymns are just “Mantras” i.e. magical formulae which should force the gods to the gift”66 writes BÜHLER in a letter to NÖLDEKE. (THITE 2010: 161–162 fn. 2; JOLLY 1899: 6 fn. 2). (C) Buddhism

BÜHLER points some instances of occurrence of Buddhist sects in inscriptions (1892ab: 597–598). He uncovers the style of quoting a Brahmanical source in Saṁyutta Nikāya and other Buddhist texts where Sanatkumāra appears in front of Buddha to reveal a Gāthā. The Gāthā which said to be uttered by Sanatkumāra has its parallel in a story of sage Atrī in the Mahābhārata. BÜHLER also points out the differences in these parallel verses (1897e: 585–588). (D) Archaeology

The most important writing of BÜHLER in connection with Archaeology is his twelve page long review on past and future archaeological explorations in India. That means he did not support those who considered the Vedas as Indo-European texts. Thus, he was a precursor of GELDNER and PISCHEL in this respect. This has been pointed out to me by Prof. Jürgen HANNEDER. For the details of the debate on the interpretation of the Vedas involving GELDNER and PISCHEL, and other scholars, see HANNEDER 2015. 66 “Was den veda anbetrifft, so halte ich die gewöhnliche Ansicht von der Natur des Ṛigveda, als einer Art Gesangbuch zur Erbauung, für ganz falsch. Ich glaube die Inder haben doch Recht, dass die Hymnen eben »Mantras« i. e. Zauberformeln sind, welche die Götter zum Geben zwingen sollen” (JOLLY 1899: 6 fn. 2). 65

98

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

After BURGESS, there was a kind of chaos and confusion in connection with the Archaeological Survey of India and it ceased to exist as a central body. The publication of survey reports virtually came to a close. In each and every field the results were lagging behind and voluminous quantity of work was to be done. Opinions and proposals were called from the local governments, scholars from the Royal Asiatic Society and TAWNEY, BÜHLER and FLEET. BÜHLER’s remarks which appeared in 1895 in the JRAS are significant from the point of view of history of Archaeology in India. BÜHLER takes a review of past and present archaeological explorations which highlight the necessity of the continuation of the work. He then indicates the direction in which it ought to be carried on (1895f: 651). An account of the work done till then with regard to survey of various sites, monuments, epigraphs, inscriptions, their copies, coins etc. has been presented in brief. He names three sites which must be excavated on priority basis – Patana, Mathura and Takṣaśilā. According to him Patana or Pāṭaliputra is the most important historical site in the whole of India. His expectations proved right as is shown by the later excavations at Pāṭalīputra by L. A. WADDELL (1892–1899), P. C. MUKHERJI (1897–1898), D. B. SPOONER (1912–1916), J. A. PAGE and M. GHOSH (1926–1927), K. P. Jayaswal R. Institute (1951–1955), B. P. SINHA and L. A. NARAIN (1955–1956) (GHOSH 1989: 334–336). Similarly, Taxila was excavated vigorously by Sir John MARSHALL from 1907 to 1912 and an extensive report was brought out by him in three volumes in 1932. Mathura was already under excavation by FÜHRER. (E) Publications for Students

BÜHLER and KIELHORN played a vital role to enhance the state of Sanskrit education in the new education system introduced by the British Government. During his tenure as a Professor at the Elphinstone College BÜHLER edited a book for the use of High School students containing selections from the Nalopākhyāna, Rāmāyaṇa and Pañcatantra (1888E).67 BÜHLER was the first Professor to be appointed to the chair of Ancient Indian Philology and Archaeology in the University of Vienna. He introduced there practical method of teaching elementary Sanskrit, which he and BHANDARKAR had used in the Bombay Presidency. For this purpose he published in 1883 a practical handbook for the study of Sanskrit titled “Leitfaden für den Elementarcursus des Sanskrit” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 346). An English edition based on this was published within three years by Edward PERRY in America. The striking feature of this book is that it not only introduces the language but it also conveys the culture which this language embodies, e.g. “agnir-udadhau tiṣṭhati”, “viṣṇum-ṛṣir-yajati nṛpāya” (1883J: 10), “ṛṣir-adhunā pāṇinā jalam-ācāmati” (1883J: 12). One encounters such examples at the beginning itself, where along with the grammar and vocabulary students may get familiar with the ideas, history, rituals expressed by the language. Such sentences one finds seldom even in BHANDARKAR’s First Book of Sanskrit published in 1864. The book is still used in some German Universities to teach basic Sanskrit.

67 The glossary was prepared by one Vishnushastri Pandurang PANDIT.

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

99

(F) Reviews

BÜHLER reviewed and recapitulated thirty-six titles (including notices). A few of his reviews are as exhaustive as extending up to thirty-one pages (1890(a)). The following is a brief overview of a few review articles: (1) ĀPTE’s English-Sanskrit Dictionary While reviewing V. S. APTE’s English-Sanskrit dictionary he suggests that a revision is necessary for the modern terms and European scientific ideas for which there are no corresponding words in Sanskrit e.g. the word monotheist has been rendered as advaitavādin and pantheist as viśvadevatāvādin. Here BÜHLER rightly points out that actually an Advaitavādin is indeed a pantheist (1885(c): 98). (2) WINTERNITZ, Āpastambīya Gṛhyasūtra: BÜHLER approves of the principles adopted by WINTERNITZ while editing the Āpastambīya Gṛhyasūtra (1888(a): 85). He delineates the features and importance of the text, the peculiarities of its language and the orderly arrangement of the subject matter and brevity. WINTERNITZ chiefly relied on the commentary of the Haradatta following the method of his revered teacher, BÜHLER. (3) S. P. PANDIT, Gauḍavaho: BÜHLER wrote two notices of S. P. PANDIT’s edition of the Gauḍavaho, a Prakrit historical poem. In the second notice he examines in detail the contents of the Gauḍavaha and S. P. PANDIT’s treatment to it. He not only agrees with PANDIT but also adds to his arguments on the point that the poem must be considered merely the prelude to a very large lost poem (1888(d): 330). BÜHLER reviews the title in an exhaustive manner; more so because the subject dealt with a historical Kāvya. (4) SACHAU Edward, Alberuni’s India: The book-notice of Alberuni’s India is a separate essay in itself. A very considerable proportion of Al-Beruni’s statements and quotations has been verified with Sanskrit literature by the author of the book, E. C. SACHAU. BÜHLER tries to give Sanskrit correspondents to some mere conjecturally explained and difficult Sanskrit terms. He compares unpublished or untranslated Sanskrit works with the quotations in the ‘Indica’ e.g. SRVDHV a Sanskrit work repeatedly quoted by Al-Beruni is explained by SACHAU as Savadhara or Śrotavya. BÜHLER renders it as Sāroddhāra. The following are other such examples: RAHVNRAKRN = Rāhunirākaraṇa Kashmirian king Muttāi = Muttāpiḍ (A Prakrit form for Sanskrit Muktāpīḍa) The names of various Vratas/Festivals: Harbāl = Hāritālikā-Vrata Gāihat = Kapilā-Ṣaṣṭhī Dhruvagṛha = Dūrva-Aṣṭamī or Dūrvāṅkura-Aṣṭamī Parivartī = Parivartinī-Ekādaśī

100

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

BÜHLER enumerates about a Kashmiri recension of Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa in detail which was perhaps used by Al-Beruni along with another text which he confuses with the former. BÜHLER adduces that the Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa used by Al-Beruni is the Kashmiri Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa.68 He cites with English translation twenty-two passages from the Sanskrit text along with the Arabic rendering of it by Al-Beruni. He also supplies exhaustive notes to explain the connection between the original Sanskrit and AlBeruni’s rendering. He gives a long list of deities mentioned in the manuscript of the Viṣṇudharmottara and their corresponding names of deities in the Indica. He also constantly comments at various occasions on peculiarities of Al-Beruni’s style of converting Sanskrit words into Arabic. Probable Sanskrit verses which might be expected to be the originals of some of the Al-Beruni’s verses have been quoted. He infers that Al-Beruni had before him a manuscript which was incomplete and contained only the first Kāṇḍa. Curiously enough he thinks that Al-Beruni did not take help from any Pandit but tried to make out the sense of the Purāṇa on his own (1890(a): 408). On the contrary with regard to the shorter Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa Al-Beruni did not read the text himself but was perhaps informed by a Pandit about its contents (1890(a): 408). BÜHLER agrees with SACHAU’s view that Al-Beruni’s informants must be Vaiṣṇavas but differs on the point of religious conditions in India during Al-Beruni’s time. BÜHLER shrewdly explains that Śaivaites do not reveal their teachings to foreigners contrary to the Vaiṣṇavaites who are more open (1890(a): 407–408 fn. 90). At the end of the discussions BÜHLER tries to delineate features of Al-Beruni’s translation and his “method of translating”. The words at the end of the review illustrate BÜHLER’s ardent love for history: “Will not one of the Indian Universities set this investigation as a subject for a prize-essay? ... and a young Indian Sanskritist would do with such an investigation much better, for himself and for his science, than by ‘bringing up’ so and so many Kāvyas and Śāstras” (1890(a): 409–410). (5) The Orion and the Age of the Veda: A note on JACOBI’s Age of the Veda and on B. G. TILAK’s Orion is a curious piece of work. He agrees with the views of both the scholars that the Kṛttikā-series is not the oldest arrangement of the Nakṣatras known to the Hindus, but that the latter once had an older one, which placed Mṛgaśiras at the vernal equinox (1894(a): 239). BÜHLER concludes from the evidences put forth by TILAK and JACOBI that some of the Hindu rites and sacrifices existed even before the time when the Kṛttikā-series was invented, and were settled long before the year 2000 BCE (1894(a): 245). The review is also interesting from the point of view of history of Indology. The thesis was envisaged by TILAK and JACOBI simultaneously but independently. The former scholar sent his paper to the Ninth International Oriental Congress. The committee of the Congress forwarded the paper to BÜHLER to seek his opinion on the question whether to publish it in the Transactions or not (1894(a): 239). BÜHLER gave his affirmative opinion and endorsed the paper with a remark to print it in full. However, due to want of funds

The manuscripts used by BÜHLER were procured by him in 1875–76 from Kashmir. The manuscripts were lent to him from Pune. BORI MS. No. 89–91/1875–76. 68

CHAPTER III. WRITINGS: A BRIEF SURVEY

101

only an abstract could be published (1894(a): 239; TILAK 1892: 376–383). JACOBI was working in the same direction on the subject and he coincidently discussed the theory with BÜHLER only six weeks before TILAK’s manuscript reached Vienna. JACOBI’s essay was published in the Felicitation volume in honour of ROTH (JACOBI 1893: 68–74). (6) Gaurishankar OJHA’s Prācīn Lipimālā: Gaurishankar Hirachand OJHA’s Prācīn Lipimālā was first published in 1894. In 1895 BÜHLER wrote a review on it (1895(b)). At the outset BÜHLER stated that OJHA is a student of BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI. He praised OJHA’s intention to write a book in Hindi on Palaeography and highlighted the usefulness of the work. However, from scientific point of view, he criticised the book. It should be noted that BÜHLER reviewed the first edition of the book and that the second enlarged and thoroughly revised edition published in 1918 is far more superior and comprehensive than the first one.69 Though the book has been proved to be useful since last 100 years, particularly due to the comprehensive charts of various scripts, the first edition reviewed by BÜHLER lacked systematic arrangement and presentation of the data. BÜHLER criticised it on the following grounds: (1) Five plates have been taken from spurious grants and some more from suspicious grants. BÜHLER rightly points out that this can mislead the beginner. (2) The arrangement of the alphabets is wanting in method. (3) There is a plate of miscellaneous signs which would not go into their proper places. According to BÜHLER it ought not occur (1895(b): 247). There were many shortcomings from the methodological point of view. Perhaps that was the reason why BÜHLER refrained from giving any opinion about OJHA’s theory of “Aryan origin of Brāhmī alphabets” (OJHA 1894: 7). The following example will illustrate how OJHA used old sources and that too not with much care. While discussing the origin of Brāhmī script, OJHA states that not a single character of Aramaic has any similarity with Brāhmī; and to support this he cites, a table from a book published 36 years ago in 1858. The table cited is from PRINSEP’s, Indian Antiquities, Vol. 2, plate near p.168 (OJHA 1894: 9, fn. 6). The mistakes or lacunae are as follows: (1) The number of the page from Indian Antiquities should be 167 and not 168. (There is no plate next to page 168.) (2) The plate close to p. 167 bears a table of Punic writing and Jewish alphabets (and not exactly the Aramaic characters). (3) A plate prior to the above mentioned plate gives a list of Aramaic characters as one of “The Derivatives of Phoenician Characters”, which is not exhaustive in nature (PRINSEP 1858: Second table after p.166).

69 OJHA does not mention BÜHLER’s review.

102

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

At the end of the review BÜHLER suggests OJHA in somewhat strong language to study Professor EUTING’s70 tables of the Aramaic alphabets. The “Tabula Scripturae Aramaicae” of EUTING published in 1890 consists as many as 96 columns (and 22 rows) displaying varieties of Aramaic characters.71 (G) Obituary

There is one obituary written by BÜHLER and that is after BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI’s untimely demise (1888k).72 It stands as an important memoir of the scholar written by his close friend. According to DHARAMSEY, this obituary of BHAGWANLAL is perhaps the best evaluation of his work (2012: 67 fn. 2). It stands among the very few authentic records on the life and career of the deceased. There is also a letter of condolence written after the death of W. D. WHITNEY (1898d). This vast amount of material that BÜHLER left behind him in the form of his books, articles and edited works, stands in testimony of his path-breaking and painstaking research activity.

70 Julius EUTING

(1839–1913). Downloaded from http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k94004287/f2.image, accessed on 21st January 2018 at 16:50. 72 See Chapter IV for details. 71

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION 1. INDIA AND THE H ISTORICAL CONSCIOUSNESS Till the last century, it was an affirmed truth, and in recent years a debatable ‘fact’, that Indians had no sense of history or historical consciousness. Many scholars have recently set up a counterargument to prove that there were historical records in some form or the other which account for a sense of history in ancient India. History is considered as the aggregate or a record of past events.1 Does history embody only events, and that too, only political events? Can a record of religious event be termed as history? Is record of ancient ideas or traditions considered as history? And is it only a ‘written’ record that enables the disciplinary history to study past? Answers to such questions have bearing upon our perception of whether Indians did or did not possess historical consciousness. In the following discussion I have tried to analyze BÜHLER’s approach towards historical consciousness in India. (A) Historical Consciousness

Non-availability of records or accounts that are considered to be historical is not an adequate evidence to prove the non-existence of historical consciousness. Trying to prove the existence of historical consciousness based solely on the existence of historical literature in the past actually assumes a direct relation between the two things and thus misses the essence of the problem. There is no direct and simple answer to the question, which is more complex. Historical consciousness manifests itself in various forms. In India historical sense plays a role in three aspects – (1) Documentation of the past events. (2) Preservation of the tangible and intangible past. (3) Historical approach while interpreting the Śāstras. (1) Documentation: (a) Events: Documentation of past events is merely one of the attestations of historical consciousness of an individual or a society. In other words documenting actual past events is only one aspect of how the consciousness of an individual or society is brought out. A comparatively smaller number of historical texts, in the form of Kāvyas, Prabandhas, Caritas etc., have come down to us. A number of works may have been lost in time; according to Arvind SHARMA due to the vicissitudes in the country (2003: 223) and according to 1 Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2001: 907.

103

104

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

BÜHLER due to non-popularity and thus discontinuity in copying and recopying of manuscripts. (b) Family Lineage: Documentation of genealogy was and is of great importance in India. The motives are of at times religious or ritualistic in nature. Thus family history is preserved consciously in the Vaṁśāvalis, at the pilgrim places, native place of the family etc. The epigraphs of ancient rulers, which is one of the most authentic tools to unearth the history of India, bore the genealogy of the donor Kings and the donees. (2) Preservation: Preservation of various historical objects, monuments etc. belonging to ancient times was in bad condition when recovered from oblivion. In so unsettled a country like India, as far as foreign invasions are concerned, no wonder that the heritage in form of monuments, architecture remained neglected. The copperplates were preserved with care because they were of practical importance. Even forgeries were made. As regards to manuscripts, the western parts of India especially Gujarat and Rajasthan have always remained rich. It is generally not noticed that preservation of ancient texts through oral tradition can be regarded as the greatest achievements with respect to preserving the past; and that too with so much care. Similarly, though so many works must have lost in time a major portion of literary sources has come down to us through the writing and copying activities of at least more than a thousand year. Writing commentaries with the help of earlier commentaries and consulting the living Pandits and thus preserving the original text is also an important part of preserving the history of the concerned text. Traditions, customs, rituals, folk-lore, art, religion and languages all contribute to history in a broader sense. The historical linguistics would have hardly existed and survived without dealing with Sanskrit and Prakrit languages. In this sense India has preserved not only her own history but has contributed to preserve customs of other such groups which are now a part of the Indian community and has preserved an era of the most ancient times. (3) Historical approach towards interpreting and analyzing Śāstra: History is an art as well as a science. Indian tradition does not count Itihāsa under Śāstra or philosophy or technical science. Even while treating the Śāstras authors are inclined towards structural analysis rather than historical as has been rightly pointed out by TRAUTMANN (2012: 202). BÜHLER has noted that “the tradition is utterly untrustworthy in the details regarding the names and times of the authors, and the immediate causes of their composition” (1884B: 29). An analysis of the complete writings of BÜHLER shows that he considered all the three aspects mentioned above while judging historical sense which Indians possessed. Consequently he fully trusted the literary and commentarial traditions of the country for interpreting the texts. This will be elaborated further in this book. He frequently corroborated contemporary customs prevalent in the country with the ancient society and culture. He strongly believed that there is continuity in the culture and the observations of the present society can guide us to solve the problems of the past which he did with success to a great extent.

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

105

(B) Historical Perspective

Perspective reflects a way of regarding situations or topics. It can be defined as the appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer. The question whether the Indians possessed any historical consciousness or not, needs to be dealt with a sympathetic and pragmatic view point in the true sense. Imposing today’s ideas of history on the past is misleading. BÜHLER was able to use sources of Indian history with the right approach, the reason is, in my opinion, that he understood the Indian perspective of history. (1) Timelessness: The modern concept of perspective is not seen in the traditional Indian art of painting. The typical Indian pictures mostly do not create three dimensional distance or space effect and do not display ‘real’ experience. What they depict would appear strange, unreal and sometimes even distorted to uninformed eyes. Indian viewpoint of history can be understood on the same lines. The sense of history possessed by Indians did not contain a sense of distance in time. Indian depiction of past does not create time effect and is ‘unreal’ in that sense. An event from one stratum of time can easily be found lying beside another from totally different stratum. If the hindsight of Indian people is considered, the relative appearance of various past events is not linear from their viewpoint. Hence, the chronological relation of events to one another appears drastically different. This ‘timelessness’ in perception of history can also be found depicted in the concept of circular division of time into four Yugas that follow one another in circular manner. This understanding of Indian historical perspective has been, of course, not stated in clear words by BÜHLER. But it is deducible from the treatment given by him to the subject.2 (2) Poetical Treatment: For Indians writing (or composing) history is not similar to writing a technical treatise, or a Śāstra or a Darśana. But it is Itihāsa which sings the stories of the past. In his interesting article titled “‘In the Guise of Poetry’ — Kalhaṇa Reconsidered” while refuting SCHNELLENBACH’s argument SLAJE has shown that though the Rājataraṅgiṇī certainly represents the true history writing in India at the same time it is also a Sanskrit Kāvya with Śānta as its prime Rasa, composed according to the strict norms of the Kāvyaśāstra prevalent at that time (SLAJE 2008: 207–243). This poetical treatment given by ancient Indian authors is not limited to the structure of the poem but has its effect on over all expression of the history. BÜHLER was very much aware of this style and was able to infer the ‘correct’ historical facts from poetical descriptions. For instance there is an expression in Samudragupta’s Praśasti that his glory had gone up to heaven. FLEET deduces that the inscription must have been composed after Samudragupta’s death. However, BÜHLER refutes this supposition with the help of ample examples from the classical Sanskrit literature wherein similar figures of speech, paronomasia, simile etc., are used. Thence he shows that it is not correct He mostly relies on the traditional views and interpretation of a subject, at the same time states that tradition is untrustworthy in details regarding the names and times of the authors. 2

106

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

to suppose that the inscription was composed after the death of Samudragupta (GHATE 1970: 6, 35–39; 1890d: 5, 32–36). In his article on Harṣavardhana’s conquest of Nepal (1890b: 40–41) he has pointed out a sentence from Harṣacarita,3 otherwise a simple sentence describing an act of Śiva, but in typical word-play style of Bāṇa it confirms the conquest of a Himalayan region by king Harṣa. BÜHLER uses this to support the data from other inscriptional evidences which points towards Harṣa’s conquest of Nepal. Scholars other than LEVI and ETTING-HAUSEN have accepted his conjecture (MAJUMDAR 1962: 113 fn. 1). BÜHLER refuted MAX MÜLLER’s theory of renaissance and showed that there existed artificial i.e. classical ornate poetry as early as at least the second century CE. Similarly he showed that Praśasti Kāvyas and court poetry were in vogue at that time. That means there must have existed historical Kāvyas and narratives which were not fortunate enough to reach to us. It is necessary to understand the peculiar nature of the historical literature to deduce the historical facts presented by it.

1.1. APPROACH TOWARDS HISTORICAL KĀVYAS (A) Trends in Approaching Historical Kāvyas

There are two distinct broad views on the Indian historical literature. The early Indologists anticipated discovery of a systematic historical account of India. With the disappointment generated after discovering the historical literature it was concluded that there was no historical literature, nay in fact, there was no historical consciousness among Indians. On the other hand many post-modern scholars have criticized this approach. They do believe that there existed literature in India which can be termed as historical; though they slightly differ about the exact nature and scope of such a literature. Arvind SHARMA thinks that the Hindus did possess a sense of history but the very evidence for the fact may have been lost on account of historical vicissitudes in the country (2003: 223). Scholars who consider Indian historical texts as ‘historical writings’ have tried to place them into the framework of post-modern historiography (SCHNELLENBACH referred to in SLAJE 2008: 209) while SLAJE has argued that “although pre-modern India had seen the development of ‘true’ history writing, the intrinsic motivation and the concomitant incentives were not always exactly the same as in Europe” (SLAJE 2008: 239). He has evaluated Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī in accordance with the model established by the Mahābhārata and the Dhvani theory of the Kāvyaśāstra pointing out the limitations of cross-cultural investigations such as done by SCHNELLENBACH. He demonstrates that “reliable historiography may even come guised in poetry, inspired by soteriological purposes” (SLAJE 2008: 239).

atra parameśvareṇa tuṣāraśailabhuvo durgāyā gṛhītaḥ karaḥ. There is a pun on the word karaḥ according to BÜHLER. 3

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

107

BÜHLER, who discovered four historical Kāvyas, 4 did definitely expect existence of historical literature and predicted that “the Hindus did, and do still, possess many historical poems, and that with a little patience they will come out.” (1877b: 64). Some scholars quote a sentence from BÜHLER’s letter to NÖLDEKE that “you are a little out of date with your notion that Indians have no historical literature”5 (ALI 2013: 240 from TAWNEY 1901: v after JOLLY 1899: 13–14). However BÜHLER did not expect the historical Kāvyas as a systematic record of historical events as was conceived by contemporary Europe. That means he did not expect historical kāvyas to meet modern European criteria for being systematic historical records. BÜHLER gives a special treatment to this literature. He not only points out the shortcomings of such Kāvyas but also the importance that they still possess from the point of view of history. He enumerated the peculiarities of such Kāvyas in the following manner: 6 (B) Peculiarities of Historical Kāvyas

(1) Conventional Descriptions: BÜHLER notes “The hero or heroes are painted all white and their enemies all black. Āhavamalla and Vikrama have no more individuality than Rāma, Duṣyanta or Purūravas. They are simply perfections and their enemies are entirely contemptible and wicked” (1875H: 4). It is worth quoting how BÜHLER refutes arguments placing Kālidāsa in the 6th c. CE depending on the mention of Hūṇas by Kālidāsa. “Indian poets, even when describing triumphs of historical kings, their very master and patrons, are frequently quite inaccurate in their geographical and ethnographical accounts, and instead of giving actual facts, they take their stand on the traditional accounts in the epics, Purāṇas and other older works that describe digvijayas. … If we look into his [Kālidāsa’s] works more carefully, we shall find that they contain much that points to his having made use of the sources mentioned above [Mahābhārata, Bhuvanavinyāsa in the Purāṇas] … It [the digvijaya of Raghu] also mentions, side by side with peoples like the Pārasīkas (verse 60) and Yavanas (verse 61), the Hūṇas (verse 68) and Kāmbojas (verse 69), which can never justly belong to the time of the poet, not even to a single period of time whatsoever.” (GHATE 1970: 93–94).7

4 Vikramāṅkadevacarita, Gauḍavaha, Pṛthivīrājadigvijaya, Kīrtikaumudī. 5 JOLLY

originally says: “»Mit Deiner Idee, dass die Inder keine historische Litteratur haben, stehst Du auf einem veralteten Standpunkte«, kann er [that is BÜHLER ] schon 1877 an NÖLDEKE berichten. »In den letzten 20 Jahren sind 5 ziemlich umfangreiche Werke gefunden, die von Zeitgenossen der beschriebenen Ereignisse herrühren, 4 davon habe ich gefunden. [Vikramāṅkadevacarita, Gaüḍavaho, Pṛthivīrājadigvijaya, Kīrtikaumudī]. Ich bin noch mehr als einem Dutzend auf der Spur«“ (JOLLY 1899: 13–14). 6 Not all the peculiarities enlisted here apply to the Rājataraṅgiṇī. 7 Mixing of semi-historical data (probably based on Samudragupta’s Praśasti at Allahabad) with the mythical one has been attempted by Kālidāsa e.g. The southern rulers mentioned in Raghu’s digvijaya do not appear when Rāma had to reside in the forest and had to invade Rāvaṇa.

108

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

BÜHLER illustrates examples from other Kāvyas where Vākpati makes Yaśovarman of Kanauj to conquer the Pārasikas when the Persian empire was no longer in existence, Bilhaṇa makes the king Ananta to conquer the then non-existent Śakas and Ananta’s son Kalaśa to conquer Strī-rājya and visit Alakā city (GHATE 1970: 93). The conventional poetical norms flood the composition with descriptions of four seasons, mountains, rivers etc. (2) Poetical Description: The poetical descriptions most of the times make the work verbose. BÜHLER complains, “had Bāṇa avoided the abuse of similies, heaped one on the other, into which his admiration of Subandhu lead him, his Śrīharṣacarita would comprise about 3000 Ślokas instead of 4800. Bilhaṇa, on his part might have compressed the subject matter of his cantos VIIXIII into a very small compass if he had been willing to spare his readers the hackneyed descriptions of the four seasons and the inventory of the charms of Vikrama’s bride Candaladevī.” (1875H: 3–4 fn. 1). BÜHLER has very critical views about the hackneyed descriptions in the Kāvyas. However he appreciates the real Kāvya element. Sometimes the poetic description is very picturesque. BÜHLER praises one of the descriptions in the following words: “… the manner in which Samudragupta was ordained by his father to be his successor … It is not possible to have a more concise and a more graphic picture of the situation. There is not a word which is unnecessary and one believes as if he sees the scene with his own eyes, .... This verse is one of the best productions the Indians have given us, in the domain of miniature portraits, which is their forte.” (GHATE 1970: 42).

(3) Exaggeration: Though this is one of the greatest drawbacks of poetical treatment, it is also the easiest veil to uncover. For instance in the Vikramāṅkadevacarita Bilhaṇa assures boldly in the case of every expedition undertaken by the Cālukyas against the Colas, that the latter were utterly extinguished, though shortly afterwards he has to confess that fresh movements of the hereditary foe forced the Cālukya prince to repeat the process of annihilation (1875H: 4). It is evident in this case that in spite of the ‘stylistic’ exaggeration in expressions and the consequent contradictions the author has not twisted, tampered, conceal or falsified the historical data. (4) No Exactness and Details: “Another grave defect which arises from the poetical treatment of historical subjects, is that the intervals between the events narrated are rarely given with exactness. The same carelessness, which is shown about time, prevails also with regard to the description of the minor personages mentioned. Bilhaṇa gives the names of the kings with whom Vikrama came into hostile or friendly contact in a few cases only and Bāṇa is often guilty of the same neglect. Finally the characters suffer as much as the events.” (1875H: 4). The heroes do not possess a distinct character not to speak about the minor personages. (5) Based on Historical Facts: BÜHLER remarks that though Indians are inclined to change the historical events of the most recent past, for purely poetical reasons, into myths the seemingly fanciful legends rest

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

109

upon historical basis (BURGESS M. 1907: 171; 1888o: 628). He has shown with examples that the main facts mentioned in such Kāvyas are historical e.g. the facts of Vikramāditya’s life mentioned in the Vikramāṅkadevacarita are historical. He asserts that the facts related to Vikramāditya and his family agree mainly with those obtained from the other sources. They may with proper care be used to rectify and to complete the information gained elsewhere (1875H: 5). He points out that Bāṇa’s Harṣacarita not only contains all the main facts given in corresponding portion of Hiuen Tsang’s (Hsüan-tsang) narrative but it also adds many details and corrects the Chinese traveller’s account on many points. BÜHLER has shown in the case of every historical Kāvya edited or commented upon by him that the authors certainly drew on historical sources or tradition which in the main points were trustworthy (for Jagaḍūcarita see 1892aw: 35). (6) Important for the Literary History: The Caritas furnish important contributions to the literary history of India. Bāṇabhaṭṭa devotes nearly two Ucchvāsas to his personal affairs and mentions incidentally many famous writers. Bilhaṇa devotes the eighteenth canto to the description of his country, Kashmir, and to an account of its rulers, of his family and of his own adventures (1875H: 5). Thus such texts are important for the history of Sanskrit literature. (7) Historical Kāvyas more reliable than the Prabandhas: BÜHLER assigns greater credibility to the historical Kāvyas composed by the contemporary court-poets than the Prabandhas composed later in time based on the bardic tradition (BURGESS M. 1907: 159). The Prabandhas are founded exclusively on the tradition of the bards and the Jaina monasteries, wherein the kings very soon became mythical personalities. If the statements of the inscriptions are combined with the narratives of the Prabandhas we will find a mixture of truth and fiction, in which contradictions are apparent. BÜHLER finds that Padmagupta’s poem Navasāhasāṅkacarita is little more reliable than the Prabandhas. Reasons of discontinuity of Historical Kāvyas: BÜHLER was aware of the system and channel through which the Indian historical literature has now reached us. According to BÜHLER “[the reason of scarcity of such Kāvyas], lies not, therein, that the rulers of India found no contemporaries willing to chronicle their deeds, but therein that nobody cared to preserve historical works from destruction or to make them easily accessible by copying and recopying the original MSS.” (1875H: 2). The scribes or their patrons were reluctant to copy a historical composition. The want of popularity (1875H: 3) was one of the reasons for laying this class of literature in oblivion. The classes entrusted with the activities of reading, using and copying manuscripts were more interested in the religious, ritualistic and philosophical texts.8 BÜHLER analyses the psyche of the scribes and readers of historical Kāvyas, which adversely affected recopying of their manuscripts.

8 This is also true about the texts pertaining to technical sciences.

110

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (C) Psyche of the Scribes

(1) Greater liking for fictions: BÜHLER, probably due to his acquaintance with the Pandits of his time, remarks that “the Pandits have a greater liking for the wonderful legends of the heroic age and for the marvelous stories of the kings. They have lifted them out of the sphere of matter-of-fact history and transferred to the regions of fiction.” (1875H: 1). This obviously restricts the popularity and eventual transmission of such texts which bear mere historical records. (2) Attraction towards mythical characters and the “Happier Yugas”: Why did literate classes prefer fictions over chronicle? The reason stated by BÜHLER is that for them Rāma, Arjuna, and Nala were as much historical personalities as Śivājī the Great or Bājī Rāo Peśavā. But they appeared so much more interesting to them, because their deeds were more marvelous and they were surrounded by the halo of sanctity that encircles the happier Yugas in which they were supposed to have lived (1875H: 1–2). It is, therefore, according to BÜHLER, no wonder that countless copies of Naiṣadhīyacarita should exist all over India, while, hitherto historical compositions are rare to obtain (1875H: 2).9 (3) The conventional descriptions make them all the same: Typical descriptions in the Kāvyas must have not attracted readers’ attention and mind unless the language and the poetic elements were exceptionally well. (D) BÜHLER’s Method of dealing with such Kāvyas

(1) Remove the Kāvya/mythical element: While extracting historical information obviously conventional descriptions of seasons, journeys, marriages, fanciful descriptions, exaggerations have to be ignored but at the same time poetic tools like divine intervention etc. should be looked at with suspicion. In the Vikramāṅkadevacarita the god Śiva appears frequently to guide the hero, even actually to save the hero when he comes into combat with the moral law. In such cases the historical facts are not shunned but presented with the help of poetic tools in such a way so as to justify the deeds of the hero. (2) Consider the style of the author: Inferring correct historical fact from a poetical description is a necessity which requires knowledge of the style of the author e.g. the description of Harṣa’s conquest of Himalayan region in the Harṣacarita and the use of homonymous words therein. (3) Check the historicity with the help of other corroborative evidences. (4) Consider poet’s time: If the poet is contemporary or nearer to the events in time then the possibility of authenticity increases.

This psyche can be seen even today in Indian society. There are people who believe in “the past” happier Yugas, happier texts (wherein all modern sciences were present), happier natural food, happier economy, happier family system, happier society in general, and so on and so forth.

9

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

111

1.2. TRUST IN THE TRADITION Documentation of past events is one of the attestations of historical consciousness of an individual or a society. Similarly, preserving or trying to preserve a tradition having cultural value, be it oral, textual or of any kind, through documentation of some sort must be considered as one of the manifestations of historical consciousness. This concept can be gleaned from BÜHLER’s writings, especially through his treatment of the commentaries while editing various texts. Tradition can be explained as an inherited pattern of action or thought i.e. a specific practice of long standing. With regard to the transmission of the ancient Sanskrit literature, there existed three types of traditions, namely oral, written or manuscripts tradition and the tradition of commentarial works embodied in the first two. BÜHLER believed that there lies truth in the memories of past preserved through these traditions. Unlike the other contemporary western scholars, he was more inclined towards trusting the traditional account— of an event, a person or a text. In this section, BÜHLER’s views on Sanskrit commentaries, and literary and manuscript tradition in general will be enumerated and the importance of his approach will be highlighted. (A) Commentarial protection

BÜHLER asserts that generally old commentaries are nearer to the original treatise in time than the oldest manuscripts of the text available to us. Hence they are a trustworthy tool for textual criticism. To express it in his words, a text enjoys the “protection of commentary”. He doubts the genuineness of many passages from Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra because the work remained for a long time without the protection of a commentary (1882Ib: xxxv). His concern was that no older commentary based on the then living tradition of the Baudhāyanīyas was available (1882Ib: xlv). In his opinion such texts, which are not protected by a commentary, have been liable to changes and some portions from them may be easily lost in course of transmission of the texts (1878p: 80). At times, against the views of his contemporaries he adheres to the opinions expressed by the commentators (1886K: xciv). While editing the Vāsiṣṭha Dharmasūtra he states that Kṛṣṇapaṇḍita’s commentary shows considerable scholarship and has been of great value to him, and that he has followed him mostly in the division of the Sūtras (1882Ib: xxviii). Justifying his trust in the commentators, he adduces the scholarship and ability of commentators and appreciates the trustworthy qualities present in their writings. Features of such commentaries have been elucidated by him in detail. Following are his views about Medhātithi’s commentary on the Manusmṛti, which are cited here in full to point out BÜHLER’s reflections: “As its title, bhāshya, indicates, it is not a gloss which paraphrases every word of the text. Its aim is to show the general sense of Manu’s dicta, to elucidate all really difficult passages, and to settle all doubtful points by a full discussion of the various possible interpretations, and of the opinions advanced by others. In carrying out this plan Medhātithi displays a great amount of learning and not inconsiderable ability. He carefully uses a number of more ancient commentaries on Manu, and shows a full

112

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY acquaintance with the Śāstras requisite for the successful explanation of his text, with Vedic literature, grammar, Mīmāṁsā, the Dharmasūtras and other Smṛtis, Vedānta, and the Mahābhārata. At the same time he avoids the common fault of Sanskrit commentators, — an undue copiousness in quotations which bear only remotely on the subject under consideration. Moreover, he frequently enhances the value of his explanations by illustrating Manu’s rules by instances taken from everyday life, a point which most Hindu writers on law and on kindred subjects entirely neglect.10 Finally, he frequently takes up a much more independent position towards his author than the other commentators dare to assume. … His copiousness in quoting the opinions of his predecessors makes his work extremely important for the student of the history of the Manu-smṛti and of the Hindu law” (1886K: cxix-cxx).

Here, the following peculiarities can be gleaned, which are more or less generally possessed by the commentarial works of ancient India. 1. Copiousness 2. Use of ancient commentaries 3. Use of older manuscripts 4. Access to old living traditions 5. Requisite knowledge of the Śāstras Because of such characteristics commentarial works become an authentic source of knowledge for the history of original texts. Their presence is of great importance, especially for the ancient Indian literature where other philological and material tools are despairingly scanty. It is not surprising that BÜHLER, a historian at his core, gives an upper hand to the history of text rather than mere and pure grammatical approach for settling the correct readings in a text. In India, oral and written tradition existed side by side for centuries together. It was possible for Pandits to have recourse to oral tradition in case of doubts. Also, sometimes instead of emending the text they just followed the maxim sthitasya gatiścintanīyā. The following remarks of BÜHLER explain the main flaw of the traditional knowledge, which, ironically enough, also appears to be its strength: “To give a translation without having recourse to conjectural emendations was impossible [for me], as a European philologist is unable to avail himself of those wonderful tricks of interpretation which permit an Indian Paṇḍit to extract some kind of meaning from the most desperate passages” (1882Ib: xxviii).

BÜHLER displays faith not only in the commentarial tradition but also in the traditional knowledge or floating knowledge, so to say, of texts. Of course, his faith is far from a blind following. He is well aware that this tool needs to be adhered to with due caution. One must be aware of the flaws that these works tend to possess. He refuses to mention Kṛṣṇapaṇḍita’s interpretations at times wherever he finds them opposed to logical rules of interpretation (1882Ib: 83 fn. 35). He discerns between good commentators from bad ones. In the translation of the Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, he has stated that though the 10 BÜHLER himself worked on more than 2500 legal suits for the Digest

of Hindu Law.

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

113

commentary of Govinda was of much importance for the translation, he cannot place him in the same rank with Haradatta, the commentator of Āpastamba and Gautama (1882Ib: xlv). Frequently he makes it a point to note the opinions of commentators both in cases where he agrees with them and where he differs from them (1882Ib: xxviii). This fact about BÜHLER’s writings makes him a “faithful transmitter” of the traditional texts. He gives, in a way, philological and scientific expression to the literary tradition. Two instances may be cited as illustrations of the correctness of BÜHLER’s method. (1) In his article titled “A disputed meaning of the particles iti and cha” (1887a: 13–20) the objections against the interpretations of the indigenous commentators of the words iti and ca have been refuted. The traditional view about the meaning of these words is that they also mean, depending upon the context, ‘and so forth’, ‘and the like’. Majority of European Sanskritists had doubted or denied this meaning and the standard Sanskrit dictionaries have omitted it. There was no tool to settle the matter before the works of Hemacandra came to light through BÜHLER’s efforts. He used it to point out the usage of these words in that particular sense, adduced by the author himself through his own commentary (1887a: 14–15).11 He has shown through various examples that the traditional view point is correct. At the same time he did not forget to state that it would be improper to assume that the commentators must be right in each individual case. As the particle iti is used in many different ways, their statements always ought to be subjected to a careful examination (1887a: 16). (2) The word bhrūṇa denotes two meanings in Sanskrit, an embryo and a Brāhmaṇa. The Petersburg dictionary and the Monier-Williams Dictionary who draw their data from numerous texts are reluctant to adopt the meaning Brāhmaṇa and readily render the meaning embryo in most of the occurances. BÜHLER argues in his “Lexicographical Notes” (1888j: 182–185) on the basis of Baudhāyana-Gṛhyasūtra and Haradatta’s commentary on Āpastamba (1888j: 182) that the meaning ‘embryo’ is comparatively rare. He cites many references from the Brāhmaṇas and particularly from the Dharmaśāstra texts where the meaning embryo is impossible and the word bhrūṇa needs to be translated as a Brāhmaṇa. He derives the word from the Vedic root bhur meaning “to move quickly, to be active”. (B) B ÜHLER and B ÖHTLINGK

From the above discussion it is evident that BÜHLER had not only studied the texts minutely but while doing so he also had cautious openness towards varied viewpoints. This approach of BÜHLER stands in contrast with the attitude of Otto BÖHTLINGK. According to BÖHTLINGK, Haradatta cannot make any claims of authority in matters of language since he lacks the European critical attitude. He thinks that BÜHLER reveres Haradatta to the extent that he follows him unquestioningly (BÖHTLINGK 1885b: 517). iti: (1) Meaning Ādi - apatyam ity anukṛtā niyatāliṅgavacanāḥ| itiśabdasyādyarthatvād apatyādayo niyatāḥ| Liṅgānuśāsana VIII.1 (1887a: 14). (2) Meaning Prakāra: pāṇigṛhītīti|52|, its commentary is: itiśabdaḥ prakārārthaḥ| Śabdānuśāsana II.4.52 (1887a: 15). ca: cakāro ‘nuktasamucchayārthaḥ| tena cānteṣv adhyarcaḥ| adhyarcam ity api| Liṅgānuśāsana V.12 (1887a: 18). 11

114

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

While indulging in his cavalier attitude BÖHTLINGK seems to have failed to note that BÜHLER had examined the commentaries carefully and that he did not hesitate to state if and where the commentary is not useful. BÜHLER did not even shun accepting that he is not certain about the correctness of his translation (1879Ia: 56 fn. 14). BÖHTLINGK gives excessive importance to grammatical correctness of language. As has been stated by OLIVELLE (2000: 470), he substituted his notions of grammatical rectitude for manuscript evidence and totally disregarded the possibility of dialectical variants and Prakritic forms in Āpastamba’s work. On the other hand, for BÜHLER, along with language, what else had importance was the minute observation of literary tradition. Boasting of European critical attitude is hardly traceable in his writings. OLIVELLE completely approves of BÜHLER’s method of following Haradatta while he appreciates the meticulous commentator in the following words: “..... he [Haradatta] was everything that BÖHTLINGK was not: a man who was scrupulously faithful to the text he received from the tradition, who compared different manuscripts and oral traditions and noted carefully variant readings, who consulted the works of previous commentators, and who carefully preserved for future generations even readings that he regarded as faulty. I think BÜHLER was right in taking Haradatta as a reliable guide in reconstructing the Dharmasūtra, especially because the sources Haradatta used predate the oldest extant manuscripts by perhaps as much as 400 years.” (OLIVELLE 2000: 471)

BÜHLER’s views, though opposed by many of his contemporaries, are subscribed to by the latest scholarship (OLIVELLE 2000: 470–471 and numerous references to BÜHLER in his Manu’s Code of Law 2005). (C) Faithful transmitter

OLIVELLE has shown in his article entitled “Unfaithful Transmitters Philological Criticisms and Critical Editions of the Upaniṣads” how neglect of texts received from manuscript material, an outrageous practice of emendations not based on manuscript evidence and tampering with the texts as a result of philological hubris can cause the creation of a new and unfaithful textual transmission that misleads later scholars (1998: 173–187). He argues that native commentators and theologians did not, as often assumed, carelessly or deliberately change the received texts to suit their doctrinal or grammatical tastes but it is the modern philologists who are often guilty of changing the texts to suit preconceived notions of correctness, whether grammatical or otherwise (OLIVELLE 1998: 182–183). In fact, commentators like Haradatta preserve even unusual forms for modern scholarly scrutiny (OLIVELLE 1999: 569). Regarding the sources of Haradatta, OLIVELLE arrives at the same conclusion as drawn by BÜHLER that Haradatta consulted men acquainted with oral tradition of the Āpastambīyas. BÜHLER’s remark in this connection that “no ingenuity of interpretation can convert Śiṣṭas into palm-leaves” (OLIVELLE 1999: 570; BÜHLER 1892D: vii-viii) is the most illustrious one. OLIVELLE remarks that there has been among western scholars a pervasive mistrust of ancient Indian interpreters and commentators. Early scholars were confident – to modern eyes, overconfident – of their ability to uncover “original” meanings through

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

115

philological acumen unmediated by native gloss or comment (OLIVELLE 1998: 173). However, this is not true in case of BÜHLER as is evident from afore said examples. OLIVELLE has pointed out regarding the so-called “critical editions” of the Upaniṣads that none of these used manuscript material. There is no evidence that even a thorough search for manuscripts was ever undertaken (OLIVELLE 1998: 174). In BÜHLER we find an exception. The earlier sections of the present book describe the major role played by BÜHLER in collection of manuscripts. With an in depth analysis of the writing tradition, through not inconsiderable number of manuscripts, and understanding its limitations as also its indispensability have allowed BÜHLER to approve of the manuscripts evidences and to use these sources to the fuller extent. BÜHLER edited Āpastambīya-Dharmasūtra and Daśakumāracarita critically. BÜHLER’s translations of the four Dharmasūtras published in the Sacred Books of the East, though based on manuscripts do not contain the texts. Out of his complete writings, the said two editions are critical editions in the real sense. Thirteen manuscripts were used for the Āpastamba work. A detailed critical apparatus has been given recording all the variant readings along with the views of the commentator. For the Daśakumāracarita six manuscripts and two printed editions were used. BÜHLER prefers over manuscripts having fuller and more correct texts with restorations, such manuscripts which do not possess conjectural restorations. In the Introduction of his edition of the Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, he says: “The first group of manuscripts gives a fuller and in general a correcter text than the second. But it seems to me that the text of B. [Baudhāyana], and still more Kṛṣṇapaṇḍita’s, has in many places been conjecturally restored, and that the real difficulties have been rather veiled than solved. I have, therefore, frequently preferred the readings offered by the second group, or based on them my conjectural emendations, which have all been given in the notes.” (1882Ib: xxviii).

BÜHLER’s practice is to put conjectural emendations in the notes and not in the main body of the text. He himself rather did not prefer conjectural emendations in desperate cases. “In a few cases, where even the best manuscripts contain nothing but a conglomerate of meaningless syllables or unconnected words, I have thought it advisable to refrain from all attempts at a restoration of the text, and at a translation.” (1882Ib: xxviii).

In the case of Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra he declares explicitly that he alone is responsible for the title Kaṇḍikā given to the small sections since manuscripts do not specify any title (1882Ib: xliv fn. 3). This shows his concern to preserve the tradition with utmost care without the slightest tampering. From the above discussion it can be safely concluded that, to use OLIVELLE’s term, BÜHLER was a faithful transmitter as far as the literary tradition is concerned. He was a faithful transmitter in many other matters which will be shown in the next sections of the present work.

116

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

2. TRACING IDEAS BACK TO THE CONTEXT The relation of any archaeological context and the artefact found therein is equable to the relation of a custom or an idea and its cultural context. Take an artefact out of its context and you reduce that artefact to no more than a mere remain. Similarly without the use of an appropriate context the information about a word, concept or custom is lost. Taking into consideration the context in which certain custom, usage or idea has originated can help to understand its purpose and meaning, and thus can serve as a significant tool to unravel some of the mysteries of the past. Such a thought process is visible in some of the discoveries by BÜHLER. He was able to postulate the context in which, for instance technical terms, came to be in use. To develop such an insight the Digest of Hindu Law must have played a major role in BÜHLER’s career. As has been already propounded the Digest of Hindu Law was a kind of training part in BÜHLER’s career which helped him to develop an insight into the subject and methods. While preparing for this work, he must have found new avenues and methods of research, particularly suitable for Indian studies. Raymond WEST, the co-author of the book explains how once’s approach towards Hindu law should be: “To be correctly apprehended the Hindū law, like other systems of law, must be studied in its history, and in its connexion with the religious and ethical notions of the people amongst whom it has come to prevail.” (1884B: 8).

Interpretation of Concepts: Studying the concepts in their history, or studying the history of concepts is an indispensible tool to unearth the meanings of the past. Evidently, concepts are expressed through words and digging their forgotten meanings from oblivion is a task of great skill and ingenuity. BÜHLER has tried to explain many words and concepts. Some of them are as follows: (1) Dṛṣṭam: Tracing ideas back to the context has helped BÜHLER to interpret an unknown feature occurring in some inscriptions. At first he took the word dṛṣṭam occurring at the beginning of Ilichpur Vākāṭaka copperplate grant as a sign of good omen and translated it as Om (1883m: 245).12 This view was based upon PRINSEP’s facsimile of Siwanī plates which reads O Om Siddham. Though BHAGWANLAL and FLEET read the word occurring in the beginning of the Ilichpur and Siwanī grants as dṛṣṭam they did not try to interpret the purpose of occurrence of this seemingly unrelated word. BÜHLER tried to show that, though the resemblance of the letters in the two documents to dṛṣṭam is indisputable, they must be read oṁ oṁ or o om. However, later, in his article entitled “A Prakrit Grant of the Pallava king Śivaskandavarman” published nine years after the said Vākāṭaka grant was published, he changed his view. After having inspected the original plates, he proposed a logical meaning and reasoning about the word dṛṣṭam. He interpreted for the first time that it denotes ‘seen’, the note indicating that the copy of the grant given to the donees had 12 Probably the facsimiles were made over to him and not the original plates (1883m: 239 fn. 2).

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

117

been seen, and was acknowledged to be coorect by the minister or by the keeper of the records (1892af: 9–10). This ingenious explanation was certainly a result of seeing the word in the context of the charter and postulating the official procedure of issuing such plates. (2) Rājūkas - The Land Surveyors: One of the important and widely accepted interpretations stated by BÜHLER is of the word Rājūka. He has shown that the two dialectical forms Rājūka and Lajūka are derived from Rajjūka, and that this is an abbreviation of rajju-grāhaka, ‘rope-holder’, which occurs in the Jātaka (1893b: 466–467). Basically Rājūkas were land surveyors. The Rajjūka originally ‘held the rope’ in order to measure the fields and to assess the land-tax. Thus the word became the designation of a revenue settlement officer. (3) Vaijayika Dharmasthāna: BÜHLER translates the word Vaijayika Dharmasthāna which usually appears in the copperplate grants of the Vākāṭakas as “victorious office of justice” and adds in the footnote that “it is not only the ministry of justice, but the office where all business relating to justice, spiritual matter and charities is transacted” (1883m: 246). MIRASHI states that the Vijayadharmasthāna should be taken as the capital of the ruler (1957: 226) whereas he defines it as “historical place of religious worship” (1963: 14). SHASTRI argues that the term Dharmasthāna refers to court of justice (1997: 4), and that the expression Vaijayika preceding it, is merely honorific. BÜHLER’s interpretation seems logical though he does not try to explain the word Vaijayika. MIRASHI thinks that since the Tirodi plates of Pravarasena II are not issued from the capital, i.e. Pravarapura, they omit the word Vaijayika Dharmasthāna (1933–34: 170). However, this does not hold true with the recently found Khāṇḍvī copperplate of the same ruler (BAPAT 2010: 14, 16, also see 21 fn. 94). It is issued from Bharitabhaṭakasthāna, a place which was necessarily not the capital, yet employs the word Vaijayika Dharmasthāna. Thus BÜHLER’s interpretation sounds more probable since it is based on the broader (and typically Sanskrit) meaning of the word Dharma, as also on the procedure involved in issuing such grants.13 (4) Senāpati: Both the Siwanī and Ilichpur grants are dated in the eighteenth year of the reign of Pravarasena II, in the month of Phālguna and Jyeṣṭha respectively. On the former the Senāpati Bappadeva is mentioned, and on the latter the Senāpati Khatravarman. BÜHLER thinks it improbable that Pravarasena had in course of a few months two different commanders-inchief. Thus he states that the term Senāpati denotes here the commander of the troops in the district where the village granted lay, and should be translated by ‘military governor’ (1883m: 241). (5) Devānāṁ priya: From the context BÜHLER tries to ascertain the currents of thought and through them the evolution of a particular usage of a word. The quintessential example is his reflections on the much discussed term occurring in the Aśokan inscriptions, “Devānām priya”. While 13 The term ‘Vaijayika’ relates to the successful expedition of the king accomplished lately. ‘Vaijayika

Dharmasthāna’ would thus be the office of justice and charities set up after a successful expedition.

118

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

presenting a counterargument to RHYS DAVIDS, who thinks that the Jaina Āgamic term Devāṇuppiya suggests its use by Jaina kings, BÜHLER makes it clear that the Jaina ‘Devāṇuppiya’ has nothing to do with the self-given title of kings and states that it is frequently used as a polite form of address in the Jaina Āgamas by superiors speaking to inferiors. He delineates as follows: “It seems to me that the royal title, the Jaina mode of address, and the Brahmanical use of Devānām priya to denote ‘an idiot’ are caused by three entirely different currents of thought, and that a derivation of the one from the other is very improbable. … The early Indian kings, who elsewhere are declared to be incarnations of deities, called themselves ‘dear to the gods’ in order to indicate their divine right. The early Jainas employed it as a form of polite, or rather humane address, recommending thereby the person spoken to, to the protection of the gods, — ‘you who may be dear to the gods.’ … The later Brahmans, finally, called idiots by this name, because such persons were considered to stand in the particular keeping of the gods” (1878q: 144 fn. 8).

3. ETHNOGRAPHICAL APPROACH AND CONTINUITY IN CULTURE (A) BÜHLER’s ethnographical approach

We have seen earlier BÜHLER’s opinion regarding Haradatta, the commentator of Āpastamba. He opines that Haradatta must have consulted men acquainted with oral tradition of the Āpastambīyas (1892D: vii-viii). BÜHLER further remarks that no ingenuity of interpretation can convert Śiṣṭas into palm-leaves. This remark illustrates his own views about the methods of research which he followed and endorsed. His reliance on the living tradition and the commentarial works is notable. KIELHORN stated in 1869 that the old generation of profound Shastris was dying out fast. The philosophical literature and the Sūtra literature needed to be explained by the oral instruction. Many of these works, KIELHORN added, although accompanied by written commentaries, are almost unintelligible without the help of the tradition embodied in, and kept up by, the Shastris (GOUGH 1878: 55). BÜHLER, taking one step further, not only studied with the Shastris but also tried to imbibe the “Hindu modes of thought” through getting acquainted with “the inner life of the Hindus”. These words are of WINTERNITZ, the greatest pupil of BÜHLER: “And it was this intimate acquaintance with Hindu modes of thought and with the inner life of the Hindus, which made intercourse with BÜHLER, and above all his academical teaching, so very inspiring and so extremely instructive.” (1898: 346).

Though it is difficult to ascertain the details of this acquaintance, extent of his “reach” and particularly exact details of its process, it can be said with certainty that BÜHLER made deliberate efforts to reach to the “inner life”, customs, beliefs, religion, philosophy and psyche. The following views of his, and it should be noted that they are in context of not less a technical subject like Sanskrit Grammar, clearly point towards his approach in this regard.

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

119

“Though Professor Westergaard’s and Geheimrath von Böhtlingk’s works contain a good deal that helps, the task is nevertheless one of considerable magnitude, and it requires a thorough acquaintance with the Hindu system of grammar, as well as with the Hindu ways of thought, which differ considerably from those of Europeans. Such an enquiry will solve nearly all the doubts regarding the history of the Dhātupāṭha ...” (1894r: 142).

(B) Deliberate efforts

As a young researcher BÜHLER was desperate to visit India and was determined to achieve this aim at any cost. Even to become a merchant’s agent would have had been acceptable to him (WINTERNITZ 1898: 338). He not only encouraged his students to go to India but helped many in this direction; recommended to get a position in India or likewise. While BÜHLER acquired manuscripts, studied ancient languages, literature and scripts etc. he also tried to observe closely and study the life of contemporary Indians. He used every opportunity for the purpose. He travelled a lot, visited numerous small towns and cities, learnt two of the modern Indian languages, made friends from every class of the society including Jaina ascetics, worked with Shastris and Pandits, and governed a team of clerks and headmasters. Through every means he tried to know the Indian society, culture and religion. This helped him in turn to develop an insight into the Indian psyche, of which literature, art, philosophy, religion and culture are merely external manifestations. (1) The Digest of Hindu Law: As stated earlier, the Digest of Hindu Law was a kind of training part in BÜHLER’s career which helped him to find new avenues and methods of research suitable for Indian studies. BÜHLER discussed with eminent Dharmaśāstravids more than 2500 legal suits involving domestic matters. These discussions, which used to be in Sanskrit only, facilitated BÜHLER to know the relative position of Dharmaśāstric works to each other, an aspect which only a practising Shastri would have been able to bring out. Regional variations with respect to the Law were also studied. Knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and ability to read law texts was not sufficient; how these were applied in practice was important.14 These discussions with Shastris must have inculcated in BÜHLER an ethnographical approach towards Indological research. He continued with this approach even in his further works. He must have realised how the traditions were still very much alive and rooted deeply into the society; and that the ancient mind was still accessible through “collective unconscious” of the contemporary society. 15

14 I think, this is also true in the case of treatises related to Medicine, Astrology etc. 15 The following

are my conjectures. He must have realised that there is very little deviation in the life style of ancient and contemporary Hindus. There is some sort of unchangeability or immutability in the Indian thought process. There is a unity in diversity. He must have perceived the role of Brāhmaṇas in moulding the ancient society, the role played by Dharmśāstric texts and Sanskrit language in general, and also the limitations of all the aforesaid forces in shaping the ancient past. This revelation must have had occurred over some period of time. The apprehension and discernment depicted in his writings point to such a possibility.

120

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(2) Educational Inspector: Instead of continuing the ‘static’ job of a Professor he accepted the position of Educational Inspector in the Bombay Presidency. To travel extensively, to interact with the native people, to know their life and culture, and to collect manuscripts were the chief objectives which he achieved during the next ten years. He states in the letters written during 1869 to 1874 to NÖLDEKE:16 “My domain is extremely large, larger than the entire Bavaria, and I have for my 51/2 million residents now about 600 schools…primary schools, continuation-schools, Sanskrit-schools, Progymnasia, School-teachers-training-schools, Industry-schools, and others. I have to organize all these schools, monitor, construct buildings, prepare accounts, procure books, appoint teachers, dismiss, give grants and punish. For this I have 6 sub-inspectors and an office of 8 clerks and accountants…Salary 1361 Rs. (per month), rank of a Lieutenant Colonel…I have been travelling since 15th November until today (12th April) and have patrolled 1100 miles and God knows how many schools inspected, and examined…I now use this opportunity to communicate intimately with all possible social classes. A year among the people has fitted me in the Sacred Sanskrit literature and culture more easily than 6 in Bombay.”17

(3) Ancient and Modern Languages: After arriving in India, BÜHLER learnt Sanskrit as a living language. He could converse in Sanskrit with Shastris. He knew many Sanskrit verses by heart and had learnt to recite them in the typical traditional way (THITE 2010: 157 fn. 3; JOLLY 1899: 3 fn. 1). The Director of Public Instruction says about BÜHLER’s first manuscripts search tour in 1866–1867: “By conversing fluently in the Sanskrit Language with Brahman Shastris at the various places which he visited, he succeeded to a great extent in inspiring confidence and in allaying the prejudices of persons who were at first unwilling to show their sacred volumes to an European” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 339). He also learnt Marathi to the extent that he occasionally worked as examiner in the Bombay University for that subject (THITE 2010: 157 fn. 3; JOLLY 1899: 3 fn. 1). He knew Gujarati very well (THITE 2010: 161–162 fn. 2; JOLLY 1899: 6 fn. 2) and could converse with The letters to NÖLDEKE are deposited in the University Library, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany, Accession No. (Signatur): Md 782 A 36. 17 Mein Bezirk ist ungeheuer gross, grosser als ganz Bayern, und ich habe für meine 51/2 Millionen Einwohner jetzt etwas über 600 Schulen . . . Primärschulen, Fortbildungsschulen, Sanskritschulen, Pro-gymnasien, Schullehrerseminarien, Industrieschulen u. a. Alle diese Schulen habe ich zu organisiren, zu überwachen, die Häuser zu bauen, die Rechnungen zu führen, die Bücher zu beschaffen, die Lehrer anzustellen, zu entlassen, zu belohnen und zu strafen. Dazu habe ich 6 Unterinspektoren und ein Bureau von 8 Schreibern und Buchhaltern . . . Rang eines Oberstlieutenants, . . . Ich bin seit dem 15. November bis heute (12. April) unterwegs gewesen und habe 1100 Meilen abgeritten und Gott weiss wie viele Schulen inspicirt und examinirt . . . Ich benütze nun die Gelegenheit, mit allen möglichen Ständen intim zu verkehren. Ein Jahr unter den Leuten hat mir über die heilige Sanskrit-Litteratur und -Kultur mehr Lichter aufgesteckt als 6 in Bombay (JOLLY 1899: 6 fn. 2). (The last two sentences have been quoted by JOLLY in the reverse order of the original) (See Plate 10). 16

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

121

people in Gujarati. This must have helped him to get closer to the people; for to know a language is to know a culture. On his tour to Kashmir he also began to learn Kashmiri language. He was interested in old Kashmiri songs and was accompanied by a Kashmiri singer during his excursions. An expert in the language was to assist him in his Kashmiri studies (1877b: 18). He has used this knowledge frequently – be it in his famous article on the roots of the Dhātupāṭha (1894r: 144) or identifying villages mentioned in the inscriptions (1897j: 39–40). He has demonstrated in the article on the Dhātupāṭha usefulness of the Māhārāṣṭrī and of the modern Gujarati in cases of many verbs like śṛṅkha or śiṅgh and śaṭ (1894r: 148–149). He opines that “no Sanskritist can afford to leave the modern vernaculars out of the range of his studies, if he wishes really to understand the ancient language” (1894r: 150). (C) 19th Century India: B ÜHLER’s Account

BÜHLER resided for almost seventeen years in India during 1863 to 1880. Out of these seventeen years, he spent almost thirteen to fourteen years in such works which involved travelling. Interacting with people remained his highest priority. A vivid description of some aspects of the 19th c. India can be found in his writings. Though the picture is not complete, some idea about the society can be gathered from it. His writings, particularly those on the Dharmaśāstra texts, throw light on some features of the life of learned Brahmans during the early British rule. BÜHLER travelled mostly in the Western part of the country. Thus the observations made by him are of the Western India. For the Indian society the third quarter of the 19th c. was a period of beginning of reforms in every aspect of life. Especially Maharashtra was one of the chief centres of action in that direction. BÜHLER describes the traditional education system which had by then started diminishing. Young students went from one teacher to the other, learning from each what he knew. As in the olden times the pupil had to stay with his teacher, until he has learnt the subject which he began with the teacher (1879Ia: 27 fn. 14). In connection with the Brahmayajña or daily recitation of the Veda BÜHLER has noted that this rule is usually not observed completely. At the daily Brahmayajña Brahmans mostly recite, ‘Veda-offering,’ one particular formula, which symbolically comprises the whole Veda. He added further: “A few learned Brāhmaṇa friends, however, have assured me, that they still recite the whole of their Śākhā every year according to this rule of Āpastamba.” (1879Ia: 43 fn. 23).

This information is quite trustworthy and correct. By ‘Veda-offering’ BÜHLER means a recitation where the first one or two lines of the Saṁhitā, Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka, Upaniṣads and Vedāṅgas are recited which symbolises recitation of the ten major texts of a Śākhā. According to THITE18 there are still a few Brahmans who recite the whole of their Śākhā every year and thence they become expert in recitation and know all the above mentioned

18 Discussion on 18th June 2014.

122

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

texts by heart. BÜHLER’s observation that Brahmans also have Laukika Gotras like other castes is also correct (1879Ia: 126 fn. 15).19 He talks about the Sabhā of learned Pandits which is very similar to the one depicted in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita of Maṅkha. He calls it “one of the chief modes of social intercourse among the learned” (1877b: 51). He confirms the description given by Maṅkha as faithful and true. He had attended many such Sabhās. He even knows typical phrases usually heard in such Sabhās like amuṣya vidyāgandho ‘pi nāsti (1894r: 152). We know from his Reports how he used to call Sabhā in order to meet the learned Brahmans and Jainas in various towns, to inform them about the search of manuscripts and to explain the Government’s intention behind such an investigation of their ancient languages, Śāstras and the manuscripts. On such occasions discussions among the Brahmans used to take place in the typical traditional manner of Pūrvapakṣa and Uttarapakṣa. The description in the Vikramāṅkadevacarita of Bilhaṇa’s travel from Kashmir to the Cālukyan capital in the south brings up the life of 19th c. Pandits and their wanderings from one princely state or a seat of learning to another (1875H: 17–18). BÜHLER states that after finishing the education young Pandits began the wandering life which they are fond of. “In our days, too, wandering poets and Pandits may be met with all over India. I have received visits from such men, who came from the Punjab and from Oude [Awadh]” notes BÜHLER (1875H: 17). They hold disputations and compose poetry extempore for the delectation of the princes. Every small princely state has its Pandit who has right of inheritance over the seat. Still all learned visitors would get customary Dakṣiṇā. Thus these states were resorts for the ancient lore and language. One can imagine how royal families and officials must have contributed in preserving the ancient literary heritage of India. There was also a dark side to this picture where many bitter complaints reached BÜHLER about jealousy shown by the hereditary Royal Pandits against the wanderers. As regards the duration of the tour, if a Pandit is from the North India and takes a rout from Rajasthan to reach Mumbai via Baroda and also includes renowned places of pilgrimage in his tour then the tour lasts five or six years. There was a strange practice in the Kashmir region prevalent among Kashmiri Pandits, which ought to be borne in mind today while dealing with the ‘complete’ Kashmiri manuscripts. It became known to the westerners through BÜHLER. He was told that if the original manuscript is damaged or incomplete then the scribes simply complete the text from their own knowledge. BÜHLER was asked by his friends, while he was on his tour for search of manuscripts in Kashmir, if the new copies to be made for him were ‘to be made complete or not’. BÜHLER convinced his friends of the evil of the practice. A specimen of such a restoration made in the Nīlamatapurāṇa has been appended by BÜHLER to the report of the Kashmir tour (1877b: lv-lx). In this connection BÜHLER remarked that in India “the Pandit has little respect for the sacredness of the ancient texts.” At the same time he did not forget to append that “that sentiment is in Europe, too, of modern growth” (1877b:

It is noteworthy that J. A. BAINES, Deputy Superintendent of the Census (1881), Bombay Presidency sent Brahman-related data of general census of 1881 to BÜHLER, perhaps for his remarks. See Chapter II, 2.(B)(c).

19

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

123

33). Here he refers to the scribes and Pandits who tampered the texts for their convenience. He was critical about the method of working of Pandits. He says – “Even in the present day Indian Pandits rarely use any of the scientific apparatus, of which European scholars avail themselves. Indexes, dictionaries and “Collectanea”, such as are at the service of the Europeans, are unknown to them. They chiefly trust to memory, and work in a happy-go-lucky sort of way. Even when writing commentaries, they frequently leave their quotations unverified or entrust the verification to incompetent pupils” (1894r: 253).

As regards the castes, BÜHLER mentions Mahār-s as village- or town messengers in Maharashtra (1879Ia: 68 fn. 28) and that they reside outside the village in a Vāḍī (hamlet) with the other outsider castes like Ḍher (should be Ḍhor) and Māṁg. He mentions wearing of sacred Brahmanical thread by certain subdivision of Sutārs, which he considers as a remnant of the ancient tradition. BÜHLER also notes customs like sending of coconut by a Kṣatriya as a symbol of proposal of marriage and acceptance of that coconut means acceptance of the same (1886K: 82 fn. 35). Many of BÜHLER’s observations come as passing remarks. Sometimes BÜHLER mentions some vernacular words without specifying the language. For instance, a cry of a solitary jackal is considered as bad omen and in such case the study of the Veda is prohibited according to the Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra. Here BÜHLER has noted that the ekasṛka, ‘solitary jackal’, is considered to be the constant companion of a tiger or panther. Its unharmonious cry was, in his days also, considered to be an evil omen. He has added further that the jackal was called Bālu or Pheough in modern times (1879Ia: 38 fn. 17). Here one wonders what language he might be refering to.20 BÜHLER tries to compare even minute prescription by the Dharmasūtras with the modern customs or remnants of such customs. For instance while stating the prescription made by Āpastamba that both hands should be used in conveying the water to the mouth, BÜHLER has noted that this agrees with the custom now followed, which is to bend the right hand into the form of a cow’s ear, and to touch the right wrist with the left hand while drinking (1879Ia: 54 fn. 3). He might have inquired with his friends or colleagues about modern state of such a practice and/or he must have possessed a great observation skill since this requires a minute observation. Today this practice is followed by many people particularly while accepting ‘Prasāda’, a part of the solid or liquid food offered to the God during Pūjā and given out among the devotees after the Pūjā. There is rule stated in the Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra that in battle it is a sin to slay men who declare themselves to be cows or Brahmans. Such persons become inviolable on account of the sacredness of the beings they personate. BÜHLER has stated that historical In old Marathi Bhālū (not Bālu) is an old female jackal while in Gujarati it is Varu. The word Pheough is not traceable in MOLESWORTH’s Marathi dictionary as also in Gujarati dictionaries. The word Bālu seems related to south Indian languages and Pheough is perhaps Bengali (according to the Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_jackal, accessed on 22 June 2014 at 00:28 hrs. The book referred on the website is an old publication, published in 1867). Pheough must be derived from Sanskrit pheru or pherava. 20

124

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

instances were narrated to him where conquered kings were forced to appear before their victors, holding grass in their mouths or dancing like peacocks in order to save their lives (1879Ia: 226 fn. 17–18). He might have heard such instances during his travel across Gujarat and Rājaputānā (now Rajasthan) where numerous princely states were extant. 21 At one place he states that Indian cows do not allow themselves to be milked, except when their calves stand by (1886K: lxiv fn. 2). This information, however, is not altogether correct according to professional milkmen. BÜHLER has not stated in many cases his source of information. There are always regional variations in customs thence giving source or at least its region would have helped to construe the picture of India through BÜHLER’s eyes. One can realise at the end that it is easy for anyone born significantly later in time to charge earlier authors with improper or inadequate documentation and subsequently to question the existence of historical consciousness in them. One passing remark of BÜHLER is very important and gives a glimpse of how well he understood the contemporary Indian Society. In the Introduction of the Digest he has substantiated views of MAX MÜLLER regarding the origin of the Dharmaśāstra from the Dharmasūtras. Since the Dharmaśāstra texts elaborate more on various Ācāras and are more puritanic than the Dharmasūtras BÜHLER has called attention of the readers towards the point that this discovery by MAX MÜLLER is “important for the Hindu who wishes to free himself from the fetters of the Ācāra” (1884B: 31). This remark, stated separately in a paragraph, indicates that he had not restricted himself only to philological and historical inquiry but that he was well-informed about the ongoing activities of religious reforms and changing outlook of the concurrent Indian society on the matters pertaining to religion. BÜHLER arrived in India in 1863. It was the period of beginning of reforms in many arena of life in Western India particularly in Maharashtra. Many ‘native’ scholars had inclination towards social reform movements, nay, they took active part in such movements. For example, S. P. PANDIT, BÜHLER’s intimate friend, had started schools for girls in Gujarat for promoting female education. Social reforms and religion were closely connected. Prārthanā Samāja, established in 1867 in Mumbai, was a movement for religious and social reforms. They were monotheists but beyond religious concerns their primary focus was on social and cultural reclamations. BÜHLER’s contemporary Sanskrit scholar and his successor in the search of manuscripts, R. G. BHANDARKAR was, since 1853, closely connected with the precursor of Prārthanā Samāja, the Paramahaṁsa Sabhā. And as such BHANDARKAR was one of the founder members of the Prārthanā Samāja. The above remark of BÜHLER indicates that he was certainly aware about new unrests in Indian society and that these remarks were directed towards and made for such Hindus who were trying to bring religious reforms as a means to social reforms.

There is a proverb in Marathi dātī tṛṇa dharaṇe which means to profess submission or to acknowledge subjection. The literal meaning is to hold grass in between one’s teeth. The origin of the proverb can be traced back to this rule of Āpastamba. 21

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

125

Manuscripts Libraries in India: Gujarat and Rājaputānā were richer in collections of scriptures than the southern part of Bombay presidency. BÜHLER describes these libraries in the following words: “Hidden in subterranean vaults under the temples and sometimes concealed with great ingenuity, these collections have escaped the many dangers to which libraries have been subjected in so unsettled a country as India has been until very lately” (1875H: 3).

Many manuscripts libraries were in the hands of people who did not know Sanskrit at all. However some of the best pieces in the Government collection, e.g. the manuscript of the Ṛgveda (BORI MS 5/1875–76) come from such sources (1877b: 28). Even today especially regarding private collections this situation continues to be the same. BÜHLER has mentioned that the local Pandits were just as ignorant about the contents of such libraries as he himself was and it was of much trouble even for them to extract manuscripts from these gartas (ditches) (1877b: 28). BÜHLER noted that all the Sanskrit-speaking Pandits, as well as some of the traders and officials in Kashmir, possessed large or small libraries. He has listed the names of 22 Pandits who were told to be the possessors of the most considerable collections (1877b: 27–28). However BÜHLER was not contented with the list of manuscripts received from the possessors of manuscripts. He rightly points out that “it is a very common practice among Brahmans to leave out, when they are asked to show their treasures, all works which they consider particularly important, and to reveal their existence only after a prolonged acquaintance with the inquirer” (1877b: 28). BÜHLER mentions one incident, which cannot be regarded as common but certainly is a darker side of the picture. He heard of a work which, after being considered to be lost, was recovered from a manuscript found by a Pandit in the ceiling of his house, to which it has been nailed in order to keep the rain out (1877b: 30). Kashmir: BÜHLER presented a very picturesque description of the 19th century Kashmir in his famous report of the tour to Kashmir. In a letter to the Government BÜHLER proposes that Jammu should also be visited during the tour to Kashmir,22 since a part of manuscripts collection of the King of Kashmir was said to be preserved there. He has described efforts being taken by the King to give impetus to Sanskrit learning in the state (GOUGH 1878: 122–123). BÜHLER described Kashmiri Brahmans in a separate section of the report. He informs that there were about 24000 Pandits in Shrinagar in 1875. “The Brahmans or Pandits, as they are usually called, are the only natives of Kaśmīr who have preserved their ancient faith, while all the other castes have embraced Mahommedanism. Their number, probably, does not exceed 40,000 to 50,000. … Unlike the Brahmans of other parts of India, they form one single community. … all Kaśmīrian Pandits call themselves simply Kāśmīrikas, and consider themselves to be a 22 Today it is most convenient to pass through Jammu if one has to travel from Punjab to Kashmir.

However, Jammu was not easily accessible before the construction of the Jammu-Shrinagar ‘cart road’ in 1922. Jammu was away from the old ‘cart road’ from Kohala in Punjab to Shrinagar, constructed during 1880–1890.

126

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY branch of the Sārasvatas. This is so much more remarkable as originally they came from different parts of India.” (1877b: 19)

BÜHLER rendered detailed description about the Ācāras and Vyavahāras prevalent amongst the Brahmans including the norms regarding inter-marriage between various sections of the Brahman community wherein his acquaintance with the Nāgara Brahmans of Gujarat and their customs is revealed (1877b: 20–21). He devotes number of pages to interesting accounts of Sanskrit learning in the Valley, various sects, practices of worship and even Abhicāras. With his close acquaintance with the Sanskrit pronunciation of KashmirBrahmans BÜHLER points out the general mistakes found in Kashmiri manuscripts due to the influence of the Kashmiri language (1877b: 26). He was impressed with poetical compositions of a Pandit to the extent that he called them surpass Śrīharṣa and Bāṇa’s compositions (1877b: 26). He mentions the activities of another Pandit and appreciates his scientific spirit of inquiry into the history Kashmir (1877b: 27). BÜHLER visited Khunmoh the native place of poet Bilhaṇa to compare Bilhaṇa’s description of it with the reality. He noted: “Khunmoh is inhabited by a mixed population of Musalmans and Brahmans, or “Pandits”. The latter possess not the slightest remnant of Sanskrit learning. They are either traders whose ‘classical language’ is Persian, or pujārīs who ‘do’ for the pilgrims visiting Harṣeśvara. ... Upper Khunmoh shows remnants of an ancient temple, and a little south of Lower Khunmoh begin the famous saffron fields. On comparing these actualities with Bilhaṇa’s description of the home of his youth, I was greatly struck with the faithfulness of his memory and the appropriateness of his description” (1877b: 5).

Many references show that BÜHLER interacted even with boatmen to collect information on various places and their history. He states Kashmir was famous for paper industry introduced there as late as by Emperor Akbar (1877b: 29). BÜHLER was fortunate to get in touch with the Indian culture of the 19th century, which preserved stray fragments of ancient culture, the object of his study. His account of the contemporary Kashmir and Kashmiri Pandits stands to be valuable since the Pandits are almost extinct from the valley today. (D) Conclusions drawn from observations

While describing the indefatigable impact of the Mahābhārata on the Indian society V. S. SUKTHANKAR termed it as “the content of our collective unconscious” and “our past that has prolonged itself into the present” (1945: 439). BÜHLER’s approach towards contemporary society reminds these words of SUKTHANKAR. BÜHLER believed the traditions to be the past prolonged into the present. This presupposes continuity in the culture. BÜHLER often seeks explanations of past events or expressions from parallel contemporary customs. For this he accepts ethnographical approach towards research. Ethnographical research is a kind of research where observations are made of a group of people or society by living amongst them. The researcher works as an observer participant. Such methods are used for cultural and sociological studies. BÜHLER’s impressions

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

127

of India reflect the role of an unbiased observer participant. He deployed his long experience in India to serve the Indological researches. To substantiate textual and epigraphic evidences BÜHLER transferred his reflections of concurrent culture to philological framework. These features of his research can be explained with the following instances, where BÜHLER has applied his knowledge of the ‘present’ to the events and society of the ‘past’. (1) Samāja: While interpreting the word Samāja occurring in the edicts of Aśoka he states it probable that it has the same designation what the word Melā has in modern Hindi. He also states it probable that very often the Samājas were used for immoral purposes.23 In support of this he shows how several sayings from various Dharmasūtras prohibit students of Vedas to visit such Samājas and further states that perhaps on the same grounds Aśoka prescribes not to arrange or to participate in the Samājas. It is interesting to compare this interpretation with the personal examination of all the Minor Rock Edict sites by Harry FALK and his interpretation as to why remote appearing places were selected to inscribe Minor Rock Edicts. FALK arrives at the similar conclusion that Aśoka had his first text placed exactly where people gathered to celebrate their basic cults and he must have known about the orgiastic nature of these activities (FALK 2006: 57). Thus it is possible to interpret the word Samāja as the gatherings pertaining to folk-religion where orgiastic activities take place along with other activities. (2) Catuṣka: While discussing the word Catuṣka occurring in the fourth tantra of the Pañcatantra BÜHLER’s attention drew towards the fact that the meanings of the term rendered in the two dictionaries (Petersburg and Monier-Williams) are not probable. The Petersburg interprets it as a hall resting on four pillars or a Maṇḍapa, while according to the MonierWilliams it is a quadrangular courtyard (used for receiving guests). However, BÜHLER notes that “it is, at least now, not customary to erect Maṇḍapas simply for reception of guests” (1891Ca: 72). The word cannot be translated as ‘courtyard’ in the context in which it is used in the Pañcatantra. The compound word Racitacatuṣkā is an adjective, which means the one who has formed or prepared the Catuṣka. Hence BÜHLER takes resort to a custom, conveyed to him by his friend S. P. PANDIT, of drawing in white chalk or forming with wheat or rice a cauka or four-cornered figures round the seat or dining-place of honoured guests at festive occasions.24 This explanation fits to the context very well. (3) Govindarāja: BÜHLER’s knowledge of Marathi, Gujarati languages and people supports his arguments quite frequently besides makes them seem effortless and non-artificial. For instance, when it was proposed by many scholars like JOLLY, allured by the termination rāja, that Govindarāja, a commentator of Manu should be identified with Govindacandra, a prince of Varanasi or a king of Kanoj of the same name, BÜHLER rightly expounded with various evidences that the identification is not correct. Govindarāja Bhaṭṭa must be a Brahman and 23 He has not mentioned the source of his information. 24 Even today this custom is observed.

128

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

cannot be a Kṣatriya prince. Further BÜHLER’s knowledge of Marathi and Maharashtrian culture adds to the list of arguments. He rightly points out that Govindarāja is the equivalent of Govindrao, a name very common among the Maharashtrian Brahmans (1886K: cxxvii). (4) Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra – Incongruent Portions: His explanation about the incongruent portions (chapter XXI, XXIV, XXVII and XXVIII) in the Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra is based on his knowledge of the habit of Kashmiri Pandits to restore the lost portions of manuscripts from the available fragments and from their memory or from the other related texts (1882Ib: xxiv-xxv).25 (5) Baudhāyana-Gṛhyasūtra – Initiation of a Rathakāra: In connection with the Baudhāyana-Gṛhyasūtra where it is mentioned that a Rathakāra should be initiated in the rainy season, BÜHLER connects the Rathakāra with the modern Sutār or carpenters. As Āpastamba omits the Rathakāra while stating rules for initiation of different Varṇas and as this agrees with the system in the modern society, BÜHLER concludes that the exclusion is an offshoot of a later doctrine and that this difference in the views of Baudhāyana and Āpastamba may be used as an argument for Āpastamba’s posteriority to Baudhāyana. Another observation noted by BÜHLER is that certain subdivisions of the Sutārs actually wear the Brahmanical thread, and, in spite of the adverse teaching of the Śāstras, find Brahmans willing to perform the ceremony of investiture for them (1882Ib: xxxviii-xxxix). This is a remnant of an older tradition in BÜHLER’s view. On this basis he, here, seems to connect the word and the caste Sūta, which is related with the Rathas i.e. Chariots, to the word and the caste Sutār which means a carpenter. Since Āpastamba lays down stricter and more puritanic views than Baudhāyana, BÜHLER concludes against the orthodox view which regards Baudhāyana’s work as later than Āpastamba’s. KANE, however, does not agree with BÜHLER (KANE 1930: 20–32). It seems that BÜHLER always tries to add to his argument evidences other than mere textual ones. (6) Das Wergeld: While discussing ancient history and literature BÜHLER compares the ancient contexts more than frequently with the concurrent contexts, people and ideas. The quintessential example of this approach is the article on Wergeld. Commenting on Dharmasūtra I.9.24.1 of Āpastamba BÜHLER expresses his difference with Haradatta’s explanation of the word vairaniryātanārtham. The Sūtra is: “He who has killed a Kṣatriya shall give a thousand cows for vairaniryātana”, i.e. expiation of his sin (prāyaścitta) according to Haradatta. Some other commentators interpret the term as ‘in order to remove enmity’. BÜHLER prefers the latter opinion. 26 He proposes to translate the Sūtra as “he who has killed a Kshatriya shall give a thousand cows (to the relations of the murdered man) in order to remove the enmity” (1879Ia: 78 fn. 24.1). BÜHLER later wrote a separate article on the 25 He uses

the term ‘cooked’ for such manuscripts. Cooked here seems to be a literal translation of the word Saṁskṛta. 26 Here, BÜHLER recognises a ‘remnant’ of the law permitting composition (compensation ?) for murder in ancient Greece and Teutonic nations (1879Ia: 78 fn. 24.1).

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

129

subject, which was published in the felicitation volume of ROTH (1893e: 44–48). He has interpreted the Sūtra based on a living tradition, which he happened to know during his travel in Rājaputānā. In the article it has been enumerated in detail how the custom was still followed in the border areas of the Bombay presidency and Rājaputānā. Regular and strict accounts were maintained of the murders and injuries of cattle, of men and also of robbed women. At the end of a certain period the accounts were settled between the two parties, tribes or villages by paying compensation as per the number of excessive men and cattle murdered or injured (1893e: 44–45). BÜHLER has also cited from Colonel TOD’s account, examples of muṇḍ-kāṭī or compensations against murders and from Sir Alfred LYALLS’ account of Border Pañcāyat, which means a meeting of arbitrators, under the presidency of one or two English officers to inquire into and settle cases of raids and to award compensations (1893e: 45). BÜHLER further propounds that Rājaputānā is the region where old customs and legal institutes have been best preserved, which were remodelled later by the Brahmanical Smṛtis (1893e: 46). With the contemporary examples BÜHLER adduces that since the compensation is paid to the families of the murdered or injured person the term vairaniryātanārtha does not stand for ‘Prāyaścitta’ but means ‘to remove enmity’. Though there is no concrete evidence to answer the question whether in ancient India the King retained the compensation-money or used to give it to the families of the killed, BÜHLER affirms that vairaniryātanārtha points to the second assumption. Thus BÜHLER has deployed accounts of a contemporary custom as an important evidence to settle a textual problem related to the ancient Indian law. (7) Antiquity and Authenticity of the Jaina sect: Like many other contemporary scholars e.g. WEBER and LASSEN, BÜHLER believed in the beginning that the Jainas are an old sect of Buddhists and even thought that he recognised the Jainas in the Buddhist school of the Sammatiya. However, during his tours in connection with the search for manuscripts he had to examine Jaina literature extensively (BURGESS 1903: 24) and he also came in contact with many Jaina ascetics. Through some Digambara Jainas he learnt that the Digambaras were called since the ancient times as Nirgranthas (1878n: 28). This seems to have led him to reconsider the matter. Finally after the observation of the fact that the Buddhists recognise the Nigantha and mention their head and founder as a rival of Buddhas, who died at Pava where the last Jain Tīrthaṅkara is said to have attained Nirvāṇa, he inferred that these Nirgranthas must be none other than the Jainas. JACOBI reached the same result independently through textual study (BURGESS 1903: 24). (E) Ethnographical Approach to Indology (or Ethno-Indology)27

Ethno-archaeology is understood as a branch of archaeology that studies contemporary primitive cultures and technologies as a way of providing analogies and thereby patterns for prehistoric cultures.28 27 I was not aware that such a term is already in use. Prof. Thomas OBERLIES informed me that Prof.

Axel MICHAELS has initiated a regular use of this term. 28 Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2001: 665.

130

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Similarly Ethnographical approach to Indological studies: “Ethno-Indology” is a method where contemporary Indian culture is studied with an object to know about ancient Indian society and culture. It is evident that the term Indology is to be considered here as the Classical Indology and not the Modern Indology. It is an approach to Indology that facilitates to study contemporary Indian society and culture as a way of providing analogies for ancient Indian culture and thereby solving the riddles in Indology, especially where the material evidence is scanty. Thus, it is evident that BÜHLER followed the path of Ethno-Indology which was his self-developed approach towards investigation. This is also evident from the scheme of the Grundriss envisaged by him. Out of the 37 planned volumes all but one are related to various aspects of Indian culture and literature of the past. Volume II, Book 5 authored by Sir J. A. BAINES, an administrative officer in the Indian Civil Service and a demographer, is on Ethnography which focuses on castes and tribes in contemporary India (BAINES 1912). It can be seen from the instances mentioned in the above section (D) that the success of this method depends on a clear and unbiased perception of the “other” where abolishing predetermined frameworks is absolutely necessary. (F) Limitations of such approach

(1) BÜHLER has assumed that the culture was continuous. No cultural change especially that occurred due to the Muslim conquest was taken into consideration. Thence the logic behind this may lead to strange results in some cases. (2) Even if we assume some continuity in culture, regional variations also play a role, and need to be considered before arriving at any conclusion. (3) There is no preferential order for various evidences that BÜHLER seems to adopt. Sometimes he neglects literary tradition and draws conclusions based on feeble evidences. For instance, he disregards Kumārila’s view that Baudhāyana is later than Āpastamba and concludes the contrary on the basis that a subdivision of the caste Sutār wears the sacred thread. Here he presumes two things simultaneously that such a custom must be of antiquity and the prohibition prescribed by Āpastamba must be a later modification. 29 The conclusions based merely on ethnographical research neglecting the literary sources at hand do not seem to be convincing. (4) Such an attempt has many restrictions today. The modern society has changed like never before. “A year among the people has fixed me in the holy Sanskrit-literature and culture more easily than 6 years in Bombay” were the words of BÜHLER which today seem more or less redundant. The 19th c. Mumbai had much more of “Sanskrit” culture, people and traditions than any 21st c. city in India. Sanskrit phrases and idioms are long out from the modern regional langauges. Rituals and Ācāras as per ancient scriptures are not a part of today’s life, as it was the case a hundred years ago. 29 For a detailed discussion see (KANE 1930: 20–32) wherein KANE concludes as follows: “Therefore

hardly anyone of the circumstances relied upon by BÜHLER as indicating a later age for Āpastamba is conclusive or convincing.” (KANE 1930: 30).

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

131

(G) Significance

Despite of the above mentioned lacunae, BÜHLER’s approach remains valuable. His observations substantiate his arguments and material and textual evidences. The remarks based on his own experiences are important for posterity. This method is important to understand and study the culture holistically. After analyzing this aspect of BÜHLER’s approach, it would be interesting to examine one short note published in the IA which resembles in style, analysis, argumentation and presentation with BÜHLER’s. This is a letter dated April 13, 1876 published in June 1876 under the section “Correspondence and Miscellanea” (B. 1876: 188–189). The name of the author is mentioned merely as B. It is written to propose a better translation of one of the attributes of Malharrao Holkar ‘Bhogibhogātapatraḥ’ in an inscription situated near Ahalyābāī ghāṭ at Maheshwar. One Raoji Vasudeva Tullu of Indore originally published its translation in the previous volume of the IA (TULLU 1875: 346–348). He has translated the term as “(the one) having an umbrella white as the skin of the snake”. “B.” interprets it as “having expanded hood of a snake for his umbrella” (B. 1876: 188). He seems familiar with the popular tradition associated with the Holkar family and his interpretation corresponds to it. There was a popular legend regarding Malharrao Holkar according to which a serpent expanded his hood (Bhoga) over the face of the shepherd-boy Malhārī to protect him from the Sun, when he was sleeping at noon while grazing his flock of sheep. The author points out citing BENFEY’s dictionary that Bhoga means hood. BÜHLER always tries to give literal translation of a Sanskrit text. Even in the case of copperplates and inscriptions it can be seen that he had mostly tried to give an honest translation. Here, the author B. too seems stringent about the translation and points out the defects in the previous translation. Thus, the letter B. used for the author’s name and use of the lore to substantiate argument makes one imagine BÜHLER’s authorship.30

4. SYNERGISTIC APPROACH Synergy stands for working together of two things to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects. Synergistic approach of BÜHLER seems to look for cooperation between various groups of people, which he followed and promoted to realise the goal of progress of science. He combined through his researches and academic activities the knowledge and efforts of various Shastris, Pandits, Indigenous scholars, British officials and Western scholars. He tried to combine the traditional knowledge and modern techniques of criticism. (A) Shastris and Pandits (Importance and impetus given to them)

Right from the time of Filippo SASSETTI, the Europeans interacted with traditional Pandits and learned from them.31 To transcribe a whole new world of the “other” into 30 BURGESS or BHANDARKAR may be the other contenders for the authorship. 31 Filippo SASSETTI (1540–1588) stayed

in India for five years, 1583–1588 CE. He died in Goa in 1588. He was among the first Europeans to point out the similarities between Sanskrit and Italian words (vide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Sassetti, accessed on 4th May 2018 at 09:25).

132

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

conceivable terms a transcriber or a mediator is required. To know a language is to know the culture which it manifests. BÜHLER considered personal contact and frequent exchange of ideas with native Pandits as indispensable for the progress of research (WINTERNITZ 1898: 345). He was of the opinion that the Shastris were representatives of the traditional knowledge of Sanskrit, and their participation should not be underrated (WINTERNITZ 1898: 338). In the late 1860s, after almost fifty years of British rule in the Western India and with the introduction of modern education system the state of traditional learning had started diminishing. In his report of the tour on search of manuscripts in the year 1868–69 KIELHORN expressed great concern about the state of Sanskrit learning in the Southern part of the Maharashtra. He suggests some measures to save the traditional knowledge. “The race of the old profound scholars is evidently dying out fast. ... this tradition being merely oral, is likely to die with the generation. … In order to guard against its total loss, the traditional explanation of the scientific literature of India ought to be fixed in writing; otherwise, in the present neglect, it will pass away with this generation of Śāstrīs” (GOUGH 1878: 55–56).

KIELHORN suggested to the Government to spend a part of the sum assigned for the preservation of Sanskrit literature “on encouraging young Native scholars” to collect and publish as much of the traditional learning as they can gather from the best Shastris (GOUGH 1878: 56). KIELHORN and BÜHLER both worked in this direction. They encouraged Shastris to write such works which would be useful for the study of various branches of Sanskrit literature. The works of Chintamani Shastri THATTE, Bhimacharya JHALAKIKAR and his younger brother Vamanacharya may be cited as instances.32 THATTE edited the Amarakośa under the superintendence of KIELHORN (THATTE 1877). Bhimacharya JHALAKIKAR was a Sanskrit teacher at the Elphinstone College, Bombay (JHALAKIKAR 1893: 4). He prepared a Nyāya lexicon, which was first published in 1874, “to afford the encouragement and assistance to the study of the Nyāyaśāstra” under instructions from BÜHLER and KIELHORN (JHALAKIKAR 1893: 3). In this lexicon a combination of traditional learning and western method of presentation can be seen. Vamanacharya was a teacher of Alaṁkāraśāstra and Vyākaraṇa at the Deccan College, Poona. His edition of Kāvyaprakāśa was prepared under the instructions of KIELHORN and R. G. BHANDARKAR and was published firstly in 1889 (JHALAKIKAR V. 1889: Title page). In an article, BÜHLER refers to Vamanacharya as his Shastri (1875c: 281) who prepared a complete alphabetical index of the verses quoted in the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa and then compared every line of the printed copy of the Naiṣadhīyacarita with the index.

WINDISCH has mentioned his name amongst the first Italians who had learnt Sanskrit (THITE 2008: 27–28). SASSETTI’s observations regarding the Sanskrit language gave rise to the discipline of Comparative Philology (DHAVALIKAR 1997: 288). 32 Vāmanācārya and Bhīmācārya JHAḶKIKAR had studied Sanskrit in traditional manner. They originally hailed from Karnataka region and studied Nyāya at Sangli under Bhikuśāstri GOḌBOLE who was originally from Pune (ABHYANKAR K. V. 2006: 38).

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

133

BÜHLER held very high view and respect for the Shastris due to their learning. “In this part of India, still significant traditional knowledge of Sanskrit and of Indian antiquity is available. The people divide themselves in Vedīs and Śāstrīs. The Vedīs mostly studied one Veda, i.e. they learn the text of the Saṁhitā to recite, without understanding it, …. As against this, the Śāstrīs, learn the Prose-literature, and these are people who know very much. My Śāstrī who is not at all a very great scholar, knows the entire Pāṇini by heart, knows every verbal form, and knows whether the roots make Ātmanepada or Parasmaipada” (Letter to NÖLDEKE 1863) (THITE 2010: 157–158 fn. 3; JOLLY 1899: 3 fn. 1).

Shastris used to assist the Bombay scholars in various ways viz. preparing indices, glossaries,33 transcribing manuscripts, copying extracts from manuscripts, collating manuscripts or preparing classified list of manuscripts for the reports on search of manuscripts. During the searches of Sanskrit manuscripts instituted by the Government several Shastris were appointed to catalogue various libraries. They were taught the modern principles of cataloguing. (B) Combined traditional knowledge and modern criticism

BÜHLER was actively involved in making Indian students acquainted with European methods of research. The Bombay Sanskrit Series was founded by him and KIELHORN in 1865–1866. According to JOLLY this enterprise was begun in order to give an opportunity to the young Indian scholars to learn the methods of critical edition and to produce cheap and useable textbooks for the Bombay-Colleges (THITE 2010: 159; JOLLY 1899: 4). BÜHLER himself published two numbers34 in the Series within a year or two. Up to 1878 about twenty volumes were published and besides both the founders, Shankar P. PANDIT, R. G. BHANDARKAR, Kashinath T. TELANG, Abaji V. KATHAVATE participated therein. The excellent editions of the standard Sanskrit works published under the series became of the greatest importance for the progress of Sanskrit studies in Europe. According to WINTERNITZ, “That India has produced such scholars as Bhāndārkar, Shankar Paṇḍit, Telang, Apte, and others, and that these men, who have acquired and made so excellent a use of European methods of criticism, have been educated in the Bombay Presidency, is to a very great extent due to the beneficial influence of Bühler and it must be said later on also of Kielhorn” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 338).35 As has been stated earlier, after arriving in Bombay BÜHLER studied various Śāstras. He studied Dharmaśāstra under Vinay (Vinayak?) Shastri DIVEKAR, and KIELHORN learned the Vyākaraṇa texts under Anant Shastri PENDHARKAR (DHARAMSEY 2012: 31– 32). BÜHLER tried to combine the advantages of European education methods with those The glossary for BÜHLER’s Third Reading Book (1888E) was prepared by Vishnushastri Pandurang PANDIT. 34 1868 Pañchatantra ed. with Notes, IV and V, 1868 Āpastambīyadharmasūtra. 35 This may sound a sweeping generalization. But if the volumes of Bombay Sanskrit Series are compared with the volumes of Bibliotheca Indica the flawlessness and accuracy of the earlier are remarkable. 33

134

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

of the traditional Indian methods of teaching. He recommended to the Government appointment of a “thorough-bred Shastri” educated in the traditional system of schooling as a help to the advanced students and as an assistant to the Professor (WINTERNITZ 1898: 338). This approach and his efforts in this direction gave opportunity to many Shastris to work as Sanskrit teachers in colleges like Elphinstone and Deccan where modern system of education was adopted and being cultivated. In BÜHLER’s reports on search of manuscripts one comes across names of many Shastris who worked as his assistants; Martanda Shastri, Narayana Shastri, and Vamanacharya JHALAKIKAR to name a few (1877b: 34). Passing references to Shastris and Pandits who helped BÜHLER in one way or the other are numerous, e.g. Keshavaram Pandit, the possessor of the codex archetypus of the Rājataraṅgiṇī (1877b: 7), Pandit Candram, son of Ṭutaram, who compiled the manuscripts of Nāgārjunacarita for the use of BÜHLER (1888m: 532, 552). (C) Indian friends

We come across names of various scholars who came in contact with BÜHLER. He had, it seems, frequent contact with many Indian researchers. However very scanty information is available in this respect. In the case of Shastris and Pandits, only their names remain inscribed in BÜHLER’s writings, but their stories are lost in time. The number of names of Indians that are frequently met with in BÜHLER’s writings proves his constant contact with them. For instance, Vallabhji ACHARYA (1840–1911 CE), the Curator of the Watson Museum in Rajkot published his readings of several inscriptions with the help of BÜHLER (DHARAMSEY 2012: 36–37). The Bhavnagar State Archaeological Department was established in 1881 under the leadership of Vajeshankar Gourishankar OZA. He published his readings of some inscriptions in various journals with BÜHLER’s help (DHARAMSEY 2012: 37).36 (1) Maharajas and Political Agents: Maharajas (Chiefs) of various Princely States and Political Agents in these states played a very important role in the search of manuscripts. It is evident from the Reports that BÜHLER had contacts with many such Political Agents and had occasions to meet the Maharajas of Jodhpur, Jesalmer (Jaisalmer), Bikaner and Kashmir. In Jodhpur, the Maharaja most liberally allowed him access to his extensive library, which contained about 1,800 Sanskrit manuscripts, a large collection of printed Sanskrit books, and several hundred manuscripts chiefly in Hindi and Marwari (GOUGH 1878: 117). BÜHLER’s view of co-operation and mutual benefit is also evident from following recommendation made by him to the Government: “I have also to bring to the notice of Government the readiness with which the Maharaja of Jodhpur, the Maharaja of Jesalmir, and the Maharaja of Bikanir have opened to me their own libraries, and have exerted themselves to prevail on their subjects to do the 36 (1) The Vadnagar Prasasti of the reign of Kumarapala (with Vajeshankar G. OZHĀ), EpInd 1 (1892)

293–305. (2) The Somnāthpattan Praśasti of Bhāva Bṛihaspati (by Vajeshaṅkar G. OZHĀ, with an Introduction by BÜHLER) WZKM 3 (1889) 1–19.

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

135

same. I beg respectfully to recommend that their readiness in this respect may be acknowledged by the presentation of valuable Sanskrit works published or patronised by Government, such as Professor Max Müller’s edition of the Rigveda” (GOUGH 1878: 120).

BÜHLER shared intimate friendship with two Indian scholars: Pandit BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI37 and Shankar Pandurang PANDIT. (2) BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI (7th November 1839 – 16th March 1888): BHAGWANLAL holds an important position amongst BÜHLER’s Indian friends. BÜHLER played a key role in BHAGWANLAL’s academic life while he in turn was benefitted from the experience and knowledge of BHAGWANLAL. BHAGWANLAL was in service of Dr. Bhau Daji LAD. BHAU DAJI was a physician by profession and was very successful with a lucrative practice of his own. He was not only an Indological enthusiast but an active participant in the Indological researches. He had privately appointed Pandits and Shastris to assist him in his pursuits. A young Gujarati Brahman from Junagadh joined his services in 1861. He was none other than BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI. BHAGWANLAL was born at Junagadh in Kathiavad in 1839. His initial education was in a traditional school, where he learned Sanskrit. He acquired a fair knowledge of Sanskrit literature but he cared little for the study of the Śāstras. Instead, he felt attracted towards the history of Gujarat. When he was a boy, he used to pay visits to the Girnar rock where edicts of Aśoka and the inscriptions of Rudradāman and Skandagupta exist. At the age of fifteen he studied their characters with the help of a copy of PRINSEP’s tables and tried to use transcripts of the earlier epigraphists, to decipher their contents. He was able not only to read every letter of the Rudradāman inscription, but to point out omissions and inaccuracies in PRINSEP’s copy. These attempts came to the notice of Mr. Kinloch FORBES and he recommended the young amateur to Dr. BHAU DAJI, who was looking for a Pandit, able to assist him in his epigraphic researches. BHAGWANLAL used to prepare eye-copies and rubbings of documents and inscriptions. But more importantly, while working under BHAU DAJI he received a good training in the method of treating inscriptions. He travelled enormously and visited almost every important site in the Northern India along with Nepal and even Shahbazgarhi. He copied numerous known inscriptions, discovered several others and made their transcripts and translations in Gujarati. His almost 13 years’ service with BHAU DAJI ended with the death of the latter in 1874. After his master’s death, BHAGWANLAL suffered and faced social problems and a sort of rejection from the scholarly world. As has been later described by BÜHLER “the seclusion in which he had been kept from all contact with European Sanskritists, his precarious worldly position, and his inability to express himself in English, prevented him from coming forward at once” (1888k: 294).

After the detailed biography of BHAGWANLAL by DHARAMSEY (2012) and the obituary of BHAGWANLAL written by BÜHLER.

37

136

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

At this juncture in life BHAGWANLAL met BÜHLER. This meeting paved a way out for him. BHAGWANLAL, aware of BÜHLER’s proficiency in Gujarati language, was looking for an opportunity to meet him. He met BÜHLER in July 1875 when BÜHLER was about to start for his Kashmir tour for the search of manuscripts. He wrote later: “My journey to Kashmir prevented my paying at once serious attention to this affair. But when, after my return, he came again, showed me the drawing of his plate, and explained to me his theory [about Ancient Numerals], I felt such an admiration for his ingenious and important discoveries that I offered to put his notes into shape and to get an article published” (1888k: 294).

The article was published in the IA in 1877 (1877e: 42–48). On BÜHLER’s suggestion some other western scholars also helped BHAGWANLAL in preparing papers in English. Thus his five papers were published in five months succession. He was then conferred the Honorary Membership of the Asiatic Society, the first Indian to receive such an honour. The proposal was seconded by BÜHLER. BÜHLER had also tried to secure a job for BHAGWANLAL after BHAU DAJI’s death. This shows how BHAGWANLAL’s proximity with BÜHLER was crucial in the development of BHAGWANLAL’s career. BÜHLER played a key role in presenting him to the scholarly world. BHAGWANLAL never worked as BÜHLER’s Pandit. FALK has mistaken him to be so (1993: 119).38 In fact, BÜHLER has translated five articles of BHAGWANLAL from Gujarati into English. All the articles were published under BHAGWANLAL’s name. Wherever BÜHLER wanted to give his opinions and remarks on the subject he did so in separate notes appended to the articles. BÜHLER offered to translate BHAGWANLAL’s valuable material procured from Nepal into English. But since the material was collected with the grant from Junagadh Darbar received by BHAGWANLAL as BHAU DAJI’s Pandit, he “did not have a clear title to dispose of the documents according to his liking” (1885k: Preface). BÜHLER wrote to the Darbar and to BHAU DAJI’s son and succeeded in obtaining the permission. He also petitioned the Bombay Government for a special grant to meet the expenses of the publication. Finally BHAGWANLAL’s exhaustive article “Inscriptions from Nepal” was published in the Indian Antiquary (1880a: 163–194) and separately in a book form in 1885. It is remarkable that BÜHLER wrote preface to this separate book seemingly ‘on behalf’ of BHAGWANLAL (1885k: Preface). All this effort by BÜHLER stands in testimony of his unassuming affection towards BHAGWANLAL. BÜHLER was also benefitted with BHAGWANLAL’s knowledge as is clear from some of the footnotes in his articles published during that time.39 BÜHLER’s first article on Aśokan inscriptions was based on a cloth copy of the Bairat inscription prepared by BHAGWANLAL (1877g: 157; DHARAMSEY 2012: 139–140). BÜHLER wrote in the obituary “of the social, political, and religious life of modern India, especially in the Native States, ... uebersetzte G. Bühler einen Artikel seines Pandits Bhagvānlāl Indraji….; die er wie sein Lehrer phantasievoll…. [emphasis mine] 39 BÜHLER seems to have adopted opinions of BHAGWANLAL at not a few places. Also see SENART 1891: 231 fn.9. 38

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

137

he gave me more trustworthy accounts than almost any other of my numerous Hindu acquaintances ... “ (1888k: 297). While DHARAMSEY’s remark that BÜHLER valued BHAGWANLAL’s opinion must not be false, his inference that “Buehler (1889: 267) would send his papers to Bhagwanlal before publication, including those written in German” (2012: 407) seems farfetched. He rests this inference on BÜHLER’s remark in an article entitled “Bagumra Grant of Nikumbhallaśakti; Dated in the Year 406” (1889c: 267).40 The German paper mentioned therein was published in 1887 (1887d). Prior to that BHAGWANLAL had published three articles on the similar topic including one in the Proceedings of the 7th International Oriental Congress held in Vienna (1889c: 266 fn. 7). Hence BÜHLER must have sent a copy of the published German paper to BHAGWANLAL for his information.41 BHAGWANLAL confided in BÜHLER more than in any of his other friends. They shared intimate friendship which lasted till former’s death. BÜHLER wrote about his close friend in the following words in his obituary: “His amiable frank character, his keen intelligence, and his extensive learning, made him very dear to me. I shall never forget the pleasant days, when I used eagerly to look forward to the announcement that the Panditji had come. I gladly acknowledge that I have learnt a great deal from him” (1888k: 297).

BÜHLER and other friends of BHAGWANLAL put forward a proposal to install in his name, a prize at the University of Bombay. According to DHARAMSEY, BÜHLER’s obituary of BHAGWANLAL is perhaps the best evaluation that exists of his work (2012: 67 fn. 2). Today BÜHLER’s memoir of BHAGWANLAL, remains an important source among the very few authentic records on life and career of BHAGWANLAL. (3) S. P. PANDIT (1840–1894): Shankar Pandurang PANDIT hailed from the princely state of Sawantwadi, which is today in the Sindhudurg district of the Maharashtra state. He was also a close friend of BÜHLER. He completed his M. A. in 1865. After working in Mumbai for some time in 1868 he began teaching in the Deccan College in Pune. He then served in varied administrative capacities such as Deputy District Collector, Income Tax Collector, Oriental Translator and finally Administrator of the princely state of Porbandar in Gujarat. BÜHLER knew PANDIT since 1863 and used to meet him almost every day while he was in Gujarat in 1870s. BÜHLER handed over the manuscript of Gauḍavaho, discovered by him in Jesalmer, to PANDIT for editing. PANDIT’s edition was published in 1887.

“In conclusion, I will add that, when I sent my German paper on this inscription to the late Dr. Bhagwānlāl, he informed me that he possessed several sets of Sendraka plates from southern Gujarāt. It is advisable that they should be looked for and published. They will probably bring us certainty regarding the points which at present are merely conjectures” (1889c: 267). 41 BHAGWANLAL could definitely read the Devanagari matter from that. It is not known from any available sources that he knew German. 40

138

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

In eighteen letters42 which BÜHLER wrote to R. ROTH during the period 20th October 1877 to 22nd January 1890 BÜHLER frequently mentions S. P. PANDIT. In a letter dated 11th July 1889 BÜHLER requests ROTH to recommend the name of PANDIT for the Honorary Doctorate of Tübingen University in return of similar favour done earlier by BÜHLER at ROTH’s request in case of ASA Dastur Hoshang.43 The letter further tells us that BÜHLER and PANDIT were close friends. BÜHLER states that since his return to Europe he had this wish to recommend PANDIT’s name for the title. He asserts that because of PANDIT’s self-sacrificing devotion towards science and many achievements in the field he is worthy of such an honour. The other reason given is rather very humane. BÜHLER states that the award is also valuable in PANDIT’s view especially since his rival R. G. BHANDARKAR has been bestowed with such an honour.44 BÜHLER adds in a subsequent letter that PANDIT is old enough45 in view of the average Indian life span, and now he has a serious eye disease and because of that has to possibly resign from his service. It seems that BÜHLER wanted to help his friend financially as well. BÜHLER supplements the letter with a brief CV of PANDIT. As he handed over the manuscript of Gauḍavaho to S. P. PANDIT, with similar generosity and selflessness handed over some other manuscripts of newly discovered works procured by him to other scholars for editing, e.g. the manuscript of the Pāialacchīnāmamālā was given to PISCHEL. Even when Indian scholars themselves sometimes did not care to mention most important contributions by their Pandits, BÜHLER made it a point to mention the names of persons who helped him even in a smallest way. (D) Western scholars

(1) Franz KIELHORN: Among his Western colleagues the foremost name is that of KIELHORN. There are many parallels in their careers. BÜHLER studied at Göttingen and KIELHORN taught in that University later. Both came to India around the same period of time in the early 1860s. They worked in Pune and Mumbai. BÜHLER worked in the Deccan College for some time where KIELHORN served for almost eighteen years. Both collaborated in many activities like Bombay Sanskrit Series, search for manuscripts etc. They jointly founded the Bombay I am immensely indebted to Dr. Gabriele ZELLER of Tübingen University who generously supplied me transliteration of the said eighteen letters on which she has been working in connection with the project of Letters related to the Petersburg Dictionary. 43 (a) Letter deposited in the Tübingen University, Acc. No. Md 765–2b-4, dated Wien, 11th July 1889. (b) ASA, Dastur Hoshang Jamasp, a Parsi priest and scholar (26 April 1838 to 23 April 1908), came from a famous Parsi priest family and in 1884 became the third Dastur (High Priest) at Poona. He was also a professor of Oriental languages at the Deccan College and in 1886 received an honorary doctorate from the University of Vienna. His main work is a Pahlavi-Pazend glossary. 44 R. G. BHANDARKAR received the honour in 1885 from the University of Göttingen. 45 Letter deposited in the Tübingen University, Acc. No. Md 765–2b-7 dated Wien, 2nd January 1890. PANDIT was at the time approximately 50 years of age. 42

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

139

Sanskrit Series. In case of searches of manuscripts while BÜHLER could travel extensively and collected numerous manuscripts, the manuscripts were placed in charge and under the care of KIELHORN at the Deccan College. For this project the Bombay presidency was divided between them, Northern part to BÜHLER and Southern Maharashtra and the Northern Karnataka to KIELHORN. However at the very early stage of the searches KIELHORN realised that the parts of Gujarat and Rājaputānā are far richer with regard to the number of manuscripts libraries and the number of manuscripts preserved in them. Hence he decided to concentrate on establishing a good manuscripts library with the manuscripts collected under the project.46After BÜHLER’s death KIELHORN took the responsibility to edit the series of Encyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research founded by BÜHLER. KIELHORN dedicated his Grammar of Sanskrit Language published in 1888 to BÜHLER with the words of remembrance of the days spent together in India.47 After noticing this long association, one might expect some memoir or an obituary written about BÜHLER by KIELHORN. But surprisingly there is none. (2) Whitley STOKES: Whitley STOKES was the Secretary to the Council of the Governor-General for making Laws and Regulations (Legislative Council) (GOUGH 1878: 1), a Legal Member of the Viceroy’s Council and an expert in finance.48 He was also a Celtic scholar (1883h: 517). He helped BÜHLER in his early days of struggle to secure copies of manuscripts from the Madras Government Collection and found with great difficulty a Brahman able to transcribe from the Dravidian alphabets into Devanāgarī (1888m: 531). He proposed to the Indian Government a detailed scheme for the search of Sanskrit manuscripts.49 Though Pandit RADHAKRISHNA appealed and induced the Government to initiate the programme (GOUGH 1878: 1) STOKES can justly be called as the founder of the whole enterprise and there is enough ground to believe that he was inspired by BÜHLER. BÜHLER knew STOKES and perhaps developed friendship with him since he was in London (THITE 2010: 156; JOLLY 1899: 2). In his proposal, STOKES not only quotes BÜHLER and refers to his tour for the search of Sanskrit manuscripts in Southern Mahratta (Southern Maharashtra) and Canara (Karnataka) but also asseverates that the proposed plan agreed completely with the plan drawn by BÜHLER (THITE 2010: 160 fn. 1; JOLLY 1899: 5 fn. 2). Also, the method adopted for collecting manuscripts during 1864–68 by BÜHLER (1888m: 530–532) matches for most of the part with the scheme proposed by STOKES in 1868 (See Chapter II, 2., (C)(c) Pioneer of Searches of manuscripts in India 1868–1873).

46 See for more details JOHNSON, Donald Clay (1986) and (1988). 47 “seinem

freunde BÜHLER, C.I.E. der mit ihm Funfzehn Jahre lang in Indien der Tages Last und Hitze getragen hat” – KIELHORN, F. (1888) Grammatik der Sanskrit-Sprache, Berlin. 48 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1879/may/22/committee-firstnight#S3V0246P0_ 187 90522_HOC_107 (accessed on 30th October 2013). 49 See his “Note” dated 6th August 1868 in GOUGH 1878: 1–7.

140

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(3) Others: It seems that among his senior contemporaries BÜHLER was more close to WEBER who was one of the scholars to whom he wrote frequently from India. There are around 84 letters written by BÜHLER to WEBER preserved in the Staatsbibliothek, Berlin. WEBER informed from time to time readers of his Indische Studien and other German journals about the activities of and discoveries by BÜHLER. NÖLDEKE was a close friend of BÜHLER since the days when they were studying in Göttingen. They were frequently in touch. Their communication through letters, which were later used by JOLLY for writing BÜHLER’s short biography (THITE 2010: 155; JOLLY 1899: 1), is now preserved in the Library of the University of Tübingen. BURGESS and FLEET were BÜHLER’s well-known collaborators in his epigraphical researches. BÜHLER played a leading role at the International Congresses. He helped many scholars to procure positions in India. From the available evidences it is not possible to ascertain whether he supplied manuscripts to individuals. He certainly sent to European libraries with a due permission from the Government of India, manuscripts of such texts which are already well represented in the manuscripts procured for the Government. Through his influence BÜHLER was able to draw the West closer to the East. It is remarkable that while conducting his activities BÜHLER was able to win the respect and affection of the people around him irrespective of their varied identities and interests. (E) Preference to English language:

Since frequent exchange of ideas with the Indians was considered by him as indispensable for the progress of research, BÜHLER deliberately chose to write in English instead of German. It was on this account that most of his articles are in English. He also wished his pupils to do the same. He insisted on articles relating to India being written in English for the Vienna Oriental Journal and persuaded even the Imperial Academy of Sciences at Vienna to print papers in its proceedings in the English language (WINTERNITZ 1898: 345– 346). He once said to one of his English friends, “not to save you trouble, but for the good of those in India” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 346). Participation of those people is essential whose history, literature and culture are the objects of investigation. This not only widens the scope of research but also increases the possibilities of substantiation of the results. Thus BÜHLER acted as a sort of bridge between the two worlds. BÜHLER was able to draw the West closer to East and to make the East more open towards the new techniques, science and thoughts.

5. AGAINST POSITIVE AND EMPHATIC CONCLUSIONS ON THE BASIS OF WEAK EVIDENCE

Drawing conclusions on the basis of silence is the most suitable technique for those having preconceptions. However it can be seen in the history of Indology that sometimes even scholars with scientific approach and who otherwise follow critical methods have at once jumped to the positive and emphatic conclusions on the basis of silence. BÜHLER was

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

141

against such a practice and tried to rebut the theories based on negative or feeble evidences. Here follow three illustrations of BÜHLER’s successful refutation of theories propounded by three different scholars. This contribution has left its mark on the history of Indology. (A) The Antiquity of the Indian Artificial Poetry

BÜHLER wrote an exhaustive article titled “Die Indischen Inschriften und das Alter der Indischen Kunstpoesie”50 as a reply to some of the theories propounded by MAX MÜLLER in The Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature.51 The most controversial among them was that the Indians did not show any literary activity during the 1st c. BCE to the 3rd c. CE in consequence of the inroads of the different foreigners and that the real period of the bloom of artificial poetry (and also the age of Kālidāsa) is to be placed in the middle of the 6th c. CE (MAX MÜLLER 2003: xx-xxi). The ‘Renaissance Theory’ invited hot discussions in the scholarly world. It was anachronic on MAX MÜLLER’s part to impose on the literary activities in ancient India the idea of renaissance which became popular during the 19th c. in Europe. Moreover, a break or a dark period is a precondition for the concept of renaissance. And the very idea of any sort of break in the literary activities has been refuted by BÜHLER. He proved successfully with the help of Gupta inscriptions (FLEET 1888) and some other inscriptions having absolutely certain dates that during 1st c. CE to 5th c. CE a mass of Kāvya-literature must have existed and the Vaidarbha-style of poetry reached the recognition before the middle of the 4th century. BÜHLER also points out, in a general way, the significance of the study of inscriptions for the Kāvya literature. (1) Inscriptions, Poetry and Poetics: A Concordance BÜHLER gives a list of 18 inscriptions (GHATE 1970: 8),52 out of which he discusses four in detail. BÜHLER shows that the concepts and modes of expressions found in the Praśastis are very much identical and frequently met with in the classical Kāvya literature. BÜHLER proves that during 350–550 CE court poetry was zealously cultivated in India (GHATE 1970: 8). He asserts that the Girnār Praśasti makes probable the existence of the Kāvya style, even in the first c. CE (GHATE 1970: 78) and that there also existed an Alaṁkāraśāstra in the second century (GHATE 1970: 63). Though he finds the language of the Girnār Praśasti similar to that of epics he argues that the style is classical (GHATE 1970: 56–57). He also holds it probable that Vatsabhaṭṭi knew and made use of the works of Kālidāsa (GHATE 1970: 80).

GHATE has translated the word Kunstpoesie as artificial poetry. Prof. HANNEDER informs me that in the early 19th century German künstlich does not yet mean artificial, but kunstvoll, i.e. artistic. Thus, it should have been translated as ‘artistic’. 51 Appended as a “Note” (MAX MÜLLER 1883: 281–366) to the first edition of India, What can it teach us?, a course of lectures delivered before the University of Cambridge, specially intended for the candidates for the Indian Civil Service. 52 I have used the 1970 reprint for the present study. 50

142

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

The idea of the foreign invasions, such as those of Śakas and Kuṣāṇas, being considered as a cause for the so called dark age was entirely ruled out by BÜHLER with the following arguments: (a) The area under foreign rule was not more than a fifth part of India, (b) The descendents of the foreign conquerors immediately began to bear Indian names, (c) The Indian systems of religions and arts enjoyed a high prosperity, (d) “The invaders were far inferior to the Indians in point of civilisation and culture, and the natural result was that they could not escape the influence of the Indian civilisation, but were themselves Hinduised.” (GHATE 1970: 83–86).53 On various convincing grounds BÜHLER refutes all the evidences put forth to establish the age of Kālidāsa as 6th c. CE. Regarding mention of Hūṇas by Kālidāsa, BÜHLER records his observation about how Sanskrit poets, instead of giving actual facts, describe Digvijayas on the model of the epics, Purāṇas and other older works. He also points out the discrepancy, where Kālidāsa anachronistically mentions (Raghuvaṁśa IV.60–61, IV.68–69), side by side peoples which can never belong to a single period of time (GHATE 1970: 94). He states, on the basis of more concrete evidences, that the year 472 CE is to be fixed as the upper limit for Kālidāsa (GHATE 1970: 3). (2) Aftermath: MAX MÜLLER withdrew the ‘Renaissance’ note while publishing the second edition of the book in 1892. He admits that on several points his views had been considerably modified (MAX MÜLLER 2003: xix). Still, he tries further, to rationalize his stand stating that he presumed for his theory the “literary works which we actually possess” (MAX MÜLLER 2003: xxi). His confession that he had “put forward one or two opinions, chiefly in order to provoke opposition and controversy” (MAX MÜLLER 2003: xxi) is not convincing. Ironically enough, further in the same write up he presents the proof of the literary activity during the so called dark period by announcing the discovery of the Buddhacarita of Aśvaghoṣa. As regards the logical treatment to the subject given by B ÜHLER, there is a tremendous scope to believe that BÜHLER’s article must have played a major role in the withdrawal of the ‘Renaissance Theory’.54 Surprisingly, in 1898 MAX MÜLLER defended his theory in an article in BÜHLER’s memoriam (1898: 349–355).

53 The methods of BÜHLER and MAX MÜLLER are very much counterpointing in this regard. MAX

MÜLLER used only literary sources and did not consider inscriptional evidences in the manner in which BÜHLER has done. Moreover, MAX MÜLLER seems to have considered the lack of evidence (i.e. non-availability of any Kāvya belonging to that period) as a proof for the lack of activity and conceived of the ‘Renaissance Theory’ on the European model. This resembles the construal of Samudragupta as Napoleon of India by V. A. SMITH (1906: 251). BÜHLER who seemingly relied only on the first hand evidence did not approve of any such model on the basis of cross-cultural comparison or construal. 54 In the preface of the second ed. MAX MÜLLER addresses BÜHLER quite frequently.

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

143

Further in 1917, WINDISCH endorsed MAX MÜLLER’s views to keep the topic alive (THITE 2008: 522).55 SIRCAR pointed out that the beginning of Kāvya literature may be pushed back a little further than what BÜHLER suggested on the basis of new epigraphical evidences (GHATE 1970: i-ii). There was only one argument possible to stand against BÜHLER’s conjecture and its logical representation that such classical literature pertaining to the period 1st c. BCE to 3rd c. CE is not extant except in inscriptional form (the only criticism that MAX MÜLLER was able to make). However, the discovery of the works of Aśvaghoṣa and Bhāsa, which are considered to be not later than 2nd c. CE, established the fact that the classical Sanskrit literature did exist during the aforesaid period. However, this confirms that a very vast amount of literature has been lost in time. What BÜHLER said in the introduction to his edition of Vikramāṅkadevacarita regarding the scarcity of real historical Kāvyas holds true for the entire class of literature. Along with the other reasons he states it probable that actually nobody cared to preserve the literature from destruction or to make them easily accessible by copying and recopying the original manuscripts (1875H: 2). This seems to be quite natural if we consider the stereotype character acquired by this literature even in the 5th c. CE. During the medieval period development of regional languages and literatures must also have contributed to divert the zeal of copyists. As the only certain date known till 1890 was that of Bāṇa, this article of BÜHLER marked a tremendous progress for the history of Indian poetry. It became possible to mark the age of Kālidāsa on the map of the history of Sanskrit literature with some certainty. It will be interesting to note the changed scenario after 1890. In 1880s scholars like SCHROEDER (1887: 313), LEUMANN (1883: 285) accepted the ‘Renaissance Theory’ without any inhibition while MACDONELL who made considerable use of SCHROEDER’s work (MACDONELL 1899: vii), presented a gist of BÜHLER’s entire article in similar words rendered in English (MACDONELL 1899: 319–325). WINTERNITZ has referred to BÜHLER’s article at as many as seven places in the third volume of his ‘Geschichte’ (1920: 44, fn. on 13, 33, 38, 45, 375, 389). It may be safely inferred that by the end of the first quarter of the 20th c. the entire debate seems to have come to an end. LIENHARD mentions BÜHLER’s views with following addition, “We also have numerous examples of the rich muktaka poetry that flowered at the same time - something that was not known in BÜHLER’s day” (1984: 170).56

Before MAX MÜLLER, WINDISCH spoke about a “Period of Brahmanical Renaissance”. He thought at that time only of the renewed strengthening of the Brahmanism against the Buddhism. (THITE 2008: 516 fn. 1). 56 Prof. HANNEDER has already remarked that “This discussion (‘renaissance theory’ and BÜHLER) also shows how shaky conclusions from supposedly negative evidence can be.” (2002: 297–298 fn. 14). 55

144

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY (B) The History of the Mahābhārata (MBh)

In his exhaustive article titled “Contributions to the History57 of the Mahabharata” (1892ak: 1–58) with J. KIRSTE, BÜHLER has refuted Adolf HOLTZMANN’s58 conjectures who propounded that the MBh was ‘forcibly turned into a legal work or Dharmaśâstra on the second revision of the poem’ (1892ak: 27; HOLTZMANN 1892: 177–178). BÜHLER also proved that the testimony of the inscriptions is fatal to various conjectures, which HOLTZMANN put forward (1892: 188–195) regarding the gradual development of the MBh. R. G. BHANDARKAR first brought in the role of inscriptions to deal with the history of the MBh in a paper read at the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1872 (BHANDARKAR 1875: 81–92). He discussed a large data from literary works and inscriptions, which bear on the antiquity of the MBh. He elucidated principal testimonies from the 5th c. BCE to the 14th c. CE for the existence of the epic in the antiquity. In 1892, on the similar lines BÜHLER discussed in his article further literary and inscriptional data which not only prove the existence of the MBh during the first centuries of the Common Era but also show that the text with hundred thousand Ślokas was already regarded as a Smṛti at that time. This was disastrous for HOLTZMANN’s interpretations. With the firm evidence of an inscription from Kamboja (1892ak: 25) he also proves that the Mahābhāratapāṭhana was a custom, prevailing about 600 CE not only in parts of India, but in all countries where the Hindu religion had reached. He argues that its spread over so wide an area clearly indicates that in the 7th c. it was not of recent origin, but must have existed at least during several centuries before that time. BÜHLER shows in detail that Kumārila, the author of the Tantravārttika, who lived in the early 7th c. CE, quotes numerous passages from almost all the Parvans of the MBh, which to him was a great Smṛti expounded by Vyāsa (1892ak: 5–24). The land grants belonging to the 5th-6th c. CE have also been discussed in which Adhyāyas of the XIII Parvan dealing with the merits of gifting are quoted as sacred texts. The most important result of this article was that it could prove that around 500 CE the epic was essentially not different in content and volume from the work as it is available now. After BHANDARKAR’s article in 1872, it was generally understood and accepted that the epic is older at least than the other classical “artificial” poetry. Within the next twenty years, i.e. till 1892 BÜHLER did not find it necessary to deal with the MBh on the basis of the inscriptional data. BÜHLER seems to have made it a point to refute HOLTZMANN exhaustively and immediately. This is evident from the fact that his 58 page long article was published in the same year when HOLTZMANN’s Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Mahābhārata was published. In the article at the beginning itself he states that the article is only a part of the results of his researches. While this must not be false, there is a possibility that he intended to refute HOLTZMANN’s conclusions immediately and hence seemingly did not wait to complete his survey. BÜHLER refrained from writing on the subject

57 With the word “history” history of the text is meant and not the historicity of the events narrated

in the text. 58 Adolf HOLTZMANN Junior (1838–1914).

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

145

thereafter since a few substantial evidences were sufficient to refute HOLTZMANN.59 From WINTERNITZ’s obituary of BÜHLER, it appears that the article was written with a single aim to refute HOLTZMANN’s conjectures.60 (C) The Roots of the Dhātupāṭha

KANE has severely criticized the western scholars for propounding many sweeping and unwarranted theories based on flimsy data. One of the major points of the condemnation is that they do not attach due importance to the fact that a vast literature in Sanskrit has perished beyond recovery and what we now have is a mere fraction of what once existed. Secondly, they forget or ignore that much of the literature that survives is religious and not intended to be a historical and bearing full treatment of any topic (KANE 1958: 481). BÜHLER, over six decades before KANE, has put forth the same argument while rebutting WHITNEY’s view who presumed that more than a thousand of total roots listed in the Dhātupāṭha are false and interpolations of later grammarians and that this attaches a taint of falsity to the “Hindu” system. In 1893 W. D. WHITNEY wrote an article “Review of Recent Studies in Hindu Grammar” wherein he questions the reliability of Sanskrit grammatical tradition. He takes for granted that among the roots contained in the Dhātupāṭha a thousand or twelve hundred roots are false and declares that there is a shade of unreality over the subject of voice-conjugation. His argument was that the Dhātupāṭha contains a very large number of verbs, which are not traceable in the accessible Sanskrit literature and which therefore must be false. WHITNEY’s argument is clearly based on the absence of evidence which cannot duly be taken as evidence of absence. BÜHLER highlights the fact that “only a small The other reasons might be that HOLTZMANN’s other conjectures were only “Glaubenssache” while his survey of the subject was comprehensive and exhaustive. 60 (a) “Here, too, (regarding the history of the MBh) he was utterly dissatisfied with the ‘inner’ criticism and the vague hypotheses defended by Prof. Holtzmann and other scholars. Eagerly he sought for epigraphic and literary documents from which any secure dates as to the history of the Hindu epic could be obtained” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 344). (b) From the above discussion it is safe to assert that considering BÜHLER’s approach towards the subject, there is a need to study under a fresh light the generalised inferences drawn by ADLURI and BAGCHEE (2014) regarding German Indologists’ approach towards the MBh. It will not be out of place to note in this respect that BÜHLER was a son of a pastor and a Lutheran protestant. (The survey of German Indologists done by the two scholars in this regard does not include BÜHLER.) Moreover, BÜHLER’s greatest pupil and one of the students inspired by him to study the epic, was a Jew, namely Moriz WINTERNITZ. (c) Apart from the above mentioned article which is his literary contribution to the MBh studies, BÜHLER also led the field in a different way. As a teacher he induced many of his students to pursue the epic studies. According to WINTERNITZ he was most anxious to interest his pupils in this much neglected branch of Sanskrit literature (1898: 344). Two of his students, J. KIRSTE and CARTELLIERI are the joint contributors of his article while DAHLMANN put forth some new ideas (1895), though untenable and refuted by WINTERNITZ (1897: 713–759). WINTERNITZ wrote an exhaustive article about the South-Indian recension of the MBh (1898: 67–81, 92–104, 122–136 and 344) on BÜHLER’s suggestion (WINTERNITZ 1898: 344). 59

146

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

portion of the Vedic literature, known to Pāṇini and his predecessors, has been preserved, and that of the ancient laukika Śāstra, the Kāvya, the Purāṇa, Itihāsa and the technical treatises only very small remnants have come down to our times.” (1894r: 252). He asserts in this regard that scholars like WEBER and BENFEY have already called attention to the fact that a very large proportion of the roots of the Dhātupāṭha is Prakritic in form (1894r: 145). The inscriptional Prakrit has preserved numerous forms older than the classical Sanskrit and some older than the Vedic dialects. It has also been proved with examples that many untraceable words and meanings do actually occur somewhere in the ocean of the existing Sanskrit literature (1894r: 148). He went further to show that the forms older than those commonly current in classical Sanskrit have been preserved even in the modern Indian languages (1894r: 150). He demonstrates the usefulness of the Māhārāṣṭrī and Gujarati in case of verbs like Śṛṅkha or Śiṅka and Śaṭ. He also takes into consideration a possibility that learned poets and commentators might have written according to the Dhātupāṭha, but the representatives of the Sanskrit verbs preserved by the Māhārāṣṭrī and modern vernaculars have certainly not been taken from the Dictionary of Sanskrit roots. Various forms of the verb Bruḍati or Vruḍati majjane occurring in the Jaina Prabandhas, the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and Jonarāja’s commentary on it, the Baijanātha Praśasti and the Hemacandra’s grammar have been illustrated. He shows how the roots vuḍ, buḍ are used universally in the modern dialects in the sense of ‘to submerge’. He adduces that every root of the Dhātupāṭha, which has a representative in one of the Prakrits or in one of the modern Indian languages must be considered as genuine and as an integral part of the Indo-Aryan speech. BÜHLER arrives at the conclusion that Pāṇini’s Sūtras are the final redaction of a number of older grammatical works and same must be the case with his Dhātupāṭha. And if it is a compilation from various works dating from different centuries and composed in various parts of India, then there is no wonder that it should contain many verbs which had already in Pāṇini’s time become obsolete and isolated (1894r: 253). He states it probable that the Dhātupāṭha must have attained its peculiar form because of the following factors: (1) the great length of the period during which its materials were collected, (2) the enormous extent of the territory from which the grammarians drew their linguistic facts, and (3) the great diversity of the several sections of the Indo-Aryans inhabiting this territory (1894r: 252). It would be appropriate to elaborate here the features and difference between the approaches followed by WHITNEY and BÜHLER. WHITNEY takes into account only Vedic literature while BÜHLER has vast amount of Sanskrit and Prakrit literature and tradition before him. WHITNEY considers Pāṇini as the founder of a grammatical tradition while BÜHLER sees him as the apex. In his opinion Vyākaraṇa had a long prehistory. WHITNEY not only doubts the grammatical tradition, but he blames the later grammarians for uncritical interpolations and opines that there is a taint of falsity attached to the Hindu system. Instead of blaming someone for a supposed fault (or for one’s own distrust, for that matter), BÜHLER tries to look for the keys not only under the streetlight but also in

CHAPTER IV. INSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION

147

the dark where they perhaps have been lost.61 BÜHLER not only attacks WHITNEY’s conjectures but also condemns the use of such a strong language in scientific discussions as has been deployed by WHITNEY in his article (1894r: 142). MAX MÜLLER and WHITNEY were great names of their age. There is always a danger, as pointed out by KANE, that even conjectures, not to speak about approbatory opinions, of former scholars may be treated as valid conclusions by later writers (1962: 1531). BÜHLER was not carried away by the arguments presented by these scholars and tried to guard the later scholars against their influence. (D) BÜHLER’s method

Like a true scholar having scientific blend of mind, nāmūlaṁ likhyate kiṁcit was the chief motto of BÜHLER and nāmūlaṁ jāyate kiṁcit was his strategy. Other scholars particularly in the above cases opted for the easy answers which scanty evidences presented to them. On the other hand BÜHLER questions the available sources and seeks for their history. He identifies the sources, prioritizes and construes them in the right context. Thus his research is mūlagāmin i.e. root-oriented while others have fruit-oriented or phalagāmin approach.62 Moreover he draws his evidences from multiple disciplines while restricts their interpretation to the Indian context avoiding any cross-cultural comparison whatsoever. WINTERNITZ has following expression in this regard: “Bühler never felt satisfied with what is called ‘inner chronology’ …— a proceeding in which too much scope is left to individual opinion. One safe historical date which could be depended on was worth more to Bühler than a volume full of more or less convincing arguments as to might-bes. But how were such firmly established historical dates to be obtained? If not from works of literature yet from monuments of stone and metal. Bühler was fully aware of this, and with his characteristic enthusiasm he devoted himself to the task of searching for, deciphering, and interpreting inscriptions, and no one was more eager than he was in turning these inscriptions to account for historical, geographical and literary purposes” (WINTERNITZ 1898: 341).

61 BRONKHORST uses this simile while refuting BECKWITH (BRONKHORST 2016: 2). He writes “His

restriction of sources is reminiscent of the drunk who lost his keys in the dark and decided to look for them only under the streetlight. Beckwith’s procedure suggests an even more extreme comparison, in which the drunk claims that whatever he finds there must be his keys, simply because he finds them under the streetlight.” 62 THITE classifies Vedic studies as mūlagāmin and phalagāmin (2012: 177–178).

CHAPTER V. RECAPITULATION Various unique responsibilities that BÜHLER was entrusted with in his life-time, shaped him as a pioneering Indologist, and converting them into opportunities of research, he was successful in making numerous path-breaking discoveries. The process of composition of the Digest of Hindu Law had certainly molded BÜHLER’s views and gave a practical basis to his philological investigations, which eventually prompted him to accept the position of the Educational Inspector, the post which facilitated him to travel across the country, to undertake extensive search of manuscripts, to interact with all classes of people and to get intimate knowledge of the Indian culture. The discovery of the manuscript of Vikramāṅkadevacarita was a turning point in his research career. His interest was then channelized towards epigraphic researches. However, he could carry out the most of his epigraphic work while in Vienna during the last eighteen years of his life. During his four decade long research career, BÜHLER dealt with variety of subjects from Dharmaśāstra to palaeography and from religion to epigraphy, which demonstrates his contributions to various branches of Indology. The methodology and approach adopted by BÜHLER in his Indological pursuits is his major contribution to the field of Indology. Historical consciousness is a complex phenomenon. There cannot be a direct linear relation of the availability of historical literature to the historical consciousness possessed by a society. Non-availability of the ancient historical literature does not positively prove the lack of historical consciousness in a society of the past. Historical consciousness manifests itself in various forms. This understanding is discernible from BÜHLER’s approach in the quest of ancient India in the following three aspects: (1) Documentation of the past events. (2) Preservation of the tangible and intangible past. (3) Historical approach while interpreting the Śāstras. It is evident from BÜHLER’s writings that he considered all these three aspects while judging the historical sense which Indians possessed. Consequently he fully trusted the literary and commentarial traditions of the country for interpreting texts. He frequently corroborated the ancient society and culture with the contemporary customs prevalent in the country, believing strongly that there is continuity in the culture and the observations 149

150

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

of the present society can guide one to solve the problems of the past. He did this successfully in numerous cases. He believed that the sense of history in India manifested itself in a different manner; in forms such as poetical narration of the historical events, preservation of various traditions etc. The Indians looked at past events with poetic perspective. BÜHLER was very much aware of this tendency and was able to infer the ‘correct’ historical facts from such poetical descriptions as he did in the case of the Samudragupta Praśasti. BÜHLER refuted MAX MÜLLER’s theory of renaissance and showed that there existed artificial, i.e. classical, ornate poetry as early as at least second c. CE. Similarly he showed that Praśasti Kāvyas and court poetry were also in vogue at that time. There must have existed historical Kāvyas and narratives which were not fortunate enough to reach to us. BÜHLER’s approach towards the historical Kāvyas is noteworthy. He not only points out their shortcomings, but also brings out their importance for historiography. He delineated the following peculiarities of the Kāvyas: (1) Conventional description; (2) Poetical description; (3) Exaggeration; (4) No exactness and details; (5) Based on historical facts; (6) Important for literary history; and (7) More reliable compared to Prabandhas. According to BÜHLER there must have been chronicles of various kings recorded by the contemporary poets. The reason behind the fact that they are not available to us is that they have not been preserved by the writing tradition in the country. The reasons of the discontinuity of the historical literature in the writing tradition was the want of popularity and the psyche of the scribes, which inclineed more towards (1) fictions than facts, (2) mythical characters as against the historical ones. Thus the conventional descriptions in the Kāvyas did not attract readers’ attention unless the language and the poetic elements were exceptionally well. The principles that have been laid down by BÜHLER in dealing with such Kāvyas provide the key to use them in the right direction for historical research. (1) Remove the Kāvya/mythical element (2) Consider the style of the author (3) Check the historicity with the help of other corroborative evidences. (4) Consider poet’s antiquity: If the poet is contemporary or nearer to the events in time then the possibility of authenticity increases. BÜHLER’s writings involving analysis of Sanskrit commentaries show that he considers them as one of the manifestations of historical consciousness. At times, against the views of his contemporaries, he readily adheres to the opinions expressed by the commentators. He adduces the scholarship and ability of commentators and appreciates the trustworthiness of their writings. According to BÜHLER commentarial works become authentic sources of knowledge for the history of original texts. It is not surprising that BÜHLER, a historian at his core, gives an upper hand to the history of text rather than mere and pure grammatical approach for settling the correct readings in a text. However, he does not hesitate to discern between good commentators and bad ones. His writings make him a “faithful transmitter” of the traditional texts giving a philological and scientific expression to the literary tradition. His views, though opposed by many of his contemporaries, are subscribed to by the latest scholarship.

CHAPTER V. RECAPITULATION

151

Studying the history of concepts is an indispensible tool to unearth the meanings of the past. Evidently, concepts are expressed through words and digging their forgotten meanings from oblivion is a task of great skill and ingenuity. Consideration of the context in which certain custom, usage or idea has originated can help to understand its purpose and meaning, and thus can serve as a significant tool to unravel some of the mysteries of the past. Such a thought process is visible in ingenious discoveries by BÜHLER. He was able to postulate successfully the context in which the various technical terms came into use. BÜHLER trusted the commentarial works for interpreting the texts. Similarly he also relied and hence studied the living traditions. He tried to imbibe the “Hindu modes of thought” through getting acquainted with “the inner life of the Hindus”. He made deliberate efforts to reach to the “inner life”, customs, beliefs, religion, philosophy and psyche of the Indian people. BÜHLER tried to compare even minute prescription by the Dharmasūtras with the modern customs or remnants of such customs. He believed the traditions to be the past prolonged into the present. This, naturally, presupposes continuity in culture. BÜHLER often sought explanations of past events or expressions from parallel contemporary customs. For this he accepted ethnographical approach towards research. He used such techniques which can be termed as Ethno-Indology. At many places he has used his knowledge of modern India to solve the riddles in ancient Indian history. He took into consideration contemporary customs, contexts and usages and the parallel words in modern languages. BÜHLER followed the path of “Ethno-Indology” which was his self-developed approach towards investigation. His success can be attributed to a clear and unbiased perception of the “other”, abolishing predetermined frameworks. BÜHLER combined the traditional knowledge and modern techniques of criticism. He collaborated with the traditional Shastris, contemporary Indian scholars, British officers, and his European colleagues. He preferred to write in English rather than in German. By this, he ensured the participation of a wider audience, particularly of the people whose history and culture he was studying. He stood against the practice of drawing conclusions on the basis of feeble evidences. Thus, on the basis of new evidence and application of his insightful mind to it, he made it a point to refute some views of his contemporaries like MAX MÜLLER, HOLTZMANN and WHITNEY. His writings are a source to know the tradition of Sanskrit prevalent during the colonial period and as preserved till the 19th c. CE. A study of his writings is also important to know the traditional views of 19th c. Pandits and Shastris on philological, textual, historical and social issues which are not recorded in any texts. A peep into the 19th c. society in India is possible through his writings. With his unprejudiced mind, keen observation and unbiased judgment BÜHLER made ancient India far more understandable to the West. He understood the very thoughtprocess of the ancient Indian mind and this made him the phenomenal scholar that he was.

152

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

The only spot that would head to deface BÜHLER’s selfless, spotless and pioneering career is his association with FÜHRER. The only lapse on BÜHLER’s part in this affair was that he trusted FÜHRER fully and quickly. He was not involved in any of FÜHRER’s delinquencies though he deciphered inscriptions from the rubbings, enstampages and the photographs that were sent to him from India. There too, he began to refrain from drawing any ‘conclusions’ before he would see the originals with his own eyes. Finally, a truly disciplined scholar, having been trained in Philology, Theology and the ancient languages, having travelled all the way from his native continent to India—and in India from Kashmir to the Southern Maratha country—collecting manuscripts, editing texts, deciphering inscriptions, mingling with the people and searching the true lineage of India, has left his eternal mark on Indology.

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER [Based on JOLLY (1899) 21–23] Works of BÜHLER have been arranged subject-wise into the following sections: (I) Independent Works (II) Works edited, superintended etc. (III) Essays, Reports, Lectures and Smaller Articles1 (IV) Reviews and Notices

I. INDEPENDENT WORKS 1.

Das griechische Secundärsuffix THΣ. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Wortbildung. Göttingen 1858. 58 Pp. 2. A Digest of the Hindu Law of Inheritance, Partition, and Adoption; Embodying the Replies of the Śâstris in the Courts of the Bombay Presidency with Introductions and Notes (Ed. with Raymond WEST) Book I. Inheritance. Bombay, Printed for Government. 1867. LXX, 362 Pp. Book II Partition. Bombay 1869. XXXVII, 118 Pp. 3rd ed. Introduction (Section II) to Book I, Bombay 1884. LXXXIX, 1449 Pp. in 2 Vol. 3. Pañchatantra ed. with Notes, The Department of Public Instruction, Bombay, Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1868: No. I, Pañchatantra IV and V, 84, 16 Pp. (4th ed. 1891. 83 Pp.). No. III, Pañchatantra II and III, 86, 14 Pp. (4th ed. 1891. 89 Pp.). 4. आप#त%बीयधम+सू.म ्। Aphorisms on the Sacred Law of the Hindus by Âpastamba. ed., with a Translation and Notes, by Order of the Government of Bombay. [No translation.]. Part I. Containing the Text, with Critical Notes and an Index of the Sûtras. Bombay 1868. 118 Pp. (2nd revised edition with extracts from the commentary, containing the various readings of the Hiraṇyakeśi-Dharmasûtra, Bombay 1892. XII, 154 Pp. Bombay Sanskrit Series, XLIV.). Part II. Containing Extracts from the Sanskrit Commentary of Haradatta, called Ujjvalâ, together with a Sanskrit Index. Bombay 1871. 8, 154 Pp. (2nd ed. together with a Verbal Index to the Sûtras, by T. BLOCH, Bombay 1894, 163 Pp. Bombay Sanskrit Series L.). 3rd ed. Passed through the press by M. G. SHASTRI, Bombay 1932. Reprint Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune 2002. iv, 280. The order of the articles in this section is at some places different from the order appearing in JOLLY.

1

153

154 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY Third Reading Book for the Use of High Schools, With a Glossary, prepared by Vishnu P. PANDIT under the superintendence of G. BÜHLER, Bombay 1868. 122, 103 Pp. (3rd ed. Bombay 1888. 128, 96 Pp.). A Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts contained in the Private Libraries of Gujarât, Kâṭhiâvâd, Kachchh, Sindh, and Khândeś. Fascicle I. Compiled under the superintendence of G. BÜHLER. By Order of Government. Bombay 1871. IX, 245 Pp. Fascicle II. Poetry. Bombay 1872. VIII, 135 Pp. Fascicle III. Bombay 1872. 141 Pp. Fascicle IV. Bombay 1873. 277 Pp. The Daśakumâracharita of Daṇḍin, ed., with Critical and Explanatory Notes. Part I. Bombay 1873. Bombay Sanskrit Series, X. 2, 92, 42 Pp. (2nd ed. Bombay 1887. 8, 79, 36 Pp.). The Vikramânkadevacharita, a Life of King Vikramâditya-Tribhuvanamalla of Kalyâṇa, composed by his Vidyâpati Bilhaṇa, ed. with an Introduction. Bombay 1875. 46, 168, 2 Pp. Bombay Sanskrit Series, XIV. The Sacred Laws of the Âryas as taught in the Schools of Âpastamba, Gautama, Vâsishtha, and Baudhâyana translated into English. Part I. Âpastamba and Gautama. Oxford 1879. LVII, 312 Pp. SBE. Vol. II. (2nd ed. Oxford 1897. LVII, 314 Pp.). Part II. Vâsiṣṭha and Baudhâyana. Oxford 1882. XLV, 360 Pp. SBE. Vol. XIV. Leitfaden für den Elementarcursus des Sanskrit. Mit übungsstücken und zwei Glossaren. Wien 1883. VII, 171 Pp. (2nd ed. seen through the press by Joh. NOBEL, Wien 1927; 4th reprint, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1981). An English edition based on the Leitfaden: Edward PERRY A Sanskrit Primer, Ginn and Company, Boston 1886, 230, 2 Pp. The Laws of Manu, translated with Extracts from seven Commentaries. Oxford 1886. XXXVIII, 620 Pp. SBE. Vol. XXV. Indische Paläographie von ca. 350 a. Chr. - c. 1300 p. Chr. Mit 17 Tafeln in Mappe. Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde I, 11, Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg 1896. 96, IV Pp. Indian Paleography (English translation edited with an Introductory Note by J. F. FLEET from the manuscript of BÜHLER), IA 33, 1904, Appendix 102 Pp. Reprint with an article on BÜHLER by F. Max MÜLLER, Indian Studies: Past & Present Vol. 1 No. 1, 1st ed. Debiprasad CHATTOPADHYAYA, Calcutta, 1959, 139 Pp. [MAX MÜLLER’s article reprinted from IA 27, 349–355]. 2nd ed. K. L. MUKHOPADHYAYA, Calcutta, 1962. भारतीय पुरा5ल7पशा#., Hindi translation by Mangal Nath Simha, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1966, xv, 224 Pp. On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet. 2nd revised ed. of Indian Studies No. III. Together with two Appendices on the Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet and of the so-called Letter-numerals of the Brāhmī. With 3 plates. XIII, 124 Pp. Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg 1898 [1st ed. SBKAW 132, 5 (1895) 1–90].

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER

155

Reprint, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, Vol. 33, Chowkhamba Amarabharati Prakashan, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1963.

II. WORKS EDITED, SUPERINTENDED ETC. 1.

Initiated and superintended editing of the Bombay Sanskrit Series together with F. KIELHORN (1868–1880). 2. Worked as one of the editors of a literary and critical supplement to the ÖMO (1884–1886). 3. Founded and co-edited WZKM 1–11, along with J. KARABACEK, D. H. MÜLLER, F. MÜLLER and L. REINISCH (1887–1897). [Founded the Oriental Institute of the Vienna University together with other Professors of Oriental languages at the University and with the assistance of the then Minister of Public Instructions (1886)]. 4. Founded and Edited, Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde (Encyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research) with the participation of R. GARBE, A. HILLEBRANDT, J. JOLLY, H. KERN, A. MACDONELL, E. J. RAPSON, J. S. SPEYER, T. ZACHARIAE, Trübner, Strassburg (1896–1898).

III. ESSAYS, REPORTS, LECTURES AND SMALLER ARTICLES 1. Comparative Linguistics and Mythology (1) On the Hindu god Parjanya, In: Transactions of the Philological Society, London (1859) 154–168. (2) METAΛΛAΩ, ZVS 8. Bd., 5. H. (1859) 365–369. (3) hliumunt, ZVS 9. Bd., 2./3. H. (1860) 235–238. (4) Zur Mythologie des Rig-Veda, I. Parjanya, Orient und Occident 1 (1862) 214–229. (5) θεός, Orient und Occident 1 (1862) 508–513. (6) Griechische Etymologien, Orient und Occident 2 (1864) 332–340. (7) Gothische Etymologien, Orient und Occident 2 (1864) 340–342. (8) Lateinische Etymologien, Orient und Occident 2 (1864) 749–751. (9) On the Origin of the Sanskrit Linguals, Madras Journal of Literature and Science, No. I - Third Series (1864) 116–136; Orient und Occident 3 (1864) 379–383 [German]. 2. Dharmaśāstra (10) On the Early Marriages of the Hindus, Madras Journal of Literature and Science No. I - Third Series (1864) 139–140. [read in the Asiatic Society Bombay, June 1863]. (11) A Translation of the Chapter on Ordeals, from the Vyávahára Mayukha, JASB 35 (1866) 14–49. (12) A notice of the Ҫaunaka Smṛiti, JASB 35 (1866) 149–165. (13) A Note on the Age of the Author of the Mitâksharâ, JBBRAS 9, No. 25 (1868) 134– 138, (Discussion on the paper read by BÜHLER JBBRAS 9, No. 26 (1869) LXXIVLXXVI.). (14) Über die Bestimmung der Bussen (prâyaśchitta’s) in Indien, Verhandlungen der zweiunddreissigsten Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wiesbaden, 26–29 September 1877, Leipzig (1878) 169. [Only a mention that the paper was read by BÜHLER].

156 (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY Einige Noten zu Böhtlingk’s Bemerkungen über Führer’s Ausgabe und meine Uebersetzung des Vasishṭhadharmaśâstra, ZDMG 39 (1885) 704–709. Einige Bemerkungen zu Böhtlingk’s Artikel über Âpastamba (Bd. XXXIX p. 517), ZDMG 40 (1886) 527–548. Einige weitere Bemerkungen zu Böhtlingk’s Artikeln über Vasishṭha, ZDMG 40 (1886) 699–705. Das Wergeld in Indien, Festgruss an Rudolf von Roth zum Doktor-Jubiläum 24. August 1893, Stuttgart (1893) 44–48. Professor J. Kirstes Collation des Textes der Yâjñavalkya-smṛiti und Analyse der Citate in Aparârkas Commentare, (ed.) BÜHLER, Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Classe, Band XLII, V, Wien (1893) 1–11. [KIRSTE, Kleine Schriften, 1993, 241–251].

3. Sanskrit and Prakrit Grammar and Lexicography (20) Notiz über die Grammatik des Ҫâkatâyana, Orient und Occident 2 (1864) 691–706; 3 (1864) 181–183; JBBRAS (Proc.) (1864–1866) xv-xvi. (21) The Deśíśabdasaṁgraha of Hemachandra, IA 2 (1873) 17–21. (22) On a Prakrit Glossary entitled Pâïyalachchhî, IA 2 (1873) 166–168. (23) The Author of the Pâiyalachchhî, IA 4 (1875) 59–60. (24) A note on the word Siddham used in Inscriptions, IA 10 (1881) 273. (25) The Pâiyalachchhî Nâmamâlâ, a Prakrit Kosha, by Dhanapâla. ed. with critical notes, an introduction and a glossary, Beiträge zur Kunde der Indogermanischen Sprachen 4, Göttingen (Festschrift Theodor BENFEY) (1878) 70–166a. (26) The Deśînâmamâlâ of Hemachandra, ed. with critical notes, a Glossary, and a historical introduction (with PISCHEL), Bombay Sanskrit Series, XVII, Part I Text and Critical Notes by PISCHEL (1880). [The planned glossary and the historical introduction by BÜHLER were never published]. (27) Ueber die Erklärung des Wortes âgama im Vâkyapadîya II. 1–6, ZDMG 36 (1882) 653–654. (28) Die Vaijayantî des Yâdavaprakâśa, ÖMO 10 (1884) 128. (29) Gleanings from Yâdavaprakâśa’s Vaijayantî, WZKM 1 (1887) 1–7. [No continuation published]. (30) Hiuen Tsiang’s Angaben über das Alter Pâṇini’s, ÖMO 11 (1885) 224–225. (31) A disputed meaning of the particles iti and cha, WZKM 1 (1887) 13–20. (32) Lexicographical Notes, WZKM 2 (1888) 86–91, 181–185. (33) Lexicographical Notes, WZKM 3 (1889) 365–366. (34) The Roots of the Dhâtupâṭha not found in Literature, WZKM 8 (1894) 17–42, 122–136; IA 23 (1894) 141–154, 250–255. [Partial Reprint STAAL J. F. (ed.) A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammarians, The MIT Press, 1972, 194–204]. (35) A Letter from Dr. M. A. STEIN about “Commentar zu Maṅkhakośa”, AKAW (1892) 109, 111–112. (36) Commission für die Herausgabe der Quellenschriften der indischen Lexikographie, AKAW (1893) 87–89.

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER (37)

157

A Note on the Royal Asiatic Society’s Ancient MS. of the Gaṇaratnamahodadhi, JRAS (1895) 247–248. Note on the Gaṇaratnamahodadhi, JRAS (1895) 504 [Corrections in the above note].

4. Manuscript Reports and Catalogues (38) Remarks on the Sanskrit Manuscripts in Madras, Madras Journal of Literature and Science, No. I - Third Series (1864) 72–85. (39) Aus einem Briefe von Herrn G. Bühler, Prof. in Bombay, Orient und Occident 3 (1864) 181–183. (40) Report of: Tour to Southern Marâṭha Country in search of Sanskrit manuscripts, ZDMG 22 (1868) 315–325. (41) Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1868–69, GOUGH (1878) 49– 53. (42) Account of the Money drawn for Sanskrit Manuscripts, Appendix A to the Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1869–70, GOUGH (1878) 71–74. (43) Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1870–71, GOUGH (1878) 75– 77. (44) Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1871–72, GOUGH (1878) 82– 84. (45) Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1872–73, GOUGH (1878) 100– 104. (46) Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1873–74, GOUGH (1878) 115– 120. [Abstract of the Report; The list of manuscripts collected was published as an Appendix to KIELHORN’s Report for 1880–81]. (47) [Letter] From G. BÜHLER, Esq., Educational Inspector, Northern Division, to the Director of Public Instruction, Bombay, dated Camp Vijalpur, the 19th April 1875, GOUGH (1878) 121–124. (48) Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1874–75, GOUGH (1878) 125– 134. (49) [Letter] From G. BÜHLER, Esq., Acting Educational Inspector, Northern Division, to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay, dated Surat, the 26th July 1869, GOUGH (1878) 138–145. [Remarks on the Manuscript Collection of the Rājā of Tanjore]. (50) Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Sanskrit Manuscripts made in Kaśmîr, Rajputana, and Central India, JBBRAS Extra Number (1877) 90, clxxi. [Report for the year 1875–76]. (51) Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1879–80. [Not available to me]. [No.52–63: Extracts from BÜHLER’s Reports of the search of Sanskrit manuscripts.] (52) Dr. Bühler’s Report on Sanskrit MSS. in Gujarat [1872–73], IA 2 (1873) 304–305. (53) Letter: on the Bhaṅḍâr of the Osval Jains at Jesalmer [On the discovery of Vikramânkacharita], IA 3 (1874) 89–90.

158 (54) (55) (56) (57) (58)

(59) (60)

(61) (62) (63) (64)

(65)

(66) (67) (68)

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY From Dr. Bühler’s Report on Sanskrit MSS. 1874–75, IA 4 (1875) 314–316. Sanskṛit MSS. Extract from Dr. G. Bühler’s preliminary Report on the results of the search for Sanskṛit MSS. in Kaśmîr, In: IA 5 (1876) 27–31. The Râjatarangiṇî (from Kaśmîr report), IA 6 (1877) 264–274. MSS. of the Mahâbhâshya from Kaśmîr, IA 7 (1878) 54–57. A letter dated, Bikanir, 14th February 1874 to Prof. WEBER which he presented to the Berlin Academy, Monatsberichte der kӧniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1874, 279–283. [Translated into English by S. P. PANDIT, Dr. Bühler on the celebrated Bhaṇḍâr of Sanskṛit MSS. at Jessalmir, IA 4 (1875) 81– 83.]. An Account of the tour through Western Rájpútáná in search of Sanskrit MSS., Proc. ASB (1874) 92–94. WEBER A. (ed.), Akademische Vorlesungen über Indische Literaturgeschichte, zweite vermehrte Auflage, Berlin (1876) 332–338, 367. [Extracts from BÜHLER’s letters]. WEBER A. (ed.), Indische Studien 14 (1876) 179–180, 402–408. Sanskrit in Kashmir, JBBRAS (Proc.) 12 (1876) xiii-xiv. [Only a mention of the paper read by BÜHLER]. Sanskṛit Manuscripts in Western India, IA 10 (1880) 43–46. [Extracts from the Report dated 8th June 1880]. Eine Notiz über einige Sanskrit MSS. aus Kaçmîr in der K. K. Hof-Bibliothek zu Wien, Monatsberichte der kӧniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1879, Berlin (1880) 200–202. Über ein altes kürzlich im Panjâb gefundenes Sanskṛit MS., Monatsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1881, Berlin (1882) 1145–1146. [Remarks by WEBER 1146–1148]. Ueber eine kürzlich für die Wiener Universität erworbene Sammlung von Sanskritund Prakrit- Handschriften, SBKAW 99 (1881) 563–579. Eine Reise durch die indische Wüste, Österreichische Rundschau, 1, 6 (1883) 517– 535. Two Lists of Sanskrit MSS. together with some remarks on my connexion with the Search for Sanskrit MSS., ZDMG 42 (1888) 530–559.

5. Poetic Literature (69) On the Age of the Naishadha-Charita of Śriharsha, JBBRAS 10 (1871–74) 31–37. (70) A Note on the History of the Sanskrit Literature, JBBRAS (Proc.) 10 (1871–74) xvi. [A brief abstract of the paper read on 10th August 1871]. (71) Additional Remarks on the Age of the Naishadhîya, JBBRAS 11 (1875) 279–287. [read in 1871, 1874]; IA 1 (1872) 30 [A brief account of the same]. (72) On the Chaṇḍikâśataka of Bâṇabhaṭṭa, IA 1 (1872) 111–115. (73) On the Vṛihatkathá of Kshemendra, IA 1 (1872) 302–309. (74) Abhinanda the Gauda, IA 2 (1873) 102–106. (75) On the Authorship of the Ratnâvalî, IA 2 (1873) 127–128.

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER (76) (77) (78)

(79) (80) (81) (82) (83)

(84)

159

Ueber das Zeitalter des kaśmîrischen Dichters Somadeva, SBKAW 110 (1885) 545– 558. A Note about the Paper “Ueber das Zeitalter des kaśmîrischen Dichters Somadeva” presented by BÜHLER, AKAW (1885) 39–40. Die indischen Inschriften und das Alter der indischen Kunstpoesie, SBKAW 122, 11 (1890) 1–98; [English translation GHATE, V. S. The Indian Inscriptions and the Antiquity of the Indian Artificial Poetry IA 42, (1913) 29–32, 137–148, 172–179, 188–193, 230–234, 243–249; First reprint Journal of Ancient Indian History, Vol. II (1968–69) and Vol. III (1969–70), University of Calcutta; Second reprint with the addition of some footnotes by D. C. SIRCAR, University of Calcutta (1970) 103.]. A Note about the above mentioned Paper presented by BÜHLER, AKAW (1890) 73–76. Contributions to the History of the Mahâbhârata (with J. KIRSTE), SBKAW 127, 12 Indian Studies No. II. (1892) 1–58. [KIRSTE, Kleine Schriften, 1993, 183–240]. Some remarks on “Beiträge zur Erforschung der Geschichte des Mahâbhârata”, AKAW (1892) 45–51. Ueber das Alter der Rasikasaṃjîvinî des Königs Arjunavarman, ZDMG 47 (1893) 92–95. Verhältnis der buddhistischen Jâtakas zu dem Panchatantra, Verhandlungen der Zweiundvierzigsten Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wien, 24–27 Mai 1893, Leipzig (1894) 504. [A brief paragraph mentioning BÜHLER’s remarks on the subject]. Apastamba’s Quotations from the Puranas, IA 25 (1896) 323–328.

6. Vedic Literature (85) MSS. of the Atharvaveda, IA 1 (1872) 129–130. (86) Maitrâyaṇīҫâkhâpratīkâni, Indische Studien, 13 (1873) 117–128. (87) The Recovery of a Sanskrit MS., Academy 24 (1883) 284–285; IA 13 (1884) 24–25. [About S. P. PANDIT’s paper on a manuscript of Sāyaṇa’s commentary on Kāṇva recension of Śukla Yajurveda]. (88) Miscellen., ÖMO 10 (1884) 32. (89) The Kâlâpas and the Maitrâyaṇîyas, WZKM 1 (1887) 345. (90) Ueber einige Lesarten in den aus dem Kâṭhaka entlehnten Abschnitten des Tâitt. Âraṇyaka (Nachtrag zu L. V. SCHRÖDER, Die Tübinger Kaṭha Handschriften), SBKAW 137, 4 (1898) 121–126. (91) A summary of the above paper, AKAW (1897) 113–115. 7. History, Geography and Historical Poems (92) Note on Valabhi, IA 1 (1872) 130. (93) Pushpamitra or Pushyamitra?, IA 2 (1873) 362–363. (94) Analysis of the first Seventeen Sargas of Bilhaṇa’s Vikramânkakâvya (From Dr. Bühler’s Introduction to the Vikramânkadevacharita), IA 5 (1876) 317–327. (95) An Additional Note on Hastakavapra-Astakampron, IA 7 (1878) 53–54.

160 (96) (97) (98) (99) (100) (101) (102) (103) (104) (105)

(106) (107) (108) (109) (110) (111) (112) (113) (114) (115)

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY On the Relationship between the Andhras and the Western Kshatrapas, IA 12 (1883) 272–274. Some Considerations on the History of Nepâl by BHAGWÂNLÂL INDRÂJÎ, ed. by BÜHLER, IA 13 (1884) 411–428 (see no. 202 and 273). The villages mentioned in the Gujarat Rathor Grants No. III and IV, IA 16 (1887) 100–101. Some Further Contributions to the Ancient Geography of Gujarat, IA 18 (1889) 176–178. A note on Harshavardhana’s Conquest of Nepal, IA 19 (1890) 40–41. The Dates of the Vaghela Kings of Gujarat, IA 21 (1892) 276–277. The origin of the town of Ajmer and of its name, WZKM 11 (1897) 51–56; IA 26 (1897) 162–164 [Reprinted from WZKM]. The villages in the Gujarat Rashṭrakuṭa Grants from Torkheḍe and Baroda, IA 26 (1897) 39–40. A Jaina Account of the End of the Vaghelas of Gujarat, IA 26 (1897) 194–195. Ueber das Navasâhasâṅkacharita des Padmagupta oder Parimala (with Th. ZACHARIAE), SBKAW 116 (1888) 583–630. [ZACHARIE, Kleine Schriften, 1977, 205–252; English tr. May S. BURGESS, IA (1907) 149–172]. A Note on “Ueber das Navasâhasâṅkacharita des Padmagupta”, AKAW (1888) 29–31. Das Sukṛitasaṁkîrtana des Arisiṁha, SBKAW 119, 7 (1889) 1–58. A Note on “Das Sukṛitasaṁkîrtana des Arisiṁha und des Amarapaṇḍita”, AKAW (1889) 54–55. The Jagaḍûcharita of Sarvâṇanda, a historical romance from Gujarât, SBKAW 126, 5 Indian Studies No. I. (1892) 1–74. A Note on “das Jagaḍûcharita des Sarvâṇanda”, AKAW (1891) 95–98. Dr. Stein’s discovery of a Jaina temple, described by Hiuen Tsiang, WZKM 4 (1890) 80–85. On the Origin of the Gupta-Valabhî Era, WZKM 5 (1891) 215–229. Dr. Stein’s researches in Kashmir, WZKM 5 (1891) 345–348. Remarks on a letter of Dr. M. A. STEIN, AKAW (1892) 109–112. Pṛthivírája Rásau, Proc. ASB (1893) 94–95.

8. Epigraphy Valabhī-Inscriptions: (116) A Grant of King Dhruvasena I. of Valabhî, IA 4 (1875) 104–107. (117) A Grant of King Guhasena of Valabhî, IA 4 (1875) 174–176. (118) Grants from Valabhî, IA 5 (1876) 204–212. (119) Further Valabhî Grants, IA 6 (1877) 9–21. (120) Additional Valabhî Grants, Nos. IX-XIV, IA 7 (1878) 66–86. (121) Valabhî Grants, No. XV - A Grant of Śîlâditya I. dated Samvat 290, IA 9 (1880) 237–239. (122) Valabhî Grants, No. XVI - A Forged Grant of Dharasena II, Dated Śaka Saṁvat 400, IA 10 (1881) 277–286.

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER (123) (124) (125) (126) (127)

(128) (129) (130) (131) (132) (133)

(134) (135) (136)

(137) (138) (139)

161

Valabhî Grants, No. XVII - A Grant of Śîlâditya II, Dated Saṁvat 352, IA 11 (1882) 305–309. Valabhi Inscriptions, (continued from Vol. XI. p.309) No. XVIII, A New Grant of Dharasena IV, IA 15 (1886) 335–340. Ueber eine Inschrift des Kӧnigs Dharasena IV. von Valabhî, SBKAW 111 (1886) 1037–1056. A Note on “Inschrift des Kӧnigs Dharasena IV von Valabhî”, AKAW (1885) 71– 72. Additional Remarks [on Valabhī Grants] WZKM 7 (1893) 300–301. Gurjara-Inscr.: Inscriptions from Kâvî (I. The Grant of Jayabhaṭa), IA 5 (1876) 109–115 (see no. 137). Gurjara Grants, No. II. The Umetâ Grant of Dadda II., IA 7 (1878) 61–66. Eine neue Inschrift des Gurjara Kӧnigs Dadda II., SBKAW 114 (1887) 169–209. A Note on “Eine neue Inschrift des Gurjara-Kӧnigs Dadda II. von Broach”, AKAW (1887) 12–13. Gurjara Inscriptions No. III, A New Grant of Dadda II. or Prasantaraga, IA 17 (1888) 183–200. Kleine Mittheilungen, WZKM 4 (1890) 259–261. [I. About history of Gujarat and Indian numerals gleaned from three plates from Gujarat deciphered by H. H. DHRUVA; II. On sculptures and architectural remains discovered by A. STEIN]. Zwei neue Landschenkungen des Gurjara-Fürsten Dadda-Praśāntarāga IV., SBKAW 135 (1896) 1–12. A Note on “Zwei neue Landschenkungen des Gurjara-Kӧnigs Dadda-Praśāntarāga IV.”, AKAW (1896) 58. Two Grants of Dadda IV. Prasantaraga; [Chedi-]Samvat 392., EpInd 5 (1898–99) 37–41. Rāṣṭrakūṭa-Inscr.: Inscriptions from Kâvî (II. The Grant of Govindarâja), IA 5 (1876) 144–152 (see no. 128). A New Grant of Govinda III., Râṭhor, IA 6 (1877) 59–72. Râṭhor Grants No. III. - A Grant of Dhruva III., of Bharoch, IA 12 (1883) 179–190. [with E. HULTZSCH].

Jhālrāpāṭhan-Inscr.: (140) Two Inscriptions from Jhâlrâpâṭhan, IA 5 (1876) 180–183.

(141)

Śīlāhāra-Inscr.: A Grant of Chhittarâjadeva, Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara of the Koṅkaṇa, IA 5 (1876) 276– 281.

162

(142) (143)

(144) (145) (146) (147) (148) (149) (150) (151) (152) (153) (154) (155) (156) (157) (158) (159) (160) (161) (162) (163) (164) (165) (166) (167) (168) (169) (170) (171) (172)

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY Girnār- and Vastupāla-Inscr.: Inscriptions on the Gate of Girnar (revised and translated), ASWI No. 5, ed. J. F. FLEET and H. V. LIMAYA, Bombay (1876) 15–19. Vastupala Tejapala’s Temple over West Door (Text revised by BÜHLER), ASWI No. 5, ed. J. F. FLEET and H. V. LIMAYA, Bombay (1876) 21–23. Aśoka- (Maurya) Inscr.: Three New Edicts of Aśoka, IA 6 (1877) 149–160. The Three New Edicts of Aśoka Second Notice, IA 7 (1878) 141–160. Transcripts of the Dehli and Allahabad pillar edicts of Aśoka, IA 13 (1884) 306–310. Texts of the Asoka edicts on the Delhi Mirat pillar and of the separate edicts on the Allahabad pillar, IA 19 (1890) 122–126. The Barabar and Nagarjuni hill cave inscriptions of Asoka and Dasaratha, IA 20 (1891) 361–365. Asoka’s Sahasram, Rupnath and Bairat edicts, IA 22 (1893) 299–306. [Abstract published in Academy 45 (1894) 39]. Pada, The Writer of Asoka’s Siddapur Edicts, IA 26 (1897) 334–335. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 37 (1883) 87–108. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 37 (1883) 253–281. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 37 (1883) 422–434. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 37 (1883) 572–593. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 39 (1885) 489–508. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 40 (1886) 127–142. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 41 (1887) 1–29. Die Shâhbâzgarhi Version der Felsenedicte Aśoka’s, ZDMG 43 (1889) 128–176. Die Mansehra Version der Felsenedicte Aśoka’s, ZDMG 43 (1889) 273–296. Aśoka’s Felsenedicte, ZDMG 44 (1890) 702–704. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 45 (1891) 144–159. Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 46 (1892) 54–92. Nachtrag zu Aśoka’s viertem Säulenedicte, ZDMG 46 (1892) 539–540. Aśoka’s Râjûkas oder Lajukas, ZDMG 47 (1893) 466–471. Nachträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 48 (1894) 49–64. Felsenedicte Aśoka’s, ÖMO 11 (1885) 178. Inschriftenfunde in den Northwest Provinces, ÖMO 12 (1886) 134. A New version of Aśoka’s Rock-edicts, Academy 28 (1885) 154. A New Asoka Inscription, Academy 33 (1888) 100–101. Dr. Burgess’s New Impressions of the Rock-Edicts of Aśoka, Academy 35 (1889) 170; 190 [a correction]. Aśoka’s Thirteenth and Fourteenth Edicts in the Mansehra version, Academy 36 (1889) 291–292. A New Variety of the Southern Maurya Alphabet [Bhattiprolu inscription], Academy 41 (1892) 521–522; JRAS (1892) 602–609. [An abridged version of WZKM 6 (1892) 148–156] (see no. 175 and 182).

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER (173) (174) (175) (176) (177) (178) (179) (180) (181) (182) (183) (184) (185) (186) (187)

(188) (189) (190)

163

The Aśoka Pillar in the Terai, Academy 47 (1895) 360; WZKM 9 (1895) 175–177 (see no. 186 and 190). Transcripts and Translations of the Dhauli and Jaugada versions of Aśoka’s edicts, Archaeological Survey of Southern India 1, ed. BURGESS, (1887) 114–131. A New Variety of the Southern Maurya Alphabet, WZKM 6 (1892) 148–156 (see no. 172 and 182). The Aśoka Edicts from Mysore, WZKM 7 (1893) 29–32. [Siddapur Edicts]. The Discovery of a new fragment of Aśoka’s Edict XIII at Junāgaḍh, WZKM 8 (1894) 318–320. The Sohgaurâ Copperplate, WZKM 10 (1896) 138–148; IA 25 (1896) 261–266. Words from Aśoka’s Edicts found in Pali, WZKM 12 (1898) 75–76. Aśoka’s Twelfth Rock-edict according to the Shâhbâzgarhî version, EpInd 1 (1892) 16–20. The Pillar Edicts of Aśoka, EpInd 2 (1894) 245–274. The Bhattiprolu Inscriptions, EpInd 2 (1894) 323–329 (see no. 172 and 175). Aśoka’s Rock Edicts according to the Girnar, Shâhbâzgarhî, Kâlsî and Mansehra versions, EpInd 2 (1894) 447–472. The Siddapura Edicts of Asoka, EpInd 3 (1894–95) 134–142. The Asoka Edicts of Paderia and Nigliva, EpInd 5 (1898–99) 1–6. A new Edict of Asoka, JRAS (1895) 691–692. [A short notice of Academy 47 (1895) 360] (see no. 173 and 190). The Discovery of Buddha’s Birthplace, The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, London (1897) 319–320; JRAS (1897) 429–433. A Notice on “Felsenedicte des Aśoka”, AKAW (1888) 53–55. XIII und XIV Edicte der Mansehra Version von Aśoka’s Felsenedicten, AKAW (1890) 94–95. Aśoka-Inschrift aus dem nepalesischen Terai, AKAW (1897) 1–7 (see no. 173 and 186).

Cālukya-Inscr.: Eleven Land-grants of the Chalukyas of Aṇhilvâḍ, A Contribution to the History of Gujarat, IA 6 (1877) 180–214. (192) Note on the Dohad Inscription, IA 10 (1881) 161–162. (193) An inscription from Dabhoi, EpInd 1 (1892) 20–32. (194) The Cintra Praśasti of the reign of Sarangadeva, EpInd 1 (1892) 271–287. (195) The Vadnagar Prasasti of the reign of Kumarapala (with Vajeshankar G. OJHÂ), EpInd 1 (1892) 293–305. (196) Śridhara’s Devapattana Praśasti (with Vajeshankar G. OZHA), EpInd 2 (1894) 437– 446. (197) The Somnâthpattan Praśasti of Bhâva Bṛihaspati (by Vajeshaṅkar G. OZHÂ, with an Introduction and a translation into English from the Gujarati rendering of Ozhā by BÜHLER) WZKM 3 (1889) 1–19. (191)

164

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Kṣatrapa-Inscr.: The inscription of Rudradâman at Junâgaḍh (with BHAGAVÂNLÂL Indraji Paṇḍit), IA 7 (1878) 257–263. [Translated from Gujarati with an additional note at the end]. (199) A New Kshatrapa Inscription, IA 10 (1881) 157–158. (200) Dr. BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRÂJÎ’s interpretation of the Mathura Lion Pillar Inscription, JRAS (1894) 525–540. (198)

(201)

Nikumbha-Inscr.: An Inscription of Govana III. of the Nikumbhavaṁśa, IA 8 (1879) 39–42.

Nepalese-Inscr.: (202) Inscriptions from Nepal (with BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRAJI), IA 9 (1880) 163–194 (see no. 97 and 273). Cave-Inscr.: (203) Inscriptions from the Cave-temples of Western India, ASWI ed. JAS. BURGESS and BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI PANDIT, Bombay (1881) 3–100 (Many notes and translations by BÜHLER). (204) Many Inscriptions from Western Cave-temples along with the Vakataka Copperplates, ASWI Vol. IV, ed. BURGESS, London (1883) 82–140. [BÜHLER has assisted in revising the readings of the inscriptions of the Nashik caves and others]. (205) Inscriptions (Nânâghâṭ Inscriptions, Kaṇheri Inscriptions and Dâśa Avatâra Inscription at Elurâ), ASWI Vol. V, ed. BURGESS, London (1883) Chapter XII 59–89. Jaggayyapeṭṭā-Inscr.: (206) Inscriptions from the Stupa of Jaggayyapeṭṭâ, IA 11 (1882) 256–259. Dhiniki-Inscr.: (207) The Dhiniki Grant of King Jâikadeva, together with some remarks on the Vikrama, Valabhî and Gupta Eras, IA 12 (1883) 151–156. [No remarks. No continuation.]. Vaḍhvāna-Inscr.: (208) A Grant of Dharaṇivarâha of Vaḍhvân, IA 12 (1883) 190–195. Vākāṭaka-Inscr.: (209) The Ilichpur Grant of Pravarasena II of Vâkâṭaka, IA 12 (1883) 239–247.

(210)

Walā-Seal-Inscr.: An Inscribed Royal Seal from Walâ, IA 12 (1883) 274–275.

(211)

Amarāvatī-Inscr.: Nachtrag zu den Amarâvatî-Inschriften, ZDMG 38 (1884) 683–684.

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER

(212)

(213) (214)

(215) (216) (217)

(218) (219) (220) (221) (222) (223) (224) (225) (226) (227) (228) (229) (230) (231) (232) (233)

165

British Museum-Inscr.: Two Sanskrit Inscriptions in the British Museum, IA 13 (1884) 250–252. Hāritīputta-Sātakaṇṇi-Inscr.: The Banawasi inscription of Haritiputa-Satakamni, IA 14 (1885) 331–334. Epigraphic discoveries in Mysore, WZKM 9 (1895) 328–332; Academy 48 (1895) 229–230; JRAS (1895) 900–904 (same as no. 266). Sendraka-Inscr.: Eine Sendraka Inschrift aus Gujarat, SBKAW 114 (1887) 217–230. Eine Sendraka-Inschrift aus Gujarat, AKAW (1887) 24–25. Bagumra Grant of Nikumbhallasakti; Dated in the Year 406, IA 18 (1889) 265–270. Jaina-Inscr.: On the authenticity of the Jaina tradition, WZKM 1 (1887) 165–180. Further proofs of the authenticity of the Jaina Tradition: I. A new Jaina inscription, dated in the year 7 of Kanishka, WZKM 2 (1888) 141–146 (see no. 226). Further proofs for the authenticity of the Jaina tradition, II. Four new Jaina inscriptions from the Kankâlî Tîla, WZKM 3 (1889) 233–240 (see no. 227). New Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ, WZKM 4 (1890) 169–173; Academy 37 (1890) 270–271; American Journal of Archaeology 6 (1890) 176–178 (see no. 233). Further Proofs of the Authenticity of the Jaina Tradition, WZKM 4 (1890) 313– 331 (see no. 233). New Excavations in Mathurâ, WZKM 5 (1891) 59–63 (see no. 228). Dr. Führer’s Excavations at Mathurâ, WZKM 5 (1891) 175–180 (see no. 229 and 236). Epigraphic discoveries at Mathurâ, WZKM 10 (1896) 171–174; Academy 49 (1896) 367–368; JRAS (1896) 578–581. A New Kanishka Inscription, Academy 33 (1888) 155. [A short notice of WZKM 2 (1888) 141–146 (no. 219)]. Dr. Führer’s New Jaina Inscriptions from Mathurâ, Academy 35 (1889) 381–382. [An abstract of WZKM 3 (1889) 233–240 (no. 220)]. New Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ, Academy 39 (1891) 141–142. [Similar to WZKM 5 (1891) 59–63 (no. 223)]. Further Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ, Academy 39 (1891) 373–374. [Similar to WZKM 5 (1891) 175–180 (no. 224)] (see no. 236). The Jaina inscription in the temple of Baijnath at Kîragrâma, EpInd 1 (1892) 118–119. On the pedestal of an image of Parśvanatha, in the Kangra Bazar, EpInd 1 (1892) 120. Prasasti of the temple of Vadipura-Parsvanatha at Pattana, EpInd 1 (1892) 319–324. New Jaina inscriptions from Mathura, EpInd 1 (1892) 371–393. [Edition and translation of the inscriptions mentioned in WZKM 4 (1890) 169–173; Academy 37 (1890) 270–271 (no. 221); WZKM 4 (1890) 313–331 (no. 222)].

166

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(234) Further Jaina inscriptions from Mathura, EpInd 1 (1892) 393–397. (235) The Jaina inscriptions from Śatrumjaya, EpInd 2 (1894) 34–86. (236) Further Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ, EpInd 2 (1894) 195–212. [Edition and translation of the inscriptions mentioned in WZKM 5 (1891) 175–180 (no. 224) and Academy 39 (1891) 373–374 (no. 229)]. Harṣa-Inscr.: (237) A new inscription of Śrî-Harsha, WZKM 2 (1888) 268–269. (238) A New Inscription of Śrî Harsha, Academy 34 (1888) 90. [A short notice of the discovery of Madhuban copper plate]. (239) The Madhuban Copper-plate of Harsha Dated Samvat 25, EpInd 1 (1892) 67–75. (240) Epigraphic Discoveries in India, Academy 49 (1896) 266 (same as no. 269). (241) A Second Landgrant of Harṣa of Kanauj, WZKM 10 (1896) 80–81. (242) Banskhera Plate of Harsha, EpInd 4 (1896–97) 208–211. Baijnāth-Praśasti: Die geschichtlichen Teile der beiden grossen Inschriften von Baijanâth, Festgruss an Otto von BÖHTLINGK zum Doktor-Jubiläum 3. Februar 1888, Stuttgart, (1888) 10–19. (244) The Two Praśastis of Baijnâth, EpInd 1 (1892) 97–118. (245) An additional note on the Baijnâth Praśastis, EpInd 2 (1894) 482–483. (243)

Lakkhā-Maṇḍal-Pr.: (246) The Praśasti of the temple of Lakkhâ Maṇḍal at Maḍhâ, in Jaunsâr Bâwar, EpInd 1 (1892) 10–15. (247) Some further notes on the Grant of Śivaskandavarman, EpInd 2 (1894) 485–486 (same as no. 254). Dewala-Pr.: (248) The Dewal Praśasti of Lalla the Chhinda, EpInd 1 (1892) 75–85. Kangra-Pr.: (249) The Kangra Jvalamukhi Prasasti, EpInd 1 (1892) 190–195. Udeypur-Pr.: (250) The Udepur Prasasti of the Kings of Malva, EpInd 1 (1892) 222–238.

(251)

Pehoa-Pr.: An undated Prasasti from the reign of Mahendrapala of Kanauj, EpInd 1 (1892) 242–250.

(252)

Mathurā-Pr.: The Mathura Prasasti of the reign of Vijayapala Dated Samvat 1207, EpInd 1 (1892) 287–293.

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER

167

Pallava-Inscr.: (253) A Prâkrit Grant of the Pallava king Śivaskandavarman, EpInd 1 (1892) 2–10. (254) Some further notes on the Grant of Śivaskandavarman, EpInd 2 (1894) 485–486 (same as no. 247).

(255)

Andhra-Inscr.: A New inscription of the Andhra king Yajñaśrî Gautamiputra, EpInd 1 (1892) 95– 96.

Pehevā-Inscr.: (256) The Peheva inscription from the temple of Garîbnâth, EpInd 1 (1892) 184–190. Toramāṇa-Śāha-Inscr.: (257) The New inscription of Toramana Shaha, EpInd 1 (1892) 238–241. Gräco-buddhistische-Inscr.: (258) The date of the Graeco-buddhist Pedestal from Hashtnagar, IA 20 (1891) 394. (259) A New inscribed Graeco-Buddhist Pedestal, IA 25 (1896) 311–312. (260) Photographien eines graeco-buddhistischen Piedestals des Museums zu Lahore, AKAW (1896) 33, 64–67. (261) Indian Inscriptions to be Read from Below, WZKM 5 (1891) 230–232. Sanchi-Inscr.: (262) The Inscriptions on the Sanchi Stupas, WZKM 7 (1893) 291–293; Academy 43 (1893) 527. (263) Votive inscriptions from the Sânchi Stûpas, EpInd 2 (1894) 87–116. (264) Further inscriptions from Sânchi, EpInd 2 (1894) 366–408. Pabhosa-Inscr.: (265) Further Pâbhosâ inscriptions, EpInd 2 (1894) 480–482. Kadamba-Inscr.: (266) Epigraphic discoveries in Mysore, WZKM 9 (1895) 328–332; Academy 48 (1895) 229–230; JRAS (1895) 900–904 (same as no. 214). Taxila-Inscr.: (267) Taxila Plate of Patika, EpInd 4 (1896–97) 54–57. Swāt-Inscr.: (268) Three Buddhist inscriptions in Swat, EpInd 4 (1896–97) 133–135. (269) Epigraphic Discoveries in India, Academy 49 (1896) 266 (same as no. 240). (270) A new Kharoṣṭhī inscription from Swāt, WZKM 10 (1896) 55–58; IA 25 (1896) 141– 142.

168 (271)

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY An additional Note on Dr. Waddell’s Kaldarra Inscription, WZKM 10 (1896) 327.

Tirath und Shakardarra-Inscr.: (272) Mittheilungen über neue epigraphische Funde aus dem nordwestlichen Indien, AKAW (1898) 12–17. (273) Twenty-three inscriptions from Nepâl, Collected at the expense of H. H. the Nawâb of Junâgaḍh. Together with some considerations on the chronology of Nepal, BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRÂJÎ (ed.), Translated from Gujarâtî, (Printed at the Education Society’s Press) Bombay (1885) 1–53. [Reprinted from IA 9 (1880) 163–194, no. 202 and IA 13 (1884) 411–428, no. 97]. (274) Preliminary Note on a Recently Discovered Śākya Inscription, JRAS (1898) 387– 389. 9. Palaeography and Numismatics (275) On the Ancient Nâgarî Numerals by BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRAJI, Translated from Gujarati along with a “Postscript”, IA 6 (1877) 42–48. (276) On the Origin of the Indian Alphabets and Numerals, IA 11 (1882) 268–270. (277) Memorandum by Professor G. Bühler, JRAS (1882) 339–346. (278) Indo-Pâli Alphabets, Leidener Oriental Congress (1883) 1, 120–121. (279) The Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet, WZKM 9 (1895) 44–66; IA 24 (1895) 285– 292, 311–316. (280) On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet, SBKAW 132, 5 Indian Studies No. III. (1895) 1–90 [2nd revised edition Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg 1898]. (281) Remarks on “On the Origin of the Brāhma Alphabet”, AKAW (1894) 87–91. (282) A Notice of addendum to Indian Studies No. III on p. 7ff and p. 14, AKAW (1895) 24. (283) Palaeographical Remarks on the Horiuzi Palm-leaf MSS., The Ancient Palm-leaves containing the Pragñâ-pâramitâ-hridaya-sûtra and the Ushnîsha-vigaya-dhâranî, ed. MAX MÜLLER F. and BUNYIU NANJIO, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series Vol. I, Part III, Oxford (1884) Appendix, 63–95, 6 Tables. (284) Ein zweites Sanskrit Palmblatt-Manuscript aus Japan, ÖMO 11 (1885) 68. (285) A Note on a Second old Sanskrit Palmleaf Manuscript from Japan, IA 14 (1885) 228–229 [Translated from ÖMO 11, 68]. (286) The New Sanskrit MS. from Mingai, WZKM 5 (1891) 103–110; JRAS (1891) 689– 694. (287) A further Note on the Mingai or Bower MS. WZKM 5 (1891) 302–310. (288) The New Sanskrit MS. from Mingai, Academy 40 (1891) 138–139. (289) New Manuscripts from Kashgar, WZKM 7 (1893) 260–273. (290) New Manuscripts from Kashgar, Verhandlungen der Zweiundvierzigsten Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wien, 24–27 Mai 1893, Leipzig (1894) 502. [A small paragraph mentioning BÜHLER’s remarks on the Weber manuscript]. (291) The Kharoshṭhî Inscriptions on the Indo-Grecian Coins, WZKM 8 (1894) 193–207.

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER

169

(292) Specimina der Faullenzer, AKAW (1897) 48–52. 10. Jaina Literature (293) The Digambara Jainas, IA 7 (1878) 28–29. [From Bombay Administration Report 1875–76]. (294) Über die indische Secte der Jaina, Almanach der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien (1887) 225–268. [On the Indian Sect of the Jainas, translated and edited with an Outline of Jaina Mythology by J. BURGESS, London, 1903, IV, 79]. (295) Über das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemacandra, AKAW (1888) 89–95. (296) Über das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemacandra, Denkschriften der kaiserlische Akademie der Wissenschaften Vol. xxxvii, Wien (1889) 171–258; Simultaneously also issued as a separate reprint, Wien, 1–90. [The Life of Hemacandrācārya, translated by M. PATEL, Singhi Jaina Series No. 11, Calcutta (1936) 103; cf. AKAW (1888) 89–95]. (297) Indische Erbauungsstunden, Deutsche Revue 19, 4 (1894) 223–232. (298) A Legend of the Jaina Stūpa at Mathurā, SBKAW 137, 2 (1898) 1–14. (299) A Legend of the Jaina Stupa at Mathura, IA 27 (1898) 49–54. [Extract from SBKAW 137, 2]. (300) A Notice on “Eine Legende von dem Jaina-Stūpa in Mathurā”, AKAW (1897) 99– 100. 11. Buddhism (301) A letter to Prof. Davids (Buddhist Sects in Inscriptions), JRAS (1892) 597–598. (302) Indian Pandits in Tibet, Journal of the Buddhist Text Society 1, 2, x (1893). [Wrongly mentioned in JOLLY’s bibliography. BÜHLER is not the author of the article]. (303) Buddha’s Quotation of a Gâthâ by Sanatkumâra, JRAS (1897) 585–588. 12. Archaeology (304) Jaina Sculptures from Mathurâ, Transactions of the London Congress (1892) 219– 221. (305) Specimens of Jaina Sculptures from Mathura, EpInd 2 (1894) 311–323. (306) Some Notes on Past and Future Archaeological Explorations in India, JRAS (1895) 649–660. 13. Obituary (307) Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji, IA 17 (1888) 292–297. (308) Original Text of the Letters from Foreign Scholars concerning Professor Whitney, JAOS 19, Appendix I. (1898), 81–82 [Obituary]. 14. Diverse (309) Index to MAX MÜLLER’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans, Second revised edition Williams &

170

(310) (311) (312) (313) (314) (315) (316)

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY Norgate, Edinburgh (1860) 589–607. [Reprint: Bhuvaneshwari Ashrama, Allahabad (1912) 305–322]. Sanskrit College in Bombay, ÖMO 10 (1884) 96. Madras Sanskrit and Vernacular Text Society, ÖMO 12 (1886) 116. Ein neuer Ehrendoctor der Wiener Universität, ÖMO 12 (1886) 190. Sanskrit at Lahore, WZKM 2 (1888) 271–272. Vote of Thanks to the President, Transactions of the London Congress (1892) 37–41. Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, AKAW (1896) 90–93. Vorwort zu Gurupūjākaumudī, Festgabe zum Fünfzigjährigen Doctorjubiläum Albrecht WEBER, Leipzig (1896).

IV. REVIEWS AND NOTICES (1) (2) (3) (4)

(5) (6) (7) (8)

(9)

(10) (11)

(12)

1884 P. [T.] ZACHARIAE, Beiträge zur Indischen Lexicographie, Berlin, 1883; ÖMO 10 (1884) 29. BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRÂJÎ, The Hâthigumphâ and three other Inscriptions in the Udayagiri caves near Cuttack, Leide, 1884; ÖMO 10 (1884) 231–232. R. G. BHÂṆḌÂRKAR, Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Presidency in the year 1882–83, Bombay, 1884; ÖMO 10 (1884) 249–250, 277–278. P. PETERSON, Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle 1882– 83, JBBRAS XVI., No. 41; IA 13 (1884) 28–32. 1885 E. BURNOUF, Le Bhâgavata Purâṇa, ou histoire poétique de Krichṇa, Paris; ÖMO 11 (1885) 20. E. HULTZSCH, The Baudhâyanadharmaśâstra, Leipzig, 1884; ÖMO 11 (1885) 47–48. V. S. ÂPTE, The Student’s English-Sanskrit Dictionary, Poona, 1884; ÖMO 11 (1885) 97–98. P. PETERSON, A Second Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle, JBBRAS Extra-number, 1884; ÖMO 11 (1885) 115–117, 135–136; IA 14 (1885) 352–355. J. JOLLY, Outlines of an [a] History of the Hindu Law of Partition, Inheritance and Adoption, Tagore Law Lectures 1883, Calcutta, 1885; First Notice, ÖMO 11 (1885) 154–155; IA 14 (1885) 323–324. C. CAPPELLER, Pracaṇḍapâṇḍava, ein Drama des Râjaçekhara, Strassburg, 1885; ÖMO 11 (1885) 281–282. R. G. BHÂṆḌÂRKAR, Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Presidency, in the year 1882–1883, Bombay, 1884; IA 14 (1885) 62–64. (Reprinted from ÖMO 10 (1884) 249–250, 277–278). 1886 J. JOLLY, Outlines of an History of the Hindu Law of Partition, Inheritance and Adoption, Tagore Law Lectures 1883; Second Notice, ÖMO 12 (1886) 16–18.

A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE WRITINGS OF GEORG BÜHLER (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

171

M. A. BARTH, Inscriptions sanscrites du Cambodge, Paris, 1885; ÖMO 12 (1886) 40, 55–56. P. PETERSON and Paṇḍit DURGÂPRASÂDA, The Subhâshitâvali of Vallabhadeva, Bombay Sanskrit Series No. XXX; ÖMO 12 (1886) 99–100. A. WEBER, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der kӧniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, fünfter Band, Berlin, 1886; ÖMO 12 (1886) 114–115. Śankar P. PAṆḌIT, Neue Ausgabe des Atharvaveda; ÖMO 12 (1886) 134. Cecil BENDALL, A Journey of Literary and Archaeological Research in Nepal and Northern India, during the winter of 1884–5, Cambridge, 1886; ÖMO 12 (1886) 172– 174.

1887 V. G. OJHA, Bhâvnagar Prâchîn Śodhsaṁgraha, Bhâvnagar, 1885; WZKM 1 (1887) 244–246. (19) P. PETERSON, A third Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Circle, 1884–1886, JBBRAS Extra-number, Bombay, 1887; WZKM 1 (1887) 319–324. (20) S. P. PAṆḌIT, The Gaüḍavaha, a historical poem in Prâkṛit, by Vâkpati, Bombay Sanskrit Series XXXIV, Bombay, 1887; First notice, WZKM 1 (1887) 324–330. [see no. 24]. (18)

1888 M. WINTERNITZ, The Âpastambîya Gṛihyasûtra with extracts from the commentaries of Haradatta and Sudarśanârya, Vienna, 1887; WZKM 2 (1888) 83–85. (22) E. HULTZSCH, Preliminary Report from Sept. 21st 1887 to Jan. 31st 1888; WZKM 2 (1888) 269–270. (23) A. FÜHRER, Abstract Report from 1st October 1887 to Jan. 31st 1888; WZKM 2 (1888) 270–271. (24) S. P. PAṆḌIT, The Gaüdavaho, a Prakrit poem by Vâkpati; Second notice, WZKM 2 (1888) 328–340.

(21)

(25)

1889 R. G. BHANDARKAR, Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Presidency, during the year 1883–84, Bombay Government Central Press, 1887; IA 18 (1889) 184–192. [Additional note, IA 19, 410].

1890 (26) Edward C. SACHAU, Alberuni’s India: an account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India, about A. D. 1030. An English Edition with Notes and Indices, London, 1888; IA 19 (1890) 381–410. (see Beruni’s Indica, IA 15, 31–32 and Trübner’s Record 1885, 63 f.). (27) Additional note to the Review of Dr. Bhâṇḍârkar’s Report for 1883–84, IA 19 (1890) 410. [see no. 25].

172

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1891 (28) J. JOLLY, The Minor Lawbooks, Pt. I. Nârada. Bṛihaspati, Sacred Books of the East XXXIII, Oxford, 1889; WZKM 5 (1891) 49–51. (29) E. HULTZSCH, South-Indian Inscriptions, Tamil and Sanskrit, Madras, 1890; WZKM 5 (1891) 154–160. (30) M. BLOOMFIELD, The Kauśika-Sûtra of the Atharvaveda, with Extracts from the Commentaries of Dârila and Keśava [Vol. XIV of the JAOS], New-Haven, 1890; WZKM 5 (1891) 244–247.

(31)

1892 M. A. STEIN, Kalhaṇa’s Râjataraṅgiṇî, or Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir, Vol. I., Bombay, 1892; WZKM 6 (1892) 335–338.

(32)

1893 M. A. STEIN, Kalhana’s Râjataraṅginî: or, Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir, Vol. I., Bombay; Academy 43 (1893) 176–177. (from WZKM 6, 335–338).

(33)

1894 Note on Professor Jacobi’s Age of the Veda and on Professor Tilak’s Orion; IA 23 (1894) 238–249.

1895 (34) E. HULTZSCH, Epigraphia Indica, and Record of the Archaeological Survey of India, Vol. III, Calcutta, 1893–4; Academy 47 (1895) 240–241. (35) G. G.[H.] OJHA, Prâcîn Lipimâlâ. The Palaeography of India; JRAS (1895) 246– 247. 1896 (36) P. PETERSON, A Fourth Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle, 1886–1892, JBBRAS Extra number, Vol. XVIII, Bombay, 1894 and A Fifth Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle, April 1892– March 1895, Bombay, 1896; WZKM 10 (1896) 328–333.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS (1) Writings of BÜHLER have been divided into the following sections: (I) Independent Works (II) Essays, Reports, Lectures and Smaller Articles (III) Reviews and Notices (IV) BÜHLER’s handwritten material (2) Writings have been arranged chronologically and alphabetically in each of the sections. Multiple numbers of items in a year have been denoted by letters ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, etc. Since the number of articles pertaining to the year 1892 crosses 26, the articles have been denoted by ‘aa’, ‘ab’… ‘ba’, etc. (3) The titles of the articles: (a) Spellings and diacritical marks have been retained par original. (b) Articles (a, an, the) have been considered in the alphabetical order.

I. INDEPENDENT WORKS 1858A

Das griechische Secundärsuffix THΣ. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Wortbildung. Göttingen 1858. 58 Pp.

1867–1884B

A Digest of the Hindu Law of Inheritance, Partition, and Adoption; Embodying the Replies of the Śâstris in the Courts of the Bombay Presidency with Introductions and Notes (Ed. with Raymond WEST) Book I. Inheritance. Bombay, Printed for Government. 1867. LXX, 362 Pp. Book II Partition. Bombay 1869. XXXVII, 118 Pp. 3rd ed. Introduction (Section II) to Book I, Bombay 1884. LXXXIX, 1449 Pp. in 2 Vol.

1868–1891C

Pañchatantra ed. with Notes, The Department of Public Instruction, Bombay, Bombay Sanskrit Series: 1868 No. I, Pañchatantra IV and V, 84, 16 Pp. (4th ed. 1891. 83 Pp.). No. III, Pañchatantra II and III, 86, 14 Pp. (4th ed. 1891. 89 Pp.).

1891Ca 1891Cb 1868–1894D

आप#त%बीयधम+सू.म ्। Aphorisms on the Sacred Law of the Hindus by Âpastamba. ed., with a Translation and Notes, by Order of the Government of Bombay. [No translation.].

173

174

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY Part I. Containing the Text, with Critical Notes and an Index of the Sûtras. Bombay 1868. 118 Pp. (2nd revised edition with extracts from the commentary, containing the various readings of the Hiraṇyakeśi Dharmasûtra, Bombay 1892. XII, 154 Pp. Bombay Sanskrit Series XLIV.). Part II. Containing Extracts from the Sanskrit Commentary of Haradatta, called Ujjvalâ, together with a Sanskrit Index. Bombay 1871. 8, 154 Pp. (2nd ed. together with a Verbal Index to the Sūtras, by T. BLOCH, Bombay 1894, 163 Pp. Bombay Sanskrit Series L.). 3rd ed. Passed through the press by M. G. SHASTRI, Bombay 1932. Reprint Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune 2002. iv, 280.

1868–1888E

Third Reading Book for the Use of High Schools, With a Glossary, prepared by Vishnu P. PANDIT under the superintendence of G. BÜHLER, Bombay 1868. 122, 103 Pp. (3rd ed. Bombay 1888. 128, 96 Pp.). A Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts contained in the Private Libraries of Gujarât, Kâṭhiâvâd, Kachchh, Sindh, and Khândeś.

1871F

Fascicle I. Compiled under the superintendence of G. BÜHLER. By order of the Government. Bombay 1871. IX, 245 Pp.

1872Fa

Fascicle II. Poetry. Bombay 1872. VIII, 135 Pp.

1872Fb

Fascicle III. Bombay 1872. 141 Pp.

1873F

Fascicle IV. Bombay 1873. 277 Pp.

1873G

The Daśakumâracharita of Daṇḍin, ed., with Critical and Explanatory Notes. Part I. Bombay 1873. Bombay Sanskrit Series X. 2, 92, 42 Pp. (2nd ed. Bombay 1887. 8, 79, 36 Pp.).

1875H

The Vikramânkadevacharita, a Life of King Vikramâditya-Tribhuvanamalla of Kalyâṇa, composed by his Vidyâpati Bilhaṇa, ed. with an Introduction. Bombay 1875. 46, 168, 2 Pp. Bombay Sanskrit Series XIV.

1879–1897I

The Sacred Laws of the Âryas as taught in the Schools of Âpastamba, Gautama, Vâsishtha, and Baudhâyana translated into English.

1879Ia

Part I. Âpastamba and Gautama. Oxford 1879. LVII, 312 Pp. SBE. Vol. II. (2nd ed. Oxford 1897. LVII, 314 Pp.).

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

175

1882Ib

Part II. Vâsiṣṭha and Baudhâyana. Oxford 1882. XLV, 360 Pp. SBE. Vol. XIV.

1883J

Leitfaden für den Elementarcursus des Sanskrit. Mit übungsstücken und zwei Glossaren. Wien 1883. VII, 171 Pp. (2nd ed. seen through the press by Joh. NOBEL, Wien 1927; 4th reprint, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1981). An English edition based on the Leitfaden: Edward PERRY A Sanskrit Primer, Ginn and Company, Boston 1886, 230, 2 Pp.

1886K

The Laws of Manu, translated with Extracts from seven Commentaries. Oxford 1886. XXXVIII, 620 Pp. SBE. Vol. XXV.

1896L

Indische Paläographie von ca. 350 a. Chr. - c. 1300 p. Chr. Mit 17 Tafeln in Mappe. Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde I, 11, Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg 1896. 96, IV Pp.

1904–1962M

Indian Paleography (English translation edited with an Introductory Note by J. F. FLEET from the manuscript of BÜHLER), IA 33, 1904, Appendix 102 Pp. Reprint with an article on BÜHLER by F. MAX MÜLLER, Indian Studies: Past & Pressent Vol. 1 No. 1, 1st ed. Debiprasad CHATTOPADHYAYA, Calcutta, 1959, 139 Pp. [MAX MÜLLER’s article reprinted from IA 27, 349–355]. 2nd ed. K. L. MUKHOPADHYAYA, Calcutta, 1962. भारतीय पुरा5ल7पशा#.,

Hindi translation by Mangal Nath Simha, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1966, xv, 224 Pp.

1895–1898N

On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet. 2nd revised ed. of Indian Studies No. III. Together with two Appendices on the Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet and of the so-called Letter-numerals of the Brāhmī. With 3 plates. XIII, 124 Pp. Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg 1898 [1st ed. SBKAW 132, 5 (1895) 1–90]. Reprint, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, Vol. 33, Chowkhamba Amarabharati Prakashan, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1963.

II. ESSAYS, REPORTS, LECTURES AND SMALLER ARTICLES 1859a

METAΛΛAΩ, ZVS 8. Bd., 5. H. (1859) 365–369.

1859b

On the Hindu god Parjanya, In: Transactions of the Philological Society, London (1859) 154–168.

176

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1860a

hliumunt, ZVS 9. Bd., 2./3. H. (1860) 235–238.

1860b

Index to MAX MÜLLER’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans, Second revised edition Williams & Norgate, Edinburgh (1860) 589–607. [Reprint: Bhuvaneshwari Ashrama, Allahabad (1912) 305–322].

1862a

Zur Mythologie des Rig-Veda, I. Parjanya, Orient und Occident 1 (1862) 214–229.

1862b

θεός, Orient und Occident 1 (1862) 508–513.

1864a

Aus einem Briefe von Herrn G. Bühler, Prof. in Bombay, Orient und Occident 3 (1864) 181–183.

1864b

Gothische Etymologien, Orient und Occident 2 (1864) 340–342.

1864c

Griechische Etymologien, Orient und Occident 2 (1864) 332–340.

1864d

Lateinische Etymologien, Orient und Occident 2 (1864) 749–751.

1864e

Notiz über die Grammatik des Ҫâkatâyana, Orient und Occident 2 (1864) 691–706; 3 (1864) 181–183; JBBRAS (Proc.) (1864–1866) xv-xvi.

1864f

On the Early Marriages of the Hindus, Madras Journal of Literature and Science No. I - Third Series (1864) 139–140. [read in the Asiatic Society Bombay, June 1863].

1864g

On the Origin of the Sanskrit Linguals, Madras Journal of Literature and Science, No. I - Third Series (1864) 116–136; Orient und Occident 3 (1864) 379–383 [German].

1864h

Remarks on the Sanskrit Manuscripts in Madras, Madras Journal of Literature and Science, No. I - Third Series (1864) 72–85.

1866a

A notice of the Ҫaunaka Smṛiti, JASB 35 (1866) 149–165.

1866b

A Translation of the Chapter on Ordeals, from the Vyávahára Mayukha, JASB 35 (1866) 14–49.

1868a

A Note on the Age of the Author of the Mitâksharâ, JBBRAS 9, No. 25 (1868) 134–138, (Discussion on the paper read by BÜHLER JBBRAS 9, No. 26 (1869) LXXIV-LXXVI.).

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

177

1868b

Report of: Tour to Southern Marâṭha Country in search of Sanskrit manuscripts, ZDMG 22 (1868) 315–325.

1871–1874

On the Age of the Naishadha-Charita of Śriharsha, JBBRAS 10 (1871–74) 31–37.

1871–1874a

A Note on the History of the Sanskrit Literature, JBBRAS (Proc.) 10 (1871–74) xvi. [A brief abstract of the paper read on 10th August 1871].

1872a

MSS. of the Atharvaveda, IA 1 (1872) 129–130.

1872b

Note on Valabhi, IA 1 (1872) 130.

1872c

On the Chaṇḍikâśataka of Bâṇabhaṭṭa, IA 1 (1872) 111–115.

1872d

On the Vṛihatkathá of Kshemendra, IA 1 (1872) 302–309.

1873a

Abhinanda the Gauda, IA 2 (1873) 102–106.

1873b

Dr. Bühler’s Report on Sanskrit MSS. in Gujarat [1872–73], IA 2 (1873) 304–305.

1873c

Maitrâyaṇīҫâkhâpratīkâni, Indische Studien, 13 (1873) 117–128.

1873d

On a Prakrit Glossary entitled Pâïyalachchhî, IA 2 (1873) 166–168.

1873e

On the Authorship of the Ratnâvalî, IA 2 (1873) 127–128.

1873f

Pushpamitra or Pushyamitra?, IA 2 (1873) 362–363.

1873g

The Deśíśabdasaṁgraha of Hemachandra, IA 2 (1873) 17–21.

1874a

An Account of the tour through Western Rájpútáná in search of Sanskrit MSS., Proc. ASB (1874) 92–94.

1874b

A letter dated, Bikanir, 14th February 1874 to Prof. WEBER which he presented to the Berlin Academy, Monatsberichte der kӧniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1874, 279–283. [Translated into English by S. P. PANDIT, Dr. Bühler on the celebrated Bhaṇḍâr of Sanskṛit MSS. at Jessalmir, IA 4 (1875) 81–83.].

1874c

Letter: on the Bhaṅḍâr of the Osval Jains at Jesalmer [On the discovery of Vikramânkacharita], IA 3 (1874) 89–90.

178

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1875a

A Grant of King Dhruvasena I. of Valabhî, IA 4 (1875) 104–107.

1875b

A Grant of King Guhasena of Valabhî, IA 4 (1875) 174–176.

1875c

Additional Remarks on the Age of the Naishadhîya, JBBRAS 11 (1875) 279–287. [read in 1871, 1874]; IA 1 (1872) 30 [A brief account of the same].

1875d

From Dr. Bühler’s Report on Sanskrit MSS. 1874–75, IA 4 (1875) 314– 316.

1875e

The Author of the Pâiyalachchhî, IA 4 (1875) 59–60.

1876a

A Grant of Chhittarâjadeva, Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara of the Koṅkaṇa, IA 5 (1876) 276–281.

1876b

Analysis of the first Seventeen Sargas of Bilhaṇa’s Vikramânkakâvya (From Dr. Bühler’s Introduction to the Vikramânkadevacharita), IA 5 (1876) 317–327.

1876c

Sanskṛit MSS. Extract from Dr. G. Bühler’s preliminary Report on the results of the search for Sanskṛit MSS. in Kaśmîr, In: IA 5 (1876) 27–31.

1876d

Grants from Valabhî, IA 5 (1876) 204–212.

1876e

Inscriptions from Kâvî (I. The Grant of Jayabhaṭa), IA 5 (1876) 109–115.

1876f

Inscriptions from Kâvî (II. The Grant of Govindarâja), IA 5 (1876) 144–152.

1876g

Inscriptions on the Gate of Girnar (revised and translated), ASWI No. 5, ed. J. F. FLEET and H. V. LIMAYA, Bombay (1876) 15–19.

1876h

Sanskrit in Kashmir, JBBRAS (Proc.) 12 (1876) xiii-xiv. [Only a mention of the paper read by BÜHLER].

1876i

Two Inscriptions from Jhâlrâpâṭhan, IA 5 (1876) 180–183.

1876j

Vastupala Tejapala’s Temple over West Door (Text revised by BÜHLER), ASWI No. 5, ed. J. F. FLEET and H. V. LIMAYA, Bombay (1876) 21–23.

1876k

WEBER A. (ed.), Akademische Vorlesungen über Indische Literaturgeschichte, zweite vermehrte Auflage, Berlin (1876) 332–338, 367. [Extracts from BÜHLER’s letters].

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

179

1876l

WEBER A. (ed.), Indische Studien 14 (1876) 179–180, 402–408.

1877a

A New Grant of Govinda III., Râṭhor, IA 6 (1877) 59–72.

1877b

Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Sanskrit Manuscripts made in Kaśmîr, Rajputana, and Central India, JBBRAS Extra Number (1877) 90, clxxi. [Report for the year 1875–76].

1877c

Eleven Land-grants of the Chalukyas of Aṇhilvâḍ, A Contribution to the History of Gujarat, IA 6 (1877) 180–214.

1877d

Further Valabhî Grants, IA 6 (1877) 9–21.

1877e

On the Ancient Nâgarî Numerals by BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRAJI, Translated from Gujarati along with a “Postscript”, IA 6 (1877) 42–48.

1877f

The Râjatarangiṇî (from Kaśmîr report), IA 6 (1877) 264–274.

1877g

Three New Edicts of Aśoka, IA 6 (1877) 149–160.

1877h

Über die Bestimmung der Bussen (prâyaśchitta’s) in Indien, Verhandlungen der zweiunddreissigsten Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wiesbaden, 26–29 September 1877, Leipzig (1878) 169. [Only a mention that the paper was read by BÜHLER].

1878a

Account of the Money drawn for Sanskrit Manuscripts, Appendix A to the Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1869–70, GOUGH (1878) 71–74.

1878b

Additional Valabhî Grants, Nos. IX-XIV, IA 7 (1878) 66–86.

1878c

An Additional Note on Hastakavapra-Astakampron, IA 7 (1878) 53–54.

1878d

[Letter] From G. BÜHLER, Esq., Acting Educational Inspector, Northern Division, to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay, dated Surat, the 26th July 1869, GOUGH (1878) 138–145. [Remarks on the Manuscript Collection of the Rājā of Tanjore].

1878e

[Letter] From G. BÜHLER, Esq., Educational Inspector, Northern Division, to the Director of Public Instruction, Bombay, dated Camp Vijalpur, the 19th April 1875, GOUGH (1878) 121–124.

1878f

Gurjara Grants, No. II. The Umetâ Grant of Dadda II., IA 7 (1878) 61–66.

180

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1878g

MSS. of the Mahâbhâshya from Kaśmîr, IA 7 (1878) 54–57.

1878h

Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1868–69, GOUGH (1878) 49–53.

1878i

Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1870–71, GOUGH (1878) 75–77.

1878j

Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1871–72, GOUGH (1878) 82–84.

1878k

Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1872–73, GOUGH (1878) 100–104.

1878l

Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1873–74, GOUGH (1878) 115–120. [Abstract of the Report; The list of manuscripts collected was published as an Appendix to KIELHORN’s Report for 1880–81].

1878m

Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1874–75, GOUGH (1878) 125–134.

1878n

The Digambara Jainas, IA 7 (1878) 28–29. [From Bombay Administration Report 1875–76].

1878o

The inscription of Rudradâman at Junâgaḍh (with BHAGAVÂNLÂL Indraji Paṇḍit), IA 7 (1878) 257–263. [Translated from Gujarati with an additional note at the end].

1878p

The Pâiyalachchhî Nâmamâlâ, a Prakrit Kosha, by Dhanapâla. ed. with critical notes, an introduction and a glossary, Beiträge zur Kunde der Indogermanischen Sprachen 4, Göttingen (Festschrift Theodor BENFEY) (1878) 70–166a.

1878q

The Three New Edicts of Aśoka Second Notice, IA 7 (1878) 141–160.

1879a

An Inscription of Govana III. of the Nikumbhavaṁśa, IA 8 (1879) 39–42.

1879b

Eine Notiz über einige Sanskrit MSS. aus Kaçmîr in der K. K. Hof-Bibliothek zu Wien, Monatsberichte der kӧniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1879, Berlin (1880) 200–202.

1880a

Inscriptions from Nepal (with BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRAJI), IA 9 (1880) 163–194.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

181

1880b

Sanskṛit Manuscripts in Western India, IA 10 (1880) 43–46. [Extracts from the Report dated 8th June 1880].

1880c

The Deśînâmamâlâ of Hemachandra, ed. with critical notes, a Glossary, and a historical introduction (with PISCHEL), Bombay Sanskrit Series XVII, Part I Text and Critical Notes by PISCHEL (1880). [The planned glossary and the historical introduction by BÜHLER were never published. This work is included in this bibliography merely because BÜHLER’s name appears as the co-editor on its title page.]

1880d

Valabhî Grants, No. XV - A Grant of Śîlâditya I. dated Samvat 290, IA 9 (1880) 237–239.

1881a

A New Kshatrapa Inscription, IA 10 (1881) 157–158.

1881b

A note on the word Siddham used in Inscriptions, IA 10 (1881) 273.

1881c

Inscriptions from the Cave-temples of Western India, ASWI ed. JAS. BURGESS and BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI PANDIT, Bombay (1881) 3–100 (Many notes and translations by BÜHLER).

1881d

Note on the Dohad Inscription, IA 10 (1881) 161–162.

1881e

Über ein altes kürzlich im Panjâb gefundenes Sanskṛit MS., Monatsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1881, Berlin (1882) 1145–1146. [Remarks by WEBER 1146–1148].

1881f

Ueber eine kürzlich für die Wiener Universität erworbene Sammlung von Sanskrit- und Prakrit- Handschriften, SBKAW 99 (1881) 563–579.

1881g

Valabhî Grants, No. XVI - A Forged Grant of Dharasena II, Dated Śaka Saṁvat 400, IA 10 (1881) 277–286.

1882a

Inscriptions from the Stupa of Jaggayyapeṭṭâ, IA 11 (1882) 256–259.

1882b

Memorandum by Professor G. Bühler, JRAS (1882) 339–346.

1882c

On the Origin of the Indian Alphabets and Numerals, IA 11 (1882) 268–270.

1882d

Ueber die Erklärung des Wortes âgama im Vâkyapadîya II. 1–6, ZDMG 36 (1882) 653–654.

182

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1882e

Valabhî Grants, No. XVII - A Grant of Śîlâditya II, Dated Saṁvat 352, IA 11 (1882) 305–309.

1883a

(Various inscriptions from western cave-temples along with the Vakataka copperplates) ASWI Vol. IV, ed. BURGESS, London (1883) 82–140. [BÜHLER has assisted in revising the readings of the inscriptions of the Nashik caves and others].

1883b

A Grant of Dharaṇivarâha of Vaḍhvân, IA 12 (1883) 190–195.

1883c

An Inscribed Royal Seal from Walâ, IA 12 (1883) 274–275.

1883d

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 37 (1883) 87–108.

1883e

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 37 (1883) 253–281.

1883f

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 37 (1883) 422–434.

1883g

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 37 (1883) 572–593.

1883h

Eine Reise durch die indische Wüste, Österreichische Rundschau, 1, 6 (1883) 517–535.

1883i

Indo-Pâli Alphabets, Leidener Oriental Congress (1883) 1, 120–121.

1883j

On the Relationship between the Andhras and the Western Kshatrapas, IA 12 (1883) 272–274.

1883k

Râṭhor Grants No. III. - A Grant of Dhruva III., of Bharoch, IA 12 (1883) 179–190. [with E. HULTZSCH].

1883l

The Dhiniki Grant of King Jâikadeva, together with some remarks on the Vikrama, Valabhî and Gupta Eras, IA 12 (1883) 151–156. [No remarks. No continuation].

1883m

The Ilichpur Grant of Pravarasena II of Vâkâṭaka, IA 12 (1883) 239– 247.

1883n

Inscriptions (Nânâghâṭ Inscriptions, Kaṇheri Inscriptions and Dâśa Avatâra Inscription at Elurâ), ASWI Vol. V, ed. BURGESS, London (1883) Chapter XII 59–89.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

183

1883–1884

The Recovery of a Sanskrit MS., Academy 24 (1883) 284–285; IA 13 (1884) 24–25. [About S. P. PANDIT’s paper on a manuscript of Sāyaṇa’s commentary on Kāṇva recension of Śukla Yajurveda].

1884a

Die Vaijayantî des Yâdavaprakâśa, ÖMO 10 (1884) 128.

1884b

Miscellen., ÖMO 10 (1884) 32.

1884c

Nachtrag zu den Amarâvatî-Inschriften, ZDMG 38 (1884) 683–684.

1884d

Palaeographical Remarks on the Horiuzi Palm-leaf MSS., The Ancient Palm-leaves containing the Pragñâ-pâramitâ-hridaya-sûtra and the Ushnîsha-vigaya-dhâranî, ed. MAX MÜLLER F. and BUNYIU NANJIO, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series Vol. I, Part III, Oxford (1884) Appendix, 63–95, 6 Tables.

1884e

Sanskrit College in Bombay, ÖMO 10 (1884) 96.

1884f

Some Considerations on the History of Nepâl by BHAGWÂNLÂL INDRÂJÎ, ed. by BÜHLER, IA 13 (1884) 411–428.

1884g

Transcripts of the Dehli and Allahabad pillar edicts of Aśoka, IA 13 (1884) 306–310.

1884h

Two Sanskrit Inscriptions in the British Museum, IA 13 (1884) 250–252.

1885a

A New version of Aśoka’s Rock-edicts, Academy 28 (1885) 154.

1885b

A Note about the Paper “Ueber das Zeitalter des kaśmîrischen Dichters Somadeva” presented by BÜHLER, AKAW (1885) 39–40.

1885c

A Note on “Inschrift des Kӧnigs Dharasena IV von Valabhî”, AKAW (1885) 71–72.

1885d

A Note on a Second old Sanskrit Palmleaf Manuscript from Japan, IA 14 (1885) 228–229 [Translated from ÖMO 11, 68].

1885e

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 39 (1885) 489– 508.

1885f

Ein zweites Sanskrit Palmblatt-Manuscript aus Japan, ÖMO 11 (1885) 68.

184

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1885g

Einige Noten zu Böhtlingk’s Bemerkungen über Führer’s Ausgabe und meine Uebersetzung des Vasishṭhadharmaśâstra, ZDMG 39 (1885) 704– 709.

1885h

Felsenedicte Aśoka’s, ÖMO 11 (1885) 178.

1885i

Hiuen Tsiang’s Angaben über das Alter Pâṇini’s, ÖMO 11 (1885) 224–225.

1885j

The Banawasi inscription of Haritiputa-Satakamni, IA 14 (1885) 331–334.

1885k

Twenty-three inscriptions from Nepâl, Collected at the expense of H. H. the Nawâb of Junâgaḍh. Together with some considerations on the chronology of Nepal, BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRÂJÎ (ed.), Translated from Gujarâtî, (Printed at the Education Society’s Press) Bombay (1885) 1–53. [Reprinted from IA 9 (1880) 163–194, and IA 13 (1884) 411–428].

1885l

Ueber das Zeitalter des kaśmîrischen Dichters Somadeva, SBKAW 110 (1885) 545–558.

1886a

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 40 (1886) 127–142.

1886b

Ein neuer Ehrendoctor der Wiener Universität, ÖMO 12 (1886) 190.

1886c

Einige Bemerkungen zu Böhtlingk’s Artikel über Âpastamba (Bd. XXXIX p. 517), ZDMG 40 (1886) 527–548.

1886d

Einige weitere Bemerkungen zu Böhtlingk’s Artikeln über Vasishṭha, ZDMG 40 (1886) 699–705.

1886e

Inschriftenfunde in den Northwest Provinces, ÖMO 12 (1886) 134.

1886f

Madras Sanskrit and Vernacular Text Society, ÖMO 12 (1886) 116.

1886g

Ueber eine Inschrift des Kӧnigs Dharasena IV. von Valabhî, SBKAW 111 (1886) 1037–1056.

1886h

Valabhi Inscriptions, (continued from Vol. XI. p. 309) No. XVIII, A New Grant of Dharasena IV, IA 15 (1886) 335–340.

1887a

A disputed meaning of the particles iti and cha, WZKM 1 (1887) 13–20.

1887b

A Note on “Eine neue Inschrift des Gurjara-Kӧnigs Dadda II. von Broach”, AKAW (1887) 12–13.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

185

1887c

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 41 (1887) 1–29.

1887d

Eine neue Inschrift des Gurjara Kӧnigs Dadda II., SBKAW 114 (1887) 169–209.

1887e

Eine Sendraka-Inschrift aus Gujarat, AKAW (1887) 24–25.

1887f

Eine Sendraka Inschrift aus Gujarat, SBKAW 114 (1887) 217–230.

1887g

Gleanings from Yâdavaprakâśa’s Vaijayantî, WZKM 1 (1887) 1–7. [No continuation published].

1887h

On the authenticity of the Jaina tradition, WZKM 1 (1887) 165–180.

1887i

The Kâlâpas and the Maitrâyaṇîyas, WZKM 1 (1887) 345.

1887j

Transcripts and Translations of the Dhauli and Jaugada versions of Aśoka’s edicts, Archaeological Survey of Southern India 1, ed. BURGESS, (1887) 114–131.

1887k

Über die indische Secte der Jaina, Almanach der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien (1887) 225–268. [On the Indian Sect of the Jainas, translated and edited with an Outline of Jaina Mythology by J. BURGESS, London, 1903, IV, 79].

1887l

The villages mentioned in the Gujarat Rathor Grants No. III and IV, IA 16 (1887) 100–101.

1888a

A New Asoka Inscription, Academy 33 (1888) 100–101.

1888b

A New Inscription of Śrî Harsha, Academy 34 (1888) 90. [A short notice of the discovery of Madhuban copper plate].

1888c

A new inscription of Śrî-Harsha, WZKM 2 (1888) 268–269.

1888d

A New Kanishka Inscription, Academy 33 (1888) 155. [A short notice of WZKM 2 (1888) 141–146].

1888e

A Note on “Ueber das Navasâhasâṅkacharita des Padmagupta”, AKAW (1888) 29–31.

1888f

A Notice on “Felsenedicte des Aśoka”, AKAW (1888) 53–55.

186

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1888g

Die geschichtlichen Teile der beiden grossen Inschriften von Baijanâth, Festgruss an Otto von BÖHTLINGK zum Doktor-Jubiläum 3. Februar 1888, Stuttgart, (1888) 10–19.

1888h

Further proofs of the authenticity of the Jaina Tradition: I. A new Jaina inscription, dated in the year 7 of Kanishka, WZKM 2 (1888) 141–146.

1888i

Gurjara Inscriptions No. III, A New Grant of Dadda II. or Prasantaraga, IA 17 (1888) 183–200.

1888j

Lexicographical Notes, WZKM 2 (1888) 86–91, 181–185.

1888k

Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji (Obituary), IA 17 (1888) 292–297.

1888l

Sanskrit at Lahore, WZKM 2 (1888) 271–272.

1888m

Two Lists of Sanskrit MSS. together with some remarks on my connexion with the Search for Sanskrit MSS., ZDMG 42 (1888) 530–559.

1888n

Über das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemacandra, AKAW (1888) 89–95.

1888o

Ueber das Navasâhasâṅkacharita des Padmagupta oder Parimala (with Th. ZACHARIAE), SBKAW 116 (1888) 583–630. [ZACHARIE, Kleine Schriften, 1977, 205–252; English tr. May S. BURGESS, IA 36, 1907, 149–172].

1889a

A Note on “Das Sukṛitasaṁkîrtana des Arisiṁha und des Amarapaṇḍita”, AKAW (1889) 54–55.

1889b

Aśoka’s Thirteenth and Fourteenth Edicts in the Mansehra version, Academy 36 (1889) 291–292.

1889c

Bagumra Grant of Nikumbhallasakti; Dated in the Year 406, IA 18 (1889) 265–270.

1889d

Das Sukṛitasaṁkîrtana des Arisiṁha, SBKAW 119, 7 (1889) 1–58.

1889e

Die Mansehra Version der Felsenedicte Aśoka’s, ZDMG 43 (1889) 273–296.

1889f

Die Shâhbâzgarhi Version der Felsenedicte Aśoka’s, ZDMG 43 (1889) 128–176.

1889g

Dr. Burgess’s New Impressions of the Rock-Edicts of Aśoka, Academy 35 (1889) 170; 190 [a correction].

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

187

1889h

Dr. Führer’s New Jaina Inscriptions from Mathurâ, Academy 35 (1889) 381–382; American Journal of Archaeology 5 (1889) 482. [An abstract of WZKM 3 (1889) 233–240].

1889i

Further proofs for the authenticity of the Jaina tradition, II. Four new Jaina inscriptions from the Kankâlî Tîla, WZKM 3 (1889) 233–240.

1889j

Lexicographical Notes, WZKM 3 (1889) 365–366.

1889k

Some Further Contributions to the Ancient Geography of Gujarat, IA 18 (1889) 176–178.

1889l

The Somnâthpattan Praśasti of Bhâva Bṛihaspati (by Vajeshaṅkar G. OZHÂ, with an Introduction and a translation into English from the Gujarati rendering of Ozhā by BÜHLER) WZKM 3 (1889) 1–19.

1889m

Über das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemacandra, Denkschriften der kaiserlische Akademie der Wissenschaften Vol. xxxvii Wien (1889) 171–258; Simultaneously also issued as a separate reprint, Wien, 1–90. [The Life of Hemacandrācārya, translated by M. PATEL, Singhi Jaina Series No. 11, Calcutta (1936) 103; cf. AKAW (1888) 89–95].

1890a

A Note about the paper “Die indischen Inschriften und das Alter der indischen Kunstpoesie, SBKAW 122, 11 (1890) 1–98”, AKAW (1890) 73– 76.

1890b

A note on Harshavardhana’s Conquest of Nepal, IA 19 (1890) 40–41.

1890c

Aśoka’s Felsenedicte, ZDMG 44 (1890) 702–704.

1890d

Die indischen Inschriften und das Alter der indischen Kunstpoesie, SBKAW 122, 11 (1890) 1–98. [English translation GHATE V. S. The Indian Inscriptions and the Antiquity of the Indian Artificial Poetry, IA 42, (1913) 29–32, 137–148, 172– 179, 188–193, 230–234, 243–249; First reprint Journal of Ancient Indian History, Vol. II (1968–69) and Vol. III (1969–70), University of Calcutta; Second reprint with the addition of some footnotes by D. C. SIRCAR, University of Calcutta (1970) 103.].

1890e

Dr. Stein’s discovery of a Jaina temple, described by Hiuen Tsiang, WZKM 4 (1890) 80–85.

188

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1890f

Further Proofs of the Authenticity of the Jaina Tradition, WZKM 4 (1890) 313–331.

1890g

Kleine Mittheilungen, WZKM 4 (1890) 259–261. [I. About history of Gujarat and Indian numerals gleaned from three plates from Gujarat deciphered by H. H. DHRUVA; II. On sculptures and architectural remains discovered by A. STEIN].

1890h

New Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ, WZKM 4 (1890) 169–173; Academy 37 (1890) 270–271; American Journal of Archaeology 6 (1890) 176– 178.

1890i

Texts of the Asoka edicts on the Delhi Mirat pillar and of the separate edicts on the Allahabad pillar, IA 19 (1890) 122–126.

1890j

XIII und XIV Edicte der Mansehra Version von Aśoka’s Felsenedicten, AKAW (1890) 94–95.

1891a

A further Note on the Mingai or Bower MS. WZKM 5 (1891) 302–310.

1891b

A Note on “das Jagaḍûcharita des Sarvâṇanda”, AKAW (1891) 95–98.

1891c

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 45 (1891) 144–159.

1891d

Dr. Führer’s Excavations at Mathurâ, WZKM 5 (1891) 175–180.

1891e

Dr. Stein’s researches in Kashmir, WZKM 5 (1891) 345–348.

1891f

Further Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ, Academy 39 (1891) 373–374; American Journal of Archaeology 7 (1891) 114ff. [Similar to WZKM 5 (1891) 175–180].

1891g

Indian Inscriptions to be Read from Below, WZKM 5 (1891) 230–232.

1891h

New Excavations in Mathurâ, WZKM 5 (1891) 59–63.

1891i

New Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ, Academy 39 (1891) 141–142. [Similar to WZKM 5 (1891) 59–63].

1891j

On the Origin of the Gupta-Valabhî Era, WZKM 5 (1891) 215–229.

1891k

The Barabar and Nagarjuni hill cave inscriptions of Asoka and Dasaratha, IA 20 (1891) 361–365.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

189

1891l

The date of the Graeco-buddhist Pedestal from Hashtnagar, IA 20 (1891) 394.

1891m

The New Sanskrit MS. from Mingai, Academy 40 (1891) 138–139.

1891n

The New Sanskrit MS. from Mingai, WZKM 5 (1891) 103–110; JRAS (1891) 689–694.

1892aa

A Letter from Dr. M. A. STEIN about “Commentar zu Maṅkhakośa”, AKAW (1892) 109, 111–112.

1892ab

A letter to Prof. Davids (Buddhist Sects in Inscriptions), JRAS (1892) 597–598.

1892ac

A New inscription of the Andhra king Yajñaśrî Gautamiputra, EpInd 1 (1892) 95–96.

1892ad

A New Variety of the Southern Maurya Alphabet [Bhattiprolu inscription], Academy 41 (1892) 521–522; JRAS (1892) 602–609. [An abridged version of WZKM 6 (1892) 148–156].

1892ae

A New Variety of the Southern Maurya Alphabet, WZKM 6 (1892) 148–156.

1892af

A Prâkrit Grant of the Pallava king Śivaskandavarman, EpInd 1 (1892) 2–10.

1892ag

An inscription from Dabhoi, EpInd 1 (1892) 20–32.

1892ah

An undated Prasasti from the reign of Mahendrapala of Kanauj, EpInd 1 (1892) 242–250.

1892ai

Aśoka’s Twelfth Rock-edict according to the Shâhbâzgarhî version, EpInd 1 (1892) 16–20.

1892aj

Beiträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 46 (1892) 54–92.

1892ak

Contributions to the History of the Mahâbhârata (with J. KIRSTE), SBKAW 127, 12 Indian Studies No. II. (1892) 1–58. [KIRSTE, Kleine Schriften, 1993, 183–240].

1892al

Further Jaina inscriptions from Mathura, EpInd 1 (1892) 393–397.

1892am

Jaina Sculptures from Mathurâ, Transactions of the London Congress (1892) 219–221.

190

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1892an

Nachtrag zu Aśoka’s viertem Säulenedicte, ZDMG 46 (1892) 539–540.

1892ao

New Jaina inscriptions from Mathura, EpInd 1 (1892) 371–393. [Edition and translation of the inscriptions mentioned in WZKM 4 (1890) 169– 173; Academy 37 (1890) 270–271; WZKM 4 (1890) 313–331].

1892ap

On the pedestal of an image of Parśvanatha, in the Kangra Bazar, EpInd 1 (1892) 120.

1892aq

Prasasti of the temple of Vadipura-Parsvanatha at Pattana, EpInd 1 (1892) 319–324.

1892ar

Remarks on a letter of Dr. M. A. STEIN, AKAW (1892) 109–112.

1892as

Some remarks on “Beiträge zur Erforschung der Geschichte des Mahâbhârata”, AKAW (1892) 45–51.

1892at

The Cintra Praśasti of the reign of Sarangadeva, EpInd 1 (1892) 271–287.

1892au

The Dates of the Vaghela Kings of Gujarat, IA 21 (1892) 276–277.

1892av

The Dewal Praśasti of Lalla the Chhinda, EpInd 1 (1892) 75–85.

1892aw

The Jagaḍûcharita of Sarvâṇanda, a historical romance from Gujarât, SBKAW 126, 5 Indian Studies No. I. (1892) 1–74.

1892ax

The Jaina inscription in the temple of Baijnath at Kîragrâma, EpInd 1 (1892) 118–119.

1892ay

The Kangra Jvalamukhi Prasasti, EpInd 1 (1892) 190–195.

1892az

The Madhuban Copper-plate of Harsha Dated Samvat 25, EpInd 1 (1892) 67–75.

1892ba

The Mathura Prasasti of the reign of Vijayapala Dated Samvat 1207, EpInd 1 (1892) 287–293.

1892bb

The New inscription of Toramana Shaha, EpInd 1 (1892) 238–241.

1892bc

The Peheva inscription from the temple of Garîbnâth, EpInd 1 (1892) 184–190.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

191

1892bd

The Praśasti of the temple of Lakkhâ Maṇḍal at Maḍhâ, in Jaunsâr Bâwar, EpInd 1 (1892) 10–15.

1892be

The Two Praśastis of Baijnâth, EpInd 1 (1892) 97–118.

1892bf

The Udepur Prasasti of the Kings of Malva, EpInd 1 (1892) 222–238.

1892bg

The Vadnagar Prasasti of the reign of Kumarapala (with Vajeshankar G. OJHÂ), EpInd 1 (1892) 293–305.

1892bh

Three Buddhist inscriptions in Swat, EpInd 4 (1896–97) 133–135.

1892bi

Vote of Thanks to the President, Transactions of the London Congress (1892) 37–41.

1893a

Additional Remarks [on Valabhī Grants] WZKM 7 (1893) 300–301.

1893b

Aśoka’s Râjûkas oder Lajukas, ZDMG 47 (1893) 466–471.

1893c

Asoka’s Sahasram, Rupnath and Bairat edicts, IA 22 (1893) 299–306. [Abstract published in Academy 45 (1894) 39].

1893d

Commission für die Herausgabe der Quellenschriften der indischen Lexikographie, AKAW (1893) 87–89.

1893e

Das Wergeld in Indien, Festgruss an Rudolf von Roth zum Doktor-Jubiläum 24. August 1893, Stuttgart (1893) 44–48.

1893f

New Manuscripts from Kashgar, Verhandlungen der Zweiund-vierzigsten Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wien, 24– 27 Mai 1893, Leipzig (1894) 502. [A small paragraph mentioning BÜHLER’s remarks on the Weber manuscript].

1893g

New Manuscripts from Kashgar, WZKM 7 (1893) 260–273.

1893h

Professor J. Kirstes Collation des Textes der Yâjñavalkya-smṛiti und Analyse der Citate in Aparârkas Commentare, (ed.) BÜHLER, Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, PhilosophischHistorische Classe, Band XLII, V, Wien (1893) 1–11. [KIRSTE, Kleine Schriften, 1993, 241–251].

1893i

Pṛthivírája Rásau, Proc. ASB (1893) 94–95.

192

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1893j

The Aśoka Edicts from Mysore, WZKM 7 (1893) 29–32. [Siddapur Edicts].

1893k

The Inscriptions on the Sanchi Stupas, WZKM 7 (1893) 291–293; Academy 43 (1893) 527.

1893l

Ueber das Alter der Rasikasaṃjîvinî des Königs Arjunavarman, ZDMG 47 (1893) 92–95.

1893m

Verhältnis der buddhistischen Jâtakas zu dem Panchatantra, Verhandlungen der Zweiundvierzigsten Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wien, 24–27 Mai 1893, Leipzig (1894) 504. [A brief paragraph mentioning BÜHLER’s remarks on the subject].

1894a

An additional note on the Baijnâth Praśastis, EpInd 2 (1894) 482–483.

1894b

Aśoka’s Rock Edicts according to the Girnar, Shâhbâzgarhî, Kâlsî and Mansehra versions, EpInd 2 (1894) 447–472.

1894c

Dr. BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRÂJÎ’s interpretation of the Mathura Lion Pillar Inscription, JRAS (1894) 525–540.

1894d

Further inscriptions from Sânchi, EpInd 2 (1894) 366–408.

1894e

Further Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ, EpInd 2 (1894) 195–212. [Edition and translation of the inscriptions mentioned in WZKM 5 (1891) 175–180 and Academy 39 (1891) 373–374].

1894f

Further Pâbhosâ inscriptions, EpInd 2 (1894) 480–482.

1894g

Indische Erbauungsstunden, Deutsche Revue 19, 4 (1894) 223–232.

1894h

Nachträge zur Erklärung der Aśoka-Inschriften, ZDMG 48 (1894) 49– 64.

1894i

Remarks on “On the Origin of the Brāhma Alphabet”, AKAW (1894) 87–91.

1894j

Some further notes on the Grant of Śivaskandavarman, EpInd 2 (1894) 485–486.

1894k

Specimens of Jaina Sculptures from Mathura, EpInd 2 (1894) 311–323.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

193

1894l

Śridhara’s Devapattana Praśasti (with Vajeshankar G. OZHA), EpInd 2 (1894) 437–446.

1894m

The Bhattiprolu Inscriptions, EpInd 2 (1894) 323–329.

1894n

The Discovery of a new fragment of Aśoka’s Edict XIII at Junāgaḍh, WZKM 8 (1894) 318–320.

1894o 1894p

The Jaina inscriptions from Śatrumjaya, EpInd 2 (1894) 34–86. The Kharoshṭhî Inscriptions on the Indo-Grecian Coins, WZKM 8 (1894) 193–207.

1894q

The Pillar Edicts of Aśoka, EpInd 2 (1894) 245–274.

1894r

The Roots of the Dhâtupâṭha not found in Literature, WZKM 8 (1894) 17–42, 122–136; IA 23 (1894) 141–154, 250–255. [Partial Reprint STAAL J. F. (ed.) A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammarians, The MIT Press, 1972, 194–204].

1894s

Votive inscriptions from the Sânchi Stûpas, EpInd 2 (1894) 87–116.

1894–1895

The Siddapura Edicts of Asoka, EpInd 3 (1894–95) 134–142.

1895a

A new Edict of Asoka, JRAS (1895) 691–692. [A short notice of Academy 47 (1895) 360].

1895b

A Note on the Royal Asiatic Society’s Ancient MS. of the Gaṇaratnamahodadhi, JRAS (1895) 247–248. Note on the Gaṇaratnamahodadhi, JRAS (1895) 504 [Corrections in the above note].

1895c

A Notice of addendum to Indian Studies No. III on p. 7ff and p. 14, AKAW (1895) 24.

1895d

Epigraphic discoveries in Mysore, WZKM 9 (1895) 328–332; Academy 48 (1895) 229–230; JRAS (1895) 900–904.

1895e

On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet, SBKAW 132, 5 Indian Studies No. III. (1895) 1–90 [2nd revised edition Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg 1898].

1895f

Some Notes on Past and Future Archaeological Explorations in India, JRAS (1895) 649–660.

194

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1895g

The Aśoka Pillar in the Terai, Academy 47 (1895) 360; WZKM 9 (1895) 175–177.

1895h

The Origin of the Kharoṣṭhī Alphabet, WZKM 9 (1895) 44–66; IA 24 (1895) 285–292, 311–316.

1896a

A New inscribed Graeco-Buddhist Pedestal, IA 25 (1896) 311–312.

1896b

A new Kharoṣṭhī inscription from Swāt, WZKM 10 (1896) 55–58; IA 25 (1896) 141–142.

1896c

A Note on “Zwei neue Landschenkungen des Gurjara-Kӧnigs DaddaPraśāntarāga IV.”, AKAW (1896) 58.

1896d

A Second Landgrant of Harṣa of Kanauj, WZKM 10 (1896) 80–81.

1896e

An additional Note on Dr. Waddell’s Kaldarra Inscription, WZKM 10 (1896) 327.

1896f

Apastamba’s Quotations from the Puranas, IA 25 (1896) 323–328.

1896g

Epigraphic discoveries at Mathurâ, WZKM 10 (1896) 171–174; Academy 49 (1896) 367–368; JRAS (1896) 578–581.

1896h

Epigraphic Discoveries in India, Academy 49 (1896) 266.

1896i

Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, AKAW (1896) 90–93.

1896j

Photographien eines graeco-buddhistischen Piedestals des Museums zu Lahore, AKAW (1896) 64–67.

1896k

The Sohgaurâ Copperplate, WZKM 10 (1896) 138–148; IA 25 (1896) 261– 266.

1896l

Vorwort zu Gurupūjākaumudī, Festgabe zum Fünfzigjährigen Doctorjubiläum Albrecht WEBER, Leipzig (1896).

1896m

Zwei neue Landschenkungen des Gurjara-Fürsten Dadda-Praśāntarāga IV., SBKAW 135 (1896) 1–12.

1896–1897a

Banskhera Plate of Harsha, EpInd 4 (1896–97) 208–211.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

195

1896–1897b

Taxila Plate of Patika, EpInd 4 (1896–97) 54–57.

1897a (1898)

(A summary of the paper “Ueber einige Lesarten in den aus dem Kâṭhaka entlehnten Abschnitten des Tâitt. Âraṇyaka (Nachtrag zu L. V. SCHRÖDER, Die Tübinger Kaṭha Handschriften), SBKAW 137, 4 (1898) 121–126”) AKAW (1897) 113–115 (Paper read on 2nd June 1897).

1897b

A Jaina Account of the End of the Vaghelas of Gujarat, IA 26 (1897) 194– 195.

1897c

A Notice on “Eine Legende von dem Jaina-Stūpa in Mathurā”, AKAW (1897) 99–100.

1897d

Aśoka-Inschrift aus dem nepalesischen Terai, AKAW (1897) 1–7.

1897e

Buddha’s Quotation of a Gâthâ by Sanatkumâra, JRAS (1897) 585–588.

1897f

Pada, The Writer of Asoka’s Siddapur Edicts, IA 26 (1897) 334–335.

1897g

Specimina der Faullenzer, AKAW (1897) 48–52.

1897h

The Discovery of Buddha’s Birthplace, The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, London (1897) 319–320; JRAS (1897) 429–433.

1897i

The origin of the town of Ajmer and of its name, WZKM 11 (1897) 51– 56; IA 26 (1897) 162–164 [Reprinted from WZKM].

1897j

The villages in the Gujarat Rashṭrakuṭa Grants from Torkheḍe and Baroda, IA 26 (1897) 39–40.

1897k (1898)

Ueber einige Lesarten in den aus dem Kâṭhaka entlehnten Abschnitten des Tâitt. Âraṇyaka (Nachtrag zu L. V. SCHRÖDER, Die Tübinger Kaṭha Handschriften), SBKAW 137, 4 (1898) 121–126 (Paper read on 2nd June 1897).

1898a

A Legend of the Jaina Stupa at Mathura, IA 27 (1898) 49–54. [Extract from SBKAW 137, 2].

1898b

A Legend of the Jaina Stūpa at Mathurā, SBKAW 137, 2 (1898) 1–14.

1898c

Mittheilungen über neue epigraphische Funde aus dem nordwestlichen Indien, AKAW (1898) 12–17.

196

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1898d

Original Text of the Letters from Foreign Scholars concerning Professor Whitney, JAOS 19, Appendix I. (1898), 81–82 [Obituary].

1898e

Preliminary Note on a Recently Discovered Śākya Inscription, JRAS (1898) 387–389.

1898f

Words from Aśoka’s Edicts found in Pali, WZKM 12 (1898) 75–76.

1898–1899a

The Asoka Edicts of Paderia and Nigliva, EpInd 5 (1898–99) 1–6.

1898–1899b

Two Grants of Dadda IV. Prasantaraga; [Chedi-]Samvat 392., EpInd 5 (1898–99) 37–41.

?

Report of search of Sanskrit Manuscripts for the year 1879–80. [Not available to me].

III. REVIEWS AND NOTICES 1884(a)

P. [T.] ZACHARIAE, Beiträge zur Indischen Lexicographie, Berlin, 1883; ÖMO 10 (1884) 29.

1884(b)

BHAGVÂNLÂL INDRÂJÎ, The Hâthigumphâ and three other Inscriptions in the Udayagiri caves near Cuttack, Leide, 1884; ÖMO 10 (1884) 231–232.

1884(c)

R. G. BHÂṆḌÂRKAR, Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Presidency in the year 1882–83, Bombay, 1884; ÖMO 10 (1884) 249–250, 277–278.

1884(d)

P. PETERSON, Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle 1882–83, JBBRAS XVI., No. 41; IA 13 (1884) 28–32.

1885(a)

E. BURNOUF, Le Bhâgavata Purâṇa, ou histoire poétique de Krichṇa, Paris; ÖMO 11 (1885) 20.

1885(b)

E. HULTZSCH, The Baudhâyanadharmaśâstra, Leipzig, 1884; ÖMO 11 (1885) 47–48.

1885(c)

V. S. ÂPTE, The Student’s English-Sanskrit Dictionary, Poona, 1884; ÖMO 11 (1885) 97–98.

1885(d)

P. PETERSON, A Second Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle, JBBRAS Extra-number, 1884; ÖMO 11 (1885) 115–117, 135–136; IA 14 (1885) 352–355.

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

197

1885(e)

J. JOLLY, Outlines of an [a] History of the Hindu Law of Partition, Inheritance and Adoption, Tagore Law Lectures 1883, Calcutta, 1885; First Notice, ÖMO 11 (1885) 154–155; IA 14 (1885) 323–324.

1885(f)

C. CAPPELLER, Pracaṇḍapâṇḍava, ein Drama des Râjaçekhara, Strassburg, 1885; ÖMO 11 (1885) 281–282.

1885(g)

R. G. BHÂṆḌÂRKAR, Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Presidency, in the year 1882–1883, Bombay, 1884; IA 14 (1885) 62–64. (Reprinted from ÖMO 10 (1884) 249–250, 277–278).

1886(a)

J. JOLLY, Outlines of an History of the Hindu Law of Partition, Inheritance and Adoption, Tagore Law Lectures 1883; Second Notice, ÖMO 12 (1886) 16–18.

1886(b)

M. A. BARTH, Inscriptions sanscrites du Cambodge, Paris, 1885; ÖMO 12 (1886) 40, 55–56.

1886(c)

P. PETERSON and Paṇḍit DURGÂPRASÂDA, The Subhâshitâvali of Vallabhadeva, Bombay Sanskrit Series No. XXX; ÖMO 12 (1886) 99– 100.

1886(d)

A. WEBER, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der kӧniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, fünfter Band, Berlin, 1886; ÖMO 12 (1886) 114–115.

1886(e)

Śankar P. PAṆḌIT, Neue Ausgabe des Atharvaveda; ÖMO 12 (1886) 134.

1886(f)

Cecil BENDALL, A Journey of Literary and Archaeological Research in Nepal and Northern India, during the winter of 1884–5, Cambridge, 1886; ÖMO 12 (1886) 172–174.

1887(a)

V. G. OJHA, Bhâvnagar Prâchîn Śodhsaṁgraha, Bhâvnagar, 1885; WZKM 1 (1887) 244–246.

1887(b)

P. PETERSON, A third Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Circle, 1884–1886, JBBRAS Extra-number, Bombay, 1887; WZKM 1 (1887) 319–324.

1887(c)

S. P. PAṆḌIT, The Gaüḍavaha, a historical poem in Prâkṛit, by Vâkpati, Bombay Sanskrit Series XXXIV, Bombay, 1887; First notice, WZKM 1 (1887) 324–330.

198

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

1888(a)

M. WINTERNITZ, The Âpastambîya Gṛihyasûtra with extracts from the commentaries of Haradatta and Sudarśanârya, Vienna, 1887; WZKM 2 (1888) 83–85.

1888(b)

E. HULTZSCH, Preliminary Report from Sept. 21st 1887 to Jan. 31st 1888; WZKM 2 (1888) 269–270.

1888(c)

A. FÜHRER, Abstract Report from 1st October 1887 to Jan. 31st 1888; WZKM 2 (1888) 270–271.

1888(d)

S. P. PAṆḌIT, The Gaüdavaho, a Prakrit poem by Vâkpati; Second notice, WZKM 2 (1888) 328–340.

1889(a)

R. G. BHANDARKAR, Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Presidency, during the year 1883–84, Bombay Government Central Press, 1887; IA 18 (1889) 184–192. [Additional note, IA 19, 410].

1890(a)

Edward C. SACHAU, Alberuni’s India: an account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India, about A. D. 1030. An English Edition with Notes and Indices, London, 1888; IA 19 (1890) 381–410. (see Beruni’s Indica, IA 15, 31–32 and Trübner’s Record 1885, 63 f.).

1890(b)

Additional note to the Review of Dr. Bhâṇḍârkar’s Report for 1883–84, IA 19 (1890) 410. [see 1889(a)].

1891(a)

J. JOLLY, The Minor Lawbooks, Pt. I. Nârada. Bṛihaspati, Sacred Books of the East XXXIII, Oxford, 1889; WZKM 5 (1891) 49–51.

1891(b)

E. HULTZSCH, South-Indian Inscriptions, Tamil and Sanskrit, Madras, 1890; WZKM 5 (1891) 154–160.

1891(c)

M. BLOOMFIELD, The Kauśika-Sûtra of the Atharvaveda, with Extracts from the Commentaries of Dârila and Keśava [Vol. XIV of the JAOS], New-Haven, 1890; WZKM 5 (1891) 244–247.

1892(a)

M. A. STEIN, Kalhaṇa’s Râjataraṅgiṇî, or Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir, Vol. I., Bombay, 1892; WZKM 6 (1892) 335–338.

1893(a)

M. A. STEIN, Kalhana’s Râjataraṅginî: or, Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir, Vol. I., Bombay; Academy 43 (1893) 176–177. (from WZKM 6, 335–338).

CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GEORG BÜHLER’S WORKS

199

1894(a)

Note on Professor Jacobi’s Age of the Veda and on Professor Tilak’s Orion; IA 23 (1894) 238–249.

1895(a)

E. HULTZSCH, Epigraphia Indica, and Record of the Archaeological Survey of India, Vol. III, Calcutta, 1893–4; Academy 47 (1895) 240–241.

1895(b)

G. G.[H.] OJHA, Prâcîn Lipimâlâ. The Palaeography of India; JRAS (1895) 246–247.

1896(a)

P. PETERSON, A Fourth Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle, 1886–1892, JBBRAS Extra number, Vol. XVIII, Bombay, 1894 and A Fifth Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle, April 1892–March 1895, Bombay, 1896; WZKM 10 (1896) 328–333.

IV. BÜHLER ’S HANDWRITTEN MATERIAL (A) MS. of the Vikramāṅkadevacarita, Acc. No. 50/1873–74, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. (B) Letters deposited in the University Library, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany. [Sr. No., Acc. No., Date and the number of the Chapter where the letter has been referred to] (1) Md 782_A36_098, dated Bulsar, 12th April 1872 Chapter IV (2) Md 782_A36_100, Same letter Chapter IV (3) Md 765–2b-4, dated Wien, 11th July 1889 Chapter IV (4) Md 765–2a [Letter No.]1, dated Wien, 19th July 1886 Chapter II (5) Md 765–2b-7 dated Wien, 2nd January 1890 Chapter IV

WRITINGS ON GEORG BÜHLER I. BIO - AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL JOLLY Julius, Georg Bühler 1837–1898, Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde (Encyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research) Band I, Heft 1, A, Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg (1899) 23. WINTERNITZ M. BJDN, (ed.) v. A. BETTELHEIM, III (1900) 78–84. WINTERNITZ M. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Die Historische commission bei der Kӧniglischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 47 Nachträge bis 1899, Leipzig (1903) 339–348; Berlin (1971). Encyclopaedia Americana IV, New York-Chicago (1947). Encyclopaedia Winkler Prins V, Amsterdam (1949). KIRFEL, Willibald (1955) “Bühler, Johann Georg”, Neue Deutsche Biographie 2, 726 f. [Online version]; URL: http://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd11866 7947.html. Indian Paleography, Indian Studies: Past & Present Vol. 1 No. 1, 1st ed. Debiprasad CHATTOPADHYAYA, Calcutta (1959) 139. [The list of contents mentions “Bibliography of Bühler’s Works” however there is none available in the book.]. Valentina STACHE-ROSE, German Indologists, Biographies of Scholars in Indian Studies Writing in German, Max Mueller Bhawan, New Delhi (1981) [Second revised edition 1990]. :7ववेद>, क7पलदेव, शम+@याः BाCय7वदः, 7वDवभारती अनुसGधान पHरष:, वाराणसी (1988) 120.

JOHNSON Donald Clay “Johann George Buehler, 1837–1898,” The Biographical Dictionary of Greater India, edited by Henry Scholberg. Promilla, New Delhi (1997) 363–364.

II. OBITUARIES WINTERNITZ, M. Georg Bühler und die Indologie. In Memoriam, Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung, Nr. 113 and 114 (May 21 and 23, 1898). LUZAC’s Oriental List IX/5, London (1898). GUBERNATIS, A. de, Studi ital. di filol. indo-ir. 2, Florenz (1898). KAEGI, A. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (April 1898). BENDALL, C. Athenaeum, No. 3678 (23rd April 1898). 201

202

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

TAWNEY, C. H. Luzac’s Oriental List (April 1898) 96–98. MAX MÜLLER F. JRAS (1898) 695–707 [Reprinted in IA 27 (1898) 349–355; in Indian Paleography, Indian Studies: Past & Present, Calcutta (1959) 1–8]. MAX MÜLLER F. Maha-bodhi Society 7 (1898). BLOCH, T. Proc. ASB (1898) 174–177. PETERSON, P. JBBRAS (1898). SALEMANN, K. G. Izvestija Imperatorskoj Ak. Nauk. 3, Petersbourg (1898) LXXVIILXXVIII. In Memoriam George BÜHLER, IA 27 (1898). WINTERNITZ, M. Georg Bühler In Memoriam, 337–349. MAX MÜLLER F. Georg Bühler, 1837–98, 349–355 [Reprinted from JRAS 1898]. TAWNEY, C. H. On Professor Bühler, 355–357 [Reprinted from Luzac’s Oriental List April 1898]. BENDALL, C. Professor Bühler, 357–358 [Reprinted from Athenaeum No. 3678, 23rd April 1898]. MACDONELL, A. A. Georg Buhler In Memoriam, 358–359. KAEGI, A. Professor J. Georg Bühler, 360–363 [Reprinted from Neue Zürcher Zeitung April 1898]. KNAUER (Kiew), F. A Contribution on Bühler, 363–364. SENART, E. An Appreciation of Bühler, 364–367. JACOBI, H. and others, A Note on the Facts of Bühler’s Career, 367–368. LEUMANN, E. Bühler as a Collector of MSS, 368–370 [Reprint: Kleine Schriften, 1998, 294–296]. BURGESS, J. Bühler and the Indian Antiquary, A Note, 370–371. BLOOMFIELD, M. A Note on Dr. Bühler, 371–372. RHYS DAVIDS, T. W. Notes on G. Bühler, 372–373. GRIERSON, G. In Memoriam G. Bühler, On Some Swat Languages, 373–382. JOLLY, J. A Note on Bühler, 382 [Reprint: Kleine Schriften, 2012, 1195]. TEMPLE, R. C. In Memoriam Georg Bühler. A Postscript, 383–386.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS ABHYANKAR K. V. (2006) Vyākaraṇamahābhāṣya (with Marathi Translation by MM. Vasudevashastri Abhyankar), Prastāvanā Khaṇḍa (Marathi), Vol. 7, Third Reprint, Sanskrit Vidya Parisamstha Pune, 408+74. ADLURI Vishwa and Joydeep BAGCHEE (2014) The Nay Science: A History of German Indology, Oxford University Press, New York, 494. ALLCHIN F. R. (1995) The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 371. ALLEN Charles (2010) The Buddha and Dr. Führer, Penguin Books, New Delhi, 292. BAINES J. A. (1912) Ethnography (Castes and Tribes), Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, Vol. II, Part 5, H. Lüders, J. Wackernagel (ed.), Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg, 211. BELVALKAR S. K. (1916) Descriptive Catalogue of the Government Collections of Manuscripts deposited at the Deccan College, Poona, Deccan College, Poona, Vol. I Part I, The Government of Bombay, xlviii+420. ― (1950) The Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata, Vol. XIII, The Śāntiparvan, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, clxiv+684. BHANDARKAR R. G. (2001) First Book of Sanskrit, 48th reprint, Keshav Bhikaji Dhawale, Mumbai, 224. BHANDARKAR S. R. (1907) Report of a Second Tour in Search of Sanskrit Manuscripts made in Rajputana and Central India in 1904–5 and 1905–6, Bombay, 100. BURGESS J. (1879) Notes on the Bauddha Rock-Temples of Ajanta, ASWI, Government of India, Bombay, 111. ― (1903) On the Indian Sect of the Jainas, translation of Bühler’s “Über die indische Secte der Jaina”, translated and edited with an Outline of Jaina Mythology, London, IV+79. CHATTOPADHYAYA Debiprasad (1959) Indian Paleography by Bühler, Reprint with an article on Bühler by F. Max Müller, Indian Studies: Past & Pressent Vol. 1 No. 1, 1st ed., Calcutta, 1959, 139 Pp. [Max Müller’s article reprinted from IA 27, 349–355]. 203

204

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

CUNNINGHAM Alexander (1879) Report of a Tour in the Central Provinces in 1873–74 and 1874–75, Vol. IX, ASI, Culcutta, 165+Plates XXX. DAHLMANN Joseph (1895) Das Mahābhārata als Epos und Rechtsbuch, Verlag von Felix L. Dames, Berlin. DHARAMSEY Virchand (2012) Bhagwanlal Indraji the First Indian Archaeologist: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of the Past, Darshak Itihas Nidhi, Vadodara, xxiv+504. DHAVALIKAR M. K. (1997) Indian Protohistory, Books and Books, New Delhi, xiv+329. FALK Harry (1993) Schrift im alten Indien, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen, 355. ― (2006) Aśokan Sites and Artefacts: A Source-book with Bibliography, Monographien zur indischen Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie Band 18, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, 295. FLEET J. F. (1888) Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III, Government of India, Calcutta, 350+xlv plates. ― (1904) Indian Paleography by Johann Georg Bühler, ed. with Introductory Note 1– 6, Appendix to the IA 33, 102. GANNERI Namrata (2016) Peter Peterson, Founders and Guardians of The Asiatic Society of Mumbai (General Editor Aroon TIKEKAR), Indus Source Books, Mumbai, 101+xx. GHATE V. S. (1970) The Indian Inscriptions and the Antiquity of the Indian Artificial Poetry, IA 42 (1913) 29–32, 137–148, 172–179, 188–193, 230–234, 243–249; First reprint Journal of Ancient Indian History, Vol. II (1968–69) and Vol. III (1969–70), University of Calcutta; Second reprint with the addition of some footnotes by D. C. Sircar, University of Calcutta (1970) 103. [English translation of 1890d]. GHOSH A. (1989) An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, Vol. 2, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 470. GODE Parshuram Krishna (1954) Studies in Indian Literary History, Vol. II, Singhi Jain Series No. 38, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 543. GOKHALE Shobhana (1975) Purābhilekhavidyā (Marathi), Maharashtra State University Textbooks Board, Nagpur. ― (1991) Kanheri Inscriptions, Deccan College, Pune. GOUGH Archibald Edward (1878) Papers related to the Collection and Preservation of the Records of Ancient Sanskrit Literature in India, Ed. by order of the Govt. of India, Calcutta, viii+234. HALBFASS Wilhelm (1990) India and Europe, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 604.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

HANNEDER Jürgen (2015) Indien für die Inder, P. Kirchheim Verlag, Marburg, 108. HOTLZMANN Adolf (1892) Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Mahābhārata, C. F. Haeseler, Kiel, 196. HULTZSCH E. (1925) Inscriptions of Asoka, New Edition, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol. I, Government of India, Bombay, 260. JANERT Klaus L. (ed.) (1961) Heinrich Lüders Mathurā Inscriptions Unpublished Papers, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gӧttingen, Philologisch Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr.47, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gӧttingen, 320. JHALAKIKAR Bhimacharya (1893) Nyāyakośa, Second edition, The Department of Public Instruction, Government of Bombay, 1050.[First edition 1874]. JHALAKIKAR Vamanacharya (1889) Kāvyaprakāśa edited with his own commentary ‘Bālabodhinī’, The Department of Public Instruction, Government of Bombay, 964. JOLLY Julius (1899) Georg Bühler (1837–1898), Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde (Encyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research), Vol. 1, Part 1, A, Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg, 23. KANE P. V. History of Dharmaśāstra, Government Oriental Series, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona ― (1930) Vol.I, XLVII, 760. ― (1946) Vol. III, xlv, 1088. ― (1958) Vol. V, Part I, 1–718. ― (1962) Vol. V, Part II, xxxiv, 719–1711, XXII, 269. KAPADIA H. R. (1936) Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Government Manuscripts Library, Vol. XVII Jain Literature and Philosophy, Part II: (a) Āgamika Literature, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 363+24. KHARE G. H. (1951, facsimile reprint 2010) Saṁśodhakācā Mitra (Marathi), Bharat Itihas Samshodhak Madal, Pune. KIELHORN F. (1888) Grammatik der Sanskrit-Sprache, Berlin. LIENHARD S. (1984) A History of Classical Poetry Sanskrit-Pali-Prakrit, A History of Indian Literature, (ed.) Jan Gonda, Vol. III, Fasc. 1, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 307. MACDONELL A. A. (1899) A History of Sanskrit Literature, William Heineman, London, 472. MAJUMDAR R. C. (1962) History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. III, The Classical Age, Second Impression, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, lx+758. MAX MÜLLER F. (1881) Buddhist Texts from Japan, Texts, Documents, and Extracts chiefly from Manuscripts in the Bodleian and other Oxford Libraries, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series Vol. I, Part I, Oxford, 1–46.

206

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

― (1883) India What Can It Teach Us?, First Edition, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 402. ― (1892) (Second Edition): India, What can it teach us?, (New edition), Longmans, Green and Co., London, 315. ― (2003, reprint) India, what can it teach us?, second edition, Cosmo Publications, New Delhi, xxiii+296. MIRASHI V. V. (Vā. Vi.) (1957) Vākāṭaka Nṛpati āṇi Tyāṁcā Kāḷa (Marathi), Nagpur University, Nagpur. ― (1963) Inscriptions of the Vākāṭakas, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. V, Archaeological Survey of India, Ootacamund, lxxvi+141. ― (1981) The History and Inscription of the Sātavāhanas and the Western Kṣatrapas, Bombay, Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture (tr. of Sātavāhana āṇi Paścimī Kṣatrapa yāṁcā itihāsa āṇi korīva lekha, 1979), 314+192 with plates. OJHA Gaurishankar Hirachand (1894) Prācīna Lipimālā (Hindi), Itihāsa Kāryālaya Rāj Mevāḍ, Oodeypore, 7+79+101. OLIVELLE Patrick (2000) Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha, Annotated Text and Translation, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, xvii+767. ― (2005) Manu’s Code of Law, A Critical Edition and Translation of the MānavaDharmaśāstra, South Asia Research Series, The University of Texas South Asia Institute and Oxford University Press, 1131. PADMANJI Baba (1863) A Compendium of Molesworth’s Marathi and English Dictionary, Bombay, 482. PATEL M. (1936) The Life of Hemacandrācārya, translation of Bühler’s Über das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemacandra, Singhi Jaina Series No. 11, Calcutta, 103. PERRY Edward (1886) An English edition based on the Leitfaden: A Sanskrit Primer, Ginn and Company, Boston, 2+230. PETERSON Peter (1883) Detailed Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Circle, August 1882–March 1883, Extra Number of the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Trübner & co., London. PILLAI L. D. Swamikannu (1922) Indian Ephemeris, 6 Volumes, Government Press, Madras. PRINSEP James (1858) Essays on Indian Antiquities, Vol. II, ed. by Edward Thomas, London, 336. Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2001) Second edition, Random House, New York, 2214.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

RAU Wilhelm (1969), Franz Kielhorn Kleine Schriften, Teil 1–2, Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1105. TEWARI S. P. (1987) Contributions of Sanskrit Inscriptions to Lexicography, Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 246. SALOMON Richard (1998) Indian Epigraphy, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 378. SHASTRI Ajay Mitra (1997) Vākāṭakas Sources and History, Aryan Books International, New Delhi, xviii+260+CII. SCHROEDER L. (1887) Indiens Literatur und Cultur, Verlag von H. Haessel, Leipzig, 785+1. SIRCAR D. C. (1966) Indian Epigraphical Glossary Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, xv+560. SMITH V. A. (1906) History of India, Vol. II, A. V. Williams Jackson (ed.), The Grolier Society Publishers, London, 420. STACHE-ROSE Valentina, German Indologists, Biographies of Scholars in Indian Studies Writing in German, Max Mueller Bhawan, New Delhi (1981) [Second revised edition 1990]. SUKTHANKAR V. S. (1945) Critical Studies in the Mahābhārata, Sukthankar Memorial Edition Vol. 1, Karnatak Publishing House, Bombay, 440. TAWNEY C. H. (1901) The Prabandhacintāmaṇi or Wishing-Stone of Narratives, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, xx+236. THATTE Chintamani Shastri (1877) Amarakośa with the commentary of Maheśvara enlarged by Raghunath Shastri Talekar, edited with an Index under the superintendence of Dr. F. KIELHORN, The Department of Public Instruction, Bombay, 376+80; Reprint 1882. THITE G. U. (2008) History of Sanskrit Philology and Indian Archaeosophy (Translation of Windisch’s original German) Vol. I-III in 2 sets, New Bharatiya Book Corporation, Delhi, 872. TULPULE S. G. (1963) Prācīna Marāṭhī Korīva Lekha (Marathi), University of Pune, Pune, 480+86. WEST Raymond (1884) A Digest of Hindu Law, With an Introduction, Notes, and an Appendix, 2 Vol. (Ed. with Bühler) 3rd ed. Bombay 1884. LXXXIX, 1449. WINDISCH E. (1917) Geschichte der Sanskrit-Philologie und Indischen Altertums-kunde. Erster Teil, H. LÜDERS, J. WACKERNAGEL (ed.), Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, Vol. 1, Part 1, B, Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg, VII+208. WINTERNITZ M. (1920) Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, Dritter Band, C. F. Amelangs Verlag, Leipzig, 697.

208

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

ARTICLES ALI Daud (2013) Temporality, narration and the problem of history: A view from Western India c. 1100–1400, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 50, 2, SAGE, Los Angeles, 237–259. [The online version of this article can be found at: http://ier.sagepub.com/content/50/2/237]. ALON Uri (2009) How To Choose a Good Scientific Problem, Molecular Cell (2009), doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2009.09.013, 1–3. ALSDORF Ludwig (1960) Contributions to the Study of Asoka’s Inscriptions, the Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Volume 20 (S. K. De Felicitation Volume), Deccan College, Poona, 249–275. B. (1876) A Letter dated April 13, 1876, IA, 188–189. BAPAT Shreenand L. (2010) A Second Jāmb (Khāṇḍvī) Copperplate Grant of Vākāṭaka Ruler Pravarasena II (Śrāvaṇa Śuddha 13, Regnal Year 21), ABORI, XCI, Pune, 1–31. BARUA B. M. (1930) The Sohgaura Copper-plate Inscription, ABORI, XI, No. 1, 32–48. BHANDARKAR R. G. (1875) Consideration of the date of the Mahabharata, in connection with the Correspondence from Col. Ellis, (Read 12th Sept. 1872), JBBRAS, 81–92. ― (1876) Āchārya, The friend of the student, and the relations between the three Āchāryas, IA 5, 345–350. BHAU DAJI LAD (1865) Ajunta Inscriptions, JBBRAS VII, 53–74. BÖHTLINGK Otto ― (1885a) Bemerkungen zu Führer’s Ausgabe und zu Bühler’s Uebersetzung des Vâsisthadharmaçâstra, ZDMG 39, 481–488. ― (1885b) Bemerkungen zu Bühler’s Ausgabe und Uebersetzung des Âpastambîjadharmasûtra, ZDMG 39, 517–527. ― (1885c) Einige Bemerkungen zu Baudhâjana’s Dharmaçâstra, ZDMG 39, 539–542. ― (1886a) Bemerkungen zu Bühler’s Artikel im 39. Bande dieser Zeitschrift, S. 704 f, ZDMG 40, 144–147. ― (1886b) Nachtägliches zu Vasishtha, ZDMG 40, 526. BRONKHORST J. (2016) Appendix X: Was there Buddhism in Gandhāra at the time of Alexander?, How the Brahmins Won, Brill 2016, pp. 483–489. BURGESS J. (1876) (ed.) Book Notice of “The Vikramānkadevacharita: a Life of King Vikramāditya Tribhuvana Malla of Kalyāna, composed by his Vidyāpati Bilhana, edited with an Introduction by Georg Bühler. (Bombay Government Book Depôt, 1875)”, IA 5, 324–327. ― (1898) Bühler and the Indian Antiquary, A Note, IA 27, 370–371.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

BURGESS May S. (1907) On the Navasahasankacharita of Padmagupta or Parimala by the late Professor G. Bühler, C.I.E., LL.D. and Dr. Th. Zachariae (Translated from German), IA 36, 149–172. CHAPALGAONKAR Narendra (2009) Saṁmativayācā Adhiniyama (Marathi), Marāṭhī Viśvakośa (ed. Vijaya Wad) Vol. 18, Mahārāṣṭra Rājya Marāṭhī Viśvakośa Nirmitī Maṇḍaḷa, Mumbai, 447. FLEET J. F. (1894–95) Torkhede Copper-plate Grant of the time of Govindaraja of Gujarat. – Saka-Samvat 735 EpInd 3, 53–58. ― (1901) Spurious Indian Records, IA 30, 201–223. ― (1907) The Inscription on the Sohgaura Plate, JRAS 509–532. ― (1908) The Inscription on the Sohgaura Plate, JRAS 187–188, 822–823. HANNEDER Jürgen (2002) On “The Death of Sanskrit”, Indo-Iranian Journal 45, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 293–310. HOERNLE A. F. Rudolf (1894) Note on the same (i.e. Sōhgaurā Copper-Plate), Proc. ASB, 87–88. HOEY W. (1894) Note on the Sōhgaurā Copper-Plate, Proc. ASB, 84–85. HOUBEN Jan, Saraju RATH (2012) Manuscript Culture And Its Impact in “India”: Contours and Paramters, Aspects of Manuscript Culture in South India (ed. Rath Saraju) (40th volume of Brill’s Indological Library), BRILL, Leiden-Boston, 1– 53. HULTZSCH E. (1885) A Copper-plate Grant of the Rashtrakutas of Gujarat, dated Śaka 757, IA 14, 196–203. HUXLEY Andrew (2010) Dr. Führer’s Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist, JRAS, Third Series, 20, 4, Cambridge University Press, 489–502. JACOBI Hermann (1893) Über das Alter des Ṛig-Veda, Festgruss an Rudolf von Roth zum Doktor-Jubiläum 24. August 1893, Stuttgart, 68–74. JACOBI H. and others (1898) A Note on the Facts of Bühler’s Career, IA 27, 367–368. JAYASWAL K. P. (1933) The Text of the Sohgaura Plate, EpInd 22, 1–3. JOHNSON Donald Clay (1986) German Influences on the development of Research Libraries in Nineteenth Century Bombay, The Journal of library history, philosophy, and comparative librarianship, vol. 21, 215–227. [a pdf of a typewritten copy of the article is available to me, pages numbering 21–32]. ― (1988) On the Origins of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Library, ABORI, LXIX, Pune. ― (1992) Georg Buhler and the western discovery of Jain temple libraries, Jain Journal, vol. 26, 197–210.

210

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

― (1997) “Johann George Buehler, 1837–1898,” The Biographical Dictionary of Greater India, edited by Henry Scholberg. Promilla, New Delhi, 363–364. KAEGI A. (April 1898) Neue Zürcher Zeitung. ― (1898) Professor J. Georg Bühler, IA 27, 360–363 (Reprinted from Neue Zürcher Zeitung). KIELHORN Franz ― (1876) On the Mahābhāshya, IA 5, 241–251. ― (1878) Report of Search of Manuscripts 1868–1869, Gough, 53–59. ― (1892) A note on Professor Bühler’s paper on the Origin of the Gupta-Valabhi Era, WZKM 107–108. ― (1894–1895) Dudia Plates of Pravarasena II, EpInd 3, 258–262. KIRFEL Willibald (1955) “Bühler, Johann Georg”, Neue Deutsche Biographie 2, 726 f. [Online version]; URL: http://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd118667947.html. LEUMANN Ernst (1883) Max Müller’s “Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature” in seinem neuen Buche “What can India teach us”, ZDMG, 37, 285–291. ― (1894) A Note on the Prakrit Grant of the Pallava King Śivaskandavarman, EpInd 2, 483–484. ― (1898) Bühler as a Collector of manuscripts, IA 27, 368–370 [Reprint: Kleine Schriften, 1998, 294–296]. MAX MÜLLER F. (1898) Georg Bühler, 1837–98, JRAS, 695–707 (Reprinted in IA 27 (1898) 349–355; in Indian Paleography, Indian Studies: Past & Present, Calcutta 20 (1959) 1–8). MIRASHI V. V. (VĀ. VI.) (1933–34) Tirodi Plates of Pravarasena II, EpInd 22, 167–176. MIRASHI V. V. (VĀ. VI.) and D. B. MAHAJAN (1952) Basim Plates of Vakataka Vindhyasakti II, EpInd 26, 1941–42, 137–155. OLIVELLE Patrick (1998) Unfaithful Transmitters Philological Criticisms and Critical Editions of the Upaniṣads, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 26, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 173–187. ― (1999) Sanskrit Commentators and the transmission of Texts: Haradatta on Āpastamba Dharmasūtra, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 27, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 551–574. PHELPS T. A. (2008) Lumbini on Trial: The Untold Story file:///E:/PhD/Fuehrerepisode/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm, archived on 08.02.2010 by the British Library. PRINSEP James (1836) Seonī grant, JASB 5, 724–731.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

SENART E. (1891) The Inscriptions of Piyadasi (translated by G. A. Grierson) Chapter IV, The author and the language of the inscriptions, IA 20, 229–265. SHARMA Arvind (2003) Did the Hindus Lack a Sense of History? Numen, Vol. 50, No. 2, 190–227. SHOKOOHY Bhadreśvar (1991) The oldest Islamic monuments in India, Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture, Vol. 2, p. 9. SIRCAR D. C. (1965–66) Three Inscriptions from Rajasthan, EpInd, Vol. 36, 50. ― (1970) (ed.) The Indian Inscriptions and the Antiquity of the Indian Artificial Poetry, University of Calcutta, 103. SLAJE Walter (2005) Kaschmir im Mittelalter und die Quellen der Geschichts-wissenschaft. Essay mit Anmerkungen, Indo-Iranian Journal 48, 1, 1–70 [Published in 2006]. ― (2008) ‘In the Guise of Poetry’ - Kalhaṇa Reconsidered, Śāstrārambha: Inquiries Into the Preamble in Sanskrit, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Band LXII, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 207–244. SMITH V. A. (1894) Note on the same (i.e. Sōhgaurā Copper-Plate), Proc. ASB, 85–87. THAKUR A. N. (1977) Dakṣiṇāyana (Marathi), Marāṭhī Viśvakośa (ed. Laxmanshastri Joshi) Vol. 7, Mahārāṣṭra Rājya Marāṭhī Viśvakośa Nirmitī Maṇḍaḷa, Mumbai, 683– 684. THITE G. U. (2004) Vedic Ritual: Kālidāsa and Bhavabhūti, Shōun Hino (ed.), Three Mountains and Seven Rivers (Tachikawa Felicitation Volume), 503–507. ― (2008) Vedic Ritual: Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, Gopinath (ed.), Kalichakra, kumaranellor, pp. Not Available. ― (2011) Georg Bühler (1837–1898), ABORI, XCI, 2010, Pune, 155–186. ― (2012) Pāścātya Vedābhyāsaka (Marathi), Mahārāṣṭrīya Jñānakośa, Volume ‘Vedavidyā’ (ed.) S. V. Ketkar, Revised and reprinted by the Vaidika Samshodhana Mandala, Pune, 161–180. TILAK B. G. (1892) A Summary of the Principal Facts and Arguments in the Orion or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas, Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists, London, 376–383. TRAUTMANN Thomas (2012) Does India Have History? Does History Have India?, Comparative Studies in Society and History 54(1), 174–205. TULLU R. V. (1875) Maheśvara, in Mālwā, IA 4, 346–348. WHITNEY W. D. (1893) Review of Recent Studies in Hindu Grammar, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 14, No. 2 171–197.

212

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

WILHELM Friedrich (1964) Die Entdeckung der indischen Geschichte, Saeculum 15, 29– 40. WINTERNITZ M. (1897) Notes on the Mahābhārata, with special reference to Dahlmann’s “Mahābhārata” JRAS, 713–759. ― (1898) Georg Bühler In Memoriam, IA, 337–349. ― (1898) On the South-Indian Recension of the Mahabharata, IA, 67–81, 92–104 and 122–136. ― (1898) Georg Bühler und die Indologie. In Memoriam, Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung, Nr. 113 and 114. ― (1900) Georg Bühler, BJDN, (ed.) A. Bettelheim, III, 78–84. ― (1903, 1971) Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Die Historische commission bei der Kӧniglischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 47 Nachträge bis 1899, Leipzig (1903) 339–348; Berlin (1971). WUJASTYK Dominik (2014) How to Choose a Good Indological Problem, Open Pages in South Asian Studies, Joe Pellegrino (ed.), California, 173–192.

APPENDIX I: BÜHLER’S WRITINGS ON AŚOKAN INSCRIPTIONS T HE MINOR ROCK EDICT SITES Bairat: 1877 IA 6: 149–160; 1893 IA 22: 299–306 Brahmagiri: 1893 WZKM 7: 29–32; 1894/95 EpInd 3: 134–142 Jatinga-Ramesvara: 1894/95 EpInd 3: 134–142 Rupanath: 1877 IA 6: 149–160; 1878 IA 7: 141–160; 1893 IA 22: 299–306 Sahasram: 1877 IA 6: 149–160; 1878 IA 7: 141–160; 1893 IA 22: 299–306 Siddapur: 1894/95 EpInd 3: 134–142

T HE MAJOR ROCK EDICT SITES Dhauli: 1885 ZDMG 39: 489–508; 1887 ZDMG 41: 1–29; 1887 ASSI: 114–131 Girnar: 1883 ZDMG 37: 87–108; 1883 ZDMG 37: 253–281; 1883 ZDMG 37: 422–434 1883 ZDMG 37: 572–593; 1886 ZDMG 40: 127–142; 1894 EpInd 2: 447–472; Fragment I of Rock Edict 13: 1894 WZKM 8: 318–320 Jaugada: 1883 ZDMG 37: 87–108; 1883 ZDMG 37: 253–281; 1883 ZDMG 37: 422–434; 1883 ZDMG 37: 572–593; 1886 ZDMG 40: 127–142; 1887 ZDMG 41: 1–29; 1887 ASSI: 114–131 Kalsi (Khalsi): 1883 ZDMG 37: 87–108; 1883 ZDMG 37: 253–281; 1883 ZDMG 37: 422– 434; 1883 ZDMG 37: 572–593; 1886 ZDMG 40: 127–142; 1894 EpInd 2: 447–472 Mansehra: 1889 ZDMG 43: 273–296; 1894 EpInd 2: 447–472 Rock Edicts 13–14: 1890 ZDMG 44: 702–704 Shahbazgarhi: 1889 ZDMG 43: 128–176; 1894 EpInd 2: 447–472 Rock Edict 12: 1892 EpInd 1: 16–20

T HE PILLAR SITES Allahabad: 1884 IA 13: 306–310; 1891 ZDMG 45: 144–159; 1892 ZDMG 46: 54–92; 1894 EpInd 2: 245–274 Queen’s Edict: 1890 IA 19: 122–126 Araraj: 1891 ZDMG 45: 144–159; 1892 ZDMG 46: 54–92; 1894 EpInd 2: 245–274 213

214

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Kosambi Edict: 1890 IA 19: 122–126 Lumbini: 1897 AKAW 34: 1–7; 1898/99 EpInd 5: 1–6 Mirath: 1890 IA 19: 122–126; 1891 ZDMG 45: 144–159; 1892 ZDMG 46: 54–92; 1894 EpInd 2: 245–274 Nandangarh: 1891 ZDMG 45: 144–159; 1892 ZDMG 46: 54–92; 1894 EpInd 2: 245–274 Nigliva: 1895 WZKM 9: 175–177; 1898/99 EpInd 5: 1–6 Sanchi: 1894 EpInd 2: 366–408 Topra: 1884 IA 13: 306–310; 1891 ZDMG 45: 144–159; 1892 ZDMG 46: 54–92; 1894 EpInd 2: 245–274

T HE CAVE SITES Barabar Caves (Full text): 1891 IA 20: 361–365 Nagarjuni Caves (Full set of inscriptions): 1891 IA 20: 361–365

APPENDIX II: SCHEME OF THE “GRUNDRISS DER INDOARISCHEN PHILOLOGIE UND ALTERTUMSKUNDE” (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INDO-ARYAN RESEARCH)1 BAND I. ALLGEMEINES UND SPRACHE (1) Geschichte der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde von Ernst KUHN. (2) Vorgeschichte der indo-arischen Sprachen von R. MERINGER. (3)

(a) Die indischen Systeme der Grammatik, Phonetik und Etymologie von B. LIEBICH. (b) Die indischen Wörterbücher (Koshas) von Th. ZACHARIAE.

(4) Grammatik der vedischen Dialecte von C. R. LANMAN (englisch). (5) Grammatik des classischen Sanskrit der Grammatiker, der Litteratur und der Inschriften, sowie der Mischdialekte (epischer und nordbuddhistischer) von O. FRANKE. (6) Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax von J. SPEIJER [im Druck]. (7) Paligrammatiker, Paligrammatik von O. FRANKE. (8) Prakritgrammatiker, Prakritgrammatik von R. PISCHEL. (9) Grammatik und Litteratur des tertiären Prakrits von Indien von G. A. GRIERSON (englisch). (10) Grammatik und Litteratur des Singhalesischen von Wilh. GEIGER. (11) Indische Palaeographie (mit Tafeln) von G. BÜHLER [im Druck].

BAND II. LITTERATUR UND GESCHICHTE (1) Vedische Litteratur (Śruti). (a) Die drei Veden von K. GELDNER. (b) Atharvaveda von M. BLOOMFIELD (englisch). (2)

(a) Epische Litteratur von H. JACOBI. (b) Classische Litteratur (einschliesslich der Poetik und der Metrik) von H. JACOBI.

1 JOLLY,

Julius (1896) Recht und Sitte (einschliesslich der einheimischen Litteratur), Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, Volume II, Part 8, ed. Georg BÜHLER

215

216

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

(3) Quellen der indischen Geschichte. (a) Litterarische Werke und Inschriften von G. BÜHLER (b) Münzen (mit Tafeln) von E. J. RAPSON (englisch). (4) Geographie von G. BÜHLER, M. A. STEIN. (5) Ethnographie von A. BAINES (englisch). (6) Staatsaltertümer von G. BÜHLER, J. JOLLY und Sir R. WEST (englisch). (7) Privataltertümer von G. BÜHLER, J. JOLLY und Sir R. WEST (englisch). (8) Recht und Sitte (einschliesslich der einheimischen Litteratur) von J. JOLLY. (9) Politische Geschichte bis zur muhammedanischen Eroberung von G. BÜHLER.

BAND III. RELIGION, WELTLICHE WISSENSCHAFTEN UND KUNST (1)

Karmamārga (a) Vedische Mythologie von A. MACDONELL. (b) Epische Mythologie von M. WINTERNITZ.

(2) Ritual-Litteratur, Vedische Opfer und Zauber von A. HILLEBRANDT. Jñānamārga (orthodox) (3) Vedānta und Mīmāṁsā von G. THIBAUT.

(4) Sāṅkhya und Yoga von R. GARBE. (5) Nyāya und Vaiśeṣika von A. VENIS (englisch). Bhaktimārga (6) Vaiṣṇavas, Śaivas, Sauras, Gāṇapatas, Skāndas, Śāktas von R. G. BHANDARKAR (englisch). Heterodoxe Systeme

(7) Jaina von E. LEUMANN. (8) Bauddha von H. KERN (englisch) [im Druck]. (9) Astronomie, Astrologie und Mathematik von G. THIBAUT. (10) Medizin von J. JOLLY. (11) Bildende Kunst (mit Illustrationen) von J. BURGESS (englisch). (12) Musik.

APPENDIX III: LETTERS AND PAPERS RELATED TO GEORG BÜHLER Legend: # Based on the data available on http://kalliope.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/de/index.html accessed on 01.11.2018 at 20:00. * Data kindly provided to me by Dr. Anett Krause. ^ Data kindly provided to me by Prof. Michael Witzel. Scholar/ Institution

Baron?

Pages From

2

Bühler

To

Period

Address(es)

Provenance and Acc. No.

Baron?

1896

Wien

Austrian National Library: Autogr.710_79

Paris, Notting Hill, Windsor, Göttingen: Cod.MS.Philos. Bombay, Poona, Hanno- 184_Briefe_81–110 ver, Surat, etc. Austrian National Library: Wien Autogr.636_21 Austrian Academy of Many Sciences: Many Vienna University Archive: Wien PH PA 1152 (Personalakt) Vienna University Archive: Wien Senat S 82.102 Vienna University Archive: Wien PH GZ: Files of faculty of philosophy Bombay, Berlin: Slg. Darmst. 2i Edinburgh 1871_Burgess, James Heidelberg: Wien Heid. Hs. 4028,57 Austrian National Library: Wien Autogr.549_51

Benfey, Theodor

120

Bühler

Benfey

1858– 1874

Berndorf?

16

Bühler

Berndorf?

1888–92

Bühler Papers

481

--

--

--

Bühler Papers

20

--

--

--

Bühler Papers

3

--

--

--

Bühler Papers

24

--

--

1889–91

Burgess

35

Burgess

Weber

1872– 1882

Cantor, Moritz

1

Bühler

Cantor

1892

6

Bühler

Dauglas

1892

4

Bühler

Falk

24.03. 1872

Mandvi

Berlin: Slg. Darmstaedter 2b 1868: Bühler, Georg, Blatt 9–10

1

Bühler

Geiger

19.07. 1896

Zürich

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich: Ana 669

Dauglas (From and To) Falk, Adalbert (Preußen / Ministerium der Geistlichen, Unterrichtsund Medizinalangelegenheiten) Geiger*

217

218

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY 22.10. [Year?]

Wien

1898

Bonn

Haug

Not dated

Not mentioned

Hertel

09.06. 1896 04.04. 1904 09.06. 1896 06.06. 1910 21.06. 1910 Not dated

Wien

Geldner*

4

Bühler

Gubernatis

11

Guberna- Weber tis

Haug, Balthasar# Hertel Johannes* Hertel, Johannes# Hertel, Johannes# Hertel, Johannes# Hertel, Johannes# Hertel, Johannes#

4 Bühler letters

Geldner

3

Bühler

2

Schröder, Hertel Leopold

4

Bühler

4 4 2

Hirschfeld, Otto

4

Hirth, F.

1

India Office

2

India Office

2

Jacobi, H.

22

Karabacek, J.

30

Karabacek, J.

30

Karabacek, J.

14

Kestner, Georg#

4

Kgl. Bibliothek, Berlin

6

Kielhorn, F.

52

Kuhn, Adalbert

4

Kuhn, Ernst

2

Kuhn, Ernst

55

Lanman, Charles^

56

Hertel

Tawney, Hertel C. H. Tawney, Hertel C. H. Lanman, Hertel C. R.

Marburg: UB Marburg, NL Geldner, 648 b8 Berlin: Slg. Darmst. 2m 1871_Gubernatis, Angelo de Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart: Cod.hist.4°.340 Leipzig: UB Leipzig, NL 271/1/35/85

Wien

Leipzig: NL 271/1/29/70

Wien

Leipzig: NL 271/1/35/85

Weybridge

Leipzig: NL 271/1/38/35

Weybridge

Leipzig: NL 271/1/38/37

Not mentioned

Leipzig: NL 271/1/11/40

Berlin: Nachl. Otto Hirschfeld_Bühler, Georg 08.09. Bibliothek des Stadtrats, Bühler Hirth Wien 1889 Munich: Bühler, Georg A I/1 Chief 04.04. British Library, London: Mss Bühler Vienna Librarian 1888 Eur D448: 1888 Chief 23.05. British Library, London: Mss Bühler Vienna Librarian 1888 Eur D448: 1888 Berlin: Slg. Darmst. 2b Jacobi Weber 1875 Bonn 1879_Jacobi, Hermann Austrian National Library: Bühler Karabacek 1884–92 Wien Autogr.549_51 Wien, London, Austrian National Library: Bühler Karabacek 1892–93 Edinburg Autogr.549_52 National Library: Bühler Karabacek 1894–98 Wien, Zürich Austrian Autogr.549_53 Leipzig: Bühler Kestner 15.11.1878 Hannover Slg. Kestner/III/B/I/69/Nr. 1, Mappe 69, Blatt Nr. 1 Bibliothek, 1881, Berlin: Slg. Darmst. 2b 1868 Bühler Berlin 1888, 1891 Wien (23)_Bühler, Georg 1866– Beruburg?, Berlin: Slg. Darmst. 2b Kielhorn Weber 1882 Poona 1866_Kielhorn, Franz Universitaets Bibliothek, Mu20.11. Bühler A. Kuhn Paris nich: UB München, Nachl. 1858 A. Kuhn, Korr. Bühler 12.07. Berlin: Slg. Darmst. 2b E. Kuhn Weber München 1896 1874_Kuhn, Ernst Wien, DoebUniversitaets Bibliothek, Mu1886– Bühler E. Kuhn ling, London, nich: UB München, Nachl. E. 1897 Zürich Kuhn, Korr. Bühler 1888– Harvard University Archives: Bühler Lanman Wien 1897 HUG 4510.52 Box 1 Bühler

Hirschfeld 12.03. 1882

Wien

APPENDICES Lanman, Charles^

2

Luschan von

4

Trübner, Lanman Karl J. von Bühler Luschan

219

12.12.1893 Strassburg 09.10. 1895

Wien

Harvard University Archives: HUG 4510.52 Box 1 Berlin: Nachl. Felix von Luschan_Bühler, Georg

Windsor, Bombay, Mahaba1862– leshwar, Kathi- Tübingen: Md 782 A 36_1 1872 awar, Bulsar, Cambay, Hannover Jepur, Bom1875–1882 bay, Wien, Lu- Tübingen: Md 782 A 36_2 zern, Mahudha, Zürich 1882– Wien, Zürich Tübingen: Md 782 A 36_3 1897 Tübingen: Md 782 A 36_3 1860 ? (40a, 40b, 40c)

Nöldeke

104

Bühler

Nöldeke

Nöldeke

98

Bühler

Nöldeke

Nöldeke

60

Bühler

Nöldeke

Nöldeke

18

Nöldeke

Bühler

Preußen / Ministerium der Geistlichen, Unterrichtsund Medizinalangelegenheiten

1

Bühler

Preußen / Ministerium

14.04. 1886

Wien

Berlin: Slg. Darmstaedter 2b 1868: Bühler, Georg, Blatt 11–12

Rost

31

Rost

Weber

1875– 1880

S. E. ?

Berlin: Slg. Darmst. 2b 1860_Rost, Reinhold

Roth

24

Bühler

Roth

1886

Roth

40

Bühler

Roth

Roth

20

Bühler

Roth

1877– 1890 1879– 1890

Roth

3

Bühler?

Roth?

1875, 1887 India?

Tübingen: Md766–10

Sauppe

6

Bühler

Sauppe

1861 and 1881

Notting Hill, Wien

Schubart

Not dated

Not mentioned

Göttingen: Cod.MS.Sauppe 105 : 149 – 150 Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart: Cod.hist.4°.340 Berlin: Slg. Darmst. Asien 1905_Stein, Marc Aurel Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.143 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 392.126 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.145 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.147 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.148

Schubart, Helene#

1 Bühler letter

Not menTübingen: Md 765–2a tioned Hannover, Bombay, Wien Tübingen: Md 765–2b Zürich, Wien

Stein

77

Stein

Weber

1895– 1897

Lahore

Stein*

4

Bühler

Stein

22.05. 1890

Wien

Stein*

2

Bühler

Stein

14.11. 1890

[Wien]

Stein*

4

Bühler

Stein

11.02. 1897

Wien

Stein*

2

Bühler

Stein

16.03. 1897

Wien

Stein*

1

Bühler

Stein

06.04. 1897

Wien

Tübingen: Md 762 c-5

220

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.151 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.149 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.153 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.155 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.156 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.159 Oxford, Bodleian Library: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Stein 67.158 Leipzig: NL 245/Trübner/I/1/84 Leipzig: NL 245/Bro/Bu/52 Vienna University Archive: 131.103.125

Stein*

3

Bühler

Stein

27.04. 1897

Zürich

Stein*

3

Bühler

Stein

17.08. 1897

Zürich

Stein*

3

Bühler

Stein

02.12. 1897

Not mentioned

Stein*

1

Bühler

Stein

17.12. 1897

Zürich

Stein*

3

Bühler

Stein

26.01. 1898

Not mentioned

Stein*

3

Bühler

Stein

24.02. 1898

Not mentioned

Stein*

1

Bühler

Stein

16.03. 1898

Zürich

4

Trübner, Streitberg Karl J.

2

Bühler

Streitberg

Suess, Edward

2

Bühler

Suess

12.09. 1892 02.06. 1891 16.12. 1887

Usener, Hermann

8

Bühler

Usener

1893, 1895 Wien

Bonn: S 2101

Weber, Albrecht#

4

Weber

Bühler

27.10. 1875

Berlin: Slg. Darmstaedter 2b 1849: Weber, Albrecht Friedrich, Blatt 116–117

Streitberg, Wilhelm# Streitberg, Wilhelm

Weber, Albrecht (From and To)

473

Whitney, E. B.

Bühler

Weber

1867– 1884

4

Whitney

Bühler

1896

Whitney, E. B.

2

Bühler

Whitney

1894

Wieseler

7

Bühler

Wieseler

1878– 1883

Strassburg Wien Wien

Not mentioned

Bombay, Surat, Cannes, Hannover, Oenhausen, Altenhagen, Mehmudabad, Bulsar, Ahmadabad, Dihadra, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin: Allahabad, Ju- Slg. Darmst. 2b 1868 nagadh, (23_Bühler, Georg Godhra, Srinagar, Luzern, Berlin, Zürich, Wien, Bordighera, Mentone, Doebling Florenz, Disa, Venedig Austrian Academy of New Haven Sciences: N.A. Austrian Academy of Wien Sciences: N.A. Hannover, Göttingen: Mod.MS.Wieseler Wien

APPENDICES

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

2

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

2

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

2

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

2

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

2

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

5

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

04.01. 1883 Not dated 21.03. 1883 13.07. 1883 30.10. 1883 04.11. 1883 25.06. 1884 07.07. 1884 15.07. 1885 17.12. 1885 21.12. 1885 27.12. 1885 08.01. 1886 30.04. 1886 03.05. 1886 20.05. 1886 03.07. 1886 12.07. 1886 03.08. 1886 22.09. 1886 09.10. 1886 10.10. 1886 31.10. 1886 15.11. 1886 27.11. 1886 23.12. 1886

221

Wien Wien Not mentioned Wien Ober Döbling Not mentioned Not mentioned Ober Döbling Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Ober Döbling, Wien Not mentioned Ober Döbling Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned

Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.1 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.2 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.3 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.4 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.5 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.6 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.7 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.8 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.9 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.10 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.11 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.12 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.13 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.14 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.15 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.16 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.17 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.18 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.19 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.20 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.21 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.22 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.23 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.24 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.25 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.26

222

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

2

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

2

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

1

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

2

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

5

Bühler

Windisch

03.01. 1887 12.01. 1887 29.01. 1887 11.07. 1887 01.08. 1887 24.07. 1888 29.02. 1888 15.11. 1889 04.02. 1889 19.02. 1889 21.03. 1889 23.03. 1889 08.05. 1889 08.08. 1890 20.01. 1893 13.08. 1893 24.11. 1895 02.02. 1896 16.02. 1896 22.05. 1896 11.06. 1896 20.06. 1896 25.07. 1896 02.10. 1896 10.10. 1896 30.05. 1897

Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Wien Not mentioned Not mentioned Wien Not mentioned Wien Wien Not mentioned Not mentioned Bonn [Wien Wien Wien Wien Wien Not mentioned Klosters Wien Not mentioned Wien

Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.27 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.28 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.29 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.30 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.31 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.32 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.34 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.34 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.34 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.36 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.37 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.38 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.39 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.40 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.41 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.42 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.43] Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.44 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.45 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.46 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.47 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.48 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.49 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.50 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.51 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.52

APPENDICES

223

Zürich

?

20.07. 1897 18.10. 1897 23.12. 1897 Not dated 27.02. 1887 04.11. 1887

?

1882–83

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

4

Bühler

Windisch

Windisch, E.*

3

Bühler

Windisch

Unidentified

2

Bühler

?

Unidentified

3

Bühler

?

Unidentified

3

Bühler

Unidentified

6

Bühler

Zürich

Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.53 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.54 Leipzig: UA Leipzig, NL Windisch 2.72.55

Wien

Hannover: Acc.43.2210

Wien?

Tübingen: Ma I 427–20

Wien

Tübingen: Ma I 427–7

Wien

Austrian National Library: Autogr.133_79

Zürich

INDEX Abhilaṣitacintāmaṇī, 34 Abhinanda, 58 ABHYANKAR, K. V., 132 Abu, 13, 30, 56 Ācārāṅgasūtra, 33 Ācārya Jinamukti Sūri, 19, 96 Ācārya Śrīpuj, 19 ADLURI, Vishwa, 12, 145 Āgama, meaning of, 51 Agathokles, 93 Age of Consent debate, 47 Ahmedabad (Ahmadabad), 13, 29, 30, 31, 35, 54, 96 Aihoḷe Praśasti, 76, 84 Āīn-i-Akbarī, 81 Ajanta, 77 Ajaya (Cāhamāna King), 68 Ajmer, 67, 68 Alaṁkāraśāstra, 12, 54, 132, 141 Al-Beruni, 78, 99, 100 ALI, Daud, 107 ALLCHIN, F. R., 88 ALLEN, Charles, 16, 17 ALON, Uri, 2 ALSDORF, Ludwig, 73 Amarakośa, 96, 132 Amarapaṇḍita, 66 Amaravati, 76 American Oriental Society, 21, 25 Amoghavarṣa, Vākpatirāja II of Paramara dynasty, 65 Amoghavarṣa, Karka III of Rāṣṭrakūṭa dynasty, 80 Anantadeva, author of Saṁskārakaustubha, 43

Anantadeva, king of Kashmir, 58, 64, 108 Andhra alphabets (Southern Brāhmī), 86 Anekārthasaṅgraha of Hemacandra, 25 Anhilvāḍ Pāṭaṇ, 31, 80 Anjuman-i-Punjab, 21 Antialkidas, 93 Aparārka, 43 Āpastamba, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 58, 113, 114, 115, 118, 121, 123, 124, 128, 130 Apollodotos, 93 APTE, V. S., 99, 133 Aramaic (inscriptions, language or script), 89, 90, 101, 102 Archaeological Survey of India, 16, 37, 98 Archaeological Survey of Western India, 75 Arisiṁha, 66 Arjunavarman, 58 Artemidoros, 93 ASA, Dastur Hoshang Jamasp, 138 Ashte, 29, 52 Asiatic Society of Bengal, 21, 92 Asiatic Society of Bombay (Mumbai), 7, 11, 21, 22, 46, 56, 136, 144 Aśoka and Aśokan Edicts, 24, 25, 39, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 88, 89, 91, 93, 95, 117, 127, 135, 136 Astrology, 119 Aśvaghoṣa, 142, 143 Atharvaveda, 33, 34, 54, 92 Austrian Academy of Sciences, 21, 25, 48, 94, 140 ayaputa, 73 BAGCHEE, Joydeep, 12, 145 225

226

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Bagumra Grant of Nikumbhallaśakti, 79, 84, 137 Bagumra Grant of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Dhruva III, 61 Baijanātha Praśasti, 80, 146 BAINES, J. A., 26, 122, 130 Bairat (Bairāṭ), 71, 136 Bāṇa, 57, 106, 108, 109, 111, 126, 143 Banaras (Benares, Varanasi), 27, 29, 31, 51, 127 Banawasi, 83 Banskhera, 79 BAPAT, Shreenand L., 1, 19, 59, 80, 117 Bappadeva, 117 Bardōlī, 61 Baroda, 54, 62, 80, 122 BARTH, M. A., 39 BARUA, B. M., 69, 70 Basim plates of Vindhyaśakti II, 77 Baudhāyana, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 111, 112, 113, 115, 128, 130 Belgaum, 29, 45, 52 BELVALKAR, S. K., 1, 7, 50 Benares, see Banaras BENFEY, Theodor, 9, 12, 18, 22, 47, 56, 96, 131, 146 Berlin Academy of Science, 21 Bhāgavatapurāṇa, 34 BHAGWANLAL INDRAJI, 6, 12, 50, 59, 60, 68, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 85, 86, 95, 101, 102, 116, 135, 136, 137, 139 BHANDARE, Shailen, 59 Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Bhandarkar Institute, BORI), 1, 7, 30, 33, 34, 45, 47, 48, 53, 58, 63, 65, 68, 100, 125 BHANDARKAR, R. G., 24, 31, 33, 51, 59, 60, 85, 98, 124, 131, 132, 133, 138, 144 BHANDARKAR, S. R., 32 Bhāratamañjarī, 33 Bharuch (Broach), 29, 30, 54, 84 Bhatner, 13, 30 Bhattiprolu, 73

BHAU DAJI, 27, 75, 77, 95, 135, 136 Bhaunagar, 29, 54, 134 Bhāva Bṛihaspati, 83, 134 Bhavnagar, see Bhaunagar Bhīmadeva II, Grant of, 50, 80 bhogibhogātapatra, meaning of, 131 Bhṛgu-Saṁhitā, 46 bhrūṇa, meaning of, 50, 113 Bikaner (Also Bikanir), 13, 30, 31, 35, 134 Bilhaṇa, 63, 64, 108, 109, 122, 126 Bilhaṇapañcāśikā, 64 Bodleian Library, 10, 36 BÖHTLINGK, Otto, 46, 113, 114, 119 Bombay (Mumbai), 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 42, 52, 54, 56, 83, 120, 122, 124, 130, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138 Bombay Branch of Royal Asiatic Society, see Asiatic Society of Bombay Bombay Government, 10, 11, 23, 28, 32, 41, 45, 52, 53, 56, 136 Bombay High Court, 11, 27, 41 Bombay Presidency, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 41, 42, 52, 53, 98, 120, 122, 125, 129, 133, 139 Bombay Sanskrit Series, 11, 25, 37, 41, 44, 48, 52, 56, 57, 63, 133, 138 Bombay University, 11, 12, 22, 23, 60, 120, 137 BORI, see Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Borstel, 9, 17, 18, 21 Bower manuscript, 6, 92 Brāhmaṇibhya, meaning of, 73 Brāhmī script, 2, 74, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 101 Bṛhatkalpasūtra, 33 Bṛhatkathā, 33, 57 Broach, see Bharuch BRONKHORST, J., 147 Buddha, 16, 38, 71, 72, 94, 95, 97, 129 Buddhacarita, 142

INDEX Buddhism, 5, 37, 74, 75, 76, 94, 97, 143 Bulsar (Valsad), 29 BURGESS, J., 20, 37, 64, 65, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 94, 95, 98, 109, 129, 131, 140 ca, meaning of, 48, 113 Cāhamāna, 68 Calcutta (Kolkata), 29, 42, 48, 77, 92 Cālukyas of Gujarat, 60, 61, 65, 79, 80, 81 Cālukyas of Kalyani, 43, 47, 63, 108, 122 Cambay (Khambayat, Khambhāyat), 29, 31, 61 Cambridge, 36, 141 Caṇḍikāśataka, 57 Candram Pandit, 134 CARTELLIERI, Wilhelm, 145 catuṣka, meaning of, 48, 127 Cāuḍā (Cāpotkaṭa), 66 Cedī era, 79 Census of India, 26, 122 Chammak plates, 69, 76, 116, 117 CHAPALGAONKAR, Narendra, 47 CHATTOPADHYAYA, Debiprasad, 87 Chennai (Madras), 27, 29, 42, 51, 139 Chittarājadeva Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara, 85 CHOUTZE, T., 90 Cintra Praśasti, 82 Cola, 108 COLEBROOKE, Henry Thomas, 43, 71, 94 Comparative mythology, 10, 18, 96, 97 COUPERIE, Terrien de la, 90 CUNNINGHAM, Alexander, 13, 60, 71, 72, 76, 77, 87, 91, 95 CURTIUS, E., 9 Dabhoi Inscription, 81 Dadda II, also see Umeta grant, 84 Dadda IV, 84 DAHLMANN, Joseph, 145 Dakṣa-smṛti, 34 dakṣiṇāyana, meaning of, 49 Dantidurga, 80 Daśakumāracarita, 24, 57, 115

227 Dattakacandrikā, 43 Dattakamīmāṁsā, 43 Deccan College, 11, 22, 27, 29, 58, 132, 134, 137, 138, 139 Delhi, 31, 67, 94 Department of Public Instruction (and Director or Minister of), 11, 12, 23, 25, 53, 120 DESHPANDE, Y. K., 77 Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 21 Devanāgarī, 7, 29, 83, 92, 137, 139 Devapattana Praśasti, 82 DEVÉRIA, Gabriel, 90 Dewal Praśasti, 50 Dhanapāla, 47 DHARAMSEY, Virachand, 102, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 Dharaṇīvarāha of Vaḍhvān, 49, 80 Dharasena I, 78 Dharasena II, 84 Dharmasindhu, 43 Dharmavahikā, meaning of, 50 Dharwar, 29, 52 Dhātupāṭha, 48, 119, 121, 145, 146 Dhaulī, 71 Dhiniki Grant of Jāikadeva, 83 Dhruva III (Rāṣṭrakūṭa King), 61 Dhruvabhaṭa, 78 Dhruvādhikaraṇika, meaning of, 78 Dhruvarāja II (Rāṣṭrakūṭa King), 62 Dhruvasena I (of Valabhi), 13, 78 Dhvani theory, 106 Digambara Jainas, 94, 95, 96, 129 Digest of Hindu Law, 8, 11, 22, 27, 28, 41, 42, 44, 112, 116, 119, 124, 149 DIKSHIT, Bhau Shastri, 53 Diomedes, 93 Dionysias, 93 DIVEKAR, Vinay (Vinayak?) Shastri, 133 Divirapati, meaning of, 78 Divyāvadāna, 97 Dohad inscription, 81

228

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Dṛṣṭam, meaning of, 50, 116 Durgagaṇa, inscription of, 82 East India Company, 42 Educational Inspector, 12, 15, 22, 23, 53, 120, 149 EGGELING, Julius, 75 Elphinstone College, 10, 12, 22, 23, 98, 132, 134 Encyclopaedia of Indo-aryan Research, 4, 25, 26, 87, 130, 139 Ethnography, 107, 118, 119, 126, 129, 130, 151 Ethno-Indology, 129, 130, 151 Eukratides, 93 EUTING, Julius, 102 EWALD, H. von, 9 Fa-hien, 72 FALK, Harry, 72, 73, 88, 90, 127, 136 FERGUSSON, James, 72 FLEET, J. F., 50, 59, 61, 62, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 83, 84, 87, 98, 105, 116, 140, 141 FORBES, Kinloch, 95, 135 FÜHRER, A. A., 16, 17, 36, 37, 38, 39, 74, 76, 79, 81, 95, 98, 152 GANNERI, Namrata, 10 GARBE, Richard, 26 GARDNER, Percy, 93 Gauḍavaha, 24, 30, 34, 62, 99, 107, 137, 138 Gautama Dharmasūtra, 41, 44, 45, 113 Gautamīputra Yajñaśrī, 59, 74 Gazni, 67 GELDNER, Karl Friedrich Eugen, 97 GHATE, V. S., 106, 107, 108, 141, 142, 143 GHOSH, A., 98 GHOSH, M., 98 Girnar, 65, 71, 82, 135, 141 GOḌBOLE, Bhikuśāstri, 132 GODE, Parshuram Krishna, 53

GOKHALE, Shobhana, 75, 84 GOLDSTÜCKER, Theodor, 10, 51 Gondal, 13, 29 Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, 33 Göttingen, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18, 21, 22, 31, 36, 68, 138, 140 GOUGH, Archibald, 1, 13, 14, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 47, 54, 118, 125, 132, 134, 135, 139 Govana III, 82 Govinda IV, 60 Govindarāja, 127, 128 Graeco-buddhist Pedestals, 74 GRANT, Alexander, 10 Grantha script, 92 Greek Grammar (also Greek language), 9, 22, 23, 96 GRUENENDAHL, Reinhold, 2, 7 Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, see Encyclopaedia of Indo-aryan Research Guhasena, 85 Gujarat, 12, 13, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 53, 54, 60, 61, 62, 66, 68, 73, 75, 80, 81, 83, 104, 124, 125, 126, 135, 137, 139 Gujarat Vernacular Society, 21 Gujarati Language, 6, 12, 24, 41, 50, 67, 68, 75, 81, 82, 85, 96, 120, 121, 123, 127, 135, 136, 146 Guṇāḍhya, 57 Gupta-Valabhi era, 59, 78, 84 HALÉVY, Joseph, 90 HALL, F. E., 57, 65 Hammīra-Mahākāvya, 68 HANNEDER, Jürgen, 97, 141, 143 Hannover, 9, 17, 21 Hanumangarh, see Bhatner Haradatta, 44, 46, 50, 99, 113, 114, 118, 128 Hārītiputa Sātakamni, 83 Harṣacarita, 24, 106, 108, 109, 110 Harṣadeva, King of Kashmir, 57 58, 64, 65 Harṣavardhana, 56, 57, 78, 79, 106

INDEX Hāthīgumphā inscription, 74 HAUG, Martin, 11, 24, 27, 30 Heliokles, 93 Hemacandra, 25, 31, 34, 47, 95, 113, 146 HERRMANN, K. F., 9 Hieratic, 86 HILLEBRANDT, A., 26 Hippostratos, 93 Hīrahaḍagalli, 77 Hiraṇyakeśin, 44, 46 Hiuen Tsang (also Hiuen Tsiang), 48, 60, 109 HOEY, William, 69 HOLTZMANN, Adolf, 14, 144, 145, 151 Horiuzi manuscript, 6, 83, 91 HÖRNLE, A. F. Rudolf, 69, 92, 93 HOUBEN, Jan, 88, 89 HULTZSCH, Eugen, 62, 71, 72, 76, 90 Hūṇas, 67, 107, 142 Huviṣka, 74 HUXLEY, Andrew, 37, 38 Ilichpur plates, see Chammak plates Imperial Academy of Sciences, see Austrian Academy of Sciences Imperial Russian Archaeological Society, 21 India Office Library, 10, 27, 34, 36, 37, 56, 65 Indian Antiquary, 4, 5, 7, 55, 87, 136 Indian Epigraphical Glossary, 50 Indian Palaeography, 14, 24, 68, 73, 87, 88 Indische Erbauungsstunden, 7, 96 Indische Palaeographie, 87 Indische Studien, 55, 140 Indo-Grecian Coins, 6, 93 Indo-Scythian kings, 95 Indus Valley Civilization, 87 Institut de France, 21, 36 Institute des langues Orientales vivantes, 21 International Congress of Orientalists (Oriental Congress), 6, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 95, 100, 137, 140

229 Italian (-mythology, Italians), 96, 131 iti, meaning of, 48, 69, 113 JACOBI, Hermann, 7, 13, 21, 30, 35, 36, 38, 56, 63, 94, 95, 100, 101, 129 Jagaḍūcarita, 62, 66, 67, 109 Jaggayyapetta, 74 Jāikadeva, 83 Jain Devanāgarī, 53, 63 Jaipur, 94 Jaisalmer (Jesalmer, Jesalmir), 7, 13, 20, 30, 63, 134, 137 Jammu, 125 JANERT, Klaus L., 50, 95 Jātaka-s, 56, 72, 117 Jaugaḍa inscription, 71 Jayasiṁha (Siddharāja), 81, 95 JAYASWAL, K. P., 69, 70 Jesalmer, see Jaisalmer JHALAKIKAR, Bhimacharya, 132 JHALAKIKAR, Vamanacharya, 132, 134 Jhālrāpāṭhan, 82 Jina Vijaya Muni, 96 Jinaprabha, author of Tīrthakalpa or Kalpapradīpa, 68 Jñātiputra, 95 Jodhpur, 13, 30, 68, 134 JOHNSON, Donald Clay, 11, 31, 32, 36, 139 JOLLY, Julius, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 37, 39, 41, 55, 96, 97, 107, 120, 127, 133, 139, 140 Jonarāja, 146 Junagadh, 29, 54, 59, 75, 135, 136 Kādambarīkathāsāra, 58 KAEGI, A., 15, 17 Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, see Austrian Academy of Sciences Kalaśa, 58, 64, 108 Kalhaṇa, 105, 106 Kālidāsa, 12, 67, 107, 141, 142, 143 Kalpapradīpa, 68

230

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Kalpasūtra, 36, 44, 45, 95 Kalyāṇa, author of Nāradasmṛtibhāṣya, 33 Kalyāṇa, the city of Cālukyas, 43, 63 Kamalākara, author of Nirṇayasindhu, 43 Kamboja, 144 KANE, P. V., 43, 44, 128, 130, 145, 147 KANGLE, R. P., 45 Kaniṣka, 74 Kannada, 41 Kanoj, 57, 127 KAPADIA, H. R., 86 Karad (Karhad), 52 Karka III, 80 Karkoṭa dynasty, 58 Kashgar (Weber) manuscript, 6, 92, 93, 94 Kashmir, 14, 22, 31, 34, 36, 55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 75, 99, 100, 109, 121, 122, 125, 126, 128, 134, 136, 152 Kashmiri Pandits, 122, 126, 128 Kāśīnātha Upādhyāya, author of Dharmasindhu, 43 Kāśyapa-smṛti, 34 Kathāsaritsāgara, 57, 58 KATHAVATE, Abaji V., 133 Kāthebarika, meaning of, 78 Kathewad (also Kathiavad or Kathiawar), 29, 54, 73, 135 Kauśāmbī, 71 Kauśika Gṛhyasūtra, 33 Kauśikasūtrapaddhati, 34 Kāvi, 60, 84 Kāvyaprakāśa, 132 Kāvyaśāstra, 105, 106 KERN, H., 26, 72 Keshavaram Pandit, 134 KEUNE, Jon, 2 Khambayat (Khambhāyat), see Cambay Khāṇḍvī, 117 Khāravela, 74, 95 KHARE, G. H., 59, 72 Kharoṣṭhī (Kharoshṭhī, kharoshṭrî), 6, 73, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93

Khatravarman, 117 Khotan manuscript, 91 Khunmoh, 126 KIELHORN, Franz, 11, 12, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 50, 51, 54, 56, 59, 77, 87, 98, 118, 132, 133, 138, 139 KIRFEL, Willibald, 18 KIRSTE, J., 47, 144, 145 Kīrtikaumudī, 62, 66, 81, 107 Kolhapur, 13, 19, 29, 52, 53 Kolkata, see Calcutta Kṛṣṇa II (Rāṣṭrakūṭa king), 61 Kṛṣṇapaṇḍita, 111, 112, 115 Kṛttikā-series, 100 Kṣatrapa (kings or inscriptions), 59, 75, 86 Kṣemendra, 33, 57 Kubera, author of Dattakacandrikā, 43 Kumārapāla, 81, 95, 134 Kumārapālacarita, 95 Kumārapālapratibodha, 96 Kumārila, 130, 144 Kuṣāṇas, 142 Kutbuddin Aibak, 81 Kuṭila script, 50 Lahore, 31, 60 Lakkhā-Mandal Praśasti, 79 Lakṣmaṇacandra, 80 LASSEN, Christian, 25, 94, 129 Latin Language, 11, 23, 96 Lāvaṇyasiṁha, 66 Laws of Manu, 41, 46 Leiden Oriental Congress, 6, 95 Leitfaden für den Elementarcursus des Sanskrit, 98 LEUMANN, Ernst, 26, 28, 33, 76, 143 LEUTSCH, E. von, 9 LEVI, Sylvian, 106 Lexicography, 2, 25, 47, 48, 50 LIENHARD, S., 143 Likhita-smṛti, 34 LIMAYE family at Ashte, 53 Limdi, 13, 29

INDEX Lithuanian mythology, 96 London, 5, 10, 21, 22, 37, 64, 96, 139 LOTTNER, C., 10 LOTZE, H., 9 Lucknow, 16, 17 Lucknow Provincial Museum, 37 LÜDERS, Heinrich, 16, 75 LUDWIG, Albert, 90 LYALL, Alfred, 37 MACAULAY, Thomas Babington, 42 MACDONELL, A. A., 26, 143 Madhuban copperplate, 79 Madras, see Chennai Magadha, 88 Mahābhārata, 14, 34, 50, 58, 97, 106, 107, 112, 126, 144 Mahābhāṣya, 33, 51 MAHAJAN, D. B., 77 Maharashtra, 11, 12, 22, 28, 29, 43, 52, 121, 123, 124, 132, 137, 139 Mahāvīra, 60, 95 Mahāvīracarita, 34 Maheshwar, 131 MAJUMDAR, A. K., 67 MAJUMDAR, R. C., 106 Mālatīmādhava, 24 Mālatīmādhavaṭīkā, 33 Malayagiri, 85 Malharrao Holkar, 131 Malkheda, 80 Mānava-Dharmaśāstra, 44, 45, 46 Maṅkha, author of Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, 122 Manusmṛti, 19, 41, 44, 45, 46, 111, 112, 114, 127 Marathi Language, 12, 19, 23, 41, 49, 50, 120, 123, 124, 127, 128 MARSHALL, John, 98 Marwari Language, 134 Mathura, 16, 37, 38, 75, 76, 81, 95, 96, 98 Maurya, 71, 73, 79, 86 MAX MÜLLER, F., 4, 6, 10, 18, 43, 44, 45, 46, 58, 70, 91, 106, 124, 135, 141, 142, 143, 147, 150, 151

231 Medhātithi, 111 Menandros, 93 Merutuṅga, 50 Mesopotamia, 88 MEYER, Leo, 9 MICHAELS, A., 129 MINAEV, Ivan Pavlovich, 36 Mingai, see Bower manuscript Miraj, 52 MIRASHI, V. V., 59, 75, 77, 117 Mitākṣarā, 24, 33, 42, 47 Mitramiśra, 43 Moharājaparājaya, 96 Molesworth’s Marathi dictionary, 49, 123 Monier-Williams Dictionary, 48, 49, 50, 113, 127 MONIER-WILLIAMS, Monier 36 Morbi plates, 85 MORISON, J., 62, 68 Mōta (Mota), 61 Mṛgaśiras, 100 MUKHERJI, P. C., 98 Mumbai, see Bombay Muñja, 64, 65 Nāgaṇikā, 75 NAGAR, Murari Lal, 63 Nāgārjunacarita, 134 Nahapāna, 59 Naiṣadhīyacarita, 110, 132 Naiṣadhīyadīpikā, 33 Nakṣatrakalpa, 92 Nalopākhyāna, 98 Nandapaṇḍita, 43 Nandivardhana, 77 Nandol, 13, 30 Naneghat, 75, 93 Nāradasmṛtibhāṣya, 33 NARAIN, L. A., 98 Nashik, 29, 54, 72 nātaputta, see Jñātiputra Navasāhasāṅkacarita, 64, 65, 66, 109 Nepal, 17, 38, 59, 91, 106, 135, 136

232

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Neue Deutsche Biographie, 4, 18 Nienburg, 9, 21 Nikumbhallaśakti, 79, 137 Nīlakaṇṭha, 42 Nīlamatapurāṇa, 122 Nipani, 52 Nirgranthas, 94, 95, 129 Nirṇayasindhu, 43, 49 NÖLDEKE, T., 4, 13, 18, 97, 107, 120, 133, 140 North Semitic alphabets, 2, 87, 88, 89 North-West Provinces, 37 North-Western alphabets, 92 OBERLIES, Thomas, 2, 7, 129 OJHA, G. H., 50, 101, 102 OLDENBERG, Hermann, 45 OLIVELLE, Patrick, 44, 45, 46, 114, 115 Order of Franz-Josef, 21 Orient und Occident, 55, 96 Orion, 100 Ӧsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, see Austrian Academy of Sciences Oxford, 6, 10, 36 OZA, V., 134 Padmagupta, 64, 65, 109 PAGE, J. A., 98 Pāialacchīnāmamālā, 47, 138 Palitana, 29 Pallava, 76, 77, 116 Palli, 13, 30 Pañcasiddhāntikā, 33 Pañcatantra, 8, 24, 48, 49, 56, 57, 98, 127 PANDIT, Shankar Pandurang, 49, 62, 99, 124, 127, 133, 135, 137, 138 PANDIT, Vishnushastri Pandurang, 98, 133 Pāṇini, 48, 76, 133, 146 Paramahaṁsa Sabhā, 124 Pārasikas, 67, 107, 108 Parjanya, 96 Pārtha-parākrama-vyāyoga, 33

Patan, see Anhilvāḍ Pāṭaṇ Patana, 98 Pava, 95, 129 Peheva inscription, 83 PENDHARKAR, Anant Shastri, 133 perkunas, 96 PERRY, Edward, 24, 98 Petersburg Akademie, 21 Petersburg, 36, 92, 93 Petersburg Dictionary, 48, 49, 50, 113, 127, 138 PETERSON, Peter, 1, 19, 31, 57 Petroffski manuscript, 93 PHELPS, T. A., 16, 38 Philological Society of London, 96 Phoenicia, 87, 88 Phoenician script, 87, 89, 101 Phulomnee case, 47 PILLAI, L. D. Swamikannu, 80, 85 PISCHEL, Richard, 47, 48, 97, 138 POLLOCK, Sheldon, 2 Poona, also see Pune, 10, 22, 30, 52, 132, 138 Prabandhacintāmaṇi, 50, 95 Prabandhakośa, 65, 66 Prabhāvakacarita, 95 Prācīn Lipimālā, 101 Prajñā-pāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra, 6, 91 Prārthanā Samāja, 124 praśasti, meaning of, 49 Pratisaraka, meaning of, 78 Pratyabhijñāsūtravimarśinī, 34 Pravacanaparīkṣā, 60 Pravarapura, 63, 77, 117 Pravarasena II, 76, 117 pre-puberty marriage of girls, see Age of Consent debate RINSEP , James, 50, 71, 72, 76, 101, 116, P 135 Pṛthivīrājarāsau, 67, 68 Pṛthvīrāja II, 68 Pṛthvīrājavijaya, (also Pṛthivīrājadigvijaya), 62, 67, 68, 107

INDEX Public Instruction Department, see Department of Public Instruction Pune, also see Poona, 7, 11, 27, 29, 32, 35, 45, 52, 71, 79, 83, 100, 132, 137, 138 Purāṇas, 19, 58, 107, 142 RADHAKRISHNA, Pandit, 28, 139 Raghuvaṁśa, 24, 142 Rājaśekhara, 65, 66 Rajasthan, 13, 22, 30, 32, 35, 36, 55, 63, 104, 122, 124 Rājataraṅgiṇī, 34, 55, 58, 64, 105, 106, 107, 134 Rājataraṅgiṇī-saṁgraha, 34 Rajkot, 13, 29, 134 Rājputānā, see Rajasthan Rājūkas, meaning of, 72, 117 Rāmacarita, 58 Rāmāyaṇa, 98 RAPSON, E. J., 26 Rāsamālā, also Rās mālā, 81, 95 Rasikasaṁjīvinī, 58 Rāṣṭrakūṭa, 60, 61, 62, 80 RATH, Saraju, 88, 89 Rathakāra, 128 Rathor inscriptions, 61 RAU, Wilhelm, 59 Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature, 108, 141, 142, 143, 150 Ṛgveda, 18, 34, 97, 125 RHYS DAVIDS, T. W., 37, 38, 72, 118 RICE, L., 69 ROTH, Rudolf von, 18, 101, 129, 138 Royal Asiatic Society, 7, 21, 36, 64, 98 Royal Library of Berlin, 36 Rudrabhūti, 75 Rudradāman, 59, 75, 135 Rūpanāth, 71 Śabdānuśāsana, 34, 113 SACHAU, Edward C., 99, 100 Sacred Books of the East, 41, 44, 115 Sahasrām, 71

233 SAID, Edward, 2 Śakas, 108, 142 Śākuntala, 24, 34 SALLET, Alfred von, 93 SALOMON, Richard, 50, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 Samāja, meaning of, 72, 73, 127 Sāmaveda, 45, 92 Saṁskārakaustubha, 43 Samudragupta, 67, 105, 106, 107, 108, 142, 150 Sanatkumāra, 97 Sanchi, 38, 74, 76 Sangli, 29, 52, 132 Sāraṅgadeva, 60, 82 Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, 132 Sarvāṇanda, 66, 67 SASSETTI, F., 131, 132 Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 96 Satara, 29, 52, 53 Sātavāhanas, 59, 75, 76 Śatruṁjaya, 65 SAUPPE, H., 9 Sāyaṇa, 96 SCHNEIDEWIN, F., 9 SCHNELLENBACH, Christiane, 105, 106 SCHROEDER, L. von, 97, 143 SENART, E., 70, 71, 136 Senavarman, 79 Sendrakas, 79 Seoni (Sivanī) charter, 76 Shahabuddin Ghori, 67 Shahbazgarhi, 135 SHARMA, Arvind, 103, 106 SHASTRI, A. M., 76, 77, 117 SHOKOOHY, Bhadreśvar, 67 Shrinagar, 125 Siddapur, 73 siddham, meaning of, 51 Siddhamātṛkā, 50 Siddharāja, 81, 95 Śilāditya V, 85 Śilāditya VI Dhruvabhaṭa, 78

234

GEORG BÜHLER’S CONTRIBUTION TO INDOLOGY

Singhapura, 60 SINHA, B. P., 98 SIRCAR, D. C., 50, 143 Sivanī, see Seoni charter Śivaskandavarman, 76, 77, 116 Skandagupta, 135 SLAJE, Walter, 105, 106 Slavic (mythology), 96 SMITH, V. A., 16, 69, 142 Société Asiatique, 21 Sohgaura Bronze-plate, 69 SOHONI, Pradeep, 83 Somadeva, 57, 58 Somanāthapattan Praśasti, see Bhāva Bṛihaspati Somaprabhācārya, 96 Someśvara, author of Abhilaṣitacintāmaṇī, 34 Someśvara, author of Kīrtikaumudī, 66, 81 Sopārā, 59, 71 Sources of the Indian Lexicography, 25, 48 SPEYER, J. S., 26 SPOONER, D. B., 98 Śrāvastī, 70 Sri Lanka, 88 Śrīharṣa, 56, 57, 64, 126 Śrīharṣacarita, see Harṣacarita Śrīharṣadeva, 57 Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, 122, 146 STEIN, M. A., 55, 60, 74 STEVENSON, J., 51, 94 STOKES, Whitley, 10, 11, 27, 28, 139 Subandhu, 108 Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana, 65, 66 SUKTHANKAR, V. S., 126 Surat, 12, 14, 30, 54, 61 Sūryaprajñapti, 85 Sutār, 128, 130 Swat, 75 Tabula Scripturae Aramaicae, 102 Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa, 96

Tantrasāra, 34 Tantravārttika, 144 Tārīkh-i-Kaśmīr, 34 TAWNEY, C. H., 98, 107 Taxila (Takṣaśilā), 83, 98 TELANG, Kashinath T., 57, 133 TEWARI, S. P., 50 THAKUR, A. N., 49 THATTE, Chintamani Shastri, 132 THITE, G. U., 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 39, 41, 49, 55, 68, 77, 96, 97, 120, 121, 132, 133, 139, 140, 143, 147 TILAK, B. G., 100, 101 Tirodi plates, 117 Tīrthakalpa or Kalpapradīpa, 68 TOD, Colonel, 129 Toprā, 71 Toramāṇa Śāha, 83 Torkhede Copper-plate Grant, 62 TRAUTMANN, Thomas, 104 Treasure Trove Act, 36 Tübingen, 18, 120, 138, 140 TULLU, Raoji Vasudeva, 131 TULPULE, S. G., 81 Ṭutaram, 134 Umeta grant of Dadda II, 79, 84 Uṇādisūtravṛtti, 34 Upaniṣads, 34, 114, 115, 121 Upasmṛtis, 43 Uṣavadāta, 59 Uṣṇīṣa-vijaya-dhāraṇī, 91 Vadhvan (Vaḍhvān), 31, 80 Vadnagar Praśasti, 81, 134 Vāghelā, 60, 65, 67 Vahnipurāṇa, 34 Vaijayantī, 48 vaijayika dharmasthāna, meaning of, 77, 117 vairaniryātana, meaning of, 128, 129 Vairisiṁha, 65

INDEX Vākāṭaka, 76, 77, 116, 117 Vākpatirāja I, 65 Vākpatirāja II, see Amoghavarṣa Vākyapadīya, 51 Valabhi Grants, 13, 68, 78, 84, 85 Vallabhji Acharya, 134 Valsad, see Bulsar Vāmarathya, 69, 79 Varāhamihira, 33 Varanasi, see Banaras vartmapāla, meaning of 78 Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra, 37, 41, 44, 45, 46, 111, 128 Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇī, 59 Vastupāla, 65, 66, 82 Vatsabhaṭṭi, 141 Vatsagulma, 77 Vedānta, 30, 112 Vedas, 18, 26, 30, 46, 47, 72, 97, 100, 121, 123, 127, 133 Vedic mythology, 97 Vienna, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 56, 69, 98, 101, 137, 138, 140, 149 Vijñāneśvara, 42, 43, 47 Vikramāditya, 13, 47, 63, 109 Vikramāṅkadevacarita, 7, 13, 30, 34, 55, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 107, 108, 109, 110, 122, 143, 149 Vindhyaśakti II, 76, 77 Vinjhōl, 62 Vīradhavala, 65, 81 Vīramitrodaya, 43 Vīsaladeva, 65, 67 Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa, 100

235 Viṣṇu-smṛti, 41 Vyavahāramayūkha, 42, 43 WADDELL, L. A., 75, 76, 98 Wai, 52 Washim, 76 Watson Museum Rajkot, 134 WEBER, A., 30, 36, 51, 52, 55, 94, 129, 140, 146 Weber manuscript see Kashgar manuscript wergeld, 46, 128 WEST, R., 26, 27, 41, 42, 116 WESTERGAARD, N. L., 119 Western Kṣatrapas, see Kṣatrapa WHITNEY, W. D., 20, 102, 145, 146, 147, 151 WIESLER, F., 9, 68 WILSON, H. H., 33, 57, 58, 71, 94 WINDISCH, E., 132, 143 WINTERNITZ, M., 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 20, 23, 26, 56, 94, 98, 99, 118, 119, 120, 132, 133, 134, 140, 143, 145, 147 WÜSTENFELD, Heinrich Ferdinand, 9 Yādavaprakāśa, 48 Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 47 Yaśovarman, 108 Yavanas, 67, 107 ZACHARIAE, T., 26, 64 ZELLER, Gabriele, 138 Zürich, 15, 16, 17, 18 ZYSK, Kenneth, 2