In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the world's leading Sanskritologists were engaged in an animated discussion about Patañjali, the author of the Mahābhāsya, trying to date his life and activities. And since Patañjali's commentary on P.V, 3.99 mentions the Mauryas, representatives of the famous imperial dynasty, naturally enough, no one participant in the discussion could not pass over this commentary in silence. Later authors, outstanding philologists and historians of the twentieth century, also made their contribution to the question. Heatedly debated was virtually every word in Patañjali's commentary, and the scholars who took part in the controversy disagreed profoundly on both the translation and interpretation of the text. Moreover, each was entirely convinced he was right. The only scholar who evinced any doubt in the correctness of his own understanding of Patañjali's commentary was Theodor Goldstücker. He was also the first to espy irony in it and its possible significance for historians, though he was not brave enough to provide interpretation of his own...
2—4 декабря 2024 г. состоится Ежегодная научная сессия ИВР РАН «Письменное наследие Востока как основа классического востоковедения». Предлагаем вашему вниманию программу Сессии.
PDF-файлы
_elanskaya_1969.jpg)
