It is generally admitted by Orientalists that Patanjali lived before the commencement of the Christian era.  Mr. Barth places him in the second century before the Christian era, accepting Goldstucker’s opinion, and Monier Williams does the same thing.  Weber, who seems to have carefully examined the opinions of all the other Orientalists who have written upon the subject, comes to the conclusion that “we must for the present rest satisfied with placing the date of the composition of the Bhashya between B.C. 140 and A.D. 60, a result which considering the wretched state of the chronology of Indian Liturgy generally is, despite its indefiniteness, of no mean importance.”  And yet even this date rests upon inferences drawn from one or two unimportant expressions contained in Patanjali’s Mahabhashya.  It is always dangerous to draw such inferences, and especially so when it is known that, according to the tradition current amongst Hindu grammarians, some portions of Mahabhashya were lost, the gaps being filled up by subsequent writers.  Even supposing that we should consider the expression quoted as written by Patanjali himself, there is nothing in those expressions which would enable us to fix the writer’s date.  For instance, the connection between the expression “Arunad Yavanah Saketam” and the expedition of Menander against Ayodhya between B.C. 144 and 120, relied upon by Goldstucker is merely imaginary.  There is nothing in the expression to show that the allusion contained therein points necessarily to Menander’s expedition.  We believe that Patanjali is referring to the expedition of Yavanas against Ayodhya during the lifetime of Sagara’s father described in Harivamsa.  This expedition occurred long before Rama’s time, and there is nothing to connect it with Menander.  Goldstucker’s inference is based upon the assumption that there was no other Yavana expedition against Ayodhya known to Patanjali, and it will be easily seen from Harivamsa (written by Vyasa) that the said assumption is unwarranted.  Consequently the whole theory constructed by Goldstucker on this weak foundation falls to the ground.  No valid inferences can be drawn from the mere names of kings contained in Mahabhashya, even if they are traced to Patanjali himself, as there would be several kings in the same dynasty bearing the same name.  From the foregoing remarks it will be clear that we cannot fix, as Weber has done, B.C. 140 as the maximum limit of antiquity that can be assigned to Patanjali.  It is now necessary to see whether any other such limit has been ascertained by Orientalists.  As Panini’s date still remains undetermined, the limit cannot be fixed with reference to his date.  But it is assumed by some Orientalists that Panini must have lived at some time subsequent to Alexander’s invasion, from the fact that Panini explains in his Grammar the formation of the word Yavanani.  We are very sorry that European Orientalists have taken the pains to construct theories upon this basis without