VVäänänen, Veikko, b. Nov. 28, 1905, Mikkeli,Finland, d. June 1, 1997, Helsinki, Finland;Romance and classical philologist.V. began studying German at the Universityof Helsinki in 1925 but soon switched to Latinand French. His Finnish teacher, O J. Tallgren-Tuulio, introduced him to the Pompeian in-scriptions. After studying in Paris and Mont-pellier, V. went to Pompei to prepare his thesison the inscriptions (published 1937 andreedited, revised and enlarged, 1959, 1956). V.was appointed associate professor of classicalphilology at the University of Helsinki in 1938and, after a period of teaching at the Universityof Louisiana, U.S., in 1948/89, full professor ofRomance philology in 1951, a position he helduntil his retirement in 1972.V. edited several Old French texts, dealt withaspects of Latin-Romance comparative syntax,and examined Gallicisms in French. Above allhis name is connected with the study of VulgarLatin, an in particular with his famous and stillfundamentalIntroduction(1963). He also pro-duced monographs within his preferred field ofresearch, Late Latin texts and inscriptions.V. was an honorary member of the RoyalAcademies of Belgium and Spain and of theItalianAccademia dell Arcadia, and the Univer-sities of Bucarest and Toulouse conferred onhim the title ofdoctor h. c.(1937):Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompØiennes,Helsinki (Berlin21959,31966). (1963):Introd. au lat.vulgaire, Paris (31981; It. ed. Bologna, 1971,21974; Sp.ed. Madrid, 1968,31988). (1965):Étude sur le texte etla langue des Tablettes Albertini, Helsinki. (1966/70):Graffiti del Palatino, 2 vol., Helsinki. (1973):Le iscri-zioni della necropoli dell Autoparco vaticano, Roma.(1977):Ab epistulis ... ad Sanctum Petrum: formulesprØpositionnelles lat. ØtudiØes dans leur contexte social.Helsinki. (1981):Recherches et rØcrØations latino-ro-manes, Napoli. (1987):Le journal-Øpître d Égerie:Étude ling., Helsinki.Eerikäinen, L.J. & Salminen, R. (1981): “Biblio.de V.V.”, in: Väänänen,V.(1981)Recherches et recrØa-tions latino-romanes, Napoli, 447–58.Roques, G.(1997): “V.V.”,RLiR61, 627–30.Herman, J.(2003):“En souvenir de V.V. L Øtat prØsent des Øtudes sur lelatin tardif et vulgaire”, in: Solin,H.,et al., eds.(2003):Lat. vulgaire / Lat. tardifVI, Hildesheim, 3–20.Rainer SchlçsserVa ̄caspati Mis ́ra, fl. 850 or 900–980? Mithila ̄(Darbhanga, North Berar? India); versatile dis-ciple of Trilocana who contributed to variousphilosophical systems. On theYoga(-su ̄tras)(fiVya ̄sa) he wrote theTattvavais ́a ̄radı ̄(Woods1914); on theNya ̄ya(-vais ́es ̇ika), such extensivetreatises as theNya ̄yasu ̄cinibandhana, a classicalsummary ofsu ̄tras; and, primarily, theNya ̄ya-va ̄rttikata ̄tparyat ̇ı ̄ka ̄, an impressive commentaryon theNya ̄yavarttikaof Uddyotakara (fiGau-tama).V. s theories and deliberations on the notionof word (s ́abda, sam ̇jÇa ̄) are expounded withreference toNya ̄ya-su ̄traI,1,4 (1985:93–131).Words are not found in the external world,which does not prevent them from referring toexternal objects, without, however, affecting theperception of the latter. So there is a conformitybetween the surrounding reality and the struc-ture of the language (yatha ̄ca bhede pi tes ̇a ̄m ̇tadva ̄caka ̄na ̄m ̇sa ̄ma ̄na ̄dhikaran ̇yam; 1985:117).V. emphasizes the distinction as well as thenecessary correlation between word and object.Theobject is perceivedand cannot be hidden bythe name (sam ̇jÇa ̄). Thesam ̇jÇa ̄is the generalnotion conveyed by memory (smr ̇ti); it is not anintrinsic part of the particular perception (Dra-vid 1972:116) but something arbitrary and ac-cidental. The recollected word stands apartfrom the object named, consequently, thesense-organ contact with the object is the prin-cipal cause of the particular perception of thatobject while the memory of the word is secon-dary.InNya ̄ya-su ̄traII,2,66 (1985:670–88) V.criticizes the Buddhist doctrine ofapohava ̄da(fiDigna ̄ga). In his view, concepts and wordsmust be regarded as referring to positive entitiesand not only aimed at the denial of what theyare not ( cow = non non-cow ; Dravid1972:265). Under the pressure of the argumentsof V. andfiKuma ̄rila, the subsequent Bud-dhists modified their approach. Word meaningceased to be completely negative and was con-sidered, rather, to contain just a negative ele-ment.V. has also given an assessment of verbaltestimony. According to him, the validity ofsuch testimony is based on the following infer-ence: This speech is correct because it comesfrom a reliable person . But such an inferencecannot make us understand what words andsentences mean. The sentential meaning isgrasped by dint of the memory of the wordmeanings and through expectancy, competency,and proximity as auxiliaries (Potter 1977:466,475–76).In a slim treatiseTattvabindu(Drop ofTruth), V. states his views on thesphot ̇a(fiBhartr ̇hari), which he rejects, and on othertheories relating to word and sentence seman-tics. According to him, stressing the importanceof the last letter in order to comprehend thesense or claiming that such comprehension
