Madhuvidya

SR No.: 006525
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 762
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Philosophy
File Size: 17 MB

Page 644

Biven.
Jānakiharana to a Sinhalese king named Kumāradāsa. The editor critically examines the available evidence and comes to the concluion that the author of the poem was not a king himself but a member of a Sinhalese royal family. The explanation of Kumāradäsa's epithet atiśayabhūta given on pp. lxvii-Ixviji is not likely to find favour. According to the editor, the epithet is to be explained as based on old Sinhalese *atisa ( =Sk. adhiša ) +aya (Skt. arya) meaning one who has become heir-apparent or heir-presumptive."
On p. xxx, the editor has listed some rare words (or rather, in some cases words with rare meanings ). It would have been better if the meanings of these words had also been given.
On p. 282, while commenting on II. 52, the editor translates ajahäd ...... dhama as "abandoned its ...... strength". Perhaps, it would be better to render it as "lost ...... (its) lustre''. This rendering will fit in better with the words tamahsthanam samāsādya "having encountered the abode of darkness" occurring in this verse.
P. 283, VIII. 39: The editor's reason for adopting the reading cakşuşā (instr.) against the manuscript evidence which gives cakşusah (abi.) has not been stated. It is also not clear why he refers to WHITNEY 414 end (p. 155 ).
P. 286, XIII 14 : The editor unjustifiably finds fault with Sanne which quite correctly understands jahati as a pl. form agreeing with mrgayoșitah (also pl.). The editor wrongly looks upon jahati as 3rd per. sg. (the sg. form actually being jahāti) and then offers an unlikely translation of the verse.
P. 288, XV 62: The editor mentions that the reading syānnare which is given by the MSS. can be understood either as syāṁ nare or syāl nare. He prefers the foriner; but actually the latter has to be preferred so that syāt can be easily construed with astha in (d). It has nothing to do, as supposed by the editor, with manye at (b). The editors should have also accepted the reading -drsi ( loc. sg.), going with nare and vānare, which is given by two manuscripts (the reading accepted by the editors is- dzsi)
P. 288, XVI. 45 : The editors have done the right thing in allowing the text in (d) to remain as it is and not amend it to väkyam üce following a possibility suggested by them.
. In the end a few misprints, not included in the Errata (p. i), may be pointed out': p. xxx, 1. 5 (from below ) read vārllika for vārtika; p. xxxi, I. 3, read sarasana for sarāsana; p. 223, XX. 57 (d), read prāyat for prayāt; p. 283, 1. 3 (from lelow), read IX. 39 for IX. 31; p. 282, IV. 2 and p. 284,1. 2 (from below), read Rśya-for Rsyaand Rśya ; p. 282. IV. 20, read, 'while L. and M. have' for ...... has'; p. 286. 1. 15, read mugdhadhiyah for mugha-. At a few places, e g. in III 49 (p. 31), va is printed as ba as in kalahamsasabam.
1 It is not clear why in this account on p. lii Kalidasa has been relerred to specially as the author of the Raghuvamsa and the Meghadura
Madhu Vidya/619