Indian Antiquary Vol 02

SR No.: 032494
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jas Burgess
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 428
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 405

DECEMBER, 1873.)
MISCELLANEA AND CORRESPONDENCE.
369
besides all the MSS. used by Prof. M. Williams, four Dravidian, five BangAli, and two Devanagari MSS., and having copied two Dravidian commentaries of which Prof. Hoernle has not even heard the names. Thus I think I am entitled to judge whether a reading is doubtful or not. For all questions concerning this play I have much pleasure in referring Prof. Hoernle to my papers on the recensions of the Sakuntala: Breslau, 1870, and Göttingen, 1873. Prof. Hoernle seems to be of opinion that everybody who does not speak the literary language speaks slang: there is, however, a great difference between the colloquial and the slang-keraka is colloquial but not at all slang. The form kerika is a false one; it is not supported by the MSS. I cannot see why Prof. Hoernle has been obliged to trust his Calcutta edition. There has been published a much better edition (Saka 1792) which is accessible to everybody who cares to get it; this edition (p. 252, b) has also bappakelake. The mistake is not so slight as Prof. Hoernle wishes to represent it. Keraka no doubt has the meaning of "own," " peculiar to," "belonging to," but it now rests with him to show how the participle krita came to receive this meaning. His reasoning was that, as prakelaka is the same as prakrita, thus kelaka is the same as krita; and as kara means the same as prakara, thus krita means the same as prakrita (p. 131.) I cannot discover any other passage in his essays where he alludes to the subject again. Thus I must still maintain that this error, which shows a complete want of criticism, invalidates all his deductions, and I am afraid that the absurdity imputed to me by Prof. Hoernle is his own. On the other hand I have endeavoured to show how keraka came to its meaning. Unfortunately Prof. Hoernle has not been able to understand me; for at p. 212 of his reply he says that I have adduced the words kajjam and kichohan as used in the same way as he says kera or keraka is. Nothing was further from my thoughts, and I cannot make out how it is pos. sible to misunderstand me so utterly. I have quoted all these passages in order to prove that kajjam and keram are used exactly in the same way, and hence that, as lajjam cannot but be derived from kdryam, the same must hold good for keram. I have adduced these instances only for the sake of the menning of keraka, and instead of recognizing the striking evidence, which really admits of no doubt, Prof. Hoernle imputes me a folly of which I was not capable. He then goes on to observe that the identification of kera with krita is an old traditional one of the Pandits. I confess that I prefer European criticism to the tradition amongst the Pandite; besides I am able to show that this tradition has never been univer.
sal. In the margin of the best and very old MS. of the Sakuntala, which is most carefully written, the word keraka is rendered twice by kdrya. This interpretation is due to the Pandit Tapadeva. There can be no doubt that Prof. Lassen has been quite positive in his opinion on the origin of kera. Prof. Hoernle quotes only the first passage, but there are several others, two of which I have already quoted. Nevertheless Prof. Hoernle omits them altogether. At p. 130 Prof. Lassen says: "similis ratio este ex orsi, prorsus autem diversa ejus e quod ex a vel á conflatur admixto i sequentis syllabæ ut tettia, keraka." And now he refers the reader to the first passage. The third passage is at p. 247:"i hoc ex ya orsum, si liquidam excipit sæpius transponitur, ita ut coalescat cum a vel d præcedenti in k; kera e karia pro kdrya;" and here he refers to p. 189, where he simply states as a fact" keram a kdrya cfr. kerakam." The fourth passage is at p. 367 : "post r aut ija fit ex rya, kajja e kárya, aut dissolvitur rya in ia, karya, kdria, kera; nam i antecedenti syllabæ inscritur." The fifth passage is App. p. 58: "compara cum hoc vocabulo (scil. with achchera) kdrya cujus forma solita est kajja; in versibus etiam kera legitur. Inde deri. vatum keraka in prosa, tamen sæpe legitur." Who except Prof. Hoernle can doubt that Lassen has derived kera from kdrya? Prof. Weber says that the "e" has originated from "a" under the influence of a following ya. I am unable to discover an "a" and a ya in krita, but I find them both in karya. Kdrya becomes kdria, afterwards kaira, and hence in Pråkpit kára; and the e, ori. ginally long, has been shortened afterwards. It is not necessary to suppose a form karra, as Prof. Kern does. A doubling of the ris forbidden by all Prâksit grammarians, and never found in Prakrit. In every other respect I agree with Prof. Kern in the way he has traced back kera to kurya.
The change of to d in krita is restricted to the Magadhi dialect by all Prakrit grammariang who have come to my knowledge, and indeed is found in this dialect only. Kada has always been local, and cannot be used to account for kera.
That in Marathi kela is the equivalent of krita proves nothing; many words may be the equivalents of others without being derived from them. Thus in parakera, &c. kera is the equivalent of the Sanskritic kíva, but I doubt whether even Prof. Hoernle would derive kera from kiya. Prof. Hoernle again takes refuge in an imaginary Prakṣitio word, "karita," without meeting with better success. The "/" in karita, being a mere conjunctive vowel, would never effect a changefrom a to é. Besides, what is the use of dealing with imaginary words where words of every-day occur.