________________
6
CAMDALEHA
and my corrections do not go beyond the threefold lapses which are sufficienly evident even from the select readings. No genuine reading is consciously sacrificed in the interest of some editorial discipline, a stray rule of grammar, a certain dialectal theory, or some linguistic expectation. Whenever I entertained even a slight suspicion that it is not unlikely that others might have some other alternative correction to suggest, I have carefully noted the actual readings, exactly as they are in my transcript, in the foot-notes.
Both Kappuramamjarī and Camdaleha are Saṭṭakas. The former is edited in a superb style by Sten Konow; and it is quite natural that these two plays should be compared with regard to their Prakrit dialects. It is necessary to note Konow's method of text-constitution and also to indicate how I have proceeded. Pischel points out (§ 12) that Mahārāṣṭrī, the phonetic structure of which was largely determined by the fact that it was above all used in musical stanzas, has been employed in the Gathas and allied songs which lie scattered in the writings of authors on rhetorics and are grafted also in the dramas. According to Viśvanatha (14th century A. D.), women not of lowly origin should speak Śauraseni in drama, but in their songs (āsām eva tu gāthāsu) they should use Mähārāṣṭrī (Sahityadarpaṇa VI. 159). This application of Māhārāṣṭri', Pischel concludes, 'in lyrical poems destined for musical purposes is doubtless the oldest, and the dropping of consonants in such large proportions is primarily to be attributed to this cause.' In another context he remarks (§ 22): The Sauraseni occupies the first place among the Prakrit dialects which are used in the prose the dramas.' Pischel and Konow were almost simultaneously working on the Grammatik and Karpuramañjari; Pischel introduced a genuine order in the study of Prakrits by his monumental grammar; and, taking their mutual relation into consideration, it is no wonder that Konow wanted to carry with zeal the theory laid down by Pischel into practice. Konow distinguished the dialect of the prose from that of the verses in the Karpūramañjarī (p. 202). This is put by Lanman in plain terms: The Sauraseni is used as the conversational dialect, that is, in the prose passages; while the Mahārāṣṭrī is regularly used in the stanzas' (p. 200). Acceptance of this rule with universal and retrospective applicability has led Konow beyond the limits of readings supplied to him by nearly a dozen MSS.; and here is his frank confession: The chief aim of this edition then is a linguistic one. But besides, I have also
of
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
