________________
Nāsaketari Kathā
487
The text itself shows marks of a younger tradition. Not only have descriptive passages been amplified ( such as I, 21ff., II, 14; IV, 1; 32, 1 ), but also have single terms which in the source were and in Si are still, somewhat vague or even ambiguous, been (in Te) brought into a more concise, but less appropriate shape ( such as I, 105; or I, 107 )'. In some cases of disagreement, the reading of Si is borne out to be correct by Be Fi ( see p. 14), whereas that of Te, on the contrary, in some cases directly contradicts BeFi: (cp. I, 33; 38; 40; 46; 61; 80; II, 1 )?.
In other respects also, Te is inferior to Si, showing disfigurations ( as I, 76, cp. Si I, 56 )', and even heavy corruptions, which render the text unintelligible without the aid of Si, or the Saṁskṛta text ( as I, 46; 89-91, III, 8 ff.). Elsewhere, Te has inserted absurd passages (such as III, 38 ff.)', or left out important ones ( such as the opening passages I, 1-13; III, 68 ff; IV, 29; or the description of the battle XII, 32 ff., cp. Tessitori, 1. c. p. [3] )“.
Besides the numerous glosses that have crept into Si particularly, already the common archetype of Si and Te must have contained marginal glosses, one of which has been inserted into both texts : in Si in the right place, in Te in a wrong one, making the whole passage totally unintelligible ( cp. I, 90 and note ).
IV. The Matter As remarked before, the matter and its history will not be dealt with in detail here, especially as Belloni Filippi has summarily discussed the earlier recensions in his book “Iti ‘Nāsiketopākhyānam” (Firenze, 1902).
1. Cp. p. X, note 1. 2. I give the 'standard words' without changing the transcrip
tion of the L.S. 3. = 'd' and 'r' of the L.S. 4. Cp. the respective notes. 5. Cp, the respective notes. 6. Nāgarī Prachāriņi Granthamālā Series No. 2, Allahabad 1901.
w
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
