________________
222
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
BOOK NOTICES.
(a) BOMBAY SANSKRIT SERIES. The Malavikagnimitra of Kalidasa, edited with notes by Shankar P. Pandit, M.A.
1869.
(b) The Malavikagnimitra of Kalidasa, literally translated into English Prose by C. H. Tawney, M.A., Professor of the English Language, Presidency College, Calcutta. 1875.
The number of the Bombay Sanskrit Series now to be noticed was edited by one of the few native scholars of the Presidency who have taken part in the work, the only one perhaps who has grasped the idea of true editorship as held in the West. Mr. Pandit has been most successful in the task he undertook, which was the production, for the first time, of a correct edition of the drama, "based, as every edition of a Sanskrit work ought to be, on the collation of several trustworthy MSS. collected from different parts of India." Seven manuscripts were thus collated, namely, six written in the Devanagari character and obtained from various parts of the Dekhan, and one written in the Telugu character.
We regret, however, to notice in this volume, as indeed in the whole of the Series in a greater or less degree, improvements of the text in the notes at the end. The text is apparently printed first; and then when the notes are prepared, such passages as are found to be untranslatable, or faulty in other respects, are reconsidered, and emended there instead of in the text. But we maintain that such a thorough sifting and testing from every point of view should be made of the text, before it is finally adopted, as to render any after-corrections unnecessary. At any rate, no better advice could possibly be given to the editors of the Series than that tendered by the Bishop of Gloucester to the present revisers of the text of the English Bible, viz. "Make the reading of the text better than that of the margin or notes."
There is one peculiarity in the Prakrit of the present edition which does not commend itself to our judgment, and that is the doubling of an aspirate by an aspirate, instead of by a nonaspirate as directed by Vararuchi. Thus is represented by instead of by the form prescribed in the Prakrita Prakásd. In support of this innovation the editor says, "My authority for the deviation is the concurrent testimony of all the MSS. These have a peculiar method of writing Prâkrit conjuncts. In Sanskrit they give all the con. ponents of a conjunct distinctly, but in Prâkrit the presence of the first component of every conjunct letter is merely indicated by a dot placed before it. This dot indicates that the letter before which it is placed is to be doubled. Thus what ought to be fully written अत्तभवं they write अ तभवं, aj
[JULY, 1875.
jaitta is अजउ-त and not अज्जउत्त, and so also in the case of conjuncts containing aspirates as दि-ठा, लछी, पु-फ, पु-छिदा." The inference Mr. Pandit draws from this is not, however, a neces-. sary one. Of course as regards unaspirated letters there can be no doubt as to the meaning of the symbol, but it is not at all clear that in the case of aspirates the dot is intended to represent any kind of doubling different from Vararuchi's wellknown system. But even supposing for the sake of argument that a departure from the grammar was intended by those nameless copyists, would that be any reason for perpetuating it?
The notes appended to the play are excellent, and will be found of considerable value in elucidating it, but their nun ber might with advantage have been greater. They contain three or four inaccuracies which it may be well to point out. For instance, on page 23, means be natural,' rather than be well composed; and which on page 31 is rendered the shop of a butcher,' would more correctly be 'a slaughterhouse, the latter being open to the sky, and therefore more likely to attract the birds said to be hovering over it. This is confirmed by Professor T&ránâtha's definition of the vocable by प्राणिवध
•
1
On page 41, line 4, occurs the expression as an epithet of Malavika, the 3 of which Mr. Pandit renders the inner part,' instead of the stem. Possibly the pith of the reed may have been uppermost in the poet's mind, but as he did not give a form to the thought we have no business to do so for him. The phrase "Nor does conjecture like to acquaint me with that only which is true" is not a good translation of तत्त्वावबोधकरसो न तर्क on page 42. A literal rendering would be "Conjecture does not possess perception of truth as its chief essence," that is, "Conjecture is not always to be relied on." Whence did Mr. Pandit obtain the meaning 'blesses' for the word arafa in the sentence आदाय कर्णकिसलयमस्मादियमत्र चरणमर्पयति, the last member of which he renders blesses him (sic) with her foot, i.e. touches or kicks him with her foot."' The passage needed no note at all, but if the annotator thought otherwise, he might have given us something more accurate than the above. Again, some authority is needed for 'लडिड to bite
or browse' (page 77, line 6); the root a fa area, but fa has no such meaning. Authority is also needed for the rendering of fa on the next page by 'lovers,' and of on page 89 by a leather box.'
