________________
Here the problem is not only of reading but also of language. According to general belief the KM is written in a Saurasepi dialect. But Konow has never mentioned it in so many words. In his opinion Rajasekhara's KM is written in a sort of mixed Prakrit-between Mabarastri and Sauraseni. In his edition what we find is that the verses are in Maharastri and the proses are in Sauraseni following the dictum as laid down in the works of dramaturgy. After 35 years, M. Ghosh edited that text again. In his edition all the passages are in Sauraseni. Konow has consulted several Mss, and some of the best Mss do contain the readings in Sauraseni even in verses which he has either corrected for the sake of dramaturgy or neglected as improper readings. Ghosh has done just the opposite. For example :
Sten Konow : hou (Ms. bhodu), Ghosh : bhhdu phurau (Ms. phuradu), phuradu etc.
With regard to some of the readings of Desināmamāla, Pischel remarks :
"Another great difficulty was raised by the examples which Hemacandra adds at the end of the commentary on each stanza of the ekārtha sabdas. These examples are either void of all sense, or of an incredible stupidity .. It was a most disgusting task to make out the sense, or rather non-sense, of these examples, some of which have remained rather obscure to me." (Pischel's edition of Desināmamala Poona, 1938, pp. 29-30.
This remark of Pischel depends upon the selection of readings which, at times, seems to be ineffective poetically. Let us take one example to demonstrate this truth.
Pischel's reading :
adae suņāhi ayade aņāda adayaņa-pie sarasi kāleamdhamdhumavinaya-varāha-vvāthanam-tamittha añado kim
(Hc. I. 18. verse 15)
The English translation on the basis of this reading will be as follows:
208/JAINTHOLOGY
