________________
248
P. 222. The dodhaka is turned into Sanskrit by Nilamani, and accordingly he calls the words (though they are entirely unmetrical) a gita. Apparently he disliked the Prákrit, and even more the vernaculars; that is certainly the reason why he has selected just two tales, of Lalitánga and of Nala, which do not contain any gáthás.
P. 223, 11. 4, f. That destroys the families of fish.' This seems to render some word like matsyakulántaka. Nilamani has a curious misreading, matsya-kutumbaka, which he in vain tries to explain in a note on p. 95. [The words are in C: kutra dalita matsya-kutumbako vakaḥ? C. H. T.]
P. 223, ll. 11, f. The verse is omitted in the edition.
P. 223, 11. 24-27 (Such... Nala'). This passage is apparently an Áryá stanza in the Sanskrit; at any rate, Nilamani has one here, though its first line is irregular. It reads as follows:
Kariçikshá-kuçalatvam súryapákasya ca karana-sámarthyam Atyadbhutam ca dánam Nalam vind 'nyasya násty eva. [Professor Leumann's conjecture is supported by C.] P. 226, 11. 20-32. This insipid invention is again discarded by Nilamani. He ought, however, also to have omitted the preceding words (one test of Nala is the delicious dish'). These give no sense now with him; it does not help a bit if he adds a note to explain eká ('one') by mukhya (chief'). Before áha (she said') he inserts tataḥ Davadanti kubjasamipam gatvȧ.
P. 227, 1. 14. Read Candrayaçá as before.
P. 227, II. 14-16. Also Nílamani has this passage, tatha ca Tápasapurasvámi Vasantaḥ Criçekhara ákáritaḥ. With him the last two names have no sense, as he has discarded before the respective passage (on p. 215) which would make clear what they mean.
P. 227, 1. 17 ('One'), up to 1. 24 ('place'). Rightly omitted by Nilamani, because he left out before (pp. 210-212) the corresponding passage.
"
P. 228, 1. 6, to p. 231, 1. 28. The whole of this final fancy is dropped by Nilamani as being purely Jainic. It is, however, interesting as a novelistic fabrication. For, the mention of Mammana and of Dhanya's (ie., Mammana's) bullock shows that the writer possessed an entirely vague notion of the story about Mammana and his golden bullock related in the commentaries on Avaçyaka-niry.,' ix., verse 49. The story itself is absolutely different, but the slight connection becomes certain in this case from the fact that the name Mammana occurs nowhere else. I have derived it elsewhere from the Christian notion of the pauwvas, his golden bullock being the same as the golden calf of the Jews. See Weber, Die Griechen in Indien,' 'Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akad.' 1890, p. 919, note 2.
P. 228, 1. 7, and p. 231, 1. 21. Read Nishadha as before.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
