Kavyanushasana Part 2

Author(s): Hemchandracharya, Rasiklal C Parikh, Ramchandra B Athvale
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 28

The Text
vit variants will show that I have erred on the side of giving too many rather than too few. The reason is obvious: a scholar should be given as much material as possible in judging the correctness of the text and as much scope as possible in selecting his own readings. But such errors in readings as appeared unmistakably due to scribes' ignorance, or carelessness are not noted; for example, the dropping of anusvāra mark which is so usual, or the forgetting to put the top curve on long (see p. 4, f. n. 2), or the misplacing of refa (see p. 37. f. n. 3), or the misplacing of letters, or the changnig of order of words (p. 377) etc.?
In the selection of readings, as indicated above, those of P are generally given preference, though sometimes those of I which are noted in the footnotes seemed more correct (see p. 45 F. N. I for 9779 and ugiat ), because it is the oldest available manuscript of the Kāvyānuşāsana. In the case of the Viveka when none of the three manuscripts gave a correct reading sometimes it had to be framed by putting the readings of A and B, and C together (see pp. 93 F. N. 3. 471a7ra:tet), or sometimes by changing the order of the letters; see for example, p. 154 where C giving मनसि, and A and B both giving मतसि, the reading adopted in the text is qafe which was what the context required.
In addition to these six manuscripts and the Nirnaya Sāgar edition, printed editions of works which have been utilized or referred to in the Kāvyānusāsana and the Viveka have been consulted for the comparison of readings. The various readings of these have
i See also pp. 56, 90, 269, 371, 426 etc.