________________
54
REVIEWS
part enumerates the various instances from Päli in which it is possible to discern the eastern influence, and the second part furnishes the picture of the phonology and the morphology of the language of the original As I propose to give a detailed review of the second part at some other place, the present account is restricted only to the first part of the book. It is well known that the most striking elements of the eastern language are nom. sg. ending -e and I for r. In the first part LUEDERS has brought together such instances from Pali where he finds the influence of these two eastern characteristics and successfully shows that the passages containing these instances yield good sense only when we suppose that they are based on an original eastern version.
The following remarks are therefore offered not in a spirit to controvert the main conclusion of LUEDERS but to elucidate certain points in the material handled by him.
1. 10, p. 17: In Jätaka 388,1 we have a word dani in line 1. For this the Simhalese manuscripts read dane and LUEDERS is right in thinking that this is the correct reading. In the translation of the verse, however, LUEDERS renders däni by 'jetzt'. Päli dani for eastern däne shows a change of e>-i probably indicating, as suggested by LUEDERS, short pronunciation of -e. This change is witnessed also in the northwestern inscriptions of Asoka. cf. duvi for duve (dve), ami for amñe (anyaḥ), rajani for rajane (rājānaḥ). We also get a similar instance from a version of the minor rock edict, probably under north-western influence. cf. upeti for upete (upetaḥ) in the Kopbal version. For Påli hemantagimhisu for -gimhesu (cited on p. 17, f.n. 3) we have an exact parallel in pavatisu for pavatesu in the Rūpnāth version of the minor edict.1
2. §14, pp. 19-20 LUEDERS has shown convincingly that the Mahāvastu (II. 238. 17) translator had mistaken anumatte hi of the original eastern version as one word (anumattehi instr. pl.) and misconstrued it as adj. to punnehi. He, therefore, translated it into Sanskrit as aņumātraiḥ punyaiḥ. The whole line then read as
aņumātraiḥ punyaiḥ artho mahyam na vidyati.
LUEDERS further observes that the translator while doing so did not pay attention to the fact that in putting anumatraiḥ punyaiḥ (6 syllables) for anumatte hi punnehi (8 syllables) he had shortened the first quarter of the line by two syllables. This is true so far as the written form goes. But perhaps this fact may show that the visarga preceded by the diph
1. For a similar tendency to change ei in the Niya Prakrit and the Kharoşthi Dhammapada see BURROW, The Language of the Kharosthi Documents, § 1.
Jain Education International
Madhu Vidya/577
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
