________________
Reviews
341
On pp. 30-32 the editor gives the principles adopted by him for constituting the text. They will be discussed better by an authority more intimately acquainted with the work of textual criticism than the present reviewer. It may, however, be observed that on the basis of these principles the editor seems to assume that the author was not liable to commit any mistake, or that he could not have used a dialectal form in the place of a norm regar. ded as standard by the editor for a work of V. S. 1500. The question arises as to what should bave been the purpose of the editor,to give a text which is likely to be as near as possible to tbe original as written by the author, or which is as near as possible to the one which should have been written by the author ?
It is not possible here to comment in details on the readings adopted in the text. In Appendix II we do not find any note on verse 1 in Khanda I. The very first word gaurinandana, adopted in the text, bas & variant Gorinandana. It will have to be seen whether the vowel o in the first syllable of the variant was used as it was thought to be a near approach to the open pronunciation of the vovel in that syllable, gauri then may be a Sanskritization. It is clear that nut all the forms as used in the poem could be current in actual speech. This is easily seen from the instances of sarasalti (Sk. sarasvati ) and matli ( Sk. mali) in verse 1. The gemination in the final syllable is only due to metrical grounds, and it could not have any relation to the actual pronunciation. This is the reason why the ms. J has mistaken matli for nutti (Sk. muktt) which in the context is quite out of place.
We should, however, be grateful to Prof. Vyas for the great labour spent by him in constituting the text and reserve our final remarks until after the publication of the second volume.
M. A. Mebendale
Madhu Vidyā/606
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
