Mahanisiha Studies And Edition In Germany

Author(s): Chandrabhal Tripathi
Publisher: Chandrabhal Tripathi

Page 82

82
Chandrabhal Tripathi
to the constitutio textus "in accordance with the genealogical relation of the Mss," but we should have liked to see this genealogical relation included in his text. As it is now, it is not always easy to understand the principles which he follows. For lack of more complete information we must also question some of the "intrinsic criteria" used on p.5. E.g., in I.206* the reading savvam annam has been adopted from C rather than the reading savvasallam, which is that of all manuscripts including c which is said to be generally superior. We are told that this and a few other readings "have been preferred because they give a better sense"; we wonder, however, whether this principle did not lead the editor to discarding some valuable lectiones difficiliores. On p.5-6, Deleu raises a problem which all critical editors must have been faced with, namely: normalization. The question is whether, if for a particular phenomenon the manuscripts do not show any consistency, the critical editor has a right to be more consistent than his materials. We too, have "normalized" on a number of occasions, but never without a feeling of guilt. We would not, however, go as far as Deleu and say: "I have tacitly corrected the transmitted texts:" if avagrahas are nearly always omitted, can we then really pretend that, by introducing them, we correct the transmitted text? We would have preferred "normalized" rather than "corrected".
The grammar section (p.9-14) contains some very interesting points. One possible remark concerns the author's tendency to derive the forms occurring in the Mahānisiha directly from Sanskrit. We would personally hesitate to say: "ahijje < adhiyeta" (no.11), and rather try to be more cautious: "ahijje < *adhiyet; Sk. adhiyeta." The difference is mainly methodological; we fear that too often the impression is created that all Prakrit formations can be derived from Sanskrit.
The editorial portion (p.18-72) with the variant readings (p.72-77), the translation (p.78-149) with notes (p.149-161), and the glossary (p.162-168) are models of painstaking scholarly research. For all passages in which we carefully compared text and translation, our notes never contain more than remarks on details; we shall reproduce a few specimens of them here.
In II.1* we were puzzled by the interesting form pasiyavvayam which, on p.12, is called a "part. necess.", and which, consequently, in the glossary (p.166) is explained as "(draṣṭavya)". Pasiyavva is, of course, well known; shall we assume that we are dealing here with a double gerundive, having both the suffixes -yavva- and -ya? There are, indeed, other instances of forms constructed with double suffixes or double endings (cf., e.g., Macdonell's Vedic Grammar, p.200, with a reference to Brugmann's Grundriss 2, p.661). When advancing this hypothesis, we imply that the last -y- derives from an old -y; if it proves to be a later development for an older intervocalic stop, the situation would be completely different.
If our interpretation of the translation of II.8* "though they go through the cycles [of existence] for an endless (space of) time" (p.95) is correct, we have the impression that parivarttante is taken as a 3rd pl. of the present tense. In reality it is a loc.sg. of the pres.part. of which anante vi kale is the subject. The translation of this verse also affords an excellent opportunity to raise a completely different point. In his effort to provide a really accurate translation, Deleu made ample use of brackets to include each and every word of the translation which was not actually in the original text. Yet, his translation would be equally accurate without the brackets, and, what is more important, it would be more readable. Thus the last pada of II 8: kehi puṇā'ṇādi