Prakritadhyaya

Author(s): Kramdishwar, Satyaranjan Banerjee, Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 21

12
CRITICAL APPARATUS
dra, and published from the Cbātrapustakālaya, Caloutta, 1924 A.D. (=1332 B. S.). The editor has used the Bengali script for the text.
$ 18. All these tbree editions (P1, P, & Ps) are complete (i. e. including Sanskrit portion) and are in Bengali character. It has been found that all of them are badly and uncritically edited and one has. blindly followed the other. So far as the Prākrit portions are con. cerned, it is evident that all these three (P1, P, & Ps) have copied from P which is earlier, because the errors that we find in P have also crept into these editions without any improvement whatsoever.. So with regard to the Prākrit text, the editions P1, P, and P, are ad verbatim of P. I have, therefore, consulted only the text P, although occasionally others have also been consulted in a very few cases, where any difference was noticed.
§ 19. These four printed editions (P, P1, P, & Ps) are eclectic and based on no recognizable principles. In reality, these are neither trustworthy nor adequate as good Präkrit grammar, Since the editors of these printed editions have not given us any information whatsoever, about the Mes, consulted and collated by them, the value of these printed editions, as it can be judged, is less than that of a single good manuscript. (iii) Textual readings of all the Manuscripts and
those of L and D identical § 20. Now, from the descriptions of L, D and Sabove, we are in a position to say that we have been able to consult partly the Prāhrla-dīpikā of Candīdevaśarmā, although we cannot definitely assert this until the manuscript of Candidova as consulted and collated by Leggen, Delius and Dolci has personally been examined by us in its entirety. It is found that Lassen and Dolci have only quoted the beginnings from this manuscript in which the name Candideva along with his tākā Prakrta-dāpikā occurs. We have also noticed that Lassen and Dalius have presented ug many portions of the text, such as, Māgadbi, Paiści, Apabbramsa, Dbātvādeśa and others, from this manuscript. This gives us some opportunity to consult, compare and contrast the texts of Lassen and Delius with those of the manuscripts, A, B, C, C1, V, S and S, consulted and collated by me. On closer analysis and exami. dation, it is observed that the portions edited by Lassen and Delius