Risht Samucchaya

Author(s): Durgadevacharya, A S Gopani
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan

Page 45

THE RISTASAMUCCAYA
readings are nothing but linguistic transformations, scribal lapses or their possible inferences. The portion which was illegible in B was legible in P and S thus the difficulty in presenting the text of this part could be avoided. But as the edition of this 5 text is appearing only for the first time and as there was no commentary available, I had no opportunities to benefit myself of the suggestions from other sources. Lastly, the fact that no other work of this author has up till now seen the light of the day increased my troubles all the more in understanding and 10 appreciating the text and the author's characteristics in a better
manner.
4
The above-mentioned circumstances forced me to handle the text with utmost carefulness and conservatism. By collating I was able to get rid of most of the scribal, metathetical, ortho15 graphical and haplographical errors. I have also tried in my humble way, wherever practicable, to fill up common lacuna the possible arguments regarding which are given, when imperative, elsewhere, especially in the Notes. I have based the text on B and S as they have preserved some of the outstanding chara20 cteristics of Jaina Sauraseni Prakrit in which the text was originally composed. I had to fill up the illegible and the incomplete portion of B and S from P as I said before. Thus it would at once strike that the edition presents an admixture of the characteristic features of both the Prakrits, namely, Jaina Śauraseni 25 and Jaina Mähäräṣṭri. When there was a radical difference in all the three Mss. (which was very rare) I selected a reading that appealed to me more and consigned the others to the footnotes. Where the text was corrupt and obscure so much so that it baffled my wits, I have put a question mark. When I found an agreement 30 in all the Mss. on common errors I had to risk emendations and make additions which are placed in brackets, small and square, in the text and which are merely tentative. They are made more or less to remove the errors of the scribes and not to improve on the author. But when the Mss. united 35 on a doubtful reading which was not the slip of the scribe, I have sometimes kept it as it is from the standpoint of metrical exigencies. Metre was to be first looked to. Even a better reading had to be discarded if it violated the scheme of the Metre. Initial or and a or (for) were selected by majority as 40 no Mss. preserved one or the other uniformly. Common scribal errors were plentiful and I had, therefore, to emend