________________
6
in error not only because of such confusion, but because he forgot that the Fi order was V-N-S against his and Carey's S-N-V. Of course, not all the F stanzas have been charted, and ahau vā hāre va has been kicked into his supplement, though found in all his MS sources, simply because the exact hundred had to be preserved: "a nobis quidem expulsa ne numerum centenarium transgrederetur liber". The notes are ostentatious enough, usually missing all difficult points; even there, the parallel between bhavanti namras and Sa'adi's "nehad sākh pur mevah sar bar zamin" has not been recognized.
EDITOR'S PREFACE
Two at least of Bohlen's successors refused to be outdone. The Bhartr hari version in Benfey's Chrestomathic is a simple copy of his predecessors, hence adds nothing to the textual information. The learned editor maintains in his preface that though duskha is the correct form, he would not insist upon it in his text, seeing that duḥkha had beea sanctified by usage; nevertheless, he has been unable to resist the temptation of euriching the Sanskrit language, and the form does appear in parts of the Chrestomathie, which thus takes a step further away from common sense as well as the MS evidence. Decidedly worse is Haeberlin's edition in the Kavyasamgraha anthology (Calcutta, 1847). The editor has not condescended to explain his method, if indeed he had one. As nearly as can be ascertained by comparison, the Bhartṛhari portion is an execrable reprint of Carey's elition, with some verses broken in two, each half being numbered separately, some missing altogether; there are gaps in the numbering, and quarters end in the wrong place. It might be possible to accuse the editor of plagiarism, but never of any such taint as knowledge of proof-reading, or of the Sanskrit language. The Karyasamgraha has beca improved in successiv editions by competent scholars like Jivananda Vidyasagara, so that the later Calcutta editions are at least readable, though there is no evidence of any new MS basis.
Indian editions. Our earliest printed editions, like the Telugu of 1840 or 1848 [no title page! IO 2. L. 33] could have been used as local versions, being extensions of the MS tradition. Unfortunately, they are singularly rare, for it was found more profitable to copy with emendations from other printed editions rather than go back to any codex. Among the earliest is a lithographed edition published at Benares in 1860 [Divakara Press; IO H 12a and 13] and re-issued immediately. This was by Harilal of Gaya, resident in Benares, and seems, according to the colophon, to have been completed in 1842. The solitary Bhartṛhari MS at Alwar [probably the same as no. 940, p. 39, Peterson's 1892 Catalogue] is a defective copy of this text and commentary, dated samvat 1900. The edition takes its text for N entirely from version W, as well as most of the commentary which he calls the Subodhini; the S is generally northern, but Śambhusvayambhu- has been omitted because of displacement in W, from which again the commentary is borrowed with additions; the V is definitely of the N recension, with arbitrary changes. Harilal's edition was copied without acknowledgement in some of the Bombay lithographs, unless Harilal had himself copied some such earlier edition which I have missed. Naturally, there is no question of acknowledgement on the part of those who have continued the borrowing. Among these, the Venkatesvar Steam Press edition at Bombay in 1884 adds a Hindi translation. While the Bombay lithographed editions such as IO 279, 3. B. 10 [1868] and 10. C. 5 [Jagadiśvara Press, 1882] generally favour W
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
