________________
INTRODUCTION
77
'parebhyo in 43', where the star is really on the avagraha sign. This sign would not be written at all and then the reader would take what is left as had samdhi, emending tebhyo to tebhyah, or changing the succeeding consonant from hard to soft like tha narebhyo of most N MSS. But the S reading inahadbhyo emphasizes by paraphrase that the virtues described apply primarily to exceptional men. Para has one such meaning, though e infusion with the other meaning "strangor" might also have occasioned the change; but apara means, here as in 22 and perhaps 162, matchiess or unexcelled, which seems to satisfy all the requirements both of meaning and textcriticism.
Avoidance of hiatus is general in Sanskrit poetry on the classical model. But Bhartrhari shows Prakrit influence at least in his metres, for we have bosides the ürya-giti verses, a mātrāsamarrtta in 141, and agaiu & dodhaka in 117. Certainly, there are cases of permissible hiatus: in 25%, twice in 116 while another in 1132 has been emended by the addition of a needless int in most MSS and that in 24" by substituting munau for riau. Now hiatus after a strong pause can certainly not have caused any difficulties, though there is a clearly discernible growing tondency to avoid samdhi across the pādas as well as hiatus, on the part of our scribes. Examples are across 17897, 139ab, 4301, while the apparatus of 18ab not only shows the addition of all sorts of particles but even change of order to avoid a samdhi which, like that over 15904, does no harm to anying except tho panse,
If it be granted that a hiatus is permissible with a strong pause as after a quarter, then it is easy to show that a considerable number of the cases of hiatus occur across a pause which was originally as strong, as for example ihe 12+ 7 caesura in the sārdūlavikridita metre. The strength of this particular caesura for our special collection of stanzas is evident when one considers transpositions made of portions before or after such a caesura as in 230, 169c and the numerous cases of strong variation amounting at times to it total substitution that are reported for the whole unit of seven letters at the end. It is not surprising, therefore, to find several of the cases of hiatus coming precisely across such a pause. The first is across 1595, then across the caesura in 148, Now 298 also shows an exactly parallel transgression of the caesura as 1439, but the absence of variants give no reason to believe in the existence of an original hiatus there. The à jñātam of 249d and tha anu amsikrtya of 30 tab are not starred only because they seem to appear in the H and J commentaries respeciively. The former needs no further justification, bein, obviously the correct reading. The latter is much more difficult as tho J commentary is poor and the only explanation that I can see there is to tako iu its ( alverbial) neuter in the predicate; there are many more readings for just this case in uncollaied MSS, but saidbi across the padas does not seem to have caused any difliculty here.
The natus vilecijane inju vam seemed the rest way of explaining the various particles and the vive plural in .1', while somo support comes from the meticulous H commentary which makes no mention of auy such particle, nor of the plural. The starred reading in 86 ko vă arthaih similarly :1ccounts for all the variation; the final sānurăgah is to be taken with kah,
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
