________________
Introduction.
रामः सूनुर्यदा नैव गृह्णाति हस्तिनं विना । स्वप्रतिज्ञाविधानाथ' विधिना चार्पितो गजः ॥ 129 कियत्यपि गते काले राजसूनोः सहस्रशः ।
गजा जाता मन्त्रिजस्य मिलिताः स्वर्णकोटयः ॥ 130 उक्तं च ।
3
आपदो' महतामेव महतामेव संपदः " ।
हीयते' वर्धते चन्द्रो न तु तारागण: ' क्वचित् ॥ 181 निर्जित्य वैरिणं युद्धे राजसूर्वरदन्तिभिः ।
स्वराज्यं पालयामास पेत्रीयं मन्त्रिणा सह ॥ 182
7
It will be seen at once from this specimen, that Jayavimalagani was by no means a great scholar. Metrical and very serious grammatical blunders occur in his text. In stanza 110acm has a grammatically correct reading; but this is no doubt the result of correction by some copyist; for in 114d the blunder क्षुधार्तिना has similarly been corrected in m; but the correction is as barbarous as the original reading itself.
Substantially the only difference between the prose and the metrical version is that in the latter the genius faf, as should be expected, is represented as a male. But this evidently is an alteration by Jayavimala. The text on which his versification was based must have had considerable interpolations. As in our passage the quotations 107, 109, 117, 118, 181, so in the rest of his text many others fail to occur in the prose version. The revised MS. m has even more such interpolations than M.
In one passage the immediate original from which Jayavimala made his versification seems to have been altered in a foolish manner. For the two pādas 111cd: सुष्वाप विमर्तु मन्त्री तस्व दुःखप्रवद्वचः correspond to the last words of § 27 of the prose version: सुष्वाप मन्त्री मनसीष्टदेवतां स्मरन् । विधेस्तद्वचनं न विस्मरन् ).
In no single case does the versification afford the slightest help towards correcting corrupt passages of the prose recension.
1) M स्वप्रतिज्ञां विधांनाय, corr. to our reading; m स्वप्रतिज्ञां विधानीय ॥ 2) " संपदी ॥ ३) । चापदः ॥ 4) m चीयते ॥
") m •गणाः ॥ 6) As for two corrupted Präkṛt stanzas which Jayavimala found in his prose text, cp. below p. 9, note 5. ||
