________________
-26
purpose and is not likely to have been lost in the transcription
process.
In the unintelligible third quarter, the occurrence of
vrata with a masculine suffix is particularly perplexing. K's own
text (p. 215) and reference to the Kalpa-lata-viveka (p. 210 fn. 3)
indicate that mahasi- must have been an old variant of navasi - in the
fourth quarter. Yet there is no clear recognition of any of these
problems in K's printing or translation of the text.
(b)
K (pp. vi and XII) remarks that he got his emendations approved by two
traditional scholars. Although I have great respect for the learning
of pandits and would approach them more readily for understanding a
Sanskrit sastraic text than most professors at Indian colleges and
universities, textual criticism is not an area in which I would trust
their judgement, unless, of course, they have studied and practiced
that science.
14.
To some extent, De too is party to this presumption. His decision to give
only a résumé of a part of the third chapter and of the entire fourth chapter
was unfortunate, although understandable. Even if he had printed his corrupt
transcript exactly as it was, other scholars would have gradually emended the
corrupt parts of the text and Kuntaka studies would have progressed faster.
Identification of fragments of the VJ, either in the form of manuscript leaves
or in the form of quotations by later authors, would have been facilitated.
Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara, from which Kuntaka quotes profusely, would also have
received a textual 'face-lift.'
15.
Not to be unfair to K, I should mention that De (pp. 200-203) too has not
considered here the possibility of confusion in the order of manuscript leaves.
