पृष्ठम्:वेणीसंहारम् (आङ्गलटिप्पणीसहितम्).pdf/१४३

एतत् पृष्ठम् परिष्कृतम् अस्ति
25
Act II, Notes & Translation

 I never looked up though possessed of eyes ; even having heard things, I (made as if I had) never heard them enough or distinctly lest I should get into trouble by indiscreet disclosure of secrets) ; though able-bodied, I learnt on the staff supplied as part of my duty; I never walked (straight on) impudently, having to be on my guard against all possible varieties of blunders (in behaviour). So my life being thus held in complete thraldom by the circumstance of service, what mischief is there indeed Wrought by old age ?

 Every misery of his life, says the Kanchukin, is already entailed by his condition as a servafit and old age has utailed no new misery on him, अधिकृतadj. to थष्टिः rather than adj, to मया from अधिकृतं अधिक्रियते इति अधिकृत् is not a satisfactory explanation. अधिकृत येष्टिः would mean ' the stick or staff prescribed as an emblem of the office.'

 ईक्षितुं for ईक्षितं is not a breading. For then the infinitive would have to be cons with न अलं and the sentence grammatically would be गई इक्षितुं नालम् ; but the nominative form, अहं occurs nowhere in the verse while the instrumental मया occurring in the third line fits in with every other predicate, In every Case almost, the predicate is a past passive participle and ईक्षित in place of ऍक्षितुं brings that predicate too into harmony with the other predicates. For a similar reason समालम्बिता is better than समालम्च्य ते, We must not tamper with the original text but where different readings are found we may discriminate and choose such as appear satisfactory and are at the same time not exposed to the Suspicion of being interpolated emendations.

 I differ with the commentator as to the construction to be put on the first line of this stanza. The commentator construes it as उचेः (=मइति ) चक्षषि सत्यपि अलं न ईक्षितं, श्रुत्वाऽपि न कणितम् He takes अलं’ with 'न वैक्षित' and 'उच्चैः with 'चक्षुषि,' treating the indeclinable उचैः as equivalent to the adjective मद्दति and quoting his authority for so doing. He appears to be driven to this shift, perhaps,, partly by the consideration that (उचैः and 'अर्छ' as both modifying इक्षितं would, in some manner, involve resedundance, and partly by the consideration that not seeing what passes around' is,in his opinion, perhaps, a more intelligible point of resemblance between an old man with his sight weak-