पृष्ठम्:Kalidasa's Śakuntala.djvu/११

Pische]'s Preface. to the First Edition. ed. Calc., 5ak. I792, edited by pamaruvalabha Panta of Nepal. These three editions have constantly been consulted, while I was preparing my text, but I have hardly ever admitted a reading from then into it, unless it was supported by one of my mss. or at least by Samkara. I have examined again all the Devanagari mss. used by Professor B6htlingk, the ms. Walker, no. 2or e (Auffecht, Cat. Cod. Oxon., no. 252), and the ms. Chambers, no. 272 (Weber, Catalog, no. 546). I have collated three mss. written in Telugu character (FHIP), one written in the Grantha character (L), and one in the Malayalam character (V). I have gone through the commentaries of three Dravidian scholiasts, Abhirama, Srini vasācārya' (these two are written in the Grantha character), and Kaaya vema (written in Devanagar, though copied from a Telugu original). Of all these Dravidian mss. I have given a full account in my pape 0ber eine studindische Recension des (Calkuntalam“ (Nachrichten von der K6migichen Gesellschaf der Wissenschaften u Gठttingen, 1873 p. 189 f.), and ,Die Recensionen der Cakuntalā“ (Breslau, 1875, p. Iof.) I have lately got possession of an edition of the Dravidian recension published at Madras, together with Srinivasācārya's commentary in the Telugu character. The text of the latter differs much from the London ms. I shall be glad to publish the Dravidian recension, should this be thought desirable by competent judges I need not expatiate here upon the principles according to which this edition has been prepared, as I have already stated these in the papers mentioned before, and also in another paper , ,De Kalidāsae Calkuntali recensionibus“ (Breslau, 1870). I have further shown in an article published in the ,Beitrāge 2ur vergleichenden Sprachforschung (vol. 8, p. 129 f.), that in the Dravidian and Devanagari recensions the Prakrit is not Saurasen, but a wild mixture of various dialects. My edition of the Vikramorva5iyam (Berlin, 1875) has fully confirmed this view, and has proved that it is in South-India that Sanskrit dramas have been adulterated and abridged . I have given special attention to the Prakrit passages, and I trust that this edition will contribute to a better knowledge of scenic Prakrit than it has been hitherto possible to a9cuire. - I have added in the margin and at the end of the stan2as the numbers of Prof. Bbhtlingk's edition . [These are cancelled in the second edition.] , and not Nivasacarya: see Burmell, Indian Antiguary, 6. 233 (1877) [Digitized by (Google