पृष्ठम्:Kalidasa's Śakuntala.djvu/१५

/ Preface by Cappeller to this, the second, edition . Prakrit word, but merely its sense-eguivalent. Thus in the example just cited, the form tat, given on page 1 12 as the Sanskrit eguivalent of ta, is not its phonetic eguivalent, but merely its sense-eguivalent therefore, so '. The Prakrit here, as often, is the refex of an older stage of the language of the Vedic, and the phonetic eguivalent of tā is tat, one of the normal Vedic forms at, yāt, tat, replaced in classical Sanskrit by asmat, yasmat, tasmat. This is all made clear by the foot mote and the reference to 8 425 of the Prakrit Grammar In some cases Candrasekhara's explanation of words or phrases is reported in our footnotes. See, for examples, the foot-notes to pages 144 and 145 The Variants. These were given in the first edition on the same page with the text and immediately under it. In this edition they have been put by themselves in a separate part of the volume and have been reduced in extent by about one half. Any one who will take the pains to examine a few pages of the variants of the first edition will readily admit that Pischel has given far more than is necessary or desirable Thus, to begin with, I have simply left out manifest blunders due to the scribe's carelessness or lack of intelligence or to the peculiarities of the Bengali alphabet. These Pischel had registered in great numbers, with conscientiousness, but probably not with entire completeness. Exam ples of such blunders follow (the citations refer to this edition): amus main for ayusman, i.7.2,6; 9.2; nasa for nama, i.20.3०; sauravasya for pāuravasya, i.24.29 ; sahule for sahle, i.24.45: gooraml for godaml, i.32.5; wibhat for viryam, i.2.a; tecab for cetah, i.3०.c; dup० for purpo, i.37. 16; dāra for dāva, iv.०.7 As for the variants of the Prakrit speeches, many forms which once passed for variants worthy of consideration and registration, may iow with the help of Pischel's Grammar be recognized as mere blunders and ignored accordingly. This holds especially for peculiarities of the Saurasen1 and Mahārāstri and Māgadhi and for the orthography of the particles khu kkhu, jeva jeva, tāva dava, and so on The numerous variations of the manuscripts among one anothe in the matter of stage-directions are in like mammer quite unworthy of full registration. (Such are the vacillations of the mss. as between svagatam and atmagatam1; avalokya and alokya and wilokya ; sadrst ksepam and sadrstiviksepam; pravisati and pravisya.) And it is of equally little consequence to record just which mss. use a hā dhik or a bhob a single time and which mss. repeat it, or which mss. leave out and [Digitized by (Google