2023-03-16 06:44:17 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
10
The thirty-two Bharataka stories.
Bhd. 5. All the sentences as well as the stanza composed by the
village poet are the same in both cases, and the variations between
the wording of our text and that of the Bhavnagar edition just
mentioned are quite insignificant. The style of the story is that
of the other stories of the Bhd. As there is no reason for the
assumption that the story was interpolated in the Upadeśaratnākara
by a later hand, the conclusion seems to be inavoidable that Muni-
sundara borrowed it from the Bhd. In this case, two possibilities
present themselves: either Munisundara himself is the
author of the Bharatakadvātrimsikā, or else, he borr-
owed from some work of one the other pupils of Somasundara
in order to honour him by this loan. For the first alternative,
which seems to me to have the greatest probability, the great
Hemachandra borrowing from his own works may be adduced as
an example, for the second I may quote Hemavijaya, giving in his
Katharatnakara, nr. 209, in the exact wording of the original, the
story iii, 149 ff. of Hemachandra's Parisistaparvan without mentioning
his well-known source.
The Language of the
for
fift. In the first fas-
cicle of this series, I have given my views on the Sanskrit language
and its development in general, and on the Sanskrit written by
the Shvetambars of Gujarat in particular. Hence I need not
expatiate here on this topic. I only want to state here briefly that
the author's language is grammatically correct. Pavolini, it is
tru asserts the contrary, 1. c. p. 52, n. 1. He says that the author
confounds the locative and the accusative cases in construing
with y, qura, i etc.; that he uses
(or vice versa),
and that he includes the oratio recta between and fa. Every
beginner knows that from the oldest period of the language onward
the locative is frequently used to express the goal or object of
motion or action or feeling exercised' (Whitney, Sanskrit Gram-
mar § 304), that and are synonymous words, and that the
construction with यथा. fa is excellent Sanskrit. Again Pavo-
lini says that the author forms an imperative for, that he
uses दनि for ददामि, and that he gives to सक्तु the neuter instead
of the masculine gender. Neither, nor as a neuter do
occur in our MS, and Pavolini does not quote any passages in
corroboration of his statements. As to , he can only have in
view the 8th story, where his MS reads. Every
beginner would have corrected the copyist's blunder by adding the
missing visarga to the second
Sanskrit Grammar, $340, 3, b and
in accordance with Kielhorn,
§ 588. The only irregularity
The thirty-two Bharataka stories.
Bhd. 5. All the sentences as well as the stanza composed by the
village poet are the same in both cases, and the variations between
the wording of our text and that of the Bhavnagar edition just
mentioned are quite insignificant. The style of the story is that
of the other stories of the Bhd. As there is no reason for the
assumption that the story was interpolated in the Upadeśaratnākara
by a later hand, the conclusion seems to be inavoidable that Muni-
sundara borrowed it from the Bhd. In this case, two possibilities
present themselves: either Munisundara himself is the
author of the Bharatakadvātrimsikā, or else, he borr-
owed from some work of one the other pupils of Somasundara
in order to honour him by this loan. For the first alternative,
which seems to me to have the greatest probability, the great
Hemachandra borrowing from his own works may be adduced as
an example, for the second I may quote Hemavijaya, giving in his
Katharatnakara, nr. 209, in the exact wording of the original, the
story iii, 149 ff. of Hemachandra's Parisistaparvan without mentioning
his well-known source.
The Language of the
for
fift. In the first fas-
cicle of this series, I have given my views on the Sanskrit language
and its development in general, and on the Sanskrit written by
the Shvetambars of Gujarat in particular. Hence I need not
expatiate here on this topic. I only want to state here briefly that
the author's language is grammatically correct. Pavolini, it is
tru asserts the contrary, 1. c. p. 52, n. 1. He says that the author
confounds the locative and the accusative cases in construing
with y, qura, i etc.; that he uses
(or vice versa),
and that he includes the oratio recta between and fa. Every
beginner knows that from the oldest period of the language onward
the locative is frequently used to express the goal or object of
motion or action or feeling exercised' (Whitney, Sanskrit Gram-
mar § 304), that and are synonymous words, and that the
construction with यथा. fa is excellent Sanskrit. Again Pavo-
lini says that the author forms an imperative for, that he
uses दनि for ददामि, and that he gives to सक्तु the neuter instead
of the masculine gender. Neither, nor as a neuter do
occur in our MS, and Pavolini does not quote any passages in
corroboration of his statements. As to , he can only have in
view the 8th story, where his MS reads. Every
beginner would have corrected the copyist's blunder by adding the
missing visarga to the second
Sanskrit Grammar, $340, 3, b and
in accordance with Kielhorn,
§ 588. The only irregularity