ful. Dr. Boehtlingk considers the viráma a mark of punctuation, and does not approve of its use except at the end of a sentence. He holds that the ciráma and the single perpendicular line generally used for punctuation originally only differed in one respect that the former denoted a pause after a consonant, the latter, after a vowel. He therefore dispenses with the viráma almost entirely. Doubtless this system may be advantageously carried out in India, where it has always commended itself to the Pandits, as tending to reduce the labour of writing, but I have constantly observed that the Hindú practice of joining every word operated on by the rules of combination is perplexing even to the readiest European apprehension. The student has already sufficient obstacles to surmount in the Devanágarí character, and in the rules of Sandhi. Why should an unnecessary difficulty be superadded? and why should not Sanskrit avail itself of the improvements in punctuation which are now universally employed to facilitate the act of reading? By creating needless hindrances, colour is given to the prevalent exaggeration respecting the difficulty of this language. The Latin scholar, if acquainted with the laws of cuphony, would not be embarrassed by the sentence Uby ad Dianæ venerir itav at sinistram (euphonically changed from Ubi ad Dianæ veneris ito ad sinistram): but he would, I think, be unnecesarily hindered if this permuted sentence were linked together according to the Indian system followed by Dr. Bochtlingk-Ubyaddianæ veneriritavatsinistram. Nor can I understand why the mere spaces left between the words in the first case should be deemed inconsistent with cuphony. If these spaces are only to be effected in Sanskrit by extending the legitimate functions of the viráma, the invention of other marks of punctuation, and the facilities afforded by modern typography, ought to leave us free to do so. In other languages, where the rules of combination prevail partially, no such union of words cuphonically affected is deemed necessary. Thus, in English, we do not write 'aneagle' because the euphonic n is affixed to a; nor 'theagle' because, in poetry, the final e of the has to be rejected. The only cases in which I have not ventured to separate distinct words operated on by Sandhi, are when two vowels blend into one, and when final u and i are changed into their corresponding semi-vowels e and y. In regard to the text of the present drama, if I have succeeded in producing a more correct edition of the Devanagarí recension than that of Dr. Bochtlingk, the merit is due to the more ample materials at my command. I have taken care to avail myself of Dr. Bochtlingk's corrections of himself, and his after-thoughts at the end of his work, as well as of such critical remarks as coincided with my own views. Often working independently of him, I have arrived at similar results, because I have had access to all the materials whence his Apparatus Criticus was composed. More than this: Dr. Bochtlingk tells us that his edition was not prepared from original MSS., but that Professors Brockhaus and Westergaard having more or less carefully collated certain MSS. in the East-India House Library, and in the Bodleian at Oxford, and made only partial extracts from three native commentaries, handed over the results of their labours to him. All these MSS. and Commentaries have been placed at my disposal, and most of them left in my possession until the completion of my work. Not a passage has been printed without a careful collation of all of them, and the three Commentaries have been consulted from beginning to end. The MSS. which I have principally used, are :— 1. A MS. from the Colebrooke collection, and, therefore, from the Eastern side of India, numbered 1718. 2. A MS. from the Mackenzie collection, and therefore from Southern India, numbered 2696. 3. A MS. from the Taylor collection, and therefore from Western India, numbered 1858, dated Sáka, 1734. All these belong to the East-India House Library, and represent the three Indian Presidencies respectively. 4. A copy of a very good MS. at Bombay, presented to me by Mr. Shaw, of the Bombay Civil Service. 5. An old Bengálí MS. belonging to the Library of the East India House, numbered 1060. 6. A very old Bengálí MS. from Professor Wilson's collection in the Bodleian. I have from time to time consulted other Bengálí MSS., but have rarely admitted readings from them, unless supported by some one of the Devanagari. Thus, the verses which I have inserted at the be ginning of the third Act are supported throughout by my own and the Taylor MS., and partially by that of the Mackenzie collection. The following are the three Indian Scholiasts : 1. Káṭavema, whose commentary, from the Mackenzie collection at the East-India House, is the only one in the Devanágarí character. He was the son of Káta Bhúpa, minister of Vasanta (who was himself the author of a dramatic work called “Vasanta-rájíya "), King of Kumára-giri, a place on the frontiers of the Nizam's dominions. He must have lived after the commencement of the sixteenth century, as he quotes Haláyudha, the author of the "Kavi-ráhasya" [see Westergaard's preface to the "Radices Linguæ Sanskritæ "]. This commentary is very corrupt; but where it is intelligible, is of great utility in throwing light on the more difficult passages of this play. 2. Sankara, whose commentary, from Professor Wilson's collection in the Bodleian Library, is on the Bengálí recension, and written in the Bengálí character. In many places it agrees with the readings of the Devanagari recension, or at least notices them. 3. Chandra-sekhara, whose commentary, belonging to the EastIndia House, is also on the Bengálí recension, and seldom does much more than repeat the words of Sankara. If this Chandraśckhara is the same person as the father of Viswa-nátha, the author of the "Sahitya-darpana," he probably lived sometime in the fifteenth century. I have never failed to consult the three commentaries before deciding on the reading of my text, and have made their interpretations the basis of the literal translation I have given of the metrical part of the play. All that is known of Kálidása, the author of the "Sakuntalá," may be stated in a few words. He lived in Ujjayiní or Oujein, the capital of King Vikramaditya, who flourished 56 years B.C., and whose reign is the starting-point of the Hindú Era called Samvat. He was one of the nine celebrated gems of that monarch's court, the splendour of which is a favourite theme with Hindú writers in all languages. The other works attributed to him are the "Vikramorvasí," and "Málavikágnimitra," before noticed; the "Megha-dúta," or Cloud-messenger, a short but beautiful poem, which has been edited by Professor Johnson in England and by Mr. Gildemeister at Bonn, and translated into English verse by Professor Wilson; the "Raghu-vansa," a heroic poem, edited and translated into Latin by Stenzler ; the "Ritu-sanhára," edited and translated by Bohlen, a short poem on the six Seasons, each verse of which is like a medallion, giving a complete picture of some Indian scene; the "Kumára-sambhava," a poem on the Birth of Skanda, the god of war, of which part has been lost; the rest, edited by Stenzler, and recently translated into English verse by Mr. Griffiths. The "Sringára-tilaka," "Praśnottara-málá, Hásyárnava," and "Sruta-bodha," are also ascribed to Kálidása. The "Nalodaya," attributed to him, is certainly the production of a later epoch. I have to express my acknowledgements to Professor Johnson, who has assisted me in revising the proof-sheets of this volume, and has aided me by occasional suggestions. I have also to thank Dr. Max Müller for some information connected with the Vedas. Every credit is due to Mr. Austin, of Hertford, for the spirited manner in which he has undertaken the printing and publication of this and other Oriental works, and spared neither trouble nor expense in carrying them through the press. EAST-INDIA COLLEGE, July, 1853. M. W. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS. Page 12, line 1, for read Page 21, line 3 of the first note, after 'distanced,' add: 'in good qualities, [in beauties].' Page 31, line 8 from bottom, for 'opposition' read 'apposition.' A Page 55, line 6 from top, carry back the one letter, from to Page 89, line 4 from top, the e of Sakuntala-darsane has dropped in part of the impression. Page 91, line 14 from bottom, for 'venerable hermit,' read venerable parent.' Page 113, note 2. With reference to this note, compare in Vikram., Act 1, Chitralekha-dwitiyám priya-sakhim Urvasim grihitwá věšákhá-sahita iva bhagarán soma upasthitah sa rájarshih. Page 115, line 7 from top of the note, for anatilulita read atilulita. Page 126, line 12 from bottom; after Raghu-vansa, vi., 83, add: 'This is confirmed by Bhatti-Kávya, iv., 17, where the epithet dwirada-násorúh is applied to a female. Page 179, line 18 from top, for Guhhyakas,' read 'Guhyakas.' Page 223, line 2 from top, in a part of the impression the last syllable of yama-sadanam has dropped. Page 249, note 1, add: Compare Vikram., Act 2, anguli-swedena me lupyante 'ksharúmi. Page 249, transpose the lines of the metre. |