Imatges de pàgina

mand. In preparing the first edition I took care to avail myself of Dr. Boehtlingk'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 arrived at similar results, because I had access to all the materials whence his Apparatus Criticus was composed. Dr. Boehtlingk's edition was not prepared (as he has himself explained) from original MSS. 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 partial extracts from three native Commentaries, handed over the results of their labours to him. All these MSS. and Commentaries were placed at my disposal, and most of them left in my possession until the completion of my work. Not a passage was printed without a careful collation of all of them, and the three Commentaries were consulted from beginning to end.

The MSS. which I principally used, were

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 Śāka 1734.

All these belong to the India Office 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 Bengāli MS. belonging to the India Office Library, numbered 1060.

6. A very old Bengālī MS. from the Wilson Collection in the Bodleian.

I consulted other Bengāli MSS., but rarely admitted readings from them, unless supported by some one of the Deva-nāgarī. Thus the verses which I inserted at the beginning 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 Commentators

1. Kāțavema, whose commentary, from the Mackenzie Collection at the India Office, is the only one in the Nāgari character. He was the son of Kāta Bhūpa, minister of Vasanta (himself the author

of a dramatic work called Vasanta-rājiya), king of Kumāra-giri, a place on the frontiers of the Nizām's dominions. He must have lived after the commencement of the sixteenth century, as he quotes Halāyudha, the author of the Kavi-rahasya (see Westergaard's preface to the Radices Linguæ Sanskritæ). This commentary is very corrupt, but where it is intelligible, is of great use in throwing light on the more difficult passages of this play.

2. San.kara, whose commentary, from the Wilson Collection in the Bodleian Library, is on the Bengāli recension, and written in the Bengāli character. In many places it agrees with the readings of the Deva-nāgarī recension, or at least notices them.

3. Candra-sekhara, whose commentary, belonging to the India Office, is also on the Bengāli recension, and generally only repeats the words of Śankara. If this Candra-sekhara is the same person as the father of Viśva-nātha, -author of the Sāhitya-darpaņa,he probably lived in the fifteenth century.

I never failed to consult the three commentaries before deciding on the reading of my text, and made their interpretations the basis of the literal translations of the metrical part of the play given in the notes.

In this second edition, I have constantly consulted Dr. Burkhard's text and glossary, and where better readings have been discovered, they are generally mentioned in my notes.

On comparing the present edition with the previous one, it will be observed that the red type has been dispensed with, and the Sanskrit interpretation of the Prākṣit passages has been given in small type below.

In the Hindū drama, as is well known, the women and inferior characters speak in Prākṣit—the name given to the colloquial Sanskřit, prevalent throughout a great part of India in early times. This spoken form of Sanskrit, which was really the precursor of the present vernacular tongues, must have varied greatly, and particular dialects must have belonged to particular districts and classes of men. There is, however, but one principal Prākṣit, peculiar to the plays, viz. the Mahārāshtrī, although specimens of some varieties occasionally occur, and two of them may be found in the interlude between the fifth and sixth Acts of this play (see p. 217, note 2, and see Indian Wisdom, p. xxix, note 2).

[ocr errors]

Other improvements and alterations will be noticed. For example, the rules of Sandhi have generally been carried out, even in the Sanskțit interpretation of the Prākṣit; the text and renderings in the notes have been carefully revised, and reference has been constantly made to Dr. Burkhard's edition ; the stage-directions and names of the speakers have been printed in small type.

Mr. E. L. Hogarth, M. A., of Brasenose College, who has acted as Deputy Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford during my absence in India, has superintended the progress of this second edition of the Sakuntalā through the press, and has added a useful index.

My grateful acknowledgments are due to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press for the encouragement they are giving to the study of Sanskṣit and Oriental literature generally, by undertaking the publication of standard works like the sakuntalā.

M. W. CAIRO, March 1876.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

ll 399 zafarslangica I या सृष्टिः स्रष्टुराद्या वहति विधिहुतं या हवियर्या च होत्री येडे कालं विधत्तःश्रुतिविषयगुणा या स्थिता व्याय विश्वम्। ATAIE: Hangarafa fa 44 atfua: atua: coegin प्रत्यक्षाभिः प्रपन्नस्तनुभिरवतु वस्ताभिरष्टाभिरीशः॥१॥

1 (That visible form, viz. water) which (was) the first creation of the Creator ; (that, viz. fire) which bears the oblation offered-according-torule; and (that visible form, viz. the priest) which (is) the offerer-of-theoblation; (those) two (visible forms, viz. the Sun and Moon) which regulate time; (that, viz. ether) which perpetually pervades all space, having the quality (sound) perceptible by the ear; (that, viz. the earth) which they call the originator of all created-things; (that, viz. the air) by which living beings are furnished with breath—may Īsa [the supreme Lord], endowed with [manifested in] these eight visible forms, preserve you !' The play begins and ends with a prayer to Siva (see the last note in this play). After every relative pronoun some case of pratyakshā tanuḥ must be supplied. Srishțir ādyā: see Manu i. 8-10, apa eva sasarja ādau, "(the Creator) first created the waters.' Vidhi-hutam=veda-vidhānena agnau kshiptam, Ć. Hotrī= dīkshita-mayī tanuḥ, K., yajamāna-rūpā tanuḥ, C., 'the Brāhman who is qualified by initiation to offer the oblation. Kālam vidhattaḥ= samayam kurutaḥ, C.;= sựijataḥ, S. Hence the Sun is called divā-kara, 'maker of the day;' and the Moon, nišā-kara, *maker of the night.' Sruti-vio: the Hindūs reckon five elements, viz. water, fire, ether, earth, and air. Ether (ākāśa) is held to be the vehicle of sound, or of that quality which is the object of perception to the ear (see Manu i. 75). Vyāpya sthitā, i. e. 'keeps pervading. Compare

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »