Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/137

 Atril, 1873.] CORRESPONDENCE, Ac. 123 Thus we see very often “ nija” used, where it might as well be omitted; for instance Ut'vaAi (ed. Bollensen) 68, 111, 126, and Urv. 31: niasarire, and Mudrdr. 94, 8: aham pi am geham gamissam the word “ nija” is used quite in the place of the pronoun “ mama.” The participle “ gada” is frequently employed instead of a case, e.g. Urv. 21, 13:—uvvasigadam ukkautham vinodedu bhavam; or Sdk. 78, 15 : taggadeua ahil&sepa. Not a whit different from the use of keraka is that of sandha, e. g. Urv. 21, 8:—kasanamanisilavattasaiAho adi- muttaladamandavo ; conf. Sdk. 193, 5 ; Mdlav. 5, 9; and so of i^any other adjective nouns. Prof. Hoernle gives an example of how he thinks the geni¬ tive in tho Bangali language has originated. He maintains that the genitive of 8antdna was origi¬ nally santdna kerako. We must stop here. I have shown above that all the cases of keraka occur, and that it is always inflected. It is utterly impos¬ sible therefore to adopt a form santdna kerako. Prof. Hoernle might as well say santdna kerake or kerakam or kerakassa, &c. This only depends on the preceding or following substantive and the sense of the whole passage. We have no right whatever to insist upon any special case or a non- inflected form. For the same reason, all the other derivations as santdnakera, santdnaera, &c. are mere phantoms. The word keraka is far too mo¬ dern to undergo so vast and rapid a change as to 1)0 curtailed to simple “ er”. The singular parti¬ ciple kulu, in Mrichchh. 31, 16, mentioned by Prof. Hoernle, is not a participle but the regular impe¬ rative. The termination ra is certainly peculiar to the Pr&kpit language. Prof. Weber {Hdla, p. 68) quotes a good many real Pr&kpt adjective nouns in ira, to which wo may add “ uvvellira” {Urv. 75). This might have contributed to such a curtailing as this, but Prof. Hoernle ought not to have over¬ looked the fact that in the more modern dialects keraka is always changed into kelaka. As for the other languages I do not intend to go into details here. But to. show that Prof. Hoernle’s deductions are not more probable, I point out the Gujar&ti postpositions. He derives them from a form kunno or kinno, which he sup¬ poses to have been a later or more vulgar form of the participle krita. Now we know from Vararu¬ chi, XII. 15, that kunai is a poetical form, and not applicable in prose passages : it occurs often in the poems of the Saptasatt, but never in the dramas, ex¬ cept inverse: conf. Batndvali, p. 19,1; Nagdnanda, 29, 5 Mudrdr. 39,11 conf.Pratdparudriya{NB.dr3,B, 1868), p. 120,11; Pihgala, v. 3. Nowhere is a par¬ ticiple kunno or kinno found, and if it were it would not be modern and vulgar, but ancient and highly poetical. I cannot therefore indulge with Prof. Hoernle in the hope that he has succeeded in proving beyond doubt that the participle krita is, in one form or other, the original of the geni¬ tive postpositions ; on the contrary, I believe that his theory cannot be sustained. Dr. R. Pischel. London, February 1873. BHAVABHUTI’S QUOTATION FROM THE RAMAYANA To the EJiipr of the Indian Antiquary. Sir,—In his essay on the Ram&yana, Prof. Weber gives tho verses quoted by BhavabhAti in his Uttara R&raa-Charita from the last chapter of the Balak&nda of the Rim&yana, and points out the corresponding verses in Schlegel’s and the Bombay and Serampore editions, which resemble BhavabhAti’s only iu substance. In Gorresio he says, there is nothing corresponding to them. * But about the end of the chapter immediately previous to the one to which Prof. Weber refers us, there arq these same verses in Gorresio, iden¬ tical in all respeots with those quoted by Bhava¬ bhAti except apparently in two small words which are eva (in the last line of %the first verse) and tu (in the last lino of the second verse) in Bhava¬ bhAti, and abhi and hi in Gorresio.f But the difference in the case of the first word at least is rather a difference between Gorresio and the Calc, edn. of the Uttara-R&ma-Charita, and not between Gorresio and BhavabhAti, for in an old MS. of the play existing in the Elphinstone College Library I find abhi instead of eva. But while Gorresio’s edition agrees almost thoroughout with BhavabhAti in this point, there is a material difference in another. BhavabhAti quotes the verses as from the last chapter of the BAla-Charita, but in Gorresio they occur in the last but two, while in Schlegel and the Bombay edition the corresponding verses, though con¬ siderably differing in language, occur in the last. On comparing the several editions, one finds that Bharata’s departure to the country of his ma¬ ternal uncle, which is despatched in five verses in the other editions, in Gorresio is expanded into almost a chapter, of which it forms the first 44 verses. The remaining four verses of this chapter occur in the other editions after the five verses about Bharata. The last chapter, again, in Gorresio, which describes Bharata’s doings in the country of his uncle, and his sending a messenger to his father, is wanting in Schlegel and the Bombay edition. And since these additional chapters contain no new incident except the sending of the t Gorresio’s Rdmdyana, Vol. I. p. 298.
 * Indian Antiquary, Vol. I. p. 247.