DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44481#0012
xiv
PREFACE.
(3) B., another paper MS., Collection of 1882=83 No. 234,
217 leaves. This MS. was discovered by Prof. Peterson and
described by him in his First Report, Bombay 1883, p. 51 and 89.
On many leaves, the writing is almost effaced, apparently because
the leaves had stuck together and subsequently suffered when
they were separated. Is to correctness and completeness, this
MS. cannot compare with A. The latter MS., therefore, forms the
basis of my edition. I have, however, derived great help from B
for passages where A is almost illegible or where it has a lacuna.
Here I may mention that sometimes unfortunately both MSS.
omit the same parts of the commentary. The commentary is—•
certainly or apparently—defective under the words sfssHp
<R (7, 22), S’RR, 3qWT, W, ’TU,
FrffR, PdPT, g-feOT; and it is entirely wanting under
and felFPl; for particulars see the various
Readings.* 1
Besides, two MSS. of a book on which Mahendra has drawn
largely, the Mahkhakosa, one of Dr. Buhler’s Kasmir discoveries,
have been of great assistance. For many corrupt passages in
Mahendra’s commentary I have used the tlkci on Mankha as a sort
of third manuscript. As to the MSS. of the Mahkhakosa, it will
suffice here to say that the first is a birch bark MS. and contains
the text almost complete, whilst the second is a modern paper
MS. comprising about two-thirds of the text and the commentary.
It ends abruptly with the comment on the word UR.2
The text of the Anekarthasamgraha in the present edition,
is exhibited almost without variants. For my MSS. really differ
in minor points only, and the majority of the meanings ascribed
to the Anekarthas is amply supported by the glosses, explanatory
remarks and examples in the Commentary. I may add here that,
with one exception, I have paid no regard to former editions of
Hemachandra’s Kosa.3
1 It would appear that other MSS. of the Commentary are hidden in the libraries of India,
see e. g., Dr. Bhandarkar’s Report for 1883-84, p. 177,a ; 209,b; 213,b where an Anekarthasam-
graha, consisting of 229 leavesis mentioned. That a MS. was in the hands of the late Pandit
Durgapras&d, is clear from the fact that he quotes from it in his editions of Sanskrit works.
3 Compare my edition of the Shsvatakosa, p. XI.—XIV., and my Beitrage z. Ind. Lex. p. 70.
I intend to edit the Mahkhakosa hereafter, for which Dr. Stein has lately acquired new
materials.
3 Compare on the Calcutta edition of 1807 my Beitrage, pp. 78-93, and on Borooah’s
edition in his NUn&rthasamgraha my remarks in the Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 1885,
pp. 384-96.
PREFACE.
(3) B., another paper MS., Collection of 1882=83 No. 234,
217 leaves. This MS. was discovered by Prof. Peterson and
described by him in his First Report, Bombay 1883, p. 51 and 89.
On many leaves, the writing is almost effaced, apparently because
the leaves had stuck together and subsequently suffered when
they were separated. Is to correctness and completeness, this
MS. cannot compare with A. The latter MS., therefore, forms the
basis of my edition. I have, however, derived great help from B
for passages where A is almost illegible or where it has a lacuna.
Here I may mention that sometimes unfortunately both MSS.
omit the same parts of the commentary. The commentary is—•
certainly or apparently—defective under the words sfssHp
<R (7, 22), S’RR, 3qWT, W, ’TU,
FrffR, PdPT, g-feOT; and it is entirely wanting under
and felFPl; for particulars see the various
Readings.* 1
Besides, two MSS. of a book on which Mahendra has drawn
largely, the Mahkhakosa, one of Dr. Buhler’s Kasmir discoveries,
have been of great assistance. For many corrupt passages in
Mahendra’s commentary I have used the tlkci on Mankha as a sort
of third manuscript. As to the MSS. of the Mahkhakosa, it will
suffice here to say that the first is a birch bark MS. and contains
the text almost complete, whilst the second is a modern paper
MS. comprising about two-thirds of the text and the commentary.
It ends abruptly with the comment on the word UR.2
The text of the Anekarthasamgraha in the present edition,
is exhibited almost without variants. For my MSS. really differ
in minor points only, and the majority of the meanings ascribed
to the Anekarthas is amply supported by the glosses, explanatory
remarks and examples in the Commentary. I may add here that,
with one exception, I have paid no regard to former editions of
Hemachandra’s Kosa.3
1 It would appear that other MSS. of the Commentary are hidden in the libraries of India,
see e. g., Dr. Bhandarkar’s Report for 1883-84, p. 177,a ; 209,b; 213,b where an Anekarthasam-
graha, consisting of 229 leavesis mentioned. That a MS. was in the hands of the late Pandit
Durgapras&d, is clear from the fact that he quotes from it in his editions of Sanskrit works.
3 Compare my edition of the Shsvatakosa, p. XI.—XIV., and my Beitrage z. Ind. Lex. p. 70.
I intend to edit the Mahkhakosa hereafter, for which Dr. Stein has lately acquired new
materials.
3 Compare on the Calcutta edition of 1807 my Beitrage, pp. 78-93, and on Borooah’s
edition in his NUn&rthasamgraha my remarks in the Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 1885,
pp. 384-96.