DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44480#0016
4
irretrievable loss 1 of the last third of the Maiikhatikfi is, to a cer-
tain degree, made up by Mahendra’s extracts from it. By the way,
the fact that Mahendra (last quarter of the 12th century) quotes
the Mankhatika, proves that the commentary has been written
either by Mankha himself (about 1150 A. D.) or, perhaps, by one
of his contemporaries or pupils.
(7) Stutik., the quotations from the text, found in Rajanaka
Ratnakantha’s commentary on the Stntikusumahjali. These have
been of little use to me, as Ratnakantha generally quotes only
what is common to most Anekartliakosas, and not what is peculiar
to the Mankhakosa. Ratnakantha’s tika on the Yudhishthiravija-
yakavya likewise contains a few quotations from Mankha. But
when the manuscript of my text was sent to the press, only about
thirty pages of that poem had appeared in the Kavyamala.
Now as to my edition of the text, I think that the two first
thirds (v. 1-683) are exhibited, almost without exception, in their
original wording, accompanied as they are by a commentary.
Of the fact that in the last third of the work there are pas-
sages requiring further emendation, I am but too conscious.
Compare, c. y., verses 748, 749, 775, 809, 813, 814, 835, 838.
Sometimes the two only MSS. at my disposal coincide in what
is decidedly wrong. Thus, among the vJFtrr: v. 813, A and C
reader. This cannot be correct, because has been explained
already at 804. 1 have conjectured ^T.— I should remark that,
in the MSS., the verses are not numbered; and that the head-
ings, or rather colophons gT.RKl:, etc., regularly introduced in
the MSS., have been omitted by me.
My edition of the Mankhatika is absolutely reliable only as
far as it is based upon S. Those parts, which have been edited
according to B. alone, are corrupt and defective in many places,
and, besides, not free from interpolation. I shall have to say
x. There is but little hope that a complete MS. of the commentary will ever turn up.
Professor Stein, who spared no trouble in hunting for MSS. in Marikha’s native country,
could get hold of no other MS. than of the incomplote copy S above described. Yet a
complete copy may be hidden somewhere in India proper, although the editors of the AbhidhA-
nasamgraha (Vol. I., Bombay, 1889 ; last leaf) enumerate the Mankhakosa among the
irretrievable loss 1 of the last third of the Maiikhatikfi is, to a cer-
tain degree, made up by Mahendra’s extracts from it. By the way,
the fact that Mahendra (last quarter of the 12th century) quotes
the Mankhatika, proves that the commentary has been written
either by Mankha himself (about 1150 A. D.) or, perhaps, by one
of his contemporaries or pupils.
(7) Stutik., the quotations from the text, found in Rajanaka
Ratnakantha’s commentary on the Stntikusumahjali. These have
been of little use to me, as Ratnakantha generally quotes only
what is common to most Anekartliakosas, and not what is peculiar
to the Mankhakosa. Ratnakantha’s tika on the Yudhishthiravija-
yakavya likewise contains a few quotations from Mankha. But
when the manuscript of my text was sent to the press, only about
thirty pages of that poem had appeared in the Kavyamala.
Now as to my edition of the text, I think that the two first
thirds (v. 1-683) are exhibited, almost without exception, in their
original wording, accompanied as they are by a commentary.
Of the fact that in the last third of the work there are pas-
sages requiring further emendation, I am but too conscious.
Compare, c. y., verses 748, 749, 775, 809, 813, 814, 835, 838.
Sometimes the two only MSS. at my disposal coincide in what
is decidedly wrong. Thus, among the vJFtrr: v. 813, A and C
reader. This cannot be correct, because has been explained
already at 804. 1 have conjectured ^T.— I should remark that,
in the MSS., the verses are not numbered; and that the head-
ings, or rather colophons gT.RKl:, etc., regularly introduced in
the MSS., have been omitted by me.
My edition of the Mankhatika is absolutely reliable only as
far as it is based upon S. Those parts, which have been edited
according to B. alone, are corrupt and defective in many places,
and, besides, not free from interpolation. I shall have to say
x. There is but little hope that a complete MS. of the commentary will ever turn up.
Professor Stein, who spared no trouble in hunting for MSS. in Marikha’s native country,
could get hold of no other MS. than of the incomplote copy S above described. Yet a
complete copy may be hidden somewhere in India proper, although the editors of the AbhidhA-
nasamgraha (Vol. I., Bombay, 1889 ; last leaf) enumerate the Mankhakosa among the