APRIL, 1873.]

Thus we see very often “nija” used, where it might as well be omitted; for instance Urvas? (ed. Bollensen) 68, 111, 126, and Urv. 31 : Liasarire, and Mudrár. 94, 8: aham lian gehan gamissan

the word “nija" is used quite in the place of the

pronoun “mama.”

123

CORRESPONDENCE, &c.

The participle “gada” is

frequently employed instead of a case, e.g. Urv. 21, 13:-uvvasigadarn ukkanthan villodedu bhavann; or Sik. 78, 15: taggadena ahiläsela. Not a whit different from the use of keraka is that of sandha, e.g. Urv. 21, 8:—kasanamanisilāvattasaráho adi

muttaladãmandavo; conf. Sik. 123, 5; Milan. 5, 9; and so of many other adjective nouns. Prof. Hoernle gives an example of how he thinks the geni

tive in the Bangāli language has originated. He maintains that the genitive of santina was origi nally santána kerako. We must stophere. 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 santána kerako. Prof. Hoernle might as well say santána kerake or kerakamh 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 santánakera, santínaera, &c. are

mere phantoms. The word keraka is far too mo dern to undergo so vast and rapid a change as to be 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 Prākrit language. Prof. Weber (II.ila, p. 68) quotes a good many real Prākrit adjective nouns in ira, to which we may add “ºuvrellira" (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 Gujarāti postpositions. He derives them from a form kun no or kin mo, 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 Saptaśati, but never in the dramas, ex cept in verse: conf. Itatnávali, p. 19, 1; Nagimanda, 29, 5; Mudrár. 39,11; conf. Pratiparudrīya (Madras, 1868), p. 120, 11; Piñgala, v. 3. Nowhere is a par ticiple kunno or kin no found, and if it were it would not be modern and vulgar, but ancient and highly

• Indian Antiquary, Vol. I. p. 247.

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 Elitor of the Indian Antiquary. SIR,-In his essay on the Rāmāyana, Prof. Weber gives the verses quoted by Bhavabhāti in his Uttara Rāma-Charita from the last chapter of the Balakānda of the Rāmāyana, and points out the corresponding verses in Schlegel's and the Bombay and Serampore editions, which resemble Bhavabhāti's only in 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 are these same verses in Gorresio, iden

tical in all respects with those quoted by Bhava bhāti except apparently in two small words which are eva (in the last line of the first verse) and tu (in the last line of the second verse) in Bhava bhūti, 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-Rāma-Charita, and not between Gorresio and Bhavabhūti, for in an old M.S. of the

play existing in the Elphinstone College Library I find abhi instead of eva.

But while Gorresio's edition agrees almost thoroughout with Bhavabhāti in this point, there is a material difference in another.

Bhavabhūti

quotes the verses as from the last chapter of the Bâla-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 + Gorresio's Rāmāyana, Vol. I. p. 298.