DECEMBER, 1873.]

369

MISCELLAN EA AND CORRESPONDENCE. r

besides all the MSS. used by Prof. M. Williams, four Dravidian, five Bangāli, and two Devanāgari MSS., and having copied two Dravilian commen taries of which Prof. Hoernle has not even heard

the names. Thus I think I am entitled to judge whether a reading is doubtful or not. For all questions concerning this play I have much plea sure in referring Prof. Hoernle to my papers on the recensions of the Śakuntalà i Breslau, 1870, and Göttingen, 1873. Prof. Hoernle seems to be of opinion that everybody who does not speak the literary language speaks slang; there is, however, a great difference between the colloquial and the slang—keraka is colloquial but not at all slang. The form kerika is a false one; it is not supported by the MSS. I cannot see why Prof. Hoernle has been obliged to trust his Calcutta edition. There has been published a much better edition (Śāka 1792) which is accessible to everybody who cares to get it ; this edition (p. 252, b) has also bappakeluke. The mistake is not so slight as Prof. Hoernle wishes to represent it. Keraka no doubt has the meaning of “own,” “peculiar to,” “belonging to,” but it now rests with him to show how the participle hºrita came to receive this meaning. His reasoning was that, as prakelaka is the same as prakrita, thus kelaka is the same as kyita ; and as kara means the same as prakara, thus kyita means the same as prakrita (p. 131.) I cannot discover any other passage in his essays where he alludes to the subject again. Thus I must still maintain that this error, which shows a

complete want of criticism, invalidates all his deductions, and I am afraid that the absurdity imputed to me by Prof. Hoernle is his own. On the other hand I have endeavoured to show how keraka

came to its meaning. Unfortunately Prof. Hoernle bas not been able to understand me; for at p. 212 of his reply he says that I have adduced the words

sal.

In the margin of the best and very old M.S. Sakuntalá, which is most carefully written, the word keraka is rendered twice by kārya. This interpretation is due to the Pal (lit. Tapadeva.

of the

There can be no doubt that Prof. Lassen has been

quite positive in his opinion on the origin of kera. Prof. Hoernle quotes only the first passage, but there are several others, two of which I have al

ready quoted. Nevertheless Prof. Hoernle omits them altogether. At p. 130 Prof. Lassen says: “similis ratio est e ex 4 orsi, prorsus autem diversa ejus e quod ex a vel di conflatur admixto i sequentis syllabæ ut tettia, keraka.” And now he refers the reader to the first passage. The third passage is at p. 247 : “i hoc ex ya orsum, si liquidam r excipit sapius transponitur, ita ut coalescat cum a vel d praecedenti in k;

kera e

küria pro kārya,” and here he refers to p. 189, where he simply states as a fact “keran a kārya cfr. kerakam.” The fourth passage is at p. 367 : “ post raut jja fit ex rya, kººja e kuirya, aut dis solvitur rºſa in it, kirya, kāria, kera ; nam i ante cedenti syllabae inscritur.” The fifth passage is App. p. 58: “compara cum hoc vocabulo (scil. with achchera) kārya cujus forma solita est kajja : in versibus etiam kera legitur. Inde deri vatum keraka in prosa, tamen saspe legitur.” Who except Prof. Hoernle can doubt that Lassen has derived kera from kārya º Prof. Weber says that the “e" has origiuated from “a” under the influence of a following ya. I am unable to dis cover an “a” and a ya in krita, but I find them both in kirya. Kirya becomes kiria, afterwards kaira, and hence in Prākrit kāra ; and the e, ori ginally long, has been shortened afterwards. It is not necessary to suppose a form karra, as Prof.

Kern does. A doubling of the r is forbidden by

sible to misunderstand me so utterly. I have quo ted all these passages in order to prove that kaj

all Prākrit grammarians, and never found in Prä krit. In every other respect I agree with Prof. Kern in the way he has traced back kera to kārya. The change of f to d in kyita is restricted to the Māgadhi dialect by all Prākrit grammarians who have come to my knowledge, and indeed is found in this dialect only. Kala has always been

jam and keran are used exactly in the same way,

local, and cannot be used to account for kera.

and hence that, as kajjain cannot but be derived I have adduced these instances only for the sake of the meaning of kerakt, and instead of recog

That in Marathi kela is the equivalent of krita proves nothing ; many words may be the equivalents of others without being derived from them. Thus in parakera, &c. kera is the equi

nizing the striking evidence, which really admits

valent of the Sanskritic kiva, but I doubt whether

of no doubt, Prof. Hoernle imputes me a folly of which I was not capable. He then goes on

even Prof. Hoernle would derive kera from kāya. Prof. Hoernle again takes refuge in an imaginary Prākritic word, “karita,” without meeting with better success. The “f” in karifa, being a mere

kajjam and kichcham as used in the same way as he says kera or keraka is. Nothing was further from my thoughts, and I cannot make out how it is pos

from kāryam, the same must hold good for keram.

to observe that the identification of kera

with

krita is an old traditional one of the Pal (lits. I confess that I prefer European criticism to the tradition amongst the Pal (lits; besides I am able

conjunctive vowel, would never effect a change from

to show that this tradition has never been univer

imaginary words where words of every-day occur

a to i.

Besides, what is the use of dealing with