^{page 319 note 1} Cf. the following quotation from P.

^{page 320 note 1} Edited by Munimahārājas Caturavijaya and Puṇyavijaya. A third fasciculus which was to contain the introduction has not appeared. The text is provided with very useful indices of proper names, a pratīka-list, list of inserted tales, etc. Though based on twelve MSS. (of which readings are given) and outwardly a model performance testifying to the praiseworthy application and zeal of the editors, the edition is thoroughly uncritical and—particularly as regards the orthography—in no way better than a moderately good MS. The absence of any kind of commentary or explanative glosses is all the more regrettable because the text is not always easy and often full of mistakes and corruptions.

^{page 320 note 2} Jacobi, , Introduction to the 2nd edition of Hemacandra's Pariśiṣṭaparvan (Bibl. Indica), p. vii. That the Āv. Cūrṇi mentions the Vh not once but thrice I found in the papers left by the late Professor Leumann.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 3} Cf. the paper read by me at the 19th International Oriental Conference at Rome, entitled “ Eine neue Version der verlorenen Bṛhatkathā des Guṇāḍhya ”.

^{page 321 note 1} A general remark may not be out of place. An abnormal or somewhat strange form need not be suspected merely because it occurs very rarely, perhaps only twiceor thrice. In the papers left by Leumann I found a slip where he had collected variants of the Viśeṣâvaśyakabhāṣya. Again and again the variant consisted in an aorist form being replaced by the corresponding form of the present indicative. This is only one instance of how the more uncommon forms were gradually eliminated by the scribes— we have to content ourselves with what little they have left.

^{page 321 note 2} The figures refer to the pages and lines of the printed text.

^{page 321 note 3} Only one MS. reads “ na-yāṇaṃ kumāraṃ paṇaṭṭhaṃ ” “ I did not know that the prince had disappeared.” The others have the “ corrected ” reading, ” na ya ṇayaṃ,” which, however, is incompatible with the following accusative “ kumāraṃ paṇaṭṭhaṃ”. In this and five other cases (19, 3 ; 83,12; 109,7; 115,26; 144,24) a woman is speaking, which excludes the possibility of the form in -aṃ, being regarded as a nom. sing, of the present participle.

^{page 321 note 4} 1st sing. ind. pass., possibly to be corrected to a 1st sing. opt. pass. *ṭhavijjijjaṃ.

^{page 323 note 1} Schubring, W. has now traced it in the Mahānisīha, where a 1st sing. imp. demu occurs twice (Mah. Nis., p. 91).Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 2} In Vh there occurs in a number of cases a 2nd sing. imp. in -ā.su (e.g. vaccāsu,93, 15 Google Scholar ; 179, 18 ; ghaḍāsu 94, 24 Google Scholar ; karāsu 96, 10).Google Scholar The long ā of these forms may, of course, be explained by the influence of the parallel form in -āhi. We may, however, also have before us the regular compensative lengthening due to the double s (which is seen in Pali -ssu) having been simplified.

^{page 323 note 3} It might be argued that such forms are to be regarded as mere “ Ardhamāgādhisms ”, which do not prove anything for JM. This argument would perhaps hold good if we had to do with legendary, dogmatical, or disciplinarian texts. Where the contents are so closely akin to those of the canonical scriptures it is not surprising if the language betrays a strong AMg influence (cf. Mah. Nis., p. 86).But, except for some inserted legendary tales, the contents of the Vh are as secular and non-canonical as possible, and there can be no doubt that its language is JM throughout.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 1} The “ missing link ” between -issaṃ and -īhaṃ, is supplied by the Mahānisīha, where futures in -isam occur, e.g. vimuccīsaṃ, sujjhīsaṃ, ( Mah. Nis., p. 91).Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 1} As in the text of Vh ca, ya, tti, ti are frequently inserted where they are superfluous and even manifestly impossible, there is just the possibility of declaring the final ya of the forms in question (or some of them) to be such a spurious ya. Considering, however, the unanimous testimony of the grammarians, I feel confident that we have actually to read gacchiya, etc.

^{page 326 note 1} Cf. the quotations in P, § 145.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 1} The peculiar use of atthi illustrated in § 417 is also familiar to Vh : 57, 10, atthi koi … parivasai ; 10, 29, n'otthi hoi vādhi-doso dīsai ; 125, 5, atthi me puṇo rajja-sirī hojjā ?

^{page 327 note 2} There can hardly be any doubt that we have to write teṇ’ amhi, y'amhi, y'ammi, etc., and not teṇa ’mhi, ya mhi, ya mmi.

^{page 327 note 3} tīya = tie, cf. below, , p. 328 f.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 4} It is grammatically possible, but otherwise very unlikely that we have to dowith two sentences : tato ’smy uttīrṇaḥ. viśramāmi.

^{page 328 note 1} I have only noted the following forms. In an inserted Ṛṣabha-carita, : kwcchiṃsi, 159, 16Google Scholar ; ulloyaṃsi, 161, 15Google Scholar ; paramsi, 167, 17. An AMg-phraseGoogle Scholar : kucchimsi puttattae … 76, 13Google Scholar ; 91, 21. Besides 246, 27, maṇaṃsi (in a doubtful passage), 150 Google Scholar, 20, taṃsi velāya (grammatically wrong !), 36, 25, sohaṇaṃsi, and 147, 16, etaṃsi (v. 1., etammi).

^{page 329 note 1} The use of the present participle as conditional, taught by Hemacandra, (iii,180 Google Scholar ; cf. Jacobi, , Bhavisatta Kaha, § 35.Google Scholar In JErz no instance occurs, cf. JErz, § 112), is remarkably frequent in Vh. I have noted no less than nineteen cases, of which a few may be quoted here : 149, 11, jai jāṇanto, na ento ! “ Had I known (this), I should not have come (with you)! ” 126, 6, jai esa vaggho honto, to paḍiyaṃ mamaṃ langhento— na esa vaggho, “ If this were a tiger he would attack me who has fallen down—this is no tiger ! ” 110, 25, … kiṃ puṇa tumaṃ si aṇṇesiṃ sāhintao, “ (I should love to tell you), but you would tell others ! ” 120, 14, aham jai pamāeṇa niggao honto, to mi bandhaṃ pāvento, “ Had I stepped out by an oversight I should have been arrested.” 228, 25, jai si na intī tīse vā rūvaṃ na daṃsentī, to mi vivaṇṇo honto, “ Had you not come or had you not shown me her figure, I should have died.” 36, 11, jai te piyā jīvanto, tumaṃ vā īs’attha kusalo honto, to na esa erisa-sirīe bhāyaṇaṃ honto evaṃ siṃghāḍagatiya-caukka-caccara-racchāmuhesu uvalalanto viharejja! “ If your father were alive, or if you were skilled in the science of archery, this fellow would not enjoy such prosperity nor would he thus roam about sportively in …“ Further instances will be found in Vh 13, 26 ; 16, 25 ; 51, 21 ; 71, 22 ; 135, 16 ; 137, 2, 21 ; 106, 18 (read : devam si…); 168,14 ; 169, 2 ; 228,1 ; 248, 19.—The last of the sentences just quoted has already shown that for the expression of the modus irrealis the optative may beused as well. Other instances of this occur, e.g. 17, 4 ; 109, 2 ; 135, 30 ; 322, 16. The two conditional periods 16, 25 f., and 17, 4, are both clear examples of the modus irrealis. Yet in the first case the present part, is used, in the second the optative. It isvery interesting to notice that Hemacandra in his rendering of the story in question ( Pariśiṣṭaparvan, i, 46 S.)Google Scholar translates the present participles by conditionals (i, 60), but the optatives by optatives (i, 72).

^{page 330 note 1} I owe the knowledge of the Pali ablative in -aṃ and of the passages quoted below to Professor Lüders of Berlin.

^{page 332 note 1} Inserted, because the following mhe had become unintelligible !

^{page 332 note 2} Only one MS. reads thus, all others have se.

^{page 332 note 3} The editors print uggā which gives no sense ; cf. the next passage.

^{page 332 note 4} One MS. reads thus, the others have he.

^{page 332 note 5} All MSS. but one read mhi.

^{page 333 note 1} The conclusions arrived at by Jacobi, in his paper “ Über das Prakrit in der Erzählungsliteratur der Jainas ” (Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 1908–1909, pp. 231 ff.) will have to be modified.Google Scholar