9058009448

246 REYIEWS

of poetic descriplions (city, mountain, seasons like autumn, spring, summer, rains, sunset, the hero, his mount, messenger, army-march, victory, drinking party), and the dominant senliment (the erotic). From the verses rescued by Kulkami we can have a glimpse of Sarvasena's high poetic skill in the use of language, in his style (VaidarbhT) and the depiction of rasa .

At many a place Dr. Kulkarni’s restoration of the hopelessly corrupt text carrics conviction. This has been achieved through imaginative efTort combincd with a sound knowledge of the conventional style and modę of expression that are characteristic of Sanskrit and Prakrit erotic poetry. Admittedly the restorations are morę or less tentative.

A few suggestions with a view to improving the text may be madę here :

Part II S. No. 1 : The reading mi ira in the Mysore edilion is significant.

ira, Prakrit kira, Sanskrit kila (See Siddhahema, 8.2. 186).

S. No. 12 : The word ria may be emended to via (Sk. vĄp) and

atlitta to alliam (Sk. Srdritam).

S. No. 13 : The words ullalai lulijjartite in the Mysore edition may

be emended to tullai tullijjarhte (Sk. tolyate tolyamine).

S. No. 16 : Dosa in the Mysore edilion may be emended to rosa.

Compare rosa-parahutta in the next verse (S. No. 17).

S. No. 21 : The reading je hilarhti in the Mysore edilion may be

emended to cia hilarhti (Sk. eva helante) instead of je ahilerhli as done here.

Further, the following two verses (1) “ Majjha samuhśvariham'etc. (Vol. I, S.No. 994, ŚP, p. 987) and (2) “To ia manorahchi vi" etc. which are in Skandhaka metre and discusscd by Kulkami in Vol. D have been left out in the present monograph. Again the following linę from SP (Vol. I, p. 234, last bul one linę) which is citcd to illustrate Pratlka-laksani (here

Sacci indicates Satyabhami).

%

[(-IrMI    ( ? )]

and which is probably from Hańvijaya , has escaped Kulkami's attention and conscqucntly has not been includcd in this monograph. Dr. Kulkami should have added an lndcx of Verscs at the end of the monograph.

Finally I would like to draw the attention of Prakrit scholars to a problem conncctcd with the Prakrit cilations in the Srhgiraprakiśa. From Dr. Kulkami's exhaustive listing of these citations we (ind that at times the same verse is givcn at two or morę placcs to illustrate particular points. In scveral cases however, we find that the text of the cited verse is not idenlical i.e., we have different rcadings. How to explain this oddity? It seems that the author