270 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal [June, 1910. 



Sanskrit literature either in masculine or in feminine, I have 

 taken therefore ^rfa which is but too patent a correction of TTift) 

 is never feminine according to Hemacandra and other Indian 

 lexicographers (vide Hemacandra's Linganusasana, Kevala- 

 pullinga Prakarana, 15th Sloka, *ra*of*mjiBfv : vide also the 

 Amara, Kanda 2nd, 6th Varga, Sloka 42nd, gw*T*!t JJ?W 

 fiiiw?; vide also the VaijayantI, Gustav Oppert's edition, page 

 186, line 6, ^rfusiifli^T fft. 



Again in page 83, line 5, ^r$T*m<n?glT ^ftfr ^ flS7TO 

 f<**j the critic has in his manuscript A iraifa in place of our 

 TCITV. If we consider this line in connection with the one 



that follows this, viz., htji ^ *%W. ^1^ W ^wsfrsfa **Q*t, it should 

 be thus construed im f^i^Tilfnnw sftffTs^j, *TOTW fa*L ^^ftsfa 

 W. wn ^ ^?: ^^ (g) M^tt and the meaning we have then is 

 "he is pleased by being served by gods, demons and men; 

 what am I to him (*ror **m f**f translated in the active voice) ; 



even a well-equipped chariot, adequate for the road; (but) is 

 broken in the bush." 



[Here Bharat's brother compares himself with bush: he 

 means to say that gods, etc., helped Bharat to run smoothly in 

 the way of prosperity, whereas he may cause his destruction 

 just as a way through the bush may lead to the destruction of 

 a chariot. This passage also occurs in the same story of Bharat 



in the Adisvara Caritram, Sarga 5, Sloka 146 (vide the Tri- 



>asti Salakapurusa Caritra, Jaina-Dharma-Prasaraka Sabha's 



edition, leaf 129)]. 



The reading srersfo which the critic has in his manuscript A 

 in place of our «iqr&r fails, as far as I can judge, to give any 

 meaning. Our explanation is simple and suits the context. 



Then again page 103, line 15. I have 5ft smfiraT 1W in 



the couplet w Wia*n*ai%tf g#t STUfiwi *?*tt 1 ^RWfrfS ^ *m 



TV*^t ^p^fwwi II Hi \\ Here the reading ^mfw^T of the 



critic's manuscript A is seriously objectionable, since the 

 Samasa cannot be justified in any way ; if, however, we make 

 the Samasa, the word ^r?r in that case would be made the first 



member of the compound. If it be argued that *r<nfiFq W«IT is a 



euphonic combination, that is also futile, since ^hj?it can give 

 no meaning in the sentence. 



le 14, where I have given ^rajtfe^W 1 



the critic finds > rangier 



in its place. 



