MISCELLANEA AND CORRESPONDENCE. 369 December, 1873.] besides all the MSS. used by Prof. M. Williams, four Dravidian, five Bangali, and two Devanagari MSS., and having copied two Dravidian 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 havo much plea¬ sure in referring Prof. Hoernlo to my papers on the recensions of the Sakuntala: Breslau, 1870, and Gottingen, 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 tho colloquial and tho slang—keraka is colloquial but not at all slang. The form kcrika is a false one; it is not supported by the MSS. I cannot see why Prof. Hoernlo has been obliged to trust his Calcutta edition. There has been published a much better edition (S&ka 1792) which is accessible to everybody who cares to get it; this edition (p. 252, 6) has also bappakelake. Tho 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 krita came to receive this meaning. His reasoning was that, as prahelaka is the same as prakrita, thus kelaka is the same as krita; and as kara means tho same as prakara, thus krita 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. Hoernlo is his own. On tho other hand I have endeavoured to show how keraka came to its meaning. Unfortunately Prof. Hoernle has not been able to understand me ; for at p. 212 of his reply he says that I have adduced the words 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¬ sible to misunderstand me so utterly. I have quo¬ ted all these passages in order to prove that kaj¬ jam and keram are used exactly in the same way, and hence that, as kajjam cannot but be derived from kdryam, the same must hold good for keram. I have adduced theso instances only for tho sako of the meaning of keraka, and instoad of recog¬ nizing the striking evidence, which really admits of no doubt, Prof. Hoernle imputes me a folly of which I was not capable. He then goes on to observe that tho identification of kera with krita is an old traditional one of the Pandits. I confess that I prefer European criticism to the tradition amongst the Pandits; besides I am able to show that this tradition has never been univer¬ sal. In the margin of the best and very old MS. of tho Sakuntala, which is most carefully written, the word keraka is rendered twice by kdrya. This interpretation is due to tho Pandit Tapadeva. 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 t orsi, prorsus autem diversa ejus e quod ex a vel d conflatur admixto i sequentis syllaba) ut teitia, keraka.** And now he refers the reader to the first passage. The third passage is at p. 247 : “ i hoc ex ya orsum, si liquidara r excipit soepius transponitur, ita ut coalescat cum a vel d prrocedenti in k; kera e kdria pro kdrya;1* and hero he refers to p. 189, where ho simply states as a fact “ keram a kdrya cfr. kerakam.** The fourth passage is at p. 367 : “ post r aut jja fit ex rya, kajja e kdrya, aut dis- solvitur rya in ia, kdrya, kdria, kera; nam i ante¬ cedent i syllab® inscritur.” The fifth passage is App. p. 58: “ compara cum hoc vocabulo (scil. with achchera) kdrya cujus forma solita est kajja; in versibus etiam kera legitur. Inde deri- vatum keraka in prosa, tamen srope legitur.” Who except Prof. Hoernle can doubt that Lassen has derived kera from kdrya ? Prof. Weber says that the “ e ” has origiuated from “ a ” under tho influence of a following ya. I am unable to dis¬ cover an “ a ” and a ya in krita, but I find them both in kdrya. Kdrya becomes kdria, afterwards kaira, and hence in Prakrit kdra ; 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 all Prakrit grammarians, and never found in Pra¬ krit. In every other respect I agree with Prof. Kern in tho way he has traced back A era to kdmja. The chango of t to <} in krita is restricted to the Magaclln dialect by all Prakrit grammarians who have come to my knowledge, and indeed is found in this dialect only. Kada has always been local, and cannot be used to account for kera. That in Marathi kehi 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¬ valent of the Sanskritic kiva, but I doubt whether even Prof. Hoernle would derive kera from ktya. Prof. Hoernle again takes refuge in an imaginary Pr&kritic word, “ karita, ” without meeting with bettor success. Tho “ i ” in karita, being a mere conjunctive vowel, would never effect a change from a to i. Besides, what is the use of dealing with imaginary words where words of every-day occur¬
