gretil e-library
FILE
Name: Suk933__Sukthankar_ProlegomenaMBh1.pdf
PURL: http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl/?gr_elib-48
Type: Searchable PDF/A (text under image), indexed
Encoding: Unicode (ā ī ū ṛ ṝ ḷ ḹ ṅ ñ ṭ ḍ ṇ ś ṣ ḥ ṃ [replacing ṁ in original] ...)
Date: 21.7.2008, REVISION #1, 21.2.2013
BRIEF RECORD
Author: Sukthankar, Vishnu Sitaram
Title: Prologomena [to the critical edition of the Ādiparvan, Book 1 of the
Mahābhārata].
Publ.: Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 1933
Description: pp. I-CX
Note: In addition to the Prolegomena, this file contains Sukthankar's Editorial Notes,
which were part of the original Fascicules 2–5 (1928–1931).
FULL RECORD
http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gr_elib.htm
NOTICE
This file may be copied on the condition that its entire contents, including this data sheet,
remain intact.
GRETIL e-library

THE
MAHĀBHĀRATA

FOR THE FIRST TIME CRITICALLY EDITED BY

VISHNU S. SUKTHANKAR

WITH THE CO-OPERATION OF
SHRIMANT BALASAHEB PANT PRATINIDHI; S. K. BELVALKAR ; A. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR;
P. V. KANE ; R. D. KARMARKAR ; V. G. PARANJPE : V. K. RAJAVADE ; N. B. UTGIKAR ;
P. L. VAIDYA ; V. P. VAIDYA ; M. WINTERNITZ; R. ZIMMERMANN, S.J.
AND OTHER SCHOLARS

AND ILLUSTRATED FROM ANCIENT MODELS BY
SHRIMANT BALASAHEB PANT PRATINIDHI
RULER OF AUNDH

VOLUME 1

तेजस्वि नाव धीतमस्तु

Under the patronage of the Ruler of Aundh; the Imperial Government of India; the Provincial
Governments of Bombay, Madras and Burma; the Hyderabad (Deccan), Baroda and
Mysore States; the University of Bombay; and other Distinguished Donors

POONA
BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

1933

THE
ĀDIPARVAN

BEING THE FIRST BOOK OF THE MAHĀBHĀRATA
THE GREAT EPIC OF INDIA

FOR THE FIRST TIME CRITICALLY EDITED BY

VISHNU S. SUKTHANKAR
OF THE BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

तेजस्वि नाव धीतमस्तु

P O O N A
BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

1933

Fascicule i ( pages i-6o ) of this Volume appeared in
1927; fascicule 2 (pages 61-136) in 1928;
fascicule 3 (pages 137-232) in 1929;
fascicule 4 (pages 233-400) in 193o;
fascicule 5 (pages 401-64o) in 1931;
fascicule 6 (pages 641-88o) in
1932; and the concluding
fascicule 7 in 1933

All rights reserved

Published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Poona. Printed by Ramchandra
Yesu Shedge, at the Nirnaya Sagar Press,
26-28, Kolbhat Lane, Bombay

CONTENTS OF VOLUME ONE

                                      PAGES

PROLEGOMENA i-cx
A NOTE ON THE ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE FIRST
VOLUME OF THE CRITICAL EDITION OF
THE MAHĀBHĀRATA cxi-cxiii
CONCORDANCE OF THE SCHEME OF ADHYĀYAS. cxv-exvii
ABBREVIATIONS AND DIACRITICAL SIGNS . oxvni
TEXT AND CRITICAL NOTES OF THE ĀDI . 1-881
APPENDIX I 883-970
APPENDIX II 971-982
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA 983-996
ERRATA 997


la
PROLEGOMENA
The need of a critical or (as it was sometimes called) a "correct" edition of the Mahābhārata has been felt (at first, of course, rather vaguely) by Sanskritists for over half a century.1 It was voiced, however, in a clear and emphatic manner, for the first time, by Professor M. Winternitz, at the Xlth International Congress of Orientalists, held at Paris, in 1897, when he read a paper drawing attention to the South Indian manuscripts of the Great Epic and ending with the remark that a critical edition of the Mahābhārata was "wanted as the only sound basis for all Mahābhārata studies, nay, for all studies connected with the epic literature of India".2 The idea received a concrete shape in his proposal for the foundation of a Sanskrit Epic Text Society, which he laid before the very next session of the Oriental Congress (XIIth), held in Rome (1899). Again, three years later, at the following session of the Congress (XIIIth), held in Hamburg (1902), Professor Winternitz reiterated his requisition and endeavoured to impress again upon the assembled savants that a "critical edition of the Mahābhārata was a sine qua non for all historical and critical research regarding the Great Epic of India".
The reception accorded to the various proposals made by Professor Winternitz in connection with his favourite project was not as cordial as might have been expected from an enlightened, international assemblage of Sanskritists. "At first", writes Professor Winternitz himself,3 "the idea of a critical edition of the Mahābhārata met with great scepticism. Most scholars were of opinion that it was impossible to restore a critical text of the Great Epic, and that we should have to be satisfied with editing the South Indian text, while the North Indian text was represented well enough by the Calcutta and Bombay editions. Only few scholars were in full agreement with the plan of one critical edition".
Notwithstanding this general apathy, a committee was appointed by the Indian Section of the International Congress of Orientalists in Rome (1899) to consider the proposal of Professor Winternitz for the foundation of a Sanskrit Epic Text Society, already mentioned. This committee was not in favour of the said proposal. It recommended instead that the work of preparing the critical edition should be undertaken by the International Association of Academies. The London session of this Association, held in 1904, adopted the above suggestion and resolved "to make the critical edition of the Mahābhārata one of the tasks to be undertaken under its auspices and with the help of funds to be raised by the Academies". In pursuance of this decision, the Academies of Berlin and Vienna sanctioned certain funds earmarked for the Mahābhārata work, with whose help the preliminary work for the critical edition was actually begun,
1 See below. 2 Cf. Winternitz, Indol. Prag. 1 (1929), 58 ff. 8 ibid. p. 58.
II
PROLEGOMENA
In
furtherance of this project, then, Professor H. Lüders prepared a "Specimen" of a critical edition of the Mahābhārata (Druckprobe einer kritischen Ausgabe des Mahābhārata, Leipzig 1908) with the funds provided for the purpose by the Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen.1 The Specimen, which was meant only for private circulation,2 consisted of 18 pages, comprising the constituted text (pp. 111) of the first 67 stanzas of the Ādiparvan with their various readings (printed as footnotes), an Appendix (pp. 1217), on a similar plan, containing the text of the Brahmā-Gaṇeśa interpolation (with its variants), and finally a list (p. 18) of the 29 manuscripts, selected exclusively from European libraries, which formed the specimen apparatus criticus? This little brochure, which must rank in the annals of Mahābhārata studies as the first tentative critical edition of the Mahābhārata, was laid before the Indian Section of the XVth International Congress of Orientalists, held in Copenhagen (1908). The tender seedling, planted with infinite care, did not, however, thrive in the uncongenial European soil. Twenty years later, in 1928, at the XVIIth International Congress of Orientalists, held at Oxford, Professor Winternitz reported that, under the scheme of the International Association of Academies, "except this specimen (Druckprobe) nothing has been printed".4
However, in the interval some preliminary work, such as the classifying and collating of manuscripts had been done by Professor Lüders and some of his pupils (among them my fellow-student and friend Dr. Johannes Nobel, now Professor in the University of Marburg), by Professor Winternitz and his pupil Dr. Otto Stein, and by Dr. Bernhard Geiger (Vienna). The last great World War gave its quietus to this ambitious project, sponsored by the Associated Academies of Europe and America, and finally diverted the attention of European scholars from the Mahābhārata Problem.
After the war, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, then in its early infancy, enthusiastically undertook the work, making a fresh start, fortunately without realizing fully the enormousness of the project or the complicacies of the problem. At a meeting of the General Body of the Institute, held on July 6, 1918, Shrimant Balasaheb Pant Pratinidhi, Chief (now Ruler) of Aundh—the liberal and enthusiastic patron of diverse projects calculated to stimulate research, advance knowledge, and enhance Indian prestige—the president elect on the occasion, easily persuaded by a band of young and hopeful Sanskritists who had returned to India after completing their philological training abroad, with their heads full of new ideas, urged upon the audience the need of preparing a Critical and Illustrated Edition of the Mahābhārata, offering to contribute, personally, a lakh of rupees, by annual grants, towards the expenses of producing the edition.* The donor was warmly thanked for this princely
1 It was printed by the firm of W. Drugulin.
2 Professor Winternitz had sent me, in 1926, his copy, on loan, for perusal, which I returned to him almost immediately afterwards.
3 The brochure did not contain any preface, or explanatory notes.
4 See also the remarks of Professor A. A. Mac–
donell printed in the "Report of the Joint Session of the Royal Asiatic Society, Société Asiatique, American Oriental Society, and Scuola Orientale, Reale University di Roma, September 3-6, 1919" in JRAS. 1920. 149. Cf. also ABL 4. 145 ff.
5 Cf. Bhavanrao Pandit Pratinidhi, ABL 3 (1921-22), If. Also A Prospectus of a New and
PROLEGOMENA
in
gift and the offer was gratefully accepted by the spokesmen of the Institute, who in their turn undertook to prepare an edition that would meet with the high requirements of modern critical scholarship. In accordance with this decision of the General Body of the Institute, the late lamented Sir Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar, the doyen of the Sanskritists of Western India and the inspirer of the critical and rigorous scholarship of the present day, inaugurated, in April 1919, this monumental work by formally beginning the collation of the opening mantra of the works of the ancient Bhāgavata sect, which is found also at the beginning of some manuscripts of the Mahābbarata :1
%3f «<4skff Ihr cicft ^"3^k^ n
Then, on the basis of the promise of the donation of a lakh of rupees by the Ruler of Aundh‚ the Institute appealed for the very large financial support needed to Indian governments, princes, and men of wealth. Not as many favourable responses were received as might have been expected; but very generous aid was and is being given by some, whose names are recorded elsewhere.
The reasons which have induced Sanskritists both here and abroad to undertake this gigantic enterprise are easy to understand. The preeminent importance of the epic is universally acknowledged. Next to the Vedas‚ it is the most valuable product of the entire literature of ancient India, so rich in notable works. Venerable for its very antiquity, it is one of the most inspiring monuments of the world, and an inexhaustible mine for the investigation of the religion, mythology, legend, philosophy, law, custom, and political and social institutions of ancient India.
As a result of the researches that have been carried on during the last thirtyfive years or so, there is now no doubt whatsoever that the text of the Mahābhārata has undergone numerous changes.3 The texts of the Northern and Southern manuscripts—to mention only two of the manuscript classes—are widely divergent, and much uncertainty prevails regarding the correctness and originality of the texts preserved by them. The existing editions—which either merely reproduce the version of a particular type of manuscripts, like the Bombay edition,3 or else are eclectic on no recognizable principles, like the Kumbhakonam edition—fail to remove the uncertainty of the text.
The present edition of the epic is intended chiefly to remedy this unsatisfactory state of things. What the promoters of this scheme desire to produce and supply is briefly this: a critical edition of the Mahābhārata in the preparation of which all important versions of the Great Epic shall have been taken into consideration, and all important manuscripts collated, estimated and turned to account. Since all divergent readings of any importance will be given in the critical notes, printed at the foot of the page, this
Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata (Poona 1919), published by the Institute, p. v.
1 For instance, the stanza is foreign to the entire Southern recension of i;he epic Cf. also BühlerKirste‚ Ind. Stud. No. 2, p. 4, n. 2; and Sylvain Lévi‚ R. G. Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, p. 99.
2 The earliest systematic study of the subject aeems to have been made by Burnell in his Aindra Grammarians; of. also his Classified Index to the Sanskrit MSS. in the Palace at Tanjore (London 1879), p. 180.
8 Representing the Nīlakaṇṭha tradition.
IV PROLEGOMENA
1 The Institute intends to publish, as a supplement to this edition, a Pratīka Index of the Mahā–
bhārata, which will be an alphabetical index of every single pāda of the text of the epic.
edition will, for the first time, render it possible for the reader to have before him the entire significant manuscript evidence for each individual passage. The value of this method for scientific investigation of the epic is obvious. Another feature of the new edition will be this. Since not even the seemingly most irrelevant line or stanza, actually found in a Mahābhārata manuscript collated for the edition, is on any account omitted, this edition of the Mahābhārata will be, in a sense, more complete than any previous edition.1 It will be a veritable thesaurus of the Mahābhārata tradition.
Under the scheme outlined above, a tentative edition of the Virāṭaparvan was prepared by the late Mr. Narayan Bapuji Utgikar, M.A., and published by the Institute in 1923. Copies of this edition were distributed gratis among leading Sanskritists— Indian, European and American—with a view to eliciting from them a frank expression of their opinion on the method worked out by the then editorinchief. The opinions received were very favourable and highly encouraging. The valuable suggestions made by many eminent authorities have been to a great extent followed in the subsequent work.
COLLATION OF MANUSCRIPTS
Collation of the maunscripts is being done, regularly, not merely at the Institute, but also at the Visvabharati of Rabindranath Tagore in Bengal under the supervision of Pandit Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya, and at the Saraswathi Mahal in Tanjore under the supervision of M. R. Ry. Rao Saheb T. Sambamurthi Rao Avl., B.A., B.L. These outside centres were at first intended chiefly for the collation of the Bengali and the Telugu– Grantha manuscripts respectively. But provision has now been made at the Institute itself for the collation of manuscripts written in any of the seven scripts ( Śāradā‚ Nepālī‚ Maithilī, Bengali, Telugu‚ Grantha and Malayālam), besides Devanāgarī, which are ordinarily required for our Mahābhārata work.
The entire Mahābhārata stands now collated from a minimum of ten manuscripts; many parvans have been completely collated from twenty manuscripts; some from thirty; a few from as many as forty 5 while the first two adhyāyas of the Ādi‚ which have special importance for the critical constitution of the text of the entire epic, were collated from no less than sixty manuscripts.
The collation is done by a permanent staff of specially trained Shastris ( Northern as well as Southern) and University graduates. For the purposes of collation, each Mahābhārata stanza (according to the Bombay edition of Ganpat Krishnaji‚ Śaka 1799) is first written out, in bold characters, on the top line of a standard, horizontally and vertically ruled foolscap sheet. The variant readings are entered by the collator horizontally along a line alloted to the manuscript collated, akṣara by akṣara‚ in the appropriate column, vertically below the corresponding portion of the original reading of the "Vulgate". On the right of each of these collation sheets, there is a column four inches wide reserved for remarks (regarding corrections, marginal additions etc.), and for "additional" stanzas found in the manuscripts collated, either immediately before or after
PROLEGOMENA V
1 Of these three, our Ś1 is one, while the other two are paper manuscripts, written in modern Śāradā characters, with Nīlakaṇṭha's commentary,
in the Raghunatha Temple Library; of. Stein's Catalogue (1894), p. 196, Nos. 371232, 395179. They represent probably the Nīlakaṇṭha version.
the stanza in question. Very long "additions" are written out on separate "śodhapatras" and attached to the collation sheets. The collations are regularly checked by a batch of collators different from the one which did the collation in the first instance, before they are handed over to the editor for the constitution of the text.
THE CRITICAL APPARATUS
GENERAL ACCOUNT OF THE MANUSCRIPTS
It is by no means easy to answer the question how many manuscripts of the Mahābhārata there are in existence; firstly, because, no complete list of these manuscripts has ever been compiled; and, secondly, because the expression "Mahābhārata manuscript", as ordinarily used, is ambiguous in the extreme; it may apply to a small manuscript of the Bhagavadgītā alone, as well as to a complete manuscript of the Mahābhārata, in several volumes, containing all the eighteen parvans. Moreover, the parvans are mostly handed down separately, or in groups of few parvans at a time, at least in the oldest manuscripts now preserved. Therefore, in taking stock of Mahābhārata manuscripts, it is best to take as unit of measurement a manuscript of a single parvan.
As a very approximate computation, I may state that there are known to be about 235 manuscripts of the Ādi‚ counting only such as have come within my knowledge from catalogues of private and public libraries accessible to me, as also those manuscripts whose owners have sent them to the Institute for collation or inspection. But this is probably by a long way not the total number of extant manuscripts of this parvan, because there must be quite a large number of manuscripts in private hands, of which we know next to nothing. It has been the experience of most manuscript collectors in India that when one takes the trouble to look for the manuscripts, they turn up in quite astonishing numbers, though they are as a rule late and of questionable worth. Of these 235 manuscripts of the Ādi‚ a little less than half (107) are in the Devanāgarī script alone. The other scripts are represented in this collection as follows: Bengali 32, Grantha 31, Telugu 28, Malayālam 26, Nepālī 5, Śāradā 3,1 Maithilī 1, Kannaḍa 1, and Nandināgarī 1.
Of these manuscripts of the Ādi about 70 (i. e. a little more than 29 per cent of the total) were fully or partly examined and collated for this edition. And of these again about 60 were actually utilized in preparing the text. The critical apparatus of the first two adhyāyas gives the collations of 50 manuscripts. Many of these were, however, discarded in the sequel as misch-codices of small trustworthiness and of no special value for critical purposes. At the same time a few other manuscripts (such as the Śāradā and Nepālī codices), which were not available in the beginning, were added to the critical apparatus subsequently. A table given below supplies all the necessary details of the critical apparatus as to where the collations of the different manuscripts begin, where they end, and so on and so forth.
VI
PROLEGOMENA,
The choice of the critical apparatus is not an easy matter, owing to the astonishing bulk and the amazing variety of the material. The number of exact duplicates among these is decidedly small and almost negligible. An exception to this rule is formed only by manuscripts of commentators' versions, which show inter se little difference. So that what has been said by Kosegarten with respect to the manuscripts of the Pañcatantra, applies, generally speaking, equally well to the Mahābhārata manuscripts: quot codices, tot textus. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the choice of our critical apparatus has not been entirely arbitrary. Efforts were made to secure manuscripts written in as many different Indian scripts as possible, which is the same as saying, manuscripts belonging to as many different Indian provinces as possible. Old manuscripts, even though fragmentary and partly illegible, were selected in preference to modernlooking manuscripts, though complete, neatly written and well preserved. Within the version, discrepant types were chosen in preference to similar types.1 Of the Nīlakaṇṭha version, only three were selected, though it is by far the most numerous group; because, firstly, it is one of the latest versions; and, secondly it has been edited several times already, though not as well as it should be; and, thirdly, there is little difference between the individual manuscripts of the group. The only important scripts unrepresented in our critical apparatus are: Kannaḍa, Uriyā and Nandināgarī.
Besides the manuscripts collated specially for this edition, I have made occasional use of the collations of manuscripts preserved in European libraries made by Theodor Goldstücker, photographic copies of which were presented to the Institute, for use in connection with this project, by the University of Strassburg, through the kind offices of the late Professor Émile Senart‚ as also of the collations intended for the edition planned by the International Association of Academies and made by the pupils of Geheimrat Professor Dr. Heinrich Lüders, which have been placed at the disposal of the Institute in pursuance of a resolution on the subject passed by the Indian Section of the XVIIth International Congress of Orientalists, held at Oxford, in 1928.2
Sixteen of the manuscripts collated bear dates, ranging from the 16th to the 19th century. The oldest dated manuscript of our critical apparatus is a Nepali manuscript (Ñ3) which bears a date corresponding to A.D. 1511. The other dates are: A.D. 1519 (Ks), 1528 (Vi), 1598 (D2), 1620 (Da2), 1638 (K2), 1694 (K*), 1701 (Dr3), 1739 (Ko), 1740 (Bi), 1759 (B3), 1786 (B*), 1802 (D5), 1808 (Dn2), 1838 (Ms), and 1842 (Ms). The Nīlakaṇṭha manuscripts are not all dated, but they can scarcely be much anterior to the beginning of the eighteenth century, since Nīlakaṇṭha himself
1 Consequently, our critical apparatus tends to reflect greater diversity in the material than what actually exists, but that was unavoidable.
2 The Resolutions were worded as follows:
No. 2. That in view of the eminently satisfactory manner in which the work is being done by the Institute, this Congress is of opinion that the MSS. collations made, and the funds collected, for the critical edition of the epic planned by the
Association of Academies, be now utilized for the purposes of the critical edition being prepared in India, without prejudice to the original project of the Association of Academies.
No, 3, That this Congress therefore recommends that; (a) such collations of the Mahābhārata text as have already been prepared by the Association of Academies be placed, on loan, at the disposal of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. .,,
PROLEGOMENA.
vn
belongs to the last quarter of the seventeenth. Many of the Grantha manuscripts do bear dates, but since they refer to a cyclic era, it is difficult to calculate their equivalents.
CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS
The manuscript material is divided naturally into recensions by the scripts in which they are witten. Corresponding to the two main types of Indian scripts, Northern and Southern, we get two main recensions of the epic. Each of these recensions is again divided into a number of subrecensions, which I have called "versions", corresponding to the different provincial scripts in which these texts are written. This principium divisionis is not as arbitrary as it might at first sight appear. The superficial difference of scripts corresponds, as a matter of fact, to deep underlying textual differences. It is common experience in India that when we have a work handed down in different versions, the script is invariably characteristic of the version.1 The reason for this concomitance between script and version appears to be that the scribes, being as a rule not conversant with any script but that of their own particular province, could copy only manuscripts written in their special provincial scripts, exception being made only in favour of the Devanāgarī, which was a sort of a "vulgar" script, widely used and understood in India.
While the principle mentioned above is not entirely mechanical or arbitrary, it is also not ideal or perfect. It is often contravened in practice, mainly through the agency of the Devanāgarī, which is the chief medium of contamination between the different recensions and versions. Thus we come across Devanāgarī copies of the commentary or version.of Arjunamiśra, who was an Easterner; similar copies of the commentary or version of Ratnagarbha, who was a Southerner. There are again Devanagarī copies of the Grantha and the Śāradā2 versions. On the other hand, a popular version like that of Nīlakaṇṭha may be copied in any script. I have come across manuscripts of the Nīlakaṇṭha (Devanāgarī) version written in Śāradā‚3 Bengali,4 Telugu and Grantha scripts. Another cause of disturbance was this. Along the boundaries of provinces speaking different languages or using different scripts, there are invariably bilingual and biscriptal zones. In these zones there was an ever operating impulse, tending to introduce innovations, obliterating the differentiae and normalizing the text. Nevertheless, though nothing is impossible, it would be passing strange if we were to find a copy of the pure Śāradā version written, say, in the Malayālam script, or of the Grantha version in the Nepālī script.
1 CI. Lüders, Deutsche Literaturztg. 1929. 1140.
2 Like our K1 (India Office, No. 2137 ),
8 There are two such MSS‚ in the Raghunatha
Temple Library, Jammu‚ Nos. 371232, 395879.
Som
e of them were collated for the Institute at the Visvabharati.
Tin PROLEGOMENA
LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS FORMING THE CRITICAL APPARATUS
The manuscripts utilized for this edition of the Ādi are as follows:
I. N(orthern) Recension, (a) Northwestern Group (v).
Śāradā (or Kaśmīrī) Version (Ś).
Ś1 = Poona, Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 159 of 187576. Devanāgarī Group allied to the (Śāradā or) Kaśmīrī Version (K).
K0 = Poona, Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 229 of 18951902. Dated V. Saiñ. 1795 (ca. A.D. 1739).
K1 = London, India Office Library, No. 3226 (2137).
Ka = Poona, Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 182 of 189195.
Dated V. Saṃ. 1694 (ca. A.D. 1638). Ks = Baroda‚ Oriental Institute Library, No. 632. Dated V. Saṃ. 1575 ( ca. A.D. 1519 ). K4 = Poona, Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 565 of 188283.
Dated Śaka 1616 (ca. A.D. 1694). K5 = Lahore, Dayanand AngloVedic College, No. 1.
K0 = Poona, Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 209 of 188791.
(b) Central Group (T).
Nepālī Version (Ñ).
Ñ1 = Nepal, in private possession. Ñ2 = Nepal, in private possession.
Ñ3 = Nepal, in private possession. Dated Nepālī Sam. 632 (ca. A.D. 1511). Maithilī Version (V).
V1 = Nepal, Darbar Library, No. 1364. Dated La. Saṃ. 411 (ca. A.D. 1528). Bengali Version (B).
Bi = Santiniketan, Visvabharati Library, No. 1. Dated Śaka 1662 (ca. A.D. 1740).
Bs
= Santiniketan, Visvabharati Library, No. 258.
Bs== Santiniketan, Visvabharati Library, No. 782. Dated Śaka 1681 (ca. A.D. 1759). B± == Santiniketan, Visvabharati Library, No. 413.
B5 = Dacca, University Library, No. 485. Dated Śaka 1708 (ca. A.D. 1786).
Bō = Dacca, University Library, No. 735. Devanāgarī Versions other than K (D). Devanāgarī Version of Arjunamiśra (Da).
Dai = Poona, Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 30 of A 187980.
Daa = Poona, Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), Viśrāmbāg I> No. 468. Dated V. Saṃ. 1676 (ca. A.D. 1620). Devanāgarī Version of Nīlakaṇṭha ( Dn ), the "Vulgate".
Dm = MS. belonging to Sardar M. V. Kibe of Indore.
Dn* = Mysore, Oriental Library, No. 1064. Dated V. Saṃ. 1864 (ca. A.D. 1808).
PROLEGOMENA IX
Dns = Poona‚ Bombay Govt. Collection ( deposited at the BORI), No. 234 of 18951902. Devanāgarī Version of Ratnagarbha (Dr). Dn = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1246. Dr2 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1199.
Dr3 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1313. Dated Śaka 1623 (ca. A.D. 1701 ). Dr* = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1339. Devanāgarī Composite Version.
Di = Poona‚ Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 29 of A 187980. D2 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1152. Dated V. Saṃ. 1654 (ca. A.D. 1598). D3 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1360. D4 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1126.
Ds = Lahore, Dayanand AngloVedic College, No.4. DatedV. Sana. 1858 (ca. A.D. 1802).
De
= Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1223.
DT
= Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1269.
Ds = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1329.
Do = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1176.
D10 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1293.
D11 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1340.
D12 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1373.
D13 = Poona‚ Bombay Govt. Collection (deposited at the BORI), ViśrāmbāgII, No. 191. Du = Poona‚ Bombay Govt. Collection ( deposited at the BORI), Viśrambāg II, No. 266.
II. S(outhern) Recension.
Telugu Version (T).
Ti = Melkote, Yadugiri Yatiraj Math Library MS. (without number).
T2 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11865.
Ts
= Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11809. Grantha Version ( G ).
Gi = Melkote, Yadugiri Yatiraj Math Library MS. (without number).
G2 = Melkote, Yadugiri Yatiraj Math Library MS. (without number).
G3 = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11823.
G* = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11838.
Gs = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11851.
Ge = Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11860.
G* = Melkote, Yadugiri Yatiraj Math Library MS. ( without number). Malayālarn Version (M).
Mi = MS. belonging to Chief of Idappalli, Cochin.
M2 = Cochin, State Library, No. 5.
M3 = Cochin, State Library, No. 1. Dated Kollam 1013 (ca. A.D. 1838).
M4 = MS. belonging to Kallenkara Pisharam of Cochin.
M5::::= Cochin ( Jayantamangalam ); property of the Paliyam family.
Me = Malabar (Nareri Mana); in private possession.
Mt = Cochin ( Avaṇapparambu Mana); in private possession.
Ms = Malabar Poomulli Mana Library, No. 297. Dated Kollam 1017 (ca. A.D. 1842).
X
PROLEGOMEN
A
DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE MANUSRIPTS Ś1
Poona‚ Bombay Government Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 159 of 187576. Total number of folios 114 (some fragmentary), with about 24 lines to a page; size 12"x9^". Clear Śāradā characters (of perhaps the 16th or 17th century). Birchbark ( bhūrjapatra ).
This unique and valuable MS. was purchased for the Government of Bombay, by Bühler, in Kaśmīr. It is listed on p. xi‚ and cursorily described at p. 64, of his Detailed Report of a Tour in Search of Sanskrit MSS. made in Kaśmlr, Rajputana, and Central India, a report printed as Extra Number of the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1877. The lines of writing of the MS. run parallel to the narrow side of the leaf. There are, on an average, 24 lines on a page, and 36 akṣaras (i. e. a little over a śloka) in a line. A page, therefore, contains, on an average, 26 (anuṣṭubh) stanzas. Each folio bears, on its reverse, in the lefthand margin, near the bottom, a cipher representing the serial number of the folio and a signature indicating the title of the work, as well as the name of the parvan. — The MS., which is unfortunately incomplete and fragmentary, must have originally contained at least the first three parvans (Ādi, Sabhā and Araṇya), written, as far as one can judge, by the same hand. The extant portion contains the Sabhā in its entirety, but only fragments of the other two parvans, the beginning of Ādi and the end of Araṇya being lost. The Ādi, which appears to have extended from the beginning of the volume up to fol. 154, is particularly fragmentary; a continuous text begins only from fol. 63 (our adhy. 82). Of the first 62 folios, the extant portion contains only the lower segments (with 10 to 15 lines of writing on each page) of fol. 2425, 3637, 39, 4748, 5357 and 6162; the initial 23 folios as also 15 other intermediate folios (viz. 38, 4046, 4952, 5860) are entirely missing; while only 10 of these folios are complete. Folio number 96 is repeated. The Ādi ends at fol. 154 a. The colophon repeats the stanzas of the Parvasaṃgraha giving the number of adhyāyas (230) in this parvan, as also its extent in "ślokas", i. e. granthas (7984). The writing is neat and careful; erasures and corrections are few and far between. Occasionally one comes across variant readings (cf. fol. 115 b), entered (probably by the same hand) in yet smaller letters between the lines; on fol. 116 a, there is a stanza written in the upper margin, which is meant to be added after 1. 162. 15, and which is found, otherwise, only in K1‚ in other words is an interpolation peculiar to Ś1 K1. Many of the marginal additions are glosses, which are rather numerous in the first 15 (extant) folios, evidently notes made from some commentary by a student who intended making a careful study of the text. In a few places—perhaps about half a dozen—corrections have been made with yellow pigment. Some of the adhyāyas bear (serial) numbers, written probably by a different hand; the first (legible) figure that we come across is 43, corresponding to adhy. 32 of our edition, involving a difference of 11 in our enumerations of adhyāyas! The last adhyāya number noted in this parvan is 100, corresponding to our adhy87: the difference between our enumerations thus rises to 13 in 55 adhyāyas. The Purāṇic raconteur is here called, throughout, Sūta‚ not Sauti. Moreover, the prose formula of reference generally omits ~n~
PROLEGOMENA XI
(resp. ~f:), and gives, as in S MSS., merely the name or designation of the speaker, such as –hhm:. However, from the fact that towards the middle and end of the parvan, the full forms containing ~n~f (resp. gjf:) do occur sporadically, e. g. 1. 94. 64 (fol. 73 a) •, 98. 1 (fol. 75 b); 99. 36 (fol. 77 a)etc: it follows that the usual –hPTFR: etc are only abbreviations. The names of the subparvans are generally added, in the colophons, agreeing mostly with the corresponding divisions of our edition. The extant fragment begins (fol. 24 a) with the words ^W(: I ftf&n "TO qft>qft*i (cf. v. 1. 1. 26. 10). –— A facsimile of the folio (154) containing the end of the 5di and the beginning of the Sabhā is given, facing p. 880.
Ko
Poona‚ Bombay Government Collection (deposited at the BORI), No. 229 of 18951902. Folios 181, with about 15 lines to a page; size 147"x 67". Devanāgarī characters; dated V. Saṃvat 1795 (ca. A.D. 1739). Old Indian paper.
The MS. contains the first three parvans written in the same hand, the date coming at the end of the Aranya. The writing is clear and fairly correct; a few corrections of scribe's errors are noted in the margin, probably by the same hand; otherwise the margins are clean. The colophons give adhyaya numbers sporadically, and names of adhyāyas, subparvans or upākhyānas generally. On the last folio (181) of the Ādi is given, in different hand, a list of major parvans with the corresponding number of their adhyāyas and stanzas, in a tabular form.
Ki
London, India Office Library, No. 3226 (2137). Folios 169, with about 33 lines to a page; size 16^" x 9". Devanāgari characters; dated (possibly) 1783 A.D. Indian Paper.
A moderately trustworthy, though somewhat modern and very incorrect transcript of a Śāradā exemplar. Even the outward form and getup of this MS. are suggestive of Kaśmīrī origin. The lines of writing, as in Śāradā (bhūrjapatra) MSS. run parallel to the narrow side of the folio. The signatures in the margin are like those found in Kaśmīrī books. The numerous clerical errors, which disfigure every page, betray the writer to be a professional scribe, not thoroughly familiar with the awkward Śāradā script, and still less so with the language of the text, easily misled by the deceptive similarity between certain letters of the Śāradā and Devanāgarī alphabets. He frequently writes *r for (e. g. for 3f%); 3 for ~ and y for «r (e. g. ~qī for "*rr); 5 for % (e. g. ~~T for ^sqī); for *T (e. g. 5rErśr for 5Tsrô) or for 'f (e. g. qfcreff for Hhreff); medial ~ for subscript r (e. g. %ti for ^); for %; 3 for –t‚ % sr (e. g. 3N31art, ?T3*r:, t^Jtô for s?i&śrt, *r~*r. and ftft3Tfrf); ^ṛ for =sq–; %t for f; medial " for subscript ~; for H^W
^~T^ *|Hlf^c–M–lj4 I
* * * * * * * * * * * * [? ^ft]flK^1 ĀRkd«H'I –HI^T ^T~fT Hltii ~T 44rMI7 cT?ī f%^TR[FnRT I
&4fr<^*IW^«W ********|
~f~;
^vjl^iy^ while Dānadharma has Saka 1675. The last parvan bears the date: *J^VSNS g(HRT^gft.
.Da
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1152. Folios 340, with about 10 lines to a page; size 13" x 5j". Devanāgarī characters; dated V. Saṃ. 1654 (ca. A.D. 1598). Paper.
The MS. was written on Friday the 13th of Āṣāḍha śuddha of V. Saṃ. 1654, at Benares by a Brāhmaṇa called Govinda, and belonged to Vāsudevabhaṭṭa. — Collated at Tanjore.
D3
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1360. Folios 120, with about 10 lines to a page; size 14" x 6J". Devanāgarī characters. Paper.
Incomplete, breaking off at the end of adhy. 76 (of our edition), in the middle of the Yayāti episode, which, in this MS. (as in S MSS.), precedes the Śakuntalā episode. –— Collated at Tanjore.
D*
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1126. Folios 235, with about 11 lines to a page; size 16" x 6f". Devanāgarī characters. Paper.
Many corrections and additions, the MS. being compared with another of the Southern recension, extracts from which have been written out on the margin, and on supplementary folios. — Collated at Tanjore*
D*
Lahore, Dayanand Anglo–Vedic College Library, No. 4. Folios 246, with about 1214 lines to a page; size 12" x 5". Devanagarī characters; dated V. Saṃ. 1858 (ca. A.D. 1802). Paper. — Collated at the Visvabharati.
PROLEGOMENA XK
Da
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1223. Folios 293, with about 12 lines to a page ; size 14" x 6 J". Devanāgarī characters. Paper.
An old MS., but with clear and legible writing; well preserved. — Collations end at adhy. 53. Collated at Tanjore.
Di
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1269. Folios 262, with about 11 lines to a page; size 14" x 5f–". Devanāgarī characters. Paper.
Clear and legible writing; well preserved. — Collations end at adhy. 53, Collated at Tanjore.
D8
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1329. Folios 196, with about 16-18 lines to a page; size 15-^" x 7". Devanagarī characters. Paper.
A comparatively modern MS. — Collations end at adhy. 2. Collated at Tanjore.
D8
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1176. Folios 279, with about 11 lines to a page; size 15-|" x 5|". Devanāgarī characters. Paper.
Fol. 1-2 are badly damaged. — Collations end at adhy. 2. Collated at Tanjore.
Dio
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1293. Folios 352, with about 10 lines to a page ; size 13j" x 5J". Davanāgarī characters. Paper.
Last leaf torn; well-preserved; clear and legible writing. —- Collations end at adhy. 2. Collated at Tanjore*
Du
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1340. Folios 290, with about 11-18 lines to a page; size 14" x 5j". Devanāgarī characters. Paper.
Written, perhaps, by four different scribes. — Collations end at adhy. 2. Collated at Tanjore.
Dl2
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 1373. Folios 21, with about 12 lines to a Page; size I4|" x 6". Devanāgarī characters. Paper.
Incomplete, containing only the first two adhyāyas. — Collated at Tanjore.
XX
PROLEGOMENA
Dl3
Poona‚ Bombay Government Collection (deposited at the BORI), Viśrāmbāg II, No. 191. Folios 221, with about 13 lines to a page; size 14.25" x 605". Devanāgari characters. Old Indian glossy paper.
Fragmentary, folios 17 wanting; begins with H*T53līf*ī –rrf (1. 1. 205). Text very similar to Arjunamiśra's; neatly written and generally correct; marginal corrections are few and far between. Adhyāya names or subparvan names are given, but the ślokas or adhyāyas are not numbered. The reference to narrators is, at first, given at random as *?iforrr and *i~ 3°, but then the ecribe settles down to 3°. The collations are given, as a matter of fact, only from 1. 1. 205 to the end of adhy. 2.
Du
Poona‚ Bombay Government Collection (deposited at the BORI), Viśrāmbāg II, No. 266. Folios 1121 ( fol. 122189 of this MS. are found under Viśrāmbāg II, No. 86 ), with about 15 lines to a page; size 18"x6–^". Devanāgarī characters. Old Indian unglazed paper.
MS. No. 267 of the same Collection is of Sabhā with commentary and written by the same hand. — Folio 79 is wanting. Carefully written, has very few corrections, which are made by use of yellow pigment, and a few marginal additions; gives, as a rule, numbers to ślokas and adhyāyas; also mentions generally subparvan and adhyāya names,
—
Collate
d up to the end of adhy. 2 only.
Ti
Melkote, Yadugiri Yatiraj Math MS. (without number). Folios 195, with about 11 lines to a page; size 16.1" x 23". Telugu characters. Palrnleaf.
MS. kindly lent by His Holiness the Yatiraj Swami. Contains Ādi and Sabhā‚ written probably by the same hand; writing clear and correct; adhyāya ends are shown by a small floral (or spiral) design engraved in the right and left margins of the MS.; adhyāyas are regularly numbered, but not the ślokas. It is one of the few Southern MSS. which contain the (Northern) salutatory stanza srrcpri W*?^ etc
Ta
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11865. Folios 400, with about 6 lines to a page; size 21" x If". Telugu characters. Palmleaf.
Fragmentary; breaking off at the end of our adhy. 181 (corresponding to its adhy. 140); from adhy. 182, it is replaced in our critical apparatus by the next MS. Ts.
—
Collated
at Tanjore.
Ts
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11809. Folios 164, with about 12 lines to a page; size 29J" x 2J". Telugu characters. Palmleaf.
An old MS., containing the first five parvans; script small, but clear. — Collations begin at adhy. 182; used only to supplement the portion missing in Ta. Collated at Tanjore.
PROLEGOMENA XXI
Gi
Melkote, Yadugiri Yatiraj Math MS. (without number). Folios 110, with about 1621 lines to a page; size 187" x 1.8". Grantha characters. Palmleaf.
Leaves are very brittle, and wormeaten in places; large pieces have broken off, leaving many lacunae. The holes for the string have enlarged, perhaps from constant use, destroying some parts of the text, written round them.
G2
Melkote, Yadugiri Yatiraj Math MS. (without number). Folios 202, with about 1517 lines to a page; size 145" x 21". Grantha characters. Pahnleaf.
The MS. contains the first 4 parvans: 5di‚ Sabhā‚ Araṇya and Virāṭa‚ written probably by the same hand. Slightly wormeaten; but, on the whole, a well preserved old MS. with clear and legible writing.
Gs
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11823. Folios 316, with about 10 lines to a page; size 16|" x If". Grantha characters. Palmleaf. — Collated at Tanjore.
G*
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11838. Folios 477, with about 6 lines to a page; size 19" x If". Grantha characters. Palmleaf.
An old and wellpreserved MS., with clear and legible writing, but many corrections. — Collated at Tanjore.
G«
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11851. Folios 320, with about 8 lines to a page; size 19"x lj". Grantha characters. Palrnleaf.
The MS. contains the Sabhā also, probably written by the same hand. A wellpreserved old MS., with clear and legible writing. — Collated at Tanjore.
GO
Tanjore, Saraswathi Mahal Library, No. 11860. Folios 324, with about 8 lines to a page; size 18^" x If". Grantha characters. Palmleaf.
MS. written by Kāśīpati, on the 22nd of the month of Kumbhain the year Krodhi. — Collated at Tanjore.
GT
Melkote, Yadugiri Yatiraj Math MS. (without number). Folios 217, with about 1214 lines to a page; size 192" x 2". Grantha characters. Palmleaf.
XXII
PROLEGOMENA
Clear and legible writing; worm-eaten in places. Being a conflated MS., it was discontinued after adhy. 2. It is one of the few Southern MSS. which begin with the (Northern) salutatory stanza, *r*TC?>3T etc., added later in the narrow upper margin
of the first folio, in very fine writing. Its place of insertion is indicated by a "hamsapāda", inserted immediately after its first maṅgala stanza (9*). — Collated up to the^ end of adhy. 2 only.
Mi
MS. from the private library of the Chief of Idappalli, Cochin. Folios 79. Malayālam characters. Palmleaf.
Secured on loan and got collated kindly by Prof. K. Rama Pisharoti. No further details of the MS. are available. Incomplete MS., ending with adhy. 53, the final adhyāya of the Astīkaparvan. — Collated at Sanskrit College, Tripunittura, Cochin.
M*
Cochin, State Library, No. 5. Folios 122. Malayālam characters. Palmleaf.
The MS. was returned to the Cochin State Library after collation. No further details of the MS. are available. Incomplete MS., ending with adhy. 53, the final adhyāya of the Āstīkaparvan.
Ms
Cochin, State Library, No. L Folios 166, with about 1213 lines to a page ; size 199" x 16". Malayālam characters; dated Kollam 1013 (ca. A.D. 1838). Palmleaf.
A modern MS., perhaps less than 100 years old; adhyāya numbers and śloka numbers are given. The adhyāya ends are shown by a floral design, inscribed in the margins.
M*
MS. from the private library of Kallenkara Pishararn, Cochin. Polios 57. Malayālarn characters. Palmleaf.
The MS. was returned to the owner immediately after collation. No further details of the MS. are available. Incomplete, ending with adhy. 53, the final adhy. of the Āstikaparvan.
M8
MS. from the Paliyam MSS. Library, Cochin. Folios 245. Malayālam characters. Palmleaf.
Secure
d for collation by courtesy of Mr. P. Anujan Achan‚ now Superintendent, Archaeological Department, Cochin State.
Mi
MS. from the private library of Nareri Mana‚ Malabar. Folios 163, with about 10 lines to a page; size 18"x 16". Malayālam characters. Palmleaf.
PROLEGOMENA XXIII
Incomplete MS., adhy. 153 wanting (i. e. begins with the Ādivaṃiśāvataraṇa subparvan); writing clear and legible; generally correct; margins are clean. — Collations begin from adhy. 54.
MT
MS. from the private library of Avaṇapparambu Mana‚ Cochin. Folios 170, with about 10 lines to a page; size 205r' x 18". Malayālam characters. Palmleaf.
Clear and legible writing; leaves are in perfect preservation, not a single leaf being wormeaten; probably not very old. — Scribe has left many blanks in the* writing space, whenever the surface of the leaf was uneven or rugged. –— Collated from adhy. 54.
Ms
Malabar, Poomulli Mana Library, No. 297. Folios 183, with about 10 lines to a page. Malayālam characters; dated Kollam 1017 (ca. A.D. 1842). Palmleaf.
Collated from adhy. 54.
In view of the great unevenness of the critical apparatus, and of the consequent difficulty likely to be experienced by readers using the critical notes (printed at the foot of the page ) in ascertaining what manuscripts have been added, discontinued, or discarded at different points of the text, I append, on the following page, a table which shows at a glance just what manuscripts have been actually collated for different portions of the text. Even the larger lacunae of the manuscripts* which cannot be easily ascertained, have been exhibited in this table. Only such (small) omissions have been, as a rule, ignored as are specifically mentioned in the footnote itself pertaining to the particular stanza, and which are therefore brought to the notice of the reader as soon as he reads the footnote.
XX1V PROLEGOMENA
1 D18 added at 1. 205. — E5 discontinued from 2, 40. — G1 has lacuna from 2. 192 to 3. 44. — Ee Dr Dsu Gt discontinued, and Ñ1.1 Bs Ms added, from 3.1. — Ss added at 14. 1. — Ś1 added at 26. 10. — Bs ends at 43. 13. — E1 has lacuna from 47. 20 to 54. 4. — De.7M1. j. 4 discontinued, and Be Me8 added, from 54. 1. — Ś1 has laouna from 55. 35 to 60. 61*, and from 61. 84* to 68. 19.
—
D
s (whioh transp. the Śakuntalā and Yayāti episodes) has laouna from 62. 3 to 69. 51. — Vi has lacuna from 68. 74* to 92. 13. — Es has lacuna from 69. 41* to 71. 17c, and from 72. 8C to 74. 4. — Ś1 has laouna from 72. 23 to 78. 20*. —• D3 ends at 76. 35. — B4 ends at 90. 88. — V1 has laouna from 96. 37" to 127. 21". — Ts ends at 181. 40. — Ts begins from 182. 1.
TABLE SHOWING THE M8S. COLLATED FOR DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE TEXT1
Adhyāya & Śloka Northern Recension MSS. South. Ree. MSS.
1. 1204
Koe
V1 Bi–* Da Dn Dr D112.u T1.2 G17 M14
1. 2052. 39
Ko8 Vi B14 Da Dn Dr Diu T1.2 G17 Mi4
2. 40191
Ko4.
6 Vi B14 Da Dn Dr D1u T1.2 G17 M14
2. 192243
Ko4.
8 Vi B14 Da Dn Dr Dii* T1.2 G2T Mi4
3. 144
K04
Ñi.s Vi B15 Da Dn D17 T1.2 G2–6 Mis 3.4513.45 K04 Ñi.2 V1 B15 Da Dn D17 Ti.» G16 M15
14. 126.9
K04
Ñ13 V1 B15 Da Dn D17 T1.2 G1e M15
26. 1043. 13
Ś1 K04 Ñ18 V1 B15 Da Dn D17 T1.2 G16 M1«
43. 1447. 19
Ś1 Ko4 Ñ18 V1 B1.35 Da Dn D17 T1.2 G1e M15
47. 2053. 86
Ś1 Ko.24 Ñ18 V1 B1.85 Da Dn D17 T1.2 G1e M15
54.14
Ś1 Ko.24 Ñ18 V1 B1.86 Da Dn D15 T1.2 G1e Ms.58
54. 555. 3°
Ś1 K04 Ñ18 V1 B1.86 Da Dn D1s T1.2 G16 Ms.58
65.
3b60. 61b K04 Ñ18 V1 B1.86 Da Dn D1s T1.2 G18 Ms.58
60. 61c61. 84* Ś1 K04 Ñ18 V1 B1.86 Da Dn D15 T1.2 G16 Ms.58
61.
84b62. 2 K04 Ñ18 V1 B1.86 Da Dn D15 T1.2 G18 Ms.58
62. 368. 19
Ko4 Ñ18 V1 B1.86 Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G16 Ms.58 68.2074° Ś1 Ko4 Ñ18 V1 B1.86 Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G18 M8.58
68.
74b69. 41" Ś1 K04 Ñ18 B1.s6 Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G1e Ms.58
69.
41*51 Ś1 Ko2.4 Ñ18 B1.39 Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G1e Ms.58
70. 171. 17c Ś1 Ko2.4 Ñ18 B1.86 Da Dn D15 T1.2 G18 Ms.58
71. 17*72.
8
b Ś1 K04 Ñ18 B1.86 Da Dn D15 T1.2 G16 Ms.58
72. 8e22 Ś1 Ko2.4 Ñ18 B1.86 Da Dn D15 T1.2 G1e Ms.58 72.2374.4 Ko2.4 Ñ13 B1.86 Da Dn D15 T1.2 G1e Ms.s8 74.5 76.35 Ko4 Ñ18 B1.86 Da Dn D15 T1.2 G1e M3.58
77. 178.
20
b ^ K04 Ñ18 B1.se Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G1e Ms.58
78. 20c90. 88 Ś1 Ko4 Ñ18 B1.36 Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G1e Ms.58 90.8992.13* Ś1 Ko4 Ñ18 B1.8.5.8DaDn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G1e Ms.s8 92. 13*96. 37b Ś1 Ko4 Ñ1s V1 B1.3.8.6 Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G1e Ms.j8 96. 87"127. 21° Ś1 K04 Ñ18 B1.s.5.6 Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G1e Ms.58
127.
21b181. 40 Ś1 K04 Ñ18 V1 B1.3.5.e Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.2 G1e M3.58
182. 1225. 19
Ś1 Ko4 Ñ18 V1 B1.s.5.6 Da Dn D1.2.4.5 T1.s G1e Ms.58
PROLEGOMENA XXV
1 Cf. D. van Hinloopen Labberton, "The Mahā– hhārata in Mediaeval Javanese", JBAS. 1913. 1 ff‚, aṅd the literature cited there; also Kurt Wulff, Den old javanske Wirataparva (Copenhagen 1917).
On the Mbh. in the island of Bali, of. R. Friederich. JBAS. 1876. 176 I., 179 ff.
2 Adiparwa, Oudjavaansch Prozageschriß, uitgegeven door Dr. H. H. JuynbolI. 'S–Gra venhage 1906.
TESTIMONIA
As testimonia, or aids of a partial or subsidiary character, there are available, besides the numerous commentaries, the following three important epitomes of the eleventh century: (i) the Javanese adaptation Bhāratam (ca. A.D. 1000), (ii) the Telugu adaptation Andhra Bhāratamu by the Telugu poet Nannaya Bhaṭṭa (ca. A.D. 1025), and (iii) the Sanskrit adaptation Bhāratamañjarī by the Kaśmīrī poet Kṣemendra (ca. A.D. 1050); as also an important Persian rendering made some centuries later (ca. A. D. 1580) at the instance of that enlightened and sagacious Emperor of India with catholic sympathies, the great Akbar.
The commentaries collated for this edition are dealt with below, under the Devanāgarī versions. Here it will suffice to observe that, even when accompanied by the (epic) text, the commentaries are, for reasons which will be explained later on, evidence only for the actual lemmata and the pāṭhāntaras cited. The absence of commentary on a stanza or a group of stanzas or even on an adhyāya is, in general, no proof that that particular passage was lacking in the text used by the commentator. For, clearly, his text may have contained the passage in question, but he may not have deemed it necessary to comment upon any portion of it. Nevertheless when the commentary ignores a lengthy and difficult passage, then there is a strong presumption that the text of the commentator did not contain the passage. A case in point is the Kaṇikanīti, a passage of 186 lines, which is entirely ignored in Devabodha’s commentary (but hase voked lengthy comments from both Arjunamiśra and Nīlakaṇṭha), and which is missing in the Kaśmīrī version.
As regards the old Javanese adaptation, from the reports of Dutch scholars1 who have studied the original Javanese text, it appears that only eight out of the eighteen parvans of the Mahābhārata have been traced so far; namely, Ādi, Virāṭa‚ Udyoga‚ Bhīṣma‚ Aśramavāsa, Mausala, Mahāprasthāna and Svargārohaṇa. Three of these (Aśramavāsa, Mausala, Mahāprasthāna) were the subject of a doctor dissertation, submitted to the Leyden University by Dr. H. H. Juynboll, as early as 1893. The Javanese original was edited by the doctor in Roman characters and rendered into Dutch. Thirteen years later (1906) the same scholar published the text of the Ādi (with different readings) in Roman transcript.2 Of the old Javanese Ādiparvan, only a few episodes have been as yet translated, to wit: the Parvasaṃgraha, the Pauṣya‚ the Amṛtamanthana, the story of Parikṣit and the Sauparṇa. Unfortunately these translations are not available in India; at least they were not available to me.
The chief value of the Javanese adaptation for us lies in the fact that throughout the old Javanese text are scattered Sanskrit quotations, which appear to have "served as landmarks for writers and hearers or readers". The text prepared by Dr. Juynboll, which is based upon eight manuscripts, is reputed to be very accurate. But it is admitted that the Sanskrit excerpts in the extant Javanese manuscripts are extremely corrupt, and it is a
PROLEGOMENA
question how far the conjectural restorations by the editor correctly represent the original readings. It seems to me likely that in his reconstructions Dr. Juynboll was to a certain extent influenced by the wording of the Vulgate, which is certainly not always^ original. To give only one instance. On p. 70, the Javanese manuscripts read (in the Sakuntalā episode ):
paripatyādayaḥ sunu‚ hāraṇireṇuguṇḍitaḥ f, which is corrupt; it conveys no sense. In the text the editor gives:
pratipadya padā sūnur‚ dharaṇīreṇu gunthitaḥ |, which is nearly the reading of the Calcutta edition ( 3040 ). Though the Javanese manuscripts are palpably corrupt, yet they have preserved the correct paripatya (for pratipadya of the Vulgate), which is the reading of the Śāradā and K manuscripts of our edition. We have here to thank the Vulgate for the pratipadya of Dr. Juynboll's text!
Notwithstanding, that the period from which this adaptation dates is comparatively speaking recent, it yet precedes the known date of the manuscripts by several centuries and is hence of considerable importance for critical purposes, as a witness1 independent of and uninfluenced by the main line of our extant Indian witnesses. Most of the Sanskrit quotations of the Javanese text can be traced both in the Northern and the Southern recensions, as may be seen from our Appendix II, at the end of this volume, which contains a concordance of the Javanese extracts with the Critical Edition, the Calcutta Edition, and Sastri's Southern Recension. A few of the quotations are to be traced to the "additional" passages in the Northern manuscripts, but none to the specific Southern "additions". The conclusion is inevitable that the text of the Sanskrit Ādiparvan used by the Javanese writers must have belonged to the Northern recension, a conclusion already suggested by the sequence of the Sakuntalā and Yayāti episodes, which is the Northern sequence. This does not necessarily mean that the entire Javanese Bhāratam represents the Northern recension. It is quite likely that some of the parvans utilized by the Javanese adapters belonged to the Southern recension. The late Mr. Utgikar2 was inclined to think that the Javanese Virāṭaparvan was of the Southern type. The point will have to be reexamined in the light of further evidence. The books were preserved and handed down separately; consequently the genesis of each parvan must be investigated separately.
The Telugu adaptation, the Āndhra Bhāratamu,8 is a metrical epitome of the Mahābhārata, commenced by Nannaya Bhaṭṭa‚ a court poet of the Eastern Cālukya king Viṣṇuvardhana, who had his capital at Rajamundry, on the East Coast of India, and who appears to have ruled between 1022 and 1066.4 The torso of the Telugu rendering left behind by Nannaya, consisting of a version of the first two parvans and of a part of the third, was completed many years later by two other poets. Nannaya s version is valuable for the light it throws on the condition of the Southern recension—or, strictly speaking, of the Telugu version—in the eleventh century of the Christian era, especially in view of
1 Particularly valuable, as the Indian MSS. are mostly conflated.
2 The Virāṭaparvan (Poona 1923), Introduction, p. XIII, and ABL 2. 167 f.
8 V. Ramasvami & Sons, Madras 192429.
*
Cf
. Venkataohellam Iyer, Notes of a Study of the Preliminary Chapters of the Mahābhārata (Madras 1922), pp. 97100.
PROLEGOMENA
XXVII
the fact that Nannaya has included in his poem an accurate rendering of the Parvasaṃ¬graha‚ giving the number of ślokas in each of the parvans of his Mabābhārata.1 The figure for the stanzas of the Ādi is 9984, which shows that the text used by Nannaya must have been substantially of the same size as that preserved in the extant Southern manuscripts. The poet is reported to have followed the original fairly closely. Notable is consequently his omission of Brahma's visit to Vyāsa.2
Curiously enough, the third old important epitome of the Mahābhārata which we possess, the Bhāratamañjarī by Kṣemendra,8 belongs to the same century as the two epitomes mentioned above, since this Kaśmīrī poet must also be assigned to the middle of the eleventh century.4 Bühler and Kirste have given in their Indian Studies, No. 2 (pp. 30 ff.), the results of a careful comparison of Kṣemendra's abstract with the Bombay text of the Mahābhārata. They show that Kṣemendra's text contains both additions and omissions as compared with the latter.5 Of the omissions they note: adhy. 4, 24, 4548, 66, 94, 139, and parts of adhy. 141 and 197 of the Vulgate. Of these, adhy. 4 is, as pointed out by Bühler and Kirste, a short introductory chapter, a variant of adhy. 1; adhy. 4548 are a repetition (with variations) of adhy. 1315; adhy. 66 is a variant of the preceding adhyāya; adhy. 94 is a variant of adhy. 95 (prose), which is selected by Kṣernendra for his purpose ;6 finally, stanzas 44 to end of adhy. 197 are a repetition of a part of adhy. 169. The reason for the omission of these adhyāyas is thus clear: they are mere repetitions. The remaining adhyāyas, which are missing and whose omission BühlerKirste could not account for, namely, adhy. 24, 139, and 141 (stanzas 119) are also missing in many of our Mahābhārata manuscripts and have accordingly been omitted in the constituted text as well. To these must be added the important omission of adhy. 140 of the Vulgate, the Kaṇikanīti, which is likewise omitted by Kṣemendra, an omission which appears to have been overlooked by Bühler and Kirste.
The collaborating authors felt justified in concluding that the omissions and additions "are just such liberties as any Kāvya poet would take in making a similar abridgement.’' They were also of opinion that the original cannot have differed very essentially from our current texts, that is, the Vulgate. This is correct up to a certain point. A comparison with the different versions shows that Kṣemendra's version agrees, as was to be expected, most closely with the Śāradā. On comparing the divisions of the Mañjarī with those given in Bombay or Calcutta editions of the Mahābhārata, Bühler and Kirste were struck by the fact that the Mañjarī divisions agreed better with the course of the narrative; and they give examples to show that the arrangement of the Mañjarī is more logical. That is quite natural, because the old Northern manuscripts, which this edition
1 The figures of Nannaya's Āndhra Bhāratamu are now given by Professor P. P. S. Sastri in his edition of the Mahābhārata, Southern Recension, Vol. II‚ Introduction, p. XXX (Scheme of Slokas ). They were first published by Venkatachellam Iyer, op. cifc. p. 311.
2 Cf. Venkatachellam Iyer, op. oit. p. 99. 8 Ed. Kāvyamālā, No. 64 (1898).
*
Keith
, A History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 136.
5 op. cit. p. 30.
6 As is done also by the redactors of the Javanese Bhāratam; cf. Labberton, JRAS. 1913. 7: "The knotty point as to the more reliable of the two sets [of genealogies] is decided by our Old Javanese text in favour of the second, that being the only one it knows".
xxvni
PROLEGOMENA
follows, fully support the arrangement of the Mañjarī, whereas the divisions adopted in the Vulgate are secondary and quite corrupt.
The Persian translation1 of the Mahābhārata, made in the reign of Emperor Akbar‚ being still unedited, could not be consulted. A very full account of this rendering has, however, been given by the late Dr. Sir Jivanji Jamshedji Modi in a paper read before the First Oriental Conference at Poona in November 1919 and published in the Annals of this Institute.2 Of all the Sanskrit works Akbar got translated, the Mahābhārata, it appears, had his most earnest attention.
Several eminent poets and scholars had a hand in translating the Great Epic of India into Persian. The A'lneĀkbarl gives the following names: Naqīb Khān‚ Maulānā *Abdu'lQādir Badāyūnī, and Shaikh Sulṭān of Thanesar, to which the Muntakhabu'tTawārlkh adds the names of Mullā Sheri‚ and Shaikh Faizī (the brother of Abu'lFazl).
"Badaoni translated", we are informed by Sir Jivanji,3 on the authority of contemporaneous chronicles, "two out of the eighteen sections. Mullā Sherī and Naqīb Khān did a part of the work and the rest was completed by Sulṭān Hājī of Thanessar. Shaikh Faizī converted their 'rough translation into elegant prose and verse, but he did not complete more than two sections.' Sulṭān Hājī‚ then revised these two sections and verse. Not only did he do so, but he also revised his work which formed a large share of the work.’’ Quoting Badāyūnī, Sir Jivanji continues: "The Hājī aforesaid revised these two sections, and as for the omissions which had taken place in his first edition, those defects he put right, and comparing it word for word was brought to such a point of perfection that not a flymark of the original was omitted"! The preface to this translation was from the pen of that gifted courtier of Akbar who has left us such an admirable account of the Emperor's reign, Abu'lFazl. This Persian version appears to have been a free rendering of the original, made by Muslim poets and scholars at the Court of Akbar, to whom the sense of the original had been explained by Hindu pandits, under the orders of the Emperor.
There are numerous other vernacular abstracts of the Mahābhārata besides the Telugu abstract mentioned above, but most of them are of a late date. Moreover, they are all far too free to be of much use to us in reconstructing the text of the Mahābhārata.
Besides these abstracts and adaptations, there are parallel versions of certain passages or even of whole episodes to be met with in other works. Thus we have a parallel version of the Sakuntalā episode (adhy. 62ff.), in the Padmapurāṇa;4 of the Yayāti episode (adhy. 71 ff.), in the Matsyapurāṇa;5 of the story of Ruru (adhy. 8 ff.), in the Devībhāgavata; of a portion of Samudramanthana (adhy. 16 f.), again in the Matsyapurāṇa; of a portion of a cosmogonic passage (1. 60. 54 ff.), in the Rāmāyaṇa.
1 Cf. Holtzmann, Das Mahābhārata, 3. 110; and A Ludwig, "Das Mahābhārata als Epos und Recbtsbuch" (Review), pp. 66 ff., 93 ff.
*
Of
. vol. 6 (192425 ), pp. 84 ff. 8 ABL 6. 95.
*
Cf
. BelloniFilippi, "La leggenda Mabābhāratiana di Śakuntalā nell' edizione oritioa di Poona",
Giornale delta Societä Asiatica 1taliana (NS), 2 (1932), 135140.
5 Cf. Gaya Prasad Dixit‚ "A Textual Comparison of the Story of Yayāti as found in the Mahābhārata and the Matsyapurāṇa", Proc Fifth Ind. Orient. Conf. (Lahore 1930), vol. 1, pp. 721 ff.
PROLEGOMENA
XXIX
There is more distant connection between our Sauparṇa (adhy. 14 ff.) and the pseudo– vedic Suparṇādhyāya.1 Some of the stanzas of the Ādi are cited, with or without mention of the source, in the Tantravārttika of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (e. g. our 1. 1. 209), as also in the Bhāṣyas of -Scārya Śamkara (e. g. our 1. 1. 37). A few of the sententious stanzas (e. g. our 1. 74. 1 ff.) recur, with variation, in Buddhist literature,2 while stray stanzas are to be found again in the Khilas of the Rgveda (e. g. our 1. 53. 22 f.)8, the Manusmṛti4 (e. g. our 1. 3. 94) and the Bṛhaddevatā5 (e. g. our 1. 59. 12). One of our stanzas (1. 119. 6) has been cited in the Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana, as by Maharṣi Vyāsa. There are probably many stanzas which remain to be identified.
It is perhaps well to add in this place that a certain amount of caution is necessary in making any critical use of citations of stray Mahābhārata stanzas we meet with again in other works. We must, in the first place, bear in mind that most of the other works have yet to be properly edited. Even in critically edited texts we must take into account the various readings of the passage in question in the manuscripts collated. Then in the case of citations we must allow for failures of memory; since in ancient times the stanzas were almost invariably quoted from memory, and the quotation was never compared with the original. Moreover we must never forget that probably from time immemorial there have existed local versions of the Mahābhārata. The citations made even by very old writers were from these local versions. A citation by a writer of the eighth century or even the sixth century proves nothing for the Ur-Mahābhārata, that ideal but impossible desideratum; though the citation is far older than our manuscripts, it is evidence only for the text of the local Mahābhārata in the eighth, respectively the sixth century, notwithstanding that the differences between the various recensions and versions of the Mahābhārata must diminish as we go back further and further.
1 CI. Jarl Charpentier, Die Suparṇasage, Upp– sala 1920.
2 Franke, "Jātaka-Mahābhārata-Paralleln", WZ KM. 20 (1906), 323, 357 f.
s Cf. Max Müller's edition of the Ṛgveda‚ vol. 4
(1892), p. 521, stanzas 58. * 2. 111.
6 Winternitz, "Bṛhaddevatā und Mahābhārata", WZKM. 20 (1906), 1 ff.; espcially, pp. 10 I., 28 f., 31 ff., 34.
PEDIGREE OF ĀDIPARVAN VERSIONS Vyāsa's Bhārata
UrMahābhārata
EXPLANATION OF THE SIGLA USED IN THE ABOVE PEDIGREE
N is the ultimate source from which all versions of the Northern recension are, directly or indirectly, derived.
V is the lost archetype of the NorthWestern group, appreciably shorter than any of the other known versions (textus simplicior).
K is a specific Devanagari version allied to the Śāradā (or Kaśmīrī) version (sharply distinguished from other Devanāgarī versions), of which one MS. (Ki) is the direct copy of a Śāradā original. The version is largely contaminated from MSS. of the (central) subrecension (T), and in part, also from some unknown Southern sources. Exact provenance of the version is unknown.
T is the intermediate (inflated) source from which all versions of the central subrecension are derived (comprising the Eastern and Western groups), occupying a position intermediate between the NorthWestern and the Southern groups. It contains a considerable number of secondary additions (including repetitions), as also a very large number of verbal alterations and corruptions.
s is the lost archetype of the Eastern group (comprising the Nepālī‚ Maithilī and Bengali versions), which is free from the additions and alterations made later in certain Devanāgarī MSS.
S is the ultimate source from which all versions of the Southern recension are, directly or indirectly, derived and which is appreciably longer than N, and far more elaborate (textus ornatior).
o is the lost archetype of TG‚ containing a large number of corruptions and secondary additions, from which M is free.
PROLEGOMENA
XXXt
A CRITICAL SURVEY OF THE RECENSIONS AND THEIR VERSIONS
THE TWO RECENSIONS
The textual criticism of the Mahābhārata proceeds from the incontrovertible fact that the text of the Great Epic has been handed down in two divergent forms, a Northern and a Southern recension, texts typical of the Āryāvarta and the Dakṣiṇāpatha. With the realization of this patent contrast began the Mahābhārata textual criticism nearly fifty years ago, when Protap Chandra Roy brought out his popular edition of the Mahābhārata (188396), under the auspices of the Dātavya Bhārata Kāryālaya. A brief account of the controversy to which the publication of this edition of the Mahābhārata gave rise is to be found in Roy's writings.1 We are told there that the appearance of his edition was hailed by The Hindu of Madras, that great bulwark of Dravidian Hinduism, in its issue dated November 22, 1885, with the publication of a bellicose letter, headed "Another edition of the Mahabharata", purporting to give an account of the proceedings of a public meeting held at Mayaveram, and containing an outspoken and trenchant criticism of Roy's edition by one Mr. Sreenivasa Sastrial. This worthy gentleman thought Roy's edition to be "sadly defective in the text and that this defect is detrimental to the religious interests as many portions supporting the Advaita and Fasishtaadvaita (sic) doctrines, but unfavourable to the Sakti worshippers of the North, have been omitted". "It was sad, therefore," bemoaned this aggrieved protagonist of the Southern Recension, "that the generous gentleman of the North, Protapa Chandra Roy, that undertook to edit the text, should decline the responsibility of editing the text as correctly as possible and to compare various manuscripts of the text from Southern India." Mr. Sreenivasa Sastrial, it is reported, "instanced one or two portions of the Mahābhārata, omitted in the Calcutta edition, which can be proved by indisputable testimony to have existed in the earliest copies of the work.’' One wonders, where and how this esteemable gentleman could have got hold of "the earliest copies" of the work; or rather, just how early were the copies he was referring to. "Again, many verses", complained this Vaiṣṇava propagandist, " quoted by the great philosophers of the South in support of their respective doctrines, are not to be found in Mr. Protapa Chandra Roy's edition" I
The reply of Protap Chandra Roy is not altogether without interest. He ruefully admitted—what we must even now admit—that "there can be no edition of the Mahabha» rata‚ how carefully edited soever, that would please scholars of every part of India.. . .Like other ancient works that have come down to us from century to century by the method of manual transcription, large interpolations have been inserted in this great work.2 To settle, at this fagend of the nineteenth century, what portions are genuine and what otherwise, is. except in a very few instances, simply impossible". With highly commendable
1 Cf. the letter addressed by Roy to the Editor of The Hindu (Madras) and published on the cover of fasoicule XXIX of his translation of the Mbh.
(1887).
See also Holtzmann, Das Mahābkārata, 3. 33.
2 Italics mine!
XXXII
PROLEGOMENA
objectivity, Roy then proceeds to enunciate a critical principle, which, simple—nay, obvious—as it is, many a reputable scholar of India will find difficult to appreciate even at the present day. "I know of no method97, wrote Roy, nearly fifty years ago, "except that of taking that only as undoubtedly genuine which occurs in all the manuscripts of the East, the North, the West, and the South"! "As far as my edition is concerned'', he continued, "it is substantially based on that of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, published about fortyfive years ago under the superintendence of a few learned Pandits of Bengal aided, as I believe, by an English orientalist of repute. . . .Manuscripts had been procured from all parts of India (the South unexcepted ) and these were carefully collated. Although edited with such care, I have not, however, slavishly followed the Society's edition. I have compared it carefully with the Maharajah of Burdwan's text in the Bengalee character which was edited with still greater care. About 18 manuscripts procured from different parts of India (the South not excepted) were carefully collated by the Burdwan Pundits before they admitted a single sloka as genuine. I have very frequently referred to this Burdwan edition also for checking the Society's text. . , .Besides the published texts, I have now and then referred to certain manuscripts. These, however, are all of Bengal. I am willing to consult any approved manuscript of Southern India. . . .1 conclude by repeating that I have no complaint against Mr. Sreenivasa. On the other hand, 1 freely admit that an edition like the one projected by him will be a valuable accession to the libraries of all scholars in India and in countries out of India. Only the same remarks that he has applied to my edition will, I am confident, apply to his, when a Pundit of Northern or Western India takes it up for notice or review, unless, of course, the learned Sastrial includes, without critical examination, every passage bearing on both the Advaita and the Cākta worship. I may assure Mr. Sastrial, however, that in that case, in his attempt to please every body he will, like the painter in the fable, please none, particularly among readers of judgment and critical discrimination. The fact is, that the divergences of manuscripts are so great that it is perfectly impossible to produce an edition that could at once satisfy both Aryāvarta and Dākshinātya" That edition, alas, so bravely and enthusiastically planned by Mr. Sreenivasa Sastrial, to which reference is made in the above extract, appears never to have seen the interior of any printing establishment!
I have quoted Protap Chandra Roy in extenso, not merely because of the interesting sidelight his remarks throw on the question of the different editions of the Mahābhārata, projected or planned, in or just before his time, but also because of some remarkably sound ‚principles of textual criticism, briefly, but clearly, propounded therein by him. Protap Chandra Roy had grasped the Mahābhārata Problem in all its essentials. But the time was not yet ripe for the actual preparation of a critical edition of the Mahābhārata.
The differences between the two recensions of the Mahābhārata must not be underrated. Between them there lies, to start with, the irksome barrier of scripts. It is no exaggeration to say that in India to the Northerners, the Southern versions written in Southern scripts, ordinarily speaking, were and are sealed books; on the other hand, the Southerners, with the possible exception of a few learned Pandits—who, in fact, after a halfhearted admission of epic poetry into the realm of literature, cheerfully leave the
PROLEGOMENA
xxxin
study of the bulk of the Mahābhārata text to their less gifted brethren—could not and cannot decipher the Northern scripts, perhaps with the exception of the Devanāgarī.
When one laboriously surmounts this initial obstacle, and starts to compare the two recensions, one finds, to one's surprise, that the difference between them begins, as a matter of fact, with the very division of the Mahābhārata into its various parvans! Against the commonly accepted, conventional division of the epic into eighteen books (parvans), there is the Southern division into twentyfour.1 More surprising still is the fact that the Ādiparvan itself, the veryßrst book of the epic (with which alone we are, in fact, here concerned ), is sub divided in Southern manuscripts into three ( Ādi‚ Āstika and Sambhava), or at least into two (Ādi and Sambhava) separate major parvans.2 Let me emphasize that it is the main large divisions (parvans) of the epic I am here referring to, and not the hundred (sub)parvans (also called upaparvans or antaḥparvans). The subparvans, in point of fact, could not come into question here at all. Only the Northern manuscripts, as a rule, mention in their colophons the names of the subparvans; the Southern manuscripts ignore (as far as I can say at present, uniformly) this detail, very rarely mentioning, in their colophons, the name of the corresponding subparvan.8 We have, therefore, no means of knowing precisely the number and the limits of the sub– parvans in the Southern scheme, except, of course, the meagre and ambiguous data of the Parvasaṃgraha (Ādi 2 ) itself.4
It is true that the Southern (printed ) editions (not excepting Professor P. P. S. Sastri's critical edition of the Southern recension, as far as it has gone) follow the division of the epic uniformly into the conventional eighteen books.5 But in so far as they do that, the editors, it seems to me, must be overriding knowingly (but without giving the fact inexpedient prominence) the clear and unmistakable testimony of Southern manuscripts. They prefer to sacrifice the Southern manuscript tradition and make their editions harmonize with the data of the Parvasarfigraha: always a grave blunder; because, clearly, the data of the Parvasaṃgraha can be manipulated far more easily than those of the manuscripts of the text. The Parvasaṃgraha, if compiled, originally, on the basis of some Northern version,6 would certainly not fit the Southern recension exactly, even when the Parvasaṃgraha was first compiled.
1 See the remarks of Burnell, A Classified Index to the Sanskrit MSS. in the Palace at Tanjore (London 1879), p. 180; and Winternitz, Ind. Ant. 1898.122.
2 In most Southern manuscripts the adhyāyas of these different parts of our Ādiparvan are separately numbered. In our critical apparatus a new beginning is made with ( our ) adhy. 54 in all Southern MSS. exceptTi( which isamischoodex), an adhyāya which marks the beginning of our Ādivamśāvataraṇaparvan; in the colophons of the Southern MSS. it is called the first adhyaya of the Sambhavaparvan.
8 On the other hand, the Southern MSS. (and in fact even most of the Northern MSS.) frequently
mention the name of the Upākhyāna or the name of the adhyāya; but even this is never done regularly and systematically.
*
Th
e Parvasaṃgraha gives only the names of the (100) subparvans, and the oontents of the (18) major parvans. But from these data, we cannot say from what adhyāya to what adhyāya a particular subpar van extends.
5 Thus, from these Southern ed., one can never elicit the fact that in the Southern Recension our Ādi is divided into two parts (parvans) and that these parts have separate numbering of adhyāyas!
6 This is clearly suggested by the fact that the longer Table of Contents (1. 2. 72233) follows the
XXXIv
PROLEGOMENA
The difference between the recensions does not end there by any means, unhappily. The manuscripts of the two recensions show numerous other, big and small, discrepancies: discrepancies in the spelling of most ordinary words (e. g. N jfim: S *fter or *ftc5T), especially of proper names (e. g. N ^ffM: S öftrer); in the readings of words, phrases, lines, stanzas, groups of stanzas (passim); in the sequence of all these elements (passim); in the relative position of single adhyäyas or of a small group of adhyāyas (passim); in the relative sequence of whole episodes (e. g. the Śakuntalā and Yayāti episodes, Ādi 62 ff., and 70 ff.). What is more disconcerting still is that the recensions show also complicated displacements of portions of adhyāyas; cf‚, for example, the long notes on 1. 106. 11 (p. 474 f.), and 1. 144. 20 (p. 624). Besides these variations in spellings, readings and sequences, there are additions (or omissions, just as one may happen to regard them) of single lines (often "inorganic", i. e. such as can be added or omitted with no effect upon the grammar or continuity), of short passages (passim) and long passages comprising more than a hundred lines (cf. App. I, No. 55, a passage of 125 lines, setting forth the story of the Kāśī princess Ambā). These additions (respectively omissions) and verbal variants sometimes go to such a length that, at times, there emerges in the end an entirely different story. Compare, for instance, the two versions of the highly popular episode "Rape of Subhadrā" (Subhadrāharaṇa) in adhy. 211212 of our edition and passage No. 114 of App. I (comprising over 460 lines!).1 We find that the Southern version of this story is enriched with many entirely novel and startling features, such as Arjuna's masquerading as a peripatetic monk (yati), or his fierce battle with the Yādava forces led by Vipṛthu, which he, of course, routs, alone and unaided, or rather merely with the help of his newly acquired, valiant and resourceful wife, who acts as his charioteer!
A notable feature of the Southern recension is that it is considerably longer than the Northern. The constituted text of the Parvasaṃgraha (1. 2. 96) gives 7984 "ślokas" (that is, probably, what is technically called granthas) as the extent of the Ādi :
The extent of the Vulgate is computed to be about 8460 "stanzas". The length of the Southern text of the 5di edited by Professor P. P. S. Sastri is given by himself as 9984 "stanzas", slightly in excess of his own Parvasarhgraha figure (M. 1. 2. 102), which differs as regards this figure ( as in many other figures in adhy. 2 ) from our edition. This latter figure (9984) is perhaps a trifle in excess of the presumable extent of the (normal) Southern recension, since P. P. S. Sastri's text contains some clear instances of interpolation (from Telugu, Tamil and even Northern sources),2 which need not necessarily be put down to the already swollen account of the Southern recension. The difference between the Vulgate and Sastri's text is about 1524 "stanzas". But even the common Southern text, which will be appreciably shorter than Sastri's, may confidently be
eighteenparvan
division, which does not harmonize
with the data of the oolophons of the Southern
MSS., which have the twentyfourpar
van division.
1 Even the Śakuntalā episode gets a somewhat
different colouring in the Southern recension.
8 For instance the Śvetaki episode (M. 1. 214. 2998^), which, in the form printed there, is missing in all MSS, of his own critioal apparatus!
PROLEGOMENA XXXT
reckoned to contain approximately 1300 "ślokas" (i.e. granthas) more than the longest Northern version of the Ādi!
This excess in the Southern recension is not due to the addition of any single lengthy passage or just a few of such passages even, though there are undoubtedly among them some fairly long passages. The excess is due to additions, large and small, distributed almost evenly throughout the parvan.
Not only is the Southern text thus appreciably longer than the other, the story itself of the Southern recension, as compared with that of the Northern, is, owing to many of these additions, much richer in details, leaving little or nothing to the imagination of the reader or the hearer. Thus, for example, in the Northern recension, the father of Satyavatī or Matsyagandhā (Vyāsa's own mother) is a nameless king of fisherfolk, making a living, on the banks of the Yamuna, by fishing. This is rather unsatisfactory. That the name of Matsyagandhā's father—he is really only her fosterfather, according to the fable—should not have been preserved, seems a shocking piece of negligence on the part of the historian, that is, the storyteller, since history as it is narrated (as has been well said) is a kind of roman ä these. The Southern recension here comes to our help. It has carefully procured the name of the fosterfather of Kālī Matsyagandhā alias Satyavatī: it was Uccaiḥśravas (a highsounding Aryan name), if we are to believe the Southern recension. He was named after the great snowwhite Stallion of the Gods, which came out of the ocean when it was being churned for Ambrosia by the Gods and the Titans.
Then again, the Purohita sent by the Yādavas to the forest retreat of Pāṇḍu in the Himalayas was a Kāśyapa. He was required, of course, to perform all the little Aryan rites for the Pāṇḍavas. Moreover, it is best that kings always have their Rajaguru by their side, to advise and help them on all occasions. The Northern recension does not even tell us that the Yādavas had sent any Purohita at all to Pāṇḍus hermitage; so there, no question of his name arises.
But a really illuminating instance of the richness of information furnished by the Southern recension is supplied by an "additional" adhyāya1 in this recension, which gives us some new and interesting chronological details about the Pāṇḍavas themselves. These details disperse that haze of uncertainty and vagueness which overspreads the ordinary account.
The Southern recension informs us that when the Paṇḍavas first arrived at the Court of Hāstinapura from the forest retreat, after the death of their father, Yudhiṣṭhira was exactly sixteen years old, Bhīma fifteen, Arjuna fourteen, the twins thirteen. We are further told exactly how long the Pāṇḍu brothers stayed at the Kaurava Court, in the Lac House (Jatugṛha), in Ekacakrā, at the Court of the Pāñcāla King, then again at the Kaurava Court, then in Indraprastha, and so on. Yudhiṣṭhira died at the ripe old age of 108, which is a mystic number. Arjuna was younger than Kṛṣṇa by three months, which was also exactly the difference between the ages of Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma. And so on and so forth. Almost all these useful details are lacking in the Northern recension, and I doubt whether they can even be reconstructed from the meagre data of
this recension on these points. _
1 Cf. App. I, No. 67, lines 4762.
XXXVI
PROLEGOMENA
The Southern recension impresses us thus by its precision, schematization, and thoroughly practical outlook. Compared with it, the Northern recension is distinctly vague, unsystematic, sometimes even inconsequent, more like a story rather naively narrated, as we find in actual experience.
The Southern recension of the Ādi at least is thus not merely longer, but also fuller, more exuberent, more ornate than the Northern. It may therefore be fitly styled, in relation to the Northern, the textus ornatior.
Notwithstanding these and other discrepancies, there persists throughout, between the recensions, a distinct and undeniable family resemblance, and there can be not the slightest doubt that they both spring from a common source, albeit a distant and somewhat nebulous source. Follow the course of these divergent streams as far back as one will, the elusive source seems to recede still further and lose itself in the mists of antiquity.
It was pointed out above that a noteworthy feature of the Southern recension was that it was appreciably longer than the Northern. The character of the principal additions may be seen from the following list of some of the more important and lengthy passages peculiar to the Southern recension, whose texts are given in Appendix I.
(1
) No. 9 (S except Mi) : God Śiva (Rudra) drinks up the poison (hālāhala) which exudes from the mouth of Vasuki‚ while the Devas and Asuras are churning the ocean for Ambrosia ( samudramanthana ); comprising 19 lines.
(2
) No. 4548 and 51: Additions to the Śakuntalā episode (together 231 lines).
(3)
No. 52: Mādhavī is introduced on the scene during the discourse between Yayāti and his grandsons, in the Yayāti episode (43 lines).
(4)
No. 55: Anticipation of the story of the Kāśī princess Ambā (125 lines). ( 5 ) No. 59 : Sūrya persuades Kuntī to have sexual intercourse ( 21 lines ).
(6) No. 67: Details of the early life of the Pāṇḍavas in the Himalayan retreat (46 lines).
(7
) No. 6869: Pāṇḍu's death and many funeral orations (together 123 lines).
(8)
No. 78 (S‚ and by conflation K± Dai Dn Da.4.u): Details of a battle between the Kurus and the Pāñcālas, and capture of Drupada (119 lines).
( 9 ) No. 79 : Anticipation of the account of the birth of Draupadī and Dhṛṣṭa– dyumna; and account of the birth of Drupada (together 194 lines).
(10)
No. 8789: Additions to the Hiḍimba episode (69 lines).
(11)
No. 9193: Additions to the Bakavadha episode, including a detailed account of the fight between the two wellmatched giants, Baka and Bhīma (106 lines).
(12)
No. 95: Drupada bemoans the loss of the Pāṇḍavas, and is consoled by his Purohita; decides, at the advice of the Purohita, to celebrate the Svayamvara of Kṛṣṇā‚ in the hope that the Paṇḍavas might turn up (74 lines).
(13)
No. 100: Story of Nāḷayanī narrated by Vyāsa to the Pāñcāla king, to justify the polyandrous marriage of the Pāṇḍavas (118 lines).
(14)
No. 101: Story of Bhaumāśvī related on the same occasion (22 lines).
(15)
No. 103: Mimic warfare between the Kauravas and Pāṇdavas aided by Pāñcālas (219 lines).
PROLEGOMENA XXXVH
(16)
No. 108: Dhṛtarāṣṭra crowns Yudhiṣṭhira king before despatching the Pāṇdavas to Indraprastha (58 lines).
(17 ) No. Ill: Description of Nārada‚ who comes to visit Yudhiṣṭhira ( 55 lines).
(18)
No. 113115 : Expansion of the Subhadrāharaṇa (562 lines 1).
(19)
No. 116: Arjuna's welcome on his return from exile (28 lines). These passages alone comprise 2250 lines or 1125 stanzas approximately!
The discrepancies between the two recensions, as already observed, are so numerous and so multifarious, that any attempt to enumerate and classify them must remain incomplete and unsatisfactory. Nevertheless it may be useful to begin a cursory survey of the divergences, noting at the same time the typical characteristics of the Southern "additions", characteristics which recur with fair frequency in the Xdi‚ and which are likely to reappear in other parvans. These notes may prove useful for distinguishing between the different "hands" which have been at work in shaping this imposing monument of Indian antiquity, when the entire text has been treated in the manner proposed here, and we have sufficient data for undertaking a minute and systematic study of the variations and evaluating them.
The deviations of the Southern recension from the Northern (taking for purposes of exposition the latter to represent the norm ) are of the following kind.
1.
Variants of isolated words or phrases, (a) unimportant and (b) important.
(a) Unimportant, such as one comes across in line after line. They are far too numerous to be listed even approximately completely, but from among them we may single out these for specific mention:
(i) fluctuations in the spelling of proper names, e. g. S l"ÜRr (N Iftpf), ^Tf–J~ (%?fq<>T), eröta (9n*ft–ff), ?&55 (?fêR), (frf^s*), (3ct«t), *5rfW5 (*?sifirc), (flg), etc., etc.
(ii) variations mainly due to mere transpositions of words, e. g. S *T5–f: tff3t%j *ipkUa ^5Tc~T: (N °q: *J^Rrêtf Sf«*t% *?°) 1. 1. 23; 5T?ft~g cffit Jm (TO: 3tfftft *J~T ~) 92. 1; etc., etc.
(iii) unremitting variation of: monosyllabic particles and versefillers, which are among the most unstable elements of the received text, such as ^r‚ I, , %, % [a* ]«T; common adverbs and conjunctions, such as "ī:, ~JJ‚ ~% fl^r, q~:, q~f‚ H*tt‚ m, *RT:, QTT‚ =flft', %T; and prepositions 8Tf^3Tf^i%8T^, srfôfft, argsr, etc, etc.
(iv) substitution of metrically equivalent synonyms, or words and phrases of similar significance; e. g. d^–^––Êt–r; ßftgft; sgi%g(^)f*r*t; ft^rfer; ^*rg; T^jpnr; ^^^^^if^^fo; ^frrOTfs^ –T^^ra^vW (and similar compounds with f^ and 3!W); «reriNrR5^ ; ^–?rf^^ciTf^^
*WRfc; TOiRTaR[RMdi; :n^5n,^śN^ spfcctf riw(^rw)f^t
3T"5RR* ^p‚f:; etc., etc
(v) substitution of equivalent epic iterata; e, g, lgni I ;|flfg‚d44J
i «n –n?ft * mk ni^ uti^diH> 1 *RIHIMII^ ^T5tffrrīf^" – i
*W4: ?d«HHt^üm+4 T 1 —ft{» 5J^
TprfrT J%»T tīiH"Vt 1 **Z*i[ I 5rM^t ĪT?—(if?cT lfl«llt4incarnation (arhśa). Durvāsas completed the sacrifice, and Śvetaki poured libations of clarified butter into the fire for twelve years continuously. As a result, Agni had a severe attack of indigestion! He refused after that every offering, and became enfeebled. At Brahma's direction, he set the Khāṇdava forest on fire, and tried his best to burn the forest down; but the denizens of the forest put the fire out, over and over again. He reported his discomfiture to Brahma, who then asked him to betake himself to Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa‚ the part incarnations of Nara and Nārāyaṇa, with whose help alone Agni would be in a position to burn the Khāṇḍava forest.
It should be made clear that the variants and passages cited here are merely by way of illustration, and comprise only a small fraction of the total number of deviations.
The presence of an astonishingly large number of additions, some of which are undoubtedly late and spurious, should not be allowed to impair our appreciation of some real merits of the Southern recension. It would be, in fact, a grievous error to ignore on that account the Southern recension or underestimate its value. This recension is an
** App. I, Nos. 78 and 9293
respectively.
XLVI PROLEGOMENA
indispensable
aid for controlling the deviations of the Northern recension, both in point of readings and sequence. In comparison with T, it has unquestionably preserved a very large number of original readings, proved by actual agreements between S and V, as well as by their intrinsic merits. The superiority of the Southern recension in comparison to the Vulgate may be said to be quite evident. It may, however, quite easily happen that in a particular instance, the whole of the Northern recension is corrupt, and the true reading is preserved only in the Southern recension.1 An instance of this is 1. 214. 5. The Vulgate reads (B. 1. 222. 5):
dwīt ^srretftrô^f^ er 3HTBTT^ II
Nīlakaṇṭha's gloss is: qt 3T^vTīt ^~" ^iJ^sfa"cīrc:^ l %CRT^ I
The stanza has been translated by Manmath Nath Dutta as follows: "Having obtained him as their king, they obtained a monarch who was devoted to the study of the Vedas‚ who was a performer of great sacrifices, and who was the protector of all good works". Protap Chandra Roy's translation reads similarly: "And the subjects having obtained Yudhisthira as their king, obtained in him one that was devoted to the study of the Vedas‚ one that was a performer of great sacrifices, and one that was the protector of all good people".
But the translations of both these scholars are generally free and arbitrary. As it stands, the stanza can be translated only as follows:
"They (i. e. the people) obtained for a king, one who studied Brahma (para), employed the Vedas in a great sacrifice, and protected the blessed worlds".
This pedestrian stanza will satisfy most people as it ha^ satisfied a long succesion of critics, commentators and translators in the past. About it one can only say that there are worse stanzas in the Mahābhārata. Only a reader endowed with a fine sensibility and critical acumen will feel that there is something amiss here. We are face to face with the danger of acquiescing in a sense which might satisfy us, but which would not have satisfied the ancient writer. The Northern variants do not offer much help; even the Śāradā and K manuscripts have substantially the same readings. It would, consequently, not be easy to reconstruct from this sad wreck of a Dīpaka‚ the epigrammatic original, which is preserved intact only in the Southern recension, which the constituted text here follows (1. 214. 5):
^RTīt %^Tt
l[^>TbK
. J44IV«iqR^ift.
58. 40
K
D« : rest *ft4h
59. 29
K
DO –ft&n^ : others –pr–f:, etc.
60. 6
K Ñs Dfi 8f%: g~r~f –J^–f: ( by transp.) : rest e?^?g ^|f: –5rr:. 60. 52 K 3*JJT: : rest t~~:.
62. 6
KDj ^3?4 5^TTCFFR : rest *FSFFT ?mfi(* 64. 29 K D5 —: rest *nTRT.
67. 30
K
Dfi f^wi~r *ro* : others fcftm grat *ī‡, etc.
*k0LEG0tiENA XLIS
68. 69 K
ī)
s ^~n (or °*erf) : rest ^RTT.
7141 KDs^j rest ft*.
74. 7 K alone transp. j*rrn: and 3>*rrfc.
76. 33 K D5 gftfadl : rest g*rantf.
150. 18 K
–rm^
r : rest faw, etc., etc., etc. Further examples of the concordant readings of the K version will be found below. It was remarked above that Ki( = India Office 2137) was a manuscript of Kaśmirī origin, exhibiting specially near affinities with Ś1, so much so that Ki may be regarded as a copy of some Śāradā original. The Kaśmīrī character of Ki was already fully recognized by Professor Lliders, who had utilized it in the preparation of his specimen1 of a critical edition of the epic mentioned above, although he had no genuine representative of the Kaśmīrī or Śāradā version to compare it with.
The affinity between Ś1 and Ki is documented by a mass of readings, of which the following ( selected at random ) will serve as illustrations. The references are to adhyāyas and ślokas.2
27. 15
Ś1
Ki g*~;. : rest ^ra~": (synonym!).
28. 24
Ś1
Ki cRT: : rest *rêh.
29. 4
Ś1 Ki am vfoī : others STTRft~, etc.
30. 7
Ś1 Ki 5&torac,: others yfä^di, snī~‚ tw‚ ^I~9I‚ etc ( original hypermetric!).
31. 6
Ś1 Ki –j*~np: (corrupt) : others ffarcff:, *Tsre~:, etc.
37. 25
Ś1
Ki *%cfiför
tx4
(or ī&i) %nr: tn??|: *s% : Ñ V1 B D (mostly) ^fNr
68. 14 KS URWHW ••
Ñ
Vi B D (mostly) wrerK^nr%—.
76. 22 KS
g^01 : ÑBD (mostly) ffen &lī.
" ' "77. 4 XS^Jr : ÑB D (mostly) gft
94. 12
Ś1
K S ^tar : Ñ Vi B D (mostly ) ^F5QTS^.
100. 0
Ś1 K S im : Ñ1.2 Vx B D (mostly) srô.
119. 8
Ś1 K S m sts*?fêr (irregular ) : Ña. 2 B D m srafacf ( regular ).
138. 17
K
S SīST53PPTt Êtô : ÑJ.SVIBD ?rôf *irei*CTff.
141. 4
Ś1 K8^! *israrar :ÑViBD (mostly) fjn T&ti %.
142. 18
Ś1
K S sgar: : Ñ Vi B D (mostly) vm.
143. 38
Ś1
K S fe5TRTIf *T?RJR: : Ñ Vi B D sfäq†5T *fn~T:. 159. 20 Ś1 K S sMf 2"' Ñ2 Vi B D *jfa*ncJR:.
176. 5
K S !f^i^: : Ñ ViBD (mostly) TT^J!^sn:.
182. 9
Ś1 K S »rnftger: *rs%ft —r^: : Ñ2.8 Vi B D *CT^ q%%4^5fl.
187. 20
K
S acreRsrterar : ÑViBD ?n?3nfr?RT† *rsfT.
189. 23
Ś1
K S *tt—. : Ñ Vi B D
193.1
Ś1 K S fw*nfo : Ñ B D frfrfft.
196.4
Ś1KÑ1S*S : Ñ2.3 V1BD?5.
199.12
Ś1 K Ñi S itqferapt : Ñi.sBD nmindm‚
199. 19
Ś1
K Ñi S *ŚK: : Ña. sViBD snrt Such extensive agreements in petty verbal details must necessarily be, in the main, an original inheritance, and could never be, in their totality, the result of contamination or conflation, as one may vaguely imagine they are; because'to acheive them would necessitate more expenditure of energy than an ancient Indian redactoror reciter or commentator~of the epic would bargain for. And even if one or the other of them had the requisite amount
1 Note thatthe'
fragmentary Śāradā codex begins at 1, 26, 10. _
PROLEGOMENA XX
ofr energy to use in this way, it would appear to him to be si ludicrous waste of it. We in the present century are apt to get nervous and irritable over misprints and variae lectiones. But an anciant Indian scribe, redactor or even commentator, not to speak of thś common reciter ( pāṭhaka)—if I read aright Indian literary history—was not perturbed in the least by a little difference in wording or in sequence, especially if the variant did not give an appreciably better, or appreciably worse sense. The enormous and complicated critical apparatus assembled here, moreover, can leave us in no doubt as tov the attitude of the custodians of the epic tradition towards paltry verbal details: it was that of total indifference.
Addition or omission of passages is, I may add, a variation of an entirely different order. If a reciter or commentator came across, in another manuscript, an additional passage, there was every chance of his copying it down somewhere, either in the margin of his own copy, or on a supplementary folio; for there wonld be, in his mind, always Present the possibility that the passage in question was some part of the original that his– Qwn manuscript had unaccountably lost. How else, forsooth, could 1;he passage get into the other manuscript ?
In my opinion, therefore, this fact of the concord between V and S in small details, coupled with the almost entire lack of agreement as regards the additions peculiar to v or &t is the strongest argument imaginable for the independence of these two versions, and consequently for the primitive character of their concordant readings. It is needless to point out that this is a factor of supreme importance for the reconstruction of the original*
The text of v is throughout of such a character as to inspire confidence. Itg conservatism is proved by its preserving archaisms and the lectio difficilior (e. g. *ift?ft* 1. 2. 144; >©tetö1 1. 2. 177, 189; *ifnr adv. "frankly" 1. 10. 6; –~W 1. 98. 13; SS* 1. 98." 18), often in a corrupt form, while other, nianpscṛipts have discarded them in favour of modern forms or easy paraphrases: It is well known that, for purposes of textual reconstruction, the mechanical corruptions of a stupid but faithful pôpyist are to be preferred to the intelligent copyings of a less faithful one. *
Again, V is often the only version that has preserved the correct reading;" e. g. 1. 2. 102 :
35ft~ cTcft "TOTSm Ml^iK II5
where the Vulgate version reads (1. 2. 138f.):
~~r ~5RFFT% HOT sffaff «?iR*i^Hi^ 1
while Sastri's reading is (1. 2. 108f.):
"~ *jd|4rf3 TOT gfrft 4tfc»dR 1
1 Devabodha paraphrases the word with^†^
f^
T.
PROLEGOMENA
It is Draupadī who, like a canoe, rescues the Paṇḍavas, who were submerged in the of the diceplay. The correctness of the text reading, which is based on that of K, it proved by a stanza in the Sabhā ( B. 2. 72. 3), which is the source of our stanza:
3T3frST?Cfa 4IHMHwRfc PU* 701*, 722*, 857*, 863*, 963*, 977*, 1037*, 1054*, 1062*, 1066*, 1069*, 1100*, 1101* 1169*, 1211* 1548*, 1768*, 1828* etc, etc, as also passage No. 56 of App. I.
Nīlakaṇṭha's text has acquired in modern times an importance out of all proportion to its critical value,1 to the utter neglect of far superior texts, such as the Kaśmīrī or Bengali.
Nīlakaṇṭha's guiding principle, on his own admission, was to make the Mahābhārata a thesaurus of all excellences (culled no matter from what source). At the beginning of his commentary on the Sanatsujātīya, Nīlakaṇṭha naively remarks (Bom. ed. Udyoga 42):
That Southern manuscripts were utilized by him is incontrovertibly proved, for instance, from the fact that he cites at the end of his comment on Ādi 196 (Bom. ed.), the Nāḷāyanī and Bhaumāśvī episodes (in two adhyāyas), which are typical Southern interpolations, not found in any Northern manuscript:
Characteristically the scholiast speaks only in general terms (gtf%cjpjj%) without furnishing any further information about the manuscripts in question. But, fortunately, he is not always so reticent. Thus he mentions specifically the Bengali version, while commenting on B. 1. 145. 20 (3T^t~*rô ^~r~ cpr S^T%) and elsewhere; cf. his notes on B. 3. 119. 3, and on 6. 43. 1 (*fi~T g»ffcn E&n *nft– TO *A~f *fU5' –rarô).
It must be said to his credit that there is at least one place where he honestly confesses his inability to understand the confused textual tradition, and that is in his comment on B. 1. 22. 1:
^FĪT^ äfT5 f^fä 3TC^^~^(R %f%~ raffet I *Bffe^3n~. ^~PJ^%f ~ *3^cT ) 3F% 3 •^d^*ft5TO fiteī!Sfê 5RftfI: I4
The (printed) editions of Nīlakaṇṭha's version leave much to be desired. They have arbitrarily changed many of the readings and added a certain number of lines which are not found in the Nīlakaṇṭha manuscripts hitherto examined.
Instances of lines or stanzas with which modern Pandits have enriched most of our (printed) Northern editions and which are lacking even in the Nīlakaṇṭha manuscripts, are besides a (Southern) passage of 21 lines given in App. I (No. 112) and another of 9 lines (998*), the following short interpolations :
1 Even Holtzmann, Das Mahābhārata, 3. 74:
"Für die Erklärung der Einzelheiten ist er von grosser Bedeutung".
8 Cf. Telang, The Bhagavadgita, p. 203f.; and
Winternitz, Ind. Ant. 27 (1898), 128. * Cf. our note on adhy. 188 (p. 757), 4 Cf. our note on adhy. 19 (p. 132),
1XYin PROLEGOMENA
27* ick w4mm i
~rT~T^? ^ siT––r *iKdg–WH,Ii B. 1.1. lOlf.
146* ^5IH^FfT =nj—r mmi ik*8mrgr ?nfo ~–n^i^lri ? i B. i. lO5.9
1099*  8. 250; Sukthankar, "Epic Studies I I P , ABI. 11. 269 ff. * App. I* No. 81.
LXXX1I PROLEGOMENA
highly probable that the passage is spurious, and the corresponding agreement between some of the (more or less ) independent versions is unoriginal.
There are indeed yet more difficult cases, where the evidence pro et contra of documentary and intrinsic probability is equally balanced, as far as we can at present judge. In such cases we are forced to look for small things which look suspicious and lead us to probabilities, not facts.
The problem is clearly not solved by formulating a priori a hypothesis as to the interrelationship of the different versions and fix the text in terms of some preconceived formula; for instance, by assuming as absolutely independent a certain number of these divergent versions, and laying down an arithmetical rule that whatever is common to two or more of such and such versions must be original. In this method, we can easily deceive ourselves and others; for the results arrived at will appear sounder than in reality they are. Even though the formal operations may be a piece of flawless logic, nevertheless the results, being based on premises possibly unsound though apparently clear and definite, may be wholly fictitious. The study of the manuscripts themselves must first teach us what their interrelationship is. And they unmistakably indicate that their interrelationship is of most complex character. The critical apparatus is a veritable labyrinth of complicated and intermingled versions, each with a long and intricate history of its own behind it. We have unfortunately no single thread to guide us out of the maze, but rather a collection of strands intertwined and entangled and leading along divergent paths. With the epic text as preserved in the extant Mahābhārata manuscripts, we stand, I am fully persuaded, at the wrong end of a long chain of successive syntheses of divergent texts, carried out—providentially—in a haphazard fashion, through centuries of diaskeuastic activities; and that with the possible exception of the Śāradā (Kasfmīrī) version, which appears to have been protected by its largely unintelligible script and by the difficulties of access to the province, all versions are indiscriminately conflated.
Now it goes without saying that the genetic method ( operating with an archetype and a stemma codicum ) cannot strictly be applied to fluid texts and conflated manuscripts; for, in their case, it is extremely difficult, if not utterly impossible, to disentangle completely, by means of purely objective criteria, their intricate mutual relationships. The documentary evidence is no doubt supremely important, but the results, arrived at from a consideration of the documentary probability, must be further tested in the light of intrinsic probability. No part of the text can be considered really exempt from the latter scrutiny, when we are dealing with a carelessly guarded text such as we have in the present instance. A careful study of the critical notes will show—if, indeed, the foregoing remarks have not made it abundantly clear—that all the problems which present themselves for solution in editing any text from manuscripts are present in the case of the Mahābhārata on a colossal scale and in an intensified form. We must, therefore, clearly recognize that a wholly certain and satisfactory restoration of the text to its pristine form—even the socalled śatasāhasrī samhitā form—may be a task now beyond the powers of criticism.
CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS No doubt, in view of some of these difficulties, one scholar has suggested that to expedite and facilitate the work, we should, as a first step, before any attempt is made
PROLEGOMENA LXXXIII
to constitute the final text of the Mahābhārata, critically edit all the different versions.1 That, it must be said, is a rather tall order, as any one will admit, who has any practical experience of editing the Mahābhārata in any shape or form, critical or otherwise. But perhaps funds and workers—not to speak of patience—can be found to edit a dozen or more lakhs of stanzas comprising the dozen or more versions of the Great Epic. There remains, however, yet another and a more fundamental difficulty, which appears to have wholly escaped the attention of the learned critic. The difficulty is that it is practically impossible to edit even a single version of the Mahābhārata—or for that matter of any other text—wholly satisfactorily, without considering the entire evidence, that is, without, at the same time, consulting the readings of all other versions. Suppose we examine six manuscripts of a version (Grantha) in order to prepare a critical text of that version. It may happen that four of them (Gi. 2.4.5), which are conflated manuscripts, have a "secondary" reading, while only two (Gs.ô) have the correct reading. In these circumstances, the true character of the variants could never be inferred from the readings of this version (G) itself; it would be shown only by other versions (T or M or N). In fact, there is no way of finding out whether any of the manuscripts of a particular version are conflated (if they happen to be conflated) without consulting the other versions. And, if for the editing of each of the individual versions, we have to scrutinize and weigh the entire evidence, we might as well get busy with the work of preparing the final text, assuming of course that a final (critical) text has to be prepared.
That consideration apart, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that all the dozen or more versions lie before us in a critically edited shape, our main task is not made any easier on that account. One has to go through the same mental processes in picking out or reconstructing the correct readings, whether, as at present, the variae lectiones are concentrated on a single page of the critical edition or have to be searched in a dozen or more different provincial editions, arranged round about the critic in a semicircle. Preparing all these different editions would not by itself give us the correct readings. Some of them, moreover, would but slightly differ form each other, for instance, the editions of the Bengali and the Devanāgarī versions; and it would mean useless duplication of labour. All that is really needed to facilitate our work is a critical edition of the Southern recension. An attempt to supply that need is now being made by Professor P. P. S. Sastri in his edition of the Mahābhārata, referred to already.
THE VULGATE AS BASE Another high authority, while full of apparent admiration for the way in which the work is being done at present at the Institute, has with much, pathos and eloquence deprecated this hastily prepared, eclectic text. All that we need to do at present, according to this scholar, is to reprint the Vulgate, giving merely the variae lectiones of the manuscripts collated and leaving each individual reader to constitute his own text, unhampered and uninfluenced by the obtrusive personality of some editor who stands like a monitor between the reader and his author. The learned critic is evidently of opinion that any average reader, who picks up an edition of the Great Epic for casual study is better qualified to reconstruct the text than the editor who has made a special study of the
1
Cf
.
Lesny
‚ Archiv Orientdlni, vol. 5 ( 1933 ), p. 159.
_feXXXIVPROLEGOMENA
problem t That is a paradox natural to the subtle mentality of the learned critic. But we need not take it too seriously. Whatever the Average Reader might or might not be able to do, I beg to submit that the Critical Reader, like the learned scholar whose opinion I am quoting, would not be any the worse off, if he is put in possession of this "Recension of Poona".1 For, who and what is to prevent him from constituting his own text from this critical edition ? Whoever makes the text—even if Bṛhaspati himself were to come down and constitute the text—the Critical Reader would undoubtedly reject it as it would surely not fit in with his ideas of what is right and what is wrong. The Critical Reader has the same freedom of action whether he has before him the critical text or the Vulgate. The Vulgate, as far as I can judge, is no better suited for serving as the base than the present text.
It may, however, be that the hesitation of the learned authority is really due to a categorical objection to interfering in so definite a manner with the received text. Should that be the case, it is certainly difficult to appreciate the veneration of this scholar for the form of a text which was made up, probably, also in great haste but withinadequate and insufficient materials, only in the last quarter of the seventeenth century, that is, only about 250 years ago. It is surely illogical to assume that a text which has been built up largely on unscientific conjecture is now beyond the reach of conjecture.
A simpler and more probable explanation still of the hesitating attitude of the learned critic might perhaps be that his theoretical misgivings are based on a rather hasty study of both the Vulgate and the critical text. For, the text of the Vulgate is so corrupt and so obviously contaminated that it would be a criminal neglect of his duty for any intelligent editor now to reprint the Vulgate, when he has at hand the material to control its vagaries and to correct its absurdities.
ONE SELECTED MANUSCRIPT AS BASE
No doubt to remedy the inherent defects in the last method as also to avoid the dreaded samkara of pramāṇas, it has been suggested by other scholars that the best course would be to select one manuscript, the best manuscript extant (of any version presumably) and print it, with minimal change, correcting only the obvious and indispensable clerical errors and adding the variants of the collated manuscripts.2 This expedient, though unquestionably simple and "safe", and in most cases indubitably effective, fails totally in the present instance, for two reasons: firstly and chiefly, owing to the negligible age of our manuscripts, which are barely five hundred years old; and, secondly, owing to the systematic conflation which has been carried on through ages of revisional and amplificatory activity. By following any manuscript—even the oldest and the best—we shall be authenticating jilst that arbitrary mixture of versions which it is the express aim of this method to avoid!
This suggestion, however, has special interest, because the principle underlying it has now been, partly and timidly, put into practice by Professor P. P. S. Sastri‚ in preparing his edition of the Southern recension, whereas the three foregoing methods are mere castles in the air of theoretical critics.
1 Journal Asiatique, Oct.Dec
1929, p. 347. 2 C . V . Vaidya‚ JBBRAS. 1920. 367.
PROLEGOMENA
LXXX*
A CRITIQUE OF PROFESSOR SASTRI'S METHOD
Professor Sastri's edition is an excellent demonstration of the inadequacy of the underlying principle, which has been repeatedly advocated, showing up its defects as nothing else could. What Professor Sastri set out to do is (to quote his own words ): "to print the text as it is in the original palmleaf, liberty being taken only to correct scriptorial blunders,1 to weigh the different readings in the additional manuscripts and choose the more important ones [seil, readings] for being added to the text by way of footnotes".2 How difficult it is to carry this out verbatim in practice and at the same time to present a halfway readable text may be realized when we see how Sastri has had to doctor his text. A few examples may be added to elucidate the point. To begin with, Sastri does not follow the parvan division, nor the adhyāya division, of his basic manuscript, adding and omitting colophons arbitrarily, in order to reach some imaginary norm. Secondly, he adds an adhyāya of 40 lines after his adhy. 164, which is not found in his manuscript! Thirdly, he omits one whole adhyāya of 40 lines, after his adhy. 180, where all Southern manuscripts, without exception (including his own exemplar) have it, and is moreover unaccountably silent about the omission! Fourthly, in one place (his adhy. 122) he has omitted fourteen lines of the text of his manuscript and added instead thirteen lines which are not found in any Southern manuscript I8 Fifthly and lastly, in yet another place (his adhy– 214) he has added an interpolation (upākhyāna) of 114 lines of which not a single line (as actully printed in Sastri's edition) is to be found in any of the six manuscripts utilized by him ! These are some of the things that an extremely orthodox Southern Pandit actually does when he sets out with the avowed object of printing up a Southern manuscript as it is, correcting only "scriptorial blunders." 1 will not here speak of a certain number of spurious lines which appear to have crept insidiously into his text from the Vulgate and whose existence even he probably does not suspect.4 The changes mentioned first are of a different order: they have been made by Sastri consciously and intentionally.
Let me not be misunderstood. I do not blame Sastri in the least for taking such liberties with his manuscript, which is a tolerably good manuscript (though probably not very old), but has its faults like any other manuscript. I myself have had to proceed similarly, only more thoroughly, more systematically. Our methods are similar in practice, though not in theory; that is, in his theory. Sastri's text is eclectic ( an epithet often used by critics with a tinge of reproach, the ground of which it is not easy to perceive): as eclectic as any other Mahābhārata text, printed or in manuscript, that I have seen. I have adduced the above instances chiefly to show what correcting merely "scriptorial blunders" in Mahābhārata textual criticism really ends in.
Thus it will be seen that the method of printing a Mahābhārata manuscript as it is, viewed as a rigid principle, is a deplorable failure. The lateness of our manuscript material
1 Italics mine!
2 The Mahäbhärata, Vol. I, Introduction, p. xiü. 8 Sastri's ed. 1. 122. 2J–8J (page 803f.),
* e. g. 1. 22. 28*1; 58. led; 82. 4*6; 184. 27"* (S has v. I.); 194. 62^ (ho MS. has this line 1); 203.
28a&; 212. 66|; 215. 54**; 216. 41, 43 (found only in Sfi Dn and printed editions ); etc References are to Sastri's edition of course. It must be admitted that, when compared with the mass of the text, these interpolations are really negligible.
LXXXVI
PROLEGOMENA
and
the peculiar conditions of transmission of the epic are responsible for the defection. They force upon us an eclectic hut cautious utilization of all manuscript classes. Since all categories of manuscripts hq,ve their strong points and weak points, each variant must be judged on its own merits.
WHAT IS THEN POSSIBLE J
The Mahābhārata problem is a problem sui generis. It is useless to think of reconstructing a fluid text in a literally original shape, on the basis of an archetype and a stemma codicum. What is then possible ? Our objective can only be to reconstruct the oldest form of the text which it is possible to reach, on the basis of the manuscript material available.1 With that end in view, we must examine as many manuscripts—and above all as many classes of manuscripts—as possible, and group them into families. We must try to ascertain and evaluate the tradition of each family, eschewing late and worthless material. We may then consider the relation of these traditions in regard to the variae lectiones, and the genuine and spurious parts öf the text. Beyond that, we have to content ourselves with selecting the readings apparently the earliest and choosing that form of the text which commends itself by its documentary probability and intrinsic merit, recording again most carefully the variants, and the additions and omissions. A little critical remaniement of the text need cause no alarm. For, as I have already observed, it is hardly logical to assume that a text which is largely based oṅ conjecture is now beyond the reach of that principle. Of course there will always remain many doubts, but that consideration should not prevent us from correcting those parts which can be corrected with confidence; moreover, that limitation applies to our comparatively well preserved classical texts, despite the guarantee of the careful editings they have undergone. However, owing partly to the fluid character of the original and partly to the fragmentary and inadequate information we possess as regards the origin, growth and transmission of the text, it is incumbent on us to make Conservatism our watchword. We must abstain from effecting .any change which is not in some measure supported by manuscript authority.2
THE METHOD OF RECONSTRUCTION EXPLAINED
The method I have followed in reconstructing the text cannot, unfortunately, be presented in the shape of short general rules. I shall endeavour, however, to explain it as briefly as possible.
The main principle underlying all speculation as to authenticity is the postulated
originality of agreement between what may be proved to be (more or less) independent
1 Cf. Lüders, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1929, 1143.
2 JFew scholars, I imagine, would endorse the view of Pandit Vidhushekhara Bhattaoharya (Modern Review, Calcutta, for August 1928, page 176), that the first prose sentence of our Mahā– bhārata («^fj—|~ ~(W etc), though found in all MSS. without exception, should be deleted
from the Critical Edition, because it is intrinsically inappropriate in the context. He writes: '‘They [seil, those lines] are to be found in all the different versions of which MSS. are collated for the present edition, though with some variant readings, hut can we be satisfied only with this ground as to their being genuine" 1 That is a little too radical! This edition cannot and should not proceed so far.
PROLEGOMENA LXXXVlt
versions. The principle I have tried to follow religiously—and I hope I have never deviated from it—is to accept as original a reading or feature which is documented uniformly by all manuscripts alike ( N =S).
For instance, we frequently come across threelined stanzas, one of whose lines is an "inorganic line", that is, a line which can be added or omitted without detriment to sense or grammar. These seemingly superfluous lines, if proved by both recensions, have not been deleted; they have been kept scrupulously intact. A more important instance is of the initial adhyāyas of this parvan. The connection between adhy. 13 and what follows, as also the connection between the three adhyāyas inter se‚ is of most loose character. There is further the suspicious circumstance that adhy. 4 begins precisely in the same way as adhy. 1; both adhyāyas have in fact the identical opening ( prose ) sentence:
<*l«^ui5*
3trt^t: ^CT: ^
–RT5~ āHT^ ^fr~ī g^nn 1
Adhy. 94
^Ml^
?ii^iawrMaTi4i^ 11
~T–hllft'nJl'lxf tafM«HlRfld^ I
S^fl" ^–i*fdls^r –rre–rwft~ II W
Adhy. 96
–l–1^MMWI^: ~C f%%c^r%: I ~—^I^KllR^^T5?† TR^nT^~Q II
Adhy. 102 ——M% üIIDIĪ|HI *RÔRŚFT I^IFEO I
–TTT ft ^TT~ ?|cC' ^N~lT *ift%fP^lcr^ II ^ Adhy. 202
Adhy. 203
f%t%fii^lr ^^^i^RcirR^ ii 5
Adhy. 205
trf ^gfrf%fRf M^iii^ftal^tfi^,i –nj^ i~f ^rfrt –J7–fkf ^hR–(1 ii r
Adhy. 206
—
NF*TNF —~ Iißcu LvIWI^I
Adhy. 210
^rtT –FIS^T ÄICII'II^HI«IV LL ^O Adhy. 211
–FTRRR MK‚RI N^WI%^RTT i
^ qftf?it^frf^*–rt^ ?Tr?TI ~jc^rr trs% ^Nin^ tot ii ^
Adhy. 212
Adhy. 220
^TTR" fT^t~r–T ^t" "f dc"htf^ II ^ Adhy, 225
gvR TOT SWMIFT MWWIPI N
PROLEGOMENA
XOI
thirty have no variants at all, while the remaining (seventy) show only insignificant variants, such as transposition, substitution of synonyms, and so on. The number of the latter class of stanzas could naturally be easily augmented, by increasing the latitude of permissible variation. Being handed down uniformly in all manuscripts alike, they may be regarded as authentic (as least as far as manuscript evidence goes), forming, so to say, pieces of firm bedrock in the shifting quicksands of Mahābhārata poetry. As such they will be valuable for the study of epic style, diction, vocabulary and so on.
To return to the question of text reconstruction. The rule arising out of the agreement between independent recensions or versions is easy to comprehend and simple to apply; only its sphere of operation is rather restricted. Difficulties arise when there is fluctuation; and that is the normal state. When there was fluctuation, the choice fell, as a corollary of the previous rule, upon a reading which is documented by the largest number of (what prima facie appear to be) more or less independent versions, and which is supported by intrinsic probability. Diagrammatically we might represent the types as follows: (i) Ni = S = Text. (ii) N = Ś1 = Text. (iii) Ni = Ś1 = Text. N* S2 N2 S2
Ns Ss Ns Ss
etc. etc. etc. etc
The presumption of originality in these cases is frequently confirmed by a lack of definite agreement between the discrepant versions. The commonest application of this rule is when Ś1 K or B (with or without D) agree with S against their own agnates. Numerous examples of this type of agreement have been adduced above (pp. LIV‚ LXII).
Occasionally we get "double" agreement, that is, agreement between two or more groups of each recension (Ni = Si and N2 = S2); for example, when (1) Ś1 K = M, and simultaneously B = TG‚ or ( 2 ) Ś1 K = TG‚ and simultaneously B == M. Here one of the agreements must, generally speaking, be accidental, since both can hardly be original; and either may be adopted, if they have equal intrinsic merit. Owing to the much greater correctness and reliability of Ś1 K, I have, as a rule, adopted the readings of this group, other things being equal.
When the two recensions have alternate readings neither of which can have come from the other and which have equal intrinsic merit (N : S), I have, for the sake of consistency and with a view to avoiding unnecessary and indiscriminate fusion of versions, adopted, as a stopgap, the reading of N. This rule is of very common application, since one constantly comes across readings which are but paraphrases of each other and between 'which it is impossible to discriminate. Examples of such alternative readings are;
N
1. 23
*nft
: <^3ti: sfst% v%c&n. 1 l. 51 5F4 ^rcftā ^
57. 30
sqTcfcrT3
T OTWH
60. 9
^^WdlI^f^II^HIit^: I
60. 10
TM{^"TI^R
t "~ *TCT"W I
S
*TFW:
ST†3t%I  wft*wn i
65. 35
wf?
r Wifa %mi wgf5t i
65. 35
IT
T ft*īt
66. 2 ^T^f^^
66. 3
erfafTO "f: 5" cī
66. 9
s*T^acT^^
73. 4
r% mqtq*f
106. 9
*!^?tfi~ W*!W: ^m^tī^ *ī~T: I
107. 20
^p~
r ^–?ī^rera*n sfôfn–nq ~ i 200. 9 *nr—t{*r %r%^*r i
S
**www gu *pê Tfr~ir: i . 65. 20
TJCIM^LÑ B*ñfa (%*T*~{^ I 65. 35
—
n –r^r 65. 35
DMr†
(v. l. n Êrôt‚ –?tfa~r:, =–rrf^–"ī:)
103. 13 ^«ita†
(v. 1. *FpsfH, *n*r ^n^rf‚ ^RIfêrcf, etc).
EMENDATION
Emendation has played a very inconspicuous role in the preparation of the constituted text. Interpretation has in general been given preference over emendation. Even in the case of corrupt passages, the reading of some manuscript or other gives sense, though it may not be the original sense, not even a wholly satisfactory sense. Precipitate emendation is, however, to be deprecated; for experience has shown that but a small proportion of scholars' corrections are really amendments. Moreover, in this special case, we know, as yet, too little about the epic idiom and the epic world altogether; as also about the vicissitudes of the epic text. Besides, who can say that the original was linguistically uniform, and conformed to any particular norm ? What would be the style of a work which in the main is obviously a compilation ?
The text, as it has been fixed by me, contains about 35 emendations. The corrections are generally very slight, being concerned mostly with single isolated words, never with whole passages. Wherever even a single letter has been added, omitted or altered, without the authority of any of the manuscripts, I have inserted an asterisk (*) in the text.
Only in very few instances do the emendations effected in this edition make any difference to the sense; e. g. 1. 41. 5 «räss*d^ite«ra:, where the word (an)^H has been
PROLEGOMENA Xcm
added to the pāda‚ a word found only in D2; the other readings are: *rêf –nt mwm‚ W*i‚ *raf TFT, 11% ?SRRW° (hypermetric I), ^sfêrer*f, *rH mm% seven combinations, each having a different syllable between Êf and 37! In a few cases the emendation affects merely some grammatical form of the stanza in question; e. g. 1. 86. 5 ejßioMM *^5s* ft^f, where the readings for sr«* are ftw~i enn*, wii*z‚ *m* (corruption of last?), gw«j, 3'Wfa, 5T ~f?m (hypermetric!).
But the large majority of our emendations concern merely metre and sandhi. My study of the manuscript material led me to the conclusion that there was an ever growing antipathy, firstly, to hypermetric pādas‚ in fact to any form of metrical irregularity; and, secondly, to forms of sandhi not sanctioned or countenanced by Pāṇini's great grammar. In particular, there is noticeable a strong aversion to hiatus, even where it was permitted by rules of grammar. Hiatus between pādas also came to be disapproved and was removed by such expedients as that of adding a meaningless % 3 or ^ at the beginning of the posterior pāda.
Manuscripts betray the surreptitious efforts of the scribes and redactors to eliminate hiatus (sometimes even when it is grammatically permissible) in the following instances among others: 1. 2. 91 (between pādas) reqrcr*r I rfä 3*m:; 2. 130 q70–— 3?rg^j~
(8
readings); 2. 150 ?ft Tm ~"33~f; 2. 212 v~r enwRTOWR; 9. 11 (between pādas) °^r i sfriBsn 152 sr~nj^; 21. 3 srs 3tt|~ –r=^j 33.18 *rft~–^ %nw%i; 33. 22 norland for ips 36. 7 ~ 5«‡ (v. L sr *fnf‚ rö *W® (v. 1. nä v*M‚ wot W*rorô) 92. 4 –sOTfr ffc % –5OTfa (v. 1. ä ^tftr –i?nfôT, ^Tf^T ^5~raT5, ^ % ^–~rf^T ^:%) 94. 74 ^c^n?9Rīm (~īqw*ÊT *m^, m m?tf‚ mm°).
Owing to the increasing sensitiveness to solecism, we find likewise different efforts made, independently of each other, to purge the text of what came to be regarded as stylistic blunders or corruptions in the ancient text. Examples of attempts made to
X01v–
PROLEGOMENA
remove solecisms are: 1. 1. 190 ^  46. 37 ^wf=nf (v. 1.
5lfHt –n~^); 48. 24 ^TTOTIH: (v. l. TO[~[^)j 96. 44 W 5%R!^r (v. 1. WT|f|"tf); 123. 16 d4ta*<«i ( v. 1. °~ī?mi&); 124. 24 ~~?t=fT pass. pres. part. (v. l. 3SF%); 141. 7 *fWft (v. l. f| or 3 t^TTftf); 151. 23 W –n~^t(v. l. ~~r^RR); 154. 24 ^TMI%Ji^ (v.l. ~f~TWfg°)165. 24 –Tc5Tf^rfêT if *P% (v. 1. fwÑ cf Wl%fr etc.); 169. 20 ""PTR: cNrtf (v. l. *ītfat etc.); 184. 18 *rcf*(v. l. –T^sT‚ –B^~‚ =ītf^, fOTf^T‚ ^–ff^cT‚ Rf^); etc, etc
I add examples of hypermetric pādas (generally with the scheme vvvv‚—), which are the result of emendation: 1. 30. 7 sfö^ffirföU^f ^*; 1. 155. 35 *sītfêrô ^ g*t si~g;.
And, finally, examples of hiatus as the result of emendation:
51. 8
Srôt* i?~: OT^fl*HIW
5720
flfoj%
*3*3qt ?^:
98. 8
3Rīml[ aī~TT
99. 15 v–RT ~ *s?ft~^ 100. 2 M**«n*lftwrfr
103. 5
3^T% *ntft –FTT *erg^TT S*TO *: I
110. 20 ÜT?
^T=fft% *TT*f *6Tft4?^f%% I
110.28
–rfê[ *e?Rf mm
116. 25
119. 11
147. 2
148. 1
157. 13
207. 17
214. 9
224. 5
Ś3~*IRī (sing.) *etfSr