Shataka Trayadi Subhashit Sangraha

SR No.: 002915
Original Sutra Author: Bhartuhari
Author: Dharmanand Kosambi
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
Publication Year: 1948
Total Pages: 346
Language: Hindi, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 22 MB

Page 79

58
INTRODUCTION
no. 6 the Kávyasamgraha] not one is in Bengali, the nearest being 5592, an Oriy& palm-leaf of the Vairāgya. This, like my Yı, is of peninsular (YTGM] typo, being divided into paddhatis; it follows stanzas from the Sāntiśataka, ascribed by a colophon to one Simhunadeva, though eleven (of 24) stanzas belonging to that section also survive and have in common with Bhartshari our stanzas nos. 190, 218, 301. The remaining are devanagari paper MSS, of which 7747 is a poor E type probably from Rajputana like our A2 and perhaps 7743, 7804. Surprisingly many show Mahärästrian influenco. Nos. 9356 and 9937 [ both of N1 belong actually to the W version and 576 [N] is still more clearly of Mahārāştrian provenance, for it is of the version X, localized in Satara, Benares 57-4 is a modern Bengali copy of the fragment of the devanāgari Nīti preserved in Benares 60-10, and the version is again from Rājputana, represented perhaps by Bikaner 3280. IO 14196 gives e śộngārašataka in modern Bengali, and is a lato copy of a W original, while IO 11516 is a V of northern type, with some features common to my version C, but generally mixed; copy in Bengali on modern European paper. Three MSS, one only of each śataka, were reported at the Vangiya Sahitya Parishat, and these upon examination turn out to be of type generally current in Rājasthan. One of my conclusions upon studying MS evidence available to me was that Bhartrhari reached Bengal late, often through Mahārāştrians, from some base at Benares. This was confirmed unexpectedly by the researches of P. K. Gode, who showed [Ind. Culture XII, 1945, 47-56 ] that in the 17th century there existed settlements of Mahārāștrian Brahmins in Bengal, even East Benyal. Moreover, these were based upon Benares, and had originally migrated for deeper study of tarka and nyāya works. In any case, the contrast is undeniable when we compare the absence of complete satakatraya MSS with the innumerable copies of the Santiśataka found in Bengali script.
Rajendralal Mitra's Notices mention only three Bhartphari MSS. No. 706 fearfully misdescribes the Padyasamgraha containing our Yr as & work on smộti rites. No. 2837 notices a fresh Bengali MS with commentary of “Maheśvara", but actually the N from our version W; notice 3325, unless Mitra made another of his colossal mistakes, reports i commentary by Sri Minanätha, which happens to be the name of a Nāthapanthiya pontiff.
This negative evidence is again to be supplemented by reference to anthologies. The oldest published was the so-called Kavindravacanasamuccaya [F. W. Thomas, Bib. Ind. Calcutta and London 1912 1, definitely an eastern anthology, perhaps of the 12th century; it does not cito Bhurtrhari by name, and contains very little that is definitely Bhartrlari's. I submit that this is the same as the RKB., an eastern anthology of the 11th century. The fragment published by Thomas must have been about a third of a later copy of a Ngor type codex. For this dating, and for finding the citation Bhartphareh (from atrocious photo-duplicates) on fol. 369, I am indebted to Prof. V. V. Gokhale. Now the remarkable fact is that RKB. citations follow the stanzas, while of the five stanzas (succeeding the name) which end the (penultimate) section, three are 6, 302, 218 of this edition