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 90

INTRODUCTION
69
last to be examined were the Limbdi MSS. Of these, Lim 885/1 bears signs of W influence, but telescopes blokas, particularly in Ś, so that a certain amount of doubt, might attach to its omissions; also, there is no apparent reason for some strange transposition as of 306 to the end of V[=1051, 184* -7 103. The order is V-$-NNotable omissions are of 132*, 215, 271, 274, 287* [which places this in the comparatively rare archetype beta ], 171, 315, 130, 348, Lim 1485, with its superb calligraphy gives 19 extra slokas after; V, showing :lcquaintance with foreign versions including w, while the $ is strongly influenced by B. Some of the omissions class it with BVB 5. We find 176* omitted altogether, 36 given on the margin of N, but indicated as a V stanza, and actually placed as V 42; 188* is extra 5, 184* is followed immediately by its alternative 451 as V 60, 61 respectively, which happens often in Gujarat; finally, 256 comes as the last of s, i. e. $ 113, perhaps by transposition of the colophon, though it might also indicate later addition of the stanza. Other omissions are 278, 304, 308, 315, 325, 334, which strengthons the case for shifting all these to group II, while the placing of 311 as $ 35 shows both the spuriousness of the stanza as well as the originality of the redactor. Limbdi 930/39, with its minuscule writing which completes all three satakas in less that five folios, belongs to version Q.
Still later to arrive was the Udaipur evidence. No. 1486, of archetype bota, omits stanzas 207, 213, 218, 99*, 179*, 278, 282, 300, 314, and 75, while repeating 256 as $ 1 and V1, with 349 as Ś 103(104) and Ś 86( 87 ); to what extent these are due to an attempt to match the Rāņā Pratāp translation is clear, but in all probability, the Sanskrit is complete. Udaipur 1650 omits stanzas 38*, 46, 47, 111, and 300, transposing 343 to V81; its Ś has a greatly changed order, paralleled very closely by Punjab 2101, BORI 329 Jodhpur 4. Finally, Udaipur 1748 and its copy 712 omit stanzas 149, 180*, 234[ inserted after the colophon as extra in 1748), 161, 292, 293, 297, and 349; stanza 278 is repeated as V 78 and V 105. This pair of MSS forms an ancient version Q with Limbdi 930/39, so that we are constrained to remove 149 and 161 to group II.
Of the three old, complete Ham MSS (with prsthamătrăs) of archetype beta, no. 874 dated 1719 A, D, has undergone a peculiar redaction, heading every śataka with the mangalācaraṇa 256, excluding 1 altogether. Omission of 257, 318, besides 208, 218, 232, 234, 260, 261, 278, 282, 283, 338, 242 proves influence by W or some parallel version; group I omissions are 1, 13, 38, 97, 115, 168 of which 38 seems important enough, in conjunction with the foregoing, for removal to group II. The second Ham MS, without number, omits 97, 126, 143, 194, 248, 278, 290, 301; the common omission of 97 with its predecessor need not be taken seriously enough for a star. More important because of its great age is the Pratisthāsomagani codex, for it shows the archetype to have been still unstable in A.D. 1444. Some important omissions are 82, 103, 130, 210, 215, 271, 274, 348. There is no doubt at all, on comparison, that this has a near ancestor in common with Lim 885/1, though there is variation enough to prevent the exact version being accurately determined. In any case, 130 must go to group II, while the omission of 82, not confirmed by the Limbi MS. may be taken as excusable, seeing that it was at time regarded as a Nśloka. The inclusions are also unusual in position: 458= $76, 702 = $84, 751 = $96,