Madhuvidya

SR No.: 006525
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 762
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Philosophy
File Size: 17 MB

Page 699

Reviews
are not even remotely connected with the epic story it does not assign to him any share in the parvans 11, 14-18 the contents of which have some relationship with the epic story!
According to the line of transmission revealed by the statistical analysis, Süta Lomaharsana, whom the epic does not recognize as the reciter, occupies the second place. He is supposed to have made good practically all the deficiencies in the text of his predecessor and gave it a form of 18 parvans. His son Ugrasravas, whom the epic recognizes as the reciter, is then left with the task of only making some additions to the text of his father. This he did to parvans 1-7 and 12-14, but none at all to 8-11
and 15-18.
353
What strikes one very pominently is that according to the statistical analysis the Karpaparvan was left absolutely untouched by all the four redactors who followed Vaisampayana. At least the statistical study has not been able to reveal any such additions.
All these are not realistic conclusions which would inspire confidence in the method. On the other hand it has to be observed that the analysis does give some realistic results like the Bhargava legends turning out to be later additions.
After Shri Yardi subjected the constituted text to statistical analysis and identified five different styles, one thought he would carry out the same operations on the longer passages considered, on manuscript evidence, to be interpolations by editors of the critical text. He should have thereby demonstrated that none of these interpolated passages was composed in a style identical with any of the five styles used for the constituted text and thus even on the evidence of style they proved to be interpolations. If this does not turn out to be the case it would mean that imitation of style wes possible and hence identification of authors on the basis of statistical analysis alone is not possible.
Moreover, there does not seem to be any reason why an epic poet should go on monotonously composing in a single style when so many different alternatives were available to him. The statistical analysis reveals that the upakhyānas were written in three styles, alpha, B and in C (p. VIII). Of these, alpha style has been assigned to Sata and B to his son, Sauti. If Sauti had bis father's text before him, would he not, for a change, somewhere pick up the style of his father? And, as was mentioned above, if Sūta Lomaharsana had no hand in the transmission of the text, we have to say that Sata Ugrasravas used two styles for the upakhyānas. And further,
10 Except the last adhyaya (154) which narrates the death and cremation of Bhisma. Madhu Vidya/674