Indian Antiquary Vol 61

SR No.: 032553
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 428
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 17 MB

Page 133

JUNE, 1932)
BOOK-NOTICES
119
thoroforo of purposeful tampering with and alteration THE MAHABHARATA: THE SOUTHERN RECENSION of the text, and regards it as altogether undependable | critically edited by P. P. Sastri, Professor of for any purpose of textual criticism. He refers Sanskrit, Presidency College, Madras. particularly to the politics chapter called Kani. ADIPARVAN, Part I. Published by Messrs. V. RAMA. kaniti (Adhydya 140 of the Bombay edition), SWAMI SASTRULU AND SONS, Esplanado, Madras. which he thinks ought to be omitted when it This is an edition of the Adiparvan of the Mald. occurs in the Adiparvan, regarding it as a later bharata and contains the first 137 chapters of the addition. On such comparison as he has been able first book covering a little more than half of the to make, the editor has come to certain definite book, as according to the southern version, the conclusions, which may be stated in his own words: whole of this book consists of only 218 adhyayas, "Now it would not do to form some a priori hypo.
as against 227 of the Bombay edition. This edition thosis as to the interrelationship of the versions and
sets before itself the very desirable object of fix the text in terms of some preconceived notion
bringing out an authoritative southern recension
of the Mahdbhdrata. As Mahabharata students about it. The study of the documents them
know, and those that are interested in the authori. solves must teach us what their interrelationship
tative critical edition being brought out by the is, and they unmistakably indicate that this inter
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute must by relationship is of a very complex character. In
now know, there are important differences in the fact, I am now fully persuaded that with the epic
various versions or recensions of the epic. Among texte as preserved in the extant Mahabharata
them we can distinguish a certain number from manuscripts we stand at the wrong end of a long their peculiarity and their importance. Mahabhdchain of successive syntheses of divergent texts rata criticism is fairly clear as to a Kashmiri version, carried out in a haphazard fashion through con. & Bengali version, southern version and what turies of diaskeuastic activities; and that with the might perhaps be called a Devanagari version possible exception of the Kashmiri version all including in it the rest of the geographical area of other versions are indiscriminately conflated."
India more or loss roughly. In the course of the While we may acknowledge readily the sincerity
work, as far as it has advanced, it is found that as and care with which this far-reaching conclusion
between these recensions there are differences and has been built up, we must point out, at any rato so
similarities, and in the reconstitution of the text
of the Mahabhdrata on a basis of criticism--the far as the southern version is concerned, the editor
eclectic criticism adopted by the editorial Board of has been reckoning all the while without the host.
the All India edition-the southern recension The Kumbhakonam edition of the Mahabharata
comes to occupy an important place. The question is anything but typical of the southern version, and would at once be asked, what is the southern reif it is actually typical of anything, it is only typical cension? The Kumbhakonam edition is far from of "a carelugsly guarded fluid text” of the epic. being the southern recension. Although it is said to Wo think it is the most comprehensive edition, be based on southern manuscripts, 80 much has which took in all that claims to be part of the text been imported from outside, even from the printed of the Mahdbharata. We are disappointed that the editions, that it has ceased to be southern, except Grantha text issued first from a village near Tanjore
to the extent of its emanating from the south. and subsequently from a village near Kumbha.
The Grantha version issued from Sarfojirajapuram
and Uppiliappankoil, though much better in point konam, which was based upon much more reliable
of textual authority, cannot be said to be altogether manuscript material, is not altogether free, as we
free from this kind of corruption. There are are informed, from textual corruption owing to the
numbers of manuscripts in the Tanjore Palace adoption of parts from the printed versions, the
Library, and they are of all kinds. The Grantha responsible oditors having allowed themselves to
manuscripts Hoorn to stand out distinctly from all be carried off the track by a false notion that
these. complete exclusion of parts was likely to prove prejudicial to the authority of their texts.
The oditor of this particular southern recension A more or less typical southern text has yet to be proceeds to his work on the basis of manuscript provided, and for that we shall havo to go back to authority, and among them four Grantha manurather earlier than later versions of the Mahabharata scripts to which reference is made in the work are text available in South India. We are on the eve of the highest authorityOf those, one marked of a southern recension more representative of the
11860 is considerod by the editor, on a comparison south than anything so far published, and we must of manuscripts, to be so far the best, and that it say the time is not yet for any far-reaching con- has been made the basal text for this publication. clusions in regard to the southern version of the
The other manuscripts are used for comparison, Mahabharata.
and their readings, wherever they are of sufficient S. K. AIYANGAR. importance, Are indicated in footnotes, so that