Indian Antiquary Vol 59

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 22

14
1. THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
.
L'ANUARY, 1930
maoension which was presumably universally accepted in Northern India. It may for practical purposes be taken as being represented by Trithen's editio princeps. Of later editions published in Bombay, Poona and elsewhere, the most noteworthy is that printed by the Nirnay Sagar Press, Bombay, and edited with Viraraghava's commentary by T. R. Ratnam Aiyar of Tri. chinopoly and S. Rangachariar of Srirangam. It gives no description of manusoript material utilised, nor does it notice any variant readings, except what is casually mentioned in Virardghava's commentary itself. It is presumably based on Southern MSS., as its text agrees with the Mysore manuscript Mr of Todar Mall. This edition is important, not only because it gives the text of Viraraghava, but also because it presents for a portion of the text an entirely different recension, which has its origin probably in Southern India. Todar Mall's edition, however, brings to light a third recension, which is probably North Indian or rather Kashmirian, but which was hitherto unknown.
Todar Mall has given a fairly full account of the MSS. used by him, and it is not necessary to recapitulate it here. But it would be convenient to summarise at the outset the main differences between the three recensions mentioned above. Todar Mall divides his eighteen manuscripts into two groups: Northern (11 MS.) and Southern (7 MS.) ; but three different recensions for a portion of the text are distinguishable in them. All the eighteen Northern and Southern MSS. of Todar Mall, as well as all the printed editions of the drama, agree in giving the same text from Act I to the end of Act V, 46, the divergences being nothing more than the inevitable differences of reading of partioular words or passages. Here also Todar Mall's Cambridge manusoript Cu (Northern), as well as his Southern manuscripts Mt, Mg, T, T, end.& Material divergences however begin from this point, and for the rest of the text we mark threo distinot recensions: (1) From Act V, 46, to the end of Act VII (i.e., to the end of the drama), the editions of Trithon, Taranátha, Jivananda, Borooah and Sridbara, as well as Todar Mall's eight Northern manuscripts (I, I, W, E, SC, Md, Alw and Bo), give what has been oalled by Todar Mall Recension A and by Hertel the vulgata recension, this being the universally accepted text, or as Ratnam Aiyar puts it,10 sarvatra pracalitah, pdthah. (2) But Ratnam Aiyar's edition, as well as Todar Mall's single Mysore manuscript Mr, gives a different text for this portion of the drama (i.e., from Act V, 46, to the end of Act VII), and this recension, marked by Todar Mall as Recension 011, is expressly attributed to one poet Subrahmanya. At the end of Act VII the manuscript Mr reads (Todar Mall, p. 306): aemin ndtake viliprakarane dauritmyid aribhiḥ' (V, 46) iti bloka-paryantena grantha-sandarbhena Bhavabhaitina tri-bhaga-parimita katha vinacita tatahavasyam ca breyasvind maya bhavitavyam' (prose-passage preceding V, 47, in this recension) iti vili-vikyid Arabhya bharata-odlya-paryantena grantina-sanlarbhena Subrahmanya-kavina kertono'pi kathbesah puritah/ tasya pollaruvamia-jaladhi-condrasya Venkteúdryatandbhavasya Verktâmba-garbha-sambhavasya drigevid. waitdtma-jñanasidhir astul. Ratnam Aiyar's footnote repeats (3rd. ed., 1910, p. 224) these words up to the end of katha-bepah pidritah, but omits the rest, probably basing the footnote on a similar colophon in the MS. utilised for that edition. These two Recensions A and C, i.e., the vulgata and Subrahmanya's text, therefore, stand in sharp oontrast to each other with regard
The Poona editiops, both of which were published in 1887, one by 8. G. Jyotishi and the other by Sridhara Sastri with his own commentary, also follow this recension. There is also a Madras edition with the modern commentary of Laksmana Sari (New ed. 1904); but I have not seen it.
Mt and Mg appear to be nos. 12683 and 12585 montioned in the Description Oatalogue of Sank. M88. in the Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, Madras, vol. XYI, pp. 8451, 8453. But there are three other MSS., probably trore recent acquisitions, in the same Library, which have not been collated by Todar Mall, but which are dosoribed in the above Catalogue. These are: (1) no. 12584 (p. 8452) going up to the end of Act V, (2) no. 12586 (p. 8453), with Viraraghava's commentary, containing Acts 1.VII completo and (3) no. 12587 (p. 8466) which breaks off in Act IV.
Of the romaining three Northern MSS. of Todar Mall, his Cambridge University martisoript Cu enda with v. 46: India Office M89 I, ends with Ant V; Bengal Asiatic Society manuscript Bfollows Recension
10 This text is given by him as an appendix to his edition. 11 This rooension is given in Appendix B, p. 286L.