Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 684

300
Annals BORI, LXV (1984)
were taken to Hastinapura. To resolve the contradiction, Nllakagtha interprets the word deha as asthini (bones) and the translator finds this interpretation quite satisfactory. He, however, admits that this whole account is very confusing, Instead of agreeing with the commentator, the translator could have referred to Dr. V. S. Sukthankar's remarks on this passage in his Prolegomena (p. LXXXVII).
The translator has taken for his basis the Chitraśālā press edition of 19287. He does not state the reasons for his choice. One therefore does not know why he did not give preference to the critical edition published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. One reason cau be that the trapslator chose that text which is widely known in Maharashtra. But since the B.O.R.I. edition offers the reader the critically constituted text it would have been better if the translator had accepted the critical edition as his basis and popularised that text among the general readers. A golden opportunity, one feels, bas been regrettably lost.
M. A. Mebendale
Madhu Vidyā1659