Madhuvidya

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

Page 700

354
Amals BORI, LXIX ( 1988)
if the adhyāyas from the Santi- and the Anušāsana-parvans are not likely to have been composed by Vaiša mpayana, it would mean that Sauti composed ip A style as well.
All this has not been said to suggest that the constituted text was composed just by two authors - Vaišampāyana and Ugraśravas It is not disputed at all that the original composition underwent various revisions at different periods and different places. The epic itself gives perroission to do that. It characterizes the Bhărata-Samhitā (1. 1.61), not only as equal in extent 'to the four Vedas '(vedaiś caturbhiḥ samitām)", but calls the samhitā itself a. Veda'wbose author was Krşņa Dvaipāyana (1.1.205, 1:56. 17). The epic advises the reciters to expand this. Veda' of Krşņa with additions of itihāsas and purānas (itihāsapurāņābhyām vedam samupabrmhayet 1, 1. 204).12 To do this the epic reciter bad to be well-versed in composition of the type of itihāsas and purāņas. If that were not the case the Veda' (of Krsna ) is afraid that this reciter will pass over me, will skip me (i. e, will abridge me ) ( bibhely alpaśrutad vedo mam ayan pratarisyati 1. 1. 204 ). Accordingly the epic has, in the course of its long history, experienced many * expansions' (samupabrmhana ). It is hardly possible to limit these just 10 four and demarcate very neatly their individual extent, in addition 10 ascribing them to definite authors.
One word at the end regarding an assumption made by the author. which a layman, like the reviewer, not familiar with the statistical studies, is not likely to understand. When the user of the Anuştubh metre was free to use short or long syllables at certain places, why does the author say: • The stylistic variations in the Anuşubh ślokas could arise from the natural propensity of the authors to make use, unconsciously of course, of more or less long syllables, where they are free to do so". But why would they not use, if they have the freedom, short syllables, or both short and loog in some what equal proportion? Further, does the sentence mean that if the authors had a natural propensity to use more or less short syllables stylistic variations would not have arisen and hence ihe statistical study would not have been possible ? One would of course understand that this would be the case if the authors had used long and short in somewbat equal proportion. But not if they had used short.
M.A. Mehendale
11.1. 19. Nilakantha - samitām iti pathe tulyām ity arthaḥ. V. S. Sukthankar
JBBRAS (NS) 4. 158-161. Also cf Mbh. 18.5.43 and App. I. 5. 16. 19 The dictum does not apply to the four Vedas, as is generally assumed, but, in the con
text, only to the Veda of Krsna (Dvaipăyana ). samupabrnihayet also does not meanstirengthen' (Winteroitz, Hist, lod. Lit. I. p. 505), much less interpret (T. G. Maiokar, The Upabrmbana and the Rgveda laterprotation ).
Madhu Vidya/675