Shataka Trayadi Subhashit Sangraha

Author(s): Bhartuhari, Dharmanand Kosambi
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan

Page 28

EDITOR'S PREFACE
for N and S, the Harilā) type of vairāgya seems to have established itself. Northern editions such as that of Durgãdatta Pandita at the Benares Light Poss in 1874 (I0 Verne tracts 1471; and 1601 of year 1878] modify the commentry, without quoting sources, though always borrowing heavily from previous editions, but are naturally pirated by others; in this particular case, perhaps by Pt. Gangāprasad's edition at the Lakşminārāyaṇa Press, Moradabad 1911, with slight changes [TO 5. I, 4]. This effortless type of edition is by far the commonest to the present day.
Modern times. Serious attempts on the Bhartphari problem may be said to begin with K. T. Telang's edition of 1893 at Bombay. This followed the lithographed editions which succeed Horilal, but Telang confines himself unfortunately to N+V. Telang first made a good synoptic chart, and noticed two major groups corresponding roughly to our recensions. He had no way, however, of estimating the sources behind Bohlen and Haeberlin, and the MS evidence was thus nullified, no version being really established. Moreover, there seemed so great a measure of uniformity, particularly for V, among editions published in widely separated places like Bombay and Calcutta that further invostigation of the critical problem did not seem necessary to many later scholars. Naturally, the unplaced slokas could not be located, as the s was not taken into account. Moreover, soine of the MSS used by the editor were lacunary; in any case, the descriptions are so poor, it is difficult to identify the sources with any certainty. The Telugu edition he used could certainly not have represented what was fondly imagined to be “the recension universally current in the south", particularly as it includes sakyo vārayitum. The most that can be said for the edition is that it represents an honest pioneer effort. The introduction is of considerable interest for the comparatively sober type of argument usod, though generally unconvincing for lack of a critical basis. While Telang's scholarship, proved in several studies and translations, was of a higher order than Boblen's, he could still take exception to Rămarşi's gloss on 1514 unmattabhūtam = unmattatulyam as "quito unnecssary and without authority"; yet this sense of the word is given by our loxica.
To mention only one other edition, that of Purohit Gopi Nath is still available [in tho second edition of 1914; Bombay, Venkateśvar Press. This is confessediy eclectic; emphasis is laid upon interpretation and appreciation of Bhartyhari -- unfortunately in a most risiblo idiom. The Hindi translation is less objectionable than the English, though suffering as usual from disregard of the actual text in favout of preconceptions of what the poot intended to convey. The text itself, though a mere copy of its predecessors, is distinguished by its curious orthography. The preface, parallel etanzas, and reports of Bhartrhari legends relieve the performance, which may be regarded as a modern development of the old pandits' tradition.
Hertel attempted [Vienna Or. Journal XVI, 1902, pp; 202-205 ; 298. 304 to draw conclusions about the relative age of the Pancatantra and the Natiśataka from such editions as these. His estimate of the relative ages of the printed versions may be ignored, as the verse order on which he based his conclusions ineans nothing. That the Nītiśataka was an anthology may be true, though not proved on Hertel's arguments; but I shall try to show that the whole nucleus of our MS tradition is probably a later collection by others