________________
66
INTRODUCTION
state of doubt indicated by an asterisk after the sloka number in the apparatus; stanzas omitted in three or more complete MSS, whether constituting a version or not, are also struck out of the group. C, D, I are treated as single MSS.
The total of exactly 200 stanzas in group I is accidental. Of these, the first seven do not belong to the same sataka in all archetypes, hence are labelled 'unplaced' and separated from the rest. Cudottamsita-, which is placed in all three centuries by turn is taken as the general benedictory stanza, while the rest are given in alphabetical order. Possibly, stanza 82 might also have been included in these. The remainder of group I is subdivided into the traditional N-S-V classes, each being provisionally in the order of version A though the general N order shows some marked differences on occasion.
Group II: This is printed in the same type as group I, and contains stanzas found in more than a single well-determined version, but not included in I. The criterion is generous, because of the critical conclusions in section 3,3 about 83 and 287. After all, each of the versions began froin a single MS at some time in the remote past. That they have become rooted attests their strength, but not necessarily their absolute reliability. Why does J alone omit 341? Why are 285, 350, 221, and a few others of the sort omitted only in X? To such questions, I can find no answer. But the age and contents of these versions being incontestable, there is no option but to include them in II. On the other hand, the group is undoubtedly much too broad, inasmuch as the authentic stanzas cannot possibly include all of those we find here, so I have drawn a minor dividing line of my own by reporting some stanzas as somitted in and others as "found in ", whichever was shorter. Clearly, the latter subgroup is much less likely to be authentic, though again the boundary is not sharp. A few stanzas that might, without doing any great violence to the canon, have been included in Group I have been starred.
Group III: This naturally contains everything in satakatraya MSS which cannot be ascribed to the first two groups, and which is also not clearly indicated by the scribes as an interpolation from some other sources. In many cases, as for example in HU 2145, it is impossible to be certain that the scribe wasn't just exercising bis memory and his pen, without much regard to Bhartrhari. But it is impossible to neglect any of the additions indicated as extras because one or the other of them generally turns up elsewhere in the body of a satakatraya MS. This process is also ancient enough not to be ignored. Thus, bhavad vhavan-[627] las forced me to include the extras in X2 though X is well-determined version; cetoharő [ 499] meant the inciusion of the extras in J3. There are plenty of stray verse jottings that I have left out because they were clearly not meant by the scribe as part of the satakas. Not every scribe is so careful as that of Bikaner 3287 who labels his extras Prästävikāvali, with an emphatic word on the margin na tu BhartrharakȚtiḥ, though several of the stanzas do occur in the Bliartrhari text. Bikaner 3276 gives many scattered marginal extras of which one not taken here is labelled silaclovasürch, whence the inference is that the rest are to be taken as Bhartrhari's and indeed most of them are found in other Bhartrhari MSS; Bikaner 3279 gives a couple of extraordinary stanzas
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
