2023-03-16 06:44:19 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
The thirty-two Bharataka stories.
The two known recensions of the Bhd, As Aufrecht
stated (see above, p. 3), the Florentine MS. contains an abbreviating
remaniement of the older text as contained in the Oxford and in
our own MS. As in the concluding part of story 3 the Florentine
recension inserts a Gujarati stanza which is absent from the older
recension, it is evident that its author equally hailed from Gujarat,
and especially from a region of this country in which there was
no distinction between the masculine and the neuter genders.
12
The character of the younger recension may be seen from
the deviations of its 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th stories which are com-
pletely entered in our variants according to Pavolini's publications.
It appears that this recension contains a number of miscorrections
of blunders still extant in our own MS.
The present edition. Long ago it was my intention to edit
the Bhd. My endeavours to get new materials unfortunately failed.
I regret therefore to be compelled to edit the text only on the
basis of the very faulty copy in my possession which. I shortly
mark with MS. I had jotted down in my variants all of its clerical
errors; but considerations of expense forced me to strike out all
the blunders which I was able to emend with certainty. For the
introduction and the tales 1-4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 25, I compared
the texts published by Aufrecht and by Pavolini, entering their
deviations in my variants. For the other tales my MS. was the
only basis of my edition, and I regret that a few passages cannot
satisfactorily be restored by its aid; cp. stories 8, 15, 19, and the
gaps mentioned above p. 2. The very faulty punctuation of MS.
has been emended throughout, and the very often neglected sandhi
has been restored wherever it did not seem evident to me that
the author intentionally neglected it. Spellings as the occasionally
occurring तकुत्वा and the very blunder ऽपरस्मिल्लोक°, which our
MS. has in story 276, at all events prove that the author was
well acquainted with the sandhi rules. As to orthography, our
MS. as almost all MSS. from Gujarat never writes , and never n
before a dental, or m in pausa. In these cases I follow my
MS. As my MS. is inconsistent with regard to the doubling of
consonants after r, to the replacing of by, and to the use
of the avagraha, I neither use the doubling nor the avagraha in
my text, and always write where it is etymologically correct.
II. Variants.
Introduction,
A(ufrecht, Oxford Catal. p. 155, No. 329).
1 A om. this line 2 MS I 8 A कुतुकात्; MS: लिख्यते कौ-
तकाकथा ॥ 4 MS om. सदापि
5 MS मूर्षजना [ना corr. to नमा]
The two known recensions of the Bhd, As Aufrecht
stated (see above, p. 3), the Florentine MS. contains an abbreviating
remaniement of the older text as contained in the Oxford and in
our own MS. As in the concluding part of story 3 the Florentine
recension inserts a Gujarati stanza which is absent from the older
recension, it is evident that its author equally hailed from Gujarat,
and especially from a region of this country in which there was
no distinction between the masculine and the neuter genders.
12
The character of the younger recension may be seen from
the deviations of its 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th stories which are com-
pletely entered in our variants according to Pavolini's publications.
It appears that this recension contains a number of miscorrections
of blunders still extant in our own MS.
The present edition. Long ago it was my intention to edit
the Bhd. My endeavours to get new materials unfortunately failed.
I regret therefore to be compelled to edit the text only on the
basis of the very faulty copy in my possession which. I shortly
mark with MS. I had jotted down in my variants all of its clerical
errors; but considerations of expense forced me to strike out all
the blunders which I was able to emend with certainty. For the
introduction and the tales 1-4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 25, I compared
the texts published by Aufrecht and by Pavolini, entering their
deviations in my variants. For the other tales my MS. was the
only basis of my edition, and I regret that a few passages cannot
satisfactorily be restored by its aid; cp. stories 8, 15, 19, and the
gaps mentioned above p. 2. The very faulty punctuation of MS.
has been emended throughout, and the very often neglected sandhi
has been restored wherever it did not seem evident to me that
the author intentionally neglected it. Spellings as the occasionally
occurring तकुत्वा and the very blunder ऽपरस्मिल्लोक°, which our
MS. has in story 276, at all events prove that the author was
well acquainted with the sandhi rules. As to orthography, our
MS. as almost all MSS. from Gujarat never writes , and never n
before a dental, or m in pausa. In these cases I follow my
MS. As my MS. is inconsistent with regard to the doubling of
consonants after r, to the replacing of by, and to the use
of the avagraha, I neither use the doubling nor the avagraha in
my text, and always write where it is etymologically correct.
II. Variants.
Introduction,
A(ufrecht, Oxford Catal. p. 155, No. 329).
1 A om. this line 2 MS I 8 A कुतुकात्; MS: लिख्यते कौ-
तकाकथा ॥ 4 MS om. सदापि
5 MS मूर्षजना [ना corr. to नमा]