2023-02-23 18:48:20 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
20
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
verted the king (Harṣa ?), who was beguiled by the sorceries of
Bāṇa and Mayūra, at Vāṇārasī, by the Bhaktämarastavana."¹
So much for the source of the story.
The four versions of the Jaina tale. The story itself, in more
lengthened form, and with variations of detail, is found in several
accessible places, but I have, unfortunately, been unable to secure
a complete text. Fitzedward Hall, as early as the middle of the
last century, gave a summary of the tale as found by him in an
anonymous commentary on Mänatunga's Bhaktämarastotra.
Hall must also be credited with the discovery of a second
version of the story, found in a second anonymous commentary
on the Bhaktamarastotra, and partly translated by Bühler in
the Indian Antiquary. A third version is supplied by Madhu-
südana's commentary on the Süryaśataka of Mayūra, from
which we have already quoted above (p. 6), and still a fourth
is contained in the Prabandhacintämani of Merutunga, trans-
lated by Tawney." I shall submit first the account found in
Hall's second anonymous commentary on the Bhaktāmarastotra,
as translated by Bühler, then point out its principal variations
from the first and third versions, and conclude by giving the
account contained in the Prabandhacintamani. Though Hall's
second commentary is anonymous, Bühler has concluded, on the
1 Klatt, in IA, vol. 11, p. 252, no. 20.
2 F. Hall, Vasavadatta, introd., p. 7-8, note, Calcutta, 1859.
& C. Bendall, in his Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the British
Museum, p. 101, London, 1902, is wrong in making Merutunga the author
of this anonymous commentary. Had he read Hall's account (see note
preceding), and compared it with that of Merutunga, which is given in the
Prabandhacintamani (p. 64-66 of the translation by C. H. Tawney, Cal-
cutta, 1901), he must have noted striking differences in detail.
* F. Hall, Vasavadatta, introd., p. 49. Part of this commentary is given,
in transliterated text, by Weber, Verzeichniss Skt. HSS zu Berlin, Bd. 2,
Abth. 3, S. 939, No. 1969.
5 Bühler, On the Chandikaśataka of Baṇabhaṭṭa, in IA, vol. 1 (1872),
p. 111-115.
Bühler, On the Authorship of the Ratnavali, in IA, vol. 2 (1873), p.
127-128.
7 C. H. Tawney, p. 64-66, Calcutta, 1901.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
verted the king (Harṣa ?), who was beguiled by the sorceries of
Bāṇa and Mayūra, at Vāṇārasī, by the Bhaktämarastavana."¹
So much for the source of the story.
The four versions of the Jaina tale. The story itself, in more
lengthened form, and with variations of detail, is found in several
accessible places, but I have, unfortunately, been unable to secure
a complete text. Fitzedward Hall, as early as the middle of the
last century, gave a summary of the tale as found by him in an
anonymous commentary on Mänatunga's Bhaktämarastotra.
Hall must also be credited with the discovery of a second
version of the story, found in a second anonymous commentary
on the Bhaktamarastotra, and partly translated by Bühler in
the Indian Antiquary. A third version is supplied by Madhu-
südana's commentary on the Süryaśataka of Mayūra, from
which we have already quoted above (p. 6), and still a fourth
is contained in the Prabandhacintämani of Merutunga, trans-
lated by Tawney." I shall submit first the account found in
Hall's second anonymous commentary on the Bhaktāmarastotra,
as translated by Bühler, then point out its principal variations
from the first and third versions, and conclude by giving the
account contained in the Prabandhacintamani. Though Hall's
second commentary is anonymous, Bühler has concluded, on the
1 Klatt, in IA, vol. 11, p. 252, no. 20.
2 F. Hall, Vasavadatta, introd., p. 7-8, note, Calcutta, 1859.
& C. Bendall, in his Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the British
Museum, p. 101, London, 1902, is wrong in making Merutunga the author
of this anonymous commentary. Had he read Hall's account (see note
preceding), and compared it with that of Merutunga, which is given in the
Prabandhacintamani (p. 64-66 of the translation by C. H. Tawney, Cal-
cutta, 1901), he must have noted striking differences in detail.
* F. Hall, Vasavadatta, introd., p. 49. Part of this commentary is given,
in transliterated text, by Weber, Verzeichniss Skt. HSS zu Berlin, Bd. 2,
Abth. 3, S. 939, No. 1969.
5 Bühler, On the Chandikaśataka of Baṇabhaṭṭa, in IA, vol. 1 (1872),
p. 111-115.
Bühler, On the Authorship of the Ratnavali, in IA, vol. 2 (1873), p.
127-128.
7 C. H. Tawney, p. 64-66, Calcutta, 1901.