2023-02-16 14:47:07 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
EDITOR'S PREFACE
for N and S, the Harilal type of vairūgya seems to have established itself.
Northern editions such as that of Durgadatta Pandita at the Benares Light
Press in 1874 [IO Verne tracts 1471; and 1601 of year 1878] modify the com-
mentary, 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 Lakṣminārāyaṇa Press, Moradabad 1911,
with slight changes [10 5. I. 4]. This effortless type of edition is by far the
commonest to the present day.
7
Modern times. Serious attempts on the Bhartrhari problem may be
said to begin with K. T. Telang's edition of 1893 at Bombay. This followed
the lithographed editions which succoed Harilal, 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 edi-
tions published in widely separated places like Bombay and Calcutta that
further investigation 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, some 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 univer-
sally current in the south", particularly as it includes śakyo 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 used, though gonerally unconvincing for lack of a critical
basis. While Telang's scholarship, proved in several studies and translations,
was of a higher order than Bohlen's, he could still take exception to Ramarṣi's
gloss on 151 unmattabhūtam = unmatlatulyam as "quite unnecessary and
without authority"; yet this sense of the word is given by our lexica.
To mention only one other edition, that of Purohit Gopi Nath is still
available [in the second edition of 1914; Bombay, Venkatesvar Press]. This
is confessedly eclectic; emphasis is laid upon interpretation and appreciation of
Bhartrhari - unfortunately in a most risible idiom. The Hindi translation is
less objectionable than the English, though suffering as usual from disregard
of the actual text in favour of preconceptions of what the post intended to
convey. The text itself, though a mere copy of its predecessors, is distinguish-
ed by its curious orthography. The prefice, parallel stanzas, 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 Pañcatantra and the
Nitisataka 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 means nothing. That the Nitisataka 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
for N and S, the Harilal type of vairūgya seems to have established itself.
Northern editions such as that of Durgadatta Pandita at the Benares Light
Press in 1874 [IO Verne tracts 1471; and 1601 of year 1878] modify the com-
mentary, 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 Lakṣminārāyaṇa Press, Moradabad 1911,
with slight changes [10 5. I. 4]. This effortless type of edition is by far the
commonest to the present day.
7
Modern times. Serious attempts on the Bhartrhari problem may be
said to begin with K. T. Telang's edition of 1893 at Bombay. This followed
the lithographed editions which succoed Harilal, 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 edi-
tions published in widely separated places like Bombay and Calcutta that
further investigation 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, some 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 univer-
sally current in the south", particularly as it includes śakyo 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 used, though gonerally unconvincing for lack of a critical
basis. While Telang's scholarship, proved in several studies and translations,
was of a higher order than Bohlen's, he could still take exception to Ramarṣi's
gloss on 151 unmattabhūtam = unmatlatulyam as "quite unnecessary and
without authority"; yet this sense of the word is given by our lexica.
To mention only one other edition, that of Purohit Gopi Nath is still
available [in the second edition of 1914; Bombay, Venkatesvar Press]. This
is confessedly eclectic; emphasis is laid upon interpretation and appreciation of
Bhartrhari - unfortunately in a most risible idiom. The Hindi translation is
less objectionable than the English, though suffering as usual from disregard
of the actual text in favour of preconceptions of what the post intended to
convey. The text itself, though a mere copy of its predecessors, is distinguish-
ed by its curious orthography. The prefice, parallel stanzas, 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 Pañcatantra and the
Nitisataka 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 means nothing. That the Nitisataka 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