2023-02-16 14:47:18 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
36
Ys
INTRODUCTION
-
www
Tanjore 10234.
Tanjore. The same caution applies as for Yr-6.
Nandināgarī
Nandinagarī palm-leaf collated against TiB at
T: The Telugu Group
But its
Version Ti Commentator Avanci Ramacandra [Budhendra], of the
Sandilya gotra, son of Kondopandita and Gangambika. The colophon of this
version agrees with that of the Campūrāmāyana, except that the father is
named in full as Dhanvantakodanda; but the Camphubharata commentator is
some other Ramacandra, In the commentary before us, Ramacandra mentions
other works of his such as the Śṛngārasṛngāṭaka. The commentary itself is the
most learned and imposing hitherto known for the Šatakatraya.
great popularity, proved by the many Telugu and Grantha editions । all copying
each other and out of print! as well as succession of devanägarī editions at the
NSP [ not to speak of direct borrowing, as in the current Bombay Venkateśvar
press edition and the Kanarese editions by Magadi Krsnaśästri and Dolbele
Nārāyaṇaśāstrī at Bangalore] has obliterated the original MS evidence. Though
I myself had to base the collation upon two printed editions, the ASP MSS
became available after several forms of my text were printed off.
Their study
shows conclusively that the commentary exists, even in quite old MSS, in
a short as well as an expanded version. The most plausible explanation is that
the commentator himself issued more than one edition as the popularity of his
work increased. All the ASP Ti MSS omit śakyo varayitum, which seems
to occur in all printed editions. The position of yenaivämbarakhandena [313]
is uncertain. Finally, the short comment contains all the essentials of the
longer. All these speak for more than one early redaction. One feature of this
version the omission of lajjam gaņaugha-[318], which is extra in W; it might
be noted that W contains the disputed salyo varayitum while it puts 318 at
the very end of N as an extra sloka. Moreover, there is a good reason for the
Maharastrian version W to have influenced Ramacandra, because the father's
name Kondo [sometimes misread Korido] is Maharastrian, not Telugu.
T₁A= the Grantha edition by Sättanur Visvanatha Sastri, Sastra
Sanjivini Press, Madras 1912. Copious misprints.
TIB the 7th devanagari Nirnaysagar odition, again full of an unusual
number of misprints, and contaminated at least as to the Sanskrit text with
stray readings. The major agreements between these two texts and their
commentaries were taken as the definitive Ti text. However ASP 1035,
palm-leaf Telugu of 65 folios, gives the complete text and commentary of N + Ś,
and is old, though well-preserved. As the cover folio contains the notice and
horoscope of a son born to someone in Šaka 1682, one feels justified in taking
the MS to be dated not later than A. D. 1760. I give below the major readings
from this MS wherever they differ from the Ti readings as accepted; also some
overlooked variants cited as such in the Ti commentary.
20 क्रिमिकुल'. 2° कपालार्पित 3°t तृष्णाश्रोतो. 7d झडिति. 11° The vi
जारवनिता. 192 ख्यापयंतः (for सन्ति सन्त: which is Tie. v.). 204 शरणार्थिन: 23d Tic. v.
द्यूतात् (for त्यागात् ).
विलासमेकम्
24 Tic.v. दुर्जनानां मतः 37° जनेन महिमा. 384 Tic.v.
39° मुले स्थितः. 45°
कार्यजालं.
the text but has full com. of this stanza.
620 वृद्धिमती च.
47° iffet (?). 50 ASP 1035 om.
संनिधि-
51° जना:- 53 d Tic.v. शीर्षावशेषीकृतः.
71d सततं ( for कुशलास्).
67° 0 वज्रमणीन्. 696 c.v. प्रागेव विस्मृत ?
c
Ys
INTRODUCTION
-
www
Tanjore 10234.
Tanjore. The same caution applies as for Yr-6.
Nandināgarī
Nandinagarī palm-leaf collated against TiB at
T: The Telugu Group
But its
Version Ti Commentator Avanci Ramacandra [Budhendra], of the
Sandilya gotra, son of Kondopandita and Gangambika. The colophon of this
version agrees with that of the Campūrāmāyana, except that the father is
named in full as Dhanvantakodanda; but the Camphubharata commentator is
some other Ramacandra, In the commentary before us, Ramacandra mentions
other works of his such as the Śṛngārasṛngāṭaka. The commentary itself is the
most learned and imposing hitherto known for the Šatakatraya.
great popularity, proved by the many Telugu and Grantha editions । all copying
each other and out of print! as well as succession of devanägarī editions at the
NSP [ not to speak of direct borrowing, as in the current Bombay Venkateśvar
press edition and the Kanarese editions by Magadi Krsnaśästri and Dolbele
Nārāyaṇaśāstrī at Bangalore] has obliterated the original MS evidence. Though
I myself had to base the collation upon two printed editions, the ASP MSS
became available after several forms of my text were printed off.
Their study
shows conclusively that the commentary exists, even in quite old MSS, in
a short as well as an expanded version. The most plausible explanation is that
the commentator himself issued more than one edition as the popularity of his
work increased. All the ASP Ti MSS omit śakyo varayitum, which seems
to occur in all printed editions. The position of yenaivämbarakhandena [313]
is uncertain. Finally, the short comment contains all the essentials of the
longer. All these speak for more than one early redaction. One feature of this
version the omission of lajjam gaņaugha-[318], which is extra in W; it might
be noted that W contains the disputed salyo varayitum while it puts 318 at
the very end of N as an extra sloka. Moreover, there is a good reason for the
Maharastrian version W to have influenced Ramacandra, because the father's
name Kondo [sometimes misread Korido] is Maharastrian, not Telugu.
T₁A= the Grantha edition by Sättanur Visvanatha Sastri, Sastra
Sanjivini Press, Madras 1912. Copious misprints.
TIB the 7th devanagari Nirnaysagar odition, again full of an unusual
number of misprints, and contaminated at least as to the Sanskrit text with
stray readings. The major agreements between these two texts and their
commentaries were taken as the definitive Ti text. However ASP 1035,
palm-leaf Telugu of 65 folios, gives the complete text and commentary of N + Ś,
and is old, though well-preserved. As the cover folio contains the notice and
horoscope of a son born to someone in Šaka 1682, one feels justified in taking
the MS to be dated not later than A. D. 1760. I give below the major readings
from this MS wherever they differ from the Ti readings as accepted; also some
overlooked variants cited as such in the Ti commentary.
20 क्रिमिकुल'. 2° कपालार्पित 3°t तृष्णाश्रोतो. 7d झडिति. 11° The vi
जारवनिता. 192 ख्यापयंतः (for सन्ति सन्त: which is Tie. v.). 204 शरणार्थिन: 23d Tic. v.
द्यूतात् (for त्यागात् ).
विलासमेकम्
24 Tic.v. दुर्जनानां मतः 37° जनेन महिमा. 384 Tic.v.
39° मुले स्थितः. 45°
कार्यजालं.
the text but has full com. of this stanza.
620 वृद्धिमती च.
47° iffet (?). 50 ASP 1035 om.
संनिधि-
51° जना:- 53 d Tic.v. शीर्षावशेषीकृतः.
71d सततं ( for कुशलास्).
67° 0 वज्रमणीन्. 696 c.v. प्रागेव विस्मृत ?
c