2023-02-16 14:47:28 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
57.
INTRODUCTION
that the MS tradition originates in Rajasthan, and this is borne out by
what we know of Bhartrhari from legends. Considering the importance
which recensions from Kaśmir, Bengal, and Nepal possess for editing works
like the Mahabharata, I submit the following evidence for the non-existenco
of local versions in these provinces.
2. 2. Saradā-Kas'miri. No Särada MS of Bhartrhari's śatakas has
been reported anywhere. No complete Satakatraya MS in Kaśmiri has
been reported in any accessible catalogue. Individual satakas are, however
scarce, reported IO 7210 is a vairāgya-śataka of A.D. 1850 copied by a
Kaśmirian pandit Ramaratna. Aurel Stein's catalogue [Bombay NSP 1894]
records flve MSS of Bhartrhari's śatakas, of which 559 and 4016 are of
the V in modern Kaśmiri, the latter with a Hindi commentary; 980 and
1037 are again of the same sataka, dated samvat 1875 and 1892 respectively.
No. 229 is of the Niti. No MS of the complete satakatraya has been reported
from any source in Kaśmir, in spite of several inquiries. This is in
striking contrast to the wealth of Bhartrhari MSS from Rajputana state
collections of comparable standing, or to the old and indispensable MSS of
other works found in Kasmir-Jammu. It is worth noting that the
grammarian Bhartṛhari, author of the Vakyapadiya, was higly regarded
and studied in Kasmir.
The supplementary evidence is that the Kaśmirian Abhinavagupta
[1000 A. D.] knows only of the grammarian Bhartrhari, and seems never
to have heard of the poet. Nevertheless, the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavar-
dhana (Kaśmirian of the 9th century) contains the stanza smitam kincid
[my 93] without attribution to any author. In the 11th century, Kṣemendra
does cite a poet Bhartrhari by name but he gives as others' slokas which
are as genuine Bhartṛhari as any (2 to Candraka, 155 to Parivrajaka, 179*
to Dipaka, 213 to Utpalaraja) at least by the canon adopted in this edition.
The Kaśmirian anthologies, the Särigadharapaddhati [1363 A. D.] and
the [15 th cent.] Subkäsitavali of Vallabhadeva [or Srivara according
to BORI 203 and 204 of 1875-76] are more generous. But in such
cases we do not know what portion of the ascriptions is due to the
anthologist and which to later copyists. Bohtlingk found that MSS of
the Sp. differed considerably in giving authors for the same verse. The
evidence thus points to a late importation of and a slowly growing taste
for Bhartrhari in Kasmir.
2.3. Nepal, Mithila, Bengal. The sole MS reported in Nepal belongs
to the southernmost archetype. In Mithila, K. P. Jayaswal's "Descriptive
Catalogue" [Patna 1933] vol. II reports only three Bhartrhari MSS in
the Kavya secton: p. 69, no. 65 of the Niti in Maithili characters; p. 104,
no. 101 described merely as a Bhatrhariśataka, but may be a [complete?]
MS of the southern version Y-the problem is here complicated by the
reported owners, the Chitradhără Library, denying that they have any MS of
Bhartṛhari at all. The last is. p. 160-1, no. 156, presumably of a vairāgya.
Śāntiniketan has, apparently, two MSS of Bhartṛhari of which one is a
badly wormeaten Grantha palm-leaf, and the other a devanagarī paper
Nitisataka. Of the 16 MSS at the RASB [Cat. VII nos. 5097-5111 and
8 भ. सु.
INTRODUCTION
that the MS tradition originates in Rajasthan, and this is borne out by
what we know of Bhartrhari from legends. Considering the importance
which recensions from Kaśmir, Bengal, and Nepal possess for editing works
like the Mahabharata, I submit the following evidence for the non-existenco
of local versions in these provinces.
2. 2. Saradā-Kas'miri. No Särada MS of Bhartrhari's śatakas has
been reported anywhere. No complete Satakatraya MS in Kaśmiri has
been reported in any accessible catalogue. Individual satakas are, however
scarce, reported IO 7210 is a vairāgya-śataka of A.D. 1850 copied by a
Kaśmirian pandit Ramaratna. Aurel Stein's catalogue [Bombay NSP 1894]
records flve MSS of Bhartrhari's śatakas, of which 559 and 4016 are of
the V in modern Kaśmiri, the latter with a Hindi commentary; 980 and
1037 are again of the same sataka, dated samvat 1875 and 1892 respectively.
No. 229 is of the Niti. No MS of the complete satakatraya has been reported
from any source in Kaśmir, in spite of several inquiries. This is in
striking contrast to the wealth of Bhartrhari MSS from Rajputana state
collections of comparable standing, or to the old and indispensable MSS of
other works found in Kasmir-Jammu. It is worth noting that the
grammarian Bhartṛhari, author of the Vakyapadiya, was higly regarded
and studied in Kasmir.
The supplementary evidence is that the Kaśmirian Abhinavagupta
[1000 A. D.] knows only of the grammarian Bhartrhari, and seems never
to have heard of the poet. Nevertheless, the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavar-
dhana (Kaśmirian of the 9th century) contains the stanza smitam kincid
[my 93] without attribution to any author. In the 11th century, Kṣemendra
does cite a poet Bhartrhari by name but he gives as others' slokas which
are as genuine Bhartṛhari as any (2 to Candraka, 155 to Parivrajaka, 179*
to Dipaka, 213 to Utpalaraja) at least by the canon adopted in this edition.
The Kaśmirian anthologies, the Särigadharapaddhati [1363 A. D.] and
the [15 th cent.] Subkäsitavali of Vallabhadeva [or Srivara according
to BORI 203 and 204 of 1875-76] are more generous. But in such
cases we do not know what portion of the ascriptions is due to the
anthologist and which to later copyists. Bohtlingk found that MSS of
the Sp. differed considerably in giving authors for the same verse. The
evidence thus points to a late importation of and a slowly growing taste
for Bhartrhari in Kasmir.
2.3. Nepal, Mithila, Bengal. The sole MS reported in Nepal belongs
to the southernmost archetype. In Mithila, K. P. Jayaswal's "Descriptive
Catalogue" [Patna 1933] vol. II reports only three Bhartrhari MSS in
the Kavya secton: p. 69, no. 65 of the Niti in Maithili characters; p. 104,
no. 101 described merely as a Bhatrhariśataka, but may be a [complete?]
MS of the southern version Y-the problem is here complicated by the
reported owners, the Chitradhără Library, denying that they have any MS of
Bhartṛhari at all. The last is. p. 160-1, no. 156, presumably of a vairāgya.
Śāntiniketan has, apparently, two MSS of Bhartṛhari of which one is a
badly wormeaten Grantha palm-leaf, and the other a devanagarī paper
Nitisataka. Of the 16 MSS at the RASB [Cat. VII nos. 5097-5111 and
8 भ. सु.