2023-02-16 14:47:29 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
64
INTRODUCTION
inserted on margins or just before or after colophons [which occa-
sionally slip into the following sataka] and frequent additions in the
main body of the text proper. Had there been some clearly visible unclear
portion to which all the rest could be treated as additions, the critical
problem would find an immediate solution. Unfortunately, as far as can
be seen, this process of inflation is quite general, and the common portion
does not occur in the same order. That the major differences are due to
addition, not omission, is supported by the increasing divergence of N versions
in the chart as one nears the end of any śataka. The obvious principle-that
of suspecting large numbers in any Century-cannot be applied directly
because of the tendency to preserve the original ending, and additions by
similitude. One conclusion is that the collection could not have been
promulgated by the author in any such form, and that the work is some
sort of an an anthology, not by Bhartrhari, but by later editors who believed
they were gathering together Bhartrhari slokas. It might seem, therefore,
that a stanza being omitted from a single codex would be prima facic evidence
of its being spurious, or at least a later addition.
Unfortunately, this
is not true, as there is sometimes omission by inadvertence, particularly
when the scribe is copying an unfamiliar text. The first step, therefore,
is to see whether an omission can be explained. This is best done when
it occurs in some individual MS. of an established version, while the general
MSS. of that version include the stanza. Thus, the well determined versions
occupy a specially important position in the critical apparatus. We are
safe in stating that no importance should be attached to the omission of
194 in As or 110 in W3. Then there are other cases where one can
see quite clearly omissions which must be due to the copying of lacunary
exemplars. Bikaner 3281, for example, omits $ 11-19 with the numbers.
GVS 2387 has dropped something like ten consecutive stanzas around
V30, NS1 an unknown number at the end, HU 1387 some at the end of
every śataka, and Bikaner 3279 about 19 in the first quarter of Nīti;
each of these, except the first, shows no gaps in the numbering, but parallel
MSS of the archetype make it amply clear that the disturbance must be
due to missing folios in the originals from which these are copied. One
such large gap is shown in F's at $90. It is not clear whether the process
might not have worked in reverse, and many consecutive extra stanzas
in texts like ISM Kalamkar 195 might not have come from some intruding
folio, as in RASB 11030 whose initial folio has strayed from the Siddhanta
Kaumudī, unnoticed because of identical size and calligraphy. Some unplaced
stanzas, like 1, are omitted in composite sources which copy their satakas
from different versions or recensions. But no amount of such juggling
can serve to explain any considerable portion of the omissions.
There are other types of omissions which do not arise from such
defects in the mechanism of transmission. In particular, we have a certain
number of paraphrases in our text. Perhaps the most striking is 291 in
mandākrāntā metre for 190 in śārdūlavikrīḍita, substituted in F3.5, BU,
HU 2145, PU 496, Bikaner 3280; and given besides the other in some
other northern MSS with Mahārāṣṭrian influence. Similarly for 145*244,
and 129 205. Stanza 34 is so closely approximate by malatīkusu mas [650]
INTRODUCTION
inserted on margins or just before or after colophons [which occa-
sionally slip into the following sataka] and frequent additions in the
main body of the text proper. Had there been some clearly visible unclear
portion to which all the rest could be treated as additions, the critical
problem would find an immediate solution. Unfortunately, as far as can
be seen, this process of inflation is quite general, and the common portion
does not occur in the same order. That the major differences are due to
addition, not omission, is supported by the increasing divergence of N versions
in the chart as one nears the end of any śataka. The obvious principle-that
of suspecting large numbers in any Century-cannot be applied directly
because of the tendency to preserve the original ending, and additions by
similitude. One conclusion is that the collection could not have been
promulgated by the author in any such form, and that the work is some
sort of an an anthology, not by Bhartrhari, but by later editors who believed
they were gathering together Bhartrhari slokas. It might seem, therefore,
that a stanza being omitted from a single codex would be prima facic evidence
of its being spurious, or at least a later addition.
Unfortunately, this
is not true, as there is sometimes omission by inadvertence, particularly
when the scribe is copying an unfamiliar text. The first step, therefore,
is to see whether an omission can be explained. This is best done when
it occurs in some individual MS. of an established version, while the general
MSS. of that version include the stanza. Thus, the well determined versions
occupy a specially important position in the critical apparatus. We are
safe in stating that no importance should be attached to the omission of
194 in As or 110 in W3. Then there are other cases where one can
see quite clearly omissions which must be due to the copying of lacunary
exemplars. Bikaner 3281, for example, omits $ 11-19 with the numbers.
GVS 2387 has dropped something like ten consecutive stanzas around
V30, NS1 an unknown number at the end, HU 1387 some at the end of
every śataka, and Bikaner 3279 about 19 in the first quarter of Nīti;
each of these, except the first, shows no gaps in the numbering, but parallel
MSS of the archetype make it amply clear that the disturbance must be
due to missing folios in the originals from which these are copied. One
such large gap is shown in F's at $90. It is not clear whether the process
might not have worked in reverse, and many consecutive extra stanzas
in texts like ISM Kalamkar 195 might not have come from some intruding
folio, as in RASB 11030 whose initial folio has strayed from the Siddhanta
Kaumudī, unnoticed because of identical size and calligraphy. Some unplaced
stanzas, like 1, are omitted in composite sources which copy their satakas
from different versions or recensions. But no amount of such juggling
can serve to explain any considerable portion of the omissions.
There are other types of omissions which do not arise from such
defects in the mechanism of transmission. In particular, we have a certain
number of paraphrases in our text. Perhaps the most striking is 291 in
mandākrāntā metre for 190 in śārdūlavikrīḍita, substituted in F3.5, BU,
HU 2145, PU 496, Bikaner 3280; and given besides the other in some
other northern MSS with Mahārāṣṭrian influence. Similarly for 145*244,
and 129 205. Stanza 34 is so closely approximate by malatīkusu mas [650]