2023-02-16 14:49:04 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
69
last to be examined were the Limbdi MSS. Of these, Lim 885/1 bears signs of
W influence, but telescopes ślokas, particularly in , so that a certain amount of
doubt might attach to its omissions; also, there is no apparent reason for some
strange transposition as of 306 to the end of V [ -- 105], 184* = V 103. The
order is V-S-N. Notable omissions are of 132*, 215, 271, 274, 287* [which
places this in the comparatively rare archetype beta], 171, 315, 130, 348.
Lim 1485, with its superb calligraphy gives 19 extra ślokas after V, showing
acquaintance with foreign versions including W, while the S is strongly
influenced by B. Some of the omissions class it with BVB 5. We find
176* omitted altogether, 36 given on the margin of N, but indicated as a
V stanza, and actually placed as V 42; 188* is extra 5, 184* is followed
immediately by its alternative 451 as V 60, 61 respectively, which happens
often in Gujarat; finally, 256 comes as the last of Ś, i. e. $ 113, perhaps by
transposition of the colophon, though it might also indicate later addition of
the stanza. Other omissions are 278, 304, 308, 315, 325, 334, which
strengthens the case for shifting all these to group II, while the placing of
311 as S 35 shows both the spuriousness of the stanza as well as the originality
of the redactor. Limbdi 930/39, with its minusculo writing which completes
all three satakas in less that five folios, belongs to version Q.
INTRODUCTION
Still later to arrive was the Udaipur evidence. No. 1486, of archetype
beta, omits stanzas 207, 213, 218, 99*, 179*, 278, 282, 300, 314, and 75, while
repeating 256 as 1 and V1, with 349 as S 103(104) and S 86(87); to what
extent these are due to an attempt to match the Rana Pratāp translation is
clear, but in all probability, the Sanskrit is completo. Udaipur 1650 omits
stanzas 38*, 46, 47, 111, and 300, transposing 343 to VSI; its Ś has a greatly
changed order, paralleled very closely by Punjab 2101, BORI 329 Jodhpur 4.
Finally, Udaipur 1748 and its copy 712 omit stanzas 149, 180*, 234[ inserted
after the colophon as extra in 1748], 161, 292, 293, 297, and 349; stanza 278
is repeated as V 78 and V 105. This pair of MSS forms an ancicut version Q
with Limbdi 930/39, so that we are constrained to remove 149 and 161 to
group II.
1
Omission
Of the three old, complete Ham MSS (with pṛṣṭhamātrās) of archetype
beta, no. 874 dated 1719 A. D. has undergone a peculiar redaction, heading
every śataka with the mañgalācaraṇa 256, excluding 1 altogether.
of 257, 318, besides 208, 218, 232, 234, 260, 261, 278, 282, 283, 338, 242 proves
influence by W or some parallel version; group I omissions are 1, 13, 38, 97, 115,
168 of which 38 seems important enough, in conjunction with the foregoing, for
removal to group II. The second Ham MS, without number, omits 97, 126,
143, 194, 248, 278, 290, 301; the common omission of 97 with its predecessor
need not be taken seriously enough for a star. More important because of
its great age is the Pratiṣṭhāsomagani codex, for it shows the archetype to have
'been still unstable in A.D. 1444. Some important omissions are 82, 103, 130, 210,
215, 271, 274, 348. There is no doubt at all, on comparison, that this has a
near ancestor in common with Lim 885/1, though there is variation enough to
prevent the exact version being accurately determined. In any case, 130 must
go to group II, while the omission of 82, not confirmed by the Limbdi MS,
may be taken as excusable, seeing that it was at time regarded as a N sloka.
The inclusions are also unusual in position: 458=$76, 702=884, 751=S96,
last to be examined were the Limbdi MSS. Of these, Lim 885/1 bears signs of
W influence, but telescopes ślokas, particularly in , so that a certain amount of
doubt might attach to its omissions; also, there is no apparent reason for some
strange transposition as of 306 to the end of V [ -- 105], 184* = V 103. The
order is V-S-N. Notable omissions are of 132*, 215, 271, 274, 287* [which
places this in the comparatively rare archetype beta], 171, 315, 130, 348.
Lim 1485, with its superb calligraphy gives 19 extra ślokas after V, showing
acquaintance with foreign versions including W, while the S is strongly
influenced by B. Some of the omissions class it with BVB 5. We find
176* omitted altogether, 36 given on the margin of N, but indicated as a
V stanza, and actually placed as V 42; 188* is extra 5, 184* is followed
immediately by its alternative 451 as V 60, 61 respectively, which happens
often in Gujarat; finally, 256 comes as the last of Ś, i. e. $ 113, perhaps by
transposition of the colophon, though it might also indicate later addition of
the stanza. Other omissions are 278, 304, 308, 315, 325, 334, which
strengthens the case for shifting all these to group II, while the placing of
311 as S 35 shows both the spuriousness of the stanza as well as the originality
of the redactor. Limbdi 930/39, with its minusculo writing which completes
all three satakas in less that five folios, belongs to version Q.
INTRODUCTION
Still later to arrive was the Udaipur evidence. No. 1486, of archetype
beta, omits stanzas 207, 213, 218, 99*, 179*, 278, 282, 300, 314, and 75, while
repeating 256 as 1 and V1, with 349 as S 103(104) and S 86(87); to what
extent these are due to an attempt to match the Rana Pratāp translation is
clear, but in all probability, the Sanskrit is completo. Udaipur 1650 omits
stanzas 38*, 46, 47, 111, and 300, transposing 343 to VSI; its Ś has a greatly
changed order, paralleled very closely by Punjab 2101, BORI 329 Jodhpur 4.
Finally, Udaipur 1748 and its copy 712 omit stanzas 149, 180*, 234[ inserted
after the colophon as extra in 1748], 161, 292, 293, 297, and 349; stanza 278
is repeated as V 78 and V 105. This pair of MSS forms an ancicut version Q
with Limbdi 930/39, so that we are constrained to remove 149 and 161 to
group II.
1
Omission
Of the three old, complete Ham MSS (with pṛṣṭhamātrās) of archetype
beta, no. 874 dated 1719 A. D. has undergone a peculiar redaction, heading
every śataka with the mañgalācaraṇa 256, excluding 1 altogether.
of 257, 318, besides 208, 218, 232, 234, 260, 261, 278, 282, 283, 338, 242 proves
influence by W or some parallel version; group I omissions are 1, 13, 38, 97, 115,
168 of which 38 seems important enough, in conjunction with the foregoing, for
removal to group II. The second Ham MS, without number, omits 97, 126,
143, 194, 248, 278, 290, 301; the common omission of 97 with its predecessor
need not be taken seriously enough for a star. More important because of
its great age is the Pratiṣṭhāsomagani codex, for it shows the archetype to have
'been still unstable in A.D. 1444. Some important omissions are 82, 103, 130, 210,
215, 271, 274, 348. There is no doubt at all, on comparison, that this has a
near ancestor in common with Lim 885/1, though there is variation enough to
prevent the exact version being accurately determined. In any case, 130 must
go to group II, while the omission of 82, not confirmed by the Limbdi MS,
may be taken as excusable, seeing that it was at time regarded as a N sloka.
The inclusions are also unusual in position: 458=$76, 702=884, 751=S96,