2023-02-16 14:49:44 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
INTRODUCTION
73
determine "the" text but also to give some idea of the variation, mislections
of this sort have been reported whenever they occurred in exceptionally good
MSS, or tended to show possible relationship between MSS, or were frequent
enough to show a general tendency to error, or when they made some meaning,
however fantastic, or when the original could not be determined unambiguous-
ly. It must be admitted that a good many of these serve no immediately
useful purpose besides swelling the critical apparatus, but a few were comic
enough to relieve the otherwise intolerable tedium of collation, like thojanam
sadgatīnām [100], grāhamayīva [132] and nu dahati pūvakaḥ which ruins
both metre and meaning in 60% though given in an excellent codex, A3.
Possibly, some might one day be of interest to psychoanalysts. Mahārāṣṭrian
scribes generally confuse length in i, i, u, u, besides scattering their anusvāras
and visargas as an afterthought, much in the way of seasoning, at random.
The Gujarati and south Rajasthani scribes insert the anusvara on a syllable
preceding a nasal consonant. In the Dravidian codices, the tendency to use la
for la is generally intensified while those in the extreme south often reverse
the northern bias, replacing sa by sa. These mistakes are passed over
without mention, like the common interchange ta-tha.
Not reported also are permissible variants of sandhi. N MSS except
J, and some of the Nandinagari MSS of S generally double the consonant join-
ed to a preceding r: märgga, written liko mārgra in Jaina nāgarī; varṇņa,
with the duplicated nn shown by crossing diagonally; nirddhana, etc. Even
commoner, in all MSS except VSP, is the use of the anusvūra for the
parasavarna, which we have corrected here. Finally, some difficulty arises
because of our compromise orthography which treats each pada as a unit
and separates consonants that come together by samdhi alone without a
proper compund, except the ". This means that I have committed myself
in some ambiguous cases to a definite opinion as to the existence of a
compound, without being really certain as to the poet's intention. The
reader is at liberty to choose his own interpretation. Let it be emphasized,
also, that there has never been any question of reporting all possible
variants from every MS inspected.
4.3. Methods for determining the readings. Some of the variants of
types reported above make little difference to the actual text, even when
they cannot be eliminated. A single anusvära, easily added or erased,
separates the singular yatyäpadah from the plural yäntyäpaduḥ in 39% or
yati from yanti in 226%. Whether 119 should begin udvṛttah stana-in
place of udvṛttastana-, or 1526 have galal-trutyad for galatrutyad, or whether
there should be a visarga at the end of 1226 to improve the sense
almost matters of individual taste. Clearly, some general principles are
necessary which not only apply here but in cases where the causes of
variation go much deeper, giving decidedly more serious variants. I do
not mean the highly individualistic emendations that occur in rare MSS
like Punjab 2885 or Bikaner 3275, which may safely be ignored, but variants to
which new MSS add new readings and which must therefore be treated
as arising from some essential difficulties.
At the outset, let us prove two general principles of text-criticism,
which apply to our material. The first is that rigid Papinian rules do
10 भ. सु.
73
determine "the" text but also to give some idea of the variation, mislections
of this sort have been reported whenever they occurred in exceptionally good
MSS, or tended to show possible relationship between MSS, or were frequent
enough to show a general tendency to error, or when they made some meaning,
however fantastic, or when the original could not be determined unambiguous-
ly. It must be admitted that a good many of these serve no immediately
useful purpose besides swelling the critical apparatus, but a few were comic
enough to relieve the otherwise intolerable tedium of collation, like thojanam
sadgatīnām [100], grāhamayīva [132] and nu dahati pūvakaḥ which ruins
both metre and meaning in 60% though given in an excellent codex, A3.
Possibly, some might one day be of interest to psychoanalysts. Mahārāṣṭrian
scribes generally confuse length in i, i, u, u, besides scattering their anusvāras
and visargas as an afterthought, much in the way of seasoning, at random.
The Gujarati and south Rajasthani scribes insert the anusvara on a syllable
preceding a nasal consonant. In the Dravidian codices, the tendency to use la
for la is generally intensified while those in the extreme south often reverse
the northern bias, replacing sa by sa. These mistakes are passed over
without mention, like the common interchange ta-tha.
Not reported also are permissible variants of sandhi. N MSS except
J, and some of the Nandinagari MSS of S generally double the consonant join-
ed to a preceding r: märgga, written liko mārgra in Jaina nāgarī; varṇņa,
with the duplicated nn shown by crossing diagonally; nirddhana, etc. Even
commoner, in all MSS except VSP, is the use of the anusvūra for the
parasavarna, which we have corrected here. Finally, some difficulty arises
because of our compromise orthography which treats each pada as a unit
and separates consonants that come together by samdhi alone without a
proper compund, except the ". This means that I have committed myself
in some ambiguous cases to a definite opinion as to the existence of a
compound, without being really certain as to the poet's intention. The
reader is at liberty to choose his own interpretation. Let it be emphasized,
also, that there has never been any question of reporting all possible
variants from every MS inspected.
4.3. Methods for determining the readings. Some of the variants of
types reported above make little difference to the actual text, even when
they cannot be eliminated. A single anusvära, easily added or erased,
separates the singular yatyäpadah from the plural yäntyäpaduḥ in 39% or
yati from yanti in 226%. Whether 119 should begin udvṛttah stana-in
place of udvṛttastana-, or 1526 have galal-trutyad for galatrutyad, or whether
there should be a visarga at the end of 1226 to improve the sense
almost matters of individual taste. Clearly, some general principles are
necessary which not only apply here but in cases where the causes of
variation go much deeper, giving decidedly more serious variants. I do
not mean the highly individualistic emendations that occur in rare MSS
like Punjab 2885 or Bikaner 3275, which may safely be ignored, but variants to
which new MSS add new readings and which must therefore be treated
as arising from some essential difficulties.
At the outset, let us prove two general principles of text-criticism,
which apply to our material. The first is that rigid Papinian rules do
10 भ. सु.