Critical Studies in the Mahabharata (V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I) c7.s2.t2: Major Questions

Critical Studies in the Mahābhārata (V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I) c7.s2.t2

Language: English

Major Questions

c7.s2.t2.1

1. 1. 129 : *yadāśrauṣaṃ Śukrasūryau ca yuktau* *Kaunteyānām anulomau jayāya |* *nityaṃ cāsmāñ śvāpadā vyābhaṣantas* *tadā nāśamse vijayāya Saṃjaya ||*

This is indeed a difficult case, and I for my part doubt whether any definite decision can be reached as to how the stanza originally read. I must say, I cannot share the confidence with which WINTERNITZ decides for the reading :

c7.s2.t2.3

*yadā Vāyuḥ Śakrasūryau ca yuktau,*

c7.s2.t2.4

which is mentioned as a pāṭha by Nīlakaṇṭha and was adopted in the *editio princeps*. It is one of the eight rival readings and is found chiefly in the Bangālī version, and in MSS. and editions allied to or influenced by it. The combinations found [172] in the different MSS. may be arranged schematically as follows :

c7.s2.t2.5

c7.s2.t2.6

According to WINTERNITZ, the stanza refers to (B.) 7. 7. 34 ff. “where the line *vātoddhūtaṃ rajas tīvram* etc., also testifies to the reading *vāyuḥ*, while *śakra* (= Indra) probably refers to the rain of pieces of flesh, bones and blood.” To start with I doubt whether Śakra could be held responsible for the “rain” of flesh, bones, and sundry other articles ; but that is a minor point, immaterial to the present discussion. In believing, however, that our stanza refers to (B.) 7. 7. 34 ff., WINTERNITZ is partly mistaken, as will presently appear. The important point is that in the opinion of WINTERNITZ the stanza alludes to certain forces of Nature, certain elements, such as wind, rain and so on, which were favourable to the Pāṇḍavas and unfavourable to the Kauravas. The commentators Nīlakaṇṭha, Arjunamiśra and Devabodha (with the readings which they had adopted or which were before them) have explained the stanza in a similar way. I hold a different view, however. When I selected the reading of the constituted text, I thought—and I still think—that in this stanza there is allusion not to the elements, but to some *astrological* factor or constellation—an allusion which was not understood by commentators and which I could not then fully explain. On reading the criticism of Prof. WINTERNITZ, I therefore made a reference to my friend Prof. Jyotish Chandra GHATAK, M. A., of Calcutta University, who has made a special study of Indian Astrology and allied sciences and is rightly regarded as an authority on these topics ; and I was not disappointed. Having already worked through the whole of the Mahābhārata in special search of references which have a bearing on Astrology, Augury and kindred subjects, he could at once lay his fingers on the right passage, the prototype of our stanza, which throws a flood of light on the question, without however fully solving the riddle of the stanza, so far as I can judge. The said stanza, (B.) 6. 20. 2, reads :

c7.s2.t2.7

[173] [Dhṛtarāṣṭra to Saṃjaya] केषां जघन्यौ सोमसूर्यो सवायू केषां सेनां श्वापदा व्याभषन्त । केषां यूनां मुखवर्णाः प्रसन्नाः सर्वं एतद ब्रूहि तत्त्वं यथावत् ॥

c7.s2.t2.8

While the connection between the two stanzas is patent and indeed unquestionable, the discovery of the prototype leaves, unfortunately, most of our real difficulties unsolved. The reading which agrees closest with that of the Bhīṣmaparvan stanza is that of the vulgate text and is found only in the MSS. of Nīlakaṇṭha. These latter have Vāyu-Chandra-Surya (lacking Śakra or Śukra altogether) like Soma-Sūrya-Vāyu of the Bhīṣmaparvan. Is the Nīlakaṇṭha reading then the *original* reading? As I have pointed out elsewhere, we are apt to prefer, at first sight, the readings of the vulgate, which appear to be better than those of the critical text ; but that is only because the text of the vulgate has been arrived at by the purging of the original by the continuous emendations of scholars for centuries.¹ It seems to me that there is a long history behind the reading of the vulgate in the present case also. Nīlakaṇṭha had evidently arrived at it by an emendation, by collation with the prototype, because there is no indication of there being any MSS. before him which could have contained that particular combination. This fact may, perhaps, supply us with a clue to the labyrinth of the readings recorded in the critical notes for the line in question. An important factor is that Śukra (or Śakra), which persistently occurs in all the various categories of our MSS. and which must, therefore, be regarded as an essential feature of our stanza, is entirely lacking in the later stanza. This proves irrefutably that the combination of the former was not *identical*, in every respect, with that of the latter originally. That is an important point to remember. WINTERNITZ is emphatic in asserting that *yadā Vāyuḥ* of the original was changed in S into the usual *yadāśrauṣam*. This assumption does not seem to me to be at all well founded, because the very next stanza (130) begins *yadā Droṇo vividhān astramārgān*, and here no attempt has been made in S (or anywhere else) to change the beginning into *yadāśrauṣam*. There are a few more stanzas (133, 140, 145) in [174] this series which do not begin with the oft-repeated formula. It seems to me much more likely, therefore, that Vāyu was introduced into our passage, secondarily, by some early Northern redactor who knew the prototype and had noticed the omission of one of the elements in the prior stanza; precisely as Nīlakaṇṭha, much later, appears to have further altered the line by changing the difficult Śakra (or Śukra) to Candra, thus equating the combination to that of the prototype. I therefore adhere to my original choice, explaining the genesis of the variants as follows. The stanza in question, which was suggested to the author of the *yadāśrauṣam* section by the Bhīṣmaparvan stanza but was composed from a vague recollection of the original, began like the other stanzas of the series, and contained, moreover, an allusion to an astrological situation. Some Northern redactor (who had known the Bhīṣmaparvan stanza and noticed that the first stanza did not contain Vāyu) then deleted (*a*)śrauṣam and substituted for it the missing Vāyu, retaining, however, the original feature Śukra. The corruption of Śukra into Śakra must be judged as easy and even natural (in juxtaposition with Sūrya), in view of the famous episode of the Mahābhārata which narrates how Indra, disguised as a mendicant Brahman, begs for the miraculous ear-rings and the armour which had been Karṇa's from his birth and which had made him invincible. The emendatory activity of the early Northern redactor was continued by Nīlakaṇṭha, who expunged the Śakra (or Śukra) which he found in his MSS. (and perhaps did not fully understand) and substituted for it Candra, thus equating the two combinations.

c7.s2.t2.9

¹ See my Epic Studies (I), *JBRAS*. (NS.) 4 (1928). 157. A patent example of correction is *gṛhitvā haraṇaṃ prāpte* (in Devanāgarī MSS.) for *haraṇaṃ gṛhya saṃprāpte* (1. 2. 93).

c7.s2.t2.10

I am confirmed in the supposition that the original line contained only two agencies instead of three by the fact that no MSS. hitherto collated show *yuktāḥ* (plu.) for *yuktau* (dual) in the first line, as they certainly would have done, had there been three names in the original instead of two, as I have given.¹

c7.s2.t2.11

¹ It should be noted that even in the explanation of WINTERNITZ, Śakra and Sūrya do not make any combined effort. If the three elements wind, rain and sun operate all together for the success of the Pāṇḍavas, then *yuktāḥ* is indeed the correct word. What is the point of the dual, when the plural form would be even metrically equally suitable?

c7.s2.t2.12

The question then arises whether Śukra and Sūrya, as *grahas*, were at that time favourable to the Pāṇḍavas or, what comes to the same thing, adverse to the Kauravas. About [175] Sūrya I cannot say. But as far as Śukra is concerned, we may safely answer the question in the affirmative. My friend Prof. GHATAK has kindly drawn my attention to a stanza in Varāhamihira's *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* which, if *dyūtajīvin* may be taken to apply to the Kauravas, would indicate that at the time of the Bhārata battle the planet Śukra, which was then in the Pūrvābhādrapadā (cf. 6. 3. 15), was in a position which augured disaster to the Kauravas and was therefore favourable (anuloma) to the Pāṇḍavas. The Bṛhatsaṃhitā reference (9. 34) supplied to me by my friend runs.

c7.s2.t2.13

शतभिषजि शौण्डिकानामजैकपे द्यूतजीविनां पीडा ।
कुरुपाञ्चालानामति करोति चास्मिन्स्ततः सलिलम् ॥

c7.s2.t2.14

As Vāyu is missing in the whole of S except M₁ (which latter is a conflated MS.), it can never be established that Vāyu is an essential element of the original stanza; on the other hand, (a)śrauṣam, though of course no less doubtful because it is documented also by only half of the entire evidence, is rendered probable, if not required, by the context. But I am prepared to leave the line as “less than certain,” as indicated by the wavy line below the words in question.

c7.s2.t2.15

1. 1. 180 : *tava putrair mahattamāḥ*.

c7.s2.t2.16

WINTERNITZ complains that the sentence is “very awkward grammatically”. To have called forth no less than nine attempts at emendation, the original must indeed have been most awkward. WINTERNITZ prefers to read *tava putrair mahattarāḥ*, pointing out that there is not much evidence for the text reading. It is quite true that the text is weakly supported; but so are almost all the readings except that of the vulgate, which certainly cannot be considered the original reading, as it is palpably an emendation. The text is based on K₁.₅ G₅.₆ only. But WINTERNITZ’s reading is not much better supported; in its entirety it is found only in K₃ M; because, of the MSS. which do contain the questionable *mahattarāḥ*, K₀ begins the pāda with *tvatputrair ye* and K₄ with *tvatsutebhyo*. I submit, therefore, that the reading preferred by WINTERNITZ is not better documented than mine. That is the first point. WINTERNITZ then seeks to explain the variation on the ground that the scribes must have found difficulties with the instr. *putraiḥ*. Now the so-called *instr. comparationis* is very common in both epics and, I submit, that alone would not account for this plethora of readings in the case of a simple line with a perfectly obvious meaning. I know instances in the Mahābhārata text where this *instr. comparationis* has called forth no variants at all in the MSS., no doubt because it was felt to be quite normal by the copyists, editors and readers alike. The cause of disturbance in this case must, therefore, be looked for elsewhere, and that was principally, I think, the use of the superlative joined to the instrumental.

c7.s2.t2.17

In settling the original reading, the question is primarily one of fact, of the actual MS. evidence, not of grammar. The Shakespearean “This was the most unkindest cut of all" cannot be judged and emended by modern standards of grammar. It sounds harsh to our ears; but there is, I suppose, sufficient documentary evidence to prove or make it probable that the line as I have quoted it was in point of fact written by the author of *Julius Cæsar* (who knew his English quite as well as, if indeed not better than, we do), consciously or unconsciously using what our purists stigmatize as vulgarism. The argument that a dramatist like Shakespeare could not commit such a blunder (if blunder it be) would be without cogency, when the MS. evidence supports the questionable reading.

c7.s2.t2.18

The Mahābhārata, I may point out here, has suffered from the great misfortune of being always edited by learned Pandits, who were concerned more about the purity of diction than with the determination and preservation of the words of the author or the authors of the epic. One of the very worst offenders in this way was Pandit BÖHTLINGK who, in the passages edited by him in his *Sanskrit-Chresthomathie*, has "corrected" away the few oddities of idiom and style of the original which had escaped the vigilance of mediaeval Indian scholiasts and editors and found their way stealthily into our printed editions¹

c7.s2.t2.19

¹ In the Pauṣyaparvan (Adip. 3) especially, his editorial activities are very much in evidence. He has not only introduced, with scrupulous care, the correct Sandhi wherever it was at all possible, he has substituted the correct *bandhum* for the (irregular) *baddhum* (1. 3. 21), found even in the printed editions and made many similar "corrections" independently of the MS. evidence. Most amusing, however, is his regular and systematic substitution of the correct form, as required by the Sūtra of Pāṇini, out of *etad* and *enad*, a rule probably unknown at any time to anybody outside a select coterie of Ācāryas of Vyākaraṇa.

c7.s2.t2.20

[177] The nine variants mentioned in the critical notes may be classified as follows. Readings

c7.s2.t2.21

(1) in which the comparison is emphasized
(a) by change of the superl. to the comp.: त्वत्पुत्रैयें महत्तराः । K₀ तव पुत्रैर्महत्तराः । K₃ D₁₄ M

c7.s2.t2.22

(b) by a double change of superl. to comp. and of instr. to abl. (the "correct" construction) : त्वत्सुतेभ्यो महत्तराः । K₄ (inferior MS.) ;

c7.s2.t2.23

(2) in which the awkward instr. is done away with
(a) by changing the instr. into abl. : त्वत्पुत्रेभ्यो महत्तमः । K₂ तव पुत्रान्महत्तमाः । V₁ (b) by using the adj. predicatively (mostly in G) : तत्पुत्राश्च महत्तमः । T₂ G₁₋₃. ₄m.₇ तव पुत्रा महत्तमः । G₄ ;

c7.s2.t2.24

(3) in which the line has been recast (the vulgate) : तव पुत्रा इव प्रभो । K₆ B D (mostly) T₁ ;

c7.s2.t2.25

and (4) corrupt : तव पुत्रैर्महात्मनोः । D₁₀.

c7.s2.t2.26

It is an admittedly sound principle of textual criticism to give preference to a reading which best suggests how the other readings may have arisen, and it would be hard, I think, to find another reading which could explain all these nine variants more satisfactorily. Winternitz’s choice, for instance, does not at all explain the origin of any of the readings which contain *mahattamāḥ* (superl.) such as 2 (a) and (b) and the text reading; because there is in that case nothing to be gained by changing the (supposed) original comparative into superlative.¹

c7.s2.t2.27

¹ Unless it be a scribe’s error perpetuated through centuries or repeated independently in different places and times.

c7.s2.t2.28

*En passant* it may be pointed out that the so-called *instr. comparationis* is not a distinct category of the comparative at all; it is only a special case of the (Prakritic) coalescence of the instr. and abl. pl. (*metri causa*), an equivalence which comes out very clearly in such parallel phrases as : नरः पापात्प्रमुच्यते । 1. 1. 198 सर्वपापैः प्रमुच्यते ।² 1. 1. 209 and 494 *. The latter does not mean “he is left by all sins” but “he is freed from all sins.”

c7.s2.t2.29

² This pāda recurs frequently in the Rāmāyaṇa also.

c7.s2.t2.30

That the superlative is used in the epic in the sense of the comparative³ may be seen from : तेषां के योगवित्तमाः । Gītā 12. 1 न च तस्मान्मनुष्येषु कश्चिन्मे प्रियकृत्तमः । ibid. 18. 69 “Of these which are *more versed* in Yoga?” “Nor among men shall there be any whose service is *dearer* to me than his.”

c7.s2.t2.31

³ These derivative forms have probably a merely intensive value, and do not necessarily and invariably connote comparison. The Prakrits frequently confuse the *tara* and the *tama* endings. It is further worth noting that a separate formation of the comparative and superlative is unknown to the Modern Indian dialects. The epics also sporadically furnish instances of the use of the positive in the sense of the comparative.

c7.s2.t2.32

The superlative is normally construed with the gen. or loc.; but that it is construed sometimes also with the abl. may be seen not merely from the example last cited but also from :

c7.s2.t2.33

अपि चेदसि पापेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यः पापकृत्तमः । ibid. 4. 36

c7.s2.t2.34

“Though thou art of all sinners the most sinful.”

c7.s2.t2.35

Then the above-mentioned equivalence of the instr. and abl. pl. ushers in finally the construction of the superlative with the instr., which we find in the passage in question.

c7.s2.t2.36

Formally the two constructions *tava putrair mahattarāḥ* and *tava putrair mahattamāḥ* are almost equivalent ; but there *may* be just a slight difference of meaning between the two locutions. While *tava putrair mahattarāḥ* (comp.) evidently means only “greater than thy sons”, the other clause (*tava putrair mahattamāḥ*) may have been intended to convey some such sense as “*far, very much*, greater than thy sons.”

c7.s2.t2.37

It may be finally observed that in dealing with the first two adhyāyas of the Ādiparvan (as in fact with the whole of the earlier portion of this Parvan) the critic should never forget that he has before him what HOPKINS has justly called the “pseudo-epic” : the poetasters responsible for the compilation of these passages are capable of the worst blunders of every description.

c7.s2.t2.38

1. 1. 209 : *mahatt vād bhāravatt vāc ca*.

c7.s2.t2.39

As WINTERNITZ rightly observes, here the MS. evidence is almost evenly balanced. Moreover, graphically there is so little difference between the rival readings that we cannot expect much help from the side of the MSS., though it may be pointed out that their evidence inclines, if at all, just a trifle to the side of the text reading. WINTERNITZ (*Ind. Ant.* 27. 93) admits that the lines (69*) *caturbhyaḥ* etc. and *tadā prabhṛti* etc. are “quite superfluous.” When these lines are expunged from the text, as has been done by me, the line *mahattve ca gurutve ca* of 208*e*) stands adjacent to *mahatt vād bhāra°* (of 209*a*). The idea of 208*e*) is evidently reflected and repeated in 209*a*. Just as *mahatt vāt* corresponds to *mahattve*, so *bhāra°* should correspond to *gurutve*. This clearly shows, as far as I can judge, that the doubtful word (*bhāra°*), which should be a paraphrase of *gurutve*, must be *bhāravatt vāt* and not *bhāratatvāt*. The latter seems to be an emendation made by some revisor who wanted to squeeze in somehow the significant word *Bhārata* into the context ; and, it must truthfully be confessed, it is a very ingenious emendation indeed. But as to which is the orginal reading there cannot be much doubt. The importance that WINTERNITZ (like BÜHLER, *Ind. Stud.* 2. 9 f., before him) attaches to the circumstance that the verse is quoted in (our edition of) Kumārila’s Tantravārtika with the reading *bhāratatvāt* is wholly unjustifiable, and that for two reasons : firstly, because we have no critical edition of the Tantravārttika, and so we cannot be wholly sure of what the MSS. actually read at that place; and secondly, because, even if Kumārila should, in point of fact, have quoted the verse with *bhāratatvāt*, it does not at all follow that this is *ipso facto* the *original* reading, notwithstanding that Kumārila’s work is far older than the extant Mahābhārata MSS; because Kumārila may have cited the stanza from one or the other of the versions which contained (and still contain) that reading. Or again he may have known both variants and preferred, for reasons similar to those adduced by BÜHLER and WINTERNITZ, the variant rejected by me.

c7.s2.t2.40

The situation is somewhat clearer and the facts better capable of demonstration in the case of the other great mediaeval commentator Śaṃkarācārya. In many cases when the readings of the Mahābhārata verses and stanzas cited by him [180] differ from those of the Bombay and Calcutta editions, I was able to identify Śaṃkarācārya’s readings in the Southern MSS. Being a Southerner, he had naturally studied and cited from the Southern recension of the Mahābhārata. It is quite clear that he was not going to work through all available MSS. and establish the original reading of the numerous Mahābhārata stanzas cited by him in the course of his voluminous commentaries. Therefore his citations, although of far greater antiquity than the oldest of our extant Mahābhārata MSS., do not necessarily give us in every case the “original” readings. Śaṃkara’s testimony applies to and affects mainly the version, or the recension used or cited by him; and that was probably the Southern recension in its Malayālam version. Even in the time of the Ācārya the Northern MSS. must have read differently in places, as they do now, because the divagation of the recensions must be assumed to be far older than the epoch of the great Vedantist.

c7.s2.t2.41

I shall give only one example in order to clarify my meaning. 1. 1. 37 of the critical edition reads *yathartāv ṛtuliṅgāni*, agreeing with other printed editions and with the majority of the MSS. of the Northern recension. Śaṃkarācārya in his Bhāṣya on the Brahmasūtra (1. 3. 30; Ānandāśrama ed., p. 313) cites, however, the verse with the reading *yathartuṣu ṛtuliṅgāni*.¹ Now this reading is found only in Southern MSS. and in such of the Northern MSS. as can be shown to be contaminated from the Southern source, but not in any Kaśmīrī or Baṅgālī MSS. collated so far. Here it would be clearly wrong to cite the Bhāṣya as an authority older than our MSS. to establish the text reading as *yathartuṣu ṛtuliṅgāni*. The Bhāṣya citation affects directly the Southern version only, documenting that the divergent reading of our Southern MSS. is as old as (or rather older than) the time of Śaṃkarācārya; and that is all. It does not take us beyond the Southern recension, much less beyond the two rival recensions to the archetype.

c7.s2.t2.42

¹ Only one of the Bhāṣya MSS. has our text reading.

c7.s2.t2.43

When WINTERNITZ further observes that “from the etymologizer’s point of view” *bhāratatvāt* is a “better” etymology, since with the other reading the *ta* of the Bhārata remains unexplained, he is bringing into the discussion an element of finesse that is quite foreign to the view-point of [181] the Purāṇic writers, as will be evident from the following specimens of “ etymologische Spielerei ” culled from the earlier adhyāyas of the Ādiparvan :

c7.s2.t2.44

(B.) 1. 30. 7 = line 3 of 343* (Garuḍa) :

c7.s2.t2.45

गुरुं भारं समासाद्योद्वीन एष विहंगमः ।

c7.s2.t2.46

1. 36. 3 (Jaratkāru) :

c7.s2.t2.47

जरेति क्षयमाहुर्वै दारुणं कारुसंज्ञितम् ।

c7.s2.t2.48

1. 56. 31 (Mahābhārata) :

c7.s2.t2.49

भारतानां महज्जन्म महाभारतमुच्यते ।

c7.s2.t2.50

1. 69. 33 (Bharata) :

c7.s2.t2.51

भर्तव्योऽयं त्वया यस्मादस्माकं वचनादपि ।
तस्माद्भवत्वयं नाम्ना भरतो नाम ते सुतः ॥

c7.s2.t2.52

In view of these bizarre specimens, it would be extremely strange should a Purāṇic “ etymologizer ” fight shy of sacrificing a *ta*, if he, for the moment, could not think of anything better.

c7.s2.t2.53

1. 2. 2 : *śuśrūṣā yadi vo viprā bruvataś ca kathāḥ śubhāḥ*.

c7.s2.t2.54

I admit that my reconstruction of the line is not wholly satisfactory. The reading preferred by WINTERNITZ may also not appeal to other scholars, as it does not wholly appeal to me. I therefore cite here the 15 different readings found in the 48 MSS. collated for this passage, of which one (D₃), unluckily or luckily, omits the line altogether. The lines containing *ca* (to which WINTERNITZ takes exception in particular) have been underlined for the sake of ready identification.

c7.s2.t2.55

1. शुश्रूष्वमथो विप्रा ब्रुवतो मे शुभाः कथाः । K₁
2. शुश्रूष्वं वचो विप्रा ब्रुवतो मे कथाः शुभाः । K₂.₃
3. शृणुध्वं मम वो विप्रा ब्रवतश्च कथां शुभाः । K₄
4. शुश्रूषो मम वो विप्रा ब्रवतश्च कथाः शुभाः । K₅ (corrupt)
5. शृणुध्वं मम भो विप्रा ब्रवतश्च कथाः शुभाः । K₆ V₁ Dn D₁.₅. 8-11
6. शुश्रूषा मम वो विप्रा ब्रवतश्च कथाः शुभाः । B Da (Da₁ corrupt) D₁₃
7. शृणुध्वं मम वो विप्रा ब्रवतश्च कथाः शुभाः । Dr D₄
8. शृणुध्वं मम वै विप्रा ब्रवतः सत्कथां शुभां । D₂
9. शृणुध्वं मम भो विप्रा ब्रवंतश्च कथाः शुभाः । D₆
10. शुश्रूषाम वचो विप्रा ब्रवतश्च कथाः शुभाः । D₇. ₁₂
11. शुश्रूषा यदि वो विप्रा ब्रवतश्च शुभाः कथाः । T G₆
12. शुश्रूषा यदि वो विप्रा प्रवक्ष्ये निखिलाः कथाः । G₂. ₃. ₇
13. शुश्रूषा यदि वो विप्रा ब्रुवतो मे कथाः शुभाः । M₂. ₄ 14. शुश्रूषा यदि वो विप्रा ब्रुवतो मे कथाः शुभाः । M₃
15. शुश्रूषा यदि वो विप्रा ब्रुवतश्च कथाः शुभाः । Text (K₀ D₁₄ G₁. ₄.₅ M₁).

c7.s2.t2.56

[182] As for the doubtful *ca*, I may remark that, besides its normal use as a conjunction meaning “and”, *ca* is very frequently used in the Mahābhārata (and the Rāmāyaṇa) as an expletive, a pure and simple verse-filler (*pādapūraṇa*), without restriction of position, like *hi* and *vai*. It may occasionally have served as a particle of emphasis, stressing the previous word like *eva*. The second use is somewhat doubtful; but of the first, one can find scores of perfectly clear and certain instances in any portion of the epic, even in the printed editions. In the line in question, I consider, *ca* has been used in the first sense, as a mere verse-filler. Sporadically *me*, which improves this awkward line ever so slightly, appears to have been substituted for it, independently in both recensions. The first half of the line was so uncouth that it was recast in the vulgate. There are numerous instances of lines being recast in the vulgate, as a careful study of the critical apparatus will show.

c7.s2.t2.57

1. 2. 29 : *yat tu Śaunakastre te Bhāratākhyānavistaram |* *ākhyāsye tatra Paulomam ākhyānaṃ cāditah param ||*

c7.s2.t2.58

This is again a most difficult case, and, as WINTERNITZ rightly remarks, “full of almost hopeless editorial cruces”. The reconstruction would be, therefore, almost entirely a matter of speculation. WINTERNITZ has rightly surmised that I regard the Parvasaṃgraha as an accretion later than this stanza, which, in my opinion, belongs to a much earlier stratum of the text of the Mahābhārata. That *Śaunakasatre* in line 1 is a regular trap for the unwary. Misled by the printed editions, I had myself treated the words as separate at first, realizing only much later that in this adhyāya the Sūta is addressing not Śaunaka but the Ṛṣis, among whom Śaunaka is not yet present. Śaunaka is not mentioned in the foregoing portion of the text except once, in connection with his twelve-year sacrifice in 1. 1. 1. In adhyāya 4, moreover, it is plainly stated that the Sūta first approaches the Ṛṣis assembled in the Naimiṣa forest and asks them what he should narrate. The Ṛṣis request him to await the arrival of Śaunaka. The latter, *as soon as he arrives*, asks the Sūta to relate the history of the Bhārgavas (adhy. 5). If Śaunaka was not among the audience in adhyāya 4, I do not see how he could have been there in adhyāya 2. Moreover, in the latter adhyāya the interlocutors are throughout stated as being the Ṛṣis, while it is only from adhyāya 5 onwards that Śaunaka appears in this [183] rôle. It should, therefore, seem that the reading *Śaunaka satre* is not easy to understand or explain by any means. Or does WINTERNITZ mean that it should be adopted as the *lectio difficilior*? It would be admissible, in my opinion, only on the supposition (which is not as improbable as it may at first sight appear) that the compiler of adhyāya 2, when he wrote stanza 29, had overlooked the fact that Śaunaka was not then among the audience. I have preferred to give the " poet " the benefit of the doubt and assume that the remark is addressed to one of the Ṛṣis present.

c7.s2.t2.59

WINTERNITZ has misunderstood my reconstruction in some other particulars as well. yat, at the beginning of the stanza, is not a neuter pronoun but an adverb = yadā. The words ādiṭaḥ param offer no difficulties at all for interpretation ; ādiṭaḥ does not mean " from the beginning," but " at the beginning " (=ādau) ; param = excellent." ākhyāsye must of course be supplied in the first line ; but that is not difficult as it is the very first word of the second line. Therefore I translate :

c7.s2.t2.60

" But when, during Śaunaka's (sacrificial) session, I (shall narrate) to thee the very extensive Bhārata Story, then shall I narrate, to begin with, the excellent Story of Pauloma."

c7.s2.t2.61

Even a cursory examination of the variants given in the critical notes is sufficient to convince anybody that the stanza has been recast over and over again. With its history is bound up the history of the successive additions of the three episodes Āstīka, Pauloma and Pauṣya, which appear to have been appended successively to the main text in this order. The stanza in question seems to have been written at the time of or soon after the addition of the Pauloma, but before the addition of the Pauṣya. The purpose of the line was originally not—as WINTERNITZ imagines—to state all the episodes with which the Mahābhārata begins, but to authenticate the latest interpolation then made, namely, the Pauloma, by making the Sūta declare beforehand his intention of narrating that ākhyāna at the beginning of the Mahābhārata. The Āstīka must have formed at that time the recognized beginning of the epic (cf. Manvādi Bhāratam kecid Āstīkādi tathā pare 1. 1. 50), and the Pauṣya had not yet been added. This is the state of things the constituted text envisages.

c7.s2.t2.62

A study of the critical apparatus of this adhyāya shows that the adhyāya is best preserved in the Southern recension ; [184] in the MSS. group on which the vulgate is mainly based (namely, BD) numerous additional stanzas are found which are missing in S and K₀. ₁. ₂ ; but even the three latter MSS. occasionally include some of such additional stanzas, which also nevertheless, since they are missing in S, may safely be regarded as interpolations. Of this character is interpolation 74*, which is found in almost the whole of N and which must have been made with a view to documenting the fact—or rather the fiction—that the Mahābhārata as narrated by the Sūta to Śaunaka was identical with that narrated by Vaiśampāyana to Janamejaya (cf. Nīlakaṇṭha ad loc.). K₀. ₁ agree with S on the reading of this stanza except for the inclusion of 74* in the one and the addition of the name of the Āstīka to the other. The text is formed by collating S with the inferable version of K before the addition in the latter of 74*. The subsequent steps leading towards the reading of the vulgate consisted in the addition of the name of the Āstika episode (which intervenes between the Pauloma and the beginning proper of the Mahābhārata), of a statement of the identity of the Sūta-version and the Vaiśampāyana version, and finally of the name of the Pauṣya interlude, all these changes being made in our stanza with a view to setting the seal of authenticity on the three spurious additions. That adhyāya 3 must be an interpolation follows from the fact that it is wholly unconnected with the previous adhyāya and only loosely connected with what follows. Noteworthy is also the fact that adhyāyas 1 and 4 have the same beginning: *Lomaharṣaṇaputra Ugraśravāḥ sūtaḥ paurāṇiko Naimiṣāraṇye dvādaśavārṣike satre*! And in the text itself there is no explanation why after the Sūta has finished his narration of the Pauṣya episode, it is necessary to reintroduce the Sūta in the same words as approaching the same Ṛṣis assembled at the same twelve-year sacrificial session of Śaunaka in the Naimiṣa forest. There is clearly a *new* beginning made in one of the two adhyāyas.

c7.s2.t2.63

Since many of the intermediate links are missing in the MS. evidence, it is not possible to reconstruct the history of this portion of the text fully and satisfactorily; but that it must be reconstructed on the lines sketched above, I have no doubt. Accordingly the successive stages in the development of the reading of the vulgate (which is the reading preferred by WINTERNITZ) I would arrange in a scheme like the following, in which the innovations have been printed in black type. [185] It will show among other things that the *vistaram* of the text and of the Southern recension is not "a remnant of *vis-tarārtham*" of the vulgate; on the contrary, in the latter the first line was filled up with *uttamam* when the original *vistara* was used in the interpolated stanza. The view of WINTERNITZ that at least *Āstikam* must remain in the text is quite untenable; because if the stanza had *Āstikam* there is no reason why it should not have *Pauṣyam* as well. On the other hand, if *Pauṣyam* is not indispensable, then *Āstikam* could go with it as well.

c7.s2.t2.64

Stage 1 (Constituted Text)

c7.s2.t2.65

यत्तु शौनकसत्रे ते भारताख्यानविस्तरम् ।
आख्यास्ये तत्र पौलोममाख्यानं चादितः परम् ॥

c7.s2.t2.66

*Northern recension.*

c7.s2.t2.67

Stage 2 (K₁) : by addition of 2 lines to the original.

c7.s2.t2.68

यत्तु शौनकसत्रे ते भारताख्यानमुत्तमम् ।
जनमेजयस्य तत्सत्रे व्यासशिष्येण धीमता ॥
कथितं विस्तरार्थं च यशो वीर्यं महीक्षिताम् ।
आख्यास्ये तत्र पालोममाख्यानं चादितः परम् ॥

c7.s2.t2.69

Stage 3 (Da D_2-4. 13) : by addition of आस्तीकं to stage 2.

c7.s2.t2.70

यत्र शौनक सत्रे तु भारताख्यानमुत्तमम् ।
जनमेजयस्य तत्सत्रे व्यासशिष्येण धीमता ॥
कथितं विस्तरार्थं च यशो वीर्यं महीक्षिताम् ।
आख्यानं तत्र पौलोमास्तीकं चादितः स्मृतम् ॥

c7.s2.t2.71

Stage 4 (Dn Dr D_1.5-12) : by addition of पौष्यं to stage 3.

c7.s2.t2.72

यत्तु शौनक सत्रे ते भारताख्यानमुत्तमम् ।
जनमेजयस्य तत्सत्रे व्यासशिष्येण धीमता ॥
कथितं विस्तरार्थं च यशो वीर्यं महीक्षिताम् ।
पौष्यं तत्र च पौलोमास्तीकं चादितः स्मृतम् ॥

c7.s2.t2.73

Stage 5 (B) : by addition of 1 line to stage 4.

c7.s2.t2.74

यत्र शौनक सत्रे तु भारताख्यानमुत्तमम् ।
जनमेजयस्य तत्सत्रे व्यासशिष्येण धीमता ।
आख्यानं कथितं कृत्स्नं महाभारतमुत्तमम् ॥
कथितं विस्तरार्थं च यशो वीर्यं महीक्षिताम् ।
पौष्यं तत्र च पौलोमास्तीकं चादितः स्मृतम् ॥

c7.s2.t2.75

*Southern recension.*

c7.s2.t2.76

Stage 2 (S) : by addition of आस्तीकं to the original.

c7.s2.t2.77

यत्तु शौनक सत्रे ते भारताख्यानविस्तरम् ।
आध्यास्ये तत्र पौलोमास्तीकं च ततः परम् ॥

c7.s2.t2.78

1. 2. 46 : *mṛgasvapnabhayaṃ tataḥ*

c7.s2.t2.79

Here again WINTERNITZ prefers the reading of the vulgate (*mṛgasvapnodbhavam*). It is clearer but, I must say, I am very doubtful about its originality. The MS. support for this variant is only slightly stronger than that for the reading of the constituted text. It is worthy of note that B, which generally sides with the vulgate, has here a third and entirely different reading : *mṛgasvapno 'bhavat tataḥ*! How would WINTERNITZ account for that? I explain the compound of the constituted text as an irregular compound with inverted sequence, common in Prakrit (PISCHEL, *Gramm. der Prakrit-Sprachen*, § 603) and not unknown to the Low Sanskrit of the epics. HOPKINS, *JAOS*. 20 (1899), 223, has cited two instances from the Rāmāyaṇa : 7.22.36 *dṛṣṭvā daṇḍodyataṃ Yaman* (for *udyatadaṇḍam*) “like Yama with upraised staff” ; and ibid. 7. 26. 2 *tulyaparvatavarcasi* (for *parvatatulyavarcasi*) “glorious like the mountain (Kailāsa).” I accordingly take the compound in question as equivalent to *svapna* (*dṛṣṭa*) *mṛgabhayam* “ (Parvan) in which there is the fright of the deer (seen) in a dream” (cf. the compound *Svapnavāsavadattam*). Yudhiṣṭhira, in any case, was *not frightened* : that is certain ; but that the deer were, follows from (K.) 3. 259. 8, which WINTERNITZ himself cites :

c7.s2.t2.80

तान्वेपमानान्वित्रस्तान्बीजमात्रावशेषितान् ।
मृगान्दृष्ट्वा सुदुःखार्तो धर्मराजो युधिष्ठिरः ॥

c7.s2.t2.81

The readings of the vulgate and the Bangālī version seem to represent different attempts at emendation of the irregular compound which stood originally in the Northern recension and which was perhaps misunderstood, if it was not totally unintelligible. The wavy line below the pāda was called for also by the variant reading of S, which has *parva* or *tataḥ* *prāyopa-veśanam*. This refers to an entirely different section of the narrative, the name being derived from the vow of fasting taken by Duryodhana.

c7.s2.t2.82

1. 2. 89 : *tathā rājyārdhaśāsanam*.

c7.s2.t2.83

The variants are *°śāsanam*, *°lambhanam*, *°sarjanam* (vulgate), *°mārga-ṇam*, *°pādanam*, *°dāpanam*! If *rājyārdhasarjanam* corresponds better to one portion of the contents of Ādip. 207, *°śāsanam* may be said to correspond better to a subsequent portion of the same adhyāya : *°sarjanam* was followed by *°śāsanam*. Intrinsically there is not much to choose between the two. The sub-parvan name is really something quite different : *rājyālambha* or *°lābha*, which has given rise to the reading of K₃ *rājyārdhalambhanam*. The reading preferred by WINTERNITZ is found only in the vulgate group supported by four Southern MSS. G₄. ₅ M₁. ₃. The text reading was adopted on the direct testimony of K₀. ₆ D₂ G₁. ₆, but it has partial support of T₂ and of two K MSS. (K₁. ₂), one of which is the important India Office codex (K₁). These MSS. (K₁. ₂) read as a matter of fact *rājyānuśāsanam*, but the *nu* of these MSS. is obviously wrong (perhaps representing a mislection of the ligature *rdha*), being opposed by the remainder of the MS. material collated and conveying no satisfactory sense. There appears to be an agreement between independent versions on the reading *°sarjanam*, but the concord, I believe, is only apparent, being due to the conflation of MSS. That G₄. ₅ are contaminated from some late Northern source, I think, I have established with tolerable certainty in the note on 1. 20. 1; the conclusion is corroborated by many less certain instances where these MSS. (along with G₁. ₂) agree with Northern MSS. against other Southern MSS., and the agreement cannot be regarded as one derived from their connection through the archetype.¹ That further G₇ and M₁ are not reliable representatives of the Grantha and the Malayālam versions respectively, I have already pointed out in the Foreword to Fascicule 1 (p. v). There remains only one other MS. (M₃), which represents a moderately pure (Malayālam) tradition and must have acquired its °sarjanam, secondarily, through some complicated infiltration of the reading of the vulgate.

c7.s2.t2.84

¹ For instance, cf. v. 1. 1. 5. 26 (220*); 13. 34 (255*); 20. 15.

c7.s2.t2.85

[188] In this instance, we have, moreover, a complex cross-agreement between the different versions.

c7.s2.t2.86

°śāsanam : K₀. ₁₋₂ D₂ + T₂ G₁. ₆ °sarjanam : Vulgate (B D) + G₄. ₅ M₁. ₃

c7.s2.t2.87

Graphically there is no connection between the conflicting readings. The reading of the vulgate is found in only one MS. of the K group (K₄), an inferior conflated MS. It will thus be seen that the MS. evidence is utterly confused. That being so, I have adopted the reading °śāsanam, giving preference to the side on which the majority of K stand, according to a principle enunciated in the Foreword to Fascicule 1 (p. VII).

c7.s2.t2.88

1. 2. 96 : In the Editorial Note appended to Fascicule 3, I have given my reasons for selecting 7984 as the figure representing the number of ślokas in the Ādiparvan. That is the figure given by the India Office MS. (K₁) and corroborated by the Śāradā codex (Ś₁). It may, therefore, be regarded as the extent of the Śāradā version at any rate. I consider, as I have frequently stated, the Śāradā (Kaśmīrī) version the best version now preserved, and my edition of the Ādiparvan is based mainly (though not wholly) on this version.

c7.s2.t2.89

I fully agree with WINTERNITZ (op. cit. p. 61) that the Parvasaṃgraha argument is necessarily of secondary importance and should not be pressed too far.¹ Be that as it may, it is extremely problematic whether we could make any use whatsoever of the Parvasaṃgraha enumeration in the case of the Ādiparvan at least, because it will be difficult to compute the exact extent of this Parvan, and that for two reasons. Firstly, because this Parvan, as is well known, contains two lengthy prose adhyāyas (3 and 90) ; and it is difficult to say [189] now how the extent of the prose sections was computed by the compilers of the Parvasaṃgraha ; our section-numbers certainly can give no indication of the extent in “ślokas.”² Secondly, this Parvan also contains a large number of Triṣṭubh-Jagatī stanzas, which again introduce an element of uncertainty in the computation. Was each Triṣṭubh-Jagatī stanza counted as one “Śloka” or did the Bhāratacintakas compute the exact equivalent of these long-metre stanzas in “Ślokas”? No definite answer is possible as yet. The difference in the reckoning will be, however, between 40 and 50 per cent of the total. As a very rough estimate, the Ādiparvan may contain something like 500 long-metre stanzas. This factor alone would then introduce a difference of a little less than 250 “Ślokas” in the total!

c7.s2.t2.90

¹ The exaggerated importance UTGIKAR attached to the data of the Parvasaṃgraha was, I believe, mainly due to his erroneous belief (induced probably by the misleading character of the text of the Kumbhakonam edition) that the Northern and Southern MSS. agreed completely with each other in all material particulars for this adhyāya. The Kumbhakonam edition, which claims to be an edition “mainly based on the South Indian texts”, presents a text of this adhyāya which is almost identical with that of the Calcutta and Bombay editions, taking no notice of the Southern divergences, while in other sections of the epic it introduces numerous innovations which are based on the Southern tradition.

c7.s2.t2.91

² The lengths of the prose sections must have been computed on the basis of 32 akṣaras to a śloka, but such a computation in the case of long prose sections can be only approximate.

c7.s2.t2.92

We must, moreover, not lose sight of the fact that the reading of the number itself is never entirely free from doubt, since the MSS., as WINTERNITZ remarks, differ sometimes quite essentially in the Parvasaṃgraha itself; the figures differ not by units or tens, but by hundreds, and even thousands in extreme cases.¹ There can be no doubt, as I have pointed out elsewhere, that the text of the Parvasaṃgraha has been tampered with and designedly altered, in various ways, in order to make it harmonize with the inflated versions of a later epoch.²

c7.s2.t2.93

¹ Thus for the Virāṭaparvan, the Northern figure is 2050, the Southern 3500; the difference therefore is 1450 ślokas.

c7.s2.t2.94

² Cf. the Editorial Note (2) appended to Fascicule 3 (p. iii).

c7.s2.t2.95

These are some of the difficulties in the way of making any practical use of the figures recorded in the Parvasaṃgrahaparvan for fixing the text of the Mahābhārata. The computations may have some value for a Parvan in which there is no prose at all, which is almost wholly in Anuṣṭubh metre, and for which finally the Parvasaṃgraha figure is tolerably certain.

c7.s2.t2.96

It is quite within the range of probability, as far as I can judge now, that the extent of the critical text of a parvan may [190] fall appreciably below or rise appreciably above the figure recorded in the second adhyāya, as is actually the case with about half the number of Parvans in the Calcutta, Bombay and Kumbhakonam editions when checked up with the figures given in their respective Parvasaṃgrahas.³ Moreover, unless it can be made probable that the compilation of this “Table of Contents” is nearly synchronous with the final redaction of the Great Epic, this discrepancy will be without any cogency in questions relating to the constitution of the text. The value of a MS. or a version cannot be said to depend exclusively or even mainly upon its agreement with or discrepancy from the data of the Parvasaṃgraha. It must, in the first analysis, be regarded as depending upon some intrinsic criteria, upon the place it occupies in a logical and convincing scheme formulated to explain satisfactorily the evolution of the different extant versions and types of Mahābhārata MSS.

c7.s2.t2.97

³ The actual number of ślokas falls *below* the Parvasaṃgraha figure in the following 10 Parvans: Ādi, Udyoga, Bhīṣma, Sauptika, Śānti, Anuśāsana, Aśvamedhika, Āśramavāsika, Mausala and Mahāprasthānika; while it rises *above* the other figure in the following 8 Parvans: Sabhā, Araṇya, Virāṭa, Droṇa, Karṇa, Śalya, Strī, and Svargārohaṇa.

c7.s2.t2.98

It should further be carefully borne in mind that even if there is an exact agreement as to extent between a constituted text and the Parvasaṃgraha, this fact alone is no guarantee of the originality and the absolute correctness of the entire text, line for line ; because the same number of stanzas could be made up in innumerable different ways by accepting or rejecting, hesitatingly, stanzas of doubtful authenticity and uncertain documentation, of which there will always be a plentiful supply in every Parvan.¹ The difficulty will finally not be solved even if we happen to light upon a unique MS. which agrees with the Parvasaṃgraha exactly and we should adopt its text verbatim ; because there is every probability that while it satisfies the one criterion of extent given by the Parvasaṃgraha, it may not satisfy, in every respect, other and more exacting critical tests when compared, line by line and word by word, with other extant MSS.

c7.s2.t2.99

¹ See WINTERNITZ, ABI, 5. 25.

c7.s2.t2.100

[191] 1. 2. 105 : *paurānugamanam caiva dharmaputrasya dhīmataḥ*.

c7.s2.t2.101

WINTERNITZ is mistaken in thinking that the line is missing in the whole of K : it is missing in only two MSS. of the group, albeit the best MSS. These MSS. (K₀, ₁) are, however, by no means infallible, as a careful study of the apparatus will show. Their evidence is, therefore, rebuttable and not conclusive. In this instance, not only does the line occur in the rest of N, but there is a corresponding line in S. I cannot think that the two lines :—

c7.s2.t2.102

Text : *paurānugamanam caiva dharmaputrasya dhīmataḥ* S (except M₁) : *paurānukampā nirvedo dharmarājasya dhīmataḥ*

c7.s2.t2.103

could have arisen wholly independently of each other. Even though the purport of the lines is different, the *construction* is identical, which is a very important point in its favour. Either these lines are connected through the archetype, or else there is wholesale contamination between S and N except K₀, ₁. The latter contingency being improbable in the extreme, we are led to conclude that there must have been a line of that description in the original ; only its precise reading is doubtful ; the doubtful words have accordingly been indicated in the usual manner.

c7.s2.t2.104

The problem of the Mahābhārata textual criticism, as I have pointed out already, is a problem *sui generis*. Here the principles of textual reconstruction, which must first be evolved from a study of the MS. material and the MS. tradition, can be considered as finally settled only after considerable discussion and exchange of ideas on the subject. I would, therefore, earnestly request Prof. WINTERNITZ to continue his searching and exhaustive examination of the fascicules as they are issued and publish periodically the results of his scrutiny, a proceeding which cannot but throw much-needed light on at least some of the difficult problems the editors have to face, and thus advance the cause of Mahābhārata studies.

c7.s2.t2.105

III. Dr. Ruben on the Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata *

c7.s2.t2.106

I am bound to form and express an opinion on the issues raised in the article "Schwierigkeiten der Textkritik des Mahābhārata" published in the current issue of the *Acta Orientalia* (vol. 8, pp. 240-256), in which the author, Dr. Walter RUBEN of the University of Bonn, has reviewed Fascicules 1-3 of my edition of the Ādiparvan, criticizing at considerable length and in great detail the principles underlying the preparation of the edition and the constitution of the text.

c7.s2.t2.107

From his discursive remarks it is indeed hazardous to say what precise opinion RUBEN has formed of the critical edition. But it seems to me that his general verdict is anything but favourable.

c7.s2.t2.108

It is not my intention to scrutinize every statement of the writer and answer all his queries and criticisms; nor is it incumbent on me to do so; nor even necessary, as will appear from the sequel. I shall confine my remarks to a few points of outstanding importance in RUBEN'S paper which might mislead the casual reader, creating an erroneous impression regarding the value of the results achieved by the critical edition.

c7.s2.t2.109

*The Bogey of Classical Philology*

c7.s2.t2.110

At the beginning of his paper (p. 241), the learned reviewer from Bonn formally recites the canon of the *caturvarga* of the Classical Philologist. The Classical Philology, we are explained, distinguishes: 1. Heuristics, i.e. assembling and arranging the entire material consisting of MSS. and *testimonia* in the form of a genealogical tree; 2. *Recensio*, i.e. restoration of the text of the archetype; 3. *Emendatio*, i.e. restoration of the text of the author; 4. "Higher Criticism," i.e. separation of the sources utilized by the author.

c7.s2.t2.111

Tested on this touchstone of the classicist, the critical edition of the Mahābhārata is found wanting in no less than three items, namely, Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The third and the fourth items of the programme, R. points out, have been left wholly untouched; even the first has by a long way not been done full justice to by the hapless editor! But as one reads on, one finds that the dereliction is after all not as serious as one might be led to

c7.s2.t2.112

* [*ABORI* 11. 259-283].

c7.s2.t2.113

¹ R. has inadvertently omitted the mention of the 23 Devanāgarī MSS. in the description of my critical apparatus; cf. *op. cit.* p. 241, lines 3-6 from the bottom.

c7.s2.t2.114

suppose at first. For, as regards No. 1 (Heuristics), R. himself admits that it is not yet possible to concentrate the entire material, and that in all likelihood it will be for ever impossible to prepare a genealogical tree of the Mahābhārata MSS.—As for No. 3 (Emendatio), I must plead guilty to having perpetrated so far, perhaps somewhat unnecessarily, minor emendations in 13 instances¹ in about 3800 stanzas ; that is, on an average 1 emendation in a little under 300 stanzas. R. has not taken any notice of my conjectural corrections ; I take it that he approves of them. I feel greatly flattered, I must confess, by R.'s (implied) suggestion that I should have gone in more systematically and vigorously for emendation. Most scholars will, I fancy, be sincerely grateful that I have been so moderate and that I have declared it as my policy to give preference to interpretation over emendation.²—In speaking at all of “Higher Criticism” (No. 4 on the programme) in this connection, R. seems to show a lamentable lack of understanding of the objective of the edition, having mistaken evidently the beginning for the end of the critical work on the Mahābhārata. Higher Criticism can begin only after Lower Criticism has done its work, and not until then. And our critical edition is just laying the foundation of the Lower Criticism of the Great Epic. But I imagine, R. does not want to say anything special at all, when he mentions his “Höhere Kritik”. In the 1833 ślokas of the constituted text (=2161 of the Bombay edition and 2208 of the Calcutta edition) so closely investigated by R. in the preparation of his erudite paper, he does not mention even a single passage where the “Höhere Kritik” could have earnestly and usefully “functioned”. The item is probably introduced here merely pro forma, as the fourth and last stage of the ariya-magga.

First 114 of 123 passages. Read on

Linked texts (5)

Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Bhagavadgītā — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Bṛhatsaṃhitā — Varāhamihira, Sanskrit
Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Brahmasūtra — Bādarāyaṇa, Sanskrit