Critical Studies in the Mahabharata (V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I) c7.s3.2

c7.s3.2

The Mahābhārata textual tradition, as we know it, is far from being quite uniform. There are now two main streams of tradition, the Northern Recension and the Southern Recension. Each recension is further sub-divided into a number of provincial versions, which differ *inter se* in many particulars. But the text of the Mahābhārata must have been in a fluid state for a very long time, almost from the beginning. Clearly therefore a wholly satisfactory restoration of the text to its pristine form—even the late so-called *śatasāhasrī saṃhitā* form—would be a task now beyond the powers of criticism. All that we can attempt now is to reconstruct the oldest form of the text that is possible to reach on the basis of the MS. material available. The peculiar conditions of the transmission of the epic necessitate an eclectic but cautious utilization of all MS. classes. The Kaśmīrī version (*textus simpli-cior*) has proved itself so far to be unquestionably the best Northern version; and the Malayālam, which in many respects is superior to the Grantha, is likewise the best Southern version (*textus ornatior*). The agreement between the Kaśmīrī version and the Southern recension (or sometimes even merely the Malayālam version) can be taken as an indication of originality. But contamination between the different versions was inevitable and must be admitted. The Telugu MSS. are generally and the Grantha MSS. frequently contaminated from Northern sources. Even the Malayālam version, which is on the whole free from Northern influence, may show some contamination, in unexpected places. [91] In fact, all versions, with the possible exception of the Kaśmīrī, are contaminated in various degrees. It is, therefore, often a very ticklish question to decide which agreements are original and which secondary. Notwithstanding these difficulties, experience has now shown, the case is not as desperate as it might at first appear. For one thing, there is a considerable bulk of text where the Northern and Southern versions are in full agreement, where there are no variants at all, or—more frequently—only unimportant variants: this part of the text is fortunately certain. There is then the question of the "additional" passages, that is, passages found in only one of the rival recensions. There is only one rational way of dealing with these "additional" passages: they must be carefully segregated from the rest of the text, and examined individually. The onus of proving the originality of these "additional" passages will naturally rest on him who alleges the originality: the documents speak naturally against them, but their evidence is not by any means conclusive.