2025-04-20 14:32:04 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
Introduction
१७
If we consider the text of Rudrama we find that in the 63 11
variants in which Rec, I differs from II and III, Rudrama
agrees with Arjuna in as many as 53 cases: only in a
few cases he has independent readings and in three cases he
agrees with Vema. In the 39 variants which Rec. II has
against I and III we find that in a majority of these cases
Rudrama agrees with Arjuna - the number of agreements
being as high as 32. Although in the remaining seven cases
he appears to agree with Ravicandra, the agreement is only
apparent or at best doubtful, since one or the other of the
mss collated by Dr. De shows in these cases a variant that
agrees with Arjuna and Vema, or gives an altogether inde-
pendent reading. In the 32 variants in III against I and II,
we find that Rudrama is in agreement with Arjuna in 22
cases, with Vema in 5 and has independent readings in the
remaining cases. Similarly in the 33 cases where all three
Recensions differ from one another, it will be seen that
Rudrama agrees with Arjuna in 22 cases gives five indepen-
dent readings, while he agrees with Ravicandra only in
three places and with Vema in the remaining.
In view of this very close affinity between the texts of
Arjuna and Rudrama, it is possible to assert that both of
them derive their texts from a common archetype: while
Rudrama gives the text as it came to him without entering
into its merits, Arjuna applied to it what Matthew Arnold
would have called the touchstone test, and whichever verse
to his critical judgment appeared to be against the spirit of
Amaru's poetry was regarded by him as dross to be ruthless-
ly rejected from the gold of pure poetry. Of the fourteen
verses from Rudrama rejected by Arjuna, six contain des-
criptions of nature, on (4) appears to have
11. R. Simon: Das Amaruçataka Pp. 31-32, Kiel 1893.
१७
If we consider the text of Rudrama we find that in the 63 11
variants in which Rec, I differs from II and III, Rudrama
agrees with Arjuna in as many as 53 cases: only in a
few cases he has independent readings and in three cases he
agrees with Vema. In the 39 variants which Rec. II has
against I and III we find that in a majority of these cases
Rudrama agrees with Arjuna - the number of agreements
being as high as 32. Although in the remaining seven cases
he appears to agree with Ravicandra, the agreement is only
apparent or at best doubtful, since one or the other of the
mss collated by Dr. De shows in these cases a variant that
agrees with Arjuna and Vema, or gives an altogether inde-
pendent reading. In the 32 variants in III against I and II,
we find that Rudrama is in agreement with Arjuna in 22
cases, with Vema in 5 and has independent readings in the
remaining cases. Similarly in the 33 cases where all three
Recensions differ from one another, it will be seen that
Rudrama agrees with Arjuna in 22 cases gives five indepen-
dent readings, while he agrees with Ravicandra only in
three places and with Vema in the remaining.
In view of this very close affinity between the texts of
Arjuna and Rudrama, it is possible to assert that both of
them derive their texts from a common archetype: while
Rudrama gives the text as it came to him without entering
into its merits, Arjuna applied to it what Matthew Arnold
would have called the touchstone test, and whichever verse
to his critical judgment appeared to be against the spirit of
Amaru's poetry was regarded by him as dross to be ruthless-
ly rejected from the gold of pure poetry. Of the fourteen
verses from Rudrama rejected by Arjuna, six contain des-
criptions of nature, on (4) appears to have
11. R. Simon: Das Amaruçataka Pp. 31-32, Kiel 1893.