2025-04-20 14:32:04 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
१८
अमरुशतकम्
been incorporated into the text from the marginalia-since it
contains an idea parallel to the immediately preceding verse,
and the rest are of a general character expressing in a flow-
ery way the idea of love in the spirit of later authors, and
therefore, not in the spirit of Amaru.
If any of the three recensions has any claim to be as near
as possible to the original, then one should have no hesi-
tation in declaring in favour of Arjuna, the oldest commen-
tator. He declares in the opening verses of his Rasika-
sanjivani that he is going to explain the hundred verses which
are known to be the verses of Amaru ( प्रज्ञानवानमरुकस्य कवेः
प्रसारश्लोकान् शतं विछृणुतेऽर्जुनवर्मदेव: 1 ); Vemabhūpāla,
on the
other hand, says that he has brought together the original
verses and rejected the spurious ones : मूलश्लोकान् समाहृत्य
guma orem a; although, therefore, both have thus
edited the original inflated text, yet from the almost identi-
cal sequence of the verses in Arjuna and Rudrama it would
appear that Arjuna did not disturb the order of the verses,
while Vema, in the process of bringing together the genuine
and discarding the spurious in this so to say screening
process paid little attention to the original order. Even if
we examine Dr. De's reconstituted text of the 72 stanzas, in
which all the recensions agree, tentatively edited, as far as
possible, from the variants noted in Simon's edition (gar-
nered from all recensions)' as well as from the mss and edi-
tions which Dr. De has himself consuited, we shall not
fail to be impressed by the discovery that Arjuna's text
shows the greatest affinity with this reconstituted text,
giving only about 45 variants as against 103 in Vema's text.
Although, therefore, R. Simon remarks that it is not
possible to know for sure which Recension could be con-
अमरुशतकम्
been incorporated into the text from the marginalia-since it
contains an idea parallel to the immediately preceding verse,
and the rest are of a general character expressing in a flow-
ery way the idea of love in the spirit of later authors, and
therefore, not in the spirit of Amaru.
If any of the three recensions has any claim to be as near
as possible to the original, then one should have no hesi-
tation in declaring in favour of Arjuna, the oldest commen-
tator. He declares in the opening verses of his Rasika-
sanjivani that he is going to explain the hundred verses which
are known to be the verses of Amaru ( प्रज्ञानवानमरुकस्य कवेः
प्रसारश्लोकान् शतं विछृणुतेऽर्जुनवर्मदेव: 1 ); Vemabhūpāla,
on the
other hand, says that he has brought together the original
verses and rejected the spurious ones : मूलश्लोकान् समाहृत्य
guma orem a; although, therefore, both have thus
edited the original inflated text, yet from the almost identi-
cal sequence of the verses in Arjuna and Rudrama it would
appear that Arjuna did not disturb the order of the verses,
while Vema, in the process of bringing together the genuine
and discarding the spurious in this so to say screening
process paid little attention to the original order. Even if
we examine Dr. De's reconstituted text of the 72 stanzas, in
which all the recensions agree, tentatively edited, as far as
possible, from the variants noted in Simon's edition (gar-
nered from all recensions)' as well as from the mss and edi-
tions which Dr. De has himself consuited, we shall not
fail to be impressed by the discovery that Arjuna's text
shows the greatest affinity with this reconstituted text,
giving only about 45 variants as against 103 in Vema's text.
Although, therefore, R. Simon remarks that it is not
possible to know for sure which Recension could be con-