2025-04-20 14:32:04 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
Introduction
१९
sidered as the best representative of the original, and 12
Oldřich Friš is of the view that Vema's text is better
than that of Arjuna or Ravicandra, I feel we ought to agree
with the view expressed by Dr. Bühler 13 that the III recen-
ion vouchsafed by the oldest commentator must be assigned
the first place
It is, however,
mutilated form,
One really
The text of Ravicandra ( II recension ), too, appears to
have been derived from this common source, viz., the in-
flated text of Rudrama; for all its verses, with the excep-
tion of the last five and two others ( लाक्षालक्ष्म and नभसि
नलदलक्ष्मी ) which it shares with Arjuna and Vema respec-
tively, are to be found in Rudrama's text.
transmitted in an extremely corrupt and
as the following few examples will illustrate.
wonders that in its hundred verses as many as seven are
either hypermetrical or metrically defective, e. g. 9 (a)
प्रिय त्वमेष्यसि, 17 (c) नयनसलिलच्छलाद् दृष्टिः सखीषु निपातिता,
28 (c) प्रियमभिसरसि मुग्धे त्वं समाहतडिण्डिमा, 47 (c) किमिदमथवा
सत्यं मुग्धे त्वया विनिश्चितम् 71 (d) रमणपदवी सारङ्गाक्ष्या ससंभ्रममु-
दीक्षिता, 73 (a) कथमपि प्रत्यावृत्ते प्रिये स्वलितोत्तरे, 84 (a ) मलय-
मस्तां माता गता. Many of the variants it gives appear to be
inferior or obscure, if not altogether meaningless; e. g.
18 (C) ईषद्वक्रितकन्धरः it reads as ईषद्वक्रिमकन्धरः, 9 (d) बर्बर-
कर्कशैः it reads as वर्करकर्करैः ; 19 (6) निगदतः श्रुत्वैव तारं वधूः
it reads as निगदतस्तस्योपहारं वधूः, 25 (b) तद्वीटिकासंस्पृशि is
given as तद्वीटिकां संस्पृाश, 41 (a) for कान्ते सागसि यापिते or
शापिते it has कान्ते सागसि शायिते, 82 (b) प्रतिवचनमुचैः प्रण-
12. the Recensions of the Amaruśataka. Journal of the
Czechoslovac Oriental Institute Prague, Vol. XIX. 1951
Pp. 125-176.
13. Z. D. M. G. Vol, 57 1893. P. 94.
१९
sidered as the best representative of the original, and 12
Oldřich Friš is of the view that Vema's text is better
than that of Arjuna or Ravicandra, I feel we ought to agree
with the view expressed by Dr. Bühler 13 that the III recen-
ion vouchsafed by the oldest commentator must be assigned
the first place
It is, however,
mutilated form,
One really
The text of Ravicandra ( II recension ), too, appears to
have been derived from this common source, viz., the in-
flated text of Rudrama; for all its verses, with the excep-
tion of the last five and two others ( लाक्षालक्ष्म and नभसि
नलदलक्ष्मी ) which it shares with Arjuna and Vema respec-
tively, are to be found in Rudrama's text.
transmitted in an extremely corrupt and
as the following few examples will illustrate.
wonders that in its hundred verses as many as seven are
either hypermetrical or metrically defective, e. g. 9 (a)
प्रिय त्वमेष्यसि, 17 (c) नयनसलिलच्छलाद् दृष्टिः सखीषु निपातिता,
28 (c) प्रियमभिसरसि मुग्धे त्वं समाहतडिण्डिमा, 47 (c) किमिदमथवा
सत्यं मुग्धे त्वया विनिश्चितम् 71 (d) रमणपदवी सारङ्गाक्ष्या ससंभ्रममु-
दीक्षिता, 73 (a) कथमपि प्रत्यावृत्ते प्रिये स्वलितोत्तरे, 84 (a ) मलय-
मस्तां माता गता. Many of the variants it gives appear to be
inferior or obscure, if not altogether meaningless; e. g.
18 (C) ईषद्वक्रितकन्धरः it reads as ईषद्वक्रिमकन्धरः, 9 (d) बर्बर-
कर्कशैः it reads as वर्करकर्करैः ; 19 (6) निगदतः श्रुत्वैव तारं वधूः
it reads as निगदतस्तस्योपहारं वधूः, 25 (b) तद्वीटिकासंस्पृशि is
given as तद्वीटिकां संस्पृाश, 41 (a) for कान्ते सागसि यापिते or
शापिते it has कान्ते सागसि शायिते, 82 (b) प्रतिवचनमुचैः प्रण-
12. the Recensions of the Amaruśataka. Journal of the
Czechoslovac Oriental Institute Prague, Vol. XIX. 1951
Pp. 125-176.
13. Z. D. M. G. Vol, 57 1893. P. 94.