Please Wait...

Namamalika of Bhoja (An Old and Rare Book)

Introduction

The Critical Edition of the amalika attributed to Bhoja is based on the following Manuscripts :-

1. The MS. ed here as A belongs to MSS. collection deposited at the Sarasvati Mahala Library Tanjor(No.4791, BURNELL'S Catalogue No. 10464a). It is written on palm leaf,. 17 x 1 1/2 inches in size. It consists of 17 leaves, each leaf containing 5 or 6 lines. It is written in Telugu characters and the number of granths contained therein is 300. It is complete. We could secure the Devanagari transcript of the said MS. for the purposes of editing the present edition.,

2. This another MS. cited here as B, belongs to the Government Oriental MSS. collection Mysore (No. 258 A.). It contains 24 folios, having on each folio 27 to 29 lines on an average. It is in Telugu characters. It is complete.

3. The third MS. utilized for editing the present work and which is ed as C belongs to the India Office MSS. Collection (No. 5176). It contains 31 folios and each folio has 20 to 21 lines on an average. It is complete.

Other Material Utilized'

Besides the MSS. described above, the Editors have consulted other lexicons, chiefly the Vaijayantikosa of Yadavaprakasa and the MSS. of Balaprobodhika of Natkirakavi."

Orthographical Peculiarities

(1) Short i for long f e.g. bhogi > bhogi, yagi; > yagi, candri > candrt.

(2) Short ukara is sometimes dropped, e.g. savarne)e > savarne, madgah > mudgah.

(3) Visargas are dropped, e. g. uccaisravasi > uccaihsraoasi, tatpada > tatpadah, purohita > purohitah.

(4) Anusvaras are occasionally dropped, e.g. rucira > ruciram.

(5) Hit is written for kit, e.g. mayughajanma > mayukhajanma, sigharam > sikharam.

. (6) c is used for ch, e.g. caya > chaya, curika > churika.

(7) c is used for cch, e.g. vanachagah > vanaccnagah.

(8) th is substituted for t, e.g. karakanthakam > karakanthakam.

(9) dh and th are confused, e.g, nisidhini > nisidhini, varudhini > varuthini.

(10) P and v are confused, e.g. tpatra > toatra, prati > vrati, kapatah > kavatah.

(11) ph is written for bh, e.g. phurjaram > bhurjaram.

(12) b is used for u, e.g. dhrubavasah '> dhruvavasah.

(13) m and v are confused, e.g. turama '> turaya.,

(14) J is written for s and vice versa, e.g. sitah '> sitah, senadhipah '> senadhipah, sveta '> sveta, asitala '> asitala. (15) I is used for I, e.g. manjulataru '> manjulataru, vidalam '> vidalam.

( 16) Sometimes the letters are transposed, e.g. dama '> mada.

All the peculiarities mentioned above are recorded in the footnotes and are corrected in the constituted text. In constituting the critical text preference is given to the suitable reading as evidenced by the MSS. material and the rejected readings have been relegated to the columns of the footnotes.

The present work has been divided into three chapters as follows:

(1) Svargadiadheyaprakarana, ( 2)Gaganadiadheyaprakarana and (3) Bhumyadiadheyaprakarana.

Our present work appears to have been much influenced by the Vaijayantikosa of Yadavaprakasa, as many lines from our text are found in it. We have pointed out in the 'Critical Notes' the lines which are common to both the works.

Another point to be noted here is that we find a great number of passages from our text in the work of Balaprabodhika, So we have drawn upon these two lexicons to a large extent and these have helped us enormously in deciding the readings especially when all the three MSS. we utilized presented corrupt readings e.g.

We read with Vaijayanti-

298. parestuka for A paresthaka, BC parestaka.

421. apunarbhavah for ABC x x x bhavah,

464. samdanabhagah for ABC sadanabhagah.

464. proha for ABC praha.

585. karavah for ABC kauravah.

On the strength of our present work we can correct certain wrong readings which have crept in Vaijayanti e.g.

pasabandha of Vaijayanti ( 70.122) is apparently a wrong reading padabandha (310).

simiIarly jangitah of Vaijayanti (72.5) is clearly a mistake for jungitah ( 331 ).

The Authorship of amalika,

'The colophons at the end of each chapter of the work run as follows:-

Chapter I :-iti amalikayam ahirajenaiva samgrhitayam svar- Gadinmadheyaprakara idam akhilasukavimatam.

Chapter II :-iti amalikayam ahirajenaiva samgrhitayam gagana- Dinadheyaprakara idam akhilasukaoimatam.

Chapter III :- iti amalikhayam ahirajenaiva samgrhitayam bhu'myamadheyaprakara akhilasukavimatam. Bhojanighantus) ca samaptah.

From the above colophons we know that the work is a compilation (samgritha) and it is attributed to Ahiraja. But this Ahiraja is no than Bhoja and it is clear from the colophon of the third chapter. Dr. Burnell, (in his catalogue No. 10464a) also conjectured that the author of the amalika should have been Bhoja, since in the margin Of thework it is called Bhoja Nighantu. Secondly in the list of works attributed to Bhoja, is included our present work." For these above considerations we feel that the author of amalika is Bhoja and this bhoja is King Bhoja of Dhara, who flourished in 11th century A.D.

we are sincerely grateful to Dr. S. M. KATRE, Director, Deccan college Post-graduate and Research Institute for allowing us to edit the work. Incidentally we take this opportunity to render our sincere thanks to Pt. M. C. DIXIT Shastri of the Dictionary Department of the Institute for helping us in collating the Telugu MSS. of the work. we are indebted to Dr. M. M. PATKAR for the inspiring help which he gladly rendered to us whenever we approached him. We offer our thanks also to the authorities of the MSS libraries, who made the above-mentioned MSS. available to us.

Sample Pages









Add a review

Your email address will not be published *

For privacy concerns, please view our Privacy Policy

Post a Query

For privacy concerns, please view our Privacy Policy

CATEGORIES

Related Items