कान्हड़दे प्रबन्ध (कवि पद्मनाभ - जालोर चौहान वीरगाथा, अलाउद्दीन खिलजी से युद्ध व जौहर इतिहास)

डदे"! Wait! Look at Line 5: "राजा महोदरा संयती... बालबीम मीरी २। मरी भीर चिप या नि रुकसी नमः खा करेश..." Look at Line 6: "...चालते चव्यान सीह की आज राहि गोपफाण लाना ल..." Look at Line 7: "...मुगट तलांट गाय फर..." Look at Line 8: "...माधव..." -> "माधव वउनी वागवी माहना फमूहनी..." -> माधव ब्राह्मण! Madhava Vyasa/Brahmana! "माधव वउली वागवी माहनाफ मूहनी..." -> "माधव" is Madhava who went to Delhi to invite Alauddin! Look at Line 9: "...अनेक बंध जय जय जय सबद्द..." Look at Line 11: "...अलपखां संभार/धनुष नाव संध करा..." -> "अलपखां" (Alap Khan)!! Yes! "अलपखां संभार धनुष बाण संध करा"! Look at Line 11: "अलपखां संभार/धनुष बाण संध करा/बाण तथा रीशीर मी मूरा याउ..." Look at Line 12: "आसीरशी अनि का मां पीधा के वकिवाजी नाना बोल मूर गर करिपु बडी जगजल का होना उपरिय" Look at Line 13: "...४२ [जिंत

VERTICAL! Wait, look at the orientation of the letters in "कान्हडदे प्रबन्ध": The letters are rotated 90 degrees! Wait, let's look at the page orientation: The page in the image: Height is larger than width! "Last folio (folio 23 recto and verso) of the J MS." is at the bottom, reading horizontally from left to right. Wait, can you read "Last folio..." normally? YES! "L - a - s - t f - o - l - i - o..." It is completely normal, upright text at the bottom. Now look at "राजस्थान पुरातन ग्रन्थमाला": It is at the top left, but rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise? Wait, if you rotate the entire image 90 degrees CLOCKWISE: Then "राजस्थान पुरातन ग्रन्थमाला" is at the TOP, reading normally from left to right! Let's check: 'रा' is on the left, 'ज' is next, 'स्था' is next, 'न' is next... YES! If you rotate the image 90 degrees CLOCKWISE, "राजस्थान पुरातन ग्रन्थमाला" is a standard running header at the top of the left page! And "कान्हडदे प्रबन्ध" is at the top of the right page (or running header on the right)! Wait, if rotated 90 degrees clockwise, "Last folio..." would be on the left edge, reading vertically! Why would

No marginal corrections or additions are found anywhere in the ms. The numbering of verses is regular up to I 191, after which follows the Bhaḍāulī, a part of which is, in this ms, versified and numbered. After the Bhaḍāulī up to the end of Khaṇḍa I the verses are numbered regularly. Verses of Khaṇḍa II are numbered regularly except that II 101 is marked as 300 instead of 100 according to this ms. (The copyist perhaps wanted to give continuous numbers). Verses in Khaṇḍa III are numbered regularly up to III 205 (which is numbered 194 in this ms) which is however followed by verse 1 (= 201). After that the numbering is regular up to the end of the Khaṇḍa In Khaṇḍa IV the numbering is regular up to the end, except that instead of vs. 300 according to the scheme in this ms 100 is written through mistake. Verse-numbers, refrains of songs, names of metres, beginning of a Bhaḍāulī, colophons marking the end of a Khaṇḍa, are rubricated. The maṅgalācaraṇa or prasasti of the ms is: ॐ श्री भगवत्यै नम । Its respective colophons are: इति श्री प्रथमपंड समापतः ॥ १ ॥ इति श्री द्वितीय पड समापतः ॥ २ ॥ इति श्री तृतीयखंड समाप्तः ॥ इति श्री राउल कान्हडदे पवाडु रास । संपूर्णः ॥ श्रीरस्तुः ॥ शुभं भवतु ॥ लेखकपाठकयो. ॥ The paper is of medium thickness and brownish in colour. Insects have bored holes at the top and the bottom and in the right- hand margins, but the writing has not suffered thereby. The ms is very well preserved. The handwriting is excellent; the script is Brahmanical Deva- nāgarī, very occasionally using a paḍimātrā. The copyist who may have been also the owner of the manuscript is certainly Brahmanical. He is also a good scholar of Sanskrit and Gujarati. There is no colophon indicating the date or the name of the copyist but from the style of the script and condition of paper, the ms appears to belong to the early 17th century v. s. The style of the script points to Gujarāt as the place of its origin. Ms K comes from the collection of Śrī Motichandji Khajanchi of Bīkāner. It must have had originally 53 folios, of which the first and the last—folios 1 and 53—are, unfortunately, missing, as also folio 49.

24 KĀNHADADE PRABANDHA Each folio measures 10.3" by 4.3" with side-margins .8" wide and top and bottom margins .3" to .4" wide. The side-margins are marked off by a sharp triple line or sometimes a bunch of several fine lines. Folios 2–12 have generally 11 lines per page. Folios 13–29 have usually 12 lines per page. Folios 30–31, 34, 37–39, 41–44, 46–48 and 52 have 13 lines per page. Folios 32, 33, 40, 45, 50, 51 have 14 lines per page. Each page has on an average 12 lines. The number of letters per line varies from 31 to 45, the average being about 36 letters. In the left-hand margins bottom of the verso side is written the number of the folio; the name of the poem is, however, not mentioned. Deletion is made by painting out the letter or word with white colour, after crossing it out with very small vertical strokes on the top (vide f. 1 recto, ll. 1, 8, 9). On f. 8 verso where several words are to be deleted they are painted out white. Sometimes on this white ground the correct words are written (f. 38 recto l. 10; f. 45 verso, ll. 11–12). Occasionally the deleted words are, after crossing them by a fine line, rounded off (f. 47 recto, l. 6). Words omitted in the text are added in the side margins in the same line (f. 2 verso, l 5). On f. 5 recto thus a whole caraṇa is added in the left-hand margin, vertically, starting from the bottom, its place being shown in the writing by a cross. A whole caraṇa is similarly added in the right-hand margin of folio 6 verso, and an entire verse on f. 20 recto. Sometimes, if only a letter or so is to be added, it is written in smaller hands above its proper place (f. 3 verso, l. 5; folio 4 verso, l. 5). At one palce a whole caraṇa is thus added above the line in small hands (f. 5 recto l. 5), the position of the insertion being indicated by a kākapada. Once, on f. 29 recto, l. 8 such addition is made in small hands below the place of omission. On f. 10 recto the addition of a caraṇa is made in the bottom-margin in small hands The numbering of verses is regular up to the end of Khaṇḍa I, the last verse of Khaṇḍa I being numbered as (2) 49. Then, unlike the other mss, the numbering runs continuously, i. e. the first verse of Khaṇḍa II is numbered as 250, but verse 400 (= II 154) is, through mistake, numbered as only 100. The concluding verse of Khaṇḍa II is numbered as 14 (= 414); and the first verse of Khaṇḍa III is numbered

चित्र में प्रस्तुत हस्तलिखित प्रति के अन्तिम पृष्ठ (पत्र ५२ पृष्ठ/verso, पाण्डुलिपि 'K') का पंक्तिवार मूल पाठ:

व्यजातामसिदालाब जिंति दीया[ण] वा[ग]ह... [उ] जे केतत उवअणि जिनि सिषो तब परांग कीरति डंपण ब[लि] विस्मा[उ] जिणि सुणइ तेणि असाचा करी॥ [१] एणी तो जन यदि तियउ थयउ सूर जत्रीति थतणी तर काया बांण जनम गयउ अचेत उभउ आपन तापनी महा दुरत ए० ॥ ३०॥ अमर राज उलिम भव तरा जेट दातु पण न विकल अणुआरा जाण इकीरी तिका० ३० दतणी ॥ स ष द रकि थि प्र० ३०॥ लीअण॥२०॥ तारा उसुटटी तिरन लापं जे केली छत्रिम इस तल पोरी कर च म अ ड ते उ दित व त भा मा हे अंतारूं धतिक खवंटाहिवावलसूल नगर उतां मरण का पदमना तिल-छिइ ० पण विवेक आणए को सीरोल दरश अवती जत दुधिकति उनरंन नी वा मा इस्तार तीतण इपसा डा० अण्वर संघ उडित्त्वाशणत्र... इरा अथ थामणी मम रावट मना रि कारिति विस्तरी ॥ आ सो तजंतो सरीर उक्मा० चउपइ खंड ४ समाप्त रसूं दया रखउ जिंप नवन मां वाहहावत पदमनाभं बांण यंधवता जाम उउ डित वरा सामा समाप्तं ॥ इति प्रबंधा ॥ संवत १५१२ वरसे ... दिने सोमे मार विस्ता डूा० आगा ल उरण ट ठ त्रि न मे त्र मा अ उल कान्हडदे नाना पद सती जिनी ति ० अं० एन नवी ति हस्ताणी कर तिवगी प्रध॥ ७॥ एक हिवि हिन समा समडा ते हताणी मसि द्रुत ट र ल इजिक फल कल अद दाधु ईदान अककल गं गात ० ए इस त नो त्रा णो ॥ लिफ ५२ लक हत य क धि ध द व नी जि ष व ल इ इ दी द व नि निरमली अकफर म लवचन प्स आंणा अकप त ध दूया०

राजस्थान पुरातन ग्रन्थमाला कान्हडदे प्रबन्ध

Manuscript Folio (L MS, Folio 38 verso)

• असि आमण आण दीधं दुलह ॥ यत्रीअइ मास साठि पंचावइ नेत्र प्रथोकि नयन रस डांम । इति श्रीमद्दूंगरसी फल श्रीमण तमहरा वतारा काणि कु रंकुलिति साद्रुम यशुआ अ तवत् मति पद्म आद्रए इरा रान कन्त लष वाण गाजा ॰ ॰ ॰ न जान न वारिनि म रन या ॰ ॰ ॰ सभर राज इइ सत्रानी धयगण त्त्रगवा इदिक विजन कलताअइ बना निति करिति विक्रम १५ दाहु पड प्रभु रागत मात

Last page (folio 38 verso) of the L MS.

as 15 (= 415). Khaṇḍa III ends at vs. 663; Khaṇḍa IV commences with vs. 664. Verse-numbers, names of the metres, commencement of the Bhaḍāuli, stops in the Bhaḍāuli, refrains of songs, dates, and the colo- phons are rubricated. The prasasti or maṅgalācaraṇa is lost as the first folio is missing. The colophons of the Khaṇḍas are : इति श्री कान्हदे पउपइ प्रथमखंड समाप्त. ॥ १ ॥ इति द्विती खंड समाप्तः ॥ २ ॥ ॥ छ ॥ The MS is in excellent condition. The paper is thick and brownish. The handwriting is beautiful and rather large up to f. 26. Sometimes the writing is marred by haste, as on f. 32. In the last 12 folios—from f. 40–52—the writing is not uniform, nor comparable to the preceding pages in attractiveness, but it is certainly from the pen of one and the same copyist. The MS is carefully copied, accurate and preserves the old tradition faithfully. As the final colophon has not been preserved nothing definite can be known either about the copyist or the date of transcription. It appears, however, that the copyist was a Brahmanical scribe, as the script is Brahmanical Devanāgarī of the Rājasthānī type. There is no padīmātrā. From the condition of the paper, script etc. the MS may be placed in the early 17th century. Ms L also comes from the private collection of Śrī Motichandji KHAJĀNCHĪ of Bīkāner. It is fragmentary; only folios 15 to 38 are extant, of which again folio 32 is missing. Each folio measures 10" by 4.3" with margins on two sides .7" wide marked off by two fine double lines each, sometimes at a little distance from each other. The top and the bottom margins are about .5" wide. The lines per page vary from 13 to 16, the average being about 15 per page. Folios 15, 16, 18 have 13 lines per page; folios 19, 20, 23, 27–29, 34–35 have 14 lines per page; folios 17, 22, 24–26, 30–31, 36–38 have 15 lines per page. Folios 21, 33 have 16 lines per page. There are on an average 43 letters per line—varying from 37 to 48 letters per line. In the bottom of the left-hand margin of the verso side is written the folio-number, but the name of the poem is not mentioned anywhere. 4]

26 KĀNHADADE PRABANDHA Deleting a letter is made as usual by marking two small upward strokes on the head-line or top of the letter (f. 16 recto, l. 1 ; f. 18 verso, ll. 8, 9). Sometimes a headline is not formed which also indicates deletion. If a number of words are to be deleted they are placed within two curved lines not unlike modern brackets (f. 16 recto, l. 2; f. 30 verso, ll. 9-10). The addition of a letter, left out in the text, is made sometimes in the side-margin (folio 21 verso, ll. 7, 11) and sometimes above the line in small hands (f. 25 l. 8) when several letters are to be thus added, the addition is made in small hand in the top-margin flanked by a cross on each side, and the place of addition is indicated by a cross resembling a kākapada (f. 25 recto top-margin). The numbering of the verses is irregular. Sometimes two verses, sometimes even four verses are numbered as one. After II 142 the numbering is regular up to the end of Khaṇḍa II (the last verse of Khaṇḍa II is numbered as 55) The verse-numbers being continuous, the first verse of Khaṇḍa III is marked as 56. Otherwise the numbering is again regular : vs III 47 is numbered as 300; vs III 151 is numbered as 400; vs III 250 is numbered as 500. Khaṇḍa III ends at 501; so the first verse of Khaṇḍa IV is numbered as 502; IV 98 is numbered as 600, IV 200 is numbered as 700; vs. IV 299 is numbered as (7)97 (the next three verses have remained unnumbered), and the last verse in the ms (folio 38 verso, l. 15)—IV 342—is numbered as (8)40 The folio numbers, refrains, the verse-endings and verse-numbers, names of metres, Bhaḍāualis, the beginnings of Khaṇḍas and the colo- phons are all rubricated. The colophons are . इति राजा श्री कान्हडदे द्वितीय पंड समाप्त. ॥ इति राजा श्री कान्हडदे तृतीय स्वर्ग समाप्त ॥ The final colophon has not come down as the ᴍs is fragmentary. The ᴍs is fairly well-preserved, but the paper being thin and of an inferior quality the edges crumble away when handled. The copyist is a professional scribe and appears to be Rājasthānī, both from the script and the pronounced Rājasthānī character of several words. He is not a scholar, which accounts for the lapses in copying. The script is Devanāgarī of the Rājasthānī type, and frequently resorts to pṛṣṭhamātrā, which, however is not uniformly adopted as in ms c. The handwriting is an excellent specimen of Old Western Rājasthānī pen- manship. The ms is important as preserving a purely Rājasthānī version of the poem. From the condition of the ms and the style of

INTRODUCTION 27 its script etc. it might be presumed to belong to the end of the 17th century or thereabouts, though in the absence of the final colophon, nothing definite can be said about the copyist or the date of copying. Ms I, mentioned in the critical apparatus, but not described here represents the text prepared by DERĀSARĪ from four sources, three of which have been used in the present edition (namely B, D, and the Śāḻāpatra text). Assuming that, where DERĀSARĪ's text records a reading, not found in any of the MSS used in the present edition, it might perhaps belong to the ख MS which was inaccessible to me, a few of such readings from I divergent from the other variants are recorded in this edition. In this connection I₁ refers to DERĀSARĪ's first edition, I₂ the second edition, and merely I stands for both the editions, where they agree with one another. I₁ (ख) indicates ख MS used by DERĀSARĪ, from which some variants are noted in the first edition in the footnotes. Only a few such variants have been noted in the present edition in this way, for, it was found that the divergence was often due to a faulty deciphering of the manuscripts. Occasionally readings from I₁ or I₂ are noted only to draw attention to this fact. Another source, namely the text published by the late Naval- rām Lakshmīrām PANDYĀ, in the ‘Gujarāt Śāḻāpatra’ of 1877–1878¹ was accessible to me, but has not been utilized in the present edition. The reason is that the Śāḻāpatra text is a verbatim transcription of the D MS. The Śāḻāpatra text commences with the praśasti कान्हडदे प्रबंध and ends with a colophon : इति कान्हडेप्रबंध चतुर्थखंड समाप्त ही सं. १६३० माहा सुद २ वार भोमे ऋषभप्रसादात् गां. बीसानयरे सं । पं. कल्याणविजयजि तत् शिष्य मु मोतिचंद तथैव दयाविजयजी चतुर्मासे कृत्वा । which is identical with the colophon found in the D MS. Besides, several mistakes, as shown below, have crept in the Śāḻāpatra text during the process of printing. Khaṇḍa Verse D Ms Śāḻāpatra text I 8 राज जा राज ” 13 सुपई छुपाई ” 14 तरवाणूं भरकाणूं ” 15 महितइं, छूटीइं महिमइं, सुटीइं 1 The text of the Kānhaḍade Prabandha appears in the issues of the Śāḻāpatra from January 1877–April 1877, June 1877–July 1877, September 1877–October 1877, December 1877–February 1878, May 1878 (concluded)

28 KĀNHAḌAḌE PRABANDHA Khaṇḍa Verse D Ms Śālāpātra text " 17 अपकिरत्ती अपकीरती " 19 पहिल्हिं पहेलुं " 21 पातसाह पातशाह " 23 साभली सांभळी " 28 पसाउ पसात " 35 वदीतु वदीउ " 36 तासु भासु " 40 परठीइ परठेइ " 41 टमकि पेसडु टमकिये सडु " 59 दहोत्तर दडोत्तर Several of these mistakes are, evidently, the result of misreading the manuscript. The late Navalrām Pāṇḍyā prefixed a note¹ in the first number of the Śālāpatra (January, 1877) in which the publication of the Kānhaḍade Prabandha commences. He said therein that he was publishing the poem, Kānhaḍade Prabandha, from the manuscript sent to him by Dr. Bühler, to give the readers an idea of the Old Gujarātī language. As he had only one manuscript he had refrained from any emendation of the text. He had intended to give a glossary of difficult words and discuss the grammar of Old Gujarātī at the end. However, he did not live long enough to fulfil this promise. This text, being a verbatim transcript of the D ms, was entirely useless for purposes of collation. 1 Vide “घणाना धारवामा एम छे के गूजराती भाषा हाल जेम बोलाय छे तेम ज नरसिंह महेताना वखतथी बोलाती आवे छे पण ए देखीती ज भूल छे. एटल वर्ष सुधी भाषा विकार न पामे ए जनस्वभाव अने सघळा देशनी भाषाओना इतिहासथी उलटुं छे. आ बाबत आ पत्रना एक वार जूना ग्रंथोना प्रमाण आपी अमे केटलो फेरफार थयो छे, ते काइक बताव्युं हतुं. हाल आपणा विद्वान इन्स्पेक्टर महेरवान डाक्टर बुल्हर साहेबनी तर्फथी 'कान्हडदे प्रबंध' ए नामनुं एक जूनुं काव्य अमने मल्युं छे. ए पणसे वर्षनी पहेला लखायलुं छे. एनो विषय गूजरात उपर अल्लाउद्दीने सवारी करी ते छे अने एमां वीर तथा अद्भुत रसनु प्राधान्य छे. एनो नायक झालोरनो कान्हान्हदेव राजा छे. एना युद्धना तथा कूचना वर्णनो स्वाभाविक, आबेहूब छे. अंहिया एने महीने महीने प्रगट करवाने विचार कर्यो छे तेनु मुख्य कारण तो ए छे के गूजरातना विद्वानोना हाथमा जूनी भाषानु एक सळंग पुस्तक आवे. जूनी गुजरातीनुं व्याकरण आपवानो अमारो विचार छे, पण ते पहेलां आवो एकाद ग्रंथ बहार पडे ए अमने वधारे सारु लागे छे. प्रत छे ते प्रमाणे ज अंहिया छापीय छइय. एमा एके अक्षरनो पण फेरफार करता नथी. कोइ ठेकाणे भूल छेवुं लखनारनी तरफनु अमने भासे छे, तोपण ज्यां सुधी केटलीएक प्रत अमारा हाथमां आवी नथी त्यां सुधी तेने छेडवुं ए अमने व्याजी लगतु नथी. जूनी भाषा हालथी केटली जूदी हती ते आ उपरथी सहेल मालम पडशे उलटि देखत तो ए छे के वेटनगरथी ए समजाशे न नहि तेमने हमारी भलामण छे के धीरजथी आ काव्य वांचवुं, अने पाठ्य भणे शाला- पत्रना जूनी भाषा बाबत राइ रह्यु छे ते उपर लक्ष राखवु. एमां आविला कठिन शब्दनों कोष तथा व्याकरणनियम पाटळथी आपवानो अमारो विचार छे.” —'Śālāpatra', January, 1877

INTRODUCTION 29 V These manuscripts arrange themselves in three distinct groups according to their common readings, omissions, interpolations, verse order, etc. Mss CDJ are allied, and very different from the rest; but amongst them DJ show a greater mutual affinity. Of the remaining Mss B, G (H) and L show enough mutual affinity to be classed as one group, descended from a common source. A and K are alike, but are not copies of the same ms. E definitely belongs to the B G H L group. F is a very short fragment coming only up to I 181; yet its relationship with the CDJ group is clear. I can be safely regarded as a conflation of B and D. The geneology of the various manuscripts can be stated in the following stemma : Archetype ┌──────────┴───────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐ ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┬───────┐ ┌───┴───────┐ │ │ ┌───┴───┐ │ │ ┌───┴───┐ │ A K │ │ E L │ │ F B G C ┌───┴───┐ │ (H) │ │ │ D J └───┐ ┌───┘ └───► I ◄───────┘ The summary of omissions and readings common to the different manuscripts given in Appendix I will show in detail how this geneology is determined. Of the foregoing manuscripts A is, according to the date of copying, the oldest ms. It is copied in v. s. 1598, 86 years after the date of composition, in Jhalor, the native-place of the poet. It is probable that the copyist had access to the poet's autograph or a direct copy of it. I have, naturally, given more importance to this manuscript (ms A). Ms K also comes from Rājasthān, is equally accurate, and appears quite old. I have, therefore, given the same importance to it is as to A.

28 KĀNHADADE PRABANDHA Khanda Verse D Ms Śālāpātra text " 17 अपकिरत्ती अपकीरती " 19 पहिलं पहेलं " 21 पातसाइ पातशाह " 23 सांभली सांभळी " 28 पमाउ पसात " 35 बदीतु बदीउ " 36 तासु भासु " 40 परठीइ परठेइ " 41 टमकि पेसडु दमकिये सडु " 59 दहोत्तर ददोत्तर Several of these mistakes are, evidently, the result of misreading the manuscript. The late NAVALRĀM PANDYĀ prefixed a note¹ in the first number of the Śālāpatra (January, 1877) in which the publication of the Kānhadade Prabandha commences. He said therein that he was publishing the poem, Kānhadade Prabandha, from the manuscript sent to him by Dr. BÜHLER, to give the readers an idea of the Old Gujarātī language. As he had only one manuscript he had refrained from any emendation of the text. He had intended to give a glossary of difficult words and discuss the grammar of Old Gujarātī at the end. However, he did not live long enough to fulfil this promise. This text, being a verbatim transcript of the D MS, was entirely useless for purposes of collation. ¹ Vide: "घणाना धारवामा एम छे के गूहराती भाषा हाल जेम बोलाय छे तेम ज नरसिंह महेताना वखतथी बोलती आवे छे पण ए केवडी ज भूल छे षट्शत वर्ष सुधी भाषा विकार न पामे ए जनस्वभाव अने सगळ्या देशनी भाषाओना इतिहासथी उलटु छे आ बाबत आ पत्रमा एक वार जूना प्रयोगोना प्रमाण आपी अमे केटलो फेरफार थयो छे, ते कांइक बताव्युं हतुं हाल आपणा विद्वान इन्सपेक्टर मेहेरबान डाक्टर बुह्लर साहेबनी तरफथी 'कान्हडदे प्रबंध' ए नामनुं एक जूनूं काव्य अमने मळ्युं छे ए वखते वर्षनी पहेला ठरावेलुं छे एनो विषय गुजरात उपर अल्लाउदीने सवारी करी ते छे अने एमां वीर तथा अद्भुत रसनु प्राधान्य छे एनो नायक झालोरनो कान्हडदेव राजा छे एमां युद्धना तथा कूचनां वर्णनो स्वाभाविक, हुबेहूब छे. अहिया एने महीने महीने प्रगट करवाने विचार कर्यो छे तेनु मुख्य कारण तो ए छे के गुजरातना विद्वानोना हाथमा जूनी भाषानु एक समग्र पुस्तक आवे जूनी गुजरातीनुं व्याकरण आपवानो अमारो विचार छे, पण ते पहेलां आवो एकाद ग्रंथ बहार पडे ए अमने वधारे सारु लागे छे. प्रत छे ते प्रमाणे ज अहिया छापीए छइए एमां एके अक्खरनो पण फेरफार करता नथी. कोइ ठेकाणे भूल जेवुं लखनारनी तरफनु अमने भासे छे, तोपण ज्यां सुधी केटलीएक प्रत अमारा हाथमां आवी नथी त्यां सुधी तेने छेडवुं ए अमने न्यायी लगतु नथी जूनी भाषा हालथी केटली जूदी हती ते आ उपरथी सहेज मालुम पडशे उल्टी देहेसत तो ए छे के केटलाएकथी ए समजाशे ज नहि तेमने अमारी भलामण छे के धीरजथी आ काव्य वांचवु. अने पाछळ अमे शाळा- पत्रनां जूनी भाषा बावत कांइ लख्युं छे ते उपर लक्ष राखवु एमां आवेला कठिन शब्दोनो कोष तथा व्याकरणनियम पाछळथी आपवानो अमारो विचार छे." —'Śālāpatra', January, 1877

INTRODUCTION 29 V These manuscripts arrange themselves in three distinct groups according to their common readings, omissions, interpolations, verse order, etc. Mss CDJ are allied, and very different from the rest; but amongst them DJ show a greater mutual affinity. Of the remaining Mss B, G (H) and L show enough mutual affinity to be classed as one group, descended from a common source. A and K are alike, but are not copies of the same ms. E definitely belongs to the B G H L group. F is a very short fragment coming only up to I 181; yet its relationship with the CDJ group is clear. I can be safely regarded as a conflation of B and D. The geneology of the various manuscripts can be stated in the following stemma: Archetype ┌──────────┴───────────────┐ ┌───┴───┐ ┌────────┴────────┐ ┌──────┴──────┐ │ │ ┌───┴───┐ │ │ │ ┌───┴───┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┌─┴─┐ │ │ A K B G E L C D J F (H) \ / \ / I The summary of omissions and readings common to the different manuscripts given in Appendix I will show in detail how this geneology is determined. Of the foregoing manuscripts A is, according to the date of copying, the oldest MS. It is copied in v. s. 1598, 86 years after the date of composition, in Jhalor, the native-place of the poet. It is probable that the copyist had access to the poet's autograph or a direct copy of it. I have, naturally, given more importance to this manuscript (MS A). Ms K also comes from Rājasthān, is equally accurate, and appears quite old. I have, therefore, given the same importance to it is as to A.

30 KĀNHADADE PRABANDHA Ms B too is old and reliable and has been fully utilized in the constitution of the text. Mss E F though fragments and, therefore, undated, appear from their general condition, script, language etc to be equally old and reliable. They have been very useful indeed in the collation. Of the remaining manuscripts D has been more useful than the rest as it is more faithful to the original, if less erudite than C and J, which frequently resort to emendations and restorations, and are, therefore, to that extent untrustworthy. G (H) is pretty old, but is rather corrupt. L is quite distinct from the rest, being conspicuous by the peculiarly Rājasthānī character of its script and language. It has been helpful in tracing and restoring the Rājasthānī elements in the language of the Prabandha. VI The following principles have been adopted in the present edition for constituting the text. Instead of reproducing the text of the oldest manuscript according to the date of its copying, and giving the variants from the other manuscripts in the footnotes, or basing the text on the evidence of the majority of manuscripts, I have, as shown above, determined the geneology of the manuscripts and constituted the text by the selection of readings which were more representative than the rest. To take a concrete instance, a reading found in AKB or ABE will be more representative and therefore more likely to belong to the archetype than that found in CDJF alone, as the latter, though larger in number, represent but one family. In the selection of readings due weightage is also given to older and more reliable manuscripts like AKB or EF. Having settled the reading for adoption in the text, all the remaining variants are recorded in the footnote. I have thought it necessary to give the full critical apparatus for two reasons. It was, firstly, necessary to preserve the entire ms evidence, where the manu- scripts were so rare and linguistically so important. Secondly, when a series of dated mss are available, separated from one another by a quarter or half a century each, the variants noted from them would enable the reader to see, at a glance, the phonological development of a word. In constituting the text I have always kept before me the linguistic norm found in works composed circa v. s. 1500 and copied about that time, and have endeavoured to constitute the text in such a way as to make it approximate to that norm.

INTRODUCTION 31 The Old Western Rājasthānī orthography is not fixed. The different manuscripts give a variety of forms of the same word. I have, generally, tried to select the form which is philologically more correct, or is the direct predecessor of the standard modern Gujarati form. Thus, for instance, मांहि is preferred to मांहिं, माहि, माहिँ etc., as a form from which the Modern Gujarati मां is directly derived. At times, when in a portion of the text all the manuscripts fail to give the standard Old Western Rājasthānī form, I have not hesitated to restore it on the evidence found elsewhere in the text. In constituting the text due consideration is given to the context and grammatical accuracy. Readings more suitable contextually, syn- tactically and grammatically are given preference over the rest though found only in a minority of manuscripts. Nuances of current speech have been another criterion for selection of readings. If a word is used generally in a particular context, it is preferred to all variants in that context though these variants may occur in a larger number of manuscripts. Similarly metrical considerations, including the observance of initial or final rhyme have also been helpful in determining the text. Thus, a reading metrically more suitable is preferred, though it may not be fully representative. Preference is given to the older forms over later ones, and to owr forms over their Sanskritizations. If a reading is faulty, and the corresponding correct standard form is found elsewhere in the text or in other owr works of the same period the latter is restored. It is an undisputed fact that Old Western Rājasthānī, which can be called either Old Gujarātī or Old Rājasthānī, was the speech of a wide area, which included both North Gujarāt and Southern and Western Rājasthān including a part of Mālwā. The form of speech used in Gujarat and Rājasthān then reveals just dialectical variations almost like the Kāṭhiāwaḍī and Surtī dialects of Modern Gujarātī. This poem, belonging, as it does, to Southern Rājasthān must have contained numerous Rājasthānī traits in the original. In restoring the text I have thought it necessary to give preference to Rājasthānī forms found in Rājasthānī mss like AKL, or characteristically Rājas- thānī forms in other mss, such as those encountered in old Rājasthānī classics like Ḍholāmārurā Duhā or Gorā Bādal Padamaṇī Chaupaī. Occasionally, a single manuscript preserves a lectio difficilior, which all the rest either simplify or corrupt. In all such places I

32 KĀNHAḌADE PRABANDHA have always adopted the lectio difficilior although found in a single manuscript, in preference to simplified synonyms found in a majority of manuscripts. It is rarely that all the manuscripts corrupt a reading, but then their combined evidence points surely and unmistakeably to one correct original reading, from which all the other readings have been derived. In such places, the original reading—a lectio difficilior—is restored. At a few places, two sets of readings are equally representative and therefore probable. There, the one which I find more suitable is adopted in the text, while the other is given in Appendix II. Even the slightest correction is mentioned as ‘emended’ in the critical apparatus. In fact, at all such places it is just a restoration of the original based on the collective textual evidence itself. Nowhere, have I tampered with the text by substituting an imaginary reading in place of the actual reading found in the manuscripts—not even at places where the combined evidence of all manuscripts points to a definite lapse by the poet. It will interest students and scholars of Old Gujarātī and Old Rājasthānī to know how I have selected the important readings in the text. I have discussed the grounds for selection of all such readings in Appendix II. VII A work of this magnitude could not be undertaken or com- pleted without the encouragement and help from several scholars, who have worked in this field. I am thankful to Professor P. K. GODE, Curator, Bhāṇḍārkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, for giving me every possible facility in the use of the Kānhaḍade Prabandha mss belonging to the Bhāṇḍārkar Institute; to the trustees of the Anantanāthjī’s temple and Godījī’s Upāśraya for making the Kānhaḍade Prabandha mss in their Jñāna Bhaṇḍāras accessible to me; to Śraddheya Muni Śrī PUNYAVIJAYAJĪ for taking pains in procuring for me some valuable mss of the work; and lastly, to Śrī Motichandjī KHAJANCHI, well-known in Bīkāner for his excellent collection of old works and paintings, for placing at my disposal, without the least hesitation or ceremony, two rare mss from his collection. I am very grateful to His Highness Śrī KRISHNAKUMARASINHJI, Mahārāja of Bhavnagar, for the generous patronage extended by His Highness, which made it possible for me to undertake such a work in these difficult times. I am also thankful to the University of Bombay for a grant-in-aid for the publication of this work.

INTRODUCTION 33 It is difficult for me to express in words my deep debt of gratitude to Ācārya Muni Śrī JINAVIJAYAJI, the doyen of Sanskrit, Prākrit, Old Western Rājasthānī, and Jainistic studies in India. It was he who inspired me to undertake this study and helped me gene- rously at every stage. The successful completion of the work in its present form and its publication in ‘Rājasthān Purātana Granthamālā’ is entirely due to his encouragement and generous help. This volume is now complete—a result of 14 years of rather exacting labour, and I am glad that it was not completed earlier. The successive collations I had to prepare made it possible for me to bring the final form of the constituted text as near, I hope, to the archetype as possible. I could also thereby avail myself of the opportunity to apply the recognized principles of textual criticism to the problem of restoring old texts in the Indian languages to their original form and to modify and alter these principles where necessary, to suit the peculiar circum- stances of the Indian languages. I have, thus, attempted to develop the methodology of textual criticism in relation to early texts in the Indian languages. This volume comprises the text and the criticism relative to it. The next volume, which will shortly follow, will discuss the historical and linguistic background of the work, give a complete translation of the poem and a full Index Verborum, with, if possible, critical and explanatory notes. I have not spared myself in making this study as thorough and accurate as possible, but it is for scholars to judge how far I have succeeded. Elphinstone College, Bombay. K. B. VYAS 16-7-1953. 3

The provided image is completely blank and contains no visible text to transcribe.

कवि-पद्मनाभ-विरचित कान्हडदे प्रबन्ध ✸ श्री आचार्य जिनचन्द्र ज्ञान भण्डार ✸ ज य पु र

The provided image is completely blank and does not contain any visible text to transcribe. Please upload a clear image of the page.