A Critical Edition of Niladri Mahodayam (An Old and Rare Book)

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

This book entitled "A critical edition of Niladri-Mahodayam" represents mainly one part of the results of the investigation carried on by me as a Research Student at the Utkal University from 1977 to 1984 under the guidance of Dr. G. N. Mahapatra, M.A., Ph. D., Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Directorate of Correspondence Curses, Utkal University, Vant Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa.

The whole work is divided into two constituent parts. The first part of the work deals with the critical edition of the text of the Niladri-Mahodayam while the second part of the project is carried on the critical analysis of the puranic materials contained in it. This Sthala-Purana, the Niladri-Mahodayam, of 91 chapters (Adhyayas), is one of the biggest works in Sanskrit literature and the biggest in the whole field of Jagannath Cult. Though this huge work came to light as early as about 1922 when the unedited text of a manuscript was published by Sri Maharaja Sir Biramitrodaya Simhadeva of Sonapur State of the-then Orissa, has not so far been fully analysed and critically edited in detail anywhere. The king referred to above, was the feudatory Chief of Sonapur State and was popularly known as Dharmanidhi. Jnanagunakara, K. C. I. E. M. R. S. Feudatory Chief of Sonapur State.

This unedited printed manuscript of the Niladri-Mahodayam is spotted at Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar. Its reference number in the Catalogue is 556 RH. Written in Oriya character, this printed script unfortunately contains many scribal blunders along with genuine variants. Another printed copy of the same text, which runs upto only 8 chapters (Adhyayas) under the title, "Sri-Jagnanatha-Mahatmyam" has been collected from Sri Venkateśvara Press of Bombay. This is a Devanagari manuscript which carries a lot of spurious verses and includes a number of significant variants. Regarding the reading of particular passages. words or phrases, no manuscript is sacrosanct and every reading has to be tested by its intrinsic probability.

A positive microfilm of one MS preserved in the India Office Library and Records, London has been collected with a small description given by Eggeling. The printed copy of the same manuscript (i.e., the reader-printer) has also been collected from the same source. This is an incomplete MS upto 32 chapters (Adhyayas) and is said to be a Mackenzie Collection, This is also one unedited Devanagari MS having many significant Variants. It is true that no two manuscripts, unless they are exact copies of each other, are entirely identical; because every scriber makes his own mistakes, indulges in petty alterations, emends, transposes, or interpolates verses here and there. But once th text-tradition of a particular class or group of manuscripts is established, the deviations of fresh manuscripts of the same class or groups are, on the whole, found too insignificant to justify further collation of manuscripts of that class.

We collated, for instance, three Devanagari manuscripts and seven Oriya manuscripts whose reading do not differ materially from each other. One of the Oriya MSS is seen to be fairly old, even older than the MS collected by the feudatory Chief of Solapur State. As recorded in the MS itself, the scriber copied it from the original text of the Purana in the year 1910. It would be interesting to note in this connection that the Devanagari and Oriya manuscripts are generally of the same character in presenting the facts of the purana, though remarkably differ in interpolated verses and scribal errors.

Therefore, it became necessary to critically edit the text of the Niladri-Mahodayam after proper scrutinization of the manuscript materials available from all the possible sources inside India and abroad. We have carefully considered the manuscripts, not on the ground of subjective preference, nor again merely from the standpoint of taste and style, which are at best unsafe guides, but on the actual evidence furnished by the text and supported by intrinsic probability. No doubt, scribal errors have been responsible for some peculiar readings; but in some cases genuine variants arise from the misplaced ingenuity of the scribers themselves. A careful examination of the several manuscripts has convinced me that a few only of the various readings have probably arisen from the ignorance of the scribers.