![]() In fact, the description of the manuscript that he gives in the article, „zwar undatirt, aber alt und anscheinend recht sorgfältig geschrieben,” is not his own, but rather a quotation - it seems to be from a letter sent to him in 1982 by Richard Garbe. In his 1885 article, he states that he was able to consult a copy of the manuscript from Christian Lassen at the University of Bonn perhaps that copy did not include the colophon. It is possible that Hillebrandt was not working with this manuscript directly. 3īut given the importance that Hillebrandt gave to this manuscript, and his presumably careful study of it, how did he miss the colophon? Moreover, this reading was so influential that later editions were revised to adopt the name bhāskaradatta that Hillebrandt deemed to be correct, even though no other witness has this reading. Sāmantavaṭakeśvaradattapautrasya mahārāja bhāskaradattasūnoḥ… ![]() And although Hillebrandt consulted dozens of sources for his edition - including manuscripts, commentaries, and previous printed editions - the most important among these is the manuscript at the BnF: Sanscrit 715, previously shelved as Bengali 117, which he calls the Codex Parisinus.īnF Sanscrit 715 1v, detail. 2įor more than a century, the standard version of the text that scholars use has been the 1912 critical edition of Alfred Hillebrandt. But beyond its historical significance, it is also simply a great story, as Dániel Balogh introduces it:Ī parade of secret agents, deadly poison damsels, hidden escape tunnels and tricks within tricks serve to entertain the audience or reader, and the play is as action-packed and grave as any modern cloak-and-dagger novel. ![]() Devasthali notes, it is the only work “in the whole of Sanskrit dramatic literature a mainly political theme” 1. Viśākhadatta’s Mudrārākṣasa, variously translated as “Rákshasa’s Ring”, “The Signet Ring”, or “Signet Rākṣasa”, is a unique Sanskrit drama set during the reign of Candragupta Maurya, in the 4th century BCE.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |