Home | Information | Tidbits

Previous | Next

How many different versions of the Mahabharata are known?
I am aware of three basic divisions of the manuscript traditions in which the MBH was preserved from antiquity: into eastern, western, and southern traditions. These traditions represent thousands of surviving manuscripts spanning some centuries, and many more thousands that have not survived over many more centuries. The standard modern printed editions of these traditions are referred to as the (1) Bombay edition (for the western), the (2) Calcutta edition (for the eastern) and the (3) Kumbaakonam edition (for the southern). In the twentieth century, an edition taking into consideration the whole manuscript tradition, on modern philological principles, was made at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune, Mahaaraashtra.

The Bhandarkar edition is about 60,000-70,000 Shlok long, while at the other end the Southern edition is longer even than the 10,000 Shlok spoken of in the MBH's own self-description, while the Bombay and Calcutta editions (much more similar to each other than to the Southern) fall between these two extremes, lengthwise. The Bhandarkar editors omitted verses not found in all the manuscripts they consulted. that was the sole criterion. The introduction to each volume provides the full details. The omitted verses and other variations have been noted either as footnotes or as appendices, in particular the prolegomena by Sukthankar to the first volume of the Critical Edition should be read; it's very readable, despite being about philological matters that can so easily be presented in a boring manner.

Apart from Sukthankar's prolog, this book may also be read to know which version contains how many verses etc. They have given comparative statements. It is the first book in DLI Bangalore if you search with 'mahabharata' keyword. This is not in Hindi as erroneously data entered. It is in Sanskrit as well as in English.

Are differences notable?
I have read, and seen, that the southern manuscript tradition presents a MBH that is significantly longer than those of the eastern and western traditions. On the other hand the Bhandarkar edition is significantly shorter than the older versions, in accordance with what you might call the reductionistic philological principle that its editors followed.

Do differences concern whole chapters or only some verses?
Both: manuscripts and editions differ from each other in the inclusion or exclusion of one or more verses at a time, up to passages of great length, even whole Adhyaaya.

Are these differences also in the section of the Bhagvad Geetaa there?
From what I have read and seen, the variants between manuscripts and editions seem to be fewer in the text of the Geetaa: perhaps the special significance and sanctity of this section tended to produce an India-wide homogenization of the text?

Is some text of the MBH considered the best? If yes, Because?
Depends on whom you talk to, and when. Personally, I've changed positions over the years, and even do so within a single day, sometimes, when I'm thinking a lot about such matters. Recently I've come to appreciate the Bhandarkar text more than I had in the past, but not so much for the philological reasons that scholars usually talk about, but because its philological orientation towards the earliest attainable version happens to produce a text that is linguistically and poetically more interesting than the smoothed and often banalized thoroughly edited texts of the three great regional Mahabharata traditions.

On the other hand, I am determined to read through the southern edition when I have finished reading through the Bhandarkar edition later this year, because it contains more of what I love, namely the MBH, and also because the principle of inclusion that governed the making of the traditional versions is in a traditional sense more Indian than the backward-looking, origins-obsessed, reductionistic edition of the Bhandarkar Institute. Also, some material that is very important in the MBH tradition, most notoriously the identification of Draupadee's savior in the Sabhaa Parv as Krishn, has been excluded from the Bhandarkar edition. So it's a matter of taste and perspective, which one you prefer, and in my usual indecisive manner, I plan to avoid anxiety by simply choosing them all.

Almost all academic scholars use the Bhandarkar edition. David Shulman is the exception that comes to mind.

Home | Information | Tidbits

Previous | Next