Magha.

Magha is admired for his delightful style profound thought and beautiful similes. Megha's vocabulary is very vast and his knowledge of grammar is deep. he delights in the use of grammatical peculiarities and avoids the use of the same word a second time. It is said that if one studies nine cantos of  Magha there will be no new word for him to study. Navasrga gathe Madhe  Navashabdho na vidyathe, Malinatha the great commentator is said to have remarked madhe medhe gatam vayaha.the toughness of Magha's style.
to be continued

University of Washington In a recent article in JAOS, Y. Bronner and L. McCrea presented cogent arguments for the authenticity of the “nonbitextual” version of Śiśupāla’s speech in the fifteenth canto of Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha and concluded that the “bitextual” version of the passage, in which each verse could be read with a double meaning, was a later alteration. Whereas they discussed the issue on the basis of internal criteria, the present article approaches it by means of external comparison with its presumptive source text in the Sabhā-parvan of the Mahābhārata. This analysis confirms Bronner and McCrea’s conclusion, while also raising some new issues and problems. Also discussed is the legacy of the popular, if unauthentic bitextual version in the Bhāgavata-purāṇa and its commentarial tradition. i. introduction: bronner and mccrea on śiśupālavadha xv The Śiśupālavadha, “The Slaying of Śiśupāla” (hereafter ŚPV), is one of the six canonical mahākāvyas of the high literary tradition of Sanskrit, composed by the otherwise unknown poet Māgha, probably in the late seventh or early eighth century c.e. 1 It describes in twenty sargas the events surrounding the conflict between Kr̥ ṣṇa and his cousin and rival Śiśupāla, king of Cedi, culminating in the slaying of the latter by the former, whence the title of the poem. 2 In an important recent article in this journal, Yigal Bronner and Lawrence McCrea (Bronner and McCrea 2012; hereafter B&M) discussed the two very different versions of a key passage in the fifteenth sarga, “Setting Out to War” (yuddhaprasthānam), of the ŚPV. The passage in question consists of Śiśupāla’s passionate denunciation of Bhīṣma’s decision to designate Kr̥ ṣṇa as the foremost guest of honor at the rājasūya sacrifice for Yudhiṣṭhira’s royal consecration. Here some manuscripts, primarily those associated with the commentary by Mallinātha (Sarvaṅkaṣā), have a passage (XV.14–39), which B&M call “nonbitextual,” containing an “oration that is unequivocally accusatory” (B&M p. 430). But other manuscripts, mostly those with the commentary of Vallabhadeva (Sarvasandehaviṣauṣadhi),

 bitextual,” containing an “oration that is unequivocally accusatory” (B&M p. 430). But other manuscripts, mostly those with the commentary of Vallabhadeva (Sarvasandehaviṣauṣadhi), contain a “bitextual” version (XV.14–47) consisting of a e“speech that can be read to convey either blame or praise” (ibid.) through the use of puns, 3 sarcasm, and other rhetorical devices. 4 This discrepancy is particularly glaring in comparison to the textual situation for 1. Th basic source for the date of Māgha is Kielhorn 1906. See also, for example, Hultzsch 1926: iv–vii. 2. For a convenient summary of the ŚPV, see B&M pp. 429–30. 3. The type of punning in this section is referred to by Vallabhadeva as vakraśleṣa, or perhaps rather, according to the emendation proposed by B&M (p. 433 and n. 12), vyājaśleṣa. 4. The “nonbitextual” version of the passage in question will hereafter be cited as ŚPV (M), i.e., Mallinātha’s text, and the bitextual version as ŚPV (V) = Vallabhadeva’s text. The texts will be cited according to the editions of Durgāprasāda et al. (1957) and Kak and Shastri (1935) respectively. Durgāprasāda’s edition presents a composite text in which both versions of the text in question are printed, first the nonbitextual one with Mallinātha’s commentary, then the bitextual with the commentary of Vallabhadeva (compare B&M p. 432),

nonbitextual passage.
to be continued.