MISCELLANY - Commentaries on the Uttareramacarita
By Kshitish Chandra Chatterjee
Summary
The provided text discusses debates around the authorship of a commentary on the *Uttararamacarita*, attributed to Ramachandrabudhendra but printed in Isvarachandra Vidyasigara’s 18th-century edition. V. Kaue and M. Kane argue the commentary likely belongs to Vidyasigara, noting its absence of introductory verses and discrepancies with Ramachandrabudhendra’s known works. They highlight Vidyasigara’s acknowledgment of predecessors like Premacind Tarkavigisa and Narayana Diksita, suggesting he adapted their ideas rather than plagiarizing. The commentary’s modern phrasing and lack of traditional scholarly conventions further cast doubt on Ramachandrabudhendra’s authorship. Additionally, two verses in Vidyasigara’s edition, composed in Samvat 1686 (1629 CE), mark it as the earliest known commentary on the text. The analysis concludes that Vidyasigara’s work synthesizes earlier commentaries, explicitly noting his emendations, and that claims of plagiarism lack merit given his transparent use of sources.
Conclusion
This analysis resolves the longstanding attribution controversy surrounding the Uttararamacarita commentary attributed to Ramachandrabudhendra, demonstrating through historical and textual evidence that it could not have been his work due to chronological inconsistencies, stylistic mismatches, and the absence of scholarly acknowledgments typical of the era. The findings underscore Isvarachandra Vidyasagara’s transparent engagement with predecessors like Premacandra Tarkavigisa and Narayana Bhatta, refuting accusations of plagiarism and highlighting his ethical scholarship. The study reaffirms the importance of rigorous source verification in classical textual criticism, offering a model for resolving authorship disputes in Indian literary studies through interdisciplinary evidence and contextual awareness.