COMMERCIAL EDS. + CRIT. EDS.

[WITZEL at HUSC3.HARVARD.EDU]

This makes for an interesting discussion topic --- without flaming.
In my opinion the answer to most of A. Thrasher's questions put must be 
affirmative. To put it in a few theses:

1. There are only a handful of critical editions of Sanskrit texts - in the 
strict sense, that is with STEMMA of the MSS. (Mbh., Ram., Koelver's 
Rajatarangini work, Lariviere's Narada etc.)

2. All other "critical" editions -- including most of the often 
excellent editions made in the 19th cent. -- are only *attempts* at critical 
editions, based on the rather limited MSS materials available then, and
with occasional notes on their interrelation. MSS variants are recorded 
well -- though not always consistently and while leaving out many of the 
important (regional) peculiarities of spelling (see below).

<<Unfortunately this applies to Vedic editions as well, with the 
additional drawback that the  -- frequently better -- oral tradition has 
been used only three times in editing a text: twice in the late 19th 
cent. and once in 1967! See below for an appreciation>>

3. The bulk of the editions do not even mention variant readings of their 
not/badly reported MSS sources, or if they do so, they do so 
rather inconsistently. Take any Anandasrama edition, for example. Thus, 
the reader never knows what he/she is dealing with in a particular instance.

4. The rest reflects the "commercial" editions A. Thrasher asked 
about: editions made by someone (not always mentioned by name) on the 
basis of unreported MS(S) in a manner to be "deciphered" by the user after 
long exposure. Such editions (e.g. Nirnayayasagara eds.) do not have more 
value than any MS (which also shows the hand<s> of the scribe/reader in its 
many corrections or "improvements" of the text).


Thus, in addition to case (1),  ALL others are useful for a critical edition 
but have to be treated with caution -- namely, as what they represent. 
Cases (3) and (4) can/often do  represent a local tradition and are 
valuable as such: one should treat such editions on the same level as a 
MS:  they  reflect nothing more than the more or less educated guess at 
a "correct"  text ---  producing many a lectio facilior.

We should be practical: If we cannot get MSS from a certain area -- and we 
know the difficulties involved -- or if we have access to a few ones only 
for the text under study, we should by all means use a local edition 
(especially those in local scripts!) or a type 3/4 edition as additional  
evidence -- but at MS level value.

                             ***

As far as I am aware, this kind of question is rarely raised even among 
"professional" indologists (otherwise we would have  critical editions of 
Sankara, all works of Kalidasa etc. etc.  by now! ). Actually, I regard this 
neglect as nothing but scandalous. How can one make valid statements on advaita 
if one does not even has come *close* to the text Sankara may have written?
(The same applies, a fortiori, to Vedic editions made without using oral 
tradition. A recitation of the Rgveda is, after all, a  *tape recording* 
of c. 1000 B.C. and as such better than any MS).


Of course, the only way to achieve such an edition is long -- tedious many 
would say -- but unfortunately it is the only one we have,  short of direct 
inspiration by the ancient Rsis or authors. It involves not only burning 
the midnight oil for a very long time when trying to figure out the 
stemma, but it also involves the critical use of palaeography (where is 
one for *MSS* of this millenium??) and of the knowledge of local 
pronunciation (again, not collected anywhere!) and local orthography 
influenced by it...

In short, I think most students and professors are ill prepared even to 
begin REALLY critical editions  -- should they indeed be interested in 
doing such work (which often is called the death-knell for a prospective 
PhD  student in North America, also in my University.) Still, we have to 
train a whole new generation of students to *begin* a task that has long been  
achieved in Classical Greek, Latin, Celtic  etc. studies.  

The last sections may seem to be somewhat off the topic raised by A. 
Thrasher -- but I think INDOLOGY is the perfect forum to discuss both  
questions in some detail.

After all, texts are a large part, if not the largest, of the materials 
we are dealing with on a daily basis and we should be sure of WHAT we are 
dealing with.


Michael Witzel
Chair, Comm. on S. Asian Studies
Harvard University
53 Church Street
Cambridge MA 02138
617- 495 3295
fax -496 8571

On June 16, A. Thrasher wrote:
>            
>           Re: Usefulness of commercial  or non-critical editions  of  South 
>           Asia texts 
>            
>           How  useful  are commercial, non-critical, or  minimally critical 
>           editions to constituting a critical text?  Have you used them  in 
>           your work?  Is  it desirable to examine every edition?  Are  they 
>           useful attestations of  regional  textual traditions?   Do  other 
>           scholars  in  their  sentiments  and  practice  agree  with  your 
>           responses?  Are there other questions that should be raised about 
>           this matter?