COMMERCIAL EDS.+CRIT.EDS

[GRUENENDAHL]

M. Witzel's contribution highlights a few "critical" aspects of
editions:

1. What makes an edition CRITICAL? If a stemma of the MSS used is the
decisive criterion, then 200 years of indology have not produced very
much deserving that name. Contrary to Witzel's opinion, the critical
editions of Mahabharata and Ramayana have to be dropped from the list
(while others, as e.g. Wilhelm Rau's Vakyapadiya, may be added). What
is usually taken in the BORI and Gaekwad editions resp. do be a
stemma of MSS is in fact a "pedigree of VERSIONS".
[As to the term "version" and its implications I may refer to my
article "Zur Klassifizierung von Mahabharata- Handschriften" in
"Studien zur Indologie und Buddhis- muskunde : Festgabe des Seminars
fuer Indologie und Buddhismuskunde fuer Prof. Dr. Heinz Bechert". Bonn
1993 (Indica et Tibetica ; 22)]

But why should a stemma be the decisive criterion after all. This is
a concept taken over from classical philology, and in my opinion, it
still stands to reason whether it can really be applied to Sanskrit
texts, except perhaps in a few cases with a very limited and rather
"hermetic" manuscript tradition, like perhaps the Rajatarangini. By
the way, B. Koelver did not publish a critical edition of the Raja-
tarangini, but rather a study of its manuscript tradition with a lot
of free advice for future editors. The actual work of editing the
text is still waiting to be done by someone undeterred by the sound
of the death-knell.
My own modest attempts in the field have taught me that the relation
even of a limited number of MSS, even from a limited geographical
area - like e.g. Nepal, is very difficult to determine with any
degree of certainty. Consequently, it takes a fair amount of
simplification to press the often delicate interrelations into a
stemma. It may be asked what we can expect from such a stemma.

2. Personally, I very much appreciate any "attempt" at a critical
edition. In all probability, it is a step foreward, especially if the
text in question has not been edited before. I don't see any fault in
limiting your "manuscript materials", as long as you do not leave the
choice entirely to external circumstances. In view of the limitations
of human life, not to mention the necessities and absurdities of its
academic derivate, choices have to be made. Even if the result is not
the type of DEFINITE edition some of us may expect to achieve -
Sukthankar, by the way, didn't! - it will help, if only in
re-examining the MSS used, should that turn out to be necessary, and
perhaps in preparing a better edition on that basis. Textual
criticism is indeed a long and sometimes tedious process. But what
can be more important for our discipline than injecting fresh 
material?

3./4. The same applies to the other types of editions, although with
considerable qualifications, as already pointed out by M. Witzel.
His appeal to overcome the "scandalous neglect" of textual criticism
has my whole-hearted support.

Reinhold Gruenendahl
Niedersaechsische Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek
37070 Goettingen
Germany
Phone: 0551/395283