COMMERCIAL EDS.+CRIT.EDS

[H. Isaacson]

Dr. Gruenendahl has---very rightly in my opinion---pointed out that 
`giving a stemma' is at best a dubious criterium for what constitutes 
a `critical edition.' With regard to the problem of contamination, 
a phenomenon rendering the reconstruction of manuscript relationships 
(and hence the construction of a stemma) a difficult or 
impossible task, one might refer to S.A. Srinivasan's dissertation:
    Vaacaspatimi"sras Tattvakaumudii. Ein Beitrag zur Textkritik bei 
    kontaminierter Ueberlieferung.  Hamburg 1967. Alt- und 
    Neu-Indische Studien 12.

It should perhaps also be remarked that coincidental convergence can 
give rise to similar problems as contamination/conflation; it is my 
belief that this phenomenon too is of regular occurrence in the 
transmission of many Indian texts. Its importance has been recognized 
by some scholars working with European medieval texts---I may refer 
in the first place to Kane and Donaldson's introduction to their 
edition of the B-text of Piers Plowman (London 1975), a piece of work 
which has, as I understand, been of almost revolutionary importance 
for editors of medieval texts (though not all, of course, are 
convinced by the proposals of Kane and Donaldson). 

One more point: Witzel suggests (and others have I think expressed the 
same opinion in print) that non-critical `type 3/4' editions should 
be treated as MSS. It should however be remembered that there is at 
least this difference: the `printer's devil' may cause errors in 
editions which are virtually random, or at least much more nearly 
random than scribal errors in MSS are. Scribal errors in MSS are 
seldom completely valueless; they may reveal (or confirm) something 
about the nature of an ancestor and its palaeography, or they may 
suggest an emendation to the editor, on the basis of his knowledge of 
common confusions between ak.saras. Printing mistakes are sometimes 
equally based on confusion between similar ak.saras, but we all must 
have encountered many printing mistakes of a kind which are very 
unlikely to occur in manuscripts. 

Much more could doubtless be said; perhaps some of the more 
experienced editors subscribed to this list could let us know what 
opinions they have formed in the course of their work.

Harunaga Isaacson
isaacson at let.rug.nl