COMMERCIAL EDS. + CRIT. EDS.

[David Lorenzen S.]

	It seems to me that S. Vidyasankar did make at least one important
point: namely that in the case of living traditions, or even traditions
that lived for some time and then died out, the texts that come to be
accepted as authentic by the followers of those traditions are at least as
important than any reconstruction of the original author's text.  
Ideally, of course, we need both texts.  It does seem to me, however, 
that academic scholars, particularly continental Europeans, do often 
place too much emphasis on the "original" text.

	Another point is that many vernacular, as opposed to Sanskrit,
texts present a somewhat different set of problems.  Even in cases where
the texts were written by a single identifiable person, it is often the
case that no two manuscripts give exactly the same reading for ANY single
verse.  Not just orthography but also grammar and vocabulary tend to be
extremely fluid (unlike Sanskrit).  To try to construct a "critical
edition" in these circumstances in fact means to construct a NEW text
different from all others, including that of the original author.  In
cases where the existence of a single author is more dubious--e.g.  the
songs attributed to Kabir, Mira, and Sur--the status of critical editions
is even more problematic.  It still makes sense to create such a new text
on the basis of the majority of readings given in the "best" of the oldest
manuscripts, but such a text cannot be presumed to be more than SOMEWHAT
closer to the text of the original author(s).  In the case of texts
transmitted mostly orally, it is likely that even the original authors
varied the original words from performance to performance. If one adds to
this the original point that the texts transmitted by tradition are at
least as important as their original versions, then the whole idea of a
critical edition begins to look fishy. 
					David N. Lorenzen