COMMERCIAL EDS & CRITICAL EDS

[Carlos Lopez]

As one graduate student among a handful (probably in the entire US)  who 
is undertaking a critical edition as a dissertation topic, I will offer 
some brief points which may be worthy of continued discussion.

 I must first quote from Prof. Lariviere�s response because he clearly
captures the issue at hand for the entire field of Indology:
"What we know about ancient India is
largely derived from the testimony of its textual tradition.  Admittedly,
this testimony is fraught with problems--the biases and distortions of the
authors' world views, the conscientious concern to present ideas as
timeless and anonymous outgrowths of the Vedic tradition, etc.--but what is
most important is that we have the most complete and reliable testimony
possible"

As has been made clear by Witzel, Lariviere, Callewaert (at a recent 
lecture at Harvard) and others, thus far in the
discussion, it is crucial for the field of Indology as a whole for the
younger and new generations of Indologist to take up the task of
compiling critical editions of Sanskrit texts.  However, this is a task
which seems generally, in my opinion, not highly valued in the American
Indological setting.  My sense, from speaking to some colleagues, also
graduate students in other schools, is that one is not encouraged to
undertake a critical edition of a text as a dissertation project.  I 
would venture to say that such projects are actually discouraged because 
they are not marketable. Such projects
are considered to be professional suicide in America, pure and simple.
One reason for this may be that the 'religious studies' environment where
Indologists/Sanskritists will go to in search of employment is not
generally receptive to such projects.   The process of 'immersion' into
the culture (religion, law, social structure, fauna, flora and realia) of 
a text to be edited seems little appreciated.  Editing mss is more than 
just an exercise in grammatical analysis.  Rather, graduate students and 
faculty members prefer more
trendy, cutting edge projects which ask interesting questions of the
texts.  This repeats a bit of what Prof. Witzel has already made clear: 
how can we ask the 'cutting edge' questions from our texts if we don't 
have an accurate text on which to base those questions? This is much like 
trying to erect a building without a foundation.  This is not to deny the 
importance analysing texts and to ask questions about society, relgion, 
law, implications of gender, etc.  But it seems crucial to have a critical 
edition which 
preserves the transmission of the text  before we can ask and attempt to 
answer such questions with any degree of certainty. 

Everyone seems to be aware of the need for editing texts in our field but
few faculty members seem to encourage their students in that direction.
Students, rightfully so, are cautious about undertaking such projects for
fear of not finding jobs in an already crowded market.  There needs to be 
a change in the general Indological culture of America
where the awareness for the need of critical editions is raised.  Faculty
should encourage such projects and should, in job searches, reward those
projects.  Once we have the Critical text which preserves the 
transmission of the text then we can ask the 'interesting questions.'

For myself, I have had the encouragement of Prof Witzel on my dissertation
topic.  However, I am well aware of the consequences of such a project in
the present job market.  Yet I think it is more important, at this time, to
establish the critical text of the Paippalada AV than to ask question of
either of Barret's corrupt edition or of Bhattacarya and Raghu Vira's
unsatisfactory editions.  I can only hope that the scholarly value of
such work is recognized and rewarded at some future point

On Dr. Gruenendahl's reply, I would like  ask the basis he 
considers
the methods of classical philology (i.e. establishing a stemma) to be
inapplicable or partly applicable to Sanskrit text? What methods should 
be used for editing Sanskrit texts?  True there is a
great deal of difficulty with Sanskrit mss (I am experiencing some of 
this now) both due to paleographical 
peculiarities and the influence of local pronunciation on Sanskrit
and Vedic recitation.  But once these 'problems' are characterized and
rules established (Buhler already in the last century noticed the
influence of local pronunciation upon Vedic recitation) then lower textual
criticism should be perfectly applicable.  It is exactly the problems of
the influence of local pronunciation and paleography which makes lower
textual criticism difficult to apply to Sanskrit text.  It's these issues 
which
are at the core of the editing process for Vedic and Sanskrit texts - and 
for which
very few Indologist are being trained to handle.  To paraphrase K. 
Hoffmann: the task of the editor is firstly to give all mss
readings and on that basis establish the text.  Thus if a reading is
common to all mss, we have, at the very least, an old reading, perhaps 
authentic.  It is another question whether we think that such an 
authentic reading is correct as to grammar or sense.  We cannot eliminate 
authentic readings, even if we know that the original or the correct 
reading has been preserved in another text.  Thus a reading common to all 
mss must be regarded as authentic and we must face this fact (even if the 
reading makes little or no sense at all).  After a critical text (the 
archetype) has been established, then comes the more difficult problem of 
establishing or reconstructing �the text preceding the archetype� (if 
that is even possible).

We all await critical editions of those texts for which we have not even 
an attempt at an edition.  But it is also important to try to establish 
critical editions for our most basic texts (RV AV, etc.).  For the RV 
there is no critical edition.  Muller only gives a list of the mss used.  
For Shaunaka there is no stemma (since the edition is based on the 
Pratishakya texts).  


******************************************************************************
I don't want to be burried.  Have you ever been to a graveyard? Have you 
ever read a tombstone, sweetie?  Hum? You know, 'so and so fell asleep 
and was burried.'  Fell asleep, sweetie! No, No! No grave for me, 
darling.  I'am a buddhist anyway, I want to be laid down on a rock in the 
middle of the Ganges, darling, and just be pecked by birds. 

from TV's 'Absolutely Fabulous'
******************************************************************************
Carlos Lopez		Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies
			Harvard University
******************************************************************************