magic and speechacts

[JHOUBEN at rullet.LeidenUniv.nl]

I would like to congratulate Dr. Thompson with his -- as far as I am concerned  
quite convincing -- defense of the qualities of Elizarenkova's recent book 
Language and Style of the Vedic Rsis (Thompson posting d.d. 10.06.96).   

Meanwhile it remains fascinating to see how what are clearly magical phenomena 
according to one perception (whether or not scholars consider it outdated) are 
clearly something else in a "speech-act" or "performative" approach. In my last 
posting Re: overemphasis on magic, I suggested that also a MImAMsA-inspired 
approach may have the effect that "magical" phenomena become "not so magical". 
It is to be noted, however, that in MImAMsA "irrationality" shifts to other 
notions in the system, e.g. apUrva, etc. 

In connection with the language philosophy of MImAMsA and "speechact-theory" I 
would like to draw the attention to a valuable publication, Lars Goehler's 
recent book Wort und Text bei KumArila BhaTTa (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 
1995, ISBN 3-631-48821-1). The author combines a careful philological study of 
the sources with a sound alertness for modern (at least 20th century) theories 
in the philosophy of language, esp. speechact-theories. The problem of 
"comparability" is more explicitly addressed in the article "Gab es im alten 
Indien eine Sprechakttheorie?" by the same author (Beitraege zur Geschichte der 
Sprachwissenschaft, 1995, p. 65ff). Although the author (rightly) concludes 
that ancient India did not have a Speechact-theory in the strict sense of the 
word, he also demonstrates that most of the presuppositions of modern Speechact-
theories are not as original as they have been claimed to be, and further that 
this specific comparison is clarifying in both ways, for ancient MImAMsA and 
for modern theory. 
Another relevant publication concerning Vedic language and speechacts is M.M. 
Deshpande's article "Changing conceptions of the Veda: From Speechacts to 
Magical sounds" (ALB 54, 1990:1-41). Keywords in Deshpande's argument: 
reification of speechacts; deification of speech; Vedas impersonalized and 
decontextualized; "differences of authorship are gradually replaced by a more 
theological conception of a single authorless Veda"; "reinterpreting the Vedas 
to fit changed circumstances". Deshpande's own note of caution that his 
argument "does not give us chronological history" is important, because his 
earliest stages, from "living speech-acts" to "personification and deification 
of speech", seem to have been overlapping for a considerable time. They are all 
amply reflected in our earliest available source, the Rgveda. 

Jan E.M. Houben
Research fellow International Institute for Asian Studies
P.O. Box 9515
2300 RA  Leiden
jhouben at RULLET.LeidenUniv.NL