Indus Script -- sort of far off the point now

[S Krishna]

Jonathan Silk says:

>>Re: Krishna's comment


>>In fact, Ingalls who edited the "zubhAzitaratnakOSa:" with Kosambi
also                               -----------------
>>points this out and expresses his disagreement with the same..
Minor quibble: Kosambi edited the subhASitaratnakoSa (sic, correctly
>romanized: in Skt. why capitalize O?


Very sorry for the wrong transliteration...it should be
"subhASitaratnakoSa"....didn't realise that this misspelling of mine
was going to confuse things...Mea Culpa!


<< In his translation introduction Ingalls takes issuewith the Marxist
interpretation Kosambi offered in his own intro, but asfar as I remember
(I don't have time to reread it now), Kosambi does *not*
"bash ... the QUALITY of Sanskrit poetry..."; rather he attacks the
motives of the poets and their place in the socio-economic order.>>


I beg to differ from your interpretation, in my humble opinion, the
very low opinion that Kosambi seems to have had of the quality of this
collection is alluded to by Ingalls in the preface to the book (page
X of the introduction)..."On this subject I and Kosambi are on disagre
ement, NOT ONLY because I judge the artistic merits of the poems to
be much higher than he does, but because I feel a class theory......is
an improper guide...".



  Thus it is evident that Ingalls differs from Kosambi on two SEPARATE
issues, namely the artistic merit AND the inapplicability of class
theory to the problem at hand.

 As for Kosambi's bashing of the quality( as opposed to the motives of
the poets), we have on page (XLVI), : The samskrt stanza implies......,
ample time to work out it's double and triple meanings"

and quite a few other expressions in the same vein( too numerous to
list) and finally, at the end of the chapter:

"It is not surprising that this literature produced only one Kalidasa(
and that with the early Gupta empire[note: please note time period that
I refered to]}, tending towards the bombast of a Rajasekhara to
subhASitas packed with intricate subtlities which suffocate the sense".

I therefore believe that Kosambi despised not only the motives, social
class that the poets belonged to but also the quality of the poetry
itself.......(Note: these are the references that I could hunt up on the
spot from the introduction, the next few chapters i.e. Twilight of the
Gods e.g. also has similar references as I understand them)



<<I have to presume that if he did not share with Ingalls and others an
appreciation for the quality of the poetry, he would not have worked on
it. But perhaps my understanding or my memory of this debate is
flawed?>>

  Well, at the end of the introduction, Ingalls is compelled to make the
following statements: "I trust that a difference between the editor and
a co-editor....will in no way diminish the value of their joint efforts.
Certainly, it has not weakened the bonds of their
friendship"...Thus, while having major disagreements, they did manage to
work on the text together and Ingalls also says that he will take up the
problem in greater detail in chapter 8, which is unfortunately missing
in the copy that I have now.....

Regards,
Krishna



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com