textual sequence

[Stefan Baums]

Dear Petra,

in Gāndhārī commentary manuscripts (1st c. BCE to 2nd c. CE), root
verses are identified at the beginnig of commentary sections by
their first pāda, and prose root texts by their first few
words. This is then followed by the body of the commentary with
pratīkas (usually without iti and often without any indication of
their root status) interspersed. The root text is nowhere quoted
in full, neither before nor after the commentary, which probably
means that readers were supposed to know it by heart and just
needed their memory jogged.

Over on the Pali side, I think that if you look at the Niddesa,
the original order is for a full quotation of a root verse to
follow the commentary as you describe. Each of the commentary
sections is introduced by a quotation of the first pāda of the
verse in question, just like in the Gāndhārī manuscripts. Now
modern editions of the Niddesa (and recent manuscripts?) _also_
print the root verse before its commentary section, but such a
double full quotation seems rather clearly secondary, and it is
the full quotation after the commentary body that is syntactically
linked to the preceding (by the phrase “tenāha bhagavā ... ”), so
that is presumably the more original one of the two. One could
further compare the Udāna and similar texts, where the root verse
likewise follows the explanatory prose, introduced by a linking
phrase “atha kho bhagavā ... imaṃ udānaṃ udānesi ... .”

All best wishes,
Stefan

-- 
Stefan Baums
Asian Languages and Literature
University of Washington