[INDOLOGY] The so-called German Indology

[kmcgrath at fas.harvard.edu]

  Dear List,

I would like to echo what Eli has just said..
The Nay Science is a judicious summary of Holtzmann and Lassen et al but it does
not really address the text of the poem itself, which is where the ultimate test
of the argument must surely lie.
With best wishes, from,

  Kevin.





Quoting Franco <franco at uni-leipzig.de>:

> I only read about half the book, so I am not well qualified to respond. My
> impression was that the book started as a project on the Bhagavadgita, which
> was a bit expanded to include the history of research on the Mahabharata. The
> whole thing was then packaged as a history of German Indology, but obviously
> the book does not deliver what its subtitle promises. The authors are
> blissfully ignorant of German Indology, and they probably know it. They claim
> to provide a history of German Indology by sketching a history of its method.
> But Indology, the German included, does not have a method (in the sense that
> it does not have a single method, as the authors imagine).
> I was told that one of the authors, I can't remember which, was failed PhD
> student of Michael Hahn, which explains perhaps the nasty tone of expression
> throughout the book.
> Best wishes,
> Eli
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 12 Jun 2015, at 19:09, George Hart <glhart at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Take a look at 360-363. Nothing earthshaking, but quite interesting and (to
> those of us who know nothing of the history) revelatory, I think. George Hart
> >
> >> On Jun 12, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Gruenendahl, Reinhold
> <gruenen at sub.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Professor Hart,
> >> thanks for your reply which, however, does not go beyond generalities. The
> perusal of 15 pages of a book amounting to 494 may not necessarily be
> regarded the basis for any qualified statement, be it positive or negative.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, would you be kind enough to specify a point you found in
> these 15 pages that you found worth being "seriously considered by
> indologists"?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance
> >> Reinhold Grünendahl
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Von: INDOLOGY [indology-bounces at list.indology.info]" im Auftrag von
> "George Hart [glhart at berkeley.edu]
> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Juni 2015 18:00
> >> An: Indology List
> >> Betreff: Re: [INDOLOGY] The so-called German Indology
> >>
> >> I have not read the book, only about 15 pages from what Amazon lets us
> see.  It seems obvious to me that the book needs to be taken seriously.  If
> scholars disagree vehemently with its method and conclusions, I hope they
> will read it and write a review.  My own impression (based on just a few
> pages) is that the book helps give perspective to the “science” of
> Indology — how it developed, what social and historical forces guided it,
> and perhaps some assumptions of modern scholars that are problematic.  I
> remember spending a year poring over Geldner, Grassman, and Oldenberg and
> being very impressed by their scholarship.  The accomplishments of German
> Indologists are clearly seminal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important
> to understand the intellectual, cultural and historical circumstances that
> inevitably influenced what they wrote. George Hart
> >>
> >>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Herman Tull <hermantull at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My comment was written before I saw Reinhold's comment.  My original
> remark was less a matter of supporting ("acclamation") George Hart's remarks
> (which I do support), then it was a matter of drawing our attention to the
> fact that Americans have struggled with their academic heritage, and in
> particular, with the precise sense of "wissenschaftlich."
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Gruenendahl, Reinhold
> <gruenen at sub.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> >>>> I hope this is not to suggest that the matter should be decided by
> acclamation. I merely asked Professor Hart to specify a point "that should be
> seriously considered by indologists". My interest does not go beyond that.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> R.G.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Von: INDOLOGY [indology-bounces at list.indology.info]" im Auftrag von
> "Herman Tull [hermantull at gmail.com]
> >>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Juni 2015 16:59
> >>>> An: Indology
> >>>> Betreff: Re: [INDOLOGY] The so-called German Indology
> >>>>
> >>>> I am reading the Adluri/Bagchee book right now; though not without its
> problems, I have to agree with George Hart's assessment.
> >>>>
> >>>> But, I will also say, as a student of religion (my graduate department
> had the rather comprehensive and so, too, largely meaningless name,
> "Department of the History and Literature of Religions"), Americans have long
> struggled with the precise meaning of "wissenschaftlich."  The 19th century
> American world was a direct descendent of the German academy, but lacked its
> sophistication.  (Somewhere early in the JAOS I recall that the reason given
> for the turn to Oriental studies was to "keep up with the Joneses"--i.e., the
> Europeans; not much science there, I am afraid.)
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Herman Tull
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:27 AM, George Hart <glhart at berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>>> If you search the book at Amazon, you can read significant parts of it
> (“Look inside this book”). The authors are serious, well-read scholars
> and have put a colossal amount of work into their effort. The book strikes me
> as an important contribution whose ideas should be seriously considered by
> indologists. George Hart
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:48 AM, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 12 June 2015 at 14:15, Philipp Maas <philipp.a.maas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In reading these lines, I get quite puzzled. Are historical-critical
> methods in general flawed, or only when practiced by Germans?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ​Only when practised by Germans, as any Italian would certainly
> answer :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ​
> >>>>>> (This refers to a running joke between some of us British, German and
> Italian philologists here at the Vienna department.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suppose the Adluri & Bagchee book deserves a more serious response,
> but I'm not interested personally.  How did this get by the commissioning
> editor at OUP NY?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Dominik Wujastyk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
> >>>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> >>>>>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> >>>>>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options
> or unsubscribe)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
> >>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> >>>>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> >>>>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options
> or unsubscribe)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Herman Tull
> >>>> Princeton, NJ
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Herman Tull
> >>> Princeton, NJ
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> INDOLOGY mailing list
> >>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> >>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> >>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > INDOLOGY mailing list
> > INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> > indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> > http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>