[INDOLOGY] Reference systems for Sanskrit plays

[Andrew Ollett]

I am making a few e-texts of Sanskrit plays, and I am in need of a good
reference system, especially for linking the pratīkas in the commentaries
to the base text. I have noticed that there are a few systems in use. The
numbering of aṅkas and other higher-level divisions is not so much of an
issue, so the following remarks concern the numbering of verses, prose
passages, and stage directions within an aṅka:

1a. Only the verses are numbered. The prose sections and stage directions
are not numbered. (e.g. M. R. Kale's student editions, and the e-text of
the Veṇīsaṃhāra prepared by Yves Codet at
http://indology.info/etexts/archive/texts/veni/venisamhara.xml). The
disadvantage is that it's impossible to refer precisely to passages that
are not in verse.

1b. The verses provide the principal numbering system, and the prose
sections and stage directions are numbered with reference to the preceding
verse. This is the practice of the Würzburg Bhāsa project, which assigns
every prose sentence and every stage direction a number (see, e.g.,
http://www.bhasa.indologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/AM_1.html). As an example, the
first sentence (or stage direction) after verse 1 will be 1.1, the second
will be 1.2, etc.

1c. The verses provide the principal numbering system, and the prose
sections and stage directions are numbered, not in reference to the
/preceding/ verse, but in reference to the verse that they "belong" with.
This takes some interpretation, but an example can be seen in Muneo
Tokunaga's e-text of Śākuntala (
http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/5_poetry/3_drama/ksakunxu.htm),
where the first prose sentence /before/ verse 2 is marked as 2<1, the
second is marked as 2<2, and so on, and the first prose sentence /after/
verse 2 is marked as 2>1, the second is 2>2, etc.

1d. Only the verses are numbered, but pratīkas in the commentary are
referred to line-numbers of an edition (this is the case with François
Grimal's edition of Harihara's commentary on the Mālatīmādhava, and
presumably with other editions prepared using LaTeX). The disadvantage is
that this reference system is based on the lineation of the printed edition.

2. The verses, stage directions, and continuous prose sections are all
assigned a number. This was the practice of the Clay Sanskrit Library.

The texts on GRETIL use (1a), (1b), or (1c) depending on the source. As far
as I can tell, (1a), (1b), (1c) and (1d) provide rough compatability across
editions, since referring to verse-numbers is a relatively standardard
practice, whereas (2) breaks this compatability.

I am asking whether the scholars on this list have any preferences or
suggestions for a numbering system that is stable, roughly compatible with
(de facto) standard reference practices, and media-independent. So far, I
am inclined to (1b).

Andrew


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160814/62420062/attachment.htm>