Dear members of the list,
I have a question concering the editions of the Kamasutra in the
Kashi Sanskrit Series. The first edition came in 1912 (editor Sri Damodar Lal
Goswami, KSS 29), the second in 1934 (editor Madhavacharya), 1964 (editor Devadatta
Shastri, KSS 29) and 1997 (editor Ramanand Sharma, Bitthaldas Sanskrit Series
4). The only edition available to me here in Oslo is the 1964 edition KSS 29.
My question primarily concerns the two KSS editions: is the
Sanskrit text (mula and Yashodhara’s commentary) identical in these to
editions, or did Shastry make changes in the Skt. text?
Best regards,
Lars Martin Fosse
Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse
Haugerudvn. 76
0674 Oslo - Norway
Phone: 47 22 32 12 19
Mobile: 47 90 91 91 45
Email: lmfosse@getmail.no
lmfosse@online.no
Fra: Indology
[mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk] På vegne av Dipak Bhattacharya
Sendt: 24. mars 2012 17:03
Til: INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
Emne: [INDOLOGY] Utilising printed edition for a critical edition
24mr12
There was a well-meant
advice: <While it may be necessary to collate printed editions, it may not
be required to report their readings in a critical edition> But this raises
some questions.
There
is an understood assumption here that the editor has distinguished between an
emendation effected on the previous edition and an original MS reading retained
in that and has represented the previous goings on without creating any
misconception about MS readings. In actual practice this understood rule has
often been flouted often leading the reader to wrong ideas about MS-readings.
I
can give two examples where the rule has been flouted.
Caryācaryaviniścaya H.P.Śāstri
Bangiya Sahitya Parishat, Calcutta 1916
Caryāgītikoṣa
P.C.Bagchi and Śānti Bhikṣu Śāstrī, Visva-Bharati
When
H.P.Ś retains an MS-reading and Ś.B.Ś emends he reports the 1916 edition’s
reading with H. This creates the impression that H.P.Ś had emended the MS
reading while the same has been retained by Ś.B.Ś. But the opposite is the
case.
Thus,
vs. 1d, païṭho MS; Ś.B.Ś. païṭhā; Ś.B.Ś critical apparatus marks païṭho
with H meaning that it is the reading selected by H.P.Ś. But there was no
selection to make because it was the MS reading. All such MS-readings retained
by H.P.Ś have thus been marked with H. There are seven such reports in the
first five verses alone.
On
the other hand MS readings emended by H.P.Ś. with notice in the Critical
apparatus have not been reported as emendation and the MS reading can be found
only in the 1916 edition. Thus Commentary vs.1d sadvartmovagamāya MS; *sadvartmāvagamāya
H.P.Ś; Ś.B.Ś repeats H.P.Ś without mentioning the MS reading.
Such
lapses will be found in the VVRI edn. Of the AVŚ too.
AVP
18.22.10c jātaṃ jātrīr yathā hṛdā́; Visva Bandhu edits
the parallel AVŚ 20.48.2c as jātáṃ
jánir yáthā hṛdā́. The c.a. just notes jātrī́r yáthā śaṃ.pā meaning
S.P.Pandit’s edition has jātrī́r while Whitney reads jánir. It is missed that Whitney’s mss too read jātrī́r.
Since the twentieth kāṇḍa was not translated by Whitney only those who have access to the 1856 edition will know that
the reading jātrī́r is the uniform AVŚ reading that is confirmed as the
original AV reading by the AVP and that jánir is an emendation by Whitney.
In
both cases unscientific reporting of the printed text reading creates wrong
impression about the original reading.
Best
DB