Dear Colleagues,

I just came along the recent publication by Adluri and Bagchee entitled “The Nay Science. A History of German Indology,” (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). This book claims on its first page to demonstrate that “the application of the text-historical method [the authors use this term as a synonym for historical-critical methods in general] is not scientific [their translation of “wissenschaftlich”], … in the majority of cases, the textual histories German scholars came up with using this method were a projection of their fantasies.”

In reading these lines, I get quite puzzled. Are historical-critical methods in general flawed, or only when practiced by Germans?

I would be grateful for suggestions.

With best wishes,

Philipp Maas