Dear colleagues,

I have Zgusta not at hand to check, but it is important to note that the accusations of plagiarism of MW were made against his first edition (1872). The second edition (1899), used by us, was very carefully revised and in this work he had some good assistants. See, beside his introduction, the reviews by Bloomfield /AJPh 21, 1900, 323-32) and Winternitz (WZKM 14, 1900, 353-360).

Some 30 years ago, when checking the various interpretation given to some Vedic ritual terms, I noted that Apte has copied some lemmas directly from the old Calcutta dictionary edited by Wilson.

Best,

Klaus

Klaus Karttunen

South Asian and Indoeuropean Studies

Asian and African Studies, Department of World Cultures

PL 59 (Unioninkatu 38 B)

00014 University of Helsinki, FINLAND

Tel +358-(0)2941 4482418

Fax +358-(0)2941 22094

Klaus.Karttunen@helsinki.fi

On 20 Jul 2015, at 02:35, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19 July 2015 at 20:12, George Hart <glhart@berkeley.edu> wrote:

I remember years ago when I was studying Sanskrit Ingalls mentioned that Monier Williams had apparently copied from Boethlingk-Roth without attribution. He said that Boethlingk was able to adduce entries in Monier Williams that had the same mistakes originally made on the SP Lexicon. Plus ça change…. George Hart

​The relationship of the MW and PW dictionaries was carefully evaluated in the 1988 article,

Ladislav Zgusta, "Copying in Lexicography. Monier-Williams' Sanskrit Dictionary and Other Cases (Dvaikośyam)" Lexicographica, 1988, 4, 145-164.
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/lexi.1988.4.issue-1/9783110244083.145/9783110244083.145.xml?format=INT

It's a complex and nuanced relationship, that Zgusta describes very well, developing seven defined categories of textual dependence (A-G).  It's worth reading the whole article, which is careful and illuminating.  Zgusta says, p.161,

To sum up: MONIER-WILLIAMS is completely independent of PW in respect to the general
plan of the arrangement of his dictionary, or its macrostructure (category E, p. 157); and
in respect to his semantics, or the way in which he handles the description of meaning by
English equivalents (cat. G, p. 159). Yet some alleged cases of copying remain unclear
(cat. D, p. 156).
However, there is no doubt that MONIER-WILLIAMS copied some data from PW (cat.
B, p. 154) although sometimes it is clear that while he copied without checking in
the original sources, he gave the material thus gained some thought of his own (cat. C, p.
155). The data which he acquired in this way are mostly of peripheral importance; one
can easily imagine that he tried to save time in this unorthodox way. There is. however,
one block, or set of highly important data which he completely took over, or copied from
PW, namely the indications of Vedic morphological forms (cat. F, p. 158).
It can even be shown that MW contains not only facts or data of language from PW,
but also interpretations conceived by BÖHTLINGK and ROTH (cat. A, p. 154).
There is no defense as far as category A is concerned. As for category F (p. 158),
it would seem that a more explicit acknowledgement in the preface to MW would be
necessary, but also sufficient: it is against the cumulative spirit of scientific discovery,
against the synchronic and diachronic cooperation of scholars, to repeat some already
well done research in all its minutiae; and also, if there are myriads of bits of information
thus obtained spread throughout a dictionary, it would be difficult to acknowledge each
and every single piece. MONIER-WILLIAMS ought to have been more explicit in the pre-
face; but had he been more open on the subject, this ought to have sufficed.
The same can be said mutatis mutandis about categories B and C. One simply cannot
expect a Sanskrit lexicographer working after the publication of PW not to use the wealth
of data published in it and re-do all the excerption himself. As in the case of the preced-
ing category, MONIER-WILLIAMS ought to have been more explicit in his preface. In
addition to this, he ought to have checked all second-hand date in the primary sources to
eliminate PW's misprints and errors, which he neglected to do. (Although the second
Ought to' perhaps may have to be reworded as 'should' in this real, non-ideal world of
ours.)
Both in the case of categories F, and B and C, MONIER-WILLIAMS' sins are rather those
of omission than of commission; only category A comprises a sin of commission.

Zgusta also says, p.160,

In sum, it is not possible fully to condemn MONIER-WILLIAMS, just as it is not possible
fully to exonerate him.  ...
MONIER-WILLIAMS and his dictionary have
been taken seriously; e.g., when G. BÜHLER in his 'Lexicographic Notes'21 (p. 90) men-
tions "the three great modern Sanskrit dictionaries, compiled by Europeans", it is clear
that he puts MW into the same category as PW and pw. The same scholar also discusses
(ibid., p. 86) a case where MONIER-WILLIAMS indicated his doubt about a translational
equivalent given in PW and was right in his skepsis. It must also be mentioned that not
only did MONIER-WILLIAMS get an honorary PhD degree from the University of Göttin-
gen, but also that such serious scholars as E. LEUMANN (Strassburg) and C. CAPELLER
(Jena) did not hesitate to cooperate with him on the second edition of MW.

Best,

Dominik Wujastyk

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@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@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)