Dear Dr. Paturi garu,
Thank you.
I agree with you about the introductory parts of literary texts and how epigraphic information can be used along with them to date them, which will lead to the study of the text in its historical context. (My own 2016 paper entitled, "On the Date of Bhavatrāta, the Jaiminīya Commentator,” does the first part based on epigraphy arguing for a date several centuries after the one previously held by scholars. I do not know if anyone has followed up with the analysis of its historical context.)
But what I am looking for is a different issue. We know that epigraphic information is preserved intact for a much longer time than manuscripts of literary texts. In other words, inscriptions often preserve texts as they were inscribed long time ago. On the other hand, literary manuscripts, which need to be periodically copied, often contain variations resulting from hypercorrection, copyist errors, editorial efforts, etc. For instance, in my work on the name for Vaiṣṇava saints, inscriptions preserve the original form āḷvār, while the literary texts have come to use the hypercorrect form, āḻvār. The meanings of the two forms are entirely different. Thus the inscriptions help us to identify the original significance of the appellation of a Vaiṣṇava saint and how the literary form has changed.
It was information on this type of Indological work that I am after.
Regards,
Palaniappan
>
I am not talking about historically locating literary texts.
Using historical research including epigraphy for the study of literary works did not stop at historically locating literary texts. It lead to an entire branch of literary criticism called historical criticism.
Particularly in the case of literatures of Indian languages, where the prefatory/introductory parts provide a very big amount of historical data such as the patron king, his dynasty etc., the data was correlated with the epigraphic information where the king and his dynasty find mention and that in turn lead to the study of the literary work in its historical context. Marxist literary criticism has also been broadly historical criticism only.