Many thanks to Evgeniya Desnitskaya, and to Raffaele Torella, for sending me a PDF scan of Gnoli's edition. 

Thank you very much, Vincent, for pointing out that the reading "syāt" from the second manuscript is indeed reported in Gnoli's edition, in the "Additional Notes" at the back. I had missed this.

As Raffaele wrote to me, the quality of Gnoli's edition is so good that, after sixty years, only some minor details could be improved. This is the view he got from Dharmakīrti specialists Ernst Steinkellner, Eli Franco, and Vincent Eltschinger. 

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.

On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 4:12 PM Eltschinger, Vincent <Vincent.Eltschinger@oeaw.ac.at> wrote:

Dear David,

Please have a look at p. 185 of Gnoli's edition, where the MS B's reading is reported (MS A was not available for this passage). Pp. 177-187 contain "additional notes" of textual criticism. Most of them were compiled by Muni Jambuvijayaji, as Raniero Gnoli himself explains in pp. xxx-xxxi of his introduction.

With best regards,

Vincent


Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
Directeur d'études
École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
vincent.eltschinger@ephe.sorbonne.fr
0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05


Von: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> im Auftrag von David and Nancy Reigle via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 21:40
An: Indology
Betreff: [INDOLOGY] Pramāṇavārttikam, Svārthānumāna chapter, Gnoli edition
 
A request and a question. I have the physical book, but need either an electronic version or another hard copy for some friends. If someone has already scanned it, that would save me the time to scan my copy. Thanks.

Gnoli's edition (1960) seems to be highly regarded, and would be superior to Malvaniya's nearly contemporaneous edition (1959), because Gnoli had an additional manuscript to use, and also compared the Tibetan translation. I have not noticed any critical review of Gnoli's edition that might offer some corrections to it.

By chance I checked verse 254 and noticed that in 254c the word "hi" in Gnoli's edition is "syāt" in other editions, including Malvaniya's (verse 258a in this edition). The manuscript that Malvaniya used is one of the two manuscripts that Gnoli used. Yet, there is no mention of this as a variant reading in Gnoli's edition. I wonder why.

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.