Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:35:32.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Criticism and Transmission of Texts in Classical India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Gérard Colas  and
Jean Burrell
Gérard Colas
Affiliation:
CNRS, Centre d'Études de l'Inde et de l'Asie du Sud
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Compared with the Greek and Latin fields, the systematic study of the concept of textual criticism in classical India has made little progress, despite the quality of work produced by specialists. And yet research of this nature would probably lead, paradoxically, to a clearer formulation of the aims and methods of modern critical editions of Indian texts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 47 , Issue 186 , June 1999 , pp. 30 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 1999

Footnotes

*

Since it was not possible to give international scientific transcription here, we are using the transcription widely adopted by L. Renou et al. pp. 120 et seq. of vol. 2 of L'Inde classique (reissued 1985); in addition the velar nasal is transcribed here as an anusvâra.

References

1. This article originates in an exchange of views organized by Christan Jacob, with the book Tradition et critique des textes grecs as its focus and its author Jean Irigoin present. I am grateful to those who took part in the discussion for their observations and take this opportunity also to express my admiration and gratitude to Jean Irigoin.

2. See K.K. Raja (1982), Textual studies and editorial problems, in The Dr Kunjunni Raja Shashtyabdapurti Celebrations Committee (eds), Râjasudhâ (Madras), p. 3.

3. C. Malamoud (1997), Noirceur de l'écriture. Remarques sur un thème littéraire de l'Inde ancienne, in V. Alleton (ed.), Paroles à dire, paroles à écrire. Inde, Chine, Japon (Paris, Éditions de l'EHESS), p. 186; G. Colas (1997), L'écriture, visage de la parole: la tradition indienne, in A. Zali and A. Berthier, L'Aventure des écritures. Naissance (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France), p. 127.

4. V.S. Sukthankar (1944), in V.S. Sukthanthar memorial edition, P.K. Gode (ed.), vol. I: Critical Studies in the Mahâbhârata (Poona), pp. 108-130; p. 128: ‘The Mahâbhârata is not and never was a fixed rigid text, but is a fluctuating epic tradition, a thème avec variations, not unlike a popular Indian melody.'

5. For Hinduism see the tantra and purâna texts: T. Goudriaan (1996), Speech of the Gurus: Instances of Treatment of Sanskrit in Tantric literature, in Jan E.M. Houben (ed.), Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: Con tributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language (Leiden, E.J. Brill), p. 272; Nilakantha Çivâcârya, Kriyâsâra, vol. II, edited by S. Narayanaswamy Sastry (1957) (Mysore), Upadeça 5, pp. 305-306; K.K. Dutta Çâstrî (1971), The Ritual of Manuscripts, Our heritage XIX, Part I (Jan-June), pp. 17-44; M.M. Chakravarti, Notes on the Language and Literature of Orissa, Parts I and II, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal LXVI, p. 330. For Buddhism, cf. Y. Bentor (1995), On the Indian Origins of the Tibetan Practice of Depositing Relics and Dhâranîs in Stûpas and Images, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115 (2) (April-June), pp. 248-261; G. Schopen, The Phrase ‘sa prthivîpradeçaç caityabhûto bhavet' in the Vajracchedikâ: Notes on the Cult of the Book in Mahâyâna, Indo-Iranian Journal 17, pp. 147-181.

6. On the role of the written text in Indian law, see P.V. Kane (1946), History of Dharmaçâstra, vol. III(Poona), pp. 306-316.

7. J.F. Fleet (1901), Spurious Indian Records, The Indian Antiquary XXX, pp. 201-233.

8. Particularly in southern India, where paper was used. According to Chakravarti, Notes, p. 330, the life expectancy of a palm-leaf manuscript in Orissa (east coast of the sub-continent, south of Bengal) was 30 or 40 years.

9. R. Salomon's (1997) provisional estimate of the date of certain manuscripts in the British Library (see his A Preliminary Survey of Some Early Buddhist Manuscripts Recently Acquired by the British Library, Journal of the American Oriental Society 117 (2), p. 355).

10. According to J.P. Losty (1982), The Arts of the Book in India (London, British Library), p. 6.

11. See the standard phrase copyists add after the manuscripts' final colophons: ‘As I read the written book, so I have copied it. Correct or not, I am not responsible for it' (quotation and French translation in J. Filliozat (1941), Catalogue du fonds sanscrit [in the Bibliothèque Nationale], Fasc. I (Paris), p. xviii). Compare A. Dain (1997), Les manuscrits (Paris, Diderot Éditeurs), Collection Pergame 1, p. 17 (reissue of the 1975 edition; previous editions 1949, 1964).

12. Following A.L. Thakur (1987), Manuscriptology from Indian Sources, Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Kendriya Sanskrita Vidyapeetha XLIII (January-December), p. 95.

13. N. Stchoupak and L. Renou (1946), La Kâvyamîmâmsâ de Râjaçekhara traduite du sanskrit (Paris, Imprimerie nationale), Cahiers de la Société Asiatique VIII, pp. 146, 155.

14. For further details, see S.M. Katre (1954), Introduction to Indian Textual Criticism (Bombay, Karnatak Publish ing House), pp. 55-57; Raja (1982), p. 10; K.V. Sarma (1990), Variant Readings and Text Reconstruction in Indian Manuscriptology, in V. Dvivedi and J. Pândeya (eds.) Sampâdana ke siddhânta aur upâdâna (Sarnath, Varanasi, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies), Samyak-Vâk Series V, p. 140.

15. According to Thakur (1987), p. 95.

16. Dutta Çâstrî (1971), p. 30.

17. Thakur (1987), p. 90.

18. Observations made in particular in the case of the manuscripts in the Chandra Shum Shere holding (Bodleian Library).

19. For further details, see Katre (1954), p. 11.

20. For this and the following paragraph, see Raja (1982), p. 3.

21. Nandipurâna quoted by Hemâdri, Caturvargacintâmani, vol. I: Dânakhand a, edited by Bharatacandra Çiromani (1873), (Calcutta), Biblioteca Indica, chap. 7, p. 550; passage adapted into English by Dutta Çastrî, (1971), pp. 31-32.

22. Pâthakramâd arthakramo balîyân, literally ‘the strength of the meaning is more powerful than the strength of the reading (transmitted)'.

23. Manuscripts of the Mahâbhârata that preserve lectio difficilior are rare: see Sukthankar (1944), p. 101.

24. Compare Dain (1997), pp. 110-111.

25. See Goudriaan (1996), pp. 266, 267; Abhinavagupta, who, in his commentary on the Nâtyaçâstra 16, 4, opts for a lesson that he says has been ‘followed by the traditional transmission of our masters' (see M. Ramakrishnakavi's (1934) edition, vol. II (Baroda): Gaekwad's Oriental Series no. LXVIII, p. 295.

26. For this paragraph, see Katre (1954), pp. 61-2, 101, 110.

27. Sukthankar (1944), p. 101.

28. V.S. Sukthankar (1933 ed.), vol. I (Poona, Âdiparvan).

29. Sukthankar (1944), p. 110.

30. On the sectarian interpolations in the Râmâyana; see S. I. Pollock (1984), The Râmâyana Text and the Critical Edition, in The Râmâyana of Vâlmîki: An Epic of Ancient India, vol. I, Bâlakânda, Introduction and translation by R. P. Goldman (Princeton), p. 88, note 18.

31. M. Winternitz (1897), The Mantrapâtha or the Prayer Book of the Âpastambins, edited together with the commen tary of Haradatta and translated by M. Winternitz, First part: Introduction, Sanskrit text, Varietas lectionis, and Appendices (Oxford, Clarendon Press), Anecdota Oxoniensia, p. xiv; G. Bühler (1877), Detailed Report of a Tour in Search of Sanskrit Mss. Made in Kaçmir, Rajputana and Central India (Bombay), Extra number of the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, p. 33; see also the expression lipijâla, which refers to the fabrication of forged manuscripts, according to M. Banerjee (1987), On Some Interesting Post-colophon Statements of Sanskrit Manuscripts Preserved in the Asiatic Society Library, in S.K. Maity and U. Thakur (eds.), Indological Studies, Prof. D.C. Sircar Commemoration Volume (New Delhi), p. 78.

32. In his Mahâbhâratatâtparyanir naya, II, 3, in Sarvamûlagranthâh, vol. II, ed. by Bannanje Govindacharya (1917, Udipi), p. 13.

33. See his commentary Bhâratabhâvadîpa on the beginning of the Âdiparvan, vol. I (Poona, Citrashala Press, 1929), p. 1.

34. Sukthankar (1944), p. 101.

35. For this and the preceding paragraph, see the many quotations in R.S. Bhattacharya (1990), Use of manuscripts in textual criticism by our commentators, in V. Dvivedi and Janârdana Pâ ndeya (eds.) Sampâdana ke siddhânta aur upâdâna (Sarnath, Varanasi, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies), Samyak-Vâk Series V, pp. 220-221.

36. Examples and quotations in Sukthankar (1944), p. 101; Bhattacharya (1990), p. 223, notes 2 and 3; see also note 5: ‘One does not see this çloka verse in all manuscripts', Nilakantha's commentary on Harivamça 2, 48, 12, vol. VII (Poona, Citrashala Press, 1936), p. 270.

37. See Bhattacharya (1990), p. 223.

38. See H. Jacobi (1893), Das Râmâyana. Geschichte und Inhalt nebst Concordanz der gedruckten Recensionen (Bonn), p. 10; Bhattacharya (1990), pp. 219-220.

39. See Jacobi (1893), pp. 8-9.

40. See the commentary by Abhinavagupta on the Nâtyaçâstra 16, 87, vol. II, p. 331; see also the commentary Vaisnavatosinî on the Bhâgavatapurâna 10, 12, 1 which Bhattacharya (1990) quotes, p. 224, note 3: ‘Because [this reading] is seen in many manuscripts' (bahupustakesu drçyamânatvât).

41. For this and the following paragraph, see Raja (1982), p. 3; Bhattacharya (1990), pp. 224-225; Sukthankar (1944), p. 101.

42. See Bhattacharya (1990), pp. 224-225 (especially p. 225, notes 1 and 4).

43. See Bhattacharya (1990), pp. 225-226.

44. See Bhattacharya (1990), p. 227.

45. Commentary Amarakoçodghâ tana on the Nâmalimgânuçâsana (also entitled Amarakoça) 2, 4, 50 (edited, with the Tîkâsarvasva of Vandyaghatîyasarvânanda, by T. Ganapati Çâstri (1919), Part II, Khanda 2, Varga 1-5 (Trivandrum), Trivandrum Sanskrit Series XLIII), p. 105.

46. Raja (1982), p. 9.

47. Winternitz (1897), pp. xv-xxxi.

48. See Goudriaan (1996), p. 267.

49. See Goudriaan (1996), p. 267. In grammar books the term chândasa indicates a form's ‘vedic' nature: on this subject (and on the connected term ârsa, more used in literary commentaries), see L. Renou (1940), La Durghatavrtti de Çaranadeva, Traité grammatical sanskrit du XIIe siècle, vol. I, Fasc. I: Introduction (Paris), pp. 126-129 (ârsa, p. 126, n. 2).

50. Goudriaan (1996), p. 269.

51. Winternitz (1897), p. xv: ‘There are numerous cases in these Mantras where every editor would be tempted to have recourse to conjectural emendations. But on closer examination he will remember that he has to edit, and not to correct his text, and that even a grammatically impossible reading has to be retained, if it is warranted by the best authority' (in this case the authority is the commentator Haradatta).

52. See G. Colas (1995), Cultes et courants du Vishnouisme en Inde du Sud. Quelques observations à partir des textes, in M.-L. Reiniche and H. Stern, Les ruses du salut. Religion et politique dans le monde indien (Paris, Éditions de l'École des hautes études en sciences sociales), Collection Purusârtha no. 17, p. 131, n. 37.

53. Translations and explanations in M. Bloomfield and F. Edgerton (1932), Vedic Variants: A Study of the Variant Readings in the Repeated Mantras of the Veda, Volume II: Phonetics (Philadelphia, Linguistic Society of America, University of Pennsylvania), p. 402.

54. See G. Colas (1995), p. 117.

55. P.K. Gode (1940), Textual Criticism in the Thirteenth Century, in Mohammad Shafi (ed.) Woolner Commemora tion Volume (in memory of the late Dr A.C. Woolner) (Lahore, Mehar Chand Lachhman Das), pp. 106-107.

56. On the Buddhist examples, see N.H. Samtani (1990), Some Problems in Editing Buddhist Texts, in V. Dvivedi and J. Pândeya (eds) Sampâdana ke siddhânta aur upâdâna (Sarnath, Varanasi, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies), Samyak-Vâk Series V, pp. 243, 248-250.

57. M. Bloomfield and F. Edgerton (1932), pp. 20-25.

58. N.H. Samtani (1990), pp. 248-250.

59. M. Bloomfield and F. Edgerton (1932), #843, p. 391 (on this topic in general, see also ch. Xviii); J. Wackemagel (1975), Altindische Grammatik, vol. I, new edition (Göttingen), pp. 51-52.

60. S. Kuppuswami et al. (eds.), 2nd edition 1958, revised by K. Chinnaswami Sastrigal and V.H. Subrahmanya Sastri (Madras).