Preamble
Ever since the invention of
writing, it has been possible for man to visibly express his knowledge for the
benefit of others. Written material
serves as an important document for all times.
Before the advent of printing, such materials were written on any
convenient writing material. In
ancient times people wrote on the barks of trees, leaves, metal, cloth, brick,
stone and so on. Of these the brich-bark,
palmleaf and handmade paper were extensively used by the authors.
The works so written on these materials were of scholarly nature,
covering the areas of literature, arts and technical sciences that testify the
intellectual ability of the writer as well as to the advanced nature of
civilization in those times.
Owing to the absence of printing facilities in ancient times, authors
could prepare only one copy of their works and in case of need for more copies,
for various reasons, those works were copied by competent scribes at different
times. Though this was a great
service on the part of the scribes, in the process, the original works were
subjected to alterations and changes that resulted in altogether different
presentation of content as well as style in the copies.
This disorder became evident at several stages and posed a problem for
credibility of the work. Hence it
fell to the lot of scholars to reconstruct the original presentation to make a
work credible and authentic. Thus
the science of textual criticism came into being.
The nature of critically editing of an ancient work, the rights and
duties of a critical editor, the problems that pose before him during critically
editing a manuscript and the system of critical editing are brought forth
briefly in the following paragraphs in order to introduce in an outline what
textual criticism means.
Collection
and editing
The chief aim of textual
criticism is to prepare an accurate text of an ancient manuscript through
protection of the historical records that may contain in the respective
manuscript or carefully preserving the original word and sentence structure of
the author. That means to critically
edit a work acceptable in all aspects through considerable study with
intelligent and prescribed system. This
requires critical acume and also scholarship in the subject on the part of the
editor.
There are two types in editing ancient manuscripts that are accepted in
all respects. First, selection of
the best copy among scores of works of the same title for editing.
While thus selecting, to make a comparative study of each manuscript to
identify the one originally written by the author or one without much difference
from the original as the basic text for critical editing.
It becomes necessary to examine all the related documents before
finalizing the selection of the basic text.
Secondly, to eliminate, as per conventions of critical editing, obscure
and irrelevant elements, if any, from the work.
In such cases though these elements are according to the objectives of
the author, it is necessary to discard incredible matters.
As per Rajasekhara's suggestion "siddham ca prabandham anekādasagatam
kuryāt", when an author writes and rewrites his work or gets it
rewritten by others and also when others prepare copies of the work at different
times and places, it is natural that there would be a number of changes in the
text. Though the subject is same, it
is likely that changes may occur in the construction of sentences or usage of
words or even in the interpretation. The
reason for this is that the copyist or scribe may add a word or a sentence which
he deems correct at particular places in the manuscript thus modifying the
original work. It is for this reason
that several manuscripts of the same title collected for critical editing do not
tally with each other. That being
the fact, while critically editing such a manuscript it is first and foremost
necessary to know the entire history or background of that manuscript.
Method of
Editing
Relating to the manuscript selected for critical editing there may be
other manuscripts available. Such
manuscripts available. Such
manuscripts may be a collection of a particular subject.
For example, Sriktimuktāvali of Jalhana.
Such a collection would be helpful in deciding the accuracy of the basic
text. Similarly, translations
relating to the original subject also serve as essential means for critically
editing a manuscript. In the
collection and editing of manuscripts of Buddhist works found in
India
, works translated into Chinese and
Tibetan languages have been immensely useful.
That is, if any word or sentence in the basic text is obscure, while
judging the meaning of such words or sentences, its translation in some
different manuscript that may contain accurate or near accurate particulars of
such words or sentences found in them helps the editor.
Hence before undertaking critically editing an ancient manuscript all the
sāstras as well as kāvyas and nātakas where repetitions and
sentences occur have to be collected and studied.
Let us take a manuscript that has not been edited at any stage.
The foremost procedure is to collect evidence relating to that
manuscript. It is likely that such
evidences may be available in other manuscripts of the same title or in the
copies of already procured manuscript. Apart
from this, data about the selected manuscript may be available in the catalogues
and descriptive catalogues of manuscripts and other significant publications
prepared by the institutes of oriental research.
Such data may be available not only in Sanskrit but also in other
languages. Sometimes particularly
that are helpful in the critical editing of a manuscript may be available in
other manuscripts in the personal collections of pandits or traditional
scholars. In view of this
possibility, Catalogues Catalogorum of Aufrecut, Rice's catalogue and the New
Catalogues Catalogorum of
Madras
, etc., may be of guidance.
While consulting these sources of information it would be possible for a
comparative study of the other manuscripts chosen for the purpose.
In this regard the editor has to be very carefully and give his thoughts
sincerely.
After making a comparison of all the manuscripts procured, the manuscript
that is more reliable in all respects should be chosen for critical editing.
Let us examine this in more detail.
Classification
Let us presume that we got four manuscripts relating to one particular
subject. Where four have been
selected after a comparison of them with each other as mentioned above.
They are classified as `ka', `kha', `ga' and `gha' respectively.
Out of these four, the manuscript marked `ka' contained more details and
is reliable without giving room to any doubt.
Though the subject particulars of this manuscript are found in the
manuscript, `kha' also, they are not satisfactory.
Similarly there are differences in the manuscripts marked `ga' and `gha'.
Even then the salient information or elucidation that are contained in
the manuscripts `ga' and `gha' may not be available in the manuscripts `ka' and
`kha'. All these four manuscripts
therefore have been chosen for critical editing.
Now if the subject, descriptions etc., that are contained in the
manuscript `ka' are found in the manuscripts `kha', `ga' and `gha' also, it is
to be reckoned that the subject content and presentation given in the manuscript
`ka' are reliable'. But if the same
contents in `ka' (it may even be words or sentences) are found in the
manuscripts `kha' and `gha' and found in the manuscript `ga' with differences,
whatever the accuracy in the description, meaning of interpretation, the
judgement or decision depends solely on the wisdom of the editor.
In such circumstances the difficulty in editing as also the
responsibility of the editor increase.
It is not necessary to name the manuscripts selected for editing while
classifying and marking the other copies of the manuscript as `ka', `kha', `ga',
`gha' etc. There is a system in
`doing' so. If the copy procured is
a Punjab version, then from transactional point of view it is marked as `Pa'
or to ascribe any other symbol commensurate with its significance would
be suitable. By this method, in the
event of reviewing eight to ten copies of the manuscript, while transacting with
a symbol as per circumstances, it makes it possible to remember the salient
significance of any of the copies.
Thus even after classifying all the four manuscripts in a systematic
manner as per respective significance, it is possible that every
copy may have differences. These
differences can be detected only after repeated and careful examination of the
copies with concentration and constant attention.
Such a practice is an essential duty in textual criticism.
It is imperative that such practices are repeated, particularly when
there is only one manuscript of the work available.
Viśvanātha's Kośakalpataru and Nanyadeva's Bharatabhāsya
are examples of this type of manuscripts.
The `ka' type of manuscript containing the author's name and written by
himself and more reliable hen the other copies is known as
"autograph". The complete
work based on this manuscript and with the help of other copies becomes the
press-worthy final copy. This is
called "recension". There
are certain important points that the editor should bear in mind while preparing
the final copy.
After finalizing `ka' type of manuscript the complete and accurate
transcription of it is made by the editor. While
doing so, in the case of, in the opinion of the editor, all the four manuscripts
chosen for editing, fail to provide satisfactory meanings for sentences relating
to the subject, the responsibility of correcting them lies with editor himself.
In view of this the editor should necessarily be conversant with the
particular subject. Sometimes it is
possible that some of the lines in the selected manuscripts have been unclear or
erased. It is probable that the palm
leaf manuscripts, which are one of the media of writing in ancient times, gets
degenerated due to posts, etc. In
such cases it is also the responsibility of the editor to fill appropriately
either words or sentences at appropriate places in the manuscript without
damaging the original subject.
Secondly, if the word or sentence used in the manuscript is not
contextual, it becomes useless or serves no purpose.
Therefore to correct them with acceptable accuracy is also a
responsibility of the editor. In the
drama "Sākuntalam" critically edited by Pichel, a German scholar,
there was a word in his basic text of the manuscript, viz., `amuSmān'.
Since this word could not convey any meaning, it was corrected as `āyuSmān'.
Such lacunae are the result of the carelessness of the scribe while
copying the manuscript. Sometimes it
may be found that the original author might use a word which may not fit into
the standard of the work. Such
words, even if they convey meanings, from the point of view of the value of the
work, have to be replaced or corrected. Thus
changing the word śayanā into salilāt according to context is
also one of the duties of the editor. Such
as act of changing the words according to context is known as `emendation'.
For example, the BRhaddevatā critically edited by AA
Macdonell may be cited.
The Brhaddevatā is one of the Vedic texts that has attracted
the attention of Vedic scholars. Though
Rudolf Roth edited the only manuscript available in 1846 he was hopeful that in
probability he would be able to get other manuscripts of the work in India.
Within a short time of the publication of Roth's edition, another
manuscript of Brhaddevatā was
discovered in the Chambers collection at Royal Library in Berlin, Germany.
Keeping this as basic text, Adalbert Kuhn published
this newly found manuscript in the first volume of Indische Studien (1850).
While doing so, Kuhn compared with the manuscript procured in Poona (now
in the Munich Royal Library) in 1865. Since
enough satisfactory material for editing was not available in both these
manuscripts kuhn did not publish his work completely.
Around 1860, Max Muller had collected three modern copies of the
manuscript form India with the help of Buhler and Bhan Daji.
Since enough significant materials were not available even in these two
manuscripts, editing was not taken up. Thebot,
Max Muller's assistant, also had planned to critically edit BRhaddevatā
but finally relinquished the idea. In
1886 Charles Rockwel Lanmann planned to edit this work.
But on account of several difficulties in the collection of other
manuscripts relating to the work and also due to pressure of work he did not
undertake the editing. Finally,
Macdonell, on the request of Lanmann took up the editing of the BRhaddevatā
and published it with an English translation and appendix in the Harvard
Oriental Series in 1904.
Macdonell thoroughly examined nine manuscripts for critically editing the
BRhaddevatā. He classified eight manuscripts as group `A'.
The variations in this group were little while those in the second group
were extensive. He classified this
as Group `B'. Since this was Berlin
version, it was easy to identify it by the sign of `B'.
The ninth manuscript also belonged to the Berlin and Bodlien collection.
To this nine manuscripts, Macdonell added the seven manuscripts collected
by Rajendralal Mitra in 1889. Thus
he collected sixteen manuscripts for preparing a critical edition of the BRhaddevatā.
Out of these, he classified manuscripts of several versions nearer to
basic text into a group and set himself for the editing.
In these, Haug's manuscript, referred earlier, had only little lacunae.
Apart from these, he took into consideration the 180 ślokas of BRhaddevatā
that had been included in the Nitimanjan of Dyā Dviveda.
In the two groups classified by Macdonell, 133 šlokas that were not in
`A' group were found in the `B' group and also 18 šlokas that were not in `B'
group were found in the `A' roup. When
the reason for this was examined very carefully, it was found that the
manuscripts in the `A' group were very closed to the basic text.
Apart from these manuscripts several works related to this were also
examined which helped a lot in the editing work.
In a bid to remove errors that crept both in the `A' and the `B' groups
he corrected them with the help od other manuscripts that did not fall in either
of the groups. For example, to
examine the significance of words like `ransamaH', `satpatiH', `ataHparidhi', `aindrāgnī',
`anupāniyāh' etc., it was necessary to refer to vedic literature such
as Sarvānukramani and the Nirukta.
Macdonell has emended about 107 lacunae in the BRhaddevatā
edited by him. These are mostly
words and letters. There is only one
instance of changing a complete line ("Karma dRSTe ca yatkincid viSaye
parivartate 1.119 cD): that too when it was absolutely essential for a change.
Similarly, in the following šlokas:
tayā tasya ca samvāsam
asuyān pākašāsanaH
paitāmaham cāmurāgam
indravat cāpi tasya te
Br. Dev.7.148.
The
word `samvādam' was used in the manuscripts of Hang, Max Muller and
Rajendralal Mitra, while in the rest of the six manuscripts `Samvādam' has
been used. In these, since according
to Macdonell the word `samvasam' was more reliable, he deleted the word `samvādam'.
Similarly, `asuyān' for `aniceham', `indravac cāpi tasya tu' as
corrected for `tvindravarcāpi', indranvositāni tu' and `indraoSitāni
tu'. While effecting such changes he
has consulted vedic texts like Kātyāyana's SarvānukramaNi, Yaska's
Nirukta, ĀrSānukramaNi, etc., in collecting, editing and publishing of
BRhaddevatā without damaging the original text.
From the above example the
awareness of the responsibility involved in critical editing on the part of the
editor may understood at least to a little extent.
It is the understanding of the most of the Indian traditional scholars
that emending words and sentences that are not grammatically correct but that
are in usage from a very long time (ārsēya) is not desirable.
But in view of Indian textual criticism and in view of the scientific
development in the study and techniques of editing, correction of such words and
sentences from the point of view of grammar becomes greater responsibility of
the editor.