1

1

On preparing an informative critical apparatus

Dipak Bhattacharya

Visva Bharati

§1The aim of the paper §2 What often happened in the available editions 2a) Shastri’s edition of the

Caryāpadas and a new edition. 2b) Śaunakīya Atharvaveda: Visva Bandhu and S.P.Pandit 2c)

Rāmacaritam: H.P.Shastri and R.G.Basak §3 The possibility of a foolproof system against flaws in

critical edition 3a) The condition of compatibility and dependability 3b)Formulaic presentation of the

model 3c) Employment of the formula: examples from an existing edition §4 Concluding remarks

§1 The aim of the paper

Though it is a laborious job to prepare a critical apparatus (Ca), usually the task is not regarded as

complicated. But the existence of different types of elements required for the execution of the editorial

task calls for maximum care and attention on the part of the editor. Any laxity may cause confusion and

wrong idea about the edited text and/or its sources. The present paper stemming from the observation of

some instances of such laxity, tries to draw attention to avoidable errors and to the possibility of building

up a fool-proof system against errors in preparing a critical apparatus.

But, it is necessary to state at the outset that it is not the aim of the paper to show ways of making

better selection, rejection or emendation and of preparing a more acceptable reconstruction. It draws

attention to cases of ambiguity that create wrong idea about the manuscript and other editors. The aim is

to suggest ways of furnishing an editorial reconstruction with a complete critical apparatus that indicates

unequivocally the ms-readings, the views of the previous editors and the rationale of the edition at hand.

Now, though various types of lapses may occur in preparing a critical apparatus, for reasons

stated below, the problems dealt with here pertain largely to those relating to preparing a second critical

edition. Many texts have been critically edited for the second or third time – the Atharvaveda (Śaunakīya-

Saṁhitā=AVŚ), the Ṛgveda, the Caryāpadas, the Divyāvadāna, the Rāmacaritam and so on. Some of

these are to be taken up.

2

2

The general guidelines for a critical edition are available in S. M. Katre’s well-known work on

Indian text criticism1. Everybody expects that after Katre’s guide-book the kind of unscientific critical

apparatus presented by Roth-Whitney in the Berlin edition2 of the AVŚ should not occur a second time.

However, in spite of its merit, Katre’s work gives a general guideline that is valid, on the whole, mainly

for the first edition of a text. A first edition may, indeed, be a very difficult task when there is a huge

number of manuscripts or a single corrupt manuscript. For that reason Katre remains an indispensable

guide. But since it was a general guideline it was not meant to address all the problems such as, among

others, some additional needs that could rise in the case of a second edition.

In the case of the second edition of a text, whether from the same set of manuscripts or from a

different or larger set, the matter to be referred to in the Ca may be both quantitatively and qualitatively

different. It is a few of those extra problems of preparing the critical apparatus of a second edition that

have been mainly addressed below.

In the Ca one mentions, among others, the matter that exists in the manuscript but do not occur in

the edited text. That may include statements outside the main text, eg., colophon and post-colophon

statements and, most importantly, the manuscript readings that the editor has rejected. Moreover, apart

from citing from external sources according to necessity, the editor is also free to state the reasons for his

preference for some reading selected from among variants and also for emendation, if any.

It is very important to note that the reader must know what the manuscripts contain and how far

the edited text deviates from it. So, any change in the text made by the editor must be shown in such a

way as leaves no room for doubt about the ms-reading that is to say through statements having no

equivocality caused by incomplete information or ambiguity in furnishing the information about the

readings of the manuscript. Naturally, while preparing the critical apparatus it is essential for the editor to

remember that the rejected readings must be shown with the name of the source where it occurs. Usually

it is manuscript readings that are rejected. (However, in case of a second edition, it may be also a reading

adopted by a previous editor, a sole manuscript reading or one selected from among variants. See below.)

So the name of the source manuscripts of which a list must be prepared by the editor should be indicated

with the rejected readings. Many editors also show the readings available from external sources like

parallel or comparable texts. Naturally, the actual method of showing the various readings, thus, may

1 Introduction to Indian textual criticism, Bombay, 1941

2 ATHARVA VEDA SANHITA Herausgeben von R.Roth W.D.Whitney Berlin 1856. The editors mentioned the

manuscript readings they had rejected only for kāṇḍas 19 and 20 where harsh emendations had been effected. For

the other kāṇḍas they left most of the manuscript readings unreported even when emended or varied. Variant ms-

readings have been sporadically reported in Whitney’s translation (HOS 7,8), but there is no regular critical

apparatus.

3

3

vary and be complex calling for great caution and labour as it could include the names of many variants

and many source-manuscripts and readings in external sources of heterogeneous character.

The same principles are to be followed in preparing the critical apparatus of a second edition but

a quantitative change in the Ca might be called for because of the following reasons. If the editor of the

second edition is aware of the first one he may choose to indicate how his/her predecessor had edited the

text. When a reading of a previous edition is rejected and the editor likes to mention that, he/she must

mention the source of the rejected reading. If it is the previous editor’s conjecture the source should be

mentioned as the previous editor himself or herself; if it belonged to the manuscript the source must be

indicated as such, if it is both an ms-reading and one approved by a previous editor it must be shown as

such ie as an ms-reading approved by the previous editor.

So while the principles of preparing the ca are the same with a first edition and a second edition

the difference lies in that in a second edition the editor notes the sources that his predecessor could not

use, -- readings from new manuscripts and, optionally depending on the case, the previous editor’s

emendation when that differs from the present reading. And hence, as told above, the necessity of extra

caution. In order to avoid confusion the second edition’s editor must clearly indicate whether he/she is

referring to the previous editor’s emendation and or to any manuscript reading whatever the case might

be.

§2. What often actually happened in the available editions.

The measures advised here are meant to remove ambiguity in a critical edition. Most of them

may be regarded as axiomatic. But it is not that all editors are conscious of the compulsion of employing

the advised measures. In fact some of the available editions show deviations which deserve the attention

of new scholars. A few are being pointed out below.

Four cases are taken up here – one from editions of the Caryāpadas, two from those of the Atharvaveda

and one from the second edition of the Rāmacaritam of Sandhyākaranandin.

2a) Shastri’s edition of the Caryāpadas and a new edition.

Haraprasad Shastri’s edition of the Caryāpadas was published by the Bangiya Sahitya Parishat as

Bauddha gān o dohā in 1916. A new edition by Śānti Bhikṣu Śāstrī was published by the Visva Bharati

under the title Caryāgītikoṣa of Buddhist Siddhas in 1956. The first verse of Lui Pāda runs as follows in

the new edition.

4

4

काआ तरवर पञच वव डाल।

चञचल चीए पइठा काल।। [१]

दिढ कररअ महासह पररमाण।

लइ भणइ गर पचछिअ जाण।।

Śāntibhikshu’s paiṭhā in 1d is a change from the reading paiṭho in Shastri’s edition. In the critical

apparatus Śānti Bhikṣu indicates the previous edition’s reading as ‘H पइठो।’ H means Haraprasad Shastri.

There is no mention of any manuscript reading in the new edition’s critical apparatus. With such an

unqualified mention of Shastri’s name one is likely to infer that in paiṭhā Śānti Bhikṣu has restored a

manuscript reading against paiṭho an emendation made by Shastri.

But that is not the case. The ms reads paiṭho (see photo-print at the end of paper) which Shastri had

retained while it is Śānti Bhikṣu Śāstrī who emended the reading to paiṭhā. But the reader does not know

that from the critical apparatus of the new edition. If one has to depend merely on the new editor one will

maintain the wrong idea that Shastri had emended the ms reading paiṭhā and that it was restored in the

new edition.

The first word in the second verse is दिढ. Here too the ca reads ‘H. दिट।‘ But diṭa is not a

conjecture of Shastri but the ms reading. Again, the ca will lead the unaware reader to the wrong

conclusion that Shastri had emended the ms reading and that it was restored in the new edition.

So the edition does not give the reader a correct idea of the manuscript reading and creates wrong

notions about who emended and who retained the manuscript reading. When the ca leads one to such

confusion one may term it ‘unscientific’.

Now, one may ask what great difference it might make when a wrong report is made about the

source of a reading. There is indeed a difference that lies in endowing the edition with an instrument that

gives maximum help to the reader in weighing the acceptability of a reading. An ms reading comes from

a tradition – the ultimate source of information about a reading. We saw above that in the ambiguous

cases the position of the manuscript is not clear. So with an unambiguous statement the reader is enabled

to know about a reading according to its most important source.

5

5

2b) Śaunakīya Atharvaveda: Visva Bandhu and S.P.Pandit

The following is another instance of inaccurate reporting in the critical apparatus.

As it is well known there are two Atharvaveda-Saṁhitās – Śaunakīya-Saṁhitā that has been several times

edited since 1856, and the Paippalāda-Saṁhitā which, after L.C.Barret and Durgamohan Bhattacharyya,

has been edited by the author of these lines and recently published by the Asiatic Society, Calcutta.3 AVP

18.22.10 reads (tāḥ priyaḥ giraḥ varcasā pṛñcatīr)4 jātaṁ jātrīr yathā hṛdā … [‘Those pleasing prayers

endowing (lit. mixing) the dear ones with lustre] like the mother the new-born with (her) heart’. There is a

rare word jātrīr ‘mother’ for which the usual Vedic word is janitrī.5 Naturally I had to check the parallel

reading in AVŚ 20.48.2.

Now, there are three critical editions of the AVŚ - one done by Whitney-Roth in 1856, the second

one by S. P. Pandit in 1894-98 and the third by Visva Bandhu Shastri in the 1960s. I consulted the one by

Visva Bandhu. The text more or less agrees with the AVP’s but has jánir for jātrīr of the AVP. The

sentence runs jātam janir yathā hṛdā ‘as the wife (endows) the new born one with heart’. I checked the

ca. Here Visva Bandhu reports that S. P. Pandit reads jātrīr as in the AVP6 with final accent. Visva

Bandhu’s exact words are jātrīr yathā śaṁ pā. The report implied that the text in the ms is jánir but

Pandit read jātrīr. I checked Pandit’s edition and found that he read jātrīr and reported no manuscript

variant. That means Pandit’s manuscript reads jātrīr like the AVP. I checked Whitney’s 1856 edition.

Here the text reads jánir but the ca reports that the ms reads jātrīr.

So, like Śānti Bhikṣu Visva Bandhu, too, has reported an ms reading as the emended reading of

the previous editor. Bhikṣu’s ambiguous indication was likely to create wrong idea about Shastri and the

Caryā mss while similar indication of Visva Bandhu could create wrong idea about Pandit and the AVŚ

manuscripts.

3 Barret edited from the hopelessly corrupt and damaged single Śāradā manuscript. In spite of Barret’s admirable

efforts of thirty-five years (1905-1940) the outcome was not very useful for further research. Durgamohan

Bhattacharyya worked with better Oriya script manuscripts discovered by himself but he died after completing up to

the first 27 hymns of the 4th kāṇḍa. The new edition appeared in 1997, 2008 and 2011. Release of the 4th

volume(20%) is awaited. 4 The words in parentheses, meant to facilitate understanding meaning of the verse, are not given in the order in

which they appear there. 5 jātrī is not a regular form but one can explain it. In its pre-historic form the Sanskrit root/stem jan ended with a

laryngeal with the form janH (*ĝwenH). The zero-grade form jnH gave rise to jā in several stages till the loss of the

consonantal laryngeal, by way of (1) vocalization of the inter-consonantal n, (2) its transformation into -a- followed

by (3) the loss of the laryngeal and (4) compensatory lengthening of the a. Followed by trī it gives jātrī lit.’one (f)

who gives birth’ . Janitrī is the strong grade from. The weak form of the root is irregular before -trī. 6 The AVP’s Orissa mss have no accent marks. The lone Kashmir ms only rarely shows accents.

6

6

Even an editor of great merit like S. P. Pandit, unparalleled in his days, could sometimes report

readings in the ca in such a way as leaves room for doubt regarding what is emendation and what stands

as an ms reading. Thus, in his edition AVŚ 20.136.7 reads mahānagny (<nī) úpa brūte bhraṣṭóthāpy

abhūbhuvaḥ/ For abhūbhuvaḥ there are two variants -- abhubhuvaḥ occurring in five manuscripts and

abubhuvaḥ in three. Apart from those Whitney had the reading abūbhuvaḥ. In his ‘Critical notice’ to the

first volume Pandit had stated that he would refer to Roth-Whitney as Rw. He uses that abbreviation

against the reading abūbhuvaḥ. Now Roth-Whitney’s Ca does not report any variant. Hence apparently

they had retained an ms-reading. But Pandit does not clearly state so. The ambiguity is caused by the

following fact. In 7d SPP reads pippati tathaivati. Here too he reports that Rw read piṁṣanti tathaiveti.

But unlike abūbhuvaḥ this Rw reading is an emendation. Rw reports that their manuscript read pipyati

tathaivati. That means in this case Rw made an emendation. So one who knows that SPP reports Rw’s

text-reading under their name irrespective of whether that is an emendation or an ms-reading, shall have

to check the ms-reading from the Rw-edition itself for ascertaining what was an emendation by Rw and

what was a manuscript reading. In our opinion it is imperative for the new edition itself to give the

information. What is the purpose of a new edition if one has to check previous ones for full information or

if one is wrongly informed.

2c) Rāmacaritam: H.P.Shastri and R.G.Basak

Another edition where the editor faces similar tasks is the 1969 second edition of the

Rāmacaritam of Sandhyākaranandin. The work was first edited by H. P. Shastri and published by the

Asiatic Society in 1910. It was reedited on the basis of the same manuscript by R. G. Basak and published

again by the Asiatic Society in 1969. Basak’s edition seems to have presented the manuscript readings

more precisely, still it has got some complexities that require clarification.

R. G. Basak revised H. P. Shastri’s edition with an English translation, notes and a Preface.

Unlike many other second editors Basak tries to clearly state the facts when he differs from Shastri. He

first explains his understanding of the manuscript’s orthography. In this Basak marginally differs from

Shastri. One may have one’s own opinion on whose method is better, but it is more important that one can

easily see the difference and can take a decision from the presented text itself. Secondly, when a reading

from the previous edition is rejected, Basak refers to the previous edition’s reading in three ways, namely,

as MS, as HS and as MS and HS. Basak does not explain the three references, but it seems clear by way

of elimination that ‘MS’ along with a reading in the critical apparatus means that here Basak sees eye to

eye with the previous editor in rejecting an MS reading; HS-and-MS means that he rejects an MS reading

adopted by the previous editor. . Different from both are the cases referred to as HS that means the

7

7

rejection of a reading different from the ms-reading and adopted by the previous editor but not approved

by the present editor. It should be stated here that the readings of Shastri that Basak rejects as ‘HS’ are,

according to Basak, (Preface: xii and notes accompanying the indication ‘HS’ in the ca) not conscious

emendations of Shastri but are cases of wrong decipherment of readings of the manuscript.

Basak edited the Rāmacaritam in 1969. It is clear that by this time Indian text-criticism that

started as early as the sixties of the eighteenth century had come of age. But it is not that Basak’s

presentation makes everything of the edition clear. That he refers to Shastri will be, theoretically, a guess

work for the reader. For, Basak has not given a list of abbreviations. Of course the meanings of the

abbreviations can be easily guessed, still, there could have been a list to make things convenient.

Some cases of ambiguity in the critical apparatus have been illustrated to demonstrate the pitfalls

involved in creating the apparatus. That such errors could be committed by stalwarts of Indology makes

us think if we could usher in a system that itself ensured that the chances of error in preparing the ca were

minimized.

Here it must be stated that all the scholars mentioned here made great contribution to Indology

paving way for further research. That I pointed to some errors or wrong measures taken does not mean

denying the value of their contribution. Perfect or imperfect, they, and many others whose works have not

been examined, have been our pioneers in text-criticism. The pieces of information given do not intend to

show their defects but are meant to help seeking out how we can make the task of critical edition more

useful to readers for whom the work is done.

§ 3 The possibility of a foolproof system against flaws in critical edition

3a) The condition of compatibility and dependability

The cited instances of error suggest the desirability of examining if we could build up a foolproof

system against such errors. However, there is some scope of misunderstanding about the proposal. For

that reason, before going into the task, it is better to have an idea of how much and how far it is possible

to build up and make of such a system.

It is an accepted and demonstrated fact that structural/formulaic presentation of elements of

communication belonging to different levels is possible. But while that guarantees the validity of the

structure for the natural elements of communication it does not itself guarantee the validity of the matter

communicated which may be false or may be just gibberish in a common form. Since these problems

8

8

usually do not find place in discussion on text-crticism, we side-track for the moment to draw examples

from a different but comparable field of structural presentation.7

Some conditions are must for the validity of a sentence in communication even when that is

structurally valid. A proposition like, say, ‘A tortoise runs faster than a hare’ is structurally valid but

materially false. Its invalidity in normal communication cannot be checked without manually comparing

with facts or putting it into a yet to be devised paradigmatic structure of true propositions. Apart from

falsity in statements there is also the possibility of nonsensical combination of elements that does not lead

to anything or is not functionally valid..

It may not be irrelevant to recall that the problem of non-sensical statement has been addressed in

traditional Sanskrit syntactics where mutual compatibility is a precondition for the validity of a sentence.

The units of a sentence which are conditioned to be related by three factors called ākāṅkṣā lit. ‘desire’ ie

natural urge for a related element after the utterance of one, that is to say, a valid relation of the

components of the uttered matter, yogyatā lit., ‘applicability’ ie., ability to fulfil the said urge; it may

also be termed ‘propriety’; and āsatti (a limited time gap between the words). These are the conditions of

a sentence whose construction is grammatically valid and acceptable in communication.

To revert back to our topic of formulaic presentation of a critical edition, the fact that a valid structure

itself does not guarantee the truth or meaningfulness of what fits into it shall remain valid also with our

proposed formula for the edited text. The conditions of compatibility and faithful presentation shall be

required also for a formula that takes into account the structure of a critically edited text.

Now, since a critical edition is based on material handed down by tradition there is hardly any chance

of the absence of compatibility. I do not see any chance of the occurrence of an edition as something

parallel in its own domain to the sentence ‘Colorless green ideas sleep furiously’8

But the veracity of the statements that is to say that whatever the editor states is stated in good faith is

a precondition of the test. With the provision that the said condition of internal compatibility and

dependability is fulfilled it might not be absurd to think of devising an apparatus that could act like a filter

eliminating or, at least, showing the occurrence of errors. Below is attempted a formulaic structure for the

edited text and the ca that aims at making the thing at least relatively precise and possible to use for

checking.

7 I could not derive any specific benefit from Umberto Eco, A theory of semiotics, Indiana University Press 1979

excepting being convinced that a formula for the benefit of text-critics is not an absurd idea. The devised formula

(infra) vaguely corresponds to Eco’s ‘Code’ and its employment to ‘sign production’. Our formula is the ‘code’ and

the signs adopted by individual editors are ‘produced signs’. But this correspondence is of no great consequence. 8 Noam Chomsky 1957:15.

9

9

3b)Formulaic presentation of the model

The following signs are suggested for a start:

Ed=edited text; Ca= critical apparatus o = original ms readings; c=colophon etc; r = rejected readings;

n = new additions; ev= external evidence; rem= editor’s remarks;

The whole manuscript will not exceed Ed+Ca. Ed should be equal to o~(c+r)+n while ca will be

equal to c+r+rem. If the signs represented numbers the formula would have reduced the edited text to

o~(c+r) +n + c+r+rem that turns out to be o+n +rem. In fact this is what the editor has to show - the

remainder after ~ (c+r) and c+r mutually exclude each other, namely, the original ms readings, new

readings in the form of suggestion or reconstruction, if any, and remarks. All the rejections, colophon and

post colophon statements and remarks are contained in the remainder that includes o.

However, in spite of this simple form of the formulaic presentation of the edition in o+n+rem, the

expanded form o~(c+r)+n + c+r+rem is to be employed for the sake of clarity. Not only that, we shall see

below that instead of treating the plus and minus elements as mutually negating each other both require

full statement in the formula and that more qualifications have to be shown.

It is necessary to note that the actual placing of some component factor may differ from edition to

edition without affecting the formula. For example, the ‘n’ element may be included in ‘rem’ that belongs

to the Ca while the r element may be shown only in the edited text ie not in the Ca. In such case a

confusion can be averted by making a suitable sign for the rejected reading shown in the edited text and

for the conjecture suggested in the ca. ‘Sukthankar employs a wavy line under the text when it is less

than certain and an asterisk for a conjectural emendation.’9

While the general form of the edited text and the Ca can thus be suggested some niceties require

further specific suggestion.

In order to avoid the errors pointed out in §2 above the rejected readings require accurate

categorization. They must be of at least two types – those found in the ms and those made by the previous

editor. In the formula they may bear the marks rms and rpe where ms stands for the manuscript whose

reading has been rejected and pe for the previous editor. The former may bear an indicatory letter and a

number (ms1, ms2 etc in the formula) when necessary eg, when two or more manuscripts have to be shown

under the same head-sign.10

Similarly pe stands for the previous editor’s reading that has been rejected.

9 S.M.Katre Introduction to Indian text-criticism, Bombay 1941: 84-85.

10 For example, I used the signs J1, J2 and J3 for three manuscripts from the same region.

10

10

‘rem’ includes the remaining references that might include support from or rejection of external source

readings or any further relevant remark. When rejected, an external source reading may be indicated in

the formula with the sign rev and when selected as an emendation on the source ms at hand as =ev . For

various such case-specific needs improvised methods for which no prior advice is possible may be called

for.

One cannot give any advice on many aspects of the ca like its exact format and the signs to be

adopted. It may be explicit in that the whole ms-reading and the whole reconstruction are given

(L.C.Barret: AVP, JAOS 1905 – 1938 and AOS 9 and 18, H.R.Diwekar and others, Kauśikasūtra -

Dārilabhāṣya). It may also be what has been called ‘diplomatic’ indicating only those ms readings which

differ from those in the reconstructed text (H.P. Shastri Caryāpada). The readings may be indicated as

footnotes (Shastri; Visva Bandhu: AVŚ) or by mentioning the line (present author AVP, Roth-Whitney

AVŚ 1856).

While the specific arrangement of the ca may vary from editor to editor its structure is sufficiently

indicated in the formula meant for the whole edited text with the Ca that now stands after the above

suggestions as

<E= o~(c+r)+n + /11

Ca=c+rx[eg., r(ms1+ms2+ms3+pex) + evx (eg., revx; =evx etc) + rem (eg.,=pe or ≠pe

etc)>

From what has been stated above it will be clear that the devised formula is meant to present an

abstract of the task of the editor and that its purpose may be served by alternative or inessentially different

presentation of the components of the formula. We have given a more or less basic formula. It should be

obvious that the more informative it is designed to be the more complex it has to become. While the most

common necessities are being shown here with the basic design of the formula, the editor himself/herself

has to set a model according to the needs of the case and check its efficiency accordingly.

For example, head-signs (ms, pe etc) as well as their qualification like msx (ms1, ms2 etc), pex

(pe=mx, pe≠mx), evx etc may vary from editor to editor. We suggested pex to indicate the difference or

otherwise of the previous editor from the selected and or ms reading. The qualification could be shown as

pe = ms or pe≠ms, where pe is a head-sign. But Basak, it was told above (2c), when indicating that his

previous editor had adopted an ms-reading that he himself disapproves, qualifies the rejected reading with

the sign MS+ HS, the latter being the sign for the previous editor. In effect it serves the same purpose as

meant by us without placing the previous editor’s sign as the head sign.

11

The slash is not a part of the formula. It has been used only here to indicate that the Ca is placed below E.

11

11

The way of referring to the previous editor has been different and insufficient with Śānti Bhikṣu

and Visva Bandhu. Although both of them mentioned the name of the previous editor, an inaccuracy was

caused by the fact that the ms readings were pointed to as previous editor’s choice (2a, 2b above and

below for detail of formula non-compliance). That means they did not indicate the previous editor’s

reading as pex ie as pe=ms.

They were not clear like Basak who, as told above (also below), indicated agreement between the

previous editor and the ms in a clear way indicating that by the sign ms+pe. In case of a disagreement his

indication was the lone sign pe. It meant that it was the previous editor’s choice and different from the

ms-reading. This is effective. It is approvable provided the matter is explained as such by the editor in his

introduction.

We endowed the code for rejected readings with the variable x. It means the following. The code

itself is a variable. The rejected reading for the word A1 is not the same as the one for another word A2.

They may be marked as rA1 and rA2 Secondly, the rejected readings for A1 too vary according to source.

They have to be marked as rA1ms1, rA1ms2 etc. and rA2 ms1, rA2ms2 etc. So much is already known and

accepted by scholars. So the code R itself means so much. Furnishing it further with a variable means

that while the rejected readings, whose different sources are differently marked, themselves vary within a

passage and from passage to passage, and are thus presented as qualified by their correspondent edited

version (eg., A1) and source (eg., ms1), their sources too are to be qualified on the basis of their agreement

or otherwise with any other category of source eg. ms1≠ pe. The full code for a rejected reading may be

rA1ms1≠pe or rA1ms1=pe. This may act as a check against ambiguity in reference to a reading as the

previous editor’s.

Now one has to note that clarity is maintained also by compulsorily qualifying any reference to

the previous editor with indication of whether he/she had invented the reading or had followed an ms.

The code should be pex. After the expansion of x the code stands as [rpe = A1ms1] or [rpe≠A1ms1] or rpe=

any variation of A1ms1]. The edition may be treated as unscientific when these indications are lacking.

The suggestions made here are likely to make the work of the executor of a second edition more

complex than at present. As told at above the exercise mainly aimed at building up an apparatus that

worked as a filter for testing the accuracy and unambiguous character of editor’s references to sources. Its

possible use for other purposes may be taken up later. Before everything its efficacy as the testing

apparatus for a critically edited text need to be put to test. Towards that some cases are examined below

through the formula.

12

12

3c) Employment of the formula: examples from an existing edition

AVŚ 20.48.2 Ed. Visva Bandhu VVRI 1962 p. 2129 Text= tā arṣanti1 śubhriyaḥ pṛñcantīr várcasā

2

páyaḥ3/ jātaṁ janir yathā

4 hṛdā

5//

Ca

1. arṣantu AVP 18.22.11. 2.=RW.; ≠12

Śaṁ.Pā, Sāta. pṛñcantīr; pṛṁcatīr ms1,ms2,ms3; pṛñcatīr madhunā

ṚV 1.23.16. ………4. jātrīr yathā Śaṁ.Pā13

.

We have to see if the above fitted into the formula

<E= o~(c+r)+n + /Ca=c+rx[eg., r(ms1+ms2+ms3+pex) + evx (eg., revx; =evx etc) + rem (eg.,=pe or ≠pe

etc)>

The verse occurs among other verses in a kāṇḍa, so the question of colophon statement does not

rise. So the indication ~(c) ie the colophon etc. that is to be dropped from the E and which stands as c in

the Ca, is not necessary. No reference to any rejected ms-reading has been made as such. In the absence

of that a part of the rx ie the r(msx ie m1+ms2+ms3) part may not be necessary in the ca. So we have now

only to see examine the r(pex) part. Here too we have to remember the following.

The said absence of reference to mss in the formula, cannot itself indicate whether there has been

any lapse on the part of the editor. This is so because, while it is possible that no change in ms-readings

has been made by the second editor, changes made by the previous editor have to be reported. We noted

that in 2ab above. Further filtering of the ca through the formula can reveal any deficiency in regard to

that. In note 4 jātrīr yáthā Śaṁ.Pā Visva Bandhu refers to a previous editor. We have discussed that

(§2ab) in a descriptive manner; a checking with the formula is made below. When checked with the

formula the reference turns out to have the undesirable feature of being unqualified. A mere mention of

Śaṁ.Pā as found in Visva Bandhu’s Ca means that we have a pe but not a pex. Such an unqualified

reference to a previous editor does not occur in our formula where one finds pex.

As explained both in the previous and the present section (3b and c) the sign pe alone should not

occur in the ca but has to be presented as pex, since without qualification the formula does not set the

condition of showing the previous editor’s agreement or otherwise with any other reading. Even before

going into actually examining the position of the previous editor, we can infer that the unqualified

reference itself, namely the occurrence of pe instead of pex has rendered the ca defective.

12

= has been used here for tu ie tulanīyam of Visva Bandhu; ≠ has been used for Visva Bandhu’s vai.tu ie

vaiparītyena tulanīyam ‘contrast’ of Visva Bandhu 13

We omitted Visva Bandhu’d 3rd

footnote which is not relevant.

13

13

Convinced of an error one can now examine the sources to find out and rectify the exact error. In this

some facts which have already been told might be repeated.

In the edited text of Visva Bandhu the sentence runs jātam janir yathā hṛdā ‘as the wife (endows)

the new born one with heart’. Visva Bandhu reports that S.P.Pandit reads jātrīr just as in the AVP. The

report implied that the text in the ms is jánir but Pandit read jātrīr. But an examination of Pandit’s and

Roth-Whitney’s edition reveals that jātrīr is the ms-reading. For, Pandit reads jātrīr and reports no

manuscript variant. In Roth-Whitney’s 1856 edition the text reads jánir but the ca reports that the ms

reads jātrīr.

So in Visva Bandhu’s edition a manuscript reading has been rejected on the authority of the first

editors and that has not been properly reported.

It is a complex case. The original ms-reading, namely, jātrīr had been rejected and emended to

jánir by the first editors (RW 1856). About four decades after that it was restored by S.P.Pandit. (1894-

98). Six decades later Visva Bandhu (1962) selects RW’s emendation jánir with insufficient,

consequently misleading, information. While the case called for the employment of the format

R(msx+pex) Visva Bandhu just showed Rpe. If Visva Bandhu had properly reported the pre-history of the

edition the initial part of the ca could have been jātrīr = msx (ie the exact detail of mss where it occurred,

eg mss or kośāḥ); this should have been followed by pex. His exact words could have been ‘RW jánir≠

kośāḥ; SPP=kośāḥ. The full note could have been kośāḥ jātrīr =SPP; RW jánir≠ kośāḥ. The last

qualification is necessary to indicate that RW made an unfounded conjecture in jánir.

The editor also refers to an external text, namely the Paippalāda-Saṁhitā. Such evidence has been

coded in the formula as Evx. The mention of a mere Ev does not give the full information. The exact

words of Visva Bandhu are ‘arṣantu Pai (=AVP) 18.22.11’. This unqualified Ev is an incomplete

reference. It should be qualified as Evx that is to say the reference should have indicated whether the

editor of the AVP, L.C.Barret, to wit, had adopted a manuscript reading in arṣantu or had made an

emendation on an original reading.

Another note on Visva Bandhu’s reference to previous editors in the same Ca.

In the edited text the word pṛñcantīr is accented on the final syllable while the editor cites

Sātavalekar and SPP with an initial accent. Visva Bandhu’s statement is not incorrect. But he does not

indicate whether that was the previous editors’ emendation or not. The defect here, it might seem, is that

pe has not been qualified as coded in the formula. But there is a case-specific problem with Satavalekar.

For, Satavalekar does not refer to ms-readings. So Visva Bandhu has not furnished wrong information

14

14

about him. But he has kept the reader guessing. The unqualified reference to SPP is more insufficient.

SPP selects his reading from among variants. There is no indication thereof in the Ca of Visva Bandhu.

The defect in referring to SPP could be avoided by the adoption of the pex code of the formula.

What could render the reference to Satavalekar flawless was to make a detailed statement on the previous

editors, their way of presentation and a statement on how they have been referred to in the current edition.

Regarding previous editors, Visva Bandhu only reproduces an edited version of S.P. Pandit’s preface to

the first volume of the 1894 publication but has not much to say on Roth-Whitney and nothing on

Satavalekar.

§ 4 Concluding remarks

The views expressed do not in any way reflect on the merit of the editors some of whose works

have been subjected to scrutiny here. Viewed favorably or not all the scholars mentioned here, Whitney,

S.P.Pandit, H.P.Shastri, R.G.Basak, Śānti Bhikṣu, and Visva Bandhu were scholars of great merit. That

methodological improvements have been suggested in the works of some of them merely means that

demands on philologists have increased. Critical editions have proliferated, necessity has been felt of

more accurate and more copious information for the reader. All these have resulted in search for better

methods ensuring better results.

Secondly, though a formula has been suggested towards improved presentation of an edition, it

has also to be admitted that an improved methodology in presentation does not itself guarantee that the

produced text will be nearer to the original text composed hundreds or thousands of years ago. How far

the editor can go back to the original text depends on many factors. As Winternitz14

said the editor has to

edit and not correct his text. That means the object text may be one that has itself been corrupted over the

years and preserved as such by tradition. In that case it is the corrupt text current among those who

preserved it that has to be the object text of the editor. Winternitz edited the Āpastamba-mantrapāṭha with

this aim. Durgamohan Bhattacharyya too fully upheld Winternitz “that an editor ‘has to edit and not to

correct his text, and even a grammatically impossible reading has to be retained, if it is warranted by the

best authority’ (Introduction to Āpastamba-mantrapāṭha, XV)”15

So the editor’s reach may be limited. There are examples of this ie of the non-final character of

the object text. According to historians the Mahābhārata had been orally composed in the early first

millennium BCE as a ballad in 8800 verses commemorating stories of the Kurus. It went through two

14

Introduction to Āpastamba-mantrapāṭha XV 15

Brāhmaṇasarvasva Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad, Calcutta 1960:Preface

15

15

further editions resulting in a 24000 verse text and finally a 100000 verse text brought out in the early

years of the current era. When Sukthankar took up the task of a critical edition he aimed at the final early

medieval version and not the ballad of the first millennium BC. But, still, everyone admits that the edited

Mahābhārata does contain considerable amount of matter belonging to the original ballad of the first

millennium BC.

Now one may ask: Is it possible to indicate the nature of the object text when at least two earlier

versions of the reconstructed text seem to have existed. I think that sometime in future it may not be

impossible to indicate the deviations of a reconstructed text from its lost original version. But, with the

current state of development of the techniques of text-criticism, the editor’s views about any lost original

text and its difference from the object text can be stated separately, in his Introduction to the edition, only

through detailed statements and supporting information. Formulaic coding for the critical apparatus of

the reconstruction of a lost text from unwieldy ms-material as that of the Mahābhārata is still, at best, a

very distant dream.

It does not mean that I deny that technical developments may enable an editor even to bring in

matters relating to an original lost version – like the 8800 verse Mahābhārata – in the critical apparatus.

Part of the first page of H.P.Shastri’s edition of the Caryāpadas published with the first edition brought

about by the Bangiya Sahitya Parishat, 1916. Note the reading paiṭho (line 2) referred to in § 2a above.

Abbreviations

16

16

Ca = critical apparatus; Ed=edited text; ms = manuscript; o = original ms readings; c=colophon etc; r =

rejected readings; n = new additions; ev= external evidence; rem= editor’s remarks.

AVŚ = Atharvaveda - Śaunakīya-Saṁhitā; AVP = Atharvaveda - Paippalāda-Saṁhitā; RV=Ṛgveda, SPP

= S.P.Pandit Ed. AVŚ 1894-1898

Books referred to --

H.R.Diwekar and others, Kauśikasūtra - Dārilabhāṣya, Poona 1972

S.P. Pandit, Atharvavedasaṁhitā with the commentary of Sāyaṇāchārya, Department of Public

Instruction, Bombay, 1894-1898

Damodar Satavalekar, Atharvaveda Saṁhitā, 1957, Surat.

Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Mouton & Co. 1957

Umberto Eco, A theory of semiotics, Indiana University Press 1979

Publication details of most of the Indologists mentioned in the paper like H.P.Shastri, M.Winternitz,

Durgamohan Bhattacharyya, S.M.Katre, Śānti Bhikṣu, Visva Bandhu etc. have been given in the main

body/footnotes of the paper.