PAPERS IN ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS   
Prev
Home
Next

Critical Editing of an Ancient Manuscripts

H.L.N.Bharathi

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.