Abstract
Premodern Indian philology in the sense of ecdotics and interpretation begins late in the scholarly tradition, at the end of the first millennium CE. Although the knowledge form was entirely unsystematized, a philological theory can be derived from commentarial practices. These are reviewed and synthesized across the principal genres, and the implicit theory of the text reconstructed.
Note: The final draft of this essay was submitted in 2016, and (with one exception) could not take account of scholarship published after that date. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 269804.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Pollock (2006).
- 2.
The fourteenth-century Bṛhaṭṭipaṇikā (Great Annotation) and the seventeenth-century Kavīndrācāryasūcipatram (Index of Kavīndrācārya[‘s Library]) are the only two known to me (for the former, for which I cannot locate a published version; see Tripathi (1975: 5)). On Buddhist text reproduction, see Schopen (2009), especially page 195.
- 3.
Recall Bruno Snell’s old argument on the absence in archaic Greece of a conception of the human body as a totality, i.e., something other than ‘a mere construct of independent parts variously put together’ (Snell 1953: 6).
- 4.
First cited in Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana, with the Locana of Abhinavagupta, (Ānandavardhana 1940: 87)—Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s work itself has vanished.
- 5.
viśiṣṭānupūrvī, to use the term of Kumārila, the seventh-century master of hermeneutics, author of the Tantravārttika (Kumārila 1970: Vol. 1, 155).
- 6.
The history of philological exegesis in Jain scriptural commentary complicates the picture I draw in what follows. Compare Pollock (2011: 426).
- 7.
On this text, see (Cabezón 1992), especially page 227. Translating yang dag par bsdus pa’i gzhi bo as ‘authorized edition’ adds, I am told, too much to the Tibetan, which seems only to be referring to texts ‘crafted by arhats such as Mahākaśyapa on the basis of summaries’ (Richard Nance, personal communication.) Skilling (2000) has observed that the Vyākhyāyukti is concerned not just with philosophical interpretation: sūtras are explained according to ‘the summarized meaning’ (sapiṇḍārtham), ‘the sense of the words’ (padārtha, which can be polysemic, etymologically derived, and so on), or contextual ‘sequence or connection’ (sānusaṃdhikaḥ) (2000: 319).
- 8.
See Bodhicaryāvatāra 9.42–44 and commentary ad loc., (Śāntideva 1960: 204–206).
- 9.
pratibhānam arthopasaṃhitaṃ bhavati nānarthopasaṃhitam. dharmopasaṃhitam bhavati nādharmopasaṃhitam. kleśaprahāyakaṃ bhavati na kleśavivardhakam. nirvāṇaguṇānuśaṃsasaṃdarśakaṃ bhavati na saṃsāraguṇānuśaṃsasaṃdarśakaṃ ... yasya kasyacin maitreya etaiś caturbhiḥ pratibhāti pratibhāsyati vā tatra ... buddhasaṃjñotpādayitavyā. śāstṛsaṃjñāṃ kṛtvā sa dharmaḥ śrotavyaḥ. tat kasya hetoḥ. yat kiṃcin maitreya subhāṣitaṃ sarvaṃ tad buddhabhāṣitam. tatra maitreya ya imāni pratibhānāni pratikṣipet naitāni buddhabhāṣitānīti teṣu cāgauravam utpādayet pudgalavidveṣeṇa tena sarvaṃ buddhabhāṣitaṃ pratibhānaṃ pratikṣiptaṃ bhavati (Prajñākaramati’s commentary on Śāntideva’s Bodhiycaryāvatāra, (Śāntideva. 1960: 205, lines 9–15). These four criteria respond to those of the Śrāvakas, who offer them in response to the charge that their own canon is beset with precisely the same defects of authenticity, contradiction, and the like for which they censure the Mahāyāna: ‘Something that has been transmitted from teacher to pupil as the Word of the Buddha; that penetrates into the sense of a sūtra text (sūtre avatarati), is reflected in the Vinaya, and does not stand at cross purposes (vilomayati) with reality (dharmatā), must be considered buddhavacana, and nothing else’ (Śāntideva 1960: 205, lines 1–3).
- 10.
Davidson (1990: 296–297).
- 11.
‘Spoken’, that is, not in everyday life but in educational and comparable contexts.
- 12.
‘That the Veda is an autonomous source of true knowledge is vouchsafed by its very form’ (tena vedasvatantratvaṃ rūpād evāvagamyate, Kumārila, Tantravārttika, (Kumārila 1970: 166, line 2)).
- 13.
- 14.
See, for example, Yāmunācārya’s Āgamaprāmāṇya (Yāmunācārya 1976: 37, 41, 50).
- 15.
The Mīmāṃsā critic in Yāmunācārya’s Āgamaprāmāṇya (Yāmunācārya 1976: 7) does represent Pāñcarātra scriptures (āgama) as smṛti—the gist of Vedic texts ‘preserved in memory’, not ‘heard word for word’ (śruti)—which would, of course, render the question of linguistic character less probative. But Yāmunācārya is not clear about this, and while he sometimes suggests that like the Vedic smṛtis, the Pāñcarātra smṛtis derive their validity from Vedic texts no longer extant, he elsewhere asserts that they were created by God and depend for their validity on God having himself ‘perceived’ dharma (see e.g., Yāmunācārya 1976: 91); they are not ‘memories’ of texts that have since disappeared, as is argued by Mīmāṃsā for the validity of the Vedic smṛtis (the Pāñcarātra smṛtis are said to constitute a ‘summary’ of the Vedas (tadarthaṃ saṃkṣipya) for devotees less competent in studying and retaining the vast Vedas themselves; (Yāmunācārya 1976: 102)). Ongoing work by Guy St. Amant on Kṣemarāja’s eleventh-century commentary on a Śaiva Tantric text (especially his invented category of aiśa, ‘God’s idiolect’), will provide nuance to my reflections here.
- 16.
A careful study of the philosophical commentary is offered in Preisendanz (2008).
- 17.
The word is lipta (smeared): na liptagrahaṇaṃ tatra pāṭhe ‘sti tu cirantane (Tantravārttika 1.3.3, (Kumārila 1970: 182)). Kumārila also uses the term saṃyakpāṭha (Kumārila 1970: 551), which (like prakṣip-) appears nowhere in his (fifth-century) predecessor Śabara, who does, however, know pramādapāṭha in the sense of ‘erroneous transmission’, e.g., of a whole species of text (the arthavādas) inserted into the Veda (Bhāṣya on Pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra 1.2.8), (Kumārila 1970: 122); see also (Kumārila 1970: 183, 550, 1139).
- 18.
‘yady api kena cid ... liptapadaṃ prakṣipya paṭhyate tathāpy abhiyuktabahujanāpaṭhitatvān nāsau ārṣaḥ pāṭhaḥ’ (Someśvara Bhaṭṭa, Nyāyasudhā, (Someśvara 1909: 150)).
- 19.
Kumārila, Tantravārttika,1.3.3.43: ‘yathaivānyāyavijñātād vedāl lekhyādipūrvakāt … dharmajñānaṃ na saṃmatam’, on 1.3.7, (Kumārila 1970:123); the phrase gurumukhoccāraṇānūccāraṇa- is found frequently in early modern authors (e.g., Śāstrasiddhāntaleśasaṃgraha, (Appayya 1935: 53)). This denigration did not, of course, apply to the creation and criticism of scholarly texts. Kumārila often refers to Śabara’s scribal mistakes, pramādalikhita-, etc.
- 20.
What is unclear for the passage under discussion is to what degree the lawbooks themselves, smṛtis, were transmitted orally at any time, let alone at the end of the first millennium, when Someśvara was writing.
- 21.
The following section draws substantially on Pollock (2015).
- 22.
In north-Indian languages, saṃpādaka, saṃpādana (‘put together’) are recent neologisms; (saṃ)śodhana (‘purification’) is older but was never associated with a specific edition or editor.
- 23.
Dakṣiṇāvartanātha, a twelfth-century south Indian commentator on the court epic Raghuvaṃśa of Kālidāsa, tells us that he ‘prepared his commentary after examining variants in manuscripts from various regions, adopting the right readings and rejecting the others’. See Unni (1987: 42).
- 24.
- 25.
The edition of Vidyāsāgara (eighteenth-century Bangladesh), his transregional collection of manuscripts, and his use of at least a dozen earlier commentaries (including Devabodha’s by then eight-hundred-year-old Jñānadīpikā), are discussed in Pollock (2015). Note that not only were older commentators systematically studied (Nīlakaṇṭha follows ‘the explanations of early teachers’ (prācāṃ gurūṇām anusṛtya vācām), v. 6 of his introduction), but the very chronology of their succession was preserved in memory and understood to represent a meaningful order.
- 26.
On Uḍāḷi Varadarāja, see Raghavan (1941–1942).
- 27.
For an initial survey, see Colas (1999).
- 28.
On Vallabhadeva, see Goodall and Isaacson (2003). Vallabhadeva’s terminology alone indicates comparison of exemplars, but he elsewhere also implies something like recensio when noting that a given verse is ‘only infrequently transmitted’ in manuscripts (viralo ‘sya ślokasya pāṭhaḥ, on Raghuvaṃśa ad 18:17; cited by Goodall and Isaacson (2003: xxxi)).
- 29.
The Sanskrit terms are, respectively, sādhu/yukta/samīcīna/samyak, sādhiyān/yuktatara, prāmānika, ayukta or apapāṭha, prāmādika, duṣṭa, asaṃbaddha, ārṣa/prācīna/jarat (all modifying pāṭha), prakṣipta śloka, śodhana, asabhya (once, on Kumārasaṃbhava 3.41), and sundara/ramya/ramyatara pāṭha. See also (on Meghadūta 72) anārya, ‘meritless,’ or ‘inferior’ (from the point of view of grammatical correctness). Compare also Colas (1999: 35–36). The sources of such readings are rarely indicated, and then only vaguely (‘an old manuscript’, ‘an eastern manuscript’, and the like).
- 30.
Meghadūta 2 (atīva viruddham, a position that Mallinātha demolishes, while claiming that Vallabhadeva’s reading is a conjecture (kalpayanti)).
- 31.
Commentary on Kumārasaṃbhava 3.44, and compare 3.28; see also Goodall (2001). For Vallabhadeva’s first principle, see Kumārasaṃbhava 1.46, aprasiddhatvād ārṣaḥ pāṭhaḥ, the Sanskrit version of the familiar maxim lectio difficilior melior/potior est; for the second, 2.26, cf. 2.37, jaratpāṭho ‘tra ramyataraḥ.
- 32.
- 33.
‘I transmit nothing that is not found in the original’ (nāmūlaṃ likhyate kiṃcit; some take this as a reference to the ‘sources’ of his exegesis), a statement repeated in the introductions to his commentaries on all the major kāvyas.
- 34.
sthitasya (or sthiter) gatiś cint[anī]yā. See Gerschheimer (2010) and Pollock (2011). Evidence of a more manipulative approach to texts can complicate this picture. Already in the seventh century, Kumārila could suggest that the author of the Mahābhāṣya himself changed the wording of a Vedic text on phonetics, turning the phrase ‘corrupted mantra’ into ‘corrupted language’, and thereby sought to enhance the importance of the study of grammar (Tantravārttika 1.3.24 v. 780; (Kumārila 1970: 268); that the charge is made only in a pūrvapakṣa does not alter the main point that textual manipulation was a conceptual possibility historically available to Kumārila). See also Arjunvarmadeva on the Amaruśataka (Amaru. 1916: 42) (he notes that ‘others have introduced’ a variant to remove a redundancy).
- 35.
Compare Mallinātha and Vallabhadeva on Meghadūta (v. 2.39 and v. 99 respectively).
- 36.
- 37.
E.g., (Mahima 1983: 268): kvāpy ayam api pāṭho dṛśyate.
- 38.
I read with hesitation –vākalitakavihevākāḥ (for –va kalitakavihevākāḥ); for this sense of hevāka see Abhinavagupta’s Abhinavabhāratī (Abhinavagupta 1992: volume 1, 35).
- 39.
He cites Raghuvaṃśa 1.78: avaimi tadavajñānād yatnāpekṣo manorathaḥ. Here again, in his own commentary, Vallabhadeva reads the accusative, avaimi tadapadhyānād yatnāpekṣaṃ manoratham (so, too, the southern tradition as represented by Aruṇagirinātha: īpsitaṃ tadavadhyānād [tadavajñānād, Mallinātha] viddhi sārgalam ātmanaḥ, 1. 76/79). But a mid-twelfth-century scholar from Kashmir quotes the line as avaimi tadapadhyānād yatnāpekṣo mahodayaḥ, precisely in the course of a discussion of the nominative construction with verbs of knowing, hearing, etc. (Someśvara Bhaṭṭa on the Kāvyaprakāśa, (Someśvara 1909: 141)).
- 40.
vyākyātāro ‘py alīkavidvanmānitayā prāyeṇāpavyākhyānair na kevalam ātmānaṃ yāvat tatrabhavato mahākavīn api hrepayanto dṛśyante. tad yathā ... ity atra pāṭham imam abuddhvaivākalitakavihevākāḥ parākṛtapratīticārutātiśayās te. avaimi ... ity ādau dṛṣṭām api vākyārthakarmatāṃ manyater apaśyanto bālāyāḥ karmatām asya manyamānāḥ svarasandhivaśād vikṛtam ivaśabdam eva bhramād vāśabdaṃ parikalpyāpavyākhyām ārabhante. na caivam arthasya vaicitrī kācit samunmiṣati. nāpi mahākaveḥ kālidāsasyānvayagatir iyaṃ kvacanāpi prabandhe ‘vadhāritapūrvā yad ayam rasavidhāne kāvye vyādhim iva vāśabdam ivārthe prayuñjīteti. (Mahima 1983: 485).
- 41.
jātāṃ manye śiśiramathitāṃ padminīṃ vānyarūpām. That Vallabha’s text is unlikely to be original is suggested by the commentary of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha, who has the same reading as Mahima Bhaṭṭa and cites a parallel from the Rāmāyaṇa (arguing as he does elsewhere that Kālidāsa sought to recreate the Rāmāyaṇa narrative in the Meghadūta: śrīrāmāyaṇavacanānusāreṇa kaveḥ pūrvokto rāmakathābhilāṣaḥ spaṣṭaḥ; (Mahima 1983: 52)) that goes to vindicate the nominative (Rāmāyaṇa 5.14.30, himahatanalinīva naṣṭaśobhā). Note also that the nominative construction is the reading of Jinasena’s adaptation in his Pārśvanāthābhyudaya, which dates to the mid-ninth century. S. K. De imprudently follows Mallinātha in his critical edition. Vallabhadeva’s usual conservatism aside, he clearly inherited interpolated texts, as in the case of Śisupālavadha; see Bronner and McCrea (2012).
- 42.
See, for example, Vyaktiviveka, (Mahima 1983: 485), where Mahima Bhaṭṭa asserts as original a reading for which there is no textual evidence.
- 43.
Bronner and McCrea (2012: 442–444), though, as they show, Mallinātha himself silently suppressed a famous passage in the Śisupālavadha that he considered to be (and that is) an interpolation. The transmission of acknowledged interpolation is very frequent among Rāmāyaṇa commentators (see my notes on 2.89.19; 3.45.27, and 47.30 in Pollock (1986)); a well-known example from dharmaśāstra is Medhātithi on Manu 9.93 (he expresses doubt about the authenticity of a verse and yet transmits it anyway; see Lariviere (1989: 5)). On Arjunavarmadeva’s identification and preservation of interpolations, see Amaruśataka, (Amaru 1916: 46–48; 54). A similar conservatism can be noticed among Alexandrian scholars.
- 44.
vārttike ‘darśanāt sūtre prakṣiptam, ad Pāṇini 4.2.2., 4.3.134, 4.4.17, 5.1.36, 5.2.10, 8.3.16, 8.3.116; vṛttikṛtā tu sūtreṣu prakṣiptam, ad 3.1.118, 3.3.122, 4.1.14, 4.1.167, 4.2.43, 5.2.102; sa idānīntanaiḥ prakṣiptaḥ, ad 1.2.65, 4.1.63. Several examples are discussed in Birwe (1958), who did not, however, comment on the frequency or innovative quality of Haraddata’s observations.
- 45.
The sole exception known to me is Kaiyaṭa ad Mahābhāṣya 4.1.166.
- 46.
atrohaśabdaḥ kaiścit prakṣipto bhāṣyādau tu na dṛśyata iti prāñcaḥ. Idānīntanapustakeṣu tu bhāṣyavārttikayor ūhaśabdo dṛśyata eva (Prauḍhamanoramā ad Pāṇini 6.1.89).
- 47.
See Bālamanoramā ad Pāṇini 3.2.78, 4.1.54, etc. Jinendrabuddhi’s Tattvabodhinī, another commentary on the Siddhāntakaumudī, is also much concerned with identifying interpolation.
- 48.
Thus prakṣipto na tu sāṃpradāyika in Prauḍamanoramā ad Pāṇini 4.1.176; Tattvabodhinī ad 7.3.19; Bālamanoramā (asāṃpradāyika ad 1.1.37). The term itself is found as early as Pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra 1.2.8 (tulyaṃ ca sāṃpradāyikam), but there it refers to extrinsic features of Vedic text genres: calendrical restrictions on studying, oral transmission, the teacher–student relationship itself, and the like.
- 49.
The eighteenth-century scholar Harihara comments on a verse of the eighth-century dramatist Bhavabhūti: ‘Kashmiri scholars conjecture a reading here and offer a completely non-traditional interpretation’ (kāśmīrāṇāṃ pāṭhāntaraṃ kalpayitvā vyākhyānam asāṃpradāyikam (Bhavabhūti. 1999: 436); the varia lectio is nowhere unrecorded and would, in fact, produce an infrequent variation on the upajāti meter).
- 50.
See O’Hanlon (2013), with some overstatement of the consequences.
- 51.
I thank Andrew Ollett for this observation.
- 52.
For some parallels to the European case, and some counterarguments or at least hesitations about a supposed symmetry (and the ‘Axial Age’ theoretical model itself), see Pollock (2004); for Song modernity, Woodside (2006) and especially Cherniack (1994); for rethinking of the European twelfth century, see Bynum (1984), and for Byzantium, Browning (1992).
- 53.
On the poet and theologian Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita of Madurai, see Fisher (2013); on disputes over the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, Minkowski (2010). Sixteenth-century Shaivas like Appayya Dīkṣita and Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita, and their Vaishnava opponents, dispute the authenticity of each other’s scriptures on the basis of larger philological arguments (that these scriptures are so long that they must contain interpolations; that their original recensions have vanished and what is left is inauthentic, etc.) and they sometimes attack their opponent’s arguments by showing that the ‘scriptural’ citations adduced have been invented whole cloth.
- 54.
- 55.
There are numerous examples of major works extant in few or even single manuscripts (Arthaśāstra, Śikṣāsamuccaya, Abhinavabhāratī, Rājataraṅgiṇī, and so on), but these never became objects of text-critical attention until the modern era.
- 56.
They never perceived, however, the textual isogloss, so to call it, that produced the north–south hyparchetypes found in the transmission histories of many works.
- 57.
- 58.
Consider, in the vernacular tradition, the case of the sixteenth-century poet Sūrdās, whose corpus grew over the century or two after his date from about 250 to 5000 poems (Bryant and Hawley 2015).
- 59.
- 60.
An illustration of such competing claims is offered by Goethe’s Weimar edition revisions and the earlier versions known to his readers (Hanneder 2009–2010: 8).
- 61.
The fact that this approach—‘radical’ though it may be—is now becoming ‘widely accepted as a legitimate approach to editing’ is considered historically in Hult (2010: 37–50), especially pages 47 and 50.
References
Primary Sources
Abhinavagupta. 1992. Abhinavabhāratī. In Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata, ed. K. Krishnamoorthy, vol. Vol. I, 4th ed. Baroda: Oriental Institute.
Amaru. 1916. In Amaruśataka, with the commentary of Arjunavarmadeva, ed. Durgaprasada and Vasudeva Laxman Sastri, 3rd ed. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.
Ānandavardhana. 1940. Dhvanyāloka, with the Locana of Abhinavagupta and the Bālapriyā of Rāmaṣāraka, ed. Pattabhirama Shastri. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Appayya Dīkṣita. 1935. In Śāstrasiddhāntalesasaṃgraha, with the commentary of Acyutānandakṛṣṇa Tīrtha, Vol. I, ed. P.P.S. Sastri. Srirangam: Vani Vilas Press.
Bhaṭṭojī Dīkṣita. 1929. In Siddhāntakaumudī, with the commentary of Vāsudeva Dīkṣita, ed. C. Sankararama Sastri, 2nd ed. Madras: Balamanorama Press.
———. 1939. In Prauḍhamanoramā, with three commentaries, ed. Gopal Sastri Nene. Varanasi: Jaya Krishna Das Hari Das Gupta.
Bhavabhūti. 1999. In Mālatīmādhava, with the commentary of Harihara, ed. François Grimal. Pondichery: Institut Français de Pondichery.
De, S. K., ed. 1970. The Meghadūta of Kālidāsa. 2nd revised edition, ed. V. Raghavan. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
Kālidāsa. 1902. In Meghadūta, with the commentary of Mallinātha, ed. Kashinath Pandurang Parab. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.
Kinjawadekar, Ramchandrashastri, ed. 1929. Mahābhārata, with the commentary of Nīlakaṇṭha, 6 volumes. Pune: Chitrashala Press.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa. 1970. Tantravārttika. In Mīmāṃsādarśanam, ed. Subbasastri, vol. 6 volumes, 2nd ed. Pune: Anandashrama Press.
Mahima Bhaṭṭa. 1983. In Vyaktiviveka with the commentary of Ruyyaka, ed. Rewaprasada Dwivedi, vol. 2 volumes. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan.
Mammaṭa. 1959. In Kāvyaprakāśa, with the commentary of Someṡvara Bhaṭṭa, ed. Rasiklal C. Parikh. Jodhpur: Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute.
Narayana Murti, M.S., ed. 1980. Vallabhadeva’s Kommentar (Śāradā-Version) zum Kumārasambhava des Kālidāsa. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.
Patañjali. 1987. In Mahābhāṣya, with the commentary of Kaiyaṭa, ed. Guruprasad Shastri, vol. 7 volumes. Varanasi: Vani Vilas Press.
Śāntideva. 1960. In Bodhicaryāvatāra, with the commentary of Prajñākaramati, ed. P.L. Vaidya. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute.
Sastri, R. Anantakrishna, ed. 1921. Kavīndrācāryasūcipatra. Baroda: Oriental Institute.
Someśvara Bhaṭṭa. 1909. In Nyāyasudhā, ed. Mukunda Sastri. Varanasi: Chowkhamba.
Vāmana and Jayāditya. 1984. In Kāśikā, with the commentaries of Jinendrabuddhi and Haradatta, ed. Jayashankar Lal Tripathi and Sudhakar Malaviya. Varanasi: Tara Printing Works.
Yāmunācārya. 1976. In Āgamaprāmāṇya, ed. M. Narasimhachary. Baroda: Oriental Institute.
Secondary Works
Bhattacharya, Ram Shankar. 1990. Use of manuscripts in textual criticism by our commentators. In Sampādana ke siddhānta aur upādāna (Principles of editing and instrumentation), ed. V. Dvivedi et al., 219–229. Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies.
Birwe, Robert. 1958. Variae Lectiones in Adhyāya IV und V der Aṣṭādhyāyī. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 108: 133–154.
Bronner, Yigal, and Lawrence McCrea. 2012. To be or not to be Śiśupāla. Journal of the American Oriental Society 132: 427–455.
Browning, Robert. 1992. Byzantium and Homer. In Homer's ancient readers, ed. R. Lamberton and J. Keaney, 134–186. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bryant, Kenneth, and John S. Hawley, eds. and trans. 2015. Sur’s Ocean: Poems from the early tradition. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Bynum, Caroline Walker. 1984. Did the twelfth century discover the individual? In Jesus as mother, ed. C.W. Bynum, 83–107. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cabezón, José Ignacio. 1992. Vasubhandu's Vyākhyāyukti on the authenticity of the Mahāyāna Sūtras. In Texts in context, ed. J. Timm, 221–242. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cherniack, Susan. 1994. Book culture and textual transmission in sung China. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 54: 5–125.
Colas, Gérard. 1999. The criticism and transmission of texts in classical India. Diogenes 47 (2): 30–43.
Davidson, Ronald. 1990. An introduction to the standards of scriptural authority in Indian Buddhism. In Chinese Buddhist apocrypha, ed. R.E. Buswell, 291–325. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Fisher, Elaine. 2013. A new public theology: Sanskrit and the religious landscape of early modern South India’. Ph.D. diss. Columbia University.
Gerschheimer, Gerdi, ed. 1996. La théorie de la signification chez Gadādhara: le Sāmānyakāṇḍa du Śaktivādavicāra. Paris: Collège de France; Edition-Diffusion de Boccard.
———. 2010. Sthitasya gatis cintaniya? A propos de la “Glose concise” (Laghuvrtti) du Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya de Haribhadra. In Ecrire et transmettre en Inde classique, ed. G. Colas and G. Gerschheimer, 287–306. Pondichery: Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient.
Goodall, Dominic. 2001. Bhūte ‘āha’ iti pramādāt: Firm evidence for the direction of change where certain verses of the Raghuvaṃśa are variously transmitted. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 151: 103–124.
Goodall, Dominic, and Harunaga Isaacson, eds. 2003. The Raghupañcikā of Vallabhadeva, being the earliest commentary on the Raghuvaṃśa of Kālidāsa, Vol. I. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
Hanneder, Jūrgen. 2009–2010. Introduction. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 52–53: 5–16.
Harrison, Paul. 2007. The case of the vanishing poet: New light on Śāntideva and the Śikṣāsamuccaya. In Indica et Tibetica: Festschrift für Michael Hahn, ed. K. Klaus and J.-U. Hartmann, 215–248. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, University of Vienna.
Hult, David F. 2010. Text editing: Past, present, and future. Romanic Review 101 (1–2): 37–50.
König, Christoph. 2013. Grenzen der Cyklisation. In Friedrich Schlegel und die Philologie, ed. U. Breuer, R. Bunia, and A. Erlinghagen, 15–43. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Lariviere, Richard W. 1989. The Nāradasmṛti. Vol. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: Department of South Asia Regional Studies, University of Pennsylvania.
Minkowski, Christopher. 2005. What makes a work ‘traditional’? On the success of Nīlakaṇṭha’s Mahābhārata commentary. In Boundaries, dynamics and construction of traditions in South Asia, ed. F. Squarcini, 1–28. Florence: Firenze University Press.
———. 2010. I’ll wash your mouth out with my boot: A guide to philological argument in Mughal-Era Banaras. In Epic and argument in Indian Sanskrit literary history, ed. S. Pollock, 117–141. Delhi: Manohar.
O'Hanlon, Rosalind. 2013. Performance in a world of paper: Puranic histories and social communication in early modern India. Past and Present 219: 87–126.
Pollock, Sheldon. 1986. Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki: Ayodhyā. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 2003. Sanskrit literature from the inside-out. In Literary cultures in history: Reconstructions from South Asia, ed. S. Pollock, 39–130. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 2004. The transformation of culture-power in Indo-Europe, 1000–1300. Medieval Encounters 10 (1–3): 247–278.
———. 2006. Literary culture and manuscript culture in precolonial India. In History of the book and literary cultures, ed. Simon Eliot et al., 77–94. London: British Library.
——— ed. and trans. 2007. Rama’s last act: The Uttararāmacarita of Bhavabhūti. New York: New York University Press.
———. 2011. Indian philology and India’s philology. Journal Asiatique 299 (1): 423–442.
———. 2014. Philology in three dimensions. Postmedieval 5 (4): 398–413.
———. 2015. What was philology in Sanskrit? In World philology, ed. S. Pollock, B. Elman, and K. Chang, 114–141. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Preisendanz, Karin. 2008. Text, commentary, annotation: Some reflections on the philosophical genre. Journal of Indian Philosophy 36: 599–618.
Raghavan, V. 1941–1942. Uḍāli's commentary on the Rāmāyaṇa: The date and identity of the author and the discovery of his commentary. Annals of Oriental Research 6 (2): 1–8.
Rath, Saraju, and Jan E.M. Houben. 2012. Manuscript culture: Contours and parameters. In Aspects of manuscript culture in South India, ed. S. Rath, 1–53. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Schopen, Gregory. 2009. On the absence of urtexts and otiose ācāryas: Buildings, books, and lay Buddhist ritual at Gilgit. In Ecrire et transmettre en Inde classique, ed. G. Colas and G. Gerschheimer, 189–219. Pondichéry: Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient.
Skilling, Peter. 2000. Vasubandhu and the Vyākhyāyukti literature. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23 (2): 297–350.
Snell, Bruno. 1953. The discovery of the mind: The Greek origins of European thought. Trans. T.G. Rosenmeyer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tripathi, Chandrabhal. 1975. Catalogue of the Jaina manuscripts at Strasbourg. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Unni, N.P. 1987. Meghasandeśa of Kālidāsa. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.
Whitney, W.D. 1873. The translation of the Veda. In Oriental and linguistic studies., First series, ed. W.D. Whitney, 100–132. New York: Scribner’s.
Woodside, Alexander. 2006. Lost modernities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pollock, S. (2024). A Theory of Philological Practice in Early Modern India. In: Keller, A., Chemla, K. (eds) Shaping the Sciences of the Ancient and Medieval World. Archimedes, vol 69. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49617-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49617-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-49616-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-49617-2
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)