Book Reviews

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 29

REVIEWS
225
NOTES
1 Renou approved of Thomas' suggestion, cf. 'Sur la structure du kāvya', JA CCXLVII (1959), p. 65, n. 11. Paul Thieme does not refer to this stanza in his article on ādeśa in: Mélanges d'indianisme à la mémoire de Louis Renou, Paris, 1968, pp. 715-723.
Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
W.M. Callewaert - Shilanand Hemraj, Bhagavadgitānuvāda. A Study in Transcultural Translation. New Delhi, Biblia Impex, 1983. xvi, 399 pp. Rs 120.
Two hundred years ago Wilkins's translation of the Bhagavadgitā appeared. According to the authors of this book, from 1785 to March 1982, 273 English translations have been published. A grand total is reached of about 1,891 translations in about 75 languages, 1,412 of which are translations into Indian languages (pp. 113-115). It is greatly to the credit of the authors to have compiled such a comprehensive bibliographical survey, which includes not only translations but also editions of both text and commentaries.
The introduction gives some information about Biblical translations and about bibliographies, concordances and indices of the Bhagavadgitā. A more complete listing of these latter works would have been welcome. For instance, in the course of this work the authors make mention of bibliographies compiled by translators of the Bhagavadgitā (see, for example, p. 303). There are also more indices than the ones mentioned. For instance, some time ago I received a copy of an index, atha śrīmadbhagavadgitāslokāntargatapadanam akarādivarṇānukramah, which occupies pp. 483-518 of an Indian edition and which I have been unable to identify here.
Chapter one deals with the original text of the Bhagavadgitā: oral transmission, written transmission, text emendation, editions, manuscripts, Belvalkar's critical edition, the Kashmir recension, divisions of the Gītā, etc. The authors seem to put much confidence in the so-called critical edition, and probably not all scholars would agree with the following statement: “Although the classical Gītā is substantially in agreement with it [i.e. the critical edition), subsequent translations of the BG-text as such should be better than the hundreds which were published before the critical edition appeared.” (p. 13). They are clearly unaware of the fact that quite a few.scholars have expressed serious doubts about the value of the critical edition.
The second chapter is entitled "A dynamic equivalence translation" and contains a number of reflections on translating an inspiring" text such as the Gitā: "In
Indo-Iranian Journal 30 (1987).