Reviews Of Diffeent Books

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 1

K. Krishnamoorthy, Vakrokti-fivita of Kuntaka, Dharwad, Karnatak University, 1977. xxxix + 28 facsimiles + 596 pages. Rs. 40, $10.00, 23.5.
In the recent past, Professor K. Krishnamoorthy (K) probably ranks next only to V. Raghavan among Indian scholars who have published in English in the field of Sanskrit poetics. His reading in both Sanskrit and English literary criticism is wide. He has editions of many texts to his credit. His command of English expression is noticeably above average. He has the courage to disagree with stalwarts in the field and also that originality which consists in bringing new details and arguments to light. Yet it has generally been difficult for me to be enthusiastic about K's publications bearing on Sanskrit poetics. True, I still think highly of his Ph.D thesis
Indo-Iranian Journal 27 (1984).
REVIEWS
141
(1947, University of Bombay) published under the title The Dhvanyaloka and its Critics (Mysore: Kavyalaya, 1967) and have certainly benefited from a reading of his works 2; all of them contain something valuable. However, they do not give me unalloyed intellectual pleasure or inspire in me a general confidence regarding the author's abilities as editor, translator, commentator, and evaluator. The main reason for this is that in most of his recent publications K rarely displays the rigour, discipline, patience and caution which the projects he undertakes demand. The overwhelming impression I get is that K changes his stance as the work proceeds, that he does not revise the earlier portion to make it consistent with the procedure followed in the later portion, and that he compromises the needs of scholarly work for those of a rushed, textbook-type publication.
In 1923, 1928, and 1961, Sushil Kumar De published the text of Kuntaka's remarkable and rare work, the Vakrokti-jivita (VJ). Since for the last two chapters (unmesa) of that work only one corrupt and fragmentary ms. was accessible to De in the form of a transcript, De did not include those chapters in his 1923 edition and included only relatively better preserved portions of those chapters in his 1928 and 1961 editions. This was one serious deficiency in his otherwise valuable accomplishment. Another significant shortcoming was that De had to depend on transcripts one of the transcript at Madras of a Malabar ms. that could not be traced and the other of a ms. in one of the Jain bhäṇḍāras at Jaisalmer (also spelt "Jesalmer," and "Jesalmere").
Now, some time between 1974 and 1977, a scholar of a later generation like K comes to know that there are at Jaisalmer some previously unknown ms. leaves which cover most of that portion of the VJ for which De had only one transcript. K happens to be deeply interested in the VJ. He wishes to prepare a 'critical' edition of it. What would we expect him to do? I suppose minimally the following:
(1) Acquire photocopies of the newly discovered leaves.
(2) Acquire photocopies of the previously known VJ ms. at Jaisalmer and of the (first direct) Madras transcript of the Malabar ms., if not of the Malabar ms. itself because of lack of information about its where abouts.
(3) Establish a relationship between the previously known and newly discovered ms. material at Jaisalmer.
(4) Establish a relationship between the Jaisalmer mss. and the Madras transcript of the Malabar manuscript.
(5) Arrive at a text of the VJ according to the objective criteria of textual criticism.
⚫ (6) Aim at giving as complete and continuous a text as possible (non-adoption of the résumé device).
(7) Make the necessary changes in the objectively determined text to conform to context, grammar, metrics, evidence in the citations by later authors, wording of Kuntaka's sources,
- etc.
(8) Record the variations (noticed in mss., other authors, etc.) from the constituted text in a systematic and unambiguous way.
(9) Give as complete an account as possible of the nature of the ms. material.
Of these steps, K has satisfactorily taken only the first and the sixth. The photographs he has acquired of the new ms. ("J") seem easily readable, although their reproduction (between Contents and Introduction) can be read only in parts and with difficulty. Similarly, K has given many passages not found in De's résumé; his 90 continuous pages (153-244), even with their problematic and doubtful readings, are much more helpful than De's 54-page résumé of the third unmesa; his 48 pages of the fourth unmeșa are more likely to stimulate Kuntaka research than the corresponding 24 pages in De.
For some unexplained reason, K has not acquired, even in this age of photocopies and of realisation of the unreliability of transcripts, photocopies of the previously known Jaisalmer ms. and the Madras transcript. De had to be content with handwritten copies of these sourpes, for in the days of his edition the acquisition of even transcripts was very difficult. K, who