Reviews Of Diffeent Books

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

Page 41

REVIEWS
235
obvious misprints in F. In a further 19 cases K and Fco. have different readings and the emendations in F are not supported by K which is followed in CM. In 8 cases K and Fco. have the same readings. F offers emendations which are rejected in CM in favour of K. It is a pity that Carol Meadows does not list the remaining 35 cases in which she rejects the readings found in K. Carol Meadows remarks that in 166 cases Ferrari emended a faulty reading in Fco. to one which K supports, and which she feels is the correct reading. She adds: “this speaks very well for the quality of Ferrari's work on the PS with the material that was available to her” (p. 36).
Ferrari remarked that Vairocanaraksita in his Tibetan translation of PS often renders the general meaning of a stanza and sometimes rearranges pādas. Carol Meadows does not say anything about the Tibetan translation apart from remarking that “All substantive emendations (those affecting meaning) were made by me on the basis of the Tibetan” (p. 36).
Undoubtedly, the text as edited by Carol Meadows is almost everywhere to be preferred to the text of Ferrari's edition. However, there are quite a few stanzas where the text needs further emendation. On account of the unreliability of the Tibetan translation it is not easy to propose emendations and in many instances one can only point to the difficulties in the text. On some other occasion I hope to deal with some textual problems which would take up too much space in a review.
The edition of the Sanskrit text is preceded by a preliminary note on the system of annotation used by the editor (pp. 151–155). One must object strongly to the way Carol Meadows has established the critical apparatus. In the first place, the abbreviation Fco. for the copy used by Ferrari is rather clumsy. Why not use a single letter such as C? Carol Meadows states that since she takes K as her basic text, the reading given is that found in K unless otherwise indicated in the notes. So far, so good. However, in 166 cases Fco. has a reading which Ferrari has emended and the emendation is supported by K. In these cases Carol Meadows puts in her note the reading of Fco. but omits to mention that K confirms Ferrari's emendation. In another 45 cases both K and Fco. have the same reading but emended by Ferrari and this emendation is accepted by Carol Meadows. In all these cases Carol Meadows mentions in the notes only the readings of K. The absurdity of this system of annotation becomes even more obvious from the fact that she is forced to adopt a category of readings which she calls presumed readings of the copy used by Ferrari and indicated by (F co.). For instance in 1.4d K and CM read sambodhimārgāvaranam. The note has: “1.4d sambodhimärgācaranam F, (F co.)" (p. 153). Carol Meadows adds