________________
9.
-24
It is possible that K expects the reader to compare his printed text with photographs of the 'new' palm-leaf manuscript 'J' wherever the text differs from De's. If that is the case, should he not have said so and ensured that the photographs are so clear as to present no difficulty in reading? As things stand, we cannot even be sure that all the photographs have been reproduced. According to the Preface (p. V) they are "specimens" and on p. XII they are described as "some facsimiles." Furthermore, even if the photographs had been complete and totally legible, the methodological issue remains: Why should the readings of a transcript and a manuscript coming from one and the same place be always preferred to those of a transcript from another place, if the universal superiority of the former is not established? A resolution of this issue is particularly warranted when the former come from the northern part of India and the latter from the southern. Secondly, is it not K's responsibility as an editor to inform the readers if there are any divergences between the Jaisalmer transcript and the Jaisalmer manuscript and to discuss if they have a common origin or significance as (partly or entirely) independent sources. One time-consuming task of confirming the readings of the printed text by referring to the 'new' ms. photographs may be assigned to the readers (although I am not in favor of it), but to expect the readers to compare two of the editor's sources is excessive. And how are they going to accomplish this comparison when the photographs of only one are printed? If K expects a comparison between his photographs and the readings indicated by De as found in 'B', then this is not only an onorous assignment but largely a futile one, for De has obviously not recorded all that was peculiar or common to 'B'. This is evident from a comparison of the two photographs of the Jaisalmer transcript printed by K with De (1961: 4, line 15
7, line 20).
-
