Vakrokti Jivita Of Kuntaka

Author(s): K Krishnamoorthy
Publisher: K Krishnamoorthy

Page 7

-7
to be shaped by any awareness of the factors (haplography, etc.) that usually
cause corruption in manuscripts.
Lastly, the mention of J in footnotes comes
to an end without any explanation on p. 248. A few equally intriguing references
are made thereafter to "M" and "Ms." on pp. 249, 257 and 258. These, I presume,
stand for the copy K had of the Madras transcript. On p. XII K states: ".....
for the resumé portion, I have not given any indication in detail of the scribal
errors in the Madras transcript because that would take a volume and would not be
of any help to general students or scholars." The presumption is clearly that a
record of readings is not a vital part of a critical edition and that no one is
likely to 'rescue' sensible readings from the scribal errors any more than Khas!
Thus, what we mostly have in the book under review is a 'critical' edition
without manuscript variants! In its first part (pp. 1-153) we have been asked to
make do with the readings of an earlier edition, based on transcripts, as variants -
to be content with buttermilk instead of creamy curds; in its second part, the
editor has thrown a few crumbs of manuscript readings at us as it pleased him.
The reader's problems are compounded by the oversights, inaccuracies and
inconsistencies in recording whatever readings have in fact been recorded.
(a) In fn. 7 of p. 167 we read "Misreading in Ms.," but there is no specifi
cation of the ms. (b) . For the expression sabda-śobhātiśaya-sunya in line 20 of p. 7, we
read in fn. 10: ! '. K's intention is to point out that De's reading begins with sobha 9 and does not contain the word sabda, but fn. 10 is incapable of expressing that intention. It is also inconsistent with a fn. 11ke fn. 2 on the same page; just as that fn. says "pratyekan omitted," fn. 10 should have said "sabda omitted."