elisa freschimanuscriptology – elisa freschi

Mapping the territory: Sanskrit cosmopolis, 1500–today

elisa freschi — Tue, 10 May 2022 22:44:51 +0000

There is a lot to do in the European intellectual history, with, e.g., major theories that await an improved understanding and connections among scholars that have been overseen or understudied. Using a simile, one might say that a lot of the territory between some important peaks (say, the contributions of Hume, Kant, Hegel or Heidegger) is still to be thoroughly investigated.

When one works on the intellectual history of the Sanskrit cosmopolis*, by contrast, one still needs to map the entire territory, whose extension still escapes us. Very few elements of the landscape have been fixated, and might still need to be re-assessed.

What are the mountains, main cities as well as rivers, bridges, routes that we would need to fix on the map? Key authors, key theories, key schools, as well as languages and manners of communication and how they worked (public debates? where? how?).
I mentioned authors before schools because for decades intellectual historians looking at the Sanskrit cosmopolis emphasized, and often overemphasized the role of schools at the expense of the fundamental role of individual thinkers, thus risking to oversee their individual contributions and to flatten historical developments, as if nothing had changed in astronomy or philosophy for centuries. This hermeneutic mistake is due to the fact that while the norm in Europe and North America after Descartes and the Enlightenment has been increasingly to highlight novelty, originality is constantly understated in the Sanskrit cosmopolis. It is not socially acceptable to claim to be novel and original in the Sanskrit world, just like it is not acceptable to be just “continuing a project” in a grant application in Europe or North America.
Still, schools are often the departure point for any investigation, since they give one a first basic understanding of the landscape. How does this exactly work?
For instance, we know that the Vedānta systems were a major player in the intellectual arena, with all other religious and philosophical schools having to face them, in some form of the other. However, it is not at all clear which schools within Vedānta were broadly influential, where within South Asia, and in which languages. Michael Allen, among others, worked extensively on Advaita Vedānta in Hindī sources, but were they read also by Sanskrit authors and did the latter react to them? Were Hindī texts on Vedānta read only in the Gangetic valley or throughout the Indian subcontinent? The same questions should be investigated with regard to the other schools of Vedānta (Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, Śaivādvaita…), the other vernacular languages they interacted with (respectively: Tamil and Maṇipravāḷam, Kannaḍa…), and the regions of the Indian subcontinent they originated in. And this is just about Vedānta schools.
Similarly, we still have to understand which other schools entered into a debate with philosophy and among each other and which interdisciplinary debates took place. Scholars of European intellectual history know how Kepler was influenced by Platonism and how Galileo influenced the development of philosophy. What happened in the Sanskrit cosmopolis?
Dagmar Wujastyk recently focused on the intersection of medicine (āyurveda) alchemy (rasaśāstra) and yoga. Which other disciplines were in a constant dialogue? Who read mathematical and astronomical texts, for instance? It is clear, because many texts themselves often repeat it, that Mīmāṃsā, Nyāya and Vyākaraṇa (hermeneutics, logic and grammar) were considered a sort of basic trivium, to be known by every learned person. But the very exclusion of Vedānta from the trivium (it cannot be considered to be included in “Mīmāṃsā” unless in the Viśiṣṭādvaita self-interpretation) shows that the trivium is only the starting point of one’s instruction and is not at all exhaustive. And we have not even started to look at many disciplines, from music to rhetorics.

One might wonder whether it is not enough to look at reports by today’s or yesterday’s Sanskrit intellectuals themselves in order to know what is worth reading and why. However, as discussed above, such reports would not boast about innovations and main breakthroughs. Sanskrit philosophy (and the same probably applies to Sanskrit mathematics etc.) is primarily commentarial. That is, authors presuppose a basic shared background knowledge and innovate while engaging with it rather than imagining to be pioneers in a new world of ideas. In a commentarial philosophy, innovations are concealed and breakthroughs are present, but not emphasised. Hence, one needs a lot of background knowledge to recognise them.

I would like to map the territory to realise who was studying what, where and how. How can this be done? The main obstacle is the amount of unpublished material, literally millions of manuscripts that still remain to be read, edited, translated and studied (I am relying on David Pingree’s estimate). Editing and translating them all requires a multi-generational effort of hundreds of people. However, a quick survey of them, ideally through an enhanced ORC technology, would enable scholars to figure out which languages were used, which theories and topics were debated, which authors were mentioned, and who was replying to whom.

This approach will remind some readers of the distant reading proposed by Franco Moretti. I am personally a trained philologist and a spokesperson for close reading. However, moving back and forth between the two methods seems to be the most productive methodology if the purpose is mapping an unknown territory. Close reading alone will keep one busy for decades and will not enable one to start the hermeneutic circle through which one’s knowledge of the situation of communication helps one better understanding even the content of the text one is closely focusing on. As hinted at above, this is particularly crucial in the case of a commentarial philosophy, where one needs to be able to master a lot of the author’s background in order to evaluate his contribution.

*As discussed several times elsewhere, I use “Sanskrit philosophy” or “Sanskrit intellectual history” as a short term for “philosophy in a cosmopolis in which Sanskrit was the dominant language of culture and everyone had to come to terms with it”, as with the use of “philosophy in the Islamic world”, that includes also thinkers part of the Islamic world but who were not themselves Muslims.

(The above are just quick notes. Any feedback is welcome!)

Positive and negative apparatus

elisa freschi — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:20:14 +0000

A younger colleague made me aware of the fact that the distinction might not be obvious for everyone. Hence, here is a short summary:

A positive apparatus is an apparatus where you find all information about each and every single witness (each manuscript you checked and possibly each relevant edition). A negative apparatus is one in which you only show variants which diverge from the reading you selected in the main text.

As a very easy example, suppose you are putting in the main text the following reading: yan nehāsti na tat kvacit and have only three manuscripts, namely A, B and C.

positive apparatus = lemma: kvacit variants: A, B: kutracit. C: kvacit.
negative apparatus: lemma: kvacit. variants: A, B: kutracit.

I (with many others) recommend a positive apparatus. Why?

With a negative apparatus, you risk to loose track of the one or the other manuscript.
With a negative apparatus, you don’t know whether a given manuscript is not mentioned because it agrees with the main text or because, e.g., the relevant folio was missing.

Still, a positive apparatus is not really handy if you have, say, over ten manuscripts. Many editors introduce therefore the siglum “Σ” (or anything similar) meaning “All the other manuscripts”. In the previous example:

lemma: kvacit. variants: A, B: kutracit. Σ: kvacit.

What do other readers use or prefer?

A quote from the Mahābhārata on sphoṭa?

elisa freschi — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:18:13 +0000

Within a discussion on the sphoṭa in the Seśvaramīmāṃsā, Veṅkaṭanātha adds a quote he ascribes to the Mahābhārata. The quote is found in a different form in other printed works by Veṅkaṭanātha and in the various manuscripts of the Seśvaramīmāṃsā. However, I could not identify anything similar in the Mahābhārata itself.

The SM 1902 edition reads:

sphoṭas tvaṃ varṇasaṃghasthaḥ iti mahābhāratavacanam

The Mahābhārata statement “You are the sphoṭa, which is present in the conjunction of phonemes”.

Other manuscripts read varṇasthaḥ or varṇasamudāyaḥ instead of varṇasaṃghasthaḥ (both unmetrical). The Śatadūṣaṇī 30 reads sphoṭas tvaṃ varṇasaṃśraya iti mahābhārate ‘py ucyata iti cen na. The same quote is reused also in the Tattvamuktākalāpa with a different reading: sphoṭas tvaṃ varṇajuṣṭas tv iti yadabhihitaṃ bhārate sāpi śaktiḥ (v. 89, section 314).

Do readers know anything similar in the Mahābhārata? And who could be uttering it? Addressed to whom?

Can you guess what manuscripts say?

elisa freschi — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 09:41:29 +0000

A debate on sphoṭa

I am editing a portion of the Seśvaramīmāṃsā on a linguistic controversy about what is the vehicle of meaning. As often the case in Indian philosophy, an upholder of the sphoṭa theory speaks and says that the sphoṭa is the vehicle of the meaning, as hinted at by our own intuition that we understand a meaning śabdāt, i.e., from a unitary linguistic unit, not from various phonemes. The opponent replies saying that no independent sphoṭa exists independently and above the single phonemes, like no unitary assembly (pariṣad) exists independently of the single people composing it. The Sphoṭavādin replies that phonemes are unable to convey the meaning either one by one or collectively (because they never exist as a collective entity, given that they disappear right after having been pronounced.
Readers will recognise a sequence of arguments found also, e.g., in Jayanta’s Nyāyamañjarī, book 6.

Nonetheless, I am unable to reconstruct a reading I found in the manuscripts. Here comes the passage as found in the editio princeps (1902), which often just silently emends the text of the manuscript the editor had in front of him, and my preliminary translation of it:

kathaṃ vāyogyam upalabdham. pratyekasamudāyayaugapadyādivikalpanānupapatyā varṇānām± vācakatvāsiddhau gatyabhāvāt tadatiriktaḥ kaścid artthaḥ pratyayahetuḥ kalpyata iti cet

[Opponent:] Alternatively, how is something not fit (to be perceived) (like, according to you, the sphoṭa), perceived?

[Sphoṭavādin:] Given that the phonemes [can]not be established as the expressing elements, because all the alternatives, namely that [they are seized] one by one or as a group, simultaneously etc. (i.e., sequentially) are not viable, there is no way (gati) [to make the signification work]. Therefore, one needs to postulate a cause for the notion of the meaning which is different from them (phonemes).

And here comes the text as found in two manuscripts (1748 and 2242, GOML Madras):

kathaṃ vāyogyam upalabdham ata ity ārttha pratyekasamudāyakam± yaugapadyādivikalpanānupapatyā varṇānām± vācakatvāsiddhau gatyabhāvāt tadatiriktaḥ kaścid artthaḥ pratyayahetuḥ kalpyata iti cet

And in a further one (70054 Adyar, usually better than the above two):

kathaṃ vāyogyam upalabdha{m±}nta ity ārttha pratyekasamudāyakramayaugapadyādivikalpanānupapatyā varṇānām± vācakatvāsiddhau gatyabhāvāt tadatiriktaḥ kaścid artthaḥ pratyayahetuḥ kalpyata iti cet

Do readers have an intuition about what this ata/ta ity ārttha means?

(I will not discuss it here the other variant right after pratyekasamudāya. I am inclined to think that the variant found in 70054 makes sense).

Research associates in Hamburg

elisa freschi — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:05:32 +0000

Following the approval of the Cluster of Excellence “Understanding Written Artefacts”, the University of Hamburg invites applications for 55 new positions for research associates. The initial fixed term is three years. The application deadline is 16 November 2018.

Further information and calls for applications: https://www.written-artefacts.uni-hamburg.de/en/vacant-positions.html

How should we call half-baked editions?

elisa freschi — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:21:55 +0000

After my last post on critical and diplomatic editions, a colleague wrote me inviting me to consider the case of half-baked editions. How should we call them?

Let me start by trying to achieve some clarity. John Taber, in his exemplary book on the chapter on perception of the Ślokavārttika speaks of a “semi-critical edition”, insofar as he did not look at new manuscripts, but improved the text of the editions by collating and comparing them among each other, with the commentaries and with the sources. The result is an appendix with suggested readings for the ŚV text. It is hard to call it a “critical” edition (because it lacks a manuscript basis) and the label “semi-critical” is also possibly misleading, since it seems to suggest that the text has the same basis of the one of a critical edition, but that the critical choices have not been completed. By hearing “semi-critical”, I would, accordingly, rather expect something between a collation and a critical edition, not a text based on existing editions and further improved as described before. Therefore, I would call these cases just “improved edition“, but “revised edition” would also work. Still, in cases such as the Ślokavārttika, one can reasonably attempt the reconstruction of a specific text as based on either Kumārila’s original intention (as reconstructed through his other works, his interactions with other thinkers and his commentators) or on the text as read by a given commentator.

The colleague also invited me to consider the case of texts for which a critical edition could be said to be impossible, such as Purāṇas. Now, let me repeat that an edition might have different purposes, and that the key is to be aware of what one wants to achieve. Aiming at the Urtext of a hymn transmitted orally in different regions and perhaps even languages might be out of place, but one might reasonably aim at reconstructing the text of the same hymn as it was read and transmitted in manuscripts in, say, 16th c. Karṇaṭaka, or as commented upon by a given scholar in 13th c. Gujarat. Alternatively, one might try to reconstruct the history of the transmission. Charles Li and others have been developing softwares which allow one to put one or the other manuscript collated as the main text and the others as alternative readings and to change the main text with just one click. In this way, it would be relatively easy to compare the version of the text transmitted in one or the other group of manuscripts.

In other words, let us not mix the intense work needed to prepare a critical editions with only low level textual criticism or with the myth of the reconstruction of an Urtext. This is just one possible approach to the redaction of a critical editions and can only be appropriate in specific cases (authorial texts for which a historical author can be individuated and manuscript material can be proven to depend from a single source etc.).

How would you call “improved editions”?

Collations, critical and diplomatic editions

elisa freschi — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:17:31 +0000

Is any text which reports variant readings from other manuscripts a “critical edition”? And what is a diplomatic edition?

A text which reports all variant readings from various manuscripts without selecting a preferred one is a collation. In a collation, one typically reproduces also variant readings which are clearly wrong and will later be eliminated. Some of these details are irrelevant for the sake of the constitution of the critical text, but can be relevant for the history of the transmission. For instance, a manuscript often writing śa or ṣa instead of sa might be an evidence of the fact that the text was transmitted (at a certain point of its history) within an environment in which the dental sibilant was not distinguished, e.g., in Bengal. The same could be repeated, mutatis mutandis, about the use of retroflex ḷ for non Vedic words, the confusion between sounded and unsounded occlusives and so on.

If you have a single manuscript, or a manuscript which has an important history (e.g., it was composed or used by an important scholar), you might consider producing a diplomatic edition of it, i.e., an edition which reproduces as much as possible all the peculiarities of the manuscript, with as less editorial interventions as possible. You will try in this case to be as close as possible to the manuscript, reproducing all that may be relevant, e.g., ornaments, marginal corrections, string-holes, line breaks, avagrahas, halants and the like. Much of this information could be considered to be irrelevant, so that it will not be included in the critical edition, but it may be of relevance if you are trying to reconstruct the way the copyist thought of the text he was copying (or composing!). More on this below.

A critical edition has to be, first of all, critical. Variants like karanam instead of karaṇam are needed in the collation and in the diplomatic edition, but have usually no space in a critical edition. Don’t fill your apparatus with meaningless variants which have the only purpose to show that you read many manuscripts:-) Read them and record them in the collation, then start working at your critical edition.
Now, there might be border-line cases. For instance, let us consider the case of a reliable and of an unreliable manuscript. The latter is typically a manuscript which is usually full of automatic mistakes, e.g., dropping syllables or missing a line if it starts with the same word as the previous one, and where one has the clear impression that the copyist and its successive readers were not understanding what they wrote.
By contrast, a generally reliable manuscript is one where variant readings tend to make sense, so that one is sure that its copyist (or its successive readers) was accurately going through the text they read.
Now, let us admit that the former manuscript has a variant which happens to make sense, e.g. bhāti instead of the expected bhāvayati. I am inclined to think that one should not put it in their critical apparatus and rather just explain in the manuscript’s description that it tends to drop syllables. However, if one were to find the same type of variant in the generally reliable manuscript, I would highly recommend keeping it in the apparatus.

At this point, one might ask why keeping variants such as karanam for karaṇam in the collation or in the diplomatic edition. Within the collation, as hinted at above, they are meant to be useful in order to reconstruct the history of the transmission. In the diplomatic edition, I would be even more precise in reproducing the writing peculiarities of the single and precious manuscript one is focusing on, because every element could be useful to reconstruct its copyist’s way of thinking.
For instance, suppose one encounters the reading शब्दोनित्यः in a Nyāya manuscript. This can be easily read as meaning in fact शब्दोऽनित्यः, since avagrahas are often missing in manuscripts and the scriptio continua is the norm. Hence, it is essential to note when and whether at all avagrahas are employed by the copyist.
As a different example, let us take the reading अग्निहोत्रमधर्मः in a Mīmāṃsā manuscript. In my experience, copyists might forget halants, so that this can be interpreted as agnihotram dharmaḥ (i.e. agnihotraṃ dharmaḥ). Thus, it is fundamental that the editor distinguishes these two cases: अग्निहोत्रम् अधर्मः and अग्निहोत्रमधर्मः. Both could be transcribed as agnihotram adharmaḥ, but I hope that it is clear that the former is way more likely than the latter to really mean agnihotram adharmaḥ. Thus, let us transcribe, in a diplomatic edition, the former as agnihotram± adharmaḥ, using “±” or any other symbol to indicate the halant. Similarly, I would suggest using a symbol for the string-hole (I use “§”) and for each line break (I use “//”), since these are points at which a copyist is likely to make small mistakes, e.g., forgetting a halant or a vowel sign, or even missing a line. Indicating the string-hole or the line break helps the editor (and their successive readers) evaluating the weight of each evidence.

Long story short: Be clear about your goal. Are you reproducing an important text as you found it in a single manuscript? Do a diplomatic edition and, only thereafter, a critical one. Don’t mix the two by reproducing the text and yet adding your conjectures. Keep your conjectures for the next step, the critical edition, where you will be able to emend the text also on the basis of parallel readings found in similar texts, quotation of the text in later texts or quotations in the text of earlier ones (see Steinkellner 1988 (and Freschi 2015) for a discussion of all these cases).
Are you collating many manuscripts in order to reconstruct the history of the transmission of the text? Be as precise as possible. Are you trying to reconstruct the text as it was composed in, say, the 16th c.? Do a critical edition and avoid wasting your readers’ time and energies with variant readings which have only a phonetic or historical significance. Focus instead on real variants, especially if they represent really alternative texts. For all the rest, write a description of the manuscripts you used, explaining their peculiarities (e.g., always writing a single -t- before a consonant, as in satva).

I wrote the above thinking most of all of my students and younger colleagues. If you are among them, is there something else you would like to know?. If you are an experienced colleague, do you agree? What would you change?

Open access papers on philosophy of language etc.

elisa freschi — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:34:24 +0000

For a lucky coincidence, two long term projects of mine reached completion almost at the same time.

You can therefore read on the 2017 issue of the Journal of World Philosophies the (Open Access) papers on philosophy of language which are the result of a project led by Malcolm Keating and myself (see here). I am grateful to the journal’s editor, Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach for her help and support throughout the process.

On the 2017 issue Kervan you can read the lead papers on epistemology of testimony, printed cultures and conceptualisation of sexuality which are the result of the 2013 Coffee Break Conference held in Turin and edited by Daniele Cuneo, Camillo Formigatti and myself. I am grateful to the journal’s editor, Mauro Tosco for his help and support throughout the process.

Enjoy and please let me know your comments and criticisms!

Post Doc on Manuscript studies in pre-modern Eurasia

elisa freschi — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 07:45:06 +0000

The Obermann Center at the University of Iowa welcomes applications for a full-time, twelve-month Postdoctoral Scholar. The one-year residency will begin on August 10, 2016.

The position is funded through the generosity of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and is part of the 2016-2017 Mellon-Sawyer Seminar, “Cultural and Textual Exchanges: The Manuscript Across Pre-Modern Eurasia,” led by co-PIs Timothy Barrett (Center for the Book), Paul Dilley (Religious Studies and Classics), and Katherine Tachau (History).

Our seminar is an interdisciplinary collaboration dedicated to mapping cultural exchanges across Eurasia from roughly 400 CE – ca. 1450 CE, by focusing on the development, distribution and sharing of manuscript technologies. We will convene approximately fifteen times over the course of the 2016-2017 academic year, in dialogue with a series of invited speakers who are internationally recognized experts in the various manuscript cultures of pre-modern Eurasia. Four of the seminar meetings will be followed the next day by hands-on workshops at the University of Iowa’s Center for the Book, in which participants will reproduce historically significant book structures, with their associated materials, under the guidance of conservators. The seminar will also develop an innovative website tracking the development of Eurasian manuscript formats and materials chronologically and geographically.

Candidates in any related field, including Archaeology, Art History, Classics, History, East or South Asian Studies, and Near Eastern Studies, Religious Studies, are encouraged to apply.

Project Management
The Mellon-Sawyer seminar will include a series of lectures, many by visiting speakers from national and international research and cultural heritage institutions. We seek a Postdoctoral Scholar with experience in project management who can help organize visits from scholars and the four “hands-on” workshops at the Center for the Book.

Research
The Postdoctoral Scholar will have office space, a computer, and staff support at the Obermann Center, and will be invited to participate in the Obermann Fellows’ work-in-progress seminar and in other scholarly activities at the Center. The scholar is expected to pursue a research program that incorporates manuscript culture(s) in one or more regions of pre-modern Eurasia.

RESPONSIBILITIES

This one-year Postdoctoral Scholar position is a full-time, twelve-month salaried appointment. The annual salary range is $42,840 – $46,344 plus benefits (described on the University of Iowa Graduate College Office of Postdoctoral Scholars website http://postdoc.grad.uiowa.edu/policies-and-benefits/university-benefits).

40% RESEARCH Conduct research in the history of manuscript culture(s) in one or more regions of pre-modern Eurasia.

40% SEMINAR/WEBSITE SUPPORT Help develop the website in coordination with library staff, through the transfer seminar-generated content, including bibliographies and historical data, to the site; and build connections with related online projects; conduct research to populate the site in areas of own expertise.

20% ADMINSTRATION Coordinate the visits of guest lecturers, help organize the workshops at the UI Center for the Book, contribute to other aspects of planning and programming the Mellon-Sawyer seminar.

Advertising Ends on: Extended Until Position is Filled
Advertising Started on: Thursday, October 15th, 2015

Apply online here

Why focussing on the textual basis of the Seśvaramīmāṃsā by Vedānta Deśika: An easy introduction for lay readers

elisa freschi — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:57:39 +0000

In the first post of this series, I discussed the importance of studying Mīmāṃsā within Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta and especially within the work of Veṅkaṭanātha. This post focusses on the importance of a specific work by Veṅkaṭanātha, namely his Seśvaramīmāṃsā (henceforth SM).

Until now, the SM has neither been critically edited, nor translated or studied. Even more interestingly, the SM presents itself as a commentary on the Pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra, the foundational text of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā school which consists of eight books, each including four or eight chapters, but the published portion of the SM covers only on the first two chapters of the first book.
The SM has been published four times, in 1902, 1940, 1971 and 1981. The most recent of these editions is only a reproduction of a previous time and can thus be altogether ignored. As for the others, none of them includes a foreword, an introduction nor a critical apparatus, so that a reader has no idea at all about the manuscript basis they rely upon. It is not even clear whether the occasional divergences between the three editions are due to additional manuscripts consulted by the latter two or, more probably, only to emendations ope ingenii by the editors of the 1940 and the 1971 editions.

Within my current research project (FWF V 400), I planned to focus on a study of Veṅkaṭanātha’s synthesis as reflected in his SM, but for this sake I needed to verify the reliability of the published text. I thus identified several manuscripts of the SM and started collating them. In doing it, I have two main goals:

the elaboration of the first critical edition of the SM
the answer to the conundrum of the real extant covered by the SM

As for the first goal, possibly each text deserves a critical edition and this is even more true in the case of intrinsically relevant texts, of badly edited and of (partially or completely) unpublished texts. The SM fits all these criteria, since for the published portion we have no indication proving its reliability (it could have been prepared on the basis of a single unreliable manuscript and have been corrected by the various editors according to their own expectations of what the text should say). Moreover, the editors themselves acknowledged to be at times helpless by adding alternative possible readings in round or square brackets or by signalling a crux with question marks. The frequence of such crux increases in the second chapter of the SM, where there may be even more than one question mark per line, so that the text becomes at times not understandable. All these reasons make a new and critical edition of the SM a desideratum of primary importance for the study of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta.

(this post is meant to be a general introduction to the topic, accessible to non-initiated readers. Should you find something in it not understandable, please let me know with a comment below.)