Skip to content

Edwin Gerow: Besprechung von Dragomir Dimitrov: Śabdālaṁkāradoṣavibhāga. Die Unterscheidung der Lautfiguren und der Fehler. Wiesbaden 2011 (Veröffentlichungen der Helmuth von Glasenapp-Stiftung. Monographien 2). In: ZDMG 164 (2014), S. 273–275

Pages 588 - 590



1 Snyder prepared his doctoral thesis at the University of Leipzig and published it in 1891 under the title Der Commentar und die Textüberlieferung des Mahāvaṃsa.

2 Indian Antiquary. Vol. xxxv. Bombay 1906, p. 184.

3 Many scholarly books and articles written in German remain indeed completely disregarded, and even in the case of such major works as Winternitz's Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, Geiger's Pāli, Literatur und Sprache, and Pischel's Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen they are still read on the Indian subcontinent only thanks to the available English translations. Similarly, instead of turning the pages of Böhtlingk's unsurpassed Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung one prefers using its English surrogate compiled by Monier-Williams.

4 Admittedly, I have no statistical data to substantiate this assertion and rely mostly on my own observations and experience collected in Europe, North America, and South Asia.

5 Incidentally, without any shred of doubt Ratna lived in the tenth century, so “probably” is an unnecessary addition by Gerow. As discussed in more detail in my forthcoming Legacy of the Jewel Mind, Ratna completed his Ratnaśrīṭīkā in ad 952 in northern India. He was born around the beginning of the tenth century in Laṅkā and lived most likely sometime until the 980 s.

6 From Gerow's imprecise remark about my critical edition of the third chapter of the Sñan ṅag me loṅ (another major objective in this book!) which according to him is “critically edited from several versions in the Tanjur” (p. 273), it becomes evident that he has not been in a position to assess this edition based actually on five canonical and three non-canonical versions, in addition to four Tibetan commentaries.

7 As already mentioned in my edition of the first chapter of the Kāvyādarśa, text-critically speaking Böhtlingk's Sanskrit text printed in 1890, which is based itself on Premacandra Tarkavāgīśa's edition first published in 1863, does not bring anything new (see D. Dimitrov: Mārgavibhāga, Die Unterscheidung der Stilarten. Marburg 2002, p. 144; cf. also ibid., p. 4). For this reason in my critical apparatus I have referred to Böhtlingk's readings by using the abbreviation Böhtl only in those few cases in which his version deviates from the text of the editio princeps.

8 It would have been, of course, superfluous to repeat at length information which is equally valid in the follow-up volume(s). This does oblige the reader to have (at least) two books open on his desk, but it would be embarrassing for any serious user of these publications to complain about such a trivial inconvenience.

9 This naturally makes Böhtlingk's incomplete German translation and the new complete one presented by me incompatible. Since I am myself not a native German speaker, I am leaving it to the Muttersprachler to judge about their merits and demerits.

10 See Dimitrov 2011, p. ix; similarly in Dimitrov 2002, p. 4. My edition of the Sanskrit text is based on six manuscripts (five of them Nepalese), two bilingual Sanskrit-Tibetan manuscripts, and another very important xylograph. In addition, nine earlier editions of the Kāvyādarśa have also been consulted, their variants being consistently reported.

11 See Dimitrov 2011, pp. 915–923. For the English summary accompanying my critical edition of the first chapter of the Kāvyādarśa, see Dimitrov 2002, pp. 389–395.


Export Citation