Buchbesprechungen Comptes Rendus

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, focusing on the book review by Johannes Bronkhorst:

This document contains book reviews ("Buchbesprechungen/Comptes Rendus"), with a significant portion dedicated to a review by Johannes Bronkhorst (JB) of Ralf Stautzebach's (RS) book, "Parifikşā and Sarvasammataśikṣā: Rechtlautlehren der Taittiriya-Sakha".

Overview of Stautzebach's Book:

• The book by Ralf Stautzebach (RS) deals with two specific "Sikṣās" (manuals of Vedic phonetics and pronunciation) of the Taittiriya branch of the Vedas: the Pariśikṣā and the Sarvasammataśikṣā.
• It includes a short general introduction and an appendix on contemporary Taittiriya recitation in Tamil Nadu.
• The review by JB focuses primarily on the discussion, edition, and explanation of the Pariśikṣā.
• RS's work is presented as a dissertation from the University of Heidelberg, a place associated with scholars like K. Parameswara Aithal, whose "Veda-Laksana" bibliography is acknowledged as a significant influence on RS's book.

Critique of Stautzebach's Work by Johannes Bronkhorst:

JB's review is largely critical, highlighting several shortcomings in RS's book, particularly concerning its accessibility and scholarly rigor in specific areas.

Key Criticisms:

1. Lack of Accessibility:

   • The book is found to be largely inaccessible to readers unfamiliar with Vedic ancillary texts.
   • This inaccessibility is attributed to the use of numerous obscure abbreviations for texts and concepts, requiring constant cross-referencing of pages.
   • JB argues that while the subject matter is specialized, the book itself makes it even more difficult to penetrate, failing to fulfill the role of introducing readers to this neglected field.

2. Dependency on Aithal's "Veda-Laksana":

   • RS's work is heavily reliant on Aithal's Veda-Laksana, to the point where it's often unintelligible without it.
   • JB notes that the manuscript basis for RS's edition of the Pariśikṣā and its commentary Yajuṣabhūṣaṇa is unclear, especially concerning verses not present in the main manuscript used.

3. Unclear Presentation and Methodological Issues:

   • JB points out a lack of clarity in the presentation of the manuscript basis and editorial decisions.
   • The book's organization, with extensive notes and abbreviations at the end, forces readers to constantly flip through pages, hindering a smooth reading experience.

4. Authorship of Pariśikṣā and Yajuṣabhūṣaṇa:

   • A significant portion of the review is dedicated to questioning RS's cursory treatment of the authorship of the Pariśikṣā and its commentary, Yajuṣabhūṣaṇa. RS concludes that they might be by the same author, while JB argues strongly for different authors.
   • Evidence for Different Authorship (JB's Argument):
     • Manuscript Evidence: The Hamburg manuscript, potentially linked to a figure named Cakra son of Rama, contains the Pariśikṣā but not the Yajuṣabhūṣaṇa, suggesting Cakra might be the author of the commentary but not necessarily the Pariśikṣā.
     • Internal Discrepancies: JB identifies several passages where the commentary offers interpretations or readings that differ from, or contradict, the main text (Pariśikṣā), or the manuscript readings. Examples include:
       • A comment on the definition of the place of articulation (RS p. 61) suggesting a difference in understanding between the text and commentary.
       • An incorrect reading of nadasya in Pariśikṣā 43-44, which the commentary confirms but doesn't explain, suggesting the commentator found this reading in his manuscript and the author of the Pariśikṣā did not.
       • A similar issue with the reading ekāntarasya in Pariśikṣā 51.
       • The term hanu (jaw) being feminine in the Pariśikṣā but masculine in the Yajuṣabhūṣaṇa, except when directly quoting the former.
       • An explanation of the plural acah as acidayāḥ svarāḥ in the commentary on Pariśikṣā 135, which JB considers a mistake.
       • The commentary interpreting a grammatically incorrect line as arṣa (usage of the seers), suggesting the commentator is distancing himself from his own language or a particular grammatical convention.
       • A disagreement on the rule for aspiration at word boundaries, where the commentary allows it within a word while the text is explicit about it occurring only at the padānta (word-end).
       • The commentator forcing an impossible interpretation on a corrupt reading in Pariśikṣā 167.
       • The commentary's interpretation of Pariśikṣā 48, which JB suggests goes against the text, similar to observations made by Whitney about the commentary on the Taittiriya-Prātiśākhya.
     • Inclusion of Material: The Yajuṣabhūṣaṇa includes a list of sounds not present in the Pariśikṣā, which JB argues could be seen as an integral part of the Pariśikṣā rather than the commentary, complicating authorship attribution.

5. Relationship with the Taittiriya-Prātiśākhya:

   • RS suggests that the Pariśikṣā may have incorporated interpretations from commentaries on the Taittiriya-Prātiśākhya, specifically the Vaidikābharaṇa.
   • JB questions this chronological assumption, proposing the opposite: that the Vaidikābharaṇa might have been influenced by the Pariśikṣā. He finds RS's arguments for the influence of the Vaidikābharaṇa on the Pariśikṣā unconvincing or vague.

6. Editorial Issues and Translations:

   • JB points out several inaccuracies and deficiencies in RS's German translations and paraphrases of the Sanskrit text. Examples include misinterpretations of terms like avyakta and vyakta, and awkward phrasing in translating instrumental absolute constructions.
   • RS's editorial practices are also questioned, with instances where seemingly corrupt or incorrect readings are presented without emendation, or where emendations are suggested but not fully explained or justified. He notes that RS often accepts manuscript readings even when they are nonsensical or contradict the commentator.
   • JB provides several specific examples of potential errors in the edition, suggesting corrections and alternative readings based on metrical considerations, commentary, and other texts.

Conclusion:

Despite its significant shortcomings in terms of accessibility and detailed scholarly argument, JB concludes that RS's book, being one of the few recent scholarly works on these specific Sikṣās, will likely serve as a basis for future research. However, he strongly advises readers to use it with caution.

Other Review: The document also briefly mentions a book by Ursula Koike-Good and includes a short paragraph about a Japanese historical novel, likely as a separate book review. However, the bulk of the provided text is dedicated to the critical review of Stautzebach's work by Johannes Bronkhorst.