Indian scribes
How did Indian scribes write? I mean, what were their tools, method, sitting position? I read today a wonderful essay by Dain on the technique of (Western) medieval scribes. Very stimulating, to undertake similar research in the Indological field.
For instance, did Jayanta compose the whole Nyayamanjari from the first folio to the last, without looking back? Or did he take notes, wrote a first draft, corrected it and the wrote (or had someone writing it) anew? Did he write his notes and drafts on birch bark? Was there any other support, such as wax boards, in use for quick notes?
What about copists? How were they sitting, what was their modus operandi?
Among many other interesting things, Dain writes that a straining position (desks came to use much later) while writing meant frequent stops. Stopping and resuming writing meant in many cases some slight change in the graphy, which is misenterpreted by some philologists as a change of scribe. In scriptoria, the director of the scriptorium used to correct and emend the resulting manuscripts. So marginalia and interlinear emendation with a different hand may have been done right after completion, although in some cases cross checked with other sources (still contamination, thus). Paper was at one point disdained, in favour of pergamen, because of its scarce durability.
Besides the curiosity factor, the answer to some of these questions may prove of invaluable use in textual criticism and codicology.
For instance, did Jayanta compose the whole Nyayamanjari from the first folio to the last, without looking back? Or did he take notes, wrote a first draft, corrected it and the wrote (or had someone writing it) anew? Did he write his notes and drafts on birch bark? Was there any other support, such as wax boards, in use for quick notes?
What about copists? How were they sitting, what was their modus operandi?
Among many other interesting things, Dain writes that a straining position (desks came to use much later) while writing meant frequent stops. Stopping and resuming writing meant in many cases some slight change in the graphy, which is misenterpreted by some philologists as a change of scribe. In scriptoria, the director of the scriptorium used to correct and emend the resulting manuscripts. So marginalia and interlinear emendation with a different hand may have been done right after completion, although in some cases cross checked with other sources (still contamination, thus). Paper was at one point disdained, in favour of pergamen, because of its scarce durability.
Besides the curiosity factor, the answer to some of these questions may prove of invaluable use in textual criticism and codicology.
posted by Alessandro at
9:19 PM
8 Comments:
I've been wondering about the other side of things, i.e. the acquiring and reading of manuscripts. Who sold them? Or were they commissioned? Copies made from a member in the family holding on to treasured private materials? Carakasamhita Vimanasthana 8.4 (I think) speaks of the preliminaries of medical studies: first, one (i.e. the medical student) should choose an appropriate text. How would a student know of competing texts? Was there a place he could go to compare texts, browse manuscripts?
Should a STUDENT choose the text he likes? Doesn't he have to go to his teacher and read with him the text the teacher decides? Couldn't the passage you mention mean that one should choose a medical orientation (embodied in a certain text) and than go to a certain teacher in order to read the corresponding text with him?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I just found a webpage on "Indian design", including many nice pictures about the history and development of scripts (including bamboo pens and similar tools). The site entails many more than questionable theses about Indus Valley script being continued in brahmi, but is still worth a click:
http://www.designinindia.net/design-thoughts/writings/history/india-history-type-design1.html
Thanks for the comment, Dagmar. The reception of the mss is the other "side of the coin" (we say in Italian, I guess it works in English, too). The dissemination of philosophical and devotional works, which have been so far my focus, must have been rather different from that of medical ones, I mean in the sense of the commercial aspect of the ms trade. In the case of devotional ones there is some evidence of publication and broadcasting of works for pious purposes. In the case of philosophical works, I suppose that ms were mostly owned and used by teachers. In a guru-śiṣya type of transmission, I venture to say, access to mss by the disciples must have been the exception and not the rule. The private reading of a text, so common in our age, must have been also rare.
So I think that Elisa is correct in her remark although, again, I am not sure about the methods of transmission of medical knowledge. In any case, I found difficult to apply the modern concepts of book, library access, personal books, notes during lectures, etc., at least in brahmanical traditions. Some colleagues, on the other hand, argue that there is plenty of evidence of libraries, such as at Nalanda.
What do your colleagues say about libraries in non-Buddhist milieus?
The comments were referring to Buddhist environments. The only instances of non-Buddhist library I am aware of are personal libraries of Pandits such as Kavindrācārya's.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home