Friday, May 20, 2016

verbum dicendi

Note that verbum dicendi is a quotative. An example in Tibetan would be zhes, etc.

Friday, March 6, 2015

Latin Expressions for Buddhist Philology


Ipsissima verba

Those who are interested, for whatever reasons or motives, in understanding the ipsissima verba (“the very words”) of any given past Buddhist author or the conceived ipsissima verba of the Buddha, has no choice but to rely on Buddhist philology. One does Buddhist philosophy because one wants to do so. But one does Buddhist philology because one has to do so. An important issue for the Buddhist philologists is the retrievability of the ipsissima verba of the Buddha and the methodology and feasibility of such an endeavor.

Scriptura continua

The phenomenon of scriptio continua (“continuous script”), also known as scriptura continua or scripta continua, that is, a style of writing without spaces or other marks between the words or sentences, is not common in Tibetan scriptology. One possible reason for this may have been the fact that Tibetan language is a monosyllabic language. To be noted is that in Tibetan, there is no such thing as “word-separator/divider” but rather “syllable-separator/divider.” Of course phrases, sentences, sections, chapters, and works (in the case of a multi-text volume) in Tibetan usually are separated by certain signs or marks. Occasionally in some Tibetan stone inscriptions, however, one does seem to observe the phenomenon of scriptura continua (to a certain degree).






Buddhist Philology = Buddhist Textual Scholarship

An Extract from the draft of my lecture: 

For David C. Greetham, who defines the term “textual scholarship” in his book Textual Scholarship: An Introduction (1994), it is, in his own words, “perhaps a field somewhat like the old ‘philology’ of an earlier dispensation.” The employment of the term “textual scholarship” has obviously been intended by him to “co-opt” it “for the procedures of enumerative bibliographers, descriptive, analytical, and historical bibliographers, palaeographers and codicologists, textual editors, and annotators—cumulatively and collectively perhaps a field somewhat like the old ‘philology’ of an earlier dispensation, the technical and conceptual recreation of the past through its texts, specifically the language of those texts.”[1] Greetham himself seems to have been inspired by G. Thomas Tanselle, for he states:[2]
In part, the employment of the term “textual scholarship” in this general sense is a recognition (as G. Thomas Tanselle put it in his inaugural address to the Society for Textual Scholarship in 1981) that “textual criticism” is associated with the “great tradition of classical and biblical [studies, and] forms but one branch of textual scholarship as a whole” (“Presidential Address,” Text 1, [1984]: 2). In part, it is a recognition that the various contributions of palaeographers, codicologists, bibliographers, editors and so on, are related to what elsewhere Tanselle has called the “single great enterprise” (Rationale of Textual Criticism. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1989: 46) common to them all—the historical investigation of texts as both artifactual objects and conceptual entities, and the reconstruction of those stages in the transmission that have not survived.
Further on, Greetham defines “textual scholarship” as “the general term for all the activities associated with the discovery, description, transcription, editing, annotating, and commenting upon texts. Textual scholarship thus has wider reference than ‘textual criticism’ (that part of the discipline concerned with evaluation and emendation of the reading of the texts), may involve any of the technical fields listed in the opening sentence.” The fields that he has been referring to in his opening sentence are: bibliography (i.e. enumerative, systematic, descriptive, analytical, historical, and textual), textual analysis, textual criticism, textual editing, documentary editing, social textual criticism, epigraphy, paleography, codicology, diplomatics, philology, historical criticism, and higher and lower criticism.

Presupposing the definition of “textual scholarship” we have just seen, we may even understand “Buddhist philology” in its widest sense as “Buddhist textual scholarship,” which may be defined here as an academic discipline within the domain of the humanities (Geisteswissenschaften), (a) whose ultimate goal is the investigation and explanation of the intellectual history (Geistesgeschichte) and intellectual culture (Geisteskultur) of a society impregnated with Buddhist religion and philosophy, (b) whose main research material consists of written texts (or written sources) transmitted through the medium of manuscripts, xylographs, epigraphs, modern books, and so on, and (c) whose methodology is defined by the employment of historical-philological tools and techniques, which presupposes a profound knowledge of the languages and cultures in which the pertinent texts have originated and through which they have been transmitted and disseminated.


[1] Greetham 1994: ix.
[2] Greetham 1994: ix–x.