1

The Text of Saṅgītaratnākara1

Saṅgītaratnākara of Śārṅgadēva (henceforth abbreviated as Saṅgītaratnākara) is perhaps the

most studied text on Saṅgīta since it came to be written between 1210 and 1247 AD (p.x, Introduction

to Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I Adyar Library edition, 1943). The first commentary, Saṅgītasudhākara of

Simhabhūpāla on Saṅgītaratnākara was written around 1400 AD. Since then a few other

commentaries too came to be written on it. Saṅgītaratnākara has also been referred to in the works of

later writers like Rāmāmātya and Raghunātha Nāyaka and long passages from it have been quoted in

later works like the Saṅgītasārāmṛta. Manuscripts of Saṅgītaratnākara have been available in various

parts of India. Catalogues of various Manuscripts Libraries at Madras, Mysore, Jodhpur, Tirupati,

Bikaner, Tanjavur, Baroda and Calcutta bear evidence to it. The first printed edition of

Saṅgītaratnākara was published in 1879 from Calcutta, containing only the first chapter though. Since

then editions of the complete text and translations of the entire text or parts of it in English and other

languages have appeared. The purpose of this paper is to explore the "critical" status of the edition of

Saṅgītaratnākara as available at present. The examination, in this paper, will confine itself to only the

text of Saṅgītaratnākara and not extend it to the commentaries on it.

Before taking up the problem it would be useful to list the various publications that present the text

of Saṅgītaratnākara and/or the translation. Lists of earlier publications are included in the later

publications themselves. In addition, an article 'saṅgītaratnākara kē vibhinna samskaraṇōṁ kā

kālakramānusāra vivēcana' by Ramesh Patel published in 'Sangeet Monthly' magazine (Hindi) from

Hathras and in the September 1992 issue, gives an annotated list of the various publications. The

present list has included, to the best of efforts, the publications missed out in the earlier lists.

Printed publications of Saṅgītaratnākara

1 Saṅgītaratnākara with the commentary, Saṅgītasudhākara of Siṃhabhūpāla, edited by Kalivara

Vēdāntavāgīśa and Śāradāprasāda Ghōṣa, New Arya Press, Calcutta, 1879.

2 Saṅgītaratnākara with Siṃhabhūpāla's commentary pp.47, Calcutta [published in Arunodaya

pt.1,No.17(1890-1897) edited by Rasika Mohan Chattopadhyaya]. (cited in Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute XII-B. 325)

1
Published earlier in the Book, Śārṅgadēva and His Saṅgīta-ratnākara; Proceedings of the Seminar, Varanasi, 1994, Edited
by Prem Lata Sharma; published by Sangeet Natak Akademi, Delhi; 1998. pp. 121-126
 2

3 Saṅgītaratnākara with the 'Kalānidhi' commentary of Kallinātha edited by Maṅgēśarāma Telaṅga,

published by Vināyaka Gaṇēśa Āptē at the Ānandāśrama Press, Pune (Series no.35)

Vol.I - Chapters 1 to 5 in 1896

Vol.II- Chapters 6 & 7 in 1897

Reprinted as

Vol.I- Chapters 1 to 5in 1942

Vol.II- Chapters 6 & 7 in 1942

4. Saṅgītaratnākara with the 'Kalānidhi' commentary of Kallinātha and the SaṅgītasudhāAkara of

Siṃhabhūpāla edited by published by the Adyar Library, Madras in four volumes by Paṇḍita

Subrahmaṇya Śāstrī;

Vol.I- Chapter 1 in 1943

Vol.II- Chapters 2 to 4 in 1944

Vol.III- Chapters 5 & 6 in 1951

Vol.IV- Chapters 7 in 1953

The first three volumes were later revised and published by the Adyar Library and Research

Centre, Madras.

Vol.I-in 1992 - revised by S.Śāradā

Vol.II- in 1959 - revised by Paṇḍita V.Kṛṣṇamācārya

Vol.III- in 1986 - revised by S.Śāradā

B. Publication of translation with/without text :

I English :

1 Saṅgītaratnākara with Kallinātha's commentary and English translation by Sri Krishnacandra

Vedanta Chintamani- [This part contains an introduction and specimen extracts only] pp.22, Union

Press, Calcutta 1920. {Cited in Catalogue of the India Office Library, vol.II, pt.1, Sanskrit Books,

1957, p.2289}

2 Translation only, and of Chapter 1 only, by C.Kunhan Raja, published by, Adyar Library, Madras,

1945.

3 Translation only, and of Chapter 7 only, by K.Kunjunni Raja and Radha Burnier, first published as

Vol.XXIII, pt.s 3 & 4 of Adyar Library Bulletin, Brahma Vidya, 1959. Reprinted as book in 1976.

4. Text and Translation with Comments and Notes- by R K Shringy and Prem Lata Sharma.
 3

Vol.I-Chapter1 published by Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1978. Reprinted and published by

Mushiram Manoharlal, Delhi.

Vol.II- Chapter 2 to 4 published by Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1989.

II Tamiz

1 Translation only, of Chapter 1 only - by Rāmacandra Śarma, published by Kalakshetra, Madras

1952.

III. Hindi

1 Text and Translation of Chapter1 only- by Lakshmi Narayan Garg, published by Sangeet

Karyalaya, Hathras, 1964. Reprinted in 1975.

2 Translation only, of Chapters 1 to 4 only- by Surēśa Candra Vandyaōpādhyāya, published by the

Author, Calcutta-33, Bengali year 1380 (1973).

IV Telugu

1 Text and Translation of Chapter1 only with translation of the corresponding Kalānidhi commentary

included in the Appendix - by Ganḍam ŚrIrāmamūrti, published by Andhra Pradesh Sangeet

Natak Akademi, Hyderabad, 1966.

V Kannada

1 Text and Translation of first three Prakaraṇa-s of Chapter1 only- by R Sathyanarayana, published

by Prasaranga, Mysore University, 1968.

VI. Marathi

1. Text and Translation of Saṅgītaratnākara and translation only of Kalānidhi commentary- by G H

Tarlekar, published by Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Samskrti Mandali, Mumbai.

Vol.I - Chapters 1 to 4- 1975

Vol.II- Chapters 5 & 6 - 1979

Vo.III- Chapters 7-

Sources for the Printed Editions

1 In the Cal.edn. 1879, the editors state in the Preface (p.iv) -

"We have carefully corrected the text by comparing together several Manuscripts secured from

different quarters of India for that purpose..... We could not give here Kallinatha's commentary, for

the only Manuscript to which we have at present access, is very unintelligible, owing to numerous

clerical mistakes. We have therefore given only the commentary by Simhabhupala..... All our own

particular insertions in the Commentary are enclosed within brackets to distinguish them from the
 4

Commentator's text."

No other details about the manuscripts are given.

2 In the AA edition, the editor has listed seven manuscripts all of which belonged to private

individuals

ka - with 'K' comm. Viṭhṭhalēśa Mahārāja of Mumbai

kha - with 'K' comm. Bivalkara, Mumbai

ga - with 'K' comm. Puruśōttama Gaṇēśa Ghārapurē of Pune

gha - main text only. Mahādēva Cimanji Āptē, founder of Ānandāśrama

oa - main text only. Saryu Prasāda Śarma of Jayapura

ca - main text only. Sakhārāma Rāmacandra Guptē of Pune

cha - palm leaf with 'K' comm. only. Durgāprasāda of Jayapura

ja - 'K' comm. only, in Andhra (telugu) script, Harinārāyaṇa Āptē of Ānandāśrama

3 The sources for the editions from Adyar Library, are referred to by C Kunhan Raja in the

Introduction to the First Volume (p.vii) --

"In preparing this present edition, Pandita Subrahmanya Sastri has made use of both the editions

[Calcutta and Anandāśrama]. The text has been compared with manuscripts available in the

various libraries in and near Madras and the commentary of Kallinātha has been compared with

the manuscript in the Tanjore Palace Library ( Descriptive Catalogue, Vol.XVI, NO.10749 ). The

printed editions have been carefully compared with these manuscripts and the readings have

been improved."

In the Introduction (p.xvii) to the Translation of Saṅgītaratnākara Vol.I by R K Shringy and Prem

Lata Sharma, Prem Lata Sharma has this to say about the Anandāśrama and Adyar editions,

(henceforth abbreviated as 'AA edn.' and 'Ad.edn.' respectively) --

a) AA edn.-: "Thus, this is the first printed edition incorporating the full text of Saṅgītaratnākara.

This is a critical edition in so far as the readings of the commentator have been collated."

b) Ad.edn.-: "Eventhough Kunhan Raja in his introduction to the first volume, states that both the

earlier editions of Saṅgītaratnākara and other manuscripts have been compared in the

preparation of the Adyar edition, it fails to be a critical one. Variant readings, excepting those

found in the commentary of Simhabhupala have not been indicated."

Since the publication of the Translation of Vol.I of Saṅgītaratnākara in 1978 revised editions of

two volumes, namely vol.III and vol.I Adyar Library have appeared and in these variant readings from

sources apart from the Saṅgītasudhākara commentary. have also been indicated. But it is true that
 5

the earlier Adyar Library editions had not made it a point to mention the variant readings. The first

revised edition to be brought out, namely that of Vol.II, 1959, practically ignores all variant readings. It

is in the revised Vol.III, Ad.edn. 1986, that for the first time variant readings from many sources are

given in the foot notes. The different sources are marked, A, B, C, D, I-ed, Saṅgītasudhākara

commentary. Strangely, no key is given regarding A, B, C, D & I-ed. It is only in the revised edition of

Vol.I, 1992, that for the first time we have a clue to the various sources cited (see p.xl). These are -

I-ed. - AnandASrama edition

ka, kha, ga, gha, oa - Manuscript readings given as foot notes in I-ed.

A - Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Manuscript

B - Bikaner Manuscript

C - Tanjore Sarasvati Mahal Library Manuscript

D - Baroda Manuscript

E - Readings noted from a fragmentary manuscript which was with Subrahmaṇya Śāstrī.

But even this is insufficient information since the catalogue numbers of the manuscripts have not

been given.

Editing of Saṅgītaratnākara:

K.Kunjunni Raja in his paper "The Problem of Textual Criticism of Sangitaratnakara and its

Commentaries", presented at the seminar on Śārṅgadēva makes these opening observations.

"Textual Criticism or Lower Criticism as it is technically called, is the scientific methodology used

for restoring or reconstructing the original text of a work as intended by the author on the basis of the

examination of all the available material such as manuscripts, printed editions and testimonia like

commentaries, quotations in other works, and the oral tradition wherever possible. The term "lower" is

not used in any derogatory sense; it indicates that the restoration of the original text, as intended by

the author, is the foundation for any higher criticism, even if the author's own manuscript, if available,

has to be edited to remove unintended mistakes that might have crept in. Higher criticism is based on

lower criticism and deals with tracing the sources; finding the influence of the text on later works,

evaluating its literary merit etc. ....

In India the different versions of a text usually follow one or the other commentator. ....

A verse omitted by the commentator, but found in some independent manuscript of the text need

not be given as accepted text, however, it can be given in footnotes. ....

One of the main sources for Śārṅgadēva is the Nāṭyaśāstra with Abhinavagupta's commentary.

Later texts like Saṅgītarāja can also be consulted when there is doubt."
 6

While a good text prepared through lower criticism is a pre-requisite for higher criticism, as

mentioned by Kunjunni Raja above, the converse is also true. Higher criticism quite often helps in

improving the text. While working for the Ph.D. dissertation "A Critical Study of the treatment of gIta in

Saṅgītaratnākara of Śārṅgadēva" I have myself discovered many better readings from manuscripts

which helped in correcting the text in the existing editions. In Saṅgītaratnākara, among the seven

chapters, the first one 'Svaragatādhyāya' has been well studied and to a lesser extent the chapters

'Nartanādhyāya', 'Rāgavivēkādhyāya', 'Prakīrṇakādhyāya' and 'Prabandhādhyāya". And since these

have been widely read and understood, the readings in these chapters have been, by and large, free

from disputes. It is however the chapters 5 and 6 that have only recently, in the last thirty years or so,

drawn serious attention of the scholars. And this has brought to light some better readings.

Secondly, Saṅgītaratnākara combines in itself a compilation of the information on the Saṅgīta of

the ancient period and a documentation of the Saṅgīta of its recent past. While the two printed

commentaries are of help in understanding the music of the relatively later period, the commentators

are to a great extent ignorant of the intricacies of the earlier period. It is Saṅgītarāja, which like

Saṅgītaratnākara, gives an equally authentic account of the earlier music. So it is Saṅgītarāja that we

should rely on for assistance in checking the readings of Saṅgītaratnākara. Of course one should also

be fully conversant with the contents of the earlier texts like Nāṭyaśāstra, Dattilam, Bṛrhaddēśī and

chiefly the AbhinavabhAratI commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra.

I am saying this not to belittle the efforts that have gone behind the earlier editions of

Saṅgītaratnākara. In fact, but for these editions, no research would have been undertaken at all. It is

just to reiterate my contention that lower and higher criticisms collectively help in gradually arriving at

a good text. I shall present below a few instances of readings from the existing editions which require

emendation.

1 In the third prakaraNa of the first chapter, Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I, Ad.edn. 1943, in the description

of Vādī, Samvādī, Vivādī and Anuvādī, we find Kallinātha in his commentary (p.92) referring to a

diagrammatic representation (Maṇḍala prastāra) for illustrating Samvādī etc. The printed text as

such does not contain any indication of that. However the AA edn. 1896 does carry two verses of

Saṅgītaratnākara but places them in the footnotes (p.44). These are –

yatrōrdhvam tiryagaṣṭau ca saptarēkhāḥ kramāllikhēt |

tāsu prāntEshu kōshṭhēṣhu lēkhyāvādyādayaḥ svarāḥ ||

vādyādi sannidhim prāptā grāmayōśca yathāśrutiḥ |

taduvācēti niḥśaṅkarāmō vādyādimaṇḍalam ||

It is not clear why the editor of AA edn. chose to keep these verses in the footnotes. The

Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I, Ad.edn. 1992 also includes these two verses but again in the footnotes. It

is quite likely that originally the text of Saṅgītaratnākara contained the diagram too, something in

the lines of what appears in Bṛhaddēśī. The manuscript no.PHO 23 TR 474 at the Adyar Library of

the commentary Saṅgītasudhākara on Saṅgītaratnākara contains many illustrations but they have

been left out in the printed edition.

Hence a careful scrutiny of the other manuscripts is necessary to decide on the inclusion of these

verses and the supporting illustrations in the main body of the text.

2 In the Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I, Ad.edn. 1992, in the eighth prakaraṇa of the first chapter, after the

description of the seven Kapāla-s and the text of the seven Kapālagāna-s, the notation of the

seven Kapālagāna-s with svara-s and text is presented, in the same printing type as the Jāti

songs.

Kapālagāna with notation appears in none of the earlier editions of Saṅgītaratnākara and other

works except Bharatabhāṣhya of Nānyadēva (vol.II pp.147-153, IKSV edition, Khairagarh). But in

Bharatabhāṣya the svara-s are different. It is strange that no source for this notation has been

mentioned by the editor of Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I, Ad.edn. 1992. A lay reader is apt to be misled

into

thinking that the songs form a part of the original Saṅgītaratnākara.

3 In the Prabandhādhyāya, after the Sūḍa, the Āli varieties are listed. At the end of the list the next

half-verse reads –

sūḍakramasya madhyē cēdasāvālikramō bhavēt |

This is the reading found in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I, AA edn. (4,27ab) and Saṅgītaratnākara vol.II,

Ad.edn. 1959 (4,27cd). SS-comm. seems to have a different reading of Saṅgītaratnākara. Instead

of "sūḍakramasya" it reads "sūḍakramastha". Saṅgītarāja (2.4.2.35) too explains it the way

Siṃhabhūpāla's commentary. reads it. The printed reading is that of Kallinṭha's commentary. The

variant reading is not given in the footnotes in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.II Ad.edn. 1959, which should

be rectified in the next edition. In fact it would be better to keep Siṃhabhūpāla's reading in the

main body as it is more meaningful.

4 In Saṅgītaratnākara vol.III, Ad.edn.1951, verse 5,10b reads –

syāttēṣāṁ mārgavaśānmitiḥ |

The corresponding reading in AA edn.5,10d, reads

syāttāsām mārgavaśānmitiḥ |
 8

Kallinātha's commentary. has nothing on this while Siṃhabhūpāla's commentary takes the

reading 'tēṣām' explaining it as "āvāpādīnām', perhaps the reason for Ad.edn. to adopt this

reading. However "tāsām" seems to be a better reading and a correct one too, for it stands for

"kalānām" and is also consistent with the pronoun "tāsām" standing for "kalānām" in

Saṅgītaratnākara 5,6cd, AD.edn.1951.

In the Saṅgītaratnākara vol.III, Ad.edn.1986, though the reading has been changed to "tāsām"

the editor has not cited any supporting source while the Siṃhabhūpāla's commentary reading

continues the same, namely, "tēṣām".

5 In the context of the Gītaka-s, while describing the Catuṣkala variety of Madraka, the different

editions, without exception omit a half-verse. After describing the 'Upōhanam' the

'Pratyupōhanam' ought to be described. The commentaries of Siṃhabhūpāla and Kallinātha

describe the Pratyupōhana but the following half-verse on which they base their description is

missing in the original text as printed in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I, AA edn. and vol.III, Ad.edn. 1951.

kalaikā dvē catasrōvā na vā syātpratyupōhanam |

This half-verse is found in the manuscript no.D.13019 at the Government Oriental Mansucripts

Library, Madras. The same half-verse is found to be included in the revised edition,

Saṅgītaratnākara vol.III, Ad.edn. 1986, but in the footnotes with a remark 'iti adhikapāṭaḥ'. It is not

clear why the editor of Saṅgītaratnākara vol.III Ad.edn.1986, did not include it in the main body

when both the commentators accept it and without which the description of the gItaka is

incomplete.

6 Varṇānukarṣhaṇam tālāvṛttirvāṅganivēśanē

is a half-verse met within the course of the description Ullōpyaka Gītaka. The text should read

"cāṅga" instead of "vāṅga" as is clear from the commentaries Kallinātha and Siṃhabhūpāla and

as also endorsed by Saṅgītarāja (2.4.1.149ab). And it is so in the mss.no.D.13019 referred to

above.

The reading quoted above uniformly figures in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I, AA edn. 5,117cd., vol.III,

Ad.edn.1951, 5,115cd and vol.III, Ad.edn. 1986, 5,115cd. However the vol.III, Ad.edn. 1986

supplies the correct reading in the footnote. This should have been included in the main body

when both the commentators seem to accept it.

7 While describing the tAla-structure of the principal section 'Vastu' of the Gītaka Prakarī, the text

reads –

turyāyām dvādaśastālaḥ pañcamyāmaṣṭamastu śaḥ |

in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.III, Ad.edn. 1951, 5,139cd

On the basis of this the kriyā should be 'śa', that is 'śamyā'. The 'Saṅgītasudhākara' and

'Kalānidhi' commentaries have this reading 'śaḥ' and interpret the verse in this manner.

But in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I AA edn., 5,141cd, and in the manuscript no.D.13019 referred to

above, the reading is 'pañcamyāmaṣṭamastu saḥ'. The editor of AA edn. has put 'śaḥ' in brackets

as a suggested alternate reading, the reading acceptable to the Kalānidhi commentary. However

'saḥ' seems to be correct.

The reading 'saḥ' would mean 'it' (literally, he), a pronoun standing for 'tāla' (a vareity of kriyā).

The meaning of the half-verse is-- "on the fourth (mātrā) the twelfth (kriyā) is tāla and the eighth

(kriyā) on the fifth (mātrā) is 'he' (it, i.e., tāla).

This interpretation is corraborated by the earlier works Nāṭyaśāstra, Dattilam, Bharatabhāṣya and

Abhinavabhāratī. Saṅgītarāja also echoes this and does not refer to any differring view. So it is

obvious that the manuscripts which Siṃhabhūpāla and Kallinātha used must have had the wrong

reading or they, ignorant of the tradition, changed the reading.

The Saṅgītaratnākara vol.III, Ad.edn.1986 which usually gives the reading of the AA edn. in the

footnotes has unfortunately ignored it in this case.

8 The Vardhamāna Gītaka has four sections. These sections, Viśālā, Saṅgatā, Sunandā and

Sumukhī are sometimes repeated in a particular sequence. In describing this sequence

Saṅgītaratnākara text reads

viśālā saṅgatā vā''dyā sunandā saṅgatā''dimā |

sumukīI ca sunandā''dyā saṅgatā ca viśālikā | |

This is the reading in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.I, AA edn. 5,205 and vol.III, Ad.edn. 1951, 5,208cd-

209ab. The mss.D.13019 reads "sunandākhyā" in the place of "sunandādyā", and this is also

given as the variant reading in the foot notes on p.147 of Saṅgītaratnākara vol.III Ad.edn.1986,

which helps in arriving at the proper sequence of the sections as prescribed in earlier works.

9 In the Vādyādhyāya, and in the context of Suṣiravādya, while describing the 22 kinds of Vaṃśa-s,

one and a half verses are missing in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.II, AA edn. after 6,597cd and in vol.III,

Ad.edn. 1951 after 6,597ab. These verses are present in mss.D.13019 referred to above and

explanations pertaining to these verses are found in SS-comm. Yet in Saṅgītaratnākara vol.II

Ad.edn. 1986, these verses have been kept only in the footnotes and not included in the body of

the text.

10 This instance has to do, not with the details of the contents of Saṅgītaratnākara but, with the form

of the work or the arrangement of various sections.

That Saṅgītaratnākara is divided into seven adhyāya-s is of course an indisputable fact since it is

mentioned by the author himself in the 'Padārthasaṅgraha'. But the sub-division of chapters 1 into

eight Prakaraṇa-s and chapter-2 into two as found in the AA edn. and the Ad.edn. is not

mentioned by the author in the 'Padārthasaṅgraha'. The uncertainty of this sub-division is

increased by the fact that Saṅgītaratnākara Cal.edn.1879 does not treat "Padārthasaṅgraha" as a

separate Prakaraṇa but just as introduction and thus "Piṇḍōtpatti" is the first prakaraṇa and there

are in all seven prakaraṇa-s in the first chapter in that edition. Commencement and conclusion of

each prakaraṇa is not pointed out by the two commentators in the course of the commentary. And

hence the colophon ending is the only indication, which in the case of the prakaraṇa-s is not

uniformly the same in all the editions and manuscripts, as different from the colophons at the

chapter endings.

For instance the manuscript no.1110 of Asiatic Society Calcutta has no colophon at the end of the

description 'Padārthasaṅgraha' and only at the end of Piṇḍōtpatti, Nāda-sthāna-śruti etc. we have

the suffix prakaraNa. Similarly ms.no. PHO 23 TR 474 of Adyar Library which is the

Saṅgītasudhākara commentary and the ms.D.13019 mentioned above do specify Padārtha-

saṅgraha as a Prakaraṇa. In D13019 conclusion of Jāti is indicated as merely 'iti jāti-lakṣaṇam'

and no colophon exists for the treatment of the Kapāla and the Gīti-s. Again at the end of the first

section within chapter II 'Rāgavivēkādhyāya', the colophon in some manuscripts like PHO 23 TR

474 and D.13019 mentions the first section as 'Vivēka' and not as 'Prakaraṇa', e.g.,

"iti grāmarāgōparāgarāgabhāṣāvibhāṣāntarabhāsṣā-vivēkaḥ'.

It appears as though the sub-division of chapters was more an informal separation of information

made by the commentators or by scribes. While Śārṅgadēva's name and other details appear

consistently and with the same words at the end of every chapter they are conspicuously absent

at the end of the sections within a chapter. Thus this is another area where some thought has to

be given to the validity of sub-divisions of chapters.

It would be clear from the above mentioned instances that the text of Saṅgītaratnākara has still

some way to go with respect to its 'critical' status. The examples cited above pertain only to the verses

and do not deal with the prastāra-s e.g.,

a) the Jāti-prastāra in chapter 1,

b) Ālāpa and Ākṣiptikā songs in chapter 2,

c) Gītaka and Dēśī-tāla structures in chapter 5 and

d) the Vādya-prabandha in chapter 6.

These would involve a still more serious study. Among the nine instances cited above, 2, 5, 6 and

9 could have been straightened out by the editors of the already published editions. But one can also

understand the fears of the editors in making modifications in the readings available to them. It is here

that findings of higher criticisms should be made use of.

Thus we see that while a good text is a pre-requisite for commencing higher criticism, higher

criticism in turn, helps in improving readings. In Saṃskṛta literature in Music, printed editions started

appearing from the middle of 19th century. Editions were brought out sometimes based on a single

manuscript and sometimes of texts, the contents of which have even to this day not been fully

understood. Considered from this point, the editions of texts published in later part of last century and

early part of this century have been excellent, not to mention the absence of printing errors. Thanks to

the availability of texts in printed form, study of music texts and research based on them became

possible. Now a stage has reached when findings of research in different areas of ancient and

medieval systems need to be tapped to improve the older editions. dattilam and Bṛhaddēśī have

already benefitted by this and time has now arrived for bringing out an improved edition of

Saṅgītaratnākara of Śārṅgadēva.