Geen zoekvraag opgegeven

Tekst
Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

translation into the language I B., which have been published by Mr. N.D Mironov in Bulletin de 1'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, VI serie, pp. 547, ff, in his paper on «Fragments de manuscrits rapportés par M. M. Berezovskij de Kuca» '.It is a matter of course that the fragments, even ifwe knew theirdate, do not afford a clue todetermining the time vvhen the text embodied in them was framed.

On account of the profound difference between the Kashgar version and the other text, chiefly in consequence of its greater prolixity, its various readmgs have been adduced only at passages where the wording of the phrase was not too different. As so the peculiar forms of words, several of t ïem recurring more than once, the reader is referred to the list given above.

In the metrical parts of the work the reader will repeatedly have occasion to hght on inconsistencies which the editors feit obliged to leave untouched. One of those consists in the irregular use of the Visarga It is sufficiënt y clear that in the dialect underlying the Gathas there is no place for the Visarga. This is proved by the fact that instead of the Sanskrit pluralending ah, Pali a, we here and there find *. Now such a shortening can not be explained if the original Prakftic idiom had not lost Visarga which ,s wanting already in Pali, and the dialect in question shows the traces of a somewhat later language, for instead of Pali ö (Skr. ah) in the Nominative case of masculine words a very common ending is aorw likewise for Pali am, Skr. am; for Skr. and Pali in the Locative case singular and ,n the Nominative plural masculine of Pronouns, we often find i; a form ahu for ;aham points in the same direction. The dialect is not only younger an Pali, but also different in other respects, though it has many traits in common. Whether the original of the prose in the Kashgar text was identica with the idiom of the Gathas, both being overlaid with a Sanskrit varnish, much more thoroughly in prose, than in the Gathas, can no morebeascertained. For obvious reasons the verses could not be sanskritized to such

T r thC Pr°Se' When readin£ the verses. especially those in Tri-

•sïubh andjagati, noonewill fail to observe that the sanskritized words spoil

ie metre, since prosodically short vowels remain so throughout before

consonant-combinations like jn, st, sth, etc. It cannot be admitted for a

moment that in any language, in verses regulated by quantity, short syl-

ables are unaffected by such combinations. We have, of course, no right

° change texts, wh.ch, though formally not original, have been fixed by

rection t TT °f \SaCred b°0k' bUt W ma>'ap^ the re^ired — rectionmentally. It is perhaps not superfluous to add that, with fewexcep-

Kucu»he BUSSiaa tiUe iS: "IZ mk°PiSnyeh materialov ekapedicii M. M. Berezovskago y

Sluiten