print refresh

PK AS 7H

Transliteration

Transcription

Translation

Philological commentary

The meter is 4 x 25 (5/5/8/7) until stanza 24 (a3), afterwards 4 x 15 (7/8 or 8/7).

a3. At the end of the line the name of the next meter would be expected to stand between || ||, approximately seven akṣaras. The form pklyauṣso shows syncope due to metrical reasons.

a5. One may consider a restoration (kälpā)sk(eṃ) at the beginning of pāda 1d. b1. Due to the Sanskrit parallel we know that this is a list of calamities: aśani-śuka-śalabha-mūṣika-kīṭa- “hail, parrot, locust, mouse, worm”. The last two appear in the next pāda in plural forms, while the loan word śalāpä seems to be uninflected; since there is no virāma written, it looks like, again, a case of preservation of final -ä in colon-final position. However, in the preceding lacuna there is space for four akṣaras, which are in fact needed for the restoration of still two terms. But this would make the pāda too long. In any case, the first word has to be tu(sa) or tu(meṃ).

b2. The second colon of pāda 4c has one syllable to many. It remains possible to read ṣpä as the more progressive form ṣp or ṣ.

b4. mna is the certainly the end of a plural noun referring to ‘gravel’, ‘pebble’ according to the Sanskrit text. The form had only two syllables. Since the fault is slander (Skt. piśuna-vacana-), the punishment also implies slanderous ground, i.e., slippery stones and pits. By contrast, the next fault concerning harsh speech (Skt. paruṣa-vacas-) causes harsh and rough ground, where it is painful to walk on. Therefore, the meaning ‘(pot)sherd’ for tarśke assumed by Sieg 1938: 39 is justified, even though it has no direct parallel in the Sanskrit original. At the beginning of the next pāda one may venture to restore re(ki käskaucañ tākaṃ ; wnolmi), because this fault refers to confused, senseless talk (Skt. saṃbhinna-pralāpa-). This restoration is based on the phraseology used elsewhere for the rendering of this fault, cf. TB käskau welñe and TA käsko weñlune (see Pinault 1999: 230).

b5. The hapax nom.pl. knerwanta should designate something like some kind of cliff, fissure due to the Sanskrit parallel (Skt. kandara-). Here we deal with landscapes which are confusing, through which there is no clear path. In pada 7c (sā)rmna lit. ‘seeds’ used as a generic term for ‘grains’ is certain, cf. the similar list in the following leaf PK AS 7I a1 (sarmana taisāk ra stāna) and also in PK AS 6D a3 pyapyaiṃ stāna sārmna okonta “flowers, trees, seeds, fruits”. Note that there is no mention made of trees in the Sanskrit original but various species of grain and rice. Apparently, the Tocharian translator adapted this passage more freely than usual.

b6. At the beginning of pāda 7c we can safely restore a possessive adjective from the abstract māntalñe matching TA māntlune, both known as equivalents of Skt. vyāpāda- ‘malice’, cf. Pinault 1999: 231.

Linguistic commentary

As in other fragments of this manuscript, we meet some archaic spellings and forms: kärpi (a1, for kärpyi, verse form of kärpiyi, nom.pl. masc. of kärpiye), ṣäññe (b5); on the other hand, we have a progressive genitive plural ending in yāmorntats (a5) and the late variant of the relative pronoun se (a2, for k_use ). It is striking that this variant is attested precisely in the colophon, whereas the text proper always shows the classical form.

a2. The plural form sutarma shows a simplification of the cluster rnm, which seems to be regular in classical language, cf. sutarma (B 33 b5, B 429 b3) and śastarma (B 110 b8, B 425 b1, B 428 b4, IOL Toch 543 a3). However, judging from the derivative sūtärnmāṣṣe in B 134 a2, the cluster was still present in archaic language.

a6. Sieg 1938: 36 restored a form śaṃtsnasa on the basis of Lévi's reading; it was taken as a perlative of a loan word from Sanskrit śaṃsana-. But that would mean that the TB form is hybrid as such a syncope of a middle vowel cannot be taken for granted. But the reading [t]ūsa is certain based on an autopsy of the original, and it is preceded by a word ending in -ts. It is possible to read and restore ś(r)amts, a borrowing of Skt. śraṃsa- = sraṃsa- "perishing, destruction".

b5. The adjective tsakātstse cannot be an epithet of kaumi, because it is apparently a singular form. It ought to be substantivized, to refer to a thorny landscape.

References

Lévi 1933: 92-93, 103-104; Sieg 1938: 33-40

Editors

Georges-Jean Pinault (in collaboration with Melanie Malzahn and Michaël Peyrot)

Bibliography

Lévi 1932

Lévi, Sylvain, 1932: Mahākarmavibhaṅga (La grande classification des actes) et Karmavibhaṅgopadeśa (Discussion sur le Mahā Karmavibhaṅga), Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Lévi 1933

Lévi, Sylvain, 1933: Fragments de textes koutchéens. Udānavarga, Udānastotra, Udānālaṁkāra et Karmavibhaṅga, publiés et traduits avec un vocabulaire et une introduction sur le «tokharien» par M. Sylvain Lévi, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

Pinault 1999

Pinault, Georges-Jean, 1999: "Restitution du Maitreyasamiti-Nāṭaka en tokharien A: Bilan provisoire et recherches complémentaires sur l’acte XXVI", TIES 8, 189-240.

Sieg 1938

Sieg, Emil, 1938: "Die Kutschischen Karmavibhaṅga-Texte der Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris", KZ 65, 1-54.