According to Sieg/Siegling, a nearly completely leaf. Today, however, the right-most part with the margin is missing, and perhaps some smaller pieces. The fragment THT 88 is the largest completed by THT 1924 to its left side. The leaf was carelessley restored before putting it under the current glas frame: a small piece at the beginning of line a 1 and line b 6, respectively, has been glued in the wrong way, so it has to be turned upside down; around the margins some folds are turned the wrong way.
There is now a lacuna in line a1 between lnaṣṣi and m(·)eṃ, while Sieg/Siegling read clearly lnaṣṣine || tumeṃ, and it looks like part of the paper has been wrongly folded to the other side; the fragments join right in the middle of ‹du›; the attested fragment ends with si. In line a2 the fragments join right in the middle of ‹ña›, the leaf ends with ‹wa›. In lines a3 the fragments join somewhere in the middle of the string hole, the leaf ends with ‹utta›, while the upper part of a following vowel sign e is still visible. In line a4 the left fragment reads up until ||, while the akṣara ‹tu› read by Sieg/Siegling is missing; the leaf ends with ‹lar[i]›. The left piece in line a5 ends with ‹lye›, an edge from the verso side with part of the ‹la›-sign has been folded over the verso side; the right fragment starts with part of the ‹pa› and ends with the dot. In line a6 the left piece ends with ‹brā›, the right starts with ‹rt(·)e›; in three places the paper has been wrongly folded so that the correct text is now to be seen on the photo of the verso side: the nn of r[t](·)enne, the middle of the akṣara ‹lkā› of lkāṣṣänme, and the lower part of the ‹ka› of mñcuṣke; the fragment ends with ‹rra›. In line b1 the framents do not join, the left fragment ends before the lacuna, the beginning of the right fragment is the correct place to put the small fragment mentioned in line a6, right where one can still see traces of the ‹[ly]mi› and ‹so› read by Sieg/Siegling; over the ‹ka› of kärtso a small piece showing the lower part of a ‹ka› has been wrongly glued; the fragment ends with kwātärne. In line b2 the left fragment ends with ‹wol[o]›, the right continues after the lacuna and ends with ‹ptsā›. In line b3 the fraction falls into the string hole, the remains of a sign visible after ś(·) must belong to a different piece; the right fragment ends with ñ(·). In line b4 the fraction again falls into the string hole, the right fragment ends with [p]·. In line b5 the fragments join completely at the beginning of lkāṣṣäṃ, the right fragment ends with yne, but the e-sign is lost now. In line b6 the u of mu from candramukhi seems to have been folded wrongly to the other side, the fragments join after lānte, the right fragment ends with ‹rudramu›.
[His] tongue was hanging [lit. going] out of his mouth. Thereupon the Brahmin Durmukha jabs the boy Uttara sharply with a reed root. After they had (put?) a ... [piece of] cloth (?) (onto his eyes/legs?),
they began to chase him hard. Because of the boy Uttara’s [mis]treatment—collapsing from [his] feet he fell, when he had tripped over some forest root,
onto his face—mud sputtered there from the ground [and] permeated it [= the face/cloth?]. Thereupon the Brahmin Rudraśarma grabbed the (pri)nce Utta(ra) by the ... [and] dragged him to and fro across the
thorny ground. Having seen this, a Tree god spoke with sorrow to his wife: “[My] love! Behold the inconstancy
of things [and their] non-lasting end!” || In [the tune] pañcagati || Still [his] father, the king, is alive. It is with difficulty [only] that he may be treated disdainfully, even by Viṣṇus. [And] yet his tender little son
those dastardly Brahmins drag [about] with furor. With a look begging for compassion that prince looks at them, full of love, as [he would look at] his dear father, but not a single one of them is to him
protection in that s(uffering)! 1. In [every] (di)rection his father turns; like a sea eagle he is keening incessantly. Full of love he calls him [and] cries for him. Where
he [= the king] tarr(ies) (walking?) to the places treaded by him [= Uttara], he even entrusts onto the animals [saying]: "if you see my little son that has been separated from me, do comfort him in my stead
on [his] terrible road!” 2. The Goddess speaks: “The father, the king, himself has brought to him this suffering: Why is he unhappy now?”
The Tree-god speaks: “Because of his wish for the dignity of a Buddha he has given him up. Do not blame him! Because of pain ... [his] heart is breaking com(pletely?).
But [it is] for [all] our sakes he endures [lit. sees] such suffering.” Having said this, the two gods went away. There, however, the Brahmins, going step by step in the meantime, leading the prince Uttara,
now brought him to the land of the king Candramukha. Thereupon the pupils, having entered the Brahmin village, spok(e) to the Purohita Rudramukha:
Some signs have been copied without diligence, e.g., märsā-ne for pärsāte in a3, sparkālye for spärkālye, śamāne for śāmane, and vipṇuntaṃts for vipṇuntaṃts in a5, lwāsāts for lwasāṃts in b2, ākemane for akemane in b6, etc.; often anusvāra is misssing, geminates are spelled with a single consonant or clusters are simplified (yamas-ne for yamast-ne in b4). The meter is also often incorrect.
a1-a2 A parallel passage now suggests a kind of textile or garment for the meaning of ṣorpor (not "bowl", which is the traditional interpretation triggered by ite "full"), see Schmidt KT 2001: 316 with fn. 93 and 94 and Pinault 2004a: 259. Due to the broken context and due to the fact that the hapax siñcai is not clear, the passage is not entirely certain. Schmidt KT 2001: 316 (who then must have had access to the now lost piece) wants to read in[eś] (eṃṣ)[k](e yā)mormeṃ instead of i[t]e and translates "after they had (pul)led(?) down a ... hood (?) into [his] ey(es)". Whether this is correct can only be verified when the missing piece has been found; note that ‹na› and ‹ta› are usually kept clearly apart in this manuscript, so that Sieg/Siegling's reading i[t]e, should not be dismissed easily, even if the sign [t] was read with some uncertainty. Differently, Pinault 2004a: 259f. restores siñcai ṣorpor ite (cewsa yā)mormeṃ and translates "having put trousers on him completetly provided with thorns", refering to similar punishments known from Indic literatures.
a2kālp from Skt. kalpa- here means ‘(mis)treatment'. The reading ‹wa› in warttoṣṣe is clear, the form seems to be a mistake for wärttoṣṣe. There are many misspellings in this fragment.
a3 The function of the dot after brāhmaṇe is unclear and probably just a mistake.
a5-b3 According to Sieg/Siegling, the meter has 21|21|18|13 syllables (a+b: 8/7/6; c: 9/9; d: 7/6). Very often the pādas have incorrect numbers of syllables.
a6 Pāda 1c has one syllable too many.
b1 The second colon of pāda 2a has one syllable too many; Thomas TochSprR(B)2: 242 suggests to read tu-yknes(a). Sieg/Siegling read śauśaṃ-ne in pāda 2b; since the original fragment is missing, it is difficult to judge whether this is a typo for śauśäṃ-ne or a misspelling in the manuscript.
b2 The verbal form wolo(kträ) has already been restored by Krause, WTG: 286. Schmidt KT 2001: 317 with fn. 100 claims that in the akṣara 〈mw〉 the 〈w〉 had been erased on purpose; he also reads and restores (tu)-maṃnte or (tu)-maṃnte "from there onwards"; however, this is impossible because the adverb mante in the meaning "from ... onwards" requires the ablativ, while the compound with the neuter te pronoun has the second member mant (te-mant "in this way"), never °mante. To be sure, the 〈w〉 may also simply be faint due to damage to the manuscript; as for the vowel above the akṣara, I also follow Sieg/Siegling in reading [e], because the sign as been attached on the left side over the 〈m〉, while an anusvāra ṃ would have been placed right in the middle over the sign. I follow the separation ente "where, if" propsoed by Stumpf 1971: 135f. °mw then can only be a sandhi form for °mu or °mu; Stumpf proposed yanmo "gehend" = "auf der Wanderung", while Thomas seems to propose an adverb "traurig".
b2 Both cola of pāda 2c have one syllable too many.
b3 The second colon of pāda 2d is one syllable too short, the missing syllable may be restored by restoring the sandhi form ytārine.
a4 Here we seem to have a phrase vṛkṣavāsike ñakte (lit. "a god inhabiting a tree"), while in b4 the Tree-god is a compound vṛkṣavāsike-ñäkte of the type kauṃ-ñäkte 'Sun-god'. But note that ñakte may also be simply a misspelling for ñäkte, since there are many errors in this text.
b1 Note the monophthong -o in snai-kärsto for snai-kärstau; the same monophthongized form is attested in THT 85 a 1, which belongs to the same manuscript, and there it is also at the end of a sentence. Accordingly, the form rather attests to a real monothong and is not simply due to a misspelling.
Couvreur, Walter, 1954c: "Koetsjische literaire fragmenten uit de Berlijnse verzameling (naar aanleiding van Sieg & Siegling’s Tocharische Sprachreste)", Handelingen VIII der Zuidnederlandse Maatschappĳ voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis, 97-117.
Pinault, Georges-Jean, 2004a: "Zum Tocharischen in der Turfanforschung", Turfan Revisited — The First Century of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road, ed. by Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst et al., Berlin: Reimer (Monographien zur indischen Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie 17), 256-263.
Schmidt, Klaus T., 2001: "Die westtocharische Version des Araṇemi-Jātakas in deutscher Übersetzung", De Dunhuang à Istanbul. Hommage à James Russell Hamilton, prés. par Louis Bazin et Peter Zieme, Turnhout: Brepols (Silk Road Studies 5), 299-327.
Thomas, Werner, 1975: "Zum Problem des Prohibitivs im Indogermanischen", Dialogos. Für Harald Patzer zum 65. Geburtstag von seinen Freunden und Schülern, hg. v. J. Cobet, R. Leimbach, A. Neschke-Hentschke, Wiesbaden: Steiner, 307-323.
Thomas, Werner, 1979b: Formale Besonderheiten in metrischen Texten des Tocharischen: Zur Verteilung von B tane/tne 'hier' und B ñake/ñke 'jetzt', Mainz: Verlag d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften und d. Literatur (Abhandlungen d. Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1979, 15).
Thomas, Werner, 1981: "Indogermanisches in der Syntax des Tocharischen: Zum Ausdruck eines Gebotes und Verbotes", Festschrift der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Wiesbaden: Steiner, 481-497.
Thomas, Werner, 1983: Der tocharische Obliquus im Sinne eines Akkusativs der Richtung, Mainz: Verlag d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften und d. Literatur (Abhandlungen d. Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1983, 6).
Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS): Tocharian Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection. Transcriptions prepared by Christiane Schaefer, transliterations by Tatsushi Tamai and Katharina Kupfer. Edited by Jost Gippert, Katharina Kupfer, and Tatsushi Tamai, Frankfurt am Main, 2000–2007; at:
Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B. Teil I: Die Texte. Band 1. Fragmente Nr. 1-116 der Berliner Sammlung, hg. v. †Emil Sieg und †Wilhelm Siegling, neubearbeitet und mit einem Kommentar nebst Register versehen v. Werner Thomas, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1983.
http://www.univie.ac.at/tocharian/?THT 88 Output automatically generated on Sun, 2015-01-25, 17:21:00.
Page cached on Sat, 2015-01-24, 04:28:22.
Page last edited on Wed, 2014-10-01, 13:57:04, by Bernhard Koller. Version 36. Page created on Sat, 2012-03-17, 18:49:56, by Automatic conversion.