Peyrot 2014: Notes on Tocharian glosses and colophons in Sanskrit manuscripts I

Tocharianand

Indo-EuropeanStudies

Founded by Jörundur Hilmarsson

Edited by

Birgit Anette Olsen (executive editor)

Michaël Peyrot · Georges-Jean Pinault

omas Olander (assistant editor)

volume 15 · 2014

Museum Tusculanum PressUniversity of Copenhagen

2014

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2014

Notes on Tocharian glosses and colophons in Sanskrit manuscripts I1

Michaël Peyrot

1 Introduction

In all find sites of Tocharian manuscripts, Sanskrit manuscripts have been found as well. e script used for Tocharian and Sanskrit from the “Toch-arian” sites is also the same, apart from specifically Tocharian akṣaras that occur only in Tocharian and specifically Sanskrit akṣaras that are rare in Tocharian. us, the production of Tocharian and Sanskrit texts was in all probability to a large extent a common undertaking. Tocharian colo-phons to Sanskrit manuscripts, both in Tocharian A and in Tocharian B (cf. e.g. Schmidt 1983: 279), further confirm this picture.

It does not come as a surprise, then, that the Sanskrit manuscripts from the Tocharian area, stretching from the Kuča to the Turfan regions, bear witness of use by speakers of Tocharian: numerous glosses show that Tocharian readers studied the Sanskrit texts. In spite of their importance

1 Part of the glosses discussed in this paper were also the topic of my lecture “Newly discovered Tocharian glosses in Sanskrit manuscripts from Central Asia” at the International Symposium on Central Asian Philology, 25 Novem-ber 2012, Minzu University, Beijing. I thank Klaus Wille (Göttingen) for bringing almost all the material presented here to my attention, for providing his readings of the relevant Sanskrit passages and often also of the Tocharian text, as well as for many important remarks and suggestions. For discussions on problems of Old Uyghur and the script, but also of Sanskrit and Tochar-ian, I am grateful to Dieter Maue (Cölbe). To the staff of the Orientabteilung of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin and the Département des manuscrits of the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris I am indebted for their kind assis-tance with checking the original manuscripts. I further thank Georges-Jean Pinault (Paris), Ilya Itkin (Moscow), and again Klaus Wille and Dieter Maue for valuable comments on an earlier draft.


michaël peyrot132

for the study of the exact sociolinguistic relationship between Sanskrit and Tocharian, for the way the Sanskrit manuscripts were used in prac-tice, and for the possible yield of new words and forms, the Tocharian glosses in Sanskrit manuscripts are not well studied. In many cases, for instance in the earlier volumes of Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfan-funden (sht), they were often even simply neglected. e most impor-tant exception is Klaus T. Schmidt, who has done an enormous amount of pioneering work in the field, deciphering a large number of glosses that are often exceedingly difficult to read (cf. 1983, 1990, 1994). Although many of Schmidt’s readings are not published separately, but only men-tioned in footnotes in the sht series, where there is no place for the nec-essary commentaries, their importance can hardly be overestimated. It should also be stressed that Klaus Wille has systematically treated the glosses in the later sht volumes.

Apart from the articles by Schmidt and the glosses in the sht volumes just mentioned, the most important publication on the topic is Malzahn (2007), who systematically lists the glosses read by Schmidt, and adds many readings of her own. To her article must be the added the glosses in sht 10 (listed in sht 10: ix2) and two articles by Maue (2009, 2010) that also contain important information, not only on Old Uyghur glosses to Tocharian manuscripts, but also on Tocharian glosses to Sanskrit texts.

In this article, I will present a number of newly found Tocharian gloss-es in Sanskrit manuscripts. Almost all of these have been brought to my attention by Klaus Wille, who generously provided his readings of the glosses and of the relevant Sanskrit text.

Unfortunately, a full systematic analysis of the glosses is not possible at this point: too many glosses still have to be deciphered and published.

2 In this list, SHT4300.9a (p. 356, gloss on p. 360) is apparently to be read instead of SHT4303. Note further that the unclear gloss SHT1423+4092v1 (= THT4085) [k· ś· c]aḵ⸜ (as read by Schmidt apud sht 6: 130; Malzahn 2007: 307) has been corrected to sagitaḵ⸜ in sht 11: 442, the Tocharian form of Skt. Sagītaka, the name of a nipāta of the Madhyamāgama. On the basis of the word sagitaḵ⸜ alone, it cannot be decided whether it is in Tocharian A or in Tocharian B.


Tocharian glosses and colophons in Sanskrit manuscripts I 133

Eventually, the glosses should be assembled in a systematic overview and provided with an index and an akṣara table; any correlations between the provenance of the fragments, the genres, and the glossing languages, ide-ally also comprising the Old Uyghur materials, should be studied; finally, we would need to know which words are glossed, what type of mistakes occur in the grammar and spelling of glosses, and which glosses seem to be correct notes on the original text and which are not.

e majority of the catalogue numbers in the following are of un-known provenance. Of those fragments whose provenance is known, the majority stem from the Turfan oasis. ere is no notable difference in distribution between Tocharian A and Tocharian B, apart from the fact that Tocharian A glosses have not been found in manuscripts from Kuča, as expected.

provenance Tocharian B Tocharian AKuča region MQ SHT221Qarašähär region Š SHT436 SHT412, SHT519Turfan region M SHT565, SHT1109,

SHT1121SHT1030, SHT1033, SHT1041, SHT1098, SHT1155, SHT1157

S SHT2054+2250 SHT1181, SHT4523“vermutlich Turfan-Oase” SHT1317, SHT1349

Some brief preliminary linguistic remarks may be made. e Tocharian B glosses often show features of the late language (see in general Peyrot 2008). Examples are: SHT2054b.r.x aimasu for añmassu; SHT2054b.r.y kāwañesa for kāwälñesa; SHT4413Ba kseññeṣṣe for kselñeṣṣe; SHT7191r.w swaromñesa for swarauñesa; SHT7191r.x snai miyäṣñe for snai miyäṣṣälñe. An orthographic peculiarity is the spelling of a for ä after consonants without Fremdzeichen counterpart (c, ñ, y, w), e.g.: TA SHT1098d.r4 klāwaṣträ; TB SHT4413Aa ñakciya; SHT5578Ba wanta‹re›; SHT2054b.r.y kāwañesa. Striking, and to my knowledge so far not explicitly noted, is the phenomenon that words are left unfinished, or perhaps simply abbre-viated: TA SHT1030r2 ka‹pśañi›; SHT1030r4 plā‹c›; SHT1098d.v1 śarkä‹s›;


michaël peyrot134

SHT1098f.r4 pk‹änt›; TB SHT2250+2054a.r.w pe‹lkiṃ›; SHT3354v1 yo‹tsi›; SHT5578Ba wanta‹re› (even though the restorations are obviously uncer-tain, the fact that these words would otherwise be incomplete is not).

Most of the glosses are from the Berlin collection (section 3), but two from the Paris collection have been added as well (section 4). ese two sections are preceded by a discussion of a few Tocharian colophons to Sanskrit manuscripts (section 2). e article is concluded by a word in-dex.

Please note that the capital “V” (Gm. Vorderseite) and “R” (Gm. Rückseite) of the sht volumes have been replaced by a small “r” and “v” to denote the recto and the verso, respectively. If not explicitly noted oth-erwise, the glosses are cited by the line number of the Sanskrit text above, which they normally refer to. e line numbers of the sht series have been kept, i.e. sometimes “a, b, c, etc.” or “x, y, z”.

2 Tocharian colophons in Sanskrit manuscripts

SHT221v4–5

TB [c]e postaḵ⸜ ṣa[m]ā /// … /// laikneṣṣe nau·i ///

is colophon, found at the end of Mātṛceta’s Prasādapratibhodbhava may be restored as se postak ṣamā(ne … paiykāte) … (pe)laikneṣṣe nau(m)i(ye) ‘is book (wrote) monk … the jewel of the law …’.

SHT436.8r5 (= Blatt 81)3

TB r[m]e paiy[k]āte pañäktiñe perneṣṣe akāl[k](·)· ///

is colophon, found at the end of Mātṛceta’s Prasādapratibhodbhava, and followed by the beginning of the Varṇārhavarṇastotra, may be re-stored as (ce postak ṣamāne mitrawa)rme paiykāte pañäktiñe perneṣṣe akālk(sa) ‘(is book) wrote (monk Mitrava)rman (in) the wish for

3 It is not mentioned in sht 1: 196, nor in Shackleton Bailey (1951: 150; cf. ms. B on p. 23; 1950: 674).



the Buddha worth’. Further names ending in -warme are: āryawarme, kṣemawarme, yaśovarme, ślawarme (= Śīlavarman). A name in -śarme (= Skt. -śarman) would theoretically also be possible.

SHT519.5v6 (= Blatt (12))4

TA wäryacandre daśabaḻ⸜ āsuḵ⸜ ś[ś]äḵ⸜ = wäryacandre daśabal āsuk śśäk ‘Vīryacandra passed Daśabala’

is line, found at the end of Mātṛceta’s Prasādapratibhodbhava, just as the one cited directly above, is written in a different hand. ere-fore, it may be a later addition, not a real colophon. On wärya- for Skt. Vīrya-, compare the Tocharian B names wäryacaṃndre, wäryaruci* and wäryasene (Pinault 1987: 186; Peyrot 2008: 55–56). Even though the sec-ond ś of śśäk is slightly damaged, the reading is certain. e remarkable form śśäk appears to reflect *ścäk, a kind of blend of śtäk and kcäk, the two competing 3sg.prt. forms of kätkā- ‘cross’. e combination āsuk kätkā- is given as ‘step over’ by Carling (2009: 58a). As pointed out to me by Georges-Jean Pinault (p.c.), this seems to refer to mastering of certain knowledge, perhaps a notion in the Prasādapratibhodbhava, or a text like one of the Daśabalasūtras (see e.g. Waldschmidt 1958; Wille 2014: 196). For this expression, compare MY1.2b7, where precisely āsuk śtä(k) is said of the eighteen vidyāsthānas.

SHT745r.c

TB /// pos[taḵ]⸜ − [mā]ne mo[k]· /// (Peyrot apud sht 11: 415–416)

is colophon may be restored as (ce) postak (ṣa)māne mok(ṣacandre paikāte) ‘(this) book (has written) monk Mokṣa(candra)’.5 e name

4 It is not mentioned in sht 1: 228, nor in Shackleton Bailey (1951: 150; cf. ms. D on p. 23).

5 In sht (l.c.), I had suggested (se) postak (ṣa)māne mok(ṣa…i ṣarsa papaikau) “(dieses) Buch [ist] (von der Hand von) Mönch Mokṣ[candra etc.] (geschrie-ben)”. However, as pointed out to me by Georges-Jean Pinault (p.c.), such a construction would require the oblique (ṣa)māneṃ. Ogihara Hirotoshi


michaël peyrot136

of the monk could also be restored with a different second compound member. So far attested in Tocharian B are the following names with mokṣa°: mokṣagupte, mokṣamitre, mokṣakṣite, mokṣawarme, mokṣasene, mokṣasome.

3 Tocharian glosses in Skt. manuscripts from the Berlin collection

SHT412.32r1

TA ño[m] = ñom ‘name’

Glosses Skt. adhivaca(naṃ) ‘appellation, name’ (sht 4: 64). Instead of ñom, we would have expected ñom. However, the reading of this akṣara is a little doubtful and it can hardly be excluded that it was in fact m.

SHT412.32r4

TA mā caṣ⸜ = mā caṣ ‘not him’

Glosses Skt. nemaṃ ‘not him’ (sht 4: 65). e Tocharian A gloss obvi-ously clarifies the sandhi form nemaṃ for na imaṃ.

SHT565r2

TB /// rwastaṣe = (a)rwastaṣe ?

Glosses Skt. skandhabījaṃ “was sich aus dem Stamm fortpflanzt” (Rosen 1959: 137). e interpretation is uncertain. Possibly the first part of the word is a form of or ‘wood, tree’, pl. ārwa, and the last syllable is certainly the suffix -ṣe for -ṣṣe. However, the middle part, which might also read sna, remains unclear.

(Beijing) suggested to me (p.c.) to restore (ce) postak (ṣa)māne mok(ṣacandre paikatsi yātka) ‘Monk Mokṣa(candra ordered to write this) book’. is is grammatically possible, but one may doubt that a monk could order a book to be written (Georges-Jean Pinault, p.c.).



SHT565r2

TB tarn·sai = tarn(e)sai ‘belonging to the top’

Glosses Skt. agrabījaṃ “was sich aus Schößlingen fortpflanzt” (Rosen 1959: 137). If the interpretation is correct, this word is an adjective derived from tarne ‘top, top of the head’, which matches Skt. agra- exactly. e suffix is -tstse, but simplified to -se, here in the obl.sg.f. that is normally -tstsai.

SHT565r2

TB – [tu]ṣe ?

Glosses Skt. sphuṭabījaṃ “was sich aus Blüten fortpflanzt” (Rosen 1959: 137). e Tocharian gloss is unclear. e suffix seems to be ṣe for ṣṣe, but the base remains obscure. Instead of tu, one might also read tuṃ. ere is probably no connection with the word tuñe, obl.sg. tuñ: the derived adjective of this word is attested as tuñaṣṣe, not **tuṃṣe; the gloss most probably consists of a third akṣara at the beginning; and tuñe is likely to mean rather ‘perfume’, not ‘blossom’, according to Ching Chao-jung (2010: 167–168; this volume, p. 39–52).

SHT1030r2

TA nākeṃ ka = nākeṃ ka‹pśañi› ‘the body of a snake’ (Schmidt apud sht 8: 187; Malzahn 2007: 304)

Glosses Skt. bho[g](e)[n](a) (instr.sg.) ‘coil (of a snake)’. is gloss was essentially deciphered by Schmidt: nākeṃ is an adjective derived from nāk ‘snake’. However, the following ka was left without interpretation. In my view, ka must be an abbreviation, since no Tocharian A word may end in -a. As bhogena refers here to the body of a snake, ka is probably to be understood as ka‹pśañi› ‘body’. Compare in particular the transla-tion from the Tibetan version of this passage of the Nāgakumārāvadāna by Vogel and Wille (2000: 67), in which the correspondences with the Sanskrit text are italicised in the original: “he saw (that) the whole room


michaël peyrot138

(was) filled with the coiled body of a serpent-demon.” If this interpreta-tion is correct, nākeṃ would be a nom.sg.f., identical the regular nom.sg.m. of this class of adjectives. Although this ending is indeed expected from *-eñña, it was so far not attested.

SHT1030r4

TA plā ‘speech’ (?) (Schmidt apud sht 8: 187; Malzahn 2007: 304)

Glosses Skt. mantrayaṃti ‘they speak’. Schmidt offers no interpretation of the gloss. To me it seems the most likely that plā stands simply for plā‹c› ‘speech’, only the first akṣara being noted as with ka‹pśañi› above. Another option would be that plā is to be identified with the word plā, of which the meaning is not fully settled, but which might mean ‘complaint’ (Peyrot 2012: 91–92). However, according to the context, plā‹c› is expect-ed, possibly combined with a verb like yām- ‘do’; compare the translation of the Tibetan version, with the correspondences with the Sanskrit text in original italics (Vogel and Wille 2000: 67): “While they were talking to one another, the exalted One in turn came to this region.” Note that the gloss is found very far to the left, i.e. only under the akṣara ma, which suggests that it glosses only very roughly the meaning of the root. As suggested to me by Georges-Jean Pinault (p.c.), the reason for the gloss may be the se-mantic discrepancy between the noun mantra ‘magic formula’, etc., and the verb mantraya- ‘speak’.

SHT1033r1

TA ywārckā ‘in the middle’ (Schmidt 1994: 269; Malzahn 2007: 304)

Glosses Skt. (a)nt(a)rā ‘in the middle’ (as shown by Schmidt l.c.). e gloss is read as ywār[ś]kā by Schmidt, but in my view the reading is clear-ly ywārckā. ywārckā and ywārśkā are variants, and the former is by far the most frequent (Poucha 1955: 252), so that there is no reason to read ywār[ś]kā.6

6 ere is a further, illegible gloss under SHT1033r5 ekapā(do). A cross above the line suggests that this is not a Tocharian gloss, but an addition to or a



SHT1041r(?)1

TA /// – rko mā = (pä)rko mā ‘arisen … not …’ (?)

Glosses Skt. /// [c]ch· t[ā] ///.7 is unclear gloss is followed by illegible traces of two more akṣaras that may belong to a next gloss.

SHT1041r(?)2

TA twāṣluneśi praṣtā ‘at the time of lighting’ (?)

Glosses Skt. – takāla[s]·,8 certainly the indication of a certain point in time. Although twāṣluneśi praṣtā ‘at the time of lighting’ seems to make sense in itself, the spelling is problematic: we would rather expect twāsluneṣi praṣtā. e large blank space before twā seems to exclude the restoration of a preceding syllable (e.g. (ri)twāṣluneśi praṣtā for (ri)twāṣluneṣi praṣtā ‘at the time of arrangement’).

SHT1041r(?)3

TA wṣeyis mosk[oṃ] pāyti wṣeyis⸜ malto[w]i /// = wṣeyis moskoṃ pāyti wṣeyis mältowi(nuntaṃ) ‘in the mosäk of the night – pātayantika. In the first [part] of the night, …’

Glosses Skt. /// [t]r· (–) ·dh· rātryā pratha[me] ///.9 In view of TA wṣeyis ‘of the night’ in the gloss, the first Sanskrit akṣara [t]r· is almost certainly to be restored as a form of rātri. Since the following rātryā prathame re-fers to a certain time of the night, this will be an indication of time as well, for instance (madhyarā)tr(au) ‘in the middle of the night’, a pos-sible restoration according to the remaining akṣara traces. Unfortunately,

correction of the Sanskrit text, most probably in Sanskrit.7 sht 5: 23 reads /// + + + + + [h]ṇ. .. + + ///.8 sht 5: 23 reads /// + + + + + takāla[s]· /// and considers to restore to

hemaṃtakālasamaye ‘in winter time’. However, as pointed out to me by Klaus Wille (p.c.), the akṣara preceding ta is certainly not maṃ (nor ma). Also the akṣara ta itself might actually rather be na.

9 sht 5: 23 reads /// + + .r. .. .c(a) rātryā pratha[me] ///.


michaël peyrot140

TA moskoṃ is unclear. I assume that it is a locative, that is, for expected moskaṃ*, which would give us a base mosäk*. If this mosäk* is related to mäwskā- ‘get lost’, a meaning like ‘end (of the night)’ could be envisaged (cf. ururātri ‘the latter portion of the night’, pāścāttyarātrau ‘towards the end of the night’). e second correspondence is straightforward, but the spelling mältowinu (or its locative) ‘first’ for maltowinu is remarkable.

SHT1041v(?)5

TA – ṣiṣ⸜ pa –⸜ = (tskā)ṣiṣ pa(t) ‘or if he burnt [it]’

Glosses Skt. /// vadāha[ye] ///,10 probably dāhaye(t) ‘if he burns [it]’ or (a)vadāhaye(t) ‘if he burns [it] down’. e final -ṣiṣ points to a 3sg.opt.caus., compare for instance lyutkāṣiṣ ‘he would turn into’, but the root has unfortunately been lost completely. On the basis of the Sanskrit text, a verb for ‘burn’ would be expected. A number of verbs qualify: tsäk- ‘burn’, pälk-caus. ‘burn, torment’, and perhaps twāsā- ‘burn’ (no causative attested so far) and sälp-caus. ‘make glow’. Of these, tsäk- seems to be the most neu-tral verb for ‘burn’, and the traces of the akṣara preceding ṣi appear to fit a reading (tskā)ṣiṣ⸜ best.11 On the basis of the following pa(t) of the gloss, Skt. vā ‘or’ may be assumed to have been lost after the verb.

SHT1098b.r1 (= THT4083b)

TA [k]·vāre oki = k(a)vāre oki ‘like morsels’ (?)

Glosses Skt. /// [ṭ]·kuṭṭā ‘crushing, bruising …’. e interpretation of this gloss is uncertain: the reading is not secured and the Sanskrit text is incomplete. If the gloss is read correctly, k(a)vāre may stand for kāpāre ‘morsels, bite-size pieces’ (Carling 2009: 113a). Since kāpār is borrowed

10 sht 5: 24 reads /// + + + + + vadāha[yi] ///, but in my view [ye] instead of [yi] is to be read.

11 It should, however, be noted that if this restoration is correct, the causative of tsäk- does not follow the pattern of näk-s-tr., as I suggested (Peyrot 2013: 842), but rather that of the much more frequent causatives with a subjunctive stem in -āṣä/sa-.



from (a Middle Indian form corresponding to) Skt. kavaḍa (see Carling l.c.), it is understandable that the word was spelled differently: both the short a and the v are closer to the Skt. form. e semantic connection may be understood as ‘crushed’ = ‘small pieces’. Even if Waldschmidt’s cautious restoration to (na)[ṭa]kuṭṭā “wie Spaßmacher” (in sht 5: 89) is correct, the Tocharian A gloss could be an “incorrect” too literal render-ing of only the last part of the word.

SHT1098b.r2 (= THT4083b)

TA kātkāśi ‘of the householders’ (Malzahn 2007: 305)

Glosses Skt. gṛhiṇo (gen.sg.) ‘householder’. Pace Malzahn (l.c.; accepted by Carling 2009: 111b–112a), who sees a connection with kātk- ‘be glad’, kātkāśi does not gloss the following word hāsyaprekṣy ‘makes laugh’. Apart from the fact that the gloss is actually found under gṛhiṇo, kātkāśi could not possibly be a form of kātk-: there is no agent suffix -śi v.s., and probably no stem of a causative of this structure would have a long ā in the second syllable, not even the subjunctive stem (Malzahn 2010: 216–217; Peyrot 2013: 128–129). Tocharian A kātkāśi, for kātkāśśi, is probably in the plural because this word has become a plurale tantum: no singular forms are attested at all and the nom.sg. kātak* (Carling 2009: 110b) is set up on the basis of plural forms. To the right of kātkāśi a further gloss hā is found, which clarifies that the first akṣara of hāsyaprekṣy is to be read hā: this akṣara is difficult to read and seems to have been corrected from p.

SHT1098d.r4 (= THT4083d)

TA klāwaṣ[ṯ]ṟä = klāwaṣträ ‘(s)he calls’ (Malzahn 2007: 305; Peyrot 2013: 743; 2013a: 243)

Glosses Skt. paṭhaṃti ‘they recite’ (Waldschmidt 1968: 106). Malzahn (l.c.) reads klāwatra, which cannot be correct, in my view. On top of the akṣara ṣ[ṯ]rä and horizontal line is found that is apparently not to be taken as an anusvāra; a suffixed klāwaṣ[ṯ]r-äṃ would not be expected on the basis of the Sanskrit text anyhow. klāwaṣ[ṯ]rä probably stands for


michaël peyrot142

klāwäṣträ* (with wa for wä), the 3sg.prs. of the otherwise unattested caus. klāw-caus. ‘call; recite’. Apparently, the 3sg. mistakenly glosses the 3pl. of the Sanskrit text.

SHT1098d.v1 (= THT4083d)

TA śarḵa [paṯ⸜] = śarkä‹s› pat ‘or he burnt’ (?)

Possibly explains Skt. pratikṛtaṃ vā ‘or paid back’ (on the actual meaning in the context, see below). is gloss is difficult to interpret for a number of reasons. First of all, śarkä seems to be only the beginning of a word, since no Tocharian A word ends in -ä and a corrected reading śark does not yield any known form. On the assumption that it is to be completed as a finite verbal form, the most likely verb from a grammatical point of view is kärk- ‘bind’, for which an s-preterite is attested. is would result in a 3sg.prt. śarkä‹s› ‘bound’. However, this meaning does not fit the con-text at all. A second verb fits the context much better: tsärk- ‘torment’. For this verb, the meaning ‘burn’ is attested in Tocharian B, and it fits the story inasfar as ultimately king Māgandhika pays back his daughter, who has made it possible that he has become king, by burning her rival and her rival’s 500 harem women (Waldschmidt 1968: 107). is interpreta-tion can, however, only be put forward with caution, since the Tocharian A verb tsärk- is only attested with a vn tsärślune ‘torment’, which may well have to be explained as an isolated remnant of a verb that has otherwise disappeared from the language. Nevertheless, this verb very probably did form an s-preterite originally (Peyrot 2013: 845). A further assumption that is needed is that the Tocharian glossator misunderstood the Sanskrit construction and glossed pratikṛtaṃ as if it were an isolated participle, i.e. ‘paid back’ (as it is translated above). In fact, it is part of a compound tense: kiṃ mayā tasyāḥ kṛtaṃ vā syāt pratikṛtaṃ vā “Was könnte von mir für sie getan oder in Vergeltung getan werden?” (Waldschmidt l.c.).



SHT1098d.v5 (= THT4083d)

[ñ]uñu ?

Glosses Skt. sthāpitāḥ ‘established’ (cf. Waldschmidt 1968: 108, “… Die dort (als Verwalter) eingesetzt waren”). is gloss, which might also have [n]u as its first akṣara, is unclear. At the right edge of the same line, a further gloss t· /// is found, glossing dvigu(ṇaṃ) ‘double’ or the following word, which is lost. Excluded are in any case TA wäṣt ‘double’ and treyo ‘thrice’.

SHT1098e.r1 (= THT4083e)

TA ane waṣta[ṃ]tu = ane waṣtaṃtu ‘inside the houses’

Glosses Skt. śayanā “Lagerstätten” (Waldschmidt 1968: 108). Admittedly, ane ‘inside, into’ is normally not used as a preposition, but only as a post-position or an adverb, usually following a noun (Carling 2009: 10). Nev-ertheless, taking it here as ‘into’ fits the context: the women are filling all possible storage place with (inflammable) substances.

SHT1098e.r1 (= THT4083e)

TA sakkāḵ⸜ = sakkāk ‘balcony’

Glosses Skt. karṇaprāsādāḥ (nom.pl.) “Ausbau; Erker (?)” (swtf: ii, 25b; Waldschmidt 1968: 108, “Ausbauten”). Even though the form of the word is a little surprising, sakkāk clearly stands for TA skāk* ‘balcony’ (teb ii: 156).


michaël peyrot144

SHT1098e.r4 (= THT4083e)

TA ets⸜ = ets ‘jealousy’ (Malzahn 2007: 305; Peyrot 2010: 137)

Glosses Skt. irṣyāko (for īrṣyako) ‘jealous’ (cf. Waldschmidt 1968: 109, “eifersüchtig”12). ets clearly stands for eṃts (Peyrot l.c.; not with Malzahn l.c. should we read pats⸜).

SHT1098e.r4 (= THT4083e)

TA yisli ‘envy’ (Peyrot 2010: 137)

Glosses Skt. matsarī ‘envious, jealous’ (cf. Waldschmidt 1968: 109, “nei-disch”). yisli stands for yäslyi ‘envy’ (Peyrot l.c.).

SHT1098e.r5 (= THT4083e)

TA paḵarkas⸜ = pakärkas ‘bind!’ (Peyrot 2010: 137)

Glosses Skt. badhnata (2pl.ipv.; for badhnīta, see Waldschmidt 1968: 109) ‘bind!’. e spelling of pakärkas is remarkable: it must stand for pkärkäs* (Ilya Itkin p.c.; not päkärkäs* as per Peyrot l.c.; 2013: 172).

SHT1098f.r3 (= THT4083f)

TA ridāṯ⸜ = ridāt ‘sought’

Glosses Skt. parimargati (3sg.prs. in past context; for parimārgati, see swtf: iii, 94a) ‘seeks about, strives for’ (cf. Waldschmidt 1968: 112, “forschte nach”). Obviously, ridāt stands for ritāt, 3sg.prt. of räytā- ‘seek’.

SHT1098f.r3 (= THT4083f)

yṟä[c]ai ?

Glosses Skt. kena (instr.sg., here interrogative) ‘by whom?’ (cf. Wald-schmidt 1968: 112). e gloss is unclear. In Tocharian A, we would expect

12 Waldschmidt reads irṣyako (l.c.), but the actual reading is clearly irṣyāko, as in sht 5: 91.



kucā or kucyo, which we definitely do not have here. Also a misspelling for e.g. TB mäkcai ‘which?’ seems excluded.

SHT1098f.r4 (= THT4083f)

TA riyac⸜ pka = riyac pk‹änt› ‘without town’

Glosses Skt. nirviṣayaṃ ‘having no place to live, banned’ (cf. Waldschmidt 1968: 11213). pka is probably to be completed (against the manuscript) as pk‹änt› ‘without’, but it should be noted that this postposition normally takes the ablative, i.e. we would expect riyäṣ pkänt.14 Instead of the all.sg. riyac⸜ one might also read an all.pl. risac⸜, though that is clearly less likely. e horizontal stroke over the akṣara pka does not look like an anusvāra and might instead be a mark that the word is abbreviated. However, this stroke is very similar to the one over TA SHT1098d.r4 klāwaṣ[ṯ]rä, which does not seem to mark an abbreviation.

SHT1098f.v2 (= THT4083f)

TA arṣānṯ-aṃ = arṣānt-äṃ (3pl.ipf.-3sg.suff.) ‘they caused him’

Glosses Skt. grāhayaṃti (3pl.prs., here in past context) ‘they took (him by his pride)’? (cf. Waldschmidt 1968: 113, “(bei seinem Stolz) packten sie (ihn)”). e reading of the anusvāra is uncertain since it has the same shape as the horizontal stroke over TA SHT1098d.r4 klāwaṣ[ṯ]rä and TA SHT1098d.r4 pka, where it is probably not to be taken as an anusvāra; here at least it makes sense in the context. e imperfect of ar- ‘cause’ was so far not attested (cf. Malzahn 2010: 542), but is fully regular. Perhaps the gloss indicates that grāhaya- is to be taken as a real causative, i.e. ‘made

13 Waldschmidt reads the rest of the Sanskrit line as te [v]yā(diśāmi ?) /// (1968: 112; sht 5: 92), noting, “Die erkennbaren Reste der ersten Silbe legen die Lesung [d]yā nahe, womit ich nicht recht etwas anzufangen weiß.” I would read nec[ch]ā ///, i.e. perhaps necchā(mi) v.s.

14 In order to solve this problem, Georges-Jean Pinault suggests (p.c.) to con-sider reading e.g. ri yac⸜ pka ‘you make the town …’, which to me does not seem to be better.


michaël peyrot146

him take’ (the meaning is listed as unclear in swtf: ii, 198a). In any case, there is no lexical link between Skt. grah- ‘take’ and TA ar-.

SHT1098f.v5 (= THT4083f)

TA ritwasi ‘to connect’

Glosses Skt. °yuktaṃ ‘fastened’, here ‘provided with’ (cf. Waldschmidt 1968: 11415). e infinitive ending -si for regular -tsi is common. e gloss [yapra] above the line is unclear. Perhaps pra is to be taken together with yuktaṃ below (the exceptionally low positioning of the gloss suggests appurtenance to the line below rather above) to read prayuktaṃ. e pre-ceding [ya] remains unclear.16

SHT1098f.v5 (= THT4083f)

TA wās[k]o = wāsko ‘movable’ (Malzahn 2007: 305)

Glosses Skt. āśudaṇḍaḥ ‘with a quick stick’ (cf. Waldschmidt 1968: 114). wāsko is a new word, probably ‘movable, quick’, derived from wāskā- ‘move’ following the pattern of nawo ‘roaring’ from näw- ‘roar’ and tālo ‘miserable’ from täl- ‘lift up, carry’. us, in spite of the fact that wāsko is clearly placed under °daṇḍaḥ, it certainly refers to āśu°.

15 Waldschmidt’s reading cakrayuktaṃ (l.c.), or ca[k](r)ayuktaṃ in trans-literation (swtf: ii, 212a), is to be preferred over ca[k](r)a[ṃ] yuktaṃ in sht 5: 92. e apparent anusvāra is part of a gloss.

16 An unclear: /// ·i glosses pariveṣṭuṃ ‘to serve’ at the beginning of the same line. is ·i can hardly be restored to an infinitive, since the consonant underneath seems not to be s.



SHT1109r117

/// jaṃ ?

Glosses Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 347 l. 23) (ūṣ)[m](a)gatalābhī ‘who obtains heat’. e gloss is probably not complete and may not be Tocharian.

SHT1109r2

TB? ku – /// = ku(śala°) ‘good’

Glosses Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 348 l. 3) kuśalamūlā(ni) ‘the roots of merit’. It is not certain that this gloss is actually in Tocharian B: it could also be a note in Sanskrit. e preceding gloss vṛ for vṛtti under parihīṇo ‘lost’ indicates that the commentary begins (Schmidt 1990: 474).

SHT1109r3

TB ketsi ve ‘why?’

Glosses Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 348 l. 6) apāyān yāti ‘goes to bad existences’. ketsi must stand for kāttsi, introducing probably a follow-ing explanation; see TB SHT1109v.y kāttsi ve below.

SHT1109v.w

TB – – [k]· [y]· [k]ā veṣ ma18 maskeṃntaṟ tusa [m]ā rittetṟa te m· [y]· = – – k· y· kā veṣ ma mäskeṃntar tusa mā ritteträ te m· y· ‘… Why are they no appearance? erefore it is not connected …’

17 is fragment was identified by Schmidt (1990: 473) as 6.22–23 of Vasu-bandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Pradhan 1975: 347–348). As a result, recto and verso had to be reversed compared to sht 5: 104–105 (see sht 6: 223), and several improvements in the reading have been made possible. On this passage, see de La Vallée Poussin (vol. iv, p. 173–177).

18 e spelling ṣ ma as one akṣara for expected ṣ⸜ mā is highly peculiar, should this be the correct reading.


michaël peyrot148

Comments on Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 348 l. 14) (apāyānāṃ kila v)y[āv]ṛ(ttatvāt) ‘because of the destruction of the bad existences’. e word veṣ also occurs in the gloss to the next line and may be a borrow-ing from Skt. veṣa (a.o.) ‘appearance’. mäskeṃntar has a for ä in the final syllable.

SHT1109v.x

TB /// lñe = (mā-nesa)lñe ‘non-existence’ ?

Glosses Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 348 l. 15) (asaṃbha)v(a)ḥ ‘im-possible’. e restoration of the gloss is of course uncertain: only the ab-stract suffix -lñe is preserved.

SHT1109v.x

TB apāyntane cme19lñeṣṣe ṣaṟam20 veṣ⸜ laṃsi ve21ṣ = apāyntane cmelñeṣṣe ṣaräm veṣ laṃsi veṣ ‘To leave the appearance caused by the rebirth in the bad existences – [that is the good] appearance (?).’22

Comments on Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 348 l. 16) trīṇy api itara ‘[One may remove] three [nirvedhabhāgīyas] and [become] another [Buddha]’ (cf. de La Vallée Poussin 1980: vol. iv, 175–176). ṣaräm is a late form of ṣarm (Peyrot 2008: 57). Similarly, the interpretation of laṃsi as ‘leave’ takes it to be a late form of lantsi. e following Sanskrit gloss [p]ṛthagjina syāt must stand for pṛthagjanaḥ syāt, probably to be un-derstood as a continuation of the Tocharian part, i.e. ‘[otherwise] he may become a pṛthagjana (ordinary man)’. Under the akṣara vi of the follow-ing vivartya in the same line, an indication vṛ for vṛtti is found, indicating the beginning of the commentary (see Schmidt 1990: 474).

19 e c looks rather like a ṣ.20 On top of this word an undecipherable further gloss is found: e –.21 e v looks rather like a ṣ22 is translation was suggested to me by Georges-Jean Pinault (p.c.).



SHT1109v.y

TB kāttsi ve ‘why?’

Glosses Skt. yāsmāt (for yasmāt23) ‘because’. kāttsi obviously marks dif-ferent sections in the Sanskrit text, apparently a following explanation. e element ve is unclear. Perhaps it is an abbreviation of the word veṣ, found in the glosses to the lines above? A similar gloss is found on the recto; see TB SHT1109r3 ketsi ve above.

SHT1121v124

TB ḵḻatse[man]· – = klätseman(ets) ‘of those who drive’ (Malzahn 2007: 305)

Glosses Skt. prativahatāṃ (gen.pl.m.) ‘of the rejected’ (swtf iii: 181a). Malzahn (l.c.) reads ḵḻaṅsā (–), but the second akṣara is probably tse with a very developed top of the t. e restoration of the final part is inspired by the following gloss, where at least the last akṣaras are clearer. e root may be that of 3sg.prs.mid. B3a3 kalṣtär, 3pl.prs.mid. B3a4 kältsenträ, tra-ditionally set up as kälts- ‘threaten’, on the assumption that klätseman(ets) is simply a misspelling of kältsemanets, similar to THT1524b3 präkare ‘long’ for pärkare (Peyrot 2010: 136). However, the meaning is now com-monly set up as ‘goad, drive’ (Malzahn 2010: 590–591; Adams 2013: 181), and it may eventually be the same verb as kəl- ‘carry’ (Peyrot 2013: 736). e simplest solution seems to assume that the Tocharian glossator took prativah- in the meaning ‘lead towards’ (cf. Monier-Williams 1899: 670a). Apparently, he understood the Skt. prt.ptc. as active; in principle, klätseman(ets) cannot mean ‘of those who are driven’. It should be noted that the Tocharian present participle is normally indeclinable: the gen.pl. ending here can be compared to rare genitive singulars that are calques on Sanskrit (Peyrot 2013a: 237).

23 Not in Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 348 l. 19), as noted by Schmidt (1990: 474).

24 e fragment has to be reversed compared to the edition in sht 5: 116; see sht 8: 195.


michaël peyrot150

SHT1121v124

TB [ś]· ·e[ma]net[s]⸜ = ś(auk)emanets (?) ‘of those who shout’

Glosses Skt. pratikrośatāṃ ‘of the scorned, the rejected’. Of this gloss, only the ending can be read with relative certainty, while the root is es-sentially illegible. Assuming that pratikruś- was taken as ‘shout at’ (cf. kruś- ‘cry out’ etc.), the gloss could be restored as ś(auk)emanets (on the gen.pl. see above under klätseman(ets)). However, it must be pointed out that the uncertain reading of the [ś]· is the only indication for this resto-ration: it has to be assumed that any trace of the vowel sign au has been completely abraded.

SHT1155A5

TA – śa [sū] wa[ṃ] su maṣ⸜ = – śa sū waṃ sumäṣ

Glosses Skt. (an)udagrā (nom.pl.m.) ‘depressed’ (sht 5: 153). e Tocha-rian A gloss is unclear, but very probably the final is to be identified as the nom.pl.m. of the adjectival suffix -um. e akṣara [sū] may alternatively be read [sra].

SHT1157v2

TA ywawon[ṯ] koṃ = ywawont koṃ ‘matured day’ (Maue 2010: 345)

Glosses Skt. vikāla° ‘twilight, evening, afternoon’. Maue (l.c.) reads ywawonṯ⸜ ko and identifies the gloss as Tocharian A, remarking that -ont is found “bei Adjektiven des Typs parno und PP des Typs kälpo.” Indeed, ywawont is probably a preterite participle of the verb yäwā- ‘turn towards’, also used in the sense ‘ripen’ (Malzahn 2010: 805–807; Peyrot 2013: 799). Apparently the present stem ywa- was reintroduced into the prt.ptc. of this verb, which regularly is ywo, obl.sg.m. ywont. Whether vikāla° is to be taken as “zur Unzeit” (cf. sht 5: 155) or simply as ‘in the twilight; in the evening’ remains to be seen.



SHT1181Ba

TA – nā[ḵa]m⸜ = – nākäm ‘reproach’ (Maue 2010: 346)

Glosses Skt. /// ·y· sy(ā)[t].25 Maue (l.c.) reads tāḵam⸜, in which he sees a 1sg.opt. tākim ‘I would be’. Accordingly, he reads the Skt. text as sy[ā](ṃ) []. Although I can offer no solution for the gloss, I think that the read-ing of sht 5 is correct:25 the p of p(a)ṇḍi[t]· is lowered and must be part of a compound akṣara; instead of syāṃ, we should have had syām⸜; and tākäm for tākim would be highly unusual. If nākäm is read correctly, it might be expected to have glossed a form of Skt. nind- or nindā.26

SHT1317B5

TA lyeñc⸜ = lyeñc ‘of the limbs’? (Maue 2010: 345)

Glosses Skt. tṛśākhaṃ (for triśākhaṃ) ‘three-wrinkled’. If correctly read, following Maue, lyeñc would seem to be related to TA lyā ‘limbs’. It would then stand for an adj. lyeñci of which the final -i is somehow missing, and Skt. °śākhaṃ would have been taken not in the meaning ‘wrinkled’, but as śākhā ‘branch, limb’. Especially the latter assumption does not ap-pear very daring, as the large number of glosses to this line proves that the glossator had serious difficulties understanding it. If the correct read-ing is rather lyāḵ⸜, which remains a possibility, this could simply be lyā ‘limbs’ with the emphatic particle -k.27

25 sht 5: 175 reads the line as /// + .. sy(ā)[t]=paṇḍi[t]. ///.26 e following gloss is clear (cf. Maue 2010: 346): TA knānmānaṣ⸜ for

knānmānäṣ (nom.pl.) ‘wise’ glosses Skt. p(a)ṇḍi[t]· ‘wise’. 27 Maue also read a number of further Tocharian A glosses on the fragment:

SHT1317B5 ānṯ⸜ = ānt ‘forehead’, glosses Skt. lalāṭo ‘forehead’ (Maue 2010: 345); SHT1317B5 [pra]śa[r]i or [ñu]śa[r]i, unclear, glosses bhṛkuṭi ‘contraction of the brows’ (Maue 2010: 345, who reads + śari[?]); SHT1317B5 m[ā]ḻ⸜ = māl, apparently also attested A275a5, glosses Skt. khusta ‘bald, old’ (swtf: ii, 157b; Maue 2010: 346, who rightly discards the reading maṃtra of sht 5: 218; on the meaning of māl see now Ilya Itkin, this volume, p. 74–75).


michaël peyrot152

SHT1317B6

TA [ma]ṯ (?)

Glosses Skt. – m (a)bhyāhat(am) ‘struck …; afflicted with …’.28 e gloss is read as [ ]wāt by Maue (2010: 346), and could perhaps also be read – p or [ḵa]ṯ. If the correct reading is [ma]ṯ, it could be a 1pl.prt.mid. verbal form. In view of the Sanskrit text, one might also consider (na)kät ‘per-ished, was destroyed’.

SHT1349b.v2

TA ·[n]e·i [y]· – [ḻ](⸜) = (y)ne(ś)i y(āmä)l ‘to be made manifest’

Glosses Skt. duranubodhaḥ (sht 5: 238; sht 7: 293) ‘difficult to be recol-lected’. Just as with the following gloss, the reading of this one is uncer-tain because the paper is wrinkled and the ink abraded. e first word is damaged, but the restorations comply at least with the remaining traces. However, the second akṣara of the second word, which is not particularly abraded, does not at first sight look like ma; nevertheless, it might be a damaged variant of it. (y)ne(ś)i y(āmä)l, if that is the correct reading, may result from a confusion of yneś yām- ‘realise’ (Meunier 2013: 133–134) and the adj. yneśi ‘manifest’. e prefix dur- is most probably simply not translated because its meaning was obvious; thus the gloss only translates °anubodhaḥ. It must be admitted, however, that this translation is not exact.

SHT1349b.v2

TA mā paḻ(·)aṅ[k]ā – = mā päl(ts)äṅkā(si) ‘not to think’

Glosses Skt. atarkyo (sht 7: 293) ‘incomprehensible, surpassing thought or reasoning’. e reading of this gloss is especially uncertain, as the pa-per is wrinkled and the ink abraded. No trace of ink can be discerned under the ḻ, where ṯs would be expected. On the other hand, there are in

28 Probably so to be read rather than .. [s](ta)bhyā han. /// as in sht 5: 218.



fact slight ink traces after ṅ[k]ā, so that a further akṣara must probably have been there. An alternative reading mā päl(ts)äṅkā(l) ‘should not be thought’ with a prs.ger. seems also possible. Semantically more suitable would be a sbj.ger. mā pältskāl ‘not possible to think’, but this is clearly excluded by the remaining akṣara traces.

SHT1402r1

TB eṅk[t]sitse = eṅktsitse ‘of taking’

Glosses Skt. saṃ(gra)haṇārthaṃ “zum Zweck des Ergreifens” (swtf: iv, 262a). is gloss is not mentioned in sht 5: 249 or sht 9: 91.

SHT1402r5

/// – [s]i [p]ā ·e /// ‘?’

Glosses Skt. māyāṃ cāhaṃ ‘and I [know] magic’ (cf. Waldschmidt 1981: 497, who notes on the next page that māyā is here to be understood in the negative sense of ‘fraud, deceit’). e gloss is unclear, but probably in Tocharian B in view of the other gloss in r1 (see above). Nevertheless, the hand is clearly different. sht 9: 91 reads the gloss as .i .. ..

SHT1821B5

TA wäśśitsuneyā (perl.sg.) ‘with ease’ (Schmidt apud sht 8: 18; Malzahn 2007: 311)

Glosses Skt. sugamatvān (abl.sg.; for sugamatvāt in sandhi before n) ‘with easiness’. Schmidt (l.c.) rather reads wäśśitsune[y]ā(ṣ⸜), apparently con-fusing the perlative in -ā with the ablative in -ṣ. As pointed out by Schmidt in a later publication (1999: 284), wäśśitsune is an abstract derived from an adjective wäśśi that is actually attested in MY3.8a7 mā täm wäśśi ānant märkampalṣināp prucca(mñe) ‘It is not easy, Ānanda, (to describe?) the advantage of the law.’ A connection with TA wäṣt ‘double’ as suggested by Ji (1998: 180) is formally attractive, but semantically far from obvious.


michaël peyrot154

SHT2054b.r.x

TB aimasu ‘wishing’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 59; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.48d (ārur)ukṣa(ṃ) ‘wishing to ascend’. e classical form would be añmassu (Adams 2013: 43); aimasu is probably a late vari-ant of it, although the precise status of the variant āyme of the base word āñme ‘soul, self ’ has not been settled yet (cf. Peyrot 2008: 159–160).29

SHT2054b.r.y

TB kāwañesa ‘by killing’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 59; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.49d hiṃsrā° ‘cruel, murderous’, a text variant found in this fragment, the correct reading of the Buddhacarita text being rather hiṃsā° ‘injury’ (Hartmann 1988: 60; Johnston 1935–36: i, 18). e classical form would be kāwälñesa (as in B358b3 kāwälñemeṃ, though we also find B102.3 kāwalyñesa): note the late simplification of lñ to ñ and the spelling of wä as wa.

SHT2054b.v1

TB [p]r·30m⸜-[ñ]äkte ram⸜ = pr(a)m-ñäkte ram ‘like Brahman’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 60; Malzahn 2007: 313)

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.51d (ka) iv’ ‘like Ka’. Apparently, the glossator preferred to replace Ka by the more common Brahman. Note late ram for class.

29 Most forms are from late texts or texts with late features: B289a5 āymtsa (late), B330a1 āymesa (late), THT1393c.a3 āyme (fragmentary), THT1575a.a5 āym° ? (late), THT1635a.b5 āym (Tocharian text fragmentary). e problem is that we also find one archaic attestation: THT1214b4 aymäntse. A similar variation is found with añmālaṣke ‘pitying’ and the derived abstract: THT1298b1 aym(ā)lāṣke (perhaps arch.), IT139a5 āymelaṣkäññesa (a text with both arch. and late features).

30 A tiny piece of paper seems to cover the upper left stroke of the p.



ramt. Conversely, the vocalism of ñäkte seems clear and the expected late ñikte is not found. A trace of a further gloss is found right of ram⸜ under Bc.2.51d ād(ikale) ‘in the beginning’.

SHT2054b.v2

TB /// lki(·) walo tāka = (pe)lki(ṃ) walo tāka ‘because [of …] he was a king’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 60; Malzahn 2007: 313)

Seems to gloss Skt. Bc.2.52d dadarśa ‘he regarded’ (Olivelle 2008: 55), if we understand it as an explanatory gloss clarifying that dadarśa here effec-tively means ‘reigned over’. Schmidt (l.c.) reads (pe)lkiṃ, but no anusvāra is visible; the dot to the left of the l probably belongs to the body of the l.

SHT2054b.v2

TB kamāte ‘brought’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 60; Malzahn 2007: 313)

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.53a babhā(ra), here ‘fostered’ (Olivelle 2008: 55), ‘main-tained’ (Johnston 1935–36: ii, 30). kamāte, the 3sg.prt. of pər- ‘bring’, is written a little higher than tāka, the last word of the gloss to the left (see directly above), and so apparently does not belong to it.

SHT2054b.v3

TB [y]amate = yamate ‘he did (?)’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 60; Malzahn 2007: 313)

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.53d (āca)kāṃkṣe (v.l. of ācakāṅkṣa, Johnston 1935–36: i, 19) ‘expected; desired’ (Olivelle 2008: 55, ‘sought’). yamate is no regular form of any known Tocharian B verb. Closest in form would seem to be yamaṣṣate ‘he did’, for which it could be a mistake. If so, this would at once explain why the first and second syllable both have short a: in a reg-ular non-causative preterite the second should be long, in a regular causa-tive preterite the first. is mistake may have been favoured by the fact that in the late language the classical preterite with a 3sg.mid. yamaṣṣate


michaël peyrot156

had developed into a shorter stem with a 3sg.mid. maṣṣate* (the late stem is so far only attested in the active, i.e. 3sg. maṣṣa; Peyrot 2008: 160). yam- ‘do’ is frequently used in phrasal verbs, and was probably used with a preceding frozen noun here as well, even though a suitable combination is not attested so far (cf. Meunier 2013). A further, fainter gloss is found to the right, starting with ra ///.

SHT2250+2054a.r.w

TB /// [n]m·meṃ [ta]rkatsitse pe = (śanmā)nm(a)meṃ tarkatsitse pe‹lkiṃ› ‘in order to let go from [its] bonds’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 58; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.13.66d (jagadbandhana)mokṣah(etoḥ) ‘to free the world from its bonds’ (Olivelle 2008: 395). Schmidt (l.c.) restores pe(lykiñ), but in view of SHT2054b.v2 (pe)lkiṃ and the fact that pelkiṃ and pelykiṃ are clearly later forms of pelkiñ (Peyrot 2008: 81), I prefer pe‹lkiṃ›. It should be noted that ‹lkiṃ› has to be added against the manuscript: there is no trace of an akṣara following pe, even though there is enough space. In-terestingly, pe seems to be written over a fainter gloss, also [p]·; see also the gloss discussed directly below. Finally, the three Tocharian words are written separately, so that it would also possible to distinguish three gloss-es: (śanmā)nm(a)meṃ under °bandhana°; tarkatsitse under °mokṣa°; and pe‹lkiṃ› under °h(etoḥ).

SHT2250+2054a.r.y

TB [wa]rṣaḻ⸜ vajropam⸜ ompol[s](·)[o] /// = warṣäl vajropam ompols(k)o(ññetse) ‘the energy (of) vajropama meditation’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 58; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.13.68d vegaṃ samādher ‘the intensity of trance’ (Olivelle 2008: 397).31 Remarkably, this gloss has been written in blacker ink with

31 Traces of a further gloss are found under SHT2250+2054a.r.z Bc.13.69c (na kṣa)mam a(dhruvā) ‘not suitable … not permanent’, most probably two akṣaras, but unfortunately illegible.



a thicker line through an original gloss in fainter ink with a thinner line. e original gloss is no longer recoverable, it seems: between [wa] and rṣa one can read r, possibly with an akṣara in virāma following. Dots over the r, i.e. rä, probably do not belong to it. Between jro and pa there is an akṣara pa; on top of pa the vocalism ·o of an akṣara underneath is still visible, and traces of another one to the left. To the right of mpo (actually on top of its p), a trace of lo can be seen, with a further akṣara to the right, perhaps [y]·. Under Skt. pade kiṃ of the next line, ·[e] – ñ[e] can be read. e occurrence of vajropam in the gloss is remarkable, since there is no mention of a specific type of meditation in the Sanskrit text. e word ompols(k)o(ññe) ‘meditation’ (or probably ompols(k)o(ññetse) if it is in the genitive) is a late form of class. ompalskoññe. Although this word is not discussed in Peyrot (2008), the vowel change observed is obviously parallel to oṅkarño ‘porridge’ > late oṅkorño (o.c. 172–173).32

SHT2250+2054a.v1

TB spelke ‘effort’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 58; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.13.70c °udyamaḥ ‘effort’ (cf. Olivelle 2008: 397). e pre-ceding glosses /// no and teta – /// (found on fragment SHT2250) are un-clear. no may clarify that the last akṣara of vimano ‘dejected’, under which it is placed, is indeed to be read no. e next gloss teta – /// could also be read tena – /// and is found under hata° ‘struck’.

SHT2250+2054a.v1

TB prerentsa (perl.pl.) ‘by arrows’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 58; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.13.70d śarair (instr.pl.) ‘by arrows’ (cf. Olivelle 2008: 397).

32 e variant ompolskoññe is further found in three clearly late fragments: B296b6 (⸗mpolskoññe) = B297b[frgm.3].b7 and B586.7. A further instance of the same sound law is postonont ‘later’ for class. postanont (cited by Adams 2013: 436, without press mark).


michaël peyrot158

SHT2250+2054a.v2

TB retke ‘army’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 58; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.13.71c camū (for camūr) ‘army’. Under tke a fainter akṣara is found that might be re (= retke). To the right of camū a vertical line was added later, possibly to indicate the caesura (a similar line is drawn through the visarga of Bc.13.70c °udyamaḥ, for which see above).

SHT2250+2054a.v2

TB kakāwaṣ⸜ saswetse ram⸜ = kakāwaṣ säswetse ram ‘like of a lord [who is] killed’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 58; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.13.71d hatāśrayeva ‘like [when] the chief is killed’ (cf. Olivelle 2008: 397). Under kakāwaṣ⸜ a fainter gloss kak[ā]waṣ⸜ is found, whose last akṣara ṣ⸜ is placed to the right of the end of the darker gloss. Likewise, a fainter akṣara is found under the akṣara sa, possibly also sa. Finally, the gloss is after the akṣara m⸜ followed by a faint [se] that does not seem to belong to it. Note the late forms säswetse for säswentse and ram for ramt. e Sanskrit compound is not followed literally in the Tocharian gloss: the prt.ptc. kakāwaṣ concords with säswetse;33 and the gen.sg. of säswetse is probably to be understood as ‘like (the army) of a lord [who is] killed’, although this word order is normally hardly possible in Tocharian.

SHT2250+2054a.v3

TB katkemane ‘rejoicing’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 58; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.13.72c vipāpmā ‘free from suffering’, a variant reading of this manuscript for Johnston’s sahāsā ‘smiling’ (1935–36: i, 156; cf. Hart-

33 Schmidt’s reading kakāwas⸜ (l.c.) is a typographical error. In my view, there is no reason to expect a nom.sg.f. kakāwuṣa (i.e. kakāwusa), pace Malzahn (2010: 606) .



mann 1988: 59, who considers sahāsā the correct reading). Interestingly, this gloss is preceded by a faint sahā·[ā], which indicates that the glossa-tor preferred sahāsā to vipāpmā. Remarkably, the Tocharian gloss also seems to be based on sahāsā, not on vipāpmā, as pointed out already by Hartmann (l.c.). e gloss katkemane covers two fainter akṣaras that seem to be again ka[t]ke; a third akṣara now undecipherable may have followed.

SHT2250+2054a.v3

TB ipr[e]ṟ⸜ = iprer ‘sky’ (Schmidt apud Hartmann 1988: 58; Malzahn 2007: 312)

Glosses Skt. Bc.13.72c dyau(ś) ‘sky’.

SHT3354v1

TB māla [y]o = māla yo‹ksi› ‘to drink alcohol’

Glosses Skt. surāpānam ‘drinking liquor’. ere seem to be no further traces after [yo], but it cannot be excluded completely that the reading should be [yo] –. Although several Tocharian glosses on this fragment are deciphered by Schmidt (apud sht 10: 5134), this gloss has been left unmentioned.

SHT3354v3

TB mn· = (śā)mn(a) ‘men’ ?

Glosses Skt. (puru)[ṣ](aṃ) ‘man’ (sht 10: 50). e gloss is found on top of the akṣara ti of v4 (dhva)ṃ(sa)ya[ṃ]ti, on a loose piece in the frame that directly joins the main fragment.

34 One of these is SHT3354v3 āñu po ok raṃtar⸜ “(übe) das Aufhören, [und] du wirst alle acht aufgeben!” (found on the joined fragment SHT1914). Unfortunately, I cannot confirm Schmidt’s reading; to me, this gloss is essentially illegible.


michaël peyrot160

SHT3405v.a

e[t]t[e] y·ā ? (Schmidt apud sht 10: 63)

Glosses Skt. /// + [h]. toparigraheva (sht 10: 6335). Schmidt (l.c.) reads: “estiyā[r]*; verschrieben für etsiyār (für eṃtsiyār), das als opt. 1. sg. Ā. der Wurzel ents- („ergreifen“) – die erste bisher entdeckte, von einem Konjunktivstamm gebildete Dualform des Tocharischen überhaupt – zu bestimmen ist.” It is not quite clear to me what is meant here. It can-not be a 1sg.opt.mid. because that would certainly be eṃtsimār. Should it be a 1du.opt.mid., then the remarkable thing is not that it is an optative (formed from the subjunctive stem), but the mere fact that it is a first per-son dual: in Tocharian A, only a 3du.prt. and a du.ipv. are attested (both active).36 ere are other problems as well: the reading is far from obvious and it is not clear how the gloss relates to the Sanskrit text in Schmidt’s interpretation: a 1du.opt.act. would be parigṛhṇīyāva, for instance. If the gloss is not in Tocharian A, but in Tocharian B, the first two akṣaras may be ette ‘down’ or ente ‘then’;37 also e[ś]ne ‘eyes’ might be a possible read-ing. e third akṣara may read y[w]ā, which could be an abbreviation of ywārc ‘half ’. Unfortunately, these suggestions offer no connection to the Sanskrit text.

SHT4201B2

TA /// nyātune ḻakñam = nyātune läkñam ‘I will hang up …’ (Schmidt apud sht 10: 313)

Glosses Skt. s(a)ṃmod(a)y(āmi) ‘I carry on a salutatory conversation’ (Edgerton 1953: ii, 581b). Schmidt (l.c.) reads läṃkñam for expected läṅkñam, but there is no trace of an anusvāra. e velar nasal may simply have been lost in the cluster ṅkñ. As noted by Schmidt, the restoration of

35 Perhaps to be read parigrahe ca ‘and in possession’?36 In Tocharian B, more dual endings are attested: 3du.prs.mid., 3du.prt. (or

perhaps 3du.sbj.), du.ipv.mid. However, no 1du. endings are attested either.37 Perhaps rather the former, because in the late language inte seems to be

replacing older ente (Peyrot 2008: 172).



the preceding noun, which may also be read tyātune, is uncertain and the relation of the gloss to the Sanskrit text is unclear. In my view a further possible reading is kyātune, which would make a restoration (ā)kyātune possible. is could be an abstract derived from a borrowing from Skt. ākhyāta ‘declared’, etc. i.e. ‘declaration’. But even if this speculative resto-ration is correct, the combination with the verb länk- ‘hang up, let dangle’ remains mysterious.

SHT4250B2

TA paḻ⸜[t]sk[ā] yatṟa = pältskā yaträ ‘he does with his mind’ (Schmidt apud sht 10: 336)

Glosses Skt. upalakṣayati ‘he observes’. Schmidt (l.c.) reads paḻ⸜skā yatra, but I think that a trace of the expected t can be seen.

SHT4413Aa

TB ñakciya ‘divine’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 26)

Glosses Skt. [v]y·, which can be restored as (di)vy· ‘divine’ on the basis of the gloss (perhaps (di)vy(ā), since ñakciya is nom.sg.f.). Note the spelling ña for regular ñä in the first syllable. Under the next line the first akṣara of a further, so far undeciphered gloss is found: TB (?) [w]ä under Skt. SHT4413 Ab sarvabhā [t]· ‘shining in all directions (?)’.38 If the reading is in fact [ḻ]ä, the gloss may have been ḻä(ktsetse) v.s. (for class. läkutsetstse) ‘brilliant’.

SHT4413Ba

TB kseññeṣṣe ‘belonging to nirvāṇa’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 26)

Glosses Skt. niḥśreya[s](a) ‘most excellent; ultimate bliss’. Note that kseññe° is a late form for kselñe ‘nirvāṇa’ (Peyrot 2008: 64). Over line Ba a further gloss is found: TB ratrona (pl.f.) ‘red’, but unfortunately the Sanskrit line to which this gloss belonged is not preserved.38 sht 11: 26 reads sarvabh[ā] –.


michaël peyrot162

SHT4438r.d

TA ḵarsn[ā]ḻ⸜ = kärsnāl ‘to be known’ (Schmidt 1983: 279; Peyrot apud sht 11: 34)

Glosses Skt. jñeyaś ‘to be known’.

SHT4438r.e

TA yso /// = yso(mo) ‘altogether’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 34)

Glosses Skt. samagrā /// ‘all’.

SHT4438v.a

TA eṃ – [lu]neyä[ṣ]⸜ = eṃ(tsā)luneyäṣ (abl.sg.) ‘because of taking’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 3439)

Gloss Skt. p(a)rigraha° ‘possession; taking’. Although it is part of a com-pound p(a)rigrahakṛt· (see directly below), eṃ(tsā)luneyäṣ glosses only p(a)rigraha°. e precise function of the ablative of eṃ(tsā)luneyäṣ re-mains unclear: in any case, together with the following gloss yāmunt it does not form a coherent whole.

SHT4438v.a

TA yāmu[nṯ]⸜ = yāmunt ‘done’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 34)

Gloss Skt. °kṛt· ‘done’. As noted directly above, yāmunt glosses °kṛt· sepa-rately; there appears to be no syntactic relationship with the preceding gloss. yāmunt can be obl.sg.m. or pl.f.

SHT4438v.b

TA – ḻ(⸜) mā [y]aḻä⸜ = (ya)l mā yal ‘to be done [and] not to be done’ (Schmidt 1983: 279; Peyrot apud sht 11: 34)

39 Rather not eṃ(tsā)luneyaṣ (pace Peyrot l.c.). Also the translation “ergriffen habend” given there is not exact.



Glosses Skt. k(ār)yākārya° ‘to be done and not to be done’. Schmidt (l.c.) read only the second half of the gloss: mā yal. Nevertheless, a trace of the first yal can be seen rather clearly, even though the first akṣara is hardly visible.

SHT4438v.b

TA ḵarpisyo = kärpisyo (instr.pl.) ‘by the mean’ (Schmidt 1983: 279; Peyrot apud sht 11: 34)

Glosses Skt. anāryair (instr.pl.) ‘by the mean’.

SHT4438v.b

TB śaiṣṣe ‘world’ (Schmidt 1983: 279; Peyrot apud sht 11: 34)

Glosses Skt. jagat ‘world’. It is remarkable that all Tocharian glosses to this fragment are in Tocharian A, except for this one.40 ere seems to be no palaeographical difference between the Tocharian A glosses and this gloss in Tocharian B. It is unclear why only this word should be glossed in Tocharian B: might it be because TB śaiṣṣe is only two syllables, twice as short as the Tocharian A equivalent ārkiśoṣi?

SHT4438v.d

TA ḵantantuyo = käntantuyo (instr.pl.) ‘by hundreds’ (Schmidt 1983: 279; Peyrot apud sht 11: 34)

Glosses Skt. śataśau (for śataśo) ‘a hundred times’.

SHT4438v.d

TA tṟaṅkluneyo wläṟ⸜ = träṅkluneyo wlär ‘they died because of cling-ing’ (Schmidt 1983: 279; Peyrot apud sht 11: 34)

40 ere are also some glosses in Sanskrit and a couple that are so fragmentary that not even the language can be established (see sht 11: 34–35), which are not discussed in the present article.


michaël peyrot164

Glosses Skt. trigartā hatāḥ ‘the Trigarta women were killed’. As pointed out by Dieter Maue (p.c.; see also sht l.c.), the gloss must be an explana-tion of the Sanskrit text, not a translation.

SHT4438v.e

TA [ā]rs[k]o[ṃ] = ārskoṃ ‘each day’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 35)

Glosses Skt. − − [ra]ha, which is probably to be restored as (aha)raha for aharahaṃ or aharahar (or aharahaḥ) ‘day by day’ (sht 11: 34). ārskoṃ must stand for ārts koṃ.

SHT4438v.e

TA ānāptune ? (Dieter Maue p.c.; Peyrot apud sht 11: 35)

Glosses Skt. navaśamaṃ ‘(with) new tranquility (?)’. ānāptune clearly contains the abstract suffix -une, but is further unclear. Conceivable is a connection with the adverb āptā ‘before’, i.e. a negated ‘what was not before’. Any relationship with āpat ‘right’ does not seem likely; also an alternative reading āwāptune is probably not to be preferred.

SHT4474Bx

TA krośä⸜ = kroś ‘cold’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 79)

Glosses Skt. śīta° ‘cold’. On TA kroś ‘cold’ instead of kuraś (so teb ii: 95; Carling 2009: 152), see Ji (1998: 286) and Itkin (2011: 251–252).

SHT4474Bx

TA [ṯa]ṅḵassi mā cämpaṣ⸜ = täṅkässi mā cämpäṣ ‘he cannot stop’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 79)

Glosses Skt. pratīghātaṃ notthāpaya(ti) ‘does not arouse resentment’. Ap-parently pratighātaṃ was taken in the sense ‘warding off ’ and utthāpayati in the sense ‘can’.



SHT4476v3

TA pu –⸜ = pu(k) ‘all’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 81)

Glosses Skt. samaṃ ‘every’.

SHT4477r.y

TB kra[m]tsa santānäntse = kra[m]tsa santānäntse ‘through the kra-ma … of the santāna’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 81)

Glosses Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 349 l. 941) krameṇa hi santān(a)sy(a) ‘step by step … of the series’. e Tocharian B gloss with the two calques kram* and santāṃ* is remarkable: perhaps the glossator only wanted to indicate the case of the Sanskrit words.

SHT4477r.z

TB [k]o[s]⸜ [yām]o[r]·· = kos yāmor(nta) ‘how many deeds?’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 82)

Glosses Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 349 l. 13) kati karmaṇi (for karmāṇi) ‘How many deeds?’

SHT4477r.z

TB mokṣabhāgi maskeṃt[ṟa] = mokṣabhāgi mäskeṃträ ‘[these] are mokṣabhāgīyas’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 82)

Glosses Skt. Abhidh-k-bh (Pradhan 1975: 349 l. 13–14) kati karmaṇi triṇi karmā(ṇi) (for kati karmāṇi trīṇi karmāṇi) ‘How many deeds? ree deeds.’ is gloss clearly specifies which kinds of deed are discussed, namely mokṣabhāgīyas ‘leading to final deliverance’.

41 For this section of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, cf. de La Vallée Poussin (1980: vol. iv, p. 178–179).


michaël peyrot166

SHT4523+1044v2

TA kā[ṯa]k [p]ra[ṣtā] ·k· p[āss]i = kātäk praṣtā ·k· pāssi ‘stood … at a time … to guard’? (Peyrot apud sht 11: 103)

Probably comments on Skt. gardabhapālipūrvi[ṇ](a) ‘having been a don-key herd before’. is gloss is difficult to read, since several photos have to be combined, including the facsimile in sht 5 (plate 7), none of which is sufficiently clear (see sht 11: 103). No Tocharian A equivalent of Skt. gardabha° ‘donkey’ can be recognised in the gloss. is is all the more unfortunate, since this word is so far not attested in Tocharian A. On the basis of TB kercapo /kercəpo/ ‘donkey’, one would expect TA *karcäp.

SHT4523+1044v5

TA wlesaṃsune ‘operation’ (?) (Peyrot apud sht 11: 103)

Glosses Skt. methaken⸗ (instr.sg.) ‘bad deed’ (sht 7: 142). Also for this gloss, the facsimile in sht 5 (plate 7) is indispensable. wlesaṃsune may be for wlesatsune*, an abstract derived from an adj. wlesats*, in turn derived from wles ‘work’ (hence Peyrot l.c. “Wirksamkeit”). e relationship of the gloss to the Sanskrit text remains obscure.

SHT5275Bz

TA koṃ ‘sun’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 290)

Glosses Skt. tapaḥ ‘heat’ (sht l.c. reads [t](a)paḥ). Obviously, the mean-ing of the gloss is not exact. Another gloss ending in /// ṯ[⸜] is found to the left.

SHT5275Bz

TA toṟ⸜ = tor ‘dust’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 290)

Glosses Skt. rajo /// ‘dust’.



SHT5578Ba

TB wanta° ‘thing(s)’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 352)

Glosses probably Skt. [k]ā(r)y(a) ‘[something] to be done’. wanta° could stand either for wanta‹re› (sg.) ‘thing’ or wanta‹rwa› (pl.) ‘things’ (al-though the gloss is found close to the right edge of the fragment, there would still have been space for a third akṣara). In both cases we would have to assume a misspelling for wäntare, wäntarwa. Perhaps the Tochar-ian gloss was meant to specify which of the semantic variants of kārya was intended.

SHT5578Bb

TB tāko[yä⸜] = tākoy ‘would be’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 353)

Glosses Skt. bhave(t) (3sg.opt.) ‘would be’. Although the endings could theoretically be restored differently, the Tocharian form seems to be only disyllabic, since a trace of the y and the ä can be seen, which are a bit lower and must therefore be in virāma position. e 3sg. is by far the most frequent form to meet this requirement.42

SHT5578Bc

TB [e] – [l](·)i = e(ka)l(ym)i ‘in the power’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 353)

Glosses Skt. vaśena (instr.sg.) ‘by the power’.

SHT5678Ab

TB ṣiy[ai] − /// ‘slime’ (?) (Peyrot apud sht 11: 374)

Glosses Skt. khe(ṭaḥ) ‘phlegm, slime’. is word is so far unattested; per-haps the reading should be ṣiy[aiñe].

42 Further possibilities are theoretically 1sg. bhaveyam ~ tākoym; 2sg. bhaveḥ ~ tākoyt; 1pl. bhavema ~ tākoym. Excluded are 2pl. bhaveta ~ tākoycer and 3pl. bhaveyuḥ ~ tākoyeṃ (the variant tākoṃ is also excluded).


michaël peyrot168

SHT5678Bb

TB we[nt](·)⸜ = went(s) ‘excrement’ (Peyrot apud sht 11: 374)

Glosses Skt. gū(tha) ‘excrement’. Although a tiny trace of the long ū of gū(tha) is readable (sht 11 l.c. reads g[u] ///), the reading of the Sanskrit text is here clearly made possible by the Tocharian gloss.

SHT7191r.w (= U6905a)43

TB swaromñ[e]sa = swaromñesa (perl.sg.) ‘in sweetness’

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.8c rasena (instr.sg.) ‘in taste’. swaromñesa is a late form for class. swarauñesa.

SHT7191r.x (= U6905a)

TB snai miyäṣñe ‘without damage’ (Dieter Maue, p.c.)

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.9c nirāmayaṃ ‘free of disease’. snai miyäṣñe is a late form for snai miyäṣṣälñe. A further gloss ending in /// tse is found to the left, perhaps glossing Skt. Bc.2.9c caiva ‘and just’ or otherwise the preced-ing sukhaṃ ‘ease’. -tse is a frequent adjective suffix and the restoration of this second gloss is uncertain.

SHT7191r.x (= U6905a)

TB tanma[ṣ]·· = tanmaṣ(ṣar) ‘gave birth’

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.9d praj(a)jñ(ire) ‘gave birth’. is gloss and the relevant Sanskrit text are flipped over to the verso of the fragment. e last akṣara-like symbol under jñ(i), a little bit to the right, belongs to a gloss to the original text of the verso, not to this one (see on SHT7191v2 lānt wat, directly below). e gloss is written in black ink, apparently on an ear-

43 e fragment SHT7191, initially wrongly classified as Old Uyghur with the press mark U6905a, was identified as a Sanskrit fragment with Tocharian B glosses by Dieter Maue. Klaus Wille, whose readings I thankfully quote here, subsequently identified it as a fragment of Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita.



lier gloss in fainter ink, perhaps originally the same word. e beginning of the gloss is clear and it is certainly a form of tənməsk-caus. ‘generate; give birth’, but it is not fully clear whether the last akṣara is completely abraded or has simply been left out. Since there may be a long descender going down to the right of [d]ā in r.y (the line below), the correct reading may be tanma[ṣ](ṣa)[r](⸜), which would stand for a 3pl.prt. tanmäṣṣare* with the shorter ending -r44 and a for ä in the second syllable. Otherwise, a 3pl.prt.mid. tanmaṣ(ṣa)‹nte› would also be a possibility, in view of the fact that this verb is both active and middle (Peyrot 2013: 753).

SHT7191v2 (= U6905a)

TB lānt waṯ(⸜) = lānt wat ‘or the king’

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.13c p(a)t(iṃ) v(ā) ‘or the lord’. A following gloss starts with an akṣara that is (albeit for a minor part) covered by the piece flipped over from the recto. It may read [rā], but its meaning is unclear. Found still under vā, which is already glossed by the preceding waṯ(⸜), it can hardly gloss the following Bc.2.13d parasparaṃ ‘each other’, which would probably be ālyauce.

SHT7191v3 (= U6905a)

TB mā śa[t]ka – pap[āṣṣ]· /// = mā śatka papāṣṣ(orñe) ? ‘he did not transgress moral behaviour’

Glosses Skt. Bc.2.14c n(a) cacār(a dharmaṃ) ‘[none] practised religion’ (Johnston 1935–36: ii, 22). Faint lines under this gloss blur the reading. e akṣara following [t]ka is illegible and seems to have been wiped out intentionally. If the reading is correct, the gloss appears to be the reverse of the Sanskrit text: in the Sanskrit text, the law is not practised; in the Tocharian gloss, the law is not violated.

44 It should be noted, however, that this ending is not in any way regular, not even in the late language (Peyrot 2008: 133–134).


michaël peyrot170

4 Tocharian glosses in Skt. manuscripts from the Paris collection

PS rouge 10.1 v2 (= Filliozat and Kuno 1938 A Fol. 191)

TB klu ‘rice’

Glosses Skt. odanena (instr.sg.) ‘porridge, boiled rice’. Apparently the case ending was not glossed. As remarked by Filliozat and Kuno (1938: 28), the gloss is probably in Tocharian B, even though the Tocharian A word for ‘rice’ is identical, because another gloss in the same manuscript (see PS rouge 10.2 directly below) is unambiguously in Tocharian B.

PS rouge 10.2 r5 (= Filliozat and Kuno 1938 A Fol. 192)

TB ḵwäsartse = kwäsartse ‘in a string’ (?)

Glosses Skt. (sāvadā)naṃ ‘in regular order, uninterruptedly’ (corrected reading due to Klaus Wille, p.c.). e gloss is identified by Filliozat and Kuno (1938: 29) as Tocharian B, but no interpretation is offered. kwäsartse reminds of TB IT263a4 kusär45 (arch.) as well as of TA A378.2 kusraṃ (Hilmarsson 1996: 195).46 While the first is too fragmentary, the context of the second suggests ‘hairdress’ (Itkin 2011: 5147). e precise meaning

45 Adams (2013: 199) cautiously suggests ‘braid’ on the basis of Tocharian A kusraṃ, and points out that an alternative word division kusärsā would also be possible, in which case it could be a plural (a perl.sg. would of course be an additional possibility).

46 In my view, the relevant lines are to be translated as follows (A378.1–3): wsāṣy-ople‹ṃ› tsākkiñ ¦ tseṃ oppa(lṣiñi ¦) [2] /// śālyās pācyās ¦ laläṅkuntiṃ s(a)m tākeñc [6a] tseṃ śākwis kusraṃ ¦ tmaśśäl tāskmāṃ tñi ¦ śālyi pā[3](ci) /// (¦ putti)śparṣiṃ akmlaśśäl [6b] ‘As if tsākkis of golden lotuses [and] … of blue lotuses … were hanging down equally to the left [and] the right, in the blue hairdress of your hair are comparable to that: the left [and] right … together with [your] Buddha rank face.’ For this use of the subjunctive in metaphors, see Peyrot (2013: 262–263).

47 Carling’s ‘braid of hair’ (2009: 157b–158a) would seem to fit the context better, but has to cope with the problem that it needs kusraṃ to be a nom.du., while it can only be a loc.sg., as pointed out by Itkin (l.c.).



of Skt. sāvadānaṃ is uncertain, and the semantic connection with TA kusraṃ, if related, is not obvious. Possible semantic links to consider are the ones between e.g. ‘strand of hair, string’ and ‘uninterruptedly’, or be-tween ‘hair braid’ and ‘in regular order’. In any case, kwäsartse must be an adjective derived from the noun kusar*, here apparently in adverbial use.

[received: february 2014]Universität Wien

Institut für SprachwissenschaftSensengasse 3a

A-1090 WienAustria

References

Adams, Douglas Q. (2013) A dictionary of Tocharian B. Second edition, revised and greatly enlarged (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 10). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.

Carling, Gerd (2009) Dictionary and thesaurus of Tocharian A. Part 1: A–J. Com-piled by Gerd Carling, in collaboration with Georges-Jean Pinault and Wer-ner Winter. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Ching Chao-jung (2010) Secular documents in Tocharian: Buddhist economy and society in the Kucha region. èse de doctorat, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris.

Edgerton, Franklin (1953) Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit grammar and dictionary. New Haven: Yale University. 2 vols.

Filliozat, Jean & Hōryū Kuno (1938) “Fragments du Vinaya des Sarvāstivādin”. Journal Asiatique 230: 21–64.

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe (1988) “Neue Aśvaghoṣa- und Mātṛceta-Fragmente aus Ostturkistan.” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philologisch-historische Klasse 1988: 55–92.

Hilmarsson, Jörundur G. (1996) Materials for a Tocharian historical and etymo-logical dictionary. Edited by Alexander Lubotsky and Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir (Tocharian and Indo-European Studies Supplementary Series 5). Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.

Itkin, Il’ja B. (2011) Review of Carling 2009. Tocharian and Indo-European Stud-ies 12: 243–254.


michaël peyrot172

Ji Xianlin (1998) Fragments of the Tocharian A Maitreyasamiti-Nāṭaka of the Xin-jiang Museum, China. Transliterated, translated and annotated by Ji Xianlin in collaboration with Werner Winter and Georges-Jean Pinault (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 113). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Johnston, E. H. (1935–36) The Buddhacarita. Or, acts of the Buddha (Panjab Uni-versity Oriental Publications 31–32). Calcutta: Baptist Mission. 2 vols.

de La Vallée Poussin, Louis (1980) L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu, Traduc-tions et annotations. Nouvelle édition anastatique présentée par Étienne La-motte (Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques 16). Bruxelles: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises. 6 vols.

Malzahn, Melanie (2007) “A preliminary survey of the Tocharian glosses in the Berlin Turfan collection”. Melanie Malzahn (ed.), Instrumenta Tocharica, 301−319. Heidelberg: Winter.

Maue, Dieter (2009) “Uigurisches in Brāhmī in nicht-uigurischen Brāhmī-Handschriften”. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 62: 1−36.

Maue, Dieter (2010) “Uigurisches in Brāhmī in nicht-uigurischen Brāhmī-Handschriften Teil II”. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 63: 319−361.

Meunier, Fanny (2013) “Typologie des locutions en yām- du tokharien”. Tochar-ian and Indo-European Studies 14: 123–185.

Monier-Williams, Monier (1899) A Sanskṛit-English dictionary, Etymologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages. Oxford: Clarendon.

Olivelle, Patrick (2008) Life of the Buddha by Aśvaghoṣa. New York: New York University.

Peyrot, Michaël (2008) Variation and change in Tocharian B (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 15). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.

Peyrot, Michaël (2010) “Proto-Tocharian syntax and the status of Tocharian A”. Journal of Indo-European Studies 38: 132−146.

Peyrot, Michaël (2012) “Tocharian ‘eat’ and the strong imperfect in Tocharian A”. Olav Hackstein & Ronald I. Kim (eds.), Linguistic developments along the Silk Road: Archaism and innovation in Tocharian (Sitzungsberichte der Öster-reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 834), 85−119. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Peyrot, Michaël (2013) The Tocharian subjunctive: A study in syntax and verbal stem formation (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 8). Leiden & Boston: Brill.



Peyrot, Michaël (2013a) Review of Malzahn (2010). Tocharian and Indo-Europe-an Studies 14: 213–259.

Pinault, Georges-Jean (1987) “Épigraphie koutchéenne. I. Laissez-passer de cara-vanes. II. Graffites et inscriptions”. Chao Huashan, Simone Gaulier, Monique Maillard & Georges-Jean Pinault, Sites divers de la region de Koutcha. Épig-raphie koutcheenne (Mission Paul Pelliot 8), 59–196 and plates 40–96. Paris: Collège de France.

Poucha, Pavel (1955) Thesaurus linguae Tocharicae dialecti A (Institutiones Lin-guae Tocharicae, Pars I). Praha: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelství.

Pradhan, Prahlad (1975) Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu. With intro-dunction and indices by Aruna Haldar. 2nd edn. (Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 8). Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute.

Rosen, Valentina (1959) Der Vinayavibhaṅga zum Bhikṣuprātimokṣa der Sarvāstivādins, Sanskritfragmente nebst einer Analyse der chinesischen Über-setzung (Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden 2). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Schmidt, Klaus T. (1983) “Vorläufige Bemerkungen zu den in der Staatsbiblio-thek Preußischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin neu gefundenen tocharischen Hand-schriftenfragmenten”. Fritz Steppat (ed.), XXI. Deutscher Orientalistentag, Vom 24. bis 29. März in Berlin, Vorträge, 271−279. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Schmidt, Klaus T. (1990) “Fragmente von Vasubandhus Abhidharmakośabhāṣya aus Chinesisch-Turkestan”. Werner Diem & Abdoldjavad Falaturi (eds.), XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 26. bis 30. September 1988 in Köln. Ausgewählte Vorträge (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesells-chaft, Supplement 8), 471–477. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Schmidt, Klaus T. (1994) “Zur Erforschung der tocharischen Literatur: Stand und Aufgaben”. Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Tocharisch. Akten der Fachta-gung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, September 1990. (Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, Supplementary Series 4), 239–283. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.

Schmidt, Klaus T. (1999) Review of Ji 1998. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 8: 277–285.

Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1950) “e Varṇārhavarṇa Stotra of Matṛceta (I)”. Bul-letin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 13: 671–701, 810.

Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1951) The Śatapañcāśatka of Mātṛceṭa. Sanskrit text, Ti-betan translation & commentary and Chinese translation. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University.

sht 1 = Ernst Waldschmidt (1965) Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden. Teil I. Unter Mitarbeit von Walter Clawiter und Lore Holzmann (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 10, 1). Wiesbaden: Steiner.


michaël peyrot174

sht 4 = Lore Sander & Ernst Waldschmidt (1980) Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden. Teil IV. Ergänzungsband zu Teil 1–3 mit Textwiedergaben, Ber-ichtigungen und Wörterverzeichnissen (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Hand-schriften in Deutschland 10, 4). Wiesbaden: Steiner.

sht 5 = Lore Sander & Ernst Waldschmidt (1985) Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden. Teil 5. Die Katalognummern 1015–1201 und 63 vorweggenom-mene höhere Nummern (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 10, 5). Stuttgart: Steiner.

sht 6 = Klaus Wille (1989) Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden. Teil 6. Die Katalognummern 1202–1599. Herausgegeben von Heinz Bechert (Ver-zeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 10, 6). Stuttgart: Steiner.




sht 10 = Klaus Wille (2008) Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden. Teil 10. Die Katalognummern 3200–4362 (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Hand-schriften in Deutschland 10, 10). Stuttgart: Steiner.

sht 11 = Klaus Wille (2012) Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden. Teil 11. Die Katalognummern 4363–5799 (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Hand-schriften in Deutschland 10, 11). Stuttgart: Steiner.

swtf = Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden. Begonnen von Ernst Waldschmidt. Edited by Heinz Bechert, Klaus Röhr-born & Jens-Uwe Hartmann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973–.

teb ii = Werner omas (1964) Tocharisches Elementarbuch, II. Texte und Glos-sar. Unter Mitwirkung von Wolfgang Krause. Heidelberg: Winter.

Vogel, Claus & Klaus Wille (2000) “e final leaves of the Pravrajyāvastu portion of the Vinayavastu manuscript found near Gilgit. Part 2: Nāgakumārāvadāna and Lévi text”. Jin-il Chung, Claus Vogel & Klaus Wille, Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon: Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen. Vierte Folge



(Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 9), 11–76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Waldschmidt, Ernst (1958) “Ein zweites Daśabalasūtra”. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 6: 382–405.

Waldschmidt, Ernst (1968) “Ein Textbeitrag zur Udayana-Legende”. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1968: 101–125.

Waldschmidt, Ernst (1981) “e Buddha not a magician: Fragment from the Pātalakasūtra of the Madhyamāgama”. Indologica Taurinensia 8–9 (Dr. Lud-wik Sternbach commemoration volume): 495–499.

Wille, Klaus (2014) “Survey of the Sanskrit manuscripts in the Turfan Collection (Berlin)”. Paul Harrison & Jens-Uwe Hartmann (eds.), From birch bark to dig-ital data: Recent advances in Buddhist manuscript research. Papers presented at the conference of Indic Buddhist manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford June 15–19 2009 (Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 460), 187–211. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Word index

All forms are found in section 3, except those marked with “§2” and “§4”.

Tocharian A

ane SHT1098e.r1arṣānt-äṃ SHT1098f.v2(ā)kyātune SHT4201B2ānāptune SHT4438v.eārskoṃ SHT4438v.eāsuk SHT519.5v6 (§2)eṃ(tsā)luneyäṣ SHT4438v.aets SHT1098e.r4oki SHT1098b.r1ka‹pśañi› SHT1030r2k(a)vāre SHT1098b.r1 kātäk SHT4523+1044v2kātkāśi SHT1098b.r2kärpisyo SHT4438v.bkärsnāl SHT4438r.d


michaël peyrot176

koṃ SHT1157v2, SHT5275Bzkroś SHT4474Bxklāwaṣträ SHT1098d.r4caṣ SHT412.32r4cämpäṣ SHT4474Bxñom SHT412.32r1täṅkässi SHT4474Bxtor SHT5275Bzträṅkluneyo SHT4438v.dtwāṣluneśi SHT1041r(?)2daśabal SHT519.5v6 (§2)nākäm SHT1181Banākeṃ SHT1030r2pakärkas SHT1098e.r5pat SHT1098d.v1, pa(t) SHT1041v(?)5pāyti SHT1041r(?)3pāssi SHT4523+1044v2(pä)rko SHT1041r(?)1päl(ts)äṅkā(si) SHT1349b.v2pältskā SHT4250B2pu(k) SHT4476v3pk‹änt› SHT1098f.r4praṣtā SHT1041r(?)2, SHT4523+1044v2plā‹c› SHT1030r4 mā SHT412.32r4, SHT1041r(?)1, SHT1349b.v2, SHT4438v.b,

SHT4474Bxmältowi(nuntaṃ) SHT1041r(?)3moskoṃ SHT1041r(?)3yaträ SHT4250B2yal SHT4438v.b, (ya)l SHT4438v.by(āmä)l SHT1349b.v2yāmunt SHT4438v.ayisli SHT1098e.r4(y)ne(ś)i SHT1349b.v2yso(mo) SHT4438r.eywārckā SHT1033r1ritwasi SHT1098f.v5ridāt SHT1098f.r3riyac SHT1098f.r4



läkñam SHT4201B2lyeñc SHT1317B5waṣtaṃtu SHT1098e.r1wāsko SHT1098f.v5wäryacandre SHT519.5v6 (§2)wäśśitsuneyā SHT1821B5wlär SHT4438v.dwlesaṃsune SHT4523+1044v5wṣeyis SHT1041r(?)3bis

śarkä‹s› SHT1098d.v1śśäk SHT519.5v6 (§2)sakkāk SHT1098e.r1(tskā)ṣiṣ SHT1041v(?)5

Tocharian B

akālk(sa) SHT436.8r5 (§2)apāyntane SHT1109v.xiprer SHT2250+2054a.v3e(ka)l(ym)i SHT5578Bceṅktsitse SHT1402r1aimasu SHT2054b.r.xompols(k)o(ññetse) SHT2250+2054a.r.ykakāwaṣ SHT2250+2054a.v2katkemane SHT2250+2054a.v3kamāte SHT2054b.v2kā SHT1109v.wkāttsi ve SHT1109v.ykāwañesa SHT2054b.r.ykäntantuyo SHT4438v.dketsi ve SHT1109r3kos SHT4477r.zkramtsa SHT4477r.yklätseman(ets) SHT1121v1klu PS rouge 10.1 v2 (§4)kwäsartse PS rouge 10.2 r5 (§4)kseññeṣṣe SHT4413Bace SHT221v4 (§2)cmelñeṣṣe SHT1109v.x


michaël peyrot178

ñakciya SHT4413Aatanmaṣ(ṣar) SHT7191r.xtarkatsitse SHT2250+2054a.r.wtarn(e)sai SHT565r2tāka SHT2054b.v2tākoy SHT5578Bbtusa SHT1109v.wte SHT1109v.wnau(m)i(ye) SHT221v5 (§2)pañäktiñe SHT436.8r5 (§2)papāṣṣ(orñe) SHT7191v3(pe)lki(ṃ) SHT2054b.v2, pe‹lkiṃ› SHT2250+2054a.r.wperneṣṣe SHT436.8r5 (§2)(pe)laikneṣṣe SHT221v5 (§2)paiykāte SHT436.8r5 (§2)postak SHT221v4 (§2), SHT745r.c (§2)pr(a)m-ñäkte SHT2054b.v1prerentsa SHT2250+2054a.v1mā SHT1109v.w, SHT7191v3, ma SHT1109v.wmāla SHT3354v1mäskeṃträ SHT4477r.z, mäskeṃntar SHT1109v.wmiyäṣñe SHT7191r.xmokṣabhāgi SHT4477r.zyamate SHT2054b.v3yāmor(nta) SHT4477r.zyo‹ksi› SHT3354v1ywawont SHT1157v2ram SHT2054b.v1, SHT2250+2054a.v2ritteträ SHT1109v.wretke SHT2250+2054a.v2laṃsi SHT1109v.xlānt SHT7191v2vajropam SHT2250+2054a.r.y veṣ SHT1109v.w, SHT1109v.xbis

wat SHT7191v2wanta‹re› SHT5578Bawarṣäl SHT2250+2054a.r.ywalo SHT2054b.v2went(s) SHT5678Bb



śatka SHT7191v3(śanmā)nm(a)meṃ SHT2250+2054a.r.w(śā)mn(a) SHT3354v3śaiṣṣe SHT4438v.bś(auk)emanets SHT1121v1ṣamā(ne) SHT221v4 (§2), (ṣa)māne SHT745r.c (§2)ṣaräm SHT1109v.xṣiyaiñe SHT5678Absantānäntse SHT4477r.ysäswetse SHT2250+2054a.v2snai SHT7191r.xspelke SHT2250+2054a.v1swaromñesa SHT7191r.w


Peyrot 2014: Notes on Tocharian glosses and colophons in Sanskrit manuscripts I

Documents

Transcript of Peyrot 2014: Notes on Tocharian glosses and colophons in Sanskrit manuscripts I