THE LAST NOTE ON THE ARAMAIC WORD FOR ‘MONASTERY’ IN EAST ASIA AND SIMILAR ENCOUNTERS OF THE FOURTH KIND1 response Beckwith 2017

Alexander Vovin

Vote for us, will think for you American saying

Reading through Christopher Beckwith (hereafter: (2017: 221). In this passage CB managed to demonstrate CB)’s response (2017) to Laurent Sagart (hereafter LS) several points: a) that although the Nihonshoki indeed and Alexander Vovin (hereafter: AV) critique (2016) of includes the description of events that took place in the his article (2014) was indeed entertaining but by sixth century AD, is unaware of the fact that the means instructive or enlightening. There is very little Nihonshoki was finally compiled in 720 AD, although can add to what we have already said, the following the actual work on its compilation started with the work is just putting all dots over i. The title is inspired by on the no longer extant Teiki (帝紀) ‘Imperial Records’ Stefan Georg’s excellent, but unfortunately still unpub- in 681 AD, so this chronicle cannot by any means be lished presentation Encounters of the Third Kind (an contemporaneous to “several decades earlier” than 590 obvious allusion at Spielberg’s famous movie) at the AD; b) that he is oblivious to the fact that the man’yō- PIAC 2006 meeting in Berlin, where he proposed that in gana variety used in the Nihonshoki is man’yōgana B, historical linguistics there are three types of encounters: based on Late Middle Chinese, and even in most cases of the first kind, when one deals with real data, second, specifically on Chang’an Late Middle Chinese, so it can- when one deals with loanwords presented as evidence for not possibly reflect pre-Old Japanese of the fifth or sixth genetic relationship, and third, when one has to confront centuries AD, c) and most importantly, although the the data that were simply invented. CB new publications character 寺 is attested in the Nihonshoki, there are, to of 2014 and especially 2017, unfortunately, open the next the best of my knowledge no phonographic man’yōgana dimension, namely encounters of the fourth kind, as the transcriptions of Old Japanese tera ‘Buddhist temple’ in it. readers will shortly see below.69 There is actually a slightly earlier Western Old Japanese First, CB once again demonstrated his lack of exper- attestation of tera (天良) from 752 AD in TDJYR (Tsut- tise in East Asian historical linguistics and philology, sui 1982: 57) than CB’s tera (弖羅) attested in KKHS whether it would be Chinese, Japonic, Koreanic, or Tun- 6b.1 (772 AD), but cited by CB from the first line of gusic. It is very well known that before becoming a spe- the dictionary entry in JDB 484. Thus, no sixth or even cialist in historical linguistics in any language family that seventh century phonographic attestations are available. has a written history, it is necessary to acquire philological CB failure or lack of desire to understand the most basic ability of dealing with actual texts. With one exception in facts about the Middle Korean and Old Korean language 2017, one would try to search in vain for any discussion history outlined in AV and LS (2016: 119-122) reveal of real data from texts in these languages, as all CB’s his lack of familiarity with this discipline. Incidentally, research is clearly based on dictionaries and other sec- the lack of citations not only to any front-line Korean ondary sources. Two examples will suffice. CB says research on Old and Middle Korean, as well as to any (quoting verbatim): “V claims that according to Miyake classics written by Korean scholars (with the sole excep- (2003), raising of pre-Old Japanese ✩ to Old Japanese tion of a dictionary of pre-Modern Korean by Nam ✩i “occurred around 590 AD. But 寺 ‘Buddhist monas- Kwangwu (2006) where these facts could be easily tery’ is attested several decades earlier in the Nihon learned from, is quite revealing. Shoki, the main Japanese chronicle for this period” Second, although CB must be given his due as one of the staunch opponents of ‘Altaic’, surprisingly his schol- 69 I would like to thank Etienne de la Vaissière for his comments arly discourse has the same pitfalls as that of Altaicists. on an earlier version of this note. Any mistakes or shortcomings remain Not only CB demands his readers to make leaps of faith, my own responsibility. he constantly misquotes, miscites, and manipulates in all

Journal Asiatique 305.2 (2017): 225-227 doi: 10.2143/JA.305.2.3262805 226 ALEXANDER VOVIN other possible ways the work not only of his direct oppo- so we might have here another case of a donkey in a nents, but also of other scholars, if it suits his purposes. panther’s skin. In any case, if -an is a suffix, what is Several brief examples will suffice. CB accuses LS and exactly its function? By leaving this unanswered, one AV of not reading most of his 2014 paper (2017: 12), in would be tempted to view this explanation as a typical spite of the fact that they extensively cite CB 2014: how case of Nostratic methodology producing ad hoc unac- can one cite anything without reading it first? CB also counted for segments. Furthermore, CB also falsely announces that LS and AV are ignoramuses who do not claims that (citing verbatim): “Old Jurchen has tairan know that Aramaic was one of the official languages in (only once in the meaning ‘monastery’, as the Achaemenid and Parthian Empires. But as matter of pointed out by V)”. With this statement CB makes a con- fact, neither of those empires extended as far east as to fession that it is he who is unable read the texts of others’ be in direct contact with Ancient China. Needless to say, carefully. AV’s quite clearly indicates that OJur. taira(a) no Achaemenid or Parthian Aramaic text is cited where is only once attested in the meaning ‘Confucian shrine’, dērā ‘monastery’ is attested, nor there is any explanation but there are four attestations of it in the KW inscription how this word leaped from Parthian empire to Han as ‘Buddhist temple’ (2016: 120). Miyake (2003) article China. While CB is certainly right that some Parthians was also manipulated to meet CB’s personal hypothesis, (2017: 216), like An Shigao, a Parthian diplomat in as CB uses exclusively Miyake statement about the Go-on China, and a protector of the first Buddhist community and then assigns to Miyake a position, which the latter has in China, played a certain role in propagating Buddhism never expressed (citing verbatim): “Miyake thus states in China, words do not necessarily travel along with explicitly that the vowel shift noted by V was completed ideas. Moreover, the Parthian word for the monatery long before 552” (2017: 221), disregarding all other evi- ārām, is amply attested in Parthian texts, while Aramaic dence provided by Miyake, and all his other statements. d’yr, dyr, dy’r, dyr’ are not (Durkin-Meisterernst 2004). Miyake states twice on the same page (2003: 126) that In other words, it is another leap of faith demanded by the raising of *e and * led to the orthographic confusion Beckwith from his readers: either An Shigao for the rea- in Suiko period Japanese ca. 590 AD, and then (verba- sons known only to him and CB fancied using an Ara- tim): “I am reluctant to date raising of *e using only maic word while addressing his Chinese converts instead Go-on evidence” and “Early transcriptions of Japanese of his native ārām, or it is the situation like a famous and Go-on provide raising of POJ *e and *o to *i and * poster from X-files: “I want to believe”. The same can sometime before the start of Suiko period” (2003: 132). be said about CB’s ‘reconstruction’ of Old and Middle So, who, after all fails to read other scholars’ work and Chinese, which has never been systematically presented cite it correctly? in “numerous articles”, only bits and pieces of it. Until Third, CB is probably the only scholar who resorts to CB produces any systematic presentation of his ‘recon- the almost unprecedented practice of self-praise (citing struction’ comparable to the magisterial work by Baxter again verbatim): “…Beckwith’s (2007) careful study of and LS (2014), which he apparently still failed to consult, the surviving Koguryo language fragments, in what there is no basis to evaluate it unless it is based on remains the only scientific monograph on the topic…” another leap of faith. CB further accuses AV of misciting (2017: 14) (italics are mine – AV). In short, the meter Sanskrit caitya- as the ‘hall of worship, temple, pagoda’ is perfect, and the rhymes are excellent: anyone who on the basis of (Monier-Williams 1960: 402). Citing CB expresses the slightest doubt is guilty of a blasphemy. verbatim: “But there is no such gloss in Monier-Wil- However, those of the readers of Journal Asiatique, who liams, whose entry actually begins (verbatim): “ चैत्य 2. would be interested in the different opinion about the caitya, mfn. Relating to a funeral pile or mound (citā), careful and the only scientific monograph, are strongly ĀśvGṛ. iii, 6 Gṛihyās. ii, 4; m. n. a funeral monument or advised to read the review of Pellard (2005) of the first Stūpa (q.v.)…” (2017: 214). Should CB have gone into edition of this work. Also, Beckwith accuses all his trouble of reading several lines further down except opponents of ad hominem attacks, if they simply have just beginning, he would undoubtedly discover ‘hall or audacity to question his data and theories, while stooping temple or place of worship’ in the same entry. CB also down himself to unbelievably low level of real ad hominem manipulates Old Jurchen data: he claims that -an in attacks. OJur. taira(a)n (丑仱倧) ‘Buddhist temple, Confucian In conclusion, this is my last word on this article by shrine’ (KW I.2, I.5, III.3, III.5, IV.1) with reference to CB. From now on, I will not respond any longer to any Jin Qicong (1984), who according to CB claims that -an additional comments, should he continue further. Science is a nominal suffix (2017: 13), but does not go into trou- fiction can be quite entertaining and even hilarious ble to indicate the page number where Jin makes this reading, but discussing it further in the context of real claim. I fail to see such a claim by Jin on all pages of the science is just a waste of time. book where this word is mentioned (1984: 5, 32, 291), A RESPONSE TO BECKWITH 227

References Note de la Rédaction du Journal Asiatique concluant les échanges des Professeurs Primary sources: Beckwith et Vovin Japanese La Rédaction du Journal Asiatique, après avoir reçu KKHS Kakyō hyōshiki (歌經標式), 772 AD TDJYR Tōdaiji yōroku (東大寺要録), Tōdaiji daikai (東大寺 les articles si stimulants du professeur Beckwith, a estimé 大會), 752 AD70 qu’il était souhaitable, dans l’intérêt du débat scienti- fique, de susciter des réponses fondées aux hypothèses Jurchen proposées, et a publié avec gratitude les textes rédigés KW Kyengwen inscription, between 1138 and 1153 AD en réaction aux premiers. Tous les auteurs doivent être remerciés d’avoir accordé une part considérable de leur Secondary sources: temps à l’approfondissement de ces questions délicates. Il est cependant apparu, dans les échanges qui ont suivi Baxter, William H. & Sagart, Laurent 2014. Old Chinese. A ces publications, que la vigueur de la discussion dépas- New Reconstruction. Oxford & New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press. sait de façon quelque peu embarrassante la modération Beckwith, Christopher I. 2007 (2004). Koguryǒ: The Lan- qui devrait être la norme dans une controverse acadé- guage of Japan’s Continental Relatives. Leiden: Brill. mique, du moins dans le monde francophone. Il n’était Beckwith, Christopher I. 2014. The Aramaic source of the East bien sûr pas question de demander à nos collègues de Asian word for ‘Buddhist monastery’: On the spread of modifier leurs textes selon des règles auxquelles ils ne Central Asian monasticism in the Kushan period’. Journal souscriraient pas. C’est pourquoi nous les publions tels Asiatique 302.1: 111-38. qu’ils nous ont été envoyés, mettant ainsi un terme à un Beckwith, Christopher I. 2017. Once Again on the Aramaic échange d’opinions à l’évidence incompatibles. Toute- Word for ‘monastery’ in East Asia. Journal Asiatique 305, fois, nous comptons sur les contributeurs futurs du Jour- 000-000. nal pour respecter autant que possible les limites d’une Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond 2004. Dictionary of Man- ichaean Middle Persian and Parthian Corpus Fontium Man- courtoisie que nous voulons ne pas croire surannée. ichaeorum Subsidia: Dictionary of Manichaean Texts III: Texts from Central Asia and China 1. Turnhout: Brepols 2004. JDB -- Omodaka, Hisataka (ed.) 1967. Jidai betsu kokugo dai- jiten. Jōdai hen [A Big Dictionary of the National Language by Periods. Volume on Old Japanese]. Tokyo: Sanseidō. Miyake, Marc H. 2003. Philological evidence for *e and *o in Pre-Old Japanese. Diachronica 20.1: 83-137. Nam, Kwangwu 2006 (1997). Kyohak koe sacen [Kyohaksa’s dictionary of the pre-modern Korean language]. Seoul: Kyo- haksa. Pellard, Thomas 2005. Review of Beckwith 2004. Korean Studies 29: 167-69. Tsutsui, Hidetoshi 1982. Tōdaiji yōroku kōtei (Annotated Tōdaiji yōroku). Tokyo: Kokusho kankōkai. Vovin, Alexander & Sagart, Laurent 2016. No Aramaic Word for ‘Monastery’ in East Asia: Reflections on Christopher I. Beckwith’s Recent Publication. Journal Asiatique 304.1: 117-124.

70 Cited according to Tsutsui Hidetosi (筒井英俊) edition of Tōdaiji yōroku (1982: 57).