CONTENTS TEXTS AND MANUSCRIPTS: DESCRIPTION AND RESEARCH. 3 Hiroshi Kumamoto. Sino-Hrntanica Petersburgensia (Part I). 3 1\1. Vorobyova-Dcsyatovskaya. A Sanskrit Manuscript on Birch-Bark from Bairam-Ali. II. .~1'(1(/'711as and l<ltakas (Part 2) IO A. Trotsevich. A Rricf Remark on Korean Rooks Research. 24 M. Fomkin. On the Literary Fate of Works by Sultan Vcled. 27 I. Zaytse\'. On the History of Book in the JUchid Khanates 33 PRESENTING THE COLLECTIONS. 40 E. Rczvan. Oriental Manuscripts of Karl Faberge. I: The Qur'iin 40 PRESENTING THE MANUSCRIPT. 62 0. Akimushkin. A Rare Seventeenth-Century Hagiography of the Naqshbandiyya­ Mujaddidiyya Slwdhs. 62 BOOK REVIEWS. 68 F r o n t c o v e r: "Portrait of a princess", Muraqqa · X 3 from the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies. Faberge collection. fol. 31 a. 9.5 x 16.5 cm. Moghul school, mid-18th century, watercolour, gouache and gold on paper. Back cover: Decorative composition from clements of the double frontispiece of aQur"anic manuscript, the same album, fol. 29a. dimensions within the outer border 18.0 X 21.0 cm. Presumably Tcbriz. I 540s--- I 560s. Mounted in India, mid-18th century. THESA PUBLISHERS Ir\ <-, J-01'1.IC\ 11< l\ Will I ST. PETERSBURG BRANCH OF THE INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ll!.Jnnuscriptn Orientnlin "'7nternntionnl douronl for Or1eotnl IY!Jnouscr1pt ~esenrcb Vol. 7 No. I March 200 I 7-5£..Sd\ .,St. f.'etersbur9 70 L'Y!'.)AnuscriptA OrientAliA. VOL. 7 NO. I MARCH 2001 esting parts of the folklore collections preserved in the more so for their presenting in such well-organised and archive. It is for bringing together pieces of folklore kept informative form. at the largest academic repositories of Eastern documents in Russia that we have to thank Dr. Kulganek, all the I. Petrosyan Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhiira. The British Dharmapiida discovered in Khotan was copied in India or Library Kharo.~(hf Fragments. Richard Salomon with Central Asia). Moreover, it is possible that the most ancient contribution by Raymond Allchin and Mark Bernard. of Indian manuscripts has finally appeared. The speculation University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1999, 271 pp.+ proved founded: Salomon gathered all possible proof that it 34 pits. + Appendix. was copied between the beginning of the first and second centuries A. D. The most important link in the chain of The book under review represents a unique feat. Richard proof is the mention of historical figures active at the time Salomon was brave enough to undertake a detailed descrip­ of the manuscript's creation: mahiik.~atrapa Jihonika and tion of the British Library's entire collection of manuscripts Aspavannana. They can be identified as lndo-Scythian ml­ and ceramic inscriptions in Kharo~\hl writing. He has taken ers of the early first century A. D .. judging by their names into account all aspects: dating. place of discovery, means known through legends on coins and inscriptions. of preparing writing materials, palaeography. orthography. Salomon successfully integrated the new manuscript special features of language and style. content of identified into Gandhara Buddhism. analysing this in chapter I: "The works. general conclusions about the culture of Gandhara. background: Gandhara and Gandharan Buddhism". The characteristics of the local Buddhist tradition, and novelties book's second chapter provides a detailed description of all introduced by the materials under consideration into the Kharo~\hl writing materials held at the British Library. history of Buddhism. They are divided into two groups: birch-bark manuscripts Since 1962. when John Brough released a separate which have only recently joined the collection. and inscrip­ volume of fragments from the Dharmapclda manuscript tions on whole ceramic vessels and fragments of inscrip­ in Kharo~\hT script in Gandharl prakrit from manuscript tions on ostraca. collections in St. Petersburg and Paris. such complete The first part of the book - on the manuscript - is the and detailed studies have been lacking. In his own words, most valuable. Salomon has done immense work, decipher­ Salomon's book is merely the first volume of his study: ing the manuscript and identifying the texts it contains. It is the publication of the texts themselves with translation is clear that we deal here with a collection, although not all of anticipated in the near future. its parts have yet been identified. The description of newly discovered birch-bark scrolls Salomon notes the following groups of texts identified formed the basis for his first book. and the discovery itself by their contents: served as the stimulus for writing it. It occurred that mem­ bers of the Manuscript Section of the St. Petersburg Branch I) fragments of Hinayana siitras with commentaries; of the Institute of Oriental Studies were among the first to they are not numerous (see section 2.2.1 ). The best pre­ learn of these new manuscripts. In 1994. Mark Bernard, served is the Sanglti-s1ltra with an unknown commentary a member of the Preservation and Conservation Depart­ (fragment 15 ). Texts such as this srltra as an important link ment, Oriental and India Office Collections of the British in the formation of the Ahhidharma-pi{aka and Buddhist Library, worked in the repository of Eastern manuscripts philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge. Frag­ at the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental ments 12-14 were identified as a text parallel to the Studies. It was he who told us of the difficult task of restor­ Angullaranikiiya. Fragments 26 + 29 preserve excerpts ing birch-bark manuscripts in lamentable condition recently from an unidentified siitra. acquired by the British Library. Since a preliminary inspec­ 2) Most numerous in the manuscript are stories which tion showed that the new manuscripts were similar to al­ arc called avadiina or ptlrvayoga (lit. "past rebirths"). The ready published fragments of the Dharmapclda. we decided principle for selecting avadiinas by content is not clear. that the middle part of this manuscript, which has still not Plots that we well know in Sanskrit and Pali literature are come to light, had finally been found. represented by independent versions; in Salomon's view, R. Salomon's study demonstrates that we were wrong. these are close to stories translated into Chinese as part of The British Library acquired yet another birch-bark manu­ the Dha1maguptaka canon. Previously, exact infotmation script. probably not linked to the first one. It consisted of on the spread of this school in Gandhara was lacking. Salo­ 29 fragments. It remains unclear whether this is an entire mon's conclusions are undoubtedly new, but require addi­ volume in the form of scrolls or whether the scrolls existed tional research. independently. Salomon counted 21 original scrolls of indi­ vidual fragments. The number of separate hands he identi­ Especially impo11ant is the question of which type of col­ fied also totals 21. lection we encounter here. In many ways, the new manu­ Since news of the discovery appeared. scholarly inter­ script is close to a birch-bark manuscript from Bairam-Ali est in the manuscript has grown rapidly. There is reason for (Merv oasis. Turkmenia). It is written in Sanskrit, in Brahm! this: the manuscript is from ancient Gandhara and may be script, evidently somewhat later (5-7 centuries A.O.). unique (debate continues over whether a manuscript of the (Excerpts from this manuscript have been published by c M. I. Voroby~va-Dcsyatm·skaya. ::?001 BOOK REVIEWS 71 Manuscripta Orientalia since 1999). The text of both covered on this territory, there is only one Buddhist text, manuscripts contains quotations from siitras, commentaries which treats violations of rules dictating monastic life in the on them, and a collection of avadiina stories. Both manu­ local community. It is clear from the texts of the documents scripts present the stories in abbreviated form and with in­ themselves that this was a somewhat peculiar brand of dications that the text should be told in full ( vistarel}a - Buddhism: he was greatly influenced by local religious be­ "in detail", with various additional explanations). It seems liefs. The monks also played an active role in the economic that a summary of a story's contents - and in the Bairam­ life of this tiny state and could own property. The question Ali manuscript we find sometimes only the names of the is, of course, complex, as Buddhist texts in Kushan Brahm! heroes - is necessary as a mnemonic device to recall well­ writing are not numerous in Central Asia: large numbers of known plots. In both manuscripts, quotations from siitras Brahm! manuscripts began to appear only in the fifth cen­ are followed by assurances that the siitras are reliable and tury A. D. Early translations of Buddhist texts into Chinese authoritative. There are similarities in other sections that we show that they were based not on Sanskrit, but on Prakrit will note later. texts. But which ones 9 Scholars reject the Pali language as There are also several differences. The Bairam-Ali an answer. They could possibly have been in Gandharl, as manuscript does not mention historical figures. As concerns manuscript in Gandharl could have been brought from the companions of the Buddha Sakyamuni - people North-West India or Gandhara. who lived in his time - there are no discrepancies: the In this regard, certain doubts arise in connection to chap­ texts of both manuscripts repeatedly mention Ananda and ter VI - "Palaeographic and linguistic features of Gandhara Ajfiatakau1,1<;linya, Ajivaka and Anathapi1,1<;lika, telling also of scrolls", and especially section 6.1 on the Gandharl lan­ their previous rebirths. The Gandhara manuscripts lacks only guage. Salomon holds that the a\'(/diina texts are close to jiitakas, which make up nearly half of this section in the the colloquial Gandharl spoken in the region.