No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
In possession of the Cambridge University Library (Or. 830) there is a copy of a Catalogue of the Kanjur, handwritten in Tibetan characters. The MS. has no head-title or colophon, and no indication of the author or the date of its origin is given. The colophon in the MS. 30a, 2–306,12, refers to the collection, and not to the Catalogue. The MS. is written distinctly, and at least three different handwritings are traceable. The size is a medium quarto, and one side of the paper only is filled. It consists of 22 ff. No original pagination of the folios is to be found, and this fact caused the present pagination, added by somebody not knowing Tibetan, to be utterly misleading. In the first half of the MS. the empty pages are numbered as well as those written on, and thus the next page after 56 is la, after 76, 9a, and so forth. After page 13 the mistake has been corrected and henceforward the pages run in their natural order, except for the other mistake, this time in binding, where the binder confused a few pages, and the “paginator”, not noticing it, kept up the natural order of the numbers.
page 106 note 1 P. 36 might be easily omitted too, as it is but a repetition of p. 3a. For explanation see below.
page 107 note 1 Although the following remarks are hardly more than a conjecture, it may be worth inferring from the data given that the MS. was sent by the Lazarists to Julien before or even in 1830. The latter being the actual date of collapse of the first periqd of the extremely vivacious and versatile activities of the Congregation for nearly two centuries, the interval between 1830 and 1849 (the date of Foucaux′s annotation) was hardly fit for any enterprise of the Congregation not closely connected with establishing new missionary activities. Unless it was Father Hue or Gabet who sent the MS. to Europe, which, on account of various reasons, is rather doubtful, it is not unlikely that the last Mohican of the Lazarists, the learned Father Lamiot, an ardent missionary, mathematician, linguist, and well versed in religious problems, might have sent it to France or perhaps to Julien himself. The conjecture might be corroborated by the fact that Father Lamiot, who was taken ill after much persecution and suffering, and realized that after his death there was nobody to take his place, sent a couple of missionaries of Chinese origin from Peking to France to be trained there as his future substitutes. These two might have been entrusted with the delivery of the MS.
page 107 note 2 In the Catalogue de la Bibliotheque de feu M. Leon Feer, Em. Paul et Fils et Guillemin, Paris, 1902, the MS. is recorded under Nr. 27.
page 107 note 3 As for instance a special character for gs at the end of a word, an abbreviation for nam.mkhqh, etc
page 108 note 1 All the rgyud pa works up to ñi.śu.bźi.(rgyud ya) are numbered. Section yum. (ra-ji) is numbered also (the last bcu.bźi). Other sections have no numbers.′
page 110 note 1 I am entirely ignorant of the Chinese and Japanese languages and am deeply obliged to Dr. W. Simon, who was good enough to read and translate for me this and the following passages, mainly footnotes from Ot. It is I, however, who am entirely responsible for the interpretation of these passages.
page 119 note 1 Rgyal.po.bde.bskyed is the Tibetan name for K′ang-hsi. Cf. also Huth, G., Geschichte des Bvddhismus in der Alongolei, Strassburg, 1893 (Text), p. 53, 3, and 1896 (Translation), p. 76. In both K′ang-hsi′s name is given as Bde.skyid. (Huth calculates the year of K′ang-hsi′s birth 1653, while Giles, Chinese Biography, gives 1655.) As a matter of fact none of the Chinese names of the Emperor, neither his dynastic or regnal title nor his personal name, seems to correspond exactly to Bde.skyid or skyed. Cf. H. A. Giles′ Dictionary, p. 607, col. 3.Google Scholar
page 119 note 2 Ot.: Phu-chvon, MS.: Phu-tshwon; Ot.: Ar-pid-hu, MS.: °bid°; Ot.: lihu-hihan, MS.: °tihah (probably a misprint); Ot.: Kir-zahi, MS.: Ka-ni-zahi; Ot.: Then-ke.MS.: Thin-gin.
page 120 note 1 The Mongolian version quoted in S.H. (p. 5) reads slightly differently.
page 120 note 2 The translation from German is mine.
page 120 note 3 Viz. SPAW., 1895, i, Januar bis Mai.