________________
REVIEWS
159
in one of his latest publications that he was able to use four editions of the Tanjur: Derge, Chone, Narthang and Peking.' Johnston has made some use of the Peking edition of the Tanjur. In his preface he writes: "For a few troublesome passages I have consulted the Peking edition of the Bibliothèque Nationale, not used by Dr. Weller, and which sometimes has better readings.” It is a pity that neither Weller nor Johnston was able to use the Derge edition, which in several instances contains better readings. For instance, in IV. 29ab the Sanskrit text has: madenāvarjitā nāma tam kāścit tatra yositah. The Tibetan translation in the Narthang edition reads: rnam-par sgeg-bcas gźon-nu rgyags-pas ma-yaris de-rnams 'ga'. In Siegling's glossary one finds under yans-pa the following entry. "ma-yans = ? (skt. ävarjita!) Bc IV, 29." Weller has pointed out several instances in which rnam-par spars-pa is written for rnam-par yans-pa.2 In IV.29b, Derge and Chone have ma spars-pa but Narthang and Peking ma yaris-pa. Ma sparspa (avarjita) confirms the reading of the Sanskrit text (āvarjita), which has been misunderstood by the Tibetan translators. Ma yans-pa would correspond to Sanskrit anāyāta. Weller is of the opinion that ma yaris-pa is based upon a different Sanskrit reading, something which I find difficult to accept in view of the fact that spans and yans have been confounded in other places. It is also not possible to agree with Weller when he suggests that madenānāyāta can be rendered by "ungehemmt ob ihrer Berauschtheit". 3
In V. 87c the Sanskrit text has: arunaparusatāram antariksam. In Weller's edition of the Tibetan translation one finds: sin-rta 'dren-pas gzi-nams skar Idan-par snar-la. Siegling was puzzled by the rendering of aruņa by sin-rta 'dren-pa but this can be easily explained, for the dawn is the charioteer of the sun (sūrasuta). As to skar Idan-pa, Siegling suggested that Cowell's reading obhāram ought to be changed to "tāram. Moreover, one must read skar-Idan bar-snar-la.
These few examples may suffice to show the necessity for carefully examining the Tibetan translation in order to explain difficulties in its interpretation. It is the great usefulness of an index that it helps very much to bring out these difficuties. For this reason one must be grateful for the publication of Siegling's work, even though it is not complete as Nobel already pointed out in 1928 (cf. Vorwort) and the German text is not always easy to decipher. His glossary will render great service so long as we do not have an index based upon Johnston's edition of the Buddhacarita, nor a new edition of the Tibetan translation.
In his preface, Waldschmidt describes Siegling's life and activities and draws attention to his study of the Mātrceta-Stotras. He mentions that F. Bernhard had undertaken a critical edition of the Sanskrit fragments, but
