Reviews Of Diffeent Books

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 60

254 REVIEWS Both texts show characteristics of the n-dialect, the London scroll even more than the Sangim manuscript of the Maitrisimit, and the Hami manuscripts to a lesser degree than the Sangim manuscript. Of particular interest is Laut's study of the loan-words. He examines in both texts the Indian loan-words taken from Sogdian and gives a list of the Indian loan-words in the Maitrisimit which were borrowed from Tokharian. Laut points out that all Old Turkish texts contain a number of religious terms which constitute a Buddhist basic vocabulary. He lists the words of this basic vocabulary in the Sangim manuscript of the Maitrisimit and in the London scroll. Finally Laut remarks that the London scroll shows a higher proportion of Indian loan-words from Sogdian (22 out of 31) than the Sangim manuscript (65 out of 380). The results obtained by Laut are important not only for the study of the Old Turkish manuscripts but also for the history of Buddhism in Central Asia. It is to be hoped that once all fragments of the Hami manuscript of the Maitrisimit are published a new translation of this text will be prepared. Further study of the Maitrisimit and other "pre-classical" Old Turkish texts will help to give a better insight into the history of Old Turkish translation of Buddhist texts and in this way contribute to our understanding of the history of Buddhism among the Turks.2 NOTES ! On this text see Juten Oda, 'Remarks on the Indic "lehngut" of the Sakiz yukmak yaruq sutra', Sprachen des Buddhismus in Zentralasien (Wiesbaden, 1983), pp. 65-72; R: A. Stein, 'Tibetica antiqua I, BEFEO LXXII (1983), pp. 214-215... 2 In the bibliography of Laut's book two corrections are to be made. The author of 141 is the Dutchman Hendrik Kern and not Heinrich Kern. Werner Thomas's article on the Maitreya-samiti-nataka (192) was published in volume VIII (not VII) of Kindlers Literaturlexikon. Australian National University J. W. DE JONG