________________ REVIEWS 119 27-34, 37, 41-43, 46-47, 49-50, 52) are missing. The writing has been obliterated in five of these folios (15, 18, 19, 23, 60) and subsequent retracing has resulted in wrong readings. The existing folios correspond to the following pages of Nobel's edition: 8-11 = 25.1-42.17; 14 = 52.1-56.12; 15+ (+ = writing obliterated and retraced) = 56.12-62.5; 17 = 65.10-67.13; 18+-19+ = 67.13-72.12; 20-21 = 72.12-77.9; 23+ = 79.11-81.10; 24-26 = 81.10-89.3; 35-36 = 106.14-113.3; 38-40 = 116.6 124.7; 44-45 = 130.16-138.10; 48 = 146.7-151.7; 51 = 158.10-162.6; 53-59 = 165.6188.9; 60+ = 188.9-192.4; 61-72 = 192.4-251. Even MS. G is not free from corruptions: especially in the verses, it is often almost impossible to arrive at a satisfactory text. Edgerton has severely criticized Nobel for inconsistencies in his treatment of Buddhist Hybrid forms (cf. JAOS, 77, 1957, pp. 184-188). However, Edgerton's criticisms hardly ever affect the meaning of the text as established by Nobel. Wherever the Sanskrit text is hopelessly corrupt, the Tibetan and Chinese versions are of great assistance. Therefore Emmerick is right in maintaining that it is quite possible to render the text adequately into a modern European language even though the words 'verderbt', 'dunkel' and 'unsicher and the like are alarmingly frequent in the apparatus of Nobel's edition. In the critical apparatus of his edition of the Tibetan version (Leiden, 1944) Nobel has made a number of corrections in the Sanskrit text. They have been listed by Emmerick in his notes. Moreover, Emmerick himself suggests some emendations based upon the manuscripts, and also on the Tibetan and Khotanese versions. Although the text as established by Nobel and corrected by himself and Emmerick is infinitely superior to that of the two preceding editions, there is still room for improvement quite apart from the inconsistencies pointed out by Edgerton. Emmerick has compared the Khotanese versions and an appendix lists the fragments previously identified and those which he himself has been able to identify. One would have expected the study of these Khotanese fragments to be helpful in suggesting emendations in the Sanskrit text, but in his preface Emmerick remarks that they require further study. Apparently it was his intention to translate the Sanskrit text first, before undertaking an exhaustive study of the Khotanese fragments. Two chapters of the text have been separately studied by Nobel: chapter 7, cf. "Das Zauberbad der Gottin Sarasvati" (Festschrift Schubring, Hamburg, 1951, pp. 123-239) and chapter 16, cf. Ein alter medizinischer Sanskrit-Text und seine Deutung (Supplement to JAOS, no. 11, 1951). Passages from chapters 6 and 12 have been translated by A. L. Basham, cf. Th. de Bary, ed., Sources of Indian Tradition (New York, 1958), pp. 181-185. This translation is not free from errors. To quote a single example: Nobel p. 74.10-75.1: ahoratram grahanakyatracandrasuryas ca samyak vahisyanti has been rendered as follows: "Planets and stars, moon and sun, will duly bring on the days and nights" (op. cit., p. 182). Emmerick translates: "Day and night, planets, asterisms, moon and sun, will move properly" (p. 28). The intransitive meaning of vah- has been rendered correctly by the Tibetan translators: gza dar rgya-skar dan zla-ba dan ni-ma yan fin-mts'an-du legs-par rgyu-bar 'gyur (p. 56.11-12). Emmerick has carefully compared the Tibetan translation which is of great help even in places more obscure than the one just mentioned. His translation is excellent and only very few improvements can be suggested. The following notes point out a number of passages or words which can be rendered in a different way. In a few passages the 1 The partial edition by Carat Chandra Das and Carat Chandra Castri (Fasc. 1, Calcutta, 1898) and the edition by Bunyiu Nanjio and Hokei Idzumi (Kyoto, 1931) have been reviewed by Nobel (OLZ, 1933, Sp. 572-575). The recent edition of the text by S. Bagchi in the Buddhist Sanskrit Texts (no. 8, Darbhanga, 1967) is based upon the edition by Nanjio and Idzumi but a 15 page appendix, entitled Errata and Variae Lectiones, lists different readings from Nobel's edition!
