682 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



Ambiguous combinations. — It is bad enough, albeit unavoidable, 

 to use ambiguous single letters ; but it is inexcusable to use ambiguous 

 combinations. 23 Nevertheless, we find SN. for Sarjyutta-nikaya in List 

 8 ; and S.N. or SN. for Sutta-nipata in Lists 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10. Again, 

 in List 5, MN. means Maka-niddesa ; while in Lists 2, 8, 9, 11, and 12 

 M.N. or MN. means Majjhima-nikaya. In List 2, Ps. means Patisam- 

 bhida-magga ; while in List 8 it means Papaiica-sudanl. In List 8, Sv. 

 = Sumangala-vilasinI ; in List 12, SV. = Sutta-vibhanga. In List 7, 

 Mp. = Mahaparinibbana-sutta, and in List 8, Mp. = Manoratha-puranl ; 

 but it might just as well mean Milinda-panha, and MP. does so in List 

 12. In List 10, Mhv. means Maha-vastu, although it suggests Maha- 

 varjsa quite as easily and is in fact used in that sense by Davids and 

 Carpenter, in Sumangala-vilasinI, I., p. xvii. In List 5, PV. means 

 Parivara ; but P. V. or Pv. means Peta-vatthu in various lists. Of the 

 ambiguity of Abh. I have j ust spoken. If these things must needs be, 

 then life is too short for us to spend it in trying to hold the eel of 

 science by the tail. 



Canon 4. — The individual titles of briefer texts which together form 

 one larger coherent text with a comprehensive title, should be ignored, 

 and the abbreviation should be based on the comprehensive title. 



To illustrate : In List 3, as designations of parts of the Sutta- 

 vibhanga of the Vinaya-pitaka, we find Bhnlpar. for Bhikkkunl- 

 parajika, BhnlS. for Bhikkkunl-sarjghadisesa, and Bhnipac. for Bhik- 

 khunl-pacittiya ; but we are obliged to interpret, ex silentio, simple 

 Par. and S. and Pac. as Bhikkhu-parajika, etc. Although to these 

 are added the very objectionable N. for Nissaggiya and P. for Parivara, 

 yet, even so, by no means all the parts of the Sutta-vibhanga are cov- 

 ered. Nor do the designations suggest the volume in which we are 

 to look for the designated text. The texts themselves are lexicograph- 

 ically and otherwise so important that the constant recurrence of such 

 illogical and blind and cumbrous abbreviations would be an annoyance 

 as intolerable as it is gratuitous. The last volume of Oldenberg's 

 Vinaya had appeared five years before List 3. Surely the logical and 

 suggestive and simple Vin. 3, Vin. 4, Vin. 1, Vin. 2, Vin. 5 would have 

 been vastly better, as we have already shown in another connection, 

 pp. 679-680. 



That this canon applies to the Vinaya-pitaka and (see p. 678, ^[ 2) 

 to the first four Nikayas is as clear as sunshine. It is just as clear 

 that it does not apply to the fifth, the Kkuddaka-nikaya, the briefer 



! Unless unavoidable, as in the digraph Dh for Dhamma- and Dhatu-, 

 p. 689. 



