674 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



Previously proposed abbreviations. — The critic who would pass 

 judgment upon the abbreviations proposed by me, and upon the prin- 

 ciples which guided me in determining them, ought first to consider the 

 various sets of abbreviations previously put forward by Pali scholars, 

 and the principles (so far as there were any) by which those scholars 

 were guided. With this in mind I studied half a score of such lists, or 

 more, and found, in the first place, that there were almost no such 

 guiding principles, and, in the second, that no argument for a thorough- 

 going discussion of the subject could be more convincing than a simple 

 typographical juxtaposition of some of the abbreviations of some of 

 these lists with all their maddening perplexities. 



Bibliography of 14 lists of abbreviations. — The necessary biblio- 

 graphical notes for each list follow, with certain general comments. 

 The abbreviations themselves (not all) will then be tabulated in Table 

 II, p. 676. Specific comments on this and that one may best be given 

 in the notes on the Canons, below. 



List 1, year 1872. Given by Childers at the beginning of the first 

 half of his Dictionary. At that time very few canonical texts had 

 been printed in Europe, so that this list contains hardly more than 

 two abbreviations (Dh., and the unimportant Kh.) which can now be 

 used to advantage. The rest (like Das. for Ja.iv.124 or Ten J. for 

 Ten Jatakas) are for the most part antiquated. 



List 2,' year 1886. Proposed by Rhys Davids, JPTS.1886, pages 

 xiii-xv. For this list the author states a " guiding principle " (re- 

 printed by me at p. 668, above) ; but the principle is too loose and too 

 loosely followed. 



List 3, year 1888. Given by Edward Miiller in his " Pali proper 

 names," JPTS.1888, p. 106. This list is to be disapproved almost 

 in toto. 



List 4, year 1896. Proposed by Davids, JPTS.1896, pages 102-106, 

 in an article entitled "Abbreviations of titles of Pali books." So far 

 as I know, this is the eai'liest article devoted expressly to this subject. 

 In the preface he says: " The principle adopted is that all Pitaka texts 

 should be designated, as far as possible, with one letter ; and later texts 

 with three letters." (See p. 668, above.) The list in fact departs 

 much too far from this principle (see p. 683, below). Apart from D., 

 M., S., A. for the four Nikayas, very many of its designations need 

 to be revised typographically and otherwise. 



List 5, year 1898 or thereabouts, is the unprinted list prepared by 

 Henry Clarke Warren for use in his edition of the Visuddhi-magga. 

 In its entirety this list also is far from acceptable. 



List 6, year 1900, is the one given by Mrs. Rhys Davids in her Bud- 



