686 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



Canon 7. — With due regard to Canon 1, the designations should be 

 as brief as possible. 



"Brevity is the soul of wit," and, no less truly, the soul of an abbre- 

 viation. So no comment is needed upon this canon, but rather only 

 upon its limitations. "What then," asks the etymologist, "what do 

 you look for in an ab-breviation, if not for brevity ?" Much, I answer, 

 and above all things, ready suggestiveness (Canons 2 and 5). Brevity 

 gained at a sacrifice of easy intelligibility is to be condemned abso- 

 lutely. — To illustrate: the use of P., V., EL, and Y., for Patthana, 

 Vibhaiiga, Katha-vatthu, and Yamaka (as in Lists 2, 5), is most objec- 

 tionable. Two counts lie against P. : it stands for Patisambhida-magga 

 and Parivara (and seven other pertinent elements : p. 681) ; and it is 

 not triliteral (p. 683). That the brevity of M. and D. for Maha-varjsa 

 and Dlpa-varjsa is too dearly bought appears from pages 681, 677. 

 Although we are very familiar with Mil. for Milinda-paiiha and there is 

 nothing else that it can be mistaken for, we willingly add an n, simply 

 to make it a quadriliteral, and for no other reason. As to J. for Jataka, 

 see pp. 677-678. Indeed, the comments on the previous canons abun- 

 dantly illustrate the limitations of this one. 



The foregoing canons state the more important principles which 

 should govern the determination of a workable set of abbreviations. 

 Clearly, they are well worthy of the consideration of a scholar. Several 

 minor prescriptions, however, touching lesser but yet essential matters, 

 ought not to go unheeded. 



Canon 8. — Arbitrary distinctions. These should be carefully 

 avoided. Thus the use of J. for the stanzas of the Jataka alongside of 

 Jat. for the commentary (as in List 4) is too arbitrary, and needlessly 

 so (use Ja. and Ja.cm.). This prescription condemns also the use, side 

 by side, of SN. and Sn. in List 8. 



Canon 9. — Alternative designations for the same text should 

 be strictly excluded. Thus the "V. or Vin." of List 4, the C. and 

 Vin. [2] for Culla-vagga of List 6, and the "Sas. or Sas. V." of List 13, 

 are objectionable. So the " CAR. oder AR." of List 12. 



Canon 10. — Typographical form should be duly regarded. The 

 chosen designations should avoid, as far as possible, the use of letters 

 requiring diacritical marks (macrons, dots, etc.). All the abbreviations 

 of one or of two or of three letters here proposed by me do in fact dis- 

 pense with diacritics, excepting Ja. for Jataka and Ptn. for Patthana. 

 The quadriliterals show five macrons and one dotted t) namely, in 

 Davi)., Savrj., Jina., Muls., and Yoga., and Peta., all unimportant texts. 



They should also avoid the juxtaposition of elements which are 



