700 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



follow blindly the procedure of Hellenists or Latinists, good or bad as 

 that may be. And in fact, in looking over the prefaces of the various 

 editions of Pali texts, I have been so struck by the abominable and 

 needless confusion of the sigla codicum, that I take this opportunity to 

 urge a rational course of procedure. 



Four classes of Pali mss. to be clearly distinguished. — The ma- 

 terial for editions of Pali texts consists of mss. in the Pali language, 

 and written, some in Burmese letters, some in Cingalese, some in Kam- 

 bodian, and some in Siamese letters. It is, in the first place, to any one 

 who has even a slight knowledge of these four alphabets, as plain as a 

 pikestaff that the really important thing for us to know concerning a 

 given reading as reported in an apparatus criticus is not whether the 

 ms. in which it appears belonged twenty or thirty years ago to Richard 

 Morris or to Sir Arthur Phayre, nor whether it was kept in Copen- 

 hagen or Chicago. 46 What we do greatly need to know about a given 

 reading is this, In what country did the ms. containing it originate, 

 and in what alphabet is it written ? 



Country of origin. Alphabet used. — Why these two matters 

 should be indicated by the siglum may be shown by an example or 

 two. There are certain peculiarities of orthography proper to mss. 

 coming from Burma, and others proper to mss. coming from Ceylon. 

 If, in a given passage, we know from the sigla that, for instance, the 

 ms. which reads veju is from Burma, while the ms. reading venu is 

 from Ceylon, we may very well discount that fact 47 and let it pass with- 

 out special comment. The provenience of the ms. is here the essential 

 question. In other cases the essential question may be, In what 

 alphabet is the reading given 1 In the Cingalese alphabet, for example, 

 y and s are confusingly similar, while t and n are almost desperately 

 indistinguishable. In Burmese, on the other hand, there is not the 

 slightest danger of confusing t and n. Now, taking for example 48 the 

 passage Pv. iv. 6 5 , if we know that the distinction between santo and 

 yan no in Cingalese letters is not worth a fig, and that one Burmese 

 ms. reading yarj no is worth twenty Cingalese mss. with the unintel- 

 ligible santo, the fact that the unintelligible santo is in Cingalese letters 

 is the fact of prime importance. 49 



46 The sigla used in the Anguttara (see below) tell us just the things that 

 we do not need to know, and most effectually conceal from us all that we do. 

 They are models of badness. 



47 See Davids and Carpenter, preface to D.cm., I., p. xv. 



48 Cp. Minayeff's ed. of Pv., p. 63, verse 5, with Hardy's ed. of Pv.cm., 

 page 261. 



49 And yet this one little fact is not to be known from Minayeff's ed. except 

 at a cost of precious minutes ! See his preface, p. hi., top, p. v., bottom, p. vi., 

 top. 



