🔎︎

[Error: Requires JavaScript.]

Announcements

Work in progress

PK DA M 507.32

Known as:PK DA M 507.32; PK Cp 32
Cite this page as:Adrian Musitz. "PK DA M 507.32". In A Comprehensive Edition of Tocharian Manuscripts (CEToM). Created and maintained by Melanie Malzahn, Martin Braun, Hannes A. Fellner, and Bernhard Koller. https://cetom.univie.ac.at/?m-pkdam507_32 (accessed 16 Jul. 2024).

Edition

Editor:Adrian Musitz

Provenience

Collection:Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds Pelliot Koutchéen (Paris)

Language and Script

Language:TB

Text contents

Text genre:Non-literary
Text subgenre:Account
Verse/Prose:prose

Object

Material: on paper
Form:Scroll
Number of lines:16

Transliteration

a1a śa ri ka ṣṣi ñi¯ ¯ś sa ma nta ti rne wsa ṣe ñca yso mo sā¯ ¯ṅk yi rṣa lñe ma skeṃ nta¯ ¯r
a2ña kta ñi kcye me nā¯ ¯k ai śa mñe sa ka rso rsta¯ ¯rś ma kte sa ma nta ti rsa ṅkrā mpi kwa la ñe śka
a3a nā¯ ¯s e rka tte ṣe¯ ¯ñ • ña ke ce a lyu ṣma ññe śka sthe reṃ jñā na se neṃ ā rya te we ntse ske ye sa
a4sa ṅkrā¯ ¯m wte tse lmā te sa ṅka ntse a yā to ne sa ññe ste kuśa la pā kṣne ri tte mtta¯ ¯r ña kta
a5pu tti se ne tse nau ṣa ñe pe ri sa ṣo ta rye te ri sa śwā rse sa śo moṃ ce meṃ ā ya¯ ¯s̝ ṣe yeṃ ai śai mā
a6ma ṣi ta rne su śo mo lau ·i [t]a ña ke śi ṅku nmeṃ pa rso nta yau ye ka nta klā sta¯ ¯r a cā¯ ¯r
a7spa rko¯ ¯s̝ ya kne sa ṣe kka ṣe kka sa ṅka ntse a nta rā¯ ¯yä ma s̝s̝aṃ : ña kta pu tti se ne ce sa
a8ṅkrā¯ ¯m lkā ṣi tai seṃ te ri sa ·o wai ca rka tu ntse ke¯ ¯ś nau ṣa meṃ ste ce seṃ ka mā te pa¯ ¯s
a9ai¯ ¯yñä ce pe ri ne se¯ ¯m tu pa¯ ¯s ai ske mne ña kta ce co wai ca rka tu mā pa lska naṃ a ṣkā rsa
a10ṣo rye pe ri sa e ṅku ṣe¯ ¯ñ to tteṃ wä nta re sa śa ṅkeṃ sai mtsa a rṇyā [r]ta te e ñca re ma s̝aṃ nme
a11ña ke a śa ri te ri plā skaṃ nme ma kte sa ṅkrā¯ ¯m wte tse ke ta mā ·ā ·kaṃ sa ṅka ntse
a12a yā to ne sa ññe mā ka rsta ta¯ ¯r blank pa rwe kṣuṃ tsa ra pa ññe meṃ ne
a13sa ṅka ste re wi rya mi tre ¤
a14ste re wä rya se ne ¤
a15ste re jñā na se ne ¤ blank pra skā re mo kṣa ca ndre ¤
a16– re ā rya te we ¤

Transcription

a1aśari käṣṣiñiś n1 samantatirne wsaṣeñca ysomo sāṅk yirṣalñe maskeṃntär
a2ñakta ñikcye menāk aiśamñesa kärsor starś mäkte samantatir saṅkrām pikwalañe śka
a3anās erkatte ṣe-ññake ce alyuṣmaññe śka sthereṃ jñānaseneṃ āryatewentse skeyesa
a4saṅkrām wtetse lmāte saṅkantse ayāto nesaññe ste kuśalapākṣne rittemttär ñakta
a5puttisenetse nauṣañe perisa ṣotarye terisa śwārsesa n2 śomoṃ n3 cemeṃ āy«a/o»ṣ ṣeyeṃ aiśai
a6maṣitärne su śomo lau ·ita ñake śiṅkunmeṃ pärsonta yauyekänta klāstär acār
a7sp«a/ä»rkoṣ yaknesa ṣekka ṣekka saṅkantse antarāy maṣṣäṃ : ñakta puttisene ce sa
a8ṅkrām lkāṣi taiseṃ terisa (c)owai carka tuntse keś nauṣameṃ ste ce seṃ kamāte päs
a9aiy-ñ ce peri nesem tu päs aiskemne ñakta ce cowai carka tu pälskanaṃ aṣkārsa
a10ṣo«ta»rye perisa eṅku ṣeñ totteṃ wäntaresa śaṅkeṃ saimtsa arṇyārtate eñcare maṣäṃn-me
a11ñake aśari teri plāskaṃnme mäkte saṅkrām wtetse keta (t)ā(r)kaṃ saṅkantse
a12ayāto nesaññe karstatär parwe kṣuṃtsa rapaññe meṃne
a13saṅkästere wiryamitre ¤
a14stere wäryasene ¤
a15stere jñānasene ¤praskāre mokṣacandre ¤
a16(ste)re āryatewe ¤

Other

a1致阿阇利尊师:住在Samantatir 的全体僧伽向您祝福致意。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a2+尊者!由于您天神一般的洞察力,您可能已经知道我的 Samantatir 寺院这几年如何凄惨恶劣。现在,因为 Āryatewe 上座与Jñānasene 上座的努力,寺院已经被重建了。(现在)众僧情况很好,而且勤于善行。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a4+尊者!关于 Puttisene 之前的四千(文)钱的负债,附有(我等的?)签署,那个给钱的人并不知道他(=Puttisene)(的情况)。(因为)那个人去远方。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a6现在,他(=Puttisene)已身负徭役,从 Śiṅku(n) 送信(出去)。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a6+他(=债主)毫无尊敬之意,羞辱僧伽一次又一次。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a7+尊者!Puttisene 是如何地(照)看这座寺院,他便也如何地夺走。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a8以上便是这件事的始末。(字面义为:“以上便是他的数额”) (Ching 2017: 393f)
a8+他所拿走的东西,他必须(还)给我们。我们所欠他的,我们也将(还)给他。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a8+If he gives back to me what he has carried off, we [will] give back to him what we owe. (Peyrot 2013b: 315; 324)
a9+尊者!对于他所夺走的东西,他不去想(它的价值)。它是算作违反的 ṣorye* 债务而从我这边被强行拿走的。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a10由于这个极端的情形,在 Śaṅke 的庇护......之下,他......对我们作出种种不友善的举动。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a11+现在,请尊师稍微考虑一下我们的(解决之)道:这座寺院如何不再......土地,以使僧众不至于破散。元年十二月。 (Ching 2017: 393f)
a11+May the ācārya now think about an approach [lit. way] for us, so that the monastery will not (lose estate?)334 for a second time, and the proper situation of the community will not be terminated. (Peyrot 2013b: 315; 324)
a13Saṅkästere 僧 Wiryamitre ¤ (Ching 2017: 393f)
a14上座 Wäryasene ¤ (Ching 2017: 393f)
a15上座Jñānasene ¤ Praskāre 僧 Mokṣacandre ¤ (Ching 2017: 393f)
a16[上座]Āryatewe ¤ (Ching 2017: 393f)

Commentary

Philological commentary

The 'to me' (-ñ) indicates that whoever wrote this letter likely is in charge of the finances of the monastery, i.e. giving something to the monastery amounts to giving something to the author of the letter. However, -ñ could also be interpreted as a palatalized version of the 3rd person singular ending, conditioned by the following ce.
This is a constructio ad sensum: sāṅk is a singular, but the verb is in the plural.
I interpret -ñ here as a kind of dativus ethicus.
I take the two śka in the clauses to be coordinating.
perisa in the perlative preceded by a name in the genitive means 'as repayment for debt owed to X'.
This probably means that the debt was repayed not directly in coins/grain, but with a cheque.
maṣitär must be the medio-passive imperfect of yām-. The imperfect of mäsk- would be mäskītär.
In Khotanese, there is a document that attestes the term śiṃ kūṃ as an epithet the king Viśa Sambhava/李圣天 (P. 3510). Rong and Zhu 2013: 32 argue that this term is a loan from Chinese 圣君 'sagely ruler'. Viśa Sambhava ruled in the 10th century, much later than our document. Could it be the case that 圣君 was already a common designation for a sovereign in Kucha much earlier than it was in Khotan? If so, Śiṅkun means 'the sagely sovereign', i.e. the Kuchean king. Could this term further have some connection with the Śaṅke official?
Ching considers this word to be a loan from Chinese 徭役 'corvée'.
Ching 2017: 396 points out that lkā- is a root very often used for kapyāri. This shows that Puttisene worked for the monastery.
That is, in an earlier letter.
It is not entirely clear what is meant here. Seemingly, through some legal technicality, the author of the letter was able to legally return ownership of the property Puttisene has stolen to the monastery. However, Puttisene has not physically returned the property, and is hiding behind the Śaṅke/Śaṅki (the title/name of an official whose main function is handling private debt disputes).
On account of the debt Puttisene has accrued in the name of the saṃgha.
The translation is a compromise between the solutions of different authors. I disagree with Ching that Puttisene is the debtor, because the phrase X-ntse perisa means "as repayment of debt to X", as already explained. Thus, Puttisene must be the creditor. There are some other details which I believe Ching gets wrong because of her assumption that Puttisene is the debtor, cf. in particular her translating a7-a8 puttisene ce sa/ṅkrām lkāṣi taiseṃ terisa cowai carka '(How) Puttisene had watched (over) this monastery, he (= the creditor?) seized (lit. 'robbed') in the same way.' There is no reason to assume a subject change between the two sentences. The focus of the letter is most definitely Puttisene, to whom the monastery owes debt and who harasses the saṅgha. It appears that this letter is only part of a larger correspondence, since it already assumes knowledge of who Puttisene is. It is probable that previous letters listed even more of Puttisene's embezzlement/thievery (this is probably what is meant by 'tuntse keś nauṣameṃ ste').
n1For aśari käṣṣi, cf. PK NS 296
n2I interpret the perlative as having the same function as in the accounts, namely that it indicates the total amount of money something is worth (in this case the amount paid to Puttisene) cf. PK DA M 507.7 a6 śakār käryāmtte śwersa.
n3Ching has śomo, but there is a stroke of ink above the 'mo', which I interpret as an anusvāra. This reading would give a better sense. It would be 'he (=Puttisene) did not take care of him (the creditor).'

References

Edition

Ching 2010: 225-229; Ching 2017: 393-394; Pinault 0000: 88-93; Meunier 2013: 165; Peyrot 2013b: 315; 324; Rong and Zhu 2013: 32; Adams 2012: 9; Ching 2010: 137

Translations

Ching 2017: a1 (393f), a2 a3 a4 (393f), a4 a5 a6 (393f), a6 (393f), a6 a7 (393f), a7 a8 (393f), a8 (393f), a8 a9 (393f), a9 a10 (393f), a10 (393f), a11 a12 (393f), a13 (393f), a14 (393f), a15 (393f), a16 (393f); Peyrot 2013b: a8 a9 (315; 324), a11 a12 (315; 324)

Bibliography

Adams 2012

Adams, Douglas Q. 2012. “Another look at three Kuci-Prākrit–Tocharian B bilinguals.” Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 13: 7–55.

Ching 2010

Ching, Chao-jung. 2010. “Secular documents in Tocharian: Buddhist economy and society in the Kucha region.” PhD, Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études.

Ching 2017

Ching, Chao-jung. 2017. 吐火罗语世俗文献与古代龟兹历史 – Tocharian secular texts and the history of Ancient Kucha. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Meunier 2013

Meunier, Fanny. 2013. “Typologie des locutions en yām- du tokharien.” Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 14: 123–85.

Peyrot 2013b

Peyrot, Michaël. 2013b. The Tocharian subjunctive. A study in syntax and verbal stem formation. Vol. 8. Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Pinault 0000

Pinault, Georges-Jean. 0000. “Textes économiques koutchéens.”

Rong and Zhu 2013

Rong, Xinjiang, and Lishuang Zhu. 2013. 于阗与敦煌. 敦煌讲座书系. 兰州: 甘肃教育出版社.