Dear Sir,
I have examined the fragment of ch. 494 of the Ta pan-jo po-lo-mi-to ching (Maha-prajna-paramita sutra) which you forwarded to Mr. Gardner on behalf of Mr. Nixon. It is undoubtedly a genuine document from the Tunhuang monastic library. I was extremely fortunate that Mr. Dzo Ching-ch'uan, who has worked on these manuscripts in Paris, came to London the other day, and was kind enough to give a second opinion. He considers that it is either 8th or 9th century, but certainly no later. The top and bottom have been trimmed, but it is impossible to say whether in modern times or not. Some of our documents were trimmed before the 10th century.
The Tibetan document we consider to be later, from the type of paper, but we are not able to comment on the text. I have taken the roll personally to the India Office Library, and they will write separately.
The fundamental work on paper, calligraphic style, dating sequences, etc., has yet to be done. Among the Tunhuang documents scattered throughout the world there are several hundred of the same title as the Chinese fragment. This one is average to good, with a greater variation of characters in the column than is usual.
Yours Sincerely,
sgd.
(E.D. Grinstead)
Assistant Keeper
The scroll is described in our catalogue as follows:
大般若經
大般若波羅蜜多經卷第四百九十四第三分善現品 第三之十三三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯
1
44×24公分 卷軸 敦煌殘卷共 26 行行17字
The text of the scroll is reproduced in Plate 14.
James Hayes
222
Dear Sir,
I have examined the fragment of ch. 494 of the Ta pan-jo po-lo- mi-to ching (Maha-prajna-paramita sutra) which you forwarded to Mr. Gardner on behalf of Mr. Nixon. It is undoubtedly a genu- ine document from the Tunhuang monastic library. I was ex- tremely fortunate that Mr. Dzo Ching-ch'uan, who has worked on these manuscripts in Paris, came to London the other day, and was kind enough to give a second opinion. He considers that it is either 8th or 9th century, but certainly no later. The top and bot- tom have been trimmed, but it is impossible to any whether in modern times or not. Some of our documents were trimmed be- fore the 10th century.
The Tibetan document we consider to be later, from the type of paper, but we are not able to comment on the text. I have taken the roll personally to the India Office Library, and they will write separately.
The fundamental work on paper, calligraphic style, dating se- quences, etc., has yet to be done. Among the Tunhuang docu- ments scattered throughout the world there are several hundred of the same title as the Chinese fragment. This one is average to good, with a greater variation of characters in the column than is usual.
Yours Sincerely,
sgd.
(E.D. Grinstead)
Assistant Keeper
The scroll is described in our catalogue as follows:
大般若經
大般若波羅蜜多經卷第四百九十四第三分善現品 第三之十三三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯
1
44×24公分 卷軸 敦煌殘卷共 26 行行17字
The text of the scroll is reproduced in Plate 14.
James Hayes
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.