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
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.