BOOK REVIEW

Eli Franco (ed.), The Spitzer Manuscript: The Oldest Philosophical Manuscript in
Sanskrit, 2 Vols., bsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philoso-
phisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 323 Band, Beitdige zur Kultur-
und Geistesgeschichte Asiens Nr. 43, Wien: Verlag der bsterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004, xii + 510 Pp. € 139. (Paperback)

The third Prussian expedition (December 1905 to June 1907), headed by Albert
Grtinwedel together with Albert von le Coq and Th. Bartus, reached the western
oases, for instance, Kurea, Kumtura, and Kyzil; however, by the middle of 1906
Le Coq had to return to Germany because of his health. Therefore, it was during a
very short period that they discovered a cache of Sanskrit manuscripts along with
those of several Central Asian languages at Kyzil, where one of the biggest
complexes of Buddhist caves was found. As to the place of discovery, it is
reported that most of the manuscripts had "been discovered in the so-called
Rotkuppelraum ("room of the red cupola") in the Ming-oi ("thousand caves")
near Kyzil, or, more precisely, in a small room adjacent to it" (vol. 1: Introduction
p. 1). "The so-called Rotkuppelraum" was according to Le Coq "ein alte
Bibliothek" (an old library) and preserved a number of Indian manuscripts written
on palmleaf, birchbark, and paper. These materials were later dispatched to Berlin
and inspected by a team headed by H. Pischel (after his death, Heinrich Ltiders
took on this responsibility). Among them, the so-called "Spitzer manuscript" (this
designation was given by Dieter Schlingloff "in homage of the German-Jewish
scholar Moritz Spitzer (1900-1982), who in 1927-28 was the first to work on it"
(vol. 1: Introduction p. 3) was included. It is catalogued as SHT Nr. 810 and
consists of more than one thousand broken fragments; the total number of folios is
unknown but according to a surviving folio number (which is number higher than
400) "we cannot be sure that the manuscript contained only ca. 420 folios" (vol. 1:
Introduction, p. 27). Its date is presumed by Franco to be the second half of the
third century. (Franco further investigates this by using the scientific method. See
below.)
Unfortunately, Spitzer never published his study of this manuscript and he
subsequently disappeared from the world of Indology and Buddhology (see vol. I:
Preface, pp. ix-xii). Later a Japanese scholar, Shako Watanabe, who was at that
time working with Ernst Leumann, studied it in the early 1930's and made
hand-copies of some of the fragments (a part of his copy, one side of a fragment
which is now lost, was reproduced in Miyasaka [1962] ("Kyoryobu no danpen"
[Fragments of Sautrantika], Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 10: 637-679)
and is included in The Spitzer Manuscript, vol. I as Appendix 4). Although
Watanabe himself did not publish any paper on this manuscript, his hand-copies
were entrusted to Prof. Yusho Miyasaka. Prof. Miyasaka was the first scholar who
inspected the text of the fragments themselves and published papers on this
manuscript (through Watanabe's hand-copies) by comparing the fragments with
the Chinese translation of an Abhidharma-text, i.e., the *Satyasiddhisastra by
Harivarman (Taisho No. 1646, vol. 32). In conclusion, Prof. Miyasaka inferred
that this manuscript might have belonged to the Sautrantikas, especially reflecting

169
 NSICB: SA¥BHA~A 26

its early period (Miyasaka [1962: 679]) although Franco does not agree with this
assumption (Franco summarizes Prof. Miyasaka's research in vol. I: Introduction,
pp. 4-8).
After published two papers on this manuscript, Prof. Miyasaka seems to have
entrusted the copies to another Japanese scholar, Prof. Junkinchi Imanishi; the
latter again gave the hand-copies back to Watanabe's son. Franco tried to make
contact with Prof. Shigeaki Watanabe, who was expected to publish his father's
copies, but failed. Therefore, the details and whereabouts of Shoko Watanabe's
hand-copies, being a good witness of this manuscript in the early 1930's and
which are expected to contain copies of "fragments which are now lost and not
available even in Spitzer's transcriptions," are still not known (see in detail vol. I:
Preface, p. viii).
D. Schlingloff studied this manuscript and published two papers in 1968 and
1969 but his interest seems to go towards something different from that of
Buddhologist. He paid much attention to some words found in the text of Spitzer
Manuscript, namely the names of some chapter titles of the Mahabharata and
dealt with them in the history of Indian literature (for Schlingloff's study, see vol.
I: Introduction, pp. 8-10).
After Schlingloff, there seems to be no one who could actually carry on any
study of this manuscript. This unfortunate situation for academic research is
probably due to inaccessibility of this material. However, thanks to Eli Franco,
who noticed the importance of this manuscript and started his research on it, this
old manuscript of the Ku~al)a period is making its appearance again. Franco was
successful in communicating with the family of the late Moritz Spitzer and found
Spitzer's Nachlass which preserved the transcription of the manuscript done by
Spitzer in 1927-28. Finally, in 2004, Franco was able to publish "The Spitzer
Manuscript" reproducing almost all the fragments which are available to him in
the form of scanned and later digitized images in B/W, along with their
transcriptions below each images (the reasons why Franco published this book in
this way are described in Preface, p. xii).
The Spitzer Manuscript consists of the following sections:
Volume I:
Preface (p. vii-)
Introduction (p. 1-)
Reproduction and Transliteration of Fragments (p. 47-)
Appendix 1: Lost Fragments (p. 314-)
Appendix 2: Fragments from the Berezovsky Collection (p. 331-)
Appendix 3: Fragments by Different Hands (p. 337-)
Appendix 4: Previously Published Hand-Copies (p. 352-)
Volume II:
Concordances (p. 353-)
Table of ak~aras (p. 371-)
Word Index (p. 381-)
Towards a Reconstruction of the Spitzer Manuscript (p. 435-)
Index of Fragments in the Reconstruction (p. 506-)

170
 BOOK REVIEW

Abbreviations and Bibliography (p. 507-)

Since this publication, Franco has continued his research and has published
the following paper:
Eli Franco [2006] "Three Notes on the Spitzer Manuscript," in: Wiener
Zeitschrift die Kunde Sudasiens XLIX/2005: 109-111.
In this short paper, he reports the result of Carbon-14 dating test done on ''five
manuscripts of the Berlin Turfan Collection, three of which belong to the Ku~a1;1a
period" (Franco [2006: 109]). According to this scientific test, the date of SHT Nr.
810 "turned out to be CE 130; individual testing results varied between CE80 and
230" [do.] He assigned a different date to this manuscript in the present book,
based mainly on palaeographical considerations placing it "around the second half
of the third century" (vol. 1: Introduction, pp. 32-33). Therefore, Franco [2006:
109] says: "I can easily accept the later 14C date of 230, but am somehow
reluctant to accept the calibrated date of 130 without further evidence." The
second note is information given by Lore Sander, a well-known paleographer: the
British Library preserves five more fragments of the Spitzer manuscript and these
fragments are catalogued under Or[iental Number] 15005.1
Among the Appendices in The Spitzer Manuscript, Appendix 1 is of prime
importance. This appendix consists of the reproduction of Spitzer's Nachlass
which has not been available to us until now and, as Franco himself states, it gives
us two valuable pieces of information: first, with the help of Spitzer's
transcription Franco could combine several fragments together into one folio; and
second, Spitzer's Nachlass has preserved the transcription of "a large number of
fragments which must have been lost or destroyed during the war" (vol. I, p.
314).2 Some of the lost fragments weretranscribed by Watanabe but, as noted
above, details concerning his copies are unavailable. 3 Therefore, it is only
Spitzer's Nachlass that provides us with information concerning the lost/
destroyed/broken fragments. (What is disappointing is that since Spitzer's
transcription conventions seem to have been inconsistent, it is difficult to discern
the number of illegible/unknown ak~aras without photos.)
In this short comment on this publication, I would like to emphasize the
significance of the facsimile publication. Recently, we have witnessed a number
of the publication of original materials, not only newly found or identified
manuscripts but also manuscripts which had been used for 'critical' editions
published earlier, for Indology and Buddhist studies. To enumerate some of the
facsimile editions of the original materials, which are mainly the Buddhist
scriptures in Sanskrit and related languages,4 we have now the publications of
the Gandharan texts from "Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project" by The British

1 The present reviewer is ready to present the transliteration of those five fragments soon.
2 Franco says: "some 40(!) lost fragments," (Preface, p. vii).
3 Correction. On p. 314, line 14: ReadY. Miyasaka instead of "Sh. Miyasaka."
4 The following list of publication is certainly by no means complete.

171
 NSICB: SA?ylBHA~A 26

Library and University of Washington, 5 the Buddhist manuscripts from the

Sch!llyen Collection, 6 the Sanskrit manuscripts in China by the Institute for
Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism at Taisho University, 7 the Sanskrit
manuscripts from the Otani Collection by Ryukoku University, 8 the Sanskrit
manuscripts of the Saddharmapw:ujarrka-satra from "Lotus Sutra Manuscript
Series" by the Soka Gakkai,9 the Central Asian manuscripts in the Stein/Hoernle
Collection from the "British Library Sanskrit Fragments" series by The British
Library and The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka
University, 10 and so on. Needless to say, we cannot forget the achievement of
the long-term project in Germany, namely "Katalogisierung der Orientalischen
Handschriften in Deutschland," especially the publication of "SHT = Sanskrit-

5 Richard Salomon, A Gandharr Version of the Rhinoceros Satra: British Library Kharo$thr
Fragment 5B, Studies in Gandharan Buddhist Texts 1, Seattle: University of Washington Press,
2000; Mark Allon, Three Gandharr Ekottarikiigama-Type Satras: British Library Kharo$thr
Fragments 12 and 14, Gandharan Buddhist Texts 2, Seattle: University of Washington Press,
2001; Timothy Lenz, A New Version of the Gandharr Dharmapada and A Collection of Previous
Birth Stories: British Library Kharo$thr Fragments 16 25, Gandharan Buddhist Texts 3, Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 2002.
6 Ed. by Jens Braarvig (gen. ed.), Manuscripts in the Schoyen Collection. Buddhist Manu-
scripts 1, Manuscripts in the Schl'lyen Collection 1, Oslo: Hermes Publishing 2000; Buddhist
Manuscripts 2. Manuscripts in the Schl'lyen Collection 3, Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 2002.
7 The publications of the facsimile of Sanskrit manuscripts from the Institute for
Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism at Taisho University are chronologically as follows: The
Facsimile Edition of the Sravakabhami Sanskrit Palm-leaf Manuscript (1994), The Facsimile
Edition of the Amoghapasakalparaja Sanskrit Palm-leaf Manuscript (1997), The Facsimile
Edition of the Abhisamacarika-Dharma of the Mahasill]'lghika-Lokottaravadin (1998), The
Facsimile Edition of a Collection of Sanskrit Palm-leaf Manuscripts in Tibetan dBu med Script
(2001 ), and The Facsimile Edition of the Vimalakrrtinirde§a and Jiianalokiilal]'lkiira (2005).
8 Facsimile Series of Rare Texts in the Library of Ryakoku University. Sanskrit manuscripts
are published Nos. 6 (Sanskrit Manuscripts of the Sukhtivatr-vyahafrom Nepal, 1986), 9 (Sanskrit
Manuscripts of the Buddhist Satras from Nepal, 1990), and 14 (Sanskrit Manuscripts of the
Mahayanasatralal]'lkiira from Nepal, 1995) in above series. Later, in 2000, the Institute for the
Study of Buddhist Culture at Ryiikoku University published a CD-ROM edition of the Sanskrit
Buddhist manuscripts under the title of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Otani Collection at Ryukoku
University Library (CD-ROM edition, fourteen CD-ROMs).
9 Facsimile editions of the manuscripts are as follows: Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript From
the National Archives of Nepal (No. 4-21). Facsimile Edition (No. 4"21), Tokyo: Soka Gakkai
(Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series 2-1), 1998; Jiang Zhongxin, Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Fragments from
the Liishun Museum Collection. Facsimile Edition and Romanized Text, Liishun Museum/Soka
Gakkai, 1997; Klaus Wille, Fragments of a Manuscript of the Saddharmapw;qarfkasatra from
Khadaliq, Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series 3, Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2000; Sanskrit Lotus Sutra
Manuscript From Cambridge University Library (Add. 1682 and Add. 1683) Facsimile Edition,
Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series 4, Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2002. Transliterations are published as
Hirofumi Toda, Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from the National Archives of Nepal (No. 4-21):
Romanized Text 1, Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series 2-2, Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2001; do., Romanized
Text 2, Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series 2-3, Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2004; Haruaki Kotsuki, Sanskrit
Lotus Sutra Manuscript from University of Tokyo General Library (No. 414) Romanized Text,
Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series 5, Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2003. Cf. http://www.iop.org.jp/
10 Ed. by Seishi Karashima and Klaus Wille, Buddhist Manuscripts from Central Asia: The
British Library Sanskrit Fragments, vol. 1, Tokyo: The International Research Institute for
Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2006.

172
 BOOK REVIEW

handschriften aus den Turfanfunden." However, although nine volumes have been
published in this series since 1965 and the transliterations of even tiny fragments
are given along with textual notes, the facsimiles are not always included.11
Therefore, Franco's publication of the Spitzer Manuscript, which is one of the
oldest materials in the Turfan Collection, should be regarded very highly.
Notwithstanding its value, it is small wonder that this publication has been
criticized for not reconstructing the text as a whole, not comparing it with the
other materials such as Chinese and Tibetan texts, not publishing the images in
colour, etc. Certainly, we have much still to do with this manuscript. As seen in
the images, since this manuscript is so fragmentary and no parallels have been
found in any language, even to establish the pagination or to place the fragments
in sequence is extremely laborious (in fact, impossible). Now; we have a number
of electronic versions of the Buddhist and Indian texts not only in Sanskrit but
also in Chinese or Tibetan on the internet. We can easily make an online search
for a single word. Therefore, once the original materials become available, it is
partly the reader's task to promote the scholarship in this field. Indeed, to deal
with manuscripts is, needless to say, painstaking and time-consuming as well;
there are a number of manuscripts and fragments which are forgotten and difficult
to access. We should welcome Franco's work as undoubtedly contributing to our
academic world and enriching materials on our desk.

*I would like to express my thanks to Prof. Jan Nattier who checked my unidiomatic
English. Any errors that remain here, of course, are my own.

Soka University Noriyuki KUDO

Hachioji, Japan

******************************

11 SHT. Teil I: Unter Mitarbeit von W. Clawiter und L. Holz-mann hrsg. und mit einer
Einleitung versehen von E. Waldschmidt, Wiesbaden 1965 (VOHD Bd.X, 1); Teil II: Faksimile-
Wiedergaben einer Auswahl von Vinaya- und Sutrahandschriften nebst einer Bearbeitung davon
noch nicht publizierter StUcke im Verein mit W. Clawiter und L. Sander-Holzmann zusammen-
gestellt von E. Waldschmidt, Wiesbaden, 1968 (VOHD Bd. X, 2); Teil III: Die Katalognummern
802-1014, unter Mitarbeit von W. Clawiter und L. Sander-Holzmann hrsg. von E. Waldschmidt,
Wiesbaden, 1971 (VOHD Bd. X, 3); Teil IV: Erganzungsband zu Teil1-3 mit Text-wiedergaben,
Berichtigungen und Worterzeichnissen bearbeitet von L. Sander und E. Waldschmidt, Wiesbaden,
1980 (VOHD Bd. X, 4); Teil V: Die Katalognummern 1015-1202 und 63 vorweggenommene
hOhere Nummern bearbeitet von L. Sander und E. Waldschmidt, Stuttgart, 1985 (VOHD Bd. X,
5); Teil VI: Die Katalognummern 1202-1599, Hrsg. von Heinz Bechert, Beschrieben von Klaus
Wille, Stuttgart, 1989 (VOHD Bd.X, 6); Teil VII: Die Katalognummern 1600-1799, Hrsg. von H.
Bechert, Beschrieben von K. Wille, Stuttgart, 1995 (VOHD Bd. X, 7); Teil VIII: Die Katalog-
nummern 1800-1999, Hrsg. von H. Bechert, Beschrieben von K. Wille, Stuttgart, 2000 (VOHD
Bd. X, 8); Teil IX: Die Katalognummern 2000-3199, Hrsg. von H. Bechert, Beschrieben von K.
Wille, Stuttgart, 2004 (VOHD Bd. X, 9). See also E. Waldschmidt, Faksimile- Wiedergaben von
Sanskrithandschriften aus den Berliner Turfanfunden I: Handschriften zu fiinf SEtras des
Drrghagama, Unter Mitarbeit von W. Clawiter, D. Schlingloff und R.L. Waldschmidt hrsg., The
Hague, 1963.

173