2023-02-16 14:49:44 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
77
'parebhyo in 43%, where the star is really on the avagraha sign. This sign
would not be written at all and then the reader would take what is left as
bad samdhi, emending tebhyo to teblyah, or changing the succeeding consonant
from hard to soft like the marebhyo of most N MSS. But the $ reading
S
mahadbhyo emphasizes by paraphrase that the virtues described apply
primarily to exceptional men. Para has one such meaning, though confusion
with the other meaning "strauger" might also have occasioned the change;
but apara means, here as in 22 and perhaps 162, matchless or unexcelled,
which seems to satisfy all the requirements both of meaning and text-
criticism.
INTRODUCTION
Avoidance of hiatus is general in Sanskrit poetry on the classical
model. But Bhartrhari shows Prakrit influence at least in his metres, for we
have besides the arya-giti verses, a mātrāsamavṛtta in 141, and again a
dodhaka in 117. Certainly, there are cases of permissible hiatus: in 25ª, twice
in 116² while another in 1182 has been emended by the addition of a needless
tu in most MSS and that in 24" by substituting munau for rjau. Now hiatus
after a strong pause can certainly not have caused any lifficulties, though there
is a clearly discernible growing tendency to avoid samdhi across tho pādas as
well as hiatus, on the part of our scribes. Examples are across 178, 139ab, 434,
while the apparatus of 18 not only shows the addition of all sorts of particles
but even change of order to avoid a samdhi which, like that over 159%, does
no harm to anying except the pause.
If it be granted that a hiatus is permissible with a strong pause as
after a quarter, then it is easy to show that a considerable number of the cases
of hiatus occur across a pause which was originally as strong, as for example
the 12+7 caesura in the särdūlavikrîțita metre. The strength of this
particular caesura for our special collection of stanzas is evident when one
considers transpositions made of portions before or after such a caesura as
in 23, 169 and the numerous cases of strong variation amounting at times to
a total substitution that are reported for the whole unit of seven letters at the
end. It is not surprising, therefore, to find several of the cases of hiatus
coming precisely across such a pause. The first is across 15a, then across the
caesura in 148. Now 29 also shows an exactly parallel transgression of the
caesura as 148°, but the absence of variants give no reason to believe in the
existence of an original hiatus there. The à jñātam of 249 and the
aņu amśikrtya of 301 are not starred only because they seem to appear in
the H and J commentaries respectively. The former needs no further
justification, being obviously the correct reading. The latter is much more
difficult as the J cominentary is poor and the only explanation that I can see
there is to tako anu as (adverbial) neuter in the predicate; there are many
more readings for just this case in uncollated MSS, but samdhi across the
padas does not seem to have caused any difficulty here.
The hiatus vidvajjane ārjavam seemed the best way of explaining the
various particles and the locative plural in 71, while some support comes
from the meticulous H commentary which makes no mention of any such
particle, nor of the plural. The starred reading in 86° ko vã arthath similarly
accounts for all the variation; the final sānurāgaḥ is to be taken with kah,
'parebhyo in 43%, where the star is really on the avagraha sign. This sign
would not be written at all and then the reader would take what is left as
bad samdhi, emending tebhyo to teblyah, or changing the succeeding consonant
from hard to soft like the marebhyo of most N MSS. But the $ reading
S
mahadbhyo emphasizes by paraphrase that the virtues described apply
primarily to exceptional men. Para has one such meaning, though confusion
with the other meaning "strauger" might also have occasioned the change;
but apara means, here as in 22 and perhaps 162, matchless or unexcelled,
which seems to satisfy all the requirements both of meaning and text-
criticism.
INTRODUCTION
Avoidance of hiatus is general in Sanskrit poetry on the classical
model. But Bhartrhari shows Prakrit influence at least in his metres, for we
have besides the arya-giti verses, a mātrāsamavṛtta in 141, and again a
dodhaka in 117. Certainly, there are cases of permissible hiatus: in 25ª, twice
in 116² while another in 1182 has been emended by the addition of a needless
tu in most MSS and that in 24" by substituting munau for rjau. Now hiatus
after a strong pause can certainly not have caused any lifficulties, though there
is a clearly discernible growing tendency to avoid samdhi across tho pādas as
well as hiatus, on the part of our scribes. Examples are across 178, 139ab, 434,
while the apparatus of 18 not only shows the addition of all sorts of particles
but even change of order to avoid a samdhi which, like that over 159%, does
no harm to anying except the pause.
If it be granted that a hiatus is permissible with a strong pause as
after a quarter, then it is easy to show that a considerable number of the cases
of hiatus occur across a pause which was originally as strong, as for example
the 12+7 caesura in the särdūlavikrîțita metre. The strength of this
particular caesura for our special collection of stanzas is evident when one
considers transpositions made of portions before or after such a caesura as
in 23, 169 and the numerous cases of strong variation amounting at times to
a total substitution that are reported for the whole unit of seven letters at the
end. It is not surprising, therefore, to find several of the cases of hiatus
coming precisely across such a pause. The first is across 15a, then across the
caesura in 148. Now 29 also shows an exactly parallel transgression of the
caesura as 148°, but the absence of variants give no reason to believe in the
existence of an original hiatus there. The à jñātam of 249 and the
aņu amśikrtya of 301 are not starred only because they seem to appear in
the H and J commentaries respectively. The former needs no further
justification, being obviously the correct reading. The latter is much more
difficult as the J cominentary is poor and the only explanation that I can see
there is to tako anu as (adverbial) neuter in the predicate; there are many
more readings for just this case in uncollated MSS, but samdhi across the
padas does not seem to have caused any difficulty here.
The hiatus vidvajjane ārjavam seemed the best way of explaining the
various particles and the locative plural in 71, while some support comes
from the meticulous H commentary which makes no mention of any such
particle, nor of the plural. The starred reading in 86° ko vã arthath similarly
accounts for all the variation; the final sānurāgaḥ is to be taken with kah,