2023-02-16 14:49:44 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
76
the double entendre is not excluded. Jayanim of 113* has also caused a
great deal of confusion; apart from lesser emendations such as paramām,
vikaṭām, nṛpateh, the major forms are jayinīm and jananim. The minor
reading jayanim from XY₁ not only explains both these forms but is
actually better grammar; woman is to be taken not as a victorious mudră
(seal) of Cupid but the instrument of victory, hence the lyut affix; one can point
to the mystical significance of the mudra from the time of the punch-marked
coins and to the Yaudheya coins (as well as seals) with the legend Yaudheya-
nām jayamantradharāṇām. Similar reconstruction should give us the
form jrmbhani in 148* from jrmbhini and jrmbhasi, though I am here
unable to give any further justification unless one takes the termination
as denoting the sound rather than the action of yawning, i. e. the yuc affix
of the grammarians.
INTRODUCTION
The form juheantam in 60 is against Paninian usage, but the
correct 3P. ending juhvatam gives the wrong cadence for an odd anustubh
pada. S favours juhvanam, which has to be explained by the complicated
cūnaś of Pāṇ 3. 2. 129 as "habitually sacrificing". But it is curious to note
that many S commentators err into taking this form as a participle; even
M. R. Kale, who gives the grammatically correct explanation in his edition
of Bhartrhari, makes the same mistake in his grammar! It seems to me
that so trifling a difficulty would not have deterred Bhartṛhari. On
the other hand, the similar mistake ärambhante for arubhante in 115 could
easily have arisen from defectivo transmission, seeing that the single dot
of the anusvāra makes all the difference. I have had to take it on the
A1.3 M2 correspondence, amply supported by other MSS.
The principle of the lectio difficilior is not always easy to apply in
such cases. Vegetarianism would cause the emendation śākādi- for māmsädi-
in 253. But the decidely minor reading lavadhana was preferred to
navadhana in 161 only after considerable hesitation. On palaeographic
grounds, the confusion is easily explicable. We have two cases in the
present text: 189 ātmaninam and -linam, where the latter seems to me a
possible Vedantic emendation; and 89 where sphural līlābjānām has the
possible alternative sphuran nīlābjānām. It seems to me that on the
whole, la is more likely to misread as na than the reverse, while lava- allows
a far wider range of meanings a possible lectio difficilior than the simple
nava-, which sneers at the pride of the noveau riche. The reading is
admittedly weak, like -prunamati in 72%, but I think my analysis of the
evidence justifies both. We have jñanalava- in 8º and lakṣmilava- in 109*
which have caused no difficulty, so that lava- must here be taken, if at all,
as the first member of the compound.
4. 5. Starred readings and hiatus. This brings us to the few readings
in the first two groups which are pure emendations, in that they do not
exist in any MS. It must be noted again that a composite reading like
trsņe'dhunā mā bhava in 149 does not exist in any single MS, but is
nevertheless not starred because its components can be picked out from the
various sources, and it does explain how these variants might have arisen.
The one starred reading of mine which does not restore a hiatus is tebhya
the double entendre is not excluded. Jayanim of 113* has also caused a
great deal of confusion; apart from lesser emendations such as paramām,
vikaṭām, nṛpateh, the major forms are jayinīm and jananim. The minor
reading jayanim from XY₁ not only explains both these forms but is
actually better grammar; woman is to be taken not as a victorious mudră
(seal) of Cupid but the instrument of victory, hence the lyut affix; one can point
to the mystical significance of the mudra from the time of the punch-marked
coins and to the Yaudheya coins (as well as seals) with the legend Yaudheya-
nām jayamantradharāṇām. Similar reconstruction should give us the
form jrmbhani in 148* from jrmbhini and jrmbhasi, though I am here
unable to give any further justification unless one takes the termination
as denoting the sound rather than the action of yawning, i. e. the yuc affix
of the grammarians.
INTRODUCTION
The form juheantam in 60 is against Paninian usage, but the
correct 3P. ending juhvatam gives the wrong cadence for an odd anustubh
pada. S favours juhvanam, which has to be explained by the complicated
cūnaś of Pāṇ 3. 2. 129 as "habitually sacrificing". But it is curious to note
that many S commentators err into taking this form as a participle; even
M. R. Kale, who gives the grammatically correct explanation in his edition
of Bhartrhari, makes the same mistake in his grammar! It seems to me
that so trifling a difficulty would not have deterred Bhartṛhari. On
the other hand, the similar mistake ärambhante for arubhante in 115 could
easily have arisen from defectivo transmission, seeing that the single dot
of the anusvāra makes all the difference. I have had to take it on the
A1.3 M2 correspondence, amply supported by other MSS.
The principle of the lectio difficilior is not always easy to apply in
such cases. Vegetarianism would cause the emendation śākādi- for māmsädi-
in 253. But the decidely minor reading lavadhana was preferred to
navadhana in 161 only after considerable hesitation. On palaeographic
grounds, the confusion is easily explicable. We have two cases in the
present text: 189 ātmaninam and -linam, where the latter seems to me a
possible Vedantic emendation; and 89 where sphural līlābjānām has the
possible alternative sphuran nīlābjānām. It seems to me that on the
whole, la is more likely to misread as na than the reverse, while lava- allows
a far wider range of meanings a possible lectio difficilior than the simple
nava-, which sneers at the pride of the noveau riche. The reading is
admittedly weak, like -prunamati in 72%, but I think my analysis of the
evidence justifies both. We have jñanalava- in 8º and lakṣmilava- in 109*
which have caused no difficulty, so that lava- must here be taken, if at all,
as the first member of the compound.
4. 5. Starred readings and hiatus. This brings us to the few readings
in the first two groups which are pure emendations, in that they do not
exist in any MS. It must be noted again that a composite reading like
trsņe'dhunā mā bhava in 149 does not exist in any single MS, but is
nevertheless not starred because its components can be picked out from the
various sources, and it does explain how these variants might have arisen.
The one starred reading of mine which does not restore a hiatus is tebhya