trees, as is expressly stated by Kesava, atha santavrzksha ufyante. Darila at 8,15; 42, 23 describes it as a white tree growing in the Dekkhan, argunaz akala iti dakshind- tyak; Kesava at 8, 15, and Sayaza at II, 4, 1 say that it is familiar in Benares, varavasyam prasiddhak. SAyama, in the introduction to our hymn, as also to AV. XIX, 34, has gangidavriksha, and in the commentary at XIX, 34, 1 he places the home of the tree in the north, uttaradese pra- siddhak, all of which would seem to show that the tree is known in many parts of India.
The following is the literature on the gangida: Groh-
mann, Indische Studien, IX, 417 ff.; Weber, ib. XIII, 141;
Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 65.
The hymn II, 4 is employed, Kaus. 42, 23, in a practice which, according to Darila, is destined to drive away demons (pisa#asatana) ; according to Kesava—I state the text literally—it is, purushahave (cod. purusho have; cf. XIX, 34, 3) akaryakaravena vighnasamanakarma; and further, krztyadishawarthe (cod. krztva-) apyayati vigh- nasamanarakshakaramak vighna# viskandhe(!) ya (the latter passage is not printed in my extracts from that authority in the edition). The practice consists in tying on as an amulet the substance mentioned in the hymn: dir- ghayutvaye:ti mantroktam badhnati. MDarila says gangi- damamuim, and Kesava more explicitly states that an amulet derived from the gangida be tied on with a thread of hemp, gangidamanim sanastitrena badhva sampatya=bhimantrya badhnati. The hemp refers to stanza 5, and it seems to me quite likely that Kesava is right in thus describing the association of the hemp with the gangida as altogether external. The hymn has been translated by Weber, Indische Studien, XIII, p. 140 ff.
This hymn, as many others, begins with an irregular
stanza, two trish¢ubh and two anushfubh Padas; cf. RV.
VII, 103; AV. IV, 12; VI, 111, &c.
b. Sdyana reads rakshamdnah for dakshamanah.
282 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
ce. The meaning of vishkandha, I regret to say, is not clear. Both ancients and moderns have etymologised upon the word, and in all instances have arrived at the conclusion that the word refers to some disease. But the results, though consistent in the one point of disease, betray their weakness in differing as to its special nature. The scho- liast at Tait. S. VII, 3, 13, 1—the only known occurrence of the word outside of the Atharvan literature (cf. also Gop. Br. I, 5, 25)—explains it by viripa(Z) skandhadyavayava yasya tad vishkandham (sc. sariram), ‘the body whose members, shoulders, and so forth, are deformed is vish- kandha.’ Sadyawa, at AV. I, 16, 3 (and similarly here) says, gatipratibandhakam rakshapisakadikritam vighna- gatam, ‘a disease which hinders from walking, produced by Rakshas, Pisakas, &c., instigated by (some hostile) disturb- ance. The same fatuous authority, however, at XIX, 35, 5 says, vishkandham vislishzaskandham evamndamanam vatavisesham maharogam, ‘vishkandha, a serious disease of that name, caused by wind (in the body), producing dislo- cation of the shoulders. Professor Weber is the author of the modern interpretation of the word, ‘drawing the shoulders apart, rheumatism’ (see Indische Studien, IV, 410; XIII, 141; XVII, 215, and cf. the Pet. Lex. ; Zimmer, l.c., 390; Grill?, p. 75). I have been struck by the fact that both Darila and Kesava in their comments upon Kaus. 42, 233 43, 1. 2, the Sitras which rubricate AV. II, 4 and ITI, 9, the principal sources of our knowledge of the vish- kandha, omit all mention of disease of any kind. To begin with, these passages of the Sitra are not part of the bhai- shagyani (Kaus. 25, 1-32, 27). Further, Darila speaks only of pisikandsanam and pisdkakatanam, Kesava of vigh- nasamanam and vishkandhavighnasamano (mami). Ob- servation has taught me that the commentators’ knowledge of the practices is superior to their knowledge of the mean- ings of words—all India is in this regard an easy prey to its perverse etymological habits‘—and I should think it
1 . . °. I recommend a continuous reading of Yaska’s Nirukta to any
II, 4. COMMENTARY. 283 more conservative for the present to hold that vishkandha, as well as the opportunistic samskandha at AV. XIX, 34, 5, are designations of hostile demoniac forces. One may easily be convinced, by examining, with the aid of Whit- ney’s Index Verborum, all the passages in which the word occurs, that the latter meaning suits as well as the former. Of course the boundary-line between disease and possession by demons is an evanescent one in all Atharvan writings. The formation vishkandha, moreover, suggests vyamsa (RV. I, 32, 5, &c.) and vigriva (RV. VIII, 4, 24), both of them designations of demons (cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. IV, 410). Thus it has seemed best to leave the word untrans- lated for the present.
a. gambha, ‘convulsions, cramps, or colic. The transla- tion is reasonably certain. Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII, 142, describes the trouble as an infantile disease, perhaps teeth- ing; cf. also Zimmer, I. c., 392, and Henry, Le livre VII de l Atharva-véda, p. 53. The etymology of the word, and the epithet sdmhanu, ‘shutting the jaws, at AV. VIII, 1, 16, seem to lend themselves at first sight to such an interpreta- tion, but it is after all too narrow. Sdayawza, gambhat himsakat krityadeh, yad va gambha iti dantaviseshasya akhya, rakshasadantaviseshakvztat khadanat. See, how- ever, his very different interpretation at VIII, 1,16. At Kaus. 32, 1; 35, 15 occurs the word gambhagrzhita. Darila at 32, 1 defines it as gambho raksha, tena grzhitaz ; according to Kausika and Kesava, the patient is an infant which is put to the mother’s breast and fed with rice and fennel steeped in milk*. All this would still pass readily as a cure of diseases connected with teething. But in Kaus, 35, 12-15 we have the following performance:
one who wishes to know how much grain may be found among the chaff. And Yaska is the high priest; how much worse are the epigoni |
* Kaus. gambhagrzhitaya (Kes. balakaya) stanam prayakhati, priyangutamdulan abhyavadugdhan payayati.
284 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
. garbhadrimhanani, gambhagrthitaya ... gym trir ud- grathya badhnati. losh¢4n anvrzkam prasayati. syadmasi- katabhiz sayanam parikirati. The scene here is child-birth, the passage is part of the strikarmazi, ‘women’s rites ’ (32, 28-36, 40), and the gambha has seized the baby or the foetus, either at the moment of birth, or prematurely. Hence the title of the ceremony, ‘ performances for steady- ing the womb or foetus.’ According to Darila, the woman herself receives the treatment, being tied about with a three- fold bowstring (gambhena grzhito garbho yasya striyas tasya gyd4m triguvam kritva badhnati), fed with lumps of earth (gambhagrzhitam [!] prasayati), and having her bed strewed about with black sand. Here gambha seems to refer to some irregular behaviour of the foetus ; cf. Wise, Hindu System of Medicine, pp. 423 (middle), and 421 (bottom), and the introduction to VI, 17. The word has at any rate no special connection with the teeth, as may be seen, too, from Tait. S. IV, 5, 11, 2.
Our translation of visara by ‘ reakianl pain’ (Say. sariravisarazat) is of the etymologising sort. The Pet. Lex., more cautiously, regards it as the name of a demon. Cf. visarika at XIX, 34, 10, which Sayavza glosses by visesheza himsakam.
Iam quite agreed with Kesava and Sayama (maniban- dhanasttraprakrztibhata/) in not regarding the juxtaposition of the hemp with the gangida as due to some biological relationship, or therapeutic virtue (cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII, 142). The hemp represents the thread with which the amulet of gangidd was tied on. A thread, or rope of hemp is mentioned also at Kaus. 25, 28; 72,15. See the introduction to the hymn. The hemp, of course, comes from the sap of the furrow; gangida, the tree, from the forest.
Stanza 6. : The same stanza with variants occurs at AV. XIX, 34, 4.
The last Pada is a formula, occurring in addition at IV, 10, 6; XII, 25:19:05 anon
Il, 7. COMMENTARY. 285
II, 7. COMMENTARY TO PAGE QI.
Sayaza (and similarly Kesava) define the purpose of this hymn as a charm to obviate curses, evil eye, and danger from the attack of demons: laukikavaidikakrosayor brah- mawasdpe krirakakshuZpurushadvzshZinipate pisdkaya- kshadibhaye. According to Kaus. 26, 35 the procedure | consists in investing the person threatened with (an amulet made of) the substance mentioned in the mantra. The commentators define this as yavamazi, ‘an amulet of barley’ The word yava is not mentioned in the hymn, the nearest approach to it is sapatha-ydopani, ‘wiping out curses.’ As o and ava have almost identical phonetic values in the Veda (cf. our statement of the facts, Amer. Journ. Phil. V, pp. 25 ff.), we must suppose that yava has been read by the ritualists out of the syllable ydé- of yopant; cf. too, the synonym sapatha-ydvani at IV, 17, 2, and the well-known formula yavossi yavaydssmad dveshaé, ‘ barley art thou, ward off hatred from us’ (Tait. S. I, 3,.4,-15 Sat. Br. III, 6, 1, 11; Hirazyak. Sr. IV, 2, 42, in addition to the places mentioned in Kausikasitra, index C). Upon this basis the word and the article yava are suggested. The pun is so familiar as to leave no room for doubt in the mind of the Hindu acquainted with this style of literature. Cf. the intro- duction to VI, 91; and the note to IX, 2, 13.
The hymn has been translated by Weber, Ind. Stud.
XIII, 148 f&; Ludwig, Der Rigveda, III, 508; Grill’, pp. 24,
81 ff. The Anukramavzi, bhaishagyayurvanaspatidaivat-
yam. Cf. also Santikalpa 19 *.
At Apast. Sr. VI, 20,2 the stanza occurs in the following
corrupt form: atharvyushé devagit4 vidu khapathagam-
bhaniZ: 4po malam iva prazigann asmatsu sapathan adhi.
Cf. 17; 25, 4 5.
* Sayana, however, commenting on virudh in st. 1, dfrva yavo va. * Cited erroneously by Sayama as Nakshatrakalpa.
286 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
b. We may note Grill’s ingenious emendation of gimya%
to gamyah, an adjective from gami. But no such form
occurs. Cf. AV. II, 10, 1; RV. IV, 4, 5: Sdayana,
gamyah gamif sahottpanna bhagini.
A number of the attributes stated in this and the pre- ceding stanzas are repeated at VI, 43, 1.2; XIX, 32,1. 3.7 in connection with the holy darbha-grass. The terms are too general and fabulous to permit definite conclusions as to the plant which the poet here has in mind.
a. The MSS. are divided between the readings pari
sm&m (so our edition) and pari mam. I have followed
Sayava and Shankar Pandit in adopting the latter version.
e,d. The metre is irregular (Anukr. virad uparish¢adbrz-
hati): c is a catalectic Pada; d has ten syllables, one of
which may be suppressed by reading tarshur.
b. For the sentiment cf. Tait. Ar. II, 6, 2. Sayava, yah
purusha# suhart . . . tena suhvzdayena mitreza saha nak
asmakam, sukham bhavatu iti sesha, ‘we together with our
friend shall be happy.’ I am not convinced that this is
correct. Are we to read, yaz suhart téna vayam saha?
e. kakshurmantra, ‘he who bewitches with his eye,’ also in XIX, 45, 1. Sdyava separates kakshur from mantrasya, explaining the latter by guptasz bhashamazasya pisunasya, ‘the calumniator who speaks secretly.’ But cf. the ‘ thou- sand-eyed curse’ at VI, 37, 1; amitrafakshus at Kaus. 39, 11; and ghoram kakshus, ‘evil eye,’ at IV, 9,6; XIX, Jur"
II, 8. COMMENTARY TO PAGE 13.
The word kshetriya is interpreted by the Atharvavedins — quite unanimously as ‘ inherited disease.’ Three hymns,
11, 8. Commentary. 287
IT, 8 and 10; III, 7 (cf. also IV, 18, 7; V, 30, 4), are designed to drive it out, and the Kausika rubricates all of them among the medical charms (bhaishagyAni), 26, 41-27, 4; 27,7-8; 27, 29-31. Déarila at 26, 43 defines it as ‘family disease, kaulo vyadhiz; Kesava at 27, 41 as, pitvzparyagatah kshetriyarogak kush¢dakshayarogak grahazidosha% sarva- sariraspho/akérak ; similarly Say. at II, 8,1. The scholiast at Tait. Br. II, 5, 6, 3 (p.628) has kshetram garbhasthanam tatrotpannatvat, i.e. ‘disease which has arisen while in the womb’ (rather differently at II, 5, 6, 1, pp. 626-7). The practices connected with these hymns are obscure in detail, and their application is remote.