Kausika implicates this hymn in a rather elaborate and difficult practice, 27, 14-20, as follows: 14. ‘While reciting AV. II, 31 he makes an oblation of black lentils’, the kind of worms called algazdu? and hanana, (all) mixed with ghee. 15. The young (of worms: Darila, kvimizo balan*) he winds about from right to left upon a black-spotted arrow (Dar., kalmashavarze sare), and then smashes (the arrows): 16. He roasts (the worms in the fire). 17. He then lays on (the worms with the arrow as firewood in the fire: Dar., tan balan sasaran). 18. With his left hand, his face turned to the south, he throws up dust and scatters it (over the patient, Kesava). 19. He (the patient) grinds up (the dust). 20. He then lays (ordinary) firewood on the fire. The unsavoury practice, introduced by Kesava with the words arushi-udaragazdulaka-bhaishagyany ufyante*, comports well with the fierce imprecation: the acts symbolise the destruction of the imaginary worms in the patient, and contain various allusions to the wording of the hymn.
The hymn has been translated by Kuhn, l.c. 137; Weber,
Indische Studien, XIII, 199 ff.; Ludwig, Der Rigveda, ITI,
323; Grill’, pp. 6, 98. The Anukramazi describes the
divinity to which the hymn is addressed as mahidevatyam
* The word khalvanga, thus translated, is not altogether clear. It is discussed in Kausika, Introduction, p. xlix.
* Thus, not alazdu; see Kausika, Additions and Corrections, and cf. the note on AV. II, 31, 3.
* But Kesava very differently, govala(m) Aitritam sarasamdhyam parivesh/ya, i.e. the hair of a cow’s tail is wound about an arrow! Cf. Satra 26, and the introduction to II, 32. Cf. also Kesava’s explanation of Kaus. 29, 20. Sayaza follows Kesava.
* For gandulaka, cf. perhaps algavdu, above, and in stanza 2.
Il, 31. COMMENTARY. 315
(!cf. the word mahi in st. 1) uta #andram; its author is
Kazva. Stanza l.
a. In RV. VII, 104, 22 = AV. VIII, 4, 22, Indra is called upon to crush the Rakshas as with a mill-stone: the present passage seems to realise the comparison, so that indirectly Indra’s bolt (vagra) is in the mind of the poet; cf. also asman and pdrvata in st. 19 of the same hymn.
d. Cf. the symbolic crushing of lentils in the practice, Kaus. 27, 14, where khalvanga takes the place of khalva ; so also in Kaus. 27, 26 (cf. Kausika, Introduction, p. xlix). Kesava defines both khalvanga and khalva as krishvaka- nakah. Read here metri gratia khdluan. Cf. also V, 23, 8 c, d.
a. At V, 23,6. 7 advéshZa is an epithet of kv¢mi; adr¢shéa by itself is used substantivally in AV. VI, 52, 2 (=RV. I, 191, 4), and 3; cf. also RV. I, 191, 9 =AV. VI, 52, 1 and AV. V, 23,6, where the sun is designated as the slayer, advishzahan, of unseen (vermin); cf. Zimmer, p. 98. In AV. VIII, 8,15 both dvzshza and adv/shta also occur as designations of vermin, and it seems quite likely that drzsh¢a is an afterthought in the style of sura after asura j diti after aditi, and the like.
b. The Paippalada and Sdyawva read kuriram for kurti-
rum; the latter defines it, kuriram galas tadvad antar
avasthitawz kyzmikulam.
e. The MSS., both of the hymn and the Sitra, hesitate between the two writings algdvdu and alazdu, and I had decided in the Additions and Corrections to the Kausika (p. 76, Sd. 14) in favour of algavzdu. This is the reading adopted by Sayava and Shankar Pandit. In the Nagari- character the two forms are almost identical (Iga is la as soon as the g-stroke is prolonged downward); hence the confusion. Sdyava, suzitamamsadishakan gantin. Sdayava has salgan for salindn. Here, as in st. 4 c, d, krimin is obviously a gloss; the Anukramazi, uncritically, defines the metre of the stanza as uparish/adviradbrchati.
216 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
a,b. The mighty weapon is the charm which is called outright ‘thunderbolt’ (vagra) in VI, 134 and 135. Perhaps the fire of the symbolic bolt is supposed to burn them (dand ddtinas). The ritual (Sdtras 16 and 17, above) em- bodies the idea in practice, and we are not in the position to say but what this particular act was associated with the stanza from the start—a question of principle which seems destined for ever to divide the doctors. Sdayaza obviously has in mind paritapati in Sd. 16 in his gloss paritapta aparitaptar.
c,d. To render doubly certain the complete destruction
of the disease, even those which are prima facie already
driven out are submitted to this phase of the charm.
a,b. Read anvantriam sirshaziam atha u, &c. Cf. with
this Mantrabrahmawza (of the Sama-veda) II, 7, 2, krimiz
ha vaktratodinam krimim Antranufarizam. Sayaza (with
some MSS.) reads parshveyam, ‘in the heel, and ,Ludwig,
rather arbitrarily, translates ‘im Riicken,’ as though parsh-
theyam stood in the text.
e. avaskava, like most of the names in the charm, is dim. Xey. Weber, l.c. 201, and Zimmer, p. 393, define it as ‘he who peels, pares off.’ Sdayava, aviggamanasvabhavam. By the side of vyadhvara (this form twice in VI, 5o, 3)! we have vyadvara in Sat. Br. VII, 4, 1, 27 (defined by the scholiast as adanasilo dandasikadiz) and vydadvari (with different accent) in AV. III, 28, 2%. One or the other is a folk-etymological modification: vyadhvarda, ‘piercing, and vyadvara, ‘gnawing.’ The Padapasha divides vi adh- vara (most futile), and Ludwig in his translation of VI, 50, 3
* So the vulgata. Sayava and Shankar Pandit with most of his MSS. vyadvara. See the note there.
* Here Sayaza reads vyadhvart (duA&khahetur dush/amarga/ tadvati) ; see the note on the passage.
Il, 32. COMMENTARY. a7
has arrived at the same result, ‘abseits vom wege’ (Der
Rigveda, III, 500). The same analysis in Sdyavza to our
stanza, vividhamargopetam, nanadvarami krztva tatra gakh-
antam.—krimin here, as in 2c, is a gloss, misunderstood
by the Anukramazi, as above.
e. Sadyava reads te for yé and tanvas for tanvam.
II, 32. COMMENTARY TO PAGE 23.
This charm against worms in cattle (Kesava, gokrzmi- bhaishagyani) elicits the following treatment in the Kausika 27, 21-26: ‘(The performer) chants the hymn at sunrise, and pronounces the name of the cow, “O thou, N. N.”? At the end of the hymn, while exclaiming “ the (worms) are slain,’ he throws darbha-grass (upon the cow). He goes through the same performance at noon. In the afternoon he (throws the darbha-grass) upon the cow, her face turned to the west?. Having cut off a tuft of the (cow’s) tail he continues as in Sitra 14 (the performance in connection with AV. II, 31, which see).’ ,
Charms closely related with this are found in Tait. Ar. IV, 36 (cf. Apast. Sr. XV, 19, 5), where verses similar to stanzas 3 and 4 are employed to relieve the cow who yields the milk for the gharma, if she is sick with worms ; further in the Mantrabrahmava of the SAma-veda II, 7 (see the Calcutta Journal Ushi, vol. i, fasc. 7)?, and in Gobh. Grzh. IV, 9, 19. 20, where the stanzas of Mantrabr. are employed to destroy worms both in man and cattle.
The hymn has been translated by A. Kuhn, in Kuhn's
* Cf. Gobh. Grvh. III, 8, 3; Laty. Sr. III, 6, 3; and Katy. Sr. XXVI, 5, 1, where id4 is mentioned as the typical name of a cow.
* The implication is that in the preceding steps of the ceremony the cow’s head is turned to the east; cf. Darila, p. 77, note 7.
* The same work has also been printed in Serampore (saka 1794=A.D. 1872).
318 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
Zeitschrift, XIII, 138 ff.; Weber, Indische Studien, XIII, 201 ff.; Ludwig, Der Rigveda, III, 500; Grill?, pp. 7, 100; cf. also Hillebrandt’s Vedachrestomathie, p. 47. The Anukramami, Adityadevatyam, aneno- ktarshir (i.e. Kava: cf. the introduction to II, 31) uktakriyam akarot.
The removal of hantu in Pada 1 restores a good gayatri
stanza (read, Aditiaz). The Anukramawi designates it as
tripad bhuriggayatri.
a. The rising sun and Ushas, the dawn, are especiaily
calculated to dispel the evils associated primarily with
night, and then, generally, misery and disease; cf. RV.
I. 0, 11. 13;- AVA, 22, 1 3)V, 23;:03 Dity 2,o0 eee
XIII, 1, 32.
The stanza is repeated at V, 23, 9 with the variants trisirshava trikakudam in Pada 1; these readings com- bined show that the poet in designating the worms has in mind the demon Visvartipa who is familiarly known to have had three heads. Cf. also Mantrabr. II, 7, 2. krimis dvisirsham argunam dvisirsham fa aturhanum. Professor Kuhn, |.c. 147, lays especial stress upon the agreement of the Vedic and Teutonic charms, in that they point out the colours of the worms.
a. Sayaza, visvariipam nanakaram; Ludwig, ‘den voll-
gestaltigen. The epithet ‘four-eyed’ is originally at home
with the four-eyed dogs of Yama, and is due, primarily,
to some mythological conception; cf. our note on IV,
20,7. But in the view of the Hindus ‘ four-eyed’ means
‘with spots over the eyes;’ see Contributions, Third
Series, Journ. Amer. Or. Soc. XV, 165: notes ssavaya,
Raturnetram.
b. The Pet. Lexs. render saranga by ‘bunt, scheckig ;’
Weber, ‘schwarzlich ;’ Ludwig, ‘braunlich.’ The native
explanations of the word are stated by Prof. Weber, Indische
Studien, VIII, 275.
e. The Pada is a catalectic anush¢ubh.
Il, 32. COMMENTARY. 319
The stanza recurs in V, 23, 10. The Tait. Ar. IV, 36, and Mantrabr. II, 7,1. 2 have similar stanzas: atriza tva krime hanmi kazvena gamadagnin4, visvavasor brahmava (Tait. Ar.); and, hatas te atrizd krimir hatas te gamadag- nina, gotamena tinikrztostraisva tva krime brahmavadyam avadya. bharadvagasya mantreza samtinomi krime tva (Mantrabr.) Reliance upon the great seers of the past is a common-place expression in charms and exorcisms; cf. $e td LV, 20,37,
e. Hillebrandt and Grill regard vak as a gloss. But it
is written also in V, 23, 10, and its expulsion does not effect
good metre, the final cadence being u——v.
Recurs in V, 23, 11. The Tait. Ar. reads at IV, 36, hataz krimivam raga, apy esha sthapatir hatak, atho mata=tho pita, atho sthfra4 atho kshudras, atho krishva atho sveta#, atho asatika! hatas%, svetabhiZ saha sarve hataz; cf.also the next stanza of our hymn. For sthapati, see Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII, 202 ff.; Uber den Vagapeya, 9, 10 (769, 770), Sitzungsberichte der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie, XX XIX (1892); Uber die Konigsweihe, p. 65 (Transactions of the same Academy, 1893). Sdyaza, sakivah. The scholiast at Tait. Ar. has anyospi ragavyatiriktas prabhus. The etymologies suggested are unsatisfactory (see Pet. Lex. and Weber, l.c.); it has occurred to me that possibly the word might be a loan-word with folk- etymological modification, being Avestan shoithrapaiti (cf. Achemenian khshatrapavan), ‘satrap,’ a word which later again finds its way into Indo-Scythian coins in the form
* Scholiast, A4gatya sityamanah asmabhir eva badhyamanah. Cf. with this also Mantrabr. II, 7, 4. krimim indrasya bahubhyém avajtham patayawasi, hatéh krimayah sasatikah sanilamakshika/. The scholiast defines sAsatikah by 4satikaya (! for asatikaya ?) saha vartamanah,
320 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
ee meter air REI
kshatrapa; cf. Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes,
Lit, 161 ; LV,3196; 200:
Repeated in V, 23,12. The Mantrabr. II, 7, 3 presents
a passage which concerns stanzas 4-6 of our hymn, hatak
krimivam kshudrako hata mata hatd pita, athaissham
bhinnakak kumbho ya esham vishadhanakaz.
a,b. Sdyava, without regard to the oxytone accent of vesds (nomen agentis), renders vesdso . . . parivesasaz as follows, nivesasthanani mukhyagvihak .. . paritad sthitazZ samipagrihak. Weber renders the two words by ‘diener ’ and ‘umdienenden;’ Grill by ‘horige’ and ‘zugehorige ;’ Ludwig and Hillebrandt by ‘hoérige’ and ‘der horigen horige.’
The metre of the stanza is quite irregular; the Anukra- mai describes it at #atushpan nivrzdushvik. The first and third Padas are catalectic ; in the second Pada yabhyam is ydbhidm, or the like; the fourth Pada may also be sustained as a catalectic anushZubh by substituting tava for te, or resolving te into tai or taya.
e d. The Paippalada reads, atho bhinadmi ta kumbham yasmin te nihatawe (!for nihitaz?) visham; cf. also the parallel stanza RV. I, 191, 15. Sdyaza substitutes shu- kambham for kushumbham, and he has the support of some MSS. His comment is avayavavisesha, ‘some part of the body.’ Ludwig translates kushumbham by ‘tail,’ but the parallel passages of the Paippalada and Mantrabr. obviously point to some word like ‘receptacle.’ This word as well as kusumbha and kusumbha, ‘ water-pitcher of hermits,’ seem to me to be extensions of kumbha by popular etymology, introducing the influence of kosha, kosa, ‘basket,’ and perhaps in the case of kusumbha the stem sumbha-, ‘ purify.’ Direct etymological analysis of such words is difficult because they become so readily the play-ball of kindred notions; cf. Weber, l. c. 204.
Ii, 33. Commentary. 321
II, 33. COMMENTARY TO PAGE 44.