Kaus. 29, 10: ‘ With the two next stanzas (7 and 8) the patient is given to drink water with the earth of a bee-hive.’ (Kesava, however, madhfidvapa=madhuvrzkshamr7ttika). The relation of the practice to the stanzas is profoundly obscure. Cf. the note on V, 5, 1.
Se — - — ee nee ee
? Cf. the introduction to VI, 24.
428 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
Stanza. 8.
b. We are tempted to change the instrumental dsiknya
to the ablative dsikny4Z, ‘born of the black serpent,’ or
‘born of the black night,
ce. For pratankam, see our note on IV, 16, 2; cf. also
XII, 1, 46; Sat. Br. VII, 4, 1, 28 (ye vasvateshu serate),
SadeAilebta id aa, oe
Kaus. 29, 11: ‘ With the ninth (stanza) the patient is given to drink water containing the excrement of a porcu- pine. With a prick (of the porcupine) that has three white stripes he feeds meat to the patient'.’ Cf. the closely cor- related RV. I, 191, 16.
a. The Pet. Lexs. and Zimmer, p. 82, translate karva by ‘long-eared.. But has the porcupine long ears? I have preferred to think of his pricks (salali) as giving rise to the somewhat fanciful adjective. The prickly porcupine may naturally not live on good terms with serpents, being hard to tackle.
b. avakarantika, left untranslated by the Pet. Lexs ,in the
light of pravartamanakak, RV. I, 193, 11, is obviously
a diminutive participle; see our note on IV, 37, 10.
Kaus. 29, 13: ‘With the tenth (stanza) the patient is
given water to sip from a gourd.’ This looks as though
there was some connection in the mind of the Sitrakara
between tabuva and alabu. At any rate tabuva, and tas-
tuva in the next stanza, seem to be a cure for poison.
This and the next stanza are wholly problematic.
Kaus. 29, 14: ‘ With the eleventh stanza he ties (a gourd)
to the navel of the patient. For tastivam some MSS.,
according to Bohtlingk’s lexicon, read tasrivam.
’ Cf. Kaus. 10, 16, and the Grzhya-siitras, where the prick with three stripes figures frequently ; see Stenzler’s index, s.v. tryezt.
V, 14. Commentary. 429
V, 14. COMMENTARY TO PAGE 77.
The hymn is one of the krityapratiharazni, a series of hymns which counteract spells, given in the list at Kaus. 49, 7. See the introductions to IV, 17; V, 31; VIII, 5; X, 1, &c. The plant which figures prominently (sts. 1, 2, 4, 9) is not specified. It may be the apdmarga, as in IV, 17-19; cf. the Anukramazi, vanaspatyam. The hymn has’ been translated by Zimmer, p. 396 ff.; Grill*, pp. 26, 147 ff.
The first hemistich is repeated at II, 27, 2; see the note there.
In the course of the performances undertaken with the krityagava at Kaus. 39, 7-12 (cf. the introduction to IV, 17) this stanza is rubricated (Stra 11), preceded by the words krityay4smitrafakshusha samikshan, which seems to be mantra, either entirely, or in part; cf. Darila and Kesava, p. 341. The sense of the Stitra, as much else in the same passage, is very obscure.
a. As a son goes to his father, thus do thou, O spell, return to thy father, i.e. to him that has prepared thee.
e, d. Grill, following Roth’s lead, reads bandhum iva and translates, ‘wie sich der fliichtling heimwarts kehrt, &c.’ We do not feel constrained to accept the emendation. ava+ kram ordinarily means ‘overcome, hence we have trans- lated avakrami? by ‘one who overcomes.’ The comparison is as good, if not better. Zimmer, ‘wie den Banden entflichend eile zuriick &c.’—a forced construction of the accusative, bandham.
A doubtful stanza in changed metre (g4yatri). It may have slipped in because of my7gdm iva in the next stanza.
430 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
PRUrInCI PR The sense seems to be: as surely as the antelope, shy though she be, mates with the buck, so surely shall the spell strike him who prepares it. Cf. IV; 4, 7=V ip oe and VII, 115, 2. But abhiskdndam is dm. Aey.: we have followed Grill in referring it to the mounting buck. The Pet. Lex. regards it-as a gerund, and Whitney, Index Ver- borum, emends to abhiskandan, a masculine participle, yielding a very problematic construction. Zimmer, ‘ wie die scheue Antilope, die Gazelle dem Angreifer (entflieht, so du, o Kranker, dem Zauber).’
V, 18. COMMENTARY TO PAGE 169.
The object of the two hymns V, 18 and 1g is clearly to present in the most drastic language the danger which arises from the oppression of Brahmans, and usurpation of their property’. Especially the cow of the Brahman, given to him as his sacrificial stipend (dakshiva ; cf. XII, 4), is sacred and inviolable. The point is accentuated by the practices connected with them. The two hymns are rubricated at Kaus. 48, 13 ff. under the name brahma- gavyau (i.e. the two brahmagavi-hymns). The practices are intended to compass the -death of him that robs or slays the cow of a Brahman; they are as follows: 13. ‘(The Brahman) recites the two brahmagavi-hymns against (the robbers)”. 14. He recites them while the activity (of killing and cutting up the cow is being performed). 15. vikrztati (Dar. tvadhye havidkritesty artha%). 16. (He recites the hymns) over the excrement within the entrails®. 17. And
1 This is the agyeyata, ‘freedom from oppression,’ of the Brahman ; cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. X, 60 ff.
* Darila and Kesava add to this the related hymn XII, 5 (mixed prose and verse).
* Excessively doubtful; Darila has the following as text and scholion: kak kriya anvdha, fibadhye, dveshyam manasi (Cod. anasi) krztva saptaminirdesaét. Cf. XII, 5, 39, where the excrement of the cow is described as fit for sorcery-practices.
Vv, 18. COMMENTARY. 431
also at a burial-ground!. 18. Thrice he exclaims: ‘ Slay those yonder.” 19. While reciting the second (brahma- gavi-hymn) he hides a stone in the excrement. 20. Twelve nights does he rest observing every vow (of the brahma- karin). 21. When the sun has risen twice (after the twelve days, the enemy) is laid low.’ Cf. especially AV. XII, 4 and 5, and Sat. Br. XIV, 6, 7, 4=Brzh. Ar. Up. III, 7, 13. The Anukramavzi designates the two hymns as brahma- gavidevatye.
Both hymns have been translated by Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, I*, 285 ff.; Ludwig, Der Rigveda, III, 447 ff., 451 ff. (cf. also 154); Zimmer, 199 ff.; Grill?, 41, 148 ff. ; cf. also Hillebrandt’s Vedachrestomathie, p. 42.
Ludwig very ingeniously suggests the change of ma to
ya at the beginning of Padac; this yields a more concin-
nate construction: ‘Enveloped in her skin, as an adder
with evil poison, sapless, unfit to be eaten is the cow of the
Brahmava.’ Shankar Pandit with all MSS., sa.
This and the following stanza, as also 8, 9, and 13 are in
trishzubh metre, and bear no reference to the cow of the
Brahman: they deal with the Brahman himself. Muir,
Ludwig, and Zimmer refer the verbs to the cow.
b. na Aittat, lit. ‘not as the result of thought ;’ cf. afittya, V, 17, 12, and malvad, V, 18, 7.
b. The Paippalada reads agne/ priyatama tanti/, and the
Pet. Lex. suggests agné/ priya tandr.iva; cf. st. 14, and
All, 5, 41. 73.
ce. Soma is the heir of the Brahman, i. e. Soma is bene- fited by the service of the priest; or, perhaps, Soma is
' Dar smasine pakasthane &badhyavat.
4.32 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
irtterested in the Brahman’s cow (implied throughout the
hymn), because her milk is mixed with Soma; cf. st. 14.
See also Sat. Br. V, 4, 2, 3.
Cf. RV. X, 88; 34. nizkhidam, lit. ‘to throw out.’ Pro- fessor Roth suggests ni-khidam, ‘to get down.’ niZkhid is certainly am. Aey. and might be for nishkhid=ni-shkhid, re- minding us of the MSS. of the Tait. S. which write khkhid in the interior of words (after augment and prepositions) ; see Ind. Stud. XIII, 106-7. But the statement, that the oppressor of Brahmans swallows the cow, and that he then | cannot get her out again, because she sticks in his throat, is equally suitable.
b. The expression nadik& ddntas tapasd« bhidigdhaz seems to me to contain a double entente, ‘his windpipe (shaft of the arrow), his teeth (points of the arrow), are bedaubed (like the arrow with poison) with holy fire’ A striking figure of speech, hardly to be misunderstood ! Muir, ‘his windpipe is arrow-points smeared with fire;’ Ludwig, ‘die nadika (speiserére oder luftrére?) die zahne vom tapaz bestrichen;*. Zimmer, ‘seine luftrohre mit Glutil bestrichne Pfeilspitzen;’ Grill, ‘die Luftréhr Pfeil- spitze, in des Eifers Gluth getauchet.’
d. vaitahavya, patronymic from vitahavya, a proper
name; cf. st. 11, and V,19, 1. Zimmer, pp. 132, 200-1,
translates the word by ‘die aus habsucht opfernden,’ and
‘die opfergierigen, but the word per se has no disparaging!
meaning; cf. vitihotra.
c,d. Ludwig, ‘die der Kesaraprabandha letztgeborene
gebraten. This mvolves the emendation of Zaram4gim to
karamagaém (sc. vatsam, ‘calf’), and makes Kesarapra-
bandha the name of a cow; cf. prathamagd. That cows
V, 19. Commentary. 433
had names may be seen from our introduction to II, 32, but this name, ‘ having her hair braided,’ is clearly that of a woman. Apparently the iniquity of the Vaitahavyas reaches its height, when they do not spare the only goat of the poor woman. If the text were only as sound as the moral!
a. Cf. V, 19, 11, where the number 99 takes the place of 101. Both are formulaic.
Cf. st. 6 and XII, 5, 4. 58.
e. hantabhisasténdras ought, in the light of stanza 6, to » mean ‘Indra slays the curser,’ or ‘Indra destroys curses.’ Accordingly the Pet. Lex. proposes hantasbhisastim (cf. Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar”, §§ 271 d, 946); hanta =bhisaster is equally possible (cf. l.c., § 1182 d). The text might possibly be sustained by reading hanta bhisasta (acc. plur. neut.). Ludwig takes both words as nomina- tives of tar-stems, ‘Indra toter flucher.’ Zimmer, still differently, reads hantasbhisastam. ,
d. For vedhas, cf. our note on I, 11, 1 b.
V, 19. COMMENTARY TO PAGE 171.
For the employment of this hymn in the ritual, and other general considerations, see the introduction to V, 18.
ec. Bhrfgu is a typical name for an Atharvan priest ; cf. angirasa in st. 2; bhrvzgvangiras, like atharvangiras, is a name of the Atharva-veda itself; see Kaus. 63,33; 94, 3. 4. Like Atharvan and Angiras, the Bhyzgu are connected with the production of fire; cf. Ludwig, III, 140.
For the Srz#igayas, see Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 208 ff,, 232 ;
Ludwig, III, 154; Zimmer, 132; Weber, ‘Episches im
vedischen Ritual,’ Sitzungsberichte der Koniglich Preu-
ssischen Akademie, July 23, 1891, vol. xxxviii, p. 797
[42] F f
434 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
(p. 31 of the reprint). The legend which is alluded to here (and in V, 18, 10. 11) is not to be found elsewhere. One may fairly question whether it is not, in a measure at least, trumped up in deference to a supposed etymology : -gaya in srffigaya suggests ‘conquer, oppress’ (cf. giyate in st. 6, and brahmagydasya in st. 7); the syllable svzn (Padapatha srin=gaya) is not above the suspicion of having suggested svingin, ‘horned animal,’ RV. I, 32, 5, &c.; cf. the later writing srz#gaya, Vishzu-puraza, &c. Note however Tait. S. VI, 6, 6, 2, and Sat. Br. XII, 9, 3, 1 ff., in both of which places the Srvzigayas come to grief.
ce. The text has ubhay&dam, which we have emended (with Grill) to ubhayddann, ‘having two rows of teeth.’ The ram is ordinarily a harmless animal; but, just as he portentotisly devours a lioness at RV. VII, 18, 17, so he here appears armed with extra teeth, and capable of doing mischief. Possibly, however, ubhayadam is an accusative from ubhaydda = ubhayddant, ‘horse,’ and ‘the goat de- voured the horse’ is another way of marking the ominous destruction of the property of oppressors. Cf. RV. X, go, Io, and the Pet. Lexs., s.v. ubhaydatodant, ubhayatodanta, ubha- yadant.
b. I have accepted Professor Weber’s not altogether certain emendation of suklam to sulkam (Ind. Stud. XVII, 304). This is based upon Muir’s perfectly secure parallel correction at III, 29, 3 (Original Sanskrit Texts, V, 310). These two.passages are the only ones upon which the Pet. Lex., s. v. 2d, bases the meanings ‘ auswurf, schleim, rotz’ for sukla ; otherwise the word means ‘white.’ It must be conceded, however, that the reading sulkdm disturbs the parallelism between Padas a and b, and that the construc- tion of ish with the locative of the person from whom something is desired is strange. The text as it stands would yield, who threw slime upon him.’
c,d. This punishment broaches upon the later infernal
V, I9. COMMENTARY. 435 fancies of the Markawdeya-purama ; see Scherman, Roman- ische Forschungen, V, 539 ff.; Materialien zur Geschichte der Indischen Visionsliteratur (Leipzig, 1892), and Feéer, Journal Asiatique, Eighth Series, vol. xx, p. 185 ff.; Ninth Series, vol. i, p. 112 ff.; cf. also Zimmer, 420 ff.