Full text of "Journal Of The American Oriental Society Vol.33"

A copy of this volume, postage paid, may be
obtained anywhere within the bmits of the
Universal Postal Union, by sending a Postal
Money Order for six dollars, or its equiva-
lent to The American Oriental Society, ^ ew
’ nnr.neeticut. United States of America.

eENTUAL AaCiiAEOLOGJGAll
LIWAHY, NLW UgLHI.

Am No. . 6

ao-,

€U! f .-o S* j. 'O S.

Printed by W. Drugulin, Leipzig (Germany).

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page

Baeton, G. a.: Recent Researches in the SunDerian Calendar ... 1

Babto^t, G. a.: The names of two Kings of Adah 295

Bakton, G. a. : Kugler’s Criterion for Determining the Order of the

Months in the Earliest Babylonian Calendar 297

BoiLiKG, G. M.: The Qantikalpa of the Atharvaveda 265

CoNANT, C. E. ; Notes on the Phonology of the Tirurai Language . 150

Edgebtoit, F.: Paucadivyudhiviisa or Choosing a king by Divine Will 158
Epstein, J. N. : Zum magi'schen Texte (Journal of the -Alaerican

Oriental Society 1912, p. 434 seq)

Gottheil, R.: Tie-Peshitta Text of Gen. 32, 25 . ... v ,.i . . 263

Gottheil, R. : Two -Forged Antiques 306

Gray, L. H.: Iranian Miscellanies . . . 281

Hieth, P. ;.The Mystery of Fu-lin 193

Hopkins, E. W.; Sanskrit Kahairas or Kubairas and Greek Kabeiros 55
Hussey. M. I. : Tablets from Diehem in the Public Library of Cleve-
land, Ohio 167

Jastrow, M.: Wine in the Pentateuchal Codes 180

Jacobi, H. : On M-ayavada 61

Kent, R. G. : Classical Parallels to a Sanskrit Proverb 214

Kent, R. G.: The Chronology of Certain Indo-Iranian Sound-Changes 259
Maegolis, M. L.: Additions to Field from the Lyons Codex of the

Old Latin 254

Meroee, S. a. B. : The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions 33

Michelson, T.: Vedic, Sanskrit, and Middle Indie 145

Negelein, J. V.: Atharvaprayascittani 71, 121, 217

Ogden, E. S. : Some Notes on the So-called Hieroglyphic-Tablet . 16

Petees, J. P.: The Cock 363

Price, I. M.; The Animal DUN in the Sumerian Inscriptions . . 402

Peince, j. D. : A Political Hymn to Shamash 10

Peince, j. D.: a Tammuz Fragment 343

Schofp, "W. H.: Tamil Political Divisions in the First Two Centuries

of the Christian Era 209

ScHOPE, W. H. : The name of the Erythraean Sea 349

Scott, S. B.; Mohammedanism in Borneo: Notes for a Study of the
Local Modifications of Islam and the Extent of Its Influence

on the native Tribes 313

Vasdbebuegh, F. a.; Three Babylonian Tablets, Prince Collection,

Columbia University 24

TtvisAKEE, S. C.: Dialectic Difierences between Assyrian and Baby-
lonian, and some Problems they Present . 397

^ /

, PEOCEEDINGS

OP THE

AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY

AT ITS

AIEETING IN PHILADELPHIA, PA.

1913

The annual meeting of the Society, being the one hundred
twenty-fifth occasion of its assembling, was held in Philadelphia,
Pa., at the University of Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, AV ednesday,
and Thm’sday of Easter week, Alarch 25th, 26th, and 27th, 19lk
The following members were present at one or more of the
sessions ;

Adler, C.

Arnold

Barret

Barton

Bates, Mrs.

Bender

Bloomfield

Bolling

BrockweU

Burlingame

Carus

Clay

Cunningham

Edgerton

EUis

Ember

Gottheil

Grant, E.

Grieve, Miss

Groton

Haas

Haupt

Hirth

Hock

Hopkins

Jackson

Jackson, Mrs.

Jastrow

Keiser

Kent, R. G.

Kupfer

Kyle

Lanman

Lyman

Malter

Margolis, M. L.

Michelson

Montgomery

Moore, G. E.

Muller

Kies, J. B.

Kies, AV. E.

Poebel

Price

Keider

Eosengarten

Rudolph, Miss

Schoff

Scott, Mrs.

Steele

Sulzberger

Torrey

Vanderburgh

Ward, W. H.

Ylvisaker

Yohannan

Total; 56 .

The first session was held in Room 205, College HaU, on
Tuesday afternoon, beginning at 3:15 p. m., the President
Professor George E. Aloore, being in the chair.

The reading of the minutes of the meeting in Xew York,
April 9th, 10th and 11th, 1912, was dispensed with, because they
had already been printed in the Journal (toI. 32, part 4, p. i-xi).

The Committee of Arrangements presented its report, through
Professor Jastrow, in the form of a printed program. The
succeeding sessions were appointed for Wednesday morning at
half past nine, Wednesday afternoon at a quarter before three,
and Thursday morning at half past nine. It was announced that
there would be an informal meeting of the members on Tuesday
evening; that the members of the Society were invited by Dr.
Cyrus Adler, President of the Dropsie College, and his col-
leagues to a luncheon at the College on Wednesday at one o’clock;
and that the Oriental Club of Philadelphia would, in celebration
of the twenty-fifth anniversary of its foundation, entertain the
men of the Society at dinner at the Pranklin Inn Club on
Wednesday evening at seven o’clock, while the visiting ladies
were invited to be the guests of Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson at
dinner at her home at the same hour,

EEPOKT OF THE COREESPONDIXG SECEETARY.

The CoiTesponding Secretary, Professor A. (V. AVilliams
Jackson, presented the following report:

The correspondence of the Society has been constantly increasing, and
during the past year the Secretary has interchanged letters with a large
number of Oriental scholars in Europe and Asia, as well as with members
in this country. As directed at the last meeting, the Secretary sent a
greeting by cablegram to the International Congress of Orientalists, which
met at Athens at the same time, and transmitted the good wishes of the
Society to a number of the members longest on the roll. Replies have
come in acknowledgment of these greetings, and the newly elected members
have sent letters of acceptance and appreciation.

Among the correspondence with foreign members may be specially
mentioned an interesting letter from Mr. Ely Bannister Soane, written at
Chia Surkh in Southern Kurdistan and dated May 26, 1912, in which he
makes some noteworthy remarks regarding the sect of the Ali Illahi and
their possible connection with the Yezidis, numbers of whom are scattered
through Kurdistan. He writes:

‘They are just as secretive as the Yezidis, and though the
religious chief, Sayid Rustam, is a close personal friend of mine,

I have never got much out of him; but I find that in Kerind,
which is a stronghold of the Ali Illahis, there is the same
aversion to any mention of Satan, who is also called Malek
Taus (see Layard), and the same secret meetings take place.

This seems rather interesting and looks as if they and the
Yezidis are two branches, from a common origin, which have

iii

developed along different lines — the Ali Illahi, or Persian
section, adopting Muhammadan outward semblance as a self-
protective measure. Their initiation ceremony is also called
Jaoz. Do you think this is any relic of the Avestic YaozMdh,
the modern ritual also being one of purification?'

It is a sad duty to record the loss of several valued members by death
f during the past year.

Professor Willis J. Beecher, D. D., of the Theological Seminary at
Auburn, N. Y., whose work along theological lines is well known, died
May 10, 1912. He had been a member of the Society for twelve years.

Rev. Dr. David Blaustein, who became a member of the Society in 1891,
died in the summer of 1912. He will be long remembered for his ability
and noble character, no less than for his educational and humanitarian
work.

Rev. Dr. Arthur W. Ewing, of Philadelphia, President of the Christian
College at Allahabad, India, died September 20, 1912, at Allahabad. Dr.
Ewing had devoted himself for years to philanthropic and educational
work among the Hindus, but had found time also for the pursuit of
Oriental studies. A number of years ago he published in the Journal a
valuable article entitled ‘The Hindu conception of the functions of breath’
(JAOS. 22 [1901], p. 249—308).

Professor William Watson Goodwin, the distinguished Greek scholar of
Harvard, has likewise died since the last meeting. He was one of the
oldest members of the Society, having joined in 1857, and he always
attended some of the sessions when the meetings took place in Boston or
Cambridge. After the meeting last year the Secretary sent Professor
Goodwin a hearty letter of greetings from the Society, as instructed, and
received from him a cordial response expressing his appreciation of the
remembrance.

Professor Alfred Ludwig, of the University of Prague, Bohemia, who
had been an honorary member of the Society since 1898, died June 15,
1912. The work of this noted scholar, especially in the line of Vedic
criticism, is too well known to require any record here. His learning was
profound and his scholarship broad and varied, including not only researches
in various branches of linguistics, bat likewise investigations in Homeric
studies, in Hebrew, and even in Finnish literature.

In concluding this report the Secretary wishes to express once again
his appreciation of the continued co-operation of those who are associated
with him in the work of the Society.

Professor Lauinan spoke briefly on the character and achieve-
ments of Professor Goodwin; Professor Bloomfield, on Professor
Ludwig; Professor Barton, on Dr. Blaustein.

REPORT OF THE TREASURER.

The annual report of the Treasurer, Professor P. '‘.T. Williams,
was presented by Professor Torrey, as follows:

Beceipts and Disbuesements by the Teeasubee op the Ameeican Oeiental
Society foe the yeae endino Dec. 31 , 1912 .

Receipts.

Balance from old account, Dec. 31, 1911 § 1338.73

Annual dues 1 1305.20

Life membership 75.00

Contribution for the Library 100.00

Sales of the Journal 345.36

State National Bank dividends 128.14

Coupons from bonds 50.00

Sale of 13 shares of National Bank stock 2600.00

Withdrawn from Savings Bank 1017.08 5620.78

$ 6979.M

Expenditures.

Printing of the Journal, Volume 32 J 1208.21

Sundry printing and addressing 57.34

Freight and mailing 21.76

Library Fund (deposited in Savings Bank) .... 200.00

Editor’s honorarium 200.00

Postage of the Treasurer, 2 years 21.30

Subvention to Dictionary of Islam, 3 years .... 150.50

Investments in bonds 3842.91 5702.02

Balance to new account 1277.49

$“697^51

Statement.

1911 1912

Bradley Type Fund 1 3052.29 $ 3178.21

Cotheal Fund 1000.00 1000.00

State National Bank shares (sold 1912) 1950.00

National Savings Bank deposit 20.76 225.51

Interest, Cotheal Fund 330.05 380.38

2 Ch., K. I. & Pacific By. bonds (bought 1912) . . 1787.50

1 Virginian EaUway bond (bought 1912) 990.00

^ 6353710 fTSeiliO

KEPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE.

Tlie report of the Auditing Committee, Professors Torrey
and Oertel, was presented by Professor Torrey, as follows:

We hereby certify that we have examined the account book of -the
Treasurer of this Society and have found the same correct, and that the
foregoing account is in conformity therewith. We have also compared
the entries in the cash book with the vouchers and bank and pass books
and have found all correct.

Charles C. Tokeey)

Hanns Oeeiel

> Auditors.

New Haven, Conn., March 17, 1913 .

REPOET OP THE LIBEARIAR.

The Librarian, Professor Albert T. Clay, presented the
following report:

During the past year much has been done in classifying the books of
the Library. Under my predecessor the serial publications were classi-
fied and given their own shelf number. Since then many new serials
have been added to the Library, but they have been placed on the
shelves without any attempt at cataloguing. This year we have made an
inventory of all these publications, some 200 titles, with a view to cata-
loguing them and completing the classification. We have also some 214
volumes ready for binding, w’hich will represent an outlay of about |200.
This has been provided for by the appropriation made one year ago.
The catalogues of manuscripts were also catalogued under my predecessor,
as well as the Bibliotheca Indica, but the wmrk has not been kept up
to date. This is now being done. In addition w-e have commenced to
make a classified arrangement of the other accessions.

In order to make the work permanent in character and make the
Library really accessible to the members of the Society, it is planned to
prepare: fl) an author catalogue; (2) a scheme of classification adapted
to the needs of an Oriental library; (3) a shelf-list, in which the cards
are arranged in the order of the books on the shelves. The shelf-list
will in reality he an inventory of the Library and should always he
complete.

With the assistance of a trained librarian who is giving partial time
to the work, we hope to accomplish these things in about two years,
after which it wUl not require much time to take care of the accessions
and keep everything up-to-date.

I might add that among the book accessions we frequently receive
books for review. These have heretofore been acknowledged in the same
way as other books, but with the consent of the Editors of the Journal
acknowledgment of these will hereafter be made in the columns of the
Journal.

REPORT OF THE EDITORS.

The report of the Editors of the Journal, Professors Oertel
and Torrey, was presented by Professor Torrey, as follows:

In spite of a slight increase over last year’s bill, the cost of printing
the last volume of the Journal was well within the limits of our budget.
The delay in issuing the last parts of last year’s volume and of the first
parts of the current volume was due to the tardiness of the contributors
in sending in copy. The Editors hope that the remaining numbers of
the current volume will be issued at the regular quarterly dates.

ELECTION OF MEMBERS.

The following persons, recommended by the Directors, were
elected members of the Society (for convenience the names of
those elected at a subsequent session are included in this hst):

CoKPOEATE Members.

Mr. Bckley B. Coxe, Jr.
Mr. Edward T. Curran
Rev. Dr. 0. E. Keiser
Dr. G. L Kteiralla
Mr. Walter S. Kupfer
Rev. Dr. David Levy
Prof. Henry Malter
Rev. Jolm Meighan

Dr. Felix Freiherr von Oefele
Mr. T. Ramakrishna
Dr. Joseph Reider
Mr. J. G. Rosengarten
Prof. WiUiam 0. Thayer
Rev. Dr. Royden K. Yerkes
Dr. S. C. Ylvisaker

ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1913-1914.

The committee appointed at New York to nominate officers
for the year 1913 — 1914, consisting of Professors Montgomery,
Gottheil, and Barret, reported through the chairman. Professor
Montgomery, and non^nated the following, who were thereupon
duly elected;

President — Professor Paul Haupt, of Baltimore.

Vice-PresideMfs— Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., of Philadelphia; Pro-
fessor Hanns Oertel, of New Haven; and Professor George A. Barton,
of Bryn Mawr, Pa.

Corresponding Secretary— Professor A. V. Williams Jackson, of New
York.

Recording Secretary— T)r. George C. 0. Haas, of New York.

Treaswre)-— Professor Frederick Wells Williams, of New Haven.

iiSrariaw— Professor Albert T. Clay, of New Haven.'

Direetors—The officers above named, and Professors Richard Gottheil,
of New York; Charles R. Lanman, of Canibridge; E. Washburn Hopkins,
of New Haven; Maurice Btoomfield, of Baltimore; George F. Moore, of
Cambridge; Robert Francis Harper, of Chicago; Dr. William Hayes
Ward, of New York.

Professor Jastrow announced that Provost Edgar F. Smith
was unfortunately prevented from being present and welcoming
the members to the University.

After a recess of ten minutes, the President delivered the
annual address, the subject being ‘Babism and Bahaism.’ The
Society thereupon adjourned for the day, at 5:10 p. m.

SECOND SESSION.

The members reassembled on Wednesday morning at 9:35
a. m. for the second session. The President, Professor Moore,
was in the chair. After the election of a corporate member
(included in the list above), the Society proceeded to the hearing
of communications, "as follows;

Professor G. A. Barton, of Bryn Mawr College: Kugler’s criterion for
determining the order of the months in the earliest Babylonian calendar.

Remarks and a question by Professor Jastrow and reply by the author.

yii

Dr. S. C. Ylvisakek, of Luther College, Decorah, Iowa: Dialectic
differences between Assyrian and Babylonian. — Remarks by Professor
Haupt.

Professor G. M. Bolling, of the Catholic University of America: The
Santikalpa of the Atharva-Veda.

Professor C. C. Toeket, of Yale University: A possible metrical original
of the Lord’s Prayer. — Remarks by Professor Moore.

Professor M. Bloomfield, of Johns Hopkins University: A preliminary
exploration of the Reverse Vedic Concordance. — Remarks by Dr.
Michelson.

The Corresponding Secretary reported the receipt of greetings
fi’om Professor Toy, and was instructed to send a message to
him and to some of the members longest on the roll. After
a recess of ten minutes at eleven o’clock, the reading of papers
was resumed, as follows:

Mr. W. H. SoHOFF, of the Commercial Museum, Philadelphia; Identifi-
cations of South Indian place-names mentioned in the Periplus. — Remarks
by Professor Hopkins, Professor Jackson, and Professor Moore.

Professor C. A. B. Brookwell, of McGill University: The couvade in
Israel. — Remarks by Dr. Michelson, Professor Max Muller, and Professor
Montgomery.

Professor Mas Muller .made a few remarks, presenting a
specimen of the Kunjara language of Dar Fur in Arabic script.

At noon the Society took a recess until a quarter before
three o’clock.

THIRD SESSION.

The afternoon session was opened at 2 : 55 p. m. in the large
lecture-room at the Dropsie College, President Moore being in
the chair.

President Cyrus Adler, of the Dropsie College, made a brief
address explaining the foundation and purposes of the College.
Professor Bezold, who was present at the meeting, was invited
to say a few words regarding a new projected Assyrian dic-
tionary.

After the election of an additional corporate member (in-
cluded in the list above), the reading of papers was resumed,
in the following order:

Dr. E. W. Buelinoame, of the University of Pennsylvania: Buddha-
ghosa’s Dhammapada Commentary^ — Remarks by Professor Lanman.

Mr. F. A. Cunningham, of Merchantville, N. J. : The identity of Phul
with Tiglath-Pileser II.

Dr. A. PoEBEL, of Johns Hopkins University: The Sumerian noun. —
Remarks by Professor Jastrow and Professor Arnold.

viii

Mr. W. S. KnpFEK, of New York: On some modern vernacular folk-
songs of India. — Remarks by Professor Gottheil.

Dr. A. Embbe, of Johns Hopkins University: Some Egyptian and Coptic
etymologies.

Dr. P. Edgektok, of Johns Hopkins University: Pancadivyadhivasa,
choosing a king by divine ordeal.

Professor P. Haupt, of Johns Hopkins University: Two poems of
Haggai in the Book of Zechariah. (Presented in abstract.)

Professor P. Hacpt: The fifth Sumerian family law. (Presented in
abstract.)

Professor P. Hacpt: A new Assyrian verb. (Presented in abstract.)

Professor A. V. Williams Jackson, of Columbia University: On some
fragments of Persian poetry.

Rev. Dr. J. B. Npes, of Brooklyn, N. Y. : The Sumerian signs Tur, Gam,
Alin, Mesu. — Remarks by Professor Barton.

Professor R. J. H. Gottheil, of Columbia University : The Peshitta text
of Genesis 32. 23.

Dr. A. YoHANNAjf, of Columbia University: On the date of composition
of Nizami’s five romantic poems according to different Persian manuscripts.

Professor R. G. Kent, of the University of Pennsylvania: Classical
parallels to a Sanskrit proverb. — Remarks by Dr. Yohannan.

Professor I. M. Peice, of the University of Chicago: The animal DUN
in Sumerian inscriptions. — Remarks by Dr. J. B. Nies.

Professor M. L. Makoolis, of Dropsie College: Additions to Field from
the Lyons Codex of the Old Latin. — Remarks by Professor Moore.

Rev. Dr. F. A. Vandeebueoh, of Columbia University: A deed of sale
in the reign of Nabopolassar.

At 5:40 p. m. the Society adjourned for the day.

FOURTH SESSION.

The Society met for the fourth session at 9 : 40 a. m. on
Thursday morning in Koom 205, College HaU, University of
Pennsylvania, the President, Professor Moore, being in the
chair.

The President reported for the Directors that the next
annual meeting would be held at Cambridge and Boston, Mass.,
on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of Easter week, April 16th,
17th, and 18th, 1914. He reported further that the Directors
had reappointed Professors Oertel and Torrey as Editors of
the Journal for the ensuing year.

The President then announced the following appointments:

Committee of Arrangements for 1914: Professors Lanman and Lyon,
and the Corresponding Secretary.

Committee on Nominations: Professors Hopkins, Kent, and Ropes,

Auditors: Professors Oertel and Torrey.

The President announced that, because of the large number
of technical papers and the brief time axailable at the meet-
ings, one half-day session at the next meeting would he held
in two sections, for special Indo-Germanic and Semitic com-
munications respectively.

On motion the following resolution was unanimously adopted;

The American Oriental Society desires to express its thanks to the
Provost and Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania for their hos-
pitable welcome, to the President of the Dropsie College and his colleagues
for the entertainment so generously provided, to the members of the
Oriental Club of Philadelphia and to Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson for their
gracious hospitality, to the University Club, the College Club, and the
Lenape Club for courtesies extended, and to the Committee of Arrange-
ments for the thoughtful provision they have made for the entertainment
of the members.

The reading of papers was then resumed, in the following
order;

Professor R. J. H. Gottheil, of Columbia University: Modem frauds
in Ancient Palestine. — Remarks by Dr. Ward and Professor Jastrow.

Professor P. Haupt, of Johns Hopkins University: The Maccabean
prototype of Luther’s ‘Bin’ feste Burg ist unser Gott.’ Remarks by Dr.
Michelson.

Professor E. W. Hopkins, of Yale University: The Lokapalas, or world-
protecting gods. — Remarks by Professor Lanman and Dr. Edgerton;
additional statement by the author.

Professor M. Jastrow, Jr, of the University of Pennsylvania: Wine in
the Pentateuchal codes. — Remarks by Professors Jackson, Haupt, Moore,
Brockwell, Arnold, Max Muller, and Montgomery.

Mrs. S. B. Scott, of Philadelphia: Notes on Mohammedanism in
Borneo. — Remarks by Professor Gottheil, Dr. Yohannan, Mr. Ellis,
Professor Barret, Professor Jastrow, and Dr. Michelson.

Professor C. R. Laxjian, of Harvard University: Symbolism in India. —
Remarks by Professor Hopkins and Miss Grieve.

Dr. T. Michelson, of the Bureau of American Ethnology: On various
attempts to connect the language of American Indians with the languages
of the Old World. — Remarks by Professors Jastrow, Max Muller, and
Moore.

Professor J. A. Montgomery, of the University of Pennsylvania: A
Mandaic inscription on a lead tablet. — Remarks by Professors Max
Muller, Gottheil, and Barton.

Mr. 'William T. Ellis exhibited a vase from Korea, Grecian
in form, inscribed in ancient Chinese characters, for the in-
spection of the members. Professors Haupt and Brockwell
made some remarks regarding it.

The following communication was then presented:

Professor G. A. Baeton, of Bryn Mawr College: The names of two
kings of Adah. (Presented in abstract.)

The Society adjourned at 12 : 27 p. m., to meet at Cambridge
and Boston on April 16, 1914.

The following communications were presented hy title;

Professor G. A. Bartos, of Bryn Mawr College; A Syriac grammatical
manuscript of the fifteenth century.

Dr. P. R. Blare, of Johns Hopkins University: (a) The expression of
indefinite pronominal ideas in Hebrew; (b) Some peculiar Philippine con-
structions.

Dr. E. yy. Borlikgame, of the University of Pennsylvania; Dukkham
ariyasaccam quoted in Bidpai’s fables.

Professor C. E. Conast, of the University of Chattanooga; Notes on
the phonology of the Tirnrai language (Philippines).

Dr. F. Edgeeton, of Johns Hopkins University: The verses of the
Vikramacarita.

Dr. A. Ember, of Johns Hopkins University: The origin of the prono-
minal suffix of the third person masculine singular, in Egyptian.

Professor I. Feiedlaendee, of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America; (a) Gnostic elements in heterodox Islam; (b) The rebirth of the
Hebrew language in Palestine.

Dr. L. H. Geat, of Newark, N. J.: Iranian Miscellanies.

Dr. G. C. 0. Haas, of the College of the City of New York: The
Tapatisamvarana, a drama by Kulasekhara Yarman, translated from the
Sanskrit and Prakrit.

Professor E. "W. Hopkins, of Yale University : The epic Narada.

Dr. Mary I. Hussey, of Cambridge, Mass.: A deed of land dated in the
reign of Ellil-bani.

Professor A. V. W. Jackson, of Columbia University: On some words
in the Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions.

Mr. Charles Johnston, of New York: A catechism of the Vedanta.

Professor R. G. Kent, of the University of Pennsylvania : The chrono-
logy of certain Indo-Iranian sound-changes.

Dr. T. Michelson, of the Bureau of American Ethnology: On Vedic
archaisms in Epic Sanskrit.

Dr. A. PoEBEL, of Johns Hopkins University: (a) Nisan; (b) Gold and
silver in Babylonia in the third millennium B. 0.; (c) A new Creation and
Deluge text.

Professor J, D. Prince, of Columbia University : (a) An unread Baby-
lonian ideogram; (b) A Tammuz incantation.

Mr. G. P. Quackenbos, of the College of the City of New York: A study
of Bana’s Candlsataka.

Key. Dr. W. Rosenau, of Johns Hopkins University : (a) Some psycho-
logical terms in the Hebrew text of Maimonides; (b) The Strack edition
of the Talmud.

Mr. G. V. Schick, of Johns Hopkins University: Some unpublished
cuneiform fragments in the British Museum.

Mr. W. H. ScHOPF, of the Commercial Museum, Philadelphia: (a) Some
features of the Kushan coinage; (b) A note on the name of the Ery-
threan Sea.

List of Members.

xiii

List op Members.

The number placed after the address indicates the year of election*

I. HONORARY MEMBERS.

M. Acguste Barth, Membre de I’Institut, Paris, France. (Rue Garan-
ciere, 10.) 1898.

Dr. Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar, C. I. E., Dekkan Coll. Poona, India
1887.

James Boroess, LL. D., 22 Seton Place, Edinburgh, Scotland. 1899.

Prof. Charles Clermont-Ganneau, 1 Avenue de I’Alma, Paris. 1909.
Prof. T. W. Rhys Davids, Harboro’ Grange, Ashton-on-Mersey, England.
1907.

Prof. Berthold DelbrCce, University of Jena, Germany. 1878.

Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, University of Berlin, Germany. 1893.

Canon Samuel E. Driver, Oxford, England. 1909.

Prof. Adolph Erman, Berlin-Steglitz-Dahlem, Germany, Peter Lennestr. 72.
1903.

Prof. Richard Garbe, University of Tubingen, Germany. (Biesinger
Str. 14.) 1902.

Prof. Karl F. Geldner, University of Marburg, Germany. 1905.

Prof. loNAZ Goldziher, vii Hollo-Utcza 4, Budapest, Hungary. 1906.
George A. Grierson, C.I.E., D.Litt., l.C.S. (retired), Rathfarnham,
Camberley, Surrey, England. Corporate Member, 1899; Hon., 1905.
Prof. Ignazio Gdidi, University of Rome, Italy. (Via Botteghe Oscure24.)
1893.

Prof. Hermann Jacobi, University of Bonn, 59 Niebuhrstrasse, Bonn, Ger-
, many. 1909.

Prof. Hendrik Kern, 45 'Willem Barentz-Straat. Utrecht, Netherlands. 1893.
Prof. Gaston Maspero, College de France, Paris. France. (Avenue de
rObservatoire, 24.) 1898.

Prof. Eduard Meyer, University of Berlin, Germany. (Gross-Lichterfelde-
West, Mommsenstr. 7.) 1908.

Prof. Theodor Noldeke, University of Strassburg, Germany. (Kalbs-
gasse 16.) 1878.

Prof. Hermann Oldenbbro, University of Gottingen, Germany. 1910.
(27/29 Nikolausberger Weg.)

Prof. Eduard Sachad, University of Berlin, Germany. (Wormserstr.l2,W.)
1887.

xiv List of Members.

Emile Sekart, Membre de I’Institnt de France, 18 Rue Frangois I“, Paris,
France. 1908.

Prof. Archibald H. Satce, University of Oxford, England. 1893.

Prof. Jdlihs Wellhausen, University of Gottingen, Germany. (Weber-
strasse 18 a.) 1902.

Prof. Ernst Windisch, University of Leipzig, Germany. (Universitats-
strasse 15.) 1890. [Total: 26]

II. CORPORATE MEMBERS.

Names znarked with * are those of life members.

Rev. Dr. JnsTiN Edwards Abbott, 120 Hobart Ave., Summit, N. J. 1900.
Mrs Justin E. Abbott, 120 Hobart Ave., Summit, N, J. 1912.

Dr. Ctrus Adler, 2041 North Broad St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1884.

Prof. Felix Adler, 33 Central Park West, New York, N. Y. 1912.
Ronald C. Allen, 148 South Divinity Hall, Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, HI.
1912.

F. Sturges Allen, 246 Central St., Springfield, Mass. 1904.

Miss Mat Alice Allen, Northampton, Mass. 1906.

Rev. Dr. Floyd Appleton, 230 New Jersey Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y. 1912.
Prof. William R. Arnold, (Harvard Univ.), 25 Kirkland St., Cambridge,
Mass. 1893.

Prof. ELanichi Asakawa, Yale University Library, New Haven, Conn. 1904.
Rev. Edward E. AiKiNaoN, 94 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass. 1894.

Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, LL.D., 44 Wall St., New Haven, Conn. 1898.
Prof. Leroy Carr Barret, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn. 1903.

Prof. George A. Barton, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1888.
Mrs. Daniel Bates, 35 Brewster Street, Cambridge, Mass. 1912.

Prof. L. W. Batten, 418 West 20th St., New York. 1894.

Prof. Harlan P. Beach (Yale Univ.), 346Willo w St., New Haven, Conn. 1898.
Prof. Harold H. Bender, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J., 1906.
Rev. Joseph F. Berg, New Brunswick, 5 Seminary Place, N. J. 1893.
Prof. George R. Berry, Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y. 1907.

Prof. Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary , ' Broadway and
120th St., New York, N. Y. 1907.

Dr. William Sturgis Bigelow, 60 Beacon St., Boston, Mass. 1894.

Prof. John Binnet, Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown. Conn. 1887.
Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Bishop, 500 West 122d St., New York, N. Y. 1898.
Dr. George F. Black, Public Library, Fifth Ave. and 42d St., New
York, N Y, 1907.

Dr. Frank Ringgold Blake, Windsor Hills, Baltimore, Md.

Rev. Philip Blanc, St. Johns Seminary, Brighton, Mass. 1907.

Dr. Frederick J. Bliss, Protestant Syrian College, Beirut Syrien. 1898.
Francis B. Blodgett, General Theological Seminary, Chelsea Square, New
York, N. Y. 1906.

Prof. Carl August Blomgrek, Augustana College and Theol. Seminary,
Rock Island, 111. 1900.

Prof. Maurice Bloomfield, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

1881.

List of Members.

Dr. Alfeed Boissiek, Le Rivage pres Chambery, Switzerland. 1897.

Dr. George M. Boelixg (Catholic XJniv. of America), 1784 Corcoran
St., Washington, D. C. 1896.

Rev. Dr. Dax Freeman Bradley, 2905 West 14th St.. Cleveland, Ohio.
1911.

Prof. James Henry Breasted, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1891.
Prof. C. A. Beodie Brockwell, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 1906.
Pres. Francis Brown (Union Theological Sem.), Broadway and 120th St.,
New York, N. T. 1881.

Rev. George William Brown, Jubbulpore, C. P., India. 1909.

Prof. Rudolph E. Becnnow (Princeton Univ.) 49 Library Place, Princeton,
N. J. 1911.

Prof. Carl Darling Buck, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1892.
Hammond H. Buck, Division Sup’t. of Schools, Alfonso, Cavite Provinces,
Philippine Islands. 1908.

Alexander H. Bullock, State Mutual Building, Worcester, Mass. 1910.
Dr. Eugene Watson Burlingame, 20 Graduate House. West Phila-
delphia, Pa. 1910.

Charles Dana Burbage, 85 Ames Building, Boston, Mass. 1909.
Granville Bureus. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1912.
Prof. Howard Crosby Butler, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1908.
Rev. John Campbell, Kingsbridge, New York, N. Y. 1896.

Pres. Franklin Carter, LL. D., Williamstown, Mass.

Dr. Paul Carus, La Salle, Illinois. 1897.

Dr. L M. C.ASANOvicz, U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. 1893.
Rev. John L. Chandler, Madura, Southern India. 1899.

Miss Eva Chantting, Hemenway Chambers, Boston, Mass. 1883.

Dr. F. D. Chester, The Bristol, Boston, Mass. 1891.

Walter E. Clark, 37 Walker St., Cambridge, Mass. 1906.

Prof. Albert T. Clay (Yale Univ.) 401 Humphrey St., New Haven, Conn.
1907.

^Alexander Smith Cochran, New York 16 E. 41 st. Street. 1908.

*George Wetmore Colles, 62 Fort Greene Place, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1882.
Prof. Hermann Collitz, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1887.
Prof. C. Everett Conant, 5423 Greenwood Ave., Chicago, 111. 1905.
Eckley B. Coxe, Jr., 1604 Locust st., Philadelphia, Pa. 1913.

Rev. William Merriam Grane, Richmond, Mass. 1902.

Francis A. Cunningham, 508 W. Maple St., Merchantville, N. Y. 1912.
Edward T. Curran, 346 State St., Brooklyn, N. Y.

Rev. Charles W. Currier, 913 Sixth St., Washington, D. C. 1904.

Dr. Harold S. Davidson, 1700 North Paysan St., Baltimore, Md. 1908.
Prof. John D. Davis, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton. N. J.
1888.

Prof. Alfred L, P. Dennis, Madison, Wis. 1900.

James T. Dennis, University Club, Baltimore, Md. 1900.

Mrs. Francis W. Dickins, 2015 Columbia Road, Washington, D. C. 1911.
Rev. D. Stuart Dodge, 99 John St., New York. N. Y. 1867.

Rev. Wm. Haskell Du Bose, University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn. 1912.
Dr. Harry Westbrook Dunning, 5 Kilsyth Road, Brookline, Mass. 1894.
Dr. Franklin Edgeeton, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1910.

XVI

List of Members.

Prof. Fredeeiok G. C. Eiselen, Garrett Biblical Inst., Evanston, 111. 1901.
William T. Ellis, Swarthmore, Pa. 1912.

Prof. Levi H. Elwell, (Amherst Collsge), 5 Lincoln Ave., Amherst, Mass.
1883.

Dr. Aaeos Ember, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1902.

Eev. Prof. C. P. Eagnaxi, 606 W. 122d, St., New York, X. Y. 1901.

Prof. Edwin Whitfield Fay (Univ. of Texas), 200 West 24th St., Austin,
Texas. 1888.

Prof. Heney Feegusos, St. Paul’s School, Concord, X. H. 1876.

Dr. John C. Ferguson, Peking, China. 1900.

Dr. Henry C. Fiskel, District Xational Bank Building, Washington, D. C.

1912.

Eev. Dr. Fonck, Instituto Biblico Pontifico,Via del Archelto, Eoma, Italia.

1913.

Eev. Theodore Foote, Rowland Park, Maryland. 1900.

Prof. Hughell E. W. Fosbeoke, 9 Acacia St., Cambridge, Mass. 1907.
Dr. Leo J. Feachtenbebg, Hartley Hall, Columbia Universitv, Xew York,
X. Y. 1907.

Prof. Jas Evehett Frame (Union Theological Sem.), Broadway and
120 th St., Xew York, X. Y. 1892.

Dr. Carl Fr.ink. 23 Montague St., London, W. C., England. 1909.

Dr. Herbert Friedenwald, 856 2nd Ave., Xew York, X. Y. 1909.

Prof. Israel Feiedlaender (Jewish Theological Sem.), 61 Hamilton Place,
Xew York, X. Y. 1904.

Dr. Wm. Henry Furness, 3d, 1906 Sansom St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1913.
Robert Garret, Continental Building, Baltimore, Md. 1903.

Miss Marie Gelbach, Prospect Terrace, Park Hill, Yonkers, X. Y. 1909.
Eugene A. Gellot 290 Broadway, X. Y., 1911.

Prof. Basil L.anneau Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Md. 1858.

Prof. Alexander R. Gordon, Presbyterian College, Montreal, Canada. 1912.
Prof. Richaed J. H. Goitheil, Columbia University, Xew York, X. Y. 1886.
Prof. Elihu Grant Smith College, Xorthampton, Mass. 1907.

Dr. Louis H. Gray, 291 Woodside Ave., Xewark, X. J. 1897. ■

Mrs. Louis H. Gray, 291 Woodside Ave., Xewark, X. J. 1907.

Miss Lucia C. Graeme Grieve, Martindale Depot, X. Y. 1894.

Prof. Louis Grossmann (Hebrew Union College), 2212 Park Ave., Cincin-
nati, 0., 1890.

Rev. Dr. W. M. Groton, Dean of the Protestant Episcopal Divinity School,
5000 Woodlawn Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 1907.

•‘Dr. George C. 0. Haas, 254 West 136th St., Xew York, X. Y. 1903.

Miss Luise Haessler, 1230 Amsterdam Ave., Xew York, X. Y. 1909.
Mrs. Ida M. Hanchett, care of Omaha Public Librarv, Omaha, Xebraska
1912.

Xewton H. Harding, 110 X. Pine Ave., Chicago, 111. 1912.

Prof. Robert Francis Harper, University of Chicago, Chicago, HI. 1886.
Prof. Samuel Hart, D. D., Berkeley Divinitv School, Middletown, Conn!
1879.

Prof. Paul Haupt (Johns Hopkins Univ.), 215 Longwood Road, Roland
Park, Baltimore, Md. 1883.

List of Members.

xvu

frof. Hebmann V. Hilprecht, MUnchen, Leopoldstr. 1887.

Rev. Dr. William J. Hinke, 28 Court St., Auburn, N. Y. 1907.

Prof. Friedrich Hirth (Columbia Univ.), 401 West 118th St., New York,
N. Y. 1903.

Prof. Charles F. Hook (Theological Sem.), 220 Liberty St., Bloomfield,
N. J. 1903.

*Dr. A. F. Rudolf Hoernle, 8 Northmoor Road, Oxford, England. 1893.
Rev. Dr. Hugo W. Hoffmann, 306 Rodney St., Brooklyn, N. Y. 1899.
*Prof. E. Washburn Hopkins (Yale Dniv.), 299 Lawrence St., New Haven,
Conn. 1881.

Wilson S. Howell, Box 437, Pleasantville Station, N. Y. 1911.

Henry R. Howland, Natural Science Building, Buffalo, N. Y. 1907.

Miss Sarah Fenton Hoyt, 17 East 95th St., New York, N. Y. 1910.

Dr. Edward H. Hume, Changsha, Hunan, China. 1909.

Miss Annie K. Humphrey, 1114 14th St., Washington, D. C. 1873.

Dr. Archer M. Huntington, 15 West 81st St., New York, N. Y. 1912.

S. T. Hurwitz, 217 East 69th St., New York, N. Y. 1912.

Miss Mary Inda Hussey, Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. 1913.
*James Hazen Hyde, 18 rue Adolphe Yvon, Paris, Prance. 1909.

Prof. Henry Hyvernat (Catholic Univ. of America), 3405 Twelfth St.,
N. E. (Brookland), Washington, D. C. 1889.

Prof. A, V. Williams Jackson, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.
1885.

Mrs. A. V. Williams Jackson, care of Columbia University, New York,N. Y.

1912.

Prof. Morris Jastrow (Univ. of Pennsylvania), 248 South 23d St.
Philadelphia, Pa. 1886.

Rev. Henry F. Jenks, Canton Corner, Mass. 1874.

Prof. James Richard Jewett, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 1887.
Prof. Christopher Johnston (Johns Hopkins Univ.), 21 West 20th St.,
Baltimore, Md. 1889.

Rev. Dr. C. B. Reiser, (Yale Univ.) 233 Chapel St., New Haven, Conn.

1913.

Arthur Bebriedale Keith, Colonial Office, London, S. W., England.
1908.

Prof. Maximilian L. Kellner, Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge,
Mass. 1886.

Miss Eliza H. Kendrick, 45 Hunnewell Ave., Newton, Mass. 1896.

Prof. Charles Foster Kent (Yale Univ.), 406 Humphrey St., New Haven,
Conn. 1890.

Prof. Roland G. Kent, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 1910.
Dr. G. D. Kheiralla, Rapid City, S. Dak. 1913.

Prof. George L. Kittredge (Harvard Univ.), 9 Hilliard St., Cambridge,
Mass. 1899.

Richard Lee Kortkamp, Hillsboro, 111. 1911.

Walter S. Kupfeb, Leonia, N. Y. 1913.

Rev. Dr. M. G. Kyle, 1132 Arrow St., Frankford, Philadelphia, Pa. 1909
M. A. Lane, 451 Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 111. 1907,

*Prof. Charles Rockwell Lanman (Harvard Univ.), 9 Farrar St., Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1876.

xviii List of Members.

Dr. Bekthold Laufee, Field Museum of Xatural History, Chicago, HL
1900.

Dr. Otto Lichti, 146 Tremont St., Ansonia, Conn. 1912.

H. Linfield, 52 Middle Divinity Hall, TJniv. of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1912.

Prof. Chaeles E. Little (Vanderbilt TIniv.), 19 Lindsley Ave., Nashville,
Tenn. 1901.

Prof. Enuo Littmakjt, Schweighauser Str. 24, II, Strassburg i. Els. 1912.

Percival Lowell, 53 State St., Boston, Mass. 1893. *

Dr. Daniel D. Luckenbill, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1912.

Dr. Albert Howe Ltbver, Urbana, 111. 1909.

*Benjamin Smith Lyman, 708 Locust St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1871.

Prof. David Goedon Lyon, Harvard Univ. Semitic Museum, Cambridge,
Mass. 1882.

Albert Morton Lythgoe, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. T.
1899.

Prof. Duncan B. Macdonald , Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford,
Conn. 1893.

C. V. McLean, Union Theological Seminary, Broadway and 120th St.,
New York. 1912.

Prof. Herbert W. Magoun, 70 Kirkland St., Cambridge, Mass. 1887.

Prof. HenetMalter, Dropsie College, Broad & York St., Philadelphia, Pa.
1913.

Prof. Max L. Maegolis, 1519 Diamond St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1890.

Prof. Allan Maequand, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1888.

Prof. ‘WiNEED Robert Martin, Hispanic Society of America, "West 156th
St., New York, N. Y. 1889.

C. 0. Sylvester Mawson, Box 886, Springfield, Mass. 1910.

Rev. John Meighan, Dropsie College, Philadelphia, Pa. 1913.

Prof. Samuel A. B. Mercer (Western Theol. Sem.), 2735 Park Ave.,
Chicago, 111. 1912.

J. Renwick Metheny, “Druid Hill,” Beaver Falls, Pa. 1907.

Martin A. Meyer, 2109 Baker St., San Francisco, Cal. 1906.

Dr. Truman Michelson, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington
D. C. 1899.

Mrs. Helen Lovell Million, Hardin College, Mexico, Mo. 1892.

Prof. J. A. Montgomery (P. E. Divinity School), 6806 Greene St., German-
town, Pa. 1903.

Prof. George F. Moore (Harvard Univ.), 3 Divinity Ave., Cambridge,
Mass. 1887.

*Mrs. Mary H. Moore, 3 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Mass. 1902.

Rev. Hans K. Moussa, Jefferson, Wis. 1906.

Prof. W. Max Mueller, 4308 Market St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1905.

Mrs. Albert H. Munsell, 65 Middlesex Road, Chestnut Hill, Mass. 1908.

Dr. William Muss-Arnolt, Public Library, Boston, Mass. 1887.

Rev. J AS. B. Nies, Hotel St. George, Clark St., Brooklyn, N. Y. 1906.

Rev. William E. Nies, Port Washington, Long Island, N. Y. 1908.

Rt. Rev. Mgr. Dennis J. O’Connell, 800 Cathedral Place, Richmond Va
1903.

Dr. Felix. Freiherr von Oefele, 326 E. .58th St. New York, N. Y. 1913.

Prof. Hanns Oertel (Yale Univ.), 2 Phelps Hall, New Haven, Conn. 1890.

List of Members.

XIX

Dr. Chaeles J. Ogden, 628 West 114th St., New York, N. Y. 1906.

Miss Ellen S. Ogden, Hopkins Hall, Burlington, Vt. 1898.

Prof. Samuel G. Ouphant, Grove City College, Grove City, Penn. 1906.
Prof. Albert TenEvck Olmstead, 911 Lowry St., Columbia, Mo. 1909.
Prof. Paul Oltramaee (Univ. of Geneva), Ave. de Bosquets, Servette,
Geneve, Switzerland. 1904.

*E,obert M. Olyphant, 160 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y. 1861.

Rev. Dr. Charles Ray Palmer, 562 Whitney Ave., New Haven, Conn.
1900.

Prof. Lewis B. Paton, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn.
1894.

Prof. Walter M. Patton, 406 Nevada st., Northfield, Minn. 1903.

Dr. Charles Peabody, 197 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass. 1892.

Prof. George A. Peckbam, Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio. 1912.

Prof. IsMAR J. Peritz, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N. Y. 1894.

Prof. Edward Delavan Perry (Columbia Univ.), 542 West 114th St., New
York, N. Y. 1879.

Rev. Dr. John P. Peters, 225 West 99th St., New York, N. Y. 1882.
Walter Petersen, Bethany College, Lindshorg, Kansas. 1909.

Prof. David Phiupson (Hebrew Union College), 3947 Beechwood Ave.,
Rose Hill, Cincinnati, 0. 1889.

Dr. Arno Poebel, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1912.

Dr. William Popper, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1897.

Prof. Ira M. Price, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1887.

Prof. John Dyseley Prince (Columbia Univ.), Sterlington, Rockland Co.,
N. Y. 1888.

George Payn Quackenbos, 331 West 28th St., New York, N. Y. 1904.
Ramakirsma, Thottakkadu House, Madras, India. 1913.

Dr. Caroline L. Ransom, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 5th Ave. and
82d St., New York, N. Y. 1912.

G. A. Reichlinq, 466 Nostrand Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y. 1912.

Dr. Joseph Reider, Dropsie College, Philadelphia, Pa. 1913.

Prof. George Andrew Reisnep., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
1891.

Bernard Revel, 2113 North Camac St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1910.

Prof. Philip M. Rhinelander (Episcopal Theological Sem.), 26 Garden St.,
Cambridge, Mass. 1908.

Ernest C. Richardson, Library of Princeton University, Princeton, N. J.
1900.

J. Nelson Robertson, 294 Avenue Road, Toronto, Canada. 1913.

Edward Robinson, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y. 1894.
Rev. Dr. George Livingston Robinson iMcCormickTheol. Sem.), 4 Chalmers
Place, Chicago, 111. 1892.

Hon. William Woodville Rockhill, American Embassy, Constantinople,
Turkey. 1880.

Prof. James Hardy Ropes (Harvard Univ.), 13 Follen St., Cambridge,
Mass. 1893.

Dr. William Rosenau, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1897.
J. J. Rosengarten, 1704 Walnut St. Philadelphia, Pa. 1914.

Miss Adelaide Rudolph, 2098 East 100 th St., Cleveland, 0. 1894.

List of Memlers.

Mrs. Janet E. Rottz-Eees, Eosemary Cottage, Greemvich, Conn. 1897.

Mrs. Edward E. Salisbdrt, 237 Church St., New Haven, Conn. 1906.

Pres. Eeank K. Sanders, Washburn College, Topeka, Kans. 1897.

Johann F. Scheltbma, care of Messrs. Eerkhoven & Co., 115 Heerengracht,
Amsterdam, Holland. 1906.

George V. Schick, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1909.

Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 1894.

Wilfred H. Schoff, Commercial Museum, Philadelphia, Pa. 1912.

Montgomery Schuyler Jr., Department of State, Washington D. C. 1913.

Dr. Gilbert Campbell Scoggin, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.
1906.

Dr. Charles P. G. Scott, 1 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y. 1895.

*Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott (nee Morris), 124 Highland Ave., Chestnut
Hill, Philadelphia, Pa. 1903.

Eev. John L. Scully, Church of the Holy Trinity, 312-332 East 88th St.,
New York, N. Y. 1908.

Eev. Dr. William G. Seiple, 110 East Twenty-fifth St., Baltimore Md.
1902.

Prof. Charles N. Shepard (General Theological Sem.), 9 Chelsea Square,
New York, N. Y. 1907.

Charles C. Sher.\ian, 614 Eiverside Drive, New York, N. Y. 1904.

♦John E. Slattery, 14 bis rue Montaigne, Paris, France. 1903.

Major C. C. Smith, Fourth Cavalry, Nogales, Arizona. 1907.

Prof. Henry Preserved Smith, (Union Theological Seminary), Broadway
and 120th St., New York, N. Y. 1877.

Prof. John M. P. Smith, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1906.

Ely Bannister Soane, care of Messrs. H. S. King & Co., 9 Pall Mall,
London, S.W., England. 1911.

Prof. Edwapj) H. Spieker, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1884.

Martin Sprengling, care of Prof. E, F. Harper, Univ. of Chicago,
Chicago, 111. 1912.

Eev. Dr. James D. Steele, 15 Grove Terrace, Passaic, N. J. 1892.

Eev. Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
1900.

Mayer Sulzberger, 1303 Girard Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 1888.

Prof. George Sverdf.up, Jr., Augsburg Seminary, Minneapolis, Minn. 1907.

Prof. Wm. C. Thayer, 59 Market St. Bethlehem, Pa. 1913.

David E. Thomas, 6407 Ingleside Ave., Chicago, 111. 1912.

Eben Francis Thompson, 311 Main St., Worcester, Mass. 1906.

Prof. Henry A. Todd (Columbia Univ.), 824 West End Ave., New York,
N. Y. 1885.

Olaf a. Toffteen, 2726 Washington Boulevard, Chicago, 111. 1906.

♦Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 1891.

Prof. Crawford H.Toy (Harvard Univ.), 7 Lowell St., Cambridge, Mass. 1871.

Eev. Sydney N. Ussher, St. Bartholomew’s Church, 44th St. & Madison
Ave., N. Y. 1909.

Eev. Hervey Boardman Vanderbooart, Berkeley Divinity School,
Middletown, Conn. 1911.

Eev. Dr. Frederick Augustus Vanderburgh, 53 Washington Sq., New
York, N. Y. 1908.

List oj Memhers.

XXI

Addison Van Name (Yale Univ.), 121 High St,, New Haven, Conn. 1863.
Miss SosAN Hayes Wakd, The Stone House, Abington Ave., Newark,
N. J. 1874.

Rev. Dr. William Hayes Ward, 130 Fulton St., New York, N. Y. 1869.
Miss Cornelia Warren, Cedar Hill, Waltham, Mass. 1894.

Prof. William F. Warren (Boston Univ.), 131 Davis Ave., Brookline,
Mass. 1877.

Rev. Le Roy Waterman, MeadvilleTheological School, Meadville, Pa. 1912.
Prof. J. E. Werren, 1667 Cambridge St., Cambridge, Mass. 1894.

Prof. Jens Iverson Westengard Asst. Gen. Adviser to H.S.M. Govt..
Bangkok, Siam. 1903.

Arthur J. Wbsteematr, ICO Lenox Road, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1912.

Pres. Benjamin Ide Wheeler, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1885.
Prof. John Williams White (Harvard Univ.), 18 Concord Ave., Cambridge,
Mass. 1877.

John G. White, Williamson Building, Cleveland, Ohio. 1912.

* Miss Margaret Dwight Whitney, 227 Church St., NewHaven, Conn. 1908.
Hon. E. T. Williams, U. S. Legation, Peking, China. 1901.

Prof. Frederick Wells Williams (Yale Univ.), 135 Whitney Ave., New
Haven, Conn. 1893.

Dr. Talcott Williams, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1884.
Rev. Dr. William Copley Winslow, 523 Beacon St., Boston, Mass. 1885.
Rev. Dr. Stephen S. Wise, 23 West 90th St., New York, N. Y. 1894.
Prof. John E. Wishart, So. Pasadena, California, 1911.

Henry B. Witton, 290 Hess St., South, Hamilton, Ontario. 1885.

Dr. Louis B. Wolfbnson, 1620 Madison St., Madison, Wis. 1904.

Prof. Irving F. Wood, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1905.
William W. Wood, Shirley Lane, Baltimore, Md. 1900.

Prof. James H. Woods (Harvard Univ.), 2 Chestnut St., Boston, Mass. 1900.
Dr. William H. Worrell, Hosmer Hall, Hartford, Conn. 1910.

Dr. S. C. Ylvisaker, Luther College, Decorah, la. 1913.

Rev. Dr. Abraham Yohannan, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1894.
Rev. Robert Zimmermann, S. J., Niederwallstrasse 8 — 9, Berlin, SW. 19,
Germany. 1911. (Total: 309.)

xxu

List of Members.

SOCIETIES, EDITOES, AKD LIBBAEIES, TO WHICH THE PUBLICATIONS OF
the AMEBIOAN OEIENTAL SOCIETY ABE SENT BY WAY OF GIFT,
EXCHANGE, OB PUECHASE.

I. AMERICA.

Boston, Mass. : American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Chicago, III. : Field Museum of Natural History.

Philadelphia, Pa.: American Philosophical Society.

Free Museum of Science and Art, Univ. of Penn.
Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Bureau of American Ethnology.

WoBCESTEE, Mass.; American Antiquarian Society.

n. EUROPE.

Austbia, Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.

K. u. K. Direction der K. u. K. Hofbibliothek (Josephs-
platz 1.)

Anthropologische Gesellschaft.

Pbague: Koniglich Bohmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
Denmaee, Iceland, Reykjavik; University Library.

Fbance, Paris ; Sooiete Asiatique. (Rue de Seine, Palais de I’Institut.)
Biblioth^que Nationale.

Musee Guimet. (Avenue du Trocadero.)

Acad^mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
iiCole des Langnes Orientales Vivantes. (Rue de Lille, 2.)
Gebmany, Berlin: Koniglich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Konigliche Bibliothek.

Seminar fiir Orientalische Sprachen. (Am Zeughause 1.)
Darmstadt: Grossherzogliche Hofbibliothek.

Gottingen: Konigliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.

Halle : Bibliothek der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft.
(Friedrichstrasse 50.)

LeipzIg: Koniglich Sachsische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.

Leipziger Semitistische Studien. (J. C. Hinrichs.)
Munich; Koniglich Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Konigliche Hof- und Staatsbibliothek.

TCbingbn: Library of the University.

Great Britain, London : Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ire-
land. (22 Albemarle St., W.)

Library of the India Office. (Whitehall, S.W.)
Society of Biblical Archaeologj'. (37 Great Russell
St., Bloomsbury, W.C.)

Philological Society. (Care of Dr. F. J. Fumivall,
3 St. George’s Square, Primrose Hill, N.W.)
Italy, Bologna: Reale Accademia delle Scienze dell’ Istituto di Bologna.
Florence: Societa Asiatica Italiana.

Rome: Reale Accademia dei Lincei.

List of Members.

xsdii

Ubtheelauds, Amsteedam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen.

The HAauE: Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-, en
Volkenkunde van !Nederlandsck Indie.
Leyden: Curatorium of the University.

Eussia, Helsingfoes: Societe Einno Ougrienne.

St. Peteesbxjeg: Imperatorskaj a Akademija Nauk.

Arckeologiji Institut.

Sweden, Upsala: Humanistiska Vetenakaps-Samfundet.

ni. ASIA.

China Shanghai: China Branch of the Koyal Asiatic Society.

Tonkin: I’Ecole Franjaise d’extreme Orient (Rue de Coton), Hanoi.
India, Bombay: Bombay Branch of the Rnyal Asiatic Society.

The Anthropological Society. (Town Hall.)

Benaees; Benares Sanskrit Coll. “The Pandit.”

Calcutta: The Asiatic Society of Bengal. (67 Park St.)

The Buddhist Text Society. (86 Jaun Bazar St.)

Home Dept., Government of India.

Lahoee: Library of the Oriental College.

Simla : Office of the Director General of Archaeology. (Benmore,
Simla, Punjab.)

Ceylon, Colombo : Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.

Japan, Tokyo: The Asiatic Society of Japan.

Java, Batavia: Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en "Wetenschappen.
Koeea: Korea Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Seoul, Korea.

New Zealand: The Polynesian Society, New Plymouth.

Philippinb Islands: The Ethnological Survey, Manila.

Syria: The American School (care U. S. Consul, Jerusalem.

Revue Biblique, care of M. J. Lagrange, Jerusalem.

A-Machriq, Universite St. Joseph, Beirut, Syria.

IV. AFRIKA.

Egypt, Cairo: The Khedivial Library.

V. EDITORS OF THE FOLLOWING PERIODICALS.

The Indian Antiquary (Education Society's Press, Bombay, India).
Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes (care of Alfred Holder,
Rothenthurmstr. 15, Vienna, Austria).

Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung (care of Prof. E. Kuhn,
3 Hess Str., Munich, Bavaria),

Revue de I’Histoire des Religions (care of M. Jean Reville, chez M. E,
Leroux, 28 rue Bonaparte, Paris, France).

Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissensohaft (care of Prof. D. Karl
Marti, Marienstr. 26, Bern, Switzerland).

Beitrage zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. (J. 0.
Hinricbs’sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig, Germany.)

xxiv List of Members.

Orientalische Bibliographic (care of Prof. Lucian Scherman, 18 Ungerer-
str., Munich, Bavaria).

The American Antiquarian and Oriental J ournal, 438 East 57th St., Chi-
cago, 111.

Transactions of the American Philological Association (care of Prof. P. G.

Moore, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.).

Le Monde Oriental (care of Prof. K. P. Johansson. Upsala, Sweden).
Panini Office, Bhuvaneshwari, Asram, (Allahabad) Bahadurgany (India).

VI. LIBRARIES.

The Editors request the Librarians of any Institution or Libraries,
not mentioned below, to which this Journal may regularly come, to notify
them of the fact. It is the intention of the Editors to print a list, as
complete as may be, of regular suscribers for the Journal or of recipients
thereof. The following is the beginning of such a list.

Boston Athenaeum, Boston, Mass.

Boston Public Library.

Brown University Library.

University of California Library, Berkeley, Cal.

Chicago University Library.

Columbia University Library.

Connemara Public Library, Madras, India,

Cornell University Library.

Harvard University Library.

Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 0.

Johns Hopkins University Library, Baltimore, Md.

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

IMinneapolis Athenaeum, Minneapolis, Minn.

New York Public Library.

Rochester Theological Seminary, Rochester N. Y.

Yale University Library.

Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

Constitution and By-Laws.

XXV

CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS

OF THE

AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY.

With Amendments of April, 1897-

CONSTITUTION.

Article I. This Society shall be called the Ameejcan Oriental Society.

Article II. The objects contemplated by this Society shall be: —

1. The cultivation of learning in the Asiatic, African, and Polynesian
languages, as well as the encouragement of researches of any sort by
which the knowledge of the Bast may be promoted.

2. The cultivation of a taste for oriental studies in this country.

3. The publication of memoirs, translations, vocabularies, and other
communications, presented to the Society, which may be valuable with
reference to the before-mentioned objects.

4. The collection of a library and cabinet.

Article III. The members of this Society shall be distinguished as
corporate and honorary.

Article IV. All candidades for membership must be proposed by the
Directors, at some stated meeting of the Society, and no person shall be
elected a member of either class without receiving the votes of as many as
three-fourths of all the members present at the meeting.

Article V. The government of the Society shall consist of a President,
three Vice Presidents, a Corresponding Secretary, a Recording Secretary,
a Secretary of the Section for the Historical Study of Religions, a
Treasurer, a Librarian, and seven Directors, who shall be annually elected
by ballot, at the annual meeting.

Article VI. The President and Vice Presidents shall perform the
customary duties of such officers, and shall be ex-officio members of the
Board of Directors.

Article VII. The Secretaries, Treasurer, and Librarian shall be
ex-officio members of the Board of Directors, and shall perform their
respective duties under the superintendence of said Board.

Article VIII. It shall be the duty of the Board of Directors to regu-
late the financial concerns of the Society, to superintend its publications,
to carry into effect the resolutions and orders of the Society, and to
exercise a general supervision over its affairs. Five Directors at any
regular meeting shall be a quorum for doing business.

Article IX. An Annual meeting of the Society shall be held during
Easter week, the days and place of the meeting to be determined by the
Directors, said meeting to be held in Massachusetts at least once in three
years. One or more other meetings, at the discretion of the Directors,

TTvi Constitution and By-Laws.

may also be held each year at such place aud time as the Directors shall
determine.

Aeticle X. There shall be a special Section of the Society, devoted to
the historical study of religions, to which section others than members of
the American Oriental Society may be elected in the same manner as is
prescribed in Article IV.

Article XI. This Constitution may be amended, on a recommendation
of the Directors, by a vote of three-fourths of the members present at an
annual meeting.

BY-LAWS.

I. The Corresponding Secretary shall conduct the correspondence of
the Society, and it shall be his duty to keep, in a book provided for the
purpose, a copy of his letters; and he shall notify the meetings in such
manner as the President or the Board of Directors shall direct.

II. The Recording Secretary shall keep a record of the proceedings of
the Society in a book provided for the purpose.

III. a. The Treasurer shall have charge of the funds of the Society;
and his investments, deposits, and payments shall be made under the
superintendence of the Board of Directors. At each annual meeting he
shall report the state of the finances, with a brief summary of the receipts
and payments of the previous year.

III. b. After December 81, 1896, the fiscal year of the Society shall
correspond with the calendar year.

III. c. At each annual business meeting in Easter week, the President
shall appoint an auditing committee of two men — preferably men residing
in or near the town where the Treasurer lives — to examine the Treasurer’s
accounts and vouchers, and to inspect the evidences of the Society’s prop-
erty, and to see that the funds called for by his balances are in his hands.
The Committe shall perform this duty as soon as possible after the New
Year's day succeeding their appointment, and shall report their findings
to the Society at the next annual business meeting thereafter. If these
findings are satisfactory, the Treasurer shall receive his acquittance by a
certificate to that effect, which shall be recorded in the Treasurer’s book,
and published in the Proceedings.

IV. The Librarian shall keep a catalogue of all books belonging to the
Society, with the names of the donors, if they are presented, and shall at
each annual meeting make a report of the accessions to the library during
the previous year, and shall be farther guided in the discharge of his
duties by such rules as the Directors shall prescribe.

V. All papers read before the Society, and all manuscripts deposited
by authors for publication, or for other purposes, shall be at the disposal
of the Board of Directors, unless notice to the contrary is given to the
Editors at the time of presentation.

VI. Each corporate member shall pay into the treasury of the Society
an annual assessment of five dollars; but a donation at any one time of
seventy-five dollars shall exempt from obligation to make this payment.

VII. Corporate and Honorary members shall be entitled to a copy of
all the publications of the Society issued during their membership, and

Constitution and By-Latus. xxvii

shall also have the privilege of taking a copy of those previously pub-
lished, so far as the Society can supply them, at half the ordinarj- selling
price.

VIII. Candidates for membership who have been elected by the
Society shall qualify as members by payment of the first annual assess-
ment within one month from the time when notice of such election is
mailed to them. A failure so to qualify shall be construed as a refusal
to become a member. If any corporate member shall for two years fail
to pay his assessments, his name may, at the discretion of the Directors,
he dropped from the list of members of the Society.

IX. Members of the Section for the Historical Study of Religions
shall pay into the treasury of the Society an annual assessment of two
dollars; and they shall be entitled to a copy of all printed papers which
fall within the scope of the Section.

X. Six members shall form a quorum for doing business, and three
to adjourn.

SUPPLEMEXTARY BY-LAWS.

I. Eor the Library.

1. The Library shall be accessible for consultation to all members of
the Society, at such times as the Library' of Yale College, with which it is
deposited, shall be open for a similar purpose; further, to such persons
as shall receive the permission of the Librarian, or of the Librarian or
Assistant Librarian of Yale College.

2. Any member shall he allowed to draw books from the Library upon
the following conditions: he shall give his receipt for them to the
Librarian, pledging himself to make good any detriment the Library may
suffer from their loss or injury, the amount of said detriment to be
determined by the Librarian, with the assistance of the President, or of
a Vice President ; and he shall return them within a time not exceeding
three months from that of their reception, unless by special agreement
with the Librarian this term shall be extended.

3. Persons not members may also, on special grounds, and at the
discretion of the Librarian, be allowed to take and use the Society’s books,
upon depositing with the Librarian a sufficient security that they shall
be duly returned in good condition, or their loss or damage fully com-
pensated.

Recent Researches in the Sumerian Calendar. — By
Geokge a. Bartoe, Professor in Bryn Mawr College
Bryn Mawr, Pa.

There are many unsolved problems in Sumerology, and one
of these is the arrangement and development of the calendar.
For the period of the dynasty of Ur the area of uncertainty
has been for Lagash and Nippur reduced to narrow limits,
but for the earlier period there is as yet no agreement. The
uncertainty is well illustrated by the fact that G-enouiUac in
1909 arranged the names of the months in a certain order
for the period of Urkagina, beginning the year with the month
Ezen-Bau at the vernal equinox; i the present writer in 1910
found thirty six month-names for the same period, which applied
to thirteen months, (one of them being the intercalary month),
which he believed represented a year beginning at the autum-
nal equinox in the same year Myhrman compiled four lists
of months which were in use during the period of Ur, one of
which began with SE-KIN-KUD, and two with the month
(xAN-MAS.* He was influenced in the arrangement of these
last mentioned lists by an old theory of his friend Radau, who
had contended that the calendar began with that month.
Finally Langdon 1911, arranged for the Urkagina period a
calendar of twelve months. He ignored may the variant
names. He began the year with the month August-September.‘‘
Each of the three investigators who treats the calendar of
Urkagina has arranged the months in a different order and
would begin the year at a different period. Langdon endeav-
ors to connect the calendar of the Urkagina period with that
of the Ur period, and believes that he has discovered a law

• Tablettes sumeriennes arcliaiques p. xvii ft'.

5 JAOS, XXXI, 251 ff.

3 Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. III. lo ff.

* Tablets from the Archives of Drehem, Paris, Geuthner, 1911, p. 5 ff.

von. xxxm. Part I. 1

George A. Barton,

[ 1913 .

by which the months were gradually shifted. If one could
accept his system and believe that his knowledge of the Bab-
ylonian seasons and harvests is accurate, Langdon would
persuade him that the Sumerian calendar was invented 2100
years before the Ur dynasty or about 4400 — 4500 B. C.
Such wide differences of opinion serve to show that we are
all in a good degree groping in the dark.

Meantime Thureau-Dangin has collected from unpublished
tablets the names and order of the months as he believes
they were arranged in the calendars of Umma and Jokha.
While these calendars belong to the Ur period and the
arrangements proposed rest in many instances on doubtful
data, their variations in one or two clearly established points
from calendars previously known throw light on a number of
problems. They also make it clear there was no such thing
as a uniform Sumerian Calendar for the whole of Babylonia.

It is the fashion among some Sumerologists to assume that
all who engage in Sumerian studies except one’s self and one’s
teacher or pupil, are ignorant of the first principles of the
science, and accordingly each scholar fiercely asserts the
correctness of his own opinions. So long as this is the case,
and so long as the results obtained differ as widely as those
referred to above, the general public cannot be blamed for
thinking that Sumerology is not yet a science, but belongs to
the realm of imaginative fiction.

It is not in this spirit that the writer approaches the study.
He readily acknowledges his own humble position among the
devotees of the craft, and is eager to learn from any and
every quarter. So long as we are dealing with a matter which
strives to escape from imaginative literature and to find
standing room in the realm of science, it is quite right to test
each theory by such facts as can be ascertained, and in this
testing the humblest workers may find a place. It is with
this purpose that the following criticisms are offered.

Myhrman, followed by Langdon, gives twm lists of months
of a year beginning with a month GAN-MAS. There is
really no decisive evidence offered in support of such a year.
It is true that in the great grain account published in CT,
III, (Nr. 18343), the accounts run from GAN-MAS to SE-
IL-LA, but that does not prove that the year began with
GAN-MAS, but only that at the beginning of that month was

Vol. xxxiii.] Recent Researches in the Sumerian Calendar. 3

the new grain ready to he put into circulation. A modern
firm might for economic causes run their fiscal year from Feb.
1st to Jan. 31st, but this would not imply that the calendar
of the time did not begin its year with Jan. 1st. That the
year of the authors of this tablet began with SE-IL-LA is
shown by the fact that the intercaUary month was DIE,-SE-
KIN-KUD (cf. col. X, 48, xii, 40, and xiii, 9). If the year
had begun with GAX-MAS, the intercalary month should
have been a second SE-IL-LA. The lists which begin with
GAIs-MAS may, therfore, be disregarded.

On the other hand a tablet published by Kadau, EBH, 299,
(viz; EAH, 134), testifies to a year which began with SE-KIX-
KUD and concluded with EZIN-MI-KI-GAL. This list
which simply couples the names of certain officials with the
different months, clearly arranges them in their calendar order.
This is confirmed by a tablet recently published from Drehem.i
Clearly, then, there were places in the LT period where the
calendai’ began with the month with which in other places it
ended. Langdon^ has rightly pointed out that in the tablets
fi’om Drehem published by him one can see the year shifting
from one system to the other, sometimes DIE-EZEN-MI-KI-
GAL3 being the intercalary mouth, and sometimes DIE-SE-
KIX-KUD.* As SE-KIiN-KUD is a name which signifies
the “grain” or “barley-harvest” and as that harvest begins now
about the middle of April, » it is clear that originally that
month came a month later than in the calendar of the time
of Ur at Telloh. For some reason, jmobably because inter-
calary months were not appointed often enough, it had been
drawn back one place in the calendar. At Drehem we see
the change in progress.

The recognition of this fact solves a difficulty which I felt
when writing on the calendar two years ago;^ but the right
solution of which I did not then find. It accordingly necessi-
tates a slight modification of my arrangement of the months,
as will be pointed out below.

Langdon’s inference that this process had been going on for
such a length of time that the calendar had been drawn five

> La trouvaille de Drehem, par H. de Genouiliac, Paris, 1911, Xr. 65.
2 Op. cit. p. 6. 3 phid. Nr. 55. -4 Ibid. Nr. 2.

5 JAOS, XXXI, 259, n. 1.

1 *

George A. Barton,

[ 1913 .

months out of its original position, is based upon a number
of misconceptions. One of the most fundamental of these is
the notion that the barley harvest ever came as late as J uly-
August, and that the date harvest came in July. These are
simple facts which can be ascertained from modern conditions
without a knowledge of Sumerian. Barley harvest began in
the latter part of March and extended into April. i The
wheat harvest followed on after it. The date harvest at
Busrah, which is farther south than TeUoh, begins now about
the middle of September ^ and lasts for six or eight weeks.
Bangon has also overlooked the fact that as early as the time
of TJrkagina the appointment of an intercalary month w’as in
use.® It is inconceivable that a people who had invented an
intercalary month to keep their agriculturally named months
in coincidence with the agricultural seasons, should permit it
to he drawn absolutely out of touch with them at a time
when the agricultm’al names were fully understood. Indeed,
on Langon’s theory the month names must have become fixed
about 4400 B. 0. and the process of dislocation must have
been far advanced by 3000 — 2800 B. C., where we must place
Ui'kagina. The month names of the time of TJrkagina make
such a theory whoUy untenable. They are not only in a
thoroughly fluid state, some months being named from any
one of several agricultural processes which took place in it,
but the names themselves occur in their fullest forms. They
are still whole sentences, which have definite agricultural
meanings. They are not the mere meaningless fragments
which some of them had become by the Ur Period. Such
changes as are traceable in the Sumerian calendar before
the Ur period occurred in the space of 500j years and not
2100 years.

Langdon rightly begins the year toward the autumn. He
makes the first month Aug.-Sept., instead of Sept.-Oct. In
the present state of our knowledge this is not a serious diver-
gence, though his reason for choosing it, viz : — that SE-KI^i-
KUD and §U-NUMUA originally belonged five months from
the time where we later find them, is a misconception of the

1 JAOS. XXXI, 239, n. 1.

•2 Kwemer, Arabia the Cradle of Islam, p. 125.
- DP, Nr. 99.

VoLxxxiii.] Recent Researches in the Sumerian Calendar. 5

Babylonian seasons. That the year began in the autumn as
late as the time of Gudeah is a fact to which attention has
previously been called.'^ The change from this to a year which
began with the vernal equinox was an innovation introduced
between the time of Gudea, therefore, and the dynasty of Ur.
What was the cause of the change, w'e' can only conjecture,
and conjecture in the absence of facts is futile. But all the
information points to the theory that a definite change to a
year beginning in the spring, had been made at Telloh within
the comparatively short period betw'een Gudea and the dy-
nasty of Ur.

Langdon equates the stellar month-name of the period of
Urkagina,viz; —ITU MUL-BABBAE-SAG-E-TA-SUB-A-A,
(i. e. -^1 I? U) with ITU

BAE-ZAG (i. e. &|||t ^^||), which occurs

in the Ur period at Nippur. Langdon reads 5:^ Bar instead
of BABBAE, which is, of course, possible. He then takes
BAE-SAG as the name of the star, instead of interpreting
SAG in the sense of “front” or “leadership” as I would do,^
and takes the reading BAE-ZAG as another spelling for this.
There is hardly a possibility that this is right, since in EAH
134 it is spelled ITU BAE-AZAG-GAE iJf- <(^

Though the BAE-ZAG is spelled differently in the two
texts the presence of the GAE or GA-EA in' both the
Ur names introduces an element which is not in the earlier
name, and the identification of either with the earlier name
is extremely improbable. Langdon thinks that its use as a
month name arose from the acronic setting of some unidenti-
fied star, though he admits that this is the opposite of the
usage of the Persian period. The view' formerly expressed by
me,^ that the star is Sirius, that the reference is to its heliac
rising, and that the month is identical with the month LIK
(month of the dog), once called LIK-BAD (month the dog
dies), though conjectural, is still the most probable conjecture.

In this connection the date of DP 99 should be discussed.
When writing two years ago, I recognized it as an inter-
calary month, though a part of the name was not then clear

> Stat. E, V, 1 — 2; stat. G, iii, 5.

2 Cf. JAOS, XXXI, 255, and the references there given.

3 JAOS, XXXI, 266. « Ibid, 266 f.

George A. Barton,

[1913

to me. The month name is written (turning the signs into
AssjTian script), ^ ff >-|<|< The JJ is very

puzzling, and two years ago I was inclined to regard it as
“day 2” insei'ted in a peculiar way. Analogy of later texts
proves, however, that that is impossible. Hammurapi, for
example, (King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, pi.
14, 1. 6), says, in appointing an intercalary month ITU KIK-"*
KAKA IIk»m li-iS-Sa-te-ir, “a second Ululu let it he regis-
tered”. i We thus learn that an intercalary month could he
called the “second” of the preceding month. Applying this to the
^ of this old month name, we shoidd render it, “Second
Bahhar, appointed”. The inference lies close at hand, that
BABBAE is an ahhieviation for ITU-MUL-BABBAE-SAGr-
E-TA-SUB-A-A. If this was the case, this astral month was
the closing month of the year, and not the first month, as
Langdon supposes.^

Kugler 3 has made an interesting suggestion concerning
another month name,] Antasurra. A longer form of it occurs,
though mutilated hy the breaking of the tablet, in DP 116.
It is ITU3-KIX-G1IR-SU-E-BIL-AK-TA-SUK-EA, “Month
when the god Xingirsu poui's out fire from heaven”. Kugler
interprets it as a reference to a shower of meteors. Kugler
shows that about 2700 B. C. the Leonid meteors which now
come about the middle of Xov. fell about July 14th. Accord-
ing to the data given by him, the Persid meteors, which now
fall in August, then fell about June 25. At that time, accord-
ingly, the month, June-July, would include both these show-
ers, and a mouth might well be named for them. Langdon
objects to this interpretation of the name (op. cit. p. 13, n. 5),
on the ground that Antasurra was a 2 )art of the temple of

1 Similarly Bu 88—5—12, 12 (CT, VIII, 3) is dated in ITU KIN-
NANA Ilkam, and Bu 91—5—9, 320 (CT, YIII, 27) is dated ITU BAR-
ZAG-trAR II k*™. These are other instances of the practice in question,
and the last example shows that in the reign of Abishu Nisan was used
as an intercalary month.

2 That GAL-LA-A is to be taken in the sense of sakanu, “appoint”,
(Br. 2253), is shown by CT, III, 18343 passim, where, whenever an inter-
calary month occurred in the year, we read ITU DIR la-an SABA-RI-
GAD, “One additional month in (it) was appointed”; cf. iii, 35, 45, vii, 40,
ix, 12, 22, 32, 41, 48. xvi. 45.

3 Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Bahel, II, 174 fl'. and ZA, XXY, 278.
In my former article I read the name [Antagarra, but this is incorrect.

Vol. xxxiii.] Recent Researches in the Sumerian Calendar. 1

iNingirsu (SAK, 243), and that it was also a proper name of
men. Kugler’s interpretation is plausible and attractive, though
as yet uncertain.

Of the reconstruction of the calendars of TJmma and Jokha
by Thureau-Dangin one feels some doubt. For example, it
is assumed from the statement of a text, that “From the
month SE-KTN-KFT> to the month Dumuzi was twelve months”,
that the year began with the month SE-KIX-KUD. AVhile
the fact that at Drehem SE-KIX-KUD began the year estab-
lishes a presumption that the same was the case at Fimma,
the statement itself does not prove it any more than the
statement that from December to Xovember is twelve months
would prove that our year begins with December.

The statement does prove that at Umma, (and the same
seems to have been true for Jokha), the Feast of Amaraasi
was called the feast of Tammuz. A deity sufficiently akin to
Tammuz to be identified with him, seems to have been espe-
cially honored in the winter time.

Taking into account the new information which has come
to light, the table of mouths published in vol. XXXI should
be corrected as in the following list. The position of those
preceded by an interrogation is still in doubt; The position
assigned to those preceded by two question marks is wholly
conjectural.

The exact date of the new year cannot as yet be accurately
ascertained. Probably it was not accurately determined astro-
nomically, but came somewhere near the date harvest. It
may have ranged from the end of August to the end of Sep-
tember.

Tentative List of Months.

First month, ITU EZIX-dfiA-U

Second month,

Third month, (??)
Fourth month, (??)

{ ITU EZIX-BULUK-KU-^XIXA
I ITU EZIX-SE-KU-dXIXA
I ITU EZIX-AB-UD-DU
[ ITU GAB,-KA-ID-KA

ITU SI-GAR-MA
ITU UZ-XE-GU-RA-A

[ 1913 .

George A. Barton,

Fifth month, (??)
Sixth month,

Seventh month.

Eighth month.

Ninth month.

Tenth month,

ITU GAL-SAG-GAi

\ ITU AMAE-A-A-SIG-GA
{ ITU AMAE-A-A-SI-DA
[ ITU AMA-UUU-TUK

ITU SE-KIX-KUD
ITU MAL-UDU-UE
ITU MAL-UE
ITU*SIG-BA

ITU SIG'-^BA-U-E-TA-GAE-
EA-A

ITU UDU-SU-SE-A-IL-1NINA
ITU UDU-§E-A-IL-LA
ITU UDU-SU-SE-A-KU
ITU UDU-SU-SE-A-dNINA
ITU UDU-SU-SE-A-ONIN-
GIE-SU

ITU SE-GAE-UDU
ITU KAEU-DUB-BA-A
ITU KAEU-IMI-A-TA
ITU Sl-NAM-DUB-NI-BA-
DUE-BA-A

ITU-KAEU-IMI-DU-A 2

[ ITU HAE-EA-NE-MA-A3
{ ITU HAE-EA-NE-MA-A-
[ d^iXA

I ITU EZIN--1NE-SU
j (?) ITU-dXIN-GIE-SU-E-BIL-
j AN-TA-SUE-EA
[ (?) ITU AN-TA-SUE-EA-A

1 This conjecture is based upon the fact that at Umma and Jokha
the feast of Tammuz came in the winter. As there is some probability
that this was a feast of Tammuz, (cf. JAOS, XXXI, 268), I place it
tentatively here.

2 This name, which occurs in DP, 114, was overlooked by me when
writing my former article. It means “Month when the storehouse
tablets are sealed”.

9 I regret that in my former article (JAOS, 263, n. 1), I misunder-
stood Thureau-Dangin’s position as to the reading of this name. It is
not certain that GUD should be read HAE, but Thureau-Dangin still
holds that opinion.

Vol. xxxiii.] Mecent Researches in the Sumerian Calendar. 9

Eleventh month,

Twelfth month,
Intercalary month.

[ ITIJ EZIII-BULUK-KT^--iIIIN-

I GIR-SU

•! ITU EZIN-SE-KU-dNIN-GIR-
1 SU

I ITU EZIlSi-DIM-Ktr
(??) ITU EZIIs^-aLUGAL-EEIM
(??) ITU GAL-UNUG'^-GA
(?) ITU MUL-BABBAR-SAG-E-
TA-SUB-A-A

ITU BABBAE-MIN-GAL-LA-A

A Political Hymn to Shamash. — By J. Dynelet
Peince, Ph. D., Professor in Colmnbia University,
New York City.

This hymn of ^ama^-him-ukin, the rebellious viceroy and
brother of the last great Assyrian king ASiir-bdni-pal, is of
peculiar interest, because it is more than the ordinary invo-
cation of a king to a god. After the usual praises of the
divine power of the sun-god, Samai-Sum-uMn says, in line 9:
“a mighty one as a partner thou givest me”, a clear allusion
to his imperious brother Akir-bdni-pal. The hymn continues
significantly in line 13; “the unopened documents of my glory
thou proclaimest”, implying that an unknown, hut glorious
future awaits the king. Most signsficant of all, SamaS-Su~mukm
prays in line 27: “my partner may I overcome”, and in line
30; “may I change my command”; viz., release himself from
the Assyrian overlordship, plainly showing that, at the time
when this hymn w'as composed, the rupture between ASur-
idni-pal and SajnaS-Sum-ukm was contemplated, even if it had
not become a fact.

The Semitic-Babylonian cuneiform text is published by
David H. Myhrman in Babylonian Hymns and Psalms
(Philadelphia, 1911), Plates 22 — 23, without photographic
reproduction. The plates, although mutilated here and there,
are plain enough to indicate the nature of the inscription,
which is couched in fine style, characterized by an abundance
of epithet, giving a literary merit to the production far above
that of the ordinary conventional prayer. The whole hymn
breathes a sincerity entu-ely natural in view of the special
purpose and earnest desire of the supplicant.

Obverse.

1 (ra)-bu-u git-ma-lu a-pil Hi ina aroci il Babbar-ra

Great one; perfect one; son of the god in the month of
Samas;

Vol. xxxiii.] A Pblitkal Hymn to Shamash.

2 .... -tu §u-u pi-tu-u pa-an kcdam-me mu-kal-lim nitra
.... lie who opens the face of the lands; who reveals light;

3 (muS)- te-Sir ina Mrru-ti-ma UB-KAL mimma Suni-Su
Who rules aright in my kingdom, the mighty ruler of

everything;

4 . . dannu il SamaS (d U-tu) Sa-ru-ur niatdti
. . powerful one, Samas, gloiy of the lands.

o (UD-KIB)-NLW-KI cu-lul E-Babbar-ra
Sipiiar, the shadow of the Temple of Samas

6 ... . ina il Marduk tuk-lat Babili (KA-DING-IR-BA-KI)
.... by means of Marduk the help of Babylon

7 ... . (eli?) bi-ti-ka u-taq-qu-u il Annunaki il Igigi
.... (upon?) thy house the Annunaki (and) Igigi pour

out (bounteously).

8 il Me um-me cal-mat qaqqa-du i-tal-la-la mekara-ka

The goddess Me, mother of the black-headed, justifies thy
righteousness.

9 danna ina tap-pa-a tii-Sar-Si

A mighty one as a partner thou givest (me).

10 ana la i-ia-rn ta-nam-din ap-hi

To him who is unworthy thou givest a son.

11 da-{al)-ti sik-kur Sarn-e tu-pat-ti

The door (and) the bolt of heaven thou openest.

13 ana la na-ti-lu ta-Sak-kan ntira

For him who seeth not thou makest light.

13 duppi tanaddtia (UB-MU_) la pi-ta-a tii-Sa-as-si

The unopened documents of my glory thou proclaimest.

14 ina libbi inimere tu-Sat-tar Sira

Among the lambs thou makest plenteous the meat.

15 daidn (DI-KFD) il Annunaki bel il Igigi
Judge of the Annunaki, lord of the Igigi;

16 il SamaS belia dur si-ma-a-ti at-ta-ma
Samas, my lord, wall of my fate art thou.

17 ana-ku m; il SamaS-Sum-ukin mar ili-Su

I Samas-sum-ukin the son of his god, (thee)

18 ina xul-lu-pa-ni dubdu giS da-(al-tu) giS as-ma-ru-u
For our protection a foundation, door (?), lance;

19 lu Sal-ma icciir nuri (XF-CAB) giS narkabat ci-{mit-tim)

Se-ma

12 J, Dyneley Prince. [1918

Yerily propitious, bird of light, to the chariot of iny span
favorable

20 jgal-xa-ku ad-ra-ku u Su-ta-du-ra-ku

I reverence, I fear and I am greatly in awe (of thee)

21 (muytih-li ia-Si u bitia (E-MY)

who makest glad myself and my house.

22 (at-tas-) kar ab (A-A) ameli abu (A-A) -ku-nu ab (A-A)

mat Hi ... .

I proclaim the father of mankind, your father, father of
the land of . . .

23 (na-piS)-tu Si-i-mu a-lak-ti dum-mi-iq

(my life) do thou order; my going do thon favor.

24 (tu-Sar)-Si ra-i-ma luS-tu-u-a

Do thou grant mercy; may I drink

25 ni-me-qa Suttu ianu-u-a (ME-U-A)
wisdom; in dreams where am I?

26 suttu at-tu lu ana damiq-tim Suk-na
O turn the black dream to favor!

Reverse

27 i-Sa-riS lul-lik tap-pa-a Iti-uk-Su-ud

Righteously may I walk; my partner may I overcome!

28 ina u (IjD)-j»i-ia lu-rak damiqtam

In my days may I prolong (thy) favor!

29 ... Su ... . -ma-ka Sa damiqthn
thy . . of favor.

30 daidn (DI-KUD) lu-{nak)-kir qa-bu-ua
O judge, let me change my command!

31 ri-Sa-a-tu bit biltuia (BIL-TU-MU)

(may he fill?) with joy the house of my

tribute !

32 il lie ri- li-iz-ziz ina xegaUia (KAE^-MU)

Goddess Me may she be strong for my plenty!

33 il Me ma- li-iz-ziz ina damiqtia

Goddess Me may she be strong for my

favor!

34 &ep tal-lak-{ti luySal-li-mu ina idia

Vol. xxxiii.] A Political Hymn to Shamash. 13

The foot of my progress may she make perfect for my
power!

35 A-A pa-(ka)-di ina arkia

to preserve behind me!

36 li il Bu-ne-ne rubu-ka damiq-tim

(May) the goddess Bunene (endow) thy prince with favor!

37 il A-(A) ta{?) U xul-qu-ma

May the goddess A-A they are

destroyed.

38 il SamaS dbu (A-A) at-(ta) riSa-a ri-e-mu

Samas, father (?) do thou grant mercy!

39 il Sam-Si cdu(?)-ka

O Samas, thy city

40 il Me ru-bu-ka

Goddess Me thy prince

41 il Me -ka li-tib-bu

Goddess may thy . . he sweet!

42 KA-KA(?)-MA(?) . . . GA(?)-TU-LAL il Sam-ie

a prayer a complete one to Samas.

Grammatical Commentary

1. ina arxi Babbar-ra ‘in the month of ^amaS’’ = the
seventh month, Tasrituni = TiSri, which was dedicated to
the sun-god. The form Babbar is a reduplication of Sum. bar,
the primary meaning of which is ‘divide, penetrate’ (see my
MSL., 53 and cf. below on line 4). The reduplication has its
counterpart in Sum. tattab from tah ‘two’.

It is probable that this line is not the first line of the in-
scription, as the epithets herein contained apply rather to the
king than to the god. The expression “son of the god”
implies always a pious person (cf. line 17) and could only
have been used of ^amaS-Sum-uMn, whose name probably
precedes this first line. The following epithets in lines 2 — 3 ff.
are undoubtedly descriptive of the god himself.

3. UB-KAL is clearly a combination of TJB — na’ddu,
Br. 5783 and tanattu, Br. 5784 respectively = ‘be lofty’ and
‘glory’. KAL = kal and lig = dannu ‘mighty’. The familiar
ahkallu ‘leader’ in Semitic, from Sum. ab-kal, is probably a

J. Dyndey Prince.

[1913

yariant of this ub-kal, as AB = Sem. nastku ‘prince, prominent
person’ and appears also as a prefix in Sum. ab-xal ‘seer’.

4. SamaS is here called il U-tu, which I interpret to mean
the god of the setting sun; viz., u- is the abstract prefix so
common in Sumerian, + tu = erebu ‘enter, set’, said of the
sun. U-tu is, therefore, the epithet of the setting ^amaS,
while Bdbbar = UD is the sun-god in his noonday glory.
I am not inclined to connect u-tu with UD = ud etymologi-
cally, as I did in MSL. 355, although there was, no doubt, a
paronomastic suggestion between the two forms.

5. SamaS-Sum-ukin restored Sippar; cf. Lehmann, Sam. II.,
9, 24 ff.

7. Utaqqu is the Iftaal of npi; an unusual form. SamaS is
the god of plenty here, as in line 14.

8. il Me is evidently a variant of the reduplicated il Meme,
a secondary name of the goddess Uula, who seems to figure
here as the consort of SamaS. The form il Me appears in
this inscription in lines 32; 32; 40; 41.

9. Ina taypd ‘as a companion’; ina = ‘for’; we should expect
ana. Tappu ‘partner’ is probably a Sumerian loanword from
Sum. tab ‘two, another’, and is not from Sem. nsi; Muss-
Arnolt, Dictionary, s. v. tappfi.

10; 12. iSfote in these lines the characteristic Babylonian
disregard for the case-endings, an indication that these
suffixes probably ceased to be pronounced at a comparatively
early date.

14. The sun-god appears here as the god of plenty, as in
line 7.

18. Ina xullupani dtiblu ‘a foundation to protect us’: a
difficult phrase. Xullupu = ‘cover’; hence ‘protect’ and duhlu
= iUu ‘foundation’, II. R. 35, 43 cf. The -ni is probably
the 1 p. pi. suffix. The metaphor is plainly that of a fortifi-
cation. The sun-god is called here “the door’’ (daltu) evidently
of safety for his worshippers, and also “the lance” {asmaru,
from the same stem as Ar. musmar ‘nail’), because of his
penetrating power. He is therefore a weapon of defence.

19. XU-CAB = iccur nuri ‘bird of light’, because of his
flight across the heavens. Xote that the storm-god Zu is also
pictured as a bird.

22. This A-A here = abu ‘father’, as in line 38, and is not
the goddess A, seen in line 37.

Vol. xxxiii.] A Political Hymn to Shamash. 15

26. At-tu, an unusual feminine adjective from Htaj? ‘be dark,
cloudy’.

36. il Bu-ne-ne was the consort of Malik with whom she
attended the sun-god.

37. Clearly the goddess A here, the consort of Samos.

38. Here again A-A = abu ‘father’, as in line 22.

42. KA-KA-MA = Sum. inim-inim-ma = Sem. U'ptu
‘incantation, exorcism’. We expect rather Sum. a-ra-zu =
teslitu ‘prayer’, as this hymn is an invocation. GA-TU-LAL
is composed of the elements GA-TU = main ‘he fuU’ -f
redundant LAL = Id: also = mala.

Some Notes on the So-called Hieroglyphic-Tablet. — By
Ellen Seton Ogden, Ph. D. Albany, N. Y.

The following notes are an attempt to read the so-called
Hieroglyphic Tablet published in T. S. B. A. Vol. VI, p.
454 tf. Menanti, Houghton 2 and Delitzsch^ have each dis-
cussed it wholly or in paid, and for their suggestions grateful
acknowledgment is here made.

The tablet is clearly a sign list. The characters at the
right hand of each column correspond to those on the kudurrus
of the Cassite and Pashe dynasties, differing from those of
Hammurabi's time on the one hand and from the archaic forms
of Nebuchadnezzar II on the other.^ The signs on the left,
except a few obviously late ones, are seemingly older and show
little more than a passing resemblance to Babylonian traditions
of writing.

Two problems are therefore to be solved:

1. The general plan and interpretation of the sign list.

2. The identification as to origin and date of the archaic
characters at the left.

The association of several words under one sign seems to
have been determined partly by unity of idea and partly by
similarity of sound. In some groups a clue was found in the

1 Legons d’epigraphie Assprienne (Paris, 1873), p. 51 ff.

2 Transactions of the Society of BiUical Archeology, Vol. VI p. 454 ff.
* Die Entstehung des dltesten Schriftsystems (Leipzig, 1897), p. 199 ff.
« My attention was first called to this fact by Dr. Geo. A. Barton of

Bryn Mawr.

Vol. xxxiii.] Some Notes on the So-cdUed Hieroglyphic-Tablet. 17

chief syllabic value, which under varying transcriptions stood
for other more or less closely related words. Elsewhere, with
several syUahic values, the divergence is greater. Generally
the meanings given to the signs at the left fall within those
listed by Briinnow and Meissner under the case-sign, but this
has not been held to rigidly, because the present knowledge
of lexicographical material is still far from complete. Of
course the equations assigned these unknown characters
and couched in the phraseology of Babylonian signs hold only
as far as the idea, if the theory of a non-Bahylonian origin
is accepted.

As to the identification of the archaic signs three theories
are tenable; —

a) That they are Babylonian, of a date and locality as yet
unknown.

h) That they are foreign to Babylonian life and writing.

c) That they are Babylonian, but strongly under some
foreign influence. In favor of the first view is the resemblance
of certain of the characters to Babylonian signs, but at best
this evidence is slight. A more clearly defined similarity exists
between them and the proto-Elamitic, and if the parallel
tablet in C. T. Y., 81 — 7 — 27, 49 ‘ and 50, be collated together
with this one, it makes a total of thirty-one signs in which
this similarity challenges attention. 'What really results there-
fore is a triangular relationship between the three, the Ba-
bylonian, proto-Elamitic and these characters. Whether this
is due to coincidence or to common origin with subsequent
independent development, only future research can answer.

Meanwhile the writer would suggest the following as a
possible solution, though one as yet unproved.

If, as has been 'thought by some, the Cassites were an
Elamitic people, it is likely that they used or were familiar
with the early Elamitic writing now known as proto-Elamitic,
and also with its later forms. As part of their very strong
influence upon Babylonian aft’airs, may not these Cassites have
made some attempts to equate their own older signs with those
of the language about them? If so, something like the present
sign-list would have resulted.

' See J. A. O. S. Vol. 32.
VOIi. xxxm. Part I.

E. 8. Ogden,

[ 1913 .

Col. II. Oases 3, 4. The case sign is NAM (Hinke 37).

3) "Ell - ? ?

0 ElI - ? ?

Oases o, 6. The case sign is AB, ES (Hinke 77).

o) fcfc:7 = (Rec. 344, 550 bis), 2 abu, fathei’;

nasiku, prince; sibu, old man. Allied with this
sign is AB = littu, offspring; mini, the

young of an animal; banu, Sa alddi.

6) feJcT" = S=S:|, AB (Rec. 345) tdmtu, sea; apht
enclosure; (arah) Tdntu, the month of floods; {amelu)
irreSu, irrigator. Allied with this sign is ES =
house, iuclosure.

Col. III. Cases 1 — 4. The case sign is AZA, AZ, AS. (Hinke 206).

The sign is a compound of PIRIK = lion, and
ZA = stone, jewel. In the early archaic inscrip-
tions it appears only in the place name AZ (M).
Later it is equated with

a) (is) sigaru, some means or implement of restraint.

b) asu, physician, or according to Langdon^

1 Hinke, Selections from the Ku'hirru Inscriptions.

2 Tkureau-Dangiu, BechercJies siir I’origine de I’ecriture cuneiforme
(Paris, 1908).

3 Sumerian Grammar and Oh-estomathy (Paris, 1911), p. 204.

Vol.xxxiii.] Some Notes on the So-called Hieroglyphic-Tablet. 19

“An ointment or paste used in medicine.’’

The use of AZ = Sigaru in the sense of ‘chain’ or ‘fetter’

is indicated hy the combination in which the sign occurs.

AZ. BAL = erinnu, naharu, cage.

AZ. GIT = (is) Sigaru, sa kiSadi, chain for neck.

AZ. LAL = (is) sigartt, sa kalbi, harness or leash for
a dog. (LAL = kasfi, kamu, rakasu, to bind, and
samddu, to yoke).

AZ. BAL. LAL. E = (is) erinnu, cage, but used also
as a synonym of sigaru. There is probably a
connection between this figarii = (is) SI. GAB
and ikkaru = (is) GAB or KAB, fetter or chain,
if they are not the same word differently tran-
scribed.

1) = m (?) + I?, Bil (?) + ZA (Bee. 438, 9), stone
lion colossus. UB. MAH is the usual transcription
for nergallu, the stone bas-relief of a lion placed
at the entrance of palace or temple to ward off
the evil power of Xergal the “destroyer’’. Bee. 439,
as yet unidentified, resembles this present sign more
closely than Bee. 438, but may be only a variant.
TJE. jMAH is also the usual form for n^iu, lion,
whereas imu, labbu, and (ilu) Nergtd as the lion-
god are transcribed by BIBIK.

2) Kuxrz -p ZA (Bee. 282, supl. 480),
(ahan) erimmatn, necklace, or chain in the sense
of fetter; cf. DAK. AUNUZ. GU = niru, yoke
(Br. 8182). 1 Is this the same as Erinnu above?
The pictograpli represents a link-chain plus the
sign for stone.

3) + If, XEKUZ -p ZA (Bee, 283, supl. 480),
(is) sigaru, chain or fetter.

4) AZA (Bee. 185, supl. 518), asu, physi-
cian. The pictograph is difficult to explain, unless
by an association of both form and idea with GIB
below, which see.

Cases 5 — 8. The case sign is GIB, NE, BIBIK, LG, (Hinke
202). Brimarily this is GIB the sign for sandal.

1 Brunnow, A Classified List of All Sim 2 jle and Compound- Ideographs
(Leyden, 1899).

S. E. Ogden,

[1913.

foot, but through similarity of form, there hare
been confused with it three other signs, as follows. i

a) = <3^ = KIS {hi).

b) = GIR, sandal, foot.

c) ass.

d) = = PIRIK, UG, hon.

Even the inscriptions of the archaic period show interchange
of usage, a process heightened by time and growing complexity
of the language. This interchange accounts for some of the
parallelism between the groups above and this.

5 ) <5^=^ = (Rec. 283, supl. 480) hurzu, “FuBfessel”

(H. \V. B. p. 355). This is the same sign, without
ZA, as in cases 2, 3 of the AZ group.

6) = <(^, GIR (Rec. 224, 226, supl. 224),2 Sepu,
foot; kibSu, step; gaSru, powerful. AVithout syl-
labic value it equals tallaktu, padami, urhu. The
pictograph represents a sandal with thongs. The
expression GIR or GIR NITAH = Sakkanakku
and the association with emCiku suggests that this
form of sandal was one of the insignia of power.

7) = ? = hlE (?), namru, bright, nuru, light.

The pictograph represents a lamp in the form of
a bird, such as appears on the seal-cylinders and
kudurrus as the emblem of the fire-god Gibil-
Xusku.3 Its presence here is accounted for by
the confusion between j!^E = and NE =

fire.

8) = ? = XE (?), GUNNI (?) (Cf. Br. 9703)
kinunu, brazier. For pictograph see Rec. 176 and
the discussion under ID below.

Col. lA^, Cases 1, 2. The case sign is DAR, SI, SU, UGUlSr

« For fuller discussion of this group, see E. S. Ogden, The Origin of
the Gunu-Signs in Babylonian, Leipzig, 1911.

2 See also Langdon, op. cit. p. 272.

s Ward. Seal Cylinders of Western Asia (Washington, 1910).

Vol. Mxiii.] Some Notes on the So-called Hieroglyphic-TaUet. 21

(Hinke 267 and Clay, Marushu, 28).i Two signs,
SI-GrFNU and TAERTT, have coalesced under
this sign. 2

1) BAR (Rec, 34) tarru, bird, or SI, SU
(Rec. 48)

2) = ? ? The sign seems to he composed of

AS + SA + GrA. For a possible connection compare

= kalu (Br. 3486) and II. Rawlinson 37,
45 e, f, where this is equated with libbi.

Cases 3, 4. The case sign is SUM, SU, RIG (Hinke 172),
Mliitu, burning, sasstirn, uterus (or foetus?); arkatu,
hack, behind; balUt fullness, pudendum feminae; ma-
sddit, to press. The pictograph equals SAL + SU
(Rec. 190), the latter in the sense of maSku, skin;
Strii,zmnrii, body; niddu, to increase; erebu, to enter.

3) SU (Rec. 330) Sassuru, uterus.

4) SITIM (Rec. 59), dahddu. he plentiful.
The pictograph represents two crossed palm branches.

Case 5. The case sign is broken, hut in C. T. Y, 81 — 7 — 27,
49 and 50 and J. A. O.S. Yol. 32, the sign at the
left of this case is equated with DU, he plentiful.

‘ List of Signs Found on Tablets of the Cassite and Feo- Babylonian
Periods.

2 See E. S. Ogden, Origin of the Gimu-Signs in Babylonian, p. 26 ff.

E. 8. Ogden.

[ 1913 .

Col. I. Cases 4 — 6. The case sign is SAL, SAL, MUETJBT
(Hinke 167), zinniUu, woman; uru, pndendum
feminae; rapdSu, to extend.

4) p = ? (broken).

6) = SAL, E.ec. 327) zinniStn, woman.

6) = MURUB (Bee. 231), hizhu, fullness;

pu, mouth; uru, pudendum feminae (Br. 10962 — 4).
For the pictograph, cf. Prince, M. S. L. p. 217.

Cases 7, 8. The case sign is SAL + KU = NIN (Hinke
170) heltu, lady, misti’ess.

7) (Rec. 335) beltu, lady.

Col. II. Cases 2, 3. The case sign is GE, KIT, SAH, LIL
(Hinke 136) Mtu, structure (?) (Prince, M. S. L.
p. 131); Mu, storm-demon; Mm, zakikku. wind.

2) = pfyfcl , LEL, (Rec. 415). kisallu, a spacious place.

H ^ 0 E. LIL (?) Cf. ^ E. LIL.

LAL (Br. 6249, M. 3799),i Ini irsiti; Mt seri; Mt
zakiki.

Cases 4 — 7. The case sign is BAR, DAG (Br. 5528) BAR
= parru, net; Suparrurti, to spread out, DAG =
rapddu, to spread out; nakdru and nagdSu, to destroy.
4) = ? BAR (?) (M. 3869) Subtu, dAvelling.2

6) BAR, (Rec. 426) parru, net; Suparruru,
to spread out.

= ^y, DAK (?), I, NA, SI, ZA (Rec. 322) dbnu,
stone or jewel. The sign was originally KI +
UD = “shining light”, “fuU of light”. The present
pictograph is analogous, KI + ZA, “fuU of bright-
ness”, or a “shining stone”.

7) g = GUG, GEK (Rec. 463), kukku(?).

Cases 8. The case sign is E (Hinke 133) kibu, to speak;
iini, canal.

= ^1y’ E (Rec. 109), kibu, to speak; tku, canal.
Cases 9, 10. The case sign is E (Hinke 252), bitu, house.

• Meissner, Seltene Assyrische Ideogramme (Leipzig, 1909).

2 Langdon, op. cit. p. 263.

Vol. xxxiii.] Some Notes on the So-callcd Hieroglyphic-Tablet. 23

9) 1^1 = Stiffly, E (Eec. 423) bitu, house.

10) Ipf = (?), E. LIE, Cf. E. LIE.

EAE = hit irsiti; Int seri (Br. 6249, M. 3799).

Case 11. The case sign is KE, DUE (Hinke 258).

11) 1^1 = LhDU (Eec. 456, Clay, Murashu, 219) =

immeni, lamh.

Col. Ill, Cases 3 — 5. The case sign is ID, I, A, (Hinke 146).

The original pictograph represents a forearm and
hand. The meanings overlap those of DA = idu,
hand or side, and of ZAG = idu, side, and it
is evident that the three signs were more or less
exchanged.

3) = £^^1, NE or GIBIL (Eec. 82—5),

hurning torch. For a possible channel of connec-
tion compare <(^| GIBIE (Br. 9702)

kilutu, torch; (sign name KI-IZAKKU) and

AZAG (Br. 6592) asakku, sickness?
demon? It is possible that this is an allusion to the
torch burned at the exorcism of demons of sickness.

4) ID (Eec. 115) idu, hand; emuku, power.
It requires very little conventionalizing to reduce
the pictograph of a hand and forearm to this
character, which differs in outline from the Cassite
sign to the right only by the grouping of the so-
called gunu wedges.

5) = ^^<5 ZAG (Eec. 176) idn, pdtu, hand, side;
emuku, power. Also aSru, eSretu, shrine. The
pictograph represents an hour-glass shaped altar-
such as appears on the seals. i In support of this
compare ZAG- AH {usug) = eSretu (Br. 6499);
(EH) U. SUG, GA, and (EE^) U. SAG, GA =
usukku, temple devotee.2

* Ward, op. cit. p. 361 — 7.

2 Gudea, B. 3, 15; A, 13, 14.

Three Babylonian Tablets, Prince Collection, Columbia
University. — By Eev. Frederick A. Vanderbueoh,

Ph. D., Columbia University, New York City.

Three light dull-red baked clay-tablets, each five and a
quarter centimeters long by three and a half in breadth and
two in thickness; corners and edges rounded.

Xr. 1.

Memoranda for the month of Simanu of food consumed by
messengers going to An^dn, Sahum and also of those

returning fi-om Susa, Hulmnuri and Adamdun. The temple
in which the memoranda were made and the approximate
date can only he conjectured. Perhaps the capital city at
this time was Ur. The obverse contains eleven lines and the
reverse nine. The signs are all legible.

Obverse

BAR zid ud-tnin-kam Sd-uru

Ten (ka) of meal for two days in the city,

ia ka zid kaskal-sii

five ka of meal on the journey,

i-me-ta Sukkal

for Imeta the messenger,

an-sd-an-ki-Mi gin-ni
on going to Anidn.

5 BAR zid ud-min-kam Sd-tini

Ten (ka) of meal for two days in the city,

ia ka zid kaskal-ku

five ka of meal on the journey,

lii-na-ba-a gin-giS

for Lunahd the weigh-master,

Vol. xxxiii.] Three Babylonian Tablets, Prince Collection, &c. 25

sa-bu-um-ki-Mi gin-ni
on going to Sabiim.

ia Jca zid lugal-ma-giir-ri Sukkal

Five ka of meal for Lugalmagurri the messenger,

10 nana-erin-ki-ta gin-ni
coming from Susa.

BAR zid ud-min-kam sd-uru

Ten (ka) of meal for two days in the city,

Reverse

ia ka zid kaskal-Sit

five ka of meal on the journey,

i-ti-da Sukkal

for Itida the messenger,

Si-ma-dS-ki-Sii gin-ni
on going to SimdS.

15 ia ka zid dingir-ra-ne Sukkal

Five ka of meal for Dingirrane the messenger,

hu-hu-nii-ri-ta gin-ni
coming from Huhunuri.

ia ka zid u-ne-ni Sukkal

Five ka of meal for Aneni the messenger,

a-dam-dun-ki-ta gin-ni
coming from Adamdun.

itu giid-du-ne-sar-sar
The month of Simanu.

The first two signs are BAR and KU. BAR with ka
equals ‘ten’, otherwise BAR equals ‘one half. Here ka must
be understood with BAR, whose value when standing for
‘ten’ was probably ir; we know it to be maS when standing
for ‘half’. KU as ‘meal’ or ‘flour’ has the value zid = As-
syrian kemu. One ka is approximately equal to one liter.
The duties of a Sukkal (LAH), equal to sukallu, also
called liOi, were more than those of merely hearing a mes-
sage; they were doubtless administrative and representative.
This is confirmed by such expressions as the following which

F. A. Vanderburgh,

[1913.

is taken from a brick of Temti-agun: “Temti-agun tbe siikJcal
of Susa for his life a zi-anam to Ismekarab has huilt’\ te-im-
ti-a-gu-un sukkal su-si-im a-na ha-la-ti-su zi-i-a-nam a-na iS-
me-ka-ra-ab i-pu-usA In a brick by Temti-halki, Temti-Jjalki
is called the Sukkal-maJi of Elam (and) ^imas. arah simdni
is the third month of the year — May- June; the ideogram
itu gud-du-nesar-sar given in the tablet is old Babylonian;
the Assyrian ideogram is itu Seg-ga.

Xr. 2.

Memoranda for the month of Airu of wine consumed by
messengers returning fi-om Susa and also Sabum, as well as
those joui-neying to Ansan. The nature of the mission of
these messengers is not divulged. Their names are given and
in some cases their occupation, or the fact that they are offi-
cials. The obverse contains thirteen lines and the reverse nine,
including the date, which, however, forms a line separated from
the rest of the composition by the space of a centimeter. One
sign was almost wholly erased by the pressure of a finger be-
fore the tablet was baked. The characters are clear, although
made with a fine stylus.

Obverse

ia ka kaS
Five ka of Avine,

Su-dingir-nin-$ul kukkal
for Su-ninSul the messenger,

ia ka kas ur-dingir-igi-H ghi-gii gal

five ka of wine for Ur-igisi the chief weigh-master,

nand-erm-ki-ta gin-ni

coming trom Susa.

5 BAB ka§ Sd-uru
Ten (ka) of wine while in the city,
dS kaS u-sa kaskal-Su

one (ka) of wine of the sa-plant on the journey,

la-ni-a lu-giS-ku gu-la

for Lania the chief spearsman,

^l<^rnite8-semitiques premiere et troisieme

Vol. xxxiii.] Three Babylonian Tablets, Prince Collection, &c. 27

ia ha JcaS i-SiS-M-ni Sukkal

five ka of wine for IsiSkini the messenger,

ia ka kaS zib-is-ni~M(, diimii nu-banda

five ka of wine for ZibiSnisu the junior overseer,

10 sa-bu-um-ki'ta gin-ni
coming from Sabum.

BAB- kaS ud-min-kum Sd-uru

Ten (ka) of wine for two da 3 ’s in the city,

as kas ii-sa kaskal-Mi

one (ka) of wine of the 5a-plant on the journey,

Su-dingir-en-lil hikkal
for Bu-enlil the messenger,

Reverse

r>lS kaS M-iiru

sixty (?) (ka) of none while in the city,

lo DlS-A§ ka^ kaskal-Sii

ninety (?) (ka) of wine on the journej’,

nim an-Mi-an-ki-me

for the ruler of the AnSdnites,

' gir ^u-dingir-en-lil iukkal

for the gir Su-enlil the messenger,

an-kl~an-ki-Su gin-ni
going to AnMn.

ia ka kaS i-sar-ba-kal snkkal

Five ka of wine for Isarbakal the messenger,

20 ia ka kaS ba-ba-a damn nu-banda

five ka of wine for Baba the junior overseer,

nand-erin-ki-ta gin-ni
coming from Susa.

itu gan-mal

The month of Aim.

1. ka is a measure for liquids as well as for dry material,
with the same capacity in either instance.

3. gin (TU)- 5 M (U§) = ‘weighing-man’; here we have gin-
gU gal', in Tablet Nr. 1 simply gin-giS.

F. A. Vanderburgh,

[ 1913 .

6. There are two kinds of wine mentioned in this Tablet,
One is plain (BI); the other is has (BI) -u-sa. The
ordinary Assyrian word for ka^ is sikaru ‘strong drink’, also
‘date-wine’, the yerh being sakdru ‘be di’unk’. The sa-plant,
from which the other wine is made, may be the same as the
sa-tree which had a strong fibre with which ropes were made,
the word being connected with sa used for ‘net".

7. lii-giS (IZ) -ku = ‘man of wooden weapon"; the value
of KU in this connection, I must say, is not determined. In
the expression ‘chief helper’, or ‘chief spearsman’, ‘chief is
expressed by gu-la ‘great’; in line thi’ee, where wo have the
expression ‘chief weighmaster’, ‘chief is expressed by gal.

14. If the sign DIS stands for ‘one’, it should probably have
the value ds; if it stands for ‘sixty", gi§ should doubtless be
the value.

16. nitn an-Sd-an-ki me = ‘ruler of the A}isanites'. nim —
Mku ‘high’, i. e., a ruler or minister like a secretary of state,
me at the end of the line may be the sign of the plural, a
shortened form of mes.

17. gir = sepw ‘foot’; also emuku ‘power"; then an official,
for whom we have no Assyrian equivalent; this officer seems
to have charge over other officials, particularly with reference
to food supply.

20. mi (= lii) -bandd (TUB) = lahuttu ‘official", perhaps
‘overseer’, and dumu (TUB) = a ‘youth of (attending upon)
a nu-banda\

22. The month of Airu, second month, April-May, written
in the Tablet itu gan-maS ‘fields in blossom’. This is old
Babylonian. The Assyrian ideogram is itu gui-si-di ‘direc-
ting bull".

Xr. 3.

Memoranda for the month of Kisilimu of \vine, food, meat
oil and also of women laborers for the officials of Adamdun
and Susa. The obverse contains nine lines and the reverse
twelve. The colophon, giving the date, is inscribed along the
left side.

Obverse

DIS kas dll lugal

Sixty (?) (ka) of best common wine.

Vol.xxxiii.] Three Babylonian Tablets, Prince CoUection, &c. 29

DIS gar lugal DIS iidu

sixty (?) {ka) of best food, sixty (?) sheep,

u-ba-apa-te-si a-dam-diin-ki
for ITba patesi of Adamdun,

a-dam-dun-ki-ta gin-ni
coming from Adamdun.

5 PA kaS BAE-mm ka zid

Twenty (ka) of wine, twelve ka of floui’,

limu (ZA) d-gam ni ud-limu-kam
four vessels of oil for four days,

Mi-kar-ti lu-gih-ku gu-la
for Sukarti the chief helper,

ma-id-ta e-e-ne zid-a

who goes out on the river-boat for meal.

ia ka kaS eS ka gar

Five ka of wine, three ka of food.

Reverse

10 D iS d-gam ni Sd-uru

sixty (?) vessels of oil in the city,

aS kaS u-sa ia ka gar

one (ka) of wine of the sa-plant, five ka of food,

kaskal-Mi
on the journey,

dingir-ma-su Sukkal

for Dingirmasu the messenger,

nand-erin-ki-su gin-ni
going to Susa.

15 eS ka kaS min ka gar

Three ka of wine, two ka of food,

DIS a-gam ni-giS
sixty (?) vessels of oil,

iS-me-a lii-kabar
for Ismea an official;

F. A. Vanderburgh,

[ 1913 .

ehi, geme eS ka sid-Se ia gin ni-giS-ta

thirty women (each one) three ka of -wheat-tlour

(and) five measures of oil (per diem),

ne-ra aS ag hu-hu-nu-ri-ki me
for which they make an agreement,
viz., they of Huhunuri,

20 lii is-me-a lu-kahar
for ISmea an official,

Im-lm-nu-ri-ki-ta- gin-ni
coming from Huhunuri.

itu ezin dingir-ba-u
Month of Kisilimu.

o. The decimal system seems to be represented in two ways
in these Tablets. ‘Ten’, ‘twenty’ and ‘thirty’ are represented
by the use of the upright and one, two or three horizontals
respectively; thus, BAR = ‘ten’, — val. m; PA == ‘twenty’,
= val. nii', and AS = ‘thirty’ == val. eiii. Down below,
line 18, the corner wedge system is used; ES = ‘thirty’ =
val. du.

6. d (ID) -gam = ‘vessel’ of some sort, gam itself being
equal to kipattu.

8. mu-id (A. TU) -ta ‘boat-river-fi'om’. e (UD. DD) -ne —
‘his going out’, zid (KU)-a; whether KU-a stands for aietbu
or kemu is not quite clear; possibly the sign may not be KU.

16. ni-giS = ‘oil of wood’. In lines six and ten gii is
omitted.

19. In ne-ra, ne must be a pronoun and ra a postposition,
di a noun == edu ‘one’, baramu ‘seal’, magdru ‘favor’, mitharu
‘agree’ and other words of similar meaning, and ag a verb
equal to epehi ‘make’ and banti ‘build’, me at the end of
the line is the sign of the plural.

21. liu-lm-nu-ri-ki-ta ‘from the place Huhurmri’-, ki, however,
might he omitted; see Tablet 1, line 16.

22. Month of Kisilimu, ninth month, November-December,
written in the Tablet itu ezin (SAR) dingir-ba-u, month of
the festival of Bau who was the goddess of agriculture. The
Assyrian ideogram is itu gan-gan-na.

Yol.xxxiii.]

Three Babylonian Tablets, Brince Collection, (&c. 31

Cities mentioned in the Tablets

Anian, mentioned by Xabonidus in the AbuSabba Cylinder*
as a province of which Cyrus was king, must have been a
very ancient center. In a list of dates given by Dimgi'^ one
date reads thus: mu dumu-sal lugal pa-te-si an-Sd-an-ki-ge
ba-tug, rather doubtfully translated by Sched as ‘the year when
the daughter of the king became patesi of Gudea in

Statue B 3 also gives an interesting fact about AnMn. He
says that he thrust down the weapons of the city of AnMn in
Elam: gis-ku imi-an-M-an nim-ki mu-sig.

Sabum. On a door-socket, in which Adad-nannar memora-
lizes the dedication of a temple built in Gir-su by Gimil-Sin,
king of Ur, Sabum is placed in the same list of cities as
LagaS. Adad-nannar, the chief minister calls himself patesi
of LagaS, Gubelwn, Hamasi, Ganljar and Sabum.*

Susa, mentioned in the book of Esther: ‘Given in Shushan
the palace’; ‘the city of Shushan was perplexed'. In our
Tablet we have the Sumerian name for Susa: nand-erin-ki
‘place of the goddess among cedars, plainly indicating the
existence of a sacred grove’. In Dungi's Brick C, we are
told that he built a temple to the god of Susa', from other
sources we learn that this divinity was Suhinak.^

SimaS. This was an old Babylonian city existing at a time
when its ruler was a Sukkal or a Sukkal-mah.^

Huhunuri was a city flourishing in the dynasti of Ur, de-
stroyed by Bur-sin.

Adamdun. From certain tablets we learn that Adajndun
was a city governed by patesi and flourishing in the same
period as the city of Huhunuri.

Bate of the Tablets

The nomenclature for the months would place the Tablets
not later than the third or fomlh Dynasty of Ur. The second
month was written in the time of Sargon I: ezin gan-maS,

* Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, Vol. V, Plate 64.

2 Old Babylonian Inscriptions, Plate 125.

3 Price’s Great Cylinder Inscriptions A and B of Gudea.

* Bevue d’Assyriologie TI, S. 99.

5 ScheQ, Textes Elamites-sumitiques premiere et troisihne Serie, PI. 7 ;
15; 20; 74.

32 F. A. Vanderburgh, Three Babylonian Tablets, &c. [ 1913 .

instead of simply gan-maS, and the third month: ezin gud-dii-
ne-sar-sar, and not simply gud-du-ne-sar-sar, as in the Dynas-
ties of Ur. The name of the ninth nonth was Avritten ezin
dingir ha-u both in the time of Sargon I and of Dungi I, II
and III. The six cities named in the Tablets, some of them
Elamitic cities, are all mentioned in texts written concerning
rulers of cities when Dungi, or Bur-sin, or Gimil-sin were
supreme at Ur.

The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions. — By Samuel
< 1 %, A, B. Meeceb, Professor in Western Theological

Seminary, Chicago, lU.

I. The Oath in Sumerian Inscriptions^

Sumerian literature in its original form is well represented
by commercial and historical documents. We have, however,
no original Sumerian religious composition, but of late copies
of such literature we possess an abundance, as Langdon’s
Sumerian and Babylonian Fsalms well demonstrate. In this
later class of Sumerian literature no indication of the taking
of an oath has thus far been found, and even if there should
be found such an indication it would not help us in the study
of the growth of oath-taking, since obviously the same re-
ference may have in mind different incidents. We shall, there-
fore, confine oui' study to oaths found in commercial and
historical inscriptions.

While our contract tablets are primarily commercial docu-
ments, yet they are often found very useful for historical
research, since most of them mention contemporary rulers either
in their date formula, or as parties interested in the trans-
action. Those documents which are primarily historical wo
shall study later, but shall now confine our attention to con-
tract or commercial literature.

* Abbreviations not explained in the text: Gen. Dreh. H. de Geuouillac,
Tablettes de JJreheni, Paris 1911. — Gen. Dreh. C. B. H. de Geiiouillac, La
Trouvaille de Drehem, etude avec choix de textes de Constantinople et
Bruxelles, Paris, 1911. — ITT. Invetdaire des Tablettes de Tello, Tome I et
II, par F. Timreau-Dangin et H. de Geiiouillac, Paris, 1910. — Myhr.
D. W. Myhrman, Sumerian Administrative Documents from the Second
Dynasty of Ur, BE, Series A, Vol. III'. — Nik. Drevnosti Voctochnyya,
redaktsiei M. B. Jiikolski, Tome III S. Petersbourg, 190s. — RA. Revue
d’Assyriologie, Oppert, Ledrain, et Heuzey, Paris. — RTC. Recue il de
Tablettes Chaldeennes, par F. Thureau-Ilangiii, Paris, 1903. — ZA. Zeit-
sclirift fur Assyriologie, herausg. von G. Bezold, Straliburg.

von. XXXIII. Part I. 3

S. B. Mercer,

[1913.

Tlie very earliest known Sumerian contract tablets (c. 4000
B. C.) such, for example, as AO 2753 which was published,
transliterated and translated by F. Thureau-Dangin, B,A TI,
Xr. 4 p. 143, “Contrats archauj^ues’’, Xr. I, contain no oath
nor any indication that would lead us to think that an oath
was taken. Yet the argument e silentio may not have much
real force here in considering the cu.stom of oath-taking of
this early period, since our records are so scanty. i

After about five or six hundred years, when we approach
the period immediately preceding the time of the Fr-X4nan
dynasty, i. e. c. 3500 — 3400 B. v.'e meet with, what seems
to be a real elevelopment in the direction of that oath-taking
custom which became so common in later times, especially
during the great legal period of the Hammurabi dynasty.
Thureau-Dangin has published, in his ET(\ and transliterated
and translated in KA YI, 4, p. 140 11'.. “Contrats archaiques”,
four business conti'acts, ETC 12 — 15.- from Tello. belonging
to this Ere-C'r-Xinan ])eriod which contain no mention of an
oath, but which contain the names of witnesses (gidu-Jci-enim^)
to the contract, in the case of Xr. 12. which is a document
about a donation, the transaction seems to have taken place
in the temple (Jd-nad Di-abzii-a, “in the resting-room — lit.,
-place of rest" — of lJi-ahzu-a'\ i. e. a definite room, as it
seems, in the temple where the transaction took place). X'os.
13 and 14 which arc contracts of sale have, hosidcs the
witnesses, the name of tlie official scrihe (chd)-Sar. “writer of
tablets'’), while Xos. 14 and 15 have the dub-Kar-fjan, “the
scribe of the field'’ (the land-surveyor) which is sold.

From the dynasty of Fr-Xiiia and the reign of Enteniena
of Lagash (Tello) we have one business document, ETC Iti.-*

' Sife .s. Langd'iu. Sumerian Grammar, ji. 6 ii'. for a full list of
Sumerian liieraturc.

- The others belonging to this period, nameh- RTtJ 1 — 11 . contain no
mention of witnesses.

3 It is interest ing to notice that the chief part of this compound.:
gain, contains within itself a religious idea, since it denotes a lu'ostrate
man m the act of adoration. This would teach ns that the early idea
underlying tlie action of a witness was a religious one. The witnesses at
this early stage might well have been considered a sufficient guarantee of
truthfulness without the taking of an oath.

* Transliterated and translated by S. Langdon in ZA XXV. 1—2,
Sprechsaal, -Some Sumerian Contracts”, p. 005 g;

Vol.xxxiii.] The Oath in Ctmeiform Inscriptions.

which also contains evidence of the presence of witnesses
(l/alii-ki-euim-ma-bi-me) and a scribe (dnh-iur) but has no formal
oath; and a similar one, ETC 17 i, from the reign of Enlitarzi
of Lagash in which the wife of Enlitarzi himself appears in
the contract which is signed before witnesses among whom are
scribes. There is an interesting statement at the end of this con-
tract; it reads dft-hi zag-gi hi-ag -‘each of them thereunto put his
right hand". As wo know from Babylonian and Assyrian
Literature the hand- plaj'ed an important jiart in the ritual
of an oath, and since the Arabic means oath as well as

right-hand we are perhaps right in seeing in this expression
an indication that an oath was actually taken. In this same
dynasty the reign of Lugalanda is represented by one contract,
Xik. 17, where witnesses (gala hi-enim-ma-bi-me) occur. These
three tablets also come from Tello.

On the famous fibelisk of Manistusu^ King of kis, contem-
poraneous with Lugalanda of Jmgash, wo have commercial
transactions which were ratitiod in the tem])le before certain
specified persons, although there is no mention of an oath.
Eaco A Col. 8 1. 19, for e.xample. shows us that the trans-
action took place befoi'o (j)dn) La-mn-im ]>riest of Za-Md-
Mal who was god of Kis. wb.ich would be in tlie temple of
that god; a scribe (diib-sar) was always present, ef. Col. 16 1. 7
I'f Face A, and Face 1) Col. Id 1. 13 pfoi ihi Sin-har. -before
the god Nin-kar". Here the scribe is mentioned in Col. 14
1. 16 of Face 1).

The legal fo’rm used in th.ese tablets which was the form
Used up to and including the period of the dynasties of Lr-
Xina and Kis is not very ditferent from that employed dm'ing
later periods. As a rule, the names of the interested persons
are first given, then follow the object and nature of the transaction,
then the mention of any extra incidents connected with it,
then the witnesses and other officials, then sometimes the
place where the transaction took place is mentioned, and, finally,
the date. There is, however, no oath. Our conclusions are

* .See p. .34. n. 4.

- Compare for an interesting jjarallel Ezra 10. 19, and many other such
examples in the Old Testament.

3 Published, transliterated, and translated by V. Solieil in Delegation
en Terse, Memoires, Tome II, Textes Elamites-Semitiques, Premiere Serie
p. 0 ft'. Of early .Semitic record this is perhaps the most important.

3 “

S. A. B. Mercer,

[ 1913 .

natm’ally limited as our records are few and all come from
Lagash with the exception of the Obelisk of Manistusu which
was found at Susa.

It is not till we reach the dynasty of Ur (c. 2295 BC.) that
we meet with contracts which contain a direct oath. Here
again many documents are found which contain no such oath
hut which were witnessed before certain persons whose names
are often giren. Further, there are other contracts that are
merely sealed, while stdl others are drawn up in the temple
of a deity (e. g. BA Till, Tr. 1, in the temple of Nin-mar-
ki, E. d.~Nin-mar-ki-ka). As such contracts are many I shall
not deem it necessary to name them, but shall confine mv
study to those which contain a dii’cct expression of an oath.
Up to the dynasty of Ur, as we have seen, no contract has
been found which contains any such expression of an oath.
This does not mean that the custom of oath-taking may not
have existed during that period, since an oath may actually
have been taken before the custom of recording it in set terms
arose; but so far as our inscriptions go we liave no evidence
that such an oath was recorded till the time of this dynasty.

Following are aU the Sumerian contract documents which
contain an oath. All of them with a few exceptions, which
will be noted as we meet them, come from Tello. It is also
to be noted that they all belong to the dynasty of Ur. This
is perhaps duo to the fact that most all of our tablets come
from the same place. There are a few Avhose dates either are
not given or are defaced, Init we are pretty certain tliat they
belong to the same dynasty since they were found in the same
place and bear the same maiks of composition and ari'angment
as those that are dated. The dynasty of Ur, according to
Hilprecht’s Chronological list of the Kings of Ur and Xisin,
began in 2295 and lasted till 2178 B. C. The rulers were

Ur-Gur 2295 — 2278, Dungi 2277 — 2219. Bm--Sin 2218 22 Id,

Gimil-Sin 2209— 22d3, and Ibi-Sin 2202—2178. :Ham- of the
contracts belonging to this dynasty mention the fact that an
oath was taken without stating whether any person or thiu!^
was invoked, others state that the oath Avas taken bv invokino"
the name of the king. This is interesting for later, e. g. during
the Hammurabi dynasty, the king is specifically named and
as a rule one oi moie deities are invoked at the same time.
During this early period such a form never occurs -either

Vol.xxxiii.] The Oath in Cuneijorm Inscriptions.

there is no invocation at all, or merely the name of the king
is invoked.

I. Those contracts which contain an oath but no invocation.
Reign of Dungi 2'277 — 2219 B. C.

1. ITT 923". 1 This is a tablet containing an account of
live different transactions: 1. A confirmation of the sale of a
slave, which is sworn to (tiam-erim-am-. “an oath there is”)
in the presence of the assessor (maskim^). The name of the
swearer, as a rule, as here, comes before the oath. 2. ‘^Xinui-
ka is accused of stealing a cow. but swears (nam-erim-am) not
guilty in the presence of the assessor. 3. An act of repudia-
tion on the taking of an oath {nam-erim-am), before the
assessor. 4. Lugal-gi-na is accused of theft, but swears (nam-
erim-nam) not guilty before an assessor. 3. A suit about a
garment. The case i^ not very clear as the tablet is much
broken. The oath {nam-erim-am) is sworn in the presence of
the assessor. Then follows the name of the patesi {TJr-^ Lama
pa-te-si) who seems to have acted as judge •< for the above five
suits. Then comes, as is usual, the date.

In addition to what has been said about the word nam-erim
in my Inaugural Dissertation already referred to in the foot-
note it may be well to note here the depth of meaning under-
lying it. As nam = simtu = destiny, and erim — hostile it
is evident that this word was originally connected with the
idea of malediction ^ or curse and, when used in the oath
formula, indicated that curse which would fall upon the per-

' Those thus’" marked have been transliteratedandtraiislatedbyH.de
Genouillac in KA Till, 1 — 2 p. 1 ff., -‘Textes juridiques de Fepoque
d’Ur''.

- For a technical discussion of this word see my Inaugural Dissertation,
The Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian Literature. Alunich 1911, p. 26 f.,
which will soon be published by P. Geuthnor, Paris, with an Appendix
by P. Horamel.

3 See, for a full discussion of this term. Babyloniaca III. 2 p. 88,
‘■Sd-tilla, textes juridiques de la seconde dynastie d'Our”, by F. Pelagaud.
For the rendering ■•Assessor”, see de Genouillac, op. cit.

■* Although the word for judge does not occur here, as it does in
many cases, yet the patesi’s name occupies the same place in this tablet
as the judge does in many others.

5 In its Assyrian form it appears as mamitu, ban, curse, oath. In
later Babylonian and Assyrian literature the curse almost completely
replaced the oath in legal proceedings.

8. A. B. Mercer,

[ 1913 .

jurer. Therefore, in essence the oath was a conditional curse,
and was expected to hare the power of drawing forth from
the contestants in a dispute the truth under penalty of male-
dictionh and when the name of the king was invoked it was
done with the purpose of making the oath more solemn and
binding, and, learning from experience that oaths were some-
times broken, to guarantee it^ preservation.

The legal literary form used in these tablets is so similar
in every case that it may he well to give an analysis of the
form which it takes in order to avoid unnecessary detail and
repetition in our discussion of the other documents of this
period. It will he seen that this form differs only in the
oath formula from that of the earlier tablets. First, the names
of the parties to the contract are given: secondly, the oluect
and nature of the transaction are noted: thirdly, the mention
of any extra incidents connected with the transactions: fourthly,
the oath; fifthly, the name of the witness or witnesses, though
not always given, and that of the assessor and judge or judges:
and lastly, the date, often giving the day or year when some
important event happened.

2. ITT 936*. Here are two transactions: the first dealing
with a robbery the details of which are not given, but an
oath (tiam-erim-am) is taken before the assessor : the second is
a note of adoption of a female .slave jtrobably by her father.
In this last case no oath is taken. The matter is confirmed
(ba-na[yi-inj) before an assessor. The word ha-ua-yi-in is
intere.sting because its chief element ytn = to establish. It
cannot, however, be said to bo a substitute for an oath because
in BTC 291 we have the same word in a contract where a
formal oath occurs. The judge in both cases seems to be
FT-'^Lama the patesi. Then follows the date as usual.

3. ITT 948*. This is a case of repudiation. The husband
seemingly without definite cause repudiates his wife before con-
summation of marriage. The oath (iiam-erim-am) is taken
before the assessors, FT '*• Lama the patesi being judge.

Reign of Bur-Sin.

1. BTC 2911.2 Galu-duga fails to pay Atud for a slave

1 Compai'e the interesting place in Xeh. 10, 29.

- Those marked thus f have been transliterated and translated by
F. Pelagaud, “Su-tilla, textes juridiques de la seconde dyiiastie d’Our”,
Bahyloniaca III, 2, p. 81 tf.

Vol. xxxiii.] The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions.

wliicli he has receh-ed from him, hut Atud receives in com-
peusation one of Galu-duga's own slaves. Alla son of Galu-
duga and another person take an oath (tiam-erim-am) evidently
that the slave for compensation would be given to Atud. The
oath is taken before the assessor and the judge is Ar '^•Lama
the patesi. The date is that of the year when Bur-Sin
became king, hence the same patesi as in the preceding reign.

'2. Pel. XYIII (PI. IIT)§k In the exchange of a house it
is complained that the manager Xagu did not confirm the
transaction. An oath is taken, (nani-erlm) to that efl'ect. A
second oath (nam-erim) is recorded, but it is not certain that
it has anything to do with the same exchange. The a'sessor
is present, and there are two names Ar-ka-silim and Gudea
which are probably those of the judges.

3. ITT 752*. This tablet contains a collection of different
transactions. The first has to do with inheritance. The next
two seem to be related, the one dealing with the incapacity
of an architect, and the other with a man wlio has also lost
the confidence of his master. In the first ti-ansaction an oath
(nam-erim-am) is taken, and also in the first of the last two
(nam-erim-am), which on account of their seeming inter-relation
may be considered as having applied to both cases. In any
case we learn that the three proceedings took place before an
assessor, Ar Lama the patesi being judge.

4. ITT 830*. Here we have the confirmation of the sale
of a girl by her father where, as in a regular law-suit, an oath
is taken (nam-erim-bi ha-tar'-) by interested parties, before an
assessor. Xo judge is present.

5. ITT. 963*. Here are three law-suits about contested
property. The tablet has been broken at the end of the first
transaction but we can be tolerably sure that an oath svas
taken as in the other two, each of which has nam-erim-am
before the assessor. It is interesting to note that the judge
(di-hud) in this last case who seems to be the same man as

■ Those marked thus § have been published, transliterated and trans-
lated by Pelagaud in Babyloniaca 111, 2, p. 81 If.

- Or nam-erim-bi in-tar or nam-erim-hi in-bud- Tar is a better
rendering than laid, compare tar-ru-da. shortened to tar-da. In any case
the rendering would be ‘'his oath he has taken”.

8. A. B. Mercer,

[1913.

the assessor in the other transaction, namely Ur-'i-Ka-di, is
associated in his capacity as judge with another man, namely
Gudea, who is called the elder of the city (ah-ha-uru).^

6. ITT 3516. This is a case of seizure. The matter is
taken to court and an oath is taken (nam-erim-am) hefcjre
an assessor and the sentence is confirmed.

Reign of Gimil-Sin.

1. PG. Till (PI. III)§- A certain man gave his son a
house and a slave. The gift is ratified by oath (nam-erim-ani)
which is taken by three free-men and a .slave to insure the
constancy of the gift. Xo assessor, no witnesses, and no judge
is present.

2. Pel. XI (PI. V)§. Sale of a female slave. The witnesses
whose names are recorded take an oath {nam-erim-b[i i]n-tar)
before the assessor. Two judges are present.

3. RTC 295 f. An oath taken (nam-erim tar-a-har) in a
previous transaction is protested and claimed irregular by a
certain woman Sig-tur-tur and her son Gud-a-gir. The case
is brought before judges and an assessor and an oath is taken
(nam-erim-hi in-tar).

4. ITT 744*. A document concerning a dispute between a
master and his slave, the details of which are very uncertain.
An oath (nam-erim-am) is taken before an assessor and a
judge.

5. ITT 746*. A contested slave-sale in which the witnesses
are relatives of the contending parties. The testimony, as it
seems, is contested, but the purchaser on presenting a superior
testimony takes an oath (nam-erim-am) before an assessor and
two judges and the case is ended.

6. ITT 733*. A disimte about a cloak in which an oath
is taken {nam-erim -U in-tar) by the slave that he did not
give the cloak to the man who stole it. It is interesting to
note that the oath was taken in the temple of Xinmarki
{E-d. Nin-mar-ki-ka) before an assessor. Relatives of the inter-
ested parties are mentioned as being present, perhaps as wit-

* Compare the same office in the Hammurabi dynasty; also Ruth 4, 2.
Compare E. Cuq, “L'organisation judiciaire de la Chaldee a I’epoquo de
la prem. dynastie”, RA VII. 2, p. 65 tf.

Vol.xxxiii.] The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions.

nesses. A certain Grudea an elder of the city ^ acts as assessor,
and there are three judges. Aotice the interesting phrase Id-
di-dur-ba u nani-erim-tar-a-ba, “at the place where the seat of
justice is and where the oath is pronounced”.^

7. ITT 929*. A dispute between a buyer and setter of
plants in which the oath (nam-erim-am) settles the matter.
Witnesses, an assessor, and two judges ai’e present.

8. ITT 2802. Here we have a purchase contract which is
badly broken. An oath is taken {nam-erhn-am) in the presence
of witnesses.

9. ITT 3.542. Another badly broken purchase contract
which contains an oath ([n]am-eri7n-bi i[n-t]ar) and witnesses.

Eeign of Ihi-Sin.

1. ITT 920*. A house was given to Hd-id-da by the patesi
which he gives aAvay by contract. Hd-id-da desires it back,
arguing that he had no right to give away such a gift. A
magistrate takes an oath {nam-erim-bi in-tar) that Hd-id-da
had given away the house. The man who received the house
together with a witness also takes an oath (nam-erim-bi ib-tar).
Ud-id-da loses the case. There were two assessors, three
judges, and three personally named witnesses.

Undated.

1. ITT 924*. The text of the tablet is in a poor condition.
It seems that there are disputes about four accounts which are
regulated by judicial authority and an oath (nayn-erim-am) was
taken in each case. Ao officials are mentioned but we find
the interesting expression ne Ur-ama-mii-dib u Ur-^- Al-la
dub-bar iid-na in-gi-ni-es “by authority of T r-ama-mu-dib and
of ITr^- Al-la the scribe they will now keep their engagements”,
which shows that the transactions were carried on in an
official way and perhaps a direct oath was taken. It is
further interesting to note that one of the debtors was a
priest (sangu).

2. ETC 294 f. This tablet contains a sworn receipt for the
pavment of a slave. An oath was taken {)iam-erim-bi tar-dam)
that the slave was received. Witnesses are mentioned by name.

1 Cf. above p. 40 note 1.

2 Cf. ITT 960* p. 47.

42 S. A. B. Mercer, [1913.

and an assessor. There is an additional aft'air on the same
tablet hut no oath is taken.

3. Pel. XY (PI. Yl)§. A mutilated document concerning
a slave sale in which an oath is taken {nain-erim-am). There
are present witnesses, an assessor, and two judges.

4. Yiroll. Compt. XYI.‘ A mutilated business document
in which nine different persons take an oath. The vai-ying
foi'ms of the expression of swearing are; nam-ne-rii-am i^Uxicv),
and nam-ne-ru (seven times).

.5. ITT 1010*. A very imperfectly preserved text. It seems
that a previous judicial decision is changed by the authority
of a patesi, Pr-‘*Lama. An oath is taken (piam-erim-hi in-
[far]), and witnesses are present. Although there is no
evidence of a definite date, the fact that the patesi is Pr-'^-
Lama would lead one, unless there was more than one pate«i
by that name, to conclude that it was in the reign of llungi
or his successor Bur-Sin. -

n. Those contracts in which the name of the king is

invoked.

Eeign of Dungi.

1. BTC 289 1. A case of repudiation of a female slave
who presents her case in the name of the king (mu-lugal).
Two interested i»ersons, perhaps the witnesses, take an oath
(iiam-erim-am), l)ut it is not at all sure that the swearer
invoked the name of the king at the taking of the oath.*
and it is also questionable whether the slave took an
oath. The transaction took place before an assessor and
Ph--‘^-Lama the patesi.

2. Myhr. lY (PI. 4, Xo. 7). An a.ssurance that payment
will be made in case Pr-EnlU fails to do so. There is here

* Comptahilite Chaldeenne, par Ch. Tirolleaud. Poitiers, 1903. The
author has not published the text of this tablet. He gives a trans-
literation and translation. It comes from Tello and is preserved in the
Imperial Ottoman Museum.

- See above p. 38 f.

3 A direct statement comes between mu-lugal and in-na-an-dug (so
and so, she said) which may be looked upon as an indication that an
oath was sworn though not expressed. See below p. 45. section 2, and
note 2. See also ETC 293 below p. 44, and ITT 960 below p. 47.

Vol. xxxiii.] The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions.

no doubt about the fact that the oath is sworn by invoking
the name of the king. The text reads mu higal-U ni-paf "by
the name of the king he has sworn". There are present four
witnesses but no assessor. i

Gen. Dreh. 5542.- A transaction concerning a barley loan
in which an oath is taken (mu higal-bi in-pad) before wit-
nesses.

Reign of Bur-Sin.

1. Myhr. Ill (PI. 3, Xo. 4). A slave swears that he will
not run away from the house of his master. The name of
the king is invoked (mu-lugal ^d-na-pad, ‘Ty the name of the
king he swore”). There are present three witnesses.

2. Myhr. Y (PI. 5, Xo. 11). A promise to pay on a spe-
cific day a loan. The name of the king is invoked (mu lugaJ-
hi ni-pad-da, ‘‘by the name king he has sworn”). lYitnosses
are present.

3. INIyhr. YII (PI. 8, Xo. 14). An agent buys a palm
grove for his patron. The agent and the seller, so it seems,
ratify the transaction by taking an oath {{i]n? — [^((d.?j)
before the roj’al judge. Then another oath is taken by the
name of the king (mu lugal-bi [in-pad]), before witnesses.

4. Myhr. PI. 10, Xo. 18. A transaction about the loan of
silver in which a receipt is sworn to in the name of the king
(mu-lugal ni-pad), before witnesses.

5. Gen. Dreh. CB, PI. Y, Xo. 22. A commercial trans-
action giving an account of cattle which were perhaps collected
for sacrifice. The oath is taken by invoking the name of
the king (mu lugal-hi in-pad-da). This is an important do-
cument for two chief reasons; first; it shows that the legal
literary form known in Xii)pur and its suburbs (for Drehcm.
where it was found, the Sumerian name of which has not yet
been identified, is such a suburb) was the same as that used in
Lagash and Ur. Secondly; its interesting date formula and the
mention of the city of PTr show us that while the account was

' It seems that whenever an oath is taken by invoking the name of
the king no assessor is present. See the doubtful cases RTC 289. above
p. 42; RTC 293, below p. 44; ITT 932, below p. 4.5; and ITT 930,
below p. 47.

1 All marked Drehem were found at a place called in Modem Arabic
Drehem, three miles south of Xippur.

S. A. B. Mercer,

[1913.

drawn up and legalized by oatli in ITr, yet it was dated in
“the year of the construction of the throne of Enlil" who was
the great Xippurian deity. Is seems probable that the cattle,
collected perhaps in Drehem, the account of which was made
and legalized in Ur in the thii-d year of the reign of Bur-
Sin of that city, were meant for use in sacrificial services to
Enlil of Xippur whose calendar system is used in the dating
and who, though god of the tributary city of Xippur, was
recognized in Ur. On account of the importance of the do-
cument and because it has never been transliterated or trans-
lated, I here append a transliteration and translation:

1. XX sil-ga

2. XXI sal-sil-ga

3. U-tud-du

4. Ur-^Dumi-zi-da

5. u Nn-ur-l-li

Obv.

20 kids

21 female kids.
U-tud-da
Ur-‘*-Dum-zi-da
and Xu-ur-i-li

Rev.

1. mu lugal-hi in-pad-da

2. Sag Uru-ah-hi-ma

3. itu Su-eS-Sa

4. mu d. gu-za d. En-lil ha
dim

Reign of Gimil Sin.

1. ETC 293 f. This tablet contains three property trans-
actions. In the first Ur-egir swears (nam-erim-am) in the
presence of witnesses; in the second no oath is taken; in the
third there is an oath taken (nam-erim-ayn') and a reference
to another oath, but here the text is incomplete. In the third
it seems that the promise to pay is made by invoking the
king (mu lugal). but again as in ETC 289 it is not at all
certain that a direct oath was taken.* The assessor is present
at the first transaction, and likewise at the third, a circum-
stance which would lead one to conclude that the oath (in the
third transaction) was not sworn in the name of the king (see
p. 43, note 1).

swore by the name of the king,
in Ur.

Month of Su-es-sa,

- year of the construction of the
throne of Enlil.

* See above p. 42 note 3.

Vol.xxxiii.] The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions.

2. Pel. XXI. 1 This is a marriage contract and seems to
contain either two separate oaths or one which is the deve-
lopment of the other. The first oath was taken in the name
of the king (mu lugaT). The substance of the oath being
placed between mu lugal and nam-erim-am, and forming a
direct assertion ending with ni-in-dug (so and so, he has said).^
There are no witnesses. The second is sworn in the name of
the king (^mu-lugal pad-da), but not, as Pelagaud thinks, in
the name of the goddess Xinmarki, also because here Xin-
marki-ka is a personal name. The sentence runs: Mu^-Nin-
mar(ki)-ka-ge mu-lugal pad-da dug-ga-na ha-tii-gin-na-Su, the
mu here stands before a personal name, not the name of a
goddess. Xotice Su at the end of the sentence which con-
firms that.

3. Myhr. I (PI. 1, Xo. 1). A slave is brought into court
to be reminded of the punishment due to a runaway. The fact
is made impressive by the use of the phrase mu-lugal, which,
with the direct statement constituting the substance of the
threat and the phrase ni-in-dug (see p. 44) may indicate that an
oath was taken. The presence of witnesses and dating of the
document would seem to confii-m this.

4. Myhr. II (PI. 2, Xo. 2). A law-suit about a disputed
office. An oath is taken by the name of the king ([m]n lu-
gal-hi in-na-pad), before witnesses.

5. Myhr. VI (PI 6, Xo. 13). A promise to pay at a stated
time a loan or investment. Oath by the name of the king
(mu-lugal in-pad). Witnesses are present, ;but are not named
as such. They have the word igi, "before” immediately before
them.

6. ITT 932*. A law-suit in which a complaint is addressed
to the grand-vizir in the name of the king and is examined
by the assessor and is repeated before judges. There is no
mention of an oath nor does the phrase ni-in-dug with a
direct statement occur, but one of the interested persons is
presented in the name of the king (mu-lugal). It is very
doubtful whether an oath was here taken.

1 See Babyloniaca III 2, p. 114, uote 1 for place of publication.

2 See also Myhr. I (PL 1, Ko. 1), &.c. But here no oath ia expressed.
The form mu lugal with a direct assertion may be considered a substi-
tute for the regular oath formula.

S. A. B. Mercer,

[ 1913 ,

7. ITT 1008*. A document of purchase in ^hicli an oath
is taken hy the king {mu-lugal irt-[«a-pad-da]) in the presence
of witnesses. A second oath is referred to hut the text is
badly perserved.

8. ITT 3470. This is a commercial transaction in which
an oath is sworn hy the name of the king {mu lugal-ii in-pad)
before witnesses.

9. ITT 3.523. Another case of seizure, as ITT 3516, hut
here the oath is taken hy calling upon the name of the king
{[m]u-lugal in-na-pad-da). The tablet is badly broken.

10. ITT 3529. This is a gift document, the oath in which
is sworn hy the name of the king (mu lugal-bi in-pad). The
complaint is made in court hut no witnesses appear as far as
we can make out from the broken tablet.

11. ITT 3532. A document dealing with a disputed pur-
chase. The oath is taken by invoking the name of the king
(mu lugal-bi in-fad) before witnos.ses.

12. ITT 3538. A business transaction concerning real
estate. There is a reference to an oath which, as it seems,
was formerly taken (nam-erim-am), and then the transaction
is sworn to hy the name of the king {mu lugal in-pad-da).

13. ZA XX\, 1 — 2, Sprechsaal. ‘'Some Sumerian Contracts'’
hy S. Langdon. p. 205 if.. Ao. 1 B. 6. Tlie purchase of a
female slave. The transaction is ratilied hy an oath taken hy
the name of the king {mu lugal-bi in-pad) in the presence of
certain named jiersons who are undoubtedly the witnesses.
There is a promise directly connected with the oath, namel}-,
gahi gala nu gi-gi-da. '-man shall not bring suit against man’’
a formula found here for the tirst time on tablets belonging
to tills early period, but very common during the Hammurabi
dynasty. The interesting Semitic word bukdnu. under its
Sumerian form giStag, occurs in ( )hv. 1. 6 which is used so
often in contracts of the Hammurabi dynasty, and mav verv
well mean, as Langdon suggests, "dye” or -stamp", although it
was not conhned to ?lavo-salcs especially during the Hammu-
rabi dynasty, as it is oftenost used in traU'-actions pertaining
to the produce of the field.

14. ZA XX\ , 1 — 2, p. 209, Xo. 2. Bodleian Inscr. Sum.
A 18. A fragmentary document of a settled commercial dis-
pute in which the oath is taken by invoking the name of the
king {mu lugal-bi in-pad) in tlie presence of witnesses.

\'oI. xxxlii.] The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions.

15. Gen. Dreh. 5541. A transaction concerning a barley
loan in vbicb an oatli is taken before witnesses in wbicb tbe
name of tbe king is invoked {mu lugal-bi in-pad).

Beign of Ibi-Sin.

1. Gen. Dreh. 5539. A dispute about cows wbicb is settled,
and an oath by tbe name of tbe king is taken {mu lugal-bi in-
pad) before witnesses.

2. Gen. Dreh. 5540. A loan negotiated in presence of wit-
nesses by taking an oatb by tbe name of tbe king ( mu lugal-
bi in-pad).

Tablets undated or tvhose dates are uncertain or broken off.

1. Pel. XIX (PI. YII)§. A law-suit concerning tbe planting
of a park. Tbe condition of transaction is inti-oduced by tbe
phrase mu lugal, but no more direct evidence of an oatb
appears. Tbe end of tbe tablet is broken. It is doubtful
wbetber an oatb was taken.

2. Myhr. PI. 7 Mr. 13. A very much broken legal transaction
wbicb contains an oatb by invoking tbe name of tbe king
([ni?«] [l]u-gal in-pad).

3. ITT O:)!'"'. A. law-suit concerning a man's light to take
a concubine in case of tbe barrenness of bis wife. Tbe text
is very poorly preserved but it seems that tiie wife claims that
an oatb in tbe name of the king simubl not be taken {nm
lugal ba-ra-mu-enim-enim) that her place bo taken by a con-
cubine. "SVitnesses are present among whom is a woman.
Tbe husband's name is IT-''T>ama. perhaps the patesi wdiom
we have alreadv met.

4. ITT 960*. This is a very interesting document. It deals
w'tb arrangements for a marriage. It seems that the cfmsent
of the parents must be jn’oeuTed in case of this marriage, and
even the opposition of tbe motber would be sufficient to
defeat tbe case. Face 1. 12 has ki-mu-lugal-pad-da-ka ni-dur-ki
"the place where an oatb is taken by tbe nami' cif the king •
shows us that there must have been at this time such a place
legally designated, although I have not been able to find ani-
tbing more definite till we come to tbe Hammurabi dynasty

1 Cf. p. 40 Xo. 6.

S. A. B. Mercer,

[1913.

where we find such place commonly designated, e. g. at the
Sitrrinnu, etc. A direct statement comes between mu-lugal
and in-na-ni-dug-ga (so and so, she said)i and an oath is
taken {giam-erim-am) by the father of the bride and the young
people are given the right of marriage. Witnesses, an assessor,
and three judges are present.

Among the many historical inscriptions belonging to the
period previous to the Hammurabi dynasty and which is
classed as Sumerian, I have found only one which contains an
oath. It is a treaty which was transliterated and translated
some years ago by Thm’eau-I)angin in Les Inscriptions de
Sumer et d'Accad, and in 1909 was published, transliterated
and translated by the same author in conjunction with
L. Heuzey in Restitidion Mathdelle de la Stele des Tautours.
E-an-na-tum king of Lagash (c. 2900 B. C.) made a treaty
with the people of Gishu; E-an-na-tum swore to the people
{nam-e-na-ta-tar, “by that which [susgal] I swore to them’’),
and they swore to him (nam-mu-na-tar-ra-, “they swore’’).
The oath is quite elaborate. The king invokes the sus-gal
(•‘net”)3 of Enlil (Bel), of tlie goddess Xiuharsag, ofEnki(Ea),
of Enzu (Sin), of Babbar (Samas), and of Ninki; and the
people call upon the narne^ of the same deities. The oath
was taken in the camp of the god Ain-gir-su (a-Sa[gY-Nin-
gir-zu-lca) the son of Enlil. ^ Tlie same object by which the
oath is sworn, namely the siih-gal, will slay the person who
proves to be a perjurer.

In the foregoing study every instance of an oath in the
literary remains of the Sumerians has been recorded and
commented upon wherever necessary. The study, therefore.

> See p. 42. n. 3..

2 The following are variations of the same formula which are found
in this inscription: nam-e-ta-tar-ra, ‘-by which they swore’’; naiu-ni ma-
ni-tar-ra, “by whom they swore”; also, the jjhrase occurs: mu-pad-da,
“whose name was pronounced’’.

3 Symbolically used. Cf. Hab. 1, 16: ’’Therefore he (the Chaldean)
sacrificeth unto his net, and burneth incense unto his seine”.

< Here ziA . . .

s It is noteworthy that if we admit that in the oath by En-lil his son
Ningir-suis included, then the number of those invoked would be seven,
the holy number of swearing.

Vol.ixxiii.] , The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions.

covers that period of history from the earliest' times to the
Pirst Bahylonian or the Hammurabi dynasty.

During this period commercial literature has shown a pro-
gressive development in the method of oath-taking. In trans-
actions of the earliest periods no oath is recorded. This was
due, it seems, more to the stage of legal development than to
any lack of religious feeling connected with a legal promise.
Legal precautions developed a legal form in which we see an
external expression of the religious thought always underlying
the idea of the oath. During the Pre-Ur-iJsinan period (the
tablets of which come from Tello) we meet with a fairly
stereotyped legal form of transaction, as such contract as ETC
12 — 15 show. Yet no oath was taken. An advance in form
at least is, however, evident. Witnesses are present, and the
very word for witness, as we have seen above, sho^vs the
religious idea underlying this innovation in formula. In the
Dr-Xinan period (the tablets of which come from Tello and
Susa) there is still no expression of an oath, at least in con-
tract literature, but the stereotyped legal form is still present,
witnesses are recorded. There is an interesting reference in
one document which indicates a tendency which later ripened,
I mean the ritual act of giving the hand at the conclusion of a
transaction (see page 35). The transactitm is also referred to
as having been ratified in a temple. When we reach the
dynasty of Ur (the tablets of which come from Tello and
Drehem) we find not only the same stereotyped legal form but,
in addition, the direct expression of an oath. This takes two
forms; first, where a simple oath is sworn; and secondly, where
an oath is taken by invoking the name of the king. Here
also the oath was sometimes taken in a specific place.

The only historical inscription representing the whole
Sumerian period which contains an oath belongs to the dynasty
of Ur-Xina, and the reign of Eannatum king of Lagash
c. 2900 B. C. Here we see the oath in a form which is not
found in any commercial literature of the Sumerian period,
but which is common in both historical and commercial inscrip-
tions of later times. A treaty is made, the chief ritual of
which is the taking of an oath by both interested parties.
The oath is made by invoking the hdi/al of definitely named
deities, and was taken in the camp or temple of Xin-gir-su.
And what is still more interesting, a conditional malediction

von xxxm. Part L 4

50 S. A. B. Mercer, The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions. [ 1913 .

was pronounced. Here we have the older form, the maledic-
tion,! and its successor, the oath, side by side in an important
transaction.

As this historical inscription shows, being the only evidence
of an oath prior to the dynasty of Ur, we have in these
inscriptions the evidence not fof the growth of a religious
idea, hut that of a legal custom in commercial transactions.
Long before the custom of recording an oath in a legal do-
cument arose, this historical inscription teaches us that the
custom of oath-taking was known. The idea underlying an
oath and perhaps also the custom of practically taking an
oath is as old as religion itself. The foregoing study, however,
demonstrates that the legal formula in contracts was the result
of a long development.

> Althougli iu very late literature the malediction became again the
more prevalent.

On Maydvdda, by Heemann Jacobi, Professor in the
University of Bonn, Germany.

In my last article* I have discussed the attitude taken up
by the orthodox philosophers in India towards the epistemology
of the Buddhists. In connection with tliis discussion I shall
now treat the question about the nature of early Yedanta,
and, as I hope, bring it nearer to a conclusion.

The arguments of the Buddhists of both the Xiliilistic and
Idealistic schools regarding the unreality of the objects of
perception may thus be summarised. Our perceptions in
dreams do not, in principle, differ from those in the waking
state, and consequently the latter must he just as void and as
independent of something existing beside them (their object)
as the dream-impressions; further examples of impressions void
of really existing objects are magic, fata morgana, and mirage.
This view of the Illusionists is confuted much in the same
way in the Xyaya and Brahma Sutras; here wo are concerned
with the latter only. The discussion of Badarayana (B. S.
II, 2, 28 — 32j as illustrated by the passage from the ancient
Yj-ttikara, quoted by ^abarasvamin in the Bhasya on M. S.
1, 1, 5 (see above, 31. 23), leaves no doubt on the point at
issue, viz. that, according to these ancient Yedanta authors,
there is a generic difference between dream-impressions and
waking impressions, and that therefore the latter are not
independent of really existing objects.

The oldest work on Yedanta Philo-ophy besides Badarayana’s
Brahma Sutras, are the Karika's^ on the iNIandukyopanisad

' The Dates of the rhilosophical .Sutras of the Brahmans ; cee JAOS.
31. 1 ff.

1 Anandasrama Senes, No. 10. An Englisli translation of the text
and Commentary has been issued in India; hut the book has not lieen
accessible to me.

24546

4 '

Hermann Jacoby,

[1913.

by Gaudapada.i The chronological relation between BadarS-
yana and Gaudapada will be discussed hereafter; for the
present we have to deal with his philosophical opinions.
Gaudapada is, as far as we know, the first author who for-
mulated the Mayavada or the doctrine that everything except
Brahma is an illusion; this doctrine was either originated by
him, or by a school of thinkers of whom he became the head;
the latter alternative would seem the more probable one.

Xow Gaudapada has used the very same arguments as the
Buddhists to prove the unreality {vaitathyam = asatyatvam)
of the external objects of our perceptions; he states this
argument in II 4 which is thus explained by his commentator,
Sankara 2 : “Things seen in the waking state are not true:
this is the proposition (pratijiid)', because they are seen: this
is the reason Qietuy, just like things seen in a dream: this is
the instance (drstdnta)] as things seen in dream are not true,
so the property of being seen belongs in like manner (to things
seen) in the waking state: this is the application of the reason
{hetilpanaya)-, therefore things seen in the waking state are
also untrue: this is the conclusion (nigamana). Things seen
in a dream differ fi-om those seen in waking in that the
former are reduced in size because they are within (the body
of the dreamer). But there is no difference in so far as both
kre ‘seen’ and are ‘untrue’.” — And in II 31 all unreal things
are mentioned together: “As dreams or magic or fata morgana
are regarded (as unreal by ordinary men), so this whole w orld
is regarded by those versed in the Yedantas”.

The argument thus expounded by Gauilapada forms the
basis of his doctrine of Mayavada, and it is, as we know', the
same argument which the Buddhists employed to establish the

1 I fully concur with Mr. Barnet in his review of Max WaUeser, Zur
Geschichte und Kritik des alteren Vedanta (Heidelberg 1910) in JEAS
1910 that Gaudapada is the name of the author and that it has not
wrongly been abstracted from the title Gaudapadiya Karikah. Whether the
author be the same as, or diflerent from the Gaudapada the oldest com-
mentator on the Sankhya Karikas, in both cases there can be no doubt
that Gaudapada was an actual name.

’ I am inclined to think that this Sankara is not the same as the
author of the Sariraka Bhasya. The latter would hardly have stated
the^ argument in the form and the terms of an anumdna according to
Vyaya principles.

Vol. xxxiii.]

On Mayavada.

Sunyavada. As that argument is strenuously confuted by
Badarayana, it is evident that he cannot have held the same
opinion in this matter as Gaudapada, or, in other words, the
Brahma Sutras do not teach the Mayavada. This is one point
which I wish to make.

The next question we must try to solve is whether
Gaudapada is acquainted with the Sunyavada or the
Vijnanavada. The answer is fuimished by karikas IV 24 ff.
For in karika 24 a Realist contends that ideas (prajnapti)
and feelings would not arise if not caused by external
things. The opponent, in karikas 26 — 27, shows the un-
reasonableness of assuming objects existing beside and inde-
pendent of ideas [prajfiapti, citta). This refutation is, as the
commentator tells us, “the argument of the Buddhists of the
Vijnanavadin school, who combat the opinion of the realists
{hahycirthavadin), and the Acarya agrees with him thus far’’.
That the statement of the commentator is right, is evident
from the nature of the argument itself, and becomes still
more so from the next verse (28). which furnishes the final
decision of the Yedantin; “Therefore the idea (citta) does not
originate, nor does the object of the idea originate; those who
pretend to recognise the originating of ideas, may as well
recognise the trace (of birds) in the air'’. For here the fun-
damental doctrine of the Vijnanavadins, which admits only a
continuous fiow of momentary ideas, is clearly referred to and
confuted. Since the Brahma Sutras and the ancient Yytti
refer to the ^unyavada only, as I hope to have established
in my former article, the Gaudapadiya Karikas which allude
to the latest phase of Buddhist philosophy must be consider-
ably younger than the Brahma Sutras. This has always been
the opinion of the Pandits. It has, however, lately been con-
troverted by Dr. lYalleseri on the ground that the Gauda-
padiya Karikas only are quoted in ancient Buddhist books
as an authority on Yedanta philosophy. Even in case this
assertion should be confirmed by the progress of research, the
alleged fact would not necessarily upset the above result.
’For the enigmatical character of the sutras of Badarayana
make them unfit for quotations, at least of an outsider, to
illustrate a point of Yedanta philosophy. And besides the

* 1. c. p. 23.

Hermann Jacobi, On Mayavada.

[191

Buddhists may have ignored the old Vedanta of Badarayana
as the Jainas did so late as the ninth century A. D. hut
they could not well have ignored the Gaudapadi, since that
work taught a philosophy which resembled their own in many
regards.

Our inquiry has established 1. the near relation, amounting
almost to identity, between the epistemology of the Sunya-
vadins or Vijnanavadins on one side and of Gaudapada’s
Mayavada on the other; 2. the opposition of the latter to
Badarayana on this head; and 3. the posteriority of Gauda-
pada to Badarayana. Now these facts admit, in my opinion,
of a natural and probable construction, viz. that Gaudapada
adapted the lUusionism of the Buddhists to the teachings of
the Upanisads. This view is supported by the many coin-
cidences between the Gaudapadlya Karikas and the Madhya-
mika sutras to which Professor L. de la VaUee Poussin has
lately di'awn attention.’ The theory, that the Mayavada is
a Vedantic adaptation of the Sunyavada, has been first put
forward by Y. A. Sukhtankar^; I may add that I perfectly
agree with him.

The probable history of the MaySvada may be briefly
described; originally the doctrine of some school of Aupani-
sadas, it became an orthodox philosophy, when it had success-
fully been made the basis of interpretation , of the Brahma
sutras, already by earlier writers and finally by the great
Sankara. For the two Mimamsas are the preeminently ortho-
dox systems; but we should never lose sight of the fact that
they are originally and primarily systems of the Exegesis of
the Eevelation, the Purva Mimamsa of the Revelation as far
as it is concerned with sacrifice {karmakdnda), and the Ettara
Mimamsa with regard to Brahma. These two schools of
orthodox theologians developed philosophical doctrines of their
own, but these are found in the Bhasyas and are scarcely
alluded to in the sutras themselves.

1 Haribhadra, Saddarsanasamuccaya v. 3; Siddbarsi, TJpamitibhavapra-
panca Kaths p. 661 ff.; see above vol. 31, p. 6 note 3.
s JRAS 1910 p. 128 if.

’ AVZKM vol. 22, p. 136 ff. see also above vol. 31, p. 8, note 1.

Sanskrit Kabdiras or Kuhdiras and Greek Kabeiros} —
By E. W. Hopkins, Professor in Tale University.

Tlie phonetic equivalence of the Greek and earlier Sanskrit
forms is patent and has already been noted by Professor
Wackernagel (KZ. 41, p. 314 ff.), who explains the labialization
in the later Sanskrit form as due to the proximity of the labial
consonant. The difficulty in the identification has lain in the
apparently incongruous character of the two spirits.

In preparing a manual of Hindu mythology I have recently
been impressed with the fact that the incongruity is more
apparent than real. The variant Ko-beiros, which Hesychius
identifies with the kobalt or gobelinus ordinarily called Kobalos
was originally one with the form Ka-beiros. That is to say,
the house-spirit full of tricks was at first not differentiated
from the gnome of the mountain-caves, kyhela. The chthonic
mountain-mother abstracted from the caves is Kybele (Kybele).
I shall give no analysis of the character of the Greek spirit.
The tricky troll of the Athenian home, the mysterious gnome
of the mountain caves, with his phallic characteristics, his
affinity with the worker in iron and fire, the hoarder of treas-
ure connected with the god of luck, finally the mystery and
revelling of the Kabeiros — these need only to be mentioned to
be recalled. But as for Kabairas or Kuberas, who would
think of him as capable of being interpreted in the same way,
I venture to add even described with the same words?

The fact is, however, that Sanskrit scholars are obliged to
depend in large part for their understanding of Hindu gods
upon statements made in comparatively late literature, and
when these statements are united in the current mythological
handbooks with other data drawn at random from Vedic and

1 This paper was read at the Meeting of the Oriental Congress — Athens.
April, 1912.

E. W. Hopkins,

[ 1913 .

epic literature, the result is such a hodge-podge of truth and
error that the god depicted represents neither the Vedic, epic,
nor Puranic conception, but a fearful mixture of notions drawn
from different millenniums. Thus the latest and least author-
itative native authors furnish the data which give the outline
of Kuhera as pictured in the standard mythology. He is a
god having several wives, none of whom is known to any
ancient wu-iter; he possesses only eight teeth and has three
legs, characteristics opposed to his earlier conception, though
perhaps in part retained from traits not formally acknow-
ledged, 1 he has several sons, only one of whom is really known
as such; he “receives no worship’', whereas he is worshipped
in earlier literature; and finally, most of his chai-acteristic
traits are ignored altogether. A closer study of the Kuhera
(Kabairas) of early literature will show that this “god” wins
his high title late in life and that he is no had representative
on Hindu soil of the Greek Kabeiros-Kobeiros (Kobalos).

In regard to the form of the name, it appears as Kuhera
for earlier (*Kahera) Kaberaka (the ending -ka is secondary
and is found also in the epic Kuberaka), in which e = ai.
Kative authorities enlist the form with other words in -era,
guhera, godhera, kathera, kutera, gadera, gudtra, etc., a for-
mation which begins early and till late remains active enough
to produce fresh combinations of the same sort, such as
srdman^a and Samgamanera, the Buddhistic tinge of which,
together with the marked linguality of the earlier group, may
suggest that forms in -era were felt to he vulgar rather than
acceptable Sanskrit. Professor "Wackernagel also explains the
form in ii as a '■•mundartliche oder pleheische Form” (Joe. cit
p. 316). Yet the -era words stand in close connection with
-mi forms, and these again (maderu, sanerii, etc.) are merely
variants of older or perhaps more elegant forms in -ara, -aru,
and -ru (cf. patera = patara = patarii; also satera = satru).
Other variations also occur, miihera = muhira, etc. Some of
these are not found in the extant literature, hut there is no
reason for supposing, for example, that a native scholar made
out of whole cloth such words as gadera, “cloud” or dah.iera,
“harmful”. It is with these forms that the word Kubera is

1 The three-legged Kubera is doubtless a phallic conception parallel
to the Tpi. AV. 12. 1. 29. 5J cf. K. S. 25. 2. 11. 53 aV. 12. 1. 19. si Mit

tisrbhir bricht C ab. Die Liicke reicht bis zu den Worten: tvaya (’gne
prstham) des Citats MS. 2. 13. 22c. ss Vgl. K. S. 25. 2. 5—11,

wo zugleich des Zerbrechens der sruc gedacht wird; s. auch unten 1. 5.
Vgl. Ait. Brahm. 7. 5. se Kaus. 6. 1; Vait. 16. 17. s" Comm,

zu Ait. Brabm. erklart: tad etad bhasmana usnatviid dhutam api bha-
vati I agni-rahitjad ahutam api bhavati | ss Jfach K. S. 25. 5. 10 soli
man alles, was durch Haare, Wurmer, Kot, Beriihrung von Dnreinem,
Beschnuppern u. s. w. besudelt ist, inWasser oder heibe Asche werfen;
cf. unten 2. 6; 3. 7 ; 4. 1 ; 4. 3. 59 BO tatra 6“ of. Ait. Brahm. 7. 5.

6' A sinayam 62 g, 05. 4. 19. 6^ cf. unten Text und Parallelen

von 5.2; femer Anm. 143; — Nach K. S. 25. 4. 17 f. soil man im all-
gemeinen bei storendem Eindringen zwischen zwei Feuern u. s. w. von
einer Siihne absehen, wenn es sich um das Agnihotra-Opfer handelt; da-
gegen wird, wenn ein Hund, ein Wildschaf und ein Wildschwein (so
geg. Comm.) in den geweihten Raum eindringt, ein Wasserstrahl vor-
geschrieben, der vom Garhapatya- zum Ahavaniya-Feuer fiihrt; cf. unten
Anm. 143. Vgl. Asv. Pray. 13 bf.; nirupte havisi samista-yajusah pur-
vam manusyadir yadi viharam atikramet | tada yena patha vyavayo jatas
tena patha gau[r] netavya ] tato garhapatyad ahavanlya-paryamtain bha-
smalekham udaka-dharam ca samtanuyat ] tantum tanvann (RV. 10. 53. 6)
iti mamtrena pratyekam mamtravrttih |1 tata ahavanlyam anugamayitva

punah pranlya yad agne purvam vajavatya (Asv. 3. 10. 16) tvam agne

sapratha asi ’ti (Asv. 3. 10. 16) co ’patistheta | tatas tad eva tamtram upajivya

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvajprayascittdni 1. 3.

mantravanti ca karyani sarvany adhyayanam ca yat |
na’ntaragatnanam tesam sadhu vichedanad bhayam |
iti garhapatyad adhy aliavanlya udatantum 6^ nisincan®^
iyat®® II tantum tanvan rajaso bhanum anv ihi®" jyotismatab
patho raksa dbiya krtan || anulbanam vayata joguvam apo jj
manur bhava janaya daivyam janam 0 tamnvams tantur upa se-
dur agne tvam®® patha rajasi devayanah®9| tvaya ’gne pritham"®

surpadanadi-pathikrtih karya || samista-yajusa urdhvam cet tadaiva gava-
’tikraina-’'dy-upasthanamtam krtva karma samapya tesv eva ’gnisv anvadha-
Da-”di-pathikrtl karya j| aguina vyavaye tu pathikrty eva || astakapalah
vettha hi vedho .... sukrato (Asv. 3. 10. 12) || a devanam api kalpayatl ’ti
(ibid.) anadvan daksina || tato visnu-smaranam |l karma-madhyad anyatra
-purusadina vyavaye manasvatya caturgrhita-homah || baudhayana-mate[h]
karma-madhye dvipadanam catuspadanam marjara-”dinam agnimadhye
gamane rtvig-agnimadhye gamane va ’dbvaryur nimitta-’namtaram aisti-
kajya-siddhau ajyam samskrtya sruk-sruvam sanimrjya tat-siddhau tenaiva
'■jyabhagady-anaintaram yathasambhavam juhvam sakrd grbitva “havanlye
juhoti II yan ma atmano (Ap. 9. 12. 11) °ni svaba I agnaya i° || punar agnis
caksur adst (ibid.) “ksyoh svSha |1 agDim i” || bhuh svaba |1 agnaya i" || bhuva
svaba || yam ava i" || suvah svaba || suryaye ’dam 1| bbur bhuvab suvah sva-
ha II prajapataya i” || om svaba || brabmane i° |1 imam me varuna (RV. 1.
25. 19; Asv'. 2. 17. 15) tat[t]va vami (Asv. 7. 4. 3) tvan no agne (RV. 4.
1. 4) iti tisrah || tamtura tanvan . . . janam (RV. 10. 53. 6) svaba || agnaye
tantumata i° || udbudhyasva ’gne . . . tanitum etam (V. S. 18. 61 ) svaba ||
agnaye tamtumata istih trayastrirnsat tamtavo dadhami (.\sv. 3. 14. 10)
svaba gbarmo devara apyetu svaba || agnaye tantumata istih || anv agnir
usasam . . . atatana (T. S. 4. 1. 2. 3) svaba || agna[ye] jatavedasa idam namas |
mano jyo° || bbur agnaye ca prthivyai ca mabate ca svaba | agnay^e prthi-
vyai mabate i° | bhuvo vayave ca ’ntariksaya ca mabate ca svaba || vayave
’mtariksaya mabate istih || suvar adityaya ca dive ca mabate svaba || adi-
tyaya dive mahata i” || bbur bhuvab suvas camdramase ca naksatrebhyas
ca digbhyas ca svaba || camdramase naksatrebhyo digbbyo mabate i“ || sapta
te agne samidbab ghrtena (V. S. 17. 79) svaba || agnaye vata i" || praja-
pate °rayinam svaba || prajapataya i° || tato visnusmaranam ]| antaragama-
nadikani cin nimittany apanyupasy aha bhagavan baudbayanah || minida-
hutl ca hotavye vyahrtyab pranavadhikah |1 varunyas tamtumatyas ca
’nvagnis ca manasvatl j| mahavyabrtayah sapta prajapatyam tathaiva ca |1
prasamdhanaya yajnasyai ’te mamtrah prakirttitab || sapte ’ti sapta te agne
iti mamtroktih || ayam mimdadi-ganab ||

Neben dem Wasserstrabl ist Asche moglicb: s. unten Anm. 143 und
vgl. Asv. Pray. 2 b: garhapatyad ahavaniya-paryantam bhasma-lekham
udaka-dharam ca samtanuyat | AB nisimcamn D nisincimt so Der
Sloka hat zweifellos als Interpolation einen Mantra verdrangt; cf. Ap.
9. 8. 5; Asv. 3. 10. 15. 6’ RV. 10. 53. 6; cf. K. 25. 4. 19. es M. S.

2.13. 22; Ap. 9. 8. 6. A ebenso, jedoch corrumpiert und . . . “jati

devayanah; dieser Passus fehlt bei BC. D prsthe

76 J.v. Negelein, [1913,

vayam aruhemadha devaih sadhamadam niadema 1| svahe ’ti

sarvatrai 'tat prayascittam antaragamane smrtani *>6 |
yajnasya saqatatir asi yajnasya tva saiptatya samtanomi |
vasunam rudranam adityanam marutam rsinam bhrgunain
amgirasam atharvanam brahmanah samtatir asi brahmanas
tva samtatya samtanomi 1 1 1 yan me chidram manaso yac ca va-
cah sarasvatl manyumantam jagama visvais tad devaili saha
samvidanah samdadbatu brhaspatih U 3 |i ma na apo medhaip
ma brahma pramathistana | su^yada yuyam syandadlivam upa-
huto “ham sumedha varcasvl | ma no medham ma no diksam
ma no himsistam yat tapah siva nab samsvamta ayuse siva bha-
vantu matarah'- 1 namas te patbya revati'^ svasti ma para-
yanah’^ | svasti ma punarayanab | ma na apo medbam's |
punar maitv indriyam’' iti ca ,4 atba yasya "bavanlyo''^ ’gnir's
jagryad garhapatya upasamyet ka tatra prayascittir "9 | yat

Nach Bl.s Cone, nicht zu belegen. 72 Soweit AV. 19. 40. 1 fl'. Das
Folgende ist korrupt. Vielleicht ist an EV. 5. 51. 14 b gedacht.

71 B paranayah 75 x svastimapunaranayah; gemeint ist vielleicht svasti
ma samparaya s.Conc. — B svasti ma punaranayah. Die Mss. lassen ma weg.
76 AV. 19. 40. 2 ; D wiederholt; ma no medham (B vedham) "7 AV^. 7. 67. 1.
73 cf. in dem paiallelen Passus des Ait. BrShm. 7. 4: “nlye ha ’gnir 79 K.
25. 3. 5; Agn. PrSy. 11 a: ahavanlye ced dhriyamane garhapatyo ’nugachet
svebhya eva (pra[?]va) ksamebhyo mamtheyur anugamaye tv itaram ksamS-
bhave bhasmana ’rani samsprsya mamthayet | vidyamana ahavanlye garha-
patyo yady anugacchot tada (!) anugatam garhapatyam utpadayisyami ‘ti
samkalpya bhasmana ‘rani lepayitva tato mamthayet 1 ito jajne pratha-
mam .... prajanann (VS. 13. 34) iti pratiprayatnam mamtravrttih | ; vgl.
Asv. Pray. 5b: ahavanlye dhriyamane garhapatyo ‘nugacchet tada tadiyo-
‘Imukebhyo mamthayeyuh | abavanlyam anugamayet ]j ulmu[ka]-’bhave

bhasmana ‘lanl samsprsya (!) ito jajiie prathamam prajanann (Asv. S.

3. 12. 22) iti mamthayeyuh | na ‘nyatra mamtrah j tato garhapatyad ahava-

niyam praniya agne samrad ise dadba (Asv. S. 3. 12. 23) ity upati-

stheta II tatah prakrtam karma samapya tapasvatistim kuryat | athava ”ha-
vaniyad eva(!) ahavanlyam praniya daksinagnes ca ’’haranam krtva prakr-
tam tapasvat[l]stih Ij athava sahabhasmanam ahavanlyam daksinato viha-
ram gatva garhapatya-”yatane nidhaya tatah pramcam ahavanlyam nddha-
ret || homam samapya tapasvatlstih | tasyam pradhana-devata agnis tapas-
van janadvan yavakavan ] ayahi tapasa janesv agne .... dadat (Asv. 3.
12. 27) I cf. Asv. Pray. 10 a : ahavanlye dhriyamane anvahita-garhapatya-
naae daksinena viharam sarvam ahavanlyam garhapatyayatane i!) aniva aha-
vaniyam praniya purvavat prayascittam hutva garhapatyasya pascad upa-
visya mamagne varca'RV. 10. 128. 1) ity adina triiii kasthany adhaya vyahr-
tyupasthSnam krtva ’’havanlye ‘nvadhano -’pasthane kuryat | cf. Agn.
Pray. 12 a: yadi garhapatyo ‘nugacched an vahitam garhapatyam anugatam
utpadayisyami ‘ti samkalpya garhapatya-’nugata-bhasmana pradhana-’rani

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittani 1. 5.

prancam udvartayati tena ”yataiia[c] cyavate'9 yat pratya-
ncam asuravad yajnam tanoti | yad anugamayatl ”svara vai
’nam tat prapaso hasyurso itis^ vasi | ’tha nu katham82 iti ]
sabhasmakam ahavaniyam ssdaksinenaS* daksinagnim parihrtya
garhapatyasya ”yatane pratisthapya tata ahavaniyam 8 « pra-
nayed 85 | bhadrad abhi sreyah prehis® ’ty etayarca garha-
patya87 ajyaniST vilayo ’tpuya caturgrhitam grbitva "havanlya-
garhapatyav antarena vyavetya juhuyad | ayam no agnir
adhyaksa iti dvabhyamss etena u va asya samtvaramanasya
”havanlya-garbapatyau janita vayam ma loko ’nusamtanutam
ity I etena ha va asya samtvaramanasya ’’havaniyagarhapa-
tyau89 papmanam apahatah | so 'pahatapapma jyotir bhutva
devan 90 apy etiOi 'ti | atha ’’havaniya ajyahutim juhu-
yad asapatnam purastad 92 ity etayarca | ’tha yasya ’gni-
hotram srapyamanam visyandet 93 tad adhhir upaninayet93 |
tad anumantrayate | prthivim turiyam®® ity etabhih | prthivim
turlyam95 manusyan®® yajno ’gat | tato ma dravinam asta®? |
amtarikse turlyain®® | divi turlyam®® | (apsu®® turiyam |
apsv 9® ity 9® aha®® bhutani tani | devan yajno ’gat ‘oo | tato
ma dravinam astaici|) trataram indram | yayor ojase | ’ti**®
cai ”ta vispu-varuna-devatya rco japati'os | yad vai yajnasya
viristam tad vaispavam | yad guspitam‘04 tad varapam^®' |
yajnasya va ‘0® rddhir*®® | bhuyistbam pddhim apnoti yatrai ’ta
vispu-varupa-devatya rco japaty**" | atha ’dbhutei?v eta eva

sainsprsya mathitva ’’yatane iijdha[ya] bbur iti upasthanadi vrato-’pasa-
nlya-yajur-japamtani samanam [

"9 A cyavamte vielleicht prana jahyur gemeint; Opt. des s-Aorist.
S' D iti dve sj b va ’tha m ss j) -ya 8» B ]a|jt (Jiese und die
inzwischenliegenden Worte aus. 8= cf. Gop. Brahm. 1. 3. 13. 8® AV.

7. 8. 1. 87 ABCD lesen: garhapatya-”jyain 88 Kaus. S. 89. 13. Hier lesen

ABCD: AD etena ha va asya samtvaramanasya *havaiilyagarhapatyau

B ebenso, nur samtvaramanasya" C etena vahava — caramanasya ”

89 Hier schieben BC von neuem ein; B janita (C: janisa) vayam ma loko
nusamtanutam ity etena ha va asya samtvaramanasya ”havaniyagarhapatyau
(C: °tyo) 90 BCD devanam 9i ACD etv B emtv 92 19. 16. 1.

93 cf. Ait. Brahm. 7. 5. 2: yasya ’gnihotram adhisrtam skandati va visya-
ndate va . . .; cf. unten Anm. zu 4.3. 94 ygl. oben Anm. 55.

99 cf. Cone, "vim trti° 96 BD devan 97 ACD aristam

B aristamm 98 Bah hier eine Interpolation beginnt, ist logisch

selbstverstandlich, textkritisch aber interessant; dieselbe fehlt bei D.
99 A asvinyaha B asvityaha '99 AC amgat B gat 'O' ABC Sristam
102 AV. 7. 25. 1. 103 BCD statt dessen : yatrai ’ta visnu(r)varana-

devatya rco japanti 'oi A dusitam C nsitam 'os C varunam

'9* B vatya rddhi '97 BD japarnty

J. V. Negdein,

[1913.

tisro japet | tisro japet |5i iti'®* yajnaprayascittasutre

jprathamo 'dhyayah samdptah |

atha yasya purodase ’medhyam apadyeta ka tatra praya-
scittir I ajyena ’bhigharya ’psv antario® iti sakrd eva ’psu
hutva ’tha "havanlya ajya-”hTitl juhuyad asapatnam pura-
stadii® ity etabhyam rgbhyam | atha yasya purodasah ksamo
bhavati ka tatra prayascittih | so ’gnaye ksamavate ’stakapa-
lam purodasam nirvapen m | nityah purastaddbomah | samsthi-
tahomesu pytanajitam sabamanam iti madbyata opya tatba
samsravabbagaib samsthapayed | atba ’’bavaniye tabbyam
rgbbyam | atha yasya ’gnihotram trtlye nityaboma-kale ‘i® vi-
cbidyeta ka tatra prayaicittib | so ’gnaye tantumate ’staka-
palam purodasam nirvapen | nityab purastaddbomah | sam-
stbitabomesu tvam ague sapratha asi justo bota varenyab j
tvaya yajnam vitanvata''* iti madbyata opya samsravabbagaib
samsthapayed j asapatnam purastad i » ity etabhyam rg-
bhyam | atha yasya' saipnayyam"' vyapadyeta ka tatra pra-
yascittib I pratardoham "8 dvaidham krtva tena yajeta |
’tha abavanlya ajya-”butim juhuyat trataram indram ' 20 ity
etayarca j pratardobatn ced apabareyuli sayamdoham dvai-
dbani kftva tena yajeta | ’tha "havanlya ajya-"butim juhuyat
trataram imdram '-® ity etayarca | ’tha cet sarvam eva sa-
nnayyam'2i vyapadyeta ka tatra prayascittir | aindrain puro-
dasain mabendram va sannayyasya ' "yatane pratistbapya
tena yajeta | ’tha "havanlya ajya-’hutim juhuyat trataram
indram '2® ity etayarca | ’tha yasya havimsi vyapadyeran ka
tatra prayascittir \ ajyasyai ’tani nirupya'^* tena yajeta j ’tha
"bavaniya ajya-"hutim juhuyat trataram indram '^o ity etaya

103 B ity atharvavede vaitanasutre prayascitta-prasamge navamo ’dhya-
yahl 109AV. 1. 4. 4. I'o AV. 19. 16. 1. m of. Brahm. Pray. 67a:
yad agnaye ksamavate ’sKkapalain nirvapet yai ’va ’sya ksamapriya
tanus ta(ini eva ’sya bhagadheyena samayati ; s. auch K. 8. 25. 8. 18 fif.
Ill AV. 7. 63. 1. 1'* A homakale >'* Brahm. Pray. 69 a: yasyS

’jasram vicbidyeta ’mtaritan homant?) hutva ’gnaye tantumate ’stakapalam
nirvapet "s RV. 6. 13. 4. no cf. Ait. Brahm. 7. 4. 1. m B
sSnrajyam CD sannajyam ”8 Nach Analogic des Folgenden mutten
wir vor pratar° erganzen : sayamdohain ced apahareynh ; vgl. unten 4. 1 ;
8. auch Ait. Brahm.7. 4. *'9 Brahm. Pray. 21 b: [sannayyam] kesakitadina

yadi vikriyeta tatra kim praya^ittam iti ; pratardoham dvaidham dohayitva
(mlatamcya pracareta ; cf. unten 4. 1. '*o AV. 7. 86. 1. >21 B sannam-

jyam CD sS'nnajyam B sannajyamsya’ C sainnajyamsya° D sana-

jyamyasya *23 R °havanlyay3 *24 ACD nirupya B tirupya

Vol. xxxiii.]

Afharvaprayascittani 2. 2.

rca I ’tha cet sarvany eva havimsi vyapadyeran ka tatra
prayascittir | ajyasyai ’tani nirupyai ’taya "jyahavise-’stya
yajerann | ity api hi klrtita[m] | inadhya[s] tv eva 1^5 bhavanti |
tair yajeta | ’tha "havaniya ajyahutim juhuyat trataram in-
drain' 2 o ity etayarca | 1 || atha dpsta- ’bhyuddrstani ’tyi27

Scaksate | ”dya sayam amavasya 12 s bhavisyatl ’ti 1 na pratibara-
naya cai29 sa syad | atha sa yo ’nyo bruyad adarsam ca
’dya purastad iti tarn tu kim iti bruyad | atha va | sa syad
eva ’dhas | tarn eva prayascittim krtva yajete ’ti dvaipayanah |
krtasya‘2i vai prayascittir bhavatl ’ti langalih [ samapyai ’va 122
tena havisa yad-daivatam tad ‘23 dhavi[y 1^3 syadi^s] atha
’nyad dhavir nirvaped agnaye datre purodasam indraya pra-
datre purodasam visnave sipivistaya pui’odasam | athai ’taai24
yatbaniruptams 124 tredha kuryad yatha brahmano-’ktamiss |
nityah purastad dhomah | samsthitahomesv *26 agnim vayam tra-
taram havamahe 12 " ya imam trayatam asmad yaksmad asmad'^s

'25 A aiva '26 cf. Kaus. BrShm. 4. 2. Asv. Pray. 14 b : havisam skannam
abhimrset I devamjane ’ty |! (gemeint ist etwa Asv. 3. 13.16; Ap.9. 13. 5) ava-
sijtena pracaret | sesa-’bbave punar mamtravan nirva[pa]di kuryat |1 ajya-
bhaga-’namtaram sarvaprayascittam visnusmaranam ca kuryat i| pakat
purvam bavisam kesa-“dy-upahatau (cf. unter 2. 6) praksalanena proksa-

nena va suddbih || yada havir apakvam bhavati .... vidagdhe [bavisi]

.... sarvadahe tasmin prayoge surpadanadi bavir utpadya sarva-praya-
scittam krtva visiium smrtva tena yajeta |1 yad va ’dhvaryur vidagdham
jale prasya “jyabhaga-’namtaram sruvena juhuyad ahavaniya || van ma
(bhrjatmano (Ap.9. 12. 11) puuar agnis caksu" (ibid.) iti dvabbyam || tatab
sarvaprayascittam visnusmaranam ca krtva "jyena pracaret || dravye “dhvar-
yur ajya-bhaga-’namtaram sruvena juhuyat || vayave svaha (cf. Ap. 9. 10. 5)
vayava idam || tatas tena yajeta || cf. Asv. Pray. 17 b: pradbana-bavisam
vyapattav api punar-yaga-’saktau ajyabhaga-’namtaram adhvaryur juhvam
sakrd grhitva juhoti || van ma atmanah (Ap. 9. 12. 11) punar agnib
(ibid.) II mano jyotib (Ap. 9. 8. 1) || tato visnum smrtva dhruvajyat pra-
caret II yad aha bhagavan baudbayanah || ajyena va pracaret j| sai “va tatra
prayascittir api khalu ksipra-samskaratam (1. : "re tad?) ajyam ku[r]vata
iti mimdahuti hutva manasvatiTn juhoti || sai ’va tatab prayascittir iti
vijnayata iti || tad etad yadakad:4pi || baudhayanena ’’vahanadi-purvakalady-
anukter iti || 127 A drstabhyustanlty° B drstabhyustanity° C drstabhyu-

drstanlty"; cf. K. 25. 4. 37 ff. *22 A avasya '2® D va '2“ va
feblt bei B; D ka '2' C ksatasva D krtasyai '22 A samatbaiva
B samapyeva 123 D yad dhavisyad '24 BC atbatiruptams

D athaniruptas >25 Deutet auf Gop. Brabm. 2. 1. 9. '26 ^ sa-

samstbitabomesv BCD samstbitabomesu '2' A huvamabe issB

asmadama punah D '’smadamayutah s. Paipp. 2. 50. 1.

J. V. JVegelein,

[1913.

amayata[h] || trataram indram i39 1 uru visno vikramasve ’ti

madhyata opyai'*' sainsravabhagaih samsthapayet | pathikrti‘<2

’ty acaksatei-** paurnamasy-amavasye ’ti ca ’tipanne | 2 ;|

AV. 7. 86. ]. '<0 AV. 7. 26. 3. m A utha? BC upya?

142 D yathapakrti”; cf. Aav. Pray. 8 b: atha ’mavasya-bhramena catur-
dasyam sannayye parigrhlte candrodaye na jate ’kale prakrtlsti-devata-
sthane agnir data imdrah pradata visnuh sipivista iti devata yastevyah |
tatra nirvapat purvam akale pravrttam iti jnane uktadevatabhyo vrihin
nirupya samksala(ha)na(?)-ninayanaintam krtva tandulams tredha vibbajya
(cf. u. 5. 3) anun sthulan sthulataran krtva sthOlanam agnaye datre justam
adhivapami tati (hati? dati?) adhivapady astasu kapalesu adhisrayati | stbu-
lataran tamdulan indray a datre iti budhya caru-dbarmena sayamdohe
adhisrayati anun tandulan caru-dbarmena visnave sipivistaya pratardohe
’dbisrayati | sesam a[nia]va8ya-tantram || tasam yajyanuvakyah j| agne da

sunumatah (RV. 3. 24. 5) sa yamta maghain (RV. 3. 13. 3) ity agner

datuh |i dirgbas te astu .... sunvate (RV. 8. 17. 10) bhadra te hasta . . .
u (RV. 4. 21. 9); iti imdrasya pradatub | vasat te visnuv (8. 1. 8. 8 vgl.

RV. 7. 99. 7); pra tat te adya (RV. 7. 100. 5); iti visnob sipivistasya || nir-
vapad urdlivam akala-jnane tan eva tandulams tredha vibbajya purvavad
istim kuryat | na ’tra punaryagab | purodasa-srapananamtaram pratardohe
dugdhe jate purodasam ajye viniksipet || dugdbam api yatha na naiyati
agni-samsargena tatha raksauiyam | vratacSri sayam-doham dugdhva svo
bhute darsayagah kSryah |] yage krte akalajnane prayascittam punaryagas
ce ’ty eke | asomayagino ’pij!) akalajnSne sarva-prayasoittam punaryagas
cety eke] 1*2 Agn. Pray. 3 a: | yady amavasyaTU paurnamasim va

’tiyad yadi va ’nyasya ’gnisu yajeta yadi va ’sya ’nyo ’gnisu yajeta (cf. unten
5. 5) yadi va 'sya ’nyo gnir agnlu .vyaveyad (d. b. wenn ein weltliches
Feuer die sakralen stdrt; s. unten 2. 7; 5. 4) yadi va "sya ‘gnihotre upa-
sanne bavisi va nirupte cakrivac chva puruso va vibaram antariyad (cf. oben
1. 3) yadi va ’dhve(!) pramiyete ’stib (vgl. unten 2. 8). — Comm. : yady ama-
vasyam paurnamasim va svakale ’krtva ’Uyat(!) yady agnibotradravye
kusesu ’pasadite yadi darsapurnamasadisu bavisi nirupte cakrivad ratha-
fekatadih sva agnib puruso va manusyajatih sarva (Text: sarve) agninam
madhyena ’tikramet j yadi va yajamano ’dbvani gramamtare mriyetai ’tesv
anyatara-nimittesu nimitta-’namtaram j agnib patbikrd vettha hi vedho
adhvana a devanam api pamtham aganme ’ti (RV. 6. 16. 3; 10.2.3) ] anadvam
daksina I vyavaye tv anagnina prag ister gamimtarena (1.: gam amtarena)
’tikramaj'ed bhasmana sunah padam prativaped idam visnur vicakrama iti
(RV. 1.22. 17 vgl. unten 5.2) garhapatya-’’havaniyayor amtaram bhasmarajyo
[s.oben Anm.64] ’daka-rajya ca samtanuyat tamtu[m] tanvanrajaso bbanum
anvihi ’ty anugamayitva ca ’’havanlyam punah praniyo "patistheta] tatra
prayogab | nimitta-’nanitaram gava-”di-kramanam karyam | tatah tamtu[m]
tanvan .... janam | (cf. oben 1. 3) iti mamtrena garhapatyad ahavaniya-paryam-
tam bhasmarajy-udakarajibhyam samtanam krtva ’’havaniyam anugamayet |
Mit diesem Passus stimmen Asv. Pray. 2 a ff. fast vrortlich zusammen;
doch lesen sie: manusya-jatir va vibaram atikramet . . . yena patba vya-
vayo jatas tena paths gaur netavya | sva-vyavaye tu bhasmana sunah pa-

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittani 2. 3.

atha ’to ’bhyu[d]drstanl ’ty acaksate ] ’dya sayam amavasya
bhavisyati ’ti‘^6 na pratiharanaya ca^^s sa syad | atba sa
yo ’nyo bruyad adarsam ca ’dya pascad iti tam tu kim iti
bruyad | atba v5 sa syad eva ’dhas j tam eva prayascittiip
krtva yajete ’ti dvaipayanah j krtasya vai prayascittir bhavatl
’ti langalir | yena patha vaivasvatoi^® yamo raja no yayau
agnir nas tena nayatu '^o praja[na]n vaisvanarah pathikrd vi-
svagrstili I samapyai ’va tena havisa yad daivatam tad dba-
vih‘5i syad 151 | atba ’nyad dhavir nirvaped | agnaye pathi-
krte 152 purodasam indraya vrtraghne puroda^am vaisvana-
rami5s dvadasakapalam purodasam | nityah purastaddhomah |
samsthitahomesu 151 tvam ague sapratha asii55 | yena patha
Taivastatah.i56| sasa ittha mahan asii57 1 vaisvanaro na utayai5S
iti madhyata opya samsravabhagaih samsthapayen | mahapa-
thikrti ’ty acaksata | ubbayor api i59 pattayosi®® ( tad ahur na
te vidur ye tatha kurvamty [ atha nu katham iti | gSrhapa-
tyajyam vilayoisi ’tpuya caturgrhitam gybitva "havanlya-garha-
patyav antarena ’tivrajya juhuyad | asau ya udayat puro
vasano nllalohito ’tha drstam adpstam no duskptaiii tat 1 52
svahe ’ty | evam eva ’bhyu[d]dr?te | asau ya udayat pascad
vasano nllalohito [tya] i63 ’tha drstam adpstam no duskptain
karatiei svahe’ti | sa yai65 evam etenai^s tejasa ’’jyena i®’
ya^asa pripati so ’syai ’sai^s dpstah pranan yasasa*®®

dam idam visnur vicakrama ity rca purayet || pratipadam mamtravrttir ity
adhikam 1| tato garhapatyad ahavaniyaparyamtain bhasma-lekham udaka-
■dharam ca samtanuyat tantum tanvan ... anvihi jyotismata iti mamtrena||
pratyekam mamtravrttih || tata ahavanlyam anngamayitva ’gnihotra-madhye
(agnihotravad-isti-madhya) istivat puoah praiilya yad agne purvam . . .
vitanvata (Asv. 3. 10. 16) iti mantradvayeno ’patistheta || tato ’gnihotram
samSpya tesv eva ’gnisu pathikrti karya || m A catipattre B nvatipamte
C catipamte (kann heiBen: atipate oder atipattau; korrupt); cf. in 2. 3.

B tsayato '*6 D tay; cf. Kaus. Brahm. 4. 3. >*i C "haranadya

1*8 B tva? nva? i*® Bei C ist dieser pada verderbt. i50 A nayata
C nayat i^i BCD havisyad >52 K. S. 25. 4. 22-26 bestimmt die Falle,
in denen dem Agni pathikrt geopfert werden soil. i53 B vaisvanarini
0 'naram i3* Hier wiederholt B einen Passus des Textes, namlich 2. 3:

agnim vayam trataram havamahe bis samsthapayen [mahapathikrtity].

155 Jty, 5 _ 4 _ 156 Unermittelbar. '52 AV. 1. 20. 4. '58 AV.

6. 35. 1. 159 BC iti statt api; 1. : ati° '6o cf. oben 2. 2 letztes Wort.

J. : °pannayos. i6i ACD villyo’ i62 ACD tat B ta statt karat; Sinn und
Metrum waren herstellbar, wenn man lesen wiirde: duskrtam adrstam
karat '63 BC lassen tya aus. i6* C tat statt karat i85 ya fehlt
bei BC 188 B fiigt tena ein. '82 B tejasabdhrena '68 B laCt ’sa
.aus; D liest statt sosyaisa; saumyesa iss B yah esa
von. xxxin. Part i.

,82

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

prlnatijS 3 ij atha yo ’hutva»’o navam prasniyad agnau va ”gama-
yet ka tatra prayascittih j so ’gnaye vratapataye^’i ’stakapalam
purodasam nirvapen | nityah purastaddhomah | samsthitahomesv
agne prainahi prathamas tvam hi vettha yatha havih ‘‘2 j vanvan
havir yatha devehhyo^ yajamanam ca varddhaya 'gnis ca deva
savitas | tvam agne vratapa asi *'3 [ idavatsaraye madhyata
opya samsravahhagaih samsthapayed | yady anugatam agnim
^ahkamana mamtheyur mathite ’gnim adhigacheyur bhadrad
adhi 6reyah prehl”® ’ti vyahytibhis ca mathitam samaropya
’the ’tarasmin punas tva prana iti pahcabhir ajya-”hutlr
hutva yatho ’ktani prakyta vrttiri’^ | atha yasya ’’gnihotrl
gharmadugha duhyamana vaiyet”® ka tatra prayascittir | asana-
pipase evai ’sa yajamanasya samprakhyaya vasyatl ’ti^'^
taini 80 tpnam'si apyi82 adayet^s^ suyavasad bhagavatiiss =ty
etaya rca | ’tha ”havanlya ajya-’hutiris^ juhuyad dhata dadhatu
nah purna darvaiss iti dvabhyam pgbhyam | atha yasya ”gni-
hotri 186 gharmadugha (va 187^ duhyamana ’paviset 'ss ka tatra
prayascittir 189 | bhayain va esa yajamanasya prakhyayo ’pa-

170 so rekonstuiert nach Ap. 9. 12. 10: yadi homayo “pasamiddhesv ahu-
tesv agniau yajamano 'snlyat ... i7i K. 8. 25. 4. 27 ff. bestimmt die

Opfer fur Agni vratapati. 112 Vgl. sa hi veda yatha havih T. B.

2. 4. 8. 7. 173 ^v. 19. 69. 1. i7< AV. 6. 55. 3. B idavatsaroyeti C im-

dravarunayeti 175 AV. 7. 8. 1. no Es konnte etwa an T. S. 1. 3. 14. 4.
gedacht aein. >77 C vrttTn D pravrta vrtir i78 ABCD vasyet; cf.
hierzu Ap. 9. 5. 1; Aav. 3. 11. 4; Asv. Pray. 3 b; Ait. Brahm. 7. 3. Auch
bei der Schlachtung darf das Opfertier nicht briillen: K. 6. 25. 9. 12.
Im folg. ist pipase bei A u. C corr. i79 cf. Ait. Brahm. 6. 2. 7. 6.

180 A tain 181 BC nrnam 182 A atha dadhyet D atha "dayet Asv.
Pray. 3 b: trnam bhaksyam prakalpayet i83 AV. 7. 73. 11 ; K. S. 25. 1. 19.
184 A “huti B ‘hutir; der im AnschluC hieran so uberaus haufig er-
wahnte Fall, dab die Opferkuh blutige MUch (Blut statt Milch) gibt, fehlt
unserem Texte. i85 vgl. AY 7. 17. 2; 3. 10. 7; s. auch Paipp. 1. 106. 6.
186 Brahm. Pray. 35 b kundigen an: athe ’danim agnihotraprayascittany
abhidhiyamte tad-artham idam ucyate . . . agnihotram cet prag adhisra-

yana[t] skanded iti nisided upaviset tatra yasmad bhite ’ty anena

mamtrenabhimamtrya udastha[d] devlty uttbapyo ‘dapatram udhasi mukhe
CO ’pagrhniyat I ; cf. Ait. Brahm. 7.3. i87 va fehlt bei BCD. 188 cf.

Asv. Pray. 3 b, welches diesen Fall noch differenziert: atha yasya ’gniho-
tradhenur vatsa{mysargdd drabhya dohana-paryamtam upaviset | tada
yasmad bhisa .... milhuse ity abhimamtrayet J tatas tarn utthapayet [i
udasthad .... varuuaya ca | ity etad ubhayam yajamano homakarta va
kuryat | atha asya udhasi ca mukhe co ’dapatram upagrhya dugdhva brah-
manam payayet | tasya biahmanasya yavajjivam samvatsaram va ’nnam
na ’snlyat | iso cf. Asv. 3. 11. 1 ; Brahm. Pray. 40 b : ya agnihotrayo
’pasrstS nisided iti nigidanamamtrah; cf. Ait. Brahm. 7. 3.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprdyascittdni 2. 5.

visati 1 tasya udhasy udapatram ninayeci^® cham no devir
abhistaya iti dvabhyam | tain anumantrayate yasmad
bbita nisldasi^s^ tato no abhayam kpdhi pasun nab sarvan
gopaya namo rudraya mldbusais* ity | athai ’nam uttbapaya-
ty uttistba devy adite devan yajnena bodbaya j indraya krnva-
tl bbagam mitraya varunaya ce ’ty | uttbitam anumantrayate
udastbad devy adite devan yajnena bodbaya | ayus ca tasya
bbutim ca yajamanam ca is® yardbaye ’ty 1 atba "bavanlya
ajya-”butlr jiibuyan ma no vidan^*® ity etair abbayai rau-
drai^ ca || 4 |1 atba yasya vapam abutim va grhltam syenab
^akunib sva va ’nyo va "bared vato va vivamet*®® ka tatra
prayascittir | divam prthivlmis® ity abbimantrya ’tba "’bava-
nlya ajya-"butir jubuyad vata avatu bhesajam 200 iti suktena |
"tha yasya somagraho grbito ’tisravet ka tatra prayascittir |
drapsas caskande^oi ’ty abbimantrya ’tba ’’bavanlya ajya-
’’butlr jubuyan manase cetase dhiya 202 iti suktena | ’tba yasya
’stapadi vasa syat ka tatra prayascittir 2«3 1 darbbepa biranyam
baddhva ’dby-adbi garbbam biranyagarbbena jubuyad | yatba
’mum sa garbbam abhyascotayad yatba ’muip garbbain sadar-
bbam204 iva sahiranyam tarn uddbytya praksalya20o ’nupadam
Srapayitva praksirasam udakpadyam kamasuktena 20 ® juhu-

yad aDamgandbi207 ’ti ve ’ty2«8 astabbir nabbasvatibhir 209

biranyagarbbena va | ’tha yasya ’samapte karmani ta-
ntriko ’gnir upasamyet ka tatra prayascittir | yam tvam ague 210
punas tva ’’ditya rudra vasava2n ity anyam 2 i 2 praniya pra-

>90 cf. lav. 3. 11. 3. 191 AV. 1. 6 . 1. i92 AB. 5. 27. 2; 7. 3. 2; hierher

gehoren auch die folgenden Zitate dieses Abschnitts; vgl. die analogen
Partien Ap. 9. 17. 6 f. 193 Jt. 3 . 2. 1, fortgesetzt durch Asv. 3. 11. 1;
Ait. Brahm. 7. 3. i9i A "vamn i93 D ’manaya i96 AV. 1. 19. 1.
• 97 Der gleiche Fall wird in dem korrnpten Passus Brahm. Pray. 77 b
behandelt; vgl. unten 3, 10; s. a. Manu 7. 21: Krahen genieCen von einem
Opferkuchen. 198 A vivamet{?) B viramit CD viramet i 99 AV.
3. 21. 7. 200 of. Gop. Brahm. 1. 3. 13. 201 AV. 18. 4. 28. 202 AV.

6 . 41. 1 . 203 Brahm. Pray. 78 b:yada ’stapadi syad astapadya garbham sule

krtva mada pralipya samitre nikhanayet [ Komm. : yadapi garbhiny ala-
bhyate kala[h]-parimanavijn.anac ca ’stapadi syat . - . samitre nikhapatot
tasya adhastad ayaspatram upakrsya srapayed ity arthah | . . ma bhud iti
hiranyam astapadam daksina tasminn eva kale samapte ca mahi dyaur iti
pasusrapane garbham upavasati 201 BCD saradarbham 200 B prajvalya
206 AV 19. 52. 207 Wahrscheinlich Paipp. Citat. 2 C 8 A “gandhitivety

B °gandhltevety D °gamdhitlcety 200 gemeint: AV 4. 15? 210 ge-

meint ist ■wahrscheinlich AV. 18. 3. 6 (yam tvam agne). 211 AV. 12.2.6;
Vait. 28. 22; Ap. 8 . 9. 10. 9; 16. 12. 13. 212 a agnim

6 ’

J. V. Negeldn,

[1913.

jvalya 2 is mama ’gne varca^K iti sukteno ’pasamadhaya karma-
Sesam2i5 samapnuyursis | atha yasya ’samapte karmani barliir
adlpyeta^ie tatra tan 217 nirvapya juhuyad yad agnir barhir
adahad vedya^is vaso apom^isbhata tvam eva no jatavedo 220
duritat pahi tasmat22i j nirdagdha no amitra222 yathe ’dam
barhis tatha | amitranam Myam bhutim tSm esain parinirjahi |
yat-kSmas 223 te223 juhumas tan no astu vi^ampate 224 j ye deva
yajnam ayanti te no raksantu sarvatab | avadagdbam duhsva-
pnyam avadagdha aratayah sarvas ca yatudhanyah | ma tva
dabhyan yatudhanah | ma bradhnah sarmabhih225 stubi226 |
darbbo raja samudriyah | pari nah patu visvatah | atha ’nyad
barhir upakalpyo ’dakena samproksya punah stpnatl | ’dam bar-
hir amptene ’ha siktam hiranmayam haritam tat strtam22"
nah227 I tad 228 vai puranam ahhinavam strnisva vasah prasa-
stam prati me grhane ’ty 229 | atha yasya pitrye 230 pranlto ’gnir
upasamyet ka tatra prayascittir | hhasma ’’labhya ’bhimantra-
yed23i dvisantam agne dvisatam ca vittam | prajam^*^ dvisad-
bhyo naya daksinena | pitrye pranita upasamyamanah pap-
manam agne tam ito nudasva | dvisantam agne dvisatam ca
vittam gaccha tvam adaya paravato ’nyan233 1 pitrye pranita
upasamyamana iha prajam dirgham ayus ca dhehi | yas 2 34
tvam agne pramattanaip pranita upasamyasi235 | sukalpam agne
ta[t] tvaya punas tvo ’ddipayamasi ’ty ucyamane**® ’gnim237
pranlya prajvalyesss ’ndrasya kuksir asl ’ti239 dvabhyam sa-
midhav abhyadadhyat || 5 J atha yasya yupo virohed240 asam-
apte karmani tatra juhuyat yupo virohan24i chatasakho
adhvarah2i2 samavfto mohayisyan yajamanasya loke | veda-

713 0 praksalya 7*‘ AV. 5. 3. 1. 215 ^ karmasesam karma sapnuyur

716 cf. AP. 37. 5. 1. 717 A. tam; bei BCD fehlt tam 7i8 A vedyam

719 AB apo. Auch alle fur die Textgeachichte in Frage kommenden
Mss. der AP., denen dieses Zitat entnommen ist (37. 6. 2) lesen pom reap,
apom ; D aponnata 220 B o^a 721 Parallel AV. 1. 25. 1. 222

63. 7.3: “mitras tu 223 AB vamSste 22* AV. 7. 79.4. 225 BC

carmabhi 225—226 aP. 37. 6. 6 samyum icchata 227 AD strnamtah B
tastrtam nah C tatstrtam nah; AP. 37. 3. 8 statt tat strtam nah: te strnami
728 BC yad 229 D fiigt hinter "’ty ein: athava ’nyad barhiso prachadaye
’ty 230 B pitry'a 231 D "yeta 232 B laBt diese und die inzwischen-
liegenden Worte aus. 233 D "’nyat 234 ABCD yam 235 a upasamyati
B upasabhyeti CD npasamyeti 2 so BC ucyatena A ucyamanena

237 B te ’gnim 2*8 C praksalye 239 AV. 7. 111. 1. 210 D varohed;

Ap. 9. 19. 15 f.; vgl. unten 5. 6. 241 p yaro" 242 Kaus. 8. 126. 2.

Vol. ixxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittani 2. 6.

bhigupto brahmana2-i3 parivfto ’tharvabhih santah sukrtam
etu lokam H yupo by aruksad dvisatam vadhaya na me yajno
yajamanas ca risyat | saptarsinam sukrtam yatra lokas tatre
’mam yajnam yajamanam ca dhehi H yo vanaspatlnam upata-
po babhuva^ii yad va grhan ghoram uta ’’jagama tan nirja-
gamo bavisa gbrtena Sam no astu dvipade Sam catuspade H yo
vanaspatlnam upatapo na agad yad va yajnam no ’dbhutam
ajagama ] sarvam tad agne butam astu bhagasab sivSn vayam
uttarema ‘bbi vajan^Js | tvastre svabe Hi butva | tvasta me
daivyam vaca^^s iti tvastraip vaiSvarupam^^" alabbeta | Hba
yasya ’samapte karmani yupah prapatet^^s tatra jubuyat^^^ I
ya indrena systo yadi va marudbbir yupab papata^so dvisa-
taip vadbaya j tam nirjagamo-»i bavisa gbrtena sam no astu
dvipade sam catuspade | tvastre svabe Hi butva tvasta me
daivyam vaca^^a iti tvastram sarvarupam alabbeta | Hba
yasya ’samapte karmani yupe dlivaiikso^^s nipatet tatra jubu-
yat a pavasva biranyavad ^54 asvEvat soma vlravat | vSjam^^^
gomantam^so abbara^os svabe Hi madhyata opya samsrava-

bbagaih samstbapayed^se | yadi ^56 dustam^^® bavib syat kl-

tavapannam^^’ va'^sT tat 238 tasmin bhasmany upavaped apsu

2*3 D •’nah 244 Kaui. S. 135. 9. 245 Die Wiedergabe

namentlich des letzten Pada in den Mss. ist iiberaus liickenhaft und reich
an Irrtumern. D wiederholt den Halbvers: tam nirjagamo catuspade
246 AV. 6. 4. 1. 247 ABCD visvarupam; Brahm. Pray. 79 b: satire cet

prag apavargad yupo virohet [tjvastram bahurUpam alabberan 80 b: vi-
robanam amkuradi-pradurbbavah 248 cf. Ap. 9. 11. 26 ; Brabm. Pray. 80a :
yadi yupam avrmbec calayed ve ’ti ... 249 Hiervon scbeint aucb der

vollig zerstorte Text von Brahm. Pray. 76a zu bandeln, der sodann folgende
Modalitat erwabnt: yadi divyan manusad va prainada[t] svarum nasyeta
anya-yupa-sakalam anya-grabanam kriyate 76 b: anyasya ’labbe yupad evo
tkrtya samskaradi siddbam ta[t] tva svadbitise abutim butva ’tab sam-
skrtya ’ktv5 svadbiti-karma kuryat | casalanase 'nyasmad adbikrtya(?)
250 ad prapato BC prayato 251 D "gama 252 AV. 6. 4.1.

253 K. §. 25. 6. 9 f. 254 itv. 9. 63. 18. 255 D vrajam gomamtam asvina

bbaramtam cf. Vaj. S. 8. 6. 3. 256 B samsthapaye badistam 257 Agn.

Pray. 4 b: vyapannani bavimsi kesa-nakha-kita-patamgair anyair va bi-
bbatsaib I sarira[c] cyuta-ke3a-nakha-”dibhir bavib ] samsargo [do]saya
bbavati [ tatba kita-patamgair amedbya-nivasibbib samsargo dosaya bba-
vati I dustaram havir apsu praksipya punar-nirvapa-”di kuryat | atha va-
jasaneyi-tekbayam devayonib | sva-vayas(am)a-”khu-marjara-nakula-grdbra-
”di-krtabbaksana- vaghrana-sparsa[na]-"dibbir upabatanam srtanam puro-
dasadinam tyagah | bbaksanenai ’va madhu-’daka-payo-vikara-taila-sarpih-
prabhrtinam ca tyagah [ sveda-’sru-flesma-karnavid-dusika (so statt °siM)

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

ve ’fy eke 259 | bhuvaya svaha | bhuvanaya svaha ] bhuvana-
pataye svaha 260 | bhuvampataye svaha | visnave svahe ’ty | ete
ha vai devanam rtvijas | ta eva ’sya tad dhutam 26 i istam
kurvanti ] yat prayajesv ahutesu prag angarah262 skanded
adhvaryave ca263 yajamanaya ca264 pa^ubhyas ca''ghaiii265 syad
yadi daksina266 brahmane ca yajamanaya ca | yadi pratyag 267
dhotre267 ca patnyai263 ca268 j yady udag agnldhe269 ca270
yajamanaya ca pasubhyas ca’gham27i syat | tarn anupraharet |
sahasrasrnga 272 | ity etaya rca || 6 || atha yasya "gnayo mi-

netramala-'srk-raktavasa-manusa- (Text : °sa) -svlvistha-reto-mutra-prabhrti-
bhir upahatanam bavisam parityagah | sudra-sutako-’dakya-”di-sam3prsta-
nam bavisam parityagah ) . Die Trane verunreinigt ; cf. Ait. Brabm. 7. 8 :
ya abitagnir upavasatbe ’sru kurvlta ... so ’gnaye vratabbrte . . . . cf.
Asv. Pray. 5 b: athau "pavasathya-dine arty-asru-pate purvoktam vrata-
bhrtistim kuryat || cf. oben Anm. 58; vgl. A. P. 37. 7. 1; cf. auch Asv. Pray.
17 a (cf. oben Anm. 126); avsbana-kalat purvam kesa-kita-“dina pakva-
bavir-dose jate tasyaiva ba[vi]sah punar-utpattim krtva sarva-prayascittam
ca hutva visnum smrtva tena yastavyam || yad va || adbvaryur ajya-bbaga-
■ namtaram juhvam sakrd grhltva juboti || yan ma atmano || punar agnih ||
mano jyotih ghrtena svaha || tato visnum smrtva (dhruva)jyena(?) pracaret ||
cf. Asv. Pray. 17 a: avahanad ttrdhvam pradhana-yagad arvak kesa-klta-
”dina havir-dose jate tasya sthane dhruvatas caturgrhitam Bjyam ayajet |
avyapannais ca yathapurvam |1 tatah prayogam samapya vyapanna-havir-
matrasyai ’va ’nvadhanadi-punaryagah karttavyah jj evam dvayor bahanam
ca vyapattau samanam || vgl. Asv. Pray. 18 b: dustena havise “stva samista-
yajusah prag dustam havir iti janlyat || tada "jyena punar-yagah |1 urdhvam
cet smaranam tada 'nvadbana-”di-punaryagah || bahubaviske yage yad eva
dustam havih smaret tasyaiva punary ago na sarvasya || cf. Agn. Pray.
16 bf.: avahana-kalat prag dhavir-dose punar-avrttih | apy atyamtam guna-
bhutanam | apradhanarthanam ajyadi*guna-bhutanam dravyanam utpattir
a karmasamapteh | prak svistakrta uktam pradbana-bhutanam | bavisam
vyapattav ity asmin sutre ya havir-vyapattir ukta sa pradbana-bhutanam
dravyanam avahanad urdhvam svistakrtat piak bhavati cet tada "jyene
’stim samapayet | avadanadose punar ayatanad avadanam | grhitasya 'va-
danasya ’medhya-’^dina nase jate 1 abhagi-devatayah yage krte ’pi ’ti ra-
mamdarah | ubhaya-madhye ’nyatara-nimitte sati punas tad avadana-
"yatanad eva grhitva yagah karttavyah | na punar utpattih | dvestre tv
iha daksinam dadyat | ksame sistene ’st[v]e ’ty asmin prayoge ya daksina
sa dvestre datavya | daksadana (1.: daksinadana ?) urvaram dadyat |
258 B tatre C tace

259 Asv. 3. 10. 20-22. 260 Kaus. S. 116. 2 unter abweichendem

Schlusse. 201 BCD bhutam 262 ABC ahgara; cf. unten 4. 1.

263 fehlt bei BC 26 i fehlt bei A 255 ABC scheinen adyani zu lesen;
cf. Ap. 9. 2. 9. 266 A daksina 267 ABCD pratyah hotre 268 A

yatryaiva BCD patnl ca 269 BCD agnidhre 270 A labt ca aus.
271 BC cadyain 272 aV. 13. 1. 12; s. Ap. 9. 3. 1.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprdyascittdni S. 7.

thah samsrjyeran^'* ka tatra prayascittih^^J | so ’gnaye vi-
taye^TS ’stakapalam purodasam (pran) nirTapen^TS | nityah
purastaddhomah 1 samsthitahomesv agna ayahi vltaye^’^ grnano
havyadataye ni hota satsi barhisl ’ti madhyata opya samsra-
vabhagaih samsthapayed ( atha yasya ’gnayo gramyena^'s
’gnina samsrjyeran ka tatra prayascittih j so ’gnaye vivicaye^'s
’stakapalam purodasam nirvapen j nityab purastaddhomah |
samsthitahomesv agnim lie purobitam ^so vivicim ratnadha-
tamam pra na ayumsi tarisad ] iti madhyata opya sam-
sravabhagaih samsthapayed ] atha yasya ’gnayah savena ’gnina
samsrjyeran ka tatra prayascittih | so ’gnaye sucaye-Si ’staka-
palam purodasam nirvapen ) nityah purastaddhomah ] sam-
sthitahomesv I agnih sucivratatamah 282 gucir viprah sucih
kavih I suci rocata ahutah J ud ague sucayas tava^ss sukra
bhrajamta irate | tava jyotimsy arcayah svahe | ’ti madhyata
opya samsravabhagaih samsthapayed j atha yasya ’gnayo da-
vena ’gnina samsrjyeran 234 ka tatra prayascittir^ss | anna-

2T3 tiberhaupt gilt der Z usammenfall von Opfersubstanzen als ver-
hangnisvoll; s. Asv. Pray. 16a: carv-adinam samsrave durgadi-ganah
prayascittam y 274 Vgl. zu diesem Abschnitt die verkiirzte Wieder-
gabe in 5. 4. 2'j B titaye; cf. Ait. Brabm. 7. 6: yasya gdrhapatyd-

"havaniyau mithah samsrjyeyatam so ’gnaye vitaye ’stakapalam

purodasam nirvapet. 2 T 6 Uber die dem Agni bei den einzelnen

Lauterungszeremonien zukommenden Attribute sprioht Agn. Pray. 14 b:
agnir gunibhedesu vratapatyadiko gunah j api va prayasoitte-’stinam
sthane tasyai tasyai devatayai purnahutim juhuyad iti vijnayate ( dvadasa-
grhitena srucam purayitva ’gnaye vratapataye svahe ’ti huyate sa pur-
uahutih dvadasa-grhltena ’stagrhitena caturgrhitena sruva-purnena ve ’ti
catvarah pakso(!) bodhayane(!) prayascittestih saba vikalpyate ] 277 RV.

6. 16. 10; Asv. 3. 13. 7; Ait. Brabm. 7. 6. 278 ABC gramyena”.

279 A vivivaye B vivicaya; cf. Asv. 3. 13. 5; aber Ait. Brabm. 7. 6: yasya
sarva eva ’gnayo mithah samsrjyeran . . . agnaye vivicaye .... und ibid.:
yasya ’gnayo ’nyair agnibbib (Comm.: ahavanlyady-agnayo ’nyadiyair
abavanlyadibbir laukikagnibbir va) samsrjyeran so ’gnaye hsdmavate . .
vgl. Ait. Brabm. 7. 7 : yasya ’gnayo gramyena ’gnina samdahyeran so ’gnaye
samvargdya .... cf. Asv. Pray. 8 a: gramyena "ranyena va samsarge
samaropya matbitva ’gnaye samvargaya purnabutih || 230 RV. 1. 1. 1.

291 Asv. 3. 13. 4, dessen Komm. sich bier als vortrefflich unterricbtet
erweist. K. S. 25. 4. 35; Ait. Brabm. 7. 7. 282 X: sucir RV. 8. 44. 21.

233 RV. 8. 44. 17. 234 Die Profanation der heiligen Feuer durch

Wasser usw. verlangt Siibne (Asv. Pray. 15 b) : jaladina ’gny-upaghate
punas tva "dityS rudra vasavah samimdbatam punar brabmano vasunitba
rudraih(!) | gbrtena tvam tanuvo vardhayasva satyab santu yajamanasya
kamah (TS 4, 2. 3. 4 folg. mit Variation) svaba 1| ity etaya samidbam

J. V. Negelein,

[ 1913 .

dyam^se va esa yajamanasya samviyyavfta2S7 upa to^sv ’ranyad
gramam adhy^ss abhyupaiti | so ’gnaye ’nnadaya ’nnapataye
’stakapalaip purodasam nirvapen | nityah purastaddhomah |
samsthitahomesv | apascad aghvannasya bhuyasam289 | iti
madbyata opya sainsravabhagaih samsthapayed | atha yasya
’gnayo divyena ’gnina samsyjyeran ka tatra prayascittih | so
’gnaye jyotismate 290 'stakapalam purodasaqi nirvapen | nityah
purastaddhomah | samsthitahomesu | vidyotate dyotate | vi-
dyuto ’gnir jihva29i | vidyuta bhrajanti dyotata292 a ca dyota-
ta293 I iti madbyata opya saipsravabbagaih samsthapayed j
atha yasya ’gnayo ’bhiplaveran ka tatra prayascittih | so
’gnaye ’psumate^ai ’stakapalam purodasam nirvapen | nityah
purastaddhomah | samsthitahomesv ap5m agnis tanubhir^ss j
iti madbyata opya samsravabhagaih samsthapayed | atha
yady anugatam296 abhyuddharet ka tatra prayascittih | so

adhaya ‘jyabhagady-anamtaram yathasainbhavam anenaiva mamtrena
svShakaranitena sruvahutim juhnyat || agnaya idani || 2S5 Hierzu

gehoren die Ausfubrungen der Brahm. PrSy. 65 b ; cf. Ait. Brahm. 7. 7.

286 A atragham B aniiady(5) C annadya 287 samjyavrduyano

B samjSvrta upato C samvrta upato ; D samsrjyavrta upato 2 S 8 fehlt
bei A. 289 AV. 19. 65. 5. 290 cf. ASv, 3. 13. 8; Ait. BrSbm. 7. 7

acbreibt fiir den gleioben Fall die gleicbe Spende fur agni apsumant vor.

291 B best binter jibva: vidyotate dyotate adyotata iti madbyata

292 Bei B dittographiert. 293 Vait. 14. 1 A avadyotata BC atadyotaca?

294 cf. Am. 3. 13. 8; K8. 25. 4. 33 schreibt das gleicbe Opfer — offenbar
urspriinglicher — fiir den Fall vor, dab sich bimmliscbe und irdiscbe
Feuer mit einander vermengen; ebenso Asv. Pray. 8a: vaidyuta-’gni-
samsarge samaropanadi agnaye ’psumate purnabutih | 295

4. 15. 10. 296 Hier scbeint von dem Erloscben irgendeines Opfer-

feuers die Kede zu sein. Brabm. Pray. 62 a (s. folg. Anm.) bezieben sich
jedocb auf das Ahavaniya-Feuer, dessen unser Text in diesem Zusammen-
bang nicbt gedenkt. Vgl. aber Agn. Pray. 12 a: anvabitesv agnisu yady
dhavaniyo ’nugacehet tada ’nvabitam ahavaniyam anugatam utpadayisya-
mi ’ti sainkalpya [ anv agnir usasam atatane ’ti (AV. 7. 82. 4j garhapa-
tyad praniyamto bhur iti manaso ’pastbanam kuryat | tata ajyapurnena

sruvena juboti | yo agnim devavitaye mrdaya (RV. 1. 12. 9) svaha ||

agnaye pavakaye ’dam tato | juhva juboti | idam visnur .... pamsure (RV
1.22. 17) svaha | visnava idam j tata[b] sarva;m)-prayascittam | idam visnur
RV. 1. 22. 17) japed ity eke | tato manasa yajamano japati | agne vrata-
pate I vratam carisyami vayo vratapate aditya vratapate vratanain vrata-
pate (Ap. 4. 3. 2) | vrato- ’payanottaram agny-anugamane vratopayaniya-
japo na ’nyatha || ibid. 12 b: pranite ’nugate prag ghomad istir
agnir jyotisman varunah || agnihotra-’rtham pranita ahavaniyahomat prag
anugate sSyam agnihotrartham pranitam ahavaniyam anugatam utpada*
yisyami ’ti sartikalpya | pratar agnihotra-’rtbam iti pratab | uddbarana-

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittdni 2. 8.

’gnaye ’gnimate ’stakapalam puroda^m nirvapen^sT | nityah
purastaddhomSh | samsthitahomesu | sivau 298 bhavatam 299
adya^oo no 9*1 | ’gnina ’gnih samsrjyate 902 kavir grhapatir
yuva havyaTad juhvasyah^os || tvani by agne^o^ agnina vipro^®^
viprena san sata sakha sakhya samidhyase | sa no rasva
suvlryam^oe iti madhyata opya ’tha samsravabhagaih samstha-
payet [| 7 || atha^o? ya^o^ ahitagnis^o^ tantre®®" pravase
mptah syat303 katham tatra kuryat | katham asya ’gnihotram
juhuyur909 | anyavatsaya*'® gob payase | ’ty ahur®!* adu-
gdhaya 311 va ^udradugdbaya vasu ] ’sarvam3i2ya etat
payo yad’i® anyavatsaya gob sudradugdhaya va ’sarvam®*!
va etad agnihotram yan mrtasya ’gnihotram sis | tavad

mamtreno ’ddhrtya hirauyain puraskrtya rajatam puraskrtye ’ti pratah ||
[sayam] hiranyam agrato hrtva "havanlyasya pascad (dhiranyam) nidhaya )
pratah rajatam agrato hrtva ’’havaniyasya purastan nidhaye ’ti visesah |
tato pranayana-mamtrena nidhaya ’gnim pratisthSpayet | tato ’gnaye
jyotismate svaha | agnaye jyotismata idani | varunaya svaha 1 agnaye jyo-
tismata idain | varunaya svaha | varunaye ’dam (Ap. 9. 9. 14; corr.) | iti
purnahutim hutva tasmin eva ’gnau homa-samaptih | Beim Erloschen
des Ahavaniya-Feuers soil ebenso wie bei dem des Daksinagni (cf. unten
6. 1) verfahren warden; jedoch ist ibid, folgende Differenz vorgeschrieben;
Ahavaniyasyo ’ttara-pascima-dese prahvas tisthan dhata dhatrnam (RV.
10. 128. 7) ity adina tr![ni] kasthany adadhatt ’ti visesah || ubhayor nase
daksinagnim praniya ’’havanlyam api praia[ya] purvavad ahavaniya-pra-
yasoittadi krtva pascat purvavad daksinagni-prayascittadi kuryad ||

297 Brahm. Pray. 62 a; ahavaniyanugame ’pi praniya hutva svo bhute
gnaye ’gnimate ’stakapalani nirvapet | cf. ibid. Bl. 56 a folg. : yasya
’gna[v] agnim abhyuddhareyur (vgl. Ait. Brahm. 7. 6) bhavatam nah
samanasav (Kaus. 108. 2) ity^ abhimamtrya ’gnaye ’gnimate ’stakapalam
nirvapet | yasya yajamanasya daivan manned va pramadad agnav uddhrte
pranite vidyamana eva punar abhyuddhareyus tatra ’bhimukhyeno

’’rddhvam uddhareyur bhava(naltan nah samanasav iti . . .

298 ACD sivo B sive 290 CD bhavatum. 300 ABC adhya

891 A to ; Kaus. 108. 2. 202 C samsrjate 203 RV.

I. 12. 6. 30* ABC fiigen agnir ein. 305 JiV. 8. 43. 14. ooo RV.

5. 13. 5; 8. 98. 12. 307 A atha ahitagnis tantrapravase B atha ya

ahitagni tetre pravase C atha yasyahitagnih taintre oos cf. Ap. 9.

II. 22; K. 8. 25. 8. 9; vgl. die Anm. 318; 614. 309 a juyuran

B juhuyaranye C juhuyuranye D juhuyatranye 3io A nyavatsaya

B ’nya“ C nyavatslya 3ii Diese Stelle ist im Original verderbt.

A liest diese und die zwischenliegenden "Worte: ahus tad adugdhaya va,
sarvam va prtanyayo yajnena ’nyavatsaya gauh sudradugdhaya va BC
ahuh sudradugdhaya va (C vat) sarvam va etyayojanye (C jne) na ’nya
(C ’na-)-vatsaya goh todradugdhaya eva (eva) D ahu sudradugdhaya va
312 A sarvam 3i3 fghR |,ei CD. su fehlt bei ABCD. 3i5 cf.
Ait Brahm. 7. 2.

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

agnim^i® paricareyur yavad*'**" asthnam^i? aharanam^is j
ahrtya 'gnibliih^ia saipsprsya tarn pitj-medhena ^20 samapnuyur ]
atha yah 221 samaropita-’samaropite mrtah syat katham tatra
kuryat | so ’gnaye tantumate pathikrte vratabhrte ^22 puroda-
sam nirvaped ekakapalam saptakapalam navakapSlam [ nityah
purastaddhomah [ samsthitabomesu | tvam ague sapratba asi ®23
yena paths vaivasvatah ®24 tvam agne vratapa asi 325 | ’ti ma-
dhyata opya (atha) samsravabhagaih samsthapayed | atha naste
aranl syatam226 anyayor aranyor vihrtya tam226 mathitvai
’tahhir eva hutva ’that ’nam samapnuyuh *27 n 8 [1 atha yasyo

316 D agnihotram 317 A j'avavadastlinam (?) B yavadasinam D yava-
dasthlnam. 3i8 Agn. Pray. 4b: adhve pramitasyd (of. oben Anm. 308)
’bhivanyavatsayah payasa 'gnihotrani tusuim sarvabutam juhuyur a saina-
vayat | pathikrtim krtva tasminn eva vihare abhivanyavatsayah payasa
tusnim | dharmakama ’gnihotram sakrd eva sarvam juhuyur | na ’tra
bhakso ’sti [ purvahgany uttarangany api tusnim eva bhavamti kalas tu
sayam pratar eva | a sarlrasya ’gni-sambaindhatvat | pradhane prajapati-
dhyanam karttavyam | yady ahitagnir aparapakse mriyeta_ "hutibhir
enam purvapaksam hareyuh | paksahoma-nyayena | ; of. Asv. Pray.
2b: atha pravasa-mrtasya ’’hitagner visesah [ putradayah pathikrtim
krtva ’’hitagni-sarlrasya ’gnibhih aambandha-paryamtarn mrtavatsaya goh
payasa tusnim sarvabutam juhuyuh | prajapatim manasa dhyatva svahe
’ti mamtrena bhaksana-vaijam saingam pradhanam kartavyam |1 athava
yajya-puronuvakyabhyam purnahutim juhuyat | atha ’’hitagner apara-pakse
marana-samka syat tada paksahoma-nyayena ’va3ista-’gnihotra-”hutayo
darsestis ca kartavya || na ’tra kalaniyamah || evam caturmasya-’ntarale

marana-samkayam || marana-samkayam karana-’sambhave marana-’nam-

taram apy karyani || 319 B ahatagnibhih C ahr(?) tagnibhih BOD

pitrmedhe tena 32i C yam 322 cf. K. 25. 4. 27 folg., vo die Falle auf-
gezahlt werden, in denen dem Agni vratabbrt geopfert vverden soil.
323 cf. oben 2. 1. 324 Gemeint ist der schon oben zitierte Spruch

= AV. XIX 69. 1. 325 Jtv. 8. 11. 1. 326 Diese und die in-

zwischenliegenden Worte best A: syatam anyayor aranyor vihutya ta B
syat tayor aranyor vihatyam tarn C syat tayor ara vihrtya tarn D syat
tayor aranyor vihrtyamta *27 Asv. Pray. 7a folg.: atha samarudhesv
agnisv araninase ’gnyadheyam punaradheyam va kartavyam | vahnisu
satsu aranl-nase prayascittaiu punar-adhana-varjam |] arani-nasa-nimittani ,
daho mamthanam ca |1 [Sloka:J manusya-’sthi savam vistha rajo vin
mutram eva ca svedo ’sru puyika slesma madyam ca ’medhyam ucyate !
srgala-’mtyaja-kunapa - pratilomaja - rajasvala- sutika-patita- sudra-vayasa-
rasabha- sukara- kaka-kukkutadyah || agnyadhanam go-pitr-yajnavarjam !:
baudhayananam tasya prathama[hj prayoga eva ’va^akatvat | anyatara-
’rani-nase ’nyataram chittva aranidvayam krtva mamthanam kartavyam
iti |] aranl etaih samsprste bhavatam nah samanasav (VS. 6. 3) iti jale
niksipya ’mavasyayain nave arani mamtrena ’’hrtya darsene ’stva nava-

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayasdttani 2. 9.

’pakrtah pasuli prapatet^is kg tatra prayascittih | sprtibhir
juhuya(i329 vayave niyutvate yavagum®30 nirupya^si ’nyam
tadrupam tadvarnam alabheta^si | ’’jyena ’bhigharya paryagni
krtvo ’pakurvitai | devasprtayo^ss | agues te vacam

’ranyor agnln mamtrena samaropya maipthanasya ”vrta mathitva tantu-
matlm istim kuryat | agnis tamtuman devata | tantnm tanvan . . . priyam
(RV. 10. 53. 7) sa-’nvaharya-sarava-parimita odano daksina sesam (?) paurna-
masavat | atha vahnisu satsu jirpa-’rani-prayascittam || jamtubhir main-
thanena jirne aranl vijayete | tat-sadrse nave arani jnamtrena ahrtya
’mavasyapratipadi darsene ’stva jirnaraul salkikrtya garhapatye ksiptva
prajvalya daksina-karena navo-’ttara-’ranim savyena ’dhara-’ranim adaya
agner upari dharayan nistapati || udbudhyasva ’gne pravisaava yonim
anyam devayajyayaiii vai jatavedah | aranya Vanim anusamkramaava

jirnani num (?) ajirnaya nudasva || tato Hyam te yonir rtviyo

'girah (RV. 3. 29. 10) || iti samaropya mathitva ’gnin vihrtya manasvatya
caturgrhita-homah || tamtumatl-’stim purnahutim va kuryat |j ukta-nimi-
ttair arani-nase pratyaksa-vahnir yadi nasyet tada ’gny-adhanam iti bau-
dhayanah|mutra-vid-retas-ci[t]ti-kastha-slesma-puty-asru-karpata-’sthy-adi-
bhir amedhyair agnisaiusarge samaropya matbitve ’stih | tasyarn devata
agnir pavamanah || agnir pavakah || agnih suoir iti ]| purnahutayo va
asaktau punas tva ’’ditya rudra vasavah (samimdhatam) punar brahmano
vasunitha rudraih ghrtena tvam tanuvo vardhayasva satyah samtu yaja-
manasya kama (VS, 12. 44) iti mamtreno ’pasamimdhanam kuryat [ uda-
kabimdu-pate ’py etad eva |j candala-patita-rajasvala-sutikasya [spajrse
agnyadheyam || caturdine snananamtaram sparse samaropya mathitva
’gnaye sucaye ’stakapalam nirvapet || purnahutim va || of. Agn, Pray. 13 b :
agnisv aranyoh samarudhesv aranyor jiase ’gnyadheyam punaradheyam
va karttavyam | anyatara-’ranl-nase ’pi bhavati | Der in obigen Zitaten
erwahnten Verunreinigung des heiligen Feuers gedenkt unser Traktat
nicht ausfiihrlicher; dagegen sprechen z. B. Agn. Pray. 19 a von einem
udaka-”dina ’gny-upaghata-prayascittani | : punas tva — kamah (VS. 12. 44)
iti samit-praksepah [] und von Selbstentziindung des Opferfeuers der

gleiche Text ibid.: svayam-prajvalana-prayascittam | uddipyasva

paripataye ’ti (TA. 10. 1. 4. 5) pratimamtram ekaikam samidham adadhyat
(m)agnihotra-prarabdha-karmasu [ a samapter.

329 of. unten 6. 5. 329 Vgl. hierzu §. Br. 11. 8. 4. 6; K. S. 25. 6.

330 BO yavastam. 3ji A nirupya, B tiruhya OD nirupyam. 332 Das
Entfiiehen und Zugrundegehen des Opfertieres erheischt Siihne: K. S.
25. 9. 1; cf. unten 6. 7: asvamedhe ced asvo na "gacchet ... 333 x

°kurvitetyevaidevasprta tayo B “kurvlteyotavai CD “kurvitenyotavai
334 X jyoti, verandert in digbhya BCD di&itn

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

sprnomi svaha [ prthiTyas te sariram sprnomi svaha | ’ntari-
ksat^so ta aka^am sprnomi svaha | mauusat^^e ta akasad di-
vyam33' akasam sprnomi svahe | ’ndrat balam sprnomi

svaha | somat te rajhah^ss kirttim339 yasas ca sprnomi svahe)
’ti ca hutva “thai ’nam punah pradisati vayave tve 340 ’ty |
atha yasyo ’pakrtah pasur mriyeta ka tatra prayascittih |
sprtibhir eva hutva ’thai ’nam anudi^aty rtave tve 34i =ty |
atha yasyo ’pakrtah pasuh samsiryeta ka tatra prayascittih |
sprtibhir eva 342 hutva ’thai342 ’nam anudisati ) raksobhyas
tve ’ti I na ’nudesanam ity ahur | yo va esa prapatito bha-
vati tad yad enam adhigacheyur 343 atha tena yajeta | ’tha
yav344 etau slrna-mrtau bhavatas344 tayoh prajnatany avada-
nany avadaye ’tarasya va pasoh sampraisam krtva hrahmanan
paricareyur apo va ’bhyupahareyuh sprtibhir 34 5 1 yadi va ’nyah

sya[c] 346 chamitram346 enam prapayeyus342 sprtibhir eva

hutva samitram evai ’nam prapayeyur | ata urdhvam pra-
siddhah pasubandho | ’tha ya upatapinaip yajayet 348 ka tatra
prayascittih | sprtibhir eva hutva ’gado haiva 349 bhavaty j atha
ced bahava upatapinah syuh ka tatra prayascittih | sprtibhir
eva hutva ’gado hai ’va bhavaty | atha yo ’dhisrite ’gnihotre
yajamano mriyeta katham tatra kuryat | tatrai ’vai ’tat paryS-
dadhyad yatha sarvaSah saipdahyete 35o ’ty | atha ’’havanlya
ajyahutim juhuyad | yajna eti vitatah kalpamaDa3oi | ity etaya

335 A liest etatt dieser und der inzwischenliegenden Worte nurr
’ntarikaa samspraomi svaha tte; BC lesen statt ’ndrat te: ’ndraddhi
D: “ndradvi 3J6 BC manusat 33- Q divfimj

D divam 338 A raja BCD rajfia 339 ACD klrttir B kirtti

3*0 V. S. 7. 7. 341 A rtam vetyety BCD rtave tvety

atha 342 Bei A verderbt. 343 p) adhivyayacheyur BC

adhivyagacheyur; vya oflenbar nur dittographisch aus dhi entwickelt.
344 Statt dieser und der inzwischenliegenden Worte liest A yaceto sau
sirnamrto bhavata BC yacai [C vai] taugnau sirna (C rrma) mrtau bha-
vatas; D ya vaitagnau sirlrnamrtau bhavatah 345 catasrbhir C

sprtibhi 346 BCD "syam amitram *47 Das folgende, im Text Aus-
gelassene ist ganz verderbt: A tad aha sam vai samdhrlyaiu ca haratitv
atha nu katham iti tat pamcasayanivajya vahanti B tadaha sain vi samdhi
’yarn ca harati ’ty atha nu kam iti tat paincasapaincajya vaharanti C tadii
sam vi sanidhriyam ca haratity atha nu katham iti tat paiiicasaparpcajya
vaharanti; D tad aha sam ci sadhiiyam ca haratity atha nu katham iti
tat pamcasapamcajyavaharainti ; 1. etwa: tad aha samyu sadhryancain
harati ’ty | atha nu katham iti paincasa-paincasa (?) vahanti 348

yojayet 3i9 haiva fehlt bei ABC. 350 cf. Ait. Brahm. 7. 2.

351 AV 18. 4. 13.

Vol. ixxiii.]

Atharvaprdyascittdni 2. 9.

rca 1 ’tha ya aupavasathye ^52 ’hani yajamano mriyeta katham
tatra kuryat ] tatrai ’vai ’tat pradadhyad yatha sarvasak
samdahyete ’ty | atha ’’havanlya ajyahutim juhuyad [ yajiia
eti vitatah kalpamana 35i ity etayarca | 'tha yak samasa-
nnesu353 kaviksu yajamano mriyeta katkam tatra kuryat)
tatrai ’vai ’tat 354 paryadadkyad yatks sarvasak samdakye-
rann ity | atka ’’kavanlya ajya-”kutim jukuyad ) ape ’mam
jlva arudkan grkekkya 355 | ity etayarca | ’tka yo diksito
mriyeta katkam enam dakeyus | tair eva ’gnibkir ity akur |
kavyaTakanas cai ’te me 356 bkavanti tat kavyavahana ity | atha
nu katham iti | sakrtpindais tisra ukkah 35" purayitva tah
pradadh[y]us I ta dhunuyus | ta35S susamtapa ye35s ’gnayo35S
jayeranis taik samapnuyuk | bahir 359 yg evam (bhavan)ti
te no vai’te | tasya359 tad eva brahmanam yad adah360.purah 36i
savane36i pitrmedha3P2 asiso363 vyakkyatas | tarn yadi pu-
rastat tistkantam upavadet tarn bruyad vasunam tva deva-
nam vyatte ’pi dadkami | gayatrim parsam 364 adkahsira
’vapadyasve ’ti | tana yadi daksinatas tistkantam upavadet tarn
bruyad rudrapam tva devanara vyatte 3*5 >pi dadkami) traistu-
bklpi366 parsam 36T adkahsira ’vapadyasve ’ti ) tarn yadi pascat
tistkantam upavadet tapi bruyad adityanain tva devanaip
vyatte ’pi dadkami jjagatipi parsam368 adhah-3cs §ira ’vapadyasve
’ti j tarn yady uttaratas tistkantam upavadet tain bruyad 369 1
vi^vesam tva devanam vyatte ’pi dadhamy | anustubhlm parsam
adkahsira ’vapadyasve ’ti | tam yady antardesebhyo va tistha-

352 A upavasathye, verandert in au”; BC pavasathye D apavasathye; cf.
Ait. Brahm. 7. 2. 35 j a yah samasattresu B maBamasam nesu; C sama-

saaattresu D mamasannesu; unsere Leaung nach Ait. Brahm. 7. 2. s^iAtat
355 AV. 18.2.27. 336 D ne 357 Die Mss. scheinen usah zu lesen.

358 A tahsusamtapayed agnaye BD tamamsamtapaye gnayo C tamam
saijitanam saintapaye gnayo 359 Blolie Wiedergabe einer kaum ver-

Btandlichen und jedenfalls sehr korrupten Stelle nach Ms. A. B barhisy
eva bhavamte no vai te tasya C barhir va eva bhavamti tenodaite tasya
D teno ete yad adobarhisa va eva bbavati teno vai te tasya; 1. etwa:
teno ete yad adobarhisa va eva bhavanti teno vai te? 36o B ahah

361 aB purasavane 36J a pitrmedha 363 A asaso

B adiso cf. Gop. Br. 1. 6, 22. 36i £) parigam 365 In den

Mss. vyatte = vyadatte; so D an dieser Stelle und bei alien ihren
Wiederholungen. 366 g traistubham C bba 367 BC parisamdhah
368 B pavisamadhah C parisamadhah 369-370 A labt diese und die in-
zwischenliegenden Worte aus.

J. V. Negelein,

[ 1913 .

ntam uparadet tarn bruyat 3'® | tasmai namas ku-

rjat 1 sa cet prati namas kuryat kusalenai ’vai ’nam3"i yoja-
yet3^2 I sa3"3 cen®^® na®’® prati namas kuryat tena ’bhicaret|
savyam®^^ agranthina prasavyam agnibhih parlyad^Js | vatsaro
=si375 parivatsaro ’si sam vatsaro ’si ’ti | tam^TT yadi^^’ jigham-
sed377 yayoh®77 sarvam iti suktena badbakihsJS samidbo ’bhya-
dadhyat | tytlyabam na ’tijlvaty^’S | atba yo bota ’rddhahuta
ucchistah^so syat^so sahaiva tens ”camy5 ’gnir ma patu vasu-
bhih purastad3Si ity etam japtva yatba-’rtbam kuryad ya-
tbartbam kuryat || 9 |1 iti yajnaprdyascitte dvitlyo ’dhydyah sa-
maptah 382 |

atba ’to somarupani vyakbyasyamah [ prajapatir manasi |
sarasvato vaci383 visfstayam 383 | vidbanam *84 diksayam | brah-
mavrate savita 385 samdhlyamane3S6 ’ndbo ’cbeto 386 divyah3S7
suparnab parikbyato | ’ditih prayanjyesss j pasustba nyup-

to 389 I yajno 390 buyamano39i | bbadro viclyamanab 392 |

370 Den zweifellos hier fehlenden Sprucb haben samtliche Mss. aus-
gelassen. 37 1 ^ kusalam evainam C kasalenaitenam 372 D yajayet
373 A sa vemta B sa ce tan ra C sa cenra; D sa cet 374 fehlt bei B.
375 Bei BCD fehlt: pariyad vatsaro si 376 yS 27.45. 377 A

tayamdirjighamsaghamyoh BCD tarn yadi jighamsevyayoh 373 Yer-

wendung des badhaka-Holzes bei bosem Zauber: s. Pet. “Wb. u. badhaka
und die allerdings unklare Stelle AP 24. 1. 6. 379 CD natijivayaty

380 A utsisthasyat BC u(c)chista syat uttisthaset (vgl. PW.) ssi AV.
19. 17. 1. 3«2 D ity atharvavede vaitanasutre prayascittaprasamge

dasamo ’dhyayah || 3S3 vavivisrstayam C vaccivi" 384 D vidhana

335 D savitaram 386 Texte nnklar °mane adaste? 'mane a-uste?

387 C divyam 388 0 prayanlyo B prayanl 389 go nach BC.

390 C yajfie 391 D ’mane 392 ABCD vai bhr 393 AD vai

miyamano BC vai mimano 3*4 ABC °na D °nam 395 A °stor asa"-
BCD °storavasa°; sprachUch moglich ware es, statt urav: tiru zu re-
konstruieren, unter Anwendung eines anfechtbaren Sandhi also zu lesen:
’sto ”rv asa°; vgl. sipivista asaditah TS.4.4.9.1 K. 34. 14 396 C dhasnr?

397 A abhidbhiyamano B abhirhriyamano CD abhihriyamano 39 s BCD
pasave 399 a atithye 400 BCD varunah 40i B asadyam vatsadya-
mana C asamccavatsadyamana D asarndyavatsadyamana 402 ABC ”gnau
403 ABCD lassen ’gnau weg.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprdyascittani 3. 3.

mathyamana ] aindragno 'gnau*o< pranlyamane^*^-* | sama^os
tanunaptre^®5 1 tapo ’vantaradiksayam | prthivy upasady j anta-
riksam upasadi | dyaur upasadi ] yajnasya prama*®® ’bhimo
"nnia<®6 pratima vedyam kriyamaDiayani j pasava uttarave-
dyam ] dyaur havirdhane | “ntariksam agnidhrlye j pythivi
sadasi | 1 g prana uparavesu | bhratrvy'a dhisnyesu ] pasavo
barhisi^®^ | vedyam stiryamanayam j apsu<®s visarjane^®* | pra-
japatir hriyamano'*®® ] ’gnir agnidhriye j vaisnava asanna-
karmani \ hasto visysto^i® | vaisnavo yupa | osadhayo rasana-
yamm | medha aprlsii**'- | havih paryagnikytahii® | pitrde-
vatyab pasau samjnapyamane j yajnasya mithunam pannejane-
su^i4 I raksasani bhagadheyam vapayam^is udgrhyamanayam |
yajnasya samtatir vasativarlsv abhihriyamanasv j indra-
gnyor dbenur daksinasyam^i^ uttaravedi^'S-sronyam^i® avasa-
dayati | niitravarunayor dhenur ] uttarasyam uttara-
vedi-^18 sropyam-*!® avasadayati'*®! | visvesam devanam agnl-
dbrlye | chamdamsy upavasathe | havir upavahrtah ^2® |
sarasvatah^®^ prataranuvake j ’tharva ’bhyuptah | prajapatir
vibhajyaraane | devata vibhakte 1 ’ndro vytrabe ’ndro^®® ’bhi-
matihendro <2® indro Trtratur^27 unnlyamana | ayur upainsv -‘‘28
antaryamayor | yamo ‘bbihitah 8 2 || nibhuyapuradhava-
nlye^29 suputah putabhrti susukra^®®-srir maintba^®2.srili

^0* fehit bei A; D ”gno los ^ sarasvato nupapte B sasati

nuyapte C sasati yapte; D sasatitaghrame i®* A prama-

bhimatonma pratima vedyantariksamm upasadi dyaur upasadi yajnasya
pramabhimatonma pratima B setzt an Stelle dieser Wiederholung:
pramadisamonma C pramahisamonma; D pramabhimate hi ma ABC

barhisu A asuvisarjane C apsutisarjane i®® A

hlyamane C hriyamane D hiiyamano n® C tisrsto m B

rasanamyam C rajnasanayam D apritya ^

paryagnittatam ABCD patnija” •>>5 A capapam

B vamayam A abhidriyamanasv B abhihriyamanesv

D abbihrlyamanainsv <>7 D uttarasyam; vielleicbt besser.

418 B "vedih 4i9 ABC °nyam 420 A vacasam

nodayati D vamasam nodayati BC vasamnodayati; vielleicbt die Lesart
von BC (vasan no ’da°) beizubebalten. *21 B vasannodayati

D vedinodayati (sic!) C vasamnodayati A avasadayati; vielleicbt aucb
bier mit BC zu lesen. 422 BC upavasatbo; D upavathyo

423 A upavahatah B upabatab C upavabutah D uvabatab 424 0

sarasvatab 425 fehit bei B. 426 A bbimatir°

D bhimater° 427 A vriraghna D vrtraghnir 428 B

unamsv 429 nidhaya* 430 BC sukrab 431 C

sri 432 A matba D mayah

J. V. Negdein,

[1913.

«3 C narayanamsa «3 AC ”varttnasyo ’cham B 'syecchu <« B °bar-
haspatye «5 AC uccham B uceba «6 ABC cham «7 A soda-
saratrih BCD sodaslratri «* ABCD paryayagneyo «3 A samdhi
BC samdhirya <50 A asrina <»i A vabhrthye <52 A yad avare
tirtham B yad acatlreryam CD yad Scare tirtham <53 A udayatiyam
B udaniyam <5< B kasubrahmamistya C kasubrahmaBamistyam ; D ka-
subrahmanyam istyam <55 A yasyam yasyam amtatah C yasya yasya tatah;
D yasyam yasya amtatah <56 C devatayah <57 D tva <58 Korrupt.
<59 D an (mit Virama) <60 A hatva <6i A devayamiti <62 D 'ti
<63 BD 'mtata <6< Eaus. 6. 1 f.; Vait. 16. 17. <65 AV 7. 106. 1.

<66 A karmaviparyasetayad rktam om B karmaviparyasotiyacadakta oip.
C kannaviparyaseti ya ca yaddrktta tu; D karma viparyaseti ya cad rkta.
Zum folg. vgl. Gop. Br. 1. 3. 3.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayasdttani 3. 5.

bhur janad^®’ iti garhapatye juhuyad ] yadi
yajusta^®® om bhuvo ^®® janad <'® iti daksinagnau juhuyad]
yadi samata^’i om svar janad'*"® ity ahavaniye juhuyad j
yady atharvata^'^ om bhur hhuvah svar janad om ity aha-
vaniya eva juhuyad | atha daivatany | agneyam hautram j
vayavyam adhvaryavaip j sauryam audgatram j candramasam
brahmatvam j tasya ha va agnir hota ”sld | vayur adhvaryuh ]
surya udgata | caddramS brahma^^® | prthivi va rcam^^< aya-
tanam | agnir jyotir antariksam (vai)"*'® yajusam ayatanam^"® |
vayur jyotir dyaur^'^ (vai)^"® samnam ayatanam | aditya
jyotir apo ’tharvanam ayatanam ^"® candrama jyotir iti
ca I 4 11 atha yad avocama-''S "pattau-*"® somam^s® ce ’ti^si
yajamanam ced^®^ rajanam stena**®® ha va prathamas^®^
ca ”hareyus cittavyapatyur ^s® va bhaved-*®® ] ity aha ’smara-
thyo I ne j ’ty ahatuh kanva-gopayanau j yadai ’va karma ’bhy-*®"
adhvaryur^®^ vihitas^s® tadai ’va sarvakratun praty apado
vihita I ity ahur acarya | atha katham atra-*®® yajamanakarmani
syur 1 upacarabhaksapratis^®® ce-*®® | ’ty adhvaryur asya yaja-
mana^®*- karmani kuryad-*®® j atra*®® yajamana-"sane mar-
jallye va camasau nidhaya tatra ’sya bhaksakale bhaksapy
upasthapayeyur a samista-yajuso homat | prak samista-yajur*®-*

fehlt in ABCD. ‘c® A yajustham C yajustam A hhuva

fehlt bei A. A samatarn A atharvatani ; cf. Brahm. Pray.

6b: tatra bhuh svahe "ti garhapatye juhoti ’ti varttate ) tathau(!) ttarayor
api yojyam | yajusto bhuva svahe ’ti daksinagnau samatah svah svahe

’ti daksinagnau samatah svah svahe ’ty ahavaniye ibid. Bl. 6 a: tatr-a.

’’dhana-’nukramena ptirvarri garhapatye daksinagnav ahavaniya iti homo
vidhiyate I rgveda-”dlaam ca garhapatya-”dibhir abhisambaindhah | sru-
tyamtare rgvedo garhapatye yajurvedas tu daksinah samavedas tu ahava-
niyata iti 1 Vgl. zu diesen Ausfuhrungen KS 23. 1. 4 — 10.

1"* ksavam B unklar C yam fehlt bei BCD B fiigt samna ein.

CD dyauh A avovama BC avocamo ‘‘'® 1. : [ujpapattau?

Der folgende Passus ist ganz korrupt und mir vollig unverstandlich.
^80 AC saumaip. isi D teti -is® A ced rajana B cemd rajanam

C yemd rajanah D camdrojanas }. stena? ^84 Q pramas

^88 1.; vittam? D vyapalyur *86 gc bhaveyad D bhavamyad *97
karmabhyadhvaryo BCD karmabhyuddhvaryau *9® A vihitat (?)

*99 Bei ABC fehlt atra *99 A apavarabhaksapratiscety B upacara-

bhaksapratiscaity C upacarabhaksapratiscety ; 1. : ijrayascittety ? *9 1 BC

yajamanasya *9* ACD fiigen hiuter kuryad ein : adhy B acya *93 A
fiigt hinter atra ein: bhaksabhak-sanaya B bhaksabhaksanaparya C bhak-
sabhaksanapaya D bhaksabhaksanapaya 1,; anyatra bhaksabhasanat
payaya? *9* BC °yajna D °yaju

VOL. xxxm. Part L

J. V. Negelein,

[ 1913 .

lioinac^95 cedi^s yajamana^®* agacchet samastan eva bha-
ksajapan japtva bhaksayec chesam | samapya ’vabbrtham
abhyupeyuh | 5 | atha ha yam^s’ jlvan-iS' na^s^ Srutipatham
gachet^ss kiyantam asya kalam agnihotram juhuyur | yady
eva hitam ayus tasya ’sesam prasanikhya[ya] tavantam ^oo
kalaipsoo tad^oi asya^oi ’gnihotram hutva ’tha ’sya praya-
piyena pracareyur | vyakhyatah patraviiiiyogoS 02 >pi sos yathai "va
sarlradarsane | sa cej jlvannso-J agachet^oi katham va prosya^us
"gataya^Oo yathakaryam sos karmani kuryat | sa cet svayam-
uttha[h] syad punar asya ’gnm adhaya ’dbhutani^o'? vacako
japam | iti hutva marjayitva tato ’yam agatah karmani kuryat^oc |
sa cet punar anuttha[h] syat^os tatha sanisthitam eva ’sya"09
tad agnihotram bhavati | jaramarynm^io ya etat sattram^n yad
agnihotram | iti ha srutir bhavati || 6 i] atha ya®‘'5
ahitagnir 51'! vipravasann agnibhih pramiyeta 5i4 katham
tatra patraviniyogani pratiyad | ity aha ’smarathyo^i^ | yady
anyani patrani yajna-”yudhanl ’ty upasadya vihrtya ’gnim
ahrtya prajvalya vihareyur nirmathyam^i- va prajvalya vihared |
ity etavata ’mgaprabliptibhih^is samsthapyai ’vam patraviniyo-
gam ity anuchadayed sm | yad yad utsannah520 syur varani-
sahitani*2i patrani | ’ty apsu samavaped522 | esa te ’gne |

195 ^ homadyajamaBa is® JB upahareyuh C hareyuh i®’ B jivantah
D jSvanah; (st. yani 1. yo) Bin ahnlicher, z. B. Ait. Brahm. 7. 9

erwahnter Ball ist der, dal5 man von dem Ahitagni falachlich tort, er sei
gestorben; cf. (Asv. Pray. 8b): yasmimst ahitagnau jivaty eva mrtasabdab
sruyeta | tada gnaye surabhaye puruahutih j cf. Agn. Pray. 14b; surabhaya
eva yasmims jive mrtasabdah | yasminn ahitagnau jivaty eva mrta iti
yadi sabdah samjayeta tada surabhinaate ’stih (!) kartavya | 499 D

•khyai 800 ^ tj varttamanakalam A ta vratam soi A tasva"

592 A "viniyoge sos fehlt bei BCD wr B jivanamntagachet CD ji-
vanam na "gachet sos a proksagatakayadbakaya B prosyagata-

kaya C prosyagatakayadhakaya : D presyagataya yatha karya 506 Diese
und die dazwischenliegenden Worte fehlec bei D. so? B adhay-

amdbhutani C adhayabadbhutani sos Mss. unklar; sie lesen hinter

uttha s\ad die Silbe at; C utthasyad at. 509 BC ayam =10 BC
jaramarya A jaramardyam D jaramayam 511 a sarvatra 512 I)
vadati sis ABC yat tryahitagnir 514 cf. oben Anm. 308; —

“agnibhih” ist wohl zu streichen. sis A 'smayorathyo B imayorathyo
516 A yajniini yudhany B yajayudhinity sir B nirmathya su C
“ngah prabhr" 519 A anutsadayed B anuchavayed 520 A udet

sainna B utthanita C utsaxnna D utthainna; zu erwarten ware etva*
marttikah cf. unten 6. 6. 521 c varuni"; 1.: varuna"? 522 cf. oben

Anm. 58. 523 VS 2. 14?

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittdni 3. 8.

yo agiiis524 | taya me525 hy aroha taya me hy avise ^26 | ’ty a-
smamayani va ^27 lohamayani va brakmanebhyah prada-
dyad ^28 | dasaratram iiiyatavrata[y syub ] samvatsaram ca pi
gotrina I ekadasyam kesasmasru- lomanakhani ^29 vapayitva |
’dbbutani prayascittani 530 vacakam japam iti hutva ma-
rjayitva ^32 t^to yathasukhacarino bhavanti | 7 8 atba
yady enam anahitagnim iva vrtba-’gnina 334 daheyur evam
asyai ’sa 335 mrtpatraviniyoge 336 j ’ti patnya 33 7 bhavati | 'ty
aha ’smarathyo | ne ‘ty ahatuh kanvagopayanau | yadai Va
karma ’bhy338 adhvaryur 33S vihitas tadai Va sarvakratun praty
apado vihita | ity ahur acarya | atba katham asyam apattau
yathai ‘va sarlra-’darsane va samamnatanam apadam339 ka-
tham tatra patraviniyogam pratiyad ity aha ‘smarathyo |

‘ranyor agrun samaropya ^ariranam ardham esa 34o

tusnim nirmathya prajvalya vihrtya madhye 'gmiiam34i edhams34i
citva darbhan samstirya tatra ‘sya sarirani nidadhyur [ bham-
ndasamani gapayed|yady342 agathah343 gyad atha ‘py asama344
kurya[c] | cbarlra-'dar^ane palasa-tsaruny “Js ahrtya ‘thai
‘tani purusri-”krtliii krtva ghrt[enla 'bhyajya mamsa 346.tvag-
asthy asya ghytam ca bhavati ‘ti ha Yi(rjjfiayate 347 | yady
ahavanlyo devalokam yadi daksinagnih pitflokara yadi garha-
patyo manusyalokam | yadi yugapat sarvesv asya 348 loke§v348
avaruddham bhavati ‘ti ha vijnayate | tasmad yugapad
eva sarvamt sadayitva ‘tha yady enam an[v]alabheta puiiar
dahet | stenam 349 iva 549 tv 3i9 eva bruyad | yat kiin ca ‘vidhi-
vihitam karma kriyate tasyai ‘sai ‘va sarvasya klptili sarvasya
prayascitti^ ce | ‘ti hi 35o grutir bhavaty 35 « j atha ‘py atra ‘gner

374 AY. 12. 2. '

B pre

526

8. Gop. Br. 2. 4. 9; Vait. S. 24. 14.

527 BCD ca 328 Ygi. das unten unter 4. 1 uod 6. 5 Gegebene; s. a.

K. S. 25. 7. 32 folg. 329 BO roma” 330 D citta” *31 BCD

karri statt vacakam vgl. oben 3. 6: vacako japam 33 fehlt

bei D 633 AB °varino 331 bei D fehlt gnina 335 B asjaiva;

AC asyaisa D asyaisat 336 bei D fehlt mrt 337 A patrya;

1.: patriyo? “S D karmabhy uddhvaryau 539 A apadim 3io esa
unverstandlich ; davor jedenfalls eine Liicke; D esain 3i AD

'’namedham B “aain medham C "naraedhyam 542 D ^atha

513 ABC agatha D gatha • 5ii B asama C asame D asaiM

545 SO mit aamtlichen Mss., vgl. Ap. 9. 11- 23. §. 25. 8. lo.

mamsarn 5n cf. Ait. Brahm. 7. 2. 5« A unklar B avasya lokesv

54 » D svenam ity 550 B ha 551 Hier endet nach D der Abschnitt 8;
der Rest feblt.

100

J. V. Negehin,

[ 1913 .

ayata®=>'^ somatanur ^52 bhavati | samanvagamevavam =^3 Jjap.

masu samanv a ’tra ’’gamayed | yat kimcid yajne viristam
apadyeta tasyai 'sai *va sarvasya klptih sarvasya praya^citti^
ce I *ti bi srutir bhavati U 8 |1 atha ’tab sattrinam ^54 vaksya-
mah 1 pravptte tantre ’ntastantre va grbapatir^s^ upata-
pah 557 yasya 553 ’>yuj. 559 grbl[t]va seo nugacheh 56i kamam
tasya putram bhrataram vo ’padiksya 562 samapnuyur | (na563
samapnuyur) | na 563 va rtvijam cai ’kam iva564 | ne ’ty 564 aha
’smaratbyo [ na bi grhapater565 iipadiksa 566 vidyate | grbapatim
samlksya 567 yadi many eta [ jived ayam ahoratrav ity ekabany
(ekadvivSsavane) 568 sarvani savanani samavesayed | yasmims
tu samave^ayet tasya savanasya vasam upayanti ’tarani | sa-
vanani nanatantrani ced api bbavanti durgapattau cases sa-
mase 569 ve ■stmam 570 samavesa[yed]57i vaksyakamo57i j yah 572
kas cai ’katantra 572 istaya[h] 573 syur avyavabitah574 kamam ta
ekatantre 575 samavesya bavisam anupurvyena pracaret | prak
svistakrto 576 mukbani tu panca-”jya-’‘butir jubuyad ( agnaye
somSya visnava indragnibbyam prajapataya iti | yadi sauvista-
kptya pracaranti kbalu vai yadi bahuni va sruvepa yatbavada-
nena 577 ’tikramet || 9 U atha ’tab sa[tjtrinam vaksyamab |
pravrtte tantre samnaddbe-’dbma-barbisi pascac candramasam
pa^yed | ya578 esa ’ma(ma)vasyayam57S agneyah purodasas taip
patbikrtaiji 579 karoti prakptye ’taram vinai [ ’tad yajnas cbi-
dyate ya etam antarestiip tanvite | ’ti bi srutir bbavaty | atha

553 I, : apattau? so tanur? 653 B samalage vacam C saman-

yagevaca (tva ?) karma ; sama tv agamayed (vavam) karmasu sama va ’tra
gamajed |( agapayed statt agamayed zu lesen? also: im ersteren Fade
soil man zu ihm wie zu eiuem Diebe (d. b.: leise) reden? 1.- samany-
agame vacam? 554 aBC sattranam ' 555 aBD

praklpte. 656 a ditt: grhapati 557 bD upatapa • sss BCD sya
559 B ”yu 660 B gahlva 56. CD "nugachah; dem Wortlaut nach
fur mich nicht rekonstruierbar. Dem Sinne nach; ^Wenn der Hausherr

wahrend oder nach Vollendung eines Opfers krank wird oder stirbt “

56* B padi C padiksam 503 B ne C labt na aus. 554 ABCD

^anitya 565 aBCD- tir 566 upadiksya; A wiederholt die

Worte von samapnuyur bis upadiksa (sic!). 56? c samiksa ses Soil

■wohl Glosse seiu und gelautet haben: ekadivasani w a vasamaso

BCD casamasau. sto b vaistinam 371 a sama- BC samavesa-

vaksakamo .72 BO yascaika” D kascaikam- 573 B drstayah

5.4 A avyavahita BC avyaveditah 575 b yekatantrai 570 ABCD

•krta 577 c yathavaidanena 578 B yesama- 570 B uakrlam

C pavi (?)krtam ’ pakrtam

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprdyascittani 4. 1.

101

yasya paurnamasyam (va^so) vyapadyeta kamam tatra pra-
krtlh^si kuryat I tad =82 ya[y kratur [dyavakrato va vayo]
vidyate^s- ’tha nirvapaty | agneyam astakapalam aindram
ekadasakapalam asadya havimsi prayascittlr =S3 juhuyad | yad
udagan mahato mahima asya =S4 mano asya jagatak parthi-
vasya ma nah prapad uchunasss kacid anya | kasmai devaya
havisa paridadema svahe ’ty [ atha ’tab pasubandhak [ pari
yajnasya bhojyasyasse bbojyavatka=87 mo =8® ye^s® kecit ta-
trasthah pasavah somakarina ^9® tesam bbaksabhaksanam ] tad
yatba | varaba-inarja[ra]-inahisam59i sakuno=92 ’oyo ’vadanSni
mamsani jamgalani ca yady asisab^ss gyan masi masi saddbo-
tarani jubuyat ] suryam te caksur gaccbatu vato atmanam
prano dyain prstbam antariksam atmangair yajfiam prtbivim
sariraih vacaspate 'cbidraya vaca ’cbidraya jubva devavrdbam
divi botram airayat svabe ’ti saddhotaram hutva=3^ praja-
patih sarvam eve ’dam utsrjed ] iti bi srutir bbavati=95|i lo
(ity596 atbarvavede vaitanasutre prayaacitta - prasamge eka-
daso ’dbyayah *95 iti yajnaprayascitte tritlyo "dhyayah sa-
mdptah.

(sannayyam597 yad udbo-) dhayeyus^®® ced vatsa=99 vayavya-
(ya) 599 yavagva599 sa[iinay]yam599 yajetasoo j ’py6oo ekasya[rp]

5S0 va fehlt bei B. ssi prakrti B krti 582 \

liest statt dieser und der zvrischenliegenden Worte: va krator va vayo
vidyata; D nahyakratudyavakrator va vayo vidyate; — statt ya kratur
vermute ich; prakrtir; moglich auch: tad yah krto va yo va ’krto vidyate
583 A prayascittir B "scitti C ”scitti; D ’scittim 594 x asyam; dieses
Zitat ist fiir mich unermittelbar. sss 1 .; uchuna? sss fehlt bei B.
587 1. vielleicht: bhuktva 5S8 ].: ’mi? 539 A pe “sd BD soma-
karinam 591 A "-mahisam BC °hisa; D °hisu 592 B sakuno AD
sakuna; zu erwarten ware; mahisaiiam sakunanam 558 ACD "sisa;

gemeint ist etwa: asisisuh; der Sinn des Satzes findet sich wieder z. B.
Brahm. Pray. 77 a; yadi syeno va inaip[sain] haret j anyad va sattvam
anyad va ’vadanam yad apa[nrksac chakunir?] iti jubuyat | jede Be-
riihrung durch rauberische Tiere wie z. B. die Krahe ominos : AP 37. 2. 1.
594 ABO vihrtva K. §. 6.1.36. Zur Fasaung dieses Textes gegeniiber
einer Reihe von anderen (s. Bloomfield, Cone, u.: vacaspate chidraya . . .)
neigen nnsere Mss., wie die Lesungen von A: airaya B; airayamt CD
airayam beweisen. 595 Diese und die zwischenliegenden AVorte fehlen
bei A; D °saddhotaram hutva prajapatih 596 fehlt bei A. 597 AD
samajyam; cf. Ap. 9. 1. 24 ff. 599 A udabodbayeyus B udbhaddoyeyus

599 B vatsayayavyathavagvasamyam 0 vatsavayavyayayavagvasa; D vat-
savayavyaya yavagva sayam; zu diesem Abschnitt vgl. Asv. 3. 13. 13 folg.

600 aD Hath

102

J. V. Negeldn,

[1913

dhltayam adhita dohayed ( adhitabhih samsthapya®®* dhitanam
vatsan®®2 apakrtya®®^ svah«®® saipnayyena®®^ yajeta®®® | sayain-

A sajnatha 602 A vatenapankrtya B vatsanasakrta C . . . tsana-
thakrtyah; cf. Brahm.Pray, 17 b (anCerst korrupt); K.§. 25.4. 39. A

sva B sruh 604 A sanrajyena B samrajyena CD samnajyena

605 Hierzu findet aich in dem Passus Brahm. Pray. ITa folgende, durch
Korruption fast jedea Wortes leider vcrschleierte Parallele (ich zitiere
ohne Veranderung des Textes): yadi vatsa apakrta dbayeyuh tatra na
”dhanam vidhiyate | kim tarhi mitratveno ’padiyate tatraidam prayas-
cittam vaks[y]ainanain bhavati | vatsaprahanaiii kim vatsanadhane prayas-
cittam I mrganapateaamdbane prayascittaiii ma ”bhud ity apakrta iti
apakrtair dhane prayascittam [ . . . apare tu tatra drstva tu vrihln eve
’chanti vayavye ’ti devata-vifesa-niyamarthaTn | yavagve ’ti .... var-
ttamane vatsan apakrtya punar yajete ’ti . . . vayavya yavagva praca-
ryeta | . . . . nirvapakalo na visasyate | tatra nimittakala eva nirvapah
kuta etad gamyate | sayamdohartta vaksyati imdraya viihia nirvapeta
svobhute tesv anunirvaped iti ... . svobbutesv eva vrihi-yavesu va pra-
krtebhyo ’gnyadibhyo ’nyadibhyo ’nunirvapet | . . . . sannayyabliavad dhota
nirgatayanabhyuditesti yaaya sannayyam candrama abhyuditi darsa-
nat I . . . vgl. oben 2. 1 u. Brahm. Pray. 22 a: sayamdoham iti samastata
yarn doham iti aamasta-sayamdohasya ’pahare dose va dvaidhe dohanarn (!)
avayavapaharasesena yaga eva bhavati | atha dvaidharn dohane prasrute
tatra dugdhasu vatsa-’pakaranadi dvitiyasyam kubhyani dohah kartta-
vyah I ekasya dvayoh pasunani va ekatra dugdhasu vatsapakaranady
anyasyam tavatyo dugdhasese dvaidhaiii dohayet | dvaidharn dugdhe adya-
sya sayamdohasyo ’palanobhayoh pracarah karttavyah | . . . . BI.22b: yadi
sayarndoha arttirn niyad indraya vrihin nirvapeta .... yadi sayamdohe
vatsa dhayeyuh pratardoharttih syat tatra vayavya purodasau karttavyau |
sayaiiidoha-pratardohe dhite purodasau vayavya ca yadi sayarndoha arttir
iti vrihayo nirupta vijnanam purva vatse dhite indraya vrihln yavan va . . .
nirv’apah karttavyah | yady ul)hav ainidrain pamcasaravam odanam pacet |
yady ubhav iti prakrtau sayaindohaprStardohau tau pratyavamrsyete |
yady ubha[v a]rtti[tn] niyetam . . ity arthah | tatre ’dairi prayascittarn parii-
casaravam odanani pacet | yad iha vidhiyate yavaguh purodasah paiica-
saravo va sarvaskanne naste duste ve ty asya yavad indraye ti yama-
rtham aharndrayajino pi ’ndraryagavacanadyah prakrto yogo yavagu
purodasah pancasaravo va tat-sainbaindho yaga syat | — Bl. 24 a: yasya
sannayy^arn havis candrama abhyudiyat vatsan u pratinudet sayarridohe
haviratarncanarn vrato yathakalain yajeta .... Bl. 25a: dhite [’Jdhitesv
arttigate va vatsan apakrtya punar yajet ] cf. unten 5. 3 und Brahm.
Pray. 26 b: yasya sanuayyarn candrama abbyudita abhyuditasyu nantaram
pasukamo ’mavasyam istva tusulm sarvan vatsan apakaroti . . . cf. Agn.
Pray. 6b: vatsanam dhane vayave yavagum | sannayya-’rtham apakrtanarn
vatsanarn pane(ra) vayu-devatya yavagun nirupya taya yastavyah sarva-
pane etat prayascittarn | pita-sistam eva havisah paryaintarn cet ) vyahrti-
homa eva na yavaguh | yavagva yagam krtva punar yagah karttavyah |
vgl. Asv. Pray. 3 a: sannayyartham apakrtanarn sarvapane vayudevatyarn

Vol. Kxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittdni 4. 1.

103

dohamfioe cedso® apahareyuh pratardoham dvaidham krtva
’nyatavat sayamdohasthane krtvo ’bhabhyam yajeta | pra*
tardoham ced^os apabareyub sayamdoham dvaidhaniB®^
krtva ’nyataratfii® pratardohasthane krtvo ’bhabhyani yaje-
to<^*i I 'bhau ced dusyeyatam aindram pancasaravamsi- oda-
nam6i2 nirupya^is "gneyena pracaryai "ndrena ’nupraca-
red uttaram upo 'sya(to) v(ad)o ’bhabbyam yajeta j sarvani
ced dhavimsy apahareyur dusyeyur*'*^ va ’jyena ca devata

yavagum nirupya arapayitva yastavyam | sa tvam no . . . (RV. 8. 26. 25)
isanaya prahutim yas . . . (RV. 7. 90. 2); vajy asi va° (RV. 10. 56. 3) iti
yajyanuvakye ] avadana-paryaptene ’stva punar yajeta |

60 S ^ Bayayamdohani veksasvahareyuh B sayaiiidoha cadepakareyuh
(i07_6ii Diese und die inzwischenliegenden Worte fehlcn beiD. os'? Brahm.
Pray. 68 a: tatba ’nyatarauase ekam api sa ptirvapii] dvaidhlkrtya nir-
mathya ity eke; — zu dem ganzen Passus Ath. Pray. 4. 1 vgl. Ap. §. 9.
1. 21tf. ; cf. Asv. Pray. 17 b: sayanidohe naste pratardohaiu dvidha vi-
bhajyai ’kain bbagam ataiucya tabhyam yagani kuryat | pratardohe naste
tad-devatyam purodaaain krtva yagah || amiksanase py etat j] tasyah pra-
tardoha-vikaratvat || amiksam eva utpadya taya yajete ’ti kecit |1 vajina-
nase ajyena yagah 1| sannayye ubbaya-dose aiindrain panicasaravam oda-
nain garhapatye arapayitva tene ’indra-yagah H atra sarva-prayascittaip
visnu-smaranam ca karyaiu j so* A pratardhi cen sos A cedvai-
dham B dvaidhyam C dvaidhain oio A "nyatarata sii A yajneto
B yajete *‘2 a pancaiaravodanani; cf. Asv. 3. 10. 27; K. S. 25. 5. 2;
s. auch unten in 4. 4. S'o ABC nirupya" D setzt mit dem

korrupten Passus wieder ein: tau bbau ce dusyen ma tam airndrain
panicasaravam odanam nirupya s*-* Brahm. Pray. 7 a bringen folgende
Klassifizierung des rituell Unreinen: dustani trividham varnayanti | . . . .
jatidustam asrayadustam sanisargadustam ca ] jatidustam palamdu-grin-
janaka-”di | .... asrayadustam anaryadi-parigrhitam tatra ’pi miecha-
"dibhir anaryaih saha samvyavahara .... saiiisargadiistam mala-”dibhih |
.... evam adibhir upahatani dravyam apo ’bhyavaharet | apah pratiga-

mayet 1| vgl. ibid. 7b: tad va praksepya tatrai ’vo ’dakam asinoet

ibid. 8a: atha patrany apo ’bhyavahared iti varttate . . . nirlikhed daru-
mayam . . . nistapen marttikam | adbhih sauvarna-rajatam samsodhayed
iti sesah | athava nirlikhed iti varttate | nirlekhanain ca sainsodhanam
marttikasya nistapanam sauvarna-rajatasya ’dbhir eva sainsodhanam | iti
upasargah II — tjber den Begriff des Substituts findet sich ibid.
Bl. 9 a folg. eine Auseinandersetzung. Xachdem eine Stellvertretung des
Opferfeuers und des Opferherrn als ausgeschlossen hingestellt ist (Bl. 9 a :
agner na pratinidhih svaminas ca pratinidhir na ’sti | samavayat [ yo hi
yajate sa eva phalena sainbadhyate | tasmad yajamanasya pratinidhir na
’sti]) sagt der sehr korrupte Passus, in interessanter Weise den Begriff
der Opferbarkeit umschreibend: .... yatha masa(!)-masura-kodrava-”di
yasya yam(?) samyogah | aarvatrai ’va pratisidhyate | ayajniya vai masah |
ayajniyah kodrava iti . . . und ibid. 10 a: atha yajniyam anapratinidheyam

104

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

yajeta 6 i 5 | ’tha ’nyam adosatn istim tanvlta(m | a)po dustameie
abhyavahareym-Gi’ \ brahmanair abhaks[y]a[m] dustam bavir (
bbutam^is ced ajyam skandedsis bbupataye svahe ’tisia
tribhir pradesair diso mimaya tad yajamano devan 620 janam 620
agann ^20 ity 620 annsango *21 | yajnasya tvS pramaye ’ti
cataspbhih parigrhnlyat | yajnasya tva pramayo- nmaya-’bbi-
maya pratimaya (paridadema) *22 svabe«22 >ty | anutputam

yatha palasasya paribhadrakah | asvatthasya gardabhaudah khadirasya
kadira(!) bhavati samanyena tu kvacit tataa tesam aparigrahah | anvatra
’coditatvat pratisiddhasya ca ina.sade{!) aparigraha eva tatra ’nugrahika
ukta-viiha(!)-Tava(!)-purodasa8ya tesam alabhe tusavatinam tamdulavatl-
nam osadhinam purodaaan kurvamti masadi-varjam iti . . . vgl. auch
ibid. 28a: sarvaskanne naste duste va yathapurvam panah samskaranam |
und die ganz verderbte Stelle 29 b: aaannesu havihsu sarvasmin duste
dugdhe va naste va sarvam samsodhya vatsapakaranadi-sadyahkriya
sodasa-daryidhmapimdapitrya . . . vedyah samskarah krta eva | mrt pra-
dlyate | ayatir anumarntranam na 'gnihotrani dohadi siddham | vedam
krtva(?) paristaraiiadipatrayogah siddham anyat | Vgl. auch K. 25. 4.
13 folg., — verunreinigtes Wasser wird weggegosaen : AP 37. 18. 1. Das
nirlekhanam reap, samsodhanam der Opferinstrumente erfolgt mit der
Hand: [suddhir] yajnapatraiiam panina yajnakarmani (Agnip. 156. 4).

615 cf. Ap. 9. 15. 14f. 616 cf. Brahm. Pray. Bl. 6b: dustam apo

’bhyavaharet [ und Bl. 7a: tatha ca dharmasastre | vasa sukram asrg
majja vin mutraru karuavin nakhah | slema-sru dusika(?) svedo dvadasai
’te nrnam malah || cf. K. §. 25. 5. 9 folg., vgl. Anin. 58 und die dort zitierten
Stellen. 617 Pray. 17a folg.: vyapannani bavir jale viniksipet ||
tatra “jyena svistakrt || prayaja-”dy-anga-havir-Dase tu tad dbavir ut-
padyate na yajeta || na tatra ’gnyanvadhanadi punah prayogah j
618 Nur verstandlich als Korruptel einer alteren Fassung von Ap. 9.
15. 17: yad aryanam abhojaniyam syan na tena yajeta; — statt bhutam
1. : putam? vgl. nnten: anutputam 619 skandet tad adbhutayeye

svahe ’ti B made skande ced bhutainyeye cet svahe ’ti CD skamde
ced bhupataye cet svahe ’ti; vgl. Ap. 9. 13. 6, 7; 14. 28. 6. 620

devam janmamga nityam B devain janmagamnityam CD devam
janmamgam nityam ; dieser Vorschrift entspricht geuau Ap. 9. 13. 5.
6-1 Brahm. Pray. 30b: devan janam agan .... iti skaanam abhimamtrya
>po ninayet | Asv. Pray. 9a: athe ’sti-madhye havdsam skannam abhi-
mrset | devan janam agan yajnas .... amhaso (Asv. 3. 13. 15). bhupataye
svaha bhuvanapataye svaha bhutanam pataye svaha yajnasya tva pramayo

’nmaya ’bhimaya pratimaya drapsas caskamda ceti (RV. 10. 17. 11)

Auch des TJberlaufens des Opfermuses wird gedacht: Asv. Pray. 16 a:
carau OTapyamane pragdisi tapad ntsikte .... daksiiiatas ced .... pascac ced
.... uttaratas cet .... yugapat sarvatas cet . . . vidiksu [cet] . . . || utsiktam
carum apyayati 1| 622 So BC; A liest: yajnasya tva pramadanmaya-

bhimaya paridadema svahe ’ty. Bl.’s Index verzeichnet nur: yajnasya tva
pramayonmayabhimaya pratimaya, so auch die wahre Meinung der korr.
Fassung von D; vgl. Asv. 3. 13. 15; zu vgl. ist ferner: Ap. 9. 13. 6.

Vol. xxxiii.J

Atharvaprayasdttani 4. 1.

105

ced ajyam skandeds^a vittam624 pranamS^'* dadyats^s | tatho
’tputain626 utpuyamanam ced ghrtam®27 dadyad atho ’tpu-
tam*>2s utpuyamanam ced ghrtani®29 pranam dadyadeso deva-

tantare63i ced^^i ghftam®3i | ahutilopavyatyase 6^2 | tvam no

agne | sa tvam na | iti sarvaprayascittam 6®^ juhuyat |
tvam no agne varimasya vidvan®*® devasya kedo ’vayasi-
sisthah | yajistho vaknitamah sosucano visva dvesamsi pramu-
mugdky asmat |1 sa tvam no agne ’vamo kkavoti nedistko
asyS usaso vyustau | ava yaksva no varunam rarano viki
mrdikam sukavo na edki svake ’ti | devata- vadane ySjya-
’nuvakya-vyatyasa ®36 ’namnata 63®-prayascittanam va yady

623 skamdet C skande *24 cf. Ap. 9. 13. 1. *25 cf. Man. S. 3. 1. 2. 1.

Audi die Verunreinigung der Schmelzbutter veriangt Siihne (Asv.Pray. 17 b) :
ajyo-’pahatau tajjale prakdpya ’nyat samskrtya tena pracarab || ; vgl. ibid.
18a: avattadvy-avadaDa-”deb slemadina nase punar ayatanad eva Vadaya
sarvaprayascittam krtva, yastavyara || eka-dvy-ady-avadana-vaikalyene ’stva
tvan no agne sa tvan no agne (Ap. 9. 12. 4) ity etabbyam sruvabuti butva
punar avadaya yajete ’ty uktam prayascitta-canidrikayam || 626 D anu-

putam 627 A unklar; BC vrtam; cf. M. S. 1. 4. 13. 62 s A “tpuyam

629_63i Diese nnd die inzwischenliegenden Worte feblen bei D. A ve
vittarn B va cica C ve oinva 620 cf. Ap. 9. 13. 2 yady utputam citrarn
deyam. Dieb ist uripriinglicb der Sinn des bier ganzlicb korrumpierten
Passes gewesen. 62 1 a evataintaravedvittam B devatanamnarecac-

cittam C devatamtare cec oittam; so D, jedoch: °tara cec ... 622 Das

Znviel oder Zuwenig bei dem Hersagen von Mantra erheisebt Siibne
(Asv. Pray. 18 a): asravaiia-pratyasravana-vasatkaresu mamtramtara-nyuna-
’tireke sati asravitam atyasravitam (Ap. 3. 11. 2) ity adhvaryuh sruvena
jubuyat || Des Ausfalls des ganzen Agnibotra-Opfers wird gedaebt in
Agn. Pray. 10 b: prasangad dhomam lopaprayascittam likhyate | ekasya
dvayor bahunam api vichede caturgrbitam manasvatya jubuyat | aneka-
’gnibotra-’tipatti-nimittam manasvatya caturgrbitam bosyami ’ti samkalpya
’gnim vibrtya inanasvati[r] jubuyat | kecid yavamtah ka'a- [1.: la?] bomena
viebinnas tavato(m) ekaikam kalam prati(!) ekaiko bomah karttavyah |
na manasvatj'-avrttih | paksaboma-nyayena tan homan kuryad iti praya-
scitta-pradipe | 622 Ry.4. 1. 4f.; cf. Brahm. Pray. 14 b: .... devatavadana-

yajya-’nuvakya- mamtra-karma- viparyase ’namnata- prayascitt .... apadi
tvam no agne sa tvam no agna .... bhinna-krama-yogo(!)- viparyasab . .
cf. ^karmaviparyasah” oben in 3. 4. — devataviparyasa: K. S. 25. 5. 19.
634 CD “prayafcittim cf. hierzu Ap. 9. 16. 10. 633 B.V. 4. 1. 4. 636 ^

"tyasenatyata B ”tyasenaninatah 0 "tyaseinnatyata D “tyasenvamnata;
vgl. Asv. 3. 13. 14. K. S. 23. 5. 19. 637 ygl. Asv. Pray. 17 b: yagat

prag dhotur yajya-’nuvakya-viparyase sati und ibid.: krte tu yage

anuvakya-viparyasa-jate prayascittam eva na tu yaga-’bhyasah 1| yajyayam
api avibita-devatayam tad-devatyayam anyadevatyayam va vibita-devata-
’’desam krtva vibitam eva devataiu dhyayan yadi vasat kuryan na tada

106

J. V. Negekin,

[1913.

rkto^as ’bhy abadhah syad«®8 bhur janad iti gSrhapatye
jubuyad | yadi yajusta om bhuvo janad iti daksinagnau juhuyad |
yadi samata om svar janad ity ahavanlye jubuyad j yady639
anajiiata bralimata om bbur bhuvab svar janad om ity aba-
vanlya eva jubuyad 639 ajyabliagante sve *^9 devatam ava-
hayisyan yasyai (>a) bavir niruptam syat tato-’ntaya yajeta
’’jyasyai ’tani nirupya®** | yadi bhagimmS^^ ug, ”vahayed692
yatra smaret tatrai 'nam upo-’ttbaya ’’vabyas-is ”vapa-
stbane 6*-* yajeta [ barhisi skanne^^B ug ’’driyeta | da-

yaga- bhyasah purvoktaiii prayaaeittam visnuBmaranani ca karyam avihita-
yajyam Tadann avihita-devata-”de3e dbyane [1. °nam] kurvan jadi vasat
kuiyat tada puiroktani prayascittam krtva punar avadaya yajeta jj svista-
krd-anaiiitaram smaiane ajyene ’tyadi purvavat || agnisomlyena purnda-
sena ’’gneye yage krte uktam prayascittaiii krtvil "gneyena ’gnlsomiyaya-
gah " aarva-prayascittam visnusmaranain ca [ cf. ibid. : devate anuvakye
yajye va viparihrtya ”jye avadane bavi>I va | devata-viparyasa uvahana-
”disu vyutkramah | anuvakya-viparyaso ’nyadiyam anyasya ’nubruyat |
evam yajya-vipan asah | ajya- viparyaso jauhavau-”pabhrtayor ity adi |
avadana-viparyiisah purviirdhat purvardbat purvam ity adi | havir-vipa-
ryaso nirvapadi | yage ca ’nyadSyasya ’nyasya yagah | etesam roadbye
anyatara-nimitte aati prayascittaiji kartavyam | yad vo deva .... nidhe-
tana svabe ’ti (Ap. 3. 11.2) tisthann ajyahutim hutva janv aoya bbur iti
giirbapatye juhuyad yadi yajusto bbuva iti daksinagnau | vgl. dazu ferner
Stellen wie Alv.Priiy, 9b: atba ”vabana-’’disu devatanam viparyase yajyanu-
vakyaviparyaae va. juhu-’pabhrd-dbruvu-’j}anrim paryase va pUn'ardha-
’vadana-samaye aparardha-”dy-avadane va bavir-viparyase va yad vo deva

atipatayaui (A4v. 3. 1.3. 18) ity ajyahutim brahma jubuyat !| tasmai

yajamano raukiiyam dhanain dad>at |{ yagat prag yfijya-’nuvakya-viparyasa-
jnane prayascitlan: krtva punah samuccarya yagah karyah } yagana-
mtaram jnane prayascittam eva Uber die Vertauscbung der Opfermate-
rialien sprechen auch Asv. Pray. 16a: juhu-’pabbrd-dhruva-’jyanam vi-
paryase yad vo dev:"i iti sruvahutini brahma jubuyat j; tasmai yajamano
mukhyani dhanain dadyat | ; vgl. ibid. 16 b : havisam viparyaseno ’dvasane
brahma yad vo deva iti pOrvavaj jubuyat | tasmai yajamano mukbyam
dhanain dadyat |j ka; alanudvasaue (?,i adhvaryur iisravayati cet tada ’gnaye
vaisviinaraya purniihutih |i

63S A rcobhyabadbasya B rktobhyabadba syad om C rcobhyatvadha
syad om D rcobhyabadha syad om; 63* AD lassen diese und die

inzwiscbenliegenden "Worte aus; vgl. Gopi. Br. 1. 3. 3. ].: sva-”?

D nirupya A bhagininam navahayed B bhaginTnavahayed

Brabm. Pray . 36 a : bbaginim cen ca ’’vabayet | bhago asya ’sti ’ti mam-
trarthlya iti bhagini yasya nirvapah krtah aistrena yagas coditah sa bha-

ginl tarn cen navahayet cf. Asv. Pray. 18 a: hota ya^tavyiim devatam

anavabye ’tarani karma yadi kuryat tada yatrai ’va smaret tatrai ’vo ’ttbaya
tam devatam avahayet na mamdra-svara-niyamah | mar.ase ’ty eke i; yady
asthaninim avahayet tada nigaraesu tam nigamayet || sthaninim ca ’dbva-

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayasdttdni 4. 1.

107

ksinena ced yajeta ’rddharcat s-*’ pratistham dadyat | puro-
dase du[h]srite 648 sarpisy annam catuhsaravam odanam
brahmanebhyo dadyat 649 | tatas tarn eva punar nirvapet |
purodase viksame yato *60 ’sya 'ksamahs^i syat tato
yajeta j dvesyaya tarn dadyad daksinam ca 658 | puro-

ryua ca jagakale caturgrhltena dhrauvajyena yastavyam yajet || tad-deva-
tye yajyanuvakye hotra pathaniye | anumamtranain yajamanena !] tato
visnusmaranarii || viparyasena ’’vahane brahma purvavad yad vo devfi iti
juhuyat l| tasmai yajamano mukhyaiii dhaDam dadyat jj of. Agn. Pray. 16 a;
sthaninim anavahya devatam upotthSya "vahayen maEase ’ty eka ajyena
’sthaninlm yajet | yadi kasmiiiis cit karmani yajtavya[in] devatam anii-
[vajhyai Vo ’ttaram uttaram uttaram karma kuryat tada yavati gate
smarati tad evo [1.: ’aivo] ’potthaya "vahayet | yady asthauinlni praraadad
avahayet tada ’smiiin eva kramena tam ajyena yajet j nigamesu ca niga-
mayet j ^^3 A bahya BC vapasthane A yajed B yajetta;

Aav. 3. 13. 19 cf. Asv. Pray. 17b: anubruhi ’ty atra bhaginy-ullekhe
hotary api bhaginim puro ’nu va vadati prag vadanat smarane sati catur-
grhltena dhruvajye yilgah karttavyah jj avadana-'naintarani smarane saty
abhaginim istva punar avadaya bhaginyfi yagah karyah J 349 Asv. Pray.
12b: upari sthapitam sakhe-’dhma-barhir-adi yady adhastat patati tada
brahmaprati.stha-manaso brahmavaco brahma-yajnanSm bavisam Sjyasya
ca ’tiriktani manitrena jjurvavat sainsthapya ”jyaia samskrtya sruk-
sruvam sammrjya tenaiva maintreua svahakaraintena "havaniye ’dhva-
ryuh sruva-’’hutim juhuyat || yajuiiya brahmana idaiu j] Hiya-bhaga-
’namtararn athalyaiyena hutva viyiiu-smaranaiu kuryat I' sakhe-’dhma-bar-
hih-prastara-veda-paristaraMa-pavitra-vidhrti-paridliy-upiive^a-”di-dravya-
nani daha-”dina nase (cf. oben in 2. 5.) viu-mutra-”dy-upahatau vil
’dhvaryus taj-jatlyam anyad vidhaya svasthSne niyojayet jj tata ajyani
samskrtya ’’jya-bhaga-’namtaraui va sruvahuti juhuyat ( tvam agne ayasi
(Ap. 9. 12. 4) “sajarn svaha || agnaye yasa idaiii ;; pra.japate na °naiu sva-
ha |1 praja “idarn tato visuusmarauaiu '! paviira-naie miiudadi-gano praya-
scittam ity* uktani prayascitta-iiradipe || ajya-’valokana-’naintaram etat
prayascittani tat-prak mimda-gana iti kecit | sa ca ’gre vaksyate || sarvadu
samuccayo va •' idhma-barhisoh prayaja-’nuyrijanaiii ca nyuyia-tireke . . . .

947 AD 'rddharatrat 94s cf. Brahm. Pray. 31 b : y asy a purodasau
duhsrtav iti brahmaiioktaiii prayascittani pradhanesv eva tad bhavati |
gemeint ist M. S. 1. 4. 13. 9i4 cf. Ap. 9. 15. 18; Asv. 3. 14. 1.

65U A viksamepato B viksabheyato cf. M. S. 1.4. 13. tti A k-ama
BCD ksamain 652 cf. oben 2. 1 ; vgl. Asv. 3. 14. 2 und Brahm. Pray. 32a:
atha yasya purodasau ksayata iti srutidarsauat pindapitryajiiadiyu jiunah-
samskara eva karttavya ity uktam | Agn. Pray. 16 a: havisi duhsrte catuL-
sanivam odanam brahmanan bhojayet | yada havir apakvarn bhav.iti tada
tenai Va havisa tat karma samapya catuhsarava-parimitani vriliibbir
odanam paktva caturo brahmanan bhojayet | daksinagniin vihrtya la-
sminn odanam paktve ’ty apastarabah j 953 Agn. Pray, lib: ksame

sistene ’stva punar yajeta | ckadesa-dagdhe prayascittain na bhavati [
[yada] ’vadana-pary aptam na 'sti cet tada tenaiva matra-’pacarenaiva

108

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

dase sarvaksame nirvapanaprabhrtyam udahrtya 6^4 | ta-
palefiss iiasta®56 ekahayanam dadyad^sT | dhata dadhatu pituli

yagah karttavyah ] tantram samapya puiiar-viliaraBa-”di tasyaiva yagah
karttavyah | avadana-dvaya-paryaptam aksama-dravyam asti cen naiva
prayascittam | idam ekadesam adagdhasya laksanam | astse punar-avrttih |
asesa-dagdhe punar-avrttih karya | sarva-dagdha ity ahhiprayah | punarya-
ga-punaravrtyor ayam visesah | varttainana-karma(m) samapya punar adi-
ta eva ’’rabhya ’mtatah kriya punar-yagah | punar-avrttis tu varttamana-
prayoge nastasya havisah punar-utpadanam iti punar-utpaditena havisa

sa eva prayogah samapayitavyah | ayam anayor visesah | ksame

sistene ’st[v]e “ty asmin prayoge ya daksina sa dvestre datavya |

654 A nudahatya B mudahyatya C ‘hrtya 655 Diese und die dazwischen-
liegenden Worte fehlen hei D. 656 B neste ACD naste; cf. Ait. Brahm.
7.9: yadi kapalam nasyet . . . asvibhyani dvikapalam purodasara nivapet |
657 Asv. 3. 13. 9; cf. Asv. Pray. 8a: purodasa-srapanam arabhya kapalo-
'dvasana-paryantam kapale nasta idam (namlioh : agnaye vaisvanaraya
purnahutih) eva prayascittam |1 udi'asanad urdhvain na dosah H patra-
”sadana-”di3rapauad arvak kapala-bhedane gayatrya sataksaraya sam-

dadhamS ’ti (Asv. 3. 14. 10) sarudhaya ’bhinno gharmo anusaratarantu

(ibid.) prati dadhmo yad atra svaha yajno ’pyetu devan (ibid.) iti

mamtrabhyam apsu niksipet 1| evam sva-”dibhir ghratany api kapalani
piirva-mamtrabhyam apsu niksipet | anyani mrnmayani patrani bhinnani

asuci-sambamdhini va bhumir bhumim agan bhidyatam (A. S.

3. 14. 12) iti mamtreua ’psu niksipet |1 baudhayana-”carya-vade kapala-
nudvasane adhvaryur asravayati cet tada ’gnaye vaisvanaraya purnahutih ||
Asv. Pray. 14b: purodasa-srapanad urdhvam api kapalo-’dvasana-pary-
amtam kapale naste isty-asaktau srucam dvadasa-grhltena caturgrhitena va
purayitva juhuyat || agnaye vaisvanaraya svahe ’ti |] agnaye [vaisjvanaraye
’dam” 11 patra-”8adana-”di yavac-chrapanam kapala-bhedane gayatrya tva

sataksaraya samdadhamiti samdhaya ’bhinno gharmo — anusamcarantu

(Asv. 3. 14. 10) II trayastrimsad devan (ibid.) iti mamtrabhyam apsu praksipet |
evam svadibhir aghratani kapalani purvamamtrabhyam apsu praksipet ||
tatah kapala-’ntaram proksanadi krtva yojayet H sarvaprayascittam visnu-
smaraiiam ca kuryat |1 yathokta-samkhya-’dhiko-’padhane nyuno-’padhane
va kapalanam parasparam samyah-melana-’bhave va ’ingula-dvayo-”rdhva-
pramanabhave va "jyabhaga-’namtaram adhvaryur vyahrtibhih sruvahutir
juhuyat || kapalo-’padhanakale nihita-’mgare purodaso-’padhanat purvam
anugate manasvatim ahavanlye hutva punah kapalesv amgarain nida-
dhyat || anyani mrnmayani patrany akrta-prayojanani bhinnani asuci-sam-
bamdhini va bhumir bhumim agan . . . bhidyatam iti mamtrena ’psu ksi-
pet II sarva-prayascittam krtva purvavat patra-’ntaram yojayet || yasmin-
kasmims-cid darumaye patre tat-sthane ’nyan nidhaya bhur ayur me
dharayata pranam me dharayata prajam me dharayata pasun me dha-
rayata ayuh pranah prajah pa^vah paraiidhyerann (TS. 3. 1.8.1) ity abhi-
mamtrya mimdadi-ganena dvada^-grhitena srucam purayitva jatavedasi
sunavama-soma mano jyotir (Asv. 2. 5. 14) [iti] dvabhyam tisrbhir maha-
vyahrtibhir juhuyad esa durgadi-ganah 1| durgadi-ganena hutva bhumir

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittani 4. 1.

109

pitanasto®5S gharmo visvayur yato jatas tato ’py aTam'se svahe
’ti juhuyat655 | kapale bhinne gayatrya tva sataksaraya sam-
dadhaml 'tis'o samdhaya dbata dadhatv ity eva juhuyad |
agneya[ia] ekakapalam nirvaped asvinam dvikapalam vaisna-
vam trikapalam saumyam catubkapalam®®! | naste bhinne ca
bbargavo beta klta-’vapannam sannayyam madhya-
mena parnena mahi dyaur®®^ ity antahparidhidese ni-
nayen 6®^ | mabl dyauh prthivi ca na imam yajnam mimi-

bhomim ity ahavaniye praharet || patra-madhye jaladau varttamana idam
prayascittam || kevala-patrabhede ahavaniye prasya mimdadir eva na
bhiir ayur ma ity uktaiii prayascittam camdrikayani |] cf. Agn. Pray. 14 b:
kapale naste ’nudvaaite ’bhyasravite va | udvasanat purvain kapalasyi
"suci-samsarga - nimittam | yesam srapana-'namtaram udvasanam tesam
anudvasite kapale saty asravanadi krtam ced ubhaye 1 nimittayor anya-
tara-nimitte sati vaisvanarestih karya |

658 Man. S. 3. 1. 25. 653 1. agam = agan 666 Ap.

9. 13. 8. Asv. 3. 14. 10. M. S. 1. 4. 13. A wiederholt ksame yato sya ksa-
main syat tato yajeta dvesyayatam dadyad daksinam ca purodase; cf.
Brahm. Pray. 32 b : yadi kapalarti bhidyeta gayatrya tva sataksaraya sam-
dadhamiti samdhayo ’padadhyat 66i cf. K. S. 25. 5. 1. — Brahm.Pray.

33a sehen noch folgende Mdglichkeit vor: dvayo[h kapalayor] bhinnayo[r]
bahunam cai Vam eva prthak aamdhayo ’padhanam ekaikasya tatha
praksepah kecid icha(m) iebamti yato jatam tad apy aryo (?) tayato jate
tad apy agatain (?) yato jatani tad apy agur iti ye tu madhyama-puru-
sena praearamti tad apy aga svahe 'ti . . . 33 b : atha yasya kapalaiji
nasyatl 'ti (vgl. M. S. 1. 4. 13) praksalya(?) yada tat (?) havih Bamtisthe[t]
tatha-’gnaye vaisvanaraya dvadasakapalam nirvaped iti ... . 34 a: nastadhi-
gatani kapalam apsu prahared iti varttate visvayur jato (?) tatam tad
apy aga svahe 'ti . . . namas te rudra ity anumamtrapam. — vgl. Agn. Pray.
17 a: kapalam bhinnam anapavrtta-karma gayatrya . . . samdadhami 'ti
samdhaya 'po 'bhyavahareyuh [ purodusa-srapanat prak kapfila-bhede gaya-
trya tva .... °mi 'ty anena mamtrena samdbanaka-dravyaih samdhanam
krtva 'bhinno gharmo jiradanur yata arttas (nach Asv. 3. 14. 10) tad

agan vajfio 'pyetu devan (Asv. S. 3. 14. 10, cf. Ap. 9. 13. 9) iti

dvabhyam apo 'bhyavahareyuh ] evam apalldha 'bhiksiptesu | svadibhir
abhiksiptani tad-asana-”dibhir abhyasya 'suci-sambamdhani kapalany abhi-
nnany apy evam kuryat | abhinno gharma ity adi purvavat | tato vaisvanare-
'stih I ata eva 'nyani mrnmayani [ kapalebhyo 'nyani mrnmayam bhinnany
abhinnani ca | bhumir bhumim agan mata . . . bhidyatam ity apa eva
'bhyavaharet 662 \ hotyatakitabbih na D hotakidyadyaunam ; cf. Ap. 8.
9. 2. 5; vgl. oben Anm. 119. 6U3 RV. 1.22. 13. 604 A nijen B ni-

nayeta C ninayet; Asv. 3. 10. 23 f. Ap. S. 9. 2. 4; — cf. Agn. Pray. 5 b : yadi
havi[h]su muhyeyuh patrya samaya vibhajya ’’nupurvena pracared ity
evam devayanih (1.: 'yonih) [ bhinna-siktani ca ] . . . . prajapate na tvad
etany anya (RV. 10. 121. 10) iti valmikavapayam (va) sannayyain dustam
madhyamena palasa-parnena juhuyat | anena svahakarantena main-

110

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

ksatam j pipytam no bharimabhih663 svahe ’ti | prak prayaje-
bbyo^fi® ’ngaram barbisy adhiskanden^'iT namas te astv aya-

trena valmlkadvare prasimcet | apsu va tusnim | visyaindama(da)nam
mahl dyanh .... ity antahparidhidese nirvapeyuh |

665 cf. Aav. Pray. 16 a: sannayyam paka-samaye kumbhim atitya bahih
patati cet tada tat patram[ta]re adaya paridhi-dese mahi dyaub prtbivl ca
na ity anena ninayet || sarvaprayascittam krtva Vasistena yajet || sarva-nase
punar-doha-”di | ainikaa-yage ’py etat samanain j] tasyah payo-vikaratvat ||
666 D prayajebhyam 66? cf. Komm. zu Ap. 9. 1. 17: ... . pura prayajebhyo
bahisparidhy aiigarab skandet . . . vgl. Brabm. Pray. 34 a: yadi prak praya-
jebbyo bahihparidhy amgara skandet tarn abhimamtrayeta adhvaryu[in3
ma "himslr ity evam adibhih purastad daksinatah pasead uttarata iti

mamtraviaesair uktam abhimamtranam j yasyam diai skanno bhavati

tatra yo ’vabito mamtrah tenaiva ’bhimamtranam bhavati | anyesam adi-
tyam purastat paridadhatlty aparimanatvad adityasya purastat skanne

prayaacittarn na bbavati 34 b: yadi bahavo ’rngara bahisparidbi

skanna bhavamti tada ’bbimamtranadi-praksepamtain karma prthak kartta-
vyam abhibomas tu sad ete ee ‘ti abbijubotlti brabmaprayascittani
sruvena juboti 'ti; vgl. aucb oben 2. 6 und Asv. Pray. 16a: prak praya-
jebhyah paridbi-deaad bahir yady amgarab patati purastat tada Ijrahma
tarn amgaram sruva-damdena nidadbyat || ma tape ma yajfias tapan ma ya-
jflapatis tapan || namas te astv ayate namo rudraya te name yatra nisl-
dasi adbvaryum ma birnslr yajamanam ma bimslr iti || yadi daksinatah
patet sa eva sruvadamdena nidadbyat || ma tape "si brahmanam ma bim-
sir yajamanarn ma himslr iti || yadi pascat patet tada .... hotaram ma
bimslr patnim ma himslr yajamanain ma himslr iti || yady uttaratah patet

tada agnldhram ma .... yajamanam ma ... iti || athainam annpra-

haret || aham yajuam dadbe nirrter upasthat . . . mamadanta iha no

deva yacchate ‘ti || prahrtam anigaram abbijuhuyat || sahasra-srngo

vrsabho jataveda . . . pratikab | ma no hiipsid dhimsito na tva jahami gopo-
sam ca no vlraposain ca no yaccha svahe ’ti || tatab sarva-prayascittam
visnusmaranam ca | cf. Agn. Pray. 18a folg.: prak prayajebhyo ’mgaram
bahisparidbi nirvrttam sruvadamdana (1.: 'daindena) ‘bhinidadhyat | yadi
prayajebhyah prag bahisparidhy amgaram gachet tada sruva(m)-dandena
pidayet | paridhi-grabanam deso-’palaksana-’rtbam | na paridhi-praharano-
‘ttaram eve ‘ti niyamab | ma tapo ma yajfias tapan ma yajnapatis tapas |
namas te astv ayate namo rudra parayate namo yatra nisidasi | iti prati-
difeni japitva tato (yadi) purastac ced adhvaryu[m] ma hiTnsi[r] yaja
[1.: ”jnam] ma himsir yajajmanaiji] ma bimsir iti | yadi pasead dhotaram
ma himsljr] patnim ma himslr yaja[raanamj ma himsir iti | yady uttarata
agnldhram ma himslr yajajmSnam] ma bimslr iti ] pratidisam purva-

mamtra-sesah | athai ’nam anuprah[ar]ed aham yajnam dadbe

sarma yachate ‘ti tarn abbijuhuyat sahasrasrrigo vrsabho jatavedab stoma-
prstho gbrtavan supratikab | ma no himsid dhimsito na tva jahami gopo-
sam ca no vlraposam ca yacha (Asv. S. 1 . 12. 37) svahe ‘ti | Dieses Zitat
ist ein besonders deutlicber Beleg dafiir, daC die Agn. Pray, die Mantra

Vol. xxxiii.j

Atharvaprayascittdni 4. 2.

Ill

te 668 namo astu parayate | namo yatra nisidasl669 ’ty abhima-
ntrya ”ham yajnam dadhe nirrter upasthat tam devesu pari-
dadami vidvan | suprajas tvam satam hi mamadanta iha no
deva mahi sarma yachate ’ty adaya sahasra^pnga 67 1 ity
anuprahrtya | ma no mahantam®’^ | tvam no agne673 | soma-
nam svaranam krnuhi 674 brahmanaspate kaksivantam ya ausi-
jah I sa tvam no ’gne673 | vpsabham carsaninam visvarupam
adabhyam brhaspatiip varenyam®’® | uttamam mumugdhi
no vi pasam madhyamam cpta avadhamani badhata677 | ud.
uttamam varune ’tys^s etabbir juhuyat | 1 | sarvani679 ced

abutivelayam 680 patny6Si analambhuka 6s2 syat tam apa-
rudhya 683 yajeta684 | samapya ’mo ‘ham asmi sa tvamosa

in der speziellen Fassung des Aav. S. bringen; statt: „na” liest un>er
Ms. bier und Blatt 16a: „ne”, also doch wohl: ne ’t.

6SS A. V. 11. 2. 15. S59 Ap. 9. 2. 9. S70 Ap. 9. 2. 10.

Gemeint ist wohl: AV. 4. 5. 1. 672 AV. 11. 2. 29. 673 fiV. 4. 1.4.

Brahm. Pray. 34 b: sabam yajfia ity anena inamtrena “drte sabasrasrmga
ity anupraharati 67* RV. 1. 18. 1. 675 RV. 4. 1. 6. 676 Ry. 3. 62. 6.

677 RV. 1. 25. 21. 673 AV. 7. 83. 3. 679 Rorrupt! etwa: savane zu

lesenV 680 BC ahutavelayam; Ap. 9. 2. 1 ff. T. Br. 3. 7. 1. 9. Die

fast wortlicbe Ubereinstimmung beider Stellen ist textgeschicbtlicb
bemerkenswert 681 A palp 682 A analairibhukl ; Romm, zu Ap.
9. 2. 1 : artava-vafed sparsana-’narha 633 AC aparudbye B arupadbye
684 R. S. 25. 11. 13 folg. bestimmen, dali die menstruierende Frau die zur
Weibe notwendigen Gerate niederlegen und auf Sand sitzen resp. steben.
nacb Ablauf von drei Tagen mit Wasser, dem Ruburin beigefiigt wor-
den ist, sicb reinigen und erst alsdann zu bestimmten Diensten zugelassen
werden soil; vgl. Asv. Pray. 18b: sutikani putravatim vimsati-ratrena
karmani karayet || masena stvijanim || tatah prag yajamana eva rajasvala-
yam api ca karmani kuryat H sutake (!) yajamanah karmakale snatva kar-
mani kuryat II ; (vgl. auch oben Anm. 257). — Asv. Pray. 12 a: anvadbana-
dine patni rtuma[tl] cet tarn vibaye ’stih | yo kramam [am]tarvedyam (?)
udag-agram vidbaya patni-maintraa yajamano japet || etad [d]vitIya-prayo-
ge II vikatisu (1.: vikrtisu) dvitlyo ’pakramo na bhavati || upakramo-'ttara-
kam rtumati cet sarvatra tam vibaye ’stih || pratbama-prayoge ’nvaram-
bbanlyayain vrato-’panayanad urdhvam ced rtumati tain vihaya 'nvarain-
bbanlyarn samapya yasya ’nvarambbaniya tat-karma samapayet || yatha
”buh I isty-anvarambbanlyayam pasuke vaikrtlstisu | vratad urdbvam rtum
drstva kuryat karyam na lopayet j( prosite yajamane vratye ’bani rtumati
cet tada paincame bi yagah || prosite ’pi samkalpo-ttarakalam cet tam
aparudbya kuryat || caturmasyesu vaisvadeva-parvano yage krte varuna-
pragbasa -”disv anvarabdbesv api maUna-’mbarayain sve sve kale pa-
rudbyai ’va yaga ity uktam saradvayyain | adhane daksina-pratigrabat
purvam ced rtumati tada ’gnayo lankika bbavamti jj sarvam utsrjyain
bavir apsu ksiptva punah samaya-’intare ’gnyadbanam kuryat [ daksina-

112

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

iti tasya daksinam hastam anvalabhyo "pahvayita 68® | "hutis
ced bahisparidhi 687 skanded agnldhram 6S8 bruyuh®®® sam-
krahisyam®^® tva juhudhi ’ti®®! ] tasmai purnapatram da-
dyat 68® I purodasas ced adhisrita udvijed utpated va ®9^
tarn udvasya barbisy asadayet kim utpatasi kim utprosthab®®®
santab santer iba ”gabi | agboro yajfiiyo bbutva ”slda sadanam

pratigraha-’naintaram ced rtumatl tam aparudhya samapayet | sudhy-
anamtaram agiiihotra-”rambhah |1 AV. 14. 2. 71 cf. Ap. 9. 2. 3.

686 A. “pakuTita" D °pa[gr]hni(yl)ta“ 637 ABC bahihparidhi (A

labt dhi aus) 688 X> “dhre 689 A bruya 690 C unkiar;

wohl: sakrayisyan; denkbar ware gamgrahlsyan ; vgl. Ap. 9. 16. 1 und die
Bestimiming in Aav. 3. 13. 16. 691 Brahm. Pray. 36 b: yadi bahih-

paridhy ahutih skamded agnidham bruy at (!) etam sainkasya j uhudhiti — ;

der folgende Komm. best samkasya kasyati gatyarthah; zweifellos besser

sainkasya; wortlich .identiscb mit MS. 1. 4. 13; cf. Man. S. 3. 1. 3. 1 vgl.
Asv.Pray. 9b: ahuter babisparidhi-skandane purvavad abbimrsya ’’gnidbras
tam abutim jubuyad || yajamanas tasmai dh5n\ adi-purnapatram tadanim
eva dadyat ( Agn. Pray. 16 a: abutis ced bahisparidhy agnidbra etam
jubuyad dbutavate purnapatram dadyat | yadi buyamanii ”hutir bahis-
paridbi skamdet tada skanna-’bhimarsane krte agnidbras tam adaya tu-
snim eva jubuyat [ homam krtavate agnidbraya tadanim eva yena yena
kena cid dhanyadina rasadina va purna-patraih dadyad iti 1 Der Subne
bedarf es, wenn die geopferte Speise auf die Streu herabfallt (Asv. Pray.
18 a): ahntir huyamanS yadi barbisy adbipatet tada "gnidhrah devan
janam agan yajnah caskamde ’ti (Ap. 9. 10. 16) tam anumamtrya tusnim
eva jubuyat 1| yajamanas tasmai dbanyadi-purnapatraiji dadyat ii sarva-
prayascittam visnusmaranam ca kuryat j| — oder wenn sie nicbt ins Feuer
fallt (ibid.): hute havisi anagnau patite tvam no agne sa tvain no agne
(RV. 4. 1. 4 folg.) ity etabhyam adbvary uh sruvabutl hutva punar ava-
daya yajeta |1 692 Asv. 3. 13. 17. 693 aB utyuted 694 Asv.

Pray. 18 a sieht auch folgende, fiir die ausgebildete Kasuistik der Siibne-
zeremonien interessante Moglichkeit vor: ekakapalab purodasah sarva-
butas tat-paryavarttane prayascittam || yady ekakapalab purodasah aarva-
butah par;y]ava[rta]te talt] tam adhvaryu[h] svasthane pratisthapayet 1|

prajapater varttanim anuvarttasva nayantu (Ap. 9. 14. 1) yajamano

’numamtrayate l| pratiksatre namah (Ap. 9. 14. 2) |i adhvaryuh sruvabutl

jubuyat |1 askam dyaur prajanayatu {Ap. 9. 6. 7) svaha || yajnaye

’dam II askan ajani prajani prajanisimahi (Ap. 9. 6. 7) svaba || yajnaye

’dam II ; cf. Agn. Pray. 17 b: yadi purodasah sphuted vo ’tpated va | yadi

purodaso bhidyat | uducbed (1.: udvijed?) va tada kim utpatasi

sadanam svam iti barhisi nidhaya tato ma himslr asminn asida

barbisi ity abbimamtrayet | 635 cf. Ap. 9. 16. 11; Asv. 3. 14. 13; Asv.

Pray. 16 b: purodasasya bhedane patane va kim utpatasi kim utprosthah

santab temter ihagabi sadanam svam iti |[ barhisi nidhaya ’bhimam-

■jrayate || tam [m]a bimsir devaprerita barhisi ’ti | abbimamtrya sarva-

prayascittam jubuyat ||

Vol. xxxiii,]

Atharvaprdyascitiani 4. 3.

113

svam asida sadanam svam |1 ma himsir deva presita ajyena
tejasa ”jyasva ma nah kiincana rlriso | yoga-ksemasya santya
asmin asida barhir iti | tap tain cet karma (guno) tT®^® an-
tariyat ®®® sarvaprayascittam hntva mo ’dvijeii ®®" | (na ’nga
”hutim®®3 antarhitam dadyan j na ta-pa-varga-nimitta-bhavat
pradhanalope ’ntaraye®®® va nirvaped vyapadyeta) | ses(ad a-
vadyes)as ced lyapadyeta ’’jyena svistakrd-ide samapnuyat |
samapte ced dusto"®® na krtam antaram va vidyat punaristir
abbyavarteta | yajno yajnasya prayascittir bbavati ’ti | 2
agnyiidheye samitsv ahitasu na ’gniin grhad uddhareyur na ’nyata
rdiareyur | na prayayan na ’nugached | yadi prayayad anu-
gached va samvatsaram sanivatsarabbiprayo va yadi tvared
brahmaudanain paktvu punab samidham abliyadadhyad | agni-
hotrain ced anabhyuddhrtaiu sarasarasyad ■®* amum samu-
he''®'^ ’ti bruyad | visyannam^®® agne’®^ tvam ■®® na iti'®® ju-
buyan | madbyamena parnena niabl dyaur ^®i iti'®® tan i®8
(madbyame palusavanaparnena mabi dyaur iti’®® tan ma-
madhyame palasavanaparpena’*® mabi dyaur’®® ity’®8) antab-
paridbidese ninayed”’ | [djubyamana’*- ced avabbi[n]dyad anya-

A tvKi|itariya B "nvayat; D ■’nvaintarbrit cot A madvijeta

BO madvijena ABC ‘hutim 6®® D mtaye ’o® AD.

duste ABOD sarasara (BO “rat) syad; s. aucli Ap

9. 6. 10; cf. Asv. 6. 11. 19; sarasaniyat; Komm. in Brabm. Pray. 43a
falH dies Wort onomatopobtisch auf: yady adhisritain .... sarasire
’ty eva[in] sabdain kuryat; so auch Asv. Pray. 4a: agnihotradravyam
adhisritain ferasara-sabdani karoti . . . . vgl. Agn. Pray. 8b: agnihotram
sarasarayat samosamum iti dvestaram udaharet | adhisrtam agnihotra-
dravyam yadi sabdayet tada ’bhimamtrayeta | i®® Ap. 9. 6. 10.

103 A vispannam B visamtam C visyaintam loi A agnis i05 A

tarn C tvan los Zitiert ist: RV. 5. 24. 1. loi RV. 1. 22. 13;

vgl. Asv. Pray. 4a: atho "dvasitain tapavasena visyandamanam agni-
hotra-dravyani tada mabi dyauh prthivi ca na iti manitrena ahavanlyasya
bhasmanite ninayet | sthallgatena homah | tad-abhave dravyaintarena
homah | atha bibhatse dravye madhyama-palasa- parnena valmika-vapa-
yam prajapate na tvad etany anya ity rca praksipya dravyamtarena
homah || athava tusiilm praksipya dravyamtarena homah ] los D

ityamtam 7o9 Biese und die inzwischenliegenden Worte fehlen

bei B. no D palasaparnena i'* Ap. 9. 2. B; cf. oben Anm. 93

und Agn. Pray. 8b: visyandamanam mahl dyauh prthivi ca na ity aha-
vaniyasya bhasmante ninayet | visyandanam tu purvavat | adhiirita-’va-
sthayam pay[o]-yavagv-ady-agnihotra-dravya-visyamdanena i/add ’gnim
prdpi/ate tada sthsll-gata-dravyo-’pary udakam npasimcet | athai ’nad

daksinena panina ’bhimriya japati | divam trtiyam devan yajno agat

purvahutau (Ait. Brahm. 7. B. 3) | ity etabhyam tata[h] sthallgatam apsu
VOL XXXTU. Part L 8

114

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

syam sthalyam^is dohayitva ’dhi^rayed’i^ | adhisriyamanam^is

ce[t] skanded adhisritam unniyamanam ^‘6 unnltam pimar eva
sannam^i’ ahutam'i^ skandef*!® punar aniya ’nyam'^^ do-
hayitva ’dhisrityo ’nniya juhuyat’^o | praclnam ced dhriyama-
naip skandet prajapater visvabhrtah skannahutam asi svahe
’ti'^21 I dohanaprabhrtya ho]]Qa^22 skandet samudram tva

praksipet | udvasite visyamdane visyamdanena i/add hhiimim prdpyate
tada mahl dyauh .... bharlmabhir (RV. 1. 22. 13) ity ahavaniyasya
bhasma-madhye praksipet tatah punar-utpattir ubhayatra | ABC

ubyamana; cf. Ap. 9. 5. 7.

713 cf. AP 37. 3. 1 .... ajyasthall cyavate pracalati va . . . . ibid. 37. 20. 1
atha cet (udapatram) prabhajyeta — 214 Brahm. Pray. 41 b : yadi duhya-

mana Vabhindyad anyam aryakrtim praksSlya punar dohayet. Dab arya-
krtlm statt aryattatim des Textes zu lesen ist, beweist der unmittelbar
folgende Komm. : yadi duhyamana Vabhimdyad iti brahmauadarfenad
anyam aryakrtitn ... Agn. Pray. 6 b: agnihotram adhisritam sravad abhi-
mamtrayeta | adhisritam agnihotra-dravyani sthall-mulena yadi sravati tada
aravam abhimamtrayeta | garbham sravamtam agadam akarma ’gnir

(akarma nach Asv. S. 3. 10. 31) parastiid (Ap. S. 9. 4. 1) iti bhinnam

siktam va ’bhimamtrayeta (soweit V96rtlich gleich Asv. Pray. 3 a folg.) |
sthall-bhedena viksiptam agnihotra-dravyam dustam bhavati | skamdanena
ca viksiptam ubhayam yavat skannam tavan-matram dusta[m] bhavati na
patragatam (cf. oben Anm. 724) | samudrani vah prahinomi svam yonim
api gachata 1 arista asmakam vira mayi gavah samtu gopatav (Asv.
3. 11. 6; cf. unten in 4 4) iti mamtrena dustasya ’bhimamtraua-”bhi-
marsane tamtrena kuryat [ tata apo(!) [’jbhyavahareyuh | skanne pajasy
etad abhimamtranam na bhavati agre vaksyamaiiatvat ( A adhi-

srayamanam Bei A dittographiert. 717 A sannamahutani

B sannamahutam C saninamamhutaiu 7i8 Brahm. Pray. 42 a

vrerden folgende Moglichkeiten aufgezahlt: yady adhisritani skaiuded
yad udvasyamanani yad[y udjvasitam yadi vo ’nniyamanain (?) yady
unnlta[in] yadi purah purahrtam (?) [cf. Komm. zu Ap. 9. 6. 2] homaya

punar avaniyad varunlm nigadya varnnya ’jyam juhuyat(!) imani

me varuna (RV. 1. 25. 19) ity adya .... ca nigadya tat tva yami (RV.
1.24. 11) ’ty uttaraya juhuyat tatra karma pradarsyate; — in den Worten
unseres Textes: punar eva.*.. ahutam skandet kann eine Kon-uption von
yadi purah parahrtani skandet (s. o.) gesehen werden. 719 ABC anvan
720 Ap. 9. 6. 8f. 721 Vergl. dazu: prajapater visvabhrti tanvaiu hutam

asi svate Ap. 9. 6. 3; Asv. 3. 11. 11. 722 BCD homa; 1.: a homat;

723 cf. Asv. Pray. 3 b : atha dohanadi'pracl[na]-haranat prag yadi skanne
samudram va iti mamtrena yad adya dugdham prthivim asrpta .... tan
mayl ’ti [Asv. 3. 11. 7] cabhimamtryo ’pamsu japet | tad apsu praksipya
patragata-sesena homah | homa-’samarthe fese ’nyain dugdhva homah |
Der Anfang dieses Passus ermoglicht ein V erstandnis, wo nicht eine Re-
konstruktion, des obigen Textes; s. auch die unmittelbare Fortsetzung
der Asv. Pray. : atho nnayanadi-purvahuti-paryamtam dugdha-”di-sadha-

Vol. xxxiii.]

Afharvaprdyasdttani 4. 3.

116

prahinoml ’ty'24 apo’^a nmiyo’^s ’d uttamam ity abhima-
ntryo ’d uttamam mumugdhi na’26 ud uttamam varune'^' ’ti

varuny(en)a’2s ”jya-”butir ’28 juhuya[c] "29 | (chavaln^o deva)

raiia-homa-dravve skanne prajapater visvabhrti tanvam hutam as! ’ty
[Ap. 9. 6. 3] abhimrsya apsu praksipya hoinasa[mar]tbafeseiia varunim
japitva varunya purvahutim juhuyat | anya-homakala-paryamtam yajama-
nasya “nafeDam bhavati 1 asese skanne athalyah punar-unnayanam ka-
rayitva purvavaj juhuyat | sthajyam apy abhave ajyaip samskrtyo ’nniya
purvavad dhomadi kartavyam | athava sesena juhuyat punar unniya ’tese
ajyam asese iti nimittatraye prakrtivad dhomab | varunl japo varuni
homo ’nasanam ca yajamanasya naimittikam karma trayain punarhom'am
ea ganagarih || ajyam asesa iti trtriya eva nimittam tat trayam fesa-
homah punar unniya homa iti kecit | Asv. Pray. 4 b: praclna-harana-
’nantarain duste punar-unnayanaui |j

724 AV. 10. 5. 23; Ap. 9. 5. 6; daher werden unreine Substanzen dem
Waaser iibergeben; cf. oben Anm. 58. Asv. 3. 11. 6; Brahm. Pray. 41b:
samudrarn vah prahinomity anena mamtrena ’pa npaninlya nicau [1.:
nicair] drav\ aui prapyam yatra skanidet tad apo ninayed iti brahmanam
yad adya dugdham abhimantrayati . . . Asv. Pray. ; atha sthali-bhedad
bhinnam skannam vii sadharauam agnihotra-dravyam abbimamtrayet |

samudrani vah gopatav (Asv. 3. 11. 6) ity apsu praksipet |

725 aB ayoniniyo C apo minlyo D apo nlnlyo 720 RV. 1. 25. 21.

727 RV. 1. 24.15; cf. Agn. Pray. 7a: ahuti-dvayasya ’paryaptau anyam
dravy am.... juhuyat | etad dohana-”dy a pracina-haranat ] pracinaharanat
prag agnihotra (1.: “tre) skanne samudrani va ity anena ’bhimrsya
yad adya dugdham (cf. Ap. 9. 5. 6) iti payasi | payo-vyatirikte dravye
adhisrita-’vasthayam skanne vaksyamanani^ brahm[aii]oktam visyanidane
yad abhimarsanain tad bhavati ] tatah skannam apo ’bhyavahareyuh |
prakrta eva homah I prajapater visvabhrti tanvain hutam asi ’ti
(Ap. 9. 6. 3) tatra skannabhimarsanani fesena juhuyat punar unnija
’sesa ajyam ase.sa etad a homad varuiiiin japitva varunya juhuyad
anasanam a ’nyasmad dhoma-kaiat | tata[h] prayogah 1 pracina-harauady-
uttarahuti-madhye yady agnihotrain skandet tada prajapater . . . asiti
payo-’bhimarsanam samudrain va ity anena tandulady-abhimarsanani
krtva tatah skannam apo ’bhyavaharet \ tatah sruci madhye homa-dvayasya
paryapta-dravyam cetainaiva [1.: cet tenaiva] matra-’pacarenaiva homah na
’tra ’bhyanayanam | yadi sarvain skandet tada punar unniya homah | ;
vgl. Ait. Brahm. 7. 3: yasya ’’gnihotry upavaspsta duhyamana spandeta
. . . . sa yatra skandayet tad abhimrsya japet .... tatra yat parisistani
syat tena juhuyad yady alam homaya syad | yady u vai sarvam siktam
syad atha ’nyam ahuya taiu dugdhvii tena juhuyat . . .; of. Asv. Pray. 3b:
patra-gatam tad dustam sesa-’bhave dravyaiutarena homah j 728 A

varunye dadyaday ahutir BC varunyo nadyad ajyahuti D varunyadogdha-
dajyahutir 729 Ap. 9. 6. 1; — Brahm. Pray. 42 b: varunl priiyascittain
karttavyam varuno va etat (!) yajnasya grhnati yad archati cf. oben Anm. 724.

■ D 'vanl

8 -*

116

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

sayam [yasya] skanno'^i homah^*^ syat’32 pratar na 'snlyat |
prata[r ya]sya skanno'^i homah’*^ [syat] sayam na “snlyan |

(maiitraskannairi)734 ced abhivarsen mitro janan yatayatl'^5
’ti samidham adhaya ’nya(m) dugdhva punar juhuyad | mitro
janan yatayati bruvano mitro dadhara prthivim uta dyam |
mitrah kpstlr animisa ’bhicaste mitraya havyam gbrtavaj
jubota svahe ’ti’*^ mantra-samskrtam^^s | kita-’vapannam bira-
nyagarbba'33 iti valmikavapayam’^o avaniya '4i ’nyam dugdbva
punar jubuyat'-^^ | 3 j] agnibotram ced anabbyuddbrtam suryo

731 ABC skanno D skamnna 735 a. homarji syat B homasya

C homat D homa syat 733 BCD homat cf. Ap. 9. 6. 9; Agn. Pray.

8 a; YMuni-japo varuna-homo ’nasanam ca | 734 ]. vielleicht;

“trasamskrtam ; s. im folg. "33 BV. 3. 59. 1; Ap. 9. 2. 6 (fast

wortlich ubereinatimmend) ; Asv. 3. 11. 22; K. §.25. 11. 23. 736 Brahm.

Pray. 42 a: avavrstam na mrd eva karttakasecanairi divyadir adbhih saiu-
sarga ity arthah | pataladi-dravya-vihrtair ity arthah . . . tatra bhur bbuva
svar iti puraatad dhoto vidad ity evam-adi brahmana-daraanat [ vyahrtir
agnibotram iti vo ’ccarya mitra iti purvam ahutim jubuyat pariaamapte
tasminn aparahomamte stome ca pariaamapte ’pare punah (!) abomo va
’parayor ity etat autram etad vratam icbainti ] tesam iha prag aparabomad
anyam dugdbva ’tba punar agnibotram jubuyat (!) anyani dugdb[y]e ’ti va
’n[y]ena dobanam niyamyate | kim tu punar agnibotrani vidblyate anya[d]
dravyam upadaya punar agnibotram botavyam iti payaai va Vavrste ni-
yamab | kim tarbi sarvadravyesv eva vrstesu tatra (!) avavrstavasena
etat I nai ’tan naimittikam I cf. Agn. Pray. 9a: mitro janan yatayati
bruvana iti samid-adbanam | sragate (?) ’gnibotra-dravye yada var.set tada
nimitta-’nantaram mitro .... jubote ’ty ahavaniye samidbam adadbyat |
tatas tenaiva bomab | vgl. Asv. Pray. 4 b : agnibotra-dravye visHr

idam(?) scota(m)ti tadsi mitro jubota svaha || mitraye ’dani |i iti samid-

amtaram nimitta-’nantaram eva jubuyat {| atbava. prakrta-manitra-stbane
ayam tamtrah [ 737 ABC °hote ’ti 738 ABCD marntram-”

739 AV. 4. 2. 7. 71U ABC vapam "41 Mss. apa” reap. api°.

Ala Mittel, sich eines unreinen Gegenstandes zu entauBern, gilt das
Heraufgiellen reap. Aussetzen desselben auf einen Ameisen- oder Maul-
•wurfbiigel, das Aufbangen auf Baumen, das Fortwerfen in Wasser.
Letztere drei Arten bei Beseitigung eines Potus angewendet: K. S. 25.
10. 14. 742 Asv. 3. 10. 23; Brabm. Pray. 43 b: kitavapannani

praja(va)p8tyarca valmika-vapayam avaniya bbur ity upatistheta .
prajapatyarca . . . biranyagarbba ity etaya apari punah prajapate na hi

tvattani ’ty etayii yisya (?) samva valmika-vapayani kitavapannam

amtahparidhy avavrste va vidhanaiii avanayed iti . . .; cf. Agn. Pray. 5b:
dustani havimsy apsu praksipet sarvatra | prajapate na tvad etfiny anya
(AV. 7. 80. 3) iti valmika-vapayani va sannayyarn dustaiii madhyamena
palaia-parnena jubuyat | prajapate ... rayinam{!) ity anena svabakarani-
tena mamtrena valmika-dvare praaiincet | apsu va tuaniin j

Vol. xxxiii.]

Afharvaprdyasdttdni 4. 4.

117

’hhyudiyad’^s ij^ai ’va ksemya edhi744 j^a prahasir^^s mam
amum amusyayanam’45 iti samayitva praniya pravrtta-tipa-
ttau ’46 maitram carum nirvapet sauryam’47 ekakapalam |
varo"48 daksipa | ’gnln upasamadhaya yajamanah patni va ’bhufi-
janau Tagyatav’49 aranipani’®# sarvahnam’^i upaslyatam’52 1
dvayor’53 gavoh’^s sayam agnihotram juhuyad'54 | agnaye

743 Brahm. Pray. 51a: anuddbrtani ced abhyudiyad uttarato garba-
patyasya samstirya ’gnihotra-patrani prayujya samstirya{?) pavitram
utpadya pavitre praksa . . .(?) sruvam jubum ajyasthffim co ’ttaratah
prayujya agnibotrasya dasabotrabhi . . . rsanamtam krtva samsadanani
garhapatyasya pakayajnadbarmeiia, ”jyam samsrutyo ’ttaratah agnibotra-
patranam avaathapya caturgrbitam grhitva pavitre garbapatye akrtva
’’jyastballm apanlya siddhara | 7 j 4 Ap. 9. 7. 6. (Die differenzieren-

den Bestimmungen finden sich in 9. 7. 2 if.; cf. 9. 7. 10); Asv. 3. 12. 7.
745 D prahasid idam aham amusyayanam iti 746 A pravrttapitau

B pravrttanipattau 0 pra\Tttapipacau (“tvan?) s. hierzu Ap. 9. 7. 6; —
Brahm. Pray. 58 a folg. behandeln das gleiche Thema ; . . . pratar agni-
botram ced abhyudiyad anv agnir usasam agram akasad (M. S. 1. 8. 9) ity
unnitam abhimanitrayate ( (Komm.) pratar agnihotragrahanat pranite
gnau pratar agnihotrartham abhyudiyat ... na hi suryabhyudaya eva
yasya ’hutam agnibotrani auryo ’bhyudijad brahmana-darfenfit tatre ’dain
prayascittam anusarngam kuryad anv agnir ity unnitam abhimanitrayate

brahmanadarfenat anadesad adhvaryur evabhimani tray ate ahavani-

[yain] yajamana ihai ’ve ’ty abhimanitrayate . . . mam amum iti nama
grhnaty amusyayanam iti gotrani mam yajnadattam bharadvaja ity evam
anyatra ’tha ’mum iti . . . pratar vaster iti anitato ’nusajed iti sayam-
agnihotra-kalatikrama uktam | butai maitram carum nirvapet | sauryara
ekakakapalam hute hutamatre sadyahkriya syad iti | imdhanau dam-
pati vagyatav anasnamtau sarvahnam upasiyatfim j . . . agnisamipe . . .
asiyatarn dvayor gavoh sayam agnihotram juhuyad . . . sayani patny
anvaste na pratar iti patnya pratar-anvasanam eva pratisidhyate . . . pratar
agnihotrain ced abhyudiyad . . . anuddbrtam .... uddharanad arabhya
piak purvasya ’’huter idam prayafcittam . . . vgl. oben 1. 2. 747 ABCD

saurya; cf. Ap. 9. 7. 7. 7is A vanaro B caro; cf. Asv. 3. 12. 8.

749 Auch der Bruch der Schweigepflicht verlangt Siihne (Asv. Pray. 17 a):
yatra vagyamo vihitas tad-bhrese ato deva (RV. 1. 22. 16) iti japed api
va ’nyam vaisnavim || npam3u-madhyama-”dir yatra svaro vihitas tad-

bhrese ’dhvaryur abhir girbhir syama (Taitt. Brahm. 3. 7. 11. 4 — 5)

avahe ’ti sruvahutiiu juhuyfit || yatra ekasruty-adi vihitain tad-bhrese
visnum srutva tad eva punah pathet || 75o BC arunapani D arani-

yani 751 A sarvatsam BC sarvahnim 752 B upasidhatani ; cf. Asv.

3. 12. 9. 753 BO dvayokamchoh; ddvayor gathoh; verbessert nach

Ap. 9. 7. 9. 754 Brahm. Pray. 47 a: yadi rudrah pasun abhimanyeta

dvayo gave sthalya dohane ca dohayitva samaniya sajiir jataveda (M. S.
1. 8. 6) iti purviim ahutim juhuyat [ . . . . dvayor gavyo sthalya dohanena
ca (?) dohayitva .... atha sthalyam samaniya bhur bhuvah svar agni-

118

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

Taisvanaraya dvadasakapalam purodasam nirvaped | yadi hy
ayani diva prajasu hi manyeta sajur jatavedo^^^ diva prthi-
vya haviso vlhi'‘“6 svahe ’ti sajuruho'^^ va syat sajiir agnaye
diva pfthivya haviso vihi svahe ’ti dvadasaratram agnihotram
juhuyad [ yadi na viramayed agnaye susiryatamo^^^* jusasva
svahe ’ty aparam dvadasaratram nisayah sayamahuter
atipattir'fio pratarase pratarahuter asadya 'gnihotram a’®i ta-

hotram sajur iti co ’kt[v]a, purvam ahutim juhuyat Bl. 48 a: dvayor
gavor ekasya dvayor va uisidane punah prayascittam ity upajatam iti
krtva prayascittam bha[va]ti. Bl. 60 b: dvayor gavoh sayam agnihotram
hutva . . .

’^5 Ap. 6. 14. 12. 156 C vrihi "51 A sajurudvo B sajuruho

D sajusaho gemeint: sajur u hai ’va? i5s Statt dieser und

der inzwischenliegenden Worte setzt D: nisa "5® A suslryatapto

B susiryatamo C sruslryatamo "•'O cf. K. S. 25. 10. 23; Agn. Pray. 4 b:
atha ratreh prathamah praharah sayanihoma-kalah || dasa ghatikah pra-
tarhoma-kalah !| svakale praulte.sv agnisu (!) uktakula-’tikrame prayascittam
ucyate | sayamkala-’tipattau ajyam .... samskrtya caturgrhitani grhltva
ahavaniye juhuyat ) dosa vast[o]r namah svahe ’ti maiutreiia | parisa-
miihanadikusesu ’pasadanaintani krtva bhur bhuvah svar iti jai)itva
brahmanaya gani dattva samid-adhana-”di-homa-8esam samapya tesv eva
’gnisu varunim istim purnahutim va kuryat | atha pratah-kala-’tipattau
pratar vast(o)r namah svahe ’ti caturgrhitam hutva kusesu ’pasadanani-
tain krtva gani dattva homasesam samapya (!) ahavaniyam eva ’nuga-
mayen na daksinagnun | punar garhapatyad ahavaniyam pranayet | ihaiva
ksemya edhi ma prahasld [djevadattain ma bharadvajam iti pranayet |

atra manitre yajamana-nama istir mitrah surya iti devate ||

abhi yo mahina divain prthivliii (RV. 3. 59. 7) | pra sa mitra

marto diirat (RV. 3. 59. 2) iti mitrasya caror yajyanuvakye |

taranir visvadarsatas anikam (RV. 1. 50. 4) iti suryasya || pur-

nahutyau va karye | tato dampatl vagyatau (s. oben 4. 4) tan eva ’gnin
jvalaya(m)to upasiyatam | homakale anasnanitau ekasya gor dugdham
adhisritya tasmin dvitiya-gor dugdham anayet | tena ’gnihotram hutva
daksinagny-ahavaniyayor na dharaiiam ] tatah pratahkale agnihotraia

hutve ’sdh | agnir vratabhrd devata | tvam ague vratabhrc jatave-

dah I (A. S. 3. 12. 14) || purnamasavad anyat || i)urnahutir va |1 athti pra-
nitesu homakalatipattau agnin vihrtya ”jyam samski’tya juhvaiii catur-
grhitam grhitva manasvatya ’’havanlye juhuyat || evam aneka-kala-’tipattav
apy esaiva prayascittih | atita-homa api paksa-homa-nyayena kartavya
ity eke | . Die Versaumnis eines Manenopfers mub rituell gesuhnt wer-
den (Agn. Pray. 19 a): apastambo-’kta-pimdapitryajiia-lopa-prajasoittaiii |
pimdapitryajna-’tipatti-nimittam caturgrhitena ’’jyena saptahotaram ho-
syami ’ti samkalpya caturgrhitam grhltva | maha(m)-havir hota [ satya-
havir adhvaryuh | acyutapaja agnit | acyuta-mana upavakta | anadhrsyas
ca ’pratidhrsyas ca yajnasya ’bhigarau | ayasya udgata | vaoaspate hrdvidhe
uaman vidhema te nama | vidhes tvam asmakain nama | vacaspatih somam

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprdyascittdni 4. 4.

119

mitor^^i asita I samsthapyau’fi^ ’ip bhur bhuvah svar janad
[d]osa vastob'63 svabe ’ti juhuyad | atha pratar ahar-aha’®^
ratrim ratrim ity upasthane syad | agnaye ’bbyujjusasva
svahe ’ti sruvena garhapatye juhuyad '®5 | yasya ’nnam^®® na
’dyat'®® tasmai brahmanaya^®" dadyat^®^ adhastat samidham
aharet | smrtagnihotrl tirasco darbhan daksinagrau'®® kuryad [
yasyo ’bhav auugatau suryo ’bhinimloced ^6* abhyudiyad va
’ranim’7® gata va nasyeyur asamarudha va prakrtyai

apad ma daivyas tamtus chedi ma manusyah | namo dive namah prthi-
vyai (M. S. 1. 9. 1 Text variiert vgl. TA. 3. 5. 1) svaha vaeaspataye brah-
mana idam ta ity ahavanlye juhoti I Das Verfehlen des richtigen Zeit-
punktes ist selbst bei Binzelbeiten des Opfervollzuges ominos (Asv. Priiy.

18 a); vasatJcdre anagate atite va Nocb mehr bedarf das ver-

sehentliche Aiislassen eines Opfers oder Opfergliedes der Siibne (Asv.

Pray. 18 b): prayaja-”dy-amga-’karaiie astau vyahrtls ca sruveiia

juhuyat |1 pimdapitryajfia-’karane ’py etat prayascittam II tad etat samista-
yajusah purvam karyam j| sarvatra ’karane .... Die versaumte heilige
Handlung muB naohgeholt werden (ibid.): prayaseitte krte pasead
atitam api karma vai karyam ity eka acarya ne ’ty ane[ke] ’pi
vipascitah || pathikrn-mukhena ’tipanna-yagam va jubuyad iti kecit || tad
etad isty-amtara-”rainbhat prag yada tatra kiirana-vasan na krtani tada
pathikrn-mukbene ’sty-arntaram karyain || Auch bedarf es der Siibne,
wenn gegen die beim Opfer vorgescbriebene Observanz in irgend einer
"Weise verstoCen wird (Agn. Pray. 14 a): athii "gneyja istayo vrata-
’tipattau vratapataye vrata-lopa-nimitta eve ’stib kiirsa | siignav agni-
pranayane ’gnivate | oder wenn die heiligen Feuer bei ibrer Anlegung
verwechselt werden: yady anyo ’gnir ahavaniyayatane ahavanlyartbam
uddhriyate tarn agnim anidhayai ’va smarati cet tada ’’yatanastbam
uduhye ’’danim uddhrtam nidadhyat | tatha ’sati ’stir na bhavati | eta-
sminn api pakse yady anapavrtta-karmo ’duhyeta tada vyabrtibomab
karttavyah |{ apavittam tu na kinicid api prayascittam 11 tada smrtau
etasmin purva-pranite nidadhyat tada ’gnivate ’stih karya ||

A amtamitor tea ^ samanya BCD samany B

"vastah t64 ABCD '-aha ratrim tes Brahm. Pray. 2 b

zitiert als maftgebend fiir alle SUhnezeremonien : brahma prayasoittani
sruvena juhoty etat sutram. Agn. Pray. 19 a: sruvena juhuyad brahma |
sarvatre ’stika-prayascittesu brahmaiva kartta | Srautapray. Candrika 1 a:
homa-sadhana-patra-’nuktau jufrnli I caturgi’hlta-”di-visesa-’nuktau juh-
vam ekagrhltam | vahni-visesil-’nuktav ahavanlyah | kartr-visesa-’nuktav
adhvaryuh | karma -madhye patitani prayasoittani tu ajyena bha-
vamti I tee A yasyanamnasyat B yasyaipnaintadya C yatyanain-

nadyat D yasyannanadyat te? A 'dayadyad; BCD 'yadadyat

tes BC daksinagnan tes gc bhimloced; D bhiniproced

770 C 'yanim 771 B 'yu aarna' C yuh sama' D yurasa-

marudho

120

J. V. Negeldn, Atharvaprayascittani.

[1913.

”va punar adadhita’’^ I 4 U iti yajnaprayascitte caturtho
'dhyayah samaptah’^^ ll

5^2 Asv. 3. 12. 29 f.; Brahm. Pray. 61 b: yasyo ’bha[v] . . . .garhapatya-
’havanlyav anugatau suryo ’bhyaatam iyat abhyndiyad va punara-
dheyam eva tasya prayascittih; K. 25. 3. 24; cf. Asv. Pray. 10 b:
garbapatya - ’’havanly ay or nase tu ’bhaya-nistha-bhasmana ’ram ayani
ta (BY. 3. 29. 10) iti manitrena samsprsye ’tab pratbamam jajiie agnih

svad yoner prajanan (Kans. S. 133. 6) mathitva garbapatya adbaya

tata abavanlyam pranlya purvoktam prayascittam [d. b.: die beim Er-
loscben des garhapatya-Feuers angewandte] kuryat [j ubbayor ubbaya-
sapeksatvena krama -’nupatteh |{ tata ubbayatra ’nvadhano -’pastbane |{
273 BC lesen statt dieses Kolopbons: ity atharvavede vaitanasutre praya-
scitta-prasamge dvadafemo ‘dbyayah || 12 || ; B beginnt sodann mit: om
D ity atbarvavede vaitanasutre prayascitta-prasaugo dvadaso ’dbyayah |

Atharvaprayascittmi. Text mit Anmerkungen von Prof.

Julius von Negelein, University of Koenigsberg,

Germany.

agnihotram ced anabhyuddhrtam siiryo ’bhinimloced
brabmano bahuvid^'s uddhared"'® | yo brabmano bahuvit syat
samuddharef’c | sarvenai ‘vai 'nam tad brahmana uddbared
yena 'mtarhita[m] hiranyam agrato bared "'S | varunam yava-
mayam caruip nirvaped ‘"9 ita eva pratbamam iti | ita eva

’■* D “tre 775 BD bhimloced C bliimloce; cf. Ap’ 9- 6. 12.

>76 A liest statt babu*: ba”; B babuvid yo brabmano babududdha'; CD
babuvid uddbared yo brabmano [bajhuvit syat; cf. Asv. 3. 12. 16.
»> A yo nyamta”; die Stelle ist zweifellos verderbt. »6 Brabm.

Bray. 49a: yasya ’gnim anuddhrtam auryo ’bhinimrocet^!) yo brabmano
babuvit sa uddbaret (!) yasya yajamanasya ’gnim anuddbrtam gfirbapatyad
aviyojitam ity artbah | . . . . rtvig-vyatirikto ’pi yo babuvit sa uddbared
iti ... . anyeno ’ddhrtam apy anuddbrtam iti hiraiiyam baddhva darbheiia
’grato bareta pascad agnibotrena ’nviyat (!) | biranyam baddbva darbbeno
'ddhrtir iti vyakhyatain | yatra yatra hirauyarn baddh[v]eti tatra tatro
’ddharanam iti tene ’hai ’ke agiiim tain badbva(?} ’grato hared iti agner
uddharanam prakrtam tasya ’grato nayed ity artbah | pascad agnibotrena

’nviyad anugacched ity artbah tatra babuvit kecid acaksate | caturdasa-

bhir vidyasthanair adhitair vijnatais ca bhavaniti | Bl. 51a: iyams tu
vifesah 1 caturgrbitam ajyam agrato baret caturgrbJtena biranyam badbya-
te (!) tatha kecid iti purastat pratyanmukba ajyain jubuyat | cf. Asv. Pray.
5 b : atba ’’bavaniye ’pranite yadi surya ’stamanam (!) tada bahuvidam
brahmanam aniya teno ’ddbaranadini . . . naintani karayet ] agnipranayana-
kale biranyam darbhair baddbva ’nyah purastan nayet | tatab pascad
babuvid agnim pranayet | tatab sayam-kala-’tipatti-prayascittain varuni-
’sty-antam sarvam karyam ity eke | kusesu ’pasadana-“di-varuni-’sty-amtam
ity apare | atba ’’bavaniye ’pranite yadi suryodayas tada samskrtam ca-
turgrbitam ajyam ekab purastan nayet | tatab pascad dbiranyavad raja-
tam eko nayet [ tatab pascad babuvid agniin pranayet I tata ayatane
’gnim nidhaya purastat pratyanmukba upavisya janav ajya (1.: janu licya)
usah ketuna svahe ’ti [A. S. 9. 7. 10] hutva pratabkala-’tipatti-pratar-vruta-
bhrtlsty- aintam ahavaniya-’nugamavarjam kuryat | kube[su] ’pasadanadi-
pratar-vratabbrtisty-amtam kuryad ity eke [ ^p. 9. 7. 1.

TOL. XXXIII. Part It. 9

122

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

prathamam jajne^so agnir abhyo yonibhyo adhi jntavedah | sa
gayatrya tristubba jagatya ’nustubba devo devebhyo havyam
vahatu prajanann"®! iti pascad garhapatya-laksanasya ’rani
nidhaya matbitve ’se rayyai ramasve ’ty adadhyat | ise rayyai
ramasva ’82 sahase dyumna urje ’patyaya | samrad asi sva-
rad"83 asi sarasvatau tvo ’tsau pravatam iti | yah kas ca
’gninam anugachen^®^ nirmanthyas^®^ ced’®® daksinagiiim [

730 D yajfie 7S1 Kaus. S. 133. 6; die Mss. iiigen hinter "nustubha ein:
brhatya pamktya guptah (D usijih) punar. 7S2 Ap. Sr. 9. 9. 1, wo aber
die Vorbedingung fiir die Zitierung dieser Spriiche eine andere ist; vgl.
V. S. 13. 35. 783 fehlt bei A. 78i Par das Erloschen aller Opfer-

feuer schreiben Asv. Pray. 6 a vor: sarvavabninain nase surya-’stamayo-
’dayat(!) prag bhasmana ’rani samsprsya mamtrena mathitva praniya
purvokta tapasvatistir jyotismatlstis ca kartavya | idam istidvayam ho-
mam krtva tesv eva ’gnisu kartavyam | athava siirya-’stainayo-’daya[t]
pran mamthanopakramam krtva pratinidhiin laukikagni-pramukham ga-
rhapatya-”yatane pratisthapya vihrtya bomam krtva ’gnin utsrjya mathi-
tva tapasvatistir jyotismatistis ca kartavya purnShuti va | sarvesam nase
surya-’stamayo-’dayat prah mamthanopakrama-'bhave ’gnyadheyam pu-
naradheyam va kartavyam | . . . . surya-’stamayo-’daya-’namtaram sarva-
nugatau purvavan mathitva ’gnihotram hutva tapasvatisti[r] jyotismatl-
stis ca purnahuti va [ vgl. Asv. Pray. 10 b: evam sarva-nase ayatana-tri-
taya-nistha-bhasmana ’rani ayam ta (RV. 3. 29. 10) iti mamtrena sam-
sprsya pun-avan mathitva ’gnidvayarn vihrtya purvavat prayascittam
tarntrena krtva pascad daksinagnim vihrtya prayascittim kuryat | tasyo
’bhaya-sapeksatvat | tata sarvatra ’nvadbano-’pasthanani | sarvanase bha-
smana ’rani samsparsa-’bhave ca yadi surya-’stamayo-’dayau bhavatas tada
’gnivichittih | anvahitanam ajasranSni yada kadacin naso ’pi etad eva
prayascittam | tatra ’nvadhanadi na ’sti | paksamtaram uktva ”ha bhaga-
van baudhayanah ] manasvatim ced ahavaniye juhuyat sai ’sa ’jasranam
anvahitanam savana-gatanam ca ’gninam udvatanam prayascittir etad eva
homakale ’nvadhana-varjam | etayaiva ’’vrtai ’kasminn udvate dvayor ve
’ti I vikrtisu anvahita-na^ etad eva prayascittam ] vgl. Agn. Pray. 13 a:
uddharano-’ttaram udayastamayat prak sarvain (I) yugapad anugaccheyns
tada garhapatyasya purvavan mamthana-”dy-utpattim krtva ’’havaiilyam
praniya tapasvati[m] purnahutim krtva ’gnim parityajya tato hiranyam
puraskrtye ’ty adi varunaya svahe ’ty amta[in] krtva tato daksinagner
utpattih I tatah karmasesam samapayet | udaya-’stamaya-’namtaram iyam
evo ’tpattih | udayastamaye yugapad-anugamane sarva-’nugatis tatra tu
punaradhanam eva | karmanas treta-’gni-sadhyatvad ahavanlya-homa-kale
trayanam agninam samyak samimdhanam krtva homah(!) kuryat [ yasya
kasya cit karmano ’rthaya vihrtesv agnisu yat kimcid agnisadhya[ni]
naimittikam utpadyate tasya naimittika-sahitasya ta eva ’gnayo bhaveyuh |
na punah-punar vihartavyah | sarvams ced anugatan adityo ’bhyudiyad va
bhyastam iyad va gny adheyarn punar-adheyam va y^adi sarvesv agnisv
anugatesv adityo ’stam udayam va gacheta tada ’gnyadheyam punar-

Vol. xxxiii.j

Atharvaprayascittani 5. 1.

123

ahute’s® cet'S' sayam purvo ’nugached agnihotram adhisrityo
'nnlya ’gnina purveno'^s ’ddhrtya'^s 'gnihotrena 'nudraved |
adattapurva-dhanam^^o dadyac | chvas tapasvatim nirvaped |
ayahi tapasa janisv'si a ’gne'9- pavako arcisa | upe ’mam sustutim
mama | a no yahi tapasa janesv agne-s^ pavaka didyat | havya
devesu no dadhad iti havimsi dadyat | sayam ahutam ati ’tara-
sminn‘«^ etad eva prayascittam anyatra 'pi snutya^s^ ced |
ahute cet pratah purvo ‘96 ’nugacched avadahesum’®' asni-
yat I tesv alabhyamanesu bhasmana ’ranira samspysya ma-
thitva ’vadadhyad ’9S | agnaye jyotismata istim nirvaped | ahute

adheyam va prayascittam bhavet | Mit dem Fall, das irgendein Opfer-
feuer erlischt, beschaftigen sich Agn. Pray. 18 a; anugate tu mamthanadi-
tapasvati-’sty-amtam tatra prayascittam | tatra tu yavajjanma ta(n)van ma-
thit[vja yadi laukikagni-stbapane anavakasas tada yavad- utpiattis tavan
ina[in]tbanam eva tata ayatane nidhaya ’nuddbarana-prayascitta-purvaka-
bomab karttavya[s] ca | tato ’nuddharana-prayascittena saba yadi kalo
'tipannas tada manasvatibomas ca karyah | 785 aD nirmatbyas ce

B nirmamtbyas ca C nirmanithyas ce

786 B abate; cf. Ap. 9. 9. 6. 787 A ce 788 A 'nodvrtya

789 Brahm. Pray. 51 b folg.: yasya ’bute ’gnibotre purvo “gnir anugacbet |
svapradbane ’gnibotrena prasamgike ’gnina ca saba ‘gnibotrena co ’[d]dra-
vet I atra ’nugacbed iti svayam anugataya(?) tad(?) bbavati naougameti
yatbanugamayya purvam iti abuta iti prak purvasya ’bute ita eva pra-
tbamam jajna (MS. 3. 3. 1) uddbrtam abbimamtrayate pradbanatvad anya-
sya ca ’nadesad adbvaryur abbimamtranadlni karoti ] ise raye ramasve
ty (MS. ibid.) adbasyamane uddbrtam adbasyamanam ca ’gnim abbimam-
trayate samrad asity (ibid.) adadbati | amrtabutim ity asya ’’dbanamam-
trasya ’yam apacadadyambadhakam | sarasvatau tva (ibid.) ity abitam
avastbapitam agnim abbimamtrayata iti vyavabitam apy anuvarttate
[’Jbute [’Jgnaye jyotismate ’stakapalam nirvaped varunam yavamayam
carum butasyii matre upavasatho na syat idam sayam agnibotre va
visesa-’bbidhanat ubbayam tu bbavati | 790 j} °-purve-° 79i Jl. S. 4.

10. 2 . Ap. 9. 9. 3; vgl. aucb Asv. 3. 12. 27. 792 a ague 793 Die

Worte von arcisa bis agne feblen bei C; AD lesen: ague. 794 A

ahutemititi itarascisminn 735 BCD sutya 796 A

aparvva 797 A labt diese und die zwischenliegenden Worte aus;

vgl. Ap. 9. 9. 7; Brahm. Pray. 68 b: yasya ’bute ’gnibotre [’Jparo ’gnir
anugaohed iti... AP. 37. 10. 1: apranito ’buto ’gnir upasamyati; vgl.
ibid. 37. 13. 1: pranito ’gnir upasamyati .... 798 Brahm.

Pray. 52 a folg. : yasya ’hate ’gnihotra uddbaranad arabhya prak
purvasya ’’buteb svapradhana ity nktam | tatra ’bbimarsanamtain krtvo
’ddbaret | . . . agnim adbvaryur grbnlyad agnihotradravyam soma
sarma grbniyat sahanayanam somasarma udya chattram krtvo paste
adbvaryub | paristaranamtaiii krtvo ’pasadyarn jubuyat tanr sadya jyoti-
smali bbtiyo bhuyah prauite ’nugame sakrd eve ‘stih babuvida pranr-
yamane ’nugate sa eka(?) bhuyah pranayed abbimamtranadlni ca kuryat(!)

O'’

124

J. V. Negeleiti,

[1913.

cet pratar aparo"^^ va ’nugacched '9' anugamayitva purvani
mathitva 'param uddhrtya juhuyat | tvaramanah purvam agnim
anvavasaya tatah pascat praiicam uddhrtya juhuyat 9oo |] i jj
uparuddhe cen mathyamano ua jayeta^oi yatra dipyamanam

a paristaranad ayur mecheti sadite 'nugate ague (? ?) eva daksinato ’gni-
hotradravyasya prayogah (!) yadi hutayam samidha (?) ’nugachet (!) bhuyo
’nugata abhimapitranadayo mamtra avartamte sakrd eva samid bbuyo
bhuyo 'nugata ekatra bhasmany avasthapite ’gner darsane tatiasaindeban
na jyotismatl (!) agnimati(!) aditas ce 'yam eva sthapite bhuyo bhuyah
pranite prathamasya 'gner darsane 'bhyuddhrtadharanalaksananagnimati
jyotismatl bhavati gatasriya uddharanabhavad ita eve 'ty abhimamtranam
bhavati ise raya iti ca mamtratrayam bhavati 1 yasya 'hute 'gnihotre
purvo 'gnir anugachet tamo va etasya yajnara yuvata iti brahmanam
"99 D ayaste cf. Kaus. S. 7. 3. 4: abhyuddhrto [‘jhuto 'gnir pramadad
upasamyati mathite vyahrtir juhuyat ... 89“ Ap. 9. 9. 8;

vgl. zu diesem Abschnitt Brahm. Pray. 46 b folg. : yadi purvasyam
hutaygm skamdeta yatra ve 'ty arthah | ity anena mamtrena sami-
dham adhayo 'ttarSni yathavidhim juhuyat (!) vyakhyatam punar agni-
hotra-vidhanam 1 yadi purvasyam hutayam ahavanlyo 'nugached agnir
darau darav agnir [M. S. 3. 2. 9] iti hiranyam nidhayo 'ttaram yatha-
vidhiru juhuyat (!) hiranyam nidhaye 'ty agnisampadanartham hiranyam
nidhaya juhoty agnimaty eva juhotl'ti darsanat | uktam punaragnihotram
yatra purvasyam hutayam skanded ahavanlya-'nugamas co 'bhayaiu bha-
vati tatra 'gnisampadanaya purvam hiranyam adhaya samidham ada-

dhyad ; vgl. ferner ibid. 53 a; yasyS 'hute 'gnihotre 'paro 'gnir

anugached ahuta iti prak purvasya "huteh(!) agnihotra iti . . . anugamayya
purvasmin mathitva pranayed anugamayya purvam aparasman mathitve
'ti yena nyayena mamthanam samaropya mathitva pranayed iti visesa
uktah siddham agnihotram svo bhute ‘gnaye tapasvate janadvate pava-
kavate 'stakapalain nirvapet svo bhuta iti yena prakareua svo bhuto
nirvapah svastha evam artham krtva 'nyedyur nirvapah | yadi tvareta
eva prancam uddhrtya daksinagnim anvaniya sayampratar juhuyat ....
Bl. 54 b: yasya 'hute 'gnihotre 'paro 'gnir anugachet svapradhaue ud-
dharanad arabhya prak purvasya "huter garhapatyanugame anugamayya
purvam garhapatyam samaropya nirmathya pranayanad arabhya 'gni-
hotram siddham ] upavasathain krtva 'gnaye tapasvata isti uddhrtamatra
ahavaniye garhapatyanugame patryam eva 'nugamayet (!) anugamite yady
aparo drsyate tapasvati jyotismatl (!) uktam anugate jyotismatl uktam
anugate jyotismatl na 'nugamita iti ... . 8ui cf. Asv. Pray. 7a: atha
samarudhesu mathyamano na jaye[ta] tada laukikagni-brahmanapany-
ajakarna-darbhastamba-’psu kasthesu prthivyam hutva 'nanitaram eva
mamthanani kuryat | prthivyam purvasamid api na bhavati \ homah
karyah [ kasthe parisamimdhanadayo lupyamte ] brahmana-pany-adau tisras
tisrah samidho na bhavamti | tadanim yajamanasya yavajjivam samva-
tsaram va vratam brahmanapani-home brahmanaya vasati-danam ] aja-
karna-home aja-mamsam na 'sniyat j darbha-stamba-home darbhasane no
■paviset 1 apsu home viveko na karyah | cf Agn. Pray. 18 a : agnihotraya

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittdni 5. 3.

125

parapasyet tata ahrtya ’gnihotram jubuyad^*- \ yadi tarn na
vinded brahmanasya daksine panau juhuyat j tato brahmapam
na paricaksita ( yadi tam na vinded ajaya daksine karne ju-
huyat I tato ’jam na ’sniyad j yadi tani*<'3 na vinded darbha-
stambesu&o^ juhuyat ) tato darbhesu na ”slta | yadi tansos na
vinded apsu juhuyat | tato ’dbhih padau na praksalayita so 6 1 yadi
tan na vinded dhiranye juhuyat | tato hiranyam na bibhryad |
apadi mathitva Tihrtyaso? 'gnihotram juhuyad [ agnihotre ced
anabhyuddhrte havisi va nirupte sakunih syenah sva va ’ntarena
vyaveyadsos idam visnursos iti | idam visnur vicakrame tredha
nidadhe padam | samudham asya pamsure ] pra tad vispurSioj
iti hhasmana padam upavapedsn ] anoS >2 ratha ’syaS^o pu.
rusoSi^ [va] vyaveyadsis yad agne purvam nihitamSie padam
hi te suryasya rasmin anvatatana i tatra rayistham anusam-
hharai "tam sam nah srja sumatya vajavatye sit ’ty ada-
dhyatsis |] 2 j| anvahitagnis cetsio prayayatsis tubhyam ta

kale ’gnav ajayamane ’py an yam aniya jahuyuh 1 agnihomarthani prana-
yana-kale samarudho ’gnir mathyamano na jayeta anyam laukikam agnim
aniya praniya tatraiva liotna[h] karttavyah ] etad anugate na bhavati |
cf. Aiv. 3.' 14. 14 ff.; K. S. 25.’ 4. 1 folg." ’ 802 Ap. 9. 3. 3 ff.

803 Es handelt sich aber offenbar um das mannlicbe Wesen; s. K. S.
23. 4. 5; — D tan 80 t E. S. 25. 4. 6: kusa-stambe 805 E tam
8 C 1 S Eas Gleiche lehrt Ap. 9. 3. 14. Nach K. §. 25. 4. 9 soil das Wasser
in den zugehorigen GefaCen an die Feuerstatten gestelH werden. Denn
„vor dem Wasser darf man nicht Ekel empfinden, so lehrt der Veda“.
8 OT AB vihatya. — Eie obige Aufzahlung der Substitutionsopfer lehrt
eindringlich den Glauben an die absolute Notwendigkeit des Voll-
zuges des Agnihotra. 80 s cf. Ap. 9. 6. 11; vgl. auch Ap.

9. 10. 15, 11. 24; Asv. 3_. 10. 10. sos aV. 7. 26. 4. 810 aV.

7. 26. 2. su Asv. 3. 10. 14. s >2 ABE ato sis E

rathasva su ABCD °sa 8i5 a vyavaped; Bvyavaye

C vyavayo; vgl. Ap. 9. 10. 17; 1. ano-ratha-’sva-purusa-vyavaye? sio So
die Mss. mit M. S. 3. 4. 10. sir T. B. 1 . 4. 4. 10. Ap. §. 9. 10. 17;
Asv. 3. 10. 16. 818 Brahm. Pray. 70 a: yasya ’dhisrite ’gnihotre

havisi va nirupte some va pratatte ’no ratho ’svah purusa sva krsnah
sakunir anyad va sahtvam amtara viyaya[t] trayastrimsat tamtava (MS.
3. 4. 9) ity ahavaniye hutva gam anva[ve]tya "varttayet . . . Bl. 70 b:
yady ano va ratho va ’ntara viyayad iti katham punar atha sakatam
va vina vahair amtara gachet . . . .; dali unter dem sakuni der Ath.
Pray, der krsnasakuni, also etwa der Rabe, zu verstehen sei, lehrt auch
der Komm. zu dieser Stelle, der den Text erweiternd interpretiert; pu-
rusagrahanafm] dvipadaprasidhy-artham . . , sva-grahana[m] simha-srgala-
svapada-prasidhy-artham krsnasakuni[h] kakah (!) tasya grahanani ....
ano-rathabhi pratyekam abhimamtranam trayastrimsat tamtava iti; Bl.

126

J. V. Negdein,

[1913.

afigirasastama82o visvah suksitayah pythag ague kamaya
yemire iti hutva praySyads^i | anvahitas ced anugached anv
agnir ity anyam pranlya ’gnyanvadhanaS^s. vrato-’payana-
bhyam manaso ’pasthaya bhur iti vyabarets^i | pathikrtlS^s
syat826 patbo ’ntikad darbhan Shared | anadvan daksina | sa-

71 a folg.: idain visnur vicakrama iti padam khyapayaty apo ’nvatiscet
[1. 'sincet?] | padam yopayitve ’ti padanyasena ’ntaragamanam prayas-
cittam iti darsayati; vgl. oben 2. 2 und Text von 1. 3; s. auch Agn.
Pray. 3 b: svavyavaye tv ayam apy aparo visesah | id am visnur ... .
pamsure [of. unten 5. 2] iti mamtrena suno yani padani tani bhasmana
purayet | pratipadam marntra-’Vrttih | tatah(!) ahavanlyam punah pranaj ed
uddhriyamanam iti | tata upatistheta tad(?)yad agne purvam. . . . vajavatya
(b. Text) tvam agne .... asi ’ti (cf. oben 2. 1, 3, 8) ca . . . . etabhyam
tato ’gnaye pathikrte svahe ’ti piirnahutih | istipakse varttamanam karma
samapya tasminn eva ’gnau istih karttavye [’ti] prati darvi-homesv esa
vidhih I S19 ^ ce mriyayat B cet prayayat C cet prathayat D cet

prapunyat RV. 8. 43. 18. Agn. Pray. 1 b : anvahitagneh

prayano-’papattau prthag agnin nayeyuh | . . . . tubbyam ta amgirastame
’ti (!) (RV. 8. 43. 18) va ”jya-”hutim hutva samaropayet ] tubhyam ....
're I ity ajya-”hutim hutva samaropayed va | ayam te yonir rtviya ity
arani garhapatye pratitapet | . . . ayam te . . . . girah (RV. 3. 20. 10) iti
na ’gny-arntare ] pani va | ya te agne yajniya tanus taye ’hy aroha ’’tma-
nam acha vasuni krnvann arya . . . runi yajno bhutva yajnam asida iti
(gemeint ist etwa TB. 2. 6. 8. 8) pan! pratitapet | dvayor api samaropanaip
yajamanah kuryat 1 varua-svara-”di samyag uccarya samaropanam kartta-
vyam [ cf. Asv. Pray. 11 b : isti-madhj'e prayana-praptau garhapatye
ajyam samskrtya janav acya "havanlye sruvena juhoti | tubhyam tarn
ahgirasastama . . . yemire svaha | agnaya idam | arani garhapatye yajama-
nah pratitapet | ayarn te . . . . rayim | tusnim itarayoh pratitapet | tata
sthala-’mtaram gatva viharam kalpayitva uddhanyamana (gemeint: "manam
Ap, 5. 4. 1) ity uddhrtya sam no devir (RV. 10.. 9. 4) ity avoksya
arani pratyavaroh[y]a sam yor (RV. 10. 9. 4) iti mamtrena mam-
thayet | svayam va mamthet | pratiyatnam mamtravrttih | jatam agnim
garhapatye adhaya tata ubhayatra ’pi vihrtya ’ranigata-prayaacittain
karoti | tac caivam | garhapatye smartavad ajyam samskrtya sruk-sruvam
nistapya sruci caturgrhitam grhitva juhoti mano jjmtir (VS. 2. 13) iti |
tata samgata-siddy-artham sruva-”iiutim visnu-smaranam ca krtve ’sti-
sesam samapayet | 822 A.V. V. 82. 4; 18. 1. 27. 823 ^ "’gnyam-

nadhana B “’gnyavadhana 0 gnyamnvadhana ; cf. dazu etwa Brahm.
Pray. 28 b: agner api nase yathapurvam eva samskaranam. 821 Brahm.
Pray. 15 b : vratopetasya ced ahavaniyo ’nugacchet pranite manasa vratam
upetya bhur ity upatistheta 825 BC pathikrtvam; cf. Brahm. Pray.

3 a: kalatipattau pathikrti kartavye ’ti srutyarthah sss Xsv. Pray. 2a:
yadi . . . ahavaniyah 8amya-pa[ra]sad apy atlyat | yadi va (!) a:navasyam
paurnamasim va ’tlyat | yadi va ’nyasya ’gnisu svayam yajet | yadi va(!)
asya ’gnisv anyo yajeta | yadi va ’sya ’nyo gnir agnin vyaveyat | tada

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittani 5. 3.

127

rvatra®27 pathikrtyamS^s anadvan | agninam cet kascid upa-
Yaks(ay)et ^29 sa sam[ya]ya[h] 8®® prag vasams^i pathikj-tisa^
syac I cham[ya]yah83® para(k) paras(y)ac ced idam ta ekam^®^
iti taiits®^ sambharets®® para^®* u ta*®' ekam iti dvitlyam dvitl-
yena8®s | trtiyam trtlyena jyotise | tasmads-*® avakhya-

yas sii tatra nirvaped | adbi ced anuprayaya *42 matbitva
tatrai ’kan vasetsJJ kala-’tipate844 ca darsapurnamasayor j

bhinna-kallnam prati nimittam pathikrti karya | abliinna-kallna-’neka-
nimitta-sambhave sakrt pathikrti karya ] astakapalah [ vettha hi (RV.
6. 16. 3) . . . om ye agnini pathikrtam a devanam . . . (RV. 10. 2. 3)
anadvan daksina | 827 A sa sarvatra 82 s BCD "krtvam

889 bei A unklar 830 pei A unklar sai A vatam 1.: para-

sat? 832 B schiebt ein [°tij syam anaddhan agninam cet kaksid

upavaksayet sasamya prag vasam pathikrti 888 B chamya

C chainmya 83t AV 18. 3. 7. 835 A tan B tam 836 cf.

Agn. Pray. 2 b: yady utpadani prayatno nihphala[h] syat (cf. oben 5. 2)
tada-tada punar-arambha-’vasare maintra avarttayitavyah | evam punah-
punar avarttayet ( ahavanlyam avadipyamanam arvava (1. : arvak) femya-
parasad idarn ta ekam para u ta ekam iti sarnvapet | Comm.: ahavaui-
yasyai ’kadesah samasto va yady ayatanad bahir gaohet [ta]da ”samya-
parasat tada idam ta ekam para uta ekarn trtlyena jyotisa saipvisasva |
samvesane tanvas carur edhi priyo devanam parame janitre (RV. 10. 56. Ij |
iti tam adaya ’’yatane praksipya tato vyahrtihomah | . In unserem Texte
werden wir dem entsprechend zu lesen haben: sa [agnih] samya-parag-
asad (besser: samyayah parag asad) [yadi syatj pathikrti syac 1 chamya-
prag-asac (besser: chamyayah prag asac) ced [agnih syat] | idam te . . .
Ap. S. 9. 1. 17 erwahnt den gleichen Fall; vgl. Asv. Pray. 2a: ahavani-
yasyai ’kadesah samasto va yady ayatanad bahir arvak Bam[y]aparasyat
patati tada idam te . . . ekam maintrena pnnah svayatane ksipet | samasta-
vyahrti-homah karya ity eke | na visphulimgam va ’tra ’syaitat praya-
scittam | garhapatya-daksinagnyoh sva-svayatanad bahih-patane tusnim
praksipya vyahrti-homah karyah | cf. Asv. Pray. 16 b : garhapatya-da-
ksinagnyor ayatanad bahih-pate tusnim praksipya brahma vyahrtibhir
juhuyat | ; ibid. 16 b; prak prayajebbya iti srag-adapanad arvak sarvam
grbyata iti vrttikrto-’ktam (cf. oben 4. 1) | etat-kala-’tirikta-’ngara-ska-

mdane idam ta ekam parame janitre iti mamtrena svayatane

punah ksipet | tatah sarva-prayascittam na visphuliiiiga-matrasyai ‘tat
prayascittam | etad ahavaniyasya ’rvak samya parasat patane | yadi femya-
parasad apy atiyat tada pathikrti | asaktau purnahutih ) agnaye pathikrte
svahe ’ti [ 837 ABCD paratra 838 B dvitiyamsta

C fehlt 839 A "’ti trtiyam sro A yasmad 841 1. etwa

avaksayane? A acaksayas D avaksayas 842 a anupraya B anu-

praya 843 1.; vasayet 844 D "pati B "-tipattve; vom

Verstreichenlassen der zum Opfer festgesetzten Zeit scheint auch AP
37. 12. 1 zu reden.

128

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

Tidhj-ardha-samapte ced aparadhara vidyat (samapte cet s)trln
havisyads^s | agnaye vaisA’anaraya dvadasa-kapalam purodasam
nirvapeds^® | yasya havir niruptam purastac candrama abhyu-
diyat tarns tredha tandulan vibhajeds^^ [ ye madhyamas
tanSJS agnaye datre 'stakapalam purodasam nirraped | ye
sthavisthas tan indraya pradatre dadhanis^® caruni | ye kso-
disthas tan visnave ^ipivistaya | srite^®® prag ukte®®i tandula-
'bbavad ardham va vidyat || 3 [j agnaye YitayeS®^ 'stakapalam
purodasam nirvaped 8®® yasya ’gnayo mithah samsrjyerann | ag-
naye vivicaye 'stakapalam purodasam nirvaped yasya 'gnayo 854
gramyena 'gnina samsrjyerann j agnaye sucayes®® 'stakapalam
purodasam nirvaped yasya 'gnayab savena 'gnina samsrjye-
rann I agnaye 'nnadaya®®® 'nnapataye 'stakapalam purodasam
nirvaped yasya 'gnayo dSvena 'gnina samsrjyerann | agnaye
jyotismate 'stakapalam purodasam nirvaped yasya 'gnayo di-
vyena 'gnina samsrjyerann | agnaye 'gnimate®®' 'stakapalam
purodasam nirvaped yasya 'gnayo 853 ‘bbiplaverann [ agnaye

845 BCD havi syad; cf. Brahm. Pray. 37 b: kalatipattau pathikrty
anagate ca (!) atra nityavilesam etad [djrastavyam ; dazu ausfiihr-
licher, korrupt iiberlieferter Comm.; J. oben im Text: cet trir havih
syat? 8*8 Diesem wohl nicht hierher gehorigen Satze fehlt

der Vordersatz, der nach Asv. Pray. 8 a zu erganzen sein diirfte:
ahitagneh fetrunam bhojane 'gnaye vaisvanaraya purnahutih | 8*7 vgl.

oben 2. 2; 4.1; Brahm. Pray. 26 a bebandelt den gleichen Pall und
stellt die spezielle Moglichkeit auf: yadai 'ko mnsti[r] dvau va
prakrtJnam niruptau bhavatah (!) tada candramaso 'bbyudaye vijnate
katham karttavyam 84S B 'ma syus tad 9*9 B

dadhati sso B srute CD %te ssi bC prakte?

pratte? 852 fehlt bei A; cf. Asv. Pray. 8a: garbapatya-

"bavaniyayob samsarge ’gnaye vltaye purnahutih | sss Ap.

9. 3, 21; vgl. zu diesem Abschiiitt die im Brabmana-Stil ausgefiibrte
Reproduktion in 2. 7. 55* Ap. 9. 3. 18; K. S. 25. 4. 31 — 32; „yasya

'gnayo“ d. h. : die zum Opfer notigen Peuer; vg). Asv. Pray. 8 a; garha-
patya-daksinagni-mukhanam samsarge samaropya mathitva 'gnaye vivicaye
purnahutih | 855 Ap. 9. 3. 22; cf. K. 8. 23. 4. 29 — 30; danaeh

kann in diesem Palle von einer Siihne Abstand genommen werden; cf.
oben 2. 7 ; Asv. Pray. 8 a : agnina savagni-samsarge samaropya ma-
thitva 'gnaye sucaye purnahutih | 8=6 Auch in diesem Palle ist

nach K. S. 25. 4. 32 folg. eine Biihne nicht unbedingt notwendig. Das
Siihneopfer soli vielmehr nur bei religioser Uberangstlichkeit stattfinden
und dann dem Agni samvarga gelten. Eben dieser devata sol] es im ahn-
liehen Palle nach Ait. Brahm. 7. 7 geweiht sein. S 57 AD psumate;

vgl. Ap. 9. 3. 22. K. S. 25. 4. 33. 85s hei B fehlen diese und die

dazwischenliegenden IVorte; vgl. Ap. 9. 10. 11.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittdni 5. 4.

129

’gnimate®^^ ’stakapalam purodasam nirvaped^ss ya ahavanlyam
anugatam abbyuddhared | agnaye bsamavateseo ’stakapalam
purodasam nirvaped yasya "hitagner^si agnigrlians^^ agnir
dalied anagnir grhan va | ’gnayeS 62 vratapataye ’stakapalam
purodasam iii[r]vapedS63 ya ahitagnir artijam asru8®‘ ku-
ryatS’63 tatah^fis pravased 8^® ( agnaye vratabhrte ’stakapalam
purodasam nirvafjed®®’ parvani yo vrata - velayam arra-
ses cf. aber Asv. Praj’. 8a: sagnav ayatane ’gnim praiiiya sthapane ’gnaye
agnimate purnahutih ] purvapraiiitagnim nihkasya sthapane prayascittam
Jia ’sti I aranyoh satnarudha-vahninam ucchistady-upaghate caturgrhitena
’’bavaniye manasvatl-homah. j atma-samarudhagnir yadi bhojanadi kuryat
tada ’ranyor laukikagnau va ‘varohya vihrtya purvoktam eva prayascittam j
punas tva “ditye ’ti (Ap. 9. 10. 9) samimdhanam va [ K.

25. 4. 36 gehadahe ’gnaye ksamavate puroda&b ssi A °gnir

S62 Diese und die dazwischenliegenden Worte sind korrumpiert. Der
liekonstruktionsversuch schliebt sich vorzugsweise an A an. A agni-
grhadd agni hedata (na?) gnigrhan ca (va?) B agnigrahamn dehed an-
agnigrahan va ’gnaye C agnigrhan dahed anagnigrban va gnaye D
agnigrhadnheddanagnigrbe nvagnaye; nnter anagnir -ware dann etwa
..Phoaphorescenz'' zu verstehen. sss Brahm. Pray. 66 b:

yasya “hitagner iti vyakhyatani brabmane ’gnaye kamavate ’stakapalam
nirvapet | yasyii ’’bitagneh sattognir grhan dahed agnir Vili ’tasya

ksamo grhan abhyacyatam iti sa dahaty eva ’param iti ksamo

grhan abbyacyati [ucah samavaye samavaiti] dahanaya sa ksamah sa[m]-
bhuyg ("pa?) enam api dahati 1 . . . . adahuko ’syS ’param agnir grhan
bhavati i cf. Asv. Pray. 8 a, welches — offenbar ursprunglicher und ver-
niinftiger — den Vratapati bei Verletznngen der religiosen Enthaltsam-
keitsvorschriften empfiehlt: anvadhana - ’namtaram gramamtaram na
gacchet (cf. oben 4. 3) 1 madhu-mamsa-”di na ’sniyat j na buddhi-purvam
retah skamdayet ) ityadi vrata-lope vratapataye purnahutih ) — Zur
Eekonstruktion des Textes sind Asv. Pray. 8_a wichtig: grhadahe ’gnaye
ksamavate purnahutih | . Zu obigem vgl. Asv. Pray. 12 a: anvadhana-
’naintaram buddhi-purvaka-retah-pate imam me varuna [V. S. 21. 1]
tat tva ”yami ’ty [VS. 21. 2] etabhyam sruva-‘’hutl ajyabhaga- ’namtaram
juhuyat | buddhi-purvakaretah-pate artya ’sru-pate madhu-mam83-”di-
bhaksane va vratapatlstih | afektav ajyabhaga-’namtaram sruci dvadasa-
grhitani caturgrhitam va grhitva ’’bavaniye juhuyat | agnaye vratapataye
svahe ’ti tato visnusmaranam [ ; vgl. Agn. Pray. 14a: ksamaya (erg.:
’gnaye) ”gara-dahe sucaye samsarjane ’gnina | anyene ’ti sarvagnibhih )
mithas ced vivicaye | garhapatyadayah sarve dvau dvau va parasparam
yadi samsrjyeran tada vivicaya istih karya | gramyena samvargaya paca-
nagnih j vaidyutena ’psumate j vaisvilnaraya vimatanam anna-bhojane |
364 A avirjam asnu BB ilrtvijam asru C tvijam asm j verbessert nach
Ap. 9. 4. 16; cf. E. S. 25. 4. 28, 11. 30. _ 865 A kuryastat

B kuryats 0 kurya see B prasaved; cf. Ap. 9. 4. 15. 867 ABCD

wiederholen hinter "ped: ya ahiiagnir artvijam asm kuryat pravaset;
C lafit asru aus.

130

J. V. Negekin,

[1913.

tyams«8 cared agnaye tantumate®®® ’stSkapalam purodasam iiir-
vaped yasya sanitatam ses agnihotram juhuyuli 1| 4 I atha sanini-
patitesu prayascittesu vaivicim®^® prathamam kuryat | tato ’gnaye
sucaye [ vratapatlm antatah ksamavatlip 8 < i parivarttayeds"^

yasya ’gnisv 873 anyamSTS yajayed®** yoS'J Ta8<4 yajenS'i | ma-

rutam trayodasa-kapalam purodasam nirvaped yasya yamau®'®
putrau jayeyatam gave va | yamasur daksina dhenur bharya
va876 I prsadajyam cet skannam 8'7 skannS dyaui'S^s ity
abhimantrya | skanna dyauh skannS prthivi skannam visvam

*68 A avratyam caret tantumate dagnaye tantumate B vratyain
caret tamtumata agnaye tantumate C wie A, jedoch agnaye; cf. Ait.
Brahm. 7. 8. soa B tatam C tamtainm; cf. Ap.

9. 4. 15. 870 Nach Bralim. Pray. 65 a folg. wird aber die Vaivici

vollzogen, wenn die Opferfeuer sich mit einander vermengen oder wenn
deren Asche sich vermischt; ebenso Ait. Brahm. 7.6. Nach K. S. 25. 4. 32
ist das Opfer fiir Agni vivici in gleichem Palle fakultativ. A

ksamavata 874 B pativarttayed 0 parivartayed 873 B sv

anyam fehlt bei C; bei A unklar. 874 A yajaye va yajen B yaja-

yed yo va jayan C yajaye yo va jayen; of. Brahm. Pray. Bl. 62 a: yo

’nyagnisu yajeta yasya canye ’gnisu yajeran yasyagnayah samsrjyeran .
cf. K. g. 25. 8. 16. 875 Ap. 9. 14. 7, 17. 1; Asv. 3. 13. 12, Ait.

Brahm. 7. 9. 376 cf. den sehr korrupten Passus Brahm. Pray. 68 b;

ferner Asv. Pray. 8 b; yasya bharya gaur va yamau janayet tada marud-
bhyah purnahutih 1 Agn. Pray. 14 b: yasya bharya gaur va yamau ja-
nayed istir marutah [ 8T7 Brahm. Pray. 72 a folg.: yadi prsad-

ajyam skandet (!) hiranyam antarddhaya bhuyo [’Jbhyunmyo [!) 'sveno (!)
’paghrapya mano jyotir varddhatam bhutir ity etabhyam ahutirn juhu-
yat 1 . . . . BI. 72 b ; yadi prsadajyain skamded iti prsaskannam ajyo prsad-
ajyam ajyam dadhimisram ghrtam fedguiiavisistam prsadajyam ity abhi-
dhiyate | . . . . hiranyam amtarddhaya hiranyam tatra Vasthapya yadi
skanno bhuyo bhyunniyah bhuya tatrai ’va ’bhimukhyena niyeii va-
canat I .... Bl. 73 a: asvena gamdho padan karayitva mano jyotir
varddhatam bhUtir ity etabhyam ahutir juhuyad .... trayastrmsat tam-

tava ity ahavanlye hutva Bl. 73 a folg. : tatrai ’va ’ntardhaya

'vasthapya yat skannam hiranyam apanlya prsadajyam asveno ’paghrapya
[ajsvam apanlya brahma ”hutl juhoti .... Es ist von einigem Interesse,
dab der Vers ,,trayastrimsat tamtavas“ als Zauber bei Zerreibungen ver-
schiedener Art angewendet wird, z. B. (Bl. 75 b folg.): yadi rasanam
chidyad yadi dvidha kuryat pasuvikarat pasor (?) eva trayastriinsat tan-
tava ity etaya gramthi[na] saindha[ya?] . . . jyaitayai ’va juhuyat (cf.

AP. 37. 16. 1, 17. 1) patni-rasanaya[m] mekhalayam va dvidho

krtayam punah sannahanam brahmacarino mekhalachede krtasya gopri
’tyadayas trayo mantra, bhavamti [ . . . . Bl. 94 b: yadi soma skamde
vyakhyatani prsadajyena soma skanded iti; cf. K. S. 25. 6. 6 — 7, 10;
prsadajya-skandane caike catustrimsad-dhomam ichanti.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittani 5. 6.

131

idam jagat skannadoS^s visve devah pra skanna[t] prayatam^so
havir ity abkimantrye ‘ha gavahssi prajayadhvam ssi ity
anyasya pysadajyasya juhuyat pasugava cet sruvair 883 hut-
va "sravam8S4 yatysss avadanam886 akarme^SB ’ty anyasyam
drdhatarayam srapayeyui-ssi | [yady] avadanam na vimdet tada
‘‘jyasya ‘vadyed^ss j upakytas cet pasuh prapated8S9 vayavyam
yavagum nirupya ‘nyam tad-rupam tad-varnam iti sama-
nam |1 5 I atha yasya ‘harganesso [’Jvisamapte yupo virohetssi
pravfhya yupavirudhany avalopya tapo hy ague 8^2 amtaram
amitram 89^ tapa samsam ararusah parasya tapo vaso cikitano
acittan Ti te tisthantam ajara ayasah | yo nah sanutyo abhi-
dasad agneS9< yo amtaro mitramaho vanusyatsss | tam ajare-
bhir vrsabhis tavaSSB svais896 tapa 89" tapistha tapasa tapas-
van I yasmat89S kynoti ketum a naktam cid dura a sate |
pavako yad vanaspatin S99 yasman minoty ajaro (nabhi-
hita) 900 iti dve | pancabhir aparam paryuksya suparpa va-
cain90i iti virudhEni hutva punahsamayat tasmipas tvastram
ajarp pihgalam pasupi bahurupam alabheta | ‘gnina tapo ‘nva-
bhavad 902 | vaca brahma | manina903 rupani | ‘ndrena devan |
vatena pranant904 | suryena dyam | candramasa naksatrapi |
yamena905 pitfn [ rajfia manusyan | upalena uadeyan | ajaga-
rena sarpan ] vyaghrepa ’’ranyan pasurp | chyenena patatrino |
vpsna ’^van | ysabhepa ga | hastens ‘ja | Tysnina ‘vlr | vrihipa

S'9 Ap. S. 9. 17. 1. 879 A skamnadyau ssoAprayata B prayepratam

C prayeyatam; gemeint vielleicht: prajayatam
B ya VO yam C yavo ya D gavo yain; —

RV. 1. 177. 4. Ap. Sr. 9. 17. 1.
ofifenbar eine Interpolation, die das Subjekt
883 A guvair B bruvai C survai
885 ABD vatl 98® A madavamakarme

C mavadamakarme 88^ cf. Ap. 9. 4. 1.

881 A gavogham
gemeint: AV. 20. 127. 12;
652 B °gava; pasugava ist
des Satzeg verdrangt hat.
884 A sravam BO sruvam
B mavadamakarme
883 Brahm.

Pray. 77 b: avadanany api yadi na vimdet tada "jyasya ‘vadyet . . .

praisa imdragnibhyam ajyasya *nubrubi ti darsanat(!) ajyena samstha-
pya punar yajeta atra kecid acaksate sarvavisayam etad bhavati |
889 cf. oben 2. 9. 8®® D ahavisargane 89i Vgi. oben

2. 6; K. S. 25. 10. 1 folg. 8®- RV. 3. 18. 2. sos A

amitraya 894 B agner; RV. 6. 5. 4. 893 Mas.: manusyat

896 ad varahais; B tavasyais C tapastes sst AD tapo 898 A

yasma; bei C fehlen die Worte yasmat bis vanaspatin 899 RV.

5. 7. 4; Ap. §. 14. 29. 3.

902 Ap. 20. 11. 10.
prana C pranah

900 1.: na ’bhihite?
903 Die Mss. lesen:

901 AV. 6. 49. 3.
balina 9o* A

132

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

atha ’tab saumikani vyakhyasyamo | havirdbane cet pra-
pateyatam pura babispavamanad adbvaryur daksinam ud-
grbnlyat 1 pratiprastbato ’pastabbnuyat 907 | pratiprastbato
’ttaram udgrbniyad 1 adbvaryur upastabbnuyad 907 yatba-
prakrti stambbano ’pamanau90S(!) sam asvinor avasa nutaneuaooa
mayobbuva supramtl oio gamema | a no rayim vabatam ota
viran a visvany amrta saubhagani * < i | siro yajnasya pratidbi-
yatam9i2 amrtam devatamayam 9i2 | vaisnavyah | (kriyatamoi*
sira asvinyah9i4 pratihriyatamOis amrtamOio) dyubbir aktubbih
paripatamo*^ asmansis aristebbir asvina saubbagebbih | tan
no mitro varuno mfimabantam aditih sindbub prtbiviom uta
dyaur | ity agnidbriye 920 jubuyad | auduiubarlm ced apabareyur
yam eva kamcit pracbidya ’vadadbyad adbvaryur udgata yaja-
mana | urg asy urjani mayi dbebi | sriyam tistba pratistbita (
divain stabdbva ’ntariksain ca prtbivyam ca drdba bbave ’ti92i |

S')® Diese und die dazwischenliegenden “Worte sind in den Mss. ganz
entstellt. A yamena piiia yajna manusya phalena nadeyutrajagarena sarpan
gramyenaranyan pasvannapanena patatiniuo vrsabheua gii vastenaja vrnavl
vlhlnantabi yavenausadhinyagrodhena [vanaspatln] B yamena pitfn rajna
manusyan phalena nadeyany ajagarena sarpan vyaghrena “’ranyan pasun
chyenena patatrino vrsnasvan rsabhopyaga vastenaja visninavin vrlhiiia
’nnani pavanenausadhinr nyagrodhena; C t'ahnlich B und D) yamena pitrn
ajna manusyan upalena nadeyan ajagarena sapan vyaghrenaranyan pasvam
chenena patatrino vi’snyasvan rsabhena gil vastenaja vrsninavin v'rlhinam-
nani yastvosadhlnyagrodhena; auch die folgenden Worte sind bei A
und B sehr inkorrekt geschrieben. s®® Bei BCD lautet der Ko-

lophon: ity atharvavede vaitanasutre prayafcitta - prasamge trayodaso
’dhyayah samaptah dot ABCD 'pastha bruyat sos A.

pasamane BD pamane C pamano vielleicht Imperative plus „anas“.
909 RV. 5. 42. 18. 910 A 'nitam 9u a •bharani

912 Ap. 14. 33. 8; Mss.: pratihriyatam (A “huyatam) sis R

akriyata 0 kryatam; gemeint ist: dhlyatam 9u C upadhinya

15 A pratihudayatam ; gemeint ist: pratidhiyatam 9i6 feblt

bei BOD; der in Klammem gesetzte Passus ist offenbar eine Wieder-
holung der letzten Worte des vorausgegangenen Mantra. 9i7 0

"patum 918 RV. 1.112.25. 9i9 AC “vir 920 Ygl.

K. S. 26. 6. 8. 92! ad bhavati BC bhava

Tol. XT.xiii.]

Atharvaprayascittani 6. 1.

133

dhartri dharitri janitri yamitrl922 ’ti brahma^^s | ’ntah^^S-sada-
so 924 bahispavamanena stuyurs-® [ diksitasya garhapatyo ’nte^^e
garhapatyo ’nugacched 9-' agnim naro didliitibhir aranyor^^s
hastacyuti janayanta prasastam | duredrsam grhapatim atharyum
iti matbitva ’vadadliyad | asv anupranltas^-sced aiiugached etayai
”va930 matbitva ’vadadbyad | agnayas cen mitbab sarasrjye-
rauii93i agnina ‘gnih saipsrjyata932 ity ete^ss japec | cbalamukbi-
yas ced aiiugacclied garbapatyat praniya bbadram karnebbir
iti catasro japet | bbadram karnebhih srniiyama deva bbadram
pasyema ’ksabbir yajatrah | stbirair angais tustuvamsas taDu-
bbir vyasema devabitam yad ayub | svasti na indro vyddba-
sravab93 5 svasti nab pusa visvavedahs^e | svasti nas tarksyo
’rista-nemib svasti no brbaspatir dadbatu j ppsadasva ma-
rutab prsnimatarah 335 subbamyavano vidatbesu jagmayah^^T |
agni-jibva manavah suracaksaso visve no deva avas5 gamann
iba I satam in nu sarado anti deva, yatra nas cakra jara-
sam tannnam | putraso yatra pitaro bhavarati ma no ma-
dbya ririsatayur gantob | iti ] preddbo agna^^s iti ca-
tasfbbir jubuyat j preddbo agne didibi puro no ’jasraya
surmya yavistba ] tvani ^asvanta upa yanti vajah j sapta
te agne samidbab sapta jibvabs^a sapta rsayah sapta dbama
priyani ] sapta hotrfib saptadba tva yajanti sapta yonir
apypasva gbrtena svaba ] yan me manasas cbidrani yad vaco
yac^iy ca me brdab | ayam devo bj'basi^atib sam tat
sificatu radbasa 3ii | mama ’gne varca®^- ity eka-’'gnidbrlyas ced
anugaccbed garbapatyat praniya mama ’gne varca iti sadbbir

9-2 Ap. S. 14. 33. 2; das Zitat ist in der Wiedergabe der Mss. vollig
korrumpiert; es lesen BCD: dharti dharitri janitrlty amitriti haritry
adbaritri janitry amitriti janitri hanitriti 923 BJ) brahmatah;

AC brahmutra; korrupt! 221 ABCD svaraso 925 a

bruyuh B etayur 926 A 'tyotpate B 'tyo ’nve C tyonite; 1. :

'patyo-’tj>ate? 927 Vom Erloschen der Opferfeuer handelt zu-

sammenhangend K. S. 23. 3. 1 folg.; cf. oben 1. 5; 2. 7. 223 JtY.

7. 1. 1; Ap. 14. 16. 1. 929 c 'iiita; A °nite B 'nlti D “ni

920 C etayiva 93i cf. oben 2. 7; 5. 4. 92> Kaus. S.

108. 2: dagegen Ap. a. a. 0.: agnina ’gnih samidhyate 922 A ate

921 BV. 1. 89. 8; Ap. 14. 16. 1. Von dieser Eventualitat scheinen auch

Brabm. Pray. Bl. 114 a zu handeln (durch Korruption last vollig unver-
standlich gewordenV 935 By. 1 . 89. 6, 7, 9. 936 C vis-

vatejah 937 A jamayah 93s BV. 7. 1. 3. 939 ys. 17. 79.

940 AC yat svagne hrdah B yas tv agne hrdah 9;i ABCD radbase

942 AV. 5. 3. L

134

J. V. Negelein,

[1913

juhuyad j auttaravedikas ced anugacchec chalamukhlySt
praniye ’mo agna iti trayodasabhir jiihuyat | imo agne vlta-
tamani havyajasro vaksi devatatim acha prati na Im surabhini
vyantu | sapta te agne samidho ^^3 | yan me manasas chi-
dram 9^6 1 mama ’gne varca®^^ iti juhuyat | pasusrapanas ced
anugacched auttaravedikat pranlya tvam no agne 94' sa tvani
na94S iti sarvaprayascittam hutva j yady ukhyo949 nugacchet
punah punah prajvalya || 1 || kayamano vana tvam950 yan matfr
ajagann apah | na tat te agne pramrse nivartanam yad
dure sann iha ’bhavah | yas te agna ardra yonayo yah ku-
layinih95i | ye te agna indavo ya u nabhayah | yas te agne

343 cf. Asv. Pray. 11 a: varuiiapraghasesy anttaravedikasya ’gner da-
ksina-viharasthasya va nase salamukhat pranlya purvoktam prayascittam
kuryat | („purvokta“ s. den Schlufi des im Ms. unmittelbar vorhergehenden
Passus Anm. 784 Cit. 2) na ’tra ’nvadhanam | salamukhlya-’nvadhana-vya-
tirekena prthag anvadhanasya purvam ananusthanat | na caivam anva-
hita-prayascittani na syad iti vacyani | anvahita-salamukhlyat pranitvena
dvayor apy anvahitatvat | anvahita-salamukhiya-nase tu purana-garha-
patyat tarn pranlya purvoktarn prayascittam krtva ’nvadhanadi kuryat |
941 KV. 7. 1. 18. 945 VS. 17. 79. 9i6 Ap. 14. 16. 1, 17. 1.

949 JtV, 4. 1. 4. 948 AV. 20. 98. 2. 949 Des in anderen

Traktaten haufig erwahnten Ausgehens des daksinagni gedenkt unser
Text nicht; s. z. B. Asv. Pray. 9b: anvadhana-’nantararn daksinagni-nase
sucir bhutva viharain pravisya garhapatyain tarn praniya praiian ayainya
daksinagni -nasa-nimittarn prasayec cittain (1.; 'nimitta-prayasoittain)
karisya iti sainkalpya garhapatye smartavad ajyani sainskrtya sruk-sruvam
nistapya sainmrjya sruci caturgrhitam grhitva ’’bavanlye samidham
adhaya juhoti | mano jyotir jusatam ajyam (A. S. 2. 5. 14) havisa gbrtena
svaha | manase jyotisa idarn na mama (gemeint: AV. 18. 2. 2?) | saingata-
sidhyartham ekain sruvahutim juhuyat | bhur bhuvah svah svaha | tato
visnu-smaranain j adhvaryu-sannidhau sa eva sarvaiii kuryat | sainkalpain
tyagain ca yajamanah | visnu-smaranam ubhayoh | aistikajye sati na
smartavaj ajya-sainskarah ( aisti-sarnmarge sati na punah patra-sainmarga
ity uktam prayascitta-caindrikayain | tato daksinagneh pascad urddhvaiii
janu(r) upavisya mahyam yajantv (A V. 5. 3. 4) ity adi tatri (,?)-kasthany
adhaya vyahrtibhir upasthanain kuryat | evam anvahita-‘’havaniya-nase
’pi ] ; ibid. 10 a folg. findet sich eine Suhnezeremonie “garhapatya-daksina-
’gnyor nase”; vgl. Agn. Pray. 12b: daksinagny-anugamanarn (1.; “ne)
tusnim garhapatyat praniya bhur ity upasthanadi samanam | homas tu(!)
ahavaniye ta[t]-tad-agnau va sarva-prayascittam tu (!) ahavanjya eva |
ity anvahita-prayafcittam | ibid. 13 a: atha daksinagner anugatih | anu-
gatam daksinagnim utpadayisyami ’ti sainkalpya yonitah pranayet | tata
ahavaniye ’gnaye tapasvate janadvate pavakavate svahe ’ti purnahutim
juhuyat | 950 KV. 3. 9. 2. 951 M. S. 2. 7. 15- 98 11- Ap

15. 17. 5. • . r"

Vol. xxxiii.]

Atharvaprayascittani 6. 2.

135

tanva urjo nama tabhis tvam ubhayibhih samvidanab satam ci-
nvanas tanva ni^ldata | sakam bi sucina sucihs^^ prasasta kratuna
jani I vidvan 953 asya vrata dhruva vaya953 iva ’nurobata ityss^
adbaya samidbam krsnam dadyad | vaso-yugamSS’ dbenumsss
va| yady ukba vas^s bbidyeta tair eva kapalaih saracitya ’nyam
krtva syuta devebbir anirtena”ga95‘ ukbain svasaram adbi vedim
astbat satyam purvair rsibbis cakupanosss | agnih pravidvan iba
tat karotuj sfavadejarudbaranamadrirss® ity anumantrayetseo j
vasativarls 96i cet skandeyuh 962 prtbivi vibbuvari 963 ’ti j
calyakain96< cety964 avrtte | namas te bbuvo vi^va[m] tad grbitva
manda vasa 963 iti catasrbbir agnldhriye jubuyat j manda va-
sah sundbyur ajirah | undatih supbenah jyotismatls tamasvatir |
mitrabhrtah k^atrabbrtab svarastra iba ma’vata ] vrsno asva-
sya samdanam asi vrstyai tvo ’panabyami | deva vasava agne
indra surya 966 | deva udno datto ’dadbim bbintta divas pa-

952 RV. 2. 5. 4; Ap. 16. 1.5. 7. 953 C viddha artvijya

dhruva vrata 954 Das Zitat ist in den Mss. sehr korrum-

piert. AC lesen statt: “rebate ity: “rohosaty; B 'rohasity 955 AC

"yugam dhenu BD “gam dhenum 956 A la(H va aus. 957 M. S.
2. 7. 16. Ap. 16. 26. 6. 95S AD ca kuryan; B cakurya C ea kurjam;

gemeint ist wohl die Fassung von K. 39. 3. 959 Infolge seiner

Korruption fiir mich nicht identifizierbar. BD: stavadejarudhiramadnr
C wie B, nur: stadeja“ 960 A “yeta 96t A “varlyas 962 Asv.
Pray'. 13 a erwahnen einen in der Opferpraxis sicherlich sehr hiiufig auf-
tretendeii analogen Fall: pranltanam proksanlnam ea ’mbuskandane
samsrave va . . . 903 R. 35. 3; Ap. 14. 17. 3. 964 Durch Kor-

ruption unverstandlioh geworden. Statt des ca-Lautes vielleicht (mit A)
va zu lesen; D statt dessen sinlvaly urumdhe ity 965 Ap. §. 14. 18. 1.
966 TS. 2. 4. 8. 1. Das Zitat, wohl aus abweicbender Bezension hervor-
gegangen, ist reruustaltet; A best: mamda vasasadumdubhejira umdari
suphedah | jyotismatls tamasvatir mitrabhrtah ksatrabhrtah svarastra
ihamavatah | vrstyani saindanam asi vrstye tvo ’panahyami | deva vasavo
’gni stiryo tro danno dadhibhurddivaspurjanyamdamtanksa samudrat tato
no vrsnyavan | devam yujo mitravarunaryaraa sukra tadevatsavitiiyahaya
tamtrannapam narasamsohnodatto dadhikinam divah syur janyad anta-
riksat samudrat tato no vr«tyavann iti BC maindavasa srudhyu (? C sru-
dbhyu) isa bhejiranidamdutih suphetah 1 jyotismatls tamasvatir mitra-
bhrta ksatrabbrta svarastra ity amayata | vrsno (C “snel asvasya samdanam
asi vrstyai (C vrsnyau) tvopanahyami 1 devata vasavo agna (C agna)
indrasuryo hnodatto (nho“) dadimbhit | divas phu(syu)-rjanyad amta-
riksat samudrat tato no vrstyavat | deva yujo mitravarunaryama yuktam
(C fiigt no ein) devah sapitayo apam napat tanunapam narasamso “nho-
datto dabhinibhit (C dadhinidibhit) diva spurjanyad amtariksat samudrat
tato no vrsnyavan iti

136

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

rjanyad antariksat samudrat tato no vystya ’vata | deva yujo
mitravaruna ’ryama yuktam devah sapitayo apam napat taiiu-
napan narasamsa udno datto ’dadhim bhintta divas parjanyad
amtariksat samudrat tato no vrstya ’rate ’ti | pravrttas cet
syuh samasincantv**®^ iti samsincen | nivrttas cet syur apam
urml969 ’ti grhitva sadbhir ahavanfye julmyad | indriyavan
madintamas tarn vo ma ’va kramisam I acbiunam tantum
pythivya anu gesams-® iti hutva [ 2 j abhivrste®"! some dyaus
ca tva prthivi ca srnitam antariksam ca | indur indum avagad
imdor iipdro ’pat®*- j yajnas ca tva vayus ca srnitam abas ca
tva ratris ca srnitam darsas ca tva paurnamasa^ ca srnitam
yajna^ ca tva dakfina ca srnitam daksas ca tva manasas ca
srnitam arkaS ca tva ’svamedhas ca srnitam | . . . . s ca
tva . . . imdur imdum upagat®'^ sayame so ma®'^ bhut
sarva®'® tasya®"® ta®'® imdav®"® | indrapitasyo ’pabiitasyo
’pahiito bhaksayaml®"' 'ty abbimr-stasya®'® bhaksayet | saso-
mam cec camasam sadasi stotrena ’bhyupakuryad dbirapya-
gai'bhas tad®'® it®’® padam®’® iti®’® dvabbyam®’® juhuyat®*® |
tad it padain na viciketa vidvrin®5i yan®s2 mytah®®- punar apy
eti jivan | pravytta®®® ca sthall syat®s® trivyd yad bhuvanasya
rathavyj jivo garbbo na mytasya jivat svfihe’ty | anyai§ ced®8<
agrayapad®®^ gyhnlyad®8-i agrayanas ®8® ced upadasyed Sgra-
yanad gybniyad grahebhyo®®® va ’’liytya®®’ ^ukra-dhruvau ®s®

967 Gemeint ist AV. 7. 33. 1. 968 samvam

B simcam C samgaicam 969 AV. 20. 28. 4; Vait.

31. 22. 970 Ap. 10. 19. 10. 971 A abhiprsta

9'9 K. S. 35. 11; Ap. 14. 29. 2. 973 (Jie Mss. geben nur diese Silben

als Rest des Textfragments; AD srutva 974 M§. 3. 6. 15. 973 BCD

soma 976 A: (somas) tat savita imdavah | BC ("ma) bhut aarva tasya
ta imdav | D bhus tat savitasya ta 977 ygi. Y. S. 38. 28. 978 j. ;

abhivrstas 3 'a ? 979 go aditidvabhyain osu Brahm. Pray . 93 a:

cec camasam abhyupakuryat (!) hiranyarbha ity agnidhrlye purnahutim

juhuyat [Comm.] yadi sadasy avastbitaiji camasam abhyupakuryat (!)

hiranyagarbha ity 99i TB. 3. 7. 10. 6. ssi ^ yad amrtah

B yan matah C yan atah 933 Diese und die inz-wischenliegenden

Worte fehlen bei BCD; statt ca lies A va; cf. AP 37. 19. 1 yasya ’samapte
karmaiiy udapatram pravarttate 9Si hinter ced etwa: upadasyed

zu erganzen. A nyascehaprayanahunlyad B any as cemdragrayanad grh-
niyad C anyas cedagrayaniit grhniyad; vgl. K. S. 25. 12. 25. folg.
985 BC nac sso ABC grhebhyo 9S7 ABC “hutya cf. Brahm.

Pray. 82 a; yady iigrayanah skamded upa va dasyed itarebhyo grahebhyo
nirgrhnlyat | . . . yadI ’tare graha skamdeyur upa va dasyeyur puro graya
apo nigrhnlyat. 983 A£dhruvo

Atharvaprayascittani 6. 4.

137

ol. xsxiii.]

varjam | a tva jajnasyessa 'ti catasrbhir juhuyad | a tva
yajiiasya ramhya[t] susvanah pavate sutah | pratnani pati ka-
vyah 1 gosasso indo nrsa asy asvasa vSjasa uta^so | pratnani
pati kavyah | devanam devas^i iti dve j dhruvas ced upadasyet
pravptta cet sthall syad vasavas tva ”dis tarpayantu rudras tva
tarpayantu | adityas tva tarpayantv ity utsrjya dhruva dyaur
ity abhimantrya dhruvams®^ dhruvene^^^ ’ti gpbitva ’’yurda asi
dhruva iti catasrbhir agnldhriye juhuyat | ayurda asi dhruva
ayur me dah^ss svaba | varcoda asi dhruvo varco me dab
svaha | tejoda asi dhruvas tejo me dab svaba | sahoda asi
dbruvah saho me dab svaba | gravni®*^ sirne®®® dyotauasya
marutasya brabmasamena stuviraim 9® * ity eke bhaksanlyam 9®®
uparavesv apinayet |j 3 apidagdhe ®®® some krtamtvad i®®®
upakrameranyam 19®! vacanat*®®'- | japtva pura dvadasyai®®®
punai’i®®^ diksavamtadviti ’®99 | tatra ta dadyad 'O®® yah'®®'
kasyai tva '®9S dasya '®®5 bbavati | tathai ’vai ’nam '®®9 rtvijo'®®®
yajayeyur'®®®|yady akrita-somam'®'® aiJahareyur 'O" anyah'O'^
kritavyo | yadi ki’ito'®'® nastab'®*-* syat sa nitya ’bbi«i-
cyo I raja-”hara *®'® iti kimcid deyam'®'® | tens ’sya sa

9!9 RV. 9. 6. 8. ACD atvayasyeti B atmayajnasceti RV. 9. 2. 10;

fehlt bei B. "si Raul S. 74. 12. AV. 6. 88. 1; Ap. 14. 27. 7.

S93 fehlt bei A. as* AY. 6. 87. 3; Ap. 14. 27. 7. aas Ap. 14. 27. 6;
S. 4. 12. 10. ass A gnahi slriie rghotasya BC gravni siriie

dyotii asya; D dhyata asya s®' A suviram ABCD

•yam ®99 A apidagve BCD apidagdham >ooi> A krte ta

B krtain tva C vrttam tva?; 1. wahrscheiiilicb : kiltatvad Brahm.

Pray. 95 a: yadi raja ’bhidahyeta grahan adhvaryu[h] sparsayeta stotrany
udgata sastrani hota ’tha [a]dhvar[yur] yajnarii sa[m]bhrtya purva ceste-
ram .... Bl. 96 b folg. : yadi raja ’bhidahyata krayat prag daksinakalat
sarvesv eva ’vadbisu praptam kamam vipracarad cka iobamti i®®® BD

cavanam; zu diesem vollig verderbten Passus scheint Asv. 6. 8. 1 parallel
zu sein. >o®3 A "date i®®-* A punad B puna ’®®5 A

"■ddhlti A wiederholt: tatra krameranyani vaeanan japtva pura dasa pu-
naddiksavaddhiti; s. K. S. 25. 14. 30. B drdyad '®®' fehlt

bei BOD •'j®s A tvasya tad; zu verbessern nach K. S. 25. 14. 31.

1009 ad tayaivana rtvir yajayeyur B tathaiva nam rtvijo ryayajueyur
C wie B; nnr: ryajaya i®i« A “kritah so” AC upa”

1013 BC anya AD anyatra A kritam yo BCD kiltavyo lonBC

cesta AD nesta loi® D rajohara 'O’® Brahm. Pray. 82 a:

cet krttam apahareyur iti yasya krayetia ’bhisambamdhah (!) uparistat
somagrahanat . . . dvau somaprakarau haimavato ’sau javanakha tatra
haimavate (!) alohita-varnako maujavato babhruvarnakah | . . . . mauja-
vatasya ’pahare kecit haimavata ahartavya tarn abhisunuyat | .... cf. K. S.

VOL. XXXUI. Part II. ’ 10

138

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

parikrlto bhavati | yadi somam na vindeyuh ptitlkan abhisu-
nuyur***^ | yadi na putikan arjunany 'o*® atba'ois ya'ois
eva kas cau ’sadblr abrtya ’bhisunuyuh | pancadaksinam
kratum samsthapayeyui- ekadaksinam va | yena yajnena kama-
yeta tena yajeta 1 [a]tra yat kamayeta tatra tad dadyat j pra-
tahsavanac cet kalaso vidiryeta vaisnavisu sipivistavatlsu trcai®20
stuyuri®2i I (madhyamdinas ceti®22 pavamane sa-madhyam-

dinati 023 pavamana yaji madhyamdina "rbbavasya 1025

pavamanasya purastad vasat-kara-nidhanam samai®26 ]ja.
ryad | yadi tFtlya-savana etad >®27 evai®2s 4 j bhumir bhu-
mim agan '®29 mata mataram apy agat | rdhyasma putraih
pasubhir yo no dvesti sa bhidyatam iti | yan marttikani
bhidyeta 1®®® tada ’po gamayet i®®i tatbaiva darumayam ya
rte cid abhisrisa ‘®®2 ity etaya "labhya ’bhimantrayate |

25. 12. 17 folg. Dem alohita entspricht hier vollstandig: avyaktaraga-
puspani trnani. Ala Surrogate werden genannt (der Stufenfolge nach
eins fiir das andere) syenahrta, pfitika, adara, arunadurva, haritakusa; die
Schilderung dieser Pflanzen ist von Wichtigkeit. 1017 Wortlich gleich
PB 9. 5. 3; cf. Isv. 6. 8. 5 f.; Brahm. Pray. 83 a; K. 8. 25. 12. 18; Pet. Wb.
u. pratinidhi: aoma-’bhave bhavet putividhih pratinidhav uta | lO's A.
arjananaithaya B arjjananaitbaya C arjunanaisyaya D arjunanairtbaya
1019 Brahm. Pray. 83 a: yadi na putikan atha Vjunani yadi na putika-
trnani ca viinde[t] tata abhisunuyad iti varttate lohita-tulani haima-
vatasya stkdne haimavato lohitakara iti bhavah .... maujavatasthdne
babhrutulany arjunani varttate .... yadi na ’rjunani na vimded iti
varttate ca ca (?) ya kas co ’sadbln aranya abhisunuyad va ’ijunani na . . .
vimded yah kamas cau ’sadhir aranya darbhakas adika abhisunuyat soma-

vikrayinas ca kimcid dadyad iti 93 a gedenkt noch desPalles: drona-

kalase cet somam na vimdet skanded (?) upadasyed (?) va . . . . tad dhi-
ranya[m] rjlse ’py asya praksipya ’bhisunuyad . . . 1020.1021 cf. unten

6. 6; statt trca erwarten wir rksu 1022 B ci C cit 1023 a

“dina BC dinat 1021 fehlt bei A. 1025 “dina

arbha" ware grammatisch richtig. 1020 a sama B samana

C sama me 1027 fehlt bei C 1028 Brahm. Pray. 87a: (yadi

madhyamdine grava feyate [cf. oben 6. 3] ...).. . yadi pratahsavane

kalaso diryeta vasatkaranidhanam ekasmin darumaye kalase

dronakalasa iti prayoga etesam astanam yadi kascid diryeta

87 b [ganz verderbt] : yadi pratahsavane dronakalasam kalaso diryeta
’bhimarsanakale tatra somasurya ’smin patre samavapati ya tritiya (?)-
sthana[t] tu krtvo ’dgatrbhih prahitam sammrstam avasthapya tasmin

somam avanayet 1029 Ap. 3. 20. 9; 9. 16. 2. 1030 cf.

Ap. 9. 16. 2 f. ; Asv. 3. 14. 12; cf. oben 3. 7 — 8. i03i a yogamayait

BC yo maye; D yo gamayet io32 aV. 14. 2 . 47; vgl. K. S.

25. 5.,29f. und unten Note 1147.

Vol. sxxiii,]

Atharvaprayasdttdni 6. 6.

139

sarvatra sirne bhinne naste ’nyam krtva punar mai ’tv indri-
yam‘033 ity adadltai®*^ | bahispavamanam cet sarpatSm ‘035
prastota vichidyeta brahmane vai’am dattva tatas tarn eva
punar vrnlyad ( yad udgata vichidyeta sarvavedasa-daksinena
yajnena yajetai | 'vain sarvesam vichinnanam sarpatam ekai-
kasmin kuryad | dyaus ca ma indras ca | tantuin tan-

van io37 I ma pragama patho vayamio^s iti | ^astraciosg cec
chastram anusamsanio^ vyapadyeta maio^i pragama patho
vayam io38 jti paficabhir juhuyad | rathamtaram cet stuyama-
nam vyapadyeta samyag digbhya'®^^ iti dvabhyam jubu-
yad I yava-”djnam avapannanam vyavrttanam uttara-
saini®^® yatbalihgam dvabhyain juhuyan | nara^ainsa(d) unne-
tadi®^®upadasyeranni®i6 ayam no agnir adbyaksa*®-*' iti dvabhy-
am I pannejanyas ced upadasyet samasiiicantv it isamsificet ; 5 j|
atha ced dhuta-’hutau soman pita-’pitau va samsrjyeyatami®*®
yajnasya hi stha rtvija '030 gavimdragni kalpata yuvam huta
’hutasya ca ’sya yasye ’ndragnivitam pibata ghrtam imam
ghptam iti dvabhyam juhuyat | pratahsavanac ceti®®^
kalasoi®33 vidiryeta vaispavatlsu sipivistavatlsu gaurivitena
stuyuhi®*®! samana-janapadau cet somau samsavau syatam purvo

1033 Kaui 9. 2. looi AD 'dbita; K. 25. 6. 1 folg. lehit

die Entstehungsgeschichte irdener Gefa&e in interessanter Weise.
1035 ABC aarpatatam ’006 XS. 4. 7. 6. 2. B.V.

10. 53. 6; Ap. 9. 8. 7. AV. 13. 1. 59. los® A

sastram io*o AC 'sa B 'sam 'oii Diese und die da-

zwischenliegenden Worte fehlen bei D, AB suya°

1043 BC samadigbhya AD samadisya; cf. Paipp. S. 15. 1. 'o** A

apavannanam B apannanam C apannanam 1045 A uttaraBam

C uttasasam; 1.: uttarabhySm? 1046 1. unnita? cf. K. §. 25. 12. 11;

Tgl. Brabin. Pray. 89 a : yadi naraaamsa upadasyeyuh yam yam bamanu-
patistbera tasya bimdum avanayet _ 1047 KauB. 89. 13. loio Gemeint

ist jedenfalla AV. 7. 33. 1 ; cf. Ap. 7. 17. 1 : asmaS avantu payaaa |
1049 Brabm. Pray. 90 a (ganz korrupt): yadi hutabutatopapitau va aomau
Barasrjyeyatam amtaparidhy amgara daksinabo by abutasye ti jubujat
yadi hrtad abrte bute [’]hute pltarupiti apitad va ’pi ’ti samsargo bbavet
tam yat aamarate ’dam tatah paridhy amgaram daksina po hyu hutasja
ce ’ti juhuykt ioso cf. RV. 8. 38. 1; (Text nacb BC) ; hinter rtvija

lieat A: gavimdragnivitam pivata gbrtam Jmam cbrtam tarn pibata
gbrtam imam ghrtam losi ABC 'vanain *05- D ca tad

1053 B “se ; vgl. k! §. 25. 12. 22. i“54 ABC 'viau cf. 6. 4 ‘055 Brabm.

Pray. 103 b folg. behandeln in iiberaus korrupter Form daa gleiche oder
ein abnlichea Thema: yadi pratahaavanaveaomer ity etaati so aomo ija

stuta iti marutvatlau gayatrena stuyuh | yadi madbyariidine soma

10 *

140

J. V. Negelem,

[1913.

’gniipiose parigrhniyat'ttse purvo devataii parigrhniyat | na ’tira-
tryaiOoT pratar-anuvakam upakuryad j abhistavya ’tha sam-
vesayo ’pavesaya gayatryai chandase ’bhibhutyai svabe loeo ’ti
purastat prataranuvakasya juhuyat | tristubha di madhyam-
dine 1®®'^ vidvisanayoh samsavav iti vijiiayate | savaniya-
’nantaram agnaye yavisthaya stakapalam ity abavatilye i®®® ma-
hadios® abhyadadhyat*®®® | sambharanam caturbbis caturbbib
pratidisaip juhuyadj uttamami®6®agnidbrlye soinabhaga[m] brah-
manesu samse[t] ‘®®^ I vajranam syenavisamasya ‘®®s ca phatkara-
prabhrtyi®*® anujantyat | sarvesu ca ’bhicarikesu samdiksitanam
ca vyavartteta ’gneran brabmanab i®"® procya jiva nama stba
ta imam jlvet(v)o i®’i [ ’pajiva nama stba ta imaiii jiveta |
jivika nama stba ta imam jiveta samjiveta | jivala nama stba
ta imam jiveta samjiveta | samjivika nama stba ta imam
jlve(s)t(v)e I 'ty i®"^ apahi®'- paribruyat '®'- | tasam udag-
arvaki®'® kuryad | upamsv-antaryamau '®’^ ca cet te i®'^ prana-
panaui®'! patam \ upamsu-savanas te vyanam patu | srotram ca
’svinau patam | daksakratu te mitravarunau patani | stana ity
ptupatre*®"® [ atmanam ta agrayanah patv | angani ca ta ukthyab
patv 1 ayus te dhruvah patu | viryani te laksmib patv iti jubu-

’tiridhyeti . . . van mahasti surye ’ty adityavatisu gaurlvitena sapte
suyuh 1 yadi trllyasavane soino tiricyeta visno sipivistavatlsu gaurivatena
samna s[t]uyuh .... yady atiratravistosapavistavatlsu brliata stuyu yady
atiratrad itiricyati visno sipivistavatlsu vabatanasastradayah | vgl. K. S.
23. 13. 6 folg. ''^56 ACD gnir grhnlyat B gnir grhnlya. Vgl.

K. S. 25. 14. 8 folg.; P. B. 9. 4. 2. A tani ratryah B tani

ratrya C tani ratryat A abhistavyartheh BC atistavyatha

D iti bhistavyatba >059 C samdefetho B savesayo D samvesayo

‘060 p. B. 9.4.6. >061 fehlt bei A. ‘oso ACD

"nena D “neva ‘063 A samavov; BCD samavav; zu erganzen hinter
madhyaindine : samvesayo ’pavesaya jagatyai chandase ’bhibhutyai svabe
’ti tritlya-savane ; 1. sodann; nana-vidvisanayoh saipsava iti ‘06i BC

“yamte D jnayamte; cf. TS. 2. 2. 9. 6; traistubham madhyamdinam
savanam loss A ‘’niyamahrdabhyamdadhyat ioo6 A ”mamam

1067 A samse B samse B samse i 066 A 'sayanasya BC “visanasya

1069 B vasatkara CD vasatkarah loio CD brahmanah lo'i Ap.

14. 20. 8 in erweiterter Fassung; cf. AV. 19. 69. 2ff.; in den Mss. kor-
rumpiert; vgl. Asv. 6. 9. 1. Die Fehlerhaftigkeit des vorausgegangenen
Textes macht es schwer verstandlich. dah es sich bei diesen Spriichen
um die Abwehr von Krankheiten, die den diksita befallen haben, handelt.
1072 BC, dessen Textfassnng virir im Ubrigen gefolgt sind, liest: ity ayah
paribruyat; AD ity ayah paridhi bruyat; A labt die Worte samjiveta jivala
nama bis ayah pari° aus. i073 A arvam Barca C iica; 1. udakartham?
1074 Ap. 14.21.4; Asv. 6. 9. 3; AB “yamo cet pra“ C “yamau ce pracet-
pracet pra° io75 AB kratupatre (1.: rtu?) C rcupatre

V ol. xxxiii.]

Atharvajirayascittani 6. 7.

141

yat I pustina pustim'O'6 pranena pranam tejasa teja^ caksusa
caksuh srotrena srotram Syusa ”yuh punar dehi ’ti sakpd etani
juhuyad bralimani suktani 6 i brahma brahmanaccbarpsi vai
”ndra -vayavad graham grhniyati*"® | sa ceniO‘9 mri-
yeta'oso ’gnibhyaiosi eva^'^si trin augaran uddhrtya daksinam

panim'os -2 sronimifss prati‘®sr dagdhvai#S4 ’sthlny loss upani-

dadhyus loso | tasya putram bhrataram vo ’padlksani ios7
samapnuyuh loss ] sa cen mriyeta ’gnibhya eva tria aiigaran
uddhrtya daksinam panira sronirp pratitapyai ’ra dagdhvaioss ios9
hotuh 1090 pramukha 1091 rtvijah i092 pracinavltam krtva da-
ksinan urun aghnanah sarparajninam (urttya) >093 klrttaya-
ntah 10 94 stotre 1094 stotre loos 'sthi-putam io96 upanidadhyuh |
samvatsare 1097 ’stbiputarn io97 nidadhyuh loss | samvatsare
’stbini yajayet | samapte samvatsare dlksitanam ced upadikseta
somami099 vibhajyaiooo visvajita noo ’tiratrena | yady asvi-
nl[su] 1101 sasyamanasv 1102 adityam purastan na pasyeyur asvam
svetam rukmapratihitara nos purastad avasthapya iio4 sauryain
^vetam (g)ajamiio5 upfdambhyam alabheta tasya noo tany eva

■OTC cf. Ap. 10. 10. 6. 'OTi X veindra” BCD

oaimdra" ‘"7S ACD grhiiati yat r'ls A yen C te

1030 A mryeta* C bhayeta° niSi A ‘blnas C “bbava 1082 A

“panih "133 B dam CD fehlt '“Si A tatbaiva dagdha

C dadhyil; L: pratidhuya; der vollig korrupte Text Brahm. Pray. 112 a
gibt die gleichen Worte wieder. >035 Diese und die dazwiscben-

liegenden Worte fehlen bei A. *''S6 B uyannidhyus lo^' D

•dikseram loss B, 25. 13. 28 folg.; dieser Satz ist zweifellos

eine Duplik des Polgenden. 'o39 B dasva C lafit dagdhva aus.

1090 B hotrh 1091 CD “kha i092 feblt bei C 1093 AD

sayamrajuinamurttaya B sayainsajnlnamurttaya C sayanirajnlnamurtyaya
‘094 A kirttanastotre BD kirttiyantastotre C kirttiyannastotre >095 fehlt
bei AC. 1090 AD sthiputa BC sthiputrim i09i A "tsarasthipumtha
C “purain 1093 yg], hierzu K. S. 25. 13. 31 — 36. 1099 A

somam avibhajya in'o K. S. 25. 10. 4 folg. no* A asvinl

1102 C “nastv D “nahsv '103 ABCD ohatam 1104 Brahm.

Pray. 101 a : yasyil "svine fesyamane suryo no “diyad asvam svetam
rukma-pratimuktam purastat pratyanmukham avasthapayet kurmena pflr-
vam avedarti naimittikam abhidhiyate yasya yajamanasya “svina sasya-
mane suryo no ’diyat tatro ’ktam udite suryo niti tad yadi no 'dglyat (?)
tato gachet tasmin kale suryas tata iti naimittikam asva sveta-rukma-
pratimuktarn pratipurvam uktabaiiidhane fjsvavadva rukma prapnoti
purastad varsavidvatasr tasminn eva kale suryasapatny (?)rthaprasrutam
mukham avasthapayet .... •lo'j Statt des sachlich unmoglichen

gajam von ABC ist vielmebr: ajam zu lesen, wie z. B. aus Brahm. Pray.
102 a hervorgeht: saury 0 ja svetam apalambhya .... 1106 A tasya

142

J. V. Negelein,

[1913,

tantrani yani saYanlyasyuh purastat samdhi camasa
”savanamii®s anupradanam syad | asvamedhe ced aSYO na
"gacched agneyo 'stakapala iti mrgakhareiio® saddhaviskamiio*
istimii09 nirvaped dasa-havisam ity ekem® [ vadavam ced asvo
'bhiyad agnaye ’mhomuce ’stakapalam sauryam payoim va-
yavyav ajyabhagau !l 1 ! somarupesu ’kta acaryakalpo | bra-
bmanam tu bbavati | trayastriip^ad vai yajnasya tanva |
ity ekanna 1112. trimso 111® pakanagnim mi asvanam ity
artbalopan nivrttis | trini va catur-gybltany anuvakasye ’ty
acarya ete nityakalpaya "rtvijyetarupayasam m® tanvam
arttim arcbatam co’ttaram va samdbimim samdbaya jubuyad
iti taittirlyabrabmanam istva tad-daivatyamins-edbikiyatamin®
arttir vidyaj jamim purusavidbim mayaya va yajnasainba-
mdbinlm vaii-manas-cintayam prag vibaranad artaya praja-
patir manasi sarasvato vaci visrstayam vidbanam dlksayam
brabmavrate svabe ’ty etena nyayena vajasaneyibrabmana-
mogbena mantrabu®! klptabn^i | prajapataye svaba dbatre
svaba pusne svabe n®® ’ty | aparabnikas cet pravargyo ’bbyastam
iyac cbukroii2® ’si‘i2i divo ’cbataii^s iti jubuyad vyabrtibbis
ca 1 ^vabsutyam 1126 ced abutayam tad-abartav 1121 apaga-
cbedii2s indraya barivataii29 iti bruyad iba ’iivicamatibhir
iti tisfbbih | prataranuvakam ced duritam upakuryat pra vana
damsamsy aSvinav avocamn®® iti pancabbir jubuyat 8 |i
pra vain damsaipsy aSvinav avocam asya patib syam sugavab
suvirah | uta pasyann asnuvan dirgbam ayur astam ive ’j

1101 AB vamatsa C vamasa ABD asavanam C asavan

1109 mrgakhasaindadhavisayam istim BC mrgaravaresadhayisyabhistim

1110 Einen allgemeinen Fall dieser Art erwahnten Brahm. Pray. 73 b:

yadi daivan manusad va pramadat pasur upakrtah palayeta .... upo
devan daivir visa iti darbhyabhyam (sasaya) co ’pasprsati ’ti . . . dhvaja-
’’dibbave vatam apanlya vayavyam yavagum nirupye ’ty anantaryam
darsayati . . . . 1111 B pavo AD ekam na B ekanta;

cf. G. B. 2. 2. 10. 1*1® A triso m* C 'kajagnim

D pakamagnim ms BD "nayam mo C “rupa” A “kalparghijyeta"

A samdhit B samdvim C samddhim ms B devatyam

1119 bD ekikiyati 0 ekiyati; beide mit der Wiederholung : tavatya mehl-
yatim mo D cintanlyam iioi A mantra lupta;

gedacht ist an VS. 8. 54, das Zitat aber deckt sich mit M. §. 3. 6. 2;
cf. §. B. 12. 6. 1. 3 folg. im VS. 18. 28; 22. 32. 1123 ABD

chakro mi AV. 2. 11. 5; 17. 1. 20. 1115 B deva ’cha

CD divoeha mo A sutyam B sutya C sutyam 1127 A

“rttav B °rttav C “rtav n®® A adhyagached 1129 Ap.

13. 17. 2. mo KV. 1. 116. 25.

Vol. ixxiii.]

Atharvaprdyascittani 6. 9.

143

jarimanam jagamyam 1 madhvah somasyasvina madayansi
pratno hota Tivasate vam | barhismati ratrir visrita gir isa
yatam nasatyo ’pa vajaih 2 yo vam asvina manaso javlyan
rathab svasvo visa ajigati | yena gacbathah siikrto duronam
tena nara vartir asmabbyam yatam |{ 3 'j rsira narav ambasab
pancajanyam pblsad atrim mumcatho ganena j minamta dasyor
asivasya maya anupurvam vrsana codayamta || 4 || asvam na
gudbam asvina durevair rsim nara vrsana rebbam apsu | sam
tarn rinitbo viprutarn damsobbir na vam juryainti purvya
krtani 5 iti ( pratahsavanam cen madbyamdinam savanam abby-
astamiyad agnir ma patu vasubbih purastadit®’ iti jubuyad |
agnaye svaba vasubbyab svaba gayatryai svaba | madbyamdinam
cet trtiyasavanam abbyastamiyat somo ma rudrair daksinaya
disab patvi*33 iti jubuyat | somaya svaba 1^34 ru(irebbyab svaba
tristubbe svaba [ trtiyasavanam ced abbyastamiyad varuno
ma ”dityaibii35 suryo ma dyavaprtbivibbyam praticya disab
patv iti jubuyad ( varunaya svaba ’’dityebbyab svaba jagatyai
svaba | a bbaratam siksatam vajrababu‘‘3« asman indragni ava-
tam sacibbih | ime nu te rasmayah suryasya yebbih sapitvam
pitaro na asan | indragnibbyam svahe | ’ndravisnubbyam svaba |
ratriparySylls ced abbivicbidyerann indraya svabe | ’ndranyai
svaba [ cbandobbyab svaba | ftvijami*37 ced^'^s duritam upa-
kuryad agnaye ratbamtaraya svabo j ’sase svaba | paiiktaye
svaba | ’^vibbyam svaba | ma nab piparid asvine ’ti | sarvatra
’najnatesv agnaye svaba | yajnaya svaba j brabmane svaba |
visnave svaba | prajapataye svaba | ’numataye svaba [ ’gnaye
svistakpte svabe ’ti | trataram indram ’i-io ] yayor ojasem*
’ti cai I ’ta visnu-varuna-devatya | uktani prayascittany | atbai
’kagnau yatra purodasa ukta*''*^ stbalipakams tatra'^^*
kuryat | purodasesu japair eva kuryat | sarvatra cbedanabbe-
dana-’vadarana-dabanesu‘i^5 ’kbasuii'Js somakalasa-mabavira-

031 RV. 1. 117. 1. 1133 AV. 19. 17. 1. 1133 AV. 19. 17. 3.

1134 VS. 22. 27 ff. 1133 AY. 19. 17. 4. use RV. 1. 109. 7.

1137 B rtvijo C rtvijoc i'33 A ce D ca ii3i> cf. 760: vgl.

femer Asv. Pray. 18 b : anajfiatam yathatatham svaba | agnaya idam |
purusa-sammito yajno ] agnaya idam vyahrlihomam visnusmaranam ca
kuryat | iii" AV. 7. 86. 1. im AV.

7. 25. 1. 1142 B upta(?) ii43 B "kamsu . . .

(unklar) [kuryat]; AC “kas tatra n** AB ava i'43 A

chedanabhedanavadanadahanesusasu BC chedanavadaranadahanesukhasu

144

J. V. Negelein, Afharvajprayascittani 6. 9.

[1913.

yajfia-bhandesu sarvatra sirne bhinne naste***^ ’nyam krtva
punar mai ’tv indriyam **■‘8 ity adadita | sarvatra ma no
vidanni'-*^ ity abbayair**5o aparajitair juhuyad | abbayair
aparajitair juhuyat [( 9 |1 sasthoH 32 'dbyayahii 52 | atha yatrai
’tat parthivam antariksam divyam devair asurair va prayuktam
tad adbhutam samayaty atharva prabhur adbbutanarn | so
durva-’jyam 1*53 grbitva ’’havaniye juhoti | prthivyai srotraya,
’ntariksaya pranaya vayobbyo dive caksuse naksatrebhyah
suryaya ’dbipataye svahe | ’ti sutraprayascittis **5* | tatra
slokah 1

prayascittanam parimanam na yajna upalabhyate | tasmad
drstab samaso ’tra tain nibodhata yajnikah |

ity atharvavede vaitanasutre prayascittaprakaranam *'55 sa-
inaptain**53 |

o*® Agn. Pray. 5b: kathina-dravyesu bhedanam dru (?) va-dravyesu
k.^aranam ubhayatra bhumi-gatam eva dustam bhavati | ; die auf die
Erde Oder ins Feuer gefallene Opfergabe ist unrein. loi Brahm.

Pray. 105 a: ukha yady (a)sra[vam] gache[t] (cf. oben 6. 2; vg). AP.

45. 2. lO) tatah praniya . . . ’’havaniye punah Bl. 107 b: yady

ukha ’bhibhidyeta mahaviro va kapalani curuapesarn pist[v]a mrda
sarnsrjya yo dhya . . . vitisraya ity (vergl. oben Note 1032) ukhain krtva
tatha mahavirya ukhamarthavlrayonulye naimittikam ity atah (!) ubhayor
abhidhiyate ... Bl. 108 a folg.: karma pradarsyate [yady ukha ’bhibhi-
dyeta] agnim anyasmin patre [’]vastha pya pravTttiCrn] krtva

kapalani puniatpesani pistva mrda sarnsrjya yatratevadabhisratha ity
ukham kuryat .... purnapesam pistety evam-adina ’dya tatedabhisista
iti . . . Vgl. auch Brahm. Pray. 109 a: prag diksabhyah . . . yad bhi-
dyeta . . . sakrtyahutir (?) juhuyat (!) yadi diksitasyo ’paramed . . . .
114S AV. 7. 67. 1. ti49 AV. 1. 19. 1. oso fehlt bei BC;

D “bhaya n®' D para' >''2 fehlt bei BC. ii53 C

durvanijyam ii54 D 'cittisutra tus A prayascittih prasange

caturdasamo ’dhyayah; B wie A; nur; 'scitta' und hinter 'dhyayah 14
Bei C fehlt von 'scitta an der gauze Rest; A fiigt hinter ’dhyayah hin-
zu : I subham astu | siddhir astu ; kalyauara astu [ sri-visvesvaraya namah |
srI-sarvavidyanidhana-kavindra-”carya-sarasvatlQara atharvavede vaita(ya)
nasutre prayascitti-priisanga-pustakam | B fiigt hinter j| 14 |] hinzu : srl-
yajna-purusa-’rpanam astu ; sri-guru-ramadasa-carani-tat-para-visnu-
naraya devadhara ) seke ' 1785 i; randranama-samvatsare mahemfigha-
suddha induvara idam pustakam samaptam [ ; Colophon zu D s. bei
Weber, Berl. Handschr. Cat.

Vedic, Sanskrit, and Middle Indie. — By Truman Michel-

SON. Ethnologist in the Smithsonian Institution.

Washington, D. C.‘

In an interesting paper (JAOS. 32, pp. 414 — 428) Mr. W.
Petersen has discussed the general interrelations of Vedic,
Sanskrit, and Middle Indie. It may be noted that he uses
‘Prakrit' in the sense of ‘Mittelindisch’. The following criticism
is presented by the writer as he believes that Petersen has
overlooked the evidence of the Asokan dialects in a number
of cases.

In the discussion as to whether Prakrit is derived from
Yedic or Sanskrit, it should have been mentioned that it has
been demonstrated that not a single dialect of the Asokan
inscriptions can be derived from either the literary A'cdic or
Sanskrit. See .lohansson, Shb. ii, ^ 88: Michelson. JA(>S. 31,
pp. 232. 241: IF. 24, p. 54: TAPA. 40, p. 20.

The position taken, that during the period of the composition
of the Yedic hymns two distinct groups of Indie dialects were
developed and separated by an uncrossable gulf does not seem
probable by the analogy of the Asokan dialects. .lohansson
and the writer have made it clear that the dialect of the
Shahbazgarhi and iMansehra versions of the Fourteen Edicts
(for their speech is essentially one) is far closer to Yedic or
Sanskrit than the other dialects are. There is no uncrossable
bridge. It can be confidently asserted that this dialect, thfiugh
it has certain ear-marks of the Middle Indie stage of develop-
ment, such as the assimilation of stops of one order to those
of another order, yet as a whole belongs to an earlier stage
of development. Xow if it is not feasible to draw hard and
fast lines in the time of Asoka, what light have we to assume
such lines in earlier times unless some definite proof be given?

1 Priiiieil by perrni-'iiun of the .Smithsonian Institution.

146

Ti'uman Miehelson,

[ 1913 .

Petersen has allowed traces of Middle Indie in the Eig Yeda
so far as phonetics are concerned. But Epic Sanskrit teems
with Middle-Indicisms morphologically; and it should he espe-
cially noted that such forms phonetically do not present the
same aspect as the later dialects (e. g. Epic Sanskrit kurmi,
dadmi == Pali ktimmi, dammi respectively). Such forms are
usually due to metrical considerations, and are borrowed from
dialects. Are such dialects also to he classed as Middle Indie?
Again I do not think a hard and fast line can he drawn.

The point made that Vedic and Middle Indie cannot have
been contemporaneous dialects which arose in different local-
ities, by the argument that it is highl}' improhahle that one
section of the country should have been so conservative and
another so prone to innovation, is not in accordance with the
evidence of the Asokan dialects; the Shahbazgarhi and Man-
sehra dialect is highly conservative while the ‘Magadhan’
dialects show numerous phonetic changes; the Girnar dialect
as a whole is not phonetically as archaic as the first dialect
nor has it suffered as many phonetic changes as the second
dialects.

The assumption that the sound-changes in Middle Indie
were due not to gradual changes, but to the fact that the
aborigines differed anatomically from the Aryans, and had
linguistic traits widely different from them; and that it was
owing to this that they were unable to speak the language
as the Aryans, and so modified it to suit their own char-
acteristics, is a point to be proved. Granting anatomical dif-
ferences in the vocal apparatus, no such direct influence can
be maintained until it has been shown that the non-Aryan
languages of India possess the characteristic sounds of Middle
Indie languages, that the groups of consonants which suffer
assimilation in these languages are not tolerated in the non-
Aryan languages and show the same assimilations, that the
same loss of intervocalic consonants occurs in them.

An indirect influence can be maintained if it be shown that
the non- Aryan languages do not possess the groups of con-
sonants which suffer assimilation nor such consonants as are
lost when intervocalic, even if the non-Aryan languages do
not agree precisely with the Middle Indie languages. In the
same way the change (or substitution) of one sound for another
such as s for s cannot be charged directly or indirectly to the

Vol. xxxiii.] Vedic, Sanslirit and Iliddle Indie.

147

influence of non-Aryan languages unless there he positive
evidence. Similarly certain morphological characteristics of
Middle Indie languages such as the almost complete loss of
the perfect tense, the formation of other tenses on the present
stem, extensive levelling of distinctions between singular and
plural (e. g. Pali 'brunii, levelled by briima), and the like cannot
he charged to the direct or indirect influence of the non- Aryan
languages unless it be demonstrated that the same or like
phenomena respectively occur in them.

But again the evidence of the Asokan inscriptions indicates
that the changes were gradual. Thus though the Glirnar
dialect possesses but one sibilant, it can be shown that this
is a late development (see JAGS. 31, pp. 237, 246 and the
literature cited there). Again the treatment of r in consonan-
tic groupes is a case in point (ibidem, pp. 236, 246); it is
clear that the assimilation in certain cases is recent. From
the state of affairs in the Girnar dialect, it might well be
argued that the assimilation of r in consonantic groups (which
assimilation is not connected with those in the Girnar dialect,
and is merely a parallel development) in the Alagadhan’
dialects is the result of gradual changes.

Moreover, it has been shown that some of the most charac-
teristic assimilations in consonantal groups in the Middle
Indie dialects had their beginning in even earlier times: see
Wackernagel, AiGr. i. § 98 (and the literature cited there);
"Whitney, Skt. Gr.3 §§ 228, 232; "Whitney-Lanman, Atharva
Veda, p. Ixvii and on i. 22. 1, iv. 19. 6, v. 20. 12. This is
against any theory of direct influence on the part of the non-
Aryan languages; and it supports the view that the phonetic
changes were gradual and not due to mere substitution of
sounds. And it may be noted that in part parallel assimila-
tions are found in other Indo-European languages. Thus
for example popular Latin tt from ct and pt (Italian otto,
sette = Latin octo, septem respectively), Cretan Greek tt from
KT and TTT (ArTTiot, vvtt( for Avktioi, vvktI; Buck, Greek Di-
alects, p. 68, § 86. 1, 2) are parallel to tt from kt and pt in
Middle Indie (Pali satta, sitta- = Skt. sapta, sikta- respec-
tively); similarly Ionic -Attic Greek X\ from ly (aAAos) is
parallel to Pali, Girnar, Shahbazgarhi. ilansehra ll ("RTitten I
on inscriptions) from ly (kalldm- Skt. kalydna-). Even Cretan
Greek w from pv (owSa for opviOa, Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 69,

148

Truman Miclielson,

[1913.

§ 86, 5) may be compared to a certain extent with Middle
Indie Hw from rii. These facts make it likely that at any
rate certain typical Middle Indie assimilations of consonants
are due to spontaneous change; and puts the burden of proof
on those who maintain the changes are due directly to the
influence of the non-Aryan languages. The same applies to
the levellings in Middle Indie noted above.

The analogy of the_ English of the American Xegro to
Prakrit is not happy, except as a parallel in the indirect
influence mentioned above: there is no proof that the pecu-
liarities of his speech are due to his anatomy nor to the
influence of his forgotten African language. Educated Amer-
ican negroes speak English faultlessly. The English of such
negroes of Nassau (Bahama Islands), that I have heard, as
far as pronunciation is concerned, is close to the British one.
It is likely that the faulty English of the American negro is
due to his wrong perception of the sounds i and his unfamil-
iarity with the English of cultivated society. 2 In the same
way to the untrained ear of an American, there are sounds
in the American Indian languages of the Northwest coast
that are wrongly perceived, and hence wrongly imitated. (The
sounds in question are various I sounds.) Similarly American
Indian childi'en at governmental schools at first mispronounce
English and make havoc of English grammatical categories,
but on becoming familiar with the spoken language they learn
to speak English correctly. Again Amei’ican Indian pupils
after a more or less protracted stay at the schools lose the
characteristic pronunciation of their own native languages
owing to the fact that they hear English constantly spoken,
and rarely (comparatively speaking) have occasion to use their

1 Cf. J. C. Tarver, London Journal of Education (new series) 9 (1887 )
p. 475; S. E. AYiltse, American Jouraal of Psychology, 1 (1887 — 8) p, 702
[both reported in The Pedagogical Seminary, 2 (1892) p. 426]; Pousselot.
Les modifications phonetiques (1891) p. 39; Ziind-Burguet, La Parole, 1
(1899) p. 14; von den Steinen, Enter den Aatnrvolkern Zentral-Bra-
silliens (1894) j). 80; Oertel, Lectures on the study of language (1901),
p. 2.37; 240; Boas, Handbook of American Indian Languages (Bulletin 40,
B. A. E.), part 1, p. 16 ff.

- M. Eishberg, Die Eassenmerkmale der Juden, Miinchen, 1913, main-
tains (pp. 73 — 80) “daC die Anssprache in erster Linie von der sozialen
Beriihrung abhangig ist”, and instances Jewish and Negro pronunciation.

Vol. xxxiii.] Vedic, Sanskrit and Middle Indie. 149

own languages. I admit I have never yet found a case where
it can he proved that English has influenced the grammatical
categories of the native languages of American Indian pupils.
It may he noted, however, that in the drama of “The Little
Clay Cart’’, ascribed to King Sudraka, Candanaka tries to
excuse his slij) in Prakiut (which nearly cost Aryaka his life)
hy appealing to the grammatical categories of non-Aryan
languages. As I am ignorant of these I cannot say whether
his plea is well-founded.

In discussing the diflereuces between the accentuation of
Vedic and Classical Sanskrit, it would have been well tol
mention that certain Asokan dialects had a system identica
with or very similar to the latter; see IF. 23, p. 231.

In conclusion the writer agrees with the thesis that Sanskrit,
“though not in the very form in which it occurs in literature”
was a truly spoken vernacular. Even the late Classical
Sanskrit cannot have been wholly artificial; the existence of
such an enormous literature necessarily presupposes a large
audience who normally spoke a language that did not differ
from the written one too violently. That the audience be-
longed to cultivated circles of society goes without saying.
Petersen has done well to emphasize this aspect of the problem,
as against Pischel, Gr. d. Pkt. Spracheu, § 6, note 2. But
other phases such as the question as the genetic relationship
of the Middle Indie dialects requii-e more protracted and
more intensive study before satisfactory answers can be given.

Notes on the Phonology of the Tirurai Language. —

By Caelos Eveeett Conakt, Ph. D., University of

Chattanooga, Tennessee.

1. Tirurai (sometimes called Tedurai) is one of the numerous
Indonesian languages of the Philippine Islands. It is spoken
hy about four thousand people in the mountains south of the
town Kotabatu (Cotahato) on the southern coast of Mindanao.
The chief town of the Tirurai is Tamontaka.

2. Bibliography.

Bennasar, Padre Guillermo, Diccionario Tiruray-Espanol,
Manila 1892, and Diccionario Espahol-Tiruray, Manila 1893.

The author of the three items that follow is giyen anony-
mously as “un Padre Misionero", who, however, is known to
have been Padre Bennasar.

Observaciones gramaticales sobre la lengua Tiruray, Manila
1892.

Catecismo Historico por el Abate Claudio Fleury y traducido
al Tiruray por un F. misionero de la Compania de JesUs,
Manila 1892.

Costumbres de los indios Tirurayes escritas por Jose Tenorio
(a) Sigaydn y iraducidas al espaiiol y anotadas por un Padre
misionero de la Compania de Jesus, Manila 1892.

3. Chief Peculiarities.

Tirurai phonology presents several marked differences from
that of other Philippine speech groups. Of these the more
apparent are : (a) the rounding of Ind onesian a to the o sound
of Ger. hoffen or Pr. ecole, (b) diphthongization of final i and
u to ei and e«, respectively, (c) / everywhere for p, (d) the
frequent occurrence of a trilled r of varied origin, and (e) the
change of Indonesian k to g under certain cirmcumstances.

These, and other peculiarities of ^ less fi-equent occurrence,
are so striking as to give a Tirurai text a very foreign
appearance when compared with other Philippine languages.

Vol. xxxiii.] Notes on the Phonology of the Tirurai Language. 151

4. Indonesian a.

Under certain conditions an original a may be rounded in
Tirm’ai, becoming a sound very close to tbe o in Ger. hoffen,
Er. ecole, e. g., IX lima : Tir. limd “five’’; IX anak : Tir. onok
“offspring, son, daughter, cbild”. This change occurs independ-
ently only in a final syllable, e. g., Tir. limo, lifot (Phil, lipat
“to forget”). Where it occurs in the penult, as in Tir. onok,
it is by assimilation to the o «a) of the following (final)
syllable.

Under other circumstances an IX penultimate a remains
unchanged in Tmurai, as in the following examples:

Philippine

Tirurai

bagd

hard

“embers, live coals”

layag

“sail”

gapas

gafas

“cotton”

Idbi

labi

“more”

laki

Idgei

“male”

hatu

hateu

“stone”

kayu

kdyeu

“tree, wood, fii-ewood’

In the following examples IX a > Tir. o in final syllables
and the o thus arising assimilates to itself an original a of
the preceding (penultimate) syllable:

(a) IX a > Tir. o in final position:

Xon-Tirurai
na (enclitic)

Th’urai

“his, her, its”

da, ra, la (end.)

.ro

“then-”

ka (end.)

“thou”

dua, rua, lua

riio

“two”

lima

limd

“five”

tuka

tukd

“point, beak”

Iloko, Ibanak

pia

fid

“good”

Magindanau

sedd, Bis. isdd

sedd

“fish, meat”

Mgd.

sikd

“cat”

Malay

leha

lend

“sesame”

paa

fdo

“thigh”

mata

motd

“eye”

abakd

wogd

“hemp”

Bagobo

mama “man, male”

momo

“uncle”

152

Carlos Everett Conant,

[1913.

(b) before a final surd stop {k, t):

andk

onok

“son, daughter, young
(of animals)”

Bagobo

awak

owok

“waist”

Bikol

lipat

lifot

“forget”

epat

efot

“four”

Bagobo

alat

olot

“basket”

Bisaya

dagat

dogot

“sea”

a final nasal (w, ii,

m):

Bisaya

man intens. part.

mo)i “also”

Bisaya

htildtvan

helowon “gold”

Bisaya

ddlan

dolon “road, way”

Tag. Bis.

utait

utoii “debt”

Ibanak

ittam

tom “we” (inclusive)

Bisaya

kamu

gom “you (pi.)”

Ibanak

nanum

nonom “fiavor”

5. But the change a > o is prevented by an adjacent s or

y, and by an adjacent r, unless this r be preceded by u and
the affected vowel be in final position.

(a) Change prevented by s:

Xon-Tirurai

Tirurai

Tag.

pisd

Jisd “crack, break”

Tag.

hisa

bisd “venom, poison”

Phil.

hasa

hasa “word”

Phil.

begas

hegds “rice”

Phil.

tegas

tegds “hard”

Tag.

tdwas

tawds “alum”

Phil.

gatas

ratas “milk”

Mgd.

tisan

%isan “rice straw”

(b) Change prevented by y:

ayam “bird, animal”

ayam “animal”

Phil.

layag

layag “sail”

Bis.

sayap

sayaf “kind of hat”

Mgd.

paydk

fayag “clear, manifest”

Bgb.

layait

layaii “tly” A-b.

Bis.

diiyan

diiyan “hammock”

Mgd. Md

bird “cross-eyed”

Mai. darali, Ibanak ddga, Pang.

ddla, ddra “blood”

Bis. Idga,

Mai. Ilk. hara

bard “embers”

Vol. xxxiii.J Notes on the Phonology of the Tirurai Language. 153

Toba ahara, Ibanak abagu

ward “shoulder”

Mai. barat “west wind”

barat “tempest”

Mgd. suag

suar “thorn”

Bagobo ahar

akar “deceive”

(d) But final a > 0 after ur:

Tag. bulci, Pang, bum

buroburo “foam”

Tag. pula

furo “red”

Tag. suld, Ilk. sugd (ELD)

surd “piias escondidas”

6. Indonesian i and u.

As a rule IX i and u remain

unchanged in Tirurai every-

where except in final position,

where, in a number of the

most common words, they are

diphthongized to ei and eu,

respectively.

(a) Indonesian final i > ei in

Tirurai;

Xon-Tirurai

Tirurai

Phil. tali

tdlei “tie with cord”

Mai. diri, Sangir dihi

lilei “post”

Phil. taiii

taitei “to free, liberate”

Phil. laki, lalaki

Idgei “male”

Bis. (Samar) siki

sekei “foot”

Pang. bit

bei “woman”

(b) Indonesian final it > ew in

i Tii'urai

IN tetelu, Tag. tatlii

tefleu “three”

IX pitu

ft&u “seven”

IX batu

bateu “stone”

IX kutu

kuteu “louse”

IX kayu

kdyeu “tree, wod”

tileu “head”

IX sikti

sigeu “elbow”

IX abu

aweu “ashes”

7. The Indonesian obscure vowel (pepet). 1

The pepet vowel remains uniformly an obscure, colorless, e

in Tirurai: Tir. atef, IX atep “roof’’; Tir. enem, IX enem “six”.
8. Indonesian p.

Every -wlietber originally IX or not, becomes / in Tirurai: 2
Tir. fiteii, IX pitu “seven”; Tir. afei, IX apui, api “fire”; Tir.

1 Cf. Conant, The Pepet Law in Philippine Languages, Anthropos,
vol. VII (1912), pp. 920 — 947.

2 Cf. Conant, P and V in Philippine Languages, Division of Ethnology
Publications, vol. v, part, ii, Manila 1908.

V'OIi, XXXIU. Part, II.

154

Carlos Everett Comnt,

[1913.

ate/, IIST atep “roof”. The Tir. pronunciation of the Spanish
name Policarpio is Fulicarfiu.

9. Indonesian h.

IlSi h generally remains unchanged in Tirurai, as in Tir.
latm, IX batu “stone”; Tir. labi. Tag. labi “more”; Tir. dob,
Tag. loob “in, -within”; hut it sometimes becomes w /i) when
intervocalic, as in Tir. tawen, Bis. tabon “a kind of bird ’; Tir.
rawen, Bis. gubon “mist, fog”; Tir. aweu, IX abu “ashes”; Tir.
ward Coward, Phil, abdga “shoulder”; Tir. wogo Cewogo, Phil.
abated.

10. Indonesian k.

An original h remains unchanged in Tirurai initially and
finally in dissyllabic root words, e. g., Tir. Jedyeu “wood” ; ebiik,
IX buek “hair”; but an intervocalic k is retained only excep-
tionally, as in Tir. sekei. Bis. (Samar) siki “foot”; Tir. siko,
Mgd. sikd “cat”, and regularly becomes the corresponding
sonant g, e. g., Tir. sigeie, IX siku “elbow”; Tir. Idgei, Phil.
laki “male”; Tir. igor, Phil, ikug ( 5 f=BGH cons.) “tail”; Tir.
digur, Bis. Ukiid “back, behind”; Tir. (be)gom, Bis. kamii “you”.

IX k also regularly becomes g in accentless prefixes and
pronominal suffixes (or enclitics) beginning with IX k, e. g.,
Tir. i gelimo-nue. Bis. ikalimd “the fifth”; Tir. iileu gu. Bis.
uhi ko “my head”; Tir. uleu go, Bis. -ulii ka “your head”. In
the foregoing examples the original k is, of course, really in
intervocalic position, and hence in the same category as the
intervocalic k ot the foregoing paragraph, hut by analogy this
g (<.k) has been extended so that it may follow any consonant,
e. g., Tir. i onok gu, Bis. aii anak ko “my son”; Tir. i safut
gom (gom = Bis. kamii -nuth apocopation of u) “your cloth”;
and the original k is retained in the enclitic pronouns only
after d, e’, o’, u' ( 2. “Preliminary consecration
(pratispid) of an image, its invocation and worship by suitable
mantras etc., before the commencement of a sacrifice (yajndram-
Ihdt pray devatddydvdhanapdrvakah pujanddikarmabhedah) ;
making a divinity assume its abode in an image’’. The second
meaning he assigns to the causative of y vas. Under Y 'vo-s
with adhi he gives (1) “to cause to stay over night”; (2) “to
consecrate, set up (as an image)”. In the Verbesserungen und
Kachtrage the larger Petersburg Lexicon assigns adhivdsana
“bestimmte mit Gbtterstatuen vorgenommene Ceremonien” to
the causative of Y “dwell” with adhi and under 5 Y
(causative) with adhi it gives besides (1) “iiber Xacht liegen
lassen”, (3) “heimsuchen”, (4) “sich einverstanden erklaren”,
also a meaning (2) “einweihen (ein neues Gbtterbild)” for
which it quotes Yar. Brhatsamhita, 60. 15. But in the same
volume s. v. vdsay with adhi, “mit Wohlgeruch erfullen”, this
statement is corrected and the passage is assigned to the
second meaning of this denominative, “weihen”. To this later
view Bohtlingk adheres in the smaller Petersburg Lexicon.
Under 5 Y (causat.) with adhi the meaning “einweihen”
is omitted; on the other hand, for vdsay- witli adhi the
meanings (1) “mit AYohlgeruch erfullen”; (2) “einweihen” are
given, and under this second meaning adhivdsita “geweiht” of
the Vikramacarita {Ind. Stud. XV. 359) is quoted. The
meaning of the noun adhivdsana (cf. also adhivdsanaka and
adhivdsamya in the Xachtrage 1) “Einweihen (einer Gotter-
statue)” is thus regarded as derived from the more original
sense “Parfiimiren”. Monier-Williams’ revised Dictionary (1899)
distinguishes between (1) adhivdsana (from Y causat.,

with adhi) “causing a divinity to dwell in an image”, and (2)
adhivdsana (fi-om Y vdsay- with adhi) “application of perfumes”;
“the ceremony of touching a vessel containing fragrant ob-

1 Of the native Hindu lexicographers, some define adhivdsana simply
by samskdra, saynskriyd, saying nothing about perfumes; others define
it by samskdra or samskriyd dhuyanddihhih or gandhamdlyddihhih. But
if we remember that there was a fairly common noun adhivdsa, adhivdsana
“perfume”, one who has in mind the etymological weakness of Hindu
lexicographers will readily admit the possibility of this second definition
being influenced by this fact.

FraiMin Edgerton,

164

[1913.

jects (that have been presented to an idol)”; “preliminary
purification of an image”.

Finally, Langlois in the note to his French translation of
the Harivaiisa 5994 (vol. I, p. 451) says: “Cette ceremonie
s'appelle Adhivdsa on Adhiidsana. Quand on consacre une
idole, on pratique aussi I’Adhivasa: on prend le riz, les fruits
et les autres offi’andes pour en toucher le vase d’eau sacree,
puis le front de I’idole en pronon^ant certains mantras. L’Adhi-
vasa est la ceremonie par laquelle on invite une divinite a
venir hahiter une idole.” i

I believe the group of words under consideration has nothing
whatever to do with vdsa “perfume”; on the contrary adhi-
vdsayati is the causative of Y “dwell” with adhi and means
“to cause to dwell in”; the adhivdsa^ is a ceremony by which
a deity or divine power is invoked to take its proper place in
a sacred object, either in the image of a god or in some
other thing which is to be consecrated to some divine pur-
pose. In the Agnipurana^ (35. 1) the rite to be performed
is in honor of Yisnu, and by the adhivdsa the god is invoked
to take his place in the image before the ceremony. In
another passage of the Agnipurana (64. 18; Futt’s transl.
i. 234) an image of the water-god Yaruna is set up at the
dedication of a water tank or reservoir, and the adhhdsa is
performed, in order that Yaruna may come and abide in the
image, presiding over the reservoir and so causing it to stay
full of water. The Mbh. Y. 5135 (= v. 151. 38), praydsydmo
randjiram \ adhivdsita^astrd4 ca krtakdidumangaldh, shows a
compound adhivdsitasastra; the warriors swords are consecrated
for a solemn purpose and divine power is invoked to abide in
them. 4 In Yarahamihira’s Byhatsamhita we have (60, 15):

> Strangely enough, in spite of this he translates the adhivasya . . .
dtmanam of the text by “en parfumant ton corps”.

2 Or adhivasana\ the two forms are interchangeable.

3 Dutt’s translation, i. 137 ; Dutt, in the note, defines adhivdsa as a “conse-
cration of an image, especially before the commencement of a sacrificial rite”.

< Dutt translates: “we shall . . . march to the field of battle after
having worshipped our weapons and duly performed all the auspicious
ceremonies”; Pratap Chandra Roy: “having . . . worshipped our weapons
(with offerings of flowers and perfumes) we will . . . march to the field
of battle”; Fauche: “nous marcherons vers le champ de bataille les armes
parfumees des senteurs du sacrifice et toutes les choses de bon augure
accomphes avec empressement.”

Vol. xxxiii.] Pancadivyadhivdsa or Choosing a King d'c.

165

suptdni (viz. pratimdm) sunrtyagltdir jdgaralcdiii samyag evam
adhivdsya | ddivajmpradiste kale samsthdpanam kurydt. Here
the image is regarded as “asleep” (suptdm), until “by avvaken-
ning 1 dances and songs” the sacrificer has “made (the god)
to dwell in it” [adhivdsya) or “completely imbued it (with the
divine presence)”, whereupon he is to set it up formally at
a time prescribed by a soothsayer. A passage from Susruta
(xi. 3) seems to me to support particularly my view. I quote
Hoernle’s translation [Bibl. Ind., new series, 911, p. 63f.): “He
who wishes to prepare a caustic should, on an auspicious day
in the autumn, after purifying himself and fasting, (select) a
large-sized, middle-aged, uninjured Muskaka tree, hearing
dark flowers and growing in an auspicious spot on a (lonely)
mountain, and perform the adhivdsana or ‘preliminary cere-
mony’, saying the following incantation: ‘Oh thou tree of
fiery power! Thou of great power! May thv" power not be
lost! Oh thou auspicious one, stay even here and accomplish
my work! When once my work is done, then thou mayest go
to heaven!’”; later the worshipper cuts off such pieces of the
tree as he needs to prepare the caustic.^ The mantra here
quoted in connection with the adhivasana-eeTemonj seems to
me to make its nature and purpose clear. The magic or
divine power which is supposed to reside in the tree is com-
manded to dwell and remain in it till the purpose of the per-
former is accomplished.3

* Jdgarakdih (var. lect. jdgarikdih and jdgarandih) is an adjective.
Kern wrongly translates it as noun {Journal Royal As. Soc., new series,
vi. 334): “after tke sleeping idol has been consecrated with wakes, dan-
cing, and song”; so also both Petersburg Lexicons: “das Wachen”.

2 In the foot-note Hoemle adds: “The adhivdsana is an oblation {bali-
karman) accompanied with an incantation {mantra). According to the
commentaries, Bhoja gives the following directions and incantation: ‘He
should there, with his face to the east, offer an oblation and then, on
all four sides, with joined palms, devoted mind, and pure body, addressing
the tree, repeat (the following words): “Whatever spirits may inhabit
this tree, let them depart hence; for to-morrow this tree is to be cut
for a high object.” ’ ”

3 It is noteworthy that in all the passages where the adhivisana ceremony
is mentioned, so far as I have discovered, no reference is made to per-
fumes, although the frequent use of fragrant substances at religious cere-
monies in India would make such references not at aU surprising. In any
event the employment of perfumes at the adhivdsana would be a mere
accident, without any bearing on the original meaning of this ceremony.

166 Edgerton, Pancadivyadhivdsa or Choosing a King &c. [ 1913 .

Harivansa 5994 contains the gerund adhivdsya, and the
noun adhivdsana occurs in the same text at vs. 6026 helow.
The text in the first passage is doubtful (see BE. s. v. vasay
+ adhi), and neither passage is perfectly clear to me as to
meaning. There is, however, certainly nothing in the context
to uphold Langlois’ translation “parfumant” for adhivdsya
(vide supra). If the reading of the Calcutta edition of 1839
be kept in vs. 5994, I should interpret adhivdsya 'tmand 'tmd-
nam as “imbuing yourself with (your divine) nature (essence
or power)”, “dedicating yourself”. If we accept the reading
of the “neuere Ausgahe” i quoted by the Petersbui’g Dictionary,
adhivdsya 'dya cd 'tmdnam, it seems to mean simply “conse-
crating yourself’ — the same thing in the ultimate outcome
although the development of the idea does not show itself so
clearly. The later verse, 6026, contributes nothing to an
understanding of the problem.

The phrase pahcadivydny adhivdsitdni, then, means “the
five divine instruments were imbued (with the superhuman
power they were expected to use)”, “they were consecrated”.
This meaning accords well with the pahcadivydny dbhisiJddni
of the Pari^istaparvan. The neuter noun divya is frequently
found in the law-books in the sense of “ordeal”. In our pas-
sages the word is used in a concrete instead of an abstract
sense. Instead of “divine ordeal or test” it means “the instru-
ment of divine test”.2

> I have no access to this later lithographed edition.

2 Hence I prefer Tawney’s “ordeal” to Jacohi’s “die funf koniglichen
Insignien”.

Tablets from Drehem in the Public Library of Cleve-
land, Ohio . — By Mary Inda Hussey, Cambridge, Mass.

From the large number of tablets that have come to light
as the result of recent clandestine excavations by the Arabs,
ten are to be found in the Public Library of Cleveland, ()hio,
having been presented by Mr. John G. White of that city.
They are said to have come from Drehem i, a ruin in the
neighborhood of Kippur; but the name of the month ,§n-
numun follows the nomenclature used at Umma (Jocha) and
at Lagash (Tello), and there is reason to suppose that number
one of this collection came from Jocha.

The Drehem tablets are acknowledged by all to l)e the
accounts of the stock-pens at Drehem which supplied some
great sanctuary, in all probability the temple of EUil at
Xippur. with cattle for its sacrifices. Attention has also been
called to the largo number of Semitic names, and Genouillac
has pointed out the conclusion, namely, that Drehem was near
cities with a Semitic population, who sent their offerings to
the Sumerian sanctuary. The Semitic names in these tablets
are: ^Dun-gi-l-li, 5 Ob. 4 | ^Gimil-E-a, 4 Ob. 2 |

9 Ob. 5, Rev. 6 : 10 Rev. 9, both seal impressions Col. 1 ‘ | I-din-

I Some 430 tablets from Drehem have been published, as follows :
“La Trouvaille de Drehem"’, in Rev. d'Asst/r., t. 7 (1909 — 10), pp. 186
— 191 (13 tablets). “L’Ordre dcs Xoms de Mois sur les tablettes de
Drehem”, ibid., t. 8 (1911). pp. 84—88 (2 tablets'), by Fr. Thureau-
Dangin. Tablettes de Drehem, 1911 (175 tablets); La Trouvaille de Drehem,
1911 (91 tablets), by H. de Genouillac. Tablets from the Archives of
Drehem, 1911 (67 tablets), by S. Langdon. “Tablettes de Drehem”. by
L. Delaporte in Rev. d'Assyr., t. 8 (1911), pp. 183—198 (22 tablets).
Cuneiform Texts, Part XXXII, 1912 (31 tablets), copies by L. IT. King.
“Tablettes de Drehem a Jerusalem’’, by P. Dhorme in Rev. d'Assgr.,
t. 9 (1912), pp. 39—66 (42 tablets).

168

Mary Inda Hussey,

[1913.

^Da-gdn, 5 Ob. 6 | La-ma-za-tum, 1 Eev. 2 j Na-ra-am-E-a,
5 Ob. 7 I Nu-iir-^Sin, 6 Eev. 5: 7 Eev. 6; 8 Eev. 9, Seal,
line 1: 10 Eev. 6, Seal on left edge of Eev., Col. 2^ | ^Samas-
la-ni, 5 Ob. 8 I Wa-da-ru-um, 5 Ob. 11.

The tablets published here range in date from the year
x + 32 of Dungi to the 9 th year Gimil-Sin.

Description of Tablets.

1. Debit and credit account (sag nig-gar-ra-Jcam Sag-bi-ta * *
zi(g)-ga) ‘ of the sheep fold (e-udu) concerning 165 qa of barley,
in the month Su-numun, the year AnSan was destroyed (Dungi
x+32).

No. 1.

OBVEESE.

REVEKSE.

2. Account of the delivery of a large number (600 + 600
+ [ ]) of sheep and goats by Nalul dm’ing the last six

months of the year Urbillu was destroyed (Dungi x + 43). [§e]-
kin-k[ud] is the last month of the year Dungi x + 43, as has
been noted by Thureau-Dangin 2 for the years x + 27, x + 30,
X + 39, X + 40 of Dungi and the years 1 and 3 of Bur-Sin.

* Cf. ZA. XXV, p. 330; SA VI, 5, p. 71; Inventaire des tablettes de
Tello I, p. 19, n. 1; Bilprecht Anniversary Yohime, p. 200; Genouillac,
Tablettes de Drehem, no. .5544 sqq.; Babylmiaea, VI (1912), p. 43.

2 Cf. Bev. d’Assyr. t. 8, p. 86.

Vol. ixxiii.]

Tablets from Drehem, (&c.

169

Xo. 2.
OBYEKSE.

3. Account of the deliyery of sheep and goats by Ab-ba-
Sa(g)-ga, which are taken in charge (ni-KU) - by Na-lul on the
13th day of the month Eeen-an-na, the year that the great

* Of. Inventaire, 1, p. 6, n. 4.
VOL- XXXIII Part. 11.

170

Mary Inda Hussey,

[1913.

high priest of Anu was invested high priest of Nanna(r) (Bur-
Sin 4). Note; udu-Se gii(d)-e uS-sa Ob. 3, mas-gal-Se gu(d)-e
uS-sa Oh. 8, and sil-ga, Rev. 2, sucking lamb.

No. 3.
OBVERSE.

4. 4 cows, 2 lal-li rug-ga * from the month Ses-da-ku, and 2
hi-gid"^ from the months Ezen-^Nin-a-zu and Su-eS-Sa, deliv-
ered by Ab~ba-Sd(g)-ga and taken in charge by In-ta-e-a, the
year SaSru was destroyed (Bur-Sin 6). The last sign in
Ob. 5 (ha -1- So) is unknown to me.

1 Huber in Eilpreeht Ann. Yol., p. 194 translates “mit Abzug der
Gebuhren”; Genouillae, Inventaire, 2, no. 629, “paiement de dettes”,
no. 789, “en paiement d’interet”.

2 For a discussion of this term see Sev. d’Jssgr., t. 9, p. 42, n. 6.

Vol. xx.xiii.]

Tablets from Drehem &c.

171

No. 4.
OBVERSE.

REVERSE.

5. An account of 21 sheep and goats, supplied (mu-tum) by
16 different persons, among whom are Ur-^Nin-kur-ra pa-te-si
(of Suruppak) Oh. 9, and Gii-de-a pa-te-si^ (of Kutha) Rev. 6;
taken in charge by Ab-ba-Sd(g)~ga on the 12 th day of the
month Esen-mah, the year the high priest of Eridu was in-
vested (Bur-Sin 8). Kote; udu-a-lum"^ Oh. 5, 12, 14, Rev. 4!

‘ They figure not infrequently in the Drehem tablets. Cf. the name-
lists in Genouillac’s works.

2 Cf. ganam-a-lum, in Genouillac. Tab. de Drehem, 4683, Rev. 7
Dhorme in Mev. d'Assyr., t. 9, p. 40, calls attention to the use of the
vowel a to mark the species to which animals belong.

12 *

Vol. xxxiii.]

Tablets from Drehem &c.

173

6. Account of the expenditure (ba-zi) by Ah-ha-Sa(g)-ga
of 12 sheep and goats, offerings (? nig-dur) of c-XV from
among the supplies {Sa(g) mu-tum-ra-ta) \ the 11th day of

Xo. 6.
OBVERSE.

the month Se-kin-kud, the year the high priest of Eridii was
inyested (Bui'-Sin 8). Xote: udu-a-lum-se 3 kam-uS, Oh. 2,
fat a-lum sheep for the 3rd time 2; maS-gal lii-su Se, Ob. 4, fat
goat-buck of the tanner 2. Is maS-a-sig, Oh. 7, interchange-

1 Ot. Genouillac, Trouv. de Drehem, p. 20; Dhorme, Rev. d’Assyr.,
t. 9, p. 53, SA 208.

2 Of. Dhorme, Rev. d’Aasyr., t. 9, p. 54, n. 3.

174

Mary Inda Hussey,

^ ,, [1913,

able with The sign slg {Hecherches stir VEcriture

Cun^forme, 464) varies somewhat from its usual form.

Xo. 7.
OBVERSE.

REVERSE.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Tablets from, Drehern &c.

175

7. Account of the expenditure {hcu-zi) by Ah-ha sa(g)-ga of
435 sheep and goats from among the supplies, the 27 th day
of the month U-ne-ku, the year the high priest of Nanna(r)
of Kar-zi-da was invested (Bfir-Sin 9). Note; udu-a-lum-Se,
Oh. 8; the name Ur~^Nin-ezen + la (EEC. 366), Ob. 3.

Iso. 8.
OBVERSE.

REVERSE.

176

Mary Inda Hussey,

[1913.

8. An account of supplies (mu-ti’m) of bullocks, sheep and
goats, from I/ugal-ma-gur-ri, dues from the aMtu festival of
the month Su-numun in GaeS {mas-da-ri-a a-ki-ti Su-numun,
M(g) Qa-eS and from Ku-ii; taken in charge hy In-ta-e-a
the first day of the month Esen-^Dun-gi, the year Simanu
was destroyed (Gimil-Sin 3). The seal of Nu-ur-^S[in ]
dup-sar [du]mu I-ti-ir-ra has been run over the entire tablet,
but the seal impression is in every case indistinct. Note:
udu-Se gu(d)-e uS-sa, Ob. 2; udu-Se 4-kam-uS, Ob 6..

9. An account of supplies (mii-tum) of bullocks, sheep, and
goats, the offering (kaS-de-a) * of Ka-ma-ni zi sabra 2 of ^ Oimil-
^Sin, an evening sacrifice (d-mi-ba-ay ; for the temple of
the gods they have been taken in charge (b dingir-re-ne-ge-Su
ab-KJI).* On the 28th day of the month Ezen-^Dun-gi they

No. 9.
OBVERSE.

> Huber in HUprecht Ann. Vol., p. 213, where the ‘■‘bi-de-a ' consists
of grain, regards it as a synonym of sd-du(g). Dhorme in JB,ev. d’Assyr.,
t. 9, p. 53, AM. 13, renders it by libation where the offering is also
naade by a high official (sukkal-mah) for e-ding ir-re-ne-ge. Cf. Genouillac
Tab. de Drehmn, 4687.

2 Cf. Inventaire, 2, no. 650, sabra ^En-lil.

* Delaporte, Mev. d’Assyr. t. 8, p. 195. No. 18 ob. 8.

* See Inventaire, 2, no. 796, Dhorme in Bev. d'Assyr., t. 9, p. 53,
AM 13.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Tablets from Drehem &c.

177

REVERSE.

SEAL.

were taken in charge bj In-ta-e-a, the year '^Oimil-'^Sin the
king built the wall of the west, (named) Muriq-Tidnim (Gimil-
Sin 4). Stamped seven times, but always indistinctly, with
the seal of Liigal-amar-azag dupsar diimu Na-Mig X.‘

10. Expended (ba-zi) by Ur-azag-ntin-na: on behalf of the
king 1 bullock, 10 sheep from the pasture (iidu-Mm) as hi-gid
e-mu in the name of the commissaries (gnu lii-sulfumfra-ge-
ne-Mi)-\ 10 dead sheep '’Dim-gi-uru-nni has received {iu-ba-an-
ti)\ the 25th day of the mouth Ezen-'^ Me-ki-gdl, the year

* REC. no. 344.

- Cf. iu-gid e-mu mu-bil-Bur-^ Sin-ge-ne-iu, “reserve de cuisine pour
les chauffeurs (?) de Bur-Sin". Rev. d’Assgr.. t. 9, p. 51, SA 172; su-gid
e-mu mu-uku-us-ge-ne-Su, ibid.. SA 1.59, 162, 188.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Tablets from Drehem &c.

179

The obverse has been stamped nine times, and the reverse
eight times, with a seal which reads: (Col. 1) ^Qhnil-^Sin lugal
ag-ga lugal uri-'‘'ma Ivgal-an-ub-da tab-ba (Col. 2) Hu-u[n ]
dup-sar dumu Gmiil-’^Adab sabar arad-zu. To Gimil-Sin, the
mighty king, king of Ur, king of the four quarters of the
world, Hu-u[n ] the scribe, son of Gimil-Adab the sabar
thy servant. The left edge of the reverse bears two im-
pressions of a seal likewise dedicated to Gimil-Sin ‘ by Nu-
ur-^Sifn] dtip-sar dumu I-ti.

1 For other seals dedicated to the same ruler, see Janneau, Une Dy-
nastic Chaldeenne, pp. 49, 53— 54.

Wine in the Pentateiichal Codes. — By Morkis Jasteow, jr.,
Professor in the University of Pennsylvania, Phila-
delphia, Pa.

There ai’e two views taken of wine in the Old Testament,
one a decidedly unfavorable view, and the other of a more
favorable character. As an illustration of the unfavorable
view, the account given in Genesis 9, 20 — 27 of the beginning
of viniculture furnishes a characteristic illustration. In this
little addition to the Jahwist’s account of the Deluge, i the
planting of the vine leading to Noah’s fall from grace is
clearly introduced as a protest against the use of wine. Simi-
larly, in the folk-tale, Gen. 19, 31 — 38, of the origin of the
tribes of Ammon and Moab, there is a very distinct anta-
gonism against the use of wine. The drunken Lot because
of the wine engages in shameful intercourse with his two
daughters.2 The assumption in the Noah and in the Lot
incident is that he who di-inks wine gets drunk and disgraces
himself.

This opposition to viniculture is in keeping with a tendency
in many parts of the Old Testament which looks with dis-
favor on the advance to a higher form of culture. Abel the
shepherd is given the preference over Cain the tiller of the
soil and the city builder. In the Pentateuchal Codes agri-

1 See Budde JJrgeschichte, p. 313seq. Gunkel, Genesis, p. 71, and Skinner,
Genesis, p. 182 seq., though it is not necessary to assume with Budde,
Skinner, and others, that the section does not know anything of the
Deluge. It is introduced as a tendeTicy-tale.

2 It matters little for our purposes what the purpose of the tale is,
though I confess that Gunkel’s explanation (p. 197 seq.) seems to me
very artificial.

Vol.xxxiii.] TFine in the Pentateuchal Codes. 181

culture is preferred to commerce xvhich is looked upon askance.’
The simple tribal organization is preferred to a union into a
Kingdom 2 — in short, simplicity over any advancing form of
luxury which comes with the higher culture. The prophets
are full of protests against what from the ordinary point of
view would be regarded as material and political progress.
The Rechahites,3 surviving to the period of the Exile, repre-
sent this protest of the lower cultm’e against the higher one,
emphasized by their opposition to wine and by their dwelling
in tents in preference to houses — the symbol of the higher
culture, concomitant with city life.

The Book of Proverbs, despite the late date of its final
form, maintains on the whole the antagonistic attitude towards
wine. In such sayings as Pr. 23, 31, “Look not on wine when
it is red, when it sparkles in the cup”, etc.;-* Pr. 20, 1, “Wine
is a mocker, strong difink is a brawler”, the assumption still
is that he who drinks wine gets drunk and is led to other
excesses. “He who loves wine and oil will not he rich”,
(Pr. 21, 17) where the juxtaposition with oil illustrates the
protest against luxury. A somewhat cynical point of view is
set forth in the later chapter 31, 4 — 7, where we read:^

“It is not for kings to drunk wine.

Kor for rulers to mix strong drink;

Lest, drinking, they forget the law.

And disregard the rights of the suffering.

Give strong drink to him who is perishing,

Wine to him who is in hitter distress;

• The prohibition against taking interest — aimed against Babylonian
practices — and emphasized in three of the Codes (^Ex. 22, 24; Lev. 25,
36 _ 37 ; Dent. 23, 20—21) is virtually an enjoinder upon commerce which
cannot be carried on without making loans on interest. The words “to
the stranger thou mayst lend on interest” (Deut. 23, 21) are a later addi-
tion — a concession to actual conditions, but not in keeping with the spirit
of' the original provision.

2 The institution of the kingdom is viewed as an act of disloyalty to
Jahweh (I Sam. 12. 12). The view taken of the kingdom and what will
happen through the institution is illustrated by Deut. 17, 14 — 17 and by
the parable in Judges 9, 7 — 15.

■* Jer. 35, 5 — 10.

4 See also Pr. 23, 20—21 ; 29—30.

“ Toy’s rendering and reading {Critical and Evangelical Commentary on
the Booh of Proverbs, jn 539).

182

Morris Jastrow, jun.,

[1913.

That, drinking, he may forget his poverty.

And think of his misery no more."’

Wine drinking had evidentlj' become a common practice, hut
was still viewed with disfavor in certain circles whose con-
temptuous attitude is indicated in these words. Elsewhere, to
be sure, e. g., Pr. 9, 2 and 5, “mixed wine” is introduced by
the side of meat and bread without any implied opposition,
though it is still a wide step to the praise of wine in the
later Psalm 104, 15.

“And wine to cheer man’s heart.

Oil to make his skin to shine.

And bread to strengthen man’s heart.” i
We may perhaps be permitted to conclude from such pas-
sages as I Sam. 10, 3; 16, 20; 25, 18; II Sam. 16, 1 — 2, that by
the time of the establishment of the Kingdom, the use of
wine had become common; and it is significant that accord-
ing to the Deuteronomic Code (Deut. 14, 26) both wine and
strong drink may be indulged in on the occasion of the festi-
vals, showing that by the end of the seventh century opposition
to it had ceased even in religious circles. ^

The later view of post -exilic Judaism is reflected in the
juxtaposition of “bread and wine”, as the accessory to the
blessing formula in Gen. 14, 18.3 Pre-exilic and post-exilic
prophets still protest against excess in drinking and make
use of the wine bibber as a picture of lewdness and disgrace.
(Is. 5, 11. 22; 22, 13; 28, 7; Joel 1, 5; Zach. 9, 15) but it is
no longer assumed that drinking necessarily leads to drunken-
ness.* A good wine crop is looked upon as a sign of divine
favor and its failui-e as a sign of God’s displeasure — on the
same plane with a good or bad yield in corn or oil, e. w,,
Amos 5, 11; 9, 14; Is. 16, 10; 24, 11; Jer. 13, 12; 40, 10. 12;
48, 33; Zeph. 1, 13; Micha 6, 15; cf. Deut. 28, 39 and

1 Horace Howard Furness’ translation in Polychrome Bible, ed. Haunt.

2 See also Deut. 28, 39.

3 Gunkel, Genesis p. 263, has happily and tersely described this chapter
33 a “legend of the time of Judaism”, based on some historical reminis-
cences which are woven into the story, intended to bring Abraham into
relationship with the great figures of Babylonian history.

* In Hosea, 4, 11, the words “Harlotry and wine and mead take away
the understanding , represent an old proverb inserted as appropriate at
this place by some redactor.

Vol.xxxiii.]

Wine in the Pentateuchal Codes.

183

Lam. 2, 12. The metaphor introduced in the late passage
Zach. 10, 7, “their heart rejoiceth as with wine’’ approaches
the attitude expressed in the 104 th Psalm as quoted above.

On the other hand when we are told, Gen. 27, 25, that
Jacob brought his father, Isaac, wine, it is evident that the
words “and he brought him wine and he drank” represent a
later addition to the original Jahwist narrative i to make the
story conform to later conditions. Thi’oughout the narrative
(v. 17 and she placed the “dainties and the food”; v. 19, “eat
of my venison” cf. v. 31 — 33) food only is referred to, and the
manner in which the words in question ai’e attached betray
the later gloss or comment.

A distinction between earlier and later social conditions is
also revealed in the stereotyped phrase (ddgdn,

tiroS yishdr) characteristic of Deuteronomy — 2 foi- summing up
the productSfof the laud, where tiroS takes the place of the
later yayin and represents a preparation of the grape juice in
a less advanced stage than the finished fermented product.
It has, of course, been noted by commentators * that the other
two terms dagan (corn) and yishdr (oil) are replaced in later
usage by D'Bn (hittim)^ and (Se7nen) so that there are
substantial grounds for believing that the Deuteronomic phrase
belongs to an earlier stage in agricultural development ^ when
so far as the grape was concerned the process of manufacturing
a thoroughly fermented article had not yet been perfected.
Without going into the vexed question of the etymology of

1 Recognized as such by Gunkel, Genesis, p. 279.

2 Deut. 7, 13; 11, 14; 12, 17; 14, 23; 18, 4; 28, 51. The occurrence of
the phrase in such passages as Hos. 2. 10. 24, Haggai 1, 11, Joel 2, 19
and H Chron. 31, 5, and Neh. 5, 11; 10, 40; 13, 5. 12 is of course a
reminiscence or direct quotation of the Deuteronomic usage, while

(heleb, tirdS, dagan) in Num. 18, 12 is a variant phrase
similarly dependent. The phrase IJT {ddgdn and tirbS) e. g., Gen.

27,28.37 (Elohist); Deut. 33,28; II Kgs. 18, 33; Hos. 7, 14; Zach. 9, 17;
Ps. 4, 8; Is. 62, 8; — occurring chiefly in poetical passages — likewise re-
presents a variant of the archaic formula.

3 e. g. Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 103.

* Ddgdn, however, continues to be used in later poetical compositions,
e. g. in Ezekiel 36, 29; Ps. 65, 10; 78, 24.

* Indicated also by the use of tiros and not yayin in the parable
Jud. 9, 13 where the vine says “shall I abandon my tiros that rejoiceth
god (Elohim) and men”?

184

Morris Jastroiv, jun.,

[1913.

yayin,^ as a loan-word in Hebrew, it points to tbe foreign
origin of the process involved and it would be natural that as
an importation among tbe Hebrews, due to advancing luxury,
it should meet with opposition on the part of those who clung
tenaciously to older etablished and simpler customs.^

11 .

The conservative character associated in all religions with
practices of the cult should prepare us for finding traces of
the earlier unfavorable view taken of wine and viniculture
in the Pentateuchal regulations regarding the temple service.
Such is indeed the case. In Lev. 10, 9 we encounter the
prohibition emphasized as “an everlasting statute for all times”
that the priests are not to chunk wine (yayin) or strong drink
(SeMr) upon coming to the “tent of meeting”* The little
section (vv. 8 — 9) in which this prohibition is set forth is
independent of the rest of the chapter and impresses one as
an old ordinance which is carried over from earlier days.
The mention of the “tent of meeting” — which whenever it
occurs in the Pentateuchal Codes is, I think, an indication
of an early practice, though modified and adapted to later
conditions — points in the same direction. The decree finds
its counterpart in Ezekiel 44, 21 where the priests are cau-
tioned not to drink wine when they come to the “inner court”

1 See Brown, Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, s. v.
There is no underlying verbal stem from which might be derived in
use in any of the Semitic Languages. The occurrence of a doubtful inv
in a syllabary does not justify us in claiming the word as Babylonian.
The late occurrence in Arabic and Ethiopio proves nothing as to its
origin. Even if it should turn out to be a Semitic word, it is clearly a
loan-word in Hebrew.

2 The phrase “milk and honey"’ though characteristic of B (Ex. 3, 8;
13, 5; 33, 3. Num. 13, 27; 14, 5. 16. 13. 14) and of the additions to the
Deuteronomic Code (Deut. 6, 3; 11, 9; 26, 9. 15; 27, 3; 31, 20) reflects
an even earlier social stage than ddgan, tiroS and yishdr and is evidently
retained with intent to reflect the conditions prevailing during the nomadic
period of Hebrew history. Mohammed’s prohibition of wine is a trace
of the same opposition of the “nomadic” stage of culture against the in-
novations of higher civilization. See the incident referred to by Mitt-
woch, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Islamischen Gebets” {Ahh. d. Kgl.
Preufi. AJcad. d. IFiss., 1913, Phih-Hist Elasse Nr. 2, p. 14).

Vol. xxxiii.] Wine in the Pentateuchal Codes.

185

— representing the adaptation of the earlier law to the temple
as sketched by Ezekiel. Now, to be sure, both in Leviticus
and in Ezekiel the prohibition is limited (according to the
wording) to the time of the actual carrying out of priestly
functions, but it looks vei'y much as though this were a con-
cession made to later practice and that originally the priests
were not permitted to drink wine at all as in the case of the
ndzir who, as his name indicates, represents one “set aside”
or dedicated to a deity. The indications are that the term
nd'ir is merely an old designation of a priest. i Like the
lidhen he is not to come into contact with a dead body
(Num. 6, 6 — 7; cf. Lev. 21, 1),* and it is thei-efore a fair
inference that the prohibition against drinking wine (yayin)
and strong drink (.seAdr) in Num. 6, 3,3 was likewise a general
ordinance for priests.

• Amus 2, 11 — 12, who rebukes the people for giving the Nazirites
wine and ordering the prophets not to prophesy, uses “nazirites and
prophets” as elsewhere we find “prophets and priests” contrasted or
placed in juxtaposition, e. g., Jer. 5, 31; 26, 11, 16; Zaoh. 7, 3. Neh.
9, 32; etc. The later view of the “nazirite” as one “set aside” without
affiliation with any priesthood is illustrated in Luke 1, 15 foretelling
the coming of John who “shall drink neither wine nor strong drink”.
The older attitude towards wine is well illustrated also by Jud. 13, 14
where wine and strong drink are put on the same level as “unclean”
food — they defile and are therefore to be avoided by the wife of Manoah
who is to keep herself free from contamination, as though she too
were “set aside”.

2 The exceptions in v. 2 — 4 represent again a concession, due to the
large body of priests assumed for the central sanctuary. From the fact
that the exceptions do not apply to the high priest (v. 11), we may con-
clude that the law not to touch a dead body under any circumstances
applied rigorously at one time to all priests.

2 The law in its original form read “From wine and strong drink he
shall separate himself”. What follows (v. 3 — 4) is in the nature of a
“tiemara” to the law, specifying the answers to such questions, does wine
and strong drink include vinegar of wine and of strong drink? Yes.
How about grape juice? Yes — forbidden. How is it with fresh or dried
grapes? They also are forbidden. In fact anything made of grapes is
included in the prohibition (v. 4). Haggai 2, 11 — 17 furnishes an inter-
esting example of such questions and priestly decisions (note the tech-
nical use of ford in the passage 1) as constituting a regular practice. For
further illustration of this method of superimposing layers embodying
decisions in regard to the details involved in a law, see the writer’s
paper on “An Analysis of Leviticus 13 and 14” in a forthcoming
number of the Jeicish Quarterly Reiriew. This 6th chapter of Numbers

VOL. XXXm. Part JX 13

186

Morris Jastrow, jiin.,

[1913.

At all events, if the priest is not to drink wine on entering
the sanctuary, the assumption is as in the passages voicing
the opposition to wine, that he who drinks wdne becomes drunk
and with such an attitude towards wine, is it likely that wine
should have been included among the ingredients of a sacri-
fice in Jahweh’s sanctuary?

III.

Taking up the passages in the Codes where wine is intro-
duced, we find it in three sections which represent general
summaries of priestly regulations and furnish clear indications
of having been independent little groups. That at least, is
certainly the case in Xumbers, Chap. 15, 1 — 11 ^ and Chai).
28—29 2 — both belonging to the so-called Priestly Code. Attach-
ed to the burnt-offering in all the cases instanced is a minha
or meal ofi'ering consisting of fine flour with oil and wine. The
amount of the wine is tliroughout regulated to correspond to
the amount of the oil — » 1/4 of a Hin of oil for a lamb and
the same amount of wane, 1/3 of a Hin of oil and the same
amount of wine for a ram and 1/2 Hin of oil and the same
of wine for a young of cattle or bullock.^ This in itself is
an indication that the wine is dependent upon the oil — con-
stituting an additional ingredient added to the conventional

represents the combination of two distinct themes (I) the ndzh' law and
(2) tlie laws regarding the one who vows to ‘‘separate” liiniself for a limited
period, i. e., to become a temporary nanir — a later practice. The detailed
analysis of this chapter must be left for some other occasion.

1 V. 1 — 16 is a little Tbra — furnishing general regulations for sacri-
fices and has no connection with the following sections which deal with
miscellaneous ordinances, put together without any apparent method.
The chapter is san Vol. II p. 31. 2 Or Kobad II, Ardeshir’s father.

3 Abbeloos and Lamy, Vol. Ill pp. IH — 116.

< Cf. Assemani, III p. 105.

VOIi. xxxm. Part n.

202

Friedrich Hirth,

[1913.

dictated by the wish to benefit by the advice and moral pro-
tection of the patriarch, the shrewd diplomat and former
ambassador to the emperor Heraclius, whose residence was in
the Syrian settlement on the Ctesiphon side of the city of
Madain. i

12. Greater Fu-lin.

I have enumerated a number of arguments speaking in
favour of the name Fu-lin standing for Syria, or let us say
the Roman Orient generally, the identification I had proposed
for the name Ta-ts’in. I have, however, always been of the
opinion that, according to the knowledge of the Chinese, there
was also a “Greater Fu-lin”, just as modern developments have
shown a Greater Britain grown out of little England. We
are now at last iu the position to prove that, whatever the
vagueness in the Chinese mediaeval accounts of this country
may have been, there was at least one traveller as early
as the beginning of the eighth century who wrote Chinese
and who knew that, besides the Fu-lin of the early Nesto-
rians, there was a Greater Fu-lin to the North-west of it.
This knowledge, which might have changed materially the
accounts of Fu-lin in the two T'ang-shii had their authors
known of the existence of the little work recently recovered
from the rubbish of an abandoned Buddhist library, has been
placed on record by a travelling priest making his way from
India to China through Western and Central Asia. This
little work, which had been lost to later generations and which
possibly had never been circulated to any extent among readers
in China, is the Hui-cWaii-wang~wu-t'ien-clm-kuo-chuan,‘^
i. e., “Account of Hui-ch’au’s travels to the countries of the
Five Indies.” What we have now is merely a fragment the
beginning and end of which are lost; but, such as it is, the
fragment is a most valuable contribution towards our know-
ledge of Western Asiatic countries as represented in Chinese
literature. It is certainly not the least important among that
stupendous mass of old manuscripts recovered by Professor
Paul PeUiot from a rock chamber at Tun-huang during his
great expedition in 1907 — 08. The first report on these dis-

1 J. A. 0. S. XXX 7.

Vol. sxxiii.]

The Mystery of Fu-lin.

203

coveries will be found in a letter addressed by Pelliot to Pro-
fessor Senart, dated Tun-buang, Mai’cb 26, 1908, and repro-
duced in B.E.P.E.-O., Tome VIII, Nos. 3-4, 1908 (p. 11 seq.
of the Eeprint). On his way from Tun-huang to Paris, where
the originals ai’e now preserved. Professor Pelliot paid a visit
to Peking. Some learned Chinese of the then Imperial capital
were most enthusiastic about these unexpected additions to
their native literature and some of them asked permission, be-
fore they were taken away to France, to photograph some of
the texts discovered in Tun-huang. These texts were trans-
cribed, edited and published by a well known Chinese scholar,
Mr. Lo Chon-yii i of Peking, under the title Tun-huang-shi-sM-
i-shu^ in four fascicules. The book was laid before the Aca-
demie des Inscriptions et Belles lettres by Professor Chavannes
and reported on in the Comptes rendus of June 1910, p. 245
seq. Messrs. Chavannes and Pelliot have already turned to
account another important fragment published in this valuable
collection^ in their learned paper “Un traite Manicheen reti'ouve
en Chine” in the Journ. Asiatigue, X. Ser. 18, on p. 500 of
which some further notes on Lo Chon-yu’s publication will be
found. That part of it which interests us on account of the
Fu-lin question is Hui-ch‘au’s report referred to above.

A work of the same title is referred to in the Buddhist
thesaurus I-ts’iS-hing-yin-i, chap. 100. But here the first cha-
racter, Mui, in the traveller’s name in the title, as given in
the body of the book, is 0. instead of which character
appears in the Index, though. This need not make us feel
suspicious, because the two characters are often confounded in
the names of Buddhist monks.* The book on which the I-ts'ie-
king-yin-i is supposed to give a commentary must have been
difierently arranged, since on the one hand many of the names
occurring in the fragment are not explained, and on the other it
contains names not found in the fragment. In the text itself (p. 14)
the traveller says that he came to An-si, * the seat of a Chinese

3 For its loan I am indebted to Mr. K. Asakawa. Professor and Curator
of Japanese and Chinese collections at Yale University, who was also
the first to draw my attention to the occurrence in it of the names Little
and Greater Fu-lin.

* Chavannes and Pelliot, op. cit. p. 504, n. 2.

5 ^ 15 .

14 *

204

Friedrich Hirth,

[1913.

resident, at the beginning of the eleventh moon of the 15 th year
of K’ai-yiian, which date corresponds to the year 727 A. D.
The few years preceding this date must, therefore, he regarded
as the time to which the traveller’s account applies. This frag-
ment, as far as it goes, covers the same ground as Hiian-tsang’s
Ta-fang-si-yii-ki, which is nearly a century older, and it repeats,
or confirms, many of the facts we may gather from the older
books. Yet it is fidl of interest on account of the clear idea it
gives us of the political relations during one of the most in-
teresting periods of Islamic rule in Western Asia. It also
throws many valuable sidelights on questions not sufficiently
clear in the accounts of previous and later authors. If, for
instance, anyone were to doubt with the late Mr. Kingsmill '
the identity of Su-lo^ with Kashgar, the starting point of so
many of his errors, a passage in Hui-ch’au's fi-agment saying
that “the people of foreign countries themselves call it K’ie-sh'i-k'i-
li,”^ which name by all the rules of transcription represents the
sound “Kashgir”, is apt to remove every shadow of uncertainty.
I subjoin the translation with the corresponding Chinese texts
of a few pages which are apt to throw light on our subject.
The headings (Persia, etc.) have been added by me.

Translation, pp. lo — ii.

[Persia.]

Prom T’u-huo-lo [Tokharestan] you go one month and come
to the country of Po-ssi [Persia]. The ancestors of these kings
had held swvay over the Ta-sh'i [Arabs]. The Ta-sh'i [Arabs]
had been camel drivers to the kings of Po-ssi [Persia]. After-
wards they had rebelled and then killed the other kings and
set themselves up as masters of the country. So it happened
that now this country has been by force swallowed up by the
Ta-shi [Arabs]. Then’ di’ess is the old one, namely a wide cotton
shirt. They cut heard and hair. As regards food they indulge
only in pastry and meat, hut they have rice wPich is also
ground into pastry and eaten. The country produces camels,

1 See my paper “Mr. Kingsmill and the Hiung-nu”, J.A.O.S. xxx35.

* m WJ-

Tol. xxxiii.]

The Mystery of Fu-lin.

205

mules, sheep, horses of extraordinary height and donkeys, cotton
cloth and precious stones. The dialects spoken in the country
differ from each other and from those of the remaining coun-
tries. The inhabitants being by natm'e bent on commerce, they
are in the habit of sailing in big craft on the western sea,
and they enter the southern sea to the Country of Lions [Cey-
lon], where they get precious stones, for which reason it is said
of the country that it produces precious stones. They also go
to the K’un-lun country ' to fetch gold. They also sail in big
craft to the country of Han [China] straight to Canton for
silk piece goods and the like ware. The country produces good
fine cotton. The inhabitants enjoy the killing of living crea-
tures [cattle]; they serve Heaven [Allah] and do not know
the law of Buddha.

[The Ta-shi,-Arabs.]

From the country of Po-ssi [Persia] ^ you go north ten days
into the hills [the continent?] and reach the country of the
Ta-sh'i [Arabs]. Them kings do not live in their native country,'*
hut they saw their residence (moved) into the country of Siau-
fu-lin. ^ On account of their having gained possession of that
country by overcoming it, that country has retreated to places
in the hills [on the continent?] and on islands hut rarely
visited.® That country produces camels, mules, sheep, horses,
cotton cloth and wollen rugs. They have also precious stones.
Their dress consists of a wide shirt of fine cotton and they
throw over it a cotton cloth to serve as an upper garment. 6
The king and the peoifie wear garments of the same kind and
there is no distinction between them. The women also wear

• Coast of Africa? Of. Hirth and Rockhill, Chau Ju-lna, etc., p. 149.

2 Probably the western part of it, because Po-ss'i was said in the
preceding paragraph to be a month’s journey west of Tokhara.

3 Arabia with Medina as the capital of former caliphs.

* Little Fu-lin, Syria, with Damascus as the residence of Ommeyad
caliphs ever since Muawyia transferred his capital from Medina to Syria
and still so in 727, when the information laid down in this text had just
been collected. Possibly ^ = J^, “now” instead of “they saw.”

6 Possibly an allusion to the Byzantine Romans having been compelled
to retreat from their Asiatic possessions in Syria to Asia Minor and
Europe.

6 Caftan.

206

Friedrich Hirth,

[1913.

wide shirts. Men cut the hair of then- heads, but grow beards;
women keep their hair growing. As to food, high and low
without distinction eat from the same bowl, seizing food with
their hands, but they also help themselves with spoons. In
selecting [food] they look for the most unsavoury. i To eat
what one has kdled with one’s own hands brings wealth without
measure. The inhabitants love killing [living creatures, cattle].
They serve Heaven [Allah] and do not know the law of Buddha.
The laws of the country do not contain the law of kneeling
down. 2

[Ta-Fu-lin.]

The country of Little Fu-lin* is near the sea. North-west
of it there is the country of Greater Fu-lin. The army of this
king is strong and numerous and [his kingdom] is not connected
with [or subject to] the remaining countries. The Ta-sh'i have
several times attacked it without effect. And the T’u-kue®
had encroached on its territory likewise without effect. The
country has enough of precious stones and more than enough
of camels, sheep, horses, cotton cloth and the like produce.
The mode of dress resembles that of Po-ssi [Persia] and the
Ta-sh'i [Arabs], but the language is different from either of
these countries.

• T. B. Hughes, Bictionai-y of Islam, p. 104, quotes the following from
Pagir Muhammad As’ad’s directions for eating: “Let him not look from
dish to dish, nor smell the food, nor pick and choose it. If there should
be one dish better than the rest, let him not be greedy on his own
atcount, but let him offer it to otliers.”

- Before the king, — apparently referring to the first Arab embassy
to the court of China, when the ambassadors refused to perform the
prostration before the Emperor, because with their people “one knelt only
before Heaven and not before the King.”

3 The characters ^ here used answer in every respect to the
usual way of writing the name, viz., and their ancient sound,

fat-lam or pat-lam, is the same.

■> The great final defeat of the Arabs in 718 must have been fresh in
the traveller's memory when he wrote this paragraph.

5 Turks, first mentioned in connection with Byzantium towards the
end of the sixth century; here probably the Bulgars. a quasi-Turkish
race, which in 679 had enforced the cession of the Homan province of
Moesia and the payment of an annual tribute before the very gates of
Constantinople.

Vol. xxxiii.] The Mystery of Fu-lin. 207

1.15

•ft

iJk

—

ill

Jtfc

Ifi

CA)

»-4

.g.

i/i

«b

1^1

£in

ilK

Jlfc

1—*

iC*'

i'S

fnl

1 — ‘

I—*

\ll

pili

lit'

fib

yjij

111

life

n±

PS]

—

jii

iiii

^ 'S

:1b

iiii

-k

'1’

..TB*

—

life

—

iti

i§

>j'

Ifi

fl!

life

Although a few details in these accounts of Persia, the
Ommeyad country and Greater Fu-lin are not quite clear, there
can he no doubt about the meaning of the terms Little and
Greater Fu-lin (Ta-Fu-lin). This term Ta-Fu-lin can, of
course, only refer to the Roman empire with its military power
as opposed to “the remaining countries”, i. e. Persia, the Arabs,
etc. If the ambassadors of KicephorusMelissenus were accepted
by the Chinese court in 1081 as representing the country of
Fu-lin {J.A. 0. S. XXX 24 seqq.), it is probably owing to the fact
that the existence of a Greater Fu-lin had been known for
the preceding three or four hundi’ed years. But this need not
affect the question of the meaning of the term w hen it be-
came first known in China and as it appeared to the historians
of the tw'o T’ang-shu accounts. I look upon the remark made

208

Friedrich Firth, The Mystery of Fu-lin.

[ 1913 .

with regard to the shifting of the capital of the Ta-shr or
Arabs,' — as one of the most incontestable proofs for the
identity of Fu-lin, here called Siau-Fu-lin, with Syria.

1 For the Ta-shi ^ of this text is merely another way of writing
the name Ta-sh'i ^ of the T'ang-shu, Chau Ju-kua and other books.

Tamil Political Divisions in the First Two Centuries of
the Christian Era. — By Wilfked H. Schopp, Com-
mercial Museum, Philadelphia, Pa.

The early history of the Tamil kingdoms in southern India
is very obscure. From the 9th century onward there is almost
a superfluity of epigraphic material. Prior to that time, in-
scriptions and coins as yet discovered are very few, and almost
the only available references to South Indian political con-
ditions are found in stray passages in Hindu and Tamil
literatui'e or in occasional references of trade with Greece
and Rome.

It may be gathered that before the time of Alexander, the
Tamil states, comprising some of the earliest racial elements
in India, had been organized under a dynasty that had origin-
ated in northern, that is Aryan, India, and that in all prob-
ability established itself in Southern India as the result of a
naval attack and invasion. This dynasty had first borne the
name of Pandya, and it claimed descent from Pandu, the
father of the Pandava brothers, the heroes of the war re-
counted in the Mahabharata. Several references in Greek liter-
ature speak in this connection. Arrian (Jndika, Till) derives
the dynasty fi-om Pandtea, “only daughter of Heracles among
many sons. The land where she was born and over which
she ruled was named Pandsea after her”.

Whatever this dynastic connection may have been, it is
certain that its power in South India began at the southern
extremity of the peninsula, and that its first capital was at
Korkai, the Colchi (KoAxot) of the Greek and Roman writers,
and that it spread steadily northward until it embraced most
of the Tamil elements as far as the border of the Andhra
dominions, the modern Mysore. Subsequently the Pandyan
kingdom was separated into thi'ee independent states, Chera,

210

Wilfred H. Schoff,

[1913.

Chola and Pandya (respectively Malabar, Coromandel, and
Tinnevelly-Madura-S. Travancore). A.s such they are recorded
in the .second Rock Edict of Asoka. It seems evident that the
boundaries of these three states varied greatly, and that -^ hile
Chera, the western kingdom, the modern Malabar, remained
relatively quiet, the other two, Chola and Pandya, always the
wealthiest and most powerful of the trio, were constant rivals
and often open enemies.

From the 9th century onward the Chola state was by far
the most powerful of the three, and indeed conquered Pandya
and ruled it through a Viceroy who bore the official title of
Chola-Pandya. But for many centuries before this extension
of its power, it seems clear that the Chola dynasty passed
through a long period of relative weakness and almost ex-
tinction. One of the features of South Indian history is the
incursion of the Pallavas, who established themselves over a
great part of western and southern India, not as a colonizing
people, but rather as a ruling caste maintaining itself by
military power and commanding in that way the subjugation
of the native peoples. This dynasty, whose capital was at
Kanchi, is known to have flourished between the 4th and 9th
centuries a.d., finally succumbing to the combined attacks
of the Chalukya dynasty on its northern boundary, and the
reviving Chola power on the south. How long before the 4th
century it may have asserted itself, is unknown. But certain
indications regarding the political allegiance of the Chola
capital during the first two centuries of the Christian Era
suggest that the Pallavas may even have been an important
element at that time. It is known that a heterogenous assort-
ment of foreign clans swept over western and southern India
as early as the 1st centuiy, that they set up a powerful state
in the Cambay region under the Satrap ISiahapana, (78 a.d.)
and that they carried on extensive raids farther to the south.
In the following century when the Andhras succeeded in
overthrowing Rahapana’s dynasty, they set up a memorial to
record their victory over the combined Sakas, Yavanas and
Pallavas, whom they despised as outcasts and sacrilegious in-
novators in settled Hindu customs. It is therefore not im-
possible that the Pallavas as the southern extension of this
foreign incursion may have been making themselves felt as
early as the 1st century of the Christian Era.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Tamil Political Divisions &c.

211

As already stated tLe earliest capital of the Tamil power
was at Korkai. Before the Christian Era the capitals of the
three states had been fixed at Karur in Malabar, Madura
and Uraiyur, the modern Trichinopoly. Of these, the last
seems to have been by far the richest, most populous and
most active, industrially and commercially, of the three. This
much may be gathered from the Tamil poems; but the Tamil
literature, while it gives a vivid picture of the prosperity of
the Chola capital, does not refer clearly to its political
allegiance. It seems to have been singularly subject to attack
and control by widely diti’ering political elements. And as
early as the 1st century of the Christian Era, the dominant
powers in Southern India seem to have been the Pandyan
kingdom and the invading Pallavas; the Chola state being
ground, as it were, between two mill-stones.

Strabo (XV, iv, 73) mentions an embassy from “King
Pandion” to the Emperor Augustus in 20 e.c. Pliny (VI, 23),
the Periplus (§ 54) and Ptolemy (VII) all agree in their
accounts of the prosperous trade at the seaports on either
side of Cape Comorin. It was a trade largely in the products
of the Chola textile industries and pearl fisheries, in the gems
and spices of the Chera and Pandya hills, and in the gems
and pearl fisheries of Ceylon, then controlled by the Pandyan
kings. From the Tamil poems we learn that the Chola state
maintained a considerable navy which was used for commercial
purposes, trading across the Bay of Bengal and as far as the
Straits of Malacca, and we know from the Periplus that the
products of this far eastern trade were transshipped in the
south Indian ports for delivery to the Homan world. It seems
clear that the intermediate position of Pandya enabled it,
during the period from 50 b.c. to 150 a.d., approximately,
to dominate all Tamil India, and that such parts of the
Chola state as had not fallen under Pallava dominion, were,
if not subject to, at least dependent upon Pandya. We may
infer also that this supremacy of Pandya was disputed, un-
successfully, by Chera.

The main highway across Southern India over which goods
for the western trade were brought, is the Achenkoil Pass,
and the terminus of this trade route was the port of Bacare,
mentioned by most of the Greek writers, and which I have
identified as Porakad, the landing place of Kottayam. This

212

Wilfred H. Schoff",

[1913.

port, according to Pliny (VI, 23), had formerly been Pandyan,
but in bis time, that is 70 A.D., approximately, belonged to
Cbera. The Periplus, on the other band, written some ten
years later, makes Bacare again Pandyan (§ 54). Pliny
mentions the Pandyan capital, Madura, but knows nothing
of the Cbola caiiital. The Periplus, on the other band, after
describing the Pandyan dominions, speaks of another district
beyond Colcbi called the “Coast Country, which lies on a bay
and has a region inland called Argaru”, from which were ex-
ported muslins, “those called Argaritic” (§ 59).

In this passage w’e may discern a hazy and yet correct
reference to the Cbola state, and to its capital Uraiyur, the
modern Trichinopoly, which, as I have pointed out in a recent
paper (JRAS. Jan. 1913), may be identified with this Argaru
of the Periplus. Uraiyur is merely the Tamil form of the
Sanskrit Uragapura, “town of the serpent”, and the Greek
transcription is very nearly correct.

Now Ptolemy, wTiting about 140 a.d., speaks of this place
as “Argeirou in the land of Pandion” (VII) and Kalidasa in
the Eaghuvaiusa (dating from about 400 a.d.) refers to
Uragapura as the capital of Pandya (VI. 59—60).

How may we reconcile these later references that make
Uraiyur subject to, or dependent on, Pandya with those earlier
ones that clearly make it independent? The explanation seems
to be found in this passage of the Periplus.

The language used by the author of the Periplus is very
fixed in its reference to foreign states or districts. An in-
dependent kingdom is referred to as /Sao-iXua and a subject
state or district as toVos, or x'^P°- Now while the author of
the Periplus speaks of the “kingdom of Cerohothra” and the
“Pandian Kingdom”, he refers to Cbola only as a “district”
called the “coast country”; and yet he knows enough about
it to have mentioned its king, if there had been an indepen-
dent king in his time, w'ho levied tribute on foreign merchants.
It seems fair to infer that even in the time of the Periplus,
say 80 a.d., the Chola state, while not conquered and in-
corporated into the Pandyan Kingdom, had been reduced to
a condition of helplessness between Pandya and the Pallava
country, so that for commercial pui’poses it was practically
controlled by Pandya.

That its commercial and industrial activity was not inter-

Vol . xxxiii.]

Tamil Political Divisions v\d.TT€ip ovk(ti dvraTtu ttjp dy(\7]p,
with which Haupt (Opusc. iii. 380) compares Demosthenes, XXV. 40,

Toirs yevopevovs Kvvas tu>v jrpo^aTOjp KaraKdirretr ^a j
3. 10. ' '

atmanam ta agrayanah patu 6. 6.
atma yajnasya rambya 6. 3.
adityanam tva devaiiain vyatte ’pi
dadbami 2. 9.

adityas tva tarpayantu 6. 3.
anustubbim parsam adbahsira ’va-
padyasva 2. 9.

a no yabi tapasa janesu 5. 1.
a no rayini vabatara ota vlran 6. 1.
apattau somam ca 3. 5.
a pavasva hiranyavat 2. 6.
a bbaratatn siksatam vajrababu 6. 9.

abhyo yonibhyo adhi jatavedah 6. 1.
ayabi tapasa janisu 5. 1.
ayurda asi dbruva ayur me dab
B\aba 6. 3.

ayus ca tasya bbutim ca 2. 4.
ayus te dbruvah patu 6. 6.
a visvSny amrta saubhagani 6. 1.
asida sadanara svam 4. 2.
a ’bam yajnam dadhe nirrter upa-
stbat 4. 1.

ita eva prathainaip jajne

agnih 5. 1.

idam visnur vicakrame 5. 2.
idam ta ekam 5. 3.
idam barhir amrtene ’ha siktani 2.
idavatsaiaya 2. 4.
indur indum avagat 6. 3.
indor indro ’pat 6. 3.
indrapitasyo ’pahutasyo ’pabuto bha-
ksayami 6. 3.
indrasya kuksir asi 2. 5.
indraguibhyam svabe ’ndrSvisnu-
bbyam svaba 6. 9.
indrSt te balam sprnomi svaba 2. 9.
indraya krnvati bhagam 2. 4.
indraya svabe 'ndranyai svabS cban-
dobbyab svaba 6. 9.
indraya barivate 6. 8.
indriyavan raadintamah 6. 2.
indrena devan 5. 6.
imarn yajnam mimiksatam 4. 1.
ime nu te rasmayah suryasya 6. 9.
imo agne vitatamani havya 6. 1.
isa yatam nasatyo ’pa vajaih 6. 9.
ise raye ramasva 5. 1.
iha gavah prajayadbvam 5. 3.
iba DO deva maid sarma yachata 4. 1.
iha prajaiii dirgham ayus ca dhehi
2. 5.

ihanvicamatibbib 6. 8.
ibai ’va ksemya edhi 4. 4.

nkhaqi svasarain adhivedim
asthat 6. 2.

uta pasyann asnuvan dirgbam avuh

6. 9.

uttistba devy adite 2. 4.
utpruso viprus.ih samjuhomi 1. 3.

Vol. xxxiii.] Register der Vers- u. Yajus-AtfUnge.

229

ud agne sucayas tava 2. 7.
udasthad devy adite 2. 4.
ud uttamam varuna 4. 1, 3.
ud uttamam mumugdhi nah 4. 1, 3.
uddhara "havaniyam 1. 1.
uddhriyamana uddhara papmano
m5 yad avidvto yac ca vidvama
cakara 1. 2.

undatih suphenah jyotismatia ta-
maavatih 6. 2.

upajiva nama stha ta imam jiveta 6. 6.
upahuto ’ham sumedha varcasvi 1.4.
upamsusavanas te vyanam patu 6. 6.
upamav-antaryamau . . . te pranapa-
nau patam 6. 6.
upe ’mam auatutim mama 5. 1.
uru visno vikramaava 2. 2.

urg asy iirjam mayi dhehi

6 . 1 .

ptaTe tra 2. 9.
rdhyaama putraih paaubhih 6. 5.
rbisad atrim mumcatho ganena 6. 9.
rsim narav amhasah pancajanyam
6. 9.

{■sim nara vrsana rebham apsu 6. 9.

esa te agne 3. 7.

oip syar jauat (of. svar janat)
3. 4; 4. 1.

om bhuTO janat (cf. bhuvo janat)
3. 4; 4. 1.

om bhur janat (cf. bhur janat) 4. 1.
om bhur bhuvah svar janat 3. 4; 4. 4.
osadbibhyas te lomani spriiomi svaha

2. 9. '

kaksivantam ya ansijah 4. 1.

kavir grhapatir yuva 2. 7.
kasmai devaya havisa paridadema

3. 10.

kayamano vana tvam 0. 2.
kim utpatasi kim utprosthah 4. 2.
krnuhi brahmanaspate 4. 1.

gaceha tvam adiiya paruvato

’nyaii 2. o.

I garbho na mrtah 6. 3.

gavitndragni kalpata yuvam 6. 6.

' gayatrim parsam adhahsira ’vapa-
dyasva 2. 9.

gayatrya tva sataksaraya samda-
dbami 4. 1.

; gayatryai chandase’bhibhutyai svaha

I 6. 6.

' grnano havyadataj’e 2. 7.

' gosa indo nrsa asi 6. 3.

gharmo vi^vaynh 4. 1.

eandrat te mana[h] sprnomi
svaha 2. 9.
calyakam cat?) 6. 2.

' chidraya vaca chidraya
j ihva (,?) 3. 10.

jauita vayani ma loko ’nn-
saiptanntaip 1. 5.
jagatim parsam adhahsira ’vapa-
dyasva 2. 9.

jivala. nama stha ta imam jiveta
samilveta 6. 6.

■ jiva nama stha ta imam jiveta 6. 6.
i jivika nama stha ta imam jiveta
j samjiveta 6. 6.

I justo hota varenyah 2. 1.

I jyotir bhutva devan apy etu(?; 1. 5.
i jyotismatah patho raksa dhiya krtan

i 1-3-

tarn TO ma ’va krami.saqi 6. 2.

: tato no abhayam krdhi 2. 4.

I tato no vrstya ’vata 6. 2.
i tato m.a dravinam ayta 1. 5.

! tatra rayistham anusambharai ’him

! '

; tatre ’mam yajuam yajamanam ca
dhehi 2. 6.

' tad it padam na viciketa vidvan 6. 3.

I tad vai puianam abhinavam strnisva
! 2. 5. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

j tantum tanvan rajaso bhanum a-
! nvihi 1. 3; cf. 6. 5.
j tan no astu visampate 2. 5.

. tan no mitro varuno mamahantam

1 6 . 1 .

230

J. V. NegeMn,

[1913.

tarn devesu paridadami vidvan 4. 1.
tam nirjagamo havisa ghrtena 2. 6.
tamnvams tanturupa seduragnel.S.
tapa sajnsam ararusah parasya 5. 6.
taps tapistha tapasa tapasvan 3. 6.
tapo vaso cikitano acittan 5. 6.
tapo by ague amtaiam amitram 5. 6.
tam ajarebhir vrsabbis tava svaib

5. 6.

tam abbyukta etena samdadhami3.4.
taya ’uantam kamam aham jayami
1 . 2 . ‘

taya me by aroha 3. 7.
taya me by avisa 3. 7.
tava jyotimsy arcayah 2. 7.
tabbia tvam ubbayibbib samvidanah

6. i

tam esam parinirjabi 2. 5.
tubhyam ta angirastama a. 3.
trtiyam trtiyena jyotisa 5. 3.
tejoda aai dbruvas tejo me dab
svaha 6. 3.

tena nara vartir asmabhyam yatam
6. 9.

te no raksanta sarvatah 2. 3.
tya tbadrstam adrjtam no daskrtam
karat 2. 3.

trataram indram 1. 5; 2. 1, 2; 6. 9.
trayatam a3mat{?) 2. 2.
trivrd yad bhuvanasya ratbavrt 6. 3.
tredba nidadbe padam 6. 2.
traistubbim parsam adbahaira ’va-
padyasva 2. 9.

tvam bi vettba yatba bavih 2. 4.
tvam by agne agnina viprah 2. 7.
tvam agne vratapa asi 2, 4, 8.
tvam agne sapratba asi 2. 1, 3, 8.
tvam tantur nta setur agne 1. 3.
tvam no agne 4. 1; 6. 1.
tvam no agne varnnasya vidvSn 4. 1.
tvam eva no jatavedah 2. 5.
tvam patba rajasi devayanah 1. 3.
tvaya ’gne prsUiam vayam amhema
1. 3.

tvaya yajnam vitanvate 2. 1.
tvasta me daivyam vacab 2. 6.
tvastre avaba 2. 6.
tvam yajno visnub 3. 4.
tvam saavanta npa yanti vajSb 6. 1.

daksakratn te mitrayaronan

pataqi 6. 6.

daksas ca tva manaaas ca srnitam
6. 3.

darbho raja samndriyah 2. 5.
darsas ca tva paurnamasas ca srni-
tam 6. 3.

digbbyas te jyoti[y sprnomi svaba
2. 9.

divam stabdbva ’ntariksam ca 6. 1.
divam prthivim 2. 5.
divas parjanyad antariksat samu-
drat 6. 2.

diva vrdham[?) 3. 10.
divi turiyam 1. 5.
divi botram airayat svaba (?) 3. 10.
divo ’cbata (?j 6, 8.
duritat pabi tasmat 2. 5.
duredrsam grbapatim atbaryum 6. 1.
devasya bedo "vayasislsthah 4. 1.
deva udno datto ’dadhim bbintta
6 . 2 .

devan janam agan 4. 1.
devan apy etu (?) 1. 6.
devanSm devah 6. 3.
devSn yajnena bodbaya 2. 4.
devan yajfio ’gat 1. 5.
devS yujo mitravaruna ’ryama yu-
ktam 6. 2.

deva vasav[y]a agne indra surya 6.2.
devah sapitayo apam napat tanuna-
pat 6. 2.

devo devebbyo bavyam vahatu pra-
janan 5. 1.

dosa vastoh svaba 4. 4.
dyubbir aktubbih paripatam asman

6 . 1 .

dyaus ca tva prtbivi ca 6. 3.
dyaus ca ma indraa ca me 6. 5.
drapsas caskanda 2. 5.
dvitiyam dvitiyena 5. 3.
dvisantam agne dviaatam ca vittam
2. 5.

dbartri dharitri janitri ya-
mitri 6. 1.

dbata dadatu pitub pitanastah 4. 1.
dbana dadbatu nab puma darve
2. 4.

Vol. xxxiiij Register der Vers- u. Yajus-Anfdnge.

231

dhruvam dhruvena 6. 3.
dhruva dyauh 6. 3.

naktam cid dura a sate 5. 6.
na tat te ague pramrse nivartanam
6 . 2 .

namas te astv ayate 4. 1.
namas te pathya revatl (?) 1. 4.
namas te bhuvah 6. 2.
na me yajno yajamanas ca risyat 2. 6.
namo astu parayate 4. 1.
namo yatra nisidasi 4. 1.
namo rudraya midhuse 2. 4.
narasamsa udno datto 'dadhim
bhintta 6. 2.

na vam juryamti purvya krtani 6. 9.
na ’ntaragamanam tesam sadhu
vichedanad bhayam 1. 3.
nirdagdha no amitrah 2. 5.
ni hota satsi barhisi 2. 7.
nedistho asya usaso vyustau 4. 1.

para u ta ekaip 5, 3.

pari nab patu visvatah 2. 5.
pasun nab sarvan gopaya 2. 4.
papmSuam agne tarn ito nudasva

2 . 5 .

pavako yad vanaspatin 5. 6.
pitrye pranita upasamyamanab 2. 5.
piprtam no bbarimabbib 4. 1. i

pibata gbrtam imam gbrtam 6. 6. i
putraso yatra pitaro bbavanti 6. 1. |
punar mat ’tv indrjyam 1.4; 6. 5, 9. ]
punas tva ’’ditya rudra vaaavah 2, 6.
punas tva pranah 2. 4.
punas tvo 'ddipayamasi 2. 5. ,

pustina pustim pranena pranam te- |
jasa tejas caksusa caksub sro- i
trena srotram ayusa ”yub punar ;
debi 6. 6. :

prtanajitam sabamanam 2. 1.
prtbivlm turlyam manusyan yajno
’gat 1. 5.

prtbivi vibbuvari(?) 6. 2.
prtbivyam ca drdba bbava 6. 1.
prtbivyas te sariram spmomi svaba

2. 9.

prtbivyai srotraya ’ntarikpya pra-

naya vayobhyo dive caksuse na-
ksatrebhyab suryaya ’dhipataye
svaba 6. 10.

prsadasva marutah prsnimatarab

6 . 1 .

prajam dvisadbbyo naya daksinena

2 . 5 .

prajapataye svaba dbatre svaba
pusne svaba 6. 8.

prajapatir yam pratbamo jigaya 1. 2.
prajapatih sarvam eve ’dam utsrjet

3. 10.

prajapater visvabbrtah skannabutam
asi svaba 4. 3.
pra na ayumsi tarisat 2. 7.
pranita upasamyasi 2. 5.
pra tad visnuh 5. 2.
prati na im surabhini vyantu 6. 1.
pratnani pati kavyah 6. 3.
pratno bota vivasate vam 6. 9.
pra vam damsamsy asvinav avocajp
6. 8, 9. ' '

prasasta kratunS ’jani 6. 2.
pra skannat prayatam havih 5. 5.
preddbo agne didibi puro nab 6. 1.

barhismati ratrir vi^rita
gill 6. 9.

brabmanas tva samtatya samtanomi

1. 3. '

bhadraip karnebhih sfun-
yama devah 6. 1.

bbadram pasyema ’ksabbir yajatrab

6 . 1 .

bbadrSd abbi sreyab prebi 1. 5.
bbadrad adbi sreyab prebi 2. 4.
bbuvaya svaba bbuvanaya svaba
bbuvanapataye svaba bbuvampa-
taye svaba visnave svaba 2. 6.
bbuvo janat cf. om bbuvo janat.
bbupataye svaba 4. 1.
bbumir bbumim agat 6. 5.
bbur janat of. om bbur janat; 4. 1.
bhus 5. 3.

manina rdpani 5. 6.
madbyab somasyasvina madaya 6. 9.
manase cetase dbiye 2. 5.

232

J. V. Negdein,

[1913.

inanur bhava janaya daivyam ja- |
nam 1. 3. |

mantravanti ca karyani sarvany |
adhyayanam ca yat 1. 3.
mama ’gne varcah 2. 5; 6. 1. '

mayobhuva supranlti gamema 6. 1.
mahato mahima asya 3. 10.
mabi dyauh prthivi ca nah 4. 1; ;
cf. 4. 3.

mata mataram apy agat 6. 3.
ma tva dabb(y)an yatudhanah 2. 5. ;
ma na apo medbam 1. 4. |

mS nah kimcana rlrisah 4. 2. |

ma nab piparid (1. piparad ?) asvina ■

6. 9. '

ma nah prapad uchuna kacid anya j
3. id !

maausat ta akasad divyam akasam !

aprnomi svaha 2. 9. ;

ma no asya jagatah parthivasya 3. 10. i
ma no madhya ririsatSyur gantoh ;
6 . 1 .

ma no mabantam 4. 1,

ma no medbam ma no diksam 1. 4.

ma no vidan 2. 4; 6. 9.

ma no himsista^m) yat tapah 1. 4.

manda vasah suadbyur ajirah 6. 2.

ma pragama patho vayam 6. 6.

ma prabasih 4. 4.

ma bradhnah sarmabbih stuhi (?)

2, 5.

ma brahma pramathistana 1. 4.
mam amum amusyayauam 4. 4.
ma himsir deva presitah 4. 2.
mitrah krstir animisa ’bbicaste 4. 3.
mitrahvprtbivja adbyaksah (?) 1. 2.
mitrabhrtah ksatrabbrtah svarastra '
iha ma ’vata 6. 2.

mitraya varunaya ca 2. 4. ‘

mitraya havyam ghrtavaj juhota 4. 3.
mitro janan yatayati 4. 3.
mitro dadhara prthivim 4. 3.
minamta dasyor asivasya mayah
6. 9.

ya indrena srsto yadi tS i
marndbhih 2. 6. -

ya imam 2. 2.

ya rta cid abhisrisah 6. 5.

yaksmad asmad amayatah 2. 2.
yajamanaiji ca varddhaya 2. 4.
yajistho vahnitamah 30sucanah4. 1.
yajna eti vitatah kalpamanah 2. 9.
yajnas ca tva daksina ca srnitam 6. 3.
yajnas ca tva vayus ca srnitam 6. 3.
yajnasya tva pramayo-’nmaya-’bhi-
maya pratimaya paridadema svaha
4. 1.

yajnasya samtatir asi yajnasya tva
samtatya samtanomi 1. 3.
yajnasya hi stha rtvija 6. 6.
yato jatas tato ’py avam (?) 4. 1.
yatkamas te juhumah 2. 5.
yat kim ce ’dam varuna 1. 2.
yat tvam agne 2. 5.
yatra devaih sadhamadam madema

1. 3. '

yatra nas cakra jarasam tanunam

6 . 1 .

yatbe ’dam barhis tatha 2. 5.
yad agnir barhir adahat(?) 2. 5.
yad agne purvam nihitam padam
hi te 5. 2.
yad asmrti 3. 4.

yad udagan mahato mahima asya
3. 10.

yad dure sann iha ‘bhavah 6. 2.
yad va grban ghoram uta ’’jagama

2 . 6 .

yad vaco yao ca me hrdah 6. 1.
yad va yajnam no ’dbbutam ajaga-
ma 2. 6.

yad va ’skaadad dhaviso yatra-yatra

1. 3.

yam tvam agne 2. 5.
yau matfr ajagann apah 6. 1.
yan mrtah punar apy eti jivan 6. 3.
yan me cbidram manaso yac ca va-
cah 1. 3.

yan me manasas chidram 6. 1.

yan me skannam 3. 4.

yan me skannam manaso jatavedab

1. 3.

y amo raja no yayau (?) 2. 3.

yayor ojasa 1. 5; 6. 9.

yayoh sarvam 2. 9.

yas tvam agne pramattanam 2. 6.

yasmat krnoti ketum a 5, 6,

Vol. xxxiii.] Eegister der Yers- u. Yajus-Anfiinge.

233

yasmad bhitd nisidasi 2. 4.
yasman minoty ajarah 5. 6.
yas te agiia ardra yonayo yah kula-
yinih 6. 2.

yas te agne tanva urjo nama (>.2.
yupah papata dvisatam vadliaya2.6.
yupo virohafi chatatekho adhvarah
2 . 6 .

yupo hy aruksad dvisatam vadhaya

2 . 6 .

ye te agna indavo yii u nabhayah

6 . 2 .

ye deva yajiiam fiyauti 2. 5.
yena gachathah sukrto duronain 6. 9.
yena patha vaivasvatah 2. 3, 8.
yehhih saTjitvam pitaro na asau 6. 9.
yo agnih 3. 7.

yo aiutaro mitramaho vanusyat 5. 6.
yogaksemasya santya 4. 2.
yo nah saiiutyo abhidiXsad ague 5. 6.
yo no dvesti sa bhidyataiii 6. 5. >

yo vanasputlnain upatapo lui agat

2 . 6 .

yo vanaspatinam upatapo babhuva !

2 . 6 . I

yo vam asviiia manuso javiyan 6. 9. 1

raksobliyas tva 2. 9.

rathah svasvo visa ajigati 6. 9.
ratrya yad enah krtam asti papaiu

1.2. ■ ■ ■ i

rudranam tva devanaiii vyatte ’pi '
dadhami 2. 9.

rudras tva tarpayantu 6. 3.

valsaro ’si parivatsaro ’si
saijivatsaro ’si 2. 9. I

vanaspate ’mtatah sya 3. 4. [

vanvan havir yatha devebhyah 2. 4. i
vaya iva ’nu rohate 6. 2. ;

varunaya svaha ’’dityebhyah sv;dia
jagatyai svaha 6. 9. ]

varuno ma ’’dityaih suryo ma dya- i
vaprthivibhyam praticya disah j
patu 6. 9. I

varcoda asi dhruvo varco me dah i
svaha 6. 3. I

vasavas tva, ’’dis tarpayantu 6. 3. i
vasunam rudranam adityanam maru- ;
VOL. XXXIII P.irt HI.

tarn rsinain bhrguuam amgirasam
atharvauam hrahmaiiah samtatir
asi 1. 3.

vasunam tva devauaiii vyatte ’pi
dadhami 2. 9.
vacakam japam (?) 3. 7.
vaca, tva hotra, pranena ’dhvaryuna
caksuso ’dgatra manasa brahmana
srotrena ’’gnidhrenai ’tais tva pa-
ncabhir rtvigbhir daivyairabhyud-
dharami 1. 2.
j vaca brahma 3. 6.

I vfijam gomantam abhara 2. 0.
vata avatu bhesajam 2. 5.
vatat te pranam sprnomi Bvfiha 2. 9.
vayave tva 2. 9.

vasah prasastani prati me gidiana
2. 5.

vi te ti.sthantam ajura ayasah 6. 6.
vidyuta bhrayanti dyotate 2. 7.
vidyuto ’gnir jihva 2. 7.
vidyotate dyotate 2. 7.
vidvaii asya vrata dhruva (3. 2.
vi pasam mad by amain cita 4. 1.
viprena san sala 2. 7.
vipro viprena 2. 7.
vimrgvarim piithivim avadami 1. 3.
vivicim ratnadhiltamam 2. 7.
visvTi dvesainsi pramumugdhy asmat
4. 1.

visvah suksitayah prthak 5. 3.
visve no deva avasa gamann iha

6 . 1 .

visvesani tva devanain vyatte ’pi
dadhami 2. 9.

visvais tad devaih saha sanividanah

1. 3.

visnave svaha 2. 6.
visyannam (1. vesy annum? visyan-
nam?) agne tvam nah 4. 3.
viryam te laksmih patu 6. 3.
vlhi mrlikam suhavo na edhi 4. 1.
vrsabhara carsanlnam visvarupam
4. 1.

vrsno asvasya samdanam asi vrstyai
tvo ’panahyami 6. 2.
vedabhigupto brahmana parivrtah

2 . 6 .

vedya vaso apo(m) bhata (?) 2. 5.

234

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

vaisvanarah pathikrd viivagKtih

2. 3.

vaisvanaro na utaye 2. 3.
vyasema devahitam yad ayuh 6. 1.

satam in un sarado anti
derah 6. 1.

satam cinvanas (1. "nas?) tanva nisi-
data 6. 2.

sam no astu dvipade sam catuspade

i 6.

sam no devlr abhistaye 2. 4.
santah tenter iha “gahi 4. 2.
tesa ittha mahan asi 2. 3.
siro yajnasya pratidhiyatam 6. 1.
siva nah samsvamta ayuse 1. 4.
sivau vayam uttarema ’bhi vajan 2.6.
siva bhavantu matarah 1. 4.
sivau bhavatam adyo nah 2. 7.
sukra bhrajanta Irate 2. 7.
sukro ’si 6. 8.

sucir viprah sucih kavih 2. 7.
iuel rocata ahutah 2. 7.
subhamyavano vidathesu jagmayah
6 . 1 ."

susyada(l.; susma"?) yuyam syanda-
dhvam 1. 4.

srnltam antariksam ca 6. 3.
sriyam tistha pratisthita 6. 1.
srotram ca ’svinau patam 6. 6.

saqive^ayo ’pavesaya gaya-
tryai ehandase’bliibhutyai
ST ah a 6. 6.

sakba sakbya samidhyase 2. 7.
sa gayatrya tristubha jagatya ’nustu-
bha 5. 1.

samkrahisyam (?) tva juhudhi 4. 2(?).
sajur agnaye diva prthivya haviso
vibi svaha 4. 4.

sajflr jatavedo diva prthivya haviso
vibi svaha 4. 4.

satnjivika nama stha ta imam jiveta

6 . 6 .

satyam purvair rsibhis cakupanah

6 . 2 .

satyah santu yajamanasya kamab

1. i

sa tvam nah 4. 1; 6. 1.

sa tvam no ’gne 4. 1.
sa tvam no agne ’vamo bhavo”tI 4. 1.
sa no rasva suviryam 2. 7.
sam tat sihcatu radbasa 6. 1.
sam tarn rinitho viprutam damso-
bhih 6. 9.

samdadhatu brhaspatih 1. 3.
sam nah srja sumatya vajavatya 5.2.
sapta jihvah sapta rsayah 6. 1.
sapta te agne samidhah 6. 1.
sapta dhama priyani 6. 1.
sapta yonir aprnasva ghrtena 6. 1.
saptarsinam sukrtam yatra lokah
2 . 6 . ’

sapta hotrah saptadha tva yajanti

6 . 1 .

sam asvinor avasa nutanena 6. 1.
samavrto mohayisyan yajamanasya
loke 2. 6.

samasincantu 6. 2, 5.
samudram tva prahinomi 4. 3.
samudham asya pamsure 5. 2.
samrad asi svarad asi 5. 1.
sarasvatl manyumantam jagama 1.3.
sarvam tad ague butam astu bha-
gasah 2. 6.

sarvasmad enasa uddbrto muSca
tasmat 1. 2.

sasnl vajesu karmasu 6. 6.
sahase dyumna urje ’patyaya 5. 1.
sabasrasrhgah 2. 6; 4. 1.
saboda asi dhruvah saho me dah
svaha 6. 3.

sakam hi sucina sucih 6. 2.
sarasvatau tvo ’tsau pravatani 5. 1.
sukalpam agne tat tvaya 2. 5.
suparna vacam 5. 6.
suprajSstvam satam hi mamadanta
4. 1.

susvanah pavate sutah 6. 3.
suyavasad bhagavatl 2. 4.
suryam te caksur gacchatu 3. 10.
suryasya rasmin anvatatana 5. 2.
suryat te caksu[h] sprnomi svaha
2. 9.

Buryo jyotir jyotih suryah 1. 2.
Buryo ma dyavaprthivibhyam 6. 9.
somat te rajnah kirttim yates ca
sprnomi svaha 2. 9.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Wortindex.

235

somanam svaranam 4. 1.
somaya svaha rudrebhyah svaha
tristubhe svaha 6. 9.
somo ma rudrair daksinaya disah
patu 6. 9.

skannam visvam idam jagat 5. 6.
skannado visve devah 5. 5.
skanna dyauh skanna prthivi 5. 5.
sthirair ai'igais tustuvamsas tanu-
bhih 6. 1.

snehebbyas te snavanam sprnomi
svaha 2. 9.

syuta devebhir amrteiia ”gah 6. 2.
svar janat s. oip svar janat.

svasti iia indi’O vrddhasravah 6. 1.
svasti narayanah (?) 1. 4.
svasti nab piisa visvavedah 6. 1.
svasti nas tarksyo ’ristanemih 6. 1.
svasti no brhaspatir dadhatu 6. 1.
svasti ma parayanah (?) 1. 4.
svasti ma punarayanah 1. 4.

havyavad juhvasyah 2. 7.

havya devesu no dadhat 6. 1.
hastacyuti janayanta prasastam 6. 1.
hiranmayam haritam tat strtaip nah

2. 5.

hiranyagarbhah 4. 3; 6. 3.

Wortindex.

aqihomuc 6. 7.
akrta 3. 10.
akrltasoma H. 4.
agada 2. 9.
agatha 3. 8.

agni 8. anahitagni; ahitagni;
indra”; eka”; aiudragiia;
daksinagni; vrthagni; 1.1;
2. 2. .3. 4, 8. 9; 3. 1, 2, 4; 4. 4;
5. 3, 5; (i. 6.
agnigrha 5. 4.
agnimant 2. 7; 5. 4.
agnistoma 3. 3.

agnihotra s. sm rtagniho trin.

1. 2. 3, 2. 8; 3. 6; 4. .3.

4; 5. 1, 2, 4.
agnihotrin 2. 4.
agnidh 2. 0; 3. 8.
agnidhriya 1. 2.
agnlsomiya 3. 1.
agnyanvadhana 5. 3.
agnyadheya 4. 3.
agra 6. 1.
agranthin 2. 9.
agha 2. 6.
angaprabhrti 3. 7.
angSra 2. 6; 4. 1; 6. 7.
ac + a 1. 3.
achavaka 3. 3.
acheta 3. 1.
aja 5. 6; 6. 7.
ajagara 5. 6.

aja 5. 2, 6.

I anj -j- abhi 3. 8.

atithi 3. 1.

1 atipaiti 4. 4.

I atipanna 2. 2, 3.
j atipata s. kala°.

I atiratra 6. 7.

I atisista 1. 3.
atharvan 3. 2, 4; 6. 10.
atharvaveda 1. 1; 0. 10.
ad 4. 4.

api 2. 4.

I adattapurvadhaiia 6. 1.
adahpurah 2. 9.
adarsana s. sarlra°.
aditi 3. 1.

adugdha 2. 8.
adobarhisa 2. 9.
adosa 4. 1.
adbhuta 6. 10.
adya 2. 2, 3.
adhas 2. 2, 3.

; adhastat 4. 4.

I adhi 1. 3.
j adhipati 3. 1.

; adhisrita 2. 9; 4. 2.

! adhyadhi 2. 5.

I adhyayana 1. 3.

! adhyatmam 1. 1.

adhvaryu 1. 2; 2. 6; 3. 4, 6; 6. 1.
' anagni 6, 4.
anagnigrha 6. 4.

236

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

anadvah 5. 3.
anantaram 6. 6.

anabhyuddhj'ta 1. 2; 4. 3, 4; 3. 1, 2.

anas 5. 2; 6. 1.

anajnata 6. 9.

analambhuka 4. 2.

anahitagni 3. 8j 5. 3.

anitya 3. 9.

anugata 2. 4, 7; 4. 4; 3. 4.
anucara 1. 1.
anuttha 3. 6.
anutputa 4. 1.
anudesana 2. 9.
annpadam 2. 5.
anupranita 6. 1.
anupradana 6. 7.
anuyaja 3. 3.

anuvaka s. pratar°; 6. 8.
anta 3. 4; 5. 5; 6. 1.
antahparidhidesa 4. 1, 3.
antara s. devata”; 4. 2.
antara 3. 3.
antaragamana 1. 3.
antariksa 3. 1.
antarena 1. 3, 5; 2, 3; 5. 2.
antaresti 3. 10.
antardesa 2. 9.

antaryama s. upamsv”; 6. 6.

antarhita 3. 1,

antastantra 3. 9.

antahsadas 6. 1.

autika 3. 3.

anna 4. 1 ; 3. 6.

annapati 1. 1 ; 2. 7 ; 3. 4.

annada 1. 1; 2. 7; 5. 4.

annadya 2. 7.

anya 2. 5; 6. 4, 9.

anyatarat 4. 1.

anyatra 3. 1.

anyavatsa 2. 8.

anvadhaiia s. agny°.

anvahita 5. 3.

anvahitagni 3. 3.

anvicamati (?) 6. 8.

3 ap 1. 5; 2. 6; 3. 2, 4, 7; 3. 2;

6 . 5 , 6 .
apara 5. 1, 5.
aparajita 6. 9.
aparadha s. vidhy"; 5. 3.

aparahnika 6. 8.
aparena 1. 3.
apahatapapman 1. 5.
apana s. prana°.
apidagdha 6. 4.
apita 8. pi tap it a.
apsumant 2. 7; 5. 4.

I abbaksadusta 4. 1.
i abhaya 1. 1; 2. 4; 6. 9.

; abhava s. tandula”.

I abhicarika 6. 6.

I abhipraya s. sain vats ara°.

' abhima 3. 1.

j abhimatihendra (?) 3. 2.
i abhimrsta 6. 3.

1 abbihita 3. 2.

I abbyastam 1. 2; 6. 8, 9.

! abbyavrtta 3. 3.

I abbyuddrsta s. drsta” ; 2. 3.
i aniavasya 2. 2, 3.

amrta 6. 1.

I amedhya 1. 3; 2. 1.

; ayata 3. 8.

■ ayomaya 6. 5.
i ar 6. 8.

I arani 2. 8; 3. 8; 4. 4; 5. 1.
i aranipani 4. 4.

' aranya 2. 7.

: arjuna 6. 4.

, artti 6. 8.

' artbalopa 6. 8.

■ arddbarca 4. 1.

' arddbahuta 2. 9.

ardh + sam 1. 1.
i ardba 3. 3.

; arvak s. udag".
i alabhyamaua 5. 1.
avakhya (?) 5. 3.

avadana s. devata"; yatha"; 2. 9
3. 9, 10; 5. 3.
avadanakarman 5. 5.
avadarana 6. 9.
avapanna s. kita° 6. 5.
arabbrtha 3. 3, 3.
avaruddha 3. 8.
avaskanna 1. 3,
avantaradiksa 3. 1.
avapastbana 4. 1.
avara 3. 3.

Vol. xxiiii.]

Wortindex.

237

avi 5. 6.

avidhivihita 3. 8.
avisamapta 5. 6.
avyavahita 3. 9.
avratya 5. 4.

2 as 4. 3; 5. 2.

+ pra 2. 4.
asanapipasa 2. 4.
asisa (?) 3. 10.
asesa 3. 6.
asmamaya 3. 7.
asmarathya 3. 5, 7, 8, 9.
asru 5. 4.
asva 5. 2, 6; 6. 7.
asvanam (?) 6. 8.
asvamedha 6. 7.
astan 2. 5.

astakapala 2. 1, 4, 7; 3. 10; 5. 1,
3, 4; 6. 6, 7.
ast'ipad 2. 5.
asamapta 2. o, 6.
asamarudha 4. 4.
asamaropita s. sainaropita°.
asarva 2. 8.
asaman 3. 8.
asura 3. 1; 6. 10.
asuravant 1. 3.
astam s. abhy°.
astamita 4. 4.
asthi 2. 8; 3. 8; 6. 7.
asthiputa 6. 7.

ahan s. aparahnika; tadahar-
tau(?); trtiyaha; 3. 3.
aharahas 4. 4.
abargana 5. 6.

abuta s. skanna°;hutakuta; 1.2,
3; 2. 6; 4. 3; 5.1; 6.8.
ahut\a 1. 3; 2. 4.
ahoratra 3. 9.

akrti s. purusa".

agata 3. 6.
agnihotri 2. 4.
agnldhra 1. 2; 4. 2.
agnidhrlya 3. 1, 2; 6. 1, 2, 6.
agneya 3. 3, 4, 10; 4. 1; 6. 7.
agrayana 6. 3.
acarya 3. 5, 8; 6. 8.
acaryakalpa 6. 8.

: ajyas. durva*; 1.5; 2. 1, 3, 9; 5. 5.

; ajyabhaga 6. 7.

! ajyabhaganta 4. 1.

I ajyahavis 2. 1.
ajyahoma 3. 4.

■ ajyahuti s. panca°; 1. 1, 3, 3; 2. 1,
4, 5, 9; 4. 3.

I atithya 3. 1.

I adarsana 1. 2; 3. 3; 6. 7.

! adhavanlya 3. 3.
adhvaryava 3. 4.
anupurvya 3. 9.
anustubha 2. 9.
aiitariksa 6. 10.
ap -p anu + pra 3. 1.

+ sam s. asamapta; samapta
2. 2, 8; 6. 7.

-p vi-(-sam s. avisamapta.
apatti s. durga°; 3. 5.
apad 3. 3, 8; 5. 2.
apri 3. 2.
amavasya 3. 10.
ayatana 1. 5; 2. 1; 3. 4.
ayu 3. 2, 9.
ayudha s. yajna*.
aranya 5. 6.
arta(?) 6. 8.
artti 6. 8.
artija 5. 4.
artvijya(?) 6. 8.
arbhava 6. 4.
arseya 1. 2.
avrtta 6. 2.

I asis 2. 9.

' asu 6. 1.
asvina 3. 3; 4. 1.
asvinl 6. 1, 7.
as 1. 3; 5. 2.

+ upa 4. 4.
asana s. yajamana".
asandl 3. 1.
asannakarman 3. 2.
asava 6. 7.
asrava 5. 5.
aharana 2. 8.

ahavanlya 1. 1, 2, 3, 3; 2, 1, 4, 5, 9;

3. 4, 8; 4. 1; 5. 1, 4; 6. 2, 6, 10.
ahavamyagSrhapatya 1. 3, 3; 2. 3.
ahara s. raja”.

238

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

ahitagni s. an" j an v’ 2. 8; 3.7, 8; 5.4.
ahuti s. ajya°; paficajj-a"; pra-
tar°; 1. 2; 2. 5; 4. 2.
ahutilopavyatyasa 4. 1.
ahutivela 4. 2.

i + antar 4. 2.

+ api 1. 6.

+ abhi 6. 7.

+ abhyaatam 1. 2; 6. 8, 9.

+ vi + ava 1. 5; 5. 2.

+ nd 1. 3.

+ abhi + ud 1. 2; 4. 4; 3. 3.

+ abhi 4- upa 3. 5.

+ adhi -{- abhi + upa 2. 7.

+ dus 3. durita.

+ prati 3. 7, 8.
itara 2. 4; 3. 9, 10; o. 1.
idhma s. samnaddhedhmaba-
rhis.

indra 2. 2, 3; 3. 2; 3. 3, 6.
indragni 3. 2.
indha (?) 3. 1.
ista 2. 6.

isti 8. antare'; punar'; 3. 4, 9;
4. 1; 6. 7.

ik§ + sam 3. 9.

Isvara 1. 3.

nkta 6. 9.
uktha 3. 3.
uks + pari 3. 6.

sam + pra 2. 3.
ukha 2. 9; 6. 2, 9.
ukhya 6. 1, 2.
ucchista 2. 9.
uttama 6. 6.
uttara 3. 2; 6. 5, 8.
uttaratas 2. 9.
uttaravedi 3. 1.
uttaravedisroni 3. 2.
uttha 8. an”; svayam”; 3. 3.
utthita 3. 1.
utputa 4 1.
utsanna 3. 7.
udak 2. 6.

! udaka 2. 3.

udakpadya 2. 5.

' udagarvak 6. 6.

ndatantu 1. 3.

. udapatra 2. 4.
udayanlya 3. 3.
ndumbara 5. 6.
udgatar 1. 2; 3. 4; 6. 1, 3.
unnita 3. 3.

: unnetar (!) 6. 5.

unma 3. 1.

; upacara 3. 5.

I upacarabhaksaprayascitti (?) 3. 5.
upatapa 3, 9.
upatapin 2. 9.

. upadJksa 3. 9; 6. 7.

I uparava 3. 2; 6. 3.

uparuddha s. rudh + upa.

' upala 5. 6.
upavasatha 3. 2.
upavefo 6. 6.

! npasad 3. 1.

. upasatnnaddha 3. 1.

' upasthana 4. 4.

I upamsvantaryama 3. 2; 6. 6.
upakrta 2. 9; 5. 5.
upayana s. vrato”.
ubha 4. 4.
usna 1. 3.

Qdha^; 2. 4.
uru 3. 1 ; 6. 7.

. urj 5. 6.

I uh 4- nis 1. 3.

rc s. arddharca; trc; 1.2, 5; 2.

1, 4, 6, 9; 3. 4; 4. 1.
rjisa 3. 3.

rtu s. tadahartau.

rtvij 1. 2; 2. 6; 3. 9; 6. 4, 7, 9.

rddbi 1, 3.

r.sabha 5. 6.

ekakapala 2. 8; 4. 1, 4.
ekatantra 3. 9.

1 ekahayana 4. 1.

; ekagni 1. 1; 2. 9; 6. 9.

ekadaaa 3. 7.

, ekadasakapala 3. 10.

239

Vol. xxxiii.] Wortindex.

ekannatrimfeh (?) 6. 8.
ekaha 3. 9.
ekaika 6 5.
edha 3. 8.

aindra 2. 1; 3. 3, 10; 4. 1.
aindravayava 6. 7.
aindragna 3. 1, 3.
aiudrabarhaspatya 3. 3.
aindravaruna 3. 3.
aindravaisnava 3. 3.

odana s. bralimau° 4. 1.
osadhi 3. 2; 5. 6; 6. 4.

anttaraTedika 6. 1, 2.
audumbara 6. 1.
audgatra 3. 4.
aupavasathya 2. 9.

kakubha 3. 3.

katham 1. 1, 3; 2. 3, 8, 9; 3. 3, 7, 8.
kapala s. eka°;ekadasa”;catuh'’;
trayodasa”; tri”; dvadaia';
dvi*;nava’;sapta°;4. 1; 6. 2.
kam 6. 4.
kar 3 . krta.

+ apa + a 4. 1.

+ apa + a s. upilkrta; 2. 9;

4. 2; 6. 6, 8, 9.

4- abhi + upa -f- a 6. 3.

+ paryagni 2. 9.

+ punas 1. 1.
karna 5. 2.

karman s. avadana"; asanna';
yajamana'; 1. 1 ; 2. 3, 6; 3. 5,
6, 8; 4. 2.

karmaviparyasa 3. 4.
karmasesa 2. 5.

kalasa s. tat°; soma°; 6. 4, 6.
kalp s. klpta.

+ upa 2. 5.

kalpa s. acarya”; nitya°.
kavyavahana 2. 9.
kanks + a 1. 1.
kanva 3. 5, 8.

kama s. vaksya'; 3. 9, 10.
kamasukta 2. 3.
karin s. soma”.

karya s. yatha°; 1. 3.

kala 3. nityahoma"; bhaksa";

varttamana"; 3. 6.
kalatipata 5. 3.
kimcit 3. 8, 9; 6. 1, 4.
kim 2. 2, 3.
kiyant 3. 6.

kitavapanna 2. 6; 4. 1, 3.

kirttanastotra 6. 7.

kirtay^ 6. 7.

kusala 2. 9.

krta 2. 2, 3; 3. 10.

krtamtva (?) 6. 4.

krsna 6. 2.

klpta 6. 8.

klpti 3. 8.

kesasmasru 3. 7.

kratu s. sarva"; 6. 4.

kram + ati 3. 9.

+ upa (?) 6. 4.
krayana s. soma”,
kri 3.1; 6. 4.

+ pari s. parikrlta.
krlta 3. 1; 0. 4.
kritasoma s. a
ksal + pra 2. 3 ; 3. 2.
ksama s. vi°; sarva"; 2. 1.
ksamavatl 3. 5.
ksamavant 2. 1 ; 3. 4.
kslrasri 3. 3.
ksodistha 5. 3.

khya + yi + a s. vy akhyata; 1. I ;

2. 9; 3. 1, 6; 6. 1.
khya + pari 3. 1.

+ pra 2. 4.

4- sam 4- pra 2. 4.

4- pra 4- sam 3. 6.

4- prati s. pratikhyata.

gana s. ahar° 3. 3.
gam 6. 3.

4- adhi 2. 4, 9.

4- anu s. anugata; 1. 5; 3. 9
4.3; 3. 1, 3; 6. 1.

4- a s. agata.

4- a 2. 4; 3. 5, 6, 8; 6. 7.

4- apa 4- a 6. 8.

3 gar 1. 5.

240

J. V. Negelein,

[1913

earbha s. hiran) a’; 2. 5, 1

2 ga 3. 8. ' !

+ ud 3. 10. i

gayatrl 5. 6; 6. 6. |

garhapatya s. ahavaniya”; 1.1,3, j
5; 2. 3; 3.4, 8; 4. 1, 4; 6. 1.
garhapatyalaksaiia 5. 1.
garhapatyajya 2. 3.
guspita 1. 5.

grha s. agni°; 1. 1; 5. 4.
grhapati 3. 9.
grhita s. catur”; 2. 5.
go 2. 8; 5. 5, 6.
gotrin 3. 7.
gopayana 3. 5, 8.
gaurivita 6. 6.
granthi 2. 9.

grab 8. grhita; caturgrhita;
sarpkrahisy am; 3. 9; 6. 2, j
3, 7, 10.

+ ud 3. 2; 6. 1.

+ pari 4. 1 ; 6. 6.
graha 6. 3, 7.
grama 2. 7.
gramya 2. 7; 5. 4.
gravan 6. 3.

ghar + abhi 2. 1, 9.
gharmadugha 2. 4.
ghrta 4. 1.

caks + a 2. 2, 3.

+ pari 6. 2.
caksus 1. 2.
catuhkapala 4. 1.
caturgrhita 1. 5; 2. 3; 6. 8.
catnhaarava 4. 1.
candramas 3. 4, 10; 5. 3, 6.
cam + a 2. 9.
camasa 3. 5; 6. 3, 7.
car + abhi 2. 9.

+ pari 2. 9.

-b pra 3. 6, 9; 4. 1.

+ anu + pra 4. 1.
caru 1. 2; 4. 4; 5. 1, 3.
carusthali 1. 3.
candramasa 3. 4.
carin 3. 7.
ci + vi 3. 1.

ci + sam 6. 2.
cittavyapattyus (?) 3. 5.
cinta 3. 8.

1 cyu 1. 5.

chad + anu (?) 3. 7.
chandas 3. 1, 2; 5. 6; 6. 0.
chaya 1. 1.
chid + pra 6. 1.

4-vi s. vichinna; 2. 1, 10;

5. 1; 6. 5.

+ abhi + vi 6. 9.
chedana 6. 9.

jail 2. 9; 5. 2, 5.

janapada g. samana"; 6. 1, 4.

japa 8. bhaksa°; 2. 9; 6. 9.

jaramarya 3. 6.

jagata 2. 9.

jaiigala 3. 10.

janu 1. 3.

jamim(?) 6. 8.

ji s. aparajita.

jiv 3. 6, 9.

-f-ati 2. 9.
jna 3. 8.

-b auu 6. 6.

-b a s. anajiiata.

4- pra s. p raj fiat a.

+ vi 3. 8; 6. 6.

+ sam 3. 2.

jyotismant 2. 7; 5. 1, 4.

] jyotis 1. 5; 3. 4.
jval-bpra 2. 5; 3. 7, 8.

taiiilula 5. 3.

tamlulabhava 5. 3.
tatkalafe 6. 6.

; tatrastha 3. 10.

tadahartau (?) vgl. ahan; rtu; 6. 8.
taddevatya 3. 3.
taddaivatya 6. 8.

, tadrupa 2. 9; 5. 5.

tadvarna 2. 9; 3. 5.

I tan 1. 6.

+ sam 8. sarntata; 1. 3.
tanu s. soma°; 6. 8.

' tantu s. uda”.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Wortindex.

241

tantumant 2. 1, 8; 5. 4, 4.
tantra s. eka°; nana°; 2. 8; 3. 9,
10; 6. 7.
tap + sam 2. 9.
tapas 3. 1 ; 6. 6.
tapasvatl 5. 1.
tar 1. 1.

taruiii s. palasa°.
tanunaptra 3. 1.
tantrika 2. 5.
tavant 2. 8; 3. 6.
tirasca 4. 4.
tirtha 3. 3.
tusiiim 1. 1 ; 3. 8.
trca 6. 4.
trna 2. 4.
trtiya 3. 3.

trtiyasavana 3. 3; 6. 4, 9.
trtiyaha 2. 9.
tejas 2. 3.

taittiriyabrabmana 6. 8.
trayastrinisat 6. 8.
trayodasa 6. 1.
trayodasakapala 5. 3.
tri 2. 9; 6. 7, 8.
tnkapala 4. 1.
trivrt 5. 6.
tristubb 6. 6.
tredba 2. 2; 5. 3.
traistubba 2. 9.
tvaj 3. 8.
tvar 5. 1.

+ sam 1. 5.
tvastra 2. 6; 5. 6.

daksina 1. 3, 5; 2. 6; 3. 2; 4. 2;

5. 2; 6.1,7.
daksinatas 2. 9.

daksina s. paiicadaksina; sar-
vavedasa”; 3. 3; 5. 3, 5; 6, 1.
daksinagni 1. 1, 5; 3. 4, 8; 4. 1,4;
5, 1.

daksinagra 4. 4.
dadhi 5. 3.

1 dar + a 4. 1.

4- vi 6, 4, 6.

darbba a sa°; 1. 2; 2. 5; 3. 8; 5. 3.
darbbastamba 5. 2.
dari 2. 2, 3; 6. 10.

dars + abbi + “d s. abby uddrsta;

drstabbyuddrsta.
darsapurnamasa 5. 3.
dasaratra 3. 7.
da&baviska (?) 6. 7.

■ das upa 6. 3, 5.
dab 2. 9; 3. 8.

-f api s. apidagdba.

4- ava it. 1.

4- sam 2. 9.
dahana 6. 9.

1 da + a 6. 5, 9.

I 4- vi 4- a s. vyatta; 2. 9

3 da 4“ ava 2. 9 ; o. o.
datar 2. 2; 5. 3.
darumaya 6. 5.
dava 2. 7; 5. 4.
dasya (?) 6. 4.

divya 2. 7; 3. 1; 5. 4; 6. 10.
dis 8. pratidisam.

4- anu 2. 9.
j 4- pra 2. 9.

1 diks 4- upa s. upadiksa; 6. 7.
j 4- sam s. sarndiksita.

! diksa s. avantara°; 3. 1; 6. 8,
diksavamtva (?) 6. 4.

■ diksita 2. 9; 6. 1, 7.

, dip 5. 2.

! 4- a 2. 5.

i durita 6. 8, 9.

durgapatti 3. 9.

I duhslita 4. 1.

I 1 dus 4. 1.

I dusta 3. abhaksa°; 2. 6; 4. 2.
i dub 3. adugdha; sudradugdba;
: 1. 3; 2. 4; 4. 1.

j durvajya 6. 10.

; drdha 5. 5.

, drsta 2. 3; 6. 10.

; drstabbyuddrsta 2. 2.
deva 2. 6; 5. 6; 6. 10.

■ devata s. taddevatya; taddai-
i vatya;yaddevatya; visnuva-
' runadevatya; 3. 2, 4; 6. 6.

devatantara 4. 1.
devatamaya 6. 1.

‘ devatavadana 4. 1.

devaloka 3. 8.

1 devaspyti 2. 9.

242

J. V, Negdein,

[1913.

daivata 2. 2, 3; 3. 4.

daivatya s. tad°.

daivya 1. 2.

dohana 4. 3.

dyo 3. 1, 4; 5. 6.

dyotana 6. 3.

dru + anu 5. 1.

dvadafekapala 2. 3; 4. 4; 5. 3.

dvadasaratra 4. 4.

dvadasi(?) 6. 4.

dvi 2. 4.

dvikapala 4. 1.

dviliya 5. 3.

dvis + vi 6, 6.

dvesyayata (?) 4. 1.

dvaidha 2. 1 ; 4. 1.

dvaipayana 2. 2, 3.

dhana s. adattapurv’a°.
dhar cf. bar; 1. 2.

+ ud 5. 1 ; 6. 7.
dhavaiilya 3. 3.
dha + abhi s. abhihita.

-p ava 3. 1; 6. 1.

+ vi + ava s. avyavahita.

+ a 5. 2; 6. 2.

anu + a s. anvadhana.

+ abhi + a 2. 5, 9; 4. 3; 6. 6.
+ pari + a 2. 9.

+ pra + a 2. 9.

-p vi + a 2. 9.

+ upa + aam + a 2. 5; 4. 4.

+ ni 1. 1; 3. 3, 5, 8; 6. 7.

4- upa + ni 6. 7.

4- pra 6. 1.

4- prati s. rukmapratihita.
4 - vi s. vi hita.

4- sam 3. 1, 4; 4. 1 ; 6. 8.
dhav 4- abhi 1. 3.
dhisnya 3. 2.

1 dhu 2. 9.

dhenu 3, 2; 5. 5; 6. 2.
dhruva 6. 3.
dbvanksa 2. 6.

uakptra 5. 6.
nakha s. loina°.
namas 2. 9,
nava 2. 4.
navakapSla 2. 8.

I nas 8, nasta.'

, nasta 2. 8; 4. 1; 6. 4, 5. 9.

, nah-j-sam s. samnaddhedhma-
i barhis.

upa 4- sam s. upasain-
naddha.
nadeya 5. 6.
nanatantra 3. 9.
narafemsa 3. 3; 6. 5.
nigama s. brahman a*,
nitya 1. 2; 2. 1, 2, k 4, 7, 8; 6. 4.
nityakalpa (?) 6. 8.
i nityahomakala 2. 1 ; 5. 1.
nidhana s. vasatkara"; 6. 4.
nibhuyapur (?) 3. 3.
niyatavrata 3, 7.

! niyutvant 2. 9.

' nirmathya 3. 7; 5. 1.
j nirvapanaprabhrti 4. 1.

I nivrtta 6. 2.

, nivrtti 6. 8.
nisa 4. 4 .

nl + api 4. 3; 8. 3.

4- ud s. unnita; 3. 2, 3; 4. 3;

6 . 1 .

4- ni 2. 4; 4. 1.

4- upa + ni 1. 5.

4- pra 1. 5; 2. 5; 3. 1; 5. 3; 6. 1.
4-anu4-pra b. anupranlta.
nrcaksas 3. 3.
nyagrodha 5. 6.
nyaya 6. 8.
nyupta 3. 1.

pahca 1. 1, 2; 2. 4; 5. 6; 6. 5, 8.
pancadaksina 6. 4,
pancasarava 4. 1.
pancajya 2. 9.
pancajyahuti 3. 9.

1 pan 3. 1.
pat 4- ut 4. 2.

4-ni 2. 6.

4- sam-j-ni s. samnipatita.
4- pra s. prapatita; 2. 6, 9
3. 5; 6. 1.
patatrin 5. 6.
patni 2. 6; 4. 2.
patnya(?) 3. 8.

2 path 3. 3.

Vol, xxxiii.]

Wortindex.

243

pathikrt 2. 3, 8.

pad + ati s. atipanna.

+ ava s. avapanna; kltava-
p an na.

+ a 1. 3; 2. 1; 3. 8.

+ vi + a 2. 1; 3. 4, 10; 4. 2;
6. 5,
pada 5. 2.

panuejana cf. pannejanl.

payas 2. 8; 6. 7.

par 2. 9.

parak 5. 3.

parasa 5. 3.

parikrita 6. 4.

parikhyata 3. 1.

paridhi s. bahis”; antahpari-
dli i desa.
parimana 6. 10.
parna 4. 1.
paryagnikrta 3. 2.
paryaya s. ratri”; 3. 3.
parvan 5. 4.
parsam (?) 2. 9.
pavamana 6. 4.
payitra 3. 3.
pus + para 5, 2.

pasu 1. 1; 2. 6; 3. 1, 2, 3, 10; 5.
5, 6.

pasugava 5. 5.

pasubandha 2. 9; 3. 10.

paausrapana 6. 1.

pasustha(?) 3. 1.

pascat 1. 2; 2. 3, 9; 3. 10; 5. 1.

pa s. apita; pitapita.

pakanagnim (?) 3. 8.

pani 5. 2; 6. 7.

patra s. purna°; 3. 3, 7.

patraviniyoga s. mrt”; 3. 6, 7, 8.

pathikrt 2. 2.

pathikrta 3. 10.

pathikrti 6. 3.

pada 5. 2.

pannejani 6. 5.

papman (m.) 1. 1, 5.

para 3. 3.

parthiva 6. 10.

palasatsaru 1. palafetaruni (?) 3. 8.
pingala 5. 6.
pin^s s. sakft*.

I pitar 3. 3; 5. 6.
pilrdevatya 3. 2.
pitrmedha 2. 8, 9.
pitrloka 3. 8.
pitrya 2. 5.
pipasa 8. as ana”,
pita s. a”,
pilapita 6. 6.
puta s. asthi”.
putra 3. 9; 5. 5; 6. 7.
punar 3. 6; 6. 4.
punaristi 4. 2.
punahsamaya 5. 6.
purastat 2. 2, 9; 5. 3; 6. 4, 6, 7.
purastaddhoma 1. 2; 2. 1, 2, 3, 4

7, 8; 5. 1.
pura 6. 1, 4.
purusa 3. 2.
purusavidbi 6. 8.
purusakpti 3. 8.

purodasa 1. 2; 2. 1. 3, 4, 7, 8; 3.

10; 4. 1, 2; 5. 3, 4; 6. 9.

1 pCi 8. anuputa; utputa; su-
puta.

+ ut 1. 5; 2. 3.
putabbrt 3. 3
putika 6. 4.
purnapatra 4. 2.

purnaniasa s. d a r s a p u r n a m a s a.

purnahuti 5. 6.

pusan 3. 1.

prthivi 3. 1, 4,

prsadajya 5. 5.

prstha 3. 3.

paurnamasya 3. 10.

pauruamasyamavasya 2. 2.

prakrti s. yatba” 3. 10.

prajapati 3. 1, 2; 4. 3; 6. 8.

prajnata 2. 9.

pratikhyata 3. 3.

pratidisam 6. 6.

pratiprasthatar 6. 1.

pratima 3. 1.

pratistha 4. 1.

pratiharana 2. 2, 3.

pratyak 2. 6.

pratyanc 1. 3.

prathama 3. 5(?); 5. 1, 3.

pradatar 2. 2; 5, 3.

244

J. V. Negelein,

[1913.

pranabhasvatl 2. 5.

prapatita 2. 9.

prabhu 6. 10.

prabhrti s. anga°.

prama 3. 1.

pramukha 6. 7.

prayaja 2. 6; 3. 3; 4. 1.

prayukta 6. 10.

pravara 3. 3.

pravargya 6. 8.

pravasa 2. 8.

pravrtta 3. 9, 10; 6. 2, 3.

praaavya 2. 9.

prasiddha 1. 3; 2. 9.

prastotar 6. 5.

prak 6. 8.

prakrta 2. 4; 3. 10.

praksiras 2. 3.

pranmukha 1. 3,

pracina 4. 3.

piailaavitam 6. 7.

prafio 1. 5; 2. 6, 7; 3. 5, 9; 5. 1.

prana 1. 1, 2, o; 2. 3; 3. 2; 4. 1;

5. 6.

pranapana 6. 6.

pratar 1. 2; 4. 3.

prataranuvaka 3. 2; 6. 6, 8.

pratarasa 4. 4.

pratarShuti 4. 4.

pratardoha 2. 1; 4. 1.

pratardohasthana 4. 1.

pratahsavana 3. 3; 6. 4, 6, 9.

pradefe 4. 1.

prayanlya 3. 1, 3, 6.

prayascitta s. sarva"; 1. 1, 3; 3.8;

3. 1, 5; 6. 9, 10.
prayascittaprakarana 6. 10.
prayascitti s. upacarabhaksa” (?);

1. 2, 3, 5; 2. 1; 3.8, 10.
pri 2. 3.

pin + abhi 2. 7; 5. 4.
phatkaraprabhrti 6. 6.
baudh 1. 2; 2. 5.

barhis s. adobarhisa; samna-

ddbedhma°; 2. 3; 3. 2; 4. 1.
basta 5. 6.
bahisparidbi 4. 2.

bahispavamana 3. 3; 6. 1, 5.

bahis 2. 9.

bahu 2. 9.

bahurupa 3. 6.

bahuvid 5. 1.

badhaka 2. 9.

j barhaspatya cf. aindra°.
budh + ud 4. 1.

+ ni 6. 10.

brhaspati s. aindrabarhaspatya;

3. 1.

brahmatva 3. 4.

brabman m. 1. 2; 2. 6; 3. 4; 3. 6;

6. 1, 3, 6, 7.
brahman n. 3. 3; 3. 6.
brabmabali 5. 6.
brahmavrata 3. 1 ; 6. 8.
brahmasama 0. 3.
brabmaudana 4. 3.
brabmana m. 3. 7; 4. 4; 5. 1, 2, 6;
6 . 6 , 8 .

brabmana n. s. taittiriya"; vS-
jasaneyl”; 2. 9.
biahmananigama 1. 1 .
brahmanachamsin 3. 3; 6. 7.
brabmanokta 2. 2.
bru + pari 6. 6.

bhabs s. bhaksita; 3. 3, 5; 6. 3.
bhaksa s. a"; upacara'; 3. 3, 5.
bhak.sakala 3. 5.
bbaksajapa 3. 5.
bbaksana 3. 5.
bbaksanlya 6. 3.
bhaksabhaksana 3. 3, 10.
bhaksita 3. 3.

' bhaga 3. 1.

bhaj + vi s. devatavibha-
ktendra; 3. 2; 5. 3; 6. 7.
bhadra 3. 1.
bhaya 1. 3; 2. 4.

' bhar 5. 2.

] + sam 5. 3.

] bhasman s. sabbasmaka; 1. 3; 2

I 5, 6; 5. 1, 2.

; bhaga s. ajya”; samsrava"; so-
I ma°.

bhagadheya 3, 2.
bbaginl 4. 1.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Wortindex.

245

bhanda s. yajfia".
bharundasaman 3. 8.
bhargava 4. 1.
bharya 5. 5.

bhid s. bhinna; 6. 2, 5.

-b ava 4. 3.
bhinna 4. 1; 6. 5, 9.
bhuj 4. 4.
bhu + anu 5. 6.
bhtiyas 1. 5.
bhedana 6. 9.
bhojya (?) 3. 10.
bhram + vi 2. 5.
bhratar 3. 9; 6. 7.
bhratrvya 3. 2.

inaiii 5. 6.

1 math 2. 4, 8; 5. 2.

4- nis s. nirmathya; nir-
ma nthy a.
madhya(?) 2. 1.
madhyama 5, 3.
man + abhi s. ah hi mat a.
manas 1. 1, 2; 3. 1; 3, 3; 6. 8.
manusya 5. 6.
mantra 6 8.

mantray + anu 1. 5; 2. 4; 6. 2.

+ abhi 1. 3; 2. 5; 4. 1 ; 5. 5;
6. 3, 5.
mantravant 1. 3.

manth 2. 4, 8; 3. 1; 3. 1, 2; 6. 1.

+ nis 3. 8.
mamthasri 3. 3.

maya s. asma°; daru°; devata”;

y ava loh a
mar 2. 9; 6. 7.

1 marj 3. 6, 7.

+ abhi + vi 1. 3.
marya s. jara°.
mars -f- abhi s. abhimrsta.
mahant 6. 6.
mahapathikrti 2. 3.
mahavira 6. 9.
mahendra 2. 1.

3 ma 3. 1.

+ upa (?) 6. 1.
mamsa 3. 8, 10.

madhyamdina s. s a 3. 3; 6. 4, 6, 9.
manusyaloka 3. 8.

maya 6. 8.

maruta 3. 3; 3. 5; 6. 3.
marjara .3. 10.
marjallya 3. 5.
marttika 6. 3.
mas 3. 10.
j mahisa 3. 10.

I mahendra 2. 1.

I 2 mi + pra 3. 7.

; mitravaruna 3. 2.
mithas 2. 7; 5. 4; 6. 1.
mithuua 3. 2.
mukha s. prah°; 3. 9.
mrgakhara 6. 7.
mrgara 6. 7.

mrta s. sirnamrta; 2.8.
mrtpatraviniyoga 3. 8.
mrtyu 1. 1.
medha 3. 2.
medhya 3. 8.
maitra 1. 2; 4. 4.
maitravaruna 3. 3.

' mogha 6. 8.
miia + a 4. 1.

+ sam 4- a s. samamnata.
mluc 4- abhi 4- ni 4. 4; 5. 1.

yaj s. yajamana; 2. 9; 3. 3; 6. 4, 7.
yajumana 1. 3; 2. 4, 9; 3. 5; 6. 1, 7.
yajamfinakarman 3. 3.
yajamanasana 3. 5.
yajus s. samista'; 3. 4; 4. 1.
yajua 1. 3; 3. 1, 2, 3, 7; 6. 1, 4, 10.
yajnabhanda 6. 9.
yajnasambandhin 6. 8.
yajnayudha 3. 7.
yata s. vag’.
yathakaryam 3. 6.
yathaprakrti 6. 1.
yathartha 2. 9.
yathlilihgam 6. 5.
yathavadanam 3. 9.
yathasukham 3. 7.
yathoktam 2. 4.
yaddevatya 3. 3.
j yama 3. 2; 5. 3, 6.
i vamasu 5. 5.

I •'

I yava 5. 6; 6. .5.

I yavamaya 3, 1.

246

J. V. NegeMn,

[1913.

yavsijju 2. 9; 5. 5.
vavistha 6. 6.
yasas 2. 3.
ya 4- upa 3. 9.

+ pra 4. 3 ; 5. 3.
yiijfia 1. 1.
yajfiika 6. 10.
yajyanuvakyavyatyasa 4. 1.
yana 1. 3,
yavant 2. 8.
yuga s. vaso°
yugamdhara 6. 2.
vugapat 3. 8.
yuj 2. 9.

-f pra 8. prayukta.
yupa 2. 6; 3. 2.
jupavirudha 5. 6.

rak^as 3. 2.
ratha 1. 3; 5. 2.
rathamtara 6. 5.
ram + vi 4. 4.
rasaua 3. 2.
raj an o. 6.
rajahara (?) 6. 4.

ratri s. dasaratrara; .sodasara-
tra.

ratriparyaya 6. 9.
riitri 6. 6.
rathamtara 3. 3.

1 ris 4- ri s. vi rista.
rnkmapratihita 6. 7.
rudra 3. 1, 3.

2 rudh -P apa 4. 2.

— ava s. avaruddha.

4- upa 5. 2.

4 vi J . 1.

ruh 4- sam 4- a s. asamariidha;
2. 4; 3. 8.

— vi 2. 6; . 1 . 6.

-p sam 2. 4.

rupa s. tad'; soma': 5. 6.
raudra 2. 4.

labh s. alabhyamana.

-r a 1. 3; 2. T,, 9; 5. 6; 6. 7.
-p anu a 3. 8; 4. 2.

4- upa -j- a 6, 7.

4 - upa 6. 10.

laiigali 2. 2, 3.
lihga s. y a t h a '.

1 )i 4- vi 1. o; 2. 3.
lup 4- ava 5. 6.

lokas. deva°; j)itr°; manusya”;

1. 3.

lopa s. artha”; ahuti”.

1 lomanakha 3. 7.

• lohamaya 3. 7.

vaks + upa 5. 3.
vaksyakama 3. 9.

vac s. ukta; brahmanokta; ya-
I thoktam.

■ vacana 6. 4.

I vajra 6. 6.

I vadava 6. 7.

I vatsa 8. any a'.

I vad 4" a 1 . 3.

4- upa 2. 9.

! vanaspati 5. 6.

vap 2. 6 ; 3. 7.

' 4- abhi 3. 2.

4- a 1. 2; 2. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8.
j 4“ vi “1“ a 3. 4.

; 4- Bam + a 3. 7.

' 4- upa 2. 6; 5. 2.

I 4 ni B. ny up ta.

+ liis 2. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9; 3. 4;
4. 1.

vap:i s. valralka'; 2. 5; 3. 2.

vara 4- vi 2. 5.

var 6. 5 .

vara 6. 5.

varaha 3. 10.

varuna s. a in dra va r u ua , mai-
tra°; vi B uu VO ru na * : 3. 1, 3.
varesadha 6. 7.
varna s. tad',
varj T sam 2. 7.
varjam s. sa iiip ru i^a °.
varna s. tad',
vart — a s. avrtta; 1. :i.
abhi + a 3. 3 ; 4. 2.

— vi + a 8. vyavrtta, 6, 6.
ud 1. 5.

4- ni 8. nivrtta; 1. 3; 6. 2.

-- pari .a. 5.

: -r pra s. p r a v r 1 1 a ; 3. 9 ; 6. 2.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Wortindex.

247

varttamanakala 3. 6.
vars + abhi 4. 3; 6. 3.
varh 4 - pra 6. 6.
valmikavapa 4. 3.
vasa 3. 9.
vasa 2. 6; 3. 3.
vasatkaranidhana 6. 4.

3 vas + pra 1. 1; 3. 6; 5. 4
+ vi + pra 3. 7.

5 vas(?] 5. 3.

+ ud 4. 2.

+ upa 4. 1.
vasativarl 3. 2; 6. 2.
vasu 3. 3.
yah 4- abhi 1. 3.

+ 5 4. 1.

-f-pra 3. 1.
vagyata 4. 4.

vao 1. 2; 3. 1; 3. 6; 6. 8.
vajasaneyibrahniana 6. 8.
vata 2. 5; 3. 3; 5. 6.
vayavya 3. 4; 6. 5; 6. 7.
vayu s. aindra ayava; 2. 9; 3. 1,
3, 4.

varanisahita 3. 7.
varuna 1. 2, 5; 5 1.
varunya 4, 3.
vas 2. 4.
vasoyuga 0. 2.
viksama 4. 1.
vichiuna 6. 3.
vichedana 1. 3.
vij + ud 4. 2.

1 vid 2. 3.

3 vid 3. 3, 3; 6. 4.

vidhana 3. 1; 6, 8.

vidhi B. a'; purusa”.

vidhyaparadha 1. 1.

vidhjardhasaniapta 3. 3.

viniyoga s. patra”; mrtpatra'.

viparyasa s. karma

vibhuti 6. 6.

vimrgvan 1. 3.

virista 1. 3; 3. 8.

virudha s. yupa'; 3. 0.

vivici 2. 7; 5. 4.

vis + sam + a 3. 9.

+ upa 1. 3; 2. 4.
visvajit 6. 7.

visvabhrt 4. 3.
visama (?) s. +vena".
viskanna 4, 3.

visnu s. ain dra v a i « na va ; 2. 2;
5. 3.

vianuvarunadevatya 1. 5; 6. 9.
vi^-arjana 3. 2.
visrsta 3. 1, 2: 6. 8.
viharaiia 6. 8.
vihita s. vidhi°; 3. 5, 8.
vlti 2. 7; .3. 4.
vrtti 2. 4.
vrtratur 3. 2.
vrtrahan 2. 3; 3. 2.
j vrthagm 3. 8.
vr.sau 5. 6.
vrsiii 3. 6.
vec^ s. atharva".
vedasa s. sarvavedasadaksina
vedi s. uttar.a”; 3. 1, 2.

1 vela s. vrata".

! vestin 3. 9.

, vaitanasiitra 6. 10.

vaivici .3 5.

: vaisvadeva 3. 3.

I vaisvarupa 2. 6.

! vaisvanara 2. 3; 3. 3; 4. 4; 5. 3.
j vaisnava s. aindra-; 1. 5; 3. 2. 3;
; 4.1.

i vaisnavant 6. 0.
j vaisnavl d. 1, 4. 6.

I vyatyasa s. abutilopa”; yajya-
i n u v a k y a '.

I vyakhySta 3. 6.
vyaghra 3. 6.
vyatta 2. 9.

I vyapatti s. ci tt a v y a ]ia t ty uh.

vyavrtta 6. 5.

' vyahrti 2. 1; 6. 8.
vra.i + ati 2. 3.
vrata s. niyata’; brahma',
vratapati 2. 4; 5. 4.

, vratabhft 2. 8: ■'). 4.

' vratavela 5. 4.
vratopayana 5. 3.
vratapati o. o.
vrihi 6. 6.

^aips B. B. 7.

248

J. V. Negdein,

[1913.

sams + anu 6. 5.
sakuna 3. 10.
sakuni 2. 6; o. 2.
sakrtpinda 2. 9.
sank 2. 4.
sam 6. 10.

+ upa 1. 5; 2. 5.
samya 5. 3.

1 sar B. sirna.

+ sam 2. 9.
farasaray 4. 3.
sarava s. catuh".
sarira 3. 8.
sarlradarsana 3. 6, 8.
aasvat 1. 1.
saatra 6. 6.
femitra 2. 9.
salamukhiya 6. 1.
sava 2. 7; 5. 4.
sipivi.sta 2. 2; 3. 1; 5. 3.
sipivistiivant 6. 4, 6,
siraa 6. 1,
sis + ati 1. 3.

+ ut s. uc chi at a.
sirna 6. 3, 5, 9.
sirnamrta 2, 9.
sukra&I 3. 3.
auci 2. 7; 5. 4, 5. i

sudradugdha 2. 8. j

sesa 8. karma"; 3. 5; 4. 2. '

smaaru s. kesa°. !

syena 2. 5; 5. 2, 6. j

syenavisama 6. 6. ■

srapana 1. 1. ;

sra 1. 3, 5; 2. 5; 5. 5. J

-i- dus a. dulisrita. !

sri + adhi a. adhisrita; 2. 9; 4.

■ 3; 5. 1. j

sri 3. 3. ^

sruta 5. 3. '

sruti 3. 6, 8, 10. i

srutipatha 3. 6. |

foeyams 1. 1.

sroni a. uttaravedi"; 3. 2; 6. 7. i
srotra 1. 2. i

sloka 6. 10. '

svan 1. 3; 2. 3; 5. 2.
avas 4. 1; 5. 1.
svahsuti (?) 6. 8.

! sveta 6. 7.

saddhariska 6. 7.

^ saddhotar 3. 10.

I sas 6. 1, 2.

■ sodaMratri 3. 3.

I saqn atHara 3. 7; 6. 7.

j samvatsarabhipraya 4. 3.

I samsava 6. 0.

I samskanna 4. 3.

J samsthita 3. 6.

j samathitahoma 1. 2; 2. 1, 2, 3, 4,
I ’ 7, 8.

j samaravabhaga 1. 2; 2. 1 — 4, 6 — 8.

! sakrt 2. 1 ; 6. 6.

j saktusri 3. 3.

I sakhi 3. 3.

I samkrahisyam (?) 4. 2.

j sattra a. samiisa"; 3. 6.
sattrin 3. 9, 10.
sad .3. 8.

+ ava 3. 2.

4 - a 3. 1, 10; 4. 2.

-|-sani-)-a a. samasanna.

+ ud B. ut Banna.

-)- upa 3. 7.
sadarbha 2. 5.

sadas a. ant ah'; 3. 1; 6. 3.
samtata 5. 4.
samtati 1. 3; 3. 2.
samdlksita 6. 6.
samdesa 6. 6.
samdhi 3. 3; 6. 7, 8.
saipdhiyainana 3. 1 .
samnaddhedhmabarhis 3. 10.
satanipatita 3. 5.
saptakapala 2. S.
sabhasmaka 1. 3.
samasta 3. 3.
satnadhana 1. 1.
samadhyamdina 6. 4.
samana 5. 3.
aamanajauapada 6. 6.
aamapta 6. 7, 10.
samamnata 3. 8.
samaya a. punah”.
samaroijitasamaropita 2. 8.

Vol. sxxiii]

Wortindex.

249

samasa 3. 9; 6. 10.
samasanna 2. 9.
samasasattra (?) 2. 9.
samidh 2. 5, 9; 4. 3, 4; 6. 2.
samistayajus 3. 5.
samisti 3. 3.
samudra 3. 3.
sampraisa 1. 1; 2. 9.
sampraisavarjam 1. 1.
sambandhin s. yajna".
sambhara 6. 6.
sambheda 1. 1.
samraj 3. 1.
sarj + ut 3. 10; 6. 3.

+ vi s. visrs^.

+ sam 2. 7; 5. 4; 6. 1, 6.
sarp 6. 5.
sarpa 5. 6.
sarparajnl 6. 7.
earpis 4. 1.
sarva 5. 1.
sarvakratu 3. 5, 8,
sarvaksaraa 4. 1.
sarvatra 5. 3; 6. 5, 9.
sarvaprayascitta 4. 1, 2; 6. 1.
sarvarupa 2. 6.
sarvavedasadaksina 6. 3.
sarvaks 2. 9,
sarvahna 4. 4.
savana a. trtiya”; pratah"; 2. 9; |

3. 3, 9; 6. 9.
savanlya 6. 6.
savanlyasyuh (?) 6. 7.
savitar 3. 1.
aavyam 2. 9.
sasoma 6. 3.

sahita s. varuna°.

sahiranya 2. 5.

sa + anu + ava 5. 1.

sadhu 1. 3.

samnayya 2. 1; 4. 1.

saman s. a°; bharuiida"; 3. 1, 4;

4. 1 ; 6. 4.

sayamdoha 2. 1; 4, 1.
sayamdohasthaaa 4. 1.
sayam 1. 2; 2. 2, 3; 4. 3; 5. 1.
sayamahuti 4. 4.
sarasvata 3. 2; 6. 8.
sic + abhi 6. 4.

VOL XXXIII. Part ni.

sic + ni 1. 3.

+ sam 6, 2, 5.
sidh + pra s. prasiddha.
su + abhi 6, 4.
sukha s. yath2°.
suparna 3. 1.
suputa 3. 3.
sura 3. 1.
sasamtapa 2. 9,
sukta s. kama"; 2. 5; 6. 6.
sutra s. vaitana”.

I sutraprayascitti 6. 10.
surya 3. 4; 4. 4; 3. 1, 6.
soma s. akrita"; sa°; 3. 3, 4; 6. 3,
; 4, 6, 7.

somakalasa 6. 9.
somakarin 3. 10.
somakrayana 3. 1.
somagraha 2. 5.
somatanu 3. 8.
somabhaga 6. 6.
somarupa 3. 1; 6. 8.
saamika 6. 1.
saumya 4 1.

saurya 3. 3, 4; 4. 4; 6. 7.
saavistakrta 3. 9.

skand s. skanna; 1. 3; 2. 6; 3. 4;

4. 1, 2, 3; 6. 2.

-f adhi 4. 1.

+ ava s. a V a s k a 11 n a.

+ vi 8. viskanna; 1. 3.

-j- sam s. samskanna.
skanna 1. 3 ; 3. 4 ; 4. 1 ; 5, 5.
skannabuta 4. 3.
stabb (?) 6. 1.

+ upa 6. 1.
stamba s. dai’bha°.
star 2. 6; 3. 2, 8.
stu 6. 1, 3, 4, 3.
stena (?) 3. 5, 8.

! stotra s. kirttana'; 6. 3, 7.
stoma 3. 6.
sthavistba 3. 3.
stba + ava 6. 7.

' -p ud s. uttha; utthita; 2
4, 9.

-f upa + ud 4. 1.

+ upa 1. 1 ; 3. 5 ; 3. 3.

+ prati 1. 3; 2. 1.

250

J. V. Negelein, Wortindex.

[1913.

stha + gam 1. 2; 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8;
5. 1; 6. 4.

sthana s. pratardoha'; sayam-
doha°.

sthali s. caru”; 4. 3; 6. 3.

stbalipaka 6. 9.

sthita + sam s, aamathita.

spars + sam 2. 8; 5. 1.

sprti 2. 9.

smar 4. 1.

smrtagnihotrin 4. 4.

sru + ati 2. 5.

sruc 1. 3.

sruva 3. 9; 4. 4; 5. 5.
svayamattha 3. 6.

Bvar 3. 3.
svarga 1. 1, 3.
svistakrt 3. 9.

han 2. 9.

+ apa 8. apahatapapman;

1 . 6 .

+ a 6. 7.

4“ pari -)- nis 2. 5.
bar of. dhar; 1. 2; 2. 9; 3. 2; 3. 1.
+ apa 2. 1 ; 4. 1; 6. 1, 4.

+ abbi 3. 1, 2.

+ abbi 4- ava 4. 1.

+ upa + ava 3. 2,

+ a 2. 5j 3. 5, 7; 6. 4.

+ anu 4- a 1. 1, 3.

4- vi 4" a 3. 3.

bar 4- ud 1, 1, 2; 2. 5; 6. 1; 6. 7.

4- abbi 4- ud s. anabbyn-
ddbrta; 1. 1, 2; 2. 7; 6. 4.
4- sam 4- ud 5. 1.

4- abbi 4- upa 2. 9.

4- pari 1. 5.

4- anu 4- pra 2. 6; 4. 1.

4- vi 2. 8; 3. 7; 6. 2.
havirdbana 3. 1; 6. 1.
bavirbbuta 4. 1.
bavisy(?) 5. 3.

bavis 8. d asaba vi.ska; saddha-
viska; 2. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9; 3. 2, 8,
10; 4. 1,

bavyavabana 2. 9,
basta 3. 2; 4, 2.

2 ba 1. 5.
bi 4- pra 4. 3.
hita 3. 6.

biranya b. sa*; 1. 2; 2. 3; 5. 1, 2.
biranyagarbba 2. 5.
bn 8. arddbabuta; abuta; abu-
tva; bnta; 1. 3; 2. 8; 3. 3, 10.
buta 1. 3; 2. 6.
butahuta 6. 6.

botar 1. 2; 2. 6, 9; 3. 4, 10; 4. J;

6. 7.

botra 3. 3.
boma 8. ajya°; 3. 5.
bomakala s. nitya*.
bautra 3. 4.

1 bva 4- a 1. 3.

Berichtigungen.

1. 3. S. 73 Z. 8 lies statt dharayed: dharayed |.

1. 5. S. 77 Z. 1 „ „ cyavateiS; cyavate.

„ „ Anm. Z. 3 streiohe: is A cyavamte.

2. 2. S. 79 Z. 2 lies statt "jyatiavise-’stya; ’jyahavise ’stya.

2. 7. S. 89 Anm. Z. 19 lies statt vidyamana; Vidyamana.

2. 9. S. 93 2. 15 lies: pitrmedha |

3. 1. S. 94 Z. 1?— 14 lies statt brahmavrate ; brahma vrate ].

„ „ letzte Zeile lies samrid asandyam,

3. 2. S. 95 Z. 2 — 1 von unten lies nibhuyapur adhavaniye.

3. 0 . S. 97 Z. 18 lies statt ce’ | ty: ce’ty |

3. 8. S. 99 2. 12 lies: va ’samamnatanilm.

3. 10. S. 101 Z. 12 lies statt vato atmanam; vatam te atma
4 1. S. 104 Anm. sis lies statt bbutam: bhutam.

„ S. 105 Z. 9 lies statt usaso: usaso.

„ S. 106 Z. 4 lies statt om: om.

Anm. Z. 24 lies statt viparyaseno’dvasane; viparyase’nudvasane.

Z.33 „ „ trarthiya: trarthlya.

S. 107

Z. 3 „ „ viparyasena ’’vahane: viparyase ’navaliane.

S. 108

Z.32 „ „ ‘■-samkhya-": "-samkhya-”.

Z.44 „ „ sunavama-soma : sunavama soma.

S. 109

Z. 21 fiige binter apy aga ein: gemeint ist yato jatah

tato ’py avam.

S. 110

2. 6 lies statt amiksa-": amiksa-'.

Z. 28 „ „ jataveda: jatavedah.

S. Ill

Z. 3

lies statt suprajas tvam: suprajastvam.

Anm. Z. 5 lies statt saham: aham.

. 2.

S. 112

Z. 6

lies statt ”gahi: ”gahi.

Anm. Z. 18 lies statt ’’gnidhrah; "gnidhrah.

Z. 2 von unten lies statt 'jrayate: tray ate.

. 3.

S. 113

Z. 9 lies statt febdayet; sabdayet.

Z, 12 „ „ "dvasitam: ’dvasitam.

S. 114 Z. 5

lies statt prajapater: prajapater.

Anm. Z. 17 lies statt oben: unten.

. 4.

S. 117

Z. 12 „ „ akasad: aksad.

S. 118

Z. 10 „ „ prauitesv: ’pranitesv.

Z. 23 „ „ visvadarsatas; visvadarsatah.

Z. 28 „ „ vratabhrc : vratabhrt.

Z. 29 „ „ atha pra-: atha ’pra-.

S. 119 Z. 2

lies statt °-aha: ’-aha.

Anm. Z. 21 lies statt ’’danlm: ’danlm.

S. 120

Z. 2 „ „ ’havaniyav: ’’havaniySv.

Z. 7 „ „ die: das.

17 *

J. V. Negelein,

S. 121 Anm

» »
S. 122 Z. 6
S. 123 Anm.

S. 127 Z. 2
„ Z.6

„ Anm.

S. 128 Z. 6
„ Z.7

S. 129 Z. 4
„ Anm.

S. 130 „

S. 131 Z. 15
„ Anm.
S. 132 „

Z. 10 lies 8tattbaddh[v]eti: baddlieti[gemeint:badhyate].
Z. 18 „ „ ’ddharanadini: ‘ddharanadini.

lies statt samrad: samrad.

Z. 15 lies statt abhimaintranadiai : abhimamtranadXni.
Z. 17 „ „ samrad; samrad.

Z. 21 „ „ say am agnihotre: sayam-agnihotre.

Z. 22 „ „ visesa-’bhidhanat; Visesa-’bhidhanat.

Z. 25 fugehinter itarascisminn ein: „lieB wahrscheinlich :

ahtttam iti ’tarasminn“.
unterste Zefle lies statt kuryat (!): kuryat (!).

Z. 3 von nnten lies statt dvipadaprasidhy-°: dvipada-
prasidhy-”.

Z. 2 lies statt °sincet: sincet.

Z. 32 „ „ *-siddy-°: “-siddhy-".

lies statt vasam^^i; vasams^i.
p „ anuprayaya: annpreyaya.

*36 Dem bier gegebenen Sekonstruktionsversuch des
Textes gegeniiber ist es mir wahrscheinlich, dab
wir statt upavaksayet und avakhyayas etwa ava-
ksayet und avaksayane zu lesen haben, und dab samy ah
para parasac hinter den Mantra gehort, so dab
die folgenden Worte zu iibersetzen waren: „wenn
aber das Feuer, fiber einen Keulenwurf hinaus an-
geschwollen, erlischt, so moge er ihra nachgehen
und sodann sich dort niedersetzen . . zu ver-
weisen ist u. a. auf Kath. 35. 17 ; T. B. 3. 7. 1. 3 — 4 ; eine
eigentliche Rekonstruktion des Textes ist angesichts
dessen ungewohnlicher Verderbtheit ausgeschlossen.
lies statt dadbani; dadb(a)ni.
n n sipivistaya | srite prag ukte: sipivistaya srte
prag ukte |.

lies statt anagnir: anagni-.

Z. 12—13 streiche die "Worte „unter“ bis ,,versteben‘‘, und
setze an deren Stclle: „unter agnigrhah waren dann
die Hauser zu verstehen, die sich auf dem Opfer-
platze befinden, aber nicht Feuerhauser sind.“

Z. 17 lies hinter samavaye ; s. Dhatup. 4. 114 (Boehtlingk).
Z. 28 lies statt buddhi-purvakaretah-pate: buddhipur-
vaka- retahpate.

Z. 1 „ „ dagnaye : agnaye.

—16 n n (nabhihita): ’nabhihita.

Z. 2 „ „ prajayatam : jayatam (wie Ap. S. 9. 17. 1.).

Z. 14 „ „ nvielleicht Imperative plus ^anas** » :

vieUeicbt vulgare Imperative plus „anas“;
moglich ist es auoh, dab „’pamanau“
des Textes durch Fortfall einer Silbe
aus pa[stam]bhanau corrumpiert und
dab das Dvandva „stambhano- ’pama-
nau“ eine grammatische Glosse ist.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Berichtigungen.

253

6. 1. S. 134 Anm. Z. 6 lies statt pranitrena; prani[ta]tveDa.

„ „ „ Z. 14 „ „ „(1.: “nimitta-prayascittam)" : (].; pra-

yascittam).

„ „ „ Z. 22 „ „ smartavaj: smartavad.

,, „ „ Z. 23 „ „ iirddhvam: urddhvain-.

6. 3. S. 136 Z. 20 lies statt sthali: sthali.

6. 4. S. 137 Z. 14 „ „ upakrameranyam: upakrame ’ranyam.

„ „ Amn. Z. 12 streiche: „zu“.

„ „ Z. 14 lies statt krameranyam: krame ’ranyam.

„ S. 138 „ Z. 23 „ „ prayoga: prayogah.

6. 5. S. 139 Z. 12 lies statt narasamsa(d): narasamsad.

„ „ Z. 14 „ iti samaificet.

6. 6. „ Z. 2 von unten lies statt vaisnavatlsu: vaisnavisn.

„ „ unterste Textzeile lies statt stuyuh: stuyuh.

6. 5. „ Anm. Z. 9 lies statt unnita?: unnitad?

6. 6. „ „ letzte Zeile: gemeint ist pratahsavanac cet somo ’tiri-

cyeta. . . . ; so richtig auch Pane. Br. 9. 7.
T. B. 1. 4. 5. 1.

S. 140 Z. 6 lies statt stakapalam: ’stakapalam.

„ Z. 9 „ „ samse[t]: samse[d].

„ Anm. 1057 fijge hinzn: lies mahatiratryah; vgl. Pane. Br.9.4. 1.

T. S. 7. 5. 5. 1. T. B. 1. 4. 6. 4. und Pet. Wb. u. pra-
taranuvaka.

6. 7. S. 141 Z. 13 lies: (samvatsare 'oo: ’sthiputam *097 nidadhyuh '098).

„ „ Z. 14 lies statt yajayet | samapte samvatsare: yajayet (samapte

samvatsare). ]

„ „ Anm. Z. 17 lies statt "diyad: ’diyad.

„ „ „ Z. 22 „ „ [’Jsvavadva: [’Jsvavad va.

„ S. 142 Z. 1 lies statt savanlyasyuh: savanlyasya syuh.

„ „ Z. 4 „ „ „dasa-havisam“:„dasa-haTiskam“,undbemerke

unter dem Texte, daU diese Form eine Cor-
rectur der Msse ist.

„ „ Anm. Z. 3 lies statt erwahnfen: erwahnen.

6. 8. „ Z. 18 lies etwa; aparahnikam cet pravargyam abbyastamiyat.

„ „ Anm. Z. 9 lies am Ende der Eeihe: 1. taru-payasam?

6. 9. S. 143 Z. 10 — 11 lies: pratahsavanam ced (madhyamdinam savanam)

abhyastamiyad.

„ „ Z. 13 lies: cet (trtiya-) savanam.

„ „ Z. 22 lies statt rtvijam: rtvijaA

S. 144 Anm. Z. 3 von unten 1.: | sake 111785}| raudranamasamvatsare mase

magha-”.

Additions to Field from the Lyons Codex of the Old Latin.
— By Max L. Mabgolis, Professor in the Dropsie
College, Philadelphia, Pa.

The following ai-e Hexaplaric elements in the Old Latin
of the first nine chapters of the book of Joshua (Codex Lug-
dunensis, edited by Ulysse Robert, 1900) hitherto unknown
and therefore constituting additions to Field’s monumental
work:

5, 4 — 6 is presented by the codex in a composite text the
constituent elements of which come from three recensions.
Heavy-faced type indicates the recension with which the Latin
ordinarily goes (r or rof; see AJ8L., XXYIII [1911], 4);
Origen’s plus (which was inserted in the Hexapla sub asterisco)
is printed in Italics; Roman type indicates the text of B.
Between Origen’s plxis and the B text there is an element
which, as will be shown below, is derived from Symmachus;
it is printed in Italics with the siglum o-' in front. In the
parallel column the Greek is printed as found in the sources
pointed out except in the case of Symmachus where the Latin
is simply translated back into Greek.

hoe aatem modo pnr-
gavit lesus filios Istra-

hel et hoc verbo quo
circumcisa est omnis
plebs quae exierat ex
Aegypto masculi om-
nes viri bellatores
mortui sunt in deser-
to in via exeuntibus
ipsis ex Aegypto quia
incircumcisa erat om-
nis plebs quae exierat
ei omnis plebs quae

TOVTOV rou TpOTTOV TTCpLCKa-
BapiV ItJCTOI^S TOVi VlOVi

l t^tXOovrmv

avrtov AiyvTTTov ov
vepier/iyOtjcrav
cr' on "p cTij

evSurptyjrav ot vioi
l(rpai]\ ev Ttj eprjpto
CCDS avrjXwdi)

Tai o Xaos avSpes
iroXe/yuoTot oc e ^eX-

OovTCi e^ AiyOTTOv oc
ptf OKOveravrei t))s cfxovrjs
K.vpiov Q ov Se rpoxov
irepieKadapev

lr)(rov^ TODS vcovs IcrparjX-
ocrot iroTe eyevovro ev rn) o&o
KOI ocrot TTore airepc-
T/trjTOt rjcrav Tiov ei-
eXr)Xvdoru>v Aiycnnov,
iravras Toorov«
TzepitTepev

Irjcroos ju. yap erq Kai Svo
aveoTTparrac IcrpayX

ev Tt) eprjpMTri paS/SapecnBc
ScoairepcTpgroc rjcrav oc rrXec-

(TTOC aVTUlV T(0V pa\ipb)V
Twv e^eXrjXv6oTb)v

eK y'lj's Acyxfmov oc
aireSrpravTes rtov

evToXwv Tov 9eov ots
Kai Siioptcrc ktX.

1 hoc auteftn wodo] rovrov tov rpoTcov (o has the dative, comp.
4, 3 Tpoiru y)\ad koli tv
TTtStvr; ot tv nj TrapaXia. Tijs 0aXa 4>tptCaios xat o
4>tptfaiot KOI ot Euatat /cat ot Ftp- Evatos /cat a’vvq-
■ytaatot Kot ot lefiovcraiot /cat avvTjX- OpoKrdrjcrav tirt to avTO toaTt tto-
^ov fTTt TO aVTO t/ciroXtpijcrat Iijorow Atpijcrot ptTa I)jo-ov /cat ptra lirparjX
KOt TOV lo-paJjA apa iravTts tv (TTopaTt tvt

In all likelihood, the source is Theodotion: comp, trans-
literation of n’r?!^ (elsewhere II Chron. 26, 10; Obad. 19;
Jerem. 39 (32), 44; 40 (33), 13; I Maccab. 12, 38), the con-
struction TToAtpttv ptTa for DJI nnVl (comp. 22. al. Jerem. 41
(48), 12), tv o-TopoTt tvt inK ns (comp. Ill King. 22, 13 where
tJTt B error for tvt; II Chron. 18, 12). Professor Torrey will
prob. be right in deriving the version of Chronicles from Theo-
dotion, that is a parte potiori.

9, 7 avrjp la-parjX X Only, contrast la-parjX roC, ot

vioi Itr-poyA B rell Cj©. Comp. De 27, 14 xavTt ItjX <0, o' iravTt
avopt I)jA atr (irpos) iravra avSpa IrjA, but ff irpos TravTas viov$ hjX
(just as Judges 12, 1 ot vtot E^patp A for avrjp Et^patp B); comp,
also Joshua 10, 24 where avSpa was inserted by Origen sub
asterisco. The literal rendering is found in <0 in Judges and
Kingdoms; contrast avSpts lovSa in Jerem. (e. g. 4, 4), but 44
(51), 26. 27 avSpos (avjjp) sub *; Isaiah 5, 3. 7 writes avOponros
TOV Iou8a. In Chron. avTjp (lijA) BA II 20, 27; elsewhere om
omnes II 34, 30 or om B II 5, 3; om S I 10, 7; 16, 3; or
avSpts in the pi, II 13, 15. 15.

The Chronology of Certain Indo-Iranian Sound-Changes.
— By Roland Gr. Kent, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pa.

Sanskrit o normally represents an earlier diphthong. The
main elements of the peculiar development of final -as in
Sanskrit and in Avestan to -o * were solved by Bloomfield
{American Journal of Philology, iii. 25 — 45) who demonstrated
that the o is here the descendent of an IE. 6 whose quality
had not yet changed to d, and that this -d for -ds was extend-
ed at the expense of the less common -e for -es.

In some details, however, Bloomfield’s article must he correct-
ed. He argues that the immediate precursor of aSvd dravati
was *asvoz dravati, and that the -v is the product of com-
pensatory lengthening due to the loss of -z (from -s) before
a voiced dental stop, just as -iz- and -uz- before voiced dent-
als result in i and u (Am. Journ. of Phil. iii. 27). But we
have here to deal with two sets of phonetic changes of very
difl’erent date; that of final -ds to -d appears in Avestan
(where -d is extended to use in all positions, regardless of the
following sound, except before certain enclitics), but compen-
satory lengthening of a short vowel before z or z + d ov dh
is unknown in Avestan; 2 thus Skt. midha-, Av. miMa-; Skt.
dudhi-, Av. duzdd{g)-. It is manifest, therefore, that the
change which produced final -d for -ds is not the same as
that which produced the long vowel of midha-. Rather, the
history of final -d is the following: Einal -s before a pause
became a sound similar to the Skt. visarga. This 7i-sound

’ Wackernagel, Altind. Gr. i. 338 (with bibliography); Brugmann,
Grundr. i.2 886, and KTG., i. 264; Thumb, Handbuch d. Sanskrit, § 184 ft'.;
Reichelt, AwesUsches Elementarbuch, 83.

2 Av. hii-a'ti QiiS-) is not equivalent to Skt. ddati, cf. Brugmann,
Grundr.'^, i. 172; 504; 'Walde, Lot. Elym. W.^, s. v. sedeo.

260

Boland O. Kent,

[1913.

was then transferred to positions within the sentence, where
before voiced stops a voiced h resnlted which was lost with
compensatory lengthening. i Thus * * * § -os became *-oh and then -6
before voiced stops. The further extension of this final -o to
other positions in the sentence and its substitution for *-e'^
from *-es has been treated in masterly fashion by Bloomfield
[Amer. Journ. Philol, iii. 32 — 39), and needs no comment here.

It is important, however, that IE. -os became Skt. -as and
appears before voiced initials as -d, not as -o, while IE. -os,
though appearing in Skt. as -as, has the form -d before sonants.
Similarly, in Avestan, IE. final -as, -is, -os appear as -J, while
IE. final -os, etc. appear as -d. This difference of treatment
can be explained in only one way: The IE, long d, e became
d in primitive Aryan before the short d, e became d. In the
period intervening between the change of the long vowels and
the change of the short vowels, the loss of -h before voiced
stops produced -d, -e from the short final -os, -es, and d from
the long vowel followed by s. These new long vowels -d and
-e were not subject to a further change to -d, since the law
converting IE. d, e to Aryan d had already ceased oper-
ating.

As to the lengthening resulting from the loss of z or i
before d or dh in Skt., it has already been remarked that
this change does not appear in Avestan; thus Skt. nSdiyas-,
Av. nazdyah-; Skt. miyMha-, Av. myazda- etc.* We have
here ample proof that the quality of IE. e was maintained
distinct down to the time of this specifically Sanskrit change.^

• Bartholomae, KZ. xxix. 572 ff.; Brugmann, Grundr.^, i. 836. A si-
milar suggestion by Brockhaus (1842): ‘‘SoUte nicht vielleicht auch der
Nominativ auf -as wie -os ausgesprochen worden sein, dessen dumpfes
s vor alien tonenden Buchstaben verloren gehen muCte, aber wie fast
iminer im Sanskrit, wenn ein Consonant abfallt, dieser durch die Ter-
langerung des vorhergehenden Vocals ersetzt wird, auf diese Weise aus
-os die Form -5 wurde”, {Zt. Kunde d. Morg. iv. 8.5).

* On the debatable question whether the Aryan possessed such an -e
(from -es) see Wackernagel, Altind. Gr., i. 338; Brugmann, Grundr.^,
i. 886, § 1005, 5, note.

3 Cf. the examples in Wackernagel, Altind. Gr., i. p. 37, § 34; p. 274,

§ 237, b, Brugmann, Grundr.^ i. 735; KYG., p. 54.5, § 710, 2; Joh.
Schmidt, KZ., xxv. 60 ff. ; Bloomfield, A.JP. iii. 27 ff.

< Seeming exceptions like Skt. sadhar- for *sedhar- (from *seyh-tor-)
have a by analogy of the a in other forms and derivatives. Cf. Bloomfield,
AJP., iii. 30; Wackernagel, Altind. Gr. i. p. 38 (middle), § 34; p. 44, § 40.

Vol.xxxiii.] The Chronology of Certain Indo-lranian &c. 261

That the quality of 6 was similarly maintained can hardly be
proved, since the final -6 received a great extension, even in
the middle of words. * But words with an original long vowel
show consistently never -ed(h)- nor -dd(h)-: thus, mdhi,
sasadhi, cahddhi; adhvam, iiidhvam, drddhvam; ddaghnd- (for
*dz-d°, cf. Lat ds).^

The conclusions are therefore:

1. That IE. e, d became d in the primitive Aryan period
before the loss of final -h before voiced stops.

2. That IE. e, d kept their quality until after the loss of
final before voiced initial stops.

3. That IE. e certainly, and IE. o presumably, kept their
quality until after the Indian loss of z and z with compen-
satory lengthening before voiced dental and cerebral stops.

For convenience the following chronological table of the
changes is presented:

Primitive Aryan Changes.

1. Palatalization of gutturals by following palatal vowels
and i.

2. Change of IE. e, o to d, becoming identical with IE. d.

3. Loss of final -h before initial voiced consonants, giving
new e and 5.

1 The 0 of so-dasa “sixteen”, so-dfia “sixfold” (Wackernagel, Alt-
ind. Gr. i. p. 38, § 34, b) may be the result of such an extension. The
post-vedic sodhum, sodhar- from the root sah is certainly an imitation
of the Vedic rodhum from vah (Bloomfield, AJP., iii. 30). Vedio vodhum
etc. (Skt. vahati. At. vaza'ti, Lat. vehit) cannot have IE. o and must be
due to some analogy; there are some parallel forms of this root with
zero grade showing udh- from *uzdh- : udhvam (by the side of vddhvam).
udhd- (by the side of vodka-), udhvd und u lki-; a comparison with certain
forms of ruh such as riidhd- by the side of rodhum, ruihvd by the side
of -rodhar- suggests a starting point for an analogy-formation.

2 Whitney, Skt Gr.^, § 166; Wackernagel, Altind. Gr., i. p. 273, § 237,
a, a; Brngmann, Grundr.'^, i. 735, § 830, a. According to the rule (allow-
ed by Panini and required by the Pratisakhyas) that the first consonant
of a group be doubled (Whitney, Skt. Gr.^ § 229; Wackernagel, Atfind.
Gr. i. p. 112, § 98, a) the spelling dddkvatn etc. is frequent.

262 Boland O. Kent, The Chronology &c. [1913.

(Division into Indian and Iranian.)

Indian Changes. | Iranian Changes.

1. Cerebralization of dentals 1. Change of IE. e, 6 to d,
by preceding cerebral sibilants. , becoming identical with IE. a.

2. Loss of a and z before
voiced dental and cerebral
stops, with compensatory length- !
ening.

3. Change of IE. e, d to a, ;
becoming identical with IE. d. '

The Peshitta Text of Gen. 32,25 . — By Eichakd Gottheil,
Professor in Columbia University, New York City.

In preparing the final part of my edition of the second half
of the glosses of Bar Ali, I stumbled over the following;

.isyoUi.\ .otlop^

i. e. “The flank became torpid or benumbed”. The dictionaries
try to explain the word Aijt, w'hich evidently comes from the
passage Gen. 32, 25, as from the root Ijul, to change, to be
altered — adding “for the worse”, to he displaced, dislocated.
So Mrs. Margoliouth in her Compendious Syriac Dictioriary,
p. 586. Audo, Dictionnaire de la langiie Chaldcenne, II, 584:
^ ^ •wotA .saA. ooL

.6^0} :ot^i

i. e. to become slack; to lose the power of speech through
laughter; his leg or his hand lost its cunning.

But these meanings are all derived from the passage in
Genesis in its faulty tradition. And yet that tradition is quite
old. Not only is the reading found in the Mss. used by Le Jay
for the Paris Polyglott and by Walton for the London Polyglott,
and taken over by Lee in his reprint for the London Bible
Society. It is also to be found in the Urmia Edition printed
by the American missionaries. That these are based upon
good Ms. authority, may be seen from the fact that the Jacobite
seventh century Ms. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan reads
Ua., as does the excellent Nestorian Massoretic Ms. in the
British Museum (Add. 12, 138 fol. 15b) of the year 899 A. D.,
which the Eev. G. Margoliouth has been kind enough to look
up for me:

ooAv;; otL'dtju KIao

Bar Ehhraya, in his scholia to the passage, is careful to punc-
tuate the word; KIao otl.o;^u^ o;.ao (See Uhry,

Die Scholien des . . . Barhebraeus zur Genesis Capitel 21 — 50,
Strassburg 1898, p. 12); and in the sixteenth century Abhdisho

264 Bichard Gottheil, The Peshitta Text of Gen. 33,2-5. [ 1913 .

of Jazarta wrote in Ms heptasyllabic poem dealing with Syriac
homonyms: onfl’v.? o»loWu Viollo (Hoffmann, Opuscula

Nestoriana, p. 68, 8).

Of course, the correct reading is l^< sarvabljani sarvaratnany upabrtya

L mrgakharakrula kulalammrtrika (mr being inserted). LRoth guggula.
L -vJjani. L upahlatya.

2. puradvarad valmikad adbidevatavecya-rajangapabbyam ca
mrttika madbusarpisi ca

L puraddharad vahlmlkad. L adhide vatadvegya- ; Roth adhidevanavegya- ;
lengthening in dual cmpd., but prob. read -vecma-. L -rajaganabhyam.
L mrtti. Roth -sarpisi. LRoth carry the samdhi over to next sentence.

3. etan sambbaran sambbrtya

Roth etaiii.

4. pavane krtva

5. gramacatuspatbe nagaracatuspatbe va vrsabbacarmastlrya

L va va rsabhaih-,

6. tatrainam snapayet pavamanibbih jj 5 ||

Roth tatraitaih. L pavamanidbhih.

1. pavitram (^atadbaram psibbib pavana kptam j
tena tvam abbisincami pavamanib punantu tva |j

L omits. See Bloomfield’s Vedic Concordance.

270

O. M. Bolling,

[1913.

2. yena deyah pavitrena ’’tmanaih punate sada |
tena tvam abhisificami pavamanili punantu tva |(

Tj omits: yena devah, but repeats the verse correctly.

3. ya te laksmlr ya^ ca papma hrdaye yag canodare |
urvor upasthe payau ca tam ito na^ayamy abam ||

L yah; Roth yagah; for yag ca. L yang; Roth yag. Roth payu.

4. ya girasi grlvayam panipadau ca sevate |
gronyam prsthe tu yalaksmis tam ito nagayamy abam ||

L gronyo. L nu. Roth yalaksmi.

5. pracim digam avadbayendram daivatam aindrim parisadaiii
yah kanya ye siddhah ||

L avadhayemiih; Roth avadhayendra. L aidriih; Roth aimdrl. L parisaih.
L kamnya. This section is modelled after AV. 4. 40.

6. indrena datta osadbaya apo varunasammitah |
tabhis tvam abhisincami pavamamh punantu tva ||

L iddhe || datta.

7. daksinaih digam avadbaya yamaiii daivataiii yamlrii parisa-
dam yah kanya ye siddhah ||

8. yamena datta osadhaya apo ° | • ° ||

9. pratlclm digam avadhaya varupaiii daivatam varuplm pari-
sadam yah kanya ye siddhah ||

L pratl. L vahanaih.

10. varunena datta osadhaya apo ° i ' ° ||

11. udiclih digam avadhaya somam daivatam somiih parisadam
yah kanya ye siddhah ||

Roth omits.

12. somena datta osadhaya apo ° | '' * ||

13. dhruvam digam avadhaya visnu daivatam vaisnavliii
parisadam yah kanya ye siddhah ||

14. visnuna datta osadhaya apo ' | ° ° ||

15. vyadhvarii digam avadhaya vayuiii daivatam vayavira pari-
sadam yah kanya ye siddhah ||

Roth vayu. L vayaihvirh.

16. vayuna datta osadhaya apo ” | ° • ||

17. urdhvam digam avadhaya brhaspatiih daivatam barhas-
patyam parisadam yah kanya ye siddhah ||

L vrhaspatiih; Roth brhaspati.

18. bphaspatina datta osadhaya apo • | ° ° ||

L vrhaspatina; Roth brihaspatina.

19. sarva digah sarvan antardegan avadhaya brahmanam dai-
vatam brahmim parisadam yah kanya ye siddhah ||

Roth sarvantardegan, with also some confusion after brahmanam.

Vol. xxxiii.] Th e Qdntikalpa of the Atharvaveda.

271

20. brahmana datta osadhaya apo Tarunasammitah |
tabhis tvam abhisincami pavamamh punantu tva ||

Padas od are quoted by Sayana at 7. 118, p. 542.

21. pra patetah papi laksmiti catasrah jj 6 j|

AV. 7. 115. 1 — 4; quoted by Sayana, loc. cit.

1. atba snatasyardharatre sadyabpiditena gaurasarsapatailena
sadyonmathitena va ghytenaudumbarena sruvena juhoti ||

Tj snatasyardva-. Both -pilitena. L stuvena; Both sravena murdbni.

2. ^alakataiikataya svaha kusmapdarajaputraya svabotsmrtaya
svaha devayajanaya svahety

Both kusmanda-. L devajanaya svahahety.

3. atba snato yarn tv aryam upatistbate tam bruyad bbaga-
vati bbagaiu me debi dbanavati dbanaib me debi yagas-
vati ya^o me debi saubbagyavati saubbagyam me debi
putravati putran me debi sarvavati sarvan kaman me
debity

L snato. Both yam tvaryam upatisthante. L fa. Both yaQasvatl.
L saubhagavyati. Both putravati. Roth sarvavani. L sarvanva
kaman me; Both sarvan me kaman. A deletion in L between dehl
and ty.

4. *atbendranyu^lradubitrikani bhavanti bbagavati*
sarvabbute^vari devi §aranam tvabam agata^ |
saubbagyakamab subbage jahi mabyam vinayakan |[
*nityam || 7 ||

Both athendrany-. L -duhitrakani ; Both -duhitri k3ni. Roth tvapam.
L -kama. The ^loka is not marked off by punctuation in the mss.

1. ata urdbvaib vinayakopabarab

2. Quklah sumanasa upabared raktah sumanasa upabared
guptag cSguptag ca tandulah pbalikrtag c5pballkrta§ ca
pistam pakvarii camam ca mansam pakvam camam ca
dbana matsyah ^askulyah purodagah kulmasa ajaka-
^ignika-bbustrnaka-mulako-'padan^anam gandbapanarii ma-
rlcapanarii surapanam iti

Roth guktah sumanasah. L upahareihd. L upahareta. L, phallkrtog.
L mahsa. LRoth ^ahkulyah. L gaja-giyuka-. L -bhuranrnaka-; Both
-hhustrinaka-. L maricayavam; Roth maricepanarii.

3. navesu gurpesu caturbbih krtvopabared

4. atbopatistbate || 8 ||

1. gyeno vimukbo bakab paksl sinbakalakall kalababbirur vina-

272 O. M. Bolling, [1913.

yakah kubjak kiismaHdarajaputro haimavato jambuko viru-
paksah *kalmgakum5rl* sukarah krodhl
L vimuko ; Roth bhimukta. LRoth -kalamkali. Roth kalahavira. L korii-
bhamdaraksahputrau. L jaihbuka. Roth virupakseh. Read: kaliflgah
kumari, or: kaliflgo 'kuman. L Qukara krodhim; Roth Qukrakrodlil.

2. yaigravanaya rajne namo

3. yas tistbati yaigrayaiiasya dvare kubjah karalo vinato vina-
yakas tam aham garanaiii prapadye brabmacarinam amum

L vaigvavanasya. L kuhbjah. Roth prapate. L omits: amum.

4. amusya kamam imam saroardbaya

Roth kamah imam; L kapayimam. Roth somaddhaya.

5. vaiQravanaya rajne namo

6. atha ^vobhute vimalam Sdityam upatisthate
L tha.

7. namas te astu bbagavafi cbatara^me tamonuda |

jabi me deva daurbhagyam saubhagyena ma samspjety
L asru. L bhagavam; Roth bhagavah. L chatara^mi; Roth not clear.
L tya jahi (i. e. scribe started to skip padas cd.) cf. MG. 2. 14. 31.

8. ata urdhvarii brahmanatarpaparii

9. gomithunam hirariyarii rasa^ ca kartre daksina || 9 ||

Ij goraithuna; Roth so- (but not clear). Roth kartre ye.

1. athato ’gnir mabaganteb pralipte stbandile same |
^uklavasab pramathnlta proksate ^antivaripa ||

Roth gner mahagantih. Roth -vasa pramathnlta.

2. kravyadagnim pranirhatya . sambbared arani ^ubhe |
om ity etena mantrena matbitvagnim samabitah |(

Roth kravyadagnim pranirhrtya. Roth gubhi.

3. au^o rajety j-cam vidvan vibhagam manasa japet |
kravyade nairrtam karma vaksyate tat svake krame ||

Kaug. 71. 1, L ago. Roth sake; Ii khake. Qantik. ii. 15. 1 — 6.

4. samastviyena havyau hi purnakbyam sarpisabutim |
butva samindhayed agnim ahutir jubuyat tatah |{

AV. 2. 6. 1. L havyu. L purnaksam. L samedhayed; Roth samidhayed;
finite forms of cans, are not cited.

5 . divas prthivya akutinx kamasyendi-asye ndro rajeti ||
AV. 19. 3. 1 (and elsewhere); 4. 2; 9. 2. 6; 19. 5. 1. L dro; Roth ndra.

6. I^anam prathamam devam yajed brahma samabitah |
pakayajnavidhanena prarambbe sarvakarmanam ||

7. mabagantim prayniijanas tarpayitva grahan budbah |
pujita devaputras te tustah santu phalapradab || 10 ||

Roth -ganti. L -putrarthe. L -prada.

Vol. xxxiii.] The Qantilcdl'pa of the Afharvaveda. 273

1. devaputra vai grata ugana angirah suryah prajapatyah
somah ketur budhah ^anai^caro rahur ity

L uganaiigirah; Roth uganangira (double samdhi). L -patyah. L vudhah.

2. ete brahmanam upasasrur bbagadbeyam no bbagavan kal-
payasveti

Roth upasusrur.

3. tan abravid brabma astSvihgatinaksatresu paryayena carata
rahuh somarkayoh parvakalesu drgyatam iti ||

L stavin^ato-. Roth rahu. L somarkaryoh. Roth omits punctuation.

4. te deva abrurann atba yasya naksatram grabenartarii
bbavati tarn arto 'dbitistbati nasyartbab sidbyanti

Roth ta; Li omits. L abruvann. L naksatre. L -artta; Roth -arthaiii.
Roth artho. L narsyarthah. There is a lacuna at this point.

.5. svayain va manyetam svastiman abam iti
L manyeta; in Roth the anusvara is not clear. L svastipracan

6. degasya gramasya va *slnam anu* diksitah karmanyah
surabbir abatavasah

L) gramasya. L va sisthmuni. Roth diksitah | anudiksitah. L -vasa.

7. paurnamasam tantram vratopayanantam kytva

8. purastad agner gomayena gocarmamatrarii stbanddamupalipya
L ague gemiyena gocamar-. Roth -matram. LRoth elide at the end of

this and the following sentences.

9. atbami§aiu grabapam biranmayani cbatrapy asanopanat-
padapltbani nidbaya

L -yanatyada-. L nidadhaya.

10. abatena vastrenodagda^enasanany avacbadya

L -dagada^ena-. LRoth -asanaihny. L avatsadya; Roth acatsadya.

11. adityadln graban avabayed
L -adiua. Roth grahany.

12. yam vabanti ^onakarna iti navabbih || 11 ||

L ya.

1. yarii vabanti ^onakarnah pratiloma vajinah |

tarn abam sarvatejomayam adityam avabayamiba ||

L ryaih. L pratiloma. L -yami ha. The meter is too bad to warrant
corrections for its improvement.

2. yam vabanti bausavarna anuloma vajinah |

tarn abam dA-ijair apyayyamanam somam avabayamiba |(
L yam. L apyajya-; Roth apyayya-.

3. yasya raktam rupam raktanulepanag ca yah |

tarn abam raktavarnabbain bhaumam avabayamiba ||

Roth raktam. L -leyana^. L stuvarnabhaih.

274

(j. M. Bolling,

[ 1913 .

4. yasya pitam rupaiii pitanulepanaQ ca yah |

tarn ahaih pltavarnabham budham avabayamiba ||

L pitai. L vudham.

0 . yag caivangirasah putro devanam ca purohitab |

tam abam biranyavarnabbam brbaspatim avabayamiba ||
L yo mgirasah. L vrbaspatim.

6. yasya guHam rupaib guklanulepanag ca yab (
tam abaiii guklavarnabham gukram avabayamiba ||

L -yami ha.

7. yasyayasam rupam ayasa ca prakptih |

tam abam *adityatejoiiiyasthapyayamanam mptyuputram
avabayamiba ||

L yaayayesam. Eoth ayasaya ca. L adityenoniyasthapyamanarii.

8. yasya kpsaara rupam kpsnanulepanag ca yah |
tam abam krsnavarnabbam rabum avabayamiba ||

9. yasya dlrgba gikba mukharii ca parimandalam |
tam abam brahmanah putraib ketum avabayamiba ||

L vrahmanah. Combined with next: L -he || ty; Eoth -he | ty.

10. ity avahya varnakamayir vpksamaylr dhatumayir va graba-
pratimah pratyanmukhlr asanesupavegayati || 12 ||

L vaksamayir. L grahapratimaihh; Eoth pratima L asanesupa-.

1. bhaskarangarakau raktau gvetau gukranigakarau |
rabuketuyamab kpsnab pitau budbabybaspatl ||

L-amgSrako. L -vrhaspati.

2. candariau somagukrau tu bhaumarkau raktacandanau |

baridrakav ubbau jneyau viprair budhabphaspatl |

kpsnaguror grabah karya rahuketuganaigcarah ||

L jneyo vipra; viprau is also possible emendation. Eoth krsnagaror;
L not clear.

3. bhaskarangarakau tamrau raukmau budbabrbaspatl [
rajatau somagukrau tu gesah karsnayasa grabah ||

L tamnau raukabho; Eoth tarare rukme. L -vrhaspati. L karsnayasa;
Eoth krsnayasa.

4. grabanam divyacestanam naksatrapathacariiiam |
yathavarnani puspani vasansy evanulepanam |( 13 ||

Ij) vasauihsy; Eoth vasasy. LEoth aivanu-.

1. ima apab givah givatamah gantah gantatamah putab puta-
tamah punyah pupyatama amrta amrtatamah padyag car-
ghyag cacamanlyag cabhisecanlyag ca pratigrbnantu bhaga-
vanto deva graba ity apo ninayati ||

Vol. xxxiii.] The Cantikalpa of the Atharvaveda.

275

Roth purya pur-. L amrtatamyah; Roth abbreviated. L cardhyag.

Roth abhi-. L pratigrhantu. Roth deva. L ^naha.

2. ime gandhah Qubha diyyah sarvagandhaih samanvitah j
puta brahmapavitrena suryasya ca ragmibbih ||
pratigrhnantu bbagavanto deva graba iti gandhair anulim-
pati II

L hrahmapavitrana suryara oa. Roth anulimpayati.

3. imah sumanaso divyah surabhivrksayonijah |
puta vayupavitrena suryasya ca ragmibbih ||
pratigrhnantu bbagavanto deva graba iti sumanobbir a-
bbyarcayati ||

L ima sumanasare. L surabhirvrksa-. L vayuh-.

4. vanaspatiraso medbyo divyo gandbadbya uttamah |

S.barab sarvadevanam dbupo ’yam
pratigrbnantu bbagavanto deva graba iti dbuparii dabati [|

L, vinaspati-. L gandhad atuttamah (for: anuttamah). Roth uttamah.

5. agnib ^ukrag ca jyoti^ ca sarvadevapriyo bi sab |
prabbakaro mabateja dlpo ’yaib pratigrbyatam ||
balarcir dbumagikbas timirarih svayaibprabbub |
osadbisnebasampanno dlpo 'yam
pratigrbnantu bbagavanto deva graba iti dlpam dadati.

Roth dhuma-. Roth svayam pratigrhnantu prahhuh. L bhagavante diva;

Roth bhagavato deva. L dadami.

6. ime bbaksah gubba divyah sarvabbaksaih samanvitah |
puta brahmapavitrena suryasya ca ra^mibbih ||
pratigrbnantu bbagavanto deva graba iti sarvabbaksan
nivedayati ||

Roth bhiksa. L sarvahhaksam; Roth sarvabhiksaih.

7. biranmayang camasan sarpisah purnan upaharet |

L hiranyayang. Roth sarpisa upahara. L omits punctuation.

8. pa§cad agneh pranmukha upavi<;ya

9. karmane vam ityevamadi

Kauc. 1. 36; 58. 5.

10. devasya tva savitur ity adityebhyo grabebbyo bavir
nirvapet || 14 ||

Of. Bloomfield’s concordance.

1. athajyabhagante visasahim ity adityaya baviso butvajyaiii
jubuyat samidba adbayopatistbate ||

Quoted by Sayana at 10. 2, p. 737; 19. 6, p. 266. AY. 17. 1. 1. L sagid;
Roth samid.

276

G. M. Bolling,

[1913.

2. gakadhumam iti somaya

AV. 6. 128. 1. Quoted by Sayana at 6. 127, p. 268.

.3. tTaya manyo yas te manyo ity angarakaya

AV. 4. 31. 1; 32. 1. Quoted by Sayana at 4. 31, p. 675.

4. yad rajanah somasyan^o yudham pata iti budhaya

AV. 3. 29. 1; 7. 81. 3. Quoted bj' Sayana at 3. 29, p. 494; 7. 85, p. 476.

L yajnyajanah. Roth somasyaii^o.

5. sa budhnyad bhadrad adhi ^reyah prebi brbaspatir na iti
brbaspataye

AV. 4. 1. 5; 7. 8. 1; 51. 1. Quoted by Sayana at 7. 6, p. 320; 52, p. 394.

Roth prahi. L vrhaspatir.

6. hiranyavarna nunam tad asya Qukro ’siti cukraya

AV. 1. 33. 1; 4. 1. 6; 17. 1. 20 (2. 11. 5). L n nam.

7. sahasrabahuh- purusah kena parsni pranaya nama iti Qa-
naigcaraya

AV. 19. 6. 1; 10. 2. 1; 11. 4. 1. Quoted by Sayana at 10. 2, p. 737; 11. 6,
p. 86; 19. 6, p. 266. L -vahuh. L pranaya.

8. divyam citraib rahu rajanam iti rahave

Kaug. 99. 2; 100. 2. Roth rahu. L rajanama.

9. yas te pythu stanayitnar devo devan paribbur jdena ketuib
kpnvann aketava iti ketave

AV. 7. 11. 1; 18. 1. 30; 20. 26. 6. Cf. Sayana at 7. 11, p. 328. L ttatena.
Roth ketu. L krnvamn.

10. ketum kprivann aketave pego marya ape^ase |
sam usadbbir ajayatbah || 1.5 ||

Ti krnvamn. L yegon. L ajayatha; Roth ajayathah.

1. madbiiklr lobitangaya naiyagrodbir budbaya ca j
adadbyat samidbab plak.sih sakslra bbargavaya tu ||

Cf. AVPar. xxvi. 5. 6 ff. A page is transposed in Roth so that 16. 1 — 17.
4 (inch) stand after the colophon of the chapter. LRoth niadhukliii.

Roth -tahgaya nyaiyagrodhlih. L saksira.

2. arkis tu ravaye dadyad rabor aranyagomayam |
audumbaryo gurob prokta acvattbis tu ganSi^care |
candraya samidbab pala^lh ketor gbptayutab ku^ah |j

L arki ravaye. L omkrdumbaryo. Roth agvatthas. L ganaigcara.

3. atha Qantaih krtyadusanaig catanair matrnamabhir vastos-
patyair ajyam juhuyad

Cf. AVPar. xxxii. 1—5. Quoted in fragments by Sayana at 1. 7, p. 48;
2. 2, p. 198; 11, p. 243; 14, p. 260; 8. 3, p. 589. L gahtai. L matr-
namabhi. L juhuyatd.

Vol. xxxiii.] The Qantikcdpa of the Atharvaveda. 277

4. abhayenopasthaya tantram parisamapayed

Of. AVPar. xxxii. 12. Sayana at 19. 15, p. 328: abhayenopatisthate.

5. atha daksinah prayacchati || 16 ||

L daksina. Roth prayachamti.

1. bbargavaya hayam dadyat somaputraya kancanam |
vpsabham lobitafigaya chagallm dbumaketave ||

Roth -ahgaja.

2. varam angirasaya dadyad adityaya tn gab gubbab |
vrsallm mptyuputraya gajam dadyat tu rabave j
rukmam candramase dadyad etad acaryagasanam ||

L ahgirase. Roth for gajam: mamdam. Li dadya tu.

3. grbe brbaspatau vipran bbojayed gbplapayasam |
gukre sarvagunam tv annam madbuna cabbigbaritam ||

L vrhaspatau. L bhojayet. L sarvagrnam. Roth yabhigharitam.

4. ganaigcare bavisyannam tatba kslraudanam budbe |
krgarannena ketunarii rabor mansaudanena tu |)

Roth starts to omit padas be. L ksiraudanu; Roth ksiradanam. L vudhe;
Roth budhaih.

0 . bbaume gudaudanaib dadyan modakaih samalamkrtam |
sarpisa payasa caiva surye candi’e tatbaudanam ||

Roth gadaudanam. L mohakaih.

6. samidadbanam etesam grabapuja vidblyate |
annadanam atbaitesam etesam daksina smrtah ||

L ekesam. L vadhiyate. L athaikesamm ekesam. Roth daksina.

7. tad etaj janmani karmani yatrayain pratilomesu va grabesu
gantibbaisajyam kuryad ity evam abur manisipa ity

L eta junmani. Roth grahesu | gantir-. L ahu. Roth manislna.

8. atraite gloka bbavanti || 17 ||

L bhavati.

1. yatba samuttbitam yantram yantrena pratibanyate |
evam samuttbitam gboraiii gigbi’am gantir vinSgayet ||

2. yatba banaprabaranam kavacam bbavati varanam |
tadvad daivopagbatanam gantir bbavati varanam ||

li vana-. L kevacam. L tadvard devo-.

3. abihsakasya dantasya dbarmarjitadbanasya ca |
nityam ca niyamastbasya sada canugraba grabab ||

Lj -dhasya ca. L sanu, omitting: graha which is in margin, but cf.
next note.

278

G. M. Bolling, The Qantikalpa &c.

[ 1913 .

4. graha gavo narendrag ca brahmanaQ ca vi^esatahj
pujitah pratipujyante nirdahanty apamanitah ||

L omits: graha, cf. last note. L narehdrang ca yra-.

5. etad grahanam atithyam kuryat samvatsarad api |
arogyabalasampanno jivec ca ^aradah Qatam ||

Roth -sampanna jivema garadah.

jivec ca ^aradah ^atam iti j| 18 ||

Roth omits.

iti pratbamo ’dhyayab samaptah ||

Roth: maha^ntih (read: -ganteh) prathamwdharii samaptam.

Zum magischen Texte (Journal of the American Oriental
Society 1912, p. 434 seq.). — Von Dr. J. N. Epstein,

Brest-Litowsk, Rnfiland.

Zu dem von James A. Montgomery ibid. S. 435 veroffent-
lichten Texte ist Folgendes zu bemerken und berichtigen:

1) Zunacbst ist zu lesen (s. die Tafel auf S. 434):

xnn nm ’Ti’rin ntod by nn nt

„Zah, zah (fort! fort!) auf den Biegel unter der Hohe (Pla-
fond) des Hauses“. nt als Verbannungsinterjektion — denn
es ist eine Interjektion, wie das vorbergehende H’, syr. und
mand. N’, aram. Papyri H' — ist in einem talmudischen Zauber-
sprucb zur Verbannung eines Lotoen erbalten: n'IKT snra
nt nt, Pes. ttiao ist natUrlich das syrische l^aro, talm.

Kna'D (tfOID) „Turriegel“.2 „infra“ ist nach der

Tafel ziemlich sicher (weniger wahrscheinlich 'ntnn). Kn'3‘Dn(l)
„H6be des Hauses“, nicht [’]Dm „sudlicb“! Vgl. auch das
Talmudische Sani Npaijt eines Hauses. BB. 63*” — 64“; fiir
„Suden“ gebraucbt unser Text, wie wir sehen werden, ein
anderes Aquivalent.

2) Von unten, zeigt die Tafel blob: 3D1

• * • und daher eine Erganzung wie [ttlTDDt, das bier
nicht paBt, bocbst unwabrscbeinlicb.

3) Ibid, unten, 1.: WTIW Nl'DI DNin

KpTp p'lTUCK Nm[Et tfinsi wsnoN

. . . NfnOBtn nnppjtn ^'ts'nm tt^ttsn „Untersagt sei eucb die
Sonne und der Mond, verboten sei eucb der Norden und
Wes[ten,J der [0]sten und Siiden, ibre (der Teufel) Fessel
sind eberne Binge und eiserne Biegel^'" usw.

SlKnoS, talmudiscb IHON, WflDH, syr. selten ass.-bab.

iStdnu „!brorden“ (zu unserer SteUe vgl. den „Nordwind“ im

1 Zur Etymologie, s. Montgomery, ibid. S. 436.

s Das tnSD scbeint eine Zauberkraft gehabt zu baben, s. Sab. 67®:
"nDD 'to ’-IBS TO3»1 (Var. bei Aruch: K33T ’“OID).

280

J. N. Epstein, Zum magischen Texte.

[1913.

Zendavesta: „vat6 daev6“ „Damonenwind“); S’llS „"VV'esten‘‘,
wie im Talm., ass. amuru (avuru); „Osten,„ wie im TaJm.,
ass. Sutu. Es fehlt nun noch der „Suden“ (im Talm. ass.
Sodw) und dieser wird wohl mit gemeint sein, welches

wohl Metathesis von S2JS3, hehr. 233, syr. ist, wie

ahnlich z. B. talm. KT3'*3 „Fuh‘‘ = mand. Sendschhii

ST3^, 23^ = N^31.i NTajl ist nicht == S22N „Blei“, denn nach
der Tafel ist zweifellos (i^) zu lesen. Es bedeutet viel-

mehr, wie haufig im Talm. (ttcm) NliJ? „Riegel“ 2 (Querhalken),
entsprechend Splp, die, wie im Syr. „Einge“ sind und dienen
hier zum Empfangen des jjEiegels**. Zu Nt'naB^ „Semayaza“
des JuhUaumbuches (Montgomery, S. 436), der Gigant 'Stnocy
im Targ. j. Gen. 6, 4, b. Nidda 61% vgl. noch den talmudischen
Zauberspruch zur Bandigung eines Damons, Sab. 67“
:saBD''«1 I3nn t30Sr2 «3’D 12 O’D 12 noit?D1 mn. Van: Aruch:
iTnoonDiSl nsmni l3niD D»3, Ms. Oxf. (bei Kabbinowicz)
iTnoriBD’xi name ma de» 2 , Ms. Mun. na’iiai pnia aera
'n^'a ’anD'KI (das a in 'aa^a ist daber jedenfalls sicher).

4) Ibid. 1. nacb der Tafel: KTB' !?ia pp2'31 IinP31, statt
lin?'’31, vgl. das nt, oben.

6) iy sLc dS

ly y> >y »bo ^ dS ^ jy 3I yh

.xfcly 3y sU y ,_y.o yL. ^ ^

CUxoy isLo ^_ 5>^ JLs :^^ ^

^ )}i <*^3

y y.^ sy^ ST? j' r**

^ ^ Li

^^-**0 ^^ SlW vX)Li

^-*-A*) ^ Liiil

^IjwcU ^\ y> viJ'.J^ crn-y

&\SJ iS3\ ^ y»'^ 3 ij^

o'^O 'y s ^^y

In the Name of God, Compassionate, Omnipotent!
Tradition on the Theme of What Happens at Sight
OF THE New Moon in each Sign [of the Zodiac].

(1) By the grace of God, Who gireth daily food, I shall
tell of each new moon; be thou wise!

(2) When thou seest the moon from the sign of Aries, at
that instant gaze on fire;

(3) In order that thy affairs may be better that month,
consider now the word of the sage.

(4) Likewise at sight [of the new moon] from Taurus look
on an ox in order that that month may be better for thee.

(5) When in the sign of Gemini thou seest the moon, at
that instant gaze on an ascetic ;9

' BU, \jSj.^. 2 BU omits. 3 BD,

* ®Ui ® BU, 3*1 6 BXJ, j> 3(J>.

^ BU, y.33*! 8 BU,

9 Rosenberg (Bypaat-HaMa, p. 8, note 1 ) regards this reference to the
ascetic as a proof of the Indian origin of the Bwrj-Ndmah.

o'iD y o'

3^ i^'^y 3'y

•>3^j y ^ 5j ok^ y cr^

23 o'y^

ts-h^ -y o'yy ^y y y?-

j\ C‘.A*^La» 15

^ la.i ^

33^'-* i^' * 33 ^“ 3-^^ 0"^y
3 ^ 3 ^' yy ^3? y 3^

o4) '3.)^ y 13 * ^ 31-^3 3^^ y

sLc

5-*^ c^-y 3^ yy

y — tj-'

j\^>/ y\i j\ cu^l*. *13*^

y ^yy y ^y 3 ^ 3 ^

0^5) o' 3'*^ 3 oy y

3L [jL* ^ *

288 Louis S. Gray, [1913.

(6) Beware of mirage and look not upon it, in order that
that month may he most good for thee.

(7) When thou seest the moon in the sign of Cancer— hark
thou to tidings fi-om the words of this sage —

(8) At that instant look on running water, hut not on
pleasant verdure or plants.

(9) When thou seest the moon from the sign of Leo, gaze
a while upon the sky;

(10) Implore thy necessities from the pure Protector [God];
look not thou on child and wife, O famous one!

(11) When in the sign of Virgo thou seest (the new moon),
be thou wise; of its signification hear thou from me thus:

(12) Look not thou, under these circumstances, with sadness*
on the face of any one else, in order that thou mayest not
make thyself distressed with thyself;

(13) Eecite thou praise of God with verity and perfectly,
in order that thou mayest do happily in that moon, the new
one.

(14) When in the sign of Libra thou seest the moon, gaze
at that instant on a mirror and on gold;

(15) Implore thy necessities from the Creator of the world.
Likewise of the sign of Scorpio I shall tell; be thou wise!

(16) Gaze thou, O man of good appearance, young man of
vigour, not blind and not deaf;

(17) Look not on any thing abominable, O famous one, in
order that that month may come to an end with goodness.

(18) When the moon entereth the sign of Sagittarius, gaze
straightway on silver and gold;

(19) Look not on the face of the sick at that time: beware
[of so doing] in order that thou thyself mayest be joyful.

(20) AVhen thou seest the moon from the sign of Capricornus,
straightway recite the Asim Vuhu [Asani v6hu\ thrice;

(21) Gaze not on the sick and likewise [not] on children,
in order that in that month thou mayest be very joyful.

(22) When in Aquarius thou seest the new moon, recite
thou the Aydd Ahuvlryit [Ta9d ahu vairyu], listen unto them;

(23) Implore thy necessities from the mighty Creator; look
not thou on cliild and wife, O famous one!

• Kosenberg (p. 9. cf., however, his uncertainty expre^-ed on p. 4)
renders “with pride’’ (cT> Ha 4 MeBHOCTi>io).

Vol. xxxiii.]

Iranian Miscellanies.

289

(24) When thou seest the moon in the sign of Pisces, gaze
straightway on rubies and pearls;

(25) Look and be joyful at that time; be joyous, and it is
no harm to thee.

(26) Even so remember our verses now, in order that the
Protector [God] may be guardian.

The two maSnams (reprinted from the Hoshang Volume) on
the omens to be drawn from the appearance of snakes on each
of the days of the week and in each of the signs of the zodiac
are as follows, with their revised translations:

j' y b

■>;' \Ji

<.XaoL>

> ^ vXXo L)

The Sight of a Snake accobding to the Good and
Bad of the Week.

(1) On the Sabbath, the day of Saturn, [if] thou seest a
snake, rear unto heaven thy castle and palace.

(2) On the day after the Sabbath, which is the day of the
Sun, [if] thou seest a snake, kill it; it is a good work.

(3) Two days after the Sabbath — the day of the Moon it
would be — when thou seest a snake, it would be desirable.

(4) Three days after the Sabbath— the day of Mars it would
be — [if thou seest a snake,] dig up the serpent’s foundation
from the root.

(5) Four days after the Sabbath, which would be from
Mercur}’, [if thou seest a snake,] it bringeth thee pleasure and
society this day.

(6) Five days after the Sabbath, which would be the day
of .Tupiter, when thou seest a snake [and] killest it, thou killest
Iblls.

290

Louis H. Gray,

[1913.

(7) Friday is the day of Venus, of Aphrodite; that day [if
thou seest a snake,] i thou shouldst keep festiyal.

2t lx

Oo L«.>L>t.X ^ ^ Lo
LX.iob J

^ Jto }\

^3 ^ ) >[3 ^ ^ -5

^ C5-^ C5^ ^

j\.^CU>Amy ,^L*-wO Ia^^'I yi

^ ^ jlx

hX^3 i.x««jIj 3 *y *

(.xji Lo.^v..m^

u^M4xl.^ tiXLo i^ ^rw ^x

^JO ,> ^Ix ^ A-x

bX>i ^wXjI ^

Ma ix-iol^ (^.r*

53'y Ij i_ 5 ^ y^

^^bU-> »j^ jS y^

yj^. yy ^y. y

y \ j ^ jy > >> y $ y ^ ^> 10

IjlCAl

^ '^y' ^

C5^ 5 /'

The Sight op a Snake according to the Good and
Bad op the Twelve [Zodiacal] Signs, [according to]
■WHAT Moon it is.

(1) When the moon should be in the sign of Aries, O friend,
[if] thou seest a snake, much good it is.

(2) In the sign of Taurus good doth it [the moon] show;
to thee from a snake strength doth it show.

(3) The moon in the sign of Gemini should be good; his
[the snake’s] head should be under stone and stock.

(4) When the moon [is] in Cancer, [if then] thou seest a
snake, thou cuttest off hope of thy wealth and life.

(5) When the fuU moon enteretb the sign of Leo, [if then
thou seest a snake,] good fortune increaseth, and calamity
cometh to a head [i. e. ceaseth].

* Rosenberg, who read an advance oiFprint of my article in the Hoshang
Volume, does not think that this bracket should be supplied here. The
parallelism of the other verses seems to require it, yet it is, of course,
true that Friday, as the Muhammadan Sabbath, might form an exception
to the other days of the week.

2 Rosenberg suggests ^

Vol. xxxiii.]

Iranian Miscellanies.

291

(6) Should the new moon be in the sign of Virgo when
thou seest a snake, eat on earthenware. i

(7) When thou seest a snake in Libra, it [the snake] is thy
protector and asylum, [and] the might of thine arm.

(8) When the moon appeareth in Scorpio, it would he
fortunate for the killing of a serpent.

(9) When the moon darteth his ray in the sign of Sagittarius,
[if then thou seest a snake,] thou dost customarily see wealth
anew.

(10) When the moon doth make its appearance in Capricor-
nus, look not on a serpent, show not thy face.

(11) [If] the moon becometh visible in the sign of Aquarius,
[if then thou seest a snake,] thou seest [f. e. sulferest] much
oppression and cruelty.

(12) [If] the moon [he] in the sign of Pisces, in the sign
of the Pish, [if thou seest a snake,] thou seest the passing of
sovereignty.

(13) If [thou art] prudent, if happy and joyous, thou causest
the divine compassion to come unto [thy] weakness. 2

As supplementary to my former studies, I may note that
Rosenberg assigns both the Burj-Namah and the Mar-Ndmah
(the latter edited by Modi, Bombay, 1893) either to Anugn-vSn
ibn Marzban of Kirman, who flourished in the late sixteenth
and early seventeenth centuries, or to one of his pupils. 2

While I have endeavoured, largely on the basis of Rosen-
berg’s criticism on my article in this Journal and his pencil
notes on the Hoshang offprint, to correct the errors of reading
and translation to which I confess, I remain unchanged regard-
ing the only matter which I regard as of real importance in
this connexion — the problem of the ultimate source of this
whole type of Parsi-Persian omen-literature. I have long been
perfectly aware of the existence of snake-cults in India, though
I had overlooked the mentions of moon-omens in India made
by al-Biruni {India, tr, Sachau, ii, 97 ; Chronology, tr. Sachau,
p. 335); but these are scarcely of a weight sufficient to make
any alteration in my theory. I have also long known that,

> Rosenberg, reading ^ , translates “drink wine in an earthen
cup”.

2 Rosenberg translates “thou reachest God’s compassion with the feeble”.

s Rosenberg, Notices, H— 13, 49, EypAK-HaMS, 4.

292

Louis H. Gray,

[1913.

as Eosenberg says, there was active communication between
India and Persia in the Sasanian period, and long before;
and that books of Indian authorship were translated into
Pahlavi, and later into Persian and Arabic. It would indeed
be strange if Indian works on astrology and divination had
not been among this number.

But all this seems to me to be beside the mark. I myself
mentioned, in the Hoshang paper, abundant instances of ophio-
mancy from India, Burmah, Melanesia, Greece, Italy, and the
Balto-Slavs, etc. Instances of omens fi-om the new moon are
as wide-spread as the lunar light. Yet among only one people
was the omen-system drawn up in regular and exact calendrical
form — the Babylonians. If we assume an Indian soui’ce for
such omen-lists as are here studied, we can allege in support
of this view only the fact that omens were unsystematically
drawn from moon and snakes, and the possibility that Indian
works upon these omens were translated by Persians or Arabs,
although no Indian book of this character is thus far known
to exist. My own belief is still the one which I expressed in
the Hoslixmg Volume: “In view, then, of the facts that omens
from snakes cannot be explained as Zoroastrian, and that,
while sporadic portents are drawn from serpents among Hebrews,
Hindus, Burmese, Melanesians, Romans, Greeks, and Lithuanians,
there is no systematic development of ophiomancy among any
of these peoples, there seems to me but one possible derivation
for the Persian Mar-Ndmdh, for only among the ancient
Babylonians was there at once a perfected ophiomancy and a
regular calendar form for it . . . I would tentatively suggest
that the alleged Zoroastrian ophiomancy is, in reality, a sur-
vival of Babylonian lore on the same subject. Whether this
knowledge was transmitted orally, or how it received its re-
crudescence, of which the first trace known to me at present
is al-Blruni’s record, is a problem I cannot touch. I believe,
however, that more than one element in Zoroastrianism, even
as recorded in the Avesta, will ultimately prove to have
Babylonian influence as at least a factor. The West of Asia.
has heen for milleniums a fusing-furnace of religions; Sumerians
and Babylonians, Jews and Persians, Gnostics, Mandicans, and
Manichseans, Muhammadan sects, and Yestorian Christianity
have aU contributed their share. In this snake-calendar, per-
haps, is one indebtedness of the later Parsis to Babylonia.”

Vol. xxxiii.]

Iranian Miscdlanies.

293

In this same article I mentioned the close parallelism of the
De Ostentis of Johannes Lydus to the Babylonian omen-
literature. Since I wrote that paper, it has been shown by
Bezold and BolB that much of G-reek astrology, as in lunaries,
brontologies, steropologies, seismologies, etc., was modelled on,
and, at least in part, more or less directly translated from,
Babylonian tablets. If Babylonian astrology thus lingered on,
and was carried to Greece, it is still more probable that it
long surviTed in its native home. In the absence of any Indian
work showing either in form or in spirit the slightest kinship
to such compositions as the Burj- and Mdr-Ndmah, and with
the rich abundance of Babylonian omen-literature which is
amazingly like this portion of Parsl-Persian, I can only abide
by my conviction that these Iranian texts are to he derived
from Babylonian, and not from Indian, sources.

e) Modern Persian H-: Lithuanian be-.

In Modern Persian the future, the subjunctive, and the im-
perative are formed by the aid of the particle >, found in

Afyan as ba-, in Kurdish as b- {be-, hi-, bo-, bu-), in Tali§ as
ba-, in Gllaki as be-, in Mazandarani as ba-, in GabrI as v-,

etc.2 In Pahlavi the form is be- (cf. the antevocalic in

Modern Persian), and in Pazand bo-. The fact that in Pahlavi
he- is regularly rendered in Huzvaresh by bard ( m ^), “except.

besides, without,” has led some® to consider the verbal particle
be- identical with the preposition be. The correct view regard-
ing the particle be- is, however, that of Salemann,^ who connects
it with the Avesta intensive particle boit, w'hich is compounded
of Avesta ba- -p The cognates of bd are numerous,® and
are traceable to the monosyllabic bases *bhd and *bhe:

’ “Reflexe astrologischer Keilinschriften bei griechiscben Schriftstellern”,
Meidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1911, Ab-
handlung vii.

2 Geiger, Grundri^ der iranischen Fhilologie, I, ii, 220, 396.

3 Darmesteter, Etudes iraniennes, i, 213 f., Horn, Neupersische Ety-
mologie, no. 143, Grundrifi, I, ii, 150, West, Mainyo-i-Khard, p. 249. On
the source of be, “without”, see Salemann, Grundrifi, I, i, 284, 318, Horn,
ib. I, ii, 20, 160.

* GrundrijS, I, i, 311.

5 Bartholoniae, Altiranisches W’drterbnch, coU. 962, 912.

6 Brugmann, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik, p, 619, Feist, Etymo-

294 Louis S. Gray, Iranian Miscellanies. [1913.

*bha: Full grade: Avesta &a, Armenian 1)a{y) (?),‘ Old Bul-
garian 6 o;

Reduced or first null grade; Lithuanian bd, Grothic
-ha{i),^ Lettish -ba.

*hhe: Full grade: Greek <^ 17 .

Reduced or first null grade: Lithuanian bb, be, Old
Prussian bhe.

Thus far, however, it seems not to have been suggested that
an exact etymological analogue to the Modern Persian verbal

particle 5 is to he found in Balticon Lithuanian be- prefixed

✓

to verbs adds a continuative force, as be-vargstu, “I am con-
tinually miserable”, man be-kalbant, “while I continued speak-
ing”; 3 and in Old Lettish -ba was affixed to verbal forms to
give a similar modification of meaning, as Ididi-ba, “let it
continue to he”.^

logisches Worterbuch der gotischen Sprache, p. 40, Bemeker, Slavisches
etymologiaches Worterbuch, p. 36, Trautmann, Altpreufiische Sprachdenk-
m 'dler, p. 311.

* On this difficult word see Hiibschmann, Armeniache Grammatik,
p. 427 f.

2 On -bat beside -ba see Brugmann, p. 669.

3 Kursohat, Grammatik der littauischen Sprache, pp. 130, 385, and
especially Leskien, Indogermanische Forschungen, xiv, 92. The relation-
ship stated to exist between Lithuanian bb and bet by Gauthiot, ib. xxvi,
357, and Trautmann, p. 311, seems uncertain, for bet would appear to
be the reduced grade of the base *b(h)ei. Osthoff, Morphologische Unter-
suchungen, iv, 229, connects bet with Old High German M; the latter is
connected with Sanskrit abht, with the form abhl- in abhttvari-, “on-
rushing”, abhimanin-, “one of the Agnis”, abhllapalap-, “lamenting”,

< Bielenstein, Lettische Sprache, ii, 372 f.

The names of two Kings of Addb. — By GEOEaE A.

Babton, Professor in Bryn Mawr College, Bryn
Mawr, Pa.

In the winter of 1903/4 Dr. Edgar J. Banks discoyered at
Bismya the statue of an ancient king. The statue bears on
its right upper arm the inscription; »E-SAR ^LUGAL-DA-
UDU LEGAL sEDNUNi^i. In an article in AJSL, XXI,
59, Banks in 1904 interpreted the inscription as follows:
“(Temple) Eshar. King Daddu. King of Udnun.” Dr. Banks
suggested that Daddu was equivalent to David! This inter-
pretation was written in Babylonia without the use of Br un-
now’s Ideographs, so that Banks did not then know the Semi-
tic name of the city. In 1905 Thureau-Dangin in his Les
inscriptions de Sumer et d’ Akkad, 216, 217, rendered the in-
scription as Semitic, thus; e-sar Sarrum da-lu Sar adah’‘\ “E-
sar, roi fort, roi d’Adab”. The same scholar in his Sumeri-
schen und Akkadischen Koniginschriften, 1907, 152, 153, trans-
literates as in his earlier work, rendering; “E-sar, der machtige
Konig, Konig von Adah (Edab, Esab).” Through the authority
of Thureau-Dangin the name of the king was generally ac-
cepted as Esar.

We have now before us Dr. Banks long delayed Bismya,
or the Lost City of Adab, in which he takes up again (p. 198ff.)
the discussion of the translation of this little inscription. He
maintains that from an examination of the many inscriptions
from Adab, which are as yet unpublished, but which were
accessible to him at Bismya, it is clear that E-SAR is the
name of the temple and not of the king. He also points out
that the Code of Hammurapi (col. iii, 67-69) shows that the
real name of the temple was E-MAH, and hence in the earlier
writing the signs were read E-MAH. The first of these con-
tentions of Banks is borne out by material published in his
hook. The vase inscription (p. 201) of a king of Kish, whom

296

George A. Barton, The names of two Kings &c. [1913.

he calls Barki, but which should be read Mask! ' (or more
probably Meki) is in front proof of it. The inscription reads:
iME-KI 2LUGAL KI§ ^E-SAE ^IL-IL sBIE-IS-Si «GAE
PA-TE-SI UD-NU^S “Meki, king of kish, to E-sar brought,
Bfrissi being Patesi of Adab.” Here E-SAE is clearly the
name of the temple to which the king of Kish brought the
vase.

The copper inscription (Banks, p. 200) proves either that
the temple was really named E-MAH or that there was a
temple named E-MAH in Adab, or that the sign MAH had
also the value SAE. It runs: (I) I'^MAH ^E-SI-NIM-PA-
UD-DU 3GAE PA-TE-SI E-MAH MU-KA-

EU (II) lUE-BI KI KU 2ITU BASI, “(Eor) the god Makh
Eshinimpauddu, being Patesi of Adab, Emakh budt; its found-
ations (were laid) in the earth, month Basi.” 2 Dr. Poebel
has shown me a list of temple-names, which is to appear in
his forthcoming volume, in which the temple at Adab is spel-
led out E-SAE-Ea. This proves that the sign SAE was read
sar and not mah. Either, then, the sign MAH had also the
value sar, or there were two temples in Adab. In the pres-
ent state of our knowledge we do not know which horn of
this dilemma to accept. But whether there was one or two
temples in Adab, it is now certain that one of them was cal-
led E-sar. Esar is not, then, the name of the king, but of
the temple and is to be read Emah. Banks is, however, wrong
in his reading of the name of the king. He still contends
(Bismya, 202) that the king's name is to be read Da-udu and
that it explains the name David. The inscription must be
read “Esar: Lugaldaudu, king of Adab’’. Lugal-da-udu is the
king’s name. It is parallel to Lugal-usum-gal, Lugal-pad-da,
Lugal-§ag-ga, Lugal-temen-na, and other well known Sumerian
names.

The name of another king of Adab is given us in a vase
inscription pictured by Banks, Bismya, 264. It reads; * E-SAE
2ME-SI-TUG ^LDGAL ^. The sign seems to he
cf. the writer’s Babylonian Writing. 478.

2 This given us the name of one of the mouthes in the calendar of
Adab. Each of the early Babylonian cities had a different calendar.

Rugler's Criterion for Determining the Order of the
Months in the Earliest Babylonian Calendar. — By
Geoege a. Baeton, Professor in Bryn Mawr College,
Bryn Mawr, Pa.‘

In a paper read before the Oriental Society a year ago,
the difficulties which confront the students of the early Baby-
lonian calendar were pointed out, and some of the consequent
diversity of opinion concerning it among scholars was noted.
During the year that has passed Bather Kugler has proposed
in his Sternkunde imd Sterndienst in Babel, Buch II, II. Teil,
1. Heft, p. 213 £f., a new criterion for determining the order of
the months. Many of the tablets have at the end of the ac-
count the words BA-AN or GAR-AX preceded by a numeral.
Kugler holds that these numerals refer to monthly payments,
and that the number refers to the payment of the month
previous to that in which the tablet is dated. It is known
from a passage in Gudea^ that EZEX-'^BAU was the first
month. Kugler finds a tablet dated in EZEX-'^BAU which
concludes with XII BA- AX, which he takes to mean 12 pay-
ments, and to refer to the distribution made in the preceding
months. He holds that the accounts were not written up
until the month following that in which payments were made.
This accounts for the number 12 on a tablet in the month
EZEX-BAU. From this one fixed example he makes a general
rule. A tablet that ends with III BA- AX or III GAE-AX
belongs to the fourth month; one that has at its close VIII
BA-AX belongs to the ninth month; if the months are named,
their position in the calendar is, he holds, fixed.

Kugler himself is, however, confronted with the difficulty
that, when the month name is the same, the numbers some-
times vary. Thus in the fourth year of Urkagina a month is
marked IV BA-AX and in his fifth year, III BA-AX. Kugler

2 Stat. E V. 1-2; G III. 5.
20

* Presented in March, 1913.

VOIj. XXXIIL Part III.

298

G&yrge A. Barton,

[1913.

concludes that an intercalary month had been inserted in
Urkagina’s fourth year, and had pushed the months forward
one place. It seems strange that the intercalary month should
be introduced early in the year and not at its end, but for
the moment we pass that difficulty by.

Langdon has tentatively accepted Kugler’s rule, declaring
that “the principle introduced by the genius of Kugler can
be employed in settling the position of a month, hut that
certainty can he obtained only by the consistent evidence of
several tablets.” i Pinches accepts it also in theory,^ though
he does not place much reliance on it.

If Kugler had really discovered a principle which would
throw light on this difficult problem, no one would rejoice
more than I. Unfortunately his induction is contradicted by
much evidence that was in his hands when he wrote, and
since his work appeared Dr. Hussey’s important publication
of Harvard tablets has given us a much larger number of
texts by which to test Kugler’s principle. When tested by
all the available material, the theory utterly breaks down. In
the case of EZEN-‘*BAU the month for which the most
material exists, two tablets dated in this month bear the de-
sired subscription XII BA- AN, viz: TSA 10; H^ 27, but
one has the subscription XI BA-AN (DP 112), another XI
GAR-AN (Nik.! 54)^ while two have for their subscription,
IV BA-AN, (TSA 20; H 10). If, then, Kugler’s principle
were correct, EZEN-^BAU woffid occur three times in the
year; it would be at once the first, the fifth, and the twelfth
month! Each of these positions for it is supported by two
texts, so that there is only Gudea’s inscription to act as an
arbiter among them. Still another tablet (Nik. 1), if this
rule were followed, would make AMAR-A-A-SIG-Gx\ also the
first month!

Again the eUdence is conflicting in the case of EZEN-
BULUK-KU-^NINA. Kugler’s principle would make it the
second month on the authority ,of Nik. 57 and H 6, but the
tenth month on the authority of Nik. 6. Similarly the month
SIG-‘*BA-U-E-TA-GAR-RA would be the fourth month on

1 PSBA. XXXIV, 257. 2 PSBA. XXXV, 24.

3 Dr. Hussey’s Sumerian Tablets in the Harvard Semitic Museum.
1 Xikolski’s publication of Likhatchef’s collection.

Vol. xxxiii.] Kugler’s Criterion for Determining =i
{ ITU MUL-BABBAR-SAG-E-TA-

SUB-A-A

Intercalary month, ITU BABBAR-MIN-GAL-LA-A

1 H 26.

[March, 1913.]

Two Forged Antiques. — By Richabd Gottheil, Pro-
fessor in Columbia University, New York City.

Archaeological frauds have been multiplying rapidly of late,
and this country has become a dumping-ground for forgeries
of many kinds. Not a few modern antiques — aged long before
their time — have found a resting place in our public and
private collections.

It has fallen to my lot to assist in the exposure of several
such frauds. In 1890 I brought to the attention of this
Society an Alhambra vase belonging to this category; in 1909,
a pair of beautiful doors said to have come from the madrasah
of the Mameluke Sultan Barkuk, in Cairo; and in the same
year, a manuscript of that arch-forger of Arabic History in
the Island of Sicily, Vella. This last-named forgery is one of
the two described in the following pages.

A. A Remarkable Gold Amulet.

During the last five or six years a certain number of amu-
lets made of gold or silver foil have come to light, covered for
the most part with Hebrew inscriptions. With the exception
of one or two, these amulets are now in the possession of the
New York Public Library. They are said to have been found
in graves excavated at Irbid in the Hauran; a statement
which rests entirely upon the good faith (God save the mark!)
of the dealers themselves. At the last meeting of this society.
Professor Montgomery favored us with a translation of two
of these amulets. Since then, one further copy has been
brought to this country, which raises the number of these ob-
jects in the New York Public Library to six. It is with the
sixth that the present paper has to do.

In size and general appearance, it is easily recognized as
belonging to the same class as the other amulets, though it is
the first of the larger size to be presented in gold. As an ord-

Vol. xxxiii.] Two Forged Antiques. 307

inary amulet, it would not especially arouse our interest; but
when we come to examine the writing upon it, our curiosity
is engaged. The surface is divided into two fields, which are
evidently quite distinct one from the other. The first field
contains wi’iting evidently meant to be either Phoenician or
old Aramaic — a strange circumstance in itself, as the previous
finds seem to point to a community of Jews living in Irbid
during the first centuries of our era, when the Aramaic script
had long given way to the so-called square characters. This
circumstance, however, might pass; it would only make it
necessary that we revise our dates in connection with this
community. But the Aramaic inscription contains nothing
but variations of portions of the ordinary Semitic alphabet,
first in its regular and secontUy in its reverse order; the so-
called ahgad, and its complement the tashrak. Even so, we
might hesitate to declare ourselves doubters, when we re-
member the many uses made of the alphabet by mystics of
early times and down through the Middle Ages; or, again’,
our amulet-maker might have belonged to the class of simple-
minded and God-fearing men, like the monk in the story of
Luther, who told merely the alphabet on their beads, pre-
fering that God himself should put the letters into words
pleasing in His sight. Yet, we are led to doubt the simplicity
of the simple-minded man in our own case, for he has mixed
up Phoenician or Aramaic letters of various epochs and has
used some which belong to no epoch at all. Finally, at the
end of the first two fields, he has added a line of letters that
to all intents and purposes are Samaritan in character.

The examination of the second field confirms us as doubters.
The Aramaic inscription in equivocal characters to which is
attached aline of Samaritan is bad enough; but when to this
is joined an old Babylonian inscription, the climax is certainly
reached. For the Babylonian inscription is an old acquaint-
ance found on a mace head of Sargon of Agade, whose name
and title it gives. i

This much, at least, can be said: the forger of the amulet
was a man of no ordinary talent. He certainly had imagin-

> Star ganni | Shar ali | Sliar A-ga-de ki | a-na \ iiu SLamash | in Ud-
Kib- I nun ki (=Sippar). See, e. g. Ball, Light from the Last, p. 52 ; Radau
p. 161, note.

308

Richard GottheU,

[1913.

ation, and a sense of historical proportion, if historical im-
portance is measured hy bigness. He has roamed at will over
a space of some three or four thousand years; but we should
be thankful to him for this, for it has enabled us the more
easily to follow his somewhat tortuous footsteps.

B. The “Kitab Diwan Misr”.

Authentic documents from the early centuries of Moham-
medan dominion are of rare occurrence, and therefore are
highly prized. It is only of late that the finds of Egyptian
papyri have begun to yield of their fulness something in the
service of Mohammedan studies. The hand of time and the
negligence of man have ruthlessly destroyed the mass of re-
cords that must have existed in the chancelleries of the various
Moslem empires. I was accordingly much surprised and de-
lighted when, in 1908, * I was shown a manuscript (said to
have been brought to this country by an Italian sailor) bear-
ing the title “Book of the Diwan of Egypt”. ^ The volume
had aU the outward marks of great age; even the bookwonn
had left many traces on the pages. The edges of the codex
had been frayed, and each page was set in paper that was
very evidently of much later date than the original. My inter-
est was deepened still further by the deciphering of the open-
ing paragraph. The manuscript contained nothing less than
a copy of the letters which had come to the Egyptian Caliph
Al-Mustansir Billah (1035 — 1094) from Ai’ab rulers in Sicily
and Tunis, and the answers of the Caliph to them; and the
copy — it was asserted — had been made at the instance of the
Caliph himself in the year of the Hejira 467. Here, indeed,
was a find of considerable importance; for the reign of Al-
Mustansir was long and important.

I had hardly gotten as far as this, when doubts began to
be raised in my mind. How did the scribes of al-Mustansir
come to write in a well-defined Maghrebi script? True, it was
not the intertwisted and entangled script in which later
Maghrebis delight; hut it bore aU the hall-marks of this extra-
ordinary development of Arabic writing. The manuscript

» The account of this forgery was read at a meeting of this Society
in the spring of 1909.

’ t ‘i I i ■

>fl < / i U

c.* /

> . I-

,yr"V. -ir'

’ ' ^ » ’<** 1

► ' . ) :

^(;>r # '•::»< i M ’

'■ .'i-^

j'iA y'livf

''■*• / /« • .

- ■ '■ .*

• I >*

*11;; ,,

/'!'i'4li‘:|!;;:'::ij

■'. i* --'I

' A :

i\ .

v*' 1

/:■

Vol. xxxiii.]

Two Forged Antiques.

309

might indeed be a later copy of an earlier original. But, if
the script was intertwisted and entangled, what adjectives
were fit to quality the language it expressed? None that I
could find. It was quite evidently Arabic — or was intended
to be — hut it was the most impossible Arabic that I had ever
seen. Yery soon certain peculiarities which were easily re-
cognized as Maltese and Tunisian came to view, hut most of
the sentences could not be construed even upon the very
liberal basis laid down by Arab grammarians. Through some
of them shimmered an Italian construction or an Italian word
composition. This was too much even for a willing believer.
And the doubt once aroused very quickly entrained others.
The thin brown paper was entirely foreign to Arabic manu-
scripts; the artistic design of the frontispiece was as un-
Oriental and as un- Arabic as it could he. But enough! The
story is as follows:

In the year 1782, there was in Palermo a certain Giuseppe
Yella, a Maltese by birth, a member of the Jerusalem order
and afterwards Abbot of St. Pancrace. At the time he was
Chaplain at the Abbey of St. Maidin, three leagues distant
from Palermo. As a Maltese, he was naturally familiar with
the local Arabic dialect of his birth-place; but he was ignorant
of literary Arabic as well as of Mohammedan history. There
happened to be four or five Arabic manuscripts in the library
of St. Martin’s, and when a cexlain Mohammed ibn Uthman
came in 1782 as ambassador of Morocco to the court of
Naples, he visited St. Martin’s near Palenno. "Whether
because Mohammed ibn Uthman and Vella could in a measure
understand each other’s speech, or not, the two formed an
acquaintance that was destined to be productive of much evil
for students of Arabic. For hardly had the Moroccan del-
egate left when Vella announced the discovery in St. Martin’s
of a valuable Arabic manuscript giving the history of the
Arabs in the Island of Sicily. A few years later (1786), hav-
ing kept up by correspondence his connection with the Mor-
occan delegate, he noised abroad the receipt of another im-
portant manuscript found at Fez, containing the correspondence
between the Norman princes, Count Roger and Duke Robert
Guiscard, and the Fatimid Caliph al-Mustansir in Egypt.
King Ferdinand of Sicily became deeply interested in these
discoveries, and even went so far as to send Vella and three-

310

Richard Oottheil,

[1913.

students to Fez upon a mission of enquiry for other manu-
scripts dealing with the same subject. Patriotic Sicilians joined
their king. Among these was Monseignor Airoldi, Archbishop
of Heraclea, Judge of the Apostolic Legation and of the
Monarchy of Sicily, who paid all the expenses connected with
the publication of the volumes and even had Arabic type sent
especially from Parma for the purpose. Six volumes of this
history appeared between the years 1789 and 1792,^ Vella
hiding his own personality behind that of a suppositious
Mustafa ibn Ham. Airoldi had even commenced the pub-
lication of these texts in Latin and Italian, in 1788 (48 pp.).^
"Writers on the history of Sicily generally accepted the manu-
script as genuine, and Wahl, Kossi, Ferrara, Piazzi, etc. made
use of it in their works. Even so good a scholar as Olaus
Gerard Tychsen at Rostock was caught in the trap of the
wily Maltese, and republished a small portion in his '■^Element-
ale arabictim'’ (Rostock, 1792), and a professor in Stuttgart,
P. W. G. Hausleutner, translated the first four volumes into
German under the title Oeschiclite der Araher in Sicilien'’
(1791 — 92). The Pope even lent his consideration to the fraud
by a profuse letter of thanks, dated 1790. But there wmre
not wanting conscientious students who quickly saw through
the very evident fi’aud. Joseph Hager was called to Palermo
in 1794 by the king himself; and in 1796 Monseignor Adami,
Bishop of Aleppo, who was on his way from Rome to his
own diocese, was bidden to Sicily to examine the precious
manuscript. Both men pronounced the manuscript a stupid
forgery, •• the latter even writing a treatise in German which

' Mustafa ibn Haiii, Codice diplomatico di Sicilia sotto il governo degli
Arabi, ptiblicato per opere e studio di A- Airoldi. Palermo, 1789 — 1792.
See Catalogue of the Printed Boohs in the British Museutn ; Graesse,
Tresor de litres rares et precieux, 1867, VI, 274; 1,48. Cfr. Amari, Storia
dei Musselmani in Sicilia I, p. XI.

2 Codex diplomaticus Siciliae sub Saracenorwn imperio ab anno S27
ad 1072; nunc primum ex Mss. Mauro-occideiitalibus depromptus cura et
studio A. Airoldi. Panormi 1788 (pp. 1 — 48).

^ Geschichte der Araber in Sicilien und Siciliens unter der Herrschaft
der Araber. In gleichzeitigen Urkunden von diesem Talk selbst. Aus dem
Italidnischen. Mit Anmerkungen und Zusdtzen. 4 vols. Konigsberg 1791—92.

* The report of Adami is published, together with a letter by the
Chevalier dTtalinsky, in von Hammer’s Fundgntben des Orients, vol. 1
(1809), pp. 236 sq.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Ttvo Forged Antiques.

311

was afterwards published in a French translation.* In the
meanwhile Vella had gone ahead with the printing of his
second manuscript containing the correspondence between the
Herman princes and the Egyptian Caliph. This was under-
taken by the king himself and gotten out iu two editions —
one folio and one quarto — in regal style, the Arabic text side
by side with the translation.^ In this edition Guiseppe Vella’s
name is mentioned as translator with the ornate title, “Cap-
pelano del sac. ordine Gerosolimitano, Abate di Sant. Pan-
cragio, Prof, di lingua araba nella reale academia di Palermo
e socio nazionale della reale academia della scienze”. The first
volume, containing no less than 370 pp., appeared in 1793
and the second was in the press when the bubble burst. Vella
was arrested and tried before three different tribunals and
condemned. But it is evident either that the authorities did
not consider the crime to be a serious one, or that strong in-
fluence was exerted in his behalf. He was condemned simply
to seclusion in a small villa at Mozzo Monreale, a suburb of
Palermo.

In such manner was finished the first act of the drama;
and it would seem that with the final condemnation of Vella
the whole matter could be relegated to the lumber-room or
finally classed among the rather numerous forgeries which
have been committed at the expense of the Orient. But after
the lapse of more than one hundred years, the forgeries of
Vella received a new lease of life; and in order that this lease
of life may be cut short, or at least not transferred to these
shores, I ask the attention of the Society for a few moments
longer. About the year 1905 a certain Varvaro read a paper
before the “Societa Sicili^a per la Storia Patria” in Palermo
— but which does not appear in its publications — in which he
tried to establish the thesis that Vella had not entirely fal-
sified the manuscripts thaj; he brought forward, but that he

* I have not been able to see the German original. Tlie title of the
French translation is : Relation d’une insigne Imposture Litteraire de-
couverte dans un Voyage fait en Sicile en 1794. Far Mr. le Dr. Hager.
Traduit de I’Allemand, Erlangen 1790.

^ Lihro del consiglio de Egitto etc. Palermo, Realc

Stamperia, 1793. Cfr. Zenker, Bibliotheca Orientalis, I, p. 94. A portion
of this was republished in 1794 by the secretarj' of the Palermo Academy
“del Bon Gusto” for use in one of the seminaries.

312

Richard Gottheil, Two Forged Antiques.

[ 1913 .

had based them upon authentic documents of great value
which were in his possession, and that Vella’s manuscripts
might still he of great service in studying the history of
Sicily in its relations with various Mohammedan states. The
manuscripts to which he referred were not the two sequestered
at the time of the arrest of Vella, for these are still, I am
reliably informed, in the Archivio di State at Palermo. It
seems that after Vella had been relegated to the villa in
Mozzo Monreale he continued to write Arabic manuscripts.
These formed parts of Vella’s effects which passed on to his
family and were preserved instead of being destroyed. The
Varvaros are distantly related to the Vella family, and in
course of time have become possessed of the books which
(being entirely ignorant of Arabic) they consider to be of great
value, and which they now desire to sell. At the meeting
referred to, Varvaro brought with him one of the manuscripts.
Professor Carlo A. Nallino, an eminent Arabic scholar, form-
erly of Naples but now connected with the University of
Palermo, recognized immediately that it was not a genuine
work, and later in the house of the Varvaros he saw two or
three more of the manuscripts, one of which was the Kitab
I)lwan Misr.

It is this last volume, evidently a copy of the original
corpus delicti, which has at length been sold, and has found
its way (together with sundry other Italian things) to this
country, in the hope that it may be sold here to some cre-
dulous American. Its sole value is a mournful one, and it
belongs, by all right, in a Museum of Criminology.

In conclusion, I ought to say that I am indebted to Pro-
fessor Nallino for the information * contained in the second
part of this paper. i

> Xote, 4/8/13. In his translation of al-Sairafl’s description of the
Egyptian “Foreign Office” at the time of the F^atiinides, M. Henri Masse
has been led astray by the title, and has classified the “Kitab Diwan
iMisr” among the “recueils de modeles epistolaires a I’usage de la Chan-
eellerie”! See his Ibn al-(Jairafi: Code de la Chancellerie d’EgyjAe; Ex-
trait du Bulletin de I’Institut Frangais d’archeologie Orientate, Tome XI,
Le Caire, 1913, p. (j7.

Mohammedanism in Borneo: Notes for a Study of the
Local Modifications of Islam and the Extent of its
Influence on the native Tribes . — By Mrs. Samuel
Bkyan Scott, Philadelphia, Pa.

The whole question of the nature and history of Moham-
medanism in Borneo is much larger than the scope of the
present paper. I have some incomplete notes to offer, which
I venture to present at this time, because I think that even
these have a certain theoretical significance that may be of
interest; and because I hope that from this body of scholars
intimately familiar with the various manifestations of Moham-
medanism I may gain some valuable suggestions for further
investigation of its history in Borneo.

In studying the effect of environment upon the religion of
a primitive people, such as the jungle tribes of the interior of
Borneo, it is of course necessary to take into account the possi-
bility of foreign ideas interrupting the simple interplay of sur-
roundings and sensibilities. Of the foreign elements to be
reckoned with in Borneo the chief is Mohammedanism, brought
to the coast settlements during several centuries by Arab
traders and adventurers. "While investigating the influence of
the Arabs in Borneo, I became convinced that we have here
a striking instance of the manner in which the introduction
of a new religion into a country follows certain definite eco-
nomic laws, similar to those that govern the growth of religions
on their native sod.

There has been implied, if not actually stated, in many
studies of religions, the theory that a religion develops accord-
ing to environmental influences only so far as it is not inter-
fered with by the contact of foreign ideas. Some such theories
divide a religion into ideas appropriate to the native environ-
ment, and ideas that have come from the north, south, east,
or west. Having traced the religious elements to their
geographical or linguistic sources, the historian leaves the

VOL. XXXin. Part IV. 21

314

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

[1913,

matter, — and rightly perhaps so far as he is a mere historian.
It has been recognized of course that there are local reasons
why a new faith sometimes takes hold and sometimes does not.
The reasons are usually stated parenthetically in a historical
account, Tor the science of religion, however, to become really
scientific, it would seem necessary to go further, to gather up
these reasons and formulate them into laws of borrowing
corresponding to the now very widely admitted laws of the
growth of ideas according to the environment in which they
were thought out.

The facts offered in this paper are presented in the hope
that they may prove a minor bit of suggestive material for
the formulation of a law of contact. They consist of a few
notes, necessarily incomplete, on what happened when Indo-
nesian Mohammedanism was brought in touch with Malay
Paganism and the typical jungle religion of Borneo.

It was, to begin with, a great economic force that brought
Mohammedanism to Borneo. And it was a geographical
barrier — the jungle — that stopped it at the coast, and made
it after four hundred years still a foreign faith. The sheltered
waters, short distances, frequent harbors and favorable mon-
soons of the Malay Archipelago > developed very early a sea-
faring small-trading population such as the Malays and Bugis
about the coasts of many islands. They were all ready to
form a link in the chain of commerce when the greater nations,
first of Asia, then of Europe discovered and determined to
have the spices and dazzling natural wealth of the tropical
islands. Emporia were formed at Acheh, Bantam, and else-
where, where the native traders of the Archipelago brought
the collected wares to merchants of larger vessels capable of
sailing the open seas.2 As the predominance of carrying trade
in these products of the east shifted westward from China
through India to Arabia, the religion of the Arab came to
the Eastern Archipelago.®

> St. John, Horace E.., '‘Indian Archipelago," 2 vols. London 1853.
i, pp. 4, 44.

’ St. John, Ind- Arch., i, pp. 6, 118, 223; Sir Hugh Low, Sarawak, its
Inhdbitaitts and its Productions, p. 116.

3 Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago, Edinburgh 1820, iii,
pp. 199—201 ; Hugh Clifford, Encyclopedia Brittanica, XVII, p. 474,
Article, Malay PeninstUa. In the second century B. C. the trade with

Vo], xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

315

The first teachers of Mohammedanism in the Archipelago
were Arab traders, pirates, and adventurers "who came to seek
their fortune and made converts only as a secondary task.
Later, as the new faith gained headway, the prospect of mak-
ing money attracted teachers from India, Egypt, Mecca, and
Hadramaut.i From the 12th to the 20th century, following
in the wake of trade, Mohammedanism has been spreading all
over the Indian Archipelago. 2 Borneo was not exempt from
its influence. The difference in the course of events in Borneo
from that in Java, Sumatra, and many of the other centers.

Ceylon was wholly in the hands of the Arabs; by the middle of the
eighth century A. D. there were many Arab traders in Canton; from the
tenth to the fifteenth centuries, until the coming of the Portuguese, they
were the undisputed masters of trade with the East. They were prob-
ably early in the Malay Archipelago, but no mention is made of these
islands in the work of Arab geographers earlier than the ninth century.
G. K. Niemann, Inleiding tot de kennis an den Islam, Eotterdam 1861,
p. 337, and Reinaud, Geographie d’Aboulfeda, tome I, p. CCCXXXIX,
quoted by T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, London 1896, pp. 293
—294.

> C. Snouck Hurgronje, The Aehehnese, trans. by O’Sullivan, London
1906, ii, p. 279. Which of these regions sent its missionary-traders to
Borneo seems a little vague. They are generally spoken of simply as
Arabs. They all claimed and were accorded in Borneo the title of
Seriff. Some of the Mohammedan influence in Borneo came either
directly, or via the Javanese and Sumatran merchants who traded there,
from the Malabar coast, where the Shafi’ijah sect is predominant to-day
as it was in the fourteenth century. Vfygages d’Ibn Batoutah, Paris
1843 — 58, iv, pp. 66, 80, quoted by Arnold p. 294. For the Shi’ah Klings
in Borneo cf. below p. 28. The predominant influence to-day, however,
is that of Mecca. Besides the annual pilgrims who come to Mecca merely
for a short time, there is a permanent colony of Malays in Mecca who
keep in constant communication with their fellow countrymen in the
Archipelago. And religious books printed in Mecca are carried to all
parts of the Archipelago. The number of annual pilgrims to Mecca from
Borneo increased in the latter part of the nineteenth century 660/o in
twelve years. Niemann pp. 406 — 7, and C. Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka,
Hague 1889, ii, pp. xv, 339—393, quoted by Arnold, pp. 329 — 330.

2 With the Mohammedan conquest the Perso-Arabic Alphabet was
introduced among the Malays. Hugh Clifford, iMd. p. 477; Marsden’s
Malay Gramrnar, London 1812, pp. 1, 2. Crawfurd, iii, p. 207, gives the
following dates for the introduction of Mohammedanism into the Archi-
pelago : 1204 A. D. the Aehehnese, 1278 the Malays of Malacca, 1478 the
Javanese, 1495 natives of the Spice Islands. Cf. also Vnd- ii, pp. 304 to
306; and St. John, ibid, i, pp. 48 — 51. cf. also Arnold, passim, pp. 296
—343.

21 *

316

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

[1913.

was that while in the latter practically the whole population
became at least nominally Mohammedan, in Borneo the con-
verts were, in spite of zealous propaganda, almost entmely
limited to the partially civilized Malays of the sea-coast. So
mnch is this true that in Borneo the terms Malay and Moham-
medan have become synonymous and interchangeable. A
natural highway of trade brought Mohammedanism to the
harbors and rivei-mouths of the island. A natural barrier,
the jungle, stopped it at the coast.

The coastal population of Borneo is composed of colonists
of the trading nations mentioned above, the Malays and Bugis
and others, from Sumatra, Java, the Malay Peninsula and
Celebes. Most of these colonies were, however, formed before
the conversion of the Malays to Mohammedanism. The Malay
kingdom of Brunei was founded in the middle of the thirteenth
centui'y, though even before that there were probably some
few colonists there. It became Mohammedan not until much
later — some time before 1530.* Colonists from Java had settle-
ments at Passir, Kotei, and Banjermassin, on the south coast
of Borneo, at Sambas, Mampawa, and Landak on the west
coast as early as 1360.- The introduction of Mohammedanism

1 k. J. Veth, Bo)~neo’s Wester- A fdeeling, 1854, i, p. 180, quoting van
Lijnden, Aanteekingen over cle landen van het stroomgebied der Kapoeas,
Natuurkimdig Tijdschrift voor Ned. Indie, 1851. p. 687; ibid,
quoting Logan, Traces of the Origin of the Malag Kingdom of Borneo
Proper, Journal of the Ind. Arch, and Eastern Asia, iii, pp. 513, 514;
ibid. p. 184 quoting Tobias, de Westkust van Borneo, Nederlandsche
Hermes, 1828, 12, p. 47 ; Earl, The Eastern Seas, p. 241 ; St. John, i, p. 197 ;
A. C. Haddon, Head Hunters, Black, White, and Broivn, p. 289 ; Leyden,
In Moor s Notices of the Indian Archipelago, Singapore, 1837, app. p. 95.
For origin of the Malay nation cf. ibid. p. 3; A. C. Keane, Eastern
Geography, London 1887, pp. 8, 9; St. John, i, p. 26—41. J. J. de Hol-
lander Handleiding bij de Beoefening der Land-en- Volkenkunde van Neder-
landsch Oost-Indie, Breda, 1884, p. 61, quoted by Arnold, p. 318.

2 D^ton in Moor’s Notices, pp. 37, 41; Sir T. S. Baffles, History of
Java, London 1830, ii, p. 171; Low pp. 312,163; C. Bock, Head Hunters

B^^oo, London 1881, p. 47 ; Veth, i, p. 182, quoting Logan, Antiquity
ftAR Trade with India and the Ind. Archip., in J. I. A., iii, pp. 604,

q' ^ i^lanrier, Collection des "pTmcipales Chroniques Malapes, pp. 107,
Jowrnaf Anatique, [should this be Journal Asiatique?] 1846,
-Pyoappel, Journal Asiatique, 1846, pp. 553ff.; ibid.
p. 185, quoting J. Hageman, Indisch Archie f, Jaarg. i, deel ii, pp. ffaff..
and Brumund, Indiana, ii, p. 178. C. P. Eouffaer, Het Tijdperk van

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

317

into these various settlements, according to different accounts,
occurred sometime between 1495 and 1770. Several Malay
Sultans on the Kapuas river were converted to Islam as late
as 1850. The Malays are Mohammedan, and both the Malays
and Mohammedanism came from without, hut it was not in
the first instance the IVlalays who brought Mohammedanism
to Borneo.'

Before the Arabian era Malay traders and pirates were
attracted to the mouths of the navigable rivers of Borneo for
shelter, and found there opportunities for getting, with slight
work, gold and diamonds; by raids on the weak Dyaks, car-
goes of slaves; by barter with them, a wealth of rattans,
camphor and other saleable jungle produce. They founded
towns at the river mouths, later having outposts for trade
farther up river. It was long after these communities were
established that individual Ai’ab adventm-ers came to Borneo
and preached their faith. Later still, the converts were re-
inforced in number by Malays from Sumatra or the Peninsula,

Godsdienst overgang in den Malat/ischen Archipel, p. 113, identifies Tand-
joeng Foera, mentioned in the History of the Hindu-Javan kingdom of
Madjapahit as among the conquests of the great monarch of that realm,
Hayam Woeroek, who reigned from 1331 (?)— 1389, as probably Matan,
* on the southwest coast of Borneo. Basing his evidence largely on a
Portugiiese report of 1314, publisheil in 1892, and on corroborative
notices especially in the Livro of 1516 of Duarte Barbosa, he concludes
that the kingdom of Madjapahit cannot have succumbed entirely to
Mohammedan domination until sometimes between 1516 and 1521. How-
ever uncertain may be the date of the colonies in Borneo, they seem at
least to have been much earlier than this time. Of. also Earl, p. 336;
Raffles, ii, p. 171. Mohammedanism was introduced into Succadana on
the West Coast of Borneo by Arabs from Falembang in Sumatra in
1530. E. P. A. Dozy, Essai sur Vimtoire de I’lslamisme, Leiden 1879,
p. 386, quoted by Arnold p. 316. Into Banjermassin on the South Coast
in the sixteenth century from Dawak. one of the Mohammedan states
that rose on the ruins of Madjapahit. J. Hageman, Beidrage tot de
Geschiedenis van Borneo, Ts. Ind. t. L. vh, Deel vi, 1836, p. 236, quoted
by Arnold, p. 316.

' C. J. Temminck, Coup d'Oeil general sur les possessions neerlandaises
dans rinde arcMpelagigue, Leiden, 1846. p. 176; Leyden, ibid. app. p. 97;
J. J. K. Bnthoven, Bijdragen tot de Geographie van Borneo’s Wester-Af-
deeling, Leiden, 1902, pp. 132, 138, 158, 209; Veth, i, p. 193, following
G. M. Muller, Broeve eener geschiedenis van een gedeelte the Westkust van
Borneo, Indische Bij, p. 124, puts the date of the coming of the first
Mohammedan missionaries to Borneo at about 1550.

318

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

[1913.

which had in the mean time become centers of Mohammedan
propaganda. On the east coast of Borneo colonies were
founded by the similar nation of Bugis, who migrated to
Borneo both before and after the coming of Mohammedanism
to their home country of Celebes about I 6 OO .1

We may take as a typical instance of the turn to Moham-
medanism in Borneo the narrative, which comes to us from
many sources, and is apparently as reliable as any hundred
and fifty year old story of these regions can be, of the found-
ing of one of the chief Mohammedan kingdoms of Borneo,
that of Pontianak, the great Malay trading centre of to-day
at the mouth of the Kapuas river.

A fortune-hunting Arab, Seriff Hoesein ibn Ahmed al Kadi'i
(I give Yeth’s Dutch orthography of the name) came to Matan,
an ancient Javanese colony on the southwest coast of Borneo,
in 1735. He found Mohammedanism already vaguely known
there, strengthened it, instructed the people and was highly
venerated. After a quarrel with the Sultan of Matan he fled
to another Javanese-Malay colony, Mampawa, whose Sultan
received him with open arms, built a mosque, gave him large
control of his kingdom, and gave his daughter in marriage to
the dashing handsome son of the Arab adventurer and a
Dyak slave girl. This young half-savage-half- Arab, who never-
theless bore his father’s title of Seriff, at the age of twenty-
two left his royal bride and started out to seek his fortune
on the seas. After a wild career of piracy and audacious
foreign trade, during the course of which he married the
daughter of another Malay Sultan, engaged in opium trade,
captirred Chinese, English, Erench, and Dutch ships, he had
amassed great wealth. Gathering about himself a band of
Malay and Bugis followers of his own type, he came to the
mouth of the Kapuas river and established himself with his
retainers on a haunted island in the river, which gave him a

> Rouffaer, p. Ill; Earl, p. 310; Low, pp. 7, 18, 20 — ^28; Dalton in
Moor’s Notices, pp. 55 — 57 ; Hunt in Keppel’s Expedition to Borneo of
E. M. S. JHdo, 1846, p. 404; Bock, pp. 22 — 26; England, Hydrographic
Office, Eastern Archipelago, London, 1890, ii, pp. 7, 296 ; for description
of the up-river trading posts of the Malays, cf. Molengraaf, Geological
Expedition to Borneo, London, 1902, pp. 149, 150; and tiieuwenhuis, In
Oentraal Borneo, Leiden 1900, i, p. 24. Arnold, p. 319, places the general
adoption of Mohammedanism by the Bugis of Celebes at the beginning
of the seventeenth century.

Tol. xxiiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

319

protected base from which to prey on trading prahus. The
island was a shrewdly chosen location, not only for its accessi-
bility to the sea and because its evil ghostly reputation secured
him from attack, but it commanded the Kapuas river, the
immense navigable artery, by which all the inland wealth of
the whole western district of Borneo must come down to the
sea. The Seriff Abdoe’r Eahman soon found it more profitable
to give up piracy, turn into a respectable and pious Moslem,
and become the protector instead of the assassin of traders,
gaining his income by a levy on all boats using the river.
He built a mosque, established the Mohammedan ritual, and
made pious pilgrimages to the grave of his father, who had
long before his death repudiated this scape-grace son. Thus
was founded the Arab dynasty — racially half-Dyak — of the
Malay kingdom of Pontianak.i

And thus Mohammedanism came to the Kapuas river. It
took it nearly one hundred years to extend its influence
300 kilometers up river to the Malay settlements of the lake
region. And the reason for that is again the jungle. It is
only in recent years when the Dutch have opened up the
country, and made not only more intercommunication between
the different parts of the country, but also more contact with
the outside world, that Mohammedanism has greatly spread
in their provinces.

1 W. L. fritter, Indische herinneringen, Amsterdam, 1843, pp. 192, 193,
C. L. Hartmann, Algemeen verslag van de residentie Pontianak over 1823
pp. 2, 3 (unpublished MS.), van Lijnden, p. 601, Muller, p. 346, and
Tobias, p. 51, quoted by Veth, i, pp. 249—266; A. Pompe, Geschiedenis
der Nederlandsche Overzeesche Bezittingen, 2nd ed. Schoonhaven 1872, p. 225 ;
Leyden in Moor’s Notices, pp. 101, 102. The town was afterwards named
for the spectre of the haunted Island. So great was the fear of this
place that the Arab founder had to shoot up the woods for two hours
before he could persuade his men to land. Leyden gives Pontiana or
Pontianak as “the name the Malays give to a spectre of the forests
which appears in the form of a winged female,” Moor’s Notices, app.
p. 102; according to Teth the pontianaks are ghosts of children who have
never seen the light on account of the death of their mothers, or, more
usually, the mothers themselves who have died in childbirth, and go
about in lonely places naked with loose hair, and moaning (i, p. 14); in
the Malay Peninsula the pontianak is the ghost of all still-bom child,
while the ghost of a woman who dies in childbirth, the ghost that goes
around with long floating hair is known as a langsuir. Both of these
are supposed by the Peninsular Malays to be embodied in owls. Skeat,
Malay Magic, pp. 323 — 327.

320

Mrs. Scmiuel Bryan Scott,

[1913.

But to return for a moment to the earlier period. What
effect had the establishment of the Malay and Bugis semi-
civilized colonies, and their subsequent conversion to Moham-
medanism upon the native savages who occupied Borneo
previous to the coming of the sea-faring folk? Of the majority
it may be said that it simply drove them hack into their
jungle, where in greater isolation than ever, they continue to
live a wild free life of independence with all their old habits
of thought and custom.* Some were directly enslaved or con-
quered by the Malays, or remained among them, intermarried
with them and adopted their manner of life so as to become
almost indistinguishable from them. Between the entirely
independent and the entirely subjugated Dyaks are the tribes
who are called in Dutch-Malay terminology “serah-plichtig”
and “hasil-plichtig” Dyaks, who, keeping their own political
organization and manner of life, pay as “hasil” or “serah” a
certain proportion of their gains in primitive agriculture or
jungle life to the Malay Mohammedan prince whom they
acknowledge as overlord. The hold on these Dyaks of the
Malay prince is very slight and may be repudiated by them
entirely simply by going (in the next of their frequent movings
of the village) over the boundary of the territory which he
theoretically controls. It is of course only among the last two
classes of Dyaks, the entirely amal gamated and semi-depend-
ent, that we find any evidence of Mohammedanism at all;
and how much influence it has had in any case seems to
depend upon the extent to which the Dyaks have adopted
the Malay habit of life.*

1 “The aborigines, distributed by the geographical character of the
region into numerous communities, have been further isolated by foreign
rule and colonisation. The superior races have frequently turned their
natural eminence into a means of oppression; and instead of drawing
the natives forth from their barbarous haunts, have imprisoned them
more deeply in their jungles.” St. John, i, p. 18; cf. also Temminck,
p. 135. Throughout this paper I have used the word Dyak in the widely-
accepted though somewhat inexact sense as denoting all the native jungle
tribes, as contrasted with the semi-civilized nations of later immigration.
The Dyaks are not racially homogeneous, and probably represent several
layers of migrations in the far distant past, but they have a certain
cultural uniformity and may be classed as “aboriginal” in contrast with
the Malays and Bugis and other comparatively recent colonists.

The population of Borneo is estimated at 1,800,000, of whom only
300,000 represent the Malays and other semi-civilized peoples. All the

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

321

I have attempted to analyse separately the Mohammedanism
of the Malays, and that of the tribes of native descent who
by conquest or commerce have come under Malay influence
and given at least a nominal allegiance to Islam. But this
is extremely difficult because the race nomenclature has become
confused vrith a cultiu’al one. All people, of whatever national-
ity, who have adopted the stage of civilization and something
of the dress and manner of the typical Malay coast dweller,
are called Malays. Even, frequently, the classification is made
religious, and since most Malays are Mohammedan, all Moham-
medans are called Malays, — including Chinese, Dyaks, Klings,
Arabs, Bugis, slaves from Sumbawa and elsewhere, Bayyats
from Lingga, and even descendants of negro slaves brought
here, as well as various racial mixtures of Malay with Arab,

rest are Dyaks. Holbe, iJeuue 1911, p. 435; the Malays are founds

with a very few exceptions, only along the courses of the great navigable
rivers, and most of them are in the trading towns at the river mouths.
For typical geographical location of some Malay settlements, cf. Enthoven,
pp. 123, 126, 135 — 137, 148, 153, 176, 185, 189 — 193; Low, pp. 221, 350 to
371; Bock, pp. 161, 162, 242, 243; Molengraal, pp. 43, 286-293; Brooke
in Keppel, pp. 43, 45, 52, 53 ; Brooke in Capt. R. N. Mundy, Narrative
of Events in Borneo and Celebes, London 1848, i, pp. 193, 369; Sir Charles
Brooke, Ten Years in Sarawak, London 1886, i, pp. 19, 22, 24 ; Maxwell,
quoted by H. L. Roth, Natives of Saraicak and British North Borneo, i,
p. 1. A very few Malays singly or in small gi'oups are found wandering
in the far interior, or living in Dyak villages. They are either individual
adventurers who have gone to seek the jungle produce themselves, or
fugitives from justice. A. W. Nieuwenhuis, Influence of changed conditions
on the physical and psychical development of the population of Central
Borneo. Proc. Koningkl. Acad. v. Wetensch. te Amsterdam, Mar. 1903,
p. 12; ibid. Centraal Borneo, i, p. 4. Rear the coast where there are
gold, diamond and other mines, the Malays have forced the Dyaks to
work for them in the mines. Elsewhere they have left the Dyaks to
their old occupations and manner of life, contenting themselves with
exacting tribute of rice and jungle products, and personal services at
certain times, and further gaining from the Dyaks by forced trade at
exorbitant prices. Observers agi-ee in noting a marked difference in
appearance and welfare between the absolutely free Dyaks of the interior,
and those more or less subject to the Malays ; cf. Enthoven, pp. 142, 163,
193, 217, 560, 561, 563, 567, 571, 572; Low, p. 17; S. Muller, ii, p. '386,
quoted by Roth, i, p. 387 note; Earl, p. 318; Bock, pp. 210—211: Nieuwen-
huis, Centraal Borneo, i, pp. 16, 26 ; Ida Pfeiffer, Meine Zweite Weltreise,
Engl. Transl. New York, 1856, pp. 76, 77, 96.

322

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

[ 1913 .

Dravidian, Dyak, Chinese, and even European. Malay is in
Borneo the great amalgam of race, language, and ideas. i

Nevertheless it is possible to make a rough dual classification
of the nominal adherents of Islam into those who use entirely
the Malay language, dress and manner of living, and those of
Dyak or part Dyak descent who keep to a greater or less
extent the native economic conditions and manner of life.

In general the faith of the Malays of Borneo represents
what has been called “Indonesian Mohammedanism.” There
has been noted by scholars interested in this part of the world
a type of rehgion extending all over the Malay Archipelago,
nominally Mohammedan, which, while varying locally in many
details, has enough homogeneity to he easily recognizable.
Three influences, in Indonesia, have modified Mohammedanism
and turned it into a definite religion of the region. They
are: —

1. The environment, which is geographically and economically
similar for the coast peoples of many islands.

2. Survivals of early “Indonesian” pre-Mohammedan ideas
and customs, so strongly held that the new faith to he success-
ful must either absorb or tolerate them.

3. A generally prevalent mental attitude of primitive super-
stitiousness.

' Veth, i, p. 179 gives the following striking description of the Malays
in Borneo: “In den uitgestreksten zin begrijpt men thans onder dien
namen alien, die de Mohammedaansehe godsdienst hehben aangenomen:
alle belijders van den Profeet van Mekka, al waren zij ook geheel of
gedeeltelijk van Dajaksche of Chinesche afkomst, of zelfs nit aangebragte
negerslaven geboren, worden, zoowel als de Arabieren van Pontianak, de
Boeginezen van de Oostkust van Mampawa, de Javaansche en Klinga-
lesche kolonisten in Succadana en Banjermassin, de slaven van Soembava
en alders aangevoerd, en de Orang-laut of Rajats, van Lingga en Blitong
herwaarts overgekomen, tot de Maleijers gerekend. Nogtans maken de
Malaijers uit het Djohoresche rijk en zijne wijd verspreide volksplantingen
afkomstig, over het algemeen het hoofd bestanddeel dezer gemengde
bevolking uit, hetwelk op de geheele geamalgameerde massa, waarin
sleehts de Arabieren en Boeginezen eenige meerdere zelfstandigheid
bewaard hebben, zijn stempel gedrukt heeft.” Of. St. John, i, p. 198;
Earl, p. 239—240. The so-called “ Embahoe Malays ” were originally
Dyaks who were converted to Islam about 1850. Enthoven. p. 205. Tlie
Malay language is the same sort of composite as the people, containing
words from Sanskrit, Persian, Singhalais, Tamoul, Arab, Chinese, Portu-
guese, Dutch, etc., cf. Holbe, op. cit, p. 431; Marsden, Malay Grammar,
Introd. p. xviii.

Tol. xxiiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

323

Let us see how these three influences are exemplified in the
religion of the Malays of Borneo.

As elsewhere in the Archipelago, Mohammedanism gained
its way in Borneo partly hy being already suited to the Malays’
temperament and manner of life, and partly hy cutting or
stretching itself to the Procrustean bed where it did not
already fit. The Malays of Borneo in the pre-Mohammedan
era, like the coast peoples of many other islands, were already
sea-faring traders, given to adventure and piracy. They built
their own boats and travelled in them from port to port.
Some of them were artisans and manufacturers, but the major-
ity engaged in trade. They bartered their manufactures, their
sea-products, and their imported goods to the natives for the
local articles of value, which they carried in small boats to
emporia where they could sell them to European and Asiatic
merchants. This trade, which still continues, has sometimes
netted the Malays as high as 500 «/o profit. Before the
European policing of the seas they added piracy, openly or
secretely, to their sources of revenue.*

The Arabs who came to their shores with greater skill as
navigators, greater shrewdness as bargainers, and at least as
great unscrupulousness as robbers, won for their religion the
glory of superiority in the Malays’ own characteristics.^

< The general articles of Malay trade past and present are described
in Boyle, Adventures among the Dyaks of Borneo, London 1865, p. 106;
M. Buys, Tivee Maanden op Borneo's Westkust, Leiden 1892, p. 8;
Nieuwenhuis, Quer dureh Borneo, i, p. 56; Brooke in Keppel, pp. 52, 53;
Low, pp. 26, 57, 117, 366. For description of the Malay method of trade
with the natives; cf. Sir Spenser St. John, Life in The Forests of the
Far East, London 1863, ii, p. 298; Ada Fryer, A Decade in Borneo',
Moor’s Notices, p. 6; Bock, pp. 87, 202, 203; Boyle, pp. 98, 321; Sir
Charles Brooke, i, p. 45, ii, pp. 162, 164; Nieuwenhuis, In Centraal Borneo,
i, pp. 15, 22, 24-26, 120, 129; Bari, p. 263.

2 Crawfurd, i, p. 139; Holbe, Reime Anthropologique, 1911, p. 430;
Raffles, i, p. 259; Crawfurd, i, p. 139, says of the Arabs in the Archi-
pelago, that “the genuine Arabs are spirited, fair and adventurous
merchants. The mixed race is of a much less favorable character, and
is considered as a supple intriguing, and dishonest class.” It was very
largely the half-bi'eed Arabs who took the leadership of the Malays in
Borneo, and directed piratical exploits. Cf. above p. 318 the account of
the founding of the Arab dynasty of Pontianak. For their influence in
Sarawak, cf. the Journal of Sir James Brooke in Keppel, pp. 54, 302,
303, also Keppel, pp. 268, 269, and Low, pp. 189—191; for further ana-

324 Mrs. Samud Bryan Scott, [19ia

With this prejudice in its favor, Mohammedanism easily-
won converts, especially as there were elements in it favorable
to the peculiar local conditions. The confession of faith, un-
doubtedly, in Borneo as in the Malay Peninsula and Acheh,
was regarded less as a creed than a declaration of fealty'. The
Holy War against the infidel was held to justify their slave-
hunting raids on the Dyaks of the interior, as w'eU as piratical
attacks on European vessels. The Hadjj across the partially
familiar seas, became to this boat-building, sea-faring people
immensely popular, giving the Hadjis not only prestige and
honour on then return, but opportunities for a wider area of
trade. The Hadjj, among the Borneo Malays, as in Acheh,
is one of the most faithfully kept of the precepts of Islam. A
great portion of the ritual prayers is neglected, as not fitting
in well with their life. The laws of trade of the Koran are
ignored, as according to Snouck Hurgronje they have had to
be in all modern trading communities. Mohammedanism was
embraced eagerly just in so far as it fitted in with the habits
of their life which had grown fi-om the environment.*

But to realise the close relation between the modifications
of Mohammedanism and the economic status of the Malays
we must differentiate the position and morals of the rich and
poor Malays; the large merchants on the one hand, who are
chiefly the princes and rulers; and on the other hand the
fisherman and mechanics who are of a vei’y different type. It

lysis of the trade influence of the Arabs in the Archipelago; ef. Reinaud,
Geographic d’Ahoulfeda, Introduction, p. LIII, CCCLXXXIX if., quoted
by Veth, i, p. 246, and Veth, i, pp. 246, 248; St. John, i, pp. 177, 239.

* In the Malay Peninsula the “Holy War” was held to justify the
kidnapping of Sakai and Samang aborigenes. In Acheh, according to
Snouck Hurgronje, it owes its popularity “to its harmonizing with their
war-like and predatory pre- Mohammedan customs.” In both these places
the ritual prayers are very laxly observed. Wilkinson says of the Malay
Peninsula that “it is hard for a clerk or mechanic to keep the fast or to
find time for the pilgrimage to Mecca.” But in Acheh, where voyages
are the order of the day, as in the trading ports of Borneo, the Hadjj
is popular. It is interesting to note how in different nations and among
different classes of society various precepts of Islam are accentuated or
ignored as they fit in or clash with local conditions. In Acheh, as else-
where in the Archipelago, the laws of trade and property are not those
of the Koran, but of the Adat (native customary law), Snouck Hurgronje,
ii, pp. 279, 304—309, 320, 337; E. J. Wilkinson, Malay Beliefs, pp. 8,
16, 17; Spenser St. John II, 325.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism hi Borneo.

325

is the wealthy who exalt the Holy War and become Hadjis.
In keeping with their lawless, irresponsible manner of life they
are gamblers, opium eaters and hard drinkers. And they ignore
the precepts which would interfere with these customs, though
as a rule they draw the line at eating pork. It is naturally
the powerful princes who have encouraged, if not started, the
unorthodox deification of living and dead rulers. The Sultan
of Kotei is supposed to have been descended fi’om a god, who
in answer to the supplication of a dweller of Kotei, came
down to earth and married one of his children. From them
descended all the rulers of Kotei. The following curious
Chinese account from about the year 1618 shows the divine
right of the early officials of Brunei;

“In this country there is a temple in which three men are
worshipped as deities, who were superintendents of public works
and of the treasury at the time the country was founded; they
fell in battle, and were buried together at this spot ; a temple
was erected over their tomb and when a merchant vessel
arrives it must kill a cow or roast fowls, and offer at the
same time melati and other fiowers; if any man on the ship
does not worship he becomes ill. AVhen the people of the
country go out trading, they make an ofiering of fiowers, and
when they come back, having made profit, they take two cocks,
to w'hose feet they attach knives, and let them fight before the
tomb; if one of these fowds is killed, they thank the deities
for it, which is certainly very curious.” i

It must he remembered that this account was written at
least 80 years after the country had become formally Moham-
medan. Kotice in this story the influence of the proverbial
Malay love for cock-fighting. It is only the rich traders and
rulers, again, w^ho take advantage of the permission of poly-
gamy, and only this small minority of the Mohammedans in
Borneo seclude their w'omen.-

* W. P. Groeneveldt, Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca
compiled from Chinese Sources, Batata 1879 Miscallaneous Papers I,
p. 224.

2 “The riches of the country were formerly entirely in the hands
of the sultan and other great pangerans,” Brooke in Mundy, i, p. 188;
Spenser St.John, ii, p. 271; where there are mines, coal, gold or dia-
monds, these are owned by the princes. Enthoven, p. 165; Pfeiffer, p. 93.
For the different classes of society, cf. Low, pp. 117 — 122; Brooke in

326

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

[1913.

Among the poorer Malays of Borneo, on the other hand,
the women go about the streets fi’eely and umeiled. The
position of women in many, if not all, places of the Archi-
pelago seems to have been far higher under conditions of life
of the pre-Mohammedan “adat”. And the Mohammedan law
on this point has been adopted only where changed conditions
have paved the way for it. On the Lingga river in Borneo,
where the Malays live in a village organized very much on
the plan of the Dyaks’, the chief, as is often the case in a
Dyak village, was a woman. Where the conditions remained
that led to freedom and prominence of women under the pre-
Mohammedan code the orthodox theory of women’s position
has had little influence. i

With the poorer Malays, the artisan, small-trading and fish-
ing class in Borneo, there was less incentive than among the
more wealthy traders to adopt foreign customs, and among
these people we shall find the chief stronghold of anti-Moham-
medan ideas. Their Mohammedanism is a thin layer of ver-
biage over a mass of native superstition. The rich rulers aud
merchants of Borneo have lost many of their native ideas
through cosmopolitan contact, and have gained a superior
intelligence in general as well as more knowledge of the mean-
ing of [Mohammedanism, both in their journeyings abroad and

Keppel, p. 30. In parts of the country where there are fewer oppor-
tunities for enrichment there is slighter dilference between the ruling
class and the subjects; cf. Enthoven, pp. 131, 138, 190 — 196. We find
among dififerent writers very conflicting accounts of the character of the
Malays. Probably the apparent conflict is due to the fact that the
particular class or social position of Malays described is not given;
cf. Rev. Andrew Horsburgh, Sketches in Borneo, 1858, p. 10; Brooke in
Keppel, pp. 163, 295; Pfeiffer, p. 108; Low, pp. 127 — 137. The Moham-
medan prince of Sekedau was rough, uncivilized, and a drunkard. In
1867 a sultan of Sekedau died after only a few years' reign from ‘-'misuse
of opium and strong drink.’’ The jirince of Silat who died in 1871 was
given to opium. Enthoven, pp. 190, 677, 678. There seems to be no
religious scruple against opium among the Malays of Borneo, and the
princes, at least, drink wine freely, not always refraining even in public.
Low, p. 126, Earl, p. 235. They do. however, seem to refrain from the
use of pork. Bock, p. 31, note; Groenevelde, Notes on the Malay Archi-
pelago and Malacca, compiled from Chinese sources, from Miscellaneows
Papers, Batavia, 1879, i, p. 224.

• Ada Pryer. p. 123, probably generalizing from her experience of
seeing women on the streets, says that women are never secluded in

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

327

in the schools of the Hadjis in Borneo, which are frequented
by the wealthy only.i

In general we may say that the economic conditions in
Borneo, as elsewhere in the Archipelago, gave the Arab
missionaries a ready hearing and led to an easy acceptance
of at least a partial Mohammedanism. Like many other
Indonesians, for economic purposes the Borneo Malays have
exalted the Hadjj and the Holy War; they have ignored most
of the ritual prayers and the prohibitions of their much-loved
drink, gambhng and opium; and among them the position of
women is determined more by local conditions than by Moham-
medan theory.

The second factor of Indonesian Mohammedanism — the sur-
vival of Indonesian pre-Mohammedan customs — is exemplified
in Borneo particularly among the lower class Malays who have
a folk-lore and superstitions similar in many respects to those
of the Malays in the Peninsula, Acheh, and other parts of
Malasia. Characteristic of these arc the customs of taboo,
the idea of the semangat or vital spirit existing in things as

Borneo, though Mohammedans. Low, p. 141, says that as in all Islamic
countries the higher class women are secluded. Other writers agree
that the Mohammedan women, not of the nobility, not only go about
the streets freely, but do not even wear veils. Pfeifer, p. 47; Bovle,
p. 17; Ida Pfeifer probably gets at the heart of the matter when she
says that “The wives of persons of the higher class seldom go out; but
this is merely from indolence and not to be attributed to any prohibition,
for they may receive visitors at home.’’ In other words the seclusion
of women is a luxurious foreign fad, ill-adapted to the indigenous life,
but practiced by those who can well ali'ord it for the prestige it gives,
as being possible only to the wealthy, and in accord with the religious
teaching of the superior Arabs. The poorer women are too important
factors in the economic life to bother about such things, religion or no
religion. All through Malasia Mohammedanism has succeeded in establish-
ing its dicta as to women only as the economic conditions were suitable.
In the Malay Peninsula, according to the pre-Mohammedan “ adat,” the
position of women was a high one. Mohammedanism reduced it “in
theory.” Wilkinson, p. 17. Even among the ruling class, in the settled
semi-agricultural community of Acheh, women were not disqualified.
Four female sovereigns in succession have occupied the throne of Acheh.
In each case devout champions of Islam have praised them. Snouck
Hurgronje, ii, p. 335.

1 Sir Charles Brooke, i. p. 38; Bock, pp. 254, 255; Spenser St. John,
ii, p. 298; Low, pp. 50, 54, 138, 153, 154, 158, 100.

328 Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott, [ 1913 ,

well as people, and a curious custom of using rice stained
yellow with turmeric in various religious festivals. i
One of the Malay customs noted by van den Berg as an
anti-Mohammedan custom found among the Mohammedans all
over the Archipelago including Borneo, and one naturally
held to as strongly by the princes as the common people, is
the possession of what the Dutch author calls “Rijksieraden,”
or insignia of office, consisting most often of weapons, the
possession of which marks the rightful ruler. They are really
fetiches which govern the possession of the throne and the
fortunes of the kingdom. They are sometimes carried in war,
oaths are sworn by them, and on occasions they are smeared
with blood at sacrifices. The regard for these “rijksieraden”
among the Borneo Malays is not unlike the feeling of the
Dyaks for the head hunting relics, which are placed in front
of the chief’s door and must he touched only by the chief.

' For instances of the Malay practice of taboo in Borneo, cf. below
p. 26. For taboo as practiced in the Malay Peninsula, cf. Skeat, Malay
Magic, passim. The Achehnese spyeak of prohibitions binding on all
men as “pamali,” the general Malay word for taboo in Borneo and
elsewhere. Snouck Hurgronje, i, p. 274. “The spirit of life — which
according to the ancient Indonesian belief existed in all things, even in
what we should now consider inanimate objects — is known as the semen-
gat.” Wilkinson, Malay Beliefs, p. 49.

The yellow rice was used by the Malays of Sarawak in a ceremony
performed on the return of chiefs from a successful war expedition, and
was supposed to give them equally good luck the next time. The old
chief’s three wives and female relatives came di'cssed in their best “ Each
of the ladies in succession taking a handful of yellow rice, threw it over
us, repeating some mystical words, and dilating on our heroic deeds.”
Keppel, p. 289. Sir Charles Brooke records that a Pangeran (noble)
scattered rice over him as thanksgiving for a safe return from a danger-
ous journey. Brooke, i, j). 197. In the Malay Peninsula rice stained
with turmeric is used for scattering over persons to be benefitted or
strewing on the house floor. Skeat, Malay Magic, p. 76. In Acheh
glutinous rice coloured yellow with turmeric is used for offerings at the
tombs of saints and is a favorite dish at religious festivals. Snouck
Hurgronje, i, p. 31 ; ii, p. 293 (notice how much farther the new religion
has advanced in Acheh, the only place of those mentioned where the
ceremony is given a Mohammedan interpretation). Two instances I have
found of a ceremonial scattering of yellow rice among the Land Dyaks
of Borneo. Brooke in Mundy, i, p. 335; Chalmers, O. P.. p. 63. quoted
by Roth, i, p. 248.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

329

and which, like the “rijksieraden” are regarded as having
supernatural qualities.*

Besides the survivals of pagan Malay ideas we find also in
Borneo relics of other pre-Mohammedan influences, varying in
the different localities. In the north there are evidences of
a well-authenticated Chinese influence, in such legends as that
of Mt. Kinabalu, the “Chinese widow,” and other local ideas;
also perhaps a trace of Chinese feeling in the fact that here,
in contrast with other parts of Borneo where the graves of
ancestors are notably neglected, the Mohammedans take great
care of ancestral tombs and make pious pilgrimages to them.2

1 L. W. 0. Van den Berg. De Mohammedaansehe Vorsten in Neder-
landsch-Indie, pp. 72, 73. The Javanese name for these is Oepatjara,
the Malay, Kahesaran or Alat Karadjan, the Macassar, Kaloinpawang.
and the Bugis, Aradjang. The Eijksieraden of Sanggau, on the "West
coast of Borneo consist of a kris, a sword of European make, a lance?
a gong and a swivel gun, Bakker, Set Rijk Sanggau, in Tijdschrift
voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 1884, p. 374, quoted by van
den Berg, p. 79. Those of Kotaringin on the South Coast seem to be
very numerous, some of the chief are two ebony chairs, swords and
lances, some pieces of iron supposed to come from Madjapahit and a
couple of large porcelain jars of Japanese or Chinese make, Pijnappel,
Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 1860, p. 281,
quoted by van den Berg, p. 79. These Chinese jars, many of them of
great antiquity, are valued at enormously high prices all over Borneo.
They are held in reverence by Malays and Dyaks alike, and are supposed
to possess supernatural powers. In the Malay kingdom of Semitau, on
the Kapuas river in western Borneo, the royal insignia consist of a kris.
said to have come from Madjapahit with the original settlers, a “ping-
gau”, or earthen dish, to which four veiy little dishes, “anak pinggau”,
belong, and a pinggau half a meter in diameter with three anak pinggau.
The pinggaus are kept in the ground except on special occasions when
they are shown to the people, and then must not be kept above ground
more than one day, or a great hurricane will burst over the country.
The little dishes must always be buried on the same side of the mother
dish, otherwise they have power to turn themselves around. Enthoven,
p. 139. The burying of valuable articles for safety is common all over
Borneo especially among the Dyaks. Eor the Dyak regard for the heads
of slain enemies as the insignia of office of the chiefs, possessing super-
natural power and to be touched only by certain individuals, cf. Brooke
in Keppel, p. 54, and Dr. Wm. Furness, Home Life of the Head Hunters,
p. 63; for regard of royal regalia in the Malay Benin., cf. Skeat, Malay
Magic, pp. 23 — 29.

2 J. Marrat, The Land of the Dyaks, London 1891, p. 8; Dalrymple,
p. 41 and Earl, p. 304, quoted by Koth, i, p. 304; Spenser St. John, ii,
pp. 284, 332; Earl, p. 317; Low, p. 126.

VOL. XXXIII. Part IV.

330

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

[1913.

Another foreign nation, the Hindu- Javan kingdom of Madja-
pahit has left material and cultural evidences of its former
colonies all around the west, south and southeast coasts of
Borneo. Strong Hindu- Javan influence can he traced in the
Mohammedanism of the Malays in these districts of Borneo
to-day. *

Of nearly aU these survivals of a pre-Mohammedan era, I
believe it can he said that they either have some economic
reason in the present manner of life of the people, or that at
one time there has heen an economic reason for them so
strong that they have survived by the force of that impetus.
A curious instance of the latter case is the taboo on cow’s
milk in Sarawak, where until a few years ago men still dated
events fi-om “ the days of the Hindus.” The Malays here, like
the Dyaks, do not use the milk or butter of the cow. Con-
cerning the Dyak custom Sir Hugh Low says “Their not
using the milk and butter of the cow, in which the Hindus
delight, has heen accounted for by the supposition that at the
first introduction of the animal into Java, from whence it
came to Borneo, this was a precautionary measure to encourage
the breed, by not depriving the calves of their natural susten-
ance.” It may he mentioned that cows are still scarce in
Sarawak where the pasture land is limited. 2

Thus in Borneo the earlier ideas Avhich siu’vive and modify
IVIohammedanism are, everywhere their wide-spread typical
Malay beliefs, with, in certain localities, remnants of influence
of Hindu- Javan and Chinese colonies.

Of the third factor producing Indonesian Mohammedanism

' Cf. above p. 4 note 2. Traces of Hindu-Javan influence can be
found equally prevalent among the Malays and Dyaks of the regions of
the former colonies of Madjapahit. Denison, Jottings of a Tour among
the Land Dyaks of Upper Sarawak, Oh. i, thinks that the Land Dyaks
are the descendants of the Madjapahit colonists on the west coast of
Borneo who were driven inland by the introduction of Mohammedanism
in 1559. While this may possibly be true, there are many considerations
which point to its improbability, and I do not believe that the evidence
at present justifies us in presuming this origin of the Land Dyaks.

2 Low, p. 267 ; In the Memoirs of a Malayan Family, a Malay Ms.
of cir. 1760, translated and published by Marsden in 1830, a ceremony
is described which implies that the Sumatran savage tribes did not drink
milk though they had cows. Marsden comments on this that the natives
of the Malay Islands neither drink milk nor make butter, p. 10.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

331

— a mentality more primitive than that of the orthodox Arab
teachers — we may fairly say that it has had more effect than
the actual definite survivals of ancient customs in producing anti-
Mohammedan ideas and distortions of Mohammedan customs.
The Malays are described as being, with few exceptions, very
superstitious and of a lower grade of civilization and intelligence
than the Arabs. We have seen that on the whole Moham-
medanism has changed their life less than their life has changed
Mohammedanism.

Except in the case of a few individuals who have become
wealthy and educated the new faith did not bring any revo-
lutionary conditions which would alter the general mentality
of the people. Most of the Malays are still in theii- mental
attitude toward the outside world on the stage of animism
and magic. The occult powers hold the same sway over their
lives as they do over those of the Dyaks.

Comparing Malay magic as found in various parts of Indo-
nesia with the magic of the Borneo Dyaks, it is doubtful
whether there is greater similarity in the divination and in-
cantations of the Dyaks and those of the Malays than arises
from the fact that both peoples are below the intellectual
attainments that show a reign of law and preclude super-
stitions. We find all over the world certain general forms of
sympathetic magic, belief in charms etc. wherever there is a
primitive stage of intellect and civilization. As the Malay
civilization is wider in scope and more complex than the Dyak,
so their magic is a little less naive and crude. The Malay is
perhaps more akin to the folk-lore of early Europe, the Dyak
like that of more primitive peoples.

But besides the general practices of magic and taboo, and
an animistic theory of nature, there are certain definite ideas
and customs of the Borneo Malay Mohammedans which cor-
respond remarkably closely to those of the Dyaks. We must
consider these special local modifications of Islam in addition
to those characteristic of Indonesian Mohammedanism in
general.

In regard to these customs the question of interest is, did
the Malays bring them to the Dyaks? or are they of Borneo
origin? i

1 Furness in his Folk-lore in Borneo, p. 10, says that the Dyaks are
“closely akin in every respect to the Malays, and no doubt adopted the

22 *

332

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

[1913.

I do not believe that that question can he answered pos-
itively in the present state of our knowledge. We can only
say this much: —

1. Analysis will show them to he admirably adapted to the
Dyak method of life.

2. The more the Malays live like Dyaks, the more of these
customs do they have, and the more does their Moham-
medanism become merely nominal.

3. They are not found among the Malays who are foreign
traders so much as among those whose occupation keeps them
close to the local environment.

4. They are not only practiced near the coast, but are
customs characteristic also of the Dyak tribes of the far in-
terior least affected by Malay influence.

Some of these customs concern the taking of omens from
the cries of animals and the flight of birds; the taboo of the
flesh of certain animals, especially deer; harvest taboos similar
to those of the Dyaks in the few localities where the Malays
practice any agriculture; taboos for illness and in case of death;
women sorcerers and “doctors” who under the name of “Bayoh”
perform the same functions among the Malay Mohammedans
of Sarawak that the “IManangs” do among the Dyaks. The
same sort of objects are used as charms as among the Dyaks.
An account is given of a Malay Sultan who permitted in his
palace a three day ceremony to “drive away Satan” partic-
ipated in by Malays and Dyaks together, in which women
took the prominent part they customarily hold in Dyak
ritual.^

traditions which were rife among the Malays both before and after the
latter became converted to Mohammedanism.” On the other hand Sir
Charles Brooke who spent many years among the Malays and Dyaks of
Sarawak says of the Malays that “since their arrival they have been
mixed with the Dyak and Malanan populations adopting many of their
customs and much of their language,” i, p. 45.

* Bock, pp. 32, 49, 110—112, 198, 230. “The Malays also have their
manangs, who are called Bayoh, while the ceremony is Berasik, but I
believe the better instructed Mahometans consider the practice of it al-
together inconsistent with the true religion of Islam," Perham, Journal
of the Straits Asiatic Society, 19, quoted by Roth, i, p. 282. The pelan-
dok, or mouse-deer is an omen animal in Borneo of Malays, Milanaus,
Sea Dyaks and Ralamantans, whose warnings must be rigorously heeded.
The mouse-deer figures in some of the folk-stories of the Malay Pen-

Vol. rxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

333

Some of the Malays, like the Dyaks, place wooden figures
outside their houses to keep off evil spirits. The Malays have
a custom which they call “Bertapar”, corresponding to the
Dyak “Nampok”, in which a man goes out alone to a mount-
ain and spends the night alone on its summit, coming back
with great power from the spirits. Malay parents give feasts
to their relations to celebrate the different periods in their
sons’ education, and for a lesser festival kill a fowl, for a
greater one goats, buffalo or deer. This is exactly the way
the Dyaks use the ordinarily forbidden animals in festivals,
for a lesser occasion fowls, the larger ones for a greater one.
The Dyaks use pigs ceremonially, however, where the INloham-
medans use goats and buffalo. In both cases the reason is
undoubtedly the same, the comparative scarcity of fowls, the
greater scarcity of flesh. >

When the Malays lead the Dyaks on piratical expeditions,
they no less than the head hunters take pride and delight in
the captured heads of the enemies. Though Sir Charles Brooke
says that “they do not place them in their houses nor attach
any superstitious ideas to them,” we have evidence that the
Malays have a very sincere regard for the “pantaks” or sacred
enclosures to which the Dyaks bring the heads after an ex-
pedition to perform the first rites over them; and believe with
the Dyaks that “whoever does the least damage to any of the

insula, but I do not find any record of the sort of superstitious regard
in which it is held in Borneo; cf. Skeat, Malay Magic, pp. 179, 318. Of
the Borneo Malays Haddon says, “A Malay told me; if a Sarawak Malay
was striking a light in the evening in his house and a pelandok made a
noise at the same time the whole family would have to leave the house
for three days; should they not do so the house would catch fire and
be burned down, or sickness or other calamity would overtake them,”
p. 386. A Kalamantan chief “resolutely refused to proceed on a journey
through the jungle when a mouse-deer (Plandok) crossed his path, and
he will not eat this deer at any time.” Hose & McDougaU, Journal of
the Anthropologicai Society, 1901, p. 193. Of the Sea Dyaks Perham
says, “ If the cry of a deer, a pelandok, or a gazelle be heard, or if a rat
crosses the path before you on your way to the farm, a day’s rest will
be necessary; or you will cut yourself, get ill, or suffer by failure of the
crop.” Perham, Journal of the Straits Asiatic Society, 10, quoted by
Both, i, p. 193.

1 Bock, p. 32; Low, pp. 139, 140; Sir Charles Brooke, i, p. 156, quoted
by Both, i, p. 287; Sir Spenser St. John, i, pp. 143, 144.

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

334

[1913.

wooden figures will be attacked by evil spirits and shortly
die.”i

Sometimes the Malays tell a story to try to bring their
superstitions under the guise of Mohammedan lore. The padi-
birds, — those birds of omen which frequent the rice-fields, roost
together in lai'ge numbers, and are said to build nests in the
high jungle not easily found or seen, — figui’e in a tale which
is a typical medley. The Malays say that these birds do not
breed like other birds in the jungle, but about the houses of
happy invisible beings called Orang Ka-benuar-an, “people of
truthfulness”, sylvan spirits who care for the seasons of flowers
and fruits. The great Mahomet came and all the angels of
heaven except the rebel Eblis protected his faith. Eblis went
to the Orang Ka-benuar-an and persuaded them to cease
being woodland spirits and follow him and he would make
them angels. Allah’s punishment for listening to the evil angel
Eblis was that the Orang Ka-benuar-an must become invisible
and no more go among men. But he let them have one bird
to live with them and be their messenger to men and they
chose the padi-bird. All the omen birds are regarded by the
Dyaks as messengers sent by the good spirits to men.2

Whenever the Malays do the same things that the Dyaks
do, and are subject to the same influences, we find them,
without regard to their Mohammedanism, holding the same
superstitions as their Dyak companions. In many places, for
instance, the Malays living on rivers have become expert
canoeists, an activity in which the Dyaks excel, and here they
have the same superstition as the Dyaks about the bad luck
consequent upon holding the paddle in a certain way.^

A few instances may be given also of notions that are
purely local and due to the impression of some out-of-the-way
experience. On one river the Malays worship the same rocks
and hill-spirits as do the neighboring Dyaks. The water of
one small river is considered sacred alike by Malays and Dyaks,
and healing properties are attributed to it. At a spot on the
Sarawak where some Chinese insurgents were fearfully cut up,

1 Brooke in Keppel, p. 173; Pfeiffer, p. 89.

2 From a verbal account given by a Malay, Motley, Contributions to
the Natural History of Labuan, London 1855, pp. 35—38.

3 Sir Spenser St. John, ii, p. 262; Sir Charles Brooke, ii, p. 2; Haddon,
p. 285; Nieuwenhuis, Centraal Borneo, i, p. 23.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

335

twenty years after the event the Malays would not bring their
boats at night for fear of ghosts. A purely local custom on
the island of Talang-Talang, where the Malays make a living
by collecting turtle eggs, is the magic practice resorted to by
the Hadji in charge of the place to make the turtles lay. It
consists of feasting, decorating the sands with flags, and after
this is done tabooing the vicinity to strangers, — a very practical
provision this last, as the turtles will not lay if disturbed, and
moreover strangers who do not come cannot steal. Dyaks and
Malays ahke attribute magic power to gold dust, that beautiful,
valuable thing which the searcher may with good luck pick up
out of some of the river beds. The Dyaks scatter it on their
fields to bring good harvests. The ilalays shake it in their
girls’ heads to procure a luxuriant crop of hair. Malays and
Dyaks, not far apart in their general mental development, have
received similar impressions from their siu’roundings and in-
corporated them into their dift’erent religions.'

The Malay Mohammedans show the same tendency as do
the Dyaks to attribute supernatural powers to Europeans who
excite their sense of wonder or affect their interests for good
or ill. Ida Pfeiffer’s immunity from danger in passing thi’ough
hostile countries, her pedestrian prowess, and her strangeness
made the Mohammedan Malays, no less than the Dyaks regard
her as a kind of demigod. The Malays of Brunei attributed
a cholera epidemic to a phantom Spanish vessel seen in the
river the night before the epidemic broke out, a theory which
illustrated, according to Sir Spenser St. John, the traditional
hatred of the Spaniards with whom in olden times the kingdom
of Brunei had constant feuds. The Dyaks deified the friendly
Sir James Brooke, and invoked his presence at their harvest
feasts; the Malays, when in 1881 a flood stopped just short
of his statue, took it for a manifestation of the will of God
that they shoifid respect the descendants of Sir James Brooke
as the flood respected his statue. In this instance the Moham-

• Gomes, Gospel Mission, July 1865, pp. 105—111, quoted by Rotb, i,
p. 355; Boyle, pp. 49 — 50; Bock, p. 112; Denison, chapter IV ; Sir Spenser
St.John, ii, pp. 264, 325; Brooke in Keppel, p. 113; Ibid, in Mundy, i,
p. 304; Sir Charles Brooke, i, p. 265; Low, p. 118. The Malays who live
in the region of Mt. Tiloeng, which is held very sacred by the Dyaks,
even after they have been converted to Mohammedanism, are said to
“ bestow a certain reverence on it.’’ ilolengraaf. p. 47, 62.

336

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Seott,

[1913.

medans (of a sophisticated coast town by the way) are less
frankly pagan than in some other cases we have been noting,
and deification is cloaked under a mere “sign of the wiU of
God.”i

A higher name or phrase will often cover a multitude of
primitive superstitions, which nevertheless retain their own
true character. For this reason we cannot regard it as proof
of Malay origin that many Dyak customs of the far interior
are called by words of the Malay language, such as the taboo,
which is known in many parts of Borneo as “pamali” the
name applied to taboo by, Malays in all parts of the Archi-
pelago. Taboo is too wide-spread an institution to be con-
sidered peculiarly Malay. And the special forms of it found
in Borneo are, as I have pointed out in previous studies,
eminently adapted to the immediate environment. Because
the Malay language is easily learned and has spread com-
mercially everywhere Malay names for things and spirits are
prevalent in the religious nomenclature of the various native
tribes. It does not necessarily follow that Malay ideas have
gone with the names. For instance the Dyaks of Kotei
believe in a supreme being known as Mahatara, Hatalla, or
Allah. From the first name we might infer that the heUef
had at least a relationship to Hindu ideas, from the second
to Arabic. But the belief in a chief god can hardly be proved
a foreign acquisition by these names, for the same belief is
found among Dyak tribes in many parts of Borneo, and the
deity is called by various names not suggestive of either of
these foreign influences. The chief god is known in different
regions as Juwata (thought to be probably a corruption of
the Sanskrit Dewata), Tuppa, Sang Jang, Laki Tenangan,
Batara, Totadungan, Balli Penyalong, and Ipu. It seems more
than probable that usually when a Malay term appears in the
Dyak religion it is merely an application of a foreign word to
already existing ideas. 2

* Pfeiffer, p. 94; Sir S. Spenser St. John, i, pp. 291, 292; Dr. A. Piton,
Un Voyage a Borneo, Paris, 1888, p. 7.

2 Among the Land Dyaks the terms pamali and porich seem both to
be used for taboo, probably with slightly varying significance. Low,
p. 260; Chalmers in Grant’s Tour, quoted by Roth, i, p. 388. For the
names of the Supreme Being among the different tribes; cf, St. John, i,
p. 110; ibid, in Transactions of the Ethnological Society, ii, p. 242; Bock,

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

337

If the likeness of religious customs on the part of nominally
Mohammedan Malays and Dyaks is to he explained by the
theory that the Malays before their conversion brought these
customs to the Dyaks from the Peninsula, we shall have to
have some further argument in favor of the supposition than
the occasional appearance of a Malay term in the Dyak ritual
or pantheon. I think it much more likely that most of the
customs, at least, are of native origin and were followed by
the Malays because they were in accord with the local atmo-
sphere and method of life which the Malays must to a certain
extent adopt.

It is the up-river Malays, settled, unlike most of their nation,
in Dyak-like agricultural villages, among whom we find the
harvest taboos. The utility of these to the Dyaks I have
already discussed in a previous paper.i Por the taboos on
eating the flesh of certain animals there would he the same
practical reasons among the Malays as among the Dyaks. In
the common experiences of piratical expeditions it is only
natural that the Malays should come to have at least a regard
for the tokens of prowess — the heads of the slain victims — and
share the Dyaks’ superstitious attitude toward them. In short
when the Malays live like Dyaks they think like Dyaks.

It is hard to tell where the Mohammedan Malays end and
the pagan Dyaks begin. They shade into one another like
red into yellow. The extremes are easily distinguishable. But
where shall we classify the various depths of orange?

There is a legend of an old Dyak chief of mighty strength
who left seven sons. The oldest promised to remain Dyak
and support his brothers, the youngest followed his father as
chief of the Dyaks, while the remaining five became founders
of five Malay states. The Malays use this story to explain
why they have a right to live at the expense of the Dyaks.
It shows to the reader the extreme haziness of race distinctions,
even in the minds of the natives themselves, where the two
manners of life have amalgamated.^

p. 231; Brooke in Keppel, p. 328; Low, p. 249; De Oreapigny, Journal of
the Anthropological Institute, v, p. 35, quoted by Roth, i, p. 219; Muller,
ii, p. 366, quoted by Roth, i, p. 217 note; Hose and McDougall, J. A. I.,
1901, pp. 176, 189.

‘ J. A. 0. S., vol. 29, pp. 247 S,

2 W, 0. van der Meulen, quoted by Enthoven, pp. 671, 672.

338

Mrs. Samtiel Bryan Scott,

[ 1913 .

The key to understanding the situation is I think best
given by the tribes of obviously Dyak origin whose history
jfrom the time previous to their conversion to Mohammedanism
is well known. One tribe of these on a branch of the Kapuas
river is known as the “Embahoe Malays”. They are Dyaks
who within the last fifty years have been converted to Moham-
medanism. They have simply taken the oath of fealty to
Allah and Mohammed, at the ui’gence of their Malay over-
lord, and added to their old customs some Mohammedan ritual
and a few brass cannon. They continue in a unchanged
environment and gain a living in all their old Dyaks ways,
and they have dropped none of their Dyak festivals and spirit-
worship. They are head-hunters and openly eat pork and
drink arrack.*

The next step in Mohammedanizing is to give up pork.
The pig is a potent factor in Dyak hfe, not to he dispensed
with without a change of economy. And we are hardly sur-
prised to learn that the Malay dress and other characteristics
distinguished the Dyak converts on the Rejang river who went
as far as giving up the festal use of the pig. In British North
Borneo the inhabitants of the Kinabatangan river shade from
the pagans of the upper river to the Dyak Mohammedans by
giving up pork as they get nearer to the coast and to the Malay
way of living. Analysis of the customs of the native Moham-
medans shows that there is much native and little INIoham-
medan in the up-river districts, where the conversion has
taken place through the agency of isolated missionaries and
traders, and where there has been no real change of environ-
ment or incentive to adopt the IMalay method of life. The
more thorough-going adoption of ilohammedan principles occurs
only in the villages nearer the coast where the coming of
Malay traders and Europeans has changed the natives’ real
economic environment. ^

> Enthoven, pp. 205 — 207.

2 Sir Spenser St. John, i, p. 46; Ada Fryer, p. 80; Low, p. 338; Boyle,
pp. 28, 319; Enthoven, pp. 169 — 171. Cf. also Enthoveii’s account of the
Sintang “Malays” of the Upper Kapuas. of at least partially Dyak
origin, who living up-river in an environment like the Dyaks’, although
Mohammedans keep to most of the Dyak customs, pp. 563 ff. For further
accounts of various degrees of conversion and adoption of Malay method
of life. cf. Earl, pp. 271. 272; Sieuwenhuis, (,fuer durch Borneo, i, p. 51;

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

339

A description of what one might call this cultural con-
version of the natives is given by Holbe in a recent article
in the Revue Anthropologique. He describes the houses of a
“Malay” village between the Kapuas river and Landak as
constructed Malay fashion. The people are IMohammedan,
have cows and no pigs, but resemble the Dyaks of the region.
“Quand un Dyak deserte le kampong pateruel, vient :i uu
centre Malayou et prononce le formule: La ila hill’ Allah . . .
il devient Malais du coup.”‘

I have taken my instances of Dyak conversion from the
tribes of three great rivers, those arteries by which Moham-
medanism and the ;^^alays have penetrated at certain points
toward the interior of the island. It is important to note
that the farther up-river we go, the more closely does the
manner of life of both ilalays and natives necessarily approach
the primitive jungle type, and the more loosely are the precepts
of Islam followed by both Malays and native converts. There
are far fewer Hadji from among the up-river people, and those
who do go to Mecca are little respected on their return.^

Among the Malays of the coast towns, however, especially
the ports trading constantly with Europe and Asia, where
European influence, has made the environment more cosmo-
politan than Bornean, we And greater power of the generally
familiar customs of Islam. There are mosques and prayers;
there is verbal knowledge of the Koran, even if it is only used
to determine the ceremonial of marriages and burials, or recited

Cator, p. 57; Sir E. Alcock, Handbook of British Xorth Borneo, London,
Colonial Exhibition, 1886, p. 37. Among the Milanaiis, whose peculiar
opportunities for sago trade has made their Malayanisation fairly com-
plete in many localities, an old custom to he given up was that of
human sacrifice. This seems also to have prevailed at some time in other
parts of Borneo. Spenser 8t. John, i, p. 46; Journal of the Straits Asiatic
Society, 10. p. 182, quoted by Eoth, i, p. 157 ; Low, p. 335, quoted by
Both, i, p. 167; Veth, ii, p. 321.

' Holbe, Bevue Anthropologique, 1911, p. 43.3.

5 Enthoven, p. 567. For description.? of the Malay and Dyak up-river
agricultural communities, cf. Kieuwenhuis, Centraai Borneo, i, pp. 19, 20;
Bock, p. 49; Enthoven, pp. 131 — 134, 176 — 180. Low says of the coast
Malays that they seldom apply themselves to gardening or agriculture,
trusting entirely for their supplies of rice and fruits to the industrious
Dyaks of the interior, and to the Chinese gardens in the town for the
vegetables they require,” p. 160.

340

Mrs. Samud Bryan Scott,

[1913

uncomprehendingly as a charm to keep off evil spirits; there
are numerous Hadjis who return to great respect and to he
reverently addressed hy the title of Tuan-ku; and there is
some observance of the month of Ramadhan. In Sarawak,
particularly, the competition of Christian missions greatly in-
creased the zeal and strictness of Mohammedanism. There
was a noticeable pulling away from superstitions and toning
up of the tenets of Islam after the establishment of a Christian
mission in 1840.’

In the ports, too, the Malays are kept stirred up by the
Arabs. These have never come to Borneo in any numbers,
but have been individual Hadjis and MoUahs, come to arouse
the zeal of the converts, and they have been adventurers in-
citing, until repressed by Europeans, to plunder hy land and
sea in the name of the Holy war. They are for the most
part found as individuals ruling hy force of intellect and
leadership over a village of followers and slaves. They all
claim and receive the title of Seriff.^

Two classes of Mohammedans in Borneo yet remain to he
mentioned, the Chinese, who are included in enumerations of
Mohammedans hut concerning whose religious custom^ I have
not enough material to speak intelligently; and the Klings, a
small number of colonists or merchants from India, who have
in Sarawak their separate mosque of the Shiah sect which
stands alongside of the Arabian Sunnis’ without the usual
antagonism. The number and influence of the Klings is so
small as not to be, so far as I have been able to find out, a
real factor.’

1 Sir Charles Brooke, i, pp. 77, 78, 331, 360; Bock, p. 25; Keppel,
p. 266; Boyle, pp. 131, 173; Miss Quigley in Missionary Meview of the
World, June 1907, p. 442, Low, pp. 123, 129.

2 Holbe, loc. cit, p. 430; Brooke in Mundy, i, pp. 362, 364; Boyle,
p. 298; Keppel, p. 269; Veth, i, p. 248; Low says that the seriffs “have
always been held in high consideration. They are always addressed by
the title of Tuan-ku, or ‘your highness,’ and on state days and festivals
occupy a position more eminent than that of the highest hereditary
nobles," p. 123. For the real intellectual and economic leadership which
supports this prestige, cf. accounts of the Arabs above p. 323. In Acheh
“Teungku” is the title given to aU “who either hold an office in con-
nection with religion or distinguish themselves from the common herd
by superior knowledge or more strict observance of religious laws."
Snouck Hurgronje, i, p. 70.

* Low. p. 126, 93 ff.

Vol. xxxiii.] Mohammedanism in Borneo. 341

The Malays’ purpose in conyerting the Dyaks, besides their
mere religious zeal for converts, was to establish a basis for
allegiance on which to build their political overlordship. More
often than conquering the natives by force of arms, they would
trade with them, convert them to Islam and then take tribute
from them. The inducement for the Dyaks was that a man
by adopting the Malay religion and manner of life could raise
himself to the status of the superior, dominant race. The
Malays made conversion easy by requiring nothing of the
Dyaks that conflicted with their customs. As we have seen,
however, near the coast where suiToundings were more favor-
able to the Malay method of life than the Dyak, the Dyak
customs dropped of their own accord.'

All this, it must be remembered, applies to a very small
portion of the Dyaks,— only those of the navigable rivers
frequented by the Malays. The tribes who were protected
far in the jungle, or who fled before the coming of the intruders
to the tributaries and upper waters beyond the point of easy
navigation, have preserved their resources as well as their
customs untouched, and have a far better lot than their subject
neighbors.

Their seclusion is, however, not likely to be long-lived.
Within recent years there has been a rapid opening up of
the country by Europeans, both Dutch and English.^ The
result has been a vast increase, even within the last decade
of valuable material for knowledge of the people of the interior.
Not only has the material increased in mass but there is a
steady growth of reliability of observation as well as a more
systematic method of presenting the results. Taking the
sequence from the mediaeval travellers’ tales; through the

* H. W. Mutinghe, De Bevesthiging van het Nederlandsch Gezag op
Borneo in Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch Indie, 1850, D. II, p. 164, Craw-
fnrd, Malay Grammar, i, p. LXXXII, van Lijnden, Aanteekining over
de landen van het stroomgebied der Kapoeas in Natnurknudig Tijd-
schrift voor Ned.-Indie, 1851, pp. 584, 601, quoted by Veth, ii, p. 322;
Enthoven, p. 209; van Meulen, quoted by Enthoven, p. 673; Bock,
pp. 64, 232.

’ Nieuwenbuis, Influence of changed conditions, etc., p. 5; Buys, p. 139;
Bock, writing in 1881 said of some of the up-river tribes of southern
Borneo, “ They would not even see a Malay, and always remained in the
densest part of the forest where it was impossible to track them without
a guide,” p. 69,

342

Mrs. Samuel Bryan Scott,

[1913,

abundance of popular literary generalizations which appeared
about 1850 when the dramatic suppression of piracy had caught
the attention of Europe; down to the accounts of scientific
exploring expeditions of recent years, we find a steady dexelop-
ment of completeness and systematic presentation of material^
as well as vast increase in the amount of actual knowledge
of the country.

Even yet the accounts we have of the Malay and Dyak
Mohammedans in Borneo are too fragmentary to make any
theoretical analysis of them definitely conclusive. They are
sufficiently striking to be very suggestive. Within the next
ten or fifteen years, as the material is coming in, it should he
possible to make a comparative and schematic analysis of
local conditions, which I believe will prove of great theoretic
significance.

Erom the notes I have collected here I have formulated
tentatively five principles of borrowing, several of them well
recognized by writers on the history of religion, though seldom
definitely stated.

A new religion is accepted: —

1. In so far as it fits in with the already existing ideals of
the people.

In accord with this principle the Malays accepted that part
of Mohammedanism which fit in with the trend of their habits
and customs. The especial precepts which they accentuated
were the pilgrimage to Mecca and the Holy War, both of
which furthered their ideals of trade and of piracy.

A new religion is accepted: —

2. In so far as it does not enforce precepts which are anta-
gonistic to the peoples’ ideals or unsuitable to the economic
conditions.

We have seen how the ritual prayers, the prohibitions
of drink gambling and opium, and the laws of trade and
property of the Koran were ignored by the Borneo Malays
when their habits or the local conditions made strongly
against them, and how the position of the Malay women
was determined more by their economic status than by ortho-
dox Moslim theory.

If, then, it made so little change, why did even the nominal
conversion take place? It was because Mohammedanism in

Vol. xxxiii.]

Mohammedanism in Borneo.

343

Borneo fulfilled the indispensable condition to the introduction
of a foreign faith, our third principle, viz; — that

A new religion is accepted : —

3. "When the new ideas ofler better prospects than the
people’s old religion for success and happiness under the exist-
ing conditions.

The Hadjj, the Holy War, the comradeship in the bonds
of a common allegiance with foreign traders all offered wider
scope for the Malays’ ambitions.

Our fourth principle is that

A new religion is accepted: —

4. In so far as the forces that bring the foreign faith also
bring a change in civilization.!

We have seen that the Arabs coming to Borneo in small
numbers did very little to change the real sun’oundings of the
Malays. And no revolution of life has occurred that would
lift them out of theii' old mental attitude of superstition.
Therefore the Malays have accepted only certain superficial
precepts of hlohammedanism which appealed to them, without
changing their whole pagan attitude toward the outside world.
The Dyaks have for the most part not accepted Moham-
medanism at all, while they remain in their jungle environ-
ment, and a few have accepted the superficial Malay Moham-
medanism just in so far as they have left the jungle and taken
to the Malay manner of life. Mohammedanism has not brought
to Borneo any change in civilization that would lead to a
thorough-going change of the people’s ideas.

It has kept its nominal hold by observing the law of borrow-
ing that I have stated as my fifth principle, one very familiar
in the history of religion, viz; — that

A new religion is accepted: —

‘ An interesting instance of protest against a pre-Mohanimedan super-
stition after the coming first of the Mohammedan traders and then of
the Europeans had changed the local conditions is given in the Sarawak
Gazette, 122, p. 2, quoted by Eoth, i, p. 287. During a terrible stoi-m
an old and nearly forgotten custom was resorted to — that of damaging
trees and property to frustrate the evil spirit of the storm. After the
storm had abated the losers of property complained to the government,
“allowing that in bygone days it had been a custom, but then, they
state, their gardens were of little value; it was different now, as labour
was dear and everything was of value in the market.”

344

Mrs. 8. B. Scott, Mohammedanism in Borneo. [1913.

5. Only if it incorporates into itself or tolerates quietly the
old traditions of the people that continue to fit their life.*

We have seen that the converted Dyaks keep right on with
all their savage anti-Mohammedan customs except as some of
these have dropped of their own accord when the Dyaks adopt
the Malay mode of life. Of the traditions that have survived
in the Malay faith, we have seen that these are a medly of
pre-Mohammedan Malay ideas with some Hindu- J avan, Chinese
or Dyak influences in different localities, holding on because
they are useful, or better adapted than the new religion to
the state of mind that the environment has produced.

As the result of the working of these principles we have in
Borneo, a quasi-Mohammedanism, or rather a new national or
class religion, with a certain investiture of ilohammedan names
and forms. We see that this resultant in the same country
varies from one locality to another, from one class to another
as the economic conditions are different.

I believe that our knowledge thus far of Mohammedanism
in Borneo goes to support these five “laws of contact,” and
that further facts will be likely to corroborate them, though
probably in a modified form. Of one thing I think we may
at least be certain. The parallelism of religious and economic
development holds true as rigidly in the borrowing of foreign
ideas as in the growth of customs on the native soil. We
have not reached in our explanation the full significance of a
religious usage when we have traced out the history of its
geographical migrations. Aboriginal or imported it has an
equally vital relationship to the life of the people.

1 Snouck Hurgronje recognizes this principle fully and states it in
his general remarks on the spread of Islam. “Side by side with the
law and doctrine which has developed in the school during the past
13 centuries, and which is universally admitted to he inspired yet is
universally neglected, there exists an entirely different standard of rehgion
law and morality which holds good in practice. This practical teaching
is indeed largely coloured by the influence of the theory of the schools,
yet to a greater extent it rests on a different basis; therein are ex-
pressed the views of life which controlled men’s minds in the pre-Moham-
medan period and therein do we also find traces of all that has befallen
the various peoples since they embraced the creed of Islam,” p. 277. “It
is of course quite possible to admit the validity of a law without ob-
serving its precepts Religious teaching, however, must neither

admit any elements which are unacceptable to a large part of the com-
munity, nor reject things which are indispensable to a great number of
the faithful,” p. 290.

A Tammus Fragment — By Professor J. Dynelex Prince,
Ph. D., Columbia University, N. Y.

The text of the following fragment (K. 3356) was published
by Kerr Duncan Macmillan (Beitrage mr Assyriologie, Y.
p. 679) without translation or explanation. From obv. 1 to
rev. 1, we may supply for the broken parts of the lines the
general idea “may it (the evil) he conjured”; i. e., “he it con-

jm-ed 6. hy the word of him who is dead, 7. by the

name of the spouse, 8. hy Kana, etc., 9. by the consort who
is sadly wailing, etc.” The wailing Nana, weeping for Tammuz,
appears also in CT. XV. obv. 14: er (A§I)-ri e-ne-ir xi-mu-
un-na-te-(jga) ‘wailing for him let her begin’ (Prince, AJSL.
xxvii. p. 85).

The fragment under discussion is chiefly interesting because
it seems to be, not the usual Tammuz-bjunn, but an incan-
tation, to remove evil from an afflicted person by adjuring
the sorrows of Tammuz and his consort Nana. The idea of
Tammuz and his grieving mother, as set forth by this text,
seems to imply that their divine soitows had a certain theolo-
gical value; in other words, that they constituted a vicarious
suffering to which men might look as a compensation for
physical ailments. In this respect, the poem is a really strik-
ing prototype of modern Christian litanies, which adjure the
Deity by the sorrows of the Incarnate God and His Mother
to have mercy on mankind.

Text and Translation

Obverse

1. -ta

2. -ta

3. -ge (KIT)-ia

4. -ge (KIT)-ia

5. -ge (KIT)-#a

VOL. xxxm. Part IV,

346

J. Dyndey Prince,

[ 1913 .

6. -KA dig {BKD)-ga-ge (KIT)-m
a dye, “sufo”, which he said was produced by the suph or
bulrushes, that gave the Hebrew name to these waters. That
too seems improbable because the dye, if so produced, was not
of commercial importance sufficient to characterize that sea.
Another suggestion connected the name with Edom, meaning
red, and would have made Erythraean a mere translation of
Idumean.

The name Erythraean is Greek; ddXaa-a-a Ipvdpd, or IptOpala.
It is not derived from any Semitic or Egyptian name, and it
was not applied to the body of water which we know as the
Ked Sea. The Greeks knew that as the “Arabian Gulf”, the
natural Egyptian name. Consequently any explanation derived
from the peoples of that region must he arbitrary and without
foundation.

The early Greek literature conceived the habitable earth as
a circular plane surrounded by the Ocean Stream. Little by
httle as the mental horizon of the Greeks was pushed out-
ward it was seen that this scheme must he modified, and that
the surrounding ocean here and there penetrated into the
solid earth. Such irregularities were noted in the Sea of Azov
and the Caspian Sea, supposed to communicate with the ocean
stream; such also was our Red Sea, known to the Greeks as
the Arabian Gulf. Of the navigation of the outer ocean the
early Greeks knew very little. Vague stories came to them
of Phoenician and Carthaginian trading beyond the Pillars of
Hercules, and of a circumnavigation of Africa by Phoenician
ships in the service of Egypt. Of the eastern ocean they had
no knowledge until they were brought into contact with the
great empire of the Persians, which had overthrown that of
the Chaldaeans, and under both of which there had been sea-
trading since time immemorial between the Euphrates and
Western India. That was the sea-route which they meant
by the word Erythraean, which came to them from Persia.
It is through that connection that its origin and meaning must
he sought.

’Epv^/xjs in Greek means red, fpvOpalvto to dye red, and
fpvOaCva to blush; there is a Greek personal name ’EpT^pas
that has some connection with these meanings, and a Greek
city ’Epvdpai in Boeotia, whose oracles made the name familiar
on Greek lips, as one readily to be extended to some new-

Vol. xxxiii.] The name of the Erythraean Sea.

351

found region. Possibly all these facts may have had their
share in the application of Erythraean to the waters between
Babylonia and India, and later by a reasonable extension to
the whole Indian Ocean and all the gulfs that communicate
with it.

Hecataeus, the first of the Greek geographers, knows noth-
ing of an Erythi-aean Sea. The first writers that give us the
name are Herodotus, as quoted below, and Pindar (P. 4, 448),
the latter in one passage onlJ^ From Herodotus, however, wm
have sufficient information clearly to explain the meaning of
the name as current in his time, which referred to Persian
and not Egyptian waters. He speaks, (1, 180) of the Euphrates
flowing from Armenia through Babylon and falling into the
Erythraean Sea. Again (4, 37) he says:

“The Persian settlements extend to the southern sea, called
the Erythraean; above them to the north are the Medes;
above the Medes, the Suspires; and above the Suspires, the
Colchians who reach to the northern sea, into which the river
Phasis discharges itself. These four nations occupy the space
from sea to sea . . .

“Another tract beginning at Persia, reaches to the Ery-
thraean Sea; it comprises Persia, and after that Assyria, and
after Assyria, Arabia; it terminates (terminating only by
custom) at the Aralfian Gulf, into which Darius carried a
canal from the Nile . . .

“Beyond the Persians, Medes, Suspires, and Colchians,
toward the east and rising sun, extends the Erytliraean Sea,
and on the north the Caspian Sea and the river Araxes,
which flows toward the rising sun. Asia is inhabited as far
as India; but beyond this it is all desert toward the east,
nor is any one able to describe what it is. Such and so great
is Asia.”i

The first Greek record of navigation in the Erythi'aean
Sea is likewise found in Herodotus (4, 4):

“A great part of Asia was explored under the direction of
Darius. He being desirous to know in what part the Indus,
which is the second river that produces crocodiles, discharges
itself into the sea, sent in ships both others on whom he could

' Quotations are from Cary’s translation.

352

WUfred H. Schoff,

[1913.

rely to make a true report, and also Scylax of Caryanda.
They accordingly, setting out from the city of Caspapyrus
and the country of Pactyice i sailed down the river toward the
east and sunrise to the sea; then sailing on the sea westward
they arrived in the thirtieth month (rpuj/coo-Ty that

place where the king of Egypt despatched the Phoenicians,
whom I before mentioned, to sail around Libya. After these
persons had sailed round, Darius subdued the Indians, and
frequented this sea. Thus the other parts of Asia, except
toward the rising sun, are found to exhibit things similar to
Libya”.

The truth of this story in Herodotus has been seriously
questioned in voluminous arguments which are now so much
waste paper, as we have written records of Hindu trade with
Babylon, which they called Baveru,^ more than a century
before that time, and we have the discovery of teak logs in
buildings at the ancient Ur reconstructed by Nabonidus.
These logs came from western India, from the Cambay region;
and in the Periplus of the first century, we have a written
record of the same trade still existing.

That the Persian Gulf was almost an inland lake was not
fully understood by Herodotus, and it is clear that by the
name Erythraean he meant the surrounding ocean to the
south and east of the Eurasian continent. The eastern ex-
tension of that continent was quite unknown to him, as he
supposed Europe to be larger than Asia, and imagined western
India to be the eastern boundary of Asia. That Erythraean

1 Caspapyrus, Sanscrit Kasyapapura. This was the Indus valley in
the neighborhood of the confluence of the Kabul river, more or less the
Peshawar district. Hecataeus mentions this place as a city of the Gan-
dharians. Pactyice, or the Pactyan land, was the upper course of the
Kabul valley; or more generally the territory in which Pukhtu was
spoken — southeastern Afghanistan, See Lassen, 1, 142 — 2, 631. Vincent
Smith, Early History, 2nd edition p. 35; Schoif, Periplus of the Ery-
thraean Sea pp. 42, 189.

2 See Rhys Davids Buddhist India p. 194. Jdtakas 3, 126 — 189. As
to the reconstruction of Ur by Nabonidus see Maspero, The Passing of
the Empires pp. 626 — 7. Inscriptions of Kabonidus are quoted in Harper,
Assyrian and Babylonian Literature 1.57—171. As to the teak trade
from India see Schoff, Periplus of the Erythraean Sea pp. 36, 152, 201.
See also Mookerji, History of Indian Shipping and Maritime Acti-
vity, p. 74.

yol. xxxiii.] The name of the Erythraean Sea. 353

to his mind meant the southern and eastern sm’rounding ocean
is clearly shown in 1, 203;

“The Caspian is a sea by itself, having no communication
with any other sea; for the whole of that which the Grecians
navigate, and that beyond the Pillars, called the Atlantic,
and the Erythraean Sea are aU one.”

And that the name Erythraean in the mind of Herodotus
did not specifically refer to the body of water we now call
Red Sea is clearly shown by the following (2, 10):

“There is also in the Arabian territory, not far from Egypt,
branching from the Erythraean Sea, a bay of the sea, of the length
and width I shall here describe. The length of the voyage, be-
ginning from the innermost part of this bay to the broad sea,
occupied forty days for a vessel with oars; and the width where
the bay is widest, half a day's passage, and in it an ebb and
flow takes place daily; and I am of opinion that Egypt was
formerly a similar bay, this stretching fi-om the Iforthern Sea
toward Ethiopia; and the Arabian Bay, which I am describing,
from the south toward Syria; and that they almost perforated
their recesses so as to meet each other, overlapping to some
small extent. Now, if the Nile were to turn its stream into
the Arabian Gulf, what would hinder it from being filled with
soil by the river within twenty thousand years? For my part
I think it would be filled within ten thousand.”

The same topography is followed by Strabo (16, 3. 1) where
he says, describing Arabia, “The northern side of this tract
is formed by the desert, the eastern by the Persian Gulf,
the western by the Arabian Gulf, and the southern by the
Great Sea lying outside of both gulfs, the whole of which is
called the Erythraean Sea”.

This is confirmed by Arrian in his Indika (19), E. J. Chin-
nock’s translation (Bohn Ed.), in the following passage;

“This narrative is a description of the voyage which Nearchus
made with the fleet starting from the outlet to the Indus
through the Great Sea as far as the Persian Gulf, which
some call the Erythraean Sea.” Again (40):

“The land of Persia has been divided into three pai'ts in
regard to climate. The part of it situated near the Ery-
thraean Sea is sandy and barren, on account of the heat;
the part from this toward the north enjoys a more temperate
climate, the country is grassy and the meadows moist . . .

Wilfred H. Schoff,

354

[1913.

Still further to the north the country is wintry and snowy.”
Again (43);

“The country on the right of the Erythraean Sea beyond
Babylonia is Arabia, most of it; part of this extends as far
as the sea of Phoenicia and Palestine-Syria; hut toward the
west in the direction of the inner sea, the Egyptians border
on Arabia. . . .

„Alexander despatched men from Babylon to sail as far as
possible on the right of the Erythraean Sea, and to discover
the places there.”

The first attempt to assemble and discriminate between the
various explanations of the name Erythraean (^'Epvdpa or
'EpvOpaia^ is found in the book of Agatharchides on the Ery-
thraean Sea, which may be dated about 120 B. C. Agathar-
chides was certainly in a position to know his subject; occu-
pying a prominent official position in Egypt under the Pto-
lemies, he was fuUy acquainted with the southern incense
trade and gives us the first detailed account of the power
and wealth of the kingdoms of South Arabia, and of the way
in which that rich trade was monopolized. His criticisms are
therefore worthy of consideration. He says, first, that the
name is derived by some from the color of the sea, arising
from reflection of the sun which is vertical, or from the
mountains which are red from being scorched with intense
heat. This suggestion he dismisses as quite inadequate. The
tremendous heat on the Red Sea and in the Persian Gulf is
noted by many writers. Arrian in his account of the voyage
of Alexander’s captain Nearchus speaks of the possibility of
sailing from Babylon around Ai-abia to Egypt, but says, quite
incorrectly, “No man has ever made this voyage on account
of the teat and desolateness of the country. During the
day one cannot keep cut under the open sky because of
the heat,”!

1 Centuries later, the Persian traveler 'Abd-ar-Eazzak writes of the
climate of Oman (Hakluyt Society’s publications, vol. 22 p. 9):

“Although it was at that time spring, in the season in -which the
nights and days are of equal length, the heat of the sun was so intense
that it burned the ruby in the -wine and the marrow in the bones, the
sword in its scabbard melted like wax, and the gems which adorned the
handle of the khandjar were reduced to coal.

Vol. xxxiii.] The name of the Erythraean Sea.

355

Thus while Agatharchides admits that we might explain
the name Erythraean, red, from the fact that the sea is, as
it were, red hot, we should still be away from the truth.

Another explanation, which Strabo (6, 4 20) quotes from
Ctesias of Cnidus through Artemidorus, ascribes the name to
a spring which discharges into the sea a red and ochrous
water. This is certainly an inadequate explanation, and, as
Agatharchides observes, a false one, “for the sea is not red”.
Yet this was the explanation adopted by Strabo and thence
by the Homan geographers, and more recently by Professor
Haupt. But Agatharchides is quite right in saying that
mere color of the water Ls no guide to the name. The
mediaeval Chinese writer Chau-Ju-Kua calls this same tody
of water the “Green Sea”.*

Agatharchides then offers his final explanation (§ 5) in a
story M’hich he quotes from a Persian named Boxus whom
he had met in Athens, and this story, the full importance
of which has not been understood, I venture to translate
entire.

„The Persian account is after this manner. There was a
man famous for his valor and wealth, by name Erythras, a
Persian by birth, son of Myozaeus. His home was by the
sea, facing towards islands which are not now desert, hut
were so at the time of the empire of the Medes, where Ery-
thras lived. In the winter time he used to go to Pasargadae,

“Soon as the sun shone forth from the height of heaven,

The heart of stone grew hot beneath its orb:

The horizon was so much scorched up by its rays,

That the heart of stone became soft like wax:

The bodies of the fishes, at the bottom of the fish-ponds.

Burned like the silk which is exposed to the fire;

Both the water and the air gave out so burning a heat,

That the fish went away to seek refuge in the fire;

In the plains the chase became a matter of perfect ease,

Tor the desert was filled with roasted gazelles.

“The extreme heat of the atmosphere gave one the idea of the fire
of heU.”

1 Chau-Ju-Kua: his work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the 12th
and 13th centuries, entitled Chu-fan-cM: Translated and annotated by
Friedrich Hirth and W. W. Bockhill: St. Petersburg, 1911.

(See map at end; also page 12. The name Green Sea is of Arabic
origin, carried into Chinese records. Kia Tan speaks of Malabar as the
“eastern shore of the Green Sea”.)

356

Wilfred H. Schoff,

[1913.

making the journey at his own cost; and he indulged in these
changes of scene now for profit and now for some pleasure
of his own life. On a time the lions charged into a large
flock of his mares and some were slain; while the rest, un-
harmed and terror-stricken at what they had seen, fled to the
sea. A strong wind was blowing from the land, and as they
plunged into the waves in their terror, they were carried beyond
their footing; and their fear continuing, they swam through
the sea and came out on the shore of the island opposite.
With them went one of the herdsmen, a youth of marked
bravery, who thus reached the shore by clinging to the
shoulders of a mare. Now Erythras looked for his mares,
and not seeing them, fiirst put together a raft of small size,
hut secure in the strength of its building; and happening on
a favourable wind, he pushed off into the strait, across which
he was swiftly carried by the waves, and so found his mares
and found their keeper also. And then, being pleased with
the island, he built a stronghold at a place weU chosen by the
shore, and brought thither from the mainland opposite such as
were dissatisfied with their life there, and subsequently settled
all the other uninhabited islands with a numerous population;
and such was the glory ascribed to him by the popular voice
because of these his deeds, that even down to our own time
they have called that sea, infinite in extent, Erythraean. And
so for the reason here set forth, it is to be well distinguished
(for to say ’Epvdpa BaXarra, Sea of Erythi’as, is a very different
thing from GaAaTra ipvOpa, Red Sea); for the one commemor-
ates the most illustrious man of that sea, while the other
refers to the color of the water. Now the one explanation
of the name, as due to the color, is false (for the sea is not
red), but the other, ascribing it to the man who ruled there,
is the true one, as the Persian story testifies.”*

> The origin of these names, Erythras and Myozaeus, is a matter of
conjecture. One suspects a loan to the Persians from some earlier race.
Myozaeus dimly suggests Mshya, the moon (perhaps Mshazad, ‘ known
to the Moon” (cf. Justi, Iranuches Nammbuch)-, while Erythras might
represent Arezwa or Arezraspa, two high priests from the north (cf.
Dinkart V. and IX); or have we here Aresh, the demon of envy, whom
Zarathushtra called “most deceitful of demons” {Dinkart IX),— some
divinity of an earlier race adopted by the Persians as their arch-devil?

Vol. xxxiii.] The name oj the Erythraean Sea. 357

Arrian likewise refers to this story (Indika 37) in his
mention of the island Oaracta-(Kish).i “In this island they
said that the tomb of the first king of this country was shown.
They said that his name was Erythras, from whom this sea
is called Erythraean.” Of Kish he also says {Indika 37): “It
produces plenty of vines, palm trees and corn, and is full
800 stadia in length. In this island the sepulchre of the fii'st
monarch thereof is said still to remain, and his name was
Erythras, and from him the sea was called the Erythraean
Sea.”

Strabo, in the passage already quoted (16, 3, 1) in describ-
ing Arabia hounds it on the east by the Persian Gulf, on
the west by the Arabian Gulf, and on the south “by the great
sea lying outside both the gulfs, the whole of which is called
the Erythraean Sea.” Strabo likewise, though in one passage
(Hamilton & Falconer's translation, Bohn Ed.) he adopts the
color theory of the origin of the name, admits the story of
Erythras as follows (16, 3. 1.):

“Nearchus and Orthagoras relate that an island Ogyris lies to
the south, in the open sea, at the distance of 2000 stadia from
Oarmania. In this island is shown the sepulchre of Erythras,
a large mound planted with wild palms. He was king of the
country, and the sea received its name from him. It is said
that Mithropastes, the son of Arsites, satrap of Phrygia,
pointed out these things to them. Mithropastes was banished
by Darius, and resides in the island; he joined himself to
those who had come down to the Persian Gulf and hoped
through their means to have an opportunity of returning to
his own country ....

“Nearchus says that they were met by Mithropastes, in
company with Mazenes, who was governor of one of the
islands, called Oaracta, in the Persian Gulf; that Mithropastes
aften his retreat from Ogyris, took refuge there, and was
hospitably received; and that he had an interview with Ma-
zenes, for the purpose of being recommended to the Macedo-
nians, in the fleet of which Mazenes was the guide.”

In this Persian story of Erythras may be found remants of
very early legend. We are introduced to a settlement in
southern Persia on the lowlands bordering the gulf. Their

• Vorochtha-Vroct-Basmis-Kieh.

358

Wa/red H. Schoff,

[1913.

chief went regularly to the Persian capital “at his own ex-
pense,” presumably to offer tribute. During his absence, shall
we say because the tribute was insufficient, a lion attacked
and scattered his mares, driving them across to uninhabited
islands accessible from the shore. The highland of Persia is
stiU the “land of the lion and the sun”. The lion is parti-
cularly a symbol of Persia; and have we not here the kernel
of a story of attack by Persian forces upon a coast people of
another race who were forced across to the islands of Ormus and
Kish, and thence probably to the coast of Oman and southern
Arabia? The opposition of the lion to the mare is the ag-
gression of powerful Persia against helpless Arabia. The
story is placed by Agatbarchides under the empire of the
Medes. I believe, however, that it may be given a much
earlier origin, and that we may possibly have here an echo
of the ancient conflict between the highland and the plain
which characterizes the history of early Chaldaea.

The tomb of king Erythras, of which Arrian speaks, which
was evidently a type of structure mentioned by modern tra-
velers as stUl found in that region, seems to apply to a pre-
Semitic race settled in the Persian Gulf and carrying on sea trade
there. The remnants of that commercial system which Goetz,
{Verkehrswege im Dienste des Welthandels p. 38), has aptly
entitled “Turanian-Hamitic”, may be traced through Makran
and Baluchistan to Dravidian India on the one hand, and
through Oman and southern Arabia, the ancient Hah ash to
modern Abyssinia on the other. There is some significance
in the mediaeval Arabic name for this sea (e. g, Masudi),
“Sea of Habash”. Had we the evidence, I believe we might
find the name Erythraean to have sprung originally from
some name of that race, possibly even a semi-totemic color
handed down through the legends of the adjacent highlands,
first Elamitic and later Persian.

Other meanings suggest themselves from the Persian con-
nection. Firstly, of course Erythraean means oriental, eastern,
pure and simple. As Herodotus observes, it is the sea “that
looks toward the rising sun”, frrom Persia; the eastern and
southern segments of the encircling ocean as distinguished
from the western and northern, to which he gives the name
Atlantic; and so, poetically, we may call it the sea of the
blushing morn — ^the sea of the rising sun. Especially in this

Vol. xxxiii.] The name of the Erythraean Sea.

359

combination of the sun, and the color red or golden red, in
accord with Persian beliefs.'

How beautifully Tennyson in the hymn at the end of his
“Akbar’s Dream” has given expression to this ancient Persian
ritual:

“Once again thou flamest heavenward, once again we see

thee rise.

Every morning is thy birthday gladdening human hearts

and eyes.

Every morning here we greet it, bowing lowly down be-
fore thee.

Thee the Godlike, thee the changeless in thine ever-chang-
ing skies.

“Shadow-maker, shadow-slayer, arrowing light from clime to

clime,

Hear thy myriad laureates hail thee monarch in their wood-
land rhyme.

Warble bird, and open flower, and men, below the dome

of azure,

Kneel adoring Him the Timeless in the flame that measures

Time!”

While there are earlier connotations in the name of that
ancient so-called king Erythras, the sun and the color red
cairy us to the very core of the Zarathushtrian faith.*

> With the earlier practices of sun-worship, Semitic or pre-Semitic, w^e
need not concern ourselves. There are relics of this worship still on the
island of Haftalu, the Astola of the Greeks, off the shore of Makran,
that magic island of the Arab voyagers which magnetically atteacted
nearby ships to their destruction so that the use of iron in shipbuild-
ing was made impossible.

2 Darmesteter in his work on the Zend Avesta (vol, 3. p. Ixxvi. note);
and while he finally accepts Burnouffs interpretations of “man with gold
colored (tawny, or red) camels”, the color still remains.

Zarathushtra was said to have been born of the mingling of his
guardian spirit with a ray of heavenly glory during a sacrifice, and the
sun w'orship was centered in Mithra, one of the great spirits of the
Mazdean faith — “who first of the celestial Yazatas soared above Mount
Hara before the immortal sun with his swift steeds, who first in golden
splendor passes over the beautiful mountains and casts his glance benign
on the dwellings of the Aryans”.

360

Wilfred H. Schoff,

[1913.

The great Persian king Cyrus was by name “the sun of the
morning”. King Erythras himself, “the king of the rosy morn”,
we might also connect with Cyrus, save that his tomb was
then too recent for its location to have been moved by legend
from the mountains to the island of Kish.

Yet I believe that the story of Erythras ante-dates the
Persian faith or the very existence of Persians on that
coast.

So much, then, for Erythi’aean as the Sea of the East, the
rising sun and the blushing morn.

Another meaning I think the name includes, derived from
the purple-fisheries which were among its earliest commercial
assets. ‘Ef)v6fMivvpa, and
Phoenician, the sea on which the Phoenician race, who

fii'st brought purple to the Mediterranean lauds, had before
that time established their cities and industries and maritime
commerce.

Whether there was anything more than an accidental con-
nection with the name of the Greek city Erythrae in Boeotia
we cannot tell. The likelihood is not great, hut it might
possibly be urged by some that Dorian Greeks were settled
in many parts of that land before the Persian invasions
of Greece. Alexander found Greek colonies at the gates of
India that claimed a descent prior to the Greek companies
exiled to the east by Darius, and at the Christian Era wm
find an archaic Dorian character appearing in the Greek
lettering on the coins of Mesene at the head of the Persian
Gulf, and on those of the Kushan kings. AVhile cei'tainly
not a cause for the name, this might have given it familiarity
in Greek ears.

VOL. XXXIir. Part IV.

362 ^\ilfred H. Schoff, The name of the Erythraean Sea. [1913.

We need not too sharply distinguish between these various
meanings, and possibly the general acceptance of the name
was due to the fact of its applicability from so many points
of view. Purple Sea would hardly have suggested the sun;
Phoenician Sea would have been a confusing name, while
Erythraean Sea, as practically a synonymous word embracing
all these meanings, made an ideally acceptable name.

In conclusion we may say that looking out of Glreece through
Persia to the ancient East, we may gather from the name
Erythraean several meanings, all of them reasonable. “Sea
of the East, the Orient, or the rising sun”; “Sea where the
sun was worshipped”; “Sea whence came the people who
brought the pm’ple or Erythi’aean dye”, and finally, “Sea of
King Erythras” typifying the ancient pre-Semitic Akkadian-
Dravidian trade. Certainly with these vistas of the past opened
through that name, we cannot rest satisfied with an inter-
pretation that would limit it to a temporary accumulation of
vegetable matter localized at a point to which the name was
not originally applied.

The Cock. — ^j Dr. John P. Peters, New York City

In 1888 I read, before the Society of Biblical Literature
and Exegesis, a paper on Leviticus I., in which I sought to
prove, from the animals there mentioned as sacrificial, and
particularly from the non-appearance of the cock, that, before
the time of the Babylonian captivity “the twali of animal
sacrifice had completed the creative and reached the legal or
unchangeable period.” In the preparation of that paper I
depended for my facts about the cock on Helm’s Kuitiirpflanzen
und Hausthiet'e. ‘ Since that time I have made an independent
investigation of the history of that bird with results differing
from or supplementing Hehn to such an extent that I have
been led to formulate this new material in a second paper,
commencing, however, as before, with Hebrew and Biblical use.

The first six chapters of Leviticus constitute a sacrificial
code, which evidently, in its present form, is both a compila-
tion and a growth. The final compilation is presumably post-
exilic, but I fancy that the code itself represents pretty well
the sacrificial practice of the Jerusalem Temple before the
captivity, while parts of it go back in essence to a much older
period. The rule with regard to sacrifice among the Hebrews
was that the sacrificial animal must be both comestible and
domesticated. Wild animals might not be sacrificed. Now in
actual practice only oxen, sheep and goats were permitted to
be eaten by the Hebrews in sacrifice. In the twah of the
whole burnt sacrifices, however, contained in Chapter I., be-
sides these three animals the dove, in two varieties, niV and
"ill, was permitted to be offered. This permission is added
like a sort of codicil at the end of Leviticus I. It gives the

• The last, posthumous, 8th edition, by 0. Schrader, adds nothing to
the material in Hehn’s original volume, in spite of the additional monu-
mental material now accessible. A note by Schrader purports to give
later Assyrian-Babylonian material, but is quite valueless and sadly mis-
leading.

24 *

364

John P. Peters,

[1913

impression of an afterthonght, as though of later origin. For tres-
pass and sin offerings, where the flesh was not to he eaten,
provided for in Chapters 4, 5 and 6, and for some other of-
ferings, like the purification offering (Chap. 12), a similar pro-
vision was made. The use in sacrifice of the three animals
mentioned and the two forms of dove can be traced hack to
the earliest Hebrew wuitings. Indeed, we may say that the
sacrifice of oxen, sheep and goats long antedates Hebrew ori-
gins, and that the sacrifice of the dove was practised by the
Hebrews certainly as early as 900 B. C. i The domestication
of oxen, sheep and goats extends into a hoary antiquity, ante-
dating both the Babylonian and the Egyptian civilizations.
The dove also was domesticated at a very early period in
Babylonia, in Syria, and in general, apparently, over the whole
of hither Asia. It is noticeable that our own barnyard fowl,
which is today found practically everywhere throughout the
world, in cold countries and hot, as a part even of the house-
hold equipment of wandering Bedawin Arabs, does not appear
in the sacrificial codes.

Outside of the dove, there is no mention of domesticated
fowl in the Old Testament, with tkree possible exceptions.
One of these is 1 Kings 5: 3, the account of the provision for
Solomon’s table. This was to be supplied with ten oxen,
fatted, gazelles, roebucks, and D'DUK D'lmn, rendered in the

> Cf. the Tahawist, Gen. 15: 9f. In the Marseilles sacrificial tariff and
in the similar tariff found at Carthage by Nathan Davis in 1858, com-
monly knovm as the Davis Phoenician Inscription, we have the same
quadrupeds mentioned for sacrifice as in the Levitical sacrificial list,
namely, the ox, goat and sheep. We also have two birds mentioned,
connected together as one whole, as in the Levitical code. The words
used for these birds, ps, pjN, are elsewhere unknown. The close resem-
blance of the code, as a whole, to the Hebrew suggests that the birds
here used are the same as those in the Hebrew code. Ball {Light from,
the East) calls attention to the fact that in the Samaritan Targum the
word pis appears to mean “young pigeon”, being the translation of ^(13
of Genesis 15: 9. Of course if ps be pigeon, then it follows of itself
that p3t< is dove. These two tablets, while themselves not very old
(somewhere, probably, between 300 and 500 B. C.), give us, presumably,
the old Phoenician custom of sacrifice. If the translation suggested above
be correct, then the old Phoenician code was practically identical with
the Hebrew; and the natural conclusion would be that the Hebrew code
was borrowed from a pre-Hebraic Canaanite source, considerably ante-
dating, therefore, 900 B. C.

Vol. xxxiii.]

The Code.

365

English version “fatted fowl,” following the Septuagint and
Vulgate. The Briggs-Brown-Driver Gesenius suggests that
these were geese. This would seem, on the whole, the most
plausible conjecture, and, if coi-rect, the passage would indicate
that the Hebrews, at or after Solomon’s period, did have access
to one variety at least of domestic fowl, whether they raised
them themselves or obtained them fi-om others. It would
appear, however, that these fowl were certainly not common.
They did not constitute an ordinary article of food. They
are mentioned nowhere else. Even if known within the cre-
ative period of the sacrificial torah, they never came to play
such a part as articles of food as to lead to their adoption
into the sacrificial code, either for general or for special
sacrifices.

The goose and the duck were elsewhere domesticated at a
very early date. We find evidence of this in ancient Egyptian
and Babylonian monuments; and Greek and Homan literature
and tradition represent the goose as early domesticated there
also. Palestine Avas a land naturally iH adapted for the
domestication of either geese or ducks, and while such do-
mestication Avas possible on the Ioav lands, in the regions re-
gularly occupied by either Judah or Israel there Avas very
little chance for such domestication and little temptation to
it. It is natural, therefore, that Ave should not find any men-
tion of geese or ducks in the Old Testament, in or out of
the sacrificial code, with the possible exception of the passage
alluded to; Avhich would seem to show that they were known
only as a luxAiry, procurable by one in Solomon’s position, but
not by the ordinary man.

The second exception is the peacock (D"3n), mentioned in
1 Kings 10: 22, and 2 Chron. 9: 21, as imported by Solomon.
As the name was imported with the bird, there is in this case
no doubt as to its identification or its origin; i which only
shows, however, that at the time this passage Avas Avritten,
and traditionally since Solomon’s time, the peacock AV'as knoAvn
to the JeAvs as a Avonder bird, fit possession of great kings,
and that it came originally from India, reaching the Mediter-
ranean lands by way of the Bed Sea.

* The Hebrew and the Greek, like the Sanskrit, borrowed the name
of the bird from the Tamul togei.

366

John P. Peters,

[1913.

The third possible exception is the cock, our domestic barn-
yard fowl, which, it is claimed, is mentioned under three
different names in three different passages: Is. 22: 17, Job
38: 36, and Prov. 30: 31. In the first case the word used is
" 123 , the common Hebrew word for male, then man, then per-
son or each. Jerome was advised by his Hebrew instructor,
apparently, that the word in this passage, and nowhere else
in the Old Testament, meant cock, and he so translated it.
Domimis asportari te faciei, sicid asportatur gallus galUnaceus.
The word did in fact come to have this meaning in post-
hiblical Hebrew. ^ The method of translation of sense seems
to be indicated by the use of 223 as a euphemism for meinbrum
virile. It was the salacity of the cock which led to his des-
ignation as 223 , male. The passage under consideration, as it
stands in the Hebrew, is difficult. The LXX translators
botched it badly. Their rendering, however, makes it plain
that 223 did not mean cock in their day, but only man. After
it had come to mean cock, by the transition noted above, it
was natural to read that meaning into this passage as a prom-
ising way of gaining an immediate sense. This seems to be
what was done by later Jewish scholars, and by Jerome fol-
lowing them. His translation, however, mins the passage as
a whole, and today all commentators agree that 223 does not
either here or elsewhere mean cock.2

1 133 appears as the name of the cock in the language of Mishnah
as early as about 60 A. D. (Yoma I. 8). Eusebius in his commentary
on Isaiah mentions the Rabbinical interpretation of 333 in Is. 22: 17 as
cock.

2 The difficulty in this passage has, I think, been caused by a play
on the words 33p and 333. In v. 16 Isaiah had reproached Shebna with
his ostentatious pomp in cutting himself a tomb, 33p, in the rock. In
V. 17 he predicts his violent removal into captivity in Mesopotamia.
“Behold, Yahaweh casteth thee out with a casting, (333) man”. The word
man (333) is used because it sounds, in common pronunciation, almost
exactly like the word for tomb (33p). This diverts Isaiah for a moment
from the direct line of his annunciation of Shebna’s captivity into burial
figures: “Wrapping thee with a wrapping, winding he windeth thee
with a winding.” The resemblance in letters of *13S and crr^y made the
puzzled Greek translators translate rbr aT( “Praised be thou,

1 Already referred to on p. 368 of this paper, note. The jiassage suggests
Persian influence.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Tlie Cock.

371

0 God, Lord of the world, that gavest understanding to the
cock to distinguish between day and night.”

On the other hand we find evidences that the cock was
not domesticated in Palestine without opposition. So Paha
Kam. 82 b notes that the breeding of cocks was forbidden
while the temple was in existence, because they scratch the
ground and pick up and disseminate objects levitically un-
clean.* Elsewhere the sale of white fowls is forbidden, appar-
ently because they were used for sacrifice by the heathen.

Today the cock is used sacrificially among the Jews, both
Sephardim and Ashkenazim, in connection with Yom Kippur,
as an atonement ^ offering (K(ipparali)—a. cock by the man,
a hen by the woman — being swung three times around the
head of the offerer, with the right hand upon the head of
the victim, somewhat as in the sin and atonement offerings
ordered in the Old Testament. The creature is killed, but is
not burned; as seems to have been the rule with doves, when
used as offerings, according to the old temple ritual. Its flesh
may be given to the poor to eat or it may be eaten by those
sacrificing, the money value being given to the poor. This
sacrifice is mentioned for the first time by Yatronai Gaon,
head of the Academy of Sura in Babylonia, in 853 A. D.,
who describes it as a custom of the Babylonian Jews. It is
also mentioned as a custom of the Persian Jews at an early
date. The cock also has been, or is now used among Jews
in various places for special sacrificial purposes of the pur-
ification or sin type {Kapjiarah),^ also for apotropaic sacri-
ficial purposes. 4

The Jew has evidently felt the same influence toward using
the cock in sacrifice which all other peoples and religions have
experienced; and so strong lias that influence been that, in

• Jewisli Euc., art. cock.

2 Among Sephardic Jews, at least, always w-hite.

3 So when a man is sick, a cock is killed. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic
Religion (p. 203), notes the same use in a Mohammedan village. Appar-
ently there, and among the Nusairieh also, a Kapparah sacrifice of the
sort described above was in use, a sheep being used by the wealthy, a
cock by the common folk.

* Eor the woman enceinte two hens and one cock are offered. For
references and verification in Jewish Literature and practice, I am es-
pecially indebted to Pres. Adler and Profs. Ginzberg, Gottheil and
Jastrow.

372

John P. Peters,

[1913

spite of the fact that theoretically sacrifice ended with the
destruction of the temple, pi-actically, as stated, the cock, not
included in the old tordh of sacrifice, is today the one sacri-
ficial animal of the Jews. Indeed, the cock may he said to
be a natural sacrificial animal, its use for these purposes being
almost uniyersal. Its omission from the sacrificial codes con-
tained in the Old Testament is due evidently only to the fact
that it was quite unknown to the Jews at the time of the
crystalization of the sacrificial torah.

Whence, when and how did the cock come into Palestine?

The ancestor of oui‘ common domestic fowl is the wild Red
Junglefowl (Gallus gallus),^ whose habitat extends from Kash-
mir eastward along the southern slopes of the Himalayas, through
Eastern India, Burma and the Malay Peninsula, and some of
the East India islands. This wild bird often associates with
the domestic fowls in the villages of the natives, and fi’equently
crosses with them. There are three other species of wild
Junglefowl, living I’espectively in central and southern India,
Ceylon, and Java, but they had no part in the direct ancestry
of oui’ domestic fowl. It is barely possible hut improbable
that the Buff Cochin-China fowls are descended from some
unknown, perhaps extinct wild Junglefowl, but with this
possible exception, all varieties of domestic fowl are descended
from the wild Red Junglefowl. The semi-tropical and tropical
zone which the Red Junglefowl inhabits would seem to indicate
that for many thousands of years its range has differed but
slightly fi-om its present distribution.

There are a number of reasons, derived from the study of
comparative ornithology, which indicate that the original home
of the Red Junglefowl, or at least the most anciently inhabited
part of its present range, lies to the East and South, in the
Burmese-Malayan portion of its present habitat, rather than
to the West in the Indian region. Distributional study of
other birds, as the Kaleege Pheasants, makes it certain that
these originated in Bui'ma and have since migrated westward
along an elongated, sub-Himalayan finger, stretching as far as
Kashmir. The same holds true of a number of other forms
of Hfe both mammalian and avian. There is no doubt that
the Red Junglefowl is of tropical or sub-tropical origin. Neither

‘ Phasianus gallus of Linnaeus; Gallus bankiva of Teniminck; also
Gallus ferrugineus.

Vo!, xxxiii.]

The Cock.

373

it, nor its domesticated descendants can bear extreme cold;
and the elaborately specialized, exposed comb and wattles
could have been evolved only in a warm country. The three
other species of Junglefowl are all tropical and the affinities
of the group among the other pheasants are altogether with
south Chinese and Malayan genera.^

Jfewton^ says: “Several circumstances seem to render it
likely that fowls were first domesticated in Burma or the
countries adjacent thereto.” Those circumstances are, I pre-
sume, the facts stated above, and it may be safely assumed
that the Bm'mese region was the original site of domestication
of the fowl; but from that region we have neither literature
nor monuments to support this conclusion. The two centers
of primitive civilization near the fowl’s original habitat about
which we have early information are China and India.

China.

In China we find very early traces of the domestication of
the cock, such domestication being traceable according to
tradition at least as early as 1400 B. C.; but here, even more
than in India, it is extremely difficult to determine accurately
early dates. There are no monumental records of any sort
which carry us back to such a very early period, and the dat-
ing of literary records is extremely uncertain. We can really
do little more than say that there is abundant evidence of
the domestication of the cock in China at a very early period.*

1 0. William Beebe, Curator of Ornithology, New York Zoological
Park. The line of migration of the domestic fowl, as traced by archae-
ological and linguistic evidence, also suggests that its original home
may have been rather the more easterly and southerly portion of its
present habitat, from which it traveled westward up and against the
line of Aryan invasion into Kashmir.

2 Alfred Newton, Dictionary of Birds; see also Encyclopaedia Britan-
nica, article “Fowl”.

3 I am indebted to Professor Friedrich Hirth of Columbia for the
following note: The present word for the domestic fowl including its
male, the cock or rooster, as the head of the family, is hi or hai, the
latter being the Cantonese, as being probably the nearest approach to
the ancient sound. This word can be traced with tolerable safety to
the times of the Chou Dynasty (1122 — 249 B. C. ?). The Shuo-wlm, a
Chinese dictionary, published in 100 A. D., defines the term as meaning
“The domestic animal which knows the time”; and since the construction
of the character of hi with niao (bird) as radical excludes quadrupeds.

374

John P. Peters,

[1913.

It would appear that the Chinese were the first to breed
the bird for utilitarian economic purposes, producing the Buff
Cochin China fowl, a rariety so firmly established and exhibit-
ing such unique characteristics as to suggest, as pointed out
above, the possibility of a separate species. Elsewhere the bird
retains its primitive appearance as the Bed Junglefowl, of
which our ordinary game cock is perhaps the most nearly typ-
ical form, prized for its fighting qualities. Outside of China
the breeding for more utilitarian qualities, which has produced
our modern varieties, is of very recent date;i and those varie-
ties apparently all owe much to crossing with the already well
established Chinese breeds.

and since pigeons, ducks and geese are not in tke habit of indicating
time, I think we are pretty safe in assuming that the word in those
days and prohahly centuries before had the present meaning of domestic
fowl or cock. But these are comparatively recent times. The most an-
cient source for the occurrence of words throwing liglit on Chinese cul-
ture are the hieroglyphic inscriptions on bells and sacrificial vessels of
the Shang Dynasty, placed by that probably fictitious Chinese chron-
ology between the years 1766—1122 B. C. The names of birds are very
poorly represented in it and the domestic fowl is not mentioned at all.
But this may be purely accidental, since the material now on record
probably represents merely a portion of the words then in use, and a
very small portion too. You will see that oxen, sheep and other dom-
estic animals, w'hich might have been used for sacrificial purposes, are
not mentioned either, although the word for sacrifice itself occurs. I
have in vain looked for the word in those most ancient classics, Ghi-king,
Shu-king and, Ck'rin-ts"iu- To make up for this I can refer you to the
Chou-li, regarding which work see my Ancient history of China, page
107 seqq., which maj' or may not have originated in the eleventh century
B. C., and according to which the cock was used as a victim in the
sacrifice (cf. “Le Tcheoti-li", translated by E. Biot, Paris 1831, page 42
of Index: “Ki-jin, offioier de eoqs; il presente les coqs que I’on sacri-
fice”). The word ki occurs also in that most ancient Chinese Glossary,
the Ir-ya, which may possibly date from the time of Confucius himself
(fifth century B. C.). The cock also appears in the names of certain
constellations; the astronomical nomenclature would thus raise a side
question, quite apart from the legendary matter which trespasses on
historical ground, e. g. the Emperor Huang-ti (twenty-seventh century
B. C.) ascending a hill called Ki-t’ou, i. e. Cock’s Head (E. Chavannes,
£es Memoires Historiques de Se-ma-TsHen, Vol. I, p. 30, note 3), which,
like many other stories of the kind, is clearly a late fabrication, which
does not deserve any notice in serious research.

1 The Greeks bred the bird for fighting purposes, continually draw-
ing fresh blood from Media, as we do for horses from Arabia. See
Hehn.

Vol. xxxiii.]

The Cock.

375

Central Asia.

There are, in Eussian Tui'kestan, numerous remains of an
extremely ancient civilization, ruin mounds indicating the ex-
istence of a large population inhabiting cities during a long
period of time, in the now desert region south\yard of the
Aral Sea. Some of these mounds were explored by Eaphael
Pumpelly, and large quantities of remains, including bones,
collected and examined. The indications were that these ruins
were flourishing cities fi’om a period antedating 3000 E. C. to
the commencement of our era. Among the bones found there
were no chicken bones, evidence to that extent that the cock
was not known to that civilization, and that the cock did not
originally make his way to the west from China by way of
Tui'kestan. Probably, however, it was from China that the
cock passed to the Turks and later was brought westward
with them, at a time when it had already long been domes-
ticated in the AVest. Professor Gottheil calls my attention to
the evidence from yestorian gravestones found in Semiijetshie,
near China, that the old Turks had a “cock-year”, according
to whicli they counted. The old Tui'kish name for cock was
tcigaku, Uigur Jlongolian taiigak, Kirgiz aigyr-taiik), the
root used today fi'om China to Tm'key and Hungary.

India.

From India we have no- monumental evidence of early date
with regard to the domestication of the cock, for we have
indeed no early monuments of any sort. AA’^e are compelled,
therefore, to trust to literary evidence as far as that goes. In
the earliest stratum of Indian literature, belonging to the
Indus period of the Aryan invasion, the Eig A"eda, there is
no mention of the cock. On the other hand he appears in
the Atharva and the Yajur A'edas, which belong to the Ganges
period of the Aryan occupation, the earliest mention going
back to 900 B. C.,i or somewhat eai'lier. From that period
onward he is mentioned with increasing frequency both in the
pre-Buddhistic and in the Buddhistic literature belonging to

1 I have taken this date from the most conservative scholars. A date
at least 200 years earlier would seem to accord better with my other
evidence about the cock.

376

John P. Peters,

[1913.

this same general region, the Granges northward and eastward. ‘
All these notices, moreover, clearly indicate both a condition
of domestication and also the important part which the cock
played in the life and thought of the people.

1 I am indebted to Prof. Chas. B,. Lanman for the following inter-
esting note, from which I derive the statements contained in the text.

The White Yajur Veda (Vaja SaneyT-samhita, i, 16) says:

Thou art a cock (kukkuta) whose tongue is sweet with honey,

CaU to ns hither sap and manly vigor.

May we with thee in every fight be victors.

(It is interesting to observe the three characteristics of the cock here
mentioned: Crowing, salacity, fighting.)

The first two chapters of this text are the liturgical formulae which
accompany the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices. This particular verse
is addrest, not to a cock, but to a sacrificial implement with which the
press stones are beaten, and which is likened to a cock on account of
the noise it makes. (Cf. Sacred books of the East, XII. 30 and notes.)

This is the oldest occurrence that I know, except in so far as a re-
plica of this formula is found also (according to Bloomfield’s Concord-
ance) in several other closely related texts {Concordance, p. 328 a, kukkuto’si
and kutarur asi). We may date this text at 900 B. C. or earlier.

In the Atharva-Veda, V. 31, 2, we read (Whitney’s version. Harvard
Oriental Series. VII. 279):

What (witchcraft) they have made for thee in a cock (krka-vaku),
or what in a kuriva-wearing goat; in a ewe what witchcraft they have

made I take that back again (I make it to revert upon its

maker).

This is a passage which may be as old as the Yajur Veda passage,
or possibly older.

In the Mahabliarata (iii. 228. 33) a cock is the emblem on the chariot
banner of Skanda, given by his father, god Agni.

A verse attributed to Chanakya (about 320 B. C.; minister to Chandra-
gupta, ZaiiSpoK6TTos) says you may learn four things from a cock:

1. to fight.

2. to get up early.

3. to eat with your family.

4. to protect your spouse when she gets into trouble.

In the Manavan Laws, Metrical Code, Dharma-jastra (Law's of Manu),
dated by Biihler 100 +> '^6 read:

iii. 239: A Chandala, a village pig, a cock, a dog, a menstruating
woman, and a eunuch must not look at Brahmans while they eat.

(240: If they see a bumt-oblation, the oblation becomes useless

Because)

241: A boar makes (the rite) useless by inhaling the smeU (of the
offerings) ;

a cock by the wind that he sets in motion by the flapping of his
wings; &c.

Vol xxxiii.]

Tire Cock.

377

From this it would appear that the Aryans did not find
the bird in the Indus Talley, but met him first when they
occupied the Ganges yaUey, about the 10th century B. C. (or
12th, see note), either themselves domesticating him, or more
probably finding him already domesticated hy the previous
inhabitants. This fits in on the one side with the theory of
the ornithologists as to the native habitat of the hir’d; and
on the other side with the fact that the cock was not im-
ported by sea by the Phoenicians operating with Solomon.
The latter found the peacock in the India which they reached
by sea, he being a native of that part of the country, but
not the cock, which belonged to another region remote from
that coast. In point of fact the cock is entirely lacking in just
the region westward which touched India by the water route.
He made his way westward by land fromKashmir through Bactria.

Bactria and Persia.

If the cock moved northward and westward up and against
the line of the Aryan invasion, he should have reached Bactria

In XI — 156 we read: The atonement for partaking of (the meat of)
carnivorous animals, of pigs, of camels, of cocks, of crows, of donkeys,
and of human flesh, is a Tapta-k’rechva penance.

This last verse against “eating crow” &c. goes back to a much older
prose-text, the Dharma-sutra of Gautama (see J. B. E. ii. 284); and the
prohibition is found in Vasisthas Dharma-sutra also (see J. B. E. xiv. 121).

Eating the flesh of the “village cock” is prohibited with that of the
goose, Brahman duck, sparrow, crane, woodpecker and parrot in Manu
(V. 12, J. B. E. XXV. 171: cf. p. 172, verse 19).

In the Buddhist books the cock is mentioned in the early part of one
of the very oldest, the first dialog of the Digha Xikaya (text, vol. I,
page 9; see David’s transl. p. 19, rendered “fowls”). This book may
date from about the time of Buddha, say 475 B. C. or thereabouts.

In the Questions of Milinda (about the 1st century of our era) is a
whole chapter about the cock (text, p. 366, line 12, to page 368 line 1).

Five (ways) qualities of the cock you should imitate:

1. Monk should retire early for meditation: as the cock retires early
to roost.

2. Rises early.

3. Cock is unremittingly busy scratching for food: monk should be
unremitting in pursuit of higher life.

4. Cock is blind by night: monk should be blind to delights and
seductions of senses.

5. Cock will not desert his home: monk should never desert his “mind-
fulness” which is his home.

VOli. xxxm. Part IV. 25

378

John P. Pet&rs,

[1913.

at a very early date. Bactria and the region westward, from
the Caspian Sea to Farsistan, was the home of the rehgion
of Zoroaster; and it is to the Zoroastrian sacred literature
that we are indebted for such knowledge as we possess of the
domestic animals, as of the civilization development in general
of that region at that period. The date of Zoroaster is un-
certain, hut is quite certainly earlier than 600 B. 0. ^ There
are no monumental remains which go back to this period.
The name of the cock does not appear in the very earliest
stratum of Zoroastrian religious literature, the Glathas, but
the character of that material is such that one would scarcely
except to find it there in any case. The cock is, however,
abundantly represented in what we may call the second stratum
of Zoroastrian literature. The earliest mention is presumably
in Vendidad, Fargard XVIII. In the early morning the' cock
lifts up his voice against the mighty after-midnight darkness
(Ushah): “Arise, oh men, recite the Ashem Yad-va hishtem
that smites down the Daevas”. ^ From this onward he is
frequently mentioned, and indeed he played a role of great
importance in the Persian religion and literature. Besides his
common name, Halka, and his onomatapoetic name Kahrkatas
(equivalent to cock-adoodle-doo), he had also a rehgious name,
Parodarsh, foreseer (i. e. of the dawn). Numerous passages in
the Vendidad, Bundehishn and later literature set forth his
sacred character. He was created by God to fight the demon
of idleness. By his crowing he puts to flight the demons. He
is the bird of light and hence of righteousness, scattering
darkness and repelling the hosts of evil that dwelldn darkness.
He was also the symbol of the resurrection. Carrying out
the idea of the sacred character of the cock, in curious contrast
with the utilitarian economic breeding of the Chinese, it was
counted an act of piety to possess and to raise domestic fowl;

1 Jackson gives the year 660 lor the birth of Zoroaster. (Cf. Persia
Past and Present) Basing their conclusions on the appearance of Mazda
in Median proper names in Assyrian inscriptions of Sargon, 715 B. C.,
Ed. Meyer and others date Zoroaster somewhere from 800 back to 1000
B. G. If the readings of the Assyrian inscriptions are positively assured,
admitting no alternative, and if it can be proved that Zoroaster did in
fact invent the word Mazda and did not borrow it from already existing
use, local or otherwise, an earlier date than 660 would be proved beyond
question.

2 Cf. Vd. 18. 15, 16=23, 24; also Yasht 22. 41, 42.

Vol. xxxiii.]

The Cock.

379

but after he began to crow the cock might not be eaten. The
part which the cock plays in Persian religion and mythology,
and the manner of reference to him in Zoroastrian literature,
seem to prove satisfactorily that he antedates that religion,
and that he was domesticated in Bactria and westward among
the Medes and Persians before the time of the founding or
reformation of the Persian religion by Zoroaster. Zoroaster
was, it must he remembered, a reformei', protesting against the
superstition, the idolatry and the materialism of the religion
of his age and people. The Gathas represent that protest
and present the reformed religion in its most primitive and pur-
est form. But, as always has been the case, in its second stage
Zoroastrianism had to reckon with the religion it nndertook
to reform, and above aU with the great nnderlying folk cult
of that religion, compromising with its forms and practises
and superstitions. That second stage is represented by the
Vendidad and Bundahishn, and precisely such material as the
cock cult or reverence in those books may he taken as evidence
of the existence and importance of that cult, and hence as
evidence of the domestication of the cock, before the time of
Zoroaster. 1 More than that we cannot say from Persian
sources. From the fact that there is no name for cock com-
mon to Indians and Iranians, it is clear that he was not
known before the separation of these two Aryan stocks. 2
Comparing, however, what we have learned from Persian and

1 For further information about the cock among the Persians, cf.
Jackson A. 0. S. vol. xiii p. 15. I am also indebted personally to Prof.
Jackson for much assistance in this research, and especially for pointing
out to me that the cock is evidently pre-Zoroastrian among the Persians.

2 Possibly this statement should be somewhat modified. Prof. Jackson
calls my attention to the fact that Kahrka, which appears in composition
in Avestan Kahrkatdt, the popular onomatopoeticon for cock, and in
Kahrkasa, the name for the vulture, apparently as “chicken-eater”, mav
be equated with the Sanskrit krka (also onomatopoetio) in krka-vaku,
also a folk name for cock. With these, (following P. Horn, Grrundrifi
der neupersischen Etymologie, p. 189) he also compares the Pahlavi Kark,
Kurdish Kurka, Ossetish Kharkh, hen. The suggestion is that there was
an onomatopoetic root name for cock common to Indian and Iranian, which
did not, however, by itself become the name of the cock in either San-
skrit or Avestan, altho found in the later Iranian dialects. It should
be said that the particular sound contained in this onomatopoeticon
belongs to other birds than chickens. So in Aramean kurkya, the same
sound, means crane.

380

John P. Peters,

[1913.

Indian sources, it would appear that the cock was derived
from India and domesticated among the Iranians somewhere
probably between the 11th and the 8th centuries.

Greece and Asia Minor.

Hehn in his Ktdtnrpflamen places the appearance of the
cock among the Greeks after contact with the Persians, in
the latter half of the 6th century B. C. The cock is first
mentioned in Greek literature by Theognis, 525 B. 0., and
later writers frequently designate him as the Persian bird
(occasionally also the Median bird). In fact, however, the
cock is abundantly represented on monumental remains a
century or even two centuries earlier. Hogarth found him on
coins from the earliest stratum of the temple of Artemis at
Ephesus, circa 700 B. C., and he appears on the very earliest
Ionian coins found in Asia Minor, especially in the north,
along the Dardanelles, as early as the 7th century, t In
southern Asia Minor, on the harpy tomb at Xanthus in Lycia,
circa 600 B. C., there is a remarkably fine representation of
a cock, used as a sacrificial bird, having the characteristic
game cock appearance of the Bed Junglefowl. In Crete the
cock appears on the IVIelian gems about 700 B. 0.^ On the
Greek main land we have numerous representations going hack
to the 7th century. Of these perhaps the earliest is a relief
found in Sparta in 1880, representing the offering of a cock,
apparently in connection with ancestor worship. Of almost
the same age is a proto-Attic vase, figured in Ephemeris
Archaiologike, 1897. A Corinthian Alabastron, with a re-
presentation of a cock, in the Metropolitan Museum in Xew
York, is dated 650 — 600 B. C. An oinochoe from the same
place, showing an owl between cocks, is dated 600 — 550; and

1 Cf. Head, Historia Numorum. One coin ascribed to Dardanus (p. 544),
however, an electrum stater with a cock on one side, seems to belong to
Chios. This is “one of a series of primitive types, among which are
found bulls, lions, and fantastic winged animals.” (Miss Agnes Baldwin).

2 Sir Arthur Evans thought that he had found the cock on one of
the early Minoan monuments at Knossos, which would place his appear-
ance in Greece as early as the third millennium {Journal of Hellenic
Studies xiv. 1894, p. 342, fig. 65 a, also Scripta Mima, p. 133, fig. 74 a).
This is a very rude representation of a bird, lacking all the character-
istic features of the cock, resembling representations of unidentifiable
birds found on the Egyptian and Babylonian monuments.

Vol. xxxiii.]

The Cock.

381

a Clialce (Ionian amphora, representing a man between two
cocks, is assigned to the same date. Indeed, any well equipped
museum at the present time contains abundant evidence that
the cock was known to the Greeks long before they came in
contact with either Persians or Medes. The term Persian
bird seems to have been given to the cock by Greek writers,
after contact with the Persians, chiefly because of his great
importance and his religious use among the Persians, which
made him par excellence their bird; partly, perhaps, because
of the tradition of his derivation from the East, the land from
which the Persians also came.

After the commencement of the Persian era, the represent-
ation of the cock on coins, vases and monuments becomes
more frequent. Both before and after that time the character-
istic of the cock which seems to have appealed most strongly
to the Greek imagination was his fighting qualities. To them
he was primarily a game cock, and the cock fight is the most
familiar and frequent representation on coins of the Greek
period from India westward.^ On this account he was sacred
to Ares. That he was also associated with Hermes, presumably
for his mantic qualities, is apparent from his representation
with the caduceus.2 Perhaps it was thru Persian use that
he became sacred to Apollo, as herald of the sun. In that
connection also he appears attached to the triscele on Pam-
phylian and Lycian coins. 3 Fuiiher, as a derivation probably
from his relation to the sun, reasoning from awakening to
health, he was sacrificed to Asclepius. In this relation, also,
he became the chthonic bird, and is used on tombs, as em-
blematic of the hope of a reawakening to life. He w as a bird
of good omen among the Greeks as among the Eomans, and
used sacrificiaUy to avert evil.

1 The usual type of autonomous coins in Asia Minor, going back to
about 700 B. C., is a cock or a cock fight (viz. Pollux IX. 84, Hogarth,
Archaic Artemisia, 1908, p. 89). A cock fight is also the commonest
representation of the fowl on Attic vases. For a typical specimen cf.
Attic Kylix in Metropolitan Museum, New York, 550 — BOO B. C.

3 Of., for instance, coins of Sophytes, prince of the Panjab, 316 — 306
B. C.: obverse, head of Sophytes or Athena; reverse, cock and caduceus,
Head, p. 835.

3 Cf. Goblet d’Alviella, Migration des Symholes, pp. 76, 222; also Hunter,
Numorum veterum descriptio, pi. VII. nos. 15, 16; Head, Coins of the
Ancients, pi. HI. fig. 135.

382 John P. Peters, [1913.

Thruout tlie whole Greek world, then, from 700 B. C. on-
Avard, the cock, always represented most nnmistakeably on
monuments and coins, reproducing the game cock character-
istics which belong to the original breed, was a familiar and
omnipresent bird, sacrificial to a number of gods, representing
an accumulation of sacred ideals and traditions, and popular
for sporting purposes. On the other hand, the bird does not
belong to the earliest stratum of Greek civilization. He plays
no part in Greek mythology. There are no legends or folk-
lore which attach themselves to him, as to the dove, the swan,
the eagle, &c. He came in after the Greeks had passed that
stage of their existence. The name by which he was known,
dXfKTpivdv or oXeKTuip, is not Greek. i He is not mentioned in
Hesiod or Homer, in one or both of which it seems that he
must have played a part, had he been known. The latter
mentions, among domestic animals, the horse, ass, mule, ox,
goat, sheep, pig and dog, and among domestic fowl the goose,
but nowhere the cock.^ The Homeric poems, do, however, I
think, give us a clue to the date and the origin of the cock
among the Greeks. As already pointed out, the Greek word
for cock, dAacrpwuv, fern. hXtKrptvaiva,^ (poetic dXeKrutp, fem. dXac-
Topts) is foreign. If we could trace its origin we should pres-
umably find the somce of the cock for the Greeks. One turns
naturally toward Asia Minor. The remains found in the in-
terior of Asia Minor, both the Hittite and the proto- Armenian
monuments, show no trace of the cock. Partly they are too
early; partly, as 1 think will appear from what follows, they
were not in the fine of transmission or migration of the cock.
While, as already stated, the cock is not mentioned in Homer,
the word for cock does appear twice as a proper name. Arpros,
an Argonaut and commander of the Boeotians, was the son

1 Leo Meyer, Sandbuch der griechischen Etymologic, I. p. 296, derives
iXiicrap from dW&o', citing the analogy of aXdarap. He would make it
mean '^Abmehrer, wie der kampflustige Hahn gewiB leicht benannt werden
konnte”.

2 The pigeon is commonly included in the list, but, according to Sey-
mour, Life in the Homeric Age, the pigeon, whi lewell known to Homer,
was a wild, not a domesticated bird.

2 The feminine formations are uncertain and variable, evidence of for-
eign origin.

Vol. xxxiii.]

Hie Cock.

383

of Alektryon [’AXaa-pvovos U. XVII. 602). ^ Appearing in
connection with a man connected in early Grecian story with
the exploration of the Euxine to its remotest eastern shores,
the name suggests the possibility that the Greeks came in
contact with the cock at the extreme eastern limit of the
Euxine, and brought him thence to the Greek cities of Asia
Minor and so to Greece itself. 2 The Homeric passages, how-
ever, would show that the bird was not as yet possessed by
the Greeks, hut only just beginning to be known by name.
The importation of the bird by sea along the Euxine would
parallel, it may be ohseiwed, the early importation of the pea-
cock by sea from India, and of the guinea fowl, in the time
of Sophocles, from tropical Africa by way of the Red Sea and
the Mediten-anean.

Italy.

Erom Greece the cock spread with the early Greek colonies
to Italy, where the monumental remains on which he appears
are almost as early as those of Greece itself. The cock appears
on the earliest coinage of Himera, a Chalcidic colony on the
north coast of Sicily, founded about the middle of the 7th
century.* The coinage of Selinos, the most westerly Greek
colony in Sicily, represents on one side Apollo and Artemis,
standing together on a quadriga, and on the other side the
river god Selinos, with a phiale and a lustral branch, before
an altar, in front of which is a cock, behind on a stand a
bull, and above it a Selinon leaf. Here the cock is evidently
sacrificial and connected apparently with the sun.< In Etruria

1 Leitus is also mentioned by ApoUodorus, Diodorus and Pausanias.
His tomb was shown at Plataea. According to these later authorities
the wife of Alektryon or Alektor, his father, was Cleobule. It will be
noted also that the ’Weicrpviiv of Homer becomes ’AXiicrap in later writers,
according to the dictionary the poetic form of the word. The latter is
in Od. TV. 10 the name of a Spartan: vUt Si "Liripnidev 'AXiKtopos ijpero Koiptip.

* This would date the cock among the Iranians of the Euxine region
at or before 1000 B. C., harmonizing with the earlier dates suggested in
the preceding pages, rather than with the later dates. If Hehn’s facts
and conclusions are correct the pheasant was brought to Greece some-
what later by this same route, i. e. from the eastern end of the Euxine
by sea to the Greek cities.

3 The coins themselves may not be older than the commencement of
the 5th century. Head, Historia Numorwn, p. 143.

‘ Do. 168.

384

John P. Peters,

[1913.

the cock appears on top of sepulchral vases (chthonic use) of
the Bucchero type as early as the middle of the 6th, perhaps
even of the 7th century, and on wall paintings of Etruscan
tombs, belonging, it is supposed, to the period when the Greeks
had begun to influence Etruscan art. In Latium the cock
appears on top of early hut urns (also chthonic) of about the
same date as the Etruscan sepulchral vases. The cock is also
a frequent emblem on the coins of Samnium and Latium in
the 3rd centui'y, and indeed he is almost, if not quite, as
common on the coinage of Italian cities as on those of Gre-
cian Asia Minor. A typical coin of the Samnian and Latin
cities is that of Gales: i obverse a head, reverse crowing cock
and legend Caleno.

It is generally assumed that tlie cock was introduced into
Italy by the Greeks, and spread gradually from south to north.
But the coins of Samnium and Latium, just described, with
the figure of the crowing cock, resemble rather the cock of
Gaul than that of Greece; and indeed the name of the cock
in Latin, GaUus, or the Gallic bird, suggests a similar origin.
The cock may, it is true, have been called gallus by the
Romans for the same reason that he was called the Persian
bbd among the Greeks. Even this would show that he was
at an early period very common and very important among
the Gauls. But it seems to me that the use for the name of
the bbd of the word Gallus goes further, and indicates that
the Italians actually received him from the Gauls. In that
case he was domesticated in Central Italy before the coming
of the Greeks.

Xow we know from other sources that the cock played a
part of great importance among the Gauls before the Roman
conquest. Caesar so testifies. He tells us also of the rebgious
significance of the cock among the Gauls in language that
reminds us of Persian practice. Part of the Gallic race, he
says, while raising fowls, yet regarded it as a sacrilege to eat
them. The cock, we learn further, wms associated with the
great god of the Gauls, whom Caesar identifies with Mercury.
Prom Galbc times, also, w'e have various clay and other re-
presentations of the cock, found in various places. 2 Certain

1 Maury, Le Coq Gaulois, p. 57.

2 So Arthur Maury, Le Coq Gaulois, who refers especially to the
collections in the Museum of St. Germain-en-Laye (p. 64.)

Vol. xxiiii.]

The Cock.

385

it is that after the Roman conquest he appears on coins from
various parts of the country, i and that from that time to this
he has played a part in France which fairly entitles him to
he called the national bird of France. As already noted the
French bird is the cock in his form as chanticleer, the crower,
or singer, the herald of dawn.

But how did the cock reach Gaul? From the Greek colonies
on the coast, or by an independent route thru the interior of
Europe? I am inclined to think by the latter route. The
Romans found him not only in Gaul, hut also in England
and among the Germans. Evidently he was in the fii-st cent-
ury before our era pretty widely distributed as a domestic
fowl, and also as a distinctly sacred bfrd, over western and
central Eui’ope. He was not a native. Xo chicken bones
have been found among the shell heaps of Denmark or the
lake dwellings of Switzerland, Italy or Hungary, His advent
belongs to a later period. The linguistic evidence shows that
he was not common property of the Indo-European peoples,
nor even of the European peoples before their separation.
Celt, Teuton, Lett and Slav know him by no common name.
On the other hand, all peoples of Teutonic stock possess a
common name for the domestic fowl, and that name, halm or
hen, the singer, connects him rather with the Persian foreteller
of the dawn than with the Grecian fighting bird. Every-
where he has a religious character, and apparently the super-
stitions and religious usages connected with him among the
Germans, as among the Gauls, point in the same direction.^
The evidence is far from conclusive, but I am inclined to

1 Maury cites also funerary stones of the first century, bearing cock
on ensign, from Strasbourg and Narbonno (pp. 61 f.).

2 For the linguistic evidence cf. Hehn. He shows, among other things,
that the Germans must have constituted one whole, dwelling together in
one relatively small region, separate from other peoples, when they
applied the name hana to the domestic fowl; that the Germans must
have been immediate neighbors of the Finns, and presumably not con-
tiguous to the Lithuanians; that the Slavs and Lithuanians must have
been already separate when the cock was introduced among them, and
the Slavs themselves divided into two divisions. He attempts to show
further, by the linguistic evidence, that at the time of the introduction
of the cock the Slavs, already separated from the Lithuanians, must have
been in close contact with Medo-Fersian peoples, Scythians, Sauromatians
and the like.

386

John P. Peters,

[1913.

think that at the same time that the cock traveled from the
eastern end of the Euxine thru the Dardanelles to the Aegean,
he also traveled up the line of the Iranian emigration into
Scythia, and so to the Teutons and the Celts; the two lines
of migration ultimately meeting in central Italy.

Cyprus.

From Asia Minor and Greece the cock traveled southward
to Cyprus. The earliest appearance is on the sarcophagus
from Golgoi, now in the Metropolitan Museum in ?^ew York,
circa 500 B. C., where his use is evidently chthonic. After
that date he is quite common and in several sculptui'es he is
represented as a sacrificial bird.i

Syria.

Syriac literatux’e is too late to he of any service in this
investigation, and there is a curious lack of representations
of the cock on monuments, coins, gems and the like from
Syria. On some old Syrian gems there are representations of
birds, hut in no case a characteristic representation of the
cock. The earliest representations of the cock which I can
find is in a tomb at Marissa,^ dating fi-om about 200 B. C.
This tomb belonged to a Sidonian colony settled in an Edom-
ite city. The language used in the inscriptions was Greek;
the animals depicted in the interior of the tomb showed dist-
inct Egyptian influence. The cock himself is on the outer
face of the door posts of the inner main chamber. He seems
about to crow. In form, coloring and feathering he is still
the Red Junglefowl. As already stated, the only mention
of the cock in the Old Testament is in Prov. 30; 31, perhaps
about or after 300 B. C. He has no fixed name in Hebrew,
and at that period seems to have been known to the Jews
as a bird possessed by neighboring peoples, but not domesticated
in Palestine. When finally domesticated among them (between
200 B. C. and the commencement of our era) he was called
by an Aramaic name, turnegal, which itself is not Aramaean,

1 Of., for instance, 1211 and 1222 in the Cypriote collections of the
Metropolitan Museum, Temple-boy holding a cock.

2 “Painted Tombs of Marissa", Peters and Thiersch, Memoir of Pal-
estine Exploration Fund.

Vol. xjaciii.]

The Cock.

387

but borrowed from some other people, from whom presumably
the Aramaeans derived the bird. The data are meager and
any deductions from such meager data must be viewed with
caution. The suggestions from the data, such as they are,
seem to be that, having reached Cyprus thru Greek influence,
the cock was transmitted thence to Phoenicia, but did not
become common until after the Greek conquest. The Jews,
coming in contact with him as early as 300, thru the Phoeni-
cians or other neighboring people, refused him admission because
of the religious and sacrificial character which he possessed
among heathen peoples; the same ground on which their
ancestors had classed the swine, the hare, &c. as unclean in
the dietary laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. In the mean
time the Aramaeans had received the cock, with the name
turnegal, from some other source. Thi'u their influence the
bird and his name became common good of all Syria, and so
he and his name finally found their way thru the wall of
Jewish prejudice into Jerusalem.

Arabia.

From Arabia we have no monumental evidence of the cock,
confirmatory evidence, so far as it goes, that his route from
India was not by sea but by land. Arabic literature is too
late to be of any value for our purposes. It may be worth
noting, however, that the cock does appear, altho rarely, in
old Arabic poetry, but only in connection with settled habit-
ations. From whatever source the domestic fowl was brought
into Arabia the Arabs seem not to have borrowed the name
with the bfrd, but to have invented a name of their own, not
onomatopoetic however, but apparently depending on a char-
acteristic not elsewhere similarly noted, viz. dujdj or dajaj,
which Arabic lexicographers explain as given “because of his
frequent coming and going {dajja).” This is the common des-
ignation of both male and female. The cock as such, how-
ever, is called dlk.^

1 Is this borrowed from the Turkish? Prof. B,. J. H. GottheU. Cf.
also Jacob, Studien in Arabischen Dichtern, Heft III, Das Lehen der
vorislamischen Beduinen, Berlin, 1895, p. 84. The name of the cock is
in itself an interesting study, which has not yet received the attention
it deserves. In general each people uses popularly an onomatopoetic
name, an attempted reproduction of the sound made by the cock (less

388

John P. Peters,

[1913,

Egypt.

Earlier Egyptian scholars were inclined to find the cock in
some of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, or in some of the bird
forms on the monuments, apparently arguing from the present
universal use of the bird that it must of course have been
familiar among the old Egyptians. In point of fact these are
all either uncharacterized pictures of birds, or identifiable with
birds of quite a different character, such as the bustard or
the quail. 1 Egyptologists without exception are now agreed,
I believe, that the cock is not found on Egyptian monuments
before the Roman period, and that no word or sign for cock
appears in the language. The argument from silence in this
case is practically equivalent to a proof that the fowl was not
known in ancient or even Ptolemaic (before the Roman period)
Egypt, because the wall paintings in the tombs give us such
minute and accurate representations of Egyptian life, domestic
utensils and animals, creatures used for food and the like,
that the cock, if in use, could not have been omitted. Why
this was the case is another question. Had the cock been
known in Babylonia or Syria or Asia Minor and the Aegean
as early as 1400 or perhaps even 1000 B. C., it would pretty
surely have been imported into Egypt. After that the Egypt-

often the hen), of the cockadoodledoo type. These names differ slightly
from place to place, but are evidently not borrowed from one or more common
forms, but invented by each locality for itself. Almost equally frequent
are the semi-onomatopoetic names, which do not imitate hut merely
suggest the sound made (not sound pictures but sound hieroglyphs),
and which often are or may be equally applicable to other birds, like
cook (cuckoo) and kuru (crow). There is a great deal of similarity
between names of this class over considerable areas, apparently due,
however, as in the former case, not to borrowing, but to the necessary
similarity of all attempts to translate or indicate the bird’s own utterance.
Then there are the names given to indicate some characteristic of the
bird, hke the French Chantecler, the German Hahn, the Persian Paro-
darsh and probably Arabic dajdj. Lastly there are names indicating a
foreign origin, like Latin Gallus, or simply borrowed from a foreign
tongue, presumably with the bird, like Greek oKem-pvtiv and Aramaic
tumegal. There is no name common to any large linguistic group, with
the exception of the Mongohan-Turkish tauiuk and the Teutonic-Scand-
inavian Hahn.

1 A good illustration of the older method is found, by the way, in a
recent article in the Zoologist for Jan. 1912, entitled ‘‘The Prehistoric
Origin of the Common Fowl”, by Frederick J. Stubbs and A. J. Rowe.

Vol. xxxiii.]

The Cock.

389

ians were less inclined, I should judge, to borrow from outside
sources religious ideas or articles of diet, the two being closely
connected. In view of the importance of the cock among the
Greeks one is, however, inchned to wonder that the Greek
mercenaries of Psammetichus and some of his successors, who
pervaded Egypt, scribbling their names in temples of the upper
Nile, and building in the Delta cities to dwell in, did not
bring the cock with them for sacrificial purposes or for the
sport of cock fighting. Or the Persians? Or Alexander and
the Ptolemies? The silence of the monuments for precisely
these periods seems conclusive, puzzling as the fact is. In
answer to the question this silence raises, I can merely call
attention in general to the appai’ent slow progress of the bird
southward from the Aegean regions, in contrast with his rapid
and triumphant passage westward and northward; to the
religious prejudices, which would have been particularly strong
against a Persian sacred bird, in view of Egyptian experience
with the mad Cambyses; and perhaps also to the largely
aquatic conditions of Egyptian domestic economy, better adapted
to geese and ducks and cranes and herons than to chickens.

Assyria and Babylonia.

In the earlier editions of his Kiilturjiflanzen unci Haiisthiere,
Hehn states that the cock was unknown in Assyria and
Babylonia before the Persian period. In the last posthumous
eighth edition, 0. Schrader, the editor, adds a note, in which
he asserts that the cock is mentioned in the list of offerings
of Gudea, 2700 B. C.; that he appears in Assyrian times often
as offered to the gods; and that he was especially common in
neo-Bahylonia, where he was kept in the neighborhood of
temples. It is also stated that the cock was called in Assyrian
by the name knrkii, and in Sumerian knrgi\ and that he was
also further known in Sumerian as Tar-lugallu, supposed to
be the source of the Aramaean Tarnegul or Tarnegal. The
idea that the cock is mentioned in the offering lists of Gudea
is apparently connected with the identification of a bird on
the Gudean monuments as the cock or hen, and also with the
appearance of the word Ktirgi in a sacrificial list of that
period. The bird depicted on the Gudean monuments is one
of those uncharacteristic and unidentifiable birds which are
found on a number of early monuments in various countries.

390

John P. Peters,

[1913.

The cock is singularly easy to represent by some character-
istic peculiarities. His peculiar characteristics are so striking
that they seize the fancy of the most inexperienced on-looker
and, rude as his art may be, he generally contrives in some
way to give the impression of the cock. It is owing to this
fact that archeologists are practically agreed not to recognize
as cocks the unidentifiable, uncharacterized birds which are
found, as stated, on monuments of various countries. Anyone
who has followed pictorial representations of the cock wiU see
the reason for this. Such birds may be almost any thing else,
but they are not cocks.

As to the supposed identification of Tiurgi in the Grudean
sacrificial list as cock, it may be said that Assyrian scholars
have translated various words in the Babylonian- Assyrian word
lists as cock. According to their transliterations and trans-
lations, he appears in Sumerian as iarlu-gallu, kukuranu, and
kurgi, and in Semitic as kurkii or karakku or kurakku. Of
these supposed words for cock the one read ku-ku-ra-nu appears
in a trilingual list, so far untranslated, of the object or char-
acter of which we know nothing, except that it does mention
birds. Kukuranu woxild undoubtedly be a good onomato-
poetic name for the cock, if the reading were certain, but the
characters so transbterated might, so far as our present know-
ledge goes, equally well be transliterated kudurranu — or
rather i fi-om analogy this would be the natural transliteration
— and still other transliterations are quite possible. But further,
in the word list in which this word appears it is given as
the equation of tarlugallu, which has been equated with the
Aramaic tarnegul or turnegal, cock. 2 Ifow so far as our pres-
ent information goes, Sumerian was a dead language many
centuries before the Ai'amaeans reached Babylonia or parts
adjacent.® It is, therefore, rather startbng to have an Ar-

1 So Prof. Clay calls my attention to a feminine proper name, ku-dur
{ku)-ra-ni-tum, in the Cassite period; as also to the fact that the signs
read ku-ku in the supposed ku-ku-ra-nu are a common way of writing
the ku-dur of Nebuchadrezzar and of Kudurenlil.

2 This identification was first suggested by Oppert, Zeitschr. Assyr.
VII. 339; and has since been adopted by a number of Assyrian and
Syrian scholars.

3 As a curiosity it may be noted that Brockelmann in his Lexicon

Syriacum gives the word (akdaya) as cock, with a note from

Jensen, “Accadius”.

Vol. xxxiii.]

TJie Code.

391

amaean word derived from Sumerian. If such a derivation
occured we should expect it to be mediately thru the Semitic
Babylonian, not immediately from the Sumerian. Moreover, #

whether the word transliterated tarlugallu was ever actually
thus pronounced remains, as in so many Sumerian trans-
literations, subject to some doubt. If the transliteration he
correct it would appear to mean tm~ru-lcing. Tar (or tami)
is interpreted in a trilingual list as “variegated”

(Cf. XIV. 4, 6), and the entire combination is apparently
equated later (1. 11) in the same text by the kukuranu or
kvdurranu already noted. i The argument then is that a
certain otherwise unknown Sumerian word in a trilingual list
dealing with birds may he transliterated tarlugallu, which
sounds strikingly like the word for cock, tarnegul or tarnegal,
used by the Aramaeans, who many centuries after Sumerian
had become a dead language occupied or were in contact with
the region where Sumerian had been spoken and where, in
the Aramaean period, it stUl lingered as a church language;
that in this trihngual list 2 the word tarlugallu is translated
by another unknown Sumerian word, the characters of which
might he transliterated kti-ku-ra-nu, which sounds like an
onomatopoetic name for the cock; and that one element of
the word transliterated tarlugallu is actually translated in a
bilingual list by the Assjrian (Semitic) word hurrumtu “va-
riegated”, a description which might be applicable to the chicken
as a bfrd of variegated color. As an argument by itself to
prove acquaintance with the cock in Babylonia in the Su-
merian period (2000 B. 0.), it can scarcely be accepted as
possessing validity.

There are also in the Sumerian word-lists some fifteen forms

• On this Prof. Prince writes me that the word does occur in the
passage cited, “but in the full form — edin-dar (tar)-XU=Assyr. tmrrmntu,
‘variegated’; also in loc. cit. L. 11 ku-JiU-ra-nu-XJI= Xssyr. dar (tar)
lugallum. — Dar (tar) in Sumerian does mean variegated in color, and
edin-dar-XJj means literally ‘the variegated bird of the field’.” Kuku-ra-
««-Xt7=A3syr. dar-lugalliim, which Assyr. word is a Sumerian loan-
word, meaning “the variegated king of birds”. He suggests that the
word would apply to the cock-pheasant or the peacock better than to
the cock, for which he adds other reasons. As to the proposed ident-
ification of tarnegal with tar (or dar) Ingallu, it may be further noted
that the initial letters are not the same.

2 So far as this word is concerned, the list has two, not three columns.

392

John P. Peters,

[1913.

of Tairgi, mentioned with other objects of food for saciifice,
all, or practically, aU being as yet unidentified. Kurgi also
has been interpreted as an onomatopoeticon, either hoiTowed
fi-om the “Ayestan (old Bactrian) Kahrka",^ or formed in the
same manner, and meaning cock. Kurgi is interpreted in
Semitic as kurhu and the Semitic kurkiij kurukku and karakku
have similarly been supposed to be onomatopoetic names for
the cock. Accepting the transliterations given, which always,
it must be remembered, are somewhat uncertain, the various
names proposed for the cock might equally well indicate some
other hii’d.3 They are mere guesses. Up to the present time
we do not know the name of the cock in Assyrian-Babylonian.
As Prof. Sayce writes: “There is no certain name for the
cock or fowl in Assyrian. As you know, the identification of
such words is always doubtful unless they are accompanied
by pictorial representations.”

It is in fact to these pictorial representations that we must
turn to determine the date and character of the appearance
of the cock in Babylonia and Assyria. Fortunately, as in the
case of Egypt, pictorial representations of birds and animals
begin early in Babylonia and are abundant, and hence the
argument from silence is peculiarly significant. Beginning at
an early date, we have unmistakeahle representations of ducks,
geese, swans, hawks, eagles, and later ostriches, together with
various fantastic and monstrous hu’ds. Besides these clearly
defined and characteristic representations of birds we have
also from various periods birds not cleaily defined, sometimes
of the bustard type, sometimes waterfowl, sometimes of a small
bird type. iMone of these, for reasons already stated, can
we idenitify with the cock. The earliest monument on which
a cock has been discovered is on the finials of two how heads
on a ias relief from the palace of Sennacherib, hut ascribed
to Ashurbanipal,-* that is, about the middle of the 7th cent.

1 Cf. what has already been said about the date of the cook in Bactria,
the names used, &c.

2 Mr. Pinches, in a very kind and painstaking correspondence, has
suggested other possible identifications from other undeciphered hsts,
none of which, however, are even approximately onomatopoetic.

3 The Semitic knrkii certainly sounds more like the Aramaic knrhya,
crane.

‘ Brit. Mus. Room XXVIII, slab 14. A. Paterson, Assyrian Sculpt-
ures in the Palace of Sinacherib, pi. 58. 1913.

Vol. xxxiii.] The Code. 393

B. 0. Nothing further identifiable with the cock is found
before the late neo-Babylonian period, the time ofNabonidus,
circa 550 B. C. To this period belong a couple of illustrations
in Layard’s Nhieveh and Babylon of an engraved gem (p. 538),
representing a cock on a stand like those used frequently on
the boundary stones in connection with the emblems of the
Gods. Before this emblem stands a winged figure, with cone
and basket, while above is the crescent moon. The other is
taken from a cylinder in the British Museum (p. 539), and
represents the figure with the cone and basket standing before
an altar, behind which altar ai'e two stands bearing, the first
the moon symbol, and the second the cock. Here the cock,
like the moon, is plainly the emblem of a god. It is on these
figm’es, I fancy, that Schrader bases his statement that the
cock often appears in Assyria as offered to the gods. Neither
of them in fact represents the sacrifice of the cock, nor have
we anything in Assyrian or Babylonian art representing such
a sacrifice. Both of them represent the worship of a god
symbolized by the cock.i Who that god was we do not know.2
There are similar representations of the cock on neo-Babylon-
ian seals pictured by Ward.* In general it may he said that

‘ In view of the relation of the cock to Persia, one is inclined to
ask whether these two representations, attesting the introduction of the
sacred bird of Persia into Babylonian mythology as a god emblem, do
not belong rather to the Persian than to the neo-Babylonian period.

2 The frequent connection of the cock with the sun, added to the
combination of the cock emblem with that of the moon, suggests that
the cock here also repi'esents the sun in some form or phase. Layard
calls attention to the supposition of Jewish commentators that the
nergal, made by the men of Cutha (II Kings 17 : 30), was the cock, and
suggests that the Melek Taus of the Yezidis may also have been a
cock, not a peacock. The identification of the cock as the emblem of
Nergal seems not improbably correct.

3 Of. W. H. Ward, Seal Cylinders of Western Asia-, especially p. 421
and figs. 554, 556, 1126, 1254. Dr. Ward kindly made ?., Besides those mentioned in the notes, I also owe my thanks to the
Smithsonian Institution and to Dr. T. Leslie Shear, Prof. Jas. B. Wheeler
and Prof. Egbert of Columbia for helping me “hunt chickens”. After
this article was in print my attention was called to the Arabic jMyo
{sarsar or sirsir), an onomatopoeticon for cook of the same type as the
Hebrew Tnt of Prov. 30, 31.

Dialectic Differences between Assyrian and Babylonia/n,
and some Probleins they Present. — By S. C. Ylvis-
AKEB, Ph. D., Luther College, Decorah, Iowa.

The proof of the existence of the two quite distinct dialects,
the Assyrian and the Babylonian, has been arduous but also
gratifying. The texts upon which the proof is based, the
collection of letters from the period of the Sargonide kings,
edited by Prof. Harper, fall naturally into two groups; the
letters written in the Assyrian script and those written in
the Babylonian. Even a hasty comparison of the letters in the
Assyrian script with those in the Babylonian cannot but reveal
certain peculiarities in the one group which are not found in
the other, and a more detailed and thorough study makes it
apparent that these differences are of five kinds, such as
concern phonetic laws, inflection, syntax, the use of words,
and style. Permit me to make brief mention of the main
differences under these five heads.

I. As regards phonetic laws, the Assyrian makes a sharp
distinction between the palatals, the Babylonian does not —
Assyrian: iktibi, Babylonian: iktabi. The Assyrian pronounces
the S as s and the combination St regularly becomes s or ss;
the Babylonian has retained the S and before a dental this
regularly becomes I — Assyrian: asakan=aStakan, Babylonian:
altahan. The Assyrian frequently assimilates an »» to a fol-
lowing t, the Babylonian softens the pronunciation of A: or t
after m or n to y or d — Assyrian: attadiar—amtahar, Baby-
lonian: amdahar. The Assyrian experiences no difficulty in
the pronunciation of a double sonant, the Babylonian resolves
the combination and simplifies the pronunciation by means
of an n — Assyrian: imagur=imaggur, Babylonian: imangur.
In the Assyrian two neighboring vowels are frequently assi-
milated to each other — ihaM)utu=ihcibbatu, while vowel con-
tration is a prominent characteristic of the Babylonian.

394

- John P. Peters,

[ 1913 .

in Babylonia the cock begins to appear on gems and seals
first after the Persian influence has begun to make itself felt,
but there is nothing to indicate any special reference to
temples, such as Schi’ader asserts, beyond the fact that the
cock was, as pointed out, a god emblem.

For Babylonia and Assyria, then, the linguistic evidence is
unsatisfactory. If the name of the bird appears at aU, it is
in word lists of as yet unidentified creatures and objects. It
is not found in any inscription or record with accompanying
statements or qualifying words which would ensure or facilitate
identification. The first representation of the cock yet dis-
covered on any monuments, gems, cylinders, &c. is, for Assyria,
from the middle of the 7th century B. 0., a period of active
contact with the Medes; and for Babylonia, a century later,
when the Persians had begun to come into immediate relations
vrith Babylon. The representations from this period show the
cock as a sacred bird, the emblem of a god.

The question arises: why, if the Persians and Medes had
the bird and if it past further to the westward at an earlier
date, it did not also enter Assyria and Babylonia. I have
already suggested that the cock past up the line of Iranian
migration; and that he reached the Greeks thru the Euxine,
not thru Asia Minor. Between the Medes and Persians, on
the one side, and the Assyifians and Babylonians, on the other,
lay a mountain region occupied hy semi-barbarous tribes, never
thoroly subdued by the Assyrians or Babylonians, and always
more or less hostile to them. These formed for a long time
a sort of buffer state between Medes and Persians and Assyr-
ians and Babylonians, a bairier to communication and hence
also to the transmission of such a creature as the cock, they
themselves, fi’om their hostile attitude and uncivilized condition,
neither receiving nor imparting such gifts. Ultimately the
barrier was worn away, and in Ashurbanipal’s time a more
direct relation established between’ the Assyrians and the
Medes. A century later the barrier between Persians and
Babylonians was broken down, and with the access of Persian

plow.” For completeness’ sake I may add that in the excavations at
Nippur our earliest evidence of acquaintance with the domestic fowl
was a rattle in the form of a hen. This could not, judging from its
stratum, have been earlier than the Persian period, and I should be
inclined to place it even later.

Vol. xxxiii.]

The Code.

395

influence the cock invaded the Babylonian plain. i Why, when
the cock had once been adopted in Babylonia, it did not
follow up the line of the Euphrates into Syria more rapidly
than it seems to have done, I cannot conjecture, unless it he
something to do with its religious character and use; for, as
already shown, the cock, once admitted into Babylonia, became
a sacred bird, the special emblem of a god.

And now, in conclusion, I judge the history of the cock to
have been this: The original home and probably the original
place of domestication, Burma and its neighborhood, from
which it spread into China at an early date, traditionally 1400
B. 0., there to he bred into the Cochin-China fowl. It did
not pass from China westward thru the Turks until a late
date. When the Iranians entered the Ganges valley, in the
second stage of their conquest of India, they came in contact
with the domesticated fowl on its western limits. This was at
a period not later than 900, and I suspect in reality more
nearly 1200 B. C.

The cock past up the line of the Iranian invasion into
Bactria, Persia and Media and so on into Scythia and Europe,
stretching across finally to the British Isles, and spreading
down from Gaul into Central Italy. The Greeks first came
in contact with the cock in their expeditions to the extreme
eastern end of the Euxine in the Homeric period, perhaps
circa 1000 B. C., and later carried him from there to the
coasts and islands of the Aegaean, where we find the cock a
well known and domesticated bird on the earliest coins and
monuments, from 700 B. C. onward. Spreading westward, the
Greeks brought him into Sicily, whence he traveled up the
line of Greek colonization into Italy, meeting the cock of the
more northerly line of migration in Central Italy — Etruria,
Latium and the regions thereabout. Somewhat more slowly
the Greeks carried the cock southward into Cyprus; whence
it was brought to the Phoenician cities, not becoming, how-
ever, well-establisht as a domestic fowl on the Syrian mainland
until a late date.

Beginning in the 7th century B. C. the Assyrians and Baby-

' Possibly a further reason for the relative tardiness of the cock in
Babylonia was the nature of the country, the rivers, canals and marshes
so admirable adapted to geese and ducks may have constituted a barrier
to the domestication of the fowl in that region.

26 *

398

S. C. Ylvisaker,

■ [ 1913 .

II. Inflectional differences there are many of, but referring
to the summary on page 73 of my monograph entitled “Zur
habylonischen und assyrischen Grammatik”, I shall mention
only a few more important ones. In regard to the inflection
of nouns it is to he noted that the Assyrian regularly has u
as the ending of the nominative and accusative singular, i as
that of the genitive, while the Babylonian by its irregular
use of the case-endings would seem to show that these were
no longer in use. In regard to the verb, the Assyrian forms
the Piel and Safel Imperatives and Permansives by means of
a in the first syllable, the Babylonian has the usual forms.
So the Assyrian sahbit, Babylonian sublit] Assyrian gammur,
Babylonian gummur; Assyrian Sehil, Babylonian Subil, etc.
But the difference appears in minor matters as well, as f. inst.
in the treatment of certain verbs. The Assyrian present of
naddnu is iddan, the Babylonian inamdan or inamditi] the
Assyrian preterite is iddin, the Babylonian iddan or iddin]
the Assyrian imperative is din, the Babylonian idin. The fir-st
t-form of nazazu in Assyrian is ititiz, in Babylonian ittaSiz.
The Assyrian treats the verb idn “to know” as a V B verb,
the Babylonian as ' D. And so on,

III. The syntactical differences are also quite marked, the
use of the enclitic ni in dependent clauses being characteristic
of the Assyrian, the use of the overhanging vowel in depen-
dent clauses and of the enclitic ma characteristic of the Ba-
bylonian. Here there are also minor points of difference such
as the idiomatic use of prepositions, etc.

IV. Closely connected with the syntactical differences are
those involving the use of words. It cannot be by mere chance
that the following words are used only in the Assyrian letters:
the pronouns ammu, memenu, laynutu] the verbs nasu and
the defective verb laSSu] the prepositions issi, battibatti, batiatai]
the adverbs udini la, via, umd, ammaka, annaka, annurig,
arhiS, issuri, atd, bddi, basi, haramme, kallamdri, kittu. lidiS,
md, muk and nuk, stdri, SaddofjdiS, timdli, tura, and the fol-
lowing only in the Babylonian ; the pronoun agd] the defective
verb ianu] the prepositions alia, itti, ultu] and the adverbs
add, ul, umma, arkaniS, arkiku, bam, bantis, made, mindema,
minammd, SaddagiS. In the case of some of these words the
subject-matter may, of course, have had more to do than is at
present apparent.

Vol.xxxiii.] Dialectic Differences between Assyr. and Babyl. &c. 399

Y. All of these peculiarities taken together and coupled
again Avith the individuality of the writer in each case would
undoubtedly help us to explain the difference in style which
one cannot hut notice in the letters. But they would hardly
explain all, and I think we would be justified in distinguishing
between an Assyrian and a Babylonian style as well. However,
this question of difference in style is intimately associated with
a detailed study and comparison of syntactical constructions
in the two dialects, and in this field very much still remains
to he accomplished.

To summarize: If we could have heard the two dialects,
Assyrian and BabA'lonian, spoken, I do not doubt that we
would have noticed a difference more marked than that which
exists among the various dialects in Germany. We would
undoubtedly do better in choosing the sister languages itfor-
wegian and Swedish for comparison: the Swedish, soft and
musical, representing the Babylonian, the harsher and more
strongly accented Norwegian representing the Assyi-ian.

In itself the knowledge of these dialectic differences between
AssjTian and Babylonian is interesting enough to the philo-
logian, it is important also in several respects: 1) it furnishes
a very necessary key to the understanding of the epistolary
literature; 2) it explains to our entfte satisfaction difficulties
of Assyrian grammar which otherwise would cause much trouble.
As I have said before, there is much left to be done, both as
regards the material already at hand, and what is steadily
being published; but even at this stage we have a right to
say that the importance of our knowledge of these dialectic
differences will extend beyond the points I have mentioned.
It shows us the need of more painstaking and detailed study
of the language from a purely grammatical point of vie^v,
also the need of a more complete grammar which treats the
language with strict regard for historic development and re-
sulting changes. The difficulties which would present them-
selves to one undertaking such a task ^ye can as yet realize
only in part. For instance, the correct application of the
rules thus far laid down for the language of the letters is
difficult enough and too much care cannot bo exercised in
their mastery in order to avoid what might become serious
mistakes. Thus the specific rules for the Assyrian do not
apply and must be carefully excluded in the translation of a

400

8. C. Tlvisaker,

[ 1913 .

Babylonian text, and vice versa. But it becomes still more
difficult to decide bow far these rules, which are so rigidly
observed in the language of the letters, are to be applied and
taken into consideration outside this class of texts. In ex-
plaining a difficult form in a hymn, for instance, is, or is not,
this or that phenomenon in the language of the letters to be
compared as analogous and made to solve the problem for us?
The question is really pertinent, as I have a definite instance
in mind where in my opinion a rule taken from the language
of the letters was wrongly made to apply in a text not of
this class. It may be tempting enough to try to explain a
form by every known means; it is another question if this be
always permissible, for it is evident at the outset that not the
same rules would apply for the language of the Hammurapi
period in Babylonia and for that of the Asurbanipal period
in Assyria.

But on this very point I think we have one of the most
difficult problems before us, this difficulty, namely, that the
character and approximate date of a text should be known
before it can be successfully worked out. In other words a
certain amount of textual criticism will become necessary to
determine which rules can be made to apply and which not.
I do not claim that we as yet are in a position to cope suc-
cessfully with the problem of textual criticism in Assyrian,
but it is my connction that it must be taken up sooner or
later and that the letter literature in this very particular will
prove an invaluable aid and provide a sure basis for further work.

But the letters, picturing as they do the language of their
time in Assyria and Babylonia both consistently and in detail,
put other texts from tlie same period in a strange light, and
we are immediately confronted by the peculiar difficulties which
the problem of textual criticism in Assyrian would present.
I shall refer briefly to the historical inscriptions of the later
kings to illustrate.

Tiglath-Pileser I of Assyria (1115- — IKMi) has in his inscrip-
tions side by side iUu (a form baldly in use any more at his
time), aUdkan, Jultdksini, ultallitu, multaSpiru (specifically
Babylonian forms), and madatta, epdS, laSSu (Assyrian).

Tukulti-NIN. IB. II (889 — 885) has likewise side by side
aStamdV; (old form), tdteziz (Babylonian), asapar, asaJam,
attahar, laSSu, battubatte (Assyrian).

Vol. xxxiii.] Dialectic Differences ietween Assyr. and Bahyl. &c. 401

ASurnasirpal II (884 — 860) has itti (Babylonian) and issi
(Assyrian), iStananuma (old fonn), altaJcan (Babylonian), asakan,
asarap, tisiSib, attahar (Assyrian).

Salmaneser II (859 — 825) has amdahhis (Babylonian) and
madatu (Assyrian).

The Sargonide kings have in their historical inscriptions
been more successful in fixing what we might call a classic
language, but even here we meet with strange inconsistencies.
Sennacherib has aUdkan (old form) and ultu (Babylonian).
Asurbanipal has uSteSSera, aStakanu, iSteni'a (old forms),
muUarhu, ultu, mundaljee, mandattu (Bal)ylonian), and madaltu
(Assyrian).

The inscriptions of the Bal)ylouiau kings present similar
difficulties. Nebuchadnezzar I (1152 — 1124) has iStu, iStakan
(old forms), ulteshir, iltaknu, iltafru, mundahsuti (later Baby-
lonian). Nebukadnezzar II (604 — 562) uses a language which
seems to show none of the later Babylonian peculiarities, but
which might very well have been used at least 1000 years
earlier.

Intimate acquaintance with the language of the epistolary
literatui’e, where the most beautiful consistency prevails
throughout, causes us to wonder all the more at the strange
mixture of old and late, Assyrian and Babylonian, forms in
the other branches of the literature. Hence the question of
textual criticism in the Assyrian presents peculiar problems
of which I have only mentioned a few. In closing I would
ask one question; what bearing would this condition of things
in the language of texts, where we cannot doubt that we
have the originals, have on textual criticism in other languages,
for instance the problem of the different dialects in the language
of Homer?

The Animal DUN in the Sumerian Inscriptions . — By
I»A Maubice Price, University of Chicago.

Lists of animals that came down from the period of the
supremacy of the cities of Ur and Lagash contain among them
one whose identity is still a matter of douht. I have gathered
up the facts known about this animal as a possible aid in
determining its identity.

The inscriptions from the period of Lagash (2500 — 2400 B. c.)
give us most of our data. De Genouillac in his TcMettes
Sumeriennes Archcciqiie has indicated some of the facts re-
garding this animal; others may he found in Gudea Cylinder
B, and in Hussey’s Sumerian Tablets in Harcurd Museum.

De Genouillac after putting together the facts which he
collected (T. S. A. p. XLIIIf.) concluded that there must have
been two kinds of DUN, (1) a wild DUN of the swamps
{DTJN-gil-gi) and (2) a DUN of the plains {DUN-ii). The
former DXTN seems to he referred to in Gudea Cyl. B, XV,
12 — 14, where it is listed with work cattle, and worked with
some kind of an instrument, that corresponded to the yoke
of the ox or the packsaddle of the ass. The words used to
describe the instrument would indicate that it was made of
metal {DTIN-e [ ]-mah; c£ Ija-si zabar JR. T. G., 22).

In Gudea Cyl. B, IX, 16 — 19, the DUN seems to be asso-
ciated with the ass, or was a kind of ass, in such expressions

as (16) anSti DUN ur-bi (18) anSu-slg-a anSu-

Erida*' (19) anSti DUN-da. Whether this may have been
some species of mule, or some cross between the anSu and
another animal is not apparent in the passage. On Cyl. B,
IX, 16, we find exactly the same phrase as on Cyl. A, YII,
20, except that anSu is omitted in the latter case, which would
seem to indicate that, here, at least, anSu DUN and /DUN
alone are synonymous, for in both cases the same anima l is
referred to, viz., the animal called ug-Tcab. On Cyl. B, IX,
16 — 19, as referred to above, we find the young ass, and the

VoL xxsdii.] The Animal DUN in the Sumerian Inscriptions. 403

ass of Eridu, but what could have been anSu-DUN? Was
it merely a full-grown anSu or some other animal? Or — could
it have been some species of wild ass or bison which roamed
in herds in the swamps or lowlands of Babylonia, as the wild
asses do today in the steppes of Tibet? We know that the
Assyrians hunted them in the chase as pictured on the monu-
ments. M. J. E. Gautier in his excavations at Susa has shown
that the bison has been in existence from a very remote
antiquity.

When we turn to the numerous lists of large animals we
discover the DUJ^ classified with asses. De Genouillac cites
numerous cases: In D. T. C., 49, we find one list of 17 she-
asses, 10 female and 4 male DUN, and aU totaled as 30 (31)
asses. Another case gives credence to this proposition, where
a deal consists of a purchase of 4 she-asses and 2 DUN,
which is called an “affair of the asses”. When the money
value of each is set side by side it is noteworthy that the
less value is attached to the DUN. In one inscription {B. T. C.
50) the cash v^iie of the DUN was 4 to 6 shekels while that
of the ass was 20 shekels.

Again, the service of a DUN of a year or less old by the
month was ,50 to 70 qa, for a DUN of two years 80 to 100 jw
for an adult DUN 300 qa, probably designating a large
animal.

Another little hint of especial interest is the fact that the DUN
yielded butter or cream, ia-DUN (E. T. 0. 18, 62, 63). Is
this to be compared with the same product supplied by the
cow or the goat?

An examination of the Sumerian Tablets of Harvard Ahiseiim
reveals some additional facts. Of the 224 women mentioned
on the 54 tablets published in Part I, I find 20 were fim
DUN-nighu-a, that is, a title indicating “care-taker of the
DUN to be eaten”. This title is mentioned 55 times, and
shows that the DUN mentioned on those tablets were of a
sufficiently docile nature to be managed by women. One man,
mentioned 23 times in these inscriptions, named Lugal-pa-ud-
du is called stb-DUN, shepherd of the DUN, or rather DUN-
herd. He is also named several times in de Genouillac, T. S. A.
(10 Eev. V, 18, 19; 11 Eev. IV; 12 Rev. Y).

Another man, Nimgir-eS-a-gah, was a gab-ra DUN-tt (23
Rev. YII, 16), eUdently an overseer of the DUN. One woman

404

Ira Maurice Price, The Animal DUN &c. [1913.

Sag-tar held the same office as attested in S. T. 22 Rev. V, 7
and T. 8. A. (de Genouillac).

One woman’s name has incorporated in it this element,
though it may not have had anything to do with the animal:
Nin-DUN-ama-mnu (23 Obv. I, 11).

Pinches found in the Amherst Tablets (36, III, 9) the name
of a farmer whose chief business seems to have been that of
raising the DUN or asses, or both: Sur dingir DUN-sigSa.

The DUN mentioned in these inscriptions of Harvard Mu-
seum seems to have been an animal similar to the goat, docile,
yielding milk, having a hide of value, and a ruminant, living
of the fields. In aU the 54 tablets published in Hussey’s 8. T.
only two men are mentioned as hearing any relation to the
care of the DUN, while women are named in 55 passages as
care-takers.

On the other hand, the DUN described alongside the ass
and oxen is always cared for by men, and is classified with
asses or oxen in the totals, as a beast of burden, and seems
to have thriven in swamps or forests. Its value was less than
that of the ass, and it required less food for its maintenance.

What were these two species of DUN?‘ Have we the
modern equivalent of either of them?

It is now almost a question for the zoologist.

1 Allotte de la Fuye, in Hilprecht’s Anniversary Volume, p. 126, N. 2,
Thureau-Dangin in JB. A- VI p. 137, and again Thureau-Dangin in In-
ventaire des TaUettes de Tello, I, p. 27, Note 3, offer suggestions for
the solution of the problem, which do not quite satisfy the requ3’ements
of the cases, especially in the Gudea Cylinders and Hussey’s fit IT.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Journal Of The American Oriental Society Vol.33"

See other formats