English
2 was doubtless €f(MdTfTXft, that is, so ’gnlr tiparamata | ‘ dtapi vai sya Prajiipatir ’ iti, ‘ Agni came to a halt, thinking “ Prajapati has got heated By misdividing at the seventh syllable, and taking the T for the mark of punctuation I, Hindu MSS, and the Calcutta text read I This gives to -td an impossible acute, and leaves an unaccented and unintelligible tdpi to begin the quotation. The comm, vainly emends to tdpi. In 1887, Bohtlingk, ZDMG. 41. 667, explained and corrected the en’or. In 1895, the Ananda Asrama ed. confirmed his correction. Misdivided words taken over into another text. —Perhaps the most telling misdivisions are those which have given rise to variants that have become part of the established text of some other work. A striking instance is seen in the Yajus stanza, MS. i. 3. 39 (46®): ud iid 'prajam vid vdreo dddliand yvMndn rdya utd yajnd asaicata \ gdyatrdth chd'fido dnu sdmTahliadkvcLTii dthd sydta mrabhdyo grhdpi H This is, I take it, a near approach to the original form of the stanza,^ since the second person is used coherently throughout. The Kathaka, at iv. 13 effectively prepares the way for further muddling by inverting the order of b and d, and changing the second persons, yw^man and sydta, to firsts, asTmn and sydma, and the second person, rahhadhyam, to a third, rahhantdm. Thus: ud eta prajam ayur vdreo dddhdna ddha sydma surabkdyo grkim\ gdyatriih chduddnsy dnu sdnirabJuintdm aemdn rdya utd yajMs^-dst^sacantdra^ The last step is easy, and is seen in Ap^S. (xiii. 22. 1). This agrees with K., save in b, where it makes the wild division adha sydm asur ubhayor grhe-ni! lUiistration from the Tantrakhyayika,— An example of misdivision pointed out by Dr, Hertel ^ ■ may well serve as a ‘ classisches Boispiel , inasmuch as it has affected a whole stream of Panchatantra tradition. The Tantrakhyayika reads at line 1140; ^ I ‘ Therefore * Tho ud ita is quite corrupt: see von Schroeder’s note. He suggests utd, and is doubtless right. Perhaps sacantum and even dddhdnun might be thought of. 2 ZDMG. 59. 5; cf. p. 30. ’ In A 137 of the forthcoming edition. xliv Notes on the Externals of Indian Books in accordance with right policy [sadhu-naya-tas) have I spoken thus.’ This was divided by the scribe of p as eTcHTg ^ TfW The copyist of p evidently followed an older MS., for, as a result of this awkward misunderstanding, is found in the MSS. of the second recension I ^Tfl, &c. This false reading, which has gone over into the Jaina MS., Poona x.xiv. 417, owes its origin solely to the lack of proper division in the Kashmirian archetype. To a like cause is due the confusion oi tvam, ‘thou,’ with -tvam, ‘-ness.’ Dr. Hertel cites line 1604 of his edition of Siidliches Panchatantra, where dusta tvam, miscombined as dustatvam, has given rise to new readings (p.’ll2, p. 135: cf. Tantr. line 2326 = A 293). I may here add Ramayana v. 38. 3 (Parab), strUvan na tvam samarthasi sagaram vyativartitum, where the comm, reports the variant' stri tvam na tu samartham {=samarthd!) hi. Word-division in Pali.— Of the languages of ancient India, Sanskrit is not the only one in which non-division of words gives rise to embarrassment or error. It is natural to expect the like in Prakrit, where (as Pischol, Gram. § 12, notes) words originally quite different have lost theii- differen¬ tiating elements, so that, for example, Sanskrit mata, mada, maya, mrga, and mrta all become maa in Prakrit. From the Pali may be given a few examples that I have noted. In Pali casual homonyms are not uncommon, of which the distinction may easily be made clear, even to a beginner, by division. Thus a-katahhu = a-krtajna means ‘ un-grateful’ (a clear example at Jataka iii. 26"); while ^ata-nnu means ‘knowing the Un-create’ (Nirvana: so Dhammapada 383). The word appamatta is common in the sense ‘ not heedless ’ (a-ppamatto pamattem, Dhp. 29); but it is also found with the meaning ‘of small measure ’ {alpa-mdtra, ib. 56; Suttanipata 659). So a-ppasattha is ‘un- prarsed ’; but vanijq appa-sattho (Dhp, 123) is a ‘ merchant with a small caravan ’. The Sanskrit an-utpatti and anu-prapti become both alike in Pall anuppatti. The Pali sandhi by which -ra + upa- becomes -rupa- gives a result over which one may puzzle a moment in Visuddhimagga xv: is it anantar-upanissaya or anantarupa-nissaya ‘I ° In this connexion, I may add that a Japanese pupU of mine, in reading the seniqneqpacinalolcadhMutoparipunnam candajnandalam utthahi, ‘the disk of the full moon rose from the eastern horizon’ (Jat. i.”253), was puzzled by dhatu, ‘ from the dhdtu of the eastern world I ’ Had the word been divided paclna-lokadjMtu, he would have found at once that lakadhdtu IS a compound of peculiar intimacy and frequency, and that it has a peculiar meaning. ' Cited by Michelson (JAOS. 25. 57). I cannot accept his solution. By the Editor of this Scries x\v Example from the Dhammapada.— At verao 148, Fausboll, iu the cd. of 1855, read bhijjati putisandeho, maranam tamhi jwitam, finditur putridum corpus, mors (est) vita eius, and gave, at p. 313, the comm. iasmd sahbasattdTiafh jlvitam marana-paryosdnam evdti vuttam lioti. Max Muller, SBE. x^ (1881), has a long note on the verse, and gives part of a letter from Childers defending the division maranantam Id jivita/h, and ending, ‘ unless I greatly mistake, this very passage will be found in many other literatures.’ Fausboll was then unconvinced; but in SBE. x- (1898) Muller adds: ‘Fausboll has now surrendered his doubts.’ Senart accepts the correction in the JA. for 1898 (9. xii. 283), and Fausboll does so in his Dhp. of 1900, and cites numerous places where maranantam Id jxvitam occurs. The phrase is in fact almost a commonplace. We find it at Samyutta Nikaya i. p. 97; but oftenest as pai't of the stanza sarve haydntd nicaydh patandntdh samucehraydh | saihyogd viprayogdntd maranantam hi jivitam || This appears with only slight variants at MBh. xi. 2. 3 (48); xii. 27. 31 (829); 330. 20 (12501); xiv. 44. 18 (1230: the next preceding is ajidny aetamaydntdnil) ; at Tantrakhyayika ii. 147 = 165 and Kathas. 51. 26, 27, as a quotation ‘ from VySsa *; at ^mayana, Parab’s ed., ii. 105. 16; in the Mabavastu (3. 183) and Divyavadana (p. 27, p. 100); and the second half is quoted at Samkhya Pravacana Bhasya v. 80. Cf. jivite marandnte ca, MBh. xi. 8.15 (207). The Sanskrit phrase is unambiguous, especially in the form jivite marandnte ca. Jt is of course the shortening of a vowel before double consonants in Pali, and the confusion of nasals, that makes the Puli equivalent ambiguous (mara?*aw tani hi; maranam tamhi: maranantam hi). The whole matter is now so clear and certain that it would be absurd to waste a word pver it, except to show how much discussion and uncer¬ tainty may bo traced to a lack of word-division. From the Jataka. Scholiast's perplexities. —The indecision of a native commentator when facing an ambiguous combination is well illustrated by the reproof of the king who ate human flesh (Jataka v. 489); ‘ Five five- clawed (creatures) may be eaten by a Kshatriya who knows (the right). What may not be eaten, 0 king, thou eatest. Therefore unrighteous art thou.* pafica paficanakhd hhahkhd khattiyena pajdnatd. ahkakkham raja bkakkkeei; tasmd adliammdko tuvam, Luders, by comparing the MBh., the Mahabh^hya, and the law-books, proves (ZDMG. 61, 641) beyond the shadow of doubt that the true reading is as above. The comm, first divides it as pahca pafiea ^a kkd (and xlvi Notes on the Externals oj Indian Books Fausbbll prints it so) and renders ‘ Five, five (i.e. ten creatures) in truth (k]id = kho) may not be eaten*, &c.; and then, alternatively,he divides it as above.—Other examples might easily be adduced: for instance, his double explanation of Tainhakdmd tudanti mam or Tamha ! kama tudanti mam at Jataka iii. 189. Proper names from misdivision. Village of ‘ Varaka '.—It is even possible that proper names resting solely upon a misdivision should get into^ our dictionaries and translations, and so filter down in the form of ‘ false facts ’ into our histories of Buddhism and the like. A remarkable instance is the error which Dines Andersen points out in the index to Fausboll’s Jataka, vol. vii, p. xvi. In the text (i. 391 1877) we read SdripuUaWi£ro Mlagdmake jdto varake parinihhdyL Davids, in trans¬ lating the passage (SBE. xi. 238: 1881), admits that varake puzzles him, as it did Fausbbll, and adds in a note that it may perhaps mean ‘ at Varaka Chalmers in his translation (i. 230: 1895) renders: ‘The Elder Sariputta, who was born in Nala village, died at Varaka.’ Now the Sarhyutta Nikaya (v. 161) says that it was at the village of Nala in Magadha that Sariputta fell ill and died of the illness: Sdriputto Magadhem vikarati Ndlagdmake, dhddUko ... tena abadhena parinihhdyi. From the Nikayas proper I cannot cite a text to the effect that he was born also at Nala: but, according to Hiouen Thsang,^ he died where ho was born; and, according to F^-hien,^ he was bom at Nala, and returned thither to die. Davids, in his note, refers to Bigandet’s Legend of Gaudama, a translation of a Burmese version of the Pali Mdldlamkdra- vatthu.^ Bigandet’s work dates back* to the years 1852-5, and it seems to be wholly independent ® of another translation made by the American missionary, Chester Bennett, and laid before the Am. Oriental Society in 1851 and printed in its Journal, iii. 1-163. In the absence of the Pali original these are important, for in the account of Sariputta’s death both translations agreein alluding repeatedly to ‘the room in which he was bom ’, and in making it clear that he died in that room. The Abhidhanappadipika (214) gives gahhko and ovarako as synonyms for ‘ inner room , and Childers follows it.