________________
232
- are extremely rare. In the second place the subject of the main clause ('I'), which is different from that of the conditional clause ('you'), is not specifically indicated by, for instance, a personal pronoun to distinguish it from that of the conditional clause. This does not mean that the presence of a personal pronoun in the main clause is obligatory (compare Gatha 216: ga pattiat jai...vähavind bhijjamta), but in this particular case its absence combined with the ambiguity of kunafta is awkward.
The two sets of variants would seem to have resulted from attempts to make sense again of the unclear text of Bh. The two sets have in common that the subject of the main clause is the same as that of the conditional clause. In the one case the ambiguity of kunamta (ccia) was resolved in favour of kunato, thus bringing it in agreement with janamto. In the other case the rare feminine gender marker - was replaced by -1, the more common one. Compare the fate of homtā, cited above, which was changed into homtt. In order to suit the new context. janahto was changed into janantT.
If my interpretation of the text is correct we should prefer mannu 'anger, fury' (Ma, Tp) to the variant manah 'sulking' (all the other MSS), because a sulking woman will never give reasons for her behaviour. Part of mana is precisely the refusal to talk. The spelling mahtu found in Ma and Tp, with -mt- for -nn-, a confusion which is typical of Jaina Nagart, is explained by the fact that the word goes back to the common North-Indian source of Ma and Tp, which, though not necessarily identical to the MS of the archetype, was at least very close to it (see above, pp. 40-1).
For the peculiar use of the present participles kupata and janahto found in this Gatha, see Hem. III 180.
jai vi janamt 'even if you would know' found in Ma and Tp does not make sense. The position of si, the second person singular of as- 'to be', found in Bh, R, etc. before the word to which it belongs, viz. janamto, is peculiar. It is likely that si functions as a personal pronoun here (see Alsdorf, 1935-37: 326-7). In any case in the conditional clause no finite form of the verb 'to be' seems required. Compare the following Apa. verse quoted in Hem. IV 351:
