________________
262
not both at the same time (on the medial -ddh-, see below). Likewise . Pali has dasati, sandāsa and daṁsa, and daţtha and dāțhā. In the Sattasas one finds dakka 'bitten' in 237 (Ti, Tp, Bh, R, K,Y; dakka in
W, P, T, S, W) and 532 (Ma, Ti, Tp, Bh, R, W, S; dakka in Y, T, 54, W), dattha in 636 (Ma, TP, W, Y, T; çakka in R (Bh not available)), dādha 'fang' in 402 ( U, Y, S) and in 761 (Bh, R, T, S), and dasana 'tooth' in 522 (Ti, TP, BH, K, T, S, nahara in R, W, Y, P) (note that Var. II 35 explicitly mentions dasaņa!). In 105 dajjhihisi is found (but bhaṁjihisi in Ma and Tp), in 321 Jahai (dahai in T), in 373 qajjhai, in 401 dajjhasi (su), in 758 dahiūņa, in 193 qāna (Ma, Tp, Bh, V, Y; daha R, K, S), in 726 dahaņa (R; dahaņa s), and in 799 dahaņa (R). The past participle of daha- 'to burn' occurs frequently, in several cases, as here, meaning 'cursed'. Both daddha and daddha are found, which are variants. Thus, the MSS of the South-Indian recensions, Ma, Ti, Tp and T, where available, have qaddha throughout. The other MSS have daddha as well as daddha:
*49 gaddha Ti, Tp, P, T, S, daddha Bh, R, K, W, B, Y, 134 daddha Bh, K, , P, daddha R, Y, 149 daddha Tp (lacuna in Ma), Bh, K, V, S, daddha R, Y, P, 229 daddha Ma, Tp, Bh, k, , (utthe, but uprobably for da-), daddha R, 502 daddha Ma, Ti, Tp, V, T, daddha Bh, R, S, 511 daddha , daddha S (dutthu Bhi, ucha R), 558 daddha
U, S, daddha R, Y, 602 daddha Ma, Ti, Tp. V, T, S, 710 daddha S, daddha Y, 714 daddha Ma, Bh, T, S, daddha Tp(!), R, V, W, maddha Ti(!), 781 daddha R, daddha S.
This state of affairs partly coincides with the observation made by Hemacandra in I 217: - would be optional in daśana and dasta, and in dagdha and dāha, but obligatory in dahati and daśati. Note that Var. II 35 mentions only dasana.
In the Gathā under discussion the two branches are diametrically opposed, Ti and Tp having daddha and Bh and R daddha. It is almost certain that the latter, here as well as in all its other instances, is secondary, introduced in order to remove caddha from the text which with its many retroflexes must have appeared a linguistic monstrosity.
A different question concerns the origin of the initial d- in MIA
