________________
254
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
and severe loss to science) and adopted by Mr. Burnell, in my reviews of their respective works in the Jenaer Literatur Zeitung, 1875, p.316 (1st May), and 1876, p. 203 (March 25). I am, moreover, very thankful to Prof. Kielhorn for different corrections of my explanations of several Siksha passages. But there is one passage among them, regarding which I cannot yet surrender my former position; and it is the particular object of these lines to defend it, at least to maintain its relative merits, as opposed to the explanation proposed by Prof. Kielhorn himself. I mean the passage in the Pánintyd Šiksha about the women of Surashtra.
First, I beg to remark that Prof. Kielhorn is not quite correct in his statement that I proposed three interpretations of the verse in question, and particularly that on p. 270 of vol. IV. of the Indische Studien I did propose a second translation, which we may omit here' and pass to the "third." In reality I have treated the verse first on p. 209, and secor. dly on p. 350 of that volume (1858), and both times I have given the VERY SAME translation. On p. 270 I add only the alternative option to take the words in the second hemistich
[AUGUST, 1876.
touched upon the subject (Ind. Stud. vol. IV., p. 269, note). Now there is certainly nothing so uncommonly strange in the adoption of foreign greeting formulas. We Germans, for instance, use constantly, when parting, the French formula adieu, changed to Adje, Adjes, Ade (as well as bon jour, merci, bons dies, prosit, gratias, and other words of the same stamp). And French influence has not been predominating in Germany for so long a period as the Greek, in all probability, has done in India..
अरांव खेदया not only as a quotation from Pik. VIII. 66, 3, but at the same time also as figuratively descriptive of the minute exactness of the phonetic process itself ("as the spokes in the nave with a hammer, thus you ought to contrive the ranga"). And when I return to the passage the third time, on p. 380 of vol. IX. (1865), I propose only, while fully adhering to the translation itself given at first, a conjectural reading for the words in the first hemistich: ar or before - त्यभिभाषते. Both readings I state to be equally senseless, and I propose therefore to draw, the word standing in the second hemistich also to the first, and to read खेरां (इत्यभिभाषते). The author would seem to have selected from amongst the numerous Vedic instances of just this passage खे अरां इव खेदया, in order to adduce an instance as similar as possible in its phonetic sound to the formula of greeting i of the Surashtra women. In course of time this word (i), having become unintelligible to the copyists, changed to ani (as given in the quoted passage), and (on other grounds, see below). Now in this Surashtra formula of greeting art I propose to recognize a form, adapted to the Hindu ear, of the Greek formula of greeting, xaupew, and to take this either as the infinitive itself, or as the imperative form xaipe. For the adoption of such a Greek phrase I call to account the predominance of Greek influence in Surashtra lasting for some centuries, as I had pointed to the possibility of some such contingency already the very first time when I
But what is it particularly with these Surâshtra women? I asked formerly (Ind. Stud. vol. IV. p. 269), "Is there to be concluded from this verse a particular occupation of the Surashtra women with declamatory representations ?" I may add now that tradition has really preserved some traces of that kind, for we read already in Wilson's Hinde Theatre (1835), vol. I. p. xix: "The lasya (a style of dancing) was taught by Pârvati to the princess Usha, who instructed the Gopis of Dvåraka; the residence of her husband, in the art; by them it was communicated to the women of Surashtra, and from them it passed to the females of various regions." See the text of this passage from the Nrittadhyaya of Sârigadeva's Samgitaratnakara iu Aufrecht's Catalogue of the Sanskrit MSS. of the Bodl. Library, p. 200a (1859). Now it appears to me à priori as really very likely that a statement like that contained in our verse should refer to this very dancing métier of the Surdshtra women, and not to their "shouting the word as dairywomen in the street," as Prof. Kielhorn proposes to read and to translate in accordance with the commentary on the सर्वसंमतशिक्षा; for we know nothing at all about their particular proficiency as "dairy-women," while we do know about their excellency in ideya.
The explanation adopted by Prof. Kielhorn accounts, after all, only for the reading in the one recension of the text, not for the reading arti in the other; and I should think it highly probable that the former reading really owes its very origin to that explanation itself, proffered for the dark passage by some scholiast-maybe already a long while ago-but wrongly, as far as I can see. For the root with arfer is used in general only in the sense of addressing,-at least never in that of shouting. The proper words for shouting would be the roots क्रुश्, घुष, नदः alone or with different prepositions, or उच्चारयति, उद्वदति (compare. दीक्षि तोऽयं ), उद्वादयति (comp. हविष्कृतं), प्रवाचयति (comp. भूतमिति, सोमप्रवाक ), प्राव्हयति (comp. सुब्रह्मण्यां हविष्कृतं). Whichever reading, therefore, we may adopt, ani
or what I conjecturally propose, its purport certainly must be in harmony with the verb
