Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 603

REVIEWS
55
thong was pronounced as hi (aiḥ as -aihi) exactly as it is done today in single words at least in Mahārāştra. Hence even though the two words give six syllables in the written form, they were probably pronounced as anumătraihi punyaihi even in a metrical line in order to get eight syllables. This again seems to have been the reason why no sandhi was made between punyaiḥ and artho (=punyairartho), for that would reduce the pāda by one syllable. LUEDERS is certainly right when he says that in the Lalitavistara version (261.18) there occurred loss of a syllable when punnehi was translated by punyaih because there sandhi was effected between the visarga and the following a. This loss of a syllable was then made good by the addition of me. cf. anumatram hi me punyair artho Māra na vidyate.
3. $15, pp. 20-21 : Among the cases where the eastern nom. sg. -e was mistaken by the Pāli translator as loc. sg., LUEDERS lists kule bhadde which occurs thrice in Jätaka 531.50-52. On p. 21 he observes that in verse 51 the interpretation of kule bhadde as loc. sg. seems justified and that this gave occasion to look upon the two words as loc. sg. in form also in verses 50 and 52 where, in the opinion of LUEDERS, they are not justifier and where they have to be interpreted as. nom. sg. It is a little difficult to believe that the interpretation which is regarded as justified for the middle stanza (51) should have influenced the interpretation of the stanza previous to it (50).
Hence it may be pointed out that the interpretation of the two words as loc. sg. also seems justified in the first verse 50 (p. 21) which begins with the word yathassu (for yatthassu? FAUSBOELL gives yatth' assu). This word meaning 'where can be more easily connected with kule bhadde as loc. sg. than with nom. sg. (yattha khattiyānam kule bhadde bheri nadati etc.). It is even possible that this yattha coming at the beginning of the first (50) of these three verses is also to be construed with the following two verses (51, 52). Thus when kule bhadde is justified as loc. sg. in the first two verses 50 and 51, it is natural to anticipate that it is justified also in the third verse 52. And this in fact actually seems to be the case. With the supposition of yattha from verse 50, kuld bhadde as loc. sg. give good sense here also. The mistaken nom. singulars in stanza 52 are, therefore, not kule bhadde, but abhirude and -nikunjite occurring in line one of that verse because as loc. sg. they make no sense. They are thus to be interpreted not as participles used adjectively qualifying kule, but as substantives. What is expressed in the other two verses with the use of verb forms nadati, nikunjati, himsati, and uparodati is expressed here with the help of verbal derivatives. abhiruta and nikuñjita are not noted in the PTS Dictionary as substantives, but it gives ruta (and ruda) as a noun. In Sanskrit, according to
Madhu Vidya/578