________________
XII, 4. COMMENTARY.
659
Stanza 22. d. The cow belongs not even to every ordinary Brâhmana, but only to him that knows all her mystic properties ; cf. the numberless occurrences in the Brahmanas of the expressions, ya evam veda, &c., and ya evam vidvån, &c.
Stanga 28. The divinities that belong to the earth are in all probability the Brâhmanas themselves; cf. the note on XII, 3, 38. The stanza betrays sharp competition between the Brâhmanas.
Stansa 24. c, d. Ludwig proposes to read either vidván for vidyân, or narada for nãradah. Neither seems necessary: vidyât is the optative of narration, a moderated form of categorical statement. A better way to ease the construction is to read sá ha for sahá in Pâda d.
Stansa 27. The statement is significant: it seems as though stanzas of a more antique and floating character respecting the vasá existed prior to the Atharvan redaction. For vaset read, of course, vaset with the Index Verborum ; cf. the note on III, 4, 7.
Stanzas 29, 30. d. Ludwig suggests gighâmsasi, and this is correct as far as the change of the third person to the second person is concerned. The attraction of the proper third person in st. 30 has operated. But I have furthermore changed both stems to gigâmsa- from the root gam: the sense is much simplified. In st. 30 d read yakñyaya with the Index Verborum.
Stanza 31. Cf. the interesting parallel stanza Sat. Br. III, 4, 2, 7. It may be questioned whether the real gods are supposed to mediate between the vasã and the Brahmans, or whether deva and brahmán are used synonymously. Cf. the notes on st. 23 and st. 40.
UU 2
Digized by Google
