Appendix 4.1: additional notes

P. 30 (6. 2. 302). Or perhaps kāraṇa should be taken as ‘injury,’ L. ‘I fear an injury (to him).’

P. 67 (6. 6. 223). Probably the allusion to its talkative* ness is only general. IS 4879 says that partridges, along with parrots and mainas, owe captivity to their facility in talking. See also Bloomfield, On Talking Birds in Hindu Fiction in the Festschrift Windisch.

P. 91 (6. 8. 31). See also MW, s.v. pañcasūnā.

P. 99 (6. 8. 151). This is in accordance with the usual sixth part of grain, etc., taken as tax by the king.

P. 117 (7. 1. 152). Probably it would be better to take uttānaśaya as a noun, ‘little child,’ L. If he were jumping around on the couch, he was not lying on his back.

P. 149 (7. 2. 486-9). For this whole passage of criticism of Vedic rites, see Yaśastilaka, 384 ff. According to Prof. Handiqui, these lines—almost word for word—occur in Raviṣeṇa’s Padmacarita 11, 86-89 (which is not accessible to me). As Raviṣeṇa antedates Hemacandra by several centuries, Hemacandra seems to have copied him. I had considered reading ‘jumbaka’ instead of our ‘juhvaka’ on the theory that Hemacandra was probably following the Taitt. Br. But as Raviṣeṇa also has juhvaka, I have no doubt that is what Hemacandra wrote. Raviṣeṇa has viklavasya and Hemacandra has vikriyasya instead of the viklidhasya of the Taitt. Br., the meaning of which is much debated. Vikriyasya could be taken as vikṛtasya, ‘deformed,’ which Prof. Dumont does. Certainly this would be in accord with the Taitt. Br. Prof. Handiqui takes Raviṣeṇa’s

viklavasya to be a misreading for viklidhasya. But Raviṣeṇa and Hemacandra did not follow the Taitt. Br. exactly. I translated ‘motionless’ on the preference of a learned Brāhman pandit and its suitability in the context.

I have still found no explanation of the mātṛvadha and pitṛvadha. Prof. Handiqui takes it to be a malicious misrepresentation of Vedic rites by the Jains. I do not agree with this. Hemacandra views Brahmanical rites with prejudice and puts the most unfavorable interpretation on them, but certainly he does not usually invent one outright.

P. 159 (7. 2. 628). Or perhaps ambuvāha should be taken as ‘water-carrier,’ L. That would be appropriate here.

P. 167 (7. 3. 92). The text here is unsatisfactory. That in the edition is obviously incorrect. I adopted the reading of my best MS, but that is not satisfactory either. If bhagna is read, the idea would seem to be that the bracelets were broken against the bed, while she was tossing about, but that can not be got out of the text. Also adhīṣaṃniṣaṇṇa⁰ would be more satisfactory than adhīṣaṃniḥsaha⁰. No MS that I have seen has a satisfactory compound here.

P. 177 (7. 3. 235). One MS has °āśaya, which I think really preferable. The vocative would be addressed to Prahasita, of course.

P. 251 (7. 6. 838). ‘Horses’ for ‘horsemen’?

P. 254 (7. 6. 137). Hale may be the vocative of halā, a form of addressing a woman friend. But would Sītā use this in addressing Mandodarī?

P. 288 (7. 7. 253). Avalokinyā. There is a strong temptation to emend to the usual Avalokinī, but the MSS were like the ed.

P. 296 (7. 7. 372). I am not satisfied with cālocenirṇayaḥ, nor the MS cālocanirṇayaḥ, which I think prefer-

able. But I think there should be a verb, perhaps aloci.

P. 315 (7. 8. 270). The twitching of the right eye in a woman is unlucky; in a man the twitching of the left eye is unlucky. See p. 248.

P. 316 (7. 8. 299). I.e. because the abandonment does not take place. Or perhaps atyāga should be taken.

P. 332 (7. 9. 208). See W. N. Brown’s Indian and Christian Miracles of Walking on the Water, 6 ff., for the “Act of Truth.”

P. 358 (7. 11. 75). In Haribhadra’s vṛtti to the Daśavaikālikasūtra, p. 240, āsana is taken as āsanadāna and abhigraha as ‘offering service,’ but here a seat has already been offered (āsanaḍhaukanam).