Page:Atharva-Veda samhita.djvu/75

Rh unknown, and, as the ms.-distinction between lya and lpa in such a case is worthless, the instance is a typical one to show the value of the reciters' reading: see W's note to vi. 127. 1. The case is somewhat similar at iii. 12. 3, āsyand-, as against āspand- (see the note and my addition); so also at viii. 6. 17, spandanā́, as against syandanā́, where, although only V. is cited, his testimony is abundantly confirmed by the sense (see note). At xix. 66. i (see note), as between those mss. which give paid and the Vāidikas K. and V., who recited yāhi, there can be no question that we ought to follow the latter, although SPP. strangely rejects their evidence. Cf. the notes on çāyaya, at iv. 18. 4, and samuṣpalā, at vi. 139. 3. One of the clearest errors of visual or graphical origin is "Sāyaṇa's" idam, at vi. 37. 2, for hradam or hṛdam of the authorities, including K. and V. (cf. W's and SPP's notes). If this comm. was the real Sāyaṇa, the blunder does him no credit. At viii. 2. 1, çnuṣṭi is established (as against çruṣṭi) by the testimony of all the reciters; although the case is less clear at iii. 17. 2 and 30. 7 (see the notes). Upon their testimony, at x. 7. 16 (see notes), we ought to accept as the true Atharvan reading, prapyasā́s, albeit and of questionable meaning.

The critical value and the range of his variant readings.—Whitney has given full and well-reasoned expression to his low opinion of the exegetical value of the commentary and of the range and critical value of its variant readings, in an article in the Festgruss an Roth, pages 89-96. To that article, with its abundant lists and details, I call, as in duty bound, the especial attention of the reader. The commentator does indeed correct a good many surface-blunders, part of which the Berlin editors had also corrected; and his readings are occasionally supported (as against the two editions) by a parallel text: but his variants "consist almost exclusively of single words or forms," and of real critical insight he exhibits almost none.

Thus he fails to recognize the fact that the ordinary usage of the mss. makes no distinction between double consonants in groups where the duplication is phonetic, and those in groups where the duplication is etymological (cf. W's Grammar, §232); and is accordingly so obtuse as to misunderstand and explain tádyā́meti, at iv. 19. 6, as tád yám eti, although the slightest heed for the rules of accent would have shown him that it is impossible for the combination to mean anything but tád dyā́m eti. Similarly at iv. 28. 3, again with utter disregard of accent, he makes out of