Page:Atharva-Veda samhita volume 2.djvu/337

793 appositive ('of the prior, the prājāpatyan' [anuvāka]: see the preceding paragraph).—At the end of the first anuvāka, 8 of W's mss. say prājāpatyo ha catuṣkaḥ; and at the end of the second is read pañcaparyāya uttaraḥ: the two quotations make a half-çloka which we may expect to find in the text of the Old Anukr., standing between lines 1 and 2 of our extract.—Line 2 refers to the paryāyas of the first anuvāka; and lines 3-6 refer to those of the second.—The numbers in parentheses refer to the paryāyas as counted from the beginning of the anuvāka; and those in brackets refer to the paryāyas as counted from the beginning of the book.

The quoted bit of the Old Anukr. at the end of paryāya 6 (or ii. 2) is hyekādaçakam (or hyāu-): the fact that the verse is so divided by piecemeal quotation as to bring hi at the beginning of its fragment seems to oppugn the correctness of the reading hi; and the word, as noted below, is not incorporated into the Major Anukr., the Berlin ms. of which, moreover, boggles at this point.—A comparison of the text of the Old Anukr. (above) with that of the Major Anukr. shows that the later text has quoted every word of lines 2-6 of the older, excepting tasmāc ca param and aparaḥ and the questionable hi.⌋

⌊A conspectus of the divisions of the book in tabular form follows. The explanations given on page 771 (which see: in book xv.), apply for the most part also to this table.

Note that the "ten" (6 + 4) and the "thrice eleven" (8 + 25) assigned by the Old Anukr. to paryāyas 5 (or ii. 1) and 8 (or ii. 4) represent non-coördinate divisions, as noticed and explained above, p. 771, and p. 772, ¶4.—Some mss. sum up the avasānarcas of the first anuvāka as 32 (correctly). Those of the second are summed up as follows: paryāya-avasānarcas, 53 (correctly); gaṇa-avasānarcas, 14 (correctly); avasānarcas "of both kinds," 68 (! but by D. correctly as 67). The 67 with the 4 vacanas make 71 (so Bs. correctly). And 71 + 32 make 103 for the whole book, and so one ms. at least sums them up.⌋

⌊Since the book consists wholly of paryāya-sūktas, there is no difference between the two editions in respect to the hymn-numbers: compare pages 611 and 770.—The division into decads is wanting.⌋

⌊Differences between the two editions in the division of the paryāyas. The differences occur (as above, p. 771) only in the gaṇa-paryāyas 5 (or ii. 1) and 8 (or ii. 4). In these, SPP. has, as the Old Anukr. requires, 10 and 33 divisions respectively (as against 6 and 27 of the Berlin edition). The explanation is as on pages 628-629 and on page 772: namely, that, in a sequence of refrains, the refrain is given in full and counted as a separate avasāna only for its first and last occurrence in that sequence.—In paryāya 5 there are properly 6 gaṇas, each with 3 subdivisions: therefore we have 2 gaṇas (the