¹ Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Deel I. Nieuwe Reeks. Deel XIX. No. 4. Amsterdam, 1919. For some of the notes I have to thank my wife, who after her reading of the relevant passages in the Auswahl made some suggestions which have been adopted here.

² See Hoffmann, K., Der Injunktiv im Veda, Heidelberg, 1967, 98 n.209.Google Scholar

³ The Critical Edition reads sadaiva. See, however, “Studies in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa (Book I)”, published by the editors, R. Vira and L. Chandra, in Felic. Vol. Kirfel as well as in AO, XXII, 1955, 55–74, for a correction.

⁴ See Delbrück, B., Altindische Syntax, Halle, 1888, 351Google Scholar, and Macdonell, A. A., A Vedic grammar for students, Oxford, 1916, 366Google Scholar (“seems often to imply that the action of the opt. should be assumed to be past; it seems always to be followed by átha”).

⁵ On dhāvayati see my paper “Vedic dhāvayati ‘to drive’ ”, IIJ, XVI, 2, 1974, 81–95. In this publication I have also discussed the present passage (pp. 92 f.). The interpretation of pradhāvayati can be retained. For prasarpati the present paper offers a new solution in the light of which the remarks of IIJ, XVI, 2, 93, can be discarded now.

⁶ See ĀpŚS, 12, 17, 10.

⁷ See ĀpŚS, 11, 9, 8, and 13, 6, 17. It should be noted that this sarpaṇa is different from the one which is undertaken towards the bahiṣpavamāna (in the parallel of AB).

⁸ See ĀpŚS, 12, 24, 14.

⁹ Caland's “nachdem er sich von diesem hat einladen lassen” is from a ritualistic as well as from a grammatical point of view untenable.

¹⁰ On this type of compound see Speyer, J. S., Sanskrit syntax, Leyden, 1886, 175Google Scholar, and Renou, L., Grammaire sanscrite, Paris, 1961, 117Google Scholar (mentioning inter alia the comparable formation ayogyarūpa “fort impropre”). The meaning assumed for upakārya is found in the dictionaries and is quite logical.

¹¹ This meaning of kāmam is not given by Delbrück's Syntax (which renders “nach Belieben”). See, however, the dictionaries for this translation which at least has some support from the Epics.

¹² See Delbrück, Syntax, 346 ff., and Macdonell, Vedic grammar, 365.

¹³ Monier-Williams' Dictionary, s.v. api-han-, mentions “to remove or suppress (pregnancy, sũtum), TS.”. Probably Caland's “vertreiben” is based on the (free) translation of the relevant passage in TS as given by the dictionaries. Keith renders TS, 2, 1, 5, 3, … etasyai sūtum api ghnanti yā vehad bhavati by “… the plants indeed destroy the pregnancy of the one which becomes barren.” The context does not make clear whether destroying, removing, suppression or something else is meant. There are, however, more passages in which apihan- occurs. JUB, 1, 18, 3, 5, sa u tām apihanti, “he drives this [stream] away”, (tr. Oertel) refers to the situation that an udgātṛ instead of leading a stream (of speech) from a lake (i.e. mind), obstructs (apihan!) it. The translation “drive away” is neither required by context nor by etymology. This meaning is even excluded in the obscene verse of Khilāni, 5, 22, 7b, yathaiva te vanaspate ‘pi ghnanti tathaiva me, “Just as on thee, O tree (O wooden mortar), they strike (with the pestle), so may they strike on me” (tr. Caland ŚŚS, 12, 24, 2). Removal is out of the question; pressure (impression) or oppression suits the context. Parallel to TS sūtum api ghnanti we find prajananam apihanyād (KS, 12, 5: 167.12, after na bṛhatyā vaṣaṭkuryād..; MS, 3, 10, 4: 135.4 f., after yad aṇimata upayajet – the opposite sthavimata upayajati proving that narrowness or fencing in forms the oppression denoted by apihan-; MS, 4, 7, 4: 97.8, after yad anuyajet, apparently referring to some sort of conclusion or enclosure). Perhaps prajananam here denotes the female organ (cf. the Khilāni verse) rather than the abstract concept of procreation. Enclosing, cutting off, blocking, suppressing (rather than removing) also seems to play a role at MS, 4, 5, 5: 71.9 (vaiśvānareṇaiva vṛṣṭim apihanti, “he stops the rain by means of the sun (?).”

¹⁴ Evidently there is a basic difference between the two passages. In KS the obstruction of the breathing implies death and is therefore undesirable. In the present passage the cutting off of the prāna (= svara) means stopping the “sounding away”.

¹⁵ See SV, Bibliotheca Indica ed., III, 90 f.

¹⁶ Instead of nisvaritor the correct reading should be niḥsvaritor or nissvaritor. Cf. in the same passage svareṇa yajamānasya paśūn nirasvārīr and KS, 26, 1:121.21, yad upagāyed (if one, i.e. all the people present as prasarpakas, should join the singing) indriyaṃ nissvaret. Again a reference to “sounding away” (apparently by loudness).

¹⁷ For the syntax of this sentence see Delbrück, Syntax, 348.

¹⁸ Caland remarks on the Jaiminīya version of the sāman, which is different from the other Sāmavedic one: “Wie diese Singweise, die nicht ganz mit dem Gāna übereinstimmt, für das Fehlen des Nidhana einen Ersatz bildet, ist nicht deutlich.”