Habent sua fata libelli: The Dārilabhāṣya and its manuscripts

LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONALLE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L’EUROPE.

le 20–24 septembre 2010

⁕

THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUMTHE BOOK. ROMANIA. EUROPA.

20–24 September 2010

Couverture 4: Avers de la médaille émis par la Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest à l’occasion de la troisième édition de Symposium International. Le Livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe. – 2010.

BIBLIOTHÈQUE MÉTROPOLITAINE BUCAREST

TRAVAUX DE SYMPOSIUM

INTERNATIONAL LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE.

L’EUROPE.

Troisième édition – 20 à 24 Septembre 2010

TOME III : La troisième section– ÉTUDES EURO- ET AFRO-ASIATIQUES –

ÉDITEUR BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE BUCAREST

BUCAREST – 2011

Comité éditorial : Dr. Florin Rotaru, Directeur général, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest

Section 1 : Frédéric Barbier, Directeur de recherche au CNRS (IHMC/ENS Ulm),Directeur d’Études, Histoire et civilisation du livre, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Sorbonne, Rédacteur en chef de Histoire et civilisation du livre. Revue internationale (Genève, Librairie Droz)

Section 2 :Réjean Savard, bibl. prof, Ph.D – Président de l’ASTED et de l’AIFBD, Professeur de bibliothéconomie, Université de MontréalChantal Stanescu – Directrice adjointe, Bibliothèque Publique Centrale pour la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Section 3A :Prof. Dr. Jan E.M. Houben, Directeur d’Études « Sources et Histoire de la Tradition Sanskrite » École Pratique des Hautes Études, SHP, SorbonneDr. Julieta Rotaru, Chercheur III, Centre d’Études Euro-asiatiques et Afro-asiatiques, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest

Section 3B :Dr. Rodica Pop, Chercheur II, Centre d’Études Euro-asiatiques et Afro-asiatiques, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest

Section 4A :Dr. Stefan Lemny, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, ParisDr. Ioana Feodorov, Institut d’Études Sud-Est Européennes de l’Académie Roumaine, Bucarest

Section 4B :Prof. Dr. Adina Berciu, Université de Bucarest, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest

Section 4 C :Académicien Olivier Picard, Université Paris IV, SorbonneDrd. Adrian George Dumitru, Université de Bucarest – Paris IV Sorbonne, Assistant de recherche, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest

Rédaction : Dr. Marian Nencescu, Iulia MacarieSecrétariat de rédaction : Cornelia RaduFormat électronique du livre et pages couvertures : Anca Ivan

ISSN 2068 - 9756

TABLE DES MATIÈRES TOME III

La troisième section – ÉTUDES EURO- ET AFRO-ASIATIQUES

The third section – EUROASIATIC AND AFROASIATIC STUDIES

Section III A

Le Veda-Vedāṅga et l'Avesta entre oralité et écriture

Veda-Vedāṅga and Avesta between Orality and Writing

INTRODUCTION: Veda-Vedāṅga and Avesta between orality and writing – JAN E.M. HOUBEN .......................................................................... 13

Orality, Textuality and Inter-textuality. Some Observations on the Śaunaka Tradition of the Atharvaveda – SHRIKANT S. BAHULKAR ............................................................................ 20

Some Aspects of Oral Tradition as Reflected in the Pāṇinian Grammatical Texts – SHREENAND L. BAPAT .............................................. 35

Illiteracy as a socio-cultural marker – JOHANNES BRONKHORST .............. 44

From Orality to Writing: Transmission and Interpretation of Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī – MADHAV M. DESHPANDE .................................................... 57

Vyākaraṇa between Vedāṅga and Darśana – FLORINA DOBRE-BRAT .............................................................................. 101

“Let Śiva’s favour be alike with scribes and with reciters:” Motifs for copying or not copying the Veda – CEZARY GALEWICZ ........................... 113

Vedic ritual as medium in ancient and pre-colonial South Asia: its expansion and survival between orality and writing – JAN E.M. HOUBEN ....................................................................................... 147

Earliest transmissions of Avestan texts – RAMIYAR PARVEZ KARANJIA ................................................................. 184

6 Le Symposium International Le livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe. 2010. Ed. III

Sraoša : de la terminologie indo-iranienne à l’exégèse avestique – JEAN KELLENS ............................................................................................. 193

The Text, Commentary and Critical Editions: A Case of the Commentary of Sāyaṇa on the Atharvaveda – AMBARISH VASANT KHARE .................................................................... 200

Orality and authenticity – MADHAVI KOLHATKAR .................................. 212

Manuscript Transmission and Discrepancies in Interpretation – NIRMALA KULKARNI ................................................................................. 220

Sacred sound becomes sacred scripture: the Veda Mandir in Naśik, Mahārāṣṭra – BORAYIN LARIOS .................................................................. 233

On the descriptive techniques of Prātiśākhya and Aṣṭādhyāyī – ANAND MISHRA .......................................................................................... 245

Codification of Vedic domestic ritual in Kerala – ASKO PARPOLA ............ 261

Techniques pour la brièveté dans le Sāmavidhānabrāhmaṇa – ANNE-MARIE QUILLET .............................................................................. 355

Vedic Education in early mediaeval India according to North Indian Charters – SARAJU RATH ............................................................................. 393

Pastoral nomadism, tribalism, and language shift – SHEREEN RATNAGAR ................................................................................ 425

Habent sua fata libelli: The Dārilabhāṣya and its manuscripts – JULIETA ROTARU ........................................................................................ 454

Diplomatica Indica DataBase (DIDB): Introduction – ALEXANDER STOLYAROV ........................................................................ 468

Saṃhitā Mantras in the Written and Oral Traditions of the Paippalādins – SHILPA SUMANT ................................................................. 474

Gandhāra and the formation of the Vedic and Zoroastrian canons – MICHAEL WITZEL ....................................................................................... 490

Le Symposium International Le livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe. 2010. Ed. III 7

Section III B

Reconfiguration du divin et de la divinité

Reconfiguring the Divine and Divinity

INTRODUCTION: Reconfiguring the Divine and Divinity – RODICA POP ................................................................................................. 535

The Harmony of Faiths and Beliefs in Albania with the Coexistence of the Divine and Divinity – XHEMILE ABDIU ................................................ 537

Reconfiguration of the Divine in the Sanskrit-Old Javanese Śaiva sources from the Indonesian Archipelago – ANDREA ACRI ........................ 545

Facing God: Divine Names and (Celestial) Hierarchies – MADEEA AXINCIUC .................................................................................... 566

The Divine and Oriental Textiles – CHRISTINE BELL ................................. 577

Contacts of Russian Diplomats with Ecclesiastical and Secular Rulers of Mongolia as a Factor of Bilateral Relations (second half of the 19th century) – ELENA BOYKOVA ...................................................................... 589

The genealogy of the Chinggisids in Islamic historiography – MIHÁLY DOBROVITS .................................................................................. 593

Chinggis Khaan’s Sacrifice in Mongolia and Abroad – SENDENJAV DULAM ................................................................................... 601

Fr. André Scrima & Rev. P. Augustin Dupré La Tour s.j.: Note concerning the History of Religions in the Middle East (1970–1980) – DANIELA DUMBRAVĂ ............................................................................... 611

Ups and Downs of the Divine: Religion and Revolution in 20th century Mongolia – MARIE-DOMINIQUE EVEN ..................................................... 627

Reality versus Divinity (On the Creation of the Buddhist Canon) – ALEXANDER FEDOTOFF ............................................................................ 645

On the History of Bektashism in Albania – ALBINA H. GIRFANOVA ............................................................................. 650

General View of the Divinity and the Divine Concepts in Albanian’s Faiths and Belief Systems – SPARTAK KADIU ............................................ 656

The Holy Scriptus in the Mongolian Language: about A.M. Posdneev’s Activity – IRINA KULGANEK ...................................................................... 663

8 Le Symposium International Le livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe. 2010. Ed. III

Quelques notes sur les découvertes archéologiques d’époque Xiongnu sur le site de la nécropole de Gol Mod (Mongolie) – JACQUES LEGRAND .................................................................................... 673

Rituals of Mongol Games and Worship of the Spirit Masters of Heaven, Earth and Water – GANBAATAR NANDINBILIG ......................... 682

Drama on Chinggis Khan by B. Lhagvasurung – MARIA P. PETROVA .................................................................................... 691

Mongolian Religious Practices and Shamanism reconfigured by the Mongolian Buddhist Church – RODICA POP ................................................ 695

Christian Concepts in Mongolian Translation – KLAUS SAGASTER ...................................................................................... 704

Chinese-Manchu “Contrast” in Historiography and Literature – GIOVANNI STARY ....................................................................................... 714

Reconstructing Divine and Divinity in Hazret-i Meryem Kitabi – MÜNEVVER TEKCAN .................................................................................. 718

Interpretation of Celestial Phenomena. On a Manchu Manuscript – HARTMUT WALRAVENS ............................................................................ 736

LISTE DES AUTEURS ................................................................................... 749

TOME III

SECTION III

– ÉTUDES EURO- ET AFRO-ASIATIQUES −

⁕

– EUROASIATIC AND AFROASIATIC STUDIES −

Habent sua fata libelli: The Dārilabhāṣya and its manuscripts*

JULIETA ROTARU

The Dārilabhāṣhya (DB) is the most important commentary on the Kauśikasūtra (KauśS) which made it to us, besides the Keśavapaddhati (KP) and other works which were lost (the works of Paiṭhīnasi, Rudra, and Bhadra)1. Dārila’s authority is quite acknowledged, as he is quoted by the later Atharvavedic exegetical literature all through the ages (Keśava, Sāyaṇa, Ātharvanīyapaddhati (ĀthPaddh)2, Prayogadīpa).

Yet, in a number of instances from Sāyaṇa’s commentary, paddhati and prayogas, one can notice that Dārila is quoted via Keśava’s commentary. This has been already hinted by Keśava’s editors in regard to the authorities cited in the ĀthPaddh (1982: xxvii). By way of illustration I give below the two instances from the ĀthPaddh in which Dārila is precisely quoted:

1. In the chapter on the bṛha[c]chālākarma:

athavā nave gṛhe śyenayāgaḥ karttavyaḥ / (KP on 43.3) iti

* I must thank Natalia Sciarini, librarian in Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library; Rebecca Hatcher, archivist, Manuscripts and Archives, Sterling Memorial Library; Graham Sherriff, researcher, Sterling Memorial Library; Richard Richie, curator, South and Southeast Asia Collection, who have gradually helped me to follow my search through the collections of Yale University. I also wish to thank Rodica Paléologue, librarian at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, who has facilitated me the research there. I am grateful to Professor Michael Witzel for drawing my attention upon the relation between the two branches of Gore gotra, from Maharastra and Andhra Pradesh.

1 See BLOOMFIELD 1899:15-18 for more on this.2 See BLOOMFIELD 1889: xiv for this text and mss.

Habent sua fata libelli: The Dārilabhāṣya and its manuscripts 455

dārilabhāṣyakāraḥ //3 – Or he should perform the śyenayāga in the new house, thus says the commentator Dārila.

2. In the chapter on the śāntyudakavidhi:

samāpte4 sāvitrī paścāt / śaṃ no devī (1.6.1) karotīti (KP on KauśS 9.7) paṃḍitakeśavapaddhatikāravyākhyānaṃ kṛyate5 / ubhayataḥ sāvitrī6 (ṚgVeda (ṚV) 3.62.10) śan no devī (1.6.1) (DB on KauśS 9.7) karttavyā (sic!) iti dārilabhāṣyakārāmataṃ // – As [says] the commentary: “At the beginning he recites ṚV 3.62.10 and ŚaunakaSaṃhitā (ŚS) 1.6.1, and at the end ṚV 3.62.10 and ŚS 1.6.1.” (Keśava on KauśS 9.7). Thus says the statement of Keśava, the author of the commentary. He should recite “twice śan no devī (1.6.1) together with the sāvitrī (RV 3.62.10)”, thus is the opinion of Dārila, the commentator (DB on KauśS 9.7)7.

This is an evidence of the fact that Dārila’s technical and difficult text was actually no longer known by first hand after Keśava or probably Sāyaṇa. The paddhati Daśakarmāṇi8 does not seem to quote any authority, including Dārila. Similarly, the late prayoga Saṃskāraratnamālā9 does not refer to Dārila, although the prayogakāra is a good connoisseur of the Atharvavedic literature. My search for Dārila’s references in the remaining prayogas of Gore collection from Vadika Saṃśodhana Maṇḍala proved to be in vain too, as in their tendency to simplify the ritual by selecting those rites from the KauśS which are common to all śākhās, and by omitting the idiosyncratic Atharvavedic rites, there are hardly points of divergence and the few possibly difficult instances may be easily elucidated with the help of the KP. For the very few

3 v. KP: vikalpa iti bhāṣyakāraḥ /. Thus ĀthPaddh glosses Dārila for the commentator.

4 samāptau KP.5 sic! kriyate.6 cf. sāvitryā DB.7 The whole quotation in KP, from where the ĀthPaddh pastiches, is: samāptau

sāvitrī paścācchaṃ no devī (1.6.1) karotīti / tathā ca bhāṣyaṃ sasāvitrīkasya gaṇasya ubhayataḥ śaṃnodevī bhavati //.

8 Ms. 153/1879-80, new no. 34/35, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI), dated saṃvat 1867, written by Paṃcolī Rāma Kṛṣṇa in Vārāṇasī.

9 Ms. no. 4290 in Vaidika Saṃśodhana Maṇḍala, Pune. The text has been edited in the author’s unpublished doctoral dissertation, A Survey of the Domestic Ritual in the Atharvaveda Tradition according to the unedited text Saṃskāraratnamālā, together with the Critical Edition and Translation with Notes, defended at the University of Bucharest in 2008.

456 JULIETA ROTARU

instances when Dārila is quoted, the source is again the KP. By way of exemplification I give the following quotation from a prayoga10 compiled by Gaṇeśa Bhaṭṭa, the son of Śriman Nṛsimha Bhaṭṭa, discussion of whom shall latter on follow.

punar upanayane godānena vapanaṃ // someyāge godānena vapanaṃ // iti dārilamataṃ //

The portion of the DB to which it refers is missing, but the quotation is traced in the KP ad KauśS 54.19-22, from which Gaṇeśa Bhaṭṭa certainly has taken it, from the manuscript copied by him in Vārāṇasī in 182811.

The supposition stated at the beginning of this paragraph is corroborated with the concrete shortage of the DB mss., and with the amount of corruptness of the transmitted text, which will be further presented.

Devabhadra, a Yājurvedin who probably flourished in the 18th century, the author of the Prayogadīpa12, a prayoga on the ājyatantra, pākatantra and madhuparka of the KauśS, saw a very illegible manuscript of Dārila’s commentary, for he complains:

dārilabhaṭṭaiḥ bahubhiḥ prakāraiḥ idaṃ sutraṃ vyākṛtam / paraṃ tu aśuddhatam lekhakalikhitaṃ bhāṣyapustakaṃ / ahaṃ tu prayogakāro’taḥ prayoganiṣkarṣārtham ādau darśapūrṇamāsavidhau saparibhāṣikasya pākājyatantravidhisūtrasya prayogopayogi saṅkṣiptavyākhyānaṃ kurve / – This sūtra has been explained by Dārila with great efforts, but the manuscript of the commentary has been awfully illegibly written by the scribe. Thus I, the author of a manual of instruction, for the essence of the prayoga, I have put in the beginning the two rites, that of the full moon and new moon together

10 Ātharvaṇasūtragodānaprayoga. (Catalogue title: Godānādiprayoga (Kauśikasūtrānusārī)). Ms. no. 4237 in Vadika Saṃśodhana Maṇḍala, Pune. Devanāgarī. Incomplete. Folios 1-37, 72-80, 118, verso is numbered, first page is blank. Title is written thus on the margins: Ā[tharvaṇa]sū[tra]go[dānaprayoga] on the left, rāma (?) on the right. It begins: śrīgaṇeśāya namaḥ // atha godānaṃ //gośabdaḥ keśavācī dānaṃ khaṃḍanaṃ //. It ends: OṀ apo divyā acāyiṣam rasena sam apṛkṣmahi // payasvān agna āgamaṃ taṃ mā saṃ sṛ[ja]. (ŚS 7.89.1)

11 This is ms. ga in the KP edition of LIMAYE et al. This ms. has the same reading of the so alleged Dārila quotation as above, whereas the other mss. have a longer version.

12 The unedited text was not available to me, and the reference in this paper is from BAHULKAR 1978:34.


with the commentary useful for the prayoga on the sūtra [portion] on the rites of pāka and ājya tantra together with the paribhāṣās.

BLOOMFIELD has similar remarks about the two DB mss. which he has actually consulted for his KauśS edition, and about which he thinks, based on the similarity of the “portentous mass of corruptions”, that they are copies of the same original. He is aware of the bad transmission of the text in the later ritual sources, fact which supports our hypothesis about the scarcity of the DB mss. at all times:

The text is very corrupt, and the comment often very obscure: no attempt has been made to restore the manifold corruptions in this text, or in any of the paddhatis to be mentioned below [i.e. ĀthPaddh, Antyeṣṭi, KP, and Daśakarmāṇi – n. J.R.]. (1889: xii)

There used to be at least three tangible manuscripts of Darila’s commentary (BLOOMFIELD, 1889: xi-xiii), two of which have been actually seen by BLOOMFIELD:

1) one of 136 pages, 11-12 lines per page, dated śaka 1762 (1840 CE), Sunday, July 12, not mentioning the scribe’s name or place, but with a few conspicuous additions in Marāṭhī on the margins13, in the collection of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (ms. nr. 1494 in WEBER’s catalogue, p. 85, Ms. Or. Oct. 343d). This ms. has been presented by Julius EGGELING along with other Atharvavedic texts to the Preussische Staatsbibliothek (nowadays Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin). The manuscript collections from various libraries of Germany, including the Dārila’s codex, were sent during World War II to the Abbey of Beuron, and after the war moved to Tübingen University Library, where they formed the Tübinger Depot der Preussischen Staatsbibliothek. The DB has been edited in 1972 by Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth14 based on this ms. When the Puneit editors dealt with the codex, this was yet at Tübingen, from where it was relocated to Berlin in the late 1970’s, when the Oriental Department was established. The editors have thus borrowed the ms. from Tübingen and reproduced it in their edition, so that to enable the readers to compare it with the critical edition.

13 Rightly attributed by BAHULKAR (1976 & SUMANT forth.) to the scribe, rather than to Dārila himself.

14 The edition has been well received and critically reviewed by N. TSUJI 1972, Toyo GAHUKO 55:2, 108-10; Klaus MYLIUS 1973, Berlin: Asien, Afrika-Lateinamerika. I: 2, 196-8; M.A. MEHENDALE 1974, Pune: ABORI 54, 296-8; H.C. PATYAL 1974, Pune: BDCRI 1-4, 134-142.

458 JULIETA ROTARU

BLOOMFIELD says he had a copy of this ms. through the custos of the national library, which he had later on compared and corrected while in Berlin. This copy is precisely mentioned by BLOOMFIELD to be given to the American Oriental Society (AOS). I have identified this transcript in the Yale’s Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, wherein the AOS manuscripts have been deposited since 1960’s, as AOS Ve D24 1-9. This manuscript is listed at p. 183 in the Catalogue of the Library of the American Oriental Society, edited by Elizabeth STROUT. This catalogue is not descriptive and does not have call numbers.

2) one of 200 pages, 9 lines per page, dated śaka 175215 (1830 CE), borrowed to BLOOMFIELD by S.P. PANDIT, who in his turn has obtained it from Veṅkan Bhaṭjī Gore (alias Veṅku Dājī) from Sāṅglī. This was one of the most famous Atharvavedins in Deccan during S.P. PANDIT, who thus describes his scholarship:

He was not only an excellent reciter of the Veda, but was also an Agnihotrî of the same, and practiced much of the daily ceremonial as prescribed by the Atharva-Vedins. […] He knew besides the Gṛhyasûtra of Kauśika and was supposed to practice the charms prescribed therein, a reputation that doubtless made him much sought after by those who appreciated him at Sânglî. (1895: 8)

Veṅku Dājī died in 1891 or 1892, at the age of 68 or 69. Gore family is originally from Māhulī and was doing the office of purohita for the king of Sātārā (DESHPANDE 1997: 6). During the British Rāj it has moved to Sāṅglī. The collection of Gore family is now deposited in Vadika Saṃśodhana Maṇḍala.

Dārila’s editors have ineffectively tried to find this manuscript, in Vaidika Saṃśodhana Maṇḍala or in S.P. PANDIT’s collection.

It was not known whether Bloomfield had returned the Sangli MSS lent to him by S.P. Pandit. So we made inquiries as to whether Bloomfield’s papers were preserved in any of the libraries in the

15 The colophon (cf. BLOOMFIELD 1889: xiii) śake 1751 bhadrapada śuddhadvitīyāṃ maṃdavāsare samāpto’yaṃ graṃthaḥ / graṃthasaṃkhyā 3790 /. If the year is correct, the calculation does not match with the day, as in the śaka 1751, bhadrapadā nakṣatra and śuddhadvitīyā tithi was on Monday not on Saturday, so it could be only in 1752 śaka when all the information match correctly: Saturday August 21, 1830 CE, śaka 1752 vikrama 1887, bhadrapada śuklapakṣa 2. I thank very much Dr. Saraju Rath for the correct calculation of the Hindu year. POLEMAN (1938: no. 217) provides yet another śaka, 1759 (see further).


United States or elsewhere, but those inquiries failed to elicit any encouraging response. (idem, p. ix).

As far as I know, some16 of BLOOMFIELD’s materials are nowadays in Beinecke Library, wherein I have found BLOOMFIELD’s notes on the KauśS of 110 pages, a KauśS ms.17, and the Dārilabhāṣyā AOS Ve D24 1-9. However, the second DB ms. used by the great American scholar is not listed in STROUT’s catalogue and it is not found among the AOS or non AOS items of the library.18

Yet, this second ms. is entered in POLEMAN’s A census of Indic manuscripts in the United States and Canada, 1938, under no. 217:

Kauśikabhāśya. 197 ff., f.1 being numbered 3 by mistake. On f.91 v. the end of kaṇḍika 9 is mistakenly named the end of 8. 8.25 x 3.9. 9 lines. śaka 1759. See M. Bloomfield’s edition of the Kauśikasūtra for this manuscript. Edgerton.

POLEMAN precisely says ms. no. 217 was used by BLOOMFIELD and explains that the first folio is mistakenly numbered as three, hence the ms. probably erroneously counts 200 folios, as BLOOMFIELD knew it.

The ms. no. 217 in POLEMAN’s is cited in the “Abbreviations” section under “2. Private Collectors and Dealers” as being in “Franklin Edgerton, Yale University” collection. Franklin EDGERTON was a Salisbury Professor of the Yale University by the time POLEMAN compiled his catalogue, hence it is now known whether the manuscript in his possession has find its way to any of the Yale collections. I have checked the nowadays “Collection of Franklin Edgerton papers” in the Manuscripts and Archives department of Sterling Memorial Library, Yale. In fact the collection contains some of his published

16 Prof. Witzel has informed me that some of BLOOMFIELD’s correspondence is in the Library of Johns Hopkins University at Baltimore, the city wherein the latter resided.

17 Ms. 216 in POLEMAN (1938: 12). Cf. BLOOMFIELD’s 4.Ch, a ms. from Chambers collection of Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, which was copied by WEBER, and which is now hosted in Cambridge University Library. BLOOMFIELD (1889: x, under 4.Ch) says he has used both, the original and the copy “in the possession of WHITNEY”. The same ms., belonging to WHITNEY, who had it from ROTH (v. the notice on the first page) was transliterated by the former. This transliterated copy has served as the basis of the collation done by BLOOMFIELD while in Tübingen upon the mss. E, P and Bi. This transcript is hosted in Beinecke Library as ms. no. 216.

18 Prof. Insler has informed me that around 1980 a complete check of all items in the library has been conducted, without resulting to new findings.

460 JULIETA ROTARU

and unpublished papers, and they have been transferred there from Beinecke Library in 1997.

In conclusion, the ms. hailing from Veṅkan Bhaṭjī Gore of Sāṅglī and lent by S.P. PANDIT to BLOOMFIELD was then given to the latter’s pupil, EDGERTON, probably for his reference while dealing with the Atharvavedic texts, the sixth kāṇḍa of the Paippalāda Saṃhitā19, the ŚS20, and the KauśS21. We have no further record of this ms., and after a thorough search in the main manuscript collections of the Yale University, we may safely say it is lost22.

3) By the year 1889 BLOOMFIELD (1889: xiii) had knowledge about a third “incomplete” manuscript of the DB hailing from “the same source” as the previous one, and which allegedly was used by S.P. PANDIT for his Atharvaveda with Sāyaṇācāryabhāṣya, which was published in two installments, within 6 and 9 years respectively (vol.I-II, 1895, vols. III-IV, 1898). Dārila’s editors have searched of no avail this ms. in Gore’s and S.P. Pandit’s collections, respectively. At present, the S.P. Pandit collection is hosted by the library of the Asiatic Society of Mumbai. According to a primary list of the manuscripts published by Malhar KULKARNI (2009: 533), there is not any manuscript listed as Kauśikabhāśya or Dārilabhāṣhya23. As for Gore collection from Vaidika Saṃśodhana Maṇḍala, this has been thoroughly searched by

19 V. “The Kashmirian Atharva Veda, book six.” In: JAOS 34, New Haven, 1915, 374-41.

20 V. “The Philosophic Materials of the Atharva Veda.” In: Studies in Honor of Maurice Bloomfield, by a group of his pupils (eds.), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920, 117-136.

21 V. “Kauśika and the Atharva Veda.” In: A Volume of Eastern and Indian Studies presented to Professor F.W. Thomas on his 72nd birthday, S.M. KATRE and D.K. GODE (eds.), New Indian Antiquary, Extra series no. 1, Bombay: Karnatak Publishing House, 1939, 78-81.

22 There was, mutatis mutandis, another ms. in Bloomfield’s possession which had a similar fate. S.P. PANDIT has copied for BLOOMFIELD (1889: xvi, 15) an incomplete ms. of the KP. Similarly, both, the copy hold by BLOOMFIELD and the original hold by PANDIT are not traceable till present, although Dārila’s editors have assumed that a ms. similar to the one used by the former was in the collection of BORI (cf. DIWEKAR et alia, 1972: xii, n. 12), allegation not further supported by Keśava’s editors. In fact this KP ms. has been given by BLOOMFIELD to his pupil, G.M. BOLLING (1909: viii).

23 The published list has 221 entries, although there are 228 mss. which have been admitted to the Asiatic Society of Mumbay. Dr. Malhar Kulkarni has kindly checked the other seven items which were left out and reported to me, with the same result.


Prof. S.S. BAHULKAR who has not reported the finding of this third or any other manuscript of Dārila’s commentary.

4) BLOOMFIELD (1889: xii) also refers to a possible DB reported to be seen by Martin HAUG during his 1862 ineffective trip24 for search of Sanskrit manuscript in Gujarat, being appointed by the Bombay Education Department, for which he submitted a report, that was partially published in Indische Studien:

Of Sanscrit books I saw (in Broach) a very valuable collection of almost all the books belonging to the Atharvaveda more complete than any one I heard of in Europe or saw in the Dekkhan. It not only contained the Saṃhitâ, Pada and Brâhmaṇam, but its Âraṇyka jyotisham (calendar; this little book is quite different from the Atharvaveda Nakshatrakalpa), Anukramaṇî with comm., Kauçika sûtra with comm., some of which have never been heard of in Europe. The owner, an A.V. Brahman, could not be prevailed upon to part with any of them, nor would he allow me to have even copies taken, save under payment of an enormous sum. He was unwilling to show me the books, and it was only owing to the urgent request of the Deputy Collector that I was permitted to have a glance at them. (1865: 174)

Following HAUG’s resignation from the position of Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies at Poona College and from the appointment for searching Sanskrit manuscripts, the Bombay Education Department has asked Georg BÜHLER to make a second trip. BÜHLER specifically mentions having been in Bharuch and having taken the help of one Parvatishankar Manishankar, Headmaster of the Bharuch Anglo-Vernacular School for collecting mss. there (1869: 86). He writes a list25 of all the mss. therein found, on the basis of which a catalogue is being compiled, but due to his urgent leave from India caused by his illness, the latter is sent to press in the spring of 1871. There are five items26 purchased in Bharuch from one Atharvavedin, Dave

24 V. JOHNSON 1986 with relevant information from the press of the period. Yet, BÜHLER’s charges on the same Indian intellectual (1888: 530) is not therein taken into consideration for dismissing HAUG’s accusation of imperialist attitude.

25 As a response to the increased interest shown by ROTH and other scholars towards Atharvavedic mss. BÜHLER writes a separate list of his finds and sends it to WEBER, who publis it in Monatsberichte Der Koniglich Preussische Akademie Der Wissenschaften Zu Berlin, February 1871 (1872): 76-7.

26 p. 4, nos. 11, the padapāṭha of the ŚS (v. WHITNEY 1905: cxvi, under D.

462 JULIETA ROTARU

Narabherām, listed in the 1871 catalogue, but none is a commentary on the KauśS. However BÜHLER saw, during his first trip, the mss. collections reported previously by HAUG in Bharuch, but having obtained them barely in January 1871, he did not have time to revise the catalogue which was awaited for the press, and thus he did not entered those discoveries, which were but reported in his official account for year 1871:

The most important acquisition is that of a collection of books belonging to the Atharvaveda, enumerated under nos. 1 to 16 to the accompanying list. Prof. Haug saw these books on his tour in Gujarat in 1864, and gave an enthusiastic account of them in his report. They were shewn (sic!) to me in 1869; but it was only last January that I succeeded in obtaining them, amongst them, three numbers are, as far as I know, new discoveries27, the padapāṭha of the 19th book of Atharvaveda Saṃhitā, a small prātiśākhya, and a paddhati on the Kauśikasūtra. (1878: 76)

Thus the commentary on the KauśS reported by HAUG and thought by BLOOMFIELD to possibly be DB, is in fact a ms. of an alleged paddhati, with the following description in BÜHLER’s 1871 report: “no.10 saṃhitāvidhivivaraṇa (commentary on the preceding [i.e. no.9, KauśS, n.J.R.]), 48 pages, 8 lines per page, [saṃvat] 1614, Broach.”

BÜHLER gave all manuscripts collected in this and the following trips (all between 1868-1881) to the Elphinstone College, Bombay, from where in 1878 were transferred to Deccan College, Pune, and later on to Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, wherein the last discussed “paddhati” ms. can be identified as ms. no. 10/1870-1871, Saṃhitāvidhivivaraṇa (a commentary on Kauśikasūtram). The title is however wrong28, as the text is the ĀthPaddh.

for the description of this ms.) and 12, the whole ŚS; p. 172 no. 178, KauśS (v. BLOOMFIELD 1889 under 3.Bh for the description of this ms.); p. 190 no. 282, the 8th kaṇḍa of the VaitānaSūtra (v. GARBE 1878: iii under A. for the description of this ms.), and p. 210 no.77, Śaunakīyā Caturādhyāyikā (v. WHITNEY 1880: 156 and also DESHPANDE 1997:5 for the description of this ms.).

27 v. also 1871: viii. “The collection of Atharvan books under this head [i.e. Section D, sūtras, pariśiṣṭas, kārikās, etc n.J.R.] is comparatively large and contains several new works.”

28 BÜHLER (1871: i) complains of the poor knowledge, especially in the field of the Vedas, of the agents employed for cataloguing the found mss., which resulted in the incomplete data as regarding the author, date, etc.


5) There is another ms. of the Dārilabhāṣya listed in the Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in North-Western Provinces, part VI, p. 2, Veda section, no. 1:

Kauśikasūtrabhāṣyam, a commentary on Kauśikasūtra, by Battari Bhaṭṭa, 167 leaves, 9 lines per page, on paper, in devanāgarī, [in the possession of] Pandit Ganeśa Bhaṭṭa, Atharvaṇa Veda, in Gwalior. Adhyāyas 1 to 6. Old, incomplete, and correct. Writen saṃvat 1884. Not procurable for copying.

Ganeśa Bhaṭṭa is the same as Vedamūrtiguru Ganeśa Bhaṭajī Dādā Gore, who has been identified by prof. WITZEL as Gaṇeśa Bhaṭṭa Dādā, the celebrated Atharvavedin who has discovered in the 1880s the commentary of pseudo-Sāyaṇa to the Atharvaveda Saṃhitā in the Śri Śaṅkarācārya Maṭha at Śriṅgeri. Based on his understanding of the commentary, Ganeśa Bhaṭṭa revised the Saṃhitā while teaching it to his pupils. Apparently he has conducted teaching from his paṭhaśālā in Gwalior29. In 1962 H.R. DIWEKAR30 has visited this house of Ganeśa Bhaṭṭa’s family and discovered a ms. of Keśavapaddhati, ms. ga of the LIMAYE et al. edition, which contains in its colophon data regarding Ganeśa Bhaṭṭa.31 The latter is the cousin of Veṅku Dājī mentioned before in connection with the second DB ms.

29 S.P. PANDIT (1895: 1) says about Bāpujī that he has learned the Saṃhitā revised by Ganeśa Bhaṭṭa Dādā “by rote at Gwalior”.

30 S.S. BAHULKAR in this volume, fn. 2, mentions the fact that certain mss. borrowed from Gore family of Gwalior have been returned to the owner, following the scholar’s death.

31 This ms. has been thus described and commented by Prof. WITZEL (personal communication): “1828-(ga) A Kauśikasūtra Ms. with Keśava-Paddhati (ed. Limaye et al.), 1828 CE: rāma saṃvat 1885 // śrīkṣetra kā // śyām nā // gara-brāhma// ṇena Vedamūrtiguru Ganeśa Bhaṭajī Dādā Gore atharvavedi tasya caraṇa-sevā me a˚ // arpaṇaṃ aśvina śu[klapakṣe] 5 gu[ruvāre] saṃ 1875 (sic). This Ms. belongs to the Gore family of Gwalior, but it was written at Śrīkṣetra in Kāśī (Benares) by the Nāgara Brahmin Vedamūrti Gaṇeśa Bhaṭṭa Dādā Gore in 1828 CE, for the support of his Atharvaveda–caraṇa. Note that the current title vedamūrti occurs here for the first time in an AV colophon. This Gaṇeśa Bhaṭṭa apparently is identical with the Gaṇeśa Bhaṭṭa Dādā who visited Śrṅgeri in the early 1800s, and found there a commentary on the Atharvaveda composed by “Sāyaṇa”. As this was written in Nandināgarī character he misread quite few passages but incorporated these misreadings into his Ms. and into his recitation, which he then taught to students in Maharastra (see ŚPP, AV ed., p. 15).” My opinion is that the first saṃvat year is that when one Rāma (whose signature might be identified on the margins of many prayoga mss. of Gore collection) has copied the manuscript copied in its turned by Gaṇeśa Bhaṭṭa around ten years earlier, 1818 CE.

464 JULIETA ROTARU

Although S.P. PANDIT thoroughly speaks of Ganeśa Bhaṭṭa, and not in the best words, his silence over a DB ms. mentioned by BLOOMFIELD to be in the former’s possession, having been given by Gore, is so conspicuous to conduce us to the following assumption: S.P. PANDIT has been entrusted by Veṅku Dājī a DB ms. on the condition of being returned, which did not happened, as I have shown before. BLOOMFIELD published in 1889 his KauśS edition using this ms., by the time its owner has died. However, without Veṅku Dājī’s assistance, within next six years, S.P. PANDIT did not manage to secure the second ms. of DB “from the same source”, that is from Gore family, this time from the Vedic school in Gwalior, as the codex was, as the cataloguist in 1881 writes, “not procurable for copying” and thus not to be borrowed.

In conclusion, Dārila was a learned commentator and a connoisseur of the Atharvaveda of certain repute. His technical and erudite work was, if not hermetical, at least not read any longer by later exegetes, who were paying merely lip service by referring to him. By the late 18th century his commentary was no longer understood by the scribes, as we learn from Devabhadra who had an illegible manuscript of the same. Similarly, hard to decipher, are the three DB mss. written in the 19th century: one 1) dated śaka 1762 (1840 CE) obtained by Julius EGGELING and given to National Library of Berlin, and two in private collections and which are lost till date, 2) dated śaka 1752 (1830 CE) in the possession of Gore family of Māhulī, and 3) dated saṃvat 1884 (1829 CE) in the possession of Gore family of Gwalior. If we are to trust BLOOMFIELD (1889: iii) that ms. 1) and ms. 2) are “very faithful copies of the same original”32, it may stand to reason ms. 3) as their source, which is “old”, allegedly “incomplete” as the other two, and “correct” (i.e. not having corrections on the margins?) unlike the first two which might have been corrected and added glosses in Marāṭhī under Paṇḍit Ganeśa Bhaṭṭa’s teaching.

32 BLOOMFIELD bases his assumption on the fact that they both have the same corruptions and identical colophons, least for the year.


Bibliography

A Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the North-Western Provinces, compiled by Order of the Government, N.-W.P. and Oudh, part VI, Allahabad: N.-W.P. and Oudh Government Press, 1881;

Ātharvaṇasūtragodānādiprayoga. (Catalogue title: Godānādiprayoga (Kauśikasūtrānusārī)). Ms. no. 4237, Pune: Vadika Saṃśodhana Maṇḍala;

Ātharvaṇīyapaddhati Berlin. Mss. no. 1495 and 1496, In: Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Kgl.Bibliothek zu Berlin, vol.V: Verzeichnis der Sanskrit-Prakṛt-Handschriften, vol.II, editor Albrecht WEBER, Berlin: Nicolai, 1853, pp. 86-87;

Ātharvaṇīyapaddhati B.O.R.I. Ms. accession no. 1870-71, Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute;

BAHULKAR, S.Shrikant. “Bhāṣyakār Dārilāchyā Sthalakālāsaṃbandhī Kāhī Vicār.” In: Marāṭhivācā Saṃśodhan Maṇḍal Vārṭik, Shirur Tajband. 1976, pp. 125-136 [Marāṭhī], translated in English and annoted by Shilpa SUMANT as “Some thoughts on the place and date of commentator Dārila” (forth.);

——— “The Prayoga-Dīpa of Devabhadra: A brief Survey.” In: Journal of the University of Poona, Humanities Section, no.43,. 1978, pp. 31-5;

BLOOMFIELD, Maurice (ed.). “The Kauśika Sūtra of the Atharva Veda. With Extracts from the Commentaries of Dārila and Keśava.” In: Journal of the American Oriental Society 14, 1889, pp. i–424;

——— The Atharvaveda. Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde Vol.II, Part I, B, Strassburg: Von Karl J. Trübner, 1899, first edition [reprinted as The Atharvaveda and the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, New Delhi: Asian Publication Services, 1978];

BOLLING, George Melville and Julius von NEGELEIN (eds.). The Pariśiṣṭas of the Atharvaveda, Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1909;

BÜHLER, Georg. “Report by Dr. G. Bühler, Acting Educational Inspector, Northern Division, for 1868-69.” In: Report of the Department of Public Instruction in the Bombay Presidency, for the year 1868-69, Bombay: Education Society’s Press, Byculla, 1869, pp. 82-86;

——— A Catalogue of Sanskrit manuscripts, contained in the private libraries of Gujarât Kâṭhiâvâd, Kachchh, Sindh, and Khândes. Fasc. I-III. Compiled under the superintendence of G. BÜHLER. By order of government. Bombay: “Indû-Prakâsh” press, 1871-1872;

——— List of mss. In Monatsberichte Der Koniglich Preussische Akademie Der Wissenschaften Zu Berlin, Februar 1871. Sitzung der

466 JULIETA ROTARU

philosophischhistorischen Klasse, vol. 20, Berlin: Dümmler’s Verlags, 1872, pp. 76-7;

——— “Report of Georg Bühler, Acting Educational Inspector, Northern Division, to J.B. Peille, Director of Public, Instruction, Bombay, dated Surat, the 13th July 1871.” In: Papers relating to the collection and preservation of the records of ancient Sanskrit literature in India, Archibald Edward GOUGH (ed.), Calcutta: Government printing office, 1878;

——— “Two Lists of of Sanskrit MSS. together with some remarks on my connection with the Search for Sanskrit MSS.” In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 42, 1888, pp. 530-559;

DESHPANDE, Madhav (ed.). Śaunakīyā Caturādhyāyikā, A Prātiśākhya of the Śaunakīyā Atharvaveda, with the commentaries Caturādhyāyībhāṣya, Bhārgava-Bhāskara-Vṛtti and Pañcasandhi, critically edited, translated & annotated by Madhav M. DESHPANDE, HOS; 52, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997;

DIWEKAR, Hṛ. et al. (eds.). Kauśikasūtra-Dārilabhāṣya, Critically edited for the first time on the basis of a single codex which is reproduced by offset process. Poona: Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapitha, 1972;

GARBE, Richard (ed.). Vaitāna Sūtra, The Ritual of the Atharvaveda, edited with critical notes and indices. (1st edn. London, 1878, Sanskrit Text Series), reprint 1892, New Delhi: Mahalakshmi Publishing House, 1878;

HAUG, Martin. “Aus Martin Haug’s Berichet über seine Reise in Gujarat, im Dec. 1863. Jan. Febr. 1864.” In: Indische Studien, vol. IX, A. Weber (ed.), Leipzig, 1865, pp. 174-176;

JOHNSON, Donald Clay. “German Influences on the Development of Research Libraries in Nineteenth-Century Bombay.” In: The Journal of Library History (1974-1987) Vol. 21, No. 1, Libraries, Books, & Culture I (Winter, 1986), University of Texas Press, 1986, pp. 215-227;

KULKARNI, Malhar. “A Primary Information about the S.P. Pandit Collection of Manuscripts.” In: Śrīnidhiḥ, Professor S.S. Bahulkar’s Gratitude Volume, Shripad BHAT, Shilpa SUMANT, Ambarish KHARE (eds.), Pune: Saṃvidyā Institute of Cultural Studies, 2009, pp. 523-534;

LIMAYE, V.P. et al. (eds.). Keśava's Kauśikapaddhati on the Kauśikasūtra of the Atharvaveda. Shri Balmukund Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Research Series 1. Pune: Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, 1982;

PANDIT, Shankar Pandurang (ed.). Atharvaveda saṃhitā with the Commentary of Sāyaṇācārya, edited by S.P. Pandit, Vol. 1, (1st edn. Bombay 1895)


reprint 1989, Krishnadas Sanskrit Series 109, Varanasi: Krishnadas Academy, 1895;

POLEMAN, Horace Irvin. Census of Indic manuscripts in the United States and Canada, compiled by H. I. POLEMAN. reprint: New York: Kraus Reprint Corp. 1967 [first edition New Haven, Conn., American oriental society, 1938];

STROUT, Elizabeth. The Catalogue of the Library of the American Oriental Society, edited by Elizabeth STROUT, New Haven: Yale University Library, 1930;

SUMANT, Shilpa v. BAHULKAR 1976;WEBER, Albrecht. Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Könglichen Bibliothek

zu Berlin, vol.V: Verzeichnis der Sanskrit-Prakṛt-Handschriften, Vol. II, ed. Albrecht WEBER, Berlin: Nicolai, 1853;

WHITNEY, William Dwight (tr.). Atharvavedasaṃhitā, translated into English with Critical and Exegetical Commentary by W. D. WHITNEY, revised and edited by Charles Rockwell LANMAN, Vol. I, 1st edn. 1905. Harvard Oriental Series, Vol. VII, Cambridge, Mass., 5th reprint 1996, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd;

WHITNEY, William Dwight. “Collation of the Second Manuscript of the Atharvaveda Prātiśākhya.” In: Journal of the American Oriental Society 10, 1880, pp. 156-171.

Habent sua fata libelli: The Dārilabhāṣya and its manuscripts

Documents

Transcript of Habent sua fata libelli: The Dārilabhāṣya and its manuscripts