The second half-verse is identical with 3. 63 c, d above. The translation of the first half is purely mechanical, the sense being wholly obscure. The comm. renders bhāgás by sambhaktā, and ūrjás by annasyā ’sthisamīpasthāpitacarulakṣaṇasya, yamas being the implied subject; then the 'stone' is the one used to cover the same annāni or caravas. A couple of our mss. (O.R.) and one of SPP's read in báçvā́ ’nnām; several (including our O.Op.R.) have ádhipatyam. Some of ours (O.R.K.) and three of SPP's leave jagāma without an accent, which seems better, and is implied in the translation. One of SPP's gives bhāgám in a. In Kāuç. (86. 7) the verse is used next after 53, and accompanies the covering of the same dishes with stones—or, the comm. adds, with bricks. ⌊Cf. Caland, Todtengebräuche, p. 157.⌋ It lacks a syllable in a. Our edition leaves viçvamitrās in this verse without accent, on the authority of two of our mss. (Bp.M.); all SPP's give viçvámitrās, p. viçvá॰mitrāḥ, as in 3. 63, and he accepts this in his text. The two verses ought of course to be made to agree, but there is little reason for preferring either nominative or vocative ⌊the comm. takes the doubtful word as voc.⌋. ⌊If the Viçvāmitras be not meant here and at 3. 63, then Weber's observations reported under 3. 16 lose some of their basis.⌋
55. As the five clans (mānavá) scattered (vap) a dwelling (harmyá) for Yama, so do I scatter a dwelling, that there may be many of me (?).
A corresponding verse is found in TA. (in vi. 6. 2); it reads hārmyám in a and c, and evám in c; and for dyáthā́ ’sāma jīvaloké bhū́rayas, which, however unmetrical, is at least capable of being translated, while this can hardly be claimed for our d. All the mss. read at the end ásatas, save one of SPP's, which follows the comm. in giving ásata, as is read in both editions—in ours, purely as an emendation. The comm. makes no difficulty of taking ásata as = syāta, and explaining "that ye my relatives may be numerous"; but that would be ásatha; and ásata has no grammatical standing of any kind, and hence is to be rejected. The comparison with TA. at least shows that the pāda is corrupt. The comm. foolishly divides evā́vapāmi in c into eva āvapāmi. Three of our pada—mss. (not Op.) most absurdly divide áva-pan in b; it is strange that SPP. reports nothing of the kind from his authorities. By Kāuç. (86. 11) the verse is used next after 2. 50 etc., with the direction iti saṁçritya ('on finishing the pile'?); the comm. says that with it they are to divide (kuṭṭay) leftwise, with sticks or bricks, the part of the cemetery on which the pile stood: in TA. it accompanies the "placing in the jar [of relics] the drugs called sarvāuṣadhi" (hence, perhaps, the use of vap in the verse, as they are strewn in); ⌊but cf. Caland, Todtengebräuche, p. 149⌋.
⌊On saṁçritya (?) and kuṭṭayeyus.—Kāuç. 86. 10 reads: idam id vā u na (xviii. 2. 50) upa sarpa (3. 49) asāu hā (4 .66) iti cinvanti. Sūtra 11 continues: yathā yamāya (4. 55) iti saṁçritya. Upon 10, Keç. says: çilābhir (? çalākābhir?) viṣamābhir iṣṭakābhir vā prasavyaṁ cinvanti çmaçānam. And the AV. comm., in giving the ritual for 2. 50 (p. 115) and 3. 49 (p. 161) and 4. 66 (p. 233), says: çmaçānadeçaṁ viṣamasaṁkhyākābhiḥ çalākābhir iṣṭakābhir vā prasavyaṁ cinuyāt, using the very same words in all three passages, save that he leaves out the second word in the second passage. Then, for 4. 55 (p. 224) he says: çalākābhir iṣṭakābhir vā prasavyaṁ citaṁ çmaçānapradeçam kuṭṭayeyuḥ.—In all these passages, çmaçāna or çmaçāna-deça or -pradeça must mean the mound which they heap (ci) over the buried bones: cf. ÇB. xiii. 8. 11athā ’smāi çmaçānaṁ kurvanti, gṛhān vā prajñānaṁ vā ('or as a monument'), and Harisvāmin's comment, p. 101715, çmaçānam prasiddham asthi-saṁrakṣa-vāstu; the mound is, as with us, not quite knee-high, ÇB. xiii. 8. 312, adhojānu.—The meaning of our comm. on 4. 55, accordingly, seems to be: 'after the mound has been heaped up
