The reading yathāparú in c is an emendation, made alike by both editions;* the comm. has it, but all the mss. give yathāpurú—which is perhaps not altogether untranslatable: 'according to its muchness.' We should expect in b rather jānan than another jānatu (51 d). The verse evidently belongs with its predecessor ⌊used at 80. 51⌋, but is entirely separated from it in ritual use, accompanying, according to Kāuç. 85. 25, ⌊the assembling of the bones so as to form a human figure, as explained under 3. 25⌋; next after it are quoted 2. 24, 26 and 3. 25-37. Pāda b has an extra syllable. ⌊With regard to the place of the vs., see p. 870, ¶1, and p. 870, end.⌋
*⌊In support of the emendation, SPP. adduces ix. 5. 4, with its yathāparú and paruçás. I think that yathāparú (as against yathāpurú) is strongly supported by the sense (much less so by the mss.) of the two Kāuçikan passages which give the ritual for ix. 5. 4 and for this vs. respectively, to wit, 64. 10 and 85. 25. In the latter passage the mss. have yathāparuḥ saṁcinoti (one, -puru), and Keçava says yathāparu, and Bloomfield emends to yathāparu; but I am not quite sure that it is necessary, for yathāparus may not be bad Sanskrit.⌋
53. King leaf is the cover of the dishes; the strength of refreshment, the power, vigor, hath come to us, dispensing (vi-dhā) life-time to the living (pl.), in order to length of life for a hundred autumns.
The comm. reads in a, against the pada-text and the metrical requirement, the later abbreviated pidhānam. It understands by parṇa ('leaf') the tree so called, or the palāça-tree; and this may be correct; this tree, it says, owing to its sacrificial quality, is the overlord of trees. ⌊Cf. the synonyms brahmapādapa (in Hemacandra) and yājñika, viprapriyā (in Rājanighaṇṭu): cf. also brahma vāi palāçah, ÇB. xiii. 8. 41.⌋ It takes ūrjás as a nominative, which makes a decidedly easier reading, but is unsupported by Vedic usage elsewhere. Only two or three mss. (including our Op.) read in c vidádhat, the rest vídadhat (and the pada-mss. ví॰dadhat, which is absurd ⌊cf. note to xiii. 3. 17⌋, but rather indicates that the word was correctly viewed as a participle); and SPP. accepts vídadhat, p. ví॰dadhat, because the comm. supports the majority of the mss. by understanding ví dadhat. The true reading is, beyond all reasonable question, vidádhat, as our text gives it. The meter seems to be viewed by the Anukr. as 10 + 11: 8 + 11 = 40; it is rather too irregular to merit a name. Its use* in Kāuç. (86. 6) follows that of vs. 36 above; it accompanies the laying of middle-foliage (? madhyamapalāçās) down upon the offering dishes: the comm. says, more explicitly, upon the nine dishes spoken of in vss. 16-24, and also upon the perforated plates (madhyapalāçapatrāir ācchādayet); Keçava's explanation corresponds closely with this.
*⌊The palāça has ternate leaves, from 8 to 16 inches long: Roxburgh, Flora Indica, p. 540, Calc. ed. 1874. By madhyama parṇa or palāça is meant the middle one of any of these ternate groups; the middle one is especially fit for holy use by reason of its likeness to a sacrificial ladle: TB. i. 6. 103, madhyaména parṇéna juhoti: srúg ghy èṣā́: cf. also Sāyaṇa on TS. i. 8. 6, p. 1167, Poona. I am indebted to Caland's excellent paragraphs on this subject, ZDMG. liii. 212.—The "nine dishes" are the last nine of the eleven whose deposition is explained above, under vs. 16. The "plates" are the leaky old dishes noticed above under vs. 36.⌋
54. The share of refreshment that generated this man;—the stone attained (gam) the overlordship of the foods;—him praise ye, all-befriended, with oblations; may that Yama make (dhā) us to live further.
