87. They who are here, O Fathers—alive here are we—[be] they after us; may we be the best of them.
The translation here implies certain emendations of the text:
pitaras ⌊accentless⌋ in 87 and the first time in 86, and the omission of
yé after the second
pitáras in 86: the latter is made also in our text, while SPP. reads, with the mss.,
yé ‘tra pitáraḥ pitáro yé ‘tra yūyáṁ sthá. As to the accent of the
pitaraḥ pitaro in 86, the mss. are wildly discordant, presenting every possible variation, and, considering the many accentual blunders which they commit in this part of the text, the details are not worth reporting, nor need we feel any hesitation in amending to what seems to make the best sense. The omission of
yé is much more serious, but seems demanded by the sense, and by the analogy of 87. Similar passages are found in ⌊TS. iii. 2. 5
6,⌋ TB. i. 3. 10
8-9 ⌊like TS.⌋, and ÇÇS. iv. 5. 1 (the latter nearest like our text:
ye ‘tra pitaraḥ pitaraḥ stha yūyaṁ teṣāṁ çreṣṭhā bhūyāstha: ya iha pitaro manuṣyā vayaṁ teṣāṁ çreṣṭhā bhūyāsma); compare also MS. i. 10. 3 and AÇS. ii. 7. 7.* All our mss. save one (Op.), and most of SPP's, leave
stha in 86 unaccented; this non-accentuation, so far as it goes, favors the omission of
yé.
Bhūyāstha is a grammatically impossible form, and should be emended to
-sta, which is read by ⌊TS. and⌋ TB. in the corresponding passage; ÇÇS., as has been seen, gives
-stha. One of SPP's mss. has
bhūyāsta. In 87, most of the mss. insert an
avasāna after
smaḥ, and SPP. follows them; it is of course senseless, unless we use one also after
stha in 86†; nor does the Anukr. appear to acknowledge it, since it notes no difference of division as between the two verses; but our ⌊printed⌋ text at any rate blunders in not reading either
smo asmā́n or
smo ‘smā́n since it has omitted the
avasāna-mark. The metrical definitions of the Anukr. are worthless, as there is no trace of meter in the two passages; they can by violence be read into the number of syllables called for.
*⌊In the second and third paragraphs below are given these passages from TB., MS., and AÇS. The TS. passage agrees with the TB. passage, save that TS. has yè ‘smíṅ loké for the very bad yè ‘smiṅ loké of TB.⌋
†⌊We ought, I think, in fact to read with SPP. an avasāna-mark after smaḥ in vs. 87, not only as being abundantly supported by the mss. of both editions, but also as called for by the sense and the general (quadripartite) structure of the verse. And the same applies to the reading of an avasāna-mark after stha in vs. 86; it is printed in neither edition, but appears to be well warranted by the authorities of both.⌋
⌊The TB. passage, at i. 3. 10
8-9, with the
avasānas as printed in the Poona ed., is:
yá etásmiṅ loké sthá (8)
yuṣmā́ṅs té ‘nu ।
yè ‘smiṅ loké ।
mā́ṁ té ‘nu ।
yá etásmiṅ loké sthá ।
yūyáṁ téṣāṁ vásiṣṭhā bhūyāsta ।
yè ‘smiṅ loké ।
aháṁ téṣāṁ vásiṣṭho bhūyāsam.—This passage and its analogues have been discussed in two papers by Böhtlingk,
Berichte der sächsischen Gesell., sessions of July 8, 1893, and May 2, 1896. In the first, having the TB. passage before him, he proposed to read, in place of the first
sthá, the word
syús, and to begin the first apodosis with it, and to delete the second
sthá. In the second, having our AV. verses before him, he ascribes the false ending of
bhūyāstha of 86 to the correct preceding
stha; and, on the other hand, the false
sma of 87 to the correct ending of
bhūyāsma. The false
sma, however, is—as we have seen—to be
