AL ACTIVO PASIVO

The 27 typographical emendations can be subdivided into those typos in Vaidya which Dandekar has corrected and which I also have corrected (YY in final two columns, 15 instances), and those typos in Vaidya which Dandekar hasn’t corrected but which I have (NY in final two columns, 12 instances).

In the 15 examples of the first subcategory, my suspicion that there was a typo in

Vaidya was confirmed by the fact that Dandekar had corrected the obvious error.31 _{In two}

of these cases, metrical considerations also suggested that something was wrong with Vaidya’s text: Vaidya’s readings of avat at 108.1d (instead of avasat; see Table 1) and of

cācintañ at 109.62c (instead of cācintayañ) yield pādas of only seven syllables rather than the

31 _{In addition to helping me confirm typos in Vaidya, Dandekar 1976 also helped to confirm Vaidya’s}

reading at 106.22d, where in my copy of Vaidya the printing is dodgy and śūlapāṇinā looks a bit like

śṛlapāṇinā, but Dandekar confirms the reading śūlapāṇinā. However, in Dandekar 1976 I have also found

new typos, and/or corrections that I don’t agree with, and I list them here (there will be others that I haven’t noticed). At 8.28d Dandekar changes Vaidya’s ’ti to the unattested ’pi, but ’ti (kriyate ’ti = kriyate +

ati) seems not to be a typo, as it is mentioned also in Vaidya’s apparatus, where ’ti is differentiated from

the more commonly attested tu or ca. At 16.19e Dandekar changes Vaidya’s vaighaso to vaidhaso, but

vaighaso is confirmed by Vaidya’s apparatus; similarly at 23.44a Dandekar changes Vaidya’s ogho to odho,

but ogho is confirmed by Vaidya’s apparatus. At 32.17a Dandekar changes Vaidya’s caturyugāntaparyāye to

catuyurgāntaparyāye. At 42.53d Dandekar changes Vaidya’s eṣa to eva, which Vaidya notes as a variant (T2

G1 M1). At 47.5b Dandekar changes Vaidya’s strīsanāthāstu (with its double sandhi) to strīsanāthāsu. At 51.9a Dandekar changes Vaidya’s jānubhir uddhṛṣṭaiḥ to jānubhiddhṛṣṭaiḥ, mistakenly omitting the syllable

ru. At 67.66b Dandekar changes Vaidya’s eṣyasi to eṣyati. Vaidya lists no variants for eṣyasi, but Dandekar’s

change is congruent with Kinjawadekar’s text (1936: 210), with Dutt’s translation (1897: 338), and with Menon’s text and translation (2008: 300). I’ve translated Vaidya’s eṣyasi, but it may nonetheless be a typo. At 71.19d Dandekar seemingly changes Vaidya’s dhanaughair to dhanaugher. At 71.29b Dandekar changes Vaidya’s darśane to daśane. At 71.46d Dandekar changes Vaidya’s kākocchvāso to kākochvāso. At 87.12d Dandekar changes Vaidya’s ’nvaśān to ’vaśān, but ’nvaśān (= anvaśāt, imperfect of anu + śās, third-person singular) is confirmed by Vaidya’s apparatus. At 93.35a Dandekar changes Vaidya’s dāśārhair to dāśāhair. At 105.6–7 Dandekar (as also Menon 2008: 450) numbers Vaidya’s 105.6ef as 105.7ab, thus presenting 105.7, and not 105.6, as a three-line mahāpaṅkti verse. At 107.49d Dandekar changes Vaidya’s ratitaskaraḥ (‘stealer of sexual pleasures’, i.e., Aniruddha as the rapist in Uṣā’s dream) to ratibhāskaraḥ, which Debroy translates as ‘the one who gave you that blazing pleasure’ (2016: 387), and which Menon prints but doesn’t translate (he has ‘that stealthy lover’, 2008: 463). Vaidya records no variants here, Kinjawadekar like Vaidya has ratitaskaraḥ (1936: 438, Viṣṇuparvan 118.37d), and I suspect that Dandekar’s change is not a typo but an emendation designed to make light of Aniruddha’s deed. Finally, at 110.61c Dandekar changes Vaidya’s śaighryāl to śaghryāl (apparently; the first glyph is out of line in my copy).

statutory eight. In two cases, it was possible to confirm my suspicion with reference to Vaidya’s apparatus. At 59.8c Vaidya has vartayāmopabhujjānās, but the apparatus for that

pāda says that various manuscripts read ‘-yuñjānās (for -bhu°)’, thus indicating that - bhuñjānās was intended in the text (Vaidya 1969: 385); and at 61.32a Vaidya has ghūṇamānaiś, but the apparatus lists some variants ‘(for ghūrṇa°)’, thus indicating that ghūrṇamānaiś was intended in the text (Vaidya 1969: 399).

The 12 examples of the second subcategory are typos that I have spotted but Dandekar didn’t. There are six such cases where Vaidya’s apparatus confirms what was intended in the text (and that this was not what was printed there), in the manner just illustrated. So at 20.8d Vaidya has nipatāta, but the apparatus says ‘D2 niṣpapāta (for nipa°)’, indicating that nipapāta was intended in the text (Vaidya 1969: 139); at 20.31b Vaidya has

aṅgirasas, but the apparatus says ‘some Mss. aṅgirasas (for ā°)’, indicating that āṅgirasas was

intended in the text (Vaidya 1969: 141); at 47.49a Vaidya has tataḥ sumbhanisumbhau ca, but the apparatus says ‘some Mss. tataḥ sumbhanisumbhau ca’, indicating that something other than tataḥ sumbhanisumbhau ca was intended in the text (Vaidya 1969: 326), the natural candidate then being tataḥ śumbhaniśumbhau ca, since the names are Śumbha and Niśumbha at 65.51c on the only other occasion that they occur; at 59.36b Vaidya has sumutkruṣṭāni, but the apparatus mentions variants ‘for samutkruṣṭāni’, indicating that samutkruṣṭāni was intended in the text (Vaidya 1969: 388); at 59.59c Vaidya has pūjyantāṃ (as in the previous

line), but the apparatus says ‘Ñ1 ījyatām (for pū°)’, indicating that pūjyatāṃ was intended in

the text (Vaidya 1969: 390); and at 117.46d Vaidya has kaliyuge (as in the previous line), but as variants the apparatus lists kaliyuge and ‘kṛtayugaṃ (for °yuge)’, indicating that kṛtayuge was intended in the text (Vaidya 1969: 777). Strictly speaking in such cases the discrepancy between the text and the apparatus indicates that there is an error either in the text or in the apparatus; but if the text is already suspected of containing an error, then this can effectively be confirmed by the discrepancy.

In the six other cases in this subcategory (count them down), no straightforward confirmation of the error was to be found in Vaidya’s apparatus, but sometimes the apparatus was diagnostically useful nonetheless. Thus at 23.45c Vaidya has adhitrī, but although the apparatus repeats this non-word by listing four variants ‘for [a]dhitrī ca’, those four variants are ‘[a]tha strī ca’, ‘[a]dhistrīṃ ca’, ‘[a]tho strī ca’, and ‘[a]tho strīṃ ca’, all of which contain the strī sound but none of which are quite the adhistrī ca that I think is intended in the text (Vaidya 1969: 162). In this case the fact that a certain variant is not listed in the apparatus serves as a kind of argument ex silentio for thinking that it may have been intended in the text itself.

Something similar can be seen at 62.49a. Here Vaidya’s reading of yuktānāṃ is translatable and so perhaps would not have jumped off the page as an obvious error (thus

śaradi yuktānāṃ = e.g. ‘when it’s autumn – for those who are ready [for it]’), but

Kinjawadekar’s edition of Nīlakaṇṭha’s vulgate reads yuktāyāṃ instead (Kinjawadekar 1936: 195, Viṣṇuparvan 19.51a), and Dutt, translating the vulgate, has ‘with the beginning of autumn’ (Dutt 1897: 311), and yet Vaidya’s apparatus lists no variants for yuktānāṃ as it ought to have done were yuktānāṃ not simply a typo. Here my emendation to yuktāyāṃ is

also explicitly supported by Couture (‘Lire yuktāyāṃ au lieu de yuktānāṃ’, 1991: 254 n. 18, hence his translation ‘Quand cette saison d’automne sera arrivée’), and implicitly supported by Menon (who prints yuktānāṃ as per Vaidya, but translates yuktāyāṃ, ‘with the advent of autumnal days’, 2008: 271).

At 77.29a, where I have emended Vaidya’s paurajanāsyārthe to paurajanasyārthe, again no variants are listed when one would have expected there to be some had

paurajanāsyārthe been intended, and again Couture provides explicit support for the

emendation (1991: 319 n. 4).

The remaining three emendations in this subcategory are in principle more speculative, since there is no direct confirmation for them. At 109.69c Vaidya has evāssma, which I have emended to evāsma (eva + āsma, imperfect tense of the root as, first-person plural), since this is the simplest way to make the text say something sensible. At 111.9d Vaidya has mayyaivaiṣa, which I have emended to mayaivaiṣa (mayā + eva + eṣa). It could alternatively have been just as easily emended to mayy evaiṣa (first-person pronoun locative rather than instrumental), which has almost exactly the same sense, but since the immediately preceding typo was a case of an unnecessarily doubled letter, I have favoured that explanation again here. That may seem slightly arbitrary, and consequently we can be thankful that the two emendation options do not differ in sense here. The seeming slightly arbitrary does serve to illustrate how useful it can potentially be to have, as we do in most of the cases above, a second opinion confirming one’s impression of what the correct text should be, since it can sometimes be much easier to see that the printed text is wrong than to see what exactly should have been printed instead.

Finally, at 117.22c Vaidya has corāś (as in the previous line), which I’ve emended to

coraiś in order that it make sense:

sasyacorā bhaviṣyanti tathā cailāpahāriṇaḥ ǀ

bhakṣyabhojyaharāś caiva bhāṇḍānāṃ caiva hāriṇaḥ ǁ 117.21 ǁ corāś corasya hartāro hantā hartur bhaviṣyati ǀ

coraiś corakṣaye cāpi kṛte kṣemaṃ bhaviṣyati ǁ 117.22 ǁ

There’ll be thieves who steal grain, thieves who steal clothes, thieves who steal food that you need to chew, thieves who steal food that you don’t, thieves who steal merchandise, and thieves who steal from the thief; and there’ll be someone who kills the thief, and it’ll [only] be safe after the thieves have been wiped out by the thieves.

This is the third typo where the erroneous text repeats something from the previous line, so this may seem to be a particular type of typesetting error; but again, the corrected text is slightly speculative.