[INDOLOGY] Female name Bhaayi?
martingansten at gmail.com
Sun Apr 23 19:53:19 UTC 2017
Thank you, Ashok, for your comments.
> I see no problem with the manuscript reading
> śrīvatsa-saṃjñād dvija-puṅgavād yaṃ śrī-bhāyi-nāmnī suṣuve ca sādhvī |
> śrī-yādavena vyaracīha tena sudhā-nidhis tājika-yoga-pūrvaḥ ||
I'm glad to hear it ;nor do I. I am just curious about the name.
> (but I do see a problem with David Pingree, a scholar I respect very
> much, if there are other instances of him emending texts as in the
> present case).
I don't want to seem overly critical -- Pingree was a trailblazer, and
every scholar working on the history of astrology owes him a debt of
gratitude. But it must be conceded that he was somewhat prone to rash
emendations and far-reaching interpretations. In recent years, Bill Mak
has shown the problems with some of Pingree's work on the
/Yavanajātaka/; and in another linguistic field (but still related to
astrology), Stephan Heilen in his /Hadriani genitura/ (De Gruyter 2015)
similarly has some reservations about Pingree's edition of Hephaestio's
/Apotelesmatics/. I am not competent to judge Pingree's work on texts in
any language but Sanskrit, but there I do quite often find reason to
disagree with his readings and/or translations. It would be interesting
to learn from an Arabist what the situation is with his work in that area.
> It was not unusual to write the non-Sanskrit words as one heard them
> or as the metre required; approximation was acceptable. Therefore the
> writing of (our expected) bāī as bhāyī or bhāyi need not be viewed as
> presenting a serious problem. (again. cf. Paturi: “Shortening of the
> end vowel is not a hurdle …”)
Yes, I take your point; but the situation here is the opposite: there is
practically no variation across manuscripts (I have now located a third
one) or metres. They all read /bhāyi/ or /bhāi/ -- I have not so far
seen a single instance lacking the aspiration. That was what made me
wonder in the first place.
> The “ca” in the second quarter of the verse initially bothered me, but
> there could be justification for it in a preceding verse of the
> section, if [if the verse under discussion is not the first verse of
> the section].
That depends on how you define a section -- it is right towards the end
of the last chapter, but the immediately preceding verse praises the
work itself and says nothing of the author.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY