Dear Martin,
Thanks for the additional observations you bring to the
consideration of the verse.
I should have expressed myself differently. The verb
asti or ‘exists’ is definitely implicit in clauses one and three. It is
possible that its change to the dual form (a vacana-vipariṇāma) staḥ was
presumed in the second clause, but how far is such a presumption
justified? It would come across as probable only if we further presume
that the author did not wish to deviate from the common (cliché-like)
yāvaccandrārkau or yāvaccandra-divākarau way of thinking or did not care
about the consistency that the implicit presence of a verb in the
singular would have given to his composition (i.e., did not care about
symmetry). The first form of the presumption seems unnecessary (leading
to gaurava), and the second unlikely.
Appealing to the (undoubtedly true but) very general
observation that worse transcription/transmission errors are seen in the
way texts come down to us will leave us with no control on emendations
(and we need that control). A consideration of ‘whether emendation x is
probable or emendation y’ is unavoidable if the goal is to restore texts
to a justified or acceptable (if not *the* original) form. My
experience so far indicates that in a written as well as oral handing
down of a text a रौ -> र: error (even in its generalized form ‘au
mark > visarga’) is not common. Hence, in my opinion, it should not
be viewed as likely.
(The following does not pertain to what you have written
but to what may be implicit in the statements of other contributors to
the discussion:)
Almost all Sanskrit authors come across as not losing
the awareness of the literal, grammar-derived meaning of a word even
when that word acquires a strong technical, śāstra-specific sense. That
is the only way words such a prakṛti could have come to mean one thing
in Sāṃkhya, another thing in Artha-śāstra and a third thing in grammar
(not an exhaustive list). Even mokṣa that plays a great role in making
Indian dhārmic traditions distinctive from religions and is known to
practically every educated person in India remains available for such
meanings as ‘releasing a cow from its tether’ or ‘release from an
obligation.’ Therefore, it should not surprise us that prabhākara,
while strongly associated with the Sun, had not ceased to mean ‘maker of
lustre/light.’
(When the same word is used as a personal name, as is
common, it could involve a metaphorical transfer of meaning, ‘X
is/should be a virtual Sun in life or a particular field of activity’ or
a retracing to the literal, derivational meaning, as in English
“illustrious”.)
I saw Adheesh’s mail just as I was about to post the
above text. divi in the place of divo will not fit the metre. The sixth
syllable needs to be heavy.
Taking deva in the (well-established) sense of ‘king,
master, lord’ should remove any discomfort that might be felt with the
genitive (divaḥ —>) divo.
a.a.