RgVedaMuller IV text 看图王 PDF
RgVedaMuller IV text 看图王 PDF
RgVedaMuller IV text 看图王 PDF
RIG-VEDA-SAMHITA
THE
COMMENTARY OF SAYAYAAARYA
' EDITED BY
F. MAX MULLER
SECOND EDITION 05 6
VOLUME IV
MAAUALA X
LONDON
- HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER
1892
Orfctb
K I N I K1) AT Till; CLARENDON PRESS
J V IldKAi i I , I’KIN i j i o i m. i m\ i khi i .
TO
Birtoria
iBuppit of iSrtat Britain anti Urrlanfc
Empress of Hn&ia
;‘k
TS BY GRACIOUS PERMISSION
Brtiiratrti
BY
HER MAJESTY’S
I* A UK
VARIETAS LECTIONTS.1-44
CORRIGENDA. 544
, * BH/A
PREFACE
TO THE FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION.
Since the publication of the third volume of this edition of the Rig-veda,
the age and authenticity of the sacred writings of the Brahmans have become
the subject of new and animated discussions, and many points in the history
of the ancient literature of India which seemed almost beyond the reach of
reasonable criticism, have become overcast by doubts and surmises. Although
it would be impossible to examine every objection that has been raised,
there are some which deserve a careful consideration; and 1 feel that it,
becomes part of the duty incumbent on me, as the editor of the Rig-veda,
to state how far the convictions which I expressed on former occasions as
to the age and character of the Vedic literature in its four divisions, the
AVandas, Mantra, Brahmana, and Sutra periods, have been either changed or
strengthened by the researches and arguments of other scholars.
The first question which requires to be considered anew is,
Can the age of the Vedic hymns he fixed by astronomical- evidence J
In my ‘History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature’ I have endeavoured to
show that it is possible to distinguish four great classes of literary compo¬
sitions, corresponding to four great periods in the growth of the Vedic
religion and of the theological system of the Brahmans. The most recent
of these four periods extends to about 200 B. c., and from the peculiar style
in which all the works belonging to it are composed, it has received the
name of the Sutra period. Several of the most eminent among the authors
of Sutras or aphorisms lived prior, if not to the origin, at least to the
spreading and the political ascendancy of Buddhism, and hence the date
600 b. c. was assigned as the most probable for the beginning of the Sutra
period.
It is, I believe, admitted by all scholars, that the Sutras presuppose the
existence of the Brahmanas, another class of Vedic writings, which together
constitute what I call the Brithmana period. As that period compi’ehends
viii PREFACE TO THE
the first 'establishment of the elaborate Brahmanieal ceremonial with its four
classes of priests, the composition of separate theological treatises, the so-called
Br&hma«as *, their collection, and again the schism of sects which were founded
originally on the basis of the great collective Br£hmanas, it would seem
impossible to bring the whole of this literary ^and theological activity within
a narrower space than 200 years. I therefor^ assigned to it a duration from
800 to 600 b. c.
The Brahmawas, again, presuppose the existence of a complete collection of
Vedic hymns, such as we now possess in the ten books of the Rig-veda-SamhitA
Seven out of these ten books belonged originally to separate families or clans,
and each contains a number of hymns, clearly the productions of different
generations of poets. Some of these hymns are written in imitation of others,
and the more modern assume a decidedly ritual character. As Mantra is the
technical name of a hymn employed for sacrificial purposes, I have designated
the period during which the latest sacrificial hymns were written, and collected,
together with tire older hymns, at first into separate books, and afterwards
into a complete body of sacred and liturgical poetry, the Mantra period.
Several generations of modern poets, and probably two classes of collectors,
have to be accommodated in it; so that if we allow 200 years to this period,
this is hardly out of proportion to the work which had to be performed
in it.
There remains the last and most important period in the history of Vedic
literature, that of the ancient poets or Rishis, who, by their songs, gave the
first impulse to the religion, the poetry, the worship of the Aryan dwellers
in India. Their forefathers were strangers in the land of the Seven Rivers,
1 I differ from Professor Westerguard (Abhand- 2. Brahman does not occur, at least in, ancient
lungeu, p. 57), and still prefer to derive bruhmana works, in the sense of the holy elemont in the sacri¬
from brahmin, ' the priest,’ not from brahman, which fice;’ it means ‘prayers,’ ‘offerings.’ In later works
is said to have the §ense of ‘ the holy element in the it is used for Veda or holy word, etc.
sacrifice.’ (Roth, Nirukta, p.xxvi.) My reasons are. 3. Tho Br;\hnianas treat chiefly of the outward cere¬
1. It is not correct to form a derivative like brSk- monial, the karnmn. They give tho vidhis, 1 rules,’
niaita from a neuter, brdhman, in the sense of treating or the kalpa, ‘ceremonial,’ together with tho artlia-
of or concerned with tho brdhinan. We should not vfidas, ‘ comments.’ The hrdhmau is treated of in tho
find a work, treating of nfhnan or sainan, called nfl- Aranyakas and Upanishads, which constitute the brali-
inana or sftniana: at least T know of uo analogous tnakft/trfa, as opposed to tho karmakfimfa.
formation in classical Sanskrit. It would certainly he 4. The Brahmanas contain just that kind of in¬
against I’anim, for l’uniui allows the suffix ail only after formation which tho Brahmins, as overseers at sacri¬
words which have not the udhtta on the first syllablo fices, would want, nay, without which thoy could
(IV. 2, 44). He would allow btahmana to be formed hardly have exercised that ministerial function which
from brahmin, ‘priest,’but not frombrifhntan, ‘prayer.’ was peculiarly their own.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. ix
and some of the thoughts and accents of the earliest Vedic hymns may point
beyond the natural frontiers of the great Indian peninsula. To assign any
definite date to the first or the last of the old Rishis is clearly impossible; yet
looking at the numerous relics of that early age, I ventured to suggest 200
years as a minimum, which few, acquainted with the early history of mankind,
could consider extravagant. I Jihus arrived at about 1200 b. c. as the latest
date at which we may suppose the Vedic bards settled in the Northern regions
of the Indian continent. I pointed out repeatedly, that beyond the frontiers
of the Sfitra period (600-200 b. c.) our chronological measurements must
necessarily be of a merely hypothetical character; yet I felt convinced that
those who from an intimate acquaintance with the Vedic literature are most
competent to form an opinion as to the time required for its growth, its
maturity, and its decay, would allow that the minimum durations assigned
by me to the Brahmana, Mantra, and Kimndas periods were below rathe)'
than above the average durations of similar periods in the intellectual and
literary history of other nations. I may be allowed to quote the concluding
words of my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, as I find they have
given rise to a curious misunderstanding. 1 The chronological limits,’ I said,
1 assigned to the Sutra and Brahmaaa periods will seem to most Sanskrit
scholars too narrow rather than too wide, and if we assign but 200 years to
the Mantra period, from 800 to 1000 B. c., and an equal number to the
AV/andas period, from 1000 to 1200 B. c., we can do so only under the sup¬
position that, during the early periods of history, the growth of the human
mind was more luxuriant than in later times, and that the layers of thought
were formed less slowly in the primary than in the tertiary ages of the
world.’
I should have thought that the meaning of this paragraph could hardly
have .been misapprehended, and that the expression ‘layers of thought,’ was
sufficient tc show that the terms ‘ primary and tertiary ages of the world,’
could not refer to geological periods and to the growth of the crust of the
earth, but were used metaphorically of the periods in the historical growth
of the human mind. I was not prepared therefore for a question addressed
to me rather bluntly by a distinguished philosopher. ‘ Is 1200 b. c. a primary
age of the world except in Biblical geology?’—a question to my mind entirely
meaningless, unless we ascribe to it a meaning unworthy of so intelligent
and liberal-minded a writer.
With this single exception, however, my anticipations of the judgment of
VOL. IV. b
X PREFACE TO THE
‘Dun antre cbtd, cette duree uniforme de deux siecles donnee it la periode
des Br&hmanas, comrne it celle des Mantras et du Tchhandas peut egalement
prbter it la critique. Si la periode des Soiitras a pu remplir quati’e sifecles entiers,
il parait peu probable que celle des Bnthmanas, qui sont beaucoup plus longs
et tout aussi nombreux peut-etre, n’en ait pas remplit davantage, en y compre-
b 2
Xll PREFACE TO THE
turies. The one reliable date which we possess for Indian history, until
times long posterior to the Christian era, is furnished by the Greek accounts
of the Indian sovereign “ Sandrocottus,” contemporary of the early successors
of Alexander. That this is the king called by the Hindus Chandragupta,
the founder of a new dynasty upon the Ganges, there can be no reasonable
doubt; luckily, the prominence* of his grandson, A6oka, in Buddhist history,
as the Constantine of Buddhism, the first who gave that religion supremacy
in India, has led to the preservation of such trustworthy accounts of him as
permit the satisfactory identification of the two personages. This datum is
well styled by our author the sheet-anchor of Indian chronology; without
it we should be, even respecting the most important eras of Indian history,
drifting almost hopelessly at sea. If there has been, besides this, any date
in which nearly all students of Hindu arclneology have acquiesced, agreeing
to regard it as satisfactorily established, it has been that of the death of
Buddha, as supposed to be fixed by the Buddhists of Ceylon, at h.c. 543.
But, in the work now under consideration, Professor Max Muller attacks
with powerful arguments the authenticity and credibility of this date also :
he points out that the Ceylon data, if compared with and corrected by the
Greek era of Chandragupta, indicate rather 477 than 543 is. e. as Buddha's
death-year ; and he argues farther, that the data themselves contain an arti¬
ficial and arbitrary element which destroys their faith; and that back of the
great synod under Asoka, about 250 B. c., we really know nothing of the
chronology of Buddhism. From this conclusion we do not ourselves feel inclined
to dissent; the considerations adduced by Max Midler as the ground of his
scepticism are not easily to be set aside; and we have been taught, by long
and sad experience, that a Hindu date is not a thing that one can clutch
and hold. But while we pay our author homage in his character of Siva,
the Destroyer, we cannot show him equal reverence when he acts the part
of Brahma, the Constructor; for the basis of evidence on which he founds
his system of chronology for the Vedic literature seems to us far less sub¬
stantial than that which had been relied upon to establish the date of Buddha s
entrance upon nihility. Let us briefly review bis reasonings. He begins with
laying down as strongly as possible the marked distinctness of the periods
represented by the three principal classes of the Vedic literature, showing
that each class necessarily presupposes the existence and full development
of that which precedes it: as regards the two later classes, he dwells upon
the native distinction of them as sruti and smriti, “revelation” and “tradi-
XIV PREFACE TO THE
antiquity of the Veda,’ I then said, ‘ the most striking remark is that of Cole-
brooke, bearing on an astronomical observation of the position of the colures.
That observation is to be found in a small treatise appended to the Veda,
which, partly by its position as a Vedanga or member of the Veda, partly
by its general style, belongs to an earlier period than the great scientific
astronomical works of Varaha Mihira, Brahmagupta, and others. These
astronomers refer to that observation as one of earlier date, and we may
well believe in its reality, if we bear in mind that the Brahmans themselves
never make use of it as a proof of the high antiquity of their sacred lite¬
rature, nay, that they could not have done so, because, if used for chrono¬
logical purposes, the date derived from that astronomical notice would stand
in direct contradiction to their own system of chronology. Brahmagupta
who lived at the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh centuries,
as proved by the position of the colures at his time, and who knew the
observation of the earlier position of the colures, declares against the admis¬
sion of a precession of the equinoctial points ; and although other astronomers
admitted a precession or vibration2, yet they, too, were not in possession of
1 ‘ Kn effot, Biuhmagupia n’a pas eu l’acantnge declination, exactly in the equinoctial poiut. Its actual
d’etre un personage mythologique. On sait qu’il a right ascension in 1S00 was 150 49 15 . This, which
existe ties-reelleinent vers la fin du vie on an com- is ttic quantity hv which the origin of the Indian
niencement du vnc siecle de mitre tie, et qu’il ap- ecliptic, as infeirihlc from tile position of the stai
paitcnnit au college d’Oojein, celebre alms dans l’lnde Kevati, has receded from the equinox, indicates a
comine un centre de science astiouomique.’ Biot, peiiod of 1221 years elapsed to the end of the cigh-
Joumal des Savants, 1859. Etudes sur l’Astiononne tecntli centuiy; the annual precession of that star
Indicnne, p. 31. Colebrooke (Mise. Essays, II. p. 463) being 46”, 63. The mean ot the two is I2i8i years;
established the date of Biahmagnpta by Hie following which, taken fioni 1800, leaves 581 or 582 of the
process- ‘The star Chitra, which unquestionably is Chiistian eia. Brahmagupta, then, appeals to have
Spica Viiginis, was refened by Brahmagupta to the ohseived and written towards the close of the sixth or
103rd degree counted from its ongin to the iutersec- the beginning of the following century; for, as the
tion of the star's circle of declination: whence the Hindu astrouomeis seem not to have been very ac-
star’s right ascension is deduced 182° 43'. Its actual curate observers, the belief of his having lived and
light ascension in a.d. 1800 was 198° 40’ 2". The published in tho seventh century, about a.d. 628,
difference, 150 55’ 2" is the quantity by which the which answeis to 550 Saka, the date assigned to him
beginning of the first zodiacal astcrism and lunar by the astronomers of Ujjayinf, is not inconsistent
mansion, Asvini, as inferrible from the position of the with the position, that the vernal equinox did not
star Chitid, has receded from the equinox: and it sensibly to his view doviato fiom the beginning of
indicates the lapse of 1216 years (to a. i). 1800) since Aries or Mesha, as determined by him from the star
that point coincided with the equinox; the annual llevatl (£ Piscium), which he places at that point.’
precession of the stai being leckoned at 47", 14. The Biot (Journal des Savants, 1843, p. 41) gives 572 as
star liovati, which fqipears to be C Piscium, had no corresponding to the equinox of £ Piscium.
longitude, according to the same author, being situated 2 ‘ L’autre notion quo Colebrooke presentait encore
precisely at the dose of the astensm and commence- coniine propro aux Hindoux, e’etait le mouvement de
went of the following oue, AiivinI, without latitude or trepidation plriodique attribute par eux aux points
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. xvu
eqniuoxiaux et solstieiaux tie 1’orbe solaire. Itctrou- fairo soupyonuer qu’ello avail dej«\ fours an temps do
vant plus tard cette idee dans Albategni et chez les ce grand observateur, puisqu’un inouvement d’oscil-
A ratios d’Espagne, il la croyait deiivee ties astronomes lation suppose propre a l’orbo solaire produirait, en
Hindoux paries communications qui s’etablirent entre effet, dos variations loriespondantes dans cotte duree.
eux et les Arabos de Bagdad an temps du calife Al- tfi l’on admet une transmission direete ou indirecte
inanzor.’ (Biot. Journal ties Savants, 1845, pp. 383, des theories grecques dans l’Inde, coinino oela parait
385, 447.) ‘Mais nous vojons aujourd’bui dans les impossible a meconnailre, l’idee de la trepidation, qui
tables manuelles deTh^on,quo cette idle etuit pareille- en faisait partio, a dft y parvenir en memo temps.’
merit Alexandrine, et les doutes d’Hippaique sur la Biot, 1. c.
Constance do duree de l'annle tiopiquo pourraient
VOL. IV. C
XV1I1 PREFACE TO THE
months Madhu and Mildhava, or Chaitra and Vai sakha, correspond with
Vasanta or the spring. Now the lunar Chaitra, here meant, is the primary
lunar month beginning from the conjunction which precedes full moon in or
near Chitni, and ending with the conjunction which follows it. Vais&kha
does in like manner extend from the conjunction which precedes full moon
in or near Vistlkhd to that which follows it. The five Nakshatras, Hasta,
Chitni, Svriti, Visakha, and Anur&dhd1, comprise all the asterisms in which
the full moons of Chaitra and Vaisdkha can happen ; and these lunar months
may therefore fluctuate between the first degree of Uttara-Plialgunf and the
last of Jycshthii. Consequently the season Vasanta might begin at soonest
when the sun was in the middle of Piirva-Blnidrapadil, or it might end at
the latest when the sun was in the middle of Mrigasiras. It appears, then,
that the limits of Vasanta are Pisces and Taurus, that is, Mina and Vrisha.
(This corresponds with a text which I shall forthwith quote from a very
ancient Hindu author.) Now, if the place of the equinox did then correspond
with the position assigned by Parasara to the colures, Vasanta might end at
the soonest seven or eight days after the equinox, or at latest thirty-eight
or thirty-nine days; and on a medium (that is, when the full moon happened
in the middle of Chitni) twenty-two or twenty-three days after the vernal
equinox. This agrees exactly with the real course of the seasons; for the
rains do generally begin a week before the summer solstice, but their com¬
mencement does vary, in different years, about a fortnight on either side of
that period. It seems therefore a probable inference, that such was the
position of the equinox when the calendar of months and seasons was ad¬
justed as described in this passage of the Veda. Hence T infer the probability,
that the Vedas were not arranged in their present form earlier than the
fourteenth century before the Christian Era.’
It will be clear to every attentive reader, that the object of Coiebrooke in
these remarks is to protest against the received chronological notions of the
Brahmans, who place the Veda at the beginning of the Kali-yuga, 3102 n. <'. -
He wishes to show that it could not be older than the fourteenth century.
1 This statement is based on astronomical cousidera- ami p.358. I kIiouM have thought that (JyoshMS
tions, anil is quite independent of the statements of would ho more likely as the fifth Nalcshatra than
later Indian astionomers, such as the author of tho Ilasta; hut all depends on the nature of the months,
KQrya-siddhaiihi. As long as the Nakshatras are whether synodical or sidereal, a distinction which has
taken in theii original sense, as twenty-seven equal been completely overlooked by late writers on this
divisions of the heavens, two months, or two-twelfths subject.
of the year, correspond, not with foui, but with four 2 SQrya-siddhSuta, ed. Burgess and Whitney, p. 29.
and a half Nakshatias. Sec Weber, Nakshatras, p.348;
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. XIX
This he states distinctly in what follows: ‘ If the Vedas were compiled in India
so early as the commencement of the astronomical Kali-yuga, the seasons most
have then corresponded with other months; and the passage of the Veda, which
shall be forthwith cited, must have disagreed with the natural course of the
seasons at the very time it was written.’ But even if wishing only to fix
the earliest possible date of the Veda, Colebrooke has taken many things for
granted which would not be granted to him at present. The passage of the
Veda on which he builds his conclusion is, as he says, taken from Apastamba’s
copy of the Yayur-veda, usually denominated the White Ya/yush. There is
no copy, i. e. no s&kM, of Apastamba for the White Ya/yush. But be that
as it may, no such passage identifying the twelve months with the six
seasons occurs in the Rig-veda; and the Yaryur-veda, both the Black and the
White, in which such passages1 do occur, belong to a secondary period of Vedic
literature. This objection, however, applies only against Colebrooke as wishing
to prove that the Veda could not be older than the fourteenth century. It is of
no importance for our own objects.
But, secondly, the course of the seasons differs in different parts of India,
and because in Central India the rains begin generally one week before the
summer solstice, we are not at liberty to conclude that it was the same in the
Aorth of India, where the hymns of the Veda were composed.
Thirdly, the months and seasons would not at once have changed their
names, even though they had ceased to coincide with the time of the year from
which their names were originally derived, to say nothing of the different
systems of counting time in different parts of India. We know from the
Nhnayasindhu (Calcutta, 1833), that South of the Vindhya the lunar month
begins with the moons decrease, whereas in the North it begins w'ith new moon
01 the moons increase. It is said in the same work that a Brahmaaa begins his
month with the new moon or Amavasya, a Kshatriya and Vai.yya with the
tSamkranti or Jie entrance of the sun into a new sign. In more ancient times
we are told that the number of the seasons varied from three to five and six
and that different castes began the year with different seasons1.
Fourthly, the observation of the colures by Para,vara and the calculated date
of that observation as 1391 B. c. are taken for granted.
This argument therefore is, as Oolebrooke himself has freely acknowledged,
‘ vague and conjectural,’ and, in the present state of Sanskrit scholarship, it
ought no longer to be quoted.
Oolebrooke, however, again touched on the,same question in the year 1805,
in his Essay on the Vedas, in the eighth volume of the Asiatic Researches,
p. 471, Misc. Essays, I. p. 108. He had then met with the passage in the
Cyotisha, so often quoted afterwards, where the solstitial points are mentioned,
as at the beginning of DhanishfM and the middle of A.slesha, and he maintained
that this situation of the cardinal points was true only in the fourteenth century
b. c. Here two points have to be considered, 1. the character of the astrono¬
mical treatise, the 6'yotisha; 2. the astronomical interpretation of the solstitial
points as there mentioned.
The 6'yotisha may have been written, as Oolebrooke says, in the infancy
of astronomical knowledge, but that it is later than the Rig-veda, later than
the Yaqur-veda, later than all the Brahmawas and all the Vedic Sutras, no one
would doubt at present1. What Oolebrooke meant by infancy of astrono¬
mical knowledge, may best be gathered from the following facts? ‘The 6'yotisha
is adapted to the comparison of solar and lunar time with the vulgar or civil
year. The cycle there employed is a period of live years only. The month
is lunar, but at the end, and in the middle, of the quinquennial period,
an intercalation is admitted, by doubling one month. Accordingly, the cycle
comprises three common lunar years, and two, which contain thirteen lunations
each. The year is divided into six seasons; and each month into half months.
A complete lunation is measured by thirty lunar days ; some of which must of
course, in alternate months, be sunk, to make the dates agree with the nycthe-
xnera. For this purpose, the sixty-second day appears to be deducted -: and
thus the cycle of live years consists of i860 lunar days, or 1830 nycthemera,
subject to a further correction, for the excess of nearly four days above the
true sidereal year: but the exact quantity of this correction, and the method
of making it, according to this calendar, have not yet been sufficiently investi¬
gated to be here stated. The zodiac is divided into twenty-seven asterisms,
or signs, the first of which, both in the 6'yotisha and the Vedas, is Knttika,
1 M. M.’h Ilintoiy of Sanskrit Literature, p. 2ioseq. third day which was deducted. Perhaps this Hindu
Uio Athenian year was regulated in a similar calendar may assist in explaining tho Grecian system
manner ; but, according to Getmnus, it was the sixty- of lunar months.’ Colebrookc.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. XXI
1 Tt is curious flint no Sutras on astronomy have as nianas and Kalpa-sfttraa, as wheu the .Vafapatha Brail-
yet been discovered. Prose quotations on sacrificial Diana and the .STihhhayana Biahtnana speak of tho full
astronomy occur here and there in commentaries, but moon in Phfdguna as the first in the year (^rr %crr
they soem extracts from Kaljm-sfltra* or Brahmiuius. ffidforeH fid (ft UWt XTfa:)> »
Thus Somakaru quotes Laugakshi as having said: passage which shims as clearly as possible, that tho full
'' '■ • TTrlI 1 xi q i qVtdTcf fi^tcfTTT^T qjV moon in Phalgum is meant as the first in the year,
four days before the full moon in Mftgha, they not the Phalguna month, whether sidereal or synodical,
sacrifice to the year,* i.e. to the new year, lie like- Professor Weber (Nakshatra, p. 329) takes a different
wise quotes Garga, sometimes in /Siokas, sometimes in view.
prose; for instance: Tf^TT ^ I ffaT ^ * [The whole text has since been published by
’HIW I. But Weber, Uber den Vedakalender, Nanicns Jyoti-
these are passages such as occur frequently in Brail* sham.]
XXII PREFACE TO THE
end of the book (tfn afmrwtgHi wftfrlTnWTTO SW). But I believe we ought
to read, ?fn tw«TTTOH5*frf*:trr^«Tiq, so that ySeshanaga, sometimes the name
of Pata/V/ali, would be the author of the text, whereas the commentary was
composed by Somakara, as stated by himself fmjlflf*! KfflsrT).
HSTTRfrT 11
STrfrHHHZR I
*NrT II ^ H1
‘ Having bowed with my head to the lord of the universe, the overseer of
the quinquennial Yuga, whose members are days, seasons, half-years, and
months, 1 shall explain in order, full of purity, the whole course of the celestial
luminaries, as it is approved by the chief Brahmans, for the accomplishment
of those objects which are dependent on the times fixed for sacrifices.
The next verse explained by the commentator does not occur here in the
MSS. of the text2; but it is found towards the end of the (Vyotisha, and is quoted
also as belonging to this Vedanga in liadhakilnt’s Sabdakalpadruma :
1 As I differ in the translation of these two verses uwrt ftrwr urrum^TUTUT mtoitY i
from the explanation given hy the commentator, I urraren? ii
subjoin his own wouls: tjtPi srwt^T- "Having bowed with my head to Kala (time), and
Tt s i fit *inhjt4i ^rct- having saluted Sarasvati (goddess of eloquence), f
f7t i rreraT i i «rT^:^ra*pPt shall promulgate tho knowledge of time of the high-
minded Lagadha.’ This would he important as
^TJTZJ«T ^eH^^WT TO WTf*r I ’Sfrzrftt-
giving the name of the reputed author, Lagadha ; but
^Tf*r i wi i i wrafttrartf: i sfhpi i
the whole verse is ignored hy tho commentator. As
T® i mu? i men mtm Magadha is considered tho birthplace of several of
i unmTmruTmfHmf i tho exact sciences of the Hindus, and as particulaily
%'^t ?fn i i i Mugadha-measuies weio widely used in India after
Othei MSS. have fUUTWf *jWT 5ffa instead of 2 On tho strength of this and similar differences
# l$|%sTTUrf ; the commentator reads in other scholars admit two Gyotishas, one for the llig-
the first and tp!?i m the Ihiid line. Between the first veda, another for the Yagur-veda. See my History of
and second, the following stanza is inserted: Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 211.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. Xxiii
HTCfWTHHTftR: i
ITO IIMII
' lhe.7 teach the knowledge of time of the quinquennial lustrum, which
begins with the light half of the month Maglia, and ends with the dark
half of the month Rausha-.’
toto i
uutrff ^fwfr i
f^'crwr 3 111114
‘ In the northern progress, an increase of day and decrease of night take
place, amounting to a prastha (or 32 palas) of water: in the southern progress,
both are reversed (i.e. the days decrease and the nights increase), and (the
difference consists), by the journey, of six mulnirtas.’
*mft *rra 1 crert * xc* rnrt sacrifice is either obligatoiy or voluntary. The obli¬
gato] y one must ho peifoimctl every six months (luring
*rret 1 ?un3 i xmT ’pt:
life. The time for one is in the month of Magha,
q-g Tf7t 1 <r®rr ntV when tho sun has gone to the Nakshatra Dhanish/Afl;
irfTmT 11 *ig wgg»iT ’TOtft tho time for the other is tho month Ash3r/Aa, when
A
^rr^rfT 1 i '3^ 1 <n^j tho nun has entered into tho second half of Asleshft.’
xrfrn: 11 4 Comm, rna ^TRffST-
It is, however, only in the first year of each quinquennial cycle, that Sun
and Moon are said to be together on the first of MAglia, in the Constellation
of the Vasus, at the winter solstice. For the intervening years their relative
position is thus given:
1 On these names see Weher, Naxatra, p. 298; that therefore 12 such months + 12 days are uecessan
Taitt. S. V. 5, p 3; 4. V&j. Samh. 27, 43. Taitt. Hr. to fill a lunar year of 372 days fn older to bring
III. to, 4, r. KaM. 13,15 ; 39, fi; 40, 6 (five). V;ty. the winter solstice, which in the fluid year falls on the
S. XXX. 5. Taitt. A. IV. 19, 1 (six). Patfiav. Br. ioth of MSgha (daik half), in the fourth year hack
XVII. 13, 17. Taitt. Br. I. 4, 10, I (four). Taitt. S. to the 7th of Magha (light half), a month of 30 days
V. 7, 2, 4. Ath. Samh. VI. 55, 3 (three). Taitt. A. must have been intercalated; and in the same manner
X. 80. Kaus. 42 (two). Seo also Bohtiingk and another eavana month must have been added at the
Roth, s. vv. end of the fifth year, in order to bring the winter
2 This would show that tho months are to be con¬ solstice, which fell upon the 4th of Mttgha (dark half),
sidered as sdvana months of 30 AborSlras each, and back to the 1st of MSgha (light half).
VOL. IV. d
XXVI PREFACE TO THE
These extracts are sufficient to enable astronomers to form an idea of the real
character of this treatise, which altogether consists of about thirty-six verses.
I t was clearly written at a time when more was known of astronomy than was
required for the ancient calendar of the Yedic festivals. The general notions
which its author lays down for fixing the beginning of the year, the months, and
seasons, and the proper times of the Vedic sacrifices, had been handed down by
the tradition of priestly families ; they were not invented by himself. He was
forced to suirender the more scientific astronomical notions current in his own
time, and had to adapt himself to the more primitive notions of those who had
composed the hymns and BrMimanas, and had settled the sacrifices of the
Vedic age. He may have reduced those primitive astronomical notions to a more
systematic form than they ever had in the minds of the early Rishis ; but in a
ease like the one which occupies us at present, the beginning of the year and the
position of the solstitial points, we may fairly grant to (Jolebrooke and others,
that there was a real tradition which fixed these important points as they are
fixed in the (Vyotisha; nay, we may believe that for sacrificial purposes these
points were still supposed to be in the same position even at a time when, by
the laws of nature, they had considerably receded from it.
The next question, then, which arises is this, Does the traditional position of
the solstitial points, as recorded in the G'yotisha, point back to the fourteenth
century n.c. as the only time in which it could have been the result of actual
observation ? (Jolebrooke does not enter into details. He simply affirms that
the position of the solstitial points at. the beginning of DhanishtM and in the
middle of Aslesha could have been a reality at no time except- in the fourteenth
century u.c. He depends, in fact, on Davis, who, in his Essay on the Astrono¬
mical Computations of the Hindus (As. Res. 11. p. 268), recorded the position of
the colures, as observed by Paraxara,—this being identical with that of the
Gyotisha;—and on Sir W. Jones, who, in a Supplement to this Essay (As. Res.
11. p. 393), touched on the same subject. After fixing the date of Varilha Mihira,
from the observation of the solstitial points at his time, at 499 A.n„ Sir William
writes: ‘By Newton’s demonstrations, which agree as well with the phenomena
as the varying density of our earth will admit, the equinox recedes about 50"
every year, and has receded 17 55' 50" since the time of Varaha, which gives us
more nearly in our own sphere the first degree of Mesha in that of the Hindus.
By the observation recorded in older &lstras, the equinox had gone back 23 20',
or about 1680 years had intervened between the age of the Muni (Para.4ara)
and that of the modern astronomer : the former observation, therefore, must
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. XXVll
have been made about 2971 years before the 1st January 1790, that is, 118r
before Christ.’
In the fifth volume, however, of the Asiatic Researches, p. 288, Colonel
Wilford published the following new Supplement to Sir W. Jones’ Supplement:
‘It has been stated,’ he writes,‘that Parasara lived about 1180 years n.<\,
in consequence of an observation of the places of the colures. But Mr. Davis
having considered this subject with the minutest attention, authorizes me to
say, that this observation must have been made 1391 years me. This is also
confirmed by a passage from the Parasara-Sanhitil, in which it is declared, that
the Udaya or heliacal rising of Canopus (when at the distance of thirteen
degrees from the sun, according to the Hindu astronomers) happened in the
time of Parasara on the tenth of Kdrttika ; the difference now amounts to
twenty-three degrees. Having communicated this passage to Mr. Davis, lie
informed me that it coincided with the observation of the places of the colures
in the time of Parasara.’
Thus vanishes the fourteenth century ; and a fact which was spoken of as
beyond the reach of doubt, dwindles down to a statement made by Colonel
Wilford, the result of a private conversation with Mr. Davis! With all possible
regard for Mr. Davis and Colonel Wilford, we cannot accept such assertions in
lieu of proof.
The astronomical interpretation of the position of the solstitial points, as
recorded in the H'yotisha, led Mr. Bentley to the year 1181 B.C. Archdeacon
Pratt, who lately re-examined the whole evidence, arrives at the same result.
His calculations may best lx*, stated in his own words, from a letter addressed
by him to Professor Cowell, March 21st, 1862’.
4 In reply to your question, How did Colebrooke deduce the age of the Vedas
from the passage which he quotes from the Jyotisha or Vedic Calendar in bis
Essays (vol. i. p. 110) ? I beg to send you the following remarks :
‘ In that passage it is stated that the winter solstice was, at the time the
Vedas were written (?), at the beginning of Sravishtha or Dhanisbtha, and the
summer solstice at the middle of Aslesha.
‘ Now the Hindus divided the Zodiac into twenty-seven equal parts, called
Lunar 3b1n.si.0ns, of 13 20' each. Their names are
d 2
xxviii PREFACE TO THE
‘ The position of these lunar mansions among the stars is determined by the
stars themselves and not by the sun, and is therefore unaffected by the
precession of the equinoxes. If, therefore, we can determine their position
at any one epoch, we know their position for all time. The Hindu books
furnish us with the requisite information. Tn the translation of the Siirya-
siddhdnta, published in the Bibliotheca Indica, Ohap.VIIl. p. 62, you will iind
that the conspicuous star Regulus, or a Leonis, is placed by the Hindu astro¬
nomers at 4 signs, 9 degrees from the beginning of these lunar mansions (or
asterisms, as they are there called). As 4 signs equal one-third of the whole
zodiac, they equal 9 lunar mansions. Hence the position of Regulus is 9 in
Maghd, the 10th lunar mansion.
'But by the Jyotisha, the summer solstice was in the middle of Aslesha, the
9th lunar mansion, at the epoch of the Vedas: therefore Regulus was half
a lunar mansion +9 , that is, 15' 40', east of the summer solstice at that time.
‘By the Nautical Almanac for 1859, the position of Regulus is given as
follows:
‘ Hence Regulus was east of the summer solstice at that date by 57 52' 30".
The summer solstice had, therefore, retrograded through 42' 12' 30" = 42 -208
since the epoch ol the Vedas. As the equinoxes and solstices move backward
on the ecliptic at the rate of 1 in 72 years, it must have occupied 72 x 42 -208 =
3°39 years to effect this change.
‘ Hence the age of the Vedas was 3039 on 1st January, 1859 ; or their date is
1 181 b. (., that is, the early part of the twelfth century before the Christian era.
‘ Tins differs from Mr. Colebrooke’s result : he makes it the fourteenth century.
Two more degrees of precessional motion would lead to this ; but where he gets
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. XXIX
that the observation was made 1450 n. <’., then I‘^° + L75?_ jgoo; from which
subtracting 1450, we get a. ]>. 150 for the middle point. Now in the first cen¬
tury of the Christian era, the precession was 1 23' b'q, to which if we add 2''2^.
we get i 23' S"6j for the mean precession; that is to say, the precession that
corresponds to the second century of the Christian era, in which the middle
point is found. Therefore, as 1 23' 8"65 is to 100 years, so 44 1' to 3176 years ;
from which subtracting 1750, we get 1426 It. c. for the time of the observation,
and the formation of the lunar mansions.’
It cannot be denied that the same objections which apply to Colebrooke’s
calculations, apply in a still stronger degree to this argument of Rentley’s.
But, with these necessary qualifications, Bentley’s statements are certainly
deserving of more attention than thyy have hitherto received. Though I know
of no passage in Vedic literature1 where the vernal equinox is referred, by
astronomical observation, to the lunar mansion of the Krittikas, it is true that
the K/v’ttikds occupy the first place in all the ancient lists of the Nakshatras.
1 The vernal equinox is referred to the first degree of Krittikd in Liter works; for instance, in the Visluw-
I'urft/ta, p. 224.
XXXll PREFACE TO THE
even when it is distinctly stated that the winter solstice was at the beginning
of Sravkhi/d, and hence the vernal equinox at the last quarter of Bharani. For
sacrificial purposes, in fact, the Krittikas are always to he considered as occu¬
pying the first place among the Nakshatrasl, and in the fryotisha itself,
though the vernal equinox would fall, as we saw, at the end of Bharani, Agni,
the presiding deity of the Krittik&s, stands first in the list. The same applies
to the lists of the Nakshatras contained in the Taittiriya Samhita IY. 4, 10, 1;
and in the Taittiriya Brahmawa T. 5, 1, 1. In the Taitt. Br. I. 5, 1, 7, it is
distinctly stated that the Nakshatras of the gods begin with the K rittikas and
end with Visaklul; whereas the Nakshatras of Yama (so called because Yama
presides over the last of them) begin with the A mi rad has and end with the
Apabharanis. In the third book of the Taittiriya Brahmaua, the Krittikas,
with Agni as their deity, occupy again the first place. Even in the Atharva-
veda (I. 19, 7), in a passage of decidedly modern date, and in the Law-book of
Yaquavalkva (I. 267), the Krittikas continue to occupy their early position.
Although, however, the Krittikas retained their place even in later works
which treat of sacrificial and astrological subjects, they were supplanted by the
lunar mansion of Asvini in the later astronomical literature. At what time that
change took place is difficult to determine with exactness. It could not have
been till the vernal equinox actually touched A.svini, having receded from the
Krittikas and from the intervening mansion of Bharani. It must have been
before Varaha Mihira (499 a.d.), at whose time the equinox fell in the beginning
of Asvini. All works in which the lists of the Nakshatras begin with Asvini
must be later than the first year in which the equinox touched Axvinl, and this
would tend to fix the date of the Amara-kosha (I. i, 2, 23) and other works *;
hut it does by no means follow that works in which the Krittikas are mentioned
as the first Nakshatra are therefore prior even to Varaha Mihira, nor has it ever
been proved by Bentley or by others, that any actual observation took place
when the equinox coincided with Krittikft.
The Krittikas, as has been shown by Golebrooke and others, are the same
stars which are familiar to us finder the name of the Pleiades ; and it is curious
to observe that the same uncertainty as to their number, which in Greece gave
rise to well-known legendsexisted to a certain degree in India. The state¬
ment in Bohtlingk and Roth’s Dictionary, that their number was six, is, in this
general form, hardly correct; for though that number is given in later astrono¬
mical works (see Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, II. p. 331; Stirya-siddhanta,
ed. Whitney, p. 184), the earliest authorities speak of the KUttikas as seven.
Their names are mentioned (Taitt. Sawdi. IV. 4, 5, 1, and Taitt. Rr. III. 1, 4, 1);
as, 1. Am ha, 2. Dula, 3. Nitatni, 4. Abhrayanti, 5. Meghayanti, 6. Varshayanti,
7. A'upumka1. It was therefore not a numerical fancy which in Greece fixed
the number of the Pleiades at seven ; but it is more likely that one of the seven
stars, which Hipparchus still affirms to have been visible in a clear moonless
night, lost its primitive splendour,—a fact by no means without a parallel in
the history of astronomy.
The next calculation of Bentley’s shows his ingenuity as much as his want
of critical caution. The names of the planets on which he builds his theory
are believed to be of very modern origin2, or, at all events, they have never
been met with as yet either in the Vedas, or in any of the early productions of
Sanskrit literature. Nevertheless, if his calculations are right, the coincidence
between these modern names and the ancient astronomical facts to which they
owe their origin, is all the more interesting, and requires an explanation at the
hands of experienced astronomers. Daksha, says the legend, gave his twentv-
seven daughters, the lunar asterisms, to the moon. From the union of the
daughters of Daksha with the moon, the ancient (?) astronomers feigned the
birth of four of the planets, that is to say, Mercury from Rohim ; hence he is
called Rohineya after his mother. Magha brought forth the beautiful planet
Venus; hence one of' the names of that planet is Maghfibhu. The lunar
mansion AslnV/nt brought forth the martial planet Mars, who was thence
called AsluV/nxbhava, and Purva-phalguni brought forth Jupiter, the largest
of all the planets, and the tutor of the gods; hence he is called Purva-
phalgunibhava: the moon, the father, being present at the birth of each.
The observations here alluded to are supposed by Bentley to have been
occultations of the planets by the moon, in the respective lunar mansions
from which they are named. They are supposed to be occultations, because
they are not made in the time of a single revolution of the moon, but take
place in the space of about sixteen months, from 19th August 1425, to
the 19th April 1424 n. c.; and this idea of the observations being confined to
1 Their number is staled by the commentators on Puiaiia to tiro Nim/ti, in support of the legendaiy
Tnitt. Br. I. 3, 1. Tho thiid name is NitatniA in the derivation of the names of the planets. See Vishnu*
Taitt. Samh. Panina, p. 223.
2 The Vayti-Ptirana appeals to the Sruti, the Linga-
VOf,. JV. e
XXXIV
PREFACE TO THE
colures.
The planet Mercury and the Moon in Rohim, 17th Apiil i424 1 •
The planet Jupiter and the Moon in Purva-Phalguni, 23rd April 1424 u.e.
The planet Mars and the Moon in Piirva-AshiWM, 19th August 1424 n.c.
The planet Venus and the Moon in Mugful, 19th August 1425 n.c.
All within the space of about sixteen months; and there is no other year, as
I Nnines given from T.iiltaiy.i Kndunrtla I. 5, 1 & J. ! Jlo.li in names hs colleeleil by I'm!
I Important variations .« enniiu. mT.uttii.va lir. Ill 1, 1 Whitney, Surya-snldli. p. 183. A.K.
1-0, marked III : others fmm T.nttiiiya e.iu.liita IV. 4, 1 means \mara-koslia j H. K., llema-
I 10, m,liked T. S. I lamlra-kosha.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. XXXV
Bentley affirms, either before that period or since in which they were so placed
or situated. Saturn is not mentioned among these births, probably from his
being situated out of the moon’s course; but was feigned to have been born
afterwards from the shadow of the earth, at the time of churning the ocean,
or the war between the gods and the giants.
Finally, Bentley maintains that the names of the twelve Indian months
could only have been formed in 1181 n.e. llis argument is this:
The position of the twenty-seven lunar mansions at this period would have
been as follows:
1. Maglia/, Tapas XIV. XV. Winter solstice, beginning of ,S'rn\ i>h//<h U dag-a).•main.
A'arat j JO. Karttika/, 1-rk VIII. IX. Autumnal equinox, second quaitei id \ isakh.i
(Harvest)
There can be no doubt that the names of the months, MAgha, Phalguna,
Aaitra, Vai.sakha, f/yeshMa, Ash;W//a, *SYavaua, Bhadra, Asvina, Karttika,
Margasirsha, and Pausha were derived from the names of the twelve lunar
mansions, Magha, Phalguni, Kitra,Vi.s-akha,, GyeshtlrX, Ashad/ui, Aravana, Bhadra,
A.s1 vini, Kn'ttika, Mr/'ga.siras, and Pushya. But it is at first sight difficult to
explain why the succession of the months is so different from that of the lunar
asterisms. When the sun stands in Nravish/M, with the Vasus, the month is
called Milgha, but Magha is not the first, but the fifteenth Nakshatra; and
when the sun is in A.vlesha, with the Serpents, the month is called /Sravana,
while A'ravana is not the fourteenth, but the twenty-seventh Nakshatra.
Bentley offers the following explanation :
‘In the same manner as the lunar mansions were fabled by the Hindu
poets to have been married to the moon, and that the first offspring of that
poetic union were four of the planets; the Hindu poets feign, that the twelve
months sprang from the same union, each month deriving its name in the form
of a patronymic, from the lunar mansions in which the moon was supposed to
be full at the time.
‘Let us therefore, in the case before us, apply this principle. At the above
epoch, 1181 B.e., the sun and moon were in conjunction at the winter solstice ;
and as the months began when the sun entered the signs, the first month
therefore began at the winter solstice. Now to find the name of that month,
the moon would be full at about 14,'- days after the winter solstice, and would
then be in the opposite part of the heavens to the sun. The sun would have
advanced in 14! days about 14 and therefore would have entered the second
lunar asterism, Natabhisha : a line drawn from the point in which the sun is
thus situated through the centre, would fall into the lunar asterism Magha,
in which the moon was full, on the opposite side, and consequently, on the
principle stated, the solar month was from thence called Milgha in the form of
a patronymic. At the next full, the moon would be in Uttara Phalguni, and
the solar month from thence called Phalguna ; and on this principle all the
months of the year were named.
‘ Hence it is very easy to demonstrate the utmost possible antiquity of the
time when the months were, or could be, so named: for there are certain
limits beyond which the line cannot be drawn : and these are the termination
of the lunar mansion and the commencement of the solar month which
determines the time, because it points out the commencement of the solar
month in respect of the fixed stars at the time. Thus, at the time of the above
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. XXXVII
observations, the summer solstitial point was found in the middle of the lunar
asterism A.sleslni, and the solar month SVavana then began; for in the ancient
astronomy of the Hindus, that month always began at the summer solstice.
Now the month h'ravaaa derives-its name from the lunar asterism »SVava/ta (the
twenty-seventh), then in the opposite part of the heavens. Let, therefore, a line
be drawn from the solstitial point, or commencement of the month, cutting the
centre, and it will fall into the very end of the lunar asterism Nravami, from
which it derives its name Nravana; which line is, therefore, at its utmost limit,
as it cannot go farther without falling into a mansion of a very different name.
This position of the line, therefore, proves that the months received their names
at the time of the above observations, and not before. For if we wish to make
it more ancient, let the solstitial point be supposed more advanced in respect
of the fixed stars, say one, two, or three degrees, then a line drawn from the
solstitial point, or commencement of the month >SVavana, cannot fall into any
part of the lunar asterism $rava/u\, from which it derives its name, but into
,Sravish///a (the first). Therefore the name which it possesses could never be
given to it till the solstitial point, and commencement of the month, actually
coincided with the middle of the lunar asterism A.desha (the fourteenth), being
the same with the observation which refers us to the year 1181 u.and this
is the utmost antiquity of the formation and naming of the Hindu months.®
I have recalled these speculations of Bentley and others, partly because
they show considerable ingenuity and open some questions which have not yet
been solved by either scholars or astronomers; partly because I wished to
convince my critics that if I do not always enter into all the controverted
points, the theories, guesses, doubts, assertions, and counter-assertions of various
scholms, it is not because I shrink from the trouble of examining them, (much
of what is here printed was written twelve years ago,) but because I believe it
is our duty, as Frederick the Great1 said, to learn to distinguish between what
is important a..d what is not. We only retard the discovery of truth by
entering into every by-path on the right and on the left. The straight line is
always the best, the simplest machinery the most perfect. If we can prove out¬
point without a great apparatus of so-called learning, it is our duty to do so.
He sweeps cleanest that makes the least dust.
Another controversy, most seriously affecting, not only the age of Vedic
poetry, but the whole history of the growth of the Indian mind in those remote
ages, has been revived of late with so much vigour and acrimony, that, though
it has hardly yielded a single new result, it cannot here be passed over in
silence. The <|uestion is, whether one of the simplest and fundamental notions
of Indian astronomy, the division of the heavens into twenty-seven equal parts,
commonly called the twenty-seven Nakshatras or AVkshas, was indigenous to
India, or borrowed from without. As one allusion to these Nakshatras occurs
in the hymns of the Big-veda, and as the twenty-seven divisions, with their
asterisms and presiding deities, are known in the Brahma/tas, the principal
charm of Vedic antiquities, namely, its independent originality, would be de¬
stroyed, if it could be proved that even at that early time, the rays of a foreign
civilisation had influenced the growth of the Indian mind. If so important a
subject as the division of the heavens into twenty-seven sections, a division
which is at the root of their sacred calendar, and without which none of the
sacrifices enjoined in the Brahmaaas could he conceived, was borrowed from
without, what security would there be that the gods worshipped at the sacri¬
fices, and the hymns repeated at the annual festivals were not borrowed from
the same quarter? If at first the movements of the sun, the moon, and the
stars suggested the fasti, or festivals of the ancient world, the regulation of
these festivals soon gave rise to a more accurate study of the periodical returns
of the heavenly luminaries ; and what we call the ancient calendars is hut the
result of this mutual action and reaction of astronomy and religion. And if
that quarter from which the ancient Indian astronomy is supposed to have
been borrowed was China, would not all our received ideas on the earliest
history of mankind be upset? Would not the national individuality of the
Aryan race be tainted in its core, and the Turanian man rise superior to his
Aryan and Semitic brothers? Where so much is at stake, it would be wrong to
trust to convictions, however firmly rooted ; and when the arguments proceed
from one of the most eminent men of our age, and are repeated by him, after a
lapse of twenty years, with increased warmth and vigour, it is necessary to
meet argument by argument, however strong our feeling that the conflict arose
from a mere misunderstanding, and ought never to have taken place.
Uiot, one of the most eminent among living,—I may now add,—one of the
most eminent among departed astronomers', published a number of articles in
the Journal des Savants in the years 1839, 1840, 1845, and again in 1859, i860,
and 1861, in which he endeavoured to prove the Chinese origin of the Indian
1 S.-B. Biot died the 3rd of Fehruaiy, 1862, eighty-eight yearn of age.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. XXXIX
learned and thoughtful work, ‘An Historical Inquiry into some of the chief
Parallelisms and Contrasts between Christianity and the Religious Systems of
the Ancient World,’ 1855-58, had the following remarks on the supposed
intellectual intercourse between China and India:
‘ Before the name of the Middle Kingdom had been ever uttered in the
learned halls and avenues of the Athenian Academy; before the eagle of the
Roman legions, thirsting after universal sway, had tried its earliest flight
across the Central Appennines; before the English of that ancient world, the
colonising merchants of Phoenicia, had unfurled their sails upon the waves of
the Atlantic, and trafficked in the precious metals on the coasts of Albion and
Ierne; large communities of settlers, stretching far across the plateau of Upper
Asia, were already living under the patriarchal rule of great and powerful
princes. Chinese ports were even then frequented by adventurous traders
from Ceylon, from India, from the Persian Gulf. A knowledge of Chinese
astronomy found its way beyond the mountains, and took root in Northern
Hindustan.’—Pages 7, 8.
In a review of this work, which I published in 1858, I felt it necessary to
protest strongly against treating the Chinese origin of the Indian Nakshatras
as a recognised fact, and thus disturbing, without sufficient evidence, the early
history of Eastern civilisation. I may be allowed to give a short extract from
my Review :
1 Now, in stating that a knowledge of Chinese astronomy found its way
at that early period beyond the mountains, and took root in Northern Hindu¬
stan, Mr. Hardwick has the authority of Professor Lassen on his side, or rather
that of M. Biot, whose views on this subject were adopted by Professor Lassen.
But did Mr. Hardwick consider what is involved in such an admission, and how
violently the true relation of these two ancient races, the Aryans in India and
the Chinese in the Middle Kingdom, would be disturbed if this admission was
well founded? Astronomy—at least that part of it to which Mr. Hardwick
more particularly refers, the Nakshatras, or the twenty-seven lunar mansions
of the Brahmans—is most intimately connected with the religious worship of
the Veda. No Hindu sacrifice could have been properly performed without
a knowledge of the lunar mansions; no month could have received its present
appellation without names being first given to those constellations from which
the months derived their titles. Now, Mr. Hardwick would never admit that
a Chinese or Turanian race could have exercised any very definite influence on
the faith and worship of the Aryan settlers of India, and he would scout the
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. xU
1 Prof. Whitney points out the Vedic character of the deities, Silrya-siddh. p. 203. The important point is.
that some of them are exclusively Vedic.
VOL. IV. f
xlii PREFACE TO THE
in Chinese, Pehoua, Mokue, and Pholkuna; names which Dupuis 1 has compared
with the three Indian months, Paushya, Mdgha, and Phdlguna. These Indian
months had received their names according to a definite system, from the
corresponding Nakshatras, Pushyd, Maghd, and Phalguni. Shall we suppose,
then, that the Hindus borrowed the idea of the lunar Nakshatras from the
Chinese, but that the Chinese borrowed their names from the Hindus? In
order to defend such a supposition, it would be necessary to establish the
antiquity and genuineness of the early literature and civilisation of China on
a much firmer basis than that on which it rests at present.
‘Mr. Hardwick, who is at other times so sceptical about the early dates
which Oriental nations claim for their literature, seems to have lent too willing
an ear to the assertions of the Chinese scholars. It is true, that many of the
most distinguished “ Sinologues ” speak with perfect confidence of Chinese dates,
going back as far as three and four thousand years B. c. Such dates occur in
the original chronicles of the Chinese, and they are given there as if they had
been written down at the time by imperial historiographers and astronomers.
But has their value ever been tested by the same critical tests which have
reduced the mythical chronology of Greece and Rome to such small dimensions ?
In Roman history, the destruction of the city and the burning of the Capitol are
generally considered fatal to the genuineness of any dates previous to those
events. Now, in Chinese history one of the most indisputable facts is, that
between 480 and 206 b.c., that is to say, after that period of Chinese literature
which is marked by the labours of Confucius and his collections of. the ancient
written and oral traditions of the country, China was devastated by revolutions
and civil wars. In 213 B.c., the famous emperor Tsin-chi-hoang ordered all
books to be burnt, except those treating on medicine, astrology, agriculture, and
his own family annals. The punishment of death was threatened and inflicted
on those who should venture to conceal books ; and all Chinese authorities
agree, that, during the years 213 to 206, this literary crusade had proved
completely successful. In 206 a new dynasty, that of the Hans, came to the
throne, and every effort was made by them to collect from written documents or
from oral tradition, the remains of Chinese literature. But whatever the Chinese
may relate of the miraculous escape of some of their old classics, and however
' plausible the arguments may sound by which Chinese scholars have defended
1 Memoire explieatif du Zodiaque, par Dupuis, tioned by Dupuis have been authenticated by Chinese
Paris, 1806, p. 15. 1 cannot ascribe much importance scholars. [Professor Legge assures me that they are
to this argument until these barbarous names men- mere inventions.]
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. xliii
the general fact of the high antiquity of Chinese civilisation, it would have been
difficult to recover from oral tradition minute astronomical observations. M. Biot
feels this himself; and he tries, very ingeniously, to save “ a little of ancient
astronomy.” Speaking of the emperor Tsin-chi-hoang, he says, “II ordonna,
sous peine de mort, de brftler tous les livres, a l’exception de ceux qui traitaient
de medicine, d’astrologie (consequemment un pen d’astronomic)'.” This language
shows sufficiently what the claims of the Chinese to genuine and accurate
astronomical observations, fixing the days and hours of historical events, about
4000 b.c., really are; and we cannot bring ourselves to admit that, either in
language, religion, or science, the relation of the early Aryas to the Turanian
inhabitants of China was that of pupils to their teachers. On the contrary, we
believe that the relation of India to China has always been the same which we
find at the time when Buddhism was introduced into the Middle Kingdom ;
and we know of no fact, even in later times, which would lead us to suppose
that China had ever repaid to India the debt which it owed to that ancient
cradle of Eastern civilisation. If this relation of the two countries is once
established and well kept in mind, it would require stronger evidence than the
hypothesis even of so learned an astronomer as M. Biot, or the admission of
so careful a Sanskrit scholar as Professor Lassen, to induce us on a sudden to
invert the relative position of China and India, and to admit a civilising
influence, exercised by the former on the latter. Such exceptions occur, no
doubt, now and then in the ancient history of religion and civilisation, as well
as in the ancient history of language. But, a general rule once being estab¬
lished, the exceptions require very strong evidence before they can be admitted.
No one would allow an ancient Sanskrit word to be derived from Greek. But
if words of decidedly Greek character have found their way into the Sanskrit
dictionary, it becomes more necessary than ever to determine their relative
ages : and we shall find that, in every instance, those Greek words, such as the
words connected with the solar zodiac, are of a very late date in Sanskrit; in
1 A still stronger admission has been pointed out and practice of the astronomical calculus became
by Prof. Weber (p. 300) from Gaubil (Observ. II. gradually lost. When the emperor Tsin-chi-hoang
3seq.). Gaubil says that according to the unanimous ordered the great burning of books, Gaubil continues,
testimony of Chinese astronomers, astronomy had been * suppose qn’il y eut des livres oh il se trouvat des
almost entirely neglected after the time of the Tchun- observations celestes et de preceptes d’astronomie, on
tsieou, edited by Confucius (died 480 B. c). Eclipses les perdit:.il ne restoit que des traditions con-
were no longer observed, their calculations were no fuses, des catalogues d'ltoiles et de constellations et
longer handed to the emperor, the tower of the mathe- des fragmens de quelques livres caches.*
maticians was but seldom ascended, and the science
f2
xliv PREFACE TO THE
1 SQrya-siddli&nta, edited by Burgess and Whitney, journal memo : Lo trait distinctif de l’astronomie des
p. 201 soq. I add tho last statement which Biot has Chinois, c’cst l’observation assidue des astres quand
left of his views on the Chinese Sieu: ‘ Je vais signaler ils passent au m&idien, en notant, au moyen des hor-
a l’avance lo but unique vers lequel nous allons mar¬ loges d’eau, les instants oh ils se trouvent dans ce
cher. II est tout entier compris dans la proposition plan. Yingt-huit etoiles, r<: parties sur le contour du
suivante, que je me borne it reproduire d’apris les del, et toujours les monies, lenr servent comme autant
e'nonces que j’en ai plusieurs fois donnas dans ce de signaux fixes, auxquels ils rapportent les positions
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. xlv
which the Chinese, from an almost immemorial antiquity, have been accus¬
tomed to make their careful and industrious observations of celestial pheno¬
mena. Their instruments, and their methods of observation, have been closely
analogous with those in use among modern astronomers in the West: they
have employed a meridian-circle and a measure of time, the clepsydra, and
have observed meridian-transits, obtaining right ascensions and declinations of
the bodies observed. To reduce the errors of their imperfect time-keepers,
they long ago selected certain stars near the equator, of which they deter¬
mined with great care the intervals in time, and to these they referred the
positions of stars or planets coming to the meridian between them. The stars
thus chosen are the Sicu. Twenty-four of them were fixed upon more than
two thousand years before our era, &c.’ (Pages 201-203.)
After expressing his entire concurrence in the views of Biot, Professor
Whitney proposes nevertheless another theory, according to which the know¬
ledge of Chinese astronomy was not imported straight from China to India,
but (p. 205) ‘ was carried, together with the Chinese system of division of the
heavens into twenty-eight mansions, into Western Asia, at a period not much
later than b. 0. hoc, and was then adopted by some western people, either
Semitic or Iranian. In their hands it received a new form, such as adapted it
to a ruder and less scientific method of observation, the limiting stars of the
mansions being converted into zodiacal groups or constellations, and in some,
instances altered in position, so as to be brought nearer to the general planetary
path of the ecliptic. In this changed form, having become a means of roughly
determining and describing the places and movements of the planets, it passed
into the keeping of the Hindus—very probably along with the first knowledge
of the planets themselves—and entered upon an independent career of history
in India. It still maintained itself in its old seat, leaving its traces later in the
Bundehesh; and made its way so far westward as finally to become known to,
and adopted by, the Arabs.’
Though I had hoped that some one better qualified than myself would vin¬
dicate the Indian origin of the ancient Indian astronomy, and though I consider
Professor Whitney, who, to an extensive acquaintance with astronomy adds a
relatives des astres ainsi observes. Do cette seulo merits d’un ealeuilrier luni-solaire suffisant a tons les
pratique, invariablement suivie depuis un temps im- besoms publics; et aussi unc ample provision, incessu-
memorial, ils ont su dtduire par £ux-mtmes les durees ment rououvelto, do pronostics astrologiques, ce besoin
moyennes des revolutions du soleil, de la lune, et des primitif et universal de l’eeprit humain.’ Journal des
plant!tea; les ptriodesdetemps qui rarniSnent ees astres Savants, 1861 (p, 9).
eu conjunction ou en opposition entre eux; les tie-
xlvi PREFACE TO THE
lunar mansions, while I use T&r& instead of Nakshatra, if employed in the third
sense, translating it by asterism.
The coincidences between the Indian and Chinese systems of astronomy
which struck Biot, and which before him had struck Anquetil and Bentley,
refer entirely to the Indian TiliAs and the Chinese Sieu. I can understand how
an astronomer who for the first time perceives these coincidences, should be
strongly inclined to waive all minor differences and assume that the conceptions
shared in common by Indian and Chinese astronomers were derived by the
Indians from the Chinese, or by the Chinese from the Indians, or by both from
a common source. But now that the novelty of the discovery has well-nigh
passed away, a more sober examination of the case would seem to lead to
different results. I cannot agree with Prof. Weber when, in the beginning of
his Essay, he asserts that ‘the thorough analogy or even identity of both
systems necessitate the admission of a special relationship.’ The Sieu were
originally twenty-four in number, they were afterwards raised to twenty-eight.
There is no trace of a similar change in India. The Sieu throughout are single
stars 1; the Taras are, for the most part, groups or clusters of stars. The
system of single stars, Yoga-t&ras or junction-stars, is of so decidedly modern
a date that Prof. Whitney places its introduction in the sixth century of our
era (page 212). But as to the coincidences themselves, taking it for granted
that the Sieu stars are in all cases rightly identified with the stars of our
globes, it should be borne in mind, that the identification of the Hindu Taras
is in many cases extremely problematical. Al-Biruni, who, in the eleventh
century, attempted for the first time to authenticate the Indian T&r&s, relates
that the Indian astronomers were unable to point out the stars to him. He
was obliged to leave seven or eight as unknown or doubtful2. Sir W. Jones
and Colebrooke, who, in more recent times, undertook the same task, com¬
plained of the same difficulty. But even in the astronomical works of the
Hindus there is some discordance as regards the stated position of the junction-
stars of the asterisms3, and with regard to the number of stars comprised
in each asterism the opinions vary even more considerably4. But if we waive
all these objections, nay, if we allow a still further latitude, and count all
Sieus and T4r&s as identical whenever the Sieu star corresponds with any one
star of the Hindu asterisms, what is the result5 ? Out of twenty-eight Sieus
there are seventeen only that can be identified with the T4r4s. Now, if a
1 Whitney, p. 207. 2 Whitney, p. 181; Journal des Savants, 1843, pp. 39-54.
3 Whitney, ]>. 182. 4 Weher, p. 380 aeq. 5 Whitney, p 200,
xlviii PREFACE TO THE
‘ Whatever may have been the period when the notion was first obtained, that
foreknowledge of events on earth might be gained by observations of planets
and stars, and by astronomical computation, or wherever that fancy took its rise,
certain it is, that the Hindus have received and welcomed communications
from other nations on topics of astrology: and although they had astrological
divinations of their own as early as the days of Par&sara and Garga, centuries
before the Christian era (?), there are yet grounds to presume that communica¬
tions subsequently passed to them on the like subject, either from the Greeks,
or from the same common source (perhaps that of the Chaldeans) whence the
Greeks derived the grosser superstitions engrafted in their own genuine and
ancient astrology, which was meteorological.
‘ Joining this indication to that of the division of the zodiac into twelve
signs, represented by the same figures of animals, and named by words of the
same import with the zodiacal signs of the Greeks; and taking into consider¬
ation the analogy, though not identity, of the Ptolemaic system, or rather
that of Hipparchus, and the Indian one of excentric deferents and epicycles,
which in both serve to account for the irregularities of the planets, or at least
to compute them, no doubt can be entertained that the Hindus received hints
from the astronomical schools of the Greeks.’
At the time at which Professor Whitney places the selection of the junction-
stars to represent the asterisms, namely, in the sixth century of our era, there
were Chinese travelling in India, and Hindus settled in China. An Indian
religion had been imported into China, Indian festivals were celebrated in that
country, and an Indian calendar had to be accommodated to that of the Chinese.
At that time it was not only possible, but almost necessary that some compro¬
mise should be effected between the astronomical grammars of the two nations;
and I have little doubt that the distinguished scholar whose works have thrown
so much light on the intellectual and religious intercourse between China and
India in the seventh century a. d., will be able to solve the problem, how it was
that some of the Chinese determinative stars were identified with the T&r&s
or Yoga-t&r&s of the Hindus, and a twenty-eighth asterism added to the
twenty-seven heretofore in use. If the Chinese had been acquainted with
India at the early period implied in Biot’s theory, would it not be extra¬
ordinary that the name of India should never occur in their ancient annals ?
It is commonly admitted that India was unknown to the Chinese before
the expedition of Tchang Khian, 126 B.C., and its usual name, Thiantchu
(Sindhu), is in the Chinese annals mentioned for the first time in the eighth
VOL. iv. g
! PREFACE TO THE
year of the emperor Ming-ti, 65 b.c.1 The name of ‘China’ has commonly
been supposed to imply a date. If it is derived from the dynasty of the Tsin
which came to the throne in the year 246 B.c., then no work in which ‘ China’
occurs as the name of the country, could be older than the third century B. c.
I confess that I feel very unwilling to give up this view, and the fact that
the name of China occurs in the so-called Code of Manu and in the Mah4-
bh&rata, so far from invalidating the date of the name, would only tend to
confirm the modern origin now assigned to these works by all critical Sanskrit
scholars. The difficulty is that ‘ erez Sfnfm ’ occurs in Isaiah xlix. 12, and that
the passage in which it occurs is considered by unprejudiced scholars as beyond
any reasonable doubt more ancient than the third century B. c. It has been
pointed out, however, that the dynasty of the Tsin, before its accession to the
imperial throne, had been reigning for 600 years in the province of Tsin (now
Shensi), in that part of China which was the most likely to be first visited
by travellers either from India or from Babylon. This would entail the loss
of a most useful date, but it would help on the other hand to establish the
possibility of Chinese astronomy being carried to Babylon, or Babylonian
astronomy to China, at an early period, at least at the time when the second
part of Isaiah was written2.
Leaving the problem, if problem it can be called, as to the coincidences
between certain of the Chinese Sieu and certain of the Hindu T&r&s, to be
settled by scholars and astronomers who take an interest in the medieval
history of India and China, we now approach a second question, namely,
whether it is possible to identify the Chinese Sieu with the Hindu Nakshatras
or twenty-seven lunar mansions. Bentley declared decidedly that such an
attempt was useless. ‘ With respect to the lunar mansions of the Chinese,’ he
writes, ‘ they differ entirely from those of the Hindus, who invariably make
theirs to contain 13 20' each on the ecliptic; whereas the Chinese have theirs
of various extents, from upwards of 30 to a few minutes, and marked by a star
at the beginning of each, which makes them totally differ from the Hindu.’
With the more accurate knowledge of the Sieu, which we owe to Biot, the
difference between the two has become still greater, and instead of wasting any
more time on attempts to compare the two, and trace them back to some common
origin, we have only to describe the original character of the Nakshatras, in
order to show how from beginning to end they differ from the Chinese Sieu.
1 Foe Kuue Ki, p. 14. ' Cf. Gesenius, ed. Dietrich, s.v. sinim.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. li
1 Thus it is said in the Tnitt. Br. I. 5, 2, 1: ‘ Let him determine the Nakshatra about dawn; for when
the sun rises, ono cannot see the Nakshatra.'
S2 %'
Hi PREFACE TO THE
1 Weber, Iml. Stud. III. p. 467. Prof. Cowell’s valuable edition) explains the number
2 The Tiirmva (27) and Trayastrimsa (35) Stoma are by counting the KWttikfts as seven, and the other Nak¬
mentioned together, Vay. Samh. XIII. 58. shatras each as one.
3 These are 6, 11, 12, ifi, 17, ai; all the rest are 4 See Bohtlingk-Roth, Dictionary, s.v. Daksha;
spoken of either in the singular or in the plural. The Weber, Nakshatra, p. 277.
commentary to Taitt. Samh. II. 3, 5 (just received in
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. liii
rTTT ^ I
TO ^ finWW* I
H ^TCff HTORTvl II
TTWOTR^S? f^T I
frrt *rf<pjG frt: 11911
fHTO^T^SJ^rT fTOTlf^: H^rTH b II
^f^*n«rf HHrf HR7 ff ^W: |
FH <rRH*TR*T fHWRU mil
m ffeH^TRtfrT H Hfft HTH I
rTWKI RT^Vj: XT^^THTtrCf^ft ffrf^: moil
WT% FF^TRT $ llf^’af I
“ Half of it is a solar paksha, and a day is the fifteenth part of it; this
fifteenth part (one day) consists of 2600 lavas ’.
“ A lustrum (or yuga) is said to consist of 1830 solar days *.
“The lunar measure is derived from the moon by its increase and wane.
When the moon step by step, every libatory day, increases and wanes that
is called a lunar month; half of it is a p&rvana paksha, and the fifteenth part
a tithi.
“This (the tithi) is said to be 2200 lavas in measure, and in the lustrum of
the moon there are said to be i860 days3.
“ The time in which the moon enjoys the circle of the Nakshatras, con¬
sisting of twenty-seven, that is, a Nakshatra month, and its half is called a
paksha.
“ The fifteenth part of this Nakshatra paksha is called a Nakshatra day :
this is said to be 3200 lavas in measure.
“ A yuga is said to consist of 2010 Nakshatra days4.” ’
Another account of the different computations of the year is given in the
Nirnayasindhu, written by Kamalakara BhaMa, and printed at Calcutta, 1833.
There it is said, that ‘according to Madhava’s opinion, five ways exist of cal¬
culating the year, and that there is a savami, saura, Mndra, ndkshatra, and
barhaspatya year. The Barhaspatya year is regulated by the planet Jupiter,
and is known in astronomical works only. North of the Narmada it may be
used for ceremonial purposes. Hemadri says, that there are only three different
years, because the two last are not employed in the Dharmasastra (law-books).
Each year consists of twelve months, and if there be intercalary months, sixty
days must be considered as one month, as Vyasa said, “ Sixty days are called
a month by the BMarayawas.” Five A'&ndra or lunar years make a yuga, and
each of the sixty years has its own name. The same names apply also to the
Barhaspatya years, which begin with the month of Magha (winter solstice),
while the /find’ a years begin w7ith the bright half of A'aitra (vernal equinox).
At sacrifices and on other solemn occasions the /findra or lunar year is to be
used, and no other, as Arshfishena says.
‘An Ay an a (sun’s road, half year) consists of three solar seasons. There
are two Ayanas, a southern and a northern one, the one beginning with Karka
1 There is some mistake in the MS., which will have 3 must he taken ns a feminine, a sum
to be corrected with the help of other MSS. The con- of eighteen hundred.
struction is that the 26th hundred of lavas is the 15th * The first line is not clear, and throughout the
part of the paksha. whole extract both text and translation must be eou-
2 One line seems to be wanting. sidered to rest on the authority of one MS. only.
Ivi PREFACE TO THE
(Cancer), the other with Makara (Capricorn), and different sacrifices are to be
performed, according to different authorities, either in the one or the other
Ayana.
‘ A season consists of two months, but here too an intercalary month is
not counted by itself. A month is of two kinds, lunar or solar. The first lunar
month is ifaitra in Yasanta, the first solar month begins either with Mina
(Pisces) or Mesha (Aries), as Baudh4yana says: “Yasanta (spring) is in Mina
and Mesha, or in Mesha and Vj-isha (Taurus).” For srauta and smarta cere¬
monies the lunar seasons ought to be used, and, if this be impossible, the solar
ones. There are six seasons, lunar as well as solar: Yasanta, Grishma, Varsha,
/S'arad, Hemanta, and Sisira.
‘ There are four kinds of months :
i, S&vana, 2. Saura, 3. A'&ndra, 4. N&kshatra.
1. The s&vana month has thirty days and nights.
2. The saura month goes from one conjunction of the sun to the next one.
The first is Vais&kha in Mesha (Aries). Although there are two Darsas (days
of new moon or conjunction) in Mesha, the first is reckoned as belonging to
Mina (Pisces), and goes to the solar month Aaitra.
‘ Some ghadkas before and after the entrance of the sun into a new sign are
considered as sacred :
1. In Mesha 10 gha^ik&s are sacred before and after the conjunction.
2. In VWsha 16.before the conjunction.
3. In Mithuna 16.after the conjunction.
4. In Karka 30.before the conjunction (ayanam dakshinam).
5. In Simha 16.before the conjunction.
6. In Kanya 16.after the conjunction.
7. In Tul4 10.before and after the conjunction.
8. In Yrisiika (Annaki) 16 . . before the conjunction.
9. In.Dhanus 16.after the conjunction.
10. In Makara (GAasha) 24 ghadkas are sacred after the conj. (ayanam udak).
(This is according to Hemadri’s opinion. M&dhava considers 20 ghadk&s
as sacred after the conjunction.)
11. In Kumbha 16 ghadk4s are sacred before the conjunction.
12. In Mina 16.after the conjunction.
The equinoxes fall in Mesha and Tul4.
The solstices in Karka and Makara.
3. The Mndra month consists of two pakshas (halves of the moon). This
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lvii
lunar month either begins with sukla (the bright half) and ends with Am4
(new moon), or it begins with knshna (the dark half) and ends with full
moon. South of the Vindhya they begin the month with the moon’s increase,
but north of it either with its increase or with its decrease, though the former
is the more usual. The first Mndra month is /laitra.
4. The n&kshatra month consists of one passage of the moon through all
the Nakshatras \
‘ A BrAhmawa ends his month with the new moon (AmAv&sya), a Kshatriya
with the sun’s entrance (SawkrAnti) into a new sign, aVai.vya with full moon.
Garga says : “The saura month is to be used at marriages &c., the s A van a
month at sacrifices, the Mndra month at annual and obsequial rites. Other
authorities however give different rules.” ’
Having thus established the first point, that the twenty-seven Nakshatras
were suggested by the periodical revolution of the moon, we proceed to con¬
sider the second, namely, that the twenty-seven Nakshatras represented so
many equal divisions of the heavens. This was clearly indicated by the legend
of Soma being ordered to dwell the same time with every one of his wives, but
it is likewise implied in almost every statement in which the Nakshatras are
used for chronological purposes. No one in the present day would think of
employing instead of the equal segments of the zodiac, the single stars of
the Greek constellations, the Lion &c., for fixing the time of the year; nor
would an Indian astronomer make use for that purpose of the single stars
of the Nakshatras, instead of the twenty-seven equal divisions in which these
stars are scattered about, Unless the Nakshatras meant the twenty-seven
equal divisions, each consisting of 13 20, how could it be explained that the
summer solstice falls in the middle of A.slesha when the winter solstice is
in the beginning of NravishiM, thus giving thirteen and a half Nakshatras
to the sun’s road north and exactly the same number to its road south of
the equator?
The passages generally quoted to prove the inequality of the Nakshatras2
1 Thus it is said in the Grammar of Panini (IV. 2, ahorfttra (day and night). Thin is said expressedly by
3), that certain adjectives are formed from the names PatajS</ali: qt; qrpsrt gwnt i
of the Nakshatras, to express the time connected with II The day and night therefore during which
them, i.e. the time during which the moon is in con¬ the moon passes through the Nakshatra Pushya in any
junction with any one of the Nakshatras. If therefore month would be called pausha, pausham ahar, paushi
the passage of the moon through all the Nakshatras rStriA.
corresponds to one nhkshatra month, its passage 2 Of. Weber, Nakshatra, p. 309 seq.
through each of the Nakshatras would be a nSkshatra
VOL. IV. h
Iviii PREFACE TO THE
are all taken from modern books, and, as far as I can understand them, they
refer to the T&r&s or stars, not to the Nakshatras or lunar mansions. It is
perfectly possible that, as Hindu astronomers maintain, the moon or the sun
may be in conjunction with one of the stars belonging to the T&r&s, before
they have entered the Nakshatra-segment to which that T4r4 has given its
name. Nor would this in any way disprove the equal distances of the Nak¬
shatras, for it is only in comparison with these equidistant Nakshatras that
the stars or clusters of stars could possibly be called either deficient or ex¬
cessive. Tf the coincidences between certain T4r&s and certain Sieus are so
startling as they are represented to be, they may possibly find their explana¬
tion in the intercourse between the Buddhists of India and China, whicli
dates from a period anterior to the first occurrence of the non-equidistant
TAr4s in Sanskrit literature.
The only passage which for a moment made me doubtful as to the equal
division of the Indian Nakshatras, is that quoted by Prof. Weber from a
Hebrew translation of Majriti (p. 323 seq.). Majriti (died 1007 A. i>.) speaks
of the lunar mansions of the Hindus: he gives their names, twenty-eight
in number, and their degrees on the ecliptic. These degrees, to judge from
the translation supplied by Dr. Steinschneider, vary considerably. I therefore
requested Dr. Neubauer to collate the original text of Majriti, preserved in an
Arabic MS. of the Bodleian Library, and I was glad to find that the apparent
inequalities are due entirely to the Hebrew translation, the Arabic original
allowing about 12 51' 26" to each of the twenty-eight manzil1. This therefore
shows again an equal division, though it does show at the same time that the
Arabs, in other respects the docile pupils of the Hindus, divided the heavens
into twenty-eight, instead of twenty-seven, equal segments.
Finally, as to the number of the Nakshatras, I maintain that it was origin¬
ally, and that, in one sense, it always remained twenty-seven. Let us first
examine Biot’s view of the subject. He maintains that the number of Naksha¬
tras was originally twenty-eight, because such was the number of the Chinese
Sieu ; and that2 ‘the omission of Abhu/it from the series took place because the
mansion belonging to that asterism was on the point of becoming extinguished,
the circle of its junction-star being brought by the precession to a coincidence
1 Majriti begins: Now I shall mention the effects of from a Leyden MS. in his learned essay on ‘ Paeudepi-
the moon within tho limits of their stations, as agreed graphic Literature,’ p. 76.
upon by the Indians, &c. Dr. Steinschneider has 2 Whitney, Shrya-siddhSnta, p. 208.
lately supplied a more correct list of the lunar mansions
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lix
with that of the junction-star of the preceding asterism about a. r. 972.’ Prof.
Whitney has pointed out some mistakes which vitiate Biot’s calculation, and
which would defer till several centuries later the date of coincidence of the two
circles of declination. He' himself, however, believes, like Biot, that Abhu/it is
as originally and truly a part of the system of asterisms as any other constella¬
tion in the series, which is properly composed of twenty-eight members, and not
of twenty-seven. ‘The analogy of the other systems,’ he says, ‘and the fact
that treatises like the Surya-siddhanta, which reckon only twenty-seven divisions
of the ecliptic, are yet obliged, in treating of the asterisms as constellations,
to regard them as twenty-eight, are conclusive upon this point. The whole
difficulty and source of discordance seem to lie in this,—how shall there, in
any systematic method of division of the ecliptic, be found a place and a portion
for a twenty-eighth asterism? The Khanda-ka/aka, as cited by Albiruni, in
making out, by a method which is altogether irrespective of the natural posi¬
tions of the asterisms with reference to the zodiac, the accordance already
referred to between their portions and the moon’s daily motions, allots to Abhiyit
so much of the ecliptic as is equivalent to the mean motion of the moon during
the part of a day by which her revolution exceeds twenty-seven days. Others
allow it a share in the proper portions of the two neighbouring asterisms: thus
the Muhurta-MAla, a late work, of date unknown to us, says, “ the last quarter
of Uttara-Asha///ja and the first fifteenth of Sravana together constitute Abhir/it:
it is so to be accounted when twenty-eight asterisms are reckoned; not other¬
wise.” Ordinarily, however, the division of the ecliptic into twenty-seven equal
portions is made, and Abhir/it is simply passed by in their distribution. After
the introduction of the modem method of dividing the circle into degrees and
minutes, this last way of settling the difficulty would obviously receive a
powerful support and an increased currency, from the fact that a division by
twenty-seven gave each portion an even number of minutes, 800, while a division
by twenty-eight yielded the awkward and unmanageable quotient 771-i.’
In answer to Biot, who fixes the date of the suppression of Abhir/it at
a. r. 972, we may simply appeal to Albiruni. He wrote a book on India, and
particularly on Indian astronomy, about fifty-seven years after the supposed,
disappearance of Abhu/it. He had been in India for several years, learning
Sanskrit, reading in the original the astronomical works of the Brahmans, and
consulting living astronomers on the actual position of their stars, and asking
their advice on any points of difficulty. Yet nothing can be more opposed
to Biot’s theory than the view which Albirdni takes of the Nakshatras.
h 2
lx PREFACE TO THE
‘The origin of the lunar mansions,’ he says, ‘amongst the Hindus is analogous
to that of the zodiacal signs, for in reference to these mansions, the circle of the
zodiac is divided into twenty-seven equal parts, each mansion comprising 13 20,
or 800'. The planets enter and leave them, moving through them in latitude to
the north and south. The principle of this division in twenty-seven parts lies
in the moon’s moving over the whole circumference of the heaven in 2 7 4- days,
which needs correction. The number of twenty-eight, admitted by the Arabs,
has likewise its origin by counting from the first lunar phase in the west to the
last in the east. They reckon as one of the mansions the falling Eagle (a Lyra;,
Abliiyyit), so that they get twenty-eight, which has been the reason why some
of our Arabian astronomers and almanac writers have been mistaken, asserting
that the Hindus also had twenty-eight Nakshatras, and that they suppressed
one which was always covered by the rays of the sun. But this is wrong, for
originally there were only twenty-seven, and one has been added afterwards.’
Nothing can be clearer than this ; nothing more in accordance with all we
know from other ancient sources on the same subject. Yet Biot sees in all
this nothing but a proof of Albiruni’s ignorance, and remains unshaken in
his belief that Abhi^it was one of the old Nakshatras, and disappeared in the
year 972 a. d.
1 Lutrnnno, Journal dos Savants, 1839 (P-52®): La Cleostrate les asterismos n’etaient pas meinoau uombre
sphere grocque est originals; la formation en a ete suc¬ de neuf; et bieu qu’il n’y ait aucune preuve que l’iu-
cessive ; l’ideo de la division zodiaeale, etrangero & sa troductiou de la Balance no suit pas due a Hipparque
premiere constitution, y a 6te transports apres coup ; lni-memo, il est constant quo les premiers textes "it
mais les figuies et les uorns des signes sout d’invention l’emploi de ce signe est clairement euoned, sont ceux
grecquo.—Des textes existent, qui attesteut l’introdue- do Gemiuus et de Varron, appartenant au milieu du
tion successive dans la sphere grecque de trois au ier siccle.—On sait que PtoMinde dans son catalogue,
moms des figures zodiacales.—Belier et Sagittaire par conserve \ri\ai pour la constellation (drrrcpio-fior), et
Cleostrato de Tenedos. (6m« sieclo.) Plin. II.6.—Avant (vyoi pour le signe (ftoSiov et ScoScuarijpopiov).’
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. ]xi
adic division of the heavens became fixed ; that the most interesting, though
not always the most brilliant stars were selected to serve as exponents of the
twenty-seven divisions; and that in this selection Abhi<?it was not comprised.
Abhiyit, however, being as its very name declares, a star of good omen, con¬
tinued to be observed for sacrificial purposes, and was invoked between the
twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh constellations, between Uttara-AshiWM and
►SravanA where its real position is to be found. This is clearly shown by a
popular legend, repeated in the Taittiriya Br&hmana I. 5, 2, 3 and 4 : ‘ There is
a Nakshatra, Abhiyit by name, above the AsLWMs', below SronL The gods
and Asuras were fighting,.the gods conquered under that Nakshatra. Because
they conquered, therefore it is Abhb/it, the conqueror. Him of whom one wishes
that he should conquer an invincible enemy, one ought to stir up to fight under
the Nakshatra Abhh/it. He conquers even the invincible, and as if he (the
enemy) were defeated by his own fault.’ When in later times the Hindus
became acquainted with nations using twenty-eight instead of twenty-seven
determining constellations, Abhk/it would naturally be thought of in order to
bring their own system in harmony with that of their neighbours, and Arabic
astronomers, in particular, would naturally, though wrongly, as pointed out by
Albiruni, adopt the theory, adopted by Biot, that the Hindus did not under¬
stand their own system, and that Abhh/it had at all times formed an integral
part of their elementary astronomy.
If with this view clearly before us we examine the earliest as well as the
latest notices of the Nakshatras that can be found in the literature of the
Hindus, many difficulties will disappear. The number of twenty-seven, though
not to be found in the AVtandas or Mantra periods, is of frequent occurrence in
the Brahmaea period. Many passages containing the number of twenty-seven
tor the Nakshatras may be seen in Prof. Weber’s Essay, and in the Dictionary
of Bohtlingk and Roth. In the Taittiriya Samhita IV. 4, 10, 1-3, where all the
names and the presiding deities of the Nakshatras are given, Abhh/it is not men¬
tioned, nor is its name to be found in a similar list in the Taittiriya Brahmana
1- 5, 1. It occurs for the first time in a second list of the Nakshatras, in the
Taittiriya Brahmana III. 2, 1, 6; and it occurs there, what is important and not
Hie commentator states tliat Abhqfit occupies the is becanso the other twenty-seven Nakshatras had
fourth quarter of UttarkshUdA®, and the first quarter been mentioned before in proper order, whereas Abhi-
of SravasA. There is nothing to show that Abhiyit git, not being comprised in that list, had to be re-
was a new Nakshatra; on the contrary, the Brithmana ferred to the two Nakshatra divisions with which it
connects it with ancient legends, like all the other coincided.
Nakshatras. The only reason why its position is given
lxii PREFACE TO THE
=srfa: RUTR-fa: i
*rftrarira HnihcpNifa ^ irmii
sfarTT Frero ^ l
sgt 1 ^ n 11
o
^ITt S-ST xr I 1
vyn i
WTRFl ^JrT II II
When these verses are repeated in the MS. of the commentary, Brahma, the
presiding deity of Abhiyit, is inserted before Vishnu, as pointed out by Professor
Lassen, but in violation of all the rules of metre.
The very name given to the Nakshatra zodiac, namely Trinava£akra4, shows
that the idea of twenty-seven was foremost in the mind of those who fixed
that name5. At the time of Amara6 the word nakshatra was used almost
1 Sftrya-siddU&nta, ed.Whitney, p. 91. European scholars, there is not one that carries oon-
2 I say nothing of the etymology of Nakshatra, be- victinn, or does not violate some of the laws of Corn-
cause though many have been proposed by Indian and parative Philology. The most unobjectionable deriva-
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lxv
i 1h1 sfam i ^ i
1 1 11 1 ii^ii
‘ The wedding procession of Sfirya (sun, as feminine) went forth, which Savitn
sent off. At the Aghfts the cows are killed, at the An/unis it (the procession) is
led back.’
This is evidently intended simply as a symbolic sanction of some ancient
customs, the marriage of the sun being the type of every human marriage.
That the Aryurn stars were favourable for marriage ceremonies we can see from
tion in that of Yaska, who derives nakshatra from then Soma, the moon, is placed in
naksh, ‘ to come,’ ‘ to approach.’ Naksh is used of the the lap of these Nakshatras.’
light of the sun filling the sky, Rv. X. 3, 5 ; and in a 2 Verse 5. Hl^Ji I I ifVflt I I
similar sense it occurs IV. 43, 5, and I. 95, 10. The , ‘ ySyu is the protector of Soma,
idea of comers or goers is certainly not a very striking the mo(m (month) the type of the years.’ Why-
one, but the ancient poets actually used iarishnu, VAyu is montioIlcd „ protector of Soma is not clear.
‘ going,’ as an epithet of nakshatra, Rv. X. 88,13. See Ev x 2I> IOi the Maruts aro called nkkshatrasava.-,
Bohtlingk and Roth, s. v. but here nakshatra seems used in the sense of ‘heaven,’
1 Rv. X, 8S, a. W I WTmrt 11PU I ^1# I and the compound would mean ‘of heavenly strength.’
VOL. IV. I
Ixvi PREFACE TO THE
word here translated by planets is Mazzaloth. The LXX do not translate it,
but render it by yafavpwO, the Vulgate substitutes the zodiac ; Rabbi Jona Ibn
Djanih suggests, as Dr. Neubauer informs me, the twenty-eight rnanzil. None
of these translations rest on any tangible evidence, and all that can be said is,
that the Mazzaloth may have been the lunar Nakshatras, but that we have no
means of proving it. Flow dangerous it is to trust to mere plausibilities in
matters involving such vast consequences, is shown by the word Mazzaroth,
which occurs in Job xxxviii.^i, 32: ‘Canst thou bind the sweet influences of
Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion ? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his
season ? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons ? ’
Here too Mazzaroth has been translated by the twelve signs of the zodiac;
but as this is impossible, it was certainly tempting to take Mazzaroth as a
dialectic variety of Mazzaloth, particularly as the expression of bringing forth
the Mazzaroth in his season, seems so appropriate to the stars being, as it
were, brought forth, and following each other in the succession of the seasons.
Nevertheless, Professor Ewald declares such an identification as inadmissible,
and is in favour of deriving the word from nozer, ‘crown,’ as the name of
a constellation.
The fact that the Harranians1 2 offered sacrifices to their god Sin (moon)
every twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth day, proves nothing whatever as to the
existence of twenty-seven Nakshatras.
Lunar chronology seems everywhere to have preceded solar chronology. The
Psalmist (civ. 19) sings ‘ He appointed the moon for seasons : the sun knoweth
his going down;’ and the Vedic Rishi (X. 85, 18) when speaking of sun and
moon, says, ‘ The one (sun) shines upon all creation, the other establishing the
seasons is born anew.’ Ibn Esra observes in his Commentary on the Pentateuch
(Exodus xii. 2) that the Hebrew word for month, ehodesh, can be intended for
lunar months only, because it is derived from a root meaning to be new,
whereas shanah, year, would imply a solar year, because it expresses the idea of
annus or annulus3. It is known besides, that at Jerusalem4 the Synedrium
used to sit till two or three witnesses came to announce the first appearance of
the new moon, and that the event was signalized all over the country by
1 Ohwolsohn Ssabier, II. 37, 256, 258, 295, quoted Gesellscliaft, II. p. 344. Prof. Seyffarth endeavoured
by Prof. Weber, Nakshatras, p. 316. to show that the Jews, before the destruction of Jeru-
2 Humboldt, Kosmos, II. 47 (Germ. Ed.). salem, used solar months only, but bis arguments are
3 Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, p. 489. not convincing.
* Cf. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen
Ixviii PREFACE TU THE
bonfires. And a similar custom prevailed among the B&hikas, where, according
to the MahabMrata, an old witch sang out the new moon, beating a drum
during the night, while the town of S4kala was feasting1. I could mention
fifty other passages where festivals are mentioned at the beginning, the middle,
or the end of each lunar month, and I believe even that the Sabbath was
originally a holiday connected with a lunar chronology2. But it serves no
purpose to bring forward evidence which does not prove the point that has
to be proved, and of which all that can be said is, that it is consistent with our
theory. •
More important are the passages where the manzil are mentioned in the
Koran, X. 5, XXXYI. 39; nor can there be any doubt, after the evidence
collected by Dr. Sprenger3, that the twenty-eight lunar asterisms had been
observed by the Beduins of the desert long before the time of Mohammed.
Yet, after all that has been written on the subject, and I would particularly
call attention to Prof. Weber’s careful reasonings on p. 320, I still hold to
Colebrooke’s view, who derives the Arabic manzil, at least in their scientific
form, from an Indian source. Whatever view we may take on this point, the
fact that Mohammed knew the twenty-eight lunar mansions, and that they
were known to the Arabs before his time, could under no circumstances be used
as an argument to show that they existed at Babylon in the twelfth century
before our era, which is the point that would have to be established. The
passage in the Bundehesh in which the twenty-eight divisions occur, is no more
pertinent to the establishment of the Babylonian theory than the list of Coptic
names4 *, neither of them going back beyond the time of Mohammed. Why, finally,
the latitude6 to be discovered from the difference between the longest and
shortest days which, according to the Gryotisha, amounted to six muhfirtas,
or 288 minutes, should prove the Babylonian origin of Indian astronomy,
1 Lassen, De Pentapotamia, p. 65, verse 25. naissent quo les jours des mois d’apres le calcul ct
2 Dr. Neubauer has quoted a marginal note from d’apres la tradition ; mais elles ignorent la semaine
the Cusari which is remarkable. It states that the sabbatique. Ces paroles sont citees au nom de
hebdomadal chronology is found nowhere except where Fayoumi.’ Journal Asiatique, Dec. 1861, p. 462.
the Jews have' introduced it: ‘ J’ai trouve une idee 3 Zeitschrift der D. M. G. XIII. 160-165. Dr.
dans le livre de Salem ben Rou’he'im ; il fait observer Sprenger’s remarks on page 161 are very important,
quo nous ne trouvons pas de nations qui connaissent and confirm the view which I have taken of primitive
le sabbat (e'est-4-dire qui sachent le determiner par le lunar astronomy.
calcul), h moinsqu’elles n’aientune notion de laTorah; 4 Weber, Nakshatras, pp. 326, 330.
par consequent elles ont emprunte ce jour de repos 5 Weber, Nakshatras, pp. 362, 400. A difference of
aux Israelites ; mais colles qui connaissent point la 4 h. 48 m. between the longest and the shortest days
Torah, comme les Indieus et les Persons, &c., ne con¬ would really correspond to lat. 350 24'.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lxix
as used in the Aitareya Brfthmana1 (I. 21, 22; Asv. S. IV. 6, 7), these doubts
are nearly removed, it being most likely that the original meaning of pafala was
likewise section, division.
Another instance where my meaning has been misapprehended, and where
I have been refuted2 for opinions which I never held, occurred with regard to
the dates of Yftska and P&wini. Because I said that on certain points Y&ska
holds more advanced views than K&tyayana, it is argued that I must place
Yaska after KAtytlyana and after Pftmni. I see how the wording of one
sentence in my book could have given rise to such a misunderstanding, but no
attentive reader could have failed to see that I place Yaska before K&ty&yana,
before Panini, nay, even before (Shunaka. T believe I was the first to point out
that Yaska, not Vaiyaska, was actually quoted in the Rik-Pr&tisakhya, and as I
still hold that this Pratisakhya was anterior to P4nini, I could not have placed
Yiiska after Panini.
It would be impossible to answer all objections of this kind, particularly when
they are of a personal rather than a scientific character. Why I write, unadi
instead of u?rnadi would seem to be a matter of very small importance. That
1 know the rule of Ptbiini VIII. 3, 32, I have proved, I should think, in more
than a thousand passages of my edition of the Rig-veda. But the phonetic
rules are not applicable in their full strictness to the technical terms used by
grammarians. Thus means all vowels; gen. (PAn. I. 1, 57). Whenever
■q becomes final, it ought to be changed into a guttural. PfLnini does not so
change it (I. 1, 10; 3, 2), nor have I ever met with the form or
which would be analogous to Wff^, but only with vsrrf^ and ’SfstTT, in apparent
violation of Panini’s own rules. The same applies to fa#3, which as a com¬
pound is generally spelt with one ty, whereas, if it occurs by itself, followed by
a vowel, the final ^ is doubled. Thus I have always printed fiigrfrts:, but
The eighth class of verbs is commonly called a*nf<3, of which there is the
derivation awrf^: (Rv. Bh. I. 138, 2), both written with a single n. The fact
is that in the real Sanskrit there is not a single instance4 where in a compound
the first pada ends in a nasal, which nasal is doubled; and hence there was
no analogy to be followed in such artificial words as ^nsjTf^r. Besides there is
The commentator gays, paiulasabda/i samdhavati; which Bdbtlingk alters to Weatergaard re¬
he also explains it by bhfigaA. tains
Neither pftrvapaksha nor uttarapaksha could be 4 The only instance which has been brought foi-
correctly rendered by ‘ refutation,’ in the souse in ward, vrishanasva, is an exception to the rnle/exceptio
"kick that word is used by English writers.
prohat regulam.’
3 The Caloutta edition has iTOTf* (P. II. 4, 79).
Ixxii PREFACE TO THE
a natural reluctance to apply the ruleB of Sandhi to technical terms, the very
meaning of which might sometimes be completely changed if the changes of
Sandhi were observed. Taking all this into account, and being unable by the
help of MSSL to satisfy myself as to whether Pa/iini’s Sfttras gave '3nrrft£ or
(the editions vary), I determined to retain the usual form, and I was
strengthened in my determination by the fact that in metrical works too
is used with the first syllable short
Witli regard to one of the most important questions which have of late
occupied Sanskrit scholars, namely, the Introduction of Writing, some new
evidence, which deserves careful attention, has been brought to light by several
of my critics, Professor Bohtlingk, Benfey, Whitney, Goldstiicker -, and Wester-
Svaramaffr/ari (M»S. E. 1. H. 98, p. $oa, 1. 1): fessor Weber does not yet seem to be aware that his
efforts to prove that Yavana may mean Greek were not
wig vig^mfui ngpsrua im: vr 1
necessary. The important point was to prove that
Yavana need not always mean Greek. This point was
2 A few points which can he settled without enter¬ proved by Professor Lassen. But Professor Lassen,
ing into details may here be touched upon in a note : as well as most Sanskrit scholars, was fully aware that
1. When I said that writing was not known before Yavana may mean Greek, before Professor Weber in¬
P&nini, I meant to imply that it became known in formed us of this fact. To determine where Yavana
India about his time, but that the literature known moans Greek, and tohere it means Semitic nations, or
to him, which had accumulated before his time, was even nations of black complexion, k&layavaua, this is,
oral only, I thus tried to account both for the absence and has been for some time, the roal problem for
of any allusion to written language in his grammatical Sanskrit scholars.
terminology, and for the appearance of grammatical 4. Ever since I have quoted Pawini for historical
terms implying a written language (vindu &c.) in later purposes, I have tried to distinguish between text and
grammarians. commentary, but as I have never based historical con¬
2. Lipikara, which I myself pointed out as occur¬ clusions on words occurring in the commentary only,
ring in PHnini, is never used for wiiter, still less for I have not distinguished between PatniP/ali, Kftsika,
author; it means a man who makes lipis, i.e. public See. Professor Goldstiicker deserves great credit for
inscriptions. See Westergaard, Abbandluugen, p. 33. having pointed out the necessity of such a distinction
3. With regard to the meaning of Yavanfmi lipi, a where the intellectual horizon of Pataityali has to be
w ide field is open to conjecture, because we have no fixed. When I write ‘in Pftnini,’ I moan the grammar
means of exact knowledge. The two points, however, such as we have it; when I say ‘ by Pftnim,’ I mean
which I maintained, have never been shaken; namely, the man, the author of the Sfltras. Professor Gold-
1. that if Yavanani lipi means the Greek willing, it stucker is right about P&n. IV. 3, 108; I am glad,
does not prove that Pdnini was later than Alexander, however, to find that I do not stand alone in my
because the Greek alphabet might well have boen opinion of the traditional character of the udftharanas
known in India before Alexander’s conquest. This and pratyudUharanas, (See Westergaard, Abhand-
has been confirmed by Westergaard, Abhandlungen, lmigen, p. 66; and Prof. G.’s very pertinent remarks,
p. 8r; 2. that Yavandni lipi is most likely that variety p. 24, 1. ai.) In other instances where Professor Gold-
of the Semitic alphabet which, previous to Alexander, stiicker has suspected me of want of accuracy in quot¬
and previous to PSnini, became the type of the Indian ing Pttnini, he will find that there is a Cf. added to
alphabet (Hist, of A. S. L. p. 521). The numerous my quotations. Wherever this is the case, I wish the
changes of opinion of other scholars on this subject reader to compare Pknini, but give him to understand
may be seen in the * Indische Studien,’V. p. 8. Pro¬ that P&nini, the author of the Sfltras, does not himself
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lxxiii
gaard. Not one of the facts, however, on which I based my argument, has been
invalidated; on the contrary, the evidence has been strengthened, particularly
use the word in question. Thus, on page 369, the I10 uses varna of vowels only. In Sfltra VII. 4, 53, I
only quotation from PSnini with which Prof. G. finds divide yivarnayoA into y (yakflra) aryl ivarna.
fault, is marked with Cf. The same applies to p. 361, 9. Tho expressions flrdhva, udaya, &c., apply to
where I refer to Pfl». IV. 3, 101, and IV. 2, 64, in memory even better than to hooks. Books might ho
confirmation of the name by which Pflniui’s own work turned topsyturvy, hut in the memory the beginning
was familiarly known in later times. Here too Cf. is of a book must always bo bottommost.
added. Thus again, Pits. IV. 3, 108, is marked by Cf.; 10. Though I have never denied that Paniui may
and tho same caution is added to Pita. IV. 3,66 (p.362), have been one of the first BrShirians acquainted with
to PS«. IV. 3, 102 (p. 371). The names mentioned on the art of writing, I did not think that this could be
page 369 I did not intend to restrict to Pflnini. proved by the employment of accents in his Sfltras.
3. The fact that Sfltra in tho singular moans a com¬ Tho Svarita, which was intended to show that a rule
plete work, confirms the opinion which I expressed, extended its influence over certain other rules, was
that it meant a string of rules, before it meant a single actually pronounced, nor could a more convenient
rule. The German ‘ Band’ does not mean a book in method have been imagined for distinguishing the
general, but a volume, originally a bound volume. 'Hie head-words or head-rules than the prolonged intona¬
word was used in that sense since the middle of tion of the Svarita. It is nowhere said that these Sva-
the eighteenth century (see Grimm, s.v.); and gram- ritas were not pronounced, but only that they were not
maiiaus distinguish between der Band, die Bande, part and parcel of the rule (na tu prayogasamavayi, lit.
‘ volume,’ and das Band, dio Bander, string,’ sfltra.’ 'they do not enter into the effect produced by the rule’).
6. The Sfltra which Kaiyya/u marks as not composed 11. As I always distinguish between the existence
by l’Jnini is IV. 3, 132, not IV. 3, 116. SQtra IV. 3, of an alphabet and its employment for literary pur¬
1 Hi, is merely marked as not explained in tho com¬ poses, I should he quite willing to admit that the shep¬
mentary. Sco IV. 3, 106, ityfulini fciturdasa sfitr8)ii herds at the time of Paniui marked their cattlo with
himshye tu na vyakhyfltflni. To this fact, that certain letters. The Greeks knew the alphabet, and used it
Sfltra* aro not explained iu the Mahflbh­a, I attach for commercial purposes, for inscriptions, for public-
little importance, and quite agree with Professor Gold- registers long beforo they dreamt of reducing their
st ticker’s remarks. To any candid mind this subject poems to writing. (See this point well argued by Mr.
is disposed of by Profossor Aufrecht’s romarks, Cata¬ Grote in answer to the late Colonel Mure, Appendix I
logs Bodl. p. 160. and IT annexed to the third edition ofGrote’s History
J. The passage from tho MahSbharata (Sflntip. v. of Greece.) Numerical figures, totems, &c., are known
1 '339~I:I342) can only be understood of the weight of to American tribes who have no alphabet. But I must
niemoiy. No one would suspect YudhishMira or any¬ confoss that Pan. VI. 3, 115, does not seem to prove
body else of being intent on carrying about a book; to me convincingly the custom of using either letters
or if he felt tho weight at all uncomfortable, he might or figures for branding cattle.
easily debarrass himselfof it. The weight of the Veda 12. On the use of dm- in tho sense of perceiving in
(vedabhfira) is spoken of in the VusishtAa-smriti general, see Bohtlingk-Roth, s. v. dars. The expression
(History of Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 55), where thero can ‘ na drisyate’ is synonymous with ‘ na vidyate,’ nflsti.'
be no idea of heavy folios. In grammar, adarsanam is explained by aprayoga I, 2.
8. If varna means a modified sound, there ought to 55; and prayoga, according to Prof. G., would mean
be, as Prof. G. says, something of which the varnas are pronunciation. See also the passage quoted fromYfljiiu-
modifications. This is perfectly true. In the Ilik- valkya III. 191, and Rig-veda-lMshya, vol. i. p. 30.
PratisAkhya, XIII. 4, we read, ‘ the breath being one,
W TOW W TGH ,
assumes in reality, as it becomes varna or letter, many
and the commentary,
sounds.’ As far as I understand Prof. G.’s further
discussions on varna and kflra, they seem to prove to xpis:
me simply this, that Pftnini never uses kflra, and that
VOL. IV.
lxxiv PREFACE TO THE
in the Various Readings; but there is many a short line in these notes which
represents the results of hours, nay, of days and weeks of hard work. Nor was
one single passage surrendered as hopeless before everything bad been tried to
render it correct. - ,
I have stated on former occasions how much I owed to the assistance of my
learned friend Professor Aufrecht, and I am glad to say that in the present
volume also I have to a considerable extent had the benefit of his co-operation.
Though I regret his departure from Oxford, nothing could have been more
beneficial to the interests of sound Sanskrit scholarship in this country than
his appointment to thq Chair of Sanskrit at Edinburgh, lately founded by
Mr. J. Muir, D. C. L., the munificent patron of Sanskrit philology. Professor
Aufrecht’s transliteration of the text of the Rig-veda in Roman letters,
now in course of publication, will be welcome to all students of Sanskrit.
I look forward with confidence to many valuable contributions from his pen
towards the elucidation of the Vedic language, Vedic mythology, and Vedic
religion.
Another friend whose name I always had to mention in these pages with
admiration and gratitude, IT. H. Wilson, has not lived to see the completion of
a work which owed so much to him. Without his strong recommendation it
would have been impossible to secure the patronage of the Court of Directors
of the late East-India Company, and afterwards of the Secretary of State for
India; and some of the most valuable MSS. on which this edition is based, were
procured through his influence. How deep an interest he took in this work he
proved by undertaking the ungrateful task of preparing an English translation,
a task which on other occasions ‘ he intentionally left to younger and more
enterprising study1.’ Wilson had lived through almost the whole history of
Sanskrit scholarship, and had taken part in nearly every important work that
marked an epoch in the study of Indian literature, history, and religion. Every
one of his own works represents a new conquest. He never followed, he was
always first; and though he was sometimes blamed for want of accuracy, he
might well appeal to the rough work which he had to do, while others followed
in the paths which he had opened and smoothed. Where any useful work was
to be done, where a dictionary had to be compiled, manuscripts to be catalogued,
coins and inscriptions to be deciphered, where new texts had to be edited, new
works to be translated, Wilson was always ready to undertake the task which
no one else was willing or able to undertake, and he never undertook anything
1 See the Preface to hie edition of the Dasa-kumkra-iarita, p. 31.
k 2
lxxvi PREFACE TO THE
without finishing it with unflinching perseverance. His was not the scholarship
of a Colebrooke, a Burnouf, or a Lassen; but if we look at the works which he
left behind, we shall see how much we owe to him, and how much we have
lost in him. , Though the scorn with which he spoke of those who had never
ventured in translation beyond works that had been previously translated by
English scholars, and who were not even familiar with the native grammarians1,
provoked at the time angry rejoinders from Continental students, he lived long
enough to see himself regarded as the revered Nestor by all who belong to the
small but brave army of bond, fide students of Sanskrit; and his memory will
long be cherished in India as well as in Europe, as that of a real benefactor
to India and to Indian literature.
I am glad to be able to announce that the translation of the Rig-veda
which Wilson had undertaken, will not remain incomplete. He worked at it
till nearly the last moments of his life, and Professor Ballantyne, his worthy
successor in the Library of the India Office, has undertaken the task of editing
his MS. What I think of Wilson’s translation I have fully stated on various
occasions, and particularly in the Preface to the third volume of this work.
I consider a literal translation of the Veda, in strict adherence to the explanation
of SAyana, as highly valuable and interesting, and I hope that that principle
will be rigorously observed by the editor of the remaining portion of this
translation. But though I regret that the opinions which I expressed on this
subject were not approved by Professor Wilson, I cannot but repeat my firm
conviction that if we may learn from Sayana how, after a lapse of thirty
centuries, the ancient poems of the Rishis had been misunderstood by Indian
theologians and philosophers, we must proceed in quite a different manner
in order to learn how these simple hymns were originally understood by
the Rishis themselves. This point has of late been so frequently discussed,
that I will not here enter again upon it; but I hope within a short time
to be able to lay before the public the first volume of a translation of the
Rig-veda, based on those principles of interpretation on which nearly all who
have worked in this new field of Sanskrit scholarship are fully agreed. A
difference of opinion like this, though it may have caused pain to my departed
friend and teacher, has never in the least detracted from the esteem and
admiration which I shall always entertain for him. His loss I, more than
any other, feel to be irreparable; but the true way to honour the memory
of our departed generals is not to halt where they fell, but to advance to
new conquests.
The vigour and enthusiasm with which the study both of the modern and
of the ancient Sanskrit has of late been taken up, the continued activity of
such veterans as Bopp, Lassen, Benfey, Brockhaus, Stenzler, Westergaard, the
original investigations of Aufrecht, Ballantyne, Bohtlingk, Foucaux, Goldstticker,
Gorresio, Hall, Kuhn, Muir, Regnier, Rber, Roth, Schiefner, Weber, Whitney,
the excellent work done in India both by Europeans, such as Cowell, Griffith,
and Haug, and by a most important class of independent native scholars, such
as RMh&k&nta Deva, Ixvarachandra Vidys'tsagara, B4p& Deva, Knsfmamohana
Banerjea, Nilakantha Gore, Rajendralala Mitra, Bhau Daji; lastly, the constant
succession of new students, among whom the names of Breal, Bidder, Fausboll,
Haas, Kern, Pertsch, Siegfried, deserve to be distinguished—all these hold out a
hope that the study of Sanskrit will not become stagnant, or lose the position
which, thanks to the genius and honest industry of Sir W. Jones, Colebrooke,
and Wilson, it has gained in our Universities by the side of Greek and Latin, of
Hebrew and Arabic. The work which still remains to be done, however large
its proportions, will not suffer from lack of labourers. At the present moment
the most pressing work is, no doubt, the Veda, and new hands are wanted
both for the edition of texts, not yet published, and for the critical interpre¬
tation of the relics of the ancient poetry of the Rishis. It is impossible for
one scholar, it will probably be impossible for one generation of scholars, to
bring the deciphering of the hymns of the Rig-veda to a satisfactory con¬
clusion. My own contributions can for the future be but small, and very in¬
adequate to the great difficulties that have to be overcome. With this volume,
however, the most important portion of the Rig-veda is before the public.
The ninth Mandala contains nothing but the Soma hymns, the tenth and last
offers a mixture of ancient and modern fragments. Every scholar is now able
to take his share in the elucidation of the difficult language and the still more
difficult thoughts of the ancient poets of India. Much has been done already,
and a most important advance towards a right understanding of the Rig-veda
will have been made when the Sanskrit Dictionary of Bohtlingk and Roth,
published under the auspices of the Imperial Acadenry of St. Petersburg, and
supported by the enlightened liberality of the Emperor of Russia, is finished.
It is a work of which I feel it a duty to speak with the fullest acknowledg¬
ment of its great merits, because in this country its defects have been criticised
with extreme rigour. Still further progress will be made when the Sanskrit
lxxviii PREFACE TO THE
Dictionary at which Professor Goldstucker has been working for many years
is completed. But with all the light which the labours of these and other
scholars have shed on considerable portions of the Rig-veda, the dark and
unintelligible passages have still a decided preponderance over those that have
been made out to the satisfaction of impartial critics. .$raue portions of the
Rig-veda, I confess, I consider as hopeless, and as h the n> resist all attempts
at interpretation. But there is no reason why we should despair. The Rig-
veda is the most, ancient book of the Aryan world. Every hymn, every verse,
every word that can be deciphered in it is a gain. The sacred hymns of the
Brahmans stand unparalleled in the literature of the whole world, and their
preservation might well be called miraculous. We must be thankful that any
authentic imago of those primitive periods in the history of mankind which
can now be studied in the Rig-veda, should have been handed down to us.
These ancient hymns represent the lowest stratum in the growth of the human
mind which can be reached anywhere by means of contemporaneous literature.
And if in putting together the petrified remains of a primeval world, the
geologist must often rest satisfied with fragments that tell but half of what
they might have told, the historian also in gathering up the threads of the
most primitive thoughts of man, must learn to make the best of rags and
tatters that once formed part of the splendid webs of poetry and religion
woven by the early fathers of the human race.
MAX MULLER.
Tenby. October 1862.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lxxix
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
I add a letter of Biot’s on the Nakshatras, together with some interesting notes on some
parts of my essay, which I owe to the kindness of Professor W. P. Donkin, and of the Itev.
It, Main, Radcliffe Observer.
Biot’s letter was written about two months before his death. It was addressed to Professor
Benfey at Gottingen, and printed by him in his Journal, ‘Orient und Occident,’ vol. i. p. 747.
It completes the evidence, as far as Biot’s views are concerned. Although we learn from it that
the eminent astronomer had slightly modified his opinion as to the exclusively Chinese origin of
the Indian Nakshatras, it is impossible to accept his explanation of the original character of
these asterisms, which would reduce the primitive elements of Indian astronomy and chronology
to mere astrological contrivances.
‘ C’est moi qui me trouve trds-honore, et trds-heureux, de la lettre que vous venez de
m’ecrire. J’on suis, on no peut plus, reconnaissant. Dans tout le eours de ma longue carriere
scientifique, je 11’ai jamais eu en vue quo la recherche de la veritd; ct je ne m’en suis cru en
possession, qu’aprcs avoir vu les resultats de mes efforts sanctionnes par l’autorite des personnes
qui en etaient les juges legitimes. Votre lettre me donne cctte assurance pour le precis de
l’histoire de l’astronomie cliinoise qui m’a occupe toute cette an nee. C’cst ma recompense.
I/opinion des gens, peu ou mal informes, favorable ou defavorable, m’est complettement
indifferente. Meme, dans le premier cas, je dirais volontiers, comme Phoeion a ses amis, apres
avoir prononce un discours qui avait dte fort applaudi par le peuple d’Athenes; est ce quo
j'aurais dit quelque sottise! Pour les travaux de l’intclligence, comme dans les decisions
politiques, je ne fais aucun cas du suffrage universel.
‘L’interet bienveillant que vous me temoignez m’enhardit 4 vous soumettre une idee, qui,
4 die se trouvait judif.ee par les epreuves que l’erudition pourrait Ini fake suhir, terminerait, il
I’amiablc, toutes les controverses aujourd’hui dlevdes, sur la nature et l’oiigine des Nakshatras
primitifs des Hindoos.
‘ Prcnons d’abord le texte repute le plus aneien ou on les voit mentionnes. Dans un passage
du ltig-veda, VIII. 3, 20, cite par M. Max Muller, il est dit:
‘ Soma (la June) est dans le sein de ces Nakshatras.
‘ Comment cos Nakshatras primitifs etaient-ils constitues ? C’est la premidre question qu’il
faut se faire.
' Or je dis que ce n’etaient pas, que ce ne pouvaient pas etre, des divisions du ciel, marquees
par des etoiles prises sur la route mensuelle de la Lune. En effet, le plan de 1’orbc lunaire n’est
pas fixe dans le ciel. Il tourne continuellement auteur de l’axe de l’dcliptique, en conservant,
sur le plan de ce cercle celeste une inelinaison moyenne d’environ 5", qui dprouve de tres-petites
variations pdriodiques. Ainsi dans son mouvement revolutif, qui s’aeeomplit en 18 ans juliens
et il peu pres 7 mois et demi, il contient des etoiles sans cesse differentes, entre lesquelles, par
consequent, on ne peut pas etablir des intervalles fixes, qui soient toujours situds sur la route
changeante que la Lune parcourt mensuellement. Les chinois, qui rapportaient gdndralement
les positions mdridiennes des astres h 28 dtoiles, toujours les memes, auraient pu, s’ils l’avaient
voulu, considdrer les intervalles equatoriaux compris entr’elles, comme autant de Mansions
1XX3^ PREFACE TO THE
passag&res, appartenantes specialement ft la Lune. Mais les plus minutieuses recherches, faites
a ce stfjet, dans les textes originaux et les traditions, par M. Stanislas Julien et mon fils, ne
leur ont pas decouvert le moindre indice de cette pensee. Les Chinois considerent leurs 28
sieou, comme les demeures momentames, du soleil, de la Lune, des Plankton, des cometes, en un
mot, de tous les astres qui se meuvent parmi les 6toiles, sans les attribuer particuliftrement ft
aucun d’eux.
‘ Si les Nakshatras primitifs des Hindous, n’dtaient pas des divisiofts stellaires prises sur la
route mensuelle de la Lune on pent leur concevoir un autre mode de formation, qui aurait 6te
bien plus simple, et plus naturel. Ce serait, qu’ils eussent design^ dans chaque lunaison,
eertaines tipoques, ou certains intervalles temporaires, auxquels on aurait attribue des
influences favorables ou defavorables, comme S. Augustin nous apprend qu’on le faisait, de son
terns, chez les Romains, et comme bien des gens le font encore de nos jours; n’osant pas se
mettre en voyage, ou entreprendre eertaines operations agricoles, ou commencer un traitement
medical, quand la Lune est en decours. Los Hindous n'auraient-ils pas, triis-anciennement, sans
aucunc science, sans aucun eehafaudage astronomique, attache des pronostics de ce genre a
chacun des 27 ou 28 jours de chaque mois, pendant lesquels la Lune nous est visible, ce qui
aurait produit leurs 27 ou 28 Nakshatras ? Ce ne sont 1A, sans doute, que des conjectures,
mais si naturelles, qu’elles semblent meriter qu’on examine si les aneiens textes Vediques n’en
offraient pas quelque indication.
‘En supposant qu’elles se trouvassent ainsi justifiees le reste s’expliquerait de soi-mome.
Quand les Brahmes ont voulu remplacer leur astronomie primitive par une science abstraite et
mathematique, comme nous la voyons etahlie dans le Surya-siddhanta, les 28 sieou chinois,
regulierement d^finis par leurs etoiles determinatrices, leur oiiraient la matitire, toute preparee,
d’une substitution savante A faire aux Nakshatras primitifs: ct, ne voulant les employer qu’ft
des applications astrologiques, ils purent, sans inconvenient, les adopter pour eet usage, eon-
trairement ft leur destination originaire; de memo qu’ils ont denature l’emploi des exeentriques
et dqs epicycles grecs, quand ils se les sont appropries.
‘Si les choses se sont passees comme je viens de le dire, les Nakshatras primitifs des
Hindous, et ceux du Surya-siddh&nta, seraient des institutions de nature et d’origine entiere-
ment differentes, l’une indigene, l’autre etrangcre; et tous les efforts d’erudition que I’on a faits,
que I’on voudrait faire, pour deriver les nouveaux des aneiens, seraient sans fondement, comme
sans resultat. Mais dans tous les cas, ceux qui pretendraient etablir cette derivation, auraient
pour obligation premiere, de nous faire connaitre, d’aprfts des documents positifs, en quoi les
Nakshatras primitifs eonsistaient.
‘ Je m’excuserais de vous avoir entretenu, avee tant de details, d’une simple conjecture, si la
question qu’elle concerne ne m’a vait paru devoir vous interesser, comme etant un des juges les
plus eompetents, et les mieux prepares, pour la decider.
‘ En vous reiterant etc. J. B. Biot.
‘P.S. Si vous pensez qu’il y aurait quelque utilite ft publier cette lettre, ft cause du
desideratum q’on y signale, disposez en, comme vous le jugerez ft propos V
1 ‘ Fur die in dieseui geistvollcn Brief ausgespro- Schol. Mahfdhara gewiss rpit Recht mit den Nak-
chene Hypothese lasst sich vielleieht schon jetzt gel- shatra’s identificirt (man vergleiche damit Bhigav.
tend maehen : 1. Vftjns. Samh. IX. 7, wo sieben und Pur. IV. 29, 21, wo gesagt wird, dass die Gandharva’n
zwanzig Gandharva’s erwabnt werden, welche der die Tage, die Gandharvi’s (Femin. von gandharva) die
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxi
‘ The calendar at p. xxvi professes to give the days of the month on which the solstices
would fall during a cycle of five years, and also the moon’s place at each solstice. It is supposed
that the moon is in conjunction with the sun, and the sun in a solstice, at the beginning of the
cycle; and that the same thing happens at the middle of the cycle. Hence it is easy to find
the ratios which must have been assumed for the lunar months, both sidereal and synodical, to
the solar year. Five solar years namely have been considered to be equal to 67 sidereal or 62
synodical months.
‘ According to the former of these assumptions the moon would make 6.7 sidereal revolu¬
tions in half a year; hence at the end of the half year it would be of a revolution in advance;
of its place at the beginning. Now of a revolution is (XVX a7 = ) 18.9 nakshatras. Hence
if for every half year we add 18.9 nakshatras to the moon’s longitude, and reject multiples of
27, we get its place as follows: (the names of the nakshatras are taken from the table in
p. xxxiv.)
Time Moon's longitude Name of nakshatra in which the
(in Bolar years). (in nakshatras). moon’s place falls.
0 0 beginning of NravishiAii.
i 18.9 in A'itra.
1 10.8 in Ardra,
it 2.7 in Purva-Bhadrapuda.
2 21.6 in Anuradha.
2| »3-5 middle of Aslesha.
3 5-4 in Asvini.
4 |6.2 in Uttara-Phalguni.
4l 8.1 in Rohinl.
5 0 beginning of $ravish(/»a.
‘ This agrees exactly with the calendar, and leaves no doubt as to the way in which the
moon’s places were calculated. But it does not settle the ratios of the month or year to the
solar day. We find it stated, however, in the extract from Garga (pp. liii, liv), that the lustrum
is said to consist of 1830 solar days; and as this lustrum is evidently the period of five years,
the year must have been assumed to contain 366 days, the lunar sidereal month 27U days,
and the synodical month 29!, days.
‘AH this is clear, and agrees with the statement that a yuga (or lustrum) contains 2010
nakshatra days, that is (X£J-2 = ) 67 sidereal lunar months.
‘But an apparent difficulty arises when we compare these results with the column in the
Nachte des Jahres sind), 2. die bekannten beiden Hym- als Bezeichnung der “ Sonne ” (VII. 81, 2. X. 156, 4,
nen des Atharva-veda XIX. 7 und 8, von Regnier iiber- und hochst wahrscheinlich auch VI. 67, 6), und ich
setzt in den 1859 in Journal des Savants erschienenen glaube desshalb, dass Max Muller in der von ihm
Artikeln (im bosonderen Abdruek, p. 86, 87 Anm.). citirten Stelle (Asht.VIII. 3, 20 = M. X. 83, 2), pine
Diese Stellen sind jedoch verhaltnissmassig jung. Im Beziehung auf die Nakshatras im spatert Sinn mit.
Rig-veda finde ich nakshatra nur in der Bedeutung Unrecht erbliekt (History of Ancient Sanskrit Litera¬
Stern ” (M. I. 50, 2. III. 54, 19. X. 68, n), selbst ture, p. 212 n.).—Anm. d. Red.’
VOL. IV. 1
lxxxii PREFACE TO THE
calendar which gives the days of the month on which the solstices would fall. For since inter¬
calations seem to be implied amounting to 60 days, the cycle would consist of i860 days instead
of 1830. The discrepancy will disappear, however, if we suppose the i860 days to be, not
solar days, but “tithis,” of which 30 make a synodical month; for five years, being assumed
to be equal to 62 synodical months, would contain i860 tithis. And this also explains the
statement (p. Iv) that “in the lustrum of the moon there are said to be i860 days,” which is
unintelligible on the supposition that solar days are meant/ (See the extract from Colebrooke,
p. xx.)
Calculation of difference of epochs for observed precessional motion 42“ J of Regulus (from
1859), given in Archdeacon Pratt’s investigation (p. xxviii), by the llev. It. Main, Rad-
eliffe Observer.
‘ The general expression for the processional motion reckoning from the year 1800, is
30".2401 f + o".oooi 134 f?, when l is the number of years, and, reckoning from 1859, it
is 5o".2,545/ + o".oooii34/t2, and this is equal to — 42°. 12’.30" = — 151950". As a
first approximation neglect t'z. Hence 5o".25451 = — 151950", or t = — 3024 years.
Substituting this in t2, we get 50.2545 t = —152987, or t— —’3044 years, which is
equivalent to 1186 b. c.’
(Archdeacon Pratt uses for mean annual precession 50", instead of 49".899.)
Making a similar calculation for Bentley’s investigation (pagexxxi &e.), wo have for 1750,
5o".2298f + .0001134 iz = — 158460", whence, by exactly the same process, / = — 31 77
years, which is equivalent to 1428 li.c.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lxxxiii
After this Preface was printed I received, through the kindness of the Itev. It. Main, the
Radcliffe Observer, some extremely valuable calculations, which had been made, at his instance,
by Mr. Hind. Though I never placed much confidence in Bentley's speculations, I certainly
felt, as I said on page xxxiii of my Preface, that ‘ the coincidence pointed out by him between
the modem names of the planets and the ancient astronomical facts to which they owe, or are
supposed to owe, their origin, required an explanation at the hand of experienced astronomers.'
Much would depend on the correctness of Bentley’s assertion that the occultatious of the
four planets by the moon took place within the space of about sixteen months, in the years
1424 and 1425 B. C., and that they took place respectively in those Nakshatras from which
the names of the planets are derival. If Bentley's calculations should prove incorrect, his
whole argument in favour of the date 1424 would at once be disposed of. But if they should
turn out correct, then of two things one: either we should have to allow the reality of the
observation and the reality of the date implied, or we should have to admit that the Brahmans,
at the time at least of the Purawas, possessed sufficient knowledge of astronomy to be able to
calculate correctly the longitudes and latitudes of the moon and of four of the planets according
to the equinox of the year 1424 B. e. The one result would almost be as interesting as the
other. I feel convinced, therefore, that all Sanskrit scholars will appreciate the important
service rendered by Mr. Hind in undertaking the troublesome calculation, the results of which
1 am now able to lay before them:
1 send you herewith the places of the moon and planets about the times indicated in your
letter. Ecliptic conjunctions appear to have occurred in each case, but the differences of latitude
show iliat, according to our best tables, Jupiter is the only planet that could have been occulted.
The astronomical and not the chronological method of reckoning seems to have been adopted by
Mr. Bentley, as you supposed.
Yours, &c.,
J. R. Hind.
1 2
Jxxxiv PREFACE TO THE.
LONGITUDE. LATITUDE.
40
€ ¥ ¥—d d ?
1
h. 0 / O / 0 t 0 t 0 / O /
— 1425 Aug. 18, 0 69.12 97.28 -+ 28.16 ~4-5 + 0.2 + 4- 7
12 76.21 98. 4 21.43 3-39 0-3 3-42
19, 0 85.30 98.4O 15.10 3- 8 o-5 313
12 9039 99.16 8-37 2-35 0.6 2.41
20, 0 97.46 99-53 + a- 7 >•59 0.8 2. 7
12 104.51 IOO.3I — 4.20 — 1.22 -+0.9 + 2-31
Venus therefore in Ecliptic d with the Moon, about Aug. 20, 3* 56“, but differing from her
in Latitude, + i° 55'.
<r 5 ?-« d
h. 0 / 0 / O / O P ‘ 0 P
— 1424 April 16, 0 12.43 31- 9 -j-18.26 — 5-o + 1-5° + 6.50
12 19.49 3115 11.26 5- 0 1-45 <>•45
17, 0 26.58 31.20 + 4-aa 4-5*i 1-39 6-35
12 34- 9 3'-a4 — 2-45 4-5<> >33 6.19
18, 0 4123 31.26 9-57 432 1.27 5-59
12 48.58 31-27 -.7.11 — 4-*4 -+ 1.21 + 5-35
Mercury therefore in Ecliptic (5 with the Moon, about April 17, 22m, but differing from
her in Latitude, + 6° 25'.
d V %—d d 1/ %—d
0 p O / O / O P
O O
Jupiter therefore in Ecliptic (5 with the Moon, about April 22, 23h 26®, but differing from
her in Latitude, + °° 41'-
a*
c=\
d $
1
d (?— d
*
h. 0 p O P O P 0 p O P 0 /
Mara therefore in Ecliptic d with the Moon, about Aug. 18, I4h 17®, but differing frolh
her in Latitude, — 70 i'.
FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lxxxv
In reply to some further questions, whether such near approaches of the moon anil the four
planets were likely to occur again within the same space of time, and whether, reckoning from
the equinox of -1424, the longitudes of these conjunctions coincided with the longitudes of
the Nakshatras from which the names of the planets are derived, I received the following state¬
ments from the Rev. the Radcliffe Observer:—
‘ With regard to the first of your questions,—it would require an enormously long period
to bring the four planets in question into the same relative positions, so as to produce, within
an equally short space of time, near approaches of all of them to the moon at ecliptic conjunc¬
tion. I think therefore we may consider that this set of conjunctions can belong only to the
epoch —(1424-5); and there seems to be really some foundation for Bentley's interpretation of
i,he legend of Daksha’s daughters. •
‘ This seems confirmed by a comparison of the longitudes of the planets in question with the
longitudes of the beginnings of the corresponding Lunar Mansions at this epoch (Mr. Hind’s
equinox being taken for — 1424).
‘ Thus from the data at page xxviii, it appears that, for the epoch — 1181, the beginning of
Asvini, the first Lunar Mansion, is in longitude 23° nearly, and, reckoned from the equinox of
— 1424, it would be in longitude 20° nearly.
‘ Hence, for —1424, we have the following table for comparison of the planets’ places with
the commencements of the Lunar Mansions from which they are supposed to have derived
their names:—
‘ 'f he agreement is certainly remarkable, and probably as close as it could be, considering
that the Lunar Mansions must occupy equal spaces.
‘ On the other hand, it is said that the names of the planets are most probably of modern
origin. If this be true, it would appear that the modern Hindus calculated correctly the con¬
junctions in question, and formed the legends and assigned the names of the planets afterwards
from the Lunar Mansions which they occupied.*
It will thus be ,een that the statement of Bentley as to the dates of the four conjunctions
of the moon and the planets is fully borne out by Mr. Hind’s calculations, and that the
coincidence between the legend quoted by Bentley and the astronomical facts determined by
Mr. Hind is a real one. Bentley, it is true, does not give his authority, but Prof. Wilson,
m a note to his translation of the Vishnu-Parana (p. 225), speaks distinctly of the legend as
occurring in the Yayu and Linga-Puranas; and he mentions that these Purawas appeal to
the authority of revelation and tradition in support of the birth of the planets in the Nak¬
shatras AsMiWii, &c. This appeal is, of course, unfounded, for in the early Yedic literature,
and even in the Laws of the Manavas, the very existence of planets is unknown. If, how¬
ever, at a later time the planets were fabled to be daughters of the Nakshatras by Soma,
the moon, ecliptics! conjunctions of moon and planets in each Nakshatra would certainly
Ixxxvi PREFACE TO FOURTH VOLUME OF FIRST EDITION.
offer the most natural explanation of such a legend. There is only one other explanation
that might be suggested. The Liiiga-PurM/a specifies the position of sun, moon, and planets
at the so-called Great Equinox, and the Vayu-Purft«a mentions the same position as having
happened at the end of one of the Manvantaras, the A'akshusha. At that time the sun is said
to have been in Vi.sakha, the moon in KWttika, Venus in Pushya (13th Naksliatra, instead of
Magliti, 15th), Jupiter in Purva-Plialguni, Mars in AshiW//a, Mercury in Dhanish///a (1st Nak-
shatra, instead of Rohm, 9th), Saturn in Revati, Ketu in Atfleshii, and Rfilm in Bliarasi. This,
whether a real or a fanciful configuration, might have given rise to the names of two of the
planets, Jupiter and Mars, but it would leave the names of Venus (Maghabhu) and Mercury
(Rauhi/zeya) unexplained. Now Rauhi«cya, as a name of Mercury, occurs in the Amara-kosha
(I. 2, 27), and in Ilalayudha; and in the Hema/tandra-kosha this planet is called Rohi/zisutaJ,
‘ the son of Rohizzi,’ and Saumya/z, ‘ the son of the moon.’ (See Indische Studien, II. p. 261.) In
the same Koslia, however, Mercury is also called iS'ravish/'^abhii/q 1 born in zSravishf/zii,’ i. e. the
first Naksliatra; and this, as will be seen, agrees with the statement quoted above from the Vayu
and Linga-Pura/zas. Among the names of Mars, Ilemafandra mentions Ashi'V/z&blnVz; among
those of Jupiter, Phalgunibhava/z; among those of Venus, Maghabliava/z. IIema£andra likewise
mentions Revatibhava4 as a name of Jupiter, Bhara»ibliu/z as a name of Rfihu, and A*lesha-
bhti/i as a name of Ketu, all in conformity with the description of the Great Equinox given
in the Purazzas. Whichever explanation of the names of the four planets we adopt, it is
certain that the names are of modern date, with the sole exception of Rauhizzeya. None of
them occur in the Surya-siddhanta (see Surya-siddhanta, ed. Whitney, p. 378); nay, at the
time of the Surya-siddhanta, and with the astronomical views contained in that work, their
positions, as far back as —1424, could not have been ascertained correctly by calculation.
Whether subsequent astronomers in India possessed the knowledge necessary for such calcu¬
lations is a question which I feel not competent to answer; but it seems to me almost as
incredible as that an observation of the planets which could have been real but once in the
history of the world, namely, in the fifteenth century B. c., should have been preserved for
thousands of years by mere tradition.
PREFACE
TO THE FIFTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION.
the Rig-veda and its commentary in the hands of Sanskrit scholars, and I
felt certain that no one would blame me if, with the new direction which
my studies had necessarily to take, first as Professor of Modern European
' Literature, afterwards as Professor of Comparative Philology in the University
of Oxford, I could not, as before, devote all my time and strength to the
study of Sanskrit. For some years I had indeed to allow Sanskrit to become
a mere Tnipepyov, partly in order to be able to keep pace with the advance of
wag to go on with the translation of the Rig-veda, of which the first volume
appeared in 1870, and to> finish some other works which are even nearer to
my heart. But the extremely kind way in which I have been urged by
scholars, not only in Europe, but also in India, to complete this edition of
the text and commentary of the Rig-veda, left me at last no choice, and I
only hope that I may not disappoint my friends in spite of all I have done
to comply with their wishes.
It is but too true that as we advance in the commentary of Sayana,
the difficulties in restoring a correct text grow greater rather than smaller.
The MBS. become move and more faulty, the omissions more numerous,
and the really useful variety of readings, represented before in different
independent families of MSB., often dwindles away into the most perplexing
uniformity. This, as I suggested on a former occasion, is probably due to
the fact that the later portions of this great work were less frequently studied
in the schools of India, so that the MSS. which we possess, either in the original
or in copies, did not receive the benefit of those corrections to which as
editor I owed so much in the earlier portions of the commentary. I have
spared no trouble and expense in order to find out whether MSS. of Sayan a
could still be discovered in India which might help me over desperate passages
or fill up gaps which occur in all our MSS. My friends in India have really
scoured the country, and I have to return to them my most sincere thanks
for the trouble they have taken for my sake and for the sake of Sayana.
But the result has not been encouraging. No MSS. have been discovered
anywhere which do not belong to the three families, A, B, and C, none to
supply deficiencies that run through all the members of these families. Only
a few weeks ago I received a letter, dated Tanjore, Dec. 27, 1871, from Mr.
Burnell, to whom 1 had sent a number of test passages for the last Mandala.
His search too has been in vain, and though of one MS. which the proprietor
w'ould not let out of his possession, Mr. Burnell has not yet been able himself
to make a collation, yet he received trustworthy information that it was in pre¬
cisely the same condition as the MSS. in my possession. If, hereafter, new and
independent MSS. of Sayana’s commentary should come to light, I am quite
prepared to find that in some places they may convict me of faults, and
supply lacunas which I was unable to fill. But the same fate awaits all
critical editions. All I can say is that I have done my best to make my
apparatus criticus as complete as I could make it, and with that apparatus
I doubt whether on the whole a more correct text could have been produced
FIFTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. lxxxix
than the one which I have given. There is not one doubtful or difficult
passage in the whole of this work where I have not .myself carefully weighed
the evidence of the MSS., not one where I have not myself verified the exact
readings of the MSS. even in those portions which were copied and collated
for me by others, except where the originals were out of my reach.
I am well aware of the opinion more or less openly expressed by certain
Sanskrit scholars that a work such as Sayana’s commentary did not deserve
a critical edition, that the time and care bestowed on it were simply wasted,
that a mere reprint of one MS. would have been sufficient for all purposes,
and that we, the scholars of Europe, may dispense altogether with the
assistance of native scholars and commentators. On these points I decline
to be drawn into any argument. I have repeatedly expressed and defended
my own views on these matters during the last five and twenty years. My
own convictions with regard to them have never wavered, and though 1
hope I can surrender a conviction even when I have held it for a quarter
of a century, I do not think that scholars who simply repeat old and, l
think, exploded arguments, without even supporting them with such skill
and learning as were employed in their defence by former scholars, have
any right to insist on a new reply. The evidence is complete, and I am
quite prepared to await the verdict.
1 cannot, however, leave this subject, without entering my most earnest
protest against the language used by a scholar for whose learning, and 1
ought to add, what is far more important, for whose character l have long
entertained a sincere respect, I mean Professor Spiegel of Erlangen. In a
discussion lately carried on between him and Professor Roth on the question
as to what weight we ought to attribute respectively to traditional interpreta¬
tion and to modern criticism in translating the sacred hooks of the ancient
world, Professor Spiegel tries to show that my views on this subject differ
from those of Professor Roth. He says: ‘ Max Muller in seiner Ubersetzung
des Itigveda aussert sich folgendermasscn (I. XV): “The word translation,
however, has many meanings. 1 mean by translation, not a mere rendering
of the hymns of the Rig-veda into English, French, or German, hut a full
account of the reasons which justify the translator in assigning such a power
to such a word, and such a meaning to such a sentence. I mean by trans¬
lation a real deciphering, a work like that which Burnouf performed in his
first attempts at a translation of the Avesta—a traduction raisonnde, if such
an expression may be used. Without such a process, without a running
vol. iv. m
xc PREFACE TO THE
Vor denjenigen Lesern, welche nicht nachrechnen konnen, auf welchem Wee
der Ubersetzer zu seinen Combinationen gekommen ist, hat er nicht noting
sich im Einzelnen zu rechtfertigen, fur die andern kann er sich kurz fassen.’
All I can say is that there ife much force in these remarks, that I feel the
truth of them probably more than any one else, and that I have myself fre¬
quently pleaded in exactly the same sense. But I cannot disguise from myself
or from others that there is considerable danger in these principles of translation,
so boldly enunciated, and that all depends on their application. As applied by
Langlois and others they have proved most disastrous, in the hands of Pro¬
fessor Roth they might produce the most valuable results. No one would
rejoice more than myself if Professor Roth would publish a translation of the
Rig-veda, even without any commentary whatever. The public at large would
receive such a translation most gratefully, and for many years to come it would
answer nearly all purposes. But as far as Sanskrit scholars are concerned, 1
doubt whether such a translation, however striking and brilliant, would render
the more tedious work which I have undertaken altogether useless. No scholar
will be satisfied unless lie has the complete evidence before him on which
a translation is founded. If a meaning is assigned to a certain word, and
we do not know that that meaning proves satisfactory in every passage
where that word occurs, if we have the slightest misgiving that one single
passage may have been left out, the requirements of true scholarship are
not fulfilled, the work is imperfect, and each successive generation will have
to go through the same process of collecting and collating again and again.
Besides, the argument which has been urged so strongly by all Sanskrit
scholars against the assumed infallibility of native commentators and trans¬
lators cannot surely be warded off from ourselves. If Sayaaa is infallible, it
has been said again and again, why does he differ from Y&ska or Mahidhara?
why does he even differ from himself ? Does not the same apply to ourselves,
or is there any scholar likely to submit to the ip.se dixit of another? Let
any one compare, for instance, Professor Roth’s translation of the Vedic
burial-hymns in the eighth volume, with my own in the ninth volume of
the Journal of the German Oriental Society, and he will find that both
translations are intelligible, and so far might be said to carry their own
conviction ; but he will also find that in some very important points they
differ. Again, in some of the commonest words Professor Roth’s interpretation
as given in his Dictionary differs considerably from the interpretation proposed
in his earlier essays. To give an instance, we find that in 1846 he translated
m 2
XC11 PREFACE TO THE
apdsam apdstama, an epithet of the river Sindhu (X. 75, 7), by ‘das wasser-
reichste der Gewiisser,’ as if apds were derived from ap, water. In the Dic¬
tionary apds is rightly rendered by active, and derived from dpas, opus. Yet in
his Original Sanskrit Texts (vol. v. p. 345), published in 1870, Dr. Muir reverts
to the old interpretation, rendering apdsam apdstama by ‘ the most abundant
of streams.’ How are such differences to be settled except by proof, i.e. by a
comparison and translation of every passage of the Rig-veda in which the same
words and the same ideas occur ? Even when this has been achieved, many
passages will still remain where that laborious process does not lead us to satis¬
factory results. But we may honestly say then that all that can be done has
been done, and that every one is henceforth left to his own resources. If we
keep our 'pieces justificatives to ourselves, no conscientious scholar will accept
our conclusions without feeling it his duty to collect the same evidence for him¬
self, and to go over all the passages again as we have done ourselves. Even
though I might mistrust my own judgment, the concurrent testimony of the
best Sanskrit scholars would leave me no room for doubt on this point, and
will certainly not allow me to deviate in future from the method which I
have followed in the first volume of my translation.
Having thus, as I hope and trust, made it clear that, if there is any
difference of opinion between Professor Roth and myself, it is simply with
reference to what at the present moment is likely to be most practically
useful, but none whatever as to the principles which ought to be followed
in the translation of the Veda or Avesta, I must next complain of the
manner in which Professor Spiegel contradicts me with regard to Burnout s
principles of interpretation, and tries to enlist that eminent scholar as a
supporter of his own views on the paramount importance of the traditional
interpretation of the Avesta. Professor Spiegel thinks it becoming to say:
‘ Es ist daher “ ganz falsch,” wenn Max Muller (Essays I. 124, der deutschen
Ausgabe) den Standpunct Burnoufs als verschieden von dem meinigen darstellt
und sich folgendermasscn aussert: “ Em Gelehrter wie Burnouf jedoch, der
zum ersten Mai darauf ausging, von jedem Wort des Zendavesta Rechen-
schaft zu geben, jede grammatische Endung zu erklaren, jeden Satz in seine
Bestandtheile aufzuldsen und die wahre Bedeutung jedes Ausdnicks durch eine
etymologische Analyse und Vergleichung verwandter Wbrter im Sanskrit zu
ergriinden, vermochte aus diesen liberlieferten Ubersetzungen nur geringen
Nutzen und Rath zu ziehen.” Bekanntlieh hat Burnouf gerade das Gegentheil
gesagt und seine Arbeiten liber das Avesta sind eine fortgesetzte Widerlegung
FIFTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. xciii
! See on the true character of Burnouf’s system all. Visvayuk, too, must frequently be taken in the
of interpretation the words of Darmesteter in the Veda as an adverb, meaning ‘ always.’ In passages
Sacred Books of the East, vol. iv. Introduction, like I. 27,3; 67,6; 68,5, &c., the sense forbids to take
2 Etudes sur la langue et sur les textes Zends, not a vocative of visv&yus. Professor Beufey rightly
3 Though Burnouf’s explanation of vispai yave, visvilyu everywhere as an adjective in the sense of
for all time, and of yavaS ka yavafit&tae ka, for ever visvdkrt'ehfi, dwelling among all people. This is a
and ever, seem beyond the reach of criticism, it is case in point where a translation of all the passages
curious to observe the expression visvSyave in the in which vixvayu occurs could alone show whether it
Veda (X. 23, 14) used in the sense of for ever, once for should be taken as an adjective or as an adverb.
FIFTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. xcv
hymns and even of the BrAhmanas, and this at so early a date that we
cannot ascribe these variations to the negligence of scribes, but only to the
influence of oral tradition, kept up in different families and schools. What
applies to the text of the Yedas, applies with equal, or even greater, force
to their commentaries. Although the commentary of SAyana was composed
as late as the fifteenth century of our era, and although I possess one MS.,
written not more than about a hundred years later, yet that MS. (Ca)
cannot claim the supreme authority, which, for instance, the codex Lauren-
tianus A claims among the MSS. of Sophocles. The MS. of Colebrooke (A 2),
although of a much more modern date, about 1761 A. D., represents in innu¬
merable passages a less corrupt and less mangled text; at all events a text
which could not possibly have passed through that phase which is exhibited
in Ca. I have repeatedly, in the Prefaces to my edition of the Rig-veda,
explained the principles by which I have been guided in restoring the text of
Say ana. Having to supply a text that should be practically useful, I have
now and then had to deviate from the strict principles of diplomatic criticism,
so far as to place manifest blunders, even when they were supported by all
the MSS., in the notes. I have chiefly done so when none of the readings
of the MSS. would have yielded any sense whatever, or, when I was enabled,
by consulting the originals from which SAyana quoted, to support my cor¬
rections by independent authority. I have on two or three occasions allowed
an explanation, though it appeared in one or two MSS. only, and was clearly
a marginal note due to the hand of a later student, and not SAyana’s own,
to form part of the printed text, simply because I imagined it would be
useful, and might be passed over if given only in the notes. Deviations
like these from the strict rules followed by Lachmann, Haupt, and others,
have always been noted in the Varietcis Lectionis. I do not wish to defend
them even in the edition of a work like SAyana’s commentary, and I have
tried to avoid them in the later volumes.
In order to show the position which the two new MSS. of SAyana, lately
received from Dr. Bhao Daji, hold in the well-established pedigree of Sayana’s
MSS., I have chosen a passage where SAyana gives a long extract from a
BrAhmana. Such extracts are generally full of blunders, and unless they
can be verified in the original from which they are taken, they are very
troublesome to an editor. Their usefulness, however, for determining the
relative position of our MSS. is all the greater, because the scribes, who
had little difficulty in correcting blunders in the uniform and business-like
FIFTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. XC1X
style of SHyawa, found it more difficult to deal with the antiquated words
and grammatical forms of the BnLhmanas, and therefore contented them¬
selves generally with copying letter by letter the original before them. It
will be seen at one glance, by 'comparing the texts of the various MSS. in
this passage, that of the two MSS. lent to me by Dr. Bhao Daji, the one
which I mark CB belongs to the B class, the other which I mark AD
belongs to the A class. The first MS. (CB) is written in a beautiful hand,
with large .and distinct letters, and contains both text and commentary.
It has no date, at least not in that portion of it which I was able to
examine. The other MS. (AD) is likewise written in a very distinct hand,
hut the letters are smaller and less carefully formed. In the centre of each
page, space is left for inserting the text, but it is only in the sixth Ashtaka,
and in the seventh as far as fol. 51, that the text has been added. In
the eighth Ashtaka the commentary occupies the whole page, no space being
left for the text. At the end of the eighth Ashtaka a date is given, 1813,
as it would seem, of Samvat, i.e. 1757 a.d. The name of the writer is not
clear, but it may be meant for Saddsbn, the son of (?agann4tha. Whoever
the writer was, he lived, like the writer of Colebrooke’s MS., at Benares,
and this so far confirms my opinion that the A class represents the Benares
text, in the same manner as the B class represents the scholastic tradition
of Bombay and Punah, and the C class, at least in the earlier Ashtakas,
that of Calcutta. In order to explain the arrangement of the following extracts,
I have only to add that the first class of MSS. comprises, besides the MSS. of
Dr. Bhao Daji and Colebrooke, the two C MSS., which, as I pointed out in the
Preface to the second volume of my edition (p. viii [see now vol. i. p. xxxii]), are
in the later Ashtakas derived from an A source1. Taylor’s MS. too, which
in the earlier Ash takas belonged to the B class, and was therefore marked
Bq, belongs in the eighth Ash taka to the A class. How this came to
pass is easily explained by the fact that these MSS. were copied from
different originals lent to Taylor, Mill, and Wilson by persons residing in
different parts of India. The second, or C class, is now represented by one
MS. only, the oldest hitherto known in Europe, which I continue to quote
as Ca. In the third, or B class, B 1 is the MS. of Stevenson; B 2 the MS.
of Burnouf, as copied by me (I hope, correctly) in 1846; B 3 is the new
1 Dr. Mill’s MS. (C 2 or C Mill) and Professor occasionally they supply independent readings where
Wilson’s MS. (C4 or C Wilson) were both copied the other A MSS. are either corrupt or imperfect,
at Calcutta, but not from either A or Ca, so that (See Rv.VIII. 91,3; 90 4> tor, *4, &c.)
c PREFACE TO THE
copy mentioned by me in the Preface to the second volume, now in the hands
of Dr. Goldstiicker, and kindly collated by him for me; BM is a short
fragment of the last Ashfaka which I received from Dr. Haug; CB is the
MS. lent me by Dr. Bhao Daji. The last line givfes the text as it may be
re-established from an intercomparison of the three families of Sayana’s
MSS. I do not maintain that it represents exactly what S&yana wrote,
•still less that it gives the correct text of the $£Uy&yanaka. It is simply
impossible, with the MSS. at our disposal, to restore a text that might claim
to be identical with S:\yana’s own writing. All that can be claimed for
our text is that it represents Sftyana’s writing as far as it can now be
restored with the help of our MSS. It gives what is obtainable with a
strict observance of the rules of diplomatic criticism. It is not only possible,
but extremely likely, that if to-morrow we obtained S&yana’s own manuscript,
whether from the ruins of Vidy&nagara, where a complete collection of his
works is said to have been buried, or from the MS. which Dr. Haug saw
at Ahmadabad, and to which he assigns the date of Samvat 1526, a.d. 1470,
we should find slight variations between S4ya?ia’s original and the nearest
approach to it that is within our reach. It is still more likely that if a MS. of
the (Saiyayanaka were recovered in India, there might be between it and our
own restored text, considerable discrepancy. The students of Sftyana’s com¬
mentary know that this is frequently the case when Sayana quotes from
Br&hrnanas and Sritras, of which we possess both MSS. and printed texts;
and we have our choice between supposing that S&yana quoted from memory
and without caring about minute accuracy, or that lie quoted from a .sakha
different from that which is before us. It would be easy, no doubt, to improve
the text of the Br4hmaraa, as here printed, by conjecture. But those who know
the mischief done by conjectural criticism in classical scholarship, will depre¬
cate, most strongly, any countenance given to it by Sanskrit scholars. It may
he truly said that the chief business of modern critics is to cleanse the text of
the classics from the improvements introduced by the ingenious editors of
the last three centuries, and we ought not to neglect this lesson in preparing
jpur own editiones principes. Let an editor give what there is, and let the
Commentator and translator say what might be, or what ought to be.
FIFTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. ci
TRTRt^
b4 WipRWmrfff TT^ritte
Ca ^wirrfiTTTra ahi
Bi (T^t^WUH i TT5*nrfre
The B MSS. differ from the A and Ca MSS. by B 4, which has been corrected, and C 4, which has the
putting instead of TfM. The repetition of Iff slight variation of ,’ while the B MSS. sup¬
®TT?J*l is a slip of the writer of A1). port throughout at all events the vriddhi vowel of tffh
All B MSS. have 4M4gmi*I right, while the A MSS. third syllable, which also appears in the faulty reading
have the mistake ■’SP^T , which reappears in the still of Ca: B 1 and 2 are more closely united, and so are
more corrupt Ca tj ft I <{)*!.
B 3, BM, and CB; the former giving I or
All the B MSS. blunder in the third vowel of
#B, the latter ^TWTTSfrs or #tfVs i see Rv. X. 60,3.
*****, the A MSS. are rigjht; Ca blunders in
On Asamftti see Lassen, Iudische Alterthumskunde
leaving out the anusvftra. The patronymic name of
(first edition), vol. i. p. xiii. note 31; Colebrooke, Misc.
Asamftti, which I suppose to be is corrupt Essays, I. p. 25.
>n all MSS.; the A MSS. agree in^TSirnfttf except
cii PREFACE TO THE
BM ifrtfzjrTT h^hth wm
Text in
M. M.’a
edition.
ifrqTiFrr1 swiddlr2 ^thhtitt
AD tT5*mt% fctfdTfdft d ^
1 BM stands alone in furnishing the right reading of R.] B 4 seems to give *w*rre%, and this is the
*ft"5P5r®rt, the correction probably of an individual reading of Ca. Tho B MSS. add to it a new mistake
Bi TT^Tr^Ti rTH?
BM TT^FHtt ?*?
1 The patronymic has again puzzled the scribes. T*n% *rr% ^faurftfvi
The A and Ca MSS. now agree in TT3*nfl% or
'rfrvfaf irsrtt wtf^n i jqfa-
<(3t(MVS. B4 brings in the long ’3ff in ^T5*ITWl%,
1 |s ffw vrrg: i ?ra% ^mi
which seems to come from B though accidentally only.
w *ft ^7R g^wrfwgwrtrtfgi
B 1 and 2 have <J«t (?WI% and °%, to which they
inclined before; while I!3, BM, and CB approach to
^rejqfasw 1 ThfriRi^n^: Trcrrfr?gq\i<<n-
their former blunder TTarrefte.
*rRf*igp!=r^ 1 1
2 The anusvSra in f®is is the characteristic mark
fra irsnmgwfsrsrtf: i % ^nprrafw*wEr
of the A class. B 1 and 2 arc held together by their Bgfanwn i sunrofw wni^ i
common lacuna; B3, BM, and CB by the anusvara Here then fSBTTflgraft would have to
on the second syllable.
he taken in the sense of ‘of the race of, or similai
3 The spelling of TW- or f*g: seems to point to to liiratas,’ it would he a feminine, corresponding to
grag:. The verb *rv> to dwell, may he coustruod and tho singular in the feminine would
with a locative, in the sense of ‘ to dwell with.’ therefore be masc. . In out
4 is probably intended for ^gw«Tu passage, oil tho ■ ontiary, must he a
The readings of tho different MSS. might seem to masculine in the nom. dual, and would therefore lead
suggest or wfhft , but I prefer us to suppose that f%J[T0l and were the names
becauso this word is used in tho Tdndya BrShmana of the two sorcerers. They occur again as male
XIII. 12, 5. There we find two Maya's, evidently demons in tho Satapatha Bifthniarm I. 1, 4, 14, and
heated as females, but actiug a similar part, to that in the Brihaddevatft. Sfiyana in his commentary on
assigned to the two priests in our legends. I subjoin
the -S'atapatha BrShnia»a explains f^TTmgiwt by
tho text and SSyana’s commentary (MS. Wilson 396,
fqsvrwrff^ ^g: 1. in
p. i6i»): afttmnrrwt ^ *w€Ntwt fwngi-
another passage, tho TtMya (Xill. 7, 12) uses the
,*rrag^»n% ^
fem. termination of tho dual for for the
masc. Here, however, the commentator calls it fwn-
*rro gi: araro:. [R roads siag: fmrat]
11 Comm.
5 The A MSS. agree on ?T i.e. W for the JI
*nrrer*i f^TrrgwNrnFfg^f-nrr- of B 4 is from tho margin. The B MSS., on the con¬
1 facifii i ^rg- trary, all point to TIB?.
civ- PREFACE TO THE
a ot *f?r tr
AD f^TT^t^ ^^rft ^ W^TT TT ^
*1 c 2 ffi uwt^T xrant ^t hw t^Tsgtr tr ^rhr
C4 fa «T$t^Fi TRHt tn HTH M^TT T1 ^
b4 faMTq^H tRBt ^ Hfa H^rr^TT 3R
| Oa fanfat^ri *Rirt *fa *rm*|TT m ^tt wh:
B X fallT^T^ tRHt HtHHyT^TT TR ^H^TWR**
B 2 fa*rraM TRm ^T ^TOWnn^CT TR
■< B3 fainfr^T qwT sfi HTHRingU KR
BM fainqt^T ^wt ^ HTHHyT^TI TR
, CB faurqM TRBt tfT HTHHm^TT TR
!3 fa^RT^1 trefasOT HTHH^l^TT 3R ^s^TRq:
A q*R>J|: rRWlfa TROT? JTtqR?!Hf|rfqt
AD TTCRH^: rRHHTfa TfaSfa HtqiqHTHT^rf^
<j C 2 tn;i^H^: rDTOHTfrr TR wr£ »TfaT*RT HI |7Tqt
C4 tnpf>Jc£: RHRHTfR TR SR HT |?T^t
B4 Tnppgcqj: RHH^TfrT TRIlN fanT*RRmT|rT3?l
a vfrfv n
| c2 xrfrfv 11
c4 TR^T^T|SHW: irTO II
b4 BHiwrgHi|^rrrT: xrfrft *ro*RfaanfSt 11
ca n
b i nHffOT^TgHmr: ^ramftfRrrfi' 11
B2 iwrTWTfRT|Him: vfufv II
' B3 TTFTrr^n^RI|RlfrT: T?ftfa II
BM HUrTOT^TfarirD vftfa ^WTfHrqif^ ||
The A MSS. agree in instead of sionofoneTT* B3 has <dJVUflT°j where the long <i is
*rcrni. Oa stands alone with firmrwfa0, while a blunder of the copyist. [R has
•he U MSS. just miss the right reading by the omia- Hf\crl ifdf.]
O 2
cviii PREFACE TO THE
I had intended to omit all the real Galitas, but I found, after the printing
had progressed too far, that they had been left in the earlier MamMas, and
I was therefore obliged to give up my original intention on that point.
I believe that all that can be done to secure the correctness of the references
has been done, but I am not so sanguine as to suppose that all mistakes
have been avoided. I have myself detected several in the portion now
printed, and if any of my friends will kindly send me such errata as they
may discover while using the index, I shall not fail to publish them at the
end of the sixth volume.
F. MAX MULLER.
Parks End, Oxford,
1872.
PREFACE
TO THE SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION.
When I had written the last line of the Rig-veda and S&yana’s commentary,
and put down my pen, I felt as if I had parted with an old, old friend. For
thirty years scarcely a day has passed on which my thoughts have not dwelt on
this work, and for many a day, and many a night, too, the old poets of the
Veda, and still more their orthodox and painstaking expositor, have been my
never-failing companions. I am happy, no doubt, that the work is done, and
after having seen so many called away in the midst of their labours, I feel
deeply grateful that I have been spared to finish the work of my life. But
habits established for so long a time, are not broken without a wrench, and
even now I begin to miss my daily task : I begin to long for some difficult
and corrupt passages to grapple with, for some abrupt quotation from the
.SYUyayanaka to verify, or for some obscure allusion to PAnini to trace back
to its original source.
It was in the year 1845, when attending the lectures of Eughne Burnouf
at Paris, that for the first time my thoughts became fixed on an edition of
the Rig-veda and its voluminous commentary. I still see the eager faces of
a number of young scholars, sitting round the table. where Burnouf was
lecturing, with a vivacity, a keenness, a flow of knowledge which I have never
seen surpassed. Most of those who then attended his lectures, have since
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cix
become famous in Oriental literature. I need only mention the late Dr.
Goldstiicker, the late Abbate Bardelli, and of those who are still among us,
Gorresio, Neve, and last, not least, R. Roth. I was the youngest of them all,
and though I had published my' first book, the translation of the Hitopadesa,
my ideas of Sanskrit literature did not reach much beyond Kllid&sa’s poetry,
the epic poems, the systems of philosophy, and the Upanishads. Nothing, I
thought at that time, could in beauty of thought or expression surpass the
Upanishads. I had translated some of them for Schelling, while attending his
lectures at Berlin, had copied some of the commentaries from MSS. of the Royal
Library there, and was thinking of devoting myself to that branch of literature.
Well do I remember my surprise when I heard Burnouf speaking of these
Upanishads as works of small importance, compared with the older portions of
the Veda, the Mantras and the Brahmanas. Burnouf was lecturing then on the
first book of the Rig-veda, prepared by F. Rosen, and published after his death,
in 1838. I still possess some of the notes which I took at his lectures, with
extracts from S&yawa’s commentary, of which Burnouf possessed a complete
copy, with passages from the Nirukta and the commentary on the Nirukta,
works at that time hardly known in Europe. After a time, Burnouf lent me
some of his MSS., and encouraged me to copy certain portions of them. It
was hard work at first. I often despaired, and but for bis encouragement,
but for his frank acknowledgment, that he himself, too, could not always
make out the arguments of S4yana, I should never had the courage to
persevere.
My own ambition had not yet risen beyond an edition of the text of the
Rig-veda, with extracts only from S&yana’s commentary. No more was really
wanted, I thought; and I had Colebrooke’s authority for holding that opinion.
‘ The Vedas,’ Colebrooke wrote at the end of his celebrated essay on the Sacred
Writings of the Hindus, ‘are too voluminous for a complete translation of the
whole; and what they contain would hardly reward the labour of their reader,
much less that of the translator. The ancient dialect in which they are com¬
posed, and especially that of the three first Vedas, is extremely difficult and
obscure: and, though curious, as the parent of a more polished and refined
language (the classical Sanskrit), its difficulties must long continue to prevent
such an examination of the whole Vedas, as would be requisite for extracting all
that is remarkable and important in those voluminous works. But they well
deserve to be occasionally consulted by the Oriental scholar.’
But here I met with the strongest remonstrances from Burnouf. Not only
cx PREFACE TO THE
the text, but the commentary, too, he maintained, if they were to be published
at all, should be published in their entirety, and after a careful collation of all
the MSS. then accessible in Europe. Extracts could never be depended upon,
for the most difficult passages would, as usual, be left out, and after a time the
work would have to be done again.
At that time, I confess, I was hardly able to grapple with Sayana’s com¬
mentary, at least with the most difficult portions of it, nor was there any
prospect of my being able to collate the most important MSS. of Say ana,
which were in England. Burnouf therefore advised me to try the Yar/ur-veda,
1 copied the whole of Mahidhara’s commentary from a MS. which I owed to
Burnouf’s liberality '. But in the end I arrived at the same result, viz. that
without a collation of other MSS. it would be impossible to carry out a really
scholarlike edition of that work.
My disappointment was great, but I determined not to be beaten. I saw
that it was absolutely necessary for me to spend some time in England ; and
1 secured the necessary funds by working hard for other Sanskrit scholars,
copying, among other things, the complete text of the Aitareya Brahmana in
Roman letters for the late Baron Eckstein. When once settled in the library
of the old East-India House, surrounded by the MSS., not only of the Rig-veda
and Say ana, but of the numerous works constantly referred to by Sayana, T saw
that the plan, first sketched out for me by Burnouf, and 1 ought to add, by
the late Dr. Goldstlicker, was the right one, and that it could be realised.
1 worked on till a portion of the work was finished ; .and after obtaining the
patronage of the old East-Tndia Company, I was able to publish the first
volume in 1849.
We are now in 1874 ; and in writing the Preface to this, my last volume,
the words used by another scholar return to my memory, and seem best to
express what I wish to say : ‘ Adolescent manum admovi, senex, dum perjicerern,
foetus sum, ut videtur.’ And again : ‘ Habes hoc opus absolutum serins quam
/nxmiseram, et expectabam. Nosti conditione.ni rerum humanarimi. Multa
soepe accidunt quae non sinunt nos ad amussim cwjitata perjicere.’ Twenty-
five years are certainly a long time, and when I saw how some of my kind
friends clamoured against the delay that had occurred in the publication of
Sayana, though I could not but feel gratified at their impatience, I began to
fear that I might really be to blame. I therefore tried to make out an account
1 [This copy I lent to Professor Weber for his edition of the Yoyur-veda, and it is now deposited in the
Uoyal Library of Borlin.]
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. CXI
But though on the score of mere quantity my conscience does not smite
me, it is far otherwise with reference to the. quality of my work. During
the last twenty-five years Sanskrit, scholarship, particularly with regard to
Vedic literature, has advanced so rapidly, that I myself feel most deeplv,
how much more perfect an edition of' SHyawa might have been, if begun now,
instead of in 1850. I believe, however, that I did all that could be done at
the time, and l fear, or rather, I hope, that an edition begun in 1875, by one
<d oui young Sanskrit scholars, would probably share the same fate in the
.yeai 1900. What I did was this. I tested all the MSS. which 1 could get
access to in Europe, in order, first of all, to find out their true genealogical
relationship. After I had discovered that out of the three clearly marked
families, none ceuld claim to represent the original text of Sayana, I determined
on onty course that, under the circumstances, seemed possible : I selected
m every doubtful case that reading towards which the thr ee families pointed.
01 from which their divergence might best be explained. In following this
course, however, I met with two difficulties. In the first Ashfaka, more
CX11 PREFACE TO THE
particulaxly, but also in the beginning of some of the other Ashtakas, and
again in the commentary on certain very popular hymns, many of the MSS.
had been so much used for private study, that they were not only full of
marginal notes, containing corrections and additions, but that some of these
had actually found their way into the body of the MSS. themselves. While
this facilitated the process of restoring a correct, or at all events, a plausible
and readable text, it disturbed, for a time at least, the exact genealogical
position of the principal MSS., and thus rendered a strict adherence to the
only true principles of criticism impossible. In the first Ashiaka, therefore,
I contented myself with giving S&y ana's text, chiefiy from the A and C
classes; and I feel it my duty to warn future editors of Sayaaa, if there
ever be such, that with the new MSS. that have come to hand since my first
volume was published, there will probably be ample room for critical gleanings:
partly by a more strict adherence to the principles of diplomatic criticism, partly
by a more careful examination of the originals from which the numerous
quotations in the commentary are derived. Some passages which seem to
require emendation in the first Ashiaka, have been pointed out by Professor
Weber, Mr. Muir, and others ; and I gladly avail myself of the opportunity
of examining these more carefully, partly in order to avow frankly, where I
have erred; partly in order to show, that in many cases I was not unprepared
for the objections that have been made, and that I chose such readings as
I have chosen with a full appreciation of all the difficulties by which they
seem to be surrounded.
Professor Weber dwells chiefly on five passages in the Introduction to
S&yana’s commentary where, as he thinks, emendations are necessary. The
quotation on p. 12, 1. 8 [now p. 7, 1. 2], can now be verified from the Taittiriya
Brahmana II. 1, 2, 12. It ought to be, ftfa
7T7t, ‘ to sacrifice after the sun has risen, is as if one brought food to
an empty dwelling for a departed guest.’ Here I see that the A class, then
represented by the old MS. at Paris, collated for me by Dr. Goldstiicker,
gives the C class, represented by C x, equally at Paris, gives tpjn;
; while B 1 has the right reading, ’jarpsrwsrertf. This is also
confirmed by my own MS. Ca, which at that time I did not possess. How
little the other MSS. in India would have helped, may be seen from the
reading, adopted by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica, vol. i. p. 13, 1. 8,
ought to have written, and I see that Dr. Roer has adopted it. If I retained
jOTTipjjt, it was partly because the best MSS. give that reading, partly because
I did not know then the meaning of pram&yuka. It is one of the words which
Wilson’s Dictionary did not supply. In the course of my reading it occurred
to me for the first time in the Nirukta III. 5, a passage not mentioned in
the Dictionary of Bohtlingk and Roth. From its frequent occurrence in the
Bnihmawas, we are now all familiar with the meaning and the origin of the
word. That it was not easily intelligible, however, even to Indian readers,
may be gathered from my own MS. Ca. Here the passage is given in
manjine, and correctly; but after writing wpp:, the writer himself adds a
new marginal gloss, fptTfSS:.
On page 21, line 23 [now p. 11, last line], I should have separated HT*r®rfn,
if I had known the passage in the Taittiriya Saudi ita VII. 4, 19; but in that
case, I should most likely have corrected •vlV't to
which is the correct reading there (see Taitt. Pratts’. XI. 17), whereas the
reading of the MSS. of Sayana, as adopted in my edition, is supported by
the Ijisimma verha of Pauini, VI. 1, if8; Siddhanta-kaumudi, vol. ii.
P-5io.
In the other passages, where the reading which I adopted has been
challenged, it will be seen that I was right, and that my critics were wrong.
Thus with regard to on page 34, line 15 [now p. 18, 1. 33], Professor
Weber has no doubt discovered, since he pointed out the various reading ot
as one of his five necessary emendations, that in writing I had adopted
the right reading, the passage being an extract from the Pauiniya S'iksha,
published by himself in the Indische Studien, vol. i/. p. 271. Why are not
such technical terms as gitin, siraAkampin, etc., given in the Petersburg
Dict ionary ?
There remains the fifth passage, p. 35, 1. 6 [now p. 19, 1. 6 seq.], where
it was thought, that I ought to have written instead of Trm fc^ffb
However, here, too, Professor Weber will have since discovered that I was
right; for the Taittiriya Aranyaka II. 16, from which the quotation is taken,
has not Kir^il. fp-gfit means, he is left behind, he fails, or, as the
commentator explains it, he is deprived of glory, a meaning which does not
belong to
So much with regard to the five necessary corrections, for such asuddhas
as p. 31,1. 28 [now p. 17, 1.18], for and p. 41, 1- 6 [now p. 22,1. 5],
*T| \jt for Trf f, need not be noticed.
von. IV. P
C.X1V PREFACE TO THE
Mr. Muir also had suggested a correction in the Introduction1, viz. the
addition of on p. 4, 1. 3 [now p. 2, 1. 28], after %<T_. In a later edition,
however, he withdraws his objection, having been informed, as he says, by
Professor Goldstucker that is often omitted, though understood after fin
I need hardly say, that it was on the very ground adduced by Professor
Goldstucker that, much against my own wish, I decided not to insert the n,
which was wanting in the best MSS. then accessible to me. But I must
state at the same time, that seeing the n in Roer’s edition, and likewise in
my own carefully-revised MS. Ca, I should certainly insert the n in a new
edition, and likewise put a stop after
These doubts and difficulties carry me back many years, and though I well
remember how I did my best with such a knowledge as I then possessed to
overcome them, yet I am perfectly aware and ready to confess that on many
points I ought to have decided differently. All I can say is, that those were
the days when other scholars wrote of Etendhras2, or could not distinguish
between and ’StrefiTO 2, so that heie, too, the Indian
maxim might be taken to heart:
<nar: trofri 1 want tnirfa 11
Many of the difficulties I had to contend with at first and single-handed,
have disappeared during the progress of this work. The MS. Ca, which I owe
to the kindness of Professor Wilson, was of considerable assistance throughout.
The Index variorum, once made, enabled me, in many a difficult passage, to
confront the numerous explanations of the same or similar words in different
parts of Sayaua’s commentary, and thus to discover the drift of his arguments.
Many of the books, too, referred to by Sayana, and which, when I began my
edition, I possessed in MS. only, such as the Nirukta, the Aitareya Brahmana,
A.s'valayana, the Taittiriyaka, and other works, have since been published in
more or less critical editions; and last, not least, PAnini’s Grammar, which in
1847 was still a book with seven seals, has been rendered more and more
intelligible by the combined labours of native and European scholars.
But, on the other hand, the MSS. of SAyana in the progress of my work
became worse and worse, so much so that a scholar who was best acquainted
with the MSS. at my disposal, declared that a critical restitution of the last
books of SAyawa would be altogether impossible. Nor were the editions of the
1 Sanskrit Texts, vol. iii. p. 61. 3 See Preface to the first volume of the first edition,
2 Itoth, Zur Litteratur und Gesehichte dos Weda, vol. i. p. xxiv. note i.
F- J33-
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxv
works to which S&yana referred, always a help. Before they were published,
1 felt obliged to restore the text of each passage, as well as I could, partly
from the MSS. of Sayana, partly from the MSS. of the works themselves. After
their publication, I had often the additional difficulty of finding out whether
the text as receptus was to be accepted or to be rejected.
This is a point which will require some elucidation, and I shall therefore
give a few instances to show how dangerous it would have been, if I had in
every case surrendered the readings of Sayan a’s MSS. for the published text
of the works to which he refers.
I begin with Panini, the text of whose Sutras might seem to lie the least
exposed to critical doubts. Yet it will be seen that I have in several cases
adopted a reading different from that of Bohtlingk’s edition, and that I have
done so for some good reason. In the commentary to I. 9, 2, 1 adopted at first
the reading of B.’s edition, (Paw. II. 4, 34), but in doing so I was
wrong. I ought to have followed the MSS. of Sayana, which consistently give
fspfanTt:^:, a form which is not correct grammatically, but supported by an
irresistible weight of evidence. I therefore restored that reading in I. 105, 19 ;
HI. 9, 5 ; X. 125, 8. The Mahabhashya (p. 4021') has the same reading. [In the
second edition, 1887, Bohtlingk reads
When speaking of the two possible forms and wrf^ (Preface to vol. iv,
see above, p. lxxi seq.) I explained the rules which Panini and most grammatical
writers seem to have followed with regard to the final letters of technical terms.
If what T stated there, is true, and I know of no one who has controverted it,
then I could not in X. 68, 7 adopt the reading of Paw. II. 4, 79, as given by
Bohtlingk, but had to write instead The same rule applies fo
Paw. III. 1, 79, as quoted by Sayana, I. 19, 8; I. 30, 14, etc.; to Pan. III. 2, 168,
as quoted I. 25, 14; to Paw. V. 4, 11; to P:\n.Vr. 4, 156, as quoted I. 36, 6 ; to
Paw. VII. 1, 2, as quoted I. 6, 4. I was wrong also in 1. 3, 1, in adopting at first
the text of Bontlingk, Paw. III. 1, 32, VTrT?:, and I afterwards followed
the authority of the MSS., in writing HMTsfaT VRPf:, Rv. I. 8, 4, etc. [In the
new edition, Bohtlingk has adopted the spelling ?prrfgr<> etc.]
With regard to Paw. III. 1, 80, I was doubtful for some time whether 1
ought to follow Bohtlingk’s text, fvf^Ptrafty or the reading of the best MSS.
I saw there was no support for S&yawa’s reading either in the
Calcutta edition, or in the SiddMnta-kaumudl, or in the Mahabhashya (p. 45ft),
yet the MSS. of S&yawa were so consistent that I wrote in I. 6, 3 ;
I- 10, 7; I. 92, 1; I. 117, 25; HI. 11, 4; IX. 91, 5; X. 101, 2; X. 128, 5.
CXV1 PREFACE TO THE
It may seem to some critics that I went too far in altering the text of
Panini IV. 2, 43, by inserting This word, no doubt, falls under the same
rule, but it forms the subject of a VUrttika. Sayana, however, may have mixed
up the Sutra and the Vitrttika, and if he did so, it would have gone beyond the
duty of an editor to correct him in such matters. [See Varietas Lectionis to
Rv. Bh. III. 60, 1.]
In Pan. IV. 4, 117, Bbhtlingk writes ^jqft ^ instead of The how¬
ever, is here not merely euphonic, but marks the accent of ^f, as we see from
Rv. I. 13, 10, . I therefore had to follow the authority of the
MSS. in writing ’epsft, Rv. I. 13, 10; X. 120, 8. [It is corrected in Bohtlingk’s
new edition.]
I was misled twice, Rv, I. 93, 8, and III. 41, 1, by an emendation introduced
by Bbhtlingk, to write Panini’s Sutra VI. 3, 92, It
ought to be and I adopted this afterwards, in accord¬
ance with Sayana’s MSS. The Calcutta edition of Pamni and the Siddhanta-
kaumuili (vol. i. p. 179) give rightly, and Bbhtlingk also in his Notes
inclines towards it. It is the only possible reading, because there is no such
woi'd as [Bbhtlingk has now corrected it.] The reading of is
more doubtful, because the Calcutta edition of Pamni and the Siddhanta-kaumudi
give and explain the Shtra accordingly. Sayana, however, preferred,
as far as it is possible to judge, the reading , which I therefore adopted
in IX. 93, 4. [See Varietas Lectionis to Rv. Bh. I. 93, 8; III. 41, 1; IX. 93, 4.]
More serious mischief has happened in the case of Pan. VII. 1, 47. Here
the text of the Sutra is quite right, but in the commentary, both the Calcutta
edition and Bbhtlingk’s give instead of This ungrammatical form,
I am grieved to say, has found its way, by an extraordinary accident, into my
large edition, for though I corrected it in the Pada-text and in the commentary
(X. 85, 33), it has remained unaltered in the SamhM-text. The result has been
that it crept into my small edition of the two texts, and likewise into the
Index verborum. I know, of course, that it could be defended as a license
allowed in writing (see Bbhtlingk, Notes to P4«ini VIII. 4, 47), but I should
be sorry to avail myself of such an excuse.
In Pan. VII. 3, 57,1 believe the right reading would be or ,
as in the Calcutta edition and the Siddhanta-kaumudi. I adopted at first the
reading adopted by Bbhtlingk, but changed it afterwards for .
See Rv. IX. 65, 9, seq. [It has now been printed throughout. So also
Bbhtlingk’s new edition.]
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. Cxvii
In Pdn. VIII. 3, 66, Bohtlingk gives The Calcutta edition has the
same, likewise the Siddhanta-kaumudi, vol. ii. p. 37. There may be some
reason why P4«im wrote and T4ran4tha distinctly explains it,
JTWT arT4% Sayana, however, was evidently not aware of
any sufficient reason for so ungrammatical a proceeding, and as I had to edit
Sayana, and not P4nini, I wi'ote throughout See Rv. Bh. I. 5, 1; I. 22,
8; III. 14. 2> [See Varietas Lectionis to Rv. Bh. I. 5, 1.]
I hold by no means that we are justified in altering the received text of
Bimini, or even of his commentator, according to the authority of the MSS. of
Sayana. Sayana is not even consistent in his own manner of quoting PAnini.
rllius instead of (\<i, VI. 1, 185, he sometimes writes ; instead of
the dual, in Pam VI. 1, 173, he sometimes writes ; instead of
Pan. VI. 4, 76, he allows himself occasionally to quote the other reading.
, Rv. Bh. X. 130, 5.
Frecpiently, too, Sayana expresses himself with a briefness which one feels
at first inclined to correct, but which one becomes accustomed to in the course
oi his work. At first I always corrected into r?lf%3j*rTit^TEf, which is
the only correct form. But as Sayana knew this perfectly well, it became clear
to me after a time, that lie considered sufficient for all practical
i imposes. See Rv. Bh. X. 116, 7. In the same manner he sometimes says
for So again in X. 136, 7, Sayana explains the genitive of as an
accusative, but having done the same again and again, he does it sometimes
more briefly, and says itffsqfJTffT ®R5RW: wb This, at all
events, is clearly the reading of the MSS. in this and in other places (VI. 49,
12), and I saw no reason why I should alter it. What was in his mind was
evidently to appeal to the Varttika, I. 4, 32, 1, for giving to the Sampradana
the meaning of that which can be reached by the action of the verb, and then
to quote Pan. II. 3, 62, for showing that the sixth case can stand in place of
the fourth. He might have said, tn^Rjrq^rr ; cf. I. 4, 10;
^ HI. 96, 17; IX. 74, 8; IX. 97, 15; and then have continued,
Such .passages in which an editor abstains from treating his author magis¬
terially are, as I know from painful experience, the very passages for which the
editor himself is afterwards treated magisterially by perfunctory critics.
In PAnini’s Grammar the text is generally as firmly established as in the
hymns of the Rig-veda, and therefore there could be but few passages in which
I felt doubtful between the authority of the MSS. and the printed text. This
cxvm PREFACE TO THE
was more frequently the case with the VArttikas, and it will be seen that these
glosses, as quoted by SAyana, differ frequently from that form in which they
appear in our editions of PAnini.
When, however, we come to other works, such as the Unadi or Phif-sfttras,
the difficulties increase immensely. At first I had only Dr. Bohtlingk’s edition
of the UnAdi-sAtras to consult, and with the help of Uyr/valadatta’s excellent
commentary, I could generally arrive at some conclusion as to what was, if not
the original reading, at least that which SAyana intended to follow. Afterwards
Dr. Aufrecht gave us an edition of this very commentary, and thereby reduced
very considerably the labour of determining the right reading. Still in many of
these SAtras, SAyana constantly either adds or omits a verb, which does or does
not suit him, and an editor of SAyana is bound to be guided, in each case, by
the respective weight of the MSS. Thus in SAtra I. 3, SAyana inserts yfa after
, see I. 10, 2 ; III. 52, 5, etc., while in the editions yrsi: is treated as a
bahulaka derivative under Sutra I. 1. [See Varietas Lectionis to Rv. Bh. I.
10, 2.]
Sutra I. 23 Bd. (24 Aufr.), SAyana adds fflpjf: at the end, Rv. Bh. I. 5, 2 ;
I. 11, 4, etc. It also occurs in the MS. of Uyyvaladatta, but I doubt whether it
should have been added in an edition of the Sutras. Uyr/valadatta himself does
not explain it in his commentary, the reason being that he gives it in Sutra
I. 27 Bd. (28 Aufr.), where he derives pasu from it. At all events ought
not to be in both Sutras. In I. 51, 5, SAyana brings fira: under the same Sutra,
I. 23 (24).
Sutra I. 30 SAyana reads yfaj, in order to explain yg:. See Rv. Bh. I. 52, 5.
Sutra I. 40, SAyana reads qtiBiyyr v: faiW, and when he explains ffqjy: in
I. 87, 1, he particularly adds ’t *T?rfn I. The MS. of Uyyvaladatta
has the same reading, sjfa: siimytlj vi faw 1, and at the end fargysftyy^rilt:» i- e.
°ywt:.
SAtra I. 74 is sometimes quoted by SAyana ^ see Rv. Bh. III. 61, 3.
As the same reading occurs in Uy/yvaladatta, and as in III. it, also, SAyana,
III. 34, 3, reads ^ yr instead of yyf, I did not think it right to make any
alteration. [That the spurious passage, mentioned in the Varietas Lectionis to
Rv. Bh. I. 27, 11, has tyre: far., only confirms its spuriousness.]
In SAtra I. 139, SAyana changes the last to qfpyt, Rv. Bh. I. 5, 1. This
seems right, though the ordinary reading can be defended.
III. 43, 6 ; III. 57, 4. I see that Dr. Aufrecht has but not gf%r, and in
this he is supported by Uryyvaladatta. [See Varietas Lectionis to III. 57, 4;
IV. 2, 3.]
In II. 97 (92 Bbhtlingk), too, I am glad to see that Dr. Aufrecht has
adopted the reading instead of ; S&yana’s MSS. are unanimous
in I. 71, 1; and Uyyvaladatta’s reading, twice repeated, viz. is of course
impossible.
In II. 105 (100 Bohtlingk), I see that Dr. Aufrecht has changed
into Tsj:, which is, no doubt, in accordance with UVyyvaladatta’s view.
Sayana, however, differs, and refers to the Sutra in explanation of See
III. 37, 4. [Also I. 17, 2, see Varietas Lectionis.]
In Sutra III. 2, S&yana omits f%t, while Uyyvaladatta admits it, a fact not
without significance, as I pointed out in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Litera¬
ture (1859), p. 249. I also pointed out in the same work, that the Sutra III.
140, which explains the formation of so modern a word as dinar a, i. e. denarius,
was distinctly mentioned by UV/yvaladatta as not explained in two of the
earlier commentaries, and that the etymology of tirifa, as given in IV. 184,
is left out, according to Uyyvaladatta, in the Nytisa, and, as I showed, in the
Mahabliashya also. Dr. Aufrecht has added to these spurious words which I
had obelized, one more, viz. mihira, the Persian milir, in Sutra I. 52, but much
more remains to be done before we can hope to obtain a really critical edition of
the Arsha-text1 of these ancient Siitras.
It is quite clear from Rv. Bh. I. 4, 1 ; I. 25, 2 ; I. 92, 10, that Sayana read
Siitra III. 30, as srgfMwri g>:. I do not say, that this was the right reading ;
all I maintain is, that I should not have been justified in altering it.
Sometimes Sayana’s commentary gives Sutras which are wanting in our
editions of the Unadi-sfitras. Thus the word dharuna is not explained, but
Sayana brings it under Sfttra III. 49, by adding \jfyftjggrsr, see I. 121, 2. In
order to explain sjfaT, he adds, III. 38, 8, after qrftf in Sfttra III. 62 ; in order
to explain ’srer, he adds, I. 66, 9, before in Sfttra III. 86. [See Varietas
Lectionis to Rv. Bh. I. 5, xo. Also I. 18, 3 ; 25, 9 ; xoo, 15 ; III. 35, 10 ; V. 9, 1.]
In Sutra III. 96 seq. I had altered into on the authority of
Sayana’s MSS. This has been accepted by Dr. Aufrecht also; but on the
authority of Uyyvaladatta he retains ajff, which I had printed in I. 27, 8, and
afterwards altered to *rff, I. 91, 3, on account of Pdn. VI. 1, 16, and similar
passages.
1 See U^valadatta on Un. III. 91,
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. CXXI
Some MSS. have ^PSf instead of . [See Varietas Lectionis to X. 120, 6.]
VOL. IV. Q
cxxii PREFACE TO THE
various reading into the Petersburg Dictionary, then as a real and independent
word into other Dictionaries, and while the Un&di-sfttras are made to lend
their authority to this sky-lotus, the old Vedic word disappears from their
list. Only one Dictionary, which is not infected by the ordinary sequacity
of Dictionary-makers, the V&&aspatya of T&r&n&tha, does not recognise the
word ’VR:, but refers to our S&tra as the warranty for 'STr:.
With regard to the text of the Nirukta, I shall confine my remarks to the
first six books of Y&ska's commentary, which Professor Roth, though not quite
correctly, calls the Naigamak&no?a. How much I appreciated the edition of
that work by Professor Roth, how much my own labour in restoring the
numerous quotations which S&yana gives from the Nirukta was simplified by
it, I have already declared on several occasions. Yet what applies to P&nirii
and the TJn&di-s&tras, applies also to the Nirukta. I could not trust myself
to quote from the edited text, I could not correct S&yana’s quotations, even
when they seemed less trustworthy than the printed text, and I had in each
case to satisfy myself from the evidence supplied by the three families of
S&yana’s MSS., whether he meant to quote the text, such as we now have it
in our edition of the Nirukta, or whether he did not.
I. 94, 7, S&yana quotes from the Nirukta III. 11. He writes RfjfTrat XX
and this seems better than in Roth’s edition,
I. 115, 4, S&yana in quoting Nir. IV. 11, writes RTRT instead of the read¬
ing of the MSS. adopted by the commentators and by Roth. I have little doubt
that is the right reading in the Nirukta1, but judging from what precedes
the quotation, I feel equally certain that S&yana wrote RTRt- Da also reads RTRt*
Quoting from Nirukta IY. 15, S&yana IX. 75, 5, writes instead of
which is the reading of the MSS. of the Nirukta, of the commentary,
and therefore rightly adopted by Professor Roth. however, is men¬
tioned by him as the reading of another recension of Y&ska (p. 108).
The same remark applies to Nir. IY. 25, where S&yana IX. 64, 30, reads
ypnHfrqtaiquqreit, instead of the simple RR*T»T which was used by Y&ska. In
quoting, however, from Nir. V. 2, S&yana VI. 70, 2, is right, I think, in writing
There are numerous differences between the printed text of the Nirukta
and Sayana s quotations which in themselves are of small importance, but
which, nevertheless, required in every case very careful consideration. When
Sdyana I. 190, 1, quotes Nir. VI. 23, he puts '^rn^nsj for '*1$; when I. 39, 10,
he quotes the same passage again, he puts fa*ni for fajjfi; when X. 5, 6, he quotes
Nir. VI. 27, he puts qrjpffa for gnfa [A 2 reads TmfafTffa, which may stand for
T or *3*]; when I. 5 r, 14, he quotes Nir. VI. 31, he puts for qpifa-
spn^:, this being likewise the reading adopted by Durga.
Several deviations from the printed text of Yaska have been observed in
the passage Nir. VI. 32, quoted by Sayana III. 53, 14. Sayana reads T|xq^r ’Tt
instead of "ip^T TT- Here is decidedly the better reading, and if spelt
according to the old fashion it would easily account for the reading
which is now found in the MSS. of Y4ska. Durga explains fa farenfirfagpj-
[The MS. B also has ^T, which has been accepted in the
new edition. sfajfarT:, not ffa JfarT, as printed in Roth’s edition, means the same
as .]
S&yana reads instead of Here is no doubt the most likely
reading, but it was for that very reason that I did not like to reject tryui, a
purely etymological equivalent of ^jif, such as Y4ska not unfrequently gives in
his glosses.
What is the exact meaning of the next passage, ^niTr^T# ^ qfazjfa
I confess I do not see, nor do I wish to question the reading of Yaska's MS., sup¬
ported as it is by Durga’s commentary, and by the use of sftwfa in Nir. V. 16.
Yet with all this, I cannot doubt that S&yana wrote TfTii, and again Tpft, and
that he understood these words, as they are understood by Durga, viz. Tlffiqf-
q2
CXX1V PREFACE TO THE
1 ft m: 1 gtg ng 1
fiwncwr i wn* g fsni wrofr ufirnTf^T i %ut
1 ^ *n*urr: smimfrr 11
CXXV1 PREFACE TO THE
from the neglect of the v<4, occurs V. 31. Here I had given the deities for
verse 8, as 8ud- IndraA or KutsaA and Usan&A, 9 IndraA and KutsaA; Professor
Aufrecht as Indra, Kutsa or Usanas (8cd), Indra and Kutsa (9). [Altered by
Aufrecht in the new edition.] The Anukramanl says, qfawtaT'reft 3T
and Sayana explains this rule by WTOi # f ^nsjRrfri
far^^ ^TfT, i.e. for Pada the do vat a is either Indra or
Kutsa; for Pada * ? ^i, Indra or Usanas. Shae/gurusishya says, <3TOWm*?-
Again, the v4 has not been properly explained in VI. 28, 2 and 8d. J had
put GauA or IndraA, Professor Aufrecht puts GavaA and Indra. [Corrected by
Aufrecht in the new edition to Gava/i. or Indra.] That I was right is shown by
Havana's remarks, and likewise by Shadgurusishya, who says, W *tT.
In IX. 67, a proper attention to the use of va will show that verses 25 and
26 do not belong to AgniA and Savita, or 27 to AgniA and the Yisve DevaA, as
Professor Aufrecht stated, but that verses 23-27 are either all assigned to AgniA,
or 25 to AgniA or Savita, 26 to AgniA or AgniA and Savita, 27 to AgniA or the
Vi*'ve Dev&A. [Corrected in Aufrecht’s second edition.]
There is another divergence between the Anukramam and Sayana in VI. 48,
22. The Anukramam says, m^sfriaTT 3nTF»pfr4T which shows that its
author assigned three (20, 21, 22), not two (20, 21), verses at the end of the
hymn to the Marutas, while the last verse would be assigned either to the
Marutas or to Dyavabhumi or to PmniA. The style of the Anukramam is
here peculiar, and possibly the two va’s may have been intended to show that
in the first Pada the Dy&vabhftnu are optional; in the second Pada, PmniA.
However that may be, it is quite clear that Sayana takes an independent
view, for he says at the end, *m?TT I ?Tf<m-
35’! I ^Tfu TT; i.e. because it has been said that the
whole hymn is addressed to PmniA, therefore the 20th and 21st verses belong
to her, and the 21st to her or Dyavabhumi. The writer of one of the MSS. of
Shac/guru.sishya’s commentary has evidently been struck by this divergence,
for he first of all puts a marginal note to ’935^ viz.
?fffm»rr§r trre: I, thus admitting a various reading of Sayana’s for the Anukra-
ma/ti, and then continues, quoting the very words of Sayana, gf?PgTB-
*rrm TO TOPfo 11 The state of the case therefore
is this: we may either follow the Anukramani, and in that case 20-22 are
assigned to the Marutas or to Dy&v&bhftmi or to PmniA (in succession); or
we may follow S&ya?ia, and in that case 20 and 21 belong to Pn’sniA, while 22
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxxvii
the fifth volume. It is curious that of this iStUyayanaka which Sayana quotes
so frequently, no MSS. should have been obtainable. Another Brahmana
quoted by Stlya?ia of which I had no complete MS. is the Kausliitaki Br&hmana
VI. 46, 3; while others, such as the Aitareya (asmad-brahmana I. 164, 31),
Taittiriya, T&ncZya, and Satapatha Br&hmana, though not accessible at first,
have all been published during the last twenty-five years.
Of his own woi'ks Sayana quotes the Dhatuvntti, I. 42, 7; I. 51, 8 (asm4-
bhir dhatu vritttlv uktam) [see also I. 82, 1], and the Nyayam&lavistara.
The latter work is quoted frequently in the Preface, as Sangraha&lokas (pp. 6,
10, 11, etc.). The commentator speaks of it in the third person, pp. 11, 12;
and in one passage, X. 125, 2, he speaks of its author as Bhagavan Bhashya-
kara, a title which he could hardly have applied to himself. When speaking
of himself, he uses the name SayauaMrya, S’risayana/airya, Sayanarya, Saya/uV
matya, Srimatsayanamantr Isa/t (IV. 58); once he calls himself the son of
(Sfimati, VIII. 46, init.; once the son of S’ri may ana, VIII. 68, init., and the
pupil of Vidyathtliaguru1 2 (IV. 58). In one place, of which I had to speak
already, the commentary is ascribed to Sangama, IX. 13, init. [See Varietas
Lectionis.] Another curious passage in which Sayana adopts an explanation
different from that of Madhavabha^a, has been discussed by me in the Academy *.
1 The predecessor of \ idyftranya at .S’ringeri is, as veda, edited by A. C. Burnell. Mangalore, 1873) Mr.
the author of the J’aiiiadasi, called Bharat!tirtha- Burnell has tried to solvo a problem which has puzzled
vidyaranya-munisvara. A picture of him is given in Sanskrit seholais for many years, viz. the mutual rela-
tho edition of the Atlluk.iranamiUS, a work which is tions of the three commentators 011 the Iiig-veda,
called Srimad-hharatitirtha-munipranitS, though the Vidyaranya, Madhava, and Suyana. I had myself,
author in tho introduction expresses his reverence for twenty years ago, corresponded with some of the
the l’aramatma siividyatiitliarflpi. Both these woiks Pandits at Benares on the subject; hut though, after
are also ascribed to M.tdhava. what they wrote, I was satisfied that Vidyaranya was
2 I subjoin two letters on tho subject from tho only another name for Madhava, I never could under-
Acadetny, without entering hero more fully into the stand tho connection between Madhava and Sayana,
disputed question whether Sayana is hut another name and therefore abstained from expressing any opinion
of Madhava Vidyaranya, or whether Sayana was the on the subject. Now Mr. Burnoll has solved the
brother of Madhava ViilySranya. Without denying problem, or at all events proposed a solution which
the weight of Mr. Burnell's aiguments, I still hold to would remove many difficulties. Ho maintains that
the opinion that Sayana was the brother of Madhava, not only Madhava and Vidyaranya, but Madhava and
the latter living retired from the world, the former Sayana, too, are all one and the same poison, that
beiug his literary representative. But as moro evi- Sayana was tho ordinary, Madhava the more sacred
deuce on this question is expected from India, it would name of the Guru of S'ringeri, and that the peculiar
he premature to say anything definite at present. nomenclature which allowed Sftyana to speak of him¬
self as the younger brother ofMadhava, though being
Parks End, Oxford, Jan. 26, 1874. one and the same person, has to be explained by a
In the edition of the Vamsabrfihmana (The Vamsa- reference to Vedanta theories,
brahmana, being the eighth BrShmana of the Sama- I confess that this explanation would remove many
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxxix
It appears likewise from Sayana’s preface, that before he attempted the expla-
difficulties, yet it does not remove all. What shall we there is little hope of recovering it, yet when the exact
say when SSyana, after having given his own intoipre- extent of the work is given, we can hardly doubt that
tation of a Vedic verse, quotes a different one of it onco existed. (See my Introduction to the Science
MSdhavabhaHa ? In the hymn X. 86 there is con¬ of Eeligion, p. 109.)
siderable uncertainty as to the persons to whom each
verse is to be assigned. The first verso is explained Parks End, Oxford, April 6, 1874.
by Suyana as being spoken by India. But after having In answer to my letter of January 26, printed in
done so, he adds, MddhavabhaHfls tu vi hi sotor itye- the Academy of January 31, Mr. Burnoll writes to me
sharg indrSnyS vfikyam iti manyante ; tasmin pakshe from Mangalore, March 10, telling me that he has been
tv asyA riko*yam arthaA, ‘Idle MadhavabhaHSs think unable, as yet, to visit the College of .S'ringAri, of which
that this verse is the speech of Indiani, and according SSyana, the author of the great commentary on the
to this view the meaning of tho verse would be as Eig-veda, was once the Warden, and where the tradi¬
follows, etc.’—Who can this (or these) MSdhava- tion of his teaching is still kept up.
bhaMa’s be? ‘ I hoped,’ he says, ‘ to he able to show you how
In his commentary on the Baudhayana-sfltras, Sdyana highly I valued your kindness, by getting some more
calls himself SayanaASryupndabhishiktu, and Srisifiga- information from Sringeri, hut in this I have unfortu¬
nSAAiyasutagragiwyaA, i. e. the best of the sons of the nately not succeeded, owing to the prolonged absence
A/tarya of Sifigana, while in the Yaynatantrasudha- of tho Gum on a begging tour.
nidhi, when he is no longer the family Guru of Bukka, The passage you quote about MSdhava BhaEa is
hut of Harihara, the son (tanftya) of Bukka, ho calls very interesting. I have no doubt (as Bhatta is used)
himself tho son of Mftyana, and speaks of MSdhava as that this man was perhaps the rival of SSyanna, for in
his real brother, sayiug, Upendrasyeva yasyasid indraA South India this title is by no means complimentary.
sumanasuApriyaA, mahSkratdnam Sharta MadhavSryaA I hope to find some traces of him, hut must wiite to
sahodaraA, ‘ He whose brother was MadhavSrya, the you again on the subject. MSdhava is so common it
offerer of great sacrifices, beloved by the gods, an name in .South India that it is impossible to suppose
Indra, as it wero, to an Upendra (i.e. to myself).’ I any Vedantist allegory in this case; nor, if SSyanna
',0 not mean to say that even those passages would had a real brother eallod MSdhava, would he have
resist a Vodfintist explanation, but I should like to spoken of him in this way.
know how, according to the Vedantists of Sringeri, it Gayatirthabhikshu’s gloss is not uncommon; the
is to be applied. The question is one of great import¬ author was a monk of Anandatirtha’s (i. e. Madhva’s)
ance, and Mr. Burnell, living so near the monastery sect, and lived 8. 1190-1234. He was the fifth in
of which Sayana was the head, is probably the only succession to MadhvSASrya or Anandatirtba, There
porsoh who could clear up our doubts. are six MSS. of the whole (?) or parts at Tanjore,
I here is little more to he said about Mr. Burnell’s but I did not mention it, as it seemed to me purely
valuable Introduction. As Mr. Burnell is engagod in sectarian.
searching for MSS. of t nnmentaries on the Eig-veda, It is very uncertain how much of the Eig-veda
anterior to SSyana’s, I may mention that, besides Anandatirtha commented on. I have only seen a
those which I referred to in my History of Ancient small tract containing the beginning, and it is always
Sanskrit Literature, and in the Prefaces to my edition spoken of by the Brahmans of that sect as a small
°f Sttyana, I possess a considerable portion of Gaya- work. One, however, at Coujevcram, some six years
tirthahhikshu’s gloss on Anandatirtha’s Rig-bhAshya, ago, told me that he had seen a MS. which wae as big
a>id AtmAnanda’s commentary on the VSmiya-sflkta. as two volumes of your edition of SSyanna, hut I doubt
[See Academy, June g and 12, 1880.] I should also this much, as he never could produco it.
like to call Mr. Burnell’s attention to a statement ‘ For tho same reason I doubt the report of the
made in 1846 by the Pandits of Benares, that MA- Benares Brahmans to Dr, Muir about an Atharva-
Ihava wrote a commentary on the Atharva-veda-sam- veda commentary. I have so often had tales told me
WtS, and that it consisted of 80,000 lines. Although quite as precise which I have ascertained afterwards
VOL. IV. r
cxxx PREFACE TO THE
nation of the Rig-veda, he had explained the Taittiriya Sa?nhitd, the Taittiriya
Br&hmawa, and the Taittiriya Aranyaka *.
S&yana refers but seldom to former commentators on the Rig-veda. Those
whom he does mention do no longer exist, or, at all events, no MSS. of
them have ever yet reached Europe. It is more than doubtful, even, whether
any of them were real commentaries on the Rig-veda. S4yana mentions
Bha((a-Bh&skara Mkra. In I. 63, 4, he quotes him for his explanation of
; in I. 71, 4, he refers to his etymology of Spq: by means of an aun&dika
suffix; in I. 84, 15, he gives his explanation of Tpjfan; and in VII. 1, 7, he
appeals to him for the meaning of tsnrfw. These quotations2, however, need not
refer to a commentary on the Rig-veda. It is different with the quotation
which occurs in VI. 1, 13. Here he contrasts BhaMa-BhCiskara Mkra and
Bharatasv&min, both explaining the word vasutd, the latter as having the
termination of the locative, the former as one word, used in the vocative case.
Still even this does not prove that Bhatta-BMskara Mkra wrote a commentary
on the Rig-veda. There is a commentary by Bha«a Kausika Bhaskara Mkra:i
on the Taittiriyaka still in existence, and S4yana, who used it largely in his
commentaries on the Taittiriyaka, may likewise have quoted from it here.
Devara//a, who mentions Bhaskara Mkra, ascribes to him a VedabhAshya,
without, however, restricting it to any Veda in particular.
Bharatasvamin is known as the author of a commentary on the Purvakika
of the S&ma-veda \ written, it is supposed, at the end of the thirteenth or the
beginning of the fourteenth century. He also is quoted by Devaraqa, but again
only as the author of aVedabhashya in general, so that he, too, need not be
considered as having written a commentary on the Rig-veda.
to be untrue, that I am very little inclined to believe like MSdhavabhata, that one can hardly suppose they
mere assertions. were, at the time, not complimentary. The great
‘ The best Pandits all accept my view of the Mftdhava Bhatta, Kumhrila, is perhaps more correctly called
Sflyanna question. There are no Pandits, I hear, at Bhata KumSrilasvdmin, but in Anantabhata, Arya¬
.Sring6ri, and very few Brahmans there who know any bhata, and other names, bhata always stands at tho
Sanskrit at all. end. In the Bdhtlingk and Both Dictionary Bhata
‘ When the Guru returns I shall visit the place, and is mentioned as commonly meant for great scholars,
do my best to get you a transcript of some of the Big- and as distinct from bhata, a mixed caste, chiefly
veda commentary there, at all events.’ occupied with composing panegyrics.
I have only one remark to make. When Sflyana 1 See Burnell, Vamsabrahmana, Prefaoe, p. xviii.
speaks of Mfldhava, he calls him generally Mfldhava, 2 See also note to I. 189, a.
Mftdhavflrya or MSdhavftkSrya, not MMhavabhaMa. 3 Burnell, 1. c. p. xxvii, and Catalogue of Sanskrit
But if Bhafta or Bhattfls (plural) is now in South MSS. p. u.
India a title by no means complimentary, was it so at * Burnell, 1. c. p. xxviii.
the time of S&yana ? There are so many names formed
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxxxi
1 This means the teaching of the old people, for expressed in it (eeil.bhftsha),” (alter Gebrauch des das
I* is only used of persons, not of things. I mention Auszudriickendo Ansdriickendeu in den in ihr (niim-
this, because in the Zeitschrift dor Deutsohen Mor- lichin der bh8.sha)ausgedruekt werdenden); or simply,
genlandischen Gesellsehaft, vol. vii. p. 599, I find the “The common language is that in which, for that
following ‘Correction' (Beriohtigung) addressed to me which one wishes to say, such words only are used
by Professor Weber: ‘ I have seen with great interest as by traditional practice are fixed as expressions fur
the beautiful communication of our M. Muller with the objects which they are to signify” (die gewbhu-
reference to an edition of the Mah&bhdshya, prepared liche Sprache ist diejenige, in wolcher fur das, was
at Calcutta.It is all the more painful to meet in man sagcn will, nur solche Worter gebraucht werden,
this communication with a passage, which, being mis¬ welcho durch hergebrachte Praxis als Ausdriicke fur
understood, as it seems to me, by our friend, might die Gegenstande, wolche sie bezeichneu sollen, fixirt
serve to lower our opinion of the value of the gram¬ sind).’ If Professor Weber will consult the Mnh&-
matical speculations of the Hindus. On p. 168 we bhkshya, and the translation of this passage by Bal-
read, “The language of society (bhash4) is explained lantyne, he will see that I was right, and his correction
by Nagesa as that which is used in the transactions wrong. It was known, surely, even in 1853,
of grown-up people, receiving or giving orders.” The vriddhavyavahftra cannot mean old custom (alter Ge¬
Sanskrit text is I
brauch), but only the usage, tho conversation, the
werdenden); or more clearly, “Old custom of him who 2 See BtUasfistri’s Preface to the K&jikk, Pandit,
expresses what is to be expressed in those which are vol. viii. no. 94.
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxxxiii
1 Colebrooke, Sanskrit Grammar, p. ix. cult to distinguish, we expect akhyllta, verb, by ths
Westergaard, 1. c. p. v ; Aufrecht, Catalogue, side of nkma, noun, and nipftta, paiticle.
P-176. 6 On the Anukramanis, see History of Ancient
3 [See also Varietas Lectionis on Rv. Bh. I. 30, 1.] Sanskrit Literature, p. 216. With legard to an Anu-
I write dkhy&ta, for although t and n are diffi- kramani in slokas, see Rv. Bh. I. ico, 1; X, f t, 7.
CXXX1V PREFACE TO THE
seems to have been a kind of Nirukta. Certain it is, that they have never
been met with among the works ascribed to Madhava or S4yana of Vidy&nagara.
If this distinction, however, between two Madhavas should seem inadmissible,
nothing would remain but to admit, that Devanu/a knew the commentary of
Madhava, but not in that form in which it was edited by Sayana. We might
quote some passages in support of this view. On p. 6, DevanV/a quotes Ma¬
dhava as giving an etymology of Pilshan, while explaining Rv. I. 23, 13. That
explanation, however, does not occur there. Again, DevanV/a quotes MMhava’s
comment on Rv.VII. 87, 4, but the words do not agree. The case is different,
however, in other passages. Thus on p. 2oa, where DevarcU/a quotes MMhava’s
interpretation of W1 in Rv. X. 68, 8, he says, ’?r?rrfuw? I
; and in Sayana we read, ’srertWlT With
regard to Devany/a says, WSTt I
aan fa® 1 Tnfr 1
»rrarr fqgqqiTfriift *rr strnrtm *fa %f?r 1 ffareffarcr: 1 »ravr 1 irapfr
^iTOT: I suavffcret I «rrz: l ll This would supply the
lacuna in S&yanaVIII. 66, 10.
With regard to metrical matters, Sayana follows the excellent treatise at
the beginning of the Sarvftnukrama. He once or twice, however, refers to
other works. Thus X. 130, 5, he quotes the A7i,andovi/dti, i. e. the Shtras of
Pingala, with reference to the deities with which certain metres are supposed
to be specially connected, the extract being taken from III. 63; and in I. 169, 1,
he quotes Pihgalanaga by name, quoting his Sutra, fayraft f^:, III. 5 ’•
Sayana quotes from both Mimamsas, and most largely from the Pfirva-
mimannsa in his introduction, and elsewhere. Here, too, the text gives rise to
critical difficulties, m. was it always easy to find the Siitra to which Sayana
referred- To qu ite but one passage. In X. 129, 7> none of Sayana’s MSS.
except *CB give:; the correct text of the Paramarsha Stitra I. 4, 23 ; yet after
finding the original, I could have no hesitation in giving the words such as
they stand in the Vedanta Shtras.
Apart from these passages, however, in which the authority of the MSS.
of Sayana is more or less checked by the independent authority of the texts
quoted by S&yana, I have throughout followed those principles of criticism
which I had laid down for myself from the first. I did not undertake with
1 The readings fjrWrWt and fa% ^?T i^PIT are confirmed by MS. *Sf; see Pandita Yisvanfitha
Mstri’s edition, p. 37, note. See also Big-veda-prStisakhya 957; IndiBehe Studien, VIII. 257-259.
2 Cf. Rig-veda-bh­a I. 115, 1.
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxxxv
the MSS. at my disposal to restore in every case the original wording of Say ax a;
I only promised to give in every doubtful passage that reading which seemed
to me presupposed by the various readings of the three families. This is
what I should have done, if it had fallen to my lot to carry out the editio
princeps of a Greek or Latin author, and what would have satisfied the claims
of classical criticism. I do not deny that I was somewhat disturbed, when I
was informed, on what seemed to be good authority, that a MS. of S Ay ax a
had been discovered in India, far more ancient than any which I possessed,
nay, almost contemporaneous with Sayana. I naturally waited for a time
with my edition, hoping to receive more exact information, but in that respect
my hopes were disappointed. It is not impossible, of course, that such a MS.
may still come to light, but, as far as I am concerned, I should hardly regret
it. I feel certain that the critical method which I have followed, will stand
even that severest of all tests; and though I may not in every case have
restored the original wording of Sayana, I believe it will appear, that I have
given that text from which the three streams of our MSS. started1. I have
myself pointed out again and again, that accidents have happened to the
text of Sayana before it reached that stratum, if I may say so, which contains
the three sources of our MSS. Whole sentences have been lost, which must
have existed in Sayana’s original work; nay, the very fact that they were
lost, has sometimes been marked in our MSS. In X. 123, 2, for instance, a
lacuna is actually mentioned in the MSS. belonging to the A class
Wllfa); in the B class there are dots to mark the accident; while in the
0 class only, the commentary goes on as if nothing had happened.
Wishing to know whether the present Guru of .SVingeri, the successor of
Madhava, /Sri Nnsimha Bharat 1, was in possession of materials to supply such
lacunas, I asked Mr. Burnell to use his influence with the head of the wealthy
College of /Sringdri, in order to obtain an answer to some of my questions.
I cannot thank Mr. Burnell sufficiently for his great kindness in assisting me
in my inquiries; and the result, though far from satisfactory, will certainly
be interesting, and, I hope, encourage other efforts. Writing from Mangalore
on the 29th of December, 1873, Mr. Burnell says:
‘ I have lately sent to /SVingeri, and the passage on the opposite page is
said to be the commentary on one of the test passages you sent me. It
appears almost impossible to get information; the Guru is on a pilgrimage,
[All the caseB in which my conjectural readings have been confirmed by later MSS. are mentioned
m the Varietae Lectionis.]
CXXXV1 PREFACE TO THE
and everybody there is too rich to care for money, nor is there any way to
influence these people.NringSri is at present very unhealthy, and every
person from the low country who visits it, gets a bad form of malarious fever.
I must, however, try to visit the place, and I am going to send again.’
The verse of which I had asked to have the commentary, was X. 27, 9.
The commentary is left out in all my MSS., and in B there is even a note
trftnfrjt wn5:1.
The authorities at S'ringeri supplied the following commentary: tjfitffl
tgngr 1 <^<1 ’to sr*rr»ri
ar»rpif wwrfr ,3^% fwlW
*forc-
«rrer7fr *£m src.^rwnnt wrttw *ftwsrf*PSFr<i 1 1 Wr ,*rfu
fgrarc 1 1 ^vrf*r 1 gwiara: 11
This may, of course, be the original of Sayana, but we must not be too rash
in our conclusions. The comment, as given above, was not copied from a MS.,
but dictated by the agent of the SYingeri-ma^a, Subrahmanya Somay%igal.
Supposing the same lacuna to exist in the old MSS. at »SVingeri, nothing would
be easier than to supply a comment, like the one given above. Nor would
there be the least mala fides in the matter. A scholar at Sringeri, being told
that an explanation of Rv. X. 27, 9, was wanted, and finding the lacuna in his
own MS., would at once supply the required article. Or, suppose the MS.
at Siangan had been used for educational purposes, then again the teacher,
on discovering the omission, might long ago have supplied it on the margin,
and the marginal gloss might long ago have been incorporated in the body
of a new MS. I do not wish to be over-sceptical, but I am as yet far from
satisfied that Sringeri possesses MSS. of S&yana, independent of the three
families known to us. It may be, or it may not be, but till I hear more from
Mr. Burnell, I should wish to remain entirely neutral on that point. Mr. Burnell
says, ‘ I am going to try again, and you may rest assured that whatever infor¬
mation I get, I shall at once communicate to you.’ The last I heard on March
10, 1874, is that ‘the Guru is still absent on a begging tour. When the Guru
returns,’ Mr. Burnell writes, ‘I shall visit this place, and do my best to get you
a transcript of some of the Rig-veda commentary there, at all events.’
By dwelling so much on the difficulties in preparing a critical edition of
Sayana, I do not wish to produce the impression that the text was corrupt
from beginning to end. It is with S&yana as with other Sanskrit authors :
there are long passages which, if we are once familiar with the style of S&yana,
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. CXXXVll
word, no letter, no accent, in the whole of the commentary, for which 1 am not
personally responsible. Nothing was ordered for press that T had not myself
carefully examined and revised; and though for certain portions of my edition,
as [ stated in the Preface to each volume, I was relieved of much preliminary
labour, the decision in all critical passages, whether for good or evil, always
rested with me. In an edition of Sayana, as in an edition of Cicero, there are
whole pages which require little or no editorial labour; but the real character
"I an edition depends on the treatment of critical passages, the more or less
frequent occurrence of which constitutes the difficulty of an editor’s work.
It should not be supposed from what I have said of the state of the
1 See also Uiunell, VanMabr&hmaua, p xxxviii.
VOL. IV. s
cxxxviii PREFACE TO THE
class, which may be seen in the various readings. The A and B classes still
have traces of what must have been the original reading, viz. ;
but suppose we had only MSS. connected with Ca, how would it have been
possible to restore the text 1
Tn X. 178, 1, the MSS. give the following readings :
rrra f xr A.
TIT^f ^ V3J C 2.
wn# f# «pr trt gmf 5 Ca.
rpigi gnf B 1.
mi f if fin tj tpi gnif *TJTTf^cPS^ CB.
gwgi gutr w B 4.
It is clear that this passage has been misunderstood by all the copyists. The
corruption must have begun at a very early date, for we see that the com¬
mentary to the Sama-veda, too, shows signs of it. At first sight that
commentary seems rpiite right. Tt reads (p. 672):
But is there any authority for calling Carga and others the son of TWksha?
The only thing which Carga shares in common with TWkslia is that their
patronymics, according to Pan ini TV. 1, 105, are formed by the same suffix,
viz. *rsp I therefore have little doubt that we must restore the original reading,
as I have done, I I or
I have not thought it necessary to give all the extraordinary corruptions
that have crept into Sayana’s text, particularly when they occurred in passages,
the wording of which admitted of easy restoration. Thus, even without Say ana,
we could easily supply ourselves what he says at the beginning of each hymn
with regard to the deities, mhis, and metres. But in order to give an idea of
what is possible in Sayana’s MSS., 1 shall give at least one specimen. In X. 132,
initio, this is the state of the MSS. :
A lilrft dl
A ftraifljusft fw^rr i
B ftraTfwt f^T^n w^vt^fwnt srgrrnjrfw: i
Ca f%rsr f?rtfr fw? w: ngrr^f?tw*fr ^gsrafgm: n
M.M. fursTf^refr fw|EiT w^ftrw^tissR%f?T ^w«rfw: i
Let any one read this passage carefully and compare it with the original text
of the Anukrama/d, and he will see that my alterations, however violent in
appearance, were inevitable.
In many cases, of course, a familiarity with the style of Sayaaa is the only
means of restoring his text. In X. 177, 1, we have :
of the way in which I have tried to discharge the trust which was committed
to me, of editing the text of the Rig-veda and of the commentary of Sdyana.
Mr. Burnell', when speaking of S:\yana, says, ‘ S&yana’s position is almost
precisely similar to that of the Alexandrian Neo-Platonists, and especially
Proclus. Like him, he was a theosophist, and hoped for the restoration by his
mysteries of what was fast passing away. He was also, like Proclus, the
representative of all the older science of his race, a philosopher, astronomer,
philologist, and mystic. Like him, too, he was a laborious, painful compiler,
whose industry supplied to some extent his lack of originality. The works
of both, therefore, possess only an historical value, and are the best records
of the last efforts of an old but decaying form of faith. As such, they call for
editions which will preserve them for future enquix-ers into the history and
philosophy of religions; but the work can be done only once for all, and editors
must therefore neglect no precaution to publish these difficult worics in as thorough
a way as they can with the materials available.’
I feel the weight of these concluding remax-ks as strongly as any one. All
I can say is, that I have devoted to this work the best part of my life, and the
best energies of my mind. It was often a most tedious work, but feeling, like
Mr. Burnell, that so large a work would not be likely to be published again
(though who can tell what direction the studies of futui’e generations will
take ?), I have edited it as if I had to edit Plato or Aristotle. I do not think
that the editio princcps of Sayana will altogether escape that fate which has
overtaken the editions of the Scholia to Homer, though entrusted to such
scholars as Villoison and Bekker2; yet I trust, that future generations of
students will not forget the state of Sanskrit scholarship at the time when I
began to prepare my edition, and I may add, the age of the editor, when he
first resolved on this work. Were I to depend on the judgment of my con¬
temporaries, even of those who have been most opposed to me, I might indeed
be satisfied ; but my own mind tells me that, in the eai’ly volumes, in particular,
future gleaners will find that the edge of my critical sickle has not always
been so sharp as it ought to have been, and that it would have been better
if the editor of the last volume had been the editor of the first. All I can say
is, SeiXol jipoTol voXvitovol ! and let those who may hereafter discover single
mistakes in my edition of S&yana, bear in mind, that in carrying through
the press so extensive a woi-k, it is simply impossible to attain to the same
One foretaste of what future editors of Sityarea may say of me, I have
had, and I am glad of it, because it enables me, while I can reply, to show
that I might possibly have something to say in self-defence, when I shall
no longer be able to do so. The first volume of my edition, in particular,
which has been most frequently studied, has been already subjected to a
searching criticism, and in such a way as to test, once for all, the soundness
of the critical method which I have adopted. Knowing that I had not been
able to collate a valuable old MS. of the first Ash taka, now at Berlin, Professor
Weber has published a careful collation of that MS., and we may trust him,
that he omitted nothing in order to detect flaws in my text. Here, therefore,
is the desired test of my critical principles, and I may say at once, that I
believe that, even if the original autograph MS. of Saya/ta were hereafter
to be discovered, the test would not be either more severe or more damacdn"-
& O*
P. 48. 11. 7-11 [see nowVarietas Lectionis to p. 25. 1. 31]. Professor Weber'
says that the passage from ’Jpqfq to f%f%: is wanting. It is wanting, not only
iii the Berlin MSS., but in all MSS. except A 2. I retained it on account of
its intrinsic value. 1 he MSS. used by Dr. Roer must have contained the
same paragraph, but he failed to restore it, because he could not trace the
extract back to the Pratisakhya.
Sue Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlimdischen Gesellschaft, IV. 265; and, more lately, Indischt-
Wroifen, vol. ii. p, 9. lS6g.
cxliv PREFACE TO THE
reading of the MSS.; but the passage is a quotation from the Dh&tu-p4^a, and
in it no root is recognised in the sense of ; hence must be retained.
P. 49. 1. 7 [now p. 26. 1. 9]. From to is wanting in the Berlin MS.,
but added in marr/ine. This is exactly what I expected. The original reading
was probably *X4'STS^^? £ fqfgq:. Then the question
arose, what was meant by this Mah4v4rttika, the general title of K4ty4yana’s
V4rttikas? I can find nothing like it in the Mah4bh4shya (p. 77k). It was
probably for this very reason that another commentator added the usual
explanation, viz. sjF’itfsITq That explanation is wanting
not only in the Berlin codex, but likewise in A 1.2, B 1. 2, and Ca. Professor
Weber is wrong in thinking that S4yana requires and by referring to
other passages, e. g. Rv. Bh. III. 32, 13, he would find, that Sayana forms
though 4dyud4tta, by <T*T4. In fact, I know no authority for the existence of
a Taddhita <T*T*y except the so-called Mah4v4rttika, here quoted by S4yana.
[The correct reading of the Varttika is and the suffix in question is
neither rr«xy, nor 7T«r*t, but tpt; see Varietas Lectionis to Rv. Bh. III. 32, 13.]
P. 49. 1. 13 [now p. 26. 1. 13], <33Trr^ta, and 1. 19 [1. 18], BfvwrnJ, are both
the right readings, and ought to have been inserted in the list of Corrigenda.
P. 49. 1. 21 [now p. 26. 1. 19]. is the reading, not only of the Berlin
MS., but likewise of B 1.2. A 2 has C 1 the right reading is probably
that of A 1 ^urarsi®.
P. 50. 1. 3 [now pr. 26. 1. 26]. The reading of the Berlin codex
is not sufficiently supported against A 2. B x. Ca.
P. 50. 1. 9 [now p. 26. 1. 30]. I purposely rejected the reading xj^Tf^tTT^rft^T0,
which occurs not only in the Berlin MS., but also in C 1. A 2. Ca, in favour of the
fuller text of the B class.
P. 50. 11. 15, 16 [now p. 26. 11. 35, 36]. The passage from 5^ to ufttuvi: is
wanting, not only in the Berlin MS., but likewise in A 1. 2, B 1. 2, and Ca. It
may have been originally a marginal note, as it still is in A 2, but being a useful
one, I retained it on the authority of C 1. The same applies to p. 51. 1. 4 [now
p. 27. 1. 9], which is absent in Ci, but supported by B 1. 2. Ca, and partly by
A 2, which reads f*rerr<n»TPft
P. 51. 11. 13, 14 [now p. 27. 1. 17]. The passage tnyj: to fnUTfTffi: rests on
the authority of C 1; it is not in A 1. 2, B 1. 2, nor in Ca. It is most probably a
later addition, but it does not belong to the same category as the passage from the
Manoram4. When I allowed a passage from the Manoramft to remain in the com¬
mentary, I felt it my duty to give notice of it in the Preface (vol. i. p. xxiii. note 1).
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxlv
Professor Weber asks: ‘Is Haradatta really a predecessor of S4yana, or does this
addition belong to the same category as that from the Manorama ? ’ Unless
Professor Weber has some very weighty reason to suppose that the Haradatta
here mentioned cannot be the same as Haradatta, the commentator of the
Kdsik4, I do not know what to reply \
P. 63. 1. 1 [now p. 33. 1. 27]. ^nrrfSrf?! was the reading of C1, As A 1, how¬
ever, gave the correct reading I naturally accepted it.
P. 63. 1. 3 [now p. 33. 1. 29]. There is no authority for the ^ of the Berlin MS.,
not even in Ca.
P. 63. 1. 5 [now p. 33. 1. 30]. The reading of the Berlin MS. was
well known to me from C 1. I preferred, however, 'ItfaTrramt., because it rests on
the authority of A and B; likewise of Ca.
P. 63. 1. 20 [now p. 34. 1. 1]. is the reading of all the MSS.; « was a
slip of the pen, as well as fng for on p. 64. 1. 5 [now p. 34. 1. 10].
P. 65. 1. 7 [now p. 34. 1. 32]. The mistake in the Berlin MS. was
well known to me from Ci. The reading has the authority of
B and Ca.
P. 65. 1. 9 [now p. 34. 1. 33]. after has the authority of A and B; C 1
has Ca has
P. 65. 1. 28 [now p. 35. 1. 9]. The Berlin reading ’jftrr ^[T0 was known
to me from C 1 and A. I preferred the reading of B as clearer in itself, and, at
the same time, as accounting more naturally for the mistake which had hap¬
pened. In Ca also, the omission had taken place, but the right reading was
restored.
P. 66. 1. 21 [now p. 35. 1. 25]. has the authority of A. C. B.
is a mistake; but I should now prefer to write which is supported
by Ca.
P. 66. 1. 24 [now p. 35. 1. 27 seq.]. I changed to according to the
Bahvri/ca system of spelling, and retained on the authority of the B class,
which is supported by Ca. [But and have now been restored in
accordance with the text of the Taittiriya Samhit&, from which the passage
is quoted.]
P. 67. 1. 25 [now p. 36. 1. 11]. The reading of the Berlin codex, whether sraur
or ^ppsj, is impossible. Between and s|tmj the choice is sometimes difficult;
in our passage, however, the authority of the MSS. is decidedly on the side
of jsrenr.
P. 68. 1. 1 [now p. 36. 1. 14]. ftvuwwrqm. is again supported by B,
but might have been preferable, as it has the support of A and Ca.
P. 68. 1. 14 [now p. 36. 1. 24]. The reading *TT rests on the authority
of the Nirukta, X. 8 ; and though there are other various readings there, there
is none with regard to The MSS. of S&yawa are, no doubt, in favour ot
3^ or sppf, but in passages like the one in question, where the copyists hardly
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxlvii
understand what they are writing, they are of very small value. I corrected^
in the same passage, in Professor Roth’s edition, to because it is well to
distinguish the third from the first person, but I saw no reason for changing
SP5*»rf into which has no authority except the Berlin MS. The same
applies to for nrfa, p. 68. 1. 21 [now p. 36. 1. 29]; to for
p. 69. 1. 6 [now p. 36. 1. 39]; to tym after p. 69. 1. 7 [now p. 37. 1. 2 ;
is also in G, and has now been adopted]; and to instead of the only
possible form For in the same line there is indeed the
authority of Ci, but the other MSS. have again the reading, which I have
given, viz.
P. 70. 1. 26 [now p. 37. 1. 34]. sraoSTft instead of WWatT?T. would be wrong.
No MSS. support it, nor do they support for p. 71. 1. 2 [now
1>- 37- 1- 36].
P. 71. 1. 28 [now p. 38. 1. 15]. On the possibility of omitting after
see p. cxiv. In our case, as C and A give, and B inserts it, there would have
been no excuse for omitting it.
P. 72. 1. t [now p. 38. 1. 16]. is the right form, and although C and A
have the u, the B MSS. haveifc, as well as the Berlin MS.
P. 72. 1. 8 [now p. 38. 1. 21]. The mistake wrrmfVJliTW instead of
was known to me from C t, but I corrected it on the authority of A and B, also
on account of the words immediately following. The same applies to the omission
of %^on p. 72. 1. 13 [now p. 38. 1. 25].
U 74- k 5 [now p. 39. 1. 21]. The reading of the Berlin MS. for ^
would be impossible. It is a quotation from the Dh&tu-p&f/ta; would mean
the very contrary of and no MS. supports it.
Professor Kuhn, in quoting a passage from Sjiyana I. 65, 1, sjzft ^ I
f^fTOT I ^(nfr SWT, says (Zeitschrift, I. p. 451), ‘ Instead of vwt ^4 5T54T we
must read either or I thought so too, but as the MSS. agreed on
and as I could not find the passage, I retained Even now 1 have not
been able to find the passage, but from such passages as Taitt. Samh.VI. 2, 4, 2,
Brarr, or Taitt. Brdhm. I. 2, 1, 5, xsn^f Bn?rr, I have
little doubt that my text is right.
Though the process of examining in detail the value of the various readings
culled by Professor Weber from the Berlin MS. was rather tedious, yet I hope
>t will serve one important purpose. It will show that if we follow carefully
the principles of diplomatic criticism, so long recognised by the best classical
scholars, it is hardly possible that we should go very far wrong in restoring
t 2
cxlviii PREFACE TO THE
the text of an ancient author, however illegible or corrupt. The work itself
of copying and collating MSS., and eliciting from them the original readings
which they presuppose by their agreement as well as by their divergence,
requires, no doubt, considerable time and labour; and as I have sometimes
been assured that by adopting a less laborious process, I could have finished
the edition of S&yana in a much shorter time, I think it right to show, by
a few instances, what the result of this more expeditious proceeding would
have been, or, at all events, might have been. Professor Weber, who has on
several occasions shown a truly motherly solicitude with regard to my edition
of the Rig-veda, has again and again complained of the delay in the publication
of S&yana. His complaints seem to me, and not to me only, unfounded, his
language not quite worthy of him. He has himself edited the Yayur-veda, and
he has done so on principles of criticism which he, no doubt, conscientiously
prefers, but which I could not bring myself to follow, even if they had enabled
him to get through his work much more rapidly. But even this seems to me
not quite certain, as the following facts will show.
The first volume of his edition of the Yar/ur-veda appeared in 1849, the
third and last in 1859. One volume only of the three professes to give a
complete commentary, the other two contain extracts only, and these so
incomplete that Professor Kuhn and others, when they wished to make use
of certain passages in the *Satapatha Brahmawa, had to write to India for new
extracts. Some scholars think that the time has already come for a new
edition of the S'atapatha Brahmana with the complete commentary of Silyana;
and if we may accept Professor Weber’s candid account of the nature of the
extracts from the commentaries on the Siitras, that work also will sooner or
Jater have to be done again. Far be it from me to say anything unkind of
so laborious and so learned a scholar, but as he has so often contrasted his
own velocity with my slowness, may I just say in self-defence, that if he will,
according to the rules of Adam Riese, to whom he appeals, divide the number
of sheets contained in his three volumes, by ten years, and the number of
sheets contained in my large and small editions of the Rig-veda by twenty-two
years, he will be surprised to find, that the difference between his speed and
my slower progress is not so very great after all.
But this, in itself, is of little consequence, nor should I have said one word
about it, had I not been so fiercely challenged. The only thing that is of real
importance to scholars is, whether it is possible to carry out a critical edition
of Sanskrit texts on different principles from those which are followed by Greek
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cxlix
and Latin scholars. I say nothing of the texts of the hymns and Brdhmawas.
They are settled, and require little editing, in the proper sense of the word.
With commentaries, however, the case is different, and I still hold that they
do require the same amount of critical editing as any classical author.
In order to substantiate this assertion, I shall beg leave to follow Pro¬
fessor Weber’s example, and to examine a small portion of his edition of
Mahidhara’s commentary, by comparing it, not with a MS. which he has not
collated, but with one which he himself professes to have collated. This
is the- old MS. belonging to Mill’s collection, and marked by Professor Weber
as M. The first fifty-two pages of this MS. ought to have been invaluable
to any editor. They ought to have been collated with the minutest care, for
old MSS. of Mahidhara were then, and are still, scarce. What is Professor
Weber’s apparatus criticus ? As far as I can see, he has copied one MS. (A)
only, and this is not quite complete; and I believe I am correct in stating, that
the only other complete MS. which he possessed for the purpose of his edition,
was the copy I had made at Paris of Burnouf’s MS., and which I gladly lent
to him, and eventually, at his request, presented to the Royal Library at Berlin.
This copy, however, can in no sense claim the authority of a MS., because,
though I copied it as well as it was possible in the time given, I never collated
't with the original. I therefore, as I said just now, lent my copy to Pro¬
fessor Weber on the distinct understanding that it should never be quoted by
him as an authority. Instead of this, it is in most places, if not the only, at
least the most important independent authority for the critical restitution of
his text. I do not think, that I can be mistaken in this statement. If I am,
it is not my fault, for Professor Weber clearly says that he collated the third
MS. (0) for the defects of the last twenty-five Adhydyas only, while the fourth
MS. at Paris (P), of' which the beginning, from I. 8. to II. 4, was copied by myself,
was collated by him no further than the end of the fourth Adhyaya.
there remains, therefore, only the MS., formerly belonging to Dr. Mill,
and now in the Bodleian Library, which contains the first twenty Adhydyas,
and has in the beginning those fifty-two old leaves which Professor Weber pro¬
fesses to have collated. By them I shall now try to test the critical state of his
edition. I do so simply to test two systems of editorial criticism. Professor
Weber knows these various readings, for I showed them to him as soon
as his first fasciculus had been published. So many years have since elapsed,
that I feel I can now speak with perfect freedom, without fearing to give
offence by my remarks. The question itself seems to me one, the importance
el PREFACE TO THE
‘0 war-maker, maker of fights with enemies, and therefore thou of real strength!’
If the Vir&ma is used, the last letter is not modified. I can hardly remember
writers of Sanskrit MSS. putting, e.g. 'trfa g, but generally, either s«prfij g,
or g- Nor is it right, I-think, to write xjRrfqppnfiT, but swjgi faxnfa.
Vag. Sarah, p. 25, 1. 19. After a participle, which in itself represents a sentence,
the Virama is very common, e.g. irsrrgw: ^ff, ‘being endowed with
wisdom, give to us; ’ ’ITJWt etc. I11 all such cases, I have, as a rule, followed
the writing of the best MSS., but I have never allowed a hiatus to remain where
it would have destroyed the structure of a sentence. Thus in X. 165, 1, I write
gfJTT^Pnw HTiflrt etc., ‘ columba quod
malum cupiens, desiderans, banc nostrum domum venit, assecuta est, huic male ’
etc. Rv. X. 166,1, tr % xrfa ’sftr g *#rerf»rsrn ‘ wishing to
say, not only lord of one cow, but of all cows, he adds gavftm.’ Ilv. X. 191, 3,
^tTT: , ‘the former half-verse is in the third, the latter
in the first person.’
In Professor Weber’s editions I have in vain looked for any definite system.
If he had disregarded the rules of Sandhi altogether, that would have been
intelligible. But as he sometimes observes them, and then, without any
apparent cause, neglects them, the effect is not only bewildering, but actually
misleading. What reason can there be for writing, p. 2. 1. 22, xgrair-
w; p. 4. 1. 21, ipri; p. 4. 1. 25, nfmirre: ;
(p. 44. 1. 10); and the same in innumerable passages? I hope Pro¬
fessor Weber will not think, that I doubt his knowledge of the rules of Sandhi.
What I do not understand is, why he should disregard them in his editions.
I shall not attempt to give all the various readings of Dr. Mill’s MS.,
but only those which serve to determine the relation of this MS. to other
MSS., or such as really furnish a correction of a mistake. Professor Webei
sometimes gives the various readings of M, sometimes he does not. This
ugain is misleading. If we are told p. ii. 1. 9, that B z’eads and P
we conclude that M agrees with the printed text; but it agrees
with B. The various reading, under No. 17, which Professor Weber ascribes
to B, belongs to B and M; No. 18 is supported not only by P, but also by M ;
No. 33 by B and M; No. 36 by B and M. In No. 37, M has not
but and so on.
B- iii. 1. 25. Xj( W. Not only B has UT»4T?PT, as Professor
Weber says, but M also, to say nothing of O and P. Besides, M reads
| |^r, which is right.
clii PREFACE TO THE
1 , which is here inserted, was omitted by Professor Weber in another passage, viz.Vftp. PratisSkhya
I.90. (Indische Stndien, IV. 127.) We ought to read ^p*TWI, instead of et'eti.
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. cliii
there must be a stop at the end of a question, and the answer begins with
1 I add a few more in a note: On page 56, line 2, ; 1. 18, it adds aftor
M repeats ; 1. 3, it adds after *pTP«; l the u from i. e. ^1, 1. 21, should
1.5, it reads TOWT71T:; I.9, it aildalJlT after ftf- go to TOTTT, h 16. P.59, 1.21, WtW- P.60,1.8,
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. civ
for the present suffice to show, how much might have been gained by a
real collation of this valuable fragment, and by a genealogical classification
of the other MSS. It is not for me to exaggerate the importance of these
various readings, but what I think cannot be exaggerated is the importance of
a truly scholarlike spirit in editing our Sanskrit texts; in fact, in doing every¬
thing we have to do in life. I know there are Sanskrit scholars whose labours I
highly appreciate, who totally differ from me on this point. They look upon this
kind of minute scholarship as mere waste of time, and as pedantry inherited
from classical philology. Let them but read the history of classical philology
and the history of the editions of Greek and Latin authors, and they will find,
that the neglect of these minutiae has always proved most fatal, and that,
what one generation considered as minima, the next recognised as maxima.
Anyhow, even if I should be mistaken in these opinions, I hope I shall be
absolved from any blame if, by trying to apply to Sanskrit the same critical
method which I had been taught by Hermann and Haupt for Greek and Latin, 1
have edited every year a hundred pages less than 1 might otherwise have done.
1 also trust that in thus endeavouring to vindicate the critical principles
which I have followed, by contrasting them with those of Professor Weber,
I shall not appear to have unfairly depreciated the labours of one of my most
^teemed fellow-students. lie has, no doubt, by this time discovered many,
possibly all, of these mistakes himself, and he has altogether done so much
useful work that no one would wish to be hard on him on account of these
little accidents. With scholars, and with all true men of science, who care
ler truth, the question, as 1 said in another place, is never, who is right and
who is wrong, but what is right and what is wrong. The life of a scholar would
not be worth living, if, in return for many things which he has to surrender, he
did not secure for himself that one inestimable privilege of owing allegiance to
i?JT¥fn; i. ii. <T»RT<>; J. 13, i. 16, p. 64, i. 3. wT*t; 1.7, ’STft Urio. p. (>:„ 1.14,
after ; ibid. ; 1. 20, WTf^ai:• r.67,1 7,*tfTn.iw. v.68,in,
p. 61,1.18, ffTTgjpn0; i. 20, m adds Wjfawfa> and hence, 1. 12, etc. left out.
‘far irrfustTVTR 1 rremnren- P. 70,1 16, fasmurni;. p.71, i.,-„ m^rr. p,74,
?r^r jjjJq: gqfyfa q^T^r- 1.18, 1.24,
The same accident, from a Tf^T. p. 75, 1. 15, again a hornoiolelenton has caused
mere homoioteleuton, has happoned on p.62, 1. 11, after the following omission after %fd:, gwv-
M reads
U 2
clvi PREFACE TO THE
Roman types used in the third column, and we have therefore between the
second and third columns common ground on which to institute a real and
rational comparison. The system of transcription is that adopted by Professor
Aufrecht in his excellent edition of the hymns in Roman letters. The spaces,
however, between the words have been reduced, and another saving has been
ellected by removing the unnecessary, and rather objectionable, break at the
end of each Varga, otherwise no alterations have been made, excepting the
change of n into n in yajua, and the addition of a c in gacchati.
verdict. I know I have sometimes been blamed for not replying to my critics
but such blame was most unjust. The fact is, that I could not possibly do it.
When books are reviewed, as they now are, not only in England, but in almost
every country of Europe, nay, even in America and India, what are we to do '
Many of these reviews never reached me at all, but even if I had attempted
to read and notice those only which I happened to see, I should have had no
time left for anything else. It was not want of respect that made me silent, but
simply want of timeNo author, when he publishes books, containing new
facts and new theories, expects that the whole world will at once say, A.men
If it were so, the book would probably never have been written. An author
must be prepared for contradiction and censure, and we all know that from
certain quarters censure is more flattering than praise. After a time, every
author becomes a target, but fortunately, not every shot that is tired, however
loud the report, hits the mark. As far as my own experience goes, I have
felt much more frequently inclined to protest against unmerited praise, than
against unmerited blame. There are few things written by any scholar of my
name, for which, at some time or other, 1 have not received the credit, though
1 did all I could to disclaim those equivocal honours. There are few languages
which I am not supposed to know, though again and again I have protested
•gainst the laurels of a Mezzofanti.
These are old perplexities of which those wlto came before us have com¬
plained, and of which those who follow after, will complain likewise. Let
me conclude with the verses of an old Indian poet.:
1 venture to avail myself of this opportunity to I cannot tell. It is generally said, that Humboldt
fvplain another apparent neglect on my part, for acknowledged all books, and answered all letters.
which, I know, I have been Illumed, if not in public, That may be so, but not every man is a Humboldt,
at least in private. During the last ton years the and Humboldt died before the penny post attained
number of hooks sent me from all parts of the world its full development. When 1 tell my fi lends that,
has become so great that I had to give up the attempt though most letters are now penny letters, I spent in
1,1 acknowledge them al.. When I was a young man, one year ,£18 for postage, they can easily find out the
it was generally understood, that no acknowledgment number of letters I have to write, and I feel sure they
was expected, when a hook was sent, without a loiter. will forgive me, if I do not always write by return ot
1 o that rule T have conformed, both as a sender and post, that ‘ I am looking forward with (lie greatest
as a receiver of presentation copies. There are, of pleasure to reading their hooks. Nothing gives me
<ourse, exceptions, but Urey should lie treated as such. gi eater pleasure than reading books written by men
It should also he publicly stated, that books sent with whom I am personally acquainted. But if a friend
through friends or booksellers, are apt to miscarry. sends me a book on Comparative Mythology, while I
A frieud of mine bought a volume of the Itig-veda at am in the midst of work on .Sanskrit accentuation.
1 sale in Paris, and when he opened it, he found, that I must put his work aside for a timo, and cannot ex¬
’: was the very copy which I had sent him years ago press an opinion till 1 find leisure to read it carefully.
as a present. How such accidents can he avoided. Soyons ratsovnuUes
clx PREFACE TO THE
1 have still the pleasant duty to fulfil of thanking my many friends, both
old and young, for the constant help which they have given me during the
many years that I have been engaged in this edition of the Rig-veda. Some of
them are no more amongst us, but the names of Burnouf, Bunsen, Wilson, Mill,
Trithen, Rotir, Bardelli, Goldstiicker, Ballantyne, Bliao Daji, and I must also
add the names of two most excellent printers, Peinbrey, whose son keeps up
the reputation of his father, and Hickman, a truly noble soul, will always he
remembered with gratitude by one to whom, each in his own way, they have
shown so much kindness, and rendered such essential help. To those who are
still living, and who have assisted me by their advice and by their active co¬
operation, particularly to Professor Theodore Aufrecht, Hr. Fitz-Edward Hall,
Professor Haug, I have in the Preface to each successive volume expressed my
deep obligation. With regard to the last volume, I have to add the names of
Professors Cowell, Eggeling, Thibaut, and Mr. Burnell. My old friend Professor
Cowell, though fully occupied with other work, has never grudged me his time,
whether for reading proof-sheets, or for giving me his opinion on difficult,
passages. Professor Eggeling has rendered me most useful service in the same
manner ; and to Professor Thibaut I am especially indebted for the assistance
he has rendered me in reading revises and in preparing the Index of the
Uttarapadas. That Tndex is founded on the Index vn-borum, printed in the
fifth and sixth volumes. It is arranged alphabetically ; first, according to the
Uttarapada ; then, according to the Phrvapada. It will be seen that it contains
all the words, actually divided by an Avagraha, except those in which the
second part was a mere suffix, *nr:SWK-, or a termination, It
also contains other words which, though, according to the system of the Prati-
silkhyas, they could not have the Avagraha, could easily be divided, and were
thought to be useful to the students of the Veda. The principle followed in
the selection was that of practical usefulness, not of systematic completeness.
If, as happens frequently, the same Uttarapada occurs with different accents,
SIXTH VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION. dxi
F. MAX MULLER.
Oxford, 14 September, 1874,
Tie first day of the International Congress of Orientalists
in London.
VOL. IV. X
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
After the account given of the MSS. in the Prefaces to the earlier volumes,
I have only to state here that no new MSS. of S&yana were available for the
later MancMas, except a few fragments in my possession, viz. fragment D, con¬
taining AslVaka V, Adhyiiyas 3 to 5 (= Maru/ala VII. 20 to 80), fragment Bf,
containing portions of the ninth, and Af, containing portions of the ninth and
tenth Manc/alas.
The fragment D is related to Ca sec. m., as will be seen from such passages
as VII. 20, 10, where Ca, in the second explanation of g, reads jnpstT with
q jjjfdg added in the margin, while I) has VII. 40, 6, instead of
fqqT'd «RT TO Ca writes fWPWTWWT:, which has been misread by the writer of
D, who wrote ’FPSTH- VII. 43, 5, D reads with Ca sec. m. *psrr gwr fsrwgwi.
VII. 67, 7, Ca reads by mistake for 1) corrects to in the
margin.
The fragment Bf is related to B4, Af to A and Ca, as may easily be seen
from the Varietas Lectionis.
But though there were no new MSS. to be used, there was a new edition of
the Itig-veda with Sftyana’s commentaiy, published at Bombay, which reached me
in time to be consulted, at least for the tenth Mandala. This edition, I must say
at once, is very favourably distinguished from most editions of Sanskrit texts
published in India. It is neither a mere reproduction of a manuscript, with
occasional corrections, nor a reprint of a text as restored and corrected by a
European scholar with all its mistakes and misprints. It differs in that respect
most favourably from the edition of the text of the Itig-veda, published at
Bombay some years ago, which was so completely a reprint of my own edition
that I had to take legal advice on the subject. It is well that it should be,
known both in India and in England that to reprint a text with its misprints*
and accidental mistakes is considered piracy by English and Indian law and!
is punishable as such. A small number of misprints is sufficient to convict!
the offender, but in this case the number was by no means small, and I am''
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. clxiii
glad to say that the publishers at once recognised the bearing of the law,
and printed a new title-page in which my name was given, as it ought to have
been from the first.
I have great pleasure in saying that no such blame attaches to the new
edition of the Rig-veda with S&yana’s commentary. The editors, Boc/asa Raja-
»
A.
Passages in which R shares the mistakes of our MSS.
VII. 5, 5. After ^wi*rjrf, A. B. Ca add nfifi. This has been retained in
M 1 and in R. But it is clear that a lector male sedulus mistook ®TT$rr i. e.
^siji for tt^t, and added Tin;hi. The same MSS. have in the same line the
addition ^TjjT^r after fffrfl;. This was rejected both in M 1 and in R.
SECOND EDITION. cjxv
VII. 6, 7. R has qfaf^« the reading of the MSS., for
VII. 7, 6. R, like all our MSS., has Jn^rrcrf, where we should expect
WTMTHTi.
VII. 18, 5. R, like our MSS., has qlvmTq We expect qraqR.
VII. 18, 22. R has i%: for with our MSS—R reads with A. Ca.
VII. 22, 6. R reads qftfq with I).
VII. 27, 5. R has with the MSS., for qfqNnSb
VII. 34, 24. R retains of the MSS. instead of (qqq^) fgrfhri.
VII. 35 introd. R has qq^crrg like D, for ijq - - g.
VIT. 35, 6. The explanation of SNim, given by Ca sec. m. D grq^q:, is
found also in R. It may be right.
VII. 36, 1. «rrarer fqq R with our MSS.
VH. 37, 5. R, like all our MSS., reads fqqq aniftfq. The text has fq%q:.
ft is hardly possible that Say a//a read fq^q. If he had, he could only have
explained it as a third person.
VII. 39, 5. R reads with A. B.
VII. 43, 2. R has qr^qi like the MSS., not the emendation qraqi (explanation
ofqr^).
TX. 10, 6. It is clear that Sayawa read fyxx: against the authority of the
Rada-text, yet R has ?y% fTW: ; compare B 1.
IX. 14, 4. R reads viTCffi 7TR7 etc., without marking a lacuna before h^t.
IX. 30, 2. R leads qiy, the MSS. - - <*jy.
I-^- 43> 5- H reads with B xj: for and with tiie MSS. for
IX. 61, 23. R agrees with the MSS. in placing the words from % jftj: to
before
IX. 66, 28. R agrees with our MSS. in giving a second grammatical explana-
tlon after
IX. 91 init. R has the same mistake, for xn?, as our MSS.
IX. 91, 4. R, like our MSS., has xftri for faf.
clxviii PREFACE TO THE
13 .
Passages in which II has independent readings. Compare also ltst F.
c.
List of lacunas, supplied in R.
D.
List of doubtful or erroneous readings in the Editio Princeps (M 1)
WHICH HAVE BEEN REPEATED IN R.
VII. 104, 19. of the MSS. has been restored in M2. The reading of
M 1, flWofigd, has been adopted in R.
VIII. 2, 12. ^ *n: the reading of A. Ca, has been restored in M2.
R has adopted the erroneous emendation of M 1, ^ .
VIII. 15, 10. R has adopted the readings of M 1, now rejected in M 2. See
Varietas Lectionis.
VIII. 22 introd. After ^gj^R has the mistake *rqjft 9*ftf?TTt (compare
the leading of B : 411# If wftfftqf). This was printed in M 1, but in the
Corrections at the end of the volume (iv) was corrected to 141ft
The editors of R have not observed this.
VIII. 24, 17. The unintelligible of the MSS., which is now corrected to
*PH, was changed to in M 1, and this is adopted in It.
VIII, 24, 20. R has with M 1, for
VITT. 30, 3. As to etc., R agrees with M 1, except that it has
?rg: wt ftraT for wrf irg: ftmT.
VIII. 35 introd. now restored according to A. Ca. It was
corrected to ^nfT° in M 1, and this has been adopted in R.
VIII. 45, 40. Instead of fff>* Mi proposed another emendation:
ftpgf =3T <TTHT, which is the reading of It.
VIII. 70 introd. 1°, the reading of M 1 (according to B),
is adopted in R. It had been corrected already in the Corrections to vol. iv of
M 1. This has not been observed by the editors of It.
VIII. 71,13. R agrees with M 1 in reading I which has now
been corrected to dRiM'l.
VIII. 76, 12. gjftPTOT was corrected to gjfH *r*n in M 1, and this is adopted
in R. M2 has the reading of B, gjftrHf.
VIII. 96, 8. R has 7nnf4 with M i> the MSS. (A. Ca) have 7R which
is now changed into TiTTf^i: -
VIII. 101, 14. <rsrr awui (A. Ca) has been corrected to ?r«rr siHRi 'n
M 1, which is adopted in R. It is now ^f^urr®.
VIII. 103 introd. R reads with M 1 iH*ft ftnCTipn and
See Varietas Lectionis.
IX. 72, 8. (now corrected to °tj%) had been corrected in M 1 to
which is the reading adopted in R.
IX. 74, 6. ‘ WTfw:, the reading of C 2 and very nearly of the other
MSS., is unobjectionable. It should be remembered that is one of the
SECOND EDITION. clxxv
in Ngh. II. 19- ’TPft IT* was, therefore, a wrong conjectural emendation in
M i; yet it has been adopted in R.
IX. 87, 8. ht* 3TOHT7P9 is the nearest approach to the readings of the MSS.
Tirr JTCT TfTTR of Mi and R is 'against the authority of the MSS., and no
improvement.
IX. 101, 13. TTUTi“ in M 1 was an unnecessary correction for TWPira®. Cf.
Dhp. Tiv TffwI. Yet R also has TTW.
IX. 103, 1. Compare: qfafnfonqft Tfowmnq ?i?et iffiffir: 13ft* M 1.
ifomroro w R.
IX. 112, 1. (MSS.) was at first changed in M 1 to sn°,
but afterwards corrected in the Varietas Lectionis. R has adopted sn°,
a wrong emendation of M 1.
A few curious passages of the tenth Mawdala may here be added :
X. 13, 5- which was corrected in the Varietas Lectionis of M 1 to fopfr,
is retained in R.
X. 20, 10. R reads with M 1 *ftg*j?r?r instead of the correct reading
of the MSS.
X. 66, 5 and 7. The MSS. have all f%rgw. The conjecture fspajfH is against
the MSS. , as stated in the Varietas Lectionis. The Anusvara of in verse 5 was
lost by a mere misprint. R has, like M 1, from in verse 5 and in verse 7.
X. i2i, 4. The passage discussed above, p. cxxxviii seq. Here R has TTT^nt*n
etc., my own very bold conjectural reading, except that it substitutes i35Tai?rt: for
tsiNifU ^T. How does Prof. Peterson, who criticised my conjectural emendations
m the Academy, account for this ?
X. 184, 1. R has the (now rejected) conjectural reading of M 1, jpfanTPnre^T
for ^rrw.
E.
List of emendations, with or, without the authority of MSS.,
PROPOSED I3Y M. M., AND ADOPTED IN R.
3i, 12. qiftTft. VII. 32, 4- W VIL 34. 4- SjNrrfiqpsr. VII. 36, 4.
VII. 39. 7- ^sTT to ^g. VII. 40, i. VII. 41. 5- IT before **}.
VII. 43, 3. «*nff and wft- VII. 46, 1. VII. 48,1. *g**rft?i. VII. 48, 2.
^ VIL 55 init. ^nrr Jmrft etc. and agwqfrng. VII. 57,4. ft jmft:.
VII. 60, 6. *jg qnfTt- VII. 60, 12. VII. 61, 3. *ra: ft^qrn*; R
omits at the beginning. VII. 61, 5. g^T»9T and *ftft. VII. 66, 15.
^ *ftft. VII. 67, 4. ^nfr *f. VII. 68,6. w *srr#. VII. 68, 8. v»rftft
and nt. VII. 70, 2. ^rr before ^ri by conjecture. VII. 71, 4. by conjecture,
and m for ^T. VII. 72, I. VII. 72, 3. qftpifr. VII. 73, 4.
VII. 76, 3. ^ ttfW nftww etc. VII. 82, 5. 'StTftflft. VII. 93, 8. JTT before t|ft
by conjecture. VII. 95, 6. gg: for *}g. VII. 96 init. • VII. 98, 3.
^siftran R. VII. 100, 6. gs’stfUft- VII. 104,12. f^T ^rf%re%f7f w. ^i.
VIII. 1, 24. VIII. 1, 27. ftg*ft. VIII. 1, 29. sft. VIII. 2 init.
^ after VIII. 2, 2. VIII. 2, 37. ^rggrcr:. VTII. 3, n. ft^i-
gnng. VIII. 4, 8. <nfa<nrfowi. VIII. 4,13. wsrftft VIII. 4,20.
^arr»rr. VIII. 5, 6. vrrer:. VIII. 5, 7. ajrft!):. VIII. 5, 35. inwi#? *rnRf*i
VIII. 7, 5. by conjecture. VIII. 7, 24. ^sjrpr^l (easy). VIII. 7, 28. *WR-
VIII. 8, 5. TI%. VIII. 8, 10. Is ftWWT in It a mis¬
print for ftwWT ? VIII. 8, 12. 4lfi<HlHI4^gi- VIII. 9, 5. VIII. 9,
17. after fm:. VIII. 12, 12. gjwgir for gjWTgir. VIII. 12, 20. after
tnxrf^Tt- VIII. 13, 4. *r«rcr ft TT^fa- VIII. 13,20. Trraft VIII.
13, 25. ^gftft^if<mft:. VIII. 15, 3. VIII. 17 init. VIII.
17. 5. VIII. 17, 12. and VIII. 18, 10. VIII.
18, 14. VIII. 19, 8. *nrHfti: %*mPr VTWP*tft- VIIT. 19, 14-
ftsjT’nsTvru^n. VIII. 19, 25. jfttjftft, VIII. 20, 2. VIII. 20, 9. ftfft?h
VIII. 20,11. ^Rn^’*rrf«rrft. VIII. 20, 14. fft:. VIII. 20, 19. inuft.- VIII.
20, 22. *rr. VIII. 21, 5. jfrfwr VIII.
21, 7. ^ ^TPTTfr H^(TT WT fft « VIII. 21, 16. and
VIII. 21, 18. 7rm.and VIIT. 22, 1. 'ammftmC VIII. 22,
2. g%g. VIII. 22, 6. It has adopted the conjectural readings given in Mi,
except that it adds after VIII. 22, 7. WT*b VIII. 22, 18.
VIII. 23, 7. *npft. VIII. 23, 8. ?nrqfii, VIII. 23, 15. *rrwft?nsr. VIII. 23,
17. gf for VIII. 23, 24. «nftfftnr- VIII. 24, 24. «fttwrni,
^rrftrar, and wrmfww- VIII. 24, 27. ^ wg^rra; and ft
VIII. 24, 28. Hlftanwft and qrffft. VIII. 24, 29- Tt^Wt- VIII. 24, 30. K%1-
Henceforth some striking cases only will be noticed. VIII. 26, 5. tfUransft etc.
VIII. 27, 5. gjgigflWT myaftaft: Trqrr, ‘ the reading is very doubtful.’ VIII. 31’ 3-
SECOND EDITION. clxxvii
F.
List of passages where R has better readings than Mi or M2.
VII. 15, 14. the correct reading, instead of nraiTTlfe: (MSS. and
M 1), is also in R.
VII. 23, 3. ^hhsj: R = M 2, for sstoj: of the MSS. and M 1.
VIT. 48, 3. fSpjRf: of R seems better than as follows im¬
mediately, and fir^ may be both first and sixth class. The various readings
jjoint all to fit®.
VII- 59, 4- wm ff«T Sf<T R. This is better than * as all
our MSS. read.
VII. 83, 1. R gives the right reading and the reference to TBr. Ill, 2, 2.
V II. 93, 2. R has grr, not gq grr, as our MSS. read. In any case it might
have been better to omit as there is no justification for it.
VIT, 103, 8. It reads n4^H!T, which seems to be the right reading for irwif of
our MSS.
VIII. ij 30. ^91%, the same emendation in M2 and R, independently.
VIII- 2, 37. The reading of R, is decidedly better than firo-
^VT ^fu:, or , as suggested in the Var. Lect.
VIII- 3, 13- corrected to both in It and M2, independently.
VIII- 3, 24. For %vnt, as our MSS. read, R has ^T7TT 7f, which
would be preferable even as a conjectural emendation.
VIII. 4, 20. R has Jrffljjffanfa, as suggested in the Var. Lect. (of M 1).
it in a MS.?
VIII. 6, 40. as suggested in the Var. Lect. (of M 1) for #f%n, is the
reading of R.
VOL. TV,
clxxviii PREFACE TO THE
IX. 113, 10. f^hl> which is in A. Ca, is left out in R; it is really quite
superfluous. „ ,
S&yana, as a rule, repeats every word of the text in his commentary.
SECOND EDITION. clxxix
it often happens that a word is left out in all our MSS., and was so probably by
Ha vana himself. Sometimes also a preposition or a particle of little importance is
omitted altogether. It, in such cases, frequently inserts the missing word from the
text. Thus, IX. 91,4 our MSS. omit the fa of the text, and read only gjrffa, while
It has fafasf 'Sjfftf• IX. 92, 2. It has Alfalfa, and ^ 3'HWg||4iT, while our
MSS. omit and ?tH. IX. 94, 5. It has flifa fa^nfa, inserting <nfa from the
text. IX. 95, 1. It reads IX. 96, 1. It has ^rr our MSS.
only Will. IX. 96, 12. It inserts ipj before tpf. IX. 96, 14. It inserts
UTM: from the text, before ; it is not in our MSS. IX. 96, 20. It inserts
before ^nfa; IX. 96, 24. before ; IX. 97, 32. tfaf before xfafa ;
IX. 97, 42. nrrrr^nfl before ^rrarjfaafl; IX. 101, 8. JT^nr before ; IX. 107,
17. before ; IX. 107, 24. Rpin before faanfa.
G.
List of mistakes and misprints in R, from IX. 91 to the end
OF THE NINTH MaNDALA.
And if so, he who as a liberal patron, like one of the Vedic Maghavans, has
inscribed his name in golden letters on this ancient monument of human thought
and faith, may hope that his memory will be honoured for ages to come, like
that of the famous patron of Sayana, Bukka, the enlightened ruler of another
Vijayanagara, nay, like that of Sudils, the patron of Vasisld/ia, or that of G’ana-
mer/aya, the patron of Yth/wavalkya.
F. MAX MULLER.
Oxford, 20 April, 1892.
VARIETAS LECTIONIS.
ABBREVIATIONS.
MAjVjDALA X.
R. I suppose it means, the final 4 of t4 and saty4 must be taken for the nom.
plur. fern., because otherwise (sati, as it is) there would be no predicate to the
proposition, i. e. t4 and saty4 would refer to nothing.—P. 64. 1. 2. (22, 14.)
II B 1. M1. It. In A. Ca all from fWTVt to fWTV^ is missing.
P. 66. 1. 13 to 16. (23, 7.) From mgnfl to all is left out in A. Ca. B 4. In
C 2 there is a longer lacuna from VV vfHt ifN etc. to the second verse of the next
hymn. The text is preserved in B 1 and CB.—1. 13. B reads TjjrtHdtvjJlV <|y<*|^K^ij
grf^cCB. tifl^Bi. R.—1.14. After imfifCB and It insert TOHflfri.
P. 70. 1. 1. (25, 6.) A. Ca read ^*TT VWN»pT:iTfTi etc. In B 1 verses 2
to 7 are missing.—1. 25. (25, 9 ) nfVPl ll ifVPSfl A. B4. CB.
vfrr Ca. C 2. ifvrotrfw B
P. 72. 1. 29. (26, 7.) Sayana seems to have read VfVPt. for fvftc R, however,
reads JTfafvfac
P. 73. 1. 20. (27, 1.) W3H % etc. See Kaush. Up. II. 11; Asv. Grihy. I. 15, 11;
Nir. III. 4.—1. 31. (27, 2.) II WfTlflW A. Ca. Mi.
W3;Tff*l<t Vftl R; from verse 1 to 3 lacuna in B 1.—P. 74. 1. 18. (27, 4.) nOc
Durga on Nir. VI. 21. iroawi A. Ca. M r. R.—1. 31. wmswrf^UF Durga. ®wrm A. Ca.
M 1.—1. 32. ftrowiVqiTOT wsri B4. C 2. pTOWtDwTOi W|F A. Ca. CB. The commen¬
tary is taken nearly literally from Durga’s commentary, see Nir. SS. vol. iii.
p. 233 seq.—P. 91. 1. 25. (30, 14.) WTTO»UI wnTO. a. Ca. Mi; deest in Bx.—1. 27.
WT<qTO Tfn II WT^TO Tfrr B1. A. Ca. M1. R.
P. 93. 1. 12. (31,4.) After *rrfw: CB alone has gjn:.—P. 94. 1. 15. (31, 8.) Tprra-
gmBrfn w 1 wffi g 11 ttoto^wto gw ff* 1 wfq g A. Ca. C 2. B 4.
xjm: *tt wra wror^w git 1 iptwfr B1. ttm ^rr wm srw® * gw xprr CB.—
P. 95. 1. 7. (31. 10.) wiTftti A. Ca. jroralfn Bi. qgqftfn R. *ro% TBr. 1.1, 9,1.
P. 95. 1. 19. (32.) The deva£& is Indra.—1. 26. (32, 1.) WTOT^nff Bi. WTOT$q;ft
A. Ca. M 1.—P. 96. 1. 5. (32, 2.) twitt^t^w ’STOTT: H Tw: TT^T w ’Stott: A. Ca. C2.
TTOTpSJ^y WTOTT: B I. TWITJS^TOTO WWTT: CB. TWiTTO^T^STO 'STOTT: B 4. It looks
like a marginal gloss inserted in the text. The intention was most likely
to take tsst for Twifw.—1. i4- (32» 3-) g^iPST0 Bi. garwTwrr® A. Ca. Mi.—1. 25,
(32, 4.) <4^13 A. Ca. Bi.4. CB.—1. 27. wh wrownwTTTWTfUw wttwwt* 11 *ra: stow
ttoth^ws wtt^ttt? A. Ca. C2. B4. R. stt: stow ttwttt^ww B1. sir: stow
SWTSTSWW TTTTWt? CB.—P. 97. 1. 23. (32, 7.) The explanation of ipTfTZ ;s
found in C 2 only.—P. 98. 1. 11. (32, 9.) After % want A. Ca. C2 have WWTTTH., CB
STOTTTO. It is struck out in B4, but is not found in Bi. R has WWTOW..—1. 18.
fwsm ttototo: gigwwr: 1 gwrof 11 fww: fwwwr: gsrst suswi A. Ca.
C2. B 4 ; from iTOTOffT: to SSSgg lacuna in Bi. fitSTW WSTO: paw gWTOi
ssTOwi 1 Tti CB. fwwrot ttototo: wwtott: gwTst sirowi R.
P. 99. 1.12. (33, 2.) msbreftfi 11 ST^wnfw A. Ca. C 2. B 4.
ur’lwrfw B1. ttp£t-
CB. Cf. Rv. Bh. I. 105, 8.—P. 100. 1. 2. (33, 5.) HfHSTfTTO TW II SfTTOSTffi
n tw w A. Ca. sfTresrfipt tw s C 2. sfiresTtfs tw w B 4. sfrrewfwi tw B1. nf*-
Wrffi TW CB. The emendation sftTOTffi was suggested by Prof. Aufrecht.
P. 100. 11. 24 and 27. (34.) gw*nr: Ca sec. m. Bi. 4. gwsw: A. Ca pr. ni.
C 2. CB. One Shac/gurusishya MS. writes gwstf, all the rest gw®, see Anukr.
M. p. 151. The name of the second supposed poet is Mauyavan Aksha
(India Office MS. 132 writes Moyav&n, by mistake). The commentator of the
Anukraman,} explains Mauyavan as Muyavatputra, and he is quite aware of
the irregularity in the formation of the patronymic, for he says that, although
the patronymic suffix has been omitted, the Vriddhi of the first syllable has been
j(reserved. Hence Mauyavat, instead of Mauyavata. Roth in his Dictionary
gives the name as Mauyavata, but this is wrong, for Shadgurusishya quotes
Sauvishtakrit as a parallel case, clearly showing that the name he wished to
explain was Mauyavat, nom. sing. Mauyav&n. The name, no doubt, is irregular
even thus, yet we have no right to change it.—1. 25. ww giT^TBWTTOftfa etc. Here
all the MSS. are at fault, and possibly S&yana himself or whosoever wrote the
passage, I shall first give the various readings :
P. ioi. 1.6. (34, i.)] MAiVDALA X. 11
A ^<i<a<D«ii ^rr i gg fig *rm: f5rsrf»r^rf»r: ffiimrt J^rrg fn^Tt i gmm gffi ?r|^w: i
Ca gTigrsftwr ^gm i gfi fig mrr: flrsTfSi^rfvT: ffiiggt wrg fmpl i gggrr grffi m^gai: i
B4 ™«*\m ^gm 1 ng fig wr: fsrmfMgfJt: fgsggt ^rrg fg^rt 1 nggrr gffi ?$gg: 1
C2 gmmPngrr^gmigfi fig gm:BmfHgffi: fgimftgmg fmf?t 1 gtmm gffi g^gsn: 1
BI '«m:grgt:m^g<fti gg fig Jim: fwBTfitfgfg: fwgTgig igsni 1 gmsfr gift *t<gm: 1
B2 m'gtgbmtgghtrg figgm:fspmfa^gft: ftggt mg gsr?t 1 gragPr gft ggimn: 1
CB gmgrot: m ^gm 1 ift fig mrr: ftjmfMqfg: ftKtgf mg fmft 1 gwr grft g|g<ii: 1
Now it is clear that the seventh verse does not praise agriculture; nor would
it he gftft in the singular, if two verses were intended. Nevertheless we have
^fitf a dual, as if two verses were intended. Sha//guru,sishya in his commentary
lo the Anukramani says : Wlft gg«nm g gjml gqt^aft Sift gftft
ffiffifi mgmfgf fiprrfir^gfiiwm: ftigg%g fggft 11 This is clearly metrical, and evi¬
dently taken from the Brdiaddevata (VII. 1009 seq.), where the following verses
occur: jtr<?t %ft gTT^mgftmml 1 grmm»mfgT grtfa gg^rrm g mml 11 ggt^T
2ft gfft ftift (read ®tft) | gm^J ^rn fg^ft II If we look at this, we see
what has happened. Sayana has taken the Br ill add evatii, quoted it, and inserted '
after each paragraph some words of explanation. In doing this he seems to have
drawn mnft and ggftgft together, without altering the verb gftft, but putting,
when he speaks for himself, the dual as referring to the seventh and thir¬
teenth verses. What he ought to have said was this : gig JTWRn
^ 1 giwra^mm: 1 ggt^sft wfg gftfn 1 gmgp®T: m ^mrr t This is, no doubt,
a greater alteration of the text of Siiyana than would be permissible according
t<> the critical principles followed in this edition. But both grammar and sense
icquired this deviation, and the various readings as given above will enable every
leader to form his own opinion. E reads gpi gftfH ^1^4511:
^ wf*i ’sftfw m w mn: 1 fgaTfu^gfw: etc.—P. 101.
*■ '• (34, i-) fmftmireB A. B. Ca. Ca sec. m.—gipsrfi; A. Ca. B 1.—1. 2.
»t!Af: B1. a. Ca. E.—qrarnfarr: A. Ca. B1.—1. 3. fmftggi®
^r- fWln^V fmfhWi® A. Ca.—r gimpt A. Ca; deest in Bi.—11. 4, 7,
<U1^ 8. JjmrffT (twice) and ^ann*l. A. B. Ca. Jjg® Nir. E has g® in the first case,
but afterwards ^«—1. 6. fmftmRR II B1. fmfh'Rra A. Ca. Nir.
g^n, 1. 8, A. Ca read (in B1 the word is left out), while Nir. has fwt-
*B 2
12 VARIETAS LECTIONIS. [P. 101.I.8. (34,1.)
R, like Nir. Roth and SS.— 1. 18. yijqft Bi. A. Ca. C 2. CB. B4.—
P. 118. 1. 1. (39. 6-) A. Ca. C 2. Bi. 4. CB. S4yana has evidently
used ’3IT5T*T as a masculine. He may have intended to write mfTfi- See Vin.
III. 3,115-—L 8- (39, 7-) B1. B 4 sec. m. CB. A. Ca. C 2. B 4 pr. m.~
1. 19- (39> 8.) The commentary to the first line is left out in A. Ca. C 2. B4. It
is given in Bi. CB.—P. 119. 1. 20. (39, 11.) CB. C 2. A. Ca. B4.
fimmiB1; deestinR—P. 120.1.4.(39,13.)srnwf£ 1B1.CB.C2. mqRijj A.Ca.B4.
p. 121.1.14. (40.3-) fitter! *mrl mm nrm 11 fi^lfii A. Ca.
^urtmmTim C 2. mm mm B r. 4. R. mwl rnmam CB.—1.17.
yTSijflTTTPre CB. B1.B4 sec. m. A. Ca. B4 pr. m. Trafmflffiq
C2—1. 22. (40, 4.) gw 11 gfi gw A. Ca. C2. B 1.4. CB.
P. 126. 1. 17. (42, 5.) 11 gfin;: B 1. CB. B4 sec. m. *%; A. Ca. C 2. B4.
H —P. 127. 1. 26. (42, 10.) P 1. 2. 3 read wm:, S4yana leaves it free to read
5TO or iwn:-P. 128. 1. 5. (42, 11.) A. Ca. C 2. B 1. 4. CB.
P. 128. 1. 8. (43.) 055ft A. B 1. Ca. <>5** g Anukr.—1. 15. (43, 1.)
fruity A.Ca. C 2. B4. ^ fiYfiws CB. % filwnsr B1.—P. 129. 1. 15.
(43.5-) tJWT’rt CB. C 2. myJMi A. Ca. B4. w^mm B1—1. 18. gfiuffi 11 gfilffi
A. Ca. C 2. B I. 4. CB. grmifitffi R.—P. 130. 1. 11. (43, 8.) mmft 11 tftffi A. Ca.
fnift B1. ntfft R.
P. 132. 1. 12. (44, 5.) o^Tftr 11 A. B 1. Ca.—1. 23. (44, 6.) wSjSft ?1 A.
B. (’a. wft ?} arfmft var. lect.) % Nir.—1. 30. (44, 7.) n wm; „ All
die MSS., its well as 11, read % mf^.— P. 133.1.9, (44, 3.) ^x^r; ftlgr ^luWi^ilmaiW
sft 11 fit* film ^ trft gw: fitrnn. film ^ sft A. Ca. C 2
lias the same, but it omits <3^ *lft and reads B 4 had the same
as A, hut sec. manu it inserts %mt, and for B has
film gw: %?gft film ^ *ft. CB reads gw: fil^r mft
film 5jft. R has gw: ^finnfNrft fitmt etc.
P- 133. 11. 29 and 30. (45.) The name of the Rishi of this hymn, and of hymn
IX- 68, is called by the author of the Sarv&nukramaai Vatsapri, not Vatsapri.
Shadgunwishya in IX. 68 has mftTi: twice, in X. 45 5fwffi: thrice. S&yawa in
BX. 68 has the genitive and nom. mtrffi:, supported by all the MSS.,
and likewise in X. 45 the gen. mml: and the nom. wtrffi:, without any various
reading. See BR. s.v. q<yfil; Aufrecht, Iiig-veda, vol. ii. p. 494, note ; Anukr. M.
IT- 34> 38, 146, 152.—P. 134. 1. 9. (45, I.) gjrcrrm C2. gjpfil iftr A. Ca. gmft
*>iTT CB. R. gwwt%m B4sec. m. Bi — P. 135.1. 11. (45, 4.) W VtfWWUjl II
1!mTUn ^ A. Ca. mm B1. mn % mfafr TPuywql Sat. Br.—
• I3fi-1. 19. (45, 9.) ^53 || pBi, gpfi A. Ca.Mi.—P. 137. 1. 10. (45, 12.) The
commentary to the first line is left out in all MSS. R supplies the following:
*Tt gm g$w mffifa: wrft gpr: 1 firtfip m1*wilm:
Tfwrr.
14 VAMETAS LECTIONIS. [P. 139.1.11.(46,1.)
P. 142. 1. 17. (47, 1.) fwrfftWT A. Ca. B. Of. Pan. II. 1, 3 comm.; Rv. Bh.
V. 4, x.—1. 31. (47, 3.) (<rMRTW marg.) JTffxi Ca. A. B 1.
M 1.—P. 143. 1. 14. (47» 5-) from Ca.
P. 145. 1. 10. (48, 3.) Ca. ^ wrf^rni A. B i.—ll jto to 13.
From irfa to the text is given from Ca, where all from stands
in the margin. A. B 1. M have after nothing but
(g^vnf^o B 1) ^tjrr ’■sir^fn 1 JnSfinlffratfr M) 1 ^ ^ t^rt gnffa 1
B 4 gives after mnf^TTTK., «lt^I f^Tf^Wrf^^IT ^SH I ^t:
?sg ^fti 1 1 *nt ’*r*fr* Sta *n3 wr *ri
^iffn 1 gnffTf« R has ^rfxt *r ^rr: *3
*nj ’wfsm. gpffTr *m ^ wrf4 f^nr i*at fr**rr? 1 f^r wfa fwanf^
3WWT 'asHf^dd *rt *11416 *ra5f?T ll—h 30> (4^. 5-) Ca. % A.
Bi.—^ before from Ca. — «r A. *n Bi. Ca.—P. 146. 1. 14. (48, 7.) *§raf«l«m4*l
w 11 ^5rf*mrr^ sn^ijiTffoflwrre. Ca. dudsfaunspl teraf^mn^ n
B4 sec.m.) Cigala 1 14«i»r»rre, A. B4. xasrrfwr^ «i ^uSOtsif^WM-Ri; Bi. ^
*nrr faHmslkiNl® R-
P. 148. 1.14. (49, 3.) gmi4\wq^f?i A. Ca. ^r-
wtim adi^^fn B 4. f^m B1. n«i4I*l* R—
1. 24. (49, 4.) B I. A. Ca. B4 pr. m. R. Should it be P. 149-
I. 1. (49, 5.) T(t A. B4. -H^w^tCa. xjw 5St B 1. xqj; ^ TfflWTTOTC
’52Bt R. As all the MSS. of S4yana give *1^*113^4*: it is clear that S&yawa
read WK- The MSS. of the Pada text, however, give wt
P. 152.1.9. (50, 5.) »i«nt^g 1 *fNnf4qi *n*«n«w i h *i«nfire
^tmif^m 'spnrawra: (®3iW*T° B 4 sec. m.) s?i<^R (^rt^jt: B 4 sec. ni.)
A. B 4. 41 *111114** 'o*R I^W Ca. ^ll I sf.sfl1?*^?sf4.
art^r ^5^: M. HSusnf^g 4aunf4**V*»iH«rq: l B 1. Cf. Un. HI.
105. R has stnRTwra: and
P. 152. 1. 32, and p. 153. 1. 3. (51.) ♦Tl^ldit B 3. A. Ca. ♦TlRoit B 1.
The MSS. vary in the same manner whenever this name of Agni occurs. The MS.
of the Anukramanl (Ind. Off. 132) has JffNta:; the commentary (I. O. MS. Taylor
1823) has likewise *fNfai:. The MSS. of the Bnhaddevat4 vary. MS. B reads *rfw-
^Tirw Xtn^lMfTfTT ’Sjfa: I. MS. H (a fragment) reads
I. in the sense of tailor, is given by Wilson, R4dhakant, and
in the GanapMa, with the short i only. In writing xaNfa: I am guided chiefly
by the authority of the Anukramanl, though unfortunately the commentary
does not in this case give an etymological and grammatical explanation.—P. x 53-
II. 3 seq. m to Ca. A has only ®3fw4wTf4 I, B 1 ®4*Hfll*l«nf4 }■
Cf. X. 53, p. 157.1.16.—p. 154-1- 7- (51 = 4 ) u ^franem A-
B 1. Ca (where is left out). R.—1* 17- (51 ’ 5-'
fhTOT A. «f*TWT B I. «fwi Ca, ^fdTW R. It would be better to write a*
P. 164.1. 6. (55,5.)] MA1YDALA X. 17
]. 4. (60, 7.) The extract from the SUtyayanaka is again corrupt. mi 1ft A.
B4. B1. C 2. M. mnsfrmfpi Ca. isra ’gwSfq1 R.—h 5- W-
mtrftratmrnftft ^ m *raf5rf?r <rfmy? 1 mi mm Ca. rrm^4f*Tf?T <tf&Tr?
fra mm A. CB. C 2. g*ft«ftRramt wm ’rfT am^fiift frfwTT?^ mm
B 4. nm^fafn 1 nftrrTi mi mm B 1. mrr^rfjrfir 1
HfwTTf rtmi mm M. gmfgfjrargmt. mftm: mn^f*rtn fmcnrmi mm
II.—1. 7. jfturam^t 11 afrm° A. Ca and Bnh. MS. qimrnt B 1.—mrrfmi 11
mtfmj A. Bi. B4. Ca. The two MSS. of the Brthadde-
vata read mrrfag. Cf. Rv. Y. 24.—1. 9. jfpTTmf: A and Brih. MS. aftm® B1. Ca,
P. 176. 1.12. (61.) mjrftf^wft Ca. mm^f^m A. M1. m*ftft« B1.—
1.13. qaiftrarc mm^ffoft mmft %m^i Trftfw 11 miTfmKWTft B1. CB. T^wrf^ A. C 2.
mnfmtrr m«ftft#r *nmft Tift Ca. mrrfmm rnm^f^t mmft %’s^c
B4.—1.15. ^im ^Crra B4. ^3|<i A. ^|rr fit CB. <3| *r Ca.
^mi ^ ^mi C 2. ^ * gfw B 1.—mtmyimfsrw 1 A. Ca. B1.4.C2. m*
msrw CB.—1.18. ^gsrra gmfri 1 CB. B 1. ’srg^-ft migmft gwft A. B 4 pr. m. •-qggg-
mgs-ft ggjfd C 2. ^gj mgm% Ca.—1.19. ifti Ymi % 11 *ftr ^ mi A. ga?
B4. Ca. ^1^0 2. H CB. ma li ^ B I. mns? ^ B.—^fmn m:
m 11 qfmn: m A. Ca. C 2. qfriBr m m CB. B1. qfijHi: m B 4. It reads qftrcn:
m ^TmmtfTr.—1.21. msj mt mrnar 11 mspit mt mram A. C 2. q-sjui t tto
Bi. mmrt mt irpra Ca. msimt uro CB. ?nriT mt jhtm«zj B 4- mrnarlt.—
mg: 1 3 ^ rnffaw 11 °«m5T mg: ?t ^ mrrergm A. ®uffi mg: % ^ mfrtiw Ca.
B4. mg: % ^ mrragm C 2. rnlgtfmi B i- CB.—1. 22. rn^PS B i.
Ca. sngiTnmmfoi A. mwmmgto It.—1. 23. ^g-rara mm A. g^imra mn Bi.
Ca.—1. 25. mwftfgtf Bi. srprftfgtf ^ mmi A. Ca. M 1. Tt.—1.33.
(6r, 1.) maHgft mimm A. ^ fto: Ca. mmr^i% n^mmm C 2. B4.
m»r nm^Tm CB. B 1.—jftmmrrmr^’r B4. jftmmrrmi^m A. ailmHmmr Ca.
jftmmrrmi^m C 2. muTmw mvmt B 1. CB.—1. 34. tPi mrn^f^s: 11 ^ ^rmrn° A.
C 2. wrm° B1.4. Ca. CB.—^ A it. Br. % A. B1. R. Ca.—
P. 177.1.10. (61,2.) w mi: 11 mart mi A. Ca. C 2. mrr mi CB. B 1. mrr B4 —
P. 178. 1. 6. (61, 5.) qY^^^rl (MS. has ^fl) from Ca. R also has it.—1- i°-
After f%fu B 4. Ca mark a lacuna ; not A. B 1. CB. C 2. It should have keen
w firfli ^if? f^rf^m g*fm: • Cf. Rv. X. 149, 2. R has ^ret:
ftrfq ^.__p. I79.1.2. (61, 8.) Timt %mim A. cimt^mnmCa. %qm^ B1.
mim^t M 1.—1. 3. As Say a would hardly refer ^¥r%m: to V4stoshpati, he must
take it as the subject of a new sentence, connecting it with m ^ie
reading of the MSS, seems corrupt in the passage which follows; and after
ofjfjpq, should either be added or understood.—1. 4. m *
?i: nrfmt «[tmuT*iim Bi. fi A. ^fmur R. Ca reads 1
^raimrgi: 1 « ^fmsrr ^fwr^nrr.—P. 1B0.1.1. (61, u.) ^ ^ ^ C,a- ® 4- J
jra A. C 2. B 1. CB. —m^qregj A. C 2. B 4. Tratwmi! B 1. CB. Ca.—k 2-
W51. ‘ ''-■•■
P. 187.1.38. (63.)] MA2VDALA X. 21
Before all the MSS. (so also R) repeat TOi If this were kept, it
would have been necessary to write i 1. 11. (61, 12.)
A. C 2. ’TPWPW Ca. B4. Bi. CB. R. Namakarana used in the sense
of nominal suffix.—1. 12. ^S|%fT Bi. Ca. ^j%fT I WI A.—1. 14.
CB. srrc Ca. * wnifn B4. A. C2. v*i amrefa Bi.—P. 181.1. 13.
(61, 16.) Wfti etc. H SAyana seems to have written *{ thtRj: and to have
continued in the nominative sftprnOTSnii: Thus we have *
jnniR A. C 2. « TFrrm: ffatffRw: CB. B 1. 4. qfenpnft ffafr*
^Ca.—1. 29. (61, 18.) Ca. <4f\*4IT A. B x. M 1. It. ar^j^rr occurs in Garni,
prckshadi. But in p. 182, 1. 1, Ca also has ^fa4iT.—P. 182. 1. 11. (61, 19.)
ffsrT Pnrr irowr: Tremsrn swgro srspj: xm*fr?qm: 11
I f?wr: f%UT: hwsit: st^pn: (sec. man. tn:) B 4.
Lfiwr wnw Tnmwn arrww: Jramtorar Ca.
rflfSTT: just wwi: *rcr iramsrr: sapjTPBi tr^pa: JT«pfr<*raT A. C 2.
Ifim: tort: sspu *jan?t ?Rtrer: i?wT?tnrr: CB. B 1.
f?wT w^rrswr ^<n?r aww: xwftrum R.
—1.18. (61, 20.) fip3: -jMIa: 11 Itfuj: a ftpj: affta B4. %ftp ^ f^:
wm A. C2. Stftra fipj: CB. Bi. %ftjr *n Ca. ftpj: irgsfhqt
Mi. R.—P. 184.1. 5. (61, 26.) A. ^arntw:
Ca. B. One expects
P. 185. 1. 6. (62, 1.) airaaa I. This is the reading of all the MSS., instead
ot what we should expect S4yana may, however, with regard to the
immediately following verses, have considered the second person plural ('^•nj)
irregularly put for the third person plural, and in that case, the reading of
the MSS. might be explained. All the MSS. have tttrt: but B 1 and CJ>
have W*t7ffr. B 4 sec. m.. which reading occurs also in the Nitimafu/ari.—
P. 186. 1. 26. (62, 7.) ffrwre ^ B1. CB. Ca. Hripsn*) A. B4. C 2. J!.
1 he passage, though apparently taken from the Brihaddevata, is not to lie
timid in any MSS. of that work.—Ca. A. i;f<x4H^Tft B 1.
Tf<T It.—p. 187. 1.13. (62, 10.) jftfw: II *Ttf*T: A. C 2. nfc-
ii’pj jfrfw: B 1. B 4. CB. Ca. tjftwi’j tfrfw: R.
P. 187. 1. 27. (63.) II TfPrTW A. tfpfTW Ca; lacuna in Bi. See
Anukr. M. p. 40. — 1. 28. iTpTWTfi RrPriPf II
| yrurm 1 Ca.
I f*tf#rP! B 4» tt<T^TW in marg.
f ^srrfH34^fr: A.
1 Tprww C 2.
| wrfiRfwt; xtwmm Rrf^vnr B x.
g7ft%^f»r 4^% xpr^m RrPnn*! CB.
_ ^ R.
f THE MM«KRISH(I/I MISSION f A Y 5 S *L
I injtiijjte <* ruLTune 1 1 '
f_ . UftffASY
22 VARIETAS LECTIONIS. [P. x88.1. 3. (63,1.)
—P. 188.1. 3. (63, 1.) A. C2. Bi. CB. B4. irft: Ca.—P. 189. 1. 22. (63, 6.)
Ca reads etc., omitting all from «< at 4411ft to Sayana
seems to have read *TP3t instead of xft —P- I92- 1- i- (63, 15.) With
regard to the Viniyoga, see Itv. Bh. I. 189.
P. 193. 1. 25. (64, 3.) MSS. —P-194- 1- 2- (64> 4-) gfw^r
fr A. C 2. Tmftft: B 4 sec. m. ffirsn? ft wrofa:Ca. <>rocf
CB. Bi. Cf. X. 64, 16 ; 99, 6. S&yana takes tuvirav&n either as de¬
rived from tuvi by means of two possessive affixes, viz. ra and v4n, meaning
‘ possessing many,’ i.e. praisers; or he takes ra as a possessive affix, attached to
tuvi, tuvira meaning ‘possessing manifoldness,’ and referring to the gods, to
which a new possessive suffix is added, viz. vAn, giving to the compound the
meaning of ‘united with those who are possessed of manifoldness.’ It is not
possible to read pratyayavriti/i; first, because the MSS. are unanimous against
it; secondly, because iivritih is never used as a technical term for loss or
disappearance. See also Aufrecht in Zeitschr. der Deutschen Morgenl. Ges.
vol. xxv. p. 232 seq. — P. 195. 1. 29. (64, 10.) y 4ft M *4: Ca. Mi. 4ft4*^
A. Bi.—1. 30. 7m: iwnw ’^ftgruwmng h 7m: ttwtw ^rtg *it-
w»rrg A. 7m: ifwin ’sftg ^iftrmrrg B 4. 7m: ;4*4M«3 *n
P. 207. 1. 10. (67, 3.) npfl A. Bx. Ca. C 2. xrpft Mi.—1. 28. (67, 5.) *N
This is the reading of all the MSS.; either »hi should be omitted, or at least
added after
P. 209. 1. 24. (68.) ^ A. Bi. nrf (!) Ca.—P. 210. 1. 1. (68,1.) w by con¬
jecture.—!. 19. (68, 3.) B4. A. C2. juf^wr; Ca. Bi.
CB. CB sec. m. P. 211. 1. 23. (68, 7.) Ca. Trfxrfiirm A.
Bi. Mi.—P. 2x2. 1. 7. (68, 9.) qipr qfcj; JIT f*nf»TTT I Hhr MfTT 11
1 wp HTm A. q$qp >mn fN»m; q%q fq^frr C 2.
fa^*nr ^%*r fa4<5i< B4. xtwpt fq^farpc q%qg?fT Ca.
f^HTT wrq.f»r^fr CB. Bi.—1. 23. (68,11.) A. fpsmj Bi.
^lumqrai Ca.
P. 215. 1. 28. (69, 10.) Unroll A. C 2. «xqpB4. Ca. CB. Bi. It may
he TOT% but it is more likely that it was meant for Ji^p.
P. 216. 1. 19. (70.) qwfq A. wsfa Bi. It. qfaqjfq Ca.—P. 217. 1. 18.
(70,4.) n Ca. A.Mi. °tp^T*rfqfq Br. See
Paw.Yl. 4,154 and 157.—1. 19. ^SRTT^UTt etc. || mn^nTT ^tTRafT A.
“iIut: C 2. ^tw B1. prpff Pf snwr q^psrtq:
*raK#qrrft PNraTPTTOTpflq: B4 sec. m. qrarrc^r i^rrcl qnfsrrwr wrprTu:
CB. Uiy Mi. All the MSS. clearly point to the read¬
ing adopted in the text, whether the explanation be right or wrong.—1. 24.
(?o, 5.) tjfTOT Pada MSS. xjftren: Sayana.
P. 219.1. 23. (71.) guftfn: qp A. pftfq: qpr Ca. jpfrfa pt Bi. qq?qlf?np
and oy^rt Brih. MSS.—1. 24. qsprvnq B/'ih. ^r^fYir Ca. *ft*rp»n A. Bi.
Cf. Anukr. M. p. 154.—P. 223. 1. 6. (71,10.) qfqgxlq A. C 2. B4. CB. Bi. qfpxfa
Ca. Though qfqjpTq might be defended, yet it would be more unusual even than
Saya/ia probably wrote qfTf^gip, or simply *rfq|^?ta?—1. 18. (71, 11.)
TOtq ll Wl% A. C 2. B4. Bi. Af. qql% Ca. qwfqj CB.—1. 22.
^ fPnq: 11 fpira: A. C 2. B 4. B1. CB. Af. nfriMM: Ca.
P. 224. 1. 14. (72, 2.) qiTf^Wtfqwra: A. C2. Ca. CB. Bi.Af. qqfi^wwrfqarq:
B4.—1.20. qrfwrw u wrt: A. C 2. wrt: *t° Af. qrfasp Ca. qrfwr-
ifRff0 B4. ^rftreTKT(^i0 CB. *n 7TO<> CB sec. m. ^r'gT’Tf (TO0 Bi. The end of
Bayawa’s argument is not clear to me.—P. 225. 1. 30. (72, 8.) In the TA. I. 13, 3,
where the same or a very similar passage occurs, the list ends with fqq-
^f^%|.—P. 226. 1. 8. (72, 9.) JpmriT^iTrt 11 *prr ~ 3T^3T?t A. pTppTOT. Af.
9*Tfm?3TCa. pp^pT^spBi. Cf. llv. Bh. II. 38, 8.
^ 226. 1. 15. (73.) fqfpjq A.Bi. Ca. Af. flrwfai Ait, Ar.—1. 29. (73, 2.)
°fT^’ fP%f*T 11 #n pr fPretfa A. Af. fqq%fqCa. °ri q fnwrfn B1.—P. 227.
■20- (7 3.5-) w xren: qqxjip MTuftjftfJift pi: xnwf qqnprfprtf: 1 ?mtf%.A.
9 tot: 'qqxfo? q qrrqfqqlfilfr pi: qTWt ai«iTsjqfpr*?: 1 TOifa.Af.
* tott: i^rrufw ftnft pi: mrw gprRTtrfprnJ: TOtf% C 2.
24 VARIETAS LECTIONIS. [P. 227.1.26. (73,6.)
P. 3°5- 27- (94> 5-) tffa after gg and tggi must be taken as an independent
gloss.—P. 306. 1. 3- (94, 6.) *jft St HTt Ca. ^ gfa fWcr: VTT A. Af.
B 1. HTt M 1. Cf. Rv. Bh. X. 102, 10.—1. 27. (94, 8.) ggg A.
Af. B r. irer*rer wfar tfn Ca.' ggggj itfaft; gfa R.—p. 307. 1. 1. (94> 9)
gifal A. Ca. Af. gnmfat B 1. R. It may have been ggrfg
Y. 308. 1. 16. (95.) gfrfamg A. Ca. Af. gfffafa B 1 and Anukr. M.—1. 20.
AT wffafiT A. C2. Ca. B4 pr. m. CB. Af; deest in Bi. g gjfa; B4 sec. m.—]. 21.
A' ^ Ca- sr^ Af- 13 1-~•• 22. ITH^ft ggggfan l| *rF4rft gggfajfa
'i|3,4fit Af. gggrft •Hgwrrg B 1. Ca lias <n gg&rt ggggfan
Hff ^.—1. 23. Ca. B4 sec. m. CB. A. C 2. B4 pr. m. B i
ppg Af.—^gfastg A. Af. Ca. B1. M1.—1. 24. gg A. Af. B 1. gg Ca.—
*^fag Af. Ca. B 1. ggTfagg A.—grfagg A. B 1. grfagg Af. Ca. mfagg
M i.-L 28. *t*gmgA. gtgggrg Af. Ca. Bi. R.-g^tf g ,, g^gtfg A. Af. 11,.
Ca. 1. 29. II ggrtgig^ A. rtgnggg C 2. ggpcig g Af. Ca. B 4
sec. in. B I. g CB.—ggrgg Ca sec. in. B 1. jranm Ca pr. m. ggigfa A.
Af.—ggT gTTTfa A. Af. Br. gmw Ca. ggrggnjqft R,—ggfa A. Af
flrfRi Ca. ggg B 1.—1. 30. ^rcwsfi^j 11 ggurg° A. Af. Ca. B 1.—1. 31. ^ Af. Ca.
J* 13 '• A.—mgTgg^g ggpgfatg: Af. grgigg^g (°%&g C 2) giggrtjgg; A.
( 2. g T4T V T^4 W T4iT gtrr Ca. fTRTg%^ ggtjggfarg B 4 sec. m. gTg%gg
CB. g^igg gtrfara: B1. fa gTg%igg g*gfafgg: M1. giggriggigg ggjfa
f7’ B. rngNi^Siq cpgfaj gg: ? See Anukr. M. p. 157.—l. 32. gr^sgggT fr° B1.
A. Af. g^gggT ^0 Ca. m gggggT w° M 1.—1. 35. gig 11
«Tq ATTOpfiT A. gpfa C 2. gpgriTTO|« B 4. gig: 4{TWf3iT Af m
atw Ca. gra: B1. CB. gig g-m^rgm R. ifafauigggg sell, rfa-
?Tfl.. Hie same Itihasa is also found in Shadgurui'ishya’s commentary, see
Anukr. M. pp. 136 seqq. The story of king Purhravas and the Apsaras Urva.si
<is told in the Brdiaddevata Ad I. 1120-1126 is different. The passage; there,
This lino is unintelligible. 1‘aiternahn may refer to Mitravaiuwan. giamlfather of l’urflravas who
1,1 >ove with Uivasi.
32 VARIETAS LECTIONIS. [P.310.1.26. (95,5.}
1. 26. (95, 5.) rfam faifafa mroft Ca. CB. xrrmxgu T** fafafa nimr! A. C 2.
Af. trowm; faifafa B4 sec. m. xr^TOt fafafa x*T***ft B I.—
P. 311. 1. 2. (95, 6.) wsparnf Ca. ^trftnrr^ A. C 2. B4. CB. B 1. Af. R.—1. 29.
(95, 9) fa^farrarfarT: ^irr (wn B4 sec. m. B 1) mwr: C 2. B4. B x. Af. fa$r-
fiKIdflqsjf wxsfan: Ca. CB. fa&lfiKIdflqifa: W »TWr: A. I cannot guess the
original reading.—P. 3x2. 1. 16. (95. 11.) II A. Af Bi;
lacuna in Ca.—P. 313. 1. 13. (95, 14.) mm xifa^m: Ca. mm ufafm: A. mm
Af rnmufampriBi. mmxrfamm:Mi. Cf.&at. Br.XI. 5,1,8.—P. 314.1.18. (95,18.)
All the MSS. read wrf%; in B4 only it is altered sec. raanu to mstfd.
P. 315. 1. 28. (96, 4.) ?x5f»: CB. mjfWTm: Af. ?xifa: mjffaum: A.
C 2. ffam: mfwfa: B 4. ^xr: Ca ; deest in B 1.—1. 29. m«ITf#nft mT CB.
It is difficult to say what Sayana wrote. B 1 writes simply WfArrt xrr, but all
the other MSS. show that there was originally another derivation given. A. Af
read mrrnmTIF^TTt mt- C 2 intended to give the same, but the writing is indistinct.
Ca could not make out the text, and has the corrupt reading mmrmT xrr. B4
strikes out whatever preceded and puts in mi, like Bi. I have given the
reading of CB as the most difficult, and therefore the most likely to cause mis¬
understanding, but I am not certain whether mx^TfAnC is quite correct, and
whether xjjyx*4T?<$TT' may not have been Saya/m’s explanation.—P. 317. 1. 13.
(96, 9.) xjrxf: w^r #rei iffaiT mmm: 11 3771: rr^i dfamr famr wrr: A. xjttt: nmm
mfarmr famr rnmn: Af. qyxr: ummr mfamr ftm'mmm: B 4. CB. B 1. gxyr: xrfr^ *Tl+i^ fkxrr
mm*: C 2. ^371: TOm mfami famT Ca.—1. 21. (96, 10.) % <mT. These words
seem to have been added afterwards, with reference to B 1 has % W-
P. 318. 1. 34. (97, 1.) rnfan mlmmm mfax-p n mtmn m^vrar: gw Ca.
mfan mtumm: A. Af. mtmrr itro: B 1.—P. 319- U- 1 seep From splTd: tu
^rr wnrr left out in A. Af. Bi.—1. 3. Nir. A. Af. ^ B 1. xfa Ca.
Hyxrrrxrt fwrxrrfirfx! A. Af. xrxTrrprr qyxrnxnfafa B 1. ’pTrrRTfafa Ca.-—rrp %fa Ca.
XETR m Af. B T. XETR A. See Nir. SS. vol. iv. p. 45.—P. 320. 1. 2. (97, 5.) wfafam
A. Ca. C 2. B4. B 1. CB. Af. — 1. 3. wt etc. n xet^t mcmfam: W
fwrwcrr A. wr mlrmfam: mt|fa fa0 Af. msrr mftltfam: d m^fa Bi. W1
xwtrgfxfor: fa famxTpn Ca.— 1. 10. (97, 6.) mrffaT B 1. TO A. Af. mmfal Ca.
M 1.—P. 321. 1. 13. (97, 11.) xTT^^rnmmrxsn mfar wifa a grarmfafa* xrrf-
mrmTmTmmT mfaT m xr^rfw A. mtmTxrrmTmprr mfaT mwfa B i. mgi*»fafat
mTwrm “ " wl mmr mfaT Ca.—1. 14. wfafaf]pfa Ca. rnfaTuirfa A.
B x. R.
P. 326.1.28. (98,11.) f^fwamrofxr a JjTfTf^^Purfu C 2. CB. Af. jjmTfmrnrwmft
Ca. ^rrrgmwnsmfxr A. B4. gTrrgwmTmrfa Bi. 'smgs^psrTTWfxj?—P. 327- '• 5-
(98, 12.) $:%m mTfaTtmTfa Af. f^faifar 3:%mTmfarmmTfa A.
gpfrfar rnTfamanfa B 1. «pfar fmiTfar f:%m arrfa Ca. Cf. Rv. Bh. IV. 18,2,
V. 4,9.—f?r xmrcr am A. Af. B1. f% xrrw fa rpftfa Ca. SAyana omitted
P.337. 1.23- (IOT.II.)] MASALA X. 33
then lacuna B 1.
—f 19. The explanation of rt *rm ^vm*T is left out in all the MSS.—P. 336. 1. 21.
(101 > b') This would seem, according to the dictionaries, to be the very
opposite ol but the MSS. give no various reading.—P. 337. 1. 13. (101,10.)
Sfa 11 n Ca; deest in A. Af. B 1. M 1.—S&yana seems to have read 3jft. Ca only
lias 4fjT, but for the rest agrees with the other MSS.—1. 19. (101, 11.) gTT^Tft®^-
^ 11 Ca. gft m wfu^HT*i:
A. Af. gft ^rr B 1. gift wPj^tr:
R. YI. 46, 6.—fa3rrfaff3n*i: 1 Trait
Cf. Pv. Bh. 11 fiprrfa: ftnnw
A. C 2. fasrrfa fwran. tHTwrgrfa B1. fawrfa fasrra ^ Tmfarmfa
. 3- ^ntn: ?fara?rgft; Ca. fagrrfa: fastra^qraTraTfa B 4. fawrfa: fasrpra
Af.—l. 22. «?rre*rt » #n 1 wi A. °?r wr C 2. om « u CB. ®?r «3rt
1‘ °HT Ca. ®n * art B4. «gi ieNt Af.—1.23. grT^rrrti^^rpftjfqn^n^r n
rtnr^jTT^ Ca. ^ 3Tft3^nifr A. ^rtnr^rpft Af. gft ^rfirapsft Bi.
VOL. iv. *E
34 VARLETAS LECTIONIS. [P. 337.1.33. (ioi, 13.)
| *rau% HTW lf^^<0 ^JT 3: fro. This looks more like part of the original
commentary than a marginal note, though it is left out in all the other MSS.
^ A.C2. B4. CB.Bi.
4IWW Af. What is intended in Ca is evidently a distinction between
the Paramatma and the mere V&yu, frequently discussed by the Ved&nta
philosophers: cf. Yed. Sutra II. 3, x seq. For that purpose was explained
as *$xft | <!^*r xmwnTOTfWPU. Wtf?[ might seem better than
or because the Paramatma is never bahya, the bahya
world beginning with HkiLsa, which itself is still vibhu: llka*klisarvaprapan£a
etc. See Yed. Sutra II. 3, 7 : xpfa JtTXlfw I U?*l I 44^01 flfxnn<»PT TT^T-
I ^ranrrfTgfyfn gxt: 1. But in that case we should
expect w, and not «(Tljnf2[-—P- 381- 1- M- (114. 6-) The number of Grahas
given by S&yana is 33, not 36, unless we take the trayo d v i dev a t y ag r ah a/i,
as six. Other Grahas may be seen in YS. YII and VIII.—P. 382. 1. 6. (114, 8.)
Here again Ca has its own independent reading, Xf^TVTt^*T
given it as indicating at least how the words of the text were taken by Siyana.—
1. 30. igqqi|q H A. C 2. Ca. CB. B1. qqq% B4, with q in marg.
—P. 428. 1. 11. (130, 2.) Bi. CB. B4 pr. m. add after ®»jqT^L *ri% ’Sfffilfit Tfhq
wt^twr tt.—P. 429- b 3- (130, 4) ^T*i qrfir A. C2. qpq ^q Ca. Bi. B4.
qrfq CB. Cf. Pan. IV. 1, 4, and Gana agadi.—1. 20. (130, 5.) A. C2.
CB. B1. B 4. qjtqarrf^fl Ca.
P. 432. 1. 23. (132.) On qqrerrfwt etc., see Preface to the Sixth Volume of
the First Edition, above, p. cxl seq.—P. 434. 1. 15. (132, 5.) From qrfqppft to tfq
irerfTT^TW all is left out in A. C 2. B4. B1. CB.—1. 17. finfr qqqft qT ll fqqiq^qt
lap A. C 2. fSTCPTWl *tT Ca. fqq-rawt B1. CB. fqqTWlfl (marg. qi) B4.—P. 435.
1. 9. (132, 7.) Again from qq$3; to qqqq all is left out in A. C2. B4. Bi. CB.
P. 435. 1. 20. (133.) °oETrfrig° Ait. Ar. ®<*rg« A. M1.11. «fq Ca.
Bi.—1. 29. (133, 1.) qppjqj A. -tffiT Bi. Ca. It.—P. 437. 1. 12. (133, 5.) qpn®
Bi. qprT° A. Ca. M1.
P. 439. 1. 24. (134, 5.) fwrr A. Ca. C2. Bi. B4. CB. The explanation is
unusual, but not sufficiently so to require conjectural emendation.
P. 440. 1. 15. (135.) f*rfq A. Bi.Ca. f% Anukr.—P. 441. 1. 19 seq. (135, 3.)
From to srOvraNi Ca only gives the text, viz. qigj ^gBURTai^ qrm fqqTf
q xi *wr 'Jrdw t ^tfhcraHi. It
has for gwrqwr0-—P. 442. 1. 7. (135. 5-) 11 f^nrrf° A. Ca; deest
in Bi.—1. 8. H fWrf0 A. Bi. Ca.—fq^tfqrPTO ll fqqsfenqqj A. fqqqf-
qrra Bi. fqqTfaqrrqqr Ca.
P. 444. 1. 28. (136, 7.) In explaining the q^t, the reference to P4». II. 3, 62,
is taken for granted. See above, p. cxvii.—1. 30. qjrqftqqfq II ’snrwtawfW MSS.
P. 445. 1. 4. (137, 1.) The first half of the commentary is imperfect in all
the MSS. A. Ca begin qmfq qi qnr: etc., Bi 'grrrfq i^rr: qqffq qwrft
q ^ i^rr: qrq: etc.
P. 448. 1. 14. (138, 5.) qpnq%q: 11 qq[q%q: A. C2. q^q%q: Ca; deest in B4.
B 1. CB.
P. 450. 1. 31 seq. (139,6.) From qRTfW to wrqTfq lacuna in all MSS. except Ca.
P. 451. 1. 5. (140.) The quotation from the Araayaka is here, as elsewhere,
omitted. Bi. 4 give q?fr fqfqqfa: ||—1. 32. (140, 3.) yqfqr II One might con¬
jecture T[?qq.—P. 452. 1. 6. (140, 4.) A. C2. Ca.
^ftgfrr: Bi. 4. CB.
P. 454. 1. 12. (142.) ^qp A. Anukr. ^rfqp Ca; in Bi the quotation from the
Anukr. is left out. — A. Ca. qiftqii: qr» Mi. qTfCggs: qr° R- See
Anukr. M. p. 44.—qwq fq® A. Anukr. qwqf%(® Ca. M1. It.—fjq | snft fqfaqW
from Ca.—P. 455. 1. 29. (142, 5.) Lacuna in all the MSS.—P. 456. 1. 7. (142, 6-)
qrqr %*TT Ca. qpsrr: qpn: A. C2. CB. ^t?T: B4. Bi. In the old writing
(Tqqr:) and qr*rr: are nearly the same.—1. 11. qqT II W qiiN: A. qqT
p. 469.1,20. (150,4.)] MAADALA X. 41
Ca. W ite: Ca. Bi, 4. qnfai: CB. Cf. PeU.VII. 3, 78, where the
change is made dependent on sit.
P- 459- !■ 3- (J44-) The poet’s name is given as by C 2. A (once), Ca,
as <3T4sraFJ in CB. Bi. 4. Colebrooke’s MS. of the Anukramani has long A, and
so has Shadgurius-ishya (once). But as the text of the Rig-veda has the short a,
the name must be spelt with short a.—1. 23. (144, 3.) ^ from Ca.—P. 460.
1.19. (144, 6.) etc. 11 m p: tfarf: % 3 fyapsre: A.
wrr p: W71: wgfasprsr C 2. urarr ww: gw: tfaw:
Ca; deest in Bi.
P. 460. 11. 24 to 28. (145.) From *fa WTWfa to wnfafawfafa there is a lacuna
in B1. CB ; B4 adds on the margin the words from wTWfa to wtxqT»ftf7T._
1. 26. sjaiTWt A. C 2. >t/qnct,iSt Ca. Mr. R.—1. 27. ^jfjorqqj il #*ht% A. C2. Ca.
p. 462.1.27. (146,2.) wrefa etc. 11 wqrqfa u^fnc^rcr tHhr-
5^y% m^nifa wt A. wqrqfa gqnfa wqw^sfa
^Ifa rrwqfa B 1. 'dMMfri WT Ca, omitting everything else, wqtwfa gqi^qm
Mt^TiA^ur ’sfHH^fun '3° M 1. R agrees with M1, but has
The emendation °S{'»y«GKtn seems to be required on account of h^tTA^*!! . It may
bo cjtyK«ii«i or pryw or °w, the reading of A seems to be meant for ^■qryytWPSr
1.28. ^ivifAfufy^ 1 ^reftrarr: 11 w'errfefafyw 'srrefawr: A.
^rtw^t ^rarrf%^RT: B 1. wrftfwlywqs ^strerre Ca.—P. 463.
1. 3. (146, 3.) ^srwfa Ca.—1. 4. 'uyrji) ^fi B4 in marg. wp^T l A. C 2.
Ca; deest in B 1. CB. ^ry# ^Tff Mi. R. wfqfaw would be the easier
reading; see also TBr. II. 5, 5, 7 (p. 624. 11. 13, 14).—!. 10. (146, 4.) The com¬
mentary is deficient in all the MSS. except Ca; but there, too, it is incorrect.
A reads w#rtw: WT B 1 *nfaT»t: ^mis^ifw «TOT mnl. Ca
gives firm wrsrffa^w. *nft ,sat after W3»*rfw; this I cannot restore. The com¬
mentary on TBr. II. 5, 3, 7 is far better.
P. 465. 1. 29. (148, 2.) f*nj: Trarr; a fa*p iwt: Ca. fan: srnu: A. M1. R. fan-
^Tfi: B r. P. 466. 1. 6. (148, 3.) After mur, the MSS. insert ngs^T A. C2. Ca. B4.
Pi. n g «: CB.
P. 466. 1. 31. (,49.) nfa n A. C 2. Ca. nfa B4. B 1.
CB—1. 32. Anukr. A. C 2. B 4. B 1. CB. %<■ Ca. nfawt
f° twice, Sharfgurusishya, Ind, Off. MS. Taylor 1823. See verse 5.—P. 467. 1. ir.
(:49i i.) After fanwi:, WTnl A. C2. B 4 in marg.; lacuna in Ca. B1. CB. myfa: ?—
32. (r49, 3 )’SWt %jff: A. C 2. Ca. Wt B i -CB. $<jgw: B 4 sec. m. nwY
^3: M 1. R.—p, 468. 1 (14^ 5.) ^ nt A. nfa Ca; lacuna in B 1.
P. 469. 1. 18. (150, 4.) rjy^M A. B 1. "wnfam (meant for «wnfinft) Ca.—
■20- fat^TWfawrfa n*rre: n ft^rraTft wre: A. farSfa^reufa
9Trm: C 2- fa$tW STtqmifa »nj^f CB. B 1 adds «*mn. faffan nfaw-
^ P 4- fat faifaur lfan<aifa wyi Ca,
VOL. iv. *F
42 VARIETAS LECTIONIS. [P.473. L18. (I54,,.)
P. 473. 1. 18. (154, 1.) !& in the text, not mn, which ia the reading of P2
only.—1. 24. ti4iq$(niPK*Tl II iparg.]$qnflrT*it A. B x.
Ca, where a whole leaf (from 153, 2 to 154, 3) is supplied by a modern
hand. For the $ruti passages compare Asv. Grihy. III. 3 and <S'at. Br. XI, 5, 6.
P. 474. 1. 22. (155.) Ca. ftFfon gwtaT A; lacuna in B 1. The
same var. lect. in Anukr. M. p. 45.—P. 476. 1. 1. (155, 5.) # nftlMa
B 1. Ca. M 1. It. A.
P. 476. 1. 20 seq. (156, 3.) S 1. 2. 3. 4. P 3. P 4. P 8. 'lf%r P 1 (where the
last Adhyaya is written by a later hand, and unaccentuated). See RV. IX. 5,
10.—1. 23. irf|: r Ca. *rf?p A. -xifniBi.
P. 478. 1. 3. (158.) The second Yiniyoga, preserved in A and Ca, but in frag¬
ments only, had to be supplied from Rv. Bh. I. 2 7, 13.
P. 481. 1. 21. (160, 4.) 1 ia left out by S&yana.—1. 24. (160, 5.) IT gi tflii
tg£t A. C 2. CB. M 1. R. ^rrgiT Ca > iacuna m B 1. B4.
See Asv. II. 20, 3.
P. 482. 1. 10. (161.) Instead of mgw the MSS. have urfwret A. Ca. C 2. CB.
In B 1. B 4 the Yiniyoga is left out.—1. 29. (161, 2.) nit isftf* ^ TftflWPit: A.
tnm gj Ca. B 1.
P. 485. 11. 11 and 16. (163, 1.) n npnfil A. Bi.Mx.R. y*<;*llRt
Ca in 1. 11. BgHTtnfa Ca in 1. 16.—.1. 13. II fU*KT<l A.
ggirrar C2. gfirr^0 Ca. 53«rt?c B 1. B4. CB.—1. 32. (163, 3.) »T7p?ft as
masculine, clearly the kidneys, the form of which in man corresponds to the
mango fruit. Is xri% different ?
P. 488. 1. 6. (165.) II BTlHgH Ca. M 1. R; lacuna in A
and B 1. See Anukr. M. pp. 45, 223.—1. 29. (165, 3.) ?n(T deest in A. Ca; lacuna
in B 1 from yftfi to irctfit.—probably with understood.
P. 489. 1. 19. (166.) mmnwe) etc. 11 trmqtwgl fiafairo * Tpngfii tr 1 ww *n
**t«n»»rfwafwir*r[% A pr. m.)fwfn A. C 2. jrtrnpr*fa *rf5r sfar gfii ^ 1 vui
*TT XBTTTlTlTfagtfHlTClfafl Ca. The other MSS. have no Viniyoga. One might
conjecture something like mmtt gfTTfHlsH&liJPii;. R has
P. 490. 1. 30. (167.) %fl etc. A. Ca. In B 1 all after iftanj git is left out. See
Anukr. M. p. 45 ; Aufrecht, Rig-veda, vol. ii. p. 505, ncte 2.
P. 492. 1. 12. (168, 1.) gfasrr A. gfaarr: g-ft: B 1. Ca. The Pada MSS.
read Cf. Rv. X. 70, 5.—1. 20. (168, 2.) S&yana seems to have read
Ca. A. C2. gggj B 1. CB. B4—1. 30. (168, 3.) in *fi B 1.
tui fli A. M 1. R.
P. 493.1. 20. (169, i.) BTtufxHl: A. Ca. jftiqfqf): B 1. Cf. Rv. Bh. X. 30,14 ’>
I. 80, 4.
P. 495. 1.19. (170, 4.)'snfnT%B4. CB. vx$^t%A.C2. mfcflfoCa; deest in Bi.
P. 505.1. a4. (180,1.)] MAiVDALA X. 43
*ftrft*hfWTWTC
II II
jftamrapn fafara fgww jgnnfrs afarc * w 0 < «*i> r«n<gfn fa i *wT «nvf% i
qrfa^q sufqm^sfafa i ftw fa^faywh *«nft rf^Hfajnfa4i«ii*w
^STOCT faaai<I‘fta: fa>!]<favfaT fa^fa**l^irq4t^|t^*«l nf\ *qfa i ^fifajinfa-
w^rfa i * w Jrrgwt rng^BT*? ^afarsfar: i ^ifa: *fa*rw7ra: i irw: trtfa%^«i:g*r:
3i$sr jit: i inraefa i Tj*rntf& 11
itffft WT I
m ff wx ^ H THrTTt rnfat I
u 4fa*reT ^rr^ nsii
^lf^l^Tjf^^tl^l^^i^ti^:i^i^imHi
h i *nff i i ^w: i *rf^nr i $r»t 133T i «n| i i 3g i n$n
1 ^TT^nft srrorgfwr ^ ?m I wrtfro I ^grtfHf#<aKiiR ^ ii
Krt^frT ^ f*raTf?m: ii m TST*: Igfr * *m gfr toti mwiftflO tftsrfrfn
*l?u gro* s *r*rsm: ^ittwimh^iEw^t it *nf? i rafoq-preg i wrot
I *rwt ^fTTTra^ *r% t«nf*is(i<(l»iT *t$ i to ii ii*<> n
*w$ ftpfaj gw i ’««ii<sjt: g#*g i ftnftftargsirTiT a nT7i<;gq i q ifm*rm?n <ft qa:
^RR^nii^(ikw^'Ki-nrf^resRfugqronigf*ra^i wrf^reanr: ftiftf? ^rf’snpft
^%w^TrwT i w q. $. nfrni
^f qfey faif i
^ %*ri r ii g ii
^it sr sraTftr »
jjrqk-in h TTr^te: i
^^rrfrr »i m ii
II wmtSF*: II M
^t^ffr. l
nifw nii
1 1 i HS^s: 1 11 \ 1
W^| ^ ! vqf^ , | | | ^ts|rft‘| || c| ||
% ii H [3t
1 srf*m fcsn;: *Hrer w*f® i to i ^rfnffaw* »nu
5fffjr^: Tjftjft Tt?;: TTf^ri hw;: gs*T* i ^wranrr 1^
Tf^Pl ifw^nreret ^t *ftifM^rra ■^nnrprpn i Rffan, ^
*T»rc«pRf<rf* JTrf?r i \ ttot pm «wr ^tot ^Mi«l«nftrff'TTRftf* i
*nsefn i fl f^i i wfr %*ra$T »r^t7i i «t«4t-
^tN qftw^qfi irrafNRranf 11
uraifa ^ i
|flt II * II
^IFIII 3Rfa: I wfa I 13r7T^: I ^dst5! I *31 I I
|?t: i%-3fT^rr i i ^t^t i ^m: i *[fT^ i i n*n
ft *TfdB ^rWT^ cBT BIT TOlWt TOTT ^rTOTPTT: WJTT^I^Tfw BTOfd ^m: Bf^ltfd
ftdft i tot fBiTT: i »tt*t ^uyfad tott to: ^t<n#r ^srr i h*Tl <*i 1 ^ «si m
jfrBirf« n^f<r rT^ i ser ^ ft*u*nWs(;T^TO m*frro toftoto ^ f/fUftr ffwTBwajTT i *mt
*TMfcgi«TTO$TTOgfft3?ti^ f^rr^T^ T^^%«Tf?rft%w TOtfft i TOsefft i ft ^t bjit
Tfft ^r: ii
1 'sift %:?? TOTifl'ft bit bit ftpj *r tprfTOr TOJroft toto ittoptotpit
TOP$fTO^<ft TOTt fTOlfd I TOT*rfft I B B? fTOT. drPTTOTTWfftrlflfti TOfTrf^T I ^Tfa:
^ftTOTi: I dldfCTOrSTTOfT TOCTO! TOTOT TOfft I TO5 WTTO^fft I fTOT wHWSt
froftdft i ftdimfft i TOrfroc t tpg^T tott f^rpr: B^prre <tm ii .
^ fq^Trfq: ii 8 n
wa: i ^rw: i «71 i i *[ffs«^ i ^ i ^ i i i
iv i qfk: i i i i\fw?r i |^f?r i i w\ ^
1 'TOT U*T fdfdi<3%d«TTOl % ^ JJ^T ^TT ^ TOfTTKl *T TO^*T: I ^
^ Bitot i TOrfir frorm tott^ i td^i irff^ toutst f^ i Bu*nf% i bt?t:
%f^rpR?fd I fdrd *Tf5T5pNf ^Tbv^toi: ^ I ^ I fTrefd i w i TfafTfd ^rorm totoStwttt-
wldBc^n I TOf^tro^T ^.tJTO^’JI^ | 'dTfd I f%5TO WlWraiTO^f^
HTOT^rfd II <TI«N*T<l<f*TTOTi: II tdl^ fwrfdf^in ^T»ft «tTfM^dfd*T'l<JT1'<Tt
WTTOTT f5T5TO^ftir% I I '’WT^TfW II I ^ ^11^'
d^TijY wtro^rfw yf«l PITOTS T^TfTT II
*o«|o.3M.$?q.] II II
qq fqqwq q^qrcT ^ q» i
^TrfjR qirTfiSJ ^TTUT ^qfq^fq^rqqqi^ IIMII
m qqr^b
qq q^ qaqqf^qw I
q: qqqqi ^ 3n*jfq II ®H
H w
^ ^fTrTTf^fl1 I
xwib 11 s 11
m 1 w. 1 1 tu*N; 1 sre:sfa: 1 1 ijift 1 srfpflrc 1 ^fatr 1
sftfa: 1 V i *T^sfch 1 ^|rrit l 1 xifts^rf: l f^TTS^t \\V\
aftar aitarfa^t aft gft aarftTatft: msft: arf? ir*ft a*ft ft{aaf*ftT'
aftaanfaTtaa Tfa $a: 1 ftaRT ^tfnaR qtifq^wt ^%fw: nqflitTgtHt-
^rfH: trf^q: qftfrt: q^ffa q^?ft *r^fa 1 qq qq am^j qq aTrafafaqfn^^ar^:»
^^ ^r *fb'< 11 s 11
n: i *p3sf4:1 1 f^SHTfpr 1 ^ftf: I ^ris^f 1 1
^11 I f^r^T4 1 We*TT 1 ^SW?: 1 ^rtficssiT: 1
— — ^
1 «T I 1^"
qjarr qwai^gqi^qT^T^i^pq^^fffirgfr arr 1 ^wfq^rfwjn v^: •
fafav ?fN^ flq qtifq: ’frerT q^rrf’f
ii ii
Ot fofam ^ I
sn II $11
ftf»v i f^rten: i^s3!ft: i f$ i i i i
trg^rTf^ *r T*nxFrirftr i
m i fWflt 5Rfwf4^fft 5TTrR^T H^T?xf IIMII
rt i i ii i ^ I'bror?! i i *ft: sfa: i ^:sfa: i ^n i ff^ i
w ni i fkvfcr. i *rfrfsf& i i sttws^t i ^ i iimi
\ xjqjptr «WiMT^WTfro ^Tmt x^mpi ^n*rraw qraxrre furfafii^ ngliro
’ffnfMxftfwffaljfeT ®ft£i i ^r^fwg^ i fxroret %VTf^i: ^mc: xifTsri ar^-
t^rpft igmgTmt anTjvrn arrmrij wt xmRun f#r i
'Wr sap^rf?r ^ny *ftv: g
^ -mtfk ^rgfrt rn^j; 5ErrfNn i
^ ^ffH^^TrfrTOT ^T^?7T ^ ^T II €f II
^I I f^f I cr^fH I I ^ i ?r I ^9i: I ^S^H: i ^f: i
^ i ^nl: i ^xwshht: i wtNtar: i ^ i W i n % ii
II H
tr ^ wr^ri 4 w n r ii
F[% i m i %: i ^ I Tjf^n: 1 I i *prafa i^r I
i ire i ^ i ijsftift: i i m i ^sf4: \\^ i w iiR h
^ ^nf^gwMn^ w f^r: gfwr «mgflralr: *rarrwU*iw fwrg: *pfoi qfa
grrf^ ^rtpit^ $ff 1 inr^ 1 w^^Tffrm ^Twg^pirrw *Wt ^ *t*it wwt
*r%*r Tj^rwiFgif'tfH 1 ^rf*i ^ 11 ^ ^vfw^yfH: #:
3|4i*n^^ ^Nfyrfw: Ti%%: Tnw*ftmywr%3fiW*PFsi 1 »
Vjc( | *7: | 737^ | ^[fam I ^rT I %?i: I *RI WSfll '3fT I «Ti i ^:sut: I
$q: 1 q*§: 1 *r^: 1 qjwd 1 fam: 1 $q:1 qdu: 1 qqj qjffd 1 qfa 1
gq: 1 qrat 1 Trotyl ^THS%: I $q: I <j?t: 1 qd I fq 1 ^wfq: 11M11
*rfr nfri q?<R?r ?iw 1 ^ w qfftq sennit gq: 1 nqf* 1 jfcrr qw w#?
qqfa 1 *ra^Rj 4tR^w<?wt^WT?[T»rnf qqq ^rrf^wt %fq *p3ef% tj^t «q%q gq: 1
qqfq 1 % qrraq^r smnrsrft w ffs^npp’rrg^BRrf qqT<t q^wrflq gq: 1 nqfq 1 qrsft ff
^ qrqxl SRrr^rfqfqigfqt ’srran vtspit qtqsrgqft 1 q® qq*n«uy qai qfq^qtq: %qq w
Vh gq: 1 nqf% 11 11311
^«w4Ki*u-*i qrwT gft qfQftq'i 1 gfqq q 1 m^t ^rrsrrgmwr ^r|4t gfr
?r^i^ioti.^.i Tfij 11 ^TfM'<*Biw|fg: 1 WtW^i ^rrsin 1 gf^n ^ 1 ’str^srr ^?n: f^
g>Nfi: iw^. <10.1 ’cfTi 11
vol. XV. D
* *wt «imRwt g*: i w^f% i #tjr ^ $$
sjH: i f^rar f^f% ^5r wwiK*uf^w k
i ^ ^ ^ f^f rrt w ?f*nfr fr^f twi i a
^ fq^WpnjuifH faufatfaff I
fassffafal1 Hflstfan i sro^TT^ i Fqsfa i faff^i fa: i *r^% i fan: i »n: util
Tqftt ^%lieil
^faffi ii <iii
m ft wrjrfifl f^mr i
srer^w*nrenf: *r1.^ i
fa:s^sfa: 1 fas^r^i
m^{: ^ ^?ri ii ss ii
TfW I ^IT In* I IfW IW-1 ^T ITT^ I I *§^1 tfsW1 gS*ftf HS8U
*w g^rrro? i% afii wrog g 355 qfc^^t i w wt^fq qft
I ?r 1 fwg%^r tifreraTl i ?rar *rf?f 1 nni^: 1
cE* ?n?i ^ ggw ^ r®? 1 wrnro 1 ^ w «%<*p$: 1 « ^ ggw^r *t* 1
wvnr q^^’c^ni^f^Tqnt ^ ^ ^ g^f gw^rniff tn^^wt*rg^f«rffT 1
II ii^ii
f§f?r «ra^irT^r gwi»tffg>5Twnl?n^i 1 ^rgwrnnfwf^s^: f^si <*,i«: • Tf5r’
'qrrgwTTT 1 f^T wi^i g f^f^7Tf»rf?r 11 ^m: gwfgt^m:«
fe: ^t% 1
fe ^ ^ ^ feT n mu
^rt 1 ^ 1 1 1 f|^: 1 i 1 \ i
^I I m* I 1I ffatft: i ^ II i
i^ti^i srto: i i i i i ijftsft: im n
VOL. IV. ' E
it 11 [sr° $. <!• lo.
faiTTt *TR ^T I* »
^ TjqT ^^ I
TRt ^ ^rfwrif^ ^ ^1*th Htil
q^i ^ i iw i ^rsifH: i H^tTfT |\^ I ^rm i ^rj
?wt i ^i^i fts*ratfa i sws’i: i «T>i i si: i ^nt i ^swi i *m«,»i!"
ii wnftsw ii
^ f8§r i
sn Trrftrej^TTwt ijftf ^ajf: iiqii
^fin 5t: i ^ i i ws^l i ^r i 1 lifter i $f^ i
i *: i ^nf i sffi i^% i *Tfcfc: i^TOf i i
*ipi«r'^n
\ ift gg% fling i»i fl^srmflTVTT% gga/t fgro: amhqi^g wi ?jfg i ^ i fg
g^roi totoI i garogr ^vr*tfli mpfr jr*m ^wt4Y«i i ngwit ^grorfjr gg-
*rraT%: a'^t i flgftq a$q tot qUqrrg gg nfn ^3% ^ ngnfllfirofl g*r ^rr:
PT qqt% Tt^flt groTTjfggroT qg 1 grog 1 |rori *ret gftf^friq Jj^wfgmgra^qro
flTfa: gro. 1 w ^fTfgpq% gn: t flfaffcrft tot 11 #1011
gftffl gro? fT^rr ^iffltahffq^Twr^ 1 gT^gro 1 arot fifing: 11
f ^w. wccm^d i
*pr^ tffiftnt *r; mu
ST^t 1 ^ i Tgmt 1 sft 1 1 ^rfas^ 1 wn 1 flsrs^ret i
1 ^1 i 1 i #^1 ttrrt 1 1 ^ 1 ^ 1 ^ 11 «i 11
garoror flarqrgt fl(ronf<qft gg% qgroa^ tot gnrr qjqralf giqi^fg^if^fl gwa^m
flfTfjTOT% 1 grfgap^q 3jgg fTqfggro wro 1 gfqragiggfqffl^ST: flqfggT£T%
flro: 11 gftaf w%. n «w 1 gg^r ^ft gtflflTfltifg^ggTg gp Atfigsgro. »*w4Kgq.
TOrersrarrtf ^rrof qwfgm taflqfl'i'afl<i ^arrrraqw imr tot. ttt^tot. ftm ^qronrrsroT
farfi^ffl 1 fl^mraroT^T% grro^froft q^titwEgfwH: v
wa wfa fa% 1
3$ TT^TtT ^ lift ^7T: H MII
srrrfai w ffW 11 *i 11
i ws^ri: 1 1^I i wt i ^STOTjpi 1
^^frr i tijTjibi 1 *RfriT 17m 1 traH 1 fkint 1 mi
\ B^Btrnrani totx bt sr wi ftgwt ^TfSm if*raT gO^miR^ 1^*'
T’t^r 1 aftfif 1 inra: frgftqrcffiHfrigra* Hrorgfgwi: HWxr^rwtifrfBa-
»rwf^ Tnfnww bbt tox: ^^Tf^wr: y^aw: y*w*flf^
^ xn4iH*iM<Hxt!«»n«uwiB 1 mfro na hwx. ^nfrrnfanw ^ TrruBfri b g
H^aa twS: 1 fawa: T*i «r»nwt mfrot a»nrn *ia«n«na^i x
«rt »TT^ T^# ^T ^1
^ i$l ftnit: 5tgpn: ^ W mi
II *5^: II
'fTfqfTffr fTf# f&f^SfT VW I ffff f Iff 'TO TOW ff ft^ fTfff fltlfff
fffoOfffffwfff w<w: i w m. *o. i ffri 11
^f^TTfau nfl I
^rot to? ^ no 11
^rfH 1 1 rrto i ^t€t 1 ^:s^t 1 i «pprt i to i
4t w ^trt *w tfrswitf 1
rnwiriwT ^ *tff msii
^^cfT ^ 1
mw^l £5jir n^n
^STO 1 3*$Sf[^T 1 1 » 5^ * TO][i I I ^ 1
ui f *r fftwH i
55 ^3«i: ^fwi: xifofsh h <w »
I TTVflr^Srm I Tlij I f1aj | ^fjrR I
5^.1 ^: i ^faswr: i i ^ter: i wfafr^swi: mmi
U rnf^t: tot^t tt% »f^irmmffni%«i »rgt fat f^mrrf^i i i !$%«r:
TOn^rg?qiwj: to to 'j^ti’snfr: gTOTfroi: qfrow: iftHTOTfarifw ^fw w«t
tot toHt ?rm toYt^ ii
f^%fa: T7HfiT I
^t% wt w ^n%r min
f^s4|%fa: i TTrrfir i i ^T: i ir* i ^ i i
I rnrt | i *rtt i m i ^»^IS%T mill
i flpfarr^ gwl^rr i froispiTO i «flRi*Tugfttw TOt TOrfataTf^rerg'aiT
i mrorroTOTO ¥^wt^ ^ TOfw i toitpt. irnfifa i ^rerwrr TOf^ft: Sfrramro-
unfit?? i nrstei: TOaiTO^ wrarmr: i wfrattiwnj gftret ^i^Tw-
gg?rr %fg i TOiffrffifa %qn%&iyw$ vfTOrrota: irnftfn i mPr f^js’rnran-
^f% mfn ^tflr *m ’wffmfn i ^fafw: ^f«Q*ii«if^rrf*r n ii ii
infill!! qti^ai gw i wngw^ i ^Itwt q^rr f^ ^-iSl^i^^Tli
^rwr^pn: tf*; q%f?r ip?rn?r i wImmiwt «<i'Tl RiaiiRaji^: i
»*nv. gwfnf^fm: ii W8fl»i^ig<0<.«ii*i^ isiw wpt <I^i^t; < ^ i ^
7rr*^^r«ncTw iiry^.8.§■ i ^^Tgrr^t-
n ^5^: H [3l0$.^0M0{te.
qfifqgq^l fqqr: *ftqqq pnsr qTqftq^qr: fqqr p^qr i gfqq q i qqyqi: fqqr::
starred afar n fqfaq't q*forr i w# * q<>.1 qfq ii
Fffrtfm: nfrT^T^Ti^ II b II
xnff 11 <111
% w*mi ^ ^ ^it^n: i
mv ■% f^rffi=t^efi«: 11 ^0 n
ffto ffknt ^ i
ni^r:ifwiIswi:i^iR[i^i^^i^f%iiqi^ins4mi|^in^ii
\ ^mr^: i gml arm%?rr: i TTOTfav ? wt tfasTrU^ntw: f^TRw-
ftffa gr»ftftr fjjvftfa i BcT*rrcfa i mt sr ftgwr: tti^t: i W ^
ft<!T: ^TtnBTTW ^tT ffawt. I I ? ?mft TOT TTWTOTf^nrfa f4Y-
^fi i *nr«r ii
*nfag^% % fg^ftargrre«n i h
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ * itf^rar i
^ ^ *rfk ^ ^rtri^: n?n
^ ^7T ^T ^T#^: I
#t wl^jt ii % ii
^i^iym: i^|¥f: i^nsw#t^i1**#: I^Hi^TI^T#^: I
i w 5° 8- $. *8-1 ffa»
i i ^s^i i i i pi i i i ^ipTS^ i
Hif^J%sw^i^iwi^i^Ki^iws^ non
v 5gtf¥f gi ufW^ir strong. s swrai infa i gmfrffffimrr-
anmftenfc i fswf i ftjww ^ i fa grfg. i Tgfro; wr^i ^
^rtwiiwT gfa wgratfuft: ro* wpifa *rif itfwm, i mstg i
ftgfaSIft: aftfa afa: i #^»
sfrftfsr^ ssfirfasroT sift: wmrt i$far faresnft anwrr i gfs* g i st nrfa:
ifaaft gfa ufa ■
piri^T fa iffa^sm: i
^n fayfM \m ii
pH: i f^t i fa i tjfaff i pni: i i pjfa%1
jRfwri q k to pi ^ m8ii
I ^VfTr^IS^ffT I |pf?S! I ^Tf^RTS^fH I
rret f^ 5H^f?f |
wnt^wpit f^ I
IT f^HT IRII
^TT \ wrpi i m^wi i i i SS^3T«i »
TOEj: ll^Tl
II TOWtSTO II
fl7<wi^i^^T ^ ^n it b ii
^it^ffT I ^TI I I 1^ i l T&jft i
ws*ra i i *rftf^ i ht^^[ i i i w i 1
3W libII
*oqo.3P II WVnftSF*: II
tof ^WT^TTTt: ^ ^ I
1 i ^ i ^ to i ^ i to m: i ^ to: i
i i i *totri i i :ptf« i ^ i w* i ft*rt: m«i ii
Sr^ifiTfFFTFFr FtFFT TFI FFFTF. ^FTfFFI FTf^TfftFTF.
«b ii ii
^ w fwofrrc ^treqfr^ i
spreftr qft «rr *r: W fftfa ^|rt ii«r 11
v. i ^ i i m: i ^ i 3fhg: i ^nfs^tt: i famuhn: i ^swf^i
wwf: I ^TI uft I 3TI I ^R+r^l rfl^l I wfclT I ^^SffT imil
1 fYf % FT^Ft Ft 5F?t TF: FR^fF FfFFFFF^FtiFF FF?fF I FF % FT^Fti*[
TFTf^FX;: FF. Ffi^fF I FTlTFrati^FFT^TffWn TTFJF: FF I FIT I FTlTOFTFFfF
FTFTW- I FFJFtsfFgF: FF fFFFTFT: I fFF%<FfFFFFFFF»FTF I FSTFifFFF^FFFF I
FfF^FFTiFFFtFMFITcFFtFFniF^FT^FF FFjfF I FFRFFTFTfFgRFtSMFf^FIT?^^ I
FTfF FT FfFFT^FTFfFFTiFft:#?[fF I F F*f s(Fj ^ FT^tF TF FFFJF:FT%F FT Ff
FF|F FFfTTF ^TflFfRF ®F ^frfF I FFt FfFFTfF II
■^^i^^i^i^fHmTRiiiTsiniftf^nTni^iTi^ki^nii
| gat wit aTtWTaas |a anaa w wraanrggaa atf? 1 ang^ aae 1 wn-
aTf^fa tra: 1 ’tfriaf aar: 1 % aa ar: nga: ^anara. 1 |rr at%a af3Nr waffa ^anat
1 aanftatT a: aarer aa^ 1 a %aaraa: w arfa g agatt ^aa?t gnat gif 1
asTfapaff^afa^Tar^anJ: 1 t gwr staffa 1 aiwrfa 1 atigrft aari gfgg^rffgTfarart an
ftfta: 1 ht f^gf: 1 aaTfa a atn^aatarffiari f?gf: 1 a<a<jag*)g t^anf: it
!^ sfclT I
1*Ht ^inm 5.iifN W*j: mrt ^t?n: 11? 11
1 aNr: if^i ijh: 1 $n 1 1 *W i^rsjfw: IV1 wn 1
v^' 1 i 1 15TEfl^i 1 ^nt: 1111 ? 11
VOL. XV. H
Mo H II [^°
1$ sfrm: g^arr *ft: tfprcf^rfH: i tor *w4: i«rntf*»u anfWT «*g nft »r fiWm-
f*rf* »rre: i f^iyifljif^'ii 4ti*wwRafffi fto% ^rarfTT: fonnwT&rt w ^rarfii:
fagtouaft unit wsp- wntrti^ i *rag i ?ra wax «ni irN: m^j<ah«ii "vmr i »r%* t
nw^ Tf?r wrre: i 3^ *4»nq mqfttow i gHi4iq«T»n5|fft *rre: i wm jwm
H^Tf^fH: ?rf iifti»n«i i wi i jvftn ^wg: imt ^n*n:a
TOfir to to^ to i
TOT *T ^Tftro \rfrTTT^fk ^SMTOT IIMil
TOt i TOtfa i ^js^f i TOfa i TOtI ^p7$: I ^sf>4:1 Rfsf I rtv i
i * i ^f i ^rik: i nftfaito i to: i i i to iimii
w %*i ggriwr$T*rfrTTgTmgrrfa fpn*igg4 Nfn gfNifa i *psn gfcrt
wn^i ^gf*r: *f *rnj ?n«sT«f^rqT%^ gfg *Nfcfa i *r«n ^ gf gNrrafta f*mr*roTt
gfr x ^?Tfg *r gftosfa g4uT%a i g%4 ^^Tijih^kw % vrm: 4Nt vttOi-
tfTTranro Tf'nw^wt^rnt ^tptprt^ #wfg airaro i i ff4w^: a n^a
SHTTO Tift I
?*fa? ^4 g^rr fw: *|4f ^nRhO^H imn
v^: i f^sti^i ^ns^t^r: i i|rrc4 i i Sprr4 i i '^Trfa i
3*411RI 4l*g ll ^|s4W: lf4*st: l *j4: l3rf*S*4rft*‘l ^4*1 HQH
gw 'qfirw f^rrsgxjw^- • i^ wi <*<
?ta% wre <mmwq ^ 5ft: i fafaft i ^
%?rfgi|f1% gftrr: ggigwT H^?fr frorr: «#ni^mT7fVi«1wwn»ri^v: ^^■•fl^iTV-
^gg^sr i h
^fwrror 'to ^ri wftww: wFt^rr: i gtro ^ i to *n*rc ^*iflif*iTn
TO^f: ^TJn^w: i ^t* §. qo. ntg« to toww ^frotwlig *nf iwg#8-H-M-»
^4 ^ TTTrTt yNl I
^frf^gjRrf ^En wt II *10II
^41 ^41 *nwt i ^ i wr i i ^Wt* i i
^ s^t: i ^rfk: i ^ijjt s^ i^n i st i ^ »^;s^w ^swf^ii ii
H2
irii
17rRt 1 ,?niff «rr fft arftM i WTRsrnrapt i artg arnr i wirfftftw *ra*n* art
ar^<t i tbpto ^ \wt wrwt ajanwtfapro i ftwt i i a^lrrawai-
ftarafftar*: t % ipi*^ xpntprfamft ralrari
wq Tfft fhBTf^awtt vTT*m i wnreft a
fa ^5TT *tt ^ I&TO fa 4**HI ftfaT nil
I TO: i fa i ^#*r i i to: i fa i ^n i f5 »ft: i to: i f?T i
i safti: i to: i ii ^ ii
Mg ii wkz;. n [*?°
’VW *lli^gT ^TTSrrW Hfftgft I % «<0«lT!U»l W*I*T 1PIT V^it*T»N^T VTt *T f»rf$
*nfa i i Hpur^rr tptt: ^ ^ 9* * from 'wanwn f* t
fq^fsfufa ^ *stPn urn Pi *rssg i w^rwr: <*03 • ipn ^tt vrt
^n^rrj i mwf«q i ^Prog *r i ^aravlsn: e*Ofaw4: x
H5 5% M HMH
H5 ^ifti ^niR i?5t: iimii
1 ?f ntinrrai arft iq^ ’jngwnfa nmn i nfarn viw^igai^ i ainwn i snNfM-
II gii
i fo^** ^ rifir im n
spir^ I ^EIT | I 1W9H I I I I I ^1
irfrT IIM II
dTgddT dddTddT d% dddf^ dTft fdT fdTfd gdffd SJdtddd'Pft£ fd^Ttd^dt dJT^T-
Tsfftd drwRrafr i dfddfft i dr&f dronfRnS: i dfd diddfa: uradT^ndJ dd d^d dtfddt
fR fj^dddfffd^d.HT: 4<<difdi;^iaidi^*<idi<inwd: dtfd i ddifd n
^ s^sfir'^tei i ii^ii
rW$ ?* ^fV^4: 1
%fw fa ^ ^fafa^qs 11 * 11
if i ^ i i *fa i sr&ns^ i i
fa wfa^HSSf TTORMt I
fa xtrfafa fa fa'fa; 1
^ fafafa^ 1fan% I
i i i ^ i WBpm i fS?U
safasi^ i °pr$*ra»fa \w. i t^i ^ Mprrfa«^nfal i fats$ n bn
% aft ffw^j ^rar ^fta ifrfaar %aata aaa% i faarNf w aafa aan wnft
»raf% i faaTfaai^fag^ girr^ srfarsaa. fara% i fa aarax^a i gaaft s[f$afa *a
<taaaaal«ft: i w aTarfaai: aranfwg wfM^jaTaftaatf a»f ataww ^arrfa i ffsff^l
**TT*rf% I IJWTW^: ^7i!T'^fl^^J«^Murt4TfW^gq^% I asfaTOfa I fa at a^ aa
fafaaataTf^ffafcaat aaft afa i aa^a sraarafa aarrar faaaft i agrarafa n faW
Tfa apua aftfr apt$r aaw ^afafa» 11 m ii
gilfa aa^jpf at i aa^ft taja aatftarialaaarfareiUgga: farsr: gwpw: i
HTanpft i g$affa: i aar aTgarra i f? aatar gwrarrfa fagaa a
arr fa^r wi at$g§a afa ii aga-r^fa fa%w i gfaa ■a i fi ga gwrar a
*fa fa%w larr®^.^.! ifa ii
1^ igf 'sm i
ftfat 7T tft ^%EciT ^FTTRn IIRII
IS i ^rr: I ii; i sftti ’srcii I fsft I I
ftre: 17n n: i *fai| i ^n i i ^ i ^natfa i ^n irii
m_ qf q?$T q qn i
$rj\y. qwf^qqr nra iiiii
^ I *qqi I qqqt 1| qi; I qBtsqtiT I q: I m1 I
^TIq*q*j: Iqiqq;t?^i f^n IqI*q:»qI q$ n-oii
war anjarar iw*ifli<j?j»iT anam agfaf t^TOV aarm ^grro xrfn ar^pft grr i
w i Wi wlflt ftartwamra: i wrefai^r arf^ajar arrafarfa}^ ^ ^rf arof aroanro:
i^pr i fa pmfafar xroj^ i garr qi^Sr faTrotsmaft ajaft afti^aj i xironr: anflw-
^ i ^ Trfa trajamar; i f<«u^rr<t, i far^r asrrarg: i xrranfaafT w-1 artaffa i f^rg ^gfarm
^farw an§ argw art n«iwiflaiafi i apart: gm^<an'<ariam*i*rgr<*i«<[i^^ *r ^nJfafa
5^wftnpf: it
ri W IItil
wg$\ i i i ^} i str^: i ^pis^tt: i sratgq: i
^ ^ ^ ^ pf ^rt i
m ?t ^ ^fto: i
"tm ^TTft ii w ii
Tpqo.^i0 *.$?**.] ii *rsn?is^: 11
WfniW* ^ i
iwii rT ^WT ^R: 11 II
^ rTT rf ^ ^ ^Tf^rf^TOTjf: 1
f^SIW 31TOT iiyri ^ «rfinR; || <1$ II
^t: ^1f»#aT7nf i
^ f%tm_fa&i vi fq ,
w fttfH ^ tst II?||
^i^iflt^i^i^i^i^^R,^,^;,^,^^.,
w 1 ffrefir 1 1 ft^s^w: 1 1 '^T^r^r i ^hts^stew i qfw: 11311
f?xT0 f?roiiW TO TTOtanTO ^rproro p^ffi* TO: ( ^f?r ttw: i to
^T vryj ptt: jjp^j fTOTOr tow: tort vrrorrf^;: nfrfw:
TO ^ TO**'» fTOfrr 1 ^rfTffn 1 *rT^h: 1 TOTOfTOmgmr: 1 toTO rtoto
^fwr7T 1 TOnfiTOTrorensr trfrt: TOmOgfliTO: 11
*\F*a ht w*
nr^fiir If*mfe ^ i
m %f?f fq4 ^ ^THt w ^ h8h°
^#if^i^i^:i^i^i^i^:,^fT5iff(:;n,^|^|
^ 1 tfw 1 1 mr^ 1 ^1 ’grtfff 1 ^Trf: nrtf 1 11V11
d^^^^iwifTO: I to toptT ffBTftr ttT to fro 1 f?fTO[m<ra 1 tot to*
rm^: rt y tfd prc ^iiR TO^Tf^rrprwrf% tot to ^nf*r ^rof% n ft^rr
wR w & frPfifria^ftiriT VTg: II ^^1 fro fTO frofin
™ TOJ^lfTT fq^fTT %TO: l^l^pri llTTOT TOfpTO^f* I ^TTOffir I TOH ^ g?t
lfTO* «f?T toj ^?i tfrtf TTtwT I tot: tfwfrr TO: i ^rotfrr 1 RTOV^mrd 1 to
?ws: 1 tpiT to<j4to TO fropgRrrofw ?rs[?T n
^ f^Ht f* ^I
?raf^^ fM fqfo wfW ^T«t: II mi
*1 I I iprsqhr: i 1 1 i^1
rHr^Srlr^l ^1 I IIJ## | fW S^qiq:i rffW I I ^rq: II q II
T ^ qiyfTONt Tsu-jn, pmft fffroro^: i wtWti i
1 i ^rr TTfurt TO^rfw tor ffir i
^ W ^ ^ 7,f^ WTOWTO^ftl ’^erfn tot ffrof^ ^
. tot to! ^ ^rfir TOtf5[TOT^n TO TOTflfii i TO to: i TOT TO TO
^ ’iTffir tot totTO TO grr 17TO: 1
^ ^5 f&KJ ^rnt I
^T TO Ht^^rftrTO H^T q^‘ ?r qtqr: ii^ii
VOL. IV. " ' „
#i=l i % i i?: i fas*3T: i grefaffR; i snttfr i ^s?nt i i
faa i f? i i i i *mj irg i g i %n: i ?rcre| n^,
^ t?r * g«r W1^ faa^r ftpwpum^l aa aft* aPmOulnaalguai
afaaaa: i afTraa aarfc n ara gataKaT^aiaiwaV. yrwaw n I argaiNgfcft:
S$awa i a?grsfa«pJ: i gaaa ayaw i iTHM^n^t^wflrwrtf: i fir arcnwumfr a^ aaSrax;'
^ntiw aa awtaa vimwlfii faar aa amta: aaumcmi'fl^la aaaaT atrkl i
aa«ai^fa*j<«i fa? i ?ni fata: i ag a ataT w atamt ^qaigan. anaifaqqY aiftfa a?a.<
*nf%g xt^t h^tt fa gf^^sfa %. fa*r^ g i
fasn fa ?t irnfa ^ *nfag^ W *fa *mj ftnTfa 11$»
*Tfsfc: 1g: i trt i tren I fa i %: i rfa i g i *g I fasH^fa i g i ag$;,
faro i fa i Ft msxtf?rfagi ^nfas^i 9*# sfa ii| itf^ isremftpnfa m
^ a faw<a$4a a a: n w^t aata i ar° % * mi-1 >tfa yft^imaa n anaat^-
*kTfa wt srerTfa ^i*ra1g#5irsTfwnprrf7» afawn$Tfm arfaf$ atg: i ssfa«[fa a faa-
a^g: i afa a f? wnanrwt ^a afrrrofW^ % 7m aataaqaifgai gfa f^rar aa amk: i
7m fCTi: i arfaaaaT »rrm mafW %?giri afa aTatfa Tam. i aarnarrw^# wra ft
7m a a*gn awrfa fipnft ag i aa?rrfa aag i amamn»fi«r$: y bqj
t% atafafa a|aaBa fw i ag^Taiffts^gsTfUfataarr: i anf^afara 7&a ’amn??-
fam^arr: i wf^ft at aiaaT aat at aTa7ft aTarrmfw: i arta: flag. i ttot gigam 11?
ata aaoTOTram mfa*?uanfareUgsa afa u aTft fafaata: u
35 fakfak ftfa H^TFT g* ^71 I
sw* xfa fa vta fa fa # fa^% it «i ii
^I I # I f^ I T^S*TW I zf# I ^rf I
#♦ ITfi? I fk I UTtX[ lf^l^:i#l I lfH^S#l
f^h# nil
\ t% *Pni ftm i TBtfii 17T*pm ^ a*<t<.fvaa<HMiam^t: ?tw-
firga i a^aai; gaaaft ayvm ^ aara faa^ fa^rw qt7mwm% ?mmt amng ata va ft
vtttt i f*raat im i ««tfit i w^anp i aqafawtj: i amnr ^%a v%a aama
gaafa ^rra gk: aan^ig va fa^nfkr^: i am; ytwfaaaH i aamSlaa i »
Tnrmmftr i
Fit f ^frKfat I
xNf# xr^^ft ^ # ^t| vff #1 irii
r^fi i I i i |#>t: 11# i
snffs# i ^^*tt i fg i i #i ^i mi gf| i i «*11
ii n
\ tsT HMWt: tfrwirrf^fH^I: wrrt: qPftjltHA; gfinmf^q ,
ifii vntflAift i vri *nrra* i vft * iHftSl wfat
tnsrfan: i %sitPi«i|«5f urnsrat n * fig ipft’ri xffat *#urf tnW i
^ toW %? nwm wrf^pr Stfi i i firs ws»
prcaj ^tf|rTT I
H ^rpmfarn fk % ^ fWt #: *n#Ht f11311
V 1 qft: I I ^ I vmt I ^%T I
id 1 13sf*f ?TT 1 fa R: 1 Tfiij 1 faq: i q: i tqff 1 ^sf^r: 1 fMrejfl 11 3 11
\ t% ^r Trunin «t<tiTl«4i»ii wri tifintfir ^rnft »r*f% i x^rer ttmw ^tgg
^ttwq^jwig tl^wr ^ >wf€i fl^ ^ t% wi HtyqwPnH Trotifir i« rfft
^ ^ wfir fifr %j: xrarnrwtiwrRrrf? i i l?*r: tmnw i
wr^rg^i% 1 wra finrott ffgrmqfif n
*hw wnfa^rt fafafari 1
pi TOI^5fWlwM^H^sWlf5i:i WWJHl’
fasqfcf 1 ^1 ifsEin 1 i fatssnfaw 118II
^fl^H fa^*| I
3TUT TTO fa fa fa^ fa^$ II * II
ifas^: I ft I ^wft I fa^ I flfa I I
sfa i I ^ I *m I fa IW. I I fa i fifaft i i n*n
1 gtar it «m asjftfti^ai fppr agf^-ft ft%g vtarf a$g a5tf*trarra?l i
fjqitftreft i ^naftfafirn ^Tarr ^rftwmT ft 3t *r^ ?m ^tarrmwftfwar^ftft% atft i
art*rmainif»rw*i: i arfanfr 3f3rnn amfwgift am i i^anftft $3: i ft ft^l t 'aftreft i
wr^i i n^rroft a
rT^ ^ 5R1Nt I
ipM MKterat fa Mt ^ *ni faMrrofafa faM^ir 11 m ii
«T3 1 $ 1 M I Sjfisfa: I fasWuTOJ 1 fa I ^|faR I
IpM i MW: i iraM: i fa i w. i nX i w% i nt sm i i faMs# ii m ii
fa*T*n«ft gm?CTi% f»rmw*iwfa ?t nfarm ffaT ^VTfmr ijfafMTmfpitffa:
$ ft* prm StVTfamjrmrt prrere ajfan; i fafwr: *g?Wrof fa i irm<ifa i fMwf: i
^iwf? ft ^ 7W ?rmwj frwi ft^ffTOtwra’ErffH
^ fra i «i^i4ii^i 5r»^ i »t5tt ^ |ftff i i wrf^w% *rap«-
Mt#
* to: to 1
^ ^ ^?T to: i
fa ^ ^ ^rfrf tow h^ou
wi 1 ^r i w. 1 i *^: i ^iw 1 i to: 1
ftftfTi$s*|rftoT rii
tM trvTTO TOt to*tpt: 1 tot f8?: M mfW mnrra #i%
^f?tf»i4Maf<m4fflTT Me mroU m fjmWt Mmr: tflror: i
Mt?jb
^ 1 TTOU ^,ia"
inff^it uingjmn* ^n^T^Tjr^nt^ qrfftg i *rag i T^g i fvm TOrrwffluf
fwt 1 jt^tj 1 ^TOftafftwfrFgft inwr^Tq i jgifrg 11 man
JS.!*" gftu t^gro qgwn? %j»r?f^ i tot qipiq i awig
^Rjf’HrfiTT^ qgqt 1^71 II «?l«r| TfTOTft^TOT UfldHw I Tlftq 'foRTT5®^ gfaft ^ | q|TO %
qft*: 55TfH%7j: fq^T *fr*mf*r *rgq tt^: iT|o q&« m. <\. q. 1qft h
?t ^k» ^ sfif i
^i^Tigij iwtuppri^rffor $ ^rit s *Nfif ii?ii
5f i wi i h i i w-1 sfH i sNITrf i ^rs^; i i i
s^t*d i^^f^i ^1^1 fmi^MT i m l^fir h?ii
q*f qq^i^q^q. i*t«M*raq ki^qfqqt Trwr^qnTT^ qq# *<Miq qf fqqTfqtq
qq^fq qffq q crnpi qarfqftqi qqqf q I q qTnrfq i irqtfqj: #r# ^rfjff im
«rr^w^: i fqsq q^T qf#*qi# qqrq qqrqqqngrq w*q *ifqqi wr# i gfryff i w-
q^qTqq tpcqit ff^igw I q«ia$T#qw: I qpqfTqf ^fllfq fq^T fW«qr#fq ^q-
ftm#q fqq>iqqi4Tfqr q ijqfq i fqq^mT «# ttq: i '■K^W3t r
ri =rr ^3 "nr ^ i
rfI FTRJf^^R^r H^riH ij%^3 ii M ii
^ft% tiwrapri^; i
^t ^ fHfo$ war^f ^P|rj: n€,n
#T13' i ’p?*^ i ^%fi: i ^T|S^: i ^ i i
l 3TI 3 I I I Slfii I sfH i «| i ^ t tt'«ph i : H § ||
^ifa;a«iR ^H*<i»|p<uR WrR Wtalfyj<fY«WfW fqTOtiffi^TRfw JWT qffong
^nrr^f wryfir^^mwi^iwtg^: aj<% ft^nJ ^amT^ifinmfti^T^ faq ^rsfg i
WTf^ i wit >r^hrT=*iT^Tfir qftg: i iffi \ qn^: i gg
jfffn q wra qRRpqq ffTCRf qnfrt *rt % f*rfnf: f*i^fW i ^ i teg qfaft;
j^taTarrgtnft f^nt qift it
u«flflai»iagft i Tftft fmn i awinarg »Ftg aaaft: *nai arat armt ftwHH *n*aft (
arrartft i ar^ij «fratflwft: i ana arftt ^ffc iv«. §q, $. i aft aaaraj
inri srcfaroi *pjTi ^91 w: i
spit ^s^^TTTTtfirarr^ iiq.ii
I ^1 ^ I *R*TS^: I IRt^ri I I I I ^ifftfrl I
^,^:,>!^,,wl,?5^:,^!^,^T,^,,!,S^,^,^l,vl1
ii wnftswi: n
fliwftjrw jfNT ^forrfrnWnl flq«i«'*f*r»Pr Animal wg*ft:
^w<»«ifl4rfS^wfqMi8*<<i trfxTftm i ^nrrwrr i nmfManfc i i nr;-
<wst wt%^r ^pra ift mf*r ^ «wt v^srr wit^ gtarr: ^
arnflr *t tgqmsffiq *% fwm^qftimfarfl f*rt finmfrnwiT-
f^j ufS ^*pt 11*n^l i imNf* i h ^r rfftnrnirt i ^pi
wflr^ft ^51 v §• 8^. qc. i ffr ^fq^iiaiqiqiRR u
^nn: wstff*: wir^nffth: i fawnnftw f®n$: i *r$T WTrouft wt i firefn i ftrsr jtt^t
ffsH^H^jsr *nNr mnft f*n$TWT f^f^ft f^rgw: i ftwn tw$: i »r%?i
^wiSfjOxftr i H^rafn i *n*T i fronnr *n?ni i qmTfa *rnmt7f i fi«w«T
^sn^i«n ^jkropil^i ^mf Rmm i i
^8T I^ HT%»ITf»nn%W I HyRTT %w4: I
f*r i wnmfTi i w i to «^Rw
^frvr^rfTT u
fMflt w H 4rii-ijw^: i
fW WTTW ^ f^r^ II II
m rf rfdt fafn m i
?T I want II II
ti^iflumifg[: w m nitwiRwinm ^rn ^Nryafff^iT
i wrftr ^ ^api ^ i aHrrw«fl ar*n5^U^
fm I *Taftf* i agw^ i an ainxi apt i *n M^ixfi: i m Wx^t ****™£\
rjfymm * *vs*m xrr^af anm TfWTan ansr xs: ah* i
, ^nfrfTi I aqr^TT aM: , ^ nw<«ii^irt an atant *»
i aj («4ifx(rnriW«m *T«r5:» i^ai
frtft ?|T9[tr ^ i t3T^|^it: fannrmt: TOnffi^ flm?l i W*
*oc|o.3ro*.$?*t.] ii ii
b^
f^Tt wftg;: 'wmrm t n ng^al*iJi^i«iiif«ifln ffrmfiRnmqfKi ^m-
unsrT: sf$ ^rm i vzr wr: ift& ^nsr i fyOqif^^TXfsBr:
tM tj^Twrfn i ’*wref«^eft: t w?rrg ^reW^i^T ironfi m ^ qtffoj
ftfswtnrarr <5'f*i»ra*ui<i i ^pfNrflm: firgugfliini ^giqumft i *w: *
tft i^rr 1 ttct ^*T*i?i 1 fa^f? fT^tr^gwf: gw Bswtigm gjrn vfrq-
g^r: ^rr %f?f 11 amt faf»rtita: u
I
H 4f^4
■• —•
W#r«^frT
C\ v — —. —
^hf I
^f?r 4 ^4t ^rfm 11 ^11
pm rt fa%r[ TniPHTTOlf l
FT mf fait ^fcr|m fa mfat TO ^ UTRSgpn V: IIM II
pm i ^ i p?ripi mi i mn fap?r i i mi: \ wm»: i prcfai i
ft ip: i fplT^im^sm ifa l ifa: l *il m‘3 fa i ppsppiipm i nmi
\ i% qrai: nwqinfu^ »pqqr %VTfqqqfqqt gqqt % qq qqfrrf ’sjfq i q^Jfqfq $q: i
TTr^fTf <q^tq qTq«i qm qq %q qqirwT fq^q t w qqqmTqrfq i ^q|it fqqr q
wt*n*flsw: i wimwrfw't q$*tqqi*q qUqi«r*njqT qrr% qrr% fq qtq: i fq^faw gf? i
% JTWqqqffisC ^ q^TM q qjmqq gw: qT qjfq>5: %Wr %T» qqT tf’HTt^T qtf wrfq I
wrqq qjajqqqTlq qqqlijq qiij q nqnfliqrrqi q^gfqqnq qqrraitqiqw qrarqq? qjfa-
wrt q gq^fq qrq%sn$: a
m to t ^t: i to i ^ i to i ^1 ^ i to i i^i
fnt: i ^ i *? i ^ i rjf^sum i 1 ^ i is i tosf^tor i to: n mi
ga;: fqfis? w msmftt mrrt ^ftfmmggf^i. rnt mmfw fmr \ i$ r
gramnNwr^ftf lr*r i mrc i mmrm arej na^r aro wlwm^asi ma i
afwaa fagarimlTfamsftN ??raj: i famrafa w?m ^«m*l»im«i<ifa i aa ?ma: i afaat
*a watat aimar a»ftaarr% wrg mrfaaTr: Trrrefr w agafw1taw<i*M ftg%^?Twaaaf?i
aaa i fara afr % aanrraT % gfwra aran§a i afwft aga 1 w°$.
8'o.«)c. 1 *fa aaara; 1 a^TarfwsC ^ «pa gfN^rrf^arrsnTfrn fara ajfaarwr araait:
gftannfs?faf4: a? afafaafa afaaiTw mraefa a Taai^maiarmaTant aw^fa
warn 11 n^ii
%n i i i i i ssN i i s; i ff i asrsthn: i
m I ^ i ^fr; i stt i Tjfw: i srfa i ^ i Mi: i tr^(: i ^ 119 n
w *r«ft »npxw gymuiifo* qTwfqqq 1
r^mT Mrjfx M!Whb«0«u qrf^r*: faqraq: 1 vfr qfqqqq: i ff BBii^K<rf^r ij' qqrmrr:
qaroq: 1 qq*rpt»tfT 3nrwa?^BTfB«BRv*r ?qpj: 1 qqn^fqqfqfq qqw 1 qrenqifciihq ?iq
m%w w- * tj: itw wrfrra qfwfqsftn faqfW 1^ ^ranTw ^ 1 qfqq# t
jftfir i^: 1 tot *pjft f?q: 1 im pBVTf^R^rr q\n%q m qf#q pr tfq tq: 11
if Tir^Tf^m^HpR U ^1 ^ ^4f?f I
xrft ftrfg II ^ II
V0L. IV. ~ N~
^0 it II
^ 1161011
I^I^I fesuTCt: i i ^r i fts*re i i
M**k TO<^nirf!: i
^r: ^ ii sm ii
N 2
ii h [w**.*^.*0*®.
HHtfiV ^T ^t: I
i i «stak i i ^ i i ^ 11 1
-— o 1
%STTrrer:
—
tfrTWR ^SrTWT^ I ^3R ^f?T I |if3irft SrftrfJS^irft I |
^v^n#fTT ^ptNt i
fl 3 ^rfa g tttftI^w: 1
rif^ ^nsrfa i
mv\ tifw ^t^fk Mw%: ^t^rr: n?»
HT^I ^i k i ^fi^i I s wt i i ^i srfa i fWt: i ^fvs^fk i
i Trfk i qffk i I gs^ixna: I Sr^i I \ ^s^h: ii?h
I ^q I miriNft I dURdUft dg^t ^Rrtwi fRlRnt % HIT $<H5U
t^: dit*Rdt i gat arra aarRR aRpa ftrfr^RTfaaV. Harnrr^tafn Rfttfaafw-
fvjir^fd i qafl<aigRaiT%{gaRHT?p gat aaa <.«naiHt arnj H#rfafa i *rt i a*siaai<(iw
\r fcnrt: HarrcrrR^sfwstd a^a H!5ifH*a?g i aRT a# afti *rhth gHRiarr%H aaar
a ijjtiuf sjs^a agfa i amaanta tnaafd i H^t nar»fta: aft'did: g+iatid: ga frp i a^gr^api: i
agg^Rfll a<ifla»: i nf7ir i gHs[Hat aRa f^ i ar>c- <*■ ?8-1 *fa i a?T i g^if^jrai^-
^if^ha w^t waratat afg^ga’shafr ^aTarfa h atn: af^Ra: H^pft nafa i <f^: annam-
tawa: y
RT^^Rf^RTfT^Rt 3NR^^: I
R^RRTR Rf^RT ^RtRR^R^: ^RRt R»JR IItil
SfljRi ?fH 1 r 1 ^rpftrjj ^rr; i ?rt i 3?ft 13rT^s^fr: i ^rr^i
RTij: i R5\i: I
f?ncf^ ^<i4mwn it
mm xrft i
f?m mm mAx u^ht|^ Mm iitfu
^ i mm i nft i ^fnl ^i^i wfan i iT^ft i wq: i
firm i mm i mix: i M i wf i ^ i mitm \ Mw i M i Xll^11
f^rRR *rrsft ^^rhrt ^rrtf?T <rerrR fwra ^f
JrfilfaSrRT: trfr ^ijfTT I I f^R f*RT ^ HTiTC:
fts?R^Ty: i i^fn i »i ^T»fR: i t^rt ftffR % ftRRr: ^
^i Tn^'^fa it
ftratf^qt fqq^N^^nwrfqssrt: i
fHT^qur spfa: qqf^jft ti^t tf^T: qt*nt iish
^T^: I sqi qff^: I fqsntf^i: I fqsqFrta: I Tnfrn: I qrqftrcnf: i
q^RsliqjiT: i *nfar: i TpTts^f: i i s^wn i fqqq^i i qt^t nan
wre i^rr wffli^tignp<flr ftnrtftprt ftrwtf^Traw’s ftrerecpn tnjaftf ft««A*uOw-
^•rrrfr ^t ttht: ftimw wrWwnjftroA: ^nwrr^ft^ <j«iM«»ruw
jpfftf i *rqr?: ftiTTO fi*»K^«Ln VT«mf M*ra<T: gwncwr <tiirCt i^ift
^ jnarr *r^rr #cpirn utwftRj^ ^|wt ‘iftfi'i ftraw ^SjoiO 11
^ wfk i
feT wta ift% ^n: sfe: tfwt ^ fegfa uq.ii
i i sqft i i 3TfW*i: i i^i
f^an: i ^rntrr: i sftql i fas^q!: i sftm: i *nt: i ^ \ fa: \ ^f?i iiq.ii
^rftr *TMi *fKtw% i fl«iiujM(\ w^nEfTw^rnrt ^rarnsri f%?r^T»rr i^i-
^nrft *Rtfa i ^nwret ^r«m f *pra sn^t i Tnjsroirt^*^ i
f^an *nn imarai wtt wr^rfHT w tftw wwft sjft: sftm: iffa-
?i^t: srfrift 4<*4 fwj<iHi*id:^W i 'r^^raf’nrorftUi n
^tfrTHR ^RHt I
^Ri^fa^ %7ipRtSR IRII
i ^ ^PfT i ^ i ^s^rw: i mii: i ^tfa: i »rtw: i **&: \ fas^l •
sfa i^t^fa^t i ^HHi i sarin sra i^Rif i i ^n i ^oY^r%hci|1
tzint wiyfafaT^fr^ 'awt gfag «g^g 2^
nwfag atTrfat^r Htnt vi^nt^gw i nfiT wii^ jrfnfr ^Hiyfa^TTO:
ffa w4wmg xrram: i %nm i wfafat i wrfaraffa ^inif*is{.i<(lni*fat T^mr ’fW
\i ^ ^t tHrt i
W *ftaff RR^fg tifaiiRifNI iigii
R I g: I 'zm ITRR I K^l gfg$vq: | \ fa | ^ij |
iifgi|:sfg^teri*iW|iRfarissrfgigssvRifj^ 11811
vrowt tttot g#?fg^T Tmrpn^rrfTw^r: g^j tR-s^nf ’TOg^qwivTTOK-
sfTOfr tuqw irn^ft sp^g i rmtf% fTOrrog i f*TO gf$f«ng
W *TO trwft: ft: *fRfs i fTOfRf* i ftra««i<i»
H ^T: I
^ wg ^sNg RRrifg hm ii
* i to i fggft i i fforsfrh 1sitfa: i >roft: i i fas^feg i
m ^f|: W lie ^ 1
it fM non
TT>qo.3?®3.S?3M.] ii H So®
^ ^ ^xq4 i
fiWftifM xfafaff ^^i| it bn
w II II
Hi^iOT^^^irTrti^:i^:i^:i^iTOi:ipri^:i
*T I ^ I qq 1 fffel I qS'zfi i q£ I *rHr tt: I qiqrt I iwtefk II tf II
rereTgfre^ ^fTOTt^ rereare refirenai a iwsra ^r^asrNi aare: *gfa^i
retrei re i re Tfa f^refwtqTrreT i gpreg i fare are #ff?r a^i *j% Trjrrre firerre art
ga i ta a%a i faig retaafret aTOTreTTreat are arerrar rew fy^reaxre renflaff i
arere-ra
M ii ii isx n
fkgvi ^ ^t i
^rt^T St mf»r <^TT*m fTfwn^ f^r vw^r 11 ^ h
^1 ^r: i^q: 1 1 1 ^1 1 ^rr 1 ns^rft i^sf^T 1
^T^cfT I^l: Itt: I1 s^?f I rlfwtIH?tl v?b\^WR: If^r 1^11 ^?l11
% wft ^it: Tt *pmii iwr **m: irgifT u^wt inflow 3^
*Tf^f|3o^ ^bTv»t ^ er^gsu ’ir^rr^ ^fri^r^^ffiwrfH Trarrrrr inr>mT^T f^'
MT'fli^ trnrrwrm mqHqltawffr ^r vrr^a^-^ft <^fr«^nf»r: si^ft *&m 1
f^ra f 11 11«!?»
’irfw ifH *nnf f* qrraaft^; 1 g^rfirs tsT^ ^rf*i: 1 twt
^ 11 >mt fqHi-efTJi: h w*; 3 iriwr: UTarT^wr w g^rf^T
^11 ^WrffT *nNf?r n
imo.sp?. $•?&.] ii ii
^ ^nferfw in^i r
HI JTtwIrff ^Tf^| faspqwfw %Rf pT^f II <7 II
srffc^i 57:1 ijsi 1 n^rfiT 1 1n1 i
*t PT ^T ppfp 35 WirTfrT I
fT p iitfii
1 pW: 1 pi: 1 w. 1 ^ i Jjfts'^T: i v: \ 1 ^fr^isf^i 1
*1 1 1 srai p 1 1 srtrt 1• *N$ 15wpS-n*J n
gxrmfajfrg^i fa^w »fa%i»ffa wfa ^fc^fai*ra mift ^ tsff ^fa:
STTfat trg jjftf>fairfH^: n ^far gfa fawm mt ^mrfagwrfami-
^ 1 ^WTTrfa'm^fHg^ ni^l 1 gwi: #
Q 2
n n
*iref^ri i
V trfT f*rt%fT Wff faw wptf^wttw IIMII
^r sf* i fs i *ri i ^ i i i ^r%si«Tw»Tvs^t^ i
ni i xrf^ i ^mii^i p i ^sn i *Tff i fa 1?,fa i I |
" vm: i ii m n
^ fw irrrrrfT fiifi^ Tfff wfatf -^wvwgfflfqfffffiT*JHfN Wftff Trvifj
ftffi IfTfi frTff gu: gff ^ ff WTf. wnf gw I JilTf frofaRtfifft^irinf
fffTtfgf i ff iR wfa: fRffwi giisn^mTfflifiRf ifWf W ’iff I fiRfe i fig
imfigawfiftssf: ifia^pNi' frrert i f ffaSrarfift i ?nr
Hiariffi i $<*ri gsiW^; =ss%ff f f wtf iraffSnjf^rKfwi^f gift
jwrfff grgi ff wmfRt^ gffTfTgf ff*r TWftff f gwf fR fWTfffT »rff fig
WTfTyi^tfo fran iff m: fit: f gif gffff UTjfrifffi i witff TfPPrff i ftff gm
gf MR*s(fTT?<R<ft ^ ft ffj JtsrffTfTf ^rf^Tff^: fl<f Tiff f $ ff <tRwi<«}fit
f toRtH i ffRf ^Rff ll II H8II
it frffff f gi*rf ggi grit 1 ftftfft gfffT itf t fro wgpnf^fi: 1 ihfT fi§i i
firzt iri: i nRrit ^nrr i ott f tgiif i ft it fasfr frritfft ftfrfif ff ffjfffffi 11
h if ^guiTfi «i n tsritirffr ^itgfT^tff fYftt gwrff i gfif f i it ft fR^Ri ftR
fffiit im m° 8- <w- i fff ii
^^lf^l^T^lf^lf^ipTI^I^:if^3Ttl^lf^ll?H
1 «ii+i«*it *tt*i<*fl gg. gqi*n*ii^<JqfrH9»ift g*farr g4»tftt sfhrnsrr *wt wm: i
ifiwivnaian*! iRiw 'trfn ^fwft ganf: i ?m ^ fa*wi7Tt i srtaft fgfyqgq^ gft%
Tjfrf g*far •’sfa’nngM ivq. wq.i Tfa i wiftf^^TOimRatTT Tfw^ g*rf
im- 1 wmg f^Tgrrfafagg^Tfq Tfwnft »m: i TfWrft
w: 1 srcrsr Tfwrft *m: i f^rq gqTfirg~<n«M<g f%pnwrfa fwrr
^nw%ra: n
f* ^rf M -snrf^r^f i
*r 7\ «r*irt non
^i^i^mi^#i%:i^?f7ti^^^i^f^?f?T|sf^fi
fa^rT: ii v ii
^ ?i g*r?tif ■<?*[*»? ?*: ??r$ w tw zffa ^ ?rfa faft ^ffrifar
^l^^fa w ^ ?ffa fawwt tr?mT ^rffafa gf?% ’jfwfa aifan Tfa xfa?
^fhsrer ^i{n\iii 5rm i g?mi»ragri h
m?n
<^0 II1%:ii [^0S.^°
tr «it i
^fa*0T tr fro *r ^3 rfa** ^ifai: ii Rtf ii
^rf 1 ^T I Wt4 I 3jfaRT I I I *Ffa: I ^ I ^ I
fa I I ^5T I 7r 1 *R l farfl I * I ^ I 7TTO I ^T: II Rtf II
% aat at gaa¥ta aaftr afra artaaaft i ajf 4 i a^aTg i gaat a gaa ga
gaaaaia i aa afta aapraa: i aftaftTfaat gaa aaft i aaar gaanrr gaa^ i fta *N
ftai 'irpft aaa aTat^ftt asaari aftart gg atga T^fta arta ^nai a>n <<ial aa a-ft
*^rm 1 gaat: *gft ftagt *fcfaaa: 1 aa fata: 1 aftarr a 1 aaT arrat agftaft: 11 ifti
T^j ^rfaftfa agg wranga gar 1 arraftarr ataraT aft 1 aTaaarfaa 1 Ta aiaftarg-
sjita ii aTar^aiai iPa*ni <#('4fta?t ftft^fta: 11
* af*arfa»Pt jffrea: attain nVt aaa tfa ta: i ff aaiT: at aT fgn waa: i ga
g> aTfflfareafaaTfH WT I $aa: I ff at atag: i w?: i f*ire at gat at qamin:
aireft Garret ar sgft i aigtvl i aftann^awrfHg^atftfa i ?ra ggnft fufarfa i ggai
^ qft fot wfoTTVWfiiq^ikOfiT 1*3 * W a *$ JT^ ^T
?Htr reft *^a«i%{f*g<sn«#'Ofa agffapfc i aaT a amt: i at fn'sfia't *aa: gt fqrr grrf*-
mffi grea: a? aw: ait at aa% faafta ^at tar: arenfg.flqt ax aam faaaT faaTgatT
waft faaaaw faararetfa a3ftm arta aT aa *fw agare* afggtrefaiaaT i*aft ^taj-
ftasift wt agret an&awT afar a*t?tregrett aareft ifa<>f «m.i *ft n
BTH^ *TC% ^TthlT Wlfwt^lTHT *Jf I
^ ^ ^fT ^T flprH XT5CT: II? II
uth: i qtq ^ i qpnsi^ i ^it^t i ^:swt: i pirn i ppr: i qs i
^I II ^ 1 ^TI | ?I^T 15HCRT I ^ I >T55^: II ? II
\ an %rereafaat gar am: aTa:arr% afni i aPrgfa: i aa fata: i ar%a aar
awr^aaw fft rereat aiTaar 1 reresataaire affat arot arm t wt re33 i wffpri: i
faa q«sTi<5«jfK*i? aam aaar gat ga aanrrere afft aaga: 1 oti: i aT°ggt are aaar-
aaafaat ftare w reaatt faanifareft aaa: i are aaaiaafaare aarefa nag%a
najamfaa gaiaa aaea: i arga: 11
% gfia+iifrot TOt ThTTfrot g*i ggf to *rfr s: i ^rfr^ft hto: i to gftg: gflrgshi ufa
totot totto: i to *ng*r: i to grof: i gn*ft *t tot fcrogg TOrofafaro: i tot g
JTftTTt I *TTf% f<^«T TOWTO^rr^t TOW TOTffalW I W° 8. <)$. IT-1 ifa I fTO t ,<rfTOT-
fgaft gfrf grot: *ig TOgg *rg tot mfw*rW«j trfr *tto i frof^ i to germ: i fropi *
tot fropt Tj^n mg rntw *rrfi: i ngfgTO: i tot ^ totto i to to mf mgrofTOrnrot
mtwtfggft yTOifrr i to % ^^o.. o. i gfnii
yr ^ gsf fsntf»ro f^ \
fit Ift TOBmfeft fitT3*nfclT ^PRT 11^911
f151 >Pf i f ^ i i *r$ i f *ii fti^nt i ^sRif i i ^Rf: i
fit: i TT.t«rr i *Tft i i i fit: i ^i i i ^ i sn i
\ mfmmTfrot g* f gmf *§g gpj mg^rn^ frorom grrgr g®pmrg: 1 wntfmggm-
toftV hto: 1 fro gr g*ti to ffroim ’srgfw: TOrromm to*iw^t TOrm TOWnflroig: 1
fro g«i gmi fTOTTOfrofa^Ai^iTfqdq^W TO^hrf gfn g mtggm^g: 1 tot ^ toto 1
fiprrTOfTOT 1 to *=. q. ^q. i i fro gfr^rot: tot fromr tow ffw h<itii to-
mmt tr#ra^ 1 tn5r% 11 tototo: 11 fro toHto^ttot TO%mT? *fw to pm 1 mifo»
'zfcte f ^rt mi 1
ffaft fn^RtSW fTr*tf?Tr|^ IIQII
i riwt n I
fawwiff ^i^rt fa ifa^j ^ffa: fan mu
wts^ i § i wsnt i i i i u i *t i ^ffa\?sm i
w i fam: i wpr i afa 13pi: i fa i xmi wffafrfvt ifaSt i i£mu
hth: nfgflt wm sRfraw lit g gjp3in.faRw%a w %ht vn^ft gafjre w
w«>tot tzv; u «r i irnw 11 irawi ^Tftrfw i|a: i fwn %
W«rrf^^r: armT igarnff/t: nft#H <tTn i f*maj ?nc7T i faaig^wfr i \ wftn:
sr *rt% *?|ii«u*f t$ fa i sfitea n
^TBg^Rxt BTB^ ^ I
^Sm \if| B^H^t^fSS %*ft fBB BT^TRt II $11
^i^ibto^[ 1 i bb: i b: 1 *N: i ^?s|fTiMi
gfrt I ^ I BBSflr^l ^tSTlr^l I IWI I BT^StlW It'S”
*»<|o. sprite.] ii ii
^ i£ ^rT^j: %il I
xtft sstsik *fk*k w tifk rf *pg *rW?n|k*i 11 g 11
1k 1 1 Hint: \ ^:sf^: I wJHlf: 1 f^t: I ssnk: 1 i
1 ^rkk 1snfo: 1W i xrfiT i *ro i * i ^pg 1 *res^H 1 ^kk 11 <111
^lifaT^ sn*rsi % *NNi wwfaRr: wW: smrr fwr ^rrrn <5npft: mrn-
mm mro: gjmi t^r^Tgmr 1 Wfir§#f?r 1 fan* srmfr mm mm *ifa «<ht n mn ^
*rf«* T*j ’jw ^farfan jotw mpfagffa wm^ *rft mm* wrfafafa % gpra:
t?fa mm* 11
^ kfk k T&y&l f*P5TO I
tfNi fk g^sfk #sw^ k imi
571 g^i »gf^i ^nt i kfk 1 k 1 ??#: 1 ^ ^fk i ?^i ^ 1 g^s|iT 1 f^ggi
tnrfs^i i i fk i W£ i ^rfk i i srfkr^ 13 i klk i sresuTk i
^ i k it* ii
t few ^fHTT^Ti ^sH^'s?; mrfa^ <m?fag*# ^ *t^fa mflr ** ^ ^ ^'
i ftrw ^ wiw WT^rntwR fipro 1 imrfir 1 ftp* wftwfy
fa 1 fafl^ 1 far** ^ 1 »r^g n
fkfgf^t ^rkk^?T t§w. ^ x<zy$\ t^k i
rT^kk item htt fkvkt ^fk sfwk nftFr^: h^ii
fkgsg^i i& 1 irkk: i ^ i ^pi: i w. i ??^i i ^rs^rt i 1
137ij 5k i irg^ i mr i i ^ni: i gwfk i i ^fkr^- "911
t^r^mtwfa i^%: HTn^fTfa^m: fmrrerm mr fa^gfam»3^^r *rag i ^rrfa ^ ^
gg^rar fagginrg i fas? «r ^ « tpt *nmn wrrfasft ^ft mrefafg. xnk ^
31° II STOtSS1*: II <^<»
fTI^I^S?ftlfHlf^tfHI^I^S^I^I^S^I^I^I
^l^l^l^l^l^i^Rl^imHS^Rl^fTl^rTIiiqii
^ ’iwm im frrafr 1$ wi *r *m w* ft f^frm h^: ^}
^1 ffgftwnMtswi'U'i
it^fir 1 ^ nar^gffi: 11 nwni% % <m ,?nf^ra^w fit? «fw
H^r^tf * WC1 * WtfW 1 httut: fififtj e^fhfag’sg «t ipng 1 «r uwtfn 1
^mfii g ftrrr ^rmqrr^rhftifTT ’ft^rgsug ^ wtf* 11 11 ^ 11
ii f^HT $? fi 1
fHHT Tiff mi* II511
1 ^I^I^I^IHS^Tr[|^j?fif:i^||RHT:S^sri^|
1 fHHt: 1 1 mm i *i% i i ^»^fe: t f^%r i iisii
Xinr ^
«!3o ii W*fc} ii [3!T0
<^lt I
rf ti %|r§f^f h 4f^nm %fa: II % II
ih i i ^ht: i^sito: i ^«jrc?ra i ’'sresrtftr i i
^ i ^ i %f: i ^fWl i ^fT^f i ^ns^i i f^i i tpi i ft i fa i ^rfasm ift*N: 11^11
% *3- tr wt^t% hpr ^ trht: gwi *rr ^trt-
rnirtmT;: ii sr 11 fan f^TT^t^iTTfw ^WTfn ^wtHTfa ww*rh ^fj$T i
% erewr^;f?7rr ^rt ^rPei^rt i *rspRtfH3PJ: i ’irmpT^ n : h nrf1ifn
^ %r: gtfaffi$Erarfnr. tn^^Tufr srt t^N HtfaiR i *ft%x;fPnT i ,*vfmfri Trrjn
s[3pJ: i crt ^ hrr: i pr^ hrr Trent: urwr ^wrqt ^ ^<u*n'xvngtf?r ^mrntarft
wft fT? W’SRRi ^gRsgflRT ^T^TTfY^m % HTTJspRlflRT HRm<tSg*ft*fa ^ 5^-
if<T ^%%«r n ^fn m i fM° m. i Tfri it
^T ?PR'm ^|H 1w I
T* ifafa: mm v^rfaroT^r urn inon
W: I ffa[ I ^mfrT I %smt I *fa*T I I ^S|rT I fa^RT I
^ i ifasfa: \ mm* i TOtfa i i *j3pfa i mu ii «io h
TrRxJf^ srr: i
ast 5i^Rt fa ^)fa€t sh^t^t HT^frt HT*iff: ii 811
snfcft i s»fa: i i sit: i ^ i^^i ^ii: i #s^; i
W i *^r: i fa i fa i t i p: i STtafai \ *fai ht^ i
HTfa 1 Sfcffafa II8II
Tgtft ijsfr^Tff: WTfrre sM*t ^ ff^r: iHNft ^ ^
[ TTftW ^ ^f?r i fg; ftetHtxf row ^rvt^
xpm i xnmrarfwarf: I f^ xreiwit nr% ^rrt ststt^ sttiiti Twt <£* ifa*
^ ^,'1 1 1^ i fx*t ft^ ^mrrgt%rTt srnTT^ff-
^^ftt HTfn i Jrarnjf i ifr i ^n^i^ifitsmefr i ?nm i
,fnrf^ ***** ff *nfa: liwfrrfa ismTt % ^fTWTrft
wmfw wt *w*i> ff fWlrat wf^fw *refr it ipt srgn if fWRiart
ft^ HTfprr % sniptrffft fRrft f TT? JrrgiT irsra: nn0 $.a. ,.| ^ff
^|ft: i w i Ti ^ptt%: ijfffrfn 11
*ton*<qd vwt vftm *Hfanof htw aNfam: i
# p: *<st ip$ TTRT fa *t*r ^ffaupr: ii mi
^T i ^s^r: i ii^ii: i i ^^tuti i irssnfan i flrtsfaxn: i
*i: • I sts: I msq l TRt I fa I HTfff I SR I sxrt 1 ppr: IIM ii
J-^^1fc*}fV«u<j^R; ^ si i fq (iT ^T7rr T^ftwf wti vn^ifT iffaTunifrfi ai f h i
l1i<iWr: itlir ftlT itj: ifn itisr: ifiY m
ttit iftir: ^uro WT<T^ TVTftifff^rf ifiwtrrctifff* mff I *«#H$ II
STI ^nj?0p5TT^TT«T: i
^ fa*fa*fiRrqRWRT ^fajfasfff xfa ill'll
1 | qirfW \ r$; I ^11 ^ , ^njxnTr^l 5TRflR: I
% I %l ^ I ^ftRf^l 13Rt: I ^13Sf*i I ^5TH nH II % II
WT ifjjrftTftfTWi: ITTfjf^T
W^m I ittii: trcprs^ ^efe I fSnrftr ^ i
1 w ig^T ^fftrnfi ii iuc n
^n ft *fa W »fa I
ftw ^ ftprt ’spn ifarspipfa fips^rftfa: n so it
^n i tt i *Tsn i in* i i ^n i *nn i
fire: i^iftra: ispni>p*Tffti^isipfa ifip^i^sw. n^°«
^ <3 *rtaqtlg iifwrrfq wwift fflft <nf^
?i 5epwr ^rmt qi w^r i TOte>w«<flM i ^ ^1^,
H3TI wlswi^ %w i ^SV ’rtm ^r yf fiwr «^Tf7i i **3 1 "^TIL
fqiTt »mf?r i fqrq iftw gn^rqt«i gSuTl^ci i ^flT^<i^g i w -
wrrft ^ ^ <fVr i
FPlt rftlfofjfwt II 11
ii ii w
STCErfssfoRU et^ifltn: I
sjt^i ^%R[ W *rw ^4Ht ii ii
TOtft 1 I «TCj 1 fS^: i W I TqfUzU: \ ^nfax:,
l^rahjWt ?f7TI|%Hl^t: IVWITf^i sf?T I^S^tllS^H
^ ^rra-rgfenft *%* i xfa ^ i farsr ^ |^r: ff^gTpg^ xfa
v*m# wtg vm i vrx^nf u it ^o. n
%^p^t wrifa 7m> ?Tf f»rcn;^ i tffrtfrsgft n
*fa ^ffajfWrfavSUM v)-aH+)IMTS^^tvt^r )fimT^I!
»mfafa ^ttoti! wwffmwr^ wrs: n
vol. iy. T
II II
ii ^npcrr >3^11
u qftrofcnq RR: II
g^arf *nspi?* wiprt vmRt Mifafii^ % «m ^f*mi w <i^4t naprran aft *ap*nf£ta:i
am aranmaifaNt ngn^'w n anmrfarfn g^t firfn 7nm. 11 ^ srr *rr 4tat
affttn i ~%m g-rtigf^wri mifami anrft ar jrfnarmft i amt afmftj fagr i **r4Y«r. i anft
faft armfft ftps! aft4i gfaj aft gT: i ^fg it
i i gsnto i ^f:swg£1 1 1
^rfe ^fri i
^rrw^fnfTTOry: i wm «5^
firamw^i ^ p^rr^i ftift ^tpt^tptpu ^ ypr4nfrify»r^^ i v( *
y^nrtifwrgyry iV m- m- «»^*i w^i ttHt tt i *• <h- 1 ^ ,
^ ^TsT ypn«r ^hr: fsKT'tfT^f^ yftyjTl i t?[Tif;*Pr4wTiy4ni: ^nyi
II II
m mi *?ftl i
*$ ^ ^ i
^ ^nbrTTO inn
i i i ^ i ^ i ^ i W i ^tr i TT^f i i
1 ^ i *T*taRSH i i i i i ^ n»
^fl^#l^hnTlf^rTTK^1^l^l^f'^IH^,^l^l^ll
tst im^mnR ni ^rrei ^ flpfr g*itTO i htt gfmunftRfiR i tftg ^
gfTRt mm in imR ’g: i i VTT*ffir iftffr qjfafmg i *r? umiumnjammmmg ^
fft ff^fTwr fwr g^Tqffr fmrm f^n^nnt fmftmrrfq i
TT^nf ^cj vjtNi «raiTTg^ *p*% wrt ^ i u
ww f^T^TnfHFJffrr^: i
^i p: wji nm 11 ?n
wi fcfiN i
rfc fr^ri^ TpfiA ^ tv*i I
wz ipfonro TprfR h ?r hg h
t %^^T5nRT^S^T?Ti IIMU
i i*ni i ipW i i ^i w i ^r^rr i i ^r i
m in'stM yim 1
M ^ mxiflt ^tstItt ^ iitn
1 htts^t 1 ^*r: 1 ?i|:str: i it i sspsrcxi 1 ?jxrcn 1 H^r i 1
^ I fal wi I ST^TT I TT^: I 3K I 7R 1 SfTlirr: I S^ftT 1 ^ I ^SHT II til
spNrrarrsri ftf pfsri *rr im i pt ppjt: pi prfl: i ^° q. ^8- ?• i Tap* i
^i M^^iTfKpnnpi f*N ppft sfawrft »rarpt ^v^Rrnctif prarr a%«i g#sf
^ irrerrpi i P3^NtPraTffHfi^*r pfpnrwf^ i ?fr ptt prt hpi: n«iF»T$f*rstf: i
pw^frmt ^wr nft ^Pi ^ i wl 11 |Tf i
ii f^ pt iR^T^rr »raf?i ^ i pfrnrnqftfaw& i PPjrn: i
^*rpn: i i prf i sqppjftarsi: it
^ ^ Wafift VHR ^r^[: TjfwRT #fT mft I
*d TnirRrt ff Fig »frg wii i ^fftf^t ii gg wt% i wra srf* ^ n f?ff fhj
jfrg ^FFF TO ^FfFFTt gw FT ^Ff F TOVTTO. Wj FTSiaitF I TOV^fUS FFUFTTFfFf?!
fft?* i Frrf gnprtF i ^ i wrrgwg ffffts fft ffIfttf-
i fFF f^^fi fwhj i f^ft^f^ i FfFjftFrrg F^tg wrwFtmgFwjTt i Fggmuqg-
^i^PM^-rovl i w FvlO<^fM?»: i FiTFTfFF$FFFwfFfFFP$: i sstf’Ji Ff«rfF f^f^ i fr* i
WFfafF fwr*TR i fWiwrrf i f^t i FFaft i ^ gFrrFi Ft* wt
ftrt wtf«
iptii&: if^4i^im^t?N1*ros*rtisrasrhn: i
u 4t 44*TJTpri^4ts4t fw4xni i
^ *sr4t *jwsf ^ in h
HI ?[: I I fT^JTRTO I ^Nr: I I I f4^SJj4 I
t&Ji i ^ i gs*tei i i i^^4:»*|w»i i ^ i xt4^ ^»**¥: ,,<*11
% WtF: F^t D fFT^ F1TFFF H F| FfftfFF: I FV%W^: I €l?lF FFFTFTF fIF^^
noqo.3T*&^#Mo.] H wvftsm. n
M% y! ^ ^ Tfc$ it»i!
1 i i r^ i ^t i i i i irii
*» % 35 ^ W 3$ ^ W ^ |
% FT ^rafalfqfa fffrft % ^ ^TT^f| ffSf II 3 II
% I ^ I ?rt: I is I ^ l FT l 3$ I ^ I T* I ^ l frs*TO I 5^T?( I
^51^1 3T3lfa I I f|f^ 1% I spjsg I I I ff^f II3II
\ t% % % TO: T^STT tfff to: I % TOTTft TOT ’OTTOT TOTfiTimc I UTOTOTf I %
TOT% TWTOtfTT ^(: I ^ ^ ^ g^r gg ST^N TTV*T TOgW^TTOTO.TO5f?r I TTOfH-
ftwfrt i t^Vtow g*i to ^ $ sr»# % % TTfraro «# i fro*» % TOTg4T^ng<TOfq%?taf
toWtoto TO3TO «tto^t f?## i Ttrofn 4#r# ff%: i *i TOg ^rg ^fi#|ffigfeTg
^^nsng g#g ft# %fn ?tg fafrorgrtg ?#: HTTOtagqfa i TOrtror *?t?fr fsbu
T#tot: n
^4: I
^ #T3| f^i II8II
^ ^ 3
* t« tt\m vfcn jcpn ^ imn
fW 3TO*q¥|MT W ^ ^ nil
*I*U Wr^l ^#1 mfHi I rTr^l wtfifj ^' WSf^far: I lT$fq%ftta \WV.\
fW: I «TOi^l ^f*JT I ^ I ^ I 5TTrfs%^: I iN: i \w, I infe: n II
ff?ff*r in^f ?r?ct, wfarffsiff ^ Ti^TO^^fr^ffTffffsff ’w^feff:
uffffff^rro: nfrg^Rf% 11 srmmjTff fwT: qfrffitffmg: s#r-
<gffTfff ffirm ffinran?^ ^rt JTO3; i fOTin. 11
i rq i q|UT i i nsf^re i ^ i i 1
^ I ?q I qn: |'^| fqq^pit f^smrft I ^TS^rT^WTr^ I
ii?ii
_^^rf^rr ^nr ^rr ^r i % 3rm%^r ^nrwt^ ^t i #f?f i ^re^i-
f ^rmET irf^ns i ^rf^r ^ * mfif afts m *ri wmar«i1 fra-
^ ^T7nfY?n^ i ya fism tnwftfa i w<i i gpmrrewpi ?m
^ i mfw wrsmf^wn*nfh!i wjprn'f i ^nf*i ^ ^rnufM «^fn
^rr t^rr w? #^wi> iamw7r®r: PTftnrfW^
^nrPr»
VOL. IV.
ll ll
*?t *pT*pspi I
rT^i H rRff Hg*lT faN^T T?rTH^ H fM%r!T^fVi: II8II
^Tr^l ^l^i I fa*bfj I HI I HTI f?iHH:i wi I^TII
TT^ I HI FRT: I HgtJT I fHSf^T: I ITrT I W% I HI f%%?T I 3*11 ||tf „
w*n ^rwr wr ’srraxm xr*frwn? i % to t*r M frrnrm^i
?fsr4?*rrftp*pJ: i wrfir*nrra i wipprorfsci^mY *rr *n%^f gfoqiu»mTffr»trq43»iH<^
vtmiin ^rc: i tpst tjtiw ft«mt % wt *nr*rr fafasT i xpm^?ra1%#|-
«l*hl4*lfM'C^ *1 f^T MT I ’Tfrffaftfa »
TnHqtri ^ util
fan^^fafa^i
3R ^ ^I^TTirTT ^ffajfa fa TOfap f ff m II
41 i *fa*n i e: i w41 ^n i TOr[ i i fair^ rtfaq: i fafasn^ i
I'sr: I ifaSWtrfTI *nfNp( I fa I fa I W*fal Sfifa I ^r: I TOTrljl SII
TOfaflwgrn wfcrerot to toht ffmmRWfsrr i *nir ffa: Jrmfafn gilTOf: i *fr
■f^mfw>iTrc i tototjt i whpftifa: i tjw tot fror^ tot wt: wft TOrrroTTOrrfa
r^ftRTirfwrarg i ^{frohffarwgTOt ^i^rr^wm troTTfl to: i tokj i f% ff
i ^ra^rog ^WTfjrfw i wlgir: to i wto ^efroif towto ^ w ato’t.
'S’Hfgmigrrft ^%w to i '*rW «froi wrftr wito^ ii
groj(ft#fr to i g^g^rro u
^ifa ftrft fa^q ^5l1?rRfa ITOTfa gfaHTfa fa 3^1
^f^n-farr\^f t^sn h^ii
i Itrrt i fas^i i srsfiraT^ i ^fa i Jrairfa i ^sfarnfa i fa i ^i
i ^%rfa i ^ i^T^ i fsef^fa i t^jfa; i n * ii
furfronroft to^toj|tow «I*i^t %wt fwe^nrrf^ i ftnfrigg *
^finrnffigf^u^: , ^wTg?it{*i gfvmf*r g$ f*ifimt*i TOift TOgTtinnwflwQ? ft
Wb II it
^‘^i^i^i^TJi^rT^i^i^i^Ti^i^Hiibii
^ipTfu |ur unfaufpq: trcurt ijuH i uwuift um pt i »ra?fir i ft nfnf-
<)€fO ; ii H [31° fr. 31°
mi^i^^iws^m%s^i^i^i^#id^^i?i^ti
h i w^: i^t^i ^n i ^rfirp i ^ i nrssri# i r^ i in^i irfarejr: i i& i, g h
1 Ts[ ¥*f*nflr irfi^TT wSHmfli ^fj? g gs sftfcmftfiF i ftfa
wr ^rc st?f Hft ng<.«fc ftf$ *rr*Tyf«i<>ni<i,£<|di ^3i|ii i TT^Tsft' ^rnimn i
»fw > Hyr ^re %<n*Figm>qj*flK«<qvnl'fl<.: i stctjpj: i ’Fjgij^f^T ^rnif strt-
|f«i«n*rrrd v*t?t ft? ^bt ftbi# ?5n?Twn% irra^?: i m
<*ifif sfcfanfapJ: 11
irewt i
mmi ?r ^nf# TpTRi|3Tsr ^ yr f#f#r§ 11 * 11
^1 I IR# I ^ppn I I I TTSepng: I 51^11
^TI^IHTI^I^tl^^TI^Rl^II^R^i^l^r^IRlI
^ Ts* fl*?T stOtw ?t ?i3vii*it ?%g WTftrg «r*FTf? Trw^mft g?*rarf%-
^nfw ¥l¥t4lf*« «<**?<!! TOFBfPBT ?fiF ^l^'lR ®rTBTf»rfH «T^f«tl ^ TF? ¥T ?f?»iul*U$q I
I ft? ?Tf? fanf? ijgfarwwry: grTf?^ ?re?: m*rf? mtl? i gi? ifn ?if i
TTg frrei ? f?f?(t I ? wr% I tot ¥T g<F;gt fcrei«iqTUd ^ %srrf i ?fs?m
^ i ft HTT ?g¥«3¥?T: i ?!^fq %bi3: ii
r4 1W ^RFrrfa ^ «
qjTTjfj^t TR^JRT f^l 'rfl'ftwit^Tin rrf^lstffa 3THT IIM II
rsi i fW I I %4rTrfH I *rrfH i wPi: i *n »^ i *jft i ^f?r i
^i^mmtis^iTnif^iHT^:i^i^nsgTmi^i?si^%i^ffT imn
%^ (4 f>m a^Tfn "^q<fli«t(«t(m*ittiyKU!in'I aaTfa I VT^ft I fa*yi^|fl|*[
art faa^yfaam an i ai^ifa^ifH7*1^ ^ ^rf^rfa a$a ’m-ratarrfa wfa ^ gr a
3fT grraf fg»r% a4«i«nft a^fa afa aTfa fwrfa gfa i aarr^a agrr% a*
am aiifaa ? aaaa. aaafs^; m fa arft: i ar flat: i Tf^fa • a4^fa $g:
^aivnmfa grafaamrfaafga aa i agT 1 ts[ rt ^raTfa»
^ #*h pm %n5Tm5FRt 44 pi
^ mfpMt tlt^T TTf^TfSTT II8II
p: i i pm i fasmmf i wsbw: 1441 pd i p i
H1 \ > mftrsr? i w4i \ titmi: i h^i mpn: i w$s41 ii8ii
aaaTO^TaftjprfijpjaT: i % aa aat^a^ fireraf taaiaarraf afaw^fat
,T,wr aaagai aafN?: i faareaaaift: i aj% ajaa: aTf^afii aai<ajifa ^affa i %a a
H^at afagararrfa a^raai gaafinj^a afagarerf^areaaa: a^ar?[a: i aa aai % aa
afvaaaraar^ i nai^fiigaifaw^: i asffanat%fa aafit i aw: i aafic fipirei
i afaa agarrere aa^aaf^aia^mi\ai^a%a argaar aasawaia i aa a%a
®afaanJ: u
fa%a% fag ^rmfaftaT i gfaa a i w amtifa agxrr fag ^3TTaf \\* att°
q' ?• ^ Ufa n
II II |>H0t.3l0
^ni ^ 1 «Sf 11
^ i ^ 1 ^ i ?N 1 tr: i rr^ 1 f^4n: i -Hins^fr: 1 n^11
1 ^•wrrfW'i at qs4fw 1 ^4*n« 1 <sfg ^5^
^ twnjrTftnJgwl ffi vrn?JitT: wPTd: ar^Tfar: f'^fHrfffH^urr: 1 w11
stttt %fn # 11^#
ai% amftfTi fTfir4 ^wrfSH 1 *vrn?n wr.
»nra: ffTaran. 1 am%i^r4ar: 1 HfflMHHfli<i«i4«T^ ^ ^^
?m ^Tfaitd 1 apfr fft fTfir^TTfSH ^natfia4»l tgtTfn ti amt #
II ii ^
^ ^ TTTrtTt I
vrt?rmtT ^^-qt Tjf¥% w^j ^qt g ^ fqi h tii
’jjI^ igs^I ^I^|rl^i I UTrrtf I
vrbrt 1 msh*iq?tj vt: i1 Tjfaf^ri^niT4:i^t#i,S,^,^il
^1 ^nwTi^iibii
^ „ f: ^f?r: dTdigfirdfl fddft if g*j dd^dt i dSYfuft
^ i djft wfwt wrai ddN^didi dT dTd^T f%*h^fr i d^d: did xwzfm ^ hw i
^tnfrnt i dudddf 11 1 ffdfd ^ «siMi^«*n w d»rrdf ddri i d?cr i wr tjdd-
^ i wnwg i dd^drr ^ *r«n^dt *d?l i $ gd*ft TMdTdTgStoggsfddd
ttfTu: a^dnwuffd^ja
Wi 1% fw f^tfrT H^T I
OTT Xft$\ Ct: tjfaf^ SWT T^r ^ H f^5 ^=fT*
4*7^ II an
11% sfft i sN i fw i %: i ^fir i $ipn i
suT i i tj^ i >rtm i wt i ^i vt: i i Tjfafa i smr i xA: i
^ ?fit I g I ^ I f*fi I ^T I WTO^IIWI
flpfr ’pftdrrtddT %ddifd ^ fddrr fddi dTd dtfd i ddTfddi redded: i ^asi
dwtft *nr^ft fddidddtfd i w wdt dft1^ dx^dftdi Jiimfawfwnw? i dtfd
#rfd gddf: dTW T^fdtfd $d: n
3R i ^T=i: nil
^i i s#jvt i Tn^i^TT i ^ts^iT i i fw: I II s II
T<Tdlf^(i{r<flWT TTdTd dfdfd I dd dMT^dt dd ddtR^dg^lfd^ddTdd? | drfdddT: II
d% d%fd f^d! I «fWd ddiTW ddSTT’ II dtfd dd I ^ddfir dTftdTdT
?npn^pgddd^fd a dT^t ^fd d7l: H»rd<a<: a dtfm dd i ddt iddRTC fwdt VTTdd: i
u ii
I tH 5^: || 8II
^i^^:i^l^R^lHi:pftlir#l^st2liiix[|^ii: 11811
W srsm^^Tfs trt erf R»5ftrr trw^i ir\5% i ctftr: *r 1 TTTRfwn;
*rrnft ii^Tsrf *r i feftwa^r crrt «[RTf^^nr vcrr: PTTTWt^^yrvf^^tan
*r*ffif 1 tr eftr frfc^sn: ee ccet fw^iww^ ccfr f^ctc ’jsfft w w^ifg^:
*ra: gfRct «Rfff TRRf^^rt »R<flf?i IR: 11
ii VTO I ^ ^ II mi
ii 1 mr 1 1 ?tfsirt%3 i f^rs^n gif 1h mi
I^ RCT RITftr Wife II TRtfCRRWi
ij^rref 11 TRcf&iwnft- vtxr i ft^ffa ^ f^rfc wr ^ ^ ’Erect ^nfM#iei*rf?r
(R^e esi trrre 11
^ Hft ^pIRTn^WrO'^ I
^ ^vr ft ^ * *pfts^f srfTSrrtiTft lien
*{Mt i i i i -sRWrfN; i
pI I ft I *?ft: 1sfcnftft | rT | *pft I wit 'Sfft I S&fTCSflfaft lieil
I ftrsgw II
^l4t 15fHTri% * Tp%S^ 11^01|
?*TrU ^ I I ^S^t: I Tpt: I HP 3Wt I I^I I
^nqt ftfrf i srfmrrfr^ 11 ^o 11
^^iftflRrT it
II H
fS%5n ut ^ srarWrreml i
^ROT *T^2I ■Pnrtl *TI%ST: tjilrq^ m II *1»
^ i ^n i fli i 3^s^tt: i ^ \ ^ i *r*arf i ^h: i i
^r*nr 1^nn)ited i^i^tr^i^*pf$ i i ^n 13* 1
vi<na^^ w ^pn fr^
hh^«i fwro ^fH ^mfw w?r«i nn^T«iRi\«t ^ *?
»mt gifrrcnr *mr RrnrT 1wrr^> ? p%?T yrRm?^ y^mrr htwt^
i tRi vnfo w^ifinsfn i i%
iMo.VM.vW ii sroftsT*: ii ws
h ?5T7n^ 3*rfa i
^turait J|Nw*[: sjt^t h \h prifff ii * n
W i ^ I ^pn4 l yqfc I i : l $: i 3[fa?ftF i %f^ I
i ’gN^rSrm-1 i rT \xti: i fFrs^ifa i fi^ii^u
« *«jiiTO#t *3wft ^Pr^rjrt toh^tto ^wrra iruft to n
ggVfsfa: wfq wp^¥^W^ i qftftraqTnj tot^-
fafefmTfronfc i* «H!nmitp<.fl arfaronii^TO qre}ifrm\fyi ?rmprr i>m-
m. <«n utro i g^TOipsniNaTafr ^w*ftism^*mwr i w w.
fiiTO «*r T*f«5f«itfwftaVw *mm «jt *mfw wr fthm. i itfwrf»rar^: i w i a#frtr-
wrtTTTWT ^ TOfararfrot: agfn: frrcfl i
sfr^rcr X7f 'SfqT^wnmrW am iTRrffl Ufa*, i TOTOrrcnfaaft i
m *t: II? II
M: i?ri^i1f?pri%t: i^rtiy^m i^rrn\
inn stftfa: infas^: ii ^'»sfNta I wsf?^ i«? 11
\ *pri *nft n am ^ tot amfaaai iftnpn^ wrfn TOraefn v? ?^^t-
iftg froi: ^frg: wr nxp%*i amsifTO prr ^fanr grot at^ft aigai: toto: 1 ^{*r§TT
gfaap?ip arror qtfftf ngw am anhft sr$Tf*Ttg#f*r^Mta
1 fa *srr 1 w«rt f% ^ifguj 1 tgarfwtfaifn faf^tsnfc1 mfii ar^am*^
f*^3 *rg*r: awro: gait to ^ftrc^ tow 11
VOL. iy. A a
qst « it [n*b.u» *.*•**,
mzj i
«trq^T * m ^5 ^ spp* Hbit
fl^fHT^t puj |
*lfr^T^T!!T ^ IIHSII
w i fis^: i %W i OTt i i *nj i sref»pizf i
i ^i fMrar^nT i ^ i i ^rifa: i ^m41 ii wii
sfWw mrfam i w i fqflwfT ffw^T-
’’Tf: i *nrr t?rRt srrsrafufa: ^^wwjnt fafrnmf $?$
*4 it 3 3ra*tfa? sf: i
fonsn ^ v^t^fwrwFn11 sen
f4i it I *TTfrt: i sg i it i ws^sf 13$ i $ i^3t: i 3*4 i safe* i *$: i
ftssn: i ^ i irimssn: i 311^4 i3Si4g: i sr^i *t4*i*t iiemi
arrerfam qn*l *rrf»r: qq-rfipft i wf^wr^r amq qnqfvm
srqtTi i rm q stout i *t m qmrt q qiif^w tfq stout i usTfqrsiqfr % *m umgqnui
^ |rr q>7mm wst 51 am ^tjttt: i qmnpflfqi art: i fafer qqrf^rn^rw-
f ttt qfrtasigi i qrg i fqurr fqsT wrqr suram: arsmr wm: aroqdta a®q:
qq*i1fqm: i 3g: ffi^qTTT arrHrfarqrr sTreman^ *f<5«$nq i ^<fr? i q^q^qf^nfr #
^rf ^q§rfw »
s: i"»pOT?f: i m$U: i^fS^ \ i ^s^j: I \ gs^: i
ytsffircqt wfH h ^ 11
^1 i ^f^rrnn 1 ssran: i \ *u?r 1 ^*frs«# 1 ^pp? •
\ \ ^ifnw 1'%} f i nfff 1 i TfpT^ i ^s^3?5 ”^11
Tjoqo. 31° M. II
T\ ^T^qrTlf %ft ^ |
v ?n?K ft i
ft i ssft: i qfti ii M ii
^TOT I
flfa^faT: IT ftt^Wsi?7TT STSfam ^ IIVIII
«f¥s^r: 1 srms*ft: i tit iffanj ^ i^Nn m* nnfaraT i \^m i
at#: I'rfar: 1 tt 1 fatg 1 wfr 1 *ifafa; 1 spstfrn: 1 sirfaTO i ^f uww
wr^faf agw 3pnrr awgMwRn tm qnfr ai*nr<i*iT«Ki *hj4t faerg 1 «i
fast fffamT wsg 1 *rt 1 aufttymnn ff^ fag wrfa^R g<srag 1 w *mwwt
^fw g^i? «tg 1 1 fag wfag nftir nsfaRfa: 1 wn?r *tr?: *R«fgw
,R%t t^T^r wipffyi s fatg 1 iR&ig 1 wm: «b&s»w«t: ^ *w? gtffft «rc afar-
^ *rrer ^ffa^om«4Hinw w%nfa 1 swfafagfafTmn ysmn% 11 «*»
Wntfr v *fa gtffa gw at: gw *rwnJ 1 faf»fl 1
^S^nfl ^t 1 fagrqgfo wir: 1 Rfar w. wrfRfa 1 WRfa^mfa 1 fwr %^b: i
^ aigaft 1 wawfar am: smfr fafajsft g Rfar *if^ggi ws 'frwn TOTRfai^a-
11 i«iTfaaa'<n<g^fgfa ipnay fafwfa i ffat a i a*ret am: irraft
^ tft 1 w's.'s. n^n 1
v ^hfdrcpi ft'fa 1
HT m f^w *nfcn ^pqfT wfijfif ^5$ || MII
tisrji' i ^ i i i i srtftsjpi: i i f^r i sp i
iHf: i^T%Rn^i^ffTi^^ iimii
5Erenw: srsfar tt^pt: trerarcuuvi: gfq: fjyT ^ ^rr wrpng: w®rtf?r
sfaTf^wf^wrtf i ^f^arfffwrr ^ ^t Rfa *3^ f^nmi
f^vrfTf gsiffTT i ^f*iXT3iT*»«Tf i Hfr farrfv^rr^rpif^: ^wjrflnrr^rpif^fW
T^t inn'^flW'if^^Rt ^ PRPUf^rnrPT *ptot g^farfn: Tft*r*rrf«: *gfBf»rq7
fans i qifag^ trf^T i fa*ref?i: nfV«iw4i h a ? b
^ W* i
h ^if^n ^ ^ht #: ^nf gW »®n
iiJ^ri^:i^i^i^i^:i^i^fHi?ni^|fHinii
TO f^TTF ^frtll^ I
TO *fwt% iiiiii
sn *4 ?fW ii tii
Rt^rft my H^teRT ^ I
sfii i ^ir. i
^^if^^:i^^iH^sfH:i^i\?RR!iRnjsfy:i^i^i!: ll<^”
jrmrr ^ramt Pi4i«ft 'vtt xr^ *nft «rWt *nrif *
3nanyf«i«fi ^<nrH'^!<^3*il%^?fl fw i isrg n m *nft i f^rft
arfWwMh^T’nf^Iwi ^rog^p f^xr: i vrcan: i Ml««aa: i xnn
^ gg g^snaffrnfo f^nx: i ^RTx: i ww^U viw* #
II ||
qi-sq mmi
^nfa^T ^ ^fafa^wfa: mu
fiRt f^pn I
^ IIMil
it ii <*<><»
^ vmf*r ^«i: firrre *rprro * fire i vnw i i
sotstt 9*T*t 9$9i 9T f*r^i«in1«ih 999T9:9iT%9Tft 9 9 99799: f^ *rrffa
arm^r n T* ^Tf^»: «_vitOlimw^jwwin trOt \9Nrraft%9 9*99979-
9«5qjt i <j*Tw 97V9* 11 tut^ 97iafq9TThn$7ift:’j 11 97991% 9%
f9t 9frn% *99: i 9*7 i 9TV9* ^993$: srgt 9797^99! 199tfcfl
?j^n% 999: i 9^ft% 999 n n<i n
in mt mprlt^TTri: I
^S^I^IT I
Hb II
*00 ii ii [w°b.
qRfaqi trf^Tft ftrirt *HN ^rrft^ f^nm *t^t jrrcrrfqg^ft n«r ^#snr^ ^
*nftwr wwf*raw!r^ tt^ srpngRreiTf?rei *iu*a ^rr wp* ^rtt: i ^srnnsrfvi-
fa^ra: i f RivSi^^ m f^*ni: i *ra?l «+u*i«*4# % wf^rra wt?t tpmi ^
^urra i ri <qj i i wr^rprfa i to 'd<afi ft-rot i fro*: i
UW ’STT^Irt II
trf^TrTt g*WT fitft 3WRT I
^cf ^frT ^n*| ^ tnfSNTOt ’sng ^ it ^11
tr^n^TTrt i ^tht i gftfrot 1 > ^o* i fro i srfor i
^ttj; i i i ppr| i ^ i TrrfSfare: i i ^sg r ii * 11
tnfarpnm ira^rprrrfr tr4«rpro fwr fwt ^rm^f %wn^ gftfw gftfrot i ffa-
i *sf^r ?m\ aiPitoU towt^to *rofrorr *pH ^ i wmt *t
fTm^'rcwr i TpaprrRw i -3. q m RfW fPri »rrat ^ pr^ i ,*far*iit towihiw i
% %ycv> mf^rre: tnRfai: gfrorr *ttt % ^ f^rt f^f*r *iw ^ ^njf^rar:
m^Ts^rwt n
33*^33: ireim: i
^ ^3^t: xng ^ w 1
5^1 11?11
TO W.* #p^l
aa$ ^ ^rf’Nwr i
^ ■sniT^qfs^^TTn gp^^^kTfa ^ i
TffRfrT ^rr^lT fa«mt 5^faTT«T IIS© II
n II
ufarT w. IIII
^T^i^f^i’srPfainr|j^ifaT^3Ti^:i^^rif%^^^ixii^iTi^:in^ii
t% ipt *Tjrr ^ fwfprpfr ^r«S*r»^Ft^ys«i tfuf^«a i^<g g\5r*i ftrft
^HRri: | I TPJTOTt I ^f^fTTOPOTTOTOi I | TO TR R$W7Ttp:
^i<RIRT TO | pT I RH^I'M PITOT pt: I WfpTT^ I Wiqpip I PI
ln*Pw i ^ ppgfpfi p ^{^pppi i tort n a <t$ h
^Sffr:»hiii13?ftntas3=ri^fat: i
Wm ^tfa*Rfam^rl €t: I
>• M w —
Rj’SR. II VJ
5m
M
f^5T || 11|
^nffcnj m uStmnaWT ^ I
fassforc wr * ^Tf|FrfHf4^Toi f4f4 ntii
^ i ^f4s?nj i 1 qfi i *wi i 113^71 ftnm i
t rn^i i ■qjTW i ^ i ^^rirti ^wfrr: i fqsTqqf i fqsfsi ntn
IWfTT^TTTOT 91TTRT fHTOTfM‘*I4 fqffi JT^ iftTOTUt q^TOTC I qfYTfti^NY^ I Tiq
^?t: i q tnrr ^ ^f?r r^qi^wt^m^r: i ^ fwl frorrot trt
^7 ^ i iwt ^ TnfWqnr ^ fqt^nr f^rfqvm ij^i frow qw fsTm f*Rhrnc i TOfM i
i ^tfn »RRnif%f7f vm: ^wqT# i tt w fqrrfaf'cfTT ?r^ n ^*11 nnrt4: ii
e e 2
n H [w»
vn^n^ii
§.$?$<».] ii H ^
^»
» « [w°
RT ^ * 35 I
^ form *Nrr w^t 3R tsjR ?ri%i W srw 11 % n
^ i rq i iff i |fo6w: i qfys^ro: i qsfq i ^ i w-1 35 i fro i
5R: i *t: i ftqsm: i ^tt I I ipjsxn: i 5pr i tor i i 35 i ^ i
3fH ii 8 it
tfasn: n arsi^r gtffr w. n wtriT jr ffim gf to v sit sufft
ffrf»?: sr«R<(liR<t * isflT^TJft' JRT f^mTTtfffl^ JjfN I %W I *RT I ^WW^T fft
4 i jrenr^tfTTRRf^r i jj si j^jurs ftm: 11 g«f»VcTf^: n treat i ttr tto?T *r i ^ i
fron i tor^urt *rerrei trrerfam jr t ’gmft ^
TifTr: RRRi wfr *R i fro ^r trjt tw \r % ?r rjj^r^ wrg frefi 11
\^y&i nsn
^S% I I wi I srffr I I ^rTS^i: I k
^si^r; i ^pRS^j I ^js^t: i TpqrriTf: i i '&$} i1^»is^ 11 $n
i #fr^ % 7hr*r: ^>n^n: i i w %^rt ^fru; ,
Wft'i ^q«n«ir<aiRt!i qyfqmm qjwrr
wfr^ng .(IPa^yfr g»TRl7ni?m ^fTPn»wwfMjf»T: i«fu*ifira-
jnwt J^fTT y f^^w'itKiit: y * ««* formal ft g t i
^rfflCffFwfrr a
w w^s*ra?N tmjn i
a litii
s i ^=p i ^s^it 1snws%^: i ^m'srats^ i s*rt i ^:sij^ i
31 •JS’fcf: i ^ft^n^sfa: I ^ i i *sq% i^rojsftl: iibii
t ^ srfa g^tn 555 trofr ^tnft qrrfqiffwroqjjm ^rgrf% 1 efogift 1
<3*^1 fwwTm^pnfti »r qgWfogft wtt qamT war^7Pg?f ^nrr 1
aft^qr *rr«rf*?qiT wansHfa mq: 1 mgwr gfn:
gfH%f»rwf«fT^% 1 tfqffcffaft 11
5TTrm^t I
vmjFk *nrjtffifa lien
\^: 1 fou $ i ^rit: 1 ^mrs%^: 1 Hffrn^f 1 ^rfiissTO i h i 1
^1 ^stj4 1 mffi: 1 for: 1 sifo* i r i 1 ssnnr. 1 Pns^iifa: 11 e 11
% WTffc^t % qiVT'gft ?t Tiq qrfq IT qt’qq, | im^fTT I qqR[T
^t^gqrciqftRt fair: wr: Hf3& *f «Rt m qypj^alflqmffei qnaquiq OTTfaw:
^t ^ ffir: ^fiJfawrf^fa^pyT qfv%^r% q? qnlfTaqiTftWPnn?: 1 fa?iqTqf% 11
^^IfoTPI ^TT#7^fk: I
^ f^^fWTRtS^ ^TW!foqnfo^in^ll
II II
srorjj i i i ^sf54: i f^rro 13§rT^*n^$fa: i
WFi I f^l ^|: I fWlpft ?fH f^SHT^t I ^ I WTVrf I 33[fa^|
i f^ll'mi
TjUfaterw «<s«fN: 11 3$fil^fwfw: TO; tj%t
'arffsrera i i mr Tmr^r: i \ fTnnrpft ^iwnta^iT 'rrnstfta^tfjmsft sf wni f^ i
Tm^firfa touto i 7tjto^: ^T^rfw: i tp* *sfraT Trvq^r f^r h^tvtt
*tvttr fw* Tnrrfw^ i i i wrrfir^ i w^i ®wrtwi: i
^srfa^r: u jtsutttott^: wrerfafTT n
^n ^ ^TTTwf i
^TTFi wm \^-w ir ii
^n i^iT^nr i ssros^rRt i p i *qig 1 ^nr^: i f^s^fn: i ‘
1TTOT i 1 1 1 1 ii ft«
II TOftst*? II
^_^h: ^4t[: 1
3tn^r^i 3 Sf |^T wsrt ^ ^ ^ n® n
ii ii
^ *TFtTf »T 5T I
rT i?^ tnxrtf ii<iii
3$ i ih h i ^t^i *r i qnc: i i i ^rerarrck i ^ i i
^i^i «n^r i i i i ?H i i ^ntswi: '|<l11
^ir?rr %^ivji*if*ran f*N^ i ^ s? *
^tfa % inc; ws «i ^tfti % aiymrat anran %^Jirarrr w JratTi i im vptoxwj
gnJT^gii ffTftfn i^stt *ftw i n «afit i 'ww: «
fanraui: n aifaft«^ vfr Jigm ara ana im anrar araartwr am
fuft: ii ^rafaaTfaataara: i gat ggfafa aa: g: u atfrafr giar aa wfaaaur ^
faarrrafa i gpfiftw^: i a#aT %^raf %a T7af»nrra: h ^
jfrjraait a^TOSlaT i gfaii a i atJT aT% aatga i^r faa: a^ft
i aa° 8- 8-1 ^fa n
ii ii
^l1 ^*1?! ii * H
qgiuTUg^r qfdTf^i\^flTf*T ^qRi 3|sjnf*r as^n; w w H^Trf^prvRfn jrr»it-
t$*N *wwr i i I^Ri ^ *pt i i ^MTflqT^Rqiiw^rat
MR^Md$dadRirc*RTppg: ^anwa'w^farftiB |<iif<<*«RR* i wrfx^ i wi
X3[*r ^ng>Tftft % *r^rpsm i^ vo. i Tfa f? 3srt?f: i «! «m<*i<*«si TnRwrcnqrrwt
■gurfirfiT nrar *r^r^%r?RmRRRTf?P*r ^ire^anRT-
fXTfwm; i ^t° ^° $. s*. i KiJ+ic^KuiHfdMr^dun^iT^Tt qrr irfnfrfd %<r. ^MR^Tsa^ifwn-
wrd: 7T%^ i sr0 <«J. $. * <w. i *fn i *i%q niJttn*:
?trf%: i Tr^frrf^fTsrrf^cT. ^fasiRqqriTn^fcr^: i i ^trt qrncu^t *ww:
^rarrcrr^Rf’rffl ^aRTfW’ssrRtit^FT^ifq wi tr ii
^cpr*^ Y* i
^Tif^frr: x?ft 11811
%I ^ W $^T*rffcTAip^TIISII
3^1 ^rn 1 aaa: i aat i gAATfa i ^tAtaa i aH i i 1r^, ^ 1
^i^_aaii$ii
^ ^T: ^ 1 fwr *rr amnnftfa *rr annft ^rr: i ft
^3^rwrrf*T aft* gwrfir 1 gfwm: i 'ant argt'iwrr ^ f*ro? f*f
^^rreTwwfa 1 wiw^ra: a
TTTftnrf^wNI: 11
^tfaqfafa ^TTHHrT TO TR I
TOtffare ffa* rl# ^171: tgjf IISOII
ssrefrlj f*ipi I ?fa I ^1 ^fa I ^T*fa: I 5TT7T I 'STT I TO I 1
TO*: l fqiTO I fTO I toTt I *T7T: l l ifc l TO I H Wl
i^atiat^ ffT %f^r^autTO<Tf^(fl1 fc^ai I <it^^ftT asptRrPt ?T«jT8Tf^,mtmt
atTO^tm amJ I TOTOfar I asj^f fjr ^Ml^rMst atfTT. I ^miat^mr^TT^
^f?t at^r amtiai ^TO^ta?^Tfaiftt I TOmTaj arrot: atftVTf^rrzt I ^f^ftTra^l Tmt
^fvrg ^g%g ^t nmt i farefn i at^tiai n^rtr x?fts[ i TOSfcrfr i ^1
TOTOftt I at ^t TO^artt II
: ^^TOT ^ rniiTTTTIT: |
,. II It w
nftftqmyniri qgqnqi ftqrqi ’ft: qjfft: fqpsra Tfft ftq: 1 ft ftqr. w$mwT q$wnft q%
qnwrq «q^fft qroft qr Tf? <«<iftq vq 1 fftft qiqi^Vqi qjfft q qqj q qn$q: qrqqq%
qtsqpq qqq qqqW'HqT’qq^qq'rqT’qi qr vrg 1 nqqeg 11
fft^qift qqrqTftftqr vtto i ^fqft q 1 qqiqiftfft *mrr fqqr gqp Tfftq Tfft ^rmrnrrq:
1 qr8 m- <w. 1 Ttft 11 qiTsftiftqT 1 qftq qq^TT^ ’gfqft q 1 qqmftfft vtstt ift#qr’
m. s^. 1 l[fft 11
3W35T ^T^f^HT: I
^frT ^5?f% II If II
^ 11811
ii M
yi ^ W[ ?ta to afro^farrot i
h%ht *fcTO7*s^TO fofcgrf: lien
s|s^ i v% i i 1srfof1?N ito} i i^pft,
*TO: i ff i 3TO i tffRT i i i i fastftstf:" ii <>u
fxhj^TOT g^ g^jftwnt ^nrfsfxrfff vi gg% i gffiir i %f x$f fTwr xrffff. i
xffeg i xrfwraft wfc *i% fro fxrgxw frffxrt xtfifif ff fft i graft i ftfwif? i
fgaragT%fwfi frarcrar: xfrffratffixlfcsif: t xtfgiUn^ i wr: h g^n
'w f fwre^xrexf git i fxrff: gw fifontfefwntfTfi fpf i xro i ftxnffffi^i %
XTXTW^fw I w fTgfrif i w ftist xr$ w^nfff xrrafrtifftfg-ft gxrrffttf
^igwi gfnifi xrx^if% n ft xnfTWfftgwtiliflOMRgifg^ifT ifrr#4.fx-i fft n
w i tot «jfij[fm srto i
w ^ TOT^T ^fiTOTrt II «l II
sn i m i to*? i i i H i W: i sf?t i i
sft i W i mi gjft i tots^ i ^:sh^: i i
^sfa^higii
1 wror: it g^ngflfi xnxgmfwafftfi ftfft gf%g fwftg xtot fjf% i fprerv-
i gf fftf'4 wit xtgxrt frrfTgfwt ww i wx i ftifrnjx* wgfT xrftfffc
frit fifTgfwt xrg:xrg: xrfg fifgtg ffxwTf: i ffxwr: i ffg^lif%f ^ftf gxxr-
frffft g
T^t^T vt ^xj: ^ i
*TT^0t *T fP^??THT ?T l
ftPTrTT 7j sfe7}: ^TTTrl^ JT^T^t *7 ^Pl^rT fnRT Ill'll
i *71 7|tr: i ^s^nrfT;: i ws^t^: i i ^ i f^R^t i
f^Fjf: i 77 i ^364: i ^suprt:: i t^tsjcir: i 77 i i ^ i f?RT ii % ii
U* *rw Timurt *r 3R v* ffi^rrafr qfffMimg;: i w^cre
*f wr*rrgvmfa faw *t#^t irtjurr stitt fan}: i wjt i Tr^r^rt »r w *«r
*T|!htt<(%tu ^i^nfNrr: i grrrtn;: ^Twmf9rt: flr^T n flniw ^asfr f^w^TT: i
^ ^fruTjfr «r *Tfr^rerj ^ *rm*rwfa »tr% t^^nr *rafn i
h
^T^pTTJ i
niin^i vsnti^i^i^:i^i^:i^i^|
% ^an ^rfrT i
%to URf^% (^ II mi
i 37% i^gi^i ^TS^WfiT i 3nif: i sp: i ^§ft% i i
^| ^ TJW% ^ I
Tntor%: h^h
s*fa: sfit ^ i
fa ^TRR5R[fa^Kf ^k*jrfsi ^tfa H h n
ft ^iftm^i: i
vmftw Tfifftsfa: tjft *lTft %!T IIMII
?jft 1 i ^Ffa: 1 ft 1ipft 1 3?rfti 1 *rt: 1 *u*ift 1 ^nrftrrrci: i
1 i srafi;^ 1 hwtt: 1 ift: 1 s^rt mft 1 *qft 1 r! ii m ii
^fM<j+*l: wSI^to: ^ f% 5^ 1 fafro*H£*iffl to| rsrfxj»nct *r*pzrT *rmfa totH 1
*nfd<?*iduiq trfinr: 1 ^Tfrore: ir3«rt ^rrfvm: m^fd tottJ 1 wifii to: ^fwtinft% tott:
^wfir TTftg 1 wrf^ri TOtfa to? «rr«rra^ i%°s#m. $. 8- 8-1i^tt msiur 1 tot 1
flfwrfr^Rrr to: TOfn 1 TOrfrofm «wt srwrfrn ‘tit xrfrot *nfH 1 TOefrr 11
^ ^r^^rrr^rft ^ft> i
* fRT fw >pbnfH I
s wfw ^Tsjftr^rfar: ww&s4xt m h <* 11
v i ^ht i f^rat i i f^i i frwi i fa i fom i m i
w-1 ^rrsfW i i f>swfa: i iwts^i ^nkF( i m i fa^sr mi
v* faaat i fayan$T a$Sfti vSTftr ’jaTfa ^aaiaarTT a vrarraavaaf piwr i
TT^fH^Tf^^T^fTT a 1VT fWT 5[$fi[fa lfa°qO.*$.| tfa II at fVV^i+f<i*41«V
vfagaagat frm ftafirerr^ai: afiaaT atrfisr gaarfa gtfa. i a3 aaij^y^ i
aaigal aafi^a fiiaT areai: i anarafra arianr t*taT%: i a %w aaraaawTat faaaft
aata%a ad^iaqftasKia. i a aasaT aafa i wt° a° 'a- *$■ * i T^Tf^5t: i * vfiKifiimfii-
f^i
fWnt^T|^w f^rign^ i
s ■5nfwit wf?r tirr^mpjRl <r^V ^ „?„
fwt:s^: i ^?f i f^sm:s^r: i fWr:$?T|: i 3fT I f^9r+:s^Tf^l
H I ^T|S«?T I I | XIri%: \ | |^p i it%: || ^ t|
vrsn qlid^SN ^Nif^f%^w^i<fv<aT»iT^wf%^ft Tpftnfarf i *$ift
^ fa^t*p§: i ?tot fWffaror: i ^ fyga<m^ i *r xRftv:
i ^ i «rrarwn * vwft i i^
1 ^ tjfsnff « v«?ftf?r i smr mvTgrifaura i tn
^ n ifWf ^rm^i^fr ^mnr: xn^c
ipt^«
f% ^ ^3 S f 3f SJRhjMI |
TT^HT II8II
^51 f^i I w. I I *: i IWR i w: i grafqfacft ^ !
%smrw:
— —— o i
Wlfw: I TR^TT | ■q^jri I il> sfwI rTf^l ^1 ^fllS^rfH^I*pRlfa I
Il8ll~
^rrf^rn^rf?! i to^«i°ui^«Ti^ iwfo f* irtt vnrni
™™*u<!i: ^rf^tfft ^sfwfiri fwftt nwrf^n i xm g
^■vxtfwt wwrft *mt wraprrer gqmqm gnqigMl frong: ;ro%*r srprrgf^ft
’WE’f f^i fm ’rm w. i ?m ^ ^ *r f*r tjto i miTf»r> i%
)m i^r: n^*ni Jtwr f^rreT^rn i i f4%qft g^rrft vtt^
7^nrurf^ g^en i Tprer ^Hwr*grwt m s ^T^r^ir<^TTt»
jrra^g Vptnfoi tpbwtw m ^ vnwnftSRr ?rr«rr i ff^?r ^ i nt'srflMinrOraT gTfvrrft
51 ^ VT?rrf»t ^(pn ?rnwT i =>«;. t Tf?r h ^ ^mT i gf^ni n i ^rr
^^iHn *rmrT ^ t% ,?rnrr^nft 3rf»nft i w i i^ni
f^^j^mr|r^t «£%*? i
H ^TV^HT IISII
^irc: i irfW i i ^A \ 41 ^ i i i
^ ^rfrr fawrps i
STOm ^TOR f3TT ^RrTTH «l II
i Fl i ?p% sft i i#sj: i^rfa i fMI i w^i^i
I 1 ?pf I FRf I ^5H I fl$S$N I fl^TT I ^RrTT II <\ II
\ TOt sftvTfwrrfir^r i ^sftnitfiift *nrofcift %fi firo* i qo. ^ i *ft
^-hi«i% gwmfiv^ ^ ^ptot^tt tori qnm^gyaf fi*ra> * *rg^:
^Tsnrta: itttH ^ ^rg^ig^B ysifi w^gn^Wuiil i wr^ wra^ ep^g^^TTWT^-
'frntifini ^rj iTirm i ^fwfi*r i%*t ^rraW<t i ?rm gwr ?rfT%*i i
^fT^i i Wimfi%»r «?*rr wn. wm i ^t
mW ^ 1
HTflT '4y^? ll€fl«
^1^1 ^rft*T I -34 I THI |ft I 95[3t^ I I 1 f^SVTfl: I
1 ^afti mi 1 ^n i 1 1 1 l1^11
^ *rsfic trfwt f^rwnft fw® wfoNt ^ ^r*ftif % nrnfw *IF^II^l^^f|
m i *m*ra51 % ^»ifn*r«rT 1
f^w^wpm^firfTt %7^ ^ERt i »wft ^*ffv i ST8^ *
iMo.vivWJ 11 ii
sifft ^ ftsvt ^i^rfisl sfa^nq \
|ftfa ft q*% 3*4^1 4qrg TkHT ftiqTq ||$||
3[fa | 31 ff| I ^fftrcm: I *q I q I Stli | ^nfqi I qqjrjq I Jgfii; I
$ttf4 I ft i ^ mi: 1sro i qq|1 sqsifa I qqqT I ftqrq n$n
$ «*Tt ^ffn *’ff i ^fiur^ i to gir tot ^ % to to i TOTT*rr*rf i^Tfig urf^fr
injft topto i i*to i ^ <j«fTO %b tott i wf ^ tof ’wtaf^jrarnr tout
TWtft wit front ii ii toii
<^n to?t i to: i gfofrufo1?! i tot
i stot to?t « ^faroi «*><«* TOsnfann^ Mwr i 35
S*|W V^rm II *%g$qrfc^t $5 TO^«ift^wim«n: TOt 1 * I
TOt^fc 1 w e-1=-1 Tf?f n
^ijftfam €t: i
irfii fa»r: mi
i i Jffii: i i i s?t: i
I Wf^JT: I falffiT I I ^i | \ fasfrT: || cj ||
a$«n«im<JWT i wt wargar: i ifare:f%?fa ^faanrtwn i ^tjfa gffam i
*r Tfaw ^rrfT i w i ^nganifagtfagT v*N ^fararfarntfan tsfarm n#aa: i
^iqfa 9«r g*?rf ’rofaaft *r qfafa i Twr gSfair sffarrfacn i ;gSff fa ^ipfc^rfag ^vnc i
^•r gffaifasn ^sifa^: ^flifaiafa i gifa <i«uii«i^Tfa ^^mrarr ^roaafafa i fafa
^ ^i*ii*iiuii«*h*iO ^gm^rgTfa fam: i grfvfagfa i afa ^qfa gfa
*pn wfa n
^R: Tjfipft I
^^rrcnwgTrei ^j%: ii * ii
i wf%?crr: i ^fr*?r: i i i ^ i
srct ifH i Ttisfamt i jpn i ^ns^f i #fI: i ^tfs%: ii ^ ii
’B^Tfaan ^rfa^: g^rr t?T^ srfafar Jfafa i ^^TrW^TfrifaTifTfafa kt^t: i ttvt
^fawnpmft gfMft *Tf7T> *r^fa i warr ffasfaw i
^ ^tjfr «r«r^Tnn^rt i ^ ^ TPjri afa w?n i TimilmqMil T^rara
i ^ i farPTfa^ hwi fsffa wfa<T: i grffa^nfant fafa
,n?T5rrf^i%ome?. i atanfa^: n i ^famfaau ^rfafat
Jfafa ir#%«qrerT^fa«ifaiTiw fa^rl qfafaiftan fipfa cfafianfaffi: i gfwt
^ i ^^nfa^srfagarr gfanuT i TOirp farfa: Jifair ii
TO II $ II
II ii
^ srfw i
fipi ^ HT*t *pitafa faBT ?T*Jrtf *itf IIMII
t4:^ I 3OTSW I To I I ^BlS^T: I HI I ^I
flpi I Ff I *TT*T I HfT I I fto I rT I ^ I *Trt: I SSlS^i IIMII
t Fs^t t% V* faSraf^arraftr TrerrrapfufFf^rraF: i FtraraUrafsjrrraF Tfa wrm-
I f*T° §. ;><>. I tfH^PWTFOTfVFT FtfaFi FWT TfW | % FI^C fffT FPTjf^t j*
fra *rro fPN fikftt i jpfta: i Fpr: i wt fto: ^rnqFTF^r Ftrrafa nf^t raft <rgw
rangtrafrart fra i wpfta: k
^tt ftwifojH I
^tt ^ ^ *pfff sftfftt 111,11
^ns^T 1 tff ssit: 1 ^n* 1 Hppi 1 1 fsprfii i srfas^ 1 1
sRsrt i ?t: i *t# i^i i ijfa i *prs*JTOi 1 ^sp 1 11M
t «r«F?FrTT^rr% ^rr^ wiWT»iF^TTfH^ ^fTsrTFfwrr^is ’hi^wt i 1
F*r wrsrr: m%*rtr*Twm*i mgcfsiit wt w*r fwnf$ i vim fin 11 m*^rr ^
•ft^^WTFi ^%f%i i f^refr i Ff^ i Fgra»Hji i F>iTF»n^F^ i qVr»rqt ^ 11
y*mn F3rf5r^n^f7» TrapN^’tpr«
qtMMfriVT l
nptatf|nnfasfo fnfa ifv fan: ii ^ ii
i ^cfarTT l »jfa: l l l #: l
m?R i wfafEiT: i ffrafn i fan i *N: i ^fv i fan: 11111
aara afonamcgaT i arsnr ^ ^aral a® aargm i flara :fafaa yfayafam i aafa alfam i
wvtaalw ctiwiaafaTfaafaafrfaar war jjfaymfwftim arfym aaatoa:i
aafa ast jjari aarrfat a afafa i am t$w |aa yiyrrfwm i fat fa apmamfay fane i
mta atairfam arfl$: far ^arfafafa i aria yama^ara yyrrasrr tar aaafafa i fafa
fsrfa atat laTaTararraaarr^ awt^at ^am^aaTfar farm i arfarfifafa i afa anrfa ata
rjar afrfa n
Sti^TfanT faflR: ijftpft l
^rnt nnjnTOwmgnw ^n%: 11*11
i ^nfam: i -nfan: i i i i
srnt i n^nrof i w i 'nns^ i i wsfar: 11 ? 11
afaaTfaart atfa%: gar t^T^af afaat aafa i a^qi«qifaMg4r<<r^iR:fa aira: i am
ffaananaiaBn ¥^a ^faat afaV aafa i amrraT ffamra a<?xrfaaa% i a at
^ afa atat aaaTan^at i a a afaa Tfa aaar afaaafaa: i ^afaargaat atat aararas
"rfw: r am t fayrarfra «iaaiuii«jnar aaarfa «gafa ata atfaa: i g?ftaarrfaat fafa ata
aaht aTamarry i%- m- ?• a- a.a. i maTfa^t: n |aanpwtaa% i afaarfaaT afam
aafa a§^wrarfaafai waat faaft afafaatai faa?t ^fafwrfa^i afaa ^faat
^ i arga%%a>awTafapn ^frnar aaaar i afar ayamngw farfa; afarr n
iriW xrf^orian^ffqnsfN'fv i
jRfrr ■$ npfaifn nwn n?n
II «
1I TTfaSTO* I ^1 SftNft I I
iftti i *? i srsn^t: i i ^ i w^i i srenfir i i to n$n
afar am?t i as: i a: qfirara 1 ^gaaaafaf fafwrafaf afar: afafr ^a 1 aarf*nir$: 1 $
aiaaiqfv aafasa afmffa 1 «Ta*$T^TaTafaaT: 1 a a € arawfar: 1 af$ ai: 1 aaft 1 afar f|
a ?n*T7r a aarw 1 a^anfa^ fat g arfa snpa. a# m gar fafmna
*nfa«nn(mftaia.i srnjprt tspJ: i W af%W aaafans aTaaTaaga amrij faj: strata aatfaj 1
W1 a4f% aat 1 a afar araa annfa 1 aifa^ara^fa $a: 1 a^a aafaga^fa ana mam i
trqjfmf*p?% 11 arcr a^aa aant 1 a afar aaat afaaira. xftaaTmaaTat aaafarfaaq afmwfSr-
qarnafw«i«4i<a~l aaaTaa 1 a a a afar: 1 wff 1 a stoiicft angarr afatrr ^aaT ^
^rarsifJT a?[aa a aquaria mw^a* ^afarmt agarrf^: 1 ^aT ar«n^<Ti mrnrat m 1
aart^afararratam a fwtt afar fmaw afarr tfa aaa i annpfritt afair%ar matf^ra 11
aaaa afaar ww afaat: 11
wp: sm tfsnr: 1
^ W ^roifa mfifa: 118 h
W^sf¥*n% I ^ftTTT: i w|w: i I tfsm: I
W«T0T | ^1 *|*TO[ 1 I *T I 7^1 ^nmfH I tnf^cj: II8II
% afar wariavra: i artagT^afa fwraria ^ai fasiTt a arr^favraT: i a^faa: i am
arf%jfaa: i qtHmaiaT^ri^fa: aafa: afaraT% Tfaaqm i ml ar argfatiffo afataraa
irfa a® $. q. qo. q. i tfa aroni i ?rrmrrf*r^0wfwrmTm«arr mfa ^rmiia faafa i % mi qrf$t:
trrfaHt war mrsrrfm i a f? *gara^agatia$: araafaat aafa i asprr % afafr ^maTaa a
atwa%aai n
Tfa « ii qo n
\*Ai ^nt ^ftnrnRt xrfb^f i^u
I «f^HT 1 ^Tr( II q 11
TfriPr^ i 7rfgr*5R^Tpt PJ'rren i ’t^rit i
pnff m *t*wit i i f#r mm ^ffirra nuv
TnfTn, f«[Wf w II
ii *5^: ii [$T° t.
g: OTTfafacTT *RRRpnt I
5*ift nT^tsf% trfsift m?n
g-fart: i ^?j: i h i ssrt^i tffarn i *i i ^s^qsn^i
i i i ^t: i ^ i n <^n
#Hrra nf<fffl7tTOT; f^rar *ig: i qi^nfimTvf FFrfl^^Tm Fig: i« ^ J»T,rT^1
TOT Frftt I 3 *Tfg ’frfFTTTOT: ftmTFW^fT. I Hl^lf^W^: I ^RT FTF^fl
35^t ^iygf<:<gwiq1: qrrw 'totI i wrg i TOTf^w^: i wnm%g vm’. ^rr ^
F'mgi TTtrt i 4^Ftrapl ifwr^ i i wg-^Rw^: i TOt4^ft: nfig:
Ffr 4’mgi Fipjrt i h
*oqo.3T0$.^°bM.] ii ii
m I y^«*iif^4jff«HllftilfHmJ: I ^ TTTfti: ^
Jim: i w 4 wt4 fafa srgm im i 'sw^imf:»
3^TWf FIT I
^Tf?h0[ 5TRT W gn || ;^||
*?U141 sri: IM *fit fwzizt I I §35m| I rti \
i ^51 jj st?w i i 51trt i xiRTt i *pr ii ** h
mfti*in^mn% f^nrmt qwnaifamvri -^4 i ii fc* ^ ^[^-. \ *g-
^t%iii m?r ^4 ii fwmffrra >M:5Rnm*fmif?r$rT: i wnfR wfJifw f? mr: i
u ?rr<pi ^ tot '•nmiKt®TJi| i ^p: i « ^mm to4 «jffa4m ansufir^ i mm m
q<?n *? gm 4 ** ii
TJt|T rq P ^ftrtt I
*I^T»T^ Wttff qfajft r? f^HTT ^ftlftlll^ll
yni sniirr: iqqq ipqs*]?ET isrfWiwimqfrri; ii
jjqrq i i jjgsifcft i *rot i i qfrRl1 ri i f^q i ^n i qqrfa irS,h
wgu qTgiw: W m wrfirat *rag i inwi i 'wfwfwl' ht ^t T%^ s ^tt i
Tfirrnmt i jj^t^i. w^affvpft ^ giwt *nrre: wfa i ^ftpft ?tw
jppmT^T *rcr ttrT^ ^trt tt irf^gw ^rftt i i gifimi ym-
fwnrre^»
firerf?i#trr ^rr gfir%?pft i gfari ^ i ?[f frr*i xr^r^rr % gi
i ’w g° <\.i=. i ^f?r ii
Y% vt wm ^IT^wtflT II II
»J? I TJrTr^l ^351 T?rfr^l STOreS^I f^S^I 5=T I ^Hi^l |
faTOpret I
«TOt: to ^Tftj rnfH to g *3*ifw n ?m ii
wssreN i fasTO* i ?f?r i wfasfiraift i
l|TOt: I TO I TOfti | TTTfH I TO I if I ^*lfw II $M II
5«tiTOMS|^^tr^?fitniigs;:T(fT*>^3nJii<'i5ftiraJifB?ii?tii
g41siJI I nft I I ^T1I«? I I qfit S «t:'i *rai i
1 1 Iflfll 9b 11
*?!J',T mi*w i ^R<i*Tl«fif %^ qn: trtWttsrwi ^rnrr wirr *n? ^t: i ^f? n
HW RW f4fV^ W! f4f4^ |
srftre h^iht: n ^o a
i i?*to: i i | j rfc: i
«pft4: i srfti: i ^ i T?f^: i 4: i ?r i t?^t$5tt: iigoii
sum ^s?rf sta: jmwrr*ft i wm»i i ^rtnl ttr;: s*t fafa| • HareT«t i
qf?i% <re i irerrenpraT: nfrrqffa^g^: ii n ii
Il8»ll
^n?^i*h*nif4i4Wi fa*sr i i fa i ^4 i $35 if! i i
^sfa: i i # i >]1 ii ii
* ^ ^ i i »ram i*n ft ^ im 3?ugH i f^rs*ng4wi i myi if*Mr
3^5fir: tn%: ^ ^ TfY^m^fr H^TTfjrfn H
ii ii
inic.vm ftanfr: i gfw *r i *m w. tot *rog TOraftf^,
^7T¥fw: TOPT 1TOT I ^TT0 g° <1- «• Q.. I Tf* »
<1 °
%£^^t ^7 ^ ^ ** ^ ii ^ii
*rafts^: i ^^frfSTil i trfa i i xt^s4: i i ^s^t: i
fks^t i^s^mT i wtjn I 41 i 1 fesx^ i 4 I ii&ju
% erg wroftTOg: ^yT^rq^r^grfv i to i TOPifroft to i w top*: fw f?ro^
to g«i?n: g^lTg to i *ftggj gTOTO%w TOfrot ^totto Tsstro grosTt ^r to n
* I I MI I I unt: I ^nf* I ^ I
I WriR^i I I UTHT I ^ I ^ ^ |^£f | ^UTW I ^ II8sII
fat ^t: ^tt I^nfa TOrcrrfa ststg i totoj i TOHTf:^fa%uTfa sr?n
wtf^R^fa^ti irasnrprTfar gfafaronJ: i to **fag i <m TOfam *fr i^rrfa 4
;?*ng i m^<i^i: ^sftfarcrS: i vr?n ^ i ^ng i ^ <^rft wmt i *rc^r-
«fafa: i «t *r 4 ^VTg i TOfa *frg n i^ci
iranff wfr irf famwu it
*fa <1^M<*>>U<3ffo*ii^ng^'Jlglxga^l»wmi*)gtVW<H!i\M 14fa<fa?>
TOrftt t^iranr %wfa<TmTtiCTTH% pWriwm: a
fa fa stwtr^H i
W^^pfaifa^i}: ipf| *?*i*jq farawfas H ^ ii
^ I fk I I I ?T I 1^ I SflWiT I
^i ^Tckfn: i^:i^i i f^niwi^i ii-1 ^s«t^ ii <* 11
^farrfaefa aiij aro^m ito aftTO fWCT ug^Tm: ^farfr fafaHsrr: i
^ i^n: 17R ^1<t*M»if*is( *rt *mww i *m tftm: wtifa ^ *i ^nfa: i
pTifat^r ^gTPfa: i Tnr tg tfal Jrf^3 ^nt^: wnft f«ri«*ft4n
*^T *w ^fargn: fating, i 7ra%r Tnmff^Uf faww%TO
1 u TOfaMfTg. fa fa tfxfir<,t«if^i«BT arofafa Tiafa i ?m j Trami i
®*fam ffa: TKfa^-'ifr'tfgafag;^^ gwiafaffat ^(inpr: i <fa?fafawt ^fa i
9t^t i ?Pnfr: 4fanrfafa fa irapmT i ^RRrswm
V0L. IV. / Mm
ii il [w°
^ $<7Tfa% T&WI I
*N sW *r fatt h tN ^rfn fawq% stfc: 11 $ 11
w ^Nn ^nfcfa i tMs?$ i wi \ irf^jfiT i
mn\ 3 i sfa i hW i * i fat: i 3 i faster I l^lfa ifa^Wlr^l i& I
^Srk: II9II
Tjufu^Twr snft fuiuifu^fw i mYuhwt fSnrnr it ^ utw: gunfiit!
wn *rtu t*r nyrtt^Tff utfa f*ni i »rug i fti#i ur^pftf?mfwr utw
nu HutsR i furu t jth *raiu wpim i turn *w ftg^H ufou i
fan t uu (Mffi^fHs^ ftrrg fTwraitu ufa w uftfuraTft: wt Hf|xsrfH i f^ug i u*r
fuwrfTTT;: it
^ktfa^ ^rtT.fa ^ i
faniw% ii ^ii
^^Ws^sf | nt I USR I I wfa I I
I ^StTrfft I I W^Tr^l I^Slkj 11*11
Mm2
ii ii
sreffir i
*rrft i wfq «i4Tft^s[Wl Ttfr# ’twar ggfir^wr grfgr i ,
WT *TR f^WTfTTT: II
t?nofaT$ ^rf^ i
rr^ten ^nrt ^ ^nc^T ^ffrft^w(% ^k: ii ss 11
proffi i ^nft^ i i^i i
^ i saren; i i i i i nffr i kra^nr^i ii: i ^s «k: im a
gg^wtfg?: grtfa i wg ^ftiTRJTwm gfwrg *iiflg gftg 4fTl«ii gar i^iuff gwri
g i wrai i fqrarrgrr t^wr: gfg: grsraifr fawiggn: gTOsran:
gw ggtgrgnr g ff g<?l i g grg fggft i w i Tt g^rai^tnra i crfa*^
STifafir ggranfagwrr gfar: i gRrcggTg ii
TTW 1
ffa: fori »T«sfH hssii
?t i i l^rkn i 1 ^t; 1 T*^: i ^ i
^ 13^1 ^41 ffa: i fori i^j i ifawicUH} i^rs«fc: hssii
% t^rftr gffiig;: g^afa gfrsrgmfgTgfo^ frrq ggrottg fggT g wa i * <** >
gggf*$T gg^rn iftfggrfg^ggflm ?fg*c%g ^gf g# w gW^gr g*rci g*ift1
qqitfg%: g^Wf^ i w i wri: 11 t^rfui ggroft: gvgft^Tgftii ggrgtfrf ttcw • *
i ggRggjg n
^qfwfa i
ikr ii fori fim. ff¥3kwT% hs?h
«[^qTkl ikkTrl I I TO; i ^ ?fH I I
xrFhti^i^i: i^qb ifw^r i^jrf^s^t iff^: i HHwrij ii i ^si^t; ns?11
^ i inwrot «nWsft f*rn«f*i: i ggr gfw i W i
fttf* ’K>]^ 35ft itoigt 33ft Tfarrot ft tspftr t wqfty ww.
i*T3TS3?nft3 i 'Jftn^wnJ: i 3*3*3331 rang i f33 yrfwi, i 3i gni i wrf^^i: i ?mi
fft: frr*rf»r« f|3: I f*3 t ifilftsO i *3T 3 3T3ff: i framfa T3f3 ggt
33lt3 g*t 3H3f33i3T 3T3T I 3T3T ST*pTf^ftm 3T 3T^3lf33tf3 3TI fW $313 3311333*
ff2r:55^rr?r^;^n::if*t0^.^.n^ii A
* to t#swu i
^ inffii
* I W'\ |% I ^ 11# I TOO I flW I wwjwj
fl:i\w;i|%i^i i fgs%^: i fg$^4w i fW^n^i ii:-1 ^iv mtfti
. ^ ^ 3 33t 1% ^>^[3 3i^ It 3 Wtfl 331 333T 31^3: 33«9T 3f333^ WTTT T3l
^1 %33 33 3#t33 ^ 1^3 H{«1f3 33f 3331 f33f3J 331331 0«3fl33i f3»«|
I 331 3 3fwftsfl f3Wlf3n;: II
TO t#SHTT qnjf¥TOT% ^5 ms II
II H
JIl%FR7ra I
FI iff: qriTO*i«iH^][ II ** II
^i i i 11& i i
^iFi:i^:i?fi:i^i^i^s^Tk:if^’wnrtiti:i^sik:ii^ii
*is(t g*rmra f5T5Bftf*i^: f^f?r i % i% «n$^fcrg. $ fsmfa f^rg^ wt^: wfr
i w*n^ i wnf<i gir^pi fra? i iff w*sm: iitft g^Wgjnri yfrtwrmMT
*** fF ang^ i ^irPTf g»r:i*rr ^151 i sUffrteft fro-
“ W 1 i£i«n«*i'wfa<* 1 ire *rrw: i ^ft firefa ffOigraimm g? ^1
F1*’ g*i: 1 gift wsftfrcriw: 1 wre^ij ire^re: 1 fa0 «*$. ?. 1 tfiii
^T wzn$ 11 * 11
3sro:s^g: 1 i 1 ^ 1 wn 3qws%^ i 1
^ rH f>rfii 'fj^nrofMtsn •
v y»llri|.l^f^ T$m HMII
n"\0,w> $.^°b$.] ii brents ^5: ii
3W ^rr ^trT I
^ITrTfl:^ TTftrf^: xmtT fTHWt f^^T W II If II
^ I ssj3? I Wfa Isttws^: 1 fwlw 1 1 sai ^t i ^ 1
^1 ^T I I TtfRsfrh I ■qflfrT I IT I wt I f^ZT I I II £||
\ wamift u? *ru gfw ftreqgmfq ^ w ^3tnfr% vfafJvcr;iiTimtjf:
jf^ft *ng*n*ifif^T4Y ^JTfn wf% rt *rrgvprwr iiwr %rn «* Mm: w^uflgi^ji
^frani
^ITTc^T W?5% STTrR^ |
^ ^1 ^tW^lrT ^(PflT^f f^rarerri^ff: II S II
3* 1 w s c£*t 1 15nHs%^: 1 sns^pTRTni sf4:1 wsvmH1
3TOT1 1 fir 1 srff 1 sft^nsr: i wihs^: i f^Nfh i if 1 1 ii$ii
^rrft ^ 1 urra^rj^ snrraa* fg fWTwrmT^ utt^ nr urtmt ?mt ?T%wT^uw*n-
JrrargvHi5(ni«i^rar<H <.i<«15HTg*if*nfa: ?pjf? i trn^i i i M pf ufppre:
^rft 1 *ri ?gjppt urrgvpf *mTJ i M vi *ng*nwr*n^t{ijat^t nfuret «w: f^Nrr:
n^ 11 pt 1 f^nmr *rm trfprf^^PT: i xpftiNfti^g i *rsnig n
1 ^ TTt^m fTT^m ^TT Tt^TOT *n»t T1* I <ITfin fa*T ^ S%f: TO^tTRT^
Jri5# irtfwt *m *m«fr ^f^rrw^TEf * *pj i raw *re i ftwr ^ prr Thrift %
ffinrjfNmfa ’sftg^T’mf«Ti3[tK wr sri ^ngtrRT ttw m ^m. i m f?f%g: u
^ ’ajxffHt i
w*q^ init fTO ^ i1^?11
ii ii
xrqsr^T ^fsR ^ i
w^N ^ *r£fcN*% wfafir mmi
q'tf i sra i^?t: i ^fsbi i i wraI i *nrot: i i «j^t: i
^s#t i 1^5515 i*#^ifWsi i ^ msf^fir i ^twsvfi: iiwii
wrfwijfa ^t ^fa^Oro: to ^t gfro irrfw JrnHf^flR TO<jvT»i tot ’jwg i
ttto gro: ^srorr wrfwrwr: wwr: irarnig i fro Tr^T%ro?TOTO^i TOgvro
TOR- tot toN. n4«g^|g i to?<j i faw ^nrort^: Hf%f?f i tot ^ toto: i Jif^fa:
TOTOHTg$T 3TO TO iW $. <^. If^TT I TOSf TOg’WTPTT TTTOT T^J I TO?g II II 'SII
^nrnfq^t^nTr f^ i^®'1
Nn2
II » [«• b.
*M rTflHTCm^^Rlf^J 3TCTT I
rlFl ^T: ^HT^St^piWt: II * II
^I I rT*taT I ^rtS^ I wfa: I ^t: I 3W^I 5TT^ I 3TCTT I
H^7 i^t: i Tjftpft i €t: i ^tt i wrt: i 3ft*ipi^ i #*hfh i ^ i ^ n*»
sfNj fq*f\«if Tm^wwrwm^rrf^ *3 jprnJRt «nn
««nrq^q^ ^rfwfafn wrt Wrn^: ^ «f<n«4rqr ^«nr t^x^r: ijfinft
qftrnft ’q^irrf’T qfatftTtqtiR i^hj^ii. i i ifttn ®?k7i ^«n}:»
^rtTOTSft ^iw i
>TFprt ?n^^?n^hTfrR wW a ? a
i ^ i if^rr: i ^^rfir: i srfti i 1 mwt 1 ^iw 1
4 «pnpn: i
a h8ii
u: i^wt i wm: i vi s^pfcj;i t ^^T:,
w. i i ?r[t i wt: i ^i i i ssr^^i 3qws%.: iigu
^(iu<WfM«f^ifl tfa*: 'R’^nft g^ft fr?rreX ^ ?hwrt
f¥T*rt ^i*iaif7t ynr%^T wrmraft wnmt *rr wmfUfcr: xrrrf^r twnfar qfa-
mnfiwT ^tt: ^rr^t f^Tf^^tj ^ i ^rnit w*w ^ i
wi fafl^rrercfa i wren; i ttot ^ ^nra»f: i s %^t wrot ^
•acrwTTi^T: I ft* M- $■ ltf?t II
rT d^T: IIMil
*RU TOS^: i i I ^rffo: i ^ i jr^ i Ttarft i
w i w i i tfTTsftfi nhsfa: I I W' I i ,
t^ffcsin-. it mi
1 w%^r smnrtrr* *ptw ^ftarsr g*k g\}fa «?Tf?re: f%m*T-
irffl(i%^T5iTjm W\ <st Jr#gTS* i uwrot ii f? jmrfam
vt$ ii * tr^fwn ?n^f^fr: ^ftp^T wrtww i » nou
^ *Nfw ^fr strh htpsr; i
*1^3 *rf^taRrn*rft irt^r; ill'll
1|VT i i >Rfw I r[ik I sfffti: i mf: i i i ht?t: i i
i^ igi i T?ai i ^4: i *Rigf# i ^tfa i wsm^Rr ill'll
Trft gfr ga^mrer gvfr fsrct^murHgffr w^rtn i tt^ s<faTftr*n-
i <r?ft TT%T*rat g^n i mrfa * i^r ggf
’T^snJ: i flrf ^jfsprrei ^wrf^rt |*rr«ri i?T*rrg miT^m rTn i
mErnwpT: g^ijjfiigsTflW ^ra^rintr^ wi ^t ^Tfa i n«n ^ i g^r
gvT to gm»rf H^fn »rawf^^m: g^T imrosiw H’T injf ^rt
^ *rfw^T ^rmt ^tIh TST^rnuf^rfii swj:
,|^'®-tiffin
% ^%TT H%5tSTlkiT I
II9II
$W: i ^r: i \ ^rsi^: i ?r^fT i i i
'^T1i i^t: i ffa: I Wf i fin i ^tiT: \m
*fc© ii n [^T°
aft wf^f i^*r. *tf*Rt: *i«t*(Yfft f^nrtf»r^n^r
fwnrr ^tflrerq aftR^Tafr^ a^rn aCKiwi tw f%% ^
ffiranfci%^ gnaT^raat twif^aWta artawr «-q*N *rr sfatj^isg: t sprg: n
R ^Wtssbremftj fW I
#r ^rrn^ifl^T mu
^ i^rtr: i ^bnra i%rftr i r%N;i w ii i froti
*t: 1 i Trftpffi ^T i ^3H i fRi I R£f S?mta: I ^nTRf^i nff SRT ii (ill
3 t^rrwifa ^rrert qtaraaia aatTf^aaa: afai^ftrMa %arax;{at fro faraTfa
qaaTfa ^rn^TTif^: 13^: a$5*?t * ^n^ifWlqT ^t ^farafanM i
ana: gf%rafaiaftw*g araia. i art f^a atatfa %*rr »jfa ^wri ^as^t aftarr mp$-
aTaaa. i aa aafa h
^SispRS^fW# I
fTT^RTR^rTTRTf<rH I II ^ «
**«|o.3i®$.$?bb.] ii ii *b«i
J ^^rt^rf II Ww
1 ftreft i 1 ^T: 1 ^ftr 1 ^r i srefr i i
,: i i ^?fH 1 sh i Rwh^i w 1^: 1 ^^11^11
, ^fT ffiffoN flif«f ?uf?nnj Wr#i ^r^m: 1 ^rpq: 1 «fr
^ryfi^qT gn^T^ftafl qfr^r vRwfii 1 ^fTft ^mwr^wrrnrfTT 1
^ ^rartfr ^r: M<<flHMR8iti jpnftarfc 1
V«L. IV. 0 0
us it ^5^: n *r° <19.
* TjRns^hi w 1
^f?l^rw«nji4 r R^nf ^srr HRff^ f?rot h^«
002
ii ii
n?n
i ^ i TTinf: i ^ i ?j^i ^ftr i ir^ i i ^ i ^rfW** •
^ i is.»i ^tw% ^fHi^i ^snft: i i mfrn*
^rwrn nT^Ti^t »nw^»<<ru«ifMin i i M^tn i
wfM??i i tf^rfTr grw: i Mi^O»<«fr<i ^rre: xr4m niJY^a^^1 ^
Jl% MTMMMT% MHII MH? I MT«TMf^9*
^nn: Hrf4q<tW^yi^<f|ai^: i
II II *bS
^rR ofT^TTHT I
*mr*T *ra ^nfri tffsnr v^tat huh
vpi I jraw\ I I ^ I ^Sffa I ^SSTlfT I
^1 ^R I ^rfHST^ II * II
zrf|[t qrforR KTOtf gro TO i tow* to* «froTO*TO
qqiHuwii^l qtmwr: nrtw^rr: ^sfq ftrreTawnaw: <i^g\«\ni«nr«i*fl
«fiunfinn*; i TOTftr ^d*ng ^cmamfop*: ^rnft i TOramrown^ wW-
mtq r«irH^^difdOgfH jroftaf qrrwiwrRfTOW qfTTTOTPittoi^toit mjfrft tott^'
frjpn q>4MiqW>TTC ^HI<q^l^qiTTTlt ^ «
flffRWT I
tn^fsR f^t ajrnfH f^T^T^if II? II
fani |4 tn^swfT^Nr^: i
f^sm^ii*HI$r^i^:i^:ioti^im^\t
HTT: I I fa I W^T^Tr^l ^ | iffa || 8II
*t*i i w^rnw^reTTTiff^rft
Hsdqi5!. i nwn?f tjt^t ittr: qxqrqr i
<jfi»d(SKi«rr <pf:8*KM^fd i ’’srer 3j*nf: xjxTrrai^ttpt *wdi«|» i fagwrn?f*i^ gn^-
f^nft ^Td: i*f°*ft®<(o. 8^-1 ’T^t i ’Ttft *rremnTn<irti«iai;
Ww: ^ i w*rr^ i fsi bwt i srwpnni ’irfirer^r i mini wfamfforqsifl'fyi
%tr xrrfiprra ^*npf <r^ffrm%rpf faftwf^i i w ^tw fafa\fr jjw
5ITTT^Tf*f3nJ.' II
|fqqt ^T ^Tlri^rw I
ii^ii
^i i t i^n: i ^ i i
H^ri^gTr^#|H: r^^jm |
tu>inf €!: i
vzn c*N¥ h^h
5nwrf: I w$tr{\ ^wft^ i ^4:1 #: i H1*
^pisvin i i f^: 14r4i^i h4 i i 11 «$»
' P p 2
ii ii Or®t.w>8.^o.
w nqiqf^qT^#^iHtqrq^T^Tf<wft q*.
wroq. i w?<nfl[qqn: i ipr^q i qrorn TnrT^T^t^frwm^ i jfNh ftn^ft
^r«r^nS7T i '3?tmr i w q?tri trr^T«n gfqqrqm i ^frrrf^ir w»t: n
w* qjkw. i
^i^i^i«i^:i^l^lT^,^tf»i^,T|h*!^|i
^ ^ ^ ^%t%: gwtjfa i »Rf% i fws nifprr gurg: *fr»R^Tfa 1 f^
ssraR irnTf^^un *fa**rRrf* 1 f^r ftrafwhfufa 1 fiR ^rt *rrt ’^Nrf^rmftr 1
fw% snRs jfr tr RRf% 1 farefa 1 f*R *rrcnr r ijftpft r ’srranpft mf*i g***:
ffai f^rmt Mifv5«n«rf r wnrnftf^ tsw #
11 11 ^
?nd^ fH rd cH %i SmfirfowPT: I
id v*m mMtafa to ^nf# ’j^-ffngr d ^ non
fRT i i i i I i i *1*5^ i i
jj*it: i^tHtt i f ^i^arw i fas^pi i srprTS^ i ^ i i ^s^rot: n^i
ITSTT^ WW WTOWTCTOTOIT VI* *W<W*K*»liftl gjfri $**
gjfH 1 w? *rwrf*r i HUftwftaf gjfw gwtg i ft-<u««Natfl4R Tf’rnnxj ^
fsrep* wsNro i gSKgt^nrfaatf: i g?n: i g?rr« « *nu^i »rum: 11 wrff^gpr? *?nrfwir$: i
wqyr jto gs^rgir^T «%fn *ftw i 4i«tT*i«i4i^ i frr i »*8f *re| g^ren
3fm*iq<3TffoT *rf%m wwrcnft imwn «^tf! <f*r<«»4: n
3
HT *f -«rarr i ^w: w ^*r% 5
i <t^f<«iv : i thot w
g^H: nfrw*ig^fW wjf^f g^^JiR** ^nrfe»t «iiir<S4fl g?n*nrfKf*nf *rfi^i ^rr Tf^j
\rc?r$ w«i yff i ^ff n n ii
^rsi#f7T fgpft^i gw ?pfr: trnSrwr^ wr>m i 1
?n?nfr g 5n*mf^fn n ^i<jf4ttr^ ^
%q%qf*»fq!arw i gf^nt ^ i % ff srprrgfwt T^i i wr° 8- w
*rYft*ft^£I5lPft? ^rgfffli^w girhtre^rf»rfn g^anifnf^a^ii'X *
^^4 TT ^ fw I
\ for: it gpr |^rqT^y: fa^fa *r^mrt nw* ^rtfinr^T fatf ^rr»rt frmw
jtTnT^jn^Tfwftwft^r’j? fa’nag f«f%vftKV»r rrafa MR^vlfn ifa: i gtqrrg ^njm-
’sffa'ftl ifl^wtin. nRjflg fR<^<i<*ai£t<s>nftg ffarci »rrt pt mimar
trfam^g: inrnwt *i*nit TOafrjfaafr flpnnnqn i sft$5* o
qf^RSrT q^Tqtnftf fqq*|$q qTVri |
*§ * rTqqqtrmqqsq f^ )R|,
q^r i tout:1 qnjfTsq i ^n*ta i wqj qjjj qto i%to i qf%q; n?n
fa v%wrfafafaa afaraw apaarfasfaT ^VaTaanasatfa mjutfa a^ aarrfa ajfafa
*wt i aa arraaT*$ i faiaraiufaat aarsftaT aaumaUafa wwra asm wg»fagfafa
awawfil i faia a^ ^HflwnT% afaT*ft aRr afasfan agawHfaaifwwaw mgafa aifa-
^H*fai<«i«gfwsft |w ^g aw aamtfMia afatra i faRg: i aat ?a¥fa ufa-
^gfasfa: II
fKnffeRJ <*N*iJri I
^ ^ *jfarfa: S^ffafa •
^TOWt fWcTT f^f^wt ftraT TO ^Vri IIWII.
swiw* i?t: i^fVr^ i ^ftRT i *rfki i wfi[: i ^51 i i
^T^TRt i fawtwr i f|f^sf^?rt i fa?n i^faf1^ i to i^v«f mu
Wrft ^ w’tiSTaigfir^rf TOTTOTTOn^fi^T^fiNfit nif aifitvnft ^vft it
f?fit toj: ftifif^fr prfirfi infi anr f^fi afirot ’pfrg i fififirm fifi
^twr fitter ^tSr*n?TT firaT iwrer wfini i rpfit i
ifinft i inftfi ,TOfi i TO’ft afi: i vr i t ?(«fi trwr xm ^
^fi 11 f*rt sW fw ^ffim bw ftw i w^fjrftwt: #
qq2
?00 ii
^T^PTft nppp}: h
n w§:*fti* *ro^*s i
^ xH vjrnw^ wi fwr^Ni ii ^8 ii
hi rn^i jjs^it^Nt^i^ihi^i^Hi ii
MwtM i
^rafrt
^ 1^ i sN i srfffrr i ^ i *re i ^ i
i i rTP#: i *ra: I i 1 m-1 i iiw
^^n^m:i^i^^:i1#t^i^i>:itii^t,J,#^: H<il1
sHfapn^t ^ ^ ^ ^t ii'SMi
^sjfafaswj: I ^?si i I
•^t^^s^r: i ssNhr i 3Prt*i: i ^ I ^t: i ^ I ^stt: i ii 911
^rrafro: i Rrinrofft r^mtor: 1 %rt rtto^r TOfro% <^rr-
tor: 1 rthitrr: i rtjrT i ^rri*§RK i ririt: tottot Rprjft %rt % ^roran: i
ttpi. 1 ^rY^ri: 1 RYrjtRiiR^ rtto^rt ^RfjRRY $rt wt^t. i ^RRY^Rn i *Tt+H r? <iW
rtrr^rt ^tp^rrY ^rt to. 1 ^rthY^ri: 1 «ti4i«s?if*iai RrraRrftRnrYR^iprRY to
TO 1 tot?#* R<jftRf«hnRre ^sr^fr 1 tjrYrt^ tort i ym 1
f%RYRT>f TOFRT I RfllY TORYTfR*W<§l RoSftT ^rtfRTOnTO^R I RJR I % "RfTO tfR TP: I
RTRB; I RRRRYiJRRY RRRPffR ***STfR RFRTT: TOTJTRfR *ft4lf*II RYTjrrfR RYRRTRWff
rt*rtrr>*Ytom»tort1 Rnfrftr pptpw tow: i Trortro
RTI%R fatfR TO RTTOTY$T I f*T° ?• <1-1 tfR #
^ ^ nW 1
HfiT^v tifiMreqfei hq.ii
^1 11 1 1 w1i 1 1 ^1 1^ '
set: 1 §rv I Tjfts^i; 1 atwr I »t«[ 1 Vi: 1 ^ I 1"c".
H WWIT tft ^TTTTW t^f^I ^nft flrtW I 1
*oqo.9r®l?.$?<Sg.] II STCiftSTO II
afar* i f*N sW ft* wuS i *Pt*r jn*g*
qftti.q|flqT*pfr i gg^flO i ir^ i ntf* i yrnft i ffirretf* >
^ font ftwq<sbt#fl: i
*t*i ^nt*r: ^ no 11
^i^:i^:Rif^ift^mi^S^:i^i^,^,w5|m.,
^qtS^JT 3T*jfafTT |
^T TR farTtf Bf ^ I
sr|wf ffbn^f w sri ?SNr ^WW^: nsii
^T: I ir I » fartf: I ^TS^T i ^4sto: i I ^ I fsn* I
srffrri: i fftstfre: i ffi^n i ^T i ^rt i i i ii <k ii
^ ®nmr: ipfijir iptf ij®t t® faw ®* ®* f®rfa ftirc: *tf*r: 5w®ihth:
^*r®n 11 1«f ifgf3i*T if 1 tryNl ®tif ft*r tftm®: *ftna wwmct
^*rcwfasft*®iifr ®ri ff* gftfaY ® T^wrfHimi^irri?rg: 1 ®T®®f*h
R R| ^bft R^R ^R ^
«fi^I
_ ' jwj
Itnf't a| I ri
_ — * — ^ —
i ^«(<iffl<(Tfjwffn ang: r
iifw qw4^ i
n »nr %rt TOraf ?rf^ #s?h
Tfocjo.Sf® „ *5^5^.. |, ^
i wfw i i ^ i ^ i *r i qsR i sn s$ i i
w i Hr^i ^ i i ^i ^ i ^ # i W i ^ i i ?rff i i jq i ^: ii ^ 11
qqgJqtauh %jppc*r-_ wt qf?r qqTftr i qfqqfar i wgqamq qn*i qfcft i ^mfn i
famfr fli%wr%^f^ qfq fqpm i qqnwif i
ft^rfn ^w4: i d^ggi ftjpg HlfuTlf*? <i<(q«i H qq wiwqt wrg fwffTf 19r q^nqf i
^nafrm pqre i gpnng i j y y qnriq inq; immrtft i ffqfrqq
ffn »rf%^f fqq qimr^q: i pr: i i snr^nmr^fm^: i
w-1 'wg armt i ftrf<r frof fqrt qqftfq q*Pr ipu
*t ^ m h x^at *n pq ^ i
^ t Wfa *rc?rrfH tffrr srar^ngt mmi
fOT: I*TT lljqT: I *T ITH \ tre: l*T I ?q i ^lik: i ifwra: i $ sfit i W{\
^ 111 i i ^fq i wwi^riI i i q?n nmi
qfqpT wgqrq i ^ ppp: w srr prr: i »rfH »n m^ff u qTf% f^nrpnf^fii
fqfr qtq: ii qqr qq q qq: i qftq qqq *n qnqf: ii ^TqirpT^^nf^qT %n i qq:
gfqfq gq; ii qm m mqfqqwtipTT prret fqrr «t q qqi q qSrqqrrrf«f i wu »nwrq-
i fqfq$qq<«$q4m^ qftfq i »n qtTfffwf: a qr^fr ff«qt^| im°8-^-i
^ i q% q%fq i qq^wif^qtqvTqftq: i trrfqq^mf^qT qw i ^ %fq q# i
^qqT^jTTq; n ^ «a^|<amH;aimTf i #5TTfq ^hrt wqTfq «<§nfq q % qf?r i q qfq
^ i qqf4 qi\uiqiq i qqrfq qqgifq qigiigqmt iprrfq w qqrTflqt Iqqwiqqui
^^rfq qqq, i qrq qiq^q<ii i ?in<i^qi q % #qf qqprf% p^mf»ri^fq ^q flS^iq
'^^•M.q.t.i Tfq n up
TT^f: W3*lta •
w?n fn%%^ rriqmTUT ii^h
V°L. IV. S S
i sNt i ^ i *ntei i rrfk \ ^ i ^w. \
^ftr* i i * ww i ^®n i wijtmmri i*^,,
tsra^T fwrc hthufh tt Hif^
n^rwY Tnft: grtMWra: ht^Rhh i «*toh i f^fhiT i r<t4Y ^fhi
wsrt i «afo«rrifH^ ^rwfw mg^rmiT g?rr H*ft HTTffc»
*T ?R srfffes ‘
IT^fT W ^TF^fast ^rrfw ^ rmfti II II
i Fq'i ^n: i I mp i &3B I ?wt 111 ^i >refa I •
tts^t i ft r^n^i fftreti wfa i i ^ sfft i * i sift i *T^nft nun
*tt mfw* ^tt *nmr: i sg?g^w^v^r m gi^nnm^
*ra vfavm irsrr raSur Hnuutq* ft m vnft i
*nrf% i hto <3 ht4 tt^ whR ht^ht% i HT^H%$wrrfi*: hi i nq*n»R«i4:154ft<i
IWWfl8wn«l ff?n ygft Hftfft %H TngHTH « I8H
hh * ft hi Tfft hi gifc i h4ihi'Pkh I?C® h4i_R4t ^1 ^
f%pft fHHT W^r HHW: I i^BTHt IT* I HHtTH 1^
HT^tTT I H ft HJ^HT H* lRqfftf$fHP* « ^ ^ 3TfPfT^
TJHfHm I HI Hf Hnft Sl^3W3 4T^S|f3 HTWT iht* §• 8 l » <n«ffWin,T,r
I gRrt h i m * h* hTh4 Tfn fn^r hhw: i xfr ■
^ ^ ur ^ ^ *i i
^fr ?T ^T ^n ffWff fht: m^h
ii^i i r<*<$ i 1ffii i n i ^ i i ,T3^: 1 1
^i^i^:ifftsfH:i^i%^i^ni^Tif^^if^:5^,firrt: ll<,a
* tm I HjW I
flfHTHt I ffHHW ?l HH f*f « ^ WfHHftft: < IIWW1'
II II ^||
rt n% I »if TO* im t$ tot TO
ft t ’j«J*fa *s<HK*W* t^fa n mur ffttfah it gfa i if^q ?n mm
fflraig fafuu^far: ^fanrow mgrt k
m to ^ v gflfifaffi *t4w*: i
fft ffimt ff^^inra ^ fa ^t?t sfan fafafa* ii?ii
W> ito i ’*&: 15%: w. i^toi: i fft: ifas*fifa: i ffa I $n i nfaart: i
^ i g sfait: i i & i fa i f«n i fftm i fafafail ii ? ii
miqgw: *T3^fa: i
* m W ifbmT f^fT HMII
i^si^ i i ^s*jj?f: i xj^fa: 11? • 1 ^sfn: i
4i i iv4 i f^rar i ^p41 ^ratfa i i ffts^mr i ftrf 11 m h
3 t% \ ff^rar gftajftmy* ^ ^feNt; i wwrn qfoi fftfr i
i giff»T: ^4afr4^>fM3«uSlamqn: *pt. i ^ tjRaiin iR*to4: wrj^f nrannpfr* *t i
irgrtmJ mfffiwr4:11 mvi% si m i ijar: i fiptf *itf *$
m i w i *ro *rrf% Trrf»f *4¥f4 wsnf *rr i Ji4W«i wwR*rr»wrvrrwm*r brst frm
ami xr^Tia *4f% I *BTO^% II II 4 H
ff(^^lf|rt%5? ^T^rl I
f^9t tnftwCf lit ii
I ffis^j: I I I m I |frs^TJ l 1
^^rsf«: i i iftsf^: i i i f^r^t i^:spn i xnft^K1
^^fMllbll
. iRmntMf\wq4^^|R«iitfr iR^^r i *rgri
UTiTftft v gj} ft^n fRflauJ^m ar«r*fa awwn^T
a sraftsTO ii w
W f^THTOt TTffRT f^ fW I
R TO|R^ f^rT RtTlf^I'^fv li <\<\ II
i ^fM i ifono:«Rff srt i R^fsR’R i ftfa i mM i g i fw^r i
WI tRRT I mpfc\f^wI Rt: i wf^i: I ffy i I II^II
^ ts[ f^*mr: qiTO^wint irffm «rf^m fr^ m^rjf^r^T i gi.qtftfn i wr
*roR firq flrqwt *wr *i*mRi ^rft g Rnr t^Ri i wuratj ^ W
^i tj »mi^fsf »ff:»*rcwm i «wt w gi
wrt gt it* fjiw k H«MuiiR*ff'i i
W ii II
^ ^ ^[fH^T I
sfrfiHtflR? W^’a? ^ IIMU
I 1 #rs^!^!T i ^ 1 I ^fn: I ^WT1
^SHTst: I f^ \ I an^i ^fT^I I ^ IIMII
_^ ^StRfv^mn: fi fmrmi Prum mW 1 wm Rt g^rra mf wrfi rntfrif^rre:
1 yiinHii(i<tf>i mmif«mm.
II ii
^TO'Rrff <»ifl4nl*W I
^nf^fa *RT W*hftWT IISII
I StaS^rft* I I ^S^Nrtf I
W i sjfafm i *nft: i #*hfr i i srfreswtrre IISII
qrarewT^q: irtTpr^rn ^5Nvi*jsr<w: i <rr: ■«n mTTf«»fm i i <al*fl«n$: i w
»’wg tW
tfpRi \
^nWT TOfrT TO II ^11
^i W i i m i thrift: i ^r i ^tts^v i
pit i i TOfir i i \ to www
*t ^tvvtfor Wcfo WBn^Tfa i n gnfcu Trwc^nf 3^1 **: rpj
0‘i^irtn *rerf7f *ret H^fTf wfa»Rt bbt 1 *n«,«ii ^rfsrr^if vn;«inaniviKiqT isfV*rr
,wfir 1 b^t 1 ^fa*pft Jjwt: 1 11
^n *t ^xihm 1
W: srtt: ^ ii^ii
VOL. IV. Tt
^pan i i sfrt i sracj i ^rr i fx*rot: i ^ i i
ht: i i \ 3ti h»^ra?r\ ^4: a««Ja
% t^: gxKrnw *rStt**fl »i fa<-*i ml Mfvw^g i nrjftg i ^wnfc i irTwro^T:
sufluytwr i 'aq*i^« i wi *rr: *rfn f^wi*Tiqw: m: *r#n ^w^SNw?# htht:
wit % »refN irren 15iwin
qqRritfk^fcq 14 ?T fNlfk«W11
^TRS^rft: I I %*•* I I 'R'ft I 4 I lN I STO^fal I * 1
w. \ fwnfa i a <\s a
f^-srt <prt®T^qqwqKqmiw '^rtwsr rnS^r^n. i fafarfa i ^ ^rfa «n«j?i*m«rot
ssrrcpfr *r * g**?: gvft fwrft i fWfa i fawfa i
in ■
m^T «3n4^fRHTt ^rafa s? mb a
in: i i i i ^rnsf^gTsn: i
rrrcrf 141 ^rf« i ^sn?n 1 i 1 ^ 1huh
m %qvVflwq: ¥t*ft tt^tt wit nmnftwT ^jO\^i<rr:
% ^mror wg’fnnftr t *w|q thihi<<*i«i«w^
^ tR«IW t M%f7T t^s ■
H*qo. || SrewTSTO II
m
„T ?CTt^hcn^fWf¥m: tjWNg i
^rfifa^jn ^ ^ no
*r: i 1 #4s*Tj^: i fasfafrn: i ^fWi i
^wf^si^WT: i t i ^ i ^ men
m iltMvtftiw. ilimiV. ffmforg fiftm fifiv firm: ffi: utihumiw gfasri
mm^i firm: ffufmFfm ffirtmn»prrm: mit fmrit mifl^ iti i fi i wft u
xrfri ^t \
Wf^^T^T ^FrR% -apT^ II °i II
I TlfTT I p l^rTT I I ftp*: I ^T I ^1 ^HP I ^T l I |pl
i ^t i ^i ^psft: i Wirfci i w. i 1 sjs?bre i ^pr mu
thi *HP^ 1% *t ** f®r«f irfn wftf? i *f*nn$ i
■qggn ^**t. nfa*rae 1^ f*rft *rfa *r**7 **wtsf* *3[T tjxrrf%
wf^^^^rgtHvrwrrf^m: *? *w*, i ^r. t <rc[T*fin* <a ^ «r^f%i-
«nt *N *r**% tt% f*ra i *nfa« wp% 3rr**4tf?T arw^* u** {ft siiwi^: *
W OTt ^ n?"
ifri i vff i i i ^pr; i i 11^1
ifflt I I ^Sri?T% I ^rN I f^: l I ^ST1R[ I ^T»t2^ "911
fa ^ ffW ii 8 ii
mfivWt |
H faajT 3lqiri*it ^fa || i| ||
wff ^5** i iH i ifas^ft^i^qs^nfa: i^s^rfrf ifafann^i
W' I fTWTr^l I I ^q: I f^qx: | 3TC£5fi^| q4t: I ^ IIq II
qrrfif'^Tff ^feqqret gqt ^qrfoqifqfqqqf?! qrarrcff qfn qjfH fiifqraTsnqn. fH
tfjj*# qrif fM^q. fqWt nqfq i xr wwTfqfx: a qjfaiq
vrffe qg?*rfH f^arc f^fq h^t q^T qwqT i ^rg i qrqTfSqw wfsftro p
T3nf5[ fqqw i x- <w. i ii
v 4m T&m: i
fa^ffa^t^IIwN: H tnfcWfaqT "<ff^4rl II b II
^ i ?qT i ^s^rifa: i ^^pr; i ^ i wftw i \ ^s|m i
1i *q?[s?nptta: i ir i i fpq i ^fes*nf ii bn
% i wt wt j3^tr: *sfl%*R **F* ’Wfil^r ^rrOt: M^
Or%fw: <qw<n^Uynwn*u tnfci ffe*m t»Nf i »t»ro ii
^rarfrr^^ $ flfd i
TrfS^V^T rN: ^ ^f%f*lfafft ftftf? M <=10 n
^HTfsT i wit i i <T'^ i ^ TEfrr i ^rs^rnfa i sw i i
nfrh i i rT^: \ i ^flf: i f\m i i i tfarT. i fpftff11 w
% wr *r*f?^ ** ^fli^fiixBnfiT ^n w^nfti *r Tvrfwfir w flwrft ^
^atnyrnfir «*fa iftmOra^i wiycrrOr i w i^ wwnsrcttOr i n^-
g4T4i)*r*tet i *>N i fl[^t ^
ftff ig^ni
^ fa fa ^nnTifaTTTO Tjqrfa i
f^t ^STTT *T: *pff || c)^ tt
^i^if^i^:if^i|:s^i^i^^i^,^l^l
WTi^i ^Tr^i ^frr: i %: 15T: I ^xri I ^R|^[ I ^, Jj:, ^, |g,,
I w^ I^r i^fTftr g:%M irrff7RTf% ^TTftr f% to i nrofNt fmro %v i tot
** I WTT*n ^ f^t yfolT^RqiSIMIJK-
*tot ^i*i wjwm f fa w*i^r<M$iIVSftw to ww | hto£bh}: u hc^ g
41 tfn p?inf tor gw I WlTO TOTO«f ITOT angwm I 4 wt TOt Ww
tfn n amt fafrotai: n
^ ^fa^srftraqirfa qra i
^ sfast ^ flrqril in ii
41 y 1 fa^1 frofa1 fafaai^ * T5STTr^1 1 i
^i rT^f i ^ i ©ma: i fas^ret i rrefaj i f^sgt i irfxN^inii
11% rUrttw fro wttoN 4 TOfar!ftfTOwrf% i ftrarfR i f^fcR^pj; atfarr frwtafRfq
^*11 n i gfrarm ggarm irTgro arra JtwfifW agar i fro*? r i «t|vwt wra
1fro n%’^ TORt tort agst Rfa wgTg f4 5ttorh4 »mntf?r ttf: 14 to
1HY fTOTTroror htto f?TO *m tort; toto arrg TOTf^nro wfrom. wfirro i tot
^R9t WSTfafTT TOW I TOT I % Wf?4 TOT TORT TOfa 4 TOf«i%T$ TOfl[fn |
TOT TOT TOTOTOTTO I ag0 <10.8^- $. I TfW TOitTt II
a *Tr* ^>%TTT Wl 3$ I
5Jrt^ II 91|
w. I 55$ I ^ I f1$m*c-1 ^t I snf^i \^i
w i *JSriiR; i 57^: i wm{\ gssriir: i gfc i irin^i i \m
a t^f ££«J fsma f i agfairama aga agarra att ^wafTaY«Nrra: i are? af3%a:
aNfrfgfa^tvfaai: aawfa aianaa ardaf?g*ia: i a ggiagg.ii anaaa^mama fsN-
m^raa; n anfcrraTa srpi f?fa% ir^ fga^aTgw aTfaag i arfag#a inftf?,, ,
agr i fl% ag^ ^tmssT^r agwTarcfaTara araarfgfa% aw wn^gwaia: awigaT aTfa-
ijgiaa H^afa i a amfr agwragat agwrwT %gaa: aai?t ggntjf aafagaa: i am i
gmft amfr aaara i aw<wg# gara: gj mmfaf <$#g gw: ag gaffir i gwa gtraafagn::
*r*a: i iftt W faa afgrgrrrgt agrft gg: rr§wi a<Vwwfa>ig I faama. n
^e| <^Rt ?T |
^SHT SFfM ^rJRT ^W*hftrTTT*i ^^afTr^ ||«|0||
i i ^ffa: i ^ i i i i *« trvR i
w* i sriM: i ^ws^: i i ^frfrftrT i ^ i n: i xi<j:s*n^ngoii
aafa^t ^aata nrtgwrt an na^ni ^wfa^Tna^T i naf«3aff?^nf?rTnr i nafaii
ni^afnint atn: i am i nraftn ^Y*c*rar»r: 11 am i*%fnmnnT*l: ani^fn^nit sjifntnt n^nt
a aaw aa i nanpaatanai anf^afr aa*& an ar i a aa arat aTmam i aara antn
aaata argm Wr ann%f^ i wrfa i aaTTnagraamarnataata i afaarg, i atiaras-
ma; m^agsafta: 11 at^ ffmat i afa aira ^^atfa fnaraar g: 11
^i^i^s^i^T5^i^i^i?gi^iT:i^rstn:i^R:i^,
^n^i^miiii^i^wi^i^sHtfrri^f^i^i^Hci,,
^ ngm* fir i mri i famf i g%i7jni wtiTi i
fi: ii gun: giinfig7rer itigr ^rrm itfi i i (f^f,
sfrrinii fi i*SiTi if%i fifi^i: i? ^Jfrri ii fiii ?nf ifim s$sr
^i; mif i if^ i$«iifi ii ^ir^ir^ji iir i i^r i mf iTii>Jirrfifi
js#rrfi: ii wifit fti: n 7rrfiftifffiiT§iitir ^nmr*n wW| u
HTbn g i *toI wi i i it i i i i
*tM I w Iiiftfwi^R^ i wisfsHtfti «fHfirif#n| irii
man iiTiiTfri iiii itwii^Tifsfi mi mi nnresTi mi g i gg mnfii
\ ifai: i liT ffii flit itiir iri iftfsi i mit: yliiii fg mg:
w<P I iTfTR iTii^iTi n in rnififi ii: i it ^ft itnr itmnifa wt: mre: #fii
’imhI mitfi i# iiii i fsiagw n
W§ f^T IT^T I
flT^fihnf^ WQIJ ^fTtfHTrf^fTT IItill
\i}\iffl i ^s*rct: i ^ i iTi^rt i ^t: i |f^i v^ i'^ r*}«
I ft[^5fiTfTlf?r I 1 w I ^STrtfrf I I Htill
tft wii fRiT: gmrESRtigii%HT if ung i fiw ^«mii:gi TTir #Wi
^I'Jfrri gfmrit gfii i ifmraeg i iiTiir ii ii fiifMiufi
^tiffiTfi iiTfi : TTirfii^f iti: 1 fiiT iiii: ii
u u 2
II II
^ Hftsftinl stftm i
^trW ^n *RrTtfimf^fw ^#R| II | II
t5^ I ^ I i 13*ftr i *p I srfan I I *\fa: i
^i i 15aTf^t1 1 1 ^i ^11^51 1
^T^i i ni i h^s^i faiw i ^i ^n i ^SHtfir i 1,lbl1
Eton Ef© TtTEi: E'ftg^EEignf ftEEE EtfEEtt I
fwwf; I EET EftE ^'^EEVEftt ETE E|lft<ftE*IE ?WEt3pT: E^EtfHElfNt ^
<*»<>.] II STCiftSTO: II
W
*tt i uronf 3Tf TOfSrfw %?c i to qftwft m ^Pung ^ptt mrr
to *
^rpg^rfflfTf ?ttoi4 f^fhsr ^if i wWjtoi $wnt i ^t *fr frofafw *mt wsgjn:
^ 1 TOSlt I ^g^fTOTt WTTOft I fTOT?TWTfwfW TO»ft f^Wt I fitSiRflg*: I fa% ^T ^ I
^ra^gfTOtfrjWT wt |tot i tot ^rnjwrrw i to^tM €f«r wtfro'igfwir tor|$
jrrTTOfr^ qrot pwtfa n to: Tjwrfwfrotw: 11"*
^rR 4 TT sftTrR I
fftokfT ^ IIM II
ft: i tfls^pTR; i ^ofiR i i wpn: i ^TiR i
ftNmt I 3R7T I I ?R I f S%^R I IIMII
1 wm: w?reTn. i wspsft ^ TOffitairrPTT ftrorrft i
a&rnfoiVu'i«miv*i^*<toti m^niPTO ft^urtro i ftgro 11 «i£«itifttrr»f-
nrfre: i to $. ^S. i ^ft ftxnfrm: i m«nftroc: i sraftro i <rroftmft’rr TOg i ?ftrft-
wpf: I TTOTOUft'CTW T^T^BTT^ft: II fttftffllfTWCfli ^TWTTO ^f?» I TOftst I TOTOfl-
TO3 fTOm% i ^tfUTOg i ^ffjTTOi gro gf %rp w ’'fg^ftrogroftt a^rftg-
Wtfftf II
SSfiTTST^RrT I ^<0 II If II
3*jirTS^ft I 3RW I I *|S*^R I ^fi4 I I H If H
^ rfroift *l^i<ingi<mqffTOg ^fti ftt i twfa i aftrirot i gro^ TftTOTrftq?t
grotf Tfrroft^taftTi ^aggiqro ’sfrorofti» 11 to w
store RfeTf T'srf^rf»3qj«i i
fH^HT II9II
^WfT I \ ffrT l l I I ^1 I
I I I I I ^JStn^ II9II
WZ ff ^fcTT I
gt: *pj«mRflk^T *tt ^aj wii 111
irsi \ ^«41 w. i ff i a: i ^JS^: i ^R i i ^§<*T i Tj^f# i
ijt: i fg«*1i 3^t: i *n i a: I ^ftr^i 1 ^fn w 11 til
% Rsfsnn war arepi i srsf arts jxp4
^ si \J '
aftWR f^rT
^
met ff « —
yntf
—
w W ¥^rr ^ i
m 5?t ii eii
w i \ W i srfi^T i i i^rt: i^*i ^fft i 1P1
«T I 5T. I ^r^l ^IbTS^ \ ^ I Hf^SMTU I trim I Hft I w|iel1
”1 ^wr: wYmr vftr*: ft ym*gxft wfw wfx fw jj^'JSr
b ^ ’Htwai; nt wftiwt fvxi gnrrti anNf^i xNfa^*wi*«jjft TWnrr i^
W.] II II
m
TO i f ^rr: ft g*n* frra gfrocr «fif i wfacfic i fapf i Turn i
tvf i *rfw tott^t Jf¥ fra*rrat wri gwri t TOT%*n^*sri pft m unit
^fiTOTfsrftni5^ S^: I *T v^ufrrai i#*to i fsrra; i to ^ta: i to%* qqmfa
grots tott i i vwr rowrrr *£1 *i<ft fhfcrr ^«
H ^ T$ ftrpH-fogts^J TJ*pT I
wfwgi^T mi
K I Ttl tf I ftf|S^it I *& I 1 I
i • ^s|it i i i *v t sra mi
1 gror ?* TO fir^Tsm froiwrowre m i tort firjf^frt frorrom i wrfgfn: to sm
TOoro TOt^^g i to<j i w i TO*prr ^xrnf^R ^%w n toto gtf ggPifir fit
TOTO^tr: B TO TOTOW; I ~i TO3TO TOfTOTTO^ WfWPifY TO#$TTITOfrfMYt: SS?t WI# 1
qftigtj' i tot^ «ft?r3l i faro topJ: b TO^nfror ito ?• <£$•1 tototo: b TO*ftTOng *t-
qjTOTOTOTOfrg TO I TOT I iftTOTOS TO%3 ^g %TOtg TOJ I ^ftiWTTO I TO «
T*3tf%fa3FHrT: I
,an ^t ^w^lw vi ii?ii
w. i to \ f^kir: i i i ^fks^hr: i
<i^« i ^t t *ras^c i i ^t i i to[ i ?i *9|1
w
% frorrTOf ’sHHtotrN? i to^to i n^eni i %
jT^***iqfns( «npit qrr ipfaN i i f*pwnvn
to H»pt: i qfHf|d«uSlfln. i TOff<i we irfrorni to i groq i
fjft f^wsii^TTff: f? r i
« ^ ^T| lltfil
i i ^r: i qSRfa^X1 1 TO i i
SrT Tfoqfcsm I
froi to Tj?if?[T^ ii d ii
S*t i rr i im i i *pr i ^nsfai: i i |swr i srcfa i
MI I *mS^l RfR I I Spfo: I TpRT^ II <111
toer totow trotwrorrawfaw srofrore torto $$tto wfa wrotfro i ttto p#*
TOfa faro^prrow i gf frofr qfiifn: i ww spnrfr TOdft i \ nfrot spror to i ^?^'
TOfrofro xnrol n i to° 'q. q.'oi. i *fa V. # W*«gro* tf* *p? wtot i fwro ’Bftf*1
gwl TOTOW^f TOWwfn totour TOwrorfroroJ: i p: ^fw i tostto ^ i TOront^
#rwn f^roif iqM.i torrto tohi i tottjt itw^: i toi uto ifl=«i*y4i'fTOT ^
Pl4wi^«» TOMTOM | tfW fTOR TOT ’RTTO^: I ^»T fW%»t WTOTOPfr^W TOTT WTO pTO^S
TOn^g fitTOW wfwlR Ttfror xriirfn ^totoi: ii i TOtfWz^frwwrrTOprTO 5s 1
frofr wwva
to ^ rn^T wi^fH i
s ^ i9 i
uftifimfroat n?«
r: i r: I ‘Mfnsf^: I I RS^T I r: I ^ l 1 *1^'
R^sfsn^i RprsTrr: i ^T|s^pff i <pr$*fcn i 11 ?B
yt TOTt^gil I TOs^W TOBTTOTO^i ^Ntfl I * t*
ylhTOFtitot froftfwgw: iterror: i »«%'sfl *P*Pn*:
*: v wr gvf gw^wfiiln TO rot^HTOifNr: i to TOf^fW: ,
grra «w rofit frtf smT i tot yfnrn: ^Pfron rotr» 1^
n li
^ nWrfig «tm i
II ii
TTRSfiRT TRffa I
^1 1 1 I ^1 I WfffR? I I
% ar% aTaTf*mTfafa ^att amtai atwr arfwt farf Hfaaftaaa't faatfaaiaifa ifaTaa-
«wr**uanf<*iiwi*ni 1 ^ftja I aifir Irf? I arfHaae I itai WT a f ^Srg 1
faarr aaftja 1 %$fw w^aativta awr aaai i aaaiaT 11
w* firo i
^ ^li«TT I
W5n^%; WTRT^rtw: ii 8 ii
^firft i wftsw* i it* i ^q'qj i i i 1 ^s^t*- i
sret v& i
is ^n: 11 <£»
3to: i tt^: i ^sw: i Wf*} i snrtn: i i \\m i ^k: i
i& i *it: i R i i i htW: i I if** i ^n: lien
% ts2r a?fa$?aHa a^ana^ii%T^^«*i^<r<ga: 1 arg garrerg la^lm na tcare-
ftq: asnama: i aHaaft aafa i ay i aatfa anai'Aigm^ i % t% w in aat fa?p
faganaf aari aifrfa ag marta arH gym: i qWl: »xp
gmfaarar aai^a aj: 11
cftor: i: gyfi*n?rnfa I
sst! w ^t ^rPrftr: non
^1 1 1 ti i i ^ i ^STfTi i i
^ arrernrr # # ^mi .
m^aiT^ al gm i li^grcsgfr mrnr gma: gfaa: ay amt ^
gffa ’9gf%: i fft w ggm am aam Tfa 1 faatfmanr$ ttaayr^ia^aa <3ml«rarin i
fa^a i mnsn arm at aT i ararata aatar atmni! i ftrsnr^r: airfa: -^,.
aiy atafr gfSNt man gfaat gara: gfaat m aiarr gf4at gara mlf^l ^
awSt fajaarran araat %fa i aat fafmfta: n
it sroRts^i: ii
»r=rf7i ii
I ^irTf^cT *T ^ Il«H
IV I I I ^4% I I I I ^I
^ I *5i: ll$ll
?t f%: g?*rra gg ^w*f wrofa^ to% to tmts to
*TOT»isMeT gfror iij} i fftrom: ii 11 ^'
itpi. ffw^t iri'WTOf tt wrfgr^Tftmfg: i i ^ v*‘-1 1
t^t xfn i »?f3j7Tfr*rf»nf i rRTirr^w^ *rofn TOl ii
^I5TT I «TT^5H 3 II t H
i srafa* ^ ^r
^4t ^ %frT^l v| | *PH#R *RT$t: II (ill
^I^l^l^^l^l^l^sgi^-IHS^I^I^S^I
SRf I’SfTOt: m
t ty * ^ i I TTfTTt %f?r*fr fw i *t irefltffim j^in ^
ii in: it gna wpt Tfa i arwaii ^rena ai^% i%ftgf?r i ^ *fteisg-
fsrg i H^pff *r^ft#r an iftwnrr *t wt^^itoh^i ^ an m *4
^^arcrai ^Tanranrar arcr:an^«t *rn ^arwarnn h\f*y i -^«iin: 1apa*n an *nwr*r
nratifit wwnl 7i%^ srer arrnnarnfnntsTO: 1 a^T 1 a^r aaqaiamian^urnni w
arm^r: ar5j%3f an iftaannr nra*¥t«nfc 11
iiRT^xn^f^^^inoii
ftwi^i*[fcf:i^s*Nrft 1 >^1ftm 1 :Isfon: i W1 ^ 1 tt^ti
ftnreh^moii
1 isC % ?n ahrfan: afmag fn^ narcnn ’gfarm: ffingTiMaml nanf* ftr$\ ^c 1 H^g 1
wr ^TTftrwn wm anft % fsiai ifare: nwrai *j?t 1 »ng 1 amr ?^t # nf%
<jnanvft ajn <3fiafa% <3n4nr«i fxr^t% arr f^ ajf^frf saw a
'Jigw^r ’=rfnmr ga aaT afaar: gyr gat agy atfarat aganaigaT aragaft agi lagan
atfarat aaa: n 1%: at^fgfytnf<gi fara: y g%y tpj gy « gy yrcnrv: y at wr yTaaiat
agfyar faat gia’fia't gat ag*h*graqi<{tgrc afire i argagH ii grgafw-
wa: i afire i gifgft firanry %ztfa fay i farq aT§g^g i tnr» 'a, *. mc. i
ttiiw:i ggalffgifg^gt gaargyr a^ifafw^aT gfaftf: gifafiry ^tatt aggt-
f^afar ^tf^arat gjfnfayfyt aaa: n ytatf: inft a’^arraTfgfa faaatf^ama: i afa aft
gyrtgan^arraai n afi:5*n%a afx^Brraifaa afyatiaat gaea: a^aw^fafa gfrym-
gra^pS ga fanrt gat gw ayy ^g aaa: i ^angaag: i afyat fg ^aTara^rf ganarr-
aia ig° aT° a. <rc. i agT i afwnta afgat aarft gfr at aareT at aaT ayg ^g aaa:
w^arat aaa: ii aa ^agaTaafaaTa^g i gaar i foagSldnf^gi aroma: y
a% ararra at gat i garat airgyg i amJt aryt aggat aaa: i faara faarrfaa aara
faryt afa gar gat yggat aya: agy i agT i gaT n awn wan;: h garwt faavt ag i aat-
^ataTfaa aa^ft taTia^^tia^Tfgwt aaT Oaaiat waa: agjprT gtror gmt ii ft^f%
flR. i at^arra gfa faatfcagTaw ii agr i aaT fraaret aaa: ii ftaitfigaaaaa: a: i ga
anffn;: y garfta aaT gat m<afaan|t wret ^agaitl forfi ^aa^a aaa: ng^ a^rtf wa-
*»TaTttawra# aa^i^l g^iaata^rggtaaaa: iigr^T%iggl<aTnagia»a-^i gat^wa:i
«^aTaTgfaa: t aT° 8- % 8m-* i afa Ttgj agraaat g^Tfgfa faaag^raa y g«t^4ifgg i
Rra i aa *rfi y arat^ ag y a^Mdiargft aiaaaftatanrra aaa: i aggat g^t aartggr^-
’fTana ar^mina aaa: i far%a fawfaa aaHof^wfa^ aaat aareaTtggftar
*?Nia aaa: ag^ft aftgat MRatara aaa: i gitai^a gfaaaT^ra t g€tfa fa«awji
gaaTat afag, y agaiaat aar aaf afa ata gaga: agg i agr t g^tafta i g€tfa
l^ara i agat ggat aaT ^i^aig^ga: aggat gaaargtaaTjTa gan gfag i arga^a i
** * ^igaa^ifa aaangr a«
VOL. iy. Z Z
S'# h h
fwwt wn *mri *nrttm i
«rnt^t^T ^fJht h«tst *Mt^ tpcfar ii m ii
isr#rrs^ i i ftNTTrt i ftrerst^ i ^rn i ^r?ni i ^irlMm i
^T5rts^ I ^TT I Wt I ^SWT I I ^T I wrfl I fchfl UMtl
itfm <wnf*re annfowa«ft fwrf*ra afr w ganfr g*rcf ya% i qgmrrRrci,
fflrtaiaw^ i ftr g&V i ■qqugfNrTffoft wT%iT5*raira: i w^rrwt% ^i
fftraRai aam ftprrarr fiHnft i g*§»ntn?a. i f^i ^nanit n^t^r ^aptTfari nTHfaft ,
fir*l RirP* i WTRanfaf* TrirWtYsnsnfr jpFt fwnni) i ®aft: anftw tr*i i ap ,
gwft »mr: i f*nm f*mfrc i Rmr^r ^futgtwn^ i qgaqnaatWniiuftq&ff
amgafr ammqrj^fiHt »mr: i am ittttt »pi ^prowntrrfn *irfn tj$[ vwrf»r ajtft: arfinft
anftft « aprt <n^ar:aw i apmtaf*f^nm^rR yfa uw *J® i %»»arajfi i
HTflMfiT ’anaroaft aftasigftsit 11 anai afari i ^ i ma^airtimm. I’a* ?• ^iwi ^rnron
irft* arg*a$n ^ Tfa w*m yi * iff ai^cfll i f*rer i arofapuaR apri
ajasniwt «*m i wft ftprrm wrr uiaroWr ^<®fa *j<sMi*nf*< amft ®7*R^narfirct;
apgaga;®*® ftqfinttfrn i ^t%*t Tnrrf^ amatft *nanR^iafl)
ara^am 1 usTfasri: 11 1 'afin^w^ Tr^: 1 ^wf|-
wft'n: # *w?i v4gjft 1 ^Haiarfni 1 arartfvfsr $4iM^*a*Pt ^arnaRnff ww 1
^STa^TTOTfafTT arPSIf: I fn° 44- 4. I I ^ aTT^ *J*jf fR: I 7R ^aan^nflRaft HTO I
fwi iRi fa’f. 1 aapy^r ®far ’amfaafar ainrn r%tfrf^ 1
aft amifo qR^KuiRft ara^prTfarart lata^nnB^ ’er’St *m4T yR*(Mfl*ft «atr: n wik:
^frR: 1 ^nr^frr: mR^^uiMt ii g<WT vn^i^i ^npt m\mRaiO W ft^:
wre: 1 yfW 'fr^nftfn w 11 1 <\ 1
*[#* V%flM I
?^3fa %^TT m ^ «W3lt HTT^ II % H
5^*lfS?31 Sft t I I {prft I 1
^n^nsi? 1 1 ^ 1 m i h 1 *nr§ \ wsrt i
wrRa 1 *ftrtf*r: a an m^Rfa ^ 1 ^gnrrff «nr*nTR^wW
gtfaft 11 w "jfia anR*n^ 1 *w<flnnfffit Rwm: r w 1 1 *nH^'
anrrronRrSrtrr 1’RraTT arvRnt a tt. fire 1 ^° 8- 8a-qo8.1 twHuiiR^ Rwaw: 1
^pir: 1 gRanvi<fi»|n tR i ^ wvtk: i ^ni«aR«<ft^Hf ^^AnTvT
wrfn a»^d 1 am aj4R^ atffaRt ^ryrf a^an^t a
^4^<iaaT^¥nRai *n«q: 1 ware aronT^t^r: 1 gts ajqi ff^nt 1 i
TtRshh aafl^^iRawunlRanT: iWi n^unnami^mRafl^Ogaw^ ^
Rfwr arRrfafai wh ^r ^arr ^ «*nRi*ft *nft
wrR if*t*<^.4.» ^aftKa 1 P»af>»iR«ivii4T 1 RiarttmftfH RafW: 1 awna®
irpi <anff i 1 nau^aqiR^t R«®a «a4 ® 1 iaW,T
i TOUrMiiOw^TO i *•#. <*o. i yift^namint frowft i to i
«ftgro»ri viifrjfflN r g hkm^toN: t toikUEi ftmaft 11^;
??cwT^nn_«rn«roi 8 Wt*mu to $.1.^.1 i^ir^m^-
ii to snrrl to f*i4^n i ^tfTjgurrfwnJ: i %tot %»nft TOaO<ft * flra¥^St-
afafrJPj*Tfn «froi ^ TOrfrotPr *mt Tjaft grittt ft tffw-
iwwflrft V7i to TOg toihN TrfrcTOA totW totoi*
TfTO TO* * *r5ft ftTOtoto *fn to tok<« TOTO^i^Kititq *
TR JTftr I
<&ht^ ^jnfafa^RT ^r^ttr non
mfrmsiz 1 1 w 1sft i w 1 nft i ?fHWs*rfti
^:i^i'cri5iH^»ft^i^iT:i^ni^tTS^Nij‘. isrfaHf:i^iPii*nI*ll<,(111
% arfajaft aaj OigfMai^if^iyqTaT i v«rrw i i ^ 1^1
fi^Tftpftfa <naji: fanpf i amf ffWanPH^ g^rnart arganar i nar^H n ^ ^tbnfutrfQ'
ftfvfvf i i aiaRryrt aarw araaft ajaui^fta^f a^anw wm
Tjo Cjo. ^09.] II II ?M9
*n$fiT tUTwfW *H *r»nfW *frayn uth i TOni<*d i to; Trf^utf ^
TO *rg tot* * i toi tottoh? i wi^ i TftTT*nfrowg TOT^iTOtTOT»r»m ^t^t-
TOTOfaft tow i ggni Tnranwf^ftpft: ^rr^fH<am*<i<an*iir*r: ^firfroin: i
wfm 1 «5!$»ranfff^5:11 m w^Tf^: 1 *n*i%u tow 11 wW
TOTfw wtfiNf* 1 to fimwnwnfrputfflft gftrefip&-
inf*f# **«
TwfqRS^Km^a^i fw i ft^ 1 TOrtSfc gm ^frorr *rr *rf$*T i to-
vrt Wjrff TOift firer t*f ftyw 1 #t grTOMrofr j(W*n«m ?[fwr TTfmrft
totott *nr gr*rH 1 to: ^tot 1 tot -m^iri 1 ^ifaf^sfr ^frorr att jrraTrorr ^frori
a$i^i«r\qgtT TOiftfit 1 *mt fafroR: n
TO ^WI^Kt ^i^T: ^ I
%*!TO ^Njw^ 4^ •srnit^T: ifn n 11 ^»
TO I f|f^l ^UTSTO \*Rg i^i^s^t:i«h^i^i
i ^[*|rrs41 1 to:s^t: 14t»r 1 v 1 frrtpf 1 «n^:»*»
5^hhito> ^fwRT TO^r «[fw ^rofr wim TO^t: *srtf: ^ ^
1 frofa 1 ^h4i^*Tiwt <igR»lW ^rf^troTf 1 ^jmfr ^ to-
*trt: % ^rWrf^R %
frof?r 1 ffTW ffW^Tmr: ^groro-
Twv4^ 3f5i% 1 ^ripi % fipc’srfrorRrnrR 1 tot tNr ^ tw Tfa TO 1
^ tt»T ^TT^^Kj^glgHHjaigli tRTft ^ «frr ^ ^RT TO fTOtWl I Tnt ^ ^TgtTTO H
1 to <4 <1 Hr 1 n^r^i<,fafgp}: 11
^fW^TOT ^R5»n ^ ^ 1
wn ?r:: n4rt<r^<sn4tsW4^T n?h
^ i ^fir: I \^ s TOT i * 19rft«*: I *ff I ft I rjsfft i
^ i si: i xnftrs^fipns: i ^nrersfon i i Tjsfft 11311
iTOifvfl' r nn#8.q.«M-i i mfift gf^: natron
t^rwr r fagfffft fTOftnr: n |toto i waj*!>j?nr <fwi w *WTf<wi: r gr TOfaror*
t: i's0 8- 1 fTftgwra: r jfTO*i*ptfti*r|wr: i »i wnqrRi i W i ^rret *pj?n ^
<£tfTOt ?rrf^ ^iw ^frron ^ %*?t »» tot: i tpr %gvg^ i f| *nm%
yf«m»tnT<t wft grjfn »r jftnpjft r gur wtapt iffcphpi: r *%,
^TBKTf %qqmif< RRif RTgfg I TOT* I »TT: qnfart %nTT: IT* yg<f^lRT ^
wtrt ii *rfffn i?.q. w. i «warning ftmflro: r urufini?i
f^rff<n^T% ffcmfn wqfw «ig i TOTWfarr tptifn i 3qwftui*iP! i TOroprt fommin-
*r^ftrorr w^nftartf: r
flng: i ■*rr gqwn fftHqqrqr qrfnt nt fa*g: i *?Wn frjnn 3TTOT ^hf^nrn:^
fsn*: 8 qT tmM HT^ ^ i i ninSvqgwqiffr pr: i *4fl<;q^HWfii«<;st IH ^
i^TTT qqnf^qT3T*r»rnrr: unfa ttwIwt <fq*niqi <{mu'0 fnrr fast; i
qrofn u
*tsT*n^ ^g4iTRT i
W pfibsjiHf*4 IIRoil
i *h J^rf* i m*z i i i W i ’^ttrt i
J^TOi 1 ^1 ^RiM?S33 i wt1 i^wrs^ i ftp* non
»fmrq *n wi aOwmfinffre « falfir i #tw: 8 f* ffhrmrot:«
nwr ns^n i qRrr^rni ♦iRqi^T^fwq fft'q*i M^ttfl i qrtwrq^qqT ’jwnwr ftffajqnqiftTO
qwsriqtKiflwrr *r ifcm*n wt n$ »?P3rre qrr% i nm ^njtq
%T« jjf JTqfq I | B^fWfa I g^RTTftr TOTfq TO fWtfn g«ofc«ft I 37 qqt
Mfltmfef+Hq’sm *rqfn n^ qf^p fq<nqif<(*H.|5i»«i « qfti^r qfprct
fJTJTO: I qftfqfw fin ^ qw i nfiKna'C fin 8 n*TT ^Wlq 8 fri
ggfqf?i qqil«ftq^n«{nqiTT: 8 ^q+unfaq fqn *nfr?t ^t*t w nqfn 8
^Tft ^iffrf i
Ht5f H^wts^nn ^ ntw: ^wf iirrii
I 3PRf: i f|S^: i ^|fTT i $ s^i W i ^ i I
$N «^I*}1W™1 ^11 1 1 1 ^hri h^11
gjqT?: b m qrq% i qf%fn ftpira: 8 sftonqfnintfT w *foi <?mii q?fn i fw
^ir Hiqqfn i nrft ^fwn ^t^swtw gfn; gj qqrrfptfn w ^
qifa i qm qsrq: i i ^rrat % ^nr tsH^q: *ftg i fwm fiigqnlfnf^ViqiikOlft ^
w: i w 8 n n?Pt 8 *roifn wsfrrtn *frcmct j^fn htt: «qim: i %g »frqt qini^qwi^w1
TTift *pnf*r: qWfr »fnfr snini H^rf«tm ftq. fNn^g nl^nr
*iqfn 8 fat nfa i nT^flfqjqi^u nm nq n wtqrra^fn frgfl^w nftnfiftw 8 8tf8
fq>r*<^nl8l«*T^r-i? qnn fw %s» i ‘itnOffn^ qqmwtigw ^
*<^KgV<Miw gfrqf Wfmg fnftg gwfnW^r^qr qqT*n^wnj
%fqmimn»npff n*Ht ww jhw»^Wtm ^iff
|T»in*<q^n tprf firftqi^ qq^ngrin. i ttw qwtg^ftfnfrr njg^iwTw^^Jrj
qrqarfq i nrq n ,wq«n ^ i fqjftqrrqg^Nrr B’*
qrraifj nf§: qqnff ^*mt i nrn^rgqrW i fqifn^ft qRof^^glr^pn m qi^gnTO^
iftf^qr qffnrogfw: qipft fwfWn: tfrg: frt nisg^iwipH^^tfl uwms ftn 1
fqf*i^n:«
tort tp^r w$fx.: to^: i
gffre^fm ^ft MRdWRlwP TTOrt ^ttr: «Rn
*1° ^0.n° S? ^ot.] , II SfctftSTO II
T^T ^ ti H^rtfarTT I
^TOtt r|T TIT ^TT ^r\ ft ^ ^ IMill
^ 1 ^i ^ i 1 ^its^ 1 ns^tfam 1 i^h 1
IWI I TIT I ipt: I w 1 I ft I I 1 H5ITH II <1II
fi?rqg% *rfw war: inwrravTir: 1% wfvm vvt
wr qvgt nrv tot fvnn »n ^fr g«t<iq%f7t Sfa infff^rr %^wiv vpm^wfv a
1 f^r#r froinna: 1 vfv^q nn gq?ro v$fw vtJrfq-
«T»rmwre: 1 ftfqF vtajrpFPPftffl JiWfvnr: 1 11 to to TOnT^froT 1
1 1 ff g H’T^t to: 1 i.s5.i<0vT vv? 1 vfq ntf t ^ ^^toto
*wt vgj q^TO^q»mg> tosttv i w v to» v fqrorw 1 fronv vtto^w^: »
'ft^tTTT ^ ^v&<ii'4Kr<q?raTft ^ 11 ho ii
" 3 A 2
art s^t: ii* i i ^\i ^p* i ^sn+: i ?it i i ii^,,
to «m<wh8> i% qror: mt TOft *i im TO*!Tfa i *ro TOrot 'er tt i%q arrotfo t
% «rn»ffn i HT^Tf i tart *ftrn ^rprt wtortt tftrorar ftf: i TOtfrr i fronqnKsmr^
TOtrfrt t^tt^nat irror tot TOft i mft- ta n aft 5t aftro ttroTO f»nf«T^m to: ^
*ttoto t^Tfsr to^^tot. i froftt Hn*i«T^T3[«jfw n wf vwrtl h tot: qrrwr% twr:
wrt tott ft qftwroftw i wwt irfTf to^h i w i aftro TOjro>f«ft tt mroi«
tot i tui totT i tftfe to* i qrttro i <3Wfrttrojft fTOTfrotroffTO qrofr:»
ssrpriigtf: i^|: H If II
sia^gmg i ?st agrsTsf is f?sta*t y*K'<$: i ^S3^: sfafssrsY i aanaft i aw
sfa gat^i*. i as ^aag€r: ant i^rs aar sariJ arasTan gi#twr a^STsYita gas# i
Tj4*^^T^f»rf*rTt tiTwft ^isnrafsfa *rrs: u
*Ttrft I
'ZrfW' *ir$ IItil
3 ^IttfTj^bTTfa fret i
rR?i ^ f^ir^ ii^ii
^yftrriT ^ 11 *
VOL. IV. 3 »
II0,
^i^lf^i^?T:i^i^:mfH:i%:i^$^:i^T5??T:ii?ii
arerreretare retro re$ reranSig;: f*a$fs[ are 1 rerefat 1« fw tpt fro: irprr
renftre: ^5m Mf«iaretfarfr »refw i fare^: ^fare*i?i*tfr grenro 3lreanau*i sreregrin.
i% ^1 res 1 atrearet frora grefr 1 re- <». m-<\$. 1 ffn rermt a 'are arfat-
^wt^t%3 aftref^it: 1 —11 f^ft gprtro ^ qf^^r: 1 ^r; a »rre^ 1 rerefl<(Kf*mm: 11
ft RfT *irft 1
fs pro^pi tot: i
fa ^ pm mpretoft TOFapfar: nin
i fa i psm i p i w: i ^Uro i *Fjmro i TTRn: \
f^i^^^f?ri^r4i^?ni^^i^i^[:i^s^-i^T|s^lin: iiin
% ^ fWT fw im f^rer: i qn^uT: i ^rqvft: h ^t^Hf ainj
<*<11*8 t*? i fafa 3^: i firetniffauro: ii % ^nft vfonfter wi^q^nn^i^
T3^ a'frn^rei to ?mn ^wr *ret*r q%wmffpqrni na fa aaar i faarfipi-
^ nfa n aawrertfn j?i n am t *roa,aaaferf aTjtaT gata^aTana: u
*rmr ^fin famifo %?r€t u*$fap i
^T ^ fpt W wf%5T ^ ^ IISll
tot i pi ptf: i i fanrt i to i %rfa: i tj i srfap i
A %p II p 3TiTOTfa TO ^ ^ IIbn
ft 1 fa# 1 tott: 1 w^: 1 tot 1 i£m i m: 1 ir$*fa 1 *p: 1 wti 1
A 1 %rr 1 ^ 1 ^ 1 pj:, ^pf 1 ^n4; i <r*41 A 1 m 1 p 1 ^ nt»
w»m *r$ mun: naaaifa««iair atrff ft faa arg: i fata am: 1 m ara iSF
aat trtn f lati aaaat tfa aar^i iaT#?. ?-m§. 8.1 fwaaai%if 1 amwHUMftwt-
atTfp?ncafiffrfrma 11 aarrarraf 1 «tfn 1 ira^fn ^ 1 qm mimaw: 1 \ ,wq: ^
*prp**m at f^. 1 gia atft 1 fvt *jw f a; mfT ft fqrrqi m4 *r a;
iwrt f at 1 ^^awrffa^POTTajmar ^rafawv?: u at 1 f*wpfR ?rji«r^ 1
arnttn atT^ir: 1 fnrnft^t: 1 wr-1 qit4«i^«aifai^gnffaT ««wwa: 11
\w. ftr^c%u ^if^m: n f#fro 1
g^roiT ^3tT ^7 ^^%s%n w f^rfHwr: ii^ii
to 1 fiNw; 1 ^?n 1 iwmwp; 1 spi ?tti t?itt: 1 n 1 1
g^rorr: 1 '3W1 ^n: 1 ^|%i ^ 1^1 pT: 1 h 1 1 f^rsf^*11611
1 tf fttff %ta aT^roaTam.# ’ire aift 1 *»jfT%n 1 ^ *T*rt'1
n° m] it H
wfTrT: I
TO ^ ^rft tg. yff: II <*o ll
fnftel: i ftfv i ^fft: s i i srt^i wi: i wfer: i sfartj i
Wl^l^|TTrf^Tl^^l^W^l^:i^^t:i|5i^T: non
wHt: it *TO ^fwfrft wtert^u: i ^^rtwnrfirfTi i wtq^’erf i
ffcprri^Nt: ii ^fT^rr: ^tott ,srro: fiHj whc^r^ i ’sjprssn. i ?R fro: i
*m f^ra: *<prf?TOf*OT^f?i ngft i wn;: T|WT wtrfro wfiraferraT-
jmrmfrH: *<mft i % i$ ^ w^i ^nf^t mfro qTf^rrfa v^-
nfNfaffrr fsprr ^fa'nwna % »j?*n i ^i»i^g i ^rr i
w^Nt: f? anseg i wra f? ^NtN mf^TTN vrorfwp^j «*n3-
^Tftwr ii ii w ii
i% fw wtnfc^ft *tto f*rapufhr ^eft: i tot ^rffTO% i
r$ faw tow^t Tfw ii *rat f*rf*NN: ii
t? M HfrT^TJT $?r4 HTiTSTW^ I
frR ^ ifclT* IIS 11
?i I W I irfFTSWR I ^rT^f I Tn?T*S5HRi I W^ I f? I ^tStlWfl: I
I ?ri% I I I I ^ I *Ht I H I »Rm II ^ II
^ t% ?r ufa^m Tf %i BrrirreriwnJTfw ii ^ra^rr^^urre: i to ^pc: ii fror^TO
^ 'TOP^g ^TTOW II ■*NI*lf^flWrf%3rWT»lQ'il qT<iri(>m<(r»IV||7i: 11 ^TfTWT^: 1TT^:^«I%
itHfJurrer: f? i g?ffaff i ^^tw: w*m ^ vnw: i w i to:to: i
^ttot: g: i wm:*ra% ^ BTOmr i*^ttoit$ mf^r 11 ?T?^ V^-
^f^WTf^^tift^TTO I w I wWfc « HWt % ’JT ?T TT|^^ ^ T$f I w€\ *PT I
TWT ?t ^T f^tHlRM^Hai^ ^T<f^fTOf§: H#: ^ 5WW I JW II
^ft^rTT T3HT m I
*k*H3l H?H
^ n to fw *hra«5t i
^ Wit vt%cro W i fVs Ww* W l,s'"
u snorts**: n W
t£ i ft i tn^f i s fa* i *51 fai i i mi i sf?t *m s *rat i
yfo i ^rs^r* I i *«*: nj i Wf i ^s^fn i ^7:11^11
% tsf ** ^*»<iifq4 wPiti 1 wifateKt^q *w k fo| 1 fjrer B ^
^rarnt srar^fa'^i xrrftr ftR 1 ^7fr *rf^cR strong:
xnw*srnftw^f%fr*: s?}: ifrnt^ 11 w>fari 1 fnvmmtpr: iur»f 9.^8.1 fw-
ffim: 1 ^fnfiTwmpn 1 mqif^: n tfirennfTOR ^ ^t
vfwf^fa 1 ^rf*ror*ra?l h 1^ Jifd^irtD: Hfarf^i: 1 f»^nrryi% ^trnf-
^OTl I
T.^ ^ifa TO'JfrH'^wftR f%3J ^T TW II **0II
^fas*e«rr i m i *ros Yt i TmmT^ i ^ i ^tfa i ^js^ i ,
I ffa I T^Sfr^l I 3pt% IfarU 3111WT KTOI ||<*o||
% ytpwwyfag; wtvwtwtwn wrg *mr ^wrnm^r^nftig wtwrfro: i ^nj^Tfttu ww-
w iwat s wT^TffftgnfHwn^ %tot gwrpgiw i uflnrFwr gw i % wt^t%w f wpft ^
^rfipt: <ti witwf wtg^w wf^rprrwrw wfwfw wtfa 1 ^pror »spy
wtmf^sR: I wtfe Wt ^ I W^fHrq^f* %TOfoig*3*Tf*TWI<f*fl%f?r ^fvSnrc: t
wn ipr gw: 1 wt$vt<jwt3PT fwwwr^ff^rwnw 1 111 TOTOsgfw w? giwni: ^
uw ^ wspyw TOT^rolrow ?r to wfv 1 giw 1 nrprff 11 wflfoitft ^xpgwi^jftfr
tf& 11 fwwrwnlf fw^wwwt^ wrptTOwnwul wwtwt tot 1 *uPi*i: g^ 11 snfUflftr? ^fir
wftmwf ^txr: 11 11 q? 11 11 o. 11
^irer-sfrf^i wtww gwrfw 1 to Wfl $w*r^ 1 wre wft: 1
wr fwjw fw tow: 1 tot wtto^ 1 wror srrra5^wf^w?tfwf?t h ^wwre^i^
wTOwta tprow 1 ffro w 1 H^r^r wpngfwft wit tsft gwf^fn TOwftw 1 wt° c.'o. 1 1
fTRWI tdJ^ I
^fafi@r 5f^t ^HWinr: IR11
rt 1 1 f^: 1 1 i ^51 1 1 ^1 ^1
I 1 1 1 Yi 1 1 11,11
ftwi>7raTTO: 1 wpfr wt wr 1 w*pit wrow wtrorrg wrow
v%**r^wr ^^ir^rj-^igflpm wti wfw w*m: 11 j<wwjiy*
topi 1 fwfro at^ofn 1 wtfw 1 werwT ^rwtw, wwnrfw: 1 wntroft
gw wwanw. g?iqTf*is(t «iroi: w^Wr^tw: «j«in«n«fu*ran*
Wf ^ 3pt *T^rt: flf WRT^p H%Rp|f^T ||? II
^ I ^1 ^%Tl~f^I ^l^IT|^S^f^T: ip^tl^l^rsf^l
Wf i ft»^sN I H^rf: 15Rf I Writ I i pi srfpn3 I tt|jt II?,I
T** ^T^iwnfi, fTOn^rn'^, |%w ^f^n:
«TRn: 11 fn«%^F wrorfw: *n Tsmjpiq^ 1 igrT^rrfWd ftrc: fqr^qrrc;^Tmt*F: 1
f^rr^iTf5[f<T fWt 1 ^jit^totw: i M* aiTtfftrra: 11 »wanW
%?T3f^: II <Tq f^qVTf«p?i qftf JTOTqfag wi | qfjjq | JjfrfJT n ^rfr I «Tf 1 qTqq-
»*^f*rerra: 11 f^ % T^*fr^t^r ^rqTfapqmq qq ^ <q^fa *f$*nqfjif^i ^ ■g f%% ^
jrnm^nrrann 11 q4srtq*sei^: 11 qpjnfcq; 1 irqrfr ff^ qftf «qfa u
^psret ^ ugu
jjft: wmft: n i
Tjf4 ^ ^ \m
>tfk i I i ^pksfe: i i ' rr1 1
i£-. \ jrf% i tti ^tfrt\ y[14*nfe;i ymsy*yn i *pp* • lie"
% ^nrn-: 11 rmujwiflft*
»^htr: i q^wn^r I arr° *1.8- ^0-« *fagw: h ^fn ^tm'ifww (
ft?«i ^rf%: ?n?rrf»r ^w^ftgqrwn*r^PTO gf*
wgpa i TjfKjn i tj^sj inrarmama Tra^% ^ ^[ft tam*NT ?t^<
II sreirts^BR: II ?$<£
p i wrgmm mra t^t ^ i mnfar
’JTjfrfH p
finit f^ ff ^p=rfw 1
m«f fW f^: ^| nt IRII
%: \%gil i ftr:ss£rft: \^ 1 W^_ 1 i ftnf? 1 1 ^ffu: 1
•tth! 1 f»r 1 f^r^: 1 sirsnt: i fqs^nt i t ^n: i i h *«
f^ft: 1 gfmfNT^i 1 nmfvftmftnstfam^nn ^ ffmrt
3 c 2
?fco II H
f^fw: fFTOfTfaiT W I
TT^f -%im fa vfayi* ii?ii
^:S^T I I |sW; I TJWSltrfcfiT I ^pdfa I W I
H5UT I gSTTTOT I ^ftlTT I fa I I 7fi I^TT: I I II3II
a<j*aiM^T agasfarT gafa: astmsr gtrtn: ytaaraarm gasatarr gaagaifa^mf^ft
atyrgarfs arraaiTfa a^T^araTfa sufrfw sfrarfsr aT a% i arrwysfa i amt w fro
gsaft afaat aftanft gswT gwf gsast aiaraaf awraasrwT aT fa agg: i fawr
aaa: i aa amt aat |st aranyaf ara^ta i mTftfsit ?taama: i mrnars ?fs?fvf i
vrrrafa a ayr i agmro?T araTmrTTftaa^fwaramrT: aia^wrafaT aan: m gafaatmft
fsarr gasafsrr ^tajaraa^Taatafafaayt anagaifa misTfs a% i wsrysfa i amt arf?
gwr gwf ataarararrat faayt aaa: i aa a farrmUfa fata ?fa gatafa aamnss: i
aar ar?T ?st *rra vrcafa a
?7* Wto: 3ftTt lirTR;: tr^rawT^n ajf^sr *n*rra u finfa: Ham fanfa: ftraraTi: to-
flT^rr: *TTOT ^wjqrj f^TtT f^a3TI^Wrf^g ^I#3 7TH f^rt TO*TT MlffT I
^rraqfTT I I WSlfsfrt TOfK^^g qTTT^ II
^rrf^TiT^ ^ftrai p i
faf^t M^ ^^^^faw^ II €fll
?b4
% gfrar i ftgxT«i7f: fro: 11 ftnrfcr nn«8.^ai tf* wnw 1 ifuroftro^ aft Trfar-
fl*n?n0ini|*j(«^iam tt 11 *rw%fn g^ro*:»«ji%
g«r sri «ol<j gg faw*»g ^toto: 'gfqfHrgqq 11 faroiqtmmg
* *«S«n7ra 1 ^11% 1 ^rif^TOsra^T^targfq fw<it<|fiiflqqq tqrrroft-
u arg^ frg^wqHft wr% 1 1 ngfw wifliqmmA| ^nrr 3rgvi$qr*u<Iq
*<fr(r«HN vgWnsft qroqiro ^ II srgrg* xfr fwlr^rrm 11 ?rf?7m TO gsm-
*rra ^TgjTOTO m tiwroro^ *fUf qr ?fq: nq^ifii tfrjf qrfTrofii q$ qsft-
jftsNf: 11
3^ftiTfa:i^m:i^i^i^fai^i^o^i^mtRifa^ mil
^ wm^i ftTr^S^^FW^rn^lftfipgg I
%tro^:i5|^i^i^tn;ffft?faifart.i wnrfimtroifa^imii
TJTSjNf^'jmtaT^R ^TOrT ^ I
^T ff frffW U4: IIVII
TJ^qTr^l 3fJ RVHRR I fT^t^ I 3T*ftW I ^ I WH I ^ I
ffif iff i «ihh i vwtsfci i w i i ^ i fatih i Tji: iimh
f^ ^rt^m: wi qq IT^f I
*tnijm ^ffw ^ >Rf?T h %h
llUftfteTC'N
wf^frf I
* m Wre: wpr^t f^ wi 1
^nrr gnft f^rem * wt iiqii
*wt i f^i ??sff i «* hewi Wre: i suTrirt i f%f^i ^ i i <pnft sfH i
^:I^I^|^I^W^I^^>^I^I^I^»1^H^II
^ i ntm ii $ ii
i srtfmrt i i i ft i i ntm: 1 ^rTST i usII
% ^ sw^ra^nPr©^ *ftfw %wr w i gnm^wnr i uSrenwr^i i i
f^p^r *ftmf*mr *R^fs^f? i ii
^t 1 ff^HRRTfafa non
im 1 ^1 xrftnff i 1 ^^FTtOr i p i i p i ^it i |rf^i fa^R i
«ra! 1sfa non
Hi gfaqlwfwrsjfH mawifforfint Thrirar x$ *rr 1 *m *tr-
*nf»i 1 tf^fri gw 11 a^tfanfer g*nro sftfz ?rft ’jwrawi^i: a
f^fa ^ wm 1 ffaTfa^Rrofafa ms 11
fafc11 ^ i i tr^: 1 ^r: 1 1 sratfM 1 ffa?^ 1 fa*fR 1 ^rof 1
jjft 11 ss 11
% wr wrf^m: 1 hh: 11 gf4iM,<i**Tfln«tfwrr^*TfSmara: 1 uaft-
TVT^irg 11 ^ndwNmT^-4 tjw’rtam 1 ararrf n ara 1 »@a^j *rfff f»rar
nnw.«. c. 1 ^apirctfo: 11 fat*sr*i *»«ftrqnpr 1 11
^nnn^fnnrinnmnmTnTl i
^nm nn ^r^n nt^ nfnmntfn u % 11
1 i m41 ?r!snn i snnr i iwniw! i
f* JT^faqS^t ^ ^R^Tfw^T I
Wl TITfTTf WTO3JS ^TffV ^fqf || $ ||
fn I Hrjj <faq I i T?t i ^ I q%j^ I i 3jcfon I I
1 1 I %TR sfff I 3Trh I frftfV I cf^f^T I x^fq| „$„
THTf^WT^ a$WTOt *rft ft XTTy^a ftftftftw%t?;roft ?fft I
^VTflT I ftfftfan atfftrfft gtiaaiT I arawft?rc; i Tri^nrri* fftftrtrarrftar War
|T3nir ii ?ft anftrrfftfr ft? i anr atr^ftswrrarwTro' i anrrn-
firwflrfTT ftamnftro: ii aft w antra? aror*a?r garormasr fttrnafr asrnrrgfer^t fft| wam-
rfrem: iaftift ^fttwrtaft i »rftm atanwftSft w giffttaft: i
fWwirerH gfftftn srrftft ftararim-1 a?0 qo. *;<>.8. i ^ t?; ara: gnra?tT7psft aifa fta? i
^faTato?i; i ftTrft ii $*w?far wsrwfaft iftro: ii fttft wftigft"%fftrrft ftft i
■TTJTtffe II T^l aRT? I WSlft ?j: ||
pfp ^ftftaftft *?r srsrrofftTar *jti gw am Jaarfrr rnrr fpfw 1 TrWflwTTTPT ttt
^fWfpir: «i arw tjfl[jn7% w^rf^: 1 agt^s: ir?: V- 1 ^irw ^aftwrar^rw 11 wfatf<i-
1 wfartft{% «ar: 1 irgw: %a fT*r^: 11 arwlr 7 1^8.8. <t<t'o. i ^wanp^Tinrm
^ # ^"5t: ^aj^r awrr 1 w 1 a3\if<« i$: 1 waft tt wt^w i% i^?i wnrrrw 1 ?rw
«hwt 11 araf await 1 ^arawrwaraiiTaraft ft? 1 fpafta:pTftaitwrf?mw 1
Tft 11 ar t^t arfr ar?rft aftw arfw arW^rjr anrt fttnaift ftf?<rw ^rnr:
?T3mpTO 11 ftmarpt anrfwftft w^nn aTptaTWTqg^af wl 11 ^ Wn w^aj-
Wh n ft war «ftTf?w: 11 ararr 11 arm^Karpft iftnTiamw 1 m» 8. a- M7. i aft aiTnarar: h
aftarpwr arft arfn: warn ajswr»iw ar waft t% 1 wa»f<i\^4^i 11
^Rftpr^Tft: anwfftft far? 1 arfwrpTreft^rrw 11 grw ftaumrft ^ ftwr: W: m
^?rr antrpfft 1 wmtaw araifft 1 ,agft«7iftwa}: 1 ararr 1 $?wigg[ft
fW: aftr: ^r: ^npr wr ftwaft ftanan wwftft 1 Tjftrfr at tsfwan i^rrar ftw-
TRftWTW: II
goo n n
qfFyfiffi *W#T^N?0T I
unrfWfkkHT f^rfH ^ *!^fcn ^Hfri ^ h <»11
IR I I I ^*Ht I ^N^l I wsf I i& I Tpr I
^rok: i *imfi:wnft: 1 ssrfbn: 1 i^i i wfa 1 ^ 11 <i n
*fT*fl$KfoNfU^$T i sprang: i ^mtrr: f?ff*rn3r *rer
f^r TrfTT ^rwr^eit i tftw*rpi b artful |t*t-
%tt: i ^ i m^Tf^rra fSnpaft h ^fq %*tWq^ JjTPmra
fsroran «wt q3*rr*rr: n w?lT*l«rUfq fian Tfw i *pft t %fn #aq?f i "srf% m
gfeMiftfr i igq><cTf^iaT^wm: 11 ’siftm vrpn: ^mc: *tm: qwt
wfirert ^t wrtt *rert f^rfW i *rpm*pi^r ifftprfn n fffa: iftURTtf: i i ?*rafa»r
W-1 Tf^TWH i w i f? *iwt frt ^ i wrf^Hr: u fwii? TrfH'^gq^fa i w ^ toi
?! ^sHfa ^n ii ? u
ffw*ni ^r*f 55W wprfTrgw ffW^wnsren^ %§« 1 w?Tf«^i: ttst-
nf?ff«rm 1 ttot 1 ftwwT qiwrew: sfiT^faffT ii »ra: |B#rak B
irrarprarer qBft$qTgftrrci?fw ?R%WTf^rf%^i*pnw<5S7rf%;5ft *iwr: 1 ffafi ^ 1 ffXTSRR?:
ffJiq&Tm Tfa ^ TTHSTTWr: IW $.c- I lf<f II SfiTW ffa^t ff,*,«8»l*l ?^TT
^T3*n 1 ff^Ti ^ 1 airaT *rfgq ’*rt ^m^nfaru Tfa *ftwrcn g?tto: 1
?■ q'O. I B[f?l II
Hf|rTT to t?nrt i
tottt: nft^t ^ ^ ^ fft^t ft^^ H 8 ii
TOf»i f^rrs^iT: i nff st^tt i ^ i i i i i
TOi i 3rt: i nsft©f: I TOi~i ^T|?ft i TO i^ft i fftRt i ftw ii8 ii
VOL. IV. 3 *'
go* » li [«• b.si0$.^o8.
f ^uhTT-^rWWftt \
ffnlf ^t^t ^ ffW Wtt iis 11
?t r?|m*p*Tt 3qm% ^ m 1
’Orif^fTnTSra^ rT^ \m pw II q ii
I^rt: i ^ i i f^ i p i i i i i
ffH i
^sf^f^i ?rerci i ^ i ^n i fp? i i^t: i i ^1 ^11
1 ^ ^pnr: niwi^ % w ppt ^frt *fn i iitoi n nfripmft; mjtp
1 ^snt nftmnwK p ^ fwf»r *r$rfar i ttpit^pt. Tf tii^ptti i
trnrpjpJppfM f^psTPP^ n ^tt irgintv »prt ppf% Pit
f ^tfirffj^pwm fMfifwwr* ^PTTOinctT » W%x n wi
^ptt*t i pr% Pinrre pbtwi pg ptt^ ’ffTrr^i p «iu«ll*i i i ^ **
wfN trp^p ^iarpni. i pswtp^ wrf»i prafn i
yainTP^ pg^snJ: n srpm^it: giKUPT’gtpg i «Tifflfn gflfaraptfta*pn ffti fipitP i
sn* i ^r^j'ssrft^t'iPTT^ftT ftrwTfwrt ip ifa ipp »
II WTOtSTO II
srt i i TOt: i i *p i i i i f^ i hm n
% ^ ^ fift $*n»rr fargw: mjaft g^j: irftm: mwinl arr ft'tasr: arareraflqqtfft i
^ ^rsw^nhnrr^t ft^arrnft an ar»r. arr^r i yaar u ar^ i
^ar^fyaraTTO ga? it ^rfft * asrt arararwrft ^gan^w ftftanar *mn«iawi ^ararun anSar*r t
^JT^ifft i ^rwgiaffft | nan rfffar anratTaraa arfr^a: ajfrft: ^ftft^apfr ggarhn
8o€r II ^5^: »
T^flt f^RT^f I
R*rci fsj’j * faut Hfrrvft' fi^fa u <\ „
mi I %*: i ^t^i Tjf^S>7^T: I ^fiTJS^T^: I T*ta: I fas*R I
^i^T: t%W 1
^ ^NffllrHrflf^HI I
^^ 5RH fonfoi n s ii
I wt: I I rfl^ I ^TWTr* l TTFIJ^ I f^CT I f%4r^l I $n3j*rrfa I
i i 1i * net: I * I ^TTT15HH i ffonftii n sii
sn4 *hro Twiqqtini vtfr i irfa to vpfr * aftTOfm^tg^
vttof TW’wmnw^ ^ *pwttoi ii tprt %*: TO>g:<w«iTO‘nmya:
lamt i i fai i wiror: froT f^TTfw ^T3»0<ii«<ii^4+jflifa qigvufii
fwnwi.»froif: TOft ^TTfirf^pjmr#^ i TOTOrcagqfXfa »pirf^v: i TOnqinwif^ft-
WT^Trm II TOT *JTf»T affTOTOTOTflfai TOTT ^ TOTO 3^1*B^TO1 ftwnf I <^rrtf I
?% fa# Mn %Hrtt«iial trorai?) 11 ^rf*rf7T grew: i to fgnr: 1 i to afTOn^i wf^w: i
* W3fo» TpNTO ^rNT^T^lfT! THSft i totot *rm TOtnfar fTOTfir
nf«n»?ggwirf*i to* i arrofn i
TR^ffJTg% £~ro f^PH«tm i ^jfro ’n i ^rfronf* www
I W° S-'O. I Tf^T «
|*f f’TffT I
srat j4: ^ ii q h
%?^n|fir i Jroftfa ii
^sfafa ^rrot vm fa fare ^fai i
frrgr^#vn 11 s n
^i i ^sf«: i ^rrftr i ^(i i i i f^rs^l: i
I ftRR^TOT 1 1 I ^FTf I isrtft ^ i srfant i w ^11
wi gwwi ??^t quiyift wgir ^wiri Ttf^n wwit w^ft ^wKWft: i
g?ftwT i w^raptT wTrf*r i Tf*i wgfHfwr^l Tnr^rann wrrrwtfn wW i imr fwrrwn thw
q qqnr q a apt ^irn fyflqm qnwrr:avfwmplq qtftym fwfiS i wwfa i tspaft
VTWfw i qwtwqfqqrfqqTqwlq vtwftt i fif wfaqr«rei
i arm q qqqi«ii\q[ fqqfa i m?wT wm«n qimrftqmreiTfq anpr vr®
qWfqfn: i
wi fw? miu^ h»t i
iynfa sf^N intanroi irii
i^i i fwfit i ^ i ?rett i ^it i i *rc i
i ^nfa i sfN i i ^jts^ i i 11 *»
artaf w ^nwTimt f^rfa qtfanq tfrarnfaq f®-
wftf i am wgKqmfq q fuq »nt wta fqnf3 i ttot ffqqpl gfqf»^Tq garrSi ^tw»i
gfq^nqt wmf^ arifaft a t: i v* wm 1 qg®-
«i®{imaniff«ri4®: gq: Tsftjm a g®al afonfqqq gri?t 1 ng^p
i^r qgi$T qajTq® 11 t^qrq arsmqTq gfavi qq <iM«w^«mis3lq viwfii 1 (tw s?nn:
qw^Tf® w»m writ: 1 3. * ?»=. 1 *wfqqix$r wqm htwxtii amf^ a
* iwfr * jjfbr I
qwt^^t *ra*raT fa^rt ^rofir %#’• 11 s 11
*7 I TT I I «7 I ^SfrT I W- I I I
1 *i 1 ^rttt I f*R: 1 *PTfff I ^nr: 1 ^rfw 1 fctf: 11 «l 11
^ pTTOt ^rr: h wmfrrgqj 11 * wgw*if: w gfra awwt ^ ’nwiw
mxfrfTj 11 ?pft ^fffTT fTO^r ^vv. 1 ww«r*wi<^: 11
f»ro: ^totot ?TT 1 uH ^ ^t: *rom: tiwto
Curran, wr *TO<ft f^rf %|»sj^*if^isBTO ^ ^ft<Trt «marfw*ra Jim4ffl ?i wr%w^j: 11
rrf% ^ I
xrt xtr ^ fl^frT fk4: h * u
Hi^l ff I VTI I I fM 1 1
%rf I f?r: I ^Sf^: I Tjxj I TOT 1 1 1 1 1 11 *11
fpqviKfr ( Trft af* xym gwWI 1 *1^1*$ 11 ^
m# i- °i- w-1 tnx ^tr; f'u^ 1 f? ^ iwn-
*
I % tot ^ f*nr \ TRttR *nif wjr fir: TO factor
# 'ptt x^% '*n^Tf^s*: 1 f*rannrtiftv! * ^ ^ <.i$l,,tjfrtf **y«q ^font
f^rufn Riftw rto Rwfs mw R|¥taf ijrto:*R*?f ’IF? 1
a ^ 1
rff^rr ^ trfi|*T ^ *t: ^Tsgfff f*4: ii?ii
^ 1 «j*i 1 h: i 1 1 ^g: i Twm i ^n i
i^^i3T:i^f^i^f^wi^^~i^:i1^tft!li^rfitifl'^: 11? 11
^re ^nfr fR^RTforr r ^rr rUvi'**^ trwt y»«H* ^wg 1 1
q^riji^: rr RtiRrrRfRm: 1 rrr h rrr^wir: 1 r$t 1 1 ^ 11
u^nrref rt 1 trff«r iftiwf^if* ofta: 1 ^finnTRR«
r!rrt TfRRTrrfw u
xpq f=pS trf^ X(T®[ ^njjt flTWt I
^Tfrra fift ^n*t gHxotoqtsfH f^- min
I f^T**l I I VV* I I 1 W^*T I
wnrjn^^Tf^ fif^t I
ml wf^n^ ^fw fW: ion
virj 1 ^3RV^ I ^Rrnt 1 Tf^u: I I JR#RT I
*rH1srasw i asiri: i wf^n^: I *fiUI i fW: ion
^sn^fr tnr w$ T* g^sw *ftg*r. wssg i <wfi^«fgit:
„$*: f?raW ^ ^g i w*i ^fg i *pss3 Wft*$ i fulfil *rag #
BT fa wa ^ fa % i %fw w ii 8 ii
qr^rraY amrt: i ana qmir^Y qtarcngY? q^% qarr arm wra Tfn i aiq ^n qrfqqa i <^ri
^Hiqiqaiqi fqfqai?l i Start ii gf5 g$q<i<*ftq^ i am Tyra^Otz: m-
i qi° 3- a. 84.1 qgasnfq 1 qT° q. 3. i arqqfnmtq: 11 am qqn: m^anr qqrqT^qai fqfaii^1
rTOT qfw 1 arNq: 1 ^fwf mni 1 tflvM*Hym: #«nmfY3^^T arfq
a^ri Trasrt fqfwt 1 w TTfa: mttfw ijrrsnmajsfa mqfYm qriaTfm ^wmai »
ort ^4 ■d^h i
w TRwf TjiT^rr mu
*41 ^ i i f4 s f 1i ^41 f*t i vti^v i if41 ^4*r I
T|^f I TfftrTT I usf^4:1 ^Trtef: i *m\ i ^if4s^^j i *jrtar- I II «* II
% I fafawr^ ^5 ITT TfTT fHIHT: HTTRT: I HIT I fHfHH HTHT^ ^TT Hl«<ifl
Tff^frr f%fHT wr: ii £•' htottw h hjt°?. ? ^ i Twfv^iT%TT TfpwrTnf h i
HTHTf<4f-rl <M<iffr^Trm II TTHT^ H^I HT HHT ^fF^gHfTHRT^ I HHJJJ HH H WT
^Tf*iHT«rr: tth uftt i u irr^fn H^TrifH-
hthh ht^^Ttt^ tttk fwnn %ftgHT*n?t: i trtB §. q. qqq. i T^rr^^Trw ii thh
II f^r^JTfim^ II nfa H TTW H^i II hIh II HW: TTf^H:
WST f^li: I H^TfHHt HHT fTTI^: I HHWT I TfH TT^HH^ II ^flS**^fT Htf2 H
HTfHfTT IH-nr^V.* II cTHTHrrfTTffHffr I wi ^ 5) HXfll HWT tptHT: Tf3%HT I II
Wf X^W p I
5TT IOT1 TIT W^^T t^TTI f%T*?r 3^TT TT^ IIMII
X^i-»^i ^f: I i i ^tr[ i f^l^TTi: i |I I i
trfl ^ i
ff smijR: h S»
51 I I 1 5Tt 1 ^1 1 I 5T I 1 T^i: I
f^Bt I
pfon « m ii
i fifSBrf: i II wr: I f^[B I t l
^n^?F^i
pr: S'MT: H8TOFCI H^RTB: l^roB: I ^TI l&wHl BSBfBi I itwHii m 11
TCTWf^aiTanw?i4Tfii ^fg^wtrof? i w^ro %ro ^to^wtot %t*t wfaroroT i 'tr?t-
^f^arfrorr nfitTO^TO ww totob^w ft? totoT wroft "t?: n<n^ <<^14114Hr '^^’^*11^*11-
TOw^4nf R<i4if4^«iaiRTfw tototI Tftrorpj^ wto ^41 f\*t_r*i4^
groro4 ^JiaiHlfa <tto iftw «*iiy?*i to «*i4?flt fronft frojjPT to4Ia, i f*^4|4lf4n,i
^TO*rmi*iTOfM wroaft«ft<u4«ru«TTO 1 to®^.^-\ ?fa yr: 1 *rft^nr Twgg%: w ^tw: 1
trofi 1« to4^: toitot: H farwWTO^mtTOrfr w6| fro?
1 wTftnjt^^Mr^gin^^i^Tt. M TOTfr fa^itflf^ftr ^ •T?T"c> ^c'0^'1 TW’SRTW1 B71*#
VOL. IV. 3 1
it il
WQJg* ^ ^ ifk. ^ 1
(
Trerfn: tqr»q.*Mo.i cam^winrqf » qqrwwmn w^r^m^m^r q
m«n«nq qft i q qftifq ,i TOfrra: qrqrcjwFr qr qrqsqntfq f% qqqt Him: i mn «
irq’tqT^Tqgq: qw<m srqilq fqfaqtgtfrifq qn qf?[ qT ^ fq^v x£ qf^ q-r q
qqq} i qraf^r «fi[i^R^n^T^rrftr Iwni *|ftfq wis w fq^%» isjsI^i
qfqt niTTJtvm^^w^ <JHiNfi«<*MTq<tfq fqq<fa qfqqm fq^yqY fqvT*r-
inrTqqUfq iqT^n^T^T iTBrft qit i q qfufq i ^iT^rr^rere^r q%qfr fq^n ^
ff wfq: Jifimn: i ^qr qrfq qq qrrqfq q^r^rerrilqT qqrff*n^ %q qi$ar$: i q%q
^nt^ftwrfT^tvm qff qT HflTiq^fimwny qqmrqq mik t^rt ^ wwgqfw i qt
q#fq i qpq JjfWlPiqnai^ qqrft qU^n? iqr. qqq q<q% qqj$ artqq. qtqsnqini
■3BT3iTTrefa*i% gqqnl! I qqT » f^?T Tfq qfaq I %^ftr g«ft'«^4H-
fqtq:« jumanf^rr qqrrfrqqqt^ i qq«rr i q fsqgsflfcfq qqfrrqfTftv:« qtqfq
f«r^W gft I vm: i q?rr i qqftfflw^: i ^mf=T fq^ir q'q§t i ^nqrrqqig-
*<q& i qqqT I qqf?r#pmJ: i qtafa fqqf^r wft fqtqqqTqrqfq i tft
qrrarfq qfqfqq: i qq?l f? qqrjqTtqKqqV. qqi^ 1 q «qq: qrfqrqrfqfqq qfq ^ qfqfq
i^T°q»q.;$. «i. itfq 1 qt qq 1 qqfq qfqrf 1 tflifq *rrq %?r ^rmrfn 1
qf^ qT q q m^Tfir 1 qrt qT^r^fr qTqtaTq; 1 q$q tqr i*q m qfs qrpftqTq; nro
|Tm$: 11 11 <*q 11
q> qq Tft q?r3 fiflte fw Mqmfiiqqqi qqpqqrnf 1 w qqrft fqsTf^fH: 1 qqtfq
%qtfqgrTqTqT qfe: qfaqTqfi 1 qq: qreq^q icvmgnY qUiJ: %q %qm 1 qrotft
i^Tqf^q 1 qqT i qr qq> qq: inwumfr qqm%fq 11 qq*t fqfqqtq: 11
wT fwfr; fq^r: 11
xjqi =q %qstrq 11 q*§ffq y^M^HftfdtfiTtq 11 1 swt ^3 iwlq*jq_
5^3 qffafn 7^fwmiqnq inw^n 1 ^tqm wtqfqqr ^T«5%qranrfw3^
33^: qrrtqi^ ^ 1 *nsrawr*r 1 ?mw: uTw'qw^q ^wfw^qi3f*w
*fVgrf»r: zfi: urimvm: 1 ^*ifgn: 1 mq<qrTWTwmt 1 qqm^rwfqqfTrqTq; 1' ~ 1 f^-'
qwqm wn^: q-ra^jm fq^t ^rr qwfq 1 fq^«^ 1 ^ qjmg: ^ ^roq^q
^3: i^tfq ^ q wi q^tfa 1 wro qr« v&m %tp^i wtipqw *#q 1 qqqTq Mrorqqre^r
fqaa<ai^^q^ wtanm^i M qgqq^ 1 1 qr ?. 8. ?.i Tfq 1 tpsi
gf^ f^Tfq®sff%ftTT^5T; 1 sfsjjiiiyr^^rr.' 1 qwt tfrfq ^3f > * q*nq q^fw wvw.
qqim*mqT*i q qqjq: 1 qq^rri qq% fq^qqi^ fq^ q?qwtqs 1 qtqp^qi
qqnqfiwn^«m > qq^qqi^q q^n ^
- - • -*>: q^<fr fqqmqmt fq^t: 1 q^qnm 1
imr 1 qqiTf^qTfqqq^q , . . . _ . .
afafcrft nwrtnft ftqaKqwiwwtw to qqTqfqqT^q: I q TO fqqfriqn^
tap qqfq » qqi TO* q^qq^l^rq qqqqfqqqqq
4 *" 312
8*b ii ^7^*1 it [w* b. s?° 9. U .
■sEr^f^r ?i $f$3ra nwt f^rg^nn aira% i f*rgsffir n aa fairer aarat
irar^: aarnrr$?afaraaiw afiraTO?!»
^ rTgrT *J*qfN rh% 3lfa *TRi I
sh w$®\ wrutRr 11 * n
1 ^1 i ^rt i ^srfa i iRn \ s?Rt i *ni i^rfw^i
i i ^4m§: i ^ ?Rt i Wt: i sretfa i i rT*kTftr i Wfi^ ii * it
g«na. gaa arf^gaa: wnrfffrTi aar agft i faanrafn i asaTfaw^: i aar a arani i a
naTnf7Pifasr*ra»pr aariK^ataaftfa i aaTnftrEhraaaa aai asag asia^ ara^taTfafn a
i ?rr° m. 'Q. qe.. i a T*a gara. aa a angwarfar i atsafa n anft afaTf^ai: n a tr
gara. wrefHfar'fafa afiu aa f :ai apsifarfafa arai: apWtas: b wnpnnfifmf^rr
»p: aarfaaTa: b aa a fa a% na aaj faaiTTafn i afv: aHwi'Sigai^t b a*fffir4fi <rpn?-
afr»^aftgavTatn: i aai arrfaa?TaTff$aa ii aa*iT TfragararaT mnra?t: amrraraT *a
faaaat |ar. a^: a^a ^aaaawTaga %f: i faaa^#gga faaraaTaaapgj aa a»gga-
i 'snprei a aT*ufa Ta<iu<^*afa% aaata arrna aanfa ffl4<w<jPu far-
atafarftr a$: it
SfntffoWT itfffTTT fsii f^TrRRrqRfy: ^ I
fqwt^ftrii'^n ^t »? n
SfiTIIfSHTIIlfSsHTIRfi1RtS^IW5*fIRfcIwftsfy: I
I wm\rl\
I fa I n^f i faiI ^i^t: i^ i 3f*hifT i fa$f u?h
fqqa^atmaaa namfaai a% a% faaar wrrt faaaaf ^rr faaa^aTa a aaaa-
ftp, i afaiata3t aaaUg?n%#i^a:nTfaat apftaaiTaqar- ai?T$T: wrrefamw wsr.
i t^% *rrwr ^t ^ wRfn*ppm «^t€f ^ n»n iwrof^rm an
I <RT JTfTWT (fPraPfEftPr^f *fNnt fii*iT*i'd I^TT jrfTWT ^a<TT I ¥T ^T *1*3
srrcrfa; i trt Pi^RHTf^aiTTW innfti arer fawrotn; 1 nan®? ^cTfawfw
ffa^r w ^rtret tawreH 1 n*rr afrfv: i afrnt vfPm ara: af^pft ^tf*trt: wtot-
f^pipn; b qRgli^VT^^roa ^t: fasftfn farnwra: i arrman^wwa^ n afr^nr- ai
i ?wt w *npg $%• Piwto^i i to i 'anwara^wr,i1,11,0'
wifi! arr arrant i i^g aaiung^t |%»mr n
Hf^TrTT I
^ra: i i ^rt^i \ i i i \
i Ht^l: i i i i fft i i ^I'l^11 ^if
5Erg«rr ftggiBT^: «?TO*jnT manemaa: i areaBTTaarra^^an^arpm i |amg
. ^^oe^o.]
floqo sio II II
vmt i
ftrai^lHFTHn f^T37 ^T xiT^ir qftHrt Ti^qt: || q a
faSTTZ i f*pTT^W^t: I srfas^: i i fas^i sg i wi: i ;sq?: I
»^T^ I ^rWrft I ^TTI I ^rf | ^T*p I qjtfa: | TT^rf: || i| a
ftroto^^Totofa^t&s Hint i
f^ttoTWTRn to*j ftc* q^ir IIMII
toTT? i toreWit: i sato^: i i to^i ^ i w. \ i
Up* I
^4^5% TTrTOT ^SBT rTR? |*T ^f ll^ll
IW1 i TT^t: 1 ^ 1 ^ 1 tot: 1 w> 1 i
i ^ 1 T?to 1 ^stt 1 m^; i ^ i i ^ • ^tow i h €t 11
t$?0 II II
H^rfrn: W^rT: i
Trqfa^ro vfti l^\j$ 5T vxfcl ii«H
Sf S^W l ^15^: l I SfS rim: l ^rpN: IH* l^t: l
x^t'nT I xi^nf i spjs^r l Mkf: l l pzt: l * l rw*fa; II $ ll
f^pq^nf^f*: *f *nfaRT: «f<sTtm: irT^ranf^^^rfH:q&rrcT
•?rt|7i ■^^h'rt: ^fTWT: i nfirnT: trt i <H ^ ^*<ro ^it
TPsrTOt: *htf*H: w ^rrei <iagiret *Wf*R ^rnfr j^rx- ww: ^srr: i w t
jtONh^: *nrfcfr frrn^: *h ^rjtnfr m i Ffaw n?t ^fai
fr^^rt |wt *JT q*ri ^ WIT ^TT \fW(T: «<fUwtf>ft; I
^rg^TnTR<rt<i: i ^rttJbi^ w^tii i twT «f *rt Tftnfr x«R ^wt *taR: TJ»n
X^wfo’gf^aHT^I^W W f%WTTT*^ I ’*S®(TC»* ^ ««RS T^i IPrfciffc
Trq^'tm^Hw^ ^rffraU^rer «^Mra«faar$: ii ii <r ii
^rn ut^ Tfir *rjr€ g<fV?j sr^^h: 3^1 g^fRTPi 1 fiTST: f^r: 1
^gfTqwref^nfr fwr ^31:1 trt i *re w: Tpftffr wfNrfr *rSu«igqjtw
11 mwwT^ftR 1 ffR ^ 1 m^nsrr^# f^T-
cfifi? ^ tifwi^i 1 ^jjt<» c. a. 1 Tfa 11 ^TgNflfrjffM wrf^i wl HiiTOrarT wr Tfc’rrt-
jTTjf^rr 'jpRtaT 1 Tjfqrf ^ 1 ^<t: tjwt ^pt ttr r^ fwr ^rfjrr. i ~ws& i
Ttrr 11 ^43frfq ^ *fmn W 1 ^ 1 ^Ttw^JT:
q^Rp^Tfr^iTfi 'jRrpftftT f^cft^nf^q 1 ^n0^. <\. 1 ^ n
^TTT HT^ t? fW I
^ ^fr ^^T[ rT=f II <\ II
^rct I in^: 1• ^n^t-^: i I i i »
^t4 i i ^nr 1 i ^rarnh i ^ i W i H'sr i i h^"
% ijr jjtw: u^tt^t: '^htw, i wk i^rnl ^rrnTf*n*nJ: 1 »
fwrf^rr HfRT^ 1 ’Rrf^WTfRf^ ^T#m: 1 w*r jqTfqfn 1
qrnu^ iqr°$.R.M^i 11 tj<*«} _
1 trt ^ vtwrfwftTrf^ wfriqw^»:
1 ^rfq 11 1
^TOT: n TRTf^Rft *R^ I TRT ^ ^
■gTV’^RRfq Trf’R 11 wr^r^Tqq^T^^: irft ’g^rnffiiraT 1 ^rrfqffr ^m^taki^Ji
^rfr fq^iW ?rc mT
TTWT *t #
f^RT fk^ I
pSM Hl‘5Rrfr ^ ^ft^T rFRl«[(*h rf urg: n ^„
ff^l W*11 *RS*rT: I *R I f^l Wl#f| I I
sm^rotfa: i
nmtm vtftsr. swift: ntwtf *t it m h
^fst9! i i wPwt i itm i ti i 1 ^1 ^wifa:»
*j^i ^tro i fa i sififa: i swfift: i stwwt i m i i ^Tw^ii M ii
% ts; w fa?rd mmfMdO nsfSre 11 ^rrrr im°q. ^o. i ^ ftg: n ^4torm-
f^sft qrrSi: *4f*iTTsy»*n*nfr 9iw?m ii i ^rg: i s* ^ grm
q^pr t*twt^h Tpflfw: sfarfw arfw 4^rr»if% tt^t ^ ^rejw-
^ft^ g^gnft im ^rwfn^P? i wifrra i Pw? ^m*ri i ^prf^: i wm*: i
arfy ^in( *pft «p? i l^n«r *fa «t«B «
i$: Tgmm wnf sriltfa: fa*fa^ I
^TMrTT W IS** ^*faw Tfifa: WTO II ft II
ii: i ^S’srroi i i ^R:sft: i ^s*pgfa: i i fa^s^T: i
^T^HT I %*: I 3T** I I I tfifan I WTO II If II
t^rpT IISII
tin* iV1 1 1^i i wfa ‘ «s»pftl i
tiiTO 1^ I I srfa I ^ I in II
i ^5^nl ,w^»rt ni*rre f% 55 v’f «n®rt: ¥T jr^fwr 115O 1 1
n«qo.3Ro<n.^oci?*.] H ii
m
fTrafr i ^ir^fr n
it *r%f^3: wr»r^ i ^Jatflfa wrer^ 11 wr ajf*ro wjqftt iwr%
W Jrare^%i##fr rnrw-vi^ *?ftwr»mf»TONrf7r i ^rfir ^ ^*fr 5T*nf%flqigwnqRi«iiql gun¬
fire** i ^ifimNn: u f$trr»frf%<TO^T^T^ft srr 11
^raprfei
?|fr: I ifiTOk l W#: I srfa i FIW i I'Qti: 11 <> 11
% fjrrnrwt fW*wn!Rjfwft i w i ftrfaftft qqgure t vtt^ti:
f^m^fr *T^rr *nfr: ^rwmfWr i gprr gf*srr f«wt g*pirt m m m qmfiHfqwgft-
fim$*r ii sn^ra^rO'w: i w i m^uaratmfyirft mwrat fw*8«i*wi»
^fyflajQvi irrH^^T i f<Tt gjfWri^rft spring *r§ hih'^I TretlifrtNTUfa i gfqfffifam: u
^toVRt jto {ottoth: i tt4 ^r g*t3*nfr: w#: 11 u ?imm *nmT*nrc u
qrdTt: ftwi sjgs1 m^S? ^pff 11 gremuTtf twe yrereraTw*mfw
to i ii i m® c. 5. c's. 1 <pu%: rrm *m 11
^ f|^ fa»trTPffH t
fam^j IIMII
mfaPR[ I g | iTrlr^l miiS^ IT&: I I I f^TS^THT*^ I ffrT I I
I m I ^ I MTif I »T?3 1 1 1 H M II
n’Tin nngwpgj ^f*nfan*n*>SJt nrq srfwr mim<k*»t«j^ *t fipl
nfn fSpprtflpfrRrPi’prr^ f*ra%n Min=eii«nM»mi\: 3S ^ 1
ft*f% i nm* wr^r nn I:Ta w«iJf\w<S: n fw-
riTni f^nrr i nfnwr nft a?l: iisfirerctf i *t*rn *jti i vftffifiMftyh
nqfrdunft** mrare: ii w wrram nfnmg ntn^xg fanig ngg nCl^ifwrr fa*t
nwt *t xnji vrtff ^rrfw fn^rrfn wnrefrt i wr i n^rtrfwnrr n *<ttf‘Kf*j
*fngfifant *wm *r nTmtig firarg ff*^w*nr nrn. vmfir t M'*'"'
fij% **% nr*pj% nfn nKNtftenJ:«
^tf| TqrTTf^frTf^^rTPT I
^of firm f^f^T Tfmft: iitfii
i f| i ptht i safljffl: i f^s-iirm i €r: i ^ i i i 1
^ fhjTTafWtftej f?T^ *T I
m ^’. wfai ^iw-«««
i % i tow i i fa^i i ^ s^ i
Wt *4^ I
^tvffafi ’^tf^rTT MrTT^^Plf
wt^rt ^rftr 11 «* 11
?? fa^:fa*ifas*rcjfa i
3P*Pjffanfai[ ffasl Tpqfa 1$ rf n?T fat ^STTRf fanTR^fafa 5*lpRl
ssifa ufag II ^11
ft i fa^ i ^fa i mpxj i sreufa i i ssf11
3sra^: 11? i fa^ i ffasf i ^fatr i fas i tt i <st i fat i ^rsnsrf»safari i
tot 1tot»t: i srfa i sfasg 11 * n
^ *5T amamresi: i %^rffncn*rq:
am %snrsm iamTarfn i amr i ’nft*rrarw f<nt ^am ^ima?* gamgx;-
f7mrarf% i wt \ rg; w*rmg: srg^fsiit ^tfsft i mant 11 »r arfat immt{a§rfat airlift
aisgwn fatig-rta^iatt^-mtsi i am^mrrf^^rwr^m: i wrfamawTff-
«Nnt II 7TOT far# apf anai anruffa wsmtaj ant apif% l warf% il wmft I I
*sm TsafTf^mm « m?i! 4«ari qfr *nro$ i ffafTfc ^rfH^Tf?nm i
anftjat T3T& II W** qfcm'at I ^13rm5tT ^fq | xn° £. 8. ^q. I
fa 5+ t^jfafa srfa 1
rffa ffa fa^ffa fafa 3RTfaf^fann^%fa ^t^t ^rfa vfag h^h
l pt: l ?51 ^rffai: l afa: l i ^nsfa?fafa i
wr: sxr^ i w 11.1 ^sfa i fasw: i ^rfa i :i ^rfart i aer^»fa i 3*itw i
^rfa 1 11811
^ ^ artt gaing: i gait fi^tiw?n ^t am ^ arfat ’wfir-
h sreiftsTni: 11
^ii?ii ~
vri 1 hit: 1 rft: 13$: 1 f^ras^sr: i ssiftRSf^ i
^ff^: i^i^^i^iif^’1^: i^fksf^J 1 ^ i *rf*hft i
>^T 1 ^hft 1 ^ft^c^ll ? 11
% agfir^^iHnmr^rt Tpt <?Rf ’#sT ir^TT^nfir: irfiirfaTTn«ft$: wWT:
it ii ^
rrfsfc^iT frRtafa I
t*Rf 11x9 n
5*% I ^n: i i ^k: i ^n i ^rmftr 1*RS^«4 i ^prfa i
xr§f5+: i ^fas^reifft: i i i i wr| mi
% t*rr i^T^r: gmflpu) *rfg>fiHtirf% i m fgwfa fipu: n rrt^ fifrraT %*nf^s: i rftwft-
f^nr Tf7i i^: i Tt^t »rf%: n w^stt: i f^r *fm*rmf« i *itw*: i ^J»tgsT%»T
f«MftygTR: ii W* *N*ar *ntw ^ **t ftfinn# nf?nrn»i g^rttpra w#
<np[Tnf% i tit^pcw i i '*ifa ^ ^%fHi *1%: Mq^nql^: i ’ufxrar^
,*rw ^nrafrrNww i *?irerrf^^^?fM^T^Tfan*n!f'$fwT: «<Sflt T^rnrl i y*q<iq»i-
ii it ^ ii
^Hjifafn ^ wt ^ *m*itw gwi'C^nl i i rrar ’•rrgpiri* i
?rrfr *n*rnnft *n*migs« fwfa »
^5Tl ^t: W i
^ f^qfir: fwr ^ ^fir mi
i i ^STp*T$ l”^: l sfa# l *R: I
I i frofif: l f^rTT i i ^ I Wh li q li
g% i ^nt^wlffit i pqajjwrl ,sftwftm»rafipl i w i i^w^l
5% l 7!T?1Ti?I *J<rej WfftT flfli<^<9q»< «lfai*,«sn*t
nf^regfoNt from %*n<w rrfr*nt rr? g% i ftnratanf: i fwrf^it wr*rmf*roft: ftrr
ii arar%»i snnre* 11 wr Mf^nrrt ^rWr ^nr^RtiTrt^m^i tsn^
f^qsT«T f^^rara: f6r^*f*j Tftri wrrn^ff^ f^rarrensfaftf ^rfn i *ri qrraraft i ^rw
gwret ^«i t^nr wW WTftm: *re w wpsi ^"tw**rm i ww
irfaMT^ i w i gurnet *rm *rf^rreti*i: i ^if?w: *
7m%*r rpim gsT*r i >gwr$ f?r ^ nrr% wf^wt i \Wi
?rf^ ^71 ii i <*i«w*t«iiai*tq^ » ^miWi*^ f^^ rq^rn-
xreair^i fafsspM I fH II II
,?r3^5i«KT<iaft a*nr %a iraiKi ftaTagarami gurnet afta ya^naa. aafa aaT
aaaranaTan^aTffafj'ta anaata a%>fa aaaarraat <^+n*i afa%aaT a+H a? af^d=y a %
wmi aarotfa fnmfanf^i i*»m» ?- <n.*=• * i «wi^inOiwwT*nn i ftfto-
feaaifaaifr i gwnfm: ^ gv aararrw aaar »ri afaa^fa aaaaraa: j arfa-
faajaaTata. i araat^taaaftfTTfafa wr?#ra Mftwwf faran! <i<m<gai(fii«,ia’fiqTa am i
faarafra i w i arg^unanaag ^M«m«*wwnifli»HiM<iii^n «afa a<*Knti
aa^anaiiaifar^T^maUa areaiar faarrratTwna aaara fwaiaawiaTan i a^roaa1
gwsrfc: inaaanat gvt ^aaraa wunrt arrwtataa: i arcaamma fo^danfta;i
a^raaa aamaat faraw ainnaT *rtrw <wiiKHtiTlNirt vd4din^a
am i ssnrt fafiia i aaT #?asrct vuif^fusfr a «afa i aiRdiigasiftfaTa **»H^r ™
f^nuTT: aaat a^afr a *r^<fVRr arfaftaiai wrfsJrt: n
^Kyi i
Xtfai ^ maoiTV ns ii
^I TWa I I^T7T57 I *1^1 I
^ \ i vwr^ i ttt3^: i i ^:sfn: i ^Sfri: ii $»
Xi tt ^ wni ii wr%?' rrrftTn^r ft3:«rtw^i
i w i %*r*i w^ri ^ i^ .
iT^nmrt ma^T^i^r ^pJ«m i i w i toSW*i nfm i X*
ftvrw **nt i \t& wtii *wt ^r: rrftyn i ^
i T^t irw i *ifdv*>nt Tfit ^ rratTOTW it **
Hraftfd *w-$*v* i aM4,»i»i^T ^nww^wffw:
Tr*rt ,TT*prm iy»irft armrsnrr ^fn4in^rnr'U$ffl£<4iiiP*: «frwrt rpnt
^fjnrfrrftT # »nft faf^nfni: u
fW ■fttafif d&ft i
%sft TqtfM^ai^ ll <i ii
^ i ssrfti i %*ft i flri i %*ft i forfif i d^fl; i
i M l l ^ i W i ^i WtfM: i mu
%UT: %Wr*ftFT wra: I Wafa: %ftpft{fF$Tg: ffo l ^ FF: i§F?l I Tft*tf»rcjnt:
nssTW*^ ft fFwffi i ffaffr FtFerfa i VTT^fir ft i arrarfF^ ift: fYwf fm: i
« f arrafF^F: ffa ^ ijf f%wff?f^ i fft faa i f^fift?>ff; i F3p* TfF*rf«-
t}&mF wifff^f fanTtf fw| i fft anFT'jftpFTFFiFftF fFFftf i arta f f*ra
arnr w- *nf ff jrf ^tNtftfff aifrfF i aarniFFtertf: i twfthihtf: %3ft Ft ftSUff
am i t% pmT»i F^ami FF«itfaR<3}a i frj *ar& n
xiwfH f^t I
||^11
^TrTW’tt -siT^t: I
TrkjSRT TO ^3HHk: II 'III
if if^j^ iff ^rrwr*nTT i i ttot *npiT «nsr: *N: *r trttt i ftqrft ^Hrnw-
^nf*r ^ ^frrf% Jjwr<rrf«r ttwt i wrentg i ^rfRTf^wrr »ntncff7ft
H*f7i Tfasrfc ii Tfn qrwrc i «nrr ^F^tfT ’Rgwrrfwgw^^Tr^ i *t$><fcn*ww i
^rrn^r^TTHTf i m° c. <*. 3$. i ifa fwnuwR: n
T^t w unrfNrat^ft 1
* fw^fcfn TpT^flfarU ftirtt ^ %rj IRU
i i f<^: 1 *v\ 1 w# 1 sirafws^ 1 sfff 1 ^rfft^ 1
w-1 fwtf: 1 srfa 1 ^% i ^nnflf: 1 1 ^f i 1^1 11 * 11
?^rr *p*R5TOnR to ffrorpft Tfocrfir: wrnpm tr Ttfror f^fr spitTO to
■^1% 1 frol^Hi 1 fq> 1 0<*H nRTTjfTOmftn TOfron. ^nt^raifRR 11 bt gr% i
WT^i^Pr fnz 1 gvgtm to asgTT^n: 1 n^TOrTTOifnaWiTO: it« ^ ftnriffSwWifi:
^Nrft^: ursanf^w^Tf^fUfir n& 1 TrarrapsrfTr 1 tot ^pirntf* ^tuHnHr^wrf^f%-
TOTTTnfTT II fa»TO^^ttTO^JTsrfJTf?T #K I TOt TOffRTTO TOTOTTnft
^Tf^fri 1 to^ rnnmfrfn totto 11 tot gf gfror
M TTtrrTOVroqt p*rrn niTOTOn nTfn ns 1 11
sfafafa<;-gt^ ^rrifanT^T i
AWT *mf ^prifa ^ nfit srRT^iffat nffii
sfar i safari i i i s^ut^i <£: i ^is^T?ii i
H 1 ^TflT I I SPpftfa I ^T^l &: I 3*3 I lift I STpTT^I 3T?faf II §II
qflrwfg: wrn qqiw qqqt snra: qrrqf^RTt ii rt Tft% i Rnpmfq Tfn fqpqwq: i
f^fiTqTff^q ii n^rt n^qnR<in«ii*<qt #qrwi%infr%ifRq: i 1
aRMn ^Rqq^Tat i wn antft Wq: i nq srsmtar i w t %^fr ?nft art? fSRRRTR
7iT?#»ri i w rnTtfiu ^qrfgaiqqqlinMqTp^ i vrrfTRR i w i wq fipng
araapftqt RTTPPRRt *tT q^Rr »RrqgqT?fRt wrl TRfaiWirB1# ^
i v?wt i aRMT ,qin^m»rmqf PrfwvnrrR ffr 5TTTWHT-
fufRiqmifqqRi rwrei M^qTwgm^anc^ivqi'P^RiTfa rv^f v^t fqwrg^^
t?: v qtqg i H*«ftfa i qqtj^gsnqifq i jrt i ^qig^qi ira^fttw q^R-
»rq^ %q: i fTRij ai^mflqt %rr1 *r«| qfq arPTR i qfrq: qrtfft arnnfW n ST sqq1^1
%Rnqq: i simTSirq st^it: ii it qs«
II II
^ ^ ^ 3T#4f fiWTTOt I
$nt 17T=f i ^4: i ^4: i iRf^ i srnsft i 3r#4: i fiwnrat sfrf f4ws3Ht i
*fw ^jtilSHRl i ?j4ht i Tra i ^ssf i ^itfa i <3^ i ^fin n
^ ^ to RHtiw to: TOwto nw i ffaWRiHr tot toh*jr$r hhriwr i
TT$ hIrTW %Sf*T3P$: I % fRHTRtff I M^T ^tfHfRHT I %R R^^N HHT HTf^ RI^Ht
^tFnsft nf? Hiprn »rra% i it hth ^rfr i r^rt^; i h^rt^ri:«t pirnt jfmftlt
Riia^nfigft TfTOfTgwm^ toht HttRftpRBT mro i tot i RRtfr toj: i toW rttor
fffft 3Tttr?i toihthth ^nflr i ^Tfa i TO^fn n
3?3ft vftfrTfStffw: i
^ 4 3TH3trTT: II? II
traf i
s fa *tafa TjT»rf^ 11811
m 1 TO i mt^ 1 wts^t: 1 1 h: i r 11 s 11
** TfTf^tr *Pf<*TTOs ^ I finf gf* , 7TOT gy*n:
ifrmwWr to 1^ firroft wnwwm: vmwr. myfiro: nti^mr * to? wf»r g^f*
toto »fuyrpii to^t yflr wit sprrr TOfit n **
*nrt5WN7Sfti I
^%nf*r*n gii ^ 11311
#r 1 1 1 siftr 1 *ft:sfa: i pm| 1
i forir 1 35 1 1 ^ 1 11 ? 11
WPi TT^unwNt m TfrTOfii y ’gfnfwro% TTOfif TOPft t yixtuift i n^T-
t^srnif^: ggT^t^gr^fg^ swtw ^ngfTi ffgrfW ^
^runTjj 1
it ^3%^: u [n°
i ^pqfif i i i rttep i
^rra i fow \ i qfom\l t ^ i ^nf^ imu
% gifa: *pn^[RTg *frpj i *gm i trt grt mg f*nsj *rsnff
gsrari *n gfamt ^ ^rtst a
nfpn $ ^ftr i
^ f^ rf fi*farrrt f^spi ^fu mil
^ftjn i ^ sfrh ssi^i ’srft i q^r: i sfif i ^rf| \ sro^i
i w?h
i ff i ^ i f^s i i ^ i m i fi i^i i i mu
% ?* wfg a apt g^fgfa grr«n: Spnttt: a ^regfq4ft;m i ^f*ni^:
wmrar i wrmft i tr grrwnf i ^ gpn pit gsrer p *rnti*jp3-
JTTfrsi wt% i *r ^ f*ra?t i gm: jtth^ ijarr iroftfR i »r£ grarnii fgg^sr
fggTRi itf apt fi wr% Trrrfgt fsraj?t i vrt sfM fgg^si fgjjfirai ^ wfgt f? i ^
fifoRf ff<jifli«n«Hq-qnqwfX fr fpj fta*rrm*rrarVirt w*n»mi srfM i wjr i fw»
fggrRRi i iffi ?f^«Tg: n
s? f%^r ^ ^^tfirr i
pi ?r fa *rfasTiT ii * ii
^it ftr^Trr W: i
i ?f WRiifa: i
Ttm fa TIRiT^flM JT’TI srtnR ^u?rt II mi
ii i ^ i Hen: i l snpURTI ^ l ^kf^l 3R*si l ^ l sfcfcn l
ttttt i ^ro: i fa i HTfai mi: 13ffa$ i i wthri ^fft iimii
% t% ft g*5 fra: ufaTTsi «t*f i wrarcn?: i wr*rpTT^ spfran^TfTTl i
R* gwf jrwra ’nmxra. m®«. 'too.c,i ^fa faw<tt i «ftfii i 'to ifnra
^ w«#i *iwnflq«<H»iw<l *rr *vrati*rcr wrn fatfnnt i Ttftft»nftn
*t?ra gwj ^ni»t **ft«r <ffa% ;^fan<iiyfffan URTfa i *$lftftft*
**jm ^vprjft wpiTT i ^rrirarfg: «raftft 11 srwftf^fa ftfft to i ’n® $• *»• *=• <*• Ufa
fa$*rawra: n
ri*tfs ^Tqf^: I
^ qtflfff $ ii m ii
qr^* i sifa? i a^raT i sni i N i qfq i qq% i
q* sft \ sn^rft i qMt I qS^ I q I q^iqf # m n
• ^ ^3Wfv *i w«wm<m*n*nftB i ^ron i*fwfvft *rofw i wft * TOtft *rre-
ff^f% I 7TTO TOf% I TOTT^ HfTOft 'WfWTfT*it ^WT % *TO «U3ft
I ^fWTOW I
7T ^T
^tt$: wtw -mmk mumk fa 11 m ii
« TIM: Mt ^ fM^TTfir l
mt3 m3 mht ii8h
3Rt I ?jr^| ^ | TIM: I I MTSRr^l ^1 MI I ^ \ t^f I •
ws^m : i tosm^ I ^s^jw: i ircg i w, \ mt3 i *ti3 \ m^ i 111111
* ^ ^ ^wr H** 31 ^Tf^rer TT^fr TO I i t<ni TO * fro
I *"* 1 tif i tft to: i mglwOsm *i ^stroRTOi *3 V. ^Ptm
ftflnrf*i % toto; wtitotot nfTO* <rronft towhI gfwrgfroi-
fwfW^TOT TOT TOTf^l ^TTOW ^ arj Tfhf HT^ | TOl<qffr ft
ft ^ i# R% II?ll
i ^T i fqt: i 3&fa I ^ i faar^ i ^sjpfari I fail: I i tor: i
% tsf ts^faTtsifs ptssffs sir sirrftr starts sPtsrfin iffs i snrflrsw i nsft it
suHw gf? 3ns3%sisss n ^ ^t: iMsfasr sr prt sgsrrori »r§ gwr: spsi^-
%wr: ust ss ^t: 1 ?ff i srfs s Ttfssl: ssig: sstssrIt ssTsssfr st hs srtgg sm
srrss% ii sis ^tfgsiifssfsg i wrsr^psrasgi^% sfo fsfs ^silss. i s$4t
g$ss i fsfs st st vrrstft^s ssr n ssits s prs: sftsws^ i stss i ssrfs s srtsj
s ii sstgs f^msjsroTSTsfs srssr n
** IMWtfcsrojtoil dftrar ,
** ^ nn
nfyrt i *%n |MTi *5*5171.1 tow i i st,
I ®fsn;i | ^Rfi^ | ^ | |n|(
^flT I
^rcrf ^rw: *r ^ m3 ii?ii
1I 3OTF(J *fa3 I I ^7T I
§sipt: i ^t\ Nifaj: i:rp&{fci i i rttt: r: i^^ i mq\?rg yir ii?ii
TOWftg^nir<jtf5r< ^nrifTt TgT trar^ inm i ^fxr i m0 m. ?. ??. i ffw f*nn-
^ # ^fq'gii<:tiiT*<nx:5tq wi wrx#n i imifa 4xw<fwa*s g^rg ?frw
XRffer*n g?nr g?R ^ '3<^i ^WsnS: i w i ^rarmt
^fT g^rr wir^r gw xreww^ i gw twti wti i ? gwj: ifW’Rirot xiwrwfm-
^mnnfT mwJ: xrf^g.* ^TWT^w^Vr?^: irngm^t wnr: i wmt fWT xrwnmr
^3^ "WTRTPnjvw *nf?t i ^i*uf •cmufi} TRpfNfwfn ^fxrglfx:-
’TT’Wx^r xr ^utotot: ttt??h ?7*r^: i 'a Tfa ^cw:«
302
II II
xyrsi to 1
T^rs^i^i^i^if^i^i^if^iHfroifros^kniaii
^iwi^i^N^:'i^^s^i^i^i^mi^iiMii
Hft *r ^n kff mu
^1 ^ II? II
^I^^I^II^fl^:iflWS^HF(;i^3^r^|fiTiis^rn^[ II? II
$ qft ftwt fa%: «3MritfW smsfa^r ^nrrwf srnnnj mrrm *rr arrg arom
fw qjwrr *r$ 1 qrtf»r n *j ^ Knsrrf^i: 1 enffo^ai: 11 fwerain. twftr smfq qnhftr
%qf mfirr^Twti^tuT *i1 1 w*nti otto i ^mn fOT^awtim ot jtst
*T ^ STOT 5T ^ II <\ ||
^jto: i sfstt i i i ^ftnrs^: i i
^f%*T: snfrrfTOTrot *tttt f^raroatn: tot: maim: mwfqrn grot yTnrrt irfurr fm
fry*: TOrsqrrft mft mft^i gm qrwnrt *ftw: wtror mm mrfm* t*ti«TOrft
Terror *ranr*roi qs#r toUw« gr tqj 1 grift marg 11
ft K^t ft l|Mf ^ff ft ^^ 1
ft 11 ? II
ft 1 *s(: 1 ft i 1 *rf| 1 ft 1 1 1 1
ft l ^ 1151 1 1 ^fts^w: 11 ? 11
^T#t: i ii 8 ii
^n I WW H MII
% t% ?* fw *r$Tftr stTmPi srfarifn jjm^rw »prf% i iptt «
<n3*I^w f*rm irtiT^rrf’i n$i<siTii ^rnrPTPro i ^rf*rc!: wifi: h ^ wijft ii mi
vItt gnto ^wrn^gw i fawtft fftm i flimnuprt ^rpm^*rr
H7hnm uf?nrra?i i wra^prpifat • ^n ^Tgini i *t*fr ht^wt^jh f*rf* n iftfa-
^tpi xpn^w i ^ct ^ i *rtw i&wr ''afsrert i w §• qo. i vfn n
I I I ^TT I ^ I I I
rftiJHT % ^ I
irt^n i ’l i i^ i i i
U ^TOtror' iw
f^nr wm «* ^ 1
VOL. IV. 3 *
m M H
T( wfw ^ rb^: I
ii n^awni ii ? ii
^l l HS^1! I *jdw1 % I Ipjsanb l
ill ^T l ^¥S^W* I I faiTJ 1WI I 'pSHlr^ll ? II
irepig i tjw: wr*rn i ’jTre: »H44rtt ^ W* *TTsm-
Itfn i ^ ^ cr^nr: grcKmrt m wwift *rifn i % *rr ^ ^ ^^fwr:
feriw i iTTO#r«t^ stwftprai i ^ R^Td a wfa Jnsjffarfc #
| ipr4: I ^ I JTfairofrT 11
srtfrwfrhjT TOrerof* mu
srcjfii i ^ i ft s*fc? i ftft i *ra:1 s<sro i
^TWlT^d: yiTWI^ff l
*c^nn^ 11*11
^ i S»t: i W i i I «T5Tf^ i 1
tpftirrxMvvTf hmii
^ifH^i^if^i^i^s^,^^l^‘^,l^s^ni1
juwm fw anftftr i?rat irfii i 1M3 i <nni%»Pli4g i>Hg it i
^ «rm iwt: I wf^rg w’g rDwirftri «fri
7T^ I ^mifqMT \RV*t *pf Vi %®T I ^ 8
^ ^ *ftwii^ar Wl ^ \^r\: mi
^5 afa iM arm ^aat a^aajamf $^am «n*rt i **t argaria i ^af aa^:
ati{ anaftft ii aiPaavna f€^rrriTW% aHaria *3 f* 1 ift* J* 1
f^a af ai ^mf^<«f^rfar ^rar i^ht° $■ m-i Tfa»^^rre^t: ^aT^raaTT^arfafa m faf a
T&aT i ^fan a i ^jaf at f^aang aat w?*ut aat ar»i%wt: i at0 <t- 8-1 afa*
arej: i 5t: i^r: i sftm i ^rej: i i ^tti xft?r: i ^rej: i *nm i <^r i
m ii?ii
afaaT frrat |at aUanai ag: aarnraiMs^M^TgaT?^ %at ar^vrg i amfa a
a^r t^nar: a^aragtift |at atianai ag^arg i vTar a*at faaTaTfganataaaaa
at {am* agfa^arg«
I wmsift I wirft I I
^[i I
rfistFITfai^ W^VUT fa p ^ I
ST^qft \u^ I
fNtaft *r^t rf ^infa sraWf 11811
1 >Rfo 1 ir: i 1 u: 1 it^r; i ^ 1 i ^ 1
q|¥T^q| Wf^fT I
FrT ^m*T TTCTfftsJ f^Ff §flrf^l ifTt H?H
\ \ ^rfS^qi I \M f > V* 1
m\ 1 i ^niifk i i& \ fq^q i i h?«
wlnrrR 1 rm
ffqq: qwfcu mm imraqrrv i wi^Wt
ww<: I ipt inT^T ^ TTr^ I,
i^rrrrafirarw * wra ttw tnu^ qw^i ** ^ ,
q^T I ttf \ ftq TOfl^* ^ TOTW Wm *qfw ^T ipuw
ifqqT *W$W IT*W q«*HjflflMltl9 | ft^W | qqT %q Jraiftftq gqrf ^ „
qrwhre^ ^ i wmwrt «raT<()0 fwro q*w tftro 5:^ qrtwwwtw vx^jjm
wrf?i q%c a
rO^ FT ^7TT»Tt: I
to ^iiq ittfifapfl i
^rftre ^ 11 * 11
V* i ^ i *$ i i ^zwjrt i i ^ns*$ i
srfa: i rf i^hsuisiifa: istos^i ^faar^u^ii
to: g5u*H: i a umi m'mfi{»i THwOft totwt i mrog h
fa^famTT ^rft I
3tfa ^wutfa? irfafa ^rtsjrofa ii 8 ii
I i* I ^ ifa I fasitfrT I ^ I ?fa ^sxtrft I I
%fa I I ^fT: I 1 rf I frT: I SJTSPimfa II tf II
1 *frfro: % mfr^ Trn^jft *fr mwf^frfa ^nf'BrmrET fafsst qpftft ^mT
^T^rrwt^ rntrom^f ms ^frfrom qfrorn^ fafrot ^nt fo&qiMKqfr i
wmnftm: n f%f w^rr^l w^tf^is: i qifqrorrf^mmqfqw: # ?i mww ii
^ ^*qr |
W ft°^Tft a n,,
I ^ I ^Tf^RT^rt I q»4t«ri I f^Tr^l 3*ft |
W I sfftitf I ^ftpsfit^l | ft I | ft m |,
% wpta Wfft ft ffTfa l WTWftf I ft§nen4ftft: « i; ^
^f^^iTTTm^: i * 11 to mf%ro«if wrtfffow ^rort frown *r
^^3*ft1»<gTV:ifonw I 'sftrom; I <*ft ^ ifl^r I ftTft wfr fro IIjft
i % flfift t xn« $. <\. i *f?r i % Trm^^rfrfrfn Trerfn-
HT^iitf^ fft ^ 7m flftrro^ i fir^ftr^ftnft wftfttfr *ftro: i ^nfatguii
T'H»ii*ii‘g *roirrft i wnrofa i g^aO+Ttisif: it ^gr*m ^ft vtg: n
W%«?W Tj^tvqt I
wm ^^T«ri m- 5ttT^ ft ^nftr ?r ii?ii
^rftwt: i ^ i xj?(t*?: i ^ftft: i ^rft i
i jfiftnwri i qfa»: 15nfts«r: i ft i i ^ ii?ii
% WrftgTT ^ ?TO%^: i TOf aO«<aMi«i^ctVT^ i wmftw: wyfr ^nfw-
^T’^fSftsnw: ^ntqigni wgg mwft »nfftrq toutw ft ffTft t »tot ^ftfr:
t^gfftmg m* ft ffTft i '(ift ^ % m *nrerwt i *Wl trptfTOTOr-
II II [sr°
W fC ^frfa ^ it mi
^S^tin^l c*Ns*i: I ft I I
I I H1I fa I ^pTffl I ft IIMII
qqqrwrq; i qisi* jrrflt i nfftrrft ftisft %q qqqqiTw i nmqifq'ifrgifr qq
qrftwfr q%«rq irm ft firft i ft qsnrr i nftinflf n w irqrr^q ?i qq
rrftTTft fuft m
WTrt rrafrMfo! I
W fti ft nt? n
^Tt^s^nT^i <?N: s c*ta: 1 snft i T^figst^fisj i
*n$r1 srcwir^i m 351 fft i ^ijfa 1 ft 11 ^ 11
’qqriift, q$#riit»^r wfart «ftr: tfftwni tftftr qfoqqqrqf qrmgf'ft
*rqi ft firft 1 vnii u «vr«
qroftfq qq# qqftri fir t sriftm;^ rftrra qrft i fiftrr ftf^wft qft: i
|qm 1 rm qrfqrrq i qjqfi qq rftrrr f:r?rsrcr qwni ftjsnqftft n %ftq?t ftftqft: n
<^m*rs|sT*ift: 3TO^n<j a? 11
i i 1 ^1 i 1 ^1
I ^TSXRq'r! 1 trw 1 ^ 1 J^ 1 1 I xi: 1 q:»if^ i
rTI^Sq HMII
8bb li H [w° b.?R0b.^8^.
^i?r:ifa4:i^i^w:i^i^i^Ti^:ifa^fai;iflfa^I:,^^: "*{l
*nj yq^’iT ^totrt irjJJrt imffi i »Rrf*f t i* ffsft wgrfwityfjiftiff wrfft iti'ifiw.
ftfufiifffrpifuw* *r«rtf*i i if ptmprt: toi % *w *nft: m^frpftiw^ff-
ftm ^trcrim »rfg it
^sfa fsjiww ^rnrif* ^ s*rai i
fa ^w*rcj *$ki ^fa; it?ii
^ i t& i i i ^snfa i ^ i 1s*rot i
^rfa: i i f^r i ^ i itrt^: i W i w^\ wkk i ii?ii
1 wum: *R ^tr ^f*ppro sflqTff&q ^ft gwrRftj»nsnf*f i qfimi^iHfiiniOfa
wrt v* i w 3 v*pr: fr<ft ji <ifwf: i % *tr: u^i
lyrenrcnfg i itfffv i w jrarpur wfFvt ffarewt *^R.*fff irar fawner:
gif«S(*i4: n
^afa^flFfa fa^4?N vrot i
3JT -<fa^FT FHFT flfafa <& llgll
^rfas$: i i i wm i fass#fa i ^n*t i
^n 13sr: i fa^f i $n i ^ \ fh i m i i ^ i tfs^fa i <& it g ii
% *rwr: ffsrcwir «jm<5n«ln vtot vh>«! toraT *%n m 5smfaT*m i
WR<u*f<« i 'tnft ft gRTfs f*m im^i^i gisnff i *tfRf $lf irrftwf: i ft g^nf
atf RTfrn ^ i ft q«Kflft m sffff: *hmr: f smpn ^ i m%nf* #
jfrrcfa ^ ^TOTf ^TF^WF '3TT ^ I
JT|cfit IIMil
%Fsefa i m i 1i ygtm i snjsiw i ^n i v i i wwff1
3ro:SF^I HI ^1 ^I I g^BTr^l Ff^t: I^STrlS^ IIMH
% mm: ft f^rrf ft*t%f i wro wi mffcffa: i Ttnret rmj %*t: i ny<q«i<R
gwft plgniqwt: %#r 5jRre i nfr ft gwrf gffrf ftp: Rrcrat i wifai i wi^«nfvf^-
«rftr n tp^ im8^>.q. 80. i ^ tztff faft frt: h wit »t iH*tivt<ti<i<MK<aPPn-
fl[*TRT I ^'Pftntt I ^IST|fePfP[>»: ifJtRT ff«T ff I «RT ft ?tM'
iffw wft^ptwf: i ffirr ’gyrrftfofft a^nftn^FTtfT a
*r?p6f frvf ffi ff^Tftnra^npftrtf wnrn^t i ft»ra Ttti T^tt
inT^m h?h
i TTsf: 1 1 tiijfio 1 1 sn^s*ran; i ^ ?fii i ^*(f’!! i
tN 1 3*f 1 spr 1 *pisp7; 1 i virr: i f^iwfifo fasvtrr: i
I 3W3R 11 ? 11
Tnft <ibi4nw HPm *rwa * vtt* ^ 'faimw s*«?Kviwt:
spifisj *nfrrnft{? % Jrafarepft JT^fTtifai 1 %
vmf hwip« ^ $ ftvTTf^hi^ %* 1
II
**TT*Hfta* I W*
3
E 2
to ii *5^: II
at gai irfH ^ *mg$ gSUfitg?! ’fPfa *rfa *n?P ww3m vfrn *rr*i *rft[ *rgr ^%*^rt%
ifirnnr arnraeTfa *T* gat wH fgafastf: n u *m ii
*jT7r%fH ?gaN ^K^sj fw nTn^frwTfw^rernf %§h aTg^rma i wt gigatH i
arwrf»raPr «rr7rra*fr arWiTfn 11 »nfr fafrota: 11
^Tr!^ ^ TrffJRT^ <^3^1 tiH: I
fy^nifR^TOTf^ ^fw ijfwrmu
ctth^i i g i *rff *tr i t*tei i ^3r?( i ijfo i \ i ^H: 1
^tfTrR 1
^f^Jil l&WMJ] IP II
I ^^1 ^S^ff I I | f^: t | tFfRT 1 Slfftf I
I ^SfT I 1| I I HRTRSfr IRH
IllWRtsn; H
*£ m sqtfrlm ^i
f^^fpft ^5fr |5f ^ 4^ Hf ^tt 11^ II
ajiaiara: i ^nrara it
8Q.€r II H [sr°
nj 3M i W II9 H
?q I SI I MRF§ I IM1 ^l 1 +M<3$ II ? II
1 TO ar si a aaf aga ^ %aar ga fgaTargvra i wpl aTa astro. i aar garo
TT*r^r% wW^N? ailafaaj$ gir: w^^t: i arffat: i anaaa TO^;»
W prffT^RW^fM I
STtt ^T^r| RT tpTgHfv II «| ||
^sn i RT i i ^h: nrfM i p: i I i
fast: \ FIT i *rtt: i 1 *n 1 «pi us 1 ^ 1 in 11
1 w *tt mrn?T^ 1 wgT^r ^TfwftTflN 1 n wmwrg *rer 1 wr 1
vpft f*rm: ^wfw^rrfTnr^i t^r i TT$wfaf?re 1 *$rg frtr: mn^ri
TTWjJ I WfTTWS T^Tf^fiT T!T*l*itJ II TTflf II ^ ^ft: TITtnngTg THRI »TTf«
WPT1 ttt wnsrg 1 *rr fr^w nrg 11 ^ ttki:w* 11
swmsr: fetfff: i
W^iNt ^rTT^n fefefc ^ II q II
^npr: i h^sit i srfastfg: i fewrff: i
«rqt i wi \ w i wttrt i fernrtfa i i ^ ii mi
jTO’gi ajwrari ?rfwf im wn T^Tarosn i wfwwUfHararTS: uTFTrw:
*nt firemff: inwr f^W^wrf»wf^T i am apr iwpwiW fWPtprt arim garm
mftprt ar arewTflrwT^g frcmfar ^^0 amf* ?m wmw fareraffang?-
farsnJ: ii y^a
■*r ar ffn qgatfq ^gfaN gw armi i w$9psr wafom *rmf^: i afm-rfwwfr
armwt i to wrgwtn i *r ^g^g)4^i4MT«a!r>i«l#i<i^fiirfl »arprefp* ijwgife i
gfnr w i w * ae^% * aft ajT*rnn rfrt grpfr: t wr° m. **• itfar i w i gw arre-
i gmt ff i jt arranrcr Tara ww apfoj i wt° m- <\*-1 *f*r ii
m\w ^ ff \ ^ 11811
vfrrj i ^r i TqfTtmii
Tpr^tm ^rf i ^jfa^r *t* *fa **wr*fa iroifa g*T ff^yr
sgfsn i q’qm^nfom; i f #m* * wi i M«if?r^f«^T i mr^fa i ^fa^rr wfa i vwv_
gr?fr ^resnl i w* i *j*i4i*ir4<.i<*n*i»fa mO^tu farfamr. i q^r^fqj^n*
iv Rw^reft fwi vtw: *rm Jjfa*m sn^r: n ^ w i
m * I ^ nWnft iTnf^^^rrfaw^i: i w i
^ nronnn: R^wi^ wi: i W i fmf^fa»r
vrrw: i wr- wr Jffawt. up ^ <,n*rfgvu m fwn: i *mrr ^
^ jft w ft*rfa Tnrr i ^ Ttmf^pfaw^i:»
HHfMmrrq^r n ^qfafa fftifraw i ^ i If^ifariwfrm'- sftwl w ^ ^
fv^fq f?rer: i ,wo «»'«>• i Tfa #
^ * X^Tnt i
T^t ^ ^ffar%rrfw w?ri ii?ii
m i ^ sft i w i n i^s^: i ftni i i ?ffa?* i
t*t: i h \ ^t: i xsfas^fl: i Tjftts^; i ^wftr i wrt«911
wxrg ^r «ti^T^^rn*ift»ra?HnTf7i 11 ^snjsjn^raft ^
TrfTf^a: 11 frm ^«n*n*n£Tm i wi xrpnxi h wtax* i wT?*ptoitir jrfn
■hjrto wten! 1 wfq ^ tf^HT^f: f?r x^t^t 11 wi^xft xmxffxrer wta: it xr xtot
^t^rn^tfrmTn. xftfxfofxmT ff^ri xNrafxim»xfrxtx^wfrjfo ?*m *fw n
w^fft 11 wxtxsSmTxpftfd g^x?r fh5: i x[fij xft:
nwfdxa'<«M 11 T^jHitifxTxanrrann %?rf7T i xp3r^tri§ wT*nfii 11 5r%mi^ji^ci<«»i
f«ii#rc^: 11
SP*fr I \ sffaTrft fW: II 8 II
i : 1 ^*rft 1 spjrrbis^ 1 st4r: 1 r^r: i ft^i r#itr; i
i&: i 1 fw: 11811
^r^nr*fr an«i*iidi«H3^rdfa*rfl*ii<gwffl i xrerr-
3[xjf?i 1 x^grcft TWTdwfd xrrcfi: 1 f*r° M- x?-11 HT^rrfMIrixpnr^i *rsrr wir*WV ***ft wtx?t-
fxnrgnT ^^T^T^Trm i xftwr^Twr i m° q. 8- xmi tsptt^twut ii wft yra ^r: xifxifanu
Xlf v^rw^TTXT I XtWTXpfTK^f XTcWT'TO *Ij5H $<^XfMfl g^S II f:q'^*<Oi,?l^: I XJf^r
sfq xnffa'K ii xiff^rrs^T^tiyffl fa’inffWd f*nft gq> i ^Wd 11
^ft ^fa[Td% gftjRfrlW XTPTTXf ®t!I I 5T5TWT WS- II II ?8 II
xHtnfirffr gw dffif gw srarpxfd’jwwr Mfidxai'f i wtwt wt
Bfdqt3H3 T WifowfXT^ gw I Wflditfl W I ^<Td <IW dHd: JTTWTWt XTHTIX^ ^dWIV^fd H dT«i
jfirsw i gfwd w i dddxrwxxgxxif xrtwxrc wt xr: xigsn i wr° 8- §• i xtfd #
wrm ntTn^wn^HT ^ ^ ^ i
^ >|^^rT: ii?ii
n1 11?SI^1 1 1 *1 1 ?£1 1 ^1
iii i «^i i qrifqi qfrr: ifth^ri i q*ftr KqwfqT mu
7*ft II? II
i£ i sN i ssfa i i i ^nrtw: i f*w i ^dtart i
^xt i 1 sfI i ^TRS^ i ^ i^wf: i % I^^I 11 ? 11
% ^ wi-straw wra w^ftw^wt wrafwwwrraraw i '3<Mti'Uf% 11 fw wrawt
^ffn: ■qikH'ri ygmumwiw « «tr ^a^Trw u wfiraW i wfww: i*
wrspra arrowy: i mwi: i fwfrnf wtw *sh«u*i&^‘- i wrarnff: i ^rj^:
ii ii ?*=#
ira tf?r <ra frit f* %« i wfire: *w«i wfa: wrrn: i «tw*: w**n<si
wsf*tf|aY*n*n: i 'uftnjjtftaraTt i wt 'n*j«iw i w$w^t: nra^ atRihj flmfl
htw** wtf: rr^T ii w^msw www i ^ i wmt wr wu *remr
8. $. i Tfn ii
ipNj fWt ffa%i
VT^?rf5TTW%^ fwf TW^RT II s II
iM: I ^ i ^ I «sn*i: i ^ I i *lpi s ^5>TW i f M: i ffa: i *fiU
vr^: i ^rfa^i *%: i ^ i f^f: i pj$Ht 1 ***1 1 11
*pg wfawi inft ^rm ^ nwra «rrat »rra w: ’nfl^ wfw wr^wrg-
|x^^n wrat ifwt wtfuawt wt i 'WT?!^rrv5r 4n*i w3[wt i vhj'St-
rfrmgmrerefttra i *i wfag-g fWrgT wrr i wraur i wwra; it wfttf tf* ws i
wwrai ^i fFTro #
^ts^rj TRT% *f ^ I
fopK'siffHflil ^fw f^t *! II *11
qu^: I *: I 3FfiJI I*i rj: i i ^gs^pr: I ^ I
fennel Softer l 1 |:sWf7T l l l TOM qswTTO l ^ l ^t: ll * II
tHg wrotg flpfta: irrot n<.iifn%nTOi: i nfnwtnat ^n?ngTfr nrnrnt n^: sMW
ifantupTnng i Tng i tftMigT%g owag«mt: i nntigTOn: i fsptofrjgroPr nrnin: »
wrgrorer nrnfntifanf nfannqi if gnranfrinj i gmrfflnrnifnr f«t4f^«iff
W^l|^T rftp[ ^ ^ I
^ %: h?ii
*r£fa^pRH*faRi i
TT3TT 3Tqf^ «?H
^i i i i i i • ^frftfrt i
i us^t: i i ^fwr i ^if i ^rfHs**: i i 11 ?11
*i ftrrrn^ v.n-«Tf?B ar^vf i VTWf*i i ^">^rq
arnf \rrwfn i ^ gfw y*ri w: «4i^^i*i^ara i **reTf* |^^T
g^niiaj^aiai i i JrarSfi an*|ai «q«?TirMTiTf
g^qrntWS: # # 8b »
*»• 10. sp <1?. m] II II M0<>
f^Wn j^r FFf^nf I mmrt sm FTFf§: wmfiia^V fFwft i fthfrurc
H» wg«n at 14 PrfFFlF i «Ui Mf «i Ps» n Tft ^fft: i fft FTg*TF i
Jn^TRwt ii %fnBfr tWrsfm:« J
t fFFtFT^FFT^ Fit ^lff I fFfFW Fit VTTF I % FWfF <F F fafFS Fit VTTF I 1
FT^ fFiWFT H^TFTfFFT ^FiFFTHWFfFFt ^Ft 'F FF F»tFT FtTT I FfFFFT I
fFFTfrrapfc ii
FfYfF rfF Fgf^tvj gF> FWJW FFT^TtTPt FTFFFTf^F^FFTFi I FFT FTgFilF I Fff
FFHjfF<tIFRi’<-1<F^FF FTFF FT ^fF II FFftPFFT FFFF frnFFTFTFTi%F ^PFtfFF-
FFTt I grZftt ff I Ft? FtnrrfFFrgF#FFfFFFFf F giFfFifF FFFtfF tFTTTF^ |FF°g®^.
t|0.'Q-c. | ^fF N
■smr 3n dg ^3 ^g ^ f% i mq «rcfb^ ii q n
3d: i 3m 3Tg i idd i *isg i g3:sg i g: i i m g: i Wfft i
mftggjRII
to* ^iptwii it uro it ng i TOirog i i *nj ft^n^ro
HTifitg »rcfr»j 35TO *r HTif^rg 1 ^fti ^ n mft^ii TOfag a
3fT dif fdnftf 3 3rT ^THtrT g: fld I d *fdd3 1RII
3H i 3th i fdn i srfg i g: i gni ^n«rt i gm g: i sd i w ig:'
d^Trd I gift IRI!
TOfq ^ % to w ifuiro froflr i tott^t wifa i wrft i toit TOf% i TOft ^
*fUnr* 5ereT ^m*naTyt f*ri^ra i« m aftnW «wm wf>* i*
5R^rmrt ^i^n^rT 1
H ^ ^ 3n?IflT I
1 ^I^frT: HURT m I
ft *T#T W ^frefrT II8II
wnpft 1 *: 1 ws^: 1 wm*i i i *: i
WR?i 1 ^rej 1 ^r: 1 *r: 1 i i gstff i ^rcifrT n811
% *t *p»rrawTff*: rasftivjwrd: wn3fafraU*j i **t *ft *prfa
l^nfa rar*T»fafa*nf* 4g i <t*t *ft *p»rfa rati*:^TW t TrSr*rrfar$ww 1*^fa im-
**raj i «fr gwrfa tfm* rnfra* wif* wr wtwfarasr*: 11 *ysr
w^ftf* inrt fWW ii ii «e. II
*^ng*g rart* **rt it^ fwrra* i
wrofa^ fajfrfa* ii
3 V 2
II ^55 »
ll
APPENDIX.
THE
WfftrgrNi g arnpnfM i n
Again, in the third verse of the same Anukrarnaui, between the 13th and 14th
Anuvaka of the first M a/a/ala, S'aunaka states distinctly that he does not
enumerate the Khailika Anuvakas :
1 This is the original reading, which has afterwards Arshamikramani the Khilas seem to have been
11 11
^ ii h
wrfaAimifc *rngfa: i
gf^frafa: to* fssnfor: uq.ii
2. Khila found at the end of the first Mandala, in gwr «r: *rof »i i
Si. S3. S4. It is not given in S2, nor in MSS. *pr«n flnrf^w »
Bodl. Wilson 429, 435. 11 Phas another MS. has 3R-
1 For o?Tf R reads #»rf|f. Of. Av. X. 4, 9. t®(i IQU IWRTfft •
2 For f*n*J«rry# s4 and P read fiwMTy*. 12 Of. MahftbMrata I. 2188:
3 *f?i S 4, which gives only these three *fr skwiwi srnfr srwrTt «tr«nn: i
verses. 13 *rfrpi P. glSTft R. One MS. has ^rfrifa.
4 »r*ral a. 6 *rcrfawr s3. a. Htf*p- ft R, and one MS.
6 *nvfr w jmw *m: deest in S3. 15 This and the following verses (7 to 10) occur only
7 without Yisarga, MSS. in P. R gives our verse 7 as verse 8, and our verBe 10
8 »ifTw; p. r. wrTftm; si. s3. »rcr- as verse 7. The other two verses are not given in R.
?.
*5 fOTT^t ^ H5 Wn^fq^H1 nil
*i ^ ^ ’ll! ^ i
^ *£ »w ^ ii * ii
*13*5 «T Hi ^ II ^ II
srcre*? ^rt^: ftm i
3S*ni TOT 3]f II8II
^FRlfa TT^lfa I
^TfjrT^ WWlft HMII
^1^^ 'st^r ^ gnfff fafafa ^r: i
spifuNr f^ §3ki: ii^ii
tf.
STPTfii n? »pi% 3R jgfalfffo I
^ ffa: fitfk W ^ to to!1 mi
M.
ipOT^RTTTO? ^sfxr TT I
3. This Khila occurs at the end of the second 8 On Kartari, see Stenzler, Indische Studien, II.
Manrfala. It is given in Si. S3. S4. Wilson 435. P, 159.
the sixth verse (= Rv. II. 43, 3) only in S1. S 2 and 4. This verse is given at the end of hymn V. 44 in
Wilson 429 have not got it, but 82 adds after Varga 11, Si. S2. S3. S4, also in P. Wilson 439 has WPC'
a word occurring so frequently in the MSS. f|pj | jftsif n It is not in Wilson 436.
instead of that I am almost inclined to take 1 Cf R V
it as a synonym of Parisishta. It might mean what * ’ V' ' _
is left out in the Pada. The verses 1, 2, 5, 6 occur ^ ^as I ^ ^
Kausika-sfltra 46, 54. wg<?re<q» giftmwml gitoretn* mr-
1 ^rPt^IW S 3. This verse occurs Nir. IX. 3. Cf. ftTB |. The Samhith MSS.have no Khila afterV. 49-
Roth, Abhandlungen, p. 32, and Notes on Nir. l.c. But see Khila 12.
t- J ii tfcreifir ii
^iTh vr ^ ^ nil
s.
ii ^wii
fitiniw fWf yr^T^wiNt11
^T cT^ft* ^nri^ * sn mu
wrf: i % grm^: i ^rrcTfa M i smnnfr tt i fasm tf* *r i \ si ftK-
w*r% *puNr *r4: wren i ffwt fft^#r i *n i
«m^tt %fw ^^nrrar i g^afc^wsT *jq4*s n gorrfw
g^4Tf»i T^nrrf^ TPri ^P| *rren wrerr i qwitwiKi ymiiftwrewTt i 5^ ^
gaj | '?jni %jj fwmMTfwni i w ^rr^x^TTfnanrg^n i IS ^wtw a^€ 71?Tq~
w31 nf^rTpg^wt nr i m^t ^^wqrnpnMT i itf^rraf^RT *rr i ffT’preff ffT^raw i ftr-
^faroft wt i srw*nft i wwt^urrarr jfjpjl go-1 tji^i ^
*r?j *ni ’?rrs*i i <i^4l*if*iffl *n^: i^iif ftTffa^jSfc n s it
in P. E. A. As Dr. Hall has been so fortunate as to
1 One MS. has ^SPfg^K®.
discover a commentary on this Khila, I reprint the
2 ’trfM *re* ^rm deest in R.
same,as published by him in the Journal of the Asiatic
6. This Khila is given at the end of V. 5 > in the Society of Bengal, vol. xxviii. p. 121. The com¬
Samhiti MSS. It is also in P. E. A. mentary is ascribed to Vidyadhara, to Vidyfttirtha
1 A. 2 A adds n- Mahesvara, and to Vidyttranya Svfimin. Dr. Hall adds,
7. This verse is given in tho Samhitft MSS. at the loc. cit., some valuable extracts and remarks bearing
nm fftinr f^ mwq ii 9 ii
wt& i \ ^ i *i nwMTWTOT
maT % mrtht *n i ,w3^r i ’sn^mwiqiftflTOi *wt ff’Fsr gmS m ^g»n$ mfmi
^mn. ^^rp^regmMf wgm 1^1
srogfr* terror if^t^rretfa^iY31
fare ^rai4 ii ? ii
wtsJ: i ^ gfrm m?rrari i imna^mfr g#r pfi^Tfaffr i
Twuri w »r$ wrerr i tPa*n<n^fV<ff iform wnrf gf^N mftflrfT iraw
Tnrcfmff 1i qftwrcNt m i ftra ^rmiftm i l^<n m i mi s*t mM
HWT5% I w# ^fhft MT ^TTt%W #^B
^ntereff3 srhropiil i
^fw*whjflS ^ «%* ^ aj^tr^ it fcII
toi^: i qf?qqT«wq!^qgwwfq»nraiqii i sfot fyt ^fbrnpwTf*n«nt: i wiqifaEn'BWf
»mt nnrarfa i ^ w^frwqqfti ?m *#nroffiprnf»Tff?r % »ro pT?t Urm,
ftrjfc f%«rr^«i 11^#
wr^: i \ *t: »nra: *tw inftifwwra i ’Wffn toI ■er |^: mftfscro to *mmS i
ipjnt arftrffonfori qri i ^*ro i vfflww i ^ w«hiRm-
gfW ^nf^rf? i **?*'' ^ ^ 1 ,i,jM<<ni 1 Wl
^iTT ibm1 I
wf^2 i
rT^r *nrfa TRnft?3 hh wtohs m$n
r. \jn*rej % k. vwf^ii a.
11 ?ntfs2. fiTtsi. 12 ^nrcTD»-.Hai]. 24 faf?m:s4. fafam: p.
it n [b.$s.
<*.
fwg* i
srcxd *r j^hu qrsw qRT w mu
SO.
I)r. Hall’s reprint only. In S3 the second line the leaf containing the SrtsOkta. One MS. at Saugor
<R.
11. This Khila occurs at the end of Rv. VI. 44 2 gmi^® 84-
(Ash/aka IV. 7, so) in Si. S a. S3, but not in S4. 13. This Khila occurs in the fifth Ash/aka, in S 2
P has only the first two verses. at the end of the third AdhySya (after Rv. VII. 55), in
1 '3T^^V?JS2- W^i^r.
K 4 at the beginning of the fourth AdhySya (before Rv.
VII. 36), in S 1 it is put at the beginning of the hymn
2 «1*ufn s 3. a.
VII. 35 (end of 27th Varga). It is not in S 3. P has
3 The order of these two verses is inverted in S 3
thfllffti gifamarraffi. R the same. A has
and P.
important various readings in this Khila.
4 fip Si. 6 f^5T T^Tc^p# A. u
12. This verse is found at the end of ltv.VI. 48 “l
1 it si. sj. »^iS^p.
! wrt^si. 3 a^is4. r.
S i and S 4 only. See also Khila 5.
1 u^ivr^ ^pnfsr Sl-
4 irPC’epi s 2. S4. R.
5 5n:wff S4. p. r.
ttrr^t|^*raw^ftTi «jnrrf»i S4.
VOL. IV. 3 Y
II UfoMiTfa ^FFTfVr n [R$.
HWg: ^ ^tfspfcre: I
rTM^MWlSTat $ MTM*RRWMtS?nftr^ II I? II ^ II
^ ^rtt: *Rrre*rFRi ^
STTrRT ^ WTfa ^ MMflt ^ rWMMRtfaTf fRTfa II'SMI
TrrHTfR^t^ ^rT M’Mt $ Mrwrat srjrimijm1
faw rTrqffiffi MMt $ xpRTfa libII
<lb.
pto^2 tot tot: xj^3 xp^r^m: i
*|TO$ TO*! Sfanjita4 P^W TO^pt nil
p^^ft ^frO ^*tt TTTTOTfimr p^pft ptaxjsr: i
TO JT^rT: TO*TT^ pp W1H Xffipt T*fari nil
'Id.
TO rTrTOT P^. fwTc7T% P#q?t I
*?♦
if *n toi: xjfaraRfa * i
WT qfrT rTH^R^T WJftWT^FMt1 ^ * ^fRII^H
^vt ^rftRT *R?mft$RfT ns*i i
^tn ^rfa^^vT^T^rfaq^THiW^t if ii * h
22. This Khila occurs at the end of Rv. X. Kfl.
20. This verse is given afterRv.X.9 in S 1.3.3. 4-
after Vhe third Adhydya of the eighth Ashiaka. Ci.
It is not in P and B. Of. Av.VI. 23,1.
Weber, Indisehe Studien, V. 194.
21. This verse is inserted after Rv. X.75i5 *n ®1-
«3. s4. yfttn«n3 *4 % P. The same 1 »*rs[^S4.
verse occurs in the MantrasamhitS (p. I07b of my MS.). 23. This Khila occurs at the end of Rv. x 103
Cf. Av. III. 2,6. 1 W»f>nri Wt * 4. K-
'HfttftSt. 2*pftS4. P.
« tfOTfsr II
*8.
^M.
ii Tpftfftj ii
^T Tifft T3f: fftijwfft1 UTRfft: i
%: wrf* ^frft fft fftsa ^i iftft ^ to iirii
after liv. X. 106 : ^IgflTS^ WTWT^ ftpffaW- 4 mrfft: sa. s4. r. n. wafa ■V
jfl^ ^|i B3Rt. It is not in our MSS. 5 fapnrf s i. s4. p. 6 wwfmff i*.it.
25. This Khila occurs at the end of ltv. X. 127. 7 3Jf® Si. Sa. S4. P.
It haw been printed and discussed in Muir’s Sanskrit 8 Verses S to 8 are wanting iu S i.
Texts, vol. iv. p. 498. 9wgmfW:s4. 1,1 ^ p
” °*fa ? 12 W S4. P. K. A.
1 fagx: mfa s 1. farcing sa. fagc: wig
s4. fa*rc: mg p. b. see vs. xxxiv. 3a; av. 13 31 ^ifM^IifT Sa, S4. P. Ii. 14 WTOT* ?
15 In Wilson 445 portions of a Dnrg&stavn are here
XIX. 47, I; Kir. IX. 39.
inserted.
2 TTft Si. Sa. S4. P. B
ii RfcrerfR fR ii
*9.
•fgqgf*ren;ft s4. p.
26. This verse is given in S 4 at the end of Kv. X,
128. Other MSS. give it as the first verse of the next
s^njsa. °3^HNnt»raK%A. *rfa-«TUr*roVft ^ Khila. In S4, however, it is distinctly separated:
r *w it. ; ?
llf^i m 11 $7fc» 1$ # ’snsp*etc- See mIV 7’
af^ and gtgf »w: S4. P. It. A. Verses 10 and
14,4: TBr. II. 4.3. Ji Av. V. 3, ti.
11 wanting in S i.
1 gwft S4. P. It. A.
4gnjp. 5 3to*t^t «>■ 27. This Khila follows immediately after the pre¬
6 ^Tf* jfiP* *ford TrfwPf *rr*nft p. ceding verse, at the end of the tenth Anuvfika.
1 Cf. AsvalSyanasftkhqkta-inantrasarohitS (Bodl.
ttN jftpj ^fVH'Cl TTff#r m i waft TTfwi
•MS.Walker 144). P. *33-
jjTtni s>. TTt^f: ffiUKforft <TfW*t
S3. 84. See Anukr. ltv. X. 137.
2 S4. P. B. See VS. XXXIV. 5°-
SM.] II $JGTfa II
fog^Tfrq1 with i
?N nf ^ fxr42 ii?ii
ssrsi ^ fro* ^fafw ^ ^ ^nr i
cT^ft TTgS? ^T ^ rPRT 7nfTT3 tf Tpl II ^ II
wft: usnw ^ srfa **% i
*b,
VOL. IV. 32
II iftOTfa « [>M.
# ff 3t fftsfaSSHT wi I
t^wf^2 ^ 31 »w3 mu
*3 ^r ^ h?h
^■R^T^rfrr i
3 Hf s4. A. from P.
4 % A. Cf. TA. X. 40; VS. XXXII. 15 ; Manlra- n*3*HTS2- #WpTs4- °*»ptp-
samlutA (MS. meum), p. 35“ i Asv.-Gnhy. I. 15, 2 i JnTHT TA. VII. 4, 1. Cf. PAr.-Grihy. III. 16.
PSr.-Giihy. II. 4, 8 ; MantrabrAhmana 1.5,9 (=Go-
12^W*t°S4- 13fT^.S4. P.
tihila II. 7, 21); Apastamba-MantrapAt/ia II. 4, 51
14 p. ^flf «*nrai r.
Hiranyakesi-Grihy. I. 6, 4; 8, 4.
ls%wf*r84. 16 S4. R.
8’vqrnsrt sa. s4.
17 VS. XXXII. 13; Rv. I. 18,6.
0 gan s4.
18 ?TOT 44I*(3f %V8T % %V(f^T"i f8 s 2, irai
1 wm etc. H. %XfT f^npiT? ^ A. **TflT
%vnt^ra 3* s4. irm *n
Apastamba-MantrapAtAa II. 4,6. See TA.
^i(Tf%ngi^P. SeeAv.VI. 108,4; VS. XXXII. t4.
X. 4lj Hiranyakesi-Grihy. I. 8, 4.
Z 2
M?io ii ifoainfa ii [^.q,
S #: TTt^fiT fl#: II «| II
?*.
^WtS^R^ I
HsTRfa^lP,!^ tf^R Hf^tTR^ II <\ II
tf$IR ?: #«n: |
f^ffl^lWig fa ^rT II * II
^sffaRfaifat2 ^rfarsTTfa3 i
Fta faS37 fa^^TTi fj72it HWftsR^ II? II
1 °i vbwt: s4. ihTRfauron p. °^ fRw: n. 31. This Khila is given at the end of Rv. X. 187.
2 °*tct: wingR: s 4. <*»nrrwimft g^r;: p. But P says: i.e. after hymn 188.
3 nfw*j?rre»rfis2. ufwfronlP. R: ^ R3Ft In
4 It adds the following verse, possibly a Khila be¬ S 4, the 46th Varga ends after hymn 187, Khila 30
longing to Rv. X. 163: being counted as Varga 43.
wrcua i 1 32. This Khila occurs at the end of the Samhita.
30. This Khila occurs after Rv. X. i84. Cf. Asv.- fc w§«n p. »r%wr: r. w. ^wr: a. cf. TBr.
Gn'hy. I. 14,3; RigvhMnalV, 23; Av.V. 2,3, 3; ioj II. 4, 4, 6; Av. VII. 52,1.
Mantrasamhita (MS. Walker 144), p. 131; Apastamba- 2#«rHh»i»np. em#«nnrR. •rtreNrr^-
Mantrapfttia I. 13, 5 to 7. 3 °MT R. Asv. Mantrasamhita (MS. Walker
1 ygmri p. i44), p.178. #wraf%mA.
h tfarasifa u
H .’sn^wt |
^ f^n *mnnfamfa utfii2
rT^^tTT t\T§ TTTrj l^rT^ I
gf® Tandya M aha-Brahmana. Indische Studien, vol. iv. pp. 360 seqq.
1 Varttikas have been referred to by Tp® with four figures, giving the Sutra in Paniui ami the number
of the Vftrttika in Kielhorn’s edition of the Mahabhashya. P°'has been used instead of TP® when Sayana
does not quote the Vkrttika itself, but Patare/ali’s note on it. When a VSrttiKa does not occur in the
MahkbhSshya, but in the K&sika only, it has been referred to by TiT® with four figures. This does not mean
that Sftyana bad just this or that book iu his mind, but is only meant to facilitate the finding of a quotation.
When references are given to the Parihhkshendusekhara, this does not mean that SHyana knew this book,
hut that the passage referred to will help to (explain Siyana’s meaning. A few grammatical quhtatious
have not been found either in the Mah&bh­a or in the KftsikS. In these cases the Shtra of Panini has
been given with an * after'it. They will be found in the Siddhanta Kaumudi or in the GauapaiAa, etc.
CORRIGENDA.
VOLUME I.
P. 204. 1. 4. Read with the MSS., and see Pda. VIII. 4, 30. (But Rv. Bh. X. 89, 6,
all MSS. give yPTOTHP.)
P. 388. 1. 7. Read |
Varietas Lectionis, p. 8,.to p. 142. 1. 23 (III. 4, n). Not only P 2 and "P 3, but also the
other Samhita and Pada MSS. read ^sn^f with the u&atta on the first syllable. See
RV. VII. 2, 11.
Varietas Lectionis, p. 61. 1. 20. Read ‘ S&yaraa mistook am <br ar?f:.’
P. 481. 1. 12. Read ^rfarf for The MS. Ca has ^TOT, but see Rv. Bh. I. 113, 15,
and VI. 28, 3; Asv.VI. 14,17.
P. 487. 1. 28, and p. 879. last line. Read for Tliis is the reading of
the Sayaraa MSS., though the Anukr. has
P. 578. 1. 31. Read ^ I I W I I See Rv. I. 186, 4.
P. ,589. 1. 13. Read for
P. 626. 1, 20. Read I
VOLUME III.
VOLUME IV.
Varietas Lectionis, p. 20. 1. 9 (to X. 60, 7). See also the extract from the Brihaddevata in
M. M. Hymns of the Gaup&yanas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, N. S. vol. ii
(1866), p. 445.
P. 33. 1. <5. Read for (ippr«
& a S'* f