Rtusamharam Saradvarnanam 1

[Guest guest]

Hi group.

 

I wonder about the first verse of the Saradvarnanam in the Rtusamharam, the

first half verse of the second distich:

 

aapakvazaaliruciraa tanugaatrayaSTiH

 

Of which Manirama says:

 

aa samantaatpakvaa pariNataa zaalireva ruciraa sundaraa tanvii gaatrayaSTiH

zariiralataa yasyaaH/ pakSe aapakvasaaliriva ruciraa

tanugaatrayaSTirvapuHsaMhananaM yasyaaH/

 

Amarakirttisuri similarly interprets the phrase as a single bahuvrihi. But my

text, edited by S.R. Sehgal in 1944, prints the phrase as two words, which, it

seems to me, could grammatically work as two bahuvrihis, except that the

commentaries do not seem to support that interpretation, and the second

bahuvrihi in particular could not easily refer to sarad rather than the vadhu.

So I guess Sehgal’s text of the verse is a misprint, and should be

 

aapakvazaaliruciratanugaatrayaSTiH

 

?

 

Phillip

[Guest guest]

Hello Phillip

 

Your emendation of the line to aapakvazaaliruciratanugaatrayaSTiH

certainly will not work since it violates the meter. The reading

aapakvazaaliruciraatanugaatrayaSTiH is metrically OK. You seem to be

breaking the compound as tanugaatrayaSTiH, but it seems likely that it

should be read as atanugaatrayaSTiH. The general notion is that one

gains weight in the colder season. The body looks like the fully

filled ear of rice, it is atanu rather than tanu. The two other

readings that I have seen are:

 

aapakvazaaliruciraanatagaatrayaSTiH and

aapakvazaalilalitaanatagaatrayaSTiH

 

Best,

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

 

 

INDOLOGY, Phillip Ernest <phillip.ernest@u...>

wrote:

> Hi group.

>

> I wonder about the first verse of the Saradvarnanam in the

Rtusamharam, the

> first half verse of the second distich:

>

> aapakvazaaliruciraa tanugaatrayaSTiH

>

> Of which Manirama says:

>

> aa samantaatpakvaa pariNataa zaalireva ruciraa sundaraa tanvii

gaatrayaSTiH

> zariiralataa yasyaaH/ pakSe aapakvasaaliriva ruciraa

> tanugaatrayaSTirvapuHsaMhananaM yasyaaH/

>

> Amarakirttisuri similarly interprets the phrase as a single

bahuvrihi. But my

> text, edited by S.R. Sehgal in 1944, prints the phrase as two words,

which, it

> seems to me, could grammatically work as two bahuvrihis, except that

the

> commentaries do not seem to support that interpretation, and the second

> bahuvrihi in particular could not easily refer to sarad rather than

the vadhu.

> So I guess Sehgal's text of the verse is a misprint, and should be

>

> aapakvazaaliruciratanugaatrayaSTiH

>

> ?

>

> Phillip