dhṛṣṇuka 'bold,' the name of a prince in the Harivamsa. The Iranian Daršinika, the name of an enemy of Vištāspa (Yt. 9. 30; 17. 50), may also be quoted (Justi, Iran. Namenb. 80). Some suspicion is cast upon the accuracy of Aoporávns as a transcription of a Sanskrit word by the fact that the gloss is alphabetized by Hesychios between δορχελοί and Δοτάδης, so that the form Δορσάνης has been evidently corrupted in the manuscripts of the lexicon. (Reland, I 221, supposed that Aoporárns was the Persian Rustam.) εὐάν· ὁ κισσὸς ὑπὸ Ἰνδῶν. The identification of the Indian word of which eváv is the Greek transcription is very uncertain. It is barely possible that evár is to be referred to the Sanskrit vaya 'creeper.' The exact Indian form would accordingly be *vayāna, Prāk. *va(y)āņa. For a similar case in which the existence of a -na-derivative (Lindner, Altind. Nominalbild. 136) is to be inferred from a Greek lexicographer, although the Sanskrit word with the termination -na is not found, we may compare the sole Indian gloss of the Etymologicum Magnum, ed. Gaisford, 259, 32; 277, 38: karà de Tηv 'Ivdar φωνὴν δεῖνος ὁ βασιλεὺς λέγεται. In the citation before us it is evident that devvos stands for devana (cf. Skt. dēva in the sense of 'my lord, the king'). The Visnu Purāņa 422 has the proper name dēvanakşatra as a variant reading for devakşatra. (Reland, 219-20, derives deuvos, which he thinks may be Malay instead of Indian, from the Persian tuan 'able, powerful.') κάγκαμον παρ' Ινδοῖς ξύλου δάκρυον, καὶ θυμίαμα. Uhlenbeck (Etymol. Wtb. 56) rightly identifies κáykaμov with the Sanskrit kunkuma 'saffron,' which is a loan-word from the Semitic. (Reland's reading, I 214, κáykaλov and his derivation of the word from the Persian kankar 'herba quadam spinosa, unde resina mastiches instar paratur' is, of course, untenable.) μαί· μέγα, Ινδοί. The gloss paí evidently represents the Sanskrit adverb mahi 'greatly, very much.' (Reland, I 223, connected pai with the 'Persian mih 'great.') μαίσωλος ζῶον τετράπουν, γενόμενον ἐν τῇ Ινδικῇ, ὅμοιον μόσχῳ. The gloss paiowλos is to be connected with the Sanskrit mēşa 'ram.' This presupposes the existence of a Sanskrit *mēşala (cf. Lindner, Altind. Nominalb. 145), Prāk. *mèsala. μαμάτραι ̇ οἱ στρατηγοί, παρ' Ινδοῖς. The word paμárpai probably corresponds to the rare Sanskrit marmatra 'breastplate' (according to PWb. sub voc.), which might also mean 'general' (i. e. 'protector of the vital parts'), if one is to insist on the accuracy of the definition given by Hesychios. The Prakrit form of Skt. marmatra should be *mammatta or *mamatta. If the identification here suggested be correct, the Greek gloss presents a curious combination of a Prakritized stem with a pure Sanskrit formative suffix. μορσική ἡ ̓Ινδική, M. Schmidt in his edition of Hesychios already saw that this gloss is to be considered a derivative of the following word, Μωριείς. Μωριεῖς· οἱ τῶν Ἰνδῶν βασιλεῖς. The gloss Mapeis represents the Sanskrit dynastic name maurya. Owing to the prominence of this royal house in Magadha, and owing more immediately to their close contact with the Greek invaders under Alexander, their name seems to have become synonymous to the Hellenes with 'king.' The transcription of Sanskrit du by w points to the Prakrit change to % of the Sanskrit āu; cf. Prāk. mōriyaputta, Sthavirāvalī I in Jacobi's edition of the Kalpasūtra, p. 77. (Reland's view, I 224-5, concerning the gloss Mopicis is very unclear and it is no longer tenable.) πτερυγοτύραννος ὄρνις ποιὸς ἐν Ινδικῇ ̓Αλεξάνδρῳ δοθείς. It is evident that the Greek word тeрууоrúpavvos as an Indian gloss is a translation of some Sanskrit word. The exact Indian term in question is not certain. The Sanskrit pakṣirāj(an) ‘birdking,' which is used as an epithet of Garuda and Jaṭāyu, may be suggested (cf. also pakṣisvāmin garuḍa, Hitōpadēśa, II 12). Perhaps this 'king of birds' may have been the peacock, which became known in Greece by importation from India. The peacock was a royal pet in India, and it was much admired and securely protected by Alexander the Great during his invasion of the country (McCrindle, Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 362-3 [but see also 186, note 3; 189, note 1]; Reland, I 231-2). It is barely possible that the parrot may be meant by Hesychios in this gloss, instead of the peacock. According to the Pseudo-Kallisthenes, III 18, Queen Kandake, who ruled the country of her great-grandmother Semiramis (i. e. Persia), sent Alexander, among other presents, six parrots. The location of the country under Kandake's sway is very uncertain in the Pseudo-Kallisthenes (see also Valerius Maximus, III 28 seqq.; History of Alexander the Great, tr. Budge, 117 seqq.; Spiegel, Eran. Alterthumsk. II 590). Kandake was the throne-name of the queens of Ethiopia (cf. Acts viii. 27), but the Pseudo-Kallisthenes seems to regard her as ruler of Persia, although she speaks of our India.' At any rate, some such legend as that told by the Pseudo-Kallisthenes may have been in the mind of Hesychios when he wrote of 'a certain bird given to Alexander in India.' No such epithet as 'king of birds' seems to have been applied by the Ancient Indian poets either to the peacock or to the parrot, although both birds are still sacred in Northern India (Crooke, Popular Religion and Folk-Lore of Northern India, II 250-2). On the Greek knowledge of birds in India see Lassen, Ind. Alterthumsk. III 319-22. An Iranian parallel, in which an Avestan word not found in the extant texts is translated into Greek by Hesychios, is: δωροφορικὴ ἐσθής· οὕτω λέγεται, ἣν βασιλεὺς Περσῶν δωρεῖται. In this gloss δωροφορική evidently is the equivalent of the Iranian *däerabära 'gift-bearing.' A personal friend very kindly cites as English parallels for Indian compound words imitatively translated into another language the terms Poison People 'serpents,' Red Flower 'fire,' Hunger Dance, and Man Pack from Kipling's Jungle Book. σάκταρον τοῦτο ἐμφερές ἐστι κόμμει, γεννώμενον ἐν τῇ Ινδικῇ, διαλυτικόν. The gloss has been correctly explained by Uhlenbeck, Etym. Wtb. 305, s. v. śarkarā: “gr. σáxɣap, σáκxapov zucker ist aus pāli sakkharā entlehnt." (Kruse, Indiens alte Geschichte, p. 402, Leipzig, 1856, reads Koiλías λUTIKór instead of diaλvrikóv. M. Schmidt, like Kruse, in his editio maior of Hesychios says rightly that σάκταρον stands for σάκχαρον.) σάμμα ὄργανον μουσικὸν παρὰ Ινδοῖς. The word oάupa is undoubtedly the Sanskrit sāman 'song.' This gloss, like the preceding one, shows Prakritic influence in the doubling of a consonant with resulting correption of a preceding long vowel (Prāk. *samma). The meaning attached to σáppa by Hesychios is hardly to be pressed too closely. (Reland, I 228, derived σáμμa from the Persian šamāmah 'fistula inaequalibus calamis compacta.' This etymology is, of course, quite untenable.) The Indian glosses in Hesychios seem to be derived both from Sanskrit and from Prakrit, since the words γάνδαρος, Γεννοί, μαμάτραι, Μωριεῖς, σάκχαρον, σάμμα, and probably βαισήνης, are plainly Middle Indian forms. On the other hand, αποκολοκαύτωσις, βραχμάνες, Δορσάνης, and probably γαυσαλίτης and εὐάν, seem to represent Sanskrit forms. Whether κάγκαμον, μαί, and μαίσωλος are to be referred to Sanskrit or to Prakrit cannot be determined. In this respect the Hesychian lexicon differs from the Indian words found in the great India of al-Birūnī. The famous Persian traveller endeavored to transcribe Sanskrit words into Arabic script, but he did not record Prakritisms (Sachau, Indo-arabische Studien, 5-6: "Die betreffenden Wörter sind ihm (al-B.) ohne Zweifel aus Büchern vorgelesen worden. ... Die dictirenden Pandits haben das Sanskrit nachlässig ausgesprochen und standen hierin unter dem Einfluss der indischen Umgangssprache ihrer Zeit und Umgebung"). The Greek transcription of the Indian words in the Hesychian lexicon is in general very accurate. The principal deviations from exact transcription (so far as the Greek alphabet was able to reproduce faithfully the Indian sounds) are as follows. a. Vowels.-Indian à is represented by o in amoкoλokaúтwσis. Indian i is represented by a in Baconvns (?), but as also stands for Sanskrit è in ualowλos. The representation of Sanskrit u by a in Káуκаμov is probably due to the influence of the following gutturals. Sanskrit ? is represented by op in Aoprávns. Sanskrit ăi, ău are represented by e, w (Prakritisms), respectively, in revvoi and Mapleis. The prothetice in evár = *¿Fáv should be noted. In this latter word analogy with e- has perhaps been at work. σ b. Consonants.-Possibly k is represented by y in yavoaλirns, although such a change of initial k to g is extremely rare in Prakrit (Gray, Indo-Iran. Phonol., §120). Sanskrit j is represented by y in revvoí. Sanskrit & is represented, of course, by o as in Δορσάνης, μαίσωλος (possibly s also is represented by - in γαυσαλίτης). Sanskrit / is transcribed by x in βραχμάνες, but between vowels it is not represented by Hesychios, for we have paí, not *paxi. The Sanskrit mediae aspiratae are represented, as we should expect, by the Greek mediae, in Batoývns (?), yávdapos, Δορσάνης. The tenuis aspirata kh is represented by κ in ἀποκολοκαύτωσις, but kkh is transcribed by ex in σάκχαρον. Χ On the lexicographical side the Hesychian glosses are not altogether valueless. The rare Sanskrit root khud 'futuit' seems to be found in ȧпокоλoкaúтwσis, and the very uncommon Sanskrit abhişēnā 'having a hostile army' or pratisēnā 'hostile army' in Baioýuns, as well as the almost unknown marmatra 'protector of the vital parts' in paμárpai. The existence of a form *vayāna 'creeping plant' beside vaya may possibly be inferred from the gloss εὐάν. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON, N. J. COLUMBIA University, New YORK CITY. LOUIS H. GRAY. |