BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

YUPAYA.STI- (DIVY. 244,11)

In Studia Indologica (Festschr. W. Kiifel), p. 9 ft., Alsdorf gives a convincing new interpretation o f the well-known passage in Divy. 244,7 ft., where the enlargement o f a stfipa is described. The sentence tathavidhath ca bh~pasyan..darh k.rtati7 yatra s6 yf~paya.st.ir abhyantare pratipadita he renders as follows: " U n d die Kuppel des StQpas [read: st@asya] wurde so gemacht, dass darin die Y~paya.s.ti ins Innere eingelassen w a r " (p. 15), which must mean that a hole was made for the later erection o f the ya.st.i-, referred to in the words ya.st.yaropan,arh k.rtam. Incidentally, tatraviddham would make better sense but is too hazardous a guess. Alsdorf's inference that the y~paya.st.i- is identical with the ya.sti- is obviously correct, but one wonders what a y~pa- m a y have to do with it. Besides, the use o f sa in sa yftpaya.st.ir (vv. 11. sayftpa.st.ir, sapaya.st.ir) remains unexplained (cf. Alsdorf, p. 14). Now, the final sentence o f this passage, viz. var.sasth~le mahaman, iratn~ni t~ny ~ropit~ni (1. 13), suggests a comparison with Avad. 370,4 tan man. iratnati7 vipagcina.h st~pavars.asthalyam upari nibaddham and 383,6... eaitye var.sasthalyarh [caitya-?] samaropitam. It is tempting, therefore, also to equate sa y~paya.st.ir to the st~paya.st.i- mentioned in Avad. 387, 11 (cf. above stftpa-var.sasthali-). As for the possible implications o f the statement anup~rve.na ya.st.y~ropa.nad~ k.rtam (see Alsdorf, p. 15), attention m a y be drawn to the extra-ordinary religious importance attached to the erection o f a stfipikila-, ~ the ceremonies o f which are described at length in M~nas~ra 18.340 ft., and analogies to which might be sought in the erection o f Indra's banner at the I n d r a m a h o t s a v a 2 and on the stage before a dramatic performance. 3 If, then, we replace the reading sa yftpaya.sli.h (sdpaya.s.tiO) o f the MSS. a As for the stapikilapratis.t.hd (M~nas. 18.169) it may be noted that it is placed into a hole (etad gartasyopari sthffpya 18.199). In some respects the shape of the stftpikfla was strikingly similar to that of the yftpa (cf. 18.74). 2 A vivid Prakrit description of it occurs in the story of Domuha (Jacobi, Ausgew6hlte Erziihlungen in M6ht~rt~sht.rt,p. 40, 15 ft.). Cf. also J. J. Meyer, Trilogie altindischer Vegetationsmiichte, III, p. 104 ft.; F. D. K. Bosch, The golden Germ, p. 152 ft. 3 Konow, Das indische Drama, p. 23.

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

205

by stftpaya.st.i.h on the strength of Avad. 387, 10-11, where (in a passage parallel to 370,4, 378,2, and 383,6) we read tdrh patdkd~i7 st@aya.st.yam baddhva, this emendation 4 not only disposes of the "unexpected" compound yftpaya.st.i -~ and of the theories about a possible difference between yapaya.st.i- and ya.st.i- in the description of the Divyavad~na, but also has a consequence of more general importance. The reading y@aya.st.i-, indeed, has given rise to the assumption, on which most modern discussions of the construction of the stfipa are founded, that the stCtpa contained, besides the ya.s.ti- (explained as a "pinnacle"), also a separate element, the y@a-, which is taken to be the "central post". 6 Now, it would seem that the emendation proposed entitles us to discard this archaeological theory.
4 Already suggested as a mere guess by de la Vall6e Poussin, HJAS, 2 (1937), p. 281: "Pourquoi ne pas lire stCtpaya.st.i (ou bh~pasyd.n.da ... bh~paya.st.i?)?" 5 "elle est certainement inattendue", de la Vall6e Poussin, Lc., p. 280; "la composition mattendue, si elle est exacte, de y@aya.sti", G. Combaz, MdI. chin. et bouddh., 4, p. 52, n. 1. E.g., G. Combaz, M~L chin. et bouddh., 2, p. 201, 4, p. 49 ft.; Paranavitana, The Sttipa in Ceylon OVIemoirs ArchaeoL Survey of Ceylon, 5, 1947), p. 36 ft. ; F. D. K. Bosch, The golden Germ, p. 169.

SKT. ADR.S.4M : GR. "EAPAKOIN?

It has long been observed that the Vedic evidence does not support the assumption of a thematic aorist ad.r5am. Wackernagel withdrew the equation ad.~dam (sic): ~Sp~ (Altind. Gramm., I [1896], p. 32, 1. 28) in the Berichtigungen (p. 344). In 1926 he pointed out that, since d.rs'eyam RS., d.r~ema AS. do not justify the assumption of an a-aorist, all Vedic forms must be referred to a root aorist ddar~am, pl. 1 ad.rJma (JB.) t Analogical new formations are adar~ma TS. III. 2. 5. 4 and adar~u.h AB. 7. 17. 3. In Debrunner's Nachtriige ad Ai. Gr. I. 32 [1957], however, the old equation recurs in a modified form, ad~dam being replaced by "TS. ad.rdan", and in Hauschild's revised version of Thumb's Handbuch des Skt. [ ~ (1958), p. 247, we find again "6-d.rd-at 'er sah', gr. ~ idg. *e-d!'k-et". ~ This calls for some comment.
x Festgabe Jacobi, p. 16 f. For ad.rAma cL Whitney, Roots, p. 78. Not recorded by Caland, Over en uit het Jahn. Br., p. 23, Auswahl, p. 322, nor by Vi~vabandhu Sastri. Mr. H. C. J. Seelen (Heerlen), who drew my attention to these passages, also referred to F. de Saussure, M~moire sur le systOmeprimitif(1879), p. 10, J. Schrijnen, ,_qandleiding bU de studie der vgl. Idg. taalwetenschap, 2rid ed. (1924), p. 278, T h u m b