A Variant in the Purusha Sukta Manuscript Tradition
Dr. Meera is preparing a critical edition of Shukla Yajurveda 31, the Purusha Sukta. She has three witnesses: A, a palm-leaf manuscript in Sharada script dated Saṃvat 1720 and labelled Madhyandina; B, a nineteenth-century paper manuscript in Devanagari labelled Kanva; C, a twentieth-century paper copy whose colophon says it was copied from A. In the first line, A and C read 'sahasraśīrṣā puruṣaḥ'; B reads 'sahasraśīrṣaḥ puruṣaḥ'. A has an accent mark on the final syllable of 'puruṣaḥ'; B has none. In verse 16, A reads 'yajñena yajñam ayajanta devāḥ'; B reads 'yajñena yajñam ayajanta devā'. Meera must constitute a text for a student edition and decide how much weight to give B's Kanva reading and A's accent.
1. Analyze the grammatical difference between 'sahasraśīrṣā' and 'sahasraśīrṣaḥ'. Which is the lectio difficilior, and why?
Read the worked answer
The difference is not random spelling; it reflects two possible analyses of the bahuvrīhi compound 'having a thousand heads.' If the compound is built on the neuter noun śīrṣan, 'head,' the masculine nominative singular of the bahuvrīhi is sahasraśīrṣā. If it is built on the a-stem śīrṣa, the nominative singular is sahasraśīrṣaḥ. Both are grammatically possible, but sahasraśīrṣā is the less obvious form for a scribe or a student, because it preserves the -an stem ending. That makes it the lectio difficilior. B's sahasraśīrṣaḥ looks like a simplification toward the common a-stem pattern. Since A and C agree and A is the older Madhyandina witness, Meera should print sahasraśīrṣā and record sahasraśīrṣaḥ in the apparatus as a Kanva or secondary reading.
2. Evaluate B's value as a Kanva witness in a Madhyandina edition. Should its variants be recorded?
Read the worked answer
B is not a direct witness to the Madhyandina text; it represents a different recension. Its readings therefore cannot be used to correct A simply because they differ. They can, however, be recorded in the apparatus as recensional variants, because they show how the Kanva tradition handled the same verse. B's lack of accent marks is also expected in a nineteenth-century paper manuscript and is not evidence that the Kanva recension lacked accents. Meera should use B mainly to distinguish inherited variation from scribal error: if a reading is shared by A and B across recensions, it may be old; if it is unique to B, it is more likely a Kanva peculiarity or a late variant. The student edition should print the Madhyandina text with a clear note that B is a Kanva witness.
3. How should Meera handle A's accent mark and the 'devāḥ/devā' variant without overclaiming?
Read the worked answer
The accent mark is valuable but fragile evidence. A single mark in one manuscript cannot establish the living recitation; it must be compared with the accents marked in other Madhyandina manuscripts and, ideally, with the current oral tradition. Meera should record the mark diplomatically and, if the edition is not an accent-critical edition, explain that accents are reported but not normalized. For devāḥ versus devā, the visarga is grammatically expected for the nominative plural, while devā may be a sandhi form, a scribal omission, or a recitational variant. Meera should not emend A on the strength of B alone. She should check the metre, the surrounding sandhi, and the Kanva and Madhyandina recitation. The safe course is to print devāḥ in the text and note devā as a variant requiring further evidence.