The story told in the introductory verses, quoted by Sâyana, is this:—'Arkanânas Âtreya was chosen by Rathavîti Dârbhya to be his Ritvig priest. At the sacrifice Arkanânas saw the daughter of Rathavîti and asked her in marriage for his son Syâvâsva. Rathavîti consulted his wife, but she declined on the ground that no daughter of theirs had ever been given to a man who was not a poet (Rishi). Thereupon Syâvâsva performed penance, and travelled about collecting alms. He thus came to Sasîyasî, who recommended him, as a Rishi, to her husband, king Taranta. King Taranta was very generous to him, and sent him on to his younger brother, Purumîlha. On his way to Purumîlha, Syâvâsva saw the Maruts, and composed a hymn in their praise (vv. 11-16). He had thus become a real poet or Rishi, and on returning home, he received from Rathavîti his daughter in marriage.'

Saunaka confirms the same story, see Sâyana's commentary to V, 61, 17. Here therefore we have to deal with two princely brothers, both Vaidadasvis, namely Taranta and Purumîlha. They both give presents to Syâvâsva, who is a Brâhmana, and he marries the daughter of another prince, Rathavîti Dârbhya.

In the Tândya-Brâhmana, however, XIII, 7, 12, another story is told, which I quoted in my edition of the Rig-veda at IX, 58, 3 (vol. v, p. xxxiii). Here Dhvasra and Purushanti are introduced as wishing to give presents to the two Vaidadasvis, Taranta and Purumîlha. These hesitate for a while, because they have no right to accept a present without deserving it or having done something for it. They then compose a hymn in praise of Dhvasra and Purushanti, and after that feel justified in accepting their present.

Here therefore the Vaidadasvis are receivers, not givers of presents, therefore of princely, not, as has been supposed, of priestly rank, and this would agree better with the words of verse 9, purumîlhâ´ya víprâya. See on all this Oldenberg in Z. D. M. G. XLII, p. 232.

If we accept this story, we have to take sásîyasî in verse 6 as a proper name.

But sásîyasî may be a comparative of sas-vat (see B.-R. s. v.), and would then mean, more frequent. We expect, no doubt, an adverb rather like sasvat, but a feminine corresponding to vásyasî is perhaps admissible. In that case we should have simply to deal with some woman, tvâ strî´, who, as the poet says, is as good as, if not better than, many a man.

Verse 8.

This verse is very obscure. Sâyana translates: 'And the other half (the husband of Sasîyasî, viz. Taranta) is a man not praised (enough), thus I, the poet, say: and that Taranta is equal or just in the giving of wealth.' Grassmann translates: 'Und dagegen ist mancher nicht lobenswerth geizig, der ein Mann sich nennt, ein solcher ist der Strafe verfallen.' Ludwig: 'Auch mancher halbmensch,

ungepriesen, der “mensch” zwar heiszt, doch ein Pani ist, der ist auf böse gabe nur bedacht.'