Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/640

622 PB?PHULLA OHANDRA BAS U Medh&tithi allude8 to & husb&ndm&n who repeatedl? ploush8 for ?;ava. Again Indra i8 pr?e? u one who cause8 men'8 desire8 ? bud l?e ?? (i, 176, 2). ??r on, the g?es?r i8 ad?8? ? and p?sue ?? or ?ic?t?e (x, 8?, 1?). Rishi Dev?u?, in ??ossing ??yani, the tu?l?y g?des8 of the forest, says that ?at is, "not ?c?tural" (x, 1?, 6). ploughshoe, ?o?ng the field, i8 hid ? pM?de f? (x, 117, 7). Let us now turn to vation and the instruments Implements o! Afrieulture the exact process of culti- used in connection with that. Kfiaia was the name given to the ploughman (iv, 57,8). He was thus differentiated from others who misht ha?e been doins other work in the fields. Of course functions these differences only and do not refer to the different i?oso fazto prove that such division of labor was universally prevalent. The same person might have been doing various functions and so might be called khan, kna? used to cultivate land plough. gopala, etc. by means $tega is doubtfully interpreted as the The of the plough- share, its meaning in the Y&jur Veda Samhitss being distinctly something else ? But pha/a certainly meant ploughshare in the Big Veda. The prayer is found thus: May the ploughshares break up the land happily (iv, 57, 811. field provides Again the food- for ploughshare furrowing the the ploughman (x, 117, ?). The furrow itself was called rita and, in an agricultural age, must have been held in very high esteem. Thus we see it personified and propitiated: "Auspicious Sits, be present, we glorify. thee that thou m&yest yield us abundant fruit (iv, 57, 6). Indra tddr? ! Taitfirilla-Samhit? v, ?, 11, 1; V?afaMj? 8amW, h zzv, I.