* In the new edition, Langlois’ translation has been omitted, and those of Ludwig and Grassmann have been inserted occasionally only.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XXXV
without a running commentary, a mere translation of the ancient hymns of the Brahmans will never lead to any solid results. Even if the translator has discovered the right meaning of a word or of a whole sentence, his mere translation does not help us much, unless he shows us the process by which he has arrived at it, unless he places before us the piéces justificatives of his final judgment. The Veda teems with words that require a justification; not so much the words which occur but once or twice, though many of these are difficult enough, but rather the common words and particles, which occur again and again, which we understand to a certain point, and can render in a vague way, but which must be defined before they can be translated, and before they can convey to us any real and tangible meaning. It was out of the question in a translation of this character to attempt either an imitation of the original rhythm or metre, or to introduce the totally foreign element of rhyming. Such translations may follow by and by: at present a metrical translation would only be an excuse for an inaccurate translation.
While engaged in collecting the evidence on which the meaning of every word and every sentence must be founded, I have derived the most important assistance from the Sanskrit Dictionary of Professors Bohtlingk and Roth, which has been in course of publication during the last sixteen years. The Vedic portion of that Dictionary may, I believe, be taken as the almost exclusive work of Professor Roth, and as such, for the sake of brevity, I shall treat it in my notes. It would be ungrateful were I not to acknowledge most fully the real benefit which this publication has conferred on every student of Sanskrit, and my only regret is that its publication has not proceeded more rapidly, so that even now years will elapse before we can hope to see it finished. But my sincere admiration for the work performed by the compilers of that Dictionary does not prevent me from differing, in many cases, from the explanations of Vedic words given by Professor Roth. If I do not always criticise Professor Roth’s explanations when I differ from him, the reason is obvious. A dictionary without a full c2
XXXVI VEDIC HYMNS.
If I do not always criticise Professor Roth’s explanations when I differ from him, the reason is obvious. A dictionary without a full c2
XXXVI VEDIC HYMNS.
translation of each passage, or without a justification of the meanings assigned to each word, is only a preliminary step to atranslation. It represents a first classification of the meanings of the same word in different passages, but it gives us no means of judging how, according to the opinion of the compiler, the meaning of each single word should be made to fit the general sense of a whole sentence. I do not say this in disparagement, for, in a dictionary, it can hardly be otherwise ; I only refer to it in order to explain the difficulty I felt whenever I differed from Professor Roth, and was yet unable to tell how the meaning assigned by him to certain words would be justified by the author of the Dictionary himself. On this ground I have throughout preferred to explain every step by which I arrived at my own renderings, rather than to write a running criticism of Professor Roth's Dictionary. My obligations to him I like to express thus once for all, by stating that whenever I found that I agreed with him, I felt greatly assured as to the soundness of my own rendering, while whenever I differed from him, I never did so without careful consideration.
The works, however, which I have hitherto mentioned, though the most important, are by no means the only ones that have been of use to me in preparing my translation of the Rig-veda. The numerous articles on certain hymns, verses, or single words occurring in the Rig-veda, published by Vedic scholars in Europe and India during the last thirty years, were read by me at the time of their publication, and have helped me to overcome difficulties, the very existence of which is now forgotten. If I go back still further, I feel that in grappling with the first and the greatest of difficulties in the study of the Veda, I and many others are more deeply indebted than it is possible to say, to one whose early loss has been one of the greatest misfortunes to Sanskrit scholarship. It was in Burnouf’s lectures that we first learnt what the Veda was, and how it should form the foundation of all our studies. Not only did he most liberally communicate to his pupils his valuable MSS., and teach us how to use these tools, but the results
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XXXVIii
It was in Burnouf’s lectures that we first learnt what the Veda was, and how it should form the foundation of all our studies. Not only did he most liberally communicate to his pupils his valuable MSS., and teach us how to use these tools, but the results
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XXXVIii
of his own experience were freely placed at our service, we were warned against researches which he knew to be useless, we were encouraged in undertakings which he knew to be full of promise. His minute analysis of long passages of Sayaza, his independent interpretations of the text of the hymns, his comparisons between the words and grammatical forms, the thoughts and legends of the Veda and Avesta, his brilliant divination checked by an inexorable sense of truth, and his dry logical method enlivened by sallies of humour and sparks of imaginative genius, though not easily forgotten, and always remembered with gratitude, are now beyond the reach of praise or blame. Were I to
_ criticise what he or other scholars have said and written many years ago, they might justly complain of such criticism. It is no longer necessary to prove that Nabhanedishzha cannot mean ‘new relatives,’ or that there never was a race of Etendhras, or that the angels of the Bible are in no way connected with the Angiras of the Vedic hymns; and it would, on the other hand, be a mere waste of time, were I to attempt to find out who first discovered that in the Veda deva does not always mean divine, but sometimes means brilliant. In fact, it could not be done.
In a new subject like that of the interpretation of the Veda, there are certain things which everybody discovers who has eyes to see. Their discovery requires so little research that it seems almost an insult to say that they were discovered by this or that scholar. Take, for instance, the peculiar pronunciation of certain words, rendered necessary by the requirements of Vedic metres. I believe that my learned friend Professor Kuhn was one of the first to call general attention to the fact that semivowels must frequently be changed into their corresponding vowels, and that long vowels must sometimes be pronounced as two syllables. It is clear, however, from Rosen’s notes to the first Ashfaka (I, 1, 8), that he, too, was perfectly aware of this fact, and that he recognised the prevalence of this rule, not only with regard to semivowels (see his note to RV. I, 2,9) and long vowels which are the result of Sandhi, but likewise with regard to others that occur in the body of a
XXXVIIl VEDIC HYMNS.
I, 2,9) and long vowels which are the result of Sandhi, but likewise with regard to others that occur in the body of a
XXXVIIl VEDIC HYMNS.
word. ‘Animadverte,’ he writes, ‘tres syllabas postremas vocis adhvarazam dipodiae iambicae munus sustinentes, penultima syllaba praeter iambi prioris arsin, thesin quoque sequentis pedis ferente. Satis frequentia sunt, in hac praesertim dipodiae iambicae sede, exempla syllabae natura longae in tres moras productae. De qua re nihil quidem memoratum invenio apud Pingalam aliosque qui de arte metrica scripserunt : sed numeros ita, ut modo dictum est, computandos esse, taciti agnoscere videntur, quum versus una syllaba mancus non eos offendat.’
Now this is exactly the case. The ancient grammarians, as we shall see, teach distinctly that where two vowels have coalesced into one according to the rules of Sandhi, they may be pronounced as two syllables; and though they do not teach the same with regard to semivowels and long vowels occurring in the body of the word, yet they tacitly recognise that rule, by frequently taking its effects for granted. Thus in Sitra 950 of the Pratisakhya, verse IX, 111, 1, is called an Atyashdi, and the first pada is said to consist of twelve syllables. In order to get this number, the author must have read, aya rudd harizy4 pundnad. Immediately after, verse IV, 1, 3, is called a Dhriti, and the first pada must again have twelve syllables. Here therefore the author takes it for granted that we should read, sakhe sakhdyam abhy 4 vavritsva*. No one, in fact, with any ear for rhythm, whether Saunaka and Pingala, or Rosen and Kuhn, could have helped observing these rules when reading the Veda. But it is quite a different case when we come to the question as to which words admit of such protracted pronunciation, and which do not. Here one scholar may differ from another according to the view he takes of the character of Vedic metres, and here one has to take careful account of the minute and
* See also Sfitra 937 seq. I cannot find any authority for the statement of Professor Kuhn (Beitriige, vol. iii, p. 114) that, according to the Rik-pratisakhya, it is the first semivowel that must be dissolved, unless he referred to the remarks of the commentator to Sitra 973.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XXXiX
ingenious observations contained in numerous articles by Professors Kuhn, Bollensen, Grassmann, and others.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XXXiX
ingenious observations contained in numerous articles by Professors Kuhn, Bollensen, Grassmann, and others.
With regard to the interpretation of certain words and sentences too, it may happen that explanations which have taxed the ingenuity of some scholars to the utmost, seem to others so self-evident that they would hardly think of quoting anybody’s name in support of them, to say nothing of the endless and useless work it would entail, were we obliged always to find out who was the first to propose this or that interpretation. It is impossible here to lay down general rules:—each scholar must be guided by his own sense of justice to others and by self-respect. Let us take one instance. From the first time that I read the fourth hymn of the Rig-veda, I translated the fifth and sixth verses :
1. Whether our enemies say, ‘Move away elsewhere, you who offer worship to Indra only,’—
2. Or whether, O mighty one, all people call us blessed : may we always remain in the keeping of Indra.
About the general sense of this passage I imagined there could be no doubt, although one word in it, viz. ar{k, required an explanation. Yet the variety of interpretations proposed by different scholars is extraordinary. First, if we look to Sayama, he translates :
1. May our priests praise Indra! O enemies, go away from this place, and also from another place! Our priests (may praise Indra), they who are always performing worship for Indra.
2. O destroyer of enemies! may the enemy call us possessed of wealth; how much more, friendly people! May we be in the happiness of Indra!
Professor Wilson did not follow SAayana closely, but translated :
1. Let our ministers, earnestly performing his worship, xl VEDIC HYMNS.
exclaim: Depart, ye revilers, from hence and every other place (where he is adored).
2. Destroyer of foes, let our enemies say we are prosperous: let men (congratulate us). May we ever abide in the felicity (derived from the favour) of Indra.
Langlois translated :
1. Que (ces amis), en fétant Indra, puissent dire: Vous, qui étes nos adversaires, retirez-vous loin d’ici.
2. Que nos ennemis nous appellent des hommes fortunés, placés que nous sommes sous la protection d’Indra.
Stevenson translated :
1. Let all men again join in praising Indra. Avaunt ye profane scoffers, remove from hence, and from every other place, while we perform the rites of Indra.
2. O foe-destroyer, (through thy favour) even our enemies speak peaceably to us, the possessors of wealth; what wonder then if other men do so. Let us ever enjoy the happiness which springs from Indra’s blessing.
Professor Benfey translated :
1. And let the scoffers say, They are rejected by every one else, therefore they celebrate Indra alone.
Let us ever enjoy the happiness which springs from Indra’s blessing.
Professor Benfey translated :
1. And let the scoffers say, They are rejected by every one else, therefore they celebrate Indra alone.
2. And may the enemy and the country proclaim us as happy, O destroyer, if we are only in Indra’s keeping®*.
Professor Roth, s.v. anyata#, took this word rightly in the sense of ‘to a different place, and must therefore have taken that sentence ‘move away elsewhere’ in the same sense in which I take it. Later, however, s.v. ar, he corrected himself, and proposed to translate the same words by ‘you neglect something else.’
Professor Bollensen (Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p. 462),
* I add Grassmann’s and Ludwig's renderings: Grassmann: Mag spottend sagen unser Feind: ‘Kein Andrer kiimmert sich um sie; Dram feiern Indra sie allein.’ Und gliicklich mégen, Miachtiger! Die Freundesstimme nennen uns, Nur wenn wir sind in Indra’s Schutz. Ludwig: Mogen unsere tadler sagen: sogar noch anderes entgeht euch (dabei), wenn ibr dienst dem Indra tut. Oder mége uns gliickselige nennen der fromme, so nennen, o wundertater, die (fiinf) volker, in Indra’s schutze mégen wir sein.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xli
adopting toa certain extent the second rendering of Professor Roth in preference to that of Professor Benfey, endeavoured to show that the ‘something else which is neglected,’ is not something indefinite, but the worship of all the other gods, except Indra.
It might, no doubt, be said that every one of these translations contains something that is right, though mixed up with a great deal that.is wrong; but to attempt for cvery verse of the Veda to quote and to criticise every previous translation, would be an invidious and useless task. In the case just quoted, it might seem right to state that Professor Bollensen was the first to see that arf# should be joined with kvishé4yah, and that he therefore proposed to alter it to ariz, as anom. plur. But on referring to Rosen, I find that, to a certain extent, he had anticipated Professor Bollensen’s remark, for though, in his cautious way, he abstained from altering the text, yet he remarked: Possitne arih pluralis esse, contracta terminatione, pro arayah?
After these preliminary remarks I have to say a few Plan of the Words on the general plan of my translation.
After these preliminary remarks I have to say a few Plan of the Words on the general plan of my translation.
work. I do not attempt as yet a translation of the whole of the Rig-veda, and I therefore considered myself at liberty to group the hymns according to the deities to which they are addressed. By this process, I believe, a great advantage is gained. We see at one glance all that has been said of a certain god, and we gain a more complete insight into his nature and character. Something of the same kind had been attempted by the original collectors of the ten books, for it can hardly be by accident that each of them begins with hymns addressed to Agni, and that these are followed by hymns addressed to Indra. The only exception to this rule is the eighth Mamdala, for the ninth being devoted to one deity, to Soma, can hardly be accounted an exception. But if we take the Rig-veda as a whole, we find hymns, addressed to the same deities, not only scattered about in different books, but not even grouped together when they occur in one and the same book. Here, as we lose nothing by giving up the old arrangement, we xii VEDIC HYMNS.
are surely at liberty, for our own purposes, to put together such hymns as have a common object, and to place before the reader as much material as possible for an exhaustive study of each individual deity.
Here, as we lose nothing by giving up the old arrangement, we xii VEDIC HYMNS.
are surely at liberty, for our own purposes, to put together such hymns as have a common object, and to place before the reader as much material as possible for an exhaustive study of each individual deity.
I give for each hymn the Sanskrit original * in what is known as the Pada text, i.e. the text in which all words (pada) stand by themselves, as they do in Greek or Latin, without being joined together according to the rules of Sandhi. The text in which the words are thus joined, as they are in all other Sanskrit texts, is called the Samhita text. Whether the Pada or the Samhita text be the more ancient, may seem difficult to settle. As far as I can judge, they seem to me, in their present form, the product of the same period of Vedic scholarship. The Pratisdkhyas, it is true, start from the Pada text, take it, as it were, for granted, and devote their rules to the explanation of those changes which that text undergoes in being changed into the Samhita text. But, on the other hand, the Pada text in some cases clearly presupposes the Samhita text. It leaves out passages which are repeated more than once, while the Samhita text always repeats these passages; it abstains from dividing the termination of the locative plural su, whenever in the Samhita text, i.e. according to the rules of Sandhi, it becomes shu; hence nadishu, agishu, but ap-su; and it gives short vowels instead of the long ones of the Samhita, even in cases where the long vowels are justified by the rules of the Vedic language. It is certain, in fact, that neither the Pada nor the Samhita text, as we now possess them, represents the original text of the Veda. Both show clear traces of scholastic influences. But if we try to restore the original form of the Vedic hymns, we shall certainly arrive at some kind of Pada text rather than at a Samhité text; nay, even in their present form, the original metre and rhythm of the ancient hymns of the Xishis are far more perceptible when the words are divided, than when we join them together throughout according to the rules of Sandhi. Lastly, for practical purposes, the Pada text is far superior to the Samhita text in which the final
® This is left out in the second edition.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xliii
Lastly, for practical purposes, the Pada text is far superior to the Samhita text in which the final
® This is left out in the second edition.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xliii
and initial letters, that is, the most important letters of words, are constantly disguised, and liable therefore to different interpretations. Although in some passages we may differ from the interpretation adopted by the Pada text, and although certain Vedic words have, no doubt, been wrongly analysed and divided by Sakalya, yet such cases are comparatively few, and where they occur, they are interesting as carrying us back to the earliest attempts of Vedic scholarship. In the vast majority of cases the divided text, with a few such rules as we have to observe in reading Latin, nay, even in reading Pali verses, brings us certainly much nearer to the original utterance of the ancient Xzshis than the amalgamated text.
The critical principles by which I have been guided in editing for the first time the text of the Rig-veda, require
Principles of @few words of explanation, as they have lately criticism. been challenged on grounds which, I think, rest on a complete misapprehension of my previous statements on this subject.
As far as we are able to judge at present, we can hardly speak of various readings in the Vedic hymns, in the usual sense of that word. Various readings to be gathered from a collation of different MSS., now accessible to us, there are none. After collating a considerable number of MSS., I have succeeded, I believe, in fixing on three representative MSS., as described in the preface to the first volume of my edition of the Rig-veda. Even these MSS. are not free from blunders,—for what MS. is ?—but these blunders have no claim to the title of various readings. They are lapsus calami, and no more; and, what is important, they have not become traditional *.
* Thus X, 101, 2, one of the Pada MSS. (P 2) reads distinctly yag#dm pra krinuta sakhfyas, but all the other MSS. have nayata, and there can be little doubt that it was the frequent repetition of the verb kré in this verse which led the writer to substitute kri#uta for nayata. No other MS., as far as I am aware, repeats this blunder. In IX, 86, 34, the writer of the same MS. puts ragasi instead of dhavasi, because his eye was caught by raga in the preceding line. X, 16,5, the same MS. reads sam gakkhasva instead of gakkhatam, which is supported by S 1, S 2, P 1, while S 3 has a peculiar and more important reading, gakéhatat. X, 67, 6, the same MS. P 2 has vi dakartha instead of vi dakarta.
A number of various readings which have been gleaned from Pandit Taraxliv VEDIC HYMNS.
The text, as deduced from the best MSS. of the Samhita text, can be controlled by four independent checks. The first is, of course, a collation of the best MSS. of the Samhita text.
A number of various readings which have been gleaned from Pandit Taraxliv VEDIC HYMNS.
The text, as deduced from the best MSS. of the Samhita text, can be controlled by four independent checks. The first is, of course, a collation of the best MSS. of the Samhita text.
The second check to be applied to the Samhita text is a comparison with the Pada text, of which, again, I possessed at least one excellent MS., and several more modern copies.
The third check was a comparison of this text with Sayama’s commentary, or rather with the text which is presupposed by that commentary. In the few cases where the Pada text seemed to differ from the Samhita text, a note was added to that effect, in the various readings of my edition ; and the same was done, at least in all important cases, where Sayana clearly followed a text at variance with our own.
The fourth check was a comparison of any doubtful passage with the numerous passages quoted in the Pratisakhya.
These were the principles by which I was guided in the critical restoration of the text of the Rig-veda, and I believe I may say that the text as printed by me is more correct than any MS. now accessible, more trustworthy than the text followed by Sayama, and in all important points identically the same with that text which the authors of the natha’s Tulddanadipaddhati (see Triibner’s American and Oriental Literary Record, July 31, 1868) belong to the same class. They may be due either to the copyists of the MSS. which Pandit Tarfinatha used while compiling his work, or they may by accident have crept into his own MS. Anyhow, not one of them is supported either by the best MSS. accessible in Europe, or by any passage in the Pratisakhya.
Pratisdkhya followed in their critical researches in the fifth or sixth century before our era. I believe that starting from that date our text of the Veda is better authenticated, and supported by a more perfect apparatus criticus, than the text of any Greek or Latin author, and I do not think that diplomatic criticism can ever go beyond what has been achieved in the constitution of the text of the Vedic hymns, Far be it from me to say that the editio princeps of the text thus constituted was printed without mistakes. ; But most of these mistakes are mistakes Aufrecht’s . : : Romanised Re- which no attentive reader could fail to detect. Rinivedan Cases like II, 35,1, where gégishat instead of géshishat was printed three times, so as to perplex even Professor Roth, or II, 12, 14, where sasamAndm occurs three times instead of sasamanam, are, I believe, of rare occurrence. Nor do I think that, unless some quite unexpected discoveries are made, there ever will be a new critical edition, or, as we call it in Germany, a new recension of the hymns of the Rig-veda. If by collating new MSS., or by a careful study of the Pratisakhya, or by conjectural emendations, a more correct text could have been produced, we may be certain that a critical scholar like Professor Aufrecht would have given us such a text. But after carefully collating several MSS. of Professor Wilson’s collection, and after enjoying the advantage of Professor Weber’s assistance in collating the MSS. of the Royal Library at Berlin, and after a minute study of the Pratisakhya, he frankly states that in the text of the Rig-veda, transcribed in Roman letters, which he printed at Berlin, he followed my edition, and that he had to correct but a small number of misprints. For the two Mazdalas which I had not yet published, I lent him the very MSS. on which my edition is founded ; and there will be accordingly but few passages in these two concluding Mazdalas, which I have still to publish, where the text will materially differ from that of his Romanised transcript. No one, I should think, who is at all acquainted with the tules of diplomatic criticism, would easily bring himself to xlvi VEDIC HYMNS,
No one, I should think, who is at all acquainted with the tules of diplomatic criticism, would easily bring himself to xlvi VEDIC HYMNS, touch a text resting on such authorities as the text of the Rig-veda. What would a Greek scholar give, if he could say of Homer that his text was in every word, in every syllable, in every vowel, in every accent, the same as the text used by Peisistratos in the sixth century B.c.! A text thus preserved in its integrity for so many centuries, must remain for ever the authoritative text of the Veda. To remove, for instance, the eleven hymns 49-59 in the eighth Mazdala from their proper place, or count them by Valakhilya themselves as Valakhilya* hymns, seems to Hymns. me, though no doubt perfectly harmless, little short of a critical sacrilege. Why Sdyaza does not explain these hymns, I confess I do not know; but whatever the reason was, it was not because they did not exist at his time, or because he thought them spurious. They are regularly counted in Katy4yana’s Sarvanukrama, though here the same accident has happened. One commentator, Shadgurusishya, the one most commonly used, does not explain them ; but another commentator, Gagannatha, does explain them, exactly as they occur in the Sarvanukrama, only leaving out hymn 58. That these hymns had something peculiar in the eyes of native scholars, is clear enough. They may for a time have formed a separate collection, they sa tapoxtapyata. sa tapas taptvd sariram adhinuta. tasya yan mamsam Astt tatoxru#4’ ketavo vatarasana rishaya udatish¢han. ye nakhih, te vaikhanasik. ye bala, te balakhilya’.
* The earliest interpretation of the name Valakhilya is found in the Taittirfyafranyaka, I, 23. We are told that Pragapati created the world, and in the process of creation the following interlude occurs :
He burmed with emotion. Having burnt with emotion, he shook his body. From what was his flesh, the Aishis, called Aruzas, Ketus, and Vatarasanas, sprang forth. His nails became the Vaikhfnasas, his hairs the Balakhilyas.
The author of this allegory therefore took bala or vala in valakhilya, not in the sense of child, but identified it with bala, hair.
The commentator remarks with regard to tapas: nAtra tapa upavasddirdpam, kimtu srashfavyam vastu kidvisam iti paryalofanaripam.
> A similar omission was pointed out by Professor Roth. Verses 21-24 of the 53rd hymn of the third Masdala, which contain imprecations against Vasish¢ha, are left out by the writer of a Pada MS., and by a copyist of S4yana’s commentary, probably because they both belonged to the family of Vasishtha. See my first edition of the Rig-veda, vol. ii, p. lvi, Notes.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xl vii
See my first edition of the Rig-veda, vol. ii, p. lvi, Notes.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xl vii may have been considered of more modern origin *®. I shall go even further than those who remove these hymns from the place which they have occupied for more than two thousand years. I admit they disturb the regularity both of the Mazdala and the Ashfaka divisions, and I have pointed out myself that they are not counted in the ancient Anukramanis ascribed to Saunaka; (History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 220.) But, on the other hand, verses taken from these hymns occur in all the other Vedas>; they are mentioned by name in the Brahmaaas (Ait. Br. V, 15; VI, 24), the Aranyakas (Ait. Ar. V, 10, p. 445), and the Sdtras (Asv. Srauta Sdtras, VITI, 2, 3), while they are never included in the manuscripts of Parisishtas or Khilas or apocryphal hymns, nor mentioned by Katydyana as mere Khilas in his Sarvanukrama. Eight® of them are mentioned in the Brzhaddevata, without any allusion to their apocryphal character : Parézy ashéau tu sdktany rvishizam tigmategasam, Aindrazy atra tu shadvimsahk pragatho bahudaivatak. Rig anty4gner akety agni# sdryam antyapado gagau. Praskanvas ka prishadhras ka pradad yad vastu kimzana Bharid iti tu sdktabhyam akhilam parikirtitam. Aindrazy ubhayam ity atra sha/ Agneyat paraai tu.
‘The next eight hymns belong to Rishis of keen intellect 4; they are addressed to Indra, but the 26th Pragatha
® Sayama (RV. X, 88, 18) quotes these hymns as Valakhilya-samhita. In the Mahabharata XII, 59 ; 110 seq. the VAlakhilyas are called the ministers of King Vainya, whose astrologer was Garga, and his domestic priest Sukra ; see Kern, Brthat-samhitd, transl. p. 11.
> This is a criterion of some importance, and it might have been mentioned, for instance, by Professor Bollensen in his interesting article on the Dvipad& Virag hymns ascribed to Pardsara (I, 65-70) that not a single verse of them occors in any of the other Vedas.
¢ Sayaza in his commentary (RV. X, 27, 15) speaks of eight, while in the Ait. Ar. V, 10, the first six are quoted (containing fifty-six verses, comm.), as being used together for certain sacrificial purposes.
4 Lest Saunaka be suspected of having applied this epithet, tigmategas, to the Valakhilyas in order to fill the verse (padap(iraz4rtham), I may point out that the same epithet is applied to the Valakhilyas in the Maitry-upanishad 3, 3. The nom. plur. which occurs there is tigmategas’4, and the commentator remarks: tigmategasas tivrategasosty(rgitaprabhavas ; tegasa ityevamvidha etabéhakhasahketapashas Ahandasah sarvatra. See also Maitr. Up. VI, a9.
xl viii VEDIC HYMNS.
The nom. plur. which occurs there is tigmategas’4, and the commentator remarks: tigmategasas tivrategasosty(rgitaprabhavas ; tegasa ityevamvidha etabéhakhasahketapashas Ahandasah sarvatra. See also Maitr. Up. VI, a9.
xl viii VEDIC HYMNS.
(VIII, 54, 3-4, which verses form the 26th couplet, if counting from VIII, 49,1) is addressed to many gods. The last verse (of these eight hymns), VIII, 56, 5, beginning with the words agety agniz, is addressed to Agni, and the last foot celebrates SQrya. Whatsoever Praskavva and Prishadhra gave (or, if we read prishadhraya, whatever Praskanva gave to Prishadhra), all that is celebrated in the two hymns beginning with bhdrit. After the hymn addressed to Agni (VIII, 60), there follow six hymns addressed to Indra, beginning with ubhayam.’
But the most important point of all is this, that these hymns, which exist both in the Pada and Samhita texts, are quoted by the Pr&tisAkhya, not only for general purposes, but for special passages occurring in them, and nowhere else. Thus in Sdtra 154, hetayad is quoted as one of the few words which do not require the elision of a following short a. In order to appreciate what is implied by this special quotation, it is necessary to have a clear insight into the mechanism of the Pratisikhya. Its chief object is to bring under general categories the changes which the separate words of the Pada text undergo when joined together in the Arsht Samhita, and to do this with the utmost brevity possible. Now the Sandhi rules, as observed in the Samhita of the Rig-veda, are by no means so uniform and regular as they are in later Sanskrit, and hence it is sometimes extremely difficult to bring all the exceptional cases under more or less general rules. In our passage the author of the Pratisakhya endeavours to comprehend all the passages where an initial a in the Veda is not elided after a final e oro. Inordinary Sanskrit it would be always elided, in the Samhita it is sometimes elided, and sometimes not. Thus the Pratisakhya begins in Sdtra 138 by stating that if the short a stands at the beginning of a pada or foot, it is always elided. Why it should be always elided in the very place where the metre most strongly requires that it should be pronounced, does not concern the author of the Pratisikhya. He is a statistician, not a grammarian, and he therefore simply adds in Sdtra 153 the only three exceptional passages where the a, under these very circumstances,
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, xlix
happens to be not elided. He then proceeds in Sdtra 139 to state that a is elided even in the middle of a p4da, provided it be light, followed by y or v, and these, y or v, again followed by a light vowel. Hence the Samhita writes te svadan, soz ydm, but not sikshantosvratam, for here the a of avratam is heavy; nor mitramaho:vadyat, for here the a following the v is heavy
Hence the Samhita writes te svadan, soz ydm, but not sikshantosvratam, for here the a of avratam is heavy; nor mitramaho:vadyat, for here the a following the v is heavy
Then follows again an extension of this rule, viz. in the case of words ending in 4vo. After these, a short a, even if followed by other consonants besides y or v, may be elided, but the other conditions must be fulfilled, i.e. the short a must be light, and the vowel of the next syllable must again be light. Thus the Samhita writes indeed gavo sbhita#, but not gavo:gman, because here the a is heavy, being followed by two consonants.
After this, a more general rule is given, or, more correctly, a more comprehensive observation is made, viz. that under all circumstances initial a is elided, if the preceding word ends in aye, ayak, ave, or avak. As might be expected, however, so large a class must have numerous exceptions, and these can only be collected by quoting every word ending in these syllables, or every passage in which the exceptions occur. Before these exceptions are enumerated, some other more or less general observations are made, providing for the elision of initial a. Initial a, according to Sitra 142, is to be elided if the preceding word is va, and if this vak is preceded by 4, na, pra, kva, kitrak, savita, eva, or ka#. There is, of course, no intelligible reason why, if these words precede va, the next a should be elided. It is a mere statement of facts, and, generally speaking, these statements are minutely accurate. There is probably no verse in the whole of the Rig-veda where an initial a after vak is elided, unless these very words precede, or unless some other observation has been made to provide for the elision of the a. For instance, in V, 25,1, we find vak preceded by akkfa, which is not among the words just mentioned, and here the Samhit4 does not elide the a of agnim, which follows after va%. After all these more or less general observations as to the elision of
[32] d
| VEDIC HYMNS.
For instance, in V, 25,1, we find vak preceded by akkfa, which is not among the words just mentioned, and here the Samhit4 does not elide the a of agnim, which follows after va%. After all these more or less general observations as to the elision of
[32] d
| VEDIC HYMNS.
an initial a are thus exhausted, the author of the Pratisikhya descends into particulars, and gives lists, first, of words the initial a of which is always elided ; secondly, of words which, if preceding, require under all circumstances the elision of the initial a of the next word, whatever may have been said to the contrary in the preceding Sutras. Afterwards, he gives a number of passages which defy all rules, and must be given on their own merits, and as they stand in the Samhita. Lastly, follow special exceptions to the more or less general rules given before. And here, among these special exceptions, we see that the author of the Pratisdkhya finds it necessary to quote a passage from a Valakhilya hymn in which hetdya# occurs, i.e. a word ending in ayak, and where, in defiance of S(tra 141, which required the elision of a following initial a under all circumstances (sarvatha), the initial a of asya is not elided; VIII, 50, 2, Samhita, sat&nika hetdyoasya. It might be objected that the Pratisakhya only quotes hetdyaZ as an exceptional word, and does not refer directly to the verse in the Valakhilya hymn. But fortunately hetdya# occurs but twice in the whole of the Rig-veda; and in the other passage where it occurs, I, 190, 4, neither the rule nor the exception as to the elision of an initial a, could apply. The author of the Pratisakhya therefore makes no distinction between the Valakhilya and any other hymns of the Rig-veda, and he would have considered his phonetic statistics equally at fault, if it had been possible to quote one single passage from the hymns VIII, 49 to 59, as contravening his observations, as if such passages had been alleged from the hymns of Vasish¢ha or Visv4mitra.
It would lead me too far, were I to enter here into similar cases in support of the fact that the Pratisikhya makes no distinction between the Valakhilya and any other hymns of the Rig-veda-samhita*. But I doubt whether the bearing of this fact has ever been fully realised. Here we see that the absence of the elision of a short a which follows after a word ending in aya&, was considered of sufficient importance
" The Pratisikhya takes into account both the Saékala and Bashkala sakhas, as may be seen from Siitra 1057.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. li
Here we see that the absence of the elision of a short a which follows after a word ending in aya&, was considered of sufficient importance
" The Pratisikhya takes into account both the Saékala and Bashkala sakhas, as may be seen from Siitra 1057.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. li
to be recorded in a special rule, because in most cases the Samhita elides an initial a, if preceded by a word ending in ayak. What does this prove? It proves, unless all our views on the chronology of Vedic literature are wrong, that in the fifth century B.C. at least, or previously rather to the time when the Pratisakhya was composed, both the Pada and the Samhita texts were so firmly settled that it was impossible, for the sake of uniformity or regularity, to omit one single short a; and it proves a fortiori, that the hymn in which that irregular short a occurs, formed at that time part of the Vedic canon. I confess I feel sometimes frightened by the stringency of this argument, and I should like to see a possibility by which we could explain the addition, not of the Valakhilya hymns only, but of other much more modern sounding hymns, at a later time than the period of the Pratisakhyas. But until that possibility is shown, we must abide by our own conclusions; and then I ask, who is the critic who would dare to tamper with a canon of scripture of which every iota was settled before the time of Cyrus, and which we possess in exactly that form in which it is described to us by the authors of the Pratisakhyas? I say again, that Iam not free from misgivings on the subject, and my critical conscience would be far better satisfied if we could ascribe the Pratisakhya and all it presupposes to a much later date. But until that is done, the fact remains that the two divergent texts, the Pada and Samhit4, which we now possess, existed, as we now possess them, previous to the time of the Pratisakhya. They have not diverged nor varied since, and the vertex to which they point, starting from the distance of the two texts as measured by the Pratisakhya, carries us back far beyond the time of Saunaka, if we wish to determine the date of the first authorised collection of the hymns, both in their Pada and in their Samhita form.
Instances abound, if we compare the Pada and Samhita texts, where, if uniformity between the two texts had been the object of the scholars of the ancient Parishads, the lengthening or shortening of a vowel would at once have removed the apparent discordance between the two tradid2 lit VEDIC HYMNS.
tional texts. Nor should it be supposed that such minute discordances between the two, as the length or shortness of a vowel, were always rendered necessary by the requirements of the metre, and that for that reason the ancient students or the later copyists of the Veda abstained from altering the peculiar spelling of words, which seemed required by the exigencies of the metre in the Samhita text, but not in the Pada text. Though this may be true in some cases, it is not so in all. There are short vowels in the Samhit4 where, according to grammar, we expect long vowels, and where, according to metre, there was no necessity for shortening them. Yet in these very places all the MSS. of the Samhita text give the irregular short, and all the MSS. of the Pada text the regular long vowel, and the authors of the Pratisakhyas bear witness that the same minute difference existed at their own time, nay, previous to their own time. In VII, 60, 12, the Samhita text gives :
iy4m deva purdhitir yuvabhydm yag#éshu mitravaruzdv akari.
This primacy, O (two) gods, was made for you two, O Mitra and Varuaa, at the sacrifices !
Here it is quite clear that deva is meant for a dual, and ought to have been deva or devau. The metre does not require a short syllable, and yet all the Samhita MSS. read deva, and all the Pada MSS. read deva; and what is more important, the authors of the Pratisakhya had to register this small divergence of the two texts, which existed in their time as it exists in our own °.
Nor let it be supposed, that the writers of our MSS. were so careful and so conscientious that they would, when copying MSS., regulate every consonant or vowel according to the rules of the Pratisdkhya. This is by no means the case. The writers of Vedic MSS. are on the whole more accurate than the writers of other MSS., but their learning does not seem to extend to a knowledge of the minute rules of the Pratisakhya, and they will commit
® See Pratisikhya, Sfitra 309 seqq., where several more instances of the same kind are given. I should prefer to take devapurohiti as one word, but that was not the intention of the authors of the Samhita and Pada texts.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. litt
occasionally the very mistakes against which they are warned by the Pratisikhya. Thus the Pratisakhya (Sdtra 799) warns the students against a common mistake of changing vaiyasva into vayyasva, i.e. by changing ai to a, and doubling the semivowel y. But this very mistake occurs in S2, and another MS. gives vaiyyasva. See p- lvi.
If these arguments are sound, and if nothing can be said against the critical principles by which I have been guided
Aufrecht’s in editing the text of the Rig-veda, if the
But this very mistake occurs in S2, and another MS. gives vaiyyasva. See p- lvi.
If these arguments are sound, and if nothing can be said against the critical principles by which I have been guided
Aufrecht’s in editing the text of the Rig-veda, if the mistakes. fourfold check, described above, fulfils every requirement that could be made for restoring that text which was known to Sdyava, and which was known, probably 2000 years earlier, to the authors of the Pratisikhyas, what can be the motives, it may fairly be asked, of those who clamour for a new and more critical edition, and who imagine that the editio princeps of the Rig-veda will share the fate of most of the editiones principes of the Greek and Roman classics, and be supplanted by new editions founded on the collation of other MSS.? No one could have rejoiced more sincerely than I did at the publication of the Romanised transliteration of the Rig-veda, carried out with so much patience and accuracy by Professor Aufrecht. It showed that there was a growing interest in this, the only true Veda; it showed that even those who could not read Sanskrit in the original Devanagari, wished to have access to the original text of these ancient hymns ; it showed that the study of the Veda had a future before it like no other book of Sanskrit literature. My learned friend Professor Aufrecht has been most unfairly charged with having printed this Romanised text me insciente velinvito. My edition is publici juris, like any edition of Homer or Plato, and anybody might, with proper acknowledgment, have reprinted it, either in Roman or Devand4gari letters. But far from keeping me in ignorance of his plan, Professor Aufrecht applied to me for the loan of the MSS. of the two Mazdalas which I had not yet published, and I lent them to him most gladly, because, by seeing them printed at once, I felt far less liv VEDIC HYMNS.
But far from keeping me in ignorance of his plan, Professor Aufrecht applied to me for the loan of the MSS. of the two Mazdalas which I had not yet published, and I lent them to him most gladly, because, by seeing them printed at once, I felt far less liv VEDIC HYMNS.
guilty in delaying the publication of the last volumes of my edition of the text and commentary. Nor could anything have been more honourable than the way in which Professor Aufrecht speaks of the true relation of his Romanised text to my edition. That there are misprints, and I, speak-. ing for myself, ought to say mistakes also, in my edition of the Rig-veda, I know but too well; and if Professor Aufrecht, after carefully transcribing every word, could honestly say that their number is small, I doubt whether other scholars will be able to prove that their number is large. I believe I may with the same honesty return Professor Aufrecht’s compliment, and considering the great difficulty of avoiding misprints in Romanised transcripts, I have always thought and I have always said that his reprint of the hymns of the Veda is remarkably correct and accurate. What, however, I must protest against, and what, I feel sure, Professor Aufrecht himself would equally protest against, is the supposition, and more than supposition of certain scholars, that wherever this later Latin transcript differs from my own Devanagari text, Professor Aufrecht is right, and Iam wrong; that his various readings rest on the authority of new MSS., and constitute in fact a new recension of the Vedic hymns. Against this supposition I must protest most strongly, not for my own sake, but for the sake of the old book, and, still more, for the sake of the truth. No doubt it is natural to suppose that where a later edition differs from a former edition, it does so intentionally ; and I do not complain of those who, without being able to have recourse to MSS. in order to test the authority of various readings, concluded that wherever the new text differed from the old, it was because the old text was at fault. In order to satisfy my own conscience on this point, I have collated a number of passages where Professor Aufrecht’s text differs from my own, and I feel satisfied that in the vast majority of cases, I am right and he is wrong, and that his variations do not rest on the authority of MSS. I must not shrink from the duty of making good this assertion, and I therefore proceed to an examination of such passages as have occurred to me on
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lv
I must not shrink from the duty of making good this assertion, and I therefore proceed to an examination of such passages as have occurred to me on
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lv
occasionally referring to his text, pointing out the readings both where he is right, and where he is wrong. The differences between the two texts may appear trifling, but I shall not avail myself of that plea. On the contrary, I quite agree with those scholars who hold that in truly critical scholarship there is nothing trifling. Besides, it is in the nature of the case that what may, by a stretch of the word, be called various readings in the Veda, must be confined to single letters or accents, and can but seldom extend to whole words, and never to whole sentences. I must therefore beg my readers to have patience while I endeavour to show that the text of the Rig-veda, as first published by me, though by no means faultless, was nevertheless not edited in so perfunctory a manner as some learned critics seem to suppose, and that it will not be easy to supplant it either by a collation of new MSS., such as are accessible at present, or by occasional references to the PratisAkhya.
I begin with some mistakes of my own, mistakes which I might have avoided, if I had always consulted the Pratisakhya, where single words or whole passages of the Veda are quoted. Some of these mistakes have been removed by Professor Aufrecht, others, however, appear in his transcript as they appear in my own edition.
I need hardly point out passages where palpable misprints in my edition have been repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s text. I mean by palpable misprints, cases where a glance at the Pada text or at the Samhita text or a reference to SAdyama’s commentary would show at once what was intended. Thus, for instance, in VI, 15, 3, vridhé, as I had printed in the Samhita, was clearly a misprint for vridhd, as may be seen from the Pada, which gives vridhad/, and from Sayava. Here, though Professor Aufrecht repeats vvidhé, I think it hardly necessary to show that the authority of the best MSS. (S 2 alone contains a correction of vridho to vridhé) is in favour of vridhah, whatever we may think of the relative value of these two readings. One must be careful, however, in a text like that of the Vedic hymns, where the presence or absence of a single letter. or accent begins to become lvi VEDIC HYMNS.
One must be careful, however, in a text like that of the Vedic hymns, where the presence or absence of a single letter. or accent begins to become lvi VEDIC HYMNS.
the object of the most learned and painstaking discussions, not to claim too large an indulgence for misprints. A misprint in the Samhita, if repeated in the Pada, or if admitted even in the commentary of Sdyana, though it need not be put down to the editor’s deplorable ignorance, becomes yet a serious matter, and I willingly take all the blame which is justly due for occasional accidents of this character. Such are, for instance, IJ, 12, 14, sasam4ndm instead of sasam4ndm; I, 124, 4, sudhytiva#, in the Pada, instead of sundhyuva#; and the substitution in several places of a short u instead of a long 4 in such forms as sisdvima, when occurring in the Pada; cf. I, 166, 14; 167, 9-
It is clear from the Pratisikhya, SQtra 819 and 163, 5, that the words dtf indra in IV, 29, 1, should not be joined together, but that the hiatus should remain. Hence atindra, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s, should be corrected, and the hiatus be preserved, as it is in the fourth verse of the same hymn, (ati itthd. MSS. S1, S 3 are right; in S 2 the words are joined.
It follows from Sftra 799 that to double the y in vaiyasva is a mistake, but a mistake which had to be pointed out and guarded against as early as the time of the Pratisakhya. In VIII, 26, 11, therefore, vaiyyasvasya, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s, should be changed to vaiyasvdsya. MSS.S1,S3 are right, likewise P 1, P 2; but S 2 has the double mistake vayyasvdsya, as described in the Pratisaékhya; another MS. of Wilson’s has vaiyy. The same applies to VIII, 23, 24, and VIII, 24,23. P 1 admits the mistaken spelling vayyasva.
Some corrections that ought to be made in the Padapatha only, as printed in my edition, are pointed out in a note to Siitra 738 of the Pratisakhya. Thus, according to Sdtra 583, 6, srdyds in the Pada text of II, 10, 2, should be changed to sruy44z. MSS. P 1, P 2 have the short u.
In V, 7, 8, I had printed su#iz shma, leaving the a of
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lvii
shma short in accordance with the PratisAkhya, Sdtra 514, where a string of words is given before which sma must not be lengthened, and where under No. 11 we find ydsmai. Professor Aufrecht has altered this, and gives the 4 as long, which is wrong. The MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.
Another word before which sma ought not to be lengthened is mavate. Hence, according to Sitra 514, 14, I ought not to have printed in VI, 65, 4, shma m4vate, but shma m4vate. Here Professor Aufrecht has retained the long 4, which is wrong. MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.
Another word before which sma ought not to be lengthened is mavate. Hence, according to Sitra 514, 14, I ought not to have printed in VI, 65, 4, shma m4vate, but shma m4vate. Here Professor Aufrecht has retained the long 4, which is wrong. MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.
It follows from Sftra 499 that in I, 138, 4, we should not lengthen the vowel of si. Hence, instead of asy& 0 shd ma upa satdye, as printed in my edition and repeated by Professor Aufrecht, we should read asy4 Q shi a upa sataye. S1,S 2, S 3 have short u*.
In VII, 31, 4, I had by mistake printed viddh{ instead of viddhf. The same reading is adopted by Professor Aufrecht (II, p. 24), but the authority of the Pratisdkhya, Sftra 445, can hardly be overruled. S 1, S 2, S 3 have viddhi.
While in cases like these, the Pratisakhya is an authority which, as far as I can judge, ought to overrule the authority of every MS., however ancient, we must in other cases depend either on the testimony of the best MSS. or be guided, in fixing on the right reading, by Sdyana and the rules of grammar. I shall therefore, in cases where I cannot consider Professor Aufrecht’s readings as authoritative improvements, have to give my reasons why I adhere to the readings which I had originally adopted.
In V, 9, 4, I had printed by mistake puri yé instead of purfi yd. I had, however, corrected this misprint in my edition of the Pratisékhya, 393, 532. Professor Aufrecht decides in favour of purt with a short u, but against the authority of the MSS., S 1, S 2, S 3, which have purf.
* In the same verse, I, 138, 4, the shu in 6 shu tv4 should not be lengthened, for there is no rule, as far as I can see, in the Pratisakhya that would require the lengthening of st before tva. Sce Pritisikhya, 491.
\vili VEDIC HYMNS.
* In the same verse, I, 138, 4, the shu in 6 shu tv4 should not be lengthened, for there is no rule, as far as I can see, in the Pratisakhya that would require the lengthening of st before tva. Sce Pritisikhya, 491.
\vili VEDIC HYMNS.
It was certainly a great mistake of mine, though it may seem more excusable in a Romanised transcript, that I did not follow the writers of the best MSS. in their use of the Avagraha, or, I should rather say, of that sign which, as far as the Veda is concerned, is very wrongly designated by the name of Avagraha. Avagraha, according to the PratisAkhya, never occurs in the Samhit4 text, but is the name given to that halt, stoppage, or pause which in the Pada text separates the component parts of compound words. That pause has the length of one short vowel, i.e. one matra. Of course, nothing is said by the PratisAkhya as to how the pause should be represented graphically, but it is several times alluded to as of importance in the recitation and accentuation of the Veda. What we have been in the habit of calling Avagraha is by the writers of certain MSS. of the Samhita text used as the sign of the Vivrztti or hiatus. This hiatus, however, is very different from the Avagraha, for while the Avagraha has the length of one mtr, the Vivritti or hiatus has the length of } métr4, if the two vowels are short; of 4 matrd, if either vowel is long; of } métrd, if both vowels are long. Now I have several times called attention to the fact that though this hiatus is marked in certain MSS. by the sign =, I have in my edition omitted it, because I thought that the hiatus spoke for itself and did not require a sign to attract the attention of European readers ; while, on the contrary, I have inserted that sign where MSS. hardly ever use it, viz. when a short initial a is elided after a final e or 0; (see my remarks on pp. 36, 39, of my edition of the Pratisakhya.) Although I thought, and still think, that this use of the sign = is more useful for practical purposes, yet I regret that, in this one particular, I should have deviated from the authority of the best MSS., and caused some misunderstandings on the part of those who have made use of my edition. If, for instance, I had placed the sign of the Vivritti, the =, in its proper place, or if, at least, I had not inserted it where, as we say, the initial a has been elided after e or o, Professor Bollensen would have seen at once that the authors of the Pratisakhyas fully agree with him in looking on this change, not as an