lix elision, but as a contraction. If, as sometimes happens, final o or e remain unchanged before initial short a, this is called the Pa#k4la and Prakya padavritti (Sdtra 137). If, on the contrary, final o or e become one (ekibhavati) with the initial short a, this is called the Abhinihita sandhi (Sdtra 138). While the former, the hiatus of the Pa#éala and Eastern schools, is marked by the writers of several MSS. by the sign =, the Abhinihita sandhi, being a sandhi, is not marked by any sign ®.
I, 3,12. rdgati (Aufr. p. 2) instead of ragati (M. M. vol. i, Pp. 75) is wrong.
I, 7, 9. ya ékak (Aufr. p. 5) should be ya ékad (M. M. vol. i, p. 110), because the relative pronoun is never without an accent. The relative particle yatha may be without an accent, if it stands at the end of a pada; and though there are exceptions to this rule, yet in VIII, 21, 5, where Professor Aufrecht gives ydtha, the MSS. are unanimous in favour of yatha (M. M. vol. iv, p. 480). See Phi¢-sdtra, ed. Kielhorn, p. 54.
I, 10,11. 4 td (Aufr. p. 7) should be 4 td (M. M. vol. i, Pp- 139), because 4 is never without the accent.
I, 10, 12. gush¢4s, which Professor Aufrecht specially mentions as having no final Visarga in the Pada, has the Visarga in all the MSS, (Aufr. p. 7, M. M. vol. i, Pp: 140.)
I, 11, 4. kdvir (Aufr. p. 7) should be kavir (M. M. vol. i, Pp. 143).
I, 22, 8, read rddhamsi.
I, 40, 1 and 6. There is no excuse for the accent either on tvémahe or on vékema, while s4#4f in I, 51, 11, ought to have the accent on the first syllable.
I, 49, 3. Rosen was right in not eliding the a in divd antebhya#. S 1, S 2, S 3 preserve the initial a, nor does the PratisAkhya anywhere provide for its suppression.
I, 54, 8. kshdtram (Aufr. p. 46) is a mere misprint for kshatram.
® As to the system or want of system, according to which the Abhinihita ssndhi takes place in the Sasshita, see p. xlviii seq.
Ix VEDIC HYMNS.
I, 55, 7. vandanasrid (Aufr. p. 47) instead of vandanasrud (M. M. vol. i, p. 514) is wrong.
I, 57, 2. samasita instead of samdasita had been corrected in my reprint of the first Mazdala, published at Leipzig. See Bollensen, Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 626.
I, 61, 7, read vishnuk ; I, 64,2, read si#ayak; I, 64, 5, read dhiitayah.
I, 61, 16. Rosen had rightly printed hdriyogand with a long 4 both in the Samhit4é and Pada texts, and I ought not to have given the short a instead. All the MSS, S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1, and P 2, give the long 4. Professor Aufrecht gives the short a in the Pada, which is wrong.
I, 67, 2 (4). vidantim (M. M. vol. i, p. 595) is perfectly right, as far as the authority of the MSS. and of Sayama is concerned, and should not have been altered to vindantim (Aufr. p. 57).
- I, 72, 2, read vatsdm ; I, 72, 6, read pastii; I, 76, 3, read dhadkshy ; I, 82, 1, read yada.
I, 83, 3. Rosen was right in giving 4samyattah. I gave dsamyatah on the authority of P 1, but all the other MSS. have tt.
p. 57).
- I, 72, 2, read vatsdm ; I, 72, 6, read pastii; I, 76, 3, read dhadkshy ; I, 82, 1, read yada.
I, 83, 3. Rosen was right in giving 4samyattah. I gave dsamyatah on the authority of P 1, but all the other MSS. have tt.
I, 84, 1. indra (Aufr. p. 68) cannot have the accent on the first syllable, because it does not stand at the beginning of a pada (M.M. vol.i, p.677). Thesame applies to indra, VI, 41, 4,(Aufr. p. 429) instead of indra (M. M. vol. iii, p. 734) ; to agne, I, 140, 12, (Aufr. p. 130) instead of agne (M. M. vol. ii, p. 133). In III, 36, 3, on the contrary, indra, being at the head of a pada, ought to have the accent on the first syllable, indra (M. M. vol. ii, p. 855), not indra (Aufr. p. 249). The same mistake occurs again, III, 36, 10 (Aufr. p. 250); IV, 32, 7, (Aufr. p. 305); IV, 32, 12, (Aufr. p. 305); VIII, 3, 12, (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 86). In V, 61, 1, nara# should have no accent ; whereas in VII, 91, 3, it should have the accent on the first syllable. In VIII, 8, 19, vipanyd should have no accent, and Professor Aufrecht gives it correctly in the notes, where he has likewise very properly removed the Avagraha which I had inserted.
I, 88, 1, read yata (M.M. vol. i, p. 708), not yatha (Aufr. Pp. 72).
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixi
I, 90, 1, read viguniti; I, 94, 11, read yavasddo (M. M. vol. i, p. 766), not yayasddo (Aufr. p. 80).
I, 118, 9. abhibhitim (Aufr. p. 105) instead of abhibhdtim (M. M. vol. i, p. 957) cannot be right, considering that in all other passages abh{bhati has the accent on the second syllable. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the accent on the i.
I, 128, 4. ghritasrir (Aufr. p. 117) instead of ghrstasrir (M. M. vol. ii, p. 52) is wrong.
I, 144, 2, read parivritak (M. M. vol. ii, p. 155) instead of parivritah (Aufr. p. 133).
I, 145, 5. Professor Aufrecht (p. 134) gives upamasydm, both in the Samhita and Pada texts, as having the accent on the last syllable. I had placed the accent on the penultimate, (Pada, upa-mdsy4m, vol. ii, p. 161,) and whatever may be the reading of other MSS., this is the only possible accentuation. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the right accent.
I, 148, 4. pdrtixi (Aufr. p. 136) instead of purtini (M. M. vol. ii, p. 170) does not rest, as far as I know, on the authority of any MSS. S1,S 2, S 3 have puriizi.
I, 151, 7. gakkkatho (Aufr. p. 137) should be gaékhatho (M. M. vol. ii, p. 181).
I, 161, 12. All the Pada MSS. read prd dbravit, separating the two words and accentuating each. Though the accent is irregular, yet, considering the peculiar construction of the verse, in which pra and pré are used as adverbs rather than as prepositions, I should not venture with Professor Aufrecht (p. 144) to write pra abravit. The MSS. likewise have 4 d4gagan, I, 161, 4; and pra aga, VIII, 48, 2, not pra ag4#, as Aufrecht gives in his second edition.
I, 163, 11. dhra4giman (Aufr. p. 147) instead of dhragimn (M. M. vol. ii, p. 245) is wrong.
144) to write pra abravit. The MSS. likewise have 4 d4gagan, I, 161, 4; and pra aga, VIII, 48, 2, not pra ag4#, as Aufrecht gives in his second edition.
I, 163, 11. dhra4giman (Aufr. p. 147) instead of dhragimn (M. M. vol. ii, p. 245) is wrong.
I, 163, 13. gamy4 (Aufr. p. 148) instead of gamy4 (M. M. vol. ii, p. 246) is wrong.
I, 164, 17, read pareza (M. M. vol. ii, p. 259) instead of paréza (Aufr. p. 149).
I, 164, 38. The first ikyu% ought to have the accent, and has it in all the MSS., (Aufr. p. 151, M. M. vol. ii, p. 278.)
I, 165, 5. A mere change of accent may scem a small lxii VEDIC HYMNS.
matter, yet it is frequently of the highest importance in the interpretation of the Veda. Thus in I, 165, 5, I had, in accordance with the MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3, printed étan (vol. ii, p. 293) with the accent on the first syllable. Professor Aufrecht alters this into et&n (p. 153), which, no doubt, would be the right form, if it were intended for the accusative plural of the pronoun, but not if it is meant, as it is here, for the accusative plural of éta, the speckled deer of the Maruts.
I, 165, 15. ydsishza (Aufr. p. 154) instead of ydsish/a (M. M. vol. ii, p. 298) is not supported by any MS.
I, 169, 7, instead of patayanta (Aufr. p. 158), read patayanta (M. M. vol. ii, p. 322).
1,174, 7. kiyavakam (Aufr. p. 162) should be kiyavazam (M. M. vol. ii, p. 340).
I, 177, 1. yuktd, which I had adopted from MS. S 3 (prima manu), is not supported by other MSS., though P 2 reads yuttk4. Professor Aufrecht, who had retained yukt& in the text, has afterwards corrected it to yuktv4, and in this he was right. In I, 177, 2, géhi for y4hi is wrong.
I, 188, 4. astrizan (Aufr. p. 171) instead of astrzzan (M. M. vol. ii, p. 395) can only be a misprint.
II, 29, 6. kartad (Aufr. p. 203) instead of kartdd (M. M. vol. ii, p. 560) is wrong.
II, 40, 4. Aakra (Aufr. p. 214) instead of Zakra (M. M. vol. ii, p. 614) is wrong.
III, 7, 7. gué (Aufr. p. 226) instead of gu (M. M. vol. ii, p- 666) is wrong ; likewise III, 30, 10, g4A# (Aufr. p. 241) instead of g4% (M. M. vol. ii, p. 792).
III, 17, 1. igyate (Aufr. p. 232) instead of agyate (M. M. vol. ii, p. 722) is impossible.
III, 47, 1. Professor Aufrecht (p. 256) puts the nominative {ndro instead of the vocative indra, which I had given (vol. ii, p. 902). I doubt whether any MSS. support that change (S 1, S 2, S 3 have indra), but it is clear that Sayama takes indra as a vocative, and likewise the Nirukta.
III, 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Samhita and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S 1, S 2, S 3, Py,
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixiti
III, 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Samhita and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S 1, S 2, S 3, Py,
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixiti
P 2) give it with the accent on the last syllable (M. M. vol. ii, p. 912), and this no doubt is right. The same mistake occurs again in III, 51, 10, (Aufr. p. 259); IV, 5, 11, (Aufr. p. 281); IV, 36, 2, (Aufr. p. 309); V, 12, 3, (Aufr. Pp. 337); while in VIII, 103, 9, (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 195) the MSS. consistently give asya as unaccented, whereas Professor Aufrecht, in this very passage, places the accent on the last syllable. On the same page (p. 259) amandan, in the Pada, is a misprint for 4mandan.
III, 53, 18. asi (Aufr. p. 262) instead of dsi(M. M. vol. ii, P- 934) is wrong, because hi requires that the accent should remain on asi. S 1,S 2,S 3, P 1, P 2 have asi.
IV, 4, 7. sva 4yushe (Aufr. p. 279) instead of svd 4yushi (M. M. vol. iii, p. 37) is not supported by any good MSS., nor required by the sense of the passage. S 1, S 2,S 3, P 1, P 2 have 4yushi.
IV, 5, 7- drupitam, in the Pada, (Aufr. p. 280) instead of 4rupitam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 45) is right, as had been shown in the Pratiskhya, Sdtra 179, though by a misprint the long 4 of the Samhita had been put in the place of the short a of the Pada.
IV, 5, 9. read gauk (M. M. vol. iii, p. 46) instead of gdh (Aufr. p. 281).
IV, 15, 2. y&ti, with the accent on the first syllable, is supported by all MSS. against yati (Aufr. p. 287). The same applies to yati in IV, 29, 2, and to varante in IV, 31, 9-
IV, 18, 11. ami, without any accent (Aufr. p. 293), instead of ami (M. M. vol. iii, p. 105) is wrong, because amf is never unaccented.
IV, 21, 9. no, without an accent (Auf. p. 296), instead of no (M. M. vol. iii, p. 120) is wrong.
IV, 26, 3. atithigvam (Aufr. p. 300) instead of atithigvam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 140) and VI, 47, 22, atithigvasya (Aufr. Pp. 437) instead of atithigvasya (M. M. vol. iii, p. 776) are wrong, for atithigva never occurs again except with the accent on the last syllable) The MSS. do not vary. Nor do they vary in the accentuation of kutsa: hence kutsdm (Aufr. p. 300) should be kutsam (M. M. vol. iii. p. 139).
xiv VEDIC HYMNS.
IV, 36, 6. Professor Aufrecht (p. 309) has altered the accent of &vishu% into Avishiz, but the MSS. are unanimous in favour of 4vishuh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 181).
Again in IV, 41, 9, the MSS. support the accentuation of 4gman (M. M. vol. iii, p. 200), while Professor Aufrecht (p. 313) has altered it to agman.
IV, 42, 9. adasat, being preceded by hi, ought to have the accent; (Aufrecht, p. 314, has addsat without the accent.) For the same reason, V, 29, 3, dvindat (M. M. vol. iii, p. 342) ought not to have been altered to avindat (Auf. p. 344).
IV, 50, 4. vyéman is a misprint for vyoman.
IV, 42, 9. adasat, being preceded by hi, ought to have the accent; (Aufrecht, p. 314, has addsat without the accent.) For the same reason, V, 29, 3, dvindat (M. M. vol. iii, p. 342) ought not to have been altered to avindat (Auf. p. 344).
IV, 50, 4. vyéman is a misprint for vyoman.
V,15,5- Professor Aufrecht (p. 338) writes dirghdm instead of dégham (M. M. vol. iii, p. 314). This, no doubt, was done intentionally, and not by accident, as we see from the change of accent. But ddégham, though it occurs but once, is supported in this place by all the best MSS., and has been accepted by Professor Roth in his Dictionary.
V, 34,4. prayato (Aufr. p. 351) instead of prdyata (M. M. vol. iii, p. 371) is wrong.
V, 42, 9. visarmazam (Aufr. p. 358) instead of visarmdzam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 402) is wrong.
V, 44, 4. parvané (Aufr. p. 360) instead of. pravané (M. M. vol. iii, p. 415) is wrong.
V, 83, 4. vanti (Aufr. p. 389) instead of vdnti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 554) is supported by no MSS.
V, 85, 6. Asizkantiz (Aufr. p. 391) instead of Asi#kantiz (M. M. vol. iii, p. 560) is not supported either by MSS. or by grammar, as si#k belongs to the Tud-class. On the same grounds ishayantaZ, VI, 16, 27 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 638), ought not to have been changed to ishaydntak (Aufr. p. 408), nor VI, 24, 7, avakarsdyanti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 687) . into avakarsayanti (Aufr. p. 418).
VI, 46, 10, read girvamas (M. M. vol. iii, p. 763) instead of girvanas (Aufr. p. 435).
VI, 60, 10. kvioti (Aufr. p. 450) instead of krznéti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 839) is wrong.
VII, 40, 4. aryamd pak (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 35), in the Pada, instead of aryamé apad (M. M. vol. iv, p. 81) is wrong.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixv
VII, 51, 1. Adityandm (Auf. vol. ii, p. 40) instead of Aditya4n4m (M. M. vol. iv, p. 103) is wrong.
VII, 64,2. idm (Auf. vol. ii, p. 50) instead of {44m (M.M. vol. iv, p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gop44 in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gopa.
VII, 66, 5. yd (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 51) instead of yé (M. M. vol. iv, p. 151) is indeed supported by S 3, but evidently untenable on account of atip{prati.
vol. ii, p. 50) instead of {44m (M.M. vol. iv, p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gop44 in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gopa.
VII, 66, 5. yd (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 51) instead of yé (M. M. vol. iv, p. 151) is indeed supported by S 3, but evidently untenable on account of atip{prati.
VII, 72, 3. In abudhran Professor Aufrecht has properly altered the wrong spelling abudhnan ; and, as far as the authority of the best MSS. is concerned (S 1, S 2, S 3), he is also right in putting a final fi, although Professor Bollensen prefers the dental n; (Zeitschrift der D.M. G., vol. xxii, p. 599.) The fact is that Vedic MSS. use the Anusvara dot for final nasals before all class-letters, and leave it to us to interpret that dot according to the letter which follows. Before I felt quite certain on this point, I have in several cases retained the dot, as given by the MSS., instead of changing it, as I ought to have done according to my system of writing Devanagari, into the corresponding nasal, provided it represents an original n. In I, 71,1, S 2, S 3 have the dot in agushran, but S 1 has dental n. In IX, 87, 5, asrégran has the dot; i.e. S 1 has the dot, and n&&, dental n joined to kk; S 2 has nkh without the dot before the n; S 3 has the dot, and then kh. In IV, 24, 6, the spelling of the Samhité dvivenam tam would leave it doubtful whether we ought to read avivenan tam or Avivenam tam; S 1 and S 3 read dvivenam tam, but S 2 has dvivenan tam; P 2 has dvi-venan tdm, and P 1 had the same originally, though a later hand changed it to avi-venam tam. In IV, 25, 3, on the contrary, S 1 and S 3 write avivenam; S 2, avivenam; P1and P a, avi-venam. What is intended is clear enough, viz. avivenan in IV, 24,6; dvi-venam in IV, 25, 3. [In the new edition 4vivenam has been left in both passages. ]
VII, 73, 1. asvina (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 56) instead of asvina (M. M. vol. iv, p. 176) is wrong. On the same page, dh{shzye, VII, 72, 3, should have the accent on the first syllable.
VII, 77, 1. In this verse, which has been so often dis-
[32] e
Ixvi. VEDIC HYMNS.
cussed (see Kuhn, Beitrige, vol. iii, p. 472 ; Bohtlingk.and Roth, Dictionary, vol. ii, p. 968; Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p. 463), all the MSS. which I know, read kar&yai, and not either farathai nor gardyai.
VIII, 2, 29. kirfzam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 84) instead of karfzam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 308) does not rest on the authority of any MSS., nor is it supported by Sayama.
VIII, 9, 9. Professor Aufrecht has altered the very important form 4kufyuvimahi (M. M. vol. iv, p. 389) to akukyavimahi (vol. ii, p. 98). The question is whether this was done intentionally and on the authority of any MSS. My own MSS. support the form 4éuéyuvimahi, and I see that Professor Roth accepts this form.
VIII, 32, 14. 4yantaram (Auff. vol. ii, p. 129) instead of 4yantéram (M. M. vol. iv, p. 567) is wrong.
ii, p. 98). The question is whether this was done intentionally and on the authority of any MSS. My own MSS. support the form 4éuéyuvimahi, and I see that Professor Roth accepts this form.
VIII, 32, 14. 4yantaram (Auff. vol. ii, p. 129) instead of 4yantéram (M. M. vol. iv, p. 567) is wrong.
VIII, 47, 15. dushvapnyam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 151) is not so correct as dudshvapnyam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 660), or, better, dushshvdpnyam (Pratisakhya, Sdtras 255 and 364), though it is perfectly true that the MSS. write dushvapnyam.
[I ought to state that all these errata have been corrected by Professor Aufrecht in his second edition.]
In the ninth and tenth Mandalas I have not to defend myself, and I need not therefore give a list of the passages where I think that Professor Aufrecht’s text is not supported by the best MSS. My own edition of these Mandalas will soon be published, and I need hardly say that where it differs from Professor Aufrecht’s text, I am prepared to show that I had the best authorities on my side.
Professor Aufrecht writes in the second edition of his Romanised text of the Rig-veda (p. iv): ‘Um den Herren,
My own die diese Druckfehler in majorem gloriam mistakes. suam mit so grosser Schonung hervorgehoben haben, einen Gegendienst zu erweisen, bemerke ich einige derselben.’ Dieser Gegendienst, so gut er gemeint war, ist leider nicht sehr bedeutend ausgefallen, auch nicht immer in majorem gloriam Catonis.
In I, 161, 2, Professor Aufrecht objects to faturas krinotana. I felt doubtful about it, and in the commentary I printed faturak krizotana. In IV, 33, 5, the reading
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixvii
fatus kara is sanctioned by the authority of the Pratisakhya, Sdtra 281, 4.
In I, 181, 5, Aufrecht prefers mathra; Sayama, Bohtlingk and Roth, and I prefer mathné.
In II, 11, 10, he has discovered that garvit was meant for girvat. Whitney still quotes garvit.
In III, 9, 4, he has discovered that apsu should be =psu; but this had been already corrected.
In III, 25, 2, the final a of vaha ought to be long in the Samhita.
In IV, 19, 4, instead of drz/ha ni read dri/hAni.
In VII, 33, 2, instead of avrinita read = vrinita.
In VII, 35, 13, the Visarga in devagop4% should be deleted.
In VII, 42, 2, the Anusva4ra in yumkshva should be deleted.
In VIII, 2, 30, the anudattatara should be shifted from the ultimate to the penultimate, dadhiré, not dadhire.
In VIII, 51, 3, avishyanta was meant for arishyantam.
In VIII, 55, 5, for na read 4. The MSS. vary in both cases.
In IX, 108, 7, in vanakraksha, the kra was printed as 77. Professor Aufrecht might have seen it correctly printed in the index. SAyavza read vanartksha.
In X, 28, 11, Professor Aufrecht thinks that the Pada should have godhas instead of godha. I think godha is right, in spite of Professor Aufrecht’s appeal to the silence of the Pratisakhya. The fact is that godhad never occurs, while godh4 occurs in the preceding verse, and again VIII, 69, 9.
In X, 28, 11, Professor Aufrecht thinks that the Pada should have godhas instead of godha. I think godha is right, in spite of Professor Aufrecht’s appeal to the silence of the Pratisakhya. The fact is that godhad never occurs, while godh4 occurs in the preceding verse, and again VIII, 69, 9.
After such a flourish of trumpets, we expected more from Professor Aufrecht ; still we must learn to be grateful even for small mercies.
Having said so much in vindication of the text of the Rig-veda as published by me, and in defence of my principles of criticism which seem to me so self-evident as hardly to deserve the name of canones critici, I feel bound at the same time both to acknowledge some inaccuracies that have occurred in the index at the end of each volume, and to defend some entries in that index which have been challenged without sufficient cause.
e2
Ixviii VEDIC HYMNS.
It has been supposed that in the index at the end of my fourth volume, the seventeenth verse of the 34th hymn in Sfyana’s the seventh Mazdala has been wrongly quotations from assigned to Ahi Budhnya, and that one half nukramazt. only of that verse should have been reserved for that deity. I do not deny that we should be justified in deriving that sense from the words of the Anukramazika, but I cannot admit that my own interpretation is untenable. As SAyana does not speak authoritatively on the subject, I followed the authority of Shadgurusishya. This commentator of the Anukramazik4 says: atra ka abgdm ukthair ahim grizisha ity ardharkosbgand4mno® devasya stutiz ; m4 norhir budhnya ity ardharfoshirbudhnyanamno devasya ». ' Another commentator says: abg4m ukthair ardharZoshik ; uttaro m4 noshir ity ahir budhnya#. From this we learn that both commentators looked upon the Dvipad4s as ardharkas or half-verses, and ascribed the whole of verse 16 to Ahir abga#, the whole of verse 17 to Ahir budhnyad. It will be seen from an accurate examination of S4yaza’s commentary on verse 17, that in the second interpretation of the second half of verse 17, he labours to show that in this portion, too, Ahir budhnya# may be considered as the deity. It is perfectly right to say that the words of the Anukramazika, abgam aheé, signify that the verse beginning with abg4m, belongs to Ahi. But there was no misprint in my index. It will be seen that Shadgurusishya goes even beyond me, and calls that deity simply Abga, leaving out Ahi altogether, as understood. I was anxious to show the distinction between Abg4& Ahi and Ahir Budhnya&, as the deities of the two successive verses, and I did not expect that any reader could possibly misinterpret my entry ° With regard to hymns 91 and 92 of the seventh Mandala, it is true, that in the index I did not mention that certain verses in which two deities are mentioned (91, 2;
* I find that Mr. Macdonell in his edition of the Sarvanukramasf reads ardharkoshinamno. If this is right, part of my argument would fall.
Macdonell in his edition of the Sarvanukramasf reads ardharkoshinamno. If this is right, part of my argument would fall.
> MS. Wilson 379 has, ardharfo ndmano daivatasya, and in the margin shi. Ahirbudhnya seems to have been taken as one word.
¢ The editor of the Bombay edition of the text of the Rig-veda assigns verse 16 to Ahi, verse 17 to Ahirbudhnya.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, xix
4-73 92, 2), must be considered as addressed not to Vayu alone, but to Vayu and Indra. It will be seen from Sayaza’s introduction to hymn go, that he, too, wrongly limits the sentence of the Anukramanika, aindryas ka yA dvivadukta&, to the fifth and following verses of hymn go, and that he never alludes to this proviso again in his introductory remarks to hymn 91 and 92, though, of course, he explains the verses, in which a dual occurs, as addressed to two deities, viz. Indra and Vayu. The same omission, whether intentional or unintentional, occurs in Shadgurusishya’s commentary. The other commentary, however, assigns the verses of the three hymns rightly. The subject has evidently been one that excited attention in very early days, for in the Aitareya-brahmaaza, V, 20, we actually find that the word vam which occurs in hymn go, 1, and which might be taken as a dual, though Sayama explains it as a singular, is changed into te *.
In hymn VII, 104, rakshohavau might certainly be added as an epithet of Indra-Somau, and Shadgurusishya clearly takes it inthat sense. The Anukramanika says: indrasoma pa#kadhikaindrasomam rakshoghnam sapabhisdpaprayam.
In hymn VIII, 67, it has been supposed that the readings Samada and Samada instead of Sammada and SA4mmada were due to a misprint. This is not the case. That I was aware of the other spelling of this name, viz. Sammada and SAmmada, I had shown in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (2nd ed.), p. 39, where I had translated the passage of the Sankh4yana-sitras in which Matsya Sammada occurs, and had also called attention to the Asvalayana-sitras X, 7,and the Satapatha-brahmaaa XIII, 3, 1, 1,
* The interpunction of Dr. Haug’s edition (p. 128) should be after te. Shadgurusishya says: ata eva brahmamas(itrayoA praiige vayavyatvaya pra viraya sukayo dadrire> vim iti dvivatanasthane ta ity ckavatanap4shak kritah, vam ity uktam ded aindratvam a syd iti. Possibly the same change should be made in Asvalayana’s Srauta S(tras, VIII, 11, and it has been made by Rama Niérdyama Vidyaratna. The remark of the commentator, however, dadrire ta iti prayogap4thah, looks as if vim might have been retained in the text. The MSS. I have collated are in favour of te.
> Mr. Macdonell (Sarvanukramass, p. 133) inserts ta iti after dadrire.
Ixx VEDIC HYMNS.
The remark of the commentator, however, dadrire ta iti prayogap4thah, looks as if vim might have been retained in the text. The MSS. I have collated are in favour of te.
> Mr. Macdonell (Sarvanukramass, p. 133) inserts ta iti after dadrire.
Ixx VEDIC HYMNS.
where the same passage is found. I there spelt the name S&ammada, because the majority of the MSS. were in favour of that spelling. In the edition of the Asval4yana-sitras, which has since been published by Rama Nardyaza Vidyarazya, the name is spelt Samada. My own opinion is that S4mmada is the right spelling, but that does not prove that Sayama thought so; and unless I deviated from the principles which I had adopted for a critical restoration of Sayana’s text, I could not but write Samada in our passage. B 1 and B 4 omit s4mada, but both give samadakhyasya ; Ca. gives likewise samadakhyasya, and A. semaddkhyasya. This, I believe, was meant by the writer for sammadakhyasya, for in the passage from the Anukramazi both A. and Ca. give simmado. I then consulted the commentary of Shadgurusishya, and there again the same MS. gave twice sammada, once sdmada, which is explained by samadékhyamahdminaragaputrak. A better MS. of Shadgurusishya, MS. Wilson 379, gives the readings sammado, sdmmada, and sammadakhyasya. The other commentary gives distinctly simanda. [I have adopted sammada in the new edition.]
In IX, 68, Professor Aufrecht adopts what he considers the bold reading Vatsapri; I prefer to be timid and allow Sayama his own reading Vatsapri; see Sarvanukramasi, ed. Macdonell, pp. 34, 146.
It will be seen from these remarks that many things have to be considered before one can form an independent judgment as to the exact view adopted by SAyama in places where he differs from other authorities, or as to the exact words in which he clothed his meaning. Such cases occur again and again. Thus in IX, 86, I find that Professor Aufrecht ascribes the first ten verses to the Akrishéas, whereas Sayana calls them Akrishdas. It is perfectly true that the best MSS. of the Anukramazika have Akrishaa, it is equally true that the name of these Akrishéas is spelt with a short ain the Harivamsa, 11,533, but an editor of Sayana’s work is not to alter the occasional mistakes of that learned commentator, and SAyama certainly called these poets Akrishias.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxi
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxi
Verses 21—30 of the same hymn are ascribed by Professor Aufrecht to the Présniyak. Here, again, several MSS. support that reading; and in Shadgurusishya’s commentary, the correction of prisniyak into prisnayak is made by a later hand. But Sayama clearly took prisnayas for a nominative plural of pvésni, and in this case he certainly was right. The Dictionary of Boéhtlingk and Roth quotes the Mahabharata, VII, 8728, in support of the peculiar reading of présniyaf, but the published text gives présnayah. Professor Benfey, in his list of poets (Ind. Stud. vol. iii, p. 223), gives prisniyoga as one word, not prisniyoga, as stated in the Dictionary of Boéhtlingk and Roth, but this is evidently meant for two words, viz. prisnayo:gahk. However, whether prisniyak or prisnayak be the real name of these poets, an editor of SAyavza is bound to give that reading of the name which Sayama believed to be the right one, i. e. prisnayah *.
Again, in the same hymn, Professor Aufrecht ascribes verses 31-40 to the Atris. We should then have to read tritiye:trayah. But Sdyama read tritiye trayad, and ascribes verses 31-40 to the three companies together of the Rshis mentioned before. On this point the MSS. admit of no doubt, for we read: faturthasya ka dasarkasya akrish¢a masha ityAdidvinamanas trayo ga#4 drashfarak. I do not say that the other explanation is wrong; I only say that, whether right or wrong, Sdyava certainly read trayas, not atrayak; and an editor of Sayaza has no more right to correct the text, supported by the best MSS,., in the first and second, than in the third of these passages, all taken from one and the same hymn.
But though I insist so strongly on a strict observance of the rules of diplomatic criticism with regard to the text
Old mistakes Of the Rig-veda, nay, even of Sdyana, I inthetext. jnsist equally strongly on the right of independent criticism, which ought to begin where diplo-
® Professor Aufrecht in his new edition of the text (1877) adopts the more timid reading primayak. See also Brihat-Samhit4, transl. by Kern, p. 2: Sikat&h prisnayo garga valakhilya martéipiA bhrigavo sigirasas aiva sdkshmas anye maharshayah, xxii VEDIC HYMNS,
See also Brihat-Samhit4, transl. by Kern, p. 2: Sikat&h prisnayo garga valakhilya martéipiA bhrigavo sigirasas aiva sdkshmas anye maharshayah, xxii VEDIC HYMNS, matic criticism ends. Considering the startling antiquity which we can claim for every letter and accent of our MSS., so far as they are authenticated by the Pratisdkhya, to say nothing of the passages of many hymns which are quoted verbatim in the Brahmazas, the Kalpa-sitras, the Nirukta, the Brzhaddevata, and the Anukramazis, I should deem it reckless to alter one single letter or one single accent in an edition of the hymns of the Rig-veda. As the text has been handed down to us, so it should remain; and whatever alterations and corrections we, the critical Mlekkhas of the nineteenth century, have to propose, should be kept distinct from that time-hallowed inheritance. Unlikely as it may sound, it is true nevertheless that we, the scholars of the nineteenth century, are able to point out mistakes in the text of the Rig-veda which escaped the attention of the most learned among the native scholars of the sixth century B.C. No doubt, these scholars, even if they had perceived such mistakes, would hardly have ventured to correct the text of their sacred writings. The authors of the Pratisakhya had before their eyes or ears a text ready made, of which they registered every peculiarity, nay, in which they would note and preserve every single irregularity, even though it stood alone amidst hundreds of analogous cases. With us the case is different. Where we see a rule observed in 99 cases, we feel strongly tempted and sometimes justified in altering the 1ooth case in accordance with what we consider to be a general rule. Yet even then I feel convinced we ought not to do more than place our conjectural readings below the textus receptus of the Veda,—a text so ancient and venerable that no scholar of any historical tact or critical taste would venture to foist into it a conjectural reading, however plausible, nay, however undeniable.
Sthatis faré- 4 Lhere can be no clearer case of corruption tham. in the traditional text of the Rig-veda than, for instance, in I, 70, 4, where the Pada text reads:
All scholars who have touched on this verse, Professors Benfey, Bollensen, Roth, and others, have pointed out that
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxiii
instead of 4a rdtham, the original poet must have said karatham. The phrase sthatu/ Aar4tham, what stands and moves, occurs several times. It is evidently an ancient phrase, and hence we can account for the preservation in it of the old termination of the nom. sing. of neuters in 71, which here, as in the Greek ydp-rvp or pdp-rvs, masc., appears as ur or us, while in the ordinary Sanskrit we find rz only. This nom. sing. neut. in us, explains also the common genitives and ablatives, pitu#, matuAé, &c., which stand for pitur-s, matur-s. This phrase sthata/ £aratham occurs :
This nom. sing. neut. in us, explains also the common genitives and ablatives, pitu#, matuAé, &c., which stand for pitur-s, matur-s. This phrase sthata/ £aratham occurs :
I, 58, 5. sthatu’ Zardtham bhayate patatrizaz.
What stands and what moves is afraid of Agni.
I, 68, 1. sthatud faratham aktin vi Ornot.
He lighted up what stands and what moves during every night.
I, 72, 6. pastin ka sthatrén Aardtham fa péhi.
Protect the cattle, and what stands and moves!
Here it has been proposed to read sth4tu% instead of sthatr#n, and I confess that this emendation is very plausible. One does not see how pas, cattle, could be called immobilia or fixtures, unless the poet wished to make a distinction between cattle that are kept fastened in stables, and cattle that are allowed to roam about freely in the homestead. This distinction is alluded to, for instance, in the Satapatha-brahmama, XI, 8, 3, 2. saurya evaisha pasuh sy4d iti, tasmad etasminn astamite pasavo badhyante; badhnanty ekan yathagosh¢sam, eka upasaméyanti.
I, 70, 2. garbhak a sthatdm garbhak dardtham, (read sthatrdm, and see Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p- 462.)
He who is within all that stands and all that moves.
The word ardtha, if it occurs by itself, means flock, movable property :
III, 31, 15. 4t {t sakhi-bhya/# #ardtham sdm airat.
He brought together, for his friends, the flocks.
VIII, 33, 8. puru-tré Aaratham dadhe.
He bestowed flocks on many people.
X, 92, 13. pra nak pishd4 Aardtham—avatu.
May Pashan protect our flock!
Ixxiv VEDIC HYMNS.
Another idiomatic phrase in which sthatiA occurs is sthatus gdgatad, and here sthatuz is really a genitive :
IV, 53, 6. gagatak sthatu% ubhdyasya yak vast.
He who is lord of both, of what is movable and what is immovable.
VI, 50, 7. visvasya sthatuk gagatak ganitriz.
They who created all that stands and moves.
VII, 60, 2. visvasya sthatus gagatah ka gopah.
The guardians of all that stands and moves. Cf. X, 63, 8.
I, 159, 3. sthatus ka satydm gagata# ka dharmani putrdsya pathahk paddm ddvay4vinak.
Truly while you uphold all that stands and moves, you protect the home of the guileless son. Cf. II, 31, 5.
But although I have no doubt that in I, 70, 4, the original poet said sthatu’% £ardtham, I should be loath to suppress the evidence of the mistake and alter the Pada text from ka rétham to dardtham. The very mistake is instructive, as showing us the kind of misapprehension to which the collectors of the Vedic text were liable, and enabling us to judge how far the limits of conjectural criticism may safely be extended.
A still more extraordinary case of misunderstanding on the part of the original compilers of the Vedic texts, and likewise of the authors of the Pratisa-
A still more extraordinary case of misunderstanding on the part of the original compilers of the Vedic texts, and likewise of the authors of the Pratisakhyas, the Niruktas, and other Vedic treatises, has been pointed out by Professor Kuhn. In an article of his, ‘ Zur altesten Geschichte der Indogermanischen Volker’ (Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 351), he made the following observation: ‘The Lithuanian laukas, Lett. lauks, Pruss. laukas,all meaning field, agree exactly with the Sk. lokas, world, Lat. locus, Low Germ. (in East-Frisia and Oldenburg) louch, léch, village. All these words are to be traced back to the Sk. uru, Gr. evpds, broad, wide. The initial u is lost, as in Goth. rims, O.H.G. rOmi, rdmin (Low Germ. rQme, an open uncultivated field in a forest), and the r changed into 1. In support of this derivation it should be observed that in the Veda loka is frequently preceded by the particle u, which probably was only separated from it by the Diaskeuastz, and that the meaning is
Uloka.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxv
that of open space.” Although this derivation has met with little favour, I confess that I look upon this remark, excepting only the Latin locus’, i.e.stlocus, as one of the most ingenious of this eminent scholar. The fact is that this particle u before loka is one of the most puzzling occurrences in the Veda. Professor Bollensen says that loka never occurs without a preceding u in the first eight Mazdalas, and this is perfectly true with the exception of one passage which he has overlooked, VIII, 100, 12, dyauz dehi lokam vagraya vi-skdbhe, Dyu! give room for the lightning to step forth! Professor Bollensen (I. c. p. 603) reads vritrdya instead of vagraya, without authority. He objects to dyauh as a vocative, which should be dyatiz; but dyau# may be dyo&, a genitive belonging to vagraya, in which case we should translate, Make room for the lightning of Dyu to step forth!
Professor Bollensen (I. c. p. 603) reads vritrdya instead of vagraya, without authority. He objects to dyauh as a vocative, which should be dyatiz; but dyau# may be dyo&, a genitive belonging to vagraya, in which case we should translate, Make room for the lightning of Dyu to step forth!
But what is even more important is the fact that the occurrence of this unaccented u at the beginning of a pada is against the very rules, or, at least, runs counter to the very observations which the authors of the Pratisdkhya have made on the inadmissibility of an unaccented word in such a place, so that they had to insert a special provision, Prat. 978, exempting the unaccented u from this observation: anudattam tu p4d4dau novargam vidyate padam, ‘no unaccented word is found at the beginning of a pada except ul!’ Although I have frequently insisted on the fact that such statements of the Pratisdkhya are not to be considered as rules, but simply as more or less general statistical accumulations of facts actually occurring in the Veda, I have also pointed out that we are at liberty to found on these collected facts inductive observations which may assume the character of real rules. Thus, in our case, we can well understand why there should be none, or, at least, very few instances, where an unaccented word begins a pAda. We should not begin a verse with an enclitic particle in any other language either; and as in Sanskrit a verb at the
* On locus, see Corssen, Krit. Beitr. p. 463, and Aussprache, and ed., p. 810. Corssen does not derive it from a root st4 or sth4, but identifies it with Goth. strik-s, Engl. stroke, strecke.
Ixxvi VEDIC HYMNS.
beginning of a pada receives ipso facto the accent, and as the same applies to vocatives, no chance is left for an unaccented word in that place, except it be a particle. But the one particle that offends against this general observation is u, and the very word before which this u causes this metrical offence, is loka. Can any argument be more tempting in favour of admitting an old form uloka instead of u loka? Lokam is preceded by u in I, 93, 6 ; II, 30, 6; (asmin bhayd-sthe krizutam u lokdm, make room for us, grant an escape to us, in this danger!) IV, 17, 17; VI, 23,3; 7(with urdm); 47, 8 (urim nad lokam, or ulokdm ?); 73,23 VII, 20, 2; 33, 5 (with urim); 60, 9 (with urim); 84, 2 (with urim); 99, 4 (with urdm) ; IX, 92,5; X,13, 2; 16, 4 (sukr#tém u lokdm); 30, 7; 104, 10; 180, 3 (with urim). Loké is preceded by u in ITI, 29, 8; V, 1,6; lokakrtt, IX, 86, 21; X, 133, 1. In all remaining passages u loka is found at the beginning of a pada: loka4, ITI, 37, 11; lokam, ITI, 2, 9 (u lokam u dvé (iti) ipa gamim fyatuA) ; V, 4, 11; loka-kvitnim, VIII, 15, 4; IX, 2, 8. The only passages in which loka occurs without being preceded by u, are lokam, VI, 47, 8 (see above); VIII, 100, 12; X, 14, 9; 85, 20 (amrttasya) ; lok&#, IX, 113, 9; lokdn, X, 90, 14; loké, IX, 113, 77; X, 85, 24.
The only passages in which loka occurs without being preceded by u, are lokam, VI, 47, 8 (see above); VIII, 100, 12; X, 14, 9; 85, 20 (amrttasya) ; lok&#, IX, 113, 9; lokdn, X, 90, 14; loké, IX, 113, 77; X, 85, 24.
It should be remembered that in the Gathas the u of words beginning with urv° does not count metrically (Hiibschmann, Ein Zoroastrisches Lied, p. 37), and that in PAli also uru must be treated as monosyllabic, in such passages as Mahav., p. 2, line 5. The same applies to passages in the Rig-veda, such as I, 138, 3; VII, 39, 3, where the metre requires uru to be treated as one syllable. In IX, 96, 15, the original reading may have been urur iva, instead of uru-iva.
Considering all this, I feel as convinced as it is possible to be in such matters, that in all the passages where u loka occurs and where it means space, carriére ouverte, freedom, we ought to read uloka; but in spite of this I could never bring myself to insert this word, of which neither the authors of the Brahmazas nor the writers of the Pratisakhyas or even later grammarians had any idea, into the text. On
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xxvii
the contrary, I should here, too, consider it most useful to leave the traditional reading, and to add the corrections in the margin, in order that, if these conjectural emendations are in time considered as beyond the reach of doubt, they may be used as evidence in support of conjectures which, without such evidence, might seem intolerable in the eyes of timid critics.
There remains one difficulty about this hypothetical word uloka, which it is but fair to mention. If it is derived from uru, or, as Professor Bollensen suggests, from urvaé or urvak, the change of va into o would require further support. Neither maghon for maghavan, nor durova for dura-vana are strictly analogous cases, because in each we have an a preceding the va oru. Strictly speaking, uroka presupposes uravaka, as sléka presupposes sravaka, or 6ka, house, avaka (from av, not from uz). It should also be mentioned that a compound such as RV. X, 128, 2, urulokam (scil. antdriksham) is strange, and shows how completely the origin of loka was forgotten at the time when the hymns of the tenth Mazdala were composed. But all this does not persuade us to accept Ascoli’s conjecture (Lezioni di Fonologia Comparata, p. 235), that as uloga (but not uloka) is a regular Tamil form of loka, uloka in the Veda might be due to a reaction of the aboriginal dialects on the Vedic Sanskrit. We want far more evidence before admitting such a reaction during the Vedic period.
The most powerful instrument that has hitherto been applied to the emendation of Vedic texts, is the metre.
Metrical Metre means measure, and uniform measure,
We want far more evidence before admitting such a reaction during the Vedic period.
The most powerful instrument that has hitherto been applied to the emendation of Vedic texts, is the metre.
Metrical Metre means measure, and uniform measure, criticism. and hence its importance for critical purposes, as second only to that of grammar. If our knowledge of the metrical system of the Vedic poets rests on a sound basis, any deviations from the general rule are rightly objected to; and if by a slight alteration they can be removed, and the metre be restored, we naturally feel inclined to adopt such emendations. Two safeguards, however, ‘are needed in this kind of conjectural criticism. We ought to be quite certain that the anomaly is impossible, and we ought to be able to explain to a certain extent xxviii VEDIC HYMNS.
how the deviation from the original correct text could have occurred. As this subject has of late years received considerable attention, and as emendations of the Vedic texts, supported by metrical arguments, have been carried on on a very large scale, it becomes absolutely necessary to reexamine the grounds on which these emendations are supposed to rest. There are, in fact, but few hymns in which some verses or some words have not been challenged for metrical reasons, and I feel bound, therefore, at the very beginning of my translation of the Rig-veda, to express my own opinion on this subject, and to give my reasons why in so many cases I allow metrical anomalies to remain which by some of the most learned and ingenious among Vedic scholars would be pronounced intolerable.
Even if the theory of the ancient metres had not been so carefully worked out by the authors of the PratisAkhyas and the Anukramazis, an independent study of the Veda would have enabled us to discover the general rules by which the Vedic poets were guided in the composition of their works. Nor would it have been difficult to show how constantly these general principles are violated by the introduction of phonetic changes which in the later Sanskrit are called the euphonic changes of Sandhi, and according to which final vowels must be joined with initial vowels, and final consonants adapted to initial consonants, until at last each sentence becomes a continuous chain of closely linked syllables.
It is far easier, as I remarked before, to discover the original and natural rhythm of the Vedic hymns by reading them in the Pada than in the SamhitA text, and after some practice our ear becomes sufficiently schooled to tell us at once how each line ought to be pronounced. We find, on the one hand, that the rules of Sandhi, instead of being generally binding, were treated by the Vedic poets as poetical licences only ; and, on the other, that a greater freedom of pronunciation was allowed even in the body of words than would be tolerated in the later Sanskrit. Ifa syllable was wanted to complete the metre, a semivowel might be pronounced as a vowel, many a long vowel might
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxix
be protracted so as to count for two syllables, and short vowels might be inserted between certain consonants, of which no trace exists in the ordinary Sanskrit. If, on the contrary, there were too many syllables, then the rules of Sandhi were observed, or two short syllables contracted by rapid pronunciation into one ; nay, in a few cases, a final m or s, it seems, was omitted. It would be a mistake to suppose that the authors of the Pratisakhyas were not aware of this freedom allowed or required in the pronunciation of the Vedic hymns. Though they abstained from introducing into the text changes of pronunciation which even we ourselves would never tolerate, if inserted in the texts of Homer and Plautus,in the PAliverses of Buddha, or even in modern English poetry, the authors of the Pratisdkhya were clearly aware that in many places one syllable had to be pronounced as two, or two as one. They were clearly aware that certain vowels, generally considered as long, had to be pronounced as short, and that in order to satisfy the demands of the metre, certain changes of pronunciation were indispensable. They knew all this, but they did not change the text. And this shows that the text, as they describe it, enjoyed even in their time a high authority, that they did not make it, but that, such as it is, with all its incongruities, it had been made before their time. In many cases, no doubt, certain syllables in the hymns of the Veda had been actually lengthened or shortened in the Samhita text in accordance with the metre in which they are composed. But this was done by the poets themselves, or, at all events, it was not done by the authors of the Pratisakhya. They simply register such changes, but they do not enjoin them, and in this we, too, should follow their example. It is, therefore, a point of some importance in the critical restoration and proper pronunciation of Vedic texts, that in the rules which we have to follow in order to satisfy the demands of the metre, we should carefully distinguish between what is sanctioned by ancient authority, and what is the result of our own observations. This I shall now proceed to do.
First, then, the authors of the Pratisdkhya distinctly admit
Ixxx VEDIC HYMNS.
This I shall now proceed to do.
First, then, the authors of the Pratisdkhya distinctly admit
Ixxx VEDIC HYMNS.
that, in order to uphold the rules they have themselves laid down, certain syllables are to be pronounced as two syllables. We read in Sitra 527: ‘Ina deficient pada the right number is to be provided for by protraction of semivowels (which were originally vowels), and of contracted vowels (which were originally two independent vowels). It is only by this process that the short syllable which has been lengthened in the Samhita, viz. the sixth, or the eighth, or the tenth, can be shown to have occupied and to occupy that place where alone, according to a former rule, a short syllable is liable to be lengthened. Thus we read :
I, 161, 11. udvatsvasma akrinotand trizam. This would seem to be a verse of eleven syllables, in which the ninth syllable na has been lengthened. This, however, is against the system of the Pratisakhya. But if we protract the semivowel v in udvatsv, and change it back into u, which it was originally, then we gain one syllable, the whole verse has twelve syllables, na occupies the tenth place, and it now belongs to that class of cases which is included in a former Sfitra, 523. The same applies to X, 103, 13, where we read:
Vytiha.
pretd gayatA narah. This is a verse of seven syllables, in which the fifth syllable is lengthened, without any authority. Let us protract preta by bringing it back to its original component elements pra ita, and we get a verse of eight syllables, the sixth syllable now falls under the general observation, and is lengthened in the Samhita accordingly.
The same rules are repeated in a later portion of the Pratisakhya. Here rules had been given as to the number of syllables of which certain metres consist, and it is added (Sitras 972, 973) that where that number is deficient, it should be completed by protracting contracted vowels, and by separating consonantal groups in which semivowels (originally vowels) occur, by means of their corresponding vowel.
The rules in both places are given in almost identically
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxi
the same words, and the only difference between the two passages is this, that, according to the former, semivowels are simply changed back into their vowels, while, according to the latter, the semivowel remains, but is separated from the preceding consonant by its corresponding vowel.
Ixxxi
the same words, and the only difference between the two passages is this, that, according to the former, semivowels are simply changed back into their vowels, while, according to the latter, the semivowel remains, but is separated from the preceding consonant by its corresponding vowel.
These rules therefore show clearly that the authors of the Pratisdkhya, though they would have shrunk from altering one single letter of the authorised Samhita, recognised the fact that where two vowels had been contracted into one, they might yet be pronounced as two; and where a vowel before another vowel had been changed into a semivowel, it might either be pronounced as a vowel, or as a semivowel preceded by its corresponding vowel. More than these two modifications, however, the PratisAkhya does not allow, or, at least, does not distinctly sanction. The commentator indeed tries to show that by the wording of the Sftras in both places, a third modification is sanctioned, viz. the vocalisation, in the body of a word, of semivowels which do not owe their origin to an original vowel. But in both places this interpretation is purely artificial. Some such rule ought to have been given, but it was not given by the authors of the Pratisakhya. It ought to have been given, for it is only by observing such a rule that in
I, 61, 12, gor na parva vi radA tiraskd, we get a verse of eleven syllables, and thus secure for da in rada the eighth place, where alone the short a could be lengthened. Yet we look in vain for a rule sanctioning the change of semivowels into vowels, except where the semivowels can rightly be called kshaipra-varva (Sitra 974), i.e. semivowels that were originally vowels. The independent (svabhavika) semivowels, as e.g. the v in parva, are not included ; and to suppose that in Sfitra 527 these semivowels were indicated by varna is impossible, particularly if we compare the similar wording of Satra 974%.
* It will be seen from my edition of the Prtisékhya, particularly from the extracts from Uvasa, given after Sfitra 974, that the idea of making two syllables out of goA, never entered Uvaéa’s mind. M. Regnier was right, Professor Kuhn (Beitrage, vol. iv, p. 187) was wrong. Uvasa, no doubt, wishes to show that original (svabhavika) semivowels are liable to vy(ha, or at least
[32] f
Ixxxii VEDIC HYMNS.
We look in vain, too, in the Pratisakhya for another rule according to which long vowels, even if they do not owe their origin to the coalescence of two vowels, are liable to be protracted. However, this rule, too, though never distinctly sanctioned, is observed in the Pratisakhya, for unless its author observed it, he could not have obtained in the verses quoted by the Pratisakhya the number of syllables which he ascribes to them. According to Sitra 937, the verse, RV. X, 134, 1, is a Mahapankti, and consists of six padas, of eight syllables each. In order to obtain that number, we must read: :
samragam farshazinam.
According to Sitra 937, the verse, RV. X, 134, 1, is a Mahapankti, and consists of six padas, of eight syllables each. In order to obtain that number, we must read: :
samragam farshazinam.
We may therefore say that, without allowing any actual change in the received text of the Samhita, the Pratisakhya distinctly allows a lengthened pronunciation of certain syllables, which in the Pada text form two syllables; and we may add that, by implication, it allows the same even in cases where the Pada text also gives but one instead of two syllables. Having this authority in our favour, I do not think that we use too much liberty if we extend this modified pronunciation, recognised in so many cases by the ancient scholars of India themselves, to other cases where it seems to us required as well, in order to satisfy the metrical rules of the Veda.
Secondly, I believe it can be proved that, if not the authors of the Pratisakhya, those at least who constituted
Shortening of the Vedic text which was current in the long vowels. ancient schools and which we now have before us, were fully aware that certain long vowels and diphthongs could be used as short. The authors of the Pratisakhya remark that certain changes which can take place before a short syllable only, take place likewise before the word no, although the vowel of this ‘no’ is by them supposed to be long. After having stated in Sdtra 523 that the eighth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable to vyavaya; but though this is true in fact, Uva¢a does not succeed in his attempt to prove that the rules of the Pratisékhya sanction it.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxiii
follows, they remark that for this purpose na& or no is treated as a short syllable:
X, 59, 4. dyu-bhié hitaé garimd su nak asta, (Samh. sd no astu.)
Again, in stating that the tenth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, the same exception is understood to be made in favour of na& or no, as a short syllable :
VII, 48, 4. nu devdsa# varivak kartana nah, (Samh. kartand no, bhdta no, &c.)
With regard to e being shortened before a short a where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Samhit4 gives a instead of e in RV. VIII, 72, 5. véti st6tave ambydm, Samh. véti stdétava ambyam. (Pratis. 177, 5-)
kartand no, bhdta no, &c.)
With regard to e being shortened before a short a where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Samhit4 gives a instead of e in RV. VIII, 72, 5. véti st6tave ambydm, Samh. véti stdétava ambyam. (Pratis. 177, 5-)
I do not ascribe very much weight to the authority which we may derive from these observations with regard to our own treatment of the diphthongs e and o as either long or short in the Veda, yet in answer to those who are incredulous as to the fact that the vowels e and o could ever be short in Sanskrit, an appeal to the authority of those who constituted our text, and in constituting it clearly treated o as a short vowel, may not be without weight. We may also appeal to the fact that in Pali and Prakrit every final o and e can be treated as either long or short*. Starting from this we may certainly extend this observation, as it has been extended by Professor Kuhn, but we must not extend it too far. It is quite clear that in the same verse e and o can be used both as long and short. I give the Sashita text:
I, 84, 17. ka ishate | tugyate ko bibhdya ko mamsate | santam indram ko anti, kas tokaya | ka ibhayota rdye adhi bravat | tanve ko ganaya.
* See Lassen, Inst. Linguze Pracriticee, pp. 145, 147, 151; Cowell, Vararugi, Introduction, p. xvii. Kedarabhaffa says: Paxinir bhagavan prakrstalakshasam api vakti samskr#tad anyat, dirghaksharam 4a kutratid ekim matram upaititi. Secundum d’Alwisium commentator docet sermonem esse de litteris Sanscriticis eeto. Cf. Pischel, De Grammaticis prakriticis, 1874.
f 2
Ixxxiv VEDIC HYMNS.
But although there can be no doubt that e and o, when final, or at the end of the first member of a compound, may be treated in the Veda as anceps, there is no evidence, I believe, to show that the same licence applies to a medial or initial e or o. In IV, 45, 5, we must scan usrak garante prati vasto# asvind, ending the verse with an epitritus tertius instead of the usual dijambus *.
Thirdly, the fact that the initial short a, if following upon a word ending in o or e, is frequently not to be elided, is clearly recognised by the authors of the Pratisakhya (see p. xlviii). Nay, that they wished it to be pronounced even in passages where, in accordance with the requirements of the Pratisakhya, it had to disappear in the Samhita text, we may conclude from Stra 978. It is there stated that no pada should ever begin with a word that has no accent. The exceptions to this rule are few, and they are discussed in Sdtras 978-987. But if the initial a were not pronounced in I, 1, 9, sdk nak pitd-iva sindve 4gne su-upa4yana/ bhava, the second pada would begin with »gne, a word which, after the elision of the initial a, would be a word without an accent >,
Fourthly, the fact that other long vowels, besides e and 0, may under certain circumstances be used as short in the Veda, is not merely a modern theory, but rests on no less an authority than PAzini himself.