But it should be remembered that these metrical rules, for which all this carnage has been committed, are not founded upon any a priori principles, but deduced by ancient or modern metricians from those very hymns which seem so constantly to violate
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxi
them. Neither ancient nor modern metricians had, as far as we know, any evidence to go upon besides the hymns of the Rig-veda; and the philosophical speculations as to the origin of metres in which some of them indulge, and from which they would fain derive some of their unbending rules, are, as need hardly be said, of no consequence whatever. I cannot understand what definite idea even modern writers connect with such statements as that, for instance, the Trishfubh metre sprang from the Gagati metre, that the eleven syllables of the former are an abbreviation of the twelve syllables of the latter. Surely, metres are not made artificially, and by addition or subtraction. Metres have a natural origin in the rhythmic sentiment of different people, and they become artificial and arithmetical in the same way as language with its innate principles of law and analogy becomes in course of time grammatical and artificial. To derive one metre from another is like deriving a genitive from a nominative, which we may do indeed for grammatical purposes, but which no one would venture to do who is at all acquainted with the natural and independent production of grammatical forms. Were we to arrange the Trishtubh and Gagati metres in chronological order, I should decidedly place the Trishfubh first, for we see, as it were before our eyes, how sometimes one foot, sometimes two and three feet in a Trish¢tubh verse admit an additional syllable at the end, particularly in set phrases which would not submit to a Trishtubh ending. The phrase sam no bhava dvipade sam katushpade is evidently a solemn phrase, and we see it brought in without hesitation, even though every other line of the same strophe or hymn is Trish¢ubh, i.e. hendecasyllabic, not dodecasyllabic. See, for instance, VI, 74, 1; VII, 54, 1; X, 85,44; 165,1. However, I maintain by no means that this was the actual origin of Gagati metres; I only refer to it in order to show the groundlessness of metrical theories which represent the component elements, a foot of one or two or four syllables as given first, and as afterwards compounded into systems of two, three or four such feet, and who therefore would wish us to look upon the hendecasy]-~ labic Trishfubh as originally a dodecasyllabic Gagati, only cxii VEDIC HYMNS.
deprived of its tail. If my explanation of the name of Trishtubh, i. e. Three-step, is right, its origin must be ascribed to a far more natural process than that of artificial amputation. It was to accompany a choros, i.e. a dance, which after advancing freely for eight steps in one direction, turned back (vrtta) with three steps, the second of which was strongly marked, and would therefore, whether in song or recitation, be naturally accompanied by a long syllable. It certainly is so in the vast majority of Trishtubhs which have been handed down to us. But if among these verses we find a small number in which this simple and palpable rhythm is violated, and which nevertheless were preserved from the first in that imperfect form, although the temptation to set them right must have been as great to the ancient as it has proved to be to the modern students of the Veda, are we to say that nearly all, if not all, the rules that determine the length and shortness of syllables, and which alone give character to every verse, are to be suspended? Or, ought we not rather to consider, whether the ancient choregic poets may not have indulged occasionally in an irregular movement? We see that this was so with regard to Gayatrf verses. We see the greater freedom of the first and second pddas occasionally extend to the third ; and it will be impossible, without intolerable violence, to remove all the varieties of the last pada of a Gayatri of which I have given examples above, pages civ seqq.
It is, of course, impossible to give here all the evidence that might be brought forward in support of similar freedom Traishfubha in Trishfubh verses, and I admit that the
Vritta. number of real varieties with them is smaller than with the Gayatris. In order to make the evidence which I have to bring forward in support of these varieties as unassailable as possible, I have excluded nearly every pada that occurs only in the first, second, or third line of a strophe, and have restricted myself, with few exceptions, and those chiefly referring to padas that had been quoted by other scholars in support of their own theories, to the final padas of Trishfubh verses. Yet even with this limited evidence, I think I shall be able to establish at least three
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. CXill
varieties of Trishtubh. Preserving the same classification which I adopted before for the Gayatris, so as to include the important eighth syllable of the Trishfubh, which does not properly belong to the vrétta, I maintain that class 4. vu--, class 5. ---- , and class 8, — uu — must be recognised as legimate endings in the hymns of the Veda, and that by recognising them we are relieved from nearly all, if not all, the more violent prosodial licences which Professor Kuhn felt himself obliged to admit in his theory of Vedic metres.
§4.vu--.
---- , and class 8, — uu — must be recognised as legimate endings in the hymns of the Veda, and that by recognising them we are relieved from nearly all, if not all, the more violent prosodial licences which Professor Kuhn felt himself obliged to admit in his theory of Vedic metres.
§4.vu--.
The verses which fall under § 4 are so numerous that after those of the first Mazdala, mentioned above, they need not be given here in full. They are simply cases where the eighth syllable is not lengthened, and they cannot be supposed to run counter to any rule of the Pratisakhya, for the simple reason that the Pratisdkhya never gave such a rule as that the eighth syllable must be lengthened, if the ninth is short. Examples will be found in the final pada of Trishéubhs: II, 30,6; III, 36, 4; 53, 153 54,123; IV, 1,16; 2,73 95113 4,12; 6,13 23 437,73 11,5317, 33 23,6; 24,2; 27,13 28,53 55,53 57,23 Vol, 2; VI,17, 10; 21,8; 23,7; 25,53 29,6; 33,1; 62,1; 63, 7; VII, 21,5; 28,3; 42,43 56,15; 60,10; 84,2; 92,4; VIII, 1, 33; 96,93 1X, 92,5; X, 61,125; 135 74, 35117, 7.
In support of § 5. -— ——, the number of cases is smaller, but it should be remembered that it might be considerably increased if I had not restricted myself to the final pada of each Trish¢ubh, while the first, second, and third pddas would have yielded a much larger harvest :
I do not wish to deny that in several of these lines it would be possible to remove the long syllable from the ninth place by conjectural emendation. Instead of dyur in I, 89, 9, we might read dyu; in I, 92, 6, we might drop the augment of agigar; in II, 4, 2, we might admit synizesis in aratir, and then read gira-asvah, as in I, 141, 12. In VI, 25, 2, after eliding the a of ava, we might read dasiz. But even if, in addition to all this, we were to admit the possible suppression of final m in asmabhyam, mahyam, and in the accusative singular, or the suppression of s in the nominative singular, both of which would be extreme measures, we should still have a number of cases which could not be righted without even more vio- Jent remedies. Why then should we not rather admit the occasional appearance of a metrical variation which certainly has a powerful precedent in the dispondeus of Gayatris? I am not now acquainted with the last results of metrical criticism in Virgil, but, unless some new theories now prevail, I well recollect that spondaic hexameters, though small in number, much smaller than in the Veda, were recognised by the best scholars, and no emendations attempted to remove them. If then in Virgil we read,
If then in Virgil we read,
‘Cum patribus populoque, penatibusque et magnis dis,’ why not follow the authority of the best MSS. and the tradition of the Pratisikhyas and admit a dispondeus at the end of a Trishtubh rather than suspend, in order to meet this single difficulty, some of the most fundamental rules of prosody?
I now proceed to give a more numerous list of Traishtubha padas ending in a choriambus, — v vu -, again confining myself, with few exceptions, to final p4das:
§8 -Uvu-. I, 62, 3. sam usriyAbhir vavasanta nara. I, 103, 4. yad dha sQnué sravase nima dadhe. I, 121, 9; 122, 10°; 173, 8; 186, 2; II, 4,33 19,13 33, 14; IV, 1, 19°*; 25, 43 39, 23 V, 30, 123 41, 45 41,155
* ‘Nur eine Stelle habe ich mir angemerkt, wo das Metrum 4am verlangt.’
It is perfectly true that this sudden change in the rhythm of Trishtubh verses, making their ending iambic instead of trochaic, grates on our ears. But, I believe, that if we admit a short stop after the seventh syllable, the intended rhythm of these verses will become intelligible. We remarked a similar break in the verses of hymn X, 77, where the sudden transition to an iambic metre was used with great effect, and the choriambic ending, though less effective, is by no means offensive. It should be remarked also, that in many, though not in all cases, a czesura takes place after the seventh syllable, and this is, no doubt, a great help towards a better delivery of these choriambic Trish¢ubhs.
While, however, I contend for the recognition of these three varieties of the normal Trish¢ubh metre, I am quite willing to admit that other variations besides these, which occur from time to time in the Veda, form a legitimate subject of critical discussion.
§ 2, vuunr.
Trish‘ubh verses, the final pada of which ends in Uv vu -, I should generally prefer to treat as ending in a Gagata pada, in which this ending is more legitimate. Thus I should propose to scan:
ee ee eect eee I, 122, 13. prasastaye mahina rathavate. ee =a ea ely ye
III, 20, 5. vastin rudrafi Adityah tha huve.
ee eee eye te Ce
V, 2,1. purak pasyanti nihitam (tam) aratau.
v - weve vs -l vwuv = VI, 13, 5. vayo vrtkayaraye gasuraye. § ILu-u-.
I should propose the same medela for some final padas of Trishfubhs apparently ending inv — vu —. We might indeed, as has been suggested, treat these verses as single instances of that peculiar metre which we saw carried out in the whole of hymn X, 77, but at the end of a verse the ad-
Kuhn, Beitrage, vol. iv, p. 180; Bollensen, Zeitschrift der D. M.G., vol. xxii, p. 587. h2 cxvi VEDIC HYMNS.
mission of an occasional Gagata pada is more in accordance with the habit of the Vedic poets. Thus I should scan: w _- w - w ~v = i] ww _ ~ -
V, 33, 4. vresha samatsu dasasya néma it *.
iv, p. 180; Bollensen, Zeitschrift der D. M.G., vol. xxii, p. 587. h2 cxvi VEDIC HYMNS.
mission of an occasional Gagata pada is more in accordance with the habit of the Vedic poets. Thus I should scan: w _- w - w ~v = i] ww _ ~ -
V, 33, 4. vresha samatsu dasasya néma it *.
V, 41, 5°. rdya eshe svase dadhita dhiz.
After what I have said before on the real character of the teaching of the Pratisikhya, I need not show again that the fact of Uva/a’s counting ta of dadhita as the tenth syllable is of no importance in determining the real nature of these hymns, though it is of importance, as Professor Kuhn remarks (Beitrige, vol. iii, p. 451), in showing that Uvaza considered himself at perfect liberty in counting or not counting, for his own purposes, the elided syllable of avase.
Ce OO
VII, 4,6. mAapsava# pari shadima maduva.
§6.u---.
Final padas of Trishfubhs ending in uv — — — are very scarce. In VI, 1, 4, bhadrayAm te razayanta samdrishtau, it would be very easy to read bhadray4m te samdrish/au ranayanta; and in X, 74, 2, dyaur na vdrebhif krimavanta svaih, we may either recognise a Gagata pada, or read dyaur na vdrebhi’ krinavanta svaih, which would agree with the metre of hymn X, 77.
§7,--u-. Padas ending in — — v — do not occur as final in any
Traish¢fubha hymn, but as many GAgata padas occur in the body of Traish¢ubha hymns, we have to scan them as dodecasyllabic :
I, 63, 4%. tvam ha tyad indra Rodis sakhd.
IV, 26, 6%. pardvatak sakuno mandram madam.
The adjective pavaka which frequently occurs at the end of final and internal padas of Trish¢ubh hymns has always
® Professor Kuhn has finally adopted the same scanning, Beitrage, vol. iv, p. 184.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. CXvii
to be scanned pdvaka. Cf. IV, 51,2; VI, 5,2; 10,43 51,33 VII, 3,13 93; 9, 1°; 56,12; X, 46, 7°.
I must reserve what I have to say about other metres of the Veda for another opportunity, but I cannot leave
Omission of this subject without referring once more to a
CXvii
to be scanned pdvaka. Cf. IV, 51,2; VI, 5,2; 10,43 51,33 VII, 3,13 93; 9, 1°; 56,12; X, 46, 7°.
I must reserve what I have to say about other metres of the Veda for another opportunity, but I cannot leave
Omission of this subject without referring once more to a final mands. metrical licence which has been strongly advocated by Professor Kuhn and others, and by the admission of which there is no doubt that many difficulties might be removed, I mean the occasional omission of a final m and s, and the subsequent contraction of the final and initial vowels. The arguments that have been brought forward in support of this are very powerful. There is the general argument that final s and m are liable to be dropt in other Aryan languages, and particularly for metrical purposes. There is the stronger argument that in some cases final s and m in Sanskrit may or may not be omitted, even apart from any metrical stress. In Sanskrit we find that the demonstrative pronoun sas appears most frequently as sa (sa dadati), and if followed by liquid vowels, it may coalesce with them even in later Sanskrit. Thus we see saisha for sa esha, sendraf# for sa indrak sanctioned for metrical purposes even by P4zini, VI, 1, 134. We might refer also to feminines which have s in the nominative singular after bases in 4, but drop it after bases in i. We find in the Samhit4 text, V, 7, 8, svadhitiva, instead of svadhiti4-iva in the Pada text, sanctioned by the Pratisakhya 259; likewise IX, 61, 10, Samhit4, bhfimy 4 dade, instead of Pada, bhimis 4 dade. But before we draw any general conclusions from such instances, we should consider whether they do not admit of a grammatical instead of a metrical explanation. The nominative singular of the demonstrative pronoun was sa before it was sas; by the side of bhiimiZ we have a secondary form bhfimi; and we may conclude from svddhiti-van, I, 88, 2, that the Vedic poets knew of a form svadhiti, by the side of svddhitih.
As to the suppression of final m, however, we see it admitted by the best authorities, or we see at least alternate forms with or without m, in tubhya, which occurs
CXVili VEDIC HYMNS.
frequently instead of tubhyam®, and twice, at least, without apparently any metrical reason’, We find asmdka instead of asm&kam (I, 173, 10), yushmd&ka instead of yushmdkam (VII, 59, 9-10), yagadhva instead of yagadhvam (VIII, 2, 37) sanctioned both by the Samhita and Pada texts °
frequently instead of tubhyam®, and twice, at least, without apparently any metrical reason’, We find asmdka instead of asm&kam (I, 173, 10), yushmd&ka instead of yushmdkam (VII, 59, 9-10), yagadhva instead of yagadhvam (VIII, 2, 37) sanctioned both by the Samhita and Pada texts °
If then we have such precedents, it may well be asked why we should hesitate to adopt the same expedient, the omission of final m and s, whenever the Vedic metres seem to require it. Professor Bollensen’s remark, that Vedic verses cannot be treated to all the licences of Latin scanning 4, is hardly a sufficient answer; and he himself, though under a slightly different form, would admit as much, if not more, than has been admitted on this point by Professors Kuhn and Roth. Ona priori grounds I should by no means feel opposed to the admission of a possible elision of final s or m, or even n; and my only doubt is whether it is really necessary for the proper scanning of Vedic metres.
My own opinion has always been, that if we admit on a larger scale what in single words can hardly be doubted by anybody, viz. the pronunciation of two syllables as one, we need not fall back on the elision of final consonants in order to arrive at a proper scanning of Vedic metres. On this point I shall have to say a few words in conclusion, because I shall frequently avail myself of this licence, for the purpose of righting apparently corrupt verses in the hymns of the Rig-veda ; and I feel bound to explain, once for all, why I avail myself of it in preference to other emendations which have been proposed by scholars such as Professors Benfey, Kuhn, Roth, Bollensen, and others.
The merit of having first pointed out some cases where
two syllables must be treated as one, belongs, I believe, to Professor Bollensen in his article, ‘Zur Herstellung des Veda,’ published in Benfey’s Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p- 461. He proposed, for instance, to write hy4nd instead of hiyand, IX, 13, 6; dhydnd instead of dhiy4nd, VIII, 49, 5; sahyase instead of sdhiyase, I, 71,4; y4no instead of iyand, VIII, 50, 5, &c. The actual alteration of these words seems to me unnecessary; nor should we think of resorting to such violent measures in Greek where, as far as metrical purposes are concerned, two vowels have not unfrequently to be treated as one.
The actual alteration of these words seems to me unnecessary; nor should we think of resorting to such violent measures in Greek where, as far as metrical purposes are concerned, two vowels have not unfrequently to be treated as one.
That iva counts in many passages as one syllable is admitted by everybody. The only point on which I differ is that I do not see why iva, when monosyllabic, should be changed to va, instead of being pronounced quickly, or, to adopt the terminology of Greek grammarians, by synizesis *. Synizesis is well explained by Greek scholars as a quick pronunciation of two vowels so that neither should be lost, and as different thereby from synalcephe, which means the contraction of two vowels into one. This synizesis is by no means restricted to iva and a few other words, but seems to me a very frequent expedient resorted to by the ancient Rishis.
Originally it may have arisen from the fact that language allows in many cases alternate forms of one or two syllables, As in Greek we have double forms like dAeyewds and dAyewds, yakaxropdyos, and yAaxtopayos, mernvds and mryvds, tuxwés and tuxvds°, and as in Latin we have the shortening
® Synizesis in Greek applies only to the quick pronunciation of two vowels, if in immediate contact ; and not, if separated by consonants. Samprasdraza might seem a more appropriate term, but though the grammatical process designated in Sanskrit by Samprasarama offers some analogies, it could only by a new definition be applied to the metrical process here intended.
> A. B. p. 835, 30. éort 88 éy Tois Kowois pérpos eal 4} Kadoupévn ouverpdrnois 4 wal cuvifnors Adyera. “Oray yap parndvray trddAndos yéynrar } spopopd, rére yiveras 4 ouvi(nors els play cvdAaBhy. Arapdpe Be cuvadraipijs: h pay ydp ypappdrow tori wrowh, f 88 xpdvow wal 4 pty cwvaragh, ds Adye- Tat, gaivera, 4 3% ob. Mehlhorn, Griechische Grammatik, § 101. Thus in NeorrdAcyos we have synizesis, in NovwrdAeyos syneresis.
¢ Cf. Meblhorn, Griechische Grammatik, § 57.
Cxx VEDIC HYMNS.
Arapdpe Be cuvadraipijs: h pay ydp ypappdrow tori wrowh, f 88 xpdvow wal 4 pty cwvaragh, ds Adye- Tat, gaivera, 4 3% ob. Mehlhorn, Griechische Grammatik, § 101. Thus in NeorrdAcyos we have synizesis, in NovwrdAeyos syneresis.
¢ Cf. Meblhorn, Griechische Grammatik, § 57.
Cxx VEDIC HYMNS.
or suppression of vowels carried out on the largest scale®, we find in Sanskrit, too, such double forms as prsthvi or prithivi, adhi and dhi, api and pi, ava and va. The occurrence of such forms which have nothing to do with metrical considerations, but are perfectly legitimate from a grammatical point of view, would encourage a tendency to treat two syllables—and particularly two short syllables—as one, whenever an occasion arose. There are, besides, in the Vedic Sanskrit a number of forms where, as we saw, a long syllable has to be pronounced as two. In some of these cases this pronunciation is legitimate, i.e. it preserves an original dissyllabic form which in course of time had become monosyllabic. In other cases the same process takes place through a mistaken sense of analogy, where we cannot prove that an original dissyllabic form had any existence even in a prehistoric state of language. The occurrence of a number of such alternate forms would naturally leave a general impression in the minds of poets that two short syllables and one long syllable were under certain circumstances interchangeable. So considerable a number of words in which a long syllable has to be pronounced as two syllables has been collected by Professors Kuhn, Bollensen, and others, that no doubt can remain on this subject. Vedic poets, being allowed to change a semivowel into a vowel, were free to say nasatya and nisaty4, VIII, 5, 323 prithivyds and prithivyah; pitro# and pitroh, I, 31, 4. They could separate compound words, and pronounce ghritannah or ghrita-annaf, VII, 3,1. They could insert a kind of shewa or svarabhakti in words like simne or samne, VIII, 6, 47; dh4mne or dhimne, VIII, 92, 25; ardvzak and ardvanah, IX, 63, 5. They might vary between pdnti and pdnti, I, 41, 2; ydthana and ydthana, I, 39, 3; nidhdtok and nidhatof, I, 41, 9; tredhd and tredh@, I, 34, 8; devas and devah (besides devasak), I, 23, 24; rodasi and rodast, I, 33, 9; 59,43 64,9; and rodasyo, I, 33,5; 59,23 117, 103
" See the important chapters on ‘ Kiirzung der Vokale’ and ‘ Tilgung der Vokale’ in Corssen’s ‘ Aussprache des Lateinischen;’ and more especially his remarks on the so-called irrational vowels in Plautus, ibid. vol. ii, p. 70.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxxi
vol. ii, p. 70.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxxi
VI, 24, 3; VII, 6, 2; X, 74, 1% Need we wonder then if we find that, on the other hand, they allowed themselves to pronounce prithivi as prithivi, I, 191, 6; VII, 34, 73 99, 33 dhrishnava as dhrishnava, V, 52, 14; suvdna as suvdna? There is no reason why we should change the spelling of suvana into svana. The metre itself tells us at once where suvana is to be pronounced as two or as three syllables. Nor is it possible to believe that those who first handed down and afterwards wrote down the text of the Vedic hymns, should have been ignorant of that freedom of pronunciation. Why, there is not one single passage in the whole of the ninth Mamdala, where, as far as I know, suvana should not be pronounced as dissyllabic, i.e. as suvina; and to suppose that the scholars of India did not know how that superfluous syllable should be removed, is really taking too low an estimate of men like Vy4A or Saunaka.
But if we once admit that in these cases two syllables separated by a single consonant were pronounced as one and were metrically counted as one, we can hardly resist the evidence in favour of a similar pronunciation in a large number of other words, and we shall find that by the admission of this rapid pronunciation, or of what in Plautus we should call irrational vowels, many verses assume at once their regular form without the necessity of admitting the suppression of final s, m, n, or the introduction of other prosodial licences. To my mind the most convincing passages are those where, as in the Atyash/i and similar hymns, a poet repeats the same phrase twice, altering only one or two words, but without endeavouring to avoid an excess of syllables which, to our mind, unless we resort to synizesis, would completely destroy the uniformity of the metre. Thus we read:
* Professor Bollensen in some of these passages proposes to read rodasios.
In I, 96, 4, no change is necessary if we read visim. Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 587.
CXXii VEDIC HYMNS.
Here no«pra must be pronounced with one ictus only, in order to get a complete agreement between the two iambic diameters.
I, 134, 5. ugrd ishazanta bhurvami,
In I, 96, 4, no change is necessary if we read visim. Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 587.
CXXii VEDIC HYMNS.
Here no«pra must be pronounced with one ictus only, in order to get a complete agreement between the two iambic diameters.
I, 134, 5. ugrd ishazanta bhurvami, apdm ishanta bhurvami. As ishanta never occurs again, I suspect that the original reading was ishavzanta in both lines, and that in the second line ishavanta, pronounced rapidly, was mistaken for ishanta. Is not bhurvdmi a locative, corresponding to the datives in vane which are so frequently used in the sense of infinitives ? See note to I, 6, 8, page 47 seq. In I, 138, 3, we must read: — ahe/amdna urusamsa sari bhava, vage-vage sari bhava. In I, 129, 11, adhd hi tvd ganitd giganad vaso, rakshohaam tvA giganad vaso, we might try to remove the difficulty by omitting vaso at the end of the refrain, but this would be against the general character of these hymns. We want the last word vaso, if possible, at the end of both lines. But, if so, we must admit two cases of synizesis, or, if this seems too clumsy, we must omit tvd.
I shall now proceed to give a number of other examples in which the same consonantal synizesis seems necessary in order to make the rhythm of the verses perceptible to our ears as it was to the ears of the ancient Azshis.
The preposition anu takes synizesis in
I, 127, 1. ghritasya vibhr4shéim anu vashd sofishd. Cf. X, 14, 1.
The preposition abhi:
I, 91, 23. rdyo bhdgam sahas4vann abhi yudhya.
Here Professor Kuhn changes sahasdvan into sahasva/, which, no doubt, is a very simple and very plausible emendation. But in altering the text of the Veda many things have to be considered, and in our case it might be objected that sahasva/ never occurs again as an epithet of Soma.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. CXXili
As an invocation sahasva4 refers to no deity but Agni, and even in its other cases it is applied to Agni and Indra only. However, I do not by any means maintain that sahasva/ could not be applied to Soma, for nearly the same arguments could be used against sahas4van, if conjecturally put in the place of sahasva#; I only wish to point out how everything ought to be tried first, before we resort in the Veda to conjectural emendations. Therefore, if in our passage there should be any objection to admitting the synizesis in abhi, I should much rather propose synizesis of sahas4van, than change it into sahasvak. There is synizesis in maha, e.g. I, 133, 6. avar maha indra dAdrzhi srudhi nak. Although this verse is quoted by the Pratisékhya, Sdtra 522, as one in which the lengthened syllable dhi of srudhi does not occupy the tenth place, and which therefore required special mention, the original poet evidently thought otherwise, and lengthened the syllable, being a syllable liable to be lengthened, because it really occupied the tenth place, and therefore received a peculiar stress.
The preposition pari: VI, 52, 14. m4 vo vakAmsi paritakshydni vokam, sumneshv id vo antamd madema. Here Professor Kuhn (Beitrage, vol. iv, p. 197) begins the last pada with vokam, but this is impossible, unless we change the accent of vokam, though even then the separation of the verb from m4 and the accumulation of two verbs in the last line would be objectionable.
Hari is pronounced as hari:
VII, 32,12. ya indro harivin na dabhanti tam ripad.
Il, 18, 5. 4 Aatvarimsatd haribhir yugdnah.
Hence I propose to scan the difficult verse I, 167, 1, as follows :
sahasram ta indra-Qtayo nad, sahasram isho harivo gartatamak®,
* As to the scanning of the second line see p. cxiv.
CXXiV VEDIC HYMNS.
sahasram f rayo mAdayadhyai, sahasriza upa no yantu vagah.
That the final o instead of as is treated as a short syllable we saw before, and in I, 133, 6, we observed that it was liable to synizesis. We see the same in ww wwe eo™ - vw 4 _- - I, 175, 6. maya ivapo na trishyate babhitha.
ran V, 61,16. 4 yagaiydso vavrittana.
The pragréhya i of the dual is known in the Veda to be liable in certain cases to Sandhi. If we extend this licence beyond the limits recognised by the Pratisakhya, we might scan
VI, 52, 14. ubhe rodasy apdm napdk ka manma, or we might shorten the i before the a, and admitting synizesis, scan: _ ubhe rodasi apam napa ka manma.
In ITI, 6, 10, we must either admit Sandhi between pra&i and adhvaréva, or contract the first two syllables of adhvaréva.
The o and e of vocatives before vowels, when changed into av or a(y), are liable to synizesis :
mm .
IV, 48, 1. vayav 4 Aandrena rathena (Anushtubh, c.)
IV, 1, 2. sa bhrdtaram varuzam agna 4 vavritsva.
The termination avak also, before vowels, seems to count as one syllable in V, 52, 14, divo va dhrishnava ogas4, which would render Professor Bollensen’s correction (Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p. 480), dhy¢shzuogasa, unnecessary.
Like ava and iva, we find aya and iya, too, in several words liable to be contracted in pronunciation; e.g. vayam, VI, 23,5; ayam, I, 177, 4; iyam, VII, 66, 8?; I, 186, 11 (unless we read vorsme); X,129,6. Professor Bollensen’s proposal to change iyam to im, and ayam to 4m (Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p. 461), would only cause obscurity, without any adequate gain, while other words would by a similar suppression of vowels or consonants become simply irrecognisable. In I, 169, 6, for instance, 4dha has to be
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. CXXV
ii, p. 461), would only cause obscurity, without any adequate gain, while other words would by a similar suppression of vowels or consonants become simply irrecognisable. In I, 169, 6, for instance, 4dha has to be
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. CXXV
pronounced with one ictus; in VI, 26, 7, sadhavira is trisyllabic. In VI, 10,1, we must admit synizesis in adhvaré ; in I, 161, 8, either in udakdm or in abravitana; I, 110, 9, in rtbhumdn; VIII, 79, 4, in divak; V, 4, 6, in nvttama (unless we read so=gne); I, 164,17, in para#; VI, 15, 14, in pévaka ; I, 191, 6; VII, 34, 7; 99, 3, in prithivi; II, 20, 8, in ptra#; VI, 10, 1, in prayat{; VI, 17, 7, in bréhat ; IX, 19, 6, in bhiydsam ; I, 133, 6, in maha ; II, 28, 6; IV, 1,2; VI, 75, 18, in varuza; III, 30, 21, in vrishabha; VII, 41, 6, in vaginak; II, 43, 2, in sfsumati#Z; VI, 51, 2, in sanutar; VI, 18, 12, in sthavirasya, &c.
These remarks will, I hope, suffice in order to justify the principles by which I have been guided in my treatment of the text and in my translation of the Rig-veda. I know I shall seem to some to have been too timid in retaining whatever can possibly be retained in the traditional text of these ancient hymns, while others will look upon the emendations which I have suggested as unpardonable temerity. Let everything be weighed in the just scales of argument. Those who argue for victory, and not for truth, can have no hearing in our court. There is too much serious work to be done to allow time for wrangling or abuse. Any dictionary will supply strong words to those who condescend to such warfare, but strong arguments require honest labour, sound judgment, and, above all, a genuine love of truth.
The second volume, which I am now preparing for Press, will contain the remaining hymns addressed to the Maruts. The notes will necessarily have to be reduced to smaller dimensions, but they must always constitute the more important part in a translation or, more truly, in a deciphering of Vedic hymns.
1. In the beginning there arose the Golden Child (Hirazya-garbha'); as soon as born, he alone was the lord of all that is. He stablished the earth and this heaven:—Who is the God to whom ve shall offer sacrifice ?
2. He who gives breath, he who gives strength, whose! command all the bright gods revere, whose shadow? is immortality, whose shadow is death :— Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
3. He who through his might became the sole king of the breathing and twinkling’ world, who governs all this, man and beast :—Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
is immortality, whose shadow is death :— Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
3. He who through his might became the sole king of the breathing and twinkling’ world, who governs all this, man and beast :—Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
4. He through whose might! these snowy mountains are, and the sea, they say, with the distant river (the Ras4*), he of whom these regions are indeed the two arms :—Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
5. He through whom the awful heaven and the earth were made fast}, he through whom the ether was stablished, and the firmament; he who measured the air in the sky?:—Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
[32] B
p. 2
6. He to whom heaven and earth’, standing firm by his will, look up, trembling in their mind; he over whom the risen sun shines forth :—Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
7. When the great waters! went everywhere, holding the germ (Hiramya-garbha), and generating light, then there arose from them the (sole?) breath of the gods :—Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
8. He who by his might looked even over the waters which held power (the germ) and generated the sacrifice (light'), he who alone is God above all gods?:—Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
9. May he not hurt us, he who is the begetter of the earth, or he, the righteous, who begat the heaven; he who also begat the bright and mighty waters :—Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice ?
[10'. Pragdpati, no other than thou embraces all these created things. May that be ours which we desire when sacrificing to thee: may we be lords of wealth !]
- ~
NOTES. xX, 121. 3
NOTES.
This hymn is ascribed to Hiramyagarbha Prag4patya, and is supposed to be addressed to Ka, Who, i.e. the Unknown God.
First translated in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 1859, p. 569; see also Hibbert Lectures, 1882, p. 301; Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, IV, p. 15.
Verse 1=VS. XIII, 4; XXIII, 1; XXV, 10; TS. IV, 1, 8, 3; 2, 8,2; AV. IV, 2, 7.
Verse 2=VS. XXV, 13; TS. IV, 1, 8, 4; VII, 5,17,1; AV. IV, 2,1; XIII, 3, 24.
Verse 3=VS. XXIII, 3; XXV, 11; TS. IV, 1, 8, 4; VII, 5, 16,1; AV. IV, 2, 2.
Verse 4=VS. XXV, 12; TS. IV, 1, 8, 4; AV. IV, 2, 5.
Verse 5=VS. XXXII, 6; TS. IV, 1, 8,5; AV. IV, 2, 4.
Verse 6=VS. XXXII, 7; TS. IV, 1, 8, 5; AV. IV, 2, 3.
Verse 7=VS. XXVII, 25; XXXII, 7; TS. II, 2, 12,1; IV, 1, 8,5; TA. I, 23, 8; AV. IV, 2, 6.
Verse 8=VS. XXVII, 26; XXXII. 7; TS. IV, 1, 8, 6.
Verse 9=VS. XII, 102; TS. IV, 2, 7, 1.
Verse 10=VS. X, 20; XXIII, 65; TS. I, 8, 14, 2; III, 2, 5,6; TB. II, 8,1, 2; III, 5,7,1; AV. VII, 79, 4; 80, 3.
Verse 7=VS. XXVII, 25; XXXII, 7; TS. II, 2, 12,1; IV, 1, 8,5; TA. I, 23, 8; AV. IV, 2, 6.
Verse 8=VS. XXVII, 26; XXXII. 7; TS. IV, 1, 8, 6.
Verse 9=VS. XII, 102; TS. IV, 2, 7, 1.
Verse 10=VS. X, 20; XXIII, 65; TS. I, 8, 14, 2; III, 2, 5,6; TB. II, 8,1, 2; III, 5,7,1; AV. VII, 79, 4; 80, 3.
This is one of the hymns which has always been suspected as modern by European interpreters. The reason is clear. To us the conception of one God, which pervades the whole of this hymn, seems later than the conception of many individual gods, as recognised in various aspects of nature, such as the gods of the sky, the sun, the storms, or the fire. And in a certain sense we may be right, and language also confirms our sentiment. In our hymn there are several words which do not occur again in the Rigveda, or which occur in places only which have likewise been suspected to be of more modern date. Hiranyagarbha
B2
p. 4
itself is an maf Aeyduevov. Sdm avartata is found only in the last Mandala, X, 90, 14; 129, 4. Bhitd also, in the sense of what is, occurs in the tenth Mavdala only. It is used three times (X, 55, 2; 58, 12; 90, 2) as opposed to bhavya, i.e. what is and what will be; and once more in the sense of all that is (X, 85, 17). Atmad&, in the sense of giving life, is another aaaf Aeydpevov. Prasish is restricted to Mandalas I (I, 145, 1), IX (IX, 66, 6; 86, 32), and our passage. Himdavat, &éaf Acyduevov. The repetition of the relative pronoun in verses 2 and 4 is unusual. In the tenth verse the compound yat-k4mas is modern, and the insertion of et&ni between tvdt and anydZ is at all events exceptional. The passage V, 31, 2 is not parallel, because in tvdt indra vdsya# anydt, the ablative tvat is governed by vasyad. In VI, 21, 10, nd tvavan anydh amrita tvat asti, anyds is separated from tvdt by a vocative only, as in VIII, 24, 11.
But when we say that a certain hymn is modern, we must carefully consider what we mean. Our hymn, for instance, must have existed not only previous to the Brahmaza period, for many Brahmazas presuppose it, but previous to the Mantra period also. It is true that no verse of it occurs in the SAma-veda, but in the SAma-veda-brahmama IX, 9, 12, vetse I at least is mentioned*. Most of its verses, however, occur in the Vagasaneyi-sasmhitd, in the Taittirtyasamhité, and in the Atharva-veda-samhit4, nay, the last verse, to my mind the most suspicious of all, occurs most frequently in the other Samhit4s and Brahmazas.
But though most of the verses of our hymn occur in other Samhit4s, they do not always occur in the same order.
In the Vag. Samh. we have the first verse in XIII, 4, but no other verse of our hymn follows. We have the first verse again in XXIII, 1, but not followed by verse 2, but by verse 3 (XXIII, 3)". Then we have verse 1 once more
® The last line is here, tasmai ta indo havish4 vidhema, let us sacrifice to him with thy oblation, O Soma! b Var. lect. nimeshat4s.
NOTES. xX, I2I. 5
We have the first verse again in XXIII, 1, but not followed by verse 2, but by verse 3 (XXIII, 3)". Then we have verse 1 once more
® The last line is here, tasmai ta indo havish4 vidhema, let us sacrifice to him with thy oblation, O Soma! b Var. lect. nimeshat4s.
NOTES. xX, I2I. 5
in XXV, 10, followed by verse 3 (XXV, 11), by verse 4 (XXV, 12), and then by verse 2 (XXV, 13).
We have verses 5, 6,7, 8 in VS. XXXII, 6 and 7, and verses 7 and 8 in VS. XXVII, 25 and 26, while verse 9 is found in XII, 102 only*, and the last verse in X, 20, and XXIII, 65.
In the Taitt. Samhita the verses follow more regularly, — still never quite in the same order as in the Rig-veda. In TS. IV, 1, 8, 3°, we have verses 1 to 8, but verse 3 before verse 2, and verse 6 before verse 5, while verse 9 follows in IV, 2, 7, 1.
InTS. v. 3 stands before v. 2,in VII, 5, 16,1, and VII, 5, 17,1.
In TS. II, 2, 12, the pratikas of verses 1, 7, 10 are quoted in succession.
Verse 7 occurs with important various readings in TA. I, 23, 8, po ha yad brihatir garbham &yan daksham dddh4na ganayantiz svayambhim, tata imé=dhydsvigyanta sargah.
Lastly in the AV. we find verses 1 to 7 from IV, 2, 1, to IV, 2, 7, but arranged in a different order, viz. as 2, 3, 6, 5, 4; 7, 1, and with important various readings.
Verse 2, y6’ 3 syése dvipado yds Adtushpada, as third pada; also in XIII, 3, 24.
Verse 3, eké rigd; ydsya khayaimrttam ydsya mrityih, as third pada.
final arrangement of the four Samhit4s, and if we persist in calling a hymn, dating from that period, a modern hymn, we must make it quite clear that, according to the present state of our knowledge, such a hymn cannot well be more modern than 1ooo B.C. Besides the variations in the arrangement of the verses of our hymn, the very considerable various readings which we find in the VS., TS., and AV. are highly instructive, as showing the frequent employment of our hymn for sacrificial purposes. In several cases these various readings are of great importance, as we shall see.
Verse 1.
Muir: Hira#yagarbha arose in the beginning ; born, he was the one lord of things existing. He established the earth and this sky: to what god shall we offer our oblation ?
In several cases these various readings are of great importance, as we shall see.
Verse 1.
Muir: Hira#yagarbha arose in the beginning ; born, he was the one lord of things existing. He established the earth and this sky: to what god shall we offer our oblation ?
Lupwic: Hirazyagarbha hat zuerst sich gebildet, er ward geboren als einziger herr alles gewordenen, dise erde und disen himel halt er; Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten.
Note 1. Hirazyagarbha* has been translated in different ways, and it would perhaps be best to keep it as a proper name, which it is in later times. It means literally the golden embryo, the golden germ or child, or born of a golden womb, and was no doubt an attempt at naming the sun. Soon, however, that name became mythological. The golden child was supposed to have been so called because it was Pragdpati, the lord of creation, when dwelling as yet in the golden egg, and Hiramyagarbha became in the end a recognised name of Pragdpati, see Say. on X, 121, 1. All this is fully explained by Sayama, TS. IV, 1, 8, 3; IV, 2, 8, 2; by Mahidhara,VS. XIII, 4.
Verse 2.
MuIR: He who gives breath, who gives strength, whose command all, [even] the gods, reverence, whose shadow is immortality, whose shadow is death: to what god shall we offer our oblation ?
® M. M., India, What can it teach us? pp. 144, 162.
. \ , 7
- _- NOTES.” ~X; 121, 3. 7
LupDwic: Geber des lebendigen hauches, geber der kraft, zu des unterweisung alle gétter sich einfinden, des glanz die unsterblichkeit, dessen der tod ist, Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten.
Note 1. In order to account for the repetition of yasya, Sa4yana and Mahidhara take visve for men, and devas for gods.
Note 2. It is difficult to say what is meant by Aaya, shadow. I take it in the sense of what belongs to the god, as the shadow belongs to a man, what follows him, or is determined by him. In that sense Sdyaza also takes it, TS. IV, 1, 8, 4, yasya pragapates khayavat svadhinam amvitam, moksharipam, mrityud, prazinam marazam api, yasya khayeva svadhinaf; and, though not quite so clearly, in RV. X,121, 2. Mahidhara on the contrary takes kAay4 in the sense of refuge, and says, whose shadow, i.e. whose worship, preceded by knowledge, is amréta, immortality, a means of deliverance*, while ignorance of him is death, or leads to samsara.
Verse 3.
MuIR: Who by his might became the sole king of the breathing and winking world, who is the lord of this twofooted and four-footed [creation]: to what god shall we offer our oblation ?
LupDwiGc: Der des atmenden, augenbewegenden lebendigen durch seine grésze der einzige kénig geworden; der verfiigt iiber disz zwei- und vier-fiiszige, Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten.
LupDwiGc: Der des atmenden, augenbewegenden lebendigen durch seine grésze der einzige kénig geworden; der verfiigt iiber disz zwei- und vier-fiiszige, Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten.
Note 1. It is difficult to say whether nimishatas means twinkling or sleeping. It has both meanings as to wink has in English. Sdayaza (X, 121, 3; TS. IV, 1, 8, 4) and Mahidhara (VS. XXIII, 3°) explain it by winking. This may be right as expressing sensuous perception, in addition to mere breathing. In X, 190, 2, visvasya mishaté vasi means, lord of all that winks, i.e.
® muktihetu, not yuktihetu, as Weber prints. b Is nimesh4to in XXIII, 3, a varia lectio, or an asuddha? In XXV, 13, we read nimishato.
p. 8
lives. The later idea, that the gods do not wink, has nothing to do with our passage.
Verse 4,
MuIR: Whose greatness these snowy mountains, and the sea with the Rasa (river), declare,—of whom these regions, of whom they are the arms: to what god shall we offer our oblation ?
LuDWIG: Dessen die schneebedeckten (berge, die Himavan) vermdége seiner grésze, als des eigentum man ocean und Rasa nennt, des dise himelsgegenden, des arme sie, Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten.
Note 1. Muir’s translation, which suggests itself very naturally to a European mind, is impossible, because mahitvé cannot be either mahitvim (as Sayama also and Mahidhara suggest), or mahitvaéni; and because 4huk does not mean declare. Otherwise nothing could be better than his rendering: ‘Whose greatness these snowy mountains, and the sea with the Rasa (river), declare.’
Mahitva, as Sayana also rightly perceives, TS. IV, 1, 8, 4, is a very common instrumental (see Lanman, Nouninflection, pp. 335-6), and the same mahitva must be supplied for samudram. We might make the whole sentence dependent on 4hu& without much change of meaning. The Atharva-veda text supplies a lectio facilior, but not therefore melior.
Note 2. The Rasd is a distant river, in some respects like the Greek Okeanos. Dr. Aufrecht takes it as a name of the milky way, Z. D. M. G. XIII, 498: see Muir, S. T. II, P- 373, n. 19- .
Verse 5.
MuIR: By whom the sky is fiery, and the earth fixed, by whom the firmament and the heaven were established, who in the atmosphere is the measurer of the aerial space: to what god shall we offer our oblation?
Lupwic: Durch den gewaltig der himel und fest die erde, durch den gestiitzt Svar, und das gewdélbe, der die rdume im mittelgebiete ausgemeszen, Ka, dem gotte, mochten wir mit havis aufwarten.
p. 9
Note 1. In this verse I decidedly prefer the reading of the Atharva-veda, yena dyaur ugr4 prithivi 4a dri/ke. It seems not a lectio facilior, and we avoid the statement that the heaven has been made ugré. Ugra, as applied to dyaus, means awful and grand, as an inherent quality rather, and not simply strong. See Ludwig, Notes, p. 441.
It seems not a lectio facilior, and we avoid the statement that the heaven has been made ugré. Ugra, as applied to dyaus, means awful and grand, as an inherent quality rather, and not simply strong. See Ludwig, Notes, p. 441.
Note 2. Ragaso vimanas has been fully discussed by Muir, S. T. IV, p. 71, but it is difficult to find a right translation for it, because the cosmography of the Veda is so different from our own (see I, 6, 9, note 1, and I, 19, 3, note 1). I think we may translate it here by the air, or even by space, particularly the bright air in the sky, the sky (antariksha or nabhas) being between heaven (dyu) and earth (prithivi), while sva# and naka are still higher than the heaven (dyu), svaz being sometimes explained as the abode of the sun, the ether, or empyrean, naka, the firmament, as svarga (Mahidhara); or sva# as svarga, and naka as Aditya (Sayama). Vimdana is here simply the measurer, though vim4, from meaning to measure, is apt to take the meaning of to make, which is an excuse for Sayana’s rendering, ‘ who makes the rain in the sky.’
The Atharva-veda rendering is very free, and certainly no improvement.
Verse 6.
MuIR: To whom two contending armies, sustained by his succour, looked up, trembling in mind ; over whom the risen sun shines: to what god shall we offer our oblation ?
Lupwic: Auf den die beiden schlachtreihen durch (ihre) begirde aufgestellt in ordnung ihren blick richten, zitternd, im geiste, wo dariiber hin aufgegangen Sara ausstralt, Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten.
Note 1. It would be well to read rédast for krdndast (which B. R. explain by ‘two armies’), and the various reading in AV. IV, 2, 3 decidedly points in that direction. — But even if kr4ndasi stands, it must be taken in the same sense as rédasi. Uditau vyetiin TS. IV, 1, 8, 5 is explained by udayavishaye vividham gakkhati.
p. 10
Verse 7.
Muir: When the great waters pervaded the universe containing an embryo, and generating fire, thence arose the one spirit (asu) of the gods: to what god shall we offer our oblation?
Lupwic: Als die groszen waszer kamen, die allen keim in sich faszten, zeugend den Agni, da kam zu stande der gotter einziger lebensgeist; Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten. ;
Lupwic: Als die groszen waszer kamen, die allen keim in sich faszten, zeugend den Agni, da kam zu stande der gotter einziger lebensgeist; Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten. ;
Note 1. The waters here referred to have to be understood as the waters in the beginning of the creation, where, as we read (RV. X, 129, 3), ‘everything was like a sea without a light,’ or, as the Satapatha-brahmama (XI, 1, 6, 1) says, ‘everything was water and sea.’ These waters held the germ’, and produced the golden light, the sun>, whence arose the life of all the gods, viz. Pragapati. The Atharvaveda adds a verse which repeats the same idea more clearly: po vatsdm gandyantir garbham agre sdmairayan, tasyota gdyamAnasyélba Asid dhirazydyat, ‘In the beginning the waters, producing a young, brought forth an embryo, and when it was being born, it had a golden covering.’ The sunrise serves here as elsewhere as an image of the creation.
Note 2. Grassmann proposes to omit eka, because it is absent in the Maitrayazt Sakha. The metre shows the same.
Vorse 8.
MuIR: He who through his greatness beheld the waters which contained power, and generated sacrifice, who was the one god above the gods: to what god shall we offer our oblation?
LupDwIG: Der in seiner grésze sogar die waszer iiberschaute, wie sie die fahigkeit besitzend erzeugten das opfer, der der einzige gott war iiber den gottern, Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten.
Note 1. In ddksham dddhan4 ganayantir yagiidm, we have a repetition of w..at was said in the preceding verse,
® See RV. X, 82, 5-6. b See RV. X, 72, 7.
NOTES. X, 121, 10. II
daksham standing for garbham, yagfidm for agnim, which is actually the reading of TS. The Atharva-veda does not contain this verse, which is used as an anya vikalpita yagya in TS.
Note 2. It is curious that one of the most important sentences in the Rig-veda, yo deveshv adhi deva eka 4sit, should have been changed in the Atharva-veda IV, 2, 6 into yasu devishv adhi deva 4sit, ‘ over which divine waters there was the god.’ See Ludwig, Notes, p. 441.
Verge 9.
MUIR: May he not injure us, he who is the generator of the earth, who, ruling by fixed ordinances, produced the heavens, who produced the great and brilliant waters: to what god shall we offer our oblation?
LupDWIG: Nicht schadige uns, der der erde erzeuger, oder der den himel bereitet mit warhafter satzung, der auch die wasser, die hellen, die machtigen erzeugt hat, Ka, dem gotte, méchten wir mit havis aufwarten.
Verso 10.
MuIR: Pragdpati, no other than thou is lord over all these created things: may we obtain that, through desire of which we have invoked thee: may we become masters of riches.
LupwWIG: Pragapati, kein anderer als du hat umfasst die wesen alle, der wunsch, um deswillen wir dir opfern, der werde uns zu teil, besitzer von reichtiimern mégen wir sein.
LupwWIG: Pragapati, kein anderer als du hat umfasst die wesen alle, der wunsch, um deswillen wir dir opfern, der werde uns zu teil, besitzer von reichtiimern mégen wir sein.
Note 1. This verse is certainly extremely weak after all that preceded, still, to judge from its frequent occurrence, we cannot well discard it. All we can say is that nowhere, except in the Rig-veda, does it form the final verse of our hymn, and thus spoil its whole character.
That character consists chiefly in the burden of the nine verses, Kasmai devaya havisha vidhema, ‘To what god shall we offer sacrifice?’ This is clearly meant to express a desire of finding out the true, but unknown god, and to do so, even after all has been said that can be said of a supreme god. To finish such a hymn with a statementp. 12 that Pragdpati is the god who deserves our sacrifice, may be very natural theologically, but it is entirely uncalled for poetically. The very phrase Kasmai devaya havisha vidhema must have been a familiar phrase, for we find in a hymn addressed to the wind, X, 168, 4, after all has been said that can be said of him, the concluding line: ghdéshak ft asya svinvire na rdpdm tdsmai vataya havisha vidhema, ‘his sound indeed is heard, but he is not seen—to that VAta let us offer sacrifice.’
But more than this, on the strength of hymns like our own in which the interrogative pronoun ka, ‘who,’ occurs, the Brahmans actually invented a god of the name of Ka. I pointed this out many years ago in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1860, p. 433), where I said: ‘In accordance with the same system, we find that the authors of the Brahmazas had so completely broken with the past that, forgetful of the poetical character of the hymns, and the yearning of the poets after the unknown god, they exalted the interrogative pronoun into a deity, and acknowledged a god ‘ Ka, or Who.’ In the Taittiriyasamhita (I, 7, 6, 6), in the Kaushitaki-brahmaza (XXIV, 4), in the Tazdya-brahmana (XV, 10), and in the Satapatha-brahmaza*, whenever interrogative verses occur, the author states, that Ka is Pragdpati, or ‘the Lord of Creatures’ (Pragapatir vai Kak). Nor did they stop there. Some of the hymns in which the interrogative pronoun occurred were called Kadvat, i.e. having kad or quid. But soon a new adjective was formed, and not only the hymns, but the sacrifices also, offered to the god, were called Kaya, or who-ish®. This word, which is not to be identified with the Latin cujus, cuja, cujum, but is merely the artificial product of an effete mind, is found in the Taittiriya-samhita (I, 8, 3, 1), and in the Vagasaneyi-samhita (XXIV, 15). At the time of PAmini
® Satap. Brahm. I, 1,1, 13; II, 5, 2,13; IV, 5, 6, 4; also Aitar. Brahm. III, 21.
b Asv. Sr. Sftra II, 17, 14; Ké&ty. Sr. Sfitra V, 4, 23; Vait. Sfitra VIII, 22, ed. Garbe.
NOTES, xX, I2I, I0. 13
At the time of PAmini
® Satap. Brahm. I, 1,1, 13; II, 5, 2,13; IV, 5, 6, 4; also Aitar. Brahm. III, 21.
b Asv. Sr. Sftra II, 17, 14; Ké&ty. Sr. Sfitra V, 4, 23; Vait. Sfitra VIII, 22, ed. Garbe.
NOTES, xX, I2I, I0. 13
this word had acquired such legitimacy as to call for a separate rule explaining its formation (P4z. IV, 2, 25). The commentator there explains Ka by Brahman. After this we can hardly wonder that in the later Sanskrit literature of the Purazas, Ka appears as a recognised god, as the supreme god, with a genealogy of his own, perhaps even with a wife; and that in the Laws of Manu, one of the recognised forms of marriage, generally known by the name of Prag4pati-marriage, occurs under the monstrous title of ‘Kaya.’ Stranger still, grammarians who know that ka forms the dative kasmai only if it is an interrogative pronoun, consider kasmai in our hymn as irregular, because, as a proper name, Ka ought to form the dative Kaya.
p. 14
p. 6
ASH7AKA I, ADHYAYA 1, VARGA 11-12.
To InpRA AND THE Maruts (THE STORM-GODs).
1. Those who stand around? him while he moves on, harness the bright red (steed)1; the lights in heaven shine forth *.
2. They harness to the chariot on each side his (Indra’s)! two favourite bays, the brown, the bold, who can carry the hero.
3. Thou who createst light where there was no light, and form, O men?! where there was no form, hast been born together with the dawns *.
4. Thereupon! they (the Maruts), according to their wont *, assumed again the form of new-born babes, taking their sacred name.
5. Thou, O Indra, with the swift Maruts', who break even through the stronghold’, hast found even in their hiding-place the bright ones® (days or clouds).
6. The pious singers’ (the Maruts) have, after their own mind?, shouted towards the giver of wealth, the great, the glorious (Indra).
7. Mayest thou! (host of the Maruts) be verily seen * coming together with Indra, the fearless: you are both happy-making, and of equal splendour.
8. With the beloved hosts of Indra, with the blameless, hasting? (Maruts), the sacrificer? cries aloud.
p. 15
9. From yonder, O traveller (Indra), come hither, or from the light*of heaven’; the singers all yearn for it ;—
1o. Or we ask Indra for help from here, or from heaven, or from above the earth, or from the great sky.
p. 16
NOTES.
This hymn is ascribed to Kazva, the son of Ghora. The metre is Gayatri throughout.
Verse 1=SV. II, 818; VS. XXIII, 5; AV. XX, 26, 4; 47,10; 69,9; TS. VII, 4, 20,1; TB. III, 9, 4,1.
Verse 2=SV. II, 819; VS. XXIII, 6; AV. XX, 26, 5; 47,11; 69,10; TS. VII, 4, 20, 1.
Verse 3=SV. II, 820; VS. XXIX, 37; AV. XX, 26, 6; 47,12; 69,11; TS. VII, 4, 20,1; TB. III, 9, 4, 3.