Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Bergaigne’s disciples, M. Koulikovski, has already come very near supplying this deficiency, when he remarks (Revue de Linguistique, XVIII, p. 3), that in the hymn IV, 26 ‘we have to do with a twofold personage, composed of the attributes of Indra and Soma.’ b 2 XX SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. Now, if this myth were a purely Indian one, one might be content to relegate it to the category of Vedic ‘paradoxes’ to the vindication of which M. Bergaigne declares himself ready to devote his life. But as there can be no reasonable doubt that the myth goes back to Indo-European times, and that its object is simply to account for the mysterious effect of spirituous liquor or the ‘fire-water,’ so to speak, I for one find it impossible to accept M. Bergaigne’s explanation of this myth, at least so far as the identification of Soma and the lightning is concerned’. On the other hand, his theory undoubtedly receives a considerable amount of support from the fact that the Soma is frequently compared with the Syena. But we saw that the same term is applied to Indra, as it also is to the Maruts (X, 92, 6), to the Asvins (IV, 74, 9; VIII, 73, 4), and to Sdrya (V, 45, 9); and there is in my opinion no evidence to show that this comparison has any connection with the myth which makes the fiery liquor to be brought down by a Syena. Moreover, wherever that comparison occurs, it undoubtedly applies to the Pavam4na, or the drops or streams of Soma flowing through the filter into the vat; and I can see no reason why we should not consider the showers of rain as the exact counterpart of the clarifying Soma. But, of course, the real divine Soma is not the rain-drop itself, any more than he is the drop of juice expressed from the Soma-plant ; but he is the spark of celestial fire enclosed in the drop. It would seem, then, that, as the masses of cloud overspread the sky, Soma, the heavenly light, is conceived as entering into union with the celestial cows or waters, released by the thunderbolt from their mountain keep, and coming down with them to the earth. ‘ For the same reason I find it impossible to accept M. Bergaigne’s interpretation of the hymn IV, 27, put forward at the end of his work (vol. iii, p- 322 seq.). According to that interpretation, Soma, in the first verse, declares that he himself flew forth from his prison as an eagle; and then, in the second verse—as it were reproving those who might imagine the eagle to be a different being from himself—he adds, ‘It was not he (the eagle) that bore me away with ease, but I triumphed by my own cleverness and bravery!’ I am afraid this critical specimen of the feathered tribe will not find many admirers among INTRODUCTION. xxi
2xxi But while I find it impossible, as regards the myth of the Soma-bearing bird, to identify with M. Bergaigne the winged bearer (probably the lightning) with its burden, the Soma ; the descent of the fiery god is pictured in various other ways, and it might still be possible that one or other poet had conceived of the bull-like Soma, as the lightning, uniting with the heavenly cows in their earthward course, so that before reaching the earth the rain-drops would be impregnated with Soma’s essence, and would, in fact, be of the same nature as the Soma-juice. I am not prepared, therefore, entirely to reject the identification of Soma with the lightning ; only I do not think that any one of the crucial passages adduced by M. Bergaigne in favour of that identity necessarily requires the interpretation he proposes. Thus, in IX, 41, 3,‘The sound of the mighty Pavamana (the clarifying Soma) is heard like that of the rain: the lightnings pass in the sky,’ it surely seems rather farfetched to take the lightning, instead of the rain, to be the object with which Soma is compared, merely because in the same hymn Soma is also compared with the sun and the heavenly river Ras4. The same may be said of IX, 108, 11, ‘ That joy-pouring (mada-4yut) thousand-streamed bull they have milked out from the sky,’ and several other passages. The verse IX, 87, 8, divo na vidyut stanayanty abhraiz, somasya te pavata indra dhara, ‘Thy stream of Soma, O Indra, clarifies itself, as (does) the thundering lightning of the sky by means of the clouds,’ is more favourable to prosaic Sanskritists. I should prefer, with Prof. Roth, to read ‘nir adtyat’ instead of ‘nir adfyam, unless it were possible to read ‘ syenagavasa’ instead of ‘ syené gavasi.’ M. Koulikovski, in the paper referred to, throws the hymns IV, 26 and 27 together, and takes them as a sort of mytho-critical controversy between the god Soma and some other person (perhaps the anthor himself), advocating two different versions of the Soma-myth, viz. Soma contending that it was himself who brought the divine plant, while his interlocutor (‘who has the last word in the hymn’) maintains that it was brought bya falcon. Thus, according to this scholar, the falcon was already (!) distinguished from Soma ; and these two hymns ‘are, as it were, an echo of a religions, or rather mythological dispute, which had divided the theologians of the Vedic epoch.’ Perhaps Prof. Oldenberg'’s theory of Akhy4ta-hymns, or detached pieces of poetry connected by prose narratives, might have a chance with these hymns. xxii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
3Oldenberg'’s theory of Akhy4ta-hymns, or detached pieces of poetry connected by prose narratives, might have a chance with these hymns. xxii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. M. Bergaigne’s view, as may also be the doubtful passage, V, 84, 3, yat te abhrasya vidyuto divo varshanti vrishfayad, ‘When the rains of the cloud rain thee (O earth) lightnings from the sky(?).’ As regards VII, 69, 6, addressed to the Asvins, ‘Come, ye two men, to our libations this day, like two thirsty bulls to the lightning,’ M. Bergaigne (I, 168) thinks that the identification of Soma with the lightning can alone explain this passage ; since it would be impossible to imagine that the two bulls could anticipate the falling of rain from the appearance of the lightning. Though a poetic figure like this hardly bears such critical handling, perhaps M. Bergaigne will allow me to ask whether, if the passage had read, ‘Come ye hither to our libations, like two bulls to the thunder 1,’ he would have thought it so very bold a figure for a Vedic poet to use? . The most important of all passages, however, undoubtedly is IX, 84, 3: 4 yo gobhik srigyata oshadhishu....4 vidyuta pavate dhdray4 sutak, indrave somo madayan daivyam ganam. M. Bergaigne translates (I, 172) the first pada by ‘ Lui qui est répandu avec les vaches (i. e. the raindrops) dans les plantes,’ which, of course, fits either view equally well; the only question being, whether Soma is already united with the rain-drops when they are poured forth by the clouds, or whether, in the shape of lightning, he is still separate from them. The third pada, M. Bergaigne remarks (I, 170), may be boldly (hardiment) translated by ‘II se clarifie, exprimé en un torrent qui est Véclair. This rendering, if correct, would doubtless settle the point ; but to my mind it is not only a very doubtful, but a highly improbable explanation. What I believe to be the true interpretation of the passage had been given by Prof. Ludwig two years before the publication of M. Bergaigne’s volume, viz. ‘ Expressed in a stream, he clarifies himself by the lightning—Soma who exhilarates (or inebriates) Indra and the divine race.’ It will be seen that this alters the case completely. The lightning would be ' Cp. IX, roo, 3: ‘Send forth mind-yoked thought, as the thunder sends forth rain.’ INTRODUCTION, XXiil
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Bergaigne’s disciples, M. Koulikovski, has already come very near supplying this deficiency, when he remarks (Revue de Linguistique, XVIII, p. 3), that in the hymn IV, 26 ‘we have to do with a twofold personage, composed of the attributes of Indra and Soma.’ b 2 XX SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. Now, if this myth were a purely Indian one, one might be content to relegate it to the category of Vedic ‘paradoxes’ to the vindication of which M. Bergaigne declares himself ready to devote his life. But as there can be no reasonable doubt that the myth goes back to Indo-European times, and that its object is simply to account for the mysterious effect of spirituous liquor or the ‘fire-water,’ so to speak, I for one find it impossible to accept M. Bergaigne’s explanation of this myth, at least so far as the identification of Soma and the lightning is concerned’. On the other hand, his theory undoubtedly receives a considerable amount of support from the fact that the Soma is frequently compared with the Syena. But we saw that the same term is applied to Indra, as it also is to the Maruts (X, 92, 6), to the Asvins (IV, 74, 9; VIII, 73, 4), and to Sdrya (V, 45, 9); and there is in my opinion no evidence to show that this comparison has any connection with the myth which makes the fiery liquor to be brought down by a Syena. Moreover, wherever that comparison occurs, it undoubtedly applies to the Pavam4na, or the drops or streams of Soma flowing through the filter into the vat; and I can see no reason why we should not consider the showers of rain as the exact counterpart of the clarifying Soma. But, of course, the real divine Soma is not the rain-drop itself, any more than he is the drop of juice expressed from the Soma-plant ; but he is the spark of celestial fire enclosed in the drop. It would seem, then, that, as the masses of cloud overspread the sky, Soma, the heavenly light, is conceived as entering into union with the celestial cows or waters, released by the thunderbolt from their mountain keep, and coming down with them to the earth. ‘ For the same reason I find it impossible to accept M. Bergaigne’s interpretation of the hymn IV, 27, put forward at the end of his work (vol. iii, p- 322 seq.). According to that interpretation, Soma, in the first verse, declares that he himself flew forth from his prison as an eagle; and then, in the second verse—as it were reproving those who might imagine the eagle to be a different being from himself—he adds, ‘It was not he (the eagle) that bore me away with ease, but I triumphed by my own cleverness and bravery!’ I am afraid this critical specimen of the feathered tribe will not find many admirers among INTRODUCTION. xxi
2xxi But while I find it impossible, as regards the myth of the Soma-bearing bird, to identify with M. Bergaigne the winged bearer (probably the lightning) with its burden, the Soma ; the descent of the fiery god is pictured in various other ways, and it might still be possible that one or other poet had conceived of the bull-like Soma, as the lightning, uniting with the heavenly cows in their earthward course, so that before reaching the earth the rain-drops would be impregnated with Soma’s essence, and would, in fact, be of the same nature as the Soma-juice. I am not prepared, therefore, entirely to reject the identification of Soma with the lightning ; only I do not think that any one of the crucial passages adduced by M. Bergaigne in favour of that identity necessarily requires the interpretation he proposes. Thus, in IX, 41, 3,‘The sound of the mighty Pavamana (the clarifying Soma) is heard like that of the rain: the lightnings pass in the sky,’ it surely seems rather farfetched to take the lightning, instead of the rain, to be the object with which Soma is compared, merely because in the same hymn Soma is also compared with the sun and the heavenly river Ras4. The same may be said of IX, 108, 11, ‘ That joy-pouring (mada-4yut) thousand-streamed bull they have milked out from the sky,’ and several other passages. The verse IX, 87, 8, divo na vidyut stanayanty abhraiz, somasya te pavata indra dhara, ‘Thy stream of Soma, O Indra, clarifies itself, as (does) the thundering lightning of the sky by means of the clouds,’ is more favourable to prosaic Sanskritists. I should prefer, with Prof. Roth, to read ‘nir adtyat’ instead of ‘nir adfyam, unless it were possible to read ‘ syenagavasa’ instead of ‘ syené gavasi.’ M. Koulikovski, in the paper referred to, throws the hymns IV, 26 and 27 together, and takes them as a sort of mytho-critical controversy between the god Soma and some other person (perhaps the anthor himself), advocating two different versions of the Soma-myth, viz. Soma contending that it was himself who brought the divine plant, while his interlocutor (‘who has the last word in the hymn’) maintains that it was brought bya falcon. Thus, according to this scholar, the falcon was already (!) distinguished from Soma ; and these two hymns ‘are, as it were, an echo of a religions, or rather mythological dispute, which had divided the theologians of the Vedic epoch.’ Perhaps Prof. Oldenberg'’s theory of Akhy4ta-hymns, or detached pieces of poetry connected by prose narratives, might have a chance with these hymns. xxii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
3Oldenberg'’s theory of Akhy4ta-hymns, or detached pieces of poetry connected by prose narratives, might have a chance with these hymns. xxii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. M. Bergaigne’s view, as may also be the doubtful passage, V, 84, 3, yat te abhrasya vidyuto divo varshanti vrishfayad, ‘When the rains of the cloud rain thee (O earth) lightnings from the sky(?).’ As regards VII, 69, 6, addressed to the Asvins, ‘Come, ye two men, to our libations this day, like two thirsty bulls to the lightning,’ M. Bergaigne (I, 168) thinks that the identification of Soma with the lightning can alone explain this passage ; since it would be impossible to imagine that the two bulls could anticipate the falling of rain from the appearance of the lightning. Though a poetic figure like this hardly bears such critical handling, perhaps M. Bergaigne will allow me to ask whether, if the passage had read, ‘Come ye hither to our libations, like two bulls to the thunder 1,’ he would have thought it so very bold a figure for a Vedic poet to use? . The most important of all passages, however, undoubtedly is IX, 84, 3: 4 yo gobhik srigyata oshadhishu....4 vidyuta pavate dhdray4 sutak, indrave somo madayan daivyam ganam. M. Bergaigne translates (I, 172) the first pada by ‘ Lui qui est répandu avec les vaches (i. e. the raindrops) dans les plantes,’ which, of course, fits either view equally well; the only question being, whether Soma is already united with the rain-drops when they are poured forth by the clouds, or whether, in the shape of lightning, he is still separate from them. The third pada, M. Bergaigne remarks (I, 170), may be boldly (hardiment) translated by ‘II se clarifie, exprimé en un torrent qui est Véclair. This rendering, if correct, would doubtless settle the point ; but to my mind it is not only a very doubtful, but a highly improbable explanation. What I believe to be the true interpretation of the passage had been given by Prof. Ludwig two years before the publication of M. Bergaigne’s volume, viz. ‘ Expressed in a stream, he clarifies himself by the lightning—Soma who exhilarates (or inebriates) Indra and the divine race.’ It will be seen that this alters the case completely. The lightning would be ' Cp. IX, roo, 3: ‘Send forth mind-yoked thought, as the thunder sends forth rain.’ INTRODUCTION, XXiil
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.