Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Here, as we lose nothing by giving up the old arrangement, we xii VEDIC HYMNS. are surely at liberty, for our own purposes, to put together such hymns as have a common object, and to place before the reader as much material as possible for an exhaustive study of each individual deity. I give for each hymn the Sanskrit original * in what is known as the Pada text, i.e. the text in which all words (pada) stand by themselves, as they do in Greek or Latin, without being joined together according to the rules of Sandhi. The text in which the words are thus joined, as they are in all other Sanskrit texts, is called the Samhita text. Whether the Pada or the Samhita text be the more ancient, may seem difficult to settle. As far as I can judge, they seem to me, in their present form, the product of the same period of Vedic scholarship. The Pratisdkhyas, it is true, start from the Pada text, take it, as it were, for granted, and devote their rules to the explanation of those changes which that text undergoes in being changed into the Samhita text. But, on the other hand, the Pada text in some cases clearly presupposes the Samhita text. It leaves out passages which are repeated more than once, while the Samhita text always repeats these passages; it abstains from dividing the termination of the locative plural su, whenever in the Samhita text, i.e. according to the rules of Sandhi, it becomes shu; hence nadishu, agishu, but ap-su; and it gives short vowels instead of the long ones of the Samhita, even in cases where the long vowels are justified by the rules of the Vedic language. It is certain, in fact, that neither the Pada nor the Samhita text, as we now possess them, represents the original text of the Veda. Both show clear traces of scholastic influences. But if we try to restore the original form of the Vedic hymns, we shall certainly arrive at some kind of Pada text rather than at a Samhité text; nay, even in their present form, the original metre and rhythm of the ancient hymns of the Xishis are far more perceptible when the words are divided, than when we join them together throughout according to the rules of Sandhi. Lastly, for practical purposes, the Pada text is far superior to the Samhita text in which the final ® This is left out in the second edition. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xliii
2Lastly, for practical purposes, the Pada text is far superior to the Samhita text in which the final ® This is left out in the second edition. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xliii and initial letters, that is, the most important letters of words, are constantly disguised, and liable therefore to different interpretations. Although in some passages we may differ from the interpretation adopted by the Pada text, and although certain Vedic words have, no doubt, been wrongly analysed and divided by Sakalya, yet such cases are comparatively few, and where they occur, they are interesting as carrying us back to the earliest attempts of Vedic scholarship. In the vast majority of cases the divided text, with a few such rules as we have to observe in reading Latin, nay, even in reading Pali verses, brings us certainly much nearer to the original utterance of the ancient Xzshis than the amalgamated text. The critical principles by which I have been guided in editing for the first time the text of the Rig-veda, require Principles of @few words of explanation, as they have lately criticism. been challenged on grounds which, I think, rest on a complete misapprehension of my previous statements on this subject. As far as we are able to judge at present, we can hardly speak of various readings in the Vedic hymns, in the usual sense of that word. Various readings to be gathered from a collation of different MSS., now accessible to us, there are none. After collating a considerable number of MSS., I have succeeded, I believe, in fixing on three representative MSS., as described in the preface to the first volume of my edition of the Rig-veda. Even these MSS. are not free from blunders,—for what MS. is ?—but these blunders have no claim to the title of various readings. They are lapsus calami, and no more; and, what is important, they have not become traditional *. * Thus X, 101, 2, one of the Pada MSS. (P 2) reads distinctly yag#dm pra krinuta sakhfyas, but all the other MSS. have nayata, and there can be little doubt that it was the frequent repetition of the verb kré in this verse which led the writer to substitute kri#uta for nayata. No other MS., as far as I am aware, repeats this blunder. In IX, 86, 34, the writer of the same MS. puts ragasi instead of dhavasi, because his eye was caught by raga in the preceding line. X, 16,5, the same MS. reads sam gakkhasva instead of gakkhatam, which is supported by S 1, S 2, P 1, while S 3 has a peculiar and more important reading, gakéhatat. X, 67, 6, the same MS. P 2 has vi dakartha instead of vi dakarta. A number of various readings which have been gleaned from Pandit Tara- xliv VEDIC HYMNS. The text, as deduced from the best MSS. of the Samhita text, can be controlled by four independent checks. The first is, of course, a collation of the best MSS. of the Samhita text.
3A number of various readings which have been gleaned from Pandit Tara- xliv VEDIC HYMNS. The text, as deduced from the best MSS. of the Samhita text, can be controlled by four independent checks. The first is, of course, a collation of the best MSS. of the Samhita text. The second check to be applied to the Samhita text is a comparison with the Pada text, of which, again, I possessed at least one excellent MS., and several more modern copies. The third check was a comparison of this text with Sayama’s commentary, or rather with the text which is presupposed by that commentary. In the few cases where the Pada text seemed to differ from the Samhita text, a note was added to that effect, in the various readings of my edition ; and the same was done, at least in all important cases, where Sayana clearly followed a text at variance with our own. The fourth check was a comparison of any doubtful passage with the numerous passages quoted in the Pratisakhya. These were the principles by which I was guided in the critical restoration of the text of the Rig-veda, and I believe I may say that the text as printed by me is more correct than any MS. now accessible, more trustworthy than the text followed by Sayama, and in all important points identically the same with that text which the authors of the natha’s Tulddanadipaddhati (see Triibner’s American and Oriental Literary Record, July 31, 1868) belong to the same class. They may be due either to the copyists of the MSS. which Pandit Tarfinatha used while compiling his work, or they may by accident have crept into his own MS. Anyhow, not one of them is supported either by the best MSS. accessible in Europe, or by any passage in the Pratisakhya. RV. IX, 11, 2, read devayu instead of devayuA », IX, 11,4, ,, arkata ” arkate », IX, 14, 3, ,, yad? sabandhavah ” yaddiptabandhavad >. IX, 16, 3, ,, anaptam » anuptam >, IX, 17,2, ,, suvanasa ” stuvanfsa », IX, 21, 2, ,, pravrtavanto ” pravrinvato >. IX, 48, 2, ,, samvrikta ” samyukta », IX, 49,1, , no*pim ” no y&m >. IX, 54, 3, » saryad » stryam >, IX, 59, 3,» sida ni » Sidati®, > As printed by Pandit Taranatha. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xlv
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.
1Here, as we lose nothing by giving up the old arrangement, we xii VEDIC HYMNS. are surely at liberty, for our own purposes, to put together such hymns as have a common object, and to place before the reader as much material as possible for an exhaustive study of each individual deity. I give for each hymn the Sanskrit original * in what is known as the Pada text, i.e. the text in which all words (pada) stand by themselves, as they do in Greek or Latin, without being joined together according to the rules of Sandhi. The text in which the words are thus joined, as they are in all other Sanskrit texts, is called the Samhita text. Whether the Pada or the Samhita text be the more ancient, may seem difficult to settle. As far as I can judge, they seem to me, in their present form, the product of the same period of Vedic scholarship. The Pratisdkhyas, it is true, start from the Pada text, take it, as it were, for granted, and devote their rules to the explanation of those changes which that text undergoes in being changed into the Samhita text. But, on the other hand, the Pada text in some cases clearly presupposes the Samhita text. It leaves out passages which are repeated more than once, while the Samhita text always repeats these passages; it abstains from dividing the termination of the locative plural su, whenever in the Samhita text, i.e. according to the rules of Sandhi, it becomes shu; hence nadishu, agishu, but ap-su; and it gives short vowels instead of the long ones of the Samhita, even in cases where the long vowels are justified by the rules of the Vedic language. It is certain, in fact, that neither the Pada nor the Samhita text, as we now possess them, represents the original text of the Veda. Both show clear traces of scholastic influences. But if we try to restore the original form of the Vedic hymns, we shall certainly arrive at some kind of Pada text rather than at a Samhité text; nay, even in their present form, the original metre and rhythm of the ancient hymns of the Xishis are far more perceptible when the words are divided, than when we join them together throughout according to the rules of Sandhi. Lastly, for practical purposes, the Pada text is far superior to the Samhita text in which the final ® This is left out in the second edition. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xliii
2Lastly, for practical purposes, the Pada text is far superior to the Samhita text in which the final ® This is left out in the second edition. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xliii and initial letters, that is, the most important letters of words, are constantly disguised, and liable therefore to different interpretations. Although in some passages we may differ from the interpretation adopted by the Pada text, and although certain Vedic words have, no doubt, been wrongly analysed and divided by Sakalya, yet such cases are comparatively few, and where they occur, they are interesting as carrying us back to the earliest attempts of Vedic scholarship. In the vast majority of cases the divided text, with a few such rules as we have to observe in reading Latin, nay, even in reading Pali verses, brings us certainly much nearer to the original utterance of the ancient Xzshis than the amalgamated text. The critical principles by which I have been guided in editing for the first time the text of the Rig-veda, require Principles of @few words of explanation, as they have lately criticism. been challenged on grounds which, I think, rest on a complete misapprehension of my previous statements on this subject. As far as we are able to judge at present, we can hardly speak of various readings in the Vedic hymns, in the usual sense of that word. Various readings to be gathered from a collation of different MSS., now accessible to us, there are none. After collating a considerable number of MSS., I have succeeded, I believe, in fixing on three representative MSS., as described in the preface to the first volume of my edition of the Rig-veda. Even these MSS. are not free from blunders,—for what MS. is ?—but these blunders have no claim to the title of various readings. They are lapsus calami, and no more; and, what is important, they have not become traditional *. * Thus X, 101, 2, one of the Pada MSS. (P 2) reads distinctly yag#dm pra krinuta sakhfyas, but all the other MSS. have nayata, and there can be little doubt that it was the frequent repetition of the verb kré in this verse which led the writer to substitute kri#uta for nayata. No other MS., as far as I am aware, repeats this blunder. In IX, 86, 34, the writer of the same MS. puts ragasi instead of dhavasi, because his eye was caught by raga in the preceding line. X, 16,5, the same MS. reads sam gakkhasva instead of gakkhatam, which is supported by S 1, S 2, P 1, while S 3 has a peculiar and more important reading, gakéhatat. X, 67, 6, the same MS. P 2 has vi dakartha instead of vi dakarta. A number of various readings which have been gleaned from Pandit Tara- xliv VEDIC HYMNS. The text, as deduced from the best MSS. of the Samhita text, can be controlled by four independent checks. The first is, of course, a collation of the best MSS. of the Samhita text.
3A number of various readings which have been gleaned from Pandit Tara- xliv VEDIC HYMNS. The text, as deduced from the best MSS. of the Samhita text, can be controlled by four independent checks. The first is, of course, a collation of the best MSS. of the Samhita text. The second check to be applied to the Samhita text is a comparison with the Pada text, of which, again, I possessed at least one excellent MS., and several more modern copies. The third check was a comparison of this text with Sayama’s commentary, or rather with the text which is presupposed by that commentary. In the few cases where the Pada text seemed to differ from the Samhita text, a note was added to that effect, in the various readings of my edition ; and the same was done, at least in all important cases, where Sayana clearly followed a text at variance with our own. The fourth check was a comparison of any doubtful passage with the numerous passages quoted in the Pratisakhya. These were the principles by which I was guided in the critical restoration of the text of the Rig-veda, and I believe I may say that the text as printed by me is more correct than any MS. now accessible, more trustworthy than the text followed by Sayama, and in all important points identically the same with that text which the authors of the natha’s Tulddanadipaddhati (see Triibner’s American and Oriental Literary Record, July 31, 1868) belong to the same class. They may be due either to the copyists of the MSS. which Pandit Tarfinatha used while compiling his work, or they may by accident have crept into his own MS. Anyhow, not one of them is supported either by the best MSS. accessible in Europe, or by any passage in the Pratisakhya. RV. IX, 11, 2, read devayu instead of devayuA », IX, 11,4, ,, arkata ” arkate », IX, 14, 3, ,, yad? sabandhavah ” yaddiptabandhavad >. IX, 16, 3, ,, anaptam » anuptam >, IX, 17,2, ,, suvanasa ” stuvanfsa », IX, 21, 2, ,, pravrtavanto ” pravrinvato >. IX, 48, 2, ,, samvrikta ” samyukta », IX, 49,1, , no*pim ” no y&m >. IX, 54, 3, » saryad » stryam >, IX, 59, 3,» sida ni » Sidati®, > As printed by Pandit Taranatha. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xlv
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.