Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Here we see that the absence of the elision of a short a which follows after a word ending in aya&, was considered of sufficient importance " The Pratisikhya takes into account both the Saékala and Bashkala sakhas, as may be seen from Siitra 1057. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. li to be recorded in a special rule, because in most cases the Samhita elides an initial a, if preceded by a word ending in ayak. What does this prove? It proves, unless all our views on the chronology of Vedic literature are wrong, that in the fifth century B.C. at least, or previously rather to the time when the Pratisakhya was composed, both the Pada and the Samhita texts were so firmly settled that it was impossible, for the sake of uniformity or regularity, to omit one single short a; and it proves a fortiori, that the hymn in which that irregular short a occurs, formed at that time part of the Vedic canon. I confess I feel sometimes frightened by the stringency of this argument, and I should like to see a possibility by which we could explain the addition, not of the Valakhilya hymns only, but of other much more modern sounding hymns, at a later time than the period of the Pratisakhyas. But until that possibility is shown, we must abide by our own conclusions; and then I ask, who is the critic who would dare to tamper with a canon of scripture of which every iota was settled before the time of Cyrus, and which we possess in exactly that form in which it is described to us by the authors of the Pratisakhyas? I say again, that Iam not free from misgivings on the subject, and my critical conscience would be far better satisfied if we could ascribe the Pratisakhya and all it presupposes to a much later date. But until that is done, the fact remains that the two divergent texts, the Pada and Samhit4, which we now possess, existed, as we now possess them, previous to the time of the Pratisakhya. They have not diverged nor varied since, and the vertex to which they point, starting from the distance of the two texts as measured by the Pratisakhya, carries us back far beyond the time of Saunaka, if we wish to determine the date of the first authorised collection of the hymns, both in their Pada and in their Samhita form. Instances abound, if we compare the Pada and Samhita texts, where, if uniformity between the two texts had been the object of the scholars of the ancient Parishads, the lengthening or shortening of a vowel would at once have removed the apparent discordance between the two tradi- d2 lit VEDIC HYMNS.
2tional texts. Nor should it be supposed that such minute discordances between the two, as the length or shortness of a vowel, were always rendered necessary by the requirements of the metre, and that for that reason the ancient students or the later copyists of the Veda abstained from altering the peculiar spelling of words, which seemed required by the exigencies of the metre in the Samhita text, but not in the Pada text. Though this may be true in some cases, it is not so in all. There are short vowels in the Samhit4 where, according to grammar, we expect long vowels, and where, according to metre, there was no necessity for shortening them. Yet in these very places all the MSS. of the Samhita text give the irregular short, and all the MSS. of the Pada text the regular long vowel, and the authors of the Pratisakhyas bear witness that the same minute difference existed at their own time, nay, previous to their own time. In VII, 60, 12, the Samhita text gives : iy4m deva purdhitir yuvabhydm yag#éshu mitravaruzdv akari. This primacy, O (two) gods, was made for you two, O Mitra and Varuaa, at the sacrifices ! Here it is quite clear that deva is meant for a dual, and ought to have been deva or devau. The metre does not require a short syllable, and yet all the Samhita MSS. read deva, and all the Pada MSS. read deva; and what is more important, the authors of the Pratisakhya had to register this small divergence of the two texts, which existed in their time as it exists in our own °. Nor let it be supposed, that the writers of our MSS. were so careful and so conscientious that they would, when copying MSS., regulate every consonant or vowel according to the rules of the Pratisdkhya. This is by no means the case. The writers of Vedic MSS. are on the whole more accurate than the writers of other MSS., but their learning does not seem to extend to a knowledge of the minute rules of the Pratisakhya, and they will commit ® See Pratisikhya, Sfitra 309 seqq., where several more instances of the same kind are given. I should prefer to take devapurohiti as one word, but that was not the intention of the authors of the Samhita and Pada texts. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. litt occasionally the very mistakes against which they are warned by the Pratisikhya. Thus the Pratisakhya (Sdtra 799) warns the students against a common mistake of changing vaiyasva into vayyasva, i.e. by changing ai to a, and doubling the semivowel y. But this very mistake occurs in S2, and another MS. gives vaiyyasva. See p- lvi. If these arguments are sound, and if nothing can be said against the critical principles by which I have been guided Aufrecht’s in editing the text of the Rig-veda, if the
3But this very mistake occurs in S2, and another MS. gives vaiyyasva. See p- lvi. If these arguments are sound, and if nothing can be said against the critical principles by which I have been guided Aufrecht’s in editing the text of the Rig-veda, if the mistakes. fourfold check, described above, fulfils every requirement that could be made for restoring that text which was known to Sdyava, and which was known, probably 2000 years earlier, to the authors of the Pratisikhyas, what can be the motives, it may fairly be asked, of those who clamour for a new and more critical edition, and who imagine that the editio princeps of the Rig-veda will share the fate of most of the editiones principes of the Greek and Roman classics, and be supplanted by new editions founded on the collation of other MSS.? No one could have rejoiced more sincerely than I did at the publication of the Romanised transliteration of the Rig-veda, carried out with so much patience and accuracy by Professor Aufrecht. It showed that there was a growing interest in this, the only true Veda; it showed that even those who could not read Sanskrit in the original Devanagari, wished to have access to the original text of these ancient hymns ; it showed that the study of the Veda had a future before it like no other book of Sanskrit literature. My learned friend Professor Aufrecht has been most unfairly charged with having printed this Romanised text me insciente velinvito. My edition is publici juris, like any edition of Homer or Plato, and anybody might, with proper acknowledgment, have reprinted it, either in Roman or Devand4gari letters. But far from keeping me in ignorance of his plan, Professor Aufrecht applied to me for the loan of the MSS. of the two Mazdalas which I had not yet published, and I lent them to him most gladly, because, by seeing them printed at once, I felt far less liv VEDIC HYMNS.
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 we see that the absence of the elision of a short a which follows after a word ending in aya&, was considered of sufficient importance " The Pratisikhya takes into account both the Saékala and Bashkala sakhas, as may be seen from Siitra 1057. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. li to be recorded in a special rule, because in most cases the Samhita elides an initial a, if preceded by a word ending in ayak. What does this prove? It proves, unless all our views on the chronology of Vedic literature are wrong, that in the fifth century B.C. at least, or previously rather to the time when the Pratisakhya was composed, both the Pada and the Samhita texts were so firmly settled that it was impossible, for the sake of uniformity or regularity, to omit one single short a; and it proves a fortiori, that the hymn in which that irregular short a occurs, formed at that time part of the Vedic canon. I confess I feel sometimes frightened by the stringency of this argument, and I should like to see a possibility by which we could explain the addition, not of the Valakhilya hymns only, but of other much more modern sounding hymns, at a later time than the period of the Pratisakhyas. But until that possibility is shown, we must abide by our own conclusions; and then I ask, who is the critic who would dare to tamper with a canon of scripture of which every iota was settled before the time of Cyrus, and which we possess in exactly that form in which it is described to us by the authors of the Pratisakhyas? I say again, that Iam not free from misgivings on the subject, and my critical conscience would be far better satisfied if we could ascribe the Pratisakhya and all it presupposes to a much later date. But until that is done, the fact remains that the two divergent texts, the Pada and Samhit4, which we now possess, existed, as we now possess them, previous to the time of the Pratisakhya. They have not diverged nor varied since, and the vertex to which they point, starting from the distance of the two texts as measured by the Pratisakhya, carries us back far beyond the time of Saunaka, if we wish to determine the date of the first authorised collection of the hymns, both in their Pada and in their Samhita form. Instances abound, if we compare the Pada and Samhita texts, where, if uniformity between the two texts had been the object of the scholars of the ancient Parishads, the lengthening or shortening of a vowel would at once have removed the apparent discordance between the two tradi- d2 lit VEDIC HYMNS.
2tional texts. Nor should it be supposed that such minute discordances between the two, as the length or shortness of a vowel, were always rendered necessary by the requirements of the metre, and that for that reason the ancient students or the later copyists of the Veda abstained from altering the peculiar spelling of words, which seemed required by the exigencies of the metre in the Samhita text, but not in the Pada text. Though this may be true in some cases, it is not so in all. There are short vowels in the Samhit4 where, according to grammar, we expect long vowels, and where, according to metre, there was no necessity for shortening them. Yet in these very places all the MSS. of the Samhita text give the irregular short, and all the MSS. of the Pada text the regular long vowel, and the authors of the Pratisakhyas bear witness that the same minute difference existed at their own time, nay, previous to their own time. In VII, 60, 12, the Samhita text gives : iy4m deva purdhitir yuvabhydm yag#éshu mitravaruzdv akari. This primacy, O (two) gods, was made for you two, O Mitra and Varuaa, at the sacrifices ! Here it is quite clear that deva is meant for a dual, and ought to have been deva or devau. The metre does not require a short syllable, and yet all the Samhita MSS. read deva, and all the Pada MSS. read deva; and what is more important, the authors of the Pratisakhya had to register this small divergence of the two texts, which existed in their time as it exists in our own °. Nor let it be supposed, that the writers of our MSS. were so careful and so conscientious that they would, when copying MSS., regulate every consonant or vowel according to the rules of the Pratisdkhya. This is by no means the case. The writers of Vedic MSS. are on the whole more accurate than the writers of other MSS., but their learning does not seem to extend to a knowledge of the minute rules of the Pratisakhya, and they will commit ® See Pratisikhya, Sfitra 309 seqq., where several more instances of the same kind are given. I should prefer to take devapurohiti as one word, but that was not the intention of the authors of the Samhita and Pada texts. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. litt occasionally the very mistakes against which they are warned by the Pratisikhya. Thus the Pratisakhya (Sdtra 799) warns the students against a common mistake of changing vaiyasva into vayyasva, i.e. by changing ai to a, and doubling the semivowel y. But this very mistake occurs in S2, and another MS. gives vaiyyasva. See p- lvi. If these arguments are sound, and if nothing can be said against the critical principles by which I have been guided Aufrecht’s in editing the text of the Rig-veda, if the
3But this very mistake occurs in S2, and another MS. gives vaiyyasva. See p- lvi. If these arguments are sound, and if nothing can be said against the critical principles by which I have been guided Aufrecht’s in editing the text of the Rig-veda, if the mistakes. fourfold check, described above, fulfils every requirement that could be made for restoring that text which was known to Sdyava, and which was known, probably 2000 years earlier, to the authors of the Pratisikhyas, what can be the motives, it may fairly be asked, of those who clamour for a new and more critical edition, and who imagine that the editio princeps of the Rig-veda will share the fate of most of the editiones principes of the Greek and Roman classics, and be supplanted by new editions founded on the collation of other MSS.? No one could have rejoiced more sincerely than I did at the publication of the Romanised transliteration of the Rig-veda, carried out with so much patience and accuracy by Professor Aufrecht. It showed that there was a growing interest in this, the only true Veda; it showed that even those who could not read Sanskrit in the original Devanagari, wished to have access to the original text of these ancient hymns ; it showed that the study of the Veda had a future before it like no other book of Sanskrit literature. My learned friend Professor Aufrecht has been most unfairly charged with having printed this Romanised text me insciente velinvito. My edition is publici juris, like any edition of Homer or Plato, and anybody might, with proper acknowledgment, have reprinted it, either in Roman or Devand4gari letters. But far from keeping me in ignorance of his plan, Professor Aufrecht applied to me for the loan of the MSS. of the two Mazdalas which I had not yet published, and I lent them to him most gladly, because, by seeing them printed at once, I felt far less liv VEDIC HYMNS.
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.