Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But 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. guilty in delaying the publication of the last volumes of my edition of the text and commentary. Nor could anything have been more honourable than the way in which Professor Aufrecht speaks of the true relation of his Romanised text to my edition. That there are misprints, and I, speak-. ing for myself, ought to say mistakes also, in my edition of the Rig-veda, I know but too well; and if Professor Aufrecht, after carefully transcribing every word, could honestly say that their number is small, I doubt whether other scholars will be able to prove that their number is large. I believe I may with the same honesty return Professor Aufrecht’s compliment, and considering the great difficulty of avoiding misprints in Romanised transcripts, I have always thought and I have always said that his reprint of the hymns of the Veda is remarkably correct and accurate. What, however, I must protest against, and what, I feel sure, Professor Aufrecht himself would equally protest against, is the supposition, and more than supposition of certain scholars, that wherever this later Latin transcript differs from my own Devanagari text, Professor Aufrecht is right, and Iam wrong; that his various readings rest on the authority of new MSS., and constitute in fact a new recension of the Vedic hymns. Against this supposition I must protest most strongly, not for my own sake, but for the sake of the old book, and, still more, for the sake of the truth. No doubt it is natural to suppose that where a later edition differs from a former edition, it does so intentionally ; and I do not complain of those who, without being able to have recourse to MSS. in order to test the authority of various readings, concluded that wherever the new text differed from the old, it was because the old text was at fault. In order to satisfy my own conscience on this point, I have collated a number of passages where Professor Aufrecht’s text differs from my own, and I feel satisfied that in the vast majority of cases, I am right and he is wrong, and that his variations do not rest on the authority of MSS. I must not shrink from the duty of making good this assertion, and I therefore proceed to an examination of such passages as have occurred to me on PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lv
2I must not shrink from the duty of making good this assertion, and I therefore proceed to an examination of such passages as have occurred to me on PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lv occasionally referring to his text, pointing out the readings both where he is right, and where he is wrong. The differences between the two texts may appear trifling, but I shall not avail myself of that plea. On the contrary, I quite agree with those scholars who hold that in truly critical scholarship there is nothing trifling. Besides, it is in the nature of the case that what may, by a stretch of the word, be called various readings in the Veda, must be confined to single letters or accents, and can but seldom extend to whole words, and never to whole sentences. I must therefore beg my readers to have patience while I endeavour to show that the text of the Rig-veda, as first published by me, though by no means faultless, was nevertheless not edited in so perfunctory a manner as some learned critics seem to suppose, and that it will not be easy to supplant it either by a collation of new MSS., such as are accessible at present, or by occasional references to the PratisAkhya. I begin with some mistakes of my own, mistakes which I might have avoided, if I had always consulted the Pratisakhya, where single words or whole passages of the Veda are quoted. Some of these mistakes have been removed by Professor Aufrecht, others, however, appear in his transcript as they appear in my own edition. I need hardly point out passages where palpable misprints in my edition have been repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s text. I mean by palpable misprints, cases where a glance at the Pada text or at the Samhita text or a reference to SAdyama’s commentary would show at once what was intended. Thus, for instance, in VI, 15, 3, vridhé, as I had printed in the Samhita, was clearly a misprint for vridhd, as may be seen from the Pada, which gives vridhad/, and from Sayava. Here, though Professor Aufrecht repeats vvidhé, I think it hardly necessary to show that the authority of the best MSS. (S 2 alone contains a correction of vridho to vridhé) is in favour of vridhah, whatever we may think of the relative value of these two readings. One must be careful, however, in a text like that of the Vedic hymns, where the presence or absence of a single letter. or accent begins to become lvi VEDIC HYMNS.
3One must be careful, however, in a text like that of the Vedic hymns, where the presence or absence of a single letter. or accent begins to become lvi VEDIC HYMNS. the object of the most learned and painstaking discussions, not to claim too large an indulgence for misprints. A misprint in the Samhita, if repeated in the Pada, or if admitted even in the commentary of Sdyana, though it need not be put down to the editor’s deplorable ignorance, becomes yet a serious matter, and I willingly take all the blame which is justly due for occasional accidents of this character. Such are, for instance, IJ, 12, 14, sasam4ndm instead of sasam4ndm; I, 124, 4, sudhytiva#, in the Pada, instead of sundhyuva#; and the substitution in several places of a short u instead of a long 4 in such forms as sisdvima, when occurring in the Pada; cf. I, 166, 14; 167, 9- It is clear from the Pratisikhya, SQtra 819 and 163, 5, that the words dtf indra in IV, 29, 1, should not be joined together, but that the hiatus should remain. Hence atindra, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s, should be corrected, and the hiatus be preserved, as it is in the fourth verse of the same hymn, (ati itthd. MSS. S1, S 3 are right; in S 2 the words are joined. It follows from Sftra 799 that to double the y in vaiyasva is a mistake, but a mistake which had to be pointed out and guarded against as early as the time of the Pratisakhya. In VIII, 26, 11, therefore, vaiyyasvasya, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s, should be changed to vaiyasvdsya. MSS.S1,S3 are right, likewise P 1, P 2; but S 2 has the double mistake vayyasvdsya, as described in the Pratisaékhya; another MS. of Wilson’s has vaiyy. The same applies to VIII, 23, 24, and VIII, 24,23. P 1 admits the mistaken spelling vayyasva. Some corrections that ought to be made in the Padapatha only, as printed in my edition, are pointed out in a note to Siitra 738 of the Pratisakhya. Thus, according to Sdtra 583, 6, srdyds in the Pada text of II, 10, 2, should be changed to sruy44z. MSS. P 1, P 2 have the short u. In V, 7, 8, I had printed su#iz shma, leaving the a of PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lvii shma short in accordance with the PratisAkhya, Sdtra 514, where a string of words is given before which sma must not be lengthened, and where under No. 11 we find ydsmai. Professor Aufrecht has altered this, and gives the 4 as long, which is wrong. The MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a. Another word before which sma ought not to be lengthened is mavate. Hence, according to Sitra 514, 14, I ought not to have printed in VI, 65, 4, shma m4vate, but shma m4vate. Here Professor Aufrecht has retained the long 4, which is wrong. MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.
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.
1But 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. guilty in delaying the publication of the last volumes of my edition of the text and commentary. Nor could anything have been more honourable than the way in which Professor Aufrecht speaks of the true relation of his Romanised text to my edition. That there are misprints, and I, speak-. ing for myself, ought to say mistakes also, in my edition of the Rig-veda, I know but too well; and if Professor Aufrecht, after carefully transcribing every word, could honestly say that their number is small, I doubt whether other scholars will be able to prove that their number is large. I believe I may with the same honesty return Professor Aufrecht’s compliment, and considering the great difficulty of avoiding misprints in Romanised transcripts, I have always thought and I have always said that his reprint of the hymns of the Veda is remarkably correct and accurate. What, however, I must protest against, and what, I feel sure, Professor Aufrecht himself would equally protest against, is the supposition, and more than supposition of certain scholars, that wherever this later Latin transcript differs from my own Devanagari text, Professor Aufrecht is right, and Iam wrong; that his various readings rest on the authority of new MSS., and constitute in fact a new recension of the Vedic hymns. Against this supposition I must protest most strongly, not for my own sake, but for the sake of the old book, and, still more, for the sake of the truth. No doubt it is natural to suppose that where a later edition differs from a former edition, it does so intentionally ; and I do not complain of those who, without being able to have recourse to MSS. in order to test the authority of various readings, concluded that wherever the new text differed from the old, it was because the old text was at fault. In order to satisfy my own conscience on this point, I have collated a number of passages where Professor Aufrecht’s text differs from my own, and I feel satisfied that in the vast majority of cases, I am right and he is wrong, and that his variations do not rest on the authority of MSS. I must not shrink from the duty of making good this assertion, and I therefore proceed to an examination of such passages as have occurred to me on PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lv
2I must not shrink from the duty of making good this assertion, and I therefore proceed to an examination of such passages as have occurred to me on PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lv occasionally referring to his text, pointing out the readings both where he is right, and where he is wrong. The differences between the two texts may appear trifling, but I shall not avail myself of that plea. On the contrary, I quite agree with those scholars who hold that in truly critical scholarship there is nothing trifling. Besides, it is in the nature of the case that what may, by a stretch of the word, be called various readings in the Veda, must be confined to single letters or accents, and can but seldom extend to whole words, and never to whole sentences. I must therefore beg my readers to have patience while I endeavour to show that the text of the Rig-veda, as first published by me, though by no means faultless, was nevertheless not edited in so perfunctory a manner as some learned critics seem to suppose, and that it will not be easy to supplant it either by a collation of new MSS., such as are accessible at present, or by occasional references to the PratisAkhya. I begin with some mistakes of my own, mistakes which I might have avoided, if I had always consulted the Pratisakhya, where single words or whole passages of the Veda are quoted. Some of these mistakes have been removed by Professor Aufrecht, others, however, appear in his transcript as they appear in my own edition. I need hardly point out passages where palpable misprints in my edition have been repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s text. I mean by palpable misprints, cases where a glance at the Pada text or at the Samhita text or a reference to SAdyama’s commentary would show at once what was intended. Thus, for instance, in VI, 15, 3, vridhé, as I had printed in the Samhita, was clearly a misprint for vridhd, as may be seen from the Pada, which gives vridhad/, and from Sayava. Here, though Professor Aufrecht repeats vvidhé, I think it hardly necessary to show that the authority of the best MSS. (S 2 alone contains a correction of vridho to vridhé) is in favour of vridhah, whatever we may think of the relative value of these two readings. One must be careful, however, in a text like that of the Vedic hymns, where the presence or absence of a single letter. or accent begins to become lvi VEDIC HYMNS.
3One must be careful, however, in a text like that of the Vedic hymns, where the presence or absence of a single letter. or accent begins to become lvi VEDIC HYMNS. the object of the most learned and painstaking discussions, not to claim too large an indulgence for misprints. A misprint in the Samhita, if repeated in the Pada, or if admitted even in the commentary of Sdyana, though it need not be put down to the editor’s deplorable ignorance, becomes yet a serious matter, and I willingly take all the blame which is justly due for occasional accidents of this character. Such are, for instance, IJ, 12, 14, sasam4ndm instead of sasam4ndm; I, 124, 4, sudhytiva#, in the Pada, instead of sundhyuva#; and the substitution in several places of a short u instead of a long 4 in such forms as sisdvima, when occurring in the Pada; cf. I, 166, 14; 167, 9- It is clear from the Pratisikhya, SQtra 819 and 163, 5, that the words dtf indra in IV, 29, 1, should not be joined together, but that the hiatus should remain. Hence atindra, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s, should be corrected, and the hiatus be preserved, as it is in the fourth verse of the same hymn, (ati itthd. MSS. S1, S 3 are right; in S 2 the words are joined. It follows from Sftra 799 that to double the y in vaiyasva is a mistake, but a mistake which had to be pointed out and guarded against as early as the time of the Pratisakhya. In VIII, 26, 11, therefore, vaiyyasvasya, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht’s, should be changed to vaiyasvdsya. MSS.S1,S3 are right, likewise P 1, P 2; but S 2 has the double mistake vayyasvdsya, as described in the Pratisaékhya; another MS. of Wilson’s has vaiyy. The same applies to VIII, 23, 24, and VIII, 24,23. P 1 admits the mistaken spelling vayyasva. Some corrections that ought to be made in the Padapatha only, as printed in my edition, are pointed out in a note to Siitra 738 of the Pratisakhya. Thus, according to Sdtra 583, 6, srdyds in the Pada text of II, 10, 2, should be changed to sruy44z. MSS. P 1, P 2 have the short u. In V, 7, 8, I had printed su#iz shma, leaving the a of PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lvii shma short in accordance with the PratisAkhya, Sdtra 514, where a string of words is given before which sma must not be lengthened, and where under No. 11 we find ydsmai. Professor Aufrecht has altered this, and gives the 4 as long, which is wrong. The MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a. Another word before which sma ought not to be lengthened is mavate. Hence, according to Sitra 514, 14, I ought not to have printed in VI, 65, 4, shma m4vate, but shma m4vate. Here Professor Aufrecht has retained the long 4, which is wrong. MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.
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.