Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Another 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. It follows from Sftra 499 that in I, 138, 4, we should not lengthen the vowel of si. Hence, instead of asy& 0 shd ma upa satdye, as printed in my edition and repeated by Professor Aufrecht, we should read asy4 Q shi a upa sataye. S1,S 2, S 3 have short u*. In VII, 31, 4, I had by mistake printed viddh{ instead of viddhf. The same reading is adopted by Professor Aufrecht (II, p. 24), but the authority of the Pratisdkhya, Sftra 445, can hardly be overruled. S 1, S 2, S 3 have viddhi. While in cases like these, the Pratisakhya is an authority which, as far as I can judge, ought to overrule the authority of every MS., however ancient, we must in other cases depend either on the testimony of the best MSS. or be guided, in fixing on the right reading, by Sdyana and the rules of grammar. I shall therefore, in cases where I cannot consider Professor Aufrecht’s readings as authoritative improvements, have to give my reasons why I adhere to the readings which I had originally adopted. In V, 9, 4, I had printed by mistake puri yé instead of purfi yd. I had, however, corrected this misprint in my edition of the Pratisékhya, 393, 532. Professor Aufrecht decides in favour of purt with a short u, but against the authority of the MSS., S 1, S 2, S 3, which have purf. * In the same verse, I, 138, 4, the shu in 6 shu tv4 should not be lengthened, for there is no rule, as far as I can see, in the Pratisakhya that would require the lengthening of st before tva. Sce Pritisikhya, 491. \vili VEDIC HYMNS.
2* In the same verse, I, 138, 4, the shu in 6 shu tv4 should not be lengthened, for there is no rule, as far as I can see, in the Pratisakhya that would require the lengthening of st before tva. Sce Pritisikhya, 491. \vili VEDIC HYMNS. It was certainly a great mistake of mine, though it may seem more excusable in a Romanised transcript, that I did not follow the writers of the best MSS. in their use of the Avagraha, or, I should rather say, of that sign which, as far as the Veda is concerned, is very wrongly designated by the name of Avagraha. Avagraha, according to the PratisAkhya, never occurs in the Samhit4 text, but is the name given to that halt, stoppage, or pause which in the Pada text separates the component parts of compound words. That pause has the length of one short vowel, i.e. one matra. Of course, nothing is said by the PratisAkhya as to how the pause should be represented graphically, but it is several times alluded to as of importance in the recitation and accentuation of the Veda. What we have been in the habit of calling Avagraha is by the writers of certain MSS. of the Samhita text used as the sign of the Vivrztti or hiatus. This hiatus, however, is very different from the Avagraha, for while the Avagraha has the length of one mtr, the Vivritti or hiatus has the length of } métr4, if the two vowels are short; of 4 matrd, if either vowel is long; of } métrd, if both vowels are long. Now I have several times called attention to the fact that though this hiatus is marked in certain MSS. by the sign =, I have in my edition omitted it, because I thought that the hiatus spoke for itself and did not require a sign to attract the attention of European readers ; while, on the contrary, I have inserted that sign where MSS. hardly ever use it, viz. when a short initial a is elided after a final e or 0; (see my remarks on pp. 36, 39, of my edition of the Pratisakhya.) Although I thought, and still think, that this use of the sign = is more useful for practical purposes, yet I regret that, in this one particular, I should have deviated from the authority of the best MSS., and caused some misunderstandings on the part of those who have made use of my edition. If, for instance, I had placed the sign of the Vivritti, the =, in its proper place, or if, at least, I had not inserted it where, as we say, the initial a has been elided after e or o, Professor Bollensen would have seen at once that the authors of the Pratisakhyas fully agree with him in looking on this change, not as an PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lix
3lix elision, but as a contraction. If, as sometimes happens, final o or e remain unchanged before initial short a, this is called the Pa#k4la and Prakya padavritti (Sdtra 137). If, on the contrary, final o or e become one (ekibhavati) with the initial short a, this is called the Abhinihita sandhi (Sdtra 138). While the former, the hiatus of the Pa#éala and Eastern schools, is marked by the writers of several MSS. by the sign =, the Abhinihita sandhi, being a sandhi, is not marked by any sign ®. I, 3,12. rdgati (Aufr. p. 2) instead of ragati (M. M. vol. i, Pp. 75) is wrong. I, 7, 9. ya ékak (Aufr. p. 5) should be ya ékad (M. M. vol. i, p. 110), because the relative pronoun is never without an accent. The relative particle yatha may be without an accent, if it stands at the end of a pada; and though there are exceptions to this rule, yet in VIII, 21, 5, where Professor Aufrecht gives ydtha, the MSS. are unanimous in favour of yatha (M. M. vol. iv, p. 480). See Phi¢-sdtra, ed. Kielhorn, p. 54. I, 10,11. 4 td (Aufr. p. 7) should be 4 td (M. M. vol. i, Pp- 139), because 4 is never without the accent. I, 10, 12. gush¢4s, which Professor Aufrecht specially mentions as having no final Visarga in the Pada, has the Visarga in all the MSS, (Aufr. p. 7, M. M. vol. i, Pp: 140.) I, 11, 4. kdvir (Aufr. p. 7) should be kavir (M. M. vol. i, Pp. 143). I, 22, 8, read rddhamsi. I, 40, 1 and 6. There is no excuse for the accent either on tvémahe or on vékema, while s4#4f in I, 51, 11, ought to have the accent on the first syllable. I, 49, 3. Rosen was right in not eliding the a in divd antebhya#. S 1, S 2, S 3 preserve the initial a, nor does the PratisAkhya anywhere provide for its suppression. I, 54, 8. kshdtram (Aufr. p. 46) is a mere misprint for kshatram. ® As to the system or want of system, according to which the Abhinihita ssndhi takes place in the Sasshita, see p. xlviii seq. Ix VEDIC HYMNS. I, 55, 7. vandanasrid (Aufr. p. 47) instead of vandanasrud (M. M. vol. i, p. 514) is wrong. I, 57, 2. samasita instead of samdasita had been corrected in my reprint of the first Mazdala, published at Leipzig. See Bollensen, Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 626. I, 61, 7, read vishnuk ; I, 64,2, read si#ayak; I, 64, 5, read dhiitayah. I, 61, 16. Rosen had rightly printed hdriyogand with a long 4 both in the Samhit4é and Pada texts, and I ought not to have given the short a instead. All the MSS, S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1, and P 2, give the long 4. Professor Aufrecht gives the short a in the Pada, which is wrong. I, 67, 2 (4). vidantim (M. M. vol. i, p. 595) is perfectly right, as far as the authority of the MSS. and of Sayama is concerned, and should not have been altered to vindantim (Aufr. p. 57). - I, 72, 2, read vatsdm ; I, 72, 6, read pastii; I, 76, 3, read dhadkshy ; I, 82, 1, read yada. I, 83, 3. Rosen was right in giving 4samyattah. I gave dsamyatah on the authority of P 1, but all the other MSS. have tt.
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.
1Another 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. It follows from Sftra 499 that in I, 138, 4, we should not lengthen the vowel of si. Hence, instead of asy& 0 shd ma upa satdye, as printed in my edition and repeated by Professor Aufrecht, we should read asy4 Q shi a upa sataye. S1,S 2, S 3 have short u*. In VII, 31, 4, I had by mistake printed viddh{ instead of viddhf. The same reading is adopted by Professor Aufrecht (II, p. 24), but the authority of the Pratisdkhya, Sftra 445, can hardly be overruled. S 1, S 2, S 3 have viddhi. While in cases like these, the Pratisakhya is an authority which, as far as I can judge, ought to overrule the authority of every MS., however ancient, we must in other cases depend either on the testimony of the best MSS. or be guided, in fixing on the right reading, by Sdyana and the rules of grammar. I shall therefore, in cases where I cannot consider Professor Aufrecht’s readings as authoritative improvements, have to give my reasons why I adhere to the readings which I had originally adopted. In V, 9, 4, I had printed by mistake puri yé instead of purfi yd. I had, however, corrected this misprint in my edition of the Pratisékhya, 393, 532. Professor Aufrecht decides in favour of purt with a short u, but against the authority of the MSS., S 1, S 2, S 3, which have purf. * In the same verse, I, 138, 4, the shu in 6 shu tv4 should not be lengthened, for there is no rule, as far as I can see, in the Pratisakhya that would require the lengthening of st before tva. Sce Pritisikhya, 491. \vili VEDIC HYMNS.
2* In the same verse, I, 138, 4, the shu in 6 shu tv4 should not be lengthened, for there is no rule, as far as I can see, in the Pratisakhya that would require the lengthening of st before tva. Sce Pritisikhya, 491. \vili VEDIC HYMNS. It was certainly a great mistake of mine, though it may seem more excusable in a Romanised transcript, that I did not follow the writers of the best MSS. in their use of the Avagraha, or, I should rather say, of that sign which, as far as the Veda is concerned, is very wrongly designated by the name of Avagraha. Avagraha, according to the PratisAkhya, never occurs in the Samhit4 text, but is the name given to that halt, stoppage, or pause which in the Pada text separates the component parts of compound words. That pause has the length of one short vowel, i.e. one matra. Of course, nothing is said by the PratisAkhya as to how the pause should be represented graphically, but it is several times alluded to as of importance in the recitation and accentuation of the Veda. What we have been in the habit of calling Avagraha is by the writers of certain MSS. of the Samhita text used as the sign of the Vivrztti or hiatus. This hiatus, however, is very different from the Avagraha, for while the Avagraha has the length of one mtr, the Vivritti or hiatus has the length of } métr4, if the two vowels are short; of 4 matrd, if either vowel is long; of } métrd, if both vowels are long. Now I have several times called attention to the fact that though this hiatus is marked in certain MSS. by the sign =, I have in my edition omitted it, because I thought that the hiatus spoke for itself and did not require a sign to attract the attention of European readers ; while, on the contrary, I have inserted that sign where MSS. hardly ever use it, viz. when a short initial a is elided after a final e or 0; (see my remarks on pp. 36, 39, of my edition of the Pratisakhya.) Although I thought, and still think, that this use of the sign = is more useful for practical purposes, yet I regret that, in this one particular, I should have deviated from the authority of the best MSS., and caused some misunderstandings on the part of those who have made use of my edition. If, for instance, I had placed the sign of the Vivritti, the =, in its proper place, or if, at least, I had not inserted it where, as we say, the initial a has been elided after e or o, Professor Bollensen would have seen at once that the authors of the Pratisakhyas fully agree with him in looking on this change, not as an PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. lix
3lix elision, but as a contraction. If, as sometimes happens, final o or e remain unchanged before initial short a, this is called the Pa#k4la and Prakya padavritti (Sdtra 137). If, on the contrary, final o or e become one (ekibhavati) with the initial short a, this is called the Abhinihita sandhi (Sdtra 138). While the former, the hiatus of the Pa#éala and Eastern schools, is marked by the writers of several MSS. by the sign =, the Abhinihita sandhi, being a sandhi, is not marked by any sign ®. I, 3,12. rdgati (Aufr. p. 2) instead of ragati (M. M. vol. i, Pp. 75) is wrong. I, 7, 9. ya ékak (Aufr. p. 5) should be ya ékad (M. M. vol. i, p. 110), because the relative pronoun is never without an accent. The relative particle yatha may be without an accent, if it stands at the end of a pada; and though there are exceptions to this rule, yet in VIII, 21, 5, where Professor Aufrecht gives ydtha, the MSS. are unanimous in favour of yatha (M. M. vol. iv, p. 480). See Phi¢-sdtra, ed. Kielhorn, p. 54. I, 10,11. 4 td (Aufr. p. 7) should be 4 td (M. M. vol. i, Pp- 139), because 4 is never without the accent. I, 10, 12. gush¢4s, which Professor Aufrecht specially mentions as having no final Visarga in the Pada, has the Visarga in all the MSS, (Aufr. p. 7, M. M. vol. i, Pp: 140.) I, 11, 4. kdvir (Aufr. p. 7) should be kavir (M. M. vol. i, Pp. 143). I, 22, 8, read rddhamsi. I, 40, 1 and 6. There is no excuse for the accent either on tvémahe or on vékema, while s4#4f in I, 51, 11, ought to have the accent on the first syllable. I, 49, 3. Rosen was right in not eliding the a in divd antebhya#. S 1, S 2, S 3 preserve the initial a, nor does the PratisAkhya anywhere provide for its suppression. I, 54, 8. kshdtram (Aufr. p. 46) is a mere misprint for kshatram. ® As to the system or want of system, according to which the Abhinihita ssndhi takes place in the Sasshita, see p. xlviii seq. Ix VEDIC HYMNS. I, 55, 7. vandanasrid (Aufr. p. 47) instead of vandanasrud (M. M. vol. i, p. 514) is wrong. I, 57, 2. samasita instead of samdasita had been corrected in my reprint of the first Mazdala, published at Leipzig. See Bollensen, Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 626. I, 61, 7, read vishnuk ; I, 64,2, read si#ayak; I, 64, 5, read dhiitayah. I, 61, 16. Rosen had rightly printed hdriyogand with a long 4 both in the Samhit4é and Pada texts, and I ought not to have given the short a instead. All the MSS, S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1, and P 2, give the long 4. Professor Aufrecht gives the short a in the Pada, which is wrong. I, 67, 2 (4). vidantim (M. M. vol. i, p. 595) is perfectly right, as far as the authority of the MSS. and of Sayama is concerned, and should not have been altered to vindantim (Aufr. p. 57). - I, 72, 2, read vatsdm ; I, 72, 6, read pastii; I, 76, 3, read dhadkshy ; I, 82, 1, read yada. I, 83, 3. Rosen was right in giving 4samyattah. I gave dsamyatah on the authority of P 1, but all the other MSS. have tt.
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.