Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1In X, 28, 11, Professor Aufrecht thinks that the Pada should have godhas instead of godha. I think godha is right, in spite of Professor Aufrecht’s appeal to the silence of the Pratisakhya. The fact is that godhad never occurs, while godh4 occurs in the preceding verse, and again VIII, 69, 9. After such a flourish of trumpets, we expected more from Professor Aufrecht ; still we must learn to be grateful even for small mercies. Having said so much in vindication of the text of the Rig-veda as published by me, and in defence of my principles of criticism which seem to me so self-evident as hardly to deserve the name of canones critici, I feel bound at the same time both to acknowledge some inaccuracies that have occurred in the index at the end of each volume, and to defend some entries in that index which have been challenged without sufficient cause. e2 Ixviii VEDIC HYMNS. It has been supposed that in the index at the end of my fourth volume, the seventeenth verse of the 34th hymn in Sfyana’s the seventh Mazdala has been wrongly quotations from assigned to Ahi Budhnya, and that one half nukramazt. only of that verse should have been reserved for that deity. I do not deny that we should be justified in deriving that sense from the words of the Anukramazika, but I cannot admit that my own interpretation is untenable. As SAyana does not speak authoritatively on the subject, I followed the authority of Shadgurusishya. This commentator of the Anukramazik4 says: atra ka abgdm ukthair ahim grizisha ity ardharkosbgand4mno® devasya stutiz ; m4 norhir budhnya ity ardharfoshirbudhnyanamno devasya ». ' Another commentator says: abg4m ukthair ardharZoshik ; uttaro m4 noshir ity ahir budhnya#. From this we learn that both commentators looked upon the Dvipad4s as ardharkas or half-verses, and ascribed the whole of verse 16 to Ahir abga#, the whole of verse 17 to Ahir budhnyad. It will be seen from an accurate examination of S4yaza’s commentary on verse 17, that in the second interpretation of the second half of verse 17, he labours to show that in this portion, too, Ahir budhnya# may be considered as the deity. It is perfectly right to say that the words of the Anukramazika, abgam aheé, signify that the verse beginning with abg4m, belongs to Ahi. But there was no misprint in my index. It will be seen that Shadgurusishya goes even beyond me, and calls that deity simply Abga, leaving out Ahi altogether, as understood. I was anxious to show the distinction between Abg4& Ahi and Ahir Budhnya&, as the deities of the two successive verses, and I did not expect that any reader could possibly misinterpret my entry ° With regard to hymns 91 and 92 of the seventh Mandala, it is true, that in the index I did not mention that certain verses in which two deities are mentioned (91, 2; * I find that Mr. Macdonell in his edition of the Sarvanukramasf reads ardharkoshinamno. If this is right, part of my argument would fall.
2Macdonell in his edition of the Sarvanukramasf reads ardharkoshinamno. If this is right, part of my argument would fall. > MS. Wilson 379 has, ardharfo ndmano daivatasya, and in the margin shi. Ahirbudhnya seems to have been taken as one word. ¢ The editor of the Bombay edition of the text of the Rig-veda assigns verse 16 to Ahi, verse 17 to Ahirbudhnya. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, xix 4-73 92, 2), must be considered as addressed not to Vayu alone, but to Vayu and Indra. It will be seen from Sayaza’s introduction to hymn go, that he, too, wrongly limits the sentence of the Anukramanika, aindryas ka yA dvivadukta&, to the fifth and following verses of hymn go, and that he never alludes to this proviso again in his introductory remarks to hymn 91 and 92, though, of course, he explains the verses, in which a dual occurs, as addressed to two deities, viz. Indra and Vayu. The same omission, whether intentional or unintentional, occurs in Shadgurusishya’s commentary. The other commentary, however, assigns the verses of the three hymns rightly. The subject has evidently been one that excited attention in very early days, for in the Aitareya-brahmaaza, V, 20, we actually find that the word vam which occurs in hymn go, 1, and which might be taken as a dual, though Sayama explains it as a singular, is changed into te *. In hymn VII, 104, rakshohavau might certainly be added as an epithet of Indra-Somau, and Shadgurusishya clearly takes it inthat sense. The Anukramanika says: indrasoma pa#kadhikaindrasomam rakshoghnam sapabhisdpaprayam. In hymn VIII, 67, it has been supposed that the readings Samada and Samada instead of Sammada and SA4mmada were due to a misprint. This is not the case. That I was aware of the other spelling of this name, viz. Sammada and SAmmada, I had shown in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (2nd ed.), p. 39, where I had translated the passage of the Sankh4yana-sitras in which Matsya Sammada occurs, and had also called attention to the Asvalayana-sitras X, 7,and the Satapatha-brahmaaa XIII, 3, 1, 1, * The interpunction of Dr. Haug’s edition (p. 128) should be after te. Shadgurusishya says: ata eva brahmamas(itrayoA praiige vayavyatvaya pra viraya sukayo dadrire> vim iti dvivatanasthane ta ity ckavatanap4shak kritah, vam ity uktam ded aindratvam a syd iti. Possibly the same change should be made in Asvalayana’s Srauta S(tras, VIII, 11, and it has been made by Rama Niérdyama Vidyaratna. The remark of the commentator, however, dadrire ta iti prayogap4thah, looks as if vim might have been retained in the text. The MSS. I have collated are in favour of te. > Mr. Macdonell (Sarvanukramass, p. 133) inserts ta iti after dadrire. Ixx VEDIC HYMNS.
3The remark of the commentator, however, dadrire ta iti prayogap4thah, looks as if vim might have been retained in the text. The MSS. I have collated are in favour of te. > Mr. Macdonell (Sarvanukramass, p. 133) inserts ta iti after dadrire. Ixx VEDIC HYMNS. where the same passage is found. I there spelt the name S&ammada, because the majority of the MSS. were in favour of that spelling. In the edition of the Asval4yana-sitras, which has since been published by Rama Nardyaza Vidyarazya, the name is spelt Samada. My own opinion is that S4mmada is the right spelling, but that does not prove that Sayama thought so; and unless I deviated from the principles which I had adopted for a critical restoration of Sayana’s text, I could not but write Samada in our passage. B 1 and B 4 omit s4mada, but both give samadakhyasya ; Ca. gives likewise samadakhyasya, and A. semaddkhyasya. This, I believe, was meant by the writer for sammadakhyasya, for in the passage from the Anukramazi both A. and Ca. give simmado. I then consulted the commentary of Shadgurusishya, and there again the same MS. gave twice sammada, once sdmada, which is explained by samadékhyamahdminaragaputrak. A better MS. of Shadgurusishya, MS. Wilson 379, gives the readings sammado, sdmmada, and sammadakhyasya. The other commentary gives distinctly simanda. [I have adopted sammada in the new edition.] In IX, 68, Professor Aufrecht adopts what he considers the bold reading Vatsapri; I prefer to be timid and allow Sayama his own reading Vatsapri; see Sarvanukramasi, ed. Macdonell, pp. 34, 146. It will be seen from these remarks that many things have to be considered before one can form an independent judgment as to the exact view adopted by SAyama in places where he differs from other authorities, or as to the exact words in which he clothed his meaning. Such cases occur again and again. Thus in IX, 86, I find that Professor Aufrecht ascribes the first ten verses to the Akrishéas, whereas Sayana calls them Akrishdas. It is perfectly true that the best MSS. of the Anukramazika have Akrishaa, it is equally true that the name of these Akrishéas is spelt with a short ain the Harivamsa, 11,533, but an editor of Sayana’s work is not to alter the occasional mistakes of that learned commentator, and SAyama certainly called these poets Akrishias. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxi
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.
1In X, 28, 11, Professor Aufrecht thinks that the Pada should have godhas instead of godha. I think godha is right, in spite of Professor Aufrecht’s appeal to the silence of the Pratisakhya. The fact is that godhad never occurs, while godh4 occurs in the preceding verse, and again VIII, 69, 9. After such a flourish of trumpets, we expected more from Professor Aufrecht ; still we must learn to be grateful even for small mercies. Having said so much in vindication of the text of the Rig-veda as published by me, and in defence of my principles of criticism which seem to me so self-evident as hardly to deserve the name of canones critici, I feel bound at the same time both to acknowledge some inaccuracies that have occurred in the index at the end of each volume, and to defend some entries in that index which have been challenged without sufficient cause. e2 Ixviii VEDIC HYMNS. It has been supposed that in the index at the end of my fourth volume, the seventeenth verse of the 34th hymn in Sfyana’s the seventh Mazdala has been wrongly quotations from assigned to Ahi Budhnya, and that one half nukramazt. only of that verse should have been reserved for that deity. I do not deny that we should be justified in deriving that sense from the words of the Anukramazika, but I cannot admit that my own interpretation is untenable. As SAyana does not speak authoritatively on the subject, I followed the authority of Shadgurusishya. This commentator of the Anukramazik4 says: atra ka abgdm ukthair ahim grizisha ity ardharkosbgand4mno® devasya stutiz ; m4 norhir budhnya ity ardharfoshirbudhnyanamno devasya ». ' Another commentator says: abg4m ukthair ardharZoshik ; uttaro m4 noshir ity ahir budhnya#. From this we learn that both commentators looked upon the Dvipad4s as ardharkas or half-verses, and ascribed the whole of verse 16 to Ahir abga#, the whole of verse 17 to Ahir budhnyad. It will be seen from an accurate examination of S4yaza’s commentary on verse 17, that in the second interpretation of the second half of verse 17, he labours to show that in this portion, too, Ahir budhnya# may be considered as the deity. It is perfectly right to say that the words of the Anukramazika, abgam aheé, signify that the verse beginning with abg4m, belongs to Ahi. But there was no misprint in my index. It will be seen that Shadgurusishya goes even beyond me, and calls that deity simply Abga, leaving out Ahi altogether, as understood. I was anxious to show the distinction between Abg4& Ahi and Ahir Budhnya&, as the deities of the two successive verses, and I did not expect that any reader could possibly misinterpret my entry ° With regard to hymns 91 and 92 of the seventh Mandala, it is true, that in the index I did not mention that certain verses in which two deities are mentioned (91, 2; * I find that Mr. Macdonell in his edition of the Sarvanukramasf reads ardharkoshinamno. If this is right, part of my argument would fall.
2Macdonell in his edition of the Sarvanukramasf reads ardharkoshinamno. If this is right, part of my argument would fall. > MS. Wilson 379 has, ardharfo ndmano daivatasya, and in the margin shi. Ahirbudhnya seems to have been taken as one word. ¢ The editor of the Bombay edition of the text of the Rig-veda assigns verse 16 to Ahi, verse 17 to Ahirbudhnya. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, xix 4-73 92, 2), must be considered as addressed not to Vayu alone, but to Vayu and Indra. It will be seen from Sayaza’s introduction to hymn go, that he, too, wrongly limits the sentence of the Anukramanika, aindryas ka yA dvivadukta&, to the fifth and following verses of hymn go, and that he never alludes to this proviso again in his introductory remarks to hymn 91 and 92, though, of course, he explains the verses, in which a dual occurs, as addressed to two deities, viz. Indra and Vayu. The same omission, whether intentional or unintentional, occurs in Shadgurusishya’s commentary. The other commentary, however, assigns the verses of the three hymns rightly. The subject has evidently been one that excited attention in very early days, for in the Aitareya-brahmaaza, V, 20, we actually find that the word vam which occurs in hymn go, 1, and which might be taken as a dual, though Sayama explains it as a singular, is changed into te *. In hymn VII, 104, rakshohavau might certainly be added as an epithet of Indra-Somau, and Shadgurusishya clearly takes it inthat sense. The Anukramanika says: indrasoma pa#kadhikaindrasomam rakshoghnam sapabhisdpaprayam. In hymn VIII, 67, it has been supposed that the readings Samada and Samada instead of Sammada and SA4mmada were due to a misprint. This is not the case. That I was aware of the other spelling of this name, viz. Sammada and SAmmada, I had shown in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (2nd ed.), p. 39, where I had translated the passage of the Sankh4yana-sitras in which Matsya Sammada occurs, and had also called attention to the Asvalayana-sitras X, 7,and the Satapatha-brahmaaa XIII, 3, 1, 1, * The interpunction of Dr. Haug’s edition (p. 128) should be after te. Shadgurusishya says: ata eva brahmamas(itrayoA praiige vayavyatvaya pra viraya sukayo dadrire> vim iti dvivatanasthane ta ity ckavatanap4shak kritah, vam ity uktam ded aindratvam a syd iti. Possibly the same change should be made in Asvalayana’s Srauta S(tras, VIII, 11, and it has been made by Rama Niérdyama Vidyaratna. The remark of the commentator, however, dadrire ta iti prayogap4thah, looks as if vim might have been retained in the text. The MSS. I have collated are in favour of te. > Mr. Macdonell (Sarvanukramass, p. 133) inserts ta iti after dadrire. Ixx VEDIC HYMNS.
3The remark of the commentator, however, dadrire ta iti prayogap4thah, looks as if vim might have been retained in the text. The MSS. I have collated are in favour of te. > Mr. Macdonell (Sarvanukramass, p. 133) inserts ta iti after dadrire. Ixx VEDIC HYMNS. where the same passage is found. I there spelt the name S&ammada, because the majority of the MSS. were in favour of that spelling. In the edition of the Asval4yana-sitras, which has since been published by Rama Nardyaza Vidyarazya, the name is spelt Samada. My own opinion is that S4mmada is the right spelling, but that does not prove that Sayama thought so; and unless I deviated from the principles which I had adopted for a critical restoration of Sayana’s text, I could not but write Samada in our passage. B 1 and B 4 omit s4mada, but both give samadakhyasya ; Ca. gives likewise samadakhyasya, and A. semaddkhyasya. This, I believe, was meant by the writer for sammadakhyasya, for in the passage from the Anukramazi both A. and Ca. give simmado. I then consulted the commentary of Shadgurusishya, and there again the same MS. gave twice sammada, once sdmada, which is explained by samadékhyamahdminaragaputrak. A better MS. of Shadgurusishya, MS. Wilson 379, gives the readings sammado, sdmmada, and sammadakhyasya. The other commentary gives distinctly simanda. [I have adopted sammada in the new edition.] In IX, 68, Professor Aufrecht adopts what he considers the bold reading Vatsapri; I prefer to be timid and allow Sayama his own reading Vatsapri; see Sarvanukramasi, ed. Macdonell, pp. 34, 146. It will be seen from these remarks that many things have to be considered before one can form an independent judgment as to the exact view adopted by SAyama in places where he differs from other authorities, or as to the exact words in which he clothed his meaning. Such cases occur again and again. Thus in IX, 86, I find that Professor Aufrecht ascribes the first ten verses to the Akrishéas, whereas Sayana calls them Akrishdas. It is perfectly true that the best MSS. of the Anukramazika have Akrishaa, it is equally true that the name of these Akrishéas is spelt with a short ain the Harivamsa, 11,533, but an editor of Sayana’s work is not to alter the occasional mistakes of that learned commentator, and SAyama certainly called these poets Akrishias. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxi
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.