Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxi Verses 21—30 of the same hymn are ascribed by Professor Aufrecht to the Présniyak. Here, again, several MSS. support that reading; and in Shadgurusishya’s commentary, the correction of prisniyak into prisnayak is made by a later hand. But Sayama clearly took prisnayas for a nominative plural of pvésni, and in this case he certainly was right. The Dictionary of Boéhtlingk and Roth quotes the Mahabharata, VII, 8728, in support of the peculiar reading of présniyaf, but the published text gives présnayah. Professor Benfey, in his list of poets (Ind. Stud. vol. iii, p. 223), gives prisniyoga as one word, not prisniyoga, as stated in the Dictionary of Boéhtlingk and Roth, but this is evidently meant for two words, viz. prisnayo:gahk. However, whether prisniyak or prisnayak be the real name of these poets, an editor of SAyavza is bound to give that reading of the name which Sayama believed to be the right one, i. e. prisnayah *. Again, in the same hymn, Professor Aufrecht ascribes verses 31-40 to the Atris. We should then have to read tritiye:trayah. But Sdyama read tritiye trayad, and ascribes verses 31-40 to the three companies together of the Rshis mentioned before. On this point the MSS. admit of no doubt, for we read: faturthasya ka dasarkasya akrish¢a masha ityAdidvinamanas trayo ga#4 drashfarak. I do not say that the other explanation is wrong; I only say that, whether right or wrong, Sdyava certainly read trayas, not atrayak; and an editor of Sayaza has no more right to correct the text, supported by the best MSS,., in the first and second, than in the third of these passages, all taken from one and the same hymn. But though I insist so strongly on a strict observance of the rules of diplomatic criticism with regard to the text Old mistakes Of the Rig-veda, nay, even of Sdyana, I inthetext. jnsist equally strongly on the right of independent criticism, which ought to begin where diplo- ® Professor Aufrecht in his new edition of the text (1877) adopts the more timid reading primayak. See also Brihat-Samhit4, transl. by Kern, p. 2: Sikat&h prisnayo garga valakhilya martéipiA bhrigavo sigirasas aiva sdkshmas anye maharshayah, xxii VEDIC HYMNS,
2See also Brihat-Samhit4, transl. by Kern, p. 2: Sikat&h prisnayo garga valakhilya martéipiA bhrigavo sigirasas aiva sdkshmas anye maharshayah, xxii VEDIC HYMNS, matic criticism ends. Considering the startling antiquity which we can claim for every letter and accent of our MSS., so far as they are authenticated by the Pratisdkhya, to say nothing of the passages of many hymns which are quoted verbatim in the Brahmazas, the Kalpa-sitras, the Nirukta, the Brzhaddevata, and the Anukramazis, I should deem it reckless to alter one single letter or one single accent in an edition of the hymns of the Rig-veda. As the text has been handed down to us, so it should remain; and whatever alterations and corrections we, the critical Mlekkhas of the nineteenth century, have to propose, should be kept distinct from that time-hallowed inheritance. Unlikely as it may sound, it is true nevertheless that we, the scholars of the nineteenth century, are able to point out mistakes in the text of the Rig-veda which escaped the attention of the most learned among the native scholars of the sixth century B.C. No doubt, these scholars, even if they had perceived such mistakes, would hardly have ventured to correct the text of their sacred writings. The authors of the Pratisakhya had before their eyes or ears a text ready made, of which they registered every peculiarity, nay, in which they would note and preserve every single irregularity, even though it stood alone amidst hundreds of analogous cases. With us the case is different. Where we see a rule observed in 99 cases, we feel strongly tempted and sometimes justified in altering the 1ooth case in accordance with what we consider to be a general rule. Yet even then I feel convinced we ought not to do more than place our conjectural readings below the textus receptus of the Veda,—a text so ancient and venerable that no scholar of any historical tact or critical taste would venture to foist into it a conjectural reading, however plausible, nay, however undeniable. Sthatis faré- 4 Lhere can be no clearer case of corruption tham. in the traditional text of the Rig-veda than, for instance, in I, 70, 4, where the Pada text reads: vardhan yam pdarvid kshapds vi-rdpa/ sthatus 4a rdtham vita-pravitam. All scholars who have touched on this verse, Professors Benfey, Bollensen, Roth, and others, have pointed out that PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxiii instead of 4a rdtham, the original poet must have said karatham. The phrase sthatu/ Aar4tham, what stands and moves, occurs several times. It is evidently an ancient phrase, and hence we can account for the preservation in it of the old termination of the nom. sing. of neuters in 71, which here, as in the Greek ydp-rvp or pdp-rvs, masc., appears as ur or us, while in the ordinary Sanskrit we find rz only. This nom. sing. neut. in us, explains also the common genitives and ablatives, pitu#, matuAé, &c., which stand for pitur-s, matur-s. This phrase sthata/ £aratham occurs :
3This nom. sing. neut. in us, explains also the common genitives and ablatives, pitu#, matuAé, &c., which stand for pitur-s, matur-s. This phrase sthata/ £aratham occurs : I, 58, 5. sthatu’ Zardtham bhayate patatrizaz. What stands and what moves is afraid of Agni. I, 68, 1. sthatud faratham aktin vi Ornot. He lighted up what stands and what moves during every night. I, 72, 6. pastin ka sthatrén Aardtham fa péhi. Protect the cattle, and what stands and moves! Here it has been proposed to read sth4tu% instead of sthatr#n, and I confess that this emendation is very plausible. One does not see how pas, cattle, could be called immobilia or fixtures, unless the poet wished to make a distinction between cattle that are kept fastened in stables, and cattle that are allowed to roam about freely in the homestead. This distinction is alluded to, for instance, in the Satapatha-brahmama, XI, 8, 3, 2. saurya evaisha pasuh sy4d iti, tasmad etasminn astamite pasavo badhyante; badhnanty ekan yathagosh¢sam, eka upasaméyanti. I, 70, 2. garbhak a sthatdm garbhak dardtham, (read sthatrdm, and see Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p- 462.) He who is within all that stands and all that moves. The word ardtha, if it occurs by itself, means flock, movable property : III, 31, 15. 4t {t sakhi-bhya/# #ardtham sdm airat. He brought together, for his friends, the flocks. VIII, 33, 8. puru-tré Aaratham dadhe. He bestowed flocks on many people. X, 92, 13. pra nak pishd4 Aardtham—avatu. May Pashan protect our flock! Ixxiv VEDIC HYMNS. Another idiomatic phrase in which sthatiA occurs is sthatus gdgatad, and here sthatuz is really a genitive : IV, 53, 6. gagatak sthatu% ubhdyasya yak vast. He who is lord of both, of what is movable and what is immovable. VI, 50, 7. visvasya sthatuk gagatak ganitriz. They who created all that stands and moves. VII, 60, 2. visvasya sthatus gagatah ka gopah. The guardians of all that stands and moves. Cf. X, 63, 8. I, 159, 3. sthatus ka satydm gagata# ka dharmani putrdsya pathahk paddm ddvay4vinak. Truly while you uphold all that stands and moves, you protect the home of the guileless son. Cf. II, 31, 5. But although I have no doubt that in I, 70, 4, the original poet said sthatu’% £ardtham, I should be loath to suppress the evidence of the mistake and alter the Pada text from ka rétham to dardtham. The very mistake is instructive, as showing us the kind of misapprehension to which the collectors of the Vedic text were liable, and enabling us to judge how far the limits of conjectural criticism may safely be extended. A still more extraordinary case of misunderstanding on the part of the original compilers of the Vedic texts, and likewise of the authors of the Pratisa-
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.
1PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxi Verses 21—30 of the same hymn are ascribed by Professor Aufrecht to the Présniyak. Here, again, several MSS. support that reading; and in Shadgurusishya’s commentary, the correction of prisniyak into prisnayak is made by a later hand. But Sayama clearly took prisnayas for a nominative plural of pvésni, and in this case he certainly was right. The Dictionary of Boéhtlingk and Roth quotes the Mahabharata, VII, 8728, in support of the peculiar reading of présniyaf, but the published text gives présnayah. Professor Benfey, in his list of poets (Ind. Stud. vol. iii, p. 223), gives prisniyoga as one word, not prisniyoga, as stated in the Dictionary of Boéhtlingk and Roth, but this is evidently meant for two words, viz. prisnayo:gahk. However, whether prisniyak or prisnayak be the real name of these poets, an editor of SAyavza is bound to give that reading of the name which Sayama believed to be the right one, i. e. prisnayah *. Again, in the same hymn, Professor Aufrecht ascribes verses 31-40 to the Atris. We should then have to read tritiye:trayah. But Sdyama read tritiye trayad, and ascribes verses 31-40 to the three companies together of the Rshis mentioned before. On this point the MSS. admit of no doubt, for we read: faturthasya ka dasarkasya akrish¢a masha ityAdidvinamanas trayo ga#4 drashfarak. I do not say that the other explanation is wrong; I only say that, whether right or wrong, Sdyava certainly read trayas, not atrayak; and an editor of Sayaza has no more right to correct the text, supported by the best MSS,., in the first and second, than in the third of these passages, all taken from one and the same hymn. But though I insist so strongly on a strict observance of the rules of diplomatic criticism with regard to the text Old mistakes Of the Rig-veda, nay, even of Sdyana, I inthetext. jnsist equally strongly on the right of independent criticism, which ought to begin where diplo- ® Professor Aufrecht in his new edition of the text (1877) adopts the more timid reading primayak. See also Brihat-Samhit4, transl. by Kern, p. 2: Sikat&h prisnayo garga valakhilya martéipiA bhrigavo sigirasas aiva sdkshmas anye maharshayah, xxii VEDIC HYMNS,
2See also Brihat-Samhit4, transl. by Kern, p. 2: Sikat&h prisnayo garga valakhilya martéipiA bhrigavo sigirasas aiva sdkshmas anye maharshayah, xxii VEDIC HYMNS, matic criticism ends. Considering the startling antiquity which we can claim for every letter and accent of our MSS., so far as they are authenticated by the Pratisdkhya, to say nothing of the passages of many hymns which are quoted verbatim in the Brahmazas, the Kalpa-sitras, the Nirukta, the Brzhaddevata, and the Anukramazis, I should deem it reckless to alter one single letter or one single accent in an edition of the hymns of the Rig-veda. As the text has been handed down to us, so it should remain; and whatever alterations and corrections we, the critical Mlekkhas of the nineteenth century, have to propose, should be kept distinct from that time-hallowed inheritance. Unlikely as it may sound, it is true nevertheless that we, the scholars of the nineteenth century, are able to point out mistakes in the text of the Rig-veda which escaped the attention of the most learned among the native scholars of the sixth century B.C. No doubt, these scholars, even if they had perceived such mistakes, would hardly have ventured to correct the text of their sacred writings. The authors of the Pratisakhya had before their eyes or ears a text ready made, of which they registered every peculiarity, nay, in which they would note and preserve every single irregularity, even though it stood alone amidst hundreds of analogous cases. With us the case is different. Where we see a rule observed in 99 cases, we feel strongly tempted and sometimes justified in altering the 1ooth case in accordance with what we consider to be a general rule. Yet even then I feel convinced we ought not to do more than place our conjectural readings below the textus receptus of the Veda,—a text so ancient and venerable that no scholar of any historical tact or critical taste would venture to foist into it a conjectural reading, however plausible, nay, however undeniable. Sthatis faré- 4 Lhere can be no clearer case of corruption tham. in the traditional text of the Rig-veda than, for instance, in I, 70, 4, where the Pada text reads: vardhan yam pdarvid kshapds vi-rdpa/ sthatus 4a rdtham vita-pravitam. All scholars who have touched on this verse, Professors Benfey, Bollensen, Roth, and others, have pointed out that PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxiii instead of 4a rdtham, the original poet must have said karatham. The phrase sthatu/ Aar4tham, what stands and moves, occurs several times. It is evidently an ancient phrase, and hence we can account for the preservation in it of the old termination of the nom. sing. of neuters in 71, which here, as in the Greek ydp-rvp or pdp-rvs, masc., appears as ur or us, while in the ordinary Sanskrit we find rz only. This nom. sing. neut. in us, explains also the common genitives and ablatives, pitu#, matuAé, &c., which stand for pitur-s, matur-s. This phrase sthata/ £aratham occurs :
3This nom. sing. neut. in us, explains also the common genitives and ablatives, pitu#, matuAé, &c., which stand for pitur-s, matur-s. This phrase sthata/ £aratham occurs : I, 58, 5. sthatu’ Zardtham bhayate patatrizaz. What stands and what moves is afraid of Agni. I, 68, 1. sthatud faratham aktin vi Ornot. He lighted up what stands and what moves during every night. I, 72, 6. pastin ka sthatrén Aardtham fa péhi. Protect the cattle, and what stands and moves! Here it has been proposed to read sth4tu% instead of sthatr#n, and I confess that this emendation is very plausible. One does not see how pas, cattle, could be called immobilia or fixtures, unless the poet wished to make a distinction between cattle that are kept fastened in stables, and cattle that are allowed to roam about freely in the homestead. This distinction is alluded to, for instance, in the Satapatha-brahmama, XI, 8, 3, 2. saurya evaisha pasuh sy4d iti, tasmad etasminn astamite pasavo badhyante; badhnanty ekan yathagosh¢sam, eka upasaméyanti. I, 70, 2. garbhak a sthatdm garbhak dardtham, (read sthatrdm, and see Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p- 462.) He who is within all that stands and all that moves. The word ardtha, if it occurs by itself, means flock, movable property : III, 31, 15. 4t {t sakhi-bhya/# #ardtham sdm airat. He brought together, for his friends, the flocks. VIII, 33, 8. puru-tré Aaratham dadhe. He bestowed flocks on many people. X, 92, 13. pra nak pishd4 Aardtham—avatu. May Pashan protect our flock! Ixxiv VEDIC HYMNS. Another idiomatic phrase in which sthatiA occurs is sthatus gdgatad, and here sthatuz is really a genitive : IV, 53, 6. gagatak sthatu% ubhdyasya yak vast. He who is lord of both, of what is movable and what is immovable. VI, 50, 7. visvasya sthatuk gagatak ganitriz. They who created all that stands and moves. VII, 60, 2. visvasya sthatus gagatah ka gopah. The guardians of all that stands and moves. Cf. X, 63, 8. I, 159, 3. sthatus ka satydm gagata# ka dharmani putrdsya pathahk paddm ddvay4vinak. Truly while you uphold all that stands and moves, you protect the home of the guileless son. Cf. II, 31, 5. But although I have no doubt that in I, 70, 4, the original poet said sthatu’% £ardtham, I should be loath to suppress the evidence of the mistake and alter the Pada text from ka rétham to dardtham. The very mistake is instructive, as showing us the kind of misapprehension to which the collectors of the Vedic text were liable, and enabling us to judge how far the limits of conjectural criticism may safely be extended. A still more extraordinary case of misunderstanding on the part of the original compilers of the Vedic texts, and likewise of the authors of the Pratisa-
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.