Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1e. ‘ they were joined with splendour, and this is said, as in our passage, of the Maruts. Prof. von Roth brings forward no passage where mimikshire is used in the sense in which he uses it here, and therefore I say again, his rendering may be poetical, but it is not scholarlike. To translate aranti sishmam by ‘das Pfeifen klingt,’ is, ‘to say the least, very free. Sushma comes, no doubt, from svas, to breathe, and the transition of meaning from breath to strength is intelligible enough. In the Psalms we read (xviii. 15), ‘At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the earth were discovered.’ Again (Job iv. 9), ‘ By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed ;’ Isaiah xi. 4,‘ And with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.’ Wrestlers know why breath or wind means strength, and even in the expression ‘ une ceuvre de longue haleine,’ the original intention of breath is still perceived. In most passages therefore in the Rig-veda where sushma occurs, and where it means strength, prowess, vigour, we may, if we like, translate it by breath, though it is clear that the poet himself was not always aware of the etymological meaning of the word. Where the sound of sushma is mentioned (IX, 50,1; X, 3, 6, &c.), it means clearly breath. But when, as in VI, 19, 8, sushma has the adjectives dhanaspr/t, suddksha, we can hardly translate it by anything but strength. When, therefore, xiv VEDIC HYMNS, von Roth translates sushma by whistling, and arkanti by sounding, I must demur. Whistling is different from breathing, nor do I know of any passage where ark with sushma or with .any similar word for sound means simply to sound a whistle. Why not translate, they sing their strength, i.e. the Maruts, by their breathing or howling, proclaim themselves their strength? We find a similar idea in I, 87, 3, ‘the Maruts have themselves glorified their greatness,’ Neither Grassmann nor Ludwig venture to take sushma in the sense of whistle, or aréanti in the sense of sounding. Bergaigne seems to take vrishazah as a genitive, referring to Indra, ‘ils chantent la force 4 Indra,’ which may have been the original meaning, but seems hardly appropriate when the verse is placed in the mouth of Indra himself (Journ. Asiat. 1884, p. 199). Sushma never occurs as an adjective. The passages in which von Roth admits sushma as an adjective are not adequate. Does mitgeboren in German convey the meaning of sani/ah, ‘of the same nest ?’ Verse 2. The second verse contains few difficulties, and is well rendered by von Roth: ‘An wessen Spriichen freuen sich die Jungen? Wer lenkt die Marut her zu seinem Opfer? Gleich Falken streichend durch den Raum der Liifte— Wie bringt man sie mit Wunscheskraft zum Stehen?’ Verse 3.
2The second verse contains few difficulties, and is well rendered by von Roth: ‘An wessen Spriichen freuen sich die Jungen? Wer lenkt die Marut her zu seinem Opfer? Gleich Falken streichend durch den Raum der Liifte— Wie bringt man sie mit Wunscheskraft zum Stehen?’ Verse 3. The third verse is rendered by von Roth: ‘Wie kommt es, Indra, dass du sonst so munter, Heut’ ganz alleine fahrst, sag an Gebieter! Du pflegtest auf der Fahrt mit uns zu plaudern ; Was hast du wider uns, sprich, Rosselenker !’ Von Roth takes kita’ in a causal sense, why? I believe that kuta# never occurs in that sense in the Rig-veda. If it does, passages should be produced to prove it. Méhina& can never be translated by ‘sonst so munter.’ This imparts a modern idea which is not in the original. INTRODUCTION, XV Subhanaté does not mean auf der Fahrt,and plaudern, adopted from Grassmann, instead of sam prikkAase, introduces again quite a modern idea. Ludwig calls such an idea ‘abgeschmackt, insipid, which is rather strong, but not far wrong. Verse 4. Von Roth: ‘Ich liebe Spriiche, Wiinsche und die Tranke, Der Duft steigt auf, die Presse ist geriistet ; Sie flehen, locken mich mit ihrem Anruf, Und meine Fiichse fiihren mich zum Mahle.’ It is curious how quickly all difficulties which beset the first line seem to vanish in a metrical translation, but the scholar should face the difficulties, though the poet may evade them. To translate sishmad iyarti by ‘der Duft steigt auf,’ the flavour of the sacrifices rises up, is more than even Grassmann ventures on. It is simply impossible. Benfey (Entstehung der mit r anlautenden Personalendungen, p. 34) translates: ‘My thunderbolt, when hurled by me, moves mightily.’ Again, prabhvitah me adriz does not mean die Presse ist geriistet. Where does Indra ever speak of the stones used for pressing the Soma as my stone, and where does prabhritak ever mean geriistet ? Verse 5. Von Roth: ‘So werden wir und mit uns unsre Freunde (Nachbarn), Die freien Manner, unsre Riistung nehmen, Und lustig unsre Schecken alsbald schirren. Du kommst uns eben ganz nach Wunsch, o Indra.’ The first lines are unnecessarily free, and the last decidedly wrong. How can svadh4m anu hi na& babhfitha mean ‘ Du kommst uns eben ganz nach Wunsch?’ Svadh4 does not mean wish, but nature, custom, wont (see I, 6, 4, note 2; and Bergaigne, Journ. Asiat. 1884, p. 207). Babhdtha means ‘thou hast become,’ not ‘ thou comest.’ Xvi VEDIC HYMNS. Verse 6. Von Roth: ‘Da war's auch nicht so ganz nach Wunsch, o Maruts, Als ihr allein mich gegen Ahi schicktet! Ich aber kriftig, tapfer, unerschrocken, Ich traf die Gegner alle mit Geschossen.’
3Asiat. 1884, p. 207). Babhdtha means ‘thou hast become,’ not ‘ thou comest.’ Xvi VEDIC HYMNS. Verse 6. Von Roth: ‘Da war's auch nicht so ganz nach Wunsch, o Maruts, Als ihr allein mich gegen Ahi schicktet! Ich aber kriftig, tapfer, unerschrocken, Ich traf die Gegner alle mit Geschossen.’ The only doubtful line is the last. Von Roth’s former translation of nam, to bend away from, to escape from (cf. gevyw and bhug), seems to me still the right one. He now translates ‘I directed my arrow on every enemy,’ when the genitive, as ruled by d4namam, requires confirmation. As to sam ddhatta I certainly think von Roth’s last interpretation better than his first. In the Dictionary he explained samdha in our passage by to implicate. Grassmann translated it by to leave or to desert, Ludwig by to employ. I took it formerly in the usual sense of joining, so that yat m&m ékam samadhatta should be the explanation of svadhé, the old custom that you should join me when I am alone. But the construction is against this, and I have therefore altered my translation, so that the sense is, Where was that old custom you speak of, when you made me to be alone, i.e. when you left me alone, in the fight with Ahi? The ud&tta of dnamam is not irregular, because it is preceded by hi. Verse 7. Von Roth: ‘Gewaltiges hast du gethan im Bunde Mit uns, o Held, wir mit vereinter Stirke, Gewaltiges vermégen wir, du michtiger Indra, wenn es uns Ernst ist, ihr Gesellen.’ By this translation, the contrast between ‘thou hast done great things with us,’ and ‘ Now let us do great things once more,’ is lost. Kyrizdvama expresses an exhortation, not a simple fact, and on this point Grassmann’s metrical translation is decidedly preferable. Verse 8. Von Roth: ‘Vritra schlug ich mit eigner Kraft, ihr Marut, Und meine Wuth war’s, die so kiihn mich machte, INTRODUCTION. “xvii Ich war’s, der—in der Faust den Blitz—dem Menschen Den Zugang bahnte zu den blinkenden Gewassern.’ This is a very good translation, except that there are some syllables too much in the last line. What I miss is the accent on the I. Perhaps this might become stronger by translating : ‘Ich schlug mit eigner Kraft den Vritra nieder, Ich, Maruts, stark durch meinen Zorn geworden ; Ich war’s, der blitzbewaffnet fir den Menschen Dem lichten Wasser freie Bahn geschaffen.’ Verse 9. Von Roth: ‘Gewiss, nichts ist was je dir widerstiinde, Und so wie du gibts keinen zweiten Gott mehr, Nicht jetzt, noch kiinftig, der was du verméchte : Thu’ denn begeistert was zu thun dich liistet.’
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.
1e. ‘ they were joined with splendour, and this is said, as in our passage, of the Maruts. Prof. von Roth brings forward no passage where mimikshire is used in the sense in which he uses it here, and therefore I say again, his rendering may be poetical, but it is not scholarlike. To translate aranti sishmam by ‘das Pfeifen klingt,’ is, ‘to say the least, very free. Sushma comes, no doubt, from svas, to breathe, and the transition of meaning from breath to strength is intelligible enough. In the Psalms we read (xviii. 15), ‘At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the earth were discovered.’ Again (Job iv. 9), ‘ By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed ;’ Isaiah xi. 4,‘ And with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.’ Wrestlers know why breath or wind means strength, and even in the expression ‘ une ceuvre de longue haleine,’ the original intention of breath is still perceived. In most passages therefore in the Rig-veda where sushma occurs, and where it means strength, prowess, vigour, we may, if we like, translate it by breath, though it is clear that the poet himself was not always aware of the etymological meaning of the word. Where the sound of sushma is mentioned (IX, 50,1; X, 3, 6, &c.), it means clearly breath. But when, as in VI, 19, 8, sushma has the adjectives dhanaspr/t, suddksha, we can hardly translate it by anything but strength. When, therefore, xiv VEDIC HYMNS, von Roth translates sushma by whistling, and arkanti by sounding, I must demur. Whistling is different from breathing, nor do I know of any passage where ark with sushma or with .any similar word for sound means simply to sound a whistle. Why not translate, they sing their strength, i.e. the Maruts, by their breathing or howling, proclaim themselves their strength? We find a similar idea in I, 87, 3, ‘the Maruts have themselves glorified their greatness,’ Neither Grassmann nor Ludwig venture to take sushma in the sense of whistle, or aréanti in the sense of sounding. Bergaigne seems to take vrishazah as a genitive, referring to Indra, ‘ils chantent la force 4 Indra,’ which may have been the original meaning, but seems hardly appropriate when the verse is placed in the mouth of Indra himself (Journ. Asiat. 1884, p. 199). Sushma never occurs as an adjective. The passages in which von Roth admits sushma as an adjective are not adequate. Does mitgeboren in German convey the meaning of sani/ah, ‘of the same nest ?’ Verse 2. The second verse contains few difficulties, and is well rendered by von Roth: ‘An wessen Spriichen freuen sich die Jungen? Wer lenkt die Marut her zu seinem Opfer? Gleich Falken streichend durch den Raum der Liifte— Wie bringt man sie mit Wunscheskraft zum Stehen?’ Verse 3.
2The second verse contains few difficulties, and is well rendered by von Roth: ‘An wessen Spriichen freuen sich die Jungen? Wer lenkt die Marut her zu seinem Opfer? Gleich Falken streichend durch den Raum der Liifte— Wie bringt man sie mit Wunscheskraft zum Stehen?’ Verse 3. The third verse is rendered by von Roth: ‘Wie kommt es, Indra, dass du sonst so munter, Heut’ ganz alleine fahrst, sag an Gebieter! Du pflegtest auf der Fahrt mit uns zu plaudern ; Was hast du wider uns, sprich, Rosselenker !’ Von Roth takes kita’ in a causal sense, why? I believe that kuta# never occurs in that sense in the Rig-veda. If it does, passages should be produced to prove it. Méhina& can never be translated by ‘sonst so munter.’ This imparts a modern idea which is not in the original. INTRODUCTION, XV Subhanaté does not mean auf der Fahrt,and plaudern, adopted from Grassmann, instead of sam prikkAase, introduces again quite a modern idea. Ludwig calls such an idea ‘abgeschmackt, insipid, which is rather strong, but not far wrong. Verse 4. Von Roth: ‘Ich liebe Spriiche, Wiinsche und die Tranke, Der Duft steigt auf, die Presse ist geriistet ; Sie flehen, locken mich mit ihrem Anruf, Und meine Fiichse fiihren mich zum Mahle.’ It is curious how quickly all difficulties which beset the first line seem to vanish in a metrical translation, but the scholar should face the difficulties, though the poet may evade them. To translate sishmad iyarti by ‘der Duft steigt auf,’ the flavour of the sacrifices rises up, is more than even Grassmann ventures on. It is simply impossible. Benfey (Entstehung der mit r anlautenden Personalendungen, p. 34) translates: ‘My thunderbolt, when hurled by me, moves mightily.’ Again, prabhvitah me adriz does not mean die Presse ist geriistet. Where does Indra ever speak of the stones used for pressing the Soma as my stone, and where does prabhritak ever mean geriistet ? Verse 5. Von Roth: ‘So werden wir und mit uns unsre Freunde (Nachbarn), Die freien Manner, unsre Riistung nehmen, Und lustig unsre Schecken alsbald schirren. Du kommst uns eben ganz nach Wunsch, o Indra.’ The first lines are unnecessarily free, and the last decidedly wrong. How can svadh4m anu hi na& babhfitha mean ‘ Du kommst uns eben ganz nach Wunsch?’ Svadh4 does not mean wish, but nature, custom, wont (see I, 6, 4, note 2; and Bergaigne, Journ. Asiat. 1884, p. 207). Babhdtha means ‘thou hast become,’ not ‘ thou comest.’ Xvi VEDIC HYMNS. Verse 6. Von Roth: ‘Da war's auch nicht so ganz nach Wunsch, o Maruts, Als ihr allein mich gegen Ahi schicktet! Ich aber kriftig, tapfer, unerschrocken, Ich traf die Gegner alle mit Geschossen.’
3Asiat. 1884, p. 207). Babhdtha means ‘thou hast become,’ not ‘ thou comest.’ Xvi VEDIC HYMNS. Verse 6. Von Roth: ‘Da war's auch nicht so ganz nach Wunsch, o Maruts, Als ihr allein mich gegen Ahi schicktet! Ich aber kriftig, tapfer, unerschrocken, Ich traf die Gegner alle mit Geschossen.’ The only doubtful line is the last. Von Roth’s former translation of nam, to bend away from, to escape from (cf. gevyw and bhug), seems to me still the right one. He now translates ‘I directed my arrow on every enemy,’ when the genitive, as ruled by d4namam, requires confirmation. As to sam ddhatta I certainly think von Roth’s last interpretation better than his first. In the Dictionary he explained samdha in our passage by to implicate. Grassmann translated it by to leave or to desert, Ludwig by to employ. I took it formerly in the usual sense of joining, so that yat m&m ékam samadhatta should be the explanation of svadhé, the old custom that you should join me when I am alone. But the construction is against this, and I have therefore altered my translation, so that the sense is, Where was that old custom you speak of, when you made me to be alone, i.e. when you left me alone, in the fight with Ahi? The ud&tta of dnamam is not irregular, because it is preceded by hi. Verse 7. Von Roth: ‘Gewaltiges hast du gethan im Bunde Mit uns, o Held, wir mit vereinter Stirke, Gewaltiges vermégen wir, du michtiger Indra, wenn es uns Ernst ist, ihr Gesellen.’ By this translation, the contrast between ‘thou hast done great things with us,’ and ‘ Now let us do great things once more,’ is lost. Kyrizdvama expresses an exhortation, not a simple fact, and on this point Grassmann’s metrical translation is decidedly preferable. Verse 8. Von Roth: ‘Vritra schlug ich mit eigner Kraft, ihr Marut, Und meine Wuth war’s, die so kiihn mich machte, INTRODUCTION. “xvii Ich war’s, der—in der Faust den Blitz—dem Menschen Den Zugang bahnte zu den blinkenden Gewassern.’ This is a very good translation, except that there are some syllables too much in the last line. What I miss is the accent on the I. Perhaps this might become stronger by translating : ‘Ich schlug mit eigner Kraft den Vritra nieder, Ich, Maruts, stark durch meinen Zorn geworden ; Ich war’s, der blitzbewaffnet fir den Menschen Dem lichten Wasser freie Bahn geschaffen.’ Verse 9. Von Roth: ‘Gewiss, nichts ist was je dir widerstiinde, Und so wie du gibts keinen zweiten Gott mehr, Nicht jetzt, noch kiinftig, der was du verméchte : Thu’ denn begeistert was zu thun dich liistet.’
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.