Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1What surprises one is, that van4 should have been spared, in spite of every temptation to change it into vanani» for I cannot doubt for one moment that van4 is the right reading, only Cli VEDIC HYMNS. that the ancient poets pronounced it vana. Wherever we alter the text of the Rig-veda by conjecture, we ought to be able, if possible, to give some explanation how the mistake which we wish to remove came to be committed. Ifa passage is obscure, difficult to construe, if it contains words which occur in no other place, then we can understand how, during a long process of oral tradition, accidents may have happened. But when everything is smooth and easy, when the intention of the poet is not to be mistaken, when the same phrase has occurred many times before, then to suppose that a simple and perspicuous sentence was changed into a complicated and obscure string of words, is more difficult to understand. I know there are passages where we cannot as yet account for the manner in which an evidently faulty reading found its way into both the Pada and Samhit4 texts, but in those very passages we cannot be too circumspect. If we read VIII, 40, 9, parvish fa indropamatayas parvir uta prasastayah, nothing seems more tempting than to omit indra, and to read parvish fa upamatayak. Nor would it be difficult to account for the insertion of indra; for though one would hardly venture to call it a marginal gloss that crept into the text—a case which, as far as I can see, has never happened in the hymns of the Rig-veda—it might be taken for an explanation given by an Afarya to his pupils, in order to inform them that the ninth verse, different from the eighth, was addressed to Indra. But however plausible this may sound, the question remains whether the traditional reading could not be main- tained, by admitting synizesis of opa, and reading parvish fa indropamatayah. F or a similar synizesis of — vu, see III, 6, 10, prafi adhvareva tasthatu/, unless we read pray adhvareva. Another and more difficult case of synizesis occurs in VII, 86, 4. ava tvdnend namasd tura(A) iydm. It would be easy to conjecture tvarey4am instead of tura iyam, but tvarey4m, in the sense of ‘let me hasten,’ is not Vedic. The choriambic ending, however, of a Trishfubh PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. clii can be proved to be legitimate, and if that is the case, then even the synizesis of tura, though hard, ought not to be regarded as impossible. In II, 18, 5, 4 vimsatyd trimsatd yahy arvn, A Aatvarimsatd haribhir yugdnah, 4 pa#hdsata surathebhir indra, 4 shashtya saptatya somapeyam, Professor Kuhn proposes to omit the 4 at the beginning of the second line, in order to have eleven instead of twelve syllables. By doing so he loses the uniformity of the four padas, which all begin with 4, while by admitting synizesis of haribhi# all necessity for conjectural emendation disappears.
2By doing so he loses the uniformity of the four padas, which all begin with 4, while by admitting synizesis of haribhi# all necessity for conjectural emendation disappears. If the poets of the Veda had objected to a pzon quartus (vvv-) at the end of a Gayatri, what could have been easier than to change IV, 52, 1, divo adarsi duhitd, into adarsi duhita diva? or X, 118, 6, addbhyam grzhapatim, into grihapatim adabhyam? If an epitritus secundus (— v——) had been objectionable in the same place, why not say VI, 61, 10, stomya bhat sarasvati, instead of sarasvati stomya bhdt? Why not VIII, 2, 11, revantam hi srinomi tvd, instead of revantam hi tva srinomi? If an ionicus a minore (» v——) had been excluded from that place, why not say I, 30, 10, gatitribhyah sakhe vaso, instead of sakhe vaso garitribhyah? or I, 41, 7, varunasya mahi psaraA, instead of mahi psaro varunasya ? It a dispondeus (- —— —) was to be avoided, then V, 68, 3, mahi vam kshatram deveshu, might easily have been replaced by deveshu vam kshatram mahi, and VIII, 2, 10, sukra Asiram ydkante, by sukra yakanta Asiram. If no epitritus primus (UV — — —) was allowed, why not say VI, 61, 13, nidas pdtu sarasvati, instead of sarasvati nidas patu, or VIII, 79, 4, dvesho yAvir aghasya Ait, instead of yavir aghasya kid dveshah? civ VEDIC HYMNS. Even the epitritus tertius (-— v—) might easily have been avoided by dropping the augment of apam in X, 119, I-13, kuvit somasydpdm iti. It is, in fact, a variety of less frequent occurrence than the rest, and might possibly be eliminated with some chance of success. Lastly, the choriambus (— v v-—) could have been removed in III, 24, 5, sisthi nad stinumatad, by reading sdnumatak sistht nah, and in VIII, 2, 31, sandd amrikto dayate, by reading amrikto dayate sant. But I am afraid the idea that regularity is better than irregularity, and that in the Veda, where there is a possibility, the regular metre is to be restored by means of conjectural emendations, has been so ably advocated by some of the most eminent scholars, that a merely general argument would now be of no avail. I must therefore give as much evidence as I can bring together in support of the contrary opinion; and though the process is a tedious one, the importance of the consequences with regard to Vedic criticism leaves me no alternative. With regard, then, to Seven the final dipodia of Gayatri verses, I still Gayatra Vrittas. hold and maintain, that, although the dijambus is by far the most general metre, the following seven varieties have to be recognised in the poetry of the Veda*: I. ur-un-, % VuU-y 3. -Um my, 4 UUm nm, 5. HO, 6. vrnrnm-, J --Vn-,~ 8. -—UuU-, I do not pretend to give every passage in which these varieties occur, but I hope I shall give a sufficient number in support of every one of them. I have confined myself almost entirely to the final dipodia of Gayatri verses, as the Anushtubha verses would have swelled the lists too much.
3I have confined myself almost entirely to the final dipodia of Gayatri verses, as the Anushtubha verses would have swelled the lists too much. § 2vvyvu-n-. I, 12, 9. tasmai pavaka mri/aya. (Instead of mrilaya, it has been proposed to read mardaya.) I, 18, 9. divo na sadmamakhasam. I, 42, 43 46,2; 97, 1-8; III, 11, 3; 27, 10; IV, 15, 73 * See some important remarks on these varieties in Mr. J. Boxwell’s article ‘On the Trish/ubh Metre,’ Journal Asiat. Soc. Beng., 1885, p. 79. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cv 32545 52,1; V,5:95 7543 7:53 7973 945 53,123 61,3; 61, 11; 64,5; 65,4; 82,9; VI, 16,17; 16,18; 16, 45; 45,17; 61, 4; VII, 15, 14; 66,2; VIII, 6, 35; 6, 42; 32,10; 44,28; 45,31; 72,63; 72,13; 80,1; 83,3; 93, 27; IX, 61,5; 64,1; X, 118, 6. § 3. -v--c. I, 22, 11. akkAinnapatras sakantdm. I, 30, 13. kshumanto yAbhir madema. I, 41, 8; 90,1; 90,4; 120,13; V, 19,13; 70,3; VI, 61, 10; VIII, 2, 2; 2, 43 2, 53 2, 113 2, 123 2,133 2, 143 2,15; 2, 16; 2,17; 2, 29; 2, 30; 2% 32; 2, 33; 4, 36; 2, 373 7) 393 7, 3335 Il, 23 Il, 33 13, 4; 16, 33 16, 4; 16, 53 16, 7; 46, 2; 71, 2; 81, 1; 81, 3; 81, 4; 81, 7; 81,9; 94,2; IX, 62,5; X, 20, 4; 20, 7. § 4. vunr-no. I, 3, 8. usra iva svasardni. I, 27, 4. agne deveshu pra vokah. I, 30, 10; 30,15; 38,7; 38,8; 41,7; 43,7; HI, 6,2; III, 27, 3; V, 82,7; VI, 16, 25; 16,26; 61,12; VIII, 2, 1; 2,3; 2,8; 2, 18; 2, 19; 2, 21; 2, 22; 2, 23; 2, 26; 2, 353 16,2; 16,6; 16,8; 71,93; 79,3; IX, 21,5; 62,6; 66, 21; X, 20, 5; 185, 1; 185, 2; 185, 3. §5.----. I, 2,7. dhiyam ghritakim sddhanta. I, 3, 4. anvibhis tana pitdsas. I, 27, 33 90, 2; II, 6, 4; III, 41, 8; V, 68, 3; 68, 4; VIII, 2, 10; 2, 24; 16, 1; 16, 12; 79, 2; IX, 66, 17; X, 20,6; 20, 8. §6.u---. I, 15, 6. ritund yag#am 4sAthe. I, 38, 2. kva vo gAvo na ranyanti (see note to I, 38, 2). I, 38,9; 86,9; III, 27,2; 41, 3; IV, 32, 23; V, 68, 5; 70,2; VI, 61,11; VIII, 2,20; 2,253; 7,323 26,193 79,43 79,5; 81,6; X, 158, 4. cvi VEDIC HYMNS. §7,--vu- I, 10, 8. sam g4 asmabhyam dhinuhi. I, 12, 5. agne tvam rakshasvinad. I, 37,155 43; 8; 46,6; III, 62, 7; IV, 39, 21; V, 86, 5; VIII, 5, 323 5, 35; X, 119, 1-133 144, 4. §8 -uu- I, 2, 9. daksham dadhAte apasam (or § 2). I, 6, 10. indram maho vd ragasah. I, 27, 63 30, 21; 41, 93 90, 5; III, 24, 5; V, 19, 2; 70, 13 70, 4; 82, 8; VIII, 2, 27; 2, 315 16,93 55, 43 67,19; 81,5; 81, 8; IX, 47, 2.
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.
1What surprises one is, that van4 should have been spared, in spite of every temptation to change it into vanani» for I cannot doubt for one moment that van4 is the right reading, only Cli VEDIC HYMNS. that the ancient poets pronounced it vana. Wherever we alter the text of the Rig-veda by conjecture, we ought to be able, if possible, to give some explanation how the mistake which we wish to remove came to be committed. Ifa passage is obscure, difficult to construe, if it contains words which occur in no other place, then we can understand how, during a long process of oral tradition, accidents may have happened. But when everything is smooth and easy, when the intention of the poet is not to be mistaken, when the same phrase has occurred many times before, then to suppose that a simple and perspicuous sentence was changed into a complicated and obscure string of words, is more difficult to understand. I know there are passages where we cannot as yet account for the manner in which an evidently faulty reading found its way into both the Pada and Samhit4 texts, but in those very passages we cannot be too circumspect. If we read VIII, 40, 9, parvish fa indropamatayas parvir uta prasastayah, nothing seems more tempting than to omit indra, and to read parvish fa upamatayak. Nor would it be difficult to account for the insertion of indra; for though one would hardly venture to call it a marginal gloss that crept into the text—a case which, as far as I can see, has never happened in the hymns of the Rig-veda—it might be taken for an explanation given by an Afarya to his pupils, in order to inform them that the ninth verse, different from the eighth, was addressed to Indra. But however plausible this may sound, the question remains whether the traditional reading could not be main- tained, by admitting synizesis of opa, and reading parvish fa indropamatayah. F or a similar synizesis of — vu, see III, 6, 10, prafi adhvareva tasthatu/, unless we read pray adhvareva. Another and more difficult case of synizesis occurs in VII, 86, 4. ava tvdnend namasd tura(A) iydm. It would be easy to conjecture tvarey4am instead of tura iyam, but tvarey4m, in the sense of ‘let me hasten,’ is not Vedic. The choriambic ending, however, of a Trishfubh PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. clii can be proved to be legitimate, and if that is the case, then even the synizesis of tura, though hard, ought not to be regarded as impossible. In II, 18, 5, 4 vimsatyd trimsatd yahy arvn, A Aatvarimsatd haribhir yugdnah, 4 pa#hdsata surathebhir indra, 4 shashtya saptatya somapeyam, Professor Kuhn proposes to omit the 4 at the beginning of the second line, in order to have eleven instead of twelve syllables. By doing so he loses the uniformity of the four padas, which all begin with 4, while by admitting synizesis of haribhi# all necessity for conjectural emendation disappears.
2By doing so he loses the uniformity of the four padas, which all begin with 4, while by admitting synizesis of haribhi# all necessity for conjectural emendation disappears. If the poets of the Veda had objected to a pzon quartus (vvv-) at the end of a Gayatri, what could have been easier than to change IV, 52, 1, divo adarsi duhitd, into adarsi duhita diva? or X, 118, 6, addbhyam grzhapatim, into grihapatim adabhyam? If an epitritus secundus (— v——) had been objectionable in the same place, why not say VI, 61, 10, stomya bhat sarasvati, instead of sarasvati stomya bhdt? Why not VIII, 2, 11, revantam hi srinomi tvd, instead of revantam hi tva srinomi? If an ionicus a minore (» v——) had been excluded from that place, why not say I, 30, 10, gatitribhyah sakhe vaso, instead of sakhe vaso garitribhyah? or I, 41, 7, varunasya mahi psaraA, instead of mahi psaro varunasya ? It a dispondeus (- —— —) was to be avoided, then V, 68, 3, mahi vam kshatram deveshu, might easily have been replaced by deveshu vam kshatram mahi, and VIII, 2, 10, sukra Asiram ydkante, by sukra yakanta Asiram. If no epitritus primus (UV — — —) was allowed, why not say VI, 61, 13, nidas pdtu sarasvati, instead of sarasvati nidas patu, or VIII, 79, 4, dvesho yAvir aghasya Ait, instead of yavir aghasya kid dveshah? civ VEDIC HYMNS. Even the epitritus tertius (-— v—) might easily have been avoided by dropping the augment of apam in X, 119, I-13, kuvit somasydpdm iti. It is, in fact, a variety of less frequent occurrence than the rest, and might possibly be eliminated with some chance of success. Lastly, the choriambus (— v v-—) could have been removed in III, 24, 5, sisthi nad stinumatad, by reading sdnumatak sistht nah, and in VIII, 2, 31, sandd amrikto dayate, by reading amrikto dayate sant. But I am afraid the idea that regularity is better than irregularity, and that in the Veda, where there is a possibility, the regular metre is to be restored by means of conjectural emendations, has been so ably advocated by some of the most eminent scholars, that a merely general argument would now be of no avail. I must therefore give as much evidence as I can bring together in support of the contrary opinion; and though the process is a tedious one, the importance of the consequences with regard to Vedic criticism leaves me no alternative. With regard, then, to Seven the final dipodia of Gayatri verses, I still Gayatra Vrittas. hold and maintain, that, although the dijambus is by far the most general metre, the following seven varieties have to be recognised in the poetry of the Veda*: I. ur-un-, % VuU-y 3. -Um my, 4 UUm nm, 5. HO, 6. vrnrnm-, J --Vn-,~ 8. -—UuU-, I do not pretend to give every passage in which these varieties occur, but I hope I shall give a sufficient number in support of every one of them. I have confined myself almost entirely to the final dipodia of Gayatri verses, as the Anushtubha verses would have swelled the lists too much.
3I have confined myself almost entirely to the final dipodia of Gayatri verses, as the Anushtubha verses would have swelled the lists too much. § 2vvyvu-n-. I, 12, 9. tasmai pavaka mri/aya. (Instead of mrilaya, it has been proposed to read mardaya.) I, 18, 9. divo na sadmamakhasam. I, 42, 43 46,2; 97, 1-8; III, 11, 3; 27, 10; IV, 15, 73 * See some important remarks on these varieties in Mr. J. Boxwell’s article ‘On the Trish/ubh Metre,’ Journal Asiat. Soc. Beng., 1885, p. 79. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cv 32545 52,1; V,5:95 7543 7:53 7973 945 53,123 61,3; 61, 11; 64,5; 65,4; 82,9; VI, 16,17; 16,18; 16, 45; 45,17; 61, 4; VII, 15, 14; 66,2; VIII, 6, 35; 6, 42; 32,10; 44,28; 45,31; 72,63; 72,13; 80,1; 83,3; 93, 27; IX, 61,5; 64,1; X, 118, 6. § 3. -v--c. I, 22, 11. akkAinnapatras sakantdm. I, 30, 13. kshumanto yAbhir madema. I, 41, 8; 90,1; 90,4; 120,13; V, 19,13; 70,3; VI, 61, 10; VIII, 2, 2; 2, 43 2, 53 2, 113 2, 123 2,133 2, 143 2,15; 2, 16; 2,17; 2, 29; 2, 30; 2% 32; 2, 33; 4, 36; 2, 373 7) 393 7, 3335 Il, 23 Il, 33 13, 4; 16, 33 16, 4; 16, 53 16, 7; 46, 2; 71, 2; 81, 1; 81, 3; 81, 4; 81, 7; 81,9; 94,2; IX, 62,5; X, 20, 4; 20, 7. § 4. vunr-no. I, 3, 8. usra iva svasardni. I, 27, 4. agne deveshu pra vokah. I, 30, 10; 30,15; 38,7; 38,8; 41,7; 43,7; HI, 6,2; III, 27, 3; V, 82,7; VI, 16, 25; 16,26; 61,12; VIII, 2, 1; 2,3; 2,8; 2, 18; 2, 19; 2, 21; 2, 22; 2, 23; 2, 26; 2, 353 16,2; 16,6; 16,8; 71,93; 79,3; IX, 21,5; 62,6; 66, 21; X, 20, 5; 185, 1; 185, 2; 185, 3. §5.----. I, 2,7. dhiyam ghritakim sddhanta. I, 3, 4. anvibhis tana pitdsas. I, 27, 33 90, 2; II, 6, 4; III, 41, 8; V, 68, 3; 68, 4; VIII, 2, 10; 2, 24; 16, 1; 16, 12; 79, 2; IX, 66, 17; X, 20,6; 20, 8. §6.u---. I, 15, 6. ritund yag#am 4sAthe. I, 38, 2. kva vo gAvo na ranyanti (see note to I, 38, 2). I, 38,9; 86,9; III, 27,2; 41, 3; IV, 32, 23; V, 68, 5; 70,2; VI, 61,11; VIII, 2,20; 2,253; 7,323 26,193 79,43 79,5; 81,6; X, 158, 4. cvi VEDIC HYMNS. §7,--vu- I, 10, 8. sam g4 asmabhyam dhinuhi. I, 12, 5. agne tvam rakshasvinad. I, 37,155 43; 8; 46,6; III, 62, 7; IV, 39, 21; V, 86, 5; VIII, 5, 323 5, 35; X, 119, 1-133 144, 4. §8 -uu- I, 2, 9. daksham dadhAte apasam (or § 2). I, 6, 10. indram maho vd ragasah. I, 27, 63 30, 21; 41, 93 90, 5; III, 24, 5; V, 19, 2; 70, 13 70, 4; 82, 8; VIII, 2, 27; 2, 315 16,93 55, 43 67,19; 81,5; 81, 8; IX, 47, 2.
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.