Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Von 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.’ Here I doubt about begeistert being a true rendering of pravriddha, grown strong. As to karishy&% instead of karishy4, the reading of the MSS., Roth is inclined to adopt my conjecture, as supported by the analogous passage in IV, 30, 23. The form which Ludwig quotes as analogous to karishyam, namely, pravatsyam, I cannot find, unless it is meant for Apast. Srauta S. VI, 27, 2, namo vo:stu pravatsyam iti Bahvrzkak, where however pravatsyam is probably meant for pravatsam. Grassmann has understood devata rightly, while Roth’s translation leaves it doubtful. Verse 10. Von Roth: ‘So soll der Starke Vorrang mir allein sein: Was ich gewagt, vollfiihr’ ich mit Verstdndniss. Man kennt mich als den Starken wohl, ihr Marut, An was ich riihre, Indra der bemeistert’s.’ Von Roth has adopted the translation of the second line, which I suggested in a note; Ludwig prefers the more abrupt construction which I preferred in the translation. It is difficult to decide. ge [33] b XVili VEDIC HYMNS. Verse 11. Von Roth: ‘ Entziickt hat euer Riihmen mich, ihr Marut, Das lobenswerthe Wort, das ihr gesprochen, Fiir mich—den Indra—fiir den freud’gen Helden, Als Freunde fiir den Freund, fiir mich—von selbst ihr.’ The last words fiir mich—von selbst ihr are not very clear, but the same may be said of the original tanvé tandbhiz. I still adhere to my remark that tanu, self, must refer to the same person, though I see that all other translators take an opposite view. Non liquet. Verse 12. Von Roth: ‘Gefallen find ich, wie sie sind, an ihnen, In Raschheit und in Frische unvergleichlich. So oft ich euch, Marut, im Schmuck erblickte, Erfreut’ ich mich und freue jetzt an euch mich.’ This is again one of those verses which it is far easier to translate than to construe. A#ss4nta me may mean, they pleased me, but then what is the meaning of &kadayatha ka nindm, ‘may you please me now,’ instead of what we should expect, ‘ you do please me now.’ In order to avoid this, I took the more frequent meaning of &ad, to appear, and translated, ‘ you have appeared formerly, appear to me now.’
2To translate 4nedyak sravahk & ishak dadhanad, by ‘in Raschheit und in Frische unvergleichlich,’ is poetical, but how does it benefit the scholar? I take 4 dha in the sense of bringing or giving, as it is often used; cf. II, 38, 5. This is more compatible with {sha%, food, vigour. I am not certain that a4néd¥a% can mean blameless. Roth s.v. derives danedya from a-nedya, and nedya from nid. But how we get from nid to nedya, he does not say. He suggests anedy4/ or anedyasravak as emendations. I suggested anedyam. But I suspect there is something else behind all this. AnedtyaA may have been intended for ‘having nothing coming nearer, and like an-uttama, might express excellence. Or anedyas may have been an adverb, not nearly. INTRODUCTION. xix These are mere guesses, and they are rather contradicted by anedy4Z, used in the plufal, with anavady4z. Still it is better to point out difficulties than to slur them over by translating ‘in Raschheit und in Frische unvergleichlich.’ It is possible that both Roth and Sayama thought that anedyak was connected with nediya#; but what scholars want to know is the exact construction of a sentence. Von Roth: Verse 18. ‘Ist irgendwo ein Fest fiir euch bereitet, So fahrt doch her zu unsrer Schaar, ihr Schaaren! Der Andacht Regungen in uns belebend, Und werdet Zeugen unserer frommen Werke.’ In this verse there is no difficulty, except the exact meaning of apivatayanta#, on which I have spoken in note I. Verse 14. Von Roth: ‘Wo dankbar huldigend der Dichter lobsingt, Hier wo uns Manya’s Kunst zusammenfihrte, Da kehret ein, ihr Marut, bei den Frommen, Euch gelten ja des Beters heil’ge Spriiche.’ Prof. von Roth admits that this is a difficult verse. He translates it, but again he does not help us to construe it. Grassmann also gives us a metrical translation, but it differs widely from von Roth’s: ‘Wenn wie zur Spende euch der Dichter herlockt, Und der Gesang des Weisen uns herbeizog,’ &c. ; and so does Geldner’s version, unless we are to consider this as an improved rendering from von Roth’s own pen: ‘Wenn uns des Manya Kunst zur Feier herzieht, Wie Dichter ja zu Festen gerne rufen,’ &c. Here Geldner conjectures duvasy4 for duvasy&t, and takes duvdse as an infinitive. Von Roth: Verse 15. * Geweiht ist euch der Preis, Marut, die Lieder, Des MA&nya, des Mandarasohns, des Dichters, Mit Labung kommt herbei, mir selbst zur Starkung [Gebt Labung uns und wasserreiche Fluren].’ b2 xx VEDIC HYMNS. How tanvé vaydm is to mean ‘ mir selbst zur Starkung’ has not been explained by von Roth. No doubt tanvé may mean mir selbst, and vay4m zur Starkung; but though this may satisfy a poet, scholars want to know how to construe. It seems to me that Roth and Lanman (Noun-inflection, p. 552) have made the same mistake which I made in taking ishdm for an accusative of ish, which ought to be isham, and in admitting the masculine gender for vvigana in the sense of Flur.
3It seems to me that Roth and Lanman (Noun-inflection, p. 552) have made the same mistake which I made in taking ishdm for an accusative of ish, which ought to be isham, and in admitting the masculine gender for vvigana in the sense of Flur. I still take y4stshfa for the 3 p. sing. of the precative Atmanepada, like ganishishfa and vanishtsh¢a. With the preposition ava, yAsisisht#ah in IV, 1, 4, means to turn away. With the preposition 4 therefore y4sishta may well mean to turn towards, to bring. If we took y4sishta as a 2 p. plur. in the sense of come, we could not account for the long 1, nor for the accusative vayam. We thus get the meaning, ‘ May this your hymn of praise bring vay4m,’ i.e. a branch, an offshoot or offspring, tanvé, for ourselves, isha, together with food. We then begin a new sentence: ‘May we find an invigorating autumn with quickening rain.’ It is true that isha, as a name of an autumn month, does not occur again in the Rig-veda, but it is found in the Satapatha-brahmaza. Vrigana, possibly in the sense of people or enemies, we have in VII, 32, 27, ag#atak vriganak, where Roth reads wrongly 4g#at4 vrigan4; V, 44,1(?); VI, 35,5. Giradanu also would be an appropriate epithet to isha. Professor Oldenberg has sent me the following notes on this difficult hymn. He thinks it is what he calls an Akhyana-hymn, consisting of verses which originally formed part of a story in prose. He has treated of this class of hymns in the Zeitschrift der D. M. G. XXXIX, 60 seq. He would prefer to ascribe verses 1 and 2 to Indra, who addresses the Maruts when he meets them as they return from a sacrifice. In this case, however, we should have to accept riram4ma as a pluralis majestaticus, and I doubt whether Indra ever speaks of himself in the plural, except it may be in using the pronoun nad. In verse 4 Professor Oldenberg prefers to take prd- INTRODUCTION. xxi bhrzto me adriz in the sense of ‘the stone for pressing the Soma has been brought forth,’ and he adds that me need not mean ‘my stone,’ but ‘brought forward for me.’ He would prefer to read sishmam iyarti, as in IV, 17, 12; X, 75, 3, though he does not consider this alteration of the text necessary. Professor Oldenberg would ascribe vv. 13 and 14 to Indra. The 14th verse would then mean, ‘After MAnya has brought us (the gods) hither, turn, O Maruts, towards the sage.’ Of this interpretation I should like to adopt at all events the last sentence, taking varta for vart-ta, the 2 p. plur. imperat. of vrit, after the Ad class. The text of the Maitrayazi Samhita, lately published by Dr. L. von Schroeder, yields a few interesting various readings: v. 5, ekam instead of etAfi; v. 12, srava instead of srava; and v. 15, vayamsi as a variant for vay4m, which looks like a conjectural emendation.
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.
1Von 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.’ Here I doubt about begeistert being a true rendering of pravriddha, grown strong. As to karishy&% instead of karishy4, the reading of the MSS., Roth is inclined to adopt my conjecture, as supported by the analogous passage in IV, 30, 23. The form which Ludwig quotes as analogous to karishyam, namely, pravatsyam, I cannot find, unless it is meant for Apast. Srauta S. VI, 27, 2, namo vo:stu pravatsyam iti Bahvrzkak, where however pravatsyam is probably meant for pravatsam. Grassmann has understood devata rightly, while Roth’s translation leaves it doubtful. Verse 10. Von Roth: ‘So soll der Starke Vorrang mir allein sein: Was ich gewagt, vollfiihr’ ich mit Verstdndniss. Man kennt mich als den Starken wohl, ihr Marut, An was ich riihre, Indra der bemeistert’s.’ Von Roth has adopted the translation of the second line, which I suggested in a note; Ludwig prefers the more abrupt construction which I preferred in the translation. It is difficult to decide. ge [33] b XVili VEDIC HYMNS. Verse 11. Von Roth: ‘ Entziickt hat euer Riihmen mich, ihr Marut, Das lobenswerthe Wort, das ihr gesprochen, Fiir mich—den Indra—fiir den freud’gen Helden, Als Freunde fiir den Freund, fiir mich—von selbst ihr.’ The last words fiir mich—von selbst ihr are not very clear, but the same may be said of the original tanvé tandbhiz. I still adhere to my remark that tanu, self, must refer to the same person, though I see that all other translators take an opposite view. Non liquet. Verse 12. Von Roth: ‘Gefallen find ich, wie sie sind, an ihnen, In Raschheit und in Frische unvergleichlich. So oft ich euch, Marut, im Schmuck erblickte, Erfreut’ ich mich und freue jetzt an euch mich.’ This is again one of those verses which it is far easier to translate than to construe. A#ss4nta me may mean, they pleased me, but then what is the meaning of &kadayatha ka nindm, ‘may you please me now,’ instead of what we should expect, ‘ you do please me now.’ In order to avoid this, I took the more frequent meaning of &ad, to appear, and translated, ‘ you have appeared formerly, appear to me now.’
2To translate 4nedyak sravahk & ishak dadhanad, by ‘in Raschheit und in Frische unvergleichlich,’ is poetical, but how does it benefit the scholar? I take 4 dha in the sense of bringing or giving, as it is often used; cf. II, 38, 5. This is more compatible with {sha%, food, vigour. I am not certain that a4néd¥a% can mean blameless. Roth s.v. derives danedya from a-nedya, and nedya from nid. But how we get from nid to nedya, he does not say. He suggests anedy4/ or anedyasravak as emendations. I suggested anedyam. But I suspect there is something else behind all this. AnedtyaA may have been intended for ‘having nothing coming nearer, and like an-uttama, might express excellence. Or anedyas may have been an adverb, not nearly. INTRODUCTION. xix These are mere guesses, and they are rather contradicted by anedy4Z, used in the plufal, with anavady4z. Still it is better to point out difficulties than to slur them over by translating ‘in Raschheit und in Frische unvergleichlich.’ It is possible that both Roth and Sayama thought that anedyak was connected with nediya#; but what scholars want to know is the exact construction of a sentence. Von Roth: Verse 18. ‘Ist irgendwo ein Fest fiir euch bereitet, So fahrt doch her zu unsrer Schaar, ihr Schaaren! Der Andacht Regungen in uns belebend, Und werdet Zeugen unserer frommen Werke.’ In this verse there is no difficulty, except the exact meaning of apivatayanta#, on which I have spoken in note I. Verse 14. Von Roth: ‘Wo dankbar huldigend der Dichter lobsingt, Hier wo uns Manya’s Kunst zusammenfihrte, Da kehret ein, ihr Marut, bei den Frommen, Euch gelten ja des Beters heil’ge Spriiche.’ Prof. von Roth admits that this is a difficult verse. He translates it, but again he does not help us to construe it. Grassmann also gives us a metrical translation, but it differs widely from von Roth’s: ‘Wenn wie zur Spende euch der Dichter herlockt, Und der Gesang des Weisen uns herbeizog,’ &c. ; and so does Geldner’s version, unless we are to consider this as an improved rendering from von Roth’s own pen: ‘Wenn uns des Manya Kunst zur Feier herzieht, Wie Dichter ja zu Festen gerne rufen,’ &c. Here Geldner conjectures duvasy4 for duvasy&t, and takes duvdse as an infinitive. Von Roth: Verse 15. * Geweiht ist euch der Preis, Marut, die Lieder, Des MA&nya, des Mandarasohns, des Dichters, Mit Labung kommt herbei, mir selbst zur Starkung [Gebt Labung uns und wasserreiche Fluren].’ b2 xx VEDIC HYMNS. How tanvé vaydm is to mean ‘ mir selbst zur Starkung’ has not been explained by von Roth. No doubt tanvé may mean mir selbst, and vay4m zur Starkung; but though this may satisfy a poet, scholars want to know how to construe. It seems to me that Roth and Lanman (Noun-inflection, p. 552) have made the same mistake which I made in taking ishdm for an accusative of ish, which ought to be isham, and in admitting the masculine gender for vvigana in the sense of Flur.
3It seems to me that Roth and Lanman (Noun-inflection, p. 552) have made the same mistake which I made in taking ishdm for an accusative of ish, which ought to be isham, and in admitting the masculine gender for vvigana in the sense of Flur. I still take y4stshfa for the 3 p. sing. of the precative Atmanepada, like ganishishfa and vanishtsh¢a. With the preposition ava, yAsisisht#ah in IV, 1, 4, means to turn away. With the preposition 4 therefore y4sishta may well mean to turn towards, to bring. If we took y4sishta as a 2 p. plur. in the sense of come, we could not account for the long 1, nor for the accusative vayam. We thus get the meaning, ‘ May this your hymn of praise bring vay4m,’ i.e. a branch, an offshoot or offspring, tanvé, for ourselves, isha, together with food. We then begin a new sentence: ‘May we find an invigorating autumn with quickening rain.’ It is true that isha, as a name of an autumn month, does not occur again in the Rig-veda, but it is found in the Satapatha-brahmaza. Vrigana, possibly in the sense of people or enemies, we have in VII, 32, 27, ag#atak vriganak, where Roth reads wrongly 4g#at4 vrigan4; V, 44,1(?); VI, 35,5. Giradanu also would be an appropriate epithet to isha. Professor Oldenberg has sent me the following notes on this difficult hymn. He thinks it is what he calls an Akhyana-hymn, consisting of verses which originally formed part of a story in prose. He has treated of this class of hymns in the Zeitschrift der D. M. G. XXXIX, 60 seq. He would prefer to ascribe verses 1 and 2 to Indra, who addresses the Maruts when he meets them as they return from a sacrifice. In this case, however, we should have to accept riram4ma as a pluralis majestaticus, and I doubt whether Indra ever speaks of himself in the plural, except it may be in using the pronoun nad. In verse 4 Professor Oldenberg prefers to take prd- INTRODUCTION. xxi bhrzto me adriz in the sense of ‘the stone for pressing the Soma has been brought forth,’ and he adds that me need not mean ‘my stone,’ but ‘brought forward for me.’ He would prefer to read sishmam iyarti, as in IV, 17, 12; X, 75, 3, though he does not consider this alteration of the text necessary. Professor Oldenberg would ascribe vv. 13 and 14 to Indra. The 14th verse would then mean, ‘After MAnya has brought us (the gods) hither, turn, O Maruts, towards the sage.’ Of this interpretation I should like to adopt at all events the last sentence, taking varta for vart-ta, the 2 p. plur. imperat. of vrit, after the Ad class. The text of the Maitrayazi Samhita, lately published by Dr. L. von Schroeder, yields a few interesting various readings: v. 5, ekam instead of etAfi; v. 12, srava instead of srava; and v. 15, vayamsi as a variant for vay4m, which looks like a conjectural emendation.
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.