Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1brilliant in the wood which he consumes; cf. III, 29, 6 Nothing is said about his equine nature. In V, 12, 2 and 6, VI, 48, 6, we have again simply arusha vrtshan, which does not mean the red-horse, but the red male, the red hero, i.e. Agni. In VI, 49, 2, diva# sfsum sdhasaf sinim agnim yagfidsya ketum arusham ydgadhyai, there is no trace of Agni being conceived asa horse. He is called the child of the sky or of Dyu, the son of strength (who is produced by strong rubbing of wood), the light or the beacon of the sacrifice, and lastly Arusha, which, for reasons stated above, I take to be used here as a name. Next follow the passages in which, according to Professor Roth, arusha, as an adjective, is said to be applied to the horses, cows, and other teams of the gods, particularly of the dawn, the Asvins, and Brzhaspati. I, 118, 5. pari vam dsvas vdpushadk patangahk vayak vahantu arush&/ abhike. Here we find the vayah arushék of the Asvins, which it is better to translate by red birds, as immediately before the winged horses are mentioned. In fact, whenever arushd is applied to the vehicle of the Asvins, it is to be understood of these red birds, IV, 43, 6. In I, 92, 1 and 2 (not 20), drushi occurs three times, referring twice to the cows of the dawn, once to the dawn herself. In IV, 15, 6, tam drvantam nd sAnas{m arushdm na divak sisum marmvigyante divé-dive, arushd does not refer to the horse or any other animal of Agni. The verse speaks of a horse by way of comparison only, and says that the sacrificers clean or trim Agni, the fire, as people clean a horse. We NOTES. 1, 6, I. 27 cannot join arusham in the next p4da with arvantam in the preceding pada, for the second nd would then be without any construction. The construction is certainly not easy, but I think it is safer to translate: they trim him (Agni), day by day, as they clean a strong horse, as they clean Arushé, the child of Dyu. In fact, as far as I know, arusha is never used as the name of the one single horse belonging to Agni, but always of two or more. In III, 31, 21, antdr (iti) krishan arushais dhaéma bhih gat, dhama bhiz is said to mean flames of lightning. But dhéman in the Rig-veda does not mean flames, and it seems better to translate, with thy red companies, scil. the Maruts. That arusha in one or two passages means the red cloud, is true. But in X, 43, 9, arusha refers to the thunderbolt mentioned in the same verse; and in I, 114, 5, everything refers to Rudra, and not to a red cloud, in the proper sense of the word.
2the Maruts. That arusha in one or two passages means the red cloud, is true. But in X, 43, 9, arusha refers to the thunderbolt mentioned in the same verse; and in I, 114, 5, everything refers to Rudra, and not to a red cloud, in the proper sense of the word. Further on, where the meanings attributable to 4rushi in the Veda are collected, it is said that 4rushi means a red mare, also the teams of Agni and Ushas. Now, here, surely, a distinction should have been made between those passages in which drushi means a real horse, and those where it expresses the imaginary steeds of Agni. The former, it should be observed, occur in one Mazdala only, and in places of somewhat doubtful authority, in VIII, 55, 3, a Valakhilya hymn, and in VIII, 68, 18, a danastuti or panegyric. Besides, no passage is given where arushi means the horses of the dawn, and I doubt whether such a passage exists, while the one verse where arushi is really used for the horses of Indra, is not mentioned at all. Lastly, two passages are set apart where drushi is supposed to mean flames. Now, it may be perfectly true that the red-horses of Agni are meant for flames, just as the red-horses of Indra may be the rays of the sun. But, in that case, the redhorses of Agni should always have been thus translated, or rather interpreted, and not in one passage only. In IX, 111, 2, drushi is said to mean flames, but no further light is thrown upon that very difficult passage. 28 VEDIC HYMNS.
3But, in that case, the redhorses of Agni should always have been thus translated, or rather interpreted, and not in one passage only. In IX, 111, 2, drushi is said to mean flames, but no further light is thrown upon that very difficult passage. 28 VEDIC HYMNS. Note 2, Pari tasthisha#. I take this form as a nominative plural like dbibhyusha/, I, 11, 5, tvam dev&h abibhyushadé tugydm4nasah Avishuk, ‘the gods, stirred up, came to thee, not fearing ;’ and like dadusha&, I, 54, 8, yé te indra dadusha# vardhayanti mahi kshatram, ‘ who giving or by their gifts increase thy great power, O Indra.’ Here we might possibly take it as a gen. sing. referring to te, but dadivan is far more appropriate as an epithet of the sacrificer than of the god. (See Benfey, Vocativ, p. 24; and Hermes, p-16.) It is well known among Sanskrit scholars that Professor Whitney, in reviewing my translation, declared that the participial form tasthusha’ had no right to be anything but an accusative plural or a genitive or ablative singular. (See Chips from a German Workshop, vol. iv, p. 508.) Dr. Kern, however, in his translation of the Brzhat-Samhita had shown long before that nom. plur. such as vidushad are by no means rare, even in the Mahabharata and kindred works. Dr. Lanman (Journ. Americ. Or. Soc. X, p. 513) has now entered abibhyushaZ as a nom. plur., but he prefers to take tasthusha as an acc. plural, so that we should have to translate £d4rantam péri tasthishas by ‘walking round those who stand.’ This may be grammatically possible ; but who could be meant by tasthushas, standing ones? And, secondly, is it usual in Vedic Sanskrit to say arati pari tam, ‘he walks round him?’ We find pari tam yAti, or tam pari yti, but hardly y4ti pari tam, ‘he goes round him,’ except when pari stands independent of the verb and means ‘around,’ e.g. IX, 72, 8, pavasva pari parthivam ragah. It is more difficult to decide whether we should adopt Ludwig’s interpretation, who takes pari tasthusha# in the sense of ‘ away from what is firm.’ This is correct grammatically, and tasthivat, as opposed to gagat, is often used in the sense of what is immovable. But is it ever used in that sense by itself? 1 doubt it, though I may add in support of it such a passage as I, 191, 9, Ut apaptat asau sfiryak....Adityds parvatebhyak, a verse where the expression visvadrishtahk adrishzaha is analogous to our ketim krizvan aketave. I therefore retain pari tasthusha/ as a nom. plural in the sense of standing around, circumstantes, possibly of parifara, NOTES. 1, 6, 2. 29 attendants. Parishthana or sthana comes to mean an abode, and paritasthivantas would be bystanders, attendants, the people, in fact, who are supposed to harness the horse.
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.
1brilliant in the wood which he consumes; cf. III, 29, 6 Nothing is said about his equine nature. In V, 12, 2 and 6, VI, 48, 6, we have again simply arusha vrtshan, which does not mean the red-horse, but the red male, the red hero, i.e. Agni. In VI, 49, 2, diva# sfsum sdhasaf sinim agnim yagfidsya ketum arusham ydgadhyai, there is no trace of Agni being conceived asa horse. He is called the child of the sky or of Dyu, the son of strength (who is produced by strong rubbing of wood), the light or the beacon of the sacrifice, and lastly Arusha, which, for reasons stated above, I take to be used here as a name. Next follow the passages in which, according to Professor Roth, arusha, as an adjective, is said to be applied to the horses, cows, and other teams of the gods, particularly of the dawn, the Asvins, and Brzhaspati. I, 118, 5. pari vam dsvas vdpushadk patangahk vayak vahantu arush&/ abhike. Here we find the vayah arushék of the Asvins, which it is better to translate by red birds, as immediately before the winged horses are mentioned. In fact, whenever arushd is applied to the vehicle of the Asvins, it is to be understood of these red birds, IV, 43, 6. In I, 92, 1 and 2 (not 20), drushi occurs three times, referring twice to the cows of the dawn, once to the dawn herself. In IV, 15, 6, tam drvantam nd sAnas{m arushdm na divak sisum marmvigyante divé-dive, arushd does not refer to the horse or any other animal of Agni. The verse speaks of a horse by way of comparison only, and says that the sacrificers clean or trim Agni, the fire, as people clean a horse. We NOTES. 1, 6, I. 27 cannot join arusham in the next p4da with arvantam in the preceding pada, for the second nd would then be without any construction. The construction is certainly not easy, but I think it is safer to translate: they trim him (Agni), day by day, as they clean a strong horse, as they clean Arushé, the child of Dyu. In fact, as far as I know, arusha is never used as the name of the one single horse belonging to Agni, but always of two or more. In III, 31, 21, antdr (iti) krishan arushais dhaéma bhih gat, dhama bhiz is said to mean flames of lightning. But dhéman in the Rig-veda does not mean flames, and it seems better to translate, with thy red companies, scil. the Maruts. That arusha in one or two passages means the red cloud, is true. But in X, 43, 9, arusha refers to the thunderbolt mentioned in the same verse; and in I, 114, 5, everything refers to Rudra, and not to a red cloud, in the proper sense of the word.
2the Maruts. That arusha in one or two passages means the red cloud, is true. But in X, 43, 9, arusha refers to the thunderbolt mentioned in the same verse; and in I, 114, 5, everything refers to Rudra, and not to a red cloud, in the proper sense of the word. Further on, where the meanings attributable to 4rushi in the Veda are collected, it is said that 4rushi means a red mare, also the teams of Agni and Ushas. Now, here, surely, a distinction should have been made between those passages in which drushi means a real horse, and those where it expresses the imaginary steeds of Agni. The former, it should be observed, occur in one Mazdala only, and in places of somewhat doubtful authority, in VIII, 55, 3, a Valakhilya hymn, and in VIII, 68, 18, a danastuti or panegyric. Besides, no passage is given where arushi means the horses of the dawn, and I doubt whether such a passage exists, while the one verse where arushi is really used for the horses of Indra, is not mentioned at all. Lastly, two passages are set apart where drushi is supposed to mean flames. Now, it may be perfectly true that the red-horses of Agni are meant for flames, just as the red-horses of Indra may be the rays of the sun. But, in that case, the redhorses of Agni should always have been thus translated, or rather interpreted, and not in one passage only. In IX, 111, 2, drushi is said to mean flames, but no further light is thrown upon that very difficult passage. 28 VEDIC HYMNS.
3But, in that case, the redhorses of Agni should always have been thus translated, or rather interpreted, and not in one passage only. In IX, 111, 2, drushi is said to mean flames, but no further light is thrown upon that very difficult passage. 28 VEDIC HYMNS. Note 2, Pari tasthisha#. I take this form as a nominative plural like dbibhyusha/, I, 11, 5, tvam dev&h abibhyushadé tugydm4nasah Avishuk, ‘the gods, stirred up, came to thee, not fearing ;’ and like dadusha&, I, 54, 8, yé te indra dadusha# vardhayanti mahi kshatram, ‘ who giving or by their gifts increase thy great power, O Indra.’ Here we might possibly take it as a gen. sing. referring to te, but dadivan is far more appropriate as an epithet of the sacrificer than of the god. (See Benfey, Vocativ, p. 24; and Hermes, p-16.) It is well known among Sanskrit scholars that Professor Whitney, in reviewing my translation, declared that the participial form tasthusha’ had no right to be anything but an accusative plural or a genitive or ablative singular. (See Chips from a German Workshop, vol. iv, p. 508.) Dr. Kern, however, in his translation of the Brzhat-Samhita had shown long before that nom. plur. such as vidushad are by no means rare, even in the Mahabharata and kindred works. Dr. Lanman (Journ. Americ. Or. Soc. X, p. 513) has now entered abibhyushaZ as a nom. plur., but he prefers to take tasthusha as an acc. plural, so that we should have to translate £d4rantam péri tasthishas by ‘walking round those who stand.’ This may be grammatically possible ; but who could be meant by tasthushas, standing ones? And, secondly, is it usual in Vedic Sanskrit to say arati pari tam, ‘he walks round him?’ We find pari tam yAti, or tam pari yti, but hardly y4ti pari tam, ‘he goes round him,’ except when pari stands independent of the verb and means ‘around,’ e.g. IX, 72, 8, pavasva pari parthivam ragah. It is more difficult to decide whether we should adopt Ludwig’s interpretation, who takes pari tasthusha# in the sense of ‘ away from what is firm.’ This is correct grammatically, and tasthivat, as opposed to gagat, is often used in the sense of what is immovable. But is it ever used in that sense by itself? 1 doubt it, though I may add in support of it such a passage as I, 191, 9, Ut apaptat asau sfiryak....Adityds parvatebhyak, a verse where the expression visvadrishtahk adrishzaha is analogous to our ketim krizvan aketave. I therefore retain pari tasthusha/ as a nom. plural in the sense of standing around, circumstantes, possibly of parifara, NOTES. 1, 6, 2. 29 attendants. Parishthana or sthana comes to mean an abode, and paritasthivantas would be bystanders, attendants, the people, in fact, who are supposed to harness the horse.
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.