b, ec. The two Pdadas are translated in accordance with the text of the edition, which emends the MS. readings with great ingenuity, as follows: naghaméaro naghdarishé na ghayam purusho rishat. For the two syllables nagha the MSS. everywhere present nadya; so also Shankar Pandu- rang Pandit’s MSS. of the text with Sayavza’s commentary, and the Padapa/ha (nadya). The Devanagari MSS. confuse badly, in the case of doubtful words, the characters for dya and gha; see, e.g. the writings vamdya for vamgha, Kaus. 8, 14, and apadya for apagha, 36, 22; 42, 22; 82,4. Thus far the emendation seems therefore well founded, an impres- sion which is strengthened by Sayaza’s abortive attempts to get sense out of nadyd by correlating it with nadi, ‘ river,’ and even worse. As regards nagharishdé of the edition, Shankar Pandit’s MSS. waver between nadydarishd, nad- yayusho, and nadydayishd, and the Padapatha between nadya-rishaZ and nadya-dyushaz; the element dyusha seems to be due to a secondary effort to contrast the word with mara in the preceding, and thus strain sense out of it. The formation nagharisha is guaranteed by AV. VIII, 2,6; 7,6, where it is also an epithet of a curative plant. By the side of purusho rishat the MSS. have also ptru- shorshat and purusho rishat (Padapa¢/a: purushad rishat, and purusha# rzshat). These emendations may be regarded as a specimen of the best that can be done with the corrupt text of the nineteenth book.—‘ Three names hast thou,’ i.e. na-gha-mard (‘forsooth-not-death’), and na-gha-risha (‘forsooth-not-harm’), in addition to the ordinary name kush/Za. This refers to varieties of the plant (cf. V, 4, 8), which, in the common manner of the Atharvan, justify opportunistic formations, coined with the freest fancy, and expressive of salient qualities.
a. givala, ‘vivida,’ ‘quickening, or ‘ full-of-life,’ is the
honorific epithet of an independent plant (AV. VI, 59, 3; VIII, 2, 6; 7,6), probably the arundhati (see the introduc-
678 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
tion to IV, 12). The Atharvan has a way of formulating
qualities as father, mother, brother, &c. of the object they
are attributed to; see the note on V, 5, I.
b. I have not followed the edition in emending givanto, the unanimous reading of the MSS., to givalo. A glance at VIII, 2,6; 7, 6 shows givaldm by the side of givantim ; and givanta, givanti, givantika are sufficiently authenticated as names of remedial plants. The emendation seems entirely groundless. For another father of the plant, see V, 4, 9 b.
a. Cf. VIII, 5,11; V,4,9a,b, and also1b. The fulsome
praise in the manner of kathenotheism. When another
plant is employed the expressions are no less exorbitant ;
CRE BV Es Bp ts
a. The MSS. have triz simbubhyo angirebhyas, or angi- reyebhyas, for which the vulgate substitutes boldly, trir bhv/gubhyo angirobhyas. I have followed it, not without some misgivings, in translating angirobhyas ; the text, how- ever, may possibly disguise some patronymic derivative of angiras. Sdyaza comments upon angireyebhyas, with the words, angirasim apatyabhitebhyaX sambubhyaz But I could not go so far as to substitute trir bhrigubhyo for triz sambubhyo, the lectio difficilior, apparently for the reason merely that the Bhyzgu and Angiras are frequently mentioned together. Sambu and especially its patronymic Sambavya are well authenticated, the latter being a school- name of a sautra-sakha. The Sdmbavya-grzhyasitra is a version closely related to the Sankhayana-grzhyasitra ; cf. Indische Studien, XV, 4 and 154.
e. sakam.somena tishzhati (cf. V, 4, 7b): both séma and
kush¢Za are mountain-plants; the former has the epithet
girish¢ha, ‘ dwelling upon the mountain,’ RV. IX, 18, 1, &c.,
and the mountains are called sémaprish¢fa, ‘having soma
upon their backs, AV. ITI, 21,10. For kush¢a as a moun-
tain-plant, see V, 4,1; VI, 95, 3.
Xix, 39. Commentary. 679
The same stanza at V, 4, 3; VI, 95, 1, with the variant
fourth Pada, deva# kush¢zam avanvata; see the notes at
V, 4,3. %In Shankar Pandit’s edition with Sayaza’s com-
mentary the last four Padas of the preceding stanza are
here added at the end, as a refrain.
The same stanza at V, 4,4; VI, 95, 2, with pushpam
(pushyam) for £akshavam in Pada 3, and devé# kushzkam
avanvata in Pada 4; see the notes at V, 4,4. In Mr. Pandit’s
edition the same refrain as in the preceding stanza.
a, b. It seems difficult to abstain from comparing with this passage certain features of the well-known legend of Manu and the flood. In the Sat. Br. I, 8,1,6 the northern mountain upon which Manu’s ship settled is styled ‘ Manu’s descent, manor-avasarpavam, and in the version of the flood-legend in the Mahabharata I, 12795 (cf. also the Matsyopakhyana 49) it is called nau-bandhana. If the vulgate is correct in its restoration of the word ikshvako to ikshvakor in the next stanza (y), ‘ the ancestor of Ikshvaku,’ i.e. Manu, may be imagined as landing with his ship upon the mountain, and finding the remedy. The Rig-veda, II, 33, 13, speaks of pure, most wholesome, and strengthen- ing remedies which ‘ Father Manu’ chose, and it seems altogether likely that the two independent legends should blend here in the mind of the poet, and that he should have in mind when speaking of the descent of his golden heavenly ship upon the Himalaya the very spot where Manu descended. Nevertheless it may be fairly questioned whether navaprabhrammsana here is a proper name, and does not mean simply, ‘ where the (heavenly) ship descended.’ The character of the word as a compound is not at all secure. The majority of the MSS. of the Saszhita read navaprabhramsanam with two accents, and one of Shankar Pandit's MSS. has nava/ prabhrawsanam. The MSS. of
680 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
the Padapa¢/a are divided between na avas prabhraszsanam
and na ava prasbhrawsanam.:’ At any rate the ship which
brings down the kush¢Za (Soma, the moon?), and Manu’s
ship, may have nothing to do with one another except
their mutual suggestion. Pada a seems to have stood ori-
ginally, yatra navaz# prabhraszsanam. See Weber in Kuhn
and Schleicher’s Beitrage zur vergleichenden Sprachfor-
schung, IV, 288 ; Grohmann, Indische Studien, IX, 423;
Zimmer, l.c., p. 30; Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East,
vol. xii, p. 218, note.
a. We have not translated the text of the vulgate, yas tva véda pfirva ikshvakor, a by no means certain restora- tion, since the MSS. of the Samzhita have ikshvako (ishvako), and those of the Padapa/da ikshvakah (ishvakah). SAdyaza comments upon the nominative, puratana ikshvakt raga, and that presupposes a more natural reading, yasz tva véda ptirva ikshvakur, the one adopted for our version. Although this handles the text more severely, I could not get myself to feel certain that pfirva {kshvako/# could mean ‘the ancestor of Ikshvaku,’ as useful as this result is for the current inter- pretation of the preceding stanza?.
b. The text is doubtful, the MSS. read kush¢da kamyah (kamyaz). Accordingly Sdyava takes kushzha as vocative and translates kamya/ as a patronymic, ‘the son of Kama.’ I could not follow him, but the treatment of the words in the vulgate as a compound, kush¢dakamyaz, ‘ women fond of kush¢fa,’ is also doubtful. Perhaps the use of the plants in unguents (AV. VI, 102, 3) is in the mind of the poet. Professor Whitney in the Index Verborum assumes a nomi- native singular masculine kush¢Zakamyas. Ludwig, ‘ der den kush/Za liebt (besser, der sohn derer, die den kushzha liebt).’
ce. The text as translated is, yaa vayasé yam matsyas.
* Ludwig in the same sense suggests putra fkshvakor, ‘ the son of Ikshvaku.’ But why should this lectio facillima have been completely lost ?
Xix, 53. Commentary. 681
The MSS. have yam va vaso (or vaso) yam Atsyas. Sayama, moreover, comments upon yamasya/, as follows: yamasya asyam iva Asya yasya sa tad7vzso (vasak) etanndma devo veda. Matsya is the name of a royal sacrificer in Sat. Br. XIII, 5, 4, 9, and of a Rzshi skilled in special practices in Tait. Br. I, 5, 2, 1; and Vayasa, though not quotable as a proper name, might yet be such a one. But vayasa ordi- narily means ‘large bird, and matsya suggests matsya, ‘fish. I see nothing good to be done with this suggestion. The translation of the Pada is altogether problematic.
a. The vulgate emends sirshalokam to sirshasokamz, ‘that burns the head’ (inadvertently omitted in the text). To be convinced, we need but watch Sayava’s contortions, when once he is misguided by the traditional text. He refers sirshalokas to the kush¢sa-plant instead of the tak- man: ‘your head (O kush/Zfa) is in the third heaven.’ But every epithet in Padas a, b refers to the takman, as may be seen by comparing V, 22,13; see the note to the passage.
b. For sadamdi, see the note on V, 22, 13 b. hayana either sums up the varieties of the takman which are described in V, 22, 13 as séradd, grafshma. and varshika., and would then have to be translated ‘occurring through the year ;’ or it means simply ‘yearly, i.e. occurring (at a given time) every year ;’ cf. visvasarada at IX, 8,6; XIX, 34, 10. Involuntarily one thinks, too, of Zend zayana, ‘winter’ (Yasna 64, 20, Yasht 13, 8), and asks whether Vedic hayana does not primarily mean ‘ winter’ and ‘wintery ; afterwards poetically ‘year’ and ‘yearly. Then hayana here might be added as a fourth variety of the takman to the sarada, graishma, and varshika. Scarcely probable.
ce. For visvadhavirya, see V, 22, 3.
XIX, 53. COMMENTARY TO PAGE 224.
This and the following hymn, being theosophic and
cosmogonic in character, play no part in the practices of
the Atharvan, except that they are recited (under the
682 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
designation kalastikta) along with the kdmastkta (AV. IX, 2), and the purushastkta (AV. XIX, 6=RV. X, go) in the tenth Atharva-parisishza, the Bhimidéna. Sayava has the following statement in his introduction to this and the following hymn: ‘kalo asvo vahati’ iti siktadvayasya sau- varvabhimidane agyahome viniyogaZ, uktam hi parisish/e, anvarabhyastha guhuyat kamasiktasm kdlasiiktas purusha- siktam (Ath. Paris. 10, 1).
The hymn has been treated many times: Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, V, 407; Ludwig, Der Rigveda, III, 191; Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom?, p. 25; Lucian Scher- man, Philosophische Hymnen aus der Rig- und Atharva- Veda-Sanhita (Strassburg, 1887), p. 78 ff.; Grill’, pp. 73, 193 ff.; ¢f. also Hillebrandt’s Vedachrestomathie, p. 41. The Anuktamawi ascribes the authorship of the hymn to Bhrigu, and defines stanzas 6-10 as, mantroktasarvatmaka- kdladevatya anushZubha iti:
Stanza l.
a. Sayavza imagines the seven rays as being tied to the mouth, neck, and feet of the steed, and explains them as being the six seasons, each of two months, the thirteenth (lunar) month of the intercalary year being the seventh’. This is the same explanation as is offered by Sayava at RV. I, 164, 2 for sapta yuzganti, and Sayava to our pas- sage offers further in support of his interpretation RV. I, 164, 15, where the thirteenth month is probably described ; see Haug, Vedische Rathselfragen und Rathselspriiche, p. 23 (Proceedings of the Bavarian Academy, 1876). Sayava here, as well as at RV. I, 164, 2, suggests the seven rays of the sun (cf. AV. VII, 107; X, 8,9; XIII, 3, 10) as an alternate explanation, relying upon Yaska’s Nirukta IV,27. The occidental interpretations of this expression—
For the thirteenth month, see Sat. Br. II, 2, 3, 27, and Professor Eggeling’s note on his translation, Sacred Books, vol. xii, p. 321, note 6, Also, especially, Professor Weber’s learned note in ‘ Die vedischen Nachrichten von den Nakshatra,’ II, p. 336, nose.
Xix, 53. Commentary. 683
none of them satisfactory—are enumerated by Scherman, pp. 78, 81, and Grill, p. 193. I am inclined to believe in the kinship of our passage with RV. I, 164, 2, and also in a semi-lucid blending of the attributes of time with those of.the sun. Cf. AV. XIII, 2, 39, where Rohita, a form of the sun, is identified with time; see Henry, Les Hymnes Rohitas, pp. 13, 44, and Contributions, Fourth Series, Amer. Journ. Phil. XII, p. 430. The Maitri-Upanishad states distinctly that the sun is the source of time, siryo yoniz kalasya (VI, 14).
b. sahasraksha is an attribute of a great variety of divini- ties, and it does not, therefore, contribute to the definition of the passage, see the note on IV, 20, 4; Sayava, saha- srakiramopetak, i.e. the sun. agara and bhirireta# are attributes of the two Ushas at AV. VIII, 9, 12. The latter, in the RV., only of heaven and earth; the former, again, of an almost complete assortment of divinities. One must not be too insistent with a later Atharvan production, the poet makes‘ draughts upon the entire stock of mythic and cosmogonic ideas; the poetic past is his kamadhuk ; he cares not for nicety of distinction.
e. Sayavza: ‘The Azshis mount (i.e. control) time; svadhinam kurvanti, svadhinakaéla bhavanti.