from the contents of the hymns; whilst others will look at them as conveying trustworthy explanations, to be traced back to the times of the Rishis. They appear, at any rate, to be much anterior to Yaska, who distinguishes (Nir. i. 20) three stages regarding the knowledge of the sense of the mantras and the rites, viz. the immediate intuitive knowledge on the part of the Rishis; the direct and complete communication of it by its possessors to those who did not have it; and, lastly, by the composition of the Nirukta, to hand down, piece by piece, the meanings to posterity.

Now this statement made by Yāska contains some truth; it shows, as we might naturally expect, that when the Brahmans were no longer able to fully comprehend the meaning of the mantras, they first pushed on inquiries after the sense of obscure terms, respecting which in certain families some correct understanding, based on very ancient tradition, could be found, and embodied the results in such lists as we find in the Nirukta. Since they contain some remnants of direct and genuine tradition, their authority cannot be so lightly set at nought. If we learn from them, for instance, that rita is one of the names or epithets of water, that uparāḥ is sometimes used in the sense of region, direction,' if vip is enumerated as one of the appellations for 'finger,' and brahma classed with words meaning 'food' and 'wealth,' we cannot without careful inquiry throw such meanings aside. If they cannot be discovered in passages existing, they may have occurred in those which are lost.

Although the collection of synonymous words in the Nirukta is of very great value, it is quite insufficient for a full understanding of the Vedic hymns. Since some importance was attached to them, they were naturally commented on. In the work of Yāska we still possess an ancient and valuable commentary on some parts of the Nirukta, viz. the collection of obscure words and the names of deities. From several indications contained in it, we learn that in his time there existed several schools of interpreters, the more important of which appear to have been the Näiruktas, i.e. exegetes and etymologists, who derived all from verbal roots; Vaiyākaraṇas, i.e. analysers, grammarians; and Yajnikas, i.e. sacrificial priests, who interpreted all from a liturgical and theological point of view. The opinions of the Nairuktas seem to have been partly preserved to us in Yāska's work; for he himself belonged to their number.

Yaska's explanations are chiefly etymological; but there can be no doubt that in his time many words of the Vedic language could be readily understood which became obscure at a later period. Hence great value is to be ascribed to the majority of his interpretations. Though there may be urged a good deal against Yāska's etymological proceedings, they are, nevertheless, in many cases, justified by the nature of the Vedic language. Nouns often convey only that meaning, or those meanings, which are implied in the root. One of the most striking instances of this kind is the word vahni, which means carrier,' from vah (veho), to carry,' and can be applied to a horse as the carrier of men, or to fire as the carrier of the sacrifice to the gods; and since the god of fire, Agni, is, on account of this service, regarded as a priest, the word may mean 'priest' also. But whatever its meaning may be, it can always be traced to the primitive meaning of the root, which is 'to carry.' Hence a correct etymology is in many cases the only means for arriving at the original sense of the word, which is used in a variety of meanings, seemingly different from one another. There is no doubt that not all the etymologies that have been proposed by Yāska can be approved; but even if they are to be rejected, another and more correct one is to be sought after, since this is, chiefly regarding merely poetical words, the only means for arriving at the right

sense.

Yaska's work must have enjoyed much celebrity; otherwise it would not have been preserved to us. For many centuries after him Vedic studies appear to have had only a lingering existence until their revival in the eighth century A.D. under Sankara-āchārya, who commented on the principal Upanishads, which have always been more cared for by the Brahmans than the earlier parts of the Vedas. Although there was no want of Brahmanical scholars, who laboured in the same field of Vedic interpretation, as we may learn from Devaraja and the names of commentators mentioned, the only works of importance left to us are the great running commentaries by Madhava-acharya Sāyaṇa Vidyaranyasvāmi, of the fourteenth century, who was the head of the Vedantins at Sringeri in the South

1 The identity of Madhava-āchūrya and Sāyaṇa, who had been taken for two brothers, has been clearly proved by Mr. A. C. Burnell, in his valuable introduction to the Vañsabrāhmaṇa.

of India. They extend over the Rig-, Yajur-, and Sāmavedas, and their respective Brāhmaṇas, and may be justly regarded as the most complete exegetic work on the Vedas which exists at present, and will exist for many years to come. He enjoyed the special favour of King Bukka, under whose reign he flourished, and he is still held in the highest esteem by the Brahmans. The interpretations given by him are only partly his own; he embodies the opinions of other Vedic scholars, without mentioning their names, except Yūska's, as is frequently the custom with Hindu scholars. Sometimes he alludes to the opinions of Acharya in general. The foundation on which the whole work of Sāyaṇa has been built up is the Nirukta and Yaska's commentary on it. Being himself thoroughly acquainted with all departments of Brahmanical theology, philosophy, and Sanskrit grammar, he brought to bear all this vast knowledge on the elucidation of the Vedas. As all the principal Vedic sacrifices were in use in his time (and are so even now-a-days), he could easily obtain from the Srotriyas, or sacrificial priests, the explanation of many a ritual term which would otherwise have remained dark. Thus his work may be justly regarded as the great storehouse of what India produced in the line of Vedic interpretation, showing us how the Vedas have been understood by the Brahmans during more than two thousand years.

Now the principal question arises: Does Sāyaṇa's work represent the uninterrupted chain of traditional interpretation from the most ancient times, or only the results of Brahmanical scholarship which was brought to bear on the Vedas to comprehend their meaning which had been lost altogether? To be just and impartial, we can neither wholly affirm the first nor the second question. If anybody might be inclined to believe, as has been really the case, that Sāyaṇa gives us everywhere that sense of the Vedic hymns which the Rishis had recorded in them, such an opinion could be easily refuted by merely adverting to the fact that in many cases Sāyaṇa proposes several explanations of the same passage, or of a particular word. Since a word can never have had two or more meanings in a particular passage, except it be a pun, it is evident that he propounds. in such cases different opinions of various scholars, including his own. No doubt a large proportion of the interpretations to be found in his work is nothing but the result of Brahmanical scholarship;

but at the bottom of the whole there lies a remnant of ancient tradition, part of which we have seen embodied in the Nirukta.

From all this we may conclude that the value of Sāyaṇa's commentaries must be very great, as we learn from them the opinions of the greatest divines and scholars of Hindustan on the sense of the Vedic hymns. Although we may have in many instances good reasons to doubt the soundness and correctness of their views regarding the sense of obscure passages, in which the Vedic songs abound, we find them very trustworthy guides in the interpretation of the Brāhmaṇas, principally as far as the explanation of sacrificial terms is concerned, since they were partly performers of Vedic sacrifices themselves, or had, in their capacity of Agnihotris, performed them on their behalf.

For Europe, the Veda has been a sealed book until very lately. It is true, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, who fully deserves the honour of being regarded as the greatest European Sanskrit scholar who has lived as yet, has given us already, towards the beginning of this century, the first trustworthy information on the Vedas and their contents from original sources; but owing to the great difficulties offered by the Vedic idiom, and the peculiar nature of the contents of the Vedas, it took about thirty years before another scholar ventured upon translating a larger portion of the ancient hymns, which form the most important and interesting part of the Vedas. It was Frederic Rosen who had the great courage to undertake, solely aided by Sayana, the translation of the first 121 hymns of the Rigveda; but his premature death prevented that enterprising scholar from continuing and finishing his highly important work, which, however, served other scholars in Europe as the key to unlock the treasures of primitive Indian thoughts. Now quite a rush was made upon the Veda; each wanted to be first in the field. Since, in consequence of his labours, Sayana's commentary was prominently brought forward as the only means for disclosing the hidden sense of the Vedic hymns, the publication of this gigantic work was deemed an absolute necessity for the furtherance of Vedic studies. It is, therefore, highly creditable to the late Court of Directors, that they provided the means for its publication, and entrusted the edition of it to the able hands of Max Müller, which I am glad to learn has now, after the lapse of 25 years, been completed. During

this time great activity has been displayed everywhere in Vedic research; most of the Vedic works were not only published, but even attempts were made to explain them in perfect independence of Brahmanical tradition and commentaries. Even long before Sāyaṇa could be placed in a correct and readable form in its entirety in the hands of scholars, he was declared by some a wholly unsafe guide, who was not worth the trouble of having many years and much money spent on being edited. The main argument brought against him was, that he was only a scholastic interpreter, who does not give the true sense of the hymns, which had been entirely lost to the Brahmans, presenting to us either his own views or those of other Brahmanical scholars who do not deserve any more credit.

Instead of determining the meaning of words by appeal to the Nirukta, or to ancient customs and rites or etymology, the principal stress was now laid on the comparison of parallel passages in which the same word or phrase occurs. The proceeding adopted by those who advocated an independent interpretation was as follows. They first collected all the passages in which a particular word and phrase occurred; then they tried, in most cases without any reference to Sāyaṇa's interpretation, or any other Indian authority, to determine the meaning by guessing at it from the general context or sense of the passage or verse, as far as they believed they understood it; if the sense arrived at in this manner appeared to suit all the passages compared, they thought they had settled the meaning. Particular care, however, was taken to explain correctly the grammatical forms.

Notwithstanding the comparison of parallel passages being a powerful help towards clearing up obscurities which are by no means to be neglected, as is generally done by the native commentators, its importance must not be overrated. Its application, principally in the Vedic hymns, is not always a safe way to arrive at trustworthy results. The main difficulty here is, that the hymns, the parallel passages of which are compared, are neither of the same age, nor of the same poet, nor did they originate at the same localities, nor under the same circumstances. Now it is self-evident that one and the same word could change its meaning at different periods, or was used in a different sense by different poets, or at different places; we cannot help admitting that there are a good many expressions