Page images
PDF
EPUB

follows. Before I felt quite certain on this point, I have in several cases retained the dot, as given by the MSS., instead of changing it, as I ought to have done according to my system of writing Devanagari, into the corresponding nasal, provided it represents an original n. In i. 71, 1, S. 2, S. 3. have the dot in agushran, but S. 1. has dental n. In ix. 87, 5, asrigran has the dot; i. e. S. 1. has the dot, and nkh, dental n joined to kh; S. 2. has nkh without the dot before the n; S. 3. has the dot, and then kh. In iv. 24, 6, the spelling of the Sanhitâ ávivenam tám would leave it doubtful whether we ought to read ávivenan tám or ávivenam tám; S. 1. and S. 3. read ávivenam tám, but S. 2. has ávivenan tám; P. 2. has ávi-venan tám, and P. 1. had the same originally, though a later hand changed it to ávi-venam tám. In iv. 25, 3, on the contrary, S. 1. and S. 3. write ávivenam; S. 2. ávivenam; P. 1. and P. 2. ávi-venam. What is intended is clear enough, viz. ávi-venan in iv. 24, 6; ávi-venam in iv. 25, 3.

vii. 73, 1. asvinâ (Aufr. ii. p. 56) instead of asvínâ (M. M. vol. iv. p. 176) is wrong. On the same page, dhíshnye, vii. 72, 3, should have the accent on the first syllable.

vii. 77, 1. In this verse, which has been so often discussed (see Kuhn, Beiträge, vol. iii. p. 472; Boehtlingk and Roth, Dictionary, vol. ii. p. 968; Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii. p. 463), all the MSS. which I know, read karấyai, and not either karathai nor garayai.

viii. 2, 29. kîrínam (Aufr. ii. p. 84) instead of kârínam (M. M. vol. iv. p. 308) does not rest on the authority MSS., nor is it supported by Sâyana.

of

any

viii. 9, 9. Professor Aufrecht has altered the very important form âkukyuvîmáhi (M. M. vol. iv. p. 389) to âkukyavîmáhi (ii. p. 98). The question is whether this was done intentionally and on the authority of any MSS. My own MSS. support the form âkukyuvîmáhi, and I see that Professor Roth accepts this form.

viii. 32, 14. âyántâram (Aufr. ii. p. 129) instead of âyantaram (M. M. vol. iv. p. 567) is wrong.

viii. 47, 15. dushvápnyam (Aufr. ii. p. 150) is not so correct as duhshvápnyam (M. M. vol. iv. p. 660), or, better, dushshvápnyam (Prâtisâkhya, Sûtras 255 and 364), though it is perfectly true that the MSS. write dushvápnyam.

In the ninth and tenth Mandalas I have not to defend myself, and I need not therefore give a list of the passages where I think that Professor Aufrecht's text is not supported by the best MSS. My own edition of these Mandalas will soon be published, and I need hardly say that where it differs from Professor Aufrecht's text, I am prepared to show that I had the best authorities on my side.

Having said so much in vindication of the text of the Rig-veda as published by me, and in defence of my principles of criticism which seem to me so self-evident as hardly to deserve the name of canones critici, I feel bound at the same time both to

acknowledge some inaccuracies that have occurred in the index at the end of each volume, and to defend some entries in that index which have been challenged without sufficient cause.

It has been supposed that in the index at the end of my fourth volume, the seventeenth verse of the 34th hymn in the seventh Mandala has been wrongly assigned to Ahi Budhnya, and that one half only of that verse should have been reserved for that deity. I do not deny that we should be justified in deriving that sense from the words of the Anukramanikâ, but I cannot admit that my own interpretation is untenable. As Sâyana does not speak authoritatively on the subject, I followed the authority of Shadgurusishya. This commentator of the Anukramanikâ says: atra ka abgâm ukthair ahim grinisha ity ardharko 'bganâmno devasya stutih; mâ no 'hir budhnya ity ardharko 'hirbudhnyanâmno devasya*. Another commentator says: abgâm ukthair ardharko 'hih; uttaro mâ no 'hir ity ahir budhnyah. From this we learn that both commentators looked upon the Dvipadâs as ardharkas or half-verses, and ascribed the whole of verse 16 to Ahir abgâh, the whole of verse 17 to Ahir budhnyah. It will be seen from an accurate examination of Sâyana's commentary on verse 17, that in the second interpretation of the second half of verse 17, he

*MS. Wilson 379 has, ardharko nâmano daivatasya, and in the margin 'hi. Ahirbudhnya seems to have been taken as one word.

labours to show that in this portion, too, Ahir budhnyah may be considered as the deity.

It is perfectly right to say that the words of the Anukramanikâ, abgâm aheh, signify that the verse beginning with abgâm, belongs to Ahi. But there was no misprint in my index. It will be seen that Shadgurusishya goes even beyond me, and calls that deity simply Abga, leaving out Ahi altogether, as understood. I was anxious to show the distinction between Abgâ Ahih and Ahir Budhnyah, as the deities of the two successive verses, and I did not expect that any reader could possibly misinterpret my entry.

With regard to hymns 91 and 92 of the seventh Mandala, it is true, that in the index I did not mention that certain verses in which two deities are mentioned (91, 2; 4-7; 92, 2), must be considered as addressed not to Vâyu alone, but to Vâyu and Indra. It will be seen from Sâyana's introduction to hymn 90, that he, too, wrongly limits the sentence of the Anukramanikâ, aindryas ka yâ dvivaduktâh, to the fifth and following verses of hymn 90, and that he never alludes to this proviso again in his introductory remarks to hymns 91 and 92, though, of course, he explains the verses, in which a dual occurs, as addressed to two deities, viz. Indra and Vâyu. The same omission, whether intentional or unintentional, occurs in Shadgurusishya's commentary. The other commentary, however, assigns the verses of the three hymns rightly. The subject has evidently been one

that excited attention in very early days, for in the Aitareya-brâhmana, v. 20, we actually find that the word vâm which occurs in hymn 90, 1, and which might be taken as a dual, though Sâyana explains it as a singular, is changed into te*.

In hymn vii. 104, rakshohanau might certainly be added as an epithet of Indrâ-Somau, and Shadgurusishya clearly takes it in that sense. The Anukramanikâ says: indrâsomâ pañkâdhikaindrâsomam râkshoghnam sâ pâbhisâpaprâyam.

In hymn viii. 67, it has been supposed that the readings Samada and Sâmada instead of Sammada and Sâmmada were due to a misprint. This is not the case. That I was aware of the other spelling of this name, viz. Sammada and Sâmmada, I had shown in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (2nd ed.), p. 39, where I had translated the passage of the Sânkhâyana-sûtras in which Matsya Sâmmada occurs, and had also called attention to the Asvalâyanasûtras x. 7, and the Satapatha-brâhmana xiii. 3, I, I, where the same passage is found. I there spelt the

* The interpunction of Dr. Haug's edition (p. 128) should be after te. Shadgurusishya says: ata eva brâhmanasûtrayoh praüge vâyavatvâya pra vîrayâ sukayo dadrire vâm iti dvivakanasthâne ta ity ekavakanapâthah kritah, vâm ity uktam ked aindratvam ka syâd iti. Possibly the same change should be made in Âsvalâyana's Sûtras, viii. II, and it has been made by the Râma Nârâyana Vidyaratna. The remark of the commentator, however, dadrire ta iti prayogapâthah, looks as if vâm might have been retained in the text. The MSS. I have collated are in favour of te.

« PreviousContinue »