{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe32/sbe3208.htm","path":"hin/sbe32/sbe3208.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe32/sbe3208.htm","text":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32), by Max M\u00fcller, [1891]\nHaving 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.\nIt has been supposed that in the index at the end of my fourth volume, the seventeenth verse of the 34th hymn in S\u00e2yana's quotations from the Sarv\u00e2nukraman\u00ee.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 Anukramanik\u00e2, but I cannot admit that my own interpretation is untenable. As S\u00e2yana does not speak authoritatively on the subject, I followed the authority of Shadgurusishya. This commentator of the Anukramanik\u00e2 says: atra ka abg\u00e2m ukthair ahim grin\u00eesha ity ardharko\u093dbgan\u00e2mno a devasya stutih; m\u00e2 no\u093dhir budhnya ity ardharko\u093dhirbudhnyan\u00e2mno devasya b. Another commentator says: abg\u00e2m ukthair ardharko\u093dhih; uttaro m\u00e2 no\u093dhir ity ahir budhnyah. From this we learn that both commentators looked upon the Dvipad\u00e2s as ardharkas or half-verses, and ascribed the whole of verse 16 to Ahir abg\u00e2h, the whole of verse 17 to Ahir budhnyah. It will be seen from an accurate examination of S\u00e2yana's commentary on verse 17, that in the second interpretation of the second half of verse 17, he labours to show that in this portion, too, Ahir budhnyah may be considered as the deity.\nIt is perfectly right to say that the words of the Anukramanik\u00e2, abg\u00e2m aheh, signify that the verse beginning with abg\u00e2m, 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 Abg\u00e2 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 c.\nWith 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;\n[paragraph continues] 4-7; 92, 2), must be considered as addressed not to V\u00e2yu alone, but to V\u00e2yu and Indra. It will be seen from S\u00e2yana's introduction to hymn 90, that he, too, wrongly limits the sentence of the Anukramanik\u00e2, aindryas ka y\u00e2 dvivadukt\u00e2h, to the fifth and following verses of hymn 90, and that he never alludes to this proviso again in his introductory remarks to hymn 91 and 92, though, of course, he explains the verses, in which a dual occurs, as addressed to two deities, viz. Indra and V\u00e2yu. 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-br\u00e2hmana, V, 20, we actually find that the word v\u00e2m which occurs in hymn 90, 1, and which might be taken as a dual, though S\u00e2yana explains it as a singular, is changed into te a.\nIn hymn VII, 104, rakshohanau might certainly be added as an epithet of Indr\u00e2-Somau, and Shadgurusishya clearly takes it in that sense. The Anukramanik\u00e2 says: indr\u00e2som\u00e2 pa\u00f1k\u00e2dhikaindr\u00e2somam r\u00e2kshoghnam s\u00e2p\u00e2bhis\u00e2papr\u00e2yam.\nIn hymn VIII, 67, it has been supposed that the readings Samada and S\u00e2mada instead of Sammada and S\u00e2mmada were due to a misprint. This is not the case. That I was aware of the other spelling of this name, viz. Sammada and S\u00e2mmada, I had shown in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (2nd ed.), p. 39, where I had translated the passage of the S\u00e2\u1e45kh\u00e2yana-s\u00fbtras in which Matsya S\u00e2mmada occurs, and had also called attention to the \u00c2sval\u00e2yana-s\u00fbtras X, 7, and the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana XIII, 3, 1, 1,\nwhere the same passage is found. I there spelt the name S\u00e2mmada, because the majority of the MSS. were in favour of that spelling. In the edition of the \u00c2sval\u00e2yana-s\u00fbtras, which has since been published by R\u00e2ma N\u00e2r\u00e2yana Vidy\u00e2ranya, the name is spelt S\u00e2mada. My own opinion is that S\u00e2mmada is the right spelling, but that does not prove that S\u00e2yana thought so; and unless I deviated from the principles which I had adopted for a critical restoration of S\u00e2yana's text, I could not but write S\u00e2mada in our passage. B 1 and B 4 omit s\u00e2mada, but both give samad\u00e2khyasya; Ca. gives likewise samad\u00e2khyasya, and A. semad\u00e2khyasya. This, I believe, was meant by the writer for sammad\u00e2khyasya, for in the passage from the Anukraman\u00ee both A. and Ca. give s\u00e2mmado. I then consulted the commentary of Shadgurusishya, and there again the same MS. gave twice s\u00e2mmada, once s\u00e2mada, which is explained by samad\u00e2khyamah\u00e2m\u00eenar\u00e2gaputrah. A better MS. of Shadgurusishya, MS. Wilson 379 gives the readings s\u00e2mmado, s\u00e2mmada, and sammad\u00e2khyasya. The other commentary gives distinctly s\u00e2manda. [I have adopted sammada in the new edition.]\nIn IX, 68, Professor Aufrecht adopts what he considers the bold reading Vatsapr\u00ee; I prefer to be timid and allow S\u00e2yana his own reading Vatsapr\u012d; see Sarv\u00e2nukraman\u00ee, ed. Macdonell, pp. 34, 146.\nlxviii:a I find that Mr. Macdonell in his edition of the Sarv\u00e2nukraman\u00ee reads ardharko\u093dhin\u00e2mno. If this is right, part of my argument would fall.\nlxviii:b MS. Wilson 379 has, ardharko n\u00e2mano daivatasya, and in the margin \u093dhi. Ahirbudhnya seems to have been taken as one word.\nlxviii:c The editor of the Bombay edition of the text of the Rig-veda assigns verse 16 to Ahi, verse 17 to Ahirbudhnya.\nlxix:a The interpunction of Dr. Haug's edition (p. 128) should be after te. Shadgurusishya says: ata eva br\u00e2hmanas\u00fbtrayoh pra\u00fcge v\u00e2yavyatv\u00e2ya pra v\u00eeray\u00e2 sukayo dadrire b v\u00e2m iti dvivakanasth\u00e2ne ta ity ekavakanap\u00e2thah kritah, v\u00e2m ity uktam ked aindratvam ka sy\u00e2d iti. Possibly the same change should be made in \u00c2sval\u00e2yana's Srauta S\u00fbtras, VIII, 11, and it has been made by Rama N\u00e2r\u00e2yana Vidy\u00e2ratna. The remark of the commentator, however, dadrire ta iti prayogap\u00e2thah, looks as if v\u00e2m might have been retained in the text. The MSS. I have collated are in favour of te.\nlxix:b Mr. Macdonell (Sarv\u00e2nukraman\u00ee, p. 133) inserts ta iti after dadrire.","title":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Preface to the First Edition: Part 5","type":"page"}