vedic hymn

Sacred Texts   Hinduism   Index   Previous   Next 

---

Buy this Book at Amazon.com

---

Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32) , by Max Müller, [the 1891st], at Sacred-Textslcom

---

p. ix

INTRODUCTION.

I finished the Preface to the first volume of my translation of the Hymns to the Maruts with the following words:
'The second volume, which I am now preparing for Press, will contain the remaining hymns addressed to the Maruts. The notes will necessarily have to be reduced to smaller dimensions, but they must always constitute the more important part in a translation or, more truly, in a deciphering of Vedic hymns. '
This was written more than twenty years ago, but though since that time Vedic scholarship has advanced with giant steps, I still hold exactly the same opinion which I held then with regard to the principles that ought to be followed by the first translators of the Veda . I hold that they ought to be decipherers, and that they are bound to justify every word of their translation in exactly the same manner in which the decipherers of hieroglyphic or cuneiform inscriptions justify every step they take. I therefore called my translation the first traduction raisonnée. I took as an example which I tried to follow, though well aware of my inability to reach its excellence, the Commentaire sur le Yasna by my friend and teacher, Eugène Burnouf. Burnouf considered a commentary of 940 pages quarto as by no means excessive for a thorough interpretation of the firs; chapter of the Zoroastrian Veda, and only those unacquainted with the real difficulties of the Rig-veda would venture to say that its ancient words and thoughts required a less painstaking elucidation than those of the Avesta. In spite of all that has been said and written to the contrary, and with every wish to learn from those who think that the difficulties of a translation of Vedic hymns have been unduly exaggerated by me, I can not in the least
p. x
modify what I said twenty, or rather forty years ago, that a mere translation of the Veda, however accurate, intelligible, poetical, and even beautiful, is of absolutely no value for the advancement of Vedic scholarship, unless it is followed by pièces justificatives , that is, unless the translator gives his reasons why he has translated every word about which there can be any doubt, in his own way, and not in any other.
It is well known that Professor von Roth, one of our most eminent Vedic scholars, holds the very opposite opinion. He declares that a metrical translation is the best commentary, and that if he could ever think of a translation of the Rig-veda, he would throw the chief weight, not on the notes, but on the translation of the text. 'A translation,' he writes, 'must speak for itself. As a rule, it only requires a commentary where it is not directly convincing, and where the translator does not feel secure. '
Between opinions so diametrically opposed, no compromise seems possible, and yet I feel convinced that when we come to discuss any controverted passage, Professor von Roth will have to adopt exactly the same principles of translation which I have followed.
On Point One, However, I am quite willing to agree with my Adversaries, namely, that A would metrical rendering of the Vedic Hymns CONVEY A truer Idea of the Ri A Shis than rendering Prose. When I had to translate Vedic hymns into German, I have generally, if not always, endeavoured to clothe them in a metrical form. In English I feel unable to do so, but I have no doubt that future scholars will find it possible to add rhythm and even rhyme, after the true meaning of the ancient verses has once been determined. But even with regard to my German metrical translations, I feel in honesty bound to confess that a metrical translation is often an excuse only for an inaccurate translation. If we could make sure of a translator like Rückert, even the impossible might become possible. But as there are few, if any, who, like him, are great alike as scholars and poets, the mere scholar seems to me to be doing his duty better when he produces a correct translation, though in 
p. xi
prose, than if he has to make any concessions, however small, on the side of faithfulness in favour of rhythm and rhyme.
If a metrical, an intelligible, and, generally speaking, a beautiful translation were all we wanted, why should so many scholars clamour for a new translation, when they have that by Grassmann? It rests on Böhtlingk and Roth's Dictionary, or represents, as we are told, even a more advanced stage of Vedic scholarship. Yet after the well-known contributors of certain critical Journals had repeated ever so many times all that could possibly be said in praise of Grassmann's, and in dispraise of Ludwig's translation, what is the result? Grassmann's metrical translation, the merits of which, considering the time when it was published, I have never been loth to acknowledge, is hardly ever appealed to, while Ludwig's prose rendering, with all its drawbacks, is universally considered as the only scholarlike translation of the Rig-veda now in existence. Time tries the troth in everything.
There is another point also on which I am quite willing to admit that my adversaries are right. 'No one who knows anything about the Veda,' they say, 'would think of attempting a translation of it at present. A translation of the Rig-veda is a task for the next century. ' No one feels this more strongly than I do; no one has been more unwilling to make even a beginning in this arduous undertaking. Yet a beginning has to be made. We have to advance step by step, nay, inch by inch, if we ever hope to make a breach in that apparently impregnable fortress. If by translation we mean a complete, satisfactory, and final translation of the whole of the Rig-veda, I should feel inclined to go even further than Professor von Roth. Not only shall we have to wait till the next century for such a work, but I doubt whether we shall ever obtain it. In some cases the text is so corrupt that no conjectural criticism will restore, no power of divination interpret it. In other cases, verses and phrases seem to have been jumbled together by later writers in the most thoughtless manner. My principle therefore has always been, Let us translate what we can, and thus reduce the untranslateable
p. xii
portion to narrower and narrower limits. But in doing this we ought not to be too proud to take our friends, and even our adversaries, into our confidence. A translation on the sic volo sic jubeo principle does far more harm than good. It may be true that a judge, if he is wise, will deliver his judgment, but never propound his reasons. But a scholar is a pleader rather than a judge, and he is in duty bound to propound his reasons.
In order to make the difference between Professor von Roth's translations and my own quite clear, I readily accept the text which he has himself chosen. One of the Hymns Translated with which I had he took notes (the L65th hymn of the first Ma N d ala), and metrically Translated it himself, in Order to show us what, according to him, A Perfect Translation verbs like ought to really BE A . Let us then compare the results.
On many points Professor von Roth adopts the same renderings which I had adopted, only that he gives no reasons, while I do so, at least for all debatable passages. First of all, I had tried to prove that the Two Verses in the beginning, which the Anukrama N Î ascribes to Indra, shouldnt BE ascribed to the poet. Professor von Roth takes the Same View, but for the Rest of the hymn adopts, Like myself, that the singer Distribution of the Verses not provided, the Maruts, and Indra which the Anukrama N Î Suggests. This I mention because Ludwig HAS Defended the Author of the View of the Anukrama N Î with very strong arguments. He quotes from the Taitt. Br. II, 7, 11, and from the Târgul N d YA Br. XXI, 14, 5, the old legend that Agastya made ​​offerings to the Maruts, that, with or without Agastya's consent, Indra seized them, and that the Maruts then tried to frighten Indra away with lightning. Agastya and Indra, however, pacified the Maruts with this very hymn.

Verse 1.

The first verse von Roth translates as follows:

'Auf Welcher Begriffen Fahrt Insgemein Sind
 Die Altersgleichen Marut Mitgebornen?
 Was sie wollen? woher des Wegs? Das Pfeifen
 Klingt Der manner: Ein Begehren Haben sie. '

p. xiii
[PARAGRAPHIf Continues] Von Roth here Translates s UBH by Fahrt, journey. But does s UBH meaning that Possess ever? Von Roth himself in the Dictionary Translates s UBH by Schönheit, Schmuck, Bereitschaft. Grassmann, otherwise a strict adherent of von Roth, does not venture even to give Bereitschaft, but only endorses Glanz and Pracht. Ludwig, Grassmann A higher than Authority, Translates s Glanz by UBH. Translate to do that then I s UBH by Fahrt, journey, may Poetical BE, but it is not Scholarlike. On the meanings of s UBH I have treated I, 87, 3, note 2. Gaedicke See also, Accusativ, p. 163.      
But there comes another consideration. That mimikshire is used in the sense of being joined with splendour, & c. we see from passages such as I, 87, 6, Bhanu-BHI H  Mimikshire SAM, i. e. 'They were joined with splendour,' and this is said, as in our passage, of the Maruts. Prof. von Roth brings forward no passage where mimikshire is used in the sense in which he uses it here, and therefore I say again, his rendering may be poetical, but it is not scholarlike.
To Translate AR K anti s Úshmam by 'das Pfeifen Klingt,' is, to do the least, very free. S Ushma comes, no doubt, from s vas, to Breathe, and the meaning of Transition from strength to Breath is enough Intelligible . In the Psalms we read (xviii. 15), 'At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the earth were discovered.' Again (Job iv. 9), 'By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed; 'Isaiah xi. 4, 'And with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.' Wrestlers know why breath or wind means strength, and even in the expression 'une œuvre de longue haleine,' the original intention of breath is still perceived. In the Rig-Veda in Most Therefore passages where s Ushma occurs, and where it means strength, Prowess, Vigour, we may, if we Like, Translate Breath by it, though it is clear that the poet himself was not always Aware of the etymological meaning of the word. Where the SOUND of s Ushma is mentioned (IX, 50, 1; X, 3, 6, & C.), Breath Clearly it means. But when, as in VI, 19, 8, s Ushma HAS Adjectives Dhanasp the Ri T, Sudáksha, but we can hardly strength Translate anything by it. When, therefore,      
p. xiv
von Roth Translates s Ushma by whistling, and AR K by anti Sounding, I must Demur. Is different from whistling breathing, AR Nor do I know of any passage where K with s Ushma or with any similar to Word for SOUND A SOUND Whistle Simply means. Why not translate, they sing their strength, i. e. the Maruts, by their breathing or howling. proclaim themselves their strength? We find a similar idea in I, 87, 3, 'the Maruts have themselves glorified their greatness.' Neither Ludwig Nor venture to take Grassmann s Ushma Whistle in the Sense of, or AR K in the Sense of anti Sounding. Bergaigne seems to take v ri SHA N A H as A Genitive, Referring to Indra, 'ILS Chantent Indra à la Force,' which may have been the Original meaning, but hardly seems appropriate when the verse is Placed in the mouth of Indra himself (journ. Asiat. 1,884th, p. 199). S Ushma never occurs as an adjective. The passages in which von Roth admits sushma as an adjective are not adequate. Does the meaning of Mitgeboren in German CONVEY Sani l â H , 'Nest of the Same?'      

Verse 2.

The second verse contains few difficulties, and is well rendered by von Roth:

'Die Jungen sich An Wessen Sprüchen Freuen?
  Wer zu Lenkt her Seinem Die Opfer Marut?
Gleich Falken Streichend RAUM der durch den Lüfte-
  Wie sie mit Wunscheskraft zum Stehen Bringt Man? '

Verse 3.
The third verse is rendered by von Roth:

'Wie Kommt ES, Indra, Dass Du sonst so Munter,
  Heut 'ganz Alleine Fährst, an Gebieter sag!
Du Pflegtest Fahrt mit der auf zu Plaudern UNS
  UNS wider Was Du hast, Sprich, Rosselenker! '

Von Roth takes kuta H  in A causal Sense, why? I believe that kuta H  in the Rig-Veda never occurs in that Sense. If it does, passages should be produced to prove it.
Mâ'hina H  can never Translated by BE 'Munter sonst so.' This imparts a modern idea which is not in the original.
p. xv
Subhânaí H  does not Mean auf der Fahrt, and Plaudern, adopted from Grassmann, instead of SAM p ri K kh ase, A Modern Idea introduces quite again. Ludwig calls such an idea 'abgeschmackt,' insipid, which is rather strong, but not far wrong.

Verse 4.

Von Roth:

'Ich liebe Sprüche, Wünsche UND Tränke Die,
  Steigt auf Der Duft, Die PRESSE Gerüstet IST;
SIE Flehen, mich mit Ihrem Anruf Locken,
  Und Meine Füchse mich zum Mahle Führen. '

It is curious how quickly all difficulties which beset the first line seem to vanish in a metrical translation, but the scholar should face the difficulties, though the poet may evade them.
To Translate s Úshma H by Iyarti 'Steigt auf der Duft,' rises up the flavor of the sacrifices, is More than VENTURES on Grassmann even. It is simply impossible. Benfey (Entstehung der mit r anlautenden Personalendungen, p. 34) translates: 'My thunderbolt, when hurled by me, moves mightily.' 
Again, Prabh ri TA H  does not Mean ME Ádrih Gerüstet Die PRESSE IST. PRESSING where does the Soma for Indra as ever USED Speak my Stone of the stones, and where does Prabh ri TA H  ever Gerüstet Mean?

Verse 5.

Von Roth:

'So Werden wir mit UNS UND Unsre Freunde (Nachbarn),
  Die Freien manner, Unsre Rüstung Nehmen,
Und Lustig Alsbald Schecken Schirren Unsre.
  Eben ganz nach Wunsch Du Kommst UNS, o Indra. '

The first lines are unnecessarily free, and the last decidedly wrong. How can Svadhâ'm ANU na hI H  Babhû'tha Mean 'Eben ganz nach Wunsch Du Kommst UNS?' Svadhâ does not mean wish, but nature, custom, wont (see I, 6, 4, note 2; and Bergaigne, Journ. Asiat. 1884, p. 207). Babhûtha means 'thou hast become,' not 'thou comest.'
p. xvi

Verse 6.

Von Roth:

'Da auch nicht so ganz nach Wunsch's War, o Maruts,
  Als ihr mich Allein Gegen Schicktet Ahi!
Ich Aber Kräftig, TAPFER, Unerschrocken,
  Alle mit Ich traf Geschossen Gegner Die. '

The only doubtful line is the last. Translation of von Roth's former nam, to bend away from, Escape from to (cf. Φεύγω and BHU G ), seems to right ME Still the One. He now translates 'I directed my arrow on every enemy,' when the genitive, as ruled by ánamam, requires confirmation. As to sam ádhatta I certainly think von Roth's last interpretation better than his first. In the Dictionary he explained samdhâ in our passage by to implicate. Grassmann translated it by to leave or to desert, Ludwig by to employ. I took it formerly in the usual sense of joining, so that yát mâm ékam samádhatta should be the explanation of svadhâ, the old custom that you should join me when I am alone. But the construction is against this, and I have therefore altered my translation, so that the sense is, Where was that old custom you speak of, when you made ​​me to be alone, i. e. when you left me alone, in the fight with Ahi? The udâtta of ánamam is not irregular, because it is preceded by hi.

Verse 7.

Von Roth:

'Im Bunde Gethan Gewaltiges hast Du
  Mit UNS, o Held, Vereinter STARKE mit wir,
wir Gewaltiges Vermögen, Du Mächtiger
  Indra, Ernst UNS IST ES Wenn, ihr Gesellen. '

By this translation, the contrast between 'thou hast done great things with us,' and 'Now let us do great things once more,' is lost. K ri N Ávâma Expresses an Exhortation, A Simple fact not, and on Grassmann's metrical Translation This Point is preferable Decidedly.

Verse 8.

Von Roth:

'V ri tra Schlug Ich mit Kraft Eigner, ihr Marut,
  Und Meine Wuth's War, Die mich Machte so KUHN, p. xvii Ich War's, Blitz-DEM der-den Menschen in der Faust   Bahnte Zugang zu den Blinkenden Gewässern Den. ' 

This is a very good translation, except that there are some syllables too much in the last line. What I miss is the accent on the I. Perhaps this might become stronger by translating:

'Ich Schlug Eigner Kraft mit den V ri tra Nieder,
 Ich, Maruts. STARK durch Geworden MEINEN Zorn;
 Ich War's, der für den Menschen Blitzbewaffnet
 Dem Wasser Lichten Geschaffen Freie Bahn. '

Verse 9.

Von Roth:

'GEWISS, JE was Nichts IST Widerstünde dir,
 Gott Und Mehr Zweiten Keinen gibts so wie Du,
 Nicht Jetzt, noch Künftig, der Du Vermöchte was:
 Thu 'denn was Begeistert Lüstet dich zu Thun.'

A doubt about being true rendering of Begeistert I Prav here ri Ddha, grown strong. Karishyâ' to as H  instead of Karishyâ', the reading of the MSS., Roth is Inclined to adopt my Conjecture, as Analogous Supported by the passage in IV, 30, 23. The Form Analogous to which Karishyam as Ludwig quotes, namely, Pravatsyam, I can not find, unless it is meant for Âpast. S Rauta S. VI, 27, 2, VO Namo ^stu Prâvâtsyam ITI Bahv ri K â H , where Prâvâtsam However Prâvâtsyam is probably meant for. 
Grassmann has understood devátâ rightly, while Roth's translation leaves it doubtful.

Verse 10.

Von Roth:

'So Soll Allein Sein der mir Vorrang STARKE:
  Was Ich Gewagt, Vollführ 'Ich mit Verständniss.
Starken Man Kennt mich als den Wohl, ihr Marut,
  An was Rühre Ich, der Bemeistert's Indra. '

Von Roth has adopted the translation of the second line, which I suggested in a note; Ludwig prefers the more abrupt construction which I preferred in the translation. It is difficult to decide.
p. xviii

Verse 11.

Von Roth:

'Entzückt Rühmen Euer Hat, mich, ihr Marut,
  Lobenswerthe Das Wort, das ihr Gesprochen,
Für mich für den-den Indra-Freud'gen Helden,
  Als Freund Freunde für den, für ihr mich-von Selbst. '

Selbst für mich-von ihr the Last words are not very clear, but may BE the Same Tanvẽ Tanû'bhi said of the Original H . I still adhere to my remark that tanu, self, must refer to the same person, though I see that all other translators take an opposite view. Non liquet.

Verse 12.

Von Roth:

'Ich find Gefallen, wie sie Sind, an Ihnen,
  in frische Unvergleichlich In UND Raschheit.
So oft Ich Euch, Marut, Schmuck im Erblickte,
  Erfreut 'Ich Euch an mich mich UND Jetzt Freue.'

This is again one of those verses which it is far easier to translate than to construe. Staff K kh may anta Mean ME, ME they Pleased, but then what is the meaning of kh Adáyâtha K A Nûnám, 'Please may you now ME,' instead of what we expect shouldnt, 'Please ME now you do.' In Order to Avoid This, I took the meaning of More Frequent kh AD, to appear, and Translated, 'you have formerly appeared, now appear to ME.'   
To Translate Ánedya H  s RAVA H  Â'isha H  Dádhânâ H , by 'in frische Unvergleichlich in Raschheit UND,' Poetical is, but the Scholar How does it Benefit? I take â dhâ in the sense of bringing or giving, as it is often used cf. II, 38, 5. This is isha More Compatible with H , food, Vigour. I am not CERTAIN that Ănēdy̆ā H  Mean Blameless can. Roth s. v. derives ánedya from a-nedya, and nedya from nid. But how we get from nid to nedya, he does not say. Suggests he Anedyâ H  or Anedya s Rava H  as Emendations. I suggested anedyam. But I suspect there is something else behind all this. Anedîya H  INTENDED for may have been 'Nearer having nothing coming,' and an-Uttama Like, might Express excellence. Or Anedya H  may have been an adverb, not nearly.
p. xix
Mere these are guesses, and they are rather contradicted by Anedyâ H , USED in the plural, with Anavadyâ H . Still it is better to point out difficulties than to slur them over by translating 'in Raschheit und in Frische unvergleichlich.' Both Roth and it is possible that Saya N A Anedya thought that H  was Nedîya Connected with H ; but what scholars want to know is the exact construction of a sentence.

Verse 13.

Von Roth:

'Ist Ein Fest für Euch Bereitet Irgendwo,
  So Fahrt doch zu Unsrer her Schaar, ihr Schaaren!
Der Andacht UNS Belebend in Regungen,
  Und Werdet Frommen unserer WERKE Zeugen. '

In This verse there is no difficulty, except the EXACT meaning of Apivâtáyanta H , on which I have Spoken in note 1.

Verse 14.

Von Roth:

'Wo der Dichter Lobsingt Huldigend Dankbar,
  Hier wo UNS Zusammenführte manya's Kunst,
Ein Da Kehret, ihr Marut, bei den Frommen,
  Euch des ja Beters Heil'ge Sprüche Gelten. '

Prof. von Roth admits that this is a difficult verse. He translates it, but again he does not help us to construe it. Grassmann also gives us a metrical translation, but it differs widely from von Roth's:

'Wenn der Dichter Herlockt wie zur Spende Euch,
  Und der Gesang des Weisen Herbeizog UNS, '& C .;

and so does Geldner's version, unless we are to consider this as an improved rendering from von Roth's own pen:

'Wenn UNS zur Kunst des manya Herzieht Feier,
  Wie Dichter Rufen ja gerne zu Festen, '& C.

Here Geldner conjectures duvasyâ' for duvasyâ't, and takes duváse as an infinitive.

Verse 15.

Von Roth:

'Geweiht IST Euch der Preis, Marut, Die Lieder,
  Des manya, Mandârasohns des, des Dichters,
Herbei Kommt Mit Labung, mir zur Selbst Stärkung
  [Gebt Labung UND Wasserreiche Fluren UNS]. '

p. xx
How tanvẽ vayâ'm is to mean 'mir selbst zur Stärkung' has not been explained by von Roth. No doubt tanvẽ may mean mir selbst, and vayâm zur Stärkung; but though this may satisfy a poet, scholars want to know how to construe. It seems to ME that Roth and LANMan (Noun-Inflection, p. 552) have made ​​the Same mistake for which I made ​​in taking an Accusative of Isham ish, which Isham BE verbs like ought to, and in Admitting for the masculine Gender v ri G ána in the sense of Flur.
Still I take Yâsîsh T A for the 3 p. sing. of the Precative Âtmanepada, Like G Anishîsh T and Vanishîsh A T A. With the Preposition ava, Yâsisîsh th â H in IV, 1, 4, means to turn away. Therefore Yâsîsh with the Preposition Â' T Mean A may well turn towards to, to bring. If we took Yâsîsh T A as A 2 p. plur. in the sense of come, we could not account for the long î, nor for the accusative vayâm. We thus get the meaning, 'May this your hymn of praise bring vayâ'm,' i. e. a branch, an offshoot or offspring, tanvẽ, for ourselves, ishâ', together with food. We then begin a new sentence: 'May we find an invigorating autumn with quickening rain.' Isha is it true that, as an autumn month of A NAME, does not occur again in the Rig-Veda, but it is Found in the S Atapatha-Brahma N A. V ri G AnA, possibly in the Sense of people or Enemies, we have in VII, 32, 27, á G ñ Ata H v ri G AnA H , where Roth reads wrongly á G ñ Ata v ri G AnA; V, 44, 1 (?); VI, 35, 5. G Îrádânu would also isha to BE an appropriate epithet.    
Professor Oldenberg has sent me the following notes on this difficult hymn. He thinks it is what he calls an Âkhyâna-hymn, consisting of verses which originally formed part of a story in prose. He has treated of this class of hymns in the Zeitschrift der DMG XXXIX, 60 seq. He would prefer to ascribe verses 1 and 2 to Indra, who addresses the Maruts when he meets them as they return from a sacrifice. In this case, however, we should have to accept rîramâma as a pluralis majestaticus; and I doubt whether Indra ever speaks of himself in the plural, it may except in BE using the Pronoun na H .
In verse 4 Prefers to Professor Oldenberg Prabh take ri to
p. xxi
ME Adri H  in the Sense of 'the Soma HAS PRESSING been brought forth for the Stone,' and he adds that ME Need not Mean 'my Stone,' but 'brought for Forward ME.' Prefer to Read would he s Úshmam Iyarti, as in IV, 17, 12; X, 75, 3, though he does not consider this alteration of the text necessary. 
Professor Oldenberg would ascribe vv. 13 and 14 to Indra. The 14th verse would then mean, 'After Mânya has brought us (the gods) hither, turn, O Maruts, towards the sage.' Of this interpretation I should like to adopt at all events the last sentence, taking varta for vart-ta, the 2 p. plur. imperat. of v ri T, after the Ad class.
The text of the Maitrâya N Î Sa m HITA, Lately published by Dr. L. von Schrœder, yields a few interesting various readings: v. 5, ekam instead of etân̐; v. 12, s RAVA instead of s Rava; and v. 15, vaya m si Vayam as for variant A, which looks Like A Conjectural Emendation.  
A comparison like the one we have here instituted between two translations of the same hymn, will serve to show how useless any rendering, whether in prose or poetry, would be without notes to justify the meanings of every doubtful word and sentence. It will, no doubt, disclose at the same time the unsettled state of Vedic scholarship, but the more fully this fact is acknowledged, the better, I believe, it will be for the progress of our studies. They have suffered more than from anything else from that baneful positivism which has done so much harm in hieroglyphic and cuneiform researches. That the same words and names should be interpreted differently from year to year, is perfectly intelligible to every one who is familiar with the nature of these decipherments. What has seriously injured the credit of these studies is that the latest decipherments have always been represented as final and unchangeable. Vedic hymns may seem more easy to decipher than Babylonian and Egyptian inscriptions, and in one sense they are. But when we come to really difficult passages, the Vedic hymns often require a far greater effort of divination than the hymns addressed to Egyptian or Babylonian deities. And there is this additional difficulty that when we deal with
p. xxii
Inscriptions, Engraved we have at all events from the text as it was the first, and we are safe against Modifications and later interpolations, while in the Case of the Veda, even though the text as presupposed by the Prati s Âkhyas Considered as may BE authoritative for the fifth Century BC , it may have undergone changes before How do we know that what Time? Nor can I help to Giving More Misgivings I have so often expressed EXPRESSION once, whether the Date of the Prati s Âkhyas is really beyond the reach of doubt, and whether, if it is, from escaping the conclusion that there is no other Way of the whole collection of the hymns of the Rig-veda, including even the Vâlakhilya hymns, existed at that early time  A . The more I study the hymns, the more I feel staggered at the conclusion at which all Sanskrit scholars seem to have arrived, touching their age. That many of them are old, older than anything else in Sanskrit, their grammar, if nothing else, proclaims in the clearest way. But that some of them are modern imitations is a conviction that forces itself even on the least sceptical minds. Here too we must guard against positivism, and suspend our judgment, and accept correction with a teachable spirit. No one would be more grateful for a way out of the maze of Vedic chronology than I should be, if a more modern date could be assigned to some of the Vedic hymns than the period of the rise of Buddhism. But how can we account for Buddhism without Vedic hymns? In the oldest Buddhist Suttas the hymns of three Vedas are constantly referred to, and warnings are uttered even against the fourth Veda, the Âthabbana b . Also the Upanishads, the Brahma of the latest PRODUCTIONS N A Period, Known to the Founders of Buddhism must have been. From all this there seems to be no escape, and yet I must confess that my conscience quivers in assigning such compositions as the Vâlakhilya hymns to a period preceding the rise of Buddhism in India.


p. xxiii
I have often been asked why I began my translation of the Rig-veda with the hymns addressed to the Maruts or the Storm-gods, which are certainly not the most attractive of Vedic hymns. I had several reasons, though, as often happens, I could hardly say which of them determined my choice.
First of all, they are the most difficult hymns, and therefore they had a peculiar attraction in my eyes.
Secondly; as even when translated they required a considerable effort before they could be fully understood, I hoped they would prove attractive to serious students only, and frighten away the casual reader who has done so much harm by meddling with Vedic antiquities. Our grapes, I am glad to say, are still sour, and ought to remain so for some time longer.
Thirdly, there are few hymns which place the original character of the so-called deities to whom they are addressed in so clear a light as the hymns addressed to the Maruts or Storm-gods. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the name, whatever difference of opinion there may be about its etymology. Marut and maruta in ordinary Sanskrit mean wind, and more particularly a strong wind, differing by its violent character from vâyu or vâta A . Nor do the hymns themselves leave us in any doubt as to the natural phenomena with which the Maruts are identified. Storms which root up the trees of the forest, lightning, thunder, and showers of rain, are the background from which the Maruts in their personal and dramatic character rise before our eyes. In one verse the Maruts are the very phenomena of nature as convulsed by a thunderstorm; in the next, with the slightest change of expression, they are young men, driving on chariots, hurling the thunderbolt, and crushing the clouds in order to win the rain. They are now the sons of Rudra and P ri s ni, Friends and Brothers of the Indra, Indra and now they claim their own Rightful share with Quarrel and Sacrifice of praise. Nay, after a time the storm-gods in India, like the storm-gods in other countries,

p. xxiv
obtain a kind of supremacy, and are invoked by themselves, as if there were no other gods beside them. In Most of the native dictionaries later, in the Medinî, Vi s va, Hema K Andra, Amara, and Anekârthadhvanima ñ G Ari, Marut synonym of A is given as deva, or god in general A , and so is Maru in PALI.
But while the hymns addressed to the Maruts enable us to watch the successive stages in the development of so-called deities more clearly than any other hymns, there is no doubt one drawback, namely, the uncertainty of the etymology of Marut. The etymology of the name is and always must be the best key to the original intention of a deity. Whatever Zeus became afterwards, he was originally conceived as Dyaus, the bright sky. Whatever changes came over later Times in Ceres, and her first Conception was her first NAME S Arad, Harvest. Marut I myself have no doubt whatever that with regard to Mar-UT comes from the root M , in the Sense of grinding, Crushing, pounding (Sk. m ri N ati, HI m Sayam, Part. Mur N A, Crushed, Like m ri dita; AMUR and Amuri, DESTROYER). There is no objection to this etymology, either on the ground of phonetic rules, or on account of the meaning of Marut b . Professor Kuhn's Idea that the NAME of the Maruts was derived from the root M , to Die, and that the Maruts were originally Conceived as the Souls of the departed, and afterwards as Ghosts, spirits, winds, and lastly as storms, derives no support from the Veda. Another etymology, proposed in Böhtlingk's Dictionary, which derives from Marut A root M , to Shine, Two labors under disadvantages; first, that there is no such root in Sanskrit C ; secondly, that the lurid splendour of the lightning is but a subordinate feature in the character of the Maruts. No better having been proposed etymology, I Still maintain that Marut from the Derivation of M , to Pound, to smash, is free from any Objection, and that that was the Original Conception of the Crushing of the Maruts, smashing, striking, tearing, destroying storms.



p. xxv
It is true that we have only two words in Sanskrit formed by the suffix ut, marút and garút in garút-mat, but there are other suffixes which are equally restricted to one or two nouns only. This UT Represents an old suffix vat, presupposes vas Just as us, in Vidus (Vidushî, Vidush T ara) for vid-vas, nom. vid-vân, acc. Vidvâ m Sam. In a similar way we find side by side párus, knot, párvan, knot, and párvata, stone, cloud, presupposing such forms as * parvat and parut. If then by the side of * parut, we find Latin pars, partis, why should we object to Mars, Martis as a parallel form of Marut? I do not say the two words are identical, I only maintain that the root is the same, and the two suffixes are mere variants. No doubt Marut might have appeared in Latin as Marut, like the neuter cap-ut, capitis (cf. prae-ceps, prae-cipis, and prae-cipitis); but Mars, A Derivation from Martis M is as good  as Fors, Fortis is from GH A . Dr. von Bradke (Zeitschrift der DMG, vol. xl, p. 349), though Identifying with Marut Mars, proposes new Derivation of A Marut, as being originally Mav * ri T, which would Mavors with Correspond well. But * Mav ri T HAS no meaning in Sanskrit, and seems an impossible Formation grammatically.
If there could be any doubt as to the original identity of Marut and Mars, it is dispelled by the Umbrian name cerfo Martio, which, as Grassmann b  HAS shown, Corresponds to exactly the EXPRESSION s Árdha-s Mâ'ruta-s, the host of the Maruts. Such minute coincidences can hardly be accidental, though, as I have myself often remarked, the chapter of accidents in language is certainly larger than we suppose. Thus, in our case, I pointed out that we can observe the transition of the gods of storms into the gods of destruction and war, not only in the Veda, but likewise in the mythology of the Polynesians; and yet the similarity in the Polynesian name of Maru can only be accidental  c



p. xxvi
[PARAGRAPHIf Continues] Add And may I that we find in Estonian also called storm-gods or MARO Uled Marutu, plural Marud A .
Fourthly, the hymns addressed to the Maruts seemed to me to possess an interest of their own, because, as it is difficult to doubt the identity of the two names, Marut and Mars, they offered an excellent opportunity for watching the peculiar changes which the same deity would undergo when transferred to India on one side and to Europe on the other. Whether the Greek Ares also was an offshoot of the same root must seem more doubtful, and I contented myself with giving the principal reasons for and against this theory b .
Though these inducements which led me to select the hymns to the Maruts as the first instalment of a translation of the Rig-veda could hardly prevail with me now, yet I was obliged to place them once more in the foreground, because the volume containing the translation of these hymns with very full notes has been used for many years as a text book by those who were beginning the study of the Rig-veda, and was out of print. In order to meet the demand for a book which could serve as an easy introduction to Vedic studies, I decided to reprint the translation of the hymns to the Maruts, and most of the notes, though here and there somewhat abbreviated, and then to continue the same hymns, followed by others addressed to Rudra, Vâyu, and Vâta. My task would, of course, have been much easier, if I had been satisfied with making a selection, and translating those hymns, or those verses only, which afford no very great difficulties. As it is, I have grappled with every hymn and every verse addressed to the Maruts, so that my readers will find in this volume all that the Vedic poets had to say about the Storm-gods.
In order to show, however, that Vedic hymns, though they begin with a description of the most striking phenomena of nature, are by no means confined to that


p. xxvii
narrow sphere, but rise in the end to the most sublime conception of a supreme Deity, I have placed one hymn, that addressed to the Unknown God, at the head of my collection. This will clear me, I hope, of the very unfair suspicion that, by beginning my translation of the Rig-veda with hymns celebrating the wild forces of nature only, I had wished to represent the Vedic religion as nature-worship and nothing else. It will give the thoughtful reader a foretaste of what he may expect in the end, and show how vast a sphere of religious thought is filled by what we call by a very promiscuous name, the Veda.
The MS. of this volume was ready, and the printing of it was actually begun in 1885. A succession of new calls on my time, which admitted of no refusal, have delayed the actual publication till now. This delay, however, has been compensated by one very great advantage. Beginning with the first hymn of 167 Ma N d ala, HAS Professor Oldenberg, in the Most Generous SPIRIT, ME lent his help in the final revision of my Translation and notes. It is chiefly due to him that the results of the latest attempts at the interpretation of the Veda, which are scattered about in learned articles and monographs, have been utilised for this volume. His suggestions, I need hardly say, have proved most valuable; and though he should not be held responsible for any mistakes that may be discovered, whether in the translation or in the notes, my readers may at all events take it for granted that, where my translation seems unsatisfactory, Professor Oldenberg also had nothing better to suggest.
Considering my advancing years, I thought I should act in the true interest of Vedic scholarship, if for the future also I divided my work with him. While for this volume the chief responsibility rests with me, the second volume will contain the hymns to Agni, as translated and annotated by him, and revised by me. In places where we really differ, we shall say so. For the rest, we are willing to share both blame and praise. Our chief object is to help forward a critical study of the Veda, and we are well
p. xxviii
aware that much of what has been done and can be done in the present state of Vedic scholarship, is only a kind of reconnaissance, if not a forlorn hope, to be followed hereafter by a patient siege of the hitherto impregnable fortress of ancient Vedic literature .

F. MAX MÜLLER.

  OXFORD:
6th Dec. In 1891.

---

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe32/sbe3202.htm

Footnotes

xii: A  Z. D. M. G., 1870, XXIV, p. 301.
XXII: A  Preface to the first edition See, p. xxxii.
XXII: b  Tuva T Akasutta, VER. 927; Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. 176; Introduction, p. xiii.
xxiii: A  The Vâyus are mentioned by the side of the Maruts, Rv. II, 11, 14.
xxiv: A  Anundoram Borooah, Sanskrit Grammar, vol. iii, p. 323.
xxiv: b  See Lectures on the Science of Language, vol. ii, p. 357 seq.
xxiv: C  Mari K i A is very Doubtful origin of Word.
xxv: A  Biographies of Words, p. 12.
xxv: b  Kuhn's Zeitschrift, vol. xvi, p. 190; and note to Rv. I, 37, 1, p. 70.
xxv: C  M. M., Science of Religion, p. 255.
xxvi: A  Bertram, Ilmatar, Dorpat, in 1871, p. 98.
xxvi: b  Lectures on the Science of Language, vol. ii, p. 357.

---

Next: Part 1