Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Preface to the First Edition... | Internet Sacred Text Archive

It will be seen from these remarks that many things have to be considered before one can form an independent judgment as to the exact view adopted by Sâyana in places where he differs from other authorities, or as to the exact words in which he clothed his meaning. Such cases occur again and again. Thus in IX, 86, I find that Professor Aufrecht ascribes the first ten verses to the Akrishtas, whereas Sâyana calls them Âkrishtas. It is perfectly true that the best MSS. of the Anukramanikâ have Akrishta, it is equally true that the name of these Akrishtas is spelt with a short a in the Harivamsa, 11,533, but an editor of Sâyana's work is not to alter the occasional mistakes of that learned commentator, and Sâyana certainly called these poets Âkrishtas.

Verses 21-30 of the same hymn are ascribed by Professor Aufrecht to the Prisniyah. Here, again, several MSS. support that reading; and in Shadgurusishya's commentary, the correction of prisniyah into prisnayah is made by a later hand. But Sâyana clearly took prisnayah for a nominative plural of prisni, and in this case he certainly was right. The Dictionary of Böhtlingk and Roth quotes the Mahâbhârata, VII, 8728, in support of the peculiar reading of prisniyah, but the published text gives prisnayah. Professor Benfey, in his list of poets (Ind. Stud. vol. iii, p. 223), gives prisniyoga as one word, not prisniyogâ, as stated in the Dictionary of Böhtlingk and Roth, but this is evidently meant for two words, viz. prisnayoऽgâh. However, whether prisniyah or prisnayah be the real name of these poets, an editor of Sâyana is bound to give that reading of the name which Sâyana believed to be the right one, i. e. prisnayah a.

Again, in the same hymn, Professor Aufrecht ascribes verses 31-40 to the Atris. We should then have to read tritîyeऽtrayah. But Sâyana read tritîye trayah, and ascribes verses 31-40 to the three companies together of the Rishis mentioned before. On this point the MSS. admit of no doubt, for we read: katurthasya ka dasarkasya âkrishtâ mâshâ ityâdidvinâmânas trayo ganâ drashtârah. I do not say that the other explanation is wrong; I only say that, whether right or wrong, Sâyana certainly read trayah, not atrayah; and an editor of Sâyana has no more right to correct the text, supported by the best MSS., in the first and second, than in the third of these passages, all taken from one and the same hymn.

But though I insist so strongly on a strict observance of the rules of diplomatic criticism with regard to the text Old mistakes in the text.of the Rig-veda, nay, even of Sâyana, I insist equally strongly on the right of independent criticism, which ought to begin where diplomatic