________________
THE RGVEDA-SAMHITAKÄRA AND FATHER ESTELLER
101
the sandhi. The word-order as imagined by Fr. E would have forced the SK to introduce the vowel sandhi and recite it as támścāsmáñca which would give him only four syllables instead of the expected five. Hence the SK quietly changed the word-order of the received text! This is absolutely unbelievable. In my opinion, sacrificing a syllable at the altar of his iştadevatā- sandhi"-would have meant a minor evil, or no evil at all, to the SK than changing the word-order of the received sacred text. The fact must be that he simply retained the word-order as he heard it. The reason for the kavi to begin his pada with asmán ( the singers ), and not tân (the patrons ), could be that he wanted to give prominence to the singer-kavi's while requesting Agni to lead them, and their patrons, to a better condition. After all the kavis were the purohitas (lit. placed in front ) and hence to be led first and it was they who were to speak aloud in the vidátha.
Although Fr. E has now withdrawn bis suggestion" it may be pointed out that at one time he had proposed to change the refrain byhád vadema vidáthe suviräh to brhád vadema vidátheşu dhirāk, not because there was any metrical irregularity in the pāda, or any sandhi to be avoided as a result of this change, but simply because he felt that there existed "a natural connection" between viddtha and dhira (cf. ágne yahvasya tava bhāgadhéyan ná pra minanti vidatheşu dhirāk RV 3.28 4 ), and also because the refrain as reread by him would have "a striking parallel " in gantāro yajñaṁ vidáthesu dhírāk RV 3.26.6. Fr. E even now wants to change the refrain of the seventh Mandala yuyám pāta svastíbhiḥ såda) nah in a variety of ways" simply because, to him, "the 'yûyam' in the SK's text hangs completely in the air." I doubt whether any one would agree with Pr. E regarding this ground for the change. He himself must have realized its non-compelling force because in one of the three alternatives proposed by him this very word yžydm has been retained by him.
Fr. E attributes to the SK some silly misunderstandings of the text he had received from the sis and says that he made changes in the text due to those misunderstandings. Fr. Ewants to do away with those SK's changes and give us the original text of the rșis". Hymn 10.21 has eight
12 To use Fr. E's words. 13 Cf. RV 4.50.8 : sá ít kşeti súdhita ókasi své .... yasmin brahmá rájani púrva éti. 14 IA (3rd Ser.) 2.1.13-14. 15 It may be noted that it is on the basis of this refrain, which Fr. E. once wanted to
change, that he now wants to accuse the SK, for having changed suvirāsaḥ śatahimah badema to mádema šatáhimāḥ suvirah RV 6.4.8. For other fantastic grounds for this
change see ABORI Golden Jub. Vol. 5-6. 10 JASB 41-42 (New Ser.) 29, 17 IL Bagchi Vol. 69.
Madhu Vidyā/121
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
