________________
THE RGVEDA-SAMHITĀKĀRA AND FATHER ESTELLER
111
wanted to get rid of viprāi, why did he not change it to vípram since sac governs also the acc. ? But viprah, the nom. as going with Varuņa, is significant. In the first half of the line, in which anyáh refers to Indra, he is described as performing the deed ascribed to him with the help of his vajra and savas (indicative of physical strength); in the latter half of the line, in which anyák refers to Varuna, he is described as performing the deed ascribed to him by virtue of his being a vípra ( indicative of the power of inspiration ).
And now let us consider what Fr. E has to offer as the final confirmation of the -i dative." RV 1.19.1 reads práti tyán cárum adhvaram gopithaya prá hüyase. Fr. e agrees with Geldner according to whom gopithá means only “protection"." But if this is true, why does Fr. E want a change?" Are not gods invited to give protection (cf. Grassmann hü)? But Fr. E notes that Sāyaṇa interprets gopitháya as somapithāya." And taking his hint from there Fr. E fixes the original text as somapithôi pra hūyase with his archaic dative. If the SK had changed it to his classical dative somapithāya it would have given him five syllables and disturbed the metre. He, thus concludes Fr. E, therefore, quietly changed it to gopithảya.
All this is nothing but play of imagination. I would not like to join Fr.E in this game, but I am tempted to. I would like to bring to the notice of the SK that if he wanted to change somapithai he could have done it and still avoided the metrical flaw by suppressing prá of the original text : somapithaya hūyase would have enabled him to remain closer with the original text and avoid a very bold change to gopitháya pra hūyase.
And one thing more. If Fr. E really means what he says then he should not have at least expressed his agreement with Geldner in the interpretation of gopithá in this stanza. If the SK changed somapithá to gopithá he must have understood by the latter term 'a drink of milk' and not 'protection'.
"m'a drink of min mapitha to cobinterpretation of
I do not think it necessary to add more examples. I have given enough to show how untenable Fr. E's conclusions regarding the change in word - forms and word-order are. Now I wish to draw your attention to a theory according to which even the changes which affect pronunciation will have to be looked into carefully. The purpose of such changes was to achieve metrical and rhythmic
15 Pr. Trans. 22nd AIOC II.26.27. 4Grassmann and BR have 1. 8opithá 'protection' and 2. Sopithá 'milk-drink'. The
word is similarly treated in Alt. Gr. I 20 and II 719. 45 That an offering of honey mixed with Soma (somyám madhu) is mentioned in
stanza 9 does not mean that there must be a reference to Soma in stanza 1. 10 The word actually used by Sayana is somapänāya. Fr. E could have more properly
referred to Yaska (10.36) who interprets the word similarly and whom Sāyana follows and quotes.
Madhu Vidyā/131
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
