The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c13: Appendix

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c13

Language: English

Appendix

I have already stated in brief my reasons for provisionally identifying Sk. *Agrayana* with Gk. *Orion*, and here I wish to examine the point more fully, not because my case rests upon it, bnt simply with a view to indicate the real nature of the objections that may be urged against the proposed identification. If philologists are still inclined to hold that the identification is not even probable, we shall have to look for some other Aryan derivation, as the similarity of the Eastern and Western traditions of Orion is, in my opinion, too strong to be accidental.

c13.3

*Agrayana* is evidently derived from *agra* and *ayana*. Of these *ayana*, which is derived from *i*, to go, may be represented by *ion* in Greek : cf. Sk. *ayus*, Gk. *aion* Sk. comparative termination (*nom. sin.*) *iyan* Gk. *ion*; Sk. termination *ayana*, as in *Gargyayana*, Gk *ion*, as in *Kronion*, ‘the descendant of Kronos’. The initial *a* in Sk. *Agrayana* may also become *o* in Greek; as in Sk. *ashayana*, Gk. *okeanos*; Sk. *ashu* Gk. *okus*. Sanskrit *Agrayana* may therefore be represented by *Ogrion* in Greek, and we have now to see if *g* may be dropped before *r* and *Ogrion* can be changed into *Orion*. It is a general phonetic rule in Teutonic languages that a gutteral may disappear before a liquid, whether initially or medially; cf. Ger. *nagel*, Eng. *nail*; *hagel* and *hail*; *regen* and *rain*; Sk, *kravis*, O. H. G. *ro*. Prof. Max Müller has extended the application of this rule to Latin and Greek, and Latin and French in his Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol II., p. 309. He compares Latin *paganus* with French *paien*, Gk. *luchne* With Lat. *lana*; and points out that on the same principle *lumen* stands for *lucmen*, *examen* for *exagmen*, *flamma* for *flagma*. K. Brugmann (Com. Gr. I., § 523.) would derive O. Ir. *ār*, Cymr. *aer* from *agro* on the same principle. This shews that Sk. *agra* may be easily represented by *ār* in Teutonic languages. We may account for the change in two ways. We may either suppose that the final gutteral of a root is sometimes dropped before terminations beginning with a liquid and thus put *luc-men* = *lu-men*, *fulg-men* = *ful-men*, *flig-men* = *fla-men*, *ag-men* = *ā-men*, *ag-ra* = *ā-ra* (with compensation vowel lengthening; Bopp derives Sk. *roman*, a hair from *ruh-man* growing, on the same principle); or we may suppose that the change is in accordance with general phonetic rule which sanctions the omission of a gutteral before a liquid in such cases. But whichsoever explanation we adopt, there no question as to the change itself. It must not, however, be supposed the rule is an unflexible one, and that a gutteral *must* always be dropped before a liquid; for we find that gutteral in such cases is often either retained or labialised. cf. Sk. *grīvan*, O. Ir. *broo*, *bro*, (gen. *broon*), Cymr. *breuan*; Sk. *gṛṇāmi*, O. Ir. *gair*. The proper rule to deduce from these instances would therefore be, that *gr* in Sanskrit may be represented by *gr*, *hr* or *r* in Teutonic languages, and that all the three changes are possible.

c13.4

Can we not extend the rule to Greek and Sanskrit?—is the next question we have to consider. I do not mean to deny that there are phonetic rules which are not universally applicable to *all* languages. But the present rule can be easily shewn not to belong to this class. Prof. Max Müller has already extended it to Greek and Latin and

c13.6

Vararuchi, in his Prâkṛita Prakâsha II. 2, lays down that g in ga may be medially dropped as between Sanskrit and Prakrit, e. g., Sk. sâgara, Pk. sâ-ara; Sk. nagara, Pk. na-ar, eventually corrupted into nara, as in Jun-nara and other names of cities. This is, in fact, the same rule which, when applied to Teutonic languages, accounts for the change of segel into sail, nagel into nail and so on. Comparison of Avestic tigra with Mod. Per. tir shews that a similar change may also take place between those languages. We may, therefore, fairly say that the rule about the omission of a gutteral before a liquid obtains not only in Teutonic languages, but also between Greek and Latin, Latin and French, Sanskrit and Old Irish, Sanskrit and Prakrit, and Avestic and Modern Persian. In the face of these facts it would, I think, be unduly restricting the applicability of the phonetic rule if we refuse to apply it to Sanskrit and Greek. There is at any rate no a priori improbability in expecting that a similar change may take place as between Greek and Sanskrit. Let us now see if there are any instances as between Greek and Sanskrit to support such a conclusion.

c13.7

Prof. Benfey compares Sk. grâvan with Gk. laos (Lat. lapis); and Sk. ghrâṇa with Gk. ris, rinos. If this comparison is correct, here at least we have two instances where a gutteral before r in Sanskrit is lost in Greek. It is sometimes labialised, as in Sk. kṛinami, Gk. priami; Sk. guru, Gk. barus; and sometimes retained as it is, as in Sk. kratu, Gk. kratus; Sk. gras, Gk. grao, to swallow. From these instances we may therefore infer that as between Greek and Sanskrit, the initial gutteral in kr or gr in Sanskrit may be either retained as it is, or labialised or dropped in Greek,--the same rule which holds good, as shewn above, in Teutonic languages. It may be noticed here that while *grávan* becomes *laos* in Greek, it is *broon* in Old Irish, that is, while the initial *g* of a Sanskrit word is labialised in Old Irish it is dropped in Greek. This shews that the initial *kr* or *gr* in Sanskrit may be differently represented in different languages. Sanskrit *krimis*, Lat. *vermis*, Gk. *elmis*, and Sk. *klipta*, Avestic *kerepta*, Gk. *raptos*, may, I think, also be regarded as further illustrations of the same rule. I know that the connection between the words last quoted is still considered doubtful, but that is because the rule about the omission of a gutteral before a liquid, as between Greek and Sanskrit, is not yet recognised by scholars. If the examples I have given at the beginning of this paragraph are, however, sufficient to justify us in applying the rule to Greek and Sanskrit, the instances last cited may be taken as further supporting the same view.

c13.8

With these instances before us, it would be unreasonable to deny that the three possible changes of *kr* and *gr*, which obtain in Teutonic languages, do not take place as between Greek and Sanskrit, at least *initially*; and if these changes take place initially, analogy at once suggests that they would also take place *medially*. At any rate there is no reason why they should not. It may be urged that a comparison of Sk. *chakra* with Gk. *kuklos* shews that a medial *kr* is retained as it is. But as pointed out above the argument is not conclusive. There may be cases where *kr* is retained as it is. But we have seen that by the side of such cases, instances can be quoted where it is changed to *pr* or *r* initially; and we may expect the same threefold possible change *medially*. It is admitted that labialisation takes place *medially*; and we have therefore to see if there are any instances where a gutteral is dropped before a liquid in the body of a word. K. Brugmann tells us that at one period *gn* and *gm* came to be represented by *n* and *m* in Greek; cf. *gignomai* and *ginomai*, *stugnos* and *stunos*. Now this change in the body of a word is exactly similar to that of *agmen* into *amen*, and is evidently due to the same rule, which accounts for the latter change. Similarly Gk. *anoos* may be compared with Sk. *ajna*, and Gk. *arinos* to Sk. *aghrâna*. But I do not lay much stress on these inasmuch as these words may be supposed to have been derived by the addition of the prefix alpha to the already existing Greek forms, and not directly obtained from Sanskrit *ajna* and *aghrâna*. The change of *gignomai* into *ginomai* or of *gignosko* into *ginosko* cannot, however, be so accounted for, and if *g* before *n* is dropped in the body of a word, there is no reason why it should not be dropped before *r* on the analogy of the phonetic rule given above. Works on philology do not give any more instances of such changes, but as observed above, the attention of scholars does not appear to have been directed to this point. Otherwise I do not think it was difficult to discover the similarity between Gk. *turos* and Sk. *takra*. *Takra* is derived from *tanch* (*teng*) to contract, to coagulate or curdle, and according to Fick the root is Indo Germanic. It is an old Vedic root, and we have such expressions as *dadhnâ âtanakti* ‘coagulates (milk) with curds’ in the Taittiriya Sanhitâ II. 5. 3. 5. *Takra* therefore literally means ‘curdled milk’ and not ‘curds mixed with water’ as the word is understood in modern Sanskrit. Now, if we suppose that the rule, which sanctions the omission of *g* or *k* before *r* or *m* in other languages, also holds good as between Greek and Sanskrit, not only initially (as in *grâvan* and *laos*) but also medially, as in *gignomai* and *ginomai*, Sk *takra* may be easily identified with Gk. *turos* meaning ‘cheese’. *Takra* may thus be said to have retained its root meaning in Greek.

c13.9

*Turos* is an old Greek word used in the *Odyssey*, and it has not yet been explained by anything in Indo-Germanic. Dr. Schrader therefore records a suggestion that it should be derived from Turko Tataric *turak*. But if Sanskrit *sâra* and *sarpis* are found in Greek *oros* (whey) and *elphos* (butter,) it is not reasonable to suppose that *turos* alone was borrowed from a non-Aryan source. *Takra* in modern Sanskrit means ‘curds mixed with water and churned’ and perhaps it may be contended that we cannot identify it with *turos*, which means ‘cheese.’ I have, however, shewn that *takra* etymologically means ‘curdled milk’ and not ‘curds dissolved in water’ which is evidently its secondary meaning. Besides when we see that *sâra* which in Sanskrit denotes ‘curdled milk,’ has become *oros* = whey in Greek, and *serum* in Latin, there is nothing unusual if we find *takra* and *turos* used in slightly different senses in the two languages. I have already suggested in the body of the essay that we may identify Sk. *Shukra* with Gk. *Kupris*. *Chakra* = *kuklos*, *Shukra* = *Kupris*, and *takra* = *turos*, may thus be taken to illustrate the application of the rule above discussed, regarding the three-fold change of *kr* or *gr*, to Greek and Sanskrit *medially*; and instances have been already quoted to show that the rule holds good *initially* as between Greek and Sanskrit. We may therefore conclude that the change of *gignomai* into *ginomai* is not a solitary instance, and that as a general rule *g* may be dropped, labialised or retained before a liquid as between Greek and Sanskrit whether at the beginning or in the body of a word. We might even discover further instances of the applicability of this rule; for, if *takra* is thus correctly identified with *turos*, we may, on the same principle, identify Sk. *agra* with Gk. *oros*, meaning top summit. It was impossible to represent Sanskrit *agra* by a separate Greek word otherwise. It could not be represented by *agros* in Greek as the latter word corresponded to Sk. *ajra*, a field ; nor can *agra* be changed to *akris* which represented Sk. *ashri*. Sanskrit *agra*, therefore, naturally came to be represented by *oros*. *Oros*, meaning top or summit, has not yet been satisfactorily derived in any other way.

c13.10

It will be seen from the above that we have sufficient grounds to hold that the rule about the omission of a gutteral before a liquid, whether initially or medially, applies to Greek and Sanskrit in the same way as it does to other languages ; and if so, Sk. *Āgrayaṇa* can be represented by *Orion* in Greek.

c13.11

I have already quoted Brugmann to show that *agra* becomes *ār* or *aer* in Teutonic languages. Now further comparing Lat. *integru*, *integer* with Fr. *entier* ; Gk. *dakru*, Goth. *tagr* with Eng. *tear* ; *pagan* with *paien* and *regen* with *rain*, we are led to infer that where *k* or *g* is dropped before *r* or a liquid we may expect *two* contiguous vowels, probably because this *gr* is at first optionally altered into *ger* or *gar*. We can now understand why *Orion* was sometimes spelt as *Oarion* ; and the existence of this double form confirms, in my opinion, the derivation above suggested. As for *Orion* alone we might derive it from *oros*, limit, or *ōra*, spring, and *ion*, going thus, giving the same meaning, *viz.*, the limit or the beginning of the year or spring, as *Āgrayaṇa* in Sanskrit. But this does not account for the double form—*Orion* and *Oarion*—unless the latter be taken for a poetic or a dialectic variation of *Orion*. I therefore prefer to derive the word from Sanskrit *Āgrayaṇa*.

c13.12

The first of these, the *Gospel of the Hebrews*, was used by the Jewish Christians of Palestine, and was probably a version of the Gospel of Matthew, though it contained some traditions not found in our canonical books. The *Gospel of the Egyptians* was used by the ascetic sects of Egypt, and was marked by a strong tendency towards mysticism and asceticism. The *Gospel of Peter* was used by the Docetists, and taught that Christ did not really suffer, but only appeared to do so.

c13.13

These gospels, and others like them, were not accepted by the Church as a whole, and were gradually lost or suppressed. The Church, however, felt the need for a standard collection of writings that would serve as a guide for faith and practice. This led to the formation of the New Testament canon, a process that took several centuries to complete.

c13.14

The first step in this process was the collection of the letters of Paul, which were widely circulated among the churches. Then came the four Gospels, which were accepted as the authoritative accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles and the other epistles were gradually added, and finally the Book of Revelation.

c13.15

By the end of the second century, the core of the New Testament was generally accepted by the Church. The process of canonization was not a formal act of a council, but rather a gradual recognition by the churches of the writings that were most valuable for their life and worship. It was only in the fourth century that the canon was formally closed by the councils of the Church.

c13.16

The formation of the New Testament canon was a crucial event in the history of the Church. It provided a standard of faith and practice that helped to unify the Church and to protect it from the influence of heretical sects. It also ensured that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles would be preserved for future generations.

Linked texts (2)

Taittirīyasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Prākṛtaprakāśa — Vararuci, Sanskrit