The Arctic Home in the Vedas c8.37

Language: English

c8.37.1

There are many other expressions in the Ṛig-Veda which further strengthen the same view. Thus corresponding to bhūyasiḥ in the above passage, we have the adjective purviḥ (many) used in IV, 19, 8 and VI, 28, 1, to denote the number of the dawns, evidently shewing that numerically more than one dawn is intended. The dawns are again not infrequently addressed in the plural number in the Ṛig-Veda, and the fact is well-known to all Vedic scholars. Thus in I, 92, which is a dawn-hymn, the bard opens his song with the characteristically emphatic exclamation, “these (tāḥ) are those (tyāḥ) dawns (uṣasaḥ), which have made their appearance on the horizon,” and the same expression again occurs in VII, 78, 3. Yāska explains the plural number uṣasaḥ by considering it to be used only honorifically (Nirukta XII, 7); while Sāyaṇa interprets it as referring to the number of divinities that preside over the morn. The Western scholars have not made any improvement on these explanations; and Prof. Max Muller is simply content with observing that the Vedic bards, when speaking of the dawn, did sometimes use the plural just as we would use the singular number! But a little reflection will show that neither of these explanations is satisfactory. If the plural is honorific why is it changed into singular only a few lines after in the same hymn? Surely the poet does not mean to address the Dawn respectfully only at the outset, and then change his manner of address and assume a familiar tone.

c8.37.2

This is not, however, the only objection to Yâska's explanation. Various similes are used by the Vedic poets to describe the appearance of the Dawns on the horizon, and an examination of these similes will convince any one that the plural number, used in reference to the Dawn, cannot be merely honorific. Thus in the second line of I, 92, 1, the Dawns are compared to a number of 'warriors' (dhṛiṣhṇavaḥ), and in the third verse of the same hymn they are likened to 'women (nârīḥ) active in their occupations.' They are said to appear on the horizon like 'waves of waters' (apâm na urmayaḥ) in VI, 64, 1; or like 'pillars planted at a sacrifice' (adhvareṣhu svaravaḥ) in IV, 51, 2. We are again told that they work like 'men arrayed' (visho na yuktâḥ), or advance like 'troops of cattle' (gavâm na sargâḥ), in VII, 79, 2, and IV, 51, 8, respectively. They are described as all 'alike' (sadṛishīḥ); and are said to be of 'one mind' (sañjânante), or 'acting harmoniously' in IV, 51, 6, and VII, 76, 5. In the last verse the poet again informs us that they 'do not strive against each other' (mithaḥ na yatante), though they live jointly in the 'same enclosure' (samâne urve). Finally in X, 88, 18, the poet distinctly asks the question, "How many fires, how many suns and how many dawns (uṣhâsaḥ) are there?" If the Dawn were addressed in plural simply t of respect for the deity, where was the necessity of informing us that they do not quarrel though collected in the same place?

c8.37.3

The expressions ‘waves of waters,’ or ‘men arrayed’ &c., are again too definite to be explained away as honorific. Sâyaṇa seems to have perceived this difficulty, and has, probably for the same reason, proposed an explanation slightly different from that of Yâska. But, fortunately, Sâyaṇa’s explanation does not solve the difficulty, as the question still remains, why the deities presiding over the dawn should be more than one in number. The only other explanation put forward, so far as I know, is that the plural number refers to the dawns on successive days during the year, as we perceive them in the temperate or the tropical zone. On this theory there would be 360 dawns in a year, each followed by the rising of the sun every day. This explanation may appear plausible at the first sight. But on a closer examination it will be found that the expressions used in the hymns cannot be made to reconcile with this theory. For, if 360 dawns, all separated by intervals of 24 hours, were intended by the plural number used in the Vedic verses, no poet, with any propriety, would speak of them, as he does in I, 92, 1, by using the double pronoun etâḥ and tyâḥ, as if he was pointing out to a physical phenomenon before him; nor can we understand how 360 dawns, spread over the whole year, can be described as advancing like ‘men arrayed’ for battle.

c8.37.4

It is again absurd to describe the 360 dawns of the year as being collected in the ‘same enclosure’ and ‘not striving against or quarrelling with each other.’ We are thus forced to the conclusion that the Rig-Veda speaks of a team, or a group of dawns, unbroken or uninterrupted by sunlight, so that, if we be so minded, we can regard them as constituting a single long continuous dawn. This is in perfect accord with the statement discussed above, viz., that many days passed between the first appearance of light on the horizon and the uprising of the sun (VII, 76, 3). We cannot, therefore, accept the explanation of consecutive dawns, nor that of Yâska, nor of Sâyaṇa regarding the use of the plural number in this case. The fact is that the Vedic dawn represents one long physical phenomenon which can be spoken of in plural by supposing it to be split up into smaller day-long portions. It is thus that we find Uṣas addressed sometimes in the plural, and sometimes in the singular number. There is no other explanation on which we can account for and explain the various descriptions of the dawn found in the different hymns.