Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Vedic Concordance c5.s2: Methods Used in Reporting the Variants

A Vedic Concordance c5.s2

Language
English

Methods Used in Reporting the Variants

c5.s2.1

**1. Variants for which the alphabetic order does not require more than one entry.**—These cases are so simple that little need be said about them. When, for example, a single word of a passage differs in two or more texts, the reading of that text is put first which stands first in the usual order of the texts,—RV., AV., SV., Yajus texts, Brāhmaṇas, and so on,—and the variant reading or readings follow in parenthesis. Thus :

c5.s2.2

yaḥ praṇiti (AV. praṇati) ya īṃ çṛṇoty uktam RV.10.125.4^b; AV.4.30.4^b.

c5.s2.3

Similarly, when variants occur at more than one place, they follow in parenthesis, each in its proper place, and with an indication of its source. Thus :

c5.s2.4

vasūni cārur (SMB. cārye; ApMB. cāryo; HG. cāyyo) vi bhajāsi (SMB. bhrjāsi; HG. bhajā sa) jīvan AV.19.24.6^d; SMB.¹.1.6^d; HG.1.4.3^d; ApMB. 2.2.8^d.

c5.s2.5

This means that the four texts concerned, if written out in full, would read as follows :

c5.s2.6

AV.: vasūni cārur vi bhajāsi jīvan ; SMB.: vasūni cārye vi bhrjāsi jīvan ; HG.: vasūni cāyyo vi bhajā sa jīvan ; ApMB.: vasūni cāryo vi bhajāsi jīvan.

c5.s2.7

So much for variants that concern single words.

c5.s2.8

The case of a variant which concerns two or more successive words is as a rule no less simple: the device employed ought to leave no doubt as to the precise wording of the several texts. Here, again, the variant is placed within the parenthesis as before. Thus :

c5.s2.9

sa no mayobhūḥ pito āviçasva (ÇG. PG. pitav āviçasva; AÇ. pitav āviçeha; MÇ. pitur āviveça ; SMB. pitevāviçasva) TS.5.7.2.4^c; TB.2.4.8.7^c; AÇ. 2.9.10^c; MÇ.¹.6.4.25^c; ÇG.3.8.3^c; SMB.2.1.13^c; PG.3.1.4^c. *See sa naḥ pito.*

c5.s2.10

This item, if we include the cross-reference at the end, gives us the reading of a pāda in nine different texts. The device requires no explanation.

c5.s2.11

On the other hand, in cases where a doubt might arise as to the limits of the passage in the first text for which the words of the variant are a substitute in the second text, the variant is once more placed in parenthesis, but to it is prefixed the last of the words which are common to both texts or to all of them, and the whole is to be understood as the substitute in the second text for the common word and all that follows it in the first. Thus :

c5.s2.12

vivasva ādityāiṣa te somapīthas tena mandasva tena tṛpya (KS. somapīthas tasmin mandasva) TS.¹.4.22.1; KS.4.10.

c5.s2.13

This means that the two texts read the mantra in the following two ways: TS.: vivasva ādityāiṣa te somapīthas tena mandasva tena tṛpya; KS.: vivasva ādityāiṣa te somapīthas tasmin mandasva.

c5.s2.14

I do not think that I have left the statement of these variants open to doubt in any case whatsoever: the reader who has not the text-editions at hand may safely rely upon the data of the Concordance, barring, of course, possible oversights and misprints.¹

c5.s2.15

**2. Variants involving more than one alphabetic entry.**—In the RV. we have the pāda mandavīrāyendave. The SV. reading of this pāda is vandadvirāyendave. Since the two readings differ in the very first letter, the one falling under m (page 686ᵃ of this Concordance) and the other under v (151 pages later, at page 837ᵃ), it is clear that they cannot be adequately treated in the same way as those variants which fall alphabetically within one and the same article of the Concordance. For variants so separated, a system of cross-references has been used, introduced by the word *See*, or else by the word *Compare*; the latter is printed as *Cf.*, the usual abbreviation of its Latin equivalent *confer*.

c5.s2.16

**Use of cross-references introduced by ‘See.’**—When a given pāda of the above description occurs with a variant in two texts, and only two, it then suffices to enter it twice, and to add to each entry a cross-reference to the other. Thus for the two pādas just cited, we have, at page 686ᵃ, the entry, mandavīrāyendave RV.8.69.1ᵇ. *See vandad°*, and again, at page 837ᵃ, the second entry, vandadvīrāyendave SV.¹.360ᵇ. *See mandad°*.

c5.s2.17

¹ As to certain habits of orthography peculiar to some texts and as to reports of readings from the critical apparatus of the editions, note what was said above, at page xᵃ.

c5.s2.18

**Use of cross-references introduced by ‘See under.’**—It often happens, however, that what is essentially one and the same item occurs in three, four, or more alphabetically separate places. It is clear that it would be useless to repeat all the needed cross-references in each one of the three or four or more related articles concerned. To avoid such repetitions, the phrase *See under* has been employed, and is used in all of the related articles except the first, in order to refer the reader to that first article, in which all the cross-references introduced by *See* are to be found grouped together. As an illustration, we may take a pāda which appears in three different texts, and show how it has been treated in the Concordance. The three articles occur at pages 49ᵇ and 60ᵇ and 105ᵇ, respectively, and read as follows: adānyān somapān manyamānaḥ AV.2.35.3ᵃ. *See ananyān etc.*, and ayajñiyān yajñiyān

c5.s2.19

ananyān somapān manyamānaḥ TS.3.2.8.2ᵃ. *See under adānyān*; ayajñiyān yajñiyān manyamānaḥ MS.2.3.8ᵃ: 36.18. *See under adānyān*.

c5.s2.20

The mere printing of the articles here in juxtaposition and in their alphabetic sequence makes further explanation needless.

c5.s2.21

**Use of cross-references introduced by ‘Compare’ (‘Cf.’).**—I have already said above, page xiiiᵃ, that the parallelisms of Vedic diction range from what may be called true variants to what are little more than vague similarities, and that no precise line can be drawn between the two kinds. It is nevertheless of use to discriminate in a general way between the two classes: and accordingly in this work cross-references introduced by the word *See* are used for the former, and cross-references introduced by the word *Compare* (*Cf.*) are used for the latter. By way of illustration, the following five articles may here be reprinted in juxtaposition and in their alphabetic sequence: anaḍvān dādhāra pṛthivīm uta dyām AV.4.11.¹, *et al.* *Cf. indro dādhāra, mitro dādhāra, sa dādhāra, and skambho dādhāra.* indro dādhāra pṛthivīm utemām MS.4.14.7ᵇ: 225.3. *Cf. under anaḍvān etc.* mitro dādhāra pṛthivīm uta dyām RV.3.59.1ᵇ *et al.* *Cf. under anaḍvān etc.* sa dādhāra pṛthivīm dyām utemām (AV. 4.2.7ᶜ, pṛthivīm uta dyām; AV.11.5.1ᶜ, pṛthivīm dyām ca; ApÇ. pṛthivīm antarikṣam divam ca) RV.10.121.1ᶜ, *et al.* *Cf. under anaḍvān etc.* skambho dādhāra dyāvāpṛthivī ubhe ime AV.10.7.35ᵃ. *Cf. under anaḍvān etc.*

c5.s2.22

Comment upon these articles is needless: but I ought perhaps to mention that the use of *Cf.* (as distinguished from *See*) does not necessarily imply that the similarities of the passages to be compared are very vague. In the examples just given, this is far from being the case. Yet they are not variants of what was originally one and the same pāda. They are the product of the eager spirit of imitation which has taken hold of the Vedic authors even in the time of the earliest books of the Rig-Veda. I need hardly add that the kind of resemblance shown in the articles just reprinted is very common in the Veda, and that the Concordance does not pretend to have found out and noted all such cases.

Linked texts (14)