Page:Atharva-Veda samhita.djvu/104

xcvi but ignores them in his second. Similarly, at ii. 14. 3, he omits mention of a translation of the verse given by Zimmer at p. 420.

Exegetical notes contributed by Roth.—It appears from the letters between Roth and Whitney that the former had written out a German version of this Veda, and that, although it was complete, its author did not by any means consider it as ready for publication. In order to give Whitney the benefit of his opinion on doubtful points. Roth made a brief commentary upon such selected words or phrases (in their proper sequence) as seemed to him most likely to present difficulties to Whitney. The result is a parcel of notes, consisting of 250 pages in Roth's handwriting, which is now in my keeping. From these notes Whitney has incorporated a considerable amount of exegetical matter into his commentary. It is yet to be considered whether the notes contain enough material unused by Whitney to warrant their publication, if this should appear upon other grounds to be advisable.

The translation has for its underlying text that of the Berlin edition.—With certain exceptions, to be noted later, the translation is a literal version of the Vulgate Atharvan text as given in the Berlin edition. For the great mass of the text, this is, to be sure, a matter of course. It is also a matter of course in cases where, in default of helpful variants to suggest an emendation of a desperate line, we are forced to a purely mechanical version, as at xii. 1. 37 a, 'she who, cleansing one, trembling away the serpent,' or at vi. 70. 2 ab. Even in the not infrequent cases where (in spite of the lack of parallel texts) an emendation is most obvious, Whitney sticks to the corrupted text in his translation, and reserves the emendation for the notes. Thus, at iv. 12. 4, ásṛk te ásthi rohatu māṅsám māṅséna rohatu, he renders 'let thy blood, bone grow,' although the change of ásṛk to asthnā́ would make all in order.

The translation follows the Berlin text even in cases of corrigible corruptions.—On the other hand, it may seem to some to be not a matter of course that Whitney should give a bald and mechanically literal version of the true Atharvan text as presented in the Berlin edition in those very numerous cases where the parallel texts offer the wholly intelligible readings of which the Atharvan ones are palpable distortions. Granting, however, that they are, although corrupt, to be accepted as the Atharvan readings, and considering that this work is primarily a technical one, his procedure in faithfully reproducing the corruption in English is entirely justified.

A few examples may be given. Whitney renders táṁ tvā bhaga sárva íj johavīmi (iii. 16. 5) by 'on thee here, Bhaga, do I call entire,' although RV.VS. have johavīti, 'on thee does every one call.' At v. 2. 8, túraç cid víçvam arṇavat tápasvān is rendered 'may he, quick, rich in fervor,