renou's place in vedic exegetical tradition

Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical TraditionReview by: Edwin GerowJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 88, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1968), pp. 310-333Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/597206 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 16:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:34:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/597206?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


RENOU'S PLACE IN VEDIC EXEGETICAL TRADITION *

EDWIN GEROW UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

"In the early progress of researches into Indian literature, it was doubted whether the VWdas were extant, or, if portions of them were still preserved, whether any person, however learned in other respects, might be capable of understanding their obsolete dialect." Cole- booke, Essays (written 1805).

THESE VOLUMES of the E~tudes continue Renou's project of translating the entire Rgveda by groups of hymns addressed to the same or related divinites. The translations by " subject matter " would, when finished, have constituted the first complete translation since Geldner and will still, I am sure, be considered the major work of Vedic exegesis of our time. The task Renou set himself is, with the publication of fascicule 15, about six tenths corn- plete: 613 hymns from 1028.1 We can only hope that, upon his untimely death in September 1966, he left in manuscript or notes the remainder of the work and that it can be completed by one of his French colleagues.

Each fascicule conforms to a similar pattern: the translations are accompanied by extensive philological notes which are sometimes (EVP 15, following the earlier model of EVP 3) inter- calated with the stanzas themselves, sometimes (EVP 9-14) placed at the end 'of the fascicule. In this set, then, there is no example of translations and notes in separate volumes (as earlier Visvedevah, Varuna). In a sense it is unfortunate that Renou did not use the Usas model for all the translations, since his notes are an essential part of the reading of the text. It is that kind of translation: scholarly in the best sense of the word. Each expression, each stanza is, as it were,

* See ltudes VWdiques et Pdnin-6enne&. Par Louis Renou. Tomes 9-10, 12-15. Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne, Paris, 1961-66.

1 The only major hymn-cycles remaining are to Indra, the longest and perhaps the most difficult, and to the ACvins; then the liminary group of quasi-historical, philosophical and atharvan hymns, few of which are found in the major cycles; cf. 1'Hymne a la Nuit, EVP 15, p. 137.

totalement pense; the judgements whereby Renou establishes the meaning of the often imprecise or polyvalent text are justified in the notes.2 The notes will be as important to future Vedicists as those of Oldenberg have been to the present generation: but the Noten of Oldenberg have always suffered for not being associated with a translation, which gives body and flesh to their bones. Renou's exegetical remarks do differ considerably from volume to volume in respect of their am- pleur; with the Hymns to Agni (fasc. 12-14), we reach a concision which rivals that of Geldner, and which contrasts strikingly with the extra- ordinarily detail accorded to some earlier cycles, particularly Usas, Visvedevah. This tendency to what must be considered otherwise a regrettable brevity may reflect Renou's growing awareness of the massive task he set himself.3

The Agni cycle also differs from those preceding it in not offering a brief resume of the text material covered, in guise of an Introduction.4 These Introductions are invaluable not only as brief surveys of the characteristics of each cycle, but also for the fact that there, more clearly than elsewhere, Renou's "philosophy" of Vedic exegesis is set forth; his view of the nature of the text he deals with. These considerations are crucial for assessing the method and purpose of his translation; it is to be regretted that the important cycle of hymns to Agni was net so introduced.

Ienou's method depends to a perhaps unique degree on text parallelism, and his notes are dense with the fruits of his meticulous comparisons. An

des justifications au choix qui a 6W fait ici entre plusieurs modes de traduction, theoriquement ad- missibles . . ." EVP 5, p. 65.

8 The transition is noted: " Pour diverses raisons, les notes ont Wtd maintenues dans des limites plus serrye" (EVP 8, p. 1).

I The three long footnotes (EVP 12, pp. 1-2) otherwise very interesting, concern the manner and not the subject of the translations. For other reasons, perhaps, the volume of miscellany (EVP 15) also lacks an Introduc- tion.

310



GmEow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 311

index listing all the citations of each stanza would be of enormous help in facilitating others' understanding of particular problems.5

The enterprise of reviewing a major work not quite two-thirds complete and possibly never to be finished may appear of dubious utility, and requires some justification. Renou underlined the tentative character of the present series of translations and promised for the future a revised, more coherent "traduction d'ensemble":

Elle [cette traduction] permettra (nous 1'espdrons) quelques nouveaux progres dans ce que les presents ?ftudes montrent trop souvent sous la forme d'une prob- lematique: marquant comme elles font (dans les notes) les diverses possibilitks, sans toujours decider du choix, et, dans la Traduction meme, laissant courir volontaire- ment des manieres differentes-parfois contradictoires- de rendre un m~me mot, une m6me formule, de manibre i laisser le lecteur en presence des nuances d'4gale valeur ou d'&gale indifference. (EVP 12, p. 2)

Let this hesitation be noted; we are dealing here not only with an unfinished work, but with one which was still in the process of revision. Many of the inequalities, the hardiesses (as Renou calls them) of the translations stem from this tem- porary, this contemporary quality of their publication. I would seek for this review the same droit du tentatif.

Nevertheless, the majority of 1Rgvedic hymns, including the crucial cycles to Agni and Soma, have been translated; this is enough to throw some light on Renou's view af the Vedic text, his theory and method of translation, and his place as the most recent maitre of Vedic philology.,

The review will attempt little specific criticism of Renou's philological method; to do so would indeed be presumptuous, for this is a field in which Renou sets the standard. Rather I mean here, for the benefit of the more general reader, to discuss the translation in the context of the history of Vedic study, to see it also in the light of Renou's

6 Brief indices of this type have been appended to some of the earlier volumes (EVP 4, 7, 9, 10), but again, not to the Agni cycle. Even Geldner's fourth volume does not meet this need, for it is on the one hand a glossary of subject matter, on the other a listing of names. What is required is something in the style of Gonda's Index of main text-places (which is not complete). Cf. J. Gonda, The Vision of the Vedic Poets (The Hague, 1963), pp. 366-72.

' Renou, like Oldenberg, was much interested in the history of his subject, cf. L. Renou, Les Maitres de la Philologie Vedique (Paris, 1928).

own long and patient labors on the Veda.7 Like- wise, the character of these translations as such- highly original and measured to a specific end- deserves understanding and comment.

The labor of a fruitful lifetime is summed up, brought together in the work before us. Its character and significance are functions of a firmly held theory of the text, worked out in painstaking detail. Any criticism of Renou's translation which does not deal first with this issue is mere quib- bling; 8 to a degree unparalleled since Bergaigne, the peculiarities and biasses of Renou's translation reflect his well-weighed judgements regarding the import of the text and its systematic relations to the religious forms of the Vedic period.

We will first describe Renou's view of the Veda as a document, assuming which the methods employed in the translation itself become clear. Were the terms not subject to a degree of equivoca- tion, we might speak here of Renou's method of approaching a literary problem. In fact, Gonda has on several occasions asserted that Renou's view of the Veda is too literary, that he is too prone to perceive in the Veda the techniques, the elaborate fastidiousness of what was later to become a true poetry-the kdvya of classical India,9 and thereby to undervalue the aspect of inchoate religio- sity which it is thought animates any " primitive " cult.10 Though Gonda's implied criticisms appear to be too broad and thus miss their point," and Gonda's views themselves open to objection (how does one account, for example, for the present highly elaborate state of the text if its composition is to be assigned to men in states of shamanistic transport?), these remarks of Gonda are a good starting point for our task. We feel, as does he, that among Vedic translators and exegetes, Renou

7Specialists will, I hope, therefore excuse the many references which are self evident.

'Cf. H. Oldenberg, Vedaforschung (Stuttgart, 1905), p. 4.

'J. Gonda, Die Religionen Indiens (Stuttgart, 1960), Vol. I: Veda und flterer Hinduismus, p. 21; Gonda, Vision, p. 21. " Tout ce qui concerne la parole fourmille en images, metaphores ou comparaisons. Nous en avons d6jh vu au passage un certain nombre. Certaines ont simplement pour effet de montrer que la parole sacrale r6sulte d'une preparation, qu'elle est samskrtR. . .. (EVP 1, p. 14).

Gonda, Vision, p. 13, cites van der Leeuw, pp. 19 ff. 11 Has not Renou himself said, in La Poasie Religieuse

de l'Inde Antique (Paris, 1942), pp. xiv-xv, " C'est assez dire que le VWda n'est pas un document litteraire"?



312 G~aow: Renoes Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

is one who emphasizes the formulaic character of the text, the secular motivation (if not occasion) of the singer who becomes, in more than a metaphorical sense, a poet (kavi).

" La composition, la technique poUtique, ainsi comprise, devient sa fin A elle mefme. L'image se mue insensible- ment en object, l'object recule au plan de l'image; il y a un glissement incessant de l'un A l'autre registre. A cet 6gard, tenant compte des preoccupations r~elles du po~te, non de ce qu'il paralt dire, on pourrait soutenir que le RV. entier est une allegorie; ce serait un paradoxe, mais qui comporte plus de veritk profonde que l'interpretation litterale fondee sur la realite des donnees v~diques " (EVP 1, pp. 26-27: "Les Pouvoirs de la parole dans le R~gveda ") .

And, in a neighboring paragraph:

" le poete pense A son oeuvre, aux exigences de la lutte oratoire, il redoute l'echec, il espere le succels. Ces preoccupations se traduisent par les images memes qu'il utilise pour decrire des rites, des actes profanes, even- tuellement pour esquisser des allusions mythiques" (ibid., p. 26).

Renou's point of view, if it does not establish the text as a poetic document,12 does indeed establish it, in literary terms, as an autonomous document, knowingly composed. Speaking of the Soma hymns, which are particularly important for demonstrating the independence of the Vedic word vis a vis the ritual act, he says:

"A de certains momer-ts, l'auteur semble abandonner son propos ou plutot y superposer un autre, qui consiste A faire un retour sur soi-mame. II 6voque alors son propre ouvrage, qui, d'accompagnant, deviendra un element actif; il salue l'inspiration poetique, laisse entre- voir les vertus du langage" (EVP 9, pp. 15-16).

This style, "ce passage au subjectif" (note, ad. loc.), though marked in the 9th book, underlies the entire Rgveda, and Renou depends upon it in conceiving the sense and force of many key words. On the all important question of the relation of the hymns to Vedic ritual (such as it can be intuited or reconstructed), Renou similarly affirms both the independence of the word and the conse- quent highly original character of the ritual vis a vis later Brahmanical ritualism:

12 The term is misleading in any case, for it suggests that Renou's views may have some affinity with those of von Roth, which, in a curious way, they do. But the differences are crucial. In these pages the term " poetic " will often be used, despite the possible misunderstanding. Renou holds no brief for the "romantic " or "lyrical" Veda of von Roth. Cf. Oldenberg, Vedaforschung, p. 6.

" Ce qui importe aux auteurs est moins de d~crire [9.84.3 offered as example], que d'6voquer par voie d'image, de crder un climat favorable A leur prdoccupa- tion majeure: invitation au dieu Soma. . . . IUs ne se croient pas tenus A une structure [contrary example 1.162]. Dans leur langage (c'est le langage d'abord qui est en cause), les valeurs sont transmue'es de faqon que les choses du sacrifice 6voquent sans effort un ordre de phdnom~nes plus ample. Le nettoyage de soma devient un apparat comme pour une fete; A l'instar des c~r6- monies de l'Inde classique, 1'616ment religieux comporte une part de spectacle; la joute oratoire, la course du soma-Atalon, font concurrence A l'offrande " (EVP 9, P. 9).

It is the autonomy of the RgVedic word which explains the anomaly of Book 9 itself: the hymns to Soma, the very core of the Vedic ritual, are separated after the fact from the rest of the text, are more ritually oriented, and thus remain "en marge du Rituel codifi6e (ibid.; also p. 1; Renou generally follows Oldenberg).

Renou's view of the relation between Vedic poet and sacrifice is illuminated also by an earlier treatise, Les Rcoles Ve'diques et la Formation du Veda.13 Discussing there the historical problem of the genesis of Brahmanical ritualism, and the elaboration of the Vedic corpus (Veda in the Indian sense: including all the older literature pertaining to the sacrifice, and the older Upani- sads), he decides against the usual and self-evident view which asserts the priority of the RgVeda and derives the subsequent elaborate specialization of sacrificial function and concomitant literature from it. Historically also, the RgVeda as a whole occupies an anomalous position: it is rather around the Yajur Veda that the substantial problems, methods, and solutions of sacrificial practice were developed and explored. The RgVeda, though chronologically older and the source of most of the formulae found in the Yajus, was itself largely peripheral to what became the main tradition of Brahmanical ritualism, and was only later inter- calated into the system of specialization by 9511iA, on the model of the Yajus.

Both exegetically and historically, then, Renou is committed to a view of the RgVeda which isolates it as a text from its context. It is to this caractere insolite du texte that most of the origi- nalities and peculiarities of Renou's translation are to be referred. From it follows what I take to be Renou's first principle of exegesis: the

18 Paris, 1947, pp. 209-12 for summary.



G#Eow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 313

IRgVeda can be understood only by starting from itself ("'a partir de soi-meme"), by internal comparison and reconstruction, as, in other words, a linguistic fact. The traditions of Western exegesis are thus far more important to him than anything India has to say. We are brought back, with an added dimension of interest, to the issues examined in Les Mactres de la Philologie Vedique.

We note in Renou's work generally what appears to be a profound disinterest in the Veda as a sociological or content-oriented document. He represents something of a withdrawal from the position espoused by Oldenberg,14 and seems to require little from that active school of mythological and religio-cultural interpretation stemming from Zimmer, lillebrandt, and even Oldenberg himself -whose modern representative is Gonda. Renou, vis a vis Gonda (I do not mean this opposition to be more than illustrative), represents an extreme position, what we might call the "minimalist" view; the aids to textual study are mainly those which the text itself demands to achieve intelligi- bility. Renou's text orientation, his emphasis on "literary" and literalistic values (a position he shares in this respect most conspicuously with Oldenberg), is, by its eschewal of more speculative methodology borrowed from one or another of the sciences of comparative culture, in a way less value oriented and as an interpretation is more abstract and hence more compatible with competing cultural interpretations; yet its "generality" constitutes in a very substantial sense a point of view which is, for want of a better word, "anti-cultural." The analog is certainly to be found in the French tradition of ""explication du texte." The entire world, both philological and extra- philological, is organized so as to bear on the problem of expression itself. By this method, modes of thought which are best organized dis- cursively and historically are, in some points of view, undervalued, distorted or ignored and, more importantly, the text, now a true microcosm, is given an independence and a coherence and an authority which, from any other point of view, may appear false and perverse to the nature of things, and to the accidents of authorship.

What appears as principle, in these broad terms, appears as necessity when we approach the text itself: the innumerable EBnzelheiten, contradic-

14 Vedaforschung, p. 89.

tions, inconsequences, metaphorical and formulaic imprecisions-in brief, the unparalleled obscurity of its expression-compel first of all a study of the Veda as expression. Renou's position in the exegetical tradition he so values is largely a function of the unreserved and systematic adoption and exploration of this "literary" point of view, and his eschewal of any other possible point of view. The Veda which emerges from his translation is, conceptually, the most faithful on record; yet, paradoxically, the literary quality of this the most "literary" of exegeses is by design absent; by a transference which is more than a pun, "literary" in conception becomes "literal" in translation. Renou's French RgVeda is one of the more bizarre stylistic documents of recent Indic philology where the emphasis, elsewhere, seems to lie in the direction of intelligent popu- larization.

STYLE AND CHARACTER OF TRANSLATION

A cursory glance at Renou's French Rgveda reveals an extraordinary number of parentheses and hyphens, far more than any previous translator known to this writer has permitted himself and notably striking when compared with Olden- berg and Geldner, Renou's preferred predecessors. Gonda has already raised serious objections, both as to quantity and consistency, to Geldner's indica- tions of presumed ellipses.'5 We find, too, that it is convenient to discuss the style and character of Renou's translations in terms of his use of these indicatory devices.

HYPHENIZATION: It is trivial to point out that French is a much less adequate host language for Vedic Sanskrit than German, or in some respects, even English. But few of Renou's hyphenated forms represent attempts to cope with the much lesssened facility of French for compounding.'6

15 "C Ellipsis, Brachylogy and other forms of Brevity in speech in the Rgveda," Verhandelingen der Kon. Ned. Ak. van Wetenschapen, afd. Letterkunde, N. R. Deel LXVII, No. 4. The work attempts to categorize, in the minutely detailed manner for which Gonda is well known, the various departures from explicitude found in the Vedic text; but in fact it is often a spirited attack upon Geldner for failing to recognize the difference between a true ellipsis, etc., and the lacuna in translation occa- sioned either by the language or the ignorance of the reader.

16 The compounds which French does make with some facility-e. g., porte-cl&-are precisely those, governed



314 Gimow: Renou's Place imT Vedic Exegetical Tradition

Renou's use of hyphen seems to serve two general ends; and is intimately related to his theory of literalism: a) it brings out a multiple nuance of the Sanskrit term, and b) it reconstitutes artificial or " neutral " forms to avoid unfortunate connotations in possible current French idiomatic translations.

Many of Renou's hyphenated forms would, in other styles of translation, be rendered by parentheses; the typical hyphenization here indicates that a phrase or multiple word sequence has been used to render a single Sanskrit word which does not correspond to any single available French term or whose conceptualization is multivalent. rtad- 'ordre-sacre' (1.1.8; 3.6.10 twice, passim; EVP 12, pp. 2, 56). ? Instead of leaving us with the noun and its qualifying "connotative" adjective (which would constitute a correct and lit- erate translation of the term rtd), Renou adds the hyphen. The case is so evident that hyphenization at first seems pedantic, an unneeded visual burden for the reader. But the utility of the device is seen in its extensions: sdhas- is everywhere rendered as ' force-dominante' (e. g., 1.26.10, EVP 12, p. 3; 1.36.2, p. 7), by denotation dis- tinct from 6jas- 'force-formidable' (1.85.4, EVP 10, p. 18), indicating that this "force" not only tends towards a goal, but invests it. Likewise, pajas- translates 'forme-massive' (1.58.5, EVP 12, p. 11; 1.115.5, EVP 15, p. 6, etc.; in the latter, 'forme (s-massives),' parenthesis is used because of a zeugma in the translation). 8

Renou's insistence on noting, in this artificial fashion, the original unicity of his phrase translations, emphasizes his conviction that the RgVeda is a formulaic text, with many technical expressions which oblige the translator to render them

final member, which Sanskrit avoids: they are rare in the Veda and unknown later.

17 Geldner, though differing on the sense of the term and as usual showing considerably less standardization, still uses the same device: 1.1.8, rtd- appears as 'des recliten Brauches,' in 3.6.10 as 'zu rechter Zeit'; rtdvari is translated 'die rechtzeitigen,' Generally, citations from Renou's translations will give both the Vedic reference and the volume and page numbers of the ?tudes. Geldner's 1Rgveda (HOS 33-6) is cited generally as RV, then volume and page; Oldenberg's translation of the Agni hymns (ma.ndalas 1-5) as S(acred)B(ooks of the) E (ast) 46.

18 Sayana often has recourse to the same device: here pajasa is glossed as tejobalena, to which version Renou sometimes seems to defer.

identifiably and exactly. We will often have occasion to refer to this, as one of the leading motifs in these translations: an almost fanatic elan vers la clarte.19

The same principle guides the use of hyphenization in cases where the noun-adjective ligature is not apt: stoma-, 'corps-de-louange' (1.12. 12, EVP 12, p. 3), where (we presume) Renou wishes to bring out the two denotations " praise " and the "heap, collection, number, multitude " of classical Sanskrit. Note likewise the adjective sadsvati- (3.9.4, EVP 12, p. 57), 'sans cesse-renou- veles,' conveying both constancy and repetition; or vaja, 'prix-de-victoire' (1.27.7-9, EVP 12, p. 4): the passage also illustrates one of the fundamental differences between this translation and that of Geldner, who renders the same word, occurring in three successive stanzas, with three different German words: '(um die) Preise,' 'Ge- winn,' 'Siegerpreis.' In 1.27.11, vaja- is given still another version: 'Sieg.' Renou aims con- stantly at the verbally exact, Geldner, rather, at a phrase which has not sacrificed its literary precision.20

More interesting are the instances of hyphenization in translations of verb forms, some quite mystifying unless the simple principle is grasped: s&ddhate, 'attient-son-but' (1.141.1, EVP 12, p. 33). The intransitive verb "re'ussir" does not imply strongly enough the goal which is neces- sarily attained: sadh-; a transitive verb is thus chosen along with its inherent object. The case is significant, for it does not involve any ellipsis in the Sanskrit. The phrase is yad im 'ipa hvarate sWdhate matih, 'meme si elle fait des detours, la pensee-poetique attient-son-but': a main clause of two words only whose syntatic concision is in part maintained by the two hyphenated phrases. We do not wish to suggest that Renou innovates remarkably in translating words by phrases: he seems in fact to follow Geldner's "Wenn es auch Umrwege macht, gelangt das Gedicht doch zum Ziel" (RV, I, p. 197). Oldenberg also, though he understands the phrase differently, feels the need of an explicit object: "Though he slinks away, the prayer goes straight to him" (SBE 46, p. 147). Compare also sadhana- (3.27.8, EVP 12,

19 Cf. L. Renou, Grammaire de la Langue V6dique (Lyon, Paris, 1952), section 466, end. Does the translation represent a resolution of this view?

20 Cf. Gonda, Vision, pp. 7-8.



GRow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 315

p. 68; adjectival), 'qui mene-droit-au-but.' Ad- jectives are also a fecund source for hyphenated renderings; here, especially, Renou's ever present concern to state denotations exactly, that is, fully, leads him to some quite remarkable circumlocu- tions: ksemayamTt- (3.7.2, EVP 12, p. 56), 'qui vis-en-paix,' bringing out both senses of ksema-, "habitation" and "security"; or the epithet sravayya- (1.27.8, 31.5, EVP 12, pp. 4-5), 'propre a (digne d') etre connu-au-loin,' where Renou forces both the gerundive morpheme and the root sense of sru- into the translation (Geldner says simply 'ruhmbringend'). Note that those portions of the translation which are dictated by French grammar alone and are therefore inevitable are not generally hyphenated. Hyphens imply an added something we might call (no pun intended) a multiple-entendre. Hence the translation of varenya- (1.26.2, 7; 3.27.9, etc., EVP 12, pp. 3, 68) has no hyphens: 'digne d'etre elu.'

Further examples of the verb-hyphen abound. We cite two more: adardah (3 p. s. impf. intensive; 2.24.2, EVP 15, p. 56), 'Lui. . . qui a fait-eclater- puissament,' using hyphenization to bring out the intensive aspect of the verb root; acucyavuh (5.59.8 ; EVP 10, p. 36), ' Ces Marut ont attire-vers- nous-le-mettant-en-branle le recipient . . .', where not only the implied indirect object is given, but also what Renou feels to be a metaphorical double- entendre in the verb itself, expressed by adding the participial clause: in the context of "recep- tacles" (viz., buckets), the sense of the verb is both 'amener' and 'mettre en branle' (cf. note to 5.53.6, EVP 10, p. 83). Other remarkable examples are at 2.38.1: 'asvattamdim, 'la-derniere- d'entre-toutes-celles-qui-se-sont-succede '; and at 10.87.13: s'apatah (dual), 'prononce-en-fait-de- malediction.'

Renou's decision to utilize the device of hyphenization not only enables him to bring out more accurately the multiple overtones of single San- skrit words, but also permits the rapprochement, in some measure, of the very different styles of Sanskrit and French. French, less able to compound and demanding greater precision of construction (explicitation), becomes quite diffuse as a translation language; Renou, aiming at almost total precision, accentuates this already native tendency to verbal elaboration; the use of hyphens imposes some order on the puilulating phraseology.

More interesting for Renou's theory of Vedic

interpretation is a type of hyphenated usage which in fact is but a special case of the class discussed above. Here we find the great bulk of those terms which, in Renou's view, express the peculiar relation of the Vedic poet to the Vedic ritual act, which express, in other words, the Selbstauffassung of the poet as author.2' We have noted above that Renou's general point of view places great weight on the Veda qua expression; here we reach that sensitive point where the theory of interpretation generally and the technique of translation are interdependent, justify one another, and in fact merge.

The many hyphenated terms denoting aspects of the poetic act itself all appear not only to be attempts to express more precisely the meaning of the Sanskrit terms (in accordance with Renou's theory of exegesis), but also, by their very number and frequency, to function as a kind of linguistic technology which tends to place the resulting translation on a plane of immanent intellectual neutrality: Sanskrit thought in French dress. To achieve the exactitude and fullness Renou feels necessary, he has also had to adopt a style which turns a vivid poetry (or at least a concise multi- dimensional formulary) into a scientific statement: contorted, diffuse, scholarly, and abstract.

The crucial link between "thought " and "poetry" (whatever sense these terms may have in separation) is time and time again underscored by Renou's hyphenated translation of key terms: craitu- (3.54.6; EVP 5, p. 12), 'pensee-force.' This difficult term is variously tendered. Grass- mann, in one of his flights of insight, gives fifteen alternative definitions (for 169 occurrences). For Renou, the ligature thought-power is always present: 1.151.2 (EVP 5, p. 75; Hymn to Varuna- Mitra), 'force-d'inspiration'; 7.60.6 (ibid., p. 85), 'force-inspirante ' (there in contrast with ddlksaih: 'grace a leurs forces-agissantes') ; 4.42.1 (ibid., p. 97; Hymn to Indra and Varuna), 'pensee- inspirante.' In 1.17.5 (also to I and V), cradtu- is translated by the single term 'inspiration,' but it is qualified by the adjective uWthy -: 'inspiration (realisee) -en-f orme-d'hymnes.' In 5.87.2

21 "Afin de restituer 1'ambiance dans laquelle se mou- vaient les Hymnes, il faut, sous la description des op6ra- tions du culte ou des donnies mythiques, relever le souci majeur du poete, celui dont d6pendait son avenir et lavenir de son cenacle (vrjdaia), a savoir, les succes dans la joute litteraire " (EVP 1, p. 18).



316 GmEow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

(EVP 10, p. 39; Hymn to the Maruts), krdtu- is given what for Renou must be considered an aberrant connotative rendering: 'pensee-delib&r- ante,' 22 (see below) but again, in the text itself, the term is conjoined with .S'vas-, which Renou construes as an apposition of meaning, if not of form 2. . . quant a la pensee-deliberante, cette force (qui est) votre . . ne saurait 8tre attaqu~e

.' Only in one passage which I have checked, and, like 3.54.6, in a hymn to the Vis've Devdih (10.36.10, EVP 5, p. 52), does Renou adopt a " simple" translation, 'conseil' (recalling Geld- ner's usual translation, 'Einsicht' or 'Rat').

Interestingly, never before, but usually after EVP 12, the term kradtu- is translated 'pouvoir- spirituel,' which appears to sum up, even more abstractly, the senses variously rendered earlier.24 As these are all hymns to Agni, we might specu- late that Renou is here demonstrating one of the advantages of translation by hymn-group: consistency of formulary within the cycle. But at least twice in the most recent set of translations (EVP 15), kradtu- is given as 'pouvoir-spirituel' (1.190.3, p. 50, to Brhaspati; 4.33.9, p. 88 to the Rbhu), which suggests rather that Renou was still refining his terminology as he went along. Remarkable in any case, and significant is the narrow range, the apparently synonymous, though abstract, force of these translations. The term was understood by Grassmann-albeit romantically-to mean almost anything subjective: 'Kraft, Leibes- kraft, Geisteskraft, Geist, geistigen Einfluss, Ver- stand, Wille, Gesinnung, Begeisterung,' even 'Krafttrunk, der Starke der Held.' 25

In the Soma hymns, the term kratu- is translated with less variation than in the examples above, but the deviations are that much more curious, suggesting that Renou sometimes may get lost in his own commitment to abstraction: the occurrences of the term in EVP 8 (9.4.5, 6, p. 4; 16.2, 4, p. 12; 36.3, p. 21 ) are rendered by 'force(s) -deliberante (s),' a hyphenated form

22 We do not imply that these terms are used so consistently (by the rsi) that the same translation-connotation is appropriate each time. Cf. note to 1.31.8, EVP 12, p. 77.

23 See explanatory note, p. 96. 24Cf. 1.67.2 (p. 14), 1.69.2 (p. 15), 1.127.9 (p. 29),

1.141.6, (p. 34), 1.143.2 (p. 35), 2.5.4 (p. 45), 3.6.5 (p. 55), 3.9.6 (p. 57), 6.16.8 (EVP 13, p. 49), etc.

25 H. Grassmann, WTrterbuch rum Rig-Veda (4th ed.; Wiesbaden, 1964, p. 353).

which does not seem to be found outside the Soma cycle. This form occurs once in EVP 9 (9.100.5, p. 54), where it is contrasted with ddkqa-, 'force- agissante,' as in 9.16.2, 36.3. But in EVP 9 generally (1.91.2, p. 67; 9.71.9, p. 21; 9.86.13, 43, pp. 33, 36; 9.107.3, p. 59), kradtu- is rendered as 'force(s) -inspirante (s)' (once as 'forces-d'inspiration'), a rather different connotation, but one shared with many renderings outside Book 9. The variant translation does not depend on the opposition to ddksa-, which is also present at 1.91.2. At 9.102.8 (p. 56), the further change is rung: 'pensee-inspirante'; I looked in vain for a ' pensee- deliberante,' which would make the quadrilateral of possibilities perfect, but this is attested only in 5.87.2, a Hymn to the Maruts (EVP 10, p. 39), as noted above.

The rare plural forms of kraitu- do not fundamentally alter the perspectives so delineated. At 6.7.4 (EVP 13, p. 41) and 10.87.1 (EVP 14, p. 20), we find, as expected in the Agni cycle, 'pouvoirs-spirituels.' But once in EVP 15 (7.48.1, p. 97; to the Rbhu), kratavo (n. pl.) is rendered 'pensees-actives,' a personification perhaps influ- enced by Grassmann's belief that this half stanza is addressed to the steeds of the chariot mentioned.26 Geldner takes the word simply as 'Geister' (Vol. 2, p. 226).

In other cases, too, the translation given for certain key terms seems to be a function of the cycle in which they occur: dh4i-, in every instance checked in the Agni hymns (1.1.7, EVP 12, p. 2; 1.143.6, p. 35; 3.11.2, EVP 12, p. 58; 6.2.4, EVP 13, p. 37), is translated 'vision(s)-poetique(s).' In the Soma hymns, however, this is never so: the usual rendering (9.15.1, EVP 8, p. 11; 25.2, p. 16; 26.1, p. 17; 44.2, p. 25; 64.16, p. 38, 100.3, EVP 9, p. 53; 101.3, p. 54) is 'pensee(s)- poetique (s),' a translation reserved for mati- else- where.'7 At 9.74.7 (EVP 9, p. 24), it is given as 'intuition-poetique '-' Il [le soma] adheZre a l'intuition-poe'tique, 'a F'acte-manuel [sadme -..' perhaps to bring out more clearly the operative connotation implicit in the opposition to same-. Only at 9.67.27 (EVP 8, p. 45) is dh- rendered by the single word 'priere'; perhaps because the simplicity of the verse precludes elaborate ren-

26 His variant meaning 15; see Renou's note ad loc. 27 Taken as 'poesies' simply at 9.72.6 (EVP 9, p. 22)

and 9.97.34 (p. 49).



Gisaow: Renotu's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 317

derings. (Geldner says of the hymn, "Also eine Art von Rundgesang" (Vol. 3, p. 55)).

I am far from sure what to make of these subtly different renderings, which their abstraction makes easy to confound in any case. This variation is not the same as that, much more style oriented and less raisonne, of Grassmann and Geldner. Renou's variants do not correlate with those of either predecessor, as we have seen, nor do they appear to follow any line suggested by Oldenberg. He himself, to my knowledge, nowhere discusses the issues posed by his treatment of these concept- terms.28 The tendency to standardization is so marked, that we expect some justification for variation.29 Renou himself obviously favors the device of abstract translation, partly as reflecting the formulary of the text, partly as a means of avoiding the necessity of adjusting the translated product to the affective niceties of the host language, a procedure marked in the extreme in the older romantic translators (Roth, Grassmann), and still a central preoccupation of Geldner. If we are right in detecting in these variations a conviction that the same word may have different senses in different sacred verse cycles, then we support, in fact, the appositeness of Renou's general approach to the Veda, expressed often in other ways in the introductions he has written for the various cycles: that the diety, or the cult is, for the composition of the hymns and to the poet, more important, more distinctive than the ritual or social context in which these hymns fit. The final redaction of the Veda, at a later time, has Gbscured the importance of this relation by introducing factors of classification devined after the fact or themselves traditional: grouping by family books or by metrical and other poetic devices. Still, within the framework imposed by these other considerations, hymns to a single diety (which Renou would take as the authentic, original unity of the Veda) tend to remain grouped together.

28 EVP 1, p. 3 a few lines on dhi-, among which: " on devra tenter de restituer partout le sens initial 'intuition (poftique) ' ou simplement 'parole, poeme'" -which he certainly has not done.

29 For example, the quite mystifying rendering of dhiya at 9.86.13 (ETVP 9, p. 33), where it was contrasted with krdtvd, as 'pensee-pieuse,' a hapax as far as I know. Renou's note on this verse is silent on the apparent departure, which is odd in any case because kra tu- is rendered as usual: '(ta) force-inspirante (O poete!).' Geldner has 'mit Kunst/nach deinem Sinne, o Seher!'

We should also consider other abstract terms, used apparently only to avoid a too affective or wrongly connotative current term: manman- (10.78.1, EVP 10, p. 53), 'evocations-poetiques' ('. . . comme les orateurs-inspir's avec les evocations-poetiques') ; Geldner says 'mit ihren Ge- danken' (Vol. 3, p. 259). Or, in the same stanza: kqiti- (pI.) '6tablissements-humains' ('. . . comme les jeunnes-hommes [note hyphen: mdrydh] des etablissments-humains'); Geldner gives 'unter den Leuten' (ibid.). For Mimsa- (1.27.13, EVP 12, p. 4), we have 'parole-qualifiante' ('Puisse-je ne pas attirer (contre moi) la parole-qualifiante d'un (adversaire) plus fort . . .'); Geldner translates 'die Rede' (Vol. 1, p. 30), and Oldenberg, ' curse' (SBE 46, p. 17). There is no note suggesting reasons for avoiding either "louange" or " mention." The occurrence of the word at 1.141.6 (p. 34) is translated 'louange'; at 1.128.5 (p. 31), as 'parole,' with aghd- (adj.) : 'qu'(il nous sauve ... de la parole mechante . . ).'

The tactic of using hyphenated forms to bring out or avoid bringing out additional connotations is developed to the extent that few important concepts or terms are not so rendered. This has not only the effect of lightening the impact of the translation and complicating it stylistically, but also of increasing the frequency with which certain crucial classificatory terms are met in the translation: we have not only 'force-inspirante' and 'force-agissante' (supra, p. 315), but 'force- vitale' (vayas-, as 1.127.8, EVP 12, p. 29), 'force- dominante' (sdhas-, as 1.141.1, ibid., p. 33; often capitalized, as here), 'force-formidable' (6jas-, as 2.24.2, EVP 15, p. 56 supra, p. 314), and 'force- ecrasante' (vrayas-, a hapax at 2.23.16), 'force- irrationelle' (maya-, 10.88.6). We have not only 'pensee-poetique,' 'pensree-force' (supra, pp. 315, 327) and the problematic ' pensee-pieuse ' (supra), but 'pensee-bienveillante' (sumati-, as 3.59,4, EVP 5, p. 66; Geldner: 'Gunst,' Vol. 1, p. 407), and ' pensee-furieuse ' (manyu'-, as 2.24.2; Geldner: 'Grimm,' Vol. 1, p. 306).

The reader will have noticed the number of hyphenated terms of the shape ". . . poetique," which bear witness to Renou's view of the kind of context in which the Vedic ""poems" were elicited.30 There is even a ' tremblement-poetique ' (vepas-, 4.11.2, EVP 13, p. 14). I do not suggest

so kavi- appears always to be translated 'potte,' as 1.1.5; EVP 12, p. 1.



318 Grow: Renou's Pkace in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

that extensive hyphenization of this type is either unnecessary (we have shown its utility) or stylistically to be avoided (we have progressed far beyond Roth's view that the best Veda is a read- able Veda). We do wonder, however, whether Renou may not be introducing into his French version so many "concepts" that its connotative load is as heavy as the " artful " version of Geldner, though with precisely the opposite intent. And also we wonder whether translating so many different terms (however synonymous) by the same partial term (as 'force,' '-poetique,' ' pensee') may not exaggerate beyond reasonable measure the import conveyed by these terms, even neutralised, in the host language. Renou's view is evidently that the Veda has not been understood conceptually, that is, " literally ; 31 that the formulary so represented brings out precisely the quality of the proto-mantra he finds in the original: formulated language, measured to a specific purpose. But as an invitation to the God, the " poem " functions not only by being understood; it must also transcend the prosaic limitations of language -reach, as it were, the God. In trying to reduce the multivalent quality of the poetry to literal rendition, Renou has chosen one only of these two aspects to serve as principle; we must realize in turn that our understanding of the Veda so derived, though remarkably accurate, must not be qualified by the stylistic force of the French text. Other- wise the paradox32 that the Vedic poem, defined by Renou as highly stylized poetry, given so anti- poetic a rendering will become vicious. Geldner or von Roth might assert that the statement of the poem as poetry must leave much implicit. To state it always (1.31.2, 'tu enveloppes poetique- nent') trivializes the impact.33

But Renou's Veda is "poetry " in a very special sense. The translations read (in French also) as mantras: consider the abstracted, generalized vocabulary, appearing somehow to be hiding more than it says ; 34 the recurrent emphasis on verbal, i. e., magical power; the syntactic literalism which exaggerates the paradoxes implicit in the text.

31 EVP 12, p. 1. Cf. EVP 3, p. 2, note 2. 32 Implicit in any translation of poetry. ss Cf. the doctrine of the Dhvanikara on the impossi-

bility of denoting the rasa: Dhv. 1.21, 2.3; also Mam- mata 14, 15.

84 What does 'tu es l'installateur des formules-pensees' (10.2.2.; EVP 14, p. 2) really mean?

The French often seems to owe more to Cocteau than to the rsis-an Indic "Orphee":

'Digne d'etre invoqu6 [par vous] dans les ages de L'Homme, allant aux reunions (sacrificielles), il a flambe, le JAtavedas / qui brille au loin avec son rayon beau A voir; face au (dieu) enflamm4 les vaches se sont eveillees. 0 Agni, va 'a ta fonction de messager-ne faillis pas (a ton devoir) !-vers les dieux, (etant envoye) par le

groupe qui fabrique les formules-d'6nergie! ' (7.9.4-5ab, p. 59).

PARENTHESIS. The same goals we have discussed above animate Renou's representation of Vedic syntax: total explicitness, a verisimilitude so marked as to be tortuous. As hyphens become a device for rendering the complexity of the Vedic vocabulary, so parenthesis is adopted as a typical aid in coping with the sentence.

In a sense, Vedic syntax is not as complicated as Vedic vocabulary; while many terms are of unsure significance and the important words are of disputed import, the actual forms of the Vedic assertion, typically, are less often real sentences, with internal clauses of different value, as mere predications, strings of descriptive praises, epi- thetical or appositional and often stylized (figee):

'Taureau qui ne cedes pas, qui vas (droit) au defi, qui consumes l'ennemi, qui lemportes-avec-force dans les batailles, / tu es le reel vengeur de torts, 0 Brahmanas- pati, dompteur de (1'ennemi) si formidable (soit-il), qui se herisse en (sa) r6sistance-massive' (2.23.11, EVP 15, p. 54). This is the typical Vedic phrase; others are exceptions.

The use of parenthesis by Renou does not imply an ellipsis. In fact, Renou's translations are generally so good-that is, so exact-that he is rarely compelled to suggest a true "ellipsis" (at least in Gonda's very restricted sense of the word). These rare ellipses are (at least in the later translations) indicated with brackets, as

" Gonda, Ellipsis, p. 6; EVP 12, pp. 1-2, note b. Cf. Renou's methodological approach to the translation of the sutras of PAnini:

"Le present ouvrage vise d'abord A donner une traduction de Pinini plus explicite et plus "complete" (c'est A dire, tenant mieux compte des elements sous-entendus) que n'a 65W celle, si me'ritoire d'ailleurs, de Bdhtlingk. Pour ce faire, on n'a pas craint d'incorporer dans le siitra des e16ments nombreux de ;,lose, empruntds, en principe, a la paraphrase bien articulee que livre la KRAikavrtti, et qui vont souvent plus iolin que cette paraphrase." La Grammaire de Pdwini (Paris, 1947- 54, p. 1).



GEsow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 319

above 7.9.4.36 Otherwise, the parenthesis aims primarily at stating more fully and explicitly for the French reader nuances which are in the San- skrit text, but which the very different syntax and vocabulary of French compels to be rendered otherwise or not at all. To take the simplest example, we note the hundreds of cases where the Sanskrit adjective, inflected of course for case and number, implies its proper subject noun; 37 the French must express the noun also: 'Que pren- nent place . . . (ces dieux) vigilants . . .' (1.26.4, EVP 12, p. 3), and 'O (dieu) brillant, consume done les (etres) nocifs' (1.12.5, EVP 12, p. 2). Such usage is so obvious and ordinary that it needs no comment; 38 we note it for two reasons: (1) as an illustration by the rule of simplicity of a principle which Renou employs in far more problematic and complex situations; (2) to point out, contrastively, that Renou falls back on even simple parenthetical expressions to a much greater extent than Geldner or Oldenberg. In both examples cited, Geldner gets by without indicating explicitly the implied noun, partly because in German adjectives are more easily nominalized, 'Leuchtender, versenge doch . . . die Unholde' (RV Vol. 1, p. 13), but, more fundamentally, because Renou is aiming at an explicitude wherein not only the meaning of the Sanskrit word is conveyed, but also the force of the Sanskrit construction: the only way, in this French example, to emphasize the nominalized epithet without suggesting a true ellipsis is to frame the construction around a noun. Geldner of course often has recourse to this kind of parenthesis; in the preceding stanza, he translates 'Ermuntere die ver- langenden (Gotter),' paralleling Renou's 'fRveille ces (dieux . . .) consentants,' 3 but in this case, the ritual context as well as the syntactic form is unclear unless 'Gdtter' is specified (though Olden- berg is content to leave even this up to the imagi- nation of the reader: 'Awaken them, the willing ones, when thou goest as messenger....' (SBE 46, p. 6) ) .40

Clearly, in this simple case, there is no question

380r 1.36.1 (EVP 12, p. 7). 87 Renou, Grammaire Vedique, p. 399.

Cf. Gonda, Ellipsis, p. 16. 89 What is understood differently is important for the

following discussion. See infra. 40 Cf. Gonda, Ellipsis, p. 17: he forgets to quote

Geldner's parenthesis properly while questioning it.

of ellipsis or any other "omission "; we are dealing with the problem of adjusting the demands of one grammar to the forms as well as the expressions of another. This syntactic "overcharge" is what Renou generally places between parentheses. The product is more than a "translation," a rendering of the sense, subjectively assured; in fact, the lesser problem is determining the sense (the philological problem). Renou meets squarely the demands of a further fidelity: how to convey that sense as far as possible within the intent and structure of the original, and without suggesting that the Sanskrit text is defective (often the annotative problem, but here usually incorporated in the translation). Renou, as always, is more aware of the issue and more careful in alerting his audience; in admitting just and only what he feels the syntactical (and sometimes extra-syntactical) relations of the sentence convey by the device of parenthesis, he has again achieved a clarity which will be the envy, if not always the model, of the next generation of vjedisants.

Many of the parentheses represent, as Renou puts it, "des artifices de presentation" (EVP 12, p. 2), by which I take it he means adjustments, extensions imposed by the translator's duty to represent, in addition to the vocabulary of the original, the sequence of thought emergent there- from. His use of parenthesis shows to what extent he is interested in preserving that distinction. Another very simple example is the translation of sa(h) as 'tel (6etant) . . .' (1.26.1, EVP 12, p. 3). Following Sdyana and not Geldner, Renou takes sa- here not as a weak demonstrative, but as the emphatic complement to an implied relative (Say. tadrias tvam) .41 To signal the prasal independence of sa- within its clause, Renou adds a present participle for a more con- vincing, more colloquial translation, and places it within parentheses, which signifies here only that it is a translator's convenience: a word not itself based on the Sanskrit text, but which helps convey more accurately the syntax of the word to which it is joined. In 1.27.3 and 11 (ibid., p. 4), the same translation is given, but is not sanctioned by Sdyana. Sa(4) occurs here not at the begin- ning of the third pdda in a Gdyatri, but in abso- lute initial position, which Renou understands as

41 This usage is noted as more frequent than any other (Grammaire VWdique, p. 340).



320 Gmow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

referring to the proceeding stanza. Oddly, having thus exempted sa- from demonstrative usage by this device, in stanza 11 he reintroduces it (parenthetically): 'Tel (etant), que (cet Agni, dieu) grand, auquel rien ne se mesure ... (sd no mahdm' animano . . .).' Is this a case of eating one's (parenthetical) cake ?

As adjectives can suggest their noun, and nouns their proper syntactic complement, so often does Renou indicate by parenthesis nouns or nominals buggested syntactically by other nouns. Clearest is the case of partial repetition in succeeding clauses: 'Celui qui . . . cause du dommage, (qui) desire tuer . . .' (2.23.12, EVP 15, p. 54). This common expressive device was recognized as a figure by the classical alamknalrikas: dipaca. iRenou generally spells it out: 'la beaut6 des rites, (la beaute) des sacrifices' (1.44.3, EVP 12, p. 9: yaji-tanam adhvarasriyam; Geliner construes the passage differently). The word imagery of the Veda is a fecund source of parentheses for Renou: 'Revets done tes vetements (de flammes), 0 (Agni) . . .' (1.26.1, EVP 12, p. 3).42 Geldner chooses not to bring out the other noun implicit as image in vastrani: 'So zieh denn deine Ge- wander an, du . . .' (RV I, p. 28). That we are dealing here with an image, determined through context and expressed by adjunction (syntactically), is itself borne out by the use of the parenthesis; were the word vastra-, a true double-entendre, a hyphen could have been used. Compare also 2.5.2 (ibid., p. 44) : '(Ce dieu) sur lequel les sept rlenes (sacerdotales) ont U6 tendues.

Two other cases of parenthetically suggested nominals are those of synonym and antonym: 'toi qui . . . apportes confort 'a 'une et l'autre race (la divine et l'humaine) . . .' (1.31.7, EVP 12, p. 5; ubhayctya janmane mayah krnosi). This usage comes closer to the colloquially parenthetical and appears to depart from Renou's usual precision. In fact, adding 'la divine et l'humaine' does no more than bring out the precise locus of the otherwise abstract phrase; the usage is an extension of the imagistic parenthesis noted above, and it need not be taken as a circumlocutory " clarification." A contrasting case occurs in 1.31. 12 (ibid., p. 6), where Renou brings out the force of an antonymous opposition parenthetically: 'Tu es le sauveur de (notre) progeniture (directe) en

42 Cf. Gonda, Ellipsis, p. 12.

la descendance (plus lointaine . . .) .' 43 Otherwise the terms tokg- and tdnaya- would appear close synonyms, which is how Oldenberg takes the line: 'Protector of kith and kin.'44 This is the only passage where the two words are not in parallel concord. But rather than emend, Renou discovers the implied opposition. This is typical of his attitude to emendation generally.

The cases cited illustrate various modes of Renou's "nominal" parenthesis; the principle on which these "additions" to the text are made is clear. The same principle governs the far more complicated phenomena of the verb, the verb clause, and the subordinate clause generally.

To begin again with the simplest case, consider " ellipsis" of the verb itself. Rare in fact, the parenthetical verb can usually be supplied from a neighboring phrase (2.23.16, EVP 15, P. 55; 1.36.10, E VP 12, p. 7). A case however occurs at 1.31.15 (EVP 12, p. 6): 'il (va) au plus haut du ciel.' Sdyan. a takes this as a predication, understanding upama as a noun (even if adverbial). Many of the ellipses cited by Gonda appear to involve verbs of motion, e.g., 3.1.11 (EEVP 12, p. 49) : 'les Eaux en effect, honorees, (vont) ensemble vers Agni, nombreuses (comme elles sont).' Oldenberg, in the same passage, finds two verbal ellipses, one a "causative": 'The Waters (have made) Agni (grow) : for many glorious ones (have come) together' (SBE 46, pp. 220, 226). The Sanskrit reads: alpo agnirm yasasah saim hi pfirvih. Somewhat differently, but still with two ellipses: 'Die Wasser (eilen) zu Agni, denn zu Beriihmten (kommen) ja viele (Weiber, isah od. dgl.?) zusam- men' (Noten I, p. 225). Oldenberg seems more ready to follow Geldner (Ved. Studien I, p. 166) in the earlier version: dpo Agnimn est elliptisch; aus dem vorigen ist avardhayan zu intellegieren"; Geldner's rendition, however, offers still a fourth possibility (RV I, p. 334) : 'die Wasser (zogen) den Agni (grosz), denn ein Geehrter hat viele (Frauen) beisammen' (he takes yasaah as pos- sessive genitive). Whatever verb or verbs are to

4S Cf. 1.31.11d. 44 H. Oldenberg (trans.), Vedic Hymns (" Sacred

Books of the East," Vol. 46), Oxford, 1897, pp. 23, 29: loc. for gen; see Renou's note, p. 77. Geldner is quite different.

4S Oldenberg, SBE 46, p. 30; also his Textkritische und exegetische Noten (Berlin, 1909-12), I, 30. It requires a verb of motion to complete the sense (Oldenberg, though, has 'will reside').



GEraow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 321

be understood in this difficult passage, in whose brevity Geldner suspected a proverb, it will be noted that Renou's version is the most economical, attributing fewer " defects " to the Sanskrit: there is one verbal ellipsis only; the cther terms are correlated attributively with 'waters.' Oddly, perhaps, Renou's "conservative" translation closely parallels Sdyan. a's, syntactically: pfirvir bahvyo yasaso (yasio 'nnam) tadvatya &po 'gnirm saiyvard- hayamti: 'The waters, possessing much nourish- ment [e. g., many foods] cause Agni to grow.' Renou generally ignores Sayaiia; so did Olden- berg before him.46 But often Renou's commitment to the R.gVedic text appears to unite him in a kind of silent brotherhood with his medieval counterpart; Renou on more occasions than one appears to give credence to the Sanskrit of Sdyalia, if not to his substantive interpretations. He thus, in a way, brings Vedic exegesis full circle, passing through the forest of Western emendatory explication only to return to the starting point, the Indian text tradition itself.47

Apparent cases of verbal ellipsis occur also in those phrases where a preverb stands alone, implying its inflected finite complement. (The case cited above may in fact belong here, especially quam Renou's rendering of sam as '(vont) ensemble.') The verb so expressed, half extant, half implied, is often rendered in French with a faithfulness which requires some bizarre etymological hatchet- work: 'tu . . . (lui) en(seignes) les directions' (1.31.14, EVP 12, p. 6); Geldner has 'du (gibst) Weisungen' (Vol. 1, p. 36).48

These cases of verbal ellipsis are problematic. Here we intend only to characterize Renou's style of translation insofar as it represents a view of the Sanskrit text. Noteworthy generally is Renou's willingness to carve up French vocables, the better

" Renou, Maitres, p. 60. 47 Differing from Geldner and Pischel, who saw later

Indian Realgeschichte in the Vedic expression. 48 Skt. prd diso (vidzistarah) ; the preverb prd- implies

a verb of teaching, given the preceding phrase (prd pfkam glssi). Oldenberg (SBE 46, p. 30; questioned in Noten I, p. 30) accepts Ludwig's emendation pradigo, and takes it as acc. pl. with the following verbal adjective: 'thou . . . well knowing the (divine) command- ments.' Renou begins as above, then: 'toi (les) qui [sic] connais mieux (que tout autre).' In view of the double prd, we no doubt have here a verbal dipaka corresponding to the "ellipsis" of repeated nouns; above p. 320.

to represent the etymological image of the original; this is illustrative again of his fidelity to the text, though perhaps exaggerated.49 'Il (est le dieu) au beau pouvoir-spirituel qui ou (vre) les portes des Pani .. .' (7.9.2, EVP 13, p. 59. Skt: sa suqkradtur yo vil di'rah panintm . . .). Renou's notes (p. 144) defend this as a true verbal ellipsis, the verb implied by vi not being supplied from any neighboring phrase; perhaps it is a haplology for n var (cf. Say.: yo 'gnih . . . duro dvarani . . . vivrtavan). But the rendering 'ou(vre)' takes us all the way back to late Latin aperio (prob. ab- pario), where we are reminded that ou- has a preverbal etymology. Here the oddity is explained in a note, and Geldner also uses the device, though more transparently: 'der die Tiiren der Knauser auf(schlieszt)' (Vol. 2, p. 188). Comparable is the rendering of prd "inceptif" in 1.36.3 (EVP 12, p. 7): 'Nous t'6lisons pre(ferablement comme) messager' (pra tva detain vrm mahe), where Renou uses the same analytic to emphasize that pra is not to be taken with the verb.50

Distinctly puzzling is the translation of 1.31.13, which we note here because of the intra-word parenthesis: 'La formule-sacree de (l'homme), fuft-il faible(ment doue'), . . . [pada c] . . . tu (en) gagnes (le merite pour lui) en ton coeur' (EVP 12, p. 6; long note on vanosi, pp. 77-78). The convolution of what appears to be a simple phrase in the Sanskrit-kires cin madmtram manasi vanosi tarm-most of whose translated substance appears within parentheses, is determined by the effort to render with syntactic parallelism the subordinate cause of pdda c (yo ratahavyo 'vrkaya dhiyase, 'qui a donne l'oblation pour s'assurer la securite') while preserving the difficult sense of van discussed in the note: '-win' rather than Geldner's 'begehren' (love, desire). Note that the relative clause is subordinated to parenthetical 'homme,' whose descriptive complement (kres cid) is translated adverbially and concessively, though the term Icri is usually taken as a noun (Grassmann) or adjective (Geldner). The con-

" We are reminded of the citrakdvydni of medieval Sanskrit literature (Rudrata, et al.); does Renou intend to suggest a similar Vedic style of word play?

B Contra Sayanas, and apparently Geldner, Oldenberg, et al. Cf.1.36.1 and note, p. 79. A case where the ellipsis relates to the 'tense' of the verb is 1.27.7 (EVP 12, p. 4) 'il detien (dra) des jouissances '; see note ad loc.



322 Gmaow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

cessive aspect is read from the particle cid, hence is not parenthesized; but the Erganzung of one adjective into another by transforming it into an adverb, 'faible (ment doue)' is unparalleled. Apparently Renou tries here, as often elsewhere, to incorporate into the translation the connotations of the poetic act he sees in much Vedic hymnology: a "weak" man must a fortiori be a "weak " poet, thus " weak "-ly endowed (with poetic gifts). Furthermore, Renou underlines the ritual role of the poet by subordinating the relative clause to kit-; it is the poet who has sacrificed "for his own security," implying a homology of the "poem " (as proto-mantra) and the oblation properly speaking (-havya-). Compare Geldner, who reads in this passage a simple juxtaposition: 'Wer Opfer spendet, um sich Sicherheit zu schaffeen-auch des an Geist Armen Dichterspruch-den begehrst dui' (Vol. I, p. 35).51 But if Renou takes the line in this way, according generally with his theory of Vedic composition and "self-reference" (as it were: yo ratahavyah . . . tasya kireh, etc.), then it would appear that the main verb vanosi must have mdintram as its object (maintram . tMm). (Geldner, construing otherwise, puts kiri- and mantra- in a clause parallel in thought with ya- and -havya-; tam then picks up ya-: "you love him" (the sacrificer or the poet).) But the meaning is far from clear: rejecting "love"I ("approve"?), Renou is left with "you win the mantra "-unsatisfactory. Hence the "explanatory" parenthesis, which supplies a direct object ('merrite'), an indirect object ('pour lui'), and a reference to the co-relative of the direct object (C en I) .52 With all this, the sense "win " is saved. Again, interestingly, Sdyana's construction of the sentence closely parallels that of Renou: yo yaja- mano 'sti, cires cit . . . tasya sambandhinam marndtram . . . manasa tvadiyena cittena vanosi

Following Pischel, Vedische Studien, (Stuttgart, 1889-1901), I, 217, and contested by Oldenberg (SBE 46, p. 29), whose translation resembles, structurally, that of Renou: 'Thou acceptest in thy mind the hymn even of the poor who has made offerings, that he may prosper without danger' (ibid., p. 23), proposing that the accented verb be emended (rare for Oldenberg) to vanosi. (He later changed his mind: Noten I, p. 30; ZDMG 60, p. 734.) Renou, more conservative even than Oldenberg, tries to translate as though van6$i were not in the main clause; is this the reason for so radically separting verb from its grammatical object?

52 Hardly a translation of tam; hence parenthetical.

yacasi. But "seek, ask for" makes the construc- ticn jell better than " win " does.

In many places, Renon uses parentheses to render verb constructions which in French and Sanskrit require different complementations. An example already discussed in another connection above is 1.31.13 (supra): vano'6i tam, rendered with the circumlocution '(en) gagnes le merite . . .),' etc. That issue is complicated by others; clearer are the cases at 3.7.2 (EVP 12, p. 56), a verb and its direct object rendered by 'circule (selon sa) voie,' " circuler" being intransitive; at 1.31.3 (ibid., p. 5), the same kind of construction in the Sanskrit: (a)saghnor bhjranm, 'tu fus de taille53 . . . (a assumer) la charge.' The phrase 'de taille i' cannot accept the noun " burden" without the intermediary of another verb, to which it may serve as direct object (as can the English "be equal to"). Though "assumer" might be thought the proper translation of sagh itself, it functions here as a translation complement required by the different grammar of French; cf. Oldenberg's "Thou has sustained the burthen" (SBE 46, p. 22). Similar is 1.27.8c (EVP 12, p. 4), where the three word phrase vajo asti ?ravayyak is translated (with a prolixity due both to hyphenization and syntactical parenthesis) 'le prix-de-victoire propre 'a etre connu- au-loin est (son lot).' Certainly the phrase per se means only "the booty is famous," but Renou and Geldner, following Sdyania, see also a more than usually strong implication that the possessor of the booty is the mortal of 7 and 8ab, so strong that instead of translating (as Oldenberg) "his strength is glorious" (viz., his booty is famous), Renou construes as though the implied genetive complement is the entire predicate: hence 'est (son lot) ' for "est i lui." (Geldner has 'Rhum- bringender Gewinn ist (sein),' Vol. I, p. 29.)

The third broad type of parenthetical usage in these translations is perhaps only an extension of the second: verb and verbal "ellipses" involve us immediately in the problem of sentence construction. Here we illustrate a number of cases where Renou employs parenthesis to deal with difficulties in according the Sanskrit sentence or f hrase with the French translation. Immediately

Though the translation of a single word, this phrase is not hyphenated and therefore no double-entendre is expressed; the phrase is monovalent.



GEsow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 323

relevant are those compounds which function as, even in the Sanskrit, subordinate clauses, and which can be translated only by such.54 Renou conveys this syntactic mis-fit by parenthesizing those elements of the translation which are implied by the syntactic form of the original only: 1.12.6 (EVP 12, p. 2): juhvasyah (lit.: " spoon-mouthed") is given by 'qui (regoit en sa) bouche (le contenu de) la cuiller-oblatoire.' Again we remark the prolixity which, surprising as it may be at first glance, turns out upon examination to represent not only the sense, but the syntax of the original. In this case, Renou does not follow his predecessors in taking the compound as a bahuvrihi founded on an appositional karmadharaya, whose translation would be more compact: "whose mouth is the sacrificial-spoon" (Oldenberg SBE 46, p. 6; also Geldner); rather, for reasons he does not discuss in the notes, Renou understands an anomalous bahuvrihi of the type khadgapdni: " in whose hand is a sword."55 So (literally), "in whose mouth is the sacrificial spoon." This is too static an image. The stanza begins with a reference to the " ignition " of the fire. sarmidhyate. To convey the probable sense of act in reference to the sacrificial spoon (ladling the oblation into the fire), Renou expands still further to the final version already given. Remarkable to this writer is not only the fidelity of Renou's translation, but the difficulty of criticizing it: as a rendition of the Sanskrit, it leaves almost nothing unspecified; what is said, though we may obviously differ with it, is thoroughly and judiciously presented. Our effort to understand is rarely rewarded by the pride of surpassing the author, but rather by deepened appreciation of his style and point of view.

Another problem relating to the translation of phrase structures arises when it becomes necessary to supply the modality of the subordination. From the simplest cases of specifying the kind of apposition: 'J'invoque Agni (en tant que) prepose . . .' (1.1.1 EVP 12, p. 1) or 'toi qui r'gis les rites (comme) gardien . . .' (1.1.8, ibid., p. 2), to the more speculative assessments of clauses as final, relative, concessive, temporal, and the like, Renou consistently employs parentheses in conformity with his general usage: as explici- tations of syntactical implications. For example,

"4Renou, Grammaire 7Wdique, p. 133. 6` Ibid., pp. 134-35; Grammaire Sanskrite, # 97 note.

1.31.11d is taken as a final clause of purpose: '(pour lui enseigneur) que le fils (Agni)56" nalt d'un pere tel que moi . . '. The Sanskrit indicates the subordination only through the adverbial yat, which Renou keeps in 'que le fils,' but he brings out the implied clause of purpose in the parenthesis as given above. Oldenberg, Geldner, and Sdyaina all construe this as a temporal clause (Wenn/yadd), the condition expressed being actual: 'when a son of my father is born' (Oldenberg, SBE 46, p. 23). Renou (Note, p. 77) takes the clause as the hypothetical "lesson" implied by the preceding sdsani- (yat would not then be adverbial), hence both the final clause, and the "grammatical" addition of 'enseigner.'

At 1.31.7 (EVP 12, p. 5) a concessive subordination is supplied: 'toi qui, (bien qu'6tant) altere (toi-m~me), apportes confort i lune et l'autre race . . .'. The concessive is strongly implied by the antithesis in content, and Geldner does not try to improve upon it: "der du selbst durstig beiderlei Volk Erquickung schaffst (Vol. 1, p. 34). The Sanskrit explicitly indicates no manner of subordination: yds ttfrsana ubhayyya janmane mayah k7crnfi.. Renou's elegantly odd translation of the middle participle tat'r anza- offers an interesting sidelight on his consistency of translation. Not referenced in the notes (ad. loc., p. 77), the word is rendered at 2.4.6 (ibid., p. 44) more literally as 'comme ... ayant soif . . .' but at 6.15.5 (EVP 13, p. 47) the translation is weighted with hyphens which bring out both literary and literal senses: "comme (un homme) altere-de-soif . . ." The word occurs only five times in the RgVeda: thrice in hymns to Agni (all nominative sing. masc.); the two remaining (ace. sing.) are in the Indra cycle, yet untrans- lated. Is it possible that 1.31.7 was meant also as 'altere-de-soif'? If so, this is one of the very few errors detected (others are trivial misprints, misplaced parentheses, wrong identification of the hymn Geldner viewed as "most difficult"-5.44 not 5.41-EVP 4, p. 4).

Another final clause is implied in 1.12.4 (EVP 12, p. 2): 'eveille ces (dieux, en sorte qu'ils soient) consentants . . .'. Here, as above, it is a single adjective (ws'ato) that Renou separates out of its sentence to stand alone in a modally differentiated clause; it is typical of his verbatim respect for the

6& Perhaps a lapse, an explanatory parenthesis; cf. EVP 12, p. 24.



324 GKROw: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

text as expression, as proposition, that every attempt is made to state the propositional force inherent in each word, in each vocable. We note a general tendency to atomize the syntax of the Sanskrit original in order to bring out fully, independently, the force of each adjective and each epithet.

Sometimes the clause is specified only as subordinate, a relative clause without other modality: 'La montagne meme, (celle qui a) crft grande- ment, a eu peur' (5.60.3, EVP 10, p. 37). The Sanskrit has the past participle vrddh4-, here construed as a clause, not without reason. In 10.88.3 (El/P 14, p. 23), it is an apposition that Renou parenthetically specifies: 'qui . . . a tendu la terre et le ciel que voici, (c'est a dire) les deux mondes (avec) l'espace-median' (yo.. . prthivn dyalm ute'mam dtatdna rodasi antdriksam). Geld- ner apparently sees here a list (Vol. 3, p. 280). Renou appears to take utemadm as 'que voici,' this latter not being included in the parenthesis;5 b apart from that, Renou construes as Syayia: "yo ... prthivim bhiimim utapi cemdm dydin diva-m cdtatana . . ./ tad eva dars'ayati / rodasi dyava- prthivyau cdtatdna

In a few cases noted, Renou appears to include within the parenthesis, in addition to the modality of the clause, most of its substance as well. 1.1.6 (EVP 12, p. 2) reads: 'c'est h toi (qu'en reviendra le merite) reel, 0 Aigiras.' Clearly at issue is the sense of sat yd-57 which Geldner and Oldenberg generally take as 'wahr/true'; but Renou, in all instances checked save one (3.14.1, El/P 12, p. 60: 'vrai sacriflant'), tries to preserve the etymologically more suggestive 'real.'58 The most obvious rendering is that of Oldenberg, which amounts to taking satya- adverbially: 'that (work) verily is thine, 0 Angiras,' a sense, however, not well attested even by Grassmann's eclectic methods.59

6bJBut cf. 1.31.8; EVP 12, p. 5. 57 tdvet tat satyam amgirah. Geldner has 'so wird

bei dir das wahr, o Afigiras.' 581.1.5, ibid., p. 1; 1.145.5, ibid., p. 37; 1.152.2, EIVP

5, p. 76 (saty6 mintrah, 'la Formule rdalis~e') ; 5.25.2, EVP 13, p. 32, etc.

591n the hymns to Usas (EVP 3), satyd- is usually taken as 'vrai(e)'; e.g., 7.75.7, p. 89; 4.51.7, p. 71; see note ad loc. But in 7.76.4, p. 92, we find 'rdalisant les formules ' (cf. supra, 5.25.2). Renou's style and method of translation appear, in this early fascicule, generally more relaxed; the intricacies are not yet fully thought out or worked out in their detail, and the implications for a translation of the whole Veda are not yet

In 1.1.6, again, the literal rendition 'the real is yours, 0 Afigiras' makes little sense, hence the parenthetical clause which permits saty&- to be taken adjectivally: 'the real (merit) is yours.' Renou goes beyond this, even, in alleging a full clause containing the verb 'revenir.' The rationale of this further implication is to be found in the translation of the first part of the verse,60 which describes Agni conferring goods on his worshipper. The suggestion of a transfer in return is seen in the final pdda; hence the translation, expressing as it does a more rotund "figure" of speech.6' We see, even in simple passages like this, how Renou's commitments lead him, inexorably, to ver- sions which are so meticulously elaborate, part of the rationale for which is a laudable effort to establish a text as simple as possible,62 with fewer semantic, a fortiori contextual variants and fewer "irregular" forms. The cost is a more complex rendition of the idea, viz. the construction.

A remarkable example of parenthetical enlarge- ment into full clause is found at 1.31.8 (EVP 12, p. 5): 'Toi, 0 Agni . . . mets A l'honneur notre barde, (une fois que tu auras ete) loue (par lui toi-meme) !' The single word stdvdnah, a middle participle standing at the end of the first half- stanza, is expanded by parentheses fore and aft into a conditional clause.63 The " ErgAnzungo' does not here seem necessitated by the remainder of the verse, and the tactic is itself questioned by Renou (Gr. Ved., pp. 357-58): "L'apposition a un mot sujet ou regime direct peut donner l'im- pression que le participe equivaut A une proposition completive . . . [examples follow]: mais il est douteux que le participe soit jamais senti comme support d'une subordonnee vWritable." Have we reached the boundary where translation

clear. This is not surprising, for the idea of translating the entire IRgVeda had not apparently been formulated at that time, or even during the publication of the second faseicule (ETVP 4, p. 12). Certain remarks though (EVP 3, p. 1) seem to prefigure the project which, by EVP 12, p. 1, note, is already taken for granted.

"'See note ad loc., p. 71. 61 In the classical poetics, parivrtti. 62 Cf. A. Bergaigne, La Religion VWdique, d'aprbs les

hymnes du Rig-Veda (Paris, 1878-83), 3 vols. and infra, pp. 330, ff.

68 Geldner, I, 34 has 'Du Agni mach, gepriesen, un- seren Dichter geehrt' (as Oldenberg), perhaps implying the same structure, but retaining verbatim the purely adjectival force of the original.



GmEow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 325

passes into interpretation? It seems to me that there are two points which support Renou's phrasal rendering, both ignored by Geldner and Oldenberg: the participle does not agree (technically) with the subject, which is a vocative (2nd person verb), and it occupies an emphatic position at the end of the half-stanza, far removed from its " subject." Renou captures the nuance of separation, as well as the forceful emphasis, by his equally emphatic independent clause which, incidentally, preserves the exact thought-order of the Sanskrit sentence. Again, we recognize the principle of fidelity to the expression as such, the proposition which even through the translation imposes an order and a connotation upon its component parts. Renou's view of " literalism " is as complex as that of Prabhakara, viz., the anvitabhidhana vada.

There are more involved cases of parenthesis. The formulary of the Veda is by common assent of such concision that it cannot be easily construed.64 Renou uses parentheses not only (as above) to express more fully the implications of an obscure construction, but also to determine the possibly competing senses of what are felt to be anacolutha, and also, sometimes quite baldly, to correct the Sanskrit construction itself. The passage discussed above (1.31.13) also illustrates this aspect of parenthetical usage, in that a direct object is supplied (merite), which is different from that which the syntax itself seems to require (maintram . . . tam). A more transparent case occurs at 1.65.10 (EVP 12, p. 13), where a singular noun is taken as a plural to accord it with the sense of the collective noun preceding: 'abondant comme un (troupeau de gros) betail avec le(s) nouveau-ne (s).' The Sanskrit reads: pa.er nd slsvt vibhu'r. . . . Geldner says: 'wie de Herde durch das Jungvieh sich mehrend.' The idea of increasing, rather than that of stable, prosperity makes possible the use of the item of increase (the marginal increment being singular). Renou stays closer to the sense of vibhi'- and so is left with a numerical anacoluthon, which he must bring out in the French translation. Note that the collective sense of pasiu- is here expressed parenthetically as well.

A similar example occurs at 10.87.13 (EVP 14, p. 21), where Renou "corrects" the accord of the demonstrative pronoun with its (logical) ante-

" Cf. Renou, " Sur 1'6conomie des moyens linguistiques dans le JBgveda," BSL 50, 47-55.

cedent: yad ya'd ya&, taya vidhya hrdaye ydtudha'nn: 'ce que . . . ce que . . . la qui . . . avec ce(s e16ments mauvais) perce au coeur les tenants de sorcellerie!' Strictly, the Sanskrit tdyd picks up only the third relative (yd, scil., saravyd, 'pluie-de-fleches); Renou prefers to relate it to the '4 lements mauvais ' expressed in the first half- stanza also, which, properly, would have required a taih instead. This is either a " correction" forced by the logic of construction, or might possibly be seen as a case of attraction.85

In 5.59.1 (EVP 10, p. 36) Renou renders pra prthivya rtaim bhare by 'je veux presenter A la Terre (un chant inspire par) l'Ordre (, comme une offrande).' On the face of it, rtam seems clearly a direct object, and Geldner translates: ' der Erde trage ich die wahrhafte Rede vor' (Vol. 2, p. 66). Renou however argues that the verb pra bhr often has an object meaning ' song' (Notes, ibid., p. 92) ; he then tries to read that possible construction into this one, an apparently dubious translation device, but not out of the question given the formulaic and partially repetitive character of the Vedic poem. The poet, it is argued, may have been playing on precisely that overtone 66 in speaking so grandly: 'I carry forth (scil., offer) the Sacred-Order to the Earth!' ('Je chante l'Ordre-cosmique en guise d'offrande A la Terre' (ibid.).) This is not strictly speaking an anacoluthon, or even a zeugma; it rather represents an implicitly bivalent construction, just as a double-entendre expresses a morpheme as implicitly bi-valent.67 We read one construction into another, much as the classical poet might con- struct, in his more explicit way, a complete rfipaka: " I carry-offer the Order-song offering to the Earth-officiant." In any case, we approach the limitations of a translation per se when we begin to render the complex of substantive overtones and implications which all language has when measured against its context of utterance.

Finally, there appear to be cases where the principle underlying the Ergdnzung is nothing but the extra-syntactic reference of the stanza itself: the " context " as understood by Renou. There are instances where he seems to be feeding his translation with the very commitment he brings

65 Cf. Renou, Grammaire Vedique, p. 386. 66 The principle of semantic overlap as a pretext for

word play is dicussed at 1.1.8; EVVP 12, p. 72 and 1.27.10; EVP 12, p. 75.

67 Cf. Renou, Grammaire VWdque, p. 401.



326 GER2ow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

to Vedic interpretation: the sacrifice as poetic occasion and challenge. Consider 1.36.13 (EVP 12, p. 8) :

' Mets toi done debout pour nous favoriser, tel le dieu Savitar, / debout (comme) gagnant du prix-de-victoire lorsque nous entrons en ddfi avec les officiants (rivaux), avec les ornements (po~tiques dont ils 'entourent) ! '

That a contest is mentioned is indubitable: Olden- berg takes vaja- as 'booty,' Renou more abstractly as 'prix-de-victoire.' Oldenberg does not construe vljasya sdnita as a simile, but as an epithet of Savitar; more important, the difficult term anji- is not taken as 'ornament' but as 'ointment.' These and other differences in the literal interpretation of words and constructions provide a wholly different reading: 'Stand up straight for blessing us, like the god Savitr, straight winner of booty, when we with our worshippers and with ointments call thee in emulation (with other people) ' (SBE 46, p. 32). Renou establishes his preferred context not only by taking the words differently, but by adding two important parentheses, without which a neutral version much like Oldenberg's would result: vaghdt- is here a (rival) priest (Old.: 'worshipper'), and the ornaments are those of poetry.68 The identification of the priests as 'rivals' and the ornaments as 'poetic' appears to place the translation beyond any power of the words themselves, and thus to be basically in conflict with Renou's fundamental point of view. However likely it is that the poet-priests are in fact referring to their own rivalry here, it seems highly speculative to solve the problem by finding the implied context in the reference itself.

A less controversial example is found in the same hymn, at 1.36.7 (ibid., p. 7), where the ritual context is specified, ruling out the general reference to " any " possible obstacle: ' Les hommes enflamment Agni A l'aide des oblations, passant- t3ujours outre aux e*checs (qu'entraline le rite).' Geldner, keeps the implication of ritual focus, if so it be, on the level of implication: 'Mit Opfer- gaben entflamrnen die Menschen den Agni, nach- dem sie den FehlschlIgen entgangen sind' (RV I, p. 44).

68 The 'metaphor' is not defended in the Notes ad loc., p. 80, though Geldner's rendering of ailji- as adjective is questioned: "Wenn wir mit (anderen) salbungs- vollen Priestern uns (darum) streiten" (RV I, p. 45). A parallel reference, 1.37.2 (ETVP 10, pp. 13, 59), has afiji- as ornaments of a more substantial kind.

ANALYTICAL LITERIA LISM

Another apparent consequence of Renou's emphasis on the literal is his tendency, especially marked vis a vis Oldenberg, to analyze constructions, even phrases and words, so that their full load of nuances emerges; as in the cases studied re parenthesis, this has the perhaps unwanted consequence of emphasizing the phrase at the expense of the stanza: the word at the expense of the phrase. The Veda itself encourages such translation, since it often seems a syncresis of mantra-like epithets, etc.

"Les epithetes descriptives constituent le veritable substrat de la langue hymnique; ce sont des manieres de metaphores petrifikes . . . chaque groupe formulaire est autonome . .. le traume discontinue se resout a nos yeux en des series d'ellipses, d'anacoluthes, de paran- theses, etc."9

Oldenberg may justify his relative indifference to the nice problems of syntactic adjustment and expression (his renderings are quite free) by the disdain he feels for the content of the Veda, which he attributes to ". . . die barocke Formlosigkeit und Willkiir ungeziigelter Einbildungskraft . . . die Pritentionen unverhuillter orientalistischer Priesterbegehrlichkeit." 70

Renou, perhaps because of his focus on the intended sense of words, often translates as though the words were less coherent than they in fact are. It becomes a question of what kind of literalism one wants to serve. This style is announced in the translation of 1.1.1, where each nominal form is construed independently, that is, as unrelated multiple predicates of Agnim. Unlike Oldenberg, he does not take purohita- as a technical term, but brings out its independent semantic force: ' (en tant que) prepose (au culte)'; in contrast to Oldenberg and Geldner, he construes dev6- separately: 'dieu du sacrifice' (Geldner: 'Gott- Priester'; Old.: 'divine ministrant').

Renou takes great care to render each formulaic phrase independently, often with the aid of parentheses, separating thereby words which might otherwise be construed as correlatives: 'Toi, 0 Agni, premier (des Afigiras), Afigiras par excel- lence, (en qualite de) poZete tu entoures-d'clat.

69 Renou, Po6sie, p. 21; also Matitres, p. 71: "l'unite dans le VWda n'est le mot, mais la formule."

70 H. Oldenberg, Die Religion des Veda (2nd ed.; Stutt- gart und Berlin, 1917), pp. 592-93.



GEaow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition, 327

. . ' (1.31.2; EVP 12, p. 5). Oldenberg says: "Thou, 0 Agni, the first, highest Afigiras, a sage, administerest. . . .' (SBE 46, p. 22).

Another aspect of Renou's analytic "literalism" derives from his effort to avoid " conventional" images; often this results in an abstraction of translation (use of hyphenated forms, etc.), often in a kind of etymological exactitude which borders on code: 'Lui qui a courbe les choses courbables . . .' (2.24.2; EVP 15, p. 56). At 10.2.6 (EVP 14, p. 2), jdnitl is translated by the recherche 'engendreur' instead of the more current 'progeniteur' in order to bring out the repetitive parallelism with the verb jajdna, 'a engendre' (Geldner has 'der Er- zeuger / hat . . . erzeugt'; but the parallelism is self evident in German). In 10.2.7 (ibid.), the phrase pdntham anu pravidvin is rendered by giving etymologically literal force to the two pre- verbs: 'toi qui connais-au-loin-l'ayant-long6 le chemin.' Hyphenization brings out the various nuances expressed from dnupravidvan. Cases abound of such analytically morphological and in that sense accurate translations: vy . . . didyutdnd- (3.7.4; EVP 12, p. 56), 'brillant au loin' (here not hyphenized); (a)gnijihva(h) (1.44.14; EVP 12, p. 9), 'ayant Agni pour langue' instead of, as Oldenberg, 'fire-tongued' (French 'aux langues de feu'). The bahuvrihi is rendered as structurally as possible; cf. the case juhvasyah (1.12.6) discussed above, pp. 322, 323.

THE CRITICAL APPARATUS AND RENOU 'S PLACE IN

THE CRITICAL TRADITION

The new interpretations relating to meaning and structure which we find in IRenou's translation are, as is evident from the random examples already cited, fundamental; he is not overly con- strained by the authority of his distinguished predecessors, even Oldenberg and Geldner, whom he cites often and with preference. We have detected certain leading ideas or leitmotivs which appear to underlie many of the particularities: orientation to and respect for the text, such that the text becomes an autonomous document or, what is the same thing, a poetic document. The great issues of Vedic study, if we are to believe Ranou himself, do not (or no longer) lie in the area of ritual metaphysics or intuitive ethnography (the Veda as a referential document), but rather in the construction of the text itself as language as intended language (poetry); it achieves its

culmination (to judge by his style of exegesis) in a deepened understanding of the usage of individual words and word groups by means of a meticulous and always total comparison of simi- larities and differences. We have a philology which cannot depend on any extrinsic criterion, and is therefore self referencing and independent. Few references to this issue are to be found in the foregoing analysis of Renou's translation style; Renou treats such problems primarily in his Notes and his Notes do not usually bear on questions of style and general interpretation which reflect a general prise-de-position and so do not admit of philological solution. We find it convenient to discuss Renou's place in the Vedic exegetical tradition in terms of his own use of that tradition, which is revealed largely in his annotations.

From the point of view of his morphological puritanism (which sometimes borders on the bizarre), Renou might be compared to his now almost forgotten (or rather ignored) predecessor, Ludwig. Renou's own words, with adjustments of tone, seem to apply to his own work:

"La traduction de Ludwig est une oeuvre d'une coherence et d'une volontk remarquables; on y voit refletkes avec fidMOlit les tendances de son esprit: une termi- nologie precise, un souci de realisme, et surtout une recherche presque maladive de la litt~ralitA. Sa version est aussi heurtke et abrupte que celle de Grassmann 6tait unie et accueillante: partout des parentheses, des ellipses, des enjambements, des anacoluthes violentes." 71

Renou then adds, as if anticipating the very comparison we here draw:

"Aux difficultes inh6rentes au texte il [Ludwig] ajou- tait celles de son propre temperament, avide de la solution la plus anormale." 72

Ludwig's "temperament" was indeed respon- sible for a number of bizarre interpretations and emendations, the vast majority of which are no longer taken seriously; this is despite the fact that, unlike those of Roth and Grassmann, Ludwig's altered readings were based on a reasoned theory of interpretation (usually his version of comparative Indo-European etymology) and not on taste or what the poet was felt to have intended. Though most unromantic and scientific in his approach, Ludwig does represent, with Grassmann, that earlier school of exegesis which did not

1 Renou, Maitres, p. 18. 72 Ibid.



328 G(Sow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

particularly respect the Vedic text. His readings abound with corrections based on presumed parallels with Iranian and other Indo-European languages and cultures. In Renou, however, we meet perhaps the most extreme version of the counter-reaction to this tendency of excessive emendation, a reaction based on a more realistic appraisal of the Indian learned tradition and its accuracy. This reaction began with Oldenberg (in whose Noten most of Ludwig's emendations are rejected) and has dominated Vedic exegesis to this day. I can find in Renou's Notes and translations no instance of an emendation suggested by Renou himself; in treating-always with regret-those adopted either by Geldner or Olden- berg, he often shows himself even more conservative, suggesting a possible, though admittedly cdd, construction which keeps the traditional reading. For example, in 1.27.2 (EVP 12, pp. 4, 73), in order to save the instrumental force of savasd, Renou construes it with the third pdda, although it occurs in the first in apparent connection with sfinu'h. Following Sdyan. a, who inter- preted the form as a genetive, Oldenberg at first agreed: " It requires a stronger belief in the infallibility of Vedic text tradition than I possess not to change sAvasa into SAvasah " (SBE 46, p. 18). He translated: 'son of strength.' Then (Noten I, p. 23), he corrected himself and suggested a haplology. Renou agrees, but instead of translating as Geldner, 'unser Sohn durch (unsere) Kraft' (Vol. 1, p. 29), taking the instrumental with the noun in the absence of a verb, Renou preserves both the form and the syntax, at the expense of a clausal laxity: 'Puisse done cet Agni) fils (de la Force,7 . . .) . . . etre 'a nos cotes avec (sa) force!' (ibid., p. 4). A similar case occurs at 1.44.1, where Oldenberg at first emends vivasvat to itvasvan (loc. sing.), 'at the rising of the dawn' (SBE 46, pp. 37, 39), and takes uxisa4 as a dependent genitive. Again he retracts (Noten I, pp. 43-44) in favor of construing vivasvat as an adjective with radhah in the second pada. Geldner follows this reading,

q8 Giving substance to his apparently trivial remarks about the two inseparable aspects of philological interpretation: the "sprachliche" and the " sachliche," in Abh. Kon. B&hm. Ge". Wis8., VII, 4 (1892), p. 4. Objecting to Pischel's view of the 1RgVeda as an Indian text, Ludwig found its context in the then popular reconstruction of Indo-European society.

4 Haplology restored.

taking the genitive as a dative: ' (bring) der lJpas morgendliche . . . Gabe' (Vol. 1, p. 53). The oddity of the phrase remains a problem, as Olden- berg first pointed out: ". . . an expression which is not, strictly speaking, impossible but in every case very unusual" (SBE 46, p. 39). We have a dependent genitive (or dative) between two adjectives qualifying the noun governing the genitive. Moreover, the verb is apparently lacking. Renou, again, not only eschews the possibility of emendation, but construes in such a way as to make the syntax credible also, by the simple expedient of taking vivasvat as a noun 'lumiere' (justified, EVP 12, pp. 80-81): 'O Agni, (convoie ici) la lumiere, don extraordinaire de l'Aurore . . .' (ibid., p. 8). The cost is not great, as vivasvat seems elsewhere to be used as a common noun and not as a proper name. Upasi for apdsi (3.1.11; RV I, p. 334) is an emendation of Ludwig which Geldner praises, though he does not adopt it; it is not even judged worthy of a note by Renou, who translates: 'dans lactif (labeur)' (EVP 12, p. 49).

It is of course on the interpretation of difficult words that Renou, in his Notes, expends his greatest effort. Though the question of emendation occurs rarely, Renou is not unwilling to propose novel, even striking sememes where his exact methods compel it. Here the Drang nach Literalismus also exploits etymology, especially in the case of hapax legomena; "I also qualifying the results of etymology is Renou's constant use of internal comparison: parallelism of structure, of association, of the etyma themselves often suggest an interpretation which is novel. The tendency is to reduce the intentional structure of the Veda to an order unparalleled in the history of Vedic exegesis since Bergaigne. Renou's commitment to translate abstractly also contributes to the uni- formity and generality of his formulary.

Interpretations of individual words or roots generally operate in the sense of suppressing the semantic variations assumed by Renou's predecessors: 1.26.1 (El/P 12, p. 7/2)) yaj; 1.26.10 (ElP 12, p. 73) caino dh&; 1.27.10 (ibid., p. 74) dral; 1.31.3 (ibid., p. 76) vasu-; 1.31.9 (ibid., p. 77) -krt; 1.31.13 (ibid., pp. 77-78) van; 1.36.13 (ibid., p. 80) and'i-; 1.44.3 (ibid., p. 81) suffix -ika; 1.59.1 (ibid., p. 83) vaya-; 1.68.4 (ibid., p. 88) e'vaih;

" For example, 1.27.13 (EVP 12, p. 75), dinti-; 1.31.4 (ibid., p. 77) aidiyah; 1.31.6 (ibid.), sdkman-, etc.; 1.36.6 (ibid., p. 80), -ya suffix on the superlative.



GEaow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 329

1.72.7 (ibid., p. 91) vayu'na-; etc. In opposition, we find only 1.1.8 (ibid., p. 72) raj; 1.58.5 (ibid., pp. 82-83) vadna- (intepreted as a double-entendre, differing from Geldner) ; 1.69.2 (ibid., p. 89) concessive use of sant-. Only 1.1.8 can be considered a real complication of the vocabulary, and it reflects a common enough distinction which was artificially suppressed by Geldner.

Against this tendency to level distinctions sometimes, to generalize them on grounds of etymology and contrastive parallelism, operate other principles of interpretation which enrich the semantic treasury: on the one hand, the Notes often discern a superposition of ideas, a contextual usage which poeticises the understanding of certain words; in this Renou returns to a theme we have already discussed in relation to hyphenization. Examples are found at 1.58.5 (cited above), 1.58.8 (ibid., p. 83), 1.66.7-8 (ibid., p. 87) didyuit- (but here the "nuance" allows Renou to suppress a vocabulary entry), and 1.67.1 (ibid., p. 88) mitra-. Most instances of this principle pass unnoticed in the Notes; many will be found in our earlier discussions. The Notes seem to make explicit reference to the double-entendre only when it is based on an internal comparison.

More important as a principle limiting the generalization of the vocabulary is that implied by the notion of cyclic translation itself: certain terms or locutions are identified as typical of hymns to a certain God, or, more rarely, the same word is given a different acceptation on that basis. Pre- vious translators have of course nct been unaware of this issue, but Renou makes more than casual use of the principle. Some examples from the Agni hymns are: 1.26.1 (FYP 12, p. 72), the verb yaj is active when Agni is the subject; 1.36.7 (ibid., p. 80), svaraj- is a "mot emprunte au cycle d'Indra"; 1.58.2 (ibid., p. 82), "trsu- est partout adverbe, mais toujours a propos des 'aliments' d'Agni . . .";1.59.4 (ibid., p. 84), "On cherchera A Mviter dOkra- adj. en tout cas inusit6 dans le cycle d'Agni . . ."; 1.66.1 (ibid., p. 86), "'nitya- se trouve volontiers A propos d'Agni . . .". Examples from the hymns to the Maruts are: 1.37.1 (EVP 10, p. 59), "krid-: une certaine pr6f6rence pour cette racine dans les hy. aux M0 . . ."; 1.37.2 (ibid.), " pr.sati ne se dit qu'a propos des M' . . ."; 1.37.6 (ibid., p. 60), "Inter- rogation de type oratoire (constant dans le cycle aux MW)"; 1.38.1 (ibid., p. 61), a peculiar use

of the indefinite; 1.38.10 (ibid., p. 62), "Les M' sont svdnin 3.26.4 et cf. 1.143.5, 9.70.6"; 1.39.10 (ibid., p. 63), "les M' sont as'smi'zavas 5.52.5 ci-dessous"; 1.64.1 (ibid., p. 64), ". . . makha .. qui, au moins dans le cycle aux M o, s'oriente assez clairement vers 'combat' . . ."; 1.64.2 (ibid.), "marya se dit au plur. des M' (jamais d'autres personnes . . .)"; 1.64.4 (ibid., pp. 64-65), where, interestingly, Renou disputes a commonly accepted emendation,76 mimikcsuh, on the basis of a parallel passage in the Marut cycle (5.52.17) ; 1.64.10 (ibid., p. 66), "sammis'la, 1'un des nombreux termes notant la relation entre les M? et leurs attributs concrets."

The Notes of course treat in detail the many syntactical and morphologic problems of Vedic grammar, whose solution is often moot. Renou's effort to "regularize" the Veda, though marked, is relative only, and conditioned by a thorough respect for the linguistic text.

Clearly, as Renou himself asserts, his notes are intended not to replace but to supplement those already voluminous collections of his predecessors, notably Oldenberg and Geldner (EVP 12, p. 1, note a). It became apparent to this reviewer that Renou in fact follows in most cases those great Vedicists, and in doing so does not feel obliged to call attention to the fact. In his notes are expressed his disagreements, or his own percep- tions of previously unrecognized problems, vis & vis Oldenberg and Geldner in particular. Beyond them h e rarely refers to other scholars unless it is to a work postdating Geldner's translation; these references (Wiist, Benveniste, Liders, Schmidt, Thieme, etc.) are more often cited for the information of the reader than as authorities for Renou himself. Gonda is not often cited, and then as frequently in disagreement as in agreement. The great bulk of Renou's Notes (and I think in this he more resembles Geldner than Oldenberg) are devoted to examinations of parallels in the text itself, and in Vedic texts generally. But then, Oldenberg's contribution to Vedic study was his determined effort to rescue exegesis from those who wanted to look everywhere but the text for solutions; his Notes inevitably refer as often to aberrant Western scholarship as to the Indian texts.?G Renou, taking

7' Grassmann; Oldenberg, Noten I, p. 65). "BR Also cf. Vedaforschung, pp. 17-18 where Oldenberg

discusses the reasons for what he considers the intellectual excesses and one-sidedness of his precessors.



330 Gmow: JRenou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

Oldenberg's authority for granted, is exempted from the thankless task of refuting the now largely forgotten older tradition. He is permitted, as it were, to concentrate on the text, and his notes reflect this. But because of this dependence on Oldenberg and Geldner, it is necessary for the serious reader of these translations to have at hand their notes and explanations as well. We cannot depend on Renou to tell us where the justification of this or that interpretation is to be sought (even sometimes when it is his own). Renou need not be criticized for not making his notes more voluminous; usually the translation itself is sufficient commentary on the options involved. Where Renou agrees with Oldenberg and Geldner, the reader must not expect a rehash, even though the matter may be speculative.

Among other Indian texts, AV, VS, and TS are often cited for parallels, but rarely any texts from the classical or later period,77 and this includes the commentaries on the Rg itself. Sdyan. a is never cited as an authority, but merely for information. Renou's use of Iranian parallels is prac- tically nil. Even in the hymns to Mitra-Varuna, the only explicit references are through comments on Thieme or Gershevitch (EVP 7, pp. 9, 14, 46, etc.). Renou evidently reads the Veda as an Indian text, but one so wholly peculiar to its time and place that only internal evidence (or extrapolation) is admissible; that means of course that his major authorities are the Western commen- tators who are committed to a similar philology.

Given Renou's intention not to provide a complete annotation to the hymns of the RgVeda, but to supplement and correct the already extensive annotative production of his predecessors, it is not surprising that most explicit references to the exegetical tradition are critical. Nor is it incon- sistent that most criticism is directed against Geldner and Oldenberg. A spot check of the Notes to the Agni hymns 1.1 through 1.31 (five hymns) shows clearly that these two giants pre- occupy Renou almost to the exclusion of other authority. Wiist, Gonda, and Edgerton are referred to in passing, with neither approval or disapproval; but Geldner is taken to task at least ten times(1.1.8; 1.26.8; 1.27.2, 8, 10; 1.31.3, 5, 9, 11, 13), Oldenberg at least four times (1.1.1; 1.12.2; 1.26.2; 1.27.13). In explicit approval,

77Kavyaprakdha once: EVP 7, p. 42.

Oldenberg is cited at least three times (1.1.7; 1.27.2, 10), but Geldner only once (1.27.7) (the force of Renou's commentary, in some of these cases, is not obvious unless it is compared with the Notes of Oldenberg or Geldner). Beyond this, I find substantial references only to Grassmann's Wdrterbuch, which is corrected twice (1.26.10; 1.31.3). The sample is too small to be pushed very far, but my impressions in working through Renou's Notes elsewhere only confirm these statis- tics. It appears that not only does Renou continue the work of his two major predecessors, but that, between them, Oldenberg enjoys a prepon- derance of favor. This is not surprising, for it is obvious by this time that Renou's exegetical methodology, if not his conception of the Vedic corpus itself, allies itself most closely to that of Oldenberg. Renou says of his predecessor:

" Sans doute l'importance du Veda n'4tait pas pr~cis4- ment a ses yeux d'ordre littlraire. . . . D'autre part il a fait des reserves sur l'iddal moral des rsis. Cepandant, sans verser jamais dans le lyrisme, ses travaux impli- quent tous des notions de valeur dont on ne retrouve pas un egal souci chez les autres v4disants Ad 78

Regarding Oldenberg's method, Renou wrote:

"L'interpritation philologique chez Oldenberg depend de Bergaigne en ce qu'elle ne fait Atat ni des textes extArieurs ni des sources indigones, et qu'elle rdsout les probUemes du lexique par des combinaisons purement internes." 7

But Oldenberg was sensitive to details, to the nuances of the particular case-this not surprising in one so wholly committed to an historicistic outlook:

"Au centre une deception fondamentale, et pour chaque cas difficile, une adaptation tenant compte des faits particuliers: goat propre de I'auteur, place de 1'hymne, aspect du style, phraseologie environnante et jusqu'h ces points d'appui subtils que constituent les allitkrations, certains reflets ou contaminations de vocabulaire." 80

If Renou's method is different from that of Olden- berg, in these terms, it is only that it is more rigorously and exhaustively applied; the text is considered to have even greater autonomy, its examination is pressed with the aid of even more internal comparisons, its obliquities resolved (not by emendation) by a sustained rationalization of

78Renou, Maitre8, p. 58. 79Ibid., p. 68. 8"Ibid., p. 69.



Gmow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 331

the poet's point of view, that is, of the poetic syntax, whose analysis is Renou's masterpiece. "Adherer 'a la pense&e indienne, c'est d'abord penser en grammarien." 81 The regularity of Renou's Veda is perhaps a function of this exegetical "freedom," the internal method delivered over to itself.

We now approach a most difficult and speculative point: can we define Renou's position vis a vis Abel Bergaigne, the founder of the systematic study of the Veda, whose work, La Religion Vedique, today honored but rarely used, still constitutes the major French contribution to Vedic study (a pre-eminence which these very translations will now dispute).

Renou often shows himself aware of Bergaigne, but rarely cites him, conforming to a tradition which Renou himself describes: ". . . des ge'ntra- tions de vedisants se sont succedees, passant silen- cieusement i cotW de l'oeuvre [de Bergaigne], craignant egalement de s'en servir et de la com- battre.. . .11 82 Unlike the case of Ludwig, the reason for such neglect does not stem principally from the errors in Bergaigne's treatment, although he made what are today considered fundamental mistakes.83 Rather it lies in the very nature of Bergaigne's work-the method itself-which considered the Veda a systematic exposition of a coherent mythology. Interpretation was for Ber- gaigne the close specification of mythological parallelism; the Veda was seen as a complex set of homologies based on the fundamental cosmic dualism of male-female. Clarification is reduction: Agni is Soma is the Sun, etc.84 Although this was precisely the tack taken by the first Indian speculative thinkers, and similar homologies constitute the basic resource of the older Upanisads, it has generally been doubted that the Vedic hymns themselves could ever, in composition, reflect such a thoroughgoing spirit of systematization and syncretism. Bergaigne is aware of the possibility of such objection, and considers it in part misplaced: his original purpose in writing La Religion VeTdique was to compose a mythological dictionary, a thesaurus of ideas. He stresses the classificational principles which underlie any cata-

81 L. Renou and J. Filliozat, L'Inde Classique, Manuel des Etudes Indiennes (Paris, 1947, 1953), II, 86.

82 Renou, Maitres, p. 32. 88 Cf. ibid., pp. 31-32. 84 Ibid., pp. 24-25.

logue; similarity and contrariety predominate. But although he would have admitted that the system of Vedic mythology may not have been present a' l'esprit du poete, he does insist that it is implicit in the corpus of poems. Many of his umst strikingly perceptive explanations (to the dismay of his detractors) devolve precisely from that assumption.85 Bergaigne is not only the founder of the systematic study of the Veda, it is he who in the most extreme degree conceived the Veda as a system.

Historically, Bergaigne's contribution to Vedic study lies not in the system as such which he formulated, but in the corrective which his work gave to the excessive romanticism and subjec- tivism of his predecessors. For Bergaigne, the text was not an object in itself, a Ding an zich, as it has become for Renou, but it was for the first time subjected to a theory of intepretation which was in principle verbal-a theory of metaphor, which respected the form, to be sure often at the expense of the meaning. He describes his method thus:

"MM Roth et Grassmann ne craignent pas, pour simplifier le sens des hymnes, de compliquer souvent le vocabulaire. J'essaie au contraire de rdtablir la sim- plicit6 dans le vocabulaire en admettant la complexity dans les idWes " (Religion Vedique I, p. iv).

Substitute "syntaxe" for "idees" and the statement would serve to characterize Renou's attitude to vocabulary also, and would justify his refusal to emend.86

But I think that the importance which Ber- gaigne has for Renou is not only a function of his historical place among Vedic exegetes; 87 though it is difficult to document, I would argue that Renou has, for the first time since Bergaigne, tried to resuscitate an integral aspect of his theoretical method, and precisely that aspect which Oldenberg and Geldner considered most suspect, namely its ideology. Not integrally, of course, but more as a theoretical point of view. Renou takes no more seriously than Oldenberg the mythological system of Bergaigne:

85 Cf. ibid., p. 34. 86 But in the work of von Roth, the "' meaning" was

no better served by divining the intention of the poet directly.

87 In Maitres, Bergaigne receives more notice than any other Thdisant, including Oldenberg.



332, Gmow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition

"le systkme de Bergaigne etait un dogme . . . les etudes v&diques 6taient conduites par lui 'a leur perfection et, en mime temps, au seuil de leur mort." 88

But Renou does, like Bergaigne, have a theory of Vedic composition which is internal, anhistori- cistic, and eschews extraneous comparisons: for Renou it is the theory of the Veda as priest-poetry (to which we have alluded elsewhere). Like the "mythologization" of Bergaigne, the "poeticiza- tion " of the Veda by Renou serves as the principle which guides his interpretative methods, the selec- tion and relevance of his comparisons, reinforces the independence of the text (literalism) at the expense of its " meaning," and determines the direction of its translation (theory of double- entendre, explicit self-reference of the poet, etc.). It pushes Renou even into espousing a metaphysic according to which the poet's words are to be understood as expressing or representing the sacrifice itself. The poem becomes a kind of antique or proto-sacrifice: it itself manifests the forces of creation, as vac is first among the powers.

Then, too, the attention which Renou pays to the text and his method of textual interpretation owe more to Bergaigne than perhaps meets the eye. The search for parallels, for contrasts, even on the level of vocabulary and syntax, is not only an extension of, but seems more rigorous, more a part of the engine of exegesis than did the func- tionally more ad hoc method of Oldenberg. The Vedic vocabulary has been rationalized. In brief, a conceptual order has been substituted for the historical order so prominent in Oldenberg's discussion and, in another way, in Geldner's. Yet Renou is not insensitive to the problems of development through time; he is as aware as his colleagues were of the syncretistic character of the Vedic text: ". . . la division en trca . . . manque entierement [au dixieme livre] . . .; c'est Fun des points oui se marque le relachement des preoccupations rituelles a ce niveau litteraire" (EVP 2, p. 5). As the quote shows, the relation of the poem to the rite is a key factor in Renou's view of Vedic development; still, his point of departure is the hymn-group. There is the corollary implication that the cult and its liturgy, its hymnology, constitute the underlying organism of the lIgVeda so long as this is in process of composition, so long as it reflects itself in actual usage and is not

88 Renou, Maitres, p. 32.

simply maintained, as holy word, for application to other, extrinsic ends. rc becomes mantra, but by this change, loses that integrity which inspired its composition. The notion of ritual itself has changed; the hymn, no longer the primary element of the liturgy, becomes, on the one hand, secondary in an elaborate sacrificial cult (mantra), but, on the other, is potentially freed from the uses of ritual altogether-and we witness the birth of the late Veda, of philosophical, speculative, even historical " poetry." Renou's perspective again emphasizes and is justified by the integrity of the Vedic text: when " historical " problems become paramount, the Veda as such has ceased already to exist.

Renou, like Bergaigne, sees a pattern inherent in the Vedic text; to be sure, it is only verbal, not mythological; still it represents a theory of the intention of the poet. Renou, like Oldenberg, accepts the text itself as having final authority; even his theory of Vedic composition, that of the priest-poet, is never justified extra-textually. It represents, ultimately, a generalized extrapolation of his own textual method: the Veda as poetry, as language in fact and in principle independent of its sociological context. That Renou undertakes to reconcile these two apparently contradictory stances (indeed it would be difficult to conceive two more antithetical intellects than Bergaigne and Oldenberg), constitutes not only (in my view) the key to understanding his philological method, but represents the most salient feature of Renou's original contribution to Vedic exegesis generally. His achievement must be weighed as a new syn- thesis, which avoids the pitfalls commonly assigned to Bergaigne (mathematical arbitrariness) and to Oldenberg (historicism carried to excess: incoher- ent collection of instances and individual fact- ology). He finds in the language of the Veda itself sufficient guidance to suggest the bases of a coherent interpretation and translation; the Veda is after all a hymnology. The view it expresses of its own context, of its relation to rite, ritual, myth, ideology, is its own and is not perfectly intelligible through forms principally adapted to the study of any of these " contents." Renou believes, as few have dared to believe, in the autonomy of the Veda; and yet his approach is far more consistent with the facts (or rather, with the absence of facts) than those approaches which ostentatiously display their " objective " foundation.



Gmtow: Renou's Place in Vedic Exegetical Tradition 333

The study of the Veda, as ever, is the study of paradox. Those approaches which accept the paradoxes wholeheartedly are the most successful.

These translations rank as the most explicit, clearest, most systematic, ever published of the 13gVeda. Their defects, as with every great work of scholarship, follow from their achievements and not, irrelevantly, in spite of them. They do not read elegantly and will not be compared favorably with those of Geldner; as literary translations, they are not successful. Renou has published literary translations of the Veda elsewhere; 89 his purpose here was not to adapt the Veda to the exigencies of twentieth-century French verse. Quite the opposite, these translations aim at the most faithful rendering possible of the Vedic poem, beyond and in spite of the exigencies of the French language. If this involves reducing to the level of statement much that was implied in the original, it is no defect, particularly as Renou has carefully indicated (by parentheses and hyphens)

89Cf. Po~sie Religieuse, Hymnes Speculatif8 du Veda, etc.

his own understandings. More than that, in terms of the exactitude Renou has set as his goal, a " poetic" translation, even of poetry-expressed, that is, in the conventions and expectations of the host language-would have failed utterly; whatever the poetic skills of a translator, they are irrelevant to the philological problem. If Renou's Veda is to be criticized, it will be, primarily, because of the philosophical commitment he brings to Vedic study, and not for his translations or his philology. Within the limitations of his literalism, within his view of what the text is and intends and what aspects of the society and cult it expresses, the present translation is a closely consistent exposition of the RgVeda.

We are still some way from Max Muller's mar- vellous desideratum: "a complete, satisfactory and final translation " of the Veda; certainly, with the publication of Renou's translations, even incom- plete, we come closer than ever; Muller's bleak pessimism (". . . I doubt whether we shall ever obtain it") is to that extent dispelled.9?

90 SBB, vol. 32, p. xi.



renou's place in vedic exegetical tradition

Documents