More On Jamison’s Motivated Mistranslation of the Rigvedic Word “aráti”

 

More On Jamison’s Motivated Mistranslation of the Rigvedic Word “aráti”

 Shrikant G. Talageri

 

I had earlier written and uploaded an article “An Incredibly Blatant Mistranslation in Jamison’s Translations of the Rigveda” on 2 May 2022: 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/05/an-incredibly-blatan-mistranslation-in.html

In this I pointed out how Jamison deliberately mistranslates a word “aráti” in the Rigveda as “spoked wheel” instead of, as done by all other scholars, as “messenger”, “servant” or “ruler”:

 

As an illustration, see how the other eminent western academic translators of the Rigveda have translated this word. For that we will take the first half of one of the verses, I.59.2: mūrdhā divo nābhir agnih pṛthivyā athābhavad aratī rodasyoh.

Griffith: "The forehead of the sky, earth's center, Agni became the messenger of earth and heaven".

Wilson: "Agni the head of heaven, the navel of earth, became the ruler over both earth and heaven".

Grassmann: Des Himmels Haupt, der Erde Nabel, agni, ist beider Welten Diener er gewarden:

"The head of heaven, the navel of earth, Agni has become the servant of both worlds".

Geldner: Das Haupt des Himmels, der Nabel der Erde ist Agni, und er war der Lenker beider Welten:

"The head of heaven, the navel of the earth is Agni, and he was the ruler of both worlds".

Contrast this with Jamison's motivated mistranslation:

"The head of heaven the navel of the earth is Agni. And he became the spoked wheel of the two world-halves".

 

Note also what two prominent western Sanskrit-English dictionaries have to say:

Monier Williams: "'moving quickly'; a servant, assistant, manager, administrator".

Cappeller: "1. assistant, minister, disposer. 2. discomfort, uneasiness".

Obviously, after uploading the above article, I expected the usual stonewalling from Jamison that I have come to inevitably expect from western academicians in matters where their position is extremely shaky.

 

However, someone else apparently took up the matter with Jamison, and has now received the following reply from her:

“Dictionaries: Monier-Williams, etc. are seriously out of date and they never were accurate for the meanings of Vedic words (whose meanings often differ significantly from those of their much later Epic and classical counterparts). Rigvedic lexicography has proceeded word by word, and much of our understanding of the meanings of those words has changed in the last half century or so.

My interpretation of the word arati is based on the analysis of the German Vedicist Paul Thieme, and it has been incorporated into the standard etymological dictionary of Sanskrit, that of Manfred Mayrhofer 1986-96, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, 3 vols, Heidelberg, Carl Winter [=Mayrhofer EWA].”

This verbatim reply reached me through other (reliable) sources as an explanation for Jamison’s translation of the word.

 

Let us examine this reply in detail:

1. “Dictionaries: Monier-Williams, etc. are seriously out of date and they never were accurate for the meanings of Vedic words (whose meanings often differ significantly from those of their much later Epic and classical counterparts)”.

This sweeping dismissal of the (extremely sincere even when often wrong) traditional western Indologists is exactly in line with similar dismissals (particularly of Monier-Williams and Griffith) by unscholarly Hindu critics. And what she writes is blatantly false:

Firstly, Monier-Williams is perfectly aware of the difference between “Vedic words” and “their much later Epic and classical counterparts”, and frequently points out these differences in his work. About this particular word, he points out (MONIER-WILLIAMS 1899:87) that it is a word occurring only in the Rigveda, and that it means “‘moving quickly’, a servant, assistant, manager, administrator”, sharply distinguishing it very clearly from its “much later Epic and classical counterpart” (MONIER-WILLIAMS 1899:86) which means “dissatisfaction, discontent, dullness, languor”!

Further, it is not only Monier-Williams. As we saw above, Cappeller, whose dictionary is even more emphatically Vedic but also incorporates Classical Sanskrit meanings, gives us in one place both the “Vedic” and the “much later Epic and classical” meanings. Further, see above, Wilson, Griffith, Grassmann and Geldner also fully agree with the above meaning in their translations. Likewise, Louis Renou, in his monumental etymological study, also gives the same meaning and specifically distinguishes it from the post-Vedic meaning. Are all these extremely scholarly and erudite Indologists also “outdated”?

 

2. “Rigvedic lexicography has proceeded word by word, and much of our understanding of the meanings of those words has changed in the last half century or so.”.

Oh really! What exactly is the revolutionary new etymological discovery from “the last half century or so” which shows that the word aráti in the Rigveda means precisely and specifically “spoked wheel”? And how does it override and disprove the unanimous interpretation of all those earlier Indologists? It is unfortunate that Jamison chooses to make such sweeping and unsubstantiated statements without deeper elaboration.  

 

3. “My interpretation of the word arati is based on the analysis of the German Vedicist Paul Thieme, and it has been incorporated into the standard etymological dictionary of Sanskrit, that of Manfred Mayrhofer 1986-96, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, 3 vols, Heidelberg, Carl Winter [=Mayrhofer EWA].”

Yes, it is true that Thieme suggests that the word “arati” is derived from the word “ara”, thereby going against the opinions of all other Indologists. But his purely subjective method, as a search on Google shows us, was to treat the word as “a structural and concrete physical metaphor rather than an abstract ritual concept …. He analyzes it as a secondary collective abstract noun formed by adding the suffix -ti- to ará- …. He argued that the "spoked wheel" serves as a vivid visual symbol for the ritual fire pit or the radiating, moving nature of the flames …. By viewing Agni as the aratí-, the Rigvedic poets were conceptualizing the fire god as the central hub or the driving wheel connecting the earthly ritual domain with the heavenly realm”. And, in fact, the only reason his interpretation is considered is because Jamison took it up: “Thieme's structural derivation from ará- ("spoke") has been widely adopted by modern Vedic translators—such as Stephanie Jamison and Joel Brereton—who consistently render aratí- as the "spoked wheel" in their definitive English translation of the Rigveda” (Joel Brereton is the co-author of Jamison’s book!).

In the process, Jamison pushes in another half-lie. She cites Thieme’s interpretation as having been “incorporated into the standard etymological dictionary of Sanskrit, that of Manfred Mayrhofer 1986-96, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, 3 vols, Heidelberg, Carl Winter [=Mayrhofer EWA].”

But Mayrhofer merely mentions Thieme’s interpretation. He not only does not endorse it, but in fact he endorses the opposite viewpoint of all the other Indologists. A question on Google “How does Mayrhofer explain the etymology of the Rigvedic word arati?” gives us the following “Google AI Overview Reply”:

 “In his monumental work, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (EWAia), the renowned Austrian Indologist Manfred Mayrhofer breaks down the etymology of the Rigvedic word aráti- by fundamentally treating it as a compound. [1, 2]

Unlike later Classical Sanskrit meanings for arati (often derived as a-rati meaning "displeasure" or "languor" from the root ram), the distinct Rigvedic aráti-—which usually appears in contexts associated with the fire god Agni as a divine servant, messenger, or cosmic manager—is analyzed by Mayrhofer as follows: [1, 2]

1. The Morphological Structure

Mayrhofer explains the word as a composite of:

·         The Prefix / Particle: The directive element ā- (meaning "to, toward, near").

·         The Root: The common Proto-Indo-European verbal root *h₂er- (Sanskrit root ṛ-), which carries the meaning "to fit, arrange, reach, or move".

·         The Suffix: The deverbative nominal suffix -ti-, which forms abstract nouns of action or agency. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Through this composition, the word etymologically morphs from an abstract action ("an arranging, a fitting, service") into a concrete agent noun meaning "the one who arranges," "servant," or "steward." [1]

2. Connection to arí- and árya-

Mayrhofer systematically contextualizes aráti- alongside a complex cluster of other highly debated Rigvedic terms, specifically arí- (master/rival) and árya- / ā́rya- (noble/kinsman). Following the comparative semantic lineages established by earlier linguists like Paul Thieme, Mayrhofer tracks how the core idea of "fitting together" or "attaching oneself to a social structure" directly informs these related terms. [1, 2, 3]

3. Distinct from Post-Vedic a-rati

Mayrhofer explicitly separates this specific Rigvedic cultic term from the homonymic post-Vedic term arati (a- + rati), which means "displeasure," "discontent," or "restlessness". While the latter relies on the negative prefix a- attached to the root ram ("to rest, enjoy"), Mayrhofer proves that the oldest layers of the Rigveda treat aráti- as a positive or functional attribute representing active cosmic management, stewardship, or priesthood—often bridging the gap between mortals and gods.”

[Note also that, just like Monier-Williams and Cappeller, Mayrhofer also specifically distinguishes the Vedic meaning from the “much later Epic and classical” ones].

 

Apart from everything else, note the starkly different distributions of the word ara and arati in the Rigveda, the former being found only in the New Rigveda and the latter found distributed everywhere in both the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda:

Ara:

I. 32.15; 141.9; 164.11-13

V. 13.6; 58.5.

VIII. 20.14; 77.3.

X. 78.4.

 

Arati:

I. 58.7;  59.2;  128.6,8.

II.2.2,3;  4.2.

III.17.4.

IV.1.1;  2.1;  38.4.

V.2.1.

VI.3.5; 7.1;  12.3;  15.4;  49.2;  67.8.

VII.5.1;  10.3;  16.1.

VIII.19.1,21.

X.3.1,2,6,7;  45.7;  46.4;  61.20.

And an examination of Jamison’s translation shows:

1. The translations of arati make absolutely zero sense if the word is to be taken to mean “spoked wheel”.

2. In fact, in five of the occurrences of the word arati (highlighted in yellow above), she finds it so impossible to translate the word as “spoked wheel” that she simply avoids doing so!

 

In short, the present-day western academic Indological scholarship, as exemplified by Jamison, simply goes around making sweeping interpretations without any basis, and when caught out, simply refuses to accept facts and admit her mistake, and continues to reiterate those misinterpretations boldly and brazenly, and with a superior air.   

At the same time, scholars whose analyses lead them to conclusions unpalatable to the established ideological caucus in the world of western academic Indological scholarship, are compelled to take back their words (howsoever unwillingly, stammeringly and unconvincingly). The prime example is that of the eminent scholar Johanna Nichols:

In her very detailed and complex linguistic study, appropriately entitled "The Epicentre of the Indo-European Linguistic Spread", Johanna Nichols and a team of linguists, in 1997, examined ancient loan-words from West Asia (Semitic and Sumerian) found in Indo-European and also in other language families like Caucasian (with three separate groups Kartvelian, Abkhaz-Circassian and Nakh-Daghestanian), and the mode and form of transmission of these loan-words into the Indo-European family as a whole as well as into particular branches, and combines this with the evidence of the spread of Uralic and its connections with Indo-European, and with several kinds of other linguistic evidence:

"Several kinds of evidence for the PIE locus have been presented here. Ancient loanwords point to a locus along the desert trajectory, not particularly close to Mesopotamia and probably far out in the eastern hinterlands. The structure of the family tree, the accumulation of genetic diversity at the western periphery of the range, the location of Tocharian and its implications for early dialect geography, the early attestation of Anatolian in Asia Minor, and the geography of the centum-satem split all point in the same direction [….]: the long-standing westward trajectories of languages point to an eastward locus, and the spread of IE along all three trajectories points to a locus well to the east of the Caspian Sea. The satem shift also spread from a locus to the south-east of the Caspian, with satem languages showing up as later entrants along all three trajectory terminals. (The satem shift is a post-PIE but very early IE development). The locus of the IE spread was therefore somewhere in the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana." (NICHOLS 1997:137).

[i.e. in the very area outside the exit point from Afghanistan into Central Asia indicated by the data in the Puranas regarding the emigration of the Druhyu tribes].

 

After she was quoted in OIT papers, she was forced to “retract” (her own word for it): 

"PARTIAL RETRACTION:

The theory of an east Caspian center of the IE spread argued for here is untenable and with much regret I retract it. It's a beautiful theory that accounts elegantly for a great deal of the dynamic and linguistic geography of the IE spread, but it conflicts with essential archaeological and etymological facts. The paper that convinced me to abandon it is:

Darden, Bill J. 2001. On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo-Hittite, Robert Drews, ed., Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family, 184-228. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.

The rest of both chapters still stands, but the east Caspian locus is post-PIE. The PIE homeland was on the western steppe."

 

https://www.academia.edu/18306905/The_Eurasian_spread_zone_and_the_Indo-European_dispersal