Sacred Texts  Hinduism  Index  Previous  Next 
Buy this Book at

Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32), by Max Müller, [1891], at

I begin with some mistakes of my own, mistakes which I might have avoided, if I had always consulted the Prâtisâkhya, where single words or whole passages of the Veda are quoted. Some of these mistakes have been removed by Professor Aufrecht, others, however, appear in his transcript as they appear in my own edition.

I need hardly point out passages where palpable misprints in my edition have been repeated in Professor Aufrecht's text. I mean by palpable misprints, cases where a glance at the Pada text or at the Samhitâ text or a reference to Sâyana's commentary would show at once what was intended. Thus, for instance, in VI, 15, 3. vridhé, as I had printed in the Samhitâ, was clearly a misprint for vridhó, as may be seen from the Pada, which gives vridháh, and from Sâyana. Here, though Professor Aufrecht repeats vridhé, I think it hardly necessary to show that the authority of the best MSS. (S 2 alone contains a correction of vridhó to vridhé) is in favour of vridháh, whatever we may think of the relative value of these two readings. One must be careful, however, in a text like that of the Vedic hymns, where the presence or absence of a single letter or accent begins to become

p. lvi

the object of the most learned and painstaking discussions, not to claim too large an indulgence for misprints. A misprint in the Samhitâ, if repeated in the Pada, or if admitted even in the commentary of Sâyana, though it need not be put down to the editor's deplorable ignorance, becomes yet a serious matter, and I willingly take all the blame which is justly due for occasional accidents of this character. Such are, for instance, II, 12, 14, sasamânám instead of sasamánâm; I, 124, 4, sudhyúvah, in the Pada, instead of sundhyúvah; and the substitution in several places of a short u instead of a long û in such forms as sûsávâma, when occurring in the Pada; cf. I, 166, 14; 167, 9.

It is clear from the Prâtisâkhya, Sûtra 819 and 163, 5, that the words ûtî´ índra in IV, 29, I, should not be joined together, but that the hiatus should remain. Hence ûtî´ndra, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht's, should be corrected, and the hiatus be preserved, as it is in the fourth verse of the same hymn, ûtî´ itthâ´. MSS. S 1, S 3 are right; in S 2 the words are joined.

It follows from Sûtra 799 that to double the y in vaiyasva is a mistake, but a mistake which had to be pointed out and guarded against as early as the time of the Prâtisâkhya. In VIII, 26, 11, therefore, vaiyyasvásya, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht's, should be changed to vaiyasvásya. MSS. S 1, S 3 are right, likewise P 1, P 2; but S 2 has the double mistake vayyasvásya, as described in the Prâtisâkhya; another MS. of Wilson's has vaiyy. The same applies to VIII, 23, 24, and VIII, 24, 23. P 1 admits the mistaken spelling vayyasva.

Some corrections that ought to be made in the Padapâtha only, as printed in my edition, are pointed out in a note to Sûtra 738 of the Prâtisâkhya. Thus, according to Sûtra 583, 6, srûyâ´h in the Pada text of II, 10, 2, should be changed to sruyâ´h. MSS. P 1, P 2 have the short u.

In V, 7, 8, I had printed súkih shma, leaving the a of

p. lvii

shma short in accordance with the Prâtisâkhya, Sûtra 514, where a string of words is given before which sma must not be lengthened, and where under No. 11 we find yásmai. Professor Aufrecht has altered this, and gives the â as long, which is wrong. The MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.

Another word before which sma ought not to be lengthened is mâ´vate. Hence, according to Sûtra 514, 14, I ought not to have printed in VI, 65, 4, shmâ mâ´vate, but shma mâ´vate. Here Professor Aufrecht has retained the long â, which is wrong. MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.

It follows from Sûtra 499 that in I, 138, 4, we should not lengthen the vowel of sú. Hence, instead of asyâ´ û shû´ na úpa sâtáye, as printed in my edition and repeated by Professor Aufrecht, we should read asyâ´ û shú na úpa sâtáye. S 1, S 2, S 3 have short u a.

In VII, 31, 4, I had by mistake printed viddhí instead of viddhî´. The same reading is adopted by Professor Aufrecht (II, p. 24), but the authority of the Prâtisâkhya, Sûtra 445, can hardly be overruled. S 1, S 2, S 3 have viddhî´.

While in cases like these, the Prâtisâkhya is an authority which, as far as I can judge, ought to overrule the authority of every MS., however ancient, we must in other cases depend either on the testimony of the best MSS. or be guided, in fixing on the right reading, by Sâyana and the rules of grammar. I shall therefore, in cases where I cannot consider Professor Aufrecht's readings as authoritative improvements, have to give my reasons why I adhere to the readings which I had originally adopted.

In V, 9, 4, I had printed by mistake purú yó instead of purû´ yó. I had, however, corrected this misprint in my edition of the Prâtisâkhya, 393, 532. Professor Aufrecht decides in favour of purú with a short u, but against the authority of the MSS., S 1, S 2, S 3, which have purû´.

p. lviii

It was certainly a great mistake of mine, though it may seem more excusable in a Romanised transcript, that I did not follow the writers of the best MSS. in their use of the Avagraha, or, I should rather say, of that sign which, as far as the Veda is concerned, is very wrongly designated by the name of Avagraha. Avagraha, according to the Prâtisâkhya, never occurs in the Samhitâ text, but is the name given to that halt, stoppage, or pause which in the Pada text separates the component parts of compound words. That pause has the length of one short vowel, i. e. one mâtrâ. Of course, nothing is said by the Prâtisâkhya as to how the pause should be represented graphically, but it is several times alluded to as of importance in the recitation and accentuation of the Veda. What we have been in the habit of calling Avagraha is by the writers of certain MSS. of the Samhitâ text used as the sign of the Vivritti or hiatus. This hiatus, however, is very different from the Avagraha, for while the Avagraha has the length of one mâtrâ, the Vivritti or hiatus has the length of ¼ mâtrâ, if the two vowels are short; of ½ mâtrâ, if either vowel is long; of ¾ mâtrâ, if both vowels are long. Now I have several times called attention to the fact that though this hiatus is marked in certain MSS. by the sign , I have in my edition omitted it, because I thought that the hiatus spoke for itself and did not require a sign to attract the attention of European readers; while, on the contrary, I have inserted that sign where MSS. hardly ever use it, viz. when a short initial a is elided after a final e or o; (see my remarks on pp. 36, 39. of my edition of the Prâtisâkhya.) Although I thought, and still think, that this use of the sign . is more useful for practical purposes, yet I regret that, in this one particular, I should have deviated from the authority of the best MSS., and caused some misunderstandings on the part of those who have made use of my edition. If, for instance, I had placed the sign of the Vivritti, the , in its proper place, or if, at least, I had not inserted it where, as we say. The initial a has been elided after e or o, Professor Bollensen would have seen at once that the authors of the Prâtisâkhyas fully agree with him in looking on this change, not as an

p. lix

elision, but as a contraction. If, as sometimes happens, final o or e remain unchanged before initial short a, this is called the Pañkâla and Prâkya padavritti (Sutra 137). If, on the contrary, final o or e become one (ekîbhavati) with the initial short a, this is called the Abhinihita sandhi (Sutra 138). While the former, the hiatus of the Pañkâla and Eastern schools, is marked by the writers of several MSS. by the sign , the Abhinihita sandhi, being a sandhi, is not marked by any sign a.

I, 3, 12. râ´gati (Aufr. p. 2) instead of râgati (M. M. vol. i, p. 75) is wrong.

I, 7, 9. ya ékah (Aufr. p. 5) should be ya. ékah (M. M. vol. i, p. 110), because the relative pronoun is never without an accent. The relative particle yathâ may be without an accent, if it stands at the end of a pâda; and though there are exceptions to this rule, yet in VIII, 21, 5, where Professor Aufrecht gives yathâ, the MSS. are unanimous in favour of yathâ (M. M. vol. iv, p. 480). See Phit-sutra, ed. Kielhorn, p. 54.

I, 10, 11. â tû´ (Aufr. p. 7) should be â´ tû´ (M. M. vol. i, p. 139), because â is never without the accent.

I, 10, 12. gúshtâh, which Professor Aufrecht specially mentions as having no final Visarga in the Pada, has the Visarga in all the MSS., (Aufr. p. 7, M. M. vol. i. p. 140.)

I, 11, 4. kávir (Aufr. p. 7) should be kavír (M. M. vol. i, p. 143).

I, 22, 8, read râ´dhâmsi.

I, 40, 1 and 6. There is no excuse for the accent either on tvémahe or on vókema, while sákân̐ in I, 51, 11, ought to have the accent on the first syllable.

I, 49, 3. Rosen was right in not eliding the a in divó ántebhyah. S 1, S 2,S 3 preserve the initial a, nor does the Prâtisâkhya anywhere provide for its suppression.

I, 54, 8. kshátram (Aufr. p. 46) is a mere misprint for kshatrám.

p. lx

I, 55, 7. vandanasrúd (Aufr. p. 47) instead of vandanasrud (M. M. vol. i, p. 514) is wrong.

I, 57, 2. samâ´sîta instead of samásîta had been corrected in my reprint of the first Mandala, published at Leipzig. See Bollensen, Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 626.

I, 61, 7, read víshnuh; I, 64, 2, read súkayah; I, 64, 5, read dhû´tayah.

I, 61, 16. Rosen had rightly printed hâriyoganâ with a long â both in the Samhitâ and Pada texts, and I ought not to have given the short a instead. All the MSS., S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1, and P 2, give the long â. Professor Aufrecht gives the short a in the Pada, which is wrong.

I, 67, 2 (4). vidántîm (M. M. vol. i, p. 595) is perfectly right, as far as the authority of the MSS. and of Sâyana is concerned, and should not have been altered to vindántîm (Aufr. p. 57).

I, 72, 2, read vatsám; I, 72, 6, read pasû´ñ; I, 76, 3, read dhákshy; I, 82, 1, read yadâ´.

I, 83, 3. Rosen was right in giving ásamyattah. I gave ásamyatah on the authority of P 1, but all the other MSS. have tt.

I, 84, 1. indra (Aufr. p. 68) cannot have the accent on the first syllable, because it does not stand at the beginning of a pâda (M. M. vol. i, p. 677). The same applies to índra, VI, 41, 4, (Aufr. pt 429) instead of indra (M. M. vol. iii, p. 734); to ágne, I, 140, 12, (Aufr. p. 130) instead of agne (M. M. vol. ii, p. 133). In III, 36, 3, on the contrary, indra, being at the head of a pâda, ought to have the accent on the first syllable, índra (M. M. vol. ii, p. 855), not indra (Aufr. p. 249). The same mistake occurs again, III, 36, 10 (Aufr. p. 250); IV, 32, 7, (Aufr. p. 305); IV, 32, 12, (Aufr. p. 305); VIII, 3, 12, (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 86). In V, 61, 1, narah should have no accent; whereas in VII, 91, 3, it should have the accent on the first syllable. In VIII, 8, 19, vipanyû should have no accent, and Professor Aufrecht gives it correctly in the notes, where he has likewise very properly removed the Avagraha which I had inserted.

I, 88, 1, read yâta (M. M. vol. i, p. 708), not yâtha (Aufr. p. 72).

p. lxi

I, 90, 1, read rigunîtî´; I, 94, 11, read yavasâ´do (M. M. vol. i, p. 766), not yavasâ´do (Aufr. p. 80).

I, 118, 9. abhibhû´tim (Aufr. p. 105) instead of abhíbhûtim (M. M. vol. i, p. 957) cannot be right, considering that in all other passages abhíbhûti has the accent on the second syllable. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the accent on the i.

I, 128, 4. ghritasrîr (Aufr. p. 117) instead of ghritasrî´r (M. M. vol. ii, p. 52) is wrong.

I, 144, 2, read párîvrih (M. M. vol. ii, p. 155) instead of parî´vrih (Aufr. p. 133).

I, 145, 5. Professor Aufrecht (p. 134) gives upamasyâ´m, both in the Samhitâ and Pada texts, as having the accent on the last syllable. I had placed the accent on the penultimate, (Pada, upa-másyâm, vol. ii, p. 161,) and whatever may be the reading of other MSS., this is the only possible accentuation. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the right accent.

I, 148, 4. pûrû´ni (Aufr. p. 136) instead of purû´ni (M. M. vol. ii, p. 170) does not rest, as far as I know, on the authority of any MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have purû´ni.

I, 151, 7. gakkhatho (Aufr. p. 137) should be gákkhatho (M. M. vol. ii, p. 181).

I, 161, 12. All the Pada MSS. read prá ábravît, separating the two words and accentuating each. Though the accent is irregular, yet, considering the peculiar construction of the verse, in which pra and pro are used as adverbs rather than as prepositions, I should not venture with Professor Aufrecht (p. 144) to write prá abravît. The MSS. likewise have â´ ágagan, I, 161, 4; and prá ágâh, VIII, 48, 2, not prá agâh, as Aufrecht gives in his second edition.

I, 163, 11. dhrágîman (Aufr. p. 147) instead of dhrágîmân (M. M. vol. ii, p. 245) is wrong.

I, 163, 13. gamyâ (Aufr. p. 148) instead of gamyâ´ (M. M. vol. ii, p. 246) is wrong.

I, 164, 17, read párena (M. M. vol. ii, p. 259) instead of paréna (Aufr. p. 149).

I, 164, 38. The first kikyúh ought to have the accent, and has it in all the MSS., (Aufr. p. 151, M. M. vol. ii, p. 278.)

I, 165, 5. A mere change of accent may seem a small

p. lxii

matter, yet it is frequently of the highest importance in the interpretation of the Veda. Thus in I, 165, 5, I had, in accordance with the MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3, printed étân (vol. ii, p. 293) with the accent on the first syllable. Professor Aufrecht alters this into etâ´n (p. 153), which, no doubt, would be the right form, if it were intended for the accusative plural of the pronoun, but not if it is meant, as it is here, for the accusative plural of éta, the speckled deer of the Maruts.

I, 165, 15. yâsishta (Aufr. p. 154) instead of yâsîshta (M. M. vol. ii, p. 298) is not supported by any MS.

I, 169, 7, instead of patayánta (Aufr. p. 158), read patáyanta (M. M. vol. ii, p. 322).

I, 174, 7. kúyâvâkam (Aufr. p. 162) should be kúyavâkam (M. M. vol. ii, p. 340).

I, 177, 1. yuktâ´, which I had adopted from MS. S 3 (prima manu), is not supported by other MSS., though P 2 reads yuttkâ´. Professor Aufrecht, who had retained yuktâ´ in the text, has afterwards corrected it to yuktvâ´, and in this he was right. In I, 177, 2, gâhi for yâhi is wrong.

I, 188, 4. astrinan (Aufr. p. 171) instead of astrinan (M. M. vol. ii, p. 395) can only be a misprint.

II, 29, 6. kártâd (Aufr. p. 203) instead of kartâ´d (M. M. vol. ii, p. 560) is wrong.

II, 40, 4. kakra (Aufr. p. 214) instead of kakrá (M. M. vol. ii, p. 614) is wrong.

III, 7, 7. guh (Aufr. p. 226) instead of gúh (M. M. vol. ii, p. 666) is wrong; likewise III, 30, 10, gâh (Aufr. p. 241) instead of gâ´h (M. M. vol. ii, p. 792).

III, 17, 1. igyate (Aufr. p. 232) instead of agyate (M. M. vol. ii, p. 722) is impossible.

III, 47, 1. Professor Aufrecht (p. 256) puts the nominative índro instead of the vocative indra, which I had given (vol. ii, p. 902). I doubt whether any MSS. support that change (S 1, S 2, S 3 have indra), but it is clear that Sâyana takes indra as a vocative, and likewise the Nirukta.

III, 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Samhitâ and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1,

p. lxiii

[paragraph continues] P 2) give it with the accent on the last syllable (M. M. vol. ii, p. 912), and this no doubt is right. The same mistake occurs again in III, 51, 10, (Aufr. p. 259); IV, 5, 11, (Aufr. p. 281); IV, 36, 2, (Aufr. p. 309); V, 12, 3, (Aufr. p. 337); while in VIII, 103, 9, (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 195) the MSS. consistently give asya as unaccented, whereas Professor Aufrecht, in this very passage, places the accent on the last syllable. On the same page (p. 259) amandan, in the Pada, is a misprint for ámandan.

III, 53, 18. asi (Aufr. p. 262) instead of ási (M. M. vol. ii, p. 934) is wrong, because hí requires that the accent should remain on ási. S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1, P 2 have ási.

IV, 4, 7. svá â´yushe (Aufr. p. 279) instead of svá â´yushi (M. M. vol. iii, p. 37) is not supported by any good MSS., nor required by the sense of the passage. S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1, P 2 have â´yushi.

IV, 5, 7. árupitam, in the Pada, (Aufr. p. 280) instead of â´rupitam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 45) is right, as had been shown in the Prâtisâkhya, Sûtra 179, though by a misprint the long â of the Samhitâ had been put in the place of the short a of the Pada.

IV, 5, 9. read gaúh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 46) instead of góh (Aufr. p. 281).

IV, 15, 2. yâ´ti, with the accent on the first syllable, is supported by all MSS. against yâti (Aufr. p. 287). The same applies to yâ´ti in IV, 29, 2, and to várante in IV, 31, 9.

IV, 18, 11. amî, without any accent (Aufr. p. 293), instead of amî´ (M. M. vol. iii, p. 105) is wrong, because amî´ is never unaccented.

IV, 21, 9. no, without an accent (Aufr. p. 296), instead of nó (M. M. vol. iii, p. 120) is wrong.

IV, 26, 3. átithigvam (Aufr. p. 300) instead of atithigvám (M. M. vol. iii, p. 140) and VI, 47, 22, átithigvasya (Aufr. p. 437) instead of atithigvásya (M. M. vol. iii, p. 776) are wrong, far atithigvá never occurs again except with the accent on the last syllable. The MSS. do not vary. Nor do they vary in the accentuation of kútsa: hence kutsám (Aufr. p. 300) should be kútsam (M. M. vol. iii p. 139).

p. xliv

IV, 36, 6. Professor Aufrecht (p. 309) has altered the accent of â´vishuh into âvishúh, but the MSS. are unanimous in favour of â´vishuh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 181).

Again in IV, 41, 9, the MSS. support the accentuation of ágman (M. M. vol. iii, p. 200), while Professor Aufrecht (p. 313) has altered it to agman.

IV, 42, 9. ádâsat, being preceded by hí, ought to have the accent; (Aufrecht, p. 314, has adâsat without the accent.) For the same reason, V, 29, 3, ávindat (M. M. vol. iii, p. 342) ought not to have been altered to avindat (Aufr. p. 344).

IV, 50, 4. vyóman is a misprint for vyòman.

V, 15, 5. Professor Aufrecht (p. 338) writes dîrghám instead of dógham (M. M. vol. iii, p. 314). This, no doubt, was done intentionally, and not by accident, as we see from the change of accent. But dógham, though it occurs but once, is supported in this place by all the best MSS., and has been accepted by Professor Roth in his Dictionary.

V, 34, 4. práyato (Aufr. p. 351) instead of práyatâ (M. M. vol. iii, p. 371) is wrong.

V, 42, 9. visármânam (Aufr. p. 358) instead of visarmâ´nam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 402) is wrong.

V, 44, 4. parvané (Aufr. p. 360) instead of pravané (M. M. vol. iii, p. 415) is wrong.

V, 83, 4. vânti (Aufr. p. 389) instead of vâ´nti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 554) is supported by no MSS.

V, 85, 6. âsíñkantîh (Aufr. p. 391) instead of âsiñkántîh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 560) is not supported either by MSS. or by grammar, as siñk belongs to the Tud-class. On the same grounds isháyantah, VI, 16, 27 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 638), ought not to have been changed to ishayántah (Aufr. p. 408), nor VI, 24, 7, avakarsáyanti (Ni. M. vol. iii, p. 687) into avakársayanti (Aufr. p. 418).

VI,. 46, 10, read girvanas (M. M. vol. iii, p. 763) instead of gírvanas (Aufr. p. 435).

VI, 60, 10. krinoti (Aufr. p. 450) instead of krinóti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 839) is wrong.

VII, 40, 4. aryamâ´ â´pah (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 35), in the Pada instead of aryamâ´ ápah (M. M. vol. iv, p. 81) is wrong.

p. lxv

VII, 51, 1. âdityânâ´m (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 40) instead of âdityâ´nâm (M. M. vol. iv, p. 103) is wrong.

VII, 64, 2. ilâ´m (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 50) instead of ílâm (M. M. vol. iv, p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gopâh in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gopâ.

VII, 66, 5. yó (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 51) instead of yé (M. M. vol. iv, p. 151) is indeed supported by S 3, but evidently untenable on account of atipíprati.

VII, 72, 3. In abudhran Professor Aufrecht has properly altered the wrong spelling abudhnan; and, as far as the authority of the best MSS. is concerned (S 1, S 2, S 3), he is also right in putting a final n, although Professor Bollensen prefers the dental n; (Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 599.) The fact is that Vedic MSS. use the Anusvâra dot for final nasals before all class-letters, and leave it to us to interpret that dot according to the letter which follows. Before I felt quite certain on this point, I have in several cases retained the dot, as given by the MSS., instead of changing it, as I ought to have done according to my system of writing Devânagarî, into the corresponding nasal, provided it represents an original n. In I, 71, 1, S 2, S 3 have the dot in agushran, but S 1 has dental n. In IX, 87, 5, asrigran has the dot; i. e. S 1 has the dot, and nkh, dental n joined to kh; S 2 has nkh without the dot before the n; S 3 has the dot, and then kh. In IV, 24, 6, the spelling of the Samhitâ ávivenam tám would leave it doubtful whether we ought to read ávivenan tám or ávivenam tám; S 1 and S 3 read ávivenamm, but S 2 has ávivenan tám; P 2 has ávi-venan tám, and P 1 had the same originally, though a later hand changed it to ávi-venamm. In IV, 25, 3, on the contrary, S 1 and S 3 write ávivenam; S 2, ávivenam; P i and P 2, ávi-venam. What is intended is clear enough, viz. ávi-venan in IV, 24, 6; ávi-venam in IV, 25, 3. [In the new edition ávivenam has been left in both passages.]

VII, 73 1. asvinâ (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 56) instead of asvínâ (M. M. vol. iv, p. 176) is wrong. On the same page, dhíshnye, VII, 72, 3, should have the accent on the first syllable.

VII, 77, 1. In this verse, which has been so often discussed

p. lxvi

[paragraph continues] (see Kuhn, Beiträge, vol. iii, p. 472; Böhtlingk and Roth, Dictionary, vol. ii, p. 968; Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p. 463), all the MSS. which I know, read karâ´yai, and not either karâ´thai nor garâ´yai.

VIII, 2, 29. kîrínam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 84) instead of kârínam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 308) does not rest on the authority of any MSS., nor is it supported by Sâyana.

VIII, 9, 9. Professor Aufrecht has altered the very important form âkukyuvîmáhi (M. M. vol. iv, p. 389) to âkukyavîmáhi (vol. ii, p. 98). The question is whether this was done intentionally and on the authority of any MSS. My own MSS. support the form âkukyuvîmáhi, and I see that Professor Roth accepts this form.

VIII, 32, 14. âyántâram (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 129) instead of âyantâ´ram (M. M. vol. iv, p. 567) is wrong.

VIII, 47, 15. dushvápnyam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 151) is not so correct as duhshvápnyam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 660), or, better, dushshvápnyam (Prâtisâkhya, Sûtras 255 and 364), though it is perfectly true that the MSS. write dushvápnyam.

[I ought to state that all these errata have been corrected by Professor Aufrecht in his second edition.]

In the ninth and tenth Mandalas I have not to defend myself, and I need not therefore give a list of the passages where I think that Professor Aufrecht's text is not supported by the best MSS. My own edition of these Mandalas will soon be published, and I need hardly say that where it differs from Professor Aufrecht's text, I am prepared to show that I had the best authorities on my side.

Professor Aufrecht writes in the second edition of his Romanised text of the Rig-veda (p. iv): 'Um den Herren, My own mistakes.die diese Druckfehler in majorem gloriam suam mit so grosser Schonung hervorgehoben haben, einen Gegendienst zu erweisen, bemerke ich einige derselben.' Dieser Gegendienst, so gut er gemeint war, ist leider nicht sehr bedeutend ausgefallen, auch nicht immer in majorem gloriam Catonis.

In I, 161, 2, Professor Aufrecht objects to katuras krinotana. I felt doubtful about it, and in the commentary I printed katurah krinotana. In IV, 33, 5, the reading

p. lxvii

katus kara is sanctioned by the authority of the Prâtisâkhya, Sûtra 281, 4.

In I, 181, 5, Aufrecht prefers mathrâ; Sâyana, Böhtlingk and Roth, and I prefer mathnâ.

In II, II, 10, he has discovered that gûrvît was meant for gûrvât. Whitney still quotes gûrvît.

In III, 9, 4, he has discovered that apsu should be psu; but this had been already corrected.

In III, 25, 2, the final a of vaha ought to be long in the Samhitâ.

In IV, 19, 4, instead of drilhâ ni read drilhâni.

In VII, 33, 2, instead of avrinîtâ read vrinîtâ.

In VII, 35, 13, the Visarga in devagopâh should be deleted.

In VII, 42, 2, the Anusvâra in yumkshvâ should be deleted.

In VIII, 2, 30, the anudâttatara should be shifted from the ultimate to the penultimate, dadhiré, not dadhire.

In VIII, 51, 3, avishyanta was meant for arishyantam.

In VIII, 55, 5, for na read â. The MSS. vary in both cases.

In IX, 108, 7, in vanakraksha, the kra was printed as ri. Professor Aufrecht might have seen it correctly printed in the index. Sâyana read vanariksha.

In X, 28, 11, Professor Aufrecht thinks that the Pada should have godhâh instead of godhâ. I think godhâ is right, in spite of Professor Aufrecht's appeal to the silence of the Prâtisâkhya. The fact is that godhâh never occurs, while godhâ occurs in the preceding verse, and again VIII, 69, 9.

After such a flourish of trumpets, we expected more from Professor Aufrecht; still we must learn to be grateful even for small mercies.


lvii:a In the same verse, I, 138, 4, the shu in ó shú tvâ should not be lengthened, for there is no rule, as far as I can see, in the Prâtisâkhya that would require the lengthening of sú before tvâ. See Prâtisâkhya, 495.

lix:a As to the system or want of system, according to which the Abhinihita sandhi takes place in the Samhitâ, see p. xlviii seq.

Next: Part 5