{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe32/sbe3207.htm","path":"hin/sbe32/sbe3207.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe32/sbe3207.htm","text":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32), by Max M\u00fcller, [1891]\nI begin with some mistakes of my own, mistakes which I might have avoided, if I had always consulted the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, 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.\nI 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 Samhit\u00e2 text or a reference to S\u00e2yana's commentary would show at once what was intended. Thus, for instance, in VI, 15, 3. vridh\u00e9, as I had printed in the Samhit\u00e2, was clearly a misprint for vridh\u00f3, as may be seen from the Pada, which gives vridh\u00e1h, and from S\u00e2yana. Here, though Professor Aufrecht repeats vridh\u00e9, I think it hardly necessary to show that the authority of the best MSS. (S 2 alone contains a correction of vridh\u00f3 to vridh\u00e9) is in favour of vridh\u00e1h, 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\nthe object of the most learned and painstaking discussions, not to claim too large an indulgence for misprints. A misprint in the Samhit\u00e2, if repeated in the Pada, or if admitted even in the commentary of S\u00e2yana, 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, sasam\u00e2n\u00e1m instead of sasam\u00e1n\u00e2m; I, 124, 4, sudhy\u00favah, in the Pada, instead of sundhy\u00favah; and the substitution in several places of a short u instead of a long \u00fb in such forms as s\u00fbs\u00e1v\u00e2ma, when occurring in the Pada; cf. I, 166, 14; 167, 9.\nIt is clear from the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, S\u00fbtra 819 and 163, 5, that the words \u00fbt\u00ee\u00b4 \u00edndra in IV, 29, I, should not be joined together, but that the hiatus should remain. Hence \u00fbt\u00ee\u00b4ndra, 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, \u00fbt\u00ee\u00b4 itth\u00e2\u00b4. MSS. S 1, S 3 are right; in S 2 the words are joined.\nIt follows from S\u00fbtra 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. In VIII, 26, 11, therefore, vaiyyasv\u00e1sya, as printed in my edition and repeated in Professor Aufrecht's, should be changed to vaiyasv\u00e1sya. MSS. S 1, S 3 are right, likewise P 1, P 2; but S 2 has the double mistake vayyasv\u00e1sya, as described in the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya; 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.\nSome corrections that ought to be made in the Padap\u00e2tha only, as printed in my edition, are pointed out in a note to S\u00fbtra 738 of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. Thus, according to S\u00fbtra 583, 6, sr\u00fby\u00e2\u00b4h in the Pada text of II, 10, 2, should be changed to sruy\u00e2\u00b4h. MSS. P 1, P 2 have the short u.\nIn V, 7, 8, I had printed s\u00fakih shma, leaving the a of\nshma short in accordance with the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, S\u00fbtra 514, where a string of words is given before which sma must not be lengthened, and where under No. 11 we find y\u00e1smai. Professor Aufrecht has altered this, and gives the \u00e2 as long, which is wrong. The MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.\nAnother word before which sma ought not to be lengthened is m\u00e2\u00b4vate. Hence, according to S\u00fbtra 514, 14, I ought not to have printed in VI, 65, 4, shm\u00e2 m\u00e2\u00b4vate, but shma m\u00e2\u00b4vate. Here Professor Aufrecht has retained the long \u00e2, which is wrong. MSS. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the short a.\nIt follows from S\u00fbtra 499 that in I, 138, 4, we should not lengthen the vowel of s\u00fa. Hence, instead of asy\u00e2\u00b4 \u00fb sh\u00fb\u00b4 na \u00fapa s\u00e2t\u00e1ye, as printed in my edition and repeated by Professor Aufrecht, we should read asy\u00e2\u00b4 \u00fb sh\u00fa na \u00fapa s\u00e2t\u00e1ye. S 1, S 2, S 3 have short u a.\nIn VII, 31, 4, I had by mistake printed viddh\u00ed instead of viddh\u00ee\u00b4. The same reading is adopted by Professor Aufrecht (II, p. 24), but the authority of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, S\u00fbtra 445, can hardly be overruled. S 1, S 2, S 3 have viddh\u00ee\u00b4.\nWhile in cases like these, the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 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 S\u00e2yana 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.\nIn V, 9, 4, I had printed by mistake pur\u00fa y\u00f3 instead of pur\u00fb\u00b4 y\u00f3. I had, however, corrected this misprint in my edition of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, 393, 532. Professor Aufrecht decides in favour of pur\u00fa with a short u, but against the authority of the MSS., S 1, S 2, S 3, which have pur\u00fb\u00b4.\nIt 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, never occurs in the Samhit\u00e2 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 m\u00e2tr\u00e2. Of course, nothing is said by the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 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 Samhit\u00e2 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 m\u00e2tr\u00e2, the Vivritti or hiatus has the length of \u00bc m\u00e2tr\u00e2, if the two vowels are short; of \u00bd m\u00e2tr\u00e2, if either vowel is long; of \u00be m\u00e2tr\u00e2, 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 \u093d, 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya.) 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 \u093d, 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khyas fully agree with him in looking on this change, not as an\nelision, but as a contraction. If, as sometimes happens, final o or e remain unchanged before initial short a, this is called the Pa\u00f1k\u00e2la and Pr\u00e2kya padavritti (Sutra 137). If, on the contrary, final o or e become one (ek\u00eebhavati) with the initial short a, this is called the Abhinihita sandhi (Sutra 138). While the former, the hiatus of the Pa\u00f1k\u00e2la and Eastern schools, is marked by the writers of several MSS. by the sign \u093d, the Abhinihita sandhi, being a sandhi, is not marked by any sign a.\nI, 3, 12. r\u00e2\u00b4gati (Aufr. p. 2) instead of r\u00e2gati (M. M. vol. i, p. 75) is wrong.\nI, 7, 9. ya \u00e9kah (Aufr. p. 5) should be ya. \u00e9kah (M. M. vol. i, p. 110), because the relative pronoun is never without an accent. The relative particle yath\u00e2 may be without an accent, if it stands at the end of a p\u00e2da; and though there are exceptions to this rule, yet in VIII, 21, 5, where Professor Aufrecht gives yath\u00e2, the MSS. are unanimous in favour of yath\u00e2 (M. M. vol. iv, p. 480). See Phit-sutra, ed. Kielhorn, p. 54.\nI, 10, 11. \u00e2 t\u00fb\u00b4 (Aufr. p. 7) should be \u00e2\u00b4 t\u00fb\u00b4 (M. M. vol. i, p. 139), because \u00e2 is never without the accent.\nI, 10, 12. g\u00fasht\u00e2h, 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.)\nI, 11, 4. k\u00e1vir (Aufr. p. 7) should be kav\u00edr (M. M. vol. i, p. 143).\nI, 22, 8, read r\u00e2\u00b4dh\u00e2msi.\nI, 40, 1 and 6. There is no excuse for the accent either on tv\u00e9mahe or on v\u00f3kema, while s\u00e1k\u00e2n\u0310 in I, 51, 11, ought to have the accent on the first syllable.\nI, 49, 3. Rosen was right in not eliding the a in div\u00f3 \u00e1ntebhyah. S 1, S 2,S 3 preserve the initial a, nor does the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya anywhere provide for its suppression.\nI, 54, 8. ksh\u00e1tram (Aufr. p. 46) is a mere misprint for kshatr\u00e1m.\nI, 55, 7. vandanasr\u00fad (Aufr. p. 47) instead of vandanasrud (M. M. vol. i, p. 514) is wrong.\nI, 57, 2. sam\u00e2\u00b4s\u00eeta instead of sam\u00e1s\u00eeta had been corrected in my reprint of the first Mandala, published at Leipzig. See Bollensen, Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 626.\nI, 61, 7, read v\u00edshnuh; I, 64, 2, read s\u00fakayah; I, 64, 5, read dh\u00fb\u00b4tayah.\nI, 61, 16. Rosen had rightly printed h\u00e2riyogan\u00e2 with a long \u00e2 both in the Samhit\u00e2 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 \u00e2. Professor Aufrecht gives the short a in the Pada, which is wrong.\nI, 67, 2 (4). vid\u00e1nt\u00eem (M. M. vol. i, p. 595) is perfectly right, as far as the authority of the MSS. and of S\u00e2yana is concerned, and should not have been altered to vind\u00e1nt\u00eem (Aufr. p. 57).\nI, 72, 2, read vats\u00e1m; I, 72, 6, read pas\u00fb\u00b4\u00f1; I, 76, 3, read dh\u00e1kshy; I, 82, 1, read yad\u00e2\u00b4.\nI, 83, 3. Rosen was right in giving \u00e1samyattah. I gave \u00e1samyatah on the authority of P 1, but all the other MSS. have tt.\nI, 84, 1. indra (Aufr. p. 68) cannot have the accent on the first syllable, because it does not stand at the beginning of a p\u00e2da (M. M. vol. i, p. 677). The same applies to \u00edndra, VI, 41, 4, (Aufr. pt 429) instead of indra (M. M. vol. iii, p. 734); to \u00e1gne, 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 p\u00e2da, ought to have the accent on the first syllable, \u00edndra (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, vipany\u00fb 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.\nI, 88, 1, read y\u00e2ta (M. M. vol. i, p. 708), not y\u00e2tha (Aufr. p. 72).\nI, 90, 1, read rigun\u00eet\u00ee\u00b4; I, 94, 11, read yavas\u00e2\u00b4do (M. M. vol. i, p. 766), not yavas\u00e2\u00b4do (Aufr. p. 80).\nI, 118, 9. abhibh\u00fb\u00b4tim (Aufr. p. 105) instead of abh\u00edbh\u00fbtim (M. M. vol. i, p. 957) cannot be right, considering that in all other passages abh\u00edbh\u00fbti has the accent on the second syllable. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the accent on the i.\nI, 128, 4. ghritasr\u00eer (Aufr. p. 117) instead of ghritasr\u00ee\u00b4r (M. M. vol. ii, p. 52) is wrong.\nI, 144, 2, read p\u00e1r\u00eevrit\u00e2h (M. M. vol. ii, p. 155) instead of par\u00ee\u00b4vrit\u00e2h (Aufr. p. 133).\nI, 145, 5. Professor Aufrecht (p. 134) gives upamasy\u00e2\u00b4m, both in the Samhit\u00e2 and Pada texts, as having the accent on the last syllable. I had placed the accent on the penultimate, (Pada, upa-m\u00e1sy\u00e2m, 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.\nI, 148, 4. p\u00fbr\u00fb\u00b4ni (Aufr. p. 136) instead of pur\u00fb\u00b4ni (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 pur\u00fb\u00b4ni.\nI, 151, 7. gakkhatho (Aufr. p. 137) should be g\u00e1kkhatho (M. M. vol. ii, p. 181).\nI, 161, 12. All the Pada MSS. read pr\u00e1 \u00e1brav\u00eet, 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 pr\u00e1 abrav\u00eet. The MSS. likewise have \u00e2\u00b4 \u00e1gagan, I, 161, 4; and pr\u00e1 \u00e1g\u00e2h, VIII, 48, 2, not pr\u00e1 ag\u00e2h, as Aufrecht gives in his second edition.\nI, 163, 11. dhr\u00e1g\u00eeman (Aufr. p. 147) instead of dhr\u00e1g\u00eem\u00e2n (M. M. vol. ii, p. 245) is wrong.\nI, 163, 13. gamy\u00e2 (Aufr. p. 148) instead of gamy\u00e2\u00b4 (M. M. vol. ii, p. 246) is wrong.\nI, 164, 17, read p\u00e1rena (M. M. vol. ii, p. 259) instead of par\u00e9na (Aufr. p. 149).\nI, 164, 38. The first kiky\u00fah ought to have the accent, and has it in all the MSS., (Aufr. p. 151, M. M. vol. ii, p. 278.)\nI, 165, 5. A mere change of accent may seem a small\nmatter, 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 \u00e9t\u00e2n (vol. ii, p. 293) with the accent on the first syllable. Professor Aufrecht alters this into et\u00e2\u00b4n (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 \u00e9ta, the speckled deer of the Maruts.\nI, 165, 15. y\u00e2sishta (Aufr. p. 154) instead of y\u00e2s\u00eeshta (M. M. vol. ii, p. 298) is not supported by any MS.\nI, 169, 7, instead of patay\u00e1nta (Aufr. p. 158), read pat\u00e1yanta (M. M. vol. ii, p. 322).\nI, 174, 7. k\u00fay\u00e2v\u00e2kam (Aufr. p. 162) should be k\u00fayav\u00e2kam (M. M. vol. ii, p. 340).\nI, 177, 1. yukt\u00e2\u00b4, which I had adopted from MS. S 3 (prima manu), is not supported by other MSS., though P 2 reads yuttk\u00e2\u00b4. Professor Aufrecht, who had retained yukt\u00e2\u00b4 in the text, has afterwards corrected it to yuktv\u00e2\u00b4, and in this he was right. In I, 177, 2, g\u00e2hi for y\u00e2hi is wrong.\nI, 188, 4. astrinan (Aufr. p. 171) instead of astrinan (M. M. vol. ii, p. 395) can only be a misprint.\nII, 29, 6. k\u00e1rt\u00e2d (Aufr. p. 203) instead of kart\u00e2\u00b4d (M. M. vol. ii, p. 560) is wrong.\nII, 40, 4. kakra (Aufr. p. 214) instead of kakr\u00e1 (M. M. vol. ii, p. 614) is wrong.\nIII, 7, 7. guh (Aufr. p. 226) instead of g\u00fah (M. M. vol. ii, p. 666) is wrong; likewise III, 30, 10, g\u00e2h (Aufr. p. 241) instead of g\u00e2\u00b4h (M. M. vol. ii, p. 792).\nIII, 17, 1. igyate (Aufr. p. 232) instead of agyate (M. M. vol. ii, p. 722) is impossible.\nIII, 47, 1. Professor Aufrecht (p. 256) puts the nominative \u00edndro 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 S\u00e2yana takes indra as a vocative, and likewise the Nirukta.\nIII, 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Samhit\u00e2 and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1,\n[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 \u00e1mandan.\nIII, 53, 18. asi (Aufr. p. 262) instead of \u00e1si (M. M. vol. ii, p. 934) is wrong, because h\u00ed requires that the accent should remain on \u00e1si. S 1, S 2, S 3, P 1, P 2 have \u00e1si.\nIV, 4, 7. sv\u00e1 \u00e2\u00b4yushe (Aufr. p. 279) instead of sv\u00e1 \u00e2\u00b4yushi (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 \u00e2\u00b4yushi.\nIV, 5, 7. \u00e1rupitam, in the Pada, (Aufr. p. 280) instead of \u00e2\u00b4rupitam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 45) is right, as had been shown in the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, S\u00fbtra 179, though by a misprint the long \u00e2 of the Samhit\u00e2 had been put in the place of the short a of the Pada.\nIV, 5, 9. read ga\u00fah (M. M. vol. iii, p. 46) instead of g\u00f3h (Aufr. p. 281).\nIV, 15, 2. y\u00e2\u00b4ti, with the accent on the first syllable, is supported by all MSS. against y\u00e2ti (Aufr. p. 287). The same applies to y\u00e2\u00b4ti in IV, 29, 2, and to v\u00e1rante in IV, 31, 9.\nIV, 18, 11. am\u00ee, without any accent (Aufr. p. 293), instead of am\u00ee\u00b4 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 105) is wrong, because am\u00ee\u00b4 is never unaccented.\nIV, 21, 9. no, without an accent (Aufr. p. 296), instead of n\u00f3 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 120) is wrong.\nIV, 26, 3. \u00e1tithigvam (Aufr. p. 300) instead of atithigv\u00e1m (M. M. vol. iii, p. 140) and VI, 47, 22, \u00e1tithigvasya (Aufr. p. 437) instead of atithigv\u00e1sya (M. M. vol. iii, p. 776) are wrong, far atithigv\u00e1 never occurs again except with the accent on the last syllable. The MSS. do not vary. Nor do they vary in the accentuation of k\u00fatsa: hence kuts\u00e1m (Aufr. p. 300) should be k\u00fatsam (M. M. vol. iii p. 139).\nIV, 36, 6. Professor Aufrecht (p. 309) has altered the accent of \u00e2\u00b4vishuh into \u00e2vish\u00fah, but the MSS. are unanimous in favour of \u00e2\u00b4vishuh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 181).\nAgain in IV, 41, 9, the MSS. support the accentuation of \u00e1gman (M. M. vol. iii, p. 200), while Professor Aufrecht (p. 313) has altered it to agman.\nIV, 42, 9. \u00e1d\u00e2sat, being preceded by h\u00ed, ought to have the accent; (Aufrecht, p. 314, has ad\u00e2sat without the accent.) For the same reason, V, 29, 3, \u00e1vindat (M. M. vol. iii, p. 342) ought not to have been altered to avindat (Aufr. p. 344).\nIV, 50, 4. vy\u00f3man is a misprint for vy\u00f2man.\nV, 15, 5. Professor Aufrecht (p. 338) writes d\u00eergh\u00e1m instead of d\u00f3gham (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 d\u00f3gham, 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.\nV, 34, 4. pr\u00e1yato (Aufr. p. 351) instead of pr\u00e1yat\u00e2 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 371) is wrong.\nV, 42, 9. vis\u00e1rm\u00e2nam (Aufr. p. 358) instead of visarm\u00e2\u00b4nam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 402) is wrong.\nV, 44, 4. parvan\u00e9 (Aufr. p. 360) instead of pravan\u00e9 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 415) is wrong.\nV, 83, 4. v\u00e2nti (Aufr. p. 389) instead of v\u00e2\u00b4nti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 554) is supported by no MSS.\nV, 85, 6. \u00e2s\u00ed\u00f1kant\u00eeh (Aufr. p. 391) instead of \u00e2si\u00f1k\u00e1nt\u00eeh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 560) is not supported either by MSS. or by grammar, as si\u00f1k belongs to the Tud-class. On the same grounds ish\u00e1yantah, VI, 16, 27 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 638), ought not to have been changed to ishay\u00e1ntah (Aufr. p. 408), nor VI, 24, 7, avakars\u00e1yanti (Ni. M. vol. iii, p. 687) into avak\u00e1rsayanti (Aufr. p. 418).\nVI,. 46, 10, read girvanas (M. M. vol. iii, p. 763) instead of g\u00edrvanas (Aufr. p. 435).\nVI, 60, 10. krinoti (Aufr. p. 450) instead of krin\u00f3ti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 839) is wrong.\nVII, 40, 4. aryam\u00e2\u00b4 \u00e2\u00b4pah (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 35), in the Pada instead of aryam\u00e2\u00b4 \u00e1pah (M. M. vol. iv, p. 81) is wrong.\nVII, 51, 1. \u00e2dity\u00e2n\u00e2\u00b4m (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 40) instead of \u00e2dity\u00e2\u00b4n\u00e2m (M. M. vol. iv, p. 103) is wrong.\nVII, 64, 2. il\u00e2\u00b4m (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 50) instead of \u00edl\u00e2m (M. M. vol. iv, p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gop\u00e2h in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gop\u00e2.\nVII, 66, 5. y\u00f3 (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 51) instead of y\u00e9 (M. M. vol. iv, p. 151) is indeed supported by S 3, but evidently untenable on account of atip\u00edprati.\nVII, 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 Anusv\u00e2ra 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 Dev\u00e2nagar\u00ee, 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 Samhit\u00e2 \u00e1vivenam t\u00e1m would leave it doubtful whether we ought to read \u00e1vivenan t\u00e1m or \u00e1vivenam t\u00e1m; S 1 and S 3 read \u00e1vivenam t\u00e1m, but S 2 has \u00e1vivenan t\u00e1m; P 2 has \u00e1vi-venan t\u00e1m, and P 1 had the same originally, though a later hand changed it to \u00e1vi-venam t\u00e1m. In IV, 25, 3, on the contrary, S 1 and S 3 write \u00e1vivenam; S 2, \u00e1vivenam; P i and P 2, \u00e1vi-venam. What is intended is clear enough, viz. \u00e1vi-venan in IV, 24, 6; \u00e1vi-venam in IV, 25, 3. [In the new edition \u00e1vivenam has been left in both passages.]\nVII, 73 1. asvin\u00e2 (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 56) instead of asv\u00edn\u00e2 (M. M. vol. iv, p. 176) is wrong. On the same page, dh\u00edshnye, VII, 72, 3, should have the accent on the first syllable.\nVII, 77, 1. In this verse, which has been so often discussed\n[paragraph continues] (see Kuhn, Beitr\u00e4ge, vol. iii, p. 472; B\u00f6htlingk and Roth, Dictionary, vol. ii, p. 968; Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p. 463), all the MSS. which I know, read kar\u00e2\u00b4yai, and not either kar\u00e2\u00b4thai nor gar\u00e2\u00b4yai.\nVIII, 2, 29. k\u00eer\u00ednam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 84) instead of k\u00e2r\u00ednam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 308) does not rest on the authority of any MSS., nor is it supported by S\u00e2yana.\nVIII, 9, 9. Professor Aufrecht has altered the very important form \u00e2kukyuv\u00eem\u00e1hi (M. M. vol. iv, p. 389) to \u00e2kukyav\u00eem\u00e1hi (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 \u00e2kukyuv\u00eem\u00e1hi, and I see that Professor Roth accepts this form.\nVIII, 32, 14. \u00e2y\u00e1nt\u00e2ram (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 129) instead of \u00e2yant\u00e2\u00b4ram (M. M. vol. iv, p. 567) is wrong.\nVIII, 47, 15. dushv\u00e1pnyam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 151) is not so correct as duhshv\u00e1pnyam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 660), or, better, dushshv\u00e1pnyam (Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, S\u00fbtras 255 and 364), though it is perfectly true that the MSS. write dushv\u00e1pnyam.\n[I ought to state that all these errata have been corrected by Professor Aufrecht in his second edition.]\nIn 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.\nProfessor 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.\nIn 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\nkatus kara is sanctioned by the authority of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, S\u00fbtra 281, 4.\nIn I, 181, 5, Aufrecht prefers mathr\u00e2; S\u00e2yana, B\u00f6htlingk and Roth, and I prefer mathn\u00e2.\nIn II, II, 10, he has discovered that g\u00fbrv\u00eet was meant for g\u00fbrv\u00e2t. Whitney still quotes g\u00fbrv\u00eet.\nIn III, 9, 4, he has discovered that apsu should be \u093dpsu; but this had been already corrected.\nIn III, 25, 2, the final a of vaha ought to be long in the Samhit\u00e2.\nIn IV, 19, 4, instead of drilh\u00e2 ni read drilh\u00e2ni.\nIn VII, 33, 2, instead of avrin\u00eet\u00e2 read \u093dvrin\u00eet\u00e2.\nIn VII, 35, 13, the Visarga in devagop\u00e2h should be deleted.\nIn VII, 42, 2, the Anusv\u00e2ra in yumkshv\u00e2 should be deleted.\nIn VIII, 2, 30, the anud\u00e2ttatara should be shifted from the ultimate to the penultimate, dadhir\u00e9, not dadhire.\nIn VIII, 51, 3, avishyanta was meant for arishyantam.\nIn VIII, 55, 5, for na read \u00e2. The MSS. vary in both cases.\nIn IX, 108, 7, in vanakraksha, the kra was printed as ri. Professor Aufrecht might have seen it correctly printed in the index. S\u00e2yana read vanariksha.\nIn X, 28, 11, Professor Aufrecht thinks that the Pada should have godh\u00e2h instead of godh\u00e2. I think godh\u00e2 is right, in spite of Professor Aufrecht's appeal to the silence of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. The fact is that godh\u00e2h never occurs, while godh\u00e2 occurs in the preceding verse, and again VIII, 69, 9.\nAfter such a flourish of trumpets, we expected more from Professor Aufrecht; still we must learn to be grateful even for small mercies.\nlvii:a In the same verse, I, 138, 4, the shu in \u00f3 sh\u00fa tv\u00e2 should not be lengthened, for there is no rule, as far as I can see, in the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya that would require the lengthening of s\u00fa before tv\u00e2. See Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, 495.\nlix:a As to the system or want of system, according to which the Abhinihita sandhi takes place in the Samhit\u00e2, see p. xlviii seq.","title":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Preface to the First Edition: Part 4","type":"page"}