¹ I am indebted to the author for the opportunity to read his paper ‘A Bactrian god’ in advance of publication.

² MW cites this (from inadvertence?) as ‘mīḍhu, mīḷhú m.’. One might conjecture an original reading *mīḷhuḥ, uncomprehendingly misread as mīḷham (variant reported by Lakshman Sarup) and hence, since RV mīḷhá- is covered elsewhere, as mīḷhum. May one infer from his silence that Yāska was at a loss to illustrate the entry?

³ ‘reichen Segen spendend, huldreich, gnädig’; under mīḷhúṣmat this is summarized as ‘huldreich’ alone.

⁴ This fanciful etymology is explicit in Sāyana ad 1.27.2: mīḍhvān kāmānāṃ varṣitā … ‘miha secane’ ity asmāt kvasu-pratyayāntaḥ). It may be already implicit in the erotic application of 5.56.3 mīlhúṣmatī (below) and could underlie the meteorological association of the mīḍhvāṃsaḥ Maruts with ✓mih/megh-: 2.34.13 [marútaḥ] niméghamānā átyena pājasā ‘in Roßgestalt herabharnend’ (Geldner); 9.74.4 náro hitám áva mehanti ([marútaḥ]: Renou, EVP, IX, ad loc).

The etymology was facilitated by the existence of méḍhra (YV, AV) and later ppl. mīḍha from ✓mih with urinary and sexual implication. Already RV 4.44.6 ājamīḍhá ‘name of patrons of the Vāmadevas’ seems to imply contamination with this mīḍha, whether or not it has been deformed from a more consistent (and seemly) *ājimīḍhá (in the Ṛgveda, -mīḷha compounds are regularly collocated with ājí). Certainly the later literature has been fascinated by this apparent association of aja ‘goat’ with ✓mih. The text BhP 9.19.5f. develops the notion ajam … mīḍhvāṃsaṃ yābhakovidam ‘sexually potent goat’: cf. the parallel malformation in Devamīḍhus (Brahmap. 14.2, etc. devamīḍhuṣam) beside Devamīḍḥa. And the story in BhP 4.4 of mīḍhvas Siva's restoration of a goat's head to Dakṣa and of its whiskers to Bhṛgu has got to imply a variant interpretation of an *ajamīḍhus as ‘donor of a goat’. The Ājamīḍha clan may be represented, thanks to its acquisition of ṛṣi status, by the similarly redolent name Ājagandhi in Baudhāyana's Pravarādhyāya, since this occurs immediately adjacent to the Vāmadevas.

⁵ MW and Apte fail to mention its use as an epithet of Rudra-Ṡiva.

⁶ cf. the status of Sarasvatī as sole female consort of male gods in the mīḷhúṣmantaḥ list discussed next.

⁷ Geldner's interpretation is supported by explicit use of mīḍhvas construed in the sense ‘sexually potent’ in BhP 9.19.5f. (n. 4, above).

⁸ Sāyaṇa: marutām sākalyena sarvathāprāpter dṛṣtāntaḥ ‘this expresses obliquely the omnipresence of the Maruts conjointly’.

⁹ Geldner lists ‘die Belohnenden (?)’ separately without comment; Renou (EVP, v) cavalierly construes plural mīḷhúṣmantaḥ with the following two gods, and the next five gods with dual pipyatām.

¹⁰ ‘Sindhu, best of Waters’? (‘unter den Gewässern’ Geldner; ‘[le Fils] des eaux’ Renou). This phrase is, separated by an intervening word from the Maruts (and others) qualifed by the epithet mīḍhvāṃsah.

¹¹ The TĀr. text could be an attempt to find a Vedic pedigree for the Umā Haimavatī of Kenop. Ṛgvedic Rudra Mīḍhuṣṭama is first associated with hiraṇỵa, i.e. the Naighaṇṭu gloss heman ‘gold’ may be being used to explain haimavatī; and then associated with Ambikā and Umā, i.e. ámbikā may be being offered as a Vedic version of umā; finally he is identified as Paśupati. There is a reminiscence of this collocation in Tantric representations of Umā as the only one of the 64 forms of Devī to be surrounded by animals (Bühnemann, and Tachikawa, , The Hindu deities illustrated, Tokyo, 1990, 118)Google Scholar.

The epithet haimavatī could in reality be evidence that the name Umā is indeed an adaptation of the úmā which denotes flax (straw?) in ŚBr. 6.6.1.24, since the plant was indigenous, not to India, but to the Near East and Western Tibet (Watt, G., The commercial products of India, London, 1908, 720)Google Scholar; and Afghanistan? The word úmā is shared only with languages of the Hindu Kush (EWA, 1, 225). The ŚBr. idea that úmā straw forms the amnion of the cosmic yoni could be the basis of Uma's promotion to the status of muni in Kenop. and consort of hiraṇyarūpa Rudra in TĀr.

¹² The Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology translation (Delhi, 1976) takes the second hemistich to refer to Brahṃā, but this is ruled out by the construction, the reference (in cetaākūtirūpāya) to the rudrāya prácetase of RV 1.43.1, and the correlation of śakti with vāc. It does, however, correctly render mīdhvas as ‘Rudra’, in keeping with Mīḍhvān/s Vedic status. The speaker of the verses is named as Rudra in the ‘stage direction’ inserted before v. 27, but this is less appropriate since the text itself uses śiva among many other equivalent epithets (including mīḍhuṣṭama) in referring to him. The oration is named rudragītam in the colophon of printed editions (but not of the Sāradā MS). The fact that the devotees of Viṣṇu to whom it is addressed are named as Pracetasaḥ is another approximate allusion to the wording of RV 1.43.1 kád … prácetase … vocéma śáṃtamaṃ hṛde).

¹³ The connection, if one may be postulated, between Ār. Up. Vāsudeva (hence Epic Vasudeva?) and Agni's RV epithet vasud van vásupati is much less clear.